ftlintro uni routitingo in bartiamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

NOVO

or LORDS. Monday. June 14. Royal Assent to the Franchise Prisons Bill, Non-Parochial Registers Bill, Stamp Duties on Passports Bill—The Militia; Conversation on—Chancery Amendment Bill read a third time and passed. juaday, June 15. Property Qualification Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday, June 17. The Slave-Trade ; the Bishop of Oxford's Motion. Friday, June 18. The Indian Resolutions ; Lord Lansdowne's Question— Private Bills; Lord Stanley of Aldeiley's Motion—Law of False Pretences Act Amendment Bill read a second time.

HMV or COMMONS. Monday, June 14. The Indian Resolutions in Committee— Peace Presenation (Ireland) Act Continuance Bill read a second time—Juries (Ireland) Bill read a first time. Tuesday, June 15. Mr. Townsend's Case ; votes disallowed—Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland) Bill in Committee—Mr. IA'. ii. Barber; Select Committee ap- pointed—Govenuhent of Scotland ; Mr. Baxter's Motion—Police Force (Ireland) Bill read a first time. Wednesday. June 16. Edinburgh Sze. Annuity Tax Bill thrown out—Registra- tion of County Voters (Scotland) Bill thrown out—Playgrounds Bill committed. Thursday, June 17. Indian Resolutions; further proceedings adjourned—Ken- sington Gore Estate Bill read a second time—Joint-Stock Companies Amendment Bill committed—Public Health Bill committed—Juries (Ireland) Bill read a second time—Government of India Bill (No. 3) read a first time. Friday, June 18. The Militia; Colonel French's Question—The Wellington Monument ; Mr. Stirling's Question—The Thames ; Mr. Mangles's Question—The American Difficulty; Mr. Blight's Question—Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland) Bill in Committee.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Monday . Eh 20in Tuesday 5h . 611 tom Wednesday No etting. Thursday in . 811 30m Friday 5h . lb 20m Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Sittings this this

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

Sh .(m)1514 46m

Noon .... 3h 50m 61, .(es) 13h 30m Noon .... 5h 55m Noon .... 411 Oni 6h . (m) 111 30m 4h .(m)12h 451n sittings this Week, — this Session.

4; Time, 1014 50m

55; — 131h 20in

Week, 7; Time, 451i l5ei Session 53; — 568h 52m

THE INDIAN RESOLUTIONS.

The House went into Committee on Monday on the Indian Resolu- tions; recommencing with the fifth, moved by Lord STANLEY—

"That, with a view to the efficiency and independence of the Council, it is expedient that it should be partly nominated and partly elected." The Committee had decided that there should be a Council to assist the Minister for India. That Council should be substantially independent. Now he did not think that the Council would be independent if its members were nominated by the Crown, either for life, or for a long or short term of years. If for life, there would be always some who could not perform their duties. If for a long term without reelection, some Councillors might be nominated who would have to cease from the performance of their duties in the prime of life, or others, who would grow incapable before the term expired. If for a short term with reelec- tion then the councillor would be far more dependent on the Minister and more suspected by the public than any clerk in the service. The election of part of the Council would be building on old foundations.

Lord JOHN RUsSELL argued that the convenience and inconvenience of the respective systems should be weighed together. The constitu- tional method is for the Executive to make appointments on the recom- mendation of the Ministers of the Crown. He objected to a constituency of proprietors of India and railway stock ; and moved, as an amend- ment, that the Council should be nominated by the Crown. Sir hums GRAHAM gave his reasons for voting with the Government. Premising that he objected to any change, and repeating his reasons, he said that as the majority had decided in favour of change, effect must be given to its decision. Then he defended the East India Company, and asked for proof of the inefficiency and weakness of the home govern- ment of India. He was disposed to think that the members of Council should hold their scats during good behaviour ; that after ten years' ser- vice they might retire upon a pension ; that they should have 1500/. a year and not sit in Parliament; that the Crown should appoint the Go- vernor-General, Governors, and Commander-in-chief; that the Go- vernor-General and Governors should nominate their own councils ; and that all first civil appointments, and appointments to the scientific corps, should be open to competition. The rest of the patronage should con- tinue with the Minister. and Council.

Entertaining these opinions, he had now to decide what should be his vote upon the question now before the Committee. The principle of elec- tionentered into the composition of the Court of Directors, and, therefore, according to his plan, that a large number of the members of that Court should be appointed members of the Council, there would at first be an intermixture of election and nomination. He was bound to say that he was not prepared to carry the principle of election further. In this sense, then hecould vote for the resolution now before the Committee. After careful deliberation he decidedly adopted the opinion of his friend Lord Grey, and concurred with him, that the best plan would be that when a vacancy oc- curred the President and Council should agree upon three names, from which the Crown should select one to be laid upon the table of both Houses of Parliament for a given time—say a month—the nomination not to be complete until one or both Houses should concur in it. If there was not an effective Council exercising a moral control—only a moral control—over the Minister for India, he should be driven in hopeless despair to the oppo- site alternative, and should prefer to have a Minister alone responsible, with subordinates of the highest character and station amply paid.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS defended the proposal of the ' late Government that members of Council should be appointed by the Crown for eight years. To set the principles of nomination and election at work tide by side will in some sort perpetuate the double government. Sir ERSKINE PERRY said he should oppose Sir Times Graham's suggestion to the ut- most eetent of Ms power. It would perttuanwte the present Court of Directors in another form. Mr. Sineme 11" said that the propo- sal of the Governraent combined all the evils of eleetion without the be- lief:its. of representation. The scheme of Sir Jame o Graham would meet the difficulties of the question hotter than any yet proposed. Mr. WIL- LOUGHBY took the same view. liord °enemies. said that the Committee must take care that in settling the constitution of .the Council they did not lose sight of the complete responsibility Of the Minister. He could

not trust the constituencies suggested to elect the Council, and he should vote for the amendment. Mr. BAILLIE and Mr. C. BRUCE supported the Government. Mr. VERNON Surrn thought that nomination would secure the most independent Council. Lord STANLEY disclaimed the idea that the principle of election in- volved the principle of representation. His object in suggesting con- stituencies was to provide a check upon nomination. Sir James Gra- ham's proposal is complex and requires time. He could not pledge the Government to any form of proceeding.

Lord Pernienseme criticized the plan of Sir James Graham, which, he said, involved the retrogressive principle of self-election which Parlia- ment has condemned. We live under a monarchy. The principle of that monarchy is that each act shall have a constitutional adviser ; but it is proposed to appoint an irresponsible council for India. There would be nothing but inconvenience and confusion in the arrangement sug- gested by Sir James Graham. The Minister is to be responsible, but how can he be so if thwarted by men appointed by a power different from that by whom he had been chosen. Mr. GLADSTONE, in an emu- mentative speech of great moderation' combated the views of Lord Pal- merston and supported the proposal of Sir James Graham. Mr. ROE. BUCK took the opposite side. Sir FRANCIS BARING characterized Sir James Graham's plan as a " fair way of getting out of the difficulty."' Lord JOHN RtSSELL said the resolution proposed that part of the Council should be nominated and part elected by spine body hereafter to be pointed out. Sir James Graham, however, proposed that not a part should be elected and a part nominated, but that the whole Council should be formed into a body to be partly elected and partly nominated; and he reconciled this proposition to the words of the resolution by say- ing that if a gentleman had been elected by the proprietors of East India Steak, and was afterwards nominated by the Crown, be was then a per- son partly elected and partly nominated. It was most unwise and dial. ingenuous to affirm a proposition which had one sense for one Member and another sense for others—(".Yo, no !")—aud seemed to be a mere play upon words.

Sir JA.31F.S Gesussi complained of the "harsh terms" applied to hies by his noble friend, and denied that his proposal was disingenuous, dis- honest, or a play upon words. Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained that the terms did not apply to Sir James. Mr. Tilsit:am said that by paefing the resolution the Committee would only be pledged to this that the Council should be formed of a mixed element."

On a division the amendment of Lord John Russell was negatived by 250 to 185. Much cheering followed. An attempt was made to report progress before the original question was put, but it was defeated by 239 to 155. The resolution was agreed to, amid loud Ministerial cheers, and the House resumed. .

Thursday morning was also devoted to the discussion of the Indian resolutions, and by a curious turn of fortune in that discussion they dis- appeared altogether. Lord STANLEY moved the sixth resolution stating that the nominated and elected members should have certain qualifications. But Le did not discuss or expound it. He reverted to the debate of Monday, canvassed the various proposals for constituting the Council, including Sir James Graham's plan ; and, having rejected them all, he explained the plan of the Government. He understood the House to desire that the exclusive nomination should not rest with the Crown.

To give effect to that, what the Government propose, so far as the first appointments to the Council are concerned, is this: they were prepared to accept the number of fifteen, which had been agreed to by the Committee the other night. Of that number they propose that eight should be nominated by the Crown, and that the other seven' following to a certain extent the precedent set in 1853, should be elected from among their own number by the existing Court of Directors. This relates only to the first appointments to the Council. With respect to the manner of fdlitig up future vacancies, they propose that every alternate one should be filled up by the nomination of the Crown, and that the others should be supplied by election, that election to be by the members of the Council.

Lord Pd.L31ERSTON asked that the proposal should be reduced to a resolution. He argued stoutly in favour of a nominee Council as constitutional, and against the jealousy of the right of the Crown to make these appointments. lie condemned the principle of self-election adopted by the Government, a principle long exploded. . Ile would rather make the Court of Directors the first Council of India. Lord Stanley had not explained whether the alternate nominations were to be made by the whole Council or by those not nominated by the Crown. - Lord STANLEY—" By the whole Council"

Lord PAI.MERSTON —Well, then, if it came to that, the Crown would always have the majority. (Cheers and laughter) That Would substan- tially place the nomination in the hands of the Minister. (Cheers.) Then let that be done openly— (Loud ehcers)—which they were about to do substantially.

Then arose a confused debate. Mr. Wesumee defended the Ministerial proposal, and taunted Lord Palmerston with having beetehitherto blind to what he called the unconstitutional character of the Court of Directors, none of whom until 1853 had been appointed by the Crown. Sir JAMES GRAHAM also contended against Lord Palmerston, and asked for time to deliberate on the Government proposal. Mr. DISRAELI said the dis- cussion of the mode of carrying out the proposal would be deferred until the bill was brought in. By abandoning the 6th and 7th resolutions, the House might dispose of all the resolutions that day. lie also rallied Lord

Palmerston on his fallacious constitutional opposition. Mr. Barone. de-

fended Lord Palmerston. The great objection to nominee members had come from the Ministerial side. Sir James Graham had involved them in voting an absurdity, and now Mr. Disraeli suggested an ingenious escape—that they say no more about it, but vote the rest of the lc- solutions.

They had discussed the resolutions until they knew as much about them Lis they were ever-likely to know, and, considering the time of the year, the state of the weather, and that of the Thames, he thought it better that the bill should be introduced at once, and that what remained to be settled should be decided upon the discussion of its clauses.

Mr. GLADSTONE and Lord Joinir RussEne supported this advice. Then Lord STANLEY got up ; and after some observations about patronage, anl.

an announcement that the experiment of appointing military cadets by competition should.he heeds said-he thought it was the general feeling .f the Committee—and, if so, the Government were ready to acquiesce In

it—that the resolutions had answered the purpose for which they were originally introduced. (Cheers and laughter.)

Numbers of Members now left the House. A rambling discussion was continued for some time ; the motion before the Committee was then -withdrawn; the Chairman was directed to report the four resolutions adopted to the House, and orders were given for a bill founded upon them to be brought in.

Mr. DISRAELI fixed the second reading for Thursday next.

THE MILITIA.

The Duke of BUCCLEUGH inquired whether any steps had been taken to appoint a Commission or Committee to inquire into the establishment and organization of the Militia with a view to render the staff more effective ; whether it is intended to call out for training this year all or any of the regiments not recently embodied; and whether they would be quartered in barracks, billets, or otherwise ?

Lord HARDINGE said that the Queen had granted a Commission to inquire into the subject. The instructions to that Commission have not been drawn, but they will direct inquiry into the establishment and organization of the permanent staff and also whether the Militia may or not be effectually used for recruiting the Line. A certain proportion of the regiments not previously on duty will be called out, but he could not say how they arould-be quartered. ael...Gsar-said the first question to be determined is what is the --object of a Militia ? Is it to be a mere instrument for recruiting the Army, or an efficient reserve ? During the Russian war 69,000 men were kept embodied for no other purpose but to supply the Line. Is the system economical ? Attracted by the bounty men enlist in several regiments ; he had heard of one who had enlisted in a dozen. Out of 195,000 men 39,000 had deserted. During the war we never raised the army to the number voted by Parliament. He suggested that additional advantages should be given to the Army, and that the Militia should be maintained as a reserved force.

The Duke of CAMBRIDGE said he could not concur in the opinion that no volunteers for the Line should be sought for in the Militia. As to quarters it would be better if the men could be lodged in barracks, but the amount of aecommodation of that kind is very small. Ile added that recruiting is making very satisfactory progress. Lord LYTTELTON objected to the draughting of good men from Militia regiments. The reason why men are not obtained for the Army is that they are not sufficiently well treated and well paid. The fact that soldiers cannot be obtained without a bounty condemns our military system. Under it the worst of the population are enlisted by intoxication and imposture. He hoped the Government would not be content until it has a good defensive force to remain at home in case the regilar Army is called abroad.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought that the Militia might be used as a means of speedily recruiting the Army ; but that the principle of using it as a feeder might be carried too far. Militia should only be employed to garrison our towns and barracks in case of war. It is a most expensive and demoralizing process to maintain them all over the country simply as a means of recruiting the regular Army. As to barracks all Governments have gone on from hand to mouth, and it is time some system was adopted.

PROPERTY QUALIFICATION.

The third reading of the Property Qualification Bill met with the verbal opposition of Lord RAvEnswonrit, the Earl of CLANCARTY, and the Earl of WICKLOW. The bill is only an instalment of the Charter. It will lead to the payment of Members, and universal suffrage. If their lordships pass such measures as these they will be rapidly tending to the slough of Socialism.

Earl FORITSCUE and Lord BROUGHAM ridiculed the idea of the pro- perty qualification being a bulwark of the constitution. The old law is vexatious in its operation, and compliance with its provisions is constantly coupled with falsehood and sometimes with perjury. Lord BROUGHAM promised to bring in a bill, not to take away the privilege of freedom from arrest in judgment, but to put all persons on the same footing as traders were placed by the Act of 1812, so that they should be incapable of sitting and voting, and a new writ should issue as though the seat was really vacant, if within twelve months after bankruptcy they did not pay the whole of their debts and have their commission superseded.

Mr. Locke King's Bill was read a third time and passed.

THE SLAVE TRADE.

The Bishop of OxeoaD, on Thursday, _presented a petition from Ja- maica praying their lordships to compel Spain to redeem her pledge and suppress the traffic in slaves. He referred to the treaties Spain has signed, in which she has from time to time undertaken to stop the slave- trade; treaties she has always evaded, although we once paid her 400,0001. as compensation for the injury which the suppression of the traffic would inflict on Spanish subjects. He described the large gains made out of the trade by Captains-General in Cuba, and persons near the throne in Madrid; be appealed to the House not to allow such a state of things to continue, involving us in the danger of war with the United States ; and he called upon the Government to use every means to make the treaties binding—that this tardy, this equivocating state should at last free itself, as it had so long engaged to do, from the accursed stain of this traffic in men. He moved that the petition should lie on the table.

Lord BROUGHAM showed the evil effects that 'lie French emigration scheme has had upon the progress of African commerce and civilization. To show that it is a disguised slave-trade he pointed to the case of the Regina Cceli whose cargo of slaves " murdered " the European crew. [Earl GRET—"Killed."] "The noble Earl is perfectly right." As regards the dispute with America Lord Brougham, giving up the right of search, enlarged on the necessity of preventing the flag of America or any other state from enabling pirates to carry on their nefarious proceed- ings with impunity.

The Earl of MALMESBURY said that Spain had opposed passive resist- ance to the repeated remonstrances of England. It was not without great risk of rupture with other countries that we have sometimes en- deavoured to take strong measures. If Spain continued to show such a want-of principle, instead of taking her part in regard to the defence of Cuba, we shall leave her to suffer the consequences. In respect to the United States, be said, they deny the distinction between the right of search and the right of visit. He had admitted the international law as laid down by Mr. Cass, but had strongly represented that if the Ameri- cans persist in their declarations, every pirate and slaver on the sea will carry the American flag. But he hoped that some means would be adopted of enabling officers to verify the nationality of vessels and the legality of their flags. The Government have used every opportunity to protest against the French emigration scheme, which in the language of is a renewal of the slave-trade.

Tha Earl of CARLISLE said a word for the suppression of the slave- trade. Lord WODEHOU811 doubted the wisdom of the policy of interfer- ence, but we must not precipitately abandon it. Earl GREY said that Dr. Livingstone was of opinion that the legitimate trade in Africa can- not stand unless the slave-trade is abolished. But we must rigidly re- main within our rights. He could not too hastily come to the condo. sion that our officers have acted wrongly in regard to the American ships.

It is of no use, from fear of giving offence to refrain from speaking the truth on such a question as this, and he asserted without fear of contradic- tion that in the eyes of God and man the Governments of the United States and France are at this moment responsible for the revival of the African slave-trade.

The Earl of ABERDEEN said that the instructions given to the officers had been approN ed by the American Government in 1844. If they were obeyed no outrage could be committeed. The subject was soon after dropped ; the motion being agreed to.

THE OFFICE or LOB.D ADVOCATE.

Mr. BAXTER brought forward a Scotch grievance on Tuesday. He asked the House to declare that there ought to be an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. His argument was that the large and undefined duties of the Lord Advocate are too onerous for one man. He has a large private practice from his eminent position; he is public prosecutor by virtue of his office ; he has an appeal practice in the House of Lords. In addition to this he is the political monarch and dictator of Scotland. The Home Secretary, nominally the Secretary of State for Scotland, can do nothing without the Lord Advocate. But the difficulty is to find the latter. [Here Lord Advocate Inglis entering the House was received with merriment and cheering.] Mr Baxter- said the regularity with which Mr. Inglis attended deprived him of his best arguments. He then went on to describe the Lord Advocate constantly wandering from place to place in pursuit of his duties, and proposed to appoint an Under. Secretary to perform the political duties of the office, and to abolish the offices of secretary and solicitor of the Lord Advocate, and the Scotch lordship of the Treasury.

Mr. WILLIAM EwAirr seconded the motion. It was opposed by Mr. BOUVERTE as an inferior arrangement to the present ; by Mr. &Lin junior, who said that the Under-Secretary would be a fancy man of all work perpetually cutting out new work for himself and inventing legislation ; by Sir JOHN OGILVY, by the LORD ADVOCATE himself, by Lord DUNCAN, Lord PALMER.STON, and Mr. DISRAELI. All these vindicated the existing arrangements upon the ground of convenience, and showed that the administration of Scotland is not only neither wanting in efficiency nor responsibility, but actually more efficient than it could be were any number of Under-Secretaries appointed. On the other hand Mr. CRAUFURD and Mr. DUNLOP thought the change should be made ; and Mr. Sriammo gave a qualified assent to the motion.

On a division it was negatived by 174 to 47.

THE OATHS Bna.s.—The Earl of CLANCARTY, having given notice of his intention to oppose the new Oaths Bills, the Earl of MALMESBURY stated that as Lord Derby was suffering from indisposition, and as he would pro- bably be detained from public business for the rest of the week, it would be desirable to postpone the bills for the present. This suggestion seemed to be accepted.

THE EDINBURGH Ammurrit TAR.—The Wednesday sitting was almost wholly given up to a debate on the Edinburgh &c. Annuity Tax Bill Mr. BLACK moved its second reading. This tax is levied in Edinburgh, Mon- trose, and other towns, to pay the salaries of ministers of the established church. The grievance is that a very large proportion of the persons who pay do not belong to the established church, and that there are sweeping exemptions. The bill proposes to substitute for the tax seat-rents and church-door collections. Mr. BAXTER seconded the motion. Mr. BLACK- BURN moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. Thereupon, a long debate ensued. The tax was defended by Mr. BUCHA- NAN, the seconder of the amendment, Mr. F. Score, Mr. CUMIN° Baum, and the LORD ADVOCATE. It was generally held that the abolition of the tax would be confiscation. But the LORD ADVOCATE, while opposing the bill, admitted that the tax was unjust in its incidence hnd obnoxious in its nature. But he said he could not consent to part with it unless an &lei- valent were provided. The proposal in the bill is a sham and delusion. On the other side were Mr. COWAN, Mr. J. B. Siam, Mr. Gin- PIN, Sir E. COLEBROOKE, and Lord DUNCAN. Mr. Honsment also supporting the bill, said the Lord Advocate had admitted the principle of the bill. Would the House never learn from experience ? Various compromises had been proposed years ago on the subject of Church-rates ; but moderate measure after moderate measure had undergone invariably defeat, until at last came the passing of a measure through that House this very session for the total abolition of that impost. The case of Ministers' Money in Ireland conveyed a similar warning. For his own part, he should vote for the second reading of this bill—first, because he concurred in its principle—viz., that there was an acknowledged grievance which they were bound to redress; and next, because, if seat-rents were to continue, it was better that they should be diverted to ecclesiastical uses than that they should continue in the hands of the town-council of Edinburgh for the payment of its creditors.

On a division the amendment was carried by a majority of one—the numbers being 130 to 129. The bill is, therefore, lost. IRISH POLICE.—Lord NAss brought in and explained the provisions of the Police Force (Ireland) Bill on Tuesday. It abolishes local police forces, and amalgamates and places them on the same footing with the general constabulary. The quota for Dublin will be 400 men for Belfast 100 men ; but power of increasing both will be given to the Lord-Lieutenant. The expense of the present police is 65,0001. a year ; the new force will cost only 50,0001. The bill was read a first time.

KENSINGTON GORE ESTATES.—On the motion of Mr. DISRAELI the Com- missioners of the Exhibition of 1851 Bill was read a second time. This measure is intended to dissolve the partnershipwhich has, hitherto subsis- ted between the Government and the Commissioners, the latter, subject to certain reasonable deductions, refunding the portion of the purchase money of the estate advanced by the Government. Ma. TOWNSEND.—On the motion of ilk. Frrzaor, the record of the ad- judication of bankruptcy against Mr. Timensiend, Member for Ciroonwicia,

was read. Mr. Fitzroy next moved that Mr. Townsend, having been found, declared, and adjudged a bankrupt from the 29th March, had since been, and still wee, by law, incapable of sitting and voting in that House. Mr. TowithErin said that he was not aware he was violating the law by sitting and voting titer his bankruptcy was adjudicated. Lawyers had told bim he might sit and vote. He had become a bankrupt in consequence of

'credno tied persecution and a heavy Chancery suit ; he had but one harsh ' itor and he should not rest until he had paid 20s. in the pound. He pleaded hard to remain in the House. To the best of his belief he should supersede the bankruptcy in a few weeks. He was told, however, he must resign to make room for a former Member, but until the right honourable gentleman in the chair decided to the contrary he was supported in his seat by the unanimous voices of 30,000 free, honest, and independent men of Greenwich, who would not suffer him to be put out at the dictation of any money-bag candidate. They did not care a rush whether their Members had 50,0001. a year or only WO/. provided they did not, as candidates upon the hustings, undertake to do that which as representatives they did not in- tend to perform.

Mr. Townsend then left the House; the motion was agreed to ; and the votes given by him since the 29th March were disallowed.

Mr. W. H. BARBEL—On the motion of Mr. BEADY, and almost without discussion, the House agreed to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the case of Mr. W. H. Barber, and report whether any steps should be taken in reference thereto. [Mr. Barber, it may be remembered, was unjustly transported to Norfolk Island, where he endured great cruelties. It is un- derstood that he now seeks compensation.] THE CAGLIARI QuEsrion.—Two very interesting documents on this sub- ject have been published; one is Lord Malmesbury's ultimatum to the Neapolitan Government, the other is the reply of Coinmendatore Carafe.

Lord Malmesbury's letter, dated May 25, points out to Signor Carafa that her Majesty's Government would be justified in accomplishing its demand for compensation by force ; but desirous of showing it moderation, espe- cially as it is so superior in force, the Queen's Government offered media- tion, and suggested the Swedish Court as a fair mediator. Then, describing the seizure of the Cagliari and the detention of the crew, as an act of violence, illegal and unjustifiable, the Queen's Government declares that it supports the demand for the surrender of the ship and crew made by the Sardinian Government upon the Government of Naples, and urgently presses com- pliance upon the latter. If Naples should persist in refusing these proposals she was menaced with measures that would become inevitable. To this on the 8th June the Neapolitan Government returned the following answer.

"Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Naples, Jime 8, "My Lord—In reply to the letter which your Excellency has done me the honour of addressmg to me, under date of the 26th of May last, I hasten to acquaint you that the Government of the King, my august master, has never imagined, or been able to imagine, that it could find means to oppose the forces which the Government of her Britannic Majesty has at its disposal.

'Setting out from the point suggested by the tenor of the said letter, that the affair of the Cagliari, as your Excellency clearly expresses it, 'can to no one be of greater importance than to Great Britain, the Neapolitan Govern- ment finds that it has neither any argument to propound nor any opposition to make to it.

"I have the honour of informing your Excellency that the sum of three thousand pounds sterling, paid into the mercantile house of Pook (sic), is at the disposal of the English Government.

"As far as concerns the men forming the crew of the Cagliari, now under trial before the Grand Criminal Court of Salerno, and the Cagliari herself, I have it in my power to announce to you that the men and the vessel are at the disposal of Mr. Lyons ; they are consigned to him ; their departure will depend on him ; and orders have been given to the competent au- thorities.

"This being settled, the Government of his Sicilian Majesty has no need to accept any mediation, and it delivers up everything to the absolute will (assolutes voluntei) of the British Government. "I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration, your Excel- lency's most devoted and obliged servant,

(Signed) CAB.APA."