While the bill for the government of the Australian Colonies was up, an amendment was submitted to deprive the Colonial office of all interference with the local administration of the colonies, and to give them the uncontrolled management of their own affairs. Sir W. Molesworth, who moved the amendment, closed a speech in support of it by saying that there was a striking analogy between the government of the United States and that which ought to be the system of government in their colonial empire. "For," he said, "the United States form a system of states clustered round a central republic; our colonial empire ought to be a system of colonies clustered round the hereditary monarchy of England. The hereditary monarchy should possess the powers of government, with the exception of that of taxation, which the central republic possesses. If it possessed less, the empire would cease to be one body politic; if it continue to possess more, the colonies will be discontented at the want of self-government, and on the first occasion will imitate their brethren in America." The motion was negatived by 165 to 42. This vote is important as an indication of the sentiment of Parliament in regard to Colonial government.--A motion to form an ecclesiastical Constitution for the Australian Colonies was defeated. The bill reducing the franchise required to constitute a Parliamentary voter in Ireland to L8, has been passed. The discussion of this bill, and the action upon it, is important as showing the tendency of public sentiment in England toward a greater infusion of the democratic element into the government. The bill was opposed expressly upon the ground of its democratic tendencies by Lord Bernard, Mr. Napier, Lord Jocelyn, Mr. Disraeli, and others, and its principal supporters were Mr. Shell, Sir James Graham, and Lord John Russell. Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S speech was remarkable for the broad ground on which he supported the measure; alluding to the objection that the bill would unduly enlarge the constituent body, he said, "I do not object to it on that ground. I must say, considering the increase of the democratic element in our institutions, that I see the greatest danger in erecting an immense superstructure upon a narrow electoral basis. Sir, if that superstructure can not stand upon an extended electoral basis, I am sure that a narrow basis can not long sustain it. On principle, therefore, I can not object to this bill as it extends that basis. Allusion has been made to what has lately been witnessed elsewhere, and I think it is not good policy to neglect examples which are patent and before our eyes. If I were to mention what in my humble judgment was the immediate cause of the fall of the kingly power of Louis Philippe, it would be, that he attempted to maintain the semblance of representative government with a constituent body, which, as compared with the great bulk of the population, was dangerously narrow, and utterly inadequate. What was the