rthittto null Vturrthings iu Varlinnunt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Boris OF MBAs. Monday, June 28. The State Services of the Church ; Lord Stanhope's Motion—Royal Assent to the Property Qualification, Chancery Amend- ment, and Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bills. Tuesday, June 29. County Management Bill read a second time—Leases and gales of Settled Estates Act Amendment Bill read a second time. Thursday, July 1. The Oaths ; Lord Lucan's Bill read a second time—Public pia unds Bill read asecond time. day, July 2. The Wellington Monument ; Lord Derby's Statement—Church Bates Abolition ; Sir John Trelawny's Bill thrown out by 187 to 36.

Horn or Commons. Monday, June 28. Universities (Scotland) Bill in Committee—Funded Debt Bill ; Mr. Wilson's Motion—Military Organization ; Captain Vivian's Complaint—The State of the Thames ; Mr. DiaraelPs Explanation —Defalcations at Weedon ; Colonel Boldero's Motion—Chief Justice of Bombay Bill read a third time and passed.

Tuesday, June 29. Galway Freemen Disfranchisement Bill in Committee— Crean Property ; Mr. Caird's Motion—Endowed Schools (Ireland) ; Mr. Kirk's Motion—The Orange Society ; Mr. Fitzgerald's Motion—Corrupt Practices Preven- tion Act Continuance Bill read a first time—Funded Debt Bill read a third time and passed. Wednesday, June 30. Marriage Law Amendment ; Lord Bury's Bill committed —Members' Freedom from Arrest Bill read a second time.

Thursday, July 1. Universities (Scotland) Bill committed—Government of India (No. 3) Bill in Committee—London Corporation Regulation Bill withdrawn. Friday, July 2. Government of India (No. 3) Bill in Committee—The Thames - Mr. Berkeley's Question—Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Continuance Bill read a second time—Marriage Law Amendment; Lord Bury's Bill read a third time and passed. TIME- TABLE.

Monday

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. 5h .. 13h 45m 6h .... 7h 20m No sitting. 5h . . 9h 15m Sh .(m) lh 15m Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Noon 4h Om 6h .(m) lit 15in Noon .... Sit lam 6h .(m) lh 45m Noon 5h 55m

Noon 4h Om

6h .(m) lh .15m Noon 4h Om 611 .(m) lit 15m

Sittings this Week, 4 '

— this Session, 75; Time, 155h Sittings this Week, 9 ; Time, 50h 55m — this Session 100; — 666h 52m Gown:en:Kw or Enna.

The House of Commons once more took up the India Bill (No. 3) in Committee on Thursday ; commencing at clause 7 and continuing until they had disposed of clause 12. There were a great number of amend- ments moved in the course of the long evening sitting. On clause 7 Mr. Gtansvorni moved an amendment intended to enable the Government to name in the act of Parliament the first members of the Indian Council. " His great object," in making the motion, " was that the Indian Council should be clothed with. the greatest possible amount of moral weight and influence consistent with maintaining intact the responsibility of the Secretary of State." Lord STANLEY objected that the proposition, if adopted, would do away with electing a part of the Council, and retard the progress of the bill. The amendment was negatived without a division, and the clause was agreed to. On clause 8, providing for the appointment of the first members of the Council, Mr. VERNON SMITH moved the omission of words intended to give the Court of Directors power to choose not only from existing Di- rectors, but also from those who, having filled that office, had retired. Negatived by 146 to 71. Sir JAMES Guaiatan then moved an amend- ment intended to prevent the Court of Directors from electing those of its body who are nominees of the Crown. Negatived without a division. Mr. GLansroxn now moved, in order that nominees should not pre- ponderate, that the number of elected Directors should be 10. This led to a very long discussion; in the course of which, the various modes of constituting the Council, the salaries of its members, the amount of work they would have to do, whether they should be allowed to do any other work, were discussed in a most desultory manner. Then the amendment was negatived and the clause agreed to.

On clause 11, fixing the tenure of office of members of Council, Mr. GREGSON moved the omission of the words, " during good behaviour." Lord PALMERSTON said he should support the motion in order to make way for an amendment he had to propose. He believed that, by fixing the limit of service at ten or twelve years they would secure the independence of the members of the Council, while an op- portunity would be afforded of infusing into it new blood, and of adding to the body men who possessed the advantage of recent experience in India. If he might be allowed to use the expression, without meaning anything offen- sive, he must say that the bill, so far as the constitution of the Council was concerned, would sanction one of the most gigantic jobs ever proposed to Parliament. He claimed, on this occasion the vote of those honourable Members who designated themselves "administrative reformers," and he also claimed the support of her Majesty's Government, because he was sure that, as a body, they could not really approve the arrangement proposed by the bill. The strength which the Government had acquired in recent divi- sions ought to inspire them with a feeling of independence. (Laughter.) During the short voyage they had hitherto made they had trimmed their sails to catch the breeze from whatever quarter it might blew, and he thought they must now feel themselves strong enough to act upon their own opinions. (" Hear, hear ! " and a laugh.)

This proposal did not meet with favour, and it was negatived by 154 to 118.

On clause 12, which provides that no member of Council shall be capable of sitting or voting in Parliament, Mr. LIDDELL moved an amendment reversing the effect of the clause. Lord JOHN RUSSELL sup- ported the amendment, and defended the presence of Indian Directore in Parliament. The most violent Indian agitator might sit in the House, and eminent Indian statesmen who preferred a seat in the Council would be excluded. Lord STANLEY and Mr. Venice/4 Swan held that with seats in the House the councillors of the Indian Minister would be his critics rather than his colleagues, and that it would be most unseemly to have the Minister for India giving his opinion upon Indian affairs, and then to have a member of the Council rising to oppose him.

The amendment was negatived by 245 to 121. The elanap was agreed to, and the Chairman reported progress.

THE OATHS BILLS.

The House of Lords came to some decision on Thursday night with respect to the Oaths hills Before proceeding with them the Earl of with an apology for his recent absence, interposed to make a tftstement of his views. Having recapitulated the history of these bills, he said that he objected to Lord Lyndhurst's bill, becalm it was ir- I regularly introduced, another bill on the same subject having passed through all its stages in the House. Lord Lucan's bill, however, is not liable to the same objection, since it simply enables the House of Com- mons to deal with the question by way of resolution:— "I confess, my Lords, that I have not altered my views in regard to the policy or expediency of admitting the Jews as Members of a Christian Legis- lature, but, having carefully and anxiously considered the subject, I see that the proposal of my noble andgallant friend is the only possible solution of the difficulty which has existed for a period of ten years. I see no other practical chance of bringing the two Houses of Parliament into agreement. It maintains the dignity of your Lordships' House with regard to that por- tion of the question which is more immediately subject to your jurisdiction. It maintains the law as it stands at the present moment, but it enables the House of Commons, upon a question that specially relates to persons taking their seats in that House, to dispense with the words which stand in the way of what appears to be the decided wish of that House. This solution appears to me to afford a practical and not unreasonable mode of settling a difficult and complicated question."

Lord LvrsxirWsr said the course recommended by Lord Derby took him by surprise. He had taken as a foundation for his measure the suggestion of Lord Derby himself- " By the bill I have brought in, if a Member of either House come to the

table to be sworn, and says that he cannot conscientiously make the declara- tion on the true faith of a Christian' those words are to be struck out of the oath, and the taking of the oath with that omission will be a sufficient taking of the oath." lie did not say Lord Derby was bound to support his bill, but Lord Derby's expressions led him to believe the bill would have his entire concurrence. " In that, however, I am sorry to say, I have been disappointed. I have not in point of principle any objection to the bill of my noble and gallant friend. I have no personal object in this matter. I have nothing but a public object in view, and if that object is carried, whether it be accomplished by my bill or by the bill of my noble and gallant friend is to me a matter of perfect indifference. I have no personal vanity to gratify. I have been too long engaged in public life to be influenced by any feelings of that description. I am desirous to accomplish the object and to attain the end I have in view, and by whomsoever it may be pro- moted, and by whatever measure, it will have my hearty concurrence and support." As to the objection on point of form, Lord Lyndhurst showed that that had no foundation whatever. Believing that by so doing he

should best accomplish the object he has at heart, he withdrew his bill. The Earl of LUCAN then moved the second reading of his bill ; and explained that its object was to allow the admission of Jews into the House of Commons. If the bill passed, Jews would be admissible into the other House by a resolution of that House. Before, however, such a resolution could pass it would be necessary under his bill that Jews should present themselves at the table of the House and there object to the words, " on the true faith of a Christian," when it would be in the power of the House to omit those words from the oath. He trusted the House would settle the matter that night once for all.

The Earl of CLANCARTY took upon himself the duty of opposing the measure and, as no one else appeared inclined to step forward, said, he felt it his duty to "throw himself into the breach." He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Lord BEARERS took his stand against the bill on the high ground of Christian principle. Earl Guaarvitte, although he did not think it the best mode of settling the question, accepted that mode as the only one he could obtain, and sup- ported the measure without the slightest hesitation. He paid a high compliment to Lord Lyndhurst.

" I congratulate the House on there being every probability of the mea- sure now passing into law, and I cannot help congratulating the noble and learned lord opposite, who certainly by the industry which he must have thought himself dispensed from showing at a time when other men claim rest, and, above all, by the singular ability with which he has year after year destroyed the force of these appeals made to your lordships' feeling i

against his bill, has done more than any other man in this House to bring the question to a successful issue. (Cheers.) But what is more creditable to him than anything else is the utter absence of any personal feeling which he has shown tonight in willingly adopting any course which was most likely to obtain the object which he has in view." The argumentation against the bill was carried on by the Duke of RUTLAND, Lord REDESDALE, the Bishop of OXFORD, Lord Dutroalexoor, and the Earl of Canine/ a: ; and that in its favour by the Duke of CLEVE- LAND and Lord BROUGHAM.

The House then divided, when the numbers were—Content (present 79 proxies 64) 143 ; Not Content (present 64 proxies 33) 97; giving a majority of 46 in favour of the second reading. The bill was accordingly read a second time.

FINANCIAL POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

On the order for going into Committee on the Funded Debt Bill, Mr. l'irnsos called the attention of the House to the impolicy of repealing

the clauses in the existing acts Which give the only security, for the re-

duction of the National Debt in time of peace. When the ,Russian war began the House agreed to Mr. Gladstone's proposal that it should be conducted as much as possible without entailing financial burdens on posterity. The whole expenditure of that year was accordingly raised by taxation, for the 6,000,0001. of bonds issued rather anticipated taxa- tion than partook of the character of debt. In 1855 Sir George Lewis determined to provide for the expenditure by taxation and loans in nearly

equal proportions, and it was agreed that there should be some plan for early repayment when peace was restored. A clause in the first loan bill directed that a surplus of a million should be raised to provide to that extent for the liquidation of the debt. From the principle then affirmed the House was called upon to depart. We were to pay 2,000,000/. in 1857 and 1858 respectively, and 1,000,0001. in 1859 and 1860 respectively ; and beside this 1,600,0001. to the Sinking Fund. Janet year the bonds falling due were redeemed and 250,0001. paid to the Sinking Fund. This year 1dr. Disraeli proposes to postpone the bonds and repeal the Sinking Fund clauses altogether. The sinking-fund esta- blished by Sir George Lewis WAS not like that recommended by Dr. Price to Mr. Pitt. The failed:a of Mr. Pitt's sinking-fund were got rid of in 1823 and 1828; when Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Huskisson, and the Duke of Wellington concurred in recommending that a surplus of 3,000,000L. should be raised towards reducing the debt. Here Mr. Wilson reviewed the debt to show its alarming position. In 1792 it was 261,000,000/. ; in 1815 it had increased to 854,000,0001. During twelve years of the operation of the fallacious sinking-fund the debt was reduced by 54,000,0001., and the annual charge by 3,277,000/. In 1828 the debt was 800,000,0001. Now it is 808,000.000/. So that under the specious principle of taking accidental, instead of providing regular surpluses, we have not reduced the debt at all. This is discreditable to us as a nation. How we are to fare next year is difficult to say. We have 2,000,0001. of bonds falling due next year, and we shall have no more than 1,000,0001. to pay them with, because the reduction of 2d. on the income-tax will operate only to the extent of 1,000,0001. in the present year, whereas it will deprive us of 2,000,000/.next year. Then we have to meet 2,000,0001. of bonds in the succeeding year and 1,000,0001. in 1860. We were told that we should postpone all these engagements till 1860, because in that year securities would fall in to the extent of more than 2,000,0001. But these are not our only engagements for 1860. In addition to 7,000,000/. of bonds postponed till that year it is proposed to abolish the income-tax entirely in 1860, when there will also be a reduction of the tea and sugar duties to the amount of 7,000,0001. The anticipation of the public is that what between the income-tax and the tea and sugar duties there will be a reduction of taxation to the extent of 12,000,0001. in 1860 ; but, if against that we can place a reduction of expenditure on account of the falling in of annuities to the extent of little more than 2,000,000/., how, he asked, arc the expectations of the country to be fulfilled ? Mr. Disraeli might have retained the 2d. income-tax, and repealed the paper-duty. We are burning the candle at both ends, increasing expendi- ture ; repealing taxation ; repealing indirect but not retaining direct taxes. The succession-tax has caused disappointment. It is the duty of the House to find means to meet its obligations. Mr. Disraeli would no doubt say he had provided a surplus ; but Mr. Wilson feared that he had provided a de- ficit. His boasted saving of 800,0001. is more in name than reality, and the deficiency is nearly 400,000/. He urged the House to take advantage of the state of prosperity, and do something to reduce the debt. He moved- " That this House is of opinion that the extraordinary expenditure incurred dur- ing a war beyond what is obtained from taxation should be raised in the form of terminable loans, the redemption of which should be provided for within a speci- fied period after the return of peace ; or if, with a view to greater economy, it is raised by loans in the shape of permanent annuities, that a provision should be made for the liquidation of the same by moderate annual instalments after the war expenditure shall have ceased, from surplus revenue to be provided for that purpose."

Mr. DISF Ar.ra said that the first part of the resolution had been acted upon ; and that the second part it is difficult to understand. What is a " moderate annual instalment" ? During the late war these proposed instalments varied from one to two and a half millions. The system proposed by Mr. Wilson is a theoretical arrangement that will never work. It would be of no use to pass a resolution in favour of an artificial sinking-fund. The only sound principle of reducing the debt is that laid down in the act of George IV. Unless public opinion supports you it is impossible to raise a surplus expressly to reduce the debt. Between 1829 and 1836, 8,992,0001. of surplus were applied to reduce the debt. Then followed five years of distress, when, to reduce the debt, they could not inflict extra taxes on the people. But in 1844, when the country had rallied, and in subsequent years, great reductions were made. In the face of such facts can it be said that the Sinking Fund Act has failed ? He hoped the House would firmly support that law. Mr. Disraeli said his financial policy had regard to the condition of the country. They found themselves obliged to treat the industry of the country, suffering from stagnation, with tenderness and indulgence. As to the income-tax, he had found it reduced by the operation of the law, and he was not prepared to increase it. Mr. WILLI/am said the question was not one of interfering with the act of 1829, but whether the country would keep its solemn engagements. Mr. GLADSTONE agreed that there was a distinction between the sinking- fund of Sir George Lewis and that of Mr. Pitt, but he could not say which was the better. If Mr. Wilson thought a surplus had not been provided why not direct his motion to that ? Mr. Wilson himself had accepted the budget. The act of 1829 is sufficient for the purpose if the Minister does his duty.. The true secret of a sinking-fund lies in judi- cious economy. If there is a rivalry in extravagance between Parlia- ment and the Government matters will go from bad to worse. He would have liked to hear from Mr. Disraeli a somewhat stiffer doctrine in regard to surplus revenue; since he, for one, could not look on the increase of the debt with satisfaction or content. Sir GEORGE LEWIS could not support the motion on the ground of contract. But he thought that more certain means than the mere volition of the Minister should be adopted for the purpose of securing a surplus that could be applied to reduce the debt. It is a sound and wise principle to make it imperative on the Minister to provide a certain amount for the redemption of the debt. Mr. CARDWELL thought that the prospects of the year do not warrant the House in entering into new verbal engagements. He agreed that economy is the best sinking-fund. Magnum rectigal est parsimonia. Lord Jonx RUSSELL thought that it is indispensable that there should be a real surplus. He could not say that Mr. Disraeli has this year made such a provision. It was unwise to part with the two millions income- tax. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make a state- ment respecting our financial prospects. The amendment was negatived without a division, and the bill passed through Committee.

MILTTARY ORGANIZATION.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Captain VIVIAN reminded the House that it had passed a resolution relating to military organization on the 3d June, and that in reply to a question from Sir John Walsh, Mr. Disraeli had said the Government would take no steps in the matter because the House that adopted it was thin and the ma- jority small. Now there were 214 Members present, and 100 paired for and against the motion. It would be dangerous to leave the determina- tion of what is a majority that justifies action to the caprice of a Minis- ter. If such a principle had been admitted in former times, many im- portant decisions of that House would have been disregarded. The sub- ject is of great importance, and so interesting to the public that Mr. Disraeli will find it necessary to reverse the decision he had announced. Captain Vivian took that opportunity to explain that he and his friends do not wish to abolish the office of Commander-in-chief, or to transfer the control and military discipline of the Army to a civilian, but they are of opinion that the office of Commander-in-chief should form part of a great military system, which should be under the presidency of a responsible Minister. He by no means wished to vest the patronage of the .Armyin the House of Commons, and if the change he had proposed should be adopted, it would, in his opinion, be necessary by some strict and rigid rule to prevent the patronage of the Army from being exposed to the influence of political corruption. The present state of things must be unsatisfactory to the Commander-in-chief, because the highest authorities differ as to the extent of his responsibility.

Mr. DISRAELI excused himself for not having spoken on the previous occasion by saying that Lord Palmerston had anticipated his speech. He

admitted the importance of majorities ; but cited precedents to show that majorities have been frequently disregarded. In regard to this question Mr. Disraeli said he might have fenced it, and played with it for the rest of the session. But he preferred to give a frank expression of the opinion of the Government.

" The honourable gentleman seems to me not to have understood the posi- tion in which by a fortunate accident he found himself. I am willing t;

admit that he showed great ability, and spoke like a man who ought to have carried a resolution, but it is not the first time I have seen men embarrassed by unexpected good fortune. ("Hear !" and laughter.) It is said that a

bird never makes so much noise as when it lays the first egg, and I can

easily conceive that in carrying his first resolution the honourable gentle- man was overpowered with excitement. (Laughter.) But, after all, laying the first egg is only a very natural operation. So carrying a resolution is really in the due course of Parliamentary nature—(Laughter)—and al. though it is not the fortune of many to meet with such good chances, every.

body should be prepared for the success which he may perhaps have never

anticipated." Captain Vivian would neither ask the House to carry his policy into effect, nor rest content with his barren triumph. He rates and scolds the Minister because ho will not rescind the resolution. Mr. Disraeli contended that he had pursued neither an unprecedented nor an unpin-ha_ mentary course ; but had taken a course frequently and properly taken be- fore.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought Mr. Disraeli's precedents did not apply. The course for the Government to have pursued would have been to call upon the House to rescind the resolution. With regard to these rem.

lutions, matters ought not to rest in their present state. "It is quite impossible that the resolutions of the House can be constantly and con-

tinually set at naught by the advisers of the Crown," and still remain upon its journals. As to Captain Vivian's resolution, he hoped he would next session ask the House to inquire what are the relations between the Minister of War and the Commander-in-chief, in order that matters may be put on a sure and proper footing.

General PEEL said he did not know how he could have carried the resolution into effect. The responsibilities of the two officers are so dis-

tinctly laid down that there can be no confusion. The Commander-in- chief is directly responsible for the command, discipline, and patronage of the army, and the Minister of War is indirectly responsible for the Commander-in-chief. Colonel NORTH said the resolution trenched on the prerogative of the Crown. General CODRINGTON said the powers of the two officers should be distinctly defined. Mr. ELLICE said the whole question is whether the Secretary for War alone shall take the pleasure of the Crown. He hoped that next session the question will be taken up seriously.

Here the subject dropped.

POLITICAL SERVICES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Earl STANHOPE on Monday, called attention to the Political or State Services of the Church of England, and moved the following resolution- " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into her Royal consideration the

proclamation of the first year of her Majesty's reign, commanding the use of the forms of prayer and service made for the 5th of November, the 30th of January, the 29th of May, and the 20th of June ; and should her

Majesty see fit, to order the substitution for the said proclamation of one declaring it her Majesty's Royal pleasure that only the service appointed for the 20th of June, being the anniversary of her Majesty's accession, shall henceforth be printed and published and annexed to the Book of Com- mon Prayer and Liturgy of the published

Church of England and Ireland, to be used yearly on the said day."

Praising our majestic and beautiful Liturgy, he asked the House to re- move from it portions that did not deserve the praise bestowed upon the real Liturgy. Those portions rest upon royal proclamation alone. In asking this he did not rely upon his own judgment only ; for he had taken counsel with many persons of weight and authority. Dean Mil- man and Chancellor Martin, divines of different schools, had united in Convocation to abolish these services, but had been prevented from pro- ceeding by technical difficulties. The subject was referred to a Com- mittee and that Committee had come to the conclusion that the services "rest on the sole power of the Crown." Lord Stanhope supported this view by an elaborate historical survey of the origin of these services. The 3d James I. enacted that the 5th November should be set apart to celebrate the deliverance of the King from the Gunpowder Plot, but it did not provide any form of service. Unless, therefore, the Crown had provided a service the day could not have been kept at all. A service was provided; but in 1688 it was remodelled and ordered to be used in churches by royal proclamation. It followed, therefore, that the act was obsolete, and that nothing more than a royal proclamation was considered necessary to enforce the remodelled service. But he had other objections. The form of prayer for the 5th November implies that there is some connexion between the tenets of the Roman Catholics and the practice of assassination. In the style of a party pamphlet it warns us against those who " turn religion into rebellion and faith into a faction." No one will say that from 1688 to 1858 the Roman Catholics are to be regarded as conspirators, and therefore, he contended, the prayer is not desirable or proper. The celebration of the 29th May, the Restoration, was enacted by Parliament, but no service was provided. The service of the 30th January was established by Parliament. New offices," said Bishop Burnet, " were drawn for two new days—the 30th of January, called King Charles the Martyr, and the 29th of May, the day of the King's birth and return. Bancroft drew for these some offices of a very high strain, yet others of a more moderate strain were preferred to them ; but he coming to be advanced to the see of Canterbury got his offices to be published by the King's authority in a time when so high a style as was in them did not sound well in the nation." As it stands the service for the 30th January has never been adopted by Convocation. Lord Stanhope, having shown that the services rest on Royal proclama- tions, examined them to ascertain whether it is desirable they should be retained on account of their intrinsic merits. It is not fitting, he said, that Charles I. should be styled the "Martyr." That title should be reserved for Christians who died rather than become pagans. It is a is graver ground of objection, that throughout the formulary a parallel IS drawn be tween the sufferings of our Divine Redeemer and those of Charles I. Then, in the evening service, Charles is described as " the greatest of kings and the best of men" ! Is it desirable that services of as questionable a cha- racter should be retained ? It would be more consistent with respect to the Crown to ask her Majesty to withdraw the services, than to take no notice of her prerogative and repeal the acts on which they are founded. The tendency of such services is to make the Church political, and to excite rancorous feelings. They are observed in very few churches unless they fall on a Sunday. They are a blot upon the Liturgy, and it would be de- sirable to remove them altogether. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that these services are practi- cally obsolete; they make no part of the Common Prayer ; and it would be more seemly that they should be regularly abolished than irregularly disregarded. Lord EBURY suggested that the proclamation made at the commencement of a new reign should be expunged from the Prayer- book, and the acts relating to these services be repealed. He accepted the motion as an instalment of a larger reform of the Liturgy. The Bishop of LONDON very earnestly and warmly supported the motion; but he took pains to combat the views of Lord Ebury with respect to the revision of the Liturgy. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH said he was old- fashioned enough to regret that the motion had been made. He could not defend the expressions quoted by Lord Stanhope. They should not have a place in the services of the Church. But he would prefer to ask the Crown not to abolish the services but to substitute for them others less objectionable. The argument against them, on the ground of objectionable phrases, would apply to the entire services of the Church and justify the whole Liturgy being changed and remodelled, for there were thousands of zealous lay members of the Church of England who would rather cut off their right hands than agree to all the expressions in the Athanasian Creed. The Bishop of BANGOR could not defend the special expressions cited, but he contended that the services, far from being obsolete, are " full of vigour and power," and ought to be retained. To expunge them would be to disclaim the providence of God in past times.

The Bishop of OXFORD could not assent to this proposition. He could not accept the services as fit and proper exponents of a nation's gratitude and humiliation. They are too political, too polemical, too epigram- matical. They have nothing of the chastened devotion that characterizes the Liturgy of the Church of England. He did not think they could be amended, and therefore it would be well to sever them from the Book of Common Prayer. He suggested, however, that all reference to the ac- cession service should be omitted from the address ; so that that service, to which he raised some qualified objections, should be left as it is. Her Majesty should not be asked either to enforce or withdraw it. Indeed he believed, on the authority of great lawyers, that the accession service cannot be enforced without violating the Act of Uniformity. The Bishop Of CASHEL, Lord CAMPBELL, and Lord CB.ANWORTII, supported the mo- tion. Lord DUNGANNON regarded it with regret. The Earl of Mums's- BURY thought that the acts of Parliament relating to these services should be repealed, and that the best course would be to repeal them by bill. The Bishop of Sr. ASAPH spoke against the motion.

The amendment suggested by the Bishop of Oxford having been made, and the reference to the 20th June struck out, the motion was agreed to.

THE ORANGE ASSOCIATION.

Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD called the attention of the House to the ap- pointment of Mr. Cecil Moore, Grand Secretary of the Orange Lodge of Tyrone, to the office of Crown prosecutor of Tyrone, and moved a reso- lution, declaring that the appointment of members of the Orange Society or any political society inculcating secresy on its members tends to create jealousy and suspicion highly detrimental to the ends of justice. Mr. Fitzgerald did not say much about Mr. Moore, except to condemn his appointment, but confined himself to an attack upon the Orange Society. He quoted from the speeches of Lord John Russell, Lord Mor- peth, and Sir Robert Peel, passages strongly condemnatory of these dan- gerous associations. In 1836 it was supposed that the Orange Society had dissolved, since the Duke of Cumberland stated his intention to take immediate steps for its dissolution. But the pledge was not substan- tially carried out. In 1845 the Society was ostensibly reorganized. He had in his hand copies of the rules of 1824, 1836, and 1845 ; he had compared them, and he defied any one to point out in what any one dif- fered from the others. He had examined the records of the Orange insti- tutions, and found the members to be uniformly men opposed to the pro- gress of national liberty. They were a political organization intended to defeat every measure of progress, and were banded together under pre- text of religion. The pretence of maintaining the principles of William HI. is a hypocritical pretence, for that monarch was in favour of uni- versal toleration. They are a secret society. They help Orangemen who have broken the law in their defence. They disturb society. Last year he found from the constabulary returns that there were 433 cases of offences arising out of Orange processions. He held that it is the bounden duty of Government to discourage Orangeism, and not appoint to legal offices members of the society.

Mr. WHITESIDE accused Mr. Fitzgerald of raking up disagreeble to- pics and reviving forgotten calumnies. And all for what ? Because a competent man has been appointed to a small place in his native county. The motion is a revival of the worst kind of persecution. It was not even true. Mr. Moore is not a member of the Orange Society. As soon as he was appointed Crown prosecutor Mr. Moore felt bound to withdraw from the Society. When Mr. Whiteside appoints a man to an office he does not inquire what are his politics. It would be unjust, illiberal, and mistaken, in any Government to reject the services of any fit man, be he Radical, Repealer, or Conservative. Repealers and something more have been appointed to offices, but he had never com- plained. As to the Orange Society he admitted with regret, that after it was dissolved it did come together again ; but it came together to oppose O'Connell, and uphold the Union and the Protestant religion. Mr. Whiteside read resolutions passed by the Society to show its objects, and said he should like to know the lawyer who could frame an indict- ment on the principles laid down in those resolutions. He declared that since 1843 the Orange Society has had no oath, no test, no secresy. If this matter had not been touched upon, the Orange Society might have been dissolved by the operation of the great events that have occurred in Ireland of late years. Mr. J. D. Frrzonitsui said that had Mr. Whiteside informed him, three weeks ago, of the withdrawal of Mr. Moore from the Orange So- ciety, he should not have brought on the motion. Lord PALMEBsTON remarked that the language of the Government conveyed the impres- sion that they would exert their influence against the Orange Societies. The discussion therefore had been of some advantage. He advised the withdrawal of the motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL asked whether they were going to repudiate the resolution of 1836 against secret societies, including Orange Societies ? Mr. Whiteside had said he wished these ocieties did not exist, but Lord John regretted that he had not heard him state the intention of the Government to discourage them. Mr. Duna= said the best way to discourage political societies would be to

discourage such motions as the present. He hoped the policy of the Government would be in harmony with the changed circumstances of Ireland. The motion referred to habits now obsolete.

He could only say, on the part of her Majesty's Government, that their course would be in conformity, with the newer and happier aspect of affairs now visible in the sister kingdom—that the policy they would adopt would be the policy which he trusted would always be pursued by those who sat on those benches, from whatever side of the Mouse they aught be recruited— viz., a policy just, generous, and conciliatory, which would not acknowledge any difference of creed or of party save that which was expressed in a fair and constitutional manner, and that the whole tenour of their conduct would be such as would not justify the repetition of motions like the one now before them. (Cheers.) He could not consent to the withdrawal of the motion.

Mr. ROEBUCK said the motion censured a particular act of the Attorney-Gcneral. That act had been vindicated, and he could not vote for the motion.

Motion negatived without a division, amid Ministerial cheering.

THE UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

In Committee on this bill at the Monday's morning sitting there were no fewer than four divisions. On clause 4 Mr. DUNLOP moved an amendment to take away from the Senatus Acadcmicus the power of ad- ministering the property and revenues of the University in each case. Ne- gatived by 85 to 22. Mr. BLACK then moved an amendment continuing the administration of the revenues of the University of Edinburgh to the Corporation of Edinburgh. Negatived by 78 to 22. Clause agreed to. On clause 7, which relates to the University Court of the University of St. Andrew's, Mr. DUNLOP proposed an amendment giving the elec- tion of the Lord Rector to the matriculated students. Agreed to.

Mr. BLACKBURN moved an amendment to provide that the Provost of St. Andrew's be a member of the General Council of that University. Negatived by 99 to 38. On clause 10, Mr. COWAN complained that the Lord Provost of Edin- burgh, who has been at the head of the University Board for 300 years, is excluded from a seat by the bill. Mr. Wiii.roLE moved an amend- ment providing that the Lord Provost should always be one of the asses- sors appointed by the Town-Council. Mr. BLACK said that would not satisfy his constituents. Amendment carried by 118 to 35.

The proceedings were arrested by the clock at clause 12.

The bill finally went through Committee on Thursday. Clause 13 was amended so as to transfer the patronage hitherto exercised by the Town Council to seven curators, four of whom should be nominated by the Town Council and three by the University Court, their term of office being for three years.

On clause 19, which laid the charge of providing for retiring allow- ances, increasing salaries, endowing new professorships, &c., upon the Consolidated Fund, Mr. BAXTER moved the following proviso—" Pro- vided always that it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners to apply any portion of such moneys for the endowment of professorships in theo- logy." His object was to protest against religious endowments by the State. Negatived by 102 to 94. Sir JOHN TRELAWNY divided the Committee against the clause, but was beaten by 125 to 76. The bill passed through Committee amid considerable cheering.

THE MARRIAGE LAW.

On the motion for going into Committee on Lord Bury's Marriage Law Amendment Bill—legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister —Mr. LYGON moved that the House should go into Committee that day six months. There was little debate, and the amendment was negatived by 99 to 58.

On clause 1, legalizing all past and future marriages with a deceased wife's sister, Mr. LYGON moved that the operation of the clause should be restricted to future marriages. It was urged by Mr. WALPOLE, Sir HUGH Camis, and others, that the effect of the clause would be in some cases to make a man the husband of two wives ; for some bigamists had evaded the law by pleading that one of the marriages was with the de- ceased wife's sister. There would also be difficulties in settling pro- perty. Mr. HENLEY and Mr. HOPE said that the persons who bad vio- lated the law had done so with their eyes open. The answer from Lord BURY and Lord GODERICH was, that the retrospective action of the clause would only be just. If not agreed to, it would stamp innocent children with illegitimacy. Lord BURY said he would propose a clause to meet the case pointed out by Mr. Walpole. The amendment was negatived by 129 to 78. Mr. STEUART proposed to insert the words "or deceased wife's niece." Lord BURY opposed it, and it was withdrawn. An at- tempt was made to report progress, but it was defeated by 129 to 65. The clause was then agreed to. Another attempt was made to report progress, but it failed. By 140 to 98, Ireland was excluded from the operation of the bill. Lord BURY proposed a new clause, providing that nothing in the act "shall render valid any marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, if either of the parties to such marriage shall, after having contracted such marriage, and before the passing of this act, have been married to any other person." But it was objected that this clause would be better discussed on the report. A third motion to report pro- gress was defeated by 145 to 94. At this stage Lord Bury withdrew the clause for the present, and the bill passed through Committee amid the cheers of its supporters.

FREEDOM FROM ARREST.—Mr. HUNT moved the second reading of his bill abolishing the privilege enjoyed by Members of freedom from arrest for debt. Formerly, he said, Members could not be sued ; their goods were exempt from distraint, and even their servants were exempt from arrest. All these privileges have been abolished, and freedom of speech, and free- dom from arrest for debt alone remain. It is time that Members, who cannot now fear oppression from the Crown should be placed on the same footing with the rest of the community. The House has abolished property qualification ; men of straw may now be returned ; and therefore the pri- vilege of freedom from arrest should be abolished. Mr. BOUVERIE defended a privilege which protects the independence of Members, and is shared in by barristers attending the courts or on circuit, justices of the peace at sessions, suitors and witnesses, the Queen's ser- vants, and foreign ambassadors and their servants. On what ground also did the bill draw a distinction between Peers and Members of the House of Commons ? The amendment was negatived by 129 to 76, and the bill was read a second time.

THE GALWAY FB.EEMEN.—The House went into Committee on Tuesday morning on the Galway Freemen Diefranchisement Bill. But no sooner had they done so than Mr. Burr moved that the Chairman should leave the chair. Mr. Ctrvir said that some notice should be taken of the report of a Committee that had proved the existence of systematic bribery and corrup- tion in Galway. Mr. lic-steots asked Mr. Clive if he really thought the bill could be passed this session ? Ile should support Mr. Butt. The Minis- terial party generally followed Mr. Walpole ; but on a division they were defeated by 107 to 90. On clause 1 disfranchising all the freemen, Mr. WHITESTDE moved an amendment disfranchising all voters proved to have given or taken bribes at the last election for Galway. This was carried, after a short debate, by 158 to 101. Here the Chairman reported pro- gress.

ENDOWED Serroots (InntAien.)—Mr. Krnx called attention to the re- port of the Commissioners who have inquired into the state of the Endowed Schools in Ireland, and moved that the evils disclosed required prompt re- medies. There are 976 school endowments in operation, worth annually, 68,5701. ; 296, worth 71791., not in operation ; 29 contingent endowments, worth 883/. ; and 178, worth 2574/., lost to the cause of education. For want of proper management these funds have been nearly expended in vain. Lord Nias, admitting the abuses referred to by Mr. Kirk, pointed out that the Commissioners were divided in opinion as to the remedies, and that as their voluminous report had been only a short time in the hands of the Go- vernment, they had not been able to maturely consider what would be the best remedy. Motion withdrawn.

CROWN FORESTS.—Mr. CAIRD moved a 'resolution condemning the sys- tem of management in the Crown allotment of Hainault Forest since it was disafforested. He contended that the expenses had been excessive. They had paid 80001. for management. He could find a dozen men who would do all the work for 5001. and make it pay. Mr. G. A. HAMILTON defended the course pursued. He admitted that the improvement operations have been costly, but said the work had been well done. Motion withdrawn.

THE TRAMES.—The attention of the Government in both Houses has been again called to the state of the Thames. Sir JOSEPH PAXTON having recommended that lime should be thrown into the sewers about three- quarters of a mile from their mouths, Lord JOHN MANNERS said that the government has authorized the Board of Works to take measures much the same as those suggested by Sir Joseph. Mr. DisnAntr assured the House that as far as immediate relief is concerned, the Government have taken the most decisive measures. They sanctioned a series of remedial operations on Saturday last, which would require the use of between 200 and 250 tons of lime per day, involving an expenditure of about 1500/. per week. This shows that the steps being taken are of no trivial character. With regard to more permanent measures, they were of too grave a nature, as web in point of expense as upon other grounds, to be conveniently discussed at that moment.

DEFALCATIONS AT WEEDON.-011 the motion of Colonel BOLDER°, an address to the Queen has t on adopted, praying that a Royal Commission may be appointed to inquire into the mode of conducting the business of the establishment at Weedon. This step has been taken in consequence of the frauds in the management of the clothing and stores, and in the general conduct of business there.

pilaw BVSINESS.—On the motion of Mr. DISRAELI it was ordered that on and after Tuesday next Orders of the Day take precedence of Notices of Motion.