time; while the Suitors in Chancery Relief Bill and the
Law of Wills Amendment Bill had passed that house.
Her Majesty's government, therefore, were not arrogant,
he thought, in supposing that these five bills for legal
reform would pass into law without interfering with the
termination of parliament. Then came the colonial
bills, of which the New Zealand Bill had nearly got
through committee; the Hereditary Casual Revenues
in the Colonies Bill, of only two clauses, the government
hoped they would be as successful in passing, as
well as the Bishopric of Quebec Bill, and the Colonial
Bishops Bill, both of which were of small dimensions, and
had passed the other house. Then there were three bills
in the department of the Board of Works—namely, the
Intramural Interments Bill, the Metropolitan Water
Bill, and the Metropolitan Buildings Bill. The two
former he did not despair of passing without unduly
prolonging the session. With respect to the last, he
was prepared to move that the order for the second
reading of that bill be discharged. Sir James had
further called the attention of the house to the state of
the supply, remarking that 200 votes had to be passed.
Of these votes, however, there now remained only nineteen.
Of the other miscellaneous bills noticed by Sir
James, the Navy Pay Bill was not opposed; the Patent
Law Amendment Bill had already passed the lords,
and had been referred in this house to a committee. Of
Irish bills, the Valuation of Lands Bill he heard from
all sides was a very good bill, and he was not prepared
to give that up; but the Whiteboy Acts Amendment Bill
he did not wish to press. There were certain continuance
bills, among which was the Crime and Outrage
Act, which it was the opinion of the government should
be renewed. He had now gone through, he said, the
colossal catalogue of the right hon. baronet, and he
asked the house whether the state of business before it
was so unsatisfactory as had been painted on Thursday
night? He drew a different conclusion from that of
Sir J. Graham, and deduced an opposite moral; believing
that the state of the public business—which was due to
the good sense and good temper of the house of
commons—afforded rather an argument in favour of
representative government, at least of the mode in which it
was conducted in this country.

On the order for the third reading of the Militia Bill,
Mr. RICH, in moving by way of amendment that it be
deferred for six months, reiterated at much length his
objections to the measure, strongly urging the expediency
of deferring it for the calmer consideration of a
new parliament. He hoped that no member would vote
under the delusion that it was better to do something,
no matter what. A wrong might be done which would
prevent the doing right hereafter. Let the legislature,
therefore, take time for deliberation, and postpone the
measure for another year.—Mr. MACKINNON seconded
this motion.—Lord H. VANE should vote for the third
reading of the bill, in the absence of any alternative
proposition, and with the intention of supporting the
motion to be made for expunging the compulsory clauses.
—Mr. MACGREGOR supported the amendment, in order
to afford time for maturing a better plan.—Mr. HEADLAM
and Mr. EWART opposed the measure.—Sir H.
VERNEY supported the bill, though not exactly what he
desired, advocating at the same time other measures
of military defence, including a small addition to the
regular army, especially of rifle corps.—Mr. OSBORNE
said the objections he entertained to this bill were not
founded upon the principles of the peace party. These
principles, however, were not novel; they were as old
as Plato. But there was a material distinction between
armies for conquest and for home protection. Even
the Utopians were allowed to fight in self-defence. Looking
at the state of the continent of Europe, he thought
we were right to review our means of defence. The
government were, however, bound to show the condition
of our national defences, and the manner in which
the large sums of money voted had been expended.
After stating certain details of our military expenditure,
and comparing them with the expenditure for the French
army, Mr. Osborne argued that there must be something
wrong; that the money voted could not have been laid
out to the best advantage, and that the house should
defer the bill until this matter had been investigated.
He then entered upon a humorous criticism of the
measure—a trumpery abortion, as he termed it—which
he said would raise not an efficient military force, but
an irregular horde. He hoped the house would
reject a bill which would be of no use to the country,
and which had been concocted in the hurried scramble
of a party for office.—The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said,
the highest military authorities, including the
Commander-in-Chief and the Master-General of the
Ordnance, agreed that it was essentially necessary, at the
present time, to add to our national defences; and by
both sides of the house it had been admitted that this
was to be done, not by increasing our standing army,
but by raising a militia force.—Mr. PETO objected to
the bill that, while an inefficient measure, it would
interrupt industry. Upon a division, the third reading
was carried by 220 against 148.—Mr. THORNELY
moved to add a proviso at the end of clause 18, exempting
members of the senate of the university of London,
examiners, professors, tutors, lecturers, and students
of that university, or of any college, school, or institution
connected therewith; and resident members of the
university of Durham.—Mr. WALPOLE consented, and
proposed to add St David's college, Lampeter.—The
proviso was added to the bill.—Mr. W. WILLIAMS
moved the omission of the 16th clause.—Mr. WALPOLE
resisted the motion, which, upon a division, was
negatived by 187 against 142.—Sir De Lacy EVANS
moved a clause after the 34th, retaining the provisions
of the 44th George III., chap. 54, applying to the
enrolment of corps of yeomanry and volunteers;
which was agreed to.—A proviso to the 35th clause,
also moved by Sir De Lacy, the purport of which
was to limit the ballot to a time of war, was negatived
upon a division by 178 against 82. The bill then
passed.

On Tuesday, June 8, at the morning sitting, the
adjourned debate on Maynooth College was resumed by
Mr. FRESHFIELD, who remarked that the motion for
inquiry had not been opposed upon any general ground;
had it been to repeal the act of 1845, he could understand
why it should be resisted, but all that was asked
was an inquiry whether certain allegations as to the
teaching at Maynooth were true, or rather, whether
there should be an inquiry which, according to Mr.
Serjeant Murphy, would only redound to the credit of
the college. The conscientious doubts of the people of
England, as to whether the objects of the institution
were fairly carried out and the grant was properly
applied, ought to be set at rest. The course of those
who advocated the motion was not aggressive, but defensive.
—Mr. H. HERBERT, in opposing the motion of Mr.
Spooner, proposed to test his sincerity by inviting him
to adopt, instead of that motion, an amendment which
he (Mr. Herbert) had put upon the notice paper, but
which he was precluded from moving, to intrust the
inquiry to the visitors of the college with such additional
visitation as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland might deem
necessary—a tribunal constituted by parliament and
extremely well adapted for the purpose.—Sir W.
VERNER, in support of the original motion, argued that
it was casting no imputation upon the College of
Maynooth to affirm that the government should have the
supervision of such an institution, endowed by the state.
It was established for the education of young men as
clergymen in the church of Rome; and was it not fit
that the country should know the description of instruction
they received, and to what section of the Roman
Catholic church Maynooth professed to belong? It had
been stated that it was of the ultramontane school, in
which the authority of the Pope was exalted far above
the Sovereign's, and that the most rancorous intolerance
was taught there. Sir William read statements in
respect to denunciations from the altar, followed often
by an attack upon the individual denounced; the
agitating propensities of the Maynooth priests, and the
doctrines inculcated at the college; in the course of
reading which he was interrupted somewhat roughly by
Captain Magan.—Mr. V. SCULLY adopted Mr. Herbert's
objection, that an inquiry, if really desired, could be
had instanter by the existing visitors. But the mover
and seconder of the motion, he contended, were not
sincere in their demand for an inquiry; their avowed