but contended that it was impracticable, and not
calculated to remedy the existing evils.—Sir G. GREY said,
that the tone of the speech had been most admirable,
but the motion was exceedingly vague. There was
much spiritual destitution to be relieved; but measures
were already in operation which will diminish the evil.
The motion implied that such measures had not been
taken; and no shorter method than those in operation
for removing the difficulties of the subject was pointed
out. As to the amendment proposed by Mr. Hume, the
information it called for was no doubt very desirable,
but it would take years to obtain it. He must move the
previous question; not because he did not concur in the
object of the motion, but because it would lead to an
erroneous view of the opinion of the house.—Mr. S.
Herbert supported the motion; Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr.
Alcock, and Mr. Goulburn opposed it.—Mr. HORSMAN
dwelt at some length upon the enormous revenues of
the bishops, and regretted that the church should be
injured by champions of such abuses being found among
those who called themselves her friends. He made a
long statement of a lease transaction, in regard to which
he severely impugned the conduct of the Bishop of
Gloucester and Bristol. He insisted that the time was
rapidly coming when you must have either a reformed
episcopate or none at all.—Mr. WIGRAM deprecated the
attacks made, without notice, by Sir B. Hall and Mr.
Horsman, as most unfair. He should oppose Mr. Hume's
motion, but should support that of Lord Blandford
except that he gave no countenance to the proposal for
the sale of the Chancellor's livings.—After a few further
remarks, Mr. Hume withdrew his amendment, and
Lord Blandford's motion was agreed to.

On Wednesday, July 2nd, Mr. BELL moved the
second reading of the Pharmacy Bill, the object of
which he stated to be the improvement of the qualifications
of chemists, by establishing the principle that all
who prepared medicines and compounded prescriptions,
ought to be educated persons, and pass an examination.
Mr. Hume and Mr. Henley stated several objections
to the bill.—Sir G. GREY observed that this was a
complicated subject which should be considered in connection
with that of general medical regulations. He
concurred in some of the objections, but said, that if
Mr. Bell would consent to the bill being hereafter
committed pro formâ, and not ask the house to proceed
further with it this session, he should not oppose the
second reading.—Mr. Bell assented, and the bill, with
this understanding, was read a second time.

On Thursday, July 3rd, the Oath of Abjuration (Jews)
Bill was read a third time without a division, Sir R. H.
Inglis and several other opposing members merely
protesting against the measure.—Lord J. RUSSELL alluded
to the late Greenwich Election, observing that within
these few days a second member of the Jewish persuasion
had been elected by upwards of 2000 votes.
He (Lord John) was glad to find that Alderman Salomons
did not mean to come down to this house to take the
oaths before the other house of parliament had decided
upon this bill; and he hoped that that house would
consider, after the House of Commons had for the third
time declared its opinion that Jews ought to sit there,
and two bodies of constituents had elected Jews, whether
it was not due to the representatives of England, and to
the great body of the people, that they should be
allowed to consult their own wishes upon the subject.

On Friday, July 4th, the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
Bill was read a third time. Lord J. RUSSELL then
moved the omission of the clause inserted on Sir
Frederick Thesiger's motion, for making it penal to
introduce the bulls, or to publish them, as well as to
assume the titles. He briefly repeated the arguments
about the vexatious cumulative effect of such a clause.
—Sir FREDERICK THESIGER defended his amendments at
great length.—The SOLICITOR-GENERAL argued that
the amendment would be vexatious, though not persecuting;
but Mr. Roebuck pointed out very inconvenient
consequences of persecution, involving the bastardy of
issue, and the loss of estates, through fanatic protestant
proceedings in the courts. The house divided, and
rejected the motion of Lord John Russell, by 208 to 129
—majority 79. An amendment by Mr. Freshfield was
lost for want of a seconder.—Lord John RUSSELL then
proposed his second motion, for omitting Sir Frederick
Thesiger's common-informer amendment. The question
was left to the house, both by Lord John and by Sir
Frederick Thesiger, "without any further argument."
The house again declared against the first minister, by
175 to 124—majority 51. In these divisions the Irish
Roman Catholic Members took no part: they repeated
their course of leaving the house, and washing their
hands of the responsibility of the measure. The next
step of procedure had to be taken in the midst of the
movement occurring on the return of members to the
house after a division. The SPEAKER put the question,
"That the bill do pass," and looked to the opposition
side of the house for the rising of members whom he
expected to speak; but no one rose: he paused twice,
and still no one rose. Then the division was taken. The
numbers were—for the motion, 263; against it, 46;
majority for passing the bill, 217. Mr. GRATTAN then
moved, as an amendment on the formal question of
affixing the title of the bill, that it be entitled "A Bill
to Prevent the Free Exercise of the Roman Catholic
Religion in the United Kingdom."—Sir JAMES GRAHAM
and several other members expressed their regret that
the bill had been passed so unexpectedly.—Mr. SERGEANT
MURPHY had come down on purpose to speak (as several
other members vouched,) and he did not hear the words
"That the bill do pass."—Mr. REYNOLDS had found the
passage so jammed whilst the Speaker was putting the
question, that he and those who were trying to force
their way into the house were unaware of what was
going on. The matter, however, could not be
reopened; and, Mr. Grattan's amendment having been
negatived without a division, the bill was ordered, amid
cheers from different parts of the house, to be taken up
to the House of Lords.

On Monday, July 7, the Inhabited House Duty Bill
passed through committee, after considerable discussion
and several amendments, which were successively
negatived.

In a Committee of Supply on the civil service
estimates, when several sums were voted, the vote of
£32,000 for secret service was opposed by Mr. Williams,
who moved its reduction to £20,000 but his amendment
was negatived by 140 to 41.

A vote of £98,860 for expenses connected with
Transportation, gave rise to an animated discussion on the
merits of the transportation system, especially with
reference to Van Diemen's Land, in the course of which
both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord John
Russell urged the impossibility of a sudden change.
On a division the vote was carried by 98 to 9.

On Tuesday, July 8, Lord R. GROSVENOR moved for
leave to bring in a bill for the Repeal of the Attorney's
Certificate Duty. The Chancellor of the EXCHEQUER
opposed the motion, as a regard for the stability of the
national finances prevented him from going further in
the way of reduction of taxation than he had already
announced to the house. The motion, however, was
carried by 162 to 132.

Mr. H. BERKELEY then moved for leave to bring in
a bill for the protection of the parliamentary electors of
Great Britain and Ireland, by the Vote by Ballot. He
contended that the shield of the ballot was necessary to
give the voter due protection against unfair influence
—especially the agricultural voters, who were driven to
the poll like a flock of sheep to the market town.
Intimidation disposed of, he could be well content to
let bribery take its chance; intimidation contained
within it the seeds of bribery in its worst form. He
drew a humorous picture of the tenantry of the
landowners, one day figuring as gallant and invincible
yeomanry, another day trooping to the poll at the word
of command, voting so slavishly that he thought it
would save much time and trouble if the steward of the
estate were allowed to send in a list of the voters to the
high sheriff of the county. He was satisfied that the
same system of tyranny and slavery which existed in
1835 continued to flourish in 1851, and referred to the
South Notts election as an example. He quoted a
striking passage from Defoe, to show that the ballot
was advocated by that sagacious politician as a sufficient
remedy for the evils of our electoral system so long ago
as 1708. He reminded the house that the measure had