considering the Duties on Malt, with a view to exempting
from duty such malt as might be consumed by the
farmer from whose barley it was produced. There
being an evident majority on the opposition side, Mr.
Ball witnout prefacing his motion by any observations,
moved that the house proceed to a division without
further delay; upon which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who had been absent from the house, arrived
just in time to deprecate the attempt of Mr. Ball, which
he stigmatised as one instigated by party purposes. He
called upon the house to remember that the motion
attempted to deal with a large sum of money. He next
drew a long and careful contrast between the properties
of malt and barley, and declared that all evidence was
against feeding cattle on malt. On fiscal grounds, also,
he objected to this motion. It was too common a
practice for individual members to bring forward
motions directed against particular taxes, and this was
one which would only give partial advantages to one
class. The motion was negatived by 73 to 69.

Mr. MILES rose to call the attention of the house to
the system of Poor–law Medical Relief in England and
Wales. He thought that there were great abuses in
the present system, which, if the government were not
at present prepared to remedy, they might take into
consideration during the recess. The medical officers
were very ill–paid, and occasionally incompetent, and it
would, among other reforms, be important to appoint
medical inspectors. Statistics would clearly prove that
numbers of the poor were driven into the poor–law
unions to gain that medical attendance which is denied
to them at home from their want of means.—Mr. BAINES
having been interrupted by an attempt to count out the
house, expressed his belief that the poor did not lack
medical relief. Whatever might be the faults of the
present system, it was in this particular vastly superior to
the former one. During the last few years there had
been a large and gradual increase in the costs of medical
relief, and a proportionate increase in the number of
medical officers. The appointment of medical inspectors
would only involve unnecessary expenditure without
producing any adequate beneficial results. He must
therefore oppose the motion should it go to a division,
but would give to some of the suggestions which had
been made his most careful consideration.—Sir J.
TROLLOPE opposed the motion on the ground that it
would destroy the co–operative clubs established for the
purpose of medical relief, and would put the country to
considerable expense.—Mr. MILES withdrew the
motion.—Mr. AGLIONBY was moving for the production
of some papers, when the house was counted out.

On Wednesday, July 13, Lord PALMERSTON, in
answer to Mr. M. Gibson, who made an inquiry on the
subject of the County Rates and Expenditure Bill, said
that though Mr. Gibson was good enough to invite his
friends opposite to a conversazione every Wednesday
morning on this bill, he would advise him to postpone
these weekly meetings until further notice. He was
prepared, on the part of government, to say that next
session they would introduce a measure on the principle
of popular representation in reference to the administration
of county rates.—Sir J. PAKINGTON was glad that
Mr. Gibson's measure was not to be proceeded with,
and hoped that the government would approach the
subject in a spirit of caution.—Mr. V. SCULLY hoped
that the new bill would apply to Ireland. After some
further observations, the bill was withdrawn.

Lord GODERICH (in the absence of Mr. Phillimore)
moved the second reading of the Simony Bill.—Mr.
G. BUTT moved, as an amendment, that the second
reading take place that day three months. He
described the bill as calculated to do no good, and as being
an attack upon the law of England.—Sir G. GREY,
though concurring in the amendment, did not participate
in the fear of danger to property from the passing
of the bill. He thought the measure a trifling and
insignificant change in the law, utterly unworthy of the
consideration of the house. The bill aimed a blow at
the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage by laymen, but
he believed that patronage in lay hands was exercised
as much for the good of the Church as that in clerical
hands. It provided for an unfrequent and exceptional
case, namely, that in which a layman purchased the
next presentation, with a view to present himself. He
objected to disturb the law in this infinitesimal degree.
—Lord Goderich would not divide, and the amendment
was agreed to, and the bill rejected.

Mr. ADDERLEY obtained have to bring in a bill for
the Reformation of Juvenile Offenders. The object of
the bill (he said) was limited, being for the establishment
of reformatory schools, to which very young
offenders and vagrant children might be sent by the
magistrates. It embodied a portion of the resolutions
of the select committee on juvenile offenders.

On Thursday, July 14, on the order for the second
reading of the Scotch Universities Bill, Sir R. INGLIS
moved that it be deferred for three months, observing that
this was nothing less than a measure to dissolve a solemn
contract between the parliament of Scotland and that of
England; and that the abrogation of a national compact,
guaranteed by a fundamental article of the Act of
Union, could only be sanctioned by the consent of both
the parties; whereas, he insisted, and appealed to
evidence to show, that Scotland was as inimical to this
change now as the kingdom would have been in 1706.
He then argued against the bill upon its own merits,
urging its tendency to weaken the safeguards of
Christianity, and that if the existing tests were unsuited
to the present state of Scotland—which he denied—
there were other remedies besides the breaking of a
solemn compact, the infraction of the oath of the
Sovereign, and the hazarding the security of the Church
of Scotland.—Lord ELCHO, in the absence of the Lord
Advocate, defended the measure as reasonable and just.
It was, he said, as a friend to the Scottish Church, no
less than as a friend to education, that he supported
the bill, which had been introduced to remedy the
anomalous state of the law, the existing tests being
practically inoperative, by substituting a declaration
in lieu of the tests for the lay chairs. He argued that
this would be no violation of the Act of Security or of
the oath of the Sovereign; that the universities of
Scotland, were no appendages of the Church; and that
if a majority of the people of Scotland, and further, if a
majority of the Church of Scotland, were, as he
maintained, in favour of the bill, parliament were not
only justified but called upon to pass it. In doing this
it would be legislating in the interests of the Church of
Scotland, which had not the power of enforcing the
existing tests. The measure, he said, was conceived in
the true spirit of the age, its objects being the promotion
of education by extending the field of choice of professors,
and the removal of religious disqualifications.
After some discussion the house divided, when the
amendment was lost by 106 to 17.—The bill was then
read a second time, and the house adjourned.

Mr. DISRAELI called the attention of the house to
the State of Affairs in Turkey, and to the declaration
of the Earl of Clarendon that the government would
listen to no conditions that the allied fleets should leave
the Turkish waters before Russia gave up the occupation
of the Danubian provinces. And he asked whether,
considering that the present negotiations were merely
of a formal character, and that they had been brought
to a dead lock, the government would have any objection
to fix a day for the discussion of Mr. Layard's
motion.—Lord J. RUSSELL, while admitting that the
words of Count Nesselrode's circular would admit of the
interpretation placed upon them, could not believe that
the government would make such a condition. Nor
would the facts of the case warrant the assumption that
Russia had occupied the Danubian provinces on account
of the presence of the combined fleets in the waters of
a friendly power, and for a friendly object. He denied
also that the negotiations had arrived at a "deadlock."
On the contrary, propositions were now under negotiation,
which the English and French governments
thought well calculated to preserve the peace. These
negotiations would not be brought to a close for a short
period, and in the meantime he thought it undesirable
to have a discussion on the motion of Mr. Layard.

The Succession Duty Bill was considered as amended.
Nearly all the amendments were rejected, and nothing
agreed to of any importance. Several verbal alterations
were made bythe Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
also added a proviso to the 50th clause, giving the right