. Lord Stanley, during the debates that ensued, distinguished
himself for the first time on Indian subjects, over which in a few
years he was destined to hold so important an influence. The bill of the
government passed the commons, but was subjected to various alterations
in the interest of the East India Company in the lords. Thus amended, it
was accepted by the commons and became law.

To give even the briefest abstract of this measure would be as
unnecessary as it is undesirable, within the limits of our space, for
in a few years a great insurrection in India led to the abolition of the
act, and the removal of the East India Company from all political power
in India, and the vesting in the crown the government of all our eastern
possessions.

The main objects of the act of 1858 were to lessen the power of the East
India Company still more than it had been fettered by previous acts;
to enlarge the scope of the board of control; to increase the direct
authority of the president of that board and the governor-general of
India; and to simplify the procedure of the home, action, on Indian
government.

DISCUSSIONS ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.--RUSSIA AND TURKEY.

Some party debates ensued upon certain speeches made "out-of-doors"
by cabinet ministers about French affairs, in which some personalities
towards the French emperor were indulged. Hardly any other foreign topic
engaged the debating powers of the members, except the all-absorbing one
of the hostile proceedings of Russia against Turkey. It was the general
opinion of the English people, that the French emperor, for dynastic
purposes, brought on the war. He had not been recognised by the Russian
emperor, and the policy was obviously to bring on a conflict in which,
with England and Turkey for allies, victory was certain, and the beaten
czar would be obliged to recognise an emperor in the person of his
conqueror.

Discussions upon the relations of Turkey and Russia began as early as
April, and were continued, with short intervals of intermission, while
parliament sat. During these debates the ministry was severely arraigned
for incapacity, tardiness, crotchety and conceited views, confidence
in the czar, which could only be inspired by sympathy with his despotic
views, and instability of purpose. To the Aberdeen section of the
cabinet these failings were especially attributed, and the justice of
the imputations was too plainly established. The Earl of Derby, Lord