The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-14 00:00:00

from Mr. M`Dougall, of the Tipperary Bank, complain-
ing of .he unfair preference given to judgment credittrs
by this bill, and praying that that defect might be re-
medied in the present measure.
The motion that the bill, as amended, he taken into
cans:deration on Monday mat was agreed to, and their
lordships adjourned at ten minutes pact nine o'clock.

ordinary state into which they were being driven by
teis bill, than the speech they had just beard. (Hear.)
it was the speech of a most intelligent member of the
house—(laughter)—expressing his opinion with candour
that was highly honourable to hirn, though partaking of
the spirit of Draoo. Rape and bigamy had always been
considered diff,rent by the law of the land, and, contrary
to the lion. member's ideas, the former had always been
put in the higher category, and subjected to heavier
punishment than the latter. The hon. baronet's speech
appeared to be a specimen of the average round of mem-
bers of Parliament who approached this subject, but
they were not celled upon then to discuss the relative
degrees of guilt in the two crimes, but the question
what other criminal offences ought to be included in the
category of offences that should give a wife ground of
divorce against her husband. Bigamy was the only
case of felony included in the present bill
for that purpose, and that being so, why should not
others, or at any rata those felonies that bore on the
marriage state, he also inserted I Unless a satisfactory
answer were given to the question he should vote
against the clause.
Lord PALMERSTON said the question was an-
swered in the former part of the day, viz., that bigamy
was an offence particularly against the wife, and tended
to desertion, whereas the other cases of felony were
offences against society only. He hoped the committee
would assent to the proposition.
After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he understood
the question of the hon. member for Oxfordshire to be
whether, if the charge of bigamy came before the civil
tribunal under the bill for the purposes of divorce, the
determination of that tribunal, or the evidence taken to
arrive at the conclusion,!could be used in a criminal court
against the husband for the same offence, and his answer
was, that it could not. He deprecated being called upon
to answer questions in the midst of a discussion not for the
purpose of eliciting information, but on which to found
acme other argument.
Mr. HENLEY said that he felt certain such proceed-
ing could not be used against a man, but he thought a
verdict against him in a civil tribunal would prejudice
his case before a criminal tribunal.
Alter some further remarks from Lord J. Manners,
Mr. Barrow, Mr. Lygon, Mr. Ayrton, and Mr. Glad-
stone, on the effect of the words if put in force,
. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the proceed.
ings of the two courts would be analogous to the present
mode of proceeding in cases of libel.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was impossible
for him to atoa ter the noble lord's (the member for Lei-
cestershire) question relative to the decision of the Lords
on questions of felony subsequent to bigamy without
searching the journals of the House of Lords. He hoped
the committee would not enforce that a woman should
be compelled to prosecute her husband for bigamy before
suing for a divorce.
Mr. NAPIER differed from the Attorney-General,
that the proceedings under this tribunal were analogous
to proceedings for libel. In that case a jury were ein-
pannelled, but in this bar no jury was to be summoned
to try the bigamy, and it would be quite new to our laws
that felony should be tried without the intervention of a
jury, The term bigamy was a term unknown to the
common law. Coke's definition of it was a man marry-
ing two women consecutively, or a widow. (Laughter.)
Sir J. GRAN A M said he had no wish to multiply
difficulties ; but supposing under those words the civil
tribunal dissolved the marrioge tie, and the criminal tri-
bunal afterwards decided that the bigamy was not proved
and acquitted the man, such a state of things would be
an absurdity, as well as inflict injury, because the mar-
riage could never be renewed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that bigamy was
well known to the law. In the event of any difficulty aris-
ing relative to the two proceedings, it would be competent
for the civil tribunal, after taking evidence, to suspend
its proceedings, and direct that the evidence should be
laid before the Attorney-General which would have the
effect of making a criminal proceeding subservient to
the civil power. All courts had that power.
Lord J. MANNERS asked if that really were so, and
where he could find the words in the hill giving that
power 1 (Hear, bear.)
Mr. GLA.DSTONE hoped the committee would be
properly informed bow the matter stood in that respect.
(Hear, hear).
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL referred to the right
hon. gentleman the member for Wallingford fur an
answer. (dear, and laughter).
Sir G. GREY said that the Attorney-General had
already stated his views on the law, and no gentleman
of the long robe in that house had ventured to contra-
die: him. (Hear, heal).
Mr. G'LADSTONE asked his friend the member for
the University of Dublin to answer the question.
Mr. NAPIER said that every court possessed the
power after it had taken evidence of laying that evidence
before the Attorney-General for his consideration.
Mr. MALINS thought that it was not in the province
of any court to direct an indictment to be brought
against any person fur the purpose of serving a special
jurisdiction.
Mr. laid before it for
Mr. ROLT concurred in the opinion tbat it would be
out of the province of the proposed court to direct an
inquiry such as that referred to by the Attorney-
General.
After some discussion as to the course adopted by
courts of law in cases where indibtments wets directed
to be prepared by the A.torney-General,
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the discussion
was one entirely beside the question put by the right
hon. baronet the hon. member for Carlisle. Cases cer-
tainly occurred, where civil courts dealt with cases
which afterwards came before a criminal court, and
whatever might be the relation which bigamy held to
the offence 'for which divorce might be granted, there
could be no doubt that bigamy was in itself a crime sui
generic.
Mr. PULLER thought that some discretion ought to
be allowed to the court in dealing with cases of this
kind.
Mr. WIGRAM thought that the best course would
be to make it necessary to produce legal evidence of the
conviction of the crime of bigamy before granting a

(hear, hear)—and ought not to be adopted by any Go-
vernment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the amend-
ment of the noble lord would not accomplish what was
desired. It should not be for mere adultery once com-
mitted, and he moved to aeeend the amendment that it
should be adultery committed by a husband with a
mistress in the same house in which his wife resided.
Mr. HENLEY thought the amendment of the At-
torney-General would fail in the o, jest desired. No
man would be such a villain as to take his mistress hoses.
The relief should be given where adultery was com-
mitted with the servantee as was ofte❑ the ease.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he had no
desire to propose anything that would set aside the de-
cision of the committee. His object was to give the
relief not to one act of adultery, but in cases of habitual
adultery. The present law gave a wife relief for habitual
adultery committed in the conjugal residence, and it was
to preserve the principle of the present law that he pro-
posed this amendment. He, however, would withdraw
the amendment.
Mr. CLAY alluded to the difference of opinion ex-
pressed by society with reference to the crime of adul-
tery in man and in woman. He thought it was unde-
sirable to give too great facilities to woman to dissolve
the marriage tie, especially in what might be considered
the accidental irregularities of the husband. He sug-
gested that the clause should be amended, giving woman
divorce where adultery was habitually committed in the
conjugal residence.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that crime in men and wo-
men was tinged with their relative position. In the
case of drunkenness and many others, the crimes were
considered worse in woman than in man, but yet legisla-
tion affected them equally, and why should it not be the
seine in this case. He thought there would be a diffi-
culty in proving habitual adultery, and referring to the
words of the Attorney-General's amendment he said that
terms varied so much there would be a doubt is affixing
a true meaning to the word "mistress," because in pre-
sent society mistress was the wife.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL withdrew his amend-
ment.
After some remarks from Lord J. -MANNERS,
Mr. MALINS appealed to the noble lord not to pro-
ceed further with the bill after the discussion that had
taken place on the clause, and the principle acceded to
by the noble lord (Palmerston).
Mr. STEUART supported Mr. Malins' appeal to Go-
vernment.
The amendment was the❑ agreed to.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE called the attention of the
committee to the words in the clause giving power of
divorce to the wife on proof of bigamy on the part of the
husband. The words, as they stood on the bill, would
apply to bigamy on the part of the husband only. He
moved the omission of the words. Bigamy was a statut-
able offence, and did not constitute adultery without
cohabitation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said be understood
the word bigamy in the clause to mean cohabitation with
a woman to whom a man had been secondly married.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the meaning of bigamy in law
was merely proof of the performance of the marriage
ceremony on the first and second occasion, but by this
bill a new meaning world be given to it. To give di-
vorce for bigamy without adultery in a bill where divorce
i❑ certain cases of adultery was to have been withheld
would be a gross, shameful, and disgraceful bluder.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to amend
the clause by adding after bigamy, followed by cohabi-
tation.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that would not meet the
difficulty. It it was to be bigamy, followed by cohabi-
tatiou, it ought alit to be applicable to bigamy preceded
by cohabitation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to amend
the clause with the words "adultery and bigamy."
Mr. AY RTON said that under those words the
adultery might be committed by one person and bigamy
by the other. (Laughter.) He suggested the words
should embrace bigamy and adultery in the same
persons.
After some further discussion,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed the words
should be " bigamy and adultery with the same
persons."
A disscusion ensued on the application of the words,
and it being four o'clock, it was arranged that the chair-
man should report progress, and resume again at six
o'clock.
The other orders were disposed of, and the house then
suspended its sitting.
The house resumed at six o'clock
OFFICIAL DEBTORS (IRELAND).
Iu reply to Mr. HATOLIELL,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said
it was the intention of Government next session to bring
in a bill to withdraw the protection from arrest from
Lfficial debtors in Ireland, in accordance with the recom-
mendation of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce.
LUNATICS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Shepherd's Disabilities Removal Bi'l was read a third
time and passed.
Lord Rivers' Estate Bill was read a second time and
ordered to be committed.
LAMBETH MANUFACTORIES.
Mr. ESTCOURT enquired of the Chief Commissioner
of Works if he had received any answer from the autho-
rities of Lambeth relative to the communication he had
made 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 was one for serious
consideration, in consequence of the course the Vestry
of Lambeth had thought it right to pursue in reference
to this subject. To show the house what a hopeless case
it was of any remedy being adopted by the parish autho-
rities, he read a letter sent from the officer of works, on
the 30th July, to the Vestry of Lambeth, complaining of
the nuisance, and the answer he had received from that
body, dated 10th August. The latter stated that the
subject was submitted to a meeting of the vestry held
on the 6'l inst., but they were not prepared to take legal
proceedings against the parties. The house would there-
fore see ho w unfortunate it was that the bill of 1855 was
passed without a clause imposing a penalty on parish
authorities for neglect of their duties. If such a clause
had been introduced into that act any person could have
proceeded against a local body that neglected to do
its duty towards the public and themselves. It was
too late this session to introduce a bill to remedy that
defect, but he hoped next session the house would
pass a bill that would compel parish authorities to txe
cute the powers vested in them under the powers of

the act of 1856.
The subject then dropped.
DIVORCE AND MATRINIONIAL CAUSES BILL.

The committee on this bill was resumed.
On clause 25, giving divorce for cruelty and desertion,
Lord J. MANNERS moved the introduction of the
words "or adultery committed within the conjugal re-

sidence."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the amend-
ment, oa the ground that the bill was only to consolidate
and not make any change in the present law.
Mr GLADSTONE said that the learned Attorney-
General appeared by his remarks to be wrong, both in
fact and principle, with reference to the effect of this
bill. The further they advanced in its discussion the
more obvious it became that that house should subject
the measure to a greater examination and scrutiny than
it bad been subjected to in the House of Lords or by her
Majesty's Government, who were responsible for its pro-
auction. The change which this bill proposed in the law
was patent, and when the Attorney-General steeed
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
given 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
in 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 wiee's feelings by converting hue
house into 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
man who turned his house into a brothel, ought not to
go scatheless.
Mr. 13.UGGESSEN also supported the amendment.
He said that woman sinned from her weakness—man
from the strength of his passions. If, therefore, the
latter was entitled to relief, the first was more so. The
ainendineet grappled with great social evil, and believing
the amendment would tend to remedy it, he should
vote against the government, although he had supported
the second reading of the bill.
Mr. AYRTON said that as the committee were con-
sidering the law of divorce with a view to its amend-
ment, it was their duty to consider everything in re-
ference to it, and take care that the principle they laid
down was such as would promote morality and give
relief to the greatest and grossest form of injustice.
(Hear, hear.) Where a man brought home a concu-
bine, the wife ought to have power to sue for a divorce.
Mr. HENLEY spoke in favour of the amendment,
urging that the woman had equal rights with the man.
'file LOUD 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-
ity—(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, provino
clearly that the remedy was not tx,,ravagantly made
use of. The law was applicable to the whole of Scat-
land, and from a return be bad had made, he found that
out of 175 ca,:eg, 73 only were at the suit of the wile,
and about 103 or 104 at the suit of the husband,
which he thought was 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,
believing it ought to be the principle on which divorce
should proceed.
Lord J. MANNERS addressed the committee at con-
siderable length in support of his amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the bill was
confided to him on toe principle which he distinctly
again stated, that of embodying the (xieting law in
regard to divorce. It was true two yams desertion
and cruelty did now give a claim to divorce,
but with that exoeption his statement was substantially
true, and he cnnplained of the language that had been
used against him in reference to the hill. The amend-
, meet would be most apposite if the committee were dis-
cussing the foundation of the marriage law, but that
was not the case, and on the terms on which the
bull had been committed to his care he could net
enter on the larger question. He approved of the
equality contended for, but the committee was limited
to the embodying of the present law. (Hear, hear.)
Leeielation need not stop with this bill, but be pro-
ceeded with in a future session of Parliamen.. (Cheers.)
He replied to the censures that had been passed
upon him by those who appeared to have sudderly
awakened to the woman's wrongs,. He asked how the
country could place any faith in those who on the
second reading of this bill opposed the dissolubility ef
marriage, but were now the hollow advocates of the
enlargement of the 1 sw of divorce by introducing
other crimes for a divorce a vincuio. The
hon. and learned gentleman then referred to what
he termed the gilded propositions of hon. members, in
which no one could could believe they were sincere.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the remarks of the right
hon. and learned gentleman would not deter him from
doing his duty in regard to this measure, which was
now beginning to show it was not a fit sub-
ject for discussion in that house. He complained
of the r: marks of the Attorney-General in reference to
the sincerity of hon. members, and said that that learned
gentleman very neatly, if he had not in fact, crossed the
line, when he ought to have been called to order by
the Cnairman as a disorderly member, who bad
abused the liberty of speech. (Hear, and laughter,)
It was not usual for one member to Challenge the sin-
cerity of other members in the propositions they advanced.
The statement of the Attorney-General, in reference to
this measure, showed that he did not appear as an inde-
pendent English gentleman in the debate, but the official
organ of another, and that the observations he had
made did not emanate in his own breast and conscience,
but that they were delivered as the pure organ of a
commander, who sent his command from above. The
Attorney-General had, however, given tongue in refe-
rence to the bid, and whil=t admitting the equality
of man and woman, he was determined to precipitately
pass a measure that would place women in an inferior
and unjust position.
Lord PALMERSTON defended the conduct of
the Attorney-General, and said that if those who
voted against the second reading of the bill new voted
for the amendment, they would be making, in effect,
a recantation of their previously expressed opinion of
the indissolubility of marriage. (Cries of " No, no.") He
however, repeated the assertion, and proceeded to
say that ho was opposed to the equality of man
and woman, in reference to divorce, from a be-
lief that there was a difference in the nature
of the social offence of adultery. He opposed
the amendment from a belief that it would give rise
to opportunity of collusion between the parties,
and much assist the husband and wife who wished
to get rid of each other by a legal process,
more easy under the amendment than the bill as it now
stood. lie agreed with the Attorney-General that it
would be better to pass the bill as it at present
stood, but being anxious to pass the bill he would
not press the question to a division, but give way,
protesting however against his giving way being made a
precedent in more objectionable cases.
Alter some remarks from Mr. HENLEY, remarking
that the Government had given way in two points, that
of the County Court and the Roble lord's amendments.
Lord J. RUSSRUSSELLsaid he was glad the noble lord
(l.soiredh wasPalrn enrescteose.s)aryhad e
raccededthe
improvement
prtoov
ethe e n
tamo
f the bill.
e n dm e n
wh
from the difficultyvvhe likely to arise under the word n
a
a
"de-
sertion." man in the higher classes brought
home a mistress
the wife was compel ed to leave her
home she would have
no remedy under this bill. He
considered the taunt ('
ohfdniscuos ms
n.nconsistenty against honourable
members, which he
and
dee honourable members
thought, however, of but little
weight, because i
had a right to
which they agreed.
ought
not
measure on the principle
support
to havecalled
of
valter the details of a
He thought the Government
on the Attorney-General to
which he did not agree. He understood
occasion that this was to be a permanent measaurfeo,rmanedr
he regretteel to find that in another session a question of
such great importance was again to be the subject of
agitation, the same as the " Limited Liability._ Bill of
a former session. Legislation on marriage divorce
shoull be conducted in a manner consonant with its
gravity and importance, and should be of a permanent
character. Continual legislation on this subject was
likely to shake our social relations to the foundation—

On the motion of Mr. TITE, the folhwing returns
were ordered—Returns of the date and number of days
on which the Board of Vi,itors of Lunatics, assembled
between the Ist day of Jan.; 1856, and the let day of
Jan. 1857, and the names of the visitors of lunatics pre-
sent at the board on each day of meeting; of the number
of lunatics found so by inquisition' and Lying on Jan. 1,
1856 ; similar returns on Jan. 1, 1357 ; return of the
number of lunatics actually .visited by the medical visi-
tors between Jan. 1, 1856, and Jau. 1, 1857 ; and of the
number of inquisitions which have baeu superseded in
the years 1854, 1855, and 1856.
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.
- - -

On the motion of Mr. MACARTNEY the following
returns were ordered:—Returns of the names, tonnage,
and horse-power of all vesseli surveyed by the Admiralty
the property of the European and Columbian Steam
and to be employed between Suez and Melbourne under
the provisions of a contract entered into by virtue of a
tender signed on behalf of the said company, the 11th day
of June, 1856, by J. Orr E wing, chairman, with the sur-
veyor's report thereon ; and of the ❑ames, tonnage, and
hose•power of all vessels chartered or hired by the said
company (with the names of owners), to c mvey the
mails and passengers between Alt zindria and Southamp-
ton, or Suez and Melbourne. Ile inquired of th© Sec-
retary of State for the Colonies whether any complaints
have been received from the Australian c lorries (by
either of the two last mails) of the irregular and unsa-
tisfactory mariner i❑ which the postal services has been
performed between SUEZ and Melbourne since January
last ; a-d, if so, whether there would be any objection
to lay the same on the table of the house /
Mr. LABOUCHERE had no objection.
FUEL TO TRANSPORTS.

divorce.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered that some
inconvenience would arise if this suggestion were agreed
to, if the person committing the crime of bigamy were
to continue to reside in a foreige country.
Mr. NAPIER said that in such a case it would be
adultery with desertion, and the case would come un-
der other provisions of the bill.
Mr. MA LINS said that if the statement of the At-
torney-General, that the proposed court would not try
the crime of bigamy, but would direct it to be tried by
another court, were correct, then the only course t r be
adopted in case of a woman petitioning for divorce on
the ground of bigamy, would be the production to the
court of the record of the conviction by a court compe-
tent to try a felony of that description.
Mr. BUTT contended that it was perfectly competent
for any common law court to try cases of felony,
and instanced actions of libel or hills of exchange where
the defence raised the question of forgery, or an action
of a policy of insurance when the defence charged arson
against the plaintiff. In such cases the courts never
suspended the proceeding., as was suggested by the At-
torney-General the proposed court should do, while a
criminal court tried the question of felony. It was ne-
cessary in this clause to define the meaning of the word
" bigamy," making it to apply to a man who married
another woman during the life time of his wife, and ren-
dering necessary in order to obtaining divorce by the
wife on each grounds, that the record of the conviction
of such offence by a criminal court should be produced
to the Court of Divorce.
Mr. M'MAHON concurred in the opinion expressed
by the hon. and learned member for Youghal.
Mr. GLADSTONE wished to have an explanation of
the word " bigamy."
Mr. BUTT said that the word " bigamy" had been
introduced in the bill iu a previous chase. It was, as it
stood, nothing short of stark staring nonsense. He
proposed, therefore, to add, after " bigamy," the words
" by feloniously intermarrying with any other woman."
Mr. WM ANON considered the words unnecessary,
as the only species of bigamy for which a conviction
could be obtained was of that description contemplated
by the bill.
After some further discussion,
Tile ATTORNEY-GENERA said be had no objet
time to the introduction of the - words proposed, as they
were perfectly harmless, and perfectly unnecessary.
The committee was then about to divide on the pre-
vious wriendment of the Attorney-General that the words
" with adultery," be introduced into the clause after the
word " big.my," but the amendment was agreed to
without a division.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved the addition of the words,
" or of rape." '
The words were added.
Mr. WIGRA.M proposed to add the words "such
bigamy, or other offences, be proved by a conviction."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the introduc-
tion of the words. It would turn a great hardship on the
wife, and possib!y might prevent her obtaining a just
divorce.
Mr. GLADSTONE argued that they were not in a
position to discuss the question in all its bearings, as
there was not time. The limitation of the clause, as it
at present stood, would lead to collisions where a hus-
band and wife wanted to get rid of each other.
Mr. WIG RAM said so serious a question as dissolu-
tion of marriage ought not to be decided without a cri-
i mital connexion.
After a short conversation the committee divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment 35
Mr. COLLINS proposed to add the words " or of
murder or manslaughter coupled with adultery."
The amendment was negatived.
so Masr.toDmßaUtt
eMcMruoeNltyD
iproposedb
utshbe insertion of a
nd
ground wo rd
for
s
di-
vorce. He read the details of many cases of cruelty
which had come under his own observation. The first
was that of a young lady who married the heir to a
large fortune. A few months after the marriage that
gentleman had three mistresses living in three different
houses. With one or ether of those he usually supped,
and came borne drunk. His servant undressed him and
carried him to his wife's bed. She wished to sleep in
another room, but he told her that if she did he would
bring one of his mistresses home. When his sons were
14 years of age he took them to mistresses, and after he
had been married 20 years he died. That was but one
case. He proposed that cruelty alone should be the
ground for divorce.
Sir G. GREY opposed the amendment, as introdu-
cing an entirely new principle.
Mr. GLADSTONE contended that they ought to
ifound their proceedings in the matter on a wider founda-
tion. Their experience was limited where their views
should be enlarged.
After a few words from Mr. BUXTON, the amend.
meet was negatived.

Mr. STAFFORD asked the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty what steps have been taken by her Mvje.4ty's Go-
vernment or the proper authorities, with reference to
toe steam transports that have already sailed, or are
about to sail, with .troops or stores for India, so as to
secure for them an adequa.'e supply of fuel for the voy-
age ; and what arrangements have been made for such
supply at the Cape de .Verde, Cape of Good Hope,
Mauritius, or other coaling stations en route ?
Mr. BARING said the owners of the transports bad
contracted for the supply of fuel. The supply of fuel at
thu stations named was ample.
THE APPROPRIATION ACT.

Mr. WILSON brought up this b 11, which was read a
fir,t time, a❑d ordered to be read a second time tomor-
row (this day).

DIVORCE BILL.

Lord J. MANNERS inuired what was the course
intended to be taken to-morrow with regard to this bill,
as the Attorney-General would have to be present in
the House of Lords in the Shrewsbury case.
Tne ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he intended to
apply to the House of Lords to postpone the else in
which he was engaged.

Lord J. MANNERS inquired what course would be
taken in case tie House of Lords shoull not accede to
the request I

Lora PALMERSTON—AII I can say is, then as then,
as the French say.
Mr. GLADSTONE then moved the adjournment of
the house in order to enable him to address himself to the
inconvenience of members being called down to the
house without knowing what course was to be taken,

After some converswion,
Lord PALMERSTON said the Government were de-
termined to go on with the bill, whether the Attorney-
General were present or not.
The motion was then withdrawn, and the house went
into committee on the bill.

The discussion was resumed with regard to the words
in reference to adultery and bigamiy.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now proposed that
the wor.!s should 1):: bigamy with alul:ery.
Mr. GLADSTONE wished to know what the inten-
tion of the. House of Lords was in passing this clause.
Mr. PULLER thought it rather hard to call upon
the Attorney-General to give such intentions. All that
house had to do was to consider how they would pass
the clause.
Mr. HENLEY thought the words proposed by the
Attorney-General were an improvement.
Mr. GLADSTONE wished to know whether it was
intended to propose to give the wife a title to divorce in
the case of bigamy with adultery, whether the adultery
and the bigamy were with the same persona or with
different persons.
Lord J. RUSSELL was unwilling to restrict the cases
wherein a wife could obtain the redress of divorce.
Would the words proposed give the wife the same re-
medy which might be at present obtained by a private
bill in the House of Lords 1
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said they would.
Mr. NAPIER said he thought that other offences as
well as bigamy ought to be included. Suppose a man
committed a rape as well as adultery, surely such a case
as this ought to come under this bill, and ought to be
provided for.
Lord J. MANNERS asked the Attorney-General
if it was the intention of the Government by this
clause to leave a woman to come to Parliament, as now,
for relief in cases where the husband had been:transp?rted
for a felony subsequent to the bigamy, because such a
separation, in his opinion, amounted to desertion.
S,r D. NORREYS referred to the difference of opinion
that appeared to txlst between the Attorney-General ar.d
the noble lord at the head of the Government on this
point, which showed an evident desire of the latter to
throw the former overboard. (Laughter) He (Sir D.
Norreyo thought it mattered little whether the bigamy
was consummated or not, for by a man's committing
bigamy he violated his marriage vow, and equally in-
flicted injury on his wife. The right hon. baronetsa'd
that a man might almost, without vicious intentions,
commit a rape. (Laughter.) He meant that circum-
stances might level a man into the crime without know-
ing
teoimgami
myttit—(Renewedmae laughter)—which was different to the
committal of bigamy, and bore no similarity to it.
, all
sl tl
thebe a.
ffpremeditated
coulda ct ,b e andpo
possible
bilte a
underman
the marriage tie against his wile.
Mr. GLADSTONE said there could not be a clearer
propf of the want of unanimity of opinion, and the extra-

PH E SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 14, 1857

Mr. HENLEY desired to have some exploration of
what was meant by the term d,sertion.
After a few remarks from Lord J. MANNERS,
Mr. HENLEY tnov.d the omissiol of the word
44 de,,ertiop."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should have
thought the right lion. gentleman had had practical ex
peritnce on the subject of desertion as a justice of the
peace to know the defloiLion of the word " desertion."
The word " desertion" in the bill was sufficiently under-
stood. It was applied to where a man left his wife
altogether, and not merely ceasing to cohabit with her.
It would not apply to constrained absence under crim-
nal sentence.

Lord LOYAINE asked if it would apply to transpor-
tation for seven years or more ? It was a common oc-
currence with the lower classes, when a man was trans-
ported for 7 years, for the wife to remarry if his absence
extend over that period.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the case referred
to had reference to a rule of evidence, and not law, on
the supposition that a woman not hearing of he husband
for seven years, that he was dead. It would not apply
to desertion under this bill. Two years' voluntary ab-
sence was a sufficient desertion on the part of the hus-
band for the wife to claim a divorce.
Mr. HENLEY asked if a man lived with his wife in
one square in London, and left her to reside in another
with a mistress, returning to his wife occasionally, if
that would be desertion under the bill ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Certainly not.
Mr. AYRTON said that leaving a wife chargeable
was desertion under the common law, but that test
being removed innumerable difficulties would arise. Sup-
posing a man to leave his wife and go to Paris for two
years and commit adultery, having provided her with
the means of living, was that desertion ? Supposing that
to be cleared up, a greater difficulty arose by the differ-
e co between a man deserting his wife for two years with
or without adultery. Another was of a man who went
to gaol and there committed adultery.
Mr. GLADSTONE said they appeared to be in diffi-
culty with this clause. The definition of desertion was
absence without reason. How could it be deserticn with
a reasonable excuse? The two things did not stand well
together. He. was doubtful, admitting the principle of
the clause to be good, that it would attain the object
they had in view. Supposing a man kept up an estab-
lishment for his wife at his residence, and resided with
his mistress in another, and never went to his mansion,
would that constitute desertion ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No.
Mr. GLADSTONE—That was at variance with the
Attorney-General's definition, and the question aeain
arose what constituted desertion. Multitudes of cases
might arise under this clause that had not occurred to
their minds, and it was difficult to understand the appli-
cation of a novel enactment to such cases. A sailor
might be abroad with legitimate cause for more than two
years, but bow was a wife to prove that. He was anxi-
ous to know the form and procedure with regard to
proofs in such cases, and on whom the burden rested.
Mr. LYGON referred the Attorney-General to the
definition of desertion under the code of Holland.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that desertion
must depend on the animus of a prisoner. The essence
of crime rested on the intention of a person to commit
an offence.
Mr. CLAY complained that the discussion was mere
hair splitting. N) man of common sense could for a mo-
ment doubt what was or was not desertion under the
provisions of this tell.
Lord J. MANNERS urged the injustice that would
be inflicted under the clause as it present stood.
Sir D. NORREYS said that where a man lived, as
put by the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxford-
shire, it should be considered desertion on the part of the
husband,
Aft. r some remarks from Lord LoVAINE and Sir W.
HEATTIO,TD,
Mr. GLADSTONE said the debate appeared to show
that the committee did not know the real meaning of the
words they were called upon to adopt. He complained
of important measures being pressed with precipitancy
at the end of a session, which prevented their being passed
with sufficient clearness and perspiceity, and the cense-
quence was, that they were called upon in a subsequent
session to remedy their defects.
After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY,
The amendment was withdrawn.
Sir D. NORREYS proposed to strike out " two years
and upwards," giving to the Court the power of deciding
what was desertion.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL supported the reten-
tion. It was important some term should be specified in
the bill.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. Burr moved, as an amendment, to insert the fol-
lowing words in the clause—"or of adultery, coupled
with aggravated ill-treatment of such a nature as Ought,
in the opi❑ion of the court, to entitle her to such cli-
vorce." The hon. and learned gentleman proceeded
to argue that there should be an equality betweea
men and women so far as regarded facilities of divorce.
He would leave the new court the same discretion that
would be committed to the House of Lords in its judi-
cial capacity. He did not see how this could be avoided,
unless they said that in no case the wife should have re-
dress.

Mr. LYGON suggested that the amendment should
stand—" or of adultery coupled with aggravating cir-
cumstances."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this was only
introducing a new ground for divorce on the part of the
wife. lie thought if they were prepared to arrive at
the conclusion at which the amendment aimed they
should have done it ling ago. He was not prepared to
arrive at that conclusion, and he should therefore resist
the amendment.
Sir W. HEATLICOTE considered that notwithstand-
iog the vote arrived at on a previous evening they had
a perfect right to give a woman as much protection as
possible in reference to divorce. It was, ho thought,
reasonable to give to the Court the full liberty of action
which was contemplated by the amendment.
Mr. M ALI?..TS concurred with the Attorney-General
in resisting the amendment, which ought to have been
proposed at a much earlier stage of the bill. He thought
it would give the Court too wide a discretion, especially
as it had been decided by the house on a previous even-
ing, that there was to be a difference between the man
and the woman.
Mr. NEWDEGATE considered the bill a most cow-
ardly one, as the principle of our law was to aid the
weak as well as the strong. The house was evidently
doubtful whether the terms by which the claims of the
woman were restricted had been sufficiently defined.
Mr. NAPIER thought it would be right to specify
the powers of the judge, otherwise everything would
depend upon his caprice at the time.
Mr. LYGON withdrew his amendment, and the com-
mittee divided on that of Mr. Butt.
The numbers were—
Fur the amendment
Against it
Majority
Mr. COX suggested that the chairman should report
progress at this stage.
Some discussion ensued upon the motion, and ulti-
mately
Lord PALMERSTON congratulated the members
who opposed the bill on the success with which for ten
hoots they had exercised their ingenuity on three lines
of a single clause of the bill, and announced the inten-
tion of the Government to sit de.y by day and night by
night until the bill was gone through. Out of conside-
ration to the Attorney-General, who had some heavy
professional duties to attend to, and not nut of deference
to the house, he ,would consent to the adjournment of
the debate.
Mr. GLADSTONE complained of the conduct of the
noble lord, which was altogether unprecedented in the
conduct of the leader of that house, and who had eman-
cipated himself from the rules of common courtesy due
to hon. members.
Lord PALMERSTON denied that his conduct and
remarks were open to the strictures which the right hon.
member had placed upon them. As leader of the house,
he would have been perfectly just.fied in endeavouring
to force the how) to pass the remaining three lines of the
clause to which no amendment was to be moved.
After some discussion the chairman reported progress,
and the house resumed.
JUDGMENTS BILL.

Mr. FITZ3ERALD moved the seecond reading of
this bill, which was read accordingly, and ordered to be
committed.
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLMASTERS (SCOTLAND)
BILL.

On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the order
for going into committee on this bill was discharged.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring
in a new bill on the subject.
Motion agreed to, and bill introduced accordingly.
FRAUDULENT TRUSTEES BILL.

The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered,
and agreed to.
The Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance Bill was read
a second time.
The Smoke Nuisance (Sco'land) Abatement Bill was
read a third time and passed.
The Crowded Dwellings Prevention Bill passed
through committee.
THE PROBATES AND LETTERS OF ADMI-
NISTRATION (ERELA.ND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
After some discussion on the clauses, the bill passed
through committee.
REVISING BARRISTERS (DUBLIN) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
MILITIA PAY BILL.
This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed this day.
The house adjourned at a quarter to 3 o'clock.

REPORT ON PATENTS.—The number of applications
for provisional protection in 1856 (recorded) was 3,10 G ;
the number of patents passed, 2,094 ; the number of
specifications filed in pursuance thereof, 2,043 ; and the
number of applications lapsed or forfeited, 1,012. The
number of applications recorded within the first six
months of this year is 1,830, so that an increase of 6UO
on the whole year may be expected. The expenses of
the office of the constnisbioneis for 1856 amounted to
5,8501., and the amount of stamp duties paid on passing
patents was 91,1151.
A report on the affairs of Messrs. Carr, Brothers, and
Co., of Newcastle, was submitted yesterday to the
principal creditors by Mr Coleman, the accountant. It
appears that the debts of the firm amount to 700,0001.,
and that Mr. Coleman considers the assets will yield
Ns:. in the pound, provided the collieries are carried on,
The latter point is one of great moment not only to the
creditors, but to the people of Newcastle, since the num-
ber of men employed on the works is upwards of 2,000.
On the whole, a favourable view was takers of the case,
and there seems to be a general disposition to concur in
the requisite arrangements to avert the consequences
hat wont' ensue from a permanent stoppage.

A MISSIONARY IN EP.

PRISONS.