The Express.
London, England, 1861-05-28 00:00:00

penditure. (Hear, hear.) An hoe. member on the ether
side had spoken of the volunteers in *discursive way, but
be (Sir R. Peel) understood the volunteer,were coming to
this house for a vote of money, He (SirM. Peel) considered
this • capital opportunity of =beg_ ouch a grant; for
by notable( this duty they could easily give the H. or U.
• head without in and thus meet the views of
the hon. gentleman. (" Hoer," and a laugh.) No one could
doubt that they were dtsgging that boom into • quarrel
with the Home of Lords, w was not for the beuefit of
the country, but to suit • very small faction, who would
derive nine-tenths of the benefit to be derived from this
transaction. They bad beard all kinds of abuse lavished on
the House of Lords. (No, no.) Lest year, eertainly very
much against his wish, the House al Lords were very
coarsely abused for the share they took in respect
of this measure. He (Sir R. Peel) bad always
given hi noble friend at the heed of the go-
vernment • cordial and warm support, and oe every
comeion save one he had given him his most cordial and
hearty support. He entertained towards his noble fried
the warmest personal respect and affection, and nothing
should induce him now to oppose him but a stern sees d
duty and a deep-rooted conviction that he was in the right.
(Hear, hear.) Again, be might say, as far as regarded his
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no man
entertained a higher opinion of his high character and
splendid abilities ; but as an independent member of par-
lament, he bed no other alternative. They were here
to serve their country, and upon such occasions
as the present be should always place that eon-
sidemtion before every other. Thanking the house for
having allowed him to utter these few remarks, he should
co elude by stating that it was with very great pain and
reluctance he was induced to decline to give his vote in
support of the measures of the government, bemuse be
believed those measures were neither wise nor politic in a
financial point of view, nor were they just or sgreeable to
the greet body of the taxpayers of thin country.
Mr. MELLOR moved the adjournment of the debate,
amid loud cries of "Divide, Divide."
Mr. DISRAELI said that as fax as be was personally
°misread he was unwilling to be an obstacle to free dis-
cussion, but he trusted that if the motion for adjourn-
meet was now supported by her Majesty's government
they might hear no more reproaches as to placing ob-
stacles in the way of the public beishame—(loud tory
sheen) —or of continuing accustom when there was
really motile' left respecting which disemnion was
necomary. (Mail They had now had the advantage of
many isightif discussion on this very question, and that of
the present evening had been conducted with distinguished
moderation and temperateness. (Neer.) He therefere
thought that the house might that night with great pro-
priety come to a decision. (Hear, hear.) If the gentleman
who had moved the adjournment whited then to eddies the
house, he (Mr. Numb) thought be could same him el aa
attentive and admiring audience. (Loud laughter.)
U that were the only object, the house would
be most happy to hear the honourable and
leaned member, otherwise the beet way would be to per-,
mit the house at race to come to • decision. (Hear, hear.)
That was, however, • matter for the leader of thewtem
and if the leader of the house sanctioned or had i
—(loud tory cheers)—this motion for adjournment, he (Mr.
i Disraeli), faithful to his sympathies for free discussion,
would not ask the house to come then to a decision. He
treated, however, that they would bear no more reproaches
about delaying public business. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON certainly should not object to the
motion for adjournmeet— (ironical cheers from the op-
position)—which he thought was very obviously
by the silence of hoe. members opposite. (Oh, okTinTiliedis
was undoubtedly • subject of very considerable impostance
itlhayrterj—end one uponwhich, no doubt, many members
to deliver their seatinseht (Hear, bear.) The
ppeeaammiew of the riOt hon. gentlemas that they would be
listend to with maul adm4stioe, however enecemeging,
might not induce many to address the home that emus&
He was, therefore, quite reedy to cosset to the adjournment,
but be would not undertake to abstain as • future ocession
from my remonstrance which he might think necessary
=t obstructing the basis= m= the home. He wee sure
he consideration now displayedenthe other side would
be repeated on future esessime. . .

Thi epistles wea then tout that the chairman report pro-
peen amid hied Mind "When ?"
The motion was wad be, sad the house renamed.
EXCUSE AND STAMPS BILL.

Thus bin went thronh committee pro form►.
Kr. BEN/INCE—When wu the debate 'dimmed to?
Lord PALKERSTON—Thunday
BOUNDARIES OF BIIROILS EXTENSION (SOOT-

LAND) ACT &HENDMENT "BILL
This bill panned through munraittrma.
PUBLIC OFFICES EXTENSION BILL
Thia ball paned through committee.
SUPPLY.
The report on supply was brought up and received.
GI7ILDFORD HOSPITAL BILL.
This ball was read a thud time sod paned.
TILAXWA TS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The bill was read a third time and
The house akonrend at halt-past A 174414

tato inttlitgenu.
COURT OP PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

MAT 27.

(fkdare th. Jodie Ordinary.)

The petitioner, Yrs. Martha Mead, sought • divorce from
her husband, Mr. Frederick Tudor Mond, • farmer and
cattle dealer at Writtle, Essex, on the ground of cruelty
and dulWry
_The respondent denied the latter charge,
and pleaded eslf-defence in excuse for any violence which
he might have committed.
Dr. Deana, Q.C., and Mr. Atkinson appeared for the pe-
titioner; Mr. Swjeant Itallantiae for the reepoodent.
The marriage took place on the 23rd of January, IMO, at
Gnat Dunmow, the petitioner being the daughter of a
farmer named Hodson. The cohabitation lasted ten
years, and resulted in the birth of five children,
of whom four were still living. The case on be.
half of the petitioner was that great unhappiness had
been produced by her bus 'e engaging a young
woman named Stock, the daughter of another Essex farmer,
as governess to her children. In consequence of her re-
monstrances be refused to sleep with her for the last five
He called her • "sow," and many other oppre•
brious names, and he several times beat her severely.
Once he was on the point of thrashing her with • bema
halter, but a servant interfered. In 1859
Stock left the house for • short time, and went
to lodge with a Mrs. Smith, in Lower Kennington-
lane, to whose son she had once been engaged to be
married, and here she bore a son, who was registered by the
name of Frederick Stock. After this she returned to Mr.
Mead's, when her employer handed her the keys and gave
her authority over the household. Mrs. Mead, objecting to
the doom being locked against her, threatened to break
them open, upon which her husband dragged her down •
parsg and called to Stock to bring him a silk
hief, with which he tried to tie her
hands. She struggled, and her wrista were badly
bruised. She then went away and commenced the
prompt suit. She denied that she we. of a violent temper,
or was addicted to the we of foul language, and she stud
that she had never taunted him with the mine of a man
named Flack with whom she had been acquainted before
aFe was married. The evidence in support of the charge of
adultery was supplied by Mrs. Smith and her daughter,
who proved that the respondent visited Stock at their house
and staved with her on one occasion a whole eight. That
was before the birth of the child. Stock left the Infant with
the witnesses, and it had since died. The evidence as to
cruelty wee corroborated by two or three servants of the
petitioner.
Mr. Mead on the other had denied the particular acts of
violence complained of, and mid that be had never been
guilty of any violence at all, except when it had been
net:emery to restrain his wbe. He represented her conduct
as having been very bed, and bar language as most disgust-
ing. He said that she had often told him that she pre-
i famed Flack, and in fact had treated the respondent like
a dog. She had threatened his life a hundred times, and bed
thrown knives, • gat-roc, and other dangerous missiles
at him.

Miss Stock denied that her child was the respondent's.
Its father was a farmer, whose Christian MOO was Frede-
rick John, but she declined to give any further informa-
tion about him. She doily denied that Mr. Mend had spent
• night with her a Mrs. Smith's, or that the slightest im-
propriety had ever passed between them. She said Mist the
orriduct of Mrs. Mead was very violent ; and she generally
corroborated the statements of the respondent as to the
language and demeanour of the petitioner. Witness was
still in the respondent's service.
Miss Mortlock, • previous governess, deposed that while
she lived with the Meads, they were always quarrelling, and
that the fault was with the petitioner.
The court reserved its decision.