ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

Hones or LORDS, Friday, March 7.—Discussion on the Revised Code.

Monday, March 10.—Postponement of Lord Normimby's question on Italian Affairs.—Lord Campbell's motion on the American Blockade.

Tuesday, March 11.—Lunacy Regulation Bill : second reading. Thursday. March 13.—Lunacy Bill: Personal Explanation by Lord Derby.—Game In the New Forest: Statement by Lord Malmesbury. House or Contioxs, Friday, March 7.—Blockade of the Southern Ports: Mr. Gregory's inn tion.

Monday, March 10.—Al1eged second Italian sanguinary Proclamation : Mr. Dia- rsell'a question.—Supply : Report on the Army Estimates ; Re-committal of the Sandhurst Extension vote.—Mexico : Mr. Haliburton.—Army Estimates. Tuesday, March IL —Public Moneys: Lord Robert Montagu's motion.—Belligerent Rights at Sea : Mr. Horsfall's motion.

Wednesday. March 12.—Marriages of Affinity Bill : Rejection.—Clergy Relief Bill: Second Reading.

Thursday, March 13.—Extension of Sandhurst Collage: Passing of Re-committed Vote.—New Zealand: Mr. Adderley's Question.—Victoria Troop-ahlp: Lord Clarence Paget's Explanation.—Officers Commission Bill : Third Reading.

Ix the House of Lords,

Lord Lrrrsurou moved a series of resolutions condemnatory of various provisions of the Revised Code. His object was, by eliciting the opinions of their Lordships, to assist the other House in their deliberations on the sub- ject. He himself, though unable to condemn the Revised Code is toto, even in its original form, still less as it then stood, objected strongly to the involved breach of faith with teachers, the exclusive application of the reading and writing test, and the want of a more satisfactory explanation of some of the provisions for carrying out many of its principal objects. Earl Gasxyzux defended the obnoxious provisions and after a brief reply from Lord Lyrrzurou, who withdrew his resolutions, the House adjourned.

In the House of Commons,

Mr. GREGORY (Galway county), in moving for an address for copies of any correspondence on the subject later than that already presented to the House, entered at length into the whole question of the efficiency or inefficiency of the blockade, and, in the latter case, the extent of the obligation of neutral Powers to respect such blockade. After adducing a mass of evidence to show the inefficiency of the blockade, Mr. Gregory argued that by respecting it through any desire to propitiate the United States, we were rendering the Declaration of Paris, as regarded the Confederate States, a mockery ; as regarded international law, a delusion ; and as regarded the commerce of the world, little better than a snare.

Mr. Bearrtxox (West Norfolk) seconded the motion. He sympathized with the South, because they were fighting for independence ; but he could not give the North credit for fighting even for empire. The North was fighting for dollars, and nothing else. The United States had origi- nally rebelled against our taxation, and the South was now rebelling against the taxation of the North. Earl Russell had quoted Vattel to prove that the Italians were the best judges of their own interests, and he called upon Government to show why the same principle should not be acted upon by recognizing the Southern States.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER (Bradford) carefully analyzed the lists of evasions of the blockade, furnished by Messrs. Yancey, Roost, and Mann, and by Mr. Mason. The total number of clearances, according to the Custom-house returns, was 822. Deducting from this number 119 vessels which left before the declaration of the blockade, 56 foreign vessels which left during the fourteen days'„grac,e, 25 river boats to New Orleans, 103 coasters, admitted by Mr. Mann to be engaged in "quasi-inland" voyages, there remained but 19 real evasions, and out of these 19 there was but one departure for Liverpool. In the last American war, though we kept up a blockade as strictly effective as we were able, no less than 516 privateers evaded it in less than three years. Coupling this with the fact that the profits on running cargoes of cotton through the present blockade was 100 per cent., he maintained that the efficiency of the latter had been maintained be- yond a doubt. He hoped Government would not depart from their jest and generous policy of strict neutrality. Sir J. FERGUSON (Ayrshire) spoke in favour of the recognition of the South, both on account of the utter illegality of the blockade and on the ground that we ought not to deny the South, in their struggle for inde- pendence, the sympathy we had extended to Greeks, Italians, Hungarians, and Poles.

Mr. Moxcx-rox Mums (Pontefract) strongly deprecated any interference in the contest, which he hoped and believed would soon be ended by a series of Northern victories, and the return to reason of the South.

Mr. LINDSAY (Shields) urged upon Government the necessity of calling upon the Federal Government to establish a real blockade. Our present course was not neutrality. We ought to give the same justice to the South that we did to the North.

Sir ROUNDELL PALMER (Solicitor-General) replied to all the arguments advanced in favour of breaking the blockade. In a long and most eloquent speech, he maintained that all the essentials of a legal and valid blockade had been complied with by the Federal Government. He leid down the principle, also, that the efficiency or inefficiency of a blockade must be decided port by port, and not by any general view of the whole blockaded coast. The notification had been good ; occasional suspension could not violate it ; the Federal Government itself had repudiated the idea that they:were attempting to establish a mere paper blockade ; the bloeitading. force was always sufficient to render it dangerous for any vessel to attempt to run the blockade, and he was prepared to assert that the establishment of an armed neutrality by this country in order to violate the blockade would be illegal, unjust, and contrary to the divine law of doing unto others as we would be done by.

Lord ROBERT CECIL (Stamford) deprecated any relaxation whatever of strict international law in favour of the North, with whom we never could agree, to the prejudice of the South, who were our natural allies.

Mr. Gregory's motion for papers was then put mid negatived without a division, and the House adjourned.

In the House of Lords, The Marquis of NORMANBY postponed his question as to the "Infamous system" of press prosecution established by the " Piedmontese invaders" of Italy, until Monday next, in consequence of the death of the director of the Armenia, upon whom he had relied for information. Lord CAMPBELL, in moving for an address precisely similar to that pro- posed in the Lower House by Mr. Gregory, severely condemned the despatch of Feb. 15, in which Government had given a conspicuous, isolating, and gratuitous sanction to the blockade of the two ports of Wilmington and

Government as a violation of neutrality. debate, war. the adjournment.

Earl Russmr, said that as long as the blockade was duly notified, and as In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, sailors. ment of the result being received with great cheering.

authorities. In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Thursday was carried by 143 to 105. In the House of Commons, prey on our commerce, the result might be most disastrous. expenditure.

Mr. LAYARD (Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs) defended the policy After some discussion, the motion was carried without a division.

of intervention, and stated that in consequence of intelligence received by On the order for going into supply,

would be unnecessary. Mr. C. FORTESCUE (Under-Secretary for the Colonies) stated that the Lord ROBERT MONTAGU (Huntingdonshire) moved a resolution, of cause of the Bing movement. Her Majesty's Government had committed which the two principal objects were—let, the annual appointment, by a themselves to no responsibility for any portion whatever of Sir George Committee of Selection, of a committee to revise all Estimates or accounts Grey's plan. As to the troops, bethought it was of the utmost importance submitted to the House; and, secondly, the reconstruction of the Board of that they should be retained in the island during the introduction of the Audit, on a basis which would render it responsible to Parliament alone, new system, in order to show the natives that it was not through fear that and presided over by a head not second in rank to any of the permanent the concession had been made.

officers presiding over other departments. Every word of the resolution, Mr. ROEBUCK (Sheffield) said the destruction of the Maori race must he said, had been taken from the report of the Committee on Public Moneys, follow the colonization of the island by whites. The real evil deed—going the whole of which had been sanctioned by a vote of the House. After to New Zealand at all—was irrevocable. The sooner the Maori was de- adducing numerous instances in which the check upon Government expen- stroyed the better.

diture now possessed by the House was in reality of no avail, he urged the The House then went into Committee of Supply, and the recommitted House to remember that the control of the purse was the source of power, vote for the extension of Sandhurst was carried without a division, Mr.

and to take that control into their own hands. Setr.wrx, however, intimating his intended of dividing the House on the Sir F. BARING (Portsmouth), Mr. Pram (Bury), and the CHANCELLOR report. OF THE EXCHEQUER opposed the motion, principally on the ground that The Officers' Commissions Bill was read a third time, and the House the recommendation of the Committee of Public Moneys, upon which adjourned.

it was based, had been already carried out to a great extent, and the ap-

pointment of the Committee would preclude Government from proceeding Subscriptions to the "FRIEND OF INDIA," and "OVERLAND FRIEND OF INDIA," Will

Still further in the task, be received by Mr. A. E. Galloway, at No. 1, Wellington-street, Strand, London.

Mr. Auctsrms SMITH (Truro), and Mr. NEWDEGATB (Warwickshire) Terms :Per Per Annum, payable in advance,

supported the motion, which was ultimately negatived by 96 to 31. ce, postage free,

Mr. HOESFALL (Liverpool) moved the following resolution : "That the "FRIEND OF INDIA"

state of international maritime law, as affecting belligerents and neutrals, is unsatisfactory, and calls for the early attention of Government," and

contended for the adoption of the principle that the ship should be placed POSTSCRIPT. in the same category as the cargo, and all private property exempted from

capture. The present anomalous and unsatisfactory principle that the flag Born Houses of Parliament sat last night. covers the cargo, although a step in the right direction, was one from In the House of Lords,

which we must either advance or retreat. Its great result was' that at Lord ST. LEONARDS, in presenting a number of petitions against the

the most utterly improbable rumour of a war in which this country Revised Code, said he did not object to the Code as a whole; on the con- might possibly be engaged, British shipping all over the world was imme- trary, he thought the time had come for checking the rapid growth of our- diately thrown out of employment, neutral vessels, being exempt from cap- educational expenditure, and with some modification he believed the result tore, immediately obtained greatly increased freights, and English sailors, of the change would be highly satisfactory. Several of the details, how-

attracted by higher pay, were lost to the country. ever, he thought were open to considerable objection—especially the group- Sir R. Artmaros (Attorney General) opposed the motion, pointing big of children for examination. out that even if the law were obscure and ill defined, which it certainly Lord GRANVILLE deprecated the constant attacks on provisions of the was not, no change mild be made without the assent of all maritime Revised Code, which had been made without any suggestions as to the nations, best means of remedying the defects pointed out. Government were willing The motion was supported by Mr. LIDDELL (Northumberland) and Sir to adopt any improvement that would tend to secure the great object of the G. BOWYER (Dundalk), the former suggesting that England should invite Revised Code—that in return for the Parliamentary grant, the pupils in the a Congress on the subject, and the latter contending that as private pro- schools so aided should come up to a limited standard in the elementary perty is not confiscated on land, it should be respected at Sea, branches of education. Mr. BAILLIE COCHRAN said, that much as he regretted that tremendous In the House of Commons,

blunder, the Declaration of Paris, as tending to weaken our naval A great variety of questions were asked and answered in the course of supremacy, the adoption of Mr. Horsfall's motion would be still more the sitting, none, however, being of any great importance.

unfortunate. Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Sir G. C. Lawn (Secretary-at-War) opposed the motion, and reminded there was any intention on the part of the Italian Government to cede any Mr. Horafall that even the Declaration of Paris, though as binding as a portion of Italian soil to France, on any pretence whatever. Ile also moved treaty in case of war with any other party to that declaration, would, like for papers on the subject. other treaties, cease to be in force between belligerents. Mr. LAYARD refused to produce papers, but said he had every confidence Mr. BARING (Huntingdon) warmly supported the motion, which, he in the statement of Baron Ricasoli that there was no desire for annexation said, was earnestly desired by the commercial interests of the country. on the part of the Emperor of France. Charleston, which was notoriously the most inefficient watched portion of The effect of the change would be to protect commerce, and no country had. the whole line of coast blockaded. Further correspondence might explain so much commerce to be protected as England.

proceedings which at present might fairly be regarded by the Confederate Mr. COBDEN (Rochdale) having moved the adjournment of the Lord ABINORE Considered the subjugation of the South an impossibility, Lord Par.amnarorr said, the principle of the motion, if carried into effect, and thought the time would soon come when its recognition would become would be an act of political suicide on the part of this country. It was a measure which we ought to take to save bloodshed and terminate the an important subject, and as it required full discussion, he should agree to long as there was evident danger for the vessels in entering any port, Her On the motion for going into Committee on the Marriages Affinity Bill, Majesty's Government would pursue a course of strict neutrality. and would Mr. G. W. HUNT (Northamptonshire) moved that the House should go respect the blockade. As to the numerical strength of the blockading into Committee that day six months. force, he might state that as early as the 15th of July, when complaints of Mr. BALL (Cambridgeshire) and Sir W. JOLLIFFE having spoken in its weakness were rife in New York, it comprised 34 men-of-war, carrying support of, and Mr. Aformara. in opposition to, the bill, the amendment 724 guns, of an aggregate tonnage of 56,000 tons, and manned by 10,113 was carried by 148 to 116—majority against the bill, 32—the announce- In the Henze of Commons, Mr. BOUVERIE (Berkshire) moved for leave to introduce a bill for Mr. DISRAELI (Buckinghamshire) wished to know whether her Majesty's the relief of clergy who had dissented from the Church, from the canonical Government were aware of the issue, by an officer of the Italian Govern- restrictions which rendered them liable to prosecution if they entered upon ment, in a district of Further Calabria, of a proclamation similar to that any other profession, or conducted worship in Dissenting chapels. The recently issued by Colonel Fantini, and of a date subsequent to the with- bill provided that, in case of a clergyman making a solemn declaration drawal of the latter. that he dissented from the doctrines of the Church, he should be permitted Lord Patsturtsrox said a telegram on the subject had been despatched to to engage in any other course of life. In reply to Mr. Hunaratn (Buck- Turin from the Foreign Office; but that no answer had as yet been received. inghamshire) he stated that his bill would not apply to those who, without It was needless for him to express the disgust with which such proceedings leaving the Church, wished to divest themselves of their clerical character.

wereregarded by Government ; but he hoped that the result of inquiry After some little discussion, leave was given to introduce the bill, which would show that the proclamation referred to had been disavowed by the was read a first time, and the House adjourned.

The report of Supply on the Army Estimates having been brought up, A personal explanation from Lord DERBY, on the subject of the alleged Sir G. C. LEWIS, Secretary at War, moved the recommittal of vote 14, identity of two clauses respectively contained in Sir H. Cairns's bill and which had been reduced by the omission of 10,7871. for the extension of that of the Government, drew forth a rejoinder from the Loan CAN- Sandhurst, and explained that the work had already progressed to an ex- CELLO; who, notwithstanding a series of somewhat angry interruptions by tent which would render it as expensive to stop as to go on. Lords DERBY and CHELMSFORD, adhered in substance to his former state- After a warm discussion the recommittal of the vote on the following ments.

On the motion for going into Supply, Sir G. C. Lzwrs (Secretary at War) moved the recommittal to the Mr. Hstimarrox (Launceston) called attention to the intervention in Committee of Supply of the vote of 10,787/. for the extension of Sand- Mexico upon the policy of which he commented in very bitter terms. He hurst College, and repeated in greater detail the explanation he had laid could hardly believe that an English Government should have sent re- before the House on Monday.

pudiating Spaniards to preach honesty to Mexicans. No one could tell Mr. Smarrx (Cambridge University) opposed the motion, as giving whether the present state of things was peace or war, but if the Mexicans sanction to the principle of compulsory examination for all the officers of considered it to be the latter, and fitted out privateers in American ports to the army, and as tending to violate the effective control of the House over-

Government, Admiral Milne had been instructed to take steps for the pro- Mr. Annzeurr (Staffordshire) asked what was the precise nature of tection of our commerce against any privateers which Mexican agents might the new plan of native self-government proposed by the Governor of New possibly fit out in American ports. He could not admit that the present Zealand, and what amount of responsibility in the scheme would be shared state of things amounted to war, and he hoped that any violent measures by the Imperial Government.

In the House of Lords, plan in question had but very recently been received at the Foreign Office,

The second reading of the Lunacy Regulation Bill was agreed to. and that its object was, by giving a system of local self-government to

In the House of Commons, the natives, to satisfy that craving for law and order which was the