and honour of the house, and the provisions required
great caution and deliberation.—This motion was
seconded by Mr. Deedes, and opposed by Lord J.
Russell, who said its adoption would be equivalent to
postponing the measure until another session, since the
bills would not come back from the select committee
before May or June.—Mr. Walpole thought, on the
whole, it was not advisable to send the bills to a select
committee.—Mr. Phinn supported the motion for a
reference, observing that not fewer than ten statutes
were wholly, or in part, repealed by the bribery bill, and
portions, upon which difficult questions had arisen, were
incorporated in it—a process demanding careful
consideration.—The motion for reference to a select
committee, upon a division, was negatived by 146 to 76,
and the house thereupon went into committee on the bill.
Two of the clauses occupied the entire evening, and the
chairman was ordered to report progress.

On Tuesday, April 4, Mr. Fagan moved for leave to
bring in a bill to make provision for the better government
of the University of Dublin. He dwelt at some
length upon the large revenues of that establishment,
and their appropriation among officials, and not for the
benefit of students, and especially objected that the
advantages of the university were reserved for
protestants, Roman catholics being excluded therefrom.
He contended that this state of things was
not what was designed by the founder, Queen Elizabeth;
but, while he admitted the right of the protestants to
retain Trinity college, he proposed that, in pursuance of
the act of Charles II., chap. 2, a second college should
be established, to be called the Queen's college, and to
extend to students of all religious denominations the
honours and advantages of such second college. Among
the instances of the bad working of the present system
he described it as operating to promote apostacy from
Roman catholicism.—Mr. Hamilton opposed the
motion, maintaining that the chief merit of the
university was its protestant character, and that it had
been expressly founded by a protestant sovereign for the
education of protestant clergy. He defended the
university, showed what it had done and would do, and
denied that there was any excluding test except for
candidates for divinity degrees. After a debate, in
which the motion was supported by Mr. Hume and
Mr. Fitzgerald, and opposed by Sir J. Young, Mr.
Whiteside, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Butt, it was negatived
without a division.

Mr. Bowyer moved for leave to bring in a bill to
Amend the Law regarding Actions for Criminal
Conversation, and the protection of women in such actions.
He began by explaining the English law on the subject,
which, he said, differed from the jurisprudence of all
other nations, and after giving Blackstone's definition
of it, he reminded the house that during the Commonwealth,
adultery was made felony, an enactment afterwards
repealed. The difference referred to was
presumptive evidence that our law was wrong. The
law of our own church and that of the Roman catholic
church was against it, and foreigners constantly
reproached us with our present system, which made the
honour of a matron a thing to be valued at pounds,
shillings, and pence. He briefly dwelt upon the abuses
arising out of our crim. con. actions, which had become
an abomination to honourable men, who, however,
were compelled to bring them in order to obtain further
relief. Two courses were open to him for remedying
the law; one being to make the offence of adultery a
misdemeanor, a course which would have many
arguments in its favour, but the house would probably not
be prepared for so great a change. The other course,
and that which he proposed, was no greater than was
necessary. He proposed that no damages should be
given in future in these actions, but that, on a verdict
being given for a plaintiff, it should be lawful for the
court to impose a fine on the defendant. But it might
be a question in committee whether an indictment
should not be substituted for an action. In the next
place, he urged that, though, in these actions, the wife
was on her trial, and the question was one of her ruin,
she was not a party. The most abominable charges
might be brought against her, enforced by all the
eloquence of counsel, yet she was not allowed to call a
witness or to say a word in refutation. The husband
was often fighting only for money, or merely desired
his divorce; the defendant might not fear, or might
even be proud of an adverse verdict; but it was a
question of life and death to the impeached woman.
Nay, it might help the defendant's case to blacken the
character of the partner in his indiscretion, and
sometimes there was collusion between the parties to the
action. He took his stand on the general principle of
jurisprudence, that no person ought to be condemned
unheard, and he proposed that no action for crim. con.
should be brought without notice to the wife of the
plaintiff. She should have ten days to decide whether
she would appear or not, and if she decided that she
would, she should have the same notice of all proceedings
as the defendant. She might appear on the trial,
have witnesses and counsel, and all other advantages
the defendant possessed. She would be made in some
sort a defendant, and, if she could not clear herself,
might place her conduct in a more favourable light than
had the case been heard behind her back. Collusion
would thus be rendered more difficult. These, he said,
were the provisions of his bill, and he urgently
recommended this very grave and important subject to the
consideration of the legislature.—Mr. Cobden seconded
the motion.—Mr. Fitzroy, regretting the absence of
Lord Palmerston, said that the change proposed in the
existing law was so large that in assenting to the
introduction of the bill, government was not at all pledged
to its principles. But the state of the law was confessedly
so unsatisfactory, that it was very desirable that
the house should have an opportunity of discussing the
subject.—Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

Sir W. Smijth brought under the consideration of the
house the case of Sturgeons, the Hay Contractors,
recently accused of fraud in regard to the hay supplied
to the army, and whom Sir William declared to have
been innocent, and to have been much injured by the
imputations, and he retorted with an allegation of
mismanagement on the part of the Deptford victualling-
office and the Admiralty.—Mr. B. Osborne assented
to the production of all correspondence, but thought
that the Sturgeons' friends had better have been satisfied
with a qualified statement he had made, that he
acquitted those parties of known fraud. But, he went
into details to show that they had been highly blameable.
They had sent in the worst of hay of any parties,
and every bit of it—fifty-eight loads—had been sent
back. It had been foul, mouldy, and full of dust, and
utterly unfit for horses. The very officials whom Sir
William Smijth charged with mismanagement had been
the parties who exposed the culpable conduct of the
Sturgeons.—Colonel Dunne confirmed the statement
that bad hay had been supplied to the army, and he
hoped that punishment would fall on whatever party
had been guilty of the crime. He took the opportunity
of expressing a hope that it was not true, as had been
stated, that our army in the East was to be entrusted to
a Turkish commissariat.—The Secretary-at-War
stated that all due preparations had been made for the
troops, and that there was not the least reason for any
alarm on the subject.—Sir W. Smijth gave notice that
he should move for a committee on the affair of the
Sturgeons.

Sir T. Acland moved for copies of instructions issued
to the commanders of the ships engaged in the Search for
Sir John Franklin. He besought government not to send
out peremptory orders to the expedition to return until
those engaged were assured that they could do no more
towards their object.—Sir J. Graham said that, unusual
as was the course, he thought, under the peculiar
circumstances of the case, he should best consult the
feeling of the house by assenting to the production of
the instructions. He explained that he should have
failed in his duty had he not imposed some limit to the
dangerous service, which had now lasted nearly five
years. Stating in detail the conditional orders that had
been sent for the return of the ships, he added that
there could hardly be a lingering hope now left of the
safety of Sir John Franklin and his gallant companions.
—The motion was agreed to.

On Wednesday, April 5, the second reading of the
Middlesex Industrial School Bill was moved by Lord