ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

Housa or LOEDS, Monday, February 17.—Revised Code : Lord Derby's Question: Answer by Lord Granville.—Count Cavours Letters : Personal Explanation by Lord Clarendon.—Transfer of Land : First Reading of Bills introduced by the Lord Chan- cellor, Lord Cranworth, and Lord St Leonards. Thursday, February 20.—Private business only was transacted.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, February 14.—Highways Bill : Second reading. Monday, February 17.—Supply : Discussion on Supplementary Estimates. Tuesday, February 18.—Trade Marks: Mr. Roebuck's Resolution.—The Australian Exploring Expedition: Mr. Childers Motion for Papers.—Sewage of Towns : Mr. Brady's Motion for Select Committee. Wednesday, February 19.—Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill: second reading. —Marriages of Affinity Bill: second reading. Thursday, February 20.—Issue of New Writs for Gloucester and Wakefield.—Births and Deaths Registration, Ireland: Introduction of Bill by Sir Robert PeeL —Ameri- can Blockade : The OlDonoghne's Motion for Papers.

THE only business of importance transacted in either House on Friday besides that recorded in our Postscript of last week, was the second read- ing of the Highways Bill, the motion for which gave rise to an ani- mated discussion. Mr. BARROW (Nottinghamshire), on moving that it be read a second time that day six months, stated his objections to the bill at some length. Be opposed it because it was an unnecessary and unwarrant- able interference with the right of property, and because it was an exten- sion of that principle of centralization and bureaucracy to which the people of this country entertained such a deep-rooted antipathy. He contended that the present system, under which a parish vestry elected a surveyor every year against whom a summons could be obtained in case of neglect, accom- plished all that could be wished for. The parish surveyor, under the present system, was bound to produce his accounts at the end of the year, the vestry had power to refuse to allow them, and he was liable to a penalty for neglect of duty. The surveyor appointed by the proposed district boards was expressly relieved from this penalty, and he looked in vain for any provision by which the district boards would be compelled to repair. He complained also of the short time allowed to Members to consider the bill. It had not been in the hands of Members much more than twenty-four hours, and instead of stating precisely its provisions, there were references to innumerable acts of Parliament.

Mr. HODOKINSON (Newark) seconded the amendment. He hoped the House would not destroy a system which was theoretically right because It had been badly administered. Even its bad administration was to be attributed to the incessant onslaughts which had been made upon it in that House. No set of men could be expected to incur the odium of putting a parish to a large expense when _they might every day expect the law to be altered.

Mr. BASS (Derby) supported the bilL Parish roads were always in bad condition, and he had never yet found an overseer who knew anything whatever about his business.

Colonel BettrrEtor (Surrey) also supported the bill. Powers were given by the existing act for the amalgamation of parishes and the appointment of a paid surveyor, and in the few districts where parishes had availed themselves of those powers the plan had worked admirably.

Mr. DODSON (Bent) did not think the bill involved any such confiscation .as had been asserted. The working of the proposed system would rest ultimately with the ratepayers. In fact, it was but extending the principle of the administration of the poor-law to that of the highways. The area of management was merely enlarged from the parish to the district. There -were, however, complicated details to be taken into consideration, which induced him to think the best course would be to refer the bill to a Select Committee.

Colonel WILSON PATTEN (Lancashire), though he had previously op- posed similar bills, thought the present one, when modified by a Select Com- mittee, would be deserving of support.

Several other honourable Members having addressed the House on the subject,

Mr. HENLEY (Oxfordshire) was disposed to support the bill, if he was assured that the effect of the fifth clause would be to place the ap- portionment into districts in the bands of the quarter-sessions, and would not render the division of a county into districts imperative upon the requisi- tion of five magistrates.

Sir GEORGE GREY (Home Secretary) said he had not addressed the House in moving the second reading because he had nothing more to state, the principles of the bill being absolutely identical with that of many pre- viously introduced measures on the subject. With regard to the objection advanced by honourable Members, he denied that the bill would tend to de- parochialize the country. Even admitting that roads were parochial property, parochial rights were not confiscated. The money raised within a parish would be spent within that parish, with the exception of the small propor- tion required for the expenses of the district board surveyor and clerk. It had been said that the machinery of the board was unnecessarily cum- brous; but the bill would have been liable to still greater objections if it had authorized the appointment of surveyors by the local magistracy, without the intervention of a body resting upon the representative system. Ratepayers feared an increase of expense would result from the proposed change, but he was convinced that, though there would be some expense in putting bad roads into a state of efficiency, there would be a great saving in annual repairs.

After some further discussion, the second reading was carried by a ma- jority of 111—the numbers being—Ayes 141, Noes O.

Sir ROBERT PEEL (Chief Secretary for Ireland) obtained leave to bring in a bill, embodying the recommendations of last year's Select Committee on the Irish Poor-law' and the House adjourned.

In the House of Lords on Monday,

'Lord DF.RBY suggested that, as the system of education established by the Revised Code was intended to be permanent and final, Government should proceed in the matter by a series of resolutions in both Houses embodying the provisions and leading details of the scheme. He did not wish to bind the Privy Council by the clauses of a bill, though he was sure that if a bill was introduced their Lordships would read it a second time and discuss the details in Committee. His great wish was to avoid anything of a party spirit in the discussion of the question ; and he thought that the introduc- tion of resolutions condemnatory of parts of the measure, which would probably be moved if the question was to be determined by a single vote of the other House, would be sure to partake of such a character. Lord GRANVILLE said it was not the intention of Government to depart from the usual precedent. The question would be decided by the vote of the other House, but resolutions in modification of the Code proposed in their Lordships' House would not be considered as more hostile in character than amendments to Government resolutions.

The Earl of CLARENDON rose to make a personal explanation on a point of great public importance. In certain recently published letters, alleged to have been written by the late Count Cavour, there were certain observa- tions attributed to him without any foundation whatever. In these letters he was stated, when Her Majesty's plenipotentiary at the Congress of Paris in 1856, to have deliberately advised Cavour to force Austria to hostilities, and to have promised him the material support of England in such a war. Such a palpable absurdity, he hoped, would carry its own refutation.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved for leave to introduce his bill for the simplification of the transfer of land. He adverted in detail to the numerous difficulties and expenses attendant upon the sale of an estate under the present law, and proceeded to explain the provisions of the bill. Its main object was the construction of some "legal instrument that shall not only enable a man to obtain a statutory title at the present time, but which should enable him to give from time to time entries of the results of all future transactions and dealings with the land, so that the owner of the estate might at any time send to the registry, and if he wanted to sell might obtain a special certificate of title. The principal provision by means of which he hoped to attain this object, were the establishment of a registry, divided into two parts, one being till registry of statutory or guaranteed titles, and the other that of titles unguaranteed ; but placed in the registry in order to attain indefeasibility through lapse of time. The examination of titles would be conducted privately by the official registrar, who could, if necessary, obtain the assistance of the Court of Chancery, by resorting to a judge of that court sitting in chambers. With regard to the great question of the registration of titles of estates held by trustees, he had abandoned altogether the plan of securing the interests of beneficial owners by a complicated system of caveats, and had provided a mode by which the actual state of the ownership could be always ascer- tained. The description of an estate vested in trustees would be entered by the registrar in the registry of estates ; and in another registry, to be called the record of titles, would be entered from time to time, under a corresponding number, a full description of all limitations. His Lordship explained various other details at great length; the above, however, being the most striking features of the bill.

Lord Sr. LEox_Inns, while agreeing with the Lord Chancellor as to the importance of the object of the bill, had grave doubts as to its feasibility. Lord CRANWORTH said he had prepared two bills on the same subject, which he would ask leave to lay on the table. He hoped to have an oppor- tunity of explaining their provisions before the second reading of the bill then before the house. Lord CHELMSFORD also moved for leave to intro- duce two hills, as he had gathered from the speech of the Lord Chancellor that he intended to refer his bill to a Select Committee, in which case it was desirable that every plan should be laid before such Committee.

The five bills were all read a first time, and the second reading fixed for that day fortnight.

In the House of Commons,

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Sir H. Wrmouoarav (Evesham) asked whether the two Supplementary Estimates for the two services to be considered that night, were all that would be required in excess Of the votes of last Session, and also whether any steps had been taken to improve the state of the War-office accounts, which had been described before the Committee on Military Organization as being most deplorable?

Sir G. C. LEWIS (Minister of War) said he believed the amount asked for would cover the whole of the excess upon last year's expeniliture. As to the War-office accounts, he was not aware that it was contemplated to make any alteration in the system by which, in extreme cases, the excess of one vote might be appropriated in aid of a deficiency upon another ; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in preparation a measure based upon the recommendation of the Committee on Public Moneys, on which Sir H. Willoughby had served two years ago.

Mr. BRIGHT (Birmingham) said he would not attempt to object to the vote, but he felt compelled to make a few observations on the great incon- sistency between the despatches of the Foreign-office and the preparations of certain other departments with regard to our recent transaction with America. "it is not customary in ordinary life for a person to send a polite messenger with a polite message to a friend, or neighbour, or acquaintance, and at the same time to send a man of portentous strength, wielding a gigantic club, and making every kind of ferocious gesticulation, and still to profess that all this is done in the most friendly and courteous manner." Such, however, had been the conduct of Government, and the result was that a million of money had been wasted—more than wasted, for the general paralysis throughout all the ramifications of our commerce caused by the warlike preparations of Government, had already been productive of the most pernicious effects. The affair of the Trent was nothing but an unhappy accident, and no one knew it better than Lord Palmerston himself.

Mr. BAXTER (Montrose) wished to know whether no representations had been made to the Canadians with a view to induce them to contribute towards the maintenance of the troops engaged in their defence?

Lord PALHEBSTON, after turning into ridicule Mr. Bright's illustration of the messenger who made "ferocious gesticulations," said the point of his argument was that the Government of the United States were bound by obligations of international law to give up those persons who were taken from on board the Trent, and that they were not influenced by any fear of mob dictation, which could justify us in making demonstrations in order to overawe the mob. If so, why did not the American Government immedi- ately release the prisoners, and why did it—one department at least—partici- pate in the orations to Captain Wilkes ? Lord Palmerston concluded by reminding Mr. Bright that his own countrymen were susceptible of insult as well as Americans, and if he had pocketed the insult, a feeling of ineradicable irritation would have been produced in this country, which would have been far more dangerous to the future prospects of peace than any feelings en- gendered by the recent conduct of Government. Mutual respect, between nations as well as individuals, was the best security for mutual good-will- The remainder of the sitting was devoted to the consideration of the au.pplmental Army and Navy Estimates, in tilts course of which Mr, ADDZELET (Staffordshire) expressed a hope that some share at least of the expenses of the troops now in Canada would beborne by the colonists. Sir G. C. LEWIS replied that as Mr. A. Mills had given notice of a motion, in the discussion of which all our colonial policy would be brought before the House, he thought it would be better to wait until that motion was made for the full consideration of the subject. With regard to Canada, however, there was one peculiarity which he could not avoid mentioning. The frontier line between that colony and the United States was settled some years ago by a plenipotentiary from this country, and the Canadians might well look to us, after taking the negotiating of their frontier out of their hands, and even conceding the territory, to help them when threatened with war.

The Parochial Assessments Bill was then read a second time, on the mo- tion of Sir G. C. LEWIS, and ordered to be referred to a Select Committee. In the same House, on Tuesday,

In reply to Mr. Cox (Finsbury), Lord Paranntsvon said that it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce a Reform Bill in the course of the present Session.

In reply to Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisburn), Sir G. C. Law's said it was his intention shortly to introduce a bill to amend the procedure in case of murder of a superior officer committed by a private soldier, in order that trial and punishment might follow the offence more speedily than at present. Mr. SCULLY (Cork) obtained leave to bring in a bill for authorizing the issue of transferable debentAres to be charged upon land in Ireland. His proposal, which he had ma & for the last eighteen years was that the value of the land should be ascertained by a duly appointed land tribunal, and that debentures might then be issued, chargeable on the land, up to the moiety of such value. Mr. GEORGE (Wexford) said that Mr. Whiteside was about to introduce a measure on the same subject.

In committee of the whole House' Mr. ROEBUCK (Sheffield) moved for leave to bring in a bill on the sub- ject of fraudulent trade marks. He did not expect the bill to be passed, but wished to introduce it in order that, by referring it to a Select Com- mittee, the whole subject might be inquired into. The bill proposed to make forgery of a trade mark a misdemeanour, and in the next place to give summary jurisdiction in case of such forgery. It would also provide for a law of reciprocity betren England and other nations by which, if any other country protected our trade marks abroad, we would protect theirs in this country. Mr. GIBSON (President of the Board of Trade) said that as Government was about to introduce a similar measure, the two could be referred to the same Select Committee with great advantage. The evils complained of were undoubtedly great, but, on the other hand, care must be taken to prevent innocent traders from being exposed to frivolous and vexatious prosecutions.

Leave was given to introduce the bill.

Mr. BRADY (Leitrim) moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the possibility of utilizing the sewage of our great towns. It was calculated that, at the present rate of consumption, the supply of guano would be exhausted in twenty years, and the enormous amount of manure, valued at the lowest estimate at 7,000,0001, and at the highest at 92,000,0001., was annually wasted. Mr. COWPER (First Commissioner of Works) did not object, and the mo- tion was agreed to.

In the House of Commons on Wednesday,

Mr. HADFIELD (Sheffield) moved the second reading of the Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill.

Mr. NEWDEGATE (Warwickshire) moved that it be read that day six months.

Sir GEORGE GREY (Home Secretary) said he thought both the grievance of the declaration and the danger of its abolition had been Much exagge- rated. He did not believe, however, that it afforded any real protection to the Church, and as the House had already sanctioned the principle of the measure, he should vote for the second reading. Mr. WALPOLE (Cambridge University) said that, though he agreed with Sir G. Grey that the declaration was no real protection to the Church, still it was no serious grievance to Dissenters, and its abolition might tend by implication to the supposition that Dissenters might take advantage of official position to assail the Church. He should, therefore, vote against the bill.

On a division, the second reading was carried by 63 to 54.

Mr. Monowrorr MILES (Pontefract) then moved the second reading of the Marriages of Affinity Bill. Mr. LYGON (Tewkesbury) opposed the bill, chiefly on ecclesiastical grounds. Mr. Cotrzert (Plymouth) supported the bill. According to the dictates of natural law, marriage ought to be free and unrestricted between every man and every woman. Proof of the impediment always devolved upon the party forbidding the banns. There was no spiritual prohibition to be found in the New Testament, and as for "moral instinct" on the subject, England was the only Protestant country in which marriage with a deceased wife's sister was illegal, and even in England it would not appear that the House of Commons was actuated by any repugnant instinct, for they had passed the measure over and over again. After some further discussion, Lord ROBERT CECIL (Stamford) moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. If Mr. Milnes's theory, that by the dictates of natural law any man might marry any woman was true, then everything he had said in favour of the bill would apply with equal force to an abolition of the laws against bigamy. Bigamy was accepted by a vast majority of mankind ; it was not, there- fore, forbidden by moral instinct. There was no prohibition in the New Testament against bigamy. Mr. Collier had argued that the bill should be passed because the present law was violated every day. They had only to look to the public reports to see that the same was the case with regard to "his present clients, the bigamists." If the present bill was passed, they would have no logical ground to stand on, until all restrictions what- ever were abolished. They would set everybody in the kingdom thinking whom they might marry and whom they might not. Sir G. GREY, in the absence of an unambiguous declaration on the question in Scripture, declined to enter upon the theological part of the question. On the whole, he thought the balance of advantage was in favour of a relaxation of the law, but he could not but think that the continued agi-

tation of the question, without a reasonable prospect of a settlement, was productive of harm in a social point of view.

Mr. WALPOLE (Cambridge University) spoke at length against the bill, and after a reply from Mr. lilitsms, the second reading was carried by 144 to 133; majority IL In the HOWIE of Commons, on Thursday, Mr. H. BERKELEY (Bristol) in moving for a new writ for the city of Gloucester, contended that the constituency had been treated with undue severity in being disfranchised for three years. Bribery to a great extent had, no doubt, been made use of in 1859, but there were certainly more extenuating circumstances in the case than in those of some forty other boroughs in which the plague-spot prevailed to an equal extant. In 18,57, the agents of the three candidates—Sir M. Berkely, Mr. Price, and Sir R. Carden—agreed to resort to constitutional means only, but the agreement was deliberately broken by Sir R. Carden's agent, who brought him into the borough. A petition was presented, but through the hard swearig o Sir R. Carden's partisans it narrowly escaped being declared frivolo us and vexatious. At the next election, in 1859, the Liberals unfortunately determined to use every possible means to regain the seat, and succeeded in doing so by dint of bribing right and left. Messrs. Price and Monk, the two Members, were then unseated on petition, and the Royal Commission. which subsequently investigated the matter found that not only had bribery carried the election in 1859, but that Sir R. Carden had owed his return in 1857 to the same means. In the two elections, however, not 400 electors had been proved to have been corrupt, while the remaining 1200 honest voters and the important commercial interests of the city, were to. be punished for the sake of the guilty few.

Sir GEORGE Guar (Home Secretary) denied that the constituency of' Gloucester had been unfairly treated. There was no such sharp line of demarcation between the 400 corrupt voters and the 1200 who were asserted to be pure. If the latter had steadfastly set themselves against the employment of unlawful practices, corruption could not possibly have pre- vailed in the borough to such an extent as one-fourth of the whole con- stituency. He should oppose the issue of the writ on the present occasion, but he hoped that in any future case the House would suspend the fran- chise of the guilty constituency for a period sufficiently long not only to show the disapproval of the Legislature, but also to allow time for a con- siderable change to take place in the constituency.

Mr. DISRAELI (Bucks) said the course adopted, in arbitrarily suspending the writ without legislating on the subject, was clearly unconstitutional, because the period of disfranchisement was determined by but one branch of the Legislature, It was also calculated to stimulate the very practices it was sought to put down. During the arbitrary suspension of the writ, a chronic state of electioneering had prevailed in both Gloucester and Wakefield, than which nothing could be more prejudicial to the prospects of a change for the better. He should not oppose the issue of a writ which ought to have been issued before, but he hoped that on any future occasion of a similar nature the House would be prepared to legislate with a view to remedial measures.

After some further discussion the motion was agreed to, as also was a similar motion with regard to Wakefield, made by Major EDWARDS.

Sir ROBERT PEEL (Chief Secretary for Ireland) obtained leave to intro- duce a bill for the registration, of births and deaths in Ireland. Ireland. was, he believed, the only civilized country in Europe where there was no. system of registration, the advantages of which, as promoting both the moral and material interests of a country, could not be denied.

O'Dostoottra (Tipperary) moved for returns of the total number of vessels that have broken the blockade of the Southern ports of America within the last six moaths, and Mr. LAYABD refused them.