the sanction of the Master of the Rolls and of the
present Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. If
the noble lord at the head of the government could
give him any pledge that the measure was to be
comprised in the new plan of reform, he would be happy to
withdraw his motion.—Mr. ELLIS seconded the motion.
Having seen much of contested elections in his part of
the country for twenty-five years, he had had opportunities
of knowing the excessive amount of intimidation
and improper influence exercised on both sides. It
was the duty of that house to enable the voter to respect
himself; but how could the voter respect himself when
he was dragged to the poll to give a vote against his
own conscience, on the side of which he did not
approve? In literary, charitable, and other institutions
the ballot was universal; why then should it not be
adopted when the object was to give protection to the
voter in the exercise of the most important function
which the citizen of a free state should be called on to
perform?—Mr. HUME considered that the arguments
of Mr. Berkeley were unanswerable, and impressed
upon the government the importance of granting a
concession which he believed was essential to the
future welfare of the country. The motion, however,
he said aimed at only a part of his object; he had,
therefore, moved as an amendment, to extend the
elective franchise to all men of full age rated to the
poor; to limit the duration of parliament for three
years; and to make the proportion of representatives
more consistent with the amount of population and
property. He urged at some length the expediency of
these several changes, expatiating upon the evil
consequences which had arisen and would arise from delaying
them, and he warned the noble lord that unless the
ballot formed a part of his scheme of reform next
session it would not give satisfaction. As it was desirable
to obtain the opinion of the house upon this
question of ballot, he should not move his amendment,
but support the original motion.—Captain SCOBELL,
adverting to the intimidation which had been employed
in the late election at Bath, said he could not, as an
honest man and faithful representative, abstain from
declaring on this first occasion of his addressing the
house, the absolute justice, expediency, and necessity of
sheltering men in the exercise of rights which the
constitution gave them.—The house having divided, this
motion was carried also against the government by 87
to 50.

On Wednesday, July 9, on the motion to go into
committee on the Colonial Property Qualification Bill,
Mr. TUFNELL moved that it be an instruction to the
committee to provide for the abolition of any property
qualification for the election of members to serve in
parliament. He supported his motion on the ground
that the old constitutional practice was to leave the
electors perfectly unfettered in the choice of their
representatives.—Mr. EWART seconded the motion, on
the ground that, as a Scotch member, he required no
qualification, and he thought it fair to place English
and Irish members in the same position.—Lord J.
RUSSELL objected to the form in which the motion
came, as an amendment upon a bill extending the
qualification, but expressed himself favourable to its
principle. He suggested that the abolition of all
qualification might form a very proper feature in a general
measure of reform, as he considered the necessary
expense and loss of time involved in the duties of a
representatve a sufficient guarantee for the character of
the members of the house.—After some remarks by
Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Henley, and Mr. V. Smith, both
amendment and bill were withdrawn, and the order
for going into committee was discharged.—The second
reading of the Home-made Spirits in Bond Bill was
opposed by the Chancellor of the EXCHEQUER, on
the ground that it would be unjust to the English
distillers.—Lord Naas and Mr Reynolds protested
against the Irish and Scotch distillers being sacrificed
for the benefit of eleven English distillers.—Mr.
Bramston, Mr. Bass, and Mr. Goulburn, supported
the opposition to the bill, which, on a division, was
thrown out by a majority of 194 to 166.

On Thursday, July 10, the Inhabited House-Duty
Bill was read a third time and passed, after a protest
from Mr. Disraeli against the bill, as one of the most
impolitic measures ever adopted.—Mr. HUME moved
an address to the Crown, praying for the appointment
of a royal commission to inquire into the Proceedings of
Sir James Brooke in Borneo, and especially into the
attack made, under his advice and direction, upon the
Sakarran and Sarebas Dyaks on the 31st July, 1849;
and further, that her Majesty would command that the
opinion of the judges be taken and laid before the house
touching the legality of the holding by Sir James, at the
same time, of certain apparently incompatible offices. He
reiterated the charge which had been made against
Sir J. Brooke on several former occasions. The motion
was opposed by Mr. Headlam, Mr. H. Drummond, Mr.
Gladstone, and Lord Palmerston; and supported by
Mr. Cobden. On a division it was rejected by 230 to 19.

On Friday, July 11th, Mr. M. MILNES, on the part
of the Bishop of St. David's, denied the correctness of
the statement made on a former evening by Sir B. Hall
as to the Spiritual Condition of his Diocese, and he also
denied the allegation that the right rev. prelate had
interfered to prevent the usual visitation of the
archdeacons to the diocese.—Sir B. HALL declined to retract
anything he had stated, for he had the authority of one
of the archdeacons for what he had advanced. He could
further state of his own knowledge that the state of the
diocese was most disgraceful, many of the churches
being without either roofs or windows, and most of
them in a very dilapidated condition.

Mr. MOWATT called the attention of the house to the
case of the Rochester Cathedral Grammar School, and
moved for an address to her Majesty, praying a commission
to enquire into the administration of the educational
trusts confided to the cathedral establishments of the kingdom.
—The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he was a sincere
friend to the education of the people, but at the present
period of the session he thought it more important that
the house should go into a committee of supply than to
enter upon an inquiry such as that proposed. The strongest
objection to the motion, however, was that it was founded
upon a matter which was in due course of adjudication
before a proper tribunal, in the case of Mr. Whiston,
who would have acted wisely to await the decision of
that tribunal, instead of thus bringing the facts of the
case before parliament.—Mr. BERNAL regretted that
these subjects should become matters of open scandal,
and he agreed with the Solicitor-General that Mr.
Whiston's case pendente lite should not be brought
forward for inquiry; but Mr. Whiston's case was but part
of a great whole, which imperatively called for inquiry,
although the shape in which the question was now
brought before the house was most inconvenient. The
government was called upon to look into those matters
in order that the church might be compelled to carry
out the intentions of the founders of such trusts, and
not leave these abuses to the chance discovery of
individuals.— Mr M. MILNES contended that the conduct
of the dean and chapter of Rochester was characterised
by great harshness towards Mr. Whiston.—Mr. R.
PALMER defended the dean and chapter of Rochester,
and regretted that Mr. Whiston had indulged in
asperities against them.—Mr. HUME supported the
motion.—Lord J. RUSSELL would not enter into the
question whether the dean and chapter acted properly
in the case of Mr. Whiston, or otherwise, for he thought
the question ought not to be at all entertained in that
house while it was sub judice before another tribunal.—
After some observations from Mr. Hayward and Mr.
Mowatt, the motion was negatived without a division.

On Monday the 14th, in answer to a question from
Mr. T. Duncombe as to the intentions of the government
with respect to legislation on Water Supply this
session, Lord J. RUSSELL said the course of the government
must depend upon the proceedings of the committee
to whom the subject had been referred; but, supposing
that the committee should not report in time to admit
of legislation this session, the government could, of
course, take no step in the matter; and as it was
desirable that the sewers and the water supply should
be under one combined management, if no measure
could be introduced this session with respect to water
supply, it was intended to propose only a temporary and
provisional sewer bill in the present session.