issue a royal commission under such circumstances
would be to enter upon a species of rivalry with the
voluntary association which would certainly be
misunderstood. That intention had therefore been abandoned.
But if a general action took place, the government
would issue a royal commission for the distribution of
whatever funds might be collected for the relief of the
widows and children of those who fell.

The Duke of ARGYLL, in moving that the house go
into Committee on the law of Landlord and Tenant
(Ireland) Bill, explained at some length the changes
which the select committee had made in the bill, and
also in the Powers of Leasing (Ireland) Bill.—The
house then went into committee on the Landlord and
Tenant Bill; and on the preamble, the Marquis of
CLANRICARDE said his objections to the two measures
had neither been removed nor diminished by the changes
which had been made in them by the select committee.
He objected to the principle upon which they were
founded, because it violated every lease, contract, or
agreement now in force between the landlords and
tenants of Ireland. He should not, however, move
their rejection; but he trusted that if they came back
from the other house with amendments, sufficient time
would be given for the consideration of those amendments
by their lordships.—The Earl of WICKLOW vindicated
the bills, and said they were substantially the
same which the government to which the noble marquis
himself belonged intended to have proposed.—Lord ST.
LEONARDS said the law of landlord and tenant bill
was calculated to be a very useful measure. It was the
result of a compromise, which was absolutely necessary
if the question was to be settled. He disapproved,
however, of nine-tenths of the leasing powers bill, and
amidst some applause, said there ought to be no difference,
in the law relating to real property, between
England and Ireland.—Lord CAMPBELL and Lord
BEAUMONT having stated objections to the landlord and
tenant bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR pointed out the
irregularity of discussing the principle of the two bills in
committee.—The consideration of the clauses was then
proceeded with.—All the clauses were agreed to without
any material amendment. The leasing powers bill
also passed through committee.

On Friday, May 19, Lord MALMESBURY having
inquired into the circumstances under which some
Russian Prisoners were Released by the British Admiral
of the Black Sea Fleet, the Duke of NEWCASTLE stated
that the sailors in question were not in the pay of the
Russian government, but were taken in private vessels.
He had no official information that they had been
actually released. Admiral Dundas had opened a
negotiation with the Russian commander at Odessa for an
exchange of prisoners against some English sailors
belonging to trading ships detained in that port, but
had received from General Osten-Sacken a polite note,
intimating that he had no authority to enter into such a
transaction.

On Friday, May 26, several inquiries were put by
Lord CLANRICARDE respecting the recent Diplomatic
Transactions connected with the Russian and Turkish
question.—The Earl of CLARENDON stated that the
negotiations between Austria and Prussia had been kept
secret from the Western Powers until the resulting
treaty had been ratified. That convention was then
communicated to the British government, and also the
Vienna conference, by whom it was taken into
consideration, together with the treaty just concluded
between England, France, and Turkey, and a protocol
combining the two conventions was drawn up and
signed by the representatives of the Four Powers on the
23rd inst. That document would be laid before
parliament in the course of a few days. To further queries,
he replied that no treaty between Russia and Bokhara,
Khiva, or Persia, had come to the cognisance of the
British ministry, nor had they any reason to doubt the
sincerity of the professions made by the Shah of Persia
of perfect neutrality.

The third reading of the Landlord and Tenant
(Ireland) Bill having been moved, the Earl of
CLANCARTY moved an amendment, omitting the clause by
which compensation was given to tenants for past
improvements. This amendment underwent considerable
discussion, and was carried to a division, but negatived
by a majority of 41 to 10. The bill was then read a
third time and passed.

The Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill was also read a
third time and passed. An amendment proposed by
Lord MONTEAGLE, limiting to 21 years (instead of 31,
as originally fixed in the bill) the term for which life-
tenants could grant leases, was adopted after some
debate, and a division in which the numbers stood—For
the original clause, 17; for the amendment, 20.

The motion for going into committee on the Manning
the Navy Bill was accompanied with some explanations
of its purport by the Duke of NEWCASTLE. The Earl of
ELLENBOROUGH, the Earl of HARDWICK, and other
peers, expressed some objections to the measure upon
certain points of detail, especially as regarded the
supervision of navy agents. Ultimately the house went into
committee on the bill pro forma, upon the understanding
that another opportunity should be taken for discussing
its provisions.

In the HOUSE of COMMONS, on the 27th of April, the
committal of the Oxford University Bill having been
moved, Mr. HEYWOOD proposed as an amendment, that
the bill should be referred to a select committee. The
existing system, he contended, contained a multiplicity
of evils, some of long standing, others of gradual growth,
and arising from the changes in the social and
educational condition of the country, and demanded a much
more extensive reform than was contemplated in the
present measure. He believed there was too large a
clerical element in the congregation, and that if
theological subjects were to be discussed with the representatives
of the press present, it would soon grow into a
convocation of the clergy. The bill in his opinion,
was also open to objection on the ground of injustice
towards private tutors.—Mr. NEWDEGATE supported
the amendment, because he believed that a great many
members of the house were unacquainted with the real
constitution and privileges of those ancient corporations.
It was no trifling matter to deal with an ancient
corporation against its will, and this was the first time for
many years that parliament had been called upon to
interpose its authority against the self-government of
the university.—Mr. EWART supported the bill, of
whose general tendency he expressed a warm approval,
although he regretted that it comprised no provision for
the admission of dissenters to the universities.—Mr.
HORSMAN enlarged upon the vast importance of the
subject, and insisted on the necessity of giving it a
deliberate consideration. He feared that the measure
had been framed without a due appreciation of all its
evils or capabilities. These he exhibited by tracing the
career of an university student, and argued that the
results showed how deplorably the opportunities
afforded by those institutions were misused and left
unimproved. The knowledge obtained therein whether
relating to classical, philosophical, or theological
subjects, was of the most inefficient description, insomuch
that England produced no text-books upon any
one of those branches of study, but was forced to derive
them from Germany. The Germans not only surpassed
us in those pursuits which were peculiar to their own
system, but also in those which we claimed as peculiar to
our own. While the English student devoted himself
almost exclusively to Greek and Latin, leaving science to
the German, it was still notorious that the latter
supplied us with all the most improved working editions
of the classics. All the great commentators are
German. The bill had been brought forward in a right
spirit, but there was not that thorough relation between
its principle and several of its clauses that he could
wish to see. He was told that all the existing deficiences
would be remedied by the new constitution to be
given to the university, upon which point he had very
considerable doubt. It appeared to him to turn on a
comparison of the old Hebdomadal Board with the new
Hebdomadal Council. The old board was composed of
the senior fellows, but the new council was to be
elected practically by the tutors, because the majority of
the congregation were tutors. Under the present
system it was the tutorial element which was the abuse,
and yet the new constitution left the tutors to reform