ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

Hones OF Loans, Friday, February 2L-Volunteer Review at Brighton: Lord Truro's Question. Tuesday, February 25.-The alleged Government Proclamation in Naples: Lord Derby's Question. Thursday, February 27.-The Neapolitan Proclamation : Earl Russell's Answer to Lord Derby.-The Law of Lunacy : The Lord Chancellor's Bill.

Hones or Coaxows, Friday, February 21.-The Distress in Ireland Mr. Maguire's Motion.-Kensington and Bayswater Road : Count-out on Mr. Cowper's Motion. Monday, February 24.-The O'Donoghue's hostile Message to Sir Robert Peel : Apology for Breach of Privilege.-Supply: Navy Estimates. Tuesday, February 25.-Counts-out : Mr. Bentinck's Motion-Transport Service : Mr. Lindsay's Motion.-EcclesiastIcal Courts : Mr. H. Seymour's Motion.-Kensington and Bayswater Road: Mr. Cowper's Bill. Wednesday, Febraary 26.-Whipping Bill: Mr. Hs.dfield's motion for second read- ing withdrawn.-Metropolitan Local Acts Amendment.Bill: Second reading.-Con- veyance of Voters Bill : Rejection of Mr. Collier's motion for second reading.- Qualification for Offices Bill : Third reading. Thursday, February 27.-The Revised Code : Mr. Ayrton's motion.-Supply : Naval Estimates.

br the House of Lords, nothing was transacted after the discussion on the subject of the proposed Volunteer Review, contained in our Postscript of last week.

In the House of Commons, After the debate on the distress in Ireland, Lord PALMERSTON stated, in reply to Mr. GRIFFITH (Devizes), that there was no truth whatever in

the report that Sir James Hudson had, in concert with the Austrian and Prussian ambassadors, addressed a remonstrance to Baron Ricasoli against the expressions of national feeling with regard to the temporal power of the Pope, and the conversion of Rome into the capital of Italy. Mr. COWPER (First Commissioner of Works) moved for leave to intro- di' duce a Bill authorizing the construction of a road between Kensington and

' Bayswater, and amending the Coal and Wine Dues Act of last year so as to legalize the defrayment of the cost of such road from the proceeds of the Metropolitan Improvement account. The requisite funds could not be raised from the rates of the parishes most interested, as they had, no legal power to levy a rate for such purposes, and even if they had, it would be difficult to say what portions of such parishes benefited from the road, and what portion did not. The Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1862 had no power to apply their funds for any such purpose. He proposed, there- fore, to devote the sum of 34,434/., the proceeds of the penny duty levied by the 8th and 9th Vie., and now invested in the Three per Cents, to the construction of the new road, the urgent necessity for which was apparent from the fact that all the traffic from North London to the Exhibition would otherwise have to pass through Park-lane, twenty-four feet wide in its narrowest part, or Church-lane, which was but nineteen feet at the narrowest.

Sir S. M. PETO (Finsbury) pledged his practical experience that the con- struction of the proposed road by the 1st of May was utterly impossible. By the time the act was passed and the arrangements for commencing completed, there would not be more than 25 clear working days left, and the undertaking would take nearer two years than 25 days. He sug- gested that in lien of the proposed route a short road should be made from the Victoria-gate, Bayswater-road, to the top of the bridge over the Ser- pentine, whence it might be continued over part of Rotten-row.

Lord FERMOT (Marylebone), Sir J. V. SHELLEY (Westminster), and Alderman SALOHANS (Greenwich), protested against the appropriation of the proceeds of the coal tax to a work which was of so unjust a character towards their constituents, who contributed largely to the coal tax.

Lord PALMERSTON said it was clear that access to the Exhibition must be provided by the 1st of May, and that permanent accommodation was required from north to south of Hyde Park. The bill of his right hon. friend would accomplish both objects.

Mr. B. OSBOILNE (Liskeard) ridiculed the idea that a road three-quarters of a mile long could be made in two months, at a cost of but 30,000/. The construction of a temporary road was the only course open to them. He moved that leave to introduce the bill be refused.

On a division Mr. Cowper's resolution was carried by 17 to 12, a result which showed that there were less than 40 Members present, and the Speaker having again counted the House after the customary interval with the same result, the House adjourned.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, no business was transacted.

In the House of Commons,

Lord PALMERSTON called the attention of the House to a most important breach of privilege which had been brought under his notice on Friday night. After explaining the privileges and rules by which the procedure of the House was regulated in case of offensive expressions being applied by one member to another, Lord Palmerston stated the circumstances of the breach in question. It appeared from the noble Lord's statement that in the course of his reply to Mr. Maguire on Friday night, Sir Robert Peel had used some expressions which The O'Donoghue had considered to be offensive to himself. Instead, however, of resenting the expressions at the time by e ailing the speaker to order, The O'Donoghue rose and left the House, and it was not until after the House had adjourned that Lord Palmerston received any intimation that he had taken offence at the expressions used by Sir Robert Peel. Late in the evening, however, he heard that a challenge to Sir Robert was contemplated by The O'Donoghne. He immediately wrote to Sir Robert Peel, reminding him that by accepting such challenge he would become a party to the breach of privilege involved, and that his official position would render it still more incumbent on him not to join in such an infringement of the privilege of the House. In the course of Saturday Sir Robert Peel was visited by a gentleman commissioned to act on behalf of The O'Donoghue. He was referred by Sir Robert to Lord Palmerston, who had personally requested him to do so. Lord Palmerston informed this gentleman of his intention to bring the matter before the House, and gave a similar notice to The O'Donoghue himselE At the conclusion of Lord Palmerston's statement, the SPEAKER formally called upon The O'Donoghue to express his regret for the breach of privi- lege he had committed, and to give an assurance that the matter should proceed no further.

Major Gay's (Limerick) then rose, and as "the friend" of The O'Do- noghue, explained the part he had taken in the affair. Sir Robert Peel had stated on Friday night that a recent meeting at Dublin, presided over by The O'Donoghue, consisted of "mannikin traitors," who emulated the " cabbage-garden heroes of 1848," and was not attended by a single person of respectability. In consequence of this language, a challenge from the O'Donoghue was entrusted to him, and was received, as had been stated, by a reference to Lord Palmerston. He then waited upon Lord Palmer- ston, and was told by him what the rules of the House were. He then saw that the matter was to be taken up officially, and that the honour of The O'Donoghue was not to be vindicated in the only way in which he (Major Gavin) understood.

The SPEAKER then stated that as the actual words used by Sir Robert Peel had not been resented at the time by The O'Donoghue, they could not then be discussed, and it was his duty again to demand an expression of egret from The O'Donoghue.

The O'Dortommu then rose to explain, but devoted his remarks almost entirely to personal abuse of Sir Robert Peel.

The SPEAKER then interposed, and reminded The O'Donoghue for the third time that a distinct apology to the House was due from him.

The O'DolvoGrinz then apologized to the House, and pledged himself to take n'o further steps in the matter.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply on the Naval Esti- mates, a long and t esultory conversation took place, in the course of which a great variety of topics connected with the Navy were introduced. The Speaker having left the chair, Lord CLARENCE PAGET (Secretary to the Navy) moved the adpption of the Navy Estimates for the year. The figures of each vote having been given in last week's Spectator, it is un- necessary to enter into the details of the noble Lord's speech. The total

number of men and boys required was 76,000, against 78,000 for last year, showing a reduction of 2000 seamen, and 200 men of the coastguard. The number of the Royal Naval Reserve, which he was thought over- sanguine in estimating last year at 10,000, had that day reached 10,100, and the Coast Volunteers numbered 8000, making a grand total of 95,000 men. Our active service fleet for the ensuing year would consist of two line- of-battle ships and eight other vessels in the Channel fleet ; nine line-of- battle ships, four corvettes, and fifteen sloops in the Mediterranean ; eight line-of-battle ships, and twenty-three frigates, &c. on the North American station; and eighty-eight frigates, corvettes, and sloops in distant stations —making a total of 149 ships for the coming year. The number of steam- ships of the line afloat on the 1st of the month was fifty-seven, and four more were on the stocks. The grand total of our steam fleet afloat and on the the stocks was 580. The most important change to be introduced was a

reduction in the armament of our line-of-battle ships. It was a well-

ascertained fact that a 100-pounder striking a ship did more injury than two fifty pounders, and the straining so much complained of in many of our vessels was clearly due to their being over-weighted. It had been determined therefore, as a tentative measure, to reduce the armament of such a vessel as the Revenge, hitherto carrying ninety-one guns, to seventy- one; the vessels being thus eased of 100 tons weight, and the loss of weight in broadside being made up by the advantage of haring a few very heavy shots. With regard to our iron-eased fleet, Lord Clarence Paget stated that according to present arrangement there would be eleven such vessels afloat, in 1863 twelve, and in 1864 the full number now in process of construction- fif teen—would be completed. It was also the intention of the Government to ask the Committee to consent to the construction of a totally new style of vessel—a species of floating battery with six cupolas, according to the plan proposed last year by Captain Coles, and each mounting two large guns. She would have no masts, but would trust entirely to steam. After adverting to numerous details in connexion with an increased fleet, the noble Lord concluded by moving the first vote of 3,078,121/. for the wages of 74,850 seamen and marines.

A prolonged discussion then took place upon many of the points raised in Lord Clarence Paget's speech, and the two first votes having been agreed to, the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the House adjourned.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday,

Lord DERBY gave notice that on Thursday evening he should ask Earl Russell whether he had received any information relative to the extraordinary

proclamation which had recently appeared in the Neapolitan papers, and which ordered that every house within a large district should be levelled to the ground, interdicted all persons from setting foot within such district, and declared that if provisions for more than one day 'were found in any farmhouse its inmates would be treated as brigands, and immediately shot.

Lord RUSSELL had received no information on the subject, and would be glad if Lord Derby would send him a copy of the proclamation.

In the House of Commons,

Mr. BENTINCK (Norfolk) moved that certain alterations should be made in the Rules of the House, the effect of which would be that in case of a count-

out, the name of the Member moving that the House be counted should be inserted next morning in the votes and proceedings of the House. His object in making the proposal was to prevent the privileges of independent Members from being virtually abolished by the practice of counting out the House whenever an inconvenient subject was being discussed. An arrangement was entered into between the distinguished occupants of the two front benches, and carried out by the "whips," and the name of the Member who lent himself to the plan of interrupting public business was never known. Last Session there were twelve counts-out, and in 1860 there were thirteen. The effect of thirteen counts-out was simply to deprive independent Members of thirteen nights, or just one-half of the portion of the Session. placed at their disposal. He also proposed to limit the period during which the Speaker may be called upon to count the House to the interval between one Member's sitting down and another rising.

Mr. KNIGHTLY (Northamptonshire) seconded the motion. It frequently happened that, on occasions when 600 Members voted, and the fate of a

Ministry depended upon the result, there were not forty members present at some period of the debate. If that was the case during important de- bates, &fortiori it might be expected to occur on ordinary occasions. If it was really necessary for the transaction of business that forty Members should be present, he would move that when the Speaker's attention was called to the fact, the doors should be shut, and the House counted without the alarm-bell having been previously sounded.

Sir GEORGE GREY (Home Secretary) opposed the motion, which he thought would tend very much to discredit the proceedings of the House.

It was not in the power of anybody to stifle discussion on any subject, however inconvenient, if forty Members considered it ought to be discussed. Besides other objections to the proposal, the limitation of the time for moving that the House be counted to the interval between one speech and another, would enable any Member to make a speech of three or four hours' duration; and then, by counting out the House, prevent any one from speaking after him. Lord ROBERT CECIL (Stamford) supported the motion. The present system of counting-out was the solitary instance of secresy in our Parlia- mentary institution. If a Member chose to denounce a Minister, he must -do so in the face of day, and his name was known. If he wished to de- nounce a particular policy, he did not shrink from publicity. But if he wished to insult a man against whom he had an enmity, or stop discussion upon a subject which both those in office and those likely to be wished to avoid, he had only to slink behind the Speaker's chair, where, unseen and unknown, he was enabled to put a stop to the legislative proceedings of the House.

Mr. BERNAL Ontortaz (Liskeard) protested against any attempt to heap odium on that meritorious body of men, the counters-out, who "did good by stealth, and blushed to find it fame." On a division, the motion was negatived by 219 to 43. Mr. LINDSAY (Sunderland) then moved a resolution declaring the opinion of the House that her Majesty's Government ought to carry into effect the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1861, or at least such of them as were unanimously adopted by the said Committee. One of the principal of these recommendations was that, for the future, hired transports should be employed to a far greater extent than at present, being much less costly than Government transports. They also recommended the creation of a Transport Department, by which a great saving in expense would be effected. Sir G. C. LEwis (Secretary for War) opposed the motion. He did not believe that any great reduction in the number of officials employed would be effected by the consolidation of the transport business of the different despatches into one Board. The abolition of the Emigration Board, and the division of its duties between the Colonial Office and the proposed Transport Board was a step which would be attended with serious difficul- ties. Government admitted the soundness of the principle of the recom- mendation of the Committee, but hoped that the House would leave to their discretion the steps to be taken in carrying it out.

After some further discussion, the motion was withdrawn.

Mr. H. SEYMOUR (Poole) moved a resolution in favour of a revision of the Ecclesiastical Statutes. Three great branches of our law had been consolidated within the last ten years, and as there was not much business before Parliament this Session, he hoped they would turn their attention to the consolidation of the Ecclesiastical Statutes. He did not propose to touch the simply religious statutes, but of the 2300 temporal statutes, which formed part of the Ecclesiastical Law, at least 1500 might be cancelled.

The Soracrrost-GmEnaL opposed the resolution as being inexpedient and productive of no advantage. A bill would be introduced this Session to remove from the Statute Book all obsolete statutes passed between the time when legislation commenced and the end of the reign of Henry VIL, and it was certainly desirable that a similar process should be applied to the Ecclesiastical Statutes, before the herculean task of consolidation, which was not even recommended by the commission referred to by Mr. Seymour. He could not for a moment agree with Mr. Seymour's division of the statutes into religious and temporal, as there was scarcely an act which was not, strictly speaking, specially concerning temporal matters. Several other Members having addressed the House, Mr. Salmon's withdrew his resolution.

Mr. ROLT (Gloucestershire) obtained leave to bring in a bill making it imperative on the Courts of Chancery to determine every question of law or fact necessary to enable them to administer the jurisdiction they possessed. As the law stood, questions of law and fact were constantly referred to the courts of law for decision; much delay and expense to suitors being caused by such procedure.

The SOLICITOR GF.NERAL stated that the Lord Chancellor would introduce a similar bill in the other House.

The House having gone into Committee,

Mr. COWPER (First Commissioner of Works) again moved for leave to introduce a bill authorizing the application of the Coal and Lime Duty Fund to the construction of a sunk road between Bayswater and Kensing- ton. A long discussion then arose, and, finally, Mr. Cowper, "seeing that the feeling of the House was so decidedly against the bill," withdrew it, and the House adjourned.

On Wednesday, in the same House,

On the order for the second reading of the Conveyance of Voters Bill, Mr. CAVE (New Shoreham) moved as an amendment that it be read a second time that day six months. The borough be represented, like some half-dozen others, was composed of a large tract of country, and the effect of the bill in such cases would simply be to disfranchise the rural districts, and throw all the power into the town portion of the constituency, a result certainly not contemplated at the creation of rural boroughs. Besides, the very object of an election was to ascertain the exact state of popular feeling, and by deliberately preventing all who were unable to walk, and too poor to hire, they would, to a considerable extent, defeat that object.

After some further discussion, Mr. Comaita (Plymouth) who had charge of the bill, urged the House to pass this short and simple measure so as to be in force at the next dis- solution. He met the objection that the bill would disfranchise the poor voters by replying that it was not the business of the candidate to enfran- chise him ; if funds were needed for the purpose the State should supply them. He had adopted the recommendation of the Committee that the counties should be exempted from the operation of the bill, not on principle, but as a compromise.

Sir GEORGE GREY (Home Secretary) said the bill would receive his most cordial support, as he considered the testimony in its favour to be overwhelming.

On a division, there appeared, for the second reading, 130; against it, 160; and the amendment was then put and carried.

Mr. HADFIELD (Sheffield) then moved the third reading of the Qualifi- cation for Officers Bill (a bill to abolish oaths of office), and an amend- ment that it be read that day six months, moved by Mr. NEWDEGATE (Warwickshire), was rejected by 14 to 127.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday,

Lord DERBY put the question of which he had given notice, relative to the alleged Neapolitan proclamation, which he described as "a disgrace to humanity itself." Earl RUSSELL, while agreeing with Lord Derby as to the atrocity of the proclamation, questioned its authenticity, and expressed considerable doubt whether its appearance in the Armenia was sufficient evidence of its existence.

The Earl of DERBY repeated his question, as to whether any information on the subject bad been received. Earl RUSSELL replied that he had telegraphed to Sir James Hudson on the previous day, but had not yet received any answer. Lord MALMESBURY hoped that in case of the document being found to be genuine, Lord Russell would express an opinion as to the conduct of his agents at Turin and Naples in not having informed Government of its existence.

The Duke of ARGYLL stated that an Italian gentleman had informed him on the previous night that the story of the proclamation had already been strictly inquired into, and the upshot was that it was proved to be a mere rechauffe of an old proclamation issued by Murat.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved for leave to introduce a measure for the amendment of some matters connected with the law of lunacy, and stated at once that he had been induced to take this step by the flagrant exposure of the defects of the existing system consequent upon the Windburn trial. Nothing could be more objectionable, as affecting both parties, than the present system. He proposed, in cases of lunacy, to proceed by a writ to one of the judges in Westminster Hall, directing him to try the case as a simple issue of fact, and limit the jury to twelve ; to confine the investigation to the conduct of the alleged lunatic for the year immediately preceding the first, and to exclude all scientific evidence, except in cases where the subject was removed from the opinion of ordinary men. It must be remembered that the rear

question in a lunacy case was whether the alleged lunatic was capable of managing his affairs, an issue which ordinary men are quite competent to try. It was impossible that any good could result from the production in evidence of half a dozen contradicting theories by half a dozen medical men.

With a view to reduce the minor expenses attendant upon lunacy cases, he proposed that when the property of the alleged lunatic was satisfactorily found not to exceed 10001., the Lord Chancellor should be empowered to effect by a summary order the same object as would have been effected under a commission of lunacy.

Lords Sr. LEONARDS, CEANWORTH, and CHELMSFORD briefly addressed the House, and while expressing their satisfaction that the subject had been taken up by Government, reserved their opinion on many of the details, until that bill had been laid before the House.

In the House of Commons,

Mr. AYRTON (Tower Hamlets) asked if it was the intention of Govern- ment to adopt the course proposed by Mr. Walpole with regard to the Re- vised Code-that the House should go into Committee to consider the whole- question.

Sir G. GREY declined to answer the question before Mr. Walpole had stated what was the nature of the resolution he proposed to move in Com- mittee.

Mr. WALPOLE (Cambridge University) said be had not given notice of his. motion with a view to the House going into Committee on any specific plan of his own, but to afford one more opportunity of putting forward his views on the subject.

A long and somewhat confused discussion then ensued, at the dose of which Mr. HENLEY (Oxfordshire) complained that no definite announce- ment had been made by the Government as to the course they really intended to take.

The House then went into Committee of Supply on the Naval Estimates- Several votes having been agreed to, the House resumed.

Sir G. C. LEWIS (Secretary-at-War) brought in a bill the object of which was to relieve her Majesty from the onerous task of attaching her sign manual to three different documents, in order to ratify every commission granted to military officers.

The Souorron-GENERAL introduced a bill to amend the law of copyright as affecting works of art, and the House adjourned.