The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-08 00:00:00

TEE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, AUGUST 8, 1857

who would have taken part in the conversation, was
not n,egent, he did not think it expedient to go on with
it, but he should do so at the first opportunity.
ENDOWED SCHOOLS (IRELAND).

and thought the committee bad decided wisely in not
giving the jurisdiction to the county court.
Sir G. &REY retracted the word ",shabby," which
he had used in the heat of debate,
The committee divided upon the amendment, when
the numbers were—
Ayes 9B
Noes B7
Majority
Clauses 19 and 20 were then agreed to.
On clams 21 being proposed,
Mr. DRUMMOND moved in line 1 to leave out "in
all cases which " to " direct," in line 2, and insert "the
court shall have decreed a judicial separation, it shad
also make a decree or order for alimony, and it shall
also." For he held no decree of separation ought to be
pronounced without alimony.
The AT LO RNEY-GENERAL objected tothe amend-
ment because cases for judicial separation occurred in
which no necessity for making an order for alimony
existed.
Mr. HENLEY said the clause, if the amendment were
introduced, would tend to promote suits for the sake of
the alimony.
The amendment was withdrawn, and the clause agreed
it, as were clauses 22 and 23.
Clause 24 was struck out.
Upon clsuse 25,
Mr. WARREN moved that the chairman do report

In answer to Mr. KIRK,
Mr. HERBERT said that the evidence taken before
the Commissioners of Endowed Schools (Ireland) had
been printed, but it would be incomplete to report. The
delay was owing to the illness of one of the commissioners.
He believed the report would be ready in a few days, the
commission being on the point of expiring. It would
not be published till it had been laid on tha table of the
house.

TROOPS FOR INDIA.
In answer to Mr. VANQITTART,
Mr. VERNON SMITH said Government bad sent
nut one regiment to replace the troops withdrawn from
India during the Crimean war, and three battalions of
the 60th Rifles. Four regiments had been sent to the
Point de Ga'le to rendezvous, and to be sent to Bombay
or Madras at the discretion f the Indian Government,
The Indian Government had made a requisition for two
regiments of foot for Madras and two foi Bombay.
There would also be sent two companies of foot artillery
and two battalions of foot guards
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
In answer to Mr. HARDY,
Sir G. GREY said the Government bad intended to
refer the seven consolidation bills that had come down

ress, which was negatived.
from the Lords to a select committee, but as there was Prog
not time to do so this session, he should withdraw the Mr. DRUMMOND moved that the word " inces-
bills, to be reintroduced next session.
tuous" be left out before "adultery," so that man and
OATHS BY MEMBERS. i woman might be put upon the same footing.
Mr. PULLER said he viewed marriage as a Divine
Mr. NEWDEGATE asked, in reference to the come
mittee on this subject, whether by "gentlemen of the institution, but as to the manner in which a breach of its
long robe" was meant all who had at any time been obligation was treated by human laws, was a matter of
called to the bar or only those who were in actual peas-
wide consideration. It could not be viewed in the same
tics 1 Also whether, in order to c imply with the stand• manner with regard to women as to men. In a religious
ing order which required the names of members of sense the sin •as as great on one side as on the other,
committees to be entered in a list, the officers of the but in a social sense the crime was greater on the part of
house could not take the names of all who attended ? the woman than the man, because of their obligation
The SPEAKER said the officers of the hon-e had with respect to the custody of the children. (Divide.)
done all they could in entering the names of the members Mr. GLADSTONE said he considered the dangers
nominated by the house. If anything more was required attending the incorporation of divorce a vinculo into the
it must be by resolution. law of England far exceeded the benefit conferred, but
THE CIRCUITS. the principle having been decided, it was important to
make the number of cases to be operated upon as small
In reply to Mr. WARREN,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, the committee appointed as possible. He, therefore, supported the motion of the
to inquire into the administration of justice at the As
hon, member for West Surrey, because the principle of
sizes had agreed to a voluminous report, recommending equality between man and woman in cases of adultery
a modification of some of the exiting circuits. was most injurious. He was amazed at the facility with
CHIMNEY POTS AT SOMERSET HOUSE, which the question had been dealt with by those who
In the absence of Lord EBaINOTON, considered that adultery was equal in both sexes, and
that it aelished the marrie tie. After a marriage
STAFFORD excited uch merriment by
had been confessedly broken by adultery, by what right
putting a question which he observed he knsw nothing
about, as to whether certain chimney pots invented by was a woman to be compelled to Ave outwardly as
ltlr. Billing and placed upon part of Somerset-house had though she were bound to the husband who had coin-
been found to answer, and if so, whether it was intended mated adultery ? But he disputed all the argu-
to substitute them for the many verities of unsightly meats upon social expediency. He believed the social
chimney pots which disfigure the remainder of the build-
expediency had not been shown at all. The mistake
had been in the way that the temptation to adultery
ing ? The han. gentleman also inquired what was to be
done to provide better accommodation at her Majesty's had been considered in the two sexes. He believed
e
drawing-rooms, and expressed a hope that no expense that with women, sensuality was the cause of but
would be incurred without the consent of Parliament. very few cases of criminality but that their offences arose
Sir B. HALL said that es to the important question rather from social aversion to the husband caused by his
of the chimney pots, he could not reply till next session, neglect of his wife, and criminal attachment to other
Plans for the improvement of St. James's Palace were women. Oa the part of the husband, he believed that
sensuality was the chief cause of adultery, and be believed
out the consent of Parliament. There was much less
in preparation, but no expense would be incurred with-
that legislation directed against that offence might be
effectual. He believed that it would puzzle any man in
inconvenience at the last drawino-room.
The adjournment to Monday was agreed to. that house to answer the protest of Lord Lyndhurst
THE KING OF OUDE, against the way women were proposed to bo treated by
Sir F. KELLY presented a petition from the Queen
that bill. Tee operation of the bill was a direct induce-
of Onde, her adest son, and the brother of the king, all went for the husband to add cruelty and desertion to his
resident in this country. They expressed the deepest crime of adultery, in order to qualify himself for union
pain and regret at the news received from India respect-
with the woman with whom he had committed adultery.
log the general defection of the sepoy troops, and they It bad been laid down by Lord Stowell that cruelty to
jostify a divorce Inuit involve personal violence ; but
also expressed pain and surprise at its being suppo-ed
that their relative, the King of Oude, had been at all was there ne cruelty known in civilised society but
concerned in it. They denied all complicity on the part that? Was there not the cruelty of insult and of c internpt
of that sovereign in the transactions that have taken much more irritating to the sensitive mind of a highly
educated woman than even personal violence itself ?
place, and said that from the assurances which they had
They were not to accept the doctrine that they were iutro-
received from him they were convinced that he was en•
tirely innocent of the charges brought against him. clueing no new law. They were not to take the dictum
They stated that all the members of the royal family of of Lord Campbell that they had divorce by the English
Oude are attached and faithful to their connection with law, when the same Lord Campbell said tney had not.
Great Briain, and declared that they look for the re- They were extending to the lower classes wbat had
dress of any wrongs they have sustained to the Queen hitherto only applied to the upper classes, who were
and Parliament of Great Britain. The petitioners more open to the operation of public opinion. He read
prayed that they might have an opportunity of proving a letter from a lady whom he did not know, alleging
the innocence of their relative and corresponding with that the law would operate most cruelly upon women,
him. legalising divorce on the part of the man, and giving no
The petition was ordered to lie on the table. relief to the woman. It would destroy the sanctity of
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CA USES BILL, marriage. She complained of the sorrows she had suf-
fered from the cruel infidelity of her husband, and as-
The house again went into committee on this bill, Mr.
Bauvsrie in the chair, serted that the bill would lamentably increase the evils
Oa clause 17, which bore so heavily on herself.
Sir E. PERRY said he was surprised to bear last
Mr. WIGRAM regarded the proposed bill as involv-
night beat it was a part of the principle of the bill to dig- ing the most serious and dangerous evils. He agreed
courage judicial separations. They must again go iuto that there ought to be equality for the two sexes, but be
the principle. He objected to the bill apart from theolo-
did not regard this as a privilege, for it would not be an
gical grounds. He admitted that Parliament had a right advantage i• have such rights.
tieaffirm the principle of divorce if theyithought proper. Mr. NAPIER said this was ono of the most difficult
c
He referred to the customs of the Jews as illustrating clauses cf the whole bill. Iu 99 cases out of 100, the
a
the origin of divorce. Scotland was no criterion. Scot-
dultery of the wife was caused by the cruel neglect of
the husband. In Scotland the Humber of divorces at
land was one large parish. (A. laugh.) Its population
was no greater than that of London, and from the in-
toe snit of the wife were as frequent as those at
quisitive disposition of the people, every man's affair„ the suit of the husband, Tie remedy was to make
adultery criminal. If only a fine was inflicted and the
were known to all the rest. (Laughter.) He thought
the extension of divorce objectionable on grounds adulterers might intermarry, adultery would be made a '
of expediency, in which even a sceptic mightvery respectable offence. If adultery was made a crimi-
concur. He apgreed with the noble lord the I
nal offence, there would be few such offences, and if the
remedy was given to the wife she would only avail her-
member for London, that the bill as it at
present stood would fail to give the poor man a
self of it under extreme sitcom
.tenses, As the bill stood
remedy. The bill was also defective in reference to the it would be a remedy for the rich excluding the poor,
-
separate earnings of married women when living with for the husband excluding the wife.
Mr. BUXTON argued that the distinction proposed. their husbands, and he moved au euicoaccoot, to ~Lassa
that object.
by this clause would toe Justified by the Instinctive feet-
Mr. HARDY objected to the amendment. It would ingmf mankind, and by the arrangements of nature, both
have the effect of separating the interests that should in the animal world and in human societies, in which
exist between husband and wife. polygamy had frequently been permitted to the male sex,
Mr. MALINS also c thdemned the amendment. He
but never to the female. He thotight it the most funda-
was at a loss to understand why it was proposed that mental principle of statesmanship that laws should chime
in withiatuitive common sense; and that in all ages
such powers shon!d be given to women living amicably
with their hushands. He had no objection to such pro-
and nations it bad been felt that the adultery of the
tection being given to a woman against her husband
woman brought ruin on the marriage state, but not so
when separated, and from her husband's creditors, but the simple unfaithfulness of the husband, though of oourse
it must be done in a different manner from that now it was a foul transgression of the laws of God.
proposed. Sir W. HEATHCOTE said the speech of the hon.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he felt certain gentleman who had gust sat down appeared to have
the committee would not agree to such a clause, and he raised considerations and to have suggested reasons, in
suggested the withdrawal of the amendment. his (Mr. Buxton's) view far too grave to be disposed of
The amendment eas then withdrawn, without some observations upon them, and he hoped the
Mr. DRUMMOND propoeed an amendment that re-
hon. gentleman would bear with hem fora few moments.
liet should be given to the wife whether deserted or
The hon, gentleman had stated principles on which he
thought, and, as he (Sir W. Heathcote) understood,
cruelly treated by her husband, but it was negatived
witheut a division. mainly thought that the distinction between the two
After some remarks fro n Sir J. BULLER, sexes was to be maintained in this enactment. He had
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause stated the only principle on which it could be maintained,
a
was not originally in the bill, It had been introduced and that principle was one which ought to startle that
a
since in accordance with the humane feelings of a nobly assembly, when they recollected that it was the princi-
lord. He (the Attorney-General) thought difficulties pie of polygamy. (Laughter.) The hon gentleman said
would arise in its working, and he suggested it shi uld be —at least so he understood him—that it was to be in-
struck outlet. the present. If the committee acceded to farted, from the instincts of mankind in former days
his suggestion, be would pledge himself to frame a new towards polygamy, that there was a distinction between
clause with a view to ace enplish what was desired. the relations of the sex is which ought to govern the com-
After some remarks from Sir E. Perry, Sir J. Beller, mittee in dealing with the proposed enactment, and that
and Mr. C. Dins, it followed from the institution of polygamy which pre.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as the feel- veiled in many parts of the world, and even among tte
ing of the committee appeared to be in favour of his tug- Jews, that the sexes did stand, with respect to that rela-
gestion he submitted further, that as clause 18 was of a tion, on a different footing from each other. Wes it not
similar character to clause 17, it would be better to ex- a fact that by the operation of Christianity the civilised
punge both, and he would undertake to bring up in world had c-ane to regard polygamy in its true 1 ght ;
committee amended cliene: in lieu of them, and was it not to be interred that by the very same pro-
Toe clauees were then withdrawn. cess by which mankind ha I come to abhor that system
On clause 19, they would look with su-picion upon an enactment which
Mr. I. BUTT moved an amendment giving power to could only be justified with reference to it? (Hear,
the judges of the county courts to hear the cases which hear.) Christianity had extirpated the public recogni-
twin of polygamy, but it had not extirpated many of the
were provided fur by this clause. The clause was to
give redress to a deserted wife, As the clause at pre-
shades of it, which still remained as the relics of a bar
sent stood that redress could ouly be given in the new
saris age. They ought, therefore, to be on their guard
court of divorce, when they came to deal with an enactment based on
Mr. PACKE thought the judges of the county courts such principles as that before the committee. It was in-
had already ton much to do,
cumbent on them to take that first opportunity of enter-
Mr. DRUMMOND hoped they would not create ing a protest against what was in itself an injustice and
any new courts.
based on principles that would not bear the light of day.
Lord J. MANNERS would move the insertion of (Hear, hear.) He hoped, therefore, the cdtamittee
words of larger import than those of the honourable and would entirely repudiate the clause as it stood, and vote
learned member. for the amendment of his hon. friend the member for
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this clause might West Surrey.
involve questions of the highest importance. If ahu a Mr. DRUMMOND reminded the committee that
t
band deserted his wife the question to be tried would be o vote on the omission or retention of
they were about "
whether he bid deserted her without reasonable cause, the single word " incestuous, as applied to the adultery
One reasonable cause would be adultery, and that would of the husband.
involve the question of divorce, so that in reality the Mr. WALPOLE said, it was quite true that was the
inferior court might investigate matters which would lie question, but the point that' had been raised, and most
with the superior court alone. He bad no objection to properly raised, was whether the rule or practice which
the county court having the power to adjudicate upon now prevailed of making a distinction between the sexism
matters affecting judicial separation, but he was decid-
with reference to divorce a vinculo, but not to judicial
edly opposed to giving the county courts the power of
separation, was proper cr otherwise. He entirely con-
investigating the question of divorce. curred with his hon. friend (Sir W. Heathcote) that the
Lord J. RUSSELL said the proposal of the hon. ' distinction could not be justified on the ground that the
and learned gentleman (Mr. Butt) might lead to most iman was to be allotved to live in a state analogous to
rn.
portant questions. If the power were given to the county polygamy. He also concurred with his right horefriend
t
courts of adjudicating upon one matter in the bill, the the member for the University of Oxford that the sin or
power ought to be extended to the others. He agreed
crime of adultery, on whichever side it might be coal-
witted, was precisely the same in the sight of God, and
with the hon. and learned gentleman that, if they abo-
lished any local tribunals, they ought t) establish equi that the •wo an, as well as the man, bad a perfect right
valents. He would not enter into the question whether to have it so considered on all religious grounds ; but the
the county courts were fit tribunals to deal with these
only question was whether on social grounds and civil con-
questions ; but if they were not, they ought to be made, siderations it was expedient or inexpedient to make the
Lord J. MANNERS suggested the adoption of words distinction between the two which was recognized in the
which would raise the question of local jurisdiction, with clause as it stood ? They had it on the authority of Chan-
out- pledging the committee to the county courts. cellar Kent, the American jurist, that he found that, by
Mr. BUTT willingly acceded to the suggestion offered allowing the same right of divorce to the woman as to the
by the noble lord, man, the very offence was brought about which it was
Mr. MALINS objected to the withdrawal of the the interest of society to prevent, because the man had
amendment, as Lae was anxious to obtain the opinion of recourse to it in order that he might obtain a divorce.
the committee on the question of tbefitness of the county The Legislature of this country also, in the divorce bills
courts it had passed from time to time, had always deemed it
After a short discussion, the amendment of the hon, a wise and prudent thing to recognize the distinction
member for Youghal, which gave the jurisdiction to the • made in the clause now under consideration, and, if his
county courts, was negatived without a division,
right hon, friend the member for the University of Ox-
The amendment of Lord J. MANNERS, introducing ford would refer to the judgments given by the learned
the words " any court to be hereinafter named," was pus lcrds in the other House of Parliament on he subject,
to the committee. ha would find that they expressed their belief that con.
Sir G. GREY inquired, now that the committee had
nivauce at adultery would take place if the wife were al-
decided that the county courts should not have jueiseie_ lowed to obtain a divorce on the same ground as the hue-
tion, what were the local courts which were to have the
1
band. He (Mr. Walpole) therefore thought the distioc•
jurisdiction. (Hear, hear.) ton a wise one, and that the consequences of the crime
Lord J. MANNERS said that the house baying ex- 1 of adultery were very different in two cases, leading as
pressed an opinion in favour of local jurisdiction in this it did in the one to a spurious offspring, but not in the
matter, it was for the Government and not for hon. other.
The CHAIRMAN put the question, "that the word members to suggest the constitution of any court whicli •
they Might consider adapted for the purpose. His oie I incestuous stand part of the bill," upon which the cone-
Mt. was to teat the sincerity of the Government and the'
mittee divided, when the numbers were—
committee in the opinion that increased facilities should
Ayes 126
i
bem Noes
gvPs to the middle and bumbler classes of socie y •
65
for obtaining '
divorce. Majority against the amendment —6l
Sir G. GREY contended that it was a most shabby course to adopt to throw
oi upon the Governineet the The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the com-
mittee repert progress and resume on Tue deer evening,
whole responsibility establishing new local courts
throughout the c nutty which was agreed to, and the house resunttl.
jurisdiction in this case. PUBLIC BUSINESS.
The Government declinedY forto have any resonsibith
the matter, py in In answer to Lor 'JOHN MANNERS,
' Mr. BUTT thought that clauses future
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
up on occsion lor
might be brought the civil service estimates would be taken on Monday
local swirlof snmea referring these matters te - and the Probate and Administration Bill on Wednesday.
E
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought that the conduct of the ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
' This bill as amended was considered and ordered to be
noble lord did not deserve to be characterised v ehabb i b i read a third time on Monday.

BOUNDARIES OF LAND (IRELAND)
This bill came on tor cot -01,-ratioo of the Lord's
ameniments, which were agreed to.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL.
Mr. 11ILSON he regre'ted that there was a•.
evident detero.ination that this bill should not pass. He
should therefore propose a short bill of a single clau-e
to continue the operation of the act of last year. He
shonid theref•re move that the order be discharged.
Di chars, d accordingly.
Mr. WILSON brought in a bill to amend the Joint
Stock Conn aiiis Act._

The otter orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the house adj.)nroed at two o'clock.

THE DIVORCE BILL.

(From, the Times.)
The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, as a
piece of legislation, is remarkably simple, natural,
and unpretending. It is so, if not to a fault, at
least so far as to lay it open to many attacks on
this particular score. A swarm of opponents
buzzes about on all sides, sometimes assailing the
front, as if to stop it altogether ; sometimes tl:e
rear, as if to quie.ken its pace, inflicting all kinds
of invectives and suggeseious, as if out of patience
with its dull working character. When a clause is
read, half a dozen orators call on the Attorney-
General to make a demonstration, to envelope the
simple words with some ornamental mystery, and
give a text for controversy where, in the bill, there
is none. The Court must be more numerous, more
complex, more various, and, above all, itinerant,
if not übiquitous. It must do more ;it must give
damages ; it must bring divorce home to the poor
man's door ; it must do what all the existing laws
have done in their perversion, and what they never
did in their prime ; it must give every man a re-
medy without even a month's delay ; it must ex-
pressly anticipate the increase of matrimonial of-
fences, and have a machinery ready for a Prussian
average of suits ; it must leave no doubts as to the
judges who will sit, as to the places—and they must
be many—where the Court will be held. Such are
the demands hailed on the Attorney-General and
the Home Secretary, the former goaded now and
then into sarcasm, the latter offering only common
sense reduced to its most naked simplicity. The
advocates of divorce for the million, who now com-
plain that the bill is not " as wide as a church-
door" and hardly contemplatesany increase of adul-
tery, incest, cruelty, and desertion, are the men
who the other day were preaching at the top of
their voices that marriage was indissoluble, that a
divorce was a national sin, and that the existing
practice, profane, scandalous, barbarous, unchris-
tian as it is, was nevertheless better than the bill
before the house.
The result must have been rather wearisome to
the unfortunates who, after a morning sitting and
official business besides, had to sit on, as it turned
out, from six o'clock on Thursday evening till three
the next morning. Nor de we think the public
found the record of these nine hours very edifying
or amusing ; but they at least illustrate the supe-
riority of natural ever theoretical legislation—that
is, of law charitably, reasonably, and most lawfully
adapted to thefacts of the case, over that kind of
law which rattier rejoices in putting the facts of the
case out of the question altogether. In this mat-
ter of sins against the marriage law the facts of the
case app-al to the observation and the feeling of
us all. There are numerous instances in which
there is an actual divorce in feeling and in fact ; in
which the beach is utter and irremediable, and no
one in his senses could expect or even wish it re-
paired. It may not las easy to lay down any
general riles, but there is seldom any difficulty in
pronouncing of this or that case whether a recon-
ciliation is to be expected or desired. In a very
low class, where the feelings have been blunte 1 by
vicious asseciaOiens and habits, or where they can
hardly be said ever to have existed, it may some-
times be the least of two evils t hat a husband should
be rec mciled to a wife as bad as himself. But
above this low class the criminality of the wife is,
and ought to be, an utter bar to reconciliation. It
is not so, in point of fact, and as a general rule,
with the criminality of the husband, however he
may stand in the sight of his Maker. Yet there
are cases of excessive criminality on the part of the
husband, accompanied with intolerable cruel y or
long desertion, where the reconciliation of the
wife is hopeless, undesirable, and wrong. In these
cases the nature of the remedy will depend on
circumstances. When the injured person is of an
age or in circumstances to contract another mar-
riage, and when, consequently, a legal impedi-
went to marriage will be a temptation to a mode
of life unsanctioned by law, then a divorce
is the proper remedy, and ought to be an accessi-
ble one. In other cases a " judicial separation"
may meet all the requirements of the case, and will
often have the higher feelings in its favour. Such
are, as well as we can put them, the facts of the
case. They are not met by the existing state of the
\law. They are met t 3 a much greater extent by the
Bill now 'before us. We believe it to he adjusted
to them simply and sincerely. It must proceed in
uncertainty ; it may have shortcomings ; but it
provides a remedy for an actual wrong, a class of
wrongs, and no more. Its opponent, after loudly
denouncing its sacrilegious character and its
tendency to encourage crime, and after putting a
large class of the moss fearful wrongs and the most
undeserving sufferers out of the province of legisla-
tion, now turn round and insist that the remedy,
shall be more—a panacea, a general deliverance
from all matrimonial lifficulties hnd troubles. After
treating the subject as an awful mystery, they bare
broken it to pieces like a toy. But the other night
s fable, on his first visit to the
now pay
pay the part of fools, and rush
ground.ithey
Th fns,Tl i
were n
The
lion would not lift up his head ; at his second visit
he walked boldly in, end the third time was disgust-
a egyesl asy and feared even to tread on such
disgust-
ingly familiar. This we take to be the ordinary
result of high theoretical, or rather dogmatical
views, where Nature should be our master, and
where we have facts to deal with. The holders of
these views either flf or grovel, but they begin
with flying and end pith grovelling.
It may indeed be admitted that as the Bill is it-
self of an unsually coraprehensivecheracter, dealing
with several existing courts, disposing of their
jurisdictions, awarding sentences of various gravity,
and supposing various degrees of criminality,
therefore it may be differently dealt with
by its Parliamentary opponents. No doubt a
judicial separation iz not so grave an affair as a
divorce, and there are numerous cases in which
not only a Judge d Assize or a County Court
Judge, but a Justice of the Peace, or any official
whatever in the class of a gentleman, might be
trust.d to hear and adjudicate. This might be said
of very many indivilual cases, notorious, simple,
and indisputable ; aid we cannot wonder that the
House of Commons, having such cases in view, as
everybody has, shoud contemplate the possibility
of courts better adapted to treat of them than any
court sitting in Westminster. Whether a local I (
court can be cleated for the purpose, or whether,
by any arrangement, a certain class of cases can be
wholly assigned to local or itinerant courts, is a
matter which we gladly leave to the consideration
of Lord J. Manners and Mr. Bu t. It is to be re-
membered, however, that in a class of cases some
may be easy, other not so easy, and a very trifling
peculiarity may remove a cause far above the
capacity of a County Court Judge, or even better
men. Another difficulty is that which was objected,
on the part of Government, last night,—that a pe-
tition for judicial separation, though aiming only
at such a simple remedy as protection of person
and property from a violent and unprincipled hus-
band, must necessarily go into matters forming a
ground for divorce, and would thus trench on the
province of the highest tribunal. This, of course,
would be a reason for not committing such a cause
to any tribunal of very informal practice or small
esteem. It remains to be seen whether any secon-
dary class of court can be found or devised. We
will not say this is impossible, but we suspect it
will be found the simplest course to begin, at least,
with only one court—viz., that proposed by the
bill,—disputed questions of fact being referred, of
course, to a jury when necessary.

A clerk in the Transport Offl,ie, Liverpool, has al)•
sconded with upwards of 4,000/. ; and a clerk in her
person of great attainments,
coMnaejeositytisleCduesitionmqusenatti His uall has gone off with 2 5001.
and is accompanied is his flight by a young lady of good
family.
(ADVERTISEMENT.] - Among the numerous extraordinary
cures without medicite effected by Du Barry's delicious
health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Food of Indigestion
(Dyspepsia), Flatulency, Constipation, Nervous, Bilious, and
Liver Complaints, Cough, Asthma, Consumption, and Debility,
the following are not the least remarkable :—Cure No. 47,121.
—Miss Elizabeth Jacobs, of Nazing Vicarage, Walthamcross,
Herta : a cure of estrum nervousness, indigestion, gatherings,
low spirits, and nervous fancies. Cure No. 48,314.—Mi5s
Elizabeth Yeoman, Gateacre, near Liverpool : a cure of ten
years' dyspepsia and all the horrors of nervous irritability.
12, Patrick street, Cork, 4th mo., 4th, 13x9.—Respected
Friend,--I have given your Arabica Food to a girl of fifteen,
who during the last seven years has not been a day without
vomiting fifteen or sixteen times, and sometimes oftener. The
fourth day after she commenced your food vomiting ceased
altogether, and she has not thrown up since ; her health
is improving wonderfully.
-- WILLIAM MARTIN, M.D.—
Supported by testimo dale from the celebrated Professors , f
Chemistry, Dr. Andrew Ure; Dr. Shorland ; Dr. Harvey •
Dr. Campbell ; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wurzer ; Dr. Ingram
Lord Stuart de Decies; the Dowager Countess of Castle
Stuart; Major-Gen. Thomas King, and many other respectable
persons, whose health has been rumored by it, after all other
means of cure had failed Suitably packed with full in-
structions. In canisters, 11b, 2s. Pd. ; 21b, 4s. Gd. ; 51b,
lls ; 121 b, 225. The 121 b canisters are sent carriage free,
on receipt of Post-Office order.—Barry Du Barry, & Co.,
77, Regent-street, London. IMPORTANT CAUTION against the
fearful dangers of spurious imitations : —The V'ee-Chancel-
lor Sir William Page Wood granted an Injunction on the
10th March, 1854, against Alfred Hooper Nevill, for imitating
`Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food."