Vritatto net rortrifings in Vartiamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOME or Loans. Monday, Feb. 25. Appellate Jurisdiction ; Lord Lyndhurst's Notice of Motion—Committee of Privileges ; Report received. Tuesday, Feb. 26. National Gallery of Portraits ; Lord Stanhope's Notice of Motion—Mercantile Law Assimilation ; Lord Chancellor's Bills read a first time— Convict System ; Lord Dungannon's Question. Thursday, Feb. 28. Royal Assent to the House of Commons Offices Bill and the Metropolitan Police Bill—Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Peers ; Lord Derby's Motion for a Select Committee agreed to. Friday, Feb. 29. Torture in India ; Lord Albemarle's Motion—Joint-Stock Banks (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed.

ROME or COMMONS. Monday, Feb. 25. Local Dues on Shipping ; Mr. Lowe's Bill, Debate On the second reading, adjourned—Joint-Stock Companies, and Part- nership Amendment ; Mr. Lowe's Bills committed pro fonnli—Irish Chancery ; Mr. Whiteside's Bills read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee—Road through St. James's Park ; Sir B. Hall's Motion.

Tuesday, Feb. 26. Local Dues upon Shipping ; Mr. Lowe's Bill withdrawn— Charitable Uses Bill read a third time and passed. Wednesday, Feb. 27. Contractors' Disqualification Removal ; Mr. Mitchell's Bill withdrawn—Qualification of Justices of the Peace ; Mr. Colville's Bill read a second time.

Thursday, Feb. 28. Monetary System ; Mr. Muntz's Motion for a Select Com- mittee negatived—Local Management of the Metropolis Amendment ; Attorney- General's Bill read a first time.

Friday, Feb. 29. Report of the Crimean Commissioners ; Mr. Roebuck's Motion —Committee of Supply—Mutiny and Marine Mutiny Bills read a second time.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords. The Contemns.

Hour of Hour of Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Meeting. Adjournment. Monday eh 7h Om Monday 41I .(sn) lb Om Tuesday 5h 611 30m Tuesday 4h 7h 13m Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Noon .... 25i Om Thursday 55, Oh 15m Thursday 4h (pa) 1211 30m

Friday 5h .... Sh 20m Friday 4h .(mt) 12h I5m Sittings Oda Week, 4; Time, Sh 5m Sittings this Week, 5; Time, 211h Om this Session, 20; — 42k 33m this Session, 22; — 12211 30m THE PEEB.S AND THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL.

When the House of Peers assembled for business on Monday, Lord LYNDHURST announced, that in a few days, should no other Peer make a motion on the subject, he should call attention to the state of the judi- cature of the House, with a view to apply a suitable remedy. When Lord REDESDALE brought up the report of the Committee of Pri- vileges, Earl GRANVILLE stated, that although Government absolutely dissented from the report, they would not try to reverse in a compara- tively thin House a decision which in a very full House was canted by a large majority. Lord Wensleydale also has put himself in the hands of Government, and he will not attempt to take ibis seat until due time for the consideration of the subject has been given. There is considerable difficulty in the present position of the Government. Her Majesty has been and is advised that she is perfectly competent to exercise her prero- gative; the House, by a large majority, has decided that the Crown is not coinpetent to exercise that prerogative. The Government vrill be most anxious to approach the subject free from any feelings of a personal or party nature, and he thought be might say confidently that the spirit of the House will be of a corresponding character.

After Lord CAMPBELL had briefly expressed his satisfaction with this statement, and his eager desire for peace, the Earl of DERBY entered into an explanation of some length. He too was ready to discuss the subject free from party feeling. The House had no alternative but to decide whether it would or would not admit the prerogative to be unre- stricted. They could not occupy any neutral ground, but were compelled to say " Ay ' or " No." It would much facilitate future discussion if the name of Lord Wensleyditle, by the issue of a new patent giving the usual hereditary peerage, were removed from all controversy. The question of the infusion of lie peerages into the constitution is one of the greatest possible magnitude. Without pronouncing an irrevocable decision, he would say that some advantages, in certain cases and under certain modifications, might arise from peerages for life. But there are other modes preferable to the creation of peerages for life. With what objects is such a novel precedent for the exercise of the prerogative in- troduced? With regard to the conferring of honour, a life peerage would be a species of injury. A man with sons to succeed him would be re- luctant to debar them from the honour. Then who are they to be ? Men eminent for their qualifications in literature and science ? Absorbed as they are in their own pursuits, they would not form a class likely to be very useful members of the House of Lords. If a life peerage were held out as a bait to literary and scientific men, it would corrupt and de- prave literature and science, and introduce anion g their professors the habit of not looking to their reputation with posterity but to the favour of the Government of the day. It is still more doubtful in the case of the Army and Navy. It is problematical whether officers of the Army and Navy would not thinli themselves lowered by the bestowal of a life peerage, and refire it. Do not introduce into the House of Peers, on account of militiuy merit, a person upon whom you at the same time cast a stigma by saying that he is not competent to be the founder of a family to take place among the hereditary Peers. Then as to lawyers, it is not intended to confer those peerages upon lawyers for the purpose of bestowing honour, but to strengthen the judicial functions of the House. Not entirely satisfied with the woririug of its appellate juris- diction, Lord Derby did not thinkothe remedy lay in creating life Peers. "Nor do I think the. proposed remedy would entail any very great ad- vantage by introducing in all debates a number of lawyers, and especially retired lawyers, who, having nothing to do in the courts, possess no means of displaying their eloquence • and their introduction here, I think, would rather tend to the length than—I say so with great respect for that learned body—to the intelligence and importance of our debates. (Laughter.) I cannot help thinking, that if you place the appellate jurisdiction of this House on a par with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, we shall be fearfully lawyer-ridden ; and the worst anticipations of the noble Earl opposite [Earl Grey) confirmed, and we shall all find the remedy to be worse than the disease it is intended to cure." He did not see the necessity for life peerages, but he saw their dangers. Still there are po!.:Its connected with the appellate jurisdicti'on that cannot be defended. I quite agree that nothing can defend a mere sham—the putting two or three of your Lordships to sit in rotation by the side of learned Judges to hear arguments, taking no real part in the proceedings, but only keeping up a fiction. That is a sham, and no sham can be satisfactory or reflect credit upon this House. There is another point on which I think this House, as a court of appeal, is placed in an unpleasant position—I mean as to Scotch appeals. Although, by accident, there may be among your Lordships one or two conversant and skilled in the Scotch law, yet I think the reversal of the decisions of the most eminent Scottish lawyers by an appellate tribunal composed of a small number of your Lordships, distinguished no doubt for learning but not ac- quainted with Scotch law, constitutes a substantial grievance—more sub- stantial than any of those pressed upon your Lordship's consideration last year by my noble friend behind me [the Earl of Eglinton) ; and, had he included that among those he dwelt upon, I should have felt bound to afford him a more cordial support." (" Hear! " and laughter.)

Be reserved what he had to say on the subject of a remedy, until the matter come before them in another shape.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would say nothing that should detract from the pacific character of the conversation going on. It is admitted that a remedy. for strengthening the appellate jurisdiction is, if not pressing, expedient, and open to fair consideration. Ministers desired_ to reinforce that appellate jurisdiction out of the legal profession ; but it never entered their heads to create life Peers in such numbers as would detract from the hereditary character of the Howe. "I candidly admit, that if we had been placed in the alternative of either foregoing the advantage, which was most desirable, of reinforcing the ap- pellate juriedictien of the House on the one hand, or of creating a great MEM Of life Peers on the other, I should, with great respect to my noble and learned Mends now happily members of this House—with the greatest respect for them when they agree with me' with the greatest respect when they disagree from me, and even with the greatest respect when they dis- agree from one another,—I should, with such an influx as some seem to ap- prehend, rather never see one more lawyer enter this House." ("Hear, hear !" and laughter) All being agreed that there should be a limit to the creation of life Peers, and that the evil existing should be remedied by an addition to the appellate jurisdiction, the Crown is the only safe depo- sitory of the power by which that can be accomplished. It Is said there would be no check on the Crown; but although there is not theoretically, there is practically. "There is another prerogative growing and increasing in force every day, and not likely to be diminished—the prerogative of pub- lic opinion—which I believe would be sufficient to override the prerogative of the Crown, and the privileges of this House, in any instance in which that prerogative and those privileges were stretched to any inconvenient or unconstitutional extent. That is my deep conviction." If lawyers are admitted, other professions, and especially the military profession must be admitted also. Nor would a sort of comparative stigma be inflicted on per- sons receiving these honours. For instance, had General Wolfe's his been spared, and had he, returning from Quebec, possessing no means whatever, accepted a life peerage, would that have diminished his distinction ? Many persons, ambitious of these honours had refused an hereditary peerage, because they would not place their families in a position neither respectable nor advantageous.

The Earl of MALMESBTJRY took the seine view as Lord Derby of the light in which life peerages would be regarded. Lord BROUGHAM dwelt for a moment on the difficulties that would attend the constitution of a court of appellate jurisdiction, and hoped that a solution would not be found in life peerages. In the course of a desultory conversation, in which several Peers joined, Lord RARROWBY remarked, that he did not consider the question of law had been satisfactorily decided by the reso- lution of the Committee of Privileges. Whereupon, Lord Cd.MPBELL challenged Lord Harrowby, not only to say "Not content" to the mo- tion from the chair, but to reverse the decision of the Committee. After the reception of the report, the question would be irrevocably settled ; and if Lord Wensleydale presented himself and attempted to take his seat, the House would be under the disagreeable necessity of telling him he must retire. Earl GREY said, he was not in the least bound by the opinion of the Chief Justice. The matter was only settled until their Lordships saw ground to recall it : before long they would recall it ; and he should record on the journals of the House his dissent from the course they had taken. It was ordered, without a division, that the report should be received and recorded.

Before the House rose, the Earl of DERBY gave notice, that on Thurs- day he should move for a Select Committee to inquire whether it would be expedient to make any, and if so what provision for more effectually securing the exercise of the functions of their Lordships' House as the Supreme Court of Appeal, and to report thereon.

Accordingly, on Thursday, Lord DERBY submitted the motion to the House. He would be chargeable with unpardonable presumption, he said, if it could be supposed that he sought to interfere with the motion of which Lord Lyndhurst had given notice, and still more if it could be imagined that he sought to take the question out of the hands of one whose authority on the subject is superior to that of any other. Having made this disclaimer, Lord Derby went direct to the subject. From the earliest times an appellate jurisdiction in law has been inherent in the House of Peers ; its jurisdiction in equity is of a comparatively modern date. But an appellate jurisdiction is not so absolutely essential to the fitting discharge of the other functions of the House as sonic appear to think ; and if it were necessary to adopt an alternative between the maintenance of any privilege, hov;ever important and valuable, and a failure in the administration of justice, not one of their Lordships would hesitate to say, "Let justice be fairly and impartially administered, whatever privileges this House may be called upon to abandon."

From the earliest times, not only the Peers, but the Judges and other high functionaries, were summoned by writ to assist in the deliberations of the House. What their powers were is uncertain, but he assumed that the practice in ancient was the same as the practice in modern times, and that the Judges were summoned only to advise and assist. The present tribunal rests on a fiction, which attaches a stigma to the ap - pe.11ate jurisdiction of the House. The fiction is, that the whole House are judges in eases of appeal ; that necessitates the presence of a quorum; and to make up a quorum it is neceesary to call in certain Lay Lords, who not only never affect to give their opinion, but do not even attend to the proceedings. They are like the lay figures in a painter's studio, introduced for the purpose of completing the judicial canvass, but they do not perform their parts in adding any grace or force to the tout ensemble. Here, before considering the remedy, Lord Derby took up the objections to the present court of appeal. It is said that the highest court of appeal is closed for half the year : but that is inseparable from the question whether an appellate jurisdiction should or not be vested in the House of Lords. Moreover, he was not sure that it is wise to give the greatest possible facilities for appeal. Many persons, in the heat of the moment, might lodge an appeal, who would not do so if they had four months' time coolly to consider the question. There is more force in the objection that in many cases the appeal is one from a judge sitting in one capacity to the same judge sitting in another capacity : but that is a case that can hardly occur, since the Lord Chancellor, who presides in the House of Peers has original jurisdiction in so few cases. Where it does occur' and the Lord Chancellor simply confirms his own judgment, that is most unsatisfactory. Where the court of appeal is divided no decision at all is come to. But what is the result of coming to no decision ? That the judgment of the court below is confirmed, and the inference is that the judge in the inferior court judged rightly. It is questionable whe- ther another objection, that the number of the judges is too small, is sound. The question is' who are the judges not how many are they. The Law Lords consist of the Lord Chancellor, the most eminent man that can be found who coincides with the political views of the Government, and other Peers who have filled high offices : at present there are five Who have passed the woolsack,—among them, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Campbell, Lord Brougham, and Lord St. Leo- nerds. Will the weight of such a tribunal be increased by adding to its numbers? As regards Scotland, he admitted that the present state of things is most unsatisfactory.

With regard to the remedies suggested, he objected to that of the Go- vernment, the creation of Peers for life, because their attendance would not be compulsory, and because, being Peers, they would have a right to come in where they are not wanted and where their presence is not de-

sirable: he objected to Lord Campbell's suggestion that certain great offices should carry with them a peerage during the time the office is held, because it would only insure an imperfect addition to a court of appeal, and because they would be fully engaged in other avocations : and he objected to the proposal to constitute a body like the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, because of the difficulty of satisfactorily constituting such a body. Then he came to his own suggestion.

If the Court of Appeal requires strengthening, "the obvious course is to apply to those whom the constitution and practice of Parliament point out as our legitimate advisers—I mean the Common Law Judges upon questions of common law, and the Vice-Chancellors in questions of equity. Whether those learned persons should be admitted into our assembly to give advice alone, whether they should all attend, and whether the Lord Chancellor should have the power of insisting upon their attendance, are questions upon which I do not presume to offer any opinion ; but I think that they are well worthy of the consideration of a Committee : nor will I venture to offer any opinion as to whether, upon questions of law, those learned powers should be allowed to vote Let these cases of appeal be referred to those noble and learned Lords to whom I have referred, sitting as a Committee of the House, with or without the as- sistance of the Judges and the Vice-Chancellors; and let their report be presented to the House, upon its assembling, by the Lord Chancellor ; and let him move that it be agreed to by your Lordships; and in that way we should preserve the full jurisdiction of this House. I do not suppose for a single moment, that if such a mode of proceeding were adopted, any mem- ber of your Lordships' House would ever think of canvassing any such re- port ; but I believe that the motion for its adoption would be a mere matter of form. . . . . I can see no difficulty, therefore, in a Committee reporting to your Lordships' House in the manner that I have suggested, and in the House approving and giving effect to the report of the Committee."

Earl Gas.rrviLLE said, there could not be a more fitting opportunity of considering this judicial question than that afforded by Lord Derby's motion ; but as a doubt had arisen, whether its terms did not exclude the consideration of the constitutional question involved in the inquiry, he moved, as an amendment, to add, after the word "jurisdiction," the words— and further, how any such provision would affect the general character of this House." To introduce a bill on the subject, would only widen the breach, instead of healing it ; and he regretted that the ques- tion had been taken up in the House of Commons. He declined to dis- cuss the different plans suggested, because he was anxious that the Go- vernment should go into the Committee wholly free to form an opinion on the best plan.

Lord CAMPBELL concurred in the motion ; and supported Lord Derby's suggestion. Let them have a Judicial Committee of their own House, according to the ancient practice when the King's ordinary Council con- stituted a Judicial Committee. There is a precedent for it from the re- motest times; and he quoted one from the records of the reign of Richard the Second. Lord ST. LEONARDS said, that no complaints had been made touching the appellate jurisdiction of the House until within a short period. Yet never had more attention been given to the hearing and decision of cases than during the period of discontent. It was sup- posed that eases are common where two Law Lords sit on appeals and differ. There never was a greater mistake. During the three sessions he sat as a Law Lord with Lord Cranworth, eighty-one cases had been decided : in seventy-one the Law Lords were agreed ; in the great Bridgewater case the Lord Chancellor was opposed to four Law Lords ; five cases were decided by a majority ; and in four cases only did Lord St. Leonturds and Lord Cranworth sitting alone differ from each other : in those cases, "two were affirmed in accordance with my opinion, and two in accordance with the opinion of my noble friend." He urged them to preserve the appellate jurisdiction, as one of the main pillars of that House ; and to improve its efficiency. But he was quite sure that the suggestion of the noble Earl, of giving to a Committee of their Lord- ships' House that jurisdiction which belonged to the House itself, would never answer.

Lord BROUGHAM trusted there would be a strenuous inquiry. He con- curred with Lord Derby, that it would be better for the House to aban- don its judicial functions than not provide a remedy for existing defects,. But to that course he hoped they would never be driven.

The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his opinion that the judicial &ruse- ter of the House is not lost in thc estimation of the country ; and he argued in support of the opinion.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to ; and the following Peers were nominated as a Committee— The Lord Chancellor' the Lord President, the Duke of Somerset,, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Derby, Earl Stanhope, the Earl of Car- narvon, the Earl of Ellenborough, Earl Grey, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Duke of Argyll, Lord Redesdale, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Abinger, Lord Elgin, Lord St. Lconards, and Lord Glenelg.

The Earl of DERBY said, it would be convenient that the first meet- ing of the Committee should take place on Monday ; when the Chairman might be appointed and the course of proceeding settled.

In the 'House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. BOWYER gave notice,. that on Thursday he would move to introduce a bill "to improve the administration of justice on appeal in the last resort in Great Britain and Ireland, by enabling the Judges of the Superior Courts of Law and' Equity to vote on appeals and writs of error before the Queen in Par- liament." [The motion was not made on Thursday, and it now atands. for Tuesday next.]

TEE CRIMEAN INQUIRY.

Early on Monday evening, Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice, that he should,. on the motion for going into Committee of Supply on Friday, move the following resolution- " That to appoint a Commission of General Officers to report upon the re- port of Sir John M`Neill and Colonel Tulloch, is to substitute an inefficient for a very efficient means of investigation ; and that such appointment will tend to strengthen an opinion already prevalent, that the real purpose of such proceeding is to shelter incompetence and excuse the misconduct of those by whom various departments of our Army have been subjected to the command of proved incapacity." Speaking on the motion for the adjournment of the debate on Mr. Lowe's Bill, towards the close of the sitting, Mr. DISRAELI intimated, that had not Mr. Roebuck come forward, a right honourable friend" of his would have proposed a motion on that "strange act" of the Govern- ment, the appointment of a Court of Inquiry. As Mr. Roebuck's motion stood, no amendment could be moved, and he hoped Mr. Roebuck would make a substantive motion. Mr. ROEBUCK expressed his willingness to do so if the Government would give him a day.

On Tuesday evening, Sir Joint Partniormor, the "right honourable friend," read, as follows the terms of an amendment which he will move, should Mx. Hoehn& bring on his resolution as a substantive mo- tion— " That, in the opinion of this House, the reports of Sir John M‘Neill and Colonel Tulloch ought to have been submitted to the Commander-in-chief before they were presented to Parliament, whereby her Majesty's Govern- ment might have avoided the objectionable proceeding of appointing a Com- mission to inquire, without equal or adequate means of information, into. the conclusions at which another Commission had arrived ; and, while this House laments the indication thus given of a want of that concert and cooperation between the offices of the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-chief, which cannot be interrupted without serious injury to the public service, it has also observed with regret the premature appointment to posts of importance in this country, while the inquiry of the Commissioners was still in progress, of officers whose conduct is impugned by the said reports." Mr. LAYARD has postponed his motion until Tuesday the 11th of March. LOCAL Duns ON SHIPPING.

On the motion by Mr. Lows, on Monday, that the Local Dues on Shipping Bill be read a second time, Sir FREDERICK TIFESIGER moved that it be read a second time that day six months. The bill, he said, is based on the novel and startling doctrine that the corporate towns possess no property exclusively their own, and proposes to strip them of their rights at the pleasure of the public. The measure would remind the House of the assaults upon the charters of corporations in the most disgraceful periods of our history ; with this difference, that in those vioTent proceedings some abuse was alleged, whereas now a Liberal Government, without any reason, confiscates the funds of corporations to the use of the State. If the measure aimed at nothing but the abolition of passing tolls, he should not have been among its opponents. It was to the second and third parts that he directed attention. The second part transferred all rates, dues, and imposts leviable on ships, to the Customs Commissioners ; and there is nothing in the bill to pre- vent the Government from exacting the dues to the end of time. The third part relates to differential dues. Here Sir Frederick made out a claim to compensation for the abolition of these dues on the ground that they were the property of the corporations ; broadly alleging that "there is no distinction whatever between the property of corpora- tions and that of individuals." He quoted Mr. Hallam in support of his view against that of Mr. Lowe' and then put the case of Liverpool and other towns. The greater part of the large sum received by Liverpool is derived not from ships but from goods imported and exported. Those dues originally belonged to the Crown. In 1628, they were sold by the Crown to the Corporation of London, for 374,9891.; in 1635, they were sold by the Corporation of London to the Lord Molyneux, the ancestor of the Earls of Sefton; in 1674, Lord Molyneux made a lease of them for a thousand years to the Corporation of Liverpool; and in 1774 the town purchased from the then owner the absolute ownership of the pro- perty. In 1833, their right was questioned, and it was established in a court of law. What better proof of their right to property could anybody produce ? If the property had remained in the hands of the Earls of Sefton, it would have been held sacred and inviolate. Take the case of the Hull Dock Company : that body, in 1842, made an arrangement with the Government by which it was agreed that the Com- pany should enlarge the Docks, and the Government should pay a cer- tain annual sum out of the Consolidated Fund, calculated on the amount of the differential dues. But it was said the Company might raise their tolls to meet the case under the bill. Yes, and drive trade from the port altogether. What could be more inconsistent with the avowed ob- ject of the bill—the relief of the shipping interest—than this power given to individuals deprived of aid from the Consolidated Frind of indem- nifying themselves ! At Bristol, in 1848, the Corporation purchased the rig ts and interests of the Dock Company. There, 3625/. is le- vied in dues, and 60007. contributed by rates for dock and har- bour purposes ; and vet it is proposed to strip the Corporation of its local dues! Sir Frederick made a reference to the Municipal Reform Act, which was not a taking away of property from Corporations, but a restitution of privileges and franchises to those for whom they were originally intended ; and pointed out that under the 92d clause all cor- porate property and dues were to be carried to the borough fund. The House could not consent to read the bill a second time without admitting a principle of confiscation and spoliation that will undermine the security of etll corporate property throughout the kingdom. In seconding the amendment, Sir FRatems BARING put forward similar arguments ; and alleged that the bill showed a determination to interfere in local self-management, a carelessness of private rights, and a sacrifice of public and Parliamentary faith. Mr. Lows contended that the bill had been misrepresented ; and ex- pressed his suspicion that the House was indebted for the excellent speech of Sir Francis Baring to the fact that Portsmouth last year re- carved 3800/. in dues levied on shipping. He denied that the measure was one of confiscation, or that the Government intend to take corporate property and apply it to their own use. Such an inference could not be fairly drawn from his speech. What he really said was, that power would be reserved to the Queen in Council to abolish or retain these dues as she thought fit. It was necessary to arm the Board of Trade with discretionary power, in order that the harbours might not be starved ; and to see that in taking away funds provision should be made for the creditor. That is why the dues are not abol- ished at once. Then as to vested rights, it is ridiculous to pre- tend that passing tolls are not just as much funds in which there is a vested interest as in any other funds dealt with by the bill. The principle contended for by Sir Frederick Thesiger is just as- much violated in the case of the four harbours as in that of Liverpool ; only Liverpool is wealthy and influential enough to secure learned, able, and candid advocacy in its behalf. Where Sir Frederick Thesiger talks of property, the bill talks of taxes. There is property in land, in capital ; but property in another man's property is of that kind which is not legal. A claim is put in for Liverpool to levy fixed contributions—to tax the dress of every woman in England, from the Queen on her throne to the maid of all work who scrubs the steps ; and not only to levy this tax on others, but to claim exemption themselves. Such property Is M. Proud- hon's property—" le vol. The nature of the purchase of the property made by the Corporation from Lord Molyneux was this—the Corporation paid about 7001. for the right to levy taxes to the amount of about 141. per annum : this is the right on which Liverpool bases a claim to a prince- ly revenue ! Mr. Lowe contended that the distinction between the pro- perty of a corporation and that of an individual was none of his making,

i

but s engrained in the laws and the reason of things. The existing corporations derive their property from the act of 1835, and from that act alone. The act gave and the act can take away. But under that act great injustice was done to the shipping interest—they were subjected to a tax at the hands of the corporations ; and it was moreover provided that none of the proceeds of that tax should be expended for the benefit of those from whom it was exacted. The 92d section of the Municipal Act is not a just law. Reverence for individual rights is a part of the law of England ; but where is reverence for individual rights, if persons who happen to reside on a creek or arm of the sea can set up little customhouses? Should any body of her Majesty's subjects, under pretence of local self-management, have a right to levy such an impost on the rest ?

"If the produce of my labour be not my own—if my neighbour can take

it away without compensation—where is your boasted security for property ? (Cheers from the Opposition.) When the Liverpool Corporation can take from a merchant at Manchester taxes without any equivalent—when such things are done and sanctioned by Parliament and by Conservative lawyers —where, I ask, is the boasted security of which you talk ? In what does it consist ? In what does it reside ? What is the security of property ? These are momentous questions—questions which affect all classes of the people ; and when challenged to look into them, we, the guardians of the people's interests have no option but to do so."

Admitting thirt, the eases of Hull and Bristol are exceptional, Mr. Lowe called upon the House to send this intolerable abuse to the same limbo of departed acts of iniquity which has received within the last thirty years, rotten boroughs, rotten municipal corporations, and a rotten commercial system.

The amendment was supported by Mr. HORSPALL and Mr. C. 3. Ewmer, on behalf of Liverpool; Mr. RIDLEY, in a maiden speech, on behalf of Newcastle ; Mr. Ries, on behalf of Dover ; Mr. DEEDES, on behalf of Ramsgate ; Mr. LIDDELL, on behalf of Durham ; Mr. Toixsateess, Mr. HILDYARD' Mr. CAIRNS, and Sir Frratuy KELLY' on the general prin- ciples put forward by Si Frederick Thesiger. On the other side, only Mr. COLLIER and Mr. Isenem supported the measure, as sound in prin- ciple, and beneficial to the shipping interest.

Mr. W. S. LINDSAY moved the adjournment of the debate ; and Lord Paraisairrox, giving his assent, wished to fix its resumption for Friday. To this Mr. DISRAELI objected: why not resume the debate on Tuesday ? Mr. Roebuck had a motion for Friday, which ought to be discussed. It was arranged that the debate should be resumed on Tuesday ; some Members who had notices on the paper intimating their willingness to give way.

On Tuesday, when it was proposed to resume the debate, Lord PAL- biERSTON rose and stated the course that the Government would pursue. The bill, he said, was proposed after full consideration of the matters to which it refers. Nothing adduced in opposition has shaken the confi- dence of the Government in the justice and policy of the course it has pursued. But it has become evident., in the course of the discussion, that there are a greater variety of circumstances and a greater complication of interests than the Government had been led to suppose. One part of the bill related to passing tolls, the other to town dues. That part of the bill relating to dues paid to towns entitles the towns to make many re- presentations and within the last few days the Board of Trade had -been led to think ;hat special provision should be made in the cases of HU-11 and Bristol. These and similar provisions could not conveniently be considered in Committee of the whole Rouse; and, as great difference Of opinion exists on this part Of the bill, it was thought better to withdraw it in order that the whole question may be referred to a Select Committee, He moved that leave be given to withdraw the bill.

Mr. DISRAELI said, he had heard with satisfaction that the Govern- ment thought fit to withdraw a measure which had been supported. by a speech from a member of the Governinent more calculated than any to which he had ever listened to disturb end alarm the public mind. No party character had been imparted to the discussion on the bill, and the public would be satisfied that the discernment of the House of Commons had prevented the crude and thoughtless projects about to be carried - with so much facility. That he could not understand the position ef the Government. Lord Palmerston said the bill had been fully considered— what part had been considered ? Passing tolls did not require deep consideration. That subject is so thoroughly understood that the House has long been prepared to deal with it •' and three years ago, Mr. Dis- raeli himself proposed a measure which, at a period of great party ex- citement, was received with general favour. The profound consideration for which Lord Palmerston took credit must have been bestowed upon local and differential dues. " The Rouse was informed that a Select Committee should investigate a subject that it is said has been thoroughly investigated ; and the House of Commons is thus called upon to fulfil the duties of the responsible advisers of the Crown. The Government brought forward a crude and immature measure, calculated to alarm every pos? sessor of property in the country; they recommended the House to deal in a most summary manner with the Municipal Reform Ad."; and now, recoiling from the consequences, they propose a Select Committee to cover their retreat. He would not pledge himself to any particular course respecting that proposition, but he denied that any information is required. Having gone thus. far, Mr. Disraeli turned upon the Government, and, making prominent mention of the forbearance he had hitherto shown, proceeded to review the course of the session from his own point of view.

"I was most anxious to abstain from any course that could damage the reputation of the Ministry, lest we should afford to foreign countries the unhappy spectacle of a weak Government, destitute of resources on which it could permanently rely. I had hoped that, whatever there might be to reprehend in the general tone of our Parliamentary life, or even the gene- ral tenour of our Parliamentary conduct, we would prove to Europe that an English Government, having to perform a great duty in dangerous times, might rely on the sympathy and forbearance of a patriotic House of Com- mons. Such was the hope I fondly cherished : but never since Parliament first assembled have there been six weeks more marked by blunders, mis- takes, defeats, and discomfitures of Ministers. And who has defeated and discomfited them ? Who has reduced them to this state of perplexity and humiliatiou ? Not the Opposition, nor yet their own supporters. Them- selves alone are the authors of their misfortunes; themselves alone have brought about a state of affairs which at the present moment is most de- plorable and most earnestly to be deprecated. It is not in this House only that we mark the results of their infatuated policy. In another place, what scenes have we witnessed ? At a moment when the utmost forbearance was evinced towards them from both sides of the House, they must needs enter on a crusade against all the legal authorities of the land ; and, taking advantage of the indulgence of their adversaries and the tran- quillity of the political world, nothing would content them but wantonly and most unnecessarily to open a question which, had they been gifted with the most ordinarysagacity, they must have foreseen wouldlead to protracted con- trovelay,and protbund excitement. What I charge against them is that hav- ing a forbearing Parliament—Perisive cheersfrons thafinisterial benehes)— yes, I repeat it, a forbearing Parliament, which would not even step out of its way to expose the blunders of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Mi- nisters would seem to have passed their time and exerted their counsels in devising among themselves questions which could not fail to agitate and distract the public mind, and which they should have known could only end in their own embarrassment and discomfiture. It is not merely that most wantonly, as it appears to me, they created life peerages. I complain of the conduct of the Government in the matter of the report of the Crimean Commissioners ; a document thrown upon the table of the House without consulting the proper official authorities, and in a manner which does not afford the slightest evidence of that forethought, caution, and prudence, which we have a right to expect from men who assume the duties and the character of statesmen. What a piece of business you have made of it, with your life peerages, your Crimean reports, and your Boards of Generals, to remedy. the blunders and investigate the conduct of men whom you were bound in honour and policy to have supported! (Cheers from the Oeposi- tion.) But this is not all. Not satisfied with attacking the constitution of the hereditary Peerage of England, not satisfied with creating all this scan- dal about the officers of the Army, you must take this occasion of all others, to assail the municipal institutions of the country. (Opposition cheers.) Even though her Majesty's Government were as satisfied of the soundness of their views on this question of the municipalities as they have declared themselves tonight to be, and even although those views were as right as I believe them to be erroneous, I still maintain that this was not a fitting season for taking the step which they have done. But this is not all. An- other measure has been introduced by them into this House which is cer- tainly not friendly to that system of local self-government which the ma- jority of us will, I trust, always seek to uphold. Is this a proper season even for bringing forward that measure ? Yet, night after night, these dangerous courses are adopted by the Government; and now we have a striking example of the consequences to which such conduct inevitably leads. Parliament has sat only for about a month ; on both sides of the House there has been but one anxious desire to veil the weakness of the Government, if, unhappily, they are weak; and yet, at a most important crisis in the history and fortunes of this country, her Majesty's Government have so skilfully managed their affairs that they have secured for themselves a startling defeat in both Houses of Parliament." (Cheers.) Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted that great abstinence from party spirit had been shown in the debate on Monday; but he was inclined to suspect, from the tone of Mr. Disraeli's speech, that the debate would not have terminated in the exemplary spirit in which it commenced, but that the address just delivered would have formed part of an entertaining oration, of which they had been deprived by the premature suspension of the debate; and that it would not have been wanting in as great an infusion of party bitterness, personal hostility, and appeals to extraneous topics, as he had ever listened to. Mr. Labouchere denied that there was any inconsistency in Lord Palmerston's statement. Government had not crudely taken up the measure, nor dealt with it until it had been duly examined by a Commission. The subject is not new. When he pro- posed the repeal of the Navigation-laws, he was repeatedly taunted for not coupling with it a measure like the present, doing justice to shipping. In fact, the bill was the tardy redemption of a pledge made by him and other Ministers on the subject. The source of embarrassment of Ministers is no new story. Everybody who has had experience of the business of the House knows that infinite difficulties beset any department of the Government which merely seeks to benefit and do justice to the whole community by measures which, perhaps, incidentally affect the interests of some particular class. Oliver Cromwell,lhe head of one of tbs thsomps* gvvernweefa Thgk.1 ss uahedwaà compelled to throw up a project of law reform, exclaiming, I find the sons of Zeruiah are too strong for me." Mr. Disraeli boasted of his forbearance ; but, from the disposition just manifested, that forbearance mud have cost him a great deal, and no doubt he felt happier for the relief he had now given himself. Go- vernment asked for no forbearance, and are under no obligation to the Opposition if they refrain from thwarting the Government in a critical state of public affairs. Mr. Labouchere challenged Mr. Disraeli to point out the blunders committed by the First Lord of the Admiralty, to which he referred ; and to bring forward a specific motion, instead of having recourse to vague railing. He took credit for the state of the fleet ; and, apologizing for taking up the time of the House, said he really could not permit the most unprovoked attack of Mr. Disraeli tol pass wholly with- out comment.

Sir FREDERICK THESIGER withdrew his amendment; the order for the second reading was discharged, and the bill withdrawn.

MERCANTILE LAWS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

The Lon]) CHANCELLOR, on Tuesday, protented two bills—one to amend the laws relating to trade and commerce inTsigland and Ireland; the other to amend the laws relating to trade and eommeree in Scotland. In explaining the origin of these measures, he ,said that in 1862 great complaints were made, particularly in Mancheithr and Glasgow, that parties engaged in trade encountered difficulties, arising out of the dif- ferent mercantile laws in England and Scotland, for which there was no remedy. Government, therefore, appointed a Cemmission, partly com- posed of lawyers and partly of mercantile Men., tio inquire into the sub- ject. They instituted extensive inquiries, and made a report ; and on that report the Chancellor had founded the present bills. He proposed that the bills should be circulated, read a , see,ond time,. and referred to a Select Committee, to meet as soon as possible after the termination of the circuits. Some specimens of the changes recommended. he stated to the House. It is proposed that there should be snit uniform time allowed for the holder of a bill of exchange to givens:dice to the indorseror drawer in cases where the acceptor has failed, instead et one day in England and fourteen days in Scotland. Bills may be accepted verbally in Scotland : it is proposed that in future there shall be one rale for the United Kingdom —that acceptance of bills, whether foreign or English, should be by writing on the face of the bill itself. When a bill is transferred by indorsement after it is due, the person to whom it is trans- ferred only takes the rights of the person. transferring it : that rule it is proposed to apply to Scotland. Scotch Camera exempt, in case of fire, from responsibility for accidents to goods intrusted to them, are to be made liable as in England. With respect to shipping, there is a rule that when the owner resides in a "foreign port," the captain of the vessel may repair it at the owner's expense—not so when the owner resides at a "home port" : hut Leith, it has been decided, is a "foreign port" to Newcastle • it is proposed to make all ports in the United Kingdom, including those in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, home ports. It is proposed to repeal that part of the Statute of Frauds enacting that no contract for. the sale of goods shall be valid un- less it is in writing, partly performed, or, money paid on account: in Scotland not one contract in a hundred is put in writing. It has been said, however, that the proposed repeal of the-provision in the Statute of Frauds would be distasteful to the mercantile community of London ;

and if it were shown that the balance of advantages would be against the change, it should be struck out.

Lord BaorecAm and Lord CAMPBELL concurred in the course taken by the Government; but both agreed that many other bills will be ne- cessary to assimilate the commercial law and many other laws now at variance in different portions of the United Kingdom. Lord CAMPBELL said that the law of marriage requires immediate attention. In Scot- land, the law, or rather the no-law on that subject, makes it impossible for many persons to say whether they are married or not ; and not one child in fifty, from Carlisle all round the coast of Scotland to the German Ocean, knows whether he is legitimate or not.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.

Mr. MITCHELL moved, on Wednesday, the discharge of the order for the second reading of the Contractors' Disqualification Removal Bill. This is a bill to repeal the act of 1783 disqualifying Government con- tractors from sitting in Parliament. His grounds were, that the act of 1783 is notoriously evaded; that it is unjust to exclude Members of Parliament from competition for Government contracts ; and that many gentlemen enter the House totally ignorant of the law, and are compelled to vacate their seats.

Mr. T. DIINC031BE seconded the motion. Although the principle of free trade has been adopted, that is no reason for sanctioning free job- bery, as they would do if the act of 1783 were repealed. Mr. Wareoras concurred. He raised another branch of the same question. A Com- mittee last year decided, although not unanimously, that loan-contractors do not come within the law. He suggested that the Government should bring in a short declaratory act to remove all doubt on the subject. Sir GEORGE LEWIS concurred with the report of the Committee. The ques- tion was never raised until last session, because it was seen that there is an entire distinction between a contract for a loan and one for supplies of coal, timber, or other article, to the public departments. He was in- clined not to attempt further legislation ; but, looking to the authority of the advice of Mr. Walpole, the President of the Committee, he asked to be excused from giving a definite answer.

After some further remarks the motion was agreed to.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

On the motion of Mr. COLVILLE, the Justices of the Peace Qualifica- tion Bill was read a second time. By this measure it is proposed to abolish the qualification from reversionary interest; and to enact that persons having personal property yielding an income of 3001. a year, and persons holding offices under the Government or the East India Com- pany with an income of that amount, should be qualified to act as Jus- tices of the Peace. The bill would likewise provide that, as now, attor- neys and solicitors in practice should not act as County Justices, and would give to County Court Judges the power of acting as Magistrates in right of their offices. The present qualification is the possession ot 1001. a year from landed property ; and that is constantly evaded by per sons not in possession of an acre of land.

Mr. DEEDES and Mr. Yasarrisurr raised objections to the bill. It -would enable persena having no settled inters.* in counties to interfere in the management of the county fimas. Mr. sr. Ero.-.2,,MBE objected to the bill, because it would increase the number of the " Gress Versrets. He advocated the appointment of StipendiarLMagistrates. Sir GEORGE GREY, with BORIC qualifications, MT. BASS, MT. BANKER, MT. LASLETT, and others, supported the second reading. Several Members who sup- ported the motion took exception to the proposed exclusion of solicitors.

JUSTICE re 'BELA/in : MRS. TALBOT'S CASE.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE, in moving for copies of the judgment of Mr. Justice Torrens, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Ire- land, in the case of Talbot versua Talbot, made a strong statement, and charged the Judge with incapacity. The action alluded to was one of criminal conversation, brought by Mr. Talbot against his wife ; in which the decision went against the wife. Mr. Phillimore, in stating his view of the facts, made out that there had been a failure of justice, arising from the incapacity of the Judge, in admitting hearsay evidence, in re- lying on statements nowhere to be found in evidence, in quoting as evi- dence what the witness had denied. The charge was also pressed that there had been a conspiracy to bring about the dishonour of the poor woman, who since the trial has become insane. Mr. J. C. KWART seconded the motion. Mr. WHITF,SIDE defended the proceedings of the Irish Courts, and made a counter-statement of facts, to show that Mrs. Talbot had been guilty of adultery with a groom ; and that the charges brought against the Judge could not be sustained. Mr. WALPOLE MT. PACKE, Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, and Lord PALMER- STON, deprecated the bringing of such questions before the House of Commons, which is not an appellate tribunal. Lord Pstsnsesrox pressed Mr. Phillimore to withdraw the motion. Captain JONES said that the father and brother of the lady were averse to the proceeding. Mr. Ka- rim said that Baron Greene had informed him that he and all the col- leagues of Mr. Justice Torrens concurred in the judgment.—Motion withdrawn.

THE CONVICT SYSTEM.

A conversation of some interest arose in the House of Peers on Tues- day, on a motion, by Lord DUNGANNON, for papers relating to the ticket-of-leave system. Do Government, he asked, intend to continue to give tickets-of-leave ? Earl GRANVILLE said, that no alteration could be made without an ant of Parliament, and Ministers do not intend to bring in any bill for that purpose. Lord DUNGANNON and the Marquis of Sacnomsx expressed alarm at the continuance of the present system, which is universally condemned. Something should be done to mitigate the evil. The Earl of HARROMBY said, that if transportation were not allowed, criminals must be let loose on society. They may be let loose too soon, but it could hardly be said that they are likely to do more mis- chief without a ticket-of-leave than with one. The evils attending the necessary release of criminals are not altogether chargeable on the ticket-of-leave system. The Earl of MALMESBURY said, that was one of the most alarming speeches he ever heard in his life. He understood Lord Harrowby to infer that we cannot retrace our steps with regard to transportation. [Lord HARROVITBY dissented.] They are 'simply trying whether the abolition of transportation will succeed. The present system is utterly intolerable, and he pressed the Government to provide a remedy. Lord CAMPBELL said, if the ticket-of-leave system were abolished they must revert to transportation, and he hoped that transport- ation would be restored.

At the invitation of Mr. Muntz, the House of Commons occupied itself on Thursday almost exclusively with a "currency debate." Mr. Murcrz moved for the appointment of a Select Committee "to inquire how far the present monetary system is in accordance with the requirements of the country, and to consider if it could not be improved and amended." lie treated the House to a history of our monetary system "from the time of William the Conqueror" downwards ; and drew a picture, from the Birmingham point of view, of our commercial condition under the Act of 1844.

Mr. PEACOCK, though confuting Mr. Muntz, seconded the motion, because he thought inquiry necessary. Several Members joined in the discussion: Mr. MALINS, Mr. HENRY RAILLIE, Mr. CAYLEY, and Mr. SPOONER, supporting the motion for inquiry; Mr. DRUMMOND, Mr. GLYN, Mr. WILKINSON, Mr. HEYWORTH, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, and Sir CHARLES WOOD, opposing it. Mr. GLYN suggested that there should be an inquiry before the Bank Charter Act is renewed ; and Sir GPAMGE LEWIS, admitting that the operation of the Act of 1844 is a fit subject for inquiry, said he should be quite willing, when the proper time arrives, to assent to the appointment of a Committee : but the present moment is not well suited for such an inquiry.

On a division, the motion was negatived by 116 to 68.

ROAD THROUGH ST. JAMES'S PARK.

On moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the best means of communication between those parts of the Metropolis which lie North of St. James's Park, and those parts which lie South and South-west thereof, and to report thereupon to the House, Sir BENJAMIN HALL explained, that all the Government desire by the appointment of a Com- mittee is a full and impartial inquiry as to the best means of supplying a road between one side of St. James's Park and the other. Two plans for effecting this object have been laid on the table, but the Committee will be quite competent to consider any other. It is not true that a de- sire exists to prevent the public from passing in front of Buckingham Palace : in fact, he had been instructed to prepare a plan for admitting the public immediately to pass in front of the Palace.

Mr. HENLEY and others hoped the inquiry would be a fair one.—Mo- tion weed to. On Tuesday, Sir BENJAMIN HALL nominated and the House sanctioned the following Committee— Sir B. Hall, Lord J. Manners, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli, Lord R. Grosvenor Lord Hotham, Sir J. Paxton, Mr. Stephenson, Sir J. Shelley, Mr. Hutchins, Colonel Boldero, Mr. Drummond, Mr. S. Wortley, Colonel Wilson Patten, and Mr. Milnes.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT-GALLERY.

Earl STANHOPE has given notice, that on Tuesday next he will move an address to the Queen pmying her Majesty "to take into her Royal consideration in connexion with the site for the present National Gallery, the practicability and expediency of forming by degrees a gallery of original portraits ; such portraits to consist, as far as possible of those Pemna who are moot--holteerahl/ commemorated in :firitish•ItA,ftrix... warriors or as.asato.taten, or m arls, in literature, and in science.