- ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

Hones or Lona!, Friday, March le—Discussion on the Revised Code. Monday, March 17---State of Southern Italy: Discussion on Lord Normanby's question. Tuesday, March 18.—Claims of Officers of the Insolvent Court.

Thursday, March 20.—Revised Code: Bishop of Oxford's Question, and Earl Granville's Reply. Roust or COMMONS, Friday, March 14.—Reforms in Turkey : Mr. Freeland's motion.—Consolidation of Statutes: The Attorney-General's reply to Sir F. Kelly.— The Bible in Spain: Mr. Kinnaird's question.- Supply. Monday, March 17.—Arrest of the Lieutenant of the Sumpter at Tangier: Mr. Lay- ard's statement—International Maritime Law : Adjourned Debate on Mr. Horsfall's Motion.

Tuesday, March 18.—Education, Science, and Art Estimates : Lord H. Lennox's motion—British Merchants in China: Mr. Gregson's motion.—Embankment of the Thames Bill: first reading. Wednesday. March 19.—Accidents Compensation Bill: Rejection of Motion for Second Reading.

Thursday, March 20.—Markets and Fairs (Ireland) Bill: Committee—Works of Art Copyright Bill: Committee

In the House of Lords,

Lord St. Leonards having presented several petitions against the group- ing of children for examination proposed in the Revised Code, the Bishop of LONDON addressed the House briefly on the subject, and expressed his conviction that the majority of the clergy were disposed to regard the Revised Code with more favourable feelings since the introduction of the recent modifications. If the concession was carried a little further, two- thirds only of the grant made dependent upon the result of the examina- tion, and the remaining one-third given for regular attendance, he believed nearly all the feelings of irritation with which the code had been received

would disappear. Children under seven had already been exempted from the examination, so that no new machinery would be needed for arriving at a correct result with regard to the attendance

Earl GRANVILLE replied. He thought the Bishop of London's sug- gestion would so diminish the force of the stimulus to elementary educa- tion, which constituted the main object of the Revised Code, that its adoption would, in fact, render the Revised Code utterly useless. Lord Granville also replied to the various objections urged by Lords St. Leonard's and Kingsdown, and their lordships adjourned.

In the House of Commons,

Mr. FREELAND (Chichester) in moving for certain correspondence relative to the mission of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster to inquire into the condition of Turkish finance, called the attention of the House to the extent to which English interests were involved in those of Turkey. Our exports to that country amounted in value to 4,500,0001. in 1860, and 3,000,0001. in 1861, and our imports from Turkey in the latter year reached 3,187,1091. Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster had been sent on a mission to inquire into Turkish finance; they had received every assistance from the Sultan and his Minis- ters • they had presented a report, and he contended that our merchants and capitalists were entitled to see the contents of that document.

Mr. LAYARD (Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs) entered upon the whole question of reforms in Turkey, which, he believed, though hitherto rendered impracticable by internal disturbances, would be carried out to a great extent by the energy of the present Sultan, in whom he had every confidence. He looked forward hopefully to the future of Turkey, and thought that one great thing in their favour was the fundamental honesty of the people. Turkey had never attempted repudiation, and he believed the best possible escape from its difficulties would be to carry out the sug- gestions contained in the valuable report of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster. He hoped, however, that Mr. Freeland would not press for that report until it could be produced without detriment and with the sanction of those for whose benefit it was drawn up. He added some financial details reported under "Turkey."

Mr. KINNAIRD (Perthshire) asked Lord Palmerston if it was the inten- tion of Government to take any steps in reference to the sentence of seven years in the galleys recently inflicted by the Spanish Government on Mata- moros and Alhama, the two victims of religious persecution, whose case had so often been brought before the House by the present Secretary for Ireland.

Lord Patmansrrox assured Mr. Kinnaird that no effort would be ne- glected by the Government which they considered might be conducive to the object he had in view, bat added that foreign intervention in the affairs of such a sensitive people as the Spanish, was a matter of great delicacy.

Mr. BLAKE (Waterford) maintained that the two prisoners in question had been convicted on account of political crimes, and not as Mr. Kinnaird asserted, merely for attempted proselytism.

Sir R. PEEL (Chief Secretary for Ireland) assured Mr. Blake that Matamoros and Alhama had never been connected with any political offence whatever.

The House then went into Committee of Supply on the Packet Service estimate of 915,8971., which was agreed to.

Mr. COWPER (First Commissioner of Works) obtained leave to bring in a bill for the concentration of all the Law Courts on a site between Carey Street on the north, Bell Yard on the east, the Strand on the south, and Clement's Inn on the west. The Surplus Interest Fund and the Surplus Suitor's Fee Fund, together amounting to about 1,400,0001., and at present vested in the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery, were avail- able for the purpose, leaving but 35,0001. as the maximum charge which could possibly fall on the public Exchequer.

In the House of Lords.

The Marquis of NORMARBY called the attention of the House to the severe sentences and heavy penalties imposed by the Italian Government upon the Armonia and other reactionist journals in the course of last year. The noble Marquis also entered upon the subject of the barbarous procla- mations issued by Piedmontese officers, and contended that such atrocities could not have been perpetrated without the sanction, direct or indirect, of the Italian Government. He adduced numerous instances, both of press prosecutions and alleged outrages by Piedmontese commanders, and con- cluded by boldly asserting that though the kingdom of the Two Sicifies only existed in the hearts of the people at present, if non-intervention was really adhered to, it would exist de facto long after the crotchets of Lords Palmerston and Russell had passed away. When the impostures of the last few years had been swept away, and not till then, would Italy be prosperous and happy.

Earl RUSSELL denied that the existence of bands of mere lawless ma- rauders, opposed to any regular Government, proved any real desire for the return of the old regime, or that the harsh measures for the repression of such brigandage taken by the Italian Government could be compared to the political and religious tyranny of any of the recently deposed sove- reigns. He was convinced that the kingdom of Italy would continue, and that General La Marmora would speedily reduce the unsettled provinces to order.

The Earl of MaLmssisunv took the occasion to repudiate warmly the charge of Austrian partiality which had so persistently been brought against himself and those who sat on the same side of the House, and defied anyone to find a syllable in one of his despatches which showed an unfair partiality one way or the other. He also commented rather severely on the manner in which Lord Normanby's question as to M. Fantoni's pro- clamation had been met by the Duke of Argyle on a previous evening, and urged the Government to disclaim publicly and distinctly any responsi- bility for the atrocities brought before the House by that noble Lord.

Lord WODEHOUSE, while admitting that Lord Malmesbury had acted with perfect impartiality, took credit to the Liberal party for having given a moral support to the Italian patriots, and defended the policy pursued by Government throughout the struggle.

After a few words from the Marquis of Clanricarde, their Lordships adjourned.

In the House of Commons,

Mr. LAYARD (Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs), in reply to Mr. Gnwarrm (Devizes), said that he had unwittingly misinformed the House on

a former occasion in stating that the two Confederate citizens arrested at Tangiers had been released. Under a threat of war from the American Consul, the Government of Morocco had given them up, and they were immediately shipped on board the U. S. frigate Ino for New York. He trusted, however, for the sake of humanity and justice, the President would order their release as soon as he heard of the circumstances of their arrest.

The adjourned debate on International Maritime Law was resumed by

Mr. LINDSAY' (Sunderland), on behalf of Mr. Cobden, who was prevented by severe hoarseness from availing himself of his possession of the House. He had stated in that House, so far back as 1857, that the time must come when merchandise should be as much respected at sea as on shore, and he urged upon the House the consideration that gigantic as our navy might be, it was utterly inefficient to protect our enormous and still increasing commerce. The benefits which we should derive from immunity for our merchandize would far more than counterbalance any injury we might sustain in relinquishing our superior advantages for burning and destroying in time of war.

The Loan ADVOCATE said a question concerning the interests of the whole civilized world was too important to be discussed with benefit to the country in that House. Laying down abstract principles on such questions was not the way to mitigate the horrors of war, and, before discussing any such question, we should realize the circumstances in which this country would be placed if the principle involved in Mr. Horsfall's motion were to come into operation. Its result would be, that with our strongest arm tied behind us we should be dragged into a chronic state of war, to carry on which an immense increase of our standing army would be necessary. The resolution in itself might appear humane, but the true interest of humanity was that war—if there must be war—should be made as short and sharp as possible, and the effect of the resolution would be, by dis- arming belligerents of their strongest weapons, indefinitely to prolong the duration of all war.

Sir STAFFORD alorrrncore (Stamford) while agreeing with the conclu- sion arrived at by the Lord Advocate, expressed his dissatisfaction with many of his assertions. He could not understand a minister saying "Remember that the treaty made in peace may be broken in war," after stating that he did not object to such abstract resolutions as the Declara- tion of Paris, when laid down by a congress of nations. If Government would give the matter their serious attention, he would join in an appeal to Mr. Borstal not to press his resolution.

After some further discussion,

Mr. BRIGHT (Birmingham) addressed the House in support of the reso- lution. Both Lords Derby and Russell had acknowledged the inviolability of the Declaration of Paris, although they might have doubted the ex- pediency of the step at the time. Notwithstanding his declaration of the other night, Lord Palmerston himself had advocated the principle of the motion in his speech at Liverpool, in 1857. The motion simply asked the Government to establish on the sea the warlike usages which prevailed upon land, and he earnestly hoped the House would, by freely accepting the motion before them, confer a great advantage on this country, and an endless honour on themselves.

The SOLIOITOR.GEXERAL argued that the adoption of Mr. Horsfall's motion was not a necessary sequence of the Declaration of Paris, and would be a surrender of our most effective weapon in case of war.

Mr. WALPOLE (Cambridge University) complained that the Declaration of Paris was binding on some nations, while others refused to accept it. Some alteration was necessary in order to render the law on the subject universal. He wished for some definite answer from Lord Palmerston to this objection to the present state of the law.

Lord PaLmensvort observed that it was very difficult to ascertain the exact meaning of Mr. Horsfall's motion. It was couched in extremely vague terms, and was supported by advocates of the two most diametrically op- posite opinions that could be held on the subject. Some of its supporters wished to see the declaration of Paris repealed—an utter impossibility—and others wished us to commit political suicide, by throwing away all the ad- vantage derived from our naval supremacy. On the latter point he ad- mitted that he had entertained a different opinion, but he was now thoroughly convinced of his error, and he hoped Mr. Horefall would not press his motion to a division.

Mr. DISRAELI (Buckinghamshire) taunted Lord Palmerston with his sudden departure from a policy which he had been the first to proclaim, and quoted Earl Russell in favour of an alteration of the declaration of Paris, by which we had surrendered a cardinal point in our maritime code.

Mr. HORSFALL briefly expressed his satisfaction with the full discussion his motion had undergone, and withdrew it, in compliance with the general desire of the House.

In the House of Lords,

Lord CHELMSFORD laid before the House in detail the grievances of the officers of the insolvent Court, arising from the insufficient compensation provided for them by Government on the abolition of that court. In a long and somewhat violent speech he accused the Lord Chancellor of having violated the clear meaning of the compensation clauses of the act, and of injustice and neglect in refusing them immediate redress. He main- tained it was the duty of Government to introduce a declaratory act that would give the officers this long deferred remuneration.

The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his great surprise at the "malignant attack" which had been made upon him without any previous notice by Lord Chelmsford. He charged that noble and learned lord with "perver- sion of facts and truth," repeated his previous statement that it was simple ignorance of the fact that the parliamentary fund was inadequate to meet the salaries that caused the unfortunate mistake, and censured the course which the clerks, acting under the advice of Mr. Law, had thought fit to follow in refusing to bring their claims before the House of Commons, and assured the House that he would do the utmost in his power to afford redress to the sufferers.

Lord DERBY commented with much severity on the manner in which the Lord Chancellor, without the excuse of excitement, had imputed every de- scription of unworthy motive to his opponents, in language not usually heard in that House. He urged strongly upon Government the necessity of intredncing a declaratory bill in the other House, in order to do justice to those who had been so seriously injured by the defect in the other Act.

Earl GRANVILLE, having characterized the speech of Lord Chelmsford as "singularly offensive," stated that Government would certainly adhere to the course proposed by the Lord Chancellor, and submit the claims in question to the decision of a Committee of the other Rouse.

Some further discussion having taken place, the subject dropped, and the House adjourned. In the House of Commons,

Lord HENRY Lsztagox (Chichester) moved a resolution to the effect that a Minister of the Crown, responsible to the House, should be appointed for the management of all the national expenditure for the promotion of educa- tion, science, and art. He went in detail through the system of manage- ment of all the institutions coming within the scope of his motion, and contended that nothing but personal responsibility would ensure economy and efficiency.

Mr. GREGORY (Galway County) having seconded the motion, the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer moved the previous question, and defended the management of all the institutions' assailed by Lord H. Lennox. He contended that while there was as real and effective parliamentary control over the estimates referred to as over any others, the system of management. by trustees or executive boards secured an efficiency of administration which should make the House hesitate before they abolished it, faulty as the principle might be.

Mr. DISRAELI (Buckinghamshire) considered the admission by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the present principle of management was unsound was a satisfactory result to have been attained, and he hoped Lord H. Lennox would not press his motion.

Lord H. LENNOX then withdrew his motion, expressing his satisfaction at the way in which his suggestion had been met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. CowPitn (First Commissioner of Works) obtained leave, after a sharp discussion, to introduce a bill embodying the plan for the embank-

ment of the Thames recommended by the Royal Commission of last year_

Sir G. BOWYER (Dundalk) obtained leave to introduce a bill for the better government of the Inns of Court, the principal object of which was to

give the members of the four inns a share in the administration of the pro- perty of those bodies, and to establish a public court of discipline, through which only barristers could be disbarred or censured by the benehers. The court would be empowered to compel the attendance of witnesses, and to- punish for contempt.

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Mr. Avirroar (Tower Hamlets) moved the second reading of the Accidents Compensation Bill. lie showed from statistics the wide difference between the deaths from violent accidents in such counties as Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk, where there were no manufactories, and the deaths from the same cause in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and contended that the vast dispropor- tion of accidents which accompanied the employment of unprotected ma- chinery proved the necessity of some enactment by which workmen would be enabled to recover compensation for loss of wages, and medical attendance. The Arroterav-GENERAL opposed the motion, believing that the bill would entail an intolerable amount of responsibility on employers. One careless workman, for example, in a perfectly well-arranged coal mine, might occasion a frightful accident, and the master, who had done all he possibly could to ensure safety, ought not in common justice to be rendered liable for the results of that one workman's carelessness. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. Bovua. (Guildford) opposed the bill, which in fact compelled every master to insure his servants against accident, and to take even greater pre- cautions for their safety than most men did for their own.

After some further discussion the amendment was carried without a di- vision.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday,

The Bishop of OXFORD asked Lord Granville whether the scholar, at night-schools would be examined under the Revised Code together with scholars at day-schools. He thought it ought to be borne in mind that while children attending day-schools were generally sent whether they liked or not, but those at night schools went there of their own free will, and it was a delicate question how to introduce a system Of examination into them without rendering it distasteful to the scholars. He also sug- gested the adoption of a plan of examination in which the progress of the scholar would be ascertained, and the amount of grant decided by their division into classes, and promotion from one class to another. By this means the true ends of examination would be served, which were not to ascertain whether at a given date a particular scholar had attained this or that stage in his education, but whether the school at which he attended was doing its work properly. Earl GRANVILLE replied that the examination of the night school children would take place separately in any case when it was practicable. He also

corrected one or two numerical errors which the right reverend prelate had fallen into in the speech on the subject which he delivered a short time ago.

After a few remarks from the Duke of ARGYLE, Lord WOW:HOUSE, and Lord OVF.RSTONE, the subject dropped, and the House adjourned.

In the House of Commons,

Mr. Herrin= (West Norfolk) asked Mr. Layard for 'copies of any offi- cial despatches he might have received relative to the meeting of the " Provisional Committees of Italy," commonly called "Garibaldi's Parlia-

ment.,"

Mr. LAYARD (Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs) said he had received accounts of the meeting in question, but did not think it would be acting with due respect to the Italian Government to produce them. It would be as unbecoming as if the Italian Government were to lay before the Italian Parliament papers connected with meetings at the Free Trade Hall,.

Birmingham, or the Rotunda at Dublin. The Markets and Fairs (Ireland) Bill, and the Works of Art Copyright Bill, were passed through Committee, and the House adjourned.