would do him no dishonour. How had this news-
paper become possessed of the nature of this answer?
The more serious question, however, related to the
statements made by the government in the debates on
the blue books. The government then said that
solemn and reiterated assurances were given by Russia
that she had no ambitious views whatever, although at
the same time they were in possession of the ultimate
scheme of ambition formed by the Emperor, to which
it was said Lord J. Russell had given a firm and indignant
denial. The Times also referred to another
circumstance. It stated that when the Emperor of
Russia visited this country (the noble earl being then
Foreign Secretary), he had attempted to gain over this
country to his designs. Under these circumstances he
wished to put two questions to the government—first,
whether they would lay on the table the whole of the
correspondence, confidential though it might be, the
production of which had been challenged by Russia;
and next, whether there was any authority for the
statement that there had been similar communications
made in 1844, when the Emperor of Russia was in this
country?—The Earl of ABERDEEN said the question
raised by Lord Derby was one of considerable interest
and importance. The correspondence referred to had
not been printed on the papers laid on the table, in
consequence of its character. The government did not think it
proper, or consistent with that respect and delicacy which
they were bound to observe towards a sovereign with
whom they were still in alliance, to produce papers
which had the character described by the noble earl.
There appeared, however, to be no reluctance on the
part of the Russian government now to the publication
of the correspondence, and therefore her Majesty's
government were relieved from all anxiety upon the
subject. He begged however to say, that if no reference
had been made to it at all, her Majesty's government
would have felt it their duty to lay it upon the table.
Reference had been made to the comments made by the
Times upon the document published by the St. Petersburg
Journal. Until that very morning he had not seen
those comments; and neither directly nor indirectly
had he the remotest conception of their origin. He
was perfectly ignorant of the source from which they
were derived; nor could he conjecture, unless it might
be from a clerk in the Foreign office appointed by Lord
Malmesbury who was no longer in that department.
With regard to the second question, he had to say, it
was true that when the Emperor of Russia was in this
country, he had some verbal communications with the
Duke of Wellington, and he believed, but was not sure,
with Sir R. Peel, on the subject of Turkey. These
communications had been put into the form of a
memorandum by Count Nesselrode. He had not seen this
document for the last ten years, and was not prepared
to say whether it would be produced, but he would
ascertain.—The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that
the Emperor of Russia was in communication with
Sir R. Peel as well as the Duke of Wellington in 1844.—
The Earl of MALMESBURY complained of the assertion
that he had appointed the party who might be supposed
to have betrayed confidence. Was the noble earl quite
sure that he was correctly informed? He wished to
know whether Lord Aberdeen would name the party.—
The Earl of ABERDEEN said he did not know it.—The
Earl of DERBY contended that the name of the party
ought, under the circumstances, to be disclosed.—Earl
GREY complained of official information having been
published through the newspapers before being
communicated to parliament. He did not consider the
explanation satisfactory, though of course he placed
every reliance upon the assurances of Lord Aberdeen
that he knew nothing of the case referred to.—The Earl
of MALMESBURY said he had not received the satisfaction
which he expected at the hands of the noble earl. He
had made only three or four junior appointments whilst
he held the seals of the Foreign office, and unless the
names were mentioned, the stigma of the accusation
would remain upon all the departments.

Lord MONTEAGLE moved for a copy of the instructions
given to the commissioners who have reported on the
state of the Civil Service, and of the evidence taken
before them. The noble lord entered into an elaborate
discussion of the changes recommended in the civil
service, and expressed his total inability to concur with
them. He contended that they had been arrived at
ex-parte, and complained that the commissioners' report
had been printed in the newspapers on the 9th of February,
although it was not presented to parliament until
the 24th.—Earl GRANVILLE said there was no objection
to produce the instructions, but the evidence could not
be given, as no short-hand writer had been admitted
during the inquiry. The government were of opinion
that some such change as that recommended by the
commissioners might advantageously be made; and he
added that it had the support of the heads of various
departments. When the government should bring their
measure forward, it would be found free from the
slightest selfish feeling, and to have been prepared solely
with the object of improving the civil service.—Lord
BROUGHAM doubted whether any plan was really in
contemplation; but if one was, he certainly could not
agree with it.—The motion was finally agreed to.

On Tuesday, March 14, the Earl of MALMESBURY
referred to the Charges against a Clerk in the Foreign
Office, made by Lord Aberdeen, and called upon the
minister to withdraw the accusation of having betrayed
official confidence, which he declared had not been
proved.—The Earl of ABERDEEN had spoken merely
upon rumour, which he now knew to have arisen from
the open expressions of the functionary alluded to
himself.—The Earl of MALMESBURY complained of the
supercilious tone in which the matter was treated, and
which he considered creditable neither to the government
nor to the house.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading
of the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill, whose details he
recapitulated in a speech of considerable length. If the
bill were read a second time, he proposed to have it
referred to a select committee, admitting that it had been
framed in a hurry, and required some modifications to
reduce it to working order.—Lord BROUGHAM offered
many comments upon the measure, whose objects he
approved, but hoped that some means would be found to
avoid sacrificing the interests of the existing practitioners.
—The bill was read a second time.

On Thursday, March 16, Lord STANLEY of Alderley
moved the second reading of the Coasting Trade Bill,
and recommended the measure to the house as removing
all those restrictions on our shipping which had
remained after the passing of the Act for the repeal of the
Navigation Laws, and as, in fact, necessary to carry out
the principle of that measure, which, he was happy to
say, had been attended with the most beneficial results.
—After some observations from Lord DERBY, who
wished to know whether the passing of this bill would
cause the Americans to throw open their coasting trade
to British shipping; to which Lord STANLEY replied
that, though it would not make such a step imperative
on the Americans, it would remove the constitutional
objections which had hitherto prevented the United
States from taking such a step, Lords GREY and
BROUGHAM expressed themselves warmly in favour of
the bill.—The bill was then read a second time.

On Friday, March 17, the Earl of MALMESBURY once
more called attention to the Charge against a late Clerk
of the Foreign Office of betraying cabinet secrets. He
read a letter from the gentleman in question indignantly
denying the accusation. It was due to a young man
attacked from so high a quarter, that the injustice should
be repaired.—Lord ABERDEEN had thought it impossible,
from the authority on which he spoke, that the
statement could have been denied; but as the denial had
been made, he felt bound to express his regret that he
had promulgated it. He would produce his authorities
if it were desired. He warmly eulogised the employés
of the Foreign Office for their ability, industry, and
probity.—Lord DERBY concurred in the praises
bestowed on the Foreign-office, and for that very reason
demanded that the present suspicions should be fully
elucidated. He had no objection to a minister
conveying his impression to the public through the medium
of the press; but when an especial paper obtained access
to documents of the most secret and confidential
character, and the persons connected with it held suspicious
relations with government officials, no wonder if the