owever, was supported by the Bishop of London,
the lord chancellor, the Earl of Minto, and Lords Brougham, Denman, and
Colchester, and the second reading was eventually carried by a majority
of thirty-nine against twenty-eight. On the next evening, when the bill
was in committee, Lord Lyndhurst moved an amendment to the following
clause;--"That in case her majesty should please to issue orders to her
cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, or
vessels of any state whatever engaged in the slave-trade, not having
on board, or the masters whereof should neglect to produce, on demand,
papers showing of what state she belongs;" which amendment was to this
effect:--"That in case her majesty should please to issue orders to her
cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, or
any other vessels engaged in the slave-trade, and Hot justly entitled to
claim the protection of any flag." This amendment, which was intended to
confine the operation of the bill to Portuguese vessels, and piratical
vessels engaged in the slave-trade, after some remarks from Lord
Brougham in opposition to it, was finally adopted, and on the 19th of
August it was read a third time without discussion. After it had passed,
the Duke of Wellington, who had put in a protest both against the second
and third reading, stated, that he still retained all his objections to
the principles of the bill; it still exhibited its criminal character,
for it was a breach of the law of nations, a violation of international
treaties, and would rather tend to encourage than to prevent the
traffic against which its enactments were directed. On the motion of the
chancellor of the exchequer the amendments were agreed to in the house
of commons, and the measure became law.

MOTION FOR THE BALLOT.

Circumstances had revived the interest attending the question of voting
by ballot, and thus encouraged, on the 18th of June Mr. Grote again
brought the subject forward in the house of commons. The motion was
seconded by Lord Worsley, and supported by Mr. Macauley; but was opposed
by Lord John Russell, who, on this occasion, spoke with unusual energy.
It was further opposed by-Lord Howick, Sirs J. Graham and Robert Peel,
and Messrs. Gaskell and Milnes. On a division it was rejected by a
majority of three hundred and thirty-five against two hundred and
seventeen: one cabinet minister only voted with Mr. Grote; but others,
who were in fa