proceedings in the case of the 'Household Narrative of
Current Events.'—The other members who spoke on
the resolutions before the house were, Mr. Mowatt,
Mr. Reynolds, Mr. M'Gregor, Mr. Ricardo, Mr.
Hume, and Mr. Wakeley, in favour of all the resolutions;
Sir William Clay particularly in support of
the last two of the three resolutions, respecting the
advertisement-duty and the stamp-duty. Mr. Ker
Seymer, who had formerly supported the resolutions,
now withheld his vote for them, only on the ground of
the particular financial juncture. The house divided
on each resolution separately. The first proposition,
the abolition of the paper-duty, was negatived by 195
to 107; the second, proposing the abolition of the stamp-
duty, was negatived by 199 to 100; the third, proposing
the abolition of the advertisement-duty, was
negatived by 181 to 116.

On Friday the 14th, Mr. MASTERMAN asked the
government if they had any measure to prevent the
Desertion of Seamen in Australia. Sir John PAKINGTON
stated, that the most assiduous attention had been
directed to this important subject. At the port of
Melbourne, on the 6th of January, there were thirty-
five vessels, with crews of 816 persons, of whom no
fewer than 478 had deserted. Ministers had resolved
to assist the colonial governments by sending some
military to their aid. Two service companies of infantry
would be stationed at Sydney, and four at Melbourne;
and a man-of-war would be accorded to the port of
Melbourne, as a most effectual restraint on the desertion
of the crews.

The Militia Bill was discussed in committee, and
several clauses were carried on divisions.

On Monday the 17th, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER communicated to the house the result of
the investigation which her Majesty's government had
undertaken to make with reference to the case of the
Rev. Mr. Bennet, the Vicar of Frome. The crown
officers had reported that her Majesty had no means of
making an effectual inquiry into the circumstances of
the case; that if a commision issued it would not be
possible to compel the production of evidence; and that
there might be a risk of contravening the bill of rights
if the commission assumed the character of a court of
ecclesiastical inquiry. Irrespective of the legal opinion
of the law officers, her Majesty's government viewed
with great apprehension the course they had been urged
to adopt, and they had felt that, if a person had offended
against the law, it would be of no advantage to attempt
to vindicate it by illegal means. They were satisfied,
moreover, that, under the law as it stood, there existed
a sufficient remedy; that by the clergy discipline act,
it was open to any parishoner of Frome to appeal to
the bishop of the diocese, who, if a primâ facie case
should be made out, might institute a judicial inquiry.
Where a legal remedy was in existence which had not
been appealed to by those who complained of a grievance,
nothing could be more unwise than to have recourse to
any unusual course. The government, therefore, being
advised that there is a legal remedy, under the existing
law, if duly invoked by those who complained of a
grievance, were of opinion that those who complained
should seek redress in the mode provided by the law.—
Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that he should on the
following day move for a commission of inquiry into the
facts he had laid before the house in this case upon a
former occasion.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
observed, that where means of redress were available
under the existing law, they should always be exhausted
before extraordinary means were resorted to. As the
government had been advised, there had been nothing
illegal in the course pursued by the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, though that would not preclude the parishioners
of Frome from taking further measures.—Mr. GLADSTONE
was ready to show, at the proper time, that the bishop
of Bath and Wells had acted within the spirit as well as
the letter of the law.

The house, in committee, proceeded with the Militia
Bill, and several clauses were agreed to.

On Wednesday the 19th, the adjourned debate on the
second reading of the Colonial Bishops' Bill was
resumed, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON objected to the bill on
various grounds. He could not doubt, he said, that Mr.
Gladstone's object was to place the church of England
in the colonies upon the same footing as other religious
denominations; but he believed, if carried out, its effects
would be, first, to exalt the church of England in the
colonies into a state of dominance; secondly, to break
it up into small separate churches, and thirdly, to
destroy the supremacy of the crown, and even to overrule
all legislation, imperial and colonial. The last clause
introduced an important alteration of our ordination
service by dispensing with the oath of supremacy—the
first attempt ever made to enable persons to hold
ecclesiastical offices in the church of England without taking
that oath. He might be told that the supremacy of the
crown in ecclesiastical matters did not extend to the
colonies; but this doctrine would be repugnant to the
statute 1st Elizabeth and to the express words of the
Quebec act. Mr Gladstone had rested his case, Sir
John remarked, upon demands made by the colonies
themselves, but had not cited a single application for
the passing of such a bill, or for separating from the
church of England, or for renouncing the crown's
supremacy; whereas he (Sir John) could show a
contrary desire on their part; and with that view he
read extracts from memorials and resolutions transmitted
from different colonies in Australia and Tasmania.
With these facts and views, he could not consent to the
further progress of a bill involving such grave
considerations. He would, even as a private citizen, be no
party to the breaking up of the church of England into
branches, or the impugning the supremacy of the crown
which, he believed, was one of the surest guarantees
for the religious liberty we enjoyed. He intreated Mr.
Gladstone to abandon the bill, and moved that the house
proceed to the order of the day.—After some discussion
Mr Gladstone said that he would not press the bill to
a division, and the amendment for passing to the next
order of the day was agreed to.

On the next order, for the resumption of the debate
upon the Grant to Maynooth College, which Mr.
NEWDEGATE (in the absence of Mr Spooner) proposed
to defer to the 16th of June, an animated conversation
took place, in which Lord J. RUSSELL characterised
the whole proceeding as a mere mockery. He was not,
he said, opposed to a fair and well-conducted inquiry,
but not into the grounds upon which the grant was
made; and the inquiry should be conducted in the
mode pointed out by the act, or by a royal commission.
He complained that the government, instead of throwing
the subject open, did not pronounce a decided opinion
upon it. If they were prepared to withdraw the grant,
let them do so; if to maintain it, they should not
excite public feeling in relation to the question.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the government
were not prepared to abrogate the grant. The motion
had been brought forward upon grounds which did not
meet his concurrence, and Mr Walpole, while admitting
that under the circumstances an inquiry should take
place, had said it ought to be limited to seeing whether
the objects of the institution had been fulfilled.
Although a committee of that house was not the course
he (Mr Disraeli) should have recommended, he did not
think it was the duty of the government to advise her
Majesty to issue a royal commission.

On Thursday the 20th, the house proceeded in
committee with the Militia Bill. Many clauses were discussed
and agreed to, and after reaching the last but one the
chairman reported progress.

On Friday the 21st, the Militia Bill passed through
committee, and the house having resumed, Monday next
was fixed for the third reading of the bill.

On the question of the second reading of the New
Zealand Government Bill, Sir W. MOLESWORTH
opposed the bill, as being a Brobdignagian measure,
about to be applied to the government of a
Lilliputian colony. He objected to almost all the details
of the plan, which he contended would introduce nothing
but confusion into the colony.—Mr. ADDERLEY supported
the bill, which he hoped might be passed with as little
delay as possible.—Mr. VERNON SMITH contended that
a bill, involving so many important details, could not be
properly discussed during the short period allotted to the
existence of the present parliament.—Mr. E. DENISON
thought if the details were to be arranged by the colony,