called upon to act while distant from advice or assistance
from the home government, he deprecated the
precedent that an adverse vote against Lord Torrington
would establish, and which would tend to paralyse the
energies of public servants trusted with the administration
of most important dependencies in times of danger.—
Mr. K. SEYMER attached blame both to Lord Torrington
and the Colonial Secretary. He said that the so-called
rebellion was a trumpery affair, magnified into importance
by the severity with which it had been punished.
—Earl GROSVENOR justified the policy pursued by
Torrington, on account of the exigency in which he
found the colony placed.—Mr. ROEBUCK referred to the
original terms on which we had obtained possession of
Ceylon. It had not grown up under a process of civilised
colonisation, but was a conquered dependency,
won by the sword, and to be maintained, if necessary,
by military strength. From such a beginning he argued
that the test of good government was to be found in the
peace and order preserved in the colony, rather than
in the observance of any abstract theory of constitutional
polity. This test being applied, the result showed
that Lord Torrington had acted prudently and wisely.
It was probable that the severity now charged against
him as a crime had effectually stopped what would
otherwise have proved a long and destructive struggle,
and involved a far greater sacrifice of life than had arisen
from the sternest application of the martial law
proclaimed in Ceylon by its late governor.—Mr. HUME
refused to accede to the doctrine that evil was to be
pardoned if good came of it in the end. Even if we
obtained a colony by conquest, our possession was
accompanied by a moral obligation to govern our new
subjects in a constitutional and Christian manner. He
denied the existence of any rebellion, and attributed the
discontent which was manifested among the natives to
the pressure of the numerous new taxes imposed by
Lord Torrington. After dwelling upon the flagrant
case established against Lord Torrington, he inquired,
if such an instance as now appeared before them were
allowed with impunity, what limit it would be possible
to set in future, to the arbitrary tendencies of colonial
governors? The debate was adjourned.

PROGRESS OF BUSINESS

House of Lords.—May 8th. Administration of Criminal
Justice Bill, Prevention of Offences Bill, and Regulation of
Assurances Bill, referred to Select Committee.

9th.—Transportation to Van Diemen's Land.—Petitions
presented by Lord Lyttelton.

12th.—Church Buildings Act Amendment Bill referred to a
Select Committee.

13th.—Marriages (India) Bill read a second time.

19th.—Income Tax Bill read a second time.

20th.—Income Tax Bill passed through Committee.

22nd.—Episcopal and Capitular Estates Bill read a second
time.

House of Commons.—April 28th. Income Tax Bill read a
second time.—Stamp Duties Assimilation and Exchequer Bills
Bill read a third time and passed.

29th.—Leave given to bring in the Government Water supply
of London Bill.

30th.—St. Alban's election witnesses; address to the Queen
for a proclamation offering reward for their apprehension.—
Farm Building Bill read a second time.

May 1st—London Water Bill read a first time.—Oath of
Abjuration (Jews) Bill read a second time—Civil Bills (Ireland)
Bill read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

2nd.—Income Tax; Mr. Hume's motion, limiting it to one
year, carried against Ministry.

5th.—Income Tax Bill considered in Committee.—Official
Salaries; Lord John Russell's explanations.—County Courts
Bill brought from the Lords, and read a first time.

6th.—Mr. Grantley Berkeley's motion for Equalised Poor
Rate withdrawn.—Spirits in Bond; Lord Naas's motion carried
against ministers by Speaker's casting vote.—Leave given Mr.
Ellice to bring in a Bill for a Commission on Bribery at St
Alban's.—Process and Practice (Ireland) Bill passed through
Committee.

7th—Audit of Railway Accounts Bill considered in
Committee.—Message from the Queen, announcing proclamation of a reward for arresting St. Alban's election witnesses.

8th.—Mr. Cayley's motion for leave to bring in a Bill for
repeal of the Malt Tax negatived.—Income Tax; Mr. Hume's
Select Committee.—Caffre War; Select Committee named.—
Compound Householders' Bill read a third time, and passed

9th.—Income Tax Bill considered in Committee.—
Ecclesiastical Titles' Bill; Mr. Urquhart's motion negatived.

12th.—Ecclesiastical Titles' Bill; adjourned debate on question
of going into Committee.—Property Tax Bill read a third
time and passed.—Woods and Forests; leave to bring in a Bill
given to Lord Seymour.

13th.—No house.

14th.—Landlord and Tenant Bill read a second time.—Religious
Houses' Bill; second reading negatived by 123 to 91.

15th.—Ecclesiastical Titles Bill; debate again adjourned.

16th.—Ecclesiastical Titles Bill in Committee; Bill to be
reprinted for discussion.

19th.—Ecclesiastical Titles Bill; debate and Committee

20th.—Sir W. Molesworth's motion for an address against
transportation stopped by a count out.

22nd.—Capital punishments; Mr. Ewart's motion debated,
and withdrawn—Education; Mr. Fox's motion negatived.—
Hop Duties; Mr. Hodges' motion negatived.

23rd.—Ministers' Money in Ireland Government Bill aban-
doned.—Ecclesiastical Titles' Bill considered in Committee.—
Arsenic Regulation Bill read a third time, and passed.

26th.—Ecclesiastical Titles' Bill in Committee.

27th.—Mr. Baillie's motion respecting Lord Torrington's
government of Ceylon; debate adjourned.

The great Aggregate Meeting of the Roman Catholics
of Ireland, intended as a demonstration against the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, was held in the Rotunda at
Dublin, on the 29th ult. The Hon. Charles Preston,
son of Lord Gormanstown took the chair. The Mayors
of Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny, Drogheda, and Clonmel,
were present, and every part of the building was crowded.
The following was the principal resolution, which was
unanimously adopted: "That we call upon our representatives
in parliament and our countrymen in general,
not only to oppose by every constitutional means the
bill itself, but also to give an active opposition to any
administration which proposes or supports that or any
similar measure."

The National Association for the Protection of Industry
and Capital throughout the British Empire held
its second anniversary meeting on the 29th ult. in Drury
Lane Theatre. The theatre was unable to contain the
crowd that desired admittance; so, while the principal
proceedings were conducted there by the Duke of
Richmond, a supplementary meeting was drafted off
to St. Martin's Hall. The body of the audience, at both
meetings, consisted mainly of agriculturists, who had
been brought up to town in special trains engaged by
the committee of management; the counties sent a large
number of delegates; and in addition the farmers flocked
to town to have the satisfaction to hear their distressed
condition enlarged upon. At the principal meeting, the
Earl of Winchilsea moved the first resolution; and he
was followed by Mr. Isaac Butt, Mr. Dawson of Selby,
Mr. R. P. Long of Wiltshire, Mr. George Game Day
of St. Ives, Mr. Worsley of Essex, Colonel Kinloch from
Scotland, and Lord Berners. Mr. Reid, a baker of
London, put forward by the Duke of Richmond as a
Protectionist pursuing another profession than agriculture,
told the meeting that the working classes view the
whole movement with great distrust, "because in former
times, when the landowners had the power, they forgot
the labourer; the labourer fears that if the landowner
gets the power again to-morrow, when his turn is served
he will forget the labourer again: " he advised them
to guard against encouraging that spirit among the
labourers in their future proceedings. The Duke of
Richmond wound up the proceedings with a speech
congratulating his party on the evidence of progress
which their demonstration afforded; and with short
election advice to turn out all lukewarm representatives,
and put this pledge alone, "Will you support Lord
Stanley?" If any man say, "I don't know," let him
then be told, "You are not the man for us." At the
smaller meeting, the speakers were the Earl Stanhope,
Mr. George Frederick Young, Mr. Ball of Cambridge,
Captain Vyse, M.P., Mr. Elman, and some other
speakers from the provinces. Mr. Elman, a noted rural
Protectionist, promised his hearers, that at the next
election as many men will be returned to support Lord
Stanley and Mr. Disraeli as were returned in 1841 to
support Sir Robert Peel. After the meetings, there
was a Protectionist dinner at the Freemasons' Tavern,
over which Mr. George Frederick Young presided.