&Intro ad Vtuttritings in Vartiamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Housx or Loans. Monday, January 30. Criminal Law Consolidation; the Lord Chancellor's Bill read a first time—Law of Property Bill read a second time. Tuesday. Jxnuary 31. Transfer of Land ; Lord Brougham's Bill read a first time. Thursy, February 2. Law of Property Bill committed. _Friday. Feb. 3. Law of Property Bill read a third time.

Ronan OF COMMONS. Monday, January 80. Annexation of Savoy; Mr. Disraeli's Question—S . George's-in-the-East ; Mr. Butler's Question—Annuity-tax Aboli- tion; the Lord-Advocate's Bill, leave given—London Corporation Reform ; Sir George Lewis's Bill read a first time—Oxford University Sill read a first time— Packet Contracts ; Select Committee appointed.

2uesday, January 31. Merchant Shipping ; Mr. Lindsay's Motion—Corrupt Practices at Elections ; Mr. Mellores Bill, leave given.

Wednesday. February 1. Appeal in Criminal Cases; Mr. APMahon's Bill thrown out.

Thursday, February 2. Miscellaneous Civil Service Expenditure ; Mr. Wise's Motion—Beverley Election; Mr. Cobbett's Motion—Anchor's and Chain Cables; Select Committee.

_Friday, Feb. 3. Consul Hay's Conduct; Mr. Maguire's Question—Warlike pre- parations in France ; Lord John Russell's Answer to Mr. Kinglake—Law Reform ; Mr. Hadfield's Question—The Militia ; Colonel Dickson's Question—Probate and Administration (India) Bill read a second time—Petitions of Right Bill read a second time—Newspapers, 87..c. Bill committed—Duchy of Cornwall Bill read a first time.

THE BUDGET.

In reply to a question from Mr. CRAWFORD, the Catatezmon of the EXCHEQUER said that he should on Monday submit to the House the whole financial proposals of the Government, including such as are con- tained in the commercial treaty with France.

ANNEXATION OP SAVOY TO FRANCE.

In reply to a question from Mr. Disraeli, Lord Jews RUSSELL said that Lord Granville, in answering a question in another place, had re- ferred to a communication sent by the British Minister in Switzerland, to our ambassador in Paris, in which some alazm was expressed on the subject of the annexation of Savoy to France. Lord John took time to consider whether the papers on the subject would be included in the Italian blue book.

On Thursday, Mr. Dasnasra renewed the subject, and put the follow- ing question-

' The transaction of the Duchy of Savoy is so peculiar in ita character, that, perhaps, the noble Lord will permit me to ask, whet, or he has yet determined upon the propriety of producing the communications between her Majesty's Government and the Government of France, respecting the contemplated annexation of that Duchy to the French empire ? ' To this, Lord Joins RUSSELL replied- "' have considered that subject, and have osnirannicated with her Ma- jesty's Ambassador in Parts, and I have come 'to the conclusion, that it would not be proper to produce the papers for which 'the right honourable gentleman asked the oth6r day. I am quite willing, however, to state the general partied of those papers. In the beginning of July, in consequence of a despatch from Mr. Harris, the British Minister in Switzerland, Count Walewski was asked by Lord Cowley, whether there was any truth in the rumour, that there was a project on foot for the annexation of Savoy to the empire of France ? Some conversation passed between them, and Count Walewski's remarks were not explicit on the subject on which Lord Cowley asked for information. Some time after this, Count Walewski assured the Government, that there was nointention on the part of the Emperor of the French to propose the annexation in question. On the former occasion, Lord Cowley stated, that such a proposal would be viewed with disapproba- tion by her Majesty's Government, and the language he held was approved by her Majesty's Government. On the second occasion, her Majesty's Go- vernment directed a despatch to the British Ambassador in Paris, expressing the satisfaction with which her Majesty's Government had received the as- surance, that no such project was in contemplation."

THE MLSCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.

Mr. WISE obtained a victory over the Government on Thursday—the first this session. He moved- " That, in the opinion of this House, it would be desirable to appoint every year a select committee to inquire into the miscellaneous civil service expenditure of the preceding year ; into the payments made out of the con- solidated fund ; and into those on account of the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues."

Mr. Wise rested his motion on the desirableness of Resisting the Trea- sury to control the civil expenditure. In proof thereof, he went into statistics showing the alarming growth of the miscellaneous estimates. This kind of expenditure has grown from 2,651,0001. in 1839 to 7,880,0001. in 1859. The increase is on education, science, and art, public depart- ments, law and justice ; colonial and consular expenses ; stationary and printing ; miscellaneous. Mr. Wise amply made out a case ; and he urged that the inquiry was necessary to assist the Executive in prevent- ing the public money from being wasted.

Mr. Atrousrus Slum seconded the motion.

Mr. LAING objected to the motion. He urged that it would take off the responsibility from the executive ; and he pointed out that the great branches of the expendittire•complained of had been ordered and sanc- tioned by the House itself. Mr. BAXTER declared himself dissatisfied with this answer. Then, said Mr. GLADSTONE, the Secretary of the Treasury had not made his meaning plain. The Government desire to reduce expenditure, but the scale of expenditure is determined by public opinion, and opinion is not greatly set on economy. The Government has given the subject its beat attention, but expenditure is difficult to control. He objected to the motion because no single committee could review the whole subject; and because it would take away from the res- ponsibility of the Executive. Mr. BRIGHT strongly supported the motion, and urged that it was not only desirable to appoint committees, this has been done before, but to pay attention to ther recommendations.

Years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when asked to sanction iuch proposals, used to say, "What do you think Mr. Hume will say ? " Mr. Hume was not there now, and unfortunately his mantle did not appear to have fallen upon any member of the House. (Huth laughter, and general look in the direction of the seat occupied by the honourable _Member for _Lambeth.) Mr. Bright contended that those who were sitting in that House were the guardians of the public purse of the country, and ought to warn their countrymen against the pernicious folly that had distinguished the public, the Parliament, and the Cabinets of this country for years past. It was their duty to warn them that, if they did not change their policy, it would lead to disaster and confusion. (Loud cheers.)

Sir HENRY Wir-Lounnar supported the motion.

On a division, it was carried by 121 to 93.

Citurtsit, APPEAL.

The sitting on Wednesday was almost entirely occupied with a debate on a proposal for a Court of Criminal Appeal. Mr. M‘Manox moved the second reading of his bill. What be pro- posed was in effect to extend the privilege of the writ of certiorari after the trial had taken place. In support of his motion, he entered into a la- borious citation of authorities quoting from the speeches of Sir Fitzroy Kelly—who said that one-sixth of the verdicts in eases of misdemeanour where appeal is allowed, are set aside becausethey are against the evidence; Sir Frederick Pollock who was favourable to the principle of appeal ; the report of the Criminal Law Commissioners of 1848; Mr. (heaves who drew up the report on criminal procedure in 1856 and 1881; all favourable to an appeal in criminal cases. Mr. Mthiahon, on the authority of Mr. Gre.aves, said his proposal was not an innovation, but a return to the humanity of our forefathers. A failure of justice, where life and reputa- tion are involved, is of more importance than it is where a mere question of property is concerned.

Mr. EWAET seconded the motion. Sir GEORGE LEWIS entered into the question at gloat length. The adoption of the principle of the bill would alter the whole character and operation of the crib-Anal law as now administered. Mr. M‘Mahon bad shown no practical grievance, but had relied on authority. But the weight of authority is against him. Against his authorities, Sir George set those of Lord Denman, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, and a host of Judges. The universal practice of the civilized world is in an oppo- site direction. In France and Belgium, the Court may send a case tb another jury, but that is all. The reason -why a distinction is made be- tween civil and criminal appeals, is because, in criminal cases, there is no antagonist, no adverse parties, as in civil cases. The opinions of Lord Cranworth, Lord Denman, Lord Wensleydale and Justice Wightman were cited to show that wrong verdicts in criminal cases are of rare oc- currence. No proof has been given of a substantial grievance ; for, la- the Smethurst case, a pardon was granted on medical considerations. The bill does not propose to substitute criminal appeals for the prerogative of the Crown, and therefore it would have but little practical effect on the duties of the Home Secretary. Sir George maintained that the bill would deprive the administration of the criminal law of much of its ef- fect, because punishment would not follow promptly on conviction. At the same time, he admitted that in a large class of cans,

where there is a privilege of appeal, it is seldom used. He complained that the right of appeal conferred by the bill is unilateral, but if the practice in criminal is to be assimilated to that in civil cases, both parties should have a right of .appeal. To grant an appeal in criminal eases, would produce a laxity in juries, and there would be less of a feeling of awful responsibility on their part and on that of the judge. He showed that our system is tender to prisoners ; if there were an appeal, that would be reversed. Then, what would be the effect of this change in Ireland and Scotland ? In conclusion, Sir George defended the present practice and dwelt on the desirability of not touching on the pre- rogative. He moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. DENMAN and Mr. PHILLIPS opposed the bill. Mr. EDWIN JAMES would support Er practical system of criminal appeal, but could not sup- port Mr. 31`Mahon's bill. Mr. GEORGE concurred with Sir George Lewis. Mr. MELLOR took the same side. Mr. HENLEY opposed the bill, but was anxious to make it understood that he had not an absolute opinion against any amendment of the law in this direction. The Somerrott- Gmrsam,, admitting the inconvenience of the present practice, could not support tie bill. Mr. D. SEYMOUR and Mr. LONGFIELD would like to see the bill referred to a Committee.

Mr. M‘MAIION briefly replied ; and the amendment, being agreed to, the bill was lost.

MEnenaser SHIPPLATO.

Mr. LINDSAY moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the opera- tions of burdens and restrictions especially affecting shipping, and of certain statutes, including the Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts' and the Act for compensating the families of persons killed by accidents. He thought that only a limited inquiry would be necessary as the causes of the depression of the shipping interest are very apparent—over pro- dnotion of ships, being one of them. Another cause is the want of reci- procity. France maintains high, and Spain higher differential duties on our ships. Seventeen nations maintain differential duties, or exclude us from the coasting trade. What has any Government done since 1850 to obtain the reciprocity die had a right to expect? (Cheers from the Oppo- sition.) We open our colonial and Indian ports to the United States and our coasting trade also, but we are excluded from their coasting trade. Then, there are the light dues. It we invite other nations to trade with us, we ought to warn them of he dangers on our shores without charging them for the knowledge. The Americans charge nothing for lights ; while, in ten years, their shipping paid us 234,000/. Next, he spoke of local dues ; of Manchester paying Liverpool 105,0001. in one year, and Sun- derland paying a yearly tribute of 104,000/. to Newcastle. It is time that shipowners should be relieved from the burden of paying passing tolls for harbours from which they receive no benefit, and into which their ships cannot enter. These matters demand inquiry. Mr. Lindsay also referred to the Stade dues and the tax levied by the Russian Com- pany on shipping frequenting Cronstadt; to the timber duties ; and the liability of shipowners for freight and passengers, as matters demanding investigation.

Mr. HORSFA.LL seconded the motion.

Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR desired to enlarge the terms of the reference to the committee, and moved that, after the words "inquire into 's the, words "the causes of the present depressed condition of British mer-

chant shipping, and how far the same are capable of legislative remedy;" and to consider the expediency of enlarging the powers of the

Court of Admiralty. Mr. Seymour thought it idle to inquire into the operation of light dues, passing tolls, timber duties, &c. Mr. Bonus seconded the amendment.

Mr. CRAWFORD, who had given notice of a motion on the subject, said he should support Mr. Lindsay, and withdraw his own notice; bui he desired that words should be introduced into Mr. Lindsay's resolu- tion excludine' from consideration the operation of Lord Campbell's Compensation Act, so far as it relates to railways. Mr. Crawford did not concur with Mr. Seymour's view of the duties of the Committee.

Mr. BErrixeit made a speech decidedly opposed to free trade. Mr. CLAY, Mr. INGHAM, MT. D.A.NEY SEYMOUR, Mr. A. SMITH, MT. LIDDELL, Mr. CAVE, supported the motion but thought that the words suggested by Mr. Crawford should be inserted.

Mr. MILNER Unisex said the motion before the House was precisely similar to that adopted last session and the Committee might be con- sidered as a continuation of the preceding Committee. The Government did not desire to limit the inquiry, but to make it sufficiently wide to go into all grievances. Mr. Seymour's amendment, however, was not admissible, because it asked the House to declare, without proof, that the shipping interest is greatly depressed. Quoting figures, Mr. Gibson showed that this is not correct, and he ventured the opinion that such depression as may exist will be temporary. With respect to reciprocity, it is remarkable that, while we complain of the French, they complain of us for the non-fulfilment of the reciprocity treaty of 1826. It would be impossible to secure by legislation an undeviating course of woe- parity to the shipping interest, and the Government could be no party to the insertion of words in the resolution leading to the idea that it is possible to find a remedy for the alleged depression by reversing the commercial policy of the country. The amendment was withdrawn, and the original resolution, amended so as to include Mr. Crawford's suggestion, was agreed to.

PACKET AND TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS.

The CnaNeurzon of the EXCHEQUER moved that the Select Committee to inquire into the manner in which packet and telegraphic contracts have been formed or modified by the Government with various compa- nies, should be reappointed. The Gevernment propose to hand over the charge of the packet estimates to the Post Office, and the committee will have to consider that proposal. Mr. Gladstone slightly referred to the Committee appointed last ses- sion, to its proceeding is and report, which have been much canvassed. He did so, to intimate that Sir John Pakington, who had a notice on the subject, might take that opportunity of offering comments. Mr. Glad- stone's Silence was not to be taken as showing a disposition to censure the committee, or acquiesce in censure upon it by others. This led to a smart and somewhat personal debate in anticipation of the discussion which is to take place on a motion by Captain Vernon. Sir JOHN Bann:G.1.mq contended that the Committee had gone beyond the order of reference in entering npon questions touching the honour of persons, instead of confining themselves to questions of policy and prin-

ciple. There was no understanding that the Commiitee should travel into personal questions. To prove this, he went into the speeches made when the inquiry was resolved upon. He censured the constitution of fife Committee, saying that it was most competent to consider a question of public policy, and most unfit to investigate charges touching indi- viduals. No worse chairman than Mr. Cobden could have been selected to conduct an investigation involving the character of individuals. If the Committee were appointed to consider public policy, he should sup- port it ; but, if it were to consider charges against individuals, he de- manded specific charges and a competent tribunal. Sir FRANCIS BARING, in the absence of Mr. Cobden, defended the Committee. In their re- port, they. condemned both parties alike. The Committee had not the slightest notion they were bound to observe the construction put upon the order of reference by Sir John Pakington. No objection was taken at the time. Sir Francis went back to the debate to show that it was understood the personal charges were to be investigated and contended they were investigated fairly. Lord JOHN MANNedis supported the view taken by Sir John Pakington. Mr. OSBORNE, in a smart speech, went into some of the transactions, and insisted that the personal questions, affect- ing the late Government and its agents should be gone into.

Several other Members shared in the debate ; and Mr. GLADSTONE further vindicated the proceedings of the Committee. The motion was agreed to.

FUSION OF Law AND EQUITY.

On Tuesday, the LORD CHANCELLOR gave notice, that he should shortly lay before their Lordships a bill, the chief object of which would be te enlarge the powers of Courts of Common Law to deal with questions of Equity, with the view to a further fusion of law and equity, by which there was strong reason to believe, as stated in the Speech from the Throne, the rights of all parties might be satisfactorily determined in the Court in which the suit WM instituted.

CORPORATION REFORM.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS obtained leave to bring in-a Bill to Reform the Corporation of the City of London. He stated that the City Corpora- tion had not been concluded in the Municipal Act because it had, in former times, exercised great influence in strengthening the popular party. He did not, however, explain the nature of the bill, further than to say that it was substantially the measure reported by the Select Umimittee, and that it did not include the financial part of the question. Mr. Avirrorr-took objections to the measure, which he characterized as a feeble result. The municipality of London ought to be placed on "footing consonant" with all the other municipalities. He found fault with the retention of the coal-tax. For all municipal and legal purposes, the metropolis ought to be formed into a single county. Mr. WILLIAMS accounted for the mildness of the Ministerial measure by re- garding it as the effect of the convivial parties at the Mansionhouse. Mr. J. LOCKE thought the Corporation should be combined with the Metropo- litan Board of Works. Alderman Guam put in a word for the Livery. Sir 31. FARQUHAR objected, on behalf of Hertford, to the coal-tax. Leave was given to bring in the bill, and it was read a first time.

TEE EDINBURGH ANNUITY-TAX.

The LORD ADVOCATE moved, in a Committee of the whole House, a resolution to abolish the annuity-tax in Edinburgh. Mr. Black's plan was to allow the tax to expire as the incumbents failed, and to leave future incumbents dependant on pew-rents and collections. The Lord Advocate proposes a different scheme. There are eighteen Ministers ; he would reduce them to thirteen. The Act would be carried out by -a Commission, to which the property of the church would be trans- ferred. This property—seat-rents and tonnage-dues levied at Leith— would accumulate, and in fifteen years it would amount to 80,0001. During the same period, the Town Council would he empowered to levy a house-tax of not more than 10d. nor less than Sti. in the pound, to be levied like the police-rate, and with it upon all occupiers. The proceeds of this assessment will pay theMinisters, and yield a surplus of 14,094/. The accumulations of the sums from these sources will, in fifteen years, yield upwards of 120,000/., and this stun will be applied to abolish the annuity-tax. Sir JAMES FERGUSON would not oppose the introduction of a bill re- cognizing the principle that the State should support the Established Church. Mr. BLACK thought his own scheme preferable, but would not oppose the bill, if it were approved of by the inhabitants and clergy of Edinburgh. Mr. MILLER thought it hard that his constituents at Leith should be taxed to support the Edinburgh clergy. Mr. BLACKBURN ob- jected to the reduction of the number of Ministers. The resolution was agreed to, and the House resumed.

Er..Ecroear.. CORRUPTION.

Mr. MELLOR obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the Corrupt Practices' Act. The bill proposes to make the punishment for bribery degrading as well as severe, by giving the Judge discretion to order im- prisonment with hard labour. Persons who reffiscd to give evidence against any one, lest they should criminate themselves, arc to be held guilty of contempt of Court, but their evidence is not to be used against themselves, except in prosecutions for perjury. It is provided that no money shall be paid for election expenses, either by the candidate, his agent, or any one else, except through the election auditor. Any infringe- ment of this provision to be a misdemeanour. Likewise persons, who having votes, are employed as messengers, &c., and those who employ them, will be guilty of misdemeanour. The bill makes provisions for the conduct of prosecutions, and applies to municipal as well as Parliamen- tary elections. Sir FITZROY KELLY was glad a proposal to stop bribery had come from the other side. He promised to give the bill careful attention.

Lord PALMERSTON did not oppose the motion. The bill should be well considered by the Government, who have a bill in preparation, and who hope that some means will be devised for accomplishing an object common to all—the prevention of bribery.

Sin JAMES HUDSON AND GARIBALDI.

Mr. STANSFELD put several questions to Lord John Russell on Tues- day. He inquired whether, in December last, Garibaldi, with the con- -

sent of the King, ;tempted the post of the Nazione Armata, an asso- ciation having for its object the voluntary arming and organization of large numbers of the population of Sardinia ; " whether the King. had signed a decree appointing Garibaldi Inspector-in-chief of the /National Guard ; and whether' under these circumstances, Sir James Hudson, in conjunction with the French Minister and under instructions from home, protested against these measures, and stated that if they were proceeded with, the good offices of Great Britain in the Italian question would be withdrawn ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he could not state what was done in Pied- mont with regard to La Nazione Armata. After Garibaldi had accepted the presidency of the association, Sir James Hudson expressed his private opinion that an armed association, not under the control of the Govern- ment, is inconsistent with a monarchy. The King heard of this, and requested Garibaldi to resign, which he did in the most prompt and generous manner. "It was a private proceeding on the part of Sir James Hudson "' he received no instructions from the Government— indeed, Lord John did not hear of the matter until informed of it by Sir James, Lord John further said he did not think that the French Minis- ter had anything to do with it ; and did not believe that Sir James Hud- son ever said that the good offices of Great Britain would be withdrawn if the measures were persisted in. Lord John wrote a private letter to Sir James Hudson, approving of what he had done.

LAW REFORM. Several bills, having for their object the consolidation and assimilation of the criminal law of England and Ireland, were read a first time in the House of Peers on Monday. The LORD CHANCELLOR said they had been introduced in the late Parliament by Mr. Whiteside. They assimilate the law of the two countries in all Jespects. He strongly recom- mended them.

TRANSFER OF LAND. Lord BROUGFIAM presented a petition from 300 Magistrates and landowners of Cumberland, complaining of the state of the law affecting the transfer of real property ; and subsequently brought in a bill, embodying much of what was contained in the bill introduced last ses- sion by Sir Hugh Cairns. Sir Hugh's bill proposed to establish a Land Transfer Board on the footing of the Irish Encumbered Estates Court, while Lord Brougham's gives the same powers, under control and with the right of appeal, to local officers in every district throughout the country.

• CHURCH•RATES. The House of Lords, on the motion of the Duke of MARLBOROLGH, has reappointed the Select Committee of last session in Church-rates.

IsicomE-Tax.. Mr. POLLARDURQUILART moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the mode of assessing the Income-tax ; but at Mr. GLADSTONE'S request, he withdrew his motion on the understanding that he should bring it forward, if he thought fit, on a future occasion.

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES. Sir J. D. ELPHINSTON has obtained a Select Committee to inquire into the manufacture of anchors and chain cables for the merchant service—[why not beat-plates?] ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST. Questions were put to Ministers in both Houses on Monday respecting the course Government would pursue to main- tain the peace in this parish. In the Upper House, the Bishop of LONDON was the questioner, and Lord GRATILLE the respondent. In the Lower House, Mr. BUTLER put the question ; Sir GEORGE LEWIS answered it. He described the state of the law which renders it difficult to act. The law of brawling does not apply. The police cannot interfere summarily under the Act of Uniformity. A statute of Philip and Mary—(laughter)—had been found under which they could act, but there is great difficulty in interpret- ing that statute. It had been impossible to continue the practice of guard- ing the metropolitan churches with police, but they had been placed within call. It has been agreed that the police shall be posted outside the church, and that persons who appear to be entering it with the intention and design —(cries of "0/s! Oh ! ")—of creating a disturbance, should not be ad- mitted.

The Government will not introduce any measure to meet cases like those of St. George's-in-the-East. If the Legislature deprived the Incumbent of all discretion in matters of ceremonial, and gave absolute power to the -Bishop, that would be a practical remedy. But, personally, Sir George would prefer to give the Crown power by an Order in Council, under proper ecclesiastical advice, to modify the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, Mr. DARBY SEYMOUR moved the adjournment of the House to express his regret that Government did not intend to bring in a bill. Mr. HADFIELD said unless some remedy is applied the people will take the law into their own hands. The nuisance of "Protestant clergy, whose hearts, inclined to Rome" cannot be borne much longer. Ihe question interests the whole Nonconformist body, between whom and Church of England doctrines there is more agreement than in the Church of England itself.

Motion negatived.

BEVERLEY Etscriosi. The House of Commons has agreed that Daniel Boys and Robert Taylor shall be prosecuted for bribery committed at the Beverley election, in April last.