in which, upon currency principles, he opposed
the measure, and urged that it was calculated to deter
capitalists from investments.—Lord PALMERSTON
supported the second reading of the bill, which he thought
was founded upon a general principle which it was very
desirable to maintain, namely, the principle that in time
of war subjects of the realm should not be allowed to
furnish the enemy with the means of carrying on war
against us. He described what Mr. Wilson's argument
went to as sheer nonsense. " Such an argument," he
said, " is founded upon the principle on which we know
the Dutch admiral proceeded, who, in an interval of lull
during a naval action, sold powder to the enemy. I am
as fond as any man of encouraging the commercial
enterprise of this country, but for heaven's sake do not
let us yield to this peddling system, which places pocket
against honour, which turns a balance-sheet against
national interests, and which lowers down the best
feelings of the country into a mere question of pounds,
shillings, and pence. I say that that principle is
disgraceful and fatal to a country. If we mean to maintain
our national independence, we must have a regard
for the generous and great principles on which nations
act, and by which alone national independence and
honour can be maintained. As far as I am concerned,
I shall give this bill my very hearty support."—Sir J.
PAKINGTON thought that everybody must admire the
spirit with which Lord Palmerston had spoken.—The
motion for going into committee was carried by 77 to 24.
— When these numbers were announced, Lord D.
STUART complained that a member of the government,
who had been in the house when the division was
called, had abstained from voting. He referred to the
President of the Board of Works (Sir William Moles-
worth).—The house went into committee on the bill.—
Lord SEYMOUR urged that the opinions of the law-
officers of the crown upon the bill should be given
before the house attempted to arrange its details, and
moved that the chairman should at once report progress.
—This motion was discussed for some time, Lord D.
STUART stating in the course of the debate that the
legal members of the government had already examined
the bill, and considered it unobjectionable.—The
committee divided, and the motion for reporting progress
was negatived by a majority of 78 to 32.—Sir J. V.
SHELLEY, one of the tellers at this division, stated that a
member of the government (Mr. Lowe) had gone into
the gallery instead of voting.—The clause, which enacts
that it shall be a misdemeanour for any one to buy or
sell securities of the Russian government, was then
discussed, and ultimately Lord Palmerston assented to
progress being reported, in order that the opinion of the
law-officers of the crown might be obtained on the clause.

On Thursday, July 27th, the second reading of the
Finchley-road Estate Bill, was opposed by Lord R.
GROSVENOR, who complained that this was the fifth
attempt of Sir T. M. Wilson to obtain legislative sanction
for an encroachment upon Hampstead heath. He
moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a
second time that day three months.—A somewhat
prolonged discussion was closed by a division, in which there
were 43 votes for the second reading, and 97 for the
amendment. The bill is consequently rejected.

The lords' amendments to the Oxford University Bill
were taken into consideration.—Mr. WALPOLE moved
that the house should disagree with the amendment by
which "congregational" was substituted for "sectional"
election, in the process by which the members of the
hebdomadal council were to be chosen.—Upon a
division, the clause as amended by the peers was agreed
to by a majority of 115 to 62.—The amendment by
which Mr. R. Palmer's clause (the public schools clause)
was made of non-effect as regards college fellowships,
underwent considerable discussion. A motion was
made by Mr. R. Palmer that the house should disagree
therewith, but was negatived, on division, by 110 votes
to 68.—The lords' amendment to the clause relating to
private halls was opposed by the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, upon whose motion the house voted their
disagreement with the same, by a majority of 130 to
70.—The other amendments were agreed to after some
miscellaneous conversation.

Sir J. PAKINGTON moved an address to the crown,
praying her Majesty to direct the salary of £600 per
annum heretofore paid to the Bishop of New Zealand
should be paid for the years 1853 and 1854, with the
assurance that the house would make good the same.
The right hon. baronet contended that the grant had
been withdrawn, apparently by some mistake of the
colonial office, and without due notice to the bishop,
upon whose services and disinterestedness he passed a
warm eulogium.—Mr. W. WILLIAMS contended that
the grant had often been opposed by himself and other
members, and a distinct understanding had long existed
that it should he withdrawn.—Sir T. D. ACLAND
insisted on the justice of continuing the grant.—Sir G.
GREY explained the circumstances under which the
grant had been discontinued, and justified that step
with respect to future years. As the bishop, however,
had actually received the salary for 1853, and might
have been put to inconvenience through the absence of
notice during the current twelvemonth, he thought
that parliament might justly be called upon to make
good the amount for either, or both, of those years, if
the colonial legislature should decline to provide for the
deficiency.—Upon this intimation the motion was
withdrawn, and the house went into committee of
supply.

On Friday, July 28th, the consideration of the
Militia Bill (No. 2.) in committee was resumed. An
amendment to clause 4, providing that half the expense
of militia storehouses and barracks should be borne by
the Consolidated Fund, was proposed by Mr. R. PALMER.
—Lord Palmerston, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. S.
Herbert resisted the amendment, which was, however,
carried on a division against the government by 85 votes
to 60.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that after the adoption of so important a change, the
government must take time to consider whether they
would, proceed with the bill.—The remaining clauses
were, however, proceeded with and adopted, and the
bill passed through committee.

The Militia (Scotland) Bill also went through
committee.

On the motion for the third reading of the Bribery
Bill Lord HOTHAM contended that the measure had
been urged forward by pressure from without. He
inquired why electoral corruption was restrained with
so much severity while the means were so abundantly
provided for corrupting the elected representatives
themselves.—Sir J. WALMSLEY thought that the
expenses of candidates at elections should be borne by
their constituents. The bill, he believed, would prove
only so much waste paper.—Lord J. RUSSELL submitted
that it was no argument against restraining one species
of offence, because others remained unrepressed. Briefly
describing the several provisions of the bill, he
vindicated their justice and utility.—The bill was read a
third time. A miscellaneous discussion, continued
during several hours, then took place upon various
additional clauses.—Mr. J. FITZGERALD moved a clause
by which the agents of candidates were to exercise the
functions assigned under the bill as it stood to the
election officers. The motion was negatived on a division
by a majority of 99 to 51.—A clause proposed by
Lord A. VANE-TEMPEST, enacting that every
candidate should declare the names of his agents, and
should not be liable for the acts of any other person,
was also negatived by 114 votes to 79.—On the
motion of Mr. PHINN, a clause was adopted, providing
that persons found guilty of bribery or of employing
undue influences by an election committee should be
thereby disqualified from becoming members of the
parliament then sitting.—Mr. HILDYARD objected to
clauses 6 and 7, which enacted, that any person against
whom penalties were recovered for bribery in a court of
law should be disqualified from sitting as a member or
voting at elections. Candidates who had been found
duly returned by an election committee might, he
contended, under these clauses be deprived of their seats.
The consequence would be that juries would become
the superior arbiters over the elections of members,
which was not only inconsistent with the dignity of
parliament, but at times and places, when party spirit
ran high, might lead to serious practical mischief. He
moved that the clauses should be struck out of the bill