Fricitto gut( rnu1iag Ill4s5arliamtut,

PRINCIPAL BEEFINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE OF LORDS. .31091day, June 8. Mr. Sheddon's Case ; Earl Grey's Motion negatived. Tuesday, June 9. Mutinies in India ; Lord Ellenborough's Question—Princess RoyaPs Annuity Bill read a second time—Divorce and Matrimonial Causes ; Lord Chancellor's Bill in Committee.

Thursday, June 11. Smoke Nuisance (Scotland) Abatement;. Lord Einnaird's. Bill read a second time—Law of Trusteeship ; Lord St. Leonards's Bill read a first time.

Friday, June 12. The Queen's Drawingrooms ; Question by Lord RavensworthPrincess RoyaPs Annuity Bill committed—Transportation and Penal Servitude • Sir G. Grey's Bill reported—Divorce and Matrimonial Causes ; Lord Chancellor's reported.

HOUSE Or COMMONS. Monday, June 8. Supply ; Army Estimates—The Civil Service ; Lord Goderich's Question—Aidershott ; Sir Frederick Smith's Statement— Probate and Letters of Administration ; Lord Chancellor's Bill read a first time— Fraudulent Breaches of Trust ; Attorney-General's Bill read a second time—Savings, Banks (No. 2) Bill read a second time—Alehouse Licensing; Mr. Atherton's Bill read a second time—Property of Married Women ; Mr. Malins's Bill read a second time—Public Offices site; Sir B. Hall'sBill read a first time.

Taesday, June 9. Grand Juries; Sir Frederick Thesiger's Bill read a first time— Land Transport Corps ; Mr. T. Duncombe's Motion—Wills of British Subjects Abroad ;.Sir F. Kelly's Bill read a first time—Lunatics (Scotland); the Lord Advocate's Bill, leave riven—Highways; Mr. Massey's Bill read a first titne—Netley Hospital ; Sir D. Norreys's Motion—Ecclesiastical Commission ; Sir George Grey's Bill read a first time--Reformatory Schools ; Sir George Grey's Bill read afirst time —Joint-Stock Companies Bill read a third time and passed. Wednesday, June 10. Sale of Beer; Mr. Hardy's Bill thrown out—Property Qualification ; Mr. Locke King's Bill thrown outElection Expenses ; Lord R. Grosvenor's Bill withdrawn—Registration of Voters ; Mr. T. Duncombe's Bill withdrawn.

Thursday. June 11. Duchy of Lancaster ; Mr. Wise's Motion—Administration of Bengal ; Mr. Kinnaird's Resolutions—Sound Dues Bill read a second time—The Indian Army ; Mr. Rich's Question. Friday, June 12. The Queen's Drawingrooms ; Question by Mr. Dundas—St. James's Park ; Explanations by Sir H. Hall—Supply ; Civil Service Estimates-Joint-Stock Companies Act Amendment Bill read a third time and passed—Sound Dues Bill eonunitted—Grand Juries ; Sir F. Thesiger's Bill read a second time, The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill was reconsidered in Committee on Tuesday, and several important amendments were decisively carried. Clause 16 provides that any wife deserted by her husband for two years shall have a right to divorce a mensa et them. The LORD CHA.NCFALLOR, moved thereto, SR he stated, by the claims of husbands, obtained the insertion of wonis giving them a corresponding benefit ; so that desertion on either side entitles the deserted partner to a divorce a mensa et thorn. Subsequently, at the suggestion of Earl Frrzwurrast, the words "judicial separation" were inserted before the words "divorce a mensa et thoro," in order to mark more strongly the distinction between divorce from bed and board and complete divorce. The clause as amended was carried by 76 to 37. After clause 21, the Loan CHANCELLOR proposed a clause providing for the punishment of persons guilty of adultery. He declined to make adultery a misdemeanour, because it would furnish a very easy mode to the designing for extorting money. He proposed that when a husband sought a divorce, both the wife and her paramour should be called before the court as defendants, unless the court saw special reasons for proceeding against the wife alone. Lord BROUGHAM, Earl GREY, and Lord CAMPBELL, expressed their approval of the clause ; and it was carried. After clause 25, the Loan CnArrearmon moved a clause empowering the Court to inflict a fine, not exceeding 10,000T., on the adulterous parties. The Bishop of OXFORD moved the insertion of the words "fine and imprisonment, or fine or imprisonment." Earl GREY supported the amendment. It was carried by 43 to 33; and the clause as amended was agreed to. Clause 45, as it originally stood, did not prevent either of the guilty parties from marrying again ; but an amendment moved by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the previous Committee had so altered the clause as to prohibit the divorced wife from marrying again in the lifetime of her husband. The Loan CHANCELLOR now proposed an amendment restoring the clause to its original state, and this was carried by 46 to 24. Lord WENSLEYDALE moved as a proviso, that neither party should marry the person with whom the adultery was committed. This was negatived by 37 to 28.

• The clause was agreed to, and the bill passed through Committee.

THE BREACHES OF TRUST BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of the Fraudulent Breaches of Trust Bill, Mr. Sergeant KINGLAXE and Mr. J. Rola started several objections, not to the principle butte the details of the measure. The first section of the bill attacks fraud and fraud alone, and does not attempt to interdict the act that is the source of the fraud. This might be done by enacting that whenever loss occurs through the wrongful act of a trustee, whatever might have been the intention of' the trustee it should be deemed fraudulent. It is impossible to define what is an intent to defraud. Then the bill does not impose any punishment for any breach of trust not committed for the benefit of the trustee. Several cases involving nice distinctions were stated, and the House was urged to pass a general and not exceptional law. Special objection was taken to the clause requiring that the assent of the Attorney-General or of a Judge should be obtained before an action could be commenced. Mr. ROLT insisted with much emphasis, that if the bill passed as it then stood, honourable men would not be found to accept trusteeships, and they would fall to a lower class of persons.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the most effective support his honourable and learned friends could afford him would be to embody their objections in clauses and amendments. He was quite at a lose to understand what was meant by "interdicting the source of fraud," unless it were by stopping altogether the relations between trustees and e,estuique trusts. The office of trustee might be annihilated if a general board were substituted for it ; but he should never wish to see a Government board perform the obligations and duties of private life. As to the clause requiring the assent of the Attorney-General or one of the Judges to the bringing of an action, he really did not know how vexatious actions could be prevented by any other mode.

The bill was read a second time.

LAW OF TRIJSTEFAIIIP.

Lord Sr. LEONARDS called attention to the law as it affects trustees. Referring to the bill of the Attorney-General, he said the difficulty lies in confining the measure to breaches of trust really fraudulent. If ordinary breaches of trust are made criminally liable, it will be extremely difficult to get men of competence and station to act as trustees. Lord St. Leonards gave a very technical description of the provisions of a bill he had framed to guard against any oppression of trustees who perform their duties in good faith, and commit, without fraudulent intent, many acts that are real breaches of trust. From his account of the bill, it appears to set forth acts which the trustee may do, or duties which he may omit, without becoming liable to punishment in consequence of departing from the terms of the trust.

This drew a vigorous speech from Lord BROUGHAM, denouncing the

present state of the law. A barrister, the guardian of two young women, "embezzled" their property, and died insolvent. Equity regarded him as a debtor; common sense as a felon. A Judge in the sister kingdom performed the same act of "robbery." Neither could be punished. The law of other countries—that of Scotland, certainly—proceeds upon

sounder principles, for it regards breach of trust as an aggravation and not a defence. In Scotland, the indictment proceeds in a regular syllogistic form. The major proposition is that in all countries theft is a punishable offence, and the minor proposition that a fraudulent breach of trust is a theft; therefore (said Lord Brougham turning suddenly round in jest to Lord Campbell, who was sitting near him) "you, John Campbell, having committed .a fraudulent breach of trust, are liable to be punished." (Laugh(er.) That grievous anomaly between the law of Scotland and the law of England is happily doomed in one way or another, and there is now no chance of its long surviving. Load CAMPBELL gave to the proposition a hearty support. The LORD CHANCELLOR spoke very doubtfully of its expediency. The bill, which did not seem to be very well understood by the House, was read a first time.

THI3 &mixes-BANKS Btu,.

On the motion for the second reading of the Savings-Banks Bill, Mr. Tonumi was the first speaker in a long debate. He warned the Government, in a friendly tone, not to carry their interference so far as to disgust the conductors of the well-managed banks. GOVCIGulellt should only interfere where there is bad management. Mr. GROGAN took the same line. Mr. AYRTON gave a history of savings-banks, and of the management of their funds by the Government, with the view of showing that the Government had neglected its duty ; and that the Commissioners for the management of the National Debt are unfit to deal with the funds of Savings-banks. He described the bill as being intended to establish Government banks throughout the country ; as a "Socialist" bill, intended to supersede the free action of the gentry by a stipendiary agency appointed by the Government. To that he should prefer a board elected by the trustees, sitting in London, and having charg,e of the aggregate funds of the banks. Mr. M'Cloror said the': the public unanimously applaud the bill of the Government. Sir HARRY VERNEY suggested that the bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Mr. Bamiow opposed the bill altogether; its principle being that a single individual or a board may make laws. Mr. ESTCOURT came forward to defend the bill. It is all very well to condemn Centralization, but the poor depositor wants a solid security, and that can only die accorded by the Government. There have been eleven defalcations in the last five years, because managers have noadequate means of checking the figures put before them. He was only afraid that Government would interfere too little. Mr. ArnstiroN supported the suggestion to refer the bill to a Select Committee. Mr. HENLEY wished to be informed how the Government intended to work the bill. If they had no scheme they were about to try a mere experiment. Colonel SYKES and Sir IIENnv Wittomonny desired to see the bill before a Select Committee. Mr. GLYN and Mr. MAGUIRE heartily supported the bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER said that lie had felt it to be his duty to bring this measure forward, in order that the unsatisfactory state of the law might be amended. He had not intended to interfere with managers and trustees, except, in the interests of the Exchequer, to take a certain control over the officers of the banks. Government only propose to appoint the auditors, who are not local officers. If the bill become law, ho will be prepared on a future occasion to car the fullest information on the subject, and to submit the whole of the management of the savings-banks money to the investigation of a Select Committee. In reply to Mr. Henley, he said that he had prepared regulations, but they had not been embodied in the bill, because if embodied they could not be altered, and one inflexible rule cannot be applied to all savingsbanks.

The bill was read a second time.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS.

On the motion of Sir GEORGE GREY, a bill "to promote the establishment and extension of reformatory schools in England" was read a first time. The object is, to provide for the rapid increase of these establishments. Sir George proposes not only to authorize counties end boroughs to establish reformatories, but also to grant assistance to existing institutions which had been established, or which it was proposed to establish, by voluntary efforts. The bill will leave the management of the institutions to be arranged between the originators who contribute to their support and the magistrates who make grants out of the funds at their disposal; but it will be required that when buildings are to be erected the plans should be approved by the Secretary of State for the Home Department before any aid is afforded from the public rates.

TREATMENT OF SCOTCII LUNATICS.

The Loan Aovocarz obtained leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws respecting lunatics in Scotland. He said ho need not advert to the existing law, it is so thoroughly imperfect. What he proposes is, that there should be a Commissioner, a Medical Inspector, a Secretary, and a clerk. The Commissioner will have the power of granting or refusing, renewing or revoking licenses, on very stringent conditions. He will also have the power of making rules for the management of asylums, a quasi-judicial power of inquiring into eases, summoning witnesses, and generally superintending the district asylums. The Medical Inspector will visit the asylums twice a year. The officerson the staff will be paid by Parliament. For tho purposes of the act Scotland will be divided into eight districts,—Edinburgh, Inverness, Aberdeen Perth, Dumfries, Glasgow, including Lanarkshire, Renfrew,

and Stirling. In these districts, lunatic asylums will be erected by an assessment levied by a Board, elected by the Prison Boards. The Commissioner will fix the number of the Board and the amount of the rate. Parishes and private persons will contribute to the expense of maintaining lunatics ; and he believed the asylums would be self-supporting. In the course of his speech, the Lord Advocate defended the Board of Supervision ; which, he said, had complained ten years ago that it had no power to carry out the law ; and that the recommendations embodied, in the recent report of the Commissioners are nearly all to be found in, the evidence of the President of the Board, Sir John M'Neill himself. It was, indeed, in consequence of Sir John's representations that Lord Rutherford had brought in his bill in 1848 and 1849, which the opposition of the Scotch Members compelled him to withdraw.

Mr. ELLICE junior and Mr. DRUMMOND repeated the charges against the Board of Supervision ; urging that it had not carried out the law, and had been guilty of gross and culpable neglect : Mr. Drummond assorted that he had found there were no fewer than fifteen eases of direct and wilful breaches of the law.

HIGHWAYS.

On the motion of Mr. MASSEY, a bill to amend the law of highways, was brought in and read a first time. He explained that it was based on. a bill drawn up by Sir William Joliffe in 1852. It proposes to establish district Boards, following the divisions of the Petty-Sessions, for the management of highways. These Boards to be composed of the Magistrates of the district, the clerical incumbent of each parish, and waywardens elected by each parish. The Surveyor to be appointed by the Court of Quarter-Sessions, and there will be an annual audit. The bill will not affect highways within the municipal boundaries, or within the Metropolis.—It was read a first time.

THE LIME REFORM BILLS.

Three bills, dealing with special subjects connected with the repro-. sentative system, were disposed of on Wednesday. They were Mr. Locke King's Property Qualification Bill) Lord Robert Grosvenor's Election Expenses Bill, and Mr. Thomas Duncombe's Registration of Voters Bill. All stood for the second reading, forming, Mr. Duncombe said, "a very pretty bouquet of reform which they begged the noble Lord to accept.'

The Property Qualification Bill came first; and its fate ruled that of the other two. Sir GEORGE GREY, without entering into the merle

of the question, but solely on the understanding that all bills affecting the representation of the people should be postponed till next session, moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE said, it appeared to him that a new doctrine was about to be laid down in the House of Commons that the representatives of the people were not to discuss the subject of their representation.

How could Lord Palmerston know what the wishes of the people were except through their representatives ? Here they were, all piping hot from the liustings; and there never was an assembly more ready or more fit to give the noble lord a hint as to what the people expected in the way of Parliamentary reform. But delays are dangerous. Long Parliaments had usually very short memories, and probably in a few years honourable gentlemen might have forgotten the pledges which they had made at the hustings; but now they are in a state to tell the noble lord exactly what is wanted ; and he begged to inform the imple lord now, that what is required is a large and full measure of reform, which would give the franchise to a great portion of the working and industrious classes of the country. Lord PALMERSTON followed in the track of Sir George Grey, and would not discuss the question.

On a division, the bill was thrown out by 204 to 145. The other two bills were at once withdrawn.

GRAND JURIES.

Sir FREDERICK. TITESIGER moved for leave to bring in a bill to dispense with the attendance of Grand Juries at the Central Criminal Court. The subject had long attracted great attention. In 1849 Sir John Jervis brought hi a bill for dispensing with Grand Juries in the Metropolitan districts. It was referred to a Select Committee, which unanimously reported that the sitting of Grand Juries was not desirable. Nothing was done. In 1852 Mr. Recorder Stuart Wortley, in a charge, expressed the same opinion, and the Grand Jury itself unanimously concurred with him. In the same year Sir Frederick introduced a bill, which was withdrawn in consequence of the dissolution of Parliament. Sir Frederick had not now moved in the matter without consulting the Government, whose support he anticipated. He had confined his bill to the Metropolitan districts, because he still thought that, at least until public prosecutors are appointed, it is desirable that country gentlemen should be associated with the Judges in their periodical administration of criminal justice. Grand Juries were originally public accusers; then they became tribunals for determining whether there was prima facie ground for a trial. Now, in London that was superfluous, for it had already been determined by the Stipendiary Magistrates. If the Grand Jury found a true bill, their labours were supererogatory ; if not, often mischievous. In fact, the Grand Jury has been called "the hope of the London thieves." Sir Frederick cited several cases where Grand Juries had injudiciously prevented a fair trial. He also showed that the present system facilitates the bringing of false accusations for purposes of extortion. Ills remedy, he said, was very simple. He proposed that no charge should be tried in the Central Criminal Court, or in the other courts within the Metropolitan Police district, without a previous investigation before a Magistrate. No inquiry before a Grand Jury would be necessary, and he therefore proposed to dispense with the attendance of a Grand Jury in such cases. The bill will not apply to charges of treason.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the Government not only concurred in the bill, but would give it a cordial support. He added, that the appointment of a public prosecutor—using the phrase as the denomination merely of some system for the regulation of prosecutions throughout the country—is still under the consideration of the Government ; and that, had it not been for the unfortunate illness of the late Solicitor-General, a plan would have been some time since laid before the House.

Mr. llowvrai warned the House against the abolition of the safeguard afforded to the subject in political matters by Grand Juries. The bill was read a first time.

WILLS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD.

Sir FITZROY KELLY obtained leave to bring in a bill to give validity and effect to the wills of British subjects made abroad. The law on this subject at present is, that if a British subject, after making a will, went to reside abroad permanently, at his death his will would be set aside, and his property would pass to whomsoever by the law of the foreign country was entitled to it. He gave instances where the law which allows an Englishman to dispose of his property at his pleasure has been set aside by decisions pronounced in courts of law. One of the results of the existing system is, that it becomes necessary to ascertain where the testator was domiciled when he executed the will. As a remedy for these great evils, he proposed that all wills, codicils, and testamentary papers executed by a British subject in accordance with the prescribed forms as laid down by the law of England, and duly attested, should be held to be valid in this country, no matter where the testator might have been domiciled at the time at which the instrument happened to have been drawn up ; but it was not his intention to interfere with the action of the laws of any foreign state. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave but a qualified support to the bill. The universal rule of civilized Europe is that "mobilia sequuntur personam " —his personal estate accompanies the testator wherever he resides.. It was therefore for the Judge of the country in which the testator resided to determine the question of testacy or intestacy ; it was not desirable to impair the force of the maxim, nor to make an exceptional experiment in England impairing a maxim of law common to all countries. Mr. BOWYER supported the bill. It was brought in, and read a first time.

SALE OF BEER.

The Wednesday sitting was almost entirely occupied by a debate on the second reading of Mr. Hardy's Sale of Beer Bill.

On the motion for the second reading, Mr. %En SEYHER moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. He enlarged on the abuses of the licensing system, which the bill would continue and extend by bringing all beer-shops under the same licence as the public-houses. lie showed that the operation of the licensing system is capricious ; that it keeps out of the trade numbers of respectable persons, and does not secure respectability ; that the power of refusing to renew licences, so rarely exercised, is no safeguard against immorality. It is said that the proprietors of public-houses are respectable men ; yet all the arrangements for prize-fights are made at public-houses; and prize-fighters obtain public-houses "because they have a good drinking connexion." On the score of morality, it would be difficult to draw any wide distinction between beer-shopa and public-houees. New he had once fought the battle against free trade ' but since the principle of unrestricted competition is admitted, he desired to see it carried to its full extent ; and he was of opinion that the sale of intoxicating drinks should be subjected to one uniform licence, and that every man of good character who applies for a licence should obtain one.

Mr. WILLIAM Bitowis said, he had been induced to put his name on the bill under the impression that it was a step in the right direction ; but as soon as he had read it he found he had made a mistake, and gave Mr. Hardy notice of his opposition. The licensing system has failed.

Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr. Giuseirm supported the bill, in the hope that the trade in beer would be placed on a satisfactory footing. Sir GEORGE GREY said that Mr. Hardy proposed to revert to the system which existed before 1830, by which a complete monopoly of licences for the sale of beer was left to the arbitrary decision of the Magistrates. To such a system he entertained the strongest objection. The recommendations of the Committee of 1854 are diametrically opposed to the principles of the bill. There has been no increase of drunkenness to justify the measure. Drunkenness, indeed, has decreased throughout the country. The greatest immorality is produced by the houses licensed for the sale of spirits. The evils connected with public-houses and beer. shops do not spring so much from the defects of the present law as from imperfection in its administration. As to the licensing system, the evidence before the Committee proves that it has utterly failed to secure the morality of the country. The beer-houses of London are not worse conducted than the public-houses. The bill would be a retrograde step. On the part of the Government, he promised to prepare a measure on the whole subject during the recess. Mr. HARDY replied; defending the principle of his bill from the assaults of previous speakers ; defending the Magistrates from the charge

of imperfectly administering the law ; defending the. publicans and as

sailing the beer-shop-keepers. Mr. VILLIERs, who was Chairman of the COmmittee of 1854, replied to Mr. Iitudy's arguments, and supported the views of the Committee. General TuomesoN opposed and Mr. BARnow supported the bill. On a division, the motion for the second reading was negatived by 213 to 180.

THE INDIAN MUTINIES.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH drew attention to the mutinies in British India. He said he should not have done so had he not read on the preceding night the report of the incendiary fires at Umballa, and the telegraphic message respecting the mutiny of the cavalry at Meerut. He could conic to no other conclusion than that the source of all that discontent and mutiny is the apprehension that there is an intention on the part of the Government to interfere with the religion of the natives. He could not find that any notification had been made, as it should have been made after the disbanding of the Nineteenth Regiment, that the Government intended to adhere to its ancient policy of respecting the feelings and prejudices of the natives. That is not all.

" I saw in a newspaper which I read yesterday, the names of six or eight Colouels, and of important persons in the civil administration of the country high in office, mentioned as being connected with missionary operations, and to my great astonishment—I can scarcely believe it now to be true, though I saw it distinctly stated in the papers—that the Governor-General himself, Lord Canning, largely subscribes to every society which has for its object the conversion of the natives. My Lords, the Governor-General of India can do nothing in his individual capacity. He cannot separate himself from his public character as Governor-General. He is essentially the Government of the country. No one looks to anybody else. There may be others who think that they are of importance, but they are not. The only man looked to in India is the Governor-General. It is not in India alone, though more particularly in India, that it is generally understood that if a man at the head of the Government earnestly desires anything, it is his intention to enforce his desire and to effect his purpose. I deem that fact of these subscriptions of Lord Canning, the Governor-General of India to societies having for their object the conversion of the natives, if it be Lille, to be one of the most dangerous things which could have happened to the security of our government in India.' He wished to know whether the Imperial Govemmeut had directed that it should be made known throughout the country and the army that the Government will for the future, as in times past, protect all its subjects in the undisturbed exercise of their religion ?

Earl GRANVILLE said, he thought that the remarks just made would have a mischievous tendency in India. No information respecting the mutiny at Meerut had reached the Government except by telegraph, and it is impossible to rely entirely on the accuracy of any information so forwarded. He was astonished at the attack made on Lord Canning. He did not know whether Lord Canning had subscribed teeny missionary society, but he knew that the most unfounded and ridiculous rumours had been circulated—such as that Lord Canning had given a pledge to Lord Palmerston that he would convert the whole population. Lord Canning's first exercise of the veto was to arrest a police bill because it might affect the religious feelings of the natives. Had he issued a notification like that recommended by Lord Ellenborough, be would have appeared to acknowledge that there had been a change of policy. The Government entirely approved of his course. The Earl of MALMESBITILY said, he could not believe that Lord Canning had mixed himself up personally with these missionary associations. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE asked the House to suspend its judgment until it had specific information. Lord Canning, he could assure the House, was perfectly aware of the danger of countenancing such movements; and there was no doubt that the Governor-General would be able to justify himself.

Having the strongest public and private friendship for Lord Canning, he was yet prepared to state, that if by any error or mistake of judgment— which he did not believe, and which he would not believe without proof— Lord Canning had so acted as to give countenance to such a belief as Lord Ellenborough inferred, he would no longer deserve to be continued in his office as Governor-General of India.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said he was satisfied with the statement of Lord Lansdowne.

Tax INDIAN ARMY.

In reply to a question from Mr. Rica, Mr. VERNON Sstrrm said, that with respect to the checking the drain of officers in the Native Indian regiments to civil employments, the Court of Directors have now under their consideration a despatch, which would be submitted to the notice of the Board of Control, placing the state of things in regard to that point upon a better footing, by equalizing the advantages to officers remaining in the regiments with those which a withdrawal from them presented. He might add, that, in accordance with arecent regulation, the officers

in the Queen's Regiments are competent to obtain staff employment, and that as a consequence, the number of Company's officers required for that purpose would be diminished.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF BIDNIAL.

Mr. KUCHAIRD, prefacing his motion by along speech, moved a series of resolutions, declaring that there is reason to believe that the people of Bengal suffer grievous oppression from the police and the want of proper administration of justice, and calling on the Government to institute special inquiries. He supported his motion by reading many extracts from Indian documents, especially a petition from the missionaries in India, who had prayed the Indian Government to institute an inquiry, but who, being rebuffed, had been compelled to have recourse, through him, to the Parliament of England. These missionaries were practically conversant with the everyday lives of the people ; and they had shown that justice was not duly administered, that life and property were not secure, that all classes were not alike protected, and that taxation was excessive. He showed from official papers, that the existence of these grievances, to a great extent, was admitted by the authorities of Bengal themselves ; but he contended that further inquiry would do good, for ho was not sure that the Governor-General or the Court of Directors knew of these evils, and their publicity would quicken the activity of the Legislative Council of India and the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal.

[An attempt was here made to count out the House, but it failed.]

Mr. DUNLOP seconded the motion ; and made further quotations, to show that the Lieutenant-Governor and the Council are well aware of the evils.

Mr. VERNON SMITH objected to an inquiry, on three grounds,—that all the information required, Mr. Kinnaird and Mr. Dunlop had shown that not they only but the authorities of India themselves possessed ; that further inquiries, however, are actually going on under the Government; and that, if at the request of the missionaries a new coinmission were sent out to supersede the Government, it would excite a belief in India that the missionaries are the persons to whom the Government should be intrusted. He showed that the Court of Directors had requested immediate attention to many of the evils set forth by Mr. Kinnaird; and he contended that if nothing had been done, it arose from the necessity of proceeding with caution in all matters affecting the Government of India. Mr. Halliday himself had said "the time for investigation is over and the time for action is come " ; and Mr. Smith trusted the legitimate action of the Government would effect all the remedies desired.

He did not wish to alarm the House or the public, but he could not forget the circumstances which had recently occurred in India—circumstances which all must deeply regret. There had arisen a great agitation among the troops, but he trusted among a few only, and speedily to be repressed. The discontent in some regiments had been already repressed with the consent of the Natives themselves ; and he had .pleasure in stating that a non-commissioned officer of the Thirty-fourth Native Regiment, who confessed his crime on the gallows, was condemned by persons of his own religious persuasion, some of whom were officers an his own regiment. Still it could not be disguised that there did prevail considerable disaffection among the troops, in consequence of a prevalent notion that a compulsory, conversion of the Natives was intended. He would put it to all who had the interests of the country at heart, whether it was advisable that a notion should go abroad that missionaries who were engaged in their vocation in India had the power of superseding the Government ? Sir Eatswimg PERRY, who had given notice of an amendment which, however, he did not move, supported the statements made by Mr. Kinnaird, d, on the authority of the missionaries and Mr. Halliday. His complaint was, that the judges appointed by the Company were young men without legal training, ignorant of the principles of jurisprudence, and incapacitated by their previous career for judicial duties. His proposal was that complete changes should be made in the class from which the Judges are chosen ; that English lawyers should be sent out to fill judicial offices ; and that the code drawn up by some of the most eminent persons in this country, including the late Sir John Jervis, the Master of the Rolls, and Sir Edmund Ryan, should be imposed on the country. Lord JOHN RUSSELL expressed his concurrence in Mr. Smith's argument against the expediency of inquiry ; but he urged prompt action in the reformation of the abuses in the police and judicial administrations. It might, indeed, place further burdens on the finances of India ; but economy should never be carried to the length of refusing justice and protection to life and property. Although he rejoiced that Mr. Kinnaird had brought the subject forward, yet he did not think the objects sought would be obtained by passing the resolutions. Mr. MANGLES, expressing great respect for the missionaries, regretted that they had taken up a political line, especially at a time when a spirit of disaffection was abroad in the Native troops, based on the unfounded opinion that Government intended to interfere with their religion. At the same time, he said he believed that the combined effects of good government, good education, and the labours of those excellent men to whom reference had been made, would be the gradual abolition of Hindooisna. The great difficulty which the Government of India would have to overcome would be to keep the different classes of society from destroying each other while the great moral struggle was going on. He described the difficulties and defended the conduct of the Indian Government and the Court of Directors; but did not impugn the allegations of Mr. Kinnaird. Lord BURY referred the recent mutinies to the absence of European officers from their regiments. Mr. Avaeore made an attack on the missionaries; and commented on the difficulties of governing India. Mr. KEVNAIRD now stated that he should not divide the House. But Mr. HADFIELD strenuously objected to the withdrawal of the motion ; and charged the Government with thinning the House, and the "Whips" with keeping Members out. As he persisted, and refused permission to withdraw the motion, Mr. EVANS moved "the previous question." On a division, it was decided by 119 to 18 that the question should not be put.

ARMY Eseimerw.

In Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, Members entered upon an extremely desultory discussion ; taking up at the same time on one vote the subject of Military Education and the Ordnance Suivey of Scotland. Mr. HENLEY complained that the practice of lumping separate items together led to these cross-debates. On the subject of military education, Mr. HENLEY commented on existing deficiencies. If it were true that an English general has no one about him who can provide a sketch to illustrate a despatch, then it really does appear that we do not get our money's worth for our money. It would be well to remedy that deficiency. Sir FENWICK Wuziams said, it is quite true that the British Army is deprived of the advantages that accrue to foreign armies from the labours of the topographical service. Major Wmieuirrost advocated the principle of competition for staff appointments. Mr. WYLD having said that the authorities were indebted to the railway engineers for a good scientific and accurate plan of the ground before Sebastopol, Sir WILLIAM CODRINOTON and General WIN-Imam successively stated that this must be an error, for they had seen two charts, one drawn up by an officer of Engineers and the other by an officer in the Quartermaster-General's staff. Sir JOHN RAMSDEN stated that the Government had the subject under consideration. They had issued an order providing that no officer can be appointed on the staff who does not pass an examination ; and that they had appointed a council whose business it will be to decide what shall be the examination of candidates for first commissions, and what for officers in promotion up to the grade of captain. The discussion on the Ordnance survey of Scotland was carried on in the intervals of the military, cohversation ; but it was at length agreed that the subject should be debated at a more convenient season.

The votes having been agreed to, the Chairman reported progress, and the House resumed.

Atnensnorr.

Sir FREDERICK Small read a letter from General Knollys relative to Aldershott. The letter stated, that troops had been under canvass in 1855 and 1856 as longas the weather permitted ; that during the last two years cooking in the field, route-marching, field operations, taking up positions, outpost duty, pontooning, have formed part of the regular operations of the troops ; that, besides the construction of a fort, military works have been executed on the canal; that the soldiers have mado the roads, and built the temporary stables ; that the huts are in good condition ; and that an officer of the Artillery is engaged in teaching military, sketching to a large number of officers.

Sir Frederick also read a letter from the Barrackmaster, stating that

only ono hut had given way ; that all are water-tight ; that the troops are amply supplied with water ; that tho camp is well drained ; that the sickness among 12,000 men is 21 per cent—"not another barrack in the kingdom could show this " ; that from May 1866 to June 1857 the camp has accommodated 4825 officers, 131,632 men, and 6560 horses ; and that every officer, man, and horse, has regularly received everything the regulations allow them.

LAND TRANSPORT CORPS.

On the motion of Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE, a Select Committee was appointed to consider the grievances of certain members of the Land Transport Corps. Mr. Duncombe's statement was, that these men had enlisted for ten or twelve years, as her Majesty should think tit, with the option of terminating their engagement at the expiration of live years, or at the end of the war. They had been promised free clothing and free rations ; but both had been stopped out of their pay. They had been promised fifty days' pay in advance on their embarkation ; but it had never been given them. They had served in the Crimea nearly twelve months ; many of them had died there ;those who survived had discharged their duties well, and had obtained the Crimean medal, and some of them might now be seen begging about the streets with the medal on their breasts, while 10/. or 12/. or 14/. of pay was still due to them. The first notice that they had upon their landing was that they were disbanded—they were just told in so many words, "Go about your business ; here's your discharge, and twenty shillings to get home with as you cum"

NETLEY HOSPITAL.

A debate arose on a motion by Sir DENHAM NORREYR for returns respecting Netley Hospital. His object in making this motion, he said, was to enable the Government to meet the charges, that the site of the hospital is unwholesome ' • that in choosing it no reference was made to medical authorities ; and that the plans had been so badly drawn up that the original estimate of 150,000/. had to be increased by 110,000/. No objection was made to the motion. Sir Jona RAMSDEN said that the site had been selected by a gentleman of very high standing in the medical profession. Mr. STAFFORD partly read and partly recited a long paper, showing that all the medical men of the Middlesex Hospital had condemned the site and the plan, in a letter to Lord Panmure. They were of opinion that if the plans were persevered in the hospital would be "a hotbed of erysipelas and gangrene." Mr. SIDNEY Hemmer said, he did not think it extraordinary that the Government estimate should be insufficient : the same thing occurs in private undertakings. It was quite possible there should have been great deliberation on the choice of the site, but that is often followed by failure. He found fault with tho plan, and seemed to favour a block of separate buildings open to light and air on both sides, and connected by a corridor. He thought the faults of the hospital had been remedied in a great degree; but the choice of the site is unfortunate, not because it is unhealthy, but because it is not the most available for the use of the Army. Lord PALMERSTON said, when the estimate was first presented it was not possible to frame one except on experience derived from other hospitals. When the plan was completed a larger estimate was required. The site of the hospital is on a gravel bed, and he had no reason to believe it would be unhealthy. Great pains have been taken to get men capable of giving an opinion on the design and construction. The Government will not, with its eyes open, erect an edifice which shall be a source of sickness and disease instead of a mime of health.—Motion agreed to.

THE CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Lord GODERICH called attention to the present system of admission to the Civil Service. Last year he had left the question in the hands of the Government, with the distinct understanding that if Government failed to realize the hopes held out, he should again bring it under the notice of Parliament. Now he had read the last report of the Civil Service Commissioners with great disappointment. He did not find in it any evidence that the system of competition had been generally adopted. When the subject was discussed last year, the system had been adopted partially in the Audit Office, the office of the Irish Secretary, the Education Office, and in the Treasury and War Departments. Since last year, it has been extended to the Home Office partially, and entirely to the Public Works Office. No attempt has been made to introduce it into the departments of the Admiralty, the Exchequer, the Foi eign Office' or the Post-office and no effort made to alter the manner in which the patronage vested in Mr. Hayter is distributed. All he desired was that the Government sdiould not stand still nor retrograde. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an assurance that he really intended to carry out the system, Lord Goderich would not be inclined to refuse him longer time. 'He asked for an explicit statement of the intentions of the Government.

Mr. Bass and Mr. MALINS pressed for an answer to the question, who holds the power of nominating the persons ultimately selected for examination ? Mr. RICH enlarged on the advantages of a general adoption of the system of open competition. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave some general explanations. He said that the nomination to places in the civil service is part of the prerogative of the Crown. By usage the nomination is vested in the head of the department in the offices of the Secretaries of State and the Admiralty ; and in the other departments the nomination rests with the head of the Government. It would not be desirable to throw the clerkships and subordinate employments open to competition. The Government subject all who enter the civil service to the test of an examination. In this respect there has been no retrogression. The order in Council has been executed with unflagging strictness ; in proof of which, he stated that in the first year 29, in the second year 38 per cent of the candidates had been rejected. In many departments the principle of competition to a limited extent has been voluntarily adopted, and has worked with great advantage to the public service ; but, looking to the short time during which the system has been tried, Lord Pahnerston had not felt himself justified by a mere act of the Executive to make it tompu]sory on all the departments.

Mr. VANSITTART wished to know on what ground persons were nominated to compete ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied—" Upon the ground of efficiency " ; a reply received by a burst of laughter.

THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.

Mr. WISE, in making a motion for returns, called attention to the accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster. As on a previous occasion he had been told that the property of the Duchy is private property, he was at some pains to show that from the time of Henry the Fourth there was scarcely a reign in which Parliament had not discussed, limited, and arranged the Duchy property. Finally an act was passed, early in the reign of her present Majesty, requiring that the accounts of the Duchy should be laid on the table every year. This clearly showed that the House intended the property should be regarded as public property. Having established thia, Mr. Wise said he approached the subject in no fault-finding spirit. All he desired was that the estates should be better managed, and that the Queen should receive a larger portion of their revenue. Neither did he intend to include in his observations the present Chancellor, Mr. Baines. Descending to particulars, he said that the large revenue yielded by the estate is nearly eaten up by idle and useless functionaries. During her Majesty's reign the income had been 722,960/. ; the outgoings had been 471,9601., or 38,0001. a year • the sum received by the privy purse was but 251,0001., or an average of 13,000/. a year. The establishment of the Duchy comprises sixty persons, who receive 8527/. a year. The expenses of collection in many cases exceed the sum collected. In many counties the sum paid in donations to charities exceeds the income. A sum of 11,893/. was received for timber cut in Needwood Forest, but the expense of cutting it was 9959/. ; the timber from Pickering Forest yielded 7511/., but the cost was 4814/. The property is encumbered with the salaries for unneeeesary offices, with annuities, patent offices ; with charges

for Queen's plates. The capital account is so arranged that it cannot be understood. Since 1837 a sum of 26,731/. has been received for fines, and 50,365/. for sales ; what was done with the money ? A large sum, 80001., has been spent in defending the lessees of mines who have destroyed the foundations of property belonging to copyholders who purchased the surface from the Crown ; and it is a question yet unsettled whether the possessors of the surface are not entitled to foundation, and to compensation if it be injured. He had been unable to dive into the mysteries of the Duchy, but he trusted the returns he moved for would throw light on the subject.

Alderman COPELAND seconded the motion.

Mr. Bailees said, he could not speak from personal knowledge on the subject, for the grievances complained of occurred before he became Chancellor ; but he had made a careful inquiry into the matter. He intended to do his best for the interests of her Majesty ; but it must have been seen from the speech of Mr. Wise that any attempt, however earnest, must be attended with a very gradual success. The patent offices are in process of abolition, and as leases fall in better terms will be made. Under the present Council great improvements have been made, and will continue to be made. The system of fines and renewals will be gradually abolished ; and the property has been consolidated by the sales of outlying properties and the purchase of others. Although the yearly average of the sum paid into the privy purse is 13,000/., yet there has been agradual increase since 1851 of from 12,000/. to 20,0001. a year. There is a prospect of a progressive increase in future years. He Aid not object to grant the returns.

Mr. RICARDO expressed his dissatisfaction with this answer to Mr. Wise. Mr. Bass mentioned that he had to supply the Royal kitchen with four pheasants, eighty partridges, and eighteen hares, every year, from property held by him at Needwood. But there was so much poaching that he could not get the game, and had to order it from a London poulterer.

THE CASE OF M. SIFEDDON.

Earl GREY occupied the House of Lords on Monday with a comprehensive statement of a very extraordinary case of alleged injustice. Ile presented a petition from Mr. William Patrick Ralston Sheddon,

" complaining, among other things, that by a decision of the Court of Session in Scotland in 1803, and of this House in 1808, obtained in his infancy, he has been deprived of his status of a natural-born subject of this realm, and as the legitimate child of his parents, and of the means of duly investigating in any court of law the question of such status, and causing the same to be recognized ; and praying for such relief and redress as to this House may seem meet, and to move to refer the said petition to a Select Committee."

Lord Grey told the story referred to in the petition with minute details, involving serious accusations against Mr. William Patrick, a Scotch lawyer, much mixed up in the transactions out of which the grievances of Mr. Sheddon arose.

The father of the petitioner left Scotland in 1770, and went to Virginie,

there to manage a mercantile house. Ravin' .g espoused the Royalist cause in the war of Independence, he fled for his life in 1777, and in 1778 he founded a mercantile firm in Bermuda. After the elose of the war in 1783, he went to New York in order to bring a claim for compensation against the United States Government for the loss of property. Circumstances occurred to detain him, and he established a house at New York. One of the partners was William Patrick, a nephew of his cousin. Mr. Sheddon had previously acquired, by the death of his father, an estate in Ayr ; and he appointed Mr. John Patrick, the husband of his sister, to act as factor. In 1785, Mr. Sheddon married, and had one daughter. His wife dying, he married again by civil contract, so it is alleged, and had by this marriage a daughter, and a son, the petitioner. On the death of John Patrick, his son William, a writer to the signet in Edinburgh, became the manager of the Scotch estates. In 1798, Mr. Sheddon died, disposing of his property to his wife and children, and constituting William Patrick guardian of the boy. In order that there might be no dispute respecting the legitimacy of his children, Mr. Sheddon, although he knew that civil contract constituted a valid marriage in Now York, caused himself to be married again to his wife, by an Episcopal clergyman on his deathbed. Here Lord Grey stated a number of circumstances intended to show that a idet had been deeply laid to deprive young Sheddon of his inheritance. S illiam Patrick placed his brother Robert in possession of the estate by a process in the Sheriff's Court at Ayr, which met with no opposition, because there was probably no one in Scotland except Mr. William Patrick who was aware of the existence of the petitioner. No mention was made of any child of Mr. Sheddon ; the statement of the claimant was received as a matter of course, and Dr. Robert Patrick became possessed of the estate. Mrs. Sheddon, by the advice of friends, married again, as the only means of obtaining protection in her almost destitute condition ; and pursued the claims of her eon; but the proceedings were ineffectual. At the instance of William Patrick, and as the petitioner believes, on purpose to bar his claim when he came of age, a Mr. Hugh Craufurd was appointed guardian of the boy ; and on his behalf he instituted legal proceedings, not, it is said, to support the real interests of the child, but to confirm by a decree of the Court of Session Robert Patrick in possession of the estate. This was done in 1803. As, however, the petitioner might have challenged this decision, an appeal to the House of Lords was resolved upon ; and the House of Lords confirmed the judgment of the court below. During the whole proceedings, no mention whatever was made of the first marriage by civil contract, -which was a valid marriage in New York. Pending the appeal, William Patrick purchased the estate of his brother Robert, and he still remains in possession.

The petitioner was sent for from America in 1800. After serving in the Royal Navy from 1810 to 1815, he went to India, entered into trade, and

returned to this country with a fortune in 1833. As yet he had no suspicionthat he had not been fairly dealt with, but during some negotiations for the

purchase of his father's estate, he became suspicious, made inquiries;and commenced proceedings in 1847 against William Patrick. In order to obtain evidence of his legitimacy, a commission was sent to New York ; and there Mr. Van Ilooght, a lawyer of that city, gave up a number of important documents which years before he had refused to surrender to William Patrick. These documents showed, among other things, that William Patrick was aware of the marriage by civil contract as early as 1800. Mr. Sheddon brought an action in the Court of Session in 1862; but the Court held, that even if he were legitimate, and if the Patricks had prevented the facts from coming before the Court of Session in 1802, yet they were "irrelevant." Mr. Sheddon appealed to the House of Lords; which confirmed the decision of the Scotch court. In the mean time Mr. Sheddon's claim to legitimacy had been heard in the New York courts, and he had actually recovered possession in New York of some property that had belonged to his father.

Earl Grey concluded by stating, that he did not ask the House to reverse its former judicial decision, but to enable Mr. Sheddon to prove that he was legitimate and a British subject.

The LORD CHANCELLOR resisted the motion, on the ground that a court of law, and not the House of Lords, would be Mr. Sheddon's proper tribunal; and also on the ground that this attempt, if successful, would lead to consequences none could foresee. He gave quite a new colour to the facts ; described William Patrick as a man bearing an honest upright character ; as ignorant of the so-called civil:marriage, and as believing from letters, to which reference was made, that Mr. Sheddon, the father, had lived eight years with Ann Wilson, the mother, before he married her on his deathbed. He rebutted the charges of fraud, and explained the proceedings of William Patrick in a manner creditable to that person. Lord BROUGHAM observed, that the Lord Chancellor had omitted a material point—the fact that the decisions of competent courts in America had established Mr. Shecidon's legitimacy by force of the marriage by civil contract. There had never been an inquiry in this country into the validity of the original marriage. He was in favour of the inquiry now. Lord Grey might, indeed, bring in a private bill alleging the legitimacy of the petitioner and the rights springing from that legitimacy, and reversing the judgment with the view of letting in the party to a new trial of his claim. That bill would probably be read a first time as a matter of course, and on its second reading their Lordships would hear probably the parties on either side. But he thought the course taken was the proper one.

Lord Sr. LEONARDS took the same view as the Lord Chancellor both as to the facts of the case and the inexpediency of agreeing to the motion. Lord LYNDHURST dwelt at length on the fact which Lord Brougham had pointed out to the Lord Chancellor—the decisions of the America courts, and showed how extremely improbable was the supposition that Ann Wilson had lived with Mr. Sheddon as his mistress. Lord CasteBELL opposed the motion. The case is res indicate, and if injustice has been done it is irremediable. The Earl of Eomxorox warmly defended the character of William Patrick. The Earl of ALEEMARL.E and Lord Lerretrost supported the motion.

After a reply from Earl GREY, the House divided, and negatived the motion by 19 to 11.