present English system retained.—Lord LOVAINE
thought the measure evidently contained the seeds of
further changes, and would lay the foundation for the
total abolition of primogeniture.—Mr. M. MILNES gave
his hearty support to the measure. There was in fact
no law of primogeniture in this country, but a custom
only, which was most unfair in its operation on the
junior members of families.—Sir P. THESIGER opposed
the bill as either useless or mischievous. If a man
wished his property divided amongst his children,
he had only to make his will. A compulsory division
of land would lead to fatal social consequences, and
utterly change the character of our institutions.—Lord
J. RUSSELL said that if this measure were to be enacted
as one of justice, it was evident that it must be followed
by still greater changes, as of itself it would not
sufficiently carry out the principle. He could not admit
that the same economical maxims must be held binding
in the case of land as ruled the disposition of other
property, because reasons of state existed to make land
an exception. Such a change as that proposed would
be highly dangerous to the stability of our social and
legislative system.—Mr. V. SCULLY and Mr. PHINN
supported the bill.—Mr. DISRAELI objected to alter, on
account of exceptional cases of hardship or injustice,
the laws on which the whole structure of our society
was founded. The bill was adverse to the interests of
the country, and calculated to lower our national
character.—Mr. LOCKE KING having replied, the house
divided, and the numbers were found to be—for the
second reading, 82; against it, 203; majority, 121. The
bill, therefore, is lost.

On Thursday, March 9, Mr. FAGAN moved a resolution
to the effect that the house would resolve itself into
a committee to consider the tax called Ministers' Money,
with a view to its repeal, and to provide a substitute
out of the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
He repeated the arguments so often urged in behalf of
this proposition.—Sir JOHN YOUNG opposed the motion,
while admitting the grievance. The difficulty was, to
find a remedy that would not involve a violation of
property. Sir John contended that the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners lack funds for the purpose proposed.
They are bound by the Church Temporalities Act to
perform certain things; and a reference to their very
last report shows that they have no surplus funds. He
desired to take a middle course. He proposed that
after the 10th of October all houses rated at and under
£10 per annum should be totally exempt; that no house
in future should be liable to the tax; that means should
be taken to ascertain, with respect to those tenements
and houses which had been in past times liable, what
amount they had paid, and that they should be liable
to that amount and no more; and that there should
also be a power of redemption, at a fixed rate. That
would exempt, in Dublin, 3-7ths of the houses; in
Cork, 4 out of 5; in Clonmel, 8 out of 9; in Drogheda,
10 out of 11; in Kilkenny, 10 out of 13; in Kinsale, 6
out of 7; in Limerick, 13 out of 14; and in Waterford,
9 out of 12. He moved as an amendment that the act
relating to Ministers' Money, and the Church
Temporalities Act (Ireland) be now read. Seconded by Lord
PALMERSTON.—After brief debate,—in which Mr.
Hadfield, Mr. Maguire, Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, Mr. Potter,
Mr. Cowan, supported the motion, and Mr. NAPIER
the amendment,—the house divided, and the amendment
was carried by 103 to 88.

On Friday, March 10, the house having gone into
committee, Sir J. YOUNG moved for leave to bring in
his bill, described and promised on the previous evening,
to amend the laws relating to Ministers' Money in
Ireland.—Mr. FAGAN moved as an amendment that
leave be given to bring in a bill for the total abolition of
the tax, and to provide a substitute out of the funds in
the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.—Mr.
BRIGHT supported the amendment—The committee
divided: for the bill, 136; for the amendment, 93;
majority, 43. Leave was then given, and the bill
brought in.

On Monday, March 13, Mr. French inquired of Sir
J. Graham whether it was true, as reported in the
newspaper accounts of the late Dinner at the Reform
Club, that he had given Sir C. Napier power to declare
war immediately upon entering the Baltic; and if so, by
what authority that power was delegated to a British
admiral, and when was it to be acted upon?—Sir
J. GRAHAM was induced solely by his respect for the
house to answer a question, whose propriety might
justly be disputed. He had, indeed, hoped that when
the fleet entered the Baltic the commander would be
able at once to issue a declaration of war. Hitherto,
however, there had been no orders given to the fleet to
enter the Baltic, nor any authority given to declare
war.—Mr. BRIGHT, having moved the adjournment of
the house as a point of form, charged Sir J. Graham,
Lord Palmerston, and Sir W. Molesworth with reckless
levity on account of the speeches which they had uttered
at the Reform Club dinner, and which he thought
utterly inconsistent with the gravity and responsibility
of their positions as cabinet ministers.—Lord
PALMERSTON expressed the most perfect indifference for any
opinion that the member for Manchester might form of
his conduct, whether public or private.—Sir T.
HERBERT, alluding to another expression attributed to
Sir J. Graham, asked whether he had at the dinner in
question observed, "We, as reformers, may be proud
that the honour of the British flag in the Euxine and
the Baltic is entrusted to two such champions as
Admiral Dundas and Sir C. Napier"?—Sir J. GRAHAM
admitted the correctness of the report, and saw no
reason to regret or retract the expression. The
important commands alluded to had doubtless been given
from no political considerations; but it was a matter
on which reformers might fain congratulate themselves,
that two approved champions of reform were found
worthy of holding them.—Sir W. MOLESWORTH
retorted the charge brought against him by Mr. Bright,
whom he accused in turn of narrow-minded prejudice.
—Mr. DISRAELI ridiculed the expressions with which
so much grave fault had been found, and remarked upon
their harmless character, if properly valued. Even if
orders to declare war had been given to Sir C. Napier,
it was known, he observed, that the gallant admiral
never obeyed orders, and might therefore be expected
to preserve peace. And if the two commanders were
called reformers, it appeared that reformers now meant
persons who did not reform, and the character had
become consequently altogether innocuous. So also with
the invectives pronounced against the Czar. They were
like other invectives uttered a year ago against another
Emperor, and might result, as in his case, in their
object being ere long embraced as one of our most faithful
and trusted friends.—Mr. SPOONER believed that
the country generally would endorse Mr. Bright's
judgment respecting the Reform Club dinner. He
considered that war was a solemn duty, which should
be inaugurated not with banquets, but with fasting and
humiliation, and trusted that the government would
obtain the royal command to have some day set apart
for a national testimony to that opinion.—Mr. COBDEN
replied to Sir W. Molesworth in defence of the member
for Manchester, and pointed to what he considered
inconsistencies in the right hon. baronet's conduct before
and after he became a cabinet minister.—The discussion,
which had throughout borne a personal character, then
ceased.

Mr. G. MOORE, in urging inquiry regarding the
Appointment of Mr. Stonor to a Puisne Judgeship at
Melbourne, called attention to the report of the Sligo
election committee, which had affixed a charge of
bribery to that gentleman, and asked whether the
government intended to confirm him in the office.—
Mr. F. PEEL justified the nomination of Mr. Stonor,
which had certainly taken place when both himself and
the Duke of Newcastle were unaware of the
circumstances alluded to in the report of the Sligo committee,
but which, even now they knew the whole story, they
did not feel called upon to cancel.—Mr. DIVETT
characterised the appointment in question as one of the
most disgraceful ever made by government.—Mr.
BOWYER defended Mr. Stonor, upon whose conduct the
election committee had, he believed, passed an
undeserved censure.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, in
reply to Lord Jocelyn, the principles of the New Postal
Arrangements between England and Australia. Fresh