Protestants should have, under government superintendence, the advantage of a sound moral, literary and religious education. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE deprecated any hasty interference with a system which had been more successful than could have been anticipated. The Earl of DESART and the Earl of RODEN spoke briefly against the national system, and the subject dropped. On Thursday the 18th, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, after moving for certain returns of the police force in the United Kingdom, which were granted, asked whether it was the intention of the government to adhere to the decision of the late government not to give Aid to Volunteer Rifle Corps. The Earl of DERBY answered that the government concurred with the decision of the late ministry on this subject. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved an address to the Crown in furtherance of the establishment of a State Lunatic Asylum for the Custody of Criminal Lunatics; but the Earl of Derby objecting, the motion was after some discussion withdrawn. of BRÉADALBANE said the corruptor appeared to be a greater culprit than the person corrupted, and they ought to see if some severe measure could not be adopted to punish him.—The bill was then read a first time. On Tuesday, the 23rd, the LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of the Bill for Amending the Law of Wills, and after explaining the inconveniences which attended the existing system of signatures, proposed that the bill, if it met with their lordships' approbation, should be forwarded through all its stages as speedily as possible, in order that it might pass before Easter.Lords Brougham, Cranworth, and Ellenborough having given their support to the bill, it was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Lord BEAUMONT then called the attention of the house to the State of Affairs on the River Plate, and having given a sketch of the history of the various republics watered by that river, from their origin down to the recent expulsion of Rosas, asked several questions connected with the trade and commerce of those republics, and concluded by urging on the government to lose no time in entering into negotiations for establishing a free navigation along the Plate, Parana, and Paraguay rivers.-Lord MALMESBURY replied that it was not in his power to answer all the questions put by the noble lord at present, but as soon as he had heard of the expulsion of Rosas, he put himself into communication with the government of the French republic, for the sake of renewing such negotiations with the states along the River Plate, as would contribute to the peace of those states and the commercial interests of both nations. what had fallen from Lord Malmesbury. The independence of the Oriental republic, which was the main object of our interference in the River Plate, was now accomplished. Having had some experience in these negotiations, he was anxious to testify that nothing could have exceeded the good faith with which France, both as a monarchy and a republic, had acted towards us in the affairs of the River Plate, and he was therefore glad to hear that the noble lord had put himself into communication with the government of that country, with regard to the recent occurrences at Buenos Ayres.Some further discussion took place, in the course of which Lord Malmesbury promised to furnish Lord Beaumont with a copy of the last despatch received by the government relating to the expulsion of Rosas. On Friday the 19th, the Duke of NEWCASTLE, in presenting a petition from the Manchester Commercial | Association, deprecating any return to protection, and requiring that the country should be relieved from the anxiety and uncertainty consequent upon the nonexplanation of the ministerial policy, declared that he could give no support to ministers until they announced that they had no intention of attempting the reimposition of a corn duty. He asked whether they were prepared to Dissolve Parliament with the least possible delay.-The Earl of DERBY said that he had-The Earl of ABERDEEN expressed his satisfaction at not observed any such anxiety as the petitioners spoke of. He admitted the desirability of an early settlement of the commercial policy of the country, and also of the larger question, by whom should that policy be administered. For such a settlement he was as anxious as the noble duke, and he would go so far as to say that he thought next autumn should not pass over without a new parliament having had an opportunity of declaring conclusively the verdict of the nation on the course of policy proposed by her Majesty's government. He would give no pledge inconsistent with his duty to the Crown, but as far as in him should lie, the ordinary and current business of the legislature should not be interfered with by discussions on the general financial policy of the government.—In the conversation which ensued, and in which Lord Bateman and Lord Wodehouse spoke, the Earl of Aberdeen and Earl Grey expressed themselves satisfied with the answer of the Premier. On Thursday the 25th, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH having given notice of a question on the recent hostilities with Ava, the Earl of DERBY stated that though a collision had taken place between the East India On Monday the 22nd, Lord BROUGHAM laid on the Company's forces and those of the Sovereign of Ava, no table a bill to Amend an Oversight in the Statutory Law, war had yet been declared. He was not in a position to touching the Assembling of Parliament by Proclamation give any detailed information until the arrival of the of the Crown. At present a new parliament could not next mail. Lord MONTEAGLE moved for a select combe assembled until 50 days from the time of the procla-mittee on the Irish Consolidated Annuities Act, and mation; and the object of his bill was to reduce the instanced numerous cases of hardship resulting from the time from 50 to 25 days. He had brought the bill enforcement of the repayment of the advances. The forward because if any of his noble friends behind him Earl of GLENGALL supported the motion. The Earl of (the opposition) had done so, their motives might have DERBY consented to grant the committee, and admitted been questioned. He took the opportunity of impressing that a revision of the law was necessary for the purpose upon their lordships the absolute necessity that existed of affording relief to those localities which had obtained for taking immediate and stringent steps to put down the advances only for the purpose of preserving the the bribery and corruption which was now practised at people from starvation. elections. They were approaching a dissolution of parliament, and he hoped before that event took place some measure would be brought forward to put an end to bribery at elections. He was satisfied that bribery at elections would never be put down unless the member returned were compelled to make a searching, stringent, thorough-going, and sifting declaration that he had not directly or indirectly been guilty of bribery. The Earl of DERBY did not see any objection to the introduction of the bill. At the same time, he thought it was a matter which ought to be debated in parliament.-There were occasions when the shortening of the period between the proclamation and the assembling of parliament would be most desirable. With reference to the subject of bribery at elections, he said that a bill had been introduced by her Majesty's late government, the essential provisions of which had been adopted by the present government, and it was now under the consideration of the other house of parliament.-The Marquis IN the HOUSE OF COMMONS, on Friday, Feb. 27th, the SPEAKER was directed to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for New Writs for Elections in those places which are represented by members of the government. -Mr. BRAMSTON moved for a new writ in respect to the borough of Harwich, a proposition which elicited a debate of considerable animation. Eventually it was withdrawn. Mr. C. P. VILLIERS gave notice that, upon as early a day as he could procure after her Majesty's ministers had taken their seats, he should submit a resolution to the house declaratory of its intention to preserve the Policy of Free-Trade, and to resist any attempt to reimpose a duty upon foreign Corn. The house adjourned for a fortnight. On Friday, March 12th, the majority of the newlyelected ministers took the oaths and their seats. New writs were moved in consequence of the acceptance of office by Lords Newport and Galway. [MARCH. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had introduced the New Reform Bill as a minister of the Crown, in pursuance of the speech from the throne; and as he did not think that, as an individual member, he should be able to carry it, he would move that it be read a second time that day three months. He would not, however, preclude himself from bringing forward, if he should think proper, a general resolution upon reform and extension of the suffrage.-Mr. HUME regretted that Lord John Russell had taken such a course.-Mr. WILLIAMS was glad that such a bill had been aban-policy, which would disturb all the material interests of doned.—Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE complained of the condition in which the question of reform was left, and urged upon Lord J. Russell to bring in a bill which would satisfy the country. Was such a question to be left to an anti-reform government ?-Mr. Grantley BERKELEY's opinion was that Lord John Russell had done quite right in withdrawing the bill. The motion was then agreed to. Majesty's ministers as to the policy which the present Foreign Commerce, and especially that portion engaged government intended to pursue for the regulation of our in supplying food for the people. The country, he observed, had been more perplexed by the information which had been furnished upon this subject than if it had received none. It wished to know whether, and in what way, and how soon, her Majesty's present ministers were prepared to bring forward the policy they had advocated when in opposition, in order that it might be relieved from suspense. He said that the change of ministry had inspired an apprehension of a change of the country; peace and comfort had given place to uncertainty and alarm. Even if the people were indifferent to privileges which had rendered their condition so prosperous, that house should not be silent, but should tell them that the precious gift was about to be taken from them. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, to make a candid and open avowal of the intentions of the government upon the On the order of the day for the second reading of the subject of their policy in relation to foreign commerce, St. Albans Disfranchisement Bill being read, Sir G. and especially whether they meant to reimpose a duty, GREY said that he would leave the bill in the hands of upon foreign corn.-The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEthe government.-Mr. WALPOLE accepted the care of QUER, though he questioned the reality of the alarm and the bill.-Mr. Jacob BELL pleaded against the dis-distrust to which Mr. Villiers had referred, was ready to franchisement of the borough, and, by way of showing respond fairly and frankly to his challenge. Casting a that St. Albans was no worse than other places, went retrospective glance upon the course he had taken with into a minute description of the dishonest practices respect to the question of Protection-which, he said, he habitual with election agents. He urged the alteration had distinctly declared, as an abstract question, was no of the bribery laws, which, he considered, were defeated longer to be considered in that house until an appeal by their own severity; and he moved the adjournment had been made to the country-he observed that her of the debate, expecting, he said, a petition from St. Majesty's present ministers believed that very great Albans. No seconder of the motion appeared.-Mr. injustice had been done to the agricultural and other HUME complimented the government on their having interests since 1846, and that it was desirable, for the taken up the bill, and urged them to pursue the purifi- benefit of all classes, that this injustice should be cation of the constituencies.-Sir De Lacy EVANS also redressed. But they were not pledged to any specific thanked the government for adopting the bill, and measures, and though he would not, to gain popularity, hoped he should have their support when moving the propose in a future Parliament a moderate fixed duty disfranchisement of Harwich. The bill was then read a upon corn, yet he would not, to avoid bluster, give it as second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday. his opinion that such a duty was one which no minister On Friday, March 12th, Lord John RUSSELL an- under any circumstances ought to propose; but the pronounced that he did not intend, as a private member, position should not be made until the verdict of the to press on the Parliamentary Reform Bill of the late country had been obtained. He then announced the government; but hinted that he might probably move measures which the government proposed to bring fora resolution pledging the house on the subject of the ward-namely, first, the bill already introduced for extension of the franchise. The Bribery Prevention the disfranchisement of St. Albans, in connexion with Bill he hoped to proceed with. which he should hereafter explain the intention of Mr. WALPOLE, on the part of the government the government with respect to the distribution of the moved the second reading of the St. Albans Disfran- vacant seats; secondly, Chancery reform; and, thirdly, chisement Bill, which was agreed to after an ineffectual a measure for the internal defence of the country. opposition on the part of Mr. BELL only, whose amend- Having thus explained the course of ministerial policy, ment fell to the ground for want of a seconder. he called upon Lord J. Russell to explain with equal frankness the principles upon which the new opposition was to be conducted, in which Sir James Graham and Mr. Cobden were to be auxiliaries; and he concluded by declaring that he and his colleagues trusted to the sympathy of the country, which he was convinced would support them in their attempt to do their duty to their Sovereign, and in their resolution to baffle the manœuvres of faction.-Lord John RUSSELL said he was glad of an opportunity to obviate the misrepresentations which had been made upon the subject, by stating the reasons why the late ministers, who would have been worried out of office, had resigned. Having given these explanations, he adverted to the unusual, if not unconstitutional, attempt of the present ministers to conduct the government with a minority in that house. A question was asked, "What is to be the price of the food of the people ?" and the house was told that next February they might learn something about it, but at present the mouths of the ministers were closed. The same with colonial and other questions, respecting which Mr. Disraeli with the word "frankness" upon his lips, had given no explanation whatever. Lord John then described the policy of the late government, under which, he observed, the country had flourished in an unexampled degree, avowing his belief that there never was a system which had conduced more to the benefit of the country than the commercial policy commenced in 1842. If this policy was maintained, the country would, he said, continue to flourish; but it could not be suspended, it must be active and progressive. The course proposed The Personal Estates of Intestates Bill passed through committee. On Monday, March 15th, Sir J. PAKINGTON (in reply to a question put by Mr. J. Wilson, with reference to the Sugar Duties,) said that, as a member of a government in an acknowledged minority in that house, it was his duty to take the course best suited for the object in view-the relief of West India distress; and as there was nothing in the case of the sugar duties which should make it an exception to the policy which her Majesty's government had avowed their determination to pursue not unnecessarily to press upon Parliament during the present session questions which it would be better to reserve for another Parliamentit was not his intention during the present session to bring forward his motion. The opinions he had repeatedly expressed upon this subject had, however, undergone no change, but her Majesty's ministers had determined that this question, like others of a similar nature, ought to be reserved for a future Parliament. In reply to a further question, Sir John stated that the reduction of duty which was to take place on the 5th of July, would not be interfered with. In answering a question by Mr. Adderley, Sir J. PAKINGTON said he had thought it his duty to send out a despatch by the present mail, pressing upon the Legislative Council at the Cape of Good Hope to take the legislative ordinances sent to the colony into early consideration. Mr. C. VILLIERS rose to make an inquiry of her by the present ministers of holding these questions in suspense, though highly convenient to themselves, was most inconvenient to the country.-Mr. HERRIES contended that the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the only answer which, under the circumstances, could be given. He disputed the alleged prosperity of our shipping trade, which, he contended, was passing into the hands of foreigners. Even the augmentation of our exports proved nothing as to the success of the new commercial system, since our exports had largely increased under the old system.-Sir J. GRAHAM rose, he said, in consequence of the challenge of Mr. Disraeli to state the grounds of the opposition he was assumed to be about to offer to her Majesty's government, and he would explain the view he took of the present crisis of public affairs. He was not about to offer any factious opposition to the government; but the question now at issue, he considered, affected the happi ness and well-being of every individual in the community. It was not a question of a 5s. or a 7s. duty upon corn, but whether the whole of a commercial policy should be reversed, the result of which had far exceeded the most sanguine expectations of its authors. He had no doubt whatever as to the policy intended by the present government-namely, to dissolve Parliament, for the purpose of imposing a duty upon imports, and among them a duty upon corn. In order to prove this, he read a series of avowals made by Lord Derby, that a reversal of the free trade policy was indispensable. His lordship's explicit declaration to this effect had prevented Mr. Gladstone last year, and Lord Palmerston lately, from becoming his colleagues in the government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had disclaimed any appeal ad misericordiam; but the Earl of Derby had expressly said he knew he was in a minority in that house, and that he relied upon its forbearance; and he (Sir James) denied that any instance could be found in parliamentary history of such an admission and such an appeal, which, he contended, were at variance with our representative system. Addressing himself, then, to the allegation that agricultural property had diminished, he denied its accuracy, which was inconsistent with the facts, that, while the surface of arable land had not decreased, large sums had been expended in draining and manure, and that 355,000 acres of waste land had been inclosed in England alone. Meanwhile, taxes had been remitted to the amount of 4,200,0007., and yet the receipts into the Exchequer had increased by 4,800,000l. Sir James stated various facts in corroboration of his assertion that our late commercial policy had been eminently successful, and he warned the house of the consequences of reversing that policy, the maintenance of which was the single object he had in view in joining the opposition. In almost the last conversation he had had with the late Sir R. Peel, that lamented statesman had declared to him that there was no effort he would not make to maintain the free trade policy, which he considered indispensable to the peace and happiness of the country; and there was no effort he (Sir James) would not make, and no sacrifice he would not encounter, to uphold that policy. Mr. GLADSTONE regarded the subject in two points of view-first, the duty of the house in regard to the position of the government; secondly, its duty in respect to the question of Protection. Upon the first point he observed, that the house was entitled to ask from the government a distinct assurance that after the despatch of necessary business the Crown would be advised to appeal to the country. To obtain that assurance was the main duty incumbent upon the house, which should not allow subjects not of pressing necessity to be dealt with by a government in a minority. With respect to the other point, it was said there was no intention to reverse the policy of free-trade, only to alter and modify it; but he was opposed to the modification as well as to the reversal of that policy, and he desired to bring the question to a prompt and final decision, if not in this Parliament, in a few months in another. On the whole, he was disposed to press one moderate and just demand upon the government, that the business of the country should be expedited with all possible despatch, and that the Crown should then be advised to appeal to the sense of the people.-Lord PALMERSTON said, he wished shortly to state his view of the present position of the government and the duty of the house. The former was perfectly anomalous, and in principle unconstitutional, for it was proposed to carry on the business of the country in a house of commons where the ministers were in a minority-a state of things which could not last. A dissolution, in the state of public business, was admitted to be impossible; the house, therefore, ought to exhibit forbearance towards the government, and assist it in carrying through the necessary measures, until they had so disposed of this business as to enable them to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the country. Having taken the sense of the people, Parliament should be called together at the earliest period to come to a final decision upon this great question.—Mr. M. GIBSON said, the question was the propriety of urging the government to a speedy dissolution of Parliament, and he strongly impressed upon them the necessity of this course, to save the country from the evils of allowing a question of this kind to be left in uncertainty and jeopardy.-Mr. NEWDEGATE, as a Protectionist, was content with the declaration of Lord Derby, his object being justice to the great interests of the country, and a modification of a policy which had created great distress. He disputed the assertion of Sir J. Graham, that the quantity of corn grown in this country had not diminished under the present policy. After some remarks from Sir A. СocáBURN and Mr. BOOKER, the house went into committee; and a vote of 39,000 seamen and marines for the ensuing year, and votes of sums for their wages and victualling, were agreed to. On Tuesday, March 16, Mr. DISRAELI, having been questioned by Mr. Hume, denied that there were any papers in the Foreign-office granting the Territory of Sarawak to the British Commissioner at Bornco, or that the British flag had been hoisted at Sarawak. Lord Robert GROSVENOR, in putting a question to the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests on the subject of the Ventilation of the House, drew a dismal picture of the sufferings members were compelled to undergo while attending to their legislative duties. If something were not done speedily he anticipated fatal consequences.-Mr. W. PATTEN made a similar complaint in regard to the committee rooms.-Lord J. MANNERS expressed the desire of his department to do all that was possible to remedy the evil. Dr. Reid's report, which had just been presented, would be considered, and Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney had been asked to give his opinion on the subject. Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, in reply to questions from Mr. T. Duncombe, intimated that it would depend on the continuance of the session, and the state of public business, whether any measure would be substituted for that of last year, which had failed in its object, of carrying out Extramural Interments. Nothing could be done in reference to the Metropolitan Water-supply until they had the report of the select committee on the subject. And, in answer to another question, the right hon. gentleman intimated that the Crystal Palace would be removed by the 1st of May. Mr. MUNTZ complained of the unfairness with which Mr. Archer, the inventor of the Machine for Perforating the Sheets of Postage Labels, had been treated by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and moved for a committee of inquiry; upon which Mr. GROGAN interposed an amendment, to direct the inquiry to the present mode of engraving, printing, and gumming the postage label stamps; and likewise whether and how the perforating machine, invented by the patentee, could be applied to the same with advantage to the public.-To the motion so amended the government, through Mr. G. A. HAMILTON, consented. Mr. J. STUART submitted a resolution, pledging Parliament to grant assistance towards the formation of a Railway Communication between Oban, in the Western Highlands, and Glasgow, with the view to provide employment for the people, and to improve the condition of the country. He quoted the grants made for facilitating Irish railroads as justifying the application. The motion was supported by Mr. MACGREGOR. -Sir G. STRICKLAND was opposed to the granting of public money for such works on principle, and in the present case especially, when the object was to form a railroad through an uninhabited and mountainous district. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, without laying it down as a rule that the state should in no case assist in forwarding enterprises of this nature, thought no sufficient grounds had been shown justifying such assistance in the present case. He did not deny that a railroad would be an advantage to the district, but he reminded the mover that there was an annual grant applicable to such purposes. Supposing the object to be a proper one, and it were put forward on sound data, an application made to the Loan Commissioners of Public Works for a grant would meet with due attention.-Sir A. CAMPBELL reminded the house that the proposed railway partook more of a public than a private work.-Mr. HuME was satisfied that the only remedy for the distress in the Highlands was emigration. He saw no advantage that could result to the country from a railroad in the district in question, where there was no traffic to make it remunerative.-After some further conversation, Mr. F. SCOTT moved the adjourn ment of the debate for a fortnight, to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of further considering the subject, which was agreed to. Mr. NAPIER moved for a select committee to inquire into the State of the Disturbed Districts in Ireland, the object being to ascertain the cause of the crime which had disgraced those localities, and the sufficiency or insufficiency of the laws to meet the evil. As proving the organisation of ribbonism, he quoted the charges of the judges at the special commission, the failure of justice in so many instances arising from the intimidation or complicity of jurors and witnesses, and the open-day murders committed almost with impunity. No doubt, if it could be properly administered, the law would be sufficient; but to do this they must convince the people -who were now prevented by terrorism from aiding the law-that the law could vindicate itself and protect them. He recommended an alteration in the jury laws, in order that juries to try cases which affected the security of life and property should be composed of a class of persons who would not be likely to be intimidated; and, as an additional safeguard, he would suggest that the judges should have the power to direct the trial to be holden in another part of the country. He thought, too, it might be wise, under certain restrictions, to re-enact the law making it penal to be in possession of signs and pass-words.-Mr. HATCHELL took on himself all responsibility in regard to the late special commission, and explained the cause of the failure of justice, suggesting, at the same time, that where it had failed, the Crown had still the power to try the parties in other parts of the country. He admitted some alteration was necessary in the jury laws, but deprecated any change which should interfere with the liberty of the subject. Mr. M'CULLAGH ascribed much of the outrage in Ireland to the want of confidence existing between the owners and occupiers of land, the neglect of the duties of property, and the wholesale evictions that were from time to time carried on. He denied there was any necessity for changing the law because in a particular district there had been a difficulty in obtaining convictions. After a few words from Mr. GROGAN, the motion was agreed to. The second reading of the Manchester and Salford Education Bill was moved on Wednesday, the 17th, by Mr. BROTHERTON, who stated that the measure had originated with the inhabitants of those boroughs, amongst whom were three parties, all desirous of promoting education, but who differed as to the means, the bill being promoted by the party in favour of a combined religious education, whilst only the advocates of the voluntary system opposed the bill altogether.-Mr. M. GIBSON moved, as an amendment, the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the state of education in Manchester and Salford, and to report whether it was desirable to make any and what further provision for the education of their inhabitants by means of local rates. He looked upon this as a very extraordinary private bill. The reasonable mode of dealing with this subject was by settling the general principles of a measure applicable to the whole community, and then to allow particular localities to avail themselves, if they thought fit, of the general provisions. So important a change in public policy should be preceded by inquiry. Independently of this preliminary objection, he disliked some of the provisions of the bill, though not averse to the supporting of education by local rates. Mr. ROEBUCK seconded the amendment.-Mr. WALPOLE, commending the motives of the promoters of this measure, and desiring to assist them, thought the house should not sanction the second reading of the bill, but should adopt the amendment, with some alteration. The rating clauses of the bill would supersede the voluntary efforts of religious bodies to contribute to the education of children of the humbler classes, and the making all schools open to all children was a principle the consequences of which should be well weighed. There were other principles in the bill which required consideration, and he recommended the house, as the safest course, to adopt the amendment, omitting the words relating to local rating.-Lord J. RUSSELL agreed in the main principles laid down by Mr..Walpole, and thought the promoters of the measure could not do better than consent to the appointment of a committee, and suspend the bill until the committee had made its report. Lord John indicated his views upon the subject of these schools, which, he believed, could only be supported by something in the shape of a local rate. He concurred in the great principle contained in the bill, that education ought not to be purely secular.-After some observations from Sir R. INGLIS, Mr. W. J. Fox, and Colonel THOMPSON, Mr. GIBSON consented to alter his motion as suggested, and after a few remarks by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the second reading of the bill was deferred for a month, and a select committee was appointed. On Thursday, the 18th, Mr. REYNOLDS moved a resolution, pledging the house to consider the Losses sustained by the Depositors in the Cuffe-street Savings Bank, with the view to granting them compensation.The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER resisted the motion, on the ground that the 30,000l. granted in 1850 was paid as a settlement of the question.—Mr. H. HERBERT advised Mr. Reynolds to withdraw the motion, which it would be scarcely fair to the present government to press at the present moment.-Mr. NAPIER said that, as this was a question between the depositors and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt-in other words the public-their losses ought to be made good. He rejoiced to say that the whole subject was now under consideration, with the view of preventing such such defalcations in future. - Mr. HUME expressed a similar opinion as to the right of the depositors. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY considered all savings banks should be placed under the control of some responsible officer. It was well known that the funds in these banks had not been used on the principle of a trust.-Mr. SCULLY and Mr. GROGAN spoke in favour of the claims of the depositors, and Mr. W. WILLIAMS in favour of an alteration of the law, so as to afford security to the depositors and the public.-Mr. REYNOLDS insisted on taking a division, the result of which was the loss of the motion; 149 against 40 votes. On Friday, the 19th, the CHANCELLOR of the ExCHEQUER being questioned on the subject, intimated that government intended to propose the continuance of the Irish Incumbered Estates Commission Act, which expires in July next, for another year. On being further questioned by Lord John Russell as to the intentions of government with regard to the Dissolution of Parliament, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that it would be highly indecorous and impolitic for ministers to say they would advise her Majesty to dissolve at any specific period, for circumstances might arise to prevent the performance of the pledge, if given. He was, however, prepared to say, that it was the intention of government to advise her Majesty, so soon as those measures necessary for the public service and good government should have passed, to dissolve the present parliament; and he added, that this would be done sufficiently early to enable the opinion of the new parliament to be taken on the policy of the ministry in the course of the present year. The house then went into a Committee of Supply, and Major BERESFORD brought forward the Army Estimates, stating that they were the same which had been prepared by the late government. A very long course was unconstitutional. Why was he to assume that Lord John Russell could command a greater number of followers than themselves? He believed himself perfectly justified in the course he was taking. Nothing had occurred to shake his confidence in the good sense of the house of commons, or to induce him to believe that any good measure brought forward by government would be rejected, nor would he condescend to speak as a minister existing by sufferance. If Lord John Russell acted in the factious spirit of the convention to which reference had 'been made, he did not believe he would have the support of the house. Answering that part of Lord John Russell's speech which referred to Lord Derby, he explained expressions in that speech which he said Lord John Russell had stooped to misinterpret, and he concluded with a glowing eulogium upon the Premier. Further observations were made by Mr. Bright, Mr. W. Miles, Mr. Cayley, the Marquis of Granby, and Colonel Thompson; and Mr. OSBORNE having intimated that he had no intention to divide the house on the estimates, the vote of men for the army was agreed to. On Monday, the 22nd, Mr. SCHOLEFIELD asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the government intended to acquiesce in the decision of the judges in the case of the "Queen. v. Publishers of the Household Narrative of Current Events," and if not, what course the government meant to pursue with regard to other publications issued under similar circumstances? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the case had been referred to the law officers of the crown, who would confer with the late law officers, and when he was informed of the result of their opinion, he would be able to give an answer to the question. and desultory debate ensued, embracing almost every topic connected with the policy of the new administration. Mr. OSBORNE maintained that the house ought to grant neither money nor men to a government in which it had no confidence.-Mr. COBDEN insisted that the house was bound to bring the present parliament to a close by constitutional means, in order that the question of free-trade or Protection might be brought to a conclusion.-Lord John RUSSELL observed that there were two questions-one the constitutional question, the other as to the commercial policy of the last ten years. With regard to the first, the present government, he thought, had taken a course for which there was no precedent in our constitutional history, and for which there was no ground in the maxims and rules of the constitution. They proposed to go on to the end of the session, upon the assumption that they were in a minority; in November or December parliament might be dissolved, and they were to meet the house of commons again in February. The pretence put forward by the present ministers, that it was a surprise to them to be called to take office, which nothing would have induced them to dc but the pain of seeing the Sovereign without advisers, was, he contended, a false pretence, since it was totally inconsistent with their conduct last year, whilst the majority in favour of Lord Palmerston's motion consisted chiefly of members and supporters of the present government. Having proposed to take an extraordinary course-that of carrying on the 'government for eleven months without the confidence of that house-they sought to cover their conduct by every kind of false pretence. Lord John then proceeded to the second point-the hazard to which our commercial policy was exposed-and after justifying his own views towards the agricultural interest, and reviewing the supposed On the order of the day, for going into a committee of plans of the government for modifying or revising the supply, Lord John RUSSELL took occasion to make general taxation, he insisted that the country was enti- some observations on the Ministerial Explanations which tled to know the issue it was to try; that if he and his had been given since the Monday preceding. "I was friends showed forbearance, they ought not to be treated then anxious," he said, "to ascertain (considering the with contumely or in a supercilious manner. The Earl position of the government) the policy they intended of Derby, he added, had tried to raise another issue, to pursue, and the measures they proposed to bring which he had no right to raise; he alleged that he was forward in the present session. I was told that, as they minister in order to prevent the outbreak and encroach- were in an acknowledged minority in the house, they ment of democracy. But it was by the policy which could not bring forward any measure with regard to our had been of late years pursued, whereby the people had commercial policy. I was also told, that they intended become more attached to the constitution and to con- to bring forward measures of considerable importance, stituted authorities, and less desirous of change, that which would have led to a session of the usual length. democracy could be effectually met.—The CHANCELLOR It struck many members of the house, during the debate, of the EXCHEQUER said that Lord J. Russell had de- that this course was so unusual, that it ought not to be clared that there were two questions before the house. acquiesced in. It would not have been unusual, if we He would remind them, however, that the question was had been asked for the forbearance of the house, in much simpler-it was the first motion of the newly con- consequence of the new government being in a structed opposition, a motion for stopping the supplies. minority, or if we had been told that they would bring Upon that question the government intended to divide. forward measures in which they were in a majority; He charged Lord John Russell with faction for forcing but to claim forbearance as a minority, and confidence his successor, instantly on his accession to office, to do as a majority, appeared to me to involve a great contrathat which he had himself declared unadvisable. Com- diction. At the close of the debate on Monday evening, menting upon Lord John Russell's sudden change of his being unwilling to come to any vote to limit the suppolicy upon a subject of such immense importance, he plies, or to declare any resolution adverse to the reiterated that all the precedents his lordship had cited government, I asked the right honourable gentleman, applied to condemned governments. In reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the governthe Chesham-place meeting, he said, that had Lord ment, between that and Friday evening, would reJohn Russell confined it to his "friends" (those who consider the course they intended to pursue. It voted with him on the militia bill for instance) nothing appeared to me to be a fair and conciliatory question, might have been said to an assembly for mutual con- and was certainly intended to prevent any angry debate solation; but Lord John Russell had asked his enemies, or adverse vote of the house immediately on the those who had perpetually made him uncomfortable, formation of a new government. The right honourand to them he had announced, that to please them he able gentleman did not seem to take it so, and only would change his policy, and would be ready to convert answered by taunts and sarcasms. On Friday, a statean oligarchical into a broad-bottomed ministry. After ment was made by the right honourable gentleman with further retort upon Lord John Russell, he repeated that regard to the course which the government meant to this was a motion to stop the supplies.-Lord John pursue, which was somewhat ambiguous; but I heard RUSSELL: "There.is no such motion before the house." from others that a statement had been made elsewhere -Amid much excitement reference was made to Mr. by the noble lord at the head of the government, Bernal, who stated that the only motion before the which indicated clearly the course which the governhouse was the original motion for the vote of men.-ment, of which he is the chief, intended to pursue. I Lord John RUSSELL and Mr. CARDWELL (to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer also referred) having severally disclaimed any idea of refusing the vote of men, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressed pleasure that, on second thoughts, both had seceded from Mr. Osborne, and proceeded with his reply, asserting the good intentions of government, and denying that its understand that the noble lord did not complain of the question which was put to him, to which I was no party, as to the view he took of the present state of affairs. He stated (and I think he was right in so stating) that he would not bind himself or the government to cause a dissolution of parliament at any particular moment, as there might be circumstances |