ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

House or LORDS, Friday, April 4.—Italian Affairs : Lord Westbury and Earl Russell—The Revised Code: The Bishop of Oxford's Motion for Papers.—Alleged Torture of Alexander Zamoyski: Lord Kinnaird's question.

Monday. April 7.—Military Drill in Public Schools : Discussion.—Declaration of Title, Security of Purchasers, Transfer of Land, and Real Property (Title of Pur- chasers) Bills : Committee.—Industrial Schools Acts (1861) Amendment Bill : Com- mittee—Whipping Bill: Committee.—Piers and Harbours Act Amendment Bill: Second Reading.

Tuesday, Apra 8.—Industrial School Acts (1861) Amendment Bill : Third reading. —Pier and Harbour Act Amendment Bill: Committee.

Thursday, April 10.—Chancery Regulation Bill : second reading.—Whipping Bill : third reading.—Piers and Harbour Act Amendment BIB: third reading.

House or Commits, Friday, April 4.—Mexico : Mr. Layard's statement.—Paper Money in India : Mr. H. Baillie's Motion.—Affairs of Poland: Discussion on Mr. Denman's Motion for Correspondence.—Forts at Spithead: Mr. Osborne's Motion.— Supply : Report —Ways and Means: Report. Monday, April 7.—New Member: Sir T. Hesketh (Preston).—Financial Debate : Mr. Disraeli and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Committee of Ways and Means. —Thames Embankment Bill: Reference to a Select Committee.

Tuesday, April &—Drainage of Land in Ireland Bill: First reading.

Wednesday, April 9. — Clergy Relief Bill: Reference to Select Committee.— Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment Bill : Committee.

Thursday, April 10.—The Artillery experiments at Shoeburyneas and the Warrior : Lord Clarence Paget's statement—Committee of Ways and Means.—Courts of Jus- tice (Money) Bill : rejection of motion for second reading.—Prosecutor's Expenses: order for a Select Committee.—Trading Companies Bill : drat reading.

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

In the House of Commons,

Mr H BAILIE (Inverness:shire) moved for a copy of the agreement entered int* by the Government of India with the Bank of Bengal for the issue of paper money in India. Mr. Wilson had proposed a scheme for establishing a paper currency in India, 4,000,0001. of which should be issued in Govern- ment securities, and the remainder secured by coin. At the suggestion of Mr. Laing, however, the Indian Government had carried into effect a far more dangerous scheme. Government notes were to be issued on the secu- rity of Government stock alone. He wished also to learn further particulars with regard to the agreement entered into with the Bank of Bengal on the subject. The effect of that agreement would be a profit to the Bank of not less than 100,000/. a year. The shares had risen 10 per cent. on the trans- action becoming known.

Sir C. WOOD (Secretary for India) said Mr. Baillie was under a misap- prehension as to two points connected with the proceedings for establishing a paper currency in India. Directions on the subject had been sent from this country, and an act was passed in conformity with those directions. It did not provide for the issue of notes up to 4,000,0001. without security, but limited the total issue to that sum. The agreement which had been made with the Bank of Bengal was certainly not in accordance with the instructions sent out. It would come to an end in five years hence, and there was no chance of its being renewed. He concluded by requesting Mr. Baillie to postpone his motion for papers, which the Honourable Mem- ber agreed to do.

Mr. Diranuart (Tiverton) called attention to the state of Poland, and moved for certain papers relating thereto. He detailed the circumstances of the late disturbances in that country, and expressed his earnest hope that, although no actual interference might be practicable, it was the duty of Government to declare, openly in the face of Europe, that the treaty of Vienna had been violated.

Lord PaudzasroN' although sympathising deeply with the misfortunes of the Poles, and admiring the great national qualities they possessed, did not think that any interference, or even expression of opinion by this country was called for by the recent deplorable events.

After some farther discussion, Mr. Denman withdrew his motion.

The House was occupied for the rest of the evening with the debate on Mr. Osborne's motion with regard to the Spithead fortifications, the result of which was given in our postscript of last week.

In the House of Lords, on Monday night, Lord Casu•BELL called attention to the system of military drill recently introduced into public schools, and asked whether the Public Schools Com- mission intended to take any steps to check the present falling off of the number of boys under training at Eton, Harrow, and elsewhere ?

The Earl of CLararavnox, as President of the Public Schools Commission, replied to the inquiries of Lord -CampbelL It was the intention of the Commission to investigate the subject thoroughly. He feared that com- pulsory attendance at drill would only tend to render it distasteful to the boys, but how far the taste for volunteering might be stimulated by rewards would form one of the principal subjects inquired into by the Commission.

In the House of Commons,

Mr. DISRAELI (Buckinghamshire) rose to call attention to the state of our finances, and commented upon the policy of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer. Our trade, he said, was diminishing, our revenue was declining, the state of America affected us deeply—no one could shut his eyes to the fact—and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced a programme of finance for the year which did not provide a surplus. It was impos- sible to evade the question, " Why is there not a surplus ?" and the answer was, that if the repeal of the paper duty had not been wrung from a re- luctant House, there would have been a surplus of 1,400,000/. As it was, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had contrived, during the last two years, to exceed or anticipate the ordinary revenue for that period by no less a sum than 7,500,0001.—a revenue, be it borne in mind, sustained during those two years by war taxation, and with the charges for the national debt diminished by nearly 2,000,0001. by the lapse of terminable annuities. 8,500,0001. of this sum had been obtained by anticipation of the malt duties and the income tax, and the remainder by drawing• reckless draughts upon the balances in the Exchequer, which had been reduced in the two years by nearly 3,000,000L In a speech of great length, and remarkable for bitterness and sarcasm, Mr. Disraeli commented upon these " tremendous results," and taunted Mr. Gladstone with having arrogated to himself and friends all "political morality," and then, by the exercise of that very political morality, brought the finances of the country to their present dan- gerous position. The CHANCELLOR of the Excnitgunn replied to Mr. Disraeli's attack, and retorted upon him the charge of having proposed estimates which had been most egregiously falsified by events, instancing the taxes on checks and on Irish spirits. As to the repeal of the paper duty, the Opposition refused to take into account the effect such remission of duty had upon the general revenue, and as to the question of whether there was a real surplus last year they had prepared to part with 900,0001. a year in the shape of tea duty. The income tax, be *maintained, was absolutely necessary in order to pro- vide for an expenditure of 70,000,0001. a year—en excessive and abnormal expenditure, in reducing which, he regretted to say, Mr. Disraeli had shown no signs of assisting him.

A discussion of some length ensued, and the House ultimately went into Committee of Ways and Means, when several of the budget resolutions were adopted.

On the motion for the second reading of the Thames Embankment Bill, Sir J. SHELLEY (Westminster) moved as an amendment that the construc- tion of the embankment should be deferred until the estimate-of the cost of the work was laid on the table. On a division, the amendment was ne- gatived by 116 to 9, and the bill, after having been read a second time, was referred to a select committee.

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday,

Mr. E. BOIIVERIE (Kilmarnock) moved the second reading of the Clergy Relief Bill, urging upon the House the injustice of attacking what virtually amounted to a temporal penalty for religious opinions. If a clergyman began to entertain theological scruples after having at a comparatively early age subscribed to the Articles, he was debarred from gaining a sub- sistence in any other profession. In conclusion, he intimated that he should have no objection to the bill being referred to a Select Committee.

Sir W. HEATHCOTE (Oxford University) would not oppose the motion for the second reading, because he believed there were certain grievances under the present system, but unless it came out of the Select Committee with considerable alterations, he should oppose the third reading.

Mr. MONCKTON MILNES (Pontefract) took a somewhat similar view of the question. His objection to the bill was, that it offered a premium upon heresy, without providing for the case of those clergymen who, hav- ing taken orders in early youth, and fitted for excellent lay members of the Church, were disinclined to remain as teachers, and were at present inhibited from following any secular occupation.

Several other Honourable Members having spoken more or less in sup- port of the bill, and Mr. Newdegate having opposed it,

Sir G. GREY (Home Secretary) said, that while he approved of the principle of the bill,' he entertained serious objections to several de- tails. The position of a clergyman who, after having been relieved from all ordination obligations, applied for re-ordination, would require serious consideration in the Select Committee.

The bill was, ultimately, read a second time, and then ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord Kistatinows moved the second reading of the Chancery Regulation Bill, under which the Court of Chancery would be enabled to decide ques- tions of mixed law and fact by itself, without sending them to the Courts of Common Law for trial.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said he fully approved of the principle of the bill, but thought that the strictly obligatory character of the bill had been somewhat relaxed in its passage through the other House. He should wish to see an alteration in the second clause which could leave no loophole for a merely permissive construction.

The bill was then read a second time.

Lord LYVEDILV asked Earl Granville if he should object to the appoint- ment of a Select Committee on the Revised Code of Education. He de- sired to support, rather than obstruct the view of the Government on the question, and he thought that the appointment of a Select Committee would give their Lordships a constitutional opportunity for the consideration of a question of such vital importance. He believed that the clauses proposed in the Code were urgently needed, for epithets more strongly condemnatory of the present system than those made use of by the Commissioners could not be found in the English language.

Earl GnAsivrtmE replied that as a Royal Commission had been occupied for three years in thoroughly investigating the subject it would simply be lost labour for a Committee of their Lordships to go over the same ground, and he could not give an affirmative answer to his noble friend's question.

The Earl of Emarnsononanthought that whatever results a Select Com- mittee might arrive at, they would come too late to be of any use. The only interest he took in the question was in the matter of expenditure. He was convinced that education had received so great an impulse that it would be conducted with even greater adiantages than at present if the grant were withdrawn altogether. He hoped Government would place dis- tinctly before the country the question of public economy involved.

In the House of Commons,

Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN (Dudley) asked Lord Clarence Paget for informa- tion relative to the recent experiments at Shoeburyness.

Lord CLARENCE PAGES (Secretary to the Admiralty) replied that a 1501bs. shot from a smooth-bore Armstrong gun, which, if rifled, would carry an elongated shot of 3001bs. weight, had been fired at a Warrior target at 200 yards, and with charges of 40Ibs. and 501bs. of powder. The target, it was true, was somewhat shattered by previous experiments of the same nature, but the ease with which the shots were driven through plating, backing and skin, and buried themselves in the opposite sides, showed the advantage derived from largely increased charges of powder. In reply to Sir J. Pakington, Lord Clarence also stated that the report of the experiments in question in the Times had been published without the sanction of the Admiralty.

Mr. E. C. EGERTON (Chairman of the Great Grimsby Election Coin mittee) reported that they had unanimously come to the conclusion that Mr. Chapman was duly elected.

The House then went into Committee of Ways and Means, and several of the Budget resolutions were agreed to.

Mr. COWPER (First Commissioner of Works) moved the second reading of the Court of Justice (Money) Bill.

Mr. SELWYN moved that it be read a second time that day six months. He did not believe the proposal could be carried out under something like 2,000,0002;, and would thus involve the public in a very large expendi- ture. Besides, he utterly denied the right of Parliament to appropriate the kinds of the country to such a purpose. They had been described as be- longing to nobody, but in reality, the Court of Chancery was merely bankers or custodians of the entire sum. Four out of the six Chancery Courts needed no improvement, and Lincoln's Inn had offered to rebuild the remaining two, if a moderate interest was guaranteed. If this bill was thrown out there would be some prospect of carrying out some practicable plan for the amalgamation of the Common Law Courts alone.

Mr. Pim (Bury) explained the precise nature of the Chancery funds, and defended their application to the proposed object A long discussion ensued, the bill being defended by the Attorney- General, the Solicitor-General, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and attacked by Mr. Malin, Mr. Bouverie, and Mr. Walpole, the latter of whom expressed his belief that the building would not cost less than 3,000,0001., a probable expenditure which he could not possibly sanction in the present state of our finances.

A division then took place on the amendment, and resulted in a tie, the number being 81 on each side ; but as the Speaker was about to give his casting vote, apparently in favour of the measure, it was announced that Mr. P. Wykeham Martin (Rochester), who had intended to vote for the second reading, had not been numbered. This gave a majority of 1 for Government, but, on the main question being put, a second division was challenged, when there appeared, for the second reading, Si, against it, 83, majority against Government, 2.