IN the HOUSE OF LORDS, on Friday, Feb. 24, Lord
BEAUMONT moved a resolution that all efforts had failed
to establish amicable relations between Russia and
Turkey without recourse to arms, and that the honour
and interests of this country require the adoption of
immediate and effectual means to repel the unjustifiable
aggression of Russia, and place the relations between
the Porte and the rest of Europe on such foundations
as may secure a durable peace. In proposing this
motion the noble lord disclaimed any intention of
re-opening a discussion upon the eastern question. He
nevertheless proceeded to examine many of the
documents lately issued, comparing them with the contemporary
events, and arguing that the ministry had shown
themselves singularly credulous, although he admitted,
at the same time, the difficulty of their position, and the
delicacy required in treating assurances vouched by a
royal authority.—The Earl of CLARENDON defended the
government; and after some discussion the motion was
withdrawn.

On Monday, Feb. 27, the LORD CHANCELLOR brought
forward his bill for the Amendment of the Common
Law. The first report of the commissioners, he said,
related to the subject of special pleading, and the
amendments of the law, founded on that report, had
proved most beneficial. In the second report the
commissioners had considered what amendments could
be made on the trial of matters in dispute. One of
their recommendations was, that both parties might, by
agreement, have the matter tried by a judge without a
jury. He could not quite agree to this recommendation
unmodified, for reasons which he detailed; and he
proposed this limitation—if the judge should think fit,
or if the case came within certain general rules, to be
framed by the judges. The commissioners next
recommended that cases involving matters of account,
should at once be sent to a referee without coming to
the court. This he approved, as also a number of
recommendations for improving the trial by jury itself,
particularly the raising the qualification, so that there
might be only one panel for common and special jurors.
He did not propose to interfere with the rule which
required unanimity in the jury; but if the jury could
not agree within a given time, say twelve hours, then
they would be discharged, the judge having in the
meantime the power of ordering reasonable refreshments.
In the case of a jury not agreeing and being
discharged, there would be a new trial. Another
recommendation was, that the evidence of parties who
had conscientious scruples to take an oath might be
received, if the judge was satisfied their scruples were
conscientious. Having detailed the recommendations
which he adopted with respect to the proof of hand-
writing, and the reception of insufficiently stamped
documents, the noble and learned lord referred to
several others to which he could not accede, and which
he did not intend to propose. The commissioners
recommended greater facilities with respect to equitable
defences. He proposed also that equitable defences
should be pleaded in bar to the action. After some
further explanations, the noble and learned lord laid a
bill upon the table, which, after the second reading, he
proposed to refer to a select committee.—Lord CAMPBELL
pointed out several details in the bill which would
require great consideration, but gave it a general
support.—Lord BROUGHAM praised the bill as a step
in the right direction, and hoped, before their
lordships had done, it would become a stride.—The bill was
then read a first time.

On Tuesday, Feb. 28, the Earl of ABERDEEN, in
reply to a question put by the Earl of Wicklow, said it
was intended to introduce a bill into the other house to
Modify the Existing Law Relating to the Militia in
England, by extending the number of men authorised
to be raised from 80,000 to 120,000. It was intended,
also, to take power to raise 30,000 men for Ireland and
10,000 for Scotland; but none of these forces would be
embodied this year.

The Earl of DONOUGHMORE moved the second reading
of the Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill and the Landlord
and Tenant (Ireland) Bill. He detailed the provisions
of these measures, and said the general object was to
prevent outlay by tenants upon insecure titles, and
to give them every reasonable security for their
expenditure upon improvements.—Lord MONTEAGLE
approved of the bills being referred to a select
committee; but pointed out several provisions in which he
was totally unable to concur. The difficulty to be
contended with was one of principle—it was that of
legislating for people having the ordinary interests of
buyer and seller. Legislation such as was proposed
by these bills would be much more prejudicial to the
real interests of parties who stood in this relation, than
if they were left free and unfettered to make their own
contracts.—The Duke of NEWCASTLE said the question
was not whether new legislation on this subject was
right, but how their lordships should deal with the
legislation that already existed. The law at present was
in a most inconvenient and prejudicial condition. He
admitted that some of the provisions in the bills brought
in by the noble earl were of a useful character; and
having regard to them as well as to the other measures
on the paper, he thought great advantage would arise
from a calm consideration of the whole in committee up
stairs.—Lord CAMPBELL eulogised the importance of
encouraging the practice of leasing in Ireland; and
with respect to the law of landlord and tenant,
recommended all the existing statues affecting them to be
swept away, so that they might begin de novo.—The
bills were read a second time, and referred to a select
committee.

On Thursday, March 2, Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved
for certain Returns Connected with the Militia, and
having called the attention of the house to several
counties in which, on the voluntary system, the militia
corps had either not been formed, or were much below
their proper amount, wished to know the intentions
of the government on the subject, and whether they
were about to call out the militia for a longer period of
service this year. He also impressed on the government
the absolute necessity of striking a decisive blow against
the Russians in the Baltic.—The Duke of NEWCASTLE
declined to follow Lord Ellenborough into the Baltic,
or to reveal the intentions of the government as to the
conduct of the war. With respect to the militia, it was
intended to call that force out for twenty-eight days
during the present year. The country had responded
in so patriotic a manner to the calls made on it, that it
would be a poor return to have recourse to any other
system than voluntary enlistment. The regiments