by saying that there was a striking analogy
between the government of the United States and
that which ought to be the system of government
in our colonial empire. "For," he said, "the United
States form a system of states clustered round a central
republic; our colonial empire ought to be a system of
colonies clustered round the hereditary monarchy of
England. The hereditary monarchy should possess the
powers of government, with the exception of that of
taxation, which the central republic possesses. If it
possessed less, the empire would cease to be one body
politic; if it continue to possess more, the colonies will
be discontented at the want of self-government, and on
the first occasion will imitate their brethren in
America." The motion, having been supported by
Mr. Adderley and Mr. Gladstone, and opposed by Mr.
Labouchere and Sir George Grey, was negatived by
165 to 42.

Mr. GLADSTONE then brought forward his proposal
of an Ecclesiastical Constitution for the Australian
Colonies. He contended that the system of established
religion does not prevail in Australia for any useful
purpose. The church is simply, like the sects, a
stipendiary church; although the power of appointment
to benefices lies with the Governor. There are no
ecclesiastical courts for the maintenance of discipline;
all discipline must emanate from the Prerogative Courts
of the Province of Canterbury, at the other side of the
world. The Bishop is powerless, unless he act with
arbitrary despotism, and without any forms of judicial
procedure at all and if he do this, the right of appeal
to home is a right upon paper alone. Mr. Gladstone
proposed, inasmuch as the Colonial Church is thus
excluded from the rights and privileges of establishment
to untie its hands from all disabilities, and let it fall
back on its original freedom. With this object he
moved that a clause be added to the bill enacting that
the bishops, clergy, and laity, in communion with the
church, in the several colonies, shall have power to
meet from time to time and make regulations for the
conduct of ecclesiastical affairs.—Mr. LABOUCHERE
opposed the motion, observing that, whatever might
be the mover's intentions, the effect of the clause would
be the establishment of an ecclesiastical synod, which
would have the power of making laws without the
sanction either of the colonial legislature or the imperial
parliament. After a debate in which the motion was
supported by Mr. Hope, Mr. Page Wood, Mr. Rundall
Palmer, and Mr. Walpole, and opposed by Mr. Anstey,
Mr. Roebuck, Sir G. Grey, the Attorney-General, and
Mr. Hume, it was negatived by 187 to 102.

On Tuesday the 7th, Mr. EWART moved the Repeal
of the Advertisement Duty; and briefly supported his
motion by the usual arguments—the obstructive operation
of the tax to transactions of business, the affairs of life,
and the diffusion of religion and knowledge—its injustice
and inequality, and the paltry amount of its produce.
It was seconded by Mr. Milner GIBSON, and opposed by
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, chiefly on the
ground that the finances could not bear any remission
of taxation beyond those he had announced in his
financial statement for the year. It was lost by 208 to
39.—The Sanitary Condition of the Journeymen
Bakers was then brought before the House by Lord R.
GROSVENOR,  who moved for a select Committee to
inquire whether any measures can be taken to improve
it.—Lord Dudley STUART seconded the motion, observing
that among the 16,000 persons interested in its fate, a
great number are mere lads.—Sir GEORGE GREY said,
that the state of the facts was well known and called
for no further inquiry; that the evils and hardships of
the journeymen bakers were not denied; but that the
only legitimate redress was an arrangement between the
employers and their workmen.—Mr. STAFFORD
prophesied that this rejection of the respectful supplications
of a numerous and industrious body—this sacrifice to
the cold fictions of political economy—would tell at
future elections. Such treatment of the people might
be politically philosophical, but was socially unsafe.
Mr. BRIGHT opposed the motion; quoted articles from
the Bakers' Gazette and General Traders' Advocate,
and asked the House to judge whether there was
anything in the projects which Robert Owen or the French
Socialist leaders had put forward, that more partook of
Communism than those articles. He would be ashamed
to be the mouthpiece of a brawny, stalwart race of men
—of Scotchmen too—who notwithstanding they have
sufficient intelligence to make their cause known to the
public through the medium of a newspaper, come to
the House to remedy their grievances.—Mr. George
THOMPSON repudiated Mr. Bright's doctrine, and felt
bound to separate from him altogether if he had no
better arguments for his principles than these.—Mr.
Sharman CRAWFORD, was also in favour of inquiry.
The House negatived the motion, by 90 to 44.

Mr. ANSTEY'S Irish Fisheries Bill, the principal
object of which was to place in the hands of a Board of
Commissioners the regulation of all the Irish fisheries,
was lost on Wednesday the 8th, on the question of the
second reading, by a majority of 197 to 37. The Bill
received only a qualified support , and Sir W. SOMERVILLE,
believing legislation on the subject to be necessary,
suggested the introduction of another bill, less objectionable
in its details.—Mr. LACY, in moving the second
reading of his Extramural Interment Bill, objected to
the plan proposed by the Board of Health and embodied
in the Ministerial Bill. His proposal was, that the
Railway Companies should be empowered to buy waste
lands on the margins of their railways, and establish
cemeteries on them. Mr. LABOUCHERE opposed the
bill on the single ground that it was contrary to all
principle to allow Railway Companies to embark in
traffic different from their legitimate business. The
bill was thrown out by 123 to 4.

On Friday, the 10th, in the Committee on the
Manchester Rectory Division Bill, Mr. GOULBURN moved
that the Salaries of the Canons should be £750. a-year,
instead of £600. The motion was opposed by Mr.
Milner Gibson and Sir George Grey, the matter having
been fully considered by the Select Committee; and
negatived by 193 to 60. The remaining clauses were
agreed to.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
stated the substance of his intended Stamp Duties Bill,
and intimated that on Monday he should move for a
Committee of the whole House on the subject.

The third reading of the Parliamentary Voters
(Irish) Bill was opposed by Lord Bernard, Mr. Napier,
Lord Jocelyn, Mr. Disraeli and others, on the ground
of its democratic tendencies, and of the danger, by
reducing the franchise to £8. of throwing it open to
classes liable to evil infiuences, and unfit to be entrusted
with it. Its principal supporters were Mr. Sheil, Sir
James Graham, and Lord John Russell. Sir James
GRAHAM's speech was remarkable for the broad ground
on which he supported the measure; alluding to the
objection that the Bill would unduly enlarge the
constituent body, he said, "I do not object to it on that
ground. I must say, considering the increase of the
democratic element in our institutions, that I see the
greatest danger in erecting an immense superstructure
upon a narrow electoral basis. Sir, if that superstructure
cannot stand upon an extended electoral basis, I am
sure that a narrow basis cannot long sustain it. On
principle, therefore, I cannot object to this bill as it
extends that basis. Allusion has been made to what has
lately been witnessed elsewhere, and I think it is not
good policy to neglect examples which are patent and
before our eyes. If I were to mention what in my
humble judgment was the immediate cause of the fall
of the kingly power of Louis Philippe, it would be, that
he attempted to maintain the semblance of representative
government with a constituent body, which, as
compared with the great bulk of the population, was
dangerously narrow, and utterly inadequate. What was
the consequence? A tumult arose in the metropolis,
and the Government was overthrown without a struggle.
His power was buried in this ruin; and the consequence
has been, that for the last two years the nation has been
plunged into anarchy, and property and life have been
rendered insecure. But what is the return of the
wave, and the reaction from that state of things
following the universal extension of the suffrage in
France? The return is a desire to base the suffrage,
restricted as compared with universal suffrage, on household
suffrage, on permanent residence, and the payment
of local taxation. And, I am sure that that is a safe;