The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-17 00:00:00

Their lordships shortly afterwards adjourned.

HOUSE OF CIONAIONS—(Tb.i3 Day.)
• The Srfcauct took the chair at twelve o'dock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' Amendments to the Lanca,ter and Car-
- lisle and Ingleton Railway Bill were considered and
• agreed to. •
MERSEY CONSERVANCY BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM Moved that a select committee be
appointed to inspect the Lords Journal relative to the
Mersey Conservancy Bill, which had pas::e•l this house.
The right hon. baronet having explained the objects of
the bill and its progress through this house and the House
of Lords up to its being referred to a select committee,
said that the object of the motion was to put an end to
the present bill, will a view of introducing another
bill this seseinn, to be passed through i•s -various stage 4
without eh lay, to give effect to the bill in the House of
Lord', changing the amount of compensation Irons
750,0001. to 1,500 0001.
Mr. J. EW.A.B.T seconded the motion.
After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY,
The motion was agreed to and the committee named.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.
The committee was resumed on this bald
oi•clause 28, providing for the dismissal of petitions,
Mr. EIENLEY a4ked for an explanation of the clause.
The AT rottNEY-GENERAL said that the the 27th
and 28th clauses were proposed with a view of prevent-
ing ,n between the par,ies in uncontested cases,
and the 29:h leave en extended area of defence.
Mr. HENLEY moved the omission. of the words
"alleed adultery," and the insertion in their plate
"facts alleged," to make the clatise consistent with the
27 •h clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the
amendment.
After a discussion in which Sir W. Heatholte, Lord
• John Manners, Mr. Ayrton, the Attorney-General,
Mr.. I Butt, Mr, Henley, Mr. B.)vii, Mr. Wigram,
and Mr. Wel?ole, took part, •
The amendment was withdrawn.
31r. BOVILL moved an amendment :—That condo-
..lWion of adultery on the part of the husband should net
. be an absolute bar to a di:orce for subsequent adultery
. -On the part of the wife, but that it should be left to the
. discretion of the ciert.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL accepted the amend-
.
- nent, and it was subsequently agreed to by the Con;-
' Inittee.

Mr. H. INGRAM moved an amendment, prohibiting
,a petitioner, whose petition has been dismissed from
again petitioning the court in the same case within five
years. If parties aggrieved were allowed perpetually to
apply to the court it would engender the worst feelings
and destroy domestic pacr. On the other hand a period
of five years was likely to cool down the passions, and
give rise to a reconciliation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the appre-
hension, of-the hon. member was unfounded, because tbe
bill prevented a second application to the Court after a
decision in the same case.
After some discussion the amendment was negatived.
The clause, with amendments, was then agreed to.
Clause 29 decrees dissolving marriage.
Mr. M`MAHON moved an amendment that adult
ter', previously committed by the petititioner, should
be a bar to obtaining a, divorce for subsequi•nt acts of
Multery on the part of. the husband or wife, as the
case carght be petitioned against.
diocnssion ensued, and the committee divided.
• For the amendment
Against it:
The amend
sjorit
—4l
in.nt
M. moNsiLzias consequently lost.
such marriage te,,
bepro.posed to leave out the words
',g dissolved," for the purpose of in-
serting the words
ze of judicial separation for
life." He thought it the
of raisini4 the impor-
tant question, that hiand
encontos:i7cnausidered by the committee or the hou,
abwouith this bill, -
vi_eut.to be constituted
whe-
ther they would give to the court
the power of granting divorce a
the parties to marry again. " 10, with power to
Mr. WIGRAM rose to order. Ile doubted if it wag
Competent to raise the question after the committee had
passed the 25i,h clause.
Mr. FITZEIOY said that the committee having de-
cided to give the new Court power to grant divtirce by
the 25th clause, it could not be again seised.
Mr. MONSELL said his oiject in wishing to take a
discussion on the question of divorced parties then was

, to wave time.
The motion being out of order was then withdrawn.
• On the question that the clause stand part of the bill,
Mr. WALPOLE moved a provisio to the effect that
the Court should not on an application from the husband
for divorce against the wife for adultery, grant or decree a
divorce NO-ere it was proved that the husband had pre-
viously committed adultery without condonation on the
part of the wife.
• The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the amend-
ment, as being inconsistent with the principle of the bdt.
It wool] be hard if they permitted divorce with condo-
nation to adopt such a proviso as this. To suppose an
estr:me case, it would be a hari;ship to refuse a hut-
. band a divorco from a profligate wife because some
twenty years before be had committed an isolated act of
adultery of which his wife was I;norant, till proceedings