Vthutto Ref Trnrrhiug ittVarliannt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Hansa OP Loans. Monday, July 25. Succession-duty Bill, committed—Colonial Church-Regulation Bill, passed—Missionary Bishops Bill, read a second time. Tuesday. July 26. Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, passed—Courts of Common Law (Ireland) Bill, read a second time—Customs-duties Bill, read a second time—Mis- sionary Bishops Bill, committed.

Thursday. July 28. County Courts Further Extension Bill, read a first time- Succeitsion-duty Bill, passed—Missiouary Bishops Bill, passed—Stamp-duties Bill, read a second time—African Squadron ; Question and Answer. Friday, July 29. Scotch Schoolmasters ; Government Intentions—Sheriff-Court (Scotland) Bill, read a second time—Elections Bill, read a second time—Customs- duties Bill, passed.

Horn OP COKNONs. Monday, July 25. Entry of Seamen Bill, committed—India Bill, in Committee—Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Bill, read a second time—Stamp- duties (No. 2) Bill, committed—Vaccination Extension, committed—Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill, passed—Betting-houses Bill, read a second time—Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Act Continuance Bill, committed. Tuesday, July t`6. India Bill, in Committee. "No House" in the evening. Wednesday, July 27. The New Cab Act; Mr. Fitzroy's Statement—Lunacy-Re- gulation Bill, committed—Lunatic Asylums Bill, committed—India Bill, committed. Thursday, July 28. South Sea Annuities Dissentients; Resolutions proposed by Mr. Gladstone—India Bill, considered as amended—Entry of Seamen Bill, passed— Duties on Horses Bill, committed—Hackney Carriages Duties Bill, committed— Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Bill, committed—Customs Bill, committed. Friday, July 29. South Sea Annuities Dissentients; adjourned debate on Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions—India Bill, passed—Stamp-duties (No. 2) Bill, passed— Scotch Universities Bill, committed—Transportation Bill, read a second time—En- cumbered Estates (Ireland) Act Continuance Bill, passed.

TIME - TABLE.

The Commons.: Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Monday lk 4h Om 6h .(m) 311 30m Tuesday Noon 4h Om 6h .... 61,13w Wednesday Noon. 6k 5Orn Thursday Noon 4h Om 611 .(m) Ili 15in Friday Noon,.., 41, Om

6k .m) 211 30m

Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 16k 25m Sittings this week, 9; Time,48h 20in

— this Session, 108; — 270k 41m — this Session, 155; — 1024h lain

Tax SUCCESSION-DUTY Buz.

In the House of Peers, on the motion for going into Committee, Lord ST. LBONARDS made a long speech, chiefly intended to show the operation of the bill; but he mixed up collateral topics with his discourse. The reason why no petitions had been presented against the bill was, that it excited no individual opposition ; it was no one's business to oppose it. Besides, the generality of mankind could not understand it--it would require a very good attorney to explain its provisions ; and if the bill should pass, no man could live without an attorney at his elbow. [Here his declaration that this was not a party question was met by ironital cheers from the Mi- nisterial benches, retorted by Opposition counter-cheers—renewed when Lord St. Leonardo repeated his assertion.] From his heart and with the firmest belief he declared, that every Peer then present would deplore the bill when it should become law. He did not know why it had been intro- duced. Had there been any necessity for it, he would have been the last man to object ; but where was the necessity ? Even Mr. Pitt, in the pleni- tude of his power, in the midst of an European war, at a time when men were almost ready to endure any sacrifice to support the dignity of the country, had never dared to ask what, in time of peace, the present Govern- ment ventured to propose. Lord St. Leonardo put some cases of great hardship which might arise under the operation of the bill. For instance, there were many cases in which persons had anticipated their successions to such an extent as to have almost entirely squandered them; and in such cases the Government stepped in, because a man had been a spendthrift, and ruined him altogether. A person, knowing that he was to succeed to property, might anticipate and spend nine-tenths of its value ; and, when the remaining tenth would enable him to make a fair start in life, this new tax to be imposed would entirely swallow it up. As far as the right to spend in anticipation went, a perfect right to do so uff.dimbtedly existtd. Another case he mentioned, was that of a trades- tin, who, pa the marriage of his daughter, made a settlement on her krusbaad with reversion to his widow in case of his death. "Upon the death 10.4he husband, the noble Earl steps in and takes a succession-duty from the .1unliappy young widow.—a part of the capital of the fund from the daughter %Owing man ; whie the mai who has accumulated the property sees it sw,ptne away under the grasp of the taxgatherer." TI'Pealed to the Bishops, and asked them whether they would be Ttkeirto.place this measure, with all its obnoxious regulations, upon their Zirablectas 'while they themselves are excluded from its operation.

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment, Monday 6h . . Ilk 45m

Tuesday 5h . . 7h 45m Wednesday No sitting.

Thursday 5k . lea 20m Friday 5h 6h Aim

" Their support of the bill under such circumstances may be considered an act of gmtitude to the Government, but I hope and trust that they will not by their votes help to place upon other men's shoulders a burden which has not been imposed upon them." The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that the gross exaggeration and extraor- dinary colouring with regard to the supposed operation of the bill were such that he felt called upon to make a few remarks before the House went into Committee.

It was said that there is nothing to show that the tax is popular ; and also that there is nothing to show that it is unpopular. What more can be said of any tax ? Popularity for a tax is out of the question; the most that can be expected is that it should not be unpopular. He believed the real objection felt by Lord St. Leonardo and others was, that they thought the measure was understood throughout the country. " It is felt that this is an attempt to tax the extensive properties of landed proprietors so as to equalize the national burdens." It may not be creditable, but it is natural, that those persons subject to the legacy-duties should wish to extend the tax also to real estate. As to enormous hardship, made out by taking extreme cases, that could be said of every tax. Justice in a tax is impracticable; and all that can be done is to devise the best machinery to meet existing difficulties and remove objections. Lord Cranworth put cases to show that the pay- ment of the duty would not be onerous either on large or small successions ; as it would be spread over eight half-yearly instalments, which, on an estate worth 1000/. a year, would amount to 1501., or 37/. 10s. per annum for four years. The bill is in unison with the spirit of universal justice; it has been universally approved by the country, and passed by large majorities else- where; and he trusted their Lordships would not incur the dangerous re- sponsibility of resisting it. The Earl of WINCHILSEA pronounced the bill " one of the most obno- xious, detestable, and odious measures that ever had been placed on the statute-book." These were indeed strange times, when the proud Barons of England submitted to such measures! The Government was in the hands of the Harpies, and they were going to perpetuate all the worst features of the Legacy-duty, and place the landed interest in the same hands for four years. Had he known when the second reading came on, he would have divided the House against the bill—" even if I had stood alone ; and my name, at all events, should have gone down to posterity as one who resisted the bill to the last."

The House went into Committee. On clause 2, by which "past or future disposition of property" in certain cases is construed as a succes- sion, and the words successor and predecessor" are defined, the Earl of DERBY moved his threatened amendment, to omit the words that make the bill retrospective. Before he dealt with the bill, however, he vindi- cated the right of the House of Lords to alter a money-bill; and he in- stanced a case in point, where a money-bill had been amended by the Lords and sent down to the other House, there thrown out, reintroduced with the same text as the amended bill, and then agreed to.

He pointed out an inconsistency of Lord Cranworth, in saying that the bill was not popular, yet that it was universally approved, and that it was understood to be an assault upon the large landed proprietors. Now he had too much respect for the sense of justice of his countrymen to believe that an attack upon the landed interest would recommend a tax to them. The bill would tell upon the middle class, not upon the class that Government wished to lean heavily on. He argued, that the bill does not place real and personal property on the same footing ; for real property is already heavily burdened; and, putting "cases" of hardship, he endeavoured to show how monstrous, vexatious, and unjust, the operation of the bill would be ; affect- ing all family settlements made years ago, in which there had been many subsequent transactions—estates mortgaged, money borrowed, and subse- quent settlements made. His amendment would not correct the abstract =policy and injustice of the bill, but it would considerably mitigate those insuperable objections he felt to the bill in its present form, as inflicting the grossest injustice upon innocent parties.

The Earl of ABERDEEN was still unable to understand the course of Lord Derby ; who had truly said that the bill was the corner-stone and foundation of the financial system of the year, and assigned his desire not to destroy that system as a reason for not opposing the second reading, but who now came down with an amendment which would destroy the whole edifice,—with what sincerity and tenderness for the preservation of the corner-stone, Lord Aberdeen would leave the House to judge.

If the amendment were carried, not one farthing of the tax as regarded settlements, would be paid within one generation. "That is what the no- ble Earl calls preserving the corner-stone and foundation of the financial system of the year !" He had also affected great tenderness for small pro- prietors: but settled estates are rare among the middle classes, who are at this moment liable to the Legacy-duty. The noble Earl [Winchilsea] who spoke early in the debate made a touching allusion to the "bold Barons "; and, judging from appearances, some noble Lords seemed disposed to act on the principle which actuated the bold Barons of old—that of feudal ex- emption from burdens borne by the rest of the community. The object of the present measure was to extend to the "bold Barons" a system of tax- ation applicable to their fellow subjects. It was in that sense only'that the tax in question could be said to be popular. Lord Aberdeen showed that no precedent exists for the course now pro- posed to be taken. Previous amendments effected in bills sent up from the other House had been agreed to because they did not touch the produce of the tax ; but the amendment was of a totally different character; and would destroy the intention and cut off the produce of the tax. But, whatever the House of Commons might do, it was utterly impossible for the Government to think of acceding to the amendment.

As Lord Aberdeen was proceeding to describe how the late Government had adopted the principle of a tax on successions, Lord MALmrsnuay cried "No, no !" Lord ABERDEEN repeated his assertion, and was about to quote from the speech of Mr. Disraeli as reported in Hansard, when Lord DERBY called him to order ; adding—" I can save the noble Earl some trouble in referring to reports of what is said to have taken place in the other House of Parliament, by simply assuring him, upon my own knowledge, that no pro- position nor scheme for imposing any succession-duty was at any time sub- mitted to my consideration, or to the consideration as far as I know, of any single member of the Cabinet of which I was the head."

Lord ABERDEEN retorted, that Lord Derby had not himself been strictly in order. He asked pardon for having had the audacity to do anything so un- parliamentary as to quote from past debates ; but the offence was frequent : and he proceeded to read from speeches delivered by Mr. Disraeli on the 3d and 16th December last, passages stating that the late Government had care- fully examined the question of the Stamp and Probate duties, and did not think it impossible, at the right time, to bring forward a tax on suc- cessions.

The Earl of HARDWICKE, "as a Member of the late Cabinet," denied that any idea of imposing such a tax as the present had ever been pre- sented to them. He also took Lord Aberdeen to task for sneering at the "bold Barons," The debate was continued by Earl GRAlevxm,a, the Duke of ARGYLL, and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, on behalf of the clause. The Duke of CLEVELAND supported the amendment, on the ground of the unfairness and inequality of the operation of the bilL Earl GRANVILLE admitted that Lord Derby was not responsible for everything said and done by his political adherents in the other House.

It was stated that certain votes had been given and opinions expressed not in accordance with those of Lord Derby,—as, for instance, the conduct of the gentleman supposed to be the leader of the Opposition as regards dis- cussion on foreign affairs. Lord Derby had begged the House not to go into a premature discussion ; but the same evening, the supposed leader of the Opposition urged the House of Commons to come to an immediate discussion. Lord Granville also explained, that Lord Aberdeen had not intended any taunt by his allusion to the "bold Barons" ; and that, as regards the pro- priety of the course taken by Lord Derby, he had only contended that it would be most unwise and inexpedient. He stated also, that there were not twelve persons in that House whose personal interests would be affected by the bill; and their votes would be found on the side of the Government.

The Duke of ARGYLL showed that the clause was not retrospective, inas- much as it does not impose a tax on persons who have already succeeded, but on those who for the future should inherit successions. He also charged the late Government with having rendered the present measure necessary by their rash and reckless proposals in reference to the Income-tax. Lord LANSDOWNE pointed out, that the particular character of the fi- nancial system was not that the Succession-tax and the Income-tax should act together, but that the action of one should ultimately make provision for the abolition of the other. Where is it more natural to extend direct taxation than to those who enjoy the great privilege of society, that of suc- ceeding to property ? The tax is not aimed at a particular class, but at all classes; and the position of the owners of land will be strengthened by making them amenable to the same law as their fellow subjects. The great families of the country do not owe their position to exemptions from bur- dens. Does the Duke of Norfolk owe his high position to having escaped the Legacy-duty ? Why, the great families and lauded proprietors would gain, in the prosperity of the country, infinitely more than they will be called on to pay. The system of finance of which the bill is a part, is a stand system, because it leaves the prosperity of the country at liberty to increase, and gives security that only one great direct duty need be pre- served when the present Income-tax expires.

The Committee divided on the amendment—Content, 68; Not con- tent, 102; Government majority, 34.

After a great deal of minute discussion, the remaining clauses of the bill were agreed to, and the House resumed.

On the motion for the third reading, the Earl of CLANCARTY stated his objections ; and charged Ministers with scouring the embassies of the Continent for votes, and depriving Ireland of its Governor, in such haste that time was not given for the Lords-Justices to be sworn !

The bill was read a third time. But Lord Sr. LEONARDS made a long speech on the question that it now pass, chiefly for the purpose of pro- posing clauses as a protest against the bill. Their main object was to cut off its retrospective operation. They did not meet with any acceptance; and after a brief conversation the bill passed.

Soul". SEA ANNUITIES DISSENTIENTS.

In a Committee of the House of Commons, Mr. GLADSTONE laid three resolutions on the table, to the following effect-

1. That provision be made out of the Consolidated Fund for paying off the stocks of the South Sea Company in respect of which assents to commute shall not have been signified, and for paying to the Company the amount of their capital not commuted under the act of the present session.

2. That the Company be permitted to commute, within a limited time, the interest on their stock in respect of shares standing in the names of the Ac- countant-General of the Courts of Chancery, of the Accountant in Bank- ruptcy, and of trustees and others disabled from voting in the General Court of .Proprietors, into any of the stocks or securities authorized to be created by the act of the present session, and the Three-and-a-quarter per Cents, (1844,) upon such terms as the Lords of the Treasury may see fit to offer, provided the assent of the Company be signified within a certain time.

3. That the Company be permitted to commute, upon the same terms, the interest in respect of such further amount of their stock as may be required to be invested as a guarantee-fund for their administration of private trusts.

The first resolution, Mr. Gladstone observed, sufficiently explained itself; but with regard to the second and third he would offer explana- tions.

The reason for permitting the Accountant-General in Chancery and the Accountant in Bankruptcy to commute such portion of the stock as stands in their name was, because they were precluded from acting on the pro- visions of the late statute ; and it was thought unfair that they should be permanently deprived of any opportunity such as that which was afforded to private parties, or at least to persons who were masters of their own interests. It was hoped that a bill might have been introduced to make an extensive alteration with respect to Chancery and Bankruptcy accounts, and that was the reason why provision in their ease had been postponed ; but the press of business had prevented the introduction of a bill of that kind. The reason why provision had to be made in respect of such portion of South Sea Stock as is held by trustees was, that they were desirous of commuting, but were disabled by law from voting on the question whether the Company should commute or take money for its stock ; which question was decided by the representatives of the smaller portion of the property. The cases of sole and joint holders are not analogous : in almost every ease joint holders would, if paid in money, reinvest ; and that would be inconvenient. The great majority of these holders are desirous of commuting; and for them, therefore, he proposed to reopen the power of commutation. The third resolution makes provision for a new case. "The South Sea Company has long entertained a project for undertaking the office of volun- tary trustees for all such parties as might be inclined to avail themselves of its services in private trusts, and charging a commission for those services. Daring the present year the resolution to pay off their stock has brought that intention on the part of the Company to a head ; and the consequence has been, that after consulting the proper departments of the Government, they have introduced a bill into Parliament, which is at present going through its stages, to enable them to become and to act as trustees on behalf of all persons who are inclined to avail themselves of their services. One of the clauses of that bill requires that a certain guarantee-fund, of not less than 300,0001., shall be kept by the Company in the public securities."

About 2,500,0001. is embraced within the scope of the second and third re- solutions; and their effect will be to prevent the inconvenience of unneces- sarily launching 2,500,0001. on the money-market in the month of January next.

There is one other point in the two resolutions. "It is not proposed to confine the power of commutation under these resolutions absolutely to the options which were opened under the statute of the present year ; because owing to the great change of circumstances which has taken place within

the three or four months since the passing of those resolutions by the House, the mere reopening of those options might very possibly be offering to the parties only an opportunity, which, in their views, judged and mea- sured by present circumstances, Would be quite valueless, and therefore would not take effect. I think that the disposition of the Committee would be to offer to those parties, if any offer at all is to be made to them, something which should be really equivalent to what those options were intended and be- lieved to be at the time that the former resolutions were adopted by the House. In the present state of matters, with the uncertainty, partly of po- litical affairs abroad, but especially with respect to the prospect of the har- vest at home, it would be very difficult indeed to fix at the present moment upon any modified terms; and besides, there would be a disadvantage, I think, in reopening the conditions of the late act of Parliament in reference to the particular stock which it affected. Under these circumstances, it has.appeared to me that the best course would be to ask Parliament to enable the Treasury to offer to those parties at its discretion, according to the state of the circumstances when the power shall have been given to it for the purpose, the liberty of availing themselves of the options afforded by the late act of Parliament, or, in case those options should not be satisfac- tory to the parties under existing circumstances, that the Treasury shall have the power of offering them stock of the description which is commonly called ' 3/. 5s. per centum annuities, 1844,' that is, the stock which was cre- ated by my right honourable friend the Member for Cambridge University in 1844." That stock will become a 3 per cent stock within half a year after the date fixed for liquidating the stocks which are the subject of the resolu- tions, but guaranteed at 3 per cent for twenty years. It is not advisable to extend the option to all who are embraced by the act of the present ses- sion; and the uncertainty of present circumstances make it extremely im- prudent to fix the terms by resolution ; but, looking to the limited nature of the transaction, he had no hesitation in asking the Committee to trust the Treasury with the responsibility of fixing at its own discretion the terms with regard to these particular parties, because the whole amount at issue is comparatively trilling : but he should feel great scruples in asking the Committee to authorize the Treasury to fix at its own discretion the terms on which an extended operation of the commutation might take place.

Mr. Gladstone moved the first resolution.

Mr. DISRAELI took occasion, in studiously moderate language, to make an attack upon the whole financial legislation of the Government : fasten- ing on the Conversion Act ; declaring repeatedly that it had been a total failure ; and reminding Mr. Gladstone that he had been warned by him- self and Mr. Thomas Baring that such would be the result.

He did not object to the first resolution : but the second resolution went to intrust the Treasury with unlimited discretionary power ; which he was not prepared to concede, and which the antecedents of the Government did not warrant the Committee in conceding. Mr. Gladstone's former calcula- tions had proved most illusory. "I thiuk we ought to consider, in the first place, whether, this plan having failed, it is expedient in any way to con- tinue it ; and, in the second place, if it be expedient in any way to continue it, whether it is wise to increase the area of commutation by bringing in a new stock, and then leaving to the Minister, who has failed in hie original project, the unprecedented power of settling the terms on which future com- mutations shall take place."

In reply to Sir FITZROY KELLY, Mr. GLADSTONE said that the max- imum payment which would have to be made on the 5th January would be 6,100,0001., the minimum 3,500,0001.; but that does not include any payments due after the meeting of Parliament next year.

The first resolution was then agreed to.

On the second resolution being read, Mr. JOHN BENJAMIN Slum com- plained of the lateness at which the resolutions were placed in the hands of Members. That the resolution was objectionable, however, he was satisfied : it is a false principle to make a second offer to holders of stock who have refused one. Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR thought the discre- tionary power necessary. Sir FITZROY KELLY followed Mr. Dis- raeli's lead, and condemned the entire financial policy of the Govern- ment. He also represented that the offer of a 31 per cent stock to those who had refused a 23/4- per cent placed those who had accepted the latter stock in the previous transaction in an unfortunate position.

Mr. GLADSTONE said, it was a matter of concern and regret to him that the hour made it impossible for him to make that reply which out of re- spect to the House and in justice to the Government and himself he desired to make. At present he would only say that Mr. Smith had not beent correct in his inferences.

Here the Chairman suspended the sitting, as the clock struck four.

THE INDIA Buz.

The House went again into Committee on Monday, .to consider new clauses and amendments to the India Bill ; and a great deal of time was taken up in discussing propositions which were rejected. There were three divisions. The first was on a clause proposed to be added to the bill by Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY, enabling the Secret Committee to re- cord their protest against the orders transmitted through them from the Board of Control. Mr. HUME, Mr. OTWAY, Mr. Bias.exarr, and Mr. MANGLES, supported the clause. Sir JAMES HOGG suggested that it would lessen the responsibility of the Government ; and that if the Secret Committee could record protests, they would be called for by the House. That would not be a fit proceeding. On a division, the clause was ne- gatived by 72 to 30.

Mr. HUME proposed a clause extending the qualification for electors of the

Directors so as to include all persons holding 500l. stock, or Company's paper to the amount of 10,000 rupees ; or who had served the Company for twenty years, but had retired. It was objected, that this clause would be inconsistent with the decision of the 'House that India should be governed by the East India Company. It was rejected, after brief debate, by 74 to 54. First inquiring whether any regulations to provide for the admission of

young Native students to Haileybury had been adopted, and being answered in the negative, Mr. Rim moved a resolution giving greater practical efficiency to the 87th section of the 3d and 4th William IV. cap. 85, which relieves Natives of India from all disabilities as bars to employ- ment in India. Upon this there was much debating. On the one hand, it was contended that the act of William the Fourth had not been suffi- ciently carried out; that the increasing intelligence and cultivation of the Natives made it expedient to employ them ; and that the practical re- sult of the provisions for admitting Natives to compete at Halleybury de- pended on the regulations by which those provisions would be carried out. Mr. BRIGHT and Lord STANLEY took these views. On the other hand, Sit CHARLES Woon and Mr. LOWE contended, that sufficient had been done by the bill. Haileybury had been thrown open, and the Natives had been enabled to obtain as much power, employment, and influence, as by their merits they could command. fir HERBERT MADDOCK also objected

to the motion ; mainly because the Natives and Europeans in the civil service would not work well together; while there would be the additional difficulty attending the salaries—as one-third of the salary given to Euro- peans would be enough for the Natives. Mr. Ries resolved to take the sense of the House ; and his clause was negatived by 173 to 47. Shortly after this, the Chairman reported progress, on the understand- ing that the Committee should sit at noon next day. Another sitting in Committee was accordingly taken at twelve o'clock on Tuesday.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE moved a clause constituting the Queen's Judges at each Presidency a competent court to decide any questions in dispute

between the Government of British India and any Native Prince, not a subject of the British Crown, with a final appeal to the Privy CounciL Such a tribunal is necessary for the protection of Native Princes from

the Court of Directors. Mr. LOWE opposed the clause, on the ground that the proposed tribunal would be set up against the Administration, yet not supported by physical force; that it would lead to chicane and corruption, and would be unfit for its purpose. The clause was negatived without a division.

Mr. BRIGHT moved a clause enacting that the business of the Board of Control and the Court of Directors should be transacted in one building ; and empowering the East India Company to sell the house in Leadenhall Street, in order to defray the expense of providing for a new building.

Sir Cfresiss WOOD believed that the mass of correspondence might be curtailed ; but he asserted, and repeated, that not one hour's delay on

any question of importance has arisen from the present system. He did

not think the proposition would effect any great saving of expense. But Mr. VERNON SMITH declared that he had had longer experience at the

India Board than Sir Charles Wood, and he had no hesitation in stating that great delay and inconvenience arises from the distance between Leadenhall Street and Cannon Row. Nevertheless, on a division, the clause was negatived by 74 to 61.

Mr. VmucoN SMITH then proposed a clause which he hoped the Presi- dent of the Board of Control would not oppose ; for it was to raise his position and salary to an equality with that of a Secretary of State—the salary to be 5000/. a year; and also to enact that there should be one political and one permanent Secretary.

Lord PALMERSTON saved the President of the Board of Control the deli- Late task of signifying the assent of Ministers.

There are very good reasons why it is impossible that the President of the Board of Control should, in the existing state of things, assume the title of a Secretary of State. The province of a Secretary of State is to convey and to signify the direct commands of the Crown ; and so long, therefore, as the government of India is conducted on the principle of a double government, it is impossible that those direct commands could be conveyed by the Pre- sident of the Board of Control. The Minister, therefore, who directs that

department of the public service, cannot assume the functions of a Secretary of State. But Lord Palmerston accepted the clause so far as relates to the salary, and the appointment of one political and one permanent assistant Secretary.

Sir Jaws WErn. HOGG also took that view. But Mr. WILLIAM WIL- LIAMS divided the Committee against the clause. It was carried by 116

to 29. •

Amid much laughter and cheers, Mr. Moricaros MILNES tendered his thanks to the Government for having allowed this " one " amendment to pass.

Mr. WISE moved a clause providing that one-third of the persons ad- mitted to Addiscombe should be the sons of officers who had been in the civil or military service of the Company. But, almost without debate, the clause was rejected by 101 to 29.

Here the Chairman reported progress.

The bill finally passed through the Committee stage on Wednesday.

On the consideration of the bill as amended, Sir JOHN PAICINGTON moved a clause prohibiting the manufacture of salt by the East India Company ; and providing that the manufacture and sale of salt in India "shall be absolutely free, subject only to such excise or other duties as may now or from time to time be levied upon such salt so manufactured." Sir John made a long speech to show that the manufacture and sale are still a monopoly ; that the Natives grievously suffer for want of salt ; that England has a surplus, and that there is no reason why the surplus of England should not supply the deficiency of India. The Natives only consume 12 pounds per head, while the average consumption in England is from 21 pounds to 25 pounds. The price in the interior is excessive, and the article is adulterated. The subject was investigated by a Com- mittee in 1836, and in the report of that Committee the extinction of the monopoly was recommended ; but the recommendation has never been fairly carried out. Sir John denied that he was acting merely for his own constituents, the salt-producers of Droitwich : he thought the salt monopoly a stain upon our policy, and resolved to try to get rid of it. The clause provoked great discussion. Sir CHARLES Woon, Sir James H000, Mr. Lows, and Lord JOHN Ruassm, upheld the existing system ; asserting that it is not a grievance, nor a monopoly ; that 12 pounds per head is sufficient for an Indian ; that he pays no other taxes ; that there are no complaints; that salt furnishes the best means of getting the re- venue; and that, according to Lord John Russell, the amendment would interfere with the revenue so much, that if there were a deficiency the Indian Government might call upon us to make it up.

On the other aide, Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE, Mr. Terrox EGERTON, Mr. ADDERLEY, Sir HERBER"' MADDOCK., Mr. II. D. SEYMOUR, Mr. Brdimurrr, and Mr. DISRAELI, supported the clause and the statements of Sir John Pakington. Mr. Disraeli made a special attack upon Lord John Russell ; catending against him that there is an identity between the revenues of England and India, and that under any circumstances the Imperial Par- liament will have to deal with any deficiency that may occur.

On a division, the clause was carried against the Government, by 117 to 107—a majority of 10. The clause was added to the bill.

On the motion of Sir CHARLES WOOD, two clauses' were added,—one fixing the qualification of the elected Directors at 10001. worth of stock, instead of 20001. worth ; and the other leaving the salary of the Chair- man, Deputy Chairman, and the Directors, to be fixed in Committee. The House went into Committee' but on the proposal to fill up the first blank with the salary of 15001. for the Chairman and Deputy Chair- man of the Court of Director an a al was made to Lord John Rus- sell to permit the Chairman os'rePortpliPne)8rem- This was agreed to.

an

ENTRY OP SEAMEN BELL.

On the motion that the House should go into Committee on this bill, Captain Seminar. asked for some explanation. Sir JAMES Gamiest said, it was not from want of respect to the House that he asked them to go into Committee without making any statement, but from a desire to per- fect the measure with as little delay as possible. He would briefly ex- plain the bilL The bill of 1835 on the manning of the Navy limited the duration of ser- vice to five years i but practically seamen only serve three years and a half. The consequence is, that well-disciplined seamen are paid oil just when they are most efficient. Government propose, in accordance with the report of the Naval Commission, to increase the pay of the seamen, and hold out other incentives to induce seamen voluntarily to change the period from five to ten years. There are also various other inducements tending to the welfare of the seamen. By the act of 1835, power was given to the Queen in Coun- cil to call, in times of danger, upon all seafaring men, offering double bounty to those who serve beyond the five years. Government propose to give the Crown the power of limiting the proclamation to certain classes, instead of calling upon all seafaring men, and also ',cower to regulate the bounty. In- stead of an increase of one-fourth in the pay, allowed by the act of 1835 under such circumstances, it is proposed that every person serving beyond his term shall have 2d. a day in addition. Those are the chief heads of the bill.

Some discussion arose as to the cause for the alleged disinclination of seamen to enter the Queen's service; Mr. WIrmax Wurrems asserting that corporal punishment is the cause. But this did not meet with ac- ceptance; and Admiral BERKELEY stated that of the 5000 additional sea- men voted in December last, 4200 have entered the service. When the House went into Committee, there was little discussion on the clauses. Mr. WiLialars suggested the introduction of courts-martial on ship-board as a check to corporal punishment. Sir JAMES Gittamid, in a long state- ment, the repetition of that previously made in Committee of Supply, showed that great checks already exist ; that quarterly returns are sent into the Admiralty, and a report on every ease; and that even all minor punishments are regularly reported. He formally declared that there is no great unwillingness to enter the Queen's service. The present bill proceeds on the assumption that there should not be frequent changes in the amount of the force. One great cause of difficulty in respect of enlist- ment has been found in the fact that the House of Commons has varied its policy from time to time with respect to the number of seamen. In future, a large number of seamen must be employed for ten years, and pensions granted in proportion to length of service. In consideration of the pensions, the Queen will have a power' of calling out the pensioners, who will form the cheapest reserve in the world. If the House wish to maintain the supremacy of the British flag, it must not be niggardly of pay and rewards. He thought courts-martial would interfere with dis- cipline; it is best for the happiness of the ship's company that the power should be in the hands of one man—the captain.

All the clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

NEwsrarsit SUPPLEMENTS.

The House went into Committee on the Newspaper Stamp-duties Bill. On clause 3, relating to the duties on newspapers and supplements, Mr. GLADSTONE explained, that the statutory limit to the size of such news- papers as would be carried by the penny stamp would be enlarged one- half; and that it will be open to the proprietors to make any use they please of the enlarged space, provided they do not divide it into mori than two sheets.

Mr. NEWDEGATE divided the Committee against the clause, on the ground that they were about to make a present of 34,000/. to some six newspapers in the United Kingdom. The clause was carried by 92 to 40; and the bill passed through Committee.

THE NEW CAB Aar.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS and Mr. WaLroLs put questions to Mr. Fitzroy on Wednesday—the first day of the strike of the cab-proprietors--respecting his intentions under the circumstances. Would he appoint a Select Com- mittee to consider the state of the trade and would he amend the bill in respect of back-fare ? This was the only bill within the recollection of Sir Robert Inglis which, without inquiry, arbitrarily fixed the rate of price to a given scale of goods.

Mr. Frrzsov gave some explanations.

The principle of arbitrarily fixing the sum to be charged per mile was not new. He had made his estimate on the closest calculation, on data fur- nished by the representatives of the trade; and, having taken every oppor- tunity of inquiry of drivers and proprietors, he had been assured, with hardly an exception, that in the crowded parts of the metropolis sixpence the mile would be amply remunerative. The only complaint against the act was with respect to the return-fare. On this subject Mr. Fitzroy stated what had been done. On Monday he received a deputation of two persons— the secretary of the cab-proprietors, and a large cab-proprietor himself. The only grievance they could state related to the back-fare. Mr. Fitzroy said, he was aware that the power to use cabs had been abused ; that persons had taken them quite six miles into the country without paying any return- fare : that he would do his utmost to find a remedy; but that to the system of back-fares he would notreturn. He would either introduce a special bill, or a clause in some other bill, to provide a remedy. " It must be obvious, however, that I am placed in a worse position for effecting this arrangement by the foolish step taken this morning by the cab-proprietors." He would propose a clause which would give them an increase of remuneration,—pro- viding, for instance, that if you hire a cab and discharge it at a distance ex- ceeding four miles from the place where it was hired, and within a certain radius, you shall give an extra sum for the whole hiring. "I think, be- sides' it might be possible to make a change as to the distance to which cabs may be desired to go, and that they should not be compellable to go more than five miles from the General Post-office, instead of six miles, as at pre- sent provided by the act. These two provisions I am prepared to submit to the House ; and with these arrangements I am sure it will be the feeling of the House that the trade should be perfectly satisfied." In reply to Mr. Bzessrr DENISON, Mr. FITZROY promised to put him- self in communication with the cab-proprietors.

When the House was about to go into Committee on the Hackney Carriage-duties Bill, on Thursday, an instruction to the Committee was adopted, enabling them to make provision therein for the hire of hackney carriages. In Committee, Mr. Lows moved a clause, to the effect that whenever more than two persons ride in a cab, sixpence extra for the whole hiring shall be paid for each person. After much debate, this was agreed to, by 88 to 9, and added to the bill. Mr. Lows stated that he had another clause to propose, to the effect that the driver of a cab should be at liberty to charge one shilling per

mile for every mile or part of a mile if required to drive beyond the cir- cumference of a circle the radius of which should be four miles from Charing Cross, provided he be discharged beyond such circumference. In the mean time, the bill was reported as amended, and ordered to be con- sidered on Monday.

IRISH Lew REFORM.

Lord Damn:mem moved the second reading of the Courts of Common Law (Ireland) Bill ; a bill which had been prepared and approved by men of consummate learning in Ireland, and which has passed the other House. He went into details connected with the measure ; which ap- plied to Ireland all the late improvements in the administration of justice in this country in respect to procedure, and further improved the law. One great evil of our present system is, that it does not provide half a re- medy to parties who may be aggrieved. In Ireland, that defect is sought to be corrected by uniting law with equity. This bill would diminish unjust litigation, whilst it would lessen the expense of that which is unavoidable. At present the law only allows money to be paid into court in certain cases. In eases of tort, no payment of money in court is allowed ; nor in actions of slander, seduction, criminal conversation, breach of promise of marriage, with some other cases, is money allowed to be paid into court, however anxious all parties may be to settle the matter out of court : but by this bill it is proposed to allow the payment of money into court in all cases what- ever. Procedure also is greatly improved. He thought they should adopt as far as possible natural procedure, and reject, or as far as possible abridge, technical proceedings. The abolition of all forms of action is proposed to be ef- fected, and all technical and obsolete spectres are proposed to be laid, by the operation of this measure. It is proposed by the bill that a transfer of stock, bills of exchange, promissory notes, or checks, should be made at once to the

plaintiff, by the Sheriff i

, when seized by him n execution, instead of being held as a security for the benefit of the parties; and the bill also proposes to make choses in action of all descriptions whatever assignable at law with- out driving the assignee into a dourt of equity. How many years have elapsed since the making of choses in action assignable was first propounded ? Two hundred years have passed since that improvement of the law was pro- pounded by a Committee of the other House of Parliament, on which sat some of the most eminent men of that day—some illustrious for their talents and virtues, and others distinguished by their extraordinary deeds. Amongst the men who sat on that Committee were the Lord General Cromwell, the chairman of the Committee, then Member for Cambridge, and Sir Mathew Hale, then Mr. Hale and afterwards the great Chief Justice. That was the eleventh of the fourteen propositions for the amendment of the law which that Committee reported to the House ; and it is most gratifying to find, that out of those fourteen proposals, the one for making chases m action as- signable is the only one that has not since that time become the law of the land ; bearing out that most comforting remark of Lord Bacon, which has 60 often cheered one in one's labours for the amendment of the law under temporary disappointment and failure, that hardly ever has there been a good proposal for the amendment of the law made, that it did not sooner or later bear good fruit.

In the absence of Lord Campbell, Lord Brougham could not ask them to do much ; but the greater and most material part might be adopted.

The LORD CHANCELLOR was sure Lord Brougham had conferred ano- ther obligation, in addition to those the country already owed him, for his -efforts in the cause of legal reform.

This bill would be an immense improvement on the judicial system of Ire- land ; and it would be the bounden duty of the House instantly to give to Ireland the benefit of that which has already been matured and in operation in this country. But one half of the present bill has never been introduced in reference to England. The second report of the Commissioners had been embodied in a draught bill; but to perfect it requires the consideration of the Judges in the vacation. Therefore, the fair course would be to pass so much of the bill as has already been tried in England, even if they sat till October for that purpose. The bill was read a second time.

COUNTY Corrals.

Lord Baorrearear moved the first reading of the County Courts Exten- sion Bill ; giving as a reason for not proceeding with the measure this session, that Government are about to issue a Commission on the subject. He also postponed two other bills relating to County Courts, for the same reason.

After the bill had been read a first time, the Loan Crierrerazon con- firmed Lord Brougham's statement, by announcing that he had deter- mined to issue a Commission to inquire into the state of the County Courts, in order to see how they discharge their duties. He hoped Sir John Homily would be at the head of the Commission ; Mr. Justice Erie had consented to be a member, and Lord Cranworth trusted Mr. Fitzroy would also assent.

Luau CB.IME.

Towards the close of a late sitting on Monday, Sir Joint YOUNG moved the second reading of the Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Continuance Act. Mr. BOWYER, supported by Mr. F. SCULLY and Mr. Lucas, moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months, on the ground that crimes of violence have ceased to characterize Ireland. This was admit- ted; but the reason assigned for the continuation of the act was the ex- istence of Ribandism—the disturbed districts being in the North. There are now twenty-one counties or parts of counties under proclamation. On a division, the second reading was carried by 141 to 23.

THE AFRICAN SQUADRON.

In reply to the Earl of WALDEGRAVE, the Earl of CLAB.ENDON stated, that only one ship had been withdrawn from the African squadron ; that Sir James Graham had commissioned two ships of war in its place, and that possibly two others would be sent out in the next week or ten days.

"No Honsn."

At the evening sitting on Tuesday, Mr. APSLEY Pnixerr was about to move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the removal of paupers, when it was noticed that there were fewer than 40 Members present. There were only 38, and the House accordingly adjourned.

ELECTION Coanarrans.

The Clitheree Election Committee has reported that Mr. Aspinall was not duly elected ; and that he was guilty of treating, carried on under his personal cognizance.

As for the Peterborough Committee, some sittings have been held, but at present the whole of the evidence goes to exculpate Earl Fitzwilliam. Not a single witness has stated that he was intimidated or persecuted. Of course, counter-evidence may be brought.