tt butts mat Vturrtitingo in 1arliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS. OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE or Loans. Monday, July 5. Indian War Medals ; Lord Derby's State- ment—Oaths ; Lord Lucan's Bill recommitted—County Management Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday, July 6. Ecclesiastical Commission Bill ; Proceedings on Report— County Courts Districts Bill reported. Thursday, July 8. Sale of Poisons Bill read a third time and passed—The Jews ; Lord Lucan's Bill recommitted—Universities (Scotland) Bill read a first time.

Friday, July 9. Government of India (No. 3; Bill read a first time—The Cuban Slave Trade Squadron ; Lord Ilaimesbury's Answer to told Truro—Funded Debt Bill read a second time—Ecclesiastical Commission Bill read a third time and passed.

Hoare or COmMONS. Monday, July. 5. Government of India Bill (No. 3) in Committee—Universities (Scotland) Bill considered as amended—Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland) Bill committed.

Tuesday, July 6. Government of India (No. 3) Bill considered as amended— Universities (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed—Wills of British Subjects Abroad Bill read a third time and passed—Copyright of Designs Bill read a third time and passed—Stipendiary Magistrates Bill read a third time and passed.

Wednesday, July 7. New Trial in Criminal Cases Bill read a second time— Insurance and Assurance Companies Bill in Committee—Police (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill read a third time and passed.

Thursday, July 8. Local Government Bill committed—Government of India (No. 3) Bill read a third time and passed—Government of New Caledonia Bill read a second time—Police Force (Ireland) Bill read a second time—Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland) Bill reported—Local Government Bill reported—Militia Ballots Suspension Bill read a first time.

Friday, July 9. The Thames ; Mr. Cosh Motion—Supply ; Civil Service Esti- mates—Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed— Government of India; Lord Palmerston's Bill withdrawn.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 5h .... lam

Tuesday 511 es Om Wednesday No sitting. Thursday 6h 30m Friday 5h lb 20m

Sittings this Week, 4; Time, lob am Sittings this Week, 8; Time, 491i 55a1 — this Session, 77 ; — 168h 20m -- this Session 108; — 716h 471A

The Cemorona.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Monday 4h .(m) lb 30m Tuesday Noon .... 3b 55m

6h .(m) lh lam

Wednesday Noon .... 6h 53m Thursday Noon 411 Om Oh .(nt) 2h em Friday Noon .... 411 Om

Gh .(m) lb gem

THE INDIA BLLL.

The labours of the House of Commons in Committee on the India Bill (No. 3) were resumed on Monday evening. On clause 35, fixing the proportions in which the patronage of military cadetships should be di- vided between the Secretary of State and the members of his Council, Sir ERSKINE PERRY said the clause would leave all the patronage in the hands of the Minister for India. Why not give away some of the ap- pointments to public schools, or at once adopt the principle of competi- tion ? Lord STANLEY said he thought well of competition, but at pre- sent it is only an experiment. As to public schools the suggestion would be pleasing to them, but those who do not send their sons to public schools would feel well founded dissatisfaction if it were adopted. Mr. Lows replied that the effect of the clause would be to give the Indian Council a direct and individual interest in the military service, injurious to the public interest. He complained of the mode in which patronage, civil and military, has been distributed under the Company ; and sug- gested that the military, like the civil patronage, should be thrown open to essapetition. On a division the clause was carried by 165 to 91. 'Therewas no other division ; the Government carried all its proposal!, ; the ,,presnable was agreed to, and the House resumed amid some cheering.

The bill was considered as amended on Tuesday at a long evening sit- ting. Lord STANLEY' moved a number of new clauses and among theta one repealing certain sections of the Act of 1853 touching admissions to the Indian civil service. By the Act of 1853 the Minister was em. powered but not compelled to establish the competitive principle. He proposed to substitute a clause providing that unrestricted competition should not be abandoned without the consent of Parliament. Sir J.ssin GRAHAM and Mr. GLADSTONE were of opinion that the clause was too complete an ouster of the Council from all matters relating to admis- sions : these being regulated by the Civil Service Commissioners. But the House adopted the new clause. Mr. GLADSTONE moved a clause declaring that " except for repelling actual invasion, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, her Ms. jesty's forces in the East Indies shall not be employed in any spumy operation beyond the external frontier of her Majesty's Indian posses. sions without the consent of Parliament to the purposes thereof." He said he cordially accepted that principle of the constitution which treats the making of peace and war as strictly a part of the prerogative of the Crown. But in practice Parliament has always limited the exercise of that power. Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt, who hardly agreed in anything else, agreed in the necessity of limiting the powers of peace and war that were to be exercised in the East Indies. Their provisions for that pur. pose were ineffectual, but it is now practicable to make arrangements more efficacious. The necessity for those arrangements he justified by a reference to the Affghan and Persian wars, both undertaken without the assent of Parliament. He appealed to the members of the late Government to say whether it was not a most dangerous precedent that it should lie in the discretion of the Executive to make use of what might be called extraneous finance and an extraneous army for the put. pose of making war, the expense of which was hereafter to be charged on the British people. Lord STANLEY said that the Government were willing to accept the clause. The sole reason why it was not included in the original bill was that as a practical check it would not have much force. Sir GEORGE LEWIS said that if they adopted such a principle in regard to India, they might in time extend it to all other wars in derogation of the prerogative. Lord PALsizasrost criticized the clause, and said he was surprised that Ministers, the natural guardians of the prero- gative, did not protest against the doctrine involved in Mr. Glad- stone's clause. Mr. Disuazu replied that they were considering a state of affairs apart from the constitution of the country. In the case of India, however, if the power of declaring war and con- cluding peace were left entirely in the hands of the Sovereign, there would be no means of exercising in this country any control over the use of that power, and a policy extremely injurious to the national interests might be pursued. Such a provision as was contained in the clause would be extremely salutary, and although some change might be necessary in its terms he did not think it involved any invasion of the constitutional pre- rogative of the Crown. Lord JoshItussEm. supported the clause but suggested an alteration in its terms, and after some discussion, Mr. GLAD. STONE agreed that it should read her Majesty's forces " maintained out of the revenue of India" shall not be employed, to. Upon this, the House divided, and the clause was carried by 152 to 46.

Lord PALMERSTON now moved the insertion of a clause to the effect " that so much of the Act as relates to the nomination, election, num- bers, duration of service, salaries, and retiring allowances of the coun- cillors shall not continue in force longer than for five years, from the let day of August 1858." He said bill of the Government is but a change in name.

At present there are eighteen Directors, and it is proposed that the new Council should consist of fifteen, the greater part of whom would no doubt be selected from the present Court of Directors. Now, no doubt they are gentlemen well conversant with the affairs of India, and on the ground of capacity he did not wish to raise any objection, but the House must look, not to individuals, but to things. Now, under the proposed arrangement there would be fifteen gentlemen who had hitherto performed a certain amount of duty at a salary of 600/. a year, appointed to perform at all events not duties more arduous, but probably less so, at a salary of 12001. a year. The Directors had hitherto been elected for a certain number of yeara, sub- ject to reelection, and on retirement had received no pension; but the coun- cillors would be elected for life, and on retirement would receive a very handsome retiring pension. here is no assignable reason why these councillors should be placed in so much better a position than those wbo had heretofore filled similar offices. Their duties, after the transfer of the government of India to the Crown, would be greatly diminished ; and the noble lord himself had admitted that year by year they would progressively have less to do than the Court of Directors. Their functions too, would be less important. They would decide nothing ; they would be free from re- sponsibility ; whereas the Court of Directors are responsible to their con- stituents. On that ground it is desirable that Parliament should have an opportunity of reconsidering the arrangement without giving the proposed councillors the sort of freeheld hi their situations which would be given by this bill. If therefore, at the end of two or three years the Government should find that there should be fewer councillors, with a shorter tenure of office, lower salaries, and smaller retiring pensions, the vested interests created by the measure of 1858 would be plead.ed as a bar to the action of Parliament, unless the bill itself contained a provision binding them to re- consider the matter within a limited period. Lord STANLEY objected to the clause. The door for the reconsider- ation of the act would be always open. Whenever it is found to be inconvenient Parliament can deal with it. But as to placing Parliament under the necessity of considering so great a question as India, that is a strong objection to fixing a definite period. It would be imprudent to tic up the question for a given term, and it would be inconvenient to be obliged to deal with it at a given period, no matter what other business pressed upon public attention. Lord Stanley defended his bill from the attack of Lord Palmerston. It certainly is not a mere change of name.

They were told that by a different mode of carrying on business in India it might be possible greatly to diminish the work of the government at home. Upon that point he expressed •no opinion. If it should turn out that the amount of work transacted in this country was diminished, no

doubt it would be proper to consider whether the number of councillors also might not be reduced. But he did not regard the councillors merely as so many clerks ; their assistance would be required for the experience they would bring, the advice they would give, and the administrative ability they would possess. He did not deny that hereafter a reduction might be postale, and if so, remembering that they were all now acting in a great measure upon conjecture and as an experiment, he would not be ashamed, and no Minister need be ashamed, to come down to that House and ask parliament to alter the arrangement which it had sanctioned, but which a change of circumstances had rendered unfit to be continued. Mr. Balmer said he feared lest in fixing five years he might give a faulty measure a length of life it did not deserve. It is not only an experiment, but an experiment made by a party compelled against its will to legislate. ite thought therefore it would be wise to make it incumbent on the Go- vernment to reconsider in five years this great question, now being decided experimentally and upon conjecture. Mr. AYRTON said the amendment was most mischievous. If it were adopted, at the end of five years the government of India would be completely vested in the hands of the Minister. Sir Huns CAIRNS repeated this objection. Whereupon Mr. WILSON said that surely Sir Hugh could not be serious. All the clause really proposed was that in the spring of 1863 it should be incumbent on parliament:to reconsider the whole question. Mr. DISRAELI, however, took up and expanded Mr. Ayrton's objection. On a division the clause was negatived by 149 to 115. LorcrJonar RUSSELL moved the omission of clause 27 which provides that orders now sent through the Secret Committee may be sent by the Secretary of State without communication with the Council. Mr. DIS- RAELI objected to the motion on the ground that the responsibility of the Minister would be diminished if he were compelled on all occasions to go to his Council, and that it would tie and fetter his hands. Sir JAMES GRAHAM supported the motion, which he described as one abolishing secrecy in a form liable to abuse. The Minister could easily obtain from his Council a promise of secrecy. Sir GEORGE LEWIS took the same side. Mr. MANGLES said there were few questions that come before the Secret Committee that might not be proclaimed at Charing Cross. But the power in the hands of the Minister is not-only liable to abuse, but is actually abused. The conquest and administration of Scinde were carried on wholly irrespective of the Court of Directors. Lord PALISERSTON said the proposal of Lord John Russell amounted to this that the Cabinet would be compelled to state its intentions to gentlemen not members of the Cabinet, and who are not responsible. That is a departure from the British constitution. The motion was negatived by 176 to 149, and the diuse was sustained.

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

Accordingly on Thursday the bill was read a third time and passed. Sir ERSKINE PERRY described the Council as nothing more than a rifaeciainento of the old Court of Directors ; pointed out that in the whole bill there is not a single allusion to the native interests of India ; and predicted the new government would not last five years. Lord PALMER- STON thought it right to say that although he maintained his objections to the bill on many points, yet, as the' bill embodied a great principle of infinite value and importance, he gave to the third reading not a grud- ging but a cordial and hearty assent. Mr. ROEBUCK launched what Lord John Russell described as a " malediction " against the bill ; de- clared the government will not work ; defied anybody to propose a worse form of government—a form that has not one quality a government should have ; and endorsed the prophecy of Sir Erskine Perry. Lord Joan RUSSELL held that the bill had " redeeming features " ; recapitu- lated the course of legislation ; spoke upon land tenures and revenue, which he said require careful investigation ; and paid compliments to Mr. Bright with whose principles of Indian government he generally agrees. Mr. DISRAELI thanked the House for its assistance in impro- ving and passing the measure, and eulogized its conduct in abstain- ing from party warfare on an occasion when all should combine for the common good.

Thus the India Bill passed amid considerable cheering.

THE JEW QUESTION.

On the motion for going into Committee on Lord Lucan's bill ena- bling the House of Commons to admit Jews by resolution the Earl of CLANGARTY called attention to the position in which the bill would place the Queen as head of the Church ; and asked whether the Government were prepared to advise her Majesty to assent to a bill when in so doing she might be acting contrary to her conscientious opinions ? He also said that the bill, would enable Jews to enter Parliament unfettered, while Roman Catholics would be still obliged to pledge themselves that they will not use the privilege of a seat in Parliament to overthrow the Established Church. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH called attention to the fact that, under the bill, a Jew might become Prime Minister and present to benefices, a privilege not allowed to Roman Catholics. Lord REDESDALE objected to the " settlement " of the question by allowing a proceeding on resolution. It is unconstitutional. Lord BROUGHAM saw no force hi this objection. It would, however, have been better to have adopted Lord Lyndhurst's bill. The Earl of DERBY took up some of the objections. To Lord Clan- carty he said that he was sure his noble friend would be the last man to wish to canvass the personal opinions of the Sovereign ; but he had no reason to suppose that if Parliament agreed to the bill her Majesty would have the slightest disposition to interpose her prerogative and prevent its becoming law. *gam, he regarded it as a mistake to suppose that the

bill will place the Roman Catholics in a position inferior to the Jews. In 1829, it was held that the.Roman Catholics as the rivals of the Esta-

blishment would avail themselves of their position in Parliament to in- jure the temporalities of the Church; and therefore words were inserted binding them not to use their privileges for that purpose. But in the case of the Jews that question has never been raised. No one ever dreamt that they would interfere with the temporalities of the Church. Turning to Lord Redesdale'a objection, Lord Derby said he looked upon the bill as placing is moral restraint upon the prerogative of the Crown, as it made known that a Jew created a Peer could not by law take his seat without a resolution:

It was not that their lordships abandoned the views which they had en- tertained, that in their opinion it was not of advantage that the Jews should be admitted into Parliament ; but they said, " We retain our opinion, and we send down our seasons why we retain that opinion; but, nevertheless, in deference to the long and frequently expressed opinion of the House of -

Commons, sustained by increasing majorities for ten years in five successive Parliaments, if the House of Commons should think. fit, we will concur in an act of Parliament to dispense with the operation of the law in a par- ticular instance." He might refer to the effect of a resolution of the House of Commons in enforcing a violation of the law—to the resolution which prevented their lordships from voting for a Member of that House. There was no law which prevented their lordships voting. The law said that any person—not that any person not being a Peer of Parliament, but any person possessed of a certain qualification, should have the right to vote for Members of Parliament.

Lord CAMPBELL—" A Peer has no right to vote by the common law of England." Lord DERBY received with great respect, but with great surprise, the dictum of the noble and learned lord. He was certainly of opinion that there was no law of that kind, and that which alone prevented a Peer's vote being received was a resolution of the House of Commons. Lord CAMPBELL--" That resolution only declares the common law." The Earl of DERBY would bow with more submission to the noble and learned lord if it were not that he heard dissent expressed by Lord Lynd- hurst. Where such authorities disagreed who could decide ?

The broad distinction between proceeding by act and resolution is that the act would give the Jew an absolute right to sit in the House of Com- mons; whereas a resolution would be valid only so hug as it remained un- rescinded. The mode of proceeding by resolution is limited and defined by the act which conveys the power to pass a resolution, and it has this ad- vantage, that it leaves it optional to the House of Commons to pass or not to pass it, and keeps open for the consideration of the constituencies whether a future House of Commons should confirm or not the judgment of the House in the present instance. After a general election, with the attention of the constituencies drawn, as no doubt it will be, to this point, they will really know what is the feeling of the country. If favourable, the resolu- tion will be repeated, and if unfavourable, it will either be rescinded or not renewed. The result will be that the House of Commons will either avail themselves or not of the liberty given by the bill, but the law of the land excluding Jews from sitting in this and the other House will remain unaltered.

After Lord CAMPBELL had repeated his opinion that Peers are pre- vented from voting for Members of the House of Commons by the an- cient and immemorial law of England, Lord LYNDHURST subjected the bill of Lord Lucan to a brief but searching criticism. Lord Lucan could not have been the author of the bill or he would never have approached the mark in a manner so circuitous and involved.

It was clear that the noble and gallant earl had consulted some profes- sional adviser—some gentleman accustomed to be paid according to the number of words. Their lordships might have supposed that this gentle- man before he drew the clause referring to the oath of abjuration would have looked to that oath. When he was taking certain words out of the oath, leaving a residue to be sworn to, the party who dictated the words to be taken ought to have been accurate. The clause appeared to be very precise, because the word " and" was struck out. It enacted that any person professing the Jewish religion might omit the words "and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian." After these words were struck out the rest might be sworn to. But these words to be struck out were not in the oath of abjuration. Tho professional person whom the noble and gallant earl had consulted had not taken the trouble to read the oath of abjuration, but had taken the words of the oath from the bill of the House of Commons, and that was the ground of the blunder he had com- mitted. He had looked through the bill with considerable care, and he was convinced that the gentleman who drew the bill of the noble and gal- lant earl was paid for the words in every instrument he drew. He advised the noble and gallant earl to amend the clause by striking out the unneces- sary rubbish and by making the recital of the words of the oath of abjura- tion correspond with the oath itself. The bill was committed pro forma in order that certain amendments might be made and printed.

The bill, as amended, passed through Committee on Thursday, with little opposition.

As the bill stands it is admitted that if the Commons do not pass the Oaths Bill the effect of Lord Lucan's Bill will be entirely destroyed, because its effect entirely depends on the passing of the new oath embodied in the Oaths Bill. Lord LYNDHURST said that from all he heard he could not doubt for one moment that both bills would pass the other House ; whereupon Lord DERBY cheered the statement. He subsequently said that if the two hills were sent down together they would probably both receive the assent of the other House, and conse- quently this great question would be finally and more or less satisfacto- rily settled during the present session. The best security for this was, that the two bills should be inseparably connected, and that the passing of the one should insure the passing of the other.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND.)

The report of the Universities (Scotland) Bill was brought up on Monday, and its clauses were senitinized and contested with much vigour. Mr. Dexine moved a clause exempting the Principals of the Universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen from the necessity of taking the test as members of the Established Church. The LORD- ADVOCATE opposed the motion as contrary to the compromise of 1853 when lay professors were exempted from the test. But the House adopted the clause by 82 to 58.

On clause 16, Colonel SYKES moved that a Faculty of Arts, affording education sufficient to qualify students to be examined in Degrees of Arts, shall be maintained in each of the colleges at Aberdeen. Negatived by 142 to 47.

Mr. BAXTER moved a proviso to clause 19 intended to restrain tha Commissioners, appointed under the act, from applying any portion of the money to be granted by Parliament to the support of existing, or the endowment of new theological chairs. Negatived by 118 to 102.

The bill was read a third time and passed, on Tuesday, without any further opposition ; and on Thursday „it was read a first time in the House of Lords.

NEW CALEDONIA. .. . .

Sir EDWARD BULWER moved on Thursday the seaid rending of the 4/

Government of New Caledonia Bill, and explained it avert. He be-

gan by stating that it is intended next year to resum zasion of Van- couver's Island, now in the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company. When Mr. Ellice was asked by the Select Committee on the Hudson's Bay Company whether it would be advisable to 'colonize the land adjacent to the island, he said " No ; we should have enough to do in colonizing the island." But now new circumstances have arisen. Gold was dis-

covered in the district in 1856 ; and that compelled them to erect it into a colony earlier than they would otherwise have done.

" Before I proceed further it may be interesting to the House to give a sketch of the little that is known to us through official sources of the terri- tory in which these new goldfields have been discovered. The territory lies between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific ; it is bounded on the south by the American frontier line, 49 degrees of latitude, and may be con- sidered to extend to the sources of Fraser Elver, in latitude 55 degrees. It is, therefore, about 420 miles long in a straight line, its average breadth about 250 to 300 miles. Taken from corner to corner its greatest length would be, however, 805 miles, and its greatest breadth 400 miles. Mr. Arrowsmith computes its area of square miles, including Queen Charlotte's Island, as somewhat more than 200,009 miles. Of its two gold-bearing rivers, one, the Fraser, rises in the northern boundary, and flowing south falls into the sea at the south-western extremity of the territory, opposite the southern end of Vancouver's Island, and within a few miles of the American boundary ; the other, the Thompson River, which rises in the Rocky Mountains, and flowing westward joins tho Fraser about 150 miles from the coast. It is on these two rivers, and chiefly at their confluence, that the gold discoveries have been made. Honourable gentlemen who look at the map may imagine this new colony at an immeasurable distance from England ; but we have already received overtures from no less eminent a person than Mr. Cunard for a line of postal steam-vessels for letters, goods, and passengers, by which it is calculated that a passenger starting from Liverpool may reach this colony in about 35 days by way of New York and Panama. With regard to the soil, there is said to be some tolerable land on the lower part of Fraser River. But the Thompson's River district is de- scribed as one of the finest countries in the British dominions, with a climate far superior to that of countries in the same latitude on the other side of the mountains." In Vancouver's Island no gold has been discovered, but it has been found above the confluence of the Fraser and Thompson Rivers, and, although only 1000 ounces have been obtained, the similarity of the geolo- gical formation of the country to that of California leads to the belief that gold abounds there. The report of its existence has spread ; it has already called the new El Dorado ; in May, 450 emigrants from California had

arrived ; and it was estimated that 20,000 would during the summer. A large proportion of these miners are American citizens. They are com- pelled to take with them all the provisions they require, for the country furnishes no food. Many have lost their lives in ascending the rapids of the Fraser River, and several canoes and cargoes have been swept away. The Indians are jealous of the miners. They have shown no violence at present, but they hate the Americans, and are numerous and well armed. Under these circumstances, the Government felt bound to make a colony of the district. They did not propose to establish free institutions. They could not in this case establish self-government. " What, therefore, we propose to do is, to empower the Crown, for the limited period of five years, to make laws for the district by Orders in Council, and to establish a legis- lature, such legislature to be, m the first instance, the Governor alone ; but with power to the Crown, by itself or through the Governor, to establish a nominative council and a representative assembly. If, therefore, before the five years expire there are the elements for a representative assembly, I can- not doubt that, whoever then may be the advisers of the Crown, a repre- sentative assembly will cheerfully be given." It is not proposed to annex Vancouver's Island to the colony; but the Crown would be empowered to annex it, should that seem fit. The Governor of the new colony will also be Mr. Douglas, a servant of the Hudson's Bay Company, and Governor of Vancouver's Island. " If the gold-fields should prove to be really produc- tive, a very large population will rapidly spread over the neighbourhood of the diggings, which it will be impossible to govern from the distance of several hundred miles at Vancouver ; while, if we extend our view to the natural destinies of Vancouver as the great naval station to our only posses- sion on the Pacific side of the whole of America,—a station from which we should carry on a trade with India, China, the Indian Archipelago, Aus- tralia—a trade now carried on exclusively by the Americans from California think we must allow that the Government of the island would have enough to occupy its care and attention in developing the true interests and resources of that single colony. Probably even before the end of the five years to which I propose to limit the operation of this act, the materials for a popular representation may be found, and the future destinies of this new- born settlement boldly intrusted to the vigorous movement of liberal institutions. It may be necessary to observe that, both as regards Vancouver's Island and this more extensive territory of New Caledonia, it is not intended over these colonized districts to renew to the Hudson's Bay Company the licence of exclusive trade, which expires next year. The servants of the Company will then have in those two colonies no privileges, whatever apart from the rest of her Majesty's subjects there. At present, whatever may be the riches of the discovery, it is fair not to forget the fact that California exported in the first eight months from the discovery of its mine 150,000 ounces of gold-dust, while the largest amount ascertained or conjectured from Fraser's River since 1856 is not more than 1000 ounces. More rational, if less exciting, hopes of the importance of the colony rest upon its other resources, which I have described, and upon the influence of its magnificent geographical situation on the ripening gran- deur of British North America. I do believe that the day will come, and that many now present will live to see it, when, a portion at least of the lands on the other side of the Rocky Mountains being also brought into colonization and guarded by free institutions, one direct line of railway communication will unite the Pacific to the Atlantic. Be that as it may, of one thing I am sure—that though at present it is the desire of gold which attracts to this colony its eager and impetuous founders, still, if it be re- served, as I hope, to add a permanent and flourishing race to the great family of nations, it must be, not by the gold which the diggers may bring to light, but by the more gradual process of patient industry, in the culture of the soil, and in the exchange of commerce. It must be by the respect for the equal laws which secure to every man the power to retain what he may honestly acquire ; it must be in those social virtues by which the fierce im- pulse of force is tamed into habitual energy, and avarice itself, amidst the strife of competition, finds its object best realized by steadfast emulation and prudent thrift. I conclude, Sir, with a humble trust that the Divine Disposer of all human events may afford the safeguard of His blessing to our attempt to add another community of Christian freemen to those by which Great Britain confides the records of her empire, not to pyramids and obelisks, but to states and commonwealths, whose history will be written in her language." (Cheers.)

The bill met with general approval ; and among the speakers in its favour were Mr. LABOUCHERE, Mr. ELLICE, Mr. LOWE, and Mr. ROE- BUCK.

•

THE Lucas:ow MEner..—In reply to a question from the Duke of NEW- CASTLE, the Earl of DERBY said that the die of the medal for services in India has been approved by the Queen ; instructions have been sent out requesting to have returned as soon as possible the nominal list of those who are entitled to receive it, and by the time the answer of Sir Colin Campbell is received he was informed by the Board of Control that the medal will be ready for delivery. The medal will be given for services in with clasps for the capture of Delhi and the defence of Lucknow, and alse a separate clasp for the relief of Lucknow.

Ecermsiesmeer. Poisrr.—On the report of the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, Lord ItevEsswouni moved as an amendment that no appointment or exchange of ecclesiastical patronage, under the provision contained in the Act of 6 and 7 William IV., mil). 77, should be made without the consent of the bishop in whose diocese it is situated. He complained that the bill would rob the see of Durham of patronage to the amount of 16,0001., awl, urged as reasons against that course the large population of the diocese, the effect of the measure on the interests of the clergy and on the University of Durham. The Earl of DERBY showed that while the Bishopric of Durham embraced a patronage of 70 livings value 39,1401., Ripon with a larger po- pulation has only 47 livings value 10,000/. ; and Manchester with a still larger population has only 36 livings, value 90001. The Commissioners, therefore, if they carry out the act of 1832, must subtract from Durham some of its patronage to increase the inadequate patronage of Manchester. As to the amendment proposed, Lord Derby contended that it would annul the power of the Commissioners, and he could not admit that a single bishop should have an absolute veto on proceedings authorized-by Parliament. The amendment was negatived by 38 to 12. The bill was reported.

MEDICAL REFORM.—When Mr. COWPER moved that the House should go into Committee on the Medical Practitioners Bill, Mr. DuNconue, de- nouncing it as a job of the College of Physicians, moved that it should be committed that day six months. But he found few supporters, and the amendment was negativedby 95 to 8. In Committee, Mr. DUNCOMBE threat- ened to divide against every clause unless a promise were given that clause 41 should be struck out. [This clause provided that Government should advance funds to work the bill until fees sufficient for the purpose were received.] Mr. COWPER gave the promise required, and in due course the clause was omitted. On clause 15, Mr. HEADLAM moved that no practitioners should be registered except those who had been licensed by the College of Physi- cians or the College of Surgeons. Negatived by 138 to 21. A proviso was added to clause 26, that the name of no person should be erased from the register on the ground of his having adopted any theory of medicine or surgery. Clause 29 was amended by the insertion of words directing the College of Physicians to agree to a by-law that none of its members should sue for fees. Clause 45 was amended, enacting that fellows, members, or licentiates of the College of Physicians of Edinburgh, or of the Queen's College of Physicians of Ireland, should be entitled to diplomas from the College of Physicians of London, and the privileges thereto pertaining. The bill passed through Committee.

Camoirei. TRIALS.—Mr. 1I'lleHoar moved the second reading of the New Trials in Criminal Cases Bill. The general object of this bill is to remove doubts with regard to the power of removing criminal eases, from one court to another, and to grant new trials in criminal cases. There was a long debate on the bill. Objections were taken to its principle and details by Mr. J. D. Frrzoimerai, Mr. WILLIAM MILES, Mr. Bram- MORE, and Mr. Lows. They asserted that to grant new trials would cause great inconvenience; that it would do away with the right of trial by jury; that it would lead to the trying of men twice ; and that the existing pre- cautions against mistake are sufficient. On the other side were a host of Members, including Mr. BOWYER, Mr. Joule LOCKE, Mr. ROEBUCK, and Mr. BRIGHT. They contended that some appeal is necessary. At present there is an appeal to the Home Office, but it is irregular and extra-judicial. Had it been possible to grant a new trial in the case of Mr. Barber, he would not have suffered such injustice. Besides, a pardon from the Home Office does not restore an innocent man to his place in society. Mr. HEN- LEY said he could not vote all, because be could not affirm that in all cases a man should be tried twice over, neither could he affirm that there should be no appeal in criminal cases. As to the appeal to the Home Secretary, that is not an appeal at all. The Home Secretary simply exercises the pre- rogative of mercy on behalf of the Crown. The bill, however, was read a second time by 145 to 91. A further division took place on the question whether the bill should be committed. Carried by 129 to 112. Mr. M`Mahon then fixed the Committee for that day three weeks.

InisH POLICE.—Lord Nees moved the second reading of the Police Force (Ireland) Bill. This measure abolishes the local police forces, and estab- lishes a general force, and it is calculated that the new force will not only be more efficient, but cheaper by several thousands than the old. Lord Naas went very minutely into the details in answer to the objections of Irish Members. Mr. PATRICK O'Birrear, objecting to the bill on financial grounds —it will increase the taxes of Dublin—divided the House against it, but the second reading was carried by 125 to 66. Fresh obstacles were raised on the motion that the bill should be committed. Some stress was laid by Lord Naas on the small number of Protestants in the existing local forces, and their consequent defective discipline, and hence the Opposition described the measure as "a sop to an intolerant faction." Mr. J. D. Frrzasaerm op- posed the bill, and Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN declared he would divide the House to the end of August unless the measure were abandoned. The con- tention was kept up for some time ; and in the end the Government had to give way, and consent to the adjournment of the debate.

CASE OF Ma. BARBER.—The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. W. H. Barber, who was wrongfully convicted and trans- ported, and who suffered the torments of Norfolk Island, have made their report. The allegations in Mr. Barber's petition have been substantially proved. The " Committee have not entered upon the consideration of the question whether, in the present or like cases, pecuniary compensation should be granted, the rules and practice of the House precluding them from making any grant of public money." They " cannot, however, for- bear to state that the facts presented to their notice in respect to the con- viction of Mr. Barber, to the sufferings he endured during the time his sentence was being carried out in Norfolk Island, and to his subsequent ex- culpation from the charge on which he was convicted, are so peculiar as to render his case exceptional, and your Committee desire to express their opinion that Mr. Barber has strong claims on the favourable consideration of the Crown."