wledged to exist within the district to which it refers,
by extending the means of religious instruction and pastoral
superintendence furnished by the established church of Scotland, and
rendering them available to all classes of the community." This motion
embarrassed government. Lord John Russell said that the general assembly
of the Scottish church was about to assemble within a few days, and no
doubt it was desired that they should have the ministers' refusal to
consent to this motion, to allege as a presumption of their indifference
to the interests of the establishment. He objected to the motion,
only on the ground that they had not yet sufficient information on the
subject to enable them to deal with it satisfactorily. The motion was
opposed by Messrs. Horsman and Oillon on more general grounds; and on a
division the order of the day, which was moved by Lord John Russell,
was carried by two hundred and seventeen against one hundred and
seventy-six: Sir William Rae's resolutions, therefore, were negatived by
a majority of forty-one.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.

Within the first week of this session, the notice-book of the house
of commons presented the announcement of motions for various "organic
changes" in our constitution. Mr. Grote gave notice of his annual
proposition of vote by ballot; Sir William Molesworth announced
his intention of moving a committee on peerage reform; Mr. Tennyson
D'Eyncourt promised to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Septennial
Act; Mr. Hume gave notice for the extension of the parliamentary
suffrage to all householders; Mr. Duncombe, of another for the repeal of
the rate-paying clauses in the reform bill; Mr. Ewart, one of an
address to the crown for the appointment of a minister of education;
Mr. Roebuck, of a bill for the establishment of a system of national
education; and Mr. Clay, a motion for the repeal of the corn-laws.

The motion for the ballot took place on the 7th of March. Mr. Grote's
speech on this occasion contained many specious arguments, and it
appears to have had a great effect upon the house. His motion was
seconded by Mr. Hodges, and supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Charles
Buller. The chancellor of the exchequer opposed the motion. He had as
much right as any man to complain of the effects of undue influence and
intimidation at his election at Cambridge: but he doubted whether the
ballot would prove a remedy for the evil. He th