The new title proposed to be assumed by the I Queen proved to be, as was expected, "Em press of India" — a title to which especial ex» ception has been taken by those best acquainted with India and its peoples. The speech of the night was that of Mr Glad stone, who exposed the wretched fallacies of Mr Disraeli's arguments with merciless and systematic calmness, showing among other things that if, as Mr Disraeli asserted, the peoples and princes of India wished for the proposed new title, they must have been better informed than the people of the United Kingdom, who until that night did not know what the title was to be. He also strongly deprecated the adop tion by the Queen of a title claiming sovereignty over independent and tributary Princes in India without knowing what their opinions were on the subject. Mr Forster took occasion to protest against Mr Disraeli's description of the Colonies as being inhabited only by a floating population ; and Mr Smol lett said he was told the people there were " a very rough lot," and that " India, in any case, was worth a hundred Tasmanias." The House had evidently resolved to pass the Bill and be done with it, so, after a motion for the adjournment of the debate had been negatived by 284 to 31, the Bill was read a second time, Most of the leading organs of public oponion, nevertheless, still advocate its withdrawal, the Times, in particular, speaking of it as a measure "which all wise men would un feignedly rejoice to see shelved for an un known season." The Spectator says Mr Disraeli's Bpeoch in support of the Bill " will stamp into the British mind the conviction that Mr Disraeli, with all his genius and all his adroitness, has in his mental web a thread of that true vulgarity whioh cannot dis tinguish between the hiefcrionio and sym. Mite) btflFMB #« grandiose. a.»d fto gwad,'(

Carlisrn in Spain. As I mentioned in a for mer letter, Don Carlos came iv for a fortune, amounting to several millions sterling, on the death of the Duke of Modena, a few mouths ago. 