I3tJ.iatt. nu rnmhings in Varlianaut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OP THE WEEK.

HOUSE OP Loans. Monday, March 7. Vaccination ; Lord Granville's Ques- tion—Ecclesiastical Courts and Registers (Ireland) Bill committed.

Tuesday, March 8. Manor Courts (Ireland) Bill read a second time—The Charles-et-Georges ; Lord Wodehouse's Motion.

Thursday, March 10. Manor Courts (Ireland) Bill read a second time—Singa- pore; Lord Stanley of Alderley's Question—Grand Juries ; the Lord Chancellor's Bill read a first time.

Friday, March 11. Ionian Islands; Lord Grey's Statement—The Danubian Principalities ; Question by Lord St. Germans—The Occasional Forms of Prayer Bill read a third time and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, March 7. The Indian Loan Bill read a second time—Supply ; Army Estimates—Petition of Rights Bill read a second time.

Tuesday, March 8. The Charles-et-Georges; Mr. RinFlake's Motion, debate adjourned—Registration of Births, Deaths, &c. (Ireland) Bill read a first time.

Wednesday, March 9. Church Rates; Mr. Walpole's BiU thrown out.

Thursday, March 10. Savings Banks ; Mr. Hankey's Motion—Military Ogani- cation ; Captain Vivian's Motion—church Bates; Sir A. Elton's Motion—New- foundland Fisheries; Lord Bury's Motion—Municipal Elections Bill in committee —Church Rates ; Sir John Trekwny's Bill, second reading postponed.

THE " CRARLE3 ET GEORGES."

Both Houses of Parliament were almost entirely occupied by two great debates, which recall the field-days of party when party was in its prime ; and the reports of which fill above four pages of the leading Journal. The question raised was the conduct of the Government in the affair of the Charles et Georges. The motions in both Houses were for certain specified "papers." The mover in the Upper House was Lord WODEHOUSE in the Lower House Mr. KINGLABE. The two debates marched over the same ground, and dealt with the same facts and alle- gations; but while the Lords terminated theirs at one sitting, the motion being withdrawn, the Commons, as will be seen, insisted upon a second innings.

The case against the Government, as stated by the Opposition speak- ers, was this : England is bound by treaties extending as far back as 1661, not only to defend her if attacked, but to interpose her "good offices" in case of differences with another state. England has also re- peatedly urged the Portuguese Government to exert her utmost efforts to

suppress the slave-trade, and °IL ate years o prevent the execution of

the French scheme of negro immigration. The Portuguese Government, acting on our recommendations, refused more than once permission de- manded by France to take negro labourers from the Mozambique. As the

Uovector of that dependency was supposed ,to be too lenient, he was re- called in 1957, and another Governor with renewed instructions was sent

in his place. Under his administration the Charles et Georges was cap- tured in Conducia Bay. Slaves were found on board ; she was in Pon. tuguese waters ; she was condemned as a slaver by the local courts and sent to Lisbon. The French demanded her restitution on the ground that no notice had been received at Reunion of the prohibition to export labourers, and that the sheik of Matabane, a Portuguese authority, had

licensed the acts of the captain. The licences were not produced in the first instance, and when they were, it was alleged they were forgeries. Next the French Government alleged that the ship at the time of its cap- ture was not in Portuguese waters, and that if it were, the presence of a French " delegate " exempted the vessel from Portuguese jurisdiction.. Both the fact and the law were disputed by the Opposition speakers. Indeed the real ground on which the French rested their claim was that the presence of a French delegate proved that the ship could not be a driver. Nevertheless it is undoubted that slaves were found on board, some in irons. [They had been kidnapped in a neighbouring island.] The Government were informed by Mr. Howard, early in August that the case had assumed a "serious aspect," but until the 25th September Lord Malmesbury did nothing, except to state that the friendly offices of her Majesty's Government would "not be wanting" and to transmit a copy of Mr. Howard's despatches to Lord Cowley. On the 30th Sep- tember the French Government had referred the question to the Comite des Contentieux for an opinion, and had sent two ships to the Tagus. If the Comite reported in favour of the release of the ship, a demand to that effect was to be made and enforced if not complied with in twenty- four hours. On the 2d October the French Government determined to demand the release of the ship. What did Lord Malmesbury do at this moment ? Nothing. He "deprecated" hostilities and told Lord Cow- ley to "put forward the Paris protocol at a suitable time." Count Lay- radio, the Portuguese Minister, proposed that the ship and captain should be released and the whole question referred to arbitration. Lord Malmesbury did not support this proposal ; did not instruct Lord Cowley to support it ; but left Lord Cowley at that critical moment "without instructions." Instead of calling Count Walewski's attention to the treaty obligations of England and instructing Lord Cowley to show the anxiety England felt that Portugal should not be wronged, Lord Malmesbury merely sent Mr. Howard's despatches to Paris. No- thing could be more cold. The support given to Portugal and the value of our good offices may be judged from the fact that Lord Malmesbury informed Mr. Howard, on October 9, that "the Portuguese Government had better drop the prosecution if there were informalities during or after the seizure." Mr. Howard was left in ignorance of what had been done at Paris, and had to confess to the Marquis de Louie that he was without instructions. On the 15th October Lord Malmesbury suggested a new mode of settlement. It was that the Portuguese Government should ad- mit that the French captain believed that the Sheik of Matabane was an independent chief ! Lord Cowley and Mr. Howard said they were afraid this mode did not apply to the case. Thus the only suggestion made by Lord Malmesbury throughout the whole case was that the Portuguese Government should avail themselves of this miserable subterfuge. Four days after the ship had been surrendered to superior force, Lord Malmes- bury wrote a despatch to Lord Cowley, in which for the first time he re- ferred to our treaties with Portugal, and to the arbitration clause in the Paris protocols ; saying, that the latter had established "the immortal truth that time, by giving place for reason to operate, is as much a pre- ventive as a healer of hostilities."

Now Lord Malmesbury ought to have supported the proposal of Count Lavradio with all the influence of this country ; he ought to have interposed the good offices of England at an early date. "Instead of which," said Lord SOHN RUSSELL, we find Lord Malmesbury, from the first despatch down to the very last, apparently almost indifferent, and, above all, suggest- ing both at Paris and Lisbon that the Portuguese Government must have been in the wrong ; that there must have been some informality; that there must have been a sheik whom the French captain thought independent, who was not independent, though neither the French Government nor the French captain knew he was not independent, but which neither Lord Cow- ley nor Mr. Howard would venture to assert. (Cheers.) It all shows in Lord Malmesbury a wish to make out a case in favour of the strong power against the weak, and to suggest any pretence true or false for the Portu- guese Government to give up their case and yield to the demands of France. (Cheers.) I must say that the Portuguese Government had a much better sense of their own honour."

"It is evident" said Lord Gam-, "that the French Government were exceedingly ill-informed upon the subject, and that Count Walewski was representing to Lord Cowley that the difficulty arose from Portugal pro- hibiting the trade after having permitted it, when, in fact, the Portuguese Government always had prohibited it, and had formally written to the French Government declining to withdraw that prohibition upon request made to do so in notes bearing the signature of Count Walewsld. The French Government were ill-informed, and the Secretary of State of Eng- land, instead of taking care to put the facts fairly before the French Go- vernment, thought right to desert a faithful ally and leave Portugal to make what terms she could with France. -Under those circumstances, the conduct of Portugal was in the highest degree dignified and creditable. She yielded, but she said she yielded to superior force. "To England alone," said Lord WODEHOCSE, "remained the discredit of after having drawn Portugal into a course of policy, and when she was thereby involved in antagonism with a stronger Power, only offering her -good offices in such a manner as to amount really to a mockery, if not, in- deed, to a virtual abandonment of an old and faithful ally." No wonder the King of Portugal in his speech from the throne did not thank England for her "good offices." No wonder Lord Malmesbury wrote will a sore conscience to ask why thanks had been withheld. They were given ; but in a manner perfectly illusory. They were a certificate of good conduct, of equal value to the vote of thanks usually accorded to the chairman of a public meeting, or a testimonial presented to a retiring pariah officer. not," said Lord Gueirvrta,z, quite understand what the noble Earl [Malmesbury] proposes to do ; but it is at any rate satisfactory that the subject has been fully discussed." The answer of the Government was copious. They alleged that they were compelled to act at a time when-the case was utterly obscure and unc.ertabi, full of contradiction from beginning to end, and affording no evidence jus- tifying a decision. It could not be discovered whether the French captain • was aware of the new proclamation against the slave trade—it was issued on the 20th November ; ;the ship was captured on the 27th. It was extremely doubtful whether the ship was anchored in Portuguese waters. There was nothing to show that the paper purporting to be an authorization from the sheik of Matabane was a forgery. On data such as these the Government could come to no decision, nor have they up to the eleventh hour been able to form a sound opinion. But her Majesty's Government lost no time in dealing with the question. On the 2oth September they had every reason to believe the question settled ; but on the 3d October a change had taken place in the language of Count Walewski. The French Government con- sidered their honour involved. They held that the ship was not a private ship ; and that, therefore, if seized for an infraction of law the issue must be solved by diplomacy. [Lord Kingsdown in one House and Sir Hugh Cairns in the other laid it down as sound law that the presence of a French delegate on board the Charles et Georges exempted her from the jurisdiction of the miiieipal courts. She was a "public ship."] The French Government had aceefd to the proposal of Count Lavraclio that the ship should be given up and the whole question referred to mediation. B ut in transmitting instructions to the Marquis de Lisle Count Walewski only mentioned indemnity as the subject for mediation. In a subsequent explanation he told Lord Cowley that M. de Lisle had misunderstood his instructions, for the question of in- demnity necessarily involved the question of right. M. de Lisle however, had insisted that it was the amount of the indemnity only that could be referred to mediation. That is an "incomprehensible accident." Her Majesty's Government had understood that the whole question would be referred to mediation. "Such was our intention," said Count Walewski. "Now," said Lord MALIcaseanv, " what blame can be attached to her Majesty's Government for not expecting that that agreement would be ful- filled? We did not possess the gift of prophecy, and could not predict that the French Minister at Lisbon would mistake his orders. Lord Cowley, as I have said, obtained a positive assurance that an arrangement would he come to, and surely we were justified in crediting it. Having received the assurance that a mediation would be admitted by the French Ministry, I do not deny that her Majesty's Government were greatly astonishedwhen a week afterwards they heard that the question had been suddenly and summarily settled. The noble lord says that Mr. Howard was with- out any instructions. Of course he was. We could not give him in- structions upon a case which we never could be expected to foresee. We could not frame his instructions in this sense : If the French Government eat their words—if the French Minister makes a mistake—you must do so and so.'" Mr. Howard advised the Portuguese to accept the offer of M. de Lisle because the question of indemnity carried with it the question of right. And that was the right view. It was insisted by the Government speakers that the case was analogous to that of the Cagliari ; and that we had no more right to carry things with a high hand in the one case than in the other. In regard to the merits of the question Lord DERBY said—" Even if the vessel were not within the limits of Portuguese waters I would not go so far as to say that she was withdrawn from all interference of municipal law, but, admitting that she was within the Portuguese waters, it TM only the mu- nicipal law she was violating and not any treaty between Portugal and France. The comity of nations required not that she should be dealt with as a slaver, but that she should be given over to the French Government, and the matter made the subject of diplomatic negotiations. But supposing she had been carrying on this trade not under the sanction of the French Government, and supposing she had been in Portuguese waters, the Portu- guese tribunals, by their own confession, did not take the course which they were bound to take. If she was not a slaver they had no right to deal with her in the manner they did. If she was a slaver they were bound to adju- dicate on the case, not at Mozambique but in the Prize Court at Loando. The course taken was utterly irreconcifeable under any circumstances with the comity of nations, and absolutely contrary to international law." The Peers who spoke for the Opposition were Lord WODEHOUSE, Earl GRANVILLE, Earl GREY, and Lord CRANWORTH • on the other side were the Earl of MALMESBURY, Lord Krimanowle, die Earl of DERBY, Lord WENSLEYDALE, and the Earl of Sr. GERMANS.

In the House of Commons, the Opposition speakers were Mr. KING- LAKE, Mr. BUXTON, Mr. LOWE, and Lord JOHN Russom; and opposed to them were Mr. SEYMOUR. FITZGERALD, Mr. Bovri,L, and the SOLICITOR- GENER.AL.

Sir RICHARD Borilom. moved the adjournment of the debate. (Cries of "Ho ! ") Lord PALMEBSTON—" The House at this holm is not likely to listen with attention to the Members who may desire to address it, and there- fore I support the adjournment." Mr. Disaani—" We ought to understand what the question before the House really is. I believe my honeurable friend the Under-Secre- tary has not refused the motion of the honourable Member for papers which do not exist. ("_flear, hear !" and laughter.) If there be any desire to continue this conversation—(" Hear, bear !")—it is not for us to throw any impediment in the way of it, and therefore I have no ob- jection to the adjournment if the honourable gentleman can find some convenient day." ("Hear !" and laughter.)

The debate was then adjourned, notwithstanding loud erica of "No!"

Tam REFORM BILL.

As soon as the House of Commons met on Thursday, three notices of amendments on the Re.form Bill were presented in this order.

Mr. himos—" I beg to give notice that in the .Committee on the Reform Bill I propose to' introduce a clause retaining the rights of freeholders in cities and boroughs to vote for counties provided that they continue to hold those freeholds and be upon the register of 1858-59." ("Hear ! " and a laugh.) Lord Joirir Russom,--" I beg to give notice that on the motion for the second reading °tele Government Reform Bill I shall move as a resolution That this House is of opinion that it is neither just nor politic to interfere in the manner proposed -4 this bill with the freehold franchise as hitherto exercised in counties in England and Wales; and that no readjustment of the franchise will satisfy this House or the country which does not provide for a greater extension of the euffrage in cities and boroughs than is contem-

plated. in the present,merurnre. (Cheers.)

Mr. Alaimo. Alna,s gave notice that in Committee he would in clause 1 move words saving the rights of existing county freeholders within the limits of boroughs, and negativing so much of the clause as would permit non-resident freeholders to vote for boroughs. Mr. Disitasia, in replying to a question, took the opportunity of making a counter mem. He'said- " It is not the intention of the Government to propose the disfranchise- ment of any borough freeholders, whether they exercise the right of voting in hundreds within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs or not. One of theprinciples of the 'measure introduced the other night is, that no place and noperson shall be.disfranchised. The subject is under the considera- tion of the Government, and I intend to place clauses on the table by which I trust we shallseconeile the mein principle of the measure, which is the identity of the suffrage between counties and boroughs, with the recognized rights of the freeholders within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs. I shall propose clauses with this object when we go into committee, and I will lay those clauses on the table before the second reading of the bill."

Chthicu-Reros.

Mr. Wecroix moved the second reading of his Church-Rate Bill on Wednesday. He was met by an amendment from Sir Joao TRELAWNY that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. A smart debate ensued. Mr. SOTHERON ESTCOURT opposed the amendment. It SS supported by Sir GEORGE GREY who sharply criticized MT. Will- pole's bill ; alleging that it would satisfy neither Churchman nor Dis- senters, and would maintain an empty principle which could not be ap- plied. Sir John Paonw•roh, in a speech of much passion, could not restrain his indignation at the conduct of Sir Georg? Grey. It allowed that "the spirit of party "—(cries of " Oh, oh ! ")--is paramount to the spirit of peace. Sir George Grey did not object to the principles of the bill yet he opposed the second reading. Why could he not propos amendments in committee. The motion was opposed alike by Sir RP. CHARD BETILELL and Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND though for very different reasons. It was-supported by Mr. EDWIN BALL a Tory Dissenter. Mr. WALPOLE defended his OWR bill. Mr. STANHOPE tried to stave off a de- cision by speaking against time, but the House was too many for him; and it wont to a division.

The bill was rejected by 264 to 171.

On Thursday Sir ARTHUR Hmcart ELTON moved and explained his resolutions on the subject of church-rates ; but after a short discussion, in deference to general opinion, that the motion was untimely, he with- drew them. Later in the evening Sir Join( Tamawrry moved the second reading of his Church-rate Abolition Bill. Mr. HOPE moved the adjournment of the debate. Negatived by 173 to 108. Mr. BENTINCE moved the adjournment of the .House. It was past midnight ; and Sir Ichere TRELAWNY, yielding to an appeal to his "good feeling" from Sir JOHN Parinectsurr, gave way.

THE RECENT FUNDING OF EXCHEQUER BILLS.

Mr. HAWKEY moved, on Thursday, "That in future no funding of Exchequer Bills held by the Commissioners of Savings Banks be made without the special authority of an Act of Parliament.' The motion was pointed particularly at a funding of Exchequer Bills, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 31st January; an act on which Sir HENRY Win- wuoun; Sir 0.0. Lams, and Mr. Wrixrams animadverted in terms more or less modified. The operation was effected at a loss of 400/. in comparison with the effect of buying so much stock at 95; and Mr. GLAD- STONE showed that under many circumstances the operation of converting unfunded into funded debt might result in loss. He observed, however, that more information and more direct treatment are needed for the pro- per handling of the subject. The Cuancomou of the EXCHEQUER ex- plained that the amount of Exchequer Bills had grown rapidly and steadily since 1854, under the pressure occasioned by the war. The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, who are obliged to invest the funds of the Savings Banks "in the public funds," and to allow a fixed rate of interest to depositors, were not only conducting that business at a constant loss but were apprehensive of inconvenience from the large amount of Exchequer Bills in their hands—more than 7,000,000/. • while the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been much embarrassed by having to pay them off possibly in a time of crisis, like that at the end of 1857. He therefore closed at once the unfunded borrowings of the war, and the losing process of the Commissioners, by funding 7,600,000/. of the bills. He admitted that our unfunded debt is by no means in a satisfactory condition. The Ministerial position was supported by Mr. HoreLhr and Mr. Thomas BARING; and the motion was withdrawn.

PROSPECTS OF INDIA.

The second reading of the Indian Loan Bill gave several Members an opportunity of setting forth their views on the prospects of India. Lord STANLEY, without making a speech, moved that the bill should be read a second time. There was no opposition, but a succession of sharp critics arose one after the other and commented on the vast subject opened to them.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS led the way. In his earlier observations he threw out abundantly his doubts of the advantage of India to this country. Our trade with China is of more importance than our trade with India. Wo must not exaggerate our advantages. Whether India is profitable or not, it is true is not a practical question. But which over view is cor- rect, we have contracted obligations towards the Natives and we are bound to fulfil them. Sir George proceeded to set forth that although a change has been made in the Government of India, it does not saddle the Im- perial exchequer with any liability that did not previously exist. It in to maintain rigorously the existing separation between the Indianand Imperial exchequer. What weighs most upon the Indian finances is the military expenditure. The civil expenditure is moderate, with good go- vernment it must increase; and therefore Indian finances can only be improved by diminishing the military expenditure. We must reduce that incubus. Now the least objectionable form in which England can aid India, is not by guaranteeing loans but by paying a 'portion of the expense of the troops of the Queen quartered in India. The overgrown army of native soldiers could be decreased since we need fear no foreign invasion, nor any native power. We should substitute pollee for soldiers. At all events England should not have to pay tho Indian debt. If we make insurrection so easy we shall remove one of the strongest in- ducements to orderly conduct, and teach India a dangerous lesson. An increase of fiscal pressure will be a wholesome reproof to those who

wantonly rebelled against our government without provocation. -

Mr. BRIGHT made an extensive speech. Remarking that Sir George' Lewis's proposal contradicted his doctrine, Mr. Bright expressed the anxiety he felt when he read the speech of Lord Stanley touching the liability of England. His statement showed that it is scarcely possible to conceive anything in a worse condition than the finances of India. There is a constantly increasing debt, a constantly increasing expenditure, and a constantly diminishing revenue. He regretted that Lord Stanley had had recourse to the bad argument that the debt of India is only throe or four times the amount of the net revenue. India in this respect is com- pared to England, where our debt is ten or twelve times our revenue. Pant the comparison is as unsound as the argument is bad. Every in- crease of debt will involve a deficit, unless a new tax can be iliseuTeted•

The home Government has no control over the expenditure. The re- venue is falling. The land-tax has fallen. Should the Chinese permit opium to be grown in China, the revenue derived from that drug in India would disappear. Nor are the deficits due to the revolt. The system of constant deficits existed before the revolt. Now the Govern- ment of India is not changed. There has been only an alteration in name. The men are the same, the principles are the same. Sound

• Indian finance is impossible under the existing organization. "Let us compare ourselves with the native states." They always had full tree- -sin-les—surpluses ; the greed of surpluses was one temptation to annex them. We have abolished thirty states ; and established a central au- thority. We have wrung from the people all they could pay and spent it all ; borrowed 80,000,000/. and spent that ; and we now find our- selves with broken faith and broken credit, and a deficit increasing from year to year. Nothing has been done in the way of reniedy.—More debt, more taxes—if you durst levy taxes—but no better Government. Upon Lord Stanley rests the responsibility of finding a remedy. Mr. Bright deprecated the payment of such large salaries to dvil servants, and inveighed against the employment of such huge armies. Describing India as inhabited by an industrious people and possessing every de- ment of prosperity, he said that industry and the elements of wealth are garotted because there is not clear ownership and secure tenure of the soil. He called for decentralization of the Government ; suggested the admission of natives to Indian Councils and places of trust, and urged Lord Stanley to find a new tax that would touch the rich and spare the poor.

"The noble lord is in a position of the highest responsibility and the greatest difficulty. He committed a fatal error last year, when, in obedience to his colleagues, he proposed to surround himself with the instruments of the former misgovernment of India. The noble lord may not find direct votes of want of confidence in himself in his new Council ; but we all know that one man sitting with fifteen others—though he does not see the direct opposition to his plans and principles—may find a difficulty constantly brought before him, offering itself at every step of his path, which he will be utterly unable to overcome." Mr. Bright insisted that in spite of the Queen's proclamation annexation is persisted in—giving as an instance the recent confiscation of the principality of Dhar. Officers ought to be made to obey the home government, and those who do not should be recalled. Un- less there is a Minister here with a firm hand, backed by Parliament, the Queen's proclamation will not change the conditions upon which English- men have governed India. Mr. Bright frankly stated that he considered • the revolt justified by bad government, and declared that no one who has lent his money to the Indian Government has a shadow of a claim either - moral or legal upon the revenues or taxation of India. "I think that the - 40,000,0001. which the revolt will cost is a grievous burden to place upon the people of India. It has come from the mismanagementof the people and :Parliament of England. (Cheers.) If every man had what WAS just, no doubt that 40,000,000/. would have to be paid out of the taxes levied upon the people of this country. ("Hear, hear !" and a cry of "1s, no !'

In conclusion' Mr. Bright expressed the greatest confidence in the capa- bilities of India for trade. A prodigious impetus has been given to trade in - Lancashire by the extraordinary demand for cotton for India. "No doubt a large portion of that arises from the squandering of the many millions which the -Government has expended there; but I know very well, as a manufacturer, as a person who has, whether as a manufacturer or a member of this House, investigated Indian affairs, that you „ cannot push your goods a mile further into any part of the country without finding customers waiting for you. There appears to be no limit- ' there can be no limit that we can reach for a long time in trading with 150,000)600 or 200,000,000 of persons, if you will only give them a chance of reaping the fruits of their industry and securing the enjoyment of that which they produce.

"I hope the noble lord will believe, as I assure him, that I have not made a single observation for the purpose of finding fault with his government, or with anything that he has done since he came into office as Minister for India, but 1 do beseech him well to deliberate whether, with the ma- chinery that now exists, after the twelve month's experience that he has had, it be possible for him or for anybody else to bring about the change of circumstances and the change of policy which are necessary in India, and if he should come to the conclusion which I believe no Minister of India can escape from, I hope that before long he will be prepared, either as Mi- nister for India or as a non-official member of the House, to declare to us what his experiences teaches him, that what we did last year was provision- al and only for an experiment, and that we must, within a very short period, entirely reconstruct the Government of India, not only in this coun- try, but in Inflia itself." (Cheers.) Mr. Airierms combated some of Mr. Bright's arguments ; objected to land grants in perpetuity ; argued in favour of English liability for Indian debt ; and recommended economy and the employment of Na- tives. Mr. EWART put in a word for irrigation and roads. Mr. Wa- lesa entered into much detail to show that the revenue has been improv- ing of late years ; and that the debt is not relatively onerous. He object- ed to the grant of lands in perpetuity—nothing could be more disastrous. . He anticipated an increase of revenue from the land, the customs and salt duties, consequent upon the extension of railways, and pointed to native bankers as included in the rich classes who ought to pay a pro- portion of taxation. He was confident in the development of Indian resources, and in the security of our rule.

Lord STANLEY commented generally on the variety of topics started , in the course of the debate. He promised a careful consideration of the isangggniamis offered. He set himself to show that practically the only astalemfidiapesing of lands to private persons in India is in perpetuity.

• Arrte the debt all he contends for is that it has not relatively increased, and that it is not greater than the resources of India will bear. He went over again the reasons that have led to high salaries in India and did not seem sanguine of any great retrenchment. On the subject of im- perial liability he admitted that the Indian creditor has no claim what- ever except on Indian revenue ; but said that if the revenue proved de- ficient the question of liability would certainly be raised. Finally he defended the change of last year, contending that it was a real change and that it has already led to improvement.

Sir ERSKINE PERRY and Mr. CURING BRUCE contended that England must be responsible for the Indian debt, and that it would be better at once to raise whatever money is wanting on the security of England. By that means greater vigilance in respect to Indian affairs would be . secured.

The bill was read a second time.

GRAND Jrurrs.s. The Lorin CHANCELLOR has introduced a bi.1 regulating the functions of Grand Juries in the Metropolis. It does not abolish them, but it limits their powers. Thus a person committed by a Metropolitan Magistrate will go straight for trial without the intervention of a Grand Jury. If a Magistrate dismisses a charge the prosecutor will be allowed to take it before a Grand Jury, providing he gives two days' notice to the Magistrate.

MUNICIPAL Eurcriosm. In Committee on this bill Mr. HADFIELD moved a clause giving every person of full age, who has been rated to the poor for one year and who has paid rates for six menthe, a vote in munici- pal elections. Negatived by 187 to 97. Mr. Fox moved a clause abolishing property qualification for Town Councillors. Negatived by 181 to 108.

Nuvegouutgaign FISHERIES. In a temperate speech Lord Bony drew attention to the Newfoundland Fisheries, and moved for papers. There is a dispute between this country and France respecting these fisheries. The French intend to exact their rights. They claim much more than is granted to them by treaties. In 18,56 a new treaty was concluded ; it made great concessions to France ; and the Colonial Legislature placed its veto upon it. Then France said she would assert her full rights under the old treaties. Lord Bury, in the interests of peace wished to know the principle on which the negotiation is HOW going on. Sir EDWARD LYTTON spoke with much reserve. He said that the question has in it some elements of serious danger but he seemed to place reliance on the friendly disposition of the French Government, and the investigation of the whole question on the spot by a mixed commission. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that much forbearance has been shown on both sides but that the time has come when the ques- tion must be settled. The knot will have to be cut by a reciprocal surren- der of rights. He hoped there would be no wish ,to retain the terms of treaties utterly inapplicable at the present time. Lord BURY withdrew his motion.

MILITARY ORGANIZATION. The yielding temper of her Majesty's Minis- ters was shown on Thursday, when, on the motion of Captain Vivissr, they accepted without opposition, a motion for a "Select Committee to inquire into the effects of the alterations in military organization regarding the War- office and Board of Ordnance which were made in the year 1855, and also to inquire whether any changes are required to secure the utmost efficiency and economy in the administration of military affairs."

SLNGAPORE. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY put a question in reference to the future of Singapore. From Lord CARNARVON'S answer we learn that the Ministry is desirous of transferring the government of the Straits from Calcutta to the Colonial Office. Lord ELLusreonouenftheught these set- tlements, nay, China too, should be placed under the Secretary for India.

VACCINATION. From a conversation in the House of Lords on Monday, arising out of a question by Earl GRANVILLE, it appears that there has been an increase of deaths from small-pox, chiefly because the people are suspicious of the lymph sent into the country from London for vaccinating purposes, but partly because the officers employed and the people are apa- thetic. The Marquis of SALISBURY said that measures have been taken to secure a supply of trustworthy lymph, and that the local boards have been urged to use their utmost efforts to diffuse the benefits of vaccination.