gave rise to a prolonged discussion.—Lord D. STUART
remarked that the provisions originally contained in the
bill for enabling prisoners of every sect to obtain religious
instruction from ministers of their own denomination,
had been struck out by the peers. He moved
that the further consideration of the bill be postponed
for three months.—The amendment was seconded by
Sir J. V. SHELLY, and opposed by Mr.NEWDEGATE.—Sir
G. GREY did not approve of the alteration effected in
the bill by the Lords' amendments, but recommended
Lord D. Stuart not to pass a motion which would frustrate
the measure altogether.—After further discussion
Lord D. STUART withdrew his amendment, substituting
others by which the particular modifications in the bill
that formed the ground of his objection would be
reversed. Two divisions were successively taken, in
both of which the propositions of the noble lord were
negatived by large majorities.—The Lords' amendments
to the bill were then agreed to.

On the motion for going into committee of supply
some conversation arose respecting the intentions of the
government with regard to the Stamped and Unstamped
Periodical Press. The present anomalous state of the
law on the subject was acknowledged, and the Attorney-
General stated that the legal arrangements which should
be adopted were under his anxious consideration.—The
house then went into committee of supply on the civil
service estimates.

The vote of £27,500 for the Purchase of Land
at Kensington Gore for the New National Gallery
being strenuously opposed, Lord J. RUSSELL stated
that the vote would not pledge the house to adopt
the site in question. The plans for the new gallery
were not in readiness, and would have to be submitted
to parliament next year before the work could be
commenced. Meanwhile the money now asked for would
be well laid out in buying land which could be immediately
sold at a profit if not wanted for public purposes.
—On a division the vote was carried by a majority of
169 to 48.

Lord PALMERSTON obtained permission to introduce
two measures for continuing the Commission of Sewers
and the General Board of Health for periods of one and
two years respectively. By the latter bill the noble
lord stated that it was intended to effect some changes
in the composition of the Board of Health. Two paid
members were to be placed upon that board, removable
at the discretion of the home secretary, and subject to
his control, under responsibility to parliament.

On Monday, July 10, the house went into committee
on Lord John Russell's Bribery and Treating Bill,
the clauses of which underwent a long discussion.—On
the 2nd clause, defining active bribery, and enacting
that every person who shall directly or indirectly, by
himself, or by any other person on his behalf, give, lend,
offer, promise, &c., money or valuable consideration for
a vote, shall be deemed guilty of bribery, Mr. AGLIONBY
moved to insert after "person" the word "authorised;"
but the motion was negatived by 141 to 110.—In the
3rd clause, defining passive bribery, and which enacted
that every voter who shall, directly or indirectly, ask
for, receive, agree, or contract for, any money or
valuable consideration, for voting or refraining from
voting, shall be deemed guilty of bribery, Lord J.
RUSSELL consented to omit the words "ask for."—In
the 4th clause, defining treating, which was the subject
of much debate, the word "corruptly" was inserted at
the beginning, so as to govern all the acts forbidden, as
affecting candidate and voter.—On the 5th clause, a
proposal by Mr. V. SMITH, to render a vote given under
undue influence or intimidation void, was negatived
upon a division.—In the 7th clause, to the disabilities
attaching to persons guilty of treating was added, at the
suggestion of Mr. WALPOLE, disqualification for voting
at an election of a member for the parliament then
existing.—Clause 10 (one of the new clauses), which
declared that a person being an elector, acting as
counsel, attorney, or in any other capacity, for any
candidate, for the purposes of any election, should not be
entitled to any reward for personal services rendered to
such candidate in any such capacity; and any elector
taking such illegal payment should be incapacitated from
voting at such election, was opposed by Mr. E. Denison,
Mr. H. T. Liddell, and Mr. Atherton.—Lord J.
RUSSELL thought the clause, as it stood, was impracticable,
and proposed to substitute another clause hereafter.
This clause was struck out. On reaching the
17th clause the chairman was ordered to report progress.

On Tuesday, July 11, Mr. BLACKETT moved an
address for the appointment of a commission to proceed
to India to inquire into the Tenure of Land in the
Presidency of Madras. His object, he said, was to call the
attention of the house to a system of local taxation
contrary, in his opinion, to every principle of fiscal
science. The origin of the land tax, constituting more
than three-fifths of the whole revenue of India, was a
subject of dispute; some considering it as a tax
in the ordinary sense of the term, others holding that it
was properly rent. After describing the different
systems of collecting the land revenue in Bengal, the
north-west provinces, Bombay, and Madras, Mr.
Blackett proceeded to show what he regarded as the
objectionable features of the ryot war system under the
last mentioned presidency, extending over an area of
7000 square miles. This system, he said, tended to
break down the cultivators, who were at the mercy of
the government,—in other words, of corrupt native
functionaries, cutting them off from the power of
accumulating capital, so that such a thing as private property
in land was practically unknown there. This was the
result, he insisted, of the system as at present administered,
for although it was, he said, based originally upon
a false principle, yet, as introduced by Colonel Read,
its founder, and Sir T. Munro, its great advocate, it had
redeeming incidents, which were now departed from.
Explaining in detail the main defects of this system, he
dwelt upon its effects upon the revenue, the land, and
the cultivating population. The revenue, he contended,
was deteriorated; the marketable value of the land was
lowered and even extinguished, and the system was
calculated to sweep all occupiers away on a large scale,
multiplying small holdings, and to strengthen the government
by weakening society, which was pressed down to
one dead level of pauperism. All he asked was to
do for India what had been done for Ceylon.—Mr.
LOWE argued that Mr. Blackett had not made out
a sufficient case for the commission of inquiry. No
evidence had been adduced to show that the Indian
government were resolved to disregard well-founded
grievances. He was confident the result of the efforts
now making would show that the local government
were able to redress just grievances without interfering
with the tenure of land, which he apprehended must
continue to exist for some generations to come.—Mr.
D. SEYMOUR supported the motion, and instanced, from
personal observation, numerous facts to show the
oppressive working of the existing system—Sir J. HOGG
charged the hon. member with exaggeration, and with
deriving his facts from tainted sources. The Earl of
Dalhousie was now devoting himself to the consideration
of the whole question with the view of removing well-
founded grievances.—Mr. BRIGHT did not think the
hon. baronet's answer successful. His admissions went
a good way to make out a case in favour of a decided
change in the existing system.—Sir C. WOOD was ready
to admit that the land assessment was too high, but
argued that it would be most inexpedient to interfere
with a tenure to which the natives had been long
accustomed. The subject was now undergoing the attention
of the Government with a view to improvement.—Mr.
J. PHILLIMORE denounced the Company's rule in
Madras, and alleged that torture was not unknown as a
means of extorting rent.—Mr. MANGLES defended the
Company.—Mr. HENLEY was surprised to hear it
broadly stated, and without contradiction, that torture
had been resorted to to recover rent.—Sir C. WOOD
expressed his belief in the practice of torture. Inquiry,
however, would be made.—Mr. MANGLES declared
solemnly that during the years he had been in India he
had never heard of torture being applied.—Mr. V.
SCULLY supported the motion, and traced relationship
between land tenure in Ireland and the condition of
matters in Madras.—Mr. ELLIOT expressed his conviction
that torture had never been applied to collect rent.
—On a division, the motion was negatived by 64 to 59.

On Wednesday, July 12, on the motion for going into