Ethers nut VrarrrMugu iu Vurliniutat.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF TILE WEEK.

Hoots or Loans. Tuesday, April 16. Divorce Courts Bill read a second time—. Oxford lJniversity Bill read a second time. Thursday. April 19. The Reform Bill ; Lord Grey's Motion. Friday, April 29. Diplomatic Correspondence ; Lord Normanby's motion postponed—Election Franchise in Counties and Borough,; Lord Grey's Com- mittee nominated.

Horse OP COMMONS. Monday. April 16. Naval Affairs ; Sir Charles Napier's, and SirJ.Elphinstone's Complaints—Supply ; Navy Estimates—Census (England) Bill read a drst time.

Tuesday, April 17. Fisheries (Ireland) Bill read a first time—Adulteration of Food and Drink Bill read a third time and passed—Common Lodging House (Ire- land) Bill read a second time. Wednesday. April 18. Conveyance of voters; Mr. Collier's Bill, debate ad- journed—Attonieys and Solicitors ;. Mr. Murrays Bill read a second time—Jews Act Amendment ; Mr. T. Duncorobe's BM read a second time.

Thursday, April 19. Foreign Relations; • Lord John Russell's Statement—Sup- ply ; Navy Estimates--Sir.T. Barnard's Act Repeal Bill ; debate adjourned—Church- Rates Abolition Bill ; debate adjourned. .Friday. April 20. The Great Fight ; Mr. Ewart's Question—The Reform ; Mr. E. James's Question—Paper Duty Repeal Bill committed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Earl GREY moved on Thursday the following resolution proposing a very extensive inquiry in relation to the Government Reform Bill for England Fuld Wales :— " That a select committee be appointed to inquire what would be the probable increase of the number of electors in the counties and boroughs of England and Wales from a reduction of the franchise, and whether any and what change was likely to be made in the character of the constituen- cies by such increase, and also to inquire what difference there was between large and small constituencies ha respect of the proportion of the registered electors who usually voted in contested elections, and into the causes of any such difference which might be found to exist, likewise into the means by which elections in very large constituencies were practically, determined, and into the expenae incurred in conducting than." One reason why he asked for this committee was that doubts had been thrown on the accuracy of the returns presented to Parliament, showing the probable increase of the constituency under the working of a 6/. franchise. Many persons have declared that they arc ready to show that these returns are fallacious, and that not 200,000 but 400,000 at least voters will be added to the constituency. If witnesses could be called before a committee, including the officers who prepared the returns, the discrepancies could be cleared up. It is not right that the Govern- ment should have made no estimate of the probable addition to the

county constituencies by lowering the franchise to 101. Then they

ought to inquire into the character of the constituencies to be created, some of which will be enormous, and to learn why it is that only a small number of electors vote in these large constituencies. It may be the control of elections falls into the hands of a cabal ; that the size of the constituency renders the indi- vidual voter indifferent, and that no value is set upon the privilege. No man derives any advantage from being a voter. But it is of moment to every man that the election of Members shall be so regulated as to afford the best security that the country is well governed and the into. rests of every class fairly consulted. Lord Grey expressing his indi- vidual opinion that no change in the constitution is necessary or expe- dient, said that seemed to hint to be the opinion of the majority who have written on the subject in a dispassionate tone. Only a small frac- tion wishes to disturb the existing balance. Ninety-nine out of a hun- dred would rather abide by the constitution as it is than enter on a barren struggle for some measure, the fatal working of which would only be known by experience. Here Lord Grey, taking the latest re- ports of proceedings in the United States Congress, held up the working of the Amerimm constitution as an example to be avoided. He did not think finality belonged to human legislation, but we have a constitution which secures the blessings of good government and the largest amount of liberty, and that arrangement ought not to be lightly disturbed.

The Duke of ARGYLL said the Government would not oppose the mo- tion, and were willing an inquiry should be instituted so far as a proper and useful direction can be given to it :— " It must be, however, on the distinct understanding, which I believe my noble friend admits, that it is a bona fide motion for the purpose of obtain- ing information which will guide us in our deliberations on the measure of reform when it coiner up from the other House of Parliament, and not a motion for the purpose of shelving the question, or causing unnecessary de- lay in the progress of the bill."

Having defended the accuracy of the Government returns, the Duke of .Argyll rebuked Lord Grey for giving the House an hour's lecture on the degeneracy of democracy in America,—a lecture not needed by that House, and not applicable to the measure proposed by the present or any Government. He heard Lord Grey's language on the expediency of reform with astonishment, for Lord Grey was a member of a Govern- ment which in 1852 proposed to reduce the borough franchise to a Si.. rating. He was not then an inexperienced statesman, and he could not escape from the responsibility. It was said that the question had been raised in 1852 through the personal indiscretion of Lord John Russell. (" Hear, hear !" frost Lord Grey.) The question did not originate in any personal desire of Lord John Russell to take up the subject. He agreed to bring in a bill because the Liberal party thought the question could not be treated in detail. The Duke of Argyll then made some cutting allusions to the bill of the late Government, and quoted the con- tradictory speeches of Mr. Disraeli, especially that one wherein, at the eleventh hour, he talked of lowering the borough franchise. The Duke defended the Government bill, and contended that the leading men of all parties do desire a settlement of the question during the present session.

The Earl of DERBY entered into an elaborate defence of the bill of the late Government—a measure defeated by an ungenerous device—ques- tioned the accuracy of the returns referred to by Lord Grey, and trusted both Houses would take full time to consider the data produced by the inquiry. "I should deprecate it as a great misfortune if this House should be under the necessity of rejecting a measure sent up by the House or Commons, or, by important modifications of it, seek to force upon the House of Commons provisions which they did not approve. I do not mean to say that the ques- tion does not vitally affect your lordships. It affects the whole country generally—it affects the whole constitution but it is important that the main provisions of a measure which relates directly to the representation of the other House should be introduced with the sanction of that House. Still, whatever may be the objections to a modification or rejection, if this bill were to come up to your lordships in its present state, with its present simple provisions—simple they are called, and simple they are, undoubtedly, in one sense, but most dangerous they will be found—I should think its re- jection for the purpose of further consideration infinitely preferable to the adoption of a measure, the moat unstatesmanlike, the most unconstitutional, and the most inconclusive of any which has been submitted by any Govern- ment on this important subject." Lord Derby having assailed the measure of the present Government, said :—" I do think it is a matter of the deepest importance that there should be a full, searching, and impartial inquiry foe- fore the committee moved for by the noble earl. I hope that whatever time may be occupied by the Committee in bona fide inquiries, the Government will not attempt to force through, in ignorance of facts which are necessary for our proper judgment, a measure, whether for weal or woe, the most im- portant which has ever been submitted to Parliament, and which, in its pre- sent state, I am painfully convinced is likely to endanger the whole balance of the constitution, to make the House of Commons irreconcilable with the practice of this House, and to lead to perpetual collisions between the two Houses, which it is the bounden duty of every Minister to keep in harmo- nious action. If, unhappily, the bill, unguarded by other provisions, should pass, and a. preponderance of power be given to one class, I fear that the re- suit will be not only to unsettle the constitution of the country, but either to make your lordships' House a permanent obstacle to legislation, or to sweep it away altogether, and with it to sweep away the Monarchy and our most cherished institutions. I do not say this to prevent its adoption after full discussion or its adoption, if it be wise and practicable, but because it is • of vital consequence that no step, which must be irrevocable, should be un- advisedly- taken in a matter of such deep importance. (Loud cheers.) Earl Gnsarvua.a, after vindicating the Duke of Argyll from the attacks of Lord Derby, said that the Government would go into the committee for the purpose of giving those who disbelieved in the accuracy of the returns the opportunity of discovering that the Government had not based its calculations on insufficient data. He considered that the pre- sent time was the most opportune for allowing this bill to pass, and pointed out that the language used by Lord Derby would give support to the assertions made out of doors by Mr. Bright, that the bill would not pass through the House of Lords for two or three sessions. He did not agree with Mr. Bright's assertion, because he knew it was the wish of their Lordships to do all in their power to give stability to the insti- tutions of the country.

In the course of his reply, Lord GREY explained at some length to the House the reasons by which he bad been induced to assent to Lord John Russell's bill of 1852, and freely acknowledged, at the same time, that it was a mistake on his part in so doing.

"Having had some anticipation that some remark might be made on that subject, I have obtained the permission other Majesty to refer to what took place in the Cabinet at that period. My explanation is a very simple one. / cheered the observation of the noble duke when he said, I implied that the Reform Bill of 1852 originated from the indiscretion of my noble friend then at the head of the Government. I am bound to say that I think the original difficulty on this subject arose from the fact which is, I believe, well known to all your lordships, although it may never, perhaps, have been publicly stated—namely, that Lord John Russell, as the head of the Cabinet, without any previous concert or communication with his colleagues, committed himself by expressing the opinion that the time was come when a change might be made in the measure of 1832. That opinion was expressed without the intention to ex- press it having been intimated, as far as I know, to any one of his colleagues, and certainly not to the Cabinet. I believe when that announce- ment was made, it was not approved by any, or at least by more than one or two Members of the Cabinet. For myself, I can say it had my most en- tire disapproval—a feeling which I did not attempt to conceal, as Lord John Russell can acetify. Considering the inconvenience that I foresaw would ensue from the manner in which Lord John Russell had given that pledge, and with the opinion I entertained and avowed as to the proceeding, it was with extreme reluctance that I consented, after those occurrences, to con- tinue a Member of that Administration. But, looking at all the circum- stances of that time I felt it to be my duty to remain in the Government ; yet I did so, distinctly reserving to myself the right not to be regarded as standing pledged teeny measure of reform until I saw what might be pro- posed, and not disguising my conviction that to disturb the question at all was inexpedient if it could be avoided. Such was the situation of affairs when Parliament was about to meet in 1852. The Reform Rill, which was afterwards laid upon the table of the House of Commons, was submitted to the Cabinet. For my own part, I never approved it. I thought it open to the graveet objection. But, m Lords., I was induced to consent to it being introduced into Parliament by this one consideration—I knew that the Government was on the eve of falling, and it so hap- pened that at that time the principal attacks made upon it were directed against the particular department with which I was intrusted. I did not think that it would be honourable towards my colleagues. or right towards myself, that at such a moment I should appear to run away from the post which I held ; and being persuaded that the bill had not the remotest chance of passing—having stated that to the Cabinet before it was brought in, I undoubtedly acquiesced in its introduction. My Lords, I freely acknowledge that I made a grievous mistake. Although my antici- pations, both as to the fall of the Government and the utter failure of that bill—which I will say unreservedly deserved to fail—were fulfilled, I con- fess I had not sufficiently weighed the importance of having a measure of reform recommended by the Crown to the attention of Parliament, or of having a Government responsible for the introduction of such a measure. I frankly admit that I was greatly to blame for allowing any consideration of any other kind to induce me to waive my objections to that measure and become a party to it. My Lords, I am afraid that, in the present state of public affairs, there is no public man on either side of this House who can honestly acquit himself of having ever committed mistakes with regard to this important subject. I believe we have all been more or less to blame ; but I think the time has come when, without reference to any feeling of reluctance to acknowledge past errors, or, indeed, any personal feeling whatever, we ought to deal with this grave question as the public interests demand.

Lord Grey contrasted the circumstances of the present time and those of 1832, and contended that they were entirely different ; in the one case there was great public excitement, while at the present moment there was nothing in the public feeling to urge forward the measure before the House with undue haste.

"As to the sortt, of understanding of which the noble duke has spoken on which this inquiry is to be conducted, I must profess my entire agreement with the noble earl opposite. Most undoubtedly I do not move for this committee with any intention of delaying the Bill. I believe we shall have time to obtain the information we require before we are called upon to con- sider the details of the Bill now before the other House of Parliament ; but if the Bill comes before us earlier than I at present suppose, or if the inquiry should prove wider and lead us further—and I see important information bearing on the Bill likely to be elicited—I utterly, repudiate the idea that we ought to force the Bill forward without waiting for information."

Motion agreed to Tire Reronsr BILL.

fr. MASSEY' has given notice that, after the second reading of the Reform rill, he will move that it shall be referred to a Select Com- mittee.

FOREIGN Power.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply on Thursday Mr. HOUSMAN put a variety of questions to Lord John Russell, and called at- tention to the state of our foreign relations generally. The points in reference to which he requested information were these— first, whether the last despatch of M. Thouvenel had been replied to, and if it would be consistent with the public interests to lay a copy of it on the table; next, whether the question of the annexation of Savoy was left where If. Thouvenel's despatch had placed it, and whether the Government were content to regard it as a settled question ; and lastly, what was the principle on which our policy was to be conducted with regard to those treaty obli- gations which we had incurred in the general interests, and for the common safety of Europe. He demanded an explanation upon these several questions, that Parliament, the country, and all Europe, might know ythether they were to assume that the aggressions of France in Savoy and Switzerland were mere accidental and exceptional occurrences, the adjust- ment of which would be followed by the reistablishment of peace, security, and confidence, or whether these acts were to be taken as indications of the deliberate policy of France, of which the consequence must be the harassing and unsettling of the other powers, and the destruction of the treaties of 1815. The aim of these treaties was to confine France within her own limits, and to guard Europe against the danger which was perpetually arising from the restlessness of French ambition. Until the annexation of Savoy was accomplished, that principle had never been violated, and it was this principle of a limited France, with a frontier de- fined by the unanimous judgment of Europe, that was now for the first time assailed and overridden by the Emperor of the French. In this state of things, he thought that a protest by England against the principle that smaller states had the right to make cessions of territory without bringing the treaties of 1815 under the notice of the great Powers which were parties to them, would be of the utmost service. The position of the minor Ger- man States was analogous to that of Central Italy, and the case of Savoy would be used as a precedent for following a similar policy in Germany. He warned the House against the consequences of allowing a great military

Power like France to absorb her frontier states ; for assuredly, if she wore permitted to do so, she would by degrees humble the continental Powers, until England would be left alone, if not at the mercy of France, at all events, in a position in which she would find it extremely difficult to assert her title to be considered the foremost Power of Europe. Mr. Deer gave it as his opinion that England was not adequately re- presented at Paris in the present critical conjuncture. Lord Cowley had been too long within the influence of the Parisian atmosphere. The noble Lord had been there eight years, which was quite long enough, and his diplomatic performances abundantly proved that he was not strong enough for the place.

Lord JOHN Ressnix did not quite understand with what purpose Mr. Hbreman had brought the subject again before the House. The privi- lege of addressing the House in the tone assumed by that right honour- able gentleman was accompanied by a responsibility which he had not sufficiently weighed. He seemed to think that Chablais and Faucigny were a part of the Swiss territory, and that French Government were about to invade or take possession of it, contrary to the rights of the Federation ; but, whatever were the dangers that had to be encountered, that at least was not the present situation of affairs. Her Majesty's Go- vernment had made no secret of its opinion that such a tranfer of terri- tory would be injurious to the interests of Europe, and be a disturbance of the settlement of 1815; but they were not entitled to say to the King of Sardinia that he should not cede his territory to the Emperor of the French, or to the latter that he should not accept it. This was the opinion of the Russian Government, who had stated that it was a matter that en- tirely concerned the two Sovereigns. In fact, he had not been able to ascer- tain that any of the Powers of Europe had said even so much as Eng- land upon the subjeet. The question now at issue was how to maintain , the neutrality of the ceded territory in the sense in which the Great I Powers wished to establish it, and France had consented to submit that point to the decision of a Conference. Mr. Horsman appeared to think that this country was the slave of France, and too cowardly to stand by their Mends; but if that were so, he should have declared for some more decided line of policy, with the view of taking the management of affairs out of hands which had allowed Great Britain to become a byword among the Powers of Europe. With regard to the reply of her Ma- jesty's Government to M. Thouvenel's last despatch, they had not re- ceived any rejoinder, as M. Thouvenel had contented himself by Barg that the reply did not amount to a protest. In conclusion, Lord John Russell emphatically denied that in these negotiations her Majesty's Ministers had been unmindful of the honour and dignity of the couutty„

Lord Paratemsrost defended our Ambassador at Paris from the impu- tations cast upon him by Mr. Duff, and asserted that her Majesty had no more judicious or efficient public servant than Lord Cowley.

Mr. KINGLAKE agreed generally with all that had fallen from Mr. newsman, but objected to a protest, on the ground that it was an indication rather of weakness than of strength, and exposed the machinery employed to induce the Nizzards to vote for France.

THE DIVORCE COURT.

The Loan ;CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of the Divorce Court Bill, intended to improve the procedure of that court. This court was at first experimental. The judges were the Lord Chancellor' the three chiefs of the common law courts, and the senior puisne judge, with the Judge-Ordinary. It was enacted by the Bill establishing the court that, as regards a very considerable portion of the business, the Judge- Ordinary, sitting by himself; should have power to do all that could be done by that tribunal ; but there were several matters that wore reserved for what was called the full court, consisting of three members—the Judge-Ordinary and two common law judges to assist him. There was

i

great difficulty n obtaining this full court, the judges being so much occupied with the increased business in their own courts and at cham- bers, going circuit, and attending that House ; and, to meet this diffi- culty, it was enacted that all the judges of the common law courts should be competent to act as justices of this tribunal, the number being thus raised to seventeen. But still that was found an inadequate arrange- ment. All the business that could be done by the Judge-Ordinary sit- ting alone was speedily and satisfactorily disposed of, but that which re- quired the attendance of three judges fled fallen most lamentably into arrear. Without the greatest inconvenience, and interfering with the administration of justice in other courts, it was found impossible to ob- tain the attendance of two common law judges to sit along with the Judge-Ordinary in full court.. It was, therefore, suggested by Lord Lyndhurst that the proper course would be to enable the Judge-Ordinary to do all that might be done subject to an appeal, with authority at all times to call in another judge, or two other judges, and leaving it to his discretion when that should be done. Lord Campbell adopted that sug- gestion and it is the principal matter contained in the bill.

Lord Sr. Leoremtns said there were strong objections to the measure on the ground that the decisions of a single judge would not carry the weight of a full oourt, but he would not oppose the second reading.

Lord LYNDHURST showed that the arrears could not be worked off un- less the powers of the Court are intrusted to a single judge. In two years and a half; 117 oases of divorce, a vincula, have been disposed of, while 232 remain to be heard. At this rate, it would take four years to dispose of the arrears alone. As to a single judge, trials for orim. eon., and suits for divorce, a menial et there, formerly took place before a single Judge ; while in the Equity Coerte, the Master of the Rolls and the Vice-Chancellor sit separately. Why, therefore, not trust the judge of the Divorce Court to sit alone in deciding cases that come before him? No doubt collusion should be guarded against, but how are three judges sitting in a court more competent for the purpose than a single judge ? On every ground, he hoped the bill would be read a second time. Lord Case-wows supported the bill; and Lord REDESDALB urged objections to divorce in general.

The bill was read a second time.

THE NAVY ESTINATES.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Esti- mates, Sir CHARLES NAPIER complained of the unsatisfactory state of the Navy. The Channel Fleet is indifferently manned. There is a went of petty officers, who are the backbone of the Navy, and of midshipmen. No encouragement has been given to the lower class of officers to rise in the Navy, and even the grant of a pension to the widows of warrant offi- cers was done in a shabby way. There have been mutinies, extending • even to the marines, (and strict and severe measures should be adopted.

Why has the bounty been cut down when the fleet is not manned? Then the petty officers can be disrated at the pleasure of the captain, but they should be tried by courtsmartial. Sailors also should not be flogged without trial. He complained of the obstacles in the way of men get- ting leave ; objected to the use of the blockships ; declared that the num- bers of the coastguard had been overrated, and that the coast volunteers cannot be relied on.

Sir Jowl E.trancwrobra then called attention to the case of post-cap- tains on the reserved list, who he contended, are deprived, by regula- tions, of pay and privileges that are then due. Mr. LINDSAY admitted the hardship, but dwelt upon the cost of half-pay (690,0001. a year) and the cost of pensions and allowances (448,0001. a year.) Mr. Lindsay ob- jects to the increase of midshipmen, and proposes to give officers of the mercantile navy a status as officers of reserve, and to make petty officers act as,midahipmen. He complained of the enorlhous expenditure, point- ed out that savings could be made in the construction of ships and the purchase of material, and he advocated a searching inquiry. Sir MI- CHAEL SEYMOUR backed up the claims of Sir J. Elphinstone on behalf of the captains on the reserved list. Sir JOHN PAICINGTON said the claim was not without foundation, and he recommended the Admiralty to take • a generous view of the matter. Sir Fnewars BARING, who drew up the order on which the claims were founded, said it was never intended to bear the construction put upon it, and that this order gave the officers "promotion and nothing else."

Mr. HENLEY diverted attention from this point by an able examination of the report and evidence of the Dockyard Commissioners, showing that there was not only heavy cost, but that bad, unseasoned material has been used in the construction of ships of war, because precautions had not been taken to have a sufficient store on hand. Scamping in ma- terial, he said, is much worse than scamping labour. Scamping on la- bour is more easily seen and remedied if discovered ; but scamping in timber used in shipbuilding is most destructive. That the store of sea- soned timber was insufficient is a grave charge—a censure on the Ad- miralty. Yet six superintendents, the Comptroller of the Navy, and the Storekeeper did not notice the charge. Mr. Henley made good his state- ment by quoting extensively from the evidence. The First Lord, he said, seemed to consider a store, 60,000 loads, sufficient, but Mr. Henley declared that it is insufficient to meet the ordinary demands of the ser- vice and keep up a store of seasoned timber. He did not desire to blame any particular Board, but to show that the store of timber has not been maintained in quantities sufficient to meet the demands of a steam navy. Mr. WILLIAMS complained of the waste in the naval departments. Sir H. LEEEB defended flogging. Mn BENTINCK contended that our new financial policy would cripple our resources and render national de- fence impossible.

After this long prelude, the Speaker left the chair, and the House going into committee on the Navy Estimates, went steadily to work, and discussed the votes in detail for the remainder of the sitting. Lord CLARENCE Peorr then proposed to answer the speakers in the debate, but several Members declared that proposal unprecedented, and instead of a connected statement, the Secretary of the Admiralty was obliged to confine himself to the questions raised by the votes. The vote respect- ing timber did not come on for discussion before the chairman reported progress after midnight. Lord CLARENCE PAGET on Thursday replied to Sir Charles Napier and Mr. Henley. The former he represented as encouraging a spirit of discontent in the men by representing that they have too much drill and too little leave, whereas they have on an average only two hours' drill daily, and more leave than men ever had before. It cannot be expected that a fleet so suddenly created, and wanting petty officers, could immediately be raised to a high state of discipline. To Mr. Henley he said that his attack on the subject of timber in store was really directed against Sir John Pakington, who only took money enough to keep up a two years' stock. The fact is, however, that a supply for two years is enough, as the foreign timber used does not require so much seasoning as British oak. Although we shall consume 60,000 loads this year—all ow stock—means have been taken to purchase in addition enough timber for two years.

The House went into committee on the Navy Estimates, and agreed to a great many votes.

TIM WEDNESDAY SITTING.

Three bills, brought in by private Members, were discussed and advanced a stage at the sitting of the House of Commons on Wednes- day.

Mr. COLLIER moved the second reading of the Conveyance of Voters Bill. At present, it is lawful to provide conveyances for voters, but not lawful to pay their travelling expenses. Now, the House must either al- low, or prohibit the payment of travelling expenses. The bill prohibits that payment. At the same time, it provides for the multiplication of polling places. The present system increases the power of the purse, and will throw the representation of counties into the hands of manufacturing millionaires. Mr. NEWDEGATE, remarking that the bill would disfranchise a large number of valuable voters in counties, moved that it be read a second

time that day six months. •

Sir GEORGE LEWIS, dwelling on the difficulties of the question, re- minded the House that a Committee is sitting to inquire into corrupt practices at elections, and that the abuse dealt with by Mr. Collier, was only a part of the subject. As regards boroughs Sir George agreed with Mr. Collier, but not as regards counties. Nevertheless, he thought that a prohibition could easily be evaded, and rendered inoperative. The best way would be either to read the bill a second time, and• refer it to the committee, or adjourn the debate until the committee has pre- sented its report.

Mr. HENLEY supporting the latter suggestion, Mr. NEWDEGATE with- drew his amendment. The debate went on, and in the course of it, Lord Hama Vaxs pointed to voting papers as the true remedy of the evil. There was a strong feeling in favour of the second reading, but on a di- vision, the debate was adjourned by 94 to 81. Mr. MURRAY next moved the second reading of the Attorneys and Solicitors Bill. He explained that Mr. Locke had brought in a bill on the same subject, which had reached the House of Lords, but it did not include clauses contained in a bill which had passed through the -Upper

House last session. It was, therefore, thought desirable that a new bffi should be brought in :—

The object of the bill is to increase the respectability and educational qualifications of attorneys, solicitors, &c. The bill enables persons who have taken degrees at certain universities to be admitted as attorneys or solicitors after three years' service as articled clerks and after an examina- tion. In like manner, banisters, after leaving the bar and undergoing exa- mination, might be admitted as attorneys and solicitors at the end of three years' service. One of the clauses provided that persons, having been bon& fide managing clerks to attorneys or solicitors for ten years, might be ad- mitted after three years' service. There were other clauses relating to the nature of the examination to be carried on, and likewise certain clauses which were proposed to be inserted in Committee, having reference to the fees for the registrar's certificates. The bill repealed theprovision of the existing law, which disqualified attorneys from being magistrates, but pro- vided, at the same time, that no person should be a Justice of the peace for any county where he carried on his practice. Strong objections to the measure were urged by Mr. Exionx, Mr. Jonx LOCKE, Mr. EDWIN JAMES, Mr. OSBORNE, and Mr. Lou. -Under pretence, it was said, of improving the educational status of attorney's, the Incorporated Law Society, the real authors of this bill, ask the House to empower them to tax the whole body of attorneys and soli- citors. They absolutely sought power to tax every solicitor, who already paid 12 guineas a-year for his certificate, an additional sum of 58., which would yield them a revenue of about 6000/. a-year, for the application of which they would be responsible to nobody. The society may occa- sionally be instrumental in bringing delinquent members of the profes- sion to justice, but there is nothing in that or any other way which it is incumbent on them to do • and therefore it would be monstrous to give them such an irresponsible power of taxation. The clause which pre- cludes an attorney from acting as a Magistrate for a county in which he practices may be easily evaded, and, that being so, it would be fatal to the administration of justice if attorneys were to be allowed to sit side by side on the bench with their clients, over whose property and interests they had often considerable power. Again, a more monstrous proposition was never made than that which gives attorneys a statutable lien for costs over any property which they might recover or "preserve" for a client in any suit before a judicial tribunal, seeing that an attorney has already: a lien for costs on every deed and document in his possession belonging to a client. The tyranny implied in the proposition is further aggravated by the 19th clause which provided that the amount of an attorney's bill certified on taxation was to carry interest if not paid within three months.

Mr. KNIGHT moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Bovn,r, defended the bill. Objections were taken to the regis- tration-fee of 5s. The Incorporated Law Society were registrars by law, but they had not the means of making this registration. The council of this society were gentlemen of eminence in their profession, who gave their time and services without pay or remuneration for the interests of the profession, while they at the same time conferred a great advantage on the public at large. For himself, he should be prepared to recom- mend that funds, if necessary, should be placed at the disposal of the Incorporated Law Society, for the purpose of enabling it to purge the profession of its unworthy Members. At present, the Incorporated Law Society could not take the steps which the interests of the public required for want of funds. When it was remembered that the Stamp-duty amounted to 1201., no attorney would grudge the payment of a regis- tration-fee of 58. The Bill then dealt with the costs of solicitors, which ought also to form part of a Bill embracing the general interests of the legal profession.

Several Members stated that the Committee would be the proper place to deal with the clauses objected to, and on a division, the bill was read a second time by 191 to 29.

Mr. DUNCOXBE next pressed his Jews' Act Amendment Bill to a second reading. Mr. NEWDEGATE contending that it broke through the agree- ment come to by both Houses of Parliament two years ago, moved that it should be read a second time that day six months. Mr. SPOONER. se- conded the amendment, and it was supported by Mr. IINnairrLEY and Mr. HENLEY. But on a division, after a brief debate, the amendment was negatived by 117 to 75, and the bill was read a second time.

Bra Jon-w BARNARD'S Acr REPEAL BILL. This bill, which repeals the law rendering time bargains illegal, came on for the second reading after midnight on Thursday. Mr. Bearrntax at once moved the adjournment of the debate. Negatived by 156 to 67. Mr. BOVILL then moved that the House should adjourn. Negatived by 153 to 60. The obstruetives still re- solute, another moved the adjournment of the debate. Sir JOHN TRELAWNY shrewdly remarked that these interruptions were intended to prevent his Church-rates bill from coming on. The obstructives were indignant at the imputation, but they persisted, and the debate was adjourned.

Cnuitcn-RATES. On the motion for the third reading of the Church- Rate Abolition Bill, the Opposition renewed its obstructive tactics. Lord Iona. MANNERS moved the adjournment of the debate. Negatived by 131 to 76. Mr. LYGON moved the adjournment of the House. Negatived by 124 to 73. Mr. HUME moved the adjournment of the debate. Here Sir John gave in.