it provided no machinery by which partners might
announce their intention to all their customers. Hence
the law, theoretically right, was practically inoperative.
The bills now before the house proposed to make
the law practicable; but he must say that he would
have preferred other securities against fraud than those
which were provided for in this bill. If greater publicity
were provided for, he would have preferred a greater
extension of the principle.—Lord PALMERSTON was
gratified with the general concurrence of opinion
expressed in favour of the principle of these bills. The
government were by no means wedded to their own
details, but would be ready to adopt any amendment
that should commend itself to the judgment of the
house.—Mr. HASTIE considered this measure a
retrogressive movement.—After some observations from
various members, both bills were read a second time
without a division.

On Monday, July 2, Lord GODERICH inquired of
Lord R. Grosvenor whether it was his intention to
proceed with the Sunday Trading Bill?—Lord R.
GROSVENOR replied that, considering that this was a measure
peculiarly liable to misrepresentation and ridicule, which
had been most unfairly exercised; considering, likewise,
the lateness of the session and the formidable opposition
with which this bill was threatened, he thought it
would not be right to keep up the existing irritation for
the bare chanceof passing it during the present session,
and he moved that the order fixed for Wednesday for
the further progress of the bill be discharged.—Some
strong observations by Mr. OTWAY upon the proceedings
in Hyde-park on Sunday, and upon the conduct
both of the government and the police, gave rise to a
conversation, in the course of which Sir G. GREY justified
the instructions he had issued to the police and
their interference; several members severely censured
the conduct of the police, which Mr. J. W. FOX stigmatised
as ferocious and brutal; while on the other hand
Mr. G. VERNON, an eye-witness, declared that, as far
as he observed their conduct, nothing could be better
and more good-humoured.—The motion for the dis-
charge of the order was agreed to, so that the bill is lost.

The three Education Bills, brought in by Lord John
Russell, Sir John Packington, and Mr. Milner Gibson,
were withdrawn.

On Tuesday, July 3, on the motion of Lord PALMERSTON,
the house resolved itself into committee to take
into consideration Her Majesty's Message with Regard
to Lord Raglan's Family. The message having been
read, Lord PALMERSTON moved a series of resolutions
in reply to it. He reminded the house that they had
often been called to the pleasing duty of awarding
thanks to those warriors who had deserved well of their
country, and that the walls of the house had often rung
with cheers as the Speaker conveyed those thanks to the
individual. But their task on the present occasion was
a more melancholy one. The ear which would have
listened to the Speaker's praises was now still in death
—the hand which had so often been raised in his
country's defence was now cold and stiff in the grave.
But Lord Raglan had bequeathed his family to his
country; and he doubted not that the country would
cheerfully accept the legacy. On other occasions when
rewards of this kind occurred in the lifetime of the
officer, it was usual to award a pension, varying from
£2,000 to £3,000 a-year for the lifetime of the individual
himself, and for two generations next in succession. As
Lord Raglan was now no more, it would be necessary
in some degree to vary this precedent, and he therefore
would propose that a pension of £1,000 a-year should be
granted to Lady Raglan during her life, and that a further
pension of £2,000 a-year be granted to the present Lord
Raglan, and to his son succeeding him, during their
respective lives. Mr. Disraeli, Lord John Russell, and
other members, expressed in warm language their
concurrence in the resolutions.—The question was put from
the chair, when Mr. M. GIBSON interposed, and after
remarking that the Crimean expedition had been
undertaken against the judgment of Lord Raglan, at
the instance of the home government, inquired what
was to be the future policy of the administration
respecting the conduct of the war. The right hon.
member then diverged into the question of the Vienna
conferences, and commented upon certain revelations
respecting the opinions of the noble lord the member
for London, which, he declared, were to be found in the
last circulars of Count Buol. He sought explanations
also touching the atrocities committed after the surrender
of Kertch, and inveighed against the criminal
negligence which had allowed an enterprise said to be
undertaken in the cause of liberty and civilisation to
receive so indelible a disgrace.—Lord PALMERSTON
said there was a season for all things. Her Majesty's
government would be prepared at all fitting times to
defend their conduct; but they would not be led by the
taunts of the right hon. gentleman, or by the cheers of
his friends, to mix up with a subject which ought to be
one and undivided, topics of party acrimony or the
hostility of the peace party. The resolutions were then
agreed to.

On Thursday, July 5, Petitions complaining of the
Conduct of the Police in the Late Disturbances were
presented by Mr. Roebuck and Mr.Thomas Duncombe.
Mr. ROEBUCK stated that Mr. Chaffyn (one of the
petitioners) was an upholsterer in Oxford-street; that on
Monday last, having just returned from the country, he
entered a news-shop to read the news; that the police
came and said to the shopman, "Damn you, why don't
you shut your door?" to which the shopman replied, "I'll
see you damned first;" that then the police struck out
with their truncheons, nearly breaking Mr. Chaffyn's
arm; and that he had since tried in vain to find out the
man who assaulted him. After a good deal of controversy
on points of order and form, Sir GEORGE GREY
asked for a copy of the statement, and promised inquiry
into this case.—Mr. DUNCOMBE came forward with
several petitions, and attempted to speak upon them.
Cries of "Order! " were raised, and the SPEAKER
remarking that the grievances complained of were not
grievances of the kind that demand immediate inquiry,
decided that Mr. Duncombe could not speak. Whereupon
Mr. Duncombe moved the adjournment of the
house; and proceeded, not without some further
interruptions, to detail the cases of alleged outrage and
cruelty, and to suggest immediate inquiry as the
only means of preventing further mischief. A man
talking to his neighbours was struck under each ear by
two policemen; another was knocked down in Mount-
street; a woman following her bleeding husband was
struck on the breast; a youth was struck across the loins,
without any provocation; a soldier, wounded in the
Crimea—a cripple, who could not move rapidly—was
cruelly beaten. Colonel Aubrey, late of the Blues, had
volunteered to give evidence of the "brutality displayed
by a body of ruffians and cowards," whom he could not
call men. Mr. Duncombe said he was ready to substantiate
all these cases by evidence; and at a future time
he should move for a committee of inquiry.—Sir
GEORGE GREY said he heard the statements for the
first time; had they been laid before him earlier, he
could have already instituted an inquiry. With regard
to a committee, he could say nothing, not knowing the
grounds on which it would be demanded. After a
considerable discussion, the motion for the adjournment
was withdrawn.

The house then went into committee on the Tenants'
Improvements Compensation Bill, and proceeded to the
consideration of clause 14. This clause provided that
tenants, if evicted, shall be entitled to compensation for
improvements made before the passing of the act.—Mr.
HORSEMAN proposed to limit the retrospective effect of
the clause to twenty years; and the insertion of words
to that effect was carried by a majority of 141 to 37.—
Mr. Serjeant SHEE and others angrily complained that
they had been taken by surprise. But the consideration
of the clause was continued. Some amendments
were proposed and carried, and at length the clause was
put, and negatived by 138 to 102, against the wish of
the government. This led to a warm altercation and
the exchange of sharp words between Mr. Shee and
Lord Palmerston; Mr. SHEE accusing the Premier of
"presumption" in attacking him; and Lord PALMERSTON
announcing that he should be guilty of the
presumption of attacking Mr. Shee whenever he thought
proper. On the ground that without the retrospective
clause the bill would be an utter farce, Mr. Shee urged