of an opportunity of explaining that, in his statement of
the ministerial plans, he had not intended to say that the
government positively postponed the further
consideration of the income tax. He referred only to the
necessity of so doing, should a Reform Bill be brought
forward this session. The government would give no
further information on the subject prior to the statement
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. HUME under
these circumstances, gave notice that he should ask a
question in reference to a new committee on the
income tax on an early day.

Mr. H. DRUMMOND moved for leave to bring in a
bill to Facilitate the Sale and Purchase of Land; taking
occasion to enter into an historical and critical view of
the present state of the law on the subject, which
he considered to press unjustly upon owners and
occupiers.—Mr. HEADLAM and Mr. HUME applauded
the proposal, and leave was given to bring in the bill.

Mr. F. PEEL, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to
Empower the Legislature of Canada to Dispose of the
Clergy Reserves in that Country, entered into a detailed
review of the whole question; the original grant and
manner of appropriating the funds; the disagreements
of the local legislature; the reference of the question to
the home government; and finally the act of 1840,
which he maintained to be unjust to those religious
communities who differed from the church of England,
and also formed so important a portion of the population.
The object of the present measure was to do away
with the act of 1840, and place the power where it
ought to rest,—in the hands of the local legislature.
It did not seek to alter the present constitution of
things; and he rejected the idea that it would tend to
alienate the clergy reserves from religious uses.—Sir
JOHN PAKINGTON looked at the proposal with sorrow,
but without surprise, recognising in its principle a
breach of solemn faith towards the protestants of
Canada, which he entreated the government, especially
Lord John Russell, earnestly to consider. He did not
oppose the introduction of the bill, and reserved his
further objections.—Mr. VERNON SMITH considered
that Sir John Pakington had completely evaded the
main question, which was, whether we should legislate
for Canada, or Canada had the right of legislating for
itself? Were he a Canadian he might be in favour of
the present system; but, as a determined advocate of
the right of the colonies to self-government, he had but
one course to take.—Sir H. R. INGLIS maintained the
case of the protestant clergy, in whose favour he adduced
arguments which he said could not be denied by "the
most ignorant and the most radical" members of the
house.—Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would be
rejoiced to find the parliament of Canada agreeing to
the act of 1840, and he was not quite sure that theirs
was the very best policy in the matter. But the real
fact was that the parliament of Canada had a right to
settle the question for itself, and the home government
had no right to interfere. It was on this ground that
he supported the motion.—Mr. HUME thanked the
government for the measure which they proposed to
take for securing a permanent peace in so important a
colony. The motion was agreed to.

On Wednesday, February 16, on the order for
the third reading of the County Elections Polls Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP denounced the bill as a
democratical and dangerous measure of disfranchisement,
and moved to defer the third reading for six months.—
Mr. DEEDES reiterated his objections to the bill, and
deprecated partial legislation upon this great question.—
Lord R. GROSVENOR declined to postpone a measure
which had been sanctioned by so large a majority of the
house.—Mr. SPOONER spoke shortly against the bill,
and Mr. HADFIELD in its favour. The motion for the
third reading was carried by 129 against 28.—A clause
moved by Captain SCOBELL providing that the poll
shall not be taken at any licensed public-house or beer
house, gave rise to some discussion, but was ultimately
withdrawn, and the bill passed.

Mr. DEEDES, in moving the second reading of the
Parish Constables Bill, stated that its object was to
consolidate and amend the existing acts, the provisions
of the Rural Police Act having been only partially
adopted; and he proposed that those counties which
should hereafter adopt the latter act should be exempted
from the operations of this bill. He explained the new
points in the bill, which was read a second time, and
referred to a select committee.

The house then went into committee upon the Land
Improvement (Ireland) Bill, the clauses of which were
agreed to.

Mr. G. BUTT moved for leave to bring in a bill to
regulate Election Proceedings in England and Wales;
to limit the time between the proclamation and day of
election in counties, and between the receipt of the
writ and the election in boroughs; to limit the polling
of elections for the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, and otherwise to regulate the proceedings of
elections. He explained briefly the provisions of the
bill, pointing out the evils they were intended to meet;
and he suggested to the government the expediency of
consolidating and amending the entire law relating to
elections.—Mr. PHINN seconded the motion.—Mr. S.
HERBERT observed, that the suggestion as to the
consolidation of the election law was under the consideration
of the government, and he hoped some step would
shortly be taken in that direction. Leave was given to
bring in the bill.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE obtained leave to bring in a bill to
amend the act for the more effectual prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, by extending the power of appeal;
and Sir J. YOUNG obtained leave to bring in a bill to
supply an omission in an act of last session relating to
the Valuation of Rateable Property in Ireland, which
passed through all its stages.

On Thursday, February 17, Mr. FREWEN moved a
resolution for the Repeal of the Duty on Hops, as being
an impolitic and unequal tax.—The CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER deprecated the discussion of this
question at present.—The motion was supported by
Mr. Bright, Mr. Hume and others; but was negatived
on a division, by 175 against 91.

Mr. KINNAIRD moved an address to the Queen, on
the subject of the Persecution of Protestants in
Tuscany. The case of the Madiais, he observed, was
not an isolated one. It indicated a religious reaction, and
a determination on the part of the hierarchy of the Church
of Rome to put down Protestantism by force wherever the
civil power enabled them to do so, and on this ground he
asked the house to call upon her Majesty's government,
in concert with the governments of Prussia and
Holland, to remonstrate, not dictatorially or menacingly,
but in the name of religion and humanity, with the
Grand Duke. He gave the details of the arrest of several
Florentines for no other offence than reading the Bible,
to show that the persecution was systematic; thousands,
he said, were living in Tuscany under a reign of terror.
The objection that, this being a matter between a
government and its own subjects, we had no right to
interfere, had been disposed of in the admirable dispatch
of Lord J. Russell, and precedents were not wanting
for such interference.—Lord D. STUART seconded the
motion.—Mr. LUCAS said that he could not agree with
the resolution, because, according to the papers laid before
the house, it did not state the facts of the case correctly.
It appeared from those papers that the Madiais had
engaged in a system of proselytism at the bidding and
instigation of foreign emissaries and agents. The
sentence against them declared that they had not
disproved the facts alleged against them; that they had
been guilty of the crime of proselytism by the instrumentality
of money supplied from abroad—that was,
from England. But, admitting, for the sake of
argument, that the Tuscan government were to be blamed
for punishing the Madiais for the crime of proselytism,
what had been the conduct of this country in respect to
Roman catholics persecuted in different parts of the
world? Who ever heard of our Secretary of State
remonstrating with the Emperor of Russia for
persecuting and torturing Roman catholic nuns? Had not
Lord Palmerston actually recommended the expulsion
of the Jesuits from Switzerland? The conduct of that
noble lord in the case of the Tahiti, was, he contended,
exactly parallel with that of the Grand Duke of
Tuscany. If he believed that the resolution expressed
the facts of the case, he could not adopt it, because he
never could recognise the doctrine that the exercise of