the bill might go on; but if the details were to be
arranged by that house, there was no time for their
discussion.—Mr. J. A. SMITH supported the second
reading of the bill.—Mr. F. PEEL also gave his general
support to the bill.—Mr. GLADSTONE said that, upon
the whole, he thought the bill was highly creditable to
the government; and although it had its faults, yet it
gave such extensive powers of alteration to the legislature
of the colony, that he would give it his most cordial
support. If the bill was to be fought in committee, it
would certainly be lost for this session, and it was not,
therefore, his intention, having this alternative before
him, to do more than suggest to the government the
alterations which he thought it would be advisable to
make in the details of the bill. The right hon. gentleman
then stated various alterations, which he contended
would be immense improvements to the measure.—Sir
J. PAKINGTON believed the principles of the bill were
sound and safe, and he therefore hoped to be able to
carry it through parliament during the present session.
—After some observations from Sir J. Graham, Mr.
Mangles, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Anstey, the bill was read
a second time.

On Monday the 24th, on the question of the day for
the third reading of the Corrupt Practices at Elections
Bill, Colonel SIBTHORP moved the rejection of the bill,
which he characterised as inquisitorial and iniquitous.
After a brief discussion, the motion was negatived by
281 against 6.—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved an amendment,
to include counties and divisions of counties in the
bill.—This amendment was supported bv Captain Harris,
Mr. P. Howard, Mr. S. Crawford, Mr. Hume, and Mr.
Bright.—Lord J. RUSSELL said the reason why he had
not included counties in the bill was, that although
there had been many complaints of corruption in
boroughs, he did not remember any case in which
bribery had prevailed in a county or division of a county,
and he thought it was objectionable to adopt such an
amendment, which had not been proposed in the
committee, at a moment, without previous notice.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not opposed to
the principle of the suggestion, but his belief was that
the county constituencies were pure, and that corruption
in the boroughs had been very much exaggerated. It
would be well, however, for the house not hastily to
adopt a measure the machinery of which was designed
for boroughs, and was inapplicable to counties. Was
the house prepared to disfranchise a county?—The
amendment was supported by Lord R. Grosvenor, Mr.
Wakley, Mr. W. Williams, and Mr. Horsman, and
opposed by Sir A. Cockburn and Mr. Floyer.—Upon a
division, it was carried by 109 against 71.—Another
amendment, proposed by Alderman SIDNEY, to include
the universities, was also agreed to.—The bill as thus
amended was then read a third time and passed.

On the next order for the committal of the Poor Law
Board Continuance Bill, Lord D. STUART moved an
instruction to the committee that they have power to
make provision for amending the bill, with the view of
moving in the committee a proviso that the jurisdiction
of the Poor Law Board shall not extend to any parish
the management of whose poor is regulated by a local
act. He argued that it was not the intention of the
framers of the original bill to include such parishes, and
his motion was designed to mitigate unconstitutional
powers which had been denounced by the present
ministers when out of office. After some discussion,
Lord D. Stuart's motion was negatived by 112 against
33; and the bill then passed through the committee.

On Tuesday, the 25th, the debate on the Maynooth
Grant was continued, in the morning sitting, by Serjeant
Murphy, the Attorney-General, Mr. Fortescue, and Mr.
H. Drummond.—The debate was then adjourned to the
evening sitting.—A motion of Lord Palmerston that the
house should adjourn on the Derby day (Wednesday)
was carried.—In the evening the house was counted out.

PROGRESS OF BUSINESS.

House of Lords.—April 26.—St. Alban's Disfranchisement Bill
passed through Committee.

29th.—Sanitary State of London.—Lord Shaftesbury's
Resolutions agreed to.

May 2nd.—Drainage of Land in Ireland, Select Committee
agreed to.

4th.—Leave given Lord Lyndhurst to bring in a Bill to repeal
penal disqualifications.

11th.—Disabilities Repeal Bill passed through Committee.

14th.—Bishopric of Christchurch (New Zealand) Bill read a
second time.—Capt. Warner's Inventions, Select Committee
agreed to.

17th.—Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Bill read a second time.

18th.—Bishopric of New Zealand Bill, and Disabilities Repeal
Bill, read a third time, and passed.

21st.—Jurisdiction of Equity Bill read a second time.—
Common Law Jurisdiction Bill considered in Committee.

24th.—The Stock in Trade Bill and Highway Rates Bill read
a third time and passed.—Common Law Procedure Amendment
Bill, report ordered to be printed.—Property Tax Continuance
Bill, read a second time.

25th.—Enfranchisement of Copyholds Bill read a second time,
and referred to a select committee.—Master in Chancery Abolition
Bill passed through committee.—Stamp Duties (Ireland)
Bill read a second time.—Improvement of Equity Jurisdiction
Bill, and Property Tax Continuance Bill passed through
committee.—Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill read a second time.

House of Commons.—April 27.—County Franchise, Mr. Locke
King's motion negatived.

28th.—County Elections Bill, division against first reading.—
Universities of Scotland Bill, second reading negatived.—
Colonial Bishops Bill, debate on second reading adjourned to 19th
of May.

29th.—Crystal Palace, Mr. Heywood's motion for a Committee
negatived.—Enfranchisement of Copyholds Bill read a third
time, and passed.

30th.—Financial Statement by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.

June 3.—Leave given Sir J. Pakington to bring in Bill for
Constitution to New Zealand.—Militia debate on Mr. Cobden's
motion adjourned.

4th.—Militia, Mr. Cobden's motion negatived.

5th.—Tenant-right in Ireland, Mr. S. Crawford's Bill thrown
out.

6th.—Militia Bill considered in Committee.

7th.—Militia Bill in Committee.—Property-tax Bill considered
in Committee.—Proclamation for assembling Parliament Bill,
in Committee.—County Elections Expenses Bill thrown out.

10th.—Forfeited Seats in House of Commons, Mr. B. Disraeli's
motion for a Bill rejected.—Militia Bill further considered in
Committee.—Law Officers' Salaries Bill read a first time.

11th.—Maynooth, debate on Mr. Spooner's motion for a Select
Committee adjourned.

12th.—Qualification of Members, Mr. Tuffnell's Bill withdrawn.
— Mr. Gibson's Resolutions respecting Taxes on Knowledge
negatived.

14th—Militia Bill further considered in Committee.

17th.—Militia Bill further considered in Committee.—Encumbered
Estates Act Continuance Bill read a first time.

18th.—No house.

19th.—Charitable Trusts Bill abandoned.—County Elections
Polls Bill read a second time.

20th.—Militia Bill further considered in Committee.—Deserters
from Foreign Ships Bill read a third time, and passed.—
Metropolitan Interments Bill read a first time.

21st.—London Necropolis and National Mausoleum Bill read
a third time, and passed.—Militia Bill passed through
Committee.—New Zealand Government Bill read a second time.

24th.—Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill read a third time
and passed.—Poor Law Board Continuance Bill, Lord D.
Stuart's motion for an Instruction to Committee negatived, and
the bill passed through committee.

MEETINGS against the Militia Bill have been held
throughout the country. In particular at Bury,
Cambridge, Colchester, Derby, Dartford, Faversham,
Gateshead, Gloucester, Manchester, Neath, Sunderland,
Sittingbourne, Lymington, Winchester, and Hythe.
The meetings have been large and influential, and the
resolutions against the measure have been unanimous.

A deputation, headed by the lord-mayor of Dublin,
has presented a memorial to the lord-lieutenant of
Ireland, "entreating the royal clemency in behalf of
William Smith O'Brien and his companions in exile."
The memorial was signed by nine peers, fifteen Catholic
bishops, nineteen baronets, forty-two members of
parliament, sixty-six deputy-lieutenants, two hundred and
eighty-eight magistrates, eleven high sheriffs, upwards
of five hundred dignitaries and clergymen of all
denominations, the mayors of almost every provincial town
in Ireland, the heads of the several professions, and
about 10,000 other persons. The lord-lieutenant, in his
reply, referred to the clemency and unusual indulgence
which these criminals had already met with; and
regretted that this lenity had not been attended with the
effects which might have been reasonably expected, but