The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING AUGUST 19, 1857

permitted to perform the marriage ceremony on either
of the divorced parties wishing again to contract
marriage.
Lord LOVAINE would vote for the amendment if it
was pressed to a division, though he tho❑vht it would
inflict great hardship on the innocent divorced persons.
Mr. BRISCOE hoped there would be no division on
the clause, because it was undesirable either party should
claim a triumph on this important point. He considered
the conscientious scruples of the clergy should be re-
spected, and he would rather that the suggestion of
the Attorney General should be adopted.
Mr SPOONER asked the right hon. baronet (Sir
W. Heathcote) to withdraw the amendment, because it
would inflict injury on the innocent parties. If it had
been confined to the guilty he should have voted in its
favour.

Mr, MALINS also hoped the amendment would be
withdrawn that the sense of the committee might be
taken on the question as suggested by the learned Attor-
ney-General

Sir W. HEATHCOTE regretted that the discourage-
ment he thought shoull be given to the marriage of
divorced parties was not entertained by the committee,
and as it appeared to be their wish to raise the question
relative to the clergy in another shape he would with-
draw his amendment.
The amendment was then withrawn.
Major WARBURTON moved at the end of clause
53 :—Provided always, and be it enacted, that no priest
or deacon shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or cen-
sure for refusing or consenting to solemnise the marriage
of any person who shall be divorced by virtue of this
act. Ho considered his amendment was necessary, be-
cause by the bill the clergy would be called on to act
in opposition to their ordination vows. Without the
amendment he proposed the clergy would have to vio-
late their consciences or abandon their position.
Mr. WIGRAM supported the amendment as an act
of justice to the clergy. The marriage ceremony
was framed on the opinion of the church, that marriage
was indissoluble ; but the house having decided to the
contrary, they were bound either to modify the marriage
ceremony so as to remove the lawful impediment that
would exist under that service, or else give them an
option to celebrate it or not. He thought there was not
time to do the former this session, and as it was tined-
visable to force the clergy in hostility to the law, as had
been the case in Prussia, on this point, it was better to
give them an optional course of proceeding. He never
recollected a memorial presented to Parliament so nu-
merously signed by the members of one profession as
that by the clergy on this point, which he looked upon
as importing that the whole of the clergy were unani-
mous on it. He thought a few cases of marriage
ofdivorced persons that had been solemnized was no reason
for their withholding the relief asked for by the whole
body of the clergy.
Lord EBRINGTON supported the amendment.
General THOMPSON wished to know what clergy-
man was likely to be made a martyr under this bill. A
divorced person would not be likely to seek out a clergy-
man who *mold not marry him, with a view of directing
attention to the misfortune under which he laboured,
but rather resort to a clergyman—and they were always
to be found—who would marry divorced persons.
Mr. C. FOSTER expressed a hope that the Govern-
ment would accede to the amendment.
Mr. AYRTON considered that the amendment would
have the effect of strengthening the power of clergymen
who were Romanista in heart, and would enable them to
carry out their views of marriage being a sacrament and
indissoluble. He admitted that the conscientious scru-
ples of the clergy should be respected, but the same
liberty of conscience that they claimed for themselves
they should grant to others. (Hear.) Whilst therefore
they refused to perform the service they should
not have the power of shutting up the parish church
which was the property of the State, and prevent the
parishioners from being married there by a clergyman
who was willing to perform the marriage ceremony.
Mr. WALPOLE supported the amendment on what
be considered unanswerable ground, viz., that Parlia-
ment had no right to impose on any person or class of
persons in this country the painful dilemma of obeying
or disobeying two laws set before them—(hear, hear)—
that of the statute of Charles 11., that required the per-
formance of the marriage ceremony in a particular man-
ner and the indissolubility of marriage, and this bill
which made marriage dissoluble and allo wed the divorced
parties to marry. For the sake of peace in the Church
he asked the Government to accept the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was most
happy to state that he had been authorised by the noble
lord at the head of the Government to accept the amend-
ment with a qualification that he thought would meet
with the approbation of the committee ; but before stat-
ing it he must call the attention of the committee to the
considerations that had weighed greatly with the Go-
vernment before finally bringing before them this propo-
sition. He asked the committee first to consider if they
were or were not about to introduce a qualification that
might prove a snare to those for whose relief it was pro-
posed to be given. If it were found right to give this
relief here, where were they to stop I It would pervade
the whole services of the church, especially those of
baptism, burial, and the holy sacrament, and lead to
disunion, and those evils in the Church which it was
desirable to prevent, and which he prayed they might
never see. (Hear, hear.) He presumed that the hon.
and learned member had well considered the effect of
the proposed change, and therefore the Government
were prepared to accede to the amendment in these
words :—" Provided always and be it enacted that no
priest or deacon shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or
censure for refusing to sclemnise the marriage of any
person whose adultery or crime has been the ground of
the dissolution of any marriage." (Hear.) That he
thought would meet the case of a wife and her adulterer.
The Government also proposed to add to the clause
words cempelliug a rector to give the use of the parish
church to a priest or deacon of the Church of England
willing to'solernnise a marriage of parishioners to which
the said rector had objections.
Mr HENLEY approved of the clergy amendment of
the bon, and learned Attorney-General, but he asked for
more time to enable the committee to consider that
part with reference to the use of the parish church.
After some remarks from Sir W. HEATHCOTE,
Mr. WALPOLE said that be did not agree with the
bon. and learned Attorney-General that the relief given
in this case would have hereafter to be granted in
reference to the other services of the church, because
in this case the clergy had no additional poeer or autho-
rity given to them, but would only act under the decree
or authority of the new Divorce Court.
After some further discussion, it being near four
o'clock, the Attorney-General gave notice of his amend-
ment for consideration at six o'clock this evening, and
the debate was adjourned.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the house
resumed.

MILITIA BILL.
On the motion that the amendment of this bill be con-
sidered and agreed t
Col. NORTH asked for an explanation from the
Government, relative to the caps and helmet covers of
the men sent to India. He believed we were losing
many men in India from the want of these covers.
Sir J. TREE, A.VVNY gave. notice of his intention to
put a question to the Ua ler-Secretary for War, relative
to the sergeants of the army.
The consideration of the amendment, for want of
time was postponed. The other orders were agreed to,
and the morning sitting was suspended at 4 o'clock.
The house resumed at 6 o'clock.
GOOD CONDUCT PAY TO SERGEANTS.
Sir J. TRELAWNY inquired whether arrangements
had been made for extending the good conduct pay to
sergeants in the army 4

Sir J. RAMSDEN replied that, in accordance with
the promise he gave at an early period of the session, the
claim of soldiers to retain their good conduct pay, alter
promotion to the rank of sergeant, had been matur,ly
considered, and the noble lord the Secretary for War
was most anxious to meet the views which had been ex-
pressed on the subject ; but there Wa3 a difficulty in car-
rying them into effect. It had been found that if they
made the good conduct warrant applicable to sergeants it
must be accompanied by certain other conditions which
attached to that warrant, as to the forfeiture of pay in
cases of misconduct which it was considered ought not to
apply i❑ the case of officers. The War-office had, how-
ever, under consideration a plan for accomplishing the
object by means of a different machinery, which they
hoped to be able to adopt.

_
CLOTHING OF TROOPS FOR INDIA.
Mr. A. STAFFORD, referring to the answer of Sir J.
Rarmiden to a previous question on this subject, which
he believed had been misunderstood, inquired whether
the War-office had made any arrangement for supplying
the troops who had embarked for India with cool cloth-
ing during the voyage as well os on their arrival, and
whether it was true, as bad been reported, that the medi-
cal comforts and medicines for the use of those troops
were embarked not with them in the ships in which they
sailed, but were to go out in other vessels which did not
even sail in their company I
Sir J. RAMSDEN said that with regard to the
clothing for the use of the troops during the voyage, by
the regulations now in force the soldier before embark-
ing received an advance of three months' pay, out of
which certain articles, called sea necessaries, were pro-
vided by the commanding officer, the total cost of which
amounted to rather more than 21. per man, and the ba-
lance was made over to the commanding officer, to be
expended by him int he purchase of such articles as would
conduce to the soldier's comfort during the voyage. He
should add also that he had made inquiry at the India
Board, and ascertained that whenever a transport was
taken up by the East India Company the owner was re-
quired to enter into a cont-act to provide sufficient awn-
ings to spread over the deck of the vessel in order to pro-
tect the men from the heat of the sun. With regard to
the medical comforts, he bad the authority of the Direc-
tor-General of the Army Medical Department for saying
that in every case the medical comforts and medicines
had gone out in the same ships with the men.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES CONSEQUENT
with a UPON THE INDIAN REVOLT.
111 r. DISRAELI—As we are not to have an Indian
financialhon.geu teiteatement this session I must trouble the right
to know wietec:
British eu
to man the President of the 'Lard of Control
tion for granting
Mr. V. SMITI3—
th their consideration
Eiroir: reference to the losses aus•,ained by
by the unfortunateerneveent
India for the pecuniary tones Mass
Fr.ensation for these losses?
has not yet been submitted to me'
India during the insurrection. I wish
„trials intended to submit any proposi-
a Shell Court of Directors have under
for compensating the cut-
ferershbauvte sustained. It
that have occurred in
Government it
need scarcely
say that e. hen it does come before theeml
will receive the fullest consideration
INCREASE OF THE ARMY.
Colonel NORTH had heard it reported that the offi-
cers who had been named to fill up the second battalions
of the line regiments were to be placed on the recruiting
service on half-pay, and were to receive nothing in addi-
tion but their lodging-money. He wished to know

whether that statement wag correct ; but as he 'had
not given, notice of the question he would repeat it to-
! morrow

Sir J. RAMSDEN would answer the question to-
morrow.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE INDIAN PRESS.

Mr. DISRAELI moved for copies of any despatch
from his Excellency the Governor General of India,
stating his reasons for making the Act. No. 15, 1857,
for the restriction of the liberty of the press applicable
to the European portion of the population, as well as to
the native; and of any memorial, petition, or remon-
strance, addressed to his Excellency the Governor-General
by the European population in consequence.—Agreed to.
POOR RELIEF.
On the motion of Lord ELCHO, certain returns in re-
ference to medical relief were ordered.
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH TURKEY.
Mr. HADFIELD, pursuant to notice, asked the
First Lord of the Treasury whether (under 14th protocol,
paste 59, of Conferences of the Plenipotentiaries of Paris,
1856, relative to the treaty of peace) there had been a
revision of the stipulations which regulate the commer-
cial relearns of the Porte with other powers, or in the
position of foreigners resident in Turkey ; and whether
(agreeably to the recorded wish of the plenipotentiaries)
a deliberation had been opened at Constantinople, since
the conclusion of peace, between the Porte and the
representatives of other powers, with a view of attain-
ing the twofold object in such a manner as to afford
entire satisfaction to all legitimate interests ; and if
there had been no such revision and deliberation, whether
this country, in'its commercial relations with the Porte,
ranks amongst the most favoured nations, in all com-
mercial transactions, the residence of British subjects in
Turkey, fiscal and other duties ; and whether any bene-
ficial or other change had taken place, since the com-
mencement of the war with Russia, or was intended ;
and were negotiations in progress to facilitate the com-
merce of this country with Turkey !
Lord PALMERSTON—It is perfectly true, as the
hon. gentleman states, that under the protocol agreed to
by the plenipotentiaries at Paris there was to be a mu-
tual deliberation of the representatives of the different
European powers and the Porte, for the purpose of ar-
ranging more equal and favourable stipulations for the
regulation of commerce with Turkey. But the hon. gen-
tleman must be aware that from the period when the
treaty of Paris was signed and ratified down to the pre-
s-nt time many questions have been pending upon which
the different parties to that treaty entertain different
opinions. Some of those questions are still under discus-
sion, and it would be premature to enter into deliberations
which could not be carried to a satisfactory result unless
all the parties who shared in them entered upon them
without any difference of opinion upon certain matters
of considerable importance, which would necessarily be
Involved. Nothing has therefore yet been done, but
whenever those questions which are still pending shall be
finally and satisfactorily settled, then those deliberations
to which the hon. gentleman alludes will take place. In
the meantime our commercial relations with Turkey rest
upon the treaty of 1820. No change has been made,
either during the war or consequent upon it ; and, com-
paring the amount of duties payable on imports and ex-
ports in Turkey with the tariffs of other countries, it
will be seen that her scale of duties is more favourable to
commerce than those of almost any other country with
which we have commercial relations.
Mr. HADFIELD—Do we stand upon equal terms
with Austria and Russia in our commercial relations
with Turkey l
Lord PALMERSTON—I am not prepared to say on
what terms those powers stand ; but my general impres-
sion is that as far as our commercial transaotions go, we
are upon an equal footing with them.
THE MILITIA BILL.

Mr. STAFFORD rose to inquire when the next stage
of the Militia Bill was to be taken ; and complained
that the consideration of the amendments had been
moved without due notice, just before the house rose at
the *corning sitting, and when nearly all the members
had left, notwithstanding that the noble lord (Palmer.
ston) had promised that an opportunity should be
afforded of discussing the amendments and of calling
attention, as he was desirous of doing, to certain cir-
cumstances connected with the militia. He mast say this
was something like sharp practice on the part of the noble
lord. (" Hear" and "Oa.") There were other hon. gen-
tlemen who were anxious to address the house also on
the same subject. (" Order," and cheers.) Very well.
Then to put himself in order he would move that the
house do now adjourn.
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. STAFFORD—Now, then, lam in order.
The SPEAKER—No, you are not. I must first put
the question. (Loud laughter.)
The question having been put,
Mr. STAFFORD resumed his complaint. He had
given notice to the Under-Secretary for War that though
he did not intend to oppose the bill he intended to ask
certain questions with regard to the arrangements con-
nected with the warlike preparations for the East. He
wished to know why, under such circumstances, he had
brought on the bill and advanced it a stage, unexpect-
edly, at 5 minutes to 4, just before the house rose, and
whether the house would yet have the opportunity of en-
deavouring to elicit from Government such explanations
and answers to the questions and suggestions which
might be made on this bill, which the noble lord ad-
mitted was at the present juncture a most important
one I The hon. and gallant member for Westminster
had said the other night that there was some difficulty
in recruiting our army by enlistment. Now he was pre-
pared to combat that statement. When the harvest was
gathered in, he believed there would be no difficulty in
obtaining recruits. He thought it highly desirable that
the organ of the army in that house should explain au-
thorit .lively and iu detail what arrangements bad been
made for the comfort of the troops who were proceeding
to India, and what precautions bad been taken to avoid
those hardships to which our soldiers in the Crimea were
unnecemrily exposed.
Lord A. VANE repeated Mr. Stafford's complaint
that the bill had been brought forward at a time when
no member who took an interest in the matter was in
the house.

Lord PALMERSTON said he was sorry to dispel the
illusion which the 'son. gentleman seemed to be under,
that he was placing himself in conformity with the strict
order of the house, by making a speech on the subject of
the militia on a motion for the adjournment of the house.
If be wished to be strictly in order he ought to have
confined himself to giving reasons why there should be
an adjournment of the house; and however there may
have been laxity of practice, yet the hon. gentleman was
out of strict order. However, he would say nothingabout
that, lie could assure the hon. gentleman that he ex-
ceedingly regretted that, through misconception or inad-
vertence, the hon. gentleman should have been deprived
of an opportunity of offering his opinion on the state of
our military affairs at the stage of the Militia Bill which
had just been passed, The hon. gentleman asked him
last night if the Militia Bill would come on then, and he
replied that it would not, as there was a point which re-
quired to be looked into, and that the report would be
brought up to-day. He was not aware whether he said
it would be at the morning or the evening sitting ; but
the bill stood for its next stage in the orders for that
morning, and it was brought on as usual at a quarter to
four, when the discussed business was over. As the
hon. member and the noble lord seemed desirous of
having an opportunity of entering at large into matters
connected with our military affairs, he would take care
that the third reading should be so fixed that they might
have that opportunity.
Lord A. V. TEMPEST—On what day !
Lord PALMERSTON—It may be ou Thursday, but
due notice will be given.

The moti ,n for the adjournment of the house was then
withdrawn.
THE ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET AND
EUROPEAN AND AUSTRALIAN MAIL
CO M PAN Y.

Mr. MACARrNEY begged to ask the Secretary to
the Treasury whether. previous to the Bth day of July
last (upon which day a paper was issued by the directors
of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company to their
shareholders, headed "Proposed Amalgamation of the
Royal Mail Steam Packet Company and the European
and Australian Royal. Mail Company"), any communi-
cation or proposition was made to either of said com-
panies, directly or indirectly, by the Treasury, that in
case of amalgamation the existing contracts to these com-
panies would be further extended for two years ; and if
not, whethes such a proposition (originating with one or
both companies) was submitted to hint at any time pre-
vious or subsequent to such document being circulated ;
and if so whether any decision had been come to thereon?
Mr. WILSON said it was at all times au inconvenient
practice for hon. members of that house to make partisan
motions with reference to companies oat of doors, and
to put questions to the Government which were founded
on no public motives, and only bearing on the interests
of private companies ; it was making Parliament a vehicle
far the rivalry of companies out of doors, which ought
not to be done, and he hoped the house would support
him if he declined to answer questions of that descrip-
tion. (Hear.) Again, repeated motions were made for
returns at the instance of company against company,
which filled the table with returns which were of no
public interest. (Hear.) He had no wish to withhold
information, and he had no objection to answer the
question of the hon. gentleman, but hoped that this sort
of questioning would be discouraged by the house. The
hon. gentleman asked whether, previous to an agreement
for an amalgamation of the Royal Mail Steam Packet
Company and the European and Australian Royal Mail
Company, any communication or proposition was
made to either of the two companies by the go.
vernment. No such proposition had come before him
officially, and all he knew was that the two oompaniei
did send in a proposition on the subject of some con-
tracts, and he was told that a report had been made on
the subject to the Admiralty, which wonli come before
the Treasury to be considered, and when it did come
before them it would be considered with reference to the
public interests, and not with reference to the interests
of one company or the other.
Mr. MACARTNEY, in explanation, said the hon.
gentleman having imputed to him partisanship in putting
this question on behalf of the comp-;nief4 he begged to
say that every step he had taken in reference to the
subject of Australian postage was taken with reference
to the public interest, and he returned with scora toe
imputation that be bad done so from private motives.
Mr. WILSON said he did not mean to cast any im-
putation on the hon. gentleman for putting this ques-
tion, and he was sorry if he had been supposed to do
so ; but he had only spoken of the inconvenience of
putting questions of this nature.
THE COMMISSION ON PURCHASE IN THE
ARMY.

Mr. RIDLEY begged to ask the Under Secretary for
War whether he bad received from the members of the
commission appointed to inquire into the system of pur-
chase in the army who had not appended their names to
the report, any reasons for their hiving declined to do
so I

4iv J. BA.ISISDEN said the hon. gentleman was cor

rect in saying that the names of all the cemmissioners
were not appended to the report. A communication
had beeu made to the Secretary for War by one of the
commissioners, the right hon. gentleman the memb,er for
Coventry, stating his inability to agree to the recom-
mendations in the report, his intention to state his
reasons in a separate paper, and when that was received
it would be laid on the table.
LAMBETH ELECTION.
Mr. GILPIN moved "That the minutes of the evi-
dence taken before the select committee on the Lambeth
Election Petition be laid before the house."—Agreed to.
CUSTOMS BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
(STAMPS) BILL.
The report of this bill was brought up and received.
THE DIVORCE BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, and pro•
gress was resumed by
The CHAIRMAN putting Major Warburton's proviso,
to add at the end of clause 53 the following :—" Pro-
vided always, and be it enacted, that no priest or deacon
shall be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure, for re-
fusing to solemnize the marriage of any person who shall
be divorced by virtue of this act." To this an amend-
ment had been moved by the Attorney-General. " That
no clergyman in holy orders of the united church of Eng-
land and Ireland shall be compelled to solemnize a mar-
riage of any person whose former marriage may have been
dissolved on the ground of his or her adultery, or be
liable to any snit, penalty, or censure, for solemnising,
or refusing to solemnise, the marriage of any such per-
son."

Mr. FITZGERALD said that he was disposed to con-
cur in the main in the opinions expressed on this subject
by the Attorney-General, and could not help thinking
teat the concession on this point might prove a fatal
gift to the Church of England. It was impossible, how-
ever, to pass over altogether the memorial of the clergy
which bad been so widely ciremlated. In his opinion it
would be a case of great hardship if an innocent person
should be deprived of that to which the law said he or she
was entitled, because any one particular class considered
the law to be wrong. (Hear.) Still he thought it might
be desirable to make some concession to the party which
bad put forward their opinions so strongly, and he would
do so for the sake of securing peace to the Church. He
believed in his conscience that marriage was indissoluble
by the divine law, and that divorce was as inexpedient
in policy as it was wrong in principle.
Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN said he was not
opposed to the indissolubility of marriage, because he be-
lieved the weight of religions authority was in favour of
it, but he would not force those clergymen to marry who
bad conscientious scrnples against the performance of the
ceremony between divorced parties. Divorce was a most
important question both to the clergy and the laity, but
he thought it was not right for that house, by depriving
the clergy of the liberty to refuse to marry, to assume
to settle points of doctrine that bad been disputed and
discussed for centuries. He would give every clergy.
man full liberty of conscience.
Mr. HADFIELD said he was as much in favour of
religious liberty as any man, but what a pretty state the
Church would be in if every clergyman were allowed to
exercise his own disoration on every point of doctrine
that he might have conscientious scruples about. If a
clergyman thought the ceremonies of the Church were
contrary to his conscience, let him exercise his liberties
like a man, and leave the Cburch altogether, as 200 of
their forefathers did at the time of the Reformation.
Sir F. BARING said he was not much surprised at
the remarks of the hon. gentleman who last spoke,
because it was scarcely possible to mention the words,
"bishop" or "church," without that hon. gentleman
giving the house a declaration of his love of religious
liberty. He should support the. amendment of the hon.
and gallant member (Major Warburton).
The committee then divided. The numbers were—
For Major Warburton's amendment 56
Against 77
Majority against
The amendment was therefore lost.
Mr. CRAUFURD then proposed as an amendment
to alter the words of the clause so as to make it read
that no clergyman should be liable to censure for solem-
nising or refusing to solemnise marriage between parties
on the ground of their adultery.
Mr. W. EWA.RT opposed the amendment.
Sir DENH.A.M NORREYS thought it was mon-
strous to make a law declaring certain marriages legal,
and then grant immunity to those clergy who refused to
carry out the provisions of the law. It would be putting
the clergy above the State ; and would be a most dan-
gerous principle to set up.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. L. WIGRAM then proposed to add a provisio
that parties declared guilty of adultery should not he
enabled to marry the person with whom the adul-
tery had been committed. If this provision were not
enacted, the promise to marry would be constantly held
out as an inducement for a married woman to commit
adultery. He considered that such marriages, if per-
mitted, would be a scandal to the land, and quoted the
opinion of the Filet Consul of France (at the time o f the
discussion of the Code Civil), " That any law must be
immoral which authorised a woman convicted of adul-
tery to live with her paramour." He was also opposed
to imprisonment for adultery, because that punishment
fell chiefly on the man's wife and children.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH thought that when an irrepar-
able fault had been committed, the best way was to
mend it in the readiest manner. He, therefore, opposed
the proviso.
Lord J. MANNERS rupported the amendment, as
necessary to remove the scandal that would otherwise
attach to this bill from the facilities it would give for the
commission of adultery.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the amend-
ment. The law had always permitted the marriage of
the guilty partier, on the ground that it was for the in-
terest of morality they should do so.
Sir W. HEATHOUTE said that the guilty parties
were not permitted to marry in Sootland, France, or
Austria, and these examples confirmed the policy of the
course now proposed.
Mr. BOVILL said it was useless to attempt to carry
an amendment that did not meet the vie-vs of the Go-
vernment, but, nevertheless, he could not refrain from
protesting against permittinmkgintgouwainilntygactpthaetryotiedcsoisutsloollmvmeaartrrhryye.
Such a permission wouwmlcdhioglhhatvdeo theso. effect of increasing
afterma radulteryriaage withdivorce,
that
ae
twr stoohnnelsyd
ie,
Mr. CLAY said he firmly believed that if they could
tell a woman on the eve of committing adultery that she
was about t 3 lose her husband, children, and her posi-
tion, the crime would in the great majority of cases be
inne of thes
of the prevented. The adulterer was generally a cool-blooded,
c
Clay) did not care
carilclnula
what
ebbteeing e
became
gesedduc seducer, n
n to
oh
itt
nh ae.
man,
Generally,
, (aMn de nine-tenths
ine-tenths
suf-
fering to the woman. (Hear, hear.) For Heaven's
sake let them not tell the woman that no amount of re-
pentance could enable her to resume an honourable
position in society.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. WALPOLE congratulated the Government on
the satisfactory concession they had made towards the
conscientious scruples of the clergy.
Sir W. HEAVICOTE expressed his opinion that
the concessions made by the Government would not
meet the difficulties of the majority of the clergy.
Mr. HADFIELD cal:el attention to the difference
of opinion expressed by the two last hon. gentlemen,
member, for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge,
on this Fart of the bill.
Af-er some remarks from Mr. Henley, Mr. D. Griffith,
and Mr. Wigram,
The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
On clause 54, abolishing actions for crim. con ,
Mr. I. BUTT moved the omission of the clause.
The committee divided, and the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it 46
Majority
—32
The clause was agreed to.
Clause 55 was agreed to.
Upon clause 56 an addition regulating compensation
was ogreed to, after some ob3ervations by Mr. HAD-
FIELD. _ . _

A clause was then introduced regulating the payment
of the officers of the court by stamps.
Mr. ADAMS thought that some words should be in•
troduced which should provide more directly that the
payments should in all cases reach the officers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the fees pay-
able on the stamps conk.' not he paid at once to the offi-
cers of the court, as it was provided that they should be
paid into the consolidated fund. He would take care
that proper provision should be made to meet the case.
Mr. HENLEY said that the Attorney-General hav-
ing appointed the local courts, should have arranged the
fees so as to fit them. This was aOuty which could not
be done by the committee. They should first understand
how the local courts stood, and then settle the fees,
otherwise they would be dealing with the fees without
knowing how the courts were to be constituted. He
hoped that the Attorney-General would make a proper
provision hereafter.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was understood to say
that he would attend t the suggestion.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said it could not be done if
this clause were agreed to in its present shape.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then said that he
could make the clause more stringent by adding the
words " except as herein expressly provided."
The clause with the addition was agreed to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved a clause,
putting into better shape clause 15 which was originally
in a very rude form. The clause was intended to meet
the case of the whole court being thrown open to the
profession, which was not in the original bill as it came
from the Lords.
Mr. HADFIELD said that the claim for compensa-
tion would be founded upon this clause. Was it under-
stood that the clause was instead of clause 15 ?
Mr. MALINS said that compensation would be
granted by the clause as in the Probate Bill.
Mr. AYRTON said that the precedent of ',he Probates
Bill would not be followed. Each case would stand on
its own merits.
Another clause was then added, putting into shape
the formal decision of the committee as to divorce for
adultery coupled with desist tion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then proposed a
clause which was to carry into effect a former decision of
the committee with regard to Lhe courts to whom appli-
cation for judicial separation should be made. The com-
mittee, after much discussion, bad decided that the
county courts were not fit for t'ae purpose, but that juris-
diction in this matter should be given to the other local
courts. He had endeavoured to frame a clause to carry
out the wi,hes of the committee. The other local courts
were, the courts of assize, the courts of oserter session,
and the recorder's court. Now, the court el' quarter.
session was not fit for the delicate matters which would I
be brought before it, and he proposed that the oi:IY

courts having jurisdiction should be the courts of assize
and the recorder's court. Ha moved a clause to that
effect —that application for judicial separation should he
made to the courts afforesaid in such city or borough in
or near which the part,es should have been last ret•ident.
Mr. BOVILL said that application to the judge of
assize was very inconvenient, and almost impracticable.
He thought that a commission might be sent down, as
in lunacy eases.

Mr. lIIITTT did not agree that the county courts were
to be deprived of their jurisdiction. He did not think
that it was the intention of the committee to negative
the county courts. All they had decided was not to in-
troduce the county courts into one particular clause. He
agreed with the proposal of giving jurisdiction to the Re-
corder ; but there was this objection to petitions to the
assize, that it was not a permanent court, and only came
into the country at long intervals for a few days. He
proposed that the jurisdiction should be given to the
county courts, i❑ order to raise the question.
Mr. AYRTON said that a judge of assize tried only
questions which had had a preliminary inquiry before a
magistrate, and of which all parties had notice. But here
the petition was presented, and the other parties would
at once have to prepare evidence to meet it. How was
this to be done in the limited time in which an assize eat?
They could not traverse the bills to the next assizo, as
these matters required immediate decision. He hoped
the Attorney-General would be able to put the clause
into a better shape.

Mr. MALINS said that the committee had already
decided that the county courts should not have this juris-
diction. The principle of application to the court of ses-
sion had very properly been abandoned. Some local
court was necessary, and there remained the assize and
the recorder. Now, he did not think that the as-izes,
sitting at intervals of seven months, would answer the
purpose.
Sir G. GREY suggested that there was a thir I assize.
Mr. MALINS said that the third was only intended
for criminal matters, and even so there would be a delay
of four months. This was a delay which, whatever might
be said, they could not tolerate in Chancery. Domestic
quarrels required immediate attention, but there was
another objection. These domestic quarrels required
time and investigation to ascertain the truth. Now the
judges of assize were already pressed for time, and the
delay of a single day at one place would throw out all
the arrangements. They could form no opinion as to how
long these cases would take. None in his experience so
utterly set all calculations at defiance. The same objec-
tion of delay applied to the recorder, who only went his
circuits four times a year, and there would be a delay of
four months. The recorders were often young unmarried
men, without the experience necessary for the purpose.
He thought the suggestion of the hon. member for Guild-
ford a good one—to adopt what had been found to work
so well in lunacy—viz., the sending down commissioners
under the authority of the superior court. As all the local
tribunals were unfit, he thought that the commissioners
might be sent down to report to the court, and thus enable
the court to decide.

Mr. HENLEY said as the house had decided that
tbere should be a local tribunal, the learned gentleman
had done all he could in taking what courts he could find.
He (Ur. Henley) agreed that some of them were fit.
Now, as to the proposal of the commission, they should
remember they were legislating for poor persons, who
could not bear the expense.
Mr. MALINS said that in the case of lunacy the
commission was expressly sent down to poor people, to
save expense, at little cost.
Mr. HENLEY wished to know if it was relatively
littleorabsolutelylittle? [Mr. Malins—Absolutelylittle j
Now, he thought that the majority of these cases were
set on foot on account of alimony, and did not require
any great amount of legal knowledge. Country people
could not apply to the borough recorder, and the assizes
would be hurried and expensive. He approved of the
clause as it stood originally, as the adjudication of the
small amount of property between the parties would not
be difficult. The number of cases would not be great.
Mr. 111'11/lAIION thought that a little delay in such
cases was useful. They would have probably three as-
sizes in the year, which was as often as was necessary
under the circumstances. He did not agree that the assize
would not have time to try the case for want of notice.
Cases of murder had been tried when the murder had
only happened a week before. If they took the average
of Scotland, and applied it to the proportion of popula.
tion in England, they would have 100 divorces in a year
and 200 separw ions. Now, if they sent commissioners
in all these cases, they would constantly have commis-
sioners roaming the country at great expense. As to the
quarter sessions, he hoped the Attorney-General would
stand by the qdarter sessions. The chairmen of quarter
sessions did their duty. as well as recorders, and they
would do this duty much better than the recorders.
Lord LOVAINE wished to know if no power of ap-
peal was to be given ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that besides the
judges of assize, there were in the commission of assize
many barristers, sergeants and Queen's council. He pro-
posed that the judge should have the power of appoint-
ing one or more of these gentlemen to hear and dispose
of those cases which the judges could not dispose of
themselves. The service of the petition could be easily
got over, as it might be sent up to the judge some day
before the assize, sealed with his seal, and then served
upon the respondent. Tao quarter sessions were not the
tribunal he should choose, bet he should have no objec-
tion to allow these questions to be decided by the chair
man of quarter sessions personally. He would not give
his consent to the principle of the commission, it would
be a varying and undignified tribunal, without the pro-
per authority. He proposed to move an amendment to
empower the judge to delegate the power of hearing the
petition to any barrister nawed in the commission.
Dlr. FITZGERALD thought the r xplan otion of the
hon. and learned gentleman satifact:ory, and that the
chairman of quarter see-ions was a very fit per,on to be
entrusted with this authority. He would suggest that
the name of the wzsistant ;chairman of quarter sessions
should be inserted.

Mr. PULLER thought that the suggestion of the
Attorney-General as to the service of the petition did
not go far enough. Notice should first be sent to the re-
spondent as to the matters contained in the petition.
Lord J. MANNERS felt bound to express his satis-
faction at the proposal made by the Attorney-General.
Sir G. GREY said that they should read the clause a
second time, and then put the amendment into shape
upon it.
The clause was then read a second time.
Mr. HENLEY hoped that the power over restitution
of conjugal rights would be given to the court, as well as
that over separation.
Additions were then moved to the clauses by the AT-
TORNEY-GENERAL, giving the power to any barrister
named by the judges and included in the commission,
or to the chairman and deputy chairman of quarter ses-

sione.
Mr. BOVILL said that as the amendment stood
persons named in the commission would be required to
sit whether they liked or not. Now no payment would
induce meny of these persons to act. He 'del not see
why the choice should be l imited to persons named in
the commiseion.
Sir G. GREY said that there was a certain qualifica-
tion in the person named in the commission, which was
better than opening the duty to the whole bar. As to
the enforcing the duty, the matter would be done as it
now was, the judge named some one who was willing to
perform the duty.
Mr. M'MAHON observed that it was a privilege much
sought by members of the bar, and considered an hoe )ur.
Mr. AYRTON suggested that the general power of
the court of quarter sessions should be given to the
chairman of quarter sessions as to administering oaths
and other matmers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that the
words he proposed would meet that case.
After a few words from Lord LOVAINE and Mr.
PULLER, the amendment to the clause was agreed to, and
the clause as amended ordered to stand as part of the bill.
Another clause was then proposed, e :Towering the
deserted wife to apply to the nearest police magistrate ;
or if in a county, to a county magistrate.
The clause was agreed to.
A clause was then proposed by the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL, regulating the compensation to be given
to the proctors.
Mr. MALINS said that under the act many proctors
would not find it worth their while to go on with their
business. Ile thought that the same principle should be
adopted in giving compensation as that adopted in the
Probate Bill.
Mr. HADFIELD opposed any compensation to the
proctors, which was contrary to the spirit of the under-
standing previously entered into the course of the debate
both on the present and on the Probate Bill. The proc-
tors had already made the best bargain that had ever
been made by any profession,
Mr. MALINS entered into some explanation of what
occurred in previous debates. His objection referred to
the form in which compensation should be given rather
than to the amount.
Mr. HENLEY sail that he did not see how the in-
ferior officers of the court were to be compensated.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the inferior
officers expressed themselves fully satisfied by their posi-
tion under the bill. As to the proctors, he would not CASI.
sent to give them compens trim] under the bill upon the
same principle as under the Probate Bill, By that bill
they were totally deprived of their practice. But under
the present bill none of their business was taken away.
A new court in which they could practice was estab-
lished, and the hon. and learned gentleman must not
press the case in favour of the proctors too far.
Mr. MALINS said that he was justified in believing
that the hon. and learned gentleman intended to adopt
the same principle in both cases. He was mistaken, and
should be contented without dividing the house. It
should be remembered that 10,000 competitors for busi-
ness were now to be introduced into the courts.
Mr. HADFIELD should take the sense of the com-
mittee as to whether any compensation should be given
to the proctors under the clause.
The clause was, however, agreed to without a division.
Clauses B and C, and one or two supplementary
clauses proposed by the Attorney-General, were agreed
to, and ordered to stand part of the bill.
Mr. iVI'MALION proposed the addition of a clause
which would make adultery with any married woman a
misdemeanour, and this be considered was rendered
necessary as a protection to the husband in consequence
of the abolition by the bill of the remedy which he pos-
sessed by means of an a&ion of crim con.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objectec; to the clause,
which, after a tow words in reply from Mr. M'MAHON,
was negatived without a division.
Mr. BUTT proposed the addition of some words regu•
lating the jurisdiction of the proposed court, but it was
ultimately decided that the clause should be considered
on bringing up the report.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave notice of several
clauses which he intended to propose on bringing up the
report.
After some discussion as to the mode of procedure, it
war arranged that the Chairman should report progress,

and that the new clauses should be considered in. corn- ,
mittee.

The OFT AIRMAN Olen reported progrem
CROWDED DWELLINGS PREVENTION BILL.
z bon wi.nt into cornwittee on the Crowded.
Dwellings Prevention Bill.

Mr. tiYR lON moved -the adjournment of the house.
Some dicuAsion arose, in the course of which
Mr. LOCKE supported the motion for the adjourn-
ment. }ln. gentlemen who supported the bill did nut
know where tae shoe would pinch. The bill would en-
able the police to enter any man's house, and interfere
with him in the manner in which he shoutd live in his
own residence. It was a ridiculous and absurd bill,
affect ng the liberty of the subject, and beginning at the
wrong end for legielation.

Lord PALMERSTON said it was easy to see where
the shoe pinched. It was a question between the specu-
lative builder, who wished to overcrowd his houses f r
pr,ifit, and the poor who needed protection. It was said
that every Englishman's house was his castle, but the
fact was that at present every builder's house was his
dungeon. (Hear.) The .Irish members ought, above
all, to support the bill, because so many Irish working
people who depended on their industry suffered from the
existing evils. He hoped the house would support a bill
the purpose of which was to render the operation of the
Common Lodging-houses Act more effectual.
After a few words from Lord A. V. Tempest and Mr.
Henley against the bill; and Mr. Cowper in its favour
(the latter hon. gentleman undertaking to introduce a
clause which would make it perfectly clear that the bill
should apply only to common I.)dgine-houses),
Mr. AYRTON contended teat the bill would affect
the poor tenant and not the landlord. It was a bill not
to regulate common lodging-houstis, but to affect the
dwellings of the poor. It had i3ot been eff,ctually
amended in committee. As to corn mon lodging-houses,
the present law was sufficient, and tl lyre was no need for
further legislation.

Mr. KNIGHT opposed the bill, as tending to increase
the power of Government over the set bjec'.
Mr. NICOLL complained that the Government were
too mach disp ,sed to follow the policy of the Govern.
went of France. But the Government of France when
they removed the places in which the poor had lived,
found other residences. But the Government of Eng-
land, while by metropolitan improvements they swept
away the dwelling of the poor, did not taka the trouble
to provide dwellings for the pour to go to.
Mr. O'BRIEN observed that he never came into the
house and asked who was up, but he, was told the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets. (Laughter.) That
hon. gentleman had shown an eloquence that they all
admired, but which they all deplored. (Renewed laugh-
ter.) That hon. member objected to the pressing of such
questions at this period of the session, but he continued,
nevertheless, to protract the session. After some further
humourous observations,-the hon. member was followed
by Mr. Ridley, Lord A. V. Tempest, Mr. Cowper, Mr.
Henley, and Mr. Kinnaird.
Mr. COX said the bill would authorise the police to
enter private dwellings. He asked whether the noble lord
meant to play Wat Tyler with the people of England ?
if so, he would find that the people would play the
tyrant against him.
Sir \V. JOLLIFFE opposed the bill.
Lord PALMERSTON explained some previous ob-
servations. He was quite sure that if the hon. member
for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Cox), who had compared
him (Lord Palmerston) to a person whom he supposed
to be a great tyrant, would lock into the historical facts,
he would acquit him (Lord Palmerston) of any intention
to resort to ar itrary Government by imitating the ex-
ample of Wat Tyler. (Much laughter.)
After some further discussion, the committe divided,
when the numbers were—
For reporting progress .
Against
Majority —l3
Lord A. V. TEMPEST immediately moved that
the Chairman should leave the chair, which, however,
was not pressed to a division.
The title of the bill was then altered from " The
Crowded Dwellings Prevention Bill" to "The Common
Lodging Houses Act Amendment Bill."

Mr. bOWPER prdmised to place on the paper the
amendments ee proposed to introduce into the bill.
The first clause as amended was then agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress.
The remaining orders of the day ware disposed of, and
the house adjourned at a quarter to three o'clock.