The second reading of the Attorneys' Certificates Bill
was moved on the 15th, by Lord R. GROSVENOR, who
reminded the house of the circumstances under which
the introduction of the bill had been carried against the
government, and hoped that the house would adhere to
its former resolution.—The CHANCELLOR OF THE
EXCHEQUER, on moving the rejection of the bill, adverted
to the canvassing out of doors, and observed that if the
house was prepared to repeal taxes to the amount of
£100,000, there were many other taxes much fitter for
remission. The general charges of the profession would
not be lowered by the repeal of this duty, so that the
public would derive no benefit from it.—Mr. Mullings
and Mr. Muntz spoke in favour of the bill; and Mr. Bass
and Mr. Goulburn against it.—Mr. BRIGHT said that
though he had formerly voted in favour of the bill, yet,
as a general revision of taxation must take place next
session, which would be the fittest time to consider all
taxes of this character, he should at present vote with
the government. The second reading was carried by
239 to 122; a majority of 17 against the government.

On the 16th, at the end of the morning sitting, Mr. F.
SCOTT moved that the house should adjourn till the
following day in token of respect to the memory of the
late Duke of Cambridge. After some hesitation on the
part of Mr. Labouchere, the motion was agreed to.

The Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill was considered
in committee on the 17th. Before going into committee,
a motion by Sir G. STRICKLAND, that the bill be
committed that day three months, was negatived by 49 to
40. In committee, several amendments were agreed to,
and the chairman reported progress, in order to give
Mr. Aglionby an opportunity of revising the measure;
leave being given to sit again on Wednesday next.

On the motion for the second reading of the Landlord
and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, Mr. S.CRAWFORD moved the
second reading that day three months, and described it as
"one of several bills sent down from the other house, the
object of which might be described as being to facilitate
extermination; and this at a time when the tenantry of
Ireland were calling for a just measure of relief and
protection, which would not be granted." The bill was
also opposed by Mr. Bright, Mr. Anstey, and Mr. Hume.
—Sir W. SOMERVILLE defended the bill against the
charge of being a landlords' measure. The present
system of fraudulent removal of crops called for a
remedy, but he was willing to modify, in committee,
any part of the bill which might be thought harsh to
tenants. The debate was interrupted at six o'clock, by
the SPEAKER adjourning the house.

The debate on Mr. Heywood's motion for an address,
praying the issue of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into
the State of the Universities, adjourned from the 23rd
of April, was resumed on the 18th.—Mr. R. PALMER
contended that there was no necessity for such a
commission. There was no foundation for the assertion
that the statutes of the colleges prohibit the introduction
of new courses of study; and with regard to the birth
preferences and local preferences in the election of
fellows, &c., a just and liberal interpretation of the
statutes would generally carry out the purpose of the
founders. It ought not to be forgotten what the
colleges themselves had already done in this respect.
In the University of Oxford, within the last twenty or
thirty years, no fewer than twelve out of the nineteen
colleges had spontaneously adopted a sounder and more
liberal interpretation of the wills of their founders and
had opened the colleges to merit of every description;
and the others, if a spirit of resistance were not created
by ill-judged interference, would soon follow their
example. The crown, without any commission or
legislative interference, had a right as visitor of the colleges,
to introduce improvements and correct abuses; but this
power had fallen into abeyance through the neglect of
the advisers of the crown.—Sir G. GREY defended the
course which the government intended to pursue, and
which had been announced by Lord John Russell. The
government would advise the crown to issue a commission
of inquiry, though they could not support
Mr. Heywood's motion.—Mr. J. STUART moved an
amendment to the effect that any advice to issue a royal
commission of inquiry into the management of any
colleges not of royal foundation was illegal and
unconstitutional.—Mr. H. DRUMMOND disapproved of the
commission: if the crown or the house assumed the
power to inquire how corporations used their property,
what was to protect the queen from an inquiry how the
queen used her property? He admitted that the
universities had been negligent of their duties, but this
was not the way to remedy the evil.—Mr. GLADSTONE
was certain that any investigation into the state of the
universities would redound to their honour, but any
commission to that effect would violate the principle of
local freedom to which Englishmen owed their capacity
for self-government. Supposing that the colleges had
lagged behind the age, state interference should be
delayed until the fact had been established, and then
the only proper interference was an act of parliament.—
Lord John RUSSELL argued for the legality and
expediency of a royal commission, and concluded by saying
that if the house refuse to permit the crown to make this
inquiry, it will do much to keep back the universities
in the course of improvement, which they themselves
are willing to adopt. After some further debate Mr.
Stuart withdrew his amendment.—Sir G. GREY then
moved that the debate be adjourned for three months,
which was carried by 160 to 138; the vote being in effect
in favour of the commission.

On the order for committing the Attorneys' Certificate
Bill, the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved
that the committee be deferred for three months; but
the motion was negatived by 105 to 103. The bill then
went through the committee, several amendments being
carried after considerable discussion.

On the 19th in answer to a question from Mr. Foster,
whether the Post Office Inquiry had commenced,
Lord John RUSSELL said that it had, and that it
was conducted by Lord Clanricarde, Mr. Labouchere
and Mr. Grey.—The house went into committee on
the queen's message respecting a Grant to the
Family of the late Duke of Cambridge.—Lord John
RUSSELL, after a variety of explanations, proposed to
allow the present Duke of Cambridge the sum of £12,000
per annum, and that the Princess Mary of Cambridge
should have £3000 per annum.—Mr. HUME objected to
the amount of the allowance to the Duke of Cambridge,
and moved that it should be £8000. Mr. Bright
concurred with Mr. Hume. The original proposition was
supported by Mr. Disraeli, the Marquis of Granby and
Sir H. Inglis; and the amendment was negatived by
206 to 53.—Mr. HUME then moved that the grant
should be £10,000, which was negatived by 177 to 55, and
the resolution was agreed to. The house then went into
a committee of supply and various sums were voted.
The vote of £24,080 for the Civil Establishments on the
Western Coasts of Africa met with considerable
opposition. It was objected to by Mr. COBDEN, as being an
unnecessary extension of our colonial establishments and
a further outlay on a fresh fruitless plan for exterminating
the slave trade. Mr. Cobden was supported by
Mr. Hume, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Hutt, and Mr. Jackson;
the vote was supported by Lord Palmerston,
Mr. Forster, Mr. Cardwell, and Sir E. Buxton. On a
division it was carried by 138 to 42.

On Monday the 22nd, Lord John RUSSELL intimated
that he did not intend to proceed this session with the Oath
of Abjuration (Jews) Bill, the state of the business of the
house not admitting of it, but that he meant to go on
with it at the earliest possible period next session.

On the motion for going into a committee of supply,
Mr. HUME moved for the production of all Despatches
from British Guiana, since May last. He produced
many allegations of grievance on the part of the colonists,
which he traced to the constitution of the colony, where
the casting vote given to the governor rendered him
independent of local control.—Lord John RUSSELL
declined to enter into statements founded on despatches
not yet officially received, but denied the truth of the
allegation that the governor by his casting vote constantly
defeated motions for reform. The motion was then
negatived.

In the committee of supply a number of votes belonging
to the colonial, the consular and the civil services
were disposed of. The vote of £6914 on account of the
settlement of Labuan, gave rise to a long discussion, in which
the conduct of Sir James Brooke was impugned by Mr.