country were of incalculable importance. He did not
fear invasion, yet could not look upon it as impossible;
and those very free-trade measures which extended
relationships of commerce and amity with the rest of the
world, at the same time placed a new weapon in the
hands of other nations, who might deeply injure us by
stopping the supplies of food. As trade increased, so its
safeguards ought to be preserved; and considering how
numerous were our points of contact, and chances of
collision, with nations only imperfectly civilised, the
maintenance of the navy at its past average could not
be deemed extravagant. He should postpone any
detailed comment upon the African squadron; but
affirmed that the efforts of our cruisers had been very
successful, and the cause was one of which we had reason
to be proud.—The other speakers for Mr. Hume's
amendment were, Mr. Milner Gibson; Mr. Sharman
Crawford; and Colonel Thompson. Against Mr.
Hume's amendment, Admiral Berkeley; Mr Plumtree;
and Mr. Cardwell.—On a division, the amendment
moved by Mr Hume was negatived, by 169 to 61;
and the vote of 39,000 men asked by Sir Francis Baring
was agreed to. Two following votes, for wages and
victualling, respectively £1,435,723 and £500,632, were
also passed after some conversation. On the vote of 138,
£625 for the Admiralty office, a division took place on
an amendment moved by Colonel SIBTHORP, who wished
to reduce the salaries of the Lords of the Admiralty by
£4,600. The numbers were—for the vote, 193; for
Colonel Sibthorp's amendment, 34: majority for the
vote, 159. After this division, the gallant mover of the
amendment, loudly denouncing his own party as quite
as unworthy of confidence as the ministerialists, walked
out of the house, amid roars of laughter and cheering.
Several other sums were then voted without opposition.

On Tuesday, the 11th, Viscount DUNCAN moved a
resolution that all the moneys received from the Royal
Forests and other branches of the Land Revenues of the
Crown should henceforth be paid into the exchequer,
and accounted for among the ordinary receipts of the
national treasury. He based his resolution upon the
fact that out of a gross revenue of £2,446,785 derived
from the crown lands within the past seven years, only
£774,000 had reached the public exchequer; and
supported his arguments by a voluminous detail of
waste, fraud, and mismanagement arising out of the
anomalous and irresponsible manner in which those
revenues were now administered.—Lord SEYMOUR
refered to the old accounts of the Woods and Forests'
office to show that the net revenue had been gradually
improved, having advanced in England from £43,000 to
£203,300 since 1809; in Scotland, from £14,900 to
£26,800 since 1832; and in the Isle of Man, from £1,400
to £5,000 since 1827. From these improvements he
argued that the past management had not been
altogether reckless. Turning to the figures quoted by
Lord Duncan, he claimed, besides the £774,000
acknowledged on the face of the receipts, the further
items of £145,000 balance in hand; £116,000 paid under
a vote of parliament for the Victoria park, and £216,000
expended under the provisions of various acts of
parliament, some of which were as old as the reign of
Charles the Second. Furthermore, there were the large
sums appropriated to a large series of improvements
under the direction of the Board of Works. These
deductions would leave but a comparatively small
amount, and would come under the supervision of
the house if the resolution were carried; and it would
also throw difficulties in the way of the intended
separation of the Board of Works from the Woods and
Forests department. He proposed, as an amendment, a
motion for leave to bring in a bill to amend the management
of the land revenues of the crown, and separating
the stewardship of the royal estates from the
superintendence of the public works.—After a suggestion
from Mr. Hume that the resolution should be passed as
a basis for the introduction of a bill hereafter, Sir B.
HALL recommended that the crown property which had
been so unwisely administered should be treated as the
encumbered estates of Ireland were treated, and sold for
the public benefit. He wished that the resolution before
them should be passed, in order that parliament might
get the estates into its hands and ascertain their value.
—Sir H. WILLOUGHBY adduced many instances of
improvidence and waste in the past system of management,
and stated that £1,200,000 value of lands and
property had been sold, the money being laid out
unprofitably, or left almost wholly unaccounted for.
There were very large sums at stake, and a deplorable
lack of checks and responsibility.—Lord DUNCAN
replied, and the house divided—for the motion, 120;
for the amendment, 119; majority against Ministers, 1.

The second reading of the County Expenditure Bill
was moved on Wednesday, the 12th, by Mr. MILNER
GIBSON, who briefly explained that its object was to
enable the ratepayers to take a share in the control of
the public expenditure arising out of the county rates.
Having been read a second time last session, without a
division, and referred to a select committee, the latter
had rejected the whole of the bill, except the first clause;
but in agreeing to that the committee had assented to
the principle of the measure. Many errors had since
been corrected in the bill, which was founded on the
report of a commission appointed by government. It
was now proposed that one half of the board to be
constituted should consist of representatives of the
ratepayers, and the other half of magistrates. Disclaiming
any intention of casting reproach upon the latter
officials, he declared that, his object was to carry a
constitutional principle into practice. The principal
alterations in the present bill were, that the guardians
were not to be paid for attendance; that the justices on
the board were to be elected at quarter sessions; and
that the guardians might select any persons they pleased
to represent them.—Sir John PAKINGTON opposed the
bill, and moved its second reading that day six months;
but Sir George GREY having expressed his general
approbation of the measure, and expressed his willingness
on the part of government to serve on a select
committee for considering its details, Sir John Pakington's
amendment was withdrawn, and the bill was read
a second time, and referred to a select committee.

On Thursday, the 13th, the House of Commons did
not make a house.

On Friday, the 14th, previous to the debate on the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, Sir R. INGLIS presented a
Petition from the Hon. Craven Fitzhardinge Berkeley,
to which he begged to call the attention of the house.
The petitioner stated that his step-daughter, Augusta
Talbot, resided with him for some time after her
mother's death; that then she went to reside with the
Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury; that she, being still
a minor, was a ward of Chancery; that she had been
placed in a convent at Taunton, not as a pupil, but as a
postulant; that in the month of September, 1851, her
year of probation would expire, when she was finally to
take the vows of a nun; that her fortune amounted to
£80,000; that she was still under age, and would not
attain her majority till the 6th of June, 1852; that if
she became a nun her fortune, according to the laws and
usages of the Church of Rome, would cease to be hers,
and become the property of her convent, or be otherwise
applied to promote the interests of the Church of Rome;
that her fortune would, in fact, be confiscated to the
uses of the Romish Church; that the petitioner, though
the stepfather of Miss Talbot, was deprived of all
communication with her; that her half-sister, the daughter
of the petitioner, who was her nearest female relative,
was not allowed to cultivate those relations which ought
to subsist between persons so circumstanced. The
prayer of the petition then was, that the fortunes of
persons who, being minors, went into convents as
postulants, should go, not to enrich the convent, but
should become the property of the Crown, to be disposed
of in such manner as the Sovereign should direct. The
petition was ordered to lie on the table.

The second reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles
Assumption Bill was then moved by Lord John RUSSELL.
An amendment that the bill be read a second time that
day six months, was moved by the Earl of ARUNDEL
and SURREY, in a speech of considerable length. The
noble earl hinted that if the measure became law and
were enforced, we might see a crowd of exiled English
Roman Catholic prelates on the shores of Belgium,
Holland, and France: and asked whether it would suit
the views of English statesmen, that influential Englishmen,