Ethat to ad turtaing3 inVarliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE OF Loans. Monday, June 12. Exchequer Bonds (6,000.0001.) Bill read a second time—The New Secretary of State; Lord Ellenborough's Question—Railway Regulation; Mr. Cardwell's Bill read a third time—Income-tax (No. 2) Bill com- mitted.

Tuesday. June 13. Divorce; Lord Chancellor's Bill read a second time—Exche- quer Bonds (6,000,0001.) Bill passed. Thursday. June 15. Legislative Council (Canada); Duke of Newcastle's Bill read a second time—Excise-duties Bill read a second time.

.Friday, June 16. Royal Assent to Income-tax (No. 2) Bill, Consolidated Fund (8,000,0001.) Bill, Exchequer Bonds (6,000,0001.) Bill, Industrial and Provident So- cieties Bill—Atiscellaneous Estimates ; Lord Ellenborough's Speech.

Room OF Commoxs. Monday, June 12. Morning Sittings; Mr. Disraeli's Ob- j ection—Stamp-duties Bill reported—Supply ; Civil Estimates. Tuesday, June 13. The Ballot ; Mr. Berkeley's Motion negatived by 194 to 157. Wednesday, June 14. Church-rates ; Mr. Packe's Bill withdrawn—Public Re- venue and Consolidated Charges; Mr. Gladstone's Bill reported—Ways and Means ; Sugar-duties. Thursday, June 15. Oxford University Bill recommitted—Morning Sittings; Mr. Disraeli's obstructive Motion negatived by 131 to 58. Friday, June 16. Registration of Births (Scotland) Bill in Committee—Valua- tion of Lands (Scotland) Bill committed-Loss of the Europa; Sir James Graham's Statement—Oxford University; Lord John Russell's Bill in Committee—Customs- duties (Sugar) Bill read a third time and passed—Excise-duties (Sugar) Bill committed—Ecclesiastical Courts Bill read a third time and passed.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment. Monday Oh .... 7h 20m

Tuesday 5h . Oh 30ra

Wednesday No sitting. Thursday 511 .... 7h 5501

Friday 5h . 7h 3001

Sittings this Week, 4; Time. 1211 15m Sittings this Week, ; Time,515511 lOw

----1

this Session. 68 ; 1806 20m — this Session. 83 ,

THE NEW SECRETARY OF STATE.

The Earl of ELI PNBOROUGH, after remarking that the statute of Queen Anne forbids more than two Secretaries of State to sit in the House of Commons,-and as there are now four Secretaries of State, great practical inconvenience may arise, obstructing the formation of Cabinets, should the existing limitation be continued,-asked whether Government in- tends to bring in a bill to enable three Secretaries of State to sit in the House of Commons ?

The Earl of ABERDEEN said, that the creation of s new Secretary of State is an act of her Majesty's prerogative ; and as the statute of Queen Anne does not apply to the case of the new Secretary, sitting in the Rouse of Lords, at present Government does not intend to seek an alteration of the law. But eases may arise in which the limitation im- posed by the statute would prove inconvenient, and the subject is worthy of consideration.

DEBATE ON THE BALLOT.

Mr. HENRY BERKELEY made his annual motion on Tuesday, for leave to bring in a bill to cause the votes at elections of Members of Parlia- tnent to be taken by way of ballot.

Transient success, he said, had not rendered him sanguine, nor had casual defeats dismayed him ; and so long as he should have a seat in Parliament

v a measure which he had little hope Parliament will igelJSe Si do so by necessity. The persevering way in which stfell..skocates the claims of the Jews is worthy of imitation, 9s,e electors of Great Britain is as strong as that of 9ttestion before the House was, shall the electors elect? The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday Sh .(m) 2h Om Tuesday th .(m) 12h 30ra Wednesday Noon .... 5h 30m Thursday 4h .(s.) lh 45m Friday Noon ....311 Om 66 .6o) lb 30m

There is little to be said on the subject besides what Mr. Grote bad already so ably said ; but his arguments may be explained and applied. Those who resist the ballot have a theory that the franchise is a trust to be used for the benefit of the non-electors, whose privilege it is to stand by and see the trust carried out. Now the franchise is a right. Who could define a breach of electoral trust, and who are to be the judges of that breach when emu. teitted ? Are Tories to decide all who vote for Whigs, and Whigs all who vote for Tories, guilty of a breach of trust ? At the Cork election the priests held it to be a breach of trust to vote for Colonel Chatterton, The voters did more than they were told ; and the non-electors so far, watched their trusts that they chalked the backs of those who voted for Chatterton, in order that they might know which of their trustees they might satisfactorily fall upon and pelt with stones. With Mr. Grote he be. lieved that the elective franchise is a limited right, to be exercised under two stipulations,-first, that it must not be purchased for money ; secondly, that it should not be placed at the disposal of a Peer of the realm. Wherever the ballot has been tried-whether in the United States, in Switzerland, Hot. land, Belgium' or France-it has been successful. France is a notable instance. Last year, the grand argument against the ballot was that it bad given France Louis Napoleon for Emperor : might it not be retorted, that they ought to he thankful for the ballot-box for giving them such a noble and loyal ally ? But he should be ashamed to take that ground. The vices or the virtues of the man elected form no criterion of the goodness or badness of the institution. He had been asked why he brought forward his motion when the Government had withdrawn their Reform Bill ? It might as well be said that Members should not shoot grouse in Scotland because Lord Aberdeen does not wear the philibeg. Lord John Russell's bill contained no provision for the protection of electors. It asked men to give up political power : not a likely thing ; men must be forced to give it up, and the people only can force them. Well, the Reform Bill now slumbers ,• he hoped always to speak of it in the past tense-requieseat in pace. (Laughter.) Quoting the opinions of Daniel Defoe and Mr. Macaulay, he showed that penal enactments will not arrest bribery. One voter took the bribery oath with a five-pound note in one hand and the Prayer-book in the other ; another voter was contended for by rival parties, one of whom slipped a five-pound note into his hand: at the polling. booth he declined to take the bribery oath ; but later in the day he- voted, and subsequently explained, that having the five-pound note in his right hand he could not have laid hold of the Prayer-book without exposing it. (Laughter.) How, knowing those cases, could the House sup- pose that the bills tinkered up-stairs would remedy the evil ? Then as to intimidation, he would state two cases to which none of the bills now before the House would apply. The first occurred in 1838. At the general election in that year, Sir James Graham addressed the electors of Carlisle, and, com- menting on "the Westminster election, he charged Lord Melbourne's Govern- ment with permitting the Comptroller of the Royal Household to sit as chairman of Leader and Evans's committee, while he withheld the warrants appointing Royal tradesmen until after the election. The other case was more complicated. A Conservative tradesman forced five electors to vote for a Liberal ; that Conservative tradesman was himself coerced by a Conserve- five country gentleman ; how did this come about ? The country gentle- man had a married sister; and the day before the election, an election-agent came to her with a packet of letters, which he showed her, saying the death of a client had placed them in his possession ;. they were written before her marriage, and ruin and disgrace would ensue if they fell into her husband's hands. Her brother, he added, had lent money to a man who could com- mand votes, and those votes he must have. In her distress the sister ap- plied to her brother ; and he applied the screw to his debtor. That was an extreme case, it might be said, -but it could be matched by eases already in evidence before the House. In conclusion, Mr. Berkeley said he had always been a Liberal partisan; but on this question he was of no party and no faction. Lord DUDLEY STUART seconded, and Mr. WARNER supported the me, tion. Cries of "Divide !" arose at the end of each speech ; but they were stilled when Lord PALMERSTON got up, and, taking upon himself the burden of the opposition, elicited exulting cheers from the opponents of the Government.

His opinions, he said, were not lightly formed, but of long standing. The proposed remedy for bribery and intimidation would be sure to fail •' for can- vassing can't be got rid of, and the opinions of electors would be known quite as well under a system of secret as of open voting. It ia so in the United States. "In this country the electors are too honourable and too manly not to avow their opinions. They are not ashamed to declare the name of the candidate who is identified with the political system they intend respectively to support. Therefore away with this nonsense-away with the attempt to create a delusion in the public mind which is incon- sistent with all the known facts on the subject." The great bulk of the electors would scorn secrecy. The shopkeeper or tenant who wished to conceal his vote would be solicited by both sides ; those who had influence would extort a promise of support for their candidate; if he voted according to his promise, of what use is your ballot ? If he break his promise, what becomes of the improvement in the morality of your electoral system ? He objected to the ballot because it will not Slice eeed, and because it might succeed. It will not succeed in securing secrecy; and if it should succeed, it will exercise a demoralizing influence, entirely change the habits and manners of the people, and be the loss of an element of political virtue. The vote is a trust, and would still be a trust if the state of things indicated by the jargon of universal suffrage should prevail; nay, if every man, woman, and child had a vote, that vote would still be a trust, which the voter would be bound to exercise for the benefit of the country. Every man who exercises a political right ought to do it openly, subject to the responsibility attached thereto-the responsibility to public opinion. The voter should make up his mind to suffer whatever inconveni- ence may arise from the honest discharge of his duty. If electors are to have the secret vote, why not Members of the House of Commons ? And 80 it is in countries where secret voting is established. ("No t") Yes • in

i France. And as to the injury in cases of that sort, it grossly exaggerated; for where a tradesman loses from his opponents he gains from his friends. To sum up, his objections to the ballot are these,-that it would not be effective to produce secrecy; that it would not protect the voter from the conse- quences of his political bias ; and if it did produce secrecy, a great injury would be inflicted on the British constitution.

Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY asked whether it is more "un-English" to vote openly and notoriously against the conviction of the voter, or secretly and in accordance with his views ? The assertion that the ballot will lead to hypocrisy tells against those who make it, for it implies a right to inter- fere with the franchise. Mr. C. Foliar= and Mr. J. D. t'irzosausi spoke on the same side. Mr. BRIGHT spoke with great force and effect, especially upon the posi- tion which the supporters of the ballot occupy with relation to the Go- vernment, and the Opposition. For himself, he was thoroughly weary of the discussion' and should be very glad never to have to open 121s mouth again in favour of the ballot the present question was, what they had to do to get the ballot passed.

There are two hundred Members on the Ministerial side of the House who differ with Lord Palmerston on this subject ; yet the question of the ballot makes no sensible progress in the House of Commons. How is that ? Lord John Russell is as obstinately opposed to the ballot as Lord Palmerston. Not long since they walked over from the other side of the House, and the two hundred Members who support the ballot walked over with them, accepting them in some sort as leaders, but taking no guarantee that their views should be consulted. Now the Opposition consistently oppose the ballot, not wanting a popular assembly ; but Lord John Russell professes to hold principles of a more popular character.

"Two hundred of us on this side of the House, who are pledged to the question of the ballot, and who support it from the conviction that it is the only remedy for the disgraceful practices at elections, sit here, and ac- knowledge as leaders a number of gentlemen who upon this great and vital question deny altogether that we are right, or at least do not adopt the course we wish them to pursue, but ally themselves, session after session, with honourable gentlemen opposite, to whom they profess to be politically opposed. Look at the position in which some honourable gentlemen upon the Treasury bench are placed. (Laughter from the Opposition.) I have here a description of the opinions of what are generally called 'subordinate members of the Government.' (Renewed laughter and cheers from the Opposition.) But the list includes one right honourable gentleman who is not a subordinate member of the Government, for he has a seat in the Cabinet. I have on my list the names of Cockburn and Bethel, and two names more eminent cannot be found on the relief existing English lawyers. Is it then a foolish or absurd proposition of which men so distinguished have been the consistent advocates ? Then there is the honourable Member for Kilmarnock, the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, if not exactly a mem- ber of the Government, is an eminent officer of this House. There are also Colonel Boyle, the Honourable Mr. Fortescue, Mr. Keogh, the Solicitor- General for Ireland, Mr. Osborne—(Laughter and cheers from the Opposi- tion)—a gentleman who could make an admirable speech upon this question if he happened to sit below the gangway—(Renewed laugh- ter from the Opposition)—Lord Alfred Paget, Mr. Charles Villiers, and the Right Honourable Edward Strutt. ("Hear!" and laughter.) Now, while the noble Member for the City of London, I under- stand, has in a very kind manner invited the right honourable Member for Nottingham to leave the Government, he has invited the right honourable Member for Morpeth, who is opposed to the ballot, to join the Government. While 200 Members on this side the House are in favour of the ballot, and while no less than 11 members of the Government voted in its favour last year, an advocate and friend of the ballot is excluded from the Government, and a right honourable Baronet who when he repre- sented Devonport voted for the ballot, but after he became Member for Northumberland turned round and voted against it, is introduced into the Cabinet. The ballot man is excluded from the Government, and the anti- ballot man, whose inconsistency is i glaring, is asked to take a prominent position in the Government. Then there s the right honourable Baronet the Member for Southwark. ("Hear !" and cheers from the Opposition.) Last year that right honourable gentleman voted in favour of the ballot, and I have not the slightest doubt that now and on all future occasions he will pursue the same course. (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) When the late noble Member for the City opposes the ballot, and when the noble Mem- ber for Tiverton, in a showy manner, appeals to honourable gentlemen op- posite, with whom his sympathies always seem to go, against a proposition which has the support of 200 Members on this side of the House, and almost universally of the constituencies of the country,—I say that the right honourable Member for Southwark is a man whose opinion upon a question of this nature is as much worth taking as that of any of his colleagues; and I have some confidence, that even Parliamentary and official etiquette will not on all occasions prevent his expressing his free and 'honest opinion to the House."

Now what shall we do to get the ballot passed ? Electors should make it a testing question. "But what is our position in this House ? We are two hundred. By whose suffrages do the present occupants of the Treasury- bench retain their places then ? Why, I might almost say by the suffrages of the honourable gentlemen opposite." (Cheers and laughter.) The rap- turous cheers received by Lord Palmerston all, with one feeble exception, came from the Opposition. "I wish, if the noble Lord be the natural lead- er of honourable gentlemen opposite, that they had him as their leader. ("Hear i" and laughter.) For my part, I repudiate altogether the leader- ship of men who, pretending to be Liberal, and supported by the votes of Members on this side, year after year pertinaciously refuse the smallest con- cession upon questions such as that now before the House, upon which the great majority of honourable gentlemen on this side have made up their minds. I will appeal to honourable gentlemen opposite—don't we occupy a very absurd position ? (Loud laughter, and cheers from the Opposition benches.) I am notat all ashamed to confess it."

Every year when Mr. Berkeley brought forward his motion, the moment the division is over the whole question of the ballot is settled for the session. Now what should be done is this—some fifty of the two hundred Members should say to the leader of the House when he comes back, and to Lord Aberdeen, and to the gentlemea who seem to thrive in the air of the Trea- sury-bench, "We have no objection to support you ; but, if you mean to be the leaders of this party, we tell you that, if there is one thing about which we are unanimous, it is the question of the ballot. We insist upon it that you take up that question, and by our help pass it through Parliament; or understand that you are not our leaders and we are not your followers. We are resolved to stand upon our own policy and convictions; and we would infinitely rather sit on the other side in opposition, maintaining what we believe to be sound principles, than sit behind you, watching you betray and oppose everything which we regard as most essential to the interests of this country. That is the policy he would recommend.

Mr. WHITESIDE eulogized the "eloquent and English" speech of Lord Palmerston, and echoed its arguments ; expressing a hope that they had convinced the right honourable Member for Southwark. Sir Wrimisai Mormswomni, cheered on rising, said he could not refrain from speaking after Mr. Bright's appeal; and he must tell Mr. Whiteside that the stock-in-trade arguments of Lord Palmerston, repeated usque ad nauseam for eighteen years, had not convinced him that the ballot is not the only effectual check to bribery and intimidation ; the necessity of checking which had been acknowledged in the address of both. Houses in reply to the Queen's Speech. The bribery-laws have failed, because they have been penal; and penal en- actments fail either from the severity of the penalty or the difficulty of de- tection. In this meet _experience shows that difficulty of detection is the M

cause of failure. No ember was ever convicted of bribery; yet after every general election it is certain there are many Members in the House morally guilty of bribery. Only the ballot can arrest bribery, by taking away the motive to commit it, by diminishing its efficacy, and rendering it less diffi- cult of detection.

To sustain this view' Sir William analyzed the different modes of bribery : showing that payment before the vote is given is rarely practised ; that pay- ment contingent upon the giving of the vote to a specified candidate must cease with open voting; and that payment contingent upon the return of a candidate holds out less temptation, is uncertain in result, and more eesily detected. But then, it is said, collective bribery would be substituted for individual bribery, and it would be as efficacious as the present mode. As- suming that it would. still it would be more open to detection.; for it would be of no use to promise bribes to a dozen or so ; and if the candidate pro- mised bribes to such a number as in addition to the number of nnbought promises would give him a majority, he would then place himself at the mercy of the rest of the bribeable class of the community, even those who voted for his opponent, and they would demand payment to keep the secret. In what a horrible dilemma an honourable Member would be placed who had obtained his return in this manner! Pay- ment could not safely be refused to any elector who demanded it, for re- fusal would make an enemy who would do his best to detect and convict you. One of the great advantages of the ballot would be that new constituencies would be kept pure. Had the Reform Bill contained the ballot, many con- stituencies, now corrupt, would have remained pure : for at first they prided themselves on returning their Members free of expense ; but a system of bribery gradually introduced by low election-agents has demoralized them. It is true the ballot would not be very effective in small or corrupt con- stituencies ; but the tendency of public opinion is to get rid of small and to disfranchise corrupt constituencies. It is said that public opinion deters many from taking bribes : but it is doubtful whether the public opinion that influences bribeable electors is hostile to bribery, or ever will be as long as intimidation is practised by the upper classes. If you converse on this subject with an intelligent man of this class, he will justify his conduct by specious arguments difficult to refute. He will say that it is not worse in him to barter his vote for five pounds than in the shopkeeper to do so for custom, or the Member to barter his vote for a place, a title, or a peerage. Until intimidation be taken away from the upper classes, there never will be a feeling hostile to bribery. Intimidation, it is said, has decreased of late years : but it is not so—it has only taken a milder form. The opinions of landholders and millowners are known, and the shopkeeper or the tenant feels that he cannot vote as he pleases without being liable to punishment. "it is notorious that if in an agricultural dis- trict you know the opinions of the chief landowners, or in a manufacturing district the opinions of the chief millowners, you can tell very nearly what candidate will have the majority of votes." But penal enactments cannot put down intimidation either of upper classes or of the mob. At one part of his elaborate argument cries of "Divide !" arising, Sir William said, gen- tlemen opposite ought not to be impatient, but indulgent, and ought to re- member that he represented sonic dozen individuals of the Administration.. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear !" and laughter.) Sir William answered the argument of Lord Palmerston, that the elective- franchise is a trust for the benefit of the public, and the public have a right to ,judge how the electors exercise that trust in the choice of representatives. This implies that the public are better judges who ought to be chosen than the elector ; but if they are fit to choose, they ought to choose, and therefore they ought to have votes. But who are the public—a part of the commu- nity, or the whole community ? if the whole, then the suffrage ought to be universal. But conceding the suffrage only to a portion implies that the remainder are not fit to choose, and therefore not fit to judge. If the elec- tor votes by ballot, it is said, so ought the representatives in the House of Commons : but a seat in the House of Commons is a trust, and the elector has a right to know whether his representative has fulfilled his promise. The ballot is said to be democratic : if that means that it would secure popu- lar government, it means that the ballot would be good; if it means mob government, then the ballot would be anti-democratic, because it would pro- tect the voter from intimidation by the mob. Penal enactments against bribery, repeatedly amended, have as often failed ; and there only remains the ballot to be tried. If the experiment should fail, the House would have the satisfaction of knowing that it had done its best to cure deep and crying evils, which cast discredit on it, and which tend to sap the foundation of the representative system. (Great cheering.)

The debate was now drawn speedily to a close, amid repeated cries of "Divide!" Mr. GEORGE Burr and Mr. KENDALL opposed, and Mr. P KINN and Mr. MAGUIRE supported the motion. Mr. BERKELEY briefly replied, and the division took place—For the motion, 137; against it, 194; majority against, 37.

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE has carried the second reading of the Legis- lative Council Bill. At present the Legislative Council of Canada is nominated by the Crown ; but it does not possess the influence it ought to possess, and it has fallen into such disfavour that distinguished per- sons whom the Governor-General thought best fitted to sit in the Coun- cil have expressed great repugnance and have sometimes absolutely re- fused to enter it. The Legislative Assembly of Canada called the atten- tion of the Secretary for the Colonies to this state of things, by memorial, more than once. The remedy he proposed was, to repeal those provi- sions of the Union Act that prevent the Parliament of Canada from deal- ing with the subject, leaving it to them to adopt what measures they think fit. That would be in accordance with the sound principle of our Colonial policy, to let the Colonies do all they can for themselves. In the conversation that followed the Duke of Newcastle's speech, the subject-matter of the bill was scarcely discussed; but the Earl of Et- xrisiionotran raised the question, whether we should not consult the Legislatures on the expediency of releasing the North American Colonies from all dependance on the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain. Mr. Huskisson intimated, in 1828, that the time had arrived for separating Canada from this country. It is wonderful bow a British gentleman can hold a position of such nullity, such a humiliating position, as that of Governor-General of Canada. Then, if we should go to war with the United States, Canada could not defend her frontier, and we could not hope to do so effectually. The Duke of NEWCASTLE warmly expressed his regret, his astonish- ment, that a legislator and statesman like Lord Ellenborough could pro- pound doctrines so unpalateable to the Colonies ; an offence against the sovereignty of the country, and hostile to her best interests. When Mr. Huskisson looked forward to separation, he saw that state of things which nine years later led to a rebellion. What was meant by speaking of the humiliating situation of the representative of the Sovereign in those colonies ? Because the Sovereign of this great country has not the arbitrary power of the Emperor of Russia, is her sway a nullity ? But the Duke must deprecate these discussions. The safe defence of Canada is the loyalty of the people ; and the last thing they will advocate is se- panition. -

Lord BROUGHAM said, he came within the description of persons against whom the Duke had spoken so indignantly—those who desire the sepa- ration of Canada from the mother-country, while they do not wish to throw the colony over. The opinion is not novel. It was entertained by Lord Ashburton and Lord St. Vincent; and the best thing that can happen to a colony after "passing the youth of nations" is separation in amity. The Earl of HARRovrsv could not see what advantage the colony would gain by separation, enjoying, as it does, all the benefits of an in- dependent state ; and he believed that the idea is not entertained in Canada.

Thymus

The Loan CHANCELLOR explained the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, in moving the second reading. It proposes to establish a tribunal for giving divorce in all those eases where divorce may now be obtained only by act of Parliament. This tribunal will consist of five members ; of which the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice shall always be two, the others being the Master of the Rolls and two persons, probably civilians, to be named by the Crown. Evidence to be taken viva voce, and recorded by a short-hand writer ; the Court having ample power to adjourn, or to require further evidence in order to arrive at the truth ; leaving a power of appeal to the House of Lords. All matrimonial causes except divorce h vincula matrimonii to be decided in the Court of Chan- cery. Should this business, together with that of the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill, cast too much work on the Court of Chancery, perhaps the beat thing to do would be to appoint a new Vice-Chancellor. Lord BROUGHAM generally, approved of the bill; but suggested that perhaps the consideration of cases for divorce h vinculo would occupy too much time of the proposed Court. Lord CAMPBELL hoped the House would unanimously vote the second reading of the bill, but alter it greatly in Committee. One great objection he entertained was, that the matrimo- nial cases should be scattered among the courts ; and he urged the ne- cessity of having one tribunal for matrimonial causes, that tribunal not to be the Court of Chancery. Lord REDESDALE protested entirely against the bill : marriage ought under no circumstances to he dissolved. Lord ST. LEONARD6 remarked, that the dissolution of marriage was sometimes nothing but strict justice. The law of divorce cannot remain as it is, nor the courts in which it is administered. But why are there to be two courts, the one taking evidence orally, the other in writing ? where is the sense of that ? Something, too, must be determined with regard to actions for damages in cases of criminal conversation. The bill is defec- tive in not dealing with that point. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, compared the provisions of his bill with the recommendations of the Coin- - missioners, and defended the former. The bill was read a second time.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

The Oxford University Reform Bill, as reconstructed, came before the Committee on Thursday. There was a great deal of discussion, and more than one unsuccessful division; no change of importance being made. On clause 31, enabling the Colleges to amend their statutes with respect to eligibility to Headships, &c., Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER, to meet objections from other quarters, moved the insertion of the words "with due regard to personal merits." This was negatived by 63 to 41. Mr. HEYWOOD moved the omission of the words "to make ordinances for promoting the main designs of the founders." Negatived by 92 to 15. As it was thought the Visitor ought to be consulted, the words with the consent of the Visitor" were inserted. Mr. WIGRAM moved the inser- tion after "purposes" in line 40 of the words "so always that such re- gulations and ordinances shall not be inconsistent with the main designs of the founders or donors." Negatived by 92 to 87.

When the clause was put, Mr. BisseRErr complained that no oppor- tunity had been given of discussing the bill in its new aspect.

Considering the determined opposition the bill had met in its early stages, and the stronger opposition they might have anticipated, he thought Ministers had no alternative but to yield with a good grace what they would have been compelled to yield. But whose fault is it that so little popular sympathy has been elicited in support of the measure ? The country is not indifferent, for many petitions have been presented for the admission of Dissenters ; and why had Lord John Russell thrown away his steadiest sup- porters by the course he had taken ? It was not debate, but support, that had been all conciliated away. The bill is now a permissive measure as regards the Fellows, who have a veto, and compulsory only as regards the Heads. The bill will entail the necessity of Parliamentary interference, as the Fellows will not use the permissive powers.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 32, empowering the Commissioners to frame ordinances _when the Colleges omit to make them, Mr. E. DENISON objected to that part of the clause which empowered two-thirds of the "governing body" of a College to prevent those portions from taking effect, by declaring that the ordinances and regulations proposed by the Commissioners are prejudicial. Lord Joins RUSSELL said, Government thought the altera- tion made in the bill is an alteration for the worse, but it was necessary in consequence of the votes of the House. He had never acted on the principle of rejecting a measure because he could not have it just as he liked. The bill will make some considerable improvements, and lay a foundation for others. Mr. WALPOLE said there was some chance of passing a proper measure; but it still required improvement. Sir WIL- LIAM HEATHCOTE moved an amendment. As the clause stood, the go- verning body would be required to declare, in order to arrest alterations, that they were prejudicial to the College "as a place of learning and edu- cation" : that was too strict a limitation on the veto, and he moved the omission of those words. Negatived by 159 to 111.

The clause was adopted, and the Chairman reported progress.

EXCHEQUER BONDS.

On the motion for the third reading of the Exchequer Bonds (6,000,0001.) Bill, Lord MONTEAGLE renewed his opposition, stating at length his objections to the measure —that it was a loan bill ; that it gave extraordinary powers to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to buy and sell securities, thereby disturbing the market ; that the interest of 4 per cent was disproportionate to that on Consols and Exchequer Bills; that the rise of interest from 1.1 to 4 per Cent in a twelvemonth is a dan- ger; that the security itself is distasteful to the public; that the throw- ing the burden of repayment upon the years 1858, '59, and '60, thus assuming what would be the condition of England at that time, is a gross act of presumption, anticipating the resources of other years. Govern- ment may call it what they please, but borrowing money upon se- curity is a loan and nothing but a loan. Earl GRANVILLE said, Lord Monteagle had proceeded on the assumption that these securi- ties are distasteful to the public, whereas experience has shown that the public receive them with favour. As to the rise of interest, the war

and the bad harvest sufficiently accounted for that, without insinuating • that Mr. Gladstone's measures are the cause. Why should it be presumed that there will be any difficulty in providing for Exchequer Bonds to the amount of 2,000,0001. a year, when year after year we presume that we can meet and do meet 16,000,0001. of Exchequer Bills in the same way ? Instead of adding to the permanent debt, Government had taken a liberal estimate of the expenditure, and had taken means to provide a balance in hand for all contingencies. It is not at all clear that the 6,000,0004 will be all called out, and that the debt may not be gradually diminished by ex- changing it for Exchequer Bills before 1858, '59, and '60. The bill was read a third time, and passed.

STAMP-DUTIES.

In Committee on the Stamp-duties Bill, Mr. HUME moved the omission of clause 4, which taken with clause 3 imposes a duty on foreign bills of exchange drawn out of the United Kingdom ; and this, he said, would interfere with the principles of free trade. Mr. Hume was supported by MT. MASTERMAN, Mr. WILLIAM BROWN, Mr. I. B. SMITH, and Mr. THOMAS BARING. It would be a tax on an article never taxed be- fore ; it would disturb our commercial operations with foreign countries ; and it would inflict a severe blow on the agricultural and manufacturing interests of the country. It would take away the advantage we at pre- sent possess over other countries, where bills are taxed ; as a precisely similar measure, the imposition of a duty on marine insurances, operates as a bounty on the establishment of marine insurance companies in every country in the world. Our great rival the United States is wise enough not to impose any stamp at all. The stamp will be a tax upon banking operations, and the increase to the revenue will not be sufficient to justify the Government in placing difficulties in the way of commerce. On the other hand, Mr. GLYN' Mr. Wu.scssr, and Mr. GLAnsrorrE de- fended the stamp. The measure will remedy a great evil affecting the interests of holders of foreign bills. The capital represented by bills of exchange is 160,000,0001.—one-fifth of which bills are foreign ; and if any of these, purporting to be drawn in the Colonies or a foreign country, are proved to have been drawn in England, then the holders cannot re- cover. The records of the Bankruptcy Court show that this is not un- frequently the case. Had the Government proposed that the bills should be sent to the Stamp-office to be stamped, the argument of inconvenience might be used, but the adhesive stamp deprives that plea of force. What effect can the imposition of la. per 1001. have upon the operations of commerce ? The tax is not new: at present all foreign bills drawn in England are liable to a duty of is. 6d. per 1001.; by the new scale the duty will be from ld. to 4ri for 1001., and instead of 4s. up to 5001. the duty will be from ls. to Is. 8d. The only new element is the imposition of the tax on bills drawn in foreign countries and payable in this country. What the House is asked to do is to remove the shackles from the home trade and place it upon a footing of equality with the foreign trade. At present the foreign trade enjoys an unjust exemption.

On a division, the amendment was negatived by 173 to 110, and the clause was agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. PHINN, a clause was inserted to the effect that every instrument liable to stamp-duty shall be admitted in evidence in any criminal proceeding, although it may not bear the stamp required by law.

The clauses and schedules of the bill passed through Committee, and were reported. , StroAri iiiBREvrEarEs.

In Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. WILSON moved a resolution

permitting the use of sugar in breweries. At first it was proposed to pro- hibit the use of sugar in breweries, because it would facilitate frauds on the revenue. As absolute prohibition is not an effectual security, Go- vernment have resolved to encounter the risk of fraud, and therefore pro- pose to continue the permission to use sugar granted in 1848, upon pay- ment of 78. additional duty per hundredweight—equivalent to the new duty on malt. Brewers will be required to take out a licence at 1/. per annum, merely for registration purposes. The resolution was agreed to.

SUPPLY.

In Committee of Supply, long discussions arose upon the vote of 371,9331. to defray the charge of the Government prisons and convict es- tablishments at home.

In reply to Sir JOHN PAKINGTOIV, Lord PALMERSTON stated that con- victs still pass the first period (twelve months) of their sentence in sepa- rate confinement. It had been found that a long period of separate con- finement operated injuriously both on the mental and the bodily health of certain prisoners ; and a discretionary power has been lodged in those having authority to shorten the period. He believed that persons of strong constitutions are benefited by separate confinement. Out of a considerable number of prisoners liberated on tickets of leave, a very small proportion had been reported as misconducting themselves, or de- serving to be called back to prison. It is intended to increase the means of lodging prisoners at home, and there is no likelihood of there being any deficiency of public works on which they may be profitably employed. • In selecting convicts for Western Australia, the worst are not chosen, but those most likely to be useful to the colony. Mr. Frisznov added, that out of 1194 convicts sent out in England on tickets of leave, only three had been revoked.

Mr. SPOONER observed, that under the head of " special services" there was a charge of 5501. as "provision for Roman Catholic priests." As this is a perfectly new vote, was it intended to make it a continuous vote ? Lord PALMERSTON said, it was an estimate of the sum that would be re- quired in the current year for Catholic priests to attend convicts of the Roman Catholic religion. Mr. SPOONER, objectins.° to paying Roman Catholic priests out of the public funds, moved that the item be struck out.

This led to a debate, followed by a division against the Government. Lord PALMERSTON said, that in principle the proposed vote is not new. Under a system established by Sir George Grey, a regular allowance has been made to Catholic priests attending Catholic convicts in Milbank prison. "Upon the admission of convicts, they declare the religion to which they belong ; and those who declare themselves to be Catholics. are regularly at- tended by the Catholic priest, who performs divine service upon Sundays, Good Fridays, and Christmas-day, and who attends once a 'week for the male and once a week for the female prisoners, to discuss with them collectively, and to give exhortation individually to those who may require it. At Millbank, also, when a convict is so ill as to show that he ought to have religious con-

solation, a priest is seat for, if he is a Catholic, and he gives him his minis-

rd Palmerston desired to extend that system to all Government pri- sons, and he did not think it would endanger the Protestant succession. Prison discipline is punishment combined with reformation. Its object is to turn the prisoner out a better man, less dangerous and if possible more useful to society ; and it is obvious that the admonitions of a Protestant clergyman can have little effect on the mind of a Catholic convict. The only way to touch his heart is to give him the assistance of the minister or priest of the religion to which he belongs. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD opposed and Mr. NawnErare supported the amend- ment. Mr. DRUMMOND, regretting the debate, contended that the true principle is to give money to no sect but that which the State supports. On that theory, however, we have gone too far to stand. It must be re- membered what the Coronation-oath says of the Presbyterians as well as of the Roman Catholic; and what the Presbyterians say of Episcopacy- " If ye're near a bishop, Jock, the Pape's flee far awa'." You can't make a distinction between one sect and another. No doubt, Roman Catholic priests will continue to act as they have done for a thousand years ; but theological tests are not the way to meet political danger. But there is a practical difficulty in the way—how do you know a Roman Catholic priest? "You have no means of knowing them; for did you not bring a Jesuit into the House of Lords, and you could not prove it?" Long ago the pledge to establish the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland ought to have been redeemed, and then there would have been means of know- ing Roman Catholic priests.

Mr. ADDERLEY, Mr. HORSFALL, Mr. W. J. Fox, Mr. HADFIELD, and Sir Jowl PAXINGTON supported, while Mr. JOHN BALL and Mr. Loess opposed the amendment. The House divided—For the amendment, 158; against it, 136; ma- jority, 22. The item was accordingly struck out. The House resumed ; and the votes agreed to on Friday were reported and adopted.

PUBLIC REVENUE.

In Committee on the Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges Bill, Mr. CHAUFURD moved that the salaries of Scotch Sheriffs should be struck out of the schedule of exemptions, and placed in schedule B; which would have the effect of bringing them annually under the notice of the House. The motion was negatived by 110 to 21. Schedule A having been agreed to, it was moved that the Chairman should report progress. Negatived by 82 to 33. The bill passed through Committee.

MORNING SITTINGS.

Mr. Disnsina made inquiry on Monday respecting the appointment of morning sittings. On the paper for the following day and Thursday there were morning sittings appointed for important business, but no public notice had been given of these appointments. Morning sittings are of recent introduction; very inconvenient to Members ; and nothing but urgent necessity, nothing but the lateness of the session, can justify them. The session is not at all late; the month of May is hardly finished; never was there less pressure of public business ; and it will be satisfactory to the country that the sittings of the House should not in the existing state of affairs be too rapidly terminated. Would the Government consent to postpone morning sittings until the Government be completely reconstructed ? Sir CHARtRS WOOD observed that the bills appointed for the morning sitting on Tuesday are conducted by private Members ; and Government has no wish at all as regards that morning sitting. But as regards Thursday, he hoped "the Government," as Mr. Disraeli said, "would be reconstructed" by that time, and that therefore the House would not ob- ject to sit on Thursday morning. Subsequently, however, Mr. DISRAELI moved and obtained the dis- charge of the orders fixed for the morning sittings on Tuesday. Late on Thursday, when the House was disposing of the orders of the day, the ATromeav-GENzaer. proposed to take the Common Law Pro- cedure Bill at twelve o'clock on Monday. Mr. DISRAELI opposed this; urging, as before, that morning sittings would facilitate the close of the session. It was fixed for Thursday next. Two other bills however, were fixed for morning sittings on Tuesday and Thursday. The Regis- tration of Births (Scotland) Bill was fixed for the next morning at twelve ; and Mr. DISRAELI moved the discharge of the order. He was assisted this time by Lord DUDLEY STUART. Mr. GLADSTONE said that as many Members had gone away under the impression that the House had disposed of the subject of morning sittings it would hardly be fair to take a division. A division, however, was taken, and Mr. Disraeli was defeated by 131 to 58.