ttbat ts mai Vrorrtifiug5 iiiVarliantitt, PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Housg OF Loans. Monday, Meech 10. Ears ; Lord Malmesbury's otice of Motion—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates ; the Lord Chancellor's Bill reported ; Lord St. Leonards's Strictures.

Tuesday, March 11. Contract Mortars ; Lord Derby's Questions—Agricultural Statistics; Lord Stanley of Alderley's Bill read a second time—Leases and Sales of Settled gsates Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday, March 13. Ears ; Lord Ellenborough's Strictures—Education ; Lord -Granville's Statement.

Friday, March 14. Royal Assent to the Consolidated Fund (26.000.0001.) Bill, the Mutiny and Marine Mutiny Bills, and the Drainage of Land Advances Acts Amend- ment Bill—Lord Truro's Library ; the Marquis of Lansdowne's Announcement— Limited Liability; Lord Monteagle's Motion.

HOMIE or Commons. Monday, March 10. Police (Counties and Boroughs); Sir G. Grey's Bill read a second time—Trial of Offences Bill committed—Partnership Amendment; Mr. Lowe's Bill withdrawn.

Tuesday. March 11. "No House." Wednesday, March 12. Reformatory Schools (Scotland); Mr. Dunlop's Bill read a second time—Municipal Reform (Scotland); Mr. Ewart'a Bill withdrawn—Bank- 'ruptcy (Scotland); the Lord-Advocate's Bill read a second time—Assaults on Women and Children ; Mr. Dillwyn's Bill read a first time. Thursday March 13. The Paris Conference ; Questions by Mr. Bowyer and Mr. Disraeli—The Baltic Fleet ; Sir Charles Napier's Motion—Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Bill committed.

Friday' March 14. Prussia and the Paris Conference ; Mr. Disraeli's Question and Lord Pahnerston's Statement—Relations with Persia; Mr. Layard's Question— Attack on the Redan ; Colonel French's Question—Supply ; Army Estimates—Local Dues on Shipping; Mr. Lowe's Motion for a Select Committee—Cambridge Univer- sity; Mr. Bouvene's Bill read a first time—Testamentary Jurisdiction ; the Solici- tor-General's Bill read a first time.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords. The Commons,

Hour of Hour of Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment. Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 5h . 711 Om Monday 4h .(.n) 211 30m

Tuesday 5h . 7h 16ra Tuesday No House.

Wednesday . sitting. Wednesday Noon .... 3h 45m 'Thursday St . 60 10m Thursday 40 . (vs) 12h 30m Friday 5h .... 711 40m Friday 41i .(ns) 111 15m - Sittings this Week, 4; Time, fib Sin Sittingsthis Week, 4; Tie, $2k Om this Session, 28; — 68h 20m this Session, 31; — 203h 30m COUNTY AND BOROUGH POLICE.

'When Sir GEORGE GREY moved the second reading of the Police Counties and Boroughs Bill, although he had entered into a full expla- nition on the first reading, he now enlarged his explanation in order to clear away much misconception prevalent as to the scope, object, and =bele effects of the bill. It originated with the Committee of the of Commons of 1853, appointed to inquire as to the expediency of establishing a uniform system of Police in :i!e=d and Wales and in

Scotland. The witnesses examined were magistrates of counties and boroughs, chairmen ofquarter-sessions, tenant-farmers, land-agents, heads of police and influential Members of the House. The Committee made

two reports: it showed that the County Constabulary Act had very bene- ficial results where it had been adopted ; that the system of parish and superintending constables is totally inadequate for its objects ; that the non-adoption of the County Constabulary Act in one part impedes the operation of the police in another part ; and that the efficiency of the police is impaired by a want of cooperation between the forces in counties and boroughs. Sir Georp brought forward many cases, with evidence

and statements by Captain M'Hardy, Superintendent of the Essex Con- stabulary; Mr. Blathwayte, Magistrate for Gloucestershire, Somerset- shire, Wiltshire, and Bath ; Sir William Heathcote, the Member for Oxford University ; and other gentlemen. They showed, that against the expense must be set the saving of property otherwise lost ; the con- venience to the poor—as in getting a summons executed by the police- man gratuitously, while the parish-constable requires half-a-crown ; and the prevention of much disorder which does not amount to crime. First as to counties, The County Constabulary Act has not been adopted in twenty counties and in two ridings of Yorkshire ; and the progress of a regular police in the counties that have adopted it has been very gradual. Some counties have been forced to the adoption by the disasters arising from the want of a well-trained constabulary. Surrey, for example, became the refuge of the Frimley gang of housebreakers and murderers, who at last committed the atrocious murder of a clergy- man in a very bold and open manner • and then the Magistrates of Surrey established a county police force. 'hie working of the present partial adoption is shown by Mr. Jonathan Peel in a letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Peel writes, on the 23d of February last,

from Knowlmore, Clitheroe, in the West Riding of York, which has no police, and which borders upon Lancaster, where there is an effective police—

"In this border country, which here is purely rural, during the summer season tramps abound ; who, watching their opportunity, enter the houses

when the men are absent and demand money and food under threats of vio-

lence. One road, not far from this place, is rarely without an encampment of these vagabonds during the summer season. Assaults, fights, disturb- ances, and outrages, sometimes violent and disgusting, are of frequent oc-

currence. As a Magistrate, I feel much of the responsibility, for a state of affairs like this lies on my shoulders. I have done my best to amend it: I have done constable's work both by night and by day ; but I cannot make

much impression with such aid as the parochial constables afford me. These men are, in fact, entirely useless and inefficient. Two of the Superintend- ents lately placed over them have reported to me that the constables dare not do their duty ; that they fail in reporting cases (felonies) as they occur ; that they will act only in cases where they have half the penalty ; and that, so far from yielding obedience to the Superintendent, some of them have denied his authority and set him at defiance. All along the border many of their duties are in fact performed by the Lancashire Police. Summonses

granted on the Lancashire side of the border are served by them, and they

often execute warrants also. Yorkshire prisoners committed from the bor- der Petty-Sessimurare invariably conveyed to the Wakefield House of Cor-

rection by the Lancashire Police. The frequent escapes from the hands of Yorkshire constables rendered this course .imperative. Prize-fights, dog- fights, !cc., organized in Lancashire are constantly brought over the border. When it is known to the Lancashire Police that such an event is to come off,' they follow the parties, and dog them even over the border, if they cross it."

Similar accounts are given in a petition from twelve acting Magistretes of the county palatine of Lancaster, living on the borders of the West Riding of-Yorkshire ; by Lord Scarborough, writing from Rufford Abbey ; and Mr. Wilson Overend, Chairman of Quarter-Sessions at Sheffield.

As to boroughs. The bill has been erroneously represented as in- fringing the rights of local self-government warranted by the Municipal Reform Act. That is not so. The act contains provisions that returns should be sent to the Secretary of State, showing the number of police- men, the regulations, &c., with the object of bringing the efficiency of the police under the eye of the Secretary of State. Since that act was

passed, laws have been enacted giving the Secretary of State supervision or control over prisoners, and throwing the expense of convicted pri-

soners and of the prosecution of offenders on the country at large. In the largest boroughs the police works well ; but in some of the secondary and in the smaller boroughs it is totally inefficient. Taking such boroughs es Ashton-under-Lyne, Berwick, Bolton, Coventry, Stockport, &e., there are from four to thirty-seven policemen in populations ranging from 15,000 to 70,000,—numbers which alone show how inadequate is the force. Sir George quoted statements from the local officers of various boroughs, giving details. One letter was from a jeweller in Portsmouth, who states that there are forty or forty-two constables for the towns of

Portsmouth, Portsea, Landport, Mile End, Milton, Buckland, Tratton, and Southsea, with 80,000 inhabitants and forty miles of gas-pipe. During one month, recently, the force was reduced by one-fifth, through death or disease ; and within the walls of Portsmouth there Were but four constables for day and night.

Sir George explained over again the general character of the bill, and [dated the amendments that he should make. He showed that the Se- cretary of State's authority in the counties tends generally to promote the efhciency of the men, and to check the Magistrates in intrwiting them needlessly with weapons more formidable than a truncheon, or in fixing salaries so low that they must be eked out by fees. In boroughs much expense is saved by permitting the police to assist in conveying prisoners, inspecting weights and measures, &c. He would, however, withdraw the joint power given to the Secretary of State for making regulations on that point, leaving it entirely to the ToWn-Council. He would withdraw the sixth clause, enabling the Secretary of- State to check the regulations for boroughs on the subject of stature, pay, accoutre- ments, clic„. endeavouring to obtain similar securities by another plan.

A long debate followed. Mr. C. Foasras, moved that the bill be read a second time that clay six months ; which was seconded by Captain Scoasti,. The intrusion on local government was opposed by Sir GEORGE PROHELL, Sir JOSHUA WALIMILEY, MT. W. S. Fox, Mr. J. B. SMITE, Mr. Morm, and Mr. Harorram Mr. Fox argued, principally, that the present system in boroughs is quite sufficient for its purpose ; while ne police regulations can prevent great industrial outbreaks; and riots at elections are only to be prevented by placing the electoral system on a more rational basis. Mr. HMSLIIY made the most formidable speech against the bill ; arraying statistics to prove that there is no great differ- ence in the state of crime, whether there is police or not—an unfortu- nate gentleman, for example was shot in open day even in the streets of London ; that Government has set up the opinions of private individuals against the opinions of Town-Councils ; and that the bill would create antagonism between counties and boroughs. He dwelt long and empha- tically on a word in a petition which charged the constables with being too much mixed up in social relation with the " criminous " part of the population. He did not know what " criminous" was : Johnson says that it means "wicked, guilty, enormously wicked " .' Dr. Hammond declares criminous guilt to entail the forfeiture of final redemption ; and Mr. Henley rated Government for adopting from a petition such awful terms of reprobation against respectable persons. 'Mr. Pace; Colonel Sarren, and Mr. BENTINCR, declared that the amendments had removed their objections to the bill. Sir Wrueem HEATHCOTE gave further details to show the necessity for it in rural districts ; and it was supported by Mr. WARNER and Mr. Rice. On a division the amendment was negatived by 250 to 106; and the bill was read a second time.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

Earl Gluey-mem, some time ago, laid on the table of the House of Lords a bill on National Education. In doing so, he followed the usual course made no observations, and the bill was read a first time. On Thursday, in reply to a question from the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, he in- cidentally described the character of his measure- - He should be the very last person to undervalue the advantages of the Committee of Privy Council. He believed the exertions of that Committee had increased of late years enormously, and had been followed with great results. At the same time, he thought the day must come when the strain on that centre of authority would be so great that it would be unable to support it. He therefore thought they must have recourse to some local or self-government for the purpose of carrying on the education of the country. The principle which the Government had gone upon in the bill was to leave as much as possible to the several districts themselves, without unnecessary restrictions, the dealing with some of these questions.

Law REFORMS.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Bill, Lord Sr. LEONARDS called attention to the probable effect of the leading measures for the improvement of the law in England and Ireland proposed by the Government. He did not oppose the bill, which would enable the Court of Chancery to do that which can only be done now by Parliament ; but he insisted that it would not work,be- cause it would throw a large amount of business on the Court of Chan eery, and confer power of dealing with property on the chief clerks of the Vice-Chancellors and Master of the Rolls, who would exercise that power without the care and discrimination of the Judges, or the publicity obtained when bills pass through Parliament. Then the bill is to be ex- tended to Ireland. He would ask the Government to delay the bill until the fate of another bill, now before the House of Commons, and trans. faring the duties of the Encumbered Estates Commissioners to the Irish Court of Chancery, is decided. The Conrts of Chancery in Ireland and England would require greatly inereasedpowera and facilities if the addi- tional duties proposed are to be thrown upon them. To give the Irish Chancery Court power to sell encumbered and unencumbered estates and confer a Parliamentary title, and to transfer to it a mass of arrears, would be to overwhelm it with business and insure a break-down. Be- sides, if the boon of a Parliamentary title is to be conferred on the owners of property in Ireland, it cannot be withheld from the owners of property in England. The Courts would require to be remodelled in order to deal with the business, and it was the advantage of such re- modelling that he was disposed to question. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that these remarks were inappropriate to the measure before the House, but some of them called for an answer. The operation of the bill has been extended to Ireland, with the approba- tion, as he thought, of all connected with that country. The bill in the ether House may not pass ; there are breakers ahead; and it would be something approaching to childish legislation not to extend the bill to Ireland, because it might happen that a larger measure, rendering it unnecessary in that country, might come before the House. As regards the working of the bill in England, it is chimerical to apprehend that it would give too much work to the Judges. Only twelve or seventeen bills relating to private estates have come before the House this session. The business will not be delegated to clerks. The Lord Chancellor will frame the rules and orders ; and whatever securities are at present re- quired in the progress of a private bill through Parliament. will be re- quired from the Court of Chancery.

The bill passed through Committee.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT.

Mr. Lowe in moving the discharge of the order for the committal of the Partnership Amendment Bill, which stood for Monday, explained, that the object of the bill was to reverse the decision in the case of Waugh versus Carver. . On further examination, he found that the bill, as originally worded, did not effect that object ; and when her introduced a new clause to supply the omission, Mr. Henley said it rendered the bill a new measure, and that it would be an abuse of the forms of the House to proceed. He therefore determined to withdraw the bill, and either effect what he desired by a clause in the Joint-Stock Companies Bill, or introduce a new bill—Motion Agreed to.

TRIAL OF OFFENCES.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Trial of Offences Bill, Mr. WHITESIDE raised some objections. The bill appeared to be a remedy for a particular grievance originating in a ease at Stafford [the Palmer case.] On looking to the clauses, he found that they included cases of treason, felony, or misdemeanour. The practical effect would be, that a man put on his trial in the place where he was known might be removed to London for trial. He suggested an amendment, that in cases of treason, a man should not be removed for Peel to the Central Criminal Cork without-his consent. The Amromeeir-Gebrenee said he could not adopt the amendment suggested. The Court of Queen's Bench has the power of sending came for trial to another county, or to try them at Westminster, but not at the Central Criminal Court. The bill remedied a defect, and enabled the Court of Queen's Bench to send cams before the Central Criminal Court. Mr. HENLEY said iltat—nnerh ef his objec- tion would be removed if cases of treason were omitted. 1l condemned the bill, however, as legislation to meet a particular case. Mx. BAINES denied this. It was a. measure to cure a defbet in the law, which had been discovered by the occurrence of this particular case ; but the bill was intended to afford a remedy not only in this case but in all other cases. Neither was the objection that the hill would confer a new power on the Court of Queen's Bench well founded. By the law, if a person were chimed with committing a felony or a misdemeanour, the Court of Que's Bench might order the indictment to be removed by certiorari into that Court, and then the Court had the power to send the cam to be tried in any count whatever; but they had no power to send it for trial at the Central Criminal Court in Middlesex. This was felt to be a great defect in the law, and the object of the present bill was to give the Court that power.

After some further debate, in which Mr. STUART Wormuiv gave his support to the bill, the A'FFORNEY-GENERAL agreed that cases of treason might be omitted. The bill then passed through Committee with amend- ments.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.

Lord STANLEY Of ALDERLEY, in moving the second reading of the Agricultural Statistics Bill, explained the object of the bill; which is to obtain accurate statistics of agriculture by a compulsory process, similar to that employed in taking the census. The bill provides, that he Febru- ary every year, the overseers of each parish shall send to the Poor-law Board returns of every oceupier and the extent of his occupation; that schedules having been issued in May, they should be filled up on the 1st of June, with every information, under the different heads of acreage, description of land tilled, amount of stock, &c. ; and that these schedules should be returned to the Poor-law Board, where they would be arranged in order according to the counties, previously to being handed over to the Board of Trade. Persons neglecting to fill up the returns may be fined 40s., and parties may be sent to make a valuation of the stook and pro- duce of the recusants. Officers neglecting their duty arc liable to a fine of 51. If the agents of the Poor-law Beard object to perform these now duties, proper persons will be appointed, and paid by a Parliementary vote.

In making out a case for the bill, Lord Stanley showed that ample and satisfactory returns had been obtained in Ireland and Scotland, and that those returns proved the inaccuracy of the most trustworthy information extant on the subject—that published by Mr. M'Culloch in he. Muniiereial Lietionary. He made the following comparison—

CROP.

Mr. M'Culloeb's Ascertained rosulta from It.. Estimate, port of Scotch Return,

1804. IBM. Acres. Acres. Aorto.

'Wheat 350,000 168,216 191,301 Barley 450,000 207,507 186,085 Oats 1,200,000 992,994 933,662

STOCK.

Asaertalned results front Re- Estimate. port of Scotch Returns. 1854. 1855.

1,500,000 1,065,340 1304,285

3,500,000 4,936,667 5,844,332

of Irish agricultural produce in his Commercial 1841. 1547. Mr. M`QuIlochts

Estimate. Returns of Constabulary. Acres. ' Acres.

Wheat 450,000 743,871 Barley 400,000 283,587 Oats 2,500,000 2,200,870 Potatoes 2,000,000 284,006

Lord Stanley quoted Mr. Wren Hoskyns to show the value of such re- turns to the farmer ; and maintained that no person of sound sense could believe that the Government requires the information for the pur- pose of increasing taxation, or that the landlord requires it to raise rents. The bill would confer great benefits upon all classes, especially upon the farmers of Great Britain.

Lord DUNGANNON said, that the plan of obtaining this information was arbitrary and inquisitorial—it is a call upon a man to publish his private affairs to the world ; it would be a degradation.• The Earl of DERRY combated this position. He had long been con- vinced of the importance of obtaining these statistics, and that they should be obtained by compulsory process. He criticized the plan of the Government. The number of columns required to be filled up in the returns are too numerous ; general heads, such as "green crepe," would be better than specific heads, such as " mangold wurzeL" " carrots," "parsnips," "cabbages," &c. The plan of collection by means of the Poor-law Board is not the most desirable. It would be better to issue blank returns to Magistrates at Quarter-Sessions; they could distribute them to Magistrates at Petty-Sessions ; these latter could obtain the returns from the Overseers. The Petty-Sessions could make an abstract of the returns for the district, send it .to Quarter- Sessions ; the Quarter-Sessions Magistrates could make up an abstract for the county; and send it to London. That would avoid publioity. Lord Derby expressed a strong desire to do away with the prejudices ex- isting against giving these returns, which he was sure would be highly advantageous to the agricultural interest. Lord COLCHESTER, as one of the Committee last year, supported the bill. The Committee had unanimously come to the conclusion that the Poor-law Commissioners would be more likely than any other to carry out the scheme effectively: The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH and the Earl of HAEDWICKE insisted on fbre pecessity of secrecy with regard to those re- turns.

The bill was read a second bine.

SCOTCH REFORMATORIES.

On the second reading of Mr. Dunlop's Bill, erteruling to Scotland the provisions of the act respecting Reformatories at .present in operation in England, Mr. MAGUIRE raised a question as to the treatment of Roman Catholic children in the proposed scheols. His desire was to guard against an unfair Ise of these institutions for purposes of proselytism. He would not divide the House, bat would rely upon the generosity of the Scotch Members to extend to the Roman Catholics a toleration at least equal to that enjoyed by the grossest superstilione in India. A very. de- sultory discussion ensued, in which it was shown that the hill contained ample provision-for effecting what Mr. Maguire desired.

The bill was read a second time.

Mr. M`Calloen's

Cattle Sheep and lambs

Mr. M'Culloch's return Dictionary was- Soctreu Mudicresi. Law.

Mr. EWA= moved, on Wednesday, the second reading of a bill to place certain•ROyal Burghs in Scotland, where the councillors are now entirely self-elected, on a footing with the Royal Burghs under the Scotch Municipal Reform Act. The LORD-ADVOCATE opposed the motion. The burghs referred to were excluded from the Municipal Act because they had no constituencies. In New Galloway, for instance, there were twelve electors and nine Conn- erne's, and the revenue of the corporation amounted to 61. 11s. a year. In Lochmaben' the constituency numbered thirty-five, there were nine Coun- cillors, and the revenue of the corporation was 21/.1s. ld. In Culross, there were twenty electors and nine Councillors, the annual revenue being 501.; and the constituency of Bervie consisted of twenty-eight persons, of which fifteen were CounciRors. The beat course would be to sweep away such cor- porations altogether. The bill was withdrawn, on the understanding that the Lord-Advocate should in the course of the session bring in a bill respecting the local government of Royal Burghs in Scotland.

SCOTCH BANKRUPTCY LAW.

On the motion of the LORD-ADVOCATE, the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill was read a second time. The bill consolidates the bankrupt law of Scot- land, and makes some important changes. For instance the operation of the bankruptcy law with regard to sequestration, hitherto confined to traders, will he extended to the whole community; the Sheriffs will have power, on special application, to provide protection for the estates of bankrupts; and an accountant in bankruptcy will be appointed to pre- vent fraud.

ASSAULTS ON WOMEN.

Mr. Dii.i.wrrt obtained leave to bring in a bill "to amend the act of 1853 for the better prevention and punishment of aggravated assaults upon women and children." The " amendment " proposed is the sub- stitution of a clause for the second clause of the Act of 1853, enacting that every person convicted of an assault upon a woman or a child should be sentenced to not leas than fourteen days' or more than two months' imprisonment, and during his confinement should be once privately whipped. Mr. Dillwyn founded his argument for this step on the fact that neither long nor short imprisonments have sufficed to diminish the erime of wife-beating. It is still common over the whole i country; and in the Metropolitan districts alone there had been 877 convictions n two years, or more than one per day. He brought forward some recent asses; and insisted that corporal punishment would not degrade men al- ready so degraded, nor would that infliction be more likely than impri- sonment to fill a man with vindictive feelings towards his wife.

Mr. Mum, seconded the motion ; and Mr. WiLmans supported it. Mr. BA.RHOW and Mr. BOUYERIE argued against the restoration of a pun- ishment which had not been inflicted in England for many years.

The bill was read a first time.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER AND SIR JAMES GRAHAM.

The chief occupation of the House of Commons on Thursday night

was to assist as auditors of a gladiatorial exhibition on the part of Sir Charles Napier and Sir James Graham, in which both combatants in- dulged in very long. speeches. Sir CHAB.LES NAPIER moved for the ap- pointment of a Select Committee to• inquire into the operations of the British fleet iii the Baltic in 1854 and 1865. Sir Charles went over, with great minuteness, the operations of 1864, from the time when he was compelled to sail in a hurry, "without knives and forks," to the moment when he hauled down hid flag, and had an unsatisfactory in- terview with Sir James Graham at the Admiralty. He quoted very copiously from private letters written by the First Lord of the Admiralty; and justified that extraordinary proceeding by saying that he considered himself aggrieved and disgraced, and that, as Sir James had laid it down as a rule that the Admiralty might use privateletters there could be no reason why he should not do the same. Sir James Graham in his speech showed that tho rule he laid down was e reverse.] The allegations made by Sir Charles were—that the fleet was sent out without pilots, under- manned and badly manned; that he had been urged, early in the season, not to "knock ins bead against stone walls prematurely"; ; but that, as late in the semen as the 4th October, when the Government were ex- cited by the false news of the fall of Sebastopol, they tried to goad him into the insane course of attacking Sweaborg; that he was not the cause of 10,000 men being sent to take Bomarsund, for he had only asked for 2000; that he had, in July, advised the Government to send out gun and mortar boats wherewith to attack Sweaborg ; and that, after praising his conduct up to a certain stage, the Admiralty turned round and expressed dissatisfaction, because General Jones thought Sweaborg could be destroyed by the fleet and 5000 land forces, and Marshal Bara-

gua and General Niel expressed their opinion that the fleet weld destroy the place. What did they know about it ? He insinuated that Sir James Graham could not have been serious in his mode of prose- cuting the war with Russia ; hinted at high treason ; and asserted that "if the Emperor of Russia had been the First Lord he would have given the self-same orders" that Sir James Graham gave; and that Sir James had been guilty of political cowardice in ordering operations that he thought would be popular. When Sir Charles Napier sat down, there was a pause, and it seemed

likely that the motion would fall to the ground for want of a seconder; but Admiral WaLoorr, saying that he would "never see a brother officer adrift without throwing a tow-rope to him," seconded the motion, and took up an intermediate position, blaming both Sir Charles and Sir James. Sir thalami Woon, strongly censuring the use that Admiral Napier had made of private correspondence and declaring that to grant the motion would be prejudicial to the public service pointed out that no reasons had been assigned for the step. taken, and expressed a hope that the motion would be unanimously rejected.

Sir JAM= &Ramat said, he would, if it had been consistent with the

public service, gladly have confronted Sir Charles Napier before a Select Committee. He had been accused of political cowardice, of writing let- tors so jesuitical that the honour of an officer was not safe in his hands, and of having treasonably conducted the war, so that the Emperor Ni- cholas might as well have been at the head of the Admiralty. To sup- port these charges, Sir Charles Napier had laid before Mr. Grant, the editor of the Nerving Advertiser, private correspondence, on the strength of which Mr. Grkat wrote to Mr. Ironaide, of the Sheffield Free Press- " These letters would suffice, with other facts of undoubted accuracy, to convict Sir Jamie ilvaham of treason" ; and Sir Charles Napier wrote to Mr. Ironside—ss Mr. Grant has told you the truth." Thus accused, Sir James asked Sir Charles's permission to read the private correspondence comprising Sir Charles's answers to himself. [" Use everything you like," answered Sir Charles Napier.] Sir James accordingly made a statement, derived entirely from Sir Charles's letters, and presenting ludicrous contradictions of his published assertions. Very early in February, Sir Charles pressed for the appointment to the Baltic fleet. When appointed, on the 23d February, his conversation left a painful impression that he was dissatisfied with the fitting-out and manning of the fleet ; but on the 24th he said he should not decline any service be it ever so desperate." In a book entitled" The Navy," pub- lished in 1831, Sir Charles Napier wrote—" The generality of men of six' years of age are not fit for captains" ; they are too old for dash. "Nelson," wrote Sir Charles to Mr. Hume in 1837, "was killed at forty-seven" ; and "there is a great difference between the command of a fleet, and a seat in the House of Commons." Sir Charles having passed the age of sixty, "so dangerous to the public service," Sir James did hesitate to appoint the gallant Admiral. When Sir Charles was first urged to enter the Baltic, he more than once represented that the force was inadequate, and he had demanded a compulsory press of sailors. In the Baltic, he declared certain officers unfit to be captains of ships, and wanted to signal them in the presence of the fleet—" Go home • you are no use to me here,"—officers whom he has since publicly declared to be first-rate. On the 30th of May, he declared Sweaborg to be unattack- able either by land or sea; on the 12th of June he was within eight miles, but did not even then reconnoitre ; on the 23d August, General Jones reconnoitered, and reported it possible to destroy the place with 5000 men ; subsequently, Marshal Baraguay d'Hilliers and General Niel thought that it might be destroyed without the land-force ; and having at last reconnoitered the place, on the 23d September, Sir Charles ad- mitted the practicability of an attack. If he had made that report early in the summer' the means he desiderated might have been sent out. He now said that Bomarsund might have been taken with 2000 men: in June 1854, he twice wrote saying that it might be done with 10,000 men. On the 8th January 1856, he wrote to the Times saying that he had served fifteen years last war, and that it was never the custom for ships to approach batteries at all: in his own account of the attack on Acre he says—" I had frequently been engaged with batteries last war," and he sketches "the system he had always been accustomed to." Ships might attack the castle and defences of Vera Cruz, he says, "if the attack were made "—with what? "with boldness." "Few naval officers know what ships can do against stone walls."

Admiral BERKELEY and Mr. OSBORNE stoutly defended the Admiralty; while Captain SCOBELL, Mr. LINDSAY Mr. klumz, and Mr. Maims, mildly undertook the defence of Sir dharles. Their strongest retort after the speech of Sir James Graham was' that it was strangely incon- sistent that those who had been mainly instrumental in appointing Sir Charles Napier to the command of the Baltic fleet should be engaged iii proving his unfitness, and attacking with unmeasured bitterness lids pro- fessional reputation.

Sir CHARLES Nap= made a feeble reply, and withdrew the motion: - THE KARS PAPERS.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Earl of MALMRSBURY, taking it for granted that the armistice which now exists between Russia and this country yr)11 expire bond fide on the 31st of the present month, and that the SecreTary for Foreign Affairs will be in his place after the holiT days, gave notice, that at that lieriod he would call attention, if no pub- lic inconvenience would then result from his doing so, to the blue book which contained the correspondence relative to the siege and taking of Kars.

In a conversation, on Thursday, with regard to some alleged deficien- cies and mistakes in the Kars Blue Book, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH censured the Government for not having obtained for General Williams supplies of money to enable him to provision the fortress. He also in- directly expressed an opinion, that, having 100,000 men before Sebastopol exclusive of the Turks, the latter ought to have been sent to Ears; and he further blamed the Government that the measures for provisioning and relieving Kars should have been conducted by the Foreign instead of the War Department.

THE PEACE CONFERENCE.

Two Members put questions to Lord Palmerston on Thursday with respect to the Paris Conference. Mr. BOWYER asked whether the atten- tion of the Conference would be directed to the affairs of Italy ? Lord Paussasrox replied by saying, that "one of the very first resolutions come to at the Conferences was, that the proceedings which might take place from day to day should be known only by their results." Mr. Manama then ventured to ask, whether it was true that Primal&

had been invited to attend the Conference, and that "two distinguished diplomatists" are about to visit Paris for the purpose of attending the negotiations ? Lord Pentansrow said, he must give to this question ex- actly the same answer he gave to the last. Mr. DISRAELI persisted: he would rather have no answer than the offer of one not relating to his question. Lord Panningrox rejoined—" My answer was, that I do. dined to give any information as to what the Conferences are about to do; and of course it is not competent for me to state what the Prussian Prime Minister contemplates doing."

THE CONTRACT MORTARS.

The Earl of DERBY brought under the notice of the Lords, and of the Secretary for War, Mr. Monad's statement in the House of Commons last week, with regard to the unsound mortars supplied on contract to the Government. Stigmatizing the alleged crime as "little short of trea- son itself," and deprecating the contract system as peculiarly liable to abuse, he asked Lord Panmure whether it was true that mortars had been supplied to the Government, by one of the contractors, in which pieces of iron had been let in for the purpose of concealing flaws in the casting, which flaws must of course have been known to the parties ? The next question was, who were the parties guilty of this misconduct ? Lord PANMURE said that the statement of Mr. Monsen was perfectly correct. An experiment made upon five mortars had induced Mr. Mon- sell to make that statement publicly in the House of Commons. The five mortars in question were part of a contract with the firm of Grissell, Re- gent's Canal Ironworks. Two of the mortars stood the proof at Woolwich Arsenal, and were after- wards sent down to Shoeburyness to undergo a third proof before being placed in store for the use of the service. One of them burst after the tenth round had been fired; and this led to the detection, behind the breech, of a piece of metal screwed into the mortar in the moat skilful manner in order

to cover a flaw which had previously been removed. He could assure Lord Derby, who thought that a fraud of this kind could scarcely be committed without immediate detection, that the piece of metal had been let in with such skill that the most vigilant eye might well have failed to detect it. The result of the experiment upon this mortar led to the immediate exami- nation of the other, and in that also a piece of metal was found to have been inserted very nearly at the same part. A third mortar had already been rejected, flaws of the same nature having been detected upon the base by the authorities at Woolwich Arsenal. Similar flaws were also found nion the base of the fourth ; and the fifth, although no flaws were discovered in it, burst altogether during the experiment, having been manufactured from material quite unfit for the service for which it was intended.

The mortars were therefore rejected, and the name of the firm was erased from the list of Government contractors but it had not been as- certained whether there are any means of visiting the guilty parties with punishment. The names of the two firms who have satisfactorily sup- plied several varieties of heavy armament are Messrs. Hood of Lowmoor Works, and Messrs. Walker of Gospel Oak Foundry.