system.—After some observations from the Marquis
of Lansdowne against the revival of convocation,
certain papers moved for by Lord Redesdale were
ordered.

On Monday, July 14, Lord CAMPBELL presented a
petition from inhabitants of Knightsbridge, praying
for the Removal of the Crystal Palace, and spoke in
support of the petition.

The Bishop of OXFORD moved that copies of the
correspondence touching the Horfield Manor Estate, which
had passed between the Copyhold Commissioners and
the Ecclesiastical Commission, should be laid on the
table, and entered into an elaborate defence of the
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, whose motives, he
contended, had been grievously misrepresented.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE having moved the first
reading of the Court of Chancery and Judicial
Committee Bill, Lord BROUGHAM apologised to the house
for addressing the house on this stage of the bill, but
the state of his health was such that if he did not speak
now he should not have an opportunity of doing so
again this session. He approved the present measure
as a step, though not a stride, in the right direction;
but if any one supposed that any structural alteration
of the Court of Chancery would satisfy the wants of the
public, he was a dreamer, and would some day awake
to a sad reality. He desired no rash changes, but the
house might rest assured that if efficient measures of
Chancery reform were not speedily introduced, the
inevitable result would be that the good would be swept
away with the bad, and the jurisprudence and
judicature of the country would be reduced to a state which
would supply a wholesome warning to those who, from
a fear of granting moderate and safe reform, exposed
their lordships to the dangers of a violent revolution.—
The bill was then read a first time.

On Tuesday, July 15, the Earl of DERBY moved that
tne papers laid before Parliament respecting the
Constitution of the Cape Colony be referred to a select
committee. He was actuated (he said) by no hostility
to the Government, but solely by a desire to soothe the
disaffection which existed at the Cape, and restore
harmony to the colony. That colony, which came into
our possession by conquest, was at first ruled by the
Governor alone, then by the Governor assisted by an
"Executive Council," which body afterwards became a
"Legislative Council," into which was infused the first
germ of popular institutions. In the year 1842, when
he was Colonial Secretary, a petition was presented to
him, praying the mother country to confer representative
institutions on the colony, to which request he had
declined to accede, not because he undervalued the
benefit of colonial representative institutions in general,
but because he thought the form of those institutions
suggested by the petitioners undesirable, and also
because he foresaw many obstacles to their successful
introduction. Lord Derby then proceeded to give a
sketch of the expectations which had been raised in the
minds of the colonists by the promise of representative
institutions held out to them by the present Government;
showing how those expectations had been disappointed
by the constitution sent out from this country,
and how the majority of the inhabitants at the Cape
were now engaged in an angry war with the Colonial
Secretary. For his own part, since so large a measure
of the representative system had been solemnly
promised, he was of opinion that the engagement entered
into with the colony should be rigidly adhered to, and
he hoped that the labours of the select committee for
which he was now about to move, and to which, he
trusted, the house would consent, would, by its
recommendations, afford the colony an opportunity of showing
that it was really ripe for free institutions, and at the
same time bring about a solution of the difficulties now
unfortunately existing between the mother country
and its colony.—Earl GREY spoke at great length in
opposition to the motion. He asserted that Lord Derby
had given no reasons for it, and proceeded, after some
strictures upon Lord Derby's despatches in 1842,
to defend his own. He re-stated the recent history of
the colony, and the acts of Governors Pottinger and
Smith, and said that the moment the latter had
informed the colony that he had reported in favour of
representative constitutions, the question was practically
decided; and the only difficulty was, how to accord
those institutions with safety. This was a grave question,
and feeling that with the existing pressure of
public business it would be impossible to get the
Cabinet to consider it with the necessary care, he had
thought it best to refer to the Privy Council; but there
was no idea of avoiding responsibility. He proceeded
to say that he was most anxious to establish a constitution
at the Cape, and when the war should be over
(which it was expected would soon be the case), he
thought there would be little difficulty in the way of
that object. He then went into the anti-convict case
question, and dwelt upon the inhumanity of the
colonists in refusing food to her Majesty's troops and to the
wretched and suffering. He concluded a very long
speech by describing this motion as an implied censure
on government, and by demanding its rejection. After
some observations from Lord Lyndhurst, the Lord
Chancellor, the Duke of Argyll, Lord Wharncliffe, and
the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Derby's motion was
negatived by 74 to 68.

On Thursday, the 17th, the Lord CHANCELLOR
moved the second reading of the Oath of Abjuration
(Jews) Bill. After a debate, in which the old arguments
for and against the measure were repeated, the
principal speakers in its favour being Lord Wodehouse,
the Archbishop of Dublin, the Earl of Carlisle, and the
Bishop of Norwich; and against it, Earl Nelson, the
Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Winchilsea, Lord
Abinger, and the Earl of Galloway,—the motion for
the second reading was negatived by 144 to 108.

On Friday, the 18th, on the motion of the Marquis
of LANSDOWNE, the House-Tax Bill was, after some
debate, read the second time. In the course of the
sitting, a considerable number of petitions were
presented from different parts of the country Against the
Removal of the Crystal Palace at the close of the
Exhibition.

On Monday the 21st, the second reading of the
Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill was moved by the
Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who recapitulated the
circumstances which led to its introduction, and stated its
objects.—The Earl of ABERDEEN opposed it on the
ground that it was an interference with religious freedom.
He denied that there was any intention on the
part of the Pope to offer an offence to the crown of
England, and contended that if the bill continued to be
anything but a dead letter there never again would be
peace in Ireland. He therefore moved that it be read
a second time that day three months.—The Duke of
WELLINGTON said he had always endeavoured to
support the provisions of the great measure of 1829, but
when the recent proceedings of the court of Rome were
brought under his notice he felt at once that they could
not be passed over without legislation. The Pope had
appointed an Archbishop of Westminster, had attempted
to exercise authority over the very spot in which the
English parliament was assembled, and under the
sanction of this proceeding Cardinal Wiseman made an
attack upon the rights of the Dean and Chapter of
Westminster. That this was contrary to the true spirit
of the laws of England no man acquainted with them
could doubt, for throughout the whole of our statutes
affecting religion we had carefully abstained from
disturbing the great principles of the reformation. If
in their legislation upon this subject they did what was
necessary for protecting the religious liberties of the
people, and no more, they might rely upon the cordial
support of England and of the better portion of Ireland.
He therefore supported the second reading. After
speeches in support of the bill from the Duke of Argyll
and the Bishop of St. Davids, the debate was adjourned.

On Tuesday the 22d, the debate was resumed; the
bill being supported by Lord Winchelsea, Lord
Lyndhurst, the Marquis of Clanricade, the Lord Chancellor,
Earl Fitzwilliam, and the Earl of Hardwicke; and
opposed by Lord Vaux, the Earl of Wicklow, the
Duke of Newcastle, Lord Monteagle, and the Earl of
St. Germans. On a division, the second reading was
carried by 265 to 38.

On Friday the 25th, before the house went into
committee on the above bill, Lord MONTEAGLE moved