wished to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet opposite. As the Government had refused to postpone the second reading of this bill, he wished to know whether they would enforce the production of papers relative to the working of the law in Ireland, and with respect to which a motion had been made by an Irish Peer in the other House three months ago; and a motion to the same effect had been made in that House more than six weeks ago. It was to be wished that the House should have the opportunity of possessing the information to be gained from these papers.

replied, that he had no power to enforce the production of those papers. In consequence of the motion that had been made, he had directed inquiries into the subject, and found that the Poor-law Commissioners were making every effort for the production of those papers, but the returns were most voluminous, and had not yet been completed. He assured the hon. Gentleman that there had been no intentional delay in any quarter.

had a question to put to the right hon. Baronet relative to the detention of Don Carlos in France. A question had been asked on this subject in the French Chambers, and the difference of treatment pointed out which Was experienced by Queen Christina and Don Carlos. From the answer of the French minister, it seemed to be implied that there was no intention on the part of the French government of liberating Don Carlos. The question he had now to put was, whether her Majesty's Government, observing the position of that illustrious personage, had the intention of interfering, by friendly mediation, to obtain his liberation.

intended to answer the question without reference to what might have passed in the French Chambers, and of which he could have no cognisance. His answer was for the House of Commons. He had already given, about three weeks ago, all the information on this subject it was in his power to afford. He had undertaken to say, on the part of the British Government, that they had no wish that Don Carlos should be subject to any restraint whatever; but that considering what had passed relative to that prince, and what might be the consequence to Spain, they could not consent to an unlimited liberation of Don Carlos. What had passed and what might be apprehended, justified, he thought, the British Government and the French government in imposing the present restrictions upon Don Carlos. He was quite sure that if an efficient guarantee for the future could be given, there would be no objection on the part of the French government to release Don Carlos; but they could not forget what had passed, and the consequence was that they could not consent to his unconditional liberation.

moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Marriages and Divorces Bill.

said, the hon. and learned Member had not stated any reason to induce the House to agree to his motion.

said, the House was aware that at present suits for divorce were carried on in the various provincial courts, subject to appeal to the courts at York and Canterbury. Now, with the exception of London, those courts were totally unsuited to the trial of such questions. The judges were wholly unqualified; they were unassisted by a bar, and consequently there was little chance of justice being obtained. Then the expense of the present mode of proceeding was enormous. In one case, which was first tried at the Court of Wells, and in which the suitor was poor, the expense was upwards of 1,500l., all of which ultimately fell on the suitor, in consequence of the adulterer becoming an outlaw and insolvent. Under the present law of divorce, three steps were necessary before a divorce was complete—first, a suit at common law; second, an appeal to the ecclesiastical tribunal; and third, a bill in Parliament. His object was to have a new court appointed with judges nominated by the Crown, which should be empowered to try the case, and grant a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, which was the law of every Protestant country but this. He concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time.

seconded the motion with much pleasure; and did so because of the injustice and expense of the present system. The cost of a divorce à vinculo matrimonii was about 800l.; in Mr. Mit-ford's case, it had been upwards of 900l. Thus, a poor man had not the possibility of procuring a divorce. The Cost of a divorce in the Court of Session in Scotland was not more than 30l., and in some cases not more than 20l.; and the poor man was not, therefore, precluded from seeking it: and he did not see why they should not seek to assimilate the law. He thought the present bill founded in justice, and therefore cordially supported it.

said, the bill was in direct contradiction to the reports of the ecclesiastical commissioners. He had understood that the bill was not to extend to divorce a vinculo matrimonii, or he should not have consented to its introduction. The hon, and learned Member had quoted no authority whatever in support of the bill. The bill was at variance with every other bill which had been introduced on the subject, and proposed, "at one fell swoop, to destroy all the spiritual jurisdiction of the archbishops and bishops. He believed also that the bill had been prepared without consultation with any of the ecclesiastical or legal authorities. Besides, it was different in its provisions from the bills of Lords Campbell and Cottenham. Under all these circumstances, he felt bound to oppose its further progress, and he should therefore move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.