with, but it was not then contemplated that the revenue
would recover itself so speedily as the noble earl would
now wish the house to believe. The noble duke then
went into statistical details as to the reduction of the
duties on corn, as to the influx of gold into the country,
as to the increased consumption of sugar, and as to the
repeal of the navigation laws, and concluded by warning
Lord Derby that, however much he might desire, in
the next session of parliament, to repeal or modify the
income-tax, he must not attempt to effect his object
by reimposing import duties on the food of the people.—
Lord GRANVILLE wished to know whether it was or
was not the intention of the government to continue the
policy of the late Sir Robert Peel, for up to the present
moment the country was quite in the dark on that
point.—The Earl of DERBY was of opinion that a duty
on corn was a desirable mode of relieving the agricultural
classes; but the question must be settled by the
constituencies, and he would add that he did not think
there would be that extensive majority in favour of a
duty on foreign corn which would render it desirable to
re-impose such a duty.—Lord GREY demonstrated the
prosperity which existed under the existing system, and
implored Lord Derby to escape from the ambiguity in
which his policy was enveloped, and to shrink no longer
from expressing himself in a straightforward and manly
way on the question of Free Trade.—The Earl of
DERBY replied in a speech of great length, the purport
of which was, that though he did not believe the next
election would show a large majority in favour of
Protection, yet, should there be such a majority, he would
be prepared to act up to his opinions as to the desirability
of a moderate duty on corn.—After some observations
from the Duke of ARGYLL, the bill was read a
second time.

On Tuesday, the 25th, Lord CRANWORTH moved the
second reading of the Enfranchisement of Copyholds
Bill, and stated its object and provisions.—The Lord
CHANCELLOR urged several objections to the measure.
He said, however, that he should not oppose the second
reading, but should recommend the bill being referred to
a select committee.—The bill was then read a second
time, and on the motion of the Lord Chancellor was
referred to a select committee.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, on Tuesday, April 27,
Mr. LOCKE KING moved for leave to bring in a bill to
assimilate the franchise and procedure at elections in
counties in England and Wales to those in boroughs,
by Giving the right of Voting to occupiers of Tenements
of £10 a year; by limiting the polling to one day; and
by restricting the time of proceeding to election to eight
days. The bill he proposed to introduce he said was,
with a few additional provisions, the same as that of
last session, the principles of which had been often
discussed.—Mr. CAMPBELL opposed the motion upon the
grounds heretofore urged against the measure by Lord
J. Russell, and because, in his opinion, it would open
fresh sources of corruption at elections.—Mr. HUME
supported the motion, insisting upon the policy as well
as necessity of enlarging the franchise.—Lord J.
MANNERS opposed the motion. If a motion of this nature,
which would effect a revolution in the county franchise,
was to be now discussed, the house must be prepared
for a prolongation of the session. The motion was
based upon an assumption admitting of two alternatives;
the franchise in counties and boroughs might be assimilated
by raising that of the latter, as well as by lowering
that of the former. The subject, however, he admitted,
was well worthy the consideration of a new parliament.
—Lord R. GROSVENOR should vote for the introduction
of the bill, in the hope that the government, in the
committee, would consent to retain those parts of the bill
which limited the poll to one day, and the time intervening
between the proclamation and the writ to eight
days.—Mr. BRIGHT contended that if the county
constituencies included the county population in the same
manner as the borough constituencies took in the
population of the towns, the apparent discrepancies
between the two would disappear, and the basis upon
which that house stood would be strengthened.—Lord
J. RUSSELL opposed the motion, because he thought it
would be wise to consider the subject of the representation
as a whole, not in separate portions.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to the motion—
first, because it was partial, agreeing with the noble lord
that the representation of the community must be
considered on an extensive scale; secondly, because the
proposed measure did not meet a very great deficiency
of the act of 1832, namely, a want of consideration for
the claims of the working classes to the franchise. The
remedy offered threw the county representation into the
hands of a mere class, so numerous as to be able to
change the constitution. There was no reason why an
industrial franchise should not concede claims which he
had often said deserved the consideration of any government;
but this bill, so far from meeting the object,
although its advocates alleged that property was too
much represented, proposed that it should be represented
still more. Until some measure was found which
met the exigency of the case (which should receive his
respectful attention), he must take his stand upon the
settlement as it existed, refusing to go on, year after
year, tampering with the constituency, a practice which
was a source of political weakness and national debility.
For these reasons he should give the motion his unqualified
opposition.—After some remarks from Sir B. HALL
in support of the motion, the house divided, when it was
negatived by 202 against 149.

On Wednesday the 28th, on the motion for the second
reading of the Universities of Scotland Bill, Mr. SCOTT
opposed the measure (which was intended to abolish
tests) as subversive of the character of the Scottish
universities, as well as injurious to the church of
Scotland, and to the education of the youth of that
country, whilst it interfered with the treaty of union.
The object of these tests was, that the teachers of youth
should be imbued with religious truth, should recognise
the doctrine and be subject to the discipline of the
established church, and the present system had for a
century and a half fulfilled that object. With these and
other reasons for retaining subscription, there was no
valid plea for abandoning a security for religion as well
as doctrine. He moved that the second reading be
deferred for six months.—Mr. MONCRIEFF explained the
grounds upon which he thought the house ought to
adopt this measure. The people of Scotland had been
appealed to, and it was clear they were willing that
these tests should be swept away. If the bill could be
construed as an attack upon religion or the orthodox
instruction of youth, or if it removed an apparent
security, it might be objected to; but it merely did
away with a great practical evil—a religious test which
admitted those it was framed to exclude, was utterly
useless as a security, and a scandal to the statute book.
The established church of Scotland had no control over
the universities, which were seats of instruction, not
ecclesiastical institutions, like those in the south. The
main, if not sole, purpose of these tests was to exclude
episcopacy, and the effect of the bill was to redress an
act of injustice perpetrated in 1711, when the act of
security was violated in the matter of lay patronage.
When it was urged that there should be some security
against infidelity and scepticism, he answered that they
were not excluded by the tests, which did keep out men
of sound religious principles. They were altogether
useless: of eighty professors in the Scotch universities,
twenty-four had either taken the test not being of the
establishment, or had not taken it at all. With respect
to the act of union, the question was, whether
parliament was not entitled to sweep away tests which
bind where they should not bind, and did not bind
where they ought.—Mr. WALPOLE said the government
felt it to be their duty to oppose this bill, because, first,
it was a direct violation of a fundamental article of a
national compact at the union of the two countries,
which ought not to be broken in upon without the
strongest necessity; secondly, because its principle, once
adopted, would undermine the foundations of all
ecclesiastical institutions throughout the realm for the
education and instruction of youth. Had the tests
operated to inflict injury? Mr. Moncreiff had shown
that they did not exclude competent persons; no
complaint had been made in respect to the morals or the
ability of those who actually filled the professorial