It was, however, a matter for separate consideration,
although now, as well as twenty years ago, any proposal
for admitting dissenters to the university would always
command his vote. In submitting his project to the
house, he claimed for it the credit of being a large and
comprehensive reform, calculated to extend the utility
of the university system, and render it more worthy of
the nation, while preserving intact its ancient spirit and
character. After a desultory conversation, leave was
given, and the bill was brought in and read a first time.

Mr. M. GIBSON called attention to the subject of the
Trade Carried on in Neutral Vessels, and, after
remarking upon the imperfect information that had
already transpired, demanded from the government an
explicit statement of their intentions in regard to the
matter. Enlarging upon the magnitude and importance
of our commerce, he submitted that war might now be
conducted without embarrassing trade or destroying
private property to the same extent as in previous eras
of warfare. The hon. member had placed a motion on
the paper for the transmission of instructions to the
British cruisers to abstain from interfering with neutral
vessels, and whatever property they might have on
board, and contended that the prohibition would afford
no advantage to Russia, and would save English subjects
from much loss and vexation.—Mr. HORSFALL seconded
the motion, urging the government to adopt a law to
put down privateering altogether.—Lord J. RUSSELL,
in view of a subject so important, requested a little
longer delay before making any final declaration. In
reply to Mr. T. Baring, the noble lord afterwards
explained that it was necessary to communicate with
the French government on the subject, but promised to
announce their decision before any proclamation of
hostilities took place.—After a few words from Mr.
Bright, the motion was withdrawn.

Mr. MOORE having called attention to The Appointment
of Mr. Stonor, who, he said, received his judgeship
on account, rather than in spite of his electioneering
practices, Mr. F. PEEL explained that the extreme
respectability of the testimonials presented by that
gentleman caused his appointment to be made with a
degree of carelessness which was now much regretted.—
A warm discussion ensued, in which the government
were charged with negligence or connivance by Mr.
Whiteside, Mr. Malins, and Mr. Butt, and the
inculpated functionary was defended by Mr. Bowyer
and Mr. Stanley.—Mr. SADLEIR vindicated the whole
proceeding at the late election for Sligo with a warmth
of language which forced the Speaker to call him to
order more than once.—Mr. MOORE retorted in a
similar vein, until at length the Speaker quitted the
chair, and the house went into committee on the Income
Tax.—Mr. HUME then proceeded to move, as an
amendment, that the tax be extended over incomes of
£60 and upwards, but on a lower scale of charge.—Mr.
GLADSTONE pleaded that the charge of incomes of £100
was still an experiment whose results were not
ascertained.—Mr. DISRAELI remarked the arrival of
midnight as a reason why further discussion should be
postponed.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
remonstrated against a fresh delay, but on the motion of
Mr. Spooner, the chairman was ordered to report
progress.

On Monday,March 20, the house having gone into
committee of ways and means, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, without adding a word of remark, moved
the resolution increasing the tariff of Income Tax.
Notice of an amendment to this resolution had been
given by Sir H. Willoughby, but the hon. baronet not
appearing at the moment, the resolution was passed
without discussion or division, and the house resumed.

The second reading of the Ministers' Money (Ireland)
Bill having been moved, Mr. MlALL moved as an
amendment that the bill be read a second time that day
six months. He briefly denounced the impost as a
church-rate slightly disguised and imbued with aggravated
injustice.—The amendment was seconded by Mr.
HUME.—The house then divided. For the second
reading, 203; for the amendment, 97—106; the bill
was read a second time.

On the motion for the second reading of the Colonial
Clergy Disabilities Bill, Mr. HADFIELD moved that the
second reading be taken that day six months.—The
amendment was seconded by Mr. A. PELLATT, and
opposed by Sir J. PAKINGTON, who proceeded to
comment upon the provisions of the present bill, expressing
some preference for the measure on the same subject
unsuccessfully introduced last session.—The SOLICITOR-
GENERAL explained the nature and origin of the
peculiar disabilities under which the colonial clergy now
laboured, and which the bill was intended to remove.
The clergy in the colonies were now fettered by the
action of statutes some of which were passed as long ago
as the reign of Henry VIII., and were altogether
inappropriate to the present state of things. These acts
interfered both with the spiritual functions and the
temporalities of the church, and its ministers in the
colonies; and the bill was designed to remedy the evil
thus occasioned, by totally abrogating the statutes in
question on some points, and on others enabling the
local legislature to interfere.—After several remarks
from various members, Lord J. RUSSELL pointed out
the expediency of placing the English protestant church
in the colonies on the same footing, and endowing it
with the same rights as the Roman catholic, the Scotch
presbyterian, or the nonconformist bodies generally.
This was attempted by the present measure, and he
therefore supported the second reading of the bill.—
On a division there appeared—for the second reading,
196; against, 62—134.—The bill was then read a second
time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to bring
in five bills for the Prevention of Bribery and
Corruption at the Election of Members for the City of
Canterbury and the Boroughs of Cambridge,
Barnstaple, Kingston-upon-Hull, and Maldon. The reports
of committees furnished abundant testimony to the
existence and the flagrancy of the crime of bribery in
all the places mentioned, some instances of which were
cited by the right honourable and learned member, who
then proceeded to explain the machinery by which he
hoped to prevent the like practices in future. The
offences, he urged, had a special character in the
boroughs in question, and demanded a special remedy.
Corruption was too deeply engrafted to be eradicated by
a general statute; but the infection had spread only
among part of the constituencies. Wishing, therefore,
at once to suppress the guilt and yet punish only the
guilty, he proposed to disfranchise throughout the
whole five boroughs, all the electors whose corruptibility
had been proved before the commissioners who had
recently investigated the circumstances and incidents
attending recent elections in the localities named.—Mr.
CAIRNS urged that the guilt of the electors whom the
bill would disfranchise, could be shown only by their
own evidence, and that this evidence had been given
under a parliamentary guarantee of impunity to the
witnesses.—Sir J. HANMER also thought it an unjust
proceeding to induce men to confess their faults by a
promise of condonation, and then to punish them after
all.—The question whether the terms of the Indemnity
Act, for witnesses examined before election
commissioners of inquiries did, or not, contain a provison which
the bills now before the house would violate, was
discussed at some length. Mr. Phinn, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Massey, and the Solicitor-General contended for the
negative view of the case. Mr. Napier, Mr. Whiteside,
Mr. Walpole, and other members sustained the affirmative,
arguing that, however anxious the house might be
to put down corruption, it was a duty still more
paramount to keep faith with individuals.—The ATTORNEY-
GENERAL replied, and alluded in the course of his
remarks to the silence of the member for East Suffolk
during the debate.—Sir F. KELLY, thus challenged,
re-opened the legal arguments regarding the interpretation
of the Indemnity Act, and contended that its
tenour was so ambiguous as to warrant the witnesses in
relying upon the most perfect impunity, and to render
it unjust for the house to visit them by a retrospective
act with pains and penalties.—The house divided on the
question whether leave should be given to bring in the
first bill. There appeared—Ayes, 189; Noes, 118—71.
The other bills of the series were then successively
moved and leave given to bring them in.

Mr. EWART obtained leave to introduce a bill for