The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-08-28 00:00:00

THURSDAY.

In reply to question,' put by Mr. H. Seymour,
Lard PALMERSTON said it was quite true that the Un-
fortunate Pasha of Egypt had been induced to take •
large number of shares in the Sum Canal Company, one
of the greatest hod must remarkable attempt.' at delu-
sion which had been practised in modern limes; and
that he hail contracted m bin private capacity a loan with
a French firm, which, though he had not obtained the
sanction of the Porte, was no infraction of the Conven-
tion t d 1840. _ .

In answer to inquiries by Mr. Brady,
Lord PALLERBTuN stated that there were no political
difficulties in the way of the project for the junction of
the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by a ship canal across
the Isthmus of Darien; but the result of surveys as to
the practicability of the project had not induced for
Majesty's Government to give it encouragement by
pecuniary aid.
The Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill was read
a third time and pared.
The Exchequer Bonds or Bills (E 2,000,000 Bill, the
Endowed Charities Bill, and the Naval Discipline Bill
were likewise read a third time and passed.
The adjourned debate on the amendment moved by
Mr. Hemimisy on the second reading of the Divorce
Coed Bill,—nainely, that the Bill, as sent down from
the Lords, he" laid aside," was resumed.
Lord PA ummArom called attention to the observations
made by the Speaker on Monday, and expressed his
opinion in concurrence therewith, that the fifth clause
of the Bill was a violation and infringement of the
rights and privileges of the House of Commons. Con-
sidering, however, the important nature of the Bill, and
that steps had been taken by the Speaker to put • stop
to a practice on the pert of the other House which had,
' in this instance, been carried to an extreme, he thought
the House would du well to adopt the suggestion of the
Chair, and not lay the Bill aside, but read it a second
time. He recommended, however, that there should
be a special entry on the Journals of the reasons fur the
non-enforcement of their right.
Sir J. GRAHAM said his first impression was that the
Bill should be laid sable; but, upon further considera-
tion, he concurred in the course recommended by Lord
Palmerston. The time he thought, had arrived, for a
decided check to the practice.
After • short discussion the amendment was with-
drawn, and on the luestion that the /hit be read a
second time, . . . . .

Mr. MALINS expatiated upon the policy of the law of
the results of which, he said, had been disastrous,
the number of cases in which marriages were dissolved
having lowered 113 in the estimati 111 l of other nations,
the facilities affonled to the dissolution of the marriage
uttering a temptation to fraud am! collusion. The pre-
sent Bill eium.wered the Judge-Ordinary alone to dis-
solve marriages, thus giving the go-by to the whole
principle of the Act of 1857, and increasing the facili-
ties for loosening the marriage tie. Ile suggested what
ought to he the proper constitution of the Court; if
this was objected to, the best course, in his opinion,
was to leave matters as they were till next Session, and
he moved to defer the second reading f r a month.
This amendment was seconded by Sir O. How T en, who
insisted that the effects id the law of Pea bad been most
pernicious ; that the present Hill would increase them ;
aild that the amount of collusion that took place in the
Court was fearful.

..... ._____..
Mr. JAMES observed that the question was, not ax to
the policy of the divorce law, but whether tide Bill.
intended to expedite the disposal of the vast amount of
business before the Court was a wise measure. A single
judge was objected to, but questions of property, charm.
ter,and life Alla death were tried by &single judge,and the
delay of justice in the (*mart through the accumulation
of cases was • serious grievance.
Mr. SrooNgn liad supported the Bill of 1857 upon the
assurance of the Attorney-General that the constitution
of the Court would afford • safeguard against fraud and
collusion ; but he had been convinced by he results of
the law and by the arguments of Mr. Melina that he
ought to vote against this Bill.
. . . .

-o
Mr. HEN:raspsY opposed the Bill, not only on the
ground of policy, but on account of the power it gave to
the Queen's Proctor.
The ArrollNKT-OZMAL replied to the objections
offered to the Bill, which, he observed. had been unfairly
ilimciisded. It had been said that it dispended with three
judged. and reposed all authority in a single judge; but
the Bill left i. to the discretion of the Judge Ordinary to
call in other judged, and a multiplicity of judged could
not more easily detect collusion and connivance than •
single judge.
After stone remarks by Mr. GRIFFITH, the amendment
was negatived upon • division by 43 to 11, and the Bill
was read a second time.

The House then went into Committee upon the Bill,
the clauses of which underwent a few amendments. by
one of which the duration of the Bill was limited to two
years.
Sir DE L. Er %NM moved an address to Her Majesty,
to direct to be carried into effect the recommendations
of the Royal Commission on the National Defences for
the construction of a fortified work on Shooteeichill, to
assist in the protection of Woolwich Dockyard and
Arsenal, and as an important element in the means of
defence for the metropolis ; and also to direct that a
Royal Commisaion he appointed to report on the lines of
march available to an invading Ann 7 advancing against
London; on the obstacles or positions which may be
occupied or prepared to obstruct or defeat an enemy on
these lines ; and on the polars of appal or support of the
national forces in their operations in the vicinity, and
for the defence of the metropolis. He was addressing
the Hones in support of the motion, when it was counted
out at 8 o'clock.