Ettuato nth Vrorttings iuVarliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BI7SINES5 OF THE WEER.

HOWIE or Loans. lifonday, Feb. 9. Courts of Reconcilement ; Lord Brougham's Bill read a first time—The Principalities ; Lord Lyndhurst's Question and Lord Clarendon's Answer.

Tuesday, Feb. 10. Testamentary Jurisdiction, Matrimonial Jurisdiction ; the Lord Chancellor's Bills read a first time—Drawing of Bills ; Motion of the Lord Chancellor.

Thursday. Feb. 12. Greece ; Lord Clarendon's Reply to the Marquis of Clanriearde—Secondary Punishments; the Marquis of Salisbury's Motion. _Friday, Feb. 13. Property of Married Women ; Lord Brougham's Resolutions.

110T9E Or COKNEONS. Monday, Feb. 9. War with Persja ; Mr. Layard's Question —Transportation and Penal servitude; Sir George Grey's Bill read a first time— Reformatory Schools ; Sir George Grey's Bill read a first time. Tuesday, Feb. 10. The Crimean Commissioners ; Lord Palmerston's Statement —The ' Secret Treaty" ; Mr. Disraeli and Lord Palmerston—Industrial Schools ; Sir Stafford Northcote's Rill read a first time—Sale of Beer ; MT. Hardy's Bill read a first time. Wednesday, Feb. 11. Judgments Execution ; Mr. Craufurd's Bill read a second time.

Thursday. Feb. 12. Sir Robert Peel's Explanation of the Salley Lecture—The

Secret Treaty " ; Lord Pahnerston and Mr. Disraeli—Minister of Justice: Mr. Napier's Motion carried nem. con.—Sir George Pollock ; Captain Vernon's Motion —Weights and Measures ; Mr. Davies's Bill, leave given—Church-rates Abolition ; Sir William Clay's Bill read a first time—Bank Acts Committee nominated. '

Friday, Feb. 13. War -with Persia ; Papers called for—Committee of Supply ; the Financial Statement—Ionian Subjects Commissions ; Mr. Labouchere's Bill read a second time—Passing Tolls ; Mr. Lowe's Bill read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee—Hudson's Bay Company; Select Committee nominated—Statute Law Cowooksioa ; Select Committee nominated.

Mr. Disusum on Monday, remarking that Lord Palmerston had not been in his place on Friday, and that he was not then present, said he should, if the Premier were present on Tuesday, make some observations

on the subject of a contradiction he received on the first night of the session on a "matter of very great moment."

He did so at the commencement of business on Tuesday. He had hardly begun, however, when Mr. Tnomaa DENCOMBE, begging pardon for interrupting the right honourable gentleman, said that as Mr. Disraeli,

in asking the indulgence of the House for a statement of a general character, proposed to go beyond the rules of the House, he wished they should come to an understanding on the subject. If he was going into the question, and not merely about to say that he had been imposed upon at Paris, Mr. Buncombe hoped it would be understood that other Members would be at liberty to make remarks without being stopped on a point of form and told that there was no question before the House.

Sir SOHN PAKLMOTON observed, that the House always permitted a Member to explain in these personal eases; and the usual practice is for the House, having heard both sides, to say whether the discussion should be prolonged. After these preliminaries, Mr. DISRAELI made a long and involved statement, much interrupted by the impatience of the House. Some years ago—about eight years ago—in a discussion on the proceedings of Austria at Cracow, he stated that England had, in the treaty of Vienna, guaranteed to Prussia her Saxon provinces. Lord Palmerston, who had then been for seventeen years Secretary of State for Foreign

contradicted him in the face of the House. When Mr. Disraeli repeated the statement, Lord Palmerston sent one of his aides-de-camp to the Library; the treaty of Vienna was brought down ; and Lord Palmerston, referring to it, found that it did contain the guarantee. Thus did Lord Pal merston—for seventeen years Foreign Secretary—for the first time become acquainted "with one of the most important engagements ever entered into by the British Crown."

Mr. Disraeli went on to describe how on the first night of the present session he had referred to "another guarantee" ; that he had a , moral conviction when he made the statement," that it was correct; and that he did

not think it respectful to the House simply to reiterate his statement. The

information was not derived from that " visit to Paris to which the noble Lord referred with such good taste," but was received' from a "quarter"

which could not be mistaken, and which he believed would not deceive him. With that information in his possession, he could not, "as an honest man," remain silent. It became "an inexorable, peremptory duty, to impart it to the House." The statement he made was not made in the heat of de bate, without reflection, but was well-considered ; and if it were erroneous, he must bear the responsibility of so grave an error. Here he guarded him self against being supposed to condemn the policy itself adopted by France ; and made a statement of the position which Austria should occupy in Europe. He thought that the policy was conceived in "the wise, temper ate, and conservative spirit, which has gained for the Government of the

Emperor of the French the respect and confidence of Europe. (Cries of " Question !" from the Ministerial benches.) I can assure honourable gen tlemen that I am speaking strictly to the question. (Counter-cheers.)

If the House does not wish me to speak, I will sit down." He was coming to details which he felt "must command attention." Before doing so, however, he repeated, in a concentrated form, the charges that he had at greater length preferred against the Government on the first night of the session to the effect that the Government had made a stalk ing-horse of its Italian policy, and had conveyed the impression to the country that they were pursuing a policy adverse to that which this treaty was intended to accomplish. Lord Palmerston having been absent a few minutes, when he returned Mr. Disraeli restated what he had said on the first night of the session respecting the treaty ; and, "as everything depends on accuracy," he quoted the terms of the contradiction which his statement met with from Lord Palmerston. Then he took its allegations. The first was, that "the whole thing is a romance ; that there is no such treaty ; that it is pure invention ; and that I either hail been hoaxed or myself created the fiction in the heat of debate. Now, let me come to what my statement is, and I wish the House to do Inc the honour of attending at this moment to what I am about to state. My state ment is, that engagements were negotiated between France and Austria with the object—the main object—of guaranteeing on the part of France the security of the Italian dominions of Austria ; that these negotiations were carried to a successful conclusion ; that they were expressed in writing ; that that form of written instrument assumed the shape of a treaty, and of a secret treaty ; and that that treaty was executed on the 2241 of December 1854. In answer to the first allegation, the noble Lord said, that there was no treaty whatever, and that it was a romance. I am here to restate that which I uttered the other night, to give the very date of the instrument,

the form, purport, and object of the instrument. ("Hear, hear I") I now

come to the second allegation, contained in the contradiction which I received from the noble Lord—an allegation which the House would perfectly remember was uttered in a spirit of derision. I will, however, give the ad vantage to the noble Lord of taking it gravely. The second allegation contained in the noble Lord's denial was, that, 'if such treaty had been seen by the right honourable gentleman, I have not seen it, and the Government have not heard of it ; and, instead of advising it, the Government would have recommended, had they known of it, that it should not be concluded.'

Now, I have in my possession evidence, irresistible evidence' which proves

to me, that throughout the whole of the negotiations of this treaty, which I declare to have been executed on the 22d of December 1854, by which

the security of the Italian dominions of Austria is guaranteed by France—I repeat, that throughout the whole of the negotiations to obtain this secret treaty, her Majesty's Government were privy to them from the first ; that the negotiations received their concurrence—I will say their cordial concurrence; and that they finally advised the execution of the treaty." ("Hear, hear !") lie had to make a further statement. The treaty was largely acted on; for Austria withdrew a large portion of her troops from Italy, and when the Italian Governments were alarmed, obtained from "the French Government permission to communicate confidentially to the Italian Governments, in order to tranquillise ' them—and that, Ibelieve, was the very word used on the occasion—the nature of the engagement entered into between the two countries." Ile made still a further statement. If Lord Palmerston would refer to the archives of the Foreign Office, and assist Mr. Disraeli in obtaining any evidence that might be "necessary to elicit some of the passages," he would undertake "to prove every tittle of the assertions" he had made. At the close of his speech, Mr. Disraeli complained that Lord Palmerston had treated a grave subject with levity. If the statement were untrue, "it was not in a tone of ribald ridicule—(Cries of "Oh !")—that he ought to have answered it, but rather in that of firm, warm, and overwhelming indignation. And how stands the case ? If on a Erave matter I had made an inconsiderate statement, my character as a politician might have been damaged or destroyed ; but, if I had invented a statementt it was not a question of my character as a politician, but as a member of society itself. If my conduct was susceptible of so grave an imputation, surely the leader of tins House ought to have assumed a very dfferent tone. I have sat in this HOUBC twenty years. I have laboured assiduously to obtain the good opinion and respect of this House. They arc to sue dearer than all worldly , possessions. I am conscious that I have frequently addressed the House with inefficiency, and sometimes, probable, with indiscretion. But this I know, that I have always treated the House with candour. Whether tho noble Lord the other night in his answer to me treated the House in the same spirit, I care not to inquire." (Cheers.)

Lord Paiausnerow began by denying that he had stated anything that could justify Mr. Disraeli in saying that he had called in question " his honour, his candour, or his judgment." (" Oh, oh F")

He did not accuse Mr. Ilisraeli of having invented the statement. (" Oh !") He accused him of the credulity of believing in the veracity of his information. He finds fault with me for not being angry—(Laughter) —and for having treated him with too much good-humour. lie save that T treated his statement in a tone of ribald ridicule. Now, those Who make themselves ridiculous arc of all men in the world those who are most in

clined to complain of the manner in which their ridiculous conduct is treated by others, forgetting all the while that they themselves are the inevitable cause of that ridicule." Having restated the political charge in Mr. Dis raeli's speech, Lord Palmerston turned to his present statement respecting the alleged treaty. Mr. Disraeli had given no proof of its existenee. His statement rests, as it did rest on a former evening, "simply upon the hearsay evidence of what somebody or other, whose name is not mentioned, has

told him He has mentioned the date of December 1854; and there are gentlemen in the House, not members of the Government, who were members of the Administration at that time, and who will correct me if I erroneously state what was the course of events. In the latter part of the year 1854, it was hoped that Austria would join offensively and defensively with England and France, and that her armies would comeinto hostile collision with those of Russia. Well, she wished to know what, if Russia did that which it was highly probable that as a belligerent she might do, and which she might have done without any great departure from the practice of bAligerents—what, if Russia instigated insurrections in Italy for the purpose of distracting the attention of Austria, would be the course which the French Government would pursue ? The French Government assured that of Austria, that, in the case supposed, France would behave as an honourable ally ought, and that she would not encourage any such risings or disturbances ; moreover, that if the Austrian armies joined those of England and Flame, and during the war disturbances should break out in Italy, whatever French force might be in that country—and there would of course be a small force there—would act in concert with whatever force the Austrians might have for the purpose of maintaining, not the Austrian possessions, but the general state of territorial possessions in Italy. These arrangements were undoubtedly known to the English Government. (Opposition cheers and counter-cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Very fit and proper engagements they were, and very inconsistent would it have been with honourable conduct if any other answer had been given. These engagements were embodied in the shape of a convention, and the right honourable gentleman says that that convention was signed on a certain day in December. I can only say that the information which the Government received no later than yesterday, from a quarter likely to know, assures us that that convention never was signed. But that convention was as different from the treaty which the right honourable gentleman mentioned us it is possible for two things to be. (Cheers.) Between that and a guarantee there is, as I have read, and as he has read in a French periodical, an abyss ' ; there is a gulf which separates the two by an impassable barrier. Therefore, that which I denied the other night, and which I again deny, is that there is, to our knowledge and belief, in existence any treaty which was ever signed and concluded by which France guaranteed the Italian possessions of Austria. (Cheers.) I am inclined to think that the information which we have received is correct, and that that treaty, that convention—for it was only a temporary convention, to have force only during the period of the continuance of the war—never was signed. Why ? Because the foundation of it was the assumption that Austria should ,join England and France in active operations against Russia. Austria did not join in those active operations. It was her policy, of which she alone was entitled to judge, to remain neutral in the conflict. The case upon which the agreement was founded never arose ; and therefore I am inclined to believe that the informationwhich we have received is more correct than is that of the right honourable gentleman, and that, in fact, this limited conveution—limited in its duration, limited in its effects, limited in its operation—never was signed or concluded between the parties. No doubt, the honourable inteution which that convention was designed to record would have been acted upon if the case to which it was intended to apply had arisen ; but I say that it is a total misapplication of terms, a total perversion of things, to represent such an arrangement as that as a guarantee by France of the Austrian possessions in Italy. (Cheers.) Now, Sir, the right honourable gentleman having repeated his assertion, I only repeat the denial which I then gave to it. I beg the right honourable gentleman's pardon for not having been angry with him the other night. (A laugh.) I really cannot muster up indignation even now. If he will excuse me for treating the subject in a manner which I think is not likely to give just offence to any man, I must throw myself upon his indulgence for not having on the last occasion spoken with more indignation. (Renewed laughter.) My object was to vindicate the Government from a charge of bad faith—of deceitfulness towards the Italians, in having secretly instigated the treaty which he mentioned ; for the right honourable gentleman's charge was, that we had not only approved and encouraged, but had instigated, had been the originators of, this supposed treaty. Tonight he only says that the transactions were made known to us as they went on. I trust I have sue• ceeded in vindicating our conduct ; and, having said thus much, I shall not longer detain the House." (Muth cheering.)

[No Member availed himself of the opportunity which Mr. Duneombe sought to secure.]

On Thursday, Lord PALMERSTON said he wished to set himself right with Mr. Disraeli in regard to the military convention. In his reply to Mr. Disraeli on Tuesday, he had said that he believed the convention never was signed. On further inquiry, he found that in point of fact it was signed—(Leed Opposition cheers)—but that, as Austria never declared war, "it became a dead letter, and never had any application oreffect whatsoever."

Mr. DISRAELI said he would make a few remarks of extreme brevity. He began by a restatement of what had passed in the House already. He pointed out, first, that Lord Palmerston had been compellqd to ad-, mit, on Tuesday night, that there was a written document in existences, and next, that this document, which he called a convention and said had. never been signed, was signed. Mr. Disraeli then repeated his statement— " I state again, that there is a treaty—a secret treaty—between France. and Austria, the object of which is to guarantee the security of the Italian possessions of Austria ; that it was executed on the day I mentioned ; that it has been extensively acted upon ; that, to the best of my belief, it contains, on its surface, no limitation of the period of its operation ; and that

the character given of it by the noble Lord the other night is entirely incorrect." (Loud cheers.)

Lord PALMERSTON characterized this speech as an attempt of Mx. Disraeli to "cover his ignominious retreat from his first position." (Ironical cheers met by counter-chem.s.) His original statement was, that a guarantee-treaty is in existence ; that it had been quoted by Austria in the Neapolitan dispute ; that it had been executed "not only with the knowledge but at the instigation of her Majesty's Government." (Cheers and counter-cheers.) Mr. DIERAELI—" At the 'instance' ! "

Lord PALMBRSTON—" No, 'instigation ' ! But the right honourable gentleman cannot rest his statement upon syllables. However, I heard the word and I recollect it : I am sure he made use of the word 'instigation.'" Mr. DISRAELI—" 'Instance' or advice ' ! "

Lord PALMERSTON—" Well, advice ! (Cheers from the Opposition.) Oh! but I heard the word 'instigation' distinctly." (Renewed cheers and counter-cheers.) Mr. DISHAELI—" You say it is 'instigation.'" Lord PALDIERSTON said in continuation, what this meant was, that the treaty originated in advice and counsel given by England to France and Austria. Now he denied the whole of that statement ,• and, notwithstanding "the vapouring manner" in which Mr. Disraeli had followed up the matter, would say he had been imposed upon. (Cries of "Oh !") Lord Palmerston repeated, that Mr. Disraeli had been "grossly imposed upon " ; that his own statement was perfectly true, and that Mr. Disraeli was "entirely misinformed as to the facts of the ease." (Loud cheering and counter-cheering.)

THE PRINCIPALITIES.

Lord LYNDHURST, referring to an article in the Moniteur on the union of Moldavia and Wallachia, remarked that certain well-known persons, Prince Stirbey, Bibesco, Soutza, and "a Prince connected with the reigning families of Russia and France," are either now in Paris, or have recently been there, and "have not been altogether idle in that very intriguing city." Now, Austria and Turkey are understood to be adverse to the discussion of the question of union in the Divans. And it might produce great danger to Turkey if the Principalities were united and placed under a foreign prince—if we were to see Greece at one extremity of Turkey in Europe, and Moldo-Wallachia at another, subject to the influence of Russia. He wished to know whether it is intended that the assemblies which are to meet in the two Principalities under the firman of the Porte should take into consideration and report upon the propriety of uniting the two Principalities ; or whether that question is to be referred exclusively to the consideration of the representatives of the Great Powers at the future Conferences to be held at Paris ?

The Earl of CLARENDON said, he certainly did read the article in the Moniteur with some surprise. It is in accordance with the intentions of the Congress of Paris that there should be no bar to the discussion of the question of union in the Divans. "But at the same time, the assumption certainly was that no determination would be come to or recommendation made by these Divans that would interfere with the suzerainty of the Porte, or compel it to exercise that power in any way which would compromise the safety and integrity of the Turkish empire. At the present moment, I shall refrain from entering into any discussion on the subject, or from saying how far rag in the opinions expressed by my noble and learned friend ; but I do not feel surprised, because there was an understanding come to between the representatives of the Great Powers at the Congress of Paris, that until the Divans had met, until the people of the Principalities had been consulted, until the report of the Commissioners had been received, and the Congress had met to consider it, no one of those Powers would do anything to influence opinion in the Principalities, or elsewhere, upon that particular question. I think, therefore, I am only fulfilling that engagement, so far as her Majesty's Government is concerned, if at the present moment I abstain from discussing the subject."

THE PERSIAN WAR.

In reply to Mr. Larsen, Mr. VERNON SMITH said, he understood that since Ferukh Khan left Constantinople he had received from Teheran definite instructions on all points connected with the differences between Persia and this country. Mr. Smith trusted that the negotiations now pending at Paris will lead to an amicable settlement.

GREECE.

In reply to the Marquis Of CLANRICARDE, the Earl of CLARENDON stated that the troops of the Allies would be withdrawn from Greece; and that the Greek Government had consented to a proposition from her Majesty's Government to the effect that the Protecting Powers should appoint a Commission to inquire into the financial condition of the kingdom.

SECONDARY PUNISHMENTS.

Sir GEORGE Giver, in conformity" with his notice last week, moved on Monday for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act 16th and 17th Victoria, chap. 99, entitled "An act to substitute in certain cases other punishment in lieu of transportation." Before he entered on an explanation of the provisions of the measure, Sir George made a comprehensive statement on the whole subject ; describing the previous investigations and recommendations of both Houses of Parliament, the purposes and the working of the act of 1853, and the state of crime and pauperism generally.. The average number of sentences of transportation in England for the three years before 1863 was 2649; the average since 1853 of sentences of transportation was 298, and of penal servitude 2102, making a total of 2400, and a difference of 249 in favour of the last three years. In Scotland, and still more in Ireland, there has been a similar decrease. In 1863 there were 9850 convicts under sentences of transportation. These were led to expect that they would be sent to some penal colony and would receive a qualified discharge Boon after their arrival : that promise could not be fulfilled, and by the act of 1853 the Crown was empowered to grant tickets-of-leave revocable at pleasure. About 1050 were sent to Western Australia, 7002 have been discharged on licences, and 1200 sent to Bermuda and Gibraltar. There remain now in prison about 600, who if they behave well will receive licences during the next two or three years. The licences held by 466 have been revoked, 117 have been reconvicted, and 95 reported for misconduct; making a total of 1144, or 16 per cent, who have been convicted or charged with crime. As a rule, no persons now under sentence of penal servitude will receive tickets-of-leave except in special cases. To act otherwise, would be to trifle with the Judges and defeat the intention of the law. With regard to ticket-of-leave men, there had

been much exaggerated alarm. But the number of ticket-of-leave holders convicted at the December Assizes was only 29 out of 626 prisoners, or less than five per cent. These figures do not justify the great apprehensions of the country. And with regard to the state of crime generally, the figures show a decrease in 1856 compared with 1855. The total of summary convictions and committals for trial in 1855 was 103,013; the total in 1866 was 97,100—a decrease of 5913. There was a decrease of 25 per cent even in the graver cases. At the same time, pauperism has only increased in seven out of the forty counties of England. Under the present state of the law not more than 250 could be legally transported from this country; but Western Australia is able and willing to take 1000 per annum. Both Houses of Parliament in their reports concurred in admitting that great benefit would be derived from the continuance of transportation. After a full consideration of the whole subject, Government makes these proposals

" I come now to the proposals which I have to make on the part of the Government, as appearing to them to be the most expedient, after full consideration of the subject. We propose in the bill Which I shall ask leave to introduce to give effect to the seventh resolution of the Committee of the House of Commons recommending that sentences of penal servitude shall be lengthened so as to be made identical with the sentences of transportation for which they were substituted. We also propose to give effect to the ninth resolution, giving discretion to the judge to pass an intermediate sentence between the ordinary term of imprisonment and the term of seven years' penal servitude. The first clause of the bill will repeal the provisions of the act of 1853, by which the shorter sentences of penal servitude were substituted for the longer sentences of transportation, and will render persons who may formerly have been sentenced to transportation liable to be kept in _penal servitude for the same duration as the term of transportation for which they were liable before the act passed. There is then a proviso giving the discretion to the Judge to pass a sentence of intermediate penal servitude, as I have already explained to the House. This will, I trust, provide a remedy for the evil complained of, and will enable us to avail ourselves of the facilities which still exist, and I trust will hereafter be enlarged, of removing persons convicted of serious crimes from this country. The effect of this alteration wilt be that the sentence of penal servitude need not necessarilybe carried out by the removal of the convict from this country but if it be thus carried out the sentence will carry with it the same regulations to which convicts are now subject. I propose to take this power, and to make it generally applicable to all sentences of penal servitude, because it is difficult to draw the line, and to say what persons shall be removed from this country and who shall not. It is proposed to give that power of selection which the Committee of the House of Lords think the essence of the system of transportation to Western Australia, and which they recommend the Government to have recourse to. The power of selection will enable the Government to send a sufficient quantity of convicts to Western Australia or other Colonies to which it might be determined to send them, and to avail themselves of additional facilities for the disposal of convicts without further alteration of the law." The sentence of transportation and the hulks as a place of punishment will be abolished altogether. As sonic of the convicts must be kept at home, it is proposed that power to remit conditionally a portion of their sentences should be retained by Government—one-fourth or at the utmost one-third of the sentence.

A well-sustained but quiet discussion ensued ; and the measure was generally well-received. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON described instances where the Crown had been indiscreetly advised to remit sentences,—an objectionable practice of long standing. He remarked that Sir George Grey had left it an open question whether transportation was to be the severest punishment, or a boon to the well-conducted. Mr. COLLIER put the question in this way—What are we to do with that class of criminals whom our ancestors hanged, and whom we have been in the habit of transporting? Those who formerly would have been hanged or transported ought to be permanently secluded, on the principle that the interests of the public are paramount to those of the criminal. Transport as many criminals as the Colonies will receive, and confine the rest long enough to break up their old associations. Sir Join; RAMSDEN gave a moderate support to the Government proposal. Mr. ADDERLEY expressed his unqualified approbation, with two exceptions: one portion of the sentence should be fixed, and we ought to get quit entirely of tickets-of-leave. Mr. LABOUCHERE showed that the talk of reviving transportation had alarmed the Colonists. Western Australia is the only colony suitable for a penal settlement. He was glad to find, that while Members are desirous of obtaining a remedy for the evils which exist in our penal code, yet they are not unmindful of their obligations to the British Colonies, and are determined to do nothing to violate, either in letter or in spirit, the agreement of the Government of this country not to interfere with the well-expressed determination of the colonists upon this subject. Mr. AIONCKTON Miusiss observed, that if Mr. Labouchere and Sir George Grey had made their speeches a few months ago, the country would have been spared an immense amount of nonsense and discomfort. He deprecated a return to severity, and urged the necessity of allowing something for pod conduct in prison. Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE spoke against, and Mr. fiEWDEGATE in favour of transportation.

The bill was introduced, and read a first time.

In the House of Lords on Thursday, the Marquis of SALISBURY moved for a Select Committee to consider the question of Secondary Punishments. Earl Gnarsarams resisted the motion, on the ground that no further inquiry is needed. In the course of a conversational debate that followed, Sir George Grey's Bill was much canvassed ; but the sense of the House was clearly against further inquiry, and the motion was negatived without a division.

ECCLESIASTICAL Junneuerrox.

The Loin) CHANCELLOR introduced two bills into the House of Lords on Tuesday,—one on Testamentary. Jurisdiction, another on Matrimonial Jurisdicton ; and he promised a third on the Discipline of the Clergy. Before he explained the main provisions of these measures, he made an historical statement on the subject, beginning from the remotest ages, and ending with the attempted legislation of last session.

The measure of Testamentary Jurisdiction is intended to establish a Court of Probate, for the purpose of providing "a good, .clear, cheap,. and expeditious system of registration of wills." Proctors will not be abolished "at present," but if it be found that they can be dispensed with the Chancellor will not object to their abolition. They are to have a monopoly of non-contentious business only, and a right to practise in contentious cases. As it will be for the convenience of the public that London should not be the only place where wills can be proved, the present diocesan registries

will be retained, and increased to the number of thirty. They will have jurisdiction in cases where personal property is sworn under 15001., and the power of questioning the validity of wills proved in these courts will be taken away. They will have no jurisdiction in contentious eases; all these

i must be dealt with n London, "exactly as trials of issues of will or no-will

are now conducted in the Court of Chancery." The functions of Judge of the Court of Probate will be discharged by one of the Vice-Chancellors, and all the evidence will be viva voce. In cases where personal property is sworn, under 2001., the County Court will be competent M decide the matter. As regards real estate, further consideration has satisfied the Chancellor that there would be great inconvenience in requiring probate ; and therefore he does not now propose, as he did formerly, that the jurisdiction of the Court should be extended to real estate.

The Divorce Bill is founded on that which passed the House of Lords last session, with some additions. A woman deserted by her husband without lawful excuse, for say three years' will be entitled to a decree of separation. Her husband will be precluded from claiming such property as she may have accumulated in the interval. But should they desire to live together the wife will be enabled to settle her property on herself, and the bill will

give the same force to a post-nuptial as to an ante-nuptial settlement. The bill will enable married persons to separate by deed, directly, instead of indirectly as at present ; and the wife will have the some power over any property she may acquire as if she were separated by a decree of the Ecclesiastical Court.

The provisions of the Clergy Offene,ea Bill, not yet completed, were described as follows. "I propose that a Bishop may at any time file articles in his own court, in the simplest form, against an offending clergyman, or the same course may be taken by any voluntary promoter. If the accused admits the charge the Bishop, assisted by his Chancellor or Vicar-General, will pronounce sentence. If the charge is not admitted, I propose that a Jury, consisting of five persons, clergymen and laymen, shall be summoned, and shall decide upon the questions of fact. If however, the facts are established, the defendant may cor4lain that he has been subjected to a punishment which the Bishop had no right to inflict, and I propose therefore to give the same power of appeal which now exists—first to the Court of Arches, and then to the Privy Council. I propose that the same course should be pursued in the case of doctrinal offences; but I think the interests of the public, and particularly the interests of the Church, require that it should not be at the option of any one voluntary promoter to institute proceedings with reference to what are called doctrinal points. I think that before such proceedings are taken, a certificate ought to be given by a certain number of persons of 'station in the Church, declaring that there are reasonable grounds for instituting proceedings." This outline of the three bills was not very well received. Lord LYNDHURST stated a variety of particulars in which the measures would not be considered satisfactory,—such as the practical transfer of testamentary jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, of which it has been said "No sane man would add to the jurisdiction of the Court " ; the transfer of the appeal from the Judicial Comniittee of the Privy Council, to the Lords Justices, the Lord Chancellor and the House of Lorils ; the retention of the Diocesan Courts, instead of making use of the County Courts. In the case of the Divorce Bill, the omission of a provision for preventing a party convicted of adultery from marrying an accomplice, and of a clause to put an end to actions for criminal conversations; and the insertion of a clause enabling husband and wife to separate by deed. Lord CAMPBELL heard of this last-mentioned clause with "astonishment and dismay." He also objected to the erection of a Court of Probate as an adjunct to the Court of Chancery. Lord BROUGHAM asked why Sir John Dodson was to give place to a Vice-Chancellor ? Could he not discharge precisely the same functions which the measure would vest in a Vice-Chancellor ? The Court of Probate should be under a Commonlaw Judge. Lord WENSLEYDALE believed the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill would effect a great improvement in the law. The Bishop of OXFORD seemed to object to the vesting of the appeal in cases of doctrine in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, except so far as legal questions might be concerned. Some machinery might be instituted by which they might learn from the spirituality what is the decision of the spirituality on a point of doctrine."

The bills relating to Testamentary Jurisdiction and Matrimonial Causes were read a first time.

A NEW PARLIAME.NTARY OFFICER.

On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the second report of the Statute Law Commission was referred to a Select Committee, in order that one of its proposals, relating M the improvement of the language of current legislation, may be considered. The proposal is, that an officer should be appointed with a sufficient staff—the extent of that staff being matter of experiment—whose duty it would be to attend to all bills referred to him, to report exactly what is the existing state of the law on the subject to which it relates, and what alteration it would effect in the existing law ; to examine all bills after they have passed through Committee, and report to the House the effect of the alterations which may have been made, so that Parliament might be guided in its decisions as to whether those bills should pass or not.

In the House of Commons, Lord PALMERSTON moved and carried a similar motion.

REFOEMATORY SCHOOLS.

On the motion of Sir GEORGE GREY, "a Bill to facilitate the Establishment of Reformatory Schools in England" was brought in and read a first time. By this measure, permission is given to counties and boroughs to establish reformatories, and pay for them out of the county

or borough rates. Counties and boroughs may establish joint or separate schools. The provisions of the law under which children are admitted remain the same, except that where the school is supported by rates the managers will not have the option of refusing to receive children.

INDUSTRIAL Senoors.

Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE has introduced a bill to make better provision for the care and education of vagrant, destitute, and disorderly children, and for the extension of industrial schools. The principle of the measure is the same as that known as Dunlop's Act.—]lead a first time.

COURTS OF RECONCILEMMIT.

On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, a bill to provide a remedy against frivolous and vexatious law proecedinge was read a first time. Lord Brougham explained, that, in addition to provisions for establishing Courts of Reconcilement contained in his bill of 1851, he had added a provision for preventing, at all events for mitigating, that most grievous abuse, whereby a person without a farthing in the world can bring an

action, put a defendant to great expense, yet when he loses his action, leave the defendant remediless, and take the benefit of the Insolvent Act. Citing some cases of this kind, he stated that his remedy consisted in giving a discretionary power to Judges in the County Courts as well as to those in the Superior Courts, upon hearing the parties —regard being had to the nature of the action and also to the circumstances of the plaintiff,—to make an order staying proceedings until security were found for the costs.

Juncarzsrrs Exacirriox Brim.

Mr. CILtUFURD moved the second reading of the Judgments Execution Bill, which enacts that a judgment obtained in England shall have the same effect in Ireland and Scotland. Mr. FRENCH moved that the second reading should not be till that day six months. Mr. IPMenost seconded this amendment. The argument of the opposition was, that there is no reciprocity in the bill ; that it would injure the interests of the Irish bar, and give an English creditor 'greater advantages than an Irish creditor over an Irish debtor. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland and the Arroansv-GENmisr, for England supported the bill. On a division, the second reading was carried by 56 to 46.

PUBLIC JUSTICE,

Mr. NAPIER made his motion for the appointment of a Minister of Justice in the following terms— "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to take into consideration, as an urgent measure of administrative reform, the formation of a separate and responsible Department for the affairs of Publio Justice."

Mr. Napier described the existing evils arising from ill-drawn and redundant legislation ; proposed as a remedy the appointment of a Minister of Justice ; and named Lord Bacon, Lord Langdale, Lord Brougham, and Lord John Russell, as authorities who had advocated and supported a similar proposition. He showed how essential law-reforms have become ; how opportune is the present time ; how absorbed the Lawofficers of the Crown are in their set duties ; how there is no authority to receive suggestions from those who experience practical difficulties in the application of the law, or to carry out those suggestions in the preparation of bills ; and he found the obvious remedy for this defect in the establishment of a separate department, like those for War, Trade, Health, and Education.

Mr. COLLIER seconded and enforced the motion.

The Arroniver-Gmrsam, did not oppose the motion. Ile described the existing evils with much force and minuteness, and admitted that a "great department" to supervise legislation would prevent them. But the arguments he adduced, he said, were his own, and not those of the Government. The objects of the resolution, if its terms were slightly altered, might be carried out, by means of existing machinery, without "changing the constitution." If the Lord Chancellor were armed with a sufficient staff, he could accomplish all that is required.

Lord Pnix RUSSELL remarked on this speech, that while the larger part was a powerful argument in favour of Mr. Napier's proposal, and while this was said to be the Attorney-General's own view, and not the view of the Government, the smaller part was "eminently unsatisfactory," as it proposed to alter Mr. Napier's scheme, and give us, instead of a separate and responsible department," the Lord Chancellor and certain officers. Against this latter proposal Lord John argued forcibly ; and he suggested the Home Secretary as a proper head of a department of justice. Without such a head, there cannot be either unity in lawreform or that weight of authority which would propel measures through Parliament.

"I fear, for instance, that in this session, as in former sessions, plans would be proposed, would be very much discussed, disputed, and altered, and afterwards, when everybody's attention flags, when men's bodies were exhausted by labour and their minds by the consideration of various political topics, the bills would by general consent be withdrawn." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, seeing that it was thought the omission of the words "as an urgent measure of administrative reform" would impair the efficiency of the resolution, said that the Government had not the least objection to retain them. Mr. WIGRAM, Mr. EWART, Sir ERSKINE PERRY, Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS, and Mr. WARREN, supported the motion. Mr. MALINS only put in a word for the placing of the proposed duties in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.

Lord PALMERSTON said, that in agreeing to Mr. Napier's proposition, the Government did so for the purpose of sincerely giving effect to the principle it embodies.

"That principle I take to be, that some real effort should be made to organize departmental arrangements, for promoting reforms and improvements of the law.' The subject is surrounded by great difficulties, but he was not without hope that, after mature consideration, the difficulties will be overcome.

Motion agreed to, nem. con.

THE BEER TRADE.

A bill to amend the acts regulating the sale of beer has been read a first time. Mr. HARDY, in moving for leave to bring it in, described the different steps taken for regulating the trade since 1830, and showed that the results of that legislation have been unsatisfactory. His remedy, for the existing evils is to place the 41,000 beer-shops in England and Wales on the same footing as the 89,000 public-houses. Vested interests should be respected ; but as the beer-shops change hands, they should, in future, obtain a licence from the Magistrates, either at their annual licensing meeting or at eight special meetings to be held within the year. No beer-shop keeper shall sue for beer drunk on the promisee, unless he bring his action within one week. All coffee-shops, temperance hotels, shell-fish shops that remain open between nine at night and four in tho morning, must obtain licences, and will be placed under the supervision of the police ; their proprietors to be subject to fines for selling spirits, harbouring disorderly characters, and permitting gambling.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Mr. L. Dsvres has obtained leave to bring in a bill to prevent the gross inequalities in the weights and measures of the United Kingdom.

SIR ROBERT PERIA SPEECH AT SA-LTLEY.

Mr. STAFFORD, having given duo notice on Wednesday, wilted Sir Robert Peel on Thursday, whether the report of his lecture at Saltley which appeared in the Times was correct, "especially those passages that refer to the Count de Morny, the Grand Duke Constantine, and the Prince de Ligne ? " Sir ROBERT Pent made a very amusing reply. Although the House was not quite the tribunal before which he ought to be called to account, Lr what lie said in a private party, yet he would accept the challenge.

The honourable Member for Adderley—(Laughter)—for North Staffordshire—invited him to a " jollification," and he made a speech. He was . prepared to accept the entire responsibility of every sentence as reported, except a particular phrase, which he did not think he had used, but for

hich, if he had used it, he would have held himself responsible. It was f a. from his wish and from his nature to celiac unnecessary pain to any one. (General cheering.) "As regards the Count de Moray, I absolutely repudiate having said anything about him which might not have been said by any gentleman with reference to his friends or acquaintances. (Mach daughter.) I said that he was le phi* grand speculateur de I 'Europe. (Cheers and laughter.) Now, I did not intend to imply anything detrimental to his honourable character—(Contiented laughter)—and immediately on my arrival in town, when I heard that these expressions had been noticed, I wrote to Count de Morny to say, that certainly envy and malice had lone their best to twist these expressions of mine into something odious to him, but that I repudiated saying a single word against his character or the position he occupied. Now I could not say more. (Cheers.) As regards the Grand Duke Constantine, that is another matter. I certainly said that the Grand Duke Constantine did not quite impress me with the feeling of a frank and open-hearted sailor.' I said that ; but the words were not mine —they were used by the gallant Admiral sitting there. [He pointed to Sir Charles Napier, amid much laughter.] I never said one word against the Grand Duke Constantine, or any other member of the Royal Family of that country. On the contrary, when I said that he did not give me the impression of being 'a frank and open-hearted sailor,' I meant that he gave ine the impression of being a man of great powers of mind. (Roars of laughter.) What I intended to convey was, that he was not merely a simple sailor—(Ciontineed laughter)—but a man of greater grasp of mind. (Great laughter, in which Sir Charles .A'apier heartily joined.) As regards the Prince de Ligne, I accept the responsibility of every phrase that I used. 1 certainly did say—and I Should be sorry to cause any unnecessary pain to any one—but I was talking in a familiar way, and I did use the expression that he was as stiff and starched as the frill of Queen Elizabeth.' " If, in his innocent attempt to, as Pope said, "hold the mirror up to nature "— (Laugkter)—"to catch the manners living as they rise"—(Great laughter) —he had erred in the opinion of those whose good opinion he valued—although he did not think he did err—still if he did err, he offered the most ample expression of regret ; "and that is the most fitting amende honorable I can offer."

As Sir Robert Sat down, all sides of the House joined in a common burst of cheering.

Mr. J. EWART wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intended to make any recognition of the services of Sir John Al'Neill and Colonel Tulle& in the Crimea ?

Lord Paranuisrors replied

" Sir John 11'Neill and Colonel Tulloeh were employed in the Crimea on on inquiry of a very important nature, bearing upon the state and condition of the Army ; and they performed their duty entirely to the satisfaction of her Majesty's Government, and very much to their own credit—(General cheering)—with great ability, great perseverance, and great minuteness of research; and no doubt the report that they made was very useful to her Majesty's Government in preventing a recurrence of such unfortunate events as had caused their being sent out. (Cheers.) But at the same time, it --'does not appear to her Majesty's Government that their, services were of such a peculiar nature as to require any extraordinary recognition. It may be and must be a question, whether that usual acknowledgment which is made for special services shall not be made to them ; and it will be our duty to consult with them on the subject. But the question of my honourable friend relating to the honours of the Crown, the service does not appear to us to be one of a nature requiring the Crown to step out of the ordinary course to acknowledge it." (Murmurs, and a few cries of "Hear, hear!"

Captain VERNON moved for copies of correspondence relating to the "removal" of Sir George Pollock from the Direction of the East India

• Company. He read letters, showing that Sir George was appointed a Director by Sir Charles Wood for two years ; and that at the end of the two years Mr. Vernon Smith, instead of reappointing him, named Sir Henry Ri:wlinson to till his place. The reason Mr. Smith gave to Sir George was, that he felt convinced that the Legislature, in passing the India Act of 1863, intended there should be a fresh appointment. In explanation Mr. VERNON SMITH said, he had done his best to appoint good men ; and the public at home and in India had approved of his appointments. There is no statement that can be made of the glory of Sir George's career that Mr. Smith would not indorse: but he did not reappoint him because he felt that, from age and infirmity, he was not a fit person to be reappointed. He was not " removed " ; the motion therefore contained an incorrect statement.

After some further discussion, the motion was withdrawn.

The Select Committee on the Bank Acts was nominated on Thursday, as follows— The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli, Sir James Graham, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. G. A. Hamilton, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hildyard, Mr. Glyn, Mr. Beckett, Mr. liankev, Mr. Pollard Urquhart, Mr. J. L. Ricardo, Sir C. 'Wood, Mr. Cayley, Sir F. Raring, Mr. M. T. Smith, Mr. Wilkinson, and Mr. Fergus. , The Committee is to be a "committee of secrecy," in accordance with 'precedent; that is, Members of the House but not of the Committee will be excluded—and of course the public.

Mr. COBDEN gave notice on Thursday, that on that day fortnight he would move these two resolutions " 1. That this House has heard with concern of the conflicts which have occurred between the British and Chinese authorities on the Canton river; and, without expressing any opinion bow far the Government of China afforded cause of complaint by non-fulfilment of the treaty of 1842, considers that the papers laid on the table fail to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent proceedings resorted to with respect to the case of the Arrow. 2. That a Select Committee -he appointed to inquire into the state of our commercial relations with China."