an amendment for exempting Ireland from its operation,
which was negatived by 82 to 17. The house then
went into committee. Two amendments were moved:
the first by Lord KINNAIRD for the omission of the first
clause; the second by the Duke of ARGYLL for the
omission of the words, giving power to private
individuals to institute proceedings. Both were negatived;
and the bill passed through committee.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS on Thursday, June
25th, Mr. BANKES renewed his opposition to the St.
Alban's Bribery Commission Bill, and moved the third
reading that day six months. He was supported by Mr.
Henley and Mr. J. Stuart; but the third reading was
carried by 37 to 16. The question of the Danish Claims
was again brought before the house by Mr. Roebuck,
who moved for an address to her Majesty on the subject.
—The Chancellor of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
motion, which was negatived by 126 by 49.

The Landlord and Tenant Bill was read a third time
and passed; a clause moved by Mr. Anstey to exclude
Ireland from its operation being negatived.

On Friday, June 27th, in answer to a question respecting
the disposal of the Exhibition Building, put by Mr.
Stafford, Lord J. RUSSELL said that the commissioners
for the Crystal Palace had contracted that the building
should be removed from Hyde Park by the 1st of
November, and they had no power to direct that it
should be longer retained there. With respect to the
ideas of the government with regard to the retention of
the building, he could only say that they had never
considered the subject, and had not at present the
materials for such consideration.

On the motion for considering the amended Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill, Mr. MILES moved a clause the object
of which was to place a discretionary power in
the hands of the Secretary of State to have any
person convicted of a second offence against the bill
conducted out of the kingdom.—Sir G. GREY opposed
the clause as inoperative, for it contained no provision
to prevent a return of the parties. The clause was
negatived by 140 to 101.—Mr. KEOGH then moved a
clause, the object of which was to prevent the act from
in any manner affecting any provisions in the Irish
Charitable Bequests act.—Lord J. RUSSELL assented
to the clause, which was agreed to.—Mr. KEOGH then
moved that nothing in the bill contained should in any
manner prevent the reception in evidence in any court
of law or equity in this kingdom of any letter of ordination
or other document conferring ecclesiastical powers
upon any clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church,
which, but for the passing of this act, would have been
so received.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the
clause, not thinking it advisable that any titles should
be recognised in contravention of the provisions of this
bill. The clause was negatived by 220 to 45.—Mr.
KEOGH moved an amendment, to the effect that no
proceedings should be taken under the proposed act,
except by the Attorney-General in England and Ireland,
and by the Lord-Advocate in Scotland.—Lord J.
RUSSELL opposed the amendment as unnecessary.—Sir
J. GRAHAM gave it his warm support, arguing that to
allow an informer the opportunity of placing a Roman
Catholic bishop at the criminal's bar for trial, without
regard to the circumstances of the country at the
moment (and he more particularly referred to Ireland),
might be most dangerous. The check of control
by the law advisers of the Crown ought certainly
to be imposed. No reply being made, and a division
being called for, Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL, with great
warmth, demanded whether no notice was to be taken
of an argument like that of Sir J. Graham? If the
liberties of Ireland were to be strangled, ought they to
be strangled by mutes?—Mr. LAWLESS seconded this
appeal, and some excitement took place.—Mr. KEOGH
charged the government with so much vacillation as to
their measure, that, as he stated, Mr. Hayter (the
secretary to the Treasury) had informed him, while the
last division was going on, that there would be no
objection to his clause, and that if he would cut his
speech very short, he (Mr. Hayter) would keep his men
to vote with him; then Lord John Russell changed his
mind and opposed him. Various speeches followed;
Lord J. Russell and Sir G. Grey denying having given
any authority to Mr. Hayter to bind the government,
and Mr. Hayter denying (in a tone of great solemnity)
that he had done so, or stated more than his own private
opinion "in a conversational and confidential tone."
Mr. Keogh reasserted the contrary, and especially denied
the "confidence," inasmuch as he said Mr. Hayter had
brought in the name of Sir Frederic Thesiger, and had
remarked that, if Mr. Keogh's amendment was carried,
of course Sir Frederic would not move one which he
had upon the paper.—Sir F. THESIGER rose to deny
having given anybody authority to speak for him, and
finally the house divided, negativing the amendment by
232 to 71.—Mr. REYNOLDS then moved a clause to the
effect that nothing in the bill should affect an act for the
maintenance of the cemeteries at Golden Bridge and
Prospect, in the county of Dublin, &c. After some
discussion, the clause was negatived by 116 to 32.—Sir F.
THESIGER then moved the amendments to the preamble,
of which he had given notice, and the object of which
was to give the bill a prospective operation as to future
bulls and rescripts received from Rome. He was most
anxious to make the bill complete and effective, which
it certainly was not in its present shape. No further
opportunity would be offered for amendments, and he,
therefore, enforced the necessity of framing it now into
a perfect and effectual measure. He had placed a series
of amendments on the paper, the first of which was now
before the house; and after explaining the tenor of
those amendments, he maintained their necessity, if it
were wished that the bill should operate in Ireland, or
the breaches made in the bulwarks of our Zion repaired
with substantial masonry.—Lord J. RUSSELL denied
that the amendments so strongly insisted upon were
at all requisite. The one now under consideration would
render the operation of the bill less vigorous. As it
stood, the bill would have effect in Ireland, but it must
be remarked that the act of aggression appeared in a
different character in that country from what it had in
England. The Catholic episcopacy has long existed in
Ireland, but in England its introduction was a novelty,
and the Pope had gone out of his way to commit an
encroachment on our church and faith. He objected
especially to the amendment by which private individuals
could initiate proceedings for penalties under the bill.
After defending the measure generally, the noble lord
declared that the amendment could only be carried by
the ostentatious absence of the Irish members. Even
in that case, however, he should not discontinue the
measure, as the amendments did not contravene the
principle of the bill as intended by the government.—
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered the amendment
now before them of comparatively little importance. He
disapproved strongly of the amendment, allowing common
informers to set in motion the legal machinery of
the bill. The duty fell under the cognisance of the law
advisers of the crown, and parliament or public opinion
might be relied upon to guarantee that they should not
neglect it. The house then divided—for the amendment,
135; against it, 100: majority, 35. The announcement
of the numbers elicited loud cheering from
the opposition benches. Some verbal amendments were
then agreed to, after which Sir F. THESIGER moved an
amendment, making it penal to obtain, or cause to be
procured, from the bishop or see of Rome, or publish
or put in use, within any part of the United Kingdom,
any bull, brief, rescript, or letters apostolical, or any
other instrument or writing, for the purpose of constituting
arch-bishops or bishops of pretended provinces,
sees, or dioceses within the United Kingdom.—The
SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that the amendments were
ineffective and delusive. The house divided, and the
numbers were—for the amendment, 165; against it,
109: majority against ministers, 56.—Lord J. RUSSELL
said he would not divide the house on the next amendment
of Sir F. Thesiger, but would take the sense of
the house upon it on the third reading.—On the suggestion
of Sir J. Graham, the bill was ordered to be
reprinted, and Lord J. Russell fixed the third reading for
Friday next.

The adjourned debate on the motion for an
address upon the subject of the Court of Chancery
was resumed by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, who stated