!Dada auk rnrnhiug iii parlialitrut.

PRINCIPAL BUSIN.ESS OF THE WEEK.

nom OF Loans. Monday, May 18. Marriage of the Princess Royal ; Message from the Queen—Testamentary Jurisdiction ; Lord Chancellor's Bill read a second time.

Tuesday, May 19. Divorce and Matrimonial Cause,; Lord Chancellor's Bill read a second time.

Friday. May 22. Military Education ; Lord Panmure's Explanation—Testamentary Jurisdiction; Lord Chancellor's Bill committed. Hocae or COMMONS. Monday, May It. Marriage of the Princess Royal; Message from the Queen—Supply ; Navy Estimates—Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland) Bill read a second time.

Tuesday, May 19. Aggravated Assaults ; Mr. Dillwyn's Bill thrown out—Ministers'-itioney (Ireland ) ; Mr. Fagan's Bill read a second time. Wednesday, May 20. Registration of Long Leases (Scotland) Bill read a second time—Industrial Schools; Mr. Adderlefs Bill committed pro forma—Judgments Execution ; Mr. Craufurd's Bill in Committee.

Thursday, May 21. Maynooth Grant; Mr. Spooner's Motion negatived—Breaches of Trust ; Attorney-General's Bill read a first time—Joint-Stock Companies Acts ; Bill ordered to be brought in. Friday, May N. The " Holidays " ; Lord Palmerston's Answer to Mr. Walpole— The Queen's Message ; Allowance to the Princess Royal—Supply; Miscellaneous Estimates—Transportation and Penal Servitude; Sir George Grey's Bill read a third time and passed.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords. 27.e Commons.

Hour of Hour of Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Meeting. Adjournment. Monday 51. . 7h Om Monday 41. .(a.) 11. 30m Tuesday 51. .. 1015 15m Tuesday 4h .(m) ih Cm

Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Noon..., 5h 57m Thunsday No sitting. Thursday th . llh 30ra

Friday Oh "•• 811 Om Friday 41. .(m)12h 50m Sittings this Week, 5; Time, 105 16m sittings tots week, 0; Time, 45h 27m — this Session, 9 ; — 181. lam — this Session 12; — 7315 12m MARRIAGE OF THE PRZICESS ROYAL.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord PALEOEBETON brought up a message from the Queen, which he read from the bar, as follows " Her Majesty, having agreed to a marriage proposed between the Princess Royal and his Royal Highness Prince Frederick William of Prussia, has thought fit to communicate the same to the House of Commons. Her Majesty. is fully persuaded that this alliance cannot but be acceptable to all her Majesty's faithful subjects ; and the many proofs which the Queen has received of the affectionate attachment of this House to her Majesty's person and family, leave her no room to doubt of the concurrence and assistance of this House in enabling her to make such a provision for her eldest daughter, with a view to the said marriage as may be suitable to the dignity of the crown and the honour of the country." Then from his place, as soon as the SFr tsvo had read the message from the chair, Lord PALmErisrosi said he was sure the House would take the earliest opportunity of assuring her Majesty of their deep sympathy in an event so interesting to her and to the country. "I cannot refrain from saying, that those who have had the good fortune to be acquainted with the Princess Royal must have observed that she possesses both in heart and in head those distinguished qualities which adorn her illustrious parents ; and that she bids fair to hold out in the country of her adoption a repetition of that brilliant example which her illustrious parents have held out in this country, of a domestic happiness worthy to serve as a model of imitation for the most exalted or the humblest of her Majesty's subjects. (Cheers.) Sir, it is impossible not to see that this marriage, independently of the prospect which I trust it holds out of happiness to her Royal Highness from the high qualities of the Prince whom she has selected as her future husband, also holds out to the country political prospects not undeserving of the attention of this House. We all know how family alliances tend to mitigate those asperities which from time to time must be produced by those diversities of policy which inevitably arise occasionally between great and independent powers ; and therefore I trust that this marriage may also be considered as holding out an increased prospect of good-will and of cordiality among the great powers of Europe." He moved an address to her Majesty in reply to the message, and stated that he proposed to consider the message on Friday.

Mr. DISRAELI seconded the motion.—Carried unanimously.. The same message was communicated to the House of Lords brtho LORD CHANCELLOR. In moving all address in reply, Earl GRANVILLE said

" Many of your Lordships are acquainted with the way in which her Royal Highness the Princess Royal has fulfilled the expectations whioh it was natural to entertain from the education and example she has received ; and some must know that the character, opinions, and feelings of the Prince whom her Royal Highness is to marry are such as to lead to even more than the usual hopes of happiness from the proposed union. Your Lordships, I am sure, must desire to testify by a loyal and dutiful address the anxiety which you feel to promote in every way the comfort and happiness of the parents of the Princess Royal, and to express your admiration of the manner in which their domestic duties have been discharged, and of the care and attention which they have shown in the education of their children." (Cheers.)

The Earl of DERBY seconded the motion, and added somewhat to Lord Granville' s remarks " Unlike ordinary royal marriages, her Majesty's was one not founded on considerations of I:whey alone, but on personal acquaintance and attachment. I hope and believe the same remark may be applied to that marriage to which your Lordships are asked to assent ; and I am quite sure your Lordships can express no better wish for the future happiness and welfare of the Princess whose marriage is about to be celebrated than that, as she enters upon married life under similar auspices, so in the course of it her happiness may be as complete and well merited as that of her illustrious mother." (Cheers.)

The motion was agreed to.

TESTAMENTARY IERISDICTION.

In moving the second reading of the Probates and Letters of Administration Bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR explained its main provisions with considerable fulness; having first repeated the historical statement of the progress of the question in the last session of Parliament. Soma changes have been made in the bill since that time. The Lord Chancellor has dissevered the proposed Court of Probate from the Court of Chancery, in deference to the opinion of others rather than his own. The Judge of the Prerogative Court will be the Judge of the new Court of Probate. He will be paid, not by fees, but by a salary of 40001., with a retiring-allowance of 20001. a year. In the opinion of the Chancellor, the Judge will have little to do ; and it is intended to propose that he shall also be the Judge of the Matrimonial and Divorce Court ; and that power shall be given in the event of any vacancy, to appoint the Judge of the Probate Court to be also the Judge of the Court of Admiralty, and to raise the salary of the Judge in the combined Court to 5000/. a year. The evidence will be taken viva voce; the rules of evidence adopted in the Common Law Courts will be acted upon in the Court of Probate ; and all questions of disputed facts will be tried by a Jury, unless the parties wish otherwise. To this Court all contentious business above 2001. personalty and 3001, realty will be referred; business under those sums going to the County Courts. It is propose to establish districts throughout the country wherein the DistrictRegistrars may grant probate where there is no contest and the property is below 15001. in value. Every month a list of wills proved in the country will be sent to the Probate Office in London, together with copies of the wills ; and at stated periods printed lists of wills proved in London shall be sent to the District-Registrars. There will be a department in the Probate Office where any person may deposit his will if he think fit. Probate will not be extended to real property • but where the validity of a will is contested the Court will be empowered to cite not only those interested in the personalty but those interested in the realty also. The Lord Chancellor gives up the provision of his former bill that the appeal should lie to the Lords Justices and the House of Lords, and proposes that the appeal should be direct to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There will be compensation to persons deprived of office. The Proctors will be retained, their fees fixed by authority, and their costs taxed. The District-Registrars alone will be paid by fees. The Bishop of Elation intimated hostility to the bill. The Bishop of LONDON said his right reverend friends did not intend to oppose the bill ; but they thought the case of Chancellors who perform ecclesiastical functions should be provided for. Lord CAMPBELL gave his cordial support to the second reading.

The bill was read a second time.

THE DIVORCE BILL.

The House of Lords was occupied for nearly five hours on Tuesday with a discussion on the Lord Chancellor's Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill.

In moving the second reading, the Lorin CHANCELLOR said that nothing would have induced him to submit the bill to the House had he believed that it could shake the confidence of the country in the permanency, if not the indissolubility, of the marriage-tie. Before the Reformation marriages were held to be indissoluble ; yet the Roman Catholic Church held that marriage might be rendered invalid by circumstances. With the Reformation came the opinion that marriage was a civil contract. The Commission issued by Henry VIII and Edward VI to frame a new code, granted divorce for adultery on the part of either spouse, for violent hatred, unjustifiable desertion, and other causes. Thoir recommendations, contained in the " Reformatio Legum Angliearum," never became law, but they were acted on by society. The Marquis of Northampton, who obtained a divorce It incised et thoro in 1550, remarried; and an act of Parliament was passed to confirm what ho had done. Thence arose the practice of obtaining private acts of Parliament to dissolve marriages. From 1715 to 1775 there were only six of these acts ; from 1775 to 1800 the number increased to two or three annually ; and from the end of the reign of Elizabeth, when it was decided that the Ecclesiastical Courts could not dissolve the vinculum of marriage, about two hundred acts have passed. That indicates the necessity of a remedy. The bill to be submitted to the House is founded on the recommendations of the Commission issued in 1850. It is proposed to establish a Court to decree as a matter of right that relief which can now only be obtained by act of Parliament. The Judge of the Court will be the Judge of the Court of Probate. In lieu of the triple process now required—proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, an action for criminal conversation and proceedings in Parliament—it is proposed to investigate the matter once for all; te carry on the inquiry by vir voce evidence and trial by jury ; and to enable the Court to grant or withhold a decree at once. Divorce may be obtained by the wife in the case of incestuous adultery or bigamy, or adultery with cruelty on the part of the husband. The marriage of the adulterer and adulteress is not forbidden. Instead of an action for criminal conversation being a necessary preliminary to a divorce, it is proposed to pennit such action only. after the divorce is obtained. With regard to divorces a MORA et thoro eases of cruelty, it is proposed to continue the present system, but to add a clause allowing such a divorce for unjustifiable d.esertion. From the moment that a divorce a mensa et thoro is obtained, the wife will be on precisely the same footing as an unmarried woman.

The Archbishop of CssrrEnnercy gave a qualified support to the measure. A marriage is indissoluble save for ono cause alone—unfaithfulness. lie did not see that they could refuse this liberty to a wife or to a husband. But the bill did not stop here it would permit the guilty parties to remarry. That he should oppose.

In =Me/ TO calls from all parts of the House, Lord LYNDHURST TO80 and delivered a close and comprehensive speech in defence of the bill so fax as it went, and in favour of the extension of its limits.

Over and over again the Protestant Church has declared that Scripture sanctions the dissolution of marriage in cases of adultery. That view is supported by the authorities of the early period of the Church, by the Provincial and General Councils, by the "Reformatio Legum." The establishment of the Roman Catholic principle of the indissolubility of marriage may be traced to the Council of n-ent—an authority the Protestant divines refused to admit. As the Roman Catholic Church found it necessary to evade the 'operation of its own law, so we had to resort te palliatives, and for 150. years marriage has been dissolved by sot of Parliament. That system is confined to the wealthy alone ; but if it is right it should be open to the rich and poor alike. This will be accomplished by the establishment of a simple tribunal like that proposed in the bill—where there will be no pleadings, no rejoinders no labyrinths of that description. "It would

be impossible to establish' any tribunal in which the proceedings might be carried on in a simpler way, or with less expense." But it is said there are difficulties. In Scotland and the United States the ordinary tribunals do

not find any difficulties. It is averred also that the extension of the law to the poor will demoralize the whole community. "The present system

is the great demoralizer." The fault of the bill is that it does not go far

enough ; it recognizes the great inequality between the sexes, and withholds from a woman the right of divorce against a husband who commits

adultery. No inconveniences arise in Scotland because the sexes are equal

before the law. Our own ecclesiastical law punishes both sexes alike ; so that the principle is not new. St. Augustine drew no distinction between the sexes. There is no authority on the other side. Lord Eldon, Lord Thurlow, Dr. Lushington, have all expressed strong and decisive opinions on this subject. Then Lord Lyndhurst earnestly entreated the House to consider whether malicious desertion, which defeats all the objects of marriage, should not be ground for a divorce It vincule ? It is according to the law in Scotland. In Prussia, where the extravagant facilities for divorce have been reconsidered by the Legislature, they have unanimously decided that adultery and wilful desertion are Scriptural grounds of divorce. Befbre he could complete hia survey and arguments, Lord Lyndhurst confessed that his strength did not enable him to proceed, and he deferred further efforts until the bill is in Committee. Lord WENSLEYDALE said he should support the bill, but with misgivizsg's as to how it will work. The Earl of MALMESBURY reserved to himself the right of opposition in Committee. The Duke of NORFOLK, believing marriage indissoluble, said he should oppose the bill at every stage. Lord CAMPBELL spoke in favour of the measure. All Protestant churches hold that marriage may be dissolved for adultery; and it seemed to him to be only straining and quibbling when any other interpretation was put on the words of our Lord. Lord MING/ix/sox, Lord RRDESDALE, and the Bishop Of SALISBURY were altogether opposed to the bill, on religious grounds. It was partially supported by the Bishop of

LLANDAFF.

The Bishop of Oxronn spoke at great length and with much force against the bill; especially directing his arguments against the positions of Lord Lyndhurst. lie held that our Lord, StPaul, St. Augustine, Justin Martyr, St. Innocent, the Council of Carthage, St. Jerome, and St. Chrysostom, had over and over again said that marriage cannot be so dissolved as that the parties can marry again in the lifetime of each other. The indissolubility of the marriage-tie is not a mere invention of the middle egos; it is God's ordinance. The bill legalizes and justifies the remarriage of a divorced woman, undeniably forbidden by our Lord. Indignant as the Bishop was at the state of our marriage-law, which condemns defenceless women in their absence' he thought the bill would be worse, and he objected to it as a whole and in detail. It comes under the false pretence of equalizing the law. It destroys all safeguards against collusion. In the end the cases arising among the working classes must, if the bill pass, go down to the County Courts, and not be confined to men with more than 20001. a year. France is making marriage indissoluble ; Prussia is labouring to do so ; yet England is asked to increase the facilities for divorce.

He entreated their Lonlehips to remember that the question before then!' is a foundation one. It is not one of those little things which float upon the surface of society ; it reaches its very roots, and must stir it for ages to come ; and therefore, believing that the bill contradicts, certainly and unnecessarily, one important fact of the teaching of our Lori—that it probably contradicts another—that it unsettles the whole of our existing law—that it makes provision for all kinds of future entanglements—that it professes to give relief to persona whom it would never reach—and that it leaves the question of marriage in a hopeless state of confusion—he entreated their Lordships to pause before they took ono step in advance, and to vote with him that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The Bishop of LONDON supported the bill. There is no subject on which a whole string of Fathers cannot be brought on one side and a whole string on the other. In the trial of the Duke of Norfolk, Bishop Curzon laid down the doctrine of the Church quite as'conclusively against the Bishop of Oxford as the authorities quoted by him in his favour. If it be the law of the Church of England that marriage is indissoluble, how is it that the clergy aro called upon to remarry persons whose mar riage-ties have been dissolved by private acts ? Duke of Anovix took the same side. The Bishop of LINCOLN supported the second reading, but said lie should oppose the clause enabling the seducer to marry the adulteress.

On a division, there were—Content, 47; Not Content, 18 ; majority,., 29, The bill was read a second time.

BREACHES OP TRUST.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to bring in a bill to make fraudulent broaches of trust criminally punishable. Before he stated the provisions of his measure, he described the well-known evil it is designed to meet. Fraud or theft, when accompanied by a breach of trust, is divested of its criminal character : a trustee who robs widows and orphans is not a criminal, but a debtor. Much evil has arisen from our practice of making rules to include every cue that might occur, instead of adopting some comprehensive definition which should accurately define the offence and leave particular instances to fall within its scope. But we have been unlucky in definitions. Blackstono's definition of theft.— "feloniously taking and carrying away the goods of another "—involves the very thing it professed to define. A trustee cannot commit a theft, because he is the legal holder of the property in trust. Sir Richard Bethel confessed he had not felt bold enough to introduce a new definition; so he had framed clauses to meet the several eases of breach of trust.

In dealing with the fraudulent conversion by a trustee of the property committed to hie charge, he proposed to enable a costulque-trust to proceed' against his trustee ; but to guard against spiteful actions, he proposed that no proceeding should be commenced without the sanction of a Judge of one of the Courts at Westminster, or one of the Courts in Ireland, or of the Attorney-General. As there are so many kinds of breach of trust, more than ordinary care will be required to decide upon the language used in the bill. But the bill is not confined to eases where offences have been committed by one person's holding property for the benefit of another, it deals with breaches of trust on the part of directors and managers of companies ; and contains a series of clauses making it criminal to keep false accounts,. to make false entries, to disguise their nature under false representations,. to make frauduleat statements of the affairs of a company, and to pay dividends out of fictitious capital. The bill deals in like manner with theassignees of bankrupts and insolvents ; and extends the existing law affecting.bankers and agents so as to include all cases of property committed to their charge, although they have not received instructions in writing. The bill preserves the principle that a mat/ shall not be tried and found guilty on evidence procured from his own confession in a civil proceeding, but does not exempt those persons from prosecution who have voluntarily confessed that they had fraudulently possessed themselves of property.

In the course of his speech, the Attorney-General stated,. that having now

read the documents in the case of the British Bank, which had been laid before him by the solicitor for the assignees, he had no hesitation in saying that he would, without a moment's delay, try whether the law as it now stands is not strong enough to meet that case. In conclusion, he asked the House to cooperate'settirliim by suggesting remedies for any defects there might be in his bill : he woulff thankfully receive aid from any quarter. Ile expressed a hope that the piesent session might be signalized by such an instalment of legal reform as 'would remove a great opprobrium to our jurisprudence, and would lead—particularly in the case of those in humble life, among whom the constant recurrence of the frauds against which the bill sought to provide produced so much misery—to an improved state of things while it tended to place our legia.lation on a more respectable footing. Cheers.) The measure was well received, and the bill was rod a first time. THE WINDLVO-UP ACTS.

In Committee on the Acts relating to the Winding-up of Joint-Stock Compreaies, the House, on the motion of the Arroterrs-Ginmass, adopted. a resolution giving him leave to introduce a bills) amend them. As the law at present stands, if a company becomes insolvent, the creditors

may call upon one shareholder to pay the whole debts of the concern. Then there is likely to be a conflict between the Court of Bankruptcy, which sees to the payment of the creditors, and the Court of Chancery, which settles the respective,equitable rights of the contributaries. This has been illustrated in the case of the Royal British Bank, where, under the present law, each of the six thousand creditors may bring a separate suit against each of the three hundred shareholders, and the majority of the two bodies have found it impracticable to come to any arrangement. In one case a creditor actually brought twenty-five different suits for 1501.! in another, an attorney bought a debt, and issued two or three hundred writs. The consequence is, that the shareholders have become bank. rupts, have fled the country, or have made settlements of their property. The remedy proposed is that the shareholders and creditors should respectively choose representatives, and give them authority to make an arrangement fixing the contribution of each shareholder. In the mean time, under proper conditions, the shareholders should be protected from liability to actions.

NAVY ESTIMATES.

The House of Commons went into Committee of Supply on Monday, in order that the First Lord of the Admiralty might explain and move the Navy Estimates.

For the information of new Members, Sir CHARLES WOOD began by stating, that in the late session a vote on account had been taken, but that the Estimates now before the House are the same as those placed before the late House. These estimates have been reduced as much as possible. The late war had taught us not to let our means of defence get too low in time of peace. The Navy is now more expensive than it formerly was, and we cannot return to the low level of former years. The Estimates are classed under two heads—effective and non-effective. The non-effective vote, fixed by act of Parliament, is 1,500,000/. ; the effective, 6,500,000/. Out of 60,0M men voted in 1856, 51,000 had been raised ; that has been reduced since the peace to 40,000. The vote for this year is for 38,000 Seamen, 15,000 Marines, and 5000 Coast Guard men. The reduction of men was most painful. The sailors were unwilling to leave the service, and the Admiralty were unwilling to part with good men. He had, as far as possible, only disbanded the continuance-service men with their own consent. The French can always obtain at once 60,000 good sailors, and 20,000 not quite so good. We raised 20,000 in two years; we want some means of raising them in as many weeks. With regard to the building of ships, some of the crake were for large some for small ships; but he thought we should have enough of both. Our navy ought to be greater than that of any one power. That being conceded, how do we stand as compared with former periods ? In 1793, we had 115 large ships, the French 76; in 1817, we had 131, the French 72; in 1840, we had 89, the French 46. Now in coming down to the present time, he would leave out the sailing vessels, and take a comparative view of the screws. We have 51, 9 of which are block ships, fit only for a peculiar service, and not able to keep the sea ; and we have built, building, or converting, 42, and 40 frigates. The proportions at present are 42 ships to the French 40, and 40 frigates to the French 37. They had heard of the American Merrimac and Niagara, but we have nothing whatever of that description. He would not give an opinion as to their efficiency, but he thought it only right that we should have something fit to beat them if need be. He had therefore ordered two vessels of that description to be laid down. To do all this, it would be necessary to incur very considerable expense; for, be it remembered, the expense of a steam-fleet is immensely greater than that of sailing-vessels. But the House would perhaps understand the difference better if he gave a few examples. Our largest sailing three-decker, the Queen, cost 100,0001.; the Duke of Wellington cost 170,0001. The Albion, 90, cost 95,0001.; the Agamemnon, 144,0001. The Vernon, 50, cost 53,0001.; the Liffey, 51, screw, cost 129,0001.; so that the screw-ships cost double what was expended on the sailing-vessels. If they took the cost of sailing-vessels at two-thirds that of steam-vessels it would probably be near the mark, and to the extent of a third therefore they might calculate that the expense of a steam-navy would exceed that of a sailing-navy. Steam-vessels are more difficult to repair than sailing-ships; they are more expensive to maintain, the cost of coal being a heavy item in the expense. The aggregate nominal horsepower of the Navy is 102,000 horses. Since the introduction of steam we have been compelled to enlarge our dockyards; but they will not bear comparison with those of other nations. Last year he visited the yard at Cherbourg, and found that the works there would place anything we had in any of our yards altogether in the background. They were blasting immense places out of the solid rock, arid constructing two inner basins, as large as all our basins put together; and he believed the Cherbourg yard is as extensive as Portsmouth, Davenport, and Keyham combined. The area of the Cherbourg basins is 180 acres, while the area of the basins at Keyham is only 34 acres; and all the works were in proportion, and in the most complete state of efficiency. It is impossible, therefore, that repairs and other works could be executed in our yards with the genie facility as in those of France. When the Himalaya was purchased, the Government had to rebuild a dock to dock her. There are only two docks in all our dockyards that would hold the Merrimac. It is clear that this state of things cannot be permitted to continue.

In the course of his speech, Sir Charles explained that no vote would be required for naval expenses in China, but an estimate would be presented later in the session for coat of the transport of troops and the lodging of them in China. He moved a vote for 53,000 men, including Marines.

Several Members offered suggestions. Admiral Wateorr urged the Admiralty to earn the confidence of the men by carrying out the continuance-service arrangement with the greatest fairness. Sir CHARLES NAPIER thought that the number of men is too low, and all the best ships should be kept in commission. He did not believe that there are more than 4000 able seamen in our fleet. France is equal to us in ships, superior in men ; and instead of 38,000, 50,000 men should have been asked for. Lord CLARENCE PAGET put in a strong plea for smaller ships. He estimated our line-of-battle ships at 51, including the block

ships and the Fzeb,,,at 31 ; and he thought the Admiralty might die . „ ships and the Fzeb,,,at 31 ; and he thought the Admiralty might die . „

continue shipbuil g for a time. He suggested that a committee of naval officers should be appointed to decide what class of ships would do most effectual service. Mr. WILLIAMS complained that our Navy is still too expensive, and still inefficient. He could not understand why so much should he spent on dockyards, nor why so large a number of Marines is kept up— it is only a surreptitious way of increasing the standing army." Sir Jowl Tnexamos-v objected to the system of keeping ships that are useless ; it would be better to burn them. Ships that are perfectly efficient are paid off, and so recklessly dismantled that many of the materials are rendered perfectly worthless.

The first vote of 53,000 men and boys, including Marines, was agreed to ; and the Committee proceeded to vote the other items.

On the vote of 92,224/. for naval establishments at home Sir JOHN TRELAWNY said he held it unnecessary to have both Admit-ids-superintendent and Captains-superintendent of dockyards. In order to test the opinion of the Committee, he moved that the vote be reduced by 8001. On a division, this was negatived by 215 to 3. On the vote of 584,3901. for wages of artificers, &c., Sir JAMES GRAILA3I made some comments on the Navy. He was glad that perfect good faith was to be kept with the continuance-service men, as it is of the greatest importance that we should be able to man the fleet with readiness and efficiency. It is not so desirable to have a large number of continued-service men, who are well trained in all respects in their professional duties, as it is to enter a large number of apprentices year by year, so as to be able to pass through the Navy in time of peace a large number of effective seamen, whom the Government would be able to put their hand upon in time of war. He thought it would not be expedient to stop the building of line-of-battle-ships of the largest class, due regard being had to our maritime supremacy. It is a question of proportion and degree. We ought to have an ample supply of vessels of every class. Gun-boats are admirable for coast-service, but we require large vessels to strive for supremacy in the Atlantic or Mediterranean. He recommended a saving in dockyard labour. This called forth deprecatory remarks from the dockyard representatives Sir ERSKINE PERRY, Sir WILLIAM CODRINGTON, Mr. TOWNSEEND, representatives, WYKEHAM.

MARTIN, Sergeant SINGLAKE.

The votes having been agreed to, the House resumed.

Mretsrens'-Mosrsy.

The motion for the second reading of Mr. Fagan's bill to abolish Ministers'-money in Ireland, and to throw the burden upon the funds at the disposal of the Irish Ecclesiastical Commissioners, led to a long and dull debate, and a regular party conflict. Mr. FAGAN moved the second reading of the bill ; explained the origin of the impost, the efforts that have been made to abolish it, and the plan for transferring the liability to the Ecclesiastical Commission. Mr. NAPIER moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. His chief argument was that the bill would strike a blow at the foundations of Church property. He was met by Sir GEORGE GREY; who showed that former Governments had never recognized the tax as the inalienable property of the Church ; and reexplamed the position of the Government in reference to the corporations directed to collect the tax. If the question be not settled, it will prolong a series of irritating litigations, upon which the Government have been compelled to enter as the corporations refuse to collect the tax. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have ample funds wherewith to defray the tax, which amounts to 12,000/. a year ; and the efficiency of the Church will be augmented by the transfer. The bill was opposed in lengthened speeches by Mr. Wrirrssms, Sir FREDERICK THESIGER, and Mr. WALPOLE; and supported by Mr. BORSMAN, Mr. BLAKE, Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Lord PALMERSTON. On a division, after midnight, the motion for the second reading was carried by 313 to 174.

MAYNOOTH.

Mr. SPOONER renewed, on Thursday, his motion for a Committee on the Acts for the Endowment of Maynooth, and restated his views in a speech occupying two hours in delivery. Then continued cries of " Divide !" arose. General THOMPSON, Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, Mr. GILPIN, and Mr. HADFIELD, made a few hostile remarks. The House divided, and negatived the motion by 125 to 91. When the loud cheering had subsided, Mr. NEWDEGA.TE moved the adjournment, in order to give him an opportunity of explaining, that several new Members had not joined the debate, because they were ignorant of the rule that no Member can address the House after the Speaker has put the question. Mr. HENRY HERBERT remarked, that during the delivery of Mr. Spooner's "eloquent and stirring speech" there were only two gentlemen on the Opposition benches. Mr. SPOONER said that this was a perfectly correct statement : none of the Members on his own side of the House had thought it worth while to come down. But although the party opposed to him had triumphed by force of numbers, they had not triumphed by force of argument, for they had not answered his speech. Mr. ROEBUCK congratulated the House on having had the moral courage to sit out the infliction of Mr. Spooner's speech, and to reply by votes to that bidgroeaappeal, which did not deserve to be refuted.

In reply to Mr. Wurresma, Lord PALMERSTON said that the alterations suggested by the Maynooth Commissioners are in course of being carried into effect. Mr. Spooner's speech—he never heard one that invited more dissent—had not been answered because honourable gentlemen were unwilling to enter on an irritating polemical discussion.

JUDGMENTS EXECUTION.

The Irish Members, assisted by Mr. Ayrton, again displayed a most resolute hostility to the Judgments Execution Bill, in Committee. There were three divisions on motions to report progress, and three divisions on clauses 1 and 2. The minorities ranged between 10 and 96, the majorities between 137 and 187. The more conspicuous opponents of the measure were Mr. BLAND, Mr. Warresms, and Mr. AYRTON ; its prominent supporters were the LORD-ADVOCATE, Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, and Mr. MA.LINS. The Committee agreed to all the clauses except clause 3, postponed, up to clause 7; when the majority yielded to the desire of the minority, and ordered the Chairman to report progress.

INDUSTRIAL &stools.

Mr. ADDERLEY moved that the House should go into Committee ma the Industrial Schools Bill. The motion was met by a very general request for postponement, in which Sir Gamins GREY, Mr. MILES, and Lord GODERICH joined. It was not only desirable, they urged, that further time should be given to Members for considering the details of the bill, but also that the Boards of Guardians throughout the country should have an opportunity to state their opinion of the measure. It was agreed that the House should go into Committee pro forma, in order that

. Adderley might insert amendments.

REGISTRATION OP VOTERS.

On the motion of Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE, a bill to facilitate and afford more frequent opportunities for the registration of the elective franchise in England and Wales was read a first time.

ExacTiois PETITIONS.

Thursday was the last day for the presentation of election petitior s. At the close of the sitting, when the Sergeant-at-Arms stated, in reply

to the Speaker, that there were no more petitions to be presented, he was greeted with both cheers and merriment. The number of elections which have given rise to petitions this session is fifty-seven. In some cases more than one petition has been presented.