Ethatts 1,5Turrthi1Ig5 in Vurliumtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Hot= OF LORDS. Monday. June 2. Reformatory Schools (Scotland) BM read a second time—Fire-Insurance Bill read a third time and passed.

Tuesday, June 3. Appellate Jurisdiction (House of Lords) ; the Lord Chancel- lor's Bill committed—Oxford University Bill read a third time and passed—Reforma- tory Schools (Scotland) Bill committed. Thursday, June 5. Royal Assent given to Annuities (No. 2) Bill. Bankers Com- position Bill, and Eke-Insurance Bill—Appellate Jurisdiction (House of Lords) II:ill reported—Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed— Consecration of Burird-grounds ; Lord Shaftesbury's Complaint—Affairs of Italy; Lord Clarendon's Reply to Lord Clanricarde. Friday, June 6. Drafts on Bankers Bill read a second time—Capital Punish- ment of Women ; Lord St. Leonards's Question—Appellate Jurisdiction (House of Lords) Bill read a third time and passed.

Horse OF Commas. Monday, June 2. State of Greece ; Lord Palmerston's Re. ply to Mr. 6VGregor—Supply ; Civil Estimates—Parochial Schools (Scotland); the Lord Ads ocate's Bill read a second time—Joint-Stock Companies ; Mr. Lowe's Bill

read time and passed—Sir W. Williams's Annuity Bill read a third time and

Tuesday, June 3. 'No House." Wednesday, June 4. 'Tenant Right (Ireland) ; Mr. G. H. 'Moore's Bill read a second time—Dissenters' Marriages ; Mr. Pellatt's Bill reported. Thursday, June 5. Mr. Crampton's Dismissal ; Mr. Disraell's Question—Tenant Right ; Mr. Horsman's Explanations—Army Reform ; Mr. Sidney Herbert's State- ment—Supply; Civil Estimates. Friday, June 6. Relations with the United States ; Lard Palmerston's Reply to Sir Edward Lytton--Beturnuf the Crimean Army.; Lord Elcho's.Question--Simp- son's Crimean Sketches ; Lord Eicho's Proposal—Supply • Civil Estimates—Joint- Stock Companies Winding-up Acts Amendment ; Mr. Mains's Bill debated on the second reading, and adjourned.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

Board! Hoar of Meeting. Adjournment.

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday Si 511 40m Monday 4h .(m) 21. Om Tuesday . 51. . ih 30m Tuesday No House.

Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Noon 511 55m Thursday

.,. ......Sh Oh 15m

Thursday 41. (m) lb 16m Friday 611 .... 8h 4bra Friday 91. ..(m) 26 Om

Sittings thisWeek, 4; Time, 001. lent Sittings thisWeek, 4; Time, 051. 10m — this Session, 60; — ilbh 46m - this Session., .70; 327h-lint Onascrroic's DISMISSAL.

On Thursday evening, Mr. Disaannt rose and said— "Seeing the noble Lord at the head of the Government in his place, I take the opportunity of inquiring, whether it be true that our Minister at Washington has quitted that capital at the request -of the President of the "United States; and, if that report he true, whether it is the intention of the Government to make any statement to the House today as to the relations at present existing between this country and the United States ? " Lord PALMERSTON replied to this effect-- " Her Majesty's 'Government have received information indirectly of the fact to which the question of the right honourable gentleman has reference, that Mr. Crampon had received his passports, and had quitted Washington for Toronto. There has been nothing received from him as -yet, and I have no further statement to make at present."

APPELLATB jusismarro.v.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on the Appellate Jurisdiction (House of Lords) Bill, the Earl of ABERDEEN initiated an interesting debate, taking its rise from the vexed question of the juris- diction of the House in Scotch appeals. He proposed to treat, not of what the bill contained, but of what it omitted. Among the reasons urged by lord Derby why. a Committee should be appointed to mq:uire into the subject, was the unsatisfactory date- of the jurisaction of the House in the case of Scotch appeals. In making that statement, he probably expected that a remedy would be devised : but what is the state of the case? No reference is made to Scotch Appeals in the bill. There is a reference in the report, an expression of opinion scarcely honest, to the effect that it is better there should be no fixed and 'invariable rule in the matter. Does that mean that matters are to remain as they have been for a century and a half, or that there is a p.r..wet of change ? The intro- duction of a Scotch Judge into the House of 'Lords would be a very in- adequate remedy. For his own part, lord Aberdeen still adhered to the opinion he had often expressed, that the only way of fully remedying the existing evil would be to remove all Scotch appeals from the jurisdiction of their Lordships, and to establish a court of final appeal in Scotland. That might appear a somewhat revolutionary suggestion : he knew that there is a general opinion that the weight, influence, and author- ity of the House very much depend upon the preservation of the appellate jurisdiction : but although noble Lords may compliment each other and flat- ter themselves that all is going on well, he might be allowed teeny that the profession and the appellants might have jinn ground for complaint. It was said, on very high authority, that the assumption of an appellate jurisdic- tion was an usurpation on the part of that House, However that might be as regards England, it is unquestionably the ease as regards Scotland. In the 19th article of the Act of Union, it IB expressly stipulated that no sen- tence of the Court of Session shall be reviewed in the Court of Chancery, the Court of Queen's Bench, or any other Court at Westminster ; -but nothing is said of an appeal to Parliament, still less to the House of Lerds. The Scotch claim the undoubted privilege of the subject to protest for a " remied of law " to the King and ParliamentS but it has been laid down over and over again, that this protest is only allowed where the Court of Session has exceeded its legitimate authority. The tribunal to which such protests were made—there were only six durmg the period between the Revolution and the Union —was a tribunal differently constituted from the British House of Lords, The Lords and Commons sat together in the same chamber ; the Judges of the Court of Session were present in their places in front of the throne. That tribunal at least, thoroughly understood the subject with which it had to deal. He could only account for the submission of the Scotch to a foreign tribunal by a reference to the state of the country at that period, when political influences and the influences of great families were not with- out their weight. 'No doubt, Lords 'Hardwick°, Mansfield, and Eldon, c ffl. dotty discharged theirdnties. But he had no desire to see judge-made law. With all their laudable desire to decide rightly, they must necessarily have often failed. Be remembered hearing Lord Chancellor Erskine say, thirty years ago, that he was as profoundly ignorant of Scotch law as if he Bad been a native of Mexico. That declaration was more frank than pru- dent, but it was the truth. The appeal is not made to the wisdom but to the ignorance of the House; it is regarded as a lottery; and the uncertainty anulhpliespeals. The only remedy would be to remove Scotch appeals from that House ; and he was not sure whether its appellate jurisdiction might not be removed with advantage to the public in all cases, English, scotch, or Irish. He admitted that the sentiments he had expressed are -not generally entertained in Scotland. "The opinions which I have ex- pressed have by no means been recently taken up. I have entertained them for very many years ; and in feet, talk as yoa will, I appeal to the common sense of your Lordships whether the hearing of Scotch appeals in this House is not objectionable. I have heard Lord Eldon say a dozen times, that it was a wonder to him that so sensible a people AS the Scotch should ever submit to such a monstrous practice as that of hringing their causes to be heard in the House of Lords. Lord Liverpool, many years age, told me that he entirely concurredin the opinions which -I have now expressed, but that, unfortunately, the people of Scotland thought otherwise, and he there- fore could do nothing. Upon the present occasion, I will content myself with recording my sentiments on the subject ; but I cannot conclude with- out expressing my conviction that, whether I-may live to see it or not, the time will come -when Scotch appeals will be banished from this House, and it will require the best care and attention of your Lordships to preserve your English jurisdiction." The Earl of DERBY treated Lord Aberdeen's speech as a charge against the report of the Committee. He would not follow Lord Aberdeen in those "antiquarian discussions " in which he had indulged ; he did not lay the same stress SS the noble Earl on the images of a hundred and My years ago; he would not wound his Scotch feelings by saying why the Scotch preferred a foreign tribunal to their own Court of Session. Lord Aberdeen had expressed his views on appellate jurisdiction in the Com- mittee there he stood alone • and Lord Derby regretted that, after the full discussion in the Committee, Lord Aberdeen should " intrude " upon them one of the most delicate questions involved in that jurisdiction. As to the introduction of a Scotch Judge, what was Lord Aberdeen's object ? He first protested against _having Scotch eases brought before the House and then he asserted the claim of Scotch lawyers to a seat in the appellate jurisdiction of the House. [Lord Aberdeen—" No, no !"] Yes ; that was the -charge against him. But the question did not rest cm these vague and indefinite grounds. The Committee declined to fetter the Crown by laying down a positive rule. And -while the bill does not provide for the placing of a Scotch Judge in the Court of Ap- pellate Jurisdiction, it places the Scotch Judges on precisely the same footing as the Judges in other -parts of the kingdom. If it should be necessary to select a Scotch Judge, the bill recognizes the claim of Scotch Judges—an arrangement that should satisfy everybody. Lord Sr. LEONARDS vindicated the English Law Lords. No man can rise to the woolsack who has not made himself master of Scotch law in the ordinary course of his practice. He should feel mortified if the ani- madversion of Lord Aberdeen applied to him personally. For himself, he had had great practice as an advocate in Scotch suits at that bar, and had been once asked to undertake Scotch appeals generally, with a pro- mise of a brief in every case. It is idle now to inquire whether that House, at the time of the Union with Scotland, rightfully obtained and exercised the power of hearing these appeals. Than that no pointcould be clearer,- it had been recognized over and over again in acts of Parliament; and the incontrovertible inference from the section of the Act of Union quoted by the noble Earl, providing that no Court in Westminster Hall should have any jurisdiction over the Scotch Courts, was that the authority possessed by that House over English appeals should extend to appeals from Scotland. Every writer on Scotch law acknowledged that -when that House took possession of its inherent right on the passing of the Union, benefit, not detriment, accrued to Scot- land; the people of which eagerly appealed to that House -to review the de- cisions of their own courts, in which they could not place reliance. The Duke of ARGYLL said the bill was a compromise. The abolition of the appellate jurisdiction in Scotch cases would be a most unpopular measure. The Fail of Wiciranw expressed his surprise that a bill of tfris kind should be brought in by the Lord Chancellor .and supported by peers who believe that the Crown possesses the prerogative of appointing peers for life. The resolution of the Rouse in -the case of Lord Wensley- dale is really worth no more than the paper on which it is written. Lord CAMPBELL set forth this " constitutional " doctrine.

"It had been ordered and adjudged by that House, as appeared from its journals, that a Peer for life, as such, could not sit in Parliament. That was a declaration of the law of the realm; cm long as that resolution remain- ed upon the journals they had no choice in the matter, and the Crown could not insist upon a Peer for life being admitted to a seat in that House. If it were necessary that Peers for life should be appointed in order to assist in the judicial business of the House, legislation was indispensable before such persons could occupy seats among their Lordships:"

As regards the case of Scotch appeals, he said, he had had more practice in connexion with Scotch law than many Judges of the Court of Session; and at no period of his life had he done more service to his country tha when, for nine years before he was made Lord Chief Justice, he devoted himself to the discharge of official duties in connexion with appeals. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, he supported the bill because it was recommended as a remedy for an existing eviL The House should not go beyond the necessity of the case and pronounce an opinion on the general question of life-peerages. Nothing would have induced him to support the bill if it declared an opinion binding the Crown for the fu- ture upon a subject relating to its own prerogative. As to the resolu- tion whereby it has been sought to exclude Lord Wensleyilale that is nothing more than a declaration of opinion' which, promulgated today, may be abrogated tomorrow. It has not received the assent of the three branches of the Legislature, and cannot ha* the force of an act of Parliament.

Lord UDRSDALE interpreted the bill as granting to the Crown an ex- tension of prerogative beyond the point defined by the previous resolu- tion. To such extension, however, a limit was placed by the express declaration that not more than four such Peers should be allowed to sit in the House at the same time. Lord Sr. LEONARDS was of opinion that, if the bill passed, the Crown would not have the power of granting any other life-peerages than those to which it especially referred. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that if the bill had not been so framed as to leave the Royal prerogative untouched, there was a manifest-defect in the manner of its construction. Earl Frrzwrritan remarked that the bill appeared to be susceptible of a great variety of interpretations. Had the learned person whose peerage had formed the subject of discussion insisted upon taking his seat, how could they have prevented him ? The place in which they sat, although popularly called " the House of Lords," was, according to the constitution, but an apartment of the Queen's Pa- lace, in which she chose to convene her Council. Their Lordshi_ had got into a difficulty, from which sending this measure down to the HMSO of Commons would not extricate them.

Earl GRANVILLE said, he was aware of the difficulty in which the House was placed, but he was not so hopeless of finding a way out as Lord Fitrwilliam. Repeating the main facts that led to the grant of a life-peerage to Lord Wensleydale, and to the opposition and Committee, he was obstinate enough to retain his opinion unchanged. To adopt the course recommended by Lord Campbell, and create Lord Wensleydale an hereditary Peer, would be a complete abandonment of the whole question. " The course which her Majesty's Ministers were induced to take was this —Thinking that there was something like a collision between the Crown and this House, and that even the appearance of such a state of things was an anomaly which it was very desirable to remove, they thought that, by ap- pealing to the patriotic feelings of the Members of this House, a means; might be adopted of settling the difference by the best possible means, namely, with the concurrence of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament. With that object, they acceded to the wish expressed by a noble and learned lord, and afterwards by Lord Derby—that the House should go into the whole question of the appellate jurisdiction, and should see what arrange- ment could be made winch should be really beneficial to the public and should strengthen instead of weakening the character of this House. We went into that Committee, and I am bound to say that there was very little party feeling shown on either side. Although on certain points there VMS great difference of opinion, yet all manifested the same desire to come to a satisfactory result. I think one of the points on which we all felt most anx- iety was, that we should avoid doing anything which should throw blame on the oouree which had been taken either by the Crown or by this House. When the noble Earl (Fitz william) expresses surprise that her Majesty'a Government should have anything to do with this bill, and complains of the unfortunate position in which Lord Wensleydale will find himself placed by it, I must ask him to consider in what position Lord Wensleydale would be if no bill of this sort were passed, unless (which I presume he would not recommend) the Government had entirely withdrawn from the question, and created that noble and learned Lord an hereditary Peer. As it is, the principle of having some life Peers has been fully admitted. I should have infinitely preferred that no limitation should have been placed upon the Crown in regard to this. The reason which most weighed with your Lordships, however, was the fear that in different days an abuse of this prerogative might take place ; and it was therefore thought right to .place some limit to it. As her Majesty's Ministers have never thought it desirable that this prerogative—which they still believe the Queen to possess—should be abused by the creation of a large number of Peers, they thought it worth while to make it the subject of a satisfactory arrangement. We have, I think, by our recommendations, done that which will strengthen the appel- late jurisdiction of this House, and which will, if I may be allowed the ex- pression, at the same time exclude poverty from it. We shall see Lord Wensleydale sitting in virtue of his life-patent ; and we have come to this decision in a dignified manner, which will rather do good than harm to the House of Lords in the opinion of the public, and will show that we have been actuated by a practical desire to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon this subject." Lord DERBY expressed his entire concurrence in the tone and manner of Earl Granville's statement. He had placed the arrangement entered into between the two sides of the House exactly in the light in which Lord Derby himself had viewed it. The House went into Committee. Lord Sr. LEONA.RDS objected to the Judges of the Admiralty and Prerogative Courts being eligible for the office of Deputy Speaker ; but he did not divide the Committee.; and it was shown that some of these Judges had been men of the very highest fitness. At the suggestion of the Earl of Donoirommona, the power of selection was extended, so as to include the Judge of the Irish Prerogative Omit.

When the report was brought up, the Earl of Mraro objected to clause 6, which he thought unduly limited the prerogative of the Crown ; and he moved a proviso, declaring that the act should not be construed so as to affect the prerogative.

Fail GRANVILLE objected to the amendment. The House, he con- tended, could not by itself decide a question of prerogative. Nevertheless, practically the House did decide It, because, if their Lord- ships resolved not to admit a life Peer, a life Peer could not be forced upon the House. Such being the anomalous state of affairs, it appeared to him that the best thing to be done was for the three powers of the realm to come to a unanimous decision as to what the practice should be for the future. It could not be denied that the Crown had abandoned a portion .of its pre- rogative in consenting to the introduction of the present bill. Al the- same time, the House bad made a great concession, after delaring that life peer- ages were unconstitutional, in admitting that a limited number should sit in the House. Such a mutual arrangement having been arrived at, it would be undesirable to disturb it.

The Earl of Wroclaw supported the amendment ; but it was with- drawn, and the report received.

SUPPLY.

The greater part of Monday evening was occupied with the consider- ation of various items of the Civil Estimates. Almost as soon as the House was in Committee, it went to a division on a motion by Mr. W. WILLIAMS against a vote of 34611. to defray a portion of the ex- penses of the Ecclesiastical Commission ; but the vote was carried by 166 to 66. On the vote of 16,0227. for the Charity Commission, Mr. W. WrzarAms, Sir JOHN TROLLOPS, Mr. IlEARLAM, Sir JOSEPH PAXTON, and Mr. KNIGHT, found fault with the working of the Commission. Mr. WILLIAMS said it interfered when it was not wanted, and neglected what required attention. Sir JOHN TROLLOPE objected to its arbitrary mode of dealing with charities. Mr. HEADLAIL said it was unfit for its work, and that its powers should be either largely increased or it should be altogether abolished. He also complained of the delay in obtaining the sanction of Parliament to the schemes of the Commissioners. 'Mr. KNIGHT made a formal complaint against the successive solicitors Of the Commission, as having encouraged litigation involving enormous expenses. Between 1821 and 1836, the SUM expended in law was 21,5031., or an average of 15001. a year; between 1836 and 1841, 19,193/. or an average of 31997. between 1841 and 1847, the cost of stilts wall 39,000/. or 8140/. per an-

num ; and during the last four years, ending in 1855, the cost reached 10,5001. per annum. He recommended that the solicitors should be paid by salary and not by fees.

Mr. BAINES and the Arroaxer-Gmeust explained. As regards ex- penses, they pointed out that the business had largely increased. The

proceedings in the Court of Chancery, ordered by former Commissions, would be gradually superseded. In future, private individuals will not have the power of proceeding in that Court. As regards the present so-

licitor, Mr. Fearon, the Attorney-General said that he was not justly open to the imputation that he got up business for the sake of costs, as the proceedings in which he has been engaged originated with the Com- mission. Mr. BADIFS stated, that the Lord Chancellor would forthwith bring in five or six bills sanctioning the schemes of the Commissioners ; and he promised that, if he retained his connexion with the Commission, he would bring in a bill to improve its powers.

On a division, the vote was agreed to by 146 to 40. The next vote was 19111. to defray the salaries and expenses of the Statute Law Commission. Mr. Loma Kmo described the Commission as an "effective plan for accomplishing no result." At one period there was a working staff on the Commission—Mr. Rogers, Mr. Anstey, and Mr. Coode—well known for their desire to reform the statute-book. At the end of one year they were discharged—not for doing too little, for they laboured most zealously. The present Chief Commissioner, Mr. Bellenden Ker, has been a member of the Commission since 1853, and he has received the greater part of the sum-12,0001.—already voted by Parliament. He was also for seventeen years a member of the Criminal Law Commission, which cost 50,000/. without a single result. Mr. Ker receives 10001. a year, and yet he does not devote the whole of his time to the work ; and, looking to his antecedents and ordinary occupation, it may be doubted whether he is the fittest man. The public does not want n useless Commission, but an effective body of men willing to reduce the statute-book into something like shape. Mr. BAINES defended Mr. Bellenden Ker and the Commission. He was authorized by the Lord Chancellor to say that Mr. Ker had no per- -sonal claim upon him, nor any claim beyond his well-known ability. Mr. Baines denied that the Commission had produced no result. He would state to the Committee what had been the labours of the Com- mission. There had been the consolidation of the National Debt Act, the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Master and Workman Act, the law relating to prisons, to stamps, to the Statute of Limitations, to bills of exchange and promissory notes, the consolidation of the criminal law, consisting of eight bills under these heads : then there were the following subjects all dealt with—namely, offences against the person, offences against property, mali- cious injury to property, forgery, treason, and other offences against the State ; and the law of general procedure. On all these points bills had been prepared, and other bills in regard to other subjects of the law were in for- ward preparation, such as the consolidation of the law of carriers by land and water, and the law of aliens and denizens. The classification of these statutes brought him to another part of the labours of the Commission, of very considerable importance, which was embodied in their second report. In that report they stated that their attention had been called to a most im- portant subject—namely, the appointment of a public office or of a-board to revise current legislation. Sir Frrzeor KELLY followed Mr. Baines. It would be totally impos- sible, he said, to effect any of the great objects for which the Commission was appointed without the aid of Mr. Bellenden Ker. Although the Commission has failed to do anything that can be called a consolidation of the law, it has done much to facilitate the task. Referring to his own - scheme and that of the Attorney-General, Sir Fitzroy described some of the difficulties that have prevented the introduction of the bills he pro- mised some months ago. But he renewed his promise—within a very - few days eight bills dealing with the whole of the criminal law will be laid on the table.

Mr. Bowrica, Mr. HADFIELD, and Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE, supported the views of Mr. Locke King, and opposed the vote.

Lord Jolla Russett said, it was unwise for Parliament to decide that a code should be drawn up unless it seriously set about the task; but that task is no nearer completion than it was three years ago. Nows-Ift order to carry out the proposed work of consolidation, the measures in- troduced should have the sanction of the highest legal authorities, and should be adopted by the Government.

Whether they, were brought in by the Home Secretary, the Solicitor- 'General, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or by a Minister of Jus- tice, let it be understood that they were the measures of the Government ; that it was their object seriously to improve and reform the statute-book- to make this the principal business of the session ; and that they were pre- pared to form a code on which the reputation of the country might be staked. If this were done, then we might expect the production of such a code as could be placed in competition with that of any other country in the world,

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL concurred with Lord John Russell in much 'that he had said. He should have been glad if the House had recog- nised the appointment of a great officer charged with the duty of amend- ing the law ; but they had deliberately adopted the mode of proceed- ing by commission • and, supposing that were the best mode, he con- tended that the result obtained is more than might have been expected. The Commissionerslave laboured with great zeal, and it is unreasonable to look for any direct fruits of those labours in so short a time.

On a division, the vote was carried by 70 to 54.

One other division took place in Committee. On the vote of 13,600/. for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Fisheries in Scot- land, Mr. WILLIAMS moved its rejection ; but, on an explanation that it was to be the last vote of the kind, he offered to withdraw his opposi- tion. Nevertheless, the opposition was continued by Mr. FERGUS, sup- ported by Mr. BLACKBURN, and other Members. The Scotch representa- tives were divided in their opinion as to the beneficial effects of the vote. The Casacettee of the EXCHEQUER. stated that Government had in- tended to discontinue the grant ; but, being informed that its cessation would be attended with serious inconvenience, they determined to insert the vote in the Estimates, and to send a Commission to Scotland, whose report would settle the question whether the item should appear in the Estimates again. Mr. WILLIAMS said this was a different explanation from that given by Mr. Wilson, and he should therefore divide the Com- mittee. On a division, the vote was carried by 162 to 39.

Here the Chairman reported progress.

The House went into Committee again on Thursday. On the vote of 69121. for the British Embassy at Paris, Mr. Warresme asked for some explanation of the item of 16281. the remuneration of Mr. Albano the

architect. Another item was 5501. for preparing a " chapel and ante- room " for the Queen when in Paris. Sir BENJAMIN HALL and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained, that the repairs at the time of the Queen's visit were necessary. As regarded the expenses of Mr. Albano, they failed to satisfy the Committee. Mr. Albano had been sent to Paris, and " by some inadvertence he was allowed to remain longer than necessary." Sir FRANCIS BARING suggested an inquirylato the vote by a Select Committee. The Government assented, and -the vote was postponed.

On a vote of 17,5001. for the purpose of erecting at Scutari a public monument to the memory of those who have fallen during the war with Russia, Colonel Norm expressed a desire that the monument should be set up in England. Mr. STAFFORD and Lord Pramessroa, however, strongly insisted on the propriety of erecting it at Scutari. A portion of the monument is already on its way there. Mr. Sr.kvvomi said, that the design for the Scutari monument was so exceedingly beautiful, that he would rejoice to see a similar testimonial in the grounds of Chelsea Hospital.

MILITARY EDUCATION.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr. SIDNEY lime- BERT brought under notice the state of the education and instruction of officers in the Army, and a plan for its amendment. He treated the subject in a full and detailed manner, and occupied a considerable time in the elucidation of his views' to the manifest satisfaction of the House. At the beginning of his address, he remarked with regret, that one item —the vote for the education and instruction of the officers of the Army— had disappeared from the revised estimates ; and he hoped that before those estimates are discussed, provision will be made for the education of regi- mental and staff officers.

At this moment, we have an opportunity of creating de novo a peace es- tablishment free from the errors and vices of the establishment hurriedly created after the close of the great war. "In 1816, the petition called the

London Petition was presented, incom- patible against the maintenance of the

army, although that army had been reduced to a great amount—as com- patible with the constitution and prosperity of the country, and as sapping the foundation of national liberties ; and so strong was this feeling, that the Duke of Wellington held an opinion which he expressed to myself not many years ago, when I proposed that there should be an encampment of a large body of men for instruction in field-duties. The Duke of Wellington re- fused to listen to that proposal, and founded his objection upon the feeling of the country towards the army after the war. He said, Depend upon it, the only way to maintain an army in this country is to keep it out of

sight.' I think it probable that the unpopularity of the army. at the period in question arose from its having been used as a police force in the repreaT sion of political disturbances." Now, a new organization will greatly facilitate instruction. We mist aim at making our training and efficiency compensate for the numerical infe:- riority of our army. We must not reduce those corps where the necessity for science is the greatest and the necessary amount of training is the longest:

The expense of maintaining an efficient army is nothing to that required to maintain a large army completely uninstructed. You cannot expand a scientific corps upon a sudden, but you can much more rapidly expand ca- valry and infantry. It is now far less difficult to carry out a plan of educa-

tion than formerly. The popular fallacies, the opinion as to the'non;neces- sity of instruction to officers have been dissipated by the experience of -the

late war. He reminded the House that the Duke of Wellington proposed a plan of examination in 1850' quoted evidence of its necessity, from the tes- tiinony of Lieutenant-Colonel Adams, Colonel Prosser, Napoleon ; and re- futed the objeCtions of Sir John Burgoyne. Mr. Herbert then proceeded to unfold his plan, in great detail ; and having gone through that elaborate exposition he succinctly recapitulated its chief points. "I propose to do away with all military education before the age of sixteen. I propose to admit stu-

dents in larger numbers to.Sandhurst. I propose to admit them by one uniform standard; but I also propose to admit those who have not attended any military

college if able to pass the same examination. I propose further, to establish at the head-quarters of every division a staff-officer for the instruction of sub- officers, and to subject the latter to an examination uniform throughout Eng- land and the Colonies. I propose to remove the senior department from Sandhurst to Farnham, and to render the education there more practical and military in its character. I propose lastly, that every officer who serves on the Staff shall pass through the Staff school, and attach himself for three years to the different branches of the service." The whole army requires to be inoculated with greater professional spirit ; the evil of young men entering the army for amusement must be corrected. The way to do that is to supply a good military education for officers. "I would now beg to press this subject upon the attention of the Government, hoping that they will take it up. If they do so, public opinion will support them. Recollect,

that by every day's delay you raise up fresh difficulties ; the recollection of past evils will pass away ; people will begin to aeAriesce in the old routine;

and above all, you create fresh bathers to the efficiency of the army by ad- mitting more uninstructed and incompetent officers ; you create vested interests, and postpone to an indefinite period the ultimate attainment of this desirable object."

Mr. FEEL made a guarded reply; admitting the soundness of Mr. Her- bert's views in principle' but declining to be bound by the detail. He argued, however, against any attempt to apply an educational test solely,

and still more against the proposed uniform standard. Government has not shown any undue procrastination in dealing with the question. A Committee was formed some time ago by the War Department for the purpose of inquiring into the scientific requirements for the army ; that Committee recommended the appointment of a Commission, whose duty it would be to go to the Continent and obtain information as to the systems pursued there. The gentlemen appointed had brought back valuable information from Prussia, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and other countries ; and in a few days they would present their report. _ Mr. ELLICE, Sir DE LACY Evevis, Mr. Rica, and Lord GODERICH, all paid the highest compliments to Mr. Herbert, and insisted on the ne- cessity of some measures that would effect the object he had so admirably explained. Lord humutsroa also thanked Mr. Herbert for bringing under notice a subject so important, and for stating his views in so clear and able a manner. The Government entirely concurred with him in his estimate of the importance of giving officers in the army the beat possible educa- tion adapted to their professional pursuits. Mr. Herbert, however, would not expect him to go through the various details of the plan laid before them. "The main qualities for an officer are contempt of danger, fearlessness of responsibility, a quick eye to estimate the nature of surrounding circum- stances, a rapid decision how to lid in every emergency, and resolution to take the course which upon reflectionhe may think best. These are gnat- _ . _ _ -

ties the possession of which by an officer is most important, and which may be foun in a man who is deficient in many of those attainments which, nevertheless, are essential to giving these qualities their best and most use- ful application. What we want is to combine the two ; and you cannot-by any examination ascertain exactly whether or not a man possesses these con- stitutional qualities. . . . . You must take your chance. All that you can do is by instruction to give to your officers that scientific knowledge which is essential to their professional pursuits, and to the well-conducting of the troops who may be placed under their command ; and by examination to ascertain whether they have profited by the instruction which you have

alforded them Now that peace has fortunately returned, however, it will be the duty and the anxious desire of the Government, as soon as pos- sible, to come to some satisfactory decision upon the arrangements necessary to accomplish the objects which my right honourable friend has in view.

ITALIAN POLITICS.

In reply to a question from the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, respecting the notes presented at Paris by the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries to Eng- land and France, and the replies to them, the Earl of CLARENDON ex- plained, that at Paris it was agreed that written answers were not neces- sary, as Count Cavour was made acquainted with the views of both Governments. But after he came home, Lord Clarendon learned that it would be agreeable to the Sardinian Government to have a written record of the opinions of her Majesty's Government with regard to the foreign occupation of Italy and the desirableness of its ceasing. He had not the least hesitation in repeating in the name of the Government what he had said at Paris, and he therefore wrote an answer which he begged to lay on the table. He might say, that 'both the foreign Go- vernments whose troops occupy Italian territory are sincerely anxious to withdraw their armies, and are at this moment actively preparing to adopt that course."

THE STATE OF GREECE.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr. TAMES M`GitEGOR drew attention to the state of Greece. He described the Greek Government as "the most inefficient, corrupt, and contemptible with which a nation was over cursed" ; and he fortified that description by a reference to the opinions of Lord Carlisle and Lord Palmerston. The financial mismanagement of Greece entails on this country a charge of 47,0001. a year for interest on the Greek Loan. Great disservice has been done to Greece itself by leaving the means of corruption in the hands of the Government, instead of compelling it to pay the interest. What he wanted to know was whether the military occupation of the Pineus had produced any good results, and what measures of coercion the Government intend to pursue. Lord PArtisnsrow said that the course pursued by the Greek Govern- ment justified all his former condemnation. The Pirmus was occupied by the troops of France and England because the Greeks had attacked the dominions of the Sultan. That occupation put an end to the ag- gressive policy of the Court ; but it has not contributed to the internal tranquillity of the country. " Brigandage " continues to a great and lamentable extent. The fact is, that ever since the accession of King Otho' the Government and Court party have been in a state of conflict with the representative system. The representative government promised by the three Allied Powers was deferred until the majority of the King, then he evaded the fulfilment of the promise ; and it was only extorted by an insurrection in 1843. From that time to this there has been a per- petual endeavour to get rid of constitutional government, by corrupt and indirect means; the money that should have paid the debt being appropriated to corrupt the electors. With regard to enforcing the pay- ment of the debt, as there were three parties to the guarantee—France, England, and Russia—no one Power could rightfully intervene and de- prive the other two of their share by enforcing its separate claim. With respect to future policy, that he could not properly enter upon.

Jorwr-Sroen COMPANIES.

On the motion for the third reading of the Joint-Stock Companies Bill, late on Monday night, Mr. SPOONun objected, on account of the hour. Mr:LOws, however, quieted Mr. Spooner, by stating that he would not object to add a clause proposed by that Member; and thus the bill was read third time. Mr. HENLEY moved the omission of three clauses relating to the appointment by the Board of Trade of Inspectors to look into the accounts and ascertain the solvency of companies. The motion was sup- ported by Mr. NEWDEGATE, MY. WHITESIDE' and Mr. WAtPorz. Mr. Lows said that the clauses had been taken from the New York act ; and that the Board of Trade would be solely responsible for the appointment of the Inspector, and in no way pledged by his after proceedings.

On a 'division, the motion was negatived by 42 to 32; and the bill passed.

TENANT-RIGHT.

The advocates-of tenant-right achieved a triumph at the Wednesday sitting. In a long speech, Mr.G. H. MOORE moved the second reading of his Tenant-Right Bill. He insisted that it is the duty of the Govern- ment to settle* the question; and taunted Lord Palmerston with abdi- cating government, because he had said that he would have nothing to do with it.

The 'measure which he had now to submit contained four propositions,— two that were principal, and two that were ancillary and general. l'he first was, that provision should be made by law for securing to tenants the proper benefit of the expenditure in labour and capital made by them on the land in their occupation. The second affected rights arising out of pre- scription in certain parts of Ireland, and provided that these rights should not depend upon the arbitrary will and caprice of particular parties, but be defined and limited by law. The third was that restraints should be placed upon the powers exercised by law by certain landlords in Ireland of evict- ing, according to the markets, vast masses of men, without regard to the dictitteS of humanity, the wellbeing of the community, and the exigencies of the empire. The fourth was to interfere to regulate certain anomalies which had arisen from violent changes in legislation, and from the disturb- ing'elemeins of the year 1848, alid succeeding years. Mr. liauunts seconded the motion in so many words. No Member seemed disposed to continue the debate. There were calls for "Hors- man," but Herman was deaf to the invocation. The SPEAKER put the question, and declared that the " Ayes " had it. But, notwithstanding loud cries of "Agreed," the Opposition insisted on a division, and the motion was carried by 88 to 59. Much cheering greeted the announce- ment of the numbers, and the bill was read a second time.

[It was remarked that the Government voted for the motion.]

Early on Thursday evening, in reply to Mr. STANFORD' Mr. Honsitan. explained, that he had intended to state the views of the Government on

Wednesday ; but that, while he was waiting the arrival of those gentle- men who formerly took an active interest in the subject, the discussion came to an end. l!tir. Reisman justified his vote with the majority, on the7ground that he considered himself to be merely reaffirming a resolu- tion of the House that the laws of landlord and tenant in Ireland are not on a satisfactory footing. If Mr. Stafford, on the motion for going into Committee, will move the committal of the bill to that day six months, he will have the support of the Government. Later in the evening, Mr. G. H. Moons, being informed of this con- versation, asked whether Mr. Horsman intended to support the Govern- ment, and why

In reply, 3fr. HORSMAN gave an amusing account of the proceedings of the Tenant League—its inability to pay a "competent lawyer" to. draw a bill, and the necessity of falling back upon Mr. Sharman Craw-. ford's bilL This bill Mr. Sergeant Shee refused to take charge of, and it was then handed to Mr. Moore. Mr. Horsman was proceeding to state- the conditions on which Mr. Moore undertook the bill—that is without any hope of carrying it into Committee but, being twice challenged by the SPEAKER for irregularity, he at length sat down.

Consnenarrow or ButuaL-Gnotrims.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, presenting a petition from the Mayor anl inhabitants of Blandford, complaining of the non-consecration of a new burial-ground, set forth the merits of the case, and initiated a long de-. bate. 'fhe ease of the petitioners is, that they formed a burial-ground and built a chapel as required by the law, but that the Bishop of Salis- bury refused to consecrate the new ground, because a communion-table had not been set up in the chapel for the celebration of the Lord's supper. Lord Shaftesbury held that this refusal arose from a misapprehension of the act. It did not require the consecration of the chapel, only of the burial-ground. These chapels were intended for the performance of the burial-service according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England ; while the consecration service, now used, is only intended for buildings where full service is intended to be performed. What can be the use of a communion-table in a cemetery-chapel ? The Bishop of SALISBURY made a temperate explanation ; amounting in substance to this, that the Bishop holds it necessary to consecrate these chapels, and to include in the act of consecration the celebration Of the holy communion—therefore a communion-table is necessary. In the ease of Blandford, the ratepayers objected on the ground of expense, Lord Portman, in a letter, accused him of disturbing the harmony of the parish, and made an irritating speech at a public meeting. The Bishop had been influenced in his decision by the purest motives ; and he ap- pealed to the House whether he was a likely person to dispose of matters of this kind in an overbearing and dictatorial spirit. Lord PORTMAN said, that the inhabitants of Blandford had treated the question as one of episcopal authority. When they found that the Bishop wished to exercise an authority not founded in law' they tried to induce him to follow the example of his immediate predecessor.

A sentence in a charge recently delivered byBishop of Salisbury had

justified the inhabitants of Blandford in re - g his movements with sus- picion. After stating that he considered ' office to be " ministratio, non dominatio," he said—" Such maxims, indeed, carry me up to our Lord's commission to His Apostles, and make me feel that the blood of the Apostles (so to speak) is in my veins and that by it I have been ennobled." Now they had heard a good deaf about the power and spirit of the Apostles, but as tar as Lord Portman knew they had never before heard that any bishope had the blood of the Apostles; and it seemed so strange to the laity of Saha- byry that they should at last have in that diocese a prelate who bore the blood" of the Apostles in his veins, that it had made them view the acts of the right reverend prelate with perhaps a little more anxiety than they would have been disposed to view them with under other circumstances. Lord Portman contended that consecration is a modern invention, and that it is a question whether the greater part of the old churchyards were ever consecrated at all. The real point in the case, however, was, that the Bishop wished 'to do what the House of Commons refused to do and create an addi- tional number of Church-of-England chapels. He hoped that in the bill on the subject of burials before the other House, provisions would be introduced by which the power of interference in these matters would no longer be vested in one man, who might, if he had autocratical notions, act entirely upon his own whims and fancies. Lord REDESDALE contended that these chapels ought to be distinct chapels suitable to the performance of full service.

The Bishop of ()stoic]) vindicated the conduct of his brother prelate, and lectured Lord Portman.

He accused the lay Peer of throwing out the gross insinuation that the Bishop of Salisbury looked forward to the licensing of these chapels; and he expressed "surprise and indignation" that Lord Portman should impute "whims and fancies" to Bishops. If the report of the noble Lord's speech at Blandford, as it appeared in the papers was correct, the noble Lord must have spoken in a tone of disregard and levity utterly unworthy his high position. He was represented, but probably inaccurately represented, to have said that "they had better take care what they were about, for if they let the communion-table in, the next thing demanded would be a picture of St. Peter at the other end." ("Hear, hear.'" from Lord _Portman.) Then that was a misrepresentation of the noble Lord. Ile was happy to have this disclaimer. - (laughter-) Lord PORTMAN said, his cheer was not intended as a disclaimer. What he did any was, that the present proceedings of the Bishop, if un- checked, might lead to greater demands, and that the right reverend prelate might, by and by if he thought proper, ask for liberty to put a picture of St. Peter in his ohapel. When he read the passage in the Bishop 'ti charge, the observation he made upon it was, that it was quite natural that any man should wish to have a picture of his ancestors about him. (Loud cries

After a few more words, the subject dropped, and the petition was ordered to lie on the table.

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES.

Having disposed of Tenant-Right, on Wednesday, the House pro- ceeded to "business," and went into Committee on Mr. Pellatt's Dis- senters' Marriages Bill. •

On clause 2, providing that every notice of marriage should be accom- panied by the declaration of one of the parties that there is no lawful hindrance to such marriage,—the declaration being made before the Superintendent-Registrar or the Registrar, or before two householders selected by the parties,—Mr. HARDY moved the omission of the words relating to the householders. The suggestion was adopted; and the clause thus amended was agreed to. On clause 4, enacting that notice of marriage without licence should bid inthe Superintendent-Registrar's office. Sir JOHN DUCH., worm moved the insertion of the words "and outside." This was re- sisted by the supporters of the bill, as a "coarse and vulgar exposure " : but on a division, the amendment was carried by 93 to 85.

Clause 21, "Registrar-General to furnish to secretaries of synagogues marriage-register books and forms," was struck out. The remaining clauses of the bill were agreed to, and it was reported.