Professor Owen in opposition to the views of those who
considered the dog an animal fit for draught.—Considerable
discussion followed, in the course of which the
clause was supported by Lord Brougham and the Bishop
of Oxford, and opposed by Earl Granville and the Earl
of Malmesbury.—On a division there were for the clause
—contents, 43; non-contents, 23. The amendment was
consequently lost.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, on being pressed by Lord
Campbell and the Bishop of Oxford not to persevere
with the Divorce and Matrimonial Cases Bill,
consented to withdraw it.

On Tuesday, July 11, on the report of the amendment
in the Oxford University Bill being brought up, the
Earl of MALMESBURY repeated his objections to the
measure, in respect to the oaths taken by college
authorities not being pleadable in bar of the commissioners'
authority, the constituency of the hebdomadal
council, and the establishments of private halls; and
expressed a hope that some at least of these provisions
might yet be revised by the other house.—Earl
DELAWARE and the Earl of CARNARVON both urged
the inexpediency of admitting dissenters to the
university.—Lord MONTEAGLE contended that dissenters
ought to be admitted upon terms of perfect equality,
and argued, from the analogy of Trinity College, Dublin,
that no danger could arise to the church from such
liberality. Various amendments were agreed to, after
which the report was brought up.

On Thursday, July 13, Earl GRANVILLE addressed
the house with respect to a charge made against him, of
having Introduced Count Pahlen into a London Club.
To meet this accusation it would suffice to say that
Count Pahlen had been an intimate friend of his (Lord
Granville's) father, as well as of the Duke of Wellington,
the late Lord Grey, and other most distinguished men.
Count Pahlen had recently returned to London from
Madeira for the purpose of settling his affairs here and
retiring to the continent; and on his arrival he (Lord
Granville) had only signed, as he had frequently done
before, the printed form recommending a foreigner to
the Travellers' Club. He did not believe such conduct
was illegal and unpatriotic; on the contrary, he thought
that civility towards an individual stranger with whose
country we were at war, was just one of those mitigations
in the old barbarous rites of war which modern
civilisation had introduced. He hoped, therefore, that
the judgment of the house would acquit him of having
acted improperly in this matter.—Lord Malmesbury, the
Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Brougham, the Earl of
Carlisle, Lord Campbell, Lord Ellesmere, and Lord
Aberdeen, expressed their approbation of what Earl
Granville had done, in language highly complimentary
to Count Pahlen.—Lord ABERDEEN assured the house
(amid laughter) that the Count had not arrived on any
secret mission to him, and that till made aware of the
attack on Lord Granville, he did not know that Count
Pahlen was in this country.

On Friday, July 14, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved
for certain returns relative to the Board of Health, and
took occasion to notice and repel the attacks which had
been made "elsewhere" upon that board. He described
the various charges that had been advanced against it
with much minuteness, contending that in every instance
they were unfounded and unjust.—The Bishop of
LONDON censured the government, whom he accused of
having thwarted the endeavours of the Board of Health
for providing the poorer districts of the metropolis with
pure and cheap water. The motion was agreed to.

Lord LYTTELTON, in moving for some returns, criticised
the Conduct of the late Governor of New Zealand,
whom he censured for the delay he had occasioned in
summoning the new legislative assembly, as well as for
his proceedings regarding the sale of waste lands.—The
Duke of NEWCASTLE warmly vindicated the ex-Governor,
and consented to produce the papers asked for.

On Monday, July 17, the third reading of the Public
Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges Bill was
moved by Earl GRANVILLE.—Lord MONTEAGLE moved
as an amendment that the bill should be referred to a
select committee. He pointed out various risks and
inconveniences which he thought might arise from the
measure, and referred to various classes of public
functionaries who would suffer under the injustice of having
their appointments submitted for annual discussion in
parliament. The bill also violated the independence of
the House of Peers. By disallowing the salaries of the
officials who collected any tax, the House of Commons
could effectually annul that branch of taxation without
going through the formality of a bill, or asking the
consent of the peers.—Lord BROUGHAM supported the
amendment, alluding especially to the police magistrates
of London, who, though discharging judicial functions,
would be left at the discretion of the House of Commons
if the bill passed.—The Duke of ARGYLL defended the
bill.—After some remarks from the Earl of DERBY and
Lord CAMPBELL, who concurred in thinking that the
bill required further revision.—Earl GRANVILLE
consented to refer the bill to a select committee on the
understanding that it should nevertheless be proceeded
with during the present session. The amendment was
then agreed to.

On Tuesday, July 18, Earl GRANVILLE moved the
second reading of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Bill.
The measure, he said, was of a generalising character,
designed to obviate the necessity for applying for a
number of local bills, and was framed upon the model
of similar acts relating to England and Scotland.—The
motion was opposed by Lord DONOUGHMORE, who
considered the measure crude and inexpedient. A lengthened
debate followed, turning chiefly upon the details
of the measure. Ultimately Lord Donoughmore withdrew
his opposition, and the hill was read a second time.

On Friday, July 21, the Earl of HARRINGTON inquired
whether any instructions had been given to the
British Ambassador in Austria to state to the Vienna
cabinet that the Polish Subjects of the Czar would not
be allowed to enter the Service of the Allies?—The Earl
of ABERDEEN, in the absence of Lord Clarendon, was
assured that no such instructions had been transmitted
to the Earl of Westmoreland. With regard to the
British troops, it was for the commander-in-chief to
determine whether deserters from another power were
to be permitted to enlist.

The Earl of ABERDEEN brought up a royal message
respecting a Vote of Credit for the War Expenditure,
similar in terms to that presented to the Commons.
The message was ordered to be considered on Monday
next.

On Monday, July 24, the Earl of ABERDEEN moved an
address in answer to her Majesty's gracious message
respecting a Vote of Credit for the War Expenditure.
Large as the amount might seem, he apprehended no
reluctance on the part of the house to sanction the grant,
since the money had practically been already voted and
provided for. The question was not one of new taxes,
but involved simply the appropriation of money already
raised. After some observations from the Earls of
Ellenborough, Hardwicke, and Fitzwilliam, and the
Marquis of Clanricarde, the Earl of CLARENDON assured
the house that Austria was so deeply engaged with the
Western Powers that she could not draw back without
dishonour. As far as the English government were
concerned they would omit no efforts to secure an
honourable peace, but in the name of all his colleagues
he declared that they had no intention of reverting to
the status quo ante, nor would consent to patch up
a peace which would render the return of war inevitable.
The address was then agreed to.

In the HOUSE of COMMONS on Monday, June 26,
on the third reading of the Oxford University Bill,
Mr. HEYWOOD moved a clause to the effect that from
and after the first day of next Michaelmas Term, it shall
not be necessary for any person, upon taking the degree
of bachelor in arts, law, or medicine, usually conferred
by the said University of Oxford, to subscribe any
declaration, or to take any oath, save the oath of
allegiance.—Mr. GASKELL seconded the motion, as being a
concession to public feeling, and an act of substantial
justice which ought not to be deferred.—Mr. NEWDEGATE
did not believe that the young men who went up
to the University were unacquainted with the religion
they professed, or that they were not able to appreciate
theological tests. He had himself signed the Articles as
the University understood them, namely, as being the