The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-07 00:00:00

LAW OF DIVORCE.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a re-
spectable citizen, named Stephen Pierce, complaining of
the present law of divorce.
The NOBLE LORD put off the presentation of his
Bill for giving the Privy Council jurisdiction in cases
of divorce till next Thursday (this day week).
COURTS OF COMMON LAW PROCESS BILL—
COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL moved the order of the day for
going into Committee on these two Bills. He said
it would perhaps save trouble if he N% ere to
mention then the amendment he wished to propose to
the first Bill. Some difficulty might arise respecting the
manner in which the service of the process ought to be
made, or dishonest persons might serve their own turns
by inducing a foreigner to swear that the service had
been duly and properly effected.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, to obviate this, he should introduce a clause
providing that the service of a process abroad
should be made either by a British subject
or by a notary public.—(Hear, hear.) Before he sat
down he wished to allude to a point connected with the
other Bill. A Noble Duke who was not present—he
meant the Duke of Hamilton, who was the hereditary
keeper of Holyrood House—was extremely anxious to
preserve all the rights and maintain all the privileges of
the place to which he belonged.—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble Duke was apprehensive that this Bill would
interfere with the liberties of that house, but he believed
the Noble Lord on the Woolsack would confirm him in
the statement, that it was impossible that they could at
all be interfered with by that enactment.
Lord BROUGHAM said the amendment of the Noble
Lord had certainly removed, in a great degree, his ob-
jections to the first measure. The notaries public of
France and Germany were men of high respectability,
whe held responsible offices which were recognised
by the laws and Governments of the two countries.
The circumstances of the case night be quite evident,
their perjury might be quite clear, and yet the know-
ledge of this might not be of the smallest use in the ap-
plication for a writ of error. The judgment, notwith-
standing the knowledge of these facts, would stand. The
service by a notary public in France would be perfectly
satisfactory, though in other countries it might not be
so ; and he thought it would be better to specify in this
Bill in what countries the service was to be by a notary
public, and those in which it should be by a British subject.
In the country where the service was to be by a British
subject, it might come through the instrumentality of a
judge's order. In the islands of Corfu and Zante it was
impossible to depend on the notaries public, and he
thought no better plan could be adopted than to let the
service be proved by the affidavit of a British subject.
He ASiought the amendment might be introduced in
Committee. _ _

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he thought it
would tobebetteorurt of
see
Equity.th
the operation of the Bill in the
details of the Court
Lord CAMPBELL asked if his Noble and Learned
Friend would name a day ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the first day after
Easter. That, he thought, would be a sufficient time
for ascertaining the operation of this Bill in the Courts
of Equity, and he wished for this time, for he did not
like to legislate in the dark.
Lord ASIIBURTON said that he was sorry to say that
the being a British subject was not a sufficient guarantee
for perfect good faith ; and that, therefore, the better
mode would be, when the notaries public were not to
be depended upon, that the notice should be served by a
British subject under the supervision of the British
Consul resident in that country.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the motion, and
the House went into Committee, pro forma, on the Com-
mon Law Process Bill, the Common Law Process
(Ireland) Bill, and the Court of Session (Soctland)
Bill.

The Earl of SJ!AFTESIIIIRY reported progress, and
obtained leave to sit again on the first day after Easter.
COMPANIES CLAUSES CONS nIDATION BILL,
AND THE COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLI-
DATION (SCO ['LAND) BILL
On the motion of the Duke of BUCCLEUCH these
Bills ware read a first time, and were ordered to be
printed.
CONSTABLES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The House went into Committee on the Constables
(Scotland) Bill, and
On the motion of the Earl of DALHOUSIE, words
were introduced to enable a constable to act in any other
part of a county, as well as in the district to which he
was appointed, but under the direction of the sheriff.
The Bill went through Committee with this amend-
ment, the Earl of SitAFTEsnuny reported progress, and
obtained leave to sit again.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 6.
RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday )
Mr. RICE said that the 49th clause applied to this case,
and he hoped, therefore, the Honourable Member would not
press his opposition.
Mr. WO i )EHOUSE protested against the supposition
that the landed interest entertained any jealousy of those who
supported railways, or of railways themselves. He had lived,
during the construction of the Norwich and Yarmouth Rail-
way, very near to it, and he had never sustained the Tightest
inconvenience from it, and such had been the case with a
Noble Friend in his neighbourhood. In the case of a special
train, the adoption of the suggestion of the Hon. Menfier
would cause great inconvenience. In one instance, a phy-
sician's attendance was required at Yarmouth ; a special
train was taken, and, in consequence of there being no im-
pediment,, he performed the distance between Norwich and
armouth in a quarter of an hour, which would otherwise
have taken him nearly two hours. With respect to the jea-
lousy supposed to be entertained by landowners of railway
projects, he would beg to assure the Hon. Member for Wells
that he never was more thoroughly mistaken than in that
supposition.
Mr. TATTON EGERTON thought, in the cases of public
roads and highways, these gates-were necessary, but that in
the cases of footpaths it would be a needless expense and
trouble to the companies. _ _ _

Mr. ENTWISLE said that the object of this Bill was to
consolidate the regulations so as to curtail the proceedings in
Committees oa Private Bills. In his opinion, the Hon.
Member for Cockermouth would find that the exceptions to
the rule which he sought to establish, would be so numerous
as to increase the business before Private Committees rather
than decrease it, and he, therefore, conceived that the adop-
tion of the words proposed would be the very means of de-
feating the Hon. Member's own object, and he therefore
trusted that he would withdraw his opposition. If the ex-
pense were increased to the companies, the publie in the end
would have to pay it.
Colonel SIBTHORP hoped that the Hon. Member for
Cockermouth would divide the House at once. They talked
of the expense of railways; he thought that ought to occupy
little consideration. He entertained great jealcusy of all
these schemes, and he hoped the Hon. Member for Cocker-
mouth would persist in his opposition, and bring this clause
to a test.
Dr. BOWRING said that the excepted cases were
many. He did not think that in more than one case out of
twenty would it be necessary to have a gate and a person
to watch it. They ought rather to legislate for the nineteen
cases than the one case.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH wanted to know by what words the
Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Aglionby) would get rid of the
objection that had been urged against the amendment.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that there WAS an entire misconcep-
tion of his argument and amendment. He did not mean to
put an end to all great railway schemes. The words which
he would introduce into the clause were, first, the words
" highways," and then, " except where otherwise provided
by the special Act." He thought that their first object
ought to be the public safety, and firs
object
ought to be a secondary object. Ile considered he was more
correct in requiring that the public should be protected where
protection was necessary than the Hon. Gentleman near him
(Dr. Bowring), who said that they ought not to legislate for
one case because there were nineteen cases whick did not
require legislation.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought that the tenour of the Hon.
Gentleman's speech was to afford protection, but that the
tenour of his clause would not have that effect. He
conceived that the public would have less protection
under the words which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
sought to introduce than under the clause as it stood.
What he would propose would be this, that whenever a
public road,
in a populous district, interfered with the rail-
ways going upon a level, a special clause should be intro-
duced to provide for that.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that would do.
Mr. DARBY said that if the Honourable Gentleman
meant by his amendment to give the Committee the
power of allowing public roads to be crossed, without
the railway company being compelled to put up gates,
and to keep persons to watch them, he would do well to
persevere.—(Hear, hear.) But if that were not his object

he would advise him to withdraw the amendment, and pro-
pose it in a subsequent part of the Bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he had not intended to impute in-
consistency in a personal manner to any Hon. Member.
With regard to his proposal, as there seemed to be an agree-
ment as to the principle, and differences appeared to exist
only as to the means, it would be better for the present to
withdraw his amendment, and re-introduce it at a future
period.—(Hear.) His idea had been that clause 44 might
be expunged altogether if his amendment were agreed to.
The amendment was then withdrawn.

Lord G. SOMERSET thought the Hon. Gentleman had
exercised a very sound discretion. The object of all who
had taken part in the discussion was, he believed, the same.
It would be much better to propose the words upon the con-
sideration of clause 44.

Clauses 33, 34, and 35 were then agreQd to.
On clati:e 36 being read,
. . .

Mr. %YAWN said he understood it was the intention of
some of the companies to abandon branch lines which had
been projected. In such cases they would be compelled to
place the roads in the condition in which they found them.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that when application was
made to Parliament to sanction the abandonment this point
might be considered.
Clauses 36 to 41 inclusive were then agreed to.

Clause 42, was agreed to, with a few verbal amendments,
as was also clause 43.

Lord G. SOMERSET then roved that the Chairman re.
port progress, and the House adjourned at a Quarter-past
Four to Five o'Clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.

Mr. PHILPOTTS presented a petition complaining
that the standing orders in the case of the South Wales
Railway had not been complied with. The petition was
referred to the Select Committee.
TRENT VALLEY EXTENSION.

Mr. MARK PHILIPS brought up the Trent Valley
Extension Bill, which was read a first time and ordered
to be read a second time.

BLACKBURN, ACCRINGTON, AND COLNE

RAILWAY.

General LYGON presented petitions complaining that
the standing orders on the Blackburn, Accrington, and
Colne Railway had not been complied with.—Referred
to the Select Committee.
HEYWOOI) WATERWORKS.

Mr. STRUTT brought up the report of the Select
Committee on the Heywood Waterworks. It stated,
that the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.
SHREWSBURY AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY.

Mr. ESTCOLTRT brought up the report of the Select
Committee on this railway ; a►nd it also stated that
the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.
Mr. SPOONER moved for the report of the Select
Committee on the London, Worcester, and Staffordshire
Railway.
The HONOURABLE MEMBER also moved for leave to
bring in a Bill for the London, Birmingham, and Staf-
fordshire Railway.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Heytesbury, the purport of which we
could not catch.

Mr. SHAW presented a petition against the system
of National Education in Ireland.

Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition for the
reduction of the naval
'and military establishments in
the country.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. BLEWITT gave notice that on an early day,
after Easter, he should move for leave to bring in a Bill
to repeal the several Acts of Parliament which pro-
hibited the growth and curing of tobacco in Great
Britain and Ire!wad.

Mr. GISBORNE gave notice that he should, on an
early, day call the attention of the House to the subject of
the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to
railways.
CONDITION OF THE LABOURING POOR.

Mr. BORTHWICK, seeing the Noble Lord, the
Member for London, in his place, would beg leave to
ask him a question. In the last session of Parliament,
the Noble Lord called the attention of the House to the
distressed condition of the labouring population. Since
then he (Mr. Borthwick) had had many communica-
tions from most districts upon the subject; and, there-
fore, he would wish to know whether it was the inten-
tion of the Noble Lord to bring the subject before the
House this session ?

Lord J. RUSSELL begged to say, in answer to the
Hon. and Learned Member, that it was his intention to
bring the subject forward, with a view to propsing some
legislative measure upon it, shortly after Easter.
CIVIL DISABILITIES OF THE JEWS.

Mr. TRELAWNY, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet
the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, begged to
give notice that he would to-morrow ask the Right
Hon. Baronet whether it was the intention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to introduce, this session, any mea-
sure providing for the removal of the civil disabilities of
the Jews.

Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to say, in answer to the
Hon. Member's question, though the Hon. Member had
said he would not put it until to-morrow, that her Ma-
jesty's Government did hope, at a very early period of the
session, to bring forward a Bill for the removal of the
civil disabilities of the Jews, at least so far as municipal
and corporate disabilities extended.—(Hear, hear.)
SUGAR DUTIES.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
in answer to a question from the Noble Lord, the
Member for London, that with respect to the sugar
duties and property-tax questions, he was anxious to
make such arrangements for the discussions upon them
a, would be most convenient to the House. He was
willing that the discussion upon either of these ques-
tions should be taken to-morrow, upon the report,
or upon the third reading on Monday.
Mr. LABOUC HERE wished to know if he correctly
understood the Right Hon. Gentleman, in stating that it
was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to
make any a iteration in the classification of the sugar
duties this session ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
in the affirmative ; and, in answer to the question of Lord
John Russell, he begged to say that he would now defi-
nitively fix Monday next for the discussion on the sugar
duties.