3131'hatts not 1Srortthing5 Ill arliamtut.

HOUSIE OF LORDS. Monday, June 17.—Excise and Stamps Bill read a second time

— East India Loan Bill read a first time.

— Greenwich Hospital Bill reported—Excise and Stamps Bill committed.

Thursday, June 20.—No sitting; Ascension Day. Friday, June 21.—Indian Loan Bill read a second time—Indian Navy ; Lord El- lenboiough's Question.

rtuoxs, Monday, J

Houss OF Coune 17.—Appropriation of Seats Bill in Committee — Surveyors of Counties (Ireland) Bill in Committee—Criminal Law Consolidation Bills read a third time and passed. Tuesday, June 18.—(Morning sitting) jlarbonrs Bill in Committee—(Evening al t- ting) Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein; Lord Robert Montague's Motion "Count out." Wednesday, June 19.—Window Cleaning Bill thrown out—Church Rates Abolition; Sir J. Trelawney's Bill lost on the third reading by the Speaker's casting vote. Thursday, June 20.—Case of Mr. King Harmer; Sir G. Lewis's Explanation—East India Council Bill committed—New Provinces (New Zealand) Bill read a second time. Friday, June 21 (Morning sitting).—Harbours Bill in Committee. (Evening sit-. ting)—San Domingo; Mr. Forster's Question—Indian Army; Colonel Sykes's Question. REJECTION OF THE CHURCH RATES BILL.

The Wednesday sitting was devoted to a debate on the Church Rates Abolition Bill. Them was a very full attendance, and the in- terest was excited at the close by a vote in which an equal number were for and against the bill. Sir Jonx Tazitewbry moved that the bill should be read a third time. He denied that the abolition of the church rates was a special case, and was not necessarily connected with the object of the Libera- tion Society.

With regard to the plans which had been proposed to exempt dissenters, and even churchmen in district churches, from the payment of church rates, there were as many originating with the Opposition as on his side of the House ; and, in fact, compulsory payment of church rates had now no advocates. He had made many efforts to bring about a compromise between the contending parties on this question, but he did not see how any compromise could succeed, as the old question of principle would remain. Many churchmen had come over to his side, and notably he could mention Mr. Bennett. He was prepared to take issue on the question that the nationality of the Church would not be destroyed by the abolition of church rates. He was inclined to think that this would be the last time that House would be called on to decide on this question ; fur if the measure was rejected now, he believed that it would be handed over to the secular arm for settlement. Mr. COLLIER, in seconding the motion, referred to the notice of an amendment which had been given by Mr. Sotheron-Esteourt for a compromise, and stated that he did not consider the right hon. gentle- man's proposition contained the elements of a satisfactory settlement of the question. In point of fact, his plan would altogether change the nature of the law, as it would impose a tax upon the land, leviable upon the owner, irrespective of the residence or non-residence of the tenant. It would destroy the power of self-taxation exercised by the vestry, and transfer it to the churchwardens. In fact, it would be a great innovation upon the constitution of the country ; and he believed that, instead of putting an end to litigation, it would increase it ten- fold.

Mr. SorwEnow-Ewrcounr, after replying to the objections offered by Mr. Collier to his proposed scheme, said he objected to Sir J. Trelawny's bill on two main grounds.

In the first place, it prohibited parishioners from exercising a mode of local self-government coeval with the earliest period of our legislation, putting an end to an old common law right. This was an inherent vice of the bill. 'Jr hen, in the next place, the bill, in its present stage, stood in the way of a practical solu- tion of the question, precluding every attempt at compromise, and shutting the door against an amicable arrangement, which it was desirable to keep open to the last. Without discussing the scheme be had offered ineffectually as a compro- mise, he adverted to what he considered to be the principle upon which an arrangement should be based. The only safe course was to depart as little as possible from the old principle of church rate. Allow every man to exempt him- self personally from an obligation to support a church of which lie was not a member, and adopt this principle in the form least offensive. The bill now before the House prevented any such arrangement and all mutual concessions; it was,. therefore, better that it should be stopped, and he moved to defer the third reading for three months.

This amendment was seconded by Lord ROBERT CECIL, who con- gratulated Sir J. Trelawny upon his having disconnected himself from the Liberation Society, the object of which was the destruction of the Church of England. He denied that this bill was one of liberty or of enfranchisement ; it was, he said, a bill of disfranchisement and of pains and penalties. Mr. HARVEY LEWIS, in a maiden speech, supported the bill. He believed, he said, that a conscientious principle was involved in this question ; but in voting for the bill, he was convinced that it would confer a great boon upon the Church of England, which ought to live in the hearts and affections of the people, and never could, so long as they were vexed by the miserable bickerings caused by church rates. Mr. Cnoss thought there could be no compromise until Sir John Tre- lawny's bill was defeated, and would therefore oppose it. Sir GEORGE Lxwis observed that the objection to church rates was a conscientious objection, which he believed to be sincere, and it was impossible to offer a valid argument against a conscientious objection. On the other hand, it was urged that by the abolition of church rates the essence of an Established Church would be annihilated. This ob- jection, he thought, after what had been done in Ireland, had not sufficient weight. He was prepared to vote for the third reading of the bill.

At the same time, he was quite ready to enter into a discussion of other pro- posals. His objection to the proposal of ED. Cross was that it would reduce church rate to a voluntary contribution, depriving it of the character of a rate, the principle of which was, that it should be general and compulsory, while it would concede the whole doctrine upon which the bill was founded. " If this bill is pasted in its.present form, conscious as I am that in the great majority of parishes, including nearly the whole of the rural parishes, a church rate is made by general consent, I am not prepared to say that that would be a satisfactory state of the law, or one that could remain for any long time. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Gentlemen opposite have seen various plans proposed. Perhaps they will allow me to state my plan. (Load Opposition cheers.) I am not at all sanguine that it will be favourably receives by any considerable number of gentlemen opposite, but still I will take the liberty to state it. The objection I have to the plan of the hon. member for Preston is, that it starts with the as- sumption that every occupier in a parish is a member of the Established Church, and pats upon those who are not members of the Established Church the obliga- tion of keeping their names off the list of ratepayers. I-would proceed in a reverse direction. I would begin by laying the charge on those who are members of the Charch, and who testify their membership by attendance at a place of worship. I know the objection there is to the principle of pew-rents; but 1 cannot admit that the objection has much weight in it, except what may be derived from accidental associations. We know that pew-rents are paid to a great extent in the metropolitan churches; in fact, a large majority of them are maintained in this manner, and so also are the district churches in the country. But gentlemen seem to think that there is something objectionable in the name of pew-rents, and that they are unworthy of the character and position of an Established Church. It seems to me that a list should be made of persons attending the church and forming the coogregation in each pariah, and that there should be a power of imposing a compulsory rate upon them. I cannot see that this proposal is open to objection. There would be no ticketing of Dis- senters, and I believe the system would work harmoniously in rural parishes, and provide a sufficient fund for the maintenance of the fabric of the church. I am quite aware that gentlemen opposite will think this an insufficient plan; but I mention it as my contribution to the list of suggestions that are being made, and I trust the House will give me credit in making it for a sincere desire to bring about a practit al settlement of this important question."

Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the bill. Mr. Burrox urged the Govern- ment to devise some plan daring the recess on the basis laid down by Mr. Estcourt.

Mr. BRIGHT, having rallied Mr. Buxton on the easy way in which he had been caught, expressed himself against the compromises which had been proposed ; but he thought that those propositions showed that some progress had been made in reference to the vexed question of church rates; for it was admitted that only churchmen should pay those rates. None of the compromises which had been got up. had succeeded ; and the reason was that they did not hit the real point— that is, they did not get rid of the appearance of legal supremacy in churchmen over dissenters in this matter. He had his plan, and that was to trust to a purely optional rate, which might be levied by the existing machinery, only abolishing the legal compulsion to pay. If it was proposed that the present bill should pass with a provision that it should not come into operation for three or five years, he believed that such a proposition would not be rejected by the advocates of the abolition of the church rates.

Mr. HUBBARD could not get a hearing, but the House listened to a short speech from Mr. STANSPELD. He viewed the question as one of policy rather than of principle, as he held that the principle had been conceded, and that the method of abolition was the only point remaining to be solved. The conviction to which he had arrived was that the opponents to church rates had been making claims upon the Church, each one of which, if conceded, would be a weapon taken from the hands of those who might be expected to seek her destruction; while the policy of churchmen was calculated unnecsarily to raise a question which had not been raised, namely, the separation of Church and State. All schemes of compromise were, in hiaaminion, mischievous, if not impossible, and he for one would bet himself against them. Mr. WHITESIDE called upon the Secretary of State to give the House an opportunity of considering the various suggestions which had been made for a compromise, and not to go into the lobby with Sir John Trelawny, and so preclude the House from an amicable adjustment of the question. The call for a division now became loud and general. The SPEAKER

having put the question, the "Ayes" and "Noes" were enunciated with nearly equal volume. The " Noes," however, prevailed. The Speaker declared the " Noes" had it. A number of members on the Minis- terial side exclaimed, " The Ayes ' have it ;" whereupon the House divided, the "Ayes" proceeding to the right, the " Noes" to the left. As soon as the members voted they proceeded to resume their places in the House ,• and so great was the anxiety to hear the numbers, that every seat and the main entrance up to the bar were crowded. The tellers for both sides having completed their tale and entered the House from opposite lobbies, to hand in the numbers to the clerk at the table, at precisely the same moment—a very unusual circumstance, indicating that the division must have been extremely close—increased the excitement, which had now become very general. When the teller for the " Ayes" (Sir John Trelawny) received the numbers from the clerk to announce them to the House—a duty always assigned to the teller of the majority—the impression was that, of course, the third reading of the bill had been carried., and a loud triumphant shout immediately arose from the Ministerial benches, which for some time prevented the declaration of the numbers. The numbers were :

Ayes ......274 Bees . . . • . . 274

The announcement was received with loud resonant cheers from both sides. The excitement which had prevailed now became still more intense to know on which side the Speaker would give his cast- ing vote.

The SPEAKER gave his decision, and the reasons for it, amid pro- found silence. He said : " If the equality of voices had arisen in an earlier stage of the bill, I should have had no difficulty in the course to be pursued; because, guided by a rule which has been established by many able men who have preceded me in this. chair, I should have desired so to vote as to give the House another opportunity of deciding the question for itself, rather than to have taken that decision into. my own hands. But that rale does not now prevail on the third reading of a bill. We have now reached the third rending of this bill, and I find that the House. hesitates, and is unable to express a decision or to give any determination whe- ther this law shall stand or shall be changed. As far as I can collect the opinion of this House from the course of the debate, I think the general opinion of the House is in favour of some settlement of this question different from that which. is contained in this bill—(Loud Opposition cheers)—and I think I shall best dis- charge my duty by leaving to the future and deliberate determination of tide. House whether a change in the law should be made, if the House should think right so to do, rather than by taking upon myself the responsibility of that change. I therefore give my voice with the Noes.' (Loud am/ continued cheering from the Opposition benches.)

The third reading of the bill was accordingly negatived.

EAST INDIA COUNCIL BILL.

The House went into Committee on the East India Council Bill on Thursday, and nearly the whole of a long sitting was occupied with a very detailed debate on its clauses. A great variety of amendments were moved. On clause 2, Mr. AYR'rON proposed an amendment, the effect of which was to revive an act establishing separate governors at Calcutta and Agra. To improve administration in India, there should be district governments of limited extent. The management of the affairs of India should not be concentrated in Calcutta. Bengal and the North-West Provinces stand more in need of a distinct adminis- tration than Bombay and Madras. What he appeared to desire was that Governors of Bengal and the North-West should be appointed by the Home Government, and sent direct from this country. Sir CHARLES WOOD said he had scarcely been able to collect the object of the amendment. There has been a fixed Lieutenant. Governor for many years in Bengal, and now there is to be a separate legislative organization there. The bill would do what Mr. Ayrton proposed, with the difference that Mr. Ayrton wished to send out a governor from home, instead of taking one from the civil service. That is an inconsiderable difference. Sir Charles approves of separate local administration, but is not prepared to establish in Bengal and the North-Western Provinces governors- on the footing of those; in Bombay and Madras. Mr. H. SEYMOUR said that power exists under the act of 1853 to create new presidencies. Mr. W. E. FORSTER said that if power did not exist, the requisite authority should be given. It would be a great benefit if the Government at home were able to appoint a Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. Lord STANLEY deprecated any hasty decision of so important a question in a thin House, especially as neither the Governor-General nor the Home Council had discussed it. Mr. BRIGHT advised Mr. Ayrton not to press his- amendment.

What Mr. Bright would suggest was that power should, by means of the bill, be given to the Governor-General to establish that same kind of government in. Bengal which existed in Bombay and Madras, when a convenient opportunity for doing so arrived. As to the office of Governor-General itself, he would simply say that he was not in favour of such functionaries in India, believing them, as he did, to be, generally speaking, great nuisances; but if it were deemed necessary that there should be a Governor-General, he might, he thought, be located in some place more central, more healthy, and where he would be less likely to interfere with the population of the Presidency of Bengal, than Calcutta.

Mr. Ayrton adopted the advice of Mr. Bright, and withdrew his motion.

On clause 3, Mr. H. SEYMOUR desired to make it merely permissive;. and not compulsory, to add one member to the Council of Calcutta. But the proposal found no supporters ; Sir Cr/Au:LES WOOD and Mr. BRIGHT both agreeing that five members were not too many. Amendment withdrawn. Mr. TORRENS moved to omit the words empowering the appointment of the Commander-in-Chief as an extraordinary member of Council. This also failed to attract any support. Mr. H. SEYMOUR moved an amendment making it imperative that one of the members should be a "practising barrister" of ten years' standing, or practising Scotch advocate. This was much contested. Mr. Biuurrr and Lord STANLEY objected to the word "practising," and to the term of stand- ing, ten years; but there seemed to be a general opinion that the words of the clause should be more precise. Sir Cu.sarzs WOOD undert ok to meet the objections on the report; so the amendment was withdrawn, and the clause agreed to.

On clause 10, providing that the Governor-General shall nominate not less than six nor more than twelve additional members of Council, Mr. laxann moved that not less 'than one-fourth should be natives of

India. Colonel Svxxs and Mr. BUXTON objected. Sir CHARLES Wool) said he could not agree to making any legal. distinctions. Mr. BRIGHT thought it not desirable to defiue the portion of power to be given to either race. He should be quite satisfied if the right honourable gentleman, when these Councils were formed, would express his opinion to the Government of India as to the employment of natives in them, because if such a recommendation were once given to the Government by the Secretary of State, a practice would be set up. and a precedent established, without putting words into the act to which there might be some real objection.

With which suggestion Sir CHARLES Woon concurred. Mr ATRTON would prefer to leave it to the Governor-General to take measures ap- propriate to the circumstances. Lord STANLEY counselled a with- drawal of the amendment as inexpedient, but Mr. H. SEYMOUR pleaded for a division.

Mr. Layard, however, withdrew the amendment.

On clause 11, Mr. VeNsitrauT said that the effect of appointing non-official members of the Council for only a year would be to render them mere dummies. With the view of infusing a little independence into the Council, he moved an amendment to the effect that five years should be substituted for one year as the term of office of non-official members.

Mr. Baton said that every element of independence appeared to be carefully excluded from the Council. The clause, he believed, would impair the independence and efficiency of non-official members, while it would render it difficult to get good men for the situation, and still more to retain them. He thought, however, that five years would be somewhat too long a term of office, and that it would be better to fix it at three years. °Ile suggested that the hon. member should alter his amendment accordingly.

Lord STANLEY said that three things were required in a member of any legislative body—independence, experience, and zeal and in- terest in the public service. Under this clause none of these_quali- fications would be obtained. Who would take a seat in that House for only twelve months? If they wanted Europeans, men of wealth and position, to give up their occupations and devote themselves to the transaction of public business, they must hold out to them some better prospect than that of a year's seat in this Council, with the chance of the almost ignominy of a removal at the end of that period. It was also worth considering whether the Government might not find it more difficult to get rid of a member of Council appointed for this short period than they would do if the appointment was extended. If the members were appointed for only oneyear it would probably become the practice to reappoint them, while if they sat foi five, four, or three years,, it would he understood that they had no claim to be appointed. again.

Sir C. Woon said that this clause had been founded nponan opinion expressed by Lord Canning that this Council ought to be capable of being assembled for business in places other than Calcutta, and that to obtain that object the ap- pointment of members, not ex oft& members, should be for a period of not more than two years; perhaps, he added, that a single year would be better. The European members of the Council would, probably, be great merchants or great planters in the neighbourhood of Calcutta, such men as the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce at Calcutta, or of the Planters' Association. It could not be expected that persons so engaged in business would sacrifice any very large portion of their time to the public service, and he was therefore afraid that if these appointments were made for so long a period as five or three years, many men who were well fitted to be members of this Council would be deterred from accepting seats in it. Mr. BRIGHT said that the right hon. baronet's motion as to what this Council was to be was different from that of the committee generally. This proposition that the Governor-General should move his Council about in order to get now a talookdar from Oude, and then an influential native of the country near Delhi as a member of it, was a most ludicrous one. What ought to be done was, that the Council should sit at the seat of Government, and that the Governor-General should, when he travelled, take the advice of the talookdar of Oude, or the land- owner in the Punjaub, as he had no doubt been doing during his recent progress. On a question of this kind the right hon. gentleman ought not to allow himself to be wholly guided by Lord Canning's opinion, valuable as he admitted it to be in many instances. After a long discussion, the period was fixed at "two years " instead of' one.

On clause 19. a debate arose upon a remark by Mr. W. E. FORSTER, in favour of publicity of debate. Sir CHARLES Woon said that open debate would be the rule, but precautions must be taken, as the publication of speeches would lead to misunderstandings. 'Publicity should be modified to a certain extent. Mr. H SEYMOUR was for the fullest publicity. Mr. BRIGHT contended for the relaxa- tion of the stringency of the clause. No motion was made. On clause 30, Mr. VANSITTART moved that the additional members to the local Councils should be appointed for five years. Negatived by 66 to 60. The words " two years" were inserted in place of one year.

The bill passed through committee.

THE VACANT SEATS BILL.

Almost the whole of the sitting of the House of Commons on Monday evening was occupied with a desultory debate in committee on the Apprepriation of Seats Bill.

The discussion began upon clause 3, from which the words " Chelsea and Kensington" had been struck out. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE wished to know what the Government would substitute in the place of those words ; what proposal would they support? For his part, he moved that the word "Burnley" should be inserted in the clause. Sir GEORGE LEWIS, defending the bill, said the Government could not support this motion, because, though Burnley is an increasing place, yet'it is in North Lancashire, and on the border of -South Lancashire, and two seats had been given to the cotton districts already. Mr. SCULLY here interposed with a plea for the county of Cork, and amused the committee by a discursive speech on the inadequacy of the Irish representation ; but the chairman decided that he could not move the insertion of the words " county of Cork." Thereupon Mr. AYRTON moved that the chairman should report progress, and said he would persist in the motion unless the Government stated distinctly what they would do. Thus challenged, Sir GEORGE LEWIS said the Government intended to support the motion of Mr. Knig,iitley_or Lord Eufield in favour of giving a third member to Middlesex. Mr. DISRAELI demanded some- thing more specific, something that would serve the House as a guide; a proposal on which he would not say that the existence of the Government ,should be staked, but which should 'be declared by the Government to be of importance to the general welfare. Lord PALMERSTON answered that Mr. Disraeli, perhaps, might have desired that the fate of the Government should have depended on the division respecting Chelsea and Kenai Eton. ("Hear, hear .P' and laughter.) The Government had said what proposition they would support, and he trusted that it would not be necessary for the Government to pur- sue the course indicated by the right hon. gentleman, and, in consider- ing the disposal of a single seat, to adopt some great comprehensive measure. ("Hear, hear!" and a lanyk.)

After some further conversation, Mr. DUNCOMBE and Mr. AIRTON withdrew their motions.

Mr. KNIGHTLEY now moved that an additional Member should be given to Middlesex. Sir JOHN PLRINGTON dissented. He was in favour of dividing the West Riding, and giving it two members. Mr. DISRAELI backed up his colleague on the Opposition benches, and on a division Mr. Knightley.(who also sits on the Conservative side) was de- feated by 236 to 186. The clause having become " unintelligible," by dint of mutilation, was omitted altogether.

On clause 4, giving a member to Birkenhead, Lord Pta.sintsrom suggested that the committee should adopt the clause at once, and then the Government would support a motion to give four members to the West Riding of Yorkshire. Mr. COCHRANE, Mr. Sriamito, Mr. C. BRUCE, and other Scotch members, urred the adoption of some policy which would be juster to their country. Mr. DISRAELI was for reporting progress, and the debate went on for a long time in a very desultory fashion. At length the committee divided, and adopted the clause by 163 to 26. The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

The Bsturiturrev Bus, The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill was read a third time and passed in the House of Lords on Tuesday; but not without a short debate.

Lord BROUGHAM remarked that although the bill did not contain all that some people might. wish to find, still it would be a most valuable measure, and he hoped it would be accepted by the other House. The Earl of Deasy said he, too, hoped the bill would pass into law in the present year.

Time tall had received most considerable care and attention from the House of Commons and the committee, and although all the amendments might not be approved of, they deserved the greatest consideration. The bill had come down from the select committee with considerable alterations, but without any inter- ference with its main principles. The first of these was the amalgamation of the bankruptcy, the abolition of the distinction between traders and non-traders, and the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy over county courts. On these three points the bill had ems back from the committee without material alterations. It appeared to him that a useless expenditure would be incurred in the appointment of a chief judge, and another provision calculated to lead to additional expenses was the employment of a shorthand writer to the court. With regard to all the amendments made in committee, they bad been adopted by a considerable majority, and many of them without a division, even of voices. When the bill came back from the select committee, the noble earl opposite (Earl. Granville) professed himself ready to accept the amendments. An amendment had been proposed in their lordships' House which prevented the retrospective operation of the law on persons who were non-traders, and that had been carried. He had, however, heard some words from the hon. and learned gentleman (the Attorney-General), who was the main author of the bill, which made him appre- hensive that the amendments made by the committee would be met by the House of Commons in a hostile spirit, and what he would ask the noble lord now was, whether the Government would use their influence with their colleagues in the other House to obtain the assent of that House to the amendments. He hoped the Government would be prepared to say that they would accept the bill as it stood, and that they would recommend it as it stood to their colleagues in the other Hcuse, or that if not the noole lord would now give them the assurance that it would be brought up in sufficient time to enable this House to agree to the alterations which might be made after a full and fair discussion.

Earl GRANVILLE said he still thought that no great advantage was gained by referring the bill to a select committee; at the same time he admitted that the committee had acted fairly.

Lord Derby, he added, had called upon him to state that the Government would adopt the bill as it stood, and that they would press it upon the House of Commons for their acceptance ; and further, that if not it should be sent up in time to ensure full discussion by their lordships. The noble earl had stated that her Majesty's Government had accepted the alterations made by the committee ; but the Government had accepted them only so far that they had not thrown up the bill, with the alterations, and it was quite competent to any one to reopen the question ; and although the Government was most anxious that a bill of this importance should pass, he was unable to give the noble earl the assurance which he sought Lord OVERSTONE, Lord LYVEDEN, and Lord CRANWORTH also ex- pressed an earnest hope that the bill would have the real and cordial support of the Government in the House of Commons.

THE Perm. TEMPOS ALTTIFS Mr. GRIFFITH asked Lord John ltussell whether he had received any account that the Senator Heckeren had lately arrived at Paris from Vienna as the bearer of a secret and confidential proposition from the Emperor Francis Joseph to the Emperor Napoleon, to the effect that the two emperors would co-operate to form an independent. army for the protection of the temporalities of the Pope, and would engage to prevent Piedmont from entering the States of the Church And whether a letter published as from Baron Ricasoli was authentic, in which, without denying the report, he was stated to say, " I am confident we shall checkmate all intrigues : my inflexibility and calm- ness are equal to the right which I defend ?" Lord JOHN RUSSELL Said "The Foreign-office have received no information with regard to the subject of the honourable gentleman's two questions ; but I should. not be giving him a complete answer it' I were nut to state that we have received a commuLication from tile French ambassador in London, to the effect that a proposal has been made to the French Government by the Austrian and by the Spanish ambassadors in Paris, proposing in general terms that the Human Catholic Powers should act in concert with regard to the temporalities of the Pope. Thero was no mention of armies, or of protecting the temporalities by arms. It was a general proposition, and that general proposition was answered in the negative by the Government of France. (Cheers.) 1 nary add that the ground upon which that proposition was refused was because an arrangement with regard to the temporalities of the Pope was settled at Vienna by Great Britain, krussia, and Sa eden, as well as by the Burnett Catholic Powers." COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL—On the order for.eommittiug this bill, .31r. ScuLLY moved as an amendment that the House should resolve itself into committee on that day three months. The object of the bill was to give permissive power to grand juries in Ireland to increase the salaries of, and grant superannuation allowances to, county surveyors, and augment the remuneration of their assistants or deputies. In the course of the discussion which ensued the bill was defended by Mr. CARDWELL upon the ground that the present rate of remuneration was inadequate, and that the measure had been introduced upon the urgent representations of a large section of the Irish members. On the other hand, the opponents of the bill contended that it would open the door to charging the cess with a heavy and constantly growing burden ; that the duties of county surveyor were efficiently performed at present, and that a reform of the Irish grand juries ought to precede any of extension of their taxing powers. Upon a division, Mr. Scully's amendment was negatived by 152 to 59. The House then went into committee, and progress was made with the bill. GREENWICH HOSPITAL.—On the motion for going into committee on the Go- vernment Hospital Bill, some objections were raised to its provisions by the Earl of HARDwICKE. The Duke of SoMERSET explained that the only purpose of the bill was to put the hospital and its funds under a better system of management, to reduce the expenses, and increase the benefits to the invalid seamen. The Earl of DERBY said that the main weakness of the bill was that it did not suffi- ciently distinguish between the management of the estates and the internal management. He suggested that the advowsons belonging to the le aphids should be sold, and the proceeds devoted to the establishment. The hill then passed through committee, after a brief discussion. CONSUL AT Pesni.—Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Foreign Secretary whether, as the British Government had no consul or consular agent at Peath, they were not deprived of sources of official information from that city ; and whether, for the improvement of our commercial relations, as well as to obtain trustworthy in- formation from that country, it was the intention of Government to appoint a consul there. Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that there was not sufficient com- mercial intercourse with Pesth to justify the appointment of a consul. THE CASE OF MR. HARNUOL—Mr. LAWSoN asked the Secretary of State for

the Home Department whether it was true that Mr. King Harmer was on the 12th of June committed to the House of Correction for ten days, but was liberated by a warrant from the Home-office before the expiration of his sentence, and con- trary to the advice and opinion of the committing magistrate ; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department had any objection to state to the House the grounds on which he recommended her Majesty to exercise her pre- rogst ive of pardon?

Sir G. LEWIS said it was not usual to inquire what were the grounds on which a recommendation was made to the Crown for the exercise of prerogative, and he was very reluctant to enter fully on any question of this nature. He would, however, state to the House that Mr. Harmer was brought before a magistrate in London, charged with having crested a disturbance in Cremorne Gardens on the night of the Derby. He was fined by the magistrate after a remand of a week, had having been refused, which led to his imprisonment for five days. The magistrate then required that a second information should be laid against Mr. Harmer on account of what was substantially the same transaction, fur resistance to the police. The police did not think that that was necessary, as there was no question of any violence having been used or blow struck in rescuing the man from their hands. A second information was, however, laid, and the magistrate sentenced Mr. Harmer to ten days' imprisomnent. Application was made to him on account of what was held to be the unnecessary severity of the sentence. It appeared to him that after Mr. Harmer had undergone two days' imprisonment the justice of the case was sufficiently met, and Ile therefore affected him to be liberated.

COUNT OLD.—Lord ROBERT MONTAGU moved, on Tuesday, that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to take such measures as may be necessary to prevent any foreign interference with the ancient hereditary right of succession in the kingdom of Denmark and the Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein. The noble lord complained that the Danes were attempting to crush the German element in the Duchies contrary to the rights of the people. He argued that Schleswig and Holstein were connected together from the earliest times, and that there had been a systematic intrigue for many years past to separate the Duchies, or, as the phrase went, to preserve the integrity of the Danish monarchy. The noble lord was proceeding to give an historical narrative of the connexion between the Duchies, when a motion was made to count the House, and forty members not being present We House stood adjourned.