The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-24 00:00:00

Y F SUN,O DON,

IMPERTAL PARLIAMENT.

EMUS E OF LORDS.—(YnsTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOD t';ok hi 3 seat on the wooliack
at 5 o'clock.

ST. JAMES'S PARK.
The Earl of MAL NIESIIURY gave notice that on
Monday next he iev,-,u1,1 cal attention to the correspond-
ence between the Thard of Works Knci the Treasury, in
reference to the works now. going on in St. James's
Park.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from gentle-
men engaged in commerce in the colonies, praying that
in ali criminal cases occurring an appeal to the Court of
Quern's Bench might be allowed. The noble and
learned lord said he did not concur in the prayer of the
petition.

VEXATIOUS SUITS BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM laid on the table a bill for the
purpose of preventing vexatious suits.
The bill was read a first time.
THE DIVORCE BILL,
The Bishop of OXFORD presented several petitions
against the Matrimonial Divorce Bill.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were severally read a second
time :—The Atlantic Telegraph Company ; Australian
Agricultural; Forth and Clyde Junction Railway ; and
Wat•:rford and Trarnore Rail•vay.

THIRD READINGS.
The Peebles Railway, and the Willmhall Gas Bill,
were read a third time and passed.
EXPLORATION OF CENTRAL AUSTRALIA.'

The Duke of NEWCASTLE begy,e4 to put a ques-
tion to the President of the Council, as the Colonial
Department was not represented in the house. When
he (the Duke of Newcastle) held the office of Colonial
Secretary, an expedition was organised and placed
under the direction of Mr. Gregory for the exploration
of Central Australia. He had been given to under-
stand that the expedition had been eminently
successful. The question he wished to ask was
whether any report bad been received from Mr. Gregory
asto the results of the expedition ; and whether, if any
tuch had been received, there would be any objection
to lay it on the table of the house !

Earl GRANVILLE said it was quite true that great
success bad attended the efforts of the expedition. From
a report which had been received from the Governor,
it appeared that a vast tract of fertile land bad
been discovered, and that tinder the skill and care of Mr.
Gregory the whole of the parties who formed the expedi-
tion had returned safely. The noble duke might rest assured
that the information the Government received with re-
spect to the exploration should be cAninunicated to their
lordship.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.
Lord STANLEY of ,A.LDERLEY moved the se-
cond reading of this bill.
The bill was accordingly read a second time.
DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES
BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the third read
lag of this; bill.
Lord LYNDHURST suggested that the bill should
be read a third time pro forma, for tho purpose of allow-
ing a nob:e lord an opportunity of moving a❑ amend-
ment.

granted would be very much iecreased, and it was not !
fdr to object that it could not erel,race all who might
desire to avail themselves of it. He hoped their lord-
eleips would reject every amendment that had for its
vieiect to defeat directly or indirectly the intention of the
hlll. (Applause,)
The Bishop of BANGOR supported the bill.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
Contents
Non-contents
Majority against the amendment —57
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE proposed in the
clause giving divorce to the wife for adultery accompa-
nied by incest or other aggravating circumstances, to
omit the words after " adultery" to the end of the clause.
Lord CAMPBELL said the principle advocated by
the noble lord was very popular, but ho must oppose it.
Tee amendment was negatived without a division.
Lord LYNDHURST proposed the omission of cer-
tain words, which was negatived without a division.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that Lord St. Leo-
pards being unable to wait, had requested him (the Lord
Chancellor) to move an amendment, which he (Lord St.
Leonards) had intended to introduce, and, hich he (the
Lord Chancellor) fully concurred in. He proposed to
omit the clause by which the punishment of the para-
mour by a fine had been extended to fine and imprison-
ment, and the woman also rendered amenable to
those Penalties. He agreed with a noble lord who
had said that in many cases a husband would be unwil-
ling to seek relief at the expense of subjecting his
wife to imprisonment. To talk of inflicting a fine on
a married woman was simply ridiculous. From the
very fact that she was a married woman, she could
not pay the fine, and so "fine or imprisonment" meant
to her " imprisonment or nothing." He thought this
was a state of law which their lordships could not sane."
tion.

The Bishop of OXFORD said that if these words were
struck out, the last guard of purity of life would be re-
moved, as far as the poorer classes were concerned.
There would be nothing to prevent a woman who de-
sired a new husband, and whose husband desired a new
wife, from going, without any collusion whatever, to
live with the man whom she preferred. Her husband
would then proceed against the paramour, obtain a
divorce, and marry again. The woman would marry her
paramour, and assume precisely the same position as
before her divorce, moving, as before, in the society of
her equals, who would consider her as being, to use
their own expression, made an honest woman again, and
she would suffer no loss of caste whatever. The law
would leave no check whatever upon the woman, and
the most unbridled licentiousness would prevail amongst
the lower classes. •.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then put the question
that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the
bill, and the house divided, when the numbers were—
Non-content 49
Content 29
Majority for the amendment
Earl NELSON proposed an amendment to confine re-
marliages to a civil contract. He urged that the law as
it stood burthenod the consciences of a larger number of
those clergymen who thought the marriage opposed to
the law of God. The number of these were increased
by the rejection of the amendment, which would have
prevented remarriage with the adulterers. He referred
to the fact that the clergyman would be obliged to ask
the parties whether there was any just cause or impedi-
ment to the marriage. The position of the clergyman—
and he spoke of those who really held a conscientious
opinion that this was contrary to the law of God—would
be this, that he would have to choose between doing
that which was against his conscience, and exposing
himself to starvation.

The bill was then read a third time pro forma.
Lord REDESDALE then rose and moved the omis-
sion of certain words from one of the clauses of the
bill, for the purpose of raising the whole question with
respect to the propriety of granting divorces a vinculo
matrineonii. Many persons who differed from him with
respect to the indissolubility of the marriage vow were
opposed to the hill, and were extremely anxious that,
before the subject was finally settled by the pasting of
this measure, the subject should be further discussed.
Lord CAMPBELL objected to the amendment of the
noble lord, The bill as it at present stood would intro-
duce a great improvement in the law.
The Earl of NIALMEiBURY supported the amend-
ment. He regretted that lest year he assented to the
third reading of the bill , but that circumstance was
entirely owing to his not having given the bill sufficient
considerations. Every word he heard only convinced
him that the subject was surrounded with great difficulties,
and if the present bill was passed the great confusion
and mischief would arise.
The Earl of WICKLOW supported the bill.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he rose to address their
lordships with a sincere respect for the scruples expressed
by their lordebips, awl with a sincere view of relieving
them. He believed the entirety of the law was violated
and set at nought as often as the judge was appealed to
to dissolve it. He did not mean to say that a man could
have a dissolution whenever he liked to apply for it with-
out a case ; but as soon as certain conditions were ful-
filled, and a case proved, the marriage was dissolved
without any question whatever being raised about it. If
their lordships had attended as often as he bad in such
cases, they would see how much deliberation there was.
The Chancellor rose and put the question, and thereupon
judgment was ordered just as it followed the verdict of a
jury in a common law court in Westminster-hall. Tho
noble earls (Wicklow and Malmesbury) had argued the
question with their usual ability and sincerity ; but he
would just beg to put it to them how much dignity there
was in the course they proposed to pursue. There was a
standing order in connection with their lordshipa' house
not only that no divorce bill should pass except under
special conditions, but that no divorce bill might even ap-
pear in the house unless under certain preliminaries, and
that was, that it should contain a c!auer'prohibiting the
marriage of the adulterer, but that clause was struck out
in committee. making the standing order altogether
valueless. Now, the only question was, whether it
Would not be better that it should be a substance and a
reality, and that divorce should become simply a judicial
act. (Hear.) It had been said that such cases coming
before the common law courts, they would not excite any
attention, but he believed that divorce cases would se-
cure more attention than any that could by any possi-
bility be brought before the courts. Again, the, import-
ance of the cause to the person applying, or the person
resisting, would ensure the fnl'est investigation, which
neither professional gentlemen nor judges, if so disposes?,
could for a moment prevent. There must be the proof
of the act, the proof of the terms on which the parties
lived, and all other proofs which were now the pivots
upon which such cases invariably turned. (dean) If
as yet justice was refused to any on account of expense,
delay, and vexation, they would rio doubt resort to a new
tribunal ; and was that an evil ? On the contrary, it was
one of his great reasons for supporting the bal. lie
eluld not, on inquiring into this subject, help
citing the ease of Scotland—for nowhere was there
a greater respect fur the Scriptures on the part of
the people and their ministers, and yet time out of
mind they bad held marriage to be dissoluble in the
decision of the courts. (Hear.) He did not cite that
case as a proof that the Scotch people were right and
that the noble earls were wrong, but merely to show what'
was the opinion of that most religious people on the so le
jsct of the dissolubility of marriage. ([tear, hear.) Ho
had no apprehension that this making the law more
equal as between rich and poor wooed at all have tire
effect of increasing the number of applications for di-
vorce. Nor did he believe that the result of the passing
of the bill would be appeals on the part of the people
that the legislature should go further in the granting of
divorces. If any unreasonable proposition of this sort
were ever made, it would be very easy to reist it.
(Hear, bear.) But there was cue point on which he
trusted there would be no doubt, and that was with re-
gard to the penalties to be inflicted upon the offender in
each 'cases. He (Lord Brougham) was in favour of
making it a misdemeanour, in addition to to the necu-
niary penalty. He had had many communicatiens from
parsons in judicial effice pressing these considerations
upon him. When it was a mere matter of feeling, of
course pecuniary compensation was but of Secondary
consideration; but then it ria-a, be remembered that in
other cases a roan lost pecuniarily by the deprivation of
his wife's, to /traces in the supervision of his family, and in
such cages, therefore, lie thou/lit pecuniary compensation
should be :scored. lie ens far from desirous of com-
ing into colli,ion with the other house, for he was of
opini n that her-nony shod I al ways subsist between
the two branches of the legislature.
Lord WENSLEYDAL said there never had been
any doubt about the law, the only difficulty having been
about-the practice which had sorune up during the last
200 years. He bad had considerable doubts about the
principle of the bill, but as it had passed twice before,
and bad been recommended by a conmeis,ion, he was not
disposed to offer any objections to it.
The Earl of CARNARVON said the bill bad under-
gone so many metamorphoses that it was very difficult
to understand it. It provided a new court, additional
protection for women deserted by their husbands, and
Introduced other great changes, which were worthy of
more consideration. Then they had added to these the
.question of divorce, which was to go to the new courti;
and all the amendment the node earl sought to secure
_was thattbe matter might undergo further and more ea-
tisfactory discussion.
The Bishop of OXFORD said that the question now
camee to this, that those who voted against the amend-
root would knowinelv vote in favour of the law of the
No
land being made contradictory--
to the law of Christ.
(, no.) It thd e bill were passed without the amend-
allow
meat they woul
the
adulterous woman to marry
again in the time. of h
opposed to the law husband, and that was directly
°E oar
Ise with e believed,the
-
noble lord, that the
pe,,lpe this county were not yet
this
alive to the importance of
question and he had re-
ceived ccommunications which
ehowed that even the clergy themselves were not aware of the consequences to HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTERDAY.)
which it would lead. He trusted the Government would The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
allow the amendment to pass, and thus save him the PRIVATE BUSINESS.
question
necessity
wa of moving
put that tee
it do pass. rejectiO oi the bill when the The Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction
s n
Railway ; Caledonian Railway (Lines to Granton) ;
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the amendment Cork and Youghal Railway ; Dartmouth and Torbay
proposed by the noble earl did not go
to the objections Railway ; Ely Tidal Harbour and Railway ;
He
which the right rev. prelate had raised.
thought he Hamilton and Strathaven Railway ; Ipswich Water;
bad a right to complain of the course the noble earl bad Newry, Warreopoint, and Rostrevor Railway ; North
adopted. The best course to take would have been to Eastern Railway (L-anchester Valley Branch) ; South
move the rejection of tbe bill oa the third reading, Staffordshire Water Bills were read a third time and
whereas the amendment of the noble earl was idle if it passed.
remained all it stood, providing as it did merely that the The Great Yarmouth Water ; Newtown and Ma-
new court should not be called a court of marriage and chynlleth Railway ; Prestwich, Bury, and Radcliffe
divorce, but simply a court of marriage. (Hear.) If he Roads ; Westminster Terminus Railway Extension
(the Lord Chancellor) was of opinion with the noble lord (Clapham to Norwood Abandonment) Bills were further
that the bill would make the marriage bond as lax as it considered and ordered to be read a third time.
was in some of the northern States of Germany, o FINSBURY PARK (No. 2) BILL.
)
he would throw it on the fire rather than in- k... 1.1 the motion for the second reading of the bill,
six mean
WILLIAMS moved its third reading this day
troduce it to their lordships ; but the principle
hould
had been acknowledged 200 years, and to transfer these ettt. montldeo. Re objected to it on the ground of parti-
divorces from a legislative to a judicial tribunal could alltnahaans. considered it a great hardship that his consti-
never be thought to produce the results which had been t"e t. be called upon to pay for the
shadowed forth by the noble earl. (Hear.) There was no recrea ior.l of the people at the other end of the
"'reason that the expense should be more than in a court metropra than tb,e first bill there was a provi•
of law. The courts of Westminster were open to the si" fo the.,,-.! Of 60,000/. being paid out of the tax,
'1 poor man, who could sue in forma pauperis where the and he asit,ea t
ELLovernmentintended to withhold that sum?
not worth 51 , and be hoped it would he sx-
pa .y was sir J. SH EY seconded the amendment.
tended. By this bill the area in which relief could be Mr. COopposed
COX the amendment, and said the esta-

The LORD CHANCELLOR said the measure was
now being discussed for the third time. The substance
of the present amendment had been discussed and di-
vided on, and decided in the negative twice before. He
thought that was a course which ought not to be taken
unless they were of opinion that they had not distinctly
understood upon what they had previously divided.
In relation to the conscientious part of the question,
h. 3 would say that no answer had been given to the ob-
jection to that in the first discussion, namely, where
:very these conscientious scruples to end ? The proposal
was not that divorced parties should not be married ;
but that they should only be allowed to contract that
marriage in the office of the registrar. He complained
that if the Legislature gave them the right to marry,
they had no right to say they should not be married the
same as others of her Majesty's subjects. He believed
that the wording of the clause would leave its legal
definition doubtful. On those grounds he trusted their
lordship% would reject the amendment.
The Bishop of OXFORD said the words of the clause
had been carefully worded, so as to preclude the possi-
bility of any legal difference of opinion as to the meaning
of the clause. The words were, "that the marriage should
take place in the office of the registrar or elsewhere, sub-
ject to the provisions of that act." The amendment bad
bet one effect, that of preserving the conscience of the
clergy. He trusted, therefore, it woul be affirmed.
The simplest principle of right demanded they should
affirm :t.

Lord CAMPBELL repudiated the amendment to the
clause as beir g one which would have the effect of stig-
matizing innocent people. One party to every divorce
might fairly be supposed to be exemplary, yet if that
party married again you obliged him to submit to what
he might consider a profane ceremony.
Lord REDESDALE denied that being married in
the first instance by a registrar need have the effect of
imposing on a man's conscience. In the case of the
clergyman his sacred office appeared to be ignored by
the present bill. That was a hardship which they had
no right -to inflict. He hoped their lordships would
consider the irjury the bill would inflict, on so many
consciences, and that they would agree to the small
measure of relief which the present amendment would
afford them. (flear.)
The Bishop of EXETER, who was almost inaudible,
was understood to op p,)ee the amendment, and to depre-
ci:te the hardship of obliging innocent people to be mar-
ried before the registrar instead of by the rites of the
Church.

Earl DUNGANNON opposed the amendment.
Their lordships then divided, when the numbers were:
Contents
Non-contents
Majority
The amendment was therefore lost.
The Bishop of EXETER deprecated the desecration
of the solemn ceremony of the Church in the marriage
of parties whose only title to be married was that they
had committed adultery. It would be only making the
holy offices of the Church the merest instrument of State
policy. The rev. prelate concluded by moving an amend-
ment, the effect of which was to allow innocent divorced
parties to be married by the Church, while the guilty
were to be married only before the registrar.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the proposal was
practically the same as that of the noble earl, while ho
believed the effect of the machinery of the clause would
be to create a new kind of marriage—that by a court of
divorce. He could not therefore consent to its insertion.
Lord CAMPBELL cbjected to the wording of the
amendmest ; it would compel the judges against their
conscience., and with the risk of the loss of their offices,
to perform a particular ceremony in the form of a de-
claration.

The Bishop of EXETER repudiated the obl-action of
the noble lord who had preceded him. rie.inuiit have a
very tender con cience if he objected to the performance
of the declaration which the amendment would involve.
Their lordships then divided, when the numbers
were—

Contents
Non-contents

24
33

The amendment was therefore rejected.
Lord WENSLEYDALE, in a voice so indistinct as
to be totally inaudible, proposed an amendment which,
after a few observations from the Lords Campbell, Den-
man, and the Lord Chancellor, was withdrawn without
a division.

Tho LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out the
last clause of the bill, the effect of which was to place
Jews on the same footing in respect to divorce as the
other subjects of her Majesty.
The motion was agreed to, and the bill was in conse-
quence read a third time.
On the motion that the bill do pass,
The Bishop of OXFORD rose to offer a last protest
to the passing of the measure. He believed it was con-
trary to the law of God, contrary to the law of the
Church of England, and, as he believed, fruitful in future
crime and misery to the people of England. He believed
that in passing it they were dealing a more fatal blow to
family life than they could by any other act. He could
not suffer the bill to pass without dividing the house, in
order that the names of those who opposed it might
stand on record to posterity. He implored their lordships
not to pass the bill into law.
Viscount DUNGANNON believed the bill would
shake the foundation-stone of all morality among the
people. He should, therefore, vote with the reverend
prelate against the passing of the bill.
_Their lordships then divided, when the numbers were—
Contents . 46
Non-contents ... 25
Majority
The bill passed.
SMOKE NUISANCES (SCOTLAND) ABATE.

MENT BILL. ,
This bill was read a third time.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
Their lordships then adjourned.

Hiehment of a park was neceary for the people of
Finsbury, the population of that dif.triet havin in-
creased within hs recollection frern 120,000 to
350,000. The hon. gentleman detailed the efforts that
had been made to establish a pre in Finsbury, and
procceLl'...l to show horn; ridic!lonly small the
rate would be on the inhabitants of the
metropolis, namely one farthing per annum for
20 years. Tie was but one of three parks proposed by
the Board of Works, viz., one for Bermondsey, and
the throwing open of Hampstead-heath. IF the con-
stituents of the hon. member for Lambeth had not
obtained Battorsea-park, and the Kennington enclosure,
the house would never have heard of the hon. member's
opposition. He hoped the house, bye-and-by, would
pass a grant of 50,0001. for the formation of this park.
Mr. CLAY supported the second reading of the bill.
He should like to see the metropolis belted with parks.
Sir J. SHELLEY opposed the measure on the ground
of a general rate, considering it a selfish thing on the
part cf those living near public parks to oppose their for-
mation in crowded districts, on acciunt of its situation,
because 200 out of the 250 acres required for it would be
out of the metropolitan district, and taking the crowded
part of Finsbury as a centre, be found that the Regent's.
park, Victoria-park, and St. James's-park were become
more easy of access to the people of Finsbury than
would be the proposed Finsbury-park. (Cries of
" Divide.")

Lord R. G4OSVENOR said that, as he had taken
some trouble in the formation of parks around the me-
tropolis, he shoal I support the second reading of the
bill, and, if necessary, go to a division. He
expressed his surprise at metropolitan members opposing
this bill. It was an impudent attempt of the constitu-
encies. of Westminster and the other metropolitan
districts to get rid of the formation of this park,
when they were able to enjoy parks kept up by the
country. The site selected for Finsbury-park was driven
on them from the want of an open space Bearer,
and the longer they delayed its formation,
the further they would have to go from the
metropolitan districts. Hampstead Heath, Finsbury,
and Bermondsey Park might be secured at a rate of
three farthings in the pound on the metropolis.
Mr. SPOONER asked if 50,0001. was to be given
by!the Government for the formation of the park ?
Mr. DUNCOMBE said it was an understanding on the
part of the Government that they would give 50,0001. to-
wards 300, 000/.,the estimated oostof the park. The forma-
tion of this park had received the approbation of this and
former Governments. The hon. member had no right
to complain, because Lambeth had Battersea-park in
which to disport themselves with Battersea bays—(a
laugh)—and there was an item in the estimates of this
year of 8,0001. for that park, and besides that they had
Kennington-common paid for out of the Consolidated
Fund. (Hear, hear.) He could understand an
opposition to a bill for :the erection of a new
Guildhall with a Lord Mayor, Alderman, Common
Council, and all the tomfooleries of the 9th of Novem-
ber, but he was at a loss to understand the opposition
to this bill, which was for the health and comfort of the
people occupying the densely populated districts of Fins-
bury.
After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY,

Sir G. GREY said he was unable, in the absence of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to say what pledge or
arrangement had been made by him of giving assistance.
If the house approved the second reading, it would not
prevent their discussing the question of Government
assistance.

Sir De L. EVANS concurred in the second reading.
He thought that the NVestminster people, having ad-
vantage of the best parks in LDndon, ought to be the
last to oppose the bill.
After some remarks from Mr. WALPOLE,

Lord PALMERSTON said that communication had
taken place with the Government and the promoters of
this park, for the health and recreation of the people of
Finsbury. They represented to the Government that
it would be almost impossible for them to raise a suffi-
cient sum by local rates, but that they thought it might
be done by the Government assisting them with 50,000/.
They also argued on the difficulties there would be
in a few years to obtain the land if delay took
place, and the Government said that if they brought in
the bill, and it was likely to be carried, that they would
propose to Parliament to consent to such a grant, but he
could not say whether the money was to be paid on the
passing of the bill or after certain work had been per-
formed. He objected to the principle that had been laid
down in the discussion, that a local thing should not
be charged on the general revenue of the country. The
people of England were interested in the health and
welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. (Hear,
and cries of "Divide.")

Mr. NEWDEGATE objected to thus aping the gene-
ral system of France. He thoubt the members of par-
liament at the west end contributed to the wealth of the
metropolis, and they had a right when in Landon to
enjoy the parks supported by local rates,

Mr. BARROW objected to the principle of a Govern-
ment grant. By-and-bye it would be increased, and
made general for all matters of this kind.
The Marquis of BLANDFORD asked, if this ar-
rangement were agreed to, how the Government was to
decline assisting the formation of Bermondseppark and
the throwing open of Hampstead-heath for the recreation
and health of the people. A principle of rating was not a
principle of benevolence. He believed the wealthy
people of the metropolis would always be ready to assist
their poorer brethren in such matters as these. How-
ever much he might wish to see parks proposed for the
people, he should feel bound to oppose the bill on the
grounds he had stated.

Mr. DILLWYN asked on what principle this grant
was to be made, whether it was to he confined to
the metropolis and those large to wns •who coull bring
pressure to hear on the Government, or applied indiscri-
minately all over the country when parks were to be
formed ?

Mr. AYRTON asked for an explanation of the prin-
ciple on which the grant was made by the Government.
He objected to the Government having the power of pro-
mising money like this, on a deputation waiting on them.
Sir C. WOOD said the granting or not of the
money by the Government had nothing to do with the
question of the second reading of this bill. The grant
of money would have to be discussed hereafter. He
asked the house to vote for the second reading, and
reserve the discussion on the grant till the time when it
came before the house.

Mr.. RICARDO considered this the final step
towards granting this 50,000/ He objected to granting
this money for Finsbury out of the public funds, because
a similar privilege was refused him for the Staffordshire
Potteries. (Cries of " Divide.")
Sir B. HALL said that he understood from the de-
bate the objection to the bill arose from the grant of
50,0001. by the Government, and as that was
the case he thought it was not desirous
to stop the first production of the Board of Works to-
wards the improvement of the metropolis. He sug-
gested that the opinion of this house should first be taken
on the granting of the 50,0001., and the second reading
of the bill postponed, to give the Board of Works an op-
portunity of considering- whether they would proceed
with the bill if this house refused the grant of 50,0001.
(Cries of Divide.)
Mr. MILES moved the adjournment of the debate till
this day week.
Mr. MALINS seconded the motion. (Cries of " di-
vide.")

The SPEAKER, having put the question for the ad-
journment,
Mr. LOCKE (Honiton) rose amidst cries of question.
He considered it would he an injustice to throw out this
bill. He supported the proposition of the adjournment
of the second rending, to allow the house time to decide
on the grant of 50.00001.

Mr. -HENLEY supported the adjournrnant of tha
second reading.

Mr. T. DU NCOMBE said such a postponement
would prove fatal to the bill. (Divide.)
Sir J. SHELLEY, amid loud cries of "Divide,"
explained that ha objected to the bill from a belief that
it was an entire mistake to attempt to place this park
where they proposed. He did not oppose the establish-
ment of parks in the metropolis.
After some remarks from Mr. Cox, and Mr. Darby
Griffith., inaudible from the loud cries of " divide,"
The house then divided on the adjournment of the
debate—

For the adjournment
Against it 123
Majority - 91
The dehats was then ordered to be adjourned to
Thursday next.

LIMITED LIABILITY IN JOINT-STOCK
BANKS.

Mr. READLA.Mgave notice that on the second read-
ing of the Joint-Stock Banks Bill he should move that
the principle of limited liability should be applied to
joint-stock banks.
GENERAL BEATSON'S INQUIRY.
On the motion of Col. FRENCH, a return was ordered
of tine expenses of the court of inquiry in the case of Ma-
jor-Gen. Beatson, including the cost of producing evi-
dence, the travelling expenses of officers summoned as
witnesses, and the employment of Government steamers
for such purposes.