the improvements which had been effected in the
organisation of the army. He trusted that the same
course would be persevered in hereafter. A miscellaneous
conversation ensued, after which the vote was agreed to.
—The votes were then successively proposed and passed.

Sir J. GRAHAM afterwards introduced the Navy
Estimates. The gross total of expenditure required for
this branch of the service was, he said, £7,487,948,
being an increase of £1,202,455 upon the vote of last
year. Entering into a short detail of the items of which
this vote was made up, the First Lord recapitulated the
steps that had been taken to combine economy with
efficiency in the naval service, eulogised the spirit and
discipline of the seamen, and expatiated upon the
advantages which had accrued from the adoption of
recent improvements in the science of navigation, and
especially that of the screw propeller.—The discussion
which followed involved sundry criticisms and questions
regarding points of detail, and was shared in by many
members.—Ultimately the first vote was passed.

The house then resumed, but again went into
committee of ways and means for the purpose of voting
Eight Millions on Account of the Services of the Year.
Resuming once more, the house shortly afterwards
adjourned at one o'clock.

On Monday, Feb. 27, the house went into committee
of supply, when the remaining Navy Estimates were
agreed to, without dissent, as follows;—Royal Naval
Coast Volunteers, £50,000; Scientific Department,
£51,722; establishments at home, £131,451; establishments
abroad, £22,297; wages to artificers at home,
£883,648; wages abroad, £37,259; naval stores,
£1,142,732; new works &c. in the yards, £372,642;
medicines, £32,000; miscellaneous, £54,653; halt-pay,
£627,575; military pensions, £476,659; civil pensions,
£148, 798; and £225,050 for freight of ships for troops
and stores.

This concluding vote was agreed to amid loud cheers,
and the house having resumed, went into committee
again on the Ordnance Estimates. Mr. MONSELL
explained the reasons for the increase in the several votes.
Amongst the items was the cost of a piece of land for
experimental encampments of artillery, and for
improved machinery in the laboratory and carriage departments.
The latter arrangement would not only lead to
a great saving in wages, but would render it unnecessary
to keep large quantities of stores on hand. The
gun factories at Birmingham and Enfield were to be
abolished, and a large factory erected in their place
near Woolwich. This would not only lead to a
saving in expense, but would extricate the ordnance
from the difficulties and delays they have experienced
in dealing with private gunmakers. With such a
factory at command, there would be no necessity for keeping
such large quantities of muskets and bayonets in
store as had hitherto been considered necessary. The
present cost of the Minié rifle was £3; it was expected
that, under the new arrangement, the cost would be
£1 8s. In the United States, where the government
manufactures for itself, the cost is £1 17s. The saving
upon the whole number of muskets necessary for all
the branches of the service would be £727,500—Mr.
MUNTZ denied that government could manufacture
arms as cheaply as private firms.—The vote amounting
in all to £485,000, was then agreed to, as were the
following votes:—£902,817 for pay and allowances to
artillery; £557,176 for commissariat and barrack
supplies; £73,193 to defray the expenses of the Ordnance
Office; £452,331 for wages.

The next vote proposed was £639,552 for Ordnance
and Land Stores—Mr. MUNTZ urged its postponement.
—Mr. NEWDEGATE objected strongly to the proposal of
government to interfere with private enterprise.—
Lord JOCELYN supported the vote.—Mr. GEACH, Lord
SEYMOUR, Captain BOLDERO, and Mr. A. PELLATT
deprecated the interference of government with private
enterprise.—Mr. MUNTZ said he should only ask for a
delay of two months, and a present reduction of the
vote to £100,000.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
would not object to the motion for the proposed
reduction, as the government would be prepared to
propose a fresh vote upon that day month.—Mr.
SPOONER, though he admitted that the gunmakers had
a strong claim to be heard, advised the hon.member
for Birmingham to consent to the proposition of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.—The vote as reduced
was ultimately agreed to.—This concluded the day's
proceedings with respect to the estimates.

The Church Building Acts Amendment Bill, and the
Valuation (Ireland) Bill were read a second time.

On Tuesday, Feb. 28, M. T. CHAMBERS moved for a
select committee to inquire into the Numbers and
Rate of Increase of Conventual and Monastic
Institutions; and to consider whether any, and if any what,
further legislation is required on the subject, observing
that he did not consider this as a religious, but as a
civil, social, and political question. He calculated the
number of convents in England and Ireland at 220, of
which 203 were roman catholic, showing an increase of
40 per cent. per annum since 1843, when the entire
number was only 56. With regard to monasteries,
which were not included in his former motion on this
subject, there were in January 1853, 72 monasteries in
Ireland, whereas in 1843 the number was but 60. In
what relation to the existing law did these bodies stand?
Monasteries were open and flagrant violations of the
roman catholic relief act, and ought to be dealt with
accordingly; convents, or communities of females bound
by religious vows, had no recognised status, and were
ignored altogether by the law; but it was highly
undesirable that they should remain so. He proceeded
to advert to the unhappy effects often resulting from
the adoption of a monastic life, especially where it was
embraced unwillingly, and contended that there was no
ground on which such institutions could be exempted
from the supervision of the constituted authorities.
The assertion as to his proposal infringing religious
liberty was a mere pretence. There was in these
establishments not only a power to imprison and a
power to torture, but a power to transport, for it was
admitted that these establishments were affiliated to
others abroad.—Mr. NAPIER seconded the motion. It
was worthy of note that every roman catholic country
preserved a strict system of legal inspection and control
over monastic societies, whereas in England they were
practically exempted. He maintained that such bodies
were not consonant to the spirit of our laws and
institutions.—Mr. M'CANN opposed the motion.—Mr. J.
BALL had given notice of the following amendment:—
"That it is not just or expedient to subject to
parliamentary inquiry, associations of ladies devoting
themselves exclusively to charitable and religious
objects, who do not possess, or seek to possess, any
peculiar legal privilege or immunity." He denounced
the motion as unjust, as well as irritating and offensive
to the feelings of catholics, and concluded by saying
that he should meet it with a direct negative.—After
several observations from different members, Lord
JOHN RUSSELL declared himself decidedly opposed to
the motion. Nothing beyond suspicion had been stated
to induce the house to consent to the motion, and it
was too much to say, that in order to get rid of suspicions
such an inquiry as was now proposed must be gone
through. The feeling existing amongst those who
entertained religious convictions favourable to the
proposition would be satisfied with nothing short of the
total abolition of monastic institutions.—Mr. WALPOLE
thought that upon the whole they should assent to the
inquiry now proposed. If these communities, as he
believed, were not necessary to the full and free
exercise of the roman catholic religion, and were
hostile in spirit and practice to the protestant institutions
of the country, there would be legitimate grounds of
inquiry. Did the inmates require protection, either as
to their personal liberty or the disposition of their
property? As regarded the first, it appeared that the
law of every country in Europe, except England, made
provision for it, and he thought there could hardly be
a doubt that some alteration of the law was required in
reference to the transmission or disposition of property.
—Mr. J. FITZGERALD said there was an entire absence
of proof as to the exercise of any undue spiritual
influence over the inmates of convents. No alteration
of the law was required, and the inquiry could only do
mischief.—The motion for a select committee was then
carried by a majority of 67, the numbers being 186 to 119.