The Brecon Reporter and South Wales General Advertiser

y :—— JMPEEIA1>; PARLIAMENT. In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Colonel French "somplained of the "count out" last night, which he said had been done in an unprecedented manner. Independent members were thereby prevented from bringing forward their measures. He asked if Government intended to take measures to prevent this being done in future. Colonel, Enox said it was he who moved that We House be counted, which he did to prevent the motion for the appointment of the select comuaitttee On the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill being brought forward; and he subniitted that he was justified in that course. After some discussion, in the course of which Mr. G. Hardy stated that the Government would do all in their power to prevent the House being counted out under such circumstances in future, the matter dropped. Mr. Fawoett moved the second reading of the Uniformity Act Amendment Bill. The only object of the bill, He said, was to repeal a clause in the Act of Uniformity, which ren- dered it necessary that the fellows of colleges should con. form to the liturgy and formularies of the Church of England. The bill was permissive, because it would have no effect unless the colleges by choosing to elect a student as fellow who was a nonconformist chose to bringitinto opera- tion. He had never eaid that there was a majority of the members- of the universities who were in favour of this measure, but there was a strong minority. In his opinion the advantages and emoluments of the universities ought to be open to all her Majesty's subjects, irrespective of their religious opinions, and he thought the nonconformists ought not to be content with the present compromise. Mr. Morrison seconded the motion. Mr. Selwyn moved the rejection of the bill. He said the real question was whether these colleges, which had been endowed by private individuals, and derived nothing what- ever from the State, which were. now, connected with the 'Church of England, were by Act of Parliament to be dis- severed from that connexion. The great majority of the members of the university he represented were against the bill, not a) single college had petitioned iu its favour. Mr. Gorst seconded the amendment. He looked upon a fellowship not in the light of a prize, but of a trust,-and he thought it would be as reasonable to ask: that a noncon- formist should be made a bishop all that he shogld be,made a fellow of a college. Mr. Pollard-Urquhart supported the hill. Sir W. Heathcote thought this Mil, and that of Mf. Cole. ridge, were calculated to unsettle the existing order of things, the only justification for which would be on a large and overwhelming majority being in favour of that being done. Mr. Serjeant Gaselee said the fact that not oue of-:the heads of colleges had petitioned in favour of this bill was, with him, an argument in its favour, for it was not to be ex- pected that a body would reform itself, :,Mr. Gladstone said he was unable to vote for the-second reading of the bill. It was true that in some cases duties -were attached to fellowships, but that wagmot the keiieial rule, and at Cambridge, and stillmore at Oxford, the obtaining of 3 fellowship was the crowning of the university career. He agreed with Mr. Selwyn, that the education of the dlergy was au important element in the case. He did not tbfak that the clergy ought to be educated in an; insti- tution where they would not mix with other classes of society. The religious question with- regard to tl,-o univer- sities ought to be dealt with as a whole, and he objected to the introducing piecemeal changes which were cal. culated < and likely bo be followed by other tenta- tive measures for -the settlement of the question. He did not think this bill was sufficient for a, settlement of the question, and it was but fair to the universities that whatever Parliament thought should be done, should be done in a complete form. Moreover, he thought that the principles that ought to govern this matter ought to be determined by Parliament, and not be left'to the colleges themselves. Another objeution to the bill was that it would not admit the Catholies, and intbatrespeot also would therefore not be a complete measure. Mr. B. Hope opposed the bill. Mr. Card well felt it hia duty to sw^port theseotmdread- iag of this bill. After some further discussion, Mr. Fawcett, in reply, said if the bill got into committee he would introduce a clause which would adna.it the Roman: "• Catholics. On a division the second reading was carried by 200 to 156. Mr. Dehman moved the second reading of the Attorney, c., Certificate Dllty Bill. Mr. Hunt moved the adjournment of the debate, but on. a 'division that motion was negatived by 132; to 91. -Mr. Ayrton addressed the House against the bill, his remarks being of a discursive character, and he continued 'his speech until a quarter to six o'clock, when by the rules, of the House the debate stood adjohrned. The House of Commons, on Thursday, resumed the con. sideration of the Reform Bill in committee—commencing with Part II., the Redistribution of Seats. The first clause in this portion ef the bill is clause 8, which disfranchises the four pecoant boroughs. The Chancellor of the Ex. chequer proposed to postpone this clause for the purpose of printing a preamble which he wished to prefix to the- clause, recitiiag the reasons for the disfranchisement. A long conversation followed on the convenience of this course, in the course of which Mr. Bright, eliciting very decided expressions of dissent, suggested that the bill should be cut in two; so that the franchise part might be sent to the Lords at once, and the Redistribution scheme discussed with sufficient deliberation to make it satisfactory and a bar to future agitation. Ultimately the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew his motion for postponement, 'and having read his preamble, which set out theprocaea. ings of the Committee and Commissions, moved that it be prefixed to the clause. .7 Sir G. Bowyer objected to the clause in toto; alleging that it was in reality a bill of pains and penalties, and otight to 'have been made the subject of a separate enactment. .Sir R. Enightley, from his experience as one of the Great Yarmouth Committee, asserted that if the town were not disfranchised, no candidate would be returned without bribery. Mr. Gladstone argued that this was no more a bill of pains ahd penalties than Schedule A of the Reform Act, which (idishanehised a number of small boroughs, and to the argu- ment of the hardship on the new electors, he replied by ^•pointing to the large proportion of the old constituencies shown to be impure, in Lancaster rising to 64 per cent., in. Bindatihg that they would leaven the mass, even with -the additions. Communities, -he. insisted, must be held responsible for the acts of a large proportion of their (Individual members (particularly when beside those who are proved to be guilty there was a large number who winked at the corruption since all penal enactments against indivi- duals had been found totally inoperative. The punishment of communities would ereate a public opinion against bribery, and it must be applied to large as well as small Communities. Mr. H. Baillie suggested the suspension of the writs for 25 or 30 years. Mr. Lowe objected to the remedy proposed that it was • applicable only to the old system—of which we had now got -to the fag-end—and was totally irreconcilable with the new -Principle on which the franchise had been placed; Mr. Gladstone's argument about large Constituencies he pointed out, in an ironical vein, would in time lead1 to the total dis- (appearance of borough representation. Mr. Howes argued disfranchisement would have no reme- dial effect. Mr. Bright objected to mixing up this question of dis- franchisement with the arrangements of the Reform Bill, and said the right principle was to disfranchise every per- son who had been found guilty of bribery, and to the objec- tion that the indemnity stood in the way of this, he replied. that if they had the power to disfranchise in bulk they surely had it to disfranchise individuals. He was of opinion, that a suspension of the writs for a certain .period would meet the justice of the case. LordCranborne maintained that the complaint of dis. franchisement rested on a fallacy. Boroughs discharged a special function in the representation: they were selected from the rest of the community, and a greater privilege Was given to them, which, in the case of these four boroughs, was to be taken away because theyhail shown themselves unworthy of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the clause as founded on sound policy and sanctioned by constitutional practice, but pointed out that the moral effect of whatever course wasadopted would be much weakened unless it were cordially accepted by the House, not as a mere matter of party discipline and Ministerial influence. The preamble was carried on a division by 325 to 49. Colonel Wilson-Patten then moved that in the oases of Lancaster and Great Yarmouth the punishment be limited to the suspension of the writs for a certain periodj which he fixed at ten or fifteen years; but whieh,. Mr. Gladstone i thought ought to be twenty years at least, so that the whole {personnel of the electoral body might be changed, and the Marquis of Hartington said was too long at ten. A long conversation followed, in which total disfranchise- ment, personal disfranchisement, and the ballot went advo- cated. the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated his conviction that the clause embodied the right poncy, if it were only adopted by the general consent of the House. Had there been a disposition manifested to limit the punishment of these boroughs to depriving them of one seat, the Govern- ment would have been ready to consider it, but merely to suspend the writs would be utterly nugatory, and would be regarded by the country as trifling with the subject. On a division the amendment was rejected by loa to 87, and Mr. Baxter not proceeding with his amendment, clause 8 was agreed to in its integrity. On clause 9, which deprives a certain number of boroughs of one member each, 1 Mr. Mill moved the first of a series of amendments, de- signed to earry out Mr. Hare's plan of representation, the essence of which he explained to be that electors; in any locality should have the power of voting for any man who was a candidate anywhere. Having described the machinery for the registration and collecting of votes, he dilated on the advantages of the scheme, maintaining that under it every minority and every interest, however small, would be repre. yen sented, even though we came down to universal suffrage, and that it was the only scheme under which democratic representation could be fitted to the requirements of modern civilisation. For a moment or two no one rose, and. there were loud cries fof o. tdivision, when interposed with a proteat against so sum- -!Tatft7.-adism iskial of so important a matter merely because it lay out of the general route of Reform discussions. That the House of Commons should be entirely elected under such a system was, perhaps, undesirable, but it would be a great advantage if a certain number—say SO members- could be elected by the whole House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer summed up the conver- sation by rem,,arking, that,as these- subjects nrasfc necessarily be discussed by the House of Commons in the future, it was as well that a beginning should be made by a person of Mr. Mill's authority. Mr. Mill, yielding to the advice of his friends, withdrew his amendment, and the Chairman was ordered to report progress. On the motion for appointing a committee on the Ecclesi- astical Titles and Roman Catholic Relief Acts, Colonel Gilpin, seconded by Major Knox, moved that the committee be appointed that day six months. On a division the appointment of the committee was carried by 69 to42. A long dispute followed, bn the composition of the committee, and after one motion for adjournment had been defeated by 70 to 39, the debate was ultimately ad- journed. In the House of Lords on Friday, the Earl of Derby stated, in reply to a question, that the superior court in Spain had adjudged the proceedings in the case of the Tornado to be void, and there would, therefore, be a fresh trial. The Earl of Kimberley moved the second reading of the Offices and Oaths Bill, the object of which is to, enable Roman Catholics to hold the office of Lord hancellorof Ireland. I After some discussion the bill was read a second time. Some other bills: having bBen forwarded a stage the House adjourned. The Hougeof, Commons at the morning-sitting again went into committee on the Representation of the People Bill, resuming the discussion at clause 9, which enacts that certain boronghs which now return two members shall in f-ature, return only one. Mr. Laing moved an amendment that no town with a population less than 10,000 shall in future return more than one member. This amendment was one of a series in the paper embracing an entire new plan for the distribution of seats. He said that when they were Aealing with the question of the representation of the people, the redistri- bution of seats was a matter that must 'not be omitted from their consideration. In his opinion the scheme of the Government did not go far-enough to give a reasonable hope of a permanent settlement. It proposed to go no further than to take the second member from boroughs having a population of less than 7,000, and it left unoorrected great anomalies. Take, fer instance, the borough of Cockermouth. It had a population of 7,075, and it was to continue to return two members,; being the same share in the representation as Liverpool, with a popu- lation of 442,000. The present bill made a much-smaller proposal than the bill of last year, or the bill of 1854. ■ The first proposal which, he made was that every borough with a population of 1'0,600 persons, which now returns two members, shall, in future, return only one. There were 38 in that condition, and therefore by this means he should obtain 38 seats. He further proposed to introduce the principle of grouping some of the smaller bortughs,, by which- he would gain seven seats, and seven seats more were gained by the disfranchisement of the-corrupt boroughs which was agreed upon the previous night, making an entire-gain of 52 seats. In distributing these, seats he assumed that the demand of Scotland, for an addition to its representation, to' which he thought it was entitled, was to be met not by taking awayfro the representation of England or Ireland, but by the only other possible alternative, namely a small «• additioti to the number of members. He' proposed that six towns, with a population of more thaird50,000 each should have their representatives increased from two to three. Next, he proposed that large towns with a population exceeding 50,000, and Which had now one member, should have two. Of these towns there were four. Then, with regard to new boroughs, he proposed to adopt the proposal of the Government, giving 12 members to thbaa borbughs, I and he also adopted the proposal to give- two additional members to the Tower Hamlets; that made a total of 21 «eats applied to cities and boroughs, and one to the London University made 25; then heap plied the sajjie principle to counties that he applied to boroughs, by giving to counties with a population of 150,000 a third member: "that woutd Tequire 26 seats, which added to the 25 given io borough$, made 51, leaving asmall niargintobe dealt with/hereafter. My B. Cochrane complained that in all reform bills'the borough he represented, Honiton, was always put in the list to be disfranchised, and that he and other members similarly situatedwere called upon to perform the Japanese ceremony of happy dispatch." Heread a list of boroughs that were left untouched by the bill which were under. the influence of one or two persons. Mr. Serjeant Gaselee created considerable amusement by stating that he rose to support not Mr. Laing's but his -own proposition, which Mr. Laing had taken from him. He gave notice of it first, bllt ,Mr. Laing had "jockeyed him out of it. Sir G. Grey thought no one could look on the scheme of distribution proposed by this bill and say it was a settle- ment of this question. He thought they must necessarily hear of it again next Session. Mr. Laing had laid before them a scheme of redistribution, but the immediate pro- position before them: was that boroughs with a population of less than 10,000 should return only one member, and he could not hesitate to vote for it. The Chancellor of'the Exchequer said he should not argue the case upon anomalies. It was very likely that by, sudden changes they might produce anomalies as,flagrant, as those which nowaxisted. Besides, anomalies would still remain; there would still be towns with a population of little more than 10,000 returning as many members as another lIownwith a population of half a million. In a question of this kind they must go on some principle, and the principle that had guided the Government was to supply representation to those communities that had sprung up or greatly increased since the bill of 1832; and which were not represented. But KB thought they should not have a mere knot of towns en- franchised in one portion of the kingdom. With the excep- tion of giving one seat to the London University, that was the principle;on which the Government had proceeded. It was a practical principle which met the exigencies of the moment, and he advised the committee to pause before they passed that line. It was easy to disfranchise, but when thay '■ came to apply the seats at their disposal they would find ■ themselves in a great difficulty. Mr. Gladstone-said the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was based on an assumption which was not well founded, namely, that if they were to have a large system of redistribution there was no method iof applying these j seats, but by having what was calledthe unicorn system of 1 representation. But that was not the general desire. He had that morning been told by a deputation from Binning- 3 ham that if that town had three members assigned to it, they would wish that the town should be divided-r-one por- 1 tion returning two members, and the other returning one. ( The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government plan was based on the principle of meeting existing wants and necessities; but was that altogether true? He thought that in the groupieg, but very few members were given to satisfy the claims of a large population. H.,did- -not, deny the claims of the county constituencies. On the contrary, one of the objects he had in view in voting for this amendment was: that they might be able to increase the number of members given to counties. In conclusion, he suggested to the Scotch members that it was a more easy way to obtain the increased representation for Scotland they desired by supporting this motion than by depending on the House resolving to increase the number of 6^8 members. Mr. B. Johnstone. hoped thilt the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, having secfMa hand to the plough, would not now go back. Mr. H. Seymour moved, as an amendment on the amend- ment, to take the population as it wasl.on the 1st January, 1867. Sir Tv Bafcesoa asked Mr. Laing, if members on the Qon- servative side would support him, whether he would give way on the grouping system. Mr. Laing said he had endeavoured to make it clear that he looked upon the grouping system as a mere accessory, and he was not disposed to insist on it. Mr. H. Seymour then withdrew his amendment, and on a division Mr. Laihg's was carried by 306 to 179. The chairman was then ordered to report progress, and one or two bills which were on the paper having been for- warded a stage, the sitting was suspended shortly before seven o'clock until nine At the evening sitting, on the motion for going into supply, Mr. C. Fortescue called attention to the present position of the Queen's University in Ireland. A supplemental ) charter had been granted, opening the university to other educational institutions besides the Queen colleges, the object being to enable Roman Catholics to take advantage of it. Parties opposed to the charter applied to the Master of the Rolls in Ireland for an injunction to prohibit the carrying the charter into effect. That injunction had since been dissolved, but other parties, having obtained the fiat of the Attorney-General, had since instituted proceedings, which at present he could not see the end of. After a discussion, in which Lord Naas, Mr. Reilljvthe O'Donoghue, Mr. T. D. Acland, Mr. Lowe, and Mr. Glad- stone joined, thumbjoot dropped. I The House then went into committee of supply, and 215,000 was voted for the adaptation of Burlington-house for the use of various learned bodies. P.25,000 was also voted for the erection of a building for the University of London; but Mr. Layard moved, and by a majority of 52 to 46 carried, a motion that it is not desirable that the building ,at the back of Burlington-house should be erected accord- iIlgto either of the designs now exhioited iu the library. The other orders were disposed of, and The House adjourned. In the House of Lords, on Monday, several bills were advaneed a stage. „ On the report of amendments to the Increase of the Episcopate Bill, Lyttelton said the second clause, which required that £ 100,000 should be raised before any see could be established, would be a formidable obstacle to the satis- factory working of the measure, and he moved that the clause be expunged. On a division the amendment was negatived by 48 to 36. The Bishop of Oxford moved to amend the 12tii clause by giving power to the ecclesiastical commissioners to sub- scribe to the iuna^ for the erection of a new see as soon.: as one-half of the total sum required was raised. The amendment was carried by 41 to 31. The Earl of Ellenborough moved the omission of the ISth clause. On a division, the motion was carxied by 23 to 20, aud the clause was consequently expunged. The report was then agreed to, and the House adjourned. In the House of .Commons, the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, in reply to Mr. Moncreiff, stated that though th& Scotch Reform: Bill stood on tne orders for Thursday he h1- tended to adhere to the determination he had already ax- pressed not to proceed witli the Scotch Bill till the -English bill was out of committeg, The House-having: gone into committee on the Represen. tation of the People Bill, Mr. Serjeant Gaselee rose, and created considerable merri- ment by saying that the House had 'carried by so large a majority oh Friday his proposition: (moved by Mr. Laiag)' for taking away one member from, every borough now returning two which had a population of less than 10,000, that he would; no-w move the other part of that proposition, which ought to have been put first, and that was to dis- franchise every borough with a population of less than 5,090 persons. Mr. Schreifeer moved anllmÈmdment which would have the effect of sparing the five boroughs now returning two members from which one member-was taken on Friday. Sir L. Palk opposed the amendment. With regard to Arundel, one of the boroughs it was proposed to disfran- chise, it had this recommendation, that it was the only English borough that returned a Roman Catholic; and with regard to the other boroughs, there was scarcely one, that had not been represented by me3i of eminence ill that House. Mr. Cardwell cordially supported the motion. If they wanted to have an agitation for electoral districts they had better leave on the statute-book the boroughs which it was proposed; by this motion to disfranchise. He saw no reason why the House should adopt Mr. Sctoeiber's amendment. Mr. J. Hardy said his borough (Dartmouth) now con- tained a population of about 4,600; and he created some amusement by claiming to add to it; the crew of the training ship Britannia, by which he said he would be spared. Mr. Laing expressed his disappointment that, after the .vote of Friday, the Government did not state what course they proposed to adopt. In order to give the counties the additional representation, they ought to have 12 or 15 seats more than the 45 obtained by his motion, and they could be obtained only by adoptingthismotiou, or by grouping. He denied that he had stolen Mr. Serjeant Gasalee's proposi- tion, and said his was different from that of the learned ssrjeant's. The Chancellor of the Exchequeroongratulated the House that this question was discussed without party feeling, and he claimed for the Government some share of the cradit of having brought about such a state ofr things. Their bill in- volved great sacrifices on the part of their political friends, J and, if it had been necessary, they would not have scrupled j to appeal to both sides of the House to make sacrifices. | The Government had proposed no plan in consequence of the vote on Friday, because they did not arrive at the full decision of the House, this motion not being yet decided upon, and they did not think it well to bring forward a plan which was not matured in its details. He had no doubt the committee would consider the question-with impartiality, and that they might agree to a distribution of seats that would be satisfactory. Mr, Gladstone ^painted out that the motion did not abso- lutely disfranchise the boroughs, as it would still be open to the committee to consider5 whethsr those boroughs should have the benefit of. borough representation in some other form. Mr. Schreiber then withdrew his amendment and on a division Mr. Serjeant Gaselee's motion was negatived by 269 Mr. Hayter then movedto add words providing that every borough enumerated in Schedule A shall be so enlarged, either by the addition of neighbouring boroughs or towns, or by an extension of its present boundaries, as to include a population of not less than 10,000 persons. Mr. R. Torke supported the amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the vote of Friday added considerably to the number of seats that were to be appropriated. On" affect of that vote was; that the 'whole scheme of redistributian would have to be-reponsidered, end he proposed therefore when this clause was disposed of to move that the further proceeding with the bill be postponed tilt after the Whitsuntide holidays. Colonel Dyott supported the amendment. Mr. M'Laren ured the claims of Scotland, which, if esti. mated according to the taxation paid, would, he said, be entitled to an addition of 25 members. 1. After some further discussion, Mr. Hayter offered to withdraw his amendment, but Mr. Ayrton objected, and it was negatived. On the question that the clause stands part of the bill, Mr. Hugessen made some observations on the necessity of correcting, at least the grosser anomalies in the represen- tation if.they were to prevent future agitation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he should propose on Friday that the House adjourn till Thursday, and the bill will be the first order on that clay., not with a view of proceeding with it then, but to enable him to make a statement. Practically they would not proceed with the bill till Monday week. Clause 9 was then ordered to-stand part of the bill. The Chairman reported progress, and, t he House rasumed. Some progress was made in committee on the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill; and the other business having been disposed of, The House adjourned. In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Chester Courts Bill Was read a second time. The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, and the County Courts Act. Amendment BiLl. passed through oommittee. < The Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Bill, the Ihtestates'Widows and Children Bill, and the Pier and ] Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill, were also read a second time. The third reading of the increase of the Episeopate Bill was postponed until the 21st inst., at the request of Earl Grey, who stated that he intended to move the re-insertion of the clauses struck out of the report yesterday, The Earl of Derby stated that an Friday he should move that the House adjourn until the following Monday week for the Whitsuntide holidays, and The House adjourned, Th the House of Commons, on the order for going into committee on the Bankruptcy Bill, The, Attorney-General explained the alterations made in the bill since it was last before the House. Mr. Moffatt complained that the Attorney-General had not explained the prineiple on which the bill was founded, or stated that it had any principle. He asked whether the 'I bill was introduced to provide a creditor's remedy or a debtor's escape. H Mr. Selwyn pointed out that under the provisions of the J bill it was possible for a debtor, on payment of ten shillings ( in the pound, to obtaia his discharge, to commit great | Frauds on his creditors, and he submitted that the provisions. i mabling the creditors to seize after-acquired property were aot sufficiently stringent, to meet sueh sases. i raer Sir Ri_ Palmer also criticised in detail the various clauses 1 x the bill; and said he doubted the wisdom of requiring the iebfcor to pay as much as ten shillings in the pound in order I bo obtain his immediate discharge. < Mr. J. S. Mill said they had passed, not suddenly, but by 1 degrees, from the old barbarous treatment of debtors to a 3tate of law by whicu persons without being guilty of actual j punishable fraad enabled persons to make away with the property of others, and he should sllpportthe amendments of which Mr. Selwyn h-td givali notice, which were intended 1 to alter the lav? in that respect. The discussion was continued by Mr. E. K. Karslake, Mr. 1 G^oschen, and Mr. Freshfield. ] Mr. Ayrton was addressing the House against the power of imprisonment of the poor debtor, when, it being ten -| minutes to seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, and one or two bills having been forwarded a stage, the sitting J wis suspended till nine o'eloek. At the eveniBg sitting, Lord Enfield moved for and obtained the appointment of a. sfdeot oommittee to inquire and take evidence as to the law and practice relating to the summoning, attendance, and remuneration ofspeaial and common juries. Sir W. Hutt obtained leave to bring in the bill for the better regalation and supervision by the Board of Trade of the accounts of rail way and other j oint-stodk companies. Mr. Vanderbyl called attention to a petition from the in- habitants of the Cape of Geod Hope, .praying that her Majesty's forces may not be withdrawn from the colony, and moved an address to her Majesty to grant the prayer of the petition. After a, brief discussion, the motion was withdrawn. On the second reading of the Master and Servant Bill, Mr. E. Potter admitted the injustice of the present law, but said he thought it premature to deal with the question now. He moved the rejection of the bill. Mr. G. Clive supported the bill. Mr. Pease objected to that provision of the bill which gave power to the justices to annul contracts. Mr. Samuelsoa thought nothing could be more impolitic than to keep up this source of irritation between master and servant, the power of imprisonment, until they could legislate on trades unions. The discussion was continued by Mr. Liddell, Mf. Henley, Mr. Bruce, Mr. Fawcett, and Mr. Jackson. Lord Elcho defended the principle of the bill, which was to abolish imprisoament with hard labour for breaches of contract on the part of the men, and to substitute a fine, and offered to make such amendments in the bill as would meet objections. Mr. G. Hardy thought it would have been better to have referred the bill to a seiect committee. The amendment Was then withdrawn, and the bill read a second time. The other business having been disposed of, the House adjourned.