Austrian passports) to assassinate Kossuth by poison—
Lord Claude HAMILTON said, with much warmth,that
he believed this charge to be a base calumny against a
faithful ally;—on which Mr. GRATTAN, as an Irishman,
disclaimed the sentiments of Lord C. Hamilton, whose
parasitical adulation of a band of assassins he utterly
condemned. He had read an account of the alleged
flogging of an Hungarian Countess by Austrian soldiers.
"What would his lordship say," he exclaimed, "if the
Marchioness of Abercorn (Lord C. Hamilton's relative)
were to be flogged in a square by the Guards in
Birdcage Walk? What if the Duchess of Devonshire were
to be?"—a supposition at the suggestion of which the
house roared with laughter, Mr. Grattan declaring that
the laughers ought to be "spit upon by the children in
the streets." The motion was then withdrawn.

In moving the re-introduction of his Marriages Bill,
[to abrogate the prohibition of marriage between a
widower and his wife's sister,] Mr. Stuart WORTLEY
briefly explained the principal alterations that he had
made in it: one would render valid such measures as
had been recently contracted; the other removed from
the bill the compulsion on the clergy to celebrate such
marriages.—Sir Robert INGLIS obstinately resisted the
bill, on the old grounds.—Mr. Sidney HERBERT would
not oppose a re-introduced bill at that stage—the less
since it was no longer proposed to alter the ecclesiastical
law. On a division, leave to bring in the bill was voted
by 149 to 65.

In a committee of the whole house on Friday the 8th,
Lord J. RUSSELL made a statement of the Colonial Policy
of government. After a general sketch of the history of
the colonies, he described the political state of each colony
separately. As to Canada, he said, its constitution was
well known; and it was only necessary for him to add,
in reference to the idle threats of annexation to the
United States, that the discontented parties were too well
aware of the determined will of the sovereign and her
advisers to think they would ever be permitted to
execute their threat. If the present ministers in Canada
met with proper support (as seemed probable) they
would remain in office; if not, the governor-general
would call in others in accordance with the Canadian
constitution. It had been resolved to introduce
representative institutions into our Cape colony, where an
assembly and also a legislative council would be
established. New South Wales was to have a single council,
one third of its members to be appointed by government,
and two-thirds to be elected; but the colony was to have
the power hereafter, of demanding two chambers if it
wished. Customs-duties were to be settled by
themselves. Port Philip was to be separated from New
South Wales, and to form a distinct district; and, in
addition to the introduction of free institutions into Van
Diemen's Land, South Australia was to have a
representative body. Into New Zealand the governor had
already introduced a legislative system, and had reported
in favour of a representative one, which would, after
some further information, be granted to that colony.
The exception to the representative rule would be in the
cases where we had only military stations, or where the
races were mingled in a way which rendered such
institutions impossible. Barbadoes and Jamaica had long
enjoyed their own governments. Trinidad was to have
a municipal council in aid of the executive, and so was
Mauritius. Malta was to have elective members added
to its council. His lordship then went, at some length,
into the British Guiana question, and said that a species
of oligarchy was paramount there; but by an infusion of
new electors it must be broken down, and this had been
done to a certain extent, and the reform would have a
still further effect. He referred to the recent debate
upon this subject as an illustration of the ignorance and
inconsistency of certain opponents of government. He
then made some general remarks on the question of
transportation and emigration; and concluded a speech
which occupied more than two hours and a quarter, and
which was listened to by a full house with great attention,
by saying that the two principles upon which the
colonial policy of the present government was founded,
were the maintenance of the free-trade system to its
fullest extent, and the establishment, wherever it was
possible, of political freedom. In the desultory debate
which ensued, Sir William MOLESWORTH agreed with
many points of Lord John's speech, but did not clearly
understand his policy as a whole, and could not yet put
faith in the promises of the Colonial Office, especially
those relating to Australia. Other speakers expressed
satisfaction with Lord John's progress in opinion, but
took exceptions to his shortcomings. Mr. ROEBUCK could
not understand why Lord John reversed in New South
Wales the just conclusion to which he had arrived in
South Africa with respect to an elective second chamber.
Mr. ANSTEY claimed greater liberty for Van Diemen's
Land; Mr. BAILLIE, for British Guiana; Mr. SCOTT, for
New South Wales; Mr. AGLIONBY, for New Zealand.
Mr. GLADSTONE and Mr. HUME argued for a complete
extension of the British constitution, with its two
chambers, to the representative colonies generally.
Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. GLADSTONE, and Mr. ADDERLEY,
showed that the Colonial Reform Society had already
produced fruits in the new impulse given to the government.
It had led to the new constitution for the Cape;
the idea of which was conceived by the committee of
the Board of Trade in January. Mr. HAWES was again
convicted of misquoting or garbling; he read an extract
from a despatch as confirming his assertion that the
governor of Van Diemen's Land was in favour of a single
chamber; but Mr. GLADSTONE showed that he had only
read from the preface to the governor's declaration,
which was in these words—"I should most strenuously
recommend the adoption of a second or upper chamber."
The committee unanimously passed the following resolutions,
to be reported on Monday: "1. That provision
be made for the better government of her Majesty's
Australian colonies. 2. That the governors and legislative
councils of her Majesty's Australian colonies be
authorised to impose and levy duties and customs on
goods, wares, and merchandise imported into such
colonies."

On Monday the 11th, the Personal Dispute between
Mr. Horsman and Lord John Russell was amicably
settled. Lord ASHLEY introduced the matter by saying
that he did not think a committee the proper tribunal
to settle the question, and that, as the differences must
have arisen from misunderstanding, he proposed that
the matter should go no further.—Mr. HORSMAN
regretted that some of his expressions had been
misunderstood. He believed that Lord J. Russell had not
deliberately attempted to deceive him, but had availed
himself of the forms of the house to annoy him, being
irritated at his perseverance. He admitted that he had
often given provocation, but would always avoid doing
so in future.—Lord J. RUSSELL said that nothing could
be more satisfactory; he had no doubt of Mr. Horsman's
motives as regarded his public conduct, but he and Mr.
Horsman were in somewhat different positions, and it
was his (Lord John's) duty, when introducing a bill to
the house, to satisfy all parties of its justice.—Sir G.
GREY also expressed his entire satisfaction at what had
passed, and added that he should make it his study to
convince Mr. Horsman of the sincerity of his intentions.
—Thus the affair ended.

Before the house proceeded to the nomination of the
Ceylon Committee, Lord John RUSSELL called the
attention of the house to some observations made by Mr.
Baillie upon Captain Watson, with respect to a proclamation
alleged to have been issued by that officer in
Ceylon; and read a letter from Captain Watson to Earl
Grey, declaring that the document was utterly spurious;
that he had never issued nor authorised such a
proclamation.—Mr. BAILLIE said he had received the
proclamation from Ceylon, with the signature of Captain
Watson, in his own handwriting, or what purported to
be his handwriting, attached to it.—The select
committee of last Session was then re-appointed.

On the motion for the second reading of the Pirate
(Head-Money) Repeal Bill, Sir Francis BARING
explained, that though it repeals the existing acts, it does
not preclude the Admiralty from making allowances of
the nature of head-money; it would not, therefore,
remove from officers and men of the navy the expectation
of such rewards for valuable services in the capture
of pirates as the old law entitled them to. He proposed
to leave in the hands of the Admiralty a large
discretionary power to be exercised in communication with