Fthatts nut runbiug in Vurlinnaut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Broom OF Loans, Monday, March 19. The Divorce Court: Lord Lyndhurst's Question—The Ballot ; Lord Teynham's Motion—Sunday Trading ; Lord Chelms- ford's Bill read a second time.

Tuesday. March 20. Packet Service (Transfer of Contracts) Bill committed. Thursday. March 22. Qualification for Offices Abolition ; Lord Teynham's Bill thrown out—Packet Service (Transfer of Contracts) Bill read a third time and passed.

Friday, Mach 23. Royal Assent to Probate and Administration (India) Bill— Valuation of Rateable Property (Ireland) Bill—Medical Acts Amendment Bill— Packet Service (Transfer of Contracts) Bill, and Administering of Poison Bill— Court of Divorce Bill, read a first time—House Duty ; Lord Airlie's Motion—Mu- tiny Bills read a second time.

Hausa oP Commas. Monday, March 19. Savoy and Nice ; Mr. Einglake's Question—The Reform Bill ; Motion for second reading, debate adjourned—Chinese Ex ition ; Report agreed to—Mutiny Bills ; committed. lbieSday, March 20. The Ballot ; 'Mr. Berkeley's Motion negatived by 254 to 147—Jews Act Amendment ; Mr. Duncombe's Bill, leave given—" Count out." Wednesday, March 21. Endowed Schools ; Mr. Dillwyn's Bill thrown out— Bleaching and Dyeing Works' Bill read a second time. Thursday, March 22. Friday Discussions ; Mr. Paull's Motion—Reform Bill ; debated ; debate adjourned—Endowed Schools' Bill (No, 3) committed. Friday, March 23. Savoy and Nice ; Mr. Kinglake's Question—Native Indian Army • Sir C. Wood's Answer—Morocco ; Lord .J. Russell's Answer—Staff Ap- pointments ; Mr. S. Herbert's Answer—Ways and Means ; income-tax resolution.

THE REFORM BILL.

The bill to amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales came again before the House on Monday, on the motion for the second reading. Thereupon arose a debate which was adjourned towards midnight.

Mr. Dense.' took the lead in the discussion. The promoters of the bill claim for it the merit of simplicity, a quality admirable in nature, but ambiguous in legislation, when it may mean incompleteness. The means are not adequate to the end. The bill might have been drawn up five centuries ago. It has a medieval eharacter "without any of the inspiration of the feudal system or any of the genius of the middle ages." The general aspect of the bill is highly unsatisfactory. The primary,

the absolutely necessary topics, which found a place in his scheme of lag year. better registration, more polling places, variety of franchises- are-list noticed. The sole object of the late Government was to entrust the high privilege of the franchise to all thought worthy of it. They thought of nothing but the fitness of the recipients. But Ministers have only thought of the number they shall add to the constituency. More- over this number are all from the same class—a class purely homogene- me, bound together by the same habits and the same sentiments, capable of secret and well-disciplined organization. Are you not establishing class legislation, giving those voters a predominance ? The middle classes have done nothing in the way of organization except the Anti- Corn-law League; in combination and discipline the working classes equal the upper clases. Their predominance can only be prevented by a va- riety of franchises—sneeringly called " fancy franchises "—such as the lodger franchise, direct taxation franchise, education franchise. This pro- posal to simply lower the qualification of voters should not have been brought forward unless means were taken to counterpoise a class. It changes the depository of political power. But working men do not live in towns alone. The superior class of rural labourers, English woodmen, Eng- lish shepherds, English gardeners," these have claims equal to those of skilled mechanics. But the promoters of the bill were obliged to make a selection and they did so by giving predominance to the working classes in one-half of the boroughs of England. Is that wise and well-con- sidered? Having objected to the borough franchise, Mr. Disraeli ob- jected to the county franchise, that it would enable bands of voters to pour forth and elect Members for a district in which they have no local interest; that it will prove a sweeping measure of disfranchisement in the rural districts, where voters whose qualification now is land and buildings, but buildings not worth 51. a year ; and that the new fran- chise in counties will tend to diminish the influence of land. As to the redistribution of seats ; he contrasted the American with the English system, and objected to the giving of an additional Member to large con- stituencies already represented, instead of creating new constituencies. When was the principle of cumulative Members ever acted on before ? You do not give the man with 100,0004 a year more than one vote, why give the Birmingham manufacturer what you refuse to the wealthi- est individual ? The addition of a third Member to come counties in 1832 was a bad precedent, opposed to all constitutional principle, espe- cially as it may lead to the representation of minorities. The principle that should have been adopted is the conferring of Members on interests not represented :- Although he condemned the bill so entirely, Mr. Disraeli said he was not prepared to oppose its principle ; but he professed great alarm for the fu- ture of the Whig party under the operation of a measure based on American principles ; and having again set up a defence for the late Government, he thus brought a long speech to an end. "As far as Europe is concerned, the prospect is much more dangerous than in the days of the Great Monarch; for in the days of Louis XIV., Europe was full of military energy ; Europe now is prostrate and spiritless. As far as England is concerned, the pros- pect is infinitely more dangerous than in the days of the French Republic and the old French Empire ; for France was then our implacable foe ; France is now our unswerving friend. France then menaced our hearths ; France now decorates our citizens. France harassed our trade then by a continual blockade ; France now facilitates commercial intercourse by treaties of amity. There is nothing to keep the English people watchful or awake. Superior to rapine, hardly condescending to force, France is building upa colossal despotism by all the arts of the most advanced Liberalism—by uni- versal suffrage, by secret voting, by electoral districts. (laud cheers.) Will you never be warned ? Is this the time and the condition of affairs when you should attempt feebly, but in the same vein, to imitate these po- litical schemes ? Is this the tune when you should still further deviate from that old, that free, and that aristocratic constitution which has formed the empire of England and framed the liberties of Englishmen ? Sir, I must say that is not my opinion. The noble lord the Secretary of State, since the night when he entered into the fatal pledge on this side of the House which has placed his Government, in consequence, in a position of great embarrassment, has been called upon to preside over an office of the State very different from that which he then contemplated. The noble lord is in receipt every day of information which may well make him look grave, and the perusal of which cannot but teach him that it is a great thing for a Minister that he can fall back upon the ancient institutions of a country which have proved its power to stem any storm. (Loud cheers.) Well, Sir, that being the case, I will not relinquish the hope that before we are summoned to go into Committee a relieved House of Commons and a grate- ful people will learn from the noble lord that this unnecessary; this un- called-for, and this mischievous measure will be withdrawn.' (Loud cheers.) Mr. LP-Armor said the House had been warned against Americanizing our institutions. That reminded him of Curran's remark to Tom Moore —"When Nan't speak sense I talk metaphor." He regretted that the measure was not more comprehensive as it must lead to renewed agita- tion, and that it did not contain the ballot. He condemned Mr. Dis- raeli's policy as one of distrust and suspicion. Mr. HENRY Bari= hoped the bill would not be withdrawn, but that the question would be settled ; but he criticised its provisions and argued for household suf- frage, and the disfranchisement of small boroughs ; a fact which the next speaker, Mr. BAXTER did not fail to observe. He supported the bill as a whole. Mr. BOLT objected to the measure inasmuch as it is a large step towards the severance of representation from property ; and entering mi- nutely into the history of the State of New York, which showed great, rapid, and democratic changes, he held them up as a warning. Mr. CAMPBELL regretted the bill did not provide protection for the voter from illegal influences. Mr. LIDDELL said the basis of the bill is unsubstan- tial : it will throw the representation into the hands of the mob. Mr. BRIGHT said he regarded the bill as in the main the redemption of the pledge of the Government to introduce a measure extending the suf- frage in boroughs and counties. But as to the distribution of seats, the bill does no more than just touch the outside of the question of disfran- chisement. The transference of seats is the very pith and marrow of the question of Parliamentary reform. Mr. Bright ridiculed the idea that the bill is too extensive, that it would be fatal. He considered it, not as something he should like, but with regttrd to what it would be wise and proper at this moment for Parliament to grant. Is it wise that there should be only 1,000,000 voters out of 7,000,000 adult males ? Mr. Dis- raeli said he should add 500,000 voters to the electoral roll ; well, this bill adds only some 300,000. The number of voters to be enfranchised is small beyond expectation.

There is "the borough of Liverpool ; it contains 80,000 houses, but it has only 18,000 electors. Manchester contains 70,000 houses, and has only 19,000 electors ; Birmingham contains 50,000 houses, and has only 9000 electors. Will any man say that this restriction is tolerable, or that it will be tolerated ? Can you justify it by any kind of logic, or say it is danger-

ous to depart from it without uttering a fearful libel on the great body of your countrymen?" He estimated the number of the working classes in the new constitency at 100,000, and he denied that they would swamp the other classes ; remarking that, while the Opposition know what it is to have counties swamped by a few landowners, they never heard the richer classes in boroughs being afraid of being swamped. "It is a childish fear, that has no foundation—a fear that is the offspring of privilege and monopoly. If you look at the classes you are about to admit to the franchise you wil find that their feelings differ just as much in almost every particular as those of the classes above them. They are as divided in opinion on all ques- tions of religion, politics, and municipal affairs as other classes, and, as much subjected to the influences of association, character, wealth, opinion, and all those powers that direct and control the course of society, and of every individual in it. In the United Kingdom there are 6,000,000 of families, but there are only 1,000,000 of voters. After this bill is passed the number of voters will be raised to about 1,500,000, but still there will be left 4,500,000 families, representing 22,500,000 of the population, who will have no vote whatever. You call yours a constitutional country go- verned by a Parliament through a representative system, and yet you blame the noble lord for the course he is taking when he asks you to come to a point which will still leave 22,500,000 of the population without a single man among them who has a vote for a Member of Parliament." The par- simony of the House in giving votes is a mistake • the distrust is unfounded. Mr. Bright next considered the question of disfranchisement, and used many statistical returns to show the inequality of the distribution of power. He pointed out that it was unfair to apply the rate-paying clauses to county voters between 10/. and 501., and to exempt all above 501. from their opera- tion, and condemned the rate-paying clauses generally.

Repeating his statement that he regarded the bill as the redemption of a

pledge, he urged the Opposition not to run the risk of humiliation again by trying a second time to settle the question, and endeavoured to convince them that it was their obvious and pressing interest honestly to accept the measure. The country gentlemen are taking a course far more dangerous than that of Mr. Bright. There is no tempest, it is true, but there is a calm majestic advance of the tide of public opinion. "There is a consciousness among millions of your countrymen that Parliament does not adequately represent them, that it is not what it ought to be, and silently, but surely and inevitably, this opinion is marching on to its triumph. The footpaths on which honourable gentlemen on these benches trod 'not long ago are now swept away—the stand-point you occupied but recently is now submerged and gone. I ask you not to resist this grewing and gathering opinion. By concession, even so small as that which it is the object of this Bill to make, you will show that you have a generous confidence in your countrymen ; you will manifest your belief in the constitution of your country—that it really means a representation, and you will show further, what I 'hope you will exhibit by all your votes on this Bill, that with regard to the insti- tutions. of which you boast so highly, and which you pretend to love so much, you are content that they shall repose on the good will, the intelli- gence, and the virtue of your countrymen." Mr. KNIGHTLEY spoke in opposition to the bill, nomination boroughs, and the distinction between the county and borough franchise. Mr. STANSFELD moved the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. STANSFELD resumed the debate on Thursday with a maiden speech. He described himself as one who favoured a large extension of the suffrage ; but he admitted that the bill answered the expectations, if it did not satisfy the desires of the country in regard to the extension of the suffrage while, as regards the distribution of seats, it went as far as the House Of Commons would go. The bill is a step towards the ad- mission of the working classes.

For himself, he might consistently wait for a more sweeping measure, but he would not do so, because he did not desire to extort any measure from the fears of any Government. He had faith in the progress of politi- cal opinion, and did not desire to defeat enemies, but rather to convert op- ponents; therefore, he supported the bill as one that would disarm pre- judices and dispel alarms. As in the case of the repeal of commercial monopolies in 1846, he had seen within the space of half a generation al- most every one become a free-trader, so he was convinced that the expe- rience of a few years, if this measure be passed, would make all persons more or less reformers. •

Sir Joan PAKINGTON complained that no member of the Government

had spoken in favour of the bill—a "miserable bill, a meagre bill." as he described it to be. He had hoped that Lord-John Russell would have dealt with the question in a large and statesmanlike spirit, and would have proposed a measure that all could support, instead of a bill that would enable numbers to overwhelm property and intelligence. He does not object to a large increase of the constituency, but the working classes are not entitled to a monopoly of the representation conferred on them by the bilL He praised the plan of the late Government, a plan for ward representation suggested by Mr. Cobden, and for the reference of the whole question to the Privy Council suggested by Lord Grey ; he advo- cated the lodger franchise, and a rating instead of a rental franchise. Having made a host of objections, he thus explained why he should not vote against the second reading :— "We do not object to an extension of the franchise, and we could not by fair Parliamentary practice take exception to the second reading. Cer- tainly, we might have moved an abstract resolution. ((lheers.) But, Sir, we are unwilling to follow a bad example. We do not wish in that respect to do as we were done by. We intend to take a different course—the course which we think most strictly fair and Parliamentary; we shall await the discussion of the bill in Committee. ((Theers.) When that time arrives, I earnestly hope, I confidently anticipate, that the common sense of this House will come to the rescue." (Cheers.)

Sir GEORGE GREY stated the language of the Opposition did not agree with their acts ; they were

"Willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike."

And the reason was that they knew there was a majority against them. The Government had not answered Mr. Disraeli, because Mr. Henry Baillie, rising on the same side, had protested against his leader's coun- sel to withdraw the bill, and Mr. Bolt, who condemned all Parlia- mentary reform, that of 1832 included, had made a speech inapplicable to the occasion. Sir George heartily vindicated the bill against the attacks of the Opposition, laughed at the proposal to refer the question to the Privy Council ; and showed that Mr. Disraeli, who now declares the ex- tension of the suffrage in boroughs to be mischievous' declared in the debate on the motion of no confidence last summer, that he was prepared to lower the franchise in boroughs. Sir George answered Sir John Pakington by quoting passages from Mr. Disraeli's speeches, observed that the time to discuss the lodger franchise would come when the bill was in committee; and insisted that the bill will increase the stability of• our institutions.

Mr. ADDERLEY began a speech in opposition by an attack upon Mr. Bright which he continued throughout; correcting extravagant asser- tions, and describing Mr. Bright as a master of misrepresentation. Mr. Massny made a critical speech. He held that there was no great exi- gency calling on the House to-open the question ; but that as it is opened he desires to close it RS soon as possible. But will the bill close it ? Not afraid of the extension of the suffrage to the working classes, Mr. Massey thought it should be extended to lodgers ; and as regards the distribution of seats, he considered that the bill creates greater anomalies than it cures. That part of the bill is miserable and paltry. It would have been better to have abstained altogether from a redistribution of seats. He advised Lord John to amend his bill, or allow others to amend it for him. Mr. STEUART objected to many provisions of the bill. Mr. Caesar:EY defended the working classes from attacks made on them. Mr. KER SEYWER replied to Mr. Bright, specified shortcomings in the bill, as compared with the measure of the late Government, and referred amendments to Committee. Mr. BAINES spoke in favour of the bill ; and Mr. WHITESIDE terminated the debate for that evening by an ample expression of his views adverse to the bill. The debate was adjourned until Monday, on the motion of Mr. EDWIN JAMES.

[An attempt was made to count out the House while Mr. Adderley was speaking, The &Telma delayed to count for a few moments, until the twenty-five present grew to upwards of forty ; Lord John Russell himself having run in to help to swell up the number.)

THE BALLOT.

A debate on the ballot took place in the House of Peers on Monday. Lord TEYNHAH moved that it is expedient, in the election of Members of Parliament, the votes of electors should be taken by secret ballot. He supported the motion by a reference to the experience of other countries, especially of the United States but objecting to the plan pursued in that country, and dwelt on the evils of open voting—intimidation, drunken- ness, bribery. He showed that the ballot has been in use, even in the House of Lords, so late as 1820, when a committee was balloted for to examine papers relating to chai,ges against Queen Caroline. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he could not tell what kind of ballot

Lord Teynham desired, as he touched lightly on the French system, threw over that of the United States, which is voting by ticket, and objected to the scrutiny allowed in Australia. The Duke opposed the motion on moral and social grounds, and insisted that intimidation is not so rife as formerly.

The House divided. Lord DERBY objected that three Peers, who voted, were not in the House when the question was put.

It appeared that Lord Belper and Lord Llanover were, as they be- lieved, in the House, therefore their votes were counted ; but that Earl. de Grey and Ripon was not technically in the House, so his vote was struck out. This left the numbers—Content, 4; Not-Content, 39; Ma- jority, 35.

The debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill stood for Tues-

day, but Mr. IDDIRY BERKELEY persisted in bringing on his annual mo- tion for leave to introduce a bill to cause the votes at elections in Great Britain and Ireland to be taken by way of ballot. He spoke from the front Opposition bench, and his rising there excited much amusement. Mr. Berkeley treated the subject in that airy and entertaining manner which is so well known, but lie did not import any novelty into the ar- guments—the principal characteristics of the speech being the use of the proper names of Members of the House, an onslaught upon their mise- rably feeble arguments, and special replies to leading articles in the Times.

Lord HENLEY, saluted by cries of "Divide!" seconded the motion.

Mr. Marisa, speaking from Australian experience, objected to the pro- posed bill. Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE announced himself as converted from his old views in favour of the ballot. Mr. LAWSON spoke for the first time in support of the ballot; but cries of " Divide !" were inces- sant.

Lord PALMERSTON said he had more respect for the House than at that

hour :— " To go on refining,

And think of convincing when they think of dining."

Mr. Berkeley's speech had not altered his opinion ; and amid the "loud cheers" of the Opposition, the Premier pleasantly argued on for a brief space and kept the House in good humour, while he talked against the ballot with point and sprightliness. On a division, the motion was negatived by 254 to 147.

Tits DIVORCE COURT.

Lord LYNDHURST called attention to the delays in the Divorce Court;

delays not arising from the incapacity of the judge, but from the clause which requires the concurrence of two Common Law Judges in every de- cision. He asked if the Lord Chancellor would-produce the memorial of the Lord Chief Justice on the subject, and recommended that the clause should be repealed.

The LORD Ciaastesumi agreed to produce the memorial, and pledged himself to bring in a bill, providing that a single judge should preside in the Divorce Court.

ENDOWED Stomata,

Mr. Dna,wiec moved the reading of the Endowed Schools Bill at the

Wednesday sitting. The object of this measure is to remove the disquali- fication which prevents Dissenters front acting as trustees of endowed schools in those cases where the endowment specifies no particular reli- gious teaching. The three bills then before the House showed how - much interest the question excites out of doors. But Mr. Dillwyn pre- ferred his own bill to that of Lord Cranworth, brought down from the Upper House, and that of Sir Hugh Cairns. He proposed by his bill that all schools founded prior to the Reformation should not be deemed to have been founded for the purpose of affording religious instruction in the doctrine of the Church of England exclusively, but that any schools founded in the reign of Edward VI. and subsequently, in which the deed

of endowment expressly required the doctrine of the Church of England to be taught, should not be interfered with. He denied the right of the Church of England to arrogate to itself the exclusive control and manage- ment of the education of the country, and, though a member of the Church himself, he believed the Dissenters had a just claim to the conces- sions which the present bill proposed to make.

Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion. Mr. LOWE regretted that Mr. Dillwyn, in the latter part of his speech had assailed the Church of England instead of dealing with the measure before the House on its own merits. In all cases of Endowed Schools the Courts of Equity had endeavoured to discover the will of the founder, and when there was no special provision, looking to the time and cir- cumstances of their origin they had come to the conclusion that the tenets of the Church of England Id:multi be taught in these schools. Mr. Dillvryn proposed that the religious teaching of the schools should not be exclusively that of the Church of England without stating what it should be. But in the second part of his bill he overrode the first by proposing that the will of the founder should be respected. There are two grievances connected with the subject. The first is that as the law now stands there is no power to compel trustees to admit the children of Dissenters to the schools without their being required to conform to the Church of England. The second grievance is that Dissenters are now excluded from the office of trustees. But the bill before the House would not im- prove the position of Dissenters, while it would touch the property of the Church of England. The schools which were to be resumed were ori- ginally Roman Catholic foundations. Dissenters cannot claim them ; the claim to them would come from a different quarter. Mr. Lowe showed a great length that the bill would not do what Mr. Dillwyn proposed, while it would raise a number of important questions relating to the pro- perty of the Church. Mr. Seam= moved and Mr. LONOFIELD seconded the motion that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The motion was sup- ported by Lord Feemov and Mr. BAINES, and the amendment by Mr. MILLS and Mr. WALTER.

On a division the amendment was carried by 190 to 120.

SAVOY AND NICE.

Mr. KLNGLAKE asked Lord John Russell whether he had received the appeal which the Swiss Government had addressed to the Great Powers; whether the British Government would give the statement in that appeal due consideration ; and whether they would put themselves in commu- nication with other Powers in order to arrive at some common action. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had not received the appeal referred to. As to the other question, he declined to answer it, and threw himself on the forbearance of the House. It would be prejudicial were answers to go forth from day to day. The time will arrive when the whole conduct of the Government will come before Parliament, and he must ask indul- gence if he declined to answer questions.

CnEvs. When the report of the vote ofcredit, 850,0001. for the Chinese expedition, was brought up, General PEEL roundly stated that he was sure the vote would not be sufficient, and set forth an array of statistics to prove it. He also made an attack on the budget, and predicted a vast deficit for next year. Mr. SIDNEY HrmintaT vindicated the Government, and brought up another array of figures to oppose those of General Peel. He had looked through the accounts witl. the greatest care, and was sure there is enough provided for the financial year. In the course of the conversation, Sir MICHAEL SEYMOUR read a pas- sage from a letter refuting some erroneous statements touching Mr. Ward's

journey to Pekin, and the treatment he received in that capital. Mr.

Ward 'speaks of his visit as in every respect satisfactory. He was treated with every mark of respect. . . . He ascertained that arrangements in the way of houses were made at the capital for the reception and'entertain- ment of French and English Ministers." (Loud Opposition cheers.) Sir Michael Seymour also spoke in the warmest terms of the gallant conduct of Commodore Tatnall.

Report agreed

BLEACHING LABOUR. Mr. Crook moved the second reading of the Bleach- ing and Dyeing Works Bill—a measure restricting the hours of labour for women aud children in breaching and dyeing works. At present the labour

is most excessive, extending sometimes to three and twenty hours at a stretch. 'Ile defence is that on an average the hours do not exceed ten, and

that interference will cause ruin, &c. Mr. TURNER moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. Comierr, made powerful speeches in favour of the bill, Mr. Roebuck becoming elo-

quent on the subject of the suffering endured by the young in these works. Mr. iurner said ruin would ensue. Had ruin followed the Ten Hours Bill ? Mr. Turner said there is no analogy between factories and bleaching works.

"I don't care a straw whether or not there is any analogy in this respect, but I am sure there is an analogy in the suffering—(cheers); and, if so, the interference of the House is as necessary now as it was then, whether the bleachers are servants of the public or their own masters. They inflict misery upon they people they employ. That is the question ; and having prevented this misery in the one case, let us interfere to prevent it in the other." Sir HUGH CAIRNS, Mr. RICHARDSON, and Mr. CONOLLY put in a demand for the exclusion of Ireland from the operation of the bill.

On a division the second reading was carried by 226 to 39.

OATHS. Lord TEYNHAM moved the second reading of the Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill. The object of this measure is to relieve Dis- senters from the necessity of subscribing to certain declarations as a qualifi- cation for office; one being that they will not use their power or authority to injure the Church ef England. The motion, opposed by Lord CHELMS- FORD was supported by the Duke of NEWCASTLE, but on a division it was negatived by 44 to 21. Jevrisn MEsniEns. Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE has been directed by a Coin- mittee of the whole House, to bring in a bill to omit from the Parliamentary oath the words "on the true faith of a Christian." • BUSINESS ON FRIDAYS. Mr. PAULL revived the discussion of the ques- tion of Friday debates on the motion for the adjournment of the House, by

moving that Orders of the Day should have. precedence of Notices of Mo- tion, on Thursdays instead of on Fridays. The proposal was received with some favour, but there was no disposition to press it to a division, and it was negatived without one.,

"Cotner OUT." So many notices of motion stood on the paper for dis; cussion on Tuesday, that the House, hopeless of disposing of them in time to take the Reform Bill, allowed .itself to be counted out, soon after the di-

vision on the ballot. • -

ELT:cries Ifeennirns.—The Committee appointed to try the validite of the return to Parliament 6f Mr. Marjoribanks On the ground. of -bribery, &c., and to scrutinize the quidificatiens of several voters in his interest, ;coin. inented their sittings on the .16th'instant; and contirtued. them on Saturday; Tuesday, and Wednesday. Mr. Marjoribanks obtained his seat by a majority of one. The inquiry presents some peculiar features. At the close of the first day's proceedings the sitting Member was left in a majority of one, after several votes had been struck off on each side. At the adjournment on the second day the parties were on an equality, in point of numbers. The third day left Mr. Marjoribanks in a minority. The objections raised to the questionable voters, were, their having received parochial relief, changed their residence, or not resided within the distance of the borough prescribed by law. On Wednesday, one M'Queen, who had voted for Mr. Hodgson, confessed that he had never been sober since he left Berwick until that morning, ".Was all right now." The witnesses had been found, by Mr. Creasman, a parliamentary agent, drinking heavily at the Queen's Head. He told the landlord "not to let them drink so much, but to give them some beer ; just as much as he thought would do them good." The whole of this tedious examination, resembles those of previous Committees in petty complications, fencing of answers, and contradictions as to the purposes of the money which the witnesses had received. The Election Committee on the petition against the return of Mr. James Robert Walker for Beverley, has declared him to have been duly elected.