respite, entreating that a "long day" should be fixed
for going seriously into committee; Mr. BRIGHT avowing
the object of the postponement to be, "that the opinion
of the country might be expressed for and against the
measure."—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that Mr. Bright's demand was "preposterous," and was
only made to give time for "agitation."—This reading
was warmly denied; and being adhered to somewhat
peremptorily, Mr. COBDEN warned Mr. Disraeli not to
indulge the tone he was falling into "towards those
who, having been placed in frequent antagonism to him,
on many occasions had shown him forbearance and
consideration."—The struggle was still prolonged; and
two more divisions were taken, in which the government
numbers were 103 and 105, and those of the minority
31 and 29; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
not give in. At nearly half-past two in the morning,
it was at last fixed that the bill should be committed on
Thursday.

On Wednesday the 5th, the debate on the second
reading of the Irish Tenant Right Bill, postponed
from March last, was resumed. The bill was supported
by Mr. Conolly, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Moore, and Mr.
Reynolds; and opposed by Lord Naas, Sir W. Somerville,
and Lord C. Hamilton. On a division the second
reading was negatived by 167 against 57.

On Thursday the 6th, the house went into committee
on the Militia Bill, upon the third clause, which
repealed the provisions of the act of 1802, and subsequent
acts relating to property qualifications of persons to be
appointed officers, with certain exceptions. Mr. HUME
moved the omission of the latter portion of the clause,
with the view of repealing all the existing militia laws,
and consolidating the whole law in the present act, in
conformity with the title of the bill, which professed to
be "a bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to
the militia in England." This motion was opposed by
Mr. WALPOLE, and after a very brisk debate, was
negatived upon a division of 165 against 82.—Mr. M.
GIBSON moved other amendments of the same clause,
the effect of which was to abolish the property qualification
of deputy-lieutenants and officers in the militia of
the rank of major and upwards.—Mr. WALPOLE
objected to this proposition, but consented to add a
proviso at the end of the clause, that the qualification
should not be restricted to real estate. This
compromise was agreed to. On the 7th clause, which
prescribed the number of men to be raised, Mr.
CHARTERIS, meaning to propose the omission of the
compulsory clauses, suggested that, instead of 80,000
men, 40,000 be raised to serve five years, each man
to be drilled fifty-six days in the first year, and ten
days in each of the four succeeding years; 20,000 to
be called out in 1852, 10,000 in 1853, and 10,000 in
1854.—Mr. WALPOLE resisted this alteration, which
would counteract the design of the bill, that of
having a sufficient body of men to meet an emergency.
With respect to the compulsory clauses, he added, it
was his intention to propose that the 16th clause,
which authorised her Majesty to order a ballot where
men cannot be raised by voluntary enlistment, should
not come into force until the 31st of December next,
so that time would be afforded to ascertain how far
the experiment of voluntary enlistment had succeeded,
and the new parliament would have a full opportunity
of stopping the ballot, if it was deemed unadvisable
to have recourse to its machinery. This intimation
diverted the discussion in a great degree from the 7th
clause to the 16th, several members contending that it
was so essential a change as to give a new character
to the measure which would leave the proposed
addition to our defensive force to accident,
notwithstanding the plea of urgency. Mr. Walpole, on the
other hand, maintained that it was only carrying out
what the government had announced from the first,
namely, that the ballot should not be put in operation
until it had been ascertained that voluntary enlistment
had failed. The committee divided upon the
question of filling up the blank in the 7th clause
with the words "eighty thousand," which was affirmed
by 237 against 106.

On Friday the 7th, the house, in committee, proceeded
with the Militia Bill, and the consideration of clause 7
was resumed. On the proposal for filling up the blank
in the clause with "fifty thousand men" for the first
year, Sir E. COLEBROOKE opposed it, intending to move
the insertion of a smaller number. After some discussion
the committee divided, and the numbers were—
for the original motion, 135; against it, 61; majority,
74.—Mr. BRIGHT moved a proviso to the clause, to the
effect that punishments in the militia should not extend
to flogging or other corporal punishments.—Mr.
BERESFORD, in opposing the motion, said that corporal
punishments had almost entirely ceased in the army;
but still he could not agree to the propriety of abolishing
the power of resorting to that mode of punishment, should
the necessity for it arise, whether the offenders were
militia men or belonged to the regular army. A lengthened
discussion ensued, terminating in a division, on
which the numbers were—for the proviso, 92; against
it, 199: majority, 107. The clause was then agreed
to.

The Property and Income Tax Bill, which had been
read a second time the previous night, was passed pro
formâ through committee.

On Monday the 10th, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER moved for leave to bring in a Bill to Assign
the four seats in Parliament in lieu of St. Albans and
Sudbury. He considered this to be one of the measures
of paramount importance which ministers deemed it
necessary to take before the dissolution. The proposition
of ministers was that two of the vacant seats should
be awarded to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the
other two to the southern division of Lancashire. Mr.
GLADSTONE opposed the motion, contending that the
measure was unnecessary, and that its introduction was
peculiarly inexpedient on the eve of a dissolution of
parliament. On a division the motion was negatived
by 234 against 148.

On Tuesday the 11th, Mr. SPOONER moved for a
select committee to inquire into the System of Education
carried on at the College of Maynooth. He charged the
Maynooth system with being injurious to society, with
creating immorality, and with being completely subversive
of the true principles of allegiance. He maintained
that the original grant to the college was in itself bad in
principle, and that all the forebodings of those who had
opposed it had been fully realised; that the system
taught there was antagonistical to the word of God, and
a national sin, and, as such, it was his earnest wish to
see the grant refused. He examined the doctrines
which appeared from the books used at the college to be
inculcated at Maynooth, in respect to oaths and their
obligations; to morality and honesty, including the
distinctions between mortal sins and venial sins; to the
supremacy of the Romish ecclesiastic law above the
constitutional law, and its authority over even heretics;
to contracts with heretics, and to confession. In order
to prove the encroaching spirit of the Romish church,
Mr. Spooner contrasted the declarations made and
pledges given by its clergy in Ireland previous to Roman
catholic emancipation—whereby many protestants had
been reconciled to that measure—with its recent pretensions,
and he pledged himself if a committee were
granted, to show that the disloyalty, and even rebellion
which had appeared in Ireland, might be traced to the
teaching and the doctrines inculcated at Maynooth.
The Marquis of BLANDFORD seconded the motion. Mr.
ANSTEY moved, by way of amendment, a resolution
that the house will resolve itself into a committee to
consider of a bill for repealing the Maynooth endowment
act, and all other acts for charging the revenue in aid of
ecclesiastical or religious purposes, arguing that neither
Roman catholics nor protestants could, without a violation
of religious liberty, be taxed for the support of
institutions connected with a faith to which they did
not belong. The withdrawal of these grants would
remove from the house questions of polemics, for which
it was a very unsuitable arena.—The amendment was
seconded by Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, who, while opposed to
the original motion, did not mean to record his
admiration of the endowment of Maynooth, to which he was
as little friendly as Mr. Spooner; but he would not
join in an attack upon a small endowment to a
Roman catholic college whilst the large endowments
of the Protestant church were left untouched.—