Elchntr5 ant Vturtthingo in arliatunt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEER:

Horan or Loans. Monday, April 12. Transfer of Estates ; Lord St. Leonatds's Bill reported and amended—Law of Property Amendment Bill withdrawn.

Tuesday, April 13. Libel Law ; Lord Campbell's Bill defeated on the second reading. Thursday, April 15. Passports ; Lord bfalmesbury's Statement. Friday, April 16. Customs Bill read a second time.

Horan OF Dom:moss. Monday, April 12, The India Bills ; Lord John Russell's suggestion adopted—Supply ; Navy Estimates—Oaths ; Lord John Russell's Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday, April 13. Turin Embassy ; Mr. Disraeli's Statement—The Straits Settlements ; Lord Bury's Motion—The Stade Dues ; Mr. Ricardo's Motion—Par. liamentary Corruption ; Sir John Trelawny's Motion—Customs-duties Bill read a third time and passed.

Wednesday, April 14. Tenants' Compensation (Ireland); Mr. Maguire's Bill debated.

Thursday, April 15. Lighthouses, Sre. • Lord Clarence Paget's Motion—Tribu- nals of Commerce ; Mr. Ayrton's MotionLChancery Procedure ; the Solicitor-Ge- neral's Bill read a first time, Friday, April 16. Case of the Cagliari ; Mr. Disraeli's Statement—Parliamen- tary Reform ; Mr. Duncombe and Lord Palmerston—Passports -; Mr. Monckton Milnes's Questions—The Parks ; Lord Eleho's Strictures—The Western Bank of Scotland ; Mr. Brady's Application—Nelson's Monument ; Mr. Disraeli's Answer to Admiral Walcot—Supply ; Naval and Military Votes.

TIME-TABLE.

Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 7h 20m Sittings this Week, 6; Time, 5511 SOm

— this Session, 64 ; — Sib 60m this Session 40; — 241h Om The Lords.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 6h Bh 45m Tuesday eh 9h Om Wednesday No sitting. Thursday 6h 611 15m

Friday 611 . .. 611 20m The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 411 .(p) 12k 45an Tuesday ' 41I .. 10k OM Wednesday Noon ... . eh SOra Thursd ay Ilk Om Friday 411 .(w/lth lam

THE Lama BILLS.

The House of Commons met after the Easter recess on Monday, Early in the sitting Mr. DISRAELI stated that the votes on account in Supply were hardly sufficient for going into Committee of Ways and Means; if progress were made on that night and on Friday he should take Monday for the financial statement, and take the second read- ing of the India Bill as soon after as possible. The report of Supply was then brought up. This gave Lord joint Russurz an opportunity to make a suggestion respecting the India Bills. Great and sound objections have been felt to the bill of the present Go. vernment. Mr. Bnght's opinion of the measure was founded on sub,- stantial reason. But if all the objections were stated, and the Govern- ment had to defend the bill, that would give the discussion a party cha- racter, injurious jo the question itself: It is desirable that the House should discuss tiff question without raising a party debate. This utgJit be done by following the precedent of 1813, when Lord Castlereagh, milted a series of resolutions on which the bill of that year was fouded. " Now, there are three ways, generally speaking, in which this question is looked at. There are some persons who would wish almost to see recon- stituted, in another name, the East India Directory, with the power of initi- ating as an independent body. In this manner the name would be changed and the substance retained. Another plan of dealing with the question is that on which the bills of the noble lord the head of the late Government and of the right honourable gentleman opposite were founded,—namely, the appointment of a Minister of the Crown aided by a Council for the go- vernment of India ; and the third plan is that which has been stated tonight in the petition from Manchester—namely, the appointment of a Secretary of State similar to other Secretaries of State, with subordinate officers. Now, I do not wish to enter into the merits of any one of these plans ; but if re- solutions might be discussed in a Committee of the whole House, we might be enabled to ascertain what the opinion of the House is as to the mode to be adopted." It would be very presumptuous on the part of an individual Member to propose such resolutions, but he felt strongly. that that is the only mode by which party discussion can be avoided. " We have seen the plans proposed by two different Governments, and I think neither of those measures would receive the full concurrence of the House without under- going very considerable alteration. I do not know whether her Majesty's Government will be disposed to adopt the suggestion I have made, but I could not forbear offering it to their consideration and that of the House." Mr. Disitemi at once fell in with the suggestion—" the course. suggested by the noble lord would be much more convenient than that proposed by the Administration" The course followed by Lord Pal- merston has been so far sanctioned by the House ; still, if it were agree- able to the House, Mr. Disraeli would not shrink from proposing reso- lutions. At the same time he must admit that such resolutions could not be in abler hands than those of Lord John Russell. " As the noble lord recommended this mode of proceeding, and as he possesses in this House an authority which no one more deservedly exer- cises, I must say it would be more more agreeable to me if he would pro- pose the resolutions—(A laugh)—but, as I before said, I shall not shrink from the responsibility of doing so." (Laughter and cheers.) But there should be no unnecessary delay. The resolutions should be placed before the House as soon as convenient to the noble lord ; " we shall be ready to give up this day week, or Friday. fortnight." With ample discussion devoid oadopf party feeling the country will be satisfied that the best plan has been

ted.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL rejoined that he had spoken on the supposition that the Government might decline the course he proposed. As, however, Mr. Disraeli said he would not shrink from discharging the duty, it ought properly to remain in the hands of the Government. Sir CHAux.ve WOOD said he had risen when Lord John rose to express his utter astonishment that a question of this kind should be left in the hands of a private Member. Government is not bound to legislate on petty subjects, but this is a subject of primary importance. It was sur- prising that Mr. Disraeli should indicate even the possibility that the- Government should abdicate its duties. If they are willing, the House of Commons should not permit them to do so. As to the precedent of 1813, that does not apply, because many of the subjects then dealt with re- ferred to trade and navigation, and therefore necessarily came before a Committee of the whole House. That is not the case now. In 1853 the Cabinet decided not to proceed by resolutions, and a similar course should be pursued now. Unless Ministers see that the proposal they have made is not a good one, and ought to be abandoned, he did not see what could be gained by adopting the suggestion of Lord John. Mr. Bunn thought the House would do well to refrain from con- sidering propositions on a question of this kind not brought before them by ministers. They had better have one- Government at a time, and leave the responsible advisers of the Crown to propose measures for the administration of our Indian empire. Mr. WALPOLE supported the suggestion of Lord John, but he rose chiefly for the purpose of reminding Sir Charles Wood that Mr. Disraeli said he would not shrink from the responsibility of proposing resolutions ; and of assuring him that the Government does not intend to abdicate its functions.

Mr. MANGLES and Mr. Avarox deprecated the introduction of party spirit. Lord PALMERSTON agreed : the future government of India is far to serious a question to be made the shuttlecock for political parties. Deeply as he is impressed with the importance of transferring the go- vernment to the Crown, he would prefer leaving things as they are rather than pass a bill objectionable in its chief parts. The proposal to proceed by resolutions is, however, a " departure from the ordinary practice of the House of Commons " ; there is no Parliamentary necessity for proceeding by resolution ; if there were, both Administrations have violated the rules. The House has adopted the principles of transferring the government of India to the Crown, and to discuss it again would be going backward. " It is in accordance with the ordinary course of proceedings—it is con- sistent with the convenience of the House and with the rules of Parliament, that when we have two bills before us framed in all their details exactly as those who proposed them think adapted to the case, we should proceed to discuss the merits of those bills, and then in Committee of the whole House we can consider each clause as it is proposed, and each clause can be discussed quite as well as a resolution which is to form the principle of a fu- ture clause. We shall have the matter, too, in a more perfect shape before us, because the principle is put in a working shape when submitted as a clause of the bill. Therefore it would be a considerable waste of time, and would establish a very inconvenient precedent, if we were now to abandon the bill before us, go back as if nothing had been done, and begin de novo by proposing resolutions each of which would be, I apprehend, the repre- sentative of some future clause, which, if the resolution were agreed to, it would be the duty of some one to shape so as to form part of an act of Parliament."

Mr. DISRAELI, in reference to the censures of Sir Charles Wood, said he should have acted with the utmost arrogance had he refused Lord John Russell the opportunity he asked for. He stated that he should move the resolutions that day fortnight. Mr. BouvEnrs said that Mr. Disraeli, in accepting Lord John's sug- gestion with so much glee, seemed inclined to avail himself of any op- portunity to get rid of his bill. Sir BENJAMIN HALL asked whether Mi- nisters intended to abandon their bill ?

Before an answer could be given, Mr. HORSMAN pointed out the diffi- culties accumulating round the question. Both the bills convey a dis- tinct impression of the inherent difficulties of the subject. They were peePosing to adopt a vital change without a preliminary inquiry. If only to give a oolour to the consistency of Parliament there should have been some investigation before proceeding to destroy a government created, after an inquiry, in 1853. Neither of the bills before the House is satisfactory. A Committee might accept one and reject the other, or go on with the present government until there had been an inquiry. There is a danger that party feeling may be imported into the debate ; and to avoid that, the wisest plan would be to discuss specific resolu- tions.

La reply to Sir Benjamin Hall's question, Mr. DISRAELI said it had never entered into his imagination to give up the bill. He had a lively conviction that the bill, " modified, no doubt," would become the law of the land.

The report of Supply was agreed to.

THE NAVY ESTIMATES.

On the motion that the House should go into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, showing by comparison with previous estimates that there has of late years been a great increase, moved that the estimates for the current year should be referred to a Se- lect Committee. Sir JOHN PARING-TON declined to follow Mr. Williams. A Committee would probably disappoint him by increasing instead of reducing the estimates. On a division the motion was negatived by 161 to 24.

The House then went into Committee, and Sir JOHN PAXINGTON made his statement.

The estimate for the number of men and for wages is larger than that submitted in recent years, and the late Government took a bold and wise course in making that recommendation to Parliament. Last year the vote was for 55,700 men. This year it is proposed to increase that number to 58,700 men. The vote for the wages for this force is 2,401,5991. The in- crease is rendered necessary by the presence of 75 ships, carrying 953 guns, i with a force of 11,863 men in the Indian and China seas, and 29 ships with 215 guns and 3353 men on the African station. We have now in our har- bours some of the most noble ships that ever floated on the ocean, but we want men to man them. Thus for want of men, the Renown, Marlborough, and Euryalus, cannot proceed to. their destinations. He could not too strongly lament that last year Sir Charles Wood allowed 3000 continuous service men to he discharged, an act they regarded as a breach of faith. Now the Government is of opinion that seamen should be enlisted for con- tinuous service, with a margin of non-continuous service men to meet emergencies. They are also of opinion that we should never be without a Channel squadron. We have an example in France. "They do not allow their coasts to be left defenceless, nor do they allow their officers and sailors to remain without opportunities for practice. On the contrary, with great prudence, and with his usual sagacity, the Emperor of the French has as- sembled at Toulon a force which will form a squadron of evolution, and 1 hope before the present summer has passed away that we shall see in our own Channel a squadron worthy of England and her naval reputation as- sembled for the same praiseworthy object. I wish I could consistent)y with my duty have proposed a lower amount, but I trust the explanation I have given will convince the Committee that it is not unnecessarily large in order to maintain the Navy in a state of efficiency. I hope the policy of this country will ever be, while adapting its force to the varying circum- stances of the time, to maintain the Navy in an effective condition, to keep up an effective Channel squadron, and further to have a reserve of avail- able seamen to man our ships upon an emergency without the recurrence of so humiliating and unsatisfactory a state of things as we have lately wit- nessed in our ports." To do this the 2000 additional men are required and the crews of the ships coming home from the Eastern seas. The vote for victuals for the fleet is 1,027,3571., an increase of 165,1694 upon the vote of last year. The vote for the dockyard establishments shows a reduction from 12,190 men proposed by the late Government to 10,850, the number voted last year. This Sir John seemed to think too large, but he explained the pressure upon the establishments as at present exceptional, being occasioned by the necessity of repairing ships thrown out of commission last year. " I have already expressed my regret that the late Government took, under pressure, a step which deprived us of 3000 of our seamen, and I no less regret that under the same pressure they threw out of commission seven or eight ships and several frigates last year, every one of which is now being refitted for commission at great expense to the country. I do not blame the late Government for having done so, and, in fact, admit that I am responsible for having contributed to the pressure under which they acted ; but if ever there was a case of penny wise and pound foolish, it was that throwing out of commission ships upon which we are now spending thousands upon thousands to put them in sailing order. The whole strength of our dock- yards is now being applied to the repair of those ships which were last year thrown out of commission. I am therefore justified in saying that the present pressure upon our dockyards is exceptional, and that increases my reluctance to propose an unprecedented amount of force in our dockyards until I am satisfied of its necessity." [Incidentally he expressed his opinion that ships should be commissioned for four instead of three years, and showed that it would save expense.] He proposed instead of increasing the permanent establishment to expend 50,0001. in hired labour. The vote for naval stores, 1,464,7241., he proposed to reduce by 75,0007., including 50,000/. for steam machinery. The vote for new works, 691,8627., lie will reduce by 108,756/. The three largest items included in this reduction are for the purchase of land at Devonport, Portsmouth, and Malta. The vote for the transport service, 495,0001., will be reduced by 85,0001. The total reductions effected on the estimates of the late Go- vernment is 318,7561., bringing the excess of this year over last year to 613,845/.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER said that Sir John Pakington was really so well instructed, he might pass for a sailor. He blamed the late Prime Minister for not telling the House of Commons that the continuous sers vice men must not be discharged ; urged the Government to get rid of sailing ships and to build smaller steamers cased in iron ; and exhorted them to keep the best ships in commission fully manned.

Sir CHARLES WOOD explained the circumstances under which the con- tinuous service men had been discharged. For the preceding year the House voted the number of men as really ne- cessary for war at 56,000, but in January 1857, when the estimates were prepared, the country was in a state of profound peace with every neigh- bouring Power. The number of men to be voted for 1857-'68 was then fixed, omitting the Coast-guard and Marines, at 33,000 men. Was that, then, an inadequate number for the peace establishment of the Navy ? It was ihe largest number of men voted at any time during profound peace since 1815, and was precisely the same number as was voted in 1853, when war was looming over our heads. He did not know on what grounds the Ministry would have been justified in proposing a larger number than that. He was as much opposed as any man to an unwise economy ; but, on the other hand; no Government would bejustified in proposing an expenditure in time of peace far beyond a reasonable peace establishment. What was the number of men in April 1857? Instead of 33,000, there were then 40,000, being 7000 above the number sanctioned by the House of Commons. The right honourable baronet reminded the House that the leaders of the great parties—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right honourable Member for Oxford University, and the noble lord the Member for London—urged upon the Government economy and reduction. What, then, was it the duty of the Government to do ? It was as speedily as pos- sible and without injustice to reduce the number of men borne on the Navy to the number voted ; but it was found that unless they allowed persons entered for continuous service to take their discharge, if they chose, there was no possibility of reducing the number of merlin the Navy to the amount voted by the House of Commons within any reasonable time. This course, therefore, was adopted in May; but no faith was broken, for the men were told that they liked to go they might, and the Government would not en- force the bond of continuous service against them. In spite of this step, the excess in the month of May was upwards of 3000 men beyond the number voted by the House of Commons.

Sir Charles insisted upon the necessity of keeping up an adequate reserve, and regretted that Sir John Pakington had reduced the estimate which would have provided for the accommodation of the Coast-guard service and the Coast Volunteers. He objected to the reductions in the vote for dockyard establishments, for steam machinery, and for the purchase of land; and he reminded the House that both France and Russia are creating large steam fleets. These reductions are of almost vital importance, and could not, in his opinion, be carried out consistently with the maintenance of the supe- riority of our Navy to that of any other Power.

Mr. DRUMMOND said that the person we are most likely to quarrel with is our next-door neighbour.

And what sort of a person is he ? Is he a dull, slow, heavy, matter-of- fact, circumlocutory, red-tapist gentleman like ourselves? Not at all. The Germans are of that nature. You could not have any very sudden attack from the Germans ; but this is a very lively. gentleman. You judge how a man would act in the future by the way in which he has acted in the past, and has not our neighbour always acted by coups de main ? Did they sup- pose that they would receive from him a declaration of war, and then a

month's notice to get their Coast-guardsmen into their ships ? No I never. ("Hear !" and cheers) A maritime force is not essential to the existence

of any country except Great Britain. Every other country can lose a naval battle without the smallest detriment. France was not one whit the weaker because she lost the battle of Trafalgar ; but whenever we lose the mastery of the sea there is an end of us.

Several other Members took part in the discussion. Mr. Courts re- pented the explanations offered by the First Lord. Sir GEORGE PECHELL and Mr. BENTINCE saw in the speech of Sir John Pakington promise of amendment in the conduct of our naval affairs. Admiral WaLcorr re- gretted that reductions had been made. Lord CLARENCE PAGET argued against the construction of enormous vessels, and recommended smaller

ships, such as the French are constructing, capable of going at greater speed, armed with few but heavy guns, and able to carry fuel for several days. Ho also proposed that ships' crews should be kept together when paid off, so that with their officers they might be ready to man other ships. It would be a good thing also if open competition for cadetships were introduced into the Navy. Lord PALMERSTON thought that we should, in ordinary times, spend more on the material of defence, ships and stores, than upon men. " Therefore, when I am told that it was an unwise and improvident act to reduce the number of men last year, I say it was the inevitable result of Government acting in deference to the opinion of Parliament and the opinion of the country. We have been told that the Prime Minister ought to come down and say that he requires that means should be given to sup- ply a certain number of men for naval purposes. It is all very well to say that a Minister should hold that language • but when the opinion of Par- liament and of the country is that certain ;axes should cease, it will be vans to appeal for their continuance to a quarter whence no satisfactmy result can be obtained. On the contrary, I say that it is the duty of the Government to submit to the opinion of Parliament and the country, and to make the most prudent application they can of the moneys which may be placed at their disposal. Applying that principle to the course which the present Government is about to adopt, I confess that I think the course which they are pursuing is not the wisest or the most prudent for the interests of the country. I think they are very right in saying that there ought to be a Channel fleet, that we ought to have the number of men which they propose to provide for by the estimates ; but I think the reductions which they are making in the amount of shipping to be built, in the stores to be provided, in the improvement and enlargement of the dockyards, are improvident re- trenchments, and I cannot conceive that there is any financial necessity for any of those reductions." Lord Palmerston defended the building of line-of-battle ships. " We know that the French Government are taking measures which, in the course of a very few years, will give to France a fleet of screw line-of-battle ships very nearly the number we shall have at the same time. In addition to that, we know that the Russian Government are constructing as fast as they can a formidable fleet of large line-of-battle ships. It would be the great- est, the most extreme imprudence, for this country to lay aside all idea of increasing the very inadequate number of screw line-of-battle ships which we have at the present moment." He hoped the Government would recon- sider the course they were about to pursue.

Mr. Honsmax said he was not an alarmist. But it is our duty to be secure against all contingencies. At present, it appears, we have not the command of the sea. We should be prepared not only for war but for a surprise. We have lost the command of the Mediterranean, where the French force is double that of the English. There is a railway be- tween Toulon and Cherbourg. A blow might come unawares. Let the Government tell the truth, fairly explain the state of our Navy and our dockyards, and the House of Commons would generously answer any appeal. He wished the Government had asked for larger votes. After an explanation of some details from Sir Joins PAU-ROTOR, the votes were agreed to, and the House resumed.

PASSPORTS.

The Earl of MALMESBURY presented, on Monday, the correspondence which has taken place between the Governments of England and France on the subject of passports. He took the opportunity of explaining what has been done. The French Government have said that any English- man living in France may travel from one town to another by simply producing his French passport ; and they have also said that any French Consuls may wiser English passports, and have appointed agents at the principal ports for that purpose. The English Government, seeing that they cannot oblige mayors and magistrates to grant certificates of iden- tity, have widened the area of godfathers who may give certificates of identity ; and now not only mayors and magistrates, but clergymen of the various Christian denominations, physicians, surgeons, solicitors, and notaries, are empowered to grant certificates of identity. All passports granted will be Foreign Office passports. The applicant will obtain his certificate of identity, will take or send it either to the agents appointed to grant passports at Dover, Folkestone, Southampton, and Liverpool, or to the Foreign Office ; and a Foreign Office passport will be delivered to them which will be vise by the French Consul. The cost will be re- duced from 6s. to 28. as soon as an act has been passed reducing the duty from 5s. to ls.

The Earl of CLARENDON said his arrangements were merely pro- visional, and he had always felt that they were capable of enlargement. The change would be a great benefit.

" But the whole system of passports is a great mistake. (Cheers.) It gives no .protection to foreign Governments in respect to those very persons against whom they wish to guard themselves, because they always take good care to have their papers en r•egle, i

egle, and it is the innocent and ignorant travellers who suffer annoyance from some unintentional omission. I know that this is the opinion of the Emperor of the French. Some years ago he wished to get rid of the passport system, but he was fairly beaten by the objections raised against him by his own officials. It was represented to him that passports were in some way necessary for the proper carrying out of that system of strict surveillance which is deemed necessary." The Earl of Msamesstray—" There is a great passport interest, in fact."

The Earl of CLAREND3N—" Just so."

Earl GREY said there could he no greater proof of the absurdity of the passport system than these regulations. They would not prevent persons not British subjects from getting passports, nor would they prevent a British subject from handing his passport to a foreigner. Why not supply competent authorities in different towns with pass- ports ready filled up.

Lord MAIMRSBURY said he was not there to defend the system of passports. "There is not a man in the House who thinks more con- temptuously of them than I do." He could not adopt Lord Grey's suggestion because there are no means of compelling magistrates of towns or counties to deliver them.

Lord Malmesbury would recommend " all likely travellers and persons residing on the coast of this country, whose families reside on the coast of France, and who are liable to be called abroad suddenly on account of illness in their families—that as a passport will now only cost 2s. every man might as well furnish himself with one at once, just as he would with a Bradshaw or an almanack. If that is done no one who has to go abroad will suffer any inconvenience on this side of the Channel, and from the liberal conduct of the French Government I think I may say that they are not likely to meet with any on the other." THE Lnila Bran.

In moving the second reading of the Libel Bill, Lord CAMPBELL ex- plained at great length its origin and object. It originated in the de- cision in the case of " 1 Davison and Duncan," where an action for da- mages was brought against the defendant because he had published a report of a speech reflecting on the plaintiff, this speech having been de- livered at a public meeting. The object of the bill was to protect the press from vexatious and pettifogging actions. It would enable a journal to report a speech delivered at a lawful public meeting, and to plead, if in- dicted for it, that the report was a faithful report. If that plea were proved, all the costs would fall upon the plaintiff. The bill defined what meetings were lawful. This category comprehended all meetings the publication of the proceedings of which was likely to be of service to the public, such as meetings for the election of Members of Parliament, meetings of town-councils, of local boards, and generally of all bodies constituted under acts of Parliament. The remedy of a person grieved by any speech would lie in an action against the speechmaker.

Lord LYNDHURST described the bill as inefficient and inoperative, and

recommended that it should be referred to a Select Committee, in order that a measure marked by common sense might be devised. He con- curred in the abolition of the distinction between oral and written slander, so far as it was carried by the bill. If that bill had stopped at the second clause, it would have given great relief to the publisher by enabling him to plead that his report was a faithful report. But the bill did not stop there. It defined the meetings to be deemed lawful. Never was there so extraordinary a definition. He could not discover the principle on which it proceeded. Were town-councils and vestry meetings included because they are marked by order and decorum and the absence of personality ? These were " favoured " meetings.

" We, too, are favoured' meetings, we are lawful meetings,' and are to enjoy the benefit of my noble and learned friend's bill. (Laughter.) We shall not be turned out of this House ; he does us the honour, and I am

grateful to him of styling us a lawful meeting within the operation of the act. But, m 'Lords, what will the right reverend bench say to it ?" [The occupants of the bench referred to had quitted the House.] " What, however, would they say if they were here and heard that Convocation is not a 'lawful' assembly ? Neither the Lower nor the Upper House of Con- vocation is included in the bill. In the Lower House, indeed, perhaps a few sharp words might be exchanged. There really never was such a measure. A Select Committee meets day after day to consider it, and at last they come to the conclusion that Convocation is an unlawful assembly." (Laughter.) Lord Lyndhurst referred to the meeting to promote Social Science at Birmingham. "I hardly know how to characterize it. I am not quite sure that I have organs sufficient to articulate the name of it. It was called a Sociological Society—(Loud laughter)—and I am not sure whether a noble friend of mine opposite was not present on the occasion. At all events, this combination of Latin and Greek, is, I think, most amusing, and the objects of the society appear to be very comprehensive. That society, however if it should still be continued, will not be a lawful society under this bill. ("Hear, hear I" and laughter.) What does the bill mean ? What does it include? It excludes everything - it in- cludes literally almost nothing. Before I left home this morning I noted upon paper a number of cases that were not included in the bill. I came to 104 and then I stopped." (Laughter and cheers.)

The bill had further to encounter the opposition of Lord Wattsiny- DALE and the Loan CILANCELLOR, on the ground that the law as it stands gives every one ample privileges to express his opinions, so long as it is done without malice. The Lon]) CHANCELLOR dwelt on the point that, if journals are allowed to plead in bar to an action that a report of a speech in Parliament was faithful, great wrong might be done to in- dividuals.

Earl GRANVILLE and Lord CRANWORTH supported the bill, as the germ and foundation of a proper remedy.

On a division the motion for the second reading was negatived by 35 to 7.

SIR Join; TRELAWNY'S MOTION.

Sir Jorno TRELAWNY moved on Tuesday his resolution arising out of Mr. Butt's case. It was- " That the receipt of any species of reward by a Member in consideration of the exercise of his influence in that capacity is calculated to lower the dignity and authority of this House, and is a high breach of the privilege of Parliament." The offer of money to a Member of Parliament had been made a high misdemeanour in 1695, but it appeared that by Parliamentary motions Members are at liberty to bring about an event in which they have a pecuniary interest. If that notion were acted upon, Parliamentary in- dependence would be at an end. The local Government of India would be lowered in the estimation of the people if it were believed that advo- cates could be retained in Parliament to overrule the decisions of the constituted authorities.

Lord HOTHAM warmly supported the motion. It is not imputed to legal gentlemen that they accept money on the promise of giving their services in the House. What is imputed is, that legal Members are re- tained by large fees professedly to conduct business in the law courts, and that then it is suggested that the matter cannot be well worked in a court of law, that an appeal should be made to Parliament, and that honourable gentlemen who receive the fees are asked to take up the case in Parliament. The House should put a stop to such a practice. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, Mr. MELLOR, Mr. BRIGHT, Lord Par Easros, and Mr. WALPOLE, were of opinion that no new resolution is needed. It is best to allow the old practice of Parlia- ment to stand. Parliament has power not only to punish those who offer bribes, but inherent power, not depending on written law, to punish any Members who accept rewards in their capacity of legislators. Sir James Graham especially mentioned the cases of Mr. Burke, Sir James Macintosh, Mr. Huakisson, and Mr. Roebuck, who had been the paid advocates of different colonies ; but in their case the evil was counter- acted by the publicity of the payments. That discussion, he said, would be a warning to the gentlemen of the long robe, "more especially to those who receive large fees for services rendered out of doors, and who afterwards take part in discussions on the same subject in Parliament." Mr. Bright said that if they got rid of the property qualification, and there were Members retutned who were paid by their constituencies, they would violate the resolution as it stood. If the legislation were in- tended only for lawyers let it plainly say so. There were two supporters of the motion, Mr. W. J. Fox and Mr. MaxoLve. The latter said that great mischief had resulted from persons

taking large fees and then advocating the claims of Natives of India in that House. The Natives could not distinguish between fees paid as re- tainers and rewards paid to Members of Parliament, nor between legal and non-legal Members. They would believe that every Member had his price. Some means should be adopted whereby it should be declared that it is not honourable or proper for any gentleman of the long robe a Member of that House to support in that House a cause on which he had received a legal retainer, especially in cases coming from India. Sir JOHN 'fRELAwNY yielded to many appeals, and withdrew his motion.

THE Timm EMBASSY.—In reply to Mr. WISE, Mr. DISRAELI stated that the Government does not intend to recall Sir James Hudson from Turin. "Great services are not cancelled by an act of carelessness, however it may be regretted for the moment. With respect to Mr. Erskine, he has been recalled to this country in order to explain his conduct, and ho has been suspended."

TRANseER OF LAND.—On the report of the Transfer of Estates Simplifi- cation Bill, Lord CRANWORTH objected to the first thirteen clauses. They all depended upon clause 1, which introduced an innovation without an ade- quate object. In place of the established principle that actions to assert claims should be brought within twenty years after the rights of possession accrue, it was proposed to enact that no right should be asserted after twenty years from the time when a conveyance should be made to a bona fide pur- chaser. That would not shorten but lengthen the period of limitation. For instance, if a person unlawfully in possession of property for nineteen years, then executed a conveyance, the remainder man would have twenty years after that to assert his claim. If a tenant for life made a conveyance in fee and lived twenty years after how could the remainder man assert his right ? Lord WENSLEYDALE concurred. Earl GREY said they must come to a system of register. Lord ST. LEONARDS said the clauses would diminish expense.

The clauses were, however, struck out without a division ; and the report was agreed to. On the motion of Lord ST. LEONARDS the motion for going into Committee on the Law of Property Amendment Bill was discharged.

CHANCERY PRocEnuRE.—On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, bill to amend the course of procedure in the Court of Chancery was read a first time on Thursday. The object of the measure is to en le the suitor to obtain relief in one court, without the necessity of resorting to a second. For this purpose the bill empowers the Court of Chancery to call in a jury to decide a question of fact, and to grant damages ; and it enables the Judges to hear witnesses. Thus the issue which had hitherto been sent to be tried in a court of common law would be disposed of in the court of equity itself in the most simple, expeditious, and economical manner. The bill will not be compulsory, but the matter in the first instance will be left to the dis- cretion of the Court. The bill was received with a chorus of approval from the gentlemen of the long robe.

TRIBUNALS OF COMMERCE.—Mr. AYRTON carried a motion, on Thurs- day, to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of esta- blishing tribunals of commerce. In the course of his speech a fruitless attempt was made to count out the House. The SoLierroR-GENERAL con- sented to the motion • but neither he nor Lord JOHN RUSSELL, while sup- porting the motion, looked forward with much hope ae to the result. In fact, few of the many Members who spoke anticipated much from the inquiry.

TENANT RIGHT.—The Wednesday sitting was taken up with a tenant- right debate. Mr. MAeurRE moved the second reading of the Tenants Compensation (Ireland) Bill. In doing so he went back to the famine of 1847, cited acts of oppression on the part of landlords, and gave some de- scription of previous legislation ; but he refrained from describing the pro- visions of his bill. The O'DONOGHCE seconded the motion in a speech which drew forth recognitions of its ability and impressiveness.

Sir Joni; Waist( moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months, on the ground that, by giving tenants a right to extensive compensation for present and past improvements in the soil, buildings, and works, it would convert the landlords into mere holders of rent-charges. Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD supported the motion. The bill embodies the prin- ciple of compensation for improvements, which, if adopted, would be an advance in economic science, and which would not confiscate the landlord's interest. Lord P.uaiiiii.exoN differed from this view. The bill to which they had formerly assented limited compensation to buildings, roads, fences, and such things. But the present bill would bring about a sweep- ing confiscation of property, and he could not support a motion leading to that result. Mr. HASSARD opposed, and Mr. CAIRD supported the motion. Lord RAAS regarded the bill as "sweeping and dangerous" in its pro- visions. The debate was adjourned until the 9th June.

LIGHTHOUSES.—Lord CLARENCE PAGET moved that an address should be presented to the Queen praying that the recommendations of the Com- mittee on Lighthouses in 1845 should be carried out. This Committee recommended that the expense of maintaining lighthouses, floating lights, buoys and beacons, should be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund. Lord Clarence showed that At present we have inferior lights which are at the same time more costly than those of the French. There is no simple and uniform system of buoying the coasts ; every little harbour having its own system of flags, balls, and buoys. There are three Boards, one in England, one in Scotland, one in Ireland. For 224 lights we pay 353,000/. ; for 214 lights the French pay 48,0001. He proposed that a small central board should be established to control the whole subject and establish a simple plan. Now there are 400,000/. in the shape of surplus light-dues available at the Board of Trade. That would be sufficient to meet the expense of the new system for two years. If 50,0001. were expended on new works, a new and efficient system, comprising 373 lights, might be maintained for 150,0001. a year. Mr. HENLEY contested some of Lord Clarence's state- ments of fact, and threw doubts upon his criticisms respecting management ; but he offered to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the whole sub- ject. Mr. W. S. LIISTDSAY, Mr. A. Sairm, and Mr. Wirrre supported the motion. Mr. LOWE, Lord PALMERSTON, and Mr. CARDWELL objected to the transfer of the burden to the Consolidated Fund, until the President of the Board of Trade had the power of controlling the expenditure. Finally, Lord CLARENCE PAGET accepted the offer of Mr. Henley, and withdrew his resolution.

THE STRAITS SETYLEmErars.—Lord BURY called attention to the condi- tion of the settlements on the Straits of Malacca. His complaint was, that Singapore, Penang, and Malacca, are under the rule of the Governor- General. They are made the receptacle of the scum of the Indian popula- tion ; they are made to Tiny the expenses of the convict establishments and of the soldiers who guard them. They would be better governed if placed under the control of the Colonial Secretary. He moved for correspondence. Mr. BAna.rE said it was not correct to state that the colonists paid the ex- penses of the military establishments. As to the convicts, Singapore was a penal settlement before it was a colony, and its prosperity as a colony was greatly the result of convict labour. If the Strait settlements became a

Crown colony they would cost us 300,0001. a year. Mr. HoasmAN sup- ported and Sir J. FaxiinesroNE opposed the views of Lord Bury. The papers moved for were ordered.

THE STADE DUES.—Mr. J. L. RICARDO moved an address to the Crown for the Abolition of the Stade Dues. These dues are levied by Hanover upon goods proceeding to Hamburg. They are a great tax upon trade and a great inconvenience. Tho state of Hanover renders no service in return for the sums levied, Hamburg defraying the whole expense of the navigation of the Elbe. The first trace of the dues is found in 1038. In 1715 Denmark having conquered Bremen and Verden sold the dues for 150,000/. to George I., and he paid for them out of the taxes levied in his English dominions. In the reign of George II. the duties were remitted ; but under the Regency in the reign of George III., they were reimposed. The treaty of Vienna provided that all German rivers should be free, but these dues were retained on the plea that they were sea dues and not river dues. By the treaty of 1844 a compromise was effected, and Mr. Ricardo contended that we could abolish the dues by abolishing the treaty. Mr. BRAMLEY41001tE seconded the motion. Mr. HENLEY thought that the best course to pursue would be to appoint a Select Committee, as in the case of the Sound Dues, so that the facts might be brought out. Lord PAI.MERSTON said that, as the legality of the dues was the point at issue, the best course would be for the Government to take the opinion of the Law-officers, and then either give notice to put an end to the treaty of 1844, or pursue the course pursued with regard to the Sound Dues. He submitted that it was not a question to be east loose before a Select Com- mittee. Mr. CLAY and Mr. Marx recommended purchase. Mr. MILNER GIBSON advised Mr. Ricardo to accept the offer of a Select Committee. After some further conversation, the motion was withdrawn, upon the un- derstanding that a Select Committee should be appointed.