ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

Hoesz or Loans, Monday, May 19. —Divisions : the Marquis of Bath's motion.— Registry of Voters Bill: third reading.

Tuesday, May 2015.—The Slave Trade : Earl Russell's statement. Thursday, May 22.—Copyright (Works of Art) Bill : Second reading.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, May 19. —Customs and Inland Revenue Bill Mr. Disraeli's speech.—British Museum Bill motion for third reading negatived.— Iron-plated Ships: Lord Robert Montague's motion.—Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill : third reading.

Tuesday, May 20th.—Savings' Banks Bill : second reading.—Lunacy Regulation Bill : second reading.—Public Houses (Scotland) Acts Amendment Bill : Committee —Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill: third reading. Crown Private Estates Bill: second reading.—Universities (Scotland) Act Amend- ment (No. 2.) Bill: second reading. Wednesday, May 2L—Sale of Spirits Bill: Second reading. —Judgment Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill: Second reading. Thursday, May 22.—Irish Education : Discussion raised on the motion for going into Committee of Supply by The O'Connor Don.—Alderney Harbour: Mr. Ayrton't motion.

In the House of Commons, on Friday evening, two divisions of importance took place,

Sir W. GALLWEY'S motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the double appointment of Sir E. Pearson and Mr. Tite, M.P., to the chairmanship of the Westminster Im- provement Commission being negatived by 139 to 128, and the vote of 90,000/. for the harbour works in course of construction at Alderney being adopted by 138 to 130.

In the House of Lords on Monday,

The Marquis of BATH moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to take into consideration the present mode of taking divisions in their Lordships' House. He referred especially to the recent case of the Bishop of Winchester having gone into the wrong lobby, and thought the practice of the House on such occasions ought to be distinctly settled.

Earl GRANVILLE opposed the motion, as Lord Redesdale had prepared a resolution which would meet the difficulty in a simpler manner.

Lord REDESDALE then moved a resolution providing that in case of any Peer going out by mistake into the wrong lobby the tellers should imme- diately inform the House of the fact, and his vote, if he was in the House when the question was put, should be taken by the side on which he de- clared it had been his intention to vote. '

In the House of Commons, On the order of the day for the third reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill,

Mr. DISRAELI (Bucks) said that SS the mode in which the finances were now submitted greatly curtailed the privileges of discussion he felt com- pelled once more to call attention to the state of our finances. He would remind the House of our real financial position—no surplus, enormous deficits for the last two years, utter exhaustion of all extraordinary aids, and, after a relief of 2,000,000/ per annum in the shape of interest paid to the public cre- ditor, an ordinary revenue resting in a great measure upon our financial re- serve. Government had admitted the unhealthy state of our finances, but had taken no steps to remedy it. The worst symptom was, of course, the con- tinuous increase in our naval and military expenditure. In 1858 he (Mr. Disraeli) proposed a budget in which that expenditure was estimated at 22,297,000/, being a reduction of 300,0001. or 400,000/. on that of the previous year. In 1859, the ineffective state of our navy rendered a large outlay necessary in that department, and the estimate for 1859 rose to 26,308,000/. In 1861 and 1862 the estimates were influenced by a Chinese war and the Canadian expedition, but it was fair to take the estimates of 1862-3 as evidence of uncalled for increase in expenditure. The naval and military estimates for 1862-3 were 28,000,0001., being an increase on those of 1858 of 5,685,0001., and on those of 1859 of 1,674,0001. Deducting from the expenditure of 1862-3 a vote of 732,000/. for the additional com- fort of the soldier, there remained an increase of 5,000,0001. on our war- like expenditure since 1858. As to what the causes of this increase were the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave no information, but simply threw a shower of second-hand sarcasms and stale tu quo ques, and insinuated that whoever asked for explanation was influenced by personal animosity. Lord Palmerston, on the other hand, openly ascribed it to the attitude of France, but in the same breath said he saw no reason to complain of that attitude. He joined issue with Lord Palmerston on this point. If France really aimed at obtaining a naval preponderance over us he saw great objections to such policy. He could not accept as a cordial ally a power whose policy oc- casioned anxiety and distrust, and augmented taxation. Such a policy might even justify us in declaring war against France, if it was as Lord Palmerston had stated. He admitted that no sacrifice was too great in order to ensure our naval supremacy ; but what he really wished to know was, whether all these warlike preparations were to be made on the assumption that France was our friend or that France is our enemy. If on the former, then they might be made gradually and considerately ; if on the latter, they were certain to be made with undue precipitation, and we should get the worst article at the greatest cost; extravagance and panic were the natural con- sequences, and all this would inevitably flow from Lord Palmerston's policy. Mr. Disraeli then entered upon a great variety of topics connected with the policy of Government, especially taunting Lord Palmerston with Ins affected ignorance of, and subsequent "swallowing the leek" with re- gard to the French guarantee of Austrian Italy in 1815, and indulging in much pleasantry on the style of the noble Lord's speeches, which he de- scribed as neither wit nor sarcasm. but " banter " or "chaff." The noble lord, however, was supposed to possess such a knowledge of foreign affairs, " that for that invaluable speciality Reformers resigned reform and Econo- mists retrenchment. And yet he was the head of the Liberal party; for their only remaining title to that once illustrious epithet was their lavish expenditure of public money." Lord PALMERSTON, in reply, denied the several statements made by Mr. Disraeli with regard to our relations with France, especially as to the al- leged distrust and want of co-operation in our American diplomacy. Ile taunted Mr. Disraeli with having omitted to mention that the very change of Government in 1858, which he had taken for his starting-point, was brought about by the rejection of the Conspiracy Bill, a step actively promoted by the right honourable gentleman himself. No wonder that the rejection of a bill so calculated to conciliate the good-will of the Em- pire should have caused irritation and bad feeling. Mr. Disraeli had laid much stress on recent increase of expenditure. Since 1859, however, that increase was only 1,600,0001. and what were the exceptional circumstances which had led to the large increase in the estimates proposed by the right honourable gentleman's own Government in 1859 over those of 1858? Did they intend to prepare for a war on the side of Austria against France? He then taunted Mr. Disraeli with not having supported Mr. White's mo- tion for the reduction of our army by 10,000 men ; with having, when in office, maintained a larger force within the United Kingdom than there was at present, and with having formed one of the Ministry that first recommended the enormous expense consequent upon Sir John Pakington's " reconstruction of the navy." He then showed from statistics that the present available strength of the French army was 646,000 men, besides 70,000 of this year's conscription, who might be called out at any moment. If a collision were to take place, would not France certainly land a greater force on our shores than it would suit our army to encounter ? It was of the utmost importance, therefore, that our naval supremacy should remain unquestionable. It was because he wished this country to remain at peace with France that he would not tempt France by allowing her to obtain any such superiority as would place us at her mercy. As to our respective navies, France had thirty-six iron-plated ships either built or building, and we had but twenty-five. France was, therefore, eleven iron ships ahead of us, and it could not be said we were doing more than the true interests of the country demanded. At the same time, Government would regard it both as a duty and a pleasure to avail themselves of any opportunities of retrenchment which might occur.

After a few words from Mr. LINDSAY (Shields) and Sir H. Wu-Lour:mar (Evesham), Mr. HUNT (Northamptonshire) drew attention to certain local income-tax grievances among his constituents.

Explanations having been given by the CHANCELLOR OF THE Exam- QUER, Mr. WHITE (Brighton) congratulated Mr. Disraeli upon his determina- tion to reduce expenditure, of his sincerity in which he had given proof by joining the opponents of the Alderney vote. Mr. Cobden had expressed a belief that our prestige could be kept up at a reduction of 10,000,0001. annually. He (Mr. White) did not go so far, but he thought a saving of 5,000,000/. might be effected. If Mr. Disraeli would obtain such a reduc- tion he would have a fair hold upon the sympathies of the nation, and would meet with no factious opposition from members below the gangway'.

The bill was then read a third time and passed.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved the second reading of the British Museum Bill, which sanctioned an expenditure of 670,0001. for providing accommodation at South Kensington for our national collections. which had long since outgrown the space afforded by the British Museum. Five acres was the smallest possible space that would satisfy the urgent requirements of the trustees, and the difference in cost between that amount of land at Kensington and at Bloomsbury was 200,0001., to say nothing of the saving which could be effected if the former site was adopted, by em- ploying a lighter style of architecture than that of the old building at Bloomsbury. The total cost of enlarging the later would not be less than 970,000/.

Mr. GREGORY (Galway county) moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. Gladstone had but recently made a tour in the country denouncing extravagant expenditure and yet he now pro- posed an enormous outlay for a patchwork scheme, which would at the same time bring discredit on the country. He also objected strongly to various details of the bill respecting the transfer of the trusteeship, all of which, he said, seemed to have been framed with an express view of contravening the decision arrived at by last year's Select Committee. The cost of the proposed scheme, too, would certainly be nearer 790,0001. than 680,000/., as Mr. Gladstone had omitted all charges for fittings, &c.

A long and animated debate then ensued, in the course of which Mr. Walpole (Cambridge University), Sir G. C. Lewis (War Secretary), and Lord Palmerston, spoke in favour of the bill.

On a division, the second reading was negatived by 168 to 71—majority 92, a result received with great cheering.

Lord ROBERT MONTAGU (Huntingdonshire) moved for certain returns connected with plans, &c. of iron-eased ships submitted to the Admiralty, and accused that department of apathy, vacillation and unnecessary ex- penditure on timber after the superiority of iron had been demonstrated.

Lord CLABENoE PAGET (Secretary to the Admiralty) defended the Government, and assented to the production of the returns in question.

The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill was then read a third time and passed, Sir Robert Peel (Chief Secretary for Ireland) observing, in reply to Colonel Dickson, that the present system was quite adequate to the re- pression of the agrarian crime which had recently attracted so much painful attention.

Inthe-House of Lords, on Tuesday, fiél laid on the table a copy of the treaty concluded between the United States and this country for the suppression of the Slave Trade. He said the present Government of the United States had shown great anxiety for the extinction of the slave trade, and the present treaty, which gave ex- tensive rights of search to the cruisers of both nations, would, he hoped, together with other measures adopted by that Government, go far towards the attainment of that object.

After some conversation on the subject, in which the Bishop of Oxford, Earl Stanhope, and Earl Grey took part, their Lordships adjourned. In the House of Commons,

Sir G. C. LEWIS (War Secretary) obtained leave to bring in a bill for the more speedy trial of the perpetrators of "military murders," by providing that every person charged with such a murder should, on committal by a magistrate, be transferred to the Central Criminal Court for trial at the next sessions.

In reply to Mr. BENTINCK (Norfolk), Mr. Lamp (Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs) stated that strong representations had been made to the French Government with regard to the heavy loss inflicted on English fishermen by the detention of their boats, when captured under the convention of 1848. Sir G. GREY (Home Secretary) moved the second reading of the Lunacy Regulation Bill. Sir H. CAIRNS (Belfast) mentioned several points which he desired to see altered in committee, but did not oppose the second reading. He ob- jected to the provision by which medical men who had known and examined the alleged lunatic were to be excluded, and no other class. He also thought it a great anomaly that the period over which evidence was ad- missible should be restricted when the case came before a jury, but was unlimited before the tribunal under the authority of which the commission of lunacy was issued.

After some further discussion the bill was read a second time, and the House shortly afterwards adjourned.

In the same Horse, on Wednesday,

Mr. W. MARTIN (Rochester), in moving the second reading of the Sale of Spirits Bill, said great perversions and abuses now existed in the working of 24 George II., cap. 40, commonly called the Tippling Act. One clause of that act fixed 20s. as the smallest sum which could be sued for on account of a single supply of spirits, the object being to protect persona stupified by drink from being made liable for sums contracted while in that condition. Since the recent change in the law, however, allowing wine merchants to sell small quantities. the Tippling Act was the means of enabling persons to purchase a small quantity of spirits from wine merchants, together with other articles, and by pleading that act, to evade payment altogether. He mentioned several flagrant instances in which wine merchants and hotel-keepers had thus been victimized, and urged upon the House the necessity of providing a remedy.

Mr. Avarow (Tower Hamlets) moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The restriction which the bill proposed to abolish was an essential condition of the monopoly granted to the licensed victuallers, and they ought to be bound by it.

After further discussion, in the course of.. which Sir G. GREY (Home Secretary) supported the bill, the second reading was carried by 82 to 53.

The Judgments Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, and the Debentures on Land (Ireland) Bill, were read a second time, on the motion of Mr. Wane- BIDE (Dublin University), and the House adjourned.

In the same House, on Thursday,

The O'CONNOR DON (Roscommon) called attention to the state of national education in Ireland, especially directing his remarks to the failure of the Queen's Colleges to satisfy the requirements of Roman Catholics. They had been established to afford means of education to Roman Catholics who, though Trinity College was open to them, would not avail themselves of its advantages, in consequence of the absence of religious teaching. They had not, however, fulfilled their objects, as Roman Catholics believed them to be dangerous to faith and morals. In spite of all the attractions of scholarships, &e., the only return for an expenditure of 500,0001. on these colleges was 212 students who had taken degrees in art, and 93 in medi. eine, since their foundation. It could not be said that public opinion was in favour of these colleges, and he hoped some scheme might be adopted which would,give satisfaction to the people of Ireland.

Sir ROBERT PEEL (Chief Secretary for Ireland), in reply, denied that the Queen's Colleges had failed, and maintained that, on the contrary, they had been pre-eminently successful

A long discussion, chiefly carried on by Irish members, then took place, and an attempt at a count-out having failed, was brought to a termination by Lord Palmerston, who interposed on the ground of the lateness of the hour, and the business still before the House.

Mr. Avivirox (Tower Hamlets) moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the amount for which the harbour and fortifications at Alderney would be completed. Sir Morton Pete and others had asserted that the works could not be completed under 2,000,090L, while three members of Govern- ment had declared that 230,000i. only would be required in addition to the vote of the present year. There was a discrepancy between these state- ments which it was necessary should be cleared up.

Lord PaLmErtsron opposed the motion on the ground that it would tie the hands of Government in going on with works which were absolutely necessary to the command( o the Channel.

On a division, the motion was negatived by 174 to 118.

The House then adjourned.