Warn ant( Vrarttltings in Valiant.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEER.

HAWSE OF LORDS. Monday, April 26. No business of importance. HAWSE OF LORDS. Monday, April 26. No business of importance. Tuesday, April 27. Oaths ; Lord John Russell's Bill in Committee, the Jew clause negatived. Thursday, April 29. The Cagliari ; Ministerial Explanations—India ; the Duke of Argyll's Motion—Barrel Organs Suppression Bill thrown out. Friday, April 30. Oaths ; Lord John Russell's Bill, as amended, read a third time and passed—Transfer of Land Bill committed.

Ilorsn or COMMONS. Monday, April 26. Government of India ; Mr. Disraeli'; Motion agreed to—Military Education ; Mr. Monsell's Motion carried by 217 to 177—Excise Duties Bill read a second time—Church of England Special Services Bill read a first time.

Tuesday, April 27. County Franchise ; Mr. Locke King's Bill read a first time- Church-Rates ; Motion—Poor-law Amendment Bill read a second time. Wednesday, April 26. Agricultural Statistics ; Mr. Caird's Bill thrown out by 241 to 135.

Thursday, April 29. Maynooth ; Mr. Spooner's Motion negatived by 210 to 155 —Poor-law Amendment Bill committed—Registration of County Voters (Scotland) Bill read a second tune—" Count out."' Friday, April 30. Mr. E. James, Q.C. ; Mr. Hunt's- Question—Government of India ; Committee upon the Resolutions—Local Government Bill read a second time—Excise Duties Bill read a third time and passed—Oaths Bill brought from the L TIME-TABLE.

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 45 .(m) 15 15ra Tuesday 45.(m) 12h Um Wednesday Noon ..., 5h 95m Thursday 9h 75 95m

Friday 45 .(m) 12k 20m

Sittings this Week, 4; Time, Ilk 5m. Sittings this Week, 5; Time, 36h 10m — this Session. 42; — 785 Urn this Session 50; — 9175 57m

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 55 . 55 30m Tuesday 5h 9h 45m Wednesday No sitting.

Thursday 511 .. 10h 30m

Friday 55 .. 55 20m

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

The orders of the day were postponed on Monday evening in order that Mr. Disraeli might move that the House should, on Friday, go into a Committee of the whole House on the Acts relating to the Government of India to enable him to propose his resolutions.

Mr. DisuAr.0 began his speech by a retrospective statement of the course of proceeding in regard to the Government of India. He de- scribed the introduction of Lord Palmerston's bill—the noble lord "really formally obtained nothing else but permission to introduce that measure" —the unexpected change of Government, and the difficult position in which the question was placed. With scarcely an exception those who now form the Administration voted in favour of Mr. Baring's amendment to postpone legislation; but " under the new circumstances" that Govern- ment could not avoid the responsibility of offering a scheme for the go- vernment of India to the notice of the House. Both the bills thus in- troduced proposed that the Government of India in this country should be in the hands of a Minister having undivided authority ; but while under Lord Palmerston's bill the Council was nominated, the present Go- vernment thought that those who should assist the Minister should not be merely a Council in name. There are two schools who have laid down dogmas on the subject. One boasts of the simplicity of its ar- rangements. That school proposes that there should be a great officer of state assisted by a few clerks and an Under-Secretary. The consequence of that arrangement would be that the permanent clerks in his depart- ment word,' become the Minister's Council. This system would not work in a manner satisfactory to the country. But the adherents of this school said it did not much signify whether the Minister were capa- ble from his knowledge and experience, inasmuch as India should be governed in India. That simply means that England is to be ignorant of India. As there would be no one to check or control the GOVer/lOrs General he would hold a position which no despot at any time has occu- pied. He might enter on a career of conquest ; he would be able to ex- ercise his patronage to sustain a weak and falling Ministry. The whole scheme is dangerous and impracticable. The other plan was brought forward in a bill stigmatized as " compli- cated." The plan of Lord Palmerston certainly does not deserve that epi- thet. It is, indeed, "somewhat veiled no doubt and mitigated for form's sake—the plan of that simple school to which I have adverted, because the Minister of the noble lord would possess all the Indian patronage, and 1135 despotism in England would be veiled only by the appointment of sole barren nominees." The bill which he introduced was of a different charac- ter. He compared it to the British constitution—which is very eomll" cated, but which has worked better than the modern inventions of philoso- phers, all remarkable for simplicity. 44 Now, I do not know any institution which appears to us more natural and simple than the mode in which the general administration of this country is carried on by a committee of the Privy Council called the Cabinet. That seems to us the most natural in- stitution possible, the legitimate product of Parliamentary government ; but if it were now proposk for the first time, and I were in opposition, I think I could show that of all absurd inventions, of all impracticable sug- gestions, that was the most ridiculous. I should say, Only think of taking men out of one House of Parliament, and then taking men out of the other House—those two Houses being assemblies between which there is not by any means entire sympathy, but which are, on the contrary, often in conflict. Only think of making a man a Cabinet Minister because he is connected with the agricultural interest, another because he is con- nected with the mercantile interest • only think of making a man a Cabinet Minister because he can make a speech.' (Laughter.) Every one would say directly, ' This is a form of government the most absurd ever known, it cannot work, and the person who would propose it is not entitled to the public confidence.' But if it be added that the Government of the country thus constituted shall consist only of men who sit in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, what declamation would there not be against such a special qualification ? Would it not be said, That is a plan by which you prevent many clever men who should be in the Go- vernment from forming a part of it. The absurd and heterogeneous institu- tion you propose would shut out Mr. Hallam, Mr. Grote, and Mr. Mill—it is totally impossible such an institution should work at all.' Yet it does work on the whole very satisfactorily." ("Ifear !" and laughter.) The majority of the House is in favour of a council. The excellences of the East India direction are that knowledge, experience, and aptitude to deal with Indian forms and subjects exist there. "Therefore it appears to me, that if you resolve to have a council, it should be a real council, and should pos- sess those elements which the Court of Directors has been eminent for." The council ought to be numerous. There are eight distinct heads of busi- ness requiring committees to administer them. If there must be a nume- rous council, should the Crown nominate all its members ? Assuming there were eighteen, were they prepared to intrust the nomination of these eighteen to the Crown ? Ms Government had proposed, that while the Crown should nominate one half, security was taken that they ihould be efficient men representing the civil and military services of the great pre- sidencies. It was preposterous to say that the restrictions were unwise and would shut out the best men; that it was class legislation that was proposed, when it is notorious that no principle of representation is more sound than the representation of classes. " What has made our Parliament so suc- cessful and so famous but the circumstance that it has always been an as- sembly which represented class interests ? " In like manner Mr. Disraeli defended his arrangement whereby one-half of the Council were to be elected. What Lord Palmerston had called the "limited and ridiculous constituency" of the Court of Directors had always produced able and eminent men; and his Government had proposed a MI- stituency of between 7000 and 8000, representing a capital of 59,000,000/., all invested in India. It is mid that it would be impossible to canvass this constituency, but that is one of the greatest recommendations of the scheme. Next he entered into a long defence of the proposal to elect councillors by Parliamentary constituencies, showing that the agricultural classes, the peo- ple in general, do not care for reform in India, but that Lancashire does, as proved by its cry for reform. He vindicated his choice of the con- stituencies and the character of the electors. "I have heard every phrase of contumely and every epithet of indignation poured out upon that proposi- tion and the body to whom we wish to commit that trust. Everybody, in every place, and on every occasion, seemed to be astonished that what was called a ten-pounder should for a moment be intrusted with this franchise. (Cheers and laughter front the Ministerial benches.) Nor can I fors-'et, and never shall I forget, the almost awe-struck tones with which one honour- able Member rose to ask me if I really and seriously designed that this duty should be intrusted to the freemen of Liverpool. (taughter.) On that sub- ject I would only wish to-night to offer the result of my reflection and ob- servation. I cannot for a moment attempt to compete with that power of sarcasm and invective with which the great body of the constituency of Eng- land, and especially of the great commercial towns, have been treated by the Liberal party. (Cheers and laughter.) But I remember that some forty years ago the freemen of Liverpool were called upon to exercise their trust and elect a Member of Parliament, and that they sent to this House Mr. Canning. (Cheers.) And what did we do in this House when we got Mr. Canning here ? Why., we made him as soon as possible President of the Board of Control." Lord Canning "would never have been Governor-Ge- neral of India had the freemen of Liverpool not elected his father as their representative in Parliament." (Ceies of " Oh !" and laughter.) These "poor freemen are treated as the pariahs of politics." But he believed that had not his proposal been arrested by a storm of prejudice the voters would have acted under their natural leaders and their choice would have done them credit. He insisted that in framing a council they must have re- course to the elective principle, and urged the House to take the great Indian question out of the dangerous sphere of political passion and party conflict. Lord PALMERSTON described Mr. Disraeli's speech as a funeral oration upon the deceased India Bill No. 2— " We have been assisting at a sort of Irish wake. The right honourable gentleman did not say or sing in the language of the afflicted peasant, Och, hone, why did you die ?'—(Great laughter)—but we are entitled to ask the right honourable gentleman, now that he has told us how highly he esti- mates the merits of the deceased bill, Why did you kill it ?' (Continued laughter.) The right honourable gentleman, to speak seriously, has re- ferred to topics connected neither with the India Bill No. 2, nor with the resolutions before the House. He began by passing a very severe censure on the British constitution ; and he said—speaking no doubt from his own personal experience= What can be so absurd as the present constitution of a British Cabinet?' (Laughter.) 'What can be so ridiculous,' he said, as putting one man into a Cabinet because he understands agriculture; what can be so absurd as putting another man into a Cabinet because he has an extensive knowledge of commerce ?' And the climax of absurdity, accord- ing to the right honourable gentleman, was putting a man into a Cabinet because he could make an eloquent speech. (Renewed laughter.) 'Ay,' said the right honourable gentleman, if I were on the other side of the table, if any tongue were unloosed and I were released from the shackles and • trammels of office, I could tell you how absurd is the constitution of a British Cabinet.' (Cheers and continued laughter.) Sir, I don't follow the right honourable gentleman through his theoretical declamations. I am content with the British constitution, and, so far as my experience of Cabi- nets goes, I am content with them." (Laughter.) In this strain of ydeasantry he continued. "We all remember the manner in which that bill was received by the House. I have heard a story of the Spanish Sovereign who reigned when Don Quixote was first published, who, seeing a man reading a book and laughing immoderately, sent a courtier to ask what he was reading and why he was laughing. The courtier came back and said that he was reading Don Quixote. 'I thought so,' said the monarch ; 'whenever I see a man laughing I know that he is reading Don Quixote.' And go it was with this India Bill. People met one another in the street, and one laughed and the other laughed and .evarybody laughed. What are you laughing at?' said one. Why., at the India Bill, to be sure. What are you laughing at?' ' Why, I was laughing at the India Bill, too.' (Laughter.) That was the reception that it met with out of doors, and I say therefore that the public, as well as the Cabinet, had something to do with the death of that unfortunate and immature measure."

The serious part of Lord Palmerston's speech was a constitutional argument against electing any members of the Council of India, a course that would, in fact, go to reostablish the double government by establish- ing, not a council of advisers, but a council of controllers. " You do not want to establish a new Board of Control, but to transfer the government in such a manner that the Ministers of the Crown shall be responsible to this House for the entire direction of Indian affitirs. There seems a fatality in Indian affairs by which an inveterate principle of duality clings to everything. We have had for a long time a double government. That was felt to be an evil which we were called upon to correct. We were turned out, and thus there came to be two Administrations and two bills. The present Government were not satisfied with that, but adopted two methods of proceeding—a bill and a resolution. I only hope that they will push that principle a little further' and make it necessary, for the purpose of completing the measure, that we should have two sessions. Certainly, the course they adopt is likely to lead to that result ; but I will say nothbig more on that subject for the present." Mr. GLAnsrosin commented upon the time lost in regard to this ques- tion. They were practically in the position they occupied when Mr. Baring made his motion. If they had moved at all they had moved backwards. They were, called upon to make a completely new com- mencement. of the government of India. Lord Palmerston by his ironi- cal reference to another session, did not appear to look upon delay as a great misfortune. Mr. Disraeli had said that unless a council equal in ability to the Court of Directors could be appointed, legislation had better be postponed. Looking to the misgivings of the authors of the two mea- sures, and to the state of public business, Mr. Gladstone must protest against an affirmative answer being given to the question to be put from the chair. But he had other reasons. He would be most reluctant to see any bill go up to the House of Lords which should substitute for the Court of Directors any body not fully equal to that court for every pur- pose of advice, suggestion, and morally speaking of control. But what is the great difficulty that we have to encounter in this matter ? It is that you are attempting to govern by means of a people another people, separated from us not by distance only, but by language, by blood, by tra- dition, by history, by institutions, and by all that can draw a line of demar- cation between man and man. Is it not the greatest problem in polities how to govern a nation by another nation ? Is it not by far the greatest diffi- culty which we have before us—how to provide duly, in our system of go- vernment, for the protection of the 'interests and feelings of the people of India F (Cheers.) With the greatest faith in Parliamentary institutions for the discussion and settlement of public affairs in England, I frankly own that I have not equal faith in their operation for defending the interests and feelings of the people of India. The question which we are bound to

ask ourselves before all others, with all others, and above all others, is— what protection can we provide by law not only for the maintenance of those

interests, but likewise for respect, care, and toleration towards the feelings of the people of India ? I will say this of the Court of Directors, that it has practically been a body protective of the people of India. I am not friendly to its maintenance, far less am I friendly to that state of severance which exists at present between the Executive and the independent element of the Indian Government ; but this I do say, that we ought not to assent to any plan which makes less efficient provision for the protection of Indian inter- ests and Indian feelings. And I look in vain to the plan of her Majesty's Government, and still more in vain, I think, to the plan of the noble vis- count the Member for Tiverton, for any protective power that can be com- pared in point of efficacy to the Court of Directors." He also expressed an opinion that some security should be taken to limit the power of the queen's advisers with respect to the use of the Indian treasury mni armies to make war without the consent of Parliament. On this subject he spoke with great earnestness. He mentioned those matters, because " the main con- ditions and object of our legislation for India are protection for the Indian people against the errors of England, and protection for the British people and the British Parliament against an undue exercise of power by the exe- cutive Government. Neither bill contained any provisions worth framing for these vital purposes. " I close what I have to say with quoting these still more memorable words of the right honourable gentleman the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer—I hope I do not misrepresent them : Although we now advise the House to enter on the question of Indian legislation, yet during the last two months—since I have become a member of tiovern- mentevery day of my experience has more and more convinced me that there does not at present exist among us that maturity of opinion which is requisite on questions of the first order in pointof difficulty and importance." (Cheers.) Colonel SYKES, amid cries of " Divide !" defended the Government of the East India Company. Sir HARRY VERNEY took the same course. Mr. GREGORY, remarking that Mr. Gladstone had expressed the senti- ments of a large proportion of the House, moved an amendment to tho effect that it was not expedient to pass any resolutions for the future go- vernment of India.

Mr. EWART seconded the motion.

Many Members had now left the House, and Lord JouN RussErr, re- marked, that however ready Mr. Gregory might be to reverse the de- cision at which the House had formerly arrived, he should at least have given notice of his intention to move his amendment, so that it might have been fully discussed. Lord John insisted at some length, both in the beginning and end of his speech, on the fitness of the present time for legislating upon the subject. As regards the measures of legislation he expressed himself in favour of a Minister and a nominated council, feeling sure that whatever party were in power, they would choose fit persons. But "it would be a very great mistake if we attempted to ogive an inde- pendent authority to such a Council, and in that manner again evade that Ministerial responsibility the unity of which is the whole object of the mea- sure. Give the Minister every assistance ; surround him with advisers whose opinions may be of most value to him; do not'''shrink from giving them salaries and a position which may enable us to obtain the very best men who return from their important functions in India ; but when you have done this, leave the Minister himself to be responsible. Unless he is su- preme, he could not have that responsibility. Let him, therefore, be su- preme in his Council, and stand up in Parliament to defend the policy of which he is the author and the advocate."

Mr. BAILLIE called upon the House to reject the amendment, under- standing it to raise the issue whether the House should proceed by reso- lution or by bill. Sir GEORGE GREY said he understood the amendment as intended to defer legislation altogether, and he should therefore vote against in Mr. GREGORY confirmed this interpretation. Sir FRANCIS BARING supported and Lord Gonanien—reserving to himself the fullest freedom—opposed the amendment. Mr. HORSMAN pointed out that there had been a great change in the opinions of the House on the sub- ject of legislating this session ; and that the House had been precipitate in proceeding without inquiry. He criticized both bills, and suggested that after the first resolution affirming that the transfer should be made had been adopted on Friday, some Member should move that further in- quiry is necessary. Mr. VERNON SMITH defended Lord Palmerston's bill.

After some further conversation, Mr. GREGORY withdrew his amend- ment, and the motion was agreed to.

There was some debate on Thursday in the House of Lords on the In- dian subject. Early in the evening the Earl of ALBEMARLE presented a petition, signed by 12,000 inhabitants of Manchester and Salford, praying that the King of Oude should be restored to the throne of his ancestors.

Earl GRANVILLE asked whether it was not unusual to send despatches, referring to policy to be pursued in India, through the Secret Committee ? The Earl of ELLENEOROUGH said he had acted with strict legality in sending the despatch referred to through the Secret Committee. [This despatch relates to the treatment of the rebels and mutineers.] Late in the evening the Duke of ARGYLL moved for the report upon the two India Bills from the Court of Directors to the Court of Pro- prietors. In doing so he described the present position of the Indian question. The vote of the House of Commons, and still more the charac- ter of the President of the Board of Control, have diminished the in- fluence of the Directors, especially since the latter sent despatches through the Secret Committee. He admitted that the Government were bound to legislate, but contended that their proceedings,—bringing in a bill, withdrawing it, and offering resolutions,—have not rendered the solution .a the question easier. At some length he criticized the bill of the Go- vernment, and argued against an elective or partly elective council, and against the absurdity of making the council independent of the Minister ; and he referred to the speeches of Lord Ellenborough to show that in 1852 and 1853 he had given evidence and had spoken both against an elective council and the introduction Of mercantile men.

The Earl of ELLEBBosiouGH said that the late Government are respon- sible for the difficulties with respect to the future government of India. They did not seem to have made up their minds before Christmas. By proceeding to legislate they had taken a step injurious to India, but having begun to legislate they must go on. As to the cooperation be- tween the Directors and the Board of Control nothing can be more ami- cable or more efficient. Lord Ellenborough did not attempt to defend his consistency—he never read his own speeches—but he stoutly vindicated the elective principle. He had adopted it because it would be impossi- ble for the Government to choose the fittest commercial men to sit in the Council, and because no nominated Council can have the weight of an elective one. He confessed an almost morbid jealousy of jobbing.

Earl GREY reiterated, with much emphasis, the plea for delay ; worse than any evils from that course would be a false step ; with many objec- tions and suggestions, he declared legislation this session impossible.

Earl GRANVILLE expressed his dissent from the statement that the late Government are responsible for the present difficulties. They had begun to prepare their measure in the early autumn, and had sketched their plan before Christmas. The charge of impromptu legislation is unfounded. He criticized the bill of the present Government and quoted Lord Ellen- borough against himself. Lord MONTEAGLE reinforced Lord Grey, and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE answered Lord Monteagle.—Motion agreed to.

THE OATHS Brix.

The House of Lords went into Committee on the Oaths Bill on Tues- day. On clause 1 the Earl of Wsexsow proposed that the words of the oath declaring that no foreign prince or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesias- tical or spiritual, within the realm should be omitted. He insisted that these words "are decidedly false," and offensive to a large part of the community. Lord LYNDHURST, however, showed that the words did not refer to a vague power of influence, a mere moral influence, but to a sub- stantive authority exerted and enforced by courts of justice. Earl GRAN- vn.LE and Lord CAMPBELL urged Lord Wicklow not to insist upon his amendment. Lord WICKLOW said that all persons except the lawyers took a sensible view of the question ; but after the appeal made to him he should not divide the House. The amendment was negatived without a division ; and clauses 1, 2, and 3, were agreed to.

On clause 5, providing for the admission of Jews to Parliament, by authorizing the omission of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," the Loan CHANCELLOR moved its omission. In opposing the clause, he claimed to act, not upon prejudice, but upon principle. The Jews, he allowed, were respectable, but he declined to substitute personal con- siderations for general principles. Ile apologized for going over ground so frequently traversed; but old arguments can only receive old an- swers. He contended that the Legislature has a right to impose dis- abilities, that the Jews were not accidentally, but directly excluded ; and that there is no analogy between the exercise of certain rights on the part of Jews such as the franchise, and the claim to sit in Parliament. He rated the City of London for acting in defiance of the law by choosing a Jew in order to overawe the Legislature ; and he said that "the other constituencies of the country are justified in expecting from them sub- mission to the law. This was the " lower " ground on which he based his opposition. The " higher " ground was the argument that to admit the Jews would be to un-Christianize the Legislature. Finally he re- ferred to Earl Grey's appeal on the second reading. "According to the doctrine of the noble Earl the House of Commons has only to determine to carry some object on which it is has set its heart, and to persevere. [Lord Campbell—" No, no pi My noble and learned friend says No,' but with great submission to him I say Yes.' I repeat that ac- cording to the noble Earl's doctrine the House of Commons has only to knock at our doors sufficiently long, and in a sufficiently loud and threaten- ing manner, for us to submit at discretion. That, it appears to me, would reduce your lordships to a state of dependency. I can well understand that on a nicely balanced question of ordinary policy or expediency, if you can catch the voice of the people and find it oppcssd to your own opinions, you might be disposed to yield your views to their judgment. But we are on no suchsquestion here. IN'e are on a matter of conscience and religious duty. Whatever may be the threats by which it is sought to intimidate your lordship, I trust you will proceed fearlessly and steadily in what you consider to be the path of duty. I cannot think so ill of the House of Com- mons, from which I have so recently been taken, as tq suppose that for the accomplishment of any object of their own they will violate the constitu. tion ; but if they do, then with the greatest respect to them I say, on their heads be the blame of all the consequences of their act. If we are to yield at discretion in this way, it would have been better to yield earlier, when concession would have had the grace of a voluntary act ; but certainly the doctrine of the noble Earl, by which he would persuade us to abandon our functions and to abdicate our duties, would leave us nothing more than a register-office for the decrees of the House of Commons." ((Theers) Lord LYNDHURST congratulated the House On the accession of BO Mel eloquence and talent as had just been exhibited. But he regretted that this eloquence had been directed against the cause he felt it his duty to maintain. He then described the position of the question,—how the late Attorney-General was pledged to bring forward resolutions for car- rying into effect a proposition against the decision of that House, should it be adverse ; how the bill had been carried in the other House by great and increasing majorities ; and how, although it is the duty of the Isorss to check hasty legislation, he had never understood that they were to make a firm, determined, and persevering stand against the opinion of the other House of Parliament when backed by the opinion of the people, and, least of all, on questions affecting in a certain degree the constitution of that House and popular rights. If they did make such a stand it should be upon a rock, and not upon the fragment of an act of Parlia- ment diverted from its original purpose. He showed that the Jews, ever since the days of Bracton, have been held to be native subjects, and that native subjects cannot be stripped of their rights except by act of Parlia- ment. Will any one pretend to say there is such an act ? Lord Chelms. ford said it was a question of power and privilege. The Legislature can do what it likes, but he takes a narrow and insufficient view of religious liberty. " Religious liberty I hold to be this—that every man with respect to office' power, or emolument should be put on a footing of perfect equality with his neighbour, without regard to his religious opinions, unless those opinions are such as to disqualify him for the proper performance of the du- ties of his office. Is there any other principle upon which in this enlight- ened age religious liberty can be founded ? It is true that you do not fine men or imprison them on account of their religious opinions but if you deny them the fair emoluments of office and fair objects of ambition you in- flict upon them an injury greater than fine, and, in many instances, greater even than imprisonment. You violate the very principle of religious free- dom. You establish a rule which would justify persecution." Lord Lyndhurst next showed that the admission of Jews would not =- christianize the Legislature any more than it has the courts of justice, mu- nicipal corporations, and our colonies. He referred to Mr. Newdegate's attack upon the Jews,—an attack "utterly unfounded and unsupported by evidence." "He asserts that the Jews were the originators of the Inquisi- tion, and that they were the original Jesuits; and what is his authority for these assertions ? He does not refer us to Bernard, or Boyle, or any such high authority, but says, I find this in a romance—in a popular novel in circulation—the author of which is a member of the present Government.' (Much laughter.) If you ask the name of this hovel you are told that it is Coningsby." (Continued laughter.) Mr. Walpole had expressed a hope that this would be the last time this question would come before the House of Commons. "My Lords, most earnestly, most sincerely, and most zea- lously do I hope that your lordships will so decide that this may be the last time that I shall have the opportunity of addressing you on this subject." (Cheering.) The Duke of MARLBOROUGH took the religious objection to the bill. Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE supported it. When it had been his duty to impress upon the Turkish Government the importance of setting aside in the administration of their affairs those religious differences which existed, nothing would have been of greater assistance to him than to have been able to point to this country as having set aside those ancient prejudices which had been too long retained. The clause was opposed by the Duke of ItsrnAND, Lord DurioaaraioN, and the Bishop of Cassias; and supported by Lord STANLEY of Alderley, Earl GRAissoLLE, and the Marquis of LONDONDERRY.

On a division, the motion to omit the clause was :canied by 119 to 80. The other clauses were agreed to.

Cosocry FRANCHISE.

Mr. LOCRE HMG moved on Tuesday for leave to bring in a bill to extend the franchise in counties in England and Wales, and to improve the representation of the people in respect of such franchise. In this bill he had adopted a suggestion made by Sir James Graham and fixed upon 51. rating as a qualification. It was said this was piecemeal legis- lation, but in the present temper of the House he could adopt no better course than to submit this small but just and honest measure of Parlia- mentary reform. It was rumoured just before the last election that the Government had determined to support his bill, but that its form pre- vented them, since they could not have converted it into a practical and useful measure. But that is a fiction. The bill was never introduced.

Mr. BYNG seconded the motion.

Mr. DISRAELI said he had no objection to the purpose of the measure, —to extend and improve the franchise in counties ; but the bill before them would embarrass those who seriously intend and wish to extend it. The counties at present return 150 Members ; their constituency is more than half a million. The boroughs with a constituency of 400,000 re- turn 330 Members. Now the bill would increase the disproportion; and the result would be that a large constituency would return a very small number of Members, and a very large number of Members would be returned by a very small constituency. That would be a retrograde step. If the county franchise is dealt with the borough franchise must also be dealt with. The Government is sincerely desirous of considering the question on its merits, and if possible of bringing forward a measure worthy the acceptance of Parliament, and therefore they could not sanc- tion the introduction of the bill. He moved the "previous question." Lord Joins Russims dealt smartly with Mr. Disraeli's distinction be- tween county and borough constituencies, and showed that the line which separated the two is like the line which Mr. Canning said sepa- rated the parties in his Cabinet,—not straight but serpentine. Some counties have very much of a town population ; many boroughs purely represent the agricultural interest. If you add to the county constitu- ency, you increase the weight of county representatives. Lord John de- scribed the feeling of difficulty that exists with regard to a large and comprehensive measure; the readiness of a hundred who object on one point and fifty on another to club their resistance to the whole scheme. He pointed to the lukewarmness of the Prime Minister, and the doubt- ful tone of Mr. Disraeli ; and ho asked whether under these °imam- stances it would not be wise to adopt Mr. King's proposition as "a bird in the hand."

Mr. Lasouenzas, besides supporting the motion, stated explicitly that the late Cabinet had last year intended to support Mr. Locke King's motion for leave to introduce the bill, and then to alter it in Committee. It was not until they came down to the House that they found that course was not open to them, and that they must oppose the bill.

The debate now fell off in interest Mr. J. H. PHILIPS, Mr. BEN- Timm, Mr. HNIGHTLEY, and Mr. COLLINS opposed, while MT. LOCKE and Mr. CLAY supported the motion. When the speaking came to an end the "previous question" moved by the leader of the House was negatived without a division, and the grant of leave to bring in the bill was hailed with general cheering.

THE CASE or THE Caottaili.

The Earl of Annan, in asking Lord Malmesbury whether he had re- plied to the despatch of the Marquis d'Azeglio, dated March 22, made a spirited speech on the Cagliari case. All the lawyers in England should never persuade him that the crew of the Cagliari, being Sardinian sub- jects, were bound to abide by the decision of the Neapolitan Court, how- ever unjust that might be. In 1850 [in the Pacifico case] the House of Commons decided that persons have a right to appeal to their own Go- vernment against the decisions of a foreign tribunal. Lord Airlie also protested against the distinction drawn between the personal and the in- ternational question; and contended that England was bound to act in oonformity with the intimation given by Mr. Erskine.

The Earl of MALRESBURY said that he had replied to the note of the

Marquis d'Azeglio by pointing out that the British Government had no cognizance of the note of Sir James Hudson in which Mr. Erskine had inserted a promise instead of asking a question. He regretted that the Marquis d'Azeglio should in his rejoinder have inferred that we were about to " abandon " Sardinia. It is not quite fair to apply that painful expression to the determination of the Government whatever it may be. As regards the general question, he said that the Government had felt bound first to procure the liberation of the engineers. He found the Law-officers agreed upon two points—that the engineers were detained illegally ; and that we had a right to demand compensation. We have demanded compensation, but no answer has been given to that demand. With regard to the capture of the Cagliari the Law-officers agreed that it was legal, but that the condemnation of the vessel was illegal. The Government, therefore, were enabled to act. Now, as it was not im- possible that Sardinia might go to war with Naples, the British Govern- ment, anxious to prevent a rupture which would lead to an European war, informed the Sardinian Government of the opinions of our Law- officers, and offered our good offices for the purpose of persuading the King of Naples to restore the Cagliari and her crew to Sardinia. He en- forced this advice by referring Count Cavour to the protocol of the 14th April 1856 of the Conferences of Paris, when at the suggestion of Lord Clarendon the Plenipotentiaries agree to give a more extensive applica- tion of article VII of the treaty providing that in case of a difference between the Porte and any one of the signatories of the treaty recourse should be had to mediation before resorting to force. If the joint efforts of England and Sardinia failed the means recommended in the protocol might be employed.

The Earl of CLLRENDON complimented the Government upon the dis- cretion of its course ; and then related what he had done in the matter.

The Government to which he belonged had been the first to raise the question whether the seizure was legal. The Law-officers decided that it was. "I do not think that the alteration of the despatch bore out what my noble friend said as to its becoming a promise ; but certainly it was a very improper proceeding to alter the despatch, though, as Sir James Hudson found in the despatch a strong expression of opinion, and did not know how far the Government intended to act on it, I do not think so much blame is attributable to him as has been attached to him." But although the seizure was declared to be legal, the vessel and crew were detained in disregard of the commonest principles of justice. [This Lord Clarendon showed by a reference to the facts.] The Government, however, at the time could only express its doubts respecting the legality of their detention, because the greatest secrecy was maintained. All they could do was to insure the engineers a fair and speedy trial. Signor Carafe "deliberately deceived" the British Government respecting their health, treatment, and lodging ; giving, more than once, his "solemn assurance" that they were well treated, well lodged, and in good health, when they were suffering every horror and misery in a dungeon. His Government intended to demand compensation ; but as Jong as they were in the hands of the Neapolitan Government it would have been manifestly imprudent to excite irritation by announcing our intention to seek indemnity. "We are now, however, at liberty to do so, and I rejoice to hear from my noble friend opposite that we are not only to demand compensation, but to support the Sardinian Govern- ment in their claims for restitution and indemnity, because those claims are founded upon the same ground as our own,—namely, the illegality of the proceedings of the Neapolitan Government."

Lord WENSLEYDALE suggested that the question of the condemnation of the Cagliari should be submitted to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; but Lord CA.MPBELL and Lord CRANWORTH decidedly. objected. Lord DERBY concurred in the objection. He added to Lord Malmesbury's statement the fact that the British Government is acting in strict accord with the views and opinions of the Government of France.

This speech brought the debate to an end.

MiLimany EDUCATION.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, on Monday, Mr. MONSELL moved an address to the Crown praying that no alteration may be made in the principle of the existing arrangements for admission to cadetships in the Engineers and Artillery. At present pupils are ad- mitted to the Royal Academy at Woolwich by open competition. That system, established in 1855, has worked admirably. It is now proposed to alter the open system of admission to Woolwich, and to compel every one who enters it to pass two years at Sandhurst. According to this proposal a man who wishes to get his son into the Army Without purchase will have to send his son to Sandhurst and to pay his ex- penses there for the two years. The chances against his succeeding in the final examination for Woolwich are six to one, and if he does not succeed and his father cannot buy him a commission, all this time and expense will be lost. It is notorious that many schools have already organized mili- Wy departments in order to train pupils for an examination at Woolwich, and the great public schools of Eton and Harrow are prepared to do the same if it should be shown that the present system was to be permanent. If, however, it should be resolved to compel everybody who enters Wool-

wich to pass through Sandhurst, the result will be to reduce the education of our scientific corps below that of the scientific corps of any other nation in Europe.

Mr. LEFROY seconded the motion.

A smart conversation ensued. Sir Fraswiat WILLIAMS supported tho motion. General PEEL explained that the change had been recommended by a council of military gentlemen ; that it was adopted by Lord Pan- inure ; and that to lessen the hardship upon those already preparing to enter Woolwich, he had induced the Commander-in-chief to open two more examinations for Woolwich. Competition at Sandhurst would be free, and the standard would be higher than that at Woolwich. Mr. Burros and Sergeant DEASY strongly opposed the change. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said there was great danger that Sandhurst would become a monopoly. If the competition for an entrance into Woolwich be con- fined to boys educated at Sandhurst, the area from which men are drawn will be circumscribed. He suggested that General Peel should bring his own common sense to bear upon the question, and he would arrive at a result more satisfactory than any that could flow from a fresh inquiry. Mr. VANSITTART. Mr. O'Bitinst, Lord ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPEST sup- ported, and Mr. 'WALPOLE opposed the motion.

On a division the motion was carried by 217 to 177.

CHURCH-RATES,

Mr. PULLER brought forward his proposal offering a compromise on the Church-rate question on Tuesday. He moved that on the next day the House should resolve itself into Committee "for the purpose of consider- ing the expediency of providing for the repair of churches and the main- tenance of churchyards, by substituting for church-rates such an annual rent-charge upon all hereditaments in respect of which church-rates may now be lawfully assessed upon the occupiers thereof as will most fairly represent the total annual amount now raised by church-rates ; such rent- charge to be a fixed and uniform poundage on the rateable value of the hereditaments, and to be made a charge on the owners of the same." It is the law of this country that the poor should have their churches main- tained at the charge of the property of the parish. The proposal to abolish church-rates would deprive the poor of their ancient right, and make a present to the owners of property.

Mr. WIGRAM seconded the motion.

Mr. BUXTON moved as an amendment that in some parishes an addi- tion to a limited amount should be made to the tithe to maintain the churches, and that in some parishes in towns the churchwardens or the vestry should be empowered to place a rental on a certain proportion of the sittings. Neither the amendment nor the motion met with any fitvour. Sir

JOHN TRELAWNY objected to both. Sir COILNEWALL LEWIS said that the motion sought to impose a compulsory charge on the property of the country in lieu of a parochial charge levied by a majority of the vestry only. As to the amendment, that was not in order. Lord J.oust RUSSELL and Mr. WaLroLE took the same view ; both expressed an opinion favourIble to the plan proposed by Sir George Grey last year ; and both agreed Mat they could not vote for an absolute abolition of the rate. Mr. ROEBUCK said that he and those with whom he acted were determined that the principle of Sir John Trelasvny's bill should be carried out and "during the present session too."

Mr. BUXTON withdrew his amendment, and the motion was rejected by 317 to 54.

Before the numbers were declared Mr. Collins said that Mr. Norris had given his voice for the "Ayes," and had voted with the "Noes." Called up to the table, Mr. Nonats told the Speaker that he had not given his voice either " Aye " or "No," but in order to obtain a division he had called out "the Ayes have it."

Mr. LYGON now asked leave to bring in a bill to alter or amend the law of church-rates ; but he was induced by representations from all sides to postpone his motion.

Mavszooni.

Mr. SPOONER moved his annual motion on Maynooth on Thursday. After a somewhat less amplified display of erudition than usual, he asked the House to resolve itself into a Committee to consider the acts relating to the Maynooth grant, with a view to its withdrawal. Mr. BENTINCK seconded the motion. Then cries of " Divide ! " arose.

They were stilled for a short time while Mr. WALPOLE explained why he should vote against the motion. If the grant to Maynooth be withheld, why not other grants to Roman Catholics ? When be proposed the grant Sir Robert Peel described it as a "message of peace" to Ireland. Its repeal would be "tantamount to a declaration of war." Mr. Walpole would be no party to any step that would disturb the happy prospects of Ireland.

Mr. NEWDEGATE attempted to speak ; but the House was determined to close the debate. They therefore went at once to a division, and the motion was negatived by 210 to 155.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.

Mr. CAIRD moved the second reading of the Agricultural Statistics Bill at the Wednesday sitting, and the whole day was occupied with the debate thereupon. Mr. Caird contended that not only farmers and corn- dealers suffer from their ignorance on the subject, but that the labourer suffers also on account of the extreme variations of price. He showed that France and other countries and our own colonies make minute in- quiries and turn them to good account. What he proposed to do was, not to pass a compulsory bill, but to enact that printed returns should be distributed to all persons holding more than five acres, and that they should be filled up and sent in to the Board of Trade. These returns would show the acreage under cultivation. It would be important to obtain an estimate of produce, yet as it would be a mere estimate it should not be included in the statistics, but published separately. He denied that the bill was compulsory. It only empowered the Board of Trade to send persons to inspect the lands of a defaulting occupier. The cost of the working would be 10,0001. a year.

Mr. PACKE moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. It is the thin end of the wedge. Why should farmers be singled out ? Why should they not pass a bill to ascertain the contents of all shops and warehouses and banks ? He insisted that the bill was compulsory, because it permitted officials to go upon the farmers' lands. Mr. Du CANE seconded the amendment.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS opposed the bill, not because he sympathized with the clamour and prejudice it had called forth, not because he thought it would be inquisitorial, but because he was entirely sceptical as to the utility of the information it would produce. Then if it were merely to permit farmers to make a voluntary return, no legislation is necessary. But he held that it was compulsory, because it directed every occupier to fill up the rettums. Mr. BASS cited a case to show the use of the sta- tikties. Within the last eight months he has bought 100,000 quarters of malt. When he began to buy in September it was of vast importance to him to know how much had been grown. If, for example, he were sure that 3,000,000 acres had been planted with barley in one year, while in the previous year scarcely more than 2,000,000 acres had been planted, instead of sending his agents to the Continent to buy barley he should keep them at home. Mr. CARDWELL contended that the question was not one of statistical pedantry. Agricultural statistics would be of great use to the farmer, and enable him to conduct his business without going upon the hand to mouth principle.

Mr. HENLEY criticized the bill to show that it would not effect the purpose in view. He was favourable to the collection of pure agricul- tural statistics, but the collection must be made periodically and not annually. Several other Members amid cries of "Divide," spoke on both sides. On a division the amendment was carried, by 241 to 135. The bill is therefore thrown out.

Siourr Du-rms.—Some of the Irish Members raised a discussion upon, and divided the House against the second reading of the Excise Du- ties Bill equalizing the duty on Irish spirits ; but they were defeated by 227 to $6, and the bill was read a second time.

COUNCILS be CoNenameross—Mr. MACKINNON obtained leave to bring in a bill to enable masters and workmen to form councils of conciliation and arbitration for the equitable adjustment of their differences. Mr. Wu.- POLE reserved his right to deal with the bill as he thought fit on the second reading.

BARREL ORGANS.—The Marquis of WESTMEATH moved the second reading of his Barrel Organ Suppression Bill, with another earnest speech. Lord LYNDHURST opposed the bill. He prophetically- described a musical friend of his own, wandering about Hampstead Heath, playing a flute, and seized by A 1, under "Lord Westmeath's Act," as "idle and disorderly." Earl GRANVILLE concurred ; the Earl of Wn.ros moved the second reading that day six months ; Lord CAMPBELL was against any organic change ; the Earl of DERBY was quite of the same mind. The fiill was thrown out without a division.

PUBLIC Bositerss.—On the motion of Mr. WALPOLE the House agreed that on and after the 13th May, Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motion for one mouth from that time.

"Cower GUT."—The House was counted out at a quarter to eight on Thursday ; when Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD was moving the second reading of the Junes (Ireland) Bill.

TnE INDIAN RESOLUTIONS.—The amendments to be proposed by Lord John Russell were printed early in the week. Should they be carried, the resolutions upon which the House will proceed to legislate -will stand as follows-

" 1. That, as the territories under the government of the East India Company are by law to remain under such government only until Parlia- ment shall otherwise provide, this House is of opinion that it is expedient that the transfer of such government to the Crown should now take place, in order that the direct superintendence of the whole empire may be placed under one executive authority. " 2. That for this purpose it is expedient to provide that her Majesty, by one of her principal Secretaries of State, shall have and perform all the powers and duties relating to the government and revenues of India which are or may be now exercised and performed by the East India Company, or by the Court of Directors or Court of Proprietors of the said Company, either alone or with the approbation of the Commissioners for the Affairs of India.

"3. That such Secretary of State shall be responsible for the government of India and the transaction of business in the United Kingdom relating thereto in the same manner and to the same extent as any of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State are responsible in the several departments over which they preside. "4. That, in order to assist such Secretary of State in the discharge of his duties, it is expedient that a Council be appointed of not more than twelve members, including the Secretary of State.

"5. That, in order to secure the greatest amount of knowledge and ex- perience in the management of the affairs of India, it is advisable that the principal portion of the members of the Council shall have served in India fur a term of years to be limited by statute.

"6. That, with a View to the efficiency and independence of the Council, it is expedient that its members should be appointed by her Majesty, and with the exception of the Secretary of State should hold their offices dur- ing good behaviour.

7. That it shall be lawful for her Majesty to remove any member of the Council from office upon an address from both Houses of Parliament. "8. That the Council shall be presided over by the Secretary of State, as President of the Council of India.

"9. That arrangements shallbe made from time to time by the Secretary of State and the Council, for the meetings of the Council, for the mode of procedure at such meetings, and for the distribution and transaction of business.

"10. That all despatches, letters, orders, and communications shall be addressed to the Secretary of State, and shall be open to the inspection of every member of the Council. "11. That no patronage, civil or military, shall be exercised by any members of the Council, save and except the Secretary of State for India. "12. That the first appointment of cadets and clerks shall be open to public competition, subject to such an examination only as the Secretary of State shall direct, reserving one-fourth part of all such appointments to the sons of persons who have been employed in the military or civil service of the Crown or of the East India Company in India.

"13. That provisions shall be made for transferring to the Crown all the real and personal property of the Company, except their capital stock, and the dividend thereon, so as to vest the same in her Majesty, for the pur- poses of the government of India ; for continuing the charge on the re- venues of India alone of the dividend on the capital stock of the said Com- pany until the redemption thereof, and of all the territorial and other debts and engagements which arc payable by the Company out of the revenues of India - for auditing the accounts of the home government of India, under the direction of her Majesty's Treasury ; for laying such accounts annually before Parliament ; and for securing the preference given by the 3c1 and 4th of William IV. to the dividends on the capital stock of the said Company and the right of the said Company to demand the redemption of such divi- dends, and their right on the security fund undiminished and unaffected by

the transfer to the Crown of the direct government of her Majesty's Indian possessions."

These notices also appear on the paper—

Lord Harry Vane—On going into Committee on Resolutions on the Go- vernment of India, to move- " That the change of circumstances since the first proposal by her Ma- jesty's late advisers to transfer the government of India from the East India Company to the Crown renders it inexpedient to proceed further with legis- lation on the subject during the present session.' • Mr. Divett—As an amendment to the motion of Lord Harry Vane, to leave out all the words after the word "That" to the end of the question, for the purpose of adding S' it is inexpedient to proceed further with any measure for the future government of India during the continuance in office of the present Government." Lord Palmerston has also notified his intention- " To move, that all members of the Council shall be appointed by the Crown, and with that view to omit the fithresolution, and to amend the 7th, by leaving out in the first line the words of the nominated portion,' also the concluding words of the resolution from the words and one-half in the third line to the end."