The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-23 00:00:00

recess, in the hope that they would be able to devise some
plan which would give satisfaction to the house and the
country. (Hear, hear.)
Captain JERVIS wished to know what was intended to
be done with the works of the old masters in the British
Museum ?

Mr. TITI said that he could not see how it was possible
to carry out the separation of the natural history collection
from the Museum, but thought that the plan proposed by
Mr. Oldfield would provide a very complete and efficient
system, which would afford accommodation chronologically
for the whole contents of the Museum. He did not think
that any smaller plan could be adopted for providing
accommodation in the building, which would not be liable
to the charge of " patching" which had been referred to.
(Hear.) The house shoulo, recollect that our friends on
the other side of the CYnannel gave no less a sum than
£36,000 for one pictiree alone.

Mr. SEYMOtia was anxious that the whole plan of
conducting the Museum should be openly promulgated.
The question. of separating the collections was most impor-
tant, and :here was no occasion for shrouding it in mystery.
The trustees of the British Museum had lost very valuable
collections, and had allowed those collections to pass into
the hands of foreigners. There should be a responsible
Minister of Education in the house, who should have the
whole of this department under his control and responsibility.
Mr. CONIN'GHAM protested against the present prin-
ciple of puralasing works of art by wholesale, and conten-
ded that sv.fficient discrimination was not exercised in their
selection.

Mr. WALPOLE defended the appointments of the
various officers in the Museum and the constitution of the
trustees. He believed it was a rash thing to disturb a
government which had been successful, and, therefore,
be was of opinion that it would be injudicious to remove the
trustees. The most important question of all was the sepa-
ration of the collection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's
statement upon that point was satisfactory. The trustees
would consider all the plans submitted to them, and not
shrink from expressing their opinion, leaving the matter in
the hands of the responsible parties. They had obtained
possession of the most valuable collections that ever were
purchased, and they would not cease to render the Museum
every way worthy of public patronage.
Mr. AYRTON expressed a hope that no efforts would be
left untried to keep the Museum open in the evening, for
the amusement and information of the public.
Mr. WALPOLE said this latter question had been seri-
ously considered. He was himself in favour of keeping the
Museum open until eight o'clock in the summer months,
but it was found that the public would not frequent it at
that hour in any very considerable numbers.
The vote was then agreed to, the Chairman reported pro-
gress, and the house resumed.

The Durham University Bill passed through committee
after considerable discussion on various clauses.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

LAW 111, T.ELLIGENCE.-July 22.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
MEAD V. MEAD.

This was a suit instituted by the wife for a dis-
solution of marriage on the ground of her husband's
adultery and cruelty, which was heard on the 27th
of May last, when the petitioner succeeded in
establishing her case. The court subsequently
pronounced a decree nisi, but there had been no
order relative to alimony pendente lite.
Dr. Deane, QC., on the part of the petitioner,
now applied to the court to name a day for
awarding permanent alimony.
Sir C. Cresswell said that the petitioner had two
months to make the application, and in the present
state of business, when the Court was going to rise,
he could not accede to an application of this de-
scription.

ROUSE V. ROUSE AND DURRANT.-A CURIOUS CASE.

This was a suit by the husband for a dissolution
of marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery.
The respondent did not enter an appearance, but
the co-respondent pleaded, and denied the adultery.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner, and
Mr. Francis for the co-respondent.
From the evidence it appeared that the peti-
tioner was in the employment of Mr. Smith, a
draper, at Harlestone, in Norfolk, and in 1852 he
and a Miss Carran, a niece of Mrs. smith, who re-
sided in the house, eloped, and were married at
Stepney in the February of that year. The peti-
tioner at that time was only 18, and the respon-
dent 15 years of age. • About a fortnight after the
marriage, as the petitioner had no means of sup-
porting his wife, it was agreed that • they should
separate and return to their respective friends.
Accordingly the petitioner went to his family at
Norwich, and the respondent took up her residence
with her uncle at Harlestone, but they were in the
habit of visiting each other until 1854, when the
petitioner went away for some time, and for 14
months subsequently there was no interview be-
tween the parties. In the early part of 1855 the
respondent gave birth to a child, of which she
stated to two witnesses, Durrant, who was also an
assistant to Mr. Smith, was the father. It appeared,
further, that Durrant was in the habit of speaking
in a " loose manner" to the respondent and romp-
ing with her during the 14 months the petitioner
was absent. The evidence of the paternity of the
child rested on this admission and some collateral
remarks of the respondent as to its resembling Mr.
Durrant in appearance and in a taste for music.
The case stood over for the production of addi-
tional evidence, the learned judge having inti-
mated that he did not consider the case, as far as it
had proceeded, one in which he should make a
decree.