the owners and occupiers of land, whom he declined to
relieve to any further extent, and concluded by moving
the resolution for continuing the income tax for three
years, and also for continuing the stamp duties in
Ireland.—A number of members made critical remarks on
this financial scheme.—Mr. HUME complained that the
window tax was not to be repealed unconditionally,
and that the military establishments were not to be
reduced.—Viscount Duncan and Mr. Wakley enforced
the claims of the payers of the window tax; Alderman
Sidney, Sir B. Hall, and Lord Dudley Stuart, those of
the payers of income tax; Mr. Hodges, Mr. Frewen,
and Mr. Hope, complained that hop-growers are still
denied any help in their distress.—Mr. Newdegate, Mr.
Frewen, Sir William Jolliffe, and Mr. Bankes,
expressed their sense of the mockery of relief which is
offered to distressed agriculture generally. Mr. WAKLEY
closed the conversation with the declaration of his
firm conviction that the proposal on the subject of the
window tax would be so hostilely received that Sir C.
Wood would find it impossible to carry it out.—Mr.
HERRIES suggested, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL assented,
that the further discussion should take place on Friday
following.

On Tuesday, the 18th, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER announced his intention of introducing a
Savings Bank Bill.

In answer to Mr. HUME, Sir G. GREY stated that
the trustees of the British Museum had taken measures
for the better accommodation of the public.

In reply to Mr. KEOGH, Lord J. RUSSELL was
unable to say whether any Roman Catholics were placed
on the Dublin University Commission.

Mr. P. SCROPE brought forward his motion for a
select committee to consider the expediency of assimilating
the Poor Laws of England, Scotland, and
Ireland, and promoting the productive employment of
able-bodied paupers. The hon. member's argument
was cut short by the house being counted out.

On Wednesday the 19th, a petition against the window
tax, presented by Lord DUNCAN, was refused; the
petitioners having expressed "surprise" at the statement
made in the house by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and any reference to the debates in a petition being
informal.

Sir G. GREY obtained leave to introduce a bill, which
was read a first time, to amend the law relating to the
expenses of prosecutions. The object of the bill is to
subject those expenses to the regulation of the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, to empower
magistrates in quarter sessions to pay the clerk of the peace by
salary instead of fees, to restore to the quarter sessions
within the district of the Central Criminal Court the
Jurisdiction recently taken away from them, and to
facilitate criminal proceedings in towns and cities being
counties of themselves, but not for assize purposes.—
Mr. F. MACKENZIE was afraid the bill, if extended to
Scotland, would there tend to increase expense.—Mr.
HUME approved of the bill, which would greatly facilitate
proceedings, and lessen the expense.—Mr. S.
WORTLEY called attention to the necessity of having the
depositions put in shape by some functionary, without,
however, creating the office of a public prosecutor.—Mr
HENLEY was afraid that the employment of barristers in
getting up the cases would increase the expense.
Something, however, must be done to prevent the miscarriage
of prosecutions.

Sir G. GREY obtained leave to bring in a bill for the
removal of Smithfield Market. After stating the
proceedings taken by the parliamentary committee of 1849,
and by the government commission subsequently
appointed, and the communications which had passed
between the commission and the Corporation of London,
from which it appeared that the latter, having submitted
a plan of its own, of which the commissioners took no
notice, declined entertaining the plan of the
commissioners, the right hon. baronet explained the provisions
of the bill, which enables the crown to appoint five
"Metropolitan Cattle-market Commissioners," with
power to establish and regulate a cattle and a meat market
(the former not within five miles from St. Paul's), and
to exercise a control over slaughterhouses. Ample time
would be given for its consideration.—Mr. BUCK, on the
part of the farmers, expressed his gratitude to the
government.—Mr. A. STAFFORD objected to the
immense amount of patronage, and the large discretionary
powers, given by the bill, and to its wholesale interference
with public charters and private property.—Mr. S.
WORTLEY, as the only member connected with the City
then present, suggested that the rival plan of the
Corporation should be referred to the same committee.—Mr.
ELLIS hailed the bill, on behalf of the graziers. The
bill was then read a first time and referred to the Select
Committee of Standing Orders.

On Thursday the 20th, it was resolved, on the motion
of Sir G. GREY, that no bill connected with the supply
of water to the metropolis should be considered till at
least one week after the Easter recess, to give time for
the preparation of a bill on the same subject by the
Board of Health.

In answer to Sir D. L. EVANS, Lord SEYMOUR
expressed his hope that the provisions of the Extramural
Interments Act would soon be brought into practical
operation.

Mr. SLANEY moved for "a Select Committee to
consider the law of Partnership, and the propriety of
limitations of liabilities, with the view to encourage useful
enterprise, and the additional employment of labour."—
At the suggestion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, the motion was
modified by the substitution of the words " the
expediency of facilitating the limitation of liability," for the
words " the propriety of limitations of liabilities;" and
in this amended form the motion was unanimously
adopted.

Mr. LOCKE KING moved for leave to bring in a bill to
make the Franchise in counties in England and Wales
the same as that in boroughs, by giving the right of
voting to all occupiers of tenements of the annual value
of £10. The hon. member explained that he did not
intend to interfere with the provisions of the Reform
Bill, but only to extend to inhabitants in one locality
the franchise which that bill gave to the same class of
inhabitants in another locality. The measure proposed
by him was small and comparatively insignificant, and
would tend to strengthen rather than to weaken
the Monarchy and the House of Lords. It was only
applying to England the principle recognised by the
legislature last year in regard to Ireland,—the
principle, namely, of placing the borough and county
franchise on the same footing. The argument then used,
that the county constituencies had decreased, was
equally applicable to this country. In 1843, the total
number of county electors in England was 484,073; in
1850, it was only 461,413; in the boroughs, on the
contrary, there was an increase of 50,000. Addressing
himself to the Protectionist benches, Mr. King said, that,
after what had recently occurred at an election, in not
the least aristocratic part of England, he might fairly
claim the support of the hon. gentlemen who had, up to
a recent period, supported Protection; for he believed it
would be found that those who had only very lately
repudiated the principle of Protection would find it
exceedingly difficult to re-obtain their seats unless they
appealed to constituencies with an extended suffrage.
He knew something of the farmers of this country, and
could testify that when they had once formed an opinion
it was very difficult to shake it. They had been so
taught and tutored to cling to Protection, that they
would not be induced to give it up at a moment's notice
for any one; and, though hon. gentlemen might attempt
to persuade them that it was not a question of rent, they
would continue to maintain, that, if it was not a case
of Protection, it must be one of rent. He rejoiced greatly
at the admission made by the hon. member for
Buckinghamshire on behalf of his party, which completed the
triumph of the hon. member for the West Riding. He
hoped the hon. member for Buckinghamshire, with the
enlarged views which he had recently adopted, would
not attempt to coalesce with the electors who had been
created under the £50 Chandos clause, to answer a
political purpose. He trusted the hon. member would go
with them for an extended suffrage, and that they would
no longer hear anything about what he believed he might
say had now been partially renounced—he meant the re-
establishment of the dangerous doctrines of Protection.
In conclusion, he observed that his motion stood on a