Lord Panmure said the views of the Government had undergone no change. The Bill did not refer to the present time, and did not interfere with any order in Council. The Bill merely enabled the Government to do that when Parliament was not sitting which they I could do if it were.

The Bill was then brought in, and was passed in the House of Lords without further discussion. On the motion for the third reading in the House of Commons, just before the rising of Parliament for the recess on the 21st of August, a discussion of some interest took place, embracing the topics of the national defences, the position of affairs in India, the various modes of sending reinforcements of troops to that country, and the measures to be taken for the suppression of the mutiny. Several members of the House, of high military rank and experience, volunteered their suggestions to the Government.

Sir Frederick Smith commended the proposed embodiment of the Militia, and remarked that the recruiting operations were going on with success. He suggested that 1000 Sappers and Miners should be sent to India, where they were in great demand.

Sir De Lacy Evans concurred in this suggestion. He expressed his astonishment that only 10,000 Militia would be called out, and that the number of seamen would only be increased by 2000. He suggested that small steamers should be sent to India to operate in the rivers; and that our steam line-of-battle ships should be employed in conveying troops to India. He recommended that the Commander-in-chief in India should be empowered to confer the Victoria Cross on the field, and

that he should be enabled to fill up vacancies and grant promotion; that General Jacob should be recalled from Persia and restored to command in Scinde; that the Government should reconsider their decision on the subject of sending troops through Egypt; and that they should show its gratitude and satisfaction at the loyal conduct of Scindiah, Holkar, and other Native Princes. The Government should make arrangements to finish the matter in a second campaign, and the troops ought to march with triumph through the disturbed districts next November.

Sir William Williams expressed a hope, that in future more attention would be paid to the fortification of our stations in India. He had been in all the Presidencies of that country, and he had seen, so to speak, the nakedness of the land - station after station without a single stronghold. The consequence was, that when we were attacked all went over like a pack of cards. He was perfectly sure that Her Majesty's Government would never at the commencement of this session have reduced so many of the regular troops of Great Britain had it not been for the pressure from without. He was satisfied, therefore, that it was not their fault. He remembered how the noble Lord the member for London, and the right honourable Gentleman the member for the University of Oxford, vied with each other-bade, as it were, against each other-with regard to those reductions; and he was persuaded that had the Government attempted at that time to retain those troops, they would have been defeated. Let us hope that what had taken place would be a

warning to them-(" Hear, hear!" from the Opposition) and he trusted that honourable gentlemen opposite who said "Hear, hear," would assist them with their votes when these matters came under consideration in future.

A member on the Opposition side-"We have never done otherwise."

Sir Harry Verney contended that the Government alone were responsible for the cutting down of our establishments.

Sir John Ramsden, speaking with reference to the Militia, said that the Government held 10,000 to be sufficient. If more troops were required for India, we must draw more largely on the Militia.

Admiral Walcott suggested that Admiral Seymour should be ordered to send to India all the small steamers and gun-boats he had at Hong Kong.

Lord Palmerston, in the course of a general reply, pointed out the inexpediency, with reference to the vital point of domestic security, of sending away a large portion of our naval force so far as India, and repeated the objections he had previously urged to the conveying troops across Egypt. As to the employing of a flotilla on the Ganges, he reminded the House that the rivers of India were thickly studded with sand-banks and abounded with shallows. He assured the House, however, that the suggestions made would receive the utmost attention of the Government, which was most anxiously directed to the sad events in India.

Mr. Disraeli said he wished to see a nearer relation established between the regular regiments of

the Line and the Militia, which would be of advantage to both. Adverting to the operations in India, he observed that much depended upon the fate of Cawnpore, the defence of which was, in his opinion, a more important point than the recapture of Delhi. He wished to know what portion of his garrison the Governor of the Cape was prepared to contribute to the European force in India, there being, he believed, no danger of a Caffre war. In reply to Lord Palmerston, he considered what were the duties of Government in questions of retrenchment, with relation to the exigencies of the country. The Government, he said, ought to have been aware of the condition of our Indian empire, and prescient of what would happen there, and they could not relieve themselves of responsibility for sanctioning a policy of reduction, which was most unwise, and had been most injurious to the country.

Mr. V. Smith denied that the Government were in any way responsible for the events in India, and defended the measures taken by them for expediting reinforcements thither. They had, he said, sent positive instructions to Sir George Grey to forward two regiments from the Cape to India, and as many more troops as he could spare, and he (Mr. V. Smith) had not the slightest fear that Sir George would carry out the instructions with spirit and promptitude. There had been no lack of consideration as to the force necessary to put down the mutiny. After that was done, measures would be taken to reorganize the army in India, making a large addition of European force.

Mr. Henley protested against any reproach being cast upon the House for having obliged the Government to reduce unduly the establishments of the country.

Mr. Spooner regretted that no distinct and specific recognition

had been made, either by Lord Palmerston or Mr. Smith, of an entire dependence for success in India upon the blessing of Providence.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

TWO

WO measures, having an important bearing on the social life and interests of the community, were at length, after many difficulties and much opposition, added to the statute book, and may be considered the most valuable legislative fruits of the year 1857. One of these was an Act for establishing a new jurisdiction in regard to wills and administrations, the other for substituting a new court of divorce in place of the anomalous legislative remedy hitherto afforded by the House of Lords. Both measures, but especially the latter, which was much resisted on ecclesiastical grounds by the High Church party, encountered a vigorous opposition in Parliament, but the determined attitude of the Government, who stood firmly by their resolve to carry them through before the session ended, eventually prevailed, and both the Bills became law. The first of these measures, the Probate and Administrations Bill, had been originally introduced by the Lord Chancellor in the short session preceding the dissolution, but it was again brought in, improved by several important modifications

which the criticism of some members of the House of Lords had suggested, soon after the New Parliament met. On the 18th of May the Lord Chancellor moved. the second reading, and proceeded to state the alterations made in the measure since it was brought forward last session. In the first place, he proposed that the present judge of the Prerogative Court should be the first judge of the new Court of Probate, with a working salary of 4,000l. and a retiring salary of 2,000l. a-year. As under the new Bill all disputed matters of fact would be tried by a jury in the common law courts, the labours of the court would be much reduced; he therefore proposed that the judge of the Court of Probate should be the judge of the Matrimonial and Divorce Courts, and that ultimately whenever a vacancy occurred in the Court of Admiralty he should be judge in that court also. On this point he was fortified by the opinion of Dr. Lushington, who had recently repeated evidence which he had given twenty years ago, to the effect that the duties of all these courts might be very well discharged by one and the