The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-15 00:00:00

in his government, he expressed a fear that any reform
would lead to anarchy ; and he at once refused. The con-
sequence must thus be that the foreign occupation must
continue—an occupation by Austria on the one hand, be-
cause she has long had great influence in Italy, and an
occupation by France on the other hand, in order to show
that she is not disposed t leave this foreign occupation to
Austria alone. I must say that each a state of things fs
totally inconsistent with the treaty of Vienna and with
the independence of a foreign power. A power which
for eight years has had foreign troops in its dominions,
and is now obliged to confess that it cannot maintain
its internal tranquillity without the aid of two
allied powers, and without foreign troops within its
dominions to suppress disturbances—such a power can-
not be held to be an independent one ; and we must
therefore lament that such a state of things should c
tinue. Of course it is not a question for a quarrel with
those-powers; but we may hope that each a state of
things will speedily, cease, and that those powers will
hasten as much as possible to evacute the Roman terri•
tories. (Hear.) With regard to Naples, nothing can
be said. If the King of Naples can maintain internal
traquillity in his dominions without foreign assistance,
we have, of course, no right to interfere ; but we have
some rightl to interfere when foreign troops ara allowed
to occupy the territory of another power. (Hear.)
Viscount PALMERSTON—I have no right to inter-
pose, or to say one word ; but perhaps the house will
permit me to correct my noble friend with regard to a
matter of fact which is of some importance. My noble
friend conceives that the tworepresentatives at Constan-
tinople—namely, those of England and Austria—sepa-
rated themselves from the other four. Now, the fact is
just the reverse—it was the four who took tie first stern
and separated from the two ; and the subsequent advice
given by the two was advice given in answer to an at.•
plication from the Porte, with a view to obtain their
opinion. The matter has, however, now gone by. It
relates to misunderstandings which were not intentional
either on the part of the four or of the two. It is now a
mere matter of past hietory, and, it can have no bearing
upon the future. (Hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS briefly remarked on the incon-
venience of bringing forward the subject of Naples and
of Rome without previous notice. Tne matter was one
of extreme delicacy, and one that the house would not
wish now to discuss ; but he hoped that they would not
be considered as in any manner committed by the obser-
vations which the noble lord had made. (Hear.)
TARIFFS.

Mr. NEWDEGATE perceived that the right hon.
gentleman the President of the Board of Trade bad given
notice of an amendment upon a motion of his with re•
Bard to certain returns on the subjsct of foreign tariff,.
The noble lord's Government was the only one that had
afforded him any assistance in the important work he
(Mr. Newdegate) had undertaken—namely, a compen-
dium of all the tariffs in the world ; but he was afraid
that the right hon. gentleman was ahout to alter the form
in which his compendium had been published. He
wished to know if that would be the case ?

Mr. LOWE expressed surprise it the question. Ile
had informed the bon. gentleman at his office that he
should not press the amendment,.and that the hon. gen-
t'eman might have his returns unopposed.
The motion for adjournment till Monday was then
withdrawn.

MR. GLADSTONE AND THE DUKE OF
NEWCASTLE'S DIVORCE.
On the motion for going into committee on the Divorce
Bill,

Air. GLADSTONE rose and said he bad for the first
time in his life to bring under the consideration of the
house a matter personal to himself. He had read on the
12th of August in a report of one of those cases which
unhappily were so frequently in the columns of the public
journals, in which in the speech of the counsel he found
the following The learned sergeant would, no
doubt, he said, make a -good many severe observations
Upon the witness Taylor, but the jury would bear in
mind that guilt of the character attributed to. the defen-
dant could only be established by the aid of such persons ;
and that the journals of the House of Lords bore testi-
mony to the fact that a right hon. gentleman, who was
once a Minister of the Crown, had tracked the wife of a
noble duke who afterwards obtained a divorce all through
Italy, and appeared as a witness to prove the adultery;
and'that the fact of a man in the position of life of the
plaintiff employing a man named Taylor to bring the
charge home to the defendant ought not to operate against
him, and that he was clearly entitled to damages if they
considered the charge was established," In the Morning,
Po* of that day, in allluding to that report, he
found a leading article containing the following
attempt to connect the matter with his condi& in that
house :—" An interesting episode in the history of the
right hon. gentleman has recently been given by a learned
sergeant, to which we must beg to refer as illustrative of
the consistency of one who, in the year 1854, . was a
party to a divorce bill similar in all its essential prov
Lions to the present, and who, in 1857, loudly proclaim
that no divorce is permissible by Divine law. In a
recent case of criminal conversation some discredit was
cast upon the evidence of an individual who had been
brougnt forward to proie the act of adultery. The
counsel for the husband, in defending this witness, said,
" but the jury should bear in mind that guilt of the
charaeter attributed to the defendant could only be
ascertained by the aid of such persons, and that the
journals of the House of Lords bore testimony to the
fact that a right hon. gentleman who was once a Minister
of the Crown, had tracked the wife of a noble duke,
who afterwards obtained a divorce' all through Italy,
and appeared as witness to prove her adultery.'
~The
right lion. gentleman alluded to by Mr. Sergeant Parry
was the member for the University of Oxford—the man
who now would deny to the poor that relief which he
himself was the principal means of obtaining for a noble
and wealthy colleague." He did not intend to take
steps, which, perhaps, in former times might have been
taken in such a matter, but he would simply meat the
falsehood by a statement of the truth. The two state-
ments which had been made were in substance that be
was employed by a noble duke for the purpose of track-
ing his wife, and obtaining evidence of her adultery.
' That statement was entirely false. If he had been
capable of accepting such an employment, the noble duke
was a person quite incapable of conferring such employ-
ment. The other statement was that he (&tr. Gladstone)
was the principal witness for the purpose of obtain-
ing the divorce of a noble and wealthy colleague.
The truth of that statement could be tested by a
reference to the journals of the House of Lords.
It was not true that he went for the pur-
pose, or had anything to, do with the collection of
evidence of adultery ; but, on his oath before the
House of Lords he had stated that he went for a
purpose, as he conscientiously believed, alike friendly to
the interest of both parties concerned. It was totally
untrue that his evidence was the evidence, or was part
of the evidence, on which the divorce was founded. He
was told that he was called, and he believed that he was
called simply for the purpose of showing that the person
claiming the bill at the hands of the House of Lords had
omitted no means that duty or affection could suggest
of conciliation. That was why he was called as a wit-
ness, and now, having referred to the noble duke who
was so painfully connected with this matter, he had only
to add that no one, on the revival of this painful subject,
could look back to the conduct of thatitoble duke with-
out feelings of the warmest admiration and respect.
(Hear, hear,)