Etitatto unit Vrortaingo in Varliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE 'WEEK.

Horn op Loans. Monday, June 7. Belfast Riots ; Lord Dungannon's Ques- tion—Non-Parochial Registers Bill read a third time and passed—Lord Kingston's Questions removed—Oaths ; Lord Lucan's and Lord Lyndhurst's Bills read a first time.

Tuesday, June 8. Stamp-duty on Passports Bill read a third time and passed— Competitive Examinations ; Lord Lyttelton's Questions and Lord Derby's Answer —The American Difficulty ; Lord Clarendon's Question and Lord Malmesbury's Answer.

Thursday, June 10. Property Qualification ; Mr. Locke King's Bill read a second time—Municipal Franchise Bill read a second time.

Friday, June 11. The Neapolitan Question ; Lord Malmesbury's Statement— Property Qualification Bill committed.

House or COMmoNs. Monday, June 7. The Indian Resolutions in Committee. Tuesday, June 8. Church-rates Abolition Bill read a third time and passed—Mr. Howard ; Mr. Fitzgerald's Explanation—The Ballot ; Mr. Berkeley's Motion nega- tived by 294 to 197.

Wednesday, June 9. Tenants' Compensation (Ireland) Bill thrown out Thursday, June 10. Persia ; Mr. Fitzgerald's Answer to Mr. Gregory—The Slave-Trade ; Lord Goderich's Question—County Franchise ; Mr. Locke King's Bill read a second time by 226 to 168—Universities (Scotland) Bill read a second time—Joint-Stock Companies Bill in Committee—Drafts on Bankers Law Amend- ment Bill read a second time.

Friday, June 11. Lord Canning's Proclamation ; Lord Stanley's Answer to Mr. Wilson—National Defences ; Sir Charles Napier's Questions—The Indian Resolu- intions in Committee.

TIME-TABLE.

THE INDIAN RESOLUTIONS.

The House of Commons went into Committee on Monday night upon the Indian resolutions ; taking up proceedings npcm the third, which provides for the appointment of a Council. Both Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Roebuck had amendments to propose.

The CHAIR3IAN called up Mr. Gladstone, but Mr. Roxnucx said when the House was last in Committee it was agreed that his amendment should have logical precedence. He proposed that there should be no Council ; and the Committee consented that by the logical mode of pro- ceeding he should have precedence. Since then Mr. Gladstone gave notice of his amendment. If the Committee desired no Council, there was an end of his proposition ; if not, then Mr. Gladstone's proposal, that the Court of Directors should be the Council, would come before them with logical correctness. He appealed to "the Chairman's head, as a logical head," to say whether his own proposal should not come first. The CHAIRMAN decided in favour of Mr. Gladstone ; but Mr. ROEBUCK persisted until reminded by Lord JOHN MANNERS that the Chairman had decided against him. GrAnsToicE contended that in point of logical order he should

Monday Tuesday Wednesday No sitting. Thursday 5117h 50m

Friday 5h 511 50m Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 7h 10in

I ,,-- Session. 61; — 120h 30m The Commons.

Hoar of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Monday 4h .(m) lh 15m Tuesday Noon .... 3h 45m

6h .(m) 1h 16m

Wednesday Noon .... 51165m

Thursday 9h. (m) lh Om Friday 4h .(121) 111 line Sittings this Week, 6; Time, 44h 25in this Session 76; — 523h 37m

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. 5h 6h 45m 6h .... 6h 45m

come first ; for, if the absolute abolition of the Court of Directors had been decided, thenit would be easy to say whether there should be a Council or no Council. But he proposed to continue the Court of Di. rectors in existence for a limited time, and that proposal it would be orderly to decide upon first. Mr. Gladstone then proceeded to argue at considerable length in favour of his proposition. He remarked, but did not lay stress on the fact, that it is late in the session. He dwelt upon the continuance of the war in India. We have passed the critical period, but if, when the House next assembles, order and tranquillity are restored, affairs will have taken a turn more fa- vourable than we have a right to anticipate. This fact has a vital bearing on the question of definitive legislation for India. The House had decided that the Government should be transferred to the Crown. He had sus. gested a mode of giving effect to that decision which would enable them to avoid compromising themselves by premature discussions. His general intention is—that we should give to the President of the Board of Control, besides the full retention of those powers which he now enjoys by law, the power of presiding over the Court of Directors, and influencing their de- liberations as chairman ; and, besides that, the power of the initiative, or preparing measures for the Court, so far as he may find it to be necessary, His other arguments were that we could not now finally and conclusively dis- pose of the question of India as " befits that question' ; that we are notable to decide what measures are best adapted for bringing forward the natives in the work of governing themselves ; that we could not deal with the ques- tion of the native army ; or the constitution of the local governments of India, how far power should be centralized, how far Governors should be independent ; or the questions arising out of Indian finance—is this the right moment for altering and reconstituting under a new Government of India, the vast Indian debt and Indian finances ? He dilated with much emphasis upon the fact that the Indian army is kept on foot without the au- thority of Parliament, that the whole management and control of the 1. nance of this army will be placed in the hands of the Crown, a dangerous extension of the power of the Crown that may injure the foundations of oar liberty at home and the privileges of Parliament. It was said that enough has been done when responsibility to Parliament has been established. " Calling to account is all very well. It is a power that I counsel the House of Commons not to surrender one tittle of, but do not let us rely upon it, when we can get something better. I should not like to give to the Crown the power of raising as many soldiers as it pleased in this counttrryy I mean by the Crown the men who sit on this [pointing to the Ministe • bench, be they whoever they may. They say, Oh, it's all right, because we are responsible to the House of Commons.' ("Hear hear I" and a laugh.) Well, I am not a jot the better satisfied with that responsibility, because the scene is in India instead of in England. There was something at least intelligible in it as long as your Indian wars were merely local wars. They have entirely ceased to bear that character. English states- men now imagine that they see British interests, European interests, world. wide interests, in the question of an India war ; and if we have arrived at the period when it is not necessary to cross the great central chains of Asia or to mount the Persian Gulf for the purpose of using the regiments of the Indian Army, then I say. we have also arrived at the period when the House of Commons should maintain the substance of its powers, and not allow them to become a shadow and a mockery. (Cheers.) It is requisite that we should proceed to apply the principles of the Bill of Rights to the system of Indian government with respect to army and finance."

Mr. Gladstone contended that these were reasons which should induce the House to refrain, for this year from attempting to accomplish the great task of definitive legislation for India. He moved-

" That regard being had to the position of affairs in India, it is expedient to con- stitute the Court of Directors of the East India Company, by an Act of the present session, to be a Council for administering the government of India, in the name of her Majesty, under the superintendence of such responsible Minister, until the end of the next session of Parliament."

Lord STANLEY made a relatively brief reply, mainly taken up with showing that Mr. Gladstone's arguments and topics of discussion had all been touched on before, and that the House had met them by an overwhelming majority in favour of legislating now. Lord Stanley did not believe there ever would be a more favourable occasion for consider- ing the subject ; and urged that if all the questions raised by Mr. Glad- stone were dealt with no measure could be passed at all. He also ob- jected that to adopt Mr. Gladstone's resolution would be to place the Court of Directors in a singularly false and inconvenient position. It tells them they are doomed, and that no efforts they may make will avail to prolong their power, and so far it would diminish their zeal and energy in business. They would be discredited in the eyes of India and of England. Mr. MONCKTON Mu .-Es stoutly defended the double government as a good government. Sir GEORGE LEWIS said the effect of Mr. Glad- stone's motion would be merely dilatory. But, if carried, the resolutions would be found to raise all the difficulties involved in the plan of the government—the patronage, the independence of the Court, the ques- tion of the Secret Committee. The resolutions of the Government do not raise any of the difficult subjects passed in review by Mr. Gladstone, and none of them need now to be raised. All that is required is to improve the home Government.

The amendment was supported by Mr. LIDDEIS., Mr. CUMECG BRUCF, Colonel_STREs, and Mr. Bovine, on the ground that if passed, it would give Parliament and the country time to reflect on the great difficulties of the question. The other side was taken by Mr. DRUMMOND, Mr. Lown, Mr. ARTHUR Mims, and Mr. SEYMOUR. If carried, no clause could be framed to carry out Mr. Gladstone's resolution. The difficulties of Indian legislation would not be lessened by adopting a makeshift for two years.

On a division the resolution was negatived by 265 to 116. Mr. ROEBUCK, with a long preface, then moved that the word "Coun- cil " should be omitted from the resolution. He glorified his own ser- vices, attacked Mr. Gladstone, Lord John Russell, and "old Indians," and contended that a Council would be "a shroud to a Minister when wrong, and a hamper to him when right." Lord STANLEY on the other hand argued that a Council is necessary to a Minister as its members would supply him with that special knowledge which he would be sure to require. They would not be more or less irresponsible than those other advisers whom the head of a department habitually consults. Without further ado the Committee negatived the amendment. Mr. LINDSAY than moved that the Court of Directors should be the Council ; but this amendment shared the fate of Mr. Roebuck's. The rest of the sitting was occupied in discussing the number of the Council. Lord PALMERSTON suggested 12 as a maximum. Lora

STANLEY adopted the suggestion. He did not think 12 a number sufficiently large, but "it is a fair number." Mr. THOMAS BARING was in favour of a larger number. Lord Joint RUSSELL joined Lord Palmer-, eton in suggesting 12. Mr. Chranse Breen came to the assistance of Mr. Baring. Mr. DISRAELI said the Government believed that business could be carried en and even Committees formed by 12 members. progress was reported before the Committee had come to any decision. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Both Houses, on Thursday, were occupied with debates on measures of parliamentary reform ; and in both Houses these measures were ad- vanced a stage.

In the House of Lords, Earl PORTESCHE moved the second reading of the Property Qualification Bill, prefaced by an explanatory speech. No once else rising, the question was put, when Earl GREY expressed his astonishment that the Government had pronounced no opinion on the subject. For his part, while he deemed that the imposition of restric- tions upon persons returned to Parliament is not an invasion of the "natural rights" of electors, he had no strong opinion against the mea- sure before the House—taken by itself. But it derives additional im- portance from the fact that there is a numerous party who desire to effect a complete revolution in our representative system, and establish an un- balanced democracy. Against the example of democracy he cited the instances of France and America. The party which desires extreme changes is hopeless of carrying them directly and openly, so it hopes to carry them in detail. That is the mode of action which is adopted, and it is, he feared, a policy which is all the more likely to prove successful, owing to the fact that, although the party by which it is adopted is at present weak in comparison with others, yet it wields a power in conse- quence of the divisions subsisting between those other parties far greater than it ought, and also owing to the circumstance that a disposition has been exhibited among the public men of various parties to bid for the support of those from whom, as a general rule, they differ on political matters, by concurring in the various measures which the party to which he referred deemed it its duty to propose. He also desired to see a well- considered revision of our representative system, but it would be impru- dent in their lordships to make concessions without knowing what con- cessions will be made on the other side.

Lord BERRY said the law at present is a delusion and a snare. He was astonished at Lord Grey's speech. The Duke of Itterhasen entered his protest against the repeal of the law.

The Earl of DERBY said that the bill was of very trifling and imma- terial importance. He agreed with Lord Grey as to the danger of the ulterior measures he had referred to, but he could not see the connexion between those measures and the bill before them. There was no neces- sity for the solemn warning the House had heard. He thought their lordships should not, for the purpose of keeping up a vain and shadowy appearance of qualification, put themselves unnecessarily in opposition to the House of Commons upon a question which materially and directly and exclusively concerns the composition of that House. But he should resist the bill for the alteration of the county franchise. The Duke of NEWCASTLE supported the bill on its merits, as a moral measure. He did not dread the passing of the bill on the ground that it would admit poor men; he should like to see all classes represented in the House of Commons ; and he thought poor men would be more inde- pendent than speculative politicians, who get themselves returned, and who support the Government for the advantages they can obtain. Earl GRANVILLE thought that there was no chance of forming a Government strong enough to carry a comprehensive Reform Bill. The feeling in the country is not strong enough to overcome the obstacles to the passing of a really great measure. But if we stand still there will be a public feeling aroused that may be used to carry dangerous measures ; and therefore he did not think it prudent to oppose bills like that before the House, on the vague notion that a larger measure may be proposed. Lord CAMPBELL supported the bill. And it was read a second time.

In the House of Commons Mr. Loosen RING moved the second reading of his County Franchise Bill. He explained that it differed from the bill of last year in this—he had adopted the exact words of the bill introduced by the Government of Lord Aberdeen ; and on that ground he claimed the support of Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, Sir Charles Wood, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Gladstone. Mr. DOCANE met the motion by the " previous question." He did not wish it to be understood .that he was opposed to any further extension of the franchise ; but he did desire that the question of Parliamentary Re- form should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. He held that the measure would substitute_ the borough for the county franchise, and aug- ment the already undue predominance of towns in county elections. He protested also against hand-to-mouth legislation, and frequent consti- tutional changes. He reminded Lord Palmerston that when the bill was introduced last year the Conservative party came to the rescue, and saved the Government from the consequences of a mutiny. And, as a Conser- vative opposition had enabled him to resist them, he hoped that Lord Palmerston would in turn enable a Conservative Ministry to "'lake a like successful resistance now. Mr. WILLIAM MILES seconded the amend- ment. Lord Derby has promised to bring in a Reform Bill next session —(Cries of "No, no !")—he understood Lord Derby's language as a pledge. The question, at all events, ought not to be treated piecemeal. The question was put, when Lord PALMERSTON said he had waited until the last moment to see what line the Government would take, but now it seemed they were to divide in ignorance of that line. He rose to answer the moving appeals made by the mover of the amendment. He was asked forsooth to give his assistance to the Government in return for the assistance said to have been afforded to him by the Conservatives.

" The honourable gentleman said that in February 18.57 there was an in- surrection and a mutiny in the ranks of those who supported the late Go- vernment, and that the Conservative party came to the rescue and afforded

them relief. No doubt that was a very charitable action. But, Sir, there was a February 1858, as well as a February. 18-57. In February 1858 there

was a mutinseand insurrection against the Government, and what did hon- ourable gentlemen opposite then do ? Did they conic to our assistance ? No, they joined the ranks of the insurgents, and overthrew the constituted

authorities. So I put February 18-58 as a set-off against. February 1857."

The bill of last year was different in title and intention from that now pro- posed. The bill of last year was intended to assimilate the borough and county franchises; the bill of this year proposes to amend the county

franc. hise- " Last Fearher Majesty's Government announced their inten- tion to propose in the present session a bill of Parliame.ntary Reform. Now, as we weeded to embrace in that bill arrangements with regard to the county franchise, we were of opinion that the Mouse ought to trust us so far as to postpone any decision relative to the county franchise last year,

and to wait until we had produced our measure. But the present Govern- ment have not pledged themselves to produce a measure of Parliamentary Reform, but only to consider the question. Consideration and procedure are, however, different things. The consideration may last a long while, and the decision may be tardy in coming." He should support the bill because he thought the county franchise should be lowered, but he must reserve his right to vote as he pleased with regard to the account of qualifi- cation for a county vote.

Mr. HENLEY criticized Lord Palmerston's speech, which did not con- tain an inkling of what he would do. As regards the bill it would be unfair to meet the question by a direct negative, when the Government is pledged to look into it with a view to a settlement, and it would be unfair to pledge the Government to a particular view. As he did not desire to affirm or negative the proposition, he should vote for the "pre- vious question."

On a division, the amendment was negatived by 226 to 168, and the bill was read a second time.

THE BALLOT.

The annual Ballot debate took place on Tuesday, and occupied the greater part of the evening sitting.

Mr. BERKELEY moved for leave to bring in a bill to enable the votes of electors in Great Britain and Ireland to be taken by way of ballot. He made a speech, in support of this motion, which Lord Palmerston after- wards described as containing a great deal of good humour and fun, but more deficient in argument than almost any of his former speeches. It went over the old ground—the experience of the ballot in Australia, the severity of the " screw " in county elections, with new illustrations de- rived from 1857, and an amusing refutation of an argument against the ballot, imputed to Mr. Sotheron Estcourt—namely, the prevalence of original sin. At the close of his speech Mr. Berkeley made an appeal to the House—

The time is approaching—it could not be distant—when they were about to enter on their great profligate saturnalia ; the orgies are in preparation, and already signs of the times are evident. Shabby-genteel men are seen at odd hours lurking about the Carlton ; and the Whig whippers-in are dili- gently looking out for a respectable gentleman to replace the highly-re- spected and much-lamented Mr. Coppook. " Men in the moon" are pre- paring to descend upon boroughs in silver moonbeams ; and the voting machines are having all their cogs and springs greased by their owners to be ready for the work. (Laughter.) The dependent may expect to be bullied, and the venal to be bought. Intimidation will stalk and drunkenness stagger through the land. He appealed, then, from the House of Commons to the independent portion of the electors of the United Kingdom, and called upon them to put their shibboleth to those who sought to be elected. Let those who could pronounce the word be returned, and those who could not be rejected, whether Whigs or Tories, and let that shibboleth be the Ballot. (Cheers.)

Mr. WYKETIAM MARTIN seconded the motion. He was not particu- larly wedded to the ballot, but he thought every Englishman should have the full power of freely exercising the suffrage. The motion was further supported by Sir ARTHUR ELTON, General THOMPSON, and Mr. AYRTON j and opposed by Mr. ESTCOERT,Mr. Horn, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Mr. MARSH, and Lord Pehmenseox. Sir GEORGE LEWIS argued that the ballot would fail, as it would not give the voter protection or enforce the secresy of the vote. In the United States practically open voting is the rule, and secret voting the exception. In this country, if canvassing were continued, voters could not conceal their votes. Lord PALMERSTON followed out the same argument, and insisted that the ballot would not prevent intimidation, nor would it pre- vent landlords from knowing how dependents voted, and punishing them for breach of promise. Publicity in voting and party spirit are essential elements of the British constitution, and these the ballot would tend to destroy. Mr. BRIGHT made the speech of the evening. He did not go into the arguments on either side, except so far as to show that the ballot would prevent bribery, and that as such it was recommended by the late Mr. Coppock. Mr. Bright spoke on the political aspect of the question, in- terspersed with such repeated and hostile allusions to "the noble lord the Member for Tiverton," that the House began to laugh at each repe- tition of the phrase. The House, Mr. Bright said, seemed to treat the ballot as a small ques- tion. That is a fatal mistake. In both counties and boroughs it is regarded as an important question, and the sign of that is that 230 Members, in a House elected to make the noble lord the Member for Tiverton dictator, had voted for the ballot. That noble lord had, on that night and on former occasions, treated the question as if it were only fit to be taken up by idiots and fools. But it is not wanted for him. It is wanted for the poor and defenceless. Out of doors the constituencies know where the shoe pinches better than that noble lord. Some years ago Lord John Russell had brought in a Reform Bill ; it did not contain the ballot, and the people repudiated a bill conferring a franchise which would only subject them to another species of degradation. A great meeting at Stockport had resolved that the franchise would be of no use without the ballot. Other reform bills had been promised. For whom were those bills to be brought in ? Not for the present constituencies, but for those since 1832, have made incessant appeals to Parliament with increasing loudness and unanimity. And it is a fact that every petition for Parliamentary Reform asks for the ballot along with it. At every public meeting—crowded by hundreds of men who understand the question as well, and who had thought of it ten times more than Lord Palmerston ever did—the ballot was the cardinal point. Was he then to be told by Lord Palmerston that the arguments for the ballot had been repeated act nauscanz ? The people are determined to have the ballot, and they know if they rap longer and louder the House will listen. The Liberal side are in a difficulty. Lord Palmerston does not show any respect for the opinions of his followers i Lord John Russell del, sires to be consistent. In the present state of things, the action bf the Members on the Liberal side and under their ancient leaders is impossible. Now is it more reasonable that these two nolikelords try to convince them- selves, or that they should ask 230 gentlemen tatiforego their opinions ? Mr. Bright ridiculed the fears of those who oppose the ballot. He had faith in the people of England ; the people look with more confidence than for- merly upon the House of Commons. He made an eloquent appeal to the House in favour of a motion demanded by the almost universal opinion of the multitude to whom the next reform bill must give the franchise.

There were two other speakers, both opposed to the motion—Mr. Walpole and Lord John Russell. Mr. Watronn said that he and his

party are not afraid of the ballot. They oppose it because it would be disadvantageous to the morality of the country, release voters from tied responsibility to which everybody should be subjected, and diminish the means of discovering and punishing corruption. Lord Tenn Rhssezz

objected to the ballot because it would fail ; he objected to try a thing that is sure to fail, and to have mischievous effects. He had con- sidered and reconsidered the question ; he was not intolerant on the subject ; but he had always come to a conclusion unfavourable to the ballot. It is difficult to form an Administration to act together without having "open locations." " You can neither act together as a party nor form an Administration if upon some of these questions you have not tolerance with one another's opinions. I certainly have seen a Ministry continue far too long to make an open question of a subject of vital importance to the safety of the country, but this is not a question of that sort. It merely relates to the machinery of voting, and if men cannot act together because they do not think alike on such a question, there must be more intolerance among pub- lic men than I had an idea of."

On a division the motion was negatived by 294 to 197.

CHURCH-RATES.

The House of Commons held a morning sitting on Tuesday, expressly to take the debate on the third reading of the Church-Rate Abolition Bill. In moving the third reading, Sir JOHN TRELAWNY refrained from making a long speech. Then Sir Bnoox BRIDGES moved, and Mr. PACKE seconded, an amendment to put off the third reading until that day six months. Mr. AKROYD next urged several arguments alleging the in- justice of a bill that unconditionally repealed church-rates, and o a set- tlement that did not preserve the rights of Dissenters, Churchmen, and the public. So far the debate had nothing remarkable in its character ; but Sir JAMES GRAHAM, unable to give a silent vote in favour of the bill, threw some life into the discussion by explaining his reasons.

If a compromise could have been effected he would gladly have supported it, but he had taken part in many attempts at a compromise, and all at- tempts had failed. The present state of the law is better than any compro- mise yet proposed, involving as they do, pew-rents, a brand on Dissenters, and a setting them apart from their neighbours. Then many of the charges made upon church-rates for the " luxuries of worship " are indefensible. They are canvassed, are odious to Dissenters, and create disgust in Church- men. But if the bill passed how would the fund be raised for maintaining the services of the Church ? The nobility will scorn to keep the 150,0001., which is a charge upon their estates. " The remedy which has occurred to me, and which I have long entertained, has been announced by the right honourable gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey.) There are some points in his plan with which I did not agree, but I cordially agree with him in the wish to relax the Statute of Mortmliin to a limited ex- tent, so as to enable the holders of land either in fee or even for life to charge their estates for the maintenance of the parish-ehureh within certain limits. That proposal appears to me to be perfectly unobjection- able." The Church had no reason to distrust the voluntary principle. He should have hesitated to vote for the bill, had it not been. for an important circumstance. " The heads of the Church have sent us down a bill embodying a new principle. I hope it is a principle of good in the cause of religion, but it contemplates something like a revival in the heart of the Establishment. Every bishop was to have the power, by this bill, of licensing, in any town where the population exceeded 500, any building where any portion of the liturgy of the Church might be performed. But the matter does not rest there. What have we all seen ? A most amiable and excellent bishop has been enthroned in St. Paul's Cathedral, and has taken possession of the Palace of Fulham and of London House, in St. James's Square. His first act was to attend a meeting at Islington in aid of building a new church, and he then declared that he had heard with sa- tisfaction that meetings were held on Sunday morning in the yard of a hackney-man. He said that divine worship there performed was as ac- ceptable to the Most High as any divine service that might be celebrated, with all the solemnity of cathedral worship, under the fretted vault of the most gorgeous temple. I do not deny the truth of this assertion. But if that be the case, and if the Church of England is about to become a mis- sionary church, and is about to descend into the arena with the Dissenting churches, we cannot with justice continue to tax the Dissenters for church- rates. (Cheers.) Is that all ? We have bishops preaching in the open air. We have deans Spurgeouizing at Exeter Hall. (A laugh.) We have dignitaries of the Church taking a prominent part on the stages of music-halls, and we have priests evangelizing on the platform. An Evan- gelical Alliance has been held in Lambeth Palace, and Dr. Bunting has offered up prayers in the presence of the Archbishop. I pray that this movement may be favourable to the interests of piety and religion ; but this is, to say the least of it, a great departure from the principle of an Esta- blished Church. (Cheers.) I hope it may be for good, and I do not ven- ture to predict what its effect may be. But it is certain that this is at war with all the doctrines that have hitherto been considered the recognized doctrines of the Church. I am against carrying on a war to the knife against the Dissenters. The time has arrived when the policy of the Esta- blished Church is not to fight this desperate battle to the last extremity, but to make these timely concessions in the hope of peace. It is said that the suns raised by this impost does not exceed 320,000/. a year, and I, for one, having hitherto always opposed the abolition of Church-rates, call upon the friends of the Church not to continue the contest further. For „these reasons my vote will be given in favour of the present motion." (Cheers.)

Mr. WALPOLE complained of the inconsistency of Sir James Graham's speech. Recounting the attempts made to settle the question he con- tended that the proposal to " brand " the Dissenters as it was called, although he denied there is any intention of branding them, was an honest proposition. It was a settlement freely and frankly offered by the Church ; and it ought not to be said that since no means had been offered of settling the question there was nothing to do but abolish what has existed from time immemorial. The bill will have the effect not only of abolishing church-rates but of breaking up the parochial system. It is a stepping-stone to the voluntary principle, and he could never assent to it. Mr. Avavose supported the bill. Mr. GLADSTONE dwelt upon the differences of opinion that exist among the supporters of abo- lition. If it were true, as some contend, that the majority have no right to impose taxes on the minority, that is an argument good for a great deal more than the abolition of church-rates. It is good for the aboli- tion of tithes. It appeared to be intended to fight the question of a Church establishment on the ground of church-rates. He insisted that large and liberal compromises had been offered, but that they had been resolutely refused. He dwelt on the injury the bill would do in rural parishes and the burden it would impose upon clergymen, and he dis- sented from the proposal to relax the law of Mortmain.

On a division the third reading was carried by 266 to 203 ; and the bill passed. THE SLAVE-TRADE AND THE UNITED STATES.

The Bishop of OXFORD, having announced that he should on Thurs- day present a petition from Jamaica relative to the Spanish slave-trade Lord BROUGHAM expressed his gratification thereat, and solemnly aa:. jured Lord Malmesbury to do his utmost to extirpate the slave-trade in the Spanish colonies. If that were done it would no longer be necessary to blockade the coast of Cuba, a blockade that can never be effectual, and one that exposes us to the perils of being brought into collision with other Powers.

The Earl of CLARENDON asked Lord Malmesbury !whether any Lae communications on this subject had passed between her Majesty's Gis vernment and the Government of the United States, and whether any- thing had occurred to justify the appehensions which had been enter- tained ? He hoped and expected that the statements of alleged outrages on the American flag would prove to be exaggerated. If no other or more stringent instructions had been sent out than those under which our cruisers are in the habit of acting, he felt assured there could be no ground of quarrel between the two Governments. There were no instructions of which he had any knowledge under which the commanders of British cruisers would be authorized to do what it was said had been done, and if they had exceeded their instructions her Ma- jesty's Government could have no hesitation in stating that that was the case. This was a question upon which, in his opinion, it was requisite that great forbearance should be exercised by both Governments to prevent a state of things which neither of them desire—an extension of the slave- trade, or a rupture of political relations. The United States Government were the first to declare the slave-trade piracy, and he was therefore eon_ winced that the President of the United States and his Government were no more desirous than were the Government of this country that that trade should be extended. It could not be concealed that vessels belonging to the United States had carried on the slave-trade on the coast of Africa; and he did not see how, unless some right of search was given, the real nationality of the flag of suspected vessels could be ascertained. Such a right had been admitted by all maritime nations for their common protection, for without it the most atrocious deeds might be perpetrated and vet rekmas unpunished. But the possession of such a right was a very different thing from the exercise of it. He was certain that no officer commanding a British cruiser, whatever his suspicions might be, would exercise the right of searching an American vessel if he was really convinced that it was bond fide American. We are as proud as the Americans are of the honour and independence of our flag, and just as determined to protect it whenever protection is lawfully claimed and can be legitimately given; but we should consider our flag tarnished if it were made a cover for nefarious transactions such as he had referred to; and, so far from finding fault with any foreign Powers which should interpose to prevent the perpetration of such offences, we should rather be obliged to them for their inter- ference. He did not think the American Government would differ from us on that point. The Earl of MALMESBURY was glad to hear this judicious language from Lord Clarendon. It is of great advantage in a moment of difficulty that a member of the Opposition should express such sentiments and views. Lord Malmesbury could give no new information. If what has occurred has been correctly reported, Government cannot justify it ; and he feared some unjustifiable acts have been committed. " I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said as to the American flag being constantly. prostituted to cover the slave-trade, and other illegal acts, and I think it is highly desirable that some agreement should be made between the two countries, by which it may be distinctly understood what proceedings ought to be taken by their officers respectively for effectually discovering the impositions to which I have alluded, and which will not be offensive to honest traders. It is to that point I have directed the attention of the Government of the United States, and that no later than in a con- versation which I had this morning with the American Minister, and I think I may say there has not been any great difference of views between us. After that conversation has been reported to the United States' Go- vernment, after the delivery of the despatch which I have written to Lord Napier, and after the orders that have been sent to our officers in those seas, I hope there will be no repetition of such aria as have been described to us, whether truly or not. In these circumstance" I feel that this country need remain under no apprehension that anything will occur to break the alli- ance that so happily exists between the two countries."

The Earl of BARDWICKE said, if any excess had been committed by any of the officers commanding in those seas, it was not in consequence of the instructions that they had received.

irouvEnsrriws (Scoriorn) BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of the Universitiets (Scotland) Bill, Mr. BLACK, condemning the measure in strong terms—its sole ob- ject is to obtain money ; patrons, professors, and students are actuated by the same desire—moved that it should be read a second time that day six months. He spoke on behalf of Edinburgh, where the greatest alarm is felt about the bill. Colonel SYKES, on behalf of Aberdeen, took up the same strain, but entered more minutely into the grievances the bill would inflict on the Aberdeen Colleges. Mr. Cowers and Mr. Gu- am also opposed the second reading. On the other side were Mr. Cuarrarn BRUCE, Mr. STEUART, Sir WILLIAM Drsvoan, Mr. DUNLOP, Mr. WARREN, as an alumnus of the University of Edinburgh, Lord Diraicals, Mr. DUFF, Mr. EDWARD ELLICE, and Mr. WALTER STIRLING. Some objections were taken to special clauses, but it was urged upon the opposition that these could best be dealt with in Committee. The Loan ADVOCATE defended the bill against the assaults of Mr. Black and Colonel Sykes, and expressed his readiness to listen to sugges- tions.

Mr. BLACK withdrew his amendment on the strength of this promise; and the bill was read a second time.

•

THE JEW QUESTION.—Two bills, one by Lord LYNDHURST, the other by Lord Lueear, were introduced into the House of Lords, and read a first time on Monday, both providing for the admission of the Jews to Parliament- The second reading was fixed for Friday. Lord Lyndhurst 's bill adopts the form of oath contained in the Oaths Bill. It provides that the form of affirmation may be made by Quakers, but that when a Member of the House of Commons declares that be cannot conscien- tiously take the oath with the words "on the true faith of a Christian," the House may direct the omission of the words. A special clause refers to the Jews ; and provides that in all cases, in and out of Parliament, it shall he lawful for a person professing the Jewish religion to make and subscribe the declaration set forth in the act of the ninth Victoria. The bill also provides that persons professing the Jewish religion shall not hold the offices of Guardians or justice' of the Kingdom, or the office of Regent, Lord High cellor, Lord Keeper or Commissioner of the Great Seal, or Lord-Lieu- tenant of 'Ireland, or High Commissioner of the General Assembly of the aurae of Scotland. Lord Lucan's bill simply provides that a person of the Jewish persuasion entitled to sit and vote in either House of Parliament, if prevented from sitting and voting by a conscientious objection to take the oath of abjuration, Not House "may resolve" that the words "on the true faith of a Chris- tian " be omitted, and that the oath shall be then modified and taken accordingly. PERM AND HERAT.—Ill reply to a question from Mr. GREGORY, touch- ing the fulfilment of our treaty with Persia, Mr. Sue-moult FITZGERALD said that the British officers sent to Herat to see that the stipulations of the treaty were fulfilled, had satisfactorily performed their task and had returned. The independence of Herat, as guaranteed in the treaty of peace with Per- sia has been fully recognized. The Government have no reason to suspect that the stipulations of the treaty will in any respect be evaded.

Mg NEW SLAVE TRADE.—Lord GODERICH asked whether it was true, as stated by Mr. Mason, the United States Minister to France, that the British Government had informed Count Walewski that they would not object to the Regis scheme while the wants of the British colonies are supplied by the coolie trade ? Mr. Frrzowan said that Mr. Mason must have gravely misapprehended the facts. In the whole course of our communications with the French Government, in reference to what is called the scheme of free emigration, we expressed our regret that such a scheme had been originated, and still more that it was persisted in, and have made no admissions like those de- scribed by Mr. Mason. The British Government has strongly objected to

the scheme ; and at the suggestion of Lord Derby, the French Government

has agreed to appoint a person to accompany another person to be appointed by the British Government, for the purpose of making inquiries on the spot. COMPETITIVE EmeMINATIONS.—Lord LYTTELTON, describing the votes of

the House of Commons in favour of open competition, asked whether the

Government intend to carry. any further the principle of competitive ap-

pointments for the civil service ?

The Earl of DERBY said the system prevailed in the Treasury, the Cus- toms, the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of State's office. But the principle is novel, and must be watched with great care. Many cases had occurred where persons proved to be superior to their opponents had been found inadequate to the discharge of the duties they were called upon to perform. There were three young men who passed most creditable exami- nations for admission to Woolwich. One could not learn to ride ; one ob- jected to the drill ; one would not live at Woolwich. Lord Derby said he was not opposed to the principle, but he held that Government must exer- cise great care in determining the character of the examinations and regard the whole scheme for some years in the light of an experiment. He pro- mised that the attention of the Government, and of the different depart- ments, should be directed to the principle of competitive examination, not with a view to abandon, or hastily extend it, but to watch its effects and in- troduce any changes proved to be desirable. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH threw strong doubt on the working of the system in the case of Indian appointments. 'Earl GREY enforced the neces- eity of very great caution. He objected to open competitive examination as likely to lead by degrees to the fatal system of " cramming" ; and he urged the Government to inquire into the effects of competition in France and other countries, where, he was informed, it had been very prejudicial to the young men. Lord WODEHOIISE, arguing from experience, advocated a farther extension of the system. Lord REDESDALE did not see why riding across country should not in the case of military officers be made a matter of competitive examination.

TENANT RIGHT.—The Wednesday sitting was devoted to a debate on the second reading of the Tenants' Compensation (Ireland) Bill. The debate had stood over from the 14th April; it was now brought to a conclusion. Sergeant DEASY admitted that the measure was retrospective, and that that was an objection. But it did not legislate against contracts between land- lord and tenant ; it only gave the sanction of law to a moral obligation, which because it is a moral obligation is not unfrequently violated. Nearly the whole of the speakers were Irish Members. Some opposed all legislation on the subject ; others were favourable to tenant compensation, but not to that provided by the bill. Mr. WHITESIDE, describing himself as belonging to the party of progress," put forward the opinion of the Government against the bill. Mr. MAGTHRE admitted that the bill was only broughtin to keep alive discussion. On a division the motion for the second reading was negatived by 20f1 to 65.

Ma. HOWARD.—In reply to Mr. WISE, Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said that Mr. Howard had made his health the plea for his sudden resignation of the post of Minister to Florence, and he had forwarded certificates to show he had good grounds for so doing. The Government at present did not contemplate the abolition of the office of Minister to the Tuscan Court.

BELFAST RIOTS.—Lord DUNGANNON, referring to the riots at Belfast, inquired whether Lord Derby had received any information relative to the circumstances which gave rise to them. The Earl of DERBY said the only cause was the religious rancour and animosity existing between the Protestants and Roman Catholics. A species of minor civil war prevails between the lower classes, and the oc- currence of such disturbances does not reflect any credit upon the inhabi- tants of Belfast. It has been necessary to collect a large force of cavalry, infantry, and police in the town, and they will be kept there at all events until after the 12th July. Belfast itself will have to bear the additional expense. The Government intend to introduce a bill to improve the police of large towns in Ireland. The Earl of CARLISLE said these riots proved the correctness of the policy of the late Government, who showed their disapproval of exclusive religious societies by preventing any fresh appointment of members of the Orange Society to the office of magistrate. The late Government intended to in- troduce a police bill. Lord DUNGANNON defended the Orangemen. LORD KINGSTON'S QUESTIONS.—The Earl of Kingston has for some time had notices of questions upon the paper affecting the character of Rajah Brooke and other persons. As he has constantly postponed them, and de- sired to do so again on Monday, several Peers condemned the practice, and the House showed a firm determination to have the questions insisted upon or withdrawn. As Lord KiieesTON would take neither the one course nor the other, on the motion of Lord LYNDHURST it was resolved that the ques- tions had been sufficiently answered and ought not to be renewed.