would afford to it increased stability. He was prepared
to record his vote for the principle of the bill, but not
for going into committee until various alterations had
been introduced.—Sir B. HALL said that the progress
of reform in the church was, on the whole, satisfactory,
and though he should divide in favour of the bill, would
suggest the postponement of further proceedings.—Mr.
D. SEYMOUR supported the bill, as recognising the
right of the laity to interfere in church management.—
Sir G. GREY was prepared to vote for the second reading,
while suggesting the mover's concurrence in postponement
of further proceedings.—Lord BLANDFORD
contended that it was most desirable that the house should
affirm the principles of the bill.—The house divided,
and the numbers were, for the adjournment of the
debate, 62; against, 123: majority against adjournment,
61.—After a brief discussion, Lord BLANDFORD
agreed, if the bill were read a second time, not to press
it further this session, and the bill having been so read,
the 21st June was named for its committal pro forma.

On Thursday, May 18, Mr. LOCKE KING moved the
second reading of the Real Estate Charges Bill. He
said that under the present state of the law the heir of
the devisee to a real estate which had been left to him
mortgaged, had a right to claim payment of that mortgage
out of the personal estate of the deceased
owner. From the system great hardship often arose.
It frequently happened that the whole of a
deceased's personal estate, which was all that stood
between his widow and the younger members of
his family and destitution, was entirely swept away, in
order to swell up still more the already disproportionate
share of a single heir or devisee.—Mr. MALINS
contended that the bill in its present shape would go to
disinherit the heir-at-law.—The SOLICITOR-GENERAL,
after pointing out some amendments which were necessary
in the bill, consented to its second reading, upon
the understanding that the first clause should be
considerably modified.—The second reading was carried by
166 against 124.

The debate on the second reading of the Conventual
and Monastic Institutions Bill was resumed. Mr.
NEWDEGATE observed that, on account of the factious
opposition of certain gentlemen, it would be impossible
for the member for Hertford satisfactorily to prosecute
his proposed inquiry; he, therefore, advised him to
change his mode of procedure, and not to press further
the nomination of the committee. He suggested that
he should embody his views in a bill, as there would be
then some chance of limiting the debate to the subject
proposed to be dealt with, otherwise there would be
nothing but a succession of discursive debates and Irish
rows.—Mr. BRIGHT took Mr. Newdegate to task for his
strictures upon the conduct of the roman-catholic
party with regard to this question. The Ministry were
acting in concert with the whole roman-catholic
population of these countries, and in so acting they had a
right to avail themselves of all the forms of the house to
prevent one church from insulting and outraging
another. The hon. member for Hertford had introduced
a bill last session upon this very subject; he was
not able to carry it, because the house felt that no case
had been made out for it. It was then thought that a
committee, groping in every channel and every sewer,
would find materials on which to base legislation; but
surely the honourable member, having once given up
his bill because there was no case for it, and having a
committee in order that he might get up a case, and
having failed in his attempt to get a committee, would
not be allowed to go back and bring in a bill for which
he had no grounds last session.—Mr. COLLIER observed
that the reason why the minority had overruled the
majority on this question was because the former was
supported by the sympathy of a large portion of the
protestant members of that house, as well as by a
powerful party outside, and he trusted that they had
heard for the last time of a question which ought never
to have been brought under the consideration of parliament.
—Mr. FREWEN called the attention of the house
to the violent language made use of by a Mr. Wharton
at the catholic meeting held in London. The speaker
threatened, if Prince Albert persevered in insulting the
catholics, to appeal for help to the Emperor of the
French.—Mr. T. CHAMBERS then rose to withdraw his
motion. He observed that he consented not to press
for the appointment of this committee, because the
position in which the question was now placed was such
that it would be literally and physically impossible for
him to succeed in getting it nominated. It was not his
intention, however, to abandon the question; and he
wished it clearly to be understood that it was open for
him to follow whatever course he might judge most
expedient.—Lord J. RUSSELL, having shortly reviewed
the circumstances under which the question stood,
expressed his gratification that the member for Hertford
had withdrawn his motion, as, in the first place, no
case had been made out for it; and in the second,
because he thought it would have stirred up much
religious bitterness, and much hatred and discord
between roman-catholics and protestants, without any
advantage or benefit whatsoever to the country. He
did not perceive that any danger could arise to the
country from the establishment of monasteries and
convents, and therefore he was neither ready to consent
to the appointment of the committee, nor to agree to
the introduction of the bill. He believed that no
legislation on this subject was required.—Mr. H.
DRUMMOND gave notice that he would put upon the
notice paper a motion for an address to the crown to
inquire into the conventual establishments. The pope,
who was the aggressor, had not ceased operations. He
said, "Have this realm of England I will," and by
every convent established he made a little enclosure
from the crown of England and attached it to himself;
but (said the hon. gentleman) "he shall have no more
inches if I can stop him."—Mr. CRAUFORD would not
permit the motion to be withdrawn without a division.
—After a few words from Lord E. HOWARD and Mr. V.
SCULLY, the house divided, when there appeared for
the withdrawal of the motion, 100; against it 1:
majority in favour of the withdrawal, 99.

On Friday, May 19, the house having resolved itself
into committee on the Excise Duties Bill, some discussion
ensued respecting the date on which the increased
tariff of malt duty should expire. The enhancement in
the tax was ultimately arranged to be practically co-
extensive in duration with the war. The clauses of the
bill were successively agreed to without alteration.

In committee of ways and means various resolutions
were adopted on the subject of the Sugar Duties. A
resolution continuing the present duty on refined sugar
was postponed by the government, upon the representation
that it was contrary to the assurances previously
given.

The resolution embodying the increase of the Income-
Tax having been moved, Mr. WILLIAMS proposed an
amendment equalising the probate duty on corporate,
ecclesiastical, and personal properties, with that now
imposed on realty.—This amendment was discussed for
some time, but not pressed to a division. The resolution
then passed the committee.

The house having gone into committee on the Stamp
Acts, Mr. WILSON moved a series of resolutions
prescribing the new schedule of stamp duties on bills of
exchange and promissory notes. The duties on stamps
up to £750 value having been agreed to, Mr. VANCE
moved that the scale should stop there, and that all
stamps on bills or notes for higher amounts should be
subjected to a maximum charge of 8s. 6d.—Mr. Wilson
remonstrated against this proposition. The government
lost upon the smaller stamps, and could not afford to
forego the gain on larger values.—The amendment after
discussion was withdrawn. Some conversation took
place respecting the new duties on foreign bills of
exchange. All the resolutions were finally agreed to.—
Mr. PHINN (in the absence of Mr. Oliveira) moved
a resolution rendering all bankers' cheques liable to a
penny stamp. This duty, he argued, would prevent
the evasion of the receipt stamp now practised by
persons who paid their debts with crossed cheques, and
would yield a revenue which he computed at £250,000,
and remarked that the amount might be turned to
useful account when the government came to accomplish
their promised revision of the newspaper stamp
duty.—Mr. Flynn, Sir J. Trollope, and Mr. Wilkinson
opposed the resolution.—Mr. BRIGHT could not consent