The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-13 00:00:00

THE BENGAL ENGINEERS.

Lord ELLENBOROITGLI said it wouli be recq-
leetiod that a short time ago a statement was made by a
noble lord (Lord Melville), not now in his place,
respecting the discipline of the Bengal army. It
appeard that some stores were found hid
under a tarpaulin, and such a circumstance ne-
cessarily led to some very severe animadver•
Pions on the character of the Bengal Engineers.
He had a communication from Col. Mansell informing
him that the matter had been inquired into by the hate
Genral Which, and he begged that the house
wOull suspend its judgment on the circumstance
until the result of the inquiry was made public.
Tne officers in the Bengal Engineers were taken into
the corps by competitive czarnina'ion, and this was the
first charge he hal ever heard against the corps.
TAFF VALE RAILWAY.
_ _

On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the Taff Vala
Railway Bia waq ri,ad a third time and passed.

THE SWANSEA CEMETERY.

On the order of the day being read for going into corn.
mittee on this bill,

The Bishop of St. DAVIDS called the attention of
their lordships to some charges that bad been made
against him by no less a person than the
Secretary of State in the other house. If
the matter merely related to himself he should not have
troubled their lordships with any observations, but the
matter was of deep interest to the clergy of the Church of
England, and such being the case, it was his dcty to
enter into some explanation. In the first place,
he solemnly protested, if guilty of fany violation of
the law, it bad been committed most unconsciously-,
and nothing that had occurred warrant e d such a
charge against hire. The charge against him was
that he had not availed himself of then discretionary
power vested in him before be did the act for which he
had been so harshly censured. Toe right rev, prelate, who
made a statement to their lordships the other evening
Lad by mistake very much overstated the income
of the Vicar of Swansea. The total income
of the vicar from all sources only amounted to 981. per
annum. A 'correspondence between himself and
the Burial Board, a copy of which he held in
his band, bad been printed and circulated, from which
it appeared that he bad been applied to consecrate a new
burial ground, to which request he wrote to the
board expressing his %illitgness to consecrate
the ground provided. A conveyance was provided to
coney the vicar to and fro as he resided a considerable
distance from the spot, and was in possession of so small
an income that he did not think scab a re-
quest unreasonable, but the members of the Burial
Board refused to accede to such a request, and the re-
sult was that he had refused to consecrate the cemetery.
[LEFT SPEAXING

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(rhis Day.)

The SPEAK= took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Shepherd's Disabilities Removal &1 was read a third
time and passed.
Lord Rivers' Estate Bill was read a second time and
ordered to be committed.
LA.MBET a MANUFACTORIES.
Mr. ESTCOURT enquired of the Chief Commissioner
of Works if be had received any answer from the autho-
rities of Lambeth relative to the communication be had
wade to him in reference to the noxious trades carried on
in that parish on the banks of the Thames, which
affected the atmosphere in the neighbourhood of the
Houses of Parliament ?
Sir B. HALL said that the matter ma') one for serious
consideration, in consequence of the course the Vestry
of Lambeth bad thought it right to pursue in reference
to this subject. To show the house what a hoptless case
it was of any remedy being adopted by the parish autho-
rities, he r:•ad a letter sent from the officer of works, on
Cie 30th July, to the Vestry of L unbetb, comphining of
the nuisance, and the answer he had received from that
body, dated 10th A.gust. The latter sated that the
subject was submitted to a meeting of the ve,try held
on the 6•h lust,, but they were not prepared to take legal
proceedings against th par4ies. The houie would thcro-
tore see how unfortunate it was that the bill of 1855 wa.3

passed without a clause imposing a PeriZTO;paii,h
authorities for neglect of their duties. If such a clause
Lad been introduced into that act any persou could have
proceeded against a 13c,1 body that neglected to do
its duty towards the public And themselves. Is wai
too late this ses,ion to introduce a bill to remedy that
defect, Ir.‘t he hoped next session the house wouk!
pass a bill that would compel palish authorities to (xs
cute the powers vested in them under th) powers of
th- act of 1855.

Tile fUbj-c', then dropped.
D-ITv'ORCL4'4 AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
-The comcniaera on this bill was resumed.

On ciansc 25, giving divorce for cruelty and desertion,
Lord J. MANNERS moved the introclnction of the
wprdo "or adultery committed within the conjugal 'T-
s:deuce."

Tee ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the amend-
ment, on the ground that the bill was only to consolidate
acd not make any change in the present law.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the learned Attorcey-
General appeared by his remark; to be wrong, both in
fact and prinCiple, with reference to the effect of this
bill The further they advanced in its discussion the
mire obvious it became that that house should subject
the measure to a greater examination ar-d scrutiny than
it had been subjected to in the House of Lords or by her
Majesty's Government, who were responsible for its pro-
duction. The change which this bill proposed in the law
was patent, and when the Attorney-General stared
the contrary it only showed the crudity and precipitancy
with which the bill had been introduced, and the scarcely
decent haste it had been determined on and was attempted
to be forced through the house. If divorce was to be
given to the poor for cruelty, the same power should be
g!ren to the rich in the shape proposed by the amend-
ment, because there could be no greater cruelty inflicted
on a woman than to know that her husband was living
is adulterous intercourse in the conjugal residence.
There was no such cruelty in the higher classes as
was known in the lower classes, but the scandal
attaching to the fact of a man in the higher
classes outraging his Wife's feelings by converting his
house int) a scene 'of infamy, whilst observing all the
external demands of society, was ,the greatest cruelty
that could be inflicted on a woman. It should be the
object of this bill to meet such cases.
Mr. DRUMMOND supported the amendment. He
contended that the woman and man should be put on
an
equality in the process of obtaining divorce ; and the
than who turned his house into a brothel, ought not is
go scs.theleSe.
Mr' 1113G(4ESSEN also supported the amendment.
Be said that woman
ofsinned from her weakness—man
latter was entitled to hiB,
passions. If, therefore, the
With first was more so. The
amend a.em t grappled
tend great social evil, and believin4
the amendment would
remedy it, he should
vote agailigt the government, ettohough he had supported
the second reading of the bill. pp
Mr. AYRTON said that as the eaotzsittee were con-
sidering the law of divorce with
ytothiitnagarainend.
ment, it was their duty to consider e:ler
ference to it and take care that the prineipiE, "-
down was such as would promote morality and
laid
relief to the greatest and grossest form of ale
(Hear, bear.) Where a man brought home a „met,:
bine, the wife ought to have power to sue for a divorce.
Air. HENLEY spoke in favour of the amendment, \
urging that the woman bad equal rights with man.
• The LORD ADVOCATE said that the law of
Scotland; with reference to divorce, proceeded on the
principle that the two sexes were on a footing of equal.
lty—(hear, hear)—and he thought it well-founded both
-on principle and social experience. (Hear, hear.)
The Wife used the remedy as two to five, proving
clearly that •the remedy was not extrrvagantly made
tweet. The law was applicable to the whole of Scot- I
land, and Iroin areturn he had bad made, be found that
out of 175 cases, 73 only were at the suit of the wife,
and about 103 or 104 at the suit of the husband,
which he thought wee not a large amount, in a popula-
tion of 3,000,000. During the last year there were 17
cases of divorce in Scotland, seven of which were at the
suit of the wife, and the remainder at that of the
husband. He entirely concurred in the amendment,