Vritates mar rnrnhiug litignrliannut.

HOUSE OF LOADS. Tuesday, April 9.—Denmark and Holstein ; Lord Wodehouse's Explanation--Queensland Government Bill committed—Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill, read a first time.

Thursday, April 11.—Queensland Government Bill, read a third time and passed. Friday, April 12.—Law of Foreign Countries Bill committed—Mutiny Bills read a second time.

HOUSE OF Couscous. Monday, April 8.—Post-Office Savings Banks Bin 6m:omitted —London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill, read a second time—Industrial Schools Bill, read a second time—Election Law Amendment Bill, read a second time—Mutiny Bills, read a third time and passed. Tuesday, April 9.—Sailors' Homes ; Sir H. Stmeev's Motion—Divisions in Com- mittee of Supply; Sir G. Bowyer's Motion—Local Charities ; Mr. Lowe's Bills, read a first time.

Wednesday, April 10.—Borough Franchise ; Mr. Baines's Bill lost. Thursday, April IL—Construction of Ships ; Mr. Lindsay's Motion—New Zealand I. Sir John Trelavrny's Motion.

Friday, April 12.—The Danish Question ; Lord John Russell's Statement— Charitable Uses Bill read a second time—Post-office Saving's Bank Bill read a third time and passed—Supply; Navy Estimates.

BAINEs's Brix.

Mr. BAINES moved the second reading of the Borough Franchise Bill at the Wednesday sitting. This measure was intended to reduce the franchise in boroughs to 6/. Claiming the indulgence of the House, Mr. Baines made a long speech crammed with statistical information, and when printed, extending over three columns of small type in the morning journals. He stated that the principle of the measure had been recommended from the Throne, and had received the assent of both sides of the House; and at the last general election had received virtually the assent of the people of England. He was met by two preliminary objections; first, that such a reform should be introduced by the Government ; and secondly, that it should form part of a gene- ral comprehensive scheme. His reply was that such a measure had been introduced by the Government, while the system of carrying partial parliamentary reforms had been adopted for some years past: Every day's experience showed that it was possible to deal practically with the partial amendment of the law, when it was not possible to carry large and comprehensive measures. In regard to this very question there were instances of such amendments, such as the aboh- tion of the property qualification, the improvement of the registra- tion., the alteration in the mode of taking polls, besides measures re- ferring to corrupt practices at elections, to say nothing of the disfran- chisement of Grampound, and the addition in the number of members for the county of York, before the first Reform Bill; the examples of this kind of legislation amounting to not less than twenty. As to the assertion that the country was not asking for such a measure, it was not now so true as when it was made, looking to the increase in the number of meetings and petitions in favour of Reform which had re- cently taken place. He proceeded to contend-that it would be wiser to deal with this question in quiet times than in times of agitation and disturbance; and he fully believed that the moment had arrived when this subject should be settled. He contended that in the thirty years which had elapsed since the passim"b of the Reform Bill, notwithstand- ing. the vast progress in material advantages and population, the growth of intelligence had far exceeded the increase of wealth and prosperitn and the result of his argument was that a 61. franchise now represented a class of men quite equal in all qualifications to those to whom the 10/. franchise was given. The nunaber of voters was stated to be now 442,410, and the proposed lowering of the franchise would add 211,269, making the total number 653,679. This would be liable to deductions from several causes, which would reduce the number added to 200,000; and if freemen and scot-and-lot voters, already on the register, were

taken at 20,000, that would make the number 180,000. Of these the working classes would contribute only 170,000, or 26 per cent, on the whole borough franchise. He argued that the Reform Bill had de- prived a large body of the working classes of the franchise ; and now

they constituted only one-seventh of the whole constituency of the .country, while they constituted three-fourths of the population. His

proposition would only cause that class to constitute one-tenth of the borough constituency, and one-twenty-second part of the whole con- stituency of the country. He then proceeded to show by statistics that in the last thirty years the commerce, manufactures, and naviga- tion had been quadrupled, the improvement in agriculture had been nearly in the same proportion, and the people were better fed, clothed, lodged, and taught, than at any period of the history of the country ; the cost of pauperism had been reduced one-half. The progress of education and literature had been even greater in proportion, while crime had decreased. He contended that the mass of statistics he had quoted had a special application to the class he sought to enfranchise by this bill.

Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR seconded the motion.

Mr. CAVE met the motion by moving the "previous question." His contention was, that the proposal came from a quarter that did not command the confidence of the country, inasmuch as all such measures should be brought in with the authority and respOnsibility of the Cabinet ; that the bill was in form most objectionable, since the effect of it would be to swamp the middle classes by admitting a large body of the working classes in the lump ; and lastly, he insisted that the motion was inopportune, for the country is apathetic. When the /Rini and the Volsci were moving, even the patricians and plebeians of old Rome ceased to strive for the mastery. Had we no parallel now ? Was Italy so tranquil ? Was Austria disarming? Were not the seeds of discord being sown in Hungary and Poland? Was not Prussia threatening Denmark, and France threatening Europe ? Hon. members opposite laughed at these alarms, but while they were crying peace, the nation, with a truer instinct, armed itself, and the working man, feeling that these were not times for hazardous experi- ments upon our laws, enrolled himself in defence of that Constitution which he prized, in spite of the efforts of so many to persuade him that it was worse than worthless. Mr. Cave woula not negative the principle of the bill, but he insisted that it was not the time when the question should be put.

Mr. A. Slum seconded the motion.

A. languid debate followed. Mr. LEATHAM supported the bill. Sir Join". RAMSDEN spoke very decisively against those who desired to waive the question at this time, and referring to the charges brought against the Government for abandoning Reform, after coming in pledged to Reform, he said the whole Liberal partyjwas responsible for that. The rejection of Lord Derby's bill and the expulsion of his Ministry were the acts of the whole Liberal party in the House, and were not the exclusive acts of their leaders. Irhey all joined in what was known to be a party move, and one directed more against the Ministry than against the Reform Bill of Lord Derby. It has turned out now to have been a foolish move, but they had no right to accuse the present Government of deceiving them, because, in fact they had been willino. to be deceived. It is not fair for members to shift all the blame on tge Government. They were all parties to the pledges that were given, they were parties to the introduction of a small bill last year, they wereparties to its withdrawal. ("Hear, hear!" and No!") They supported the Government, they placed them in power, they kept them in office, and were responsible for their policy upon the question; and they must not disguise from themselves the factlhat the Government did not legislate upon Reform simply because they were unable to do so, and that inability arose from causes for which the Liberal party were as much responsible as the Government.

Mr. Lawson endeavoured to speak for the bill, and Mr. BLACK against it, but they were overpowered by cries of "Divide !"

Mr. STANSFELD, however, succeeded in commanding attention. He contended, in answer to Sir,JohnRamsden, that sincere Reformers are not bound to share the blame in which Sir John was so ready to par- ticipate. Mr. Stansfeld sketched the _progress of the question, show- ing how a short time ago no party doubted the expediency of Reform, how even a Conservative Government brought in a li how it was defeated, and succeeded by the late bill of the present Government. He was bound to believe the late House was bent upon settling the question, but no one had ,,,oaug.ed the want of earnestness in public men; and he verily believed they were unconscious of it themselves. But the imminence of the question brought tins element into play. The House doubted, cavilled, criticized, and hinted dislike, till, though the hope of altogether evading and postponing a Reform, now so un- blushingly avowed, had not been entertained, it was still felt possible to think of not voting for the measure. He now came to the conclud- ing act of the drama. In the present Session he found an amazing progress in anti-Reform tendencies. The House seemed to have grown familiar with its vices; even the point of honour appeared to have changed, and to consist in hastening to ignore the promises and pro- fessions of its earlier days. The noble lord the member for the City of London, who might be supposed to feel some personal mortifica- tion in the loss of his own measure—and he believed he did regret it with sonic bitterness—even he caught the prevailing infection. The noble lord announced the withdrawal of the measure in terms of affected complacency, for he could not believe it to be natural. CHear,hear P' and laughter.) On the noble Viscount at the head of -der Majesty's Government the result was somewhat different, for undoubtedly, nothing could be more eminently real and unaffected than the joyous sense of relief with which he announced his own free- dom from the incubus of Reform. (Cheers, and laughter.) But the aptest scholar of the Session was found in the right honourable mem- ber for Buckinghamshire. He fairly did penance before the House for his former sins on the question of Reform. He deliberately sought to win back the hesitating allegiance of his party, by giving unmis- takable assurances of his future fidelity, treating the whole subject of Reform with contempt, and covering with personalridicule those who, like his honourable friend, remained faithful to the professions that had brought them into that House. (Cheers.) He would now ask Sir John Ramsden whether they had not some facts for their justification, after the scenes that had been enacted in that House.

The House had tried its coup d'etat against the public morality of the country, and the country had not risen in overwhelming indigna- tion to protest against it. What followed from this conclusion ? Those who sought for every opportunity of evading Reform—those who hoped from those endeavours to gain an indemnity for the past, seemed to forget that public opinion was not bound to be ready, at a moment's notice, to answer their call; they did not seem to be aware that public opinion in these days required public men to divine and anticipate its decrees ; they seemed to forget that time did not run against the nation's right of judgment ; and when the hour came, as it would come, for pronouncing its irreversible verdict, it would free the Reformers from any solidarit with those who opposed the mea-

sure, and visit the offence of ev the question of Refor'm on the heads of those whose professions been ventured without faith, and

who had abandoned them without shame. (Cheers.) This was the justification of those with whom he acted. For there was one thing in the world which he had never heard that any party men were bound in honour to share, and that was the weight of a shame that was not their own. (Cheers.) The House then divided on the previous question; the numbers were : Ayes, 193; Noes, 245—Majority, 52.

The question, therefore, not being put, the bill was lost.

CONSTRUCTION OF Sams.

Mr. LEYDSLY moved, on Thursday, the following series of resolu- tions, on the motion that the House should go into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates :

"1. That it is expedient to defer any further expenditure on the construction or conversion of wooden line-of-battle ships. "2. That it is inexpedient to incur during thepresent year the expenditure requisite for the completion of the line-of-battle ships now on the stocks; and that during the present year it is not expedient to commence the construction of any wooden vessels which carry guns on more than one deck.

"3. That it is inexpedient, without further experience, to sanction the expen- diture of any money for the purpose of adapting her Majesty's dockyards for the construction of iron vessels.'

He held that no premium could be too high for maintaining the safety of the country, but he held that the danger is under our own

control; and that it is often created by mistakes of policy. Then he

deprecated the policy of "beggar my neighbour" pursued. by England and France, and insisted that our naval armaments are ample as coin- ared with all others in the world, much more as compared with France. We have twenty-two steam line-of-battle ships more than all

the other nations of the world. [A fact Lord Clarence Paget subse- quently denied—we have only seventeen more.] Mr. Lindsay com- pared our iron-cased navy favourably with that of France, denied that the Emperor is building ten more iron-eased ships, and held, citing figures, that the French had spent far less on their navy than we have on ours. He condemned the purchase of so much timber ; the cost of the management of the Admiralty; the mode of keeping accounts ; and he demanded large reductions in the navy estimates.

Sir MORTON Psi to seconded the amendment in a speech devoted to proving that the material of our future navy must be iron; that the

builders of the ships must be private firms and not dockyard men; and that the Admiralty system is ill conceived and productive of great mismanagement.

Lord CLARENCE PAGET said he would not defend the Admiralty system then, as they were discussing resolutions relating to the build-

ing of line-of-battle ships. It would be impossible that the Admi- ralty should be responsible if it were fettered with the restrictions which the resolutions would impose. He could not agree to the re- solution that the conversion ot ships already occupying the slips should be given up, though he sincerely hoped no more ships would be converted. He could not agree that wooden vessels should no longer form part of our navy, and all our ships be henceforth of iron. Speed will be of the greatest moment in future ; but our ships will foul in warm climates, and speed cannot be maintained unless they have clean bottoms. Then there is no intention to adapt the dock- yards to the building of iron ships, but there are many reasons why one should be built at Chatham. Then turning to Mr. Lindsay he said :

"He has come home primed with information from France. I have no doubt that the Minister and the authorities there have relied on him for setting right the English people, who were altogether in a mist and seemed possessed with an idea that the French had a large fleet, when in fact they had nothing at all. But I dont think my hon. friend is consistent with himself in the figures he has given us. The last time he spoke he told us that the French had only 88 ships." Mr. LINDSAY.—" I referred entirely to efficient ships."

Lord C. Paorr.—" In our calculations we only speak of efficient ships; we only include steam-ships, and leave sailing ships out altogether. My hon. friend says that England has 22 line-of-battle ships more than all the world combined. But this is a statement really not founded on fact. We have 67 steam line-of- battle ships built or building. France has 37, Spain 3, Russia 9, and Italy 1, making 50. I admit that this is a very great superiority. But it does not amount in figures to what the hon. gentleman stated, because he stated that we had 22 more line-of-battle ships than all the rest of the world put together. Again, lie says that we have 9 more frigates than France. Now, England has 52 frigates and France 47, and not, as my hon. friend states, 43. When he comes to tell the House these things it makes it appear that we are going to an enormous and unnecessary expense in building ships when France has no force at all commensurate with ours. He tells us that the French iron ships will not be ready in 21 years. I say that is entirely erroneous. I do not say that all the French iron ships will be ready in 21 or in 51 years, but I say that every one of the French iron-cased ships, big and little, may be ready in the course of the present summer. I state that to my hon, friend on the best authority. I am not prepared to say that they will be ready, but I say that every one may be ready in the course of the present summer. It is unfair to state that we are making these vast preparations, and that other nations are not making due pre- parations. I do not blame them. But I say that the French and every nation on the Continent are making great naval preparations, and therefore that it is the bounden duty of Ministers to see that we have a fleet sufficient to maintain the safety, honour, and dignity of this country." Lord Clarence defended the purchase of timber ; showed that the cost of the Admiralty staff is absolutely

less than it was when our fleet was smaller; and made some critical observations on the late Commission.

Mr. BENTINCK referred to the peculiar character of French prepa- rations—they are adapted to the purposes of mvasion. He said the resolutions weed founded upon a mistaken view of the hornless of that House. It was not the business of the House of Commons to recon- struct the navy. Its business was, if faults and errors were detected in the working of our naval arrangements, to reconstruct the Board stepped of Admiralty. When the House of Commons attempted to take upon itself the duties of the Executive, it not only step out of its proper sphere of action, but it did that which must tend materially to pre- judice the public service. The Earl of GIFFORD defended the Com- mission, and expressed a qualified concurrence in the resolutions. Mr. COB.RY supplied an important fact. He said he could not concur with Mr. Lindsay in the opinion that it was impossible that any money could be laid out on the navy in France which had not been voted for that express purpose, inasmuch as, two years ago, he had been a member of a committee which had occasion to enter into an investiga- tion of French accounts, and he found that from the year 1852 to 1856 inclusive, the French Naval Estimates were only 19,807,0001., whereas the expenditure was 31,691,6211.—in other words, little short of double the amount of the estimates. Sir JOSEPH PAXTON and Mr. DALGLEISH spoke unreservedly in favour of iron ships. Captain JERVIS and Mr. WHITBREAD opposed the resolutions. Sir F. SMITH seemed to desire further experiments on iron ships. Mr. HORSMAN defended the Admiralty, and maintained that if Lord Clarence Paget had not done more, it was because he had not the power. Mr. WILLIAMS demanded a reduction of expenditure. Sir JorrN PAKINGTON made a summary, comment on the debate, mingled with implied strictures on Lord Clarence Paget's statement, and recommended Mr. Lindsay not topress his motion.

This seemed to be the general opinion of the House, and the reso- lutions were withdrawn.

DENMAB.K AND HOLSTEIN.

The Earl of ELLENBOROCH gave Lord Wodehou.se, on Tuesday, an oppottunity of explaining a misapprehension of a speech on the rela- tions of Denmark and Holstein which he made just before the Easter recess. The impression conveyed by the speech was that the whole budget of the monarchy would be submitted to the Estates of Hol- stein. Lord tODEHOUSE thanked Lord Ellenborongh for giving him an opportunity of removing this singular misapprehension. What he d said applied only to the quota to be paid by Holstein. "The original proposal was that the arrangement should apply only to the quota as regards the year after 1862; but a subsequent concession was made by which Holstein should have the power of giving their vote as to the quota which was to be paid for the years preceding 1862. That is the statement which I made, and which I am happy to say the noble lord perfectly understood. But, as the noble earl has said, it has been supposed in Denmark and Holstein that I stated that the whole budget of the Danish Monarchy was to be submitted to the Holstein States. That would be a proposition of a very extraordinary nature, as the noble earl has said. I knew perfectly the nature of the advice given by the Government of this country, and also by Russia and France, as to the quota which Holstein should pay towards the expenses of the Danish. Government; and, knowing what that advice was it. was, of course, impossible I could inform your lordships that the Danish Government had agreed to a proposition of a totally dif- ferent character?—viz., that the whole budget of the Danish Monarchy should be submitted to the Holstein States." After reading the exact proposition submitted to the Estates, he said that tile "intelligence received by her Majesty's Government was to the effect that, whereas the Holstein States were not at first to have submitted to their ap- proval the budget of 1861-62, the Danish Government subsequently consented to do so. The Danish Government declared that it had been their intention from the first to submit the quota for 1861-62 to the Holstein States for their consideration, and that on that point there had been a misapprehension. A declaration on the subject made by the Danish Government has not been, according to the news- papers, considered sufficient by the Holstein States; but we have not received any official intelligence on the subject, and, therefore, I cannot say to what extent that is correct." He hoped that moderate counsels may yet prevail. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said he had come to the conclusion that Lord Wodehouse could have meant nothing but what he had just stated. He would now express his hope that her Majesty's Government would, in the most earnest terms, represent to the Diet, and to the Prussian Government in particular, that the integrity and indepen- dence of the Danish territories must be maintained, and that the peace of Europe must not be disturbed. In various parts of Europe—in Italy, in Hungary, and in Poland—circumstances were arising which might lead to internal difficulties in the management of the affairs of those couttries ; but there was nothing whatever . which could afford a justifiable cause of war, and woe to the Power which first com- menced it.

COAL DUTIES AND THE PROPOSED THAMES EMBANKMENT.

In moving the second reading of the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill, Sir GEORGE LEWIS stated its general purport and oharacter. Duties are now levied upon coal consumed in the City of London, or within a radius of twenty miles from St. Paul's. Of these 4d. a ton goes to the corporation, and 8d. and id. per ton are spent on public works. The duty on wine is one halfpemIanaese duties cease this year but the committee on the Thames Em ent recom- mend that the duties should be renewed, and applied to defray the cost of embanking the Thames. The bill proposes to give effect to this recommendation. It enacts that the proceeds of the 8d. and id. coal duties shall be renewed for ten years, and applied exclusively to that great and useful work, the embanking of the Ilamea ; while the proceeds of the 4d. duty shall ge to extinguish the debt created by the city for public purposes of utility under Acts of Parliament. The debt to be so extinguished is 540,0001, and was incurred to execute im- provements in Cannon-street, and the proceeds of the 4d. duty, 60,0901. a year, will redeem the debt in ten years. The duties will be levied

only within the metropolitan police district, and drawback will be allowed upon all coal consumed beyond the radius of that district— twenty miles. Sir George said the Government had no special interest in the bill ; they were willing to abide by the decision of the House, but they thought it right to carry out the recommendations of the select committee.

Mr. W. WiraLtars advised the postponement of the second reading and Mr. Roursix, thinking that the question of local taxation ana • self-,government should be debated as a whole, moved that the debate should be adjourned for six weeks, in order to give time for, the com- mittee on metropolitan expenditure and taxation to report. Sir Jonif SHELLEY supported the amendment. Alderman SIDNEY and the Lour MAYOR vindicated the conduct of the city, showing that larger sums than those derived from the coal-tax have been appropriated out of the civic revenues to works of public utility. Mr. HANKEY said that if the coal duties were given up, all public improvements in London would be arrested, for no one had suggested any other mode of effect- ing them. Mr. TITE said that direct taxation has reached its limit in the metropolis, and argued that the 2,000,000/. required to embank the Thames cannot be obtained except from the coal-tax. Mr. PULLER did not oppose the levy of a tax on. sea-borne coal, hat was very much. opposed to the taxing of coal brought by railway or canal. Mr. AYETON supported the amendment, questioned the rights of the city,. said he would treat the corporation with the utmost consideration, but suggested that a-short bill should be passed to continue the tax for a year, and that next session they should legislate. Sir GEORGE LEWIS would not consent to postpone the bill, and pressed the House to a division. The amendment was negatived by 135 to 20. But Mr. AYETON renewed the opposition, proposing an amendment, which the Speaker declared to be out of order. This amendment was of course withdrawn. On the question that the bill be read a second time, Mr. AYETON divided, and was defeated by 119. to 10. So the bill was read a second time.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK:3-

In Committee on this Bill, Mr. ESTCOITRT complained that Mr. Glad- stone had not afforded the public any information touching the ma- chinery required to work the new system, and the expense it would occasion. It would be wise to maintain the regulations of the existing savings banks with regard to the limit of deposits, but he did not see how it could be maintained.

Clause 1. having been agreed to,

Mr. GLADSTONE moved an amendment to clause 2, providing security for the clepoSitor during the period which may elapse before he ob- tains an acknowledgment of the receipt of the deposit from the Postmaster-general, but making the obtaining of that acknowledg- ment within a given time necessary to a valid Parliamentary title. Thus the depositor will have state security from the moment he lodges. his deposit, while the Postmaster-general will have control over the local officers. He further explained that the rate of interest would he fixed at 21 per cent., that deposits would be taken as low as is., and that the course of the transactions would be precisely the same as under the existing system of the money-harder office. Mr. AYETON made a general attack upon the principle of the .bill. He insinuated that the measure would not be self-supporting; that if the scheme reached the proportions anticipated, it would require a bank larger than the Bank of England; that the interest would never be kept down to a level of 2-.k per cent., and that the scheme would ruin the benefit and trade societies, and supersede the exertions of the people themselves by those of state stipendiaries. Alderman SIDNEY sym- pathised with this view., but Mr. HANKEY supported the bill. Mr. GLADSTONE made a general answer -declining to follow Mr.

Ayrton into all the questions he had raised. Expense is vital; he had not the smallest conception of the amount of business these banks would transact, but it is not proposed to create highly paid establish- ments to transact it, on the contrary, everything will be done under the existing machinery of the Post-office, and the House will know when the returns are made next year, whether these banks will be self-supporting or not.

The clauses of the bill were debated in Committee at considerable length, and were all agreed to save one the 16th which was omitted, and the House resumed.

NEW ZEALkwo.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Sir JOHN TILE- LAWNY, condemning the war in New Zealand, which he said arose out of a gross blunder and a gross injustice, moved: "That while this House is prepared to contribute all the aid in its power to the Executive in putting down rebellion in her Majesty's colony of New Zealand, they rejoice to hear that the difficult and complicated questions arising out of the Treaty of Waitangi are'to be referred to a Special Court for inquiry immediately on the reassertion of the Queen's authority.' Mr. CHICIIRSTER FORTESCUE answered the speech by an ample

statement of the facts, showing that William King and his followers were responsible for the war, since they defied the authority of the Government and interfered with the free action of natives willing to sell their own land. He said, and gave reasons for his opinion, that the question was whether the Queen is sovereign in New Zealand, and asserted that the sole idea in the Native mind was that it is a contest between the native King league on the one hand and her Majesty's au- thority and supremacy on the other.

Mr. SELWYN set forth the view which is entertained by the late Colonial Opposition and by the Bishop of New Zealand; and while he admitted that Governor Browne is a friend of the natives, he alleged that he was weak, and that he gave way under the pressure of those who demand more land. Lord CLArioz HAMILTON pointedly answered Mr. Selwyn; and then, on the motion of Mr. HUNT, the debate was adjourned.

DIVISIONS IN COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

Sir GEORGE BOWYER moved "that on any division, when the House of Commons is in Committee of Supply, so soon as the voices have been taken the doors be closed immediately after strangers have with- drawn." 1-us complaint was that members do not attend debates on the estimates' but that when the bell is rung for a division, 200 or 300 "uninformed members," who have not heard a word of the debate, rush crying aloud—" what the devil is it all about ?"--and voting at once with the Government. It is impossible by argument to effect any reduction of an item in Supply, and that makes Committees of Supply a farce. No doubt, many members talked largely. about economy on the hustings, and did not attend to economy when in the House. His proposal would have the advantage of showing the constituencies who were present in Committee of Supply, and members would not be able to boast on the hustings of a vigilant care for the public interests if they sat in the coffee room, the smoking room, or some other place of recreation, until, on the bell ringing, they rushed in to vote, without knowing what they were voting about, merely to have their names appear ii the division lists published by the newspapers. Many members voted for the Government in Committee of Supply because they had not heard the arguments against particular votes, and, there- fore,the regulation by necessitating their presence would lead to more useful and practical discussions.

Sir GEORGE Lzwis opposed the motion, not because its adoption would be unfavourable to the Government, for he believed it would be favourable, but because it would, not effect the object in view, since it could be evaded, and because the members of the House are not like a jury sworn to hear every word of counsel, witnesses, and judge, and deliver a verdict accordingly. It is quite possible a member may form a correct opinion without hearing all the arguments in the House. Moreover he demurred to the statement that Committees of Supply are not well attended. His recollection was different. After a very brief conversation the motion was negatived without a division. SAILORS' 110MES.—Sir RENRY STRACEY moved a resolution to the effect that the establishment of Sailors' Homes has been so conducive to the benefit of seamen, and, consequently, of so great national im- portance, as to be deserving of the support and encouragement of the legislature. He described how they have been useful in improving the moral and physical condition of the sailer, how they prevented him from falling into the hands of crimps, and preserved him for the public service; and he asked for assistance from the House to maintain them in full vigour. Admiral WaLcorr seconded the motion.

Mr. Musna Ginson agreed that the Homes deserved all the praise bestowed Upon them, but he thought it would be unwise to subsidize them. The sailors are capable of taking care of themselves, they are well paid, and can get constant employment, and board and lodging need not be found them by the state. It would only deaden the zeal of private benevolence. A. controversy arose on the wages of sailors and other labourers; Mr. Henley contending that sailors are not well paid, and that they are worse off than skilled labourers.

The motion was withdrawn.