growth of cotton, and that a judicious cultivation of
it would confer immense advantages both on India
and Great Britain.—Mr. Milner GIBSON seconded the
motion, which was supported by Sir E. Colebrook and
Mr. G. Thompson; and opposed by Sir John Hobhouse,
Sir James Hogg, Mr. Newdegate, and Colonel Sibthorp.
Mr. Bright withdrew the motion, conceiving that he had
gained his object by the public attention being drawn to
the subject.

Mr. FORSTER moved for leave to bring in a bill to
repeal so much of the Post Office Acts as prohibit the
transmission of letters on Sundays otherwise than
through the Post Office. He observed that while the Post
Office performed the duty, the restriction was necessary
to protect the revenue, but that, the duty being no
longer performed, the restriction ought to cease.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Lord John
RUSSELL opposed the motion, which was negatived without
a division.

On Wednesday the 19th, Mr. SOTHERON moved the
second reading of the Friendly Societies Bill, the object
of which is to consolidate the laws relative to these
societies, and to give the members a control over their
own funds, and protection against fraud. Some remarks
were made by various members, all favourable to the
bill, which was read a second time.

The School Establishments (Scotland) Bill was thrown
out on the second reading by 100 to 94. It was supported
by Lord Melgund and Mr. Fox Maule, but successfully
opposed by Sir George Clark, Mr. Oswald, and Mr. C.
Bruce, as interfering with the old established system of
parochial schools.

On Thursday the 20th, Mr. ROEBUCK put the question
to Lord John Russell whether the government would
adopt any special course of conduct in consequence of the
resolution passed in the House of Lords on the Greek
Question.—Lord John RUSSELL had proceeded a little
way in his answer, when he was called to order by
Mr. D'ISRAELI, who said that a simple question had
been asked, but the noble lord instead of giving a simple
answer was entering upon a discussion.—Lord John
RUSSELL replied that the question was a very general
one, and that he must either make such a statement as
should explain the line of conduct he meant to pursue,
or remain altogether silent. Being loudly called upon
to proceed, he said, in the first place, that the government
were not going, in consequence of the resolution
in question, to alter in any respect the course of conduct
they had adopted in respect to foreign powers; and he
went on to give his reasons for holding that the ministers
were not called upon, in consequence of that resolution,
to resign the government. Lord John added that if
Mr. Roebuck wished to make a motion, he should have
the earliest opportunity; and concluded, "So long as
we continue the government of this country, I can
answer for my noble friend (Lord Palmerston), that he
will act, not as a minister of Austria, Russia, or France,
or any other country, but as the minister of England."
Lord John sat down amid general cheering. Some
discussion ensued, in which Mr. D'Israeli and Mr.
Roebuck took a part; and the result was that Mr. Roebuck
gave notice of a motion on the subject, the debate on
which was fixed for Monday following.

The Mercantile Marine Bill was read a second time,
on the motion of Mr. Labouchere, though several
members objected to proceeding with a bill on which so
many alterations had been made at the eleventh hour.
The second reading was agreed to on the understanding
that the bill should be printed and re-committed.

The Metropolitan Interments Bill was read a third
time and passed, after protests from Mr. Hume, Lord
Dudley, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. G. Thompson, against the
compensation provided by it for the clergy.

The Factories Bill was read a third time and passed,
without a division, after some comments from several
members on its details.

On the third reading of the County Courts Bill, Major
Blackall moved a clause to enable Irish barristers of
seven years' standing to be appointed judges of English
county courts. After some discussion it was negatived
by 111 to 58, and the bill was read a third time and
passed.

Mr. G. A. HAMILTON, on Friday the 21st, moved an
address to the Queen praying for a modification of the
existing system of National Education in Ireland. A
debate of some length but little novelty followed. Mr. E.
H. STANLEY defended with effect the system originated
by his father, when Irish secretary, in 1831; and the
existing system was also defended by Lord John Russell
and Sir James Graham, the latter highly complimenting
Mr. Stanley on his ability and eloquence. The amendment
was negatived by 225 to 142.

On Monday the 24th, at the beginning of the evening,
Sir Robert INGLIS noticed, in severe language, the
"wanton if not premeditated insult" which his
distinguished friend the Chevalier Bunsen had received in
another place.—Lord John RUSSELL paid a warm tribute
to the public and private character of the Chevalier
Bunsen, but abstained from giving any opinion on the
subject.

Mr. ROEBUCK then moved his resolution, "That the
principles upon which the foreign policy of the government
has been regulated have been calculated to
maintain the honour and dignity of this country, and
in times of unexampled difficulty to preserve peace
between England and foreign nations." A government
(he observed) when condemned by one branch of the
legislature is unable to discharge its duties with honour,
therefore it was necessary for the House of Commons to
judge for itself, and express its own opinion. He went at
great length into the foreign policy of England from
1790 to the present time, and proceeded to discuss the
claims which gave rise to the dispute with Greece,
contending that those claims were good and properly
insisted on, and that the proceedings of the British
government, for that purpose, had been correct and
well-founded.—Sir F. THESIGER accused Mr. Roebuck
of inconsistency, inasmuch as he had, in 1843, called
Lord Palmerston a "lucifer match," while he now
supported that minister's foreign policy. Sir F. Thesiger
went over the different articles of the claims on Greece,
contending that they afforded no ground for hostile
aggression, and concluded by observing that Lord
Palmerston had now been compelled to adopt the
convention of London, which he had formerly repudiated,
which was certainly not calculated to "maintain the
honour and dignity of this country."—Mr. Page WOOD
supported the motion.—Sir James GRAHAM criticised in
great detail the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston,
which he characterised as a course of minute interference
with the affairs of our allies. He objected to the offensive
tone of Lord Palmerston's despatches in the Greek affair,
and contended that the London convention ought to
have been adopted from the first, and England saved
the mortification of having to adopt it after having
repudiated it. He therefore refused to vote for the
motion.

The debate was resumed on Tuesday the 25th. Mr.
OSBORNE made some sarcastic comments on the conduct
of Sir F. Thesiger and Sir James Graham, who for four
years had not said a word against the system of policy
they now affected to view with so much alarm. Sir J.
Graham's professions of personal friendship for Lord
Palmerston reminded him of those enormous serpents
in South America who lubricated their victims with
their slaver before devouring them. Tracing the history
of the Greek kingdom, Mr. Osborne called it a
contemptible state, which we had first to nurse and
afterwards to teach good behaviour; and he put it to the
house whether the inveterate hostility evinced towards
Lord Palmerston was not owing to his being identified
on the continent with responsible government and
regarded as an advocate of liberal opinions. The dispute
with Greece was a mere pretext: there was a company
against Lord Palmerston which had extensive ramifications,
and the reversal of his policy would cripple British
commerce, arrest the progress of civilisation, and complete
the humiliation of Great Britain.—Lord J. MANNERS
denied both the propositions contained in the motion; and,
taking a review of Lord Palmerston's policy in relation
to various foreign states, contended that it had been
injurious to the influence and the commerce of England.
—Mr. ANSTEY said that as he neither entirely approved
nor blamed our foreign policy, he would not vote either
for or against the motion.—Lord PALMERSTON defended
the foreign policy of the government in a speech of five