except one derived from law. Having defended his own
conduct in reference to the subject, his lordship said
that, though perfectly willing that the opinion of a
court of law should be taken upon any question which
could properly come before it, he could not see how it
could be a case for such a court, whether a member of
that house had or had not duly taken the requisite
oaths.—Mr. ANSTEY strenuously opposed the resolution.
—Mr. J. A. SMITH also opposed it, warning the house
that the question would come before it again and again
until the Jews should attain their rights.—The house
then divided, and the numbers were—for Lord J.
Russell's resolution, 123; against it, 68.

The case of Ann Hicks having been brought forward by
Mr. Osborne, Lord SEYMOUR gave the following explanation.
He said no gift of a house in the Park had ever been
given to Ann Hicks. She had a stand there, and as she
wished to have a stand to be locked the Commissioners
of Woods and Forests allowed her one. She then
petitioned again to be allowed to increase the stand on
account of her fifteen children. After that she asked to
be allowed to have a little hut with a fire-place for
making tea, but the commissioners refused to let her
have a fire-place. She then wrote to have an alteration
in the hut, but that was opposed; she then put a new
roof on, with a chimney, and she had also a garden;
and when he came into office he found that she had
permanently located herself in the park. He made
inquiries into the matter, and from the unfavourable
reports he received of Mrs. Hicks, he considered it his
duty that she should be removed. He then wrote to
the Duke of Wellington, as ranger of the park, who
was of opinion that legal opinion should be obtained.
That was obtained, but she still refused to remove.
However, she eventually consented to remove on his
consenting to give her 5s. a week for a cottage for twelve
months. He had given her the money. The only
other cottage which had been erected in the park was
one built by Prince Albert near the Glass Palace, and
on the understanding that it must be removed at the
latter end of this year.

On Tuesday the 29th, Mr. FREWEN moved a resolution
for the Repeal of the Duty on Hops. He brought
forward this motion, he said, in compliance with the
earnest request of his constituents. The amount of the
duty was not large—little more than 300,000l.—though
it pressed severely upon certain localities, and he urged
the injustice of maintaining this duty, which was the
only war tax which had not been repealed or reduced.—
Mr. T. L. HODGES moved, as an amendment to the
motion, to resolve that on any reduction of excise duty
on hops, it is expedient to reduce the excise duty on
British hops and the customs' duty on foreign hops by
1d. per lb., with the 5 per cent, additional duty. The
original motion was supported by Mr. Fuller, Mr. Barrow,
and Mr. Curteis.—The Chancellor of the EXCHEQUER
repeated the objections he had made on former occasions
against repealing this duty. The arrangements for the
present financial year had been completed, and it would
be most unwise to bind the house as to those of future
years.—Sir J. TYRRELL entered his protest against the
cavalier manner in which propositions for agricultural
relief were met by the government.—Mr. COBDEN observed that the injustice and impolicy of this duty were
seen from the manner in which it affected the interests
of the hop-growers in different parts of the country.
This inequality should alone condemn the tax, which
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he hoped, would early
take into his consideration.—Mr. Hodges withdrew his
amendment, and Mr. Frewen's motion was negatived
upon a division by 59 against 30.

Mr. HEYWOOD moved an address, praying her
Majesty to direct that the Crystal Palace be Preserved
until the 1st of May next, with a view to determine if
it can be adapted to purposes of public utility and
recreation. He specified several objects to which the
structure might be advantageously devoted, remarking
that its locality was singularly deficient in places of public
recreation. The commissioners could not move of
themselves, and must take down the building unless the
house interposed.—Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the
motion. He had denounced the work at the beginning
as a most gross attack upon the rights of the people of
this country. He remained of the same opinion.—Mr.
LABOUCHERE dissented altogether from the estimate of
the exhibition formed by Colonel Sibthorp. It had
ministered to the gratification of hundreds of thousands;
its effect upon trade and the arts he believed would be
not inconsiderable, but the moral spectacle which had
been exhibited in the Crystal Palace by the orderly
demeanour of the vast body of persons, foreigners as well
as Englishmen, congregated within it, was more admirable
than the edifice and its contents. With respect
to the motion for a reprieve of the structure, as a
commissioner and as a member of the government he should
express no opinion upon the proposition, which was a
question for the house, and the house alone, to decide.—
Sir R. INGLIS, subscribing to the statements made by
Mr. Labouchere of the results of the exhibition, still
thought that the house was not at liberty to alter the
arrangements. It should be looked at simply as a
question of contract, which could not be got rid of,
except by an act of parliament. The motion was
supported by Mr. Ewart, Mr. MacGregor, Colonel
Thompson, Mr. Wakely, Mr. C. Villiers, Mr. Clay, Mr.
Headlam, and Mr. Geach; and opposed by Mr. Gouldburn,
and Lord Seymour.—The Chancellor of the
EXCHEQUER cautioned the house on the subject of
expense, but declined, as a member of government,
to express an opinion on the motion. On a division the
motion was carried by 75 against 47.

On Wednesday, the 30th, in answer to Mr. Henley,
the Chancellor of the EXCHEQUER said that no steps
had as yet been taken for establishing Steam
Communication between the Cape and Sydney. He was not
prepared to say that so expensive a scheme would be
adopted.—Lord JOCELYN denied that the proposed step,
which had been recommended by the committee of
which he had been chairman, would cause great
expense; on the contrary, the committee had arrived
at the conclusion that the route in question would be
the cheapest.

On the motion for going into committee on the
Patent Law Amendment Bill, Mr. T. EGERTON
objected to proceeding with it at such a period of the
session.—The Chancellor of the EXCHEQUER said
that the bill had been fully considered in the House of
Lords, and urged the proceeding with it.—Sir F.
Thesiger, Mr. Macgregor, and Sir De Lacy Evans
having spoken, the former in favour of, the two latter
against postponement, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL said
that five hundred persons had taken out protections for
articles exhibited at the Great Exhibition, and were
waiting to take out patents under the proposed measure.
—Mr. T. GREENE objected to the practice of allowing a
patentee six months to specify, and said that the bill, as
it stood, would have the effect of cheating the intellects
of the country of many of their best works.—Mr. CARDWELL would support the bill, but not as a settlement of
the patent laws, which required thorough reform, to
effect which object he hoped government would next
session appoint a select committee.—Lord J. RUSSELL
said that Mr. Cardwell's suggestion should be taken
into consideration. The government regarded the
present bill only as an improvement on the law as it
stood. The bill then went through the committee pro
forma.

The house went into committee on the Church
Building Act Amendment Bill. The first clause was
struck out, and clauses 2 to 28 inclusive were agreed to.
A discussion arose on a clause proposed by Mr. Frewen,
providing for the case of the avoidance of a benefice with
no church or chapel attached, which clause, upon
division, was carried by 40 to 37. It was finally agreed
that the Solicitor-General should draw up a clause on
the subject, with certain alterations suggested by Mr.
Gladstone.

On Thursday, the 31st, the Chancellor of the
EXCHEQUER repeated, in fuller and more explicit terms
than he had used on Tuesday, his statement respecting
the Crystal Palace. Whether the commissioners were
at liberty, under the terms of the memorandum, to
apply any portion of the surplus in their hands to the
purposes of a winter garden he thought very doubtful;
whether, if they had the power, they had the inclination,
he could not say. If they were unable or