committee on the Medical Graduates (London University)
Bill, Mr. BOUVERIE moved as an amendment that
the bill be committed that day three months. The bill,
he contended, was partial in its operation. Gentlemen
with Edinburgh and Dublin diplomas would still be
excluded from practising in London.—Mr. COWAN
supported the amendment.—Lord PALMERSTON had thought
at one time that it would be better to postpone all
legislation until a general bill upon the subject could be
brought in by the government. In consequence,
however, of communications with the authorities of the
London University, he had changed his opinion, and he
now thought it would be advisable to proceed with the
bill. The legislation of last session on the Lunatics Bill
had exposed the graduates of the university to penalties
which were never contemplated. It was desirable that
a remedy should be devised, and, in so doing, future
legislation of a more general character would not be
prevented.—Mr. WALPOLE said he should prefer a
general measure, placing degrees from all the universities
on the same footing, and securing a uniformity of
qualification. The better course would be to withdraw
the present bill, and introduce next session a more general
and perfect measure.—Mr. NAPIER supported this
view; and urged the claims of the University of Dublin
to give degrees extending to all parts of the United
Kingdom.—Mr. STRUTT, in supporting the bill,
mentioned that an action had been actually commenced
against a medical man for practising in lunacy and
vaccination cases—the name of the London University
having been by accident left out of the Lunacy and
Vaccination Acts of last session.—After further discussion,
a division was taken, and Mr. Bouverie's amendment
negatived by 90 to 26.—The house went into
committee.—On the motion of Mr. MOWBRAY, the
University of Durham was included in the bill. The
clauses were all agreed to.

On Thursday, June 13th, in reply to questions from
Mr. Hutt, Lord J. RUSSELL and Sir J. GRAHAM stated
that the Mouths of the Danube were strictly blockaded;
that the blockade of other Russian ports in the Black
Sea and Sea of Azoff was contemplated, but could not
be carried into effect before the interchange of certain
communications with Paris and Constantinople was
completed; and that the White Sea would be blockaded
upon the 1st of August.

The house having gone into committee on the
Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, Mr. Napier
complained of the course adopted by the government with
regard to this and another measure designed to settle
the Irish Landlord and Tenant question. He described
his own position, as original framer of the bills, which
he declared the government had subsequently adopted,
and after leading him to believe up to Tuesday last that
the measure should be actually carried during the
present session, had now abandoned them at the last
moment. Citing many dates and speeches to show that
there was no real cause for this desertion of the bills,
he contended that the excuses offered for that step were
altogether futile, and inferred that the measures had
been surrendered at the bidding of the partisans of the
tenant-league in Ireland. He was not responsible for
the abandonment of the measures, and he appealed,
fearlessly, to the country to decide between him and the
government as to who had been the most anxious to
pass these bills into a law, and set the landlord and
tenant question in Ireland at rest for ever.—Sir J.
YOUNG entered into statements in order to justify his
own conduct with regard to the bills in question.
Unexpected opposition to their progress had occurred.
He had been earnestly entreated to hold the matter
over until another measure, arranging the correlative
question of tenant compensation, could be considered
and prepared; and he had therefore determined to
postpone legislation until next session: whether the
measures were treated as private or as ministerial bills,
he contended that this resolve had been discreet and
fair.—Lord J. RUSSELL submitted that as the right hon.
and learned gentleman had fully gone into his charge,
and the right hon. baronet, the secretary for Ireland,
had made his explanation in reply, the committee ought
to allow this matter to drop. (Mr. Whiteside—No, no.)
He (Lord J. Russell) could not prevent the hon. and
learned gentleman from continuing the debate, but his
doing so might prevent him from showing similar
courtesy to hon. members opposite on future occasions.
However, he would move that the chairman should
report progress, and then the bills would be restored to
their original position, which would give the right hon.
and learned gentleman an opportunity of bringing them
on again if he should so think fit.—Mr. WHITESIDE
said it was quite evident to him that there had been
some complicity in this matter between the government
and the hon. and learned serjeant the member for
Kilkenny, for when he entered the house on Tuesday
the by-play going on was of so glaring a character as to
induce an old and practised member of the house to
assure him that the government meditated sacrificing
these bills. The speech they had just heard from the
right hon. baronet the secretary for Ireland was a
confirmation of this fact.—Mr. J. FITZGERALD believed
that the course pursued by the government had been
judicious, and repudiated the allegation that a bargain
was struck on the subject between ministers and the
Irish independent members.—Mr. LUCAS repeated that
denial on his own account, and then proceeded to
comment upon the personal conduct of Mr. Whiteside,
Mr. Napier, Mr. Keogh, and Sir J. Young. He
demanded information as to the real intentions of the
government respecting the landlord and tenant question.
—Lord J. RUSSELL recapitulated the fruitless efforts
made in former years to legislate upon the subject.
Extreme views on either side had been made topics for
agitation, and been embodied in bills presented to
parliament. In the present session an attempt had
been made to reconcile those extremes, but the difficulties
and opposition which the measure had encountered
had so protracted its course as to render it
impossible to carry the bill this year. Whether for the
future they should endeavour to deal with the tenants'
compensation question, or attempt to frame a new code
of laws for the relationship between landlord and tenant,
must depend upon public opinion.—After some remarks
of a personal character from Messrs. Maguire, Pollard
Urquhart, and other members, Mr. DISRAELI contended
that the question involved in the bills was one which
the government ought to have settled. He remarked
upon the inconsistencies between the excuses for
abandoning the measures given by the noble lord and by the
right hon. baronet the secretary for Ireland. Entering
upon the inquiry, what had the ministry done during
the last six months, the right hon. member descanted
at much length upon the failures, defeats, and desertions
which had characterised all their attempts at legislation
since the session began. Mr. Napier had complained
that his labours at settling the tenant controversy were
frustrated by ministerial imbecility; but he had only
shared the fate which overtook, with perfect impartiality,
all the ministerial measures.—Lord J. RUSSELL
contrasted the anxiety now expressed by Mr. Disraeli upon
the subject of tenant right with the mode in which that
question had been treated, two years since, and found
much dissonance between his speeches and acts at those
two periods. He proceeded to criticise the course which
Mr. Disraeli had adopted lately in that house, remarking
that he abstained from challenging a vote upon any
important subject, but waited for safe occasions to
disparage and embarrass the government.—Mr. V. SCULLY
and Mr. MAGUIRE having spoken, Mr. DISRAELI again
rose and said that, so far from its being his principal
business to study how he could put the noble lord in a
minority, it had become a matter of necessity, in the
present conjuncture, for a leader of the opposition to study
that, if possible, the government should not every night
be placed in that position. The noble lord avowed that
he did not expect him (Mr. Disraeli) to propose a vote
of want of confidence in the government, as that was a
step only to be taken when unavoidable. But the noble
lord said the opposition ought to ask the opinion of the
house on some great subject, and if then the result were
adverse to the government, they might draw some
deduction from the circumstance. If that were so, it was
really incumbent upon the noble lord to say what was
the great subject on which he wished the opinion of the
house to be taken? Surely, reform and national education
were great subjects; and there were other subjects