of Russia." Lord Clarendon subsequently described the
present position of affairs as follows:—"Diplomatic
relations with that country have been declared by
Russia to be suspended, not by England. We are,
therefore, in an intermediate state. Our desire for peace
is as strong and as sincere as ever, but our hopes of
maintaining it have been gradually growing less and
less, and every hour we are undoubtedly drifting nearer
and nearer to a state of war. My noble friend has said
that negociations for peace do not imply war. I have
already stated to the house in substance how the case
stands. I consider the negociations for peace to be at an
end, but it does not follow that a state of war is instantly
to ensue; and I am sure your lordships will not expect
that in the exercise of the discretion with which I am
entrusted, and in the face of the responsibility that
exists, I should proceed to state on this occasion the
further steps which her Majesty's government may see
fit to take in the matter." After speaking in the
highest terms of Lord Stratford, whose ability and
devotion, he said, it was impossible to overrate, Lord
Clarendon then entered at length into the line of policy
pursued by the English and French governments after
the massacre at Sinope, as well as into the circumstances
which had transpired respecting Count Orloff's mission
to Austria and Prussia, both which governments had,
he believed, returned an answer becoming independent
nations. He also praised the admirable discretion
displayed by the people of this country during a period of
great excitement, and concluded hy declaring that if war
were forced on us, England would respond to the call to
arms in a manner worthy of her ancient renown, as well
as of the fame of those allies who would now for the first
time be ranged in battle by her side.—Lord GLENELG
approved of the conduct of the government, and
exhorted them, if possible with honour, to preserve peace.
—Earl GREY contended that this country ought not to
have interfered in the dispute between Russia and
Turkey.—The Earl of DERBY was of opinion that the
policy of the government had been erroneous in various
respects: but he concluded by saying that war was now
inevitable: he should discard all party feeling and all
consideration of the past; and if the government were
in earnest in the determination of carrying on the war
in a manner worthy of the dignity of, this country, he
should earnestly give them his support and assistance.
—The Earl of ABERDEEN, after defending the government
from the various charges brought against them,
said that, looking over the whole transaction, he could
not put his finger upon any part of it which he lamented.
He had certainly done his best to preserve peace, and he
should never regret the time which had been occupied
with this view. The most perfect concert had been
maintained throughout with France, and this union
would always give the highest satisfaction to him, whilst
no endeavours should be wanting to secure its
permanence. He could not look without apprehension to
the consequences of war, however it might end, to the
Turkish empire itself, for it must be attended with great
danger to its future condition. Slender as the hope
was, he would not even now abandon the hope of peace;
but her Majesty's government were making every
preparation to carry on war, if war there must be, in a
manner befitting the honour of the country. He had
not the least fear in appealing, not only to that house,
but the country, not merely for an acquittal of her
Majesty's government from blame, but he would almost
venture to trust that there might be approbation of their
conduct.—After some remarks from the Duke of
Argyle, and the Earl of Albemarle, the Marquis of
CLANRICARDE withdrew his motion the object of which, that
of obtaining some information, had been gained.

On Thursday, Feb. 16th, the LORD CHANCELLOR
called attention to the State of the Law as Regarded
Testamentary Matters, and the evils inherent in the
existing system of jurisdiction in the ecclesiastical
courts. In the first place, there was no reason, except
old custom, ratified by statute in the reign of King
Edward I., that the ecclesiastical courts should have
jurisdiction over wills more than over any other kind of
deeds; but, even supposing this objection in theory to
have been overcome, the practical inconvenience of the
present system, under which no less than 386 different
tribunals had jurisdiction over wills, rendered an alteration
in the law absolutely necessary. Again, in the
present state of the law, when the cognisance of devises
of real estate belonged to the temporal tribunals, and
that of bequests of personalty appertained exclusively to
the ecclesiastical courts, a conflict of law might occur,
and one-half of a will might be declared valid in one
court and invalid in another. Many attempts had been
made to remedy this state of things, and reports had
been made by various commissions on the subject. The
latest, which had just delivered its report, recommended
the abolition of the existing Prerogative Court, and the
transfer of its jurisdiction to a new court of probate, which
should be a temporal, and not an ecclesiastical tribunal.
With the recommendation for abolishing the Prerogative
Court of Canterbury he entirely agreed, but not
with that for erecting a new court, as he thought the
public interest would be best served by vesting the
whole contentious jurisdiction of wills in the Court of
Chancery. With the right of the proctors to deal with
the common form business, as it was called, which
constituted ninety-nine hundredths of the business of the
Prerogative Court, he did not at present propose to
interfere; but the contentious business arising out of
cases in which a will was disputed, and which did not,
it appeared, amount to more than sixty days' work in
the year, he proposed to transfer to Chancery, and to
throw open to its practitioners, for the simple reason
that it seemed unnecessary to erect a new court to do so
little work. His plan, then, was to transfer the whole
machinery of the Prerogative Court to Chancery, and to
give the proctors the exclusive transaction of non-
contentious business for a limited time. He also proposed
to allow probate of wills in the country up to £1500
and to adopt a recommendation of the commission, and
to extend probates to real estate as well as to personalty.
He then laid the bill on the table.—Lords BROUGHAM
and ST. LEONARDS expressed their satisfaction at the
proposed measure, though the latter did not agree with
the Lord Chancellor in thinking that probate should be
extended to real property.—Lord CAMPBELL also testified
his concurrence in the bill.—The bill was then read
a first time.

On Friday, Feb. 17th, the Earl of EGLINGTON moved
for a committee to inquire into the System of National
Education in Ireland.—The motion was agreed to, and
their lorships adjourned.

On Thursday, February 23rd, the Earl of DERBY,
referring to the announcement that the government did
not intend to adopt the scheme proposed by the authorities
of Oxford University for Reforming the Constitution
of that Corporation, inquired whether the ministry
would communicate their own measure for university
reform to the governing bodies of those institutions
before submitting it to parliament.—The Earl of
ABERDEEN declined to give any pledge to that effect on the
part of the government, but subsequently consented to a
motion made by Lord Derby for an address to the
Crown, praying that the correspondence on the subject
between the ministry and the heads of Oxford University
should be laid on the table.

The second reading of the Tenant Right (Ireland)
Bill having been moved, Lord BROUGHAM complained
that sufficient time had not been allowed since the first
introduction of this bill, and several others on the same
subject, for their due consideration by the house.—In
the course of a brief discussion which followed, the Earl
of WICKLOW remarked that the measures were identical
with a similar series of bills brought in last session, and
with which the house had enjoyed ample opportunities
of becoming fully acquainted.—The second reading of
all the bills was ultimately postponed.

A question from Lord DESART respecting the
Reported Withdrawal of Troops from the Smaller West
India Islands led to some conversation, during which
the Duke of NEWCASTLE explained the new arrangements
that had been carried into effect with regard to
the military force in the dependencies alluded to. The
general result of these changes was to concentrate the
troops in the island of Barbadoes, and to place a steamer
at the disposal of the governor for their transport to any
point where their presence was desirable.