France, or Austria, or Russia, but of England. In
doing his duty in that position, it was impossible he
should always avoid giving offence, but he had
succeeded in leaving the country at peace with other
nations, and without even a subject of dispute with any
of them.—Desultory observations on a number of topics
were made by Mr. Muntz, Mr. Baillie, Mr. Monckton
Milnes, Lord D. Stuart, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Roebuck,
and other members.—Mr. DISRAELI said he did not
think Sir B. Hall had succeeded in eliciting much
information that could be said to account for the important
act which had occasioned his inquiry. The house ought
to express its opinion on the displacement of Lord
Palmerston, whom, though he had opposed his policy, he
(Mr. Disraeli) bad always regarded as a faithful British
minister. He had always believed that policy would
lead to mischief and inconvenience; but if it were to be
still pursued, and he understood that such was the case,
why was it not to be pursued under the guidance of the
ablest man upon the other side of the house? Remarking
upon the frequent and unnecessary introduction of the
sovereign's name by Lord John Russell into the night's
debate, he expressed his astonishment at the narration
of "midnight despatches." He seemed to have sought
to shift off his own responsibility upon his sovereign.
Proceeding to canvas the various paragraphs in the
speech (of which he remarked that there were fifteen,
each apparently contributed by one of the fifteen
ministers), he denied that this was a fitting time for
reform, and while undertaking to give the new measure
a fair consideration, deprecated its being put forward as
a plea for neglecting other and more important matters.
The Caffre war, for instance, must be considered; and
so must the policy which had destroyed our ancient
colonial empire, and which made him wish that while
getting rid of one secretary, they had got rid of another
also. After an animated reference to Lord John
Russell's language last session, on the popish aggression
question, he asked what had become of the act which
had been introduced with so much pretension? Why
was nothing said in the speech about this triumphal
effort to crush this conspiracy against the protestant
faith? This act had been treated with the utmost
contempt;—why were we not told whether other measures
were to be tried?—Lord J. RUSSELL said a few words in
reference to Lord Palmerston's speech, observing that
his own statements had been borne out, and that Lord
Palmerston's were but a reflex of his own. In reply to
Mr. Disraeli, he denied that the aggression act had been
treated with contempt, and said that the law authorities
had informed him that even in Ireland it had not been
violated. It was no violation of the act, he remarked,
for other persons to give the Catholic hierarchy the
objectionable titles. He was quite ready to leave the
merits of the ministry to the decision of the house.

On Wednesday, the 4th, and Thursday, the 5th, the
proceedings were of a routine character, and
unimportant.

On Friday, the 6th, Lord J. RUSSELL, having been
interrogated by Lord D. Stuart, stated that the accounts
in the newspapers of the Outrage recently perpetrated by
an Austrian officer, on Mr. Mather, a British subject, at
Florence, were correct, and in the main agreed with the
account of the Austrian authorities, who, in the first
instance, justified it on the ground that it was the rule
in the Austrian army for any officer who received insult,
while in the command of troops, to cut the offending
party down. It was now admitted that no insult was
intended, but reparation was refused unless Mr. Mather,
in the first place, said he did not mean to insult, which
he declined to do.—Lord GRANVILLE, on reading the
account of the outrage, had instructed Mr. Scarlet to
make inquiries, and call for satisfaction; and, on the
demand of Mr. Mather, a judicial inquiry was now
pending.

Mr. M. GIBSON asked a question as to the intentions
of the government, in consequence of the Court of
Inland Revenue not agreeing with the decision of the
Court of Exchequer as to the Liability of Periodical
Publications published at intervals of 28 days and upwards,
to the Newspaper Stamp Duty, he wished to ascertain
whether further prosecutions were to be instituted, or
whether any bill was to be introduced to dispel all doubts
on the subject of the newspaper stamp act.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, declined answering a
question which involved important legal points; but he
might say that he had not the slightest intention of
proposing to take steps to reverse the decision of the Court
of Exchequer, whatever doubts he might entertain on
the subject.—Lord J. RUSSELL added, that there were
some doubtful points in the judgment which were under
the consideration of the law officers, and until their
opinion was received, no answer could be given as to
the intentions of government.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for leave to bring in
a bill for the Relief of Suitors in the Court of Chancery.
The bill in question was founded, he said, on the report
of the parliamentary committee, and would be followed
by another bill of a still more efficient character. Briefly
describing the vexatious and oppressive system of fees,
as exposed by the report, he stated that the bill proposed
to abolish all fees except such as were absolutely
necessary, to pay all the chancery officers by salaries,
and to provide that the fees excepted should be paid as
stamp duties. Further, the suitors in chancery were
to be relieved from the payment of the salaries of the
chancellor and the other chancery judges, and these
expenses were to be charged on the consolidated fund.
The compulsory taking of "office copies" was to be
abolished, as were various useless and obsolete offices.
The accountant-general's income was to be materially
reduced, and no part of it in future to be derived from
sharing commission with the chancery broker. The
total saving to be effected by all these means, he stated
in round numbers at £100,000 per annum. He added,
that though in this bill there was no reference to the
master's office, the object of the legislation still in view
was the entire abolition of that establishment; and he
concluded by declaring that a complete change in the
system of chancery was now commencing, and one
which would render that court a tribunal of efficient
relief. He pledged himself that there should be no
unnecessary delay in urging forward the measure.—
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

Lord SEYMOUR moved for leave to bring in a bill for
the Better Supply of Water in the Metropolis, the object
of which was three-fold—first, to obtain a sufficient
supply of water; secondly, to insure good water; and,
thirdly, to insure the supply at a cheap rate.—Mr.
MOWATT thought the control over both drainage and
water supply should be vested in the rate-payers, and
asked leave to bring in a bill for dividing the metropolis
into seventeen districts, to be represented by
commissioners, who, with four additional commissioners,
appointed by the government, should form a general
board, with power to fix the rates, and to regulate the
supply, the present water companies being extinguished
upon a plan of fair compensation.—Lord ERRINGTON
was surprised to find the government resisting the
principle of competition in the supply of water; neither
was he disposed to entrust to a commission the power
of regulating the supply of water to the metropolis.—
Sir G. GREY said, the noble lord condemned both bills,
but had suggested no plan of his own. The bill would
have to go before a select committee; and he could
assure the house that the government was most anxious
to have the supply of water put upon a satisfactory
footing.—Leave was given to bring in both bills.

Mr. B. OSBORNE moved that Dr. Reid be called to the
bar of the House, to be examined with regard to its
Ventilation. A long discussion ensued, in which Mr.
Hume, Lord John Russell, Mr. Brown, Mr. Newdegate,
and Mr. Scobell took part; and, on Mr. MOFFAT
moving, as an amendment, that the subject be referred
to a select committee, the house divided, when the
numbers were—For the amendment, 24; against it, 55.
The original motion having been carried, Dr. Reid was
called in and examined al the bar. He said lie had
done all a man under constant compulsion could do to
procure better ventilation for the house. With open
doors in every direction, it was impossible to regulate
the atmosphere properly. Without at all interfering
with the architecture of the house, he would undertake
to remedy the principal defects in two days, at an
expense of from £200 to £300. He had suggested the
remedies now proposed before the house was built; but