&hafts ant ISTIltzthittgo in Varliantrut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

House or Loans. Monday, Feb. 18. Wensleydale Peerage ; Committee of Privileges—Business ; • Lord Redesdale's Motion.

Tuesday, Feb. 19. Vice-President of Committee of Education •, Lord Granvilje'e Bill read a third time and passed—Metropolitan Police Bill ; read a third time and passed.

Thursday, Feb. 21. Crimean Commission ; Lord Panmure's Announcement— Ministry of War and Horse Guards ; Lord Derby's Question and Lord Panmure's Statement.

Friday, Feb. 22.—Wensleydale Peerage ; Lord Glenelg's Motion negatived by 142 to Ill ; Lord Grey's Motion negatived by 92 to 57 ; Lord Lyndhurst's Motion carried.

Holm or Commoxs. Monday, Feb. 18. Court of Chancery (Ireland); Mr. Fitzgerald's Bill read a second time—Ecclesiastical Commission ; Select Committee ordered.

Tuesday, Feb. 19. Masters and Workmen ; Mr. Mackinnon's Motion—Revision of the Statutes ; Mr. Locke King's Motion—Ministers-Money (Ireland)* Mr. Fa- gan's Bill read a first time—Scotch Reformatory Schools ; Mr. Dunlop's Bill read a first time.

Wednesday, Feb. 20. Medical Profession ; Mr. Headlam's Bill read a second time—Episcopal and Capitular Estates; Lord Blandford's Bill read a second time.

Thursday, Feb. 21. Sunday. Observance ; Sir J. Walmsley's Motion negatived by 376 to 48—New Writ for Sligo, in the room of Mr. Sadleir. Friday, Feb. 22.—Ways and Means ; Loan Resolutions—Supply ; Army Esti- mates—Oath of Abjuration ; Mr. Gibson'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 26 3h 10m eh 511 50m Monday

411 .(m) 126 3em

Tuesday 5h 5h 30m Tuesday 4h 8h 46m Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Noon .... lh 15m Thursday 5h 7h 15m Thursd ay 4h .. 12h Oar Friday 5h .1m) 16 20m Friday 4h .(m) 12h 46m SittingsthisWeek, 6; Time, 13h am 16 ; — 36h 50m SittingsthisWeek, this 6; Timm, 3111 16m Session, 17; 98h 30m — this Session,

THE Cosnurrsz or PRIVILEGES.

The House of Peers assembled at two o'clock on Monday, to proceed in the Wensleydale Peerage business. The Loan Catixerlmou read a letter which he had received from Lord Wensleydale. "Atnpaill, Feb. 16. "My dear Lord Chancellor—I have the honour to acknowledge the re- ceipt of an order of their Lordships' House of the 12th instant., giving me li- berty to be heard by counsel, if I think fit, on Monday next, before the Com- mittee of Privileges, to whom it is referred to examine and consider a copy of the letters-patent purporting to create me a Baron for life. I will than your Lordship to state for me, that I decline to appear by my counsel before the Committee of Privileges.

"I have the honour to be, my dear Lord Chancellor,your very obedient

servant, WENSLEYDALE."

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Privileges. Mr. W. Smith, an officer of the House, put in several copies of records ; and Mr. Sharpe of the Tower was briefly examined.

Lord LYNDHURST stated, that they had not yet had sufficient time to complete the researches to prove that there was nothing in existence con- tradicting the records produced. Did noble Lords opposite consider that the cases and passages referred to in former discussions comprehend the Whole question for the purpose of raising the arguments before the House ? The Loan CHANCELLOR declined to give any answer : Lord Lyndhurst must take his own course. The Earl of DERBY complained that the Lord Chancellor, instead of facilitating the case by making cer- tain admissions, declined to afford any assistance : the case was not that of Lord Lyndhurst, but of the whole House. Earl Gamcvur.t said, that had the Government determined to treat the question as simply one of party, their task would have been much easier : but while he and his friends could not possibly say what further evidence might be necessary, they did not wish that one single step should be omitted really useful to the consideration of the question. After some further conversation on the point of search, Lord LYNDHURST gave notice, that on Friday he should move the following resolution in the Committee of Privileges- " The Committee have, agreeably to your Lordships' order, examined and considered the copy of the letters-patent, purporting to create the Right Honourable Sir James Parke, Knight, a Baron of the United Kingdom for life ; and they report it as their opinion, that neither the said letters-patent, nor the said letters-patent with the usual writ of summons issued in pur- suance thereof, can entitle the grantee therein named to sit and vote in Par- liament."

Lord GLEMILG suggested that the Judges should be called in to assist ; but Lord LYNDHURST, Lord Cemesomr., and Lord Sr. Lsoxertns, con- tended that the Judges had nothing whatever to do with the question as to the right to sit and vote. Finally, Earl GREY give notice of an amend- ment; and Earl Gnslivrisa3 promised that the Government would give notice of any amendment they might bring forward. The Committee then adjourned till five o'clock on Friday, and the House resumed.

Lord Gm placed the terms of his amendment before the House on Tuesday. He proposed to leave out all the words in Lord Lyndhurst's motion after the word opinion," and to insert these words-

" That the highest legal authorities having concurred in declaring the Crown' to possess the power of creating Peerages for life, and this power having in some cases been exercised in former times, the House of -Lords would not be justified in assuming the illegality of the patent creating the Right Honourable James Parke Baron Wensleydale for life, and in refusing upon that assumption to permit him to take his scat as a Peer."

Then if that resolution be adopted, Lord Grey proposed to move these additional resolutions- " 1. That although several grants of Peerages for life are recorded to have been made in favour Of females up to a comparatively recent period, no pre- cedent has been found within the last four hundred years for the admission of a -Commoner to the House of Lords by the grant of a Peerage for life. 2. That the grant of a Peerage for life to Lord Wensleydale being thus un- supported by any recent precedent, it is expedient that the House should declare its opinion that, as a general rule, her Majesty ought not to be ad- vised to make use, without the consent of Parliament, of any of the prero- gatives which may still in strict law belong to the Crown, but which cannot be shown to have been exercised except in remote periods of our history when tlie constitution was in many respects unsettled. But that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the House, in declaring this opinion, may properly abstain from expressing disapprobation of the conduct of her Majesty's confidential servants in advising the grant of a Peerage to Lord Wensleydale for life. 3. That the grant of Peerages for life might in some cases be of advantage both to the House of Lords and to the public ; but that the practice of granting such Peerages would be peeuliarly liable to abuse unless guarded by some pre- cautionary regulations. 'Ile That it will require further and mature con- sideration to determine what steps it will be proper for the House to adopt in order to prevent the patent granted to Lord Wensleydale from being drawn into a precedent in favour of creating Peerages for life, and in order to establish adequate securities against abuse if such creations are hereafter to take place." Lord BROUGHAM—" Will the noble Earl sap what means he pro- Earl ? " GRRY—" I do not know."

THE CRIMEAN COMMISSION.

It was announced in both Houses of Parliament, on Thursday night, that the Government intend to appoint a Board of General Officers to in- quire into matters adverted to in the report of the Crimean Commission- ers, and to hear explanations on the subject of complaints made by cer- tain officers mentioned in the report. The Board will sit with closed doors, and none of its members will have served in the Crimea.

In the House of Lords, this announcement, formally made by Lord PANIEURP., led to an irregular discussion. The Earl of 1T4 WI= said the proper course would have been for the Commander-in-chief to have ordered at once a Court of Inquiry. Lord PANytritz explained, that the Government were not in possession of information that enabled them to take this step until the 20th January, when the second and main por- tion of the report with the evidence was placed in his hands. Earl Gm regretted that the report had been laid before Parliament prematurely. If there is anything in the report bearing hard on certain officers, they should have had an opportunity of explanation before the report was published. It will lead to a vague, indefinite, and dangerous inquiry. Besides, it implies that the Government are not satisfied with the mode in which the Commissioners have fulfilled their duties. Earl Gitsarvrirx instanced the inquiry after the convention of Cintra as a precedent for this inquiry. The object is to enable certain officers to relieve themselves of imputations. Lord BROUGHAM saw great difficulty in the proceeding. The Commissioners obtained evidence on the spot, but the Board that is to review their proceedings must rely on totally different evidence—they are to examine officers here, and the bulk of the evidence must be hear- say. The inquiry after the convention of Cintra was not an appeal, but an original proceeding.

Tut Wit MINISTER AND THE HORSE GUARDS.

Shortly after the conversation springing from Lord Panmure's an- nouncement respecting the Crimean Commission, the Earl of DERBY_

rose to put a question to the Government on the existing relations be- tween the War Minister and the Commander-in-chief: but he made a speech, put several questions, and concluded with a formal motion for papers. Describing the relations of the Secretary for War to the Com- mander-in-chief in time of war and of peace, he said it was to the ordi- nary relations that he desired to call the attention of the House ; and to them his questions related. Does the sole and absolute authority in all matters concerning first appointments, and subsequent promotion, the conferring of honours and distinctions, the movement of troops, and the appointment of foreign garrisons, rest with the Commander-in-chief ? Is it with him that the initiative rests in matters of fortification ? Is it competent for the Secretary of State for War, on his own responsibility, to disregard the recommendations for honours, received from the imme- diate commander ; or are distinctions conferred upon the single and un- divided responsibility of the Commander-in-chief ? Two appointments have recently been made. Lord Cardigan was appointed Inspector- General of Cavalry in January 1856, at the strong recommendation of the Duke of Newcastle ; Sir Richard Airey was appointed Quartermaster- General in December last. Attempts have been made to impugn the propriety of those appointments : does the responsibility of making them rest entirely on the Commander-in-chief, or are they appointments over which the Government can exercise any influence ? He wished also to be informed whether the Commander-in-chief is the guardian of the honour of the Army ; and he complained that the report of the Commis sioners, although it was received in June, had been withheld from Lord Hardinge. [In the House of Commons, Mr. PEEL said that he presumed the document had been supplied to Lord Hardinge " as a member of the House of Peers."]

Lord PANMURE remarked upon the number of the questions which Lord Derby asked. In the first place, he requested the House to dis- miss from consideration the question relating to the report of the Com- missioners. There has been a misapprehension abroad. Only a portion of that report was sent home in June ; and that portion, with the creep-. tion of a passage referring to Lord Cardigan, simply stating a fact with- out explanation, related to matters over which the Commander-in-chief had no control. The other portion reached Lord Panmure on the 20th January ; and he gave it to the public as soon as he could, in fulfilment of a pledge given to the public and Parliament.

As regards the relative position of the Commander-in-chief and the Secretary for War, he did not anticipate that he should so soon be called upon to deal openly with that question ; but he had no alternative except to state openly and honestly what her Majesty's Government intend to do. Lord Panmure then rapidly sketched the former mode of admin- istering affairs ; and before he came to describe the changes recently made, and the determination of the Government, he referred to the two appointments mentioned by Lord Derby—took upon himself a share of the responsibility equal to that of the Commander-in-chief, and promised a satisfactory defence. Then he gave a sketch of the change that placed the military portion of the Ordnance department under the Commander- in-chief, and the civil branch under the Minister of War. Coming to actual relations, he said that it would be impossible to lay down on paper any rules which could absolutely govern the relations of the civil and military departments of the Army.

" Many questions which arise are settled by private communications be- tween the Commander-in-chief and myself, R8 they were arranged between the Duke of Wellington and myself when I was Secretary at 'War—in an amicable manner. With regard to the patronage of all those civil depart- ments which have been placed under my charge as Secretary of State for War, it is extremely large, and, if administered by me, would lead to em- barrassment. I hold myself responsible for all the appointments to those departments, but I leave many of the details to the gentlemen who have been placed at the head of them. I have, however, the utmost confidence in their discretion. I am satisfied that no man should be introduced into any of these departments who is not so far fitted for them as to be able to pass examination before the Civil Service Commissioners ; and I take cure, after a man has passed through a department, that he shall rise by his merits, and by his merits alone. With regard to the present state of the Horse Guards, the Commander-in-chief still continues to administer the discipline of the Army uninterfered with and uncontrolled by the Secretary of State. The Commander-in-chief still continues to administer the patron- age of the Army uninterfered with and uncontrolled by the Secretary of State. Further than this, in all the superior appointments, either regi- mental or staff, the Commander-in-chief consults the Secretary of State before he takes the pleasure of the Crown regarding them, thereby rendering himself responsible for the acts of the Commander-in-chief. With regard to the first appointments to the Army and promotions in the Army, the Secretary of State does not interfere ; but at the same time, I am not pre- pared to deny that probably I ought to be considered legally responsible for them, because there is no act committed by my noble friend the Commander- in-chief, however small or however great, which does not constitutionally come under the consideration of the Secretary of State."

As to the intentions of the Government with respect to the relative duties of the Secretary for War and the Commander-in-chief, it is high time they should be known. While Parliament holds the power of paying the Army, its powers are sufficiently ample ; it would be a different thing to give the Minister of the day the power of introducing officers into the Army and attending to their promotion. " I say that if this were to be done, it. would be as fatal to the existence of the Army as it would be ulti- mately unsatisfactory to the public at large. There has an idea gone abroad that the management and patronage of the Army are in the hands of an officer not directly appointed by Parliament, and that therefore re- sponsibility to Parliament does not exist. There cannot be a greater mis- take than this. There is an idea also, that because the patronage is in the hands of an officer in the position of the Commander-in-chief, it is exercised without reference to the Government, and under the influence of the Crown itself. There never was a greater mistake put forth. In dealing with this question, it may be that I am taking the unpopular side; but I feel confi- dent that if I were to advocate a system which would place the patronage of the Army in the hands of the Minister of the Crown, and which would lead Parliament from day to day to interfere in the administration of the Army, I should be doing that which was disadvantageous to the interests of this nation and to the efficiency of the Army. Therefore, under all the circumstances, and believing from experience that the present system is the one best adapted to give satisfaction in the end, it is intended that the Com- mander-in-chief should continue to exercise the patronage of the Crown towards the Army." He had never known the patronage of the Army un- fairly exercised ; and he would say publicly, that any charge of malversa- tion of Army patronage, brought against Lord Hardinge, is utterly and entirely false so far as Lord Panmure's knowledge goes. Lora HABDINGE stated, that as soon as he received the report of the

Commissioners, he had placed himself in communication with Lord Pan- mure, and he concurred in the step taken. He had felt great difficulties with regard to that step. He was unwilling to question the accuracy of the report ; but, whatever might be his private opinion, he felt that the report involved important public considerations. Lord Panmure had fully concurred in the appointment of Sir Richard Airey (of whom Lord Hardinge spoke very highly) and Colonel Gordon. As regards the question of the powers of the Commander-in-chief and the Secretary for War, those of the Commander-in-chief have been enlarged rather than restricted by Lord Panmure.

Earl GREY confined his remarks almost entirely to an emphatic argument supporting the position that the Government is responsible for every act of military administration. Lord DERBY, in withdraw- ing his motion, expressed great satisfaction with the statement of Lord Panmure.

IRISH LAW BILLS.

The motion for the second reading of the Irish Solicitor-General's Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill, led to a protracted discussion, which took up the greater part of a long sitting on Monday. Mr. S. FrrzGE- BALD moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. He strongly objected to the abolition of the Encumbered Estates Court, to whose successful operation so much of Ireland's present prosperity is due. That Court had worked well ; the Court of Chancery, confessedly, requires amendment ; yet the Court which had worked well is to be abolished, and to the other that needed reform its business is to be transferred ! It is idle to suppose the Court of Chancery could transact the multifarious business so correctly and expeditiously as the Commis- sioners. Acquitting the Solicitor-General of the least desire to perpe- trate a job, he could not but remark, that under the bill men in the full vigour of their powers would be removed and receive pensions. It was provided, for instance, that nobody could be eligible for the office of Vice-Chancellor -who had not acted as a practising barrister for fifteen years,—a restriction that would shut out Mr. Commissioner Hargreave. Mr. POLLARD URQUHART seconded the amendment.

The bill was supported, generally, by Mr. DEASY and Sir Easam-a PERRY; and, with some strong exceptions as to details, by Mr. antes, Mr. Sergeant O'BRIEN, Mr. T. O'BRIEN, Mr. CAIRNS, and Mr. HENRY HERBERT. The chief " details" objected to were, the vesting of the patronage in the Irish Executive instead of the Judges,—a provision at variance with the report of the Commissioners, and fatal to the whole measure ; and the proposal to throw at once the whole arrears of the Encumbered Estates Court into the Court of Chancery. Sir ERSKINE PERRY stood out stoutly for investing the patronage to be created under the bill in the Lord-Lieutenant. There is no greater blot upon our judicial system than the mischievous distribution of pa- tronage on the part of members of the bench. Nearly all the quarrels that arise with respect to the courts of law in India may be traced to the improper exercise of patronage. Two broad principles have been esta- blished during the last twenty years,—that fixed salaries should be paid to officers of the courts ; and that the appointment of subordinate officers should be vested in the Government.

Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. NAPIER, Mr. MALINS, Mr. GEORGE Burr, and Mr. DISRAELI, insisted that the bills introduced by Mr. Whiteside should, together with those of the Irish Solicitor-General, be referred to a Se- lect Committee ; and deprecated the treatment of the question as a party question. Mr. WHITESIDE objected very strongly to many provisions in the bill before the House ; and denounced it as the "biggest job" ever laid upon the table for a quarter of a century. It would place all the new appointments in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant ; enable the Government to thrust aside officers in the Court of Chancery still able to work ; cut down their pensions to the lowest point ; and give the good salaries to the friends of the Administration, who would be stuffed into the appointments created under the bill.

Mr. J. D. FrrZGERALD defended his own measures. They would make the Irish Chancery Court the cheapest, simplest, and most expe- ditious tribunal in Ireland. Two Chancery Courts cannot exist side by side in Ireland. Yet if the powers of the Encumbered Estates Court be ex- tended to unencumbered estates, whatever Court possesses those powers must possess all the powers of the Court of Chancery. He denied that the bill is a job. If the appointments were left to the Judges, they would be without check ; and it is thought wiser to vest appointments in the Executive, which would make them under the pressure of Parliament responsibility. He would not consent that Mr. Whiteside's bills should be referred to the Select Committee on his own.

The amendment being withdrawn, the bill was read a second time.

REVISED EDITION OF THE STATUTES.

Mr. LocKE KING moved, on Tuesday, a resolution to the effect that there should be prepared, for the use of the House, " under the direction of the Clerk of the Parliaments," an edition of the Statutes-at-large, in- cluding all statutes and parts of statutes in force, and omitting such statutes and parts of statutes as have been repealed or have expired. The Law Amendment Society had come to a conclusion that "the pub- lication of a revised and authorized edition of the public general acts now in force should be the first step taken towards the consolidation of the statute law." What he desired was a work of that kind. Mr. King described at length, how greatly the statute-book is encumbered with dead matter, and referred to the Code Napoleon and the New York Code as instances of what may be done. Mr. W. EWART seconded the motion. But he expressed doubts whether the Clerk of the Parliaments would be equal, single-handed, to the work which the resolution would impose upon him ; and he advocated the appointment of paid Commissioners. The ATTORNEY-GENF.RAL, Mr. STUART WORTLEY, and Sir FITZROY KELLY, opposed the motion. The work proposed is one of great magni- tude ; it should be performed by a person of great legal knowledge. The Clerk of the Parliaments is no more qualified for the task than any other person ; he is besides fully employed, and is an officer of the House of Lords. The House of Commons has not the power to direct an officer of the other House to prepare an edition of the statutes for their use. The work of expurgation and consolidation should be in the same hands ; and if, said Sir Fitzroy Kelly, " the honourable gentleman and his friends will leave the Commission appointed to consider the subject to do their best, without fettering them with unnecessary instructions, they will be able, before any great length of time has elapsed, to achieve more for the consolidation of the statute law than has been achieved since the days of Lord Bacon." Mr. Roamer PHILLIMORE moved, as an amendment, the omission of the words "under the direction of the Clerk of the Parliamenta, and for the use of this House." Mr. LOCKE KING consented to adopt the amend- ment ; and pressed the amended resolution to a division. It was nega- tived by 164 to 63.

MEDICAL REFORM.

At the Wednesday sitting, Mr. HEADLAM moved that the Medical Profession Bill be read a second time, with the view of referring it to a Select Committee. Objections to some of its provisions were advanced by Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR and Mr. HENLEY, who especially pointed out the danger that might arise from the operation of the clause giving the proposed Medical Colleges power to strike off the name of a prac- titioner without appeal. For instance, the names of homoeopathists might be struck off the register at the caprice of these bodies. Sir GEORGE GREY thought that some security should be taken against such a capricious exercise of power.

The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on the 2d April.

MINISTERS-MONEY.

Mr. FAGAN moved, on Tuesday, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to consider the act of 1854 relating to the collection of the Irish tax called Ministers-money, with a view to the abolition of the tax. The act of 1854 had aggravated the two main grievances always complained of,—that the tax marked the ascendancy of the Protestants ; and that its paltriness and partial operation make it a most irritating im- post. The Town-Councils in the eight corporate towns brought under the tax had unanimously-determined not to collect it,—a fact that showed how unsatisfactory the act was. Mr. DUNLOP seconded the motion.

Mr. HORSMAN admitted that the operation of the act is unsatisfactory, and that it requires amendment. The Government, therefore, would not oppose the introduction of the bill, but reserve its objections to the se- cond reading. Mr. NAPIER and Lord Naas were astonished at the course taken by the Government. It is unworthy and unmanly to keep up the hopes of certain parties by the introduction of bills and then to get rid of them on the second reading. Only the other day, the Government said they would not permit any change in the act. [Mr. Honsisot—" I never said so : I never gave any such answer."] The answer given was, that the Government had no act on the subject in contemplation. What is a Secretary for Ireland for, if, being cognizant of the wants of Ireland, he does not say, " There is a remedy wanted, and here is the remedy." Lord PALMERSTON said, he did not agree with the opinion that it is unmanly to oppose a bill on its introduction and reserve one's views for the second reading. The zeal with which Mr. Napier and his friends were prepared to resist the bill, was shown by the state of the Opposition benches. [They were very thin.] If the Government had determined to resist the bill, they would have had "the extreme and cordial support of the numerous gentlemen sitting on those benches.". The Government think it more respectful to those whose feelings are interested, to allow the measure to be brought in, and to reserve full liberty to deal with it on the second reading. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, thinking it inconvenient to adopt resolutions from which it might appear that the House had made up its mind, sug- gested that Mr. Fagan should move for leave to bring in a bill at once. Certainly, if the act of 1854 is unsatisfactory, it is the duty of the Go- vernment to bring in a bill to amend it. Mr. MAGUIRE and Mr. SULLIVAN testified to the universal condemaii4 tion of the bill in Ireland. Mr. BLACK, the new Member for Edinburgh, wished to observe, when he heard honourable Members denouncing this " odious tax," which was imposed on eight cities in Ireland, that a simi- lar odious tax was imposed on two cities in Scotland, one of which he re- presented, and it was called the Annuity-tax. He trusted, therefore, that if the Ministers-money were repealed in Ireland, there would also be a repeal of the Annuity-tax in Scotland, for what was good for the one country would be good for the other.

Mr. FAGAx adopted Lord John Russell's suggestion, and obtained leave to bring in his bill ; which was subsequently introduced and read a first time.

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.

A notice of motion in favour of opening the British Museum and Na- tional Gallery on Sundays, given by Sir Joshua Walmsley at the open- ing of the session, caused considerable agitation ; and on Thursday even- ing, the time fixed for its discussion, masses of hostile petitions were laid on the table of the House of Commons. Sir dosnua. WALMSLEY moved the following resolution-

" That it would promote the moral and intellectual improvement of the working classes of this metropolis, if the collections of natural history and of art in the British Museum and the National Gallery were open to the public inspection after morning service on Sundays."

Mr. Hume, Sir Joshua said, originated this motion, and the Sunday opening of those institutions would be the best monument to his honour. - The grounds on which the House was asked to adopt the resolution were —that its adoption would advance the moral and religious character of the working classes, elevate their tastes, improve their mechanical skill, and raise them in the scale of society. The working classes state in their petitions, that the religious observance of Sunday would be increased by granting the motion. He quoted the opinion of the Curator of the Bri- tish Museum, to show that it would not be difficult to make arrangements for opening the Museum on Sundays; and he argued that men would go to such places rather than to public-houses. He firmly believed that the motion would neither lead to the desecration of the Sabbath nor in- crease the labour of the day. Sir Joni/ SHELLEY seconded the motion. Mr. APSLEY PELLATr moved as an amendment, that greater facilities should be afforded for week-day inspections of the National Gallery, and that the British Museum should be open five days in the week. Mr. BAXTER seconded the amendment. If the institutions referred to are to be open on Sunday, why not the Panopticon or Madame Tu.ssaud's ex- hibition ? Why not open theataxs, on the ground that they are thought by some to be aids to moral and intellectual improvement ? Museums and picture-galleries are not moral agents ; they refine the taste, but they do not promote social affections. If you open the Museum' you will not empty, you will fill the public-houses with men and their fami- lies, who would have remained at home had the Museum been closed. The course of policy proposed would lower the people of this country to

the level of the millions on the Continent. He should have preferred to meet the motion by a direct negative ; but, as he was a strong advocate of a Saturday half-holiday, he thought he was quite right in seconding the amendment.

The motion was supported by the speeches of Mr. MURROUGH, Lord STANLEY Mr. HEYWOO_ ,11 and LordDIRrNGTON ; and opposed by those of Mr. &OWLET", Mr. NAPIER, Mr. CAIRNS, Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER, Mr. E. BALL, Mr. Muvrz, and Mr. WIGRAM. The ground taken up by the opposition was, that the proposed innova- tion would remove the really valuable outwork of the institution of the Sabbath, the rest-day ; deteriorate the habits of the people ; increase in- stead of diminish drinking and immorality ; lead to the opening of pri- vate exhibitions ; and make the day of rest a day of labour. Gain would interpose after pleasure ; competition would follow; and increased la- bour would be accompanied by lower wages. The true policy would be to promote the rational week-day relaxation of the people. On the other hand, Lord STANLEY contended, that the adoption of the motion would not convert the Sabbath into a working-day. On social grounds alone, the state has a right to enforce a day of rest. He had supported a bill for the suppression of needless Sunday trading, and he found nothing in the resolution that would either directly or mdirectly sanction Sunday- trading. The success of the early closing movement is evidence that the operatives are not absolutely at the mercy of their employers in the mat- ter of labour. i

There is time enough on Sunday both for religious worship and for inno- cent recreation. There need not be any competition between the church and the museum. He hoped that between the museum and the public- house there would be much competition. If they continued old restrictions and created new ones, they would make religion unpopular, and throw back education. The clergy would gain nothing—the people would lose much ; but one class, he admitted, would thank them for their efforts : they would have swelled the profits and gladdened the hearts of every brewer, distiller, and publican, in the United Kingdom.

Lord PALMERSTON took up a middle position. Opening the British Museum and the National Gallery would not affect much the observance of the Sunday, infringe its sanctity, or produce the evil consequences apprehended. The accommodation in existing churches is insufficient except for only a small part of the population, and closing places of amuse- ment would not fill the churches. At the same time, he thought that there had been great exaggeration in representing the advantages that would be derived from visiting the National Gallery or the British Mu- seum. The step proposed by the motion is inexpedient, because by adopting it the House would set itself in opposition to a vast number of persons whose religious feelings are entitled to respect.

Mr. PELLArr withdrew his amendment, and the House divided—Ayes, 48; Noes, 376; majority against the motion, 328. The announcement of numbers was hailed with great cheering.

CHURCH MANAGEMENT.

On the motion of Sir GEORGE GREY, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the working of the Ecclesiastical Commission and the Churchbuilding Commission. After generally defining the extensive duties of those bodies, Sir George said that very large results have fol- lowed the operation of the acts constituting them. From August 1851 to -thoppreasent times about 800 agreements have been effected by the Eccle- siastical Commission, relating to property of more value in fee than 4,000,0001. The funds at the disposal of the Commission for Aug- mentations had been materially increased, and this had been done with general satisfaction on the part of the lessees. It will be a subject of in- quiry whether additional duties may not be intrusted to the Commission ; and if so, whether any and what alterations are desirable in the consti- tution of the Commission. Another subject of inquiry would be, whether the Churchbuilding Commission might not usefully be consoli- dated with the Ecclesiastical Commission. The former was established in 1818. By its aid, nearly 600 churches, providing 600,000 sittings, have been completed. At present its funds are limited. And individually, he thought the two Commissions might be consolidated. The Marquis of BLANDFORD and Mr. WALPOLE both supported the motion.

CONSEILS DE PRvOTI0NAIES.

Mr. MAcKnaroN has obtained a Select Committee "to inquire into and consider the propriety of establishing equitable tribunals for the amicable adjustment of differences between masters and operatives." He ex- plained, that the workmen consider that they have no fair tribunal for the adjustment of differences arising between themselves and their employ- ers. In France there are Conseils de Prud'hommes, composed partly of operatives and partly of master's, with a president and vice-president appointed by the Government. He did not ask for the establishment of similar tribunals in this country, but for an inquiry to decide whether such equitable tribunals would benefit the country. He did not desire to give similar tribunals power to fix the maximum or minimum rates of wages, but to enable them to reconcile masters and workmen, and to prevent strikes.

Sir GEORGE GREY did not object to such an inquiry, provided it were undertaken with the full knowledge of what these Conseils de Prud'- hommes are.

They are of two kinds, administrative and judicial. The judicial func- tions are confined to the decision of questions relating to subjects which have already been matters of contract between masters and workmen, and have nothing to do with the making of contracts between them. The only question on which these tribunals have.power to decide are such as arise upon preexisting contracts. It might be desirable to establish in this country tri- bunals empowered to deal with questions analogous to those which com- monly engage the attention of the Conseils des Prud'hommes in France ; but he would warn the honourable Member against the delusion of supposing that it is possible, through the intervention of any tribunal, or at all other- wise than by agreement between the parties, to regulate the amount of wages to be paid by masters to their operatives. Motion agreed to. BUSINESS OF THE Loans.

On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, resolutions were passed on Mon- day, that no private bill should be read a second time in the House of Lords after the 8th July ; and that no commons enclosure bill, or any bill confirming a scheme of the Charity Commissioners, should be read a second time after the 15th July. Lord Redesdale remarked, that in former years he had proposed a resolution fixing the time after which they would not take the second reading of public bills ; and notified that unless an assurance were given that it would be adhered to, he should not propose it this year. Earl GRANYUSE said, the resolution had done good in expediting business in the House of Commons ; but it is im- possible to lay down a rule that shall in no instance be departed from. Earl GREY said, that if the House did adopt the resolution, they ought to adhere to it. Last session, they passed the Limited Liability Bill in breath- less haste, and now at the beginning of this session a new bill has been introduced to repeal the hasty legislation of last year ! If the resolution were not adhered to in spirit and in truth, it would be better not to pass it. Lord REDESDALE hoped that when the time comes to propose the resolution, he should have an assurance that it will be adhered to.