Vtlinito nub rutubing nVarlianitut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK. •

HOUSE OF LARDS. Monday, June 22. Statute-law Commission ; Lord Chancellor's Statement-5dinisters'-money Bill ; reported. Tuesday, June 23. Vetatious Suits; Lord Brougham's Bill read a first time— Divorce and Matrimonial Causes ; Lord Chancellor's Bill read a third time and passed—Smoke Nuisance (Scotland) Abatement Bill, read a third time and passed. Thursday, June 25. Obscene Prints and Publications ; Lord Campbell's Bill read a second time—Vexatious Suits ; Lord Brougham's Explanation—Grand Juries (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill read a second time. Friday, June 26. Oaths Bill read a first time—Ministers'-money Bill read a third time and passed—Justice in India; Lord Albemarle's Complaint.

HOUSE or Commoim. ' Monday, June 22. Oaths Bill; considered as amended— Supply; Civil Service Estinratee—Reformatory Schools ; Sir G. Grey's Bill read a secona time—Joint-Stock Banks; Mr. Lowe's Mill, leave given. Tuesday, June 23. Finsbury Park (No. 2) Bill; debate on second reading, adjourned--Cotton Supply ; Mr. J. B. Smith's Motion—Insurance Companies; Mr. Wilson's Bill read a first time—Highways; Mr. Massey's Bill withdrawn—Wills of British Subjects Abroad ; Sir F. Kelly's Bill read a second time. Wednesday, June 24. Judgments Execution ; Mr. Craufurd's Bill in Committee —Scientific and Literary Societies ; Mr. Butt's Bill in Committee. Thursday, June 25. Oaths Bill read a third time and passed—Supply ; Educe doe Estimate—Reformatory Schools ; Sir G. Grey's Bill committed—Divorce and Matrimonial Causes ; lord Chancellor's Bill read a first time. Friday, June 26. Testamentary Jurisdiction; Lord Chancellor's Bill read a second time—Fraudulent Trustees ; Attorney-General's Bill in Committee—Judicial Reforms in India; Sir E. Perry's Question.

THE OATES Btu,.

The Oaths Bill came before the House of Commons on Monday, to be considered as amended. Mr. SEYMOUR Frrioartarn took the opportunity of moving a series of provisoes intended to exclude Jews from holding a number of high offices, such as Regent, Lord Chancellor, Lord High Commissioner of the Great Seal, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; and to prevent Jews from advising her Majesty or any person holding any of the above-mentioned offices, touching the disposal of ecclesiastical preferments ; and providing that where the right of presentation to a benefice belongs to any office held by a Jew, the right shall devolve upon the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Government acceded to the amendments ; Lord RummesTor saying -" When, upon a former stage of this bill, I was asked whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government themselves to propose to put into the Bill provisions resembling those which the honourable Member has moved, I stated that it was not our intention to make such a proposition ; and the reason was, that the contingency which these provisions were intended to guard against appeared to me to be so very unlikely to happen, that it was scarcely worth while to make special provision in an act of Parliament for these assumed cases. But we are exceedingly anxious that this bill should pass. (Cheers.) We think it would be a very advantageous measure, both as regards Members who have to take the oaths now and persons 'who are at present excluded from this House. If, therefore, as we are led tobelieve, the adoption of the clauses proposed by the honourable Member would tend in any degree to render more likely the passage of this bill into a law, we should hold ourselves deeply responsible if, from any fancied objection, we raised an opposition to that which we felt was so ' desirable. Therefore, Sir, upon that ground—not ourselves attaching any great importance to the provisions, but thinking them wholly unobjectionable, and thinking that by their adoption we may render more probable the successful issue of this bill—I am happy to give my support to the clauses of the honourable gentleman." (Cheers.) Sir F. THESIGER did not know what the result of this extraordinary unanimity would be. (" Hear !" and laughter.) Of course, if the clauses were agreed to there would be an end of the question ; but he begged to say, that if any honourable Member divided the House, he did not mean to vote upon the question, because he should not sanction in any way the principle of admitting the Jews to Parliament.

Mr. WIGRAM; Mr. NEWDEGATE, and Mr. BewrrsTex, objected to the measure, in terms eqUully aor.a.a;5; ......baritliatantling• The adoption of the clauses by the Government. They also held, that the clauses afforded the best practical proof of the absurdity of the measure. It declares that persons not Christians are competent to frame laws for Christians, but incompetent to administer them.

The clauses were agreed to, and the third reading was fixed for Thursday.

On that day accordingly, the motion for the third reading was made by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCREQUF.R, It was met by the Marquis of BLANDFORD with a speech urging the religious objection to the admission of the Jews, suds motion that the bill should be read a third time that day six months. Mr. DRUMMOND seconded the motion. The House, somewhat amused by Mr. Drummond, soon became impatient. The O'DONAGITUE, showing why he should vote against a bill that denied to Roman Catholics the rights extended to was quietly heard. But when Mr. Bell, rose to speak, although in support of the motion, he was assailed by cries of " Divide" ; and the House refused to hear Mr. Bowran state why he should oppose the bill, and made so many and such unseemly noises, that the Speaker was compelled to interfere. Mr. DEASY commanded attention while he stated, in moderate terms, that although he regarded the measure as one that would create a new and invidious distinction between Roman Catholics and the members of other persuasions, yet he could not follow Mr. Bowyer and vote against a bill that would remove a disability unjustly imposed on the Jews. He should therefore not vote at all.

On a division, the amendment was negatived by 291 to 168; and the bill was read a third time and passed.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Ministers'-Money Bill, the Earl of CLANCARTY moved that the committal of the bill should be deferred until that day six months. Be called the attention of the House to the circumstances attending the division on the second reading. There were 230 Peers present during the debate ; 94 withdrew without voting' and of those remaining 71 voted against and 66 for the bill. But the proxies converted the minority into a majority. Now, proxies ought not to be employed so much for purposes of enacting new laws as for the purpose of impeding legislation. Ithose who voted for the bill by proxy had been present he had no dolt Lord Derby's arguments would have led them to swell the majority against the measure. The Earl of DERBY said, that the state of the ouse rendered the motion, to say the least, injudicious. Neither coul he concur in the arguments of Lord Clancarty ; for they go to say that ither voting by proxy should be abandoned, or that proxies might be gi n on one side and not on the other. He could not flatter himself th listening to his arguments would have convinced those who voted by • xy forthe bill ; for, looking through the list, he had never seen " a t of Peers less likely to be convinced." Speaking seriously, he coul not help feeling that the fact of a bill for the repeal of the existing la avingbeensanctioned

by one House, and by a majority in the other, d materially increase the difficulty of enforcing that law ; and there he should not oppose the further progress of the bill. At the same ti however, he warned the Government that they would set a bad preced t.

"If they think fit to persevere with it, as I suppose they will, upon them must rest the responsibility. Liberavi animate meam., The division the other evening will serve as a solemn protest, on the ground of principle, of the majority of those present, and of a considerable minority of the Peers of England."

Lord CLANCARTY withdrew his motion. Several Peers then engaged in a debate mainly on the principle of the measure. The Earl of WicitLow moved that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be heard at the bar against further progress with the bill—Negatived without a division. The bill passed through Committee without amendment.

THE DIVoRCE BILL.

The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill passed the House of Lords on Tuesday, but not without great opposition and repeated divisions in the closing stages.

The bill was read a third time without opposition. On the question

that it should pass, Lord REDESDA.LE moved the omission of words from clause 3, the effect of which proceeding would be to take from the new court established by the bill the power of granting divorces a vinculo. The motion was supported by the Earl of MALMESBURY, the Earl of WICKLOW, the Earl of CARNARVO_ ,N and the Bishop of OXFORD. On the other side were Lord CAMPBELL Lord BROUGHAM, and the Lorin CHANCELLOR. The debate was, in the main, a debate on the principle of the bill. On a division, the amendment was negatived by 91 to 34.

The next division was taken on the motion of the Loan CHANCELLOR, that the words "fine or imprisonment" should be struck out of the bill; leaving the court power only to fine the adulterer and make him pay the costs. On a division, this amendment was carried by 49 to 29.

Earl NELSON moved an amendment on clause 5, providing that the remarriage of divorced persons should be a civil marriage, in order to relieve the consciences of the clergy who.believe that the marriage of the adulterer and adulteress is contrary to the Word of God. Negatived by 47 to 19. The Bishop of EXETER, acquiescing in the decision that the guilty parties should be allowed to marry, proposed that it should be lawful for the Judge of the Court of Divorce to declare the parties lawfully married, if they signed a formal declaration of their intention, to intermarry.—Negatived by 38 to 24. In order to protest to the last against a bill so contrary to God's Word, the Bishop of OXFORD divided the House on the question that the bill do pass. There were—Content, 46; Not-content, 26. The bill therefore passed.

SUPPLY CIVIL SERVICE ESTLMATES.

In Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, a great num

ber of items were disposed of. There was a long conversation on a vote of 102,861/. to complete the sum necessary during 1867-'68 for the expense of the works of both Houses of Parliament. It turned very inuch on the difficulty experienced by Sir Benjamin Hall in "restraining the architect." Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY wished to know whether the understanding had been carried out that no new works should be undertaken without the sanction of Parliament. Sir BENJAMIN HALL said he had strictly adhered to that understanding: Ho referred all the difficulties to the original error of Parliament in accepting a shadowy outline instead of a detailed plan. He was doing all he could to restrain Sir Charles Barry ; "but the difficulty of restraining an architect must have been practically Pala b7 any En-mat...nom who has ever employed one." He hoped that if the House of Commons should hereafter sanction any new works in the shape of public offices or otherwise, they would make one man responsible for the whole, and have a clear and minute plan, the details of which had previously received the sanction of the House.

As Sir Charles Barry had put in a demand for 84,0001. in addition to the estimate of 280,000/. made two years ago, and as no satisfactory account of that increase could be shown, Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY moved that the vote should be reduced by 20,0001., in order to put a stop to proceedings of this kind.—Negatived by 176 to 65.

On a vote of 16,145/. for salaries and expenses of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, Mr. CAIRO reviewed the whole course of management of this department, to show that the expenses are far greater than they ought to be. Ile contended that, properly managed, the department should yield a sum sufficient to cover the Civil List. The revenue of the department is 390,000/. a year ; the expenditure, 130,0001., or 33 per cent. He wished to see it reduced to 15 per cent. He moved that the vote should be reduced by 14811., the excess of the present over the estimate of last year, in order to force the department to pay their newly-appointed officer, the Mineral Inspector, by saving elsewhere, and to disallow certain law charges. • Mr. WILsox complained that Mr. Caircl had not given notice of his intention to raise so large a question as the management of the department; and he made no defence. After some discussion, Mr. CAIRD agreed to withdraw his amendment

Mr. WILLwas divided the Committee against a vote of 1574/. Os. 2d. for Queen's plates to be run for in Ireland : but he was defeated by 202 to 55.

• THE EetrcAreax Esrtirars.

In Committee of Supply, on Thursday, the vote of 361,2331., in ad

dition to 180,000/. already-voted, for Public Education in England, met with much opposition. Mr. HAerrELD, remarking on the increase of this vote, moved that it should be postponed: it could not be deliberately discussed at such a late hour as half-past nine o'clock. But the CHAIRMAN decided that the amendment was not in accordance with the rules of the House, which permit the rejection but not the postponement of a vote.

Mr. COWPER then made a general statement on the subject of educa

tion; describing the rise and progress of the present system, and the position of the State in relation to education. The sum voted by the House is always in proportion to the amount subscribed; and the inctease of the vote this year (129,0001.) is caused by an increased outlay on the part of local sad voluntary contributors towards the building and maintenance of wheels. The Parliamentary grant, whatever its amount, is met by three times the amount in public contributions. The rapid increase of the Pirliamentary grant shows that there has been a corresponding increase in the number of schools. There are now 7688 schools liable to inspector'. Within ten years' thirty-two normal training-schools have beenestabliabed, to provide good teachers. These institutions are beeomiig practical, and producing the -proper class of teachers. The augmertation of the salaries of masters and the pupilteacher system have hid a good effect in increasing -the efficiency of the schools. With regard to the irregular attendance of the scholars, that is the greatest impediment to the success of the elementary schools. The capitation grant has operated beneficially, but it has not been paid on more than 36 per cent of the whole number of scholars in attendance. Attention is directed to improve the quality of the education, make it practical, and induce less irregular attendance.

A conversational debate followed. Sir JOHN PART:moron impeached

the present system, and showed its weak points,—such as the inefficiency of the teaching; the result of the rule regulating the contributions of the State, whereby aid is granted to the richer and withheld from the poorer districts. Ile insisted also, that now the grant is so large, it is incumbent on the friends of education to see that it is properly administered. Mr. HENLEY, while admitting the shortcomings of the system, especially with tegard to the practical tendency of the teaching, cordially supported the vote. Ho preferred the system pursued to one supported by local rating.

Other Members engaged in a somewhat discursive conversation. Mr.

Avirros' rising to speak, and being met with (Hies of "Divide," moved that the Chairman should report progress. The motion was held to be negatived without a division., but the Members anxious to divide con. tested the point, and Mr. HADFIELD moved that the Chairman should leave the chair. He was soon prevailed upon to withdraw this motion ; and then Mr. DILLWYN moved that the Chairman should report progress. —Negatived without a division.

Lord MEtottsre moved that the vote should be reduced by 90,0201., the amount of the increase as compared with 1866. Negatived, by 163. to 7. The vote was agreed to ; the Chairman reported progress, and the House resumed.

METROPOLITAN PARRS.

At the time allotted to private business on Tuesday, Lord ROBERT GRosvwson moved the second reading of the Finsbury Park (No. 2) Bill —a measure promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works. It is estimated that the Park will cost 300,0004 ; towerds which the Government, with the sanction of Parliament, {YRS to give 50,0004 ; the remainder would be levied by a rate on the inhabitants of the Metropolis of one farthing in the pound per annum for twenty years. The motion was very much opposed. Mr. WILLIAMS opposed it, be cause Lambeth would receive no benefit from the Park ; Sir Joule SimLEY, because he objected to the site chosen, and because he looked with jealousy on the powers demanded by the Board ; Mr. AYRTON, because the Metropolis ought not to seek aid for local purposes from the central Government. On the other hand, Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, Mr. COX, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, and Sir DE LACY EvAwa supported the bill. Lambeth, the Tower Hamlets. and Westminster, have three large parks,. obtained or kept up at the public' expense, and yet through their representatives they object to tax themselves for the benefit of their neighbours! •

The bill also found opponents in Mr. HF.NLEY, Mr. SenoNER, Mr.

NEWDEGATE, Mr. DILT.WYN, the Marquis of BLANDFORD Mr. RICARDO, and Mr. Mums. They opposed the measure on the distinct ground that the public money ought not to be employed for the local purposes of the Metropolis. The ratepayers should tax themselves for the proposed park. What justice would there be in giving money for apark in Finsbury, and refusing money for a park in the Staffordshire Potteries ? Local wants should be supplied by local rates, levied upon the people more imme-diately benefited. Lord PALMERSTON explained, that the Government, after much com munication with the parties, had agreed to apply to Parliament for a grant of 50,000/. in aid of the funds. They did this on the ground that a park would be a great advantage to a thickly-populated district ; that it would be almost impossible to raise the whole money required by rates, but that a grant of 50,000/. would make it easy : and that if it were deferred, the occupation of the ground by buildings would make the undertaking more difficult, perhaps defeat it altogether. It is absurd to. object to grants of this kind simply on the ground that the benefits are local. If Parliament adopted that view as its guide, they would be reduced to a parochial subdivision. Parliament ought to take larger and more liberal views ; for the whole country is interested in these Metropolitan improvements.

As the opposition was resolute, yet as there was a feeling adverse to the total rejection of the bill, Sir BENJAMIN HALL suggested that a division should be taken on a motion to adjourn the-debate, in order to test the opinion of-the House for and against the grant. Mr. MILES moved the adjournment of the debate ; and it was carried by 214 to 123.

[It was understood that the Board of Works would consider whether, under these circumstances, it will go on with the bill.]

THE STATUTE-LAW COMMISSION.

The Loan CHANCELLOR introduced eight bilis; each of which was the consolidation into a single statute of the wholblaw rebating to important portions of the criminal law. These, bills relate,to larceny, including burglary, malicious injuries to property, fergery, offences relating to the coinage the game-laws (which, althoughtrelating to a species of larceny, it had been thought best to deal with in .4 separate bill,) libel, and the laws relating to accessories to offences. They are not mere consolidations, but embody the amendments suggested by . the Criminal Law Commissionere in 1854.

The Statute-Law Commissioners had not found it practicable to take up. what are called groups of statutes, but thought the only way to make an impression on the statute-book was to take different subjects and coneolidate all the laws relating to those subjects. They employed some gentlemen of great information and research -to commence a registration of the statutes, beginning with those of 1853. • They. went to work, marking every enactment and every section, and every previous enactment to which any section referred, either in the way of repeal or, modification. Next they divided the statutes into classes.' They found that three-fourths of the statutes passed during her Majesty's reigu,, were passed for limited periods only:, such as the Appropriation Acts, and could have no:place in ,a statute-book if it were to consist only of the laws that regulate the conduct of her Majesty's lieges. They had not proceeded beyond h.a Majesty's reign; but they had come to the conclusion that it would be. undesirable to postpone consolidation, merely because some prior enactments might have been overlooked ; hence-these and other bills that will be introduced in the House of Commons. The Lord Chancellor described several things that the Commissioners would not do : they will not consolidate Magna Charts, the stutute Quia Emptores, the law of wills, the statute abolishing tines and recoveries, and some old statutes framed in a sty le very different from that of modern times. The Commissioners had met with enormous difficulties; he trusted that they had now found their way to do good service; and he asked the House to read the eight bills a first time. Lord Bnoironsm approved of the course pursued by the Lord Chancellor; but he could not help remarking that the consolidation of the Statute Law, apart from the consolidation of the Common Law, was open to serious objection. There were many important parts of the law under its different heads which were not contained in the statutes ; and to tell the people that they had to obey the latter only, was merely to mislead and deceive them. Lord CAMPBELL also concurred; but he hoped the Lord Chancellor would be contented with the first reading of his bills during the present session, because it was desirable to see the work of consolidation as a whole, and to detect inaccuracies which might still be discovered.

The bills were read a first time:

JOINT-STOCK BANKS.

A Committee of the whole House adopted a resolution enabling Mr. Cows to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to Joint-Stock Banks. Mr. Lowe said, that the object of the bill was simply to extend to jointstock banks the operations of the act passed last session with reference to Joint-stock companies. In future, joint-stock banks might be formed like any other joint-stock company, by a memorandum, and the application of the few simple provisions contained in the act of last session. There would be a register of the shareholders which would be prima facie evidence of the persons who were to be called upon to contribute. Such a bank would be liable to certain powers of inspection by one-fifth of the shareholdersand in the case it came to be wound up, as soon as it was handed over to the court which was to wind it up all actions against the shareholders would be stopped. It was proposed to retain the present limitation of shares in joint-stock companies to 1001.; and the proposed bill would not make any alteration in the law' which at present requires the liability of shareholders of joint-stock banks to be unlimited. Much dissatisfaction was expressed by Mr. ROEBUCK and others because the bill did not extend the principle of limited liability to jointstock banks.

VEXATIOUS LITIGATION.

In moving the second reading of the Vexatious Litigation Prevention Bill, Lord BROUGHAM said he did not intend to press the motion but would take the opportunity of calling attention to vexatious litigation. The object of the bill was to prevent that litigation by establishing a Court of Reconcilement. In France, two-thirds of the causes were stopped by the Court of Reconcilement ; in Denmark, nine-tenths ; the same thing occurred in Germany and Switzerland. The process of reconcilement has been most successful in the Examiners' office of the Court of Chancery. One-seventh of the causes coming before the Examiners had been stopped. Another provision of the bill was, that parties might be compelled to abstain from prosecuting suits unless they give security for costs ; and a third gave the Insolvent Court the power of punishing plaintiffs as well as defendants to vexatious suits. Lord Brougham, however, moved the adjournment of the debate. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that Courts of Reconcilement would be "only sinks for adding to the expense of ordinary litigation." Lord CAMPBELL said, they would be totally irreconcileable with the form of procedure in England.—Debate adjourned.

JUDGMENTS EXECUTION.

The Wednesday sitting was chiefly taken up with e. smart conflict on Mr. Craufiud's Judgments Execution, &c. Bill. The HOURS having gone into Committee, Colonel FRENCH and other Irish Members hostile to the bill divided the Committee no fewer than three times on motions to report progress, although they were defeated by majorities that rose from 62 to 121. The opposition was so persistent and active, that, after nearly four hours' discussion and five divisions, the Committee only got through two clauses. Finding it useless to proceed, Mr. CRAUFURD consented that progress should be reported.

SC/EITTIFIC AND LITERARY SOCIETIES.

In Committee on the Scientific and Literary Societies Bill, some debate arose on clause 2, which provided that buildings, &c., occupied exclusively by any society instituted "for purposes of science, literature, education, or the arts," should not be rated to county-rates or ceases. Mr. T. LOCKE moved the omission of the word " education " in order to restrict the scope of the exemptions contained in the else. Mr. SPOONER, Mr. HENLEY, Sir WiLmass HEATECCOTE, and Mr. BOUVERIE were adverse to any extension of exemptions. Mr. PULLER, Mr. NAPIER, and Mr.-Ewsitr supported the clause. Mr. SPOONER moved that the Chairman should =port progress. This was negatived by 100 to 76; but the clock forbade further progress, and the House resumed.

IMPROPER PUBLICATIONS.

Lord CAMPBELL, in moving the second reading of the Obscene Prints and Publications Bill, stated that its object was to prevent the sale of obscene prints and books. A large capital is engaged in the trade, and there are warehouses stored with these abominable productions. The bill gave a power of search and seizure, on a warrant to be procured on affidavit from a magistrate. At present, the only remedy against the evil is the power of indicting publishers on the doubtful evidence of spies and informers.

Lord BROUGHAM said it would be difficult to define the word "obscene" so as not to include the works of writers like Voltaire and many of our greatest poets. The LORD CHANCELLOR was reluctant to oppose the measure, but he was afraid that it would lead to vexatious proceedings. Lord LYNDHURST made a speech to show that some of the finest pictures and most popular books might, under Johnson's definition of the word "obscene," be liable to seizure. The law as it stands is abundantly strong enough to deal with the evil. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Lord CAMPBELL attempted to speak on the amendment. This led to a discussion on the point of order—has the mover of a motion a right to speak upon an amendment without forfeiting his right to reply ? It seemed to be held that the mover has a right to reply only, and that he may replyat any time he pleases.

Lord

WsisstsirnaLs brought back the House to the merits of the bill. He supported the view of Lord Lyndhurst. Lord astsermus in reply, said that a jury would have to determine what was obscene. In Committee, words might easily be introduced that would guard against abuse. At the suggestion of Lord BROUGHAM, Lord LYNDHURST withdrew his amendment ; and the bill was read a second time, on the understanding that it should be amended in Committee. Co-rros SUPPLY.

Mr. J. B. SMITH called attention to the existing deficiency in the supply of cotton, caused mainly by the rapid increase of our foreign trade, and by our dependence on the United States for 700,000,000 pounds out of the 900,000,000 pounds we import. In looking out for fresh sources of supply, our manufacturers turn chiefly to India, a country capable of furnishing an unlimited supply. But our manufacturers do not send their agents to procure supplies thence. Englishmen, who are found in every other country, are only found there in small numbers-317 in the provinces,. and 10,000 in the towns—and why ? because Indian Government is synonymous with bad government. There are no roads, no bridges ; the people are poverty-stricken. Except in Bengal, no man ean hold an acre of land in fee-simple. In consequence of the absence of irrigating works, the water of India runs to waste ; and the soil, exposed for nine months in the year to a *burning sun, is incapable of producing anything. In fourteen years 300,000,0001. was drawn as revenue from India, and only 1,400,0001. spent on public works. Whatever may be the nominal land-tenure, the land in fact is resettled every year • and the native tenantry is the most wretched imaginable. In Madras, the land-tax is less than it was fifty years ago ; and so after having impoverished the people to such an extent that the rent could only be collected by torture, the Government had at last ordered a new assessment and survey, which would cost 760,0001. and occupy twenty-two years. Why, for that BEM 2000 miles of road might have been made, a work that would have greatly increased the value of land. In Ceylon, which is not under the East India Company —which has 3000 miles of road, nearly as many as in all India—the effect of new roads has been to double the value of land. Evenin Rajahmundry, a district of Madras, where roads have been made and works of irrigation carried on, "everybody and everything is prospering." India might consume as much cif our manufactures as all the world ; while in fact a few thousands in Australia consume more than180,000,000 of people in India.

Mr. Smith moved,

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that Parliament shall direct its immediate attention to the best mode of removing the obstacles which impede the application of British capital and skill to the improvement of the productive powers of India." Mr. ASPINALL TURNER seconded the motion. He stated some facts to impress on the House the importance of the question. We consume 900,000,000 pounds of cotton' 700,000,000 of which comes from the United States. In its manufacture, 380,000 persons are directly, and 1,000,000 indirectly employed. In 1856, the export of cotton, after supplying the home demand, was valued at 38,000,0001. The cotton-trade has been advancing with such rapid strides, that although the production of cotton in the United States of America has also made great progress, the demand has far suppassed the supply. During the year 1848 this country imported 1,738,000 bales of cotton, and in 1866 2,467,000 hales; but while at the end of 1848 there were on hand 496,000 bales or seventeen weeks' consumption, at the end of 1856 there were only on hand 332,000 bales or eight weeks' consumption for the United Kingdom. He thought these facts exhibited a very serious state of things, and that it was high time public attention should be directed to the subject, which was one not of local but of national importance. If this great branch of industry, which is now suspended for a number of hours per week, should be suspended, as it had been in years gone by, to a areater extant, +La Isea.a. would Imre to look with anxious eyes towards ',South Lancashire, and would find that the question was a serious one for the Government as well as for the cottonmanufacturers.

Mr. Turner showed that our supply might be cut off by a slave rising in America ; and that it will probably not increase, because manufactures are rapidly extending in America. 1 he price per pound, which was 4d. in 1848, is now 8c/. Increased supplies cannot be obtained from the West Indies, or Australia, or Natal, because labour is deficient there. We must look to India. Speaking from experience as the largest consumer of East India cotton, Mr. Turner stated that its quality is deteriorated by the want of roads ; that it is soiled and disordered in being conveyed on the backs of bullocks to the coast ; but that it is originally good. He advised the East India Company to give the cultivators a sure tenure; to promote irrigation and construct roads ; and encourage the Natives to cultivate the American seed instead of the seed of the country.

Mr. Maiscaoss replied to these statements, by pointing to the great increase of the exports of other commodities from India—more than we can take—as proofs of prosperity ; and insisted that the same increase would take place with regard to cotton if the proper steps were taken. If the manufacturers would send out agents to India, they might obtain any amount of cotton. The real causes of the deficient supply of cotton from India are the lowness of the price and the absence of a continuous demand. When there is a bad harvest in America, the manufacturers turn round and ask, where is the cotton of India ? But how can cotton be grown by anticipation in India to meet a demand that does not occur once in five or ten years ? The East India Company are doing all that men can do to develop the resouroes of India. They are pressing on the railways with vigour ; and the only impediment to their being finished is the impossibility of finding the means of conveying rails and locomotives fast enough. The cultivation of cotton in India is, no doubt, a national object; but don't let the gentlemen of Manchester ask the East India Company to do for them what they ought to do for themselves, or to interfere as no government ought to do between the growers and exporters of cotton. Lord STANLEY replied to Mr. Mangles, by arguing that there would be a continuous demand lithe Indian Government, as landlord of the country, did its duty and made the necessary improvements. The Indian Government has no right to take advantage of its own wrong, and taunt the gentlemen of Manchester with asking that Government to do what it is bound to do.

Mr. DARBY SEYMOUR, contending that no case had been made out for Parliamentary interference, and that Mr. Smith's speech applied to a period anterior to the commencement of that semis Indian history which dates from the charter of 1853, moved the " previais question." On the motion of Sir Bassists PERRY, the de ate was at this stage adjourned until Tuesday next.

Etseriort Comsurrinss.

Committees are now sitting to inquire into th allegations of the petitions against the return of Mr. George HenryMoore for Mayo, Mr. Andrew Steuart for Cambridge, Sir Alexander lamsay for Rochdale, Mr. Wood for Pontefract, Mr. H. B. Baring for arlborough, and Mr Caleraft for Nirareham.

The most interesting of these cases is that of May4 as exhibiting the con duct of the Romish priests in Ireland. The petition alleges, "that the majority obtained by the said G. H. Moore was obtained by violent, illegal, unconstitutional, fraudulent, and outrageous means, and that the return of the said G. H. Moore ought therefore to be declared null and void." It was shown that Dr. WHale and three other bishops had called on the voters to hear the voice of their venerated bishops and vote for Moore and Palmer ; that two priests and a mob kept Colonel Higgins, the defeated candidate 'a prisoner for two days in fear of his life; that Father Peter Conway headed a mob, and incited them on several occasions to acts of violence ; and that in consequence the voters of Colonel Higgins were kept from the poll. Conway said on one occasion—" My curse, as a priest, and that of the church, and of the people, be upon you seven times if you vote for Colonel Higgins." The words were addressed in a solemn manner, Conway being on his knees to the voters.

In the case of Rochdale, the allegation is direct bribery, and treating. The Committee appointed by the House of Commons last week to inquire into the breach of privilege in connexion with this petition have reported. They state that Abraham Bothwell and Peter Lord came before them and deposed that Peter Johnson offered 501. to Bothwell if he were going out of the country ; but that the evidence that Johnson intended to prevent Bothwell from being examined by the Election Committee was so inconclusive, and the manner of the witnesses in giving their testimony so unsatisfactory, that the Committee were unable to state this inference as being the clear result of their investigation. They desire to add, that nothing was given in evidence before the Committee tending to connect the sitting Member or his agents with the transaction in question.