difficulty. He agreed that the knife must be applied,
but this must be done with discretion. The machinery
of the courts of Chancery and common law would not at
present be adequate to deal with the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, and all that was asked was a short delay.—
Lord PALMERSTON trusted that what had been said by
the Lord Chancellor in another place, and the Attorney
and Solicitor-General that night, would convince the
house and the country that the government meant
completely to clean out. the Augean stable, and they
would not leave the legal arrangements of Ireland
unreformed.—After some further discussion Mr. Collier
withdrew his motion.

On Wednesday, March 2, the adjourned debate on
the Maynooth Grant was resumed on Mr. Scholefield's
amendment—"That this house do resolve itself into
committee to consider all enactments now in force
whereby the revenue of the State is charged in aid of
any ecclesiastical or religious purposes whatsoever, with
a view to the repeal of such enactments." After a long
desultory discussion, in which many members joined,
the house divided and the above amendment was
negatived by 262 to 68.

On Thursday, March 3, Lord JOHN RUSSELL made
the important announcement that A Bill for the Government
of India is to be brought into Parliament during
the present Session.

Lord D. STUART called the attention of the house to the
Affairs of Turkey, as Affected by the Contest in Montenegro.
In a speech of considerable length, he sketches
the condition of the latter country as affected by existing
treaties, and, in describing its ecclesiastical sovereign,
adverted to the ignorance of Lord Malmesbury, who had, in
the House of Lords, spoken of the Emperor of Russia as
the head of the Greek Church. He incidentally mentioned
that Omer Pacha was not, as had been asserted, a
renegade, but had been educated in the Mahommedan
creed. Pointing out the designs of Austria upon Turkey,
against which latter power he said that the former
nourished vengeance on the score of Hungary and its
refugees, he demanded to know in what light government
viewed the subject. He concluded by moving for
copies of despatches.—Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that Lord
D. Stuart was not pressed for the despatches. He
concurred in the opinion that this country ought to
maintain the independence of Turkey, and said that such
a contingency as her dismemberment would produce a
general war in Europe. International law, good faith,
and policy dictated the maintenance of the integrity of
Turkey. After entering into the history of the
Montenegrin war, he said that, in answer to the
representations made to the Austrian government, assurances
had been given that the latter held the same views as our
own government on the subject, and though he could
not state the precise terms of the arrangement that had
been made, the intervention of France and England
had been successful, and he trusted that the differences
were now over. The course adopted by England had
been to give Turkey such advice as would maintain her
honour and maintain her independence.—Lord D. Stuart
withdrew his motion.

Mr. Hume moved a resolution that the house should
take into consideration the expediency of Repealing a
Number of the Import Duties. It appeared, he said, by
returns that no less than 233 articles were charged with
import duty from one to fifty per cent.; and this, while
all kinds of agricultural produce were admitted free, was
unjust to the country and the agricultural interest.—
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to the
motion on the ground that it was not only a technical
arrangement but a sound constitutional duty, for the
house not to part with the standing revenue until the
expenditure of the country had been determined. He
was afraid that Mr. Hume would find, when he came
to put the public estimates of the year together, that
the Exchequer could not bear this loss, and he trusted
that the house would not adopt the practice of living
upon trust and credit with the people—Mr. Hume
eventually withdrew his motion.

On Friday, March 4, on the motion for the second
reading of the Canada Clergy Reserve Bill, Sir J.
PAKINGTON moved its second reading that day six
months. He entered into long details in order to show
how the guarantee, originating in 1774, fourteen years
after the cession of the colony to Great Britain, in an
act guaranteeing to the Roman Catholics their own
rights, had been handed down to the present time:
how the Reserves were guaranteed to the "Protestant
clergy," judicially construed to mean clergy of the
Established Churches of England and Scotland; and how,
by violating the settlement of 1840, the government
would outrage and alienate the feelings of those
Canadians who are especially attached to the British
connexion—possibly provoking them, as the bill to indemnify
the rebels did, to think of "annexation."—Sir William
MOLESWORTH gave a historical exposition of the whole
subject. He began by showing how, in 1774, the
Roman Catholic tithes and endowments were finally
separated from the Protestant interests; a Protestant
purchaser even of Catholic land ceasing to pay tithe for
it. He showed how the word "Protestant," which had
been originally construed to mean only the Church of
England, had in this country been interpreted to
include the Church of Scotland, and in North America
had always included the Nonconformist clergy; and, as
a "Radical," Sir William upheld that last interpretation.
He showed, by a minute analysis of votes in the
Upper Canadian House of Assembly,—it being especially
a question in Upper Canada,—that public opinion is
resolute in demanding the local right of disposing of
local questions; and that it has become impossible to
legislate on the subject in opposition to the wishes of the
Canadian people.—Lord JOHN MANNERS warned the
house that the bill would be an instrument not of peace
but of war; driving Canada into the arms of the United
States.—Mr. ADDERLEY reminded the opponents of the
bill, that their policy was subject to one small objection
—impossibility.—Mr. GLADSTONE, reinforcing Sir
William Molesworth's facts and arguments, warned the
house, that if they wished to accomplish the alienation
and confiscation of the endowments in question, they
might reject the bill.—Mr. VERNON spoke in favour of
the new settlement; Mr. A. MILLS, Mr. G. H. LIDDELL,
Mr. NAPIER, and Sir ROBERT INGLIS, against it.—The
second reading was carried by 275 to 192.

On Monday, March 7, the Reports of several Election
Committees were brought up. The Guilford committee
reported that the sitting members, Mr. Mangles and
Mr. Bell, were duly elected. The Hull committee had
found the election of Lord Goderich and Mr. Clay void
by reason of bribery. The Rye committee made a
similar report respecting the election of Mr. Mackinnon.
The Chatham committee had found Sir J. F. Smith not
duly elected; and had agreed to the following
resolution:—"That it was proved that an elector named
Greathead had been bribed by a situation in the Post-
office obtained for his son by Sir J. F. Smith; and that
a number of the electors for the borough of Chatham
were employed in her Majesty's dockyard at that place;
that they were under the influence of the government
for the time being; and that it appeared there was not
an instance of a candidate being elected for this borough
who had not the support of the government. Under
those circumstances the committee felt it was for the
house to determine whether the right of returning
members should not be for the future withdrawn from
the borough of Chatham. It was further the opinion of
the committee, that there were strong grounds for
believing Stephen Mount, in giving his evidence before
the committee, had been guilty of wilful and corrupt
perjury."

In answer to a question by Sir J. PAKINGTON on the
subject of the Frequency of Railway Accidents, Mr
CARDWELL said that on the very first day of his entering
upon his duties at the Board of Trade, he had communicated
with some of the railway authorities, requesting
them to direct their attention to the point raised by the
Oxford accident, of providing a means of communication
between the guard and the driver of the train. The
subject was now under the consideration of the various
boards of directors, and was also engaging the most
careful attention of the Board of Trade. Captain Simmonds
had been despatched to France and Belgium to
investigate the precautions followed in those countries,
and the evidence he had collected would be laid before
the committee on railway amalgamation now sitting.