The bill might be entitled one for the encouragement of
criminal conversation. It confused the civil and the
criminal systems, and the result of it would be that no
actions would be brought. It was also an anomaly to
make adultery a criminal offence for which only one
party was to be punished.—Mr. CRAUFURD supported
the measure, and Mr. WHITESIDE opposed it.—Mr. D.
SEYMOUR was in favour of the bill, which he deemed a
necessary measure of reform.—Mr. PHINN thought the
question one of very great importance, but, while
condemning the existing system, could not support the
present measure, which would introduce many anomalies
into the law it sought to improve.—Mr. FITZGERALD
warmly supported the bill, though it was, in his
opinion, not sufficiently comprehensive, but if the
principle were affirmed by the house, the measure might
be amended and improved in committee.—The
ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that the whole subject
required revision, and also that women required more
protection than they possessed under the existing law,
but he was opposed to bit-by-bit reform. He allowed
that pecuniary compensation ought not generally to be
the aim of a husband, but there were many cases in
which it would be very hard to deny a husband damages.
Until we altered the system of expensive divorce, we
ought not to take away pecuniary compensation; but if
we simplified and gave cheap and easy divorce, we
might fairly consider whether damages should not be
done away. He was also opposed to the confusion of the
civil and the criminal systems, nor did he think that
the bill could, with advantage, be discussed in
committee.—Mr. M. CHAMBERS advised Mr. Bowyer to
withdraw his bill and reconstruct it.—Mr. BOWYER
replied, urging that the principle of his bill had been
admitted, and therefore that it ought to be read a second
time, and its details considered in committee.—The
house divided, and the numbers were, for the second
reading, 49; against it, 121; majority against, 72. The
bill is therefore lost.

The adjourned debate on the nomination of the
committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions was
resumed by Mr. D. Seymour, who moved the postponement
of the appointment of the committee until leave
was obtained to bring in a bill to amend an act of 56th
George III., for more effectually securing the liberty of
the subject. He thought that the common law, if its
meaning were declared by the amendment he proposed,
was sufficient to meet all the cases, real or supposed,
which had been adduced by the promoters of this
inquiry.—Mr. HORSMAN, deprecating the tone the discussion
had assumed, suggested the abandonment of the
debate.—Mr. NEWDEGATE's protest against this course
was interrupted by the termination of the sitting.

On Thursday, May 4, in reply to questions respecting
the Ticket-of-leave System, Mr. FITZROY stated that the
police had no special instructions in regard to convicts
liberated with licenses, and that such convicts had the
right to choose the place to which they would be sent
on release. He also explained that a convict named
George Brown, in reference to whose case public
sympathy has of late been invited, was a very unworthy
object for such feeling.

On the order for going into committee on the Railway
and Canal Traffic Bill, Mr. J. L. RICARDO
objected to proceeding with the bill, which had been
materially altered, until time had been afforded for
considering it in its new shape; and he moved that the
debate be adjourned.—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE seconded this
motion, which, after a discussion of considerable length,
was negatived by 261 to 40.—Mr. E. DENISON suggested
that the general question had readied such a stage as to
call upon the government to declare its views with
regard to future railway legislation.—Mr. HUME
thought the interests of the public were not sufficiently
consulted in the altered bill.—Mr. T. EGERTON was also
of opinion that the alterations had diminished the
securities which the public had under the bill as
originally framed.—Mr. CARDWELL showed the necessity
of limiting the scope of the bill, and proceeded to
explain what the bill was in its altered shape, and why
it was so altered. In the first place, the bill enacted in
clear terms a definition of the duty of the companies to
the public—namely, to afford all reasonable accommodation
and facilities. Then came the machinery, and
this had been modified and adjusted to meet the fair
and conciliatory suggestions of the railway boards, and
the remedies provided were of the most summary kind,
which the courts of law were empowered to enforce by
penalties. These objects would by this bill be
accomplished with the concurrence and co-operation of the
railway companies, without the sacrifice of one particle
of the public interests.—The house then went into
committee upon the bill, which passed pro forma.

The house went again into committee upon the
clauses of the Oxford University Bill, beginning with
the latter part of the sixth clause.—Sir J. PAKINGTON
moved that the professor separately elected should
always be chosen from among the professors of theology.
—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to
this amendment, which was negatived.—Sir J. PAKINGTON
then moved that the six members of convocation
should be elected, not by the Congregation, but by the
convocation.—Lord J. RUSSELL said the object of this
amendment was to exclude from the bill the body called
the Congregation, proposed by the government. The
question, therefore, was whether it was desirable to
have a body resident in Oxford, conversant with teaching,
which he thought a very important part of the
measure.—The committee divided, when the amendment
was negatived by 192 to 176.—On the motion of
Sir W. HEATHCOTE, the words "and the Vice-
Chancellor, or his deputy, shall be the president of such
Hebdomadal Council" were added to the clause. The
9th clause, empowering the council to appoint
committees, was struck out. Upon reaching the 11th
clause, the chairman was ordered to report progress.

On Friday, May 5, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
stated, in answer to an inquiry by Mr. Labouchere,
that the arrangements with regard to the Civil Service
required a good deal of attention, and he was of opinion
that there would be no prospect, if a bill were introduced
for improving the condition of that service, that
it could pass during the present year. It was not,
therefore, his intention to bring in a bill upon that
subject this session. With respect to the superannuation
fund, the act, he thought, would admit of material
amendment, and he reserved to himself the liberty of
submitting, at any time during the present or the
succeeding session, a measure upon that part of the
question.

Sir J. GRAHAM said, in reply to Mr. French, that the
Admiralty had received a telegraphic message from our
consul at Varna, stating that the combined fleet had
Bombarded the Outer Mole of Odessa; that all the land
batteries of the outer mole had been destroyed, and the
ships lying in the outer mole, and that the loss of the
combined fleet had been comparatively small—10 killed
and 18 wounded.

The house having resolved itself into a committee of
supply, Sir J. GRAHAM proposed a considerable Addition
to the Navy Estimates already Voted. He reminded
the committee that, when those estimates were
proposed, war had not been declared, and that
circumstances were now altered. He assumed, he said, that
the war was necessary; that, having engaged in the
war, it was expedient to conduct it with vigour, in the
hope of bringing it to a speedy and successful conclusion;
and, lastly, that the servants of the crown should be
entrusted with the money voted by the house for that
purpose. He then went through the items of the
several heads of service, giving full explanations
respecting each, especially the largest vote, for the
transport service, amounting to £3,096,700. The
remaining votes for the additional effective naval service
were, in the aggregate, £1,457,031; making a total
addition to the estimates already voted of £4,553,731.
Sir James Graham concluded his remarks by suggesting
to the committee the moral effect which would be
produced by unanimity upon such an occasion. He then
moved the several notes, which were agreed to
unanimously, after a long discussion, which turned principally
upon collateral topics,—the appointment of naval
cadets, and of admirals, a vindication of Admiral
Dundas, the conduct of the war with reference to
neutrals, the operations in the Black Sea, and the
general finances of the country.