was reduced, either the salary must be increased, or the
public would lose the services of the most efficient
persons.—Upon a division, the motion was negatived by
49 to 32.

On Friday, March 28th, the house considered a petition
in reference to the St. Alban's Election. The point
raised on behalf of the petitioner (and of the sitting
member) was, that the committee of selection had
failed in giving due notice of its intention to strike the
election committee. The act of parliament requires
fourteen days' notice, and as the votes are not published
until nearly the middle of the day, it was contended
that such day of publication was not to be considered
as one of the fourteen days, which the advocates of the
petition conceived must mean "clear" days. After
much debate the house divided, and, by a majority of
204 to 79, decided in favour of the committee of selection,
and against the petition. The committee for the St.
Alban's election was then sworn, as was the committee
for the Aylesbury Election, on which the same point
arose, and was governed by the preceding decision.—
Colonel DUNNE moved a resolution condemnatory of
certain orders which have been given not to receive any
more pensioners into the Royal Military Hospital at
Kilmainham; from which orders it might be inferred
that it was the intention of the government to abolish
that institution. He considered such abolition unjust
to the old soldiers of Ireland; stated that the land on
which the Royal Hospital was erected was granted by
Charles II. to trustees for the purpose of building such
asylum, and that it was built by deductions from the
pay of Irish soldiers; contended that the saving by the
abolition would be very unimportant, and that the
transfer of the Irish establishment to England was part
of an unjust and impolitic system of centralisation.—
Mr. GRATTAN seconded the motion.—Mr. FOX MAULE
said there was no intention of hurry in the matter, as
was shown by the usual Kilmainham vote being included
in the estimates. But although, when such institutions
as Chelsea and Kilmainham were originated, they were
the only refuge for the wounded or worn-out soldier,
it was not so now; and the in-pension system was
by no means popular with the British army. The soldier
preferred the out-pension, which allowed him to live
with his family. He denied that any soldier had ever
paid towards the erection or support of these establishments,
a shilling of money which could be properly
called his own. He admitted that the land upon which
Kilmainham Hospital stood was inalienable except by
act of parliament, but asserted that any government
could discontinue the admission of in-pensioners. He
went on to say that there was ample room at Chelsea for
all in-pensioners of the British army, but that not a man
would be moved from Kilmainham who was entitled to
his room there. But Kilmainham was rather kept up
for show than use, many officers of high rank having
quarters there, and but a small part of the building
being appropriated to its original object. On the grounds
of the unpopularity and want of economy of the system,
he was in favour of its discontinuance; but all that had
been done at present was to order that no person should
be admitted into Kilmainham without the knowledge of
himself, as administrator of the funds voted by parliament.
—On a division the motion was negatived oy 137
to 105.

The house went into committee on the Army
Estimates. On the first vote for 98,714 men, Mr. Hume
moved that the number be reduced 5000; but the
amendment was negatived, and the vote agreed to.
The second vote of £3,521,070 for the land forces, was
objected to on account of the lateness of the hour, and
postponed till Monday.

On Monday, the 31st, the house in committee
proceeded with the army estimates, and a number of sums
were voted after some discussions.

On Tuesday, April 1, Mr. S. WORTLEY drew the
attention of the government to the proceedings of
certain Refugee Foreigners in this country, inquiring
whether any measures were in contemplation to prevent
any possible disturbances in this country, or any
interruption of our amicable relationship with other countries
that might arise therefrom.—Sir G. GREY stated that
the ministry had not overlooked the circumstances, but
derided the very idea that our own tranquillity would
be in peril, and submitted that any legal measures of
restraint upon the liberty of foreigners resident among
us would constitute an unpardonable violation of the
duties of hospitality. If they proceeded to conspire
against the governments of our allies, the law, as it now
stood, provided for their sufficient punishment.

The second reading of the County Franchise Bill was
moved, on Wednesday, April 2, by Mr. Locke KING,
who exhorted Lord John Russell to put himself at the
head of the movement for extending the franchise.—
Mr. FOX MAULE concurred in the principle of the bill,
but contended that it was not now called for; Lord
John Russell having already pledged himself to bring
forward an extensive measure of reform.—Sir Benjamin
HALL declared his willingness to accept the pledge
given by the government, and recommended the
withdrawal of the bill, in which recommendation Sir de
Lacy EVANS concurred.—Lord John RUSSELL reiterated
his pledge to bring forward a bill for the extension of
the franchise at the very commencement of the next
session, but declined at present to enter into any details.
Mr. Locke KING left the matter in the hands of the
house; and, on a division, the second reading of the
bill was negatived by 299 to 83.

On Thursday, April 3, Mr. ANSTEY moved an address
to the Queen for a commission to inquire, in India,
into the operation and results of the existing laws
touching the government of the territories under the
administration of the East India Company. He
observed that on former occasions inquiry had been
considered a condition precedent to the renewal of the
Company's exclusive privileges; that the last extension
of their term of rule was of the nature of an experiment,
and that the act of 1833 was unduly precipitated—facts
which rendered preliminary inquiry, before the lease
was again renewed, the more necessary. The grievances
which existed in 1833—ryotwar tenures, the monopolies
of opium, salt, and tobacco, the exclusion of natives
from offices of trust—remained, he said, uredressed, and
their effect was visible in the "low and abject condition
of the cultivating population of India," declared in the
report of the cotton committee of 1848. He insisted
upon the oppressive character of the assessment—the
land tax (or rent as it was termed) reaching to 45 or 50
per cent, payable in money before the crop was carried;
upon the severity of other imposts; upon the harsh
restrictions and compulsions to which the labouring
classes in India were subjected, and under which nine-
tenths of them were annually sold up. Adverting to
the machinery of Indian administration, which, he
alleged, equally demanded inquiry, he taxed the Court
of Directors with supineness; he denounced the vices of
the judicial system and the abuses in the dispensation
of justice; and, on the subject of foreign politics, he
enlarged upon the disregard of treaties with native
states, and the readiness to engage in war which
characterised the Indian government, and which tended to
destroy the confidence once felt by the people of India
in English justice.—Lord John RUSSELL opposed the
motion; contending that the proposed inquiry in India
would be the worst mode that could be adopted, since it
would produce great excitement and interfere with the
governing authorities in India; and that, if inquiry
were needed, it would be far better that it should be
conducted by a committee of that house.—Sir James
Weir HOGG accused Mr. Anstey of unfair and uncandid
conduct; for, while professing to call for inquiry, he
had cast the vilest insinuations against the Board of
Directors, without and even contrary to evidence.—Mr.
BRIGHT contended that searching inquiry was neccesary;
but, as Lord John Russell had given some reason
to expect that a committee would be appointed, he
recommended Mr. Anstey to be satisfied with what he
had elicited.—Mr. ANSTEY took this advice, and withdrew
his motion.—Lord John RUSSELL then moved, in
pursuance of the resolution of last session, that the house
resolve itself into a committee to consider the mode of
administering the Oath of Abjuration to persons professing
the Jewish religion. He recapitulated what took place
upon the occasion when the Baron de Rothschild came
to the table to take the oaths; the only obstacle being
his objection to the words in the oath of abjuration, "on