POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY,

The House of Lords went into Committee hut night on the University of Cambridge Bill, and effected two "amendments" in that measure. On clause 31, providing that the Commissioners may frame statutes for the University, Lord LY/TELTON remarked, that under the clause only statutes passed by the Commissioners affecting certain gifts should be laid before the Council of the Senate. No such limitation should =la, but all statutes should be laid before that body. He moved the omission of words to take away the limitation ; and carried his amendment by 61 to 26.

On clause 44, which, as amended by Mr. Heywood's motion, would have the effect of admitting Dissenters to a share of the governing power, Lord LYNDHURST moved an amendment restoring the clause to its ori- ginal state and excluding Dissenters. The alteration, he said, was pro- posed in a small House' and carried by a surprise. The University ought to be governed by members of the Church of England alone. Thereupon arose a smart debate, carried on by the LORD CHANCELLOR. and Lord MONTEAGLE in favour of the clause as it stood, and by the Earl of DERBY and the Bishop of ST. DAVID'S in support of Lord Lynd- hurst's amendment. On a division, the amendment was carried by 72 to 25.

The remaining clauses were agreed to without amendment.

In the House of Commons there were two prominent subjects of dis- cussion—the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand, and Mr. Lowe's Part- nership Bill.

The question of the lapsed salary of Bishop Selwyn WU brought for- ward by Sir Joan Pessiscrrosr. Did the Government intend to restore the Bishop's income ? Blame had been thrown on him for some expres- sions he used in 1852 in moving the Colonial Estimates : but again and again he had stated that he never intended his words to apply to Bishop Selwyn, and he ought not to suffer on account of a misunderstanding of this kind.

Mr. Lenonenanz said that he approached the subject with pain and con- cern. In deciding that the item of 600/., the Bishop's salary, should not appear in the Estimates, he had not done so out of disrespect to Bishop Selwyn, but because Sir John Pakington in 1852 gave a distinct pledge that the salary should not appear again. Mr. GLADSTONE took the same view of the nature of the pledge given by Sir John. But he _thought that the Bishop had been harshly treated. He had a fair title to the con- tinuance of his salary ; and the House of Commons ought to consider whether it would not be well to encourage the Government to renew the

rather than hold them to the strict pledge. Mr. Mansell held grant, John Pakington had given no pledge. In the only authentic record of their proceedings were the words "Sir John Pekin" gton

said he was decidedly averse to giving a distinct pledge.' Sir GEORGE GREY met this by pointing out that the obstacle to the renewal of the grant was not a casual expression dropped in de- bate ; for a note appended to the Estimates of 1852 stated that the esti- mate for New Zealand was less by 10,000/. • that in the following year it would be reduced to 6000!.; after which, it was hoped, no further aid would be needed." No exception was made in favour of the Bishop's salary. That, if not a distinct pledge, was a distinct intimation. Mr. ROEBUCK argued that the colony itself should pay, not this country. Mr. HILDYARD suggested that the Government should bear in mind the claims of Bishop Selwyn, and not neglect any opportunity of requiting them.

The main discussion on Mr. Lowe's Partnership Amendment Bill was taken on the motion for going into Committee. Mr. Messrs moved that the House should go into Committee that day three months ; and he was supported by Mr. SPOONER, Mr. GLYN, Mr. CROSSLEY, Mr. 'Nexus Bsnrsro' and Mr. CA.RDWELL. The grounds for this course were, that the bill was unnecessary and would be injurious, and that there was a a want of safeguards in the measure—such as the registration of all loans made under the bill. Mr. CARDWELL criticized it very severely : the question raised was whether the House would establish a gigantic sys- tem of fraud, to the injury of the honest trader. Mr. LOWB defended the measure : he declined to accede to the proposed registration-clauses; and defined the principle of the bill to be—" to enable private partner- ships, under the competition to which they were now to be subjected, to increase their capital by removing from those who were wilting to ad- vance capital the present heavy restrictions and penalties."

On a division, 75 to 61, the House agreed to go into Committee.

In Committee, Mr. GREGSON earned, by 83 to 80, an important amendment cm clause 3, to the effect that a lender should not be able to recover any portion of his loan to any trader "until after all other cre- ditors shall have been fully satisfied as to their lawful claims on the said burliness."

Mr. SPOONER moved a proviso' to the effect that any lender who had received a share of the profits should, in the erent of the bankruptey of the borrower, repay all the moneys he had drawn out during the three previous years. Negatived by 125 to 105. On the motion of Mr. LOWE, arbitration-clauses were added ; and the bill was reported to the House.

The Parochial Schools (Scotland) Bill was read a third time, by 149 to 79, and passed.

In reply to a question from Mr. LIDDELL, Lord PALMERSTON stated that Mr. Labouchere had received accounts from the Cape of Good Hope which led to the apprehension that disturbances might occur on the frontier—

"I do not understand that there was any actual outbreak ; and such steps had been taken as would guard against the possibility of the recurrence of anything unpleasant. / do not understand that the accounts contain any reports of actual occurrences, but simply that there had been indications of disturbances between the Dutch settlers and the natives, and there was an apprehension that those disturbances might extend to the English settlers.'