the object.—Lord Jocelyn agreed with Lord Stanley.
—Mr. Blackett gave his support to tlie amendment,
which was opposed by Sir H. Willougliby as perilous
to the stability of our Indian empire, and by Mr.
Mangles because he conceived the natives to be unfit
for legislative duties.—Mr. Danby Seymour condemned
the course pursued by the government as calculated to
alienate the natives from the government.—After some
further discussion, the house divided, and the amendment
was lost by 168 to 39. The clause was then
agreed to; and the chairman reported progress.

On the third reading of the Assistant Judge (Middlesex
Sessions) Bill, Mr. ALCOCK moved that the third
reading be postponed for three months.—Sir D. L.
EVANS supported the amendment, and related various
anecdotes of the "eccentricities" of the present assistant–
judge. On a division the bill was thrown out by
63 to 42.

Lord PALMERSTON obtained leave to bring in a bill
to authorise the Closing of Burial–Grounds in Towns.

On Tuesday, July 19, at the morning sitting, the
LORD–ADVOCATE moved the second reading of the
Edinburgh and Canongate Annuity Tax Abolition Bill.
Its object, he observed, was to put an end to a vast deal
of irritation in Edinburgh. The bill was founded upon
the report of a select committee, and was almost
identical with one which had been prepared by his
predecessors in office. The tax was one of six per
cent., levied upon the householders of Edinburgh for
the support of ministers of the Church of Scotland in
that city, who received salaries from it of about £600
per annum. Since its first imposition in 1661 it had
become so unpopular that it had been more than once
found necessary to call out the military to enforce it.
The present number of ministers was 18, and these the
bill proposed to reduce to 15, and their salaries to £500
per annum. It was also proposed to abolish the present
impost, and to supply its place by a municipal tax of 3
per cent.—the balance to be supplied from the
Consolidated Fund. To secure, however, that fund from
loss, the bill provided that it should be reimbursed by
the falling in of the Deaneries. Under these circumstances
he asked the house to agree to the bill, as
interfering in no way with the efficiency of the Church,
and being in other respects extremely beneficial.—Mr.
J. B. SMITH opposed the bill on account of the entire
change of circumstances since the imposition of the tax.
He moved that the second reading be postponed for
three months.—After some discussion, the debate was
interrupted by the speaker leaving the chair at four
o'clock. At six o'clock the house re–assembled, and
was immediately counted out.

Oil Wednesday, July 20, Sir J. PAKINGTON, in
moving the second reading of the Vaccination Extension
Bill (which had been sent from the House of
Lords), stated its object, which was to render vaccination
compulsory, under pecuniary penalties, and showed
the unsatisfactory results of the voluntary system. The
mortality from smallpox was greater in England than
in almost any other country in Europe. A regard for
the public welfare, therefore, demanded some improvement
of the law; the machinery of this bill for carrying
out the pecuniary penalties, he admitted, required
alteration; but all that the house was now called upon
to sanction was the principle of compulsion.—Lord
PALMERSTON said that Sir John had produced
irrefragable proof that some measure was necessary, the more
so on account of circumstances inseparable from the
subject. The object was to prevent a fearful disease by
timely foresight and protection, and the classes most in
need of this precaution were the poorest and most
ignorant—those least likely, by their own impulse, to
adopt precautions. He was prepared, therefore, to
assent to the principle of the bill, agreeing with Sir J.
Pakington that its machinery required considerable
alterations.—Mr. Brady opposed the further progress
of the bill, pointing out what he considered to be faults
ia its provisions.—Sir G. Strickland objected to the
compulsory principle. The best course, in his opinion,
was to allow vaccination to be voluntary, and education
would in a short time overcome prejudice.—Mr.
Frewen likewise opposed the bill, which was, however,
read a second time.

On the order for the second reading of the Attorneys'
and Solicitors' Certificate Duty Bill, Lord R. GROSVENOR,
after adverting to the peculiar situation in
which he was placed after the vote of the house since
the first reading of this bill, and after the opinions
expressed in favour of the budget as a whole, said that,
if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that the
present duty was retained merely for revenue purposes
this year, and would promise to take the tax into
consideration next year, he was willing to forego a division.
—Mr. MURROUGH complained that he had been brought
down to vote upon a political sham, and accused Lord
R. Grosvenor of insincerity.—Mr. HUME appealed to
the house whether, after what had passed since the
introduction of this bill, it would be acting consistently
and with justice to the government to proceed with it?—
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having defended
Lord R. Grosvenor, whom he complimented upon his
chivalrous perseverance on behalf of a feeble and
unprotected class, said, the government could be at no
time a party to a repeal of the certificate duty, leaving
in an unmitigated state the enormous tax upon admissions;
but he could not give a pledge that in any future
year he would propose the repeal of this duty, since
there was a long array of claims for relief from taxation,
some of which were far more imperative. With respect
to the state of the revenue on the 18th of April, he had
calculated the surplus of the year at £495,000. Looking
at the existing circumstances of the country and to the
prospects of the harvest, if he were to frame a new
estimate for the year 1853–54, he could not make a more
favourable one. After allowing for the ascertained
gains and losses, and the probable charges upon this
surplus, the amount would be reduced to less than
£150,000. Two demands were then made—one for the
repeal of the advertisement duty, amounting to
£80,000, and another for the abolition of the certificate
duty, producing an equal amount; and if both duties
were repealed, the financial operations of the year
would have to be carried on, not with a surplus, but
with a deficiency. The government thought the most
prudent course was to repeal neither duty; but if
compelled to choose between the two, and if the house
should press the repeal of the advertisement duty he
had no hesitation in saying that he should prefer that
alternative. He therefore declined to give any pledge
on the subject of the certificate duty, and, hoped the
house would put a stop to the repeated discussions
of this opposition, and express a definite and final
opinion upon the subject of this duty. After some
further discussion the bill was thrown, out by 186
against 102.

The debate on the second reading of the Recovery of
Personal Liberty Bill, adjourned on the 22d of June,
was resumed.—The SPEAKER explained the state of the
question before the house—namely, that the original
question was "that the bill be now read a second time;"
and that upon an amendment being moved by Mr.
Phinn to leave out all the words after "that," in order
to insert other words, the house had decided that the
words proposed to be left out should not stand part of
the question; so the only part of the original question
which remained was the word "that;" and the question
now was, whether the words proposed by Mr. Phinn—
"that it be referred to a select committee to consider
whether any and what regulations are necessary for the
better protection of the inmates of establishments of a
conventual nature, and for the prevention of the exercise
of undue influence in procuring the alienation of their
property"—or any other words, should be added thereto.
—Mr. J. BALL, after congratulating the house upon the
bill having been renounced and scouted by its own
supporters, proceeded to argue against Mr. Phinn's
amendment, which he characterised as unnecessary,
unprecedented, and one of a series of measures intended to
engage the legislature in a struggle against institutions
which interested the deepest affections of a large
number of her Majesty's subjects. He defended
conventual establishments, and dwelt at some length upon
the groundless aspersions which had been cast, he said,
upon Roman Catholic institutions and upon the Roman
Catholic creed.—Mr. E. BALL, though a Protestant
dissenter, was bound to say that, although Roman