&ban nut Vrarrdiugu iu paliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOFSE OF Loans. Monday, April 21. Church Discipline; the Lord Chancellor's Bill thrown out.

Thursday, April 24. The Naval Review ; Complaints of the Peers—Parma ; Lord Clarendon's Statement.

Friday, April 25. Naval Review ; Earl Granville's Explanation—Marriage-Law Amendment ; Earl St. Germans's Bill thrown out.

Hoy= OF COMMONS. Monday, April 21. Celebration of the Peace ; Conversa- tion on—Supply ; Civil Estimates.

Thursday, April 24. The Naval Review ; Grievances of the Commons—Civil Ser- vice Appointments ; Lord Goderich's Motion carried against the Government— Public Accounts ; Sir F. Baring's Motion—Draughts on Bankers Bill read a third time and passed—Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill passed.

Friday, April 25. Troops to Canada ; Mr. Laing's Question—Naval Review; Sir Charles Wood's Explanations—Public Thanksgiving ; Sir George Grey's Reply to Mr. Byng—Police Boroughs and Counties Bill in Committee.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 55 . (al) 12h 30m Monday 45 .(m) 111415m Tuesday No sitting. Tuesday No sitting.

Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday No sitting.

Thursday 5h 6h 30m

Thursday •

4h .(111) 11; 30m Friday 55 .... 11h 50m Pride .(m) lh 30m Sittings this this Week, 3; Time, lah 60m Sittings thisWeek, this session, — 3; Time, 2811. 45m Session, 42 ; — 931110m 48; — 3455 20m

CHURCH Diseirtnin.

The Lora) Cnartenimon moved the second reading of the Church Dis- cipline Bill on Monday. He stated the object of the bill to be an im- proved system of "what is called church discipline," and generally to. amend the administration of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Those courts ex- ercise a jurisdiction in matters purely temporal, as in the probate of wills ; in matters of a mixed character, as divorces a mensi et thoro ; in matters purely ecclesiastical, as the correction of clerks who misconduct them- selves. He had already introduced a bill relating to the matrimonial part of the question ; that relating to testamentary jurisdiction has been brought into the House of Commons ; the bill relating to the third branch of the subject he now asked the House to read a second time. He gave at some length a summary of theinquiries and attempted legislation on a matter admitted on all sides to be in an unsatisfactory state ; and he cri- tically examined a bill introduced into the House by the Bishop of Lon- don in 1847, for the Purpose of showing that it was open to the gravest - objections. That course led to an explanation of his own measure. , The present bill did not propose to destroy the Diocesan Courts, but to constitute four Ecclesiastical Judges—Chancellors, if they pleased—who should supersede throughout the country the present Vicars-General, who, though there are no doubt some exceptions, are for the most part inefficient.- It has been thought proper that these Judges, Chancellors, or Assessors, should be selected, not by the Crown, but by the Bishops. Their 'Appoint- ment would be vested in the two English and the two. Irish Archbishops, with whom would be united the Bishop of London. It was confidently ex- pected that this system would -work well, for patronage is always most judi- ciously distributed where there is direct responsibility and a conviction that the appointments made would be critically scanned. It is proposed that of these four assessors two should be for England and two for Ireland ; their maximum salary to be 3000/. and their minimum 20001. a year. In cases involving doctrine, the Bishop would preside by himself, although he might, if he pleased, have an assessor with him; and in matters not rebating to doctrine, the Bishop would delegate the whole business to the Chancellor, who would be for that purpose a judge. The bill contemplated that there might be disputed facts; and such facts would be decided by a jury of four persons, not beneficed clergymen, but selected from.the common roll of spe- cial jurors. With respect to the Court of Appeal, that tribunal would con- sist, as at present, of the Judicial Committee ; but, inasmuch as it would be a court of appeal for Ireland as well asEngland, the bill proposed that an Irish Prelate should be at liberty to attend it, as under the old law an English Bishop, being a Privy Councillor, was similarly privileged. '

In order to provide for the expense of carrying out the bill, he proposed to abolish the Docessnzegiatries, and consolidate them all in one great Metro- politan registry. The sum required to defray the expense would be 38,000/. ; and after defraying that, there would be a surplus, which it is proposed to expend in paying salaries to legal secretaries for the Bishops.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY opposed the bill, and moved that it should be read a second time that day six months. He complained that those most interested in. the matter should have first heard of the in- tention of the Lord Chancellor to deal with it when a bill of nearly two hundred clauses was laid on the table. He was sure the measure bad received little other benefit from Lord Cranworth than the sanction of his name and his powerful advocacy. He was sure that, were it other- wise,. Lord Cranworth would not have proposed to overthrow the whole system on which the affairs of the Church have hitherto Been administer- ed, and to introduce a new and complicated machinery. That was one sourceof embarrassment to the Archbishop. Anotber- was that his Irish

.

brethren had assented to the bill. A central registry might be necessary for Ireland, where great changes have taken place; but it is not neces- sary for England, where the diocesan registries are correctly kept and_ are easily accessible?' He would not enter into details. A great part of the bill might be justly described as a bill for putting ecclesiastical au- thority-in commission. And this for no imaginable purpose except to provide a remuneration for certain officers under the name of Chancellors, whose only business it would be to sign and seal documents which they had or ought to have no concern in framing, and to sit as assessors to a Bishop when a charge of delinquency is brought against any of his clergy. The Archbishop was happy to say that such charges are not so frequent as to require such expensive provision. The Bishop of DERRY read a series of resolutions adopted in Novem- ber last by the two Archbishops and the Bishops of the Irish Church, substantially approving of the bill. The Churches of England and Ire- land are two branches of ono identical Church, and the bill maintains that identity in establishing one appellate tribunal. The Bishop of EXETER strongly opposed the bill.

Looking with satisfaction to the unanimity of the English and Irish Churches with regard to a final court of appeal, he declared that if the Church of Ireland looked upon the principle of a bill that withdraws au- thority from diocesan Bishops and vests it in Archbishops as tolerable in a Christian church, he could not hold himself in communion with the Church of Ireland. If the Irish Church do not admit the divine right of diocesan episcopacy they separate themselves from the Church of England—nay, H

from the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The divine right of the Bishop over his clergymen has been handed down in succession from the Apostles; and the Bishop of Derry must have declared his belief that it was derived from God before he was instituted to the high office he now holds.

Passing from this theme to the provisions of the bill, he denied that it is the same as the bill laid on the table last year ; and he cited some im- portant changes. The origin of the authority of an Archbishop was the de- termination of the Church, the authority of the Bishop was given by the Word of God. Would the House set up the institutions of the Church above the Word of God ? He made some remarks on the origin of the measure. Mr. Stephens, who drew the bill, could not have drawn it as it stood, knowingly and intentionally ; for, in conversation with him, Mr. Stephens admitted that he thought every power that belonged to the Bishop ought to he pre- served. Then the Chief Law Officer of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical never heard of the bill until it was laid on the table ; nor had the Queen's Advocate been consulted on it. Had it proceeded from a mind imbued with a knowledge of ecclesiastical principles, it never would have contained a clause giving the Church a power she never possessed and never ought to possess—that of committing a person to prison for contempt. The Church repudiates the powes of the sword, and only claims that of the keys. Ano- ther clause directs that where a Bishop delays or refuses to institute a clerk, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may call upon another Bishop to do so. Anything more monstrous was never heard of. He further ob- jected to the bill on:the ground of its centralizing tendencies, and its ex- pense--which he estimated at 48,9001., upwards of 10,0001. more than the estimate of the framer of the bill.

The Bishop of BANGOR also spoke against the bill. The Earl of HARROWBY pointed out, in answer to the Bishop of Exe- ter, that two objections raised against the bill of last year—that it con- ferred new powers on the Archbishop, and that it transferred the juris- diction of the Archbishop to the Crown—had been met by the insertion of clauses in the new bill ; but that a third objection, indicating a prefer- ence for a different mode of dealing with the Court of Appeal, was open to a radical objection—that it gave the go-by to the supremacy of the Crown.

The Earl of DERBY said he looked.upon this question least of all as a party matter; he had come to the House perfectly anpledged. He thought there should be some legislation on the subject ;- and he had earnestly desired the success of the bill. But, after hearing the speech of Lord Cranwerth and the answer, of the Bishop of Exeter, he was con- vinced that the inherent faults of the measure were such as to give little or no hope that it could be satisfactorily amended in Committee. He said this not without hesitation, because they all must wish to effect what, the Government have in view.

The Bishop of Cssnat, supported, and the Bishop of OXFORD, in terms- more moderate than the Bishop of Exeter, but _quite as decisively, op-

posed the bill. •

In reply, the Loan CHANCELLOR corrected seine mistakes of previous speakers.. It was said there was no provision giving jurisdiction to the Bishop but the very first clause in the second part of the bill declared that every Bishop should preside in all suits and other proceedings in his court. The Archbishops are enabled under the Church Discipline Act to exercise the jtuisdietion of the Bishops in the way proposed in this bill, whenever the Bishop is the patron of any preferment held by the party accused.

It is admitted that it would be desirable to have Chancellors who would be efficient judges ; but it is said that the local registries were to be sacri- ficed in order to raise funds for paying them. No one doubted-that the es- tablishment of a central registry in Ireland would be an advantage, and, he believed it would be equally advantageous in England. He had no sym- pathy with centralization by itself; but it was known that many of the local registries are not safe places of deposit ; and when testamentary docu- ments are removed from them, he should like to know how. funds would be obtained for their maintenance ? With regard to compensation, persons en- titled to compensation would be put on the testamentary fund, and are not, therefore, dealt with by this hill.

The House divided—Contents, 33 ; non-contents, 41; majority against the second reading, 8. So the bill was lost.

erns., SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

. Lord GODERICH brought forward the subject of admission to the Civil Service, apropos of the Report of the Civil Service Commissioners ap- . pointed to examine candidates for public offices : he asked the House to agree to an address to the Crown, thanking her Majesty for the re- port ; praising the Commissioners; the steady support of the House in the prosecution of the salutary measures adopted ; and humbly making known, that if her Majesty " shall think fit further to extend them, and to make trial in the Civil Service of the method of open corn- Petition as a condition of entrance, this. House will cheerfully provide for any charges which the adoption of that system may entaiL" He ad- • vacated the adoption of an open system of competition for admission to the Civil Service, as the only means of providing efficient servants,' and of relieving the Government from the pressurennder whiehthey.arenow obliged to make appointments on other grounds than those of merit. A system of *pen competition would also have an important bearing on education.

Sir STAFFORD NORTLICXYPE seconded the motion, in an argumentative speech intended to show the superiority of open over limited competi- tion ; which he described as an artificial system, that after a certain time must break down.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the motion. The pre- sent system has been in force something less than a year, and it has not yet had a fair trial. The latest returns from London and the provinces show that up to the 21st April the Civil. Service Commissioners had ex- .

amined 1416- candidates, of which number 868 had received certificates, and 463 were rejected ; facts which show that the examination is a real one. It must not be assumed that all the rejected candidates would have received appointments if the Civil Service Commissioners had not been appointed ; because there were already examinations in the great ma,- jority of departments. The system is now uniform. But Lord Goderieb proposes to sweep it away, and institute something totally new, uneas ampled in any other nation, and alien to our practice in private mercan- tile establishments. But, says Sir Stafford Northcote, the, present aye, • tem is artificial : what does that mean a Is the present system to be universally condemned ? Would he appoint Judges, for instance, by- open competition. The plan of Lord Goderich would also get rid of the responsibility of the individual head of each department with regard to the character of candidates. He asked the House not to interfere with the working of a system which is an important step towards the im- provement of our civil service. He moved the "previous question." The original motion was supported by Mr. GtAns.rose, Lord EBRING- TON, Mr. Ewen', and Mr. Rms. Mr. GLAnsroste argued against the.

notion that there is any danger in making the civil service toe strong for the safety of the state—" the Commons of England are strong enough to prevent the growth of any power that may he prejudicial to the liber- ties of the people." On the question of responsibility—the main arms- ment of Sir George Lewis—he denied that there is any responsibility whatever. Any one who. should say, for instance, that there is any responsibility in the appointment of young mon. to the,Custems, would, be overwhelmed with torrents • of laughter. " The doctrine of respells sibility is a pure delusion—a mere stalking-hoineN lie denied that the motion proposed that all admissions to the civil Aierviee should be by open competition. It merely states that if her :Majesty is disposed to " make a trial " of the system the House will provide the means.

The motion was opposed by Mr. Lusatia:ems Mr. Pamirs, Mr. J. G. PHILLLMORE, and Lord ROBERT CECIL. Mr. LABOUCHERE, also opposing the motion, reproved Mr. Gladstone for his "low opinion• of men placed in great situations." He explained in detail that the Minute, of Council leaves it open to the head of a department to adopt what he pleases, open or limited competition. He gave his testimony in of the nomination by the head of a department of candidates for ex- amination.

In consequence of an informality in proposing an. address to the Crown. while the Speaker was in the chair, Lord GODERIC/I was permitted-to withdraw his resolution, and substitute another, to the effect that the . House would on the next day resolve itself into a Committee for the- purpose of considering the address. Whereupon Sir GEORGE Lawler again moved the "previous question." The House divided on the pro• position " That that question be now put "—Ayes, 108 ; Noes, 87 ; ma- jority, 21. The main question was agreed to without a division.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

In Committee of Supply, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved a vote of 60,0001. to defray the expenses of the British Museum. He explained, that Sir Henry Ellis, after fifty-six years of most distinguished service, had retired from the office of chief Librarian, on a pension of 15001. a year; that the Trustees had determined to appoint a Superintendent of Natural History ; and that it was understood a person whose name is known not in this country alone but throughout Europe [Professor . Owen] would receive the appointment. Mr. Moiscarox Mu seas said, what principally induced him to call the attention of the House to the subject was the fact that the report of the Commission of 1850 remains almost unnoticed. He advocated the ap- pointment of a standing Executive Council, really responsible, instead of the fluctuating body that goes by that name. He complained that the

i standing Committee is composed of persons filling high political positions,.- or who are engaged in other. duties ; and he urged the Government to place the management of the Museum on a larger and. more permanent lads. He complained that the recommendation of the Commission-that two gentlemen should be• appointed to represent science and literature had not been carried out ; and, making aspecial reference to the appoint- ment of Mr. Panizzi, he objected to it, on the ground that literary men would not place the same confidence in a foreigner as in a distinguished countryman of their own.

The SPEAKER, on behalf of his colleagues and himself, vindicated, the appointment of Mr. Panizzi. A better choice could not have been made. -

Of five Librarians appointed since the formation of the- Museum, two have been foreigners—Mr. Maty, a native of Holland, and Mr. Planta, a Swiss. That was a precedent. Again : it has been the invariable rule to promote some deserving officer on the establishment to the post of chief Librarian. The speaker read three letters which he had received, from the Reverend W. Cureton, Mr. William It. Hamilton, and the Earl of Ellesmere, all recommending Mr. Panizzi. For himself and his col- leagues, he could assure Mr. Mikes that. they would be glad to be re-. re lieved from the patronage of the British Museum but while they,

retained it, they should do their utmost to promote; the interests of the public and secure the good government of the Muileum.,; Mr. LAYARD and Mr. DISRAELI defended the appointment of Mr. Pa- nizzi. In reply to questions from other Members, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and. Lord JOHN Russnu stated that, the• new reading- room will be opened in about ten months that if it can' be-done without material inconvenience, Lord John Russell will support. .a proposal. to open thereading-room of an evening; that in all pridsability Professor Owen will be selected to superintend the department of natural history, with a salary of, 800/. a year ; and that there is.dvery Prospect of com- pleting the printed catalogue lay 1860.

Vote agreed to.

THE FIREWORKS IN THE PARKS.

The subject of the official rejoicings on the proclamation of peace gave rise to a debate. Mr. MONSELL stated, in reply- to a question, that the

buildings in the Parks have been erected under the superintendence of Captain Boxer and that the expenses would be included in the estimate for Civil Contingencies.

Mr. ROEBUCK— By whose authority have these expenses been incur- red ? " (Cheers from the Opposition.) Mr. MONSELL—" That of the Secretary of State." Mr. ROEBUCK—" What Secretary of State ? "

Mr. Moxszti.--" The Secretary of State for War, with the concurrence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here moved that the House at its rising should adjourn until Thursday. He explained that the expenses had been limited to 80001. ; that there will be fireworks in Hyde Park, in the Green Park, in Victoria Park, and on Primrose Hill; and that the course taken is in accordance with what was done after the last peace. Lord JOHN MANNERS suggested that it would be better to postpone the display until the House and the country had had time to form an opinion as to the terms of the treaty. Lord ELCHO and Colonel KNOX com- plained that the Ranger had not been consulted; and called in question -the authority of the Minister for War to act without consulting the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE said that the people view these proceedings- -which are called public rejoicings—with apathy and contempt; for the war had been, in the opinion of the people, brought on by a want of energy and vigilance in the Government at a former time, and conducted with insincerity and indifference at the last. Poland, Italy, and Hun- gary, are all further removed from freedom and independence than ever. Why are the people to be called upon to rejoice in the conclusion of a peace whose terms they view with the greatest dissatisfaction ? These rejoicings will record England's dissatisfaction and Russia's triumph. In reply to the several speakers, Sir GEORGE GREY and the CHANCEL- LOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that no innovation has been introduced ; nothing unprecedented would be done. No Member would be precluded from discussing the terms of the treaty, any more than he is precluded because on the news of peace guns were fired and church-bells were rung. There were celebrations after the peace of Amiens,—a peace of which it was said, remarked Sir GEORGE LEWIS, " that everybody was glad of it, but everybody was ashamed of it." [" Rather an unhappy reference !" interpolated Lord JOHN MANNERS.] There was also such a celebration in 1814.

In reply to a question from an Irish Member who was dissatisfied with a reference to the Lord-Lieutenant as to whether there would be fireworks at Dublin, Mr. Holdout; said, "it was very remiss in the re- presentatives of the Irish metropolis not to have brought the subject under the notice of the Lord-Lieutenant,"—a sally saluted with cries -of " Oh, oh !" Here the interlude ended.

THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

On the motion of Sir FRANCIS BARING, it has been ordered that a Select Committee shall be appointed "to inquire into the receipt, issue, and audit of public moneys in the Exchequer, the Pay-Office, and the Audit Department." Mr. GLansrozcz support&d the motion. The CHANCE', Loa of the EXCHEQUER acceded to it; not because there is anything peculiarly demanding investigation at the present moment, but because the House desired an inquiry. At the close of the debate, Lord Pat- mEasroN admitted that, under all the circumstances, the inquiry is de- sirable.

THE NAVAL REVIEW GRIEVANCES.

In both Houses of Parliament, the grievances inflicted on Lords and

Commons, before, at, and after the Spithead review, were the sub-

EAt of warm complaints on Thursday. In the Upper House, Lord VENSWORTH was the chief spokesman. He described how, at the outset, the Peers were delayed two hours by the breaking down of two railway-engines ; how, when they arrived at Southampton, there was only one tender for both Houses ; how the steam-ship Transit had two - engines one of which was disabled and the other inefficient ; how they

reached the review after it was half over ; how the fires were suffered to go out ; and how when they were slowly returning to Southampton, the Transit managed to run down a gun-boat [the Shamrock.] When landed, ladies and gentlemen, right reverend Prelates and noble Lords, rushed to the railway—some taking refuge in third-class carriages ; and when, at three in the morning, they arrived at the Waterloo station, there were many who could not find a cab to take them home.

Earl GRAN-vitias defended the Government, and threw the blame upon the Railway Company. He promised that proper inquiries should btl° made, and any neglect punished. The Earl of Mamivainray charged the Lord President with deserting the ship and seeking comfortable quarters in the Isle of Wight. Lord CAMPBELL, who had presided du-

. ring the day in his court although he did not get home until four o'clock in the morning, added some amusing incidents to the story.

"The Transit at last weighed anchor, but it was necessary% for two learned -Judges who were on board to work at the capstan. (Laughter.) We had three right reverend Prelates on board, but I do not know whether they lent a hand or not. One of the Apostles,.I believe, was acquainted with navigation, and I have no doubt under similar circumstances he would have assisted in the operation." In the House of Commons, Mr. STAFFORD opened fire in an ironical speech, which much amused the House. He expressed his strong sense of the =client arrangements of Government at home and abroad, and the oneness of their principle of management. They could not cover South- ampton docks with mud ; they were not responsible for the sunshine ;

" but in as far as in them lies they did their best to make that particular locality resemble Balalrlava as much as possible."

Lord WILLIAM POWLETT described the state of things as "extremely discreditable from beginning to end." Mr. PEACOCKS complained that while refreshments for both Houses were contracted for at seven-and- sixpence a head, the clerks of the Admiralty had all the delicacies of the season. Mr. Osttoma said there was no contract in the case of the House of Commons. Other Members joined in a chorus of complaints; and much blame was thrown upon the railway. Mr. KENNEDY said he should move for an inquiry to show the causes of the delay. Lord PAINERSTON and Sir GEORGE GREY defended the Govern- ment, and promised full explanations when Sir Charles Wood came to town.

THE STATE OF PARMA.

In reply to the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, on Thursday, the Earl of CLARENDON made a brief statement respecting the Duchy of Parma. He said that the Government of the Duchess Regent was not to blame for the unsettled state of the country since the 'assassination of the late Duke ; that secret societies were active there ; that in consequence of the public alarm the Regent had declared Parma in a state of siege ; that the Austrian occupation is not a novelty, but that it has existed since 1849, in fulfilment of a treaty between Austria and Parma.. The number of Austrian troops in the Duchy has not been increased; and there has been great exaggeration in the newspapers respecting the Aus- trian forces in the territory bordering Sardinia. No troops have been sent in that direction.