ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the government, without
approving the scheme of Mr. Pliillimore, thought that
the bill ought to be brought in, in order that the
subject might undergo discussion, adding that the
matter had been under their serious consideration, and
that they considered the principle of public prosecutors
ought to be adopted.—The objects of the measure were
approved and supported by Mr. Napier, Mr. Hadfield,
Mr. S. Wortley, Mr. Henley, Mr. Phillips, and Mr.
R. Moore, and leave was given to bring in the bill.

On Thursday, Feb. 16th, Sir F. KELLY moved for
leave to bring in a bill to regulate the Practice at the
Election of Members for England and Wales: to
prevent bribery, corruption, intimidation, and undue
influence at such elections; and to diminish the
expenses thereof. The means he proposed in order to
guard against this great evil, or at least to render the
practice difficult and detection easy, respected the
candidates, the agents, and the electors. As regarded the
candidates, he proposed that, at every place returning a
member, an election officer (being a barrister) should
be appointed, and that, at every election, the candidates
should be bound by oath to pay all moneys into his
hands alone. In whatever way money for election
purposes might be raised—whether by clubs or individuals
—if paid to the election officer, no harm could be done.
With regard to agents, his bill made it incumbent upon
a candidate to declare to the election officer the names
of bis agents, who should be required to take an oath
before the election officer that no money would be paid
except through his hands; and he proposed that it
should be competent to the election officer, upon
information that any person was acting an illegal part at
an election, to require such person to take an oath
provided by the bill. The remaining part of the measure
regarded voters, and a series of provisions enabled
electors to give their votes by means of voting papers.
Sir Fitzroy explained the machinery by which he
proposed to carry this part of his scheme into effect, urging
that, while it would prevent the tumult and curtail the
expense of elections, such a mode of voting must all but
annihilate treating, intimidation, and undue influence.
The measure he had prepared, he said, in all its details,
without the slightest reference to party interests or party
feelings.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on the part of the
government, did not oppose the introduction of the bill.
It contained, he observed, matters which, novel in
principle and detail, were worthy of consideration,
though some parts were of very doubtful policy,
especially that relating to polling papers, which would tend
to renew the evils of protracted polling and scrutiny of
votes.—Leave was given to bring in the bill.

Mr. C. FORSTER obtained leave to bring in a bill to
Alter and Amend the Truck Act, which he observed,
while it struck at collusive contracts, overlooked
collusive payments. He gave an outline of the chief
provisions of the bill, which was similar to that
introduced last session by Lord Palmerston.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE obtained leave to bring in a bill to
provide Compensation for Improvements made by
Tenants in Ireland.

On Friday, Feb. 17th, Mr. LAYARD pursuant to notice
called attention to the Eastern Question. Briefly
reciting the proceedings on this subject in the House of
Commons last session, and attributing to the
extraordinary reserve of the government the state of
uncertainty and excitement in which the country even
still remained, he expressed his hope that this
uncertainty would now be removed, and both the past conduct
and the future intentions of the administration
effectually cleared up. He had some time since arrived
at the conviction that if the policy of the government
had been more straightforward, the course of events
would have been materially changed; and after a
careful perusal of the voluminous blue books, he found
no reason to alter his opinion. He then entered into an
historical analysis of the past events, contending that
even in the earlier months of last year the ministry
might have found ample warning in the military
preparations, the diplomatic proceedings, and even in the
language of Russia. He read various extracts, showing
the points respecting which the British government had
been mistaken, shortsighted, or credulous. He quoted
expressions from Russian despatches, in which Lord
Aberdeen was significantly thanked and eulogised
as playing a "beau rôle." He noticed that no formal
protest had been made against the occupation of the
Principalities, and remarked in the matter of the Vienna
note that it was only the candid manifesto of Count
Nesselrode which taught the ministers what was the
real import of that document, and prevented the
consummation of a serious act of injustice. Adverting to
the movements of the fleets, he found that in every
step the French had taken the initiative, and seemed to
be urging on their reluctant ally; and yet it had been
pleaded in vindication of the English government, that
they were hampered by the necessity of securing the
co-operation of France. Declaring that the tragedy of
Sinope required fuller explanations, he drew evidence
from the published despatches to show that the admirals
of the united fleets might have prevented that
catastrophe, or the Turks by themselves have averted it, if it
had not been for the timorous and vacillating instructions
sent out from England. Concluding his retrospect by
urging that the ministry were condemned out of their
own mouths, he inquired as to the future what they
were going to do? On what system were they about
to prosecute war, or on what terms were they willing to
conclude a peace? He inferred from their recent
language that they would still treat on the basis of
returning to the status quo ante bellum; and proceeded
to condemn that presumed step as sacrificing the
independence of Turkey, as well as the interests and
honour of England. Mr. Layard then controverted the
assertion that Turkey was not worth defending,
declaring that the Turks had advanced more in fifteen
years than the Russians in a hundred and fifty, and that
the Ottoman empire was rapidly improving in wealth
and commerce, in the liberality of its government, the
intelligence of its people, and all the other elements of
strength. In conclusion, he called upon the government
to do their duty, in the certainty that the people
of England would do theirs.—Sir J. GRAHAM: said he
would not appeal to the forbearance of the house, but to
its wisdom and justice, and was ready to stake the
cause of the government upon the decision. The
primary duty of an administration was to preserve
peace, so long as it was consistent with honour, and
this they had done up to the present moment.
Commencing his reply to the various charges brought
against the government, with the allegation that they
had blindly trusted to Russian assurances, he remarked
that Russia had been an old and faithful ally of Great
Britain, and dark, malignant suspicions did not easily
take root in generous minds. The assertion that the
Russian armaments would have been checked, and
especially the Sinope disaster averted, by a more prompt
movement of the naval forces, he met by comparing the
dates of the instructions sent to the admirals with those
of the successive events, citing several passages from
the despatches of Lord Stratford in support of his
argument, and remarking, also, in reference to the last-
mentioned catastrophe, that no one except the Turkish
officials knew in how disgracefully defenceless a
condition the harbour of Sinope had been left. Briefly
vindicating the Vienna note, he went through the
catalogue of succeeding events, contending that in every
instance the government had shown quite as much
vigour as the case required, or as was compatible with
their hopes and efforts for averting war. Besides
maintaining peace through many months of complicated
negotiations, in which the French Emperor had proved
a faithful participator, the ministry, he pleaded, had
done much. They had cemented the union with France,
and obtained the consent of Austria and Prussia to such
an interpretation of old treaties as would secure the
independence of Turkey. Both England and France
were now prepared for war; both were agreed upon the
objects for which they should contend—namely, that
the Principalities must be evacuated; that the
independence of Turkey must be maintained; and that all
interference on the part of Russia was inadmissible.
This being so, what, he asked, would the house do?
The ministry would do their duty, would ask for the
addition of 10,000 men to the navy, as many more to the
army, and of two million pounds to the national