PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

The debate on Mr. Hnme's resolution, adjourned from the 20th of June, was resumed on Thursday-.

Mr. OSBORNE advocated the four points; mingling with his arguments historical reminiscences, and the pleasantries that usually enliven his speeches.

He confuted Mr. Henry Drummond's notion that so many traders and professional persons had never before been returned to Parliament—meaning, of course, a set of vulgar fellows who had no grandfathers. Now, Mr. Osborne had consulted Dods Parliamentary Companion on that point. He found that there were 42 boroughs still subject to local influence: of these, 33 were under the direct influence of Peers; 18 Members represented 11 Whig Peers; 33 Members represented 22 Tory Peers; and these boroughs had as mach influence as the city of London, Liverpool, Dublin, or Edinburgh. Whereas the noble Lord said that the Government was not carried on for the benefit of the aristocracy, here it was again written in Dod's book, that. the present House contained 6 Marquises, 8 Earls, 25 Viscounts, 36 Lords, 61 Baronets, and about a dozen " hononrable Misters "; making a total of 274 Members of that House who were actually and directly connected with the aristocracy, being the sons, brothers or nephews of Peers, without reckoning numerous connexions by marriage. There were besides these, 44 officers in the Army, excluding the Militia, and 8 Naval officers; and if to those be added 8 more Members holding official appointments, it would give a grand total of 334 under the direct influence of the aristocracy. In making any remarks upon this part of the subject, he positively disclaimed all intention of attacking individuals. He attacked the system, and not the men; but as regarded the system, he most say that the country had arrived at a pass when the power of the aristocracy had increased, was increasing, and ought tube diminished. The whole Government was founded on family arrangements. Why, look at the contraction of the Cabinet itself. Again he said he meant no reflections upon individuals, and he would mention no names; but he believed it would be found that all the members of the Cabinet are connected together by marriage, Dr ties of blood, or family connexions. Why, the Cabinet is quite a snug family party; reminding him of the "happy family" exhibited about London, to which it bears a remarkable similarity—with this exception, that the "happy family" of animals are all of different races or species; whereas, notwithstanding the great experience and high talents of individual members of the Cabinet, the rickety offspring which they bring forth may perhaps be accounted for by the fact that the parents are all relations. (Great laughter.) The scions of the aristocracy are constaetly hanging on the Government for places. The noble Lord [John Hansen] had vindicated the rights of the Hower& and the Stanley's to the Government ot the country—

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—" I said they ought to have a share of the Government"

Mr. Osaortsra,--The noble Lord said he never would admit that the Howards and &alleys should not take their parts in the administration of public affairs. But those were not the names the noble Lord should have quoted; for there are fewer Howards and Stanley's in public offices than the members of other great families. The people did not object to the Ilowards and the Stanleys bearing their part in public affairs; but they did object to Lord Torn Noddies holding offlues for which they were totally unqualified, while other men eminently fitted for office were disregarded or excluded. Forgetting the number of Russells rho had been placed in office, there were those who had made reference in that -muse to the small appointment which had been bestovved upon the son of the honoarable Member for Montrose; and because a gentleman has obtained an office for which he is perfectly adapted by capacity and education, it was supposed that the whole constitution was tumbling to pieces. The truth is, the Government is a government of great families. And, after all, what is found in them exclusively ? Are they remarkable for such resplendent administrative talents? Is the Colonial Office so admirably administered? Or are the finances of the country conducted with such consummate skill ? Or ought the country to congratulate itself upon the success which has attended the administration of Irish affairs? Yet the principle is kept up of the Government being administered by great families, and the only question is which of them is to come in. There is no want of talent in the country; but statesmen cannot always be made out of Lords of the Bedchamber. What the country wants is a Government of practical men; and he believed that the honourable Member for Sunderland and a Railway Board could carry on the government just as well as the noble lords and right honourable gentlemen composing the present select Cabinet.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD argued against the resolution, by picking out inconsistencies in the speeches of its supporters. For example, Mr. Hume proposed to augment the electoral body; and yet be said that the franchise without the ballot would be a curse. His definition of household suffrage was equivalent to universal suffrage, excluding only the gipsy who sleeps in a tent. Mr. Thomas Cooper, author of the Purgatory of Suicides, hail been cited as a proper recipient of the franchise; Mr. Cooper being a person who led the unemployed people of the Staffordshire Potteries into the riots of 1842. Mr. 'falfourd would not at such a time surrender to theory the practical realities of our approved constitution.

Mr. COBDEN supported the resolution; reiterating many arguments in favour of the four points, and restoring others which had been perverted by antagonists. He did not argue the question of suffrage as a question of " natural right." To a gentleman who aided in drawing up the People's Charter," and who said that every man who pays taxes has a right to the vote, Mr. Cobden replied, that he must then include the widow who pays taxes. In fact, it is a question of expediency. But he maintained that if they included some three or four millions of electors, instead of 800,000, they would have the larger garrison in defence of their institutions. He rebuked the levity with which the House had listened to Mr. Disraeli's jocularity respecting the disproportionately small number of Members allowed to Manchester; predicting that it was the last time suck arguments would be so received. He reiterated statistics illustrating the unequal distribution of the franchise; vindicated the claims of the people in the Metropolis, as the most hard-working people in England; and argued that the

way to prevent Members from i being returned by mob constituencies," is to divide the very large constituencies n a manner fitter for the consultation of neighbours on the choice of a representative. He did not believe that the extension of the franchise would lead to organic changes; or that even the character of the representation would be materially changed. "But I tell you that you cannot govern this country peaceably while it is notorious that the great body of the people, here in London and elsewhere, are excluded from their fair share of representation in this House. I do not say that you should have an increased number of Representatives: I think we have quite as many Representatives in this House as we ought to have. But if you continue the present number of Representatives, you most give a larger proportion to those communities which

the largest amount of property, and diminish the number of Members for trcit se parts of the country which have now an undue number of Representatives. Do not suppose that this is a mere question of mathematical nicety. No; where the power is, to that power the Government will gravitate. The power is now in the hands of persons who nominate the Members of this House,—of large proprietors, and of individuals who come here representing small constituencies. It is they who rule the country; to them the Government are bound to bow. Bat let the great mass of the householders, let the intelligence of the people be heard in this House, and the Prime Minister may carry on his Government with more security to himself, and with more security to the country, than he can do with the factitious power which he now possesses." Members object to agitation out of doors, and yet in the same breath they claim credit, for the country that it has made great advances and reforms. "You glorify yourselves that you have abolished the slave-trade and slavery. Whatever you have done to break down any abomination or barbarism in this country, has been done by associations and leagues out of this House: and why? Because since Manchester cannot have its fair representation in this House, it was obliged to organize a league that it might raise an agitation through the length and breadth of the land, and in this indirect manner might make itself felt in this House. Well, do you want to get rid of this system of agitation? Do you want to prevent these leagues and associations out of doors? Then you mast bring this Hone into harmony with the opinions of the people. Give the means to the people of making themselves felt in this House. Are you afraid of losing anything by it? Why, the very triumphs you have spoken of-,-the triumphs achieved out of doors by Reformers—have been the salvation of this country. They are your glory and exultation at the present moment. But is this not a most cumbrous machine ?—a House of Commons, by a fiction said to be the Representatives of the People' meeting here and professing to do the people's work, while the people out of doors are obliged to organize themselves in leagues and associations to compel yon to do that work ? "

"It is not with a view of overturning our institutions that I advocate these reforms in our representative system. It is because I believe that we may carry out those reforms from time to time, by discussions in this Hone, that I take my part in advocating them in this legitimate manner. They must be effected in this mode; or they most be effected, as has been the case on the Continent, by bayonets, by muskets, and in the streets. Now, I am no advocate for such proceedings."

"All that has been done to elevate the country has been the work of the middle and industrious classes. Whether in literature, in arts, in silence, in commerce, or in enterprise—all has been done by the middle and industrious classes; and it is because I wish to bring each virtue, such intelligence, such industry, such frugality, such economy, into this House, that I support the motion of the honourable Member for Montrose." (Cheers.)

Mr. Uwauttsnr, observing that the Reformed Parliament has not acted up to its promise of non-intervention abroad and retrenchment at home, said he should move an amendment on Mr. flume's resolution, declaring that changes in the constitution of Parliament have failed in thoserespects. Mr. CHISHOLM ANSTEY seconded the amendment: but it Was withdrawn. Mr. O'Cortzton supported the resolution, but only as an instalment of the 'Charter.

Mr. MoNorroar MILNES contended that the motion failed in the only grounds upon which it could stand—that there was a practical grievance to be remedied; and that there was a great, distinct, and popular demand for such .a measure. Since the Reform Bill, the towns have had no rightto complain. If any preference is given to persons of rank and birth, it is because the English people love the aristocracy—they " love a lord." Even in that House habitual deference is shown to members of the aristooracy;. whence he inferred that it fairly represents the people. .

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, in opposing the motion, disclaimed the winkle( that the representation of this country is perfect, or that it would be impossible to Improve it. It was with great satisfaction he had heard Lord John Russell give up the doctrine of "finality." He also heard with pleasure Lord John's objection to the uniformity of the suffrage: it has been too little varied since the Reform Act; and the abolition of the potwallopers, especially, took away from the working classes the feeling that they were represented. That franchise diminished the tendency to " hero-worship "—the devotion to demagogues. The admission into Parliament of men more on a level with the working classes would induce those classes to pay less attention to delusive promises: for instance, when the honourable Member for Nottingham (Mr. Feargns O'Connor) went to render an account of his stewardship, seeing that he would have been five years in immediate proximity to the Thames, he would find more difficulty in explaining to the satisfaction of his constituents why he had not set it on fire, than if he were for the first time announcing all he would do for them if sent to Parliament. Against the benefits anticipated from Democratic changes Mr. Herbert set the experience of what is passing in Democratic France: the lavish expenditure; the corruption,— M. Marrast, editor of the National, with his printer and publisher, dividing places among them worth 40,0001.; the tyrannical abduction of M. Emile Thomas, Director-General of the Ateliers Nationanx, &c. Without denying that the representative system was susceptible of improvement, he thought that if the House were sincerely determined to do its duty, there was nothing in its composition to prevent it from acquiring the respect and confidence of the people. In some respects their course of late had not been such as to conciliate public estimation: and the cause of it was their inconsistency in regard to cases of corruption; their incapacity to get rapidly through business, from their indulgence in unnecessary discussion; and their dealing in ungenerous and unhandsome imputations on each other. These were faults which might be easily amended.

The resolution was advocated by Mr. LOCKE KING, Lord DUDLEY STUART, Mr. MINTZ, and MI. CHARLES VILLIERS; opposed by Mr. NEWDEGATE. Mr. Hump having replied, the House divided; and the resolution was negatived, by 358 to 84; majority, 267.

PROGRESS OF BUSYNESS IN PARLIAMENT.

On Wednesday, Mr. GREENE moved the second reading of the Parliamentary Proceedings Adjournment Bill; explaining, as Lord Stanley had done on introducing the bill into the House of Lords, the causes of delay in Parliamentary business.

The bill proposed to make it lawful for either House to adjourn any measures before it, except taxing or revenue bills, to be proceeded with in a following session —the consent of the Crown being first obtained. Inasmuch as the House felt there was much difficulty in the question, Mr. Greene thought it desirable in the first place that the bill should be referred to the Select Committee on Public Business, about to be nominated by Mr. Denison. The House was therefore requested to agree to the second reading pro formi only, and in order that the bill might be referred to that Committee.

A conversation arose; in the course of which Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that there were objections in the way of proceeding either by bill or by resolution of the House: he suggested a temporary experimental bill for one year. Mr. GOULDITIIN advocated proceeding by resolution, and quoted precedents. Mr. SHARmAN CRAwFoRD opposed altogether either of these cures for the evil in question, and maintained the constitutional advantage of the present course, despite its practical inconvenience. Mr. Crawford moved as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months: but the feeling of Members appearing adverse to this, he withdrew his amendment; and the bill was read a second time, and referred to the Committee on Public Business.

On the motion of Mr. EVELYN DENISON, the following gentlemen were agreed to as a Committee to consider the beat means of promoting the despatch of Public Business in the House of Commons—

Lord John Russell, Sir atobert Peel, Sir George Grey, S2r James Graham, Mr. Hume, Mr. Disraeli, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Goulburn, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Bernal, Sir William Heathcote; Mr. Cobden, Mr. Morgan John O'Connell, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Henley, Mr. George A. Hamilton, and Mr. Evelyn Denison.

BOROUGH WRITS.

On Wednesday, Mr. BANKES moved the second reading of the Horsham Borough Bill; "it being full time that the bill should proceed, or the order for its second reading be quashed." Sir GEORGE GREY stated, that the Borough Elections Bill was expected to answer generally the purpose of this local bill; which was only kept on the orders in case of anything happening to impede the other. However, if Mr. Bankes's motion were carried, as he was so zealous for inquiry, he would of course, in the absence of Lord John Russell, take charge of the bill in all its future stages. Mr. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURT had never before known a private Member, without notice, take a bill out of the hands of a member of the Government. He moved the adjournment of the debate, till next Wednesday, that the course taken on the Borough Elections Bill might first be seen.

Some other Members proceeded with the discussion, till it ended in the adoption of Mr. D'Eyncouras amendment. Debate adjourned to next Wednesday.

On Thursday, Mr. STAFFORD again moved the issue of the writ for Leicester. He enlarged on the complicated corruption of the borough, imputing it to the Liberal party; but based his motion on the fact that no steps had been taken for inquiry or for correction of the evil. Mr. SEYChairmau of the Leicester Election Committee, also insisted that something decisive ought to be done.

The motion and the appeal drew forth a declaration from Lord JOLIN RUSSELL.

He was afraid that at this stage of the session he could not expect that the honourable Member for the Flint Boroughs [Sir John Hanmer] would he able to proceed successfully with the bill which he had proposed. The whole question would be better left in the hands of the Government; who would perhaps be able to carry, in the course of next session, some general measure which would include the borough of Leicester within its provieiona He would not enter into the subject now; but next week he would state what he thought the remedy ought to be, and what addition ought to be made to the bill which he introduced in a previous session.

On this showing, the motion for the writ was withdrawn.

IRISH REPEAL DEBATE.

On Wednesday, Mr. REYNOLDS proposed further to adjourn the Irish Repeal debate, to Wednesday the 26th of July.

Sir BENJAMIN HALL called attention to the facts connected with this adjournment.

The question of Repeal was first brought forward on the 11th of April; when Mr. John O'Connell and Mr. Smith O'Brien spoke at much length. The adjourned debate was 'fixed by them for the 10th of May —a day on which, from the state of the business paper, it was evideutly impossible it could be prosecuted. Of course it was not brought on; nor was it brought on, when it might have been without difficulty, on the following Wednesday: it was further adjourned to the 81st of May. On that day it was postponed one day, out of courtesy to Mr. Reynolds, who certainly seemed honestly anxious to continue the debate. On the 1st of June, it was again put off to the 7th; when neither the mover nor the

seconder was present: another adjournment was made to the 5th of July; wluee again—three months after the first motion—neither Mr. John O'Connell nor Mr. Smith O'Brien thought it worth while to attend. It was impossible that gentlemen conducting themselves in this manner could be regarded as entitled to any attention, though enitting themselves forward as a party. Sir Benjamin therefore gave notice, for the 26th July, that if the debate were not then proceeded with, be would move that the order be discharged. He did not move it now, aa Irish Members; would instantly accuse Englisbmen of taking advantage of their absence to get rid of the most important Irish motions.

A rencontre of personalities then occurred between Mr. REYNOLDS and Mr. KEocirr; the latter calling Mr. Reynolds a bland demagogue, or bland popular orator "; and interjecting =insinuation that Mr. Reynolds, though a Repealer, had received " comfort and consolation" from the Treasury benches. This he explains to mean, that Government influence at the last election had been given to Repeaters wherever the return of Ministerialiata could not be achieved. Mr. REYNOLDS retorted with a personal epithet. Sir Benjamin Hall had found a " tnrnspit " in Mr. Keogh, who had proved the willing Irishman asserted by the Irish proverb to be ever at hand ready to " turn ' the spit on which any hapless countryman should be put. He repelled the insinuation about " comfort or consolation," neither of which be had ever derived from the present Ministers; and he replied to attacks on himself with personal innendo; declaring that he Reynolds was an independent Member, and no waiter upon Providence—no expectant lawyer hoping to pick some of the crumbs that might fall from the table of the future Prime Minister. In rejoinder, Mr. K.EOGH added two facts. He had himself seen a letter from the Irish Attorney-General stating that the return of a Repealer for Athlone would be a preferable event to the return of a supporter of Sir Robert Peel. Furthermore, the Attorney-General had been the first man to tender his vote for Mr. Reynolds himself at the last Dublin election. Sir GEORGE GREY protested against these unproved charges made by implication against the Government. If a tangible case could be made against Government, why not impeach them at once for misusing their influence at a general election? He gave a general denial to all such declamatory and =sustained assertions. The subject then dropped.

SALE OF MORTGAGED ESTATES IN IRELAND.

The House of Commons met at noon on Tuesday, to discuss, in Committee, the Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill. The order of the day having been read, Sir Lucius O'BRIEN moved that it be an instruction to the Committee to extend the operation of the bill to England and Scotland.

He complained of the conduct pursued by Ministers in regard to this bill: it had been allowed to remain several months in the House of Peers, where it had been perfected by the labours of the Law Lords; but afterwards the House of Commons was suddenly requested on a recent sitting to consider it in Committee without discussion, in order to introduce several clauses, so important that they made a new law of the bill.

The bill proposes to invest creditors who hold security over Irish estates with

powers over those estates which creditors do not possess in Ragland or Scotland. Properly modified, the Irish landlords would accept it; but they would not do so in its present shape; and in order to test its goodness for Ireland, he proposed its application also to England and Scotland, as it must be equally good for them if good at all. At present it is founded on the most unconstitutional principles. Clause 30 enables a tenant for life, without reference to the extent of his encumbrance, and behind the back of any, person entitled in remainder, to sell the whole ancient family mansion and appurtenancp.s; to do, this for an inadequate price; and to obtain the purchase-money fr.:Su-the Bau/cmf Ireland, at his pleasure. It hi fact repeals the law of entail; Which, whetner a right law or wrong law, is one' incorporated with all the present system, Anti is the basis of the titles and honours that one generation transmits to another. By clause 3, every creditor— no matter the amount of his claim—could force the land of his debtor into the market.

In passing, Sir Lucius stood forward as the apologist of Irish landlords—a

much calumniated race. None were better educated, mere capable of transacting business' or more intent on doing their duty. But the state of the law is such as to drive them to measures of apparent hardship. Sir Lucius spoke from experience, and after losing hundreds of pounds. If he built a house in a village and put a man into it to live there comfortably, it might be two or three years before he got that house again into his possession, though the tenant would pay no rent. Three or four years would elapse before one could get quit of a pauper: instead of a nice comfortable cottage such as it was at first, the cottage came back in a very different condition; and, were such a case to occur on his property, in this House he should have his fair name tarnished. Until adequate power be given to the landlords in such cases' the country will continue to present such barbarous scenes as it now exhibits.

Sir JOHN ROMILLY, the Solicitor-General, explained the aim and operation of the bill.

The object of the bill is to make land a marketable commodity in Ireland. From various returns which have been made, it appears that there is an abundance of capital in Ireland, and that even during the late famine capital is constantly coming thence for profitable investment in this country. Government has the admission of all parties to the fact as unquestionable, that if land could be sold in reasonably small pieces in Ireland, there is abundance of capital which would be applied in making such purchases. The present bill aims at facilitating such investments and purchases. The Solicitor-General explained in some detail the complex and costly but still inefficient system of registration of encumbrances now in force in Ireland. It is proposed to enable owners of encumbered estates to sell their land and substitute money in place of it, subject to all the interests and encumbrances that previously affected the land. This is provided for in two ways: by a compulsory sale made under the order of the Irish Court of Chancery —a power being given to the Court to deal with such cases by referring them tea Master and afterwards summarily directing the sale; and by empowering owners of encumbered land to sell that land, and give with it a Parliamentary title. In addition, a third mode has been added—that of a sale by "consent"; which, as the bill provides, may take place in all cases where all the persons interested in the estate consent to its sale and have given proper notices. The parties receiving notice of sale will be enabled, by application to the Court, to show sufficient cause for forbidding the sale; and in further precaution, no Parliamentary title made by the bill will be indefeasible till the lapse of five years after the sale: during that five years, the proof of fraud or collusion will make the sale void as against all persons connected with the fraud.

The present measure is not intended to interfere with various other measures for the relief of Ireland, and will not be incorporated with any measure on the question of landlord and tenant. Mr. NAPIER urged objections to the bill, as altered from the shape in which it left the House of Lords. The encumbrancer is duly cared for by its provisions, bat the remainder-man under family settlements will be unprotected; for his only remedy against fraud or a depreciation of the value of his interest will be a suit in equity. As to the new mode of sale without the order of the Court of Chancery after notices the Gazette and elsewhere, nobody reads the notices in the Gazette, and the Put,' really entitled May be an absentee, an infant, or even an unborn child, and yet the title is to be indefeaeible after five years. Mr. MONSELL supported the bill, as the only hope for the miserable tenants of encumbered estates in Ireland. In the case of Ireland, the onus probandi rests not with those who desire change, but with those who wish to preserve the present system; for if it be not changed, it must lead to a not bloodless revolution. A rental of about three quarters of a million is placed under the courts of law in Ireland; and the evidence of Mr. Booth shows that the districts which have fallen under the administration of the Court of Chancery resemble a country which has been .plandered by an enemy. Mr. Monsen admitted the necessity, of protecting the rights of remainder-men; but warned the House against sacrificing the interests of the living to the wishes of the dead, and prolonging the present state of things. He thought the reasonable rights of property are not interfered with by the bill; for under the present law the encumbrancer has power to sell the estate, and the only alteration made is that of substituting a quick and cheap process for a tedious and dear one. Perhaps the bill hardly takes sufficient care that all sales made under it shall be bona' fide sales, and hardly goes far enough in facilitating sales of an estate in small portions: but such details may be considered in Committee. Mr. Monsell entreated the House to carry on the bill with all convenient speed; and not to consent to any change that would render less effectual a measure which he believed to be most essential to the wellbeing of the country. Mr. OSBORNE characterized the amendment as a party subterfuge to gain time and defeat a useful and intelligible bill. Mr. Gnoasar entertained serious objections to the 2d and 3d clauses, and proposed a reference up stairs. Sir GEORGE GREY suggested to Sir Lucius O'Brien the withdrawal of his amendment It being nearly-five o'clock, Mr. HENLEY moved the adjournsuet of the debate. Mr. OSBORNE desired not to lose the present opportunity of speaking against the amendment. The House cleared for a division; but none was taken, and the debate was adjourned.

SITES FOR WORSHIP IN SCOTLAND.

On Wednesday, before going into Committee on the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill, Sir JAMES GRAHAM stated that he should not oppose going into Committee, as the House 'hid already determined on that step; but in all subsequent stages he should offer the strongest opposition to the hill, on principle. He believed he should in so doing be supported not only by the Established Church and Dissenters of Scotland, but by the Free Church itself.

The Home went into Committee.

On clause 1, Mr. EtraoT moved an amendment limiting the operation of the bill to congregations of the Free Church of Scotland. He desired to redress an existing grievance, and not to go into such a general legislation as the bill proposed. This amendment was supported by Mr. TRELAWNEY, Colonel MURE, Sir EDWARD COLFBROOK, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. RUTHERFURD (Lord Advocate), and Mr. DUNCAN. The bill was supported by Mr. BOUVERIE, Mr. Elostn, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. FOX MAULE, and Mr. STIAPIC4N CRAWFORD • also, on the ground that if the House interfered at all it should interfere effectively and not partially, by Mr. Ewiar; and on the ground of necessitk, though the principle was bad, by Mr. 11PGERGoa. Both the bill and the amendment were opposed by Sir JAMES GRAHAN, Mr. Carawrorann Mr. Custsurrot BRUCE, Mr. KEREHA,W, and Mr; CILUAOLM ANSTEY. Mr. G. DUNDAS

thought the-bill too teneral; asiftlir...T.AWonrsatir. criticized its extre. me looseness and vagueness of w-r4. On a division, Mr. Elliot's amendment was negatived by 58 to 55.

The other clauses were agreed to. Mr. ELLIOT then moved the addition of a clause restricting the operation of the bill to two years. Negatived, by 58 to 46.

The preamble was agreed to, and the House resumed.

APPROACH OF THE CHOLERA. This subject was mentioned in the House of Commons on Thursday. Mr. Mosrse.r.. asked Lord Morpeth, if he had received official information that the cholera had reached Moscow and St. Petersburg? When cholera last visited St. Petersburg, it very shortly afterwards appeared in London: had Government taken any steps to enforce the laws relating to public health in Ireland? Lord MoarErn answered, that though he had no official information of the facts stated, he had no doubt they were true. An arrangement was now under consideration of the Home and the Irish Secretaries, by means of which it was hoped that the sanatory measure now before the Lords might be carried into effect this session, in Ireland as well as this country. THE RAILWAY CosrmasstoN. On Tuesday, Mr. BANKES moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the Railway Commission Act. He showed the progressive increase of the annual charges of the Commission. From 1842 to 1844, this charge Was no more than 1,3701.; with the large and regularly-organized establishment that became necessary after 1844, the expense was only 3,3011. up to 1846. The new Board commenced duty on the 9th November 1846, and cost the country 17,0001. for the first fourteen months of its existence. The charge for thepresent year is 13,5221. The Commission may now merge again in the Board of Trade. Mr. LABOUCHERE opposed the premature and unadvised proposition of Mr. Bankes, and maintained the utility of the Commission: still, he admitted himself unsatisfied with the present state of railway business under its care. Mr. GLaosroNn assailed the Board; exposing the defect of its original composition —an undefined sphere of duties, and ridiculing its present unemployed position. Mr. VERNON Smrrn admitted the want of occupation for the Board, but opposed the motion, as ill-timed. Lord dorm Rossini, said that he should not fill up the office of Chief Commissioner, nor ask for any salary on its accountHe quite agreed that the Railway Board had more persons belonging to it with high salaries than was necessary for the business to be performed; and unless some arrangement could be adopted, by which other duties might be assigned to them, he thought that a great alteration must take place before the next session of Parliament—an alteration, probably, by which that Board would be much reduced in numbers. On a division, the motion was negatived, by 73 to 62.