Prhatrg n rur ng nVarliontut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

House or Loans. Monday. March 72. Royal Assent to the Havelock Annuity Bill, and East India Loan Bill—Law of Property ; Lord St. Leonards's Bill read a second time—Negro Regiment for India; Lord Brougham's Inquiry—Church of England Spe ial Services Bill read a third time and passed—Trustees Relief Bill , read a third fine and passed.

Tuesday, March 23. Negro Enlistment ; Lord Ellenborough's Statement— Transfer of Land and Tenants for Life, 8m.; Lord Cranworth's Bills read a second time—Militia Act Continuance Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday, March 25. Royal Assent to the Militia Act Continuance Bill—The India Bill ; Lord Granville's Question—Mutiny Bills read a third time and passed. .Friday, March 26. Royal Assent to the Consolidated Fund (10,000,0001.) Bill, Consolidated Fund (300,0001.) Bill, Mutiny Bill, Marine Mutiny Bill, Commons En- closure Bills—Barrack Accommodation; Lord Panmure's Motion for Returns—Cam- bridge University Matriculation and Degrees Bill read a third time and passed.

Moues Os COism023, Monday, March 22. The English Engineers; Mr. Disraeli's Statement—Mutiny Bill read a third time and passed—Cambridge University Ma- triculation and Degrees Bill read a third time and passed—The Oaths Bill reported as amended.

Tuesday. March 23. Passport System ; Mr. Monckton Milnes's Motion—Mar- riage Law Amendment ; Lord Bury's Bill read a first time—Metropolitan Rates; Mr. Ayrton's Bill read a first time—Medical Reform ; Mr. Cowper's Bill read a first time.

Wednesday. March 24. Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act Amendment ; Mr. Dunlop's Bill thrown out—The Dublin Riots ; Mr. Mitchell's Motion. Thursday, March 25. The Irish Viceroyalty ; Mr. Roebuck's Motion--Galway Freemen Disfranchisement Bill read a second time.

Friday, March 26. Customs-Duties Bill read a second time—Government of In- dia; Mr. Dientelib Bill read a first time.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

Howe of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday bh . 7h 5ra

Tuesday sh ni 20m

'Wednesday No sitting. Thursday bk bh elm

Friday 511 .... 712 Om

The Comatose.

Rowe Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 45 .(m) lh em Tuesday 45 .(m)12h 45m

Wednesday Noon . ... bh 45m

Thursday 4k .(m) 12h 30ux

Friday th .... 81130m Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 5k 10m this Beadoo, 30; — Mb 3Orn Sittings this Week, 5; Time, 36h 3011 — this SessiOn 35; — 20511 302s

Tun OATHS BILL.

Nearly the whole of Monday evening was occupied in considering the Oaths Bill as amended.

Mr. Conest moved an amendment, providing that one form of oath should be taken by all the Members of the House. The object was to remove the Roman Catholic Members out of the position of "invidious inferiority" in which they are placed by leaving unaltered the oath pre- scribed for them in 1829, while the oaths for other persuasions are amended.

Mr. Warsoui opposed the motion, as there was a tacit compact made in 1829, and it ought not to be altered.

Lord Jonas &maims admitted that to have but one oath would be a benefit. But when in 1854 he proposed one oath, he did not help the Icause of the Roman Catholics, while he injured that of the Jews. If he now took up the amendmenk he slioall again embarrass the cause of the JCW13. The Roman Catholiqs sonjoy privileges from sihich the Jews are debarred ; and it is not reasonable sa their part, because they object to the oath they take on enteiing tbc muse, to abut the door upon the Jews.

Mr. Cogan's amendment was supported by Mr. Cohma and Mr. X. D. Frrznamtan, and opposed as inopportune by Mr. HoitsmaN, Mr. Gamow, and Lord Parmiasrox. Mr. PALA insisted that it was waste of time to go on introducing these bills. The proper course would be to decide whether or not the House has power to allow Baron Rothschild to take his seat.

The House submitted with great impatience to the discussion, and re- jected Mr. Cogan's amendment by 345 to 68.

The House next debated the question whether the words " rightfully," or " legally," or "lawfully," or " by tho law of the land," should be in- serted in the latter part of the oath relating to the denial of foreign ju- risdiction in this realm, so as to relieve the consciences of those who think that the words of the oath declare what is not the fact, since the Pope really possesses spiritual jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. An

amendment was moved by Mr. STEUART to insert the word " rightfully." Lord Joan RUSSELL objected. Mr. GLADSTONE supported the amend- ment. Mr. ROEBUCK said, the oath could only be taken with a gloss as it stands. Ile was for inserting the words by law." Sir RICHARD ESTEEM. held the language of the oath to be sufficiently explicit." The word " spiritual ' is not to be construed with reference to any power over men's consciences, but merely with reference to the jurisdiction of courts ecclesiastical and spiritual. The amendment was withdrawn. Mr. Navy-0E01,ra moved that clause 5, allowing persons professing the Jewish religion to omit from the declaration the words on the true faith of a Christian," should be struck out.

He had held, he said for many years a strong conviction that it would be

highly impolitic and absolutely wrong, that this country, which has for a thousand years been governed by a Christian Parliament, should at once cast away the recognition of God as they knew Him, and as He had declared Himself through our blessed Mediator. He asked the House still to ex- clude the Jews from sitting in a Christian Legislature. The clause objected to would bind persons to a religion immoral, anti-national, anti-social. Persons professing Judaism would be placed on a par with persons profess- ing Christianity. The Jewish religion is not based on the Old Testament ; it is based on the Talmud—of those traditions which, in the words of our blessed Redeemer' had made the law of none effect. Mr. Newdegate quoted a document from the records of Hamburg, to show that isolation is the pre- dominating mark of the Jews—that they are often absolutely repulsive to persons of a different creed' and he referred to the works of Dr. M'Caul and the elder Disraeli to show that moral obligations are loosened by the oral law, and that the Jewish religion is one to which the pride of dominion is congenial. He referred to cases to prove their immoral practices. One of those cases related to the trial of a Jew who had been accused before a Polish tribunal of having stolen certain goods. The goods had been dis- covered in his house. The trial had come on. A carter who happened to be an important witness in the matter had-perjured himaelf. This man admitted that he had perjured himself; and his excuse was this—that a Jewish rabbi had told him that he had the power of relieving him from the necessity of swearing to the truth in any ease in which a Jew might be brought before a Christian court and be benefited by perjury. The rabbi to whom the man alluded was himself called before the court, and after much prevarication (according to an authentic report) he admitted that he had dispensed the man to commit perjury. Continuing to quote, Mr. Newdegate brought forth a pamphlet on Jewish emancipation by a Jew, a sermon by Rabbi Adler, from which he sought to

i

prove that the Jews would ever remain strangers n the land, and that their ardent desire is to return to Palestine. The first Jesuits were Jews—he had the authority of Coningeby for that. There is a great similarity between the Jews and the Roman Catholics. Who supported the proposition before the House ?—The very Jesuits, who are mimics of the Rabbis. There was but one Roman Catholic who ever voted against the admission of the Jews— Mr. Raphael, and he had been persecuted by the Jews from whom he had seceded. In 1850 two Jews were admitted to the eorporation of Amsterdam. The result was, that in a short time a new prayer was adopted from which the name of Jesus and every Christian pledge was removed. It was pro- posed to admit Jews into the Prussian Parliament , providing they would de- clare they did not believe the dogmas of the Talmud that the injury of Christians is sanctioned by Divine authority. Not a single Jew would ac- cept that teat. Finally, he quoted the New Testament condemning the !pint of Antichrist, and applied the condemnation to the measure before the House.

Mr. SPOONER seconded the motion.

Mr. Gimp's said, when Mr. Newdegate arraigned the Jews for immo- rality, he should remember that their conscientiousness". alone kept them out of that House. He hoped these discussions would lead the House to consider the real efficacy or inefficacy of all these oaths. Mr. Marx- MOND had nothing to say against the admission of the Jews considered as a political question. But it is a religious question. In the service of the Church of England they were told all the year round that they could not walk in the commandments of God without the Holy Spirit.. Yet gen- tlemen who prayed thus at church came down to the House of Oommons and argued that the Holy Spirit is of no use whatever. Is there any honesty in this ? The Church of England stands directly in tlie way of a change that is politically right. Lord John Russell should go into the new Divorce Court and get a dissolution of the marriage ofChurch and State. There is no other way out of the difficulty. Mr. Tinos briefly supported the bill. Lord ROBERT CECIL did not object to the Yew be- cause his sympathies are alien to the nation. The House of Commons is not an assembly merely for the transaction of secular business. Let them separate the Church from the State, abrogate all interference in religious matters, cease to discuss questions of marriage, and to interfere in set- ting apart one day in the week ; then they would be what they are not now an assembly for the transaction of secular business. It would be absurd to admit a Jew, who according to the sincerity of his professions must be animated by a desire to subvert all they were there to uphold. That is why he opposed the bill. The admission of a Jew would not, strictly speaking, make the House more or less Christian than it was be- fore, but it would give the people the impression that they set a great value on respectability as they require a property qualification of $001. a year, but no value on (Ihristianity. Mr. Ruoissmc and Mr. Osmium= FORTES= supported the bill. ("Divide, divide !") Mr. WaLroxe was anxious to state the reasons • that induced him to adhere to the opinions he had formerly expressed. That was his only excuse for travelling over ground so often trodden before, and which it IS extremely painful and wearisome to tread. He could not condemn the Jews on the ground of their social or moral conduct. On the contrary, their great obedience to the law, their benevolence, not confined to their own people, the care they take of their poor, are all considerations that would induce him, if it were a question of feeling, to give the measure his support. But it is a question of principle, not of feeling. The words in the oath show that it was meant to exclude all who would not profess Christianity. Lord John Russell argued for the admission of Baron Rothschild on the ground of right; but in these matters there is no posi- tive right If the constituency elect a person who is ineligible, they have no one to blame but themselves. If they had returned an alien, a clergyman, or a bankrupt, he could not have taken his seat. Is there any right in the person returned ? No. The principles of civil and religious liberty are not infringed by the exclusion of Baron Rothschild from Par- liament; because he has the fullest enjoyment of his person and pro- perty, and full power to exercise his religion. Mr. Walpole also rejected expediency as a ground for admitting the Jew. Towards the close of his speech he expressed a hope that that was the last time he should have the pain of speaking on the subject. He hoped the House and country would adhere to their nationality, as the Jews would adhere to theirs.

MT. MAGUIRE warmly attacked the intolerance of Mr. Nevrdegate, and said that there is not a Catholic Member who is not nsady to go further with Lord John Russell, if this last appeal to the justice of Parliament is unsuccessful. Mr. Roneuen said, the question is one of expediency : would the admission of the Jew injure the legislation of the country ? He maintained it would not. If he were a Jew they should not exclude him— He had often said to Jews, "Why don't you take this course—Go up to that table, go over the oath, say the last words upon the true faith of a Christian,' and state, These words have no effect upon me, but as your law compels me to take them, I do take them.'" There were some sub- limated gentlemen on the opposite side who seemed to object to such a mode of proceeding. (Laughter.) Mr. Roebuck would like to know how many gentlemen had taken their seats in that House who had not been Christians ; and if the Jew was candid enough to declare "I am a Jew, but I am ready to repeat the words of your oath," did he do anything that he ought to be ashamed of ? Ought not the shame rather to rest with those who had com- pelled him to do so ? Some ten or twelve years ago Mr. Roebuck had ad- vised the adoption of such a course, and he believed, if that advice had been acted upon, little more would have been heard on the subject. Parliament would then have been compelled to alter the law and to do justice to the Jews.

Sir Rims= BErnsu first fastened on the admission made by Mr. Walpole— The right honourable gentleman, animated by the feeling which exempted the noble Earl now at the head of the Government to vote, in April 1830— if Sir Richard Bethel! was correctly informed—in favour a a measure simi- lar to that now before the House, and in a spirit which influenced many of the most distinguished Members on the opposite bench, had told them in a tone which seemed to show that he did not regret the fact he inadvertently divulged, that this would in reality be the last occasion on which he would be compelled to give a painful vote upon this question. He hailed that declaration with pleasure, and he wee confident that those by whom the right honourable gentleman was surrounded would not falsify his prediction. Sir Richard mainly applied himself to show that the Jew is excluded by a fraudulent use of the words of the statute, which he emphatically described as a fraud upon the law. A greater amount of moral iniquity in the appli- cation of a law cannot well be imagined than, in the face of all conviction of the real animus of the Legislature to apply a law to the accomplishment of an end which was never dreamt Why those with whom such law originated, and which they would at once have repudiated had they regarded such an application as possible. He insisted upon it that the admission of the Jew is a question of right, and defied any man to put his finger on a law that de- 'yes the Jew of his right except the miserable fag end of the oath under -discussion.

The House now became very impatient. Mr. Wiensm barely ob- tained a hearing against the clause.

Lord Jonn Russeih, in his reply upon the debate, also augured a favourable termination of the question. Speaking of Mr. Walpole's ad- mission, he said-

" I was glad to hear him say that he hoped that this was the last time that he should have to address the House upon this subject. I, Sir, trust also that it is the last time. (Cheers.) I have seen of late years symptoms which lead me to hope that such may be the ease. I noticed similar symp- toms before the admission of Roman Catholics to this House ; and when I observe men high in position in this House coining down and declaring their conversion to the opinion of those with whom they have hitherto dis- agreed upon this subject, it leads me to augur well for the future."

The Howse divided on the question "that clause 5 Stand part of the bill"—Ayes, 297; Noes, 144; majority, 153.

The report of the bill was agre -Q to, and it was ordered to be read a third time on the 12th April.

Tax IRISH VICEROYALTY.

Mr. Rommeic moved, on Thursday, a resolution expressing an opinion that the office of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland ought to be abolished and the office of a Secretary of State for Ireland at once created. Having vindi- cated himself from a charge of being the enemy of Ireland, he briefly stated the reasons that led him to propose this resolution. First, the office of Lord-Lieutenant is expensive. It costs the Government 60,0001. a year ; and the only counterbalancing advantage is that certain persons are obliged to buy certain coats and breeches to go to court in ; thereby benefiting the shopkeepers of Dublin. Secondly, the office exereisys a bad social influence. Persons are invited to Court just as the underlings please ; and intrigue, heartburning, and all sorts of evils, arise from the institution. Thirdly, considered politically, the Government of Ireland is triple-headed. There is the Home Office, the Lord-Lieutenant, and the Chief Secretary, and no real responsible Government. The office of Lord-Lieutenant is a badge of slavery, a mere pageant, and he would abolish it and substitute for it a Secretary of State. Communication between the two countries is rapid and easy, and the abolition of this satrap government would creates cordial union between the two countries. Mr. GILPIN seconded the motion.

A burst of Irish opposition followed. Mr. S. B. MrLixit moved the " previous question." He appeared to be of opinion that the office of

Lord-Lieutenant was part of the compact entered into at the time of the Union. Colonel Plums, Mr. Psalm/De, Mr. VANCE, Mr. CononLy Mr. BAGWELL, and Mr. P. O'llitren, very warmly argued against the original motion and some of them resented the interposition of the " previous question." Mr. Doneow, Mr. Evwss, Mr. BLACKBURN, and Mr. Barran, supported the original motion. Lord Ness explained at some length the many and onerous duties that the Lord-Lieutenant has to discharge. He has to correspond with 600 courts of petty-session, to appoint magistrates and assistant-bar- risters, to manage the Constabulary, and correspond with the Com- mander-in-chief ; and to exercise the prerogative of mercy. The go- vernment of Ireland is in fact a central system as compared with that of England, and it would be very difficult to assimilate them. At the mine time he thought that the change proposed might before many yeses advantageously take place ; but in order that it may be satisfactorily accomplished, the Irish people must show by a large majority of their own Members that they are in favour of the change. For these reasons, he should vote for the previous question." At a later stage in the de- bate, Mr. WALPOLE enforced the same argumente.1 Lord Joins RUSSELL, Lord Psixsatsrow and Sir GEORGE LEWIS also supported the "previous question." Lord.Tomt RUSSELL was of opinion that if the change could be effected, there should be but one Secretary of State for England, Ireland, and Scothuad, one administration throughout the kingdom. The time is not distant when Irish Members will look on the change with less regret than they do now. In the mean time, he thought there is no great evil in leaving the government of the present Lord-Lieutenant alone. Lord PALMERSTON bakneed the views on either side, and arrived at the conclusion that the decision of the question ought to be governed by the feelings of the people of Ireland. lithe people of Ireland were for abolishing the office he would vote for its abolition ; but if they cling to this mode of government, Parliament ought to defer to their wishes, and preserve the office of Lord-Lieutenant. Sir GEORGE LEWIS put the question very succinctly at the close of his speech- " I do not think myself that the time is very distant when it will be pos- sible from the Home Office to give all those general directions which, in the comparatively tranquil state of Ireland, it will be necessary to issue for the superintendence of Irish affairs. The main departments in Ireland will still retain their local character. The Police, the Poor-law department, and other branches of local management, will be governed from Dublin' al- though there may be certain important questions upon which referencewill be necessary to the home Government. Whenever the time shall come when the government of Ireland may be conducted upon the same principle as the government of Scotland—when there will be no necessity for daily superintendence by a local head such as the Lord-Lieutenant—thee, I think, the Lord-Lieutenancy ought to be abolished, without the substitution of such a department as my honourable and learned friend contemplates. But until that time arrives—and I am not prepared to say that it has arrived at this moment—it appears to me better to retain the present organization, which, at all events, has historical recollections on its side, which has as- sumed a form to a certain extent acceptable both to the people of Dublin and the general population of Ireland, and which has therefore recommend- ations that any new department constituted for the separate government of Ireland would want. As long as Ireland requires a separate department, it seems to me, on the whole, desirable to retain the Lord-Lieutenancy; but when the time shall come (and I do not believe it is very distant) when it is possible to govern Ireland without a separate head of a department in Dublin, then, in my opinion, the Lord-Lieutenancy ought to be abo- lished."

Mr. ROEBUCK made a smart debating reply, garnished with specimens of the inconsistency of Lord John Russell, Mr. Whiteside, and others, who had supported Lord John's bill in 1860. On a division, the House resolved, by 243 to 116, that the question should not be put. Tins INDIA Bun.

Earl Gmtervium inquired whether Lord Ellenborough had entered into communication with the Court of Directors on the subject of the India Bill? The Berl of ELLIGIBOROUGH said, that from the moment the House of Commons decided to transfer the government of India from the Court of Directors to the Crown, the position of that body became "very little different from that of any private Member of the House of Commons." He had had very little communication with them, but he had that day sent them quite confidentially a copy of the bill.

Lord Guservtigx said, he was glad to hear it ; as by following that course the Government somewhat exonerated the late Government for the course which it pursued, and for which it had been blamed. "If I recollect aright, when the noble Earl formed part of the Administration of Sir Robert Peel, he was said never to consult Sir Robert Peel, who was then at the head of affairs ; and I must say that I think he is pursuing a similar case with regard to the noble Earl now at the head of her Majesty's Government.' (" Hear, hear P' and a laugh.) The Earl of DERBY would not admit that. As the House of Commons has decided that the change shall take place, the case is different. In some respects the bill of the late Government will be followed, but im- portant provisions will be introduced not liable to the serious objections urged against the former bill. Earl GREY protested against the doctrine of Lord Ellenborough that since the vote of the House of Commons the Court of Directors is to be treated as non-existent. He also expressed a hope that the sort of sparring that went on in that House when there was no question before it would not become habitual. It is utterly Irre- gular. Lord Glue mix said, he had only asked for information, and it is the practice to do so without giving notice. Lord GREY said, that is totally different thing from attempting to enter into the comparative merits of two bills on the same subject. ( Vehement cries of " .11tar, hear F' from Lord Derby.) Lord DERBY said, he was willing to take his share of the blame and he hoped Lord Grey would succeed ia amending both sides of the House.

Pesseour REGULATIONS.

Mr. Morse/ems Muiens, in moving for papers, called the attention of the House to the vexations to which British subjects are exposed by the late alteration in the passport system in France. The passport system has been long established in Europe. Russia is the most hampered by it. In Austria the passport has been reduced to a card of identification, and the moment a foreigner has passed the frontier he may go anywhere. But impediments to travel in these countries are of little moment to Englishmen ; they are most concerned with the passport system in France. Ever since 1816, under Charles X, under Louis Phi- hppe, and until later days, the French Government has behaved with great liberality ; yet now although the Emperor of the French has published hie opinion against the passport system, a hinderance is placed on the inter- course between England and France. A free communication, sanctioned by custom, existed between the ports of England and France, and as many as 100,000 persons have of late gone over every year to spend a few days in

Calais or Boulogne. But on the 18th February it was announced that no British subject would be permitted to land at a French port without a Bri- tish passport; and thus the free intercourse between the two countries was stopped. Persons living at Boulogne are deprived of facilities of visiting the interior. The customhouse-regulations are carried out in a manner that gives rise to the most ludicrous stories. A lady, for instance, was detained at Boulogne twenty-four hours, in order that the tooth- powder in her dressing-case might be analyzed to ascertain whether it contained fulminating matter. The restriction has been already attended with disastrous consequences. Whereas in six weeks last year the steamers between Dover and Calais carried 1167 passengers to France, they have not this year during a corresponding period carried more than nine per day. Persons who leave this country without passports are sent back without money and without their luggage which had been carried into France ; and many ladies and children have been sent to Dover and Folkstone in this helpless condition. Mr. Milnes did not impute these restrictions to the Emperor, but to over-zealous sub- ordinates; and he thought the people of this country have a right to know why the restrictions are imposed. As regards the action of our own Go- vernment, they have issued regulations that appear more liberal than the old regulations, but are really not so. It is not a proper use to make of the unpaid magistracy to impose on them the duty of giving a guarantee for the respectability of every person whom they recommend for a passport. The magistrates are called upon to send their seals and handwriting to the Foreign Office for identification. This is a novel re- gulation of police. It is not every magistrate who can produce such a thing as a family seal. He wished to know what had led to all this apparatus for providing an Englishman with a card of identification. The elaborate con- trivance has produced extreme inconvenience. Mr. Milnes described several cases of vexatious delay through the new system. A young officer from India was detained by frivolous delays from visiting the deathbed of his father. A gentleman was kept back from the deathbed of his daughter, arriving when she was dead. A lady sent for a passport on the 24th, she did not get it until the 29th February. Shipowners whose ships are stranded on the coast of France cannot now send surveyors immediately, so that they risk ship and cargo. The inconvenience felt by the labouring and commercial classes cannot be told. Mr. Milnes suggested that the duty of granting passports should be transferred from the Foreign to the Home Office, and that a record should be kept of all cases where a passport was re- fused.

The debate took the character of a conversation on the passport system.

Mr. WALTER seconded the motion, and quoted a passage from the article of the French Emperor on "Passports" in the Encyclopedie du Langage et des Sciences Politiques, showing that passports are " vexatious " and "useless," an "oppressive invention of the Committee of Public Safety," "powerless against those who wish to deceive the vigilance of authority." All that a foreign government is justified in exacting is a certificate of identity and nationality.. Lord PALMERSTON suggested an addition to the papers moved for. He held the passport system to be of little value —an embarrassment to innocent travellers, and a cloak to those who have mischievous intentions. He gave an instance of each kind.

"Many years ago—not in the reign of the present Emperor, not in the reign of Louis Philippe, but in that of Charles was travelling from

the North to the South of France, and one evening when I arrived at my inn an officer of police came to inspect my passport. Having looked at it, he said, Sir, if I did my duty I should arrest you." I am sorry to hear it,' I replied, but I hope you will do no such thing. Why ?"Because your passport has not been vise since you landed at Havre.' I told him that was the fault of the French officials. But here was a harmless traveller threatened with arrest because his passport was not in the condition required by the French regulations."

, The other instance was that of Orsini who travelled with "one of my passports." The passport had been given to a British subject named Allsop some years ago, and by him handed to Orsini. That shows that no regulations for the purpose of identification can be effectual, because the passport may be transferred to a foreigner. The recent regulations were es- tablished provisionally.

Mr. BRIGHT imputed the inconveniences felt, not to Foreign Govern- ments, but to the want of common sense in the Foreign Office. He would give the Mayors of our large towns power to give passports.

Mr. SEYMOUR Frrzositesn said, we have nothing to do with the pass- port system. That is a matter of internal regulation on the part of the French Government. We have no ground of complaint against them, for they have met us in a generous and friendly spirit. They were wil- ling to admit any regulation established by the British Government. The Government is prepared to deal with the practical question, and to give every facility consistent with a due regard to identification. It is probable that passport-offices would be established at Dover, Folkstone, Newhaven, Southampton, and Liverpool ; and the French Government is willing to give its consular agents there power to vise passports. The Foreign Office is considering whether the charge for its passports cannot be reduced so as to place it within the reach of every one. Mr. Disname made a similar explanation. Mr. MILNES said that one point had been omitted in Mr. Fitzgerald's statement—the sudden abolition of the privilege of landing in France without a passport. He should call attention to the subject again if ne- cessary.—Motion agreed to.

MAB.RIAGE-LAW AMMNDMENT.

Lord BURY moved for leave to introduce a bill to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The law at present is open to doubt. In the case of Brook versus Brook, Mr. Justice Cresswell decided that marriages abroad between a widower and his wife's sister, the parties being British subjects, are invalid ; and in the absence of any parallel case, that case must be taken as the authoritative declaration of the law of England. But he was told that other distinguished judges, upon pre- cisely the same grounds, had arrived at an opposite conclusion. The law ought to be free from ambiguity. There is no absolute statutable" pro- hibition of these marriages, and once or twice judges have interpreted the law in another sense. What he proposed was, a bill simply de- claring that, whatever decisions may have been given in any court, marriage with a deceased wife's sister should no longer be void or void- able, but should be held just and honourable in every respect.

The motion was supported by Mr. Maims, Mr. Fox, Mr. GrepiN, Mr. WHITEHEAD, Mr. MELLOR, 141r. Brans, and Lord GODBRICH. Mr. Marilee and Mr. Metson voted for the motion in order that the bill might be discussed, without pledging themselves to support the measure. It was also explained that Mr. Justice Creswell delivered an opinion, not a judgment ; and that the judgment in the case of Brook versus Brook has yet to be delivered. The other speakers contended that such mar- riages are not contrary to Scripture, and that their legalization is ne- cessary for the welfare and happiness of the people, especially of the poor. On the other hand, the motion was opposed by Mr. Drverr, Mr. Hoes, and Mr. LYGON. They held that if marriage with the sister were legal it would lead to much social and moral evil in every English home, and sully the purity of feeling existing between a widower and his sister-in- law. Mr. LYGON declared roundly that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is repugnant to the higher instincts of our nature, to the law of na- ture, and the law of God. On a division, the motion was carried by 105 to 62. The bill was brought in and read a first time.

NEGRO REGIMENTS FOR NEILL

Lord BROUGHAM asked on Monday whether it was true that the Go- vernment were about to send two officers to Africa to raise a Black re- giment for India ? He hoped it was unfounded, as nothing would be more strongly deprecated than sending men to purchase Negro slaves. Lord IIARDINGE said the War Department knew nothing of the report. The Earl of DERBY said he had never heard of it until mentioned by Lord Brougham.

On Tuesday, Lord Masc.:automat explained how the matter stands. He desired to enlist Kroomen for service as light troops in India, in order to break the uniformity and increase the efficiency of the army. These Kroomen have long formed part of the crews of our ships. They are tall, dead shots, eat nothing but rice, mid are content with small pay. He proposed to try them first in the rivers of India. "Unfortunately, it was found that this could not be done without an alteration in the terms of the Mutiny Act. The moment I understood this, I wrote to my honourable and gallant friend at the head of the War Department. The third read- ing of the Mutiny Bill stood for Monday, and I requested that the ne- cessary alteration should be made in it. It seems, however, that accord- ing to the usual practice no alteration except a technical one 'can be made on the third reading of that measure ; and the plan could not therefore be carried out." - • Lord BROUGHAM said he was glad the scheme had been delayed. Un- less the greatest precautions were taken the plan would end not in enlists ing Kroomen alone, but in taking "free Negroes," which means captives ransomed or slaves purchased.

Lord DERBY protested against the doctrine that the enlisting of Kroo- men would lead to the purchase of Negroes for emigration. Lord Brougham knew as well as he did that the Kroomen are free men, and able to dispose of their services. He could not think that Lord Brough- am entertained any apprehension that the Government would do any- thing to countenance the slave-trade.

THE ENGLISH ENGINEERS.

In reply to a question from Mr. Krisersx r, on Monday, Mr. DISRAELI made a short statement respecting the engineers Watt and Park.

"We have received information two days ago, that, in consequence of the representations of Mr. Lyons, the King of Naples had given orders that Watt should be immediately released without conditions - and he has been released, and, I believe is now on his way to this country. Orders have also been given that the trial of Park should commence immediately. Perhaps the House will allow Inc to say, that this morning we received a despatch, dated the 16th of March, from Mr. Lyons, from which it appeared that he had repaired to Salerno, and that the trial of Park had commenced. Mr. Leone spoke to Park in the court; and he says that the proceedings were going on with great decorum and propriety, and with, he thought, a spirit of impartiality ; that the arguments of the counsel for Park were listened to with great attention, and the reply of the Attorney-General on a point of law was argumentative without any passion. After the proceedings ter- minated, Mr. Lyons had an opportunity of being alone with Park for a con- siderable time. Park is well lodged, in a room looking upon theses. He is well clothed, and well cared for in every respect. He is, to use his own expression, in good heart,' and animated by the feeling that he is not forgotten by his country. The instructions given to Mr. Lyons were that he should not leave Park while in this position. Mr. Lyons is sanguine that the result of the trial will be favourable to Park ; a feeling, I am glad to say, which our unfortunate countryman fully shares. - The papers con- nected with the affair will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible ; but, being very voluminous, their preparation requires time."

In the House of Lords on Thursday, the Earl of MALMESBURY stated that Watt had arrived in England that morning, much improved in health. Park has been liberated on bail, and is living in the house of the British Consul.

TRANSFER or LAND.—Lord CliaNwonnt moved the second reading of two measures affecting the transfer of land—one called the Transfer of Land Bill, the other Tenants for Life, Trustees, &c., Bill. By the first bill he proposed a cheap and expeditious mode for conveying real estate. Sales are to be conducted through the instrumentality of a court of justice, say the Court of Chancery, which shall investigate the title and give a conveyance equal in validity to a Parliamentary title. The second measure is intended to get rid of the prolixity with which many conveyances are at present en- cumbered. Lord ST. LEONARDS rather sharply criticized the measures, which, he said, involved violent changes. Lord CAMPBELL seemed disposed to support the first bill. Lord WENSLEYDALE said, "it is a substitute for a register, but to a register we must, come at last." Lord BROUGHAM con- curred in this opinion. The bills were read a second time, and referred to Select Committee.

LAW or PROPP.RTY.—Lord Sy. Leo/wins moved the second reading of a bill to amend the law of property, and expounded its many provisions in somewhat technical language. Some of its provisions may be stated. Heretofore, when a condition in a lease has been dispensed with by a licence, the condition is gone for ever. It is now proposed that any condition shall only be affected by the licence in the particular case to which the licence • refers. Fire-insurance offices are to be bound by the days of grace of which they give notice by advertisement, or which they allow in practice, just as if those days were mentioned in the original policy. It is proposed that the release of a rent-charge of part of hereditaments charged therewith shall only operate to bar the right to recover that part. The bill contains a simi- lar enactment with regard to judgment. With respect to uses, it is proposed that where by any instrument any hereditaments were limited to uses, all uses thereunder, whether express.ed or implied by law, and whether imme- diate or future, or contingent or executory, should take effect as they arose by force of and by relation to the estate and seizin originally vested in the person seized to the uses. The execution of powers by deed is to be placed on the same footing as the execution of powers by will. The right of limit- ing executory devises to twenty-one years is abolished. Where there is a failure of heirs, the laud shall descend from the person last entitled, in the same way as if he had been the purchaser thereof.

The bill was read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

Soares LAND VALtrwrioN Aor.—Mr. DUNLOP moved the second reading of the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment Act. The object was to make deer-forests, shootings, woodlands, and feu-duties practically rateable. The motion was opposed generally by the Scotch Members. Lord DUNCAN moved that it should be read a second time that day six months. The chief ground of hostility to the measure was excited by the proposed rating of feu- duties. The Loan ADVOCATE said, the feu-duty is only the price of land paid i in a particular way, namely as an annuity, instead of a capital sum. It s a condition on which the " vassal " holds land. His superior, the owner' is already taxed on his entire possessions, and if the feu-duty were taxed it would be in fact a taxing of the same property twice. The opposition to the bill was so general that Mr. DUNLOP would not press his motion to a division.

THE GALWAY FREEMEN.—On the motion for the second reading of the Galway Freemen Disfranchisement Bill, Mr. ROEBUCK moved that it should be read a second time that day six months, because while it proposed to punish the bribed, it passed over the bribers. A strong opinion was ex- pressed by several Members that the bribers should not escape. Mr. DIS- RAELI explained, that unless the bill were read a second time all the parties would escape. In Committee he would propose that those not guilty should not suffer the penalties of glint, and would support a motion, on going into Committee that the bribers should be included in the provisions of the bill. That explanation being satisfactory, Mr. Rounnox withdrew his amendment, and the bill was read a second time.

Murnos.L Ituroast.—Mr. COWPEit obtained leave to bring in a bill to regulate the qualifications of practitioners in medicine and surgery. The qualification entitling a man to become a medical practitioner should be maintained at a certain standard, and should be valid in all parts of the United Kingdom. A register should be kept to enable the public to know what practitioners are really qualified. He proposed that the examinations should be left in the hands of the present licensing bodies under the control of a Medical Council, consisting of six members, to be elected by each of the present licensing bodies, and six nominated by the Crown. To connect this Council with the Executive, it isproposed that its rules shall be only i adopted when confirmed by an Order n Council.

MantoroLrrAN RATES.—Mr. AYRTON obtained leave to bring in a bill to remedy the existing inequality in Metropolitan poor-rates. This inequality is occasioned by the distribution of the poor and rich into districts com- paratively separated, so that the rates fall the most heavily on the least wealthy districts. Mr. Arton's plan is, to adopt a provision in the statute of Elizabeth. This statute provides that justices of the peace, if they ffind a parish over-assessed, may levy a rate in aid upon any other parish in the county. London stands in four counties. It is proposed that each bench of justices at quarter-sessions shall elect two or three of their body, and the justices so elected shall constitute a special sessions for rating the poor of the Metropolis. First they will fix a uniform rate ; next they will de- termine what sum shall be paid by one parish towards the necessities of another. Under this system each parish will have an interest in keeping down its own rates, as each would carry on its operations under the criticism of a board of justices. Mr. WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Mr. SOTHERON- ESTCOURT expressed great doubts as to the expediency and practicability of the plan proposed, but he offered no opposition to the introduction of the bill. Although there was no division, Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. 13otivpaiE stoutly opposed the principle of the measure which they regarded as mis- chievous. Its supporters were the Metropolitan Members, Mr. LOCKE, Mr. Cox, and Mr. TOWNSHEND.

THE DUBLIN Mon.—The Wednesday sitting was occupied from two until nearly six o'clock by an Irish debate. Mr. lispcstELL, in a temperate speech describing the riot between the King's College Boys and the Police, at Dublin on the 12th February, moved for papers intended to show the steps taken by the Government in regard to the inquity which had led to nothing. His object was to elicit a statement from the Attorney-General for Ireland that would calm the public mind. In the absence of Mr. White- side, Lord NAAS explained that the Government had a precedent for ap- pointing the Irish Solicitor-General to conduct a private inipifry in oppo- sition to the demand of the College authorities for a public inquiry. The Solicitor-General said, that as criminal prosecutions might arise out of the riot, it ought to be private. The consequence was, that the inquiry had fallen through. He was glad of it. The whole case would now be tried in a court of justice. Mr. BAGWELL regarded this statement as satisfactory. Mr. WHITESIDE here entered the House, and made further explanations, tending to show that inquiries by commissions, if not illegal, are ob- jectionable, and that the proper course is to resort to the tribunals of the country. Mr. J. D. FinonnaLD next interposed a long speech, going over the whole circumstances in a manner that diminished the blame thrown upon the police ; and he concluded by charging the Government with acting somewhat as a partisan. This led Mr. SPOONER to move the adjournment of the debate, in order that Mr. Whiteside might reply. Mr. WHITESIDE did so; and the remainder of the witting was passed in a skirmish between the Irish Members on one side and the other. In the end the papers were ordered.

CoNsuLtat SERVICE.—On the motion of Mr. SEYMOUR FrrzonneLn, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the Consular Service and Consular appointments. The late Government has collected a mass of valu- able information on the subject. About six hundred gentlemen are em- ployed in the Consular service. They. receive 150,000/. a year, in addition to 3010001. as fees. In some cases their duties are commercial and political, and in others judicial. Some receive small salaries and large fees, others large salaries and small fees. No particular training is required ; and while many ably discharge their functions, the conduct of others is unsatisfactory. What is wanted is a settled and uniform system. Lord PALMERSTON said he had pledged himself to deal with the subject, and he was glad that a pledge given by the late Government should thus early be fulfilled by its successors.