basis on which to test the franchise." These remarks
were loudly cheered throughout. The result of the
division was that the third reading was carried by 254 to
186, and the bill passed.

On Monday the 13th, on the third reading of the
Australian Colonies Bill, Mr. GLADSTONE moved an
amendment, in substance, that legislation on the subject
should not proceed further till the people and the
authorities in the Colonies were enabled to consider the
provisions of the measure as they stand, and the several
proposals for varying them. He objected to the bill on
four special grounds:—1. The constant interference of
the authorities at home with the management of local
Colonial affairs; 2. The power given to any two—a
minority—of the five Colonies to erect a General Assembly
able to override the Legislatures in all the Colonies;
3. The framing of the constitution with a single
Legislative Chamber; 4. The refusal to deal with the elective
franchise. And he protested against imposing on
Parliament a management of enormous expense and
responsibility, against the will and not in accordance with the
wants of the colonists.—Mr. ROEBUCK seconded the
amendment.—Mr. HAWES deprecated postponement,
insisting that the colonists had sufficiently considered
their future constitution, and were generally satisfied
with the measure proposed to them.—Mr. HUME felt so
much anxiety to remove the baneful influence of the
Colonial-office, that he would not consent to postpone
for another session the gift of a constitution to Australia.
It might not be altogether good, but was the best that
could be hoped for under the auspices of the department,
and contained an element of self-rectification in
the power given to the colonists to modify their constitution
hereafter.—The other speakers were, for the
bill, Mr. Anstey, Mr. Aglionby, and Mr. Macgregor;
for the amendment, Mr. Denison, Mr. Scott, Mr.
Simeon, and Mr. Adderley.—The amendment was
negatived by 266 to 128.—Mr. ROEBUCK moved the insertion
of a clause extending the principle of a Federal Assembly
to Canada, which he withdrew without a division.
—Mr. AGLIONBY moved a clause including New
Zealand, which was negatived by 222 to 82. The bill
then passed.

On the motion of Lord ASHLEY, the House went into
committee pro formâ on the Factories Bill, in order to
have the clauses of his lordship's bill withdrawn, and
the Government measure substituted. The formality was
completed after some discussion, during which a
promise was elicited from Sir G. Grey that an early day
should be fixed for recommitting the bill, so as to have
the ten-hour principle fairly debated and disposed of.

On Tuesday the 14th, Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY
moved for a committee of the whole House to take into
consideration the laws relative to the Importation of
Foreign Corn. He entered largely into the agricultural
question, arguing that the only remedy for the existing
distress was a return to the principle of protection.—
Colonel DUNNE seconded the motion.—A long debate
ensued; the motion being supported by the Marquis of
Granby, Col. Sibthorp, Mr. Miles, Mr. Sandars, Mr.
Herries, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Newdegate; and
opposed by Mr. Hastie, Mr. Slaney, Mr. B. Hall, Mr.
Mitchell, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Cobden.—
Mr. DISRAELl, while he voted for the motion, objected
to it as too limited in its character, embracing the
interest of one class only, instead of the interests of all,
and he disclaimed any desire for an immediate return to
protection. However he might differ from the policy
of 1846, he respected the gravity of that policy and of
the great contingencies which it involved. He did not wish
to see the legislature pass laws, and then, like a capricious
woman, within a year and a half turn round and repeal
all they had done. His motion was lost by 298 to 184.

On Thursday, the 16th, the Greek Question was
brought before the House by Mr. Milner Gibson, who
requested explanation as to the departure of the French
Ambassador. Lord PALMERSTON said, "It is well
known that the French Ambassador went yesterday to
Paris, in order personally to be the medium of
communication between the two Governments as to these
matters; but I trust nothing can arise out of these
circumstances likely to disturb the friendly relations
between the two countries."

The House went into Committee on the Marriages
Bill, having previously negatived, by 42 to 40, a motion
by Mr. DIVETT, against proceeding with the bill, which
he characterised as "scandalous and immoral." In the
Committee, Sir F. THESIGER moved an amendment to
prevent the bill from having a retrospective effect, which
was negatived by 111 to 68. Another amendment to
exclude Scotland from the operation of the bill was
moved by Mr. FOX MAULE, who affirmed that the
measure was adverse to the wishes and feelings of the
whole Scottish community. The LORD ADVOCATE
admitted the general truth of this statement, but
contended for the necessity of making the law uniform.
He gave it as his professional opinion, that marriage
with a deceased wife's sister is not forbidden by the
existing law of Scotland: and Mr. COCKBURN mentioned
a case where an Englishman, divorced and re-married
in Scotland, had been convicted of bigamy in England,
and sent to the hulks for a marriage which the Scotch
lawyers assured him was legal. Mr. Fox Maule's
amendment was negatived by 144 to 137.

On Friday the 17th, further explanations were
demanded by Mr. DISRAELI, on the subject of the
Recal of the French Ambassador.—Lord John RUSSELL
said, in answer, that Lord Normanby had received a statement
from General de la Hitte that in consequence of the
ill-treatment of France by the government of this country,
he had thought it necessary to recal M. Drouin de Lhuys;
at the same time, as M. Drouin de Lhuys had been sent
over for the special purpose of effecting an arrangement
on the Greek affair, and the affair had terminated, it
was natural that he should return home. Lord John
Russell regretted this feeling on the part of the French
government, and felt convinced that if M. Gros had not,
for some unaccountable reason, suddenly given up his
mission, there would have been ample time for the
arrival of the despatch of her Majesty's government in
Athens, and this misunderstanding would not have
occurred. Sir John WALSH asked whether, when Lord
Palmerston made his statement the preceding night, he
had General de la Hitte's letter to the French ambassador
in his possession?—Lord John RUSSELL said, that
when Lord Palmerston made his statement, he had not
that letter in his possession.—Mr. ROEBUCK observed,
that the ordinary form in such cases, is, to communicate
the note by reading it; if M. Drouyn de Lhuys did so,
Lord Palmerston must have been in full possession of
the facts when he made his explanatory statement to
Mr. Milner Gibson.—Lord John RUSSELL said that M.
Drouyn de Lhuys read the letter, but communicated no
copy of it; "and my noble friend, in his statement to
the house yesterday, gave what was his impression of
the case."—Sir John WALSH: "Still, he was in full
possession of the contents of the note."—Lord John
RUSSELL: "No doubt; at the same time, the French
ambassador accompanied it with such observations as
he thought proper to make. A very long interview
took place."—In reply to Mr. ANSTEY, Lord John
RUSSELL said, "There has been no order sent recalling
Lord Normanby, and I trust no such order will be found
necessary." Lord Palmerston, who had been absent
during these questions and answers, made his appearance
in the House, when, by the rules of the House, it
was too late to question him on the subject.

Lord John RUSSELL introduced a bill to abolish the
Viceregal Office in Ireland. The bill gives power
to the Queen to abolish the office by order in
Council; to appoint a fourth Secretary of State, chargeable
like the others with any of the functions of a Secretary
of State, but in practice with Irish affairs: some of
the functions of the Lord-Lieutenant will be transferred
to the Secretary for the Home Department, others be
given to Her Majesty in Council. The Lord
Chancellor of Ireland will be President of the Privy Council
in Ireland.—The bill was opposed by several Irish
members, but leave was given to bring it in by 107 to 13.

After the adjournment for the Whitsun holidays the
House met on the 23rd. Lord PALMERSTON entered
into explanations relative to the difference with France
arising out of the Greek question. He defended the
truth of his statement on the preceding Thursday; the
fact being, as he had said, that M. Drouin de Lhuys
had not been recalled, but rather ordered to return to