dates anb ilinntebings in Varliament.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord Joem RUSSELL, according to annual custom when the Parliamentary session has far advanced, stated what bills Ministers intended to proceed with, and what they mean now to abandon. He confined himself to principal measures; it was unneces- sary to go into details regarding minor bills.

With regard to the first of those principal measures, the Public Health Bill, which had already passed through the House of Commons and had been read a second time in the House of Lords, it was the intention of Government to press for the decision of Parliament on that measure, and he trusted it would receive the Royal assent before the close of the session. The Encumbered Estates (Ire- land) Bill had come down from the House of Lords, many amendments bad been introduced into it by the House of Commons, and it had now gone through Com- mittee with the almost general assent of the House: he should certainly endea- vour to press through the further proceedings on the bill, with the view of ob- taining the assent of the Lords to the amendments, and to its passing during the present session, believing as he did that the measure was one of great importance, and that its enactment ought not to be delayed. There was another bill which he had introduced only the other night, and which he proposed to move the second reading of on Thursday—the bill for patting a stop to the corrupt practices in boroughs: that was a measure which he thought it would not be fitting to post- pone, and which he should therefore proceed with, as he had stated, on Thursday; and he hoped it would receive the assent of Parliament. Then as to the Diplo- matic Relations with Rome Bill, that, which was also a measure that had come down from the other House, was in the hands of his noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs; who intended, as soon as he should be able to obtain a day for the purpose, to move its second reading, with the view of proceeding with it during the present session. He now came to a question of the utmost importance—a measure which was founded on a recommendation contained in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the session, but which, owing to the lengthened debates on the Navy and other Estimates and on the Income-tax Bill, though Ministers bad

hoped to bring it forward at an earlier period of the session, they had not been able to do until May—he referred to the resolution on which to found the bill for altering the Navigation -laws. Since the introduction of that resolution, in consequence of the lengthened debates on the Sugar-duties and other ques- tions, they had been disappointed in their hope of going on continuously with the discussion of the preliminary resolution and with the bill when it should be introduced. As matters now stood, considering the late period of the year, the very great importance of the question, and that the bill could not yet for some time go up to the House of Lords Government had most reluctantly. come to the opinion that they could not proceed with it during the present session. (" Ohl" frotn the Protectionists.) At the same time, he hoped there would be no objection on the part of the House to go into Committee, with the view of assenting to the resolution, and enabling his right honourable friend to introduce the bill; so that the House and the country might have it be- fore them during the recess, and be in possession of what was really the character of the measure Ministers proposed: He felt that while this measure had been the subject of considerable discussion in the House and the country, the failure of its passing in the present session would be a great disappointment to seine of our most important colonies- and he thought it therefore his duty to declare, that, while taking upon himself the blame (if there was blame) of the delay—without imputing blame to any man or any body of men in that House, it was his duty to declare that the Government proposed to introduce the measure at the very earliest period of the next session; and, after the discussion which it has received, and the approbation of the principle which has been expressed by a large majority of the House, the important province of Canada, and those Foreign Powers to whom we had held out the expectation that our Navigation-laws would be repealed, might rest confident that next session of Parliament would see a measure—whether in all respects exactly the same as that the Government proposed, he would not say, but that in the next session a measure taking away the restrictions now imposed by the Navigation-laws would receive the assent of Parliament. With the measure re- lating to the Navigation-laws Government proposed to withdraw the Merchant Sea- men's Fund Bill, which was consequent upon that measure. There was another measure which had received scarcely any discussion as yet—the measure relating to the franchise and registration of voters for Members of Parliament in Ireland: that was undoubtedly an important measure; but at this time of the year it was too late to begin a discussion upon it; he therefore proposed to postpone that also to another session. The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill was also one of great importance to Ireland, and to the principle of that bill they should endeavour to obtain the assent of the House before Parliament prorogued. He attached mord importance to the assent of Parliament to the principle of this bill, in regard to its beneficial effect upon Ireland, than to its details; therefore, whether they should be enabled to proceed with the details or not, he proposed to ask the House to af- firm the principle. There were certain other bills which had been introduced by his right honourable friend the President of the Poor-law Board, (Mr. Charles Buller,) which it was intended to proceed with; and on an early day his right honourable friend would explain the reasons why he thought they should pass. There were many other bills in the long list before him, most of which were of minor importance, several of which had not been brought forward by Government, and in which they were not concerned, and to which he would not advert; but, having stated the intentions of Government as to the principal and more immt- ant measures, he would now propose that the order of the day for the Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill be read, in order that it be discharged.

Mr. BERRIES agreed on behalf of those with whom he acted to the course proposed by Lord John Russell regarding the Navigation-laws—that the House should go into Committee, and pass the resolutions, in order to let Government introduce their bill and print it for the information of the country. But he should consider himself and friends as free as ever to give the most determined opposition to the measure next session.

Mr. Goma:wart inquired if Government intended to introduce any mea- sure to compensate the West India Colonies for the disadvantage which the postponement of the repeal of the Navigation-laws would occasion than? It had been stated by Government Members, in all the late discussions, that the repeal of those laws would be a relief to the Colonies of as much as 2s. or 2s. 6d. per hundredweight on all the sugar they made.

Mr. RICARDO thought that if Government had been sincere in their desire to repeal the Navigation-laws, they would not have abandoned their measure for the repeal of them. They had promised to preserve the Sugar Act of 1846 and to abolish the Navigation-laws; but they had made altera- tions totally at variance with the law of 1846, and had procrastinated deal- ing with the Navigation-laws till it was too late to bring their measure in.

Mr. LABOUCHERE was happy to think that the time spent in discussing this question had not been wholly lost. Deliberation was suitable to such a question; and the full discussion gone through had removed great exist- ing prejudices. Mr. Labouchere alluded to correspondence from Canada laid on the table, and to a despatch from Lord Elgin, which stated that the introduction of the Government measure had been "hailed with unanimous acclamations."

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK was at a loss to find materials for Ministerial gmtulations in the Canadian correspondence alluded to.

Why, the language of the Canadians was tantamount to a declaration, that if the repeal of the Navigation-laws did not secure the free navigation of the St. Lawrence, the ties of commerce and policy between Canada and this country would be loosened, and those between Canada and the United States would be drawn closer. Was that language matter of congratulation? Lord George exposed an instance of suppression of correspondence by Lord El- gin, the Governor-General of Canada. Lord Elgin had sent home to his Govern- ment those parts of a correspondence between himself and the Montreal Board of Trade which told in favour of repealing the Navigation-laws; but he had sup- pressed a letter representing, on behalf of the Council of the Board of Trade, the baneful consequences" which they apprehended from "the removal of the pro- tective policy of the Mother-country, unless promptly followed by remedial mea- sures in compensation."

Lord George expressed also his opinion that, when the West Indians learnt that th, se Navigation-laws alone will be the means of protecting them from the com- petition of some 31,600 tons of Foreign sugar which would now come into the Eng- lish market if the laws were abolished, they will not be so ready as Ministers sup- pose to support their measure next session.

Mr. MGREGOR suggested the bringing in at once some such measure as that proposed by Mr. Pitt in relation to the Navigation-laws. Mr. M`Gre- goes private correspondence assured him that the change of Ministerial plans would otherwise cause the most serious disappointment in the Co- lonies.

Mr. Baictir briefly criticized the things left undone by Ministers during the past session, especially in regard to Ireland—that standing dish of the House ever since its oldest Member was a boy.

They had simply disarmed a portion of the Irish people, and had made an offence of felony out of offences which before were treason or sedition. Of reme- dial measures they had passed not one; though he admitted that their one mea- sure now before the House for facilitating the sale of encumbered estates was both important and valuable. But what is the present state of Ireland, now that Parliament is about to separate? Is not one wearied with the daily arrests for treason and sedition still incurred in Ireland? And what is the root of the politi- cal discontent? It is the religions contest still waging between the Catholics and the Protestants and Orangemen; and till that contest cease the root of political discontent will remain, and from it the noxious branches of disorder and rebellion will ever be springing up. Mr. Bright viewed the Established Church in Ireland as a weakness rather than a bulwark to the Established Church of England, and should, if a member of the latter Church, desire in self-protection to see the Irish Church abolished.

Mr. Bright ended by declaring that the Premier did not rise to the dignity and influence of his position. He could tell the noble Lord that there had been Prime Ministers, not more patriotic or able than himself, who, were they still at the head of affairs, would have the courage to obtain from Parliament measures more in accordance with the wishes and the interests of the people than he had yet done.

Sir ROBERT Name did not hope to imitate the eloquence with which Mr. Bright had attacked the English Church; but did hope confidently that Church would of its own strength survive all the attacks of the honourable gentleman. With regard to the announcements made by Lord John Russell, Sir Robert ob- served it was generally supposed the House would rise shoat the second week in August. Lord John Russell now proposed to abandon five measures: twenty- eight bills remained. Sir Robert asked Lord John with what hope he now ex- pected to carry through the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill; a measure against which Sir Robert had that day presented a petition signed by 3,500 clergy- men of the Church of England. Mr. HOME reiterated with some acerbity Mr. Brighes adverse criti- cisms on the do-nothing policy of Ministers regarding Ireland. He especially repeated the opinion that the Church of Ireland was the root of the political discontent in that country.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD felt it necessary to say that the indifference of Ministers respecting the Registration of Irish Voters Bill amounted to a gross breach of faith. Mr. FAGAN believed the House of Commons really had not time to attend properly to the concerns of Ireland, and that it would be absolutely necessary—for preserving the connexion now existing, and which he hoped would always exist, between the two countries—to permit local affairs to be transacted by a local Parliament. Sir DENHAM NORREYS said, he had struggled for years to maintain his seat as an advo- cate of the Union; but if legislation went on as it had for several years past—though he himself was too old to change his own politics—he should cease to wonder at or to blame those others who advocated an Irish management of Irish affairs.

Mr. YOUNG requested an evening sitting for the discussion of the prin- ciple of the Landlord and Tenant Bill; which principle he condemned. Sir Join./ WALSH hoped Lord John would reconsider his determination to discuss only that principle: it was in the details of the bill that its real efficacy would be found.

Mr. FORBES said it would be satisfactory to Scotland to know whether the Scotch Registration of Deaths, Births, and Marriages Bill—now in an- other place—would be pressed this session.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL added to the explanations he had already given; replying to the questions put to him— Mr. Bright had asked some questions with respect to the affairs of Ireland; but as notice had been given of two motions on going into Committee of Supply, by which the whole state and condition of Ireland would be brought under discus- sion, Lord John thought the present was not the proper occasion on which to enter into the general question of the state of Ireland. Lord George Bentinck had referred to the reply made to Lord Elgin by the Canadian people on the sub- ject of the Navigation-laws, and had inquired why that document had not been laid on the table: the simple answer was, that the Governor-General of Canada had not transmitted it to the Colonial Office. But, as a reply, Lord John referred Lord George to the original memorial of the Canadians, in which they state (speaking of the Navigation-laws) that "they did not believe that tIv. repeal of those laws would destroy the relations which existed between Caned.. and the Mother-country'; thus showing that they wished to maintain the conneaion, and that they believed the repeal of those laws would tend to that object. Mr. Forbes had inquired with respect to the Scotch Registration Bill, which was now in the other House: if that bill came down soon, his honourable and learned friend the Lord-Advocate would proceed with it-

Mr. FORBES—" On what day?"

Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not name the day, until the bill should come down from the other House. His honourable friend Sir Robert Inglis had remarked that Ministers expected to prorogue Parliament in the second week in August: Lord John Russell entertained no such expectation-' he did not think it possible that the prorogation could take place so early; but that would depend upon the time given to the discussion of those tills which were intended to be proceeded with. In speaking of Ireland and Irish mea-urea, it had been alleged with respect to the Landlord and Tenant Bill that the Irish Members had not been consulted: now, that bill had been referred to a Select Committee, of which a great majority were Irish Members, and the Committee had recommended the bill in its present form. Mr. Bright, in finding fault with the conduct. of the Government, had ad- mitted that the Sale of Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill was an act essential to the foundation of the improved social condition of Ireland: Lord John asked the House, whether a greater compliment could be paid to the Government who introduced and pressed forward that measure than this admission made by an honourable Member when indulging in attacks and invectives upon the Govern- ment? In reply to a question pat by his honourable friend Sir Robert Inglis with respect to the measure for the alteration of the oaths required to be taken by Members, Lord John Russell stated, that public business had so much increased since he had given notice of that measure, that it was not his intention to make any motion on the subject during the present session; but, believing as he did that the oaths now taken are very unnecessary and almost draw ridicule on that which ought to be a solemnity, he should early next session renew his notice With a view to their alteration. As to the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill, he believed there would be no great opposition to it; and he hoped Parliament Would not refuse its assent to it before the present session is brought to a close.

Mr. OSBORNE abstained, out of compassion, from attacking the Govern- ment respecting the real state of Ireland; though the Premier's method of dismissing so serious. a matter had been too easy and offhand.

On the principle which forbids speaking ill of the dead, he would also say no- thiugagainst a Government that is on the point of death. Irish Members must not, however, be left in their present position; and if the present course of trusting in office promises made when out of office be persisted in, Mr. Osborne will join the Irish Confederation, or any other confederation that will enforce the claim of Ire. land to justice. The course taken by the noble Lord and his colleagues could lead to nothing else but anarchy and bloodshed in Ireland; for they acted on much the same system as the Provisional Government in France adopted towards the labourers: they told the people they would give them everything; and when they came into office, how had they kept their promises? Unless some strong party are prepared to take the Government and to turn out these men of straw, Ire- land will be lost. At the present moment he looked forward with horror to the winter in Ireland; and that night's debate would give a tone to Irish feeling which the noble Lord would be the first to regret.

Mr. NEWDEGATE questioned if the recent conduct of the Irish showed them to be better qualified than the other population of the kingdom for an extended franchise. Colonel DUNNE thought Government were by their conduct increasing the number of Repealers. Colonel SnrrHonv an- nounced his intention to move when the Bribery at Elections Bill should come on, that it be read a second time that day six months; also, that he would oppose all those other measures which Ministers meant to proceed with, as there was not one good one amongst them.

The House then affirmed the motion with which Lord John RnS843.11 ended his first speech, and discharged the order of the day.

RUM-DUTIES.

On Monday, Sir CHARLES WOOD moved resolutions imposing the new scale of duties on Colonial spirits under which rum will be admitted at a differential duty over British spirits of 44. in place of the present one of 9d. per gallon.

Sir Charles admitted that the consumption of British spirits had fallen off this year in an unexpected manner. From the deficiency of food in foreign countries, very large quantities of barley imported for consumption in this country have been reshipped to foreign countries: in consequence, there occurred between 1846 and 1847 a falling off of 6,700,000 bushels in the quantity of malt charged with duty. It is plain that this decrease is not attributable to increased importations of foreign spirits; for though these have been considerable as compared with former years, their whole amount is insignificant compared with the total quantity' of spirits consumed. Sir Charles went into minute calculations to justify his decision in regard to the claims preferred by the British distillers. The results are these. No deduction can be allowed for rectifying," on the general ground that rectifying is in fact an additional process which adds a proportionate value to a previously inferior ar- ticle. The claim of lid. per gallon for malt-duty is too much; lid. will be an accurately just allowance. The claim of 3id. for "decreases," that is for leakage and other waste, is quite extravagant: averages taken from many thousands of instances show that the " decreases " on imports from Scotland and Ireland range near to "rather better than half-a-farthing for Scotland and rather less than a farthing-and-a-quarter for Ireland." For these "decreases" id. per gallon is allowed. There remain the claims on the ground of "Excise restrictions." These have been enumerated at formidable length by Lord George Bentinck in a report and resolutions containing a perfect mule of information on the subject, prepared by him as Chairman of the Committee he lately presided over. These claims, however, have been very discrepant. Two years ago 6d. was asked; and two or three years before, 8d. and 10d. At page 180 of Lord George's report, the same sum of 6d is demanded; but two pages before, there is an estimate in which the demand dwindles to 3d. One or other of these last two estimates must have been very loose. It appears that the whole cost of British spirit is 2s. per gallon before payment of duty; and of that sum is. 6d. is cost of raw material, leaving but 6d. remaining for the whole cost of manufacture. The evidence of the highly respectable Mr. Patrick Chambers, of Wishaw, on a point unconnected with the present question, shows indeed that the net charges of manufacture, in- cluding cost of malting, are but 3td. per gallon. It is proposed to allow more than one-half of this sum—one-third of Sir Charles's own estimate of manufacturing cost—for the claim on account of Excise restrictions: 2d. per gallon will be allow- ed on that head. No further claims can be made for differential protection against Colonial spirits: the sum of those to be allowed is the 4d per gallon fixed by the new scale, which appear to place the Colonial and the Home produce on an equal footing. It is probable that a direct loss to the revenue of 62,0001. will be caused by the, lowering of the present duty to 44.; but we may calculate on an increase of con- sumption. If this increase be 150,000 gallons in England alone 300,000 gallons in Scotland, or 400,000 gallons in Ireland—or if, as is more likely, it be about 200,000 on the total consumption—the revenue will be made up. Sir Charles ex- pects this result. Mr. FAGAN opposed Sir Charles Wood's propositions; which, if not pre-

cisely breach of faith with the home, and especially the Irish distillers, are something very much like it. He claimed the continuance of the present differential duty as an adequate protection imposed on what was considered a final settlement of the question. Under the circumstances' although he was the last man in the House who would do anything-in a factious spirit, he felt it his-duty to -move that the Chairman report progress end ask leave to sit again that day six months. The resolutions were opposed, as unjust to Irish distillers, by Captain JONES—who, however, could net,support Mr. Fagan's motion: also by Mr. Jomv REYNOLDS—N.4;0 foresawsa 'battle between sugarand corn, and was prepared, though a Free-trader, to side with the Irish agriculturists; for the repeal of the Corn-laws had brought* benefits to them.

Mr. BARELY accepted the measure of' the Government as an instalment due to the Colonies.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK dissected Sir Charles Wood's calculations, with the object of showing, that, whether the duty were levied ad valorem or at a fixed rate on each gallon of spirits, the new duties will be a great deal higher on whisky than on ram. Lord George attacked the evidence of Mr. John Wood, the Chairman of the Board of Excise: . - Mr. Wood took upon himself to arraign the evidence and impeach the statements of all the distillers of England and of Scotland. He declared that people as high in station and character as himself—men whose veracity he could not pretend to question—were to be dealt with on the principle of the rule of three as far as their evidence respecting "decreases " was concerned. This was the Whig Chair- man's insolent way of treating gentlemen and men of unimpeachable integrity. But in reference to this very evidence of Mr. John Wood on the subject of decrease, that individual was obliged subsequently to amend his own evidence, and to admit that he had himself erred in the truth to the extent of 75 per cent. Who, then, was to be trusted—the trade, or this Chairman of Excise?

Mr. Gotrusrrax warmly defended Mr. Wood; who had stated facts with- exactness and decision, but had expressly and most diffidently guarded the Committee concerning every point resting only on his opinion.

The Committee divided on Mr. Fagan's amendment; and negatived it, by 168 to 75.

The original resolutions were then opposed by Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL, Mr. MAXWELL Fox, and Mr. ANSTET; supported by Mr. PHILIP HOWARD.

Mr. MONSELL moved that the Chairman report progress. Mr. M. J. O'CoNNEee trusted that these repeated motions for adjournment would not be made, particularly at this period of the session: let a negative be moved to the resolutions, and the sense of the Committee be taken on that. Mr. LABOUCHERE also strove to remove the obstruction.

Mr. KEOGH reverted to the circumstances of the interview on this ques- tion which took place between the Irish Members and Sir Charles Wood during the Sugar-duties discussion. Mr. Keogh quoted the opinions of Members of the deputation, especially that of Mr. Reynolds, that Sir Charles Wood then made engagements of which his present proposal was a breach.. Sir CHARLES WOOD repeated the history of the interview which he gave at the time it occurred, and denied the statements now revived as to what then took place. Mr. REYNOLDS remarked that Mr. Keogh seemed to recollect distinctly what occurred at the interview better than Mr. Reynolds and the Members themselves who were present at it, adding a small percentage to the statements which he had heard Mr. Rey- nolds make: Mr. Keogh should allow a little for "leakage and evapora- tion." Mr. KEOGH retorted, by admitting his great error in relying on Mr. Reynolds's statement of anything that had occurred: great allowance

must certainly be made in his case for evaporation: his present statement, indeed, compared with the standard of Sir Charles Wood's, must be allowed to be "above proof."

There followed a most desultory conversation of' protests against proceed- ing and protests against delay—of imputations and reclamations.

On a division, Mr. blonsell's amendment was negatived, by 127 to 48.

While strangers were excluded, Colonel DUNNE moved that the Chairman do leave the chair; and on their entering the House, the Committee was again debating and conversing in much seeming confusion of topic. Co- lonel DUNNE, Mr. CALLAGHAN, and other Irish Members, were endeavour- ing to force the adjournment of the subject till the return of the Irish Members from the Assizes. Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed this course: it was the duty of those Members to be in their places. He would move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again at noon next day.

The House was cleared again for a division; but none took place, and on the readmission of the public, Mr. DENIS CALLAGIIA.N was found declaring, that with but one Member to support him he would continue to prevent the indecent haste with which it was endeavoured to force on the debate. The House again cleared; but further discussion took place, with closed doors. Finally, the House came to a division on the original resolutions; and they were carried by 116 to 37.

SUGAR-DUTIES.

On Wednesday, Lord GEORGE BENTINCE, called attention to an error in the heading of one of the schedules of the Sugar-duty resolutions.

In the act of 1846, one category of duties was levied on the importation of "sugar or molasses, the growth and produce of any British possession in America, or of any British possession within the limits of the East India Company's Char- ter into which the importation of foreign sugar is prohibited." In the parallel resolution lately agreed to, the words "in America, or of any British possession within the limits of the East India Company's Charter," are omitted; so that the clause applies only to sugars, &c. imported from "British possessions into which She importation of foreign sugar is prohibited." Now there is no prohibition of any sort on importation of sugar into Jamaica; so that the scale of duties imposed by this resolution is not leviable on Jamaica sugars. The result is, that instead of 13s. per hundredweight, they must pay the 13.. 9d. levied on sugars imported from "any other British possessions." Lord George had looked into the whole law, and found no loophole. He supposed Ministers must cancel the resolutions they had passed, and start de novo to pass accurate ones. He complained also of the total emission of the schedule in the act of 1846, under which foreign re- fined sugars were subject to 638. on importation. The English refiners thought that change in the law a stab in the dark.

A conversation ensued; in which Mr. BERNAL, Mr. CARDWELL, and Mr. HUDSON took part; Sir CHARLES WOOD giving no answer to the questions put to him. At last Sir Charles admitted that an error had been made; and it was under consideration how the mistake should be rectified. He was not prepared with more definite replies on the spur of the moment.

On Thursday, Sir CHARLES WOOD expressed an opinion that the altered form of the resolution will produce no difficulty. The 13s. duty is levied according to the intention of the resolution. The importation of sugar into Jamaica is prohibited by Imperial law, though the colony has fixed a tariff for its importation: but a Colonial law cannot override an Imperial law.

In reply to Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON, OR Thursday, Sir CHARLES WOOD said that he proposed to induce a bill for the purpose of enabling persons to refine sugar in bond for home consumption.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS Bien.

On Wednesday, Sir DE LACY Eveiss moved that the report on the Parliamentary Electors Bill be received.

Lord GALWAY opposed the motion. He read statistics to show that the compulsory payment of rates disfranchises very few persons: in Cam- bridge, only one person; in Exeter, none; in Liverpool, only 89 out of 39,266 voters; in the Tower Hamlets, 978 out of 40,921. He moved that the report be received that day six months.

Sir BENJAMIN HALL and Mr. Preorr supported the bill; Mr. NEWDE- GATE and Mr. EREWEN supported the amendment.

On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 66 to 62.

On the motion of Mr. EREWEN, the time of commencement of the bill was altered from "the passing of the act " to " the 1st January 1849." The report was then agreed to, and the third reading of the bill was fixed for Friday.

BOROUGH ELECTIONS.

On Thursday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the second reading of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, [the official substitute for Sir John Hanmer's Borough Elections Bill.] Colonel SIBTHORP resisted the attempt to smuggle the bill through the House at the end of the session; and moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

What had the present Government done since November? They bad promised everything, but done nothing. He did not hesitate to say that a more incompe- tent, a more deceitful, or, as the honourable Member for 1 oughal had said, a more "hollow and treacherous" Ministry, had never occupied those benches. But what had that House done? Since the month of November, seventy public bills bad been introduced, of which ten were withdrawn; and forty-four bills had been in- troduced by private Members., of which fifteen had been withdrawn--and many of these bills measures of great Importance. This bill, if it were to be read a Second time tonight, could not pass both Houses at an earlier period than three weeks. He objected to it, therefore, because of the late period of the session at which it was brought in; he objected idso to its complicated machinery, and to its partiality.

The amendment was supported by Mr. HUDSON: but Mr. BANEMS en- deavoured to get his friend the Colonel to withdraw it; hoping to amend the bill in Committee, and to obtain the issue of the writs hitherto with- held. On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 219 to 9; and the bill was read a second time; to be committed on Thursday next.

ENCUMBERED ESTATES IN IRELAND.

On Thursday, Mr. NAPIER opposed the motion for the further con- sideration of the report on the Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill, and moved that it be recommitted.

He desired to strike out all the clauses added by the Solicitor-General since the bill came from the Lords, on these grounds—that they made no adequate provisions to protect persons interested under settlements, that the period of limitation was reduced to five years, and that the added clauses are incon- sistent with the rest of the bill. Mr. Napier went into a minute criticism of each clause to maintain these positions; and to establish that any one person having a judgment for only 201. could, without notice to any other person having claims under settlement, sell the land out and out, without a chance that the rights of parties would be protected by the Court of Chancery; or, on the other hand, if the Court of Chancery be set in motion, then the whole litigation con- templated by the first set of clauses must be gone through as if the second set had not been added to render it unnecessary.

Sir JOHN ROMILLY went into an elaborate defence of the bill clause by clause.

He maintained, in the first place, that the peculiar position of property in Ire.. Ireland justified the resort to provisions which at first sight might seem sur- prising; but, on the other hand, there was not a provision in the present bill that was not justified by precedent in this country as well as the soundest policy. In this country the practical result under every well-drawn settlement is, that the tenant for life can sell an encumbered estate: this bill gives that power in Ireland, but under the guard that the tenant may not make encumbrances to bring about a sale—for he may not sell on account of his own encumbrances—and that the title is not to be indefeasible till after five years. This term of limitation finds a precedent in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act. He proposed to add A pro- vision that every person interested in remainder under settlement shall have personal notice of sale. He also proposed to provide that the Lord-Lieutenant should have power to appoint surveyors to estimate estates sold under the bill, and see that proper prices are paid.

Sir John ended by observing that the creation of a middle class in Ireland could not be effected till land in portions of 100 acres each was made easily purchaseable. He would not be indisposed to extend a similar bill to England.

Mr. SADLIER supported the amendment; though he admitted the addi- tion regarding notice to remaider-men to be important. He thought that a more simple means of foreclosure would answer all the ends desirable. He raised the objection that the measure would have the effect of dispos- sessing a vast number of persons having small holdings under the present system. Colonel DuNNE repeated the objection, that the Irish Law-officers and Judges were either not consulted on or were not favourable to the measure.

Mr. HENLEY thought the bill strikes at the root of all property; and urged that there was no use in trying to get rid of claims without inves- tigating them: the machinery of the bill must be unjust or nugatory. The best way to improve Ireland would be to give increased security for life and property. Mr. STUART entered on a detailed legal criticism of the clauses.

He objected that the present system of middlemen leases would be preserved by this bilL He enlarged on the objection that the bill mast be unjust, or mast fail of its object. Any bill framed to enable one man to sell another man's inte- rest must necessarily give rise to litigation. He had no objection to a bill giving facilities like those of the Land Clauses Consolidati al Act, or to give what is commonly called a railway title: but such a title as this bill would give, not even an Irishman would be found rash enough to take. However, if Irish Members are content with the bill, the most appropriate punishment is to let them have it.

Mr. MoNseee strongly supported the bill. It would be absurd to stick at technicalities in the present wretched condition of the tenants of encumbered estates. He had the opinion of a Dublin solicitor much conversant with sales of property, that the facility of sale would not be increased by the bill as it came from the Lords; and that unless the clauses now added were so added the present evils will be undiminished.

The bill was also supported by Mr. PAGE WOOD; by Mr. FAGAN, who considered it fraught with advantage to Ireland; and Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS: opposed-by Mr. NEWDEGATE and Major BLACKALL.

On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 197 to 52.

Mr. GEORGE ALEXANDER HAMILTON moved the addition of a clause intended to facilitate the apportionment of releases on properties only partly sold. This was agreed to by Sir JOHN ROMILLY and the House. It was then ordered that the bill be engrossed, and read a third time on Monday next. HIGHWAYS MANAGEMENT.

At an early sitting on Tuesday, the House went into Committee on the Highways Bill; after a lengthened conversation, during which a general but not strenuous desire was expressed for the postponement of the bill till next session. The going into Committee was opposed by Mr. HBNLEY, Mr. ROBERT PALMER, Lord GALWAY, Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE, Mn

HODGES, Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND Mr. TATTON EGERTON, Mr. NEW- DEGATE, Mr. Bums, Mr. DAVIES, kr. SPOONER, and Mr. Oaersiir Gone. Mr. CHRISTOPHER thought the bill so great an improvement on that of last year—Government having omitted the plan of the Central Com- mission—that he hoped it would be persevered with now. Mr. BROTHERTON praised the bill, as containing simple and not expensive machinery: the Select Committee had made great improvements in it; but it was capable of still further improvement, if Members would immediately begin the task in a good spirit. Sir JOHN DUCKWORTH urged present endeavours to perfect the bill as far as possible: that done, they might consider whether postponement were indispensable. The important question of turnpike-roads is to come under consideration and it would be very advantageous that the system of this bill should hare been prac tically tested beforehand. Sir GEORGE GREY persisting in his endeavour to proceed, the reluctant Members yielded; and the House went into Committee, and proceeded with the clauses: the progress was stopped at four o'clock by the usual euspelle sion of business.

SPANISH AFFAIRS.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY put a question to Lord Lansdowne—

Having seen in the papers a statement to the effect that General Alzaa, a dis- tinguished Carlist officer, had been condemned and shot, he inquired if any com- munication had been received by her Majesty's Government stating whether such was the case or not, and whether it was tree that in retaliation twelve Civic Guards had been seized by a Carlist officer?

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE replied—

Government had been informed of one Carlist officer's being put to death; but the recurrence of unfortunate practices which had once prevailed in Spain is not a matter over which this country has any right of control, whatever its regret at such recurrence. The sentence had been carried into execution before a remon- strance could have been addressed to the Spanish Government; and even if in- formation had been received earlier, it would have been impossible for her Ma- jesty's Government to interfere.

The Earl of MALMESBURY suggested a mode of interposing.

He thought the present Government had very considerable advantage over those who were her Majesty's Ministers during the last civil war in Spain, inas- much as the Pretender to the crown of Spain is now in this country, which he was not when that civil war was going on. He hoped representations would be made to that person; which no doubt he would listen to, and call on his partisans to abandon their present miserable course of outrage.

Lord LANSDOWNE corrected a misapprehension.

The person just alluded to came to this country just as any other person had a right to do, in a private capacity; but he had never been recognized as a pretender to the crown of Spain. The Government had no reason to believe that he exer- cised any control over the operations now taking place in Spain, or that he was in any way chargeable with the character of those operations. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was sure that the Government should interfere in such a case, on the simple ground of humanity.

OFFICIAL RECURRENCE TO THE FRENCH LANGUAGE IN CANADA. • Earl GREY having moved, on Monday, that the Canada Union Act Amendment Bill be

read a third time, Lord STANLEY stated he would offer no opposition to the bill; though he thought it unnecessary. He believed that the allowing of any official recurrence to the use of the French language would ultimately affect the validity of the Union of the two Provinces. The bill was read a third time, and passed.

SCOTCH ENTAILS. On Monday, the order of the day being the second reading of the Law of Entail (Scotland) Bill, the Earl of HADDINGTON moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months. He admitted that there are evils in the present system; but certain details of this bill are objectionable, and should lead to its postponement. Vested rights are treated by the bill with a lightness that ought at least to have been avoided in the House of Peers. Lord WHARNCLIFFE thought the Scotch law of entails needed alteration; but this bill "is a most singular invasion of private rights." Lord Bnotronast doubted as to the retrospective operation of the bill. He did not yield without hesitation; but after the matter had undergone so much consideration, he thought they might go into Committee, to see whether they could not improve it in such a way As to meet the objections urged against it. Lord CAMPBELL would not admit the evils of the system, and yet perpetuate it for ever. The amendment was negatived without a division. the House went into Committee, and the clauses of the bill were agreed to without amendment METROPOLITAN SEWERS. In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Lord MORPETH moved for leave to bring in a bill to consolidate in one Commission the seven Commissions of Sewers now existing in the Metropolis; the Commissioners to receive also such of the powers conveyed in the Regent Street Commission as relate to drainage and so much power respecting the City of London as is essential to a proper drainage of the surrounding parts. The Commissioners would eventually be a body elected by the inhabitants; but for the present he proposed that its composition should remain in the discretion of the Crown. It would remain a Commission of Sewers. It was provided, in aid of this superintendence, that an annual report of the proceedings of the Commission should be laid before both Houses of Parliament; and, to insure a reconsideration of the subject after the working of the Commission should have been seen, it was proposed to limit the duration of the act to a period of two years. The House was divided by Mr. URQUHART ; and the motion was carried, by 31 to 1.

Rostalt CATHOLIC TRUSTS. On the motion of Mr. AlorrEir, on Wednesday, the order of the day for the second reading of the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts Bill was discharged; Government having abandoned their Charitable Trusts Bill, which this bill was intended to accompany.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES. On the same day, the committal of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was the order of the day. Mr. LAW moved the post- ponement of the Committee till that day six months. Several Members, friends of the bill, requested Mr. Anstey to withdraw it for the present session. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed himself in its favour; but thought that Mr. Anstey should be satisfied, at this time of the session with having brought for- ward his bill, and brought himself forward with his bill. Mr. Axerrwr com- plained of this insinuation, and refused to withdraw the bill. Mr. Molt:rimer reproved the Attorney-General for so insulting an expression; but he joined in the general request for the withdrawal of the bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL with- drew the expression that had given pain; but Mr. ANSTEY persisted in throwing on Ministers the responsibility of rejecting the bill. The House divided; and the amendment was carried, by 87 to 40. So the bill is lost.

FREE CHURCH SITES. On Thursday, Mr. BOUVERIE having moved the third reading of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill, Sir JAMES GRAHAM observed that this would be a good opportunity for showing the country that, without needless prolongation of discussion, they could come to a decision upon an important subject. So, very briefly recapitulating a few leading reasons against the oft-debated bill, Sir James moved that it be read a third time that day three months. Mr. ELLIOT and Mr. RUTHERFORD disapproved of the bill, chiefly as going beyond the special case of the Free Church. On a division, the amend- ment was carried, by 98 to 59. The bill therefore is lost.

PROTECTION OF WOMEN. On Monday, Lord BROUGHAM stated that he should not attempt to proceed further this session with his bill against the seduc- tion of females.

SUNDAY TRADING. On Monday, in answer to Sir BENJAMIN HALL, Mr. HINDLEY said, he was most reluctantly obliged to abandon his bill respecting Sunday trading, for the present session.

BOAB.D OF TRADE PUBLICATIONS. On Wednesday, Sir HENRY Wile LOUGHBY celled attention to the issue of documents by the Board of Trade. On the 8th of July there appeared in the Economist newspaper the monthly returns on trade and revenue, and also an article commenting on them which mast have been written a day or two beforehand. It seems the returns were laid on the

table of the House on the 66, and a copy sent to each Member on the 8th or 10th —not on the 7th, as had been stated elsewhere. It also appears that other parties who endeavoured to procure these tables as early as the Economist were unsuc- cessful. Mr. LABOUCHERE made a statement of some length. A list of names had gradually been formed by the Board of Trade, in which list any respectable person who applied was inserted; and to each of the persons on the list early co- pies of the tables were sent. The list has become no longer necessary, under new arrangements, and it will be discontinued. Regulations will also be made to in- sure in future the most entire impartiality with regard to the public and the press. WESEEHISTER PALACE. LI answer to Mr. EWART, on Tuesday, Mr. GREENE stated some particulars of the accommodation which the new House of Commons will afford. On the seats, a breadth of 21 inches is allowed for each Member: in the present House the allowance is only 19 inches. The number of sittings on the ground-floor of the new House will be 318: in the present House the number is only 229. The number of sittings in the galleries of the new House will be 130: in the galleries of the present House the number is somewhat larger, namely, 154. The whole number of sittings in the new House will be 448: the number in the present House is only 380. He could not exactly state how many Members the new division-lobbies would contain; but there will be much larger accommodation than in the present House. He begged to say that it was the earnest desire of the Commissioners to give every possible accommodation to the Members; and they would be glad to receive information likely to lead to that end.