ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

House OF LORD8, Monday, February 11.—Imprisonment of British Subjects in the United States: Earl Russell's Reply to the Earl of Camarvon's Question.—American Blockade: Lord Malmesbury's Question and Discussion thereon.—Memorial to the Prince Consort: Statement by Earl Granville.

Tuesday, February 12.—Answer to the Address.

Thursday, February 13.—The Revised Code: Lord Granville's statement. Friday, February 14.—Charleston Harbour : Lord Russell's statement.

House OF COMIONA, Monday, February 11.—Allowances to Witnesses: Notice of motion by Sir G. Grey.—Church Rates : Statement by Sir G. Grey.—Vires in the Metropolis : Notice of Motion for Select Committee by Mr. Hankey.—Supply. Col- lection of the Income Tax : Objections raised by Mr. Hopwood and replied to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—Exchequer Bills: Statement and motion for leave to introduce a Bill by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Tuesday, February 12.—Business of the House: Mr. White's Motion.—The Mar- riage Law : Motion for leave to introduce a Bill by Mr. Monckton Milnes.—Church Rates : Motion for leave to bring in a Bill by Sir C. Douglas.

Wednesday, February 12.—The House of Commons met, but no business whatever was transacted.

Thursday. February 13.—The Revised Code: Mr. Lowe's statement.

Friday, February 14.—Reform Bill: Mr. Cox's Notice.

NOTHING of any importance occurred in either House, last Friday, beyond what was recorded in our Postscript of last week.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, The Earl of CARNARVON stated that since Friday night he had re- ceived additional and highly important information relating to British subjects in the United States prisons. He was informed that three British subjects were at this moment in prison in the Federal States, where they had been detained for four or five months on secret charges, without a single allegation of any sort being made against them, and without any hope of an inquiry into their cases unless they consented to take an oath of allegiance to the United States. An enormous number of American citizens were now in prison for political offences, and although the House had nothing directly to do with them, a few statistics on the subject were necessary to show the treatment to which our own countrymen were con- demned. In one of the four small casements of Fort Lafayette, 14 feet by 24, and lighted only by small embrasures, there were confined, only a few weeks ago, no less than 23 political prisoners, of whom two-thirds were in irons. There was no possible accommodation for cleanliness or decency ; the absence of ventilation at night, when the embrasures were closed, rendered the atmosphere intolerably foul; the water for drinking was extremely bad, and for other purposes salt water only was provided. In prisons of this sort, among other British subjects, two Savannah mer- chants, both bond,fuis British subjects, and an Irish navvy who had gone to Harper's Ferry in 1830 in search of employment from an uncle, were confined. The noble Earl concluded by asking whether these facts had come within the knowledge of the Government and had induced it to take any action in the matter.

Earl RUSSELL said the question was one of American constitutional law, with which he had no concern. If, as had been maintained by lawyers, and had been recently asserted by a vote of Congress, the President alone had the power to suspend the habeas corpus, he of course had the power of ar- resting persons on mere suspicion of treason, and we had no grounds of com- plaint. In fact, we ourselves had furnished a precedent as late as 1848. In the course of the disturbances in Ireland, in that year, the habeas corpus was suspended by Parliament, and two American citizens were ar- rested by the Secretary of War, and detained without trial, solely by the power vested in the Crown by the act of Parliament. He had no doubt that in some of the cases mentioned by the noble Earl there might have

been unnecessary suspicion and some ill treatment, but he could not venture to say that the detention without trial of persons engaged in treasonable practices was illegal. Lord Lyons had represented the case to Mr. Seward, who had not refused to listen to his complaints, and no hindrances had been placed in the way of the British consuls who wished for access to the prisoners. The Earl of DERBY said that, in this instance, the eivis Romania, did not appear to derive much benefit from his citizenship. Though Congress might have virtually affirmed that the President had power to suspend the habeas corpus, the existence of that power had been denied by many of the most learned judges of the States, notwithstanding the somewhat unusual restriction now placed upon the action of the judges. If such power did exist, he could not say that it was a very happy state of law under which to live. Earl Russell had adduced as a precedent the sus- pension of the habeas corpus in Ireland in 1848, but he (Lord Derby) defied him to show any British or American precedent, when the condition, not of release but of trial, was, that the person arrested should forswear allegiance to his own country. Earl Russzt.n replied that he knew of no case in which the oath of allegiance had been administered to a British subject.

In reply to a question from the Earl of DONOUGHMORE, Earl Ittrasem. repeated the above statement, but was reminded by Lord DERBY that the question was, not whether the oath had been actually administered, but whether it had been made the sole condition of being brought to trial ? The Earl of MALMESBURY rose to ask for some information relative to the exact nature of the blockade of the Southern ports. He had heard that Mr. Mason had publicly gated that 80 inefficiently was it maintained, that no less than 600 or 700 ships had broken it since its institution. If this was true, it was impossible that such an illegal blockade should much longer be respected. After a few words expressive of his distrust of the efficacy in time of war of the principle contained in the Declaration of 1856, Lord Malmesbury concluded by asking if Government had received any information of the assassination of Dr. McCarthy at Florence ?

Earl RUSSELL said Admiral Milne had been instructed early in the contest to furnish all the information asked for by the noble Earl, and it would shortly be laid before the House. As to the assertion that 700 vessels had evaded the blockade, he had asked Mr. Mason what their aggregate tonnage was, but that gentleman was unable to give any answer. Although there were but seven large ports under blockade, they were con- nected by numerous creeks with other smaller ones, and many small vessels, with small cargoes, might have escaped. On the one hand was the danger of enduring an illegal blockade, and on the other, that of incurring, with- out the strongest cause, a dispute with the United States, and he hoped thatitheir Lordships would wait for further evidence before they proceeded to discuss the question.

In reply to a question of Lord DERBY'S concerning the memorial fund for the late Prince Consort, Earl GRANVILLE said he believed that, when a sufficient sum of money had been raised, her Majesty herself would state in what form most agree- able to her own feelings the money so subscribed would be best appro- priated.

In the House of Commons,

Sir G. GREY (Morpeth) stated that he should shortly introduce a mea- sure providing that additional allowance to witnesses might be defrayed out of the county rates.

In reply to a question from Mr. HOPWOOD (Clitheroe) the right honourable Baronet also stated that it was not the intention of Govern- ment to introduce a measure on the church-rate question during the pre- sent session.

On the motion for granting a supply to her Majesty, Sir H. Wn,- LOUGHBY (Evesham) complained that, in numerous instances, grievances had arisen from the mode of collecting the income tax, and wished to know U any fresh instructions likely to produce any unpleasantness in it collec- tion had been issued.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said his own belief was that abuse was rare, and that grievance, as far as it prevailed, was incidental to the nature of the tax very much more than to the conduct of those who were concerned in levying it. Speculative surcharges were no doubt, often productive of inconvenience, but it was inherent in the nature of the tax that the most stringent powers should be given to the public officer to enable him to get at a man's income. Mr. Gladstone concluded, amid some derisive cheering from the opposition, by remarking that the griev- ances under discussion constituted a proof of the fallacy of the theory that because the levy of indirect taxes was oppressive, all difficulties would be got rid of by the substitution of direct taxation. There could not be a grosser misapprehension.

Mr. HANKEY (Peterborough) moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the existing arrangements for the protection of life and property against fire in the metropolis. Sir George Grey, offer- ing no opposition to the motion, it was agreed to.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved for leave to bring in a bill limiting the period within which Exchequer Bills could be reissued to one year, the limit which existed previously to the act of last year which extended the currency of Exchequer Bills from one year to five. The bill also proposes to abolish the power now possessed by Government of funding both Consolidated Fund Exchequer Bills and Supply Exchequer Bills.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY expressed his approval of the bill, though it did not go far enough. Would it not be fair to put all the important changes of unfunded into funded debt under the direct control of Parliament? There was no reason to think that Parliament would refuse permission to fund debt whenever good reason could be given for doing so.

The House adjourned at five minutes to six o'clock.

Earl ST. GERMANS read the following answer from Her Majesty to their Lordships' address :

"I return you my most sincere thanks for your dutiful and affectionate address, especially for the manner in which you have assured me of your feelings on the irreparable loss sustained by myself and the country in the afflicting dispensation of Providence which bows me to the earth."

No business of any importance was transacted.

In the House of Commons,

Mr. Wurre (Brighton) moved that, "As soon as the Estimates are ready, one night in each week be given to their consideration, motions on going into Committee of Supply not being allowed on that day, except by express permission of the House." Kr. White said his great object was to establish some regulations by which a closer approximation to certainty could' be obtained in the transaction of public business. To show the uncertainty which existed as to what business would come on on Supply nights, he might state that in the Session of 1860 there were 157 notices of motion upon going into committee, and that upon each of the 11 occasions on which the House went into such committee the discus- sion of those notices occupied, upon the average, a period of three hours.

On one morning last Session, there were brought before the House in this manner no less heterogeneous a mass of subjects than Austria, New Zea- land, Irish Education, the Lebanon, the Pastry Evictions, Sardinia, Eccle- siastical Registrars, Mr. Adair, China, Non-intervention, the New Foreign- office, and the Civil Service Examinations. Now that Friday night had been specially set apart for the discussion of such motions, he did not see how any member of the House could object to his proposition, which was only intended to check the power now possessed by every member of trotting out his hobby at the expense of the economical interest of the country. If the present state of things was carried much further, the country would be virtually governed by clerks instead of statesmen. All danger from the aggression of the Crown had passed away, but he appre- hended great mischief from the aggression of the bureaucratic class.

Mr. W. EWART (Dumfries) seconded the motion.

Sir GEORGE GREY (Home Secretary) repeated the approval of the objects of the resolution which he had expressed last Session, when it formed one

of a series of resolutions moved by Mr. Ewart. He did not, however, think that those objects would be attained by the resolution as it stood. It would still leave it open to any member to call attention to a subject in a speech which would involve a debate just as long as any that might take place on a motion, and the qualification " except by express permission of the House" would enable any member to make a statement in moving for that permission. He suggested, as a substitute, some such resolution as the following : "Whenever, on Thursday, Supply stands the first Order of the day, the Speaker shall leave the chair without allowing any debate on that Order." If it met with the general concurrence of the House, he should be happy to propose such a resolution at some future period of the Session.

Mr. Patna, (St. Ives) opposed the resolution. In the first place, it would interfere with the privileges of members, and in the second place, it would be a departure from the constitutional maxim that grievance should pre- cede Supply. In the course of the last twenty-five years four committee& of that House had considered the question without recommending any alteration from the principle.

Mr. WILLIAMS (Lancashire) hoped the House would agree to the terms of the resolution suggested by the Home Secretary.

Mr. WALPOLE (Cambridge University) opposed the resolution. The only gain would be increased regularity in the transaction of business, and,

on the other hand, the probability was, that if no discussion was allowed in Committee of Supply, the estimates for the great services of the State would be passed early in the Session. Parliament would thereby forfeit the control it ought not to have given up. The prescriptive laws and usage of the House were that when Government required money, it should be in the power of any unofficial member of the 'louse to submit any grievance that might require a remedy. The two last committees that had sat upon the forms of procedure in the House had both had this particular question referred to them, and had both declined to make any recommendation. The report of the last committee was drawn up by Sir James Graham, whose thorough knowledge of the business of the House, and the constitutional principles upon which the House should act, was unsurpassed. This report might be said to contain the last words Sir James Graham had ad- dressed to the House, and he he-aitily concurred in every word. He knew, also, from repeated conversations with Sir James Graham, that he enter- tained objections to the abandonment by the House of any power or authority which, as an independent body, it ought to exercise and keep for itself.

Sir G. C. Luwis (Secretary at War) said that Tuesday was entirely given over to notices of motion by independent members, Wednesday to

orders of unofficial members, Friday was practically a night for unofficial notices, and by the system which allowed any subject to be brought before- the House on the question of going into Supply, the remaining nights of the week, up to Easter at least, were devoted to unofficial notices of motion.

The object of the motion was simply that, on one of the two Government order nights in the week, the Committee of Supply should be gone into in inviolable precedence of all other questions. He certainly thought it would conduce to the general convenience if there was one night in the week when members might be certain that the order for Committee of Supply which they saw announced in the paper would be proceeded with.

Mr. Disitszu (Buckinghamshire) objected to any priggish, pedantic, and petty attempts to deal with the rules of the House. The higher duties and more important qualities of the House of Commons were its deep sen- sibility in respect to public feeling, its quickness in the appreciation of the public desire, its determination to represent the grievances of the people, and its determination to vindicate their rights and privileges. In his opi- nion, Parliament did not sit too long ; hardly long enough, and the effect of the proposed change would be to shorten the Session by a month at least.

Something happened during every recess which gave ries to a wish that Parliament had been sitting at the time. He appealed to the respect en- tertained by the House for Sir James Graham, and hoped that they would not pay such little rapect to his last recommendation as to lend their sanc- tion to so crude a scheme as that proposed by Mr. White. He concluded by entreating the House not to abandon any of their previous privileges.

Lord P,uaniatsroir said he was still of the opinion he had expressed in a Select Committee on the subject, that one of the highest functions of the House was to act as an exponent of the feelings of the country, and a me- dium for the expression of their grievances. Although it might be ad- visable to apply some restriction to the latitude of the discussion on going into Supply, he was not prepared to support any sweeping changes which would entirely do away with those preliminary discussions. He could not, either, support any proposal that did not meet with the full concurrence of a large majority of the House, as it would not be fitting that a bare ma- jority should impose restriction on the business of the House which a large minority might regard as unconstitutional. He hoped honourable members would consider the subject well, so as to be prepared to adopt some proposal less liable to objection than that before the House.

Mr. Wane., in reply, complained of the asperity with which his motion had been treated by Mr. Disraeli. He was prepared to look with favour upon any Government proposition on the subject. He concluded by asking leave to introdoce the resolution, which was granted.

Mr. M. MILNES (Pontefract) moved for leave to introduce a bill for tendering legal certain marriages of affinity. To do away with an objec- tion which was raised against a similar measure last year, he had extended its provisions to Ireland and Scotland.

Mr. WeLooLE (Cambridge University) said, though he should not op- pose the introduction of the bill, his fundamental objection to the proposep change, on political, religious, and moral grounds, were as strong as ever. Leave was given to introduce the bill.

Sir C. DOUGLAS (Warwick), in the absence of Sir John Trelawney (Tavistock), obtained leave to bring in a bill for the total abolition of church rates, which was accordingly read a first time.

The House then adjourned.

In the House of Lords,

Eati GRANVILLE made his promised statement as to the course which Government intended to take with regard to the new minute on education. After briefly referring to the causes which led to the appointment of a Royal Commission on the subject, the principal one being the fact that, whereas 2,200,000 children ought to be brought into the inspected schools, no more than 920,000 actually attended them and only 230,000 received adequate instruction in the elements of relding, writing, and arithmetic, Earl Granville denied that there had been anything like an attempt on the part of the Government to smuggle the new minutes through Parliament If there had been, they would certainly not have promulgated it at a time when every one had leisure to discuss them, and pick them to pieces during all the dead time of the year. He then described the operation of the new minute, which would do away with all the numerous grants of the old style, and substitute one simple plan of assistance, by which a capitation grant of id. per head would be given for each attendance over 100, subject to a favourable report from the inspector. To ensure this favourable re- port, it would be necessary for the children, grouped according to age, to pass an examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and their failure in any one of these three branches would render the school liable to the loss of one-third of the allowance, and if they failed in all, the allowance would be withdrawn altogether. Earl Granville then adverted to the cry of "Religion in danger," which had been raised by the opponents of the new minute, and said that as the new minute did not make the slightest technical alteration in the previously existing system of religious education, he did not see how it could be affected while the inspectors were still clergymen, appointed with the sanction of the Archbishop, and upon whose favourable report the grant depended. As to the blow struck at the training colleges, he admitted it was sudden and severe • but the assistance granted to these establishments averaged no less than 68 per cent, of the whole expense, which showed how little voluntary efforts were exerted by such large grants. He denied that any vested rights whateVer were possessed by the certificated masters, and adduced the decisive opinion to that effect given in the report of the Royal Commission. Earl Granville concluded by stating that in deference to the strong representations which bad been made, Scotland would be excluded from the operations of the new minute, the reform of the training college question would be postponed, a distinct declaration would be inserted to the effect that no alteration was made in the department of religious instruction, children under six would have to attend 200 times instead of 100, and would be thereby exempted from examination, and, lastly, it had been de- termined that no school should receive assistance unless the master was certificated and duly paid—that was to say, unless he received from the managers three times the amount of his present augmented grant.

The Earl of DERBY complimented Lord Granville on the candour and clearness of his statement, and expressed his satisfaction that all the pro- posed modifications were in the right direction.

After a few remarks by Lords EBETRY and Lierrer.ros, Lord GRANVILLE moved that the papers laid on the table should be printed, and their Lordships adjourned.

In the Ffouse of Commons,

Mr. Lowz (Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education) laid on the table a paper containing the projected amendments on the Re- vised Minute, and explained the intentions of Government at great length. He commenced by stating explicitly that it was not the intention of Go- vernment to alter in the slightest degree the provision of the Order in Council in 1840, by which it was provided that all Church of England imirools—which were four-fifths of the whole number—should be inspected by persons approved by the Archbishops and removable by them at plea- sure. The present system of education, he contended, was merely preli- minary, tentative, and provisional, and the great difficulty before them was to consider how it could be made into one which would be definite and final, and on which the education of the country could firmly rest. The system itself, however, had struck its roots so deeply into the country, that whatever theoretical objections it might be open to, it would not be wise or right to disturb it, and the question was, how to legally and honourably carry out its spirit in the mapner which will best ensure its permanence and final efficiency. This object, he contended, would be attained by the 'operation of the new minute. He then explained its provisions, and the modifications they had undergone, in nearly the same terms as Lord Granville, and summed up by remarking that the one great result of the Revised Code-would be that, instead of the discordant regulation for grants which had hitherto prevented Parliament from having any real control over the sums voted, everything would be made clear and tangible, and Parlia- ment would be able to do what it had never done before, regulate the amount of the grant at pleasure.

Mr. DISRAELI (Buetringhamshire) commented in the severest terms upon; the conduct of Government in rescinding so many essential provisions of one of the most important institutions of the country without any notice or communication to Parliament A year ago, he should have thought such a proceeding incredible. Ile hoped the House would not enter into

the discussion of the subject on that occasion, but would wait until the country hadltime to join them in a decisive expression of opinion. In reply

to questions from several members, Mr. LOWE explained one or two unim- portant details, and denied that the promulgation of the minute at the commencement of the recess was in any way an attempt to evade discus- sion. On the contrary, it was the very step to court examination and dis- cussion.

Sir Joan PAKDRITON (Droitwich) accused Mr. Lowe of inconsistency in bringing forward such sweeping changes within such a short time after his speech of last session, in which he said that the proposed alteration would "leave the whole system of the Privy Council intact."

Mr. WALPout (Cambridge University) appealed to Government to fix a day for discussion, and Sir GEORGE GREY (Home Secretary) stated that as

soon as the minute had been laid on the table, it was open to any member to raise a discussion and take the sense of the House upon all or any por- tion of it, by a motion for an address to the Crown, or by some other mode. No other business was transacted, and the House adjourned.