Etluttrs litvrt6iugu ill arlituuttri.

Honsa OF Loans. Monday, June 10. Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill committed —Wills of Personalty by British Subjects Bill committed--Customs and Inland Revenue Bill committed. Tuesday, June 11. Government of the Navy BM read a third time and passed— • Customs and Inland Revenue Bill read a third time and passed—Ragged Schools ; Lord Shaftesbury's Motion. Wednesday, June 12. Royal assent to the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. Thursday, June 13. Admiral Elliot's case ; Lord Hardwicke'a complaint—Chief Justice Monahan and Lord Leitrim ; Conversation on—Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill reported—Wills of Personalty by British Subjects Bill read a third time and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, June 10.—Appropriation of Seats (Sudbury and St. Alban's) Bill in Committee—Industrial Schools Bill in Committee—Irremovable Poor Bill read a second time. Tuesday, June 1L Syria ; Lord John Russell's Statement—Army Colonels ; Ge- neral Lindsay's Motion—Case of Mr. Barber; Dr. Brady's Motion—•• Count out." Wednesday, June 12. Affirmations Bill lost—Locomotive Bill committed—Indus- trial Schools (Scotland) Bill read a second time. Thursday, June 13. Syria; Sir J. Fergusson's Question—East India Loan Bill committed—East India Council BM read a second time—East India Courts of Judi- culture Bill read a second time. East India Civil Service Bill read a second time— Excise and Stamps Bill read a third time and passed. Friday, June 14.—Royal Atlantic Steam Navigation Company's Contract; Mr. Gregory's Motion.

THE VACANT SEATS.

The House of Commons, on Monday, resumed the consideration of the Appropriation of Seats (Sudbury and St. Albans) Bill, on the mo- tion for going into committee. Earl JEB.MYN moved as an amendment that the House would, upon that day six months, resolve itself into the said committee. Lord Jermyn urged that Sudbury and St. Albans had been too severely punished for the sins of the many. The corruption for which Sudbury had been disfranchised was by no means as extensive as that which had been committed by other boroughs still in the enjoyment of the franchise ; and, as he viewed the question, Sudbury and St. Albans had been made the scapegoats for the electoral stns of those boroughs. Major Peuxza seconded the amendment.

Sir GEORGE Lams characterized the speech of Lord Jermyn as an attempt to resuscitate the defunct borough of Sudbury, and observed

that, if Sudbury were to have its lost franchise restored, he did not see why Grampound should not put in a claim, and Yorkshire be asked to surrender the two members which it had received from the dis- franchisement of that borough. Sudbury had been notorious for long and systematic corruption, and both sides of the House had concurred in regarding its disfranchisement as a final act. Mr. Disraeli had so treated it in his Assignment of Seats Bill in 1853, and again when the right hon. gentleman introduced his more general measure m 1859.

Mr. SCULLY protested against the question of Reform being shelved to make way for such a miserable measure of Reform as the bill now

before the House. He invited her Majesty's Ministers to come for- ward and candidly admit that, as they were unable to redeem the promise by which they obtained power, they were willing to resign that power into other hands.

Mr. STIRLING expressed his intention to oppose the motion because he considered that the bill did tardy justice on the offenders of Sud- bury and St. Albans. At the same time he thought that those boroughs had reason to complain that guiltier parties than themselves had not been included in the measure. Why, for example, were Gloucester, Wakefield, and Berwick omitted? For his own part, he thought the most equitable course to adopt would be to create two new consti- tuencies in England, and one in Ireland and one in Scotland. Colonel DUNNE put in a claim on behalf of Ireland, and contended that the county of Cork ought to have another seat in preference to South Lancashire or Chelsea. Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY apprehended that the House was about to enter upon a controversy with reference to the respective claims of various constituencies, which was full of danger. He thought it would have been better had the question of Sudbury and St. Albans not been raised at all, and the Government had simply contented themselves with proposing to assign the vacant seats to certain communities of vast importance which deserved to be represented in Parliament.

On a division, the amendment was negatived by 338 to 41, and the House went into committee.

On clause L. Mr. Commss moved to postpone the clause until after the deci- sion of the House had been taken on the clause to enfranchise Chelsea and Kensington, with the view, in the event of that clause being negatived, to pro- pose a division of the West Riding of Yorkshire into two portions, each returning two members. Sir GEORGE LEWIS opposed the motion, contending that the effect would be to give three of the four seats disposable to counties and only one to boroughs. Lord JOHN MANNERS said the question really at issue was whether they would perpetuate the anomalous system first created under the Reform Bill, and called the " unicorn system." He would support the motion of Mr. Collins.

Motion negatived by 118 to 81. Colonel DUNNE moved the omission of South Lancashire and the insertion of the county of Cork. Negatived by 228 to 67.

An amendment, giving Salford two members instead of one, was withdrawn, Sir GEORGE Law's pleading that Salford was really a part of Manchester. Clauses 1 and 2 were thus agreed to, and then arose a sharp debate on clause 3. Mr. KNIGHTLEY moved the omission from the clause of the words "Chelsea and Kensington!' Whereupon, Sir GEORGE LEWIS said this was hardly a fair way of patting the question at issue, because instead of presenting a counter-proposal, the amendment simply asked the committee to say whether they preferred any proposal whatever to that of the Government. The increase of the population of the metropolis entitles it to another member. That increase since 1851 is 440,000, while the entire population of Liverpool was only 269,000, of Manchester 243,000, of Birmingham 112,000. [Mr. Disraeli de- murred.] Sir George went on to speak of the population of conti- nental capitals amid somecries of impatience. Mr. DISRAELI corrected the figures of Sir George, showing that the population of Liverpool is 443,000, of Birmingham nearly 300,000, of Manchester 350,000. [Here Sir GEORGE LEWIS said he found there were two returns—he had copied the return of the supedntendent regis- trars, instead of the Parliamentary return.] Mr. Disraeli insisted that he had demolished the ground on which the Government rested their proposal to give Chelsea and Kensington a member, and that Govern- ment had given no reason for the adoption of the clause. Mr. LOCKE referred to a proposed amendment in favour of the University of London; whereupon Sir James GRAHAM said he would not rim the London University against Chelsea and Kensington. He defended the Government proposal, and said he only intended to move his amendment if Mr. Knightley's motion were carried. Mr. WaLroks followed in the path marked out by Mr. Disraeli, and would not sup- port the clause because Government had made out no case. Sir GEORGE laws rejoined that Mr. Disraeli's correction of his figures did not invalidate his argument, because, taking the population. of Liverpool at 413,000, that was equalled merely by the increase in the population of London.

On a division, the amendment was carried by 275 to 171 This drew a great burst of cheering from the Opposition. On the motion of Sir GEORGE LEWIS, further progress was. post- poned until Monday.

THE INDIA. Brim.

Sir CHARLES WOOD carried his four India bills forward a stage on Thursday night. The Loan Bill passed through committee, the Council Bill, the High Courts of Judicature Bill, and the Civil Service Bill were read a second time, without any opposition more material than a debate.

On the second reading of the Council Bill, Mr. Vasisrrrairr said it was the pivot upon which the future good government of India turned. He disapproved of the bill ; could not understand why Indian revenues should be saddled with the expense of three separate councils; described the local councils as itinerant vestries; objected to the bill as crude; and advised that all the bills should be withdrawn. Mr. W. E. Fortsran wished to know how far the deliberations of the Calcutta Councils would be public. He desired they should be. Approving of the introduction of non-official Europeans and natives, he said the benefits of their introduction would be diminished if the sittings were not public. Mr. LAYARD approved of the bill, but did not think it went far enough. At least one-half of the Councils should be composed of natives. Colonel SYKEs, Mr. BUXTON, Sir E. COLERROOKE approved of the bill. Mr. KINNAIRD doubted the expediency of making the presence of natives compulsory. Mr. Aerrrox did not approve of the bill. He thought local councils of great importance, but he desired to see the Governor-General without a council, and with power to take all necessary mea- sures- It will be impracticable to share the government with the natives, and dangerous to familiarize the people with the idea that there is only a single go- vernment in the country. Mr. H. SEYMOUR spoke in support of the bill, and Sir CHARLES WOOD expressed his gratification at the manner in which it had been. received.

On the second reading of the Civil Service Bill, Mr. VestSrTrART contended that the bill was calculated to do.away with the existing competitive system, and to introduce a system of nepotism and jobbery. If the civil service was to be encroached on, as they had not only done their duty, but subscribed a large per centage of their salaries to certain pension funds, they were entitled to compen- sation, but no provision was made for that in the bilL The bill would be as un- popular with the natives as it would be among the civil service, as it was calcu- lated to send out a class of inferior men, a matter which was already a subject of complaint among the natives.

Mr. LIDDELL observed that the only valuable feature in the bill was that it would open up posts of honour and emolument to the energy and ambition of the natives. Mr. LAYARD suggested that seven years' residence is India and a knowledge of the language of the country ought to be made the necessary quali- fications for civil appointments.

Lord STANLEY said he thought the principle of the bill sound, but that its details would require careful supervision. He entirely approved of the principle of the measure, but the more be considered it the more he was satisfied that there were two securities which ought to be introduced into the bill itself and not be left to the discretion of the Government of India. Of those securities. the more important was the limitation of irregular admissions into the civil ser- vice to men who had resided seven years in the country. With regard to the test of a knowledge of the language, that might not be important so far as the cove- nanted service was concerned ; but he thought that if a proviso were introduced to the effect that the same knowledge of the language should be required of those who were admitted under the provisions of this act as was now required from the other services, no practical inconvenience could arise. Sir J. ELv.nNSmNE said the bill in its present state was inexplicable. He understood an influential portion of the Indian Council were totally opposed to. it. Mr. HENLEY recommended that Sir Charles Wood should agree to insert in the bill such regulations as he himself, with his sense of fairness, might deem, reasonable for the protection of the civil service; bat, in order to do that, it was necessary that the bill should be read a second time first. Mr. CRAWFORD ap- proved of the bill, and of the restrictions suggested by Lord Stanley being intro- duced into it.

Sir CHARLES WOOD, in replying to various objections taken by different speakers, said there was no ground for apprehension on behalf of the civil ser- vants of India. So far from the bill having the effect of injuring their interests, he believed it would improve their positions. He had no objection to insert a clause containing a limitation of a seven years' residence.

THE NAVY.

On the motion for the third reading of the Government of the Navy Bill, the Earl of Carnarvon drew attention to the relative strength of the iron-cased navies of France and England, contending that a recent statement of Sir John Pakington rather understated the advantages possessed by the former, and pointing, out that the French Govern- ment had given orders for the building of a number of steel-cased. boats adapted for the transit and disembarkation of troops.

This drew from the Duke of SOIKERSET an extremely interesting speech on the Navy from the Admiralty point of view. After censur- ing the course taken by Admiral Elliott in ping to France and col- lecting information, by the courtesy of the French Government, and then publishing. the results through. Sir John Pakington, he stated the steps the Government have adopted to increase our iron-cased fleet, and thus proceeded : "Every day brings out new points and new difficulties. When I came into office two things came upon us at once—novelty in shipbuilding and novelty in the construction of our guns. I caine into office in 1859. The late Government had ordered the Warrior to be built, but had calculated that it would carry the old style of armour. It was not calculated for the new style of rifled guns, but for the old style of armour. When I came into office 1 naturally called the- attention of the Board to these subjects. With regard to iron ships, I saw various persons, naval men having a knowledge of engagements at sea and men of great experience in.ship-building, with the view of acquiring all the knowledge that could be had on the subject. They said their opinion was that we should. build ships of thin iron, so as if it were impossible to keep out shot to keep out shell. I said before doing so I should like to have some experiments tried. We had some experiments at Portsmouth, and one of the first was upon an iron tar- get of less than an inch thick. The result was that round shot, in striking the iron, broke into pieces, but passed on into the vessel, and 700 pieces of iron were picked up inside the ship. That showed that round shot produced as bad am effect as any shelL It seemed, therefore, that merely to case with thin iron would be to expose men-of-war to as great destruction as possible, while they were loading the ship with unnecessary weight. We had no end of suggestions and recommendations. Some people recommended India-rubber, others a thick matting of hemp, others chain armour. The answer I sent to these gentlemen. was that, if they would send their experiments to Portsmouth, we would try them. I myself saw chain armour tried, and the very first shot destroyed it. India-rubber and hemp were equally ineffective. Last year it was said we should slope the sides of vessels, and shot striking at an angle would glide off ; but when we came to try Sir William Armstrong's bolts, the slope made no difference at all. That was the last answer I received frorn Sir William Armstrong. Then it was said that the iron should be four sod a half inches thick. I was rather doubtful whether that would be suf- ficient. I ordered the vessel to be laid down at Chatham to have such flotation that she might carry at least six inches of iron. I thought six inches tolerably safe. I now find that Sir William Armstrong's guns have fired through eight- inch iron. with the greatest facility. In building these iron vessels it is a great problem where we are to stop. Thin iron won't do; thick iron is very little better. It is, therefore, very difficult to say how we are to make our vessels sate- One fact is clear, and to that we have chiefly addressed ourselves—namely, if we cannot make ourselves so secure as we could wish, at least we should arm them with as good weapons of offence as possible, and by ordering that our sldps should. be armed with Armstrong guns, we felt that we were taking mecourse which would produce the greatest effect, while, at least, it would be a sate mode of proceeding.. With regard to these different experiments, the noble lord says the Admiralty have always been changing their policy. Why, my lords, the reason is obvious. The world is changing ; alterations are going on everywhere. So far from the Admiralty vacillating, from the time we came into office we have gone on in the course which 1 believe your lordships will say was the right and proper course for us to adopt under the circumstances. My noble friend the other day said we were going on building three-deckers and laying down ships of war; but what is the fact ? The last three-decker ordered to be built was in January, 1855. It is quite true that two three-deckers were launched in the course of 1859, but these three-deckers had been nearly finished tor a long time ; their engines and everything had been ordered; it was, therefore, thought better that they should he launched, and thus make room for other work to be gone on with. Well, then, it was said why do you go on with two-deckers? Now, we have not been going on with two-deckers. The last two-decker ordered was by the late Government in 1859. The present Board have ordered none-

But it is said the Admiralty is going on ordering new large wooden ships. Nothing of the kind. It is quite true we have ordered small vessels, corvettes, sloops, and some frigates and gun vessels; but if you mean to keep up the mari- time power of this country we have not yet arrived at that forward state in which we can leave off building. We have been building what we thought would be moat useful, and we have ordered them all to be armed with the new guns, and, instead of carrying the large number of guns they formerly used to do, our vessels will carry few guns, but guns of great power. The noble earl referred to our

gunboats, which he said were rotting in harbour, but if these were armed with

a hundred-pounder they would be most formidable vessels, and would serve most materially to defend our coasts in case of hostile aggression ; while being them-

selves small they would present a very slight object of attack for the enemy. With regard to what we ought to do in the way of preparation, there are two or three courses that might be adopted. If there was any immediate necessity for

alarm, we could readily cut down some of the three-deckers and case them in iron.

I have had calculations made, and I find if you were to cut down, say the Royal Alpert, and case the vessel in iron, it might bear four and a half-inch iron ; but it would not then be a very effective ship—the ports would be too near the water, and it would not be so good a sea-going ship as I should wish the Admiralty to build, unless there was any pressure; for next year we ought to build a far better ship. Another course might to some extent be adopted. We have frames cut

out for certain line-of-battle ships. We can easily add to the length of vessels and make effective wooden ships, which we can use hereafter as wooden frigates

or as iron-cased ships. Another course would be to order frames of iron ships to

be prepared with a view to case them with thick iron. Then comes the question of what iron they ought to be constructed, and the best mode of fastening the

iron plates. Every day new questions arise. I am unwilling to advance too

fast, because I feel that we can advance much more of by waiting a little longer. It is only a few days since the last of these experiments took place with

eight-inch plates. I am very anxious to do all in my power, and I have ordered six-inch plates. I have great doubt whether the mode of fastening the plates is satisfactory. On that account, therefore, I thought a trial should be made before

we laid down the scale; and that dune, we felt we might rely on the power we

have in building iron vessels if the country once takes it in hand. We know what the private yards in this country can do. We should soon produce a fleet

of iron ships far greater than all the other Powers of Europe besides. It is

true, as 'the noble earl has stated, that France is not the only country which is building wooden ships to be covered with iron. There are soma being built

for Russia. I do not know where the contracts were taken, bu'c, contracts are

in course of execution for Russia and also for Spain. One wooden ship covered with iron has likewise been built for Sardinia. The French ships are for the most part wooden ships covered with iron. I believe the best ships will be found to be those which are built of, as well as covered with, iron. Ours are iron ships with two coverings—one of teak twenty-six inches thick and one of iron four and a half inches thick. That is how the Warrior is built, and I have no doubt it will offer great resistance to shot and shell "

He also answered some complaints preferred by Lord Carnarvon of bungling in the building of new dock and harbour accommodation at Malta.

Earl GREY said he had heard the statement with great satisfaction. Far from blaming the Admiralty for being too fast, he thought they

were too slow. He believed the course now pursued to be the proper one—not to hurry on too rapidly with new inventions, until they have been fairly tried, but, on the other hand, when there are new inven- tions which hold out every prospect of being successful, not to con- tinue spending large sums of money in building vessels which in all probability will be useless; to make arrangements for the rapid crea- tion, in case of necessity, of a large force of that description of vessels which will be most wanted and most serviceable, but not, under the influence of panic, to proceed too fast in the construction of ships which will not be likely to answer. The bill was read a third time and passed.

On Thursday, the Earl of HABDWICKE defended the conduct of Ad- miral Elliott, denying that he had, as the Duke of Somerset insinuated, acted as a "spy,' and remarking that nothing could be more natural than that he should communicate his information to his old friend Sir John Pakington. The Duke of NEWCASTLE, in the absence of his colleague on public duty, said that the Duke of Somerset did not use the word spy. He

had only challenged the discretion of Admiral Elliott. Admiral Elliott's conduct had been looked upon in France as anything but friendly ; where, however, no offence would have been taken had he reported what he saw officially to his government.

Banicaurrcv.

The House of Lords, on Monday, took up the Bankruptcy and In- solvency Bill in committee. The discussion was very partial, and gave no account of the changes made in the measure.

Lord CHELMSFORD moved the insertion of a clause limiting the operation of the new law to debts contracted and liabilities incurred after the date of the passing of the Act. It would be unjust, he thought, to attach consequences never contemplated to existing ha-. bilities by means of retrospective legislation. The Loan CHANCELIDR denied that the bill was retrospective, and opposed the introduction of the clause, which had already, after con- siderable discussion in the Select Committee, been rejected by a large majority. The bill merely provided that if a debtor chose to go abroad and live luxuriously upon the property of his creditors he might be declared a bankrupt. He regretted the course taken by the Committee in reference to the Chief Judge, and hoped that the clause in reference to that functionary would be restored. The Earl of DERBY explained the circumstances under which the clause relating to the Chief Judge was rejected, and supported the amendment of Lord Chelmsford. In spite of the Lord Chancellor's opinion that the bill was not retrospective, he thought it was so, and that it would be injurious to the interests of non-traders.

Lord Cite/two:an opposed the clause, as it was unnecessary. The bill was not retrospective, but provided a cheaper mode of enforcing existing rights. Lord. Bitoneitan said the bill, as it stood, was not only retrospec- tive, but penally retrospective, for it imposed the punishment of im- prisonment upon the debtor for liabilities contracted prior to the passing of the Act. A division took place upon the clause, when the numbers were— for the clause, 98 ; against it, 61. So the clause was added to the hill.

Lord CarnwonTH moved the rejection of a clause inserted by the Select Committee, the object of which was to prevent the sale of re- versionary interests.

Lord Derby having supported the clause, it was retained. The other clauses were then agreed to, and the bill passed through Committee.

OATH LEGISLATION.

At the Wednesday sitting Mr. DILLWIN resumed the adjourned de- bate on the second reading of the Affirmation Bill, the object of which is to relieve those who object generally to taking an oath in courts of

justice from doing se, and to enable them to make an affirmation. He contended that the bill would afford relief to a large class of her Ma- jesty's subjects who were at present subjected to serious disabilities on account of holding sincere convictions upon theoretical and specu- lativeopinions.

Lord BOBERT MONTAGUE opposed the bill on, the ground that as oath is a solemn act, and not an empty ceremony. Mr. BAINES supported the bill. Sir GEOB.GE Lewis said he was compelled to vote against the second reading of this bill. The general law of the country laid it down that no witness could be clammed in a court of justice without a declara- tion of facts in which there was a direct appeal to a Supreme Being. But there being classes of religionists who objected, on religious grounds, to taking an oath, the law came to their assistance, and, in certain cases, relieved them from the obligation, and allowed a decla- ration to be received in lieu of an oath. In the case of Pagans, the law provided that they might be sworn according to the form binding on their conscience. This bill was intended to meet cases of a defect of religious belief, where the parties had no conscientious objection to take an oath, the objection being made, not by them, but to them, and the enactment might be taken advantage of by any person who had no religions objection to take an oath, but preferred making an affirmation, as less binding than an oath. Mr. ROEBUCK did not regard the administration of an oath as a guarantee of the truth of the witness, and therefore supported the measure. Mr. WALTER opposed the bill, on the ground that it would destroy that principle of conduct which was the main distinction between man and beast. Mr. DENMAN argued that the measure would be the means of bringing to the surface in courts of law a great deal of truth which would otherwise be unobtainable. Mr. Mort TAGUE SMITH opposed, and Mr. J. B. SMITH supported, the bill. Sir WalLiti liEATHCOTE believed that, if this bill passed, it would not be possible to stop short of the entire abolition of oaths. The House, he said, must make up its mind whether it would adhere to the system of depending upon an appeal to the religious conviction of a witness as a means of securing the truth. Mr. LOCKE and Mr. Mzia.o$ sup- ported the bill, which was opposed by Mr. Malanon.

The Soracrrou-GENsuta, said he should give his decided opposition to the bill, which departed essentially, as he showed, from the prin- ciple recognized in other measares of relief in cases of conscientious scruples. Such a fundamental change in the manner of taking evi- dence must extend beyond courts of justice.

Sir JOHN SHELLEY supported the second rea. T of the bill, and after a reply by Sir Jona TRELAWNY, the =mina ent was carried, upon a division, by 136 to 66 ; so the bill is lost.

Shortly afterwards, the House took up the Criminal Proceedings Oath Relief Bill, the object of which is to assimilate the law in cri- minal cases, with regard to making affirmations instead of taking oaths, the parties professing a religious belief. It was opposed in going into committee by Mr. M`Manon, who moved its rejection. The discussion which ensued was interrupted at a quarter to six.

SYRIA.

Lord Joint RUSSELL said, on Tuesday, he had stated a few day ago that he hoped to be able before the end of the present week to inform the House of what had been done with respect to the negotiations going on at Constantinople for the future settlement of Syria. He had now to state that, although the details were not completed, there had been a meeting of the representatives of the great Powers at Con- stantinople, and they had agreed on the main question, namely, that there should be a Christian ruler of Syria in subordination to the Sultan.

Sir JAMES FERGUSSON asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs

whether it was true that a decision had been arrived at by the repre- sentatives of the Powers assembled at Constantinople, that the Lebanon should be placed under the government of one man, and he one of the Maronite sect; and, secondly, that he was not to be under the orders of the Governor-General of Syria, but to communicate direct with Constantinople; and whether that decision had been arrived at with the concurrence of the representative of her Majesty ? Lord Joan Russv.t.r, said the arrangement agreed. to was that there

should be a Christian governor of the Lebanon, but it was not specified in the agreement whether he should be a native of the Lebanon or not. The commission. in Syria had agreed, with the assent of all the cool- missioners, except the French commissioner, that he should not be a native ; but when the question came to be considered at Constanti- nople, the representatives of the foreign Powers, acting on instructions from their Governments, agreed, on the proposition of the Prussian minister at Constantinople, that a Christian governor of the Lebanon should be appointed, but without any specification as to whether he should be a native of the Mountain or not, and in that decision hew Majesty's ambassador concurred. With regard to the other arrange- ments, he believed the governor would be subject to the Paaha.of, Sidon; but he could not answer positively as to that or other points, because her Majesty's ambassador informed hint that the various details were to be embodied in a protocol, and he had not yet received a copy of that protocol.

RAGGED SCHOOLS.

The Earl of Suarresauar moved for a return of all the witnesses who either orally or by document gave evidence in respect of Ragged Schools in the metropolis to the Central and Assistant Commissiouers„ and the names also of the schools therein visited by any of them ; the same also of the towns of Manchester and Liverpool. He prefaced j his motion by observing that, as the Commissioners had brought very 'heavy charges against the Ragged School system, it was necessary to

have names of the witnesses from whose allegations such conclusions had been drawn. Alluding to a speech of the Dake of Newcastle on a former occasion, he accused him of having read garbled extracts from the report. If, he said, the returns were refused, it would give the Commission an appearance of having been a secret one.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE exonerated himself from the charge of having garbled the extracts he had read from the report of the Com- missioners on a former occasion, and stated the circumstances under which the debate in which the speech referred to by Lord Shaftesbury arose. He vindicated the report of the Commissioners from the attacks of Lord Shaftesbury, whose inferences of hostility on the part. of the Commission were by no means justified by the report. With respect to the returns moved for he would endeavour to get as much of the required information as he could, which he would place before Lord Shaftesbury, who, if he then thought fit, might move that it be laid on the table of the House.

Lord OVERSTONE thought the noble duke had thoroughly exculpated the Commission, and refuted, in a wholly satisfactory and honourable manner, the imputations which had been cast upon it. After a few words in reply from Lord SnarrEssurtv, the Loan 'CHANCELLOR advised him to withdraw his motion, which was informal. Lord SHAFTESBURY eventually left the matter in the hands of the Duke of Newcastle.

CHIEF JUSTICE MONAII&N.—Lord Lainum brought some serious charges of political_partisanship, when on the bench, against Chief Justice Monahan. The Loan CHANCELLOR desired him to give them a specific shape. When he had done so, Lord CHELMSFORD asked him to withdraw the motion. There were hardly any grounds for the serious step Lord Leitrim proposed to take. Lord LEITRIM consented to withdraw the motion, but refused to withdraw the charges. To this many Peers were opposed, and a smart conversation on the sub- ject took place on Thursday; but in the end it seemed to be held that the withdrawal of the motion was substantially a withdrawal of the charges. SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.—Mr. LOWE stated, in reply to a question from Mr. Cogan, that the Department of Science and Art were in favour of opening the Botanic Gardens, near Dublin on Sundays, in the same manner as' Kew and Hampton Court were thrown open, but that they could not coerce the society to act on the recommendation unless by withdrawing the estimate. That estimate would be before the House in a few days, when it would have an opportunity of expressing its approval or dissent on the view taken by the Department of Science and Art.

REINFORCESIENTS TO CANADA.—Mr. ADDERLEY asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it was true that three more regiments of infantry and a force of artillery were under orders for North America, and that the Great Eastern steam-ship had been engaged for their transport; and if so, for what locality they were destined, and whether they were to be paid for from the Im- perial or Colonial Treasury; and if from the former, whether such expenses had been provided for in the estimates? Mr. T. G. BARING replied that two regi- ments, in addition to one already under orders, and a battery of field artillery had been ordered to Canada, and would be sent by the Great Eastern. The cost of their transit had already been provided for in the estimates, and no additional ex- pense would therefore be incurred on that account.

CASE OF MR. BARBER.—Mr. BRADY submitted a resolution to the effect that the string claims of Mr. Barber to the favourable consideration of the Crown,

referred to in the report of the select committee on the petition of Wm. Henry Barber, made upon the 7th of July, 1858, have not been satisfied ; and that the circumstances set forth in his petition to the House, presented on the 2d inat, in reference to such claims, are entitled to the consideration of her Majesty's Go-

vernment. Sir GEORGE Gar opposed the motion, on the ground that the re- port of the committee to whom the matter had been referred had been considered with great liberality by Parliament, and that a sufficient sum had been awarded to meet the justice of the case. Mr. GLADSTONE took a similar view, and the motion was ultimately negatived.

GRIEVANCES OF COLONELS.—General LINDSAY moved that an humble ad- dress be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to take into consideration the present position of the officers promoted to the rank of colonel for distinguished services in the field during the war in the East in 1855 and 1856, who, when the list of colonels was revised in 1858, were unfortunately overlooked in the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners of that year, by which:their prospects in the service had been seriously injured. Mr. T. G. BARING expressed his approval of the motion, which, after a short discussion, was agreed to.

." COUNT our."—On Tuesday there was a morning sitting. In the evening, Sir JOHN TRELAWNY moved—" That this House has heard, with surprise and concern, that the Governor of New Zealand has used forces, entrusted to him by her Majesty for the protection of the inhabitants and the partial administration of affairs within that colony, in depriving several of her subjects of certain property in land situate on the River Waiters, such property having been tendered for purchase by Teira, a member of the Ngatiawa tribe, who had no power to sell without the consent of his chieftain, Wirimu Kiugi." Sir John was speaking when the house was counted, and forty members not being present, an adjournment took place at ten minutes past eight o'clock.