amending and extending the act by which town-
councils were enabled to establish Libraries and
Museums freely open to the Public.

On Tuesday, March 21, in answer to a question from
Col. BLAIR respecting a Fraud by a Contractor for hay
for the horses going to the East.—Sir J. GRAHAM said
a fraud was attempted but not practised. A representation
was made, in consequence of which the hay was
examined and was rejected. A fresh supply had been
obtained, which was entirely satisfactory.—Colonel
BLAIR asked whether the government had any power
to inflict any punishment on the offending contractors
further than by the loss of their contract.—Sir J.
GRAHAM said that the government had no such power.
If the fraud had been completed they should have had
power, but they prevented the completion of it.—
Colonel LINDSAY asked if the same person had
contracted again.—Sir J. GRAHAM said he had had no
notice of that question, and was, therefore, not in a
position to answer it; but his impression was, that
under the original contract only, one person tendered,
and that person having attempted a fraud, he would
not be allowed to tender again.

An address to the Crown was moved by Mr. GRENFELL,
praying the Queen to direct that certain revenues
granted by the Sovereign in the years 1547 and 1559
should be duly appropriated to the uses of the Military
Knights of Windsor, according to the tenor of the
Acts passed by Queen Elizabeth, James I., and her
present Majesty.—Mr. FITZROY wished the subject to
be discussed in the presence of Lord John Russell, who
had studied it, and moved the adjournment of the
debate for that purpose. Some conversation took place
after which the proposal was adopted, and the discussion
postponed until Friday next.

Mr. CAIRNS in bringing forward a bill to amend and
consolidate the Law of Bankruptcy in Ireland, explained
that the intention of the measure was to assimilate the
law of Ireland to that of England, in regard to the
adjudication of cases in bankruptcy.—Mr. KEOGH assented
to the introduction of the bill; and after a few words,
leave was given to bring it in.

The Enhanced Income-Tax Resolution having been
reported from the committee of ways and means, Sir H.
WILLOUGHBY moved an amendment, having the effect
of distributing the collection of the additional moiety,
now added to the tax, over the whole year, instead of
enacting its payment in the first six months. The
incidence of the tax would, he urged, be thus alleviated
to the payers, while there was no financial necessity for
exacting the whole amount so promptly as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought proper to propose.
—Mr. FRENCH seconded the amendment, and dwelt
upon the injustice of inflicting the income tax upon
Ireland at all. A very discursive debate followed, in
which many members took part.—Mr. DISRAELI
contended that the government were only justified in
demanding increased taxes to provide for a war upon
the condition of proving that the war was unavoidable.
This step it had not done; and after making out a case by
the production of a voluminous series of documents, had,
within a few hours previously, issued a supplemental
volume giving a totally new aspect to the question. As
time had not allowed him to study these new documents,
he was obliged to take the proposition now before the
house just as it stood, leaving for future discussion the
question whether the ministry had deserved the
confidence of the house or the country by the conduct which
had led to their requiring enhanced revenues. Mr.
Disraeli then passed to the subject of the exchequer
balances, computing that the ready money that would
be at the disposal of the government next month would
amount to a comparatively insignificant sum—so low,
indeed, as to be dangerous and impolitic, even if the
country were in a state of profound peace. Assigning, as
the cause of this impoverishment, the various reductions
of interest and conversions of stocks attempted by Mr.
Gladstone, and describing the details and results of those
attempts, with much minuteness, he characterised
them as having been injudicious, ill-advised, and
persisted in against the opinions of the most competent
authorities, and in the face of symptoms which should
have shown the Chancellor of the Exchequer the peril
he was incurring. The final result would be to force
the minister to raise a loan, which would only be
obtained upon worse terms the longer it was delayed.
Meeting the objection that no criticism should be
pronounced on the ministerial policy if the critic were not
prepared to propose a vote of no confidence, the right
hon. member urged that it was apparent the government
had no confidence in the house or even in themselves,
and contrasted the expression of different ministers at
different times to show how loose and conflicting had
been their opinions on the great question of peace and
war. The war itself had been occasioned by this
divergence of opinion. A united cabinet would have
averted it altogether—it was a coalition war. Upon
other subjects he inferred an equal discordance, and
narrated incidents in late debates regarding parliamentary
reform, education, the universities, and the protestant
cause, to warrant that inference. In conclusion, Mr.
Disraeli declared himself unable to adopt the amendment
proposed by Sir H. Willoughby. He believed that the
finance minister would want more money than he could
get, and it was not right to increase his embarrassments.
—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, at considerable
length, justified his policy from the charges of Mr.
Disraeli and other members. He explained and
defended the motives which had induced him to ask that
the whole increase in the income tax should be paid
within the first six months, and concluded by enforcing
the policy of defraying the expenses of the year, by the
supplies of the year.—Colonel SIBTHORP said a few
words condemnatory of all Chancellors of the Exchequer,
and of the present in particular, expressing a hope that
the Emperor of Russia would get a downright good
licking, and urging that if the war should, after all, not
take place, the extra income-tax would not be demanded.
—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
promise that if war did not take place the extra tax
would not be levied, inasmuch as it was necessary to
defray the expenses of the expedition already sent to
the East. The amendment was then negatived, the
report of the resolution was agreed to, and a bill was
ordered to be brought in.

On Wednesday, March 22, the Property Tax Bill
was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
read a first time.

Mr. R. PHILLIMORE moved the second reading
of the Simony Law Amendment Bill. It was, he
explained, practically the same as the measure
introduced last year, absolutely prohibiting the sale of
any ecclesiastical preferment or a next presentation
thereto after decease of the present holder. The hon.
member described the abuses which existed under the
law as it now stood, and declared that his bill had
received the approbation of nearly all the judges.—Mr.
G. BUTT contended that both advowsons and rights of
presentation were, strictly speaking, properties which
the law recognised as being saleable or transferrable,
requiring only certain qualifications on the part of the
buyers. He moved as an amendment that the bill be
read a second time that day six months.—Sir W.
HEATHCOTE drew a distinction between advowsons
and next presentation. The former was property in
every sense; the latter might be given into the hands
of laymen in the character of spiritual trusts, but ought
never to be made articles of sale and barter. He
supported the bill.—Sir G. GREY believed that the
bishops held powers amply sufficient to restrain any
improper or scandalous traffic in ecclesiastical preferments.
Advowsons were, he thought, legitimate subjects for
transfer by sale or otherwise.—Lord GODERICH
considered that the present system permitted transactions
highly discreditable to the establishment. A seat on
the bench was quite as fit an article for sale as a preferment
in the church. He exhorted the house to adopt
the measure.—Mr. NAPIER admitted that abuses
prevailed at present, but believed that the heads of the church
had power to abolish them. The bill, he thought,
would prove a failure with regard to its avowed purpose
of improving the conditions under which benefices were
transferred. The moral influence of the bishop was
quite sufficient without the bill. If that influence were
left unexercised, the bill would be ineffectual, as means
would be found to evade it at every point.—The