ensued, in which objections were made to the details of
the bill, but it was read a second time without a division.

Several questions having been put to ministers, on
Friday the 7th, respecting the Expedition from America
against Cuba, Lords LANSDOWNE and GREY said, that
it had been fitted out in defiance of the express prohibition
of the American Government; but they declined to
state whether any instructions had been sent to the
commander of the British naval force on the station.

The second reading of the Encumbered Estates Act
Amendment (Ireland) Bill was moved on Monday the
10th, by Lord WESTMEATH, who explained that its
object was to fix 15 years' purchase as the minimum
price below which no man's property should be sold
under the act of last session, which he called a measure
of confiscation; and also to exempt from the operation
of that act estates which were only slightly encumbered.
The motion was supported by the Duke of RICHMOND
and the Earl of GLENGALL; the latter, however,
vehemently denounced the whole measure, as being designed
merely "to uphold some dirty theory of the Manchester
School." The Earl of CARLISLE, on the part of the
government, objected to a measure which would cripple
the operation of the existing statute, but afterwards
withdrew his opposition to the second reading of the bill,
in order that it might go down to the House of Commons
where it might be discussed in conjunction with another
bill on the same subject, brought in by the Solicitor-
General. The bill was accordingly read a second time.—
The committal of the Australian Colonies Bill was
opposed by Lord BROUGHAM and the Bishop of OXFORD;
the former moved that certain petitioners against the
bill should be heard by counsel at the bar; the latter,
that the bill should be referred to a select committee.
Both motions were negatived; the first by 33 to 25, the
second by 34 to 21.

On Tuesday the 11th, the house went into committee
on the above bill. Lord MONTEAGLE again brought
forward the question of single or double chambers, by
moving, as an amendment to the first clause, that there
should be a legislative council and a representative
assembly, in each of the colonies of New South Wales
and Victoria. After a discussion containing a repetition
of the old arguments on both sides, the amendment was
rejected by 22 to 20. The Bishop of OXFORD also
revived the ecclesiastical question previously disposed of,
by moving the insertion of a clause enabling the Church
of England in the colonies to lay down rules for its own
internal government; but he withdrew his motion on an
assurance that the government would inquire into the
matter.

On Thursday, the 13th, Lord MONTEAGLE moved for
copies of official documents respecting the issue of a
Commission of Inquiry as to the Universities of Oxford
and Cambridge.—He apprehended that the commission
might interfere with improvements now in contemplation,
and complained of the course adopted without previous
communication with the authorities of the universities.
—The Earl of CARLISLE said there was no objection to
the production of the papers; and that the total absence
of any hostile spirit on the part of the government
would be shown by the nomination of the
commissioners, who should be members attached to the
universities, and able to co-operate beneficially with
their own members.—Lord BROUGHAM objected to the
commission in toto, and expressed astonishment at the
letter which had appeared from Prince Albert, who, he
said, had been placed in a false position by the mistaken
zeal of his friends. The head of an university ought not
to be connected with the Crown, and the Prince had
fallen into the mistake of supposing that the royal
commission spoke the sense of the parliament, a natural
mistake for those who had lived in foreign countries
where the legislature and the sovereign were one; but
the royal commission would speak the sense of the
Crown, and not at all that of the parliament.—The
Duke of WELLINGTON expressed his satisfaction with
Lord Carlisle's explanation of the way in which the
commission was to be nominated, though he did not
consider the measure necessary or desirable. The
papers were ordered.

The consideration, in committee, of the Australian
Colonies Bill was resumed on Friday, the 14th. Lord
STANLEY objected to the 30th clause, which empowers
the Queen in council to establish a General Assembly of
the Australian Colonies, on petition by two or more of
them; and moved the omission of that clause and the
subsequent clauses depending on it.—Lord GREY defended
the principle of the clause, but intimated, that in
consequence of objections lately urged, he had prepared
an amendment to the effect that the general colonial
legislature so constituted should be "only for certain
purposes." Lord STANLEY's amendment was negatived
by 23 to 22; and Lord GREY then introduced his
amendment, the discussion of which was postponed.—
Lord BROUGHAM withdrew his Court of Chancery
Appeal Bill, on account of the difficulties at present
attending the arrangement of the duties of the Great
Seal. He besought the government to proceed deliberately
in their intended measure on this subject.

On Monday the 17th the expected debate of Lord
Stanley's motion on the Greek Question attracted an
unusual attendance both of peers and strangers. Before
the business of the house began Lord BROUGHAM
suddenly started up with an excited air, and said, that
he had given notice that no person, peer or commoner,
had a right to sit in the peeresses' gallery, but that a
gentleman was now sitting there, and that, if he did not
come down, he (Lord Brougham) would move the
enforcement of the rules of the house. The gentleman's
conduct (he added) was the more intolerable, as he had
already excluded two peeresses, though he had a place
assigned to him in the house. This objurgation, which
produced much laughter, was levelled at the Chevalier
Bunsen, who, with two ladies, was sitting in the peeresses
gallery, and kept his seat apparently unaware that he
was the object of remark. Lord Brougham then
hastened across the house and desired the usher of the
black rod to "take him out." Sir A. Clifford went into
the gallery, and immediately the Chevalier Bunsen rose
and quitted it with his companions. This unpleasant
scene over, Lord STANLEY proceeded to move his
resolution. It was: "That while the house fully recognises
the right and duty of government to secure to Her
Majesty's subjects residing in foreign states the full
protection of the laws of those states, it regrets to find,
by the correspondence recently laid upon the table by
Her Majesty's command, that various claims against
the Greek government, doubtful in point of justice or
exaggerated in amount, have been enforced by coercive
measures directed against the commerce and people of
Greece, and calculated to endanger the continuance of
our friendly relations with other powers." Lord
Stanley supported his motion at great length; entering
minutely into the merits of the various causes of quarrel
with the Greek government, which he maintained were
paltry and contemptible; tracing the history of the
negotiation between the governments, of our hostile
measures of coercion, of the kindly mediation of
France and our ungracious reception of it; blaming
Lord Palmerston's negligence in not apprising Mr. Wyse
of the convention which had been made in London; and
accusing the government, through its foreign minister,
of having insisted on exorbitant demands, oppressed the
weak, and endangered the peace of Europe.—The
Marquis of LANSDOWNE defended the government. He
maintained that it was the right and the duty of the
British government to protect its subjects resident in
foreign countries; and brought forward a great many
instances in which the British government had done so.
It was no objection to the principle of a claim that it
was urged in favour of an unworthy claimant, or that
its amount was small; the most paltry amount might
involve a principle of the highest importance. As
regarded the dispute with France, Mr. Wyse had given
explanations which showed that it was physically
impossible that he could have had any knowledge of
the terms of the London convention at the time that
he was proceeding to enforce the arrangement entered
into by himself; but a desire to return to the terms of
the London convention was felt on both sides, and, as
far as possible, those terms would be made the subject
of a treaty. The resolution was supported by the Earl
of Aberdeen, the Earl of Cardigan, Viscount Canning,
the Earl of Hardwicke, and Lord Brougham: Lord
Ward, Lord Beaumont, and Lord Eddisbury defended