discussed and negatived by a large majority a proposition
for the total repeal of the malt duty, and submitted that
the reasons then adduced ought to be valid against the
present motion. He further remarked upon the
inconsistencies exhibited in the conduct of members who one
day denounced the income tax as the worst of imposts,
and a few hours afterwards supported a proposition that
would render it perpetual, by annihilating or curtailing
a source of revenue producing more than five millions
annually.—Mr. Brotherton objected to every scheme
that could encourage the consumption of an intoxicating
fluid.—The house divided—for the motion, 31; against,
76; majority against, 45.

The subject of International Arbitration was then
introduced by Mr. COBDEN, who moved that an address
be presented to the Queen, praying her Majesty to direct
the foreign secretary to communicate with the French
government, and endeavour to prevent in future the
rivalry of warlike preparations, and obtain, if possible,
a mutual reduction of the armaments. Limiting his
suggested reductions to the naval force and fortifications,
and admitting that the armies were necessarily kept up
for police purposes, the hon. member insisted that our
existing navy was far larger than was required for the
protection of commerce. The presumed necessity for
maintaining so large a force was self-created, and grew
out of the irritating policy we pursued towards France,
retorted again by France upon ourselves. Each country
alternately alarmed its neighbour by the extension of
its armaments and military works, and thus both were
frightened into enormous preparations and expenses.
It was a neck-and-neck race of extravagant folly.
History already afforded us a pattern for his suggested
remedy. In 1817 a convention was entered into
between England and America, limiting and practically
removing altogether, the armed force severally
maintained on the frontier lakes of Canada. This example
might be followed with regard to France and other
neighbours. Every invention of science, every improvement
in communication and extension of commerce,
tended to obtain and secure peace; and he enjoined the
government to act up to the spirit of the age.—Lord
PALMERSTON acknowledged the just principles of Mr.
Cobden, and shared in his aspirations for peace. He
nevertheless differed in his appreciation of the best
means of securing that happy result. He objected to
the resolution, that it recommended England to disarm
before we were sure that other states would follow the
example. Intercourse had increased, prejudices were
shaken, and the old prepossessions of enmity and rivalry
had given way to juster feelings; nevertheless, he still
considered that the best way of assuring ourselves of
peace was to continue to be prepared for war.
Instancing the vast sums spent upon the fortification of
Paris as a test of public opinion in that country in
favour of defensive preparations, Lord Palmerston
doubted whether any negotiations could induce the
French to diminish their military establishments. The
present motion might, however, be considered as a tender
of friendship towards France, and he hoped that it would
be so felt, and not forced to a division, when the
votes given on either side would involve much danger
of misinterpretation. Rejoicing in the pacific tokens
and tendency at present manifesting themselves, among
which he assigned a high place to the Industrial
Exhibition, the noble lord pronounced for himself and
colleagues an emphatic declaration that they were and
would be actively interested in suppressing the outbreak
of war, not only between this country, but between
every country, and the rest of the world.—Mr.
ROEBUCK drew a wide distinction between the readiness to
fight, if attacked, and a perpetual existence in military
harness. The resolution now proposed would place us
in the first-mentioned position, and with a fervent
appeal to all the principles and sentiments of social
progress, he called on the house to adopt it.—Mr. MILNER
GIBSON propounded the maxim that every warlike
armament was not merely an utter waste, but an
unmitigated moral evil. Experience showed that France and
England had entered upon a rivalry of increase in their
respective establishments, and why should they not
continue to be rivals in reduction, if the example were set
on our side?—Sir H. Verney, Mr. Brotherton, Mr.
Hume, Sir H. Inglis, Mr. Gooch, and Mr. Lovden,
having spoken, Mr. COBDEN consented to withdraw his
resolution, trusting that the discussion it had elicited
might produce a good effect, and that the foreign secretary
would carry out in practice the sentiments he had
expressed in his speech.—The motion was then
withdrawn by consent.

Mr. HUME moved an address to the crown to cancel
the patent now granted to the Queen's printers,
conferring a Monopoly of Printing Bibles and Prayer-
Books in England and Ireland.—The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cowan, and opposed by Sir G. Grey,
who observed that the patents in question could not be
revoked, except by an act of parliament.—Sir R. Inglis
also opposed the motion.—The resolution was negatived
without a division.

On Wednesday, June 18th, the adjourned debate on
the Sunday Trading Prevention Bill was resumed by
Mr. WILLIAMS, who advocated the measure.—Mr.
ROEBUCK examined the provisions of the bill, which he
contended were worth no more than so much waste
paper.—Mr. SPOONER approved of the principle of the
bill, but apprehended that it would give rise to a great
amount of litigation, whilst it would legalise the sale of
more articles than it prohibited.—Sir W. CLAY
supported the bill as likely to exercise a beneficial effect on
the morals of the working classes, and in accordance
with the public opinion of the metropolis.—Mr. W. J.
FOX opposed the bill as a measure founded on false
principles, and certain to be partial in its operation,
inasmuch as it struck only at shopkeepers and petty
hucksters, whilst leaving other kinds of labour
untouched.—Sir G. GREY would support any measure
that was well framed and likely to be effective, but
could see no prospect of attaining the end in view by
the present bill. He believed it must be left to the
good feeling of the people to discourage Sunday trading
so as to make the day really one of rest.—Sir B. HALL
could not consent to any legislation for the metropolis
which did not extend to the whole country.—Mr.
Hindley supported the bill.—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said
he would give the bill the opposition he had uniformly
given to similar proposals since the days of Sir A.
Agnew. He denied that the opinion of the working
classes was favourable to it.—After a few words from
Mr. Trelawny and Mr. Alcock, the house divided,
and rejected the motion by 77 to 42.—The bill was
consequently lost.—The house then went into
committee on the Landlord and Tenant Bill, on the clauses
of which several divisions took place.—The bill then
went through committee.

On Thursday, June 19th, on the order for going into
committee on the bill for the Removal of Smithfield
Market, Sir J. DUKE urged the government to abandon
the measure for the present session, to afford the
corporation of London an opportunity to enlarge the market
and remove all existing grounds of complaint, and moved
that the bill be committed that day six months.—In the
desultory discussion to which this motion led, Mr. C.
LEWIS stated that it was not intended that the
commissioners appointed under the bill should be paid, nor
that any grant of public money should be asked for the
erection of the new market, it being calculated that the
tolls, which were moderate, would be amply sufficient.
—Sir J. Duke's motion was negatived by 64 against 26,
and the house went into committee upon the bill.

Mr. HEYWOOD moved a resolution, that the house
should resolve itself into a committee to consider the
Religious Tests in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge,
and Dublin. These tests, he observed, were originally
introduced in the English colleges, with a view more to
the clergy than the laity, when the colleges were
ecclesiastical schools; but theology had ceased to be the end
of studies there, a large body of the students being laymen.
He specified examples in all the three universities
wherein religious tests were objectionable upon the face
of them. If the house went into committee upon these
tests, among the resolutions he should propose would be
one with reference to subscription to the three articles
contained in the 36th Canon He urged the motion
upon the consideration of the house, as calculated to
benefit not only the laity, but the Church of England
herself.—Mr. EWART seconded the motion in no hostile