sanitary state of the metropolis required the immediate
interposition of the government.—The Earl of DERBY
declined to follow Lord Shaftesbury into his statistics,
and complained that with all his experience he had
failed to point out any definite measures by which the
great evils of the existing system might be remedied.
This sanitary question had occupied the attention of
parliament for several years, and no satisfactory result
had been arrived at. Under the circumstances he
thought the noble lord should have laid a bill on the
table which might have been calmly discussed, instead
of moving this abstract proposition, which unreasonably
called on the house to settle a question at once which
had been a puzzle to parliament for ten years. After
some further discussion, the Earl of Derby suggested
that the word "immediate" should be omitted in the
motion.—The Earl of Shaftesbury having agreed
to this suggestion, the motion, as so amended, was
agreed to.

On Friday, the 30th, the Earl of MALMESBURY
said, in reference to the question put to him on the last
evening, as to General Rosas, he at the time could not
charge his memory with a circumstance which had
occurred so far back as six weeks ago. On examining
his papers he found that he had directed an order to be
issued to the authorities at Southampton, Plymouth,
and other ports, that they were to receive General
Rosas and his family with all consideration and courtesy,
and afford every facility for the landing of his effects.
This, said the noble earl, might almost be considered
a stereotyped order, issued under similar circumstances,
and did not mean to convey that the general's luggage
should be passed free of duty.—Lord GRANVILLE
expressed himself satisfied with the terms of the order
issued.—The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that under the
circumstances attending General Rosas' arrival in this
country the government should have observed the
greatest caution in the tone of the reception given to
him, as it was an event that was likely to invite the
greatest attention, and to be greatly exaggerated in
foreign countries.

On Tuesday, May 4th, Lord LYNDHURST moved for
leave to introduce a bill to Abolish certain Disabilities
imposed by the Statute of the 6th of George I. He had
been induced to consider this question on general
grounds, but public attention had recently been drawn
to it by a decision of the Court of Exchequer in the
case of Alderman Salomons.—Lord CAMPBELL having
expressed the pleasure he felt at the motion, Lord
Derby hoped that the house would not be led
away from the general question into a discussion on
Jewish disabilities. He did not question the right of
Lord Lyndhurst to introduce such a measure on
general grounds, but he thought it unfortunate that he
had chosen the present moment for bringing it forward,
when the particular case to which he had alluded was
still unsettled. With respect to that case, the government
thought that, if Mr. Alderman Salomons presented
a petition representing the grievances to which he was
actually subjected after his appeal was decided, he
would be fairly entitled to an act of indemnity.—The
Marquis of LANSDOWNE hoped that Lord Lyndhurst
would bring forward his bill at once, independently of
all allusions to the case of Mr. Alderman Salomons.
After some further discussion the bill was read a first
time.

On Monday, May 10th, the Bishop of LONDON stated
his intention of introducing, in the next session of
parliament, a bill providing that Questions of False
Doctrine should be referred to the Bishops for their
decision prior to their being decided upon by the Privy
Council, and expressed a strong hope that the government
would accord to it their most favourable consideration.
—The Earl of DERBY thought that such a
regulation would be a very wise one, and that the
opinion of the bishops would be most valuable on such
subjects.

On Friday, May 14th, Earl TALBOT moved for a select
Committee to inquire into Captain Warner's Inventions,
which, the noble earl contended, were most valuable,
and well worthy of the attention of the government.—
The Earl of HARDWICKE was not opposed to the
motion, provided Captain Warner was willing to give to
the committee full and unreserved explanations.—Lord
DE ROOS observed that until Captain Warner gave
practical proof of the merit of his inventions the
legislature could not sanction them.—The Earl of
ALBEMARLE, the Earl of MINTO, and the Duke of
ARGYLL opposed the motion.—The Earl of MALMESBURY
said the inquiry could do good only in the event
of Captain Warner being disposed to divulge his secret.
—The Earl of WINCHILSEA thought without the
certainty of a reward this was hardly to bo expected.—
The Earl of ELLESMERE was unwilling to give
encouragement to fanciful experiments.—Earl TALBOT
in reply, said Captain Warner would be able to satisfy
the committee of the merit of his invention, and after a
few observations from Lord Kenyon and Earl
Granville, the motion was agreed to, on the understanding
urged by the Earl of Malmesbury that Captain Warner
must submit to be examined upon oath without any
stipulation for reward.

On Monday, May 17th, the Duke of Argyll having
brought before the house the Case of Mr. Edward
Murray, an English subject condemned to death at
Rome, the Earl of MALMESBURY stated that on his
accession to office he had been informed that Mr. Murray,
who had been in prison for some time on a charge of
being associated with banditti, was about to be brought
to trial at Rome, and he had accordingly written to Mr.
Freeborn to request that he would see that Mr Murray
had fair play at his trial.

On Tuesday, May 18th, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH
renewed his motion about Papers relating to Ava,
and defended General Godwin from reflections which
had been cast upon him.—The Earl of DERBY said
that despatches relating to our dispute with Ava
had been received by the last mail, and would be
laid before the house as speedily as possible. With
respect to General Godwin, he (Lord Derby) had
ascertained that the Governor-General of India imputed
no delay to that gallant officer.

On Friday, May 21st, the Duke of WELLINGTON, in
reference to the committee agreed to on the subject of
Captain Warner's Inventions, suggested that the
enquiry ought not to be entered into until their lordships
had seen the report of the master-general of the
Ordnance, and moved for a copy of it. The appointment
of the committee was accordingly postponed and the
Duke's motion was agreed to.

In reply to a question from the Marquis of Breadalbane,
the Earl of DERBY said, that there was no present
intention on the part of the government to make any
alteration in the Grant to Maynooth.—The Marquis of
BREADALBANE then presented some petitions against
the grant, which led to considerable discussion; they
were then ordered to be laid on the table.

On Monday the 24th, the Earl of DERBY moved the
second reading of the Property-tax Continuance Bill,
and having recalled to the attention of the house the
understanding that no measure involving any material
political alteration should be introduced during the
present session, proceeded to say that he rested the
continuance of this originally temporary measure on its
necessity for the maintenance of the public credit, as
if it were repealed there would in all probability be a
deficit at the end of the year 1853 of five millions. He
should have been most happy to have it in his power to
repeal or reduce this justly obnoxious tax, but in the
circumstances in which ministers were now placed, and
with the prospect of a reference being made to the
country at no distant period as to the general financial
and commercial policy which the country was to adopt,
he trusted that their lordships would not only assent to
the second reading of this bill, but would also be of
opinion that the continuance of it for one year was
the only course consistent with the engagements which
the government had contracted with the country.
—The Duke of NEWCASTLE denied that the income-
tax was a temporary measure in the sense asserted by
Lord Derby. It had been originated, as the noble earl,
having himself been a colleague of the late Sir R. Peel,
would recollect, to enable the government of the day to
deal with the other branches of revenue in such a
manner as that these revenues might eventually recover
themselves, after which this tax might be dispensed