contracts were being entered into with the steam-
packet companies, and fourpence per letter was to be
charged for sea postage, of which the government
retained half, and the company depended for its
remuneration upon the remaining moieties. Under
certain contingencies additional steamers might be
called into service, but no grants of public money would
be henceforth required in carrying on the postal
communication with the South Australian colonies.

Mr. DISRAELI, referring to an article published in
the Journal of St. Petersburg, and to a leading article
in the Times of Saturday last respecting certain
statements as to the Views of the Emperor of Russia
regarding the Condition of the Turkish Empire,
inquired whether the government were prepared to lay
on the table the correspondence alleged in the Journal
of St. Petersburg to have taken place between the
Emperor of Russia and her Majesty's government at the
beginning of last year (and which did not appear among
the papers hitherto produced), and whether Lord J.
Russell could inform the house whether, in 1844, when
the Emperor of Russia was in this country, there had
been any arrangement or understanding between her
Majesty's government and the Emperor upon this
subject; if so, whether it was reduced to writing; and,
if written, whether he was prepared to lay that
document also on the table.—Lord J. RUSSELL replied, that
last year the Emperor of Russia had held a confidential
conversation with Sir H. Seymour, our ambassador at
St. Petersburg, with reference to Turkey, and it had
been his (Lord John's) duty to bring before the cabinet
the despatch of Sir H. Seymour and the answer to the
communication, which was forwarded to Sir Hamilton.
It was not the practice, he said, to lay such papers
before parliament, because so doing would put an end
to confidential communications. Since, however, the
Journal of St. Petersburg had alluded to this confidential
communication, her Majesty's government had no
longer any scruple about laying a copy of it on the table
of the house. With regard to the communication in
1844, it was true that when the Emperor was in this
country in that year, he had held a conversation with
the Duke of Wellington, Sir R. Peel, and Lord Aberdeen,
which was consigned to a written memorandum;
but as to producing that document he must defer giving
a positive answer.

Mr. M. MILNES, at considerable length, called the
attention of the house to the Greek Insurrection in
Turkey. A desultory conversation took place in which
many members joined. Lord John RUSSELL agreed
with Mr. Milnes, that it was the duty of the British
government to do all in its power to improve the
condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte, who,
notwithstanding the favourable disposition of the Sultan,
had suffered great evils, chiefly through the conduct of
a licentious soldiery. The advice of Lord Stratford had
always been directed to the mitigation of these evils.
At the same time, her Majesty's government thought
it their duty to discourage as much as possible the
insurrectionary movements of the Greeks, which could
not improve their condition; and while every effort
would continue to be employed by them, by advising the
Sultan to ameliorate the condition of his Christian
subjects, their utmost endeavours would be exerted to
discourage these movements, which could tend to no
advantage.—Mr. LAYARD observed that it was necessary
to inquire into the origin of the outbreak on the part of
the Greek subjects of Turkey, which he traced to the
mission of a Russian admiral to Athens by Prince
Menschikoff, when he arrived at Constantinople in the
beginning of last year, and to the intrigues of Russian
agents. He described the position of the Greek races
in Turkey and their character; he praised the moderation
of the Ottoman government; he contrasted its
mild despotism with the iron tyranny of the Czar,
and insisted that the object of Russian interference was
to crush the spirit of liberalism and reform which was
spreading among the population, as well as among the
ruling authorities of Turkey. He related instances of
fictitious charges of oppression brought against the
Turkish government, which, he said, where causes of
just complaint existed, removed the offending Pasha
from his pashalic. It had been urged that we should
enter into a convention or an understanding with the
Porte in respect to the treatment of its Christian
subjects; but such a step would justify the very policy
of Russia of which we complained.—Lord PALMERSTON
assured the house that the government had nothing
more at heart than the use of all their efforts to improve
the condition of the Christian subjects of the Sultan,
and to place them on a footing of equality with the
Mussulmans; but these efforts must be tempered by a
regard to the independence of the sovereign of another
country. This had been the object of the government
for several years past, and, by a recent firman, Christian
testimony was to be received in Turkey in all cases,
civil and criminal, in all the courts of the Ottoman
empire. With respect to the Greek insurrection, he
did not share in the apprehensions as to the extent of a
movement which, in its origin, was not entirely domestic.
The troops sent from this country were sent to support
the great cause in which this country was engaged,
which was not a religious war; its only object was the
maintenance, not of the independence of Turkey alone,
but the great interests of Europe and the civilised
world.

On Tuesday, March 14, Mr. PELLATT moved for
leave to bring in a bill Substituting Declarations for
Oaths in a Variety of Transactions. The multiplicity
of instances in which these solemn formalities were at
present exacted resulted in much irreverence and
profanity, and led to a general familiarity with perjury.
He proposed to enact accordingly, that in all cases
where conscientious scruples were entertained, a simple
affirmation might be substituted, at the desire of the
taker, who should still remain liable to all the penalties
now assigned to the crime of perjury, if it should be
proved that he had affirmed a falsehood.—Lord
PALMERSTON consented to the introduction of the bill,
and admitted that oaths might advantageously be
dispensed with in many cases where they were now exacted;
upon important occasions and judicial proceedings, he
thought that the attesting formality should be
maintained with the utmost solemnity. He approved also of
the precaution inserted in the bill, brought forward on
the subject in the other house, by which it was left to
certain appointed authorities to decide upon the nature
of the alleged scruples, and determine whether effect
was to be given them.Mr. HUME supported the motion.
—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained the provisions of
the government measure, which he hoped would soon
come down for consideration in that house. He also
detailed the contrivances by which they hoped to relieve
scrupulous consciences on one hand, and baffle the
attempts of intending prevaricators on the other.—The
house divided—for the motion, 109; against, 108:
majority, 1. Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

Mr. WHITESIDE moved for leave to bring in a second
bill, designed to secure to Persons under Religious Vows
the free exercise of their rights in the disposal of
property. The law already recognised the possibility of
undue influence under certain relationships, such as
those between lawyer and client, guardian and ward,
and sought to counteract the effect of that influence by
avoiding the conveyance of property affected by those
parties. This principle he sought to extend to persons
living under spiritual guardianship. Instead of annulling
grants and conveyances made by a nun in favour of
the convent in which she was secluded, he proposed
simply to shift to the parties claiming property under
such deeds, the onus of showing that they had not been
obtained by undue influence.—Mr. MOORE resisted the
motion, contending that the measure would be utterly
nugatory, except so far as it succeeded in inflicting pain
and inconvenience upon the inmates of convents.—Mr.
BOWYER also urged that legislation was unnecessary.
Adverting to the proposed bill, he remarked that it
contravened the recognised principles of jurisprudence, by
compelling claimants under the specified instruments to
prove a negative.—The motion was opposed by Mr. J.
O'Connell and Mr. Lucas, and supported by Mr. Malins.
—Lord PALMERSTON suggested that legislation should
be postponed until the report of the committee of inquiry
into the state of conventual establishments had been
presented. The principle of the bill he found deserving
of approval, and did not object to the introduction of the