ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

Hones OF LORDS, Monday, March 31. — Australian Colonies Government Act Amendment Bill: second reading.

Tuesday, April L—Bleachfields (Women and Children Employment) Bill: second reading.—Mntiny Bill: third reading.—Marine Mutiny Bill: second reading.—Aus- tralian Colonies Government Act Amendment Bill : Committee.

Thuraday, April 3.—Iron-plated Ships : The Duke of Somerset's reply to Lord Hardwick°.

House OF Comatose, Monday, March 31.—Annual Training of Militia: Sir J. Fer- gusson's Motion.—Iron-platedShips : Sir F. Smith's question, and discussion thereon. —The Turkish Loan: Mr. Hubbard's motion.—Austria and; Turkey.—The Saterina : Mr. Ste:Weld's question.—Supply: Civil Service Estimates.

Tuesday, April 1.—Civil Service Evamination Mr. Hennessey's motion.—Fire In- surance: Mr. Sheridan's motlon.—Debentures on Land Bill: first reading.—Parlia- mentary Proceedings: Mr. Bouverle's motion. Wednesday, April 2.—Marriages (Ireland) Bill: Committee—Law of Property Amendment Bill : Committee—Sir 3. Soane'a Museum Bill: second reading. Thursday, April 3.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Financial Statement: Supply.

On Friday nothing occurred in Parliament besides what was reported in our postscript of last week.

No business of importance was transacted in the House of Lords on Monday.

In the House of Commons,

Sir F. SMITH (Chatham) called the attention of the House to the en- gagement between the Merrimac and Monitor ; and, after detailing the circumstances, asked if it was the intention of Government to persevere with the construction of the extensive system of fortifications at Spithead now in progress ? It had been demonstrated by the action to which he had referred, that missiles of the largest size now used had absolutely no effect upon iron vessels, and he feared that the employment of artillery of in- creased size in forts would be impracticable in consequence of the immense force of the recoil. As it was clear that in a very short time every maritime nation would possess a fleet of Merrimacs or Monitors, he thought that thirty or forty such vessels, constructed at far less cost, would prove a far more efficient protection for Spithead than the proposed fortifica- tions.

Mr. Larnn (Birkenhead) said the question of iron versus wood was virtually decided by the recent intelligence from America • and, among other advantages, he looked forward to a large ultimate redaction in our naval expenditure as one of its most important results. No stocks of timber would have to be kept in our dockyards, iron could be obtained as it was wanted, and great reductions in those costly establishments would be effected. The only serious objection to the use of iron was its liability to foaling: but increased dock accommodation abroad would be an effectual remedy.

Mr. Gnzeiony (Galway County) agreed with Sir J. Fergusson that money spent on fortifications would, under the altered state of things, be money wasted. Forts would only serve as buoys and indications for an enemy's vessel to pass into an harbour. He hoped Government would take so tremendous a subject into earnest consideration, and not "like pottering old pointers, go snuffing after the traditions of Blake and Ben- bow." Even the Warrior, the pride of our navy, would, he feared, have stood but a doubtful chance with the Merrimac, and a very bad one with the Monitor. We now had the opportunity, however, of reducing our ex- penditure and providing an impregnable line of defence at the same time. Sir J. D. HAY (Wakefield) said it must be borne in mind that, even putting iron ships out of the question, all our wooden fleet had been rendered useless by the tremendous efficiency attained of late years by artillery. If two saffing line.of-battle ships, both armed with modern ordnance, were to engage, the inevitable consequence would be that both would be destroyed, and no result would flow from such an engagement. The only thing to be done with them was to cut them down to their lower deck beams, plate them with iron, and provide them with as many of Captain Cole's cupola shields as they would carry, when they would be able each to destroy eight or ten of the present line-of-battle ships. Sir G. C. LEWIS (War Secretary) did not think the re•rolution of substi- tuting iron for wood in our navy could be effected without enormous ex- pense. It certainly would not lead to the reductions Mr. Gregory seemed to calculate upon. As to the bearing of the recent action upon the efficiency of the Spithead fortifications, he felt convinced that our engineers would rise to the emergency, and, ere long, produce artillery for forts of sufficient power to smash in the sides of even such vessels as the Monitor. Mr. BRIGHT (Birmingham) hoped the Government would at least sus- pend the costly works at Spithead, until they had given their deep and earnest attention to the conclusion to be derived from the recent intelli- gence. Sir J. PAKINGTON (Droitwich) regretted the levity with which Govern- ment seemed disposed to treat the action in James's River, and hoped they would give it their anxious consideration before they determined to persevere with the Spithead works. Lord CLARENCE PAGET (Secretary to the Admiralty) said he could not see that any one thing was proved by the action between the Merrimac and Monitor that had not been known long ago, and even acted upon. As to the Spithead question, he reminded the House that while there must of necessity be some limit to the weight of ordnance and thickness of armour borne by a ship, there was none with regard to either in the case of a fort. He saw no reason for either the precipitate reconstruction of our whole navy, or the abandonment of the Spithead fortifications. Mr. BENTINCK (Norfolk) having urged upon Government the recon- sideration at least of the Spithead fortifications, the subject dropped.

The House of Lords did not sit for more than ten minutes, and was occu- pied in merely formal business.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. HxzwEsszy (King's County) moved, that in the opinion of this House it was expedient that all junior clerkships in the Civil Service should be thrown open to unrestricted competitive examination, on the same system as was adopted at the India House in 1859.

Mr. VANSITTART (Windsor) seconded the motion, observing, that the circumstances which rendeted the competitive system open to serious objec- tions with regard to India, did not apply to the Civil Service in England. Want of physical activity and of esprit de corps were the only weak points in the Indian competitioners, but neither of those qualities were required in the class of Civil Service appointments which the motion would affect Mr. $AnzrE COCHRANE (Honiton) moved an amendment condemnatory of any further extension of the competitive system. He quoted many specimens of the questions proposed,. to candidates for the English service, and contended that the tendency of competitive examination would be to introduce a class of clerks so highly educated, that there would be great danger of their being quite unfitted for the practical duties of a public office.

Mr. PEACOCKE (Malden) seconded the amendment, and remarked that no merchant who did not wish to appear in the Gazette, would think of select- ing his clerks by open competition. Lord STANLEY (Lynn) supported the motion. The opponents of the motion, he thought, had gone out of their way to answer their own argu- ments on one important point. Mr. Baillie Cochrane objected to the com- petitive system, on the ground that physical efficiency was not secured, but directly afterwards, in his anxiety to throw ridicule on the Commissioners, he had read a long list of the physical qualifications required in the candi- dates, and the questions put to them on that point. As to moral qualifica- tions, there were exactly the same test as under the patronage system. Mr. Peacocke had argued against the motion on the ground that no merchant 'ever selected his clerks by competition. He would remind the House, in answer, that no minister could ever possess the direct personal interest in his department that a merchant did in his business, or the facilities for personal knowledge of his clerks that the latter could. Another objection was the want of any esprit de corps in competitioners, but the advantage of an esprit de corps depended greatly on the way it showed itself. The motion did not seek to lay down an irrevocable principle ; it merely asked the House to try by repeated experiments a question which could never be settled by theory alone.

Sir G. C. Lewis (War Secretary) could not support either the resolution or the amendment. He believed that the system now in force, in which simple examination for clerks whose duties were merely mechanical, with limited competition for those from whom more intellectual activity was required, conduced to the efficiency of the service more than would either open competition or simple nomination. If it had been open to him, he should have moved the previous question. A long discussion ensued, in which many minor questions connected with the Civil Service were introduced. Ultimately Mr. Cochrane withdrew his amendment, in -order that the House might express an opinion on Mr. Hennessey's motion.

Sir C. WOOD (Secretary for India) moved the previous question, which was carried by 87 to 66. Mr. SHERIDAN (Dudley) moved for leave to introduces Bill to reduce the duty on Fire Insurances from Ss. to 2s. immediately, and at the expiration of five years from 28. to is. He inveighed against the retention of a tax which, in effect, punished a man for the exercise of mere prudence, and contended that the constant insurance of insurable property, together with the additional insurances which would certainly be effected on the reduc- tion of the duty, would go far to reimburse the Exchequer for at least the loss on the first five years. The CHANCELLOR OF THE ExclumuER opposed the motion. He showed that the value of property insured had increased pari paean with that of other descriptions of property on which duties had been abolished, and ridi- culed Mr. Shericlan's idea that all taxes should be laid on the sins and crimes of a n,stion, and not on any operation of life consonant with the dictates of prudence. Besides, the discussion of a financial question before that of the Budget was a proceeding so objectionable, that he hoped the House would reject the motion on that ground alone. Lord Peraransrees said that there was no tax to which grave objection might not -with justice be urged from some quarter or other. Taxation, however, was a necessity, and he very much doubted whether, if the House were polled on the question, it would decide that the particular tax assailed by Mr. Sheridan would be voted the one most worthy of repeal. His great objection to the motion, however, was the time at which it was brought forward. He hoped the House would reject the motion, and not blindfold interpose a provision which might seriously fetter Government in their financial arrangements.

On a divison there appeared—For the motion, 127; against it, 116; ma- jority against Government, 11.

Leave was then given to introduce the bill. Mr. WHITEEEDE (Dublin University) obtained leave to introduce a bill' authorizing landed proprietors in Ireland, whose titles had been confirmed by the Encumbered Estates Court, to issue debentures to the extent of one half of the value of the estate.

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, the Marriage (Ireland) Bill was discussed in Committee, and clauses 1 to 44 were agreed to, and the further consideration of the bill fixed for the 14th of May.

• Clauses I to 8 of the Law of Property Amendment Bill were also agreed to' and the House adjourned.

In the House of Lords,

The Earl of RARDWICKE rose to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the intentions of Government with regard to the future con- struction of the ships of the Royal Navy, and especially urged upon them to guard against the danger of too hastily adopting the plans of iron- masters and others,who, although thoroughly acquainted with the propor- tions and power of resistance of different kinds of iron plating, were not seamen, and could not be expected to understand anything about the sea-going qualities of ships. The Duke of SOMERSET gave a detailed account of the different classes of iron vessels in process of construction. The first comprised the Warrior, which was ordered by the late Government, and the Black Prince, which he had 'ordered within a few months of his accession to office, both vessels of 6000 tons burden, and carrying 26 guns. The Defence and Resistance were the next laid down, and the Valiant class, of 4100 tons and 30 guns, was then proposed. One of these vessels would be launched in August, and the other early next year. Three more iron ships had been ordered last year of the same length as the Warrior, but 700 tons greater burden, and carrying 40 guns, entirely protected all round, and with engines of 1300 horse-power. We had therefore got nine iron vessels, four of them already launched, and another to be launched in August. Still, however, he did not think we had the proper vessels for defending our coasts and harbours, and he had come to the conclusion that the cupola ships in Captain Coles's design supplied the desideratum. He had already given orders for the construction of one 250 feet long, of 2000 tons burden, and carrying 12 of the heaviest guns in cupolas, about 9 feet 6 inches from the water line. These ships, though of course unfitted for the open sea, would be able to go all round the coast. With regard to the Monitor, which was to prove a "monitor" to the British Government, he thanked the Americans very much for their experiments, which would save us a great deal of trouble. With regard to the fact that the Monitor and Merrimac had fought for five hours, it must be recollected that they were armed with Dahlgren guns, and that at 800 yards the velocity of these guns is but 900 feet a second, against 1700 feet which could be attained with a heavy smooth bore gun at that distance. In conclusion, he did not think we need give up the con- struction of forts in consequence of what we had gathered from the recent engagement. After all, there was a limit to the weight of artillery a ship could carry, but there was none to the armament of a fort. Lord MAIMESBURY expressed his satisfaction at the noble duke's state- ment.

In the House of Commons,

Lord PALMERSTON proposed that the House should adjourn for the Easter holidays from either Friday, the 11th, or Monday, • the 14th, to Monday, the 28th.

The House then went into committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Massy in the chair, and

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER made his financial statement for the ensuing year. The total expenditure for the year 1861-2 had been estimated by him last year at 69,875,000/. Supplementary grants, principally for the despatch of troops for America, and certain issues from the Exchequer belonging properly to the previous year, had raised the total estimated expenditure to 71,374,0004 making a difference of 1,499,000/. The actual expenditure of the past year had been 70,838,000/. or less by 536,000/. than the estimated expenditure, and showing a decrease of 1,666,000/. as compared with that of 1860-1. The revenue for the past year had been 69,674,0004 &sum which, but for the supplemen- tary grant referred to, would have left a surplus of 335,0001. In order to compare the revenue of the past year with that of the preceding, the in- comings of two days must be added to the latter, and allowing 200,000/. for the two, it would be found that the revenue of last year exhibited a decrease of 809,0001. on that of 1860-1. These figures, he thought, the Committee would consider as highly satisfactory, considering that in 1860-1 we had parted with items of revenue producing altogether 2,637,0001. Deducting from that abandonment of revenue the decrease on the year of 869,000L, it appeared that the improvement in the remaining sources of revenue was 1,828,0004 a result very remarkable if it was considered that in the past year our exports to America had fallen from 21,000,0001. to 9,000,0004 and that the supply of raw material from America fcr the cotton manufacture had been stopped. No greater proof of the elasticity of our revenue could possibly be required. After giving the excess or deficit on each item of the revenue as compared with the estimated produce, Mr. Gladstone stated that the total estimated expenditure for 1862-3 was 70,040,0001., to meet which he calculated upon a revenue of 70,190,0004 leaving an estimated surplus of 150,0001. Four or five months ago he had hoped to be in a position to make some remission of taxa- tion, but circumstances had net tended to render any remission prac- ticable. As to trade and commerce, though our exports to America, which had fallen to 483,0001. in September had risen to 1,253,0001. in February, there was no prospect of immediate relief for our de- pressed cotton manufacture by a supply of the raw material. The French treaty, he was glad to say, had produced most satisfactory results. After deducting the article of corn, for which the recent bad harvest in France had created an exceptional demand, he found that the exports from this country to France in the six months of 1861-2 were 6,091,0004 against 2,196,0004 in the corresponding period of 1860-1, shows an increase on six months of 3,039,0001. or 150 per cent. Mr. Gladstone then went through all the items of the revenue in full detail at great length, and explained the nature of certain alterations he proposed to make in the mode of charging the Spirit Duties, and proposed a commutation of the Hop Duty. Although the hardship of the duty hid been much ex- aggerated, still there was much that was objectionable in it, and he proposed to remit the duty, and readjust the scale of brewers' licenses as a compensation to the revenue, charging also 12s. 6d. on licenses for pri- vate brewing in houses paying more than 201. rent. In conclusion, he ex- pressed a hope that the present year might mark the commencement of a downward movement in our vast expenditure, particularly as the burden requisite to maintain that expenditure had been low, but was, nevertheless, far too high to be compatible with a sound and healthy finan- cial condition. He could not sit down, however, without reminding the Committee that the only way to secure real reduction in expenditure was a cautious but resolute application otarigid economy to all departments of the public service.

A long discussion ensued, and a number of points referred to were sub- sequently fully explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The resolutions on the Wine Duties were then put and agreed to, as it was necessary that the duties should be levied on the following morning, and the consideration of the others was fixed for Monday and Thursday next.

The House then went into Committee of Supply, and resumed after pass- ing several votes.

The Committee on Public Accounts was then nominated, an attempt on the part of Mr. HEIUVESSY (King's County) to introduce the names of two Irish Members being unsuccessful, and the House was ultimately counted out during a discussion on a motion for Papers relative to the Thames Embankment made by Sir J. SHELLEY (Westminster).