be desecrated, the greatest trash, the greatest fraud, the
greatest imposition ever attempted to be palmed upon
the people of this country—intended to bring down
prices, and pave the way for the cheap and nasty
trumpery system. When all the bad characters were
attracted to the park, he advised people living there to
keep a sharp look-out after their silver forks and spoons
and servant-maids. The building would cost £200,000,
and be prejudicial to the best interests of the country.—
Sir Benjamin HALL moved, as an amendment, an
address to the Queen, praying her to stay the erection
of a building in Hyde Park. A desultory conversation
followed; in the course of which Mr. R. STEPHENSON,
a member of the royal commission, stated that he was at
first in favour of Battersea fields as a site, but a
personal examination had entirely altered his opinion; and
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the commissioners had fully
stated the reasons which had induced them to deprecate
any change in the existing arrangements, and that he
considered the credit of the country with the nations of
the world as being deeply involved in that decision.
Ultimately Sir B. Hall's amendment was negatived by
166 to 47; and Colonel Sibthorp's motion was negatived
by 166 to 46.

The house then, in committee of supply, discussed
the proposed vote of £125,000 for Public Education.
The compulsory adoption of the management clauses of
the committee of Privy Council was condemned by Mr.
Miles, Lord J. Manners, Mr. Wood, Mr. Roundell
Palmer, and defended by Sir G. Grey and Lord John
Russell, who intimated that there should be no
opposition to an inquiry into the whole matter next year in
either house. The vote was agreed to.

On Friday the 5th, Mr. CAYLEY moved for leave to
bring in a bill for the Repeal of the Malt Tax. He
enlarged on the distress of the agriculturists and their
claims to relief, and contended that the measure could
be eflected with safety to the national credit, especially
as it was not proposed to bring it into operation till the
5th of April next. The CHANCELLOR OF THE
EXCHEQUER called upon the house to consider the
consequences of sacrificing a great amount of revenue for
which they would be unable to find a substitute.—Mr.
DISRAELI said that, as agriculture was now the only
unprotected interest, it ought to bo relieved of those
burdens which pressed upon it exclusively, and that the
repeal of the malt-tax would be a relief not only to that
interest, but to the labouring classes generally.—Lord
John RUSSELL observed that Mr. Disraeli's opinion
was at variance with Lord Stanley, the head of the
protectionist party, who had declared that he could not
support the repeal of the malt-tax with a due regard
to the finances of the country. On a division, the
motion was negatived by 247 to 123.

On Monday the 8th, on the question of the
Mercantile Marine Bill going into committee, Mr. MOFFATT
opposed the principle of the measure. He reviewed
the general difficulties of British shipping, reminded
ministers that when they repealed the navigation law
they promised the removal of those difficulties, and
endeavoured to show that those promises had not been
fulfilled; nothing having been done to relieve shipping
of the burdens of lighthouse and pilotage dues, nor to
cure the evils of the present system of manning the
navy.—Mr. LABOUCHERE contended that the bill had
been approved of by all the seaport towns in the empire
except London; he said that the bill had three objects,
the securing an adequate amount of skill in the masters
of merchant vessels, the withdrawal of their certificates
in case of incapacity, and the prevention of the wholesale
desertions which now took place. He stated his
intention, next session, of consolidating in a single act
the whole law relating to the mercantile marine service,
and expressed his hope that there might be no obstruction
in the meantime to the present measure. Mr.
Moffatt having withdrawn his motion, Lord John MANNERS
moved that the bill be referred to a select
committee, which was negatived by 120 to 34, and the bill
was committed.

The house then went into committee on the
Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, and Mr. HORSMAN moved
an amendment to the first clause, to the effect that the
whole commission should be limited to three paid and
responsible officers, and that the fifty-two present ex
officio members of the board should be removed. He
supported his motion by a brief recapitulation of matter
brought forward by him on former occasions, to show
the inefficient and injurious working of the present
establishment. He said, among other things, that if
the committee which he demanded some time ago had
been granted, he should have been able to show, from
authentic evidence, that the Bishop of London now
receives an income of £50,000 a year. The motion was
supported by Sir B. Hall, and opposed by Lord John
Russell and Sir G. Grey, and negatived by 60 to 22—
Mr. E. DENISON then moved that three of the
commissioners should be paid, but withdrew his amendment.
—On clause 13, Lord John RUSSELL moved an amendment,
striking out what had been inserted in the upper
house, and substituting words to unite the episcopal
fund and the common fund, and to make the joint fund
available for all the purposes that each has served, with
some additional purposes, such as the endowment of
new bishoprics.—Mr. GLADSTONE complained of the
cavalier manner in which the amendment of the House
of Lords was thrown overboard, and charged Lord John
Russell with a covert intention to abandon the pledge
he had given to found three new bishoprics; for, if the
two funds were blended, that pledge could not be
fulfilled.—Mr. Sidney Herbert also opposed the fusion
of the two funds.—Lord John Russell's amendment was
supported by Mr. Henley, Sir T. Dyke Acland, and
Mr. Page Wood, and carried by 163 to 111.

On the question of the Home-made Spirits Bill going
into committee, the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
moved that the house go into committee that day six
months; and on a division the bill was thrown out
by a majority of one, the numbers being 121 to 120.
Colonel SIBTHORP demanded to know if the ministers
dared, after such a vote, to carry on the government of
the country? and the house laughed heartily.

On Tuesday the 9th, addresses of condolence on the
death of the late Duke of Cambridge were voted to Her
Majesty and to the Duchess of Cambridge.—Mr. Locke
KING then brought forward the subject of the Amendment
of the County Franchise, by moving for leave
to bring in a bill to make the franchise of counties
in England and Wales the same as in boroughs, by
giving the right of voting to all occupiers of
tenements of the annual value of £10. He supported his
motion briefly, insisting chiefly on the fitness and safety
of giving the franchise to the class in counties who
already enjoy it in boroughs, and challenging the
protectionists to show the sincerity of their belief, that the
great body of the people cling to protection, by giving
them the opportunity to vote accordingly.—Mr. HUME
in seconding the motion, reminded Lord John RUSSELL
of his admission that he is prepared to go beyond the
Reform Bill of 1832, and asked him in what other
direction besides this, could he make the advance with
less danger.—Sir De Lacy EVANS, who had given notice
of an amendment, withdrew it, that he might not peril
the original motion. The motion was supported by Mr.
G. Thompson, and also by Mr. DRUMMOND who said
that as he had often advocated a similar measure, he
should not now oppose it, little as he liked the quarter
whence it came.—Lord John RUSSELL censured the
practice of bringing forward such large and important
questions in the month of July; merely admitting bills
to be laid on the table, with no intention of going on
with them, was unworthy of the House of Commons.
He commented on the general schemes of the parliamentary
reformers, and called upon them, the next time
they came forward, to show that the changes they
advocated are consistent with the maintenance of the
monarchy, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons,
which are fundamental parts of our constitution, enjoying
the thorough attachment of the people of this country.—
Mr. KING replied; the independent members were
most curiously treated, for whenever they brought
forward a motion they were sure to be told it was not
the time for it. He was happy to find, however, that
Lord John Russell had not adduced one argument to
prevent his hereafter bringing forward a measure which
would even go to the extent desired by Mr. Hume. It
seemed as if the noble lord onlv said "No" that he might