alluded to by the noble lord as having fallen short of
their complement were only seven in number; and,
when it was considered that five of those belonged to
the great manufacturing districts of Lancashire and
Yorkshire, where the demand for labour was enormous,
he thought it a subject for congratulation rather than
complaint that the shortcomings had been so few.
With respect to the returns moved for, he had no
objections to produce them.—The motion was then
agreed to.
On Friday, March 3, The Earl of DERBY inquired
whether it was the intention of the government to
proceed with the Bill for Reforming the Representation,
during the present session?—The Earl of ABERDEEN
stated that the measure would be carried forward, but
not quite so soon as had been at first appointed. An
announcement that the second reading would be
postponed to April 27th, would be made that evening
in another place.

On Monday, March 6, Lord St. LEONARDS asked what
were the intentions of the government with respect to
the Codification of the Criminal Law; prefacing his
question with a speech, in which he took a view of the
efforts already made to accomplish this object.—In
reply, the Lord CHANCELLOR, stating much with
respect to what had been done, which he had stated
before, said that he intended to refer the bill for the
consolidation of the criminal law, and the opinion of the
judges upon it, to a select committee at an early day.—
Lord BROUGHAM observed, that the principle of the bill
ought not to have been referred to the judges for their
opinion after it had been assented to and read a second
time. The judges had no right to say the House of
Lords was entirely wrong. He would leave to them the
administration of the law in general—though not always;
but he had no respect for their opinion when they are
dragged out of their legitimate province of administration
into that of legislation. He justified this view at
some length, and supported it by illustrative facts: thus,
the judges opposed the bill to enable the truth to be
given in evidence in cases of libel; they opposed the
bankrupt law bill; they opposed the law of evidence.

On Thursday, March 9, the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH
moved for certain returns relating to the Manning of
the Navy, and urged the government to take more active
measures to secure good seamen for the fleet. This, he
said, could, under the present system, only be done by
outbidding the merchant service in the pay offered to
able seamen.—The Earl of ABERDEEN denied that the
fleet now proceeding to the Baltic was inefficiently
manned. On the contrary, it was in every respect
properly equipped for the great services it was proposed
to accomplish; and one fact about it was certainly
remarkable—it was entirely manned by volunteers, and
did not contain a single pressed man. He had no objection
to produce the returns moved for, but must enter
his protest against the inferences that might be drawn
from the noble lord's remarks.

Earl GREY moved for some returns relative to the
Electoral System, and expressed his satisfaction that the
progress of the bill for amending the representation of
the people had been deferred for the present. He hoped
that when the appointed day came the measure would
not be persevered with unless the existing objections
were removed, and the government ceased to have their
energies absorbed by the preparations for war or negociations
for peace. The bill he thought might also be
presented in a more mature and perfect form after further
consideration.—The Earl of ABERDEEN apprehended
that it was somewhat out of order for members of
that house to prescribe a course of proceedings for the
other. The date of April 27 had been assigned for the
progress of the bill in perfect good faith, but the present
condition of European affairs prevented his entering into
any positive pledge that it would be actually brought
forward again on that day.

The Earl of HARROWBY alluded to the reported
Approach of Cholera, and enforced the necessity of
immediately taking steps to improve the sanitary condition
of the metropolis.—The Earl of SHAFTESBURY feared
that the approach of the epidemic was no longer a
matter of doubt. It had appeared in some towns of
Scotland, and seemed progressing by the exact path
which it traversed in 1848 and 1849.—Earl GRANVILLE
stated that the government were not neglectful of their
duty in this matter. The Home Secretary was collecting
information with the view of determining what remedial
measures it was best to adopt for the purpose of arresting
or assuaging the malady, so far as it was possible to do.
—Certain returns asked for by Lord Harrowby were
ordered to be laid on the table.

On Friday, March 10, Lord Brougham presented a
bill assimilating the Scotch bankruptcy law to the
English in certain points.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in moving for some
papers respecting the Christian Population in Turkey,
denounced the assertion in the Russian manifestoes that
England and France were fighting for Mahomedanism,
and Russia for Christianity. The question was not one
of religion but of justice. Being compelled to choose
between the two, he infinitely preferred the Turkish to
the Russian civilisation. The wrongs suffered by the
Christians in Turkey were mainly attributable to them-
selves, being caused by intrigues and disputes among
the sects, or by the ambition of the Greek priests.
Quoting many authorities to show the rapid advances
of Protestantism among the Turkish Christians, he
eulogised the liberality which the Porte displayed in
allowing books, missionaries, printing presses, and all
the agencies of improvement and proselytism full scope
throughout its dominions. This he contrasted with the
intolerance exercised in Russia, where the frontier was
hermetically sealed against any such importations, and
where, since the year 1824, not a single copy of the
Bible printed in the vernacular tongue had been allowed
to circulate. He traced the secret motives of Russian
interference in Turkey to jealousy of the toleration
shown by the Turks towards Protestants.—The Earl of
CLARENDON concurred in condemning the policy and
proceedings of Russia, and in appreciating the conduct
of the Turks, who had displayed in the contest
a noble spirit of nationality, without developing
any religious fanaticism. After reading from a despatch,
lately received, a statement that the firman admitting
the evidence of Christians before civil tribunals in
Turkey was prepared, and only waited some formalities
to take effect, the noble earl declared that the Four
Powers were united in the determination to secure for
the Christian subjects of the Sultan full civil and
religious immunities, with those improvements in their
condition which would form the best prevention against
insurrection.—Earl GREY believed that the Greeks in
Turkey still suffered much oppression, and he trusted
that England, in supporting the Sultan, would do
nothing to coerce the Christian population in his
dominions.—The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH warned the
government against embarking in the thankless and
perilous office of protecting one section of Turkish
subjects against another.—Earl FITZWILLIAM considered
that the present juncture was not a fit occasion for
demanding religious concessions from Turkey.—The
motion was then agreed to.

On Monday, March 13, the Earl of DERBY referred
to a document published in the St. Petersburg journal,
purporting to be an Official answer from the Emperor
of Russia to a Speech of Lord J. Russell in the House
of Commons. The assertions contained in this
document, he said, were of a nature which required
explanation at the hands of the government; because,
unexplained, they appeared to reflect upon their
political, if not on their personal honour. It appeared
from it, that through unreserved communications made
to Sir H. Seymour, the British government had no
right to express the least surprise at the course pursued
by Russia with respect to Turkey. He referred to the
comments made by a morning paper upon this document,
and complained of the betrayal of state secrets, which
ought to be known only to the cabinet and the sovereign.
Lord Aberdeen might disclaim all connection with the
paper referred to, but not all his disclaimers would
persuade any man of common sense that cabinet secrets
could be published without some person or persons
having betrayed them. The Times said that the
representations of the Emperor of Russia were met by an
indignant refusal on the part of the government, and
and that Lord J. Russell's answer to the Russian overture