scientific investigators who had been employed to make
the necessary inquiries. Powers were to be given to
the parish authorities to compel the laying on of water
to dwellings requiring it. The machinery of the existing
companies was to be purchased at a valuation.
The dividend of the consolidated company was at first
to be £5 per cent., and was at no time to exceed £6 per
cent. He added that he proposed that the bill should
go before a select committee. After a desultory
conversation leave was given to bring in the bill.—Mr.
Ewart moved a resolution to the effect that the
mitigation in the law respecting the punishment of death,
should be Extended to the Colonies: but the house was
counted out during his speech.

On Wednesday, April 30, on the motion of Lord John
Russell, an address was agreed to, praying for a royal
proclamation of a reward for the apprehension of the
persons connected with the St. Alban's Election, who had
hitherto eluded the service of the Speaker's warrant.—
In answer to a question from Mr. Hume, respecting the
Admission of Exhibitors to the Great Exhibition, Mr.
LABOUCHERE said, that the question relative to the
gratuitous admission to the Exhibition of all exhibitors,
without limitation, had been already most maturely
considered by the royal commissioners, who had come
to the unanimous conclusion that it would be impossible
to allow the unlimited admission of 15,000 exhibitors at
all times. Exceptions would be made in peculiar cases,
and he had reason to know that it was the intention of
her Majesty to visit the Exhibition on one of the Saturday
mornings when the general public would be admitted.—
The motion by Mr. WILLIAMS to consider in Committee
his measure for restraining Sunday Trading in London,
called forth the same opposition from Mr. Anstey, Mr.
Baring Wall, and Mr. Lennard, which has been offered
at different stages; on the ground that the bill is partial
and tyrannical, as well as of bad general principle. The
house was cleared for a division, but no division was
taken; and the debate was adjourned for a fortnight.

On Thursday, May 1, the second reading of the Oath
of Abjuration (Jews) Bill was opposed by Mr. NEWDEGATE,
who moved the second reading that day six
months. After a debate which was destitute of novelty,
the second reading was carried by a majority of 25, the
numbers being 202 against 177.

On Friday, May 2, Mr. CHILDERS called the attention
of the house to the Diocesan Synod announced by the
Bishop of Exeter, and asked what government was
prepared to do in relation to it.—Lord J. RUSSELL said
that he had taken the opinion of the law officers of the
Crown upon the question. It did not appear to the
government that, though the Bishop of Exeter chose to
call his proposed assembly a synod, it bore any real
resemblance to one, or came under the terms of the 25th
Henry VIII. That act provided (inter alia) against the
enactment, by provincial synods, of canons intended to
bind the Church. The Bishop of Exeter disclaimed
any such intention, and the proposed assembly would
not be unlawful, though he considered it most unfortunate
that his lordship should give it a name that led
to misapprehension. He described such a synod as was
intended as new to the Church, and as a mere device of
the bishop's. It was probable that, under cover of a
declaration of adherence to the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, the bishop designed to impugn the law as
laid down in the Gorham case; but the course he might
take remains to be seen. Referring to language which
the bishop had already used in reference to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord John Russell said that the
mildness of character of the archbishop, and his Christian
forbearance, were well known; and but for that
knowledge, such language would not have been employed.
But as regarded the future, he felt convinced that,
without the aid of government or parliament, the
Primate of all England would so conduct himself that,
though he would not stoop to the employment of
unworthy language, he would not be found wanting in the
firm assertion of the true doctrines of his Church.—The
house went into committee on the Property-tax Bill.
After several amendments proposed by Mr. Freshfield,
had been negatived without a division, Mr. HUME
moved an amendment for Limiting the duration of
the Tax to One Year, with the object of having
the whole question settled in a select committee.
This amendment was supported by Alderman
Thompson, Mr. Mowatt, Mr. Buck, Mr. M'Gregor,
and the Marquis of Granby.—Mr. COBDEN opposed it,
remarking upon the support which Mr. Hume would
receive from the protectionists as anything but evidence
that the latter wished to render taxation more equitable
as regarded the professional, trading, and working
classes, whom Mr. Hume desired to relieve. On the
contrary, the transparent policy of that party was to
increase the burdens upon those classes. There were
£15,000,000 of other taxes which he would remove
before he abolished this impost, which, however, though
right in its principle, he desired to revise.—Mr. SIDNEY
HERBERT opposed the amendment, contending that it
would be impossible for the government to make any
permanent reductions in the coffee and timber duties if
they had only one year's income-tax before them. The
budget would fall to the ground, and there would be a
fresh scramble for a surplus, for the maintenance of
which there could be no security.—Sir Charles WOOD
commented on the inconsistency of Mr. Hume, who
desired the tax to be permanent, yet limited it to the
shortest period; quoted the authority of Sir Robert
Peel for the present form of the tax; and backed the
reason given by Mr. Sidney Herbert for opposing the
amendment. It was impossible to propose fiscal reductions
with nearly £5,000,000 dependent on an annual
vote, especially at a time when no man could say what
events might happen in Europe within any given
number of months hence.—Mr. DISRAELI supported the
amendment, mainly because the assessments proposed
for the property tax it was sought to renew were inequitable,
and because it was possible to render them less so.
He retorted upon Mr. Cobden with a quotation from
one of that gentleman's speeches, made in 1845, in which
he described the income tax as a "fungus upon the
tree of monopoly, and only rendered necessary by the
corn laws." Denying that the protectionists had any
intention of damaging "the commercial policy of the
nation" by a side vote, he declared that their conduct
that night was dictated by their sense of the private
injustice and the political danger of the tax.—Lord John
RUSSELL severely censured the course Mr. Hume had
taken, and dwelt upon the anomalous support he had
succeeded in obtaining. There could be no doubt as to
the views of the protectionists, studiously as Mr. Disraeli
had sought to conceal those views. Their object was to
overthrow direct taxation, and to restore a duty on
corn. His lordship humorously compassionated Mr.
Disraeli's difficulties with his indiscreet and eager
followers, and prophesied that he would one day refuse
"to march through Coventry" with such an insubordinate
array. Controverting various protection arguments,
and vindicating his own former conduct in reference to
the tax in question, he reminded the advocates of a corn
tax that they must either run the risk of disappointing
the agriculturists by doing little, or irritating the people
by doing much. Referring to the opening of the Crystal
Palace as chiefly gratifying, inasmuch as it exhibited
a mighty mass of the humbler classes content, because
believing that justice was done them, he warned the
supporters of protection against exciting a contrary
belief among the thousands of the people. He then
dwelt upon the impolicy of exposing such an enormous
portion of the national revenue as was supplied by the
income tax to the chances of an annual vote, and
described such a course as fraught with danger to the
institutions of the country. After some observations
from Mr. Muntz and Mr. Roebuck in support of the
amendment, the committee divided, and Mr. Hume's
amendment was carried by 244 to 230. The announcement
of this majority of 14 against the government was
received with loud cheers.

On Monday, May 5, the house having gone into
committee on the Income-tax Bill, Lord John RUSSELL
stated the course the cabinet meant to take in reference
to the resolution of the house limiting the grant of the
tax to one year. The house, by a majority of fourteen,
had come to a decision that one year instead of three
should be the period for which the property and income
tax should last. Mr. Hume, who made the motion to
that effect, stated, as his ground for doing so, that it was