would be appointed, which would do away with the
board of general officers. The noble lord then pointed
out that the various heads of departments should also be
in constant communication with the Secretary of War,
in order that they might intimately know each other's
opinions upon all matters coming under their jurisdiction.
—The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH and Earl GREY
threw out some suggestions, but declined to enter into
detailed criticism until a future occasion.

On Thursday, May 24th, the second reading of the
Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill was moved by Viscount
CANNING, and agreed to after some remarks from Lord
Monteagle in opposition to the measure.

On Friday, May 25th, Earl GREY brought forward his
resolutions as to the Policy of Government respecting
the War. He enlarged upon the waste of life which
had already taken place, and the miseries attendant
upon war. An opportunity which offered a fair chance
of peace had, he believed, been thrown away. Granting
that the country was justified in commencing hostilities,
he remarked at much length upon the impolicy of
rejecting an honourable basis for negotiation. He
recapitulated the objects and principles for whose enforcement
we had engaged in war, and contended that these
were not only realised, but much exceeded, in the
concessions already made by Russia. Examining the
propositions presented on either side at the Vienna
conferences, he expressed his preference for the
proposals made by Russia, remarking that to demand the
limitation of her fleet in the Black Sea was insulting to
an independent power, and in reply to the assertion that
Russia's faith could not be relied upon, observed that the
objection would be equally applicable, and the objection of
the treaty equally uncertain, whatever were the terms
upon which it was concluded. He inquired what were the
expectations that could induce the country to protract
the war, urging that all practical objects were now
secured, and nothing remained but some vague and
uncertain advantages, contended for under the impulse of
an unjustifiable animosity against Russia. Tracing the
rise and progress of the conflict from the beginning, he
argued, that the English government and the ambassador
at Constantinople might have averted the outbreak
of war, or stopped hostilities at various opportunities,
bringing against them, for their omissions in this respect,
a heavy charge of negligence, partiality, and recklessness.

The Earl of CLARENDON, who spoke of Lord Grey
as the advocate of Russia, observed that the noble earl
omitted to take into account the uniform spirit of
aggression which the Czar had always manifested against
Turkey. The late Emperor Nicholas had asserted that
the Sultan was past hope, and the mission of Prince
Mentchikoff was designed to give him the coup de
grace. Since the outbreak of the war we had become
better acquainted with the designs of Russia, and with
her means for executing them, and had discovered that
Europe was standing over a mine without knowing it.
Russia had for years been permitted to interfere and to
encroach, through the culpable negligence of the
European powers, and but for the timely revelation of her
objects, might, in a few years more, have succeeded in
realising her plans. Finding every reason to conclude
that these designs were still entertained and the
power of Russia still unbroken, Lord Clarendon
proceeded to enforce the necessity of finding some
effectual means to repress the advances and curb the
ambition of a power which continually threatened the
independence of its neighbours. He examined point by
point, the propositions which had been suggested for
this purpose, and while declaring that nothing but the
intractable spirit of aggression on the part of Russia had
stood in the way of peace, contended that England was
bound for the sake alike of honour and security to
prosecute the war until such terms were offered calculated
to carry out the principle which he had indicated, and
guarantee the safety of Europe. Lord MALMESBURY
opposed the motion and supported the policy of government.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE advised Earl Grey not to
divide the House. After some observations from the Earl
of Derby, Earl Grey withdrew his resolutions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, April 27.—Mr.
LAYARD gave notice that on an early day he should
move resolutions declaring that the State of the Country
was such as to cause serious alarm; that the sacrifice of
efficiency to family and party interests is the source of
great misfortune and disgrace to the country: and that
the house will support any ministry which can enforce
the efficient conduct of the public service and the
vigorous prosecution of the war.

A discussion of some length arose respecting certain
Statements made by Mr. Layard in his late Speech at
Liverpool, and repeated in a subsequent letter to the
Times.—Mr. EWART complained of the insinuation
that his relative, Major Ewart, owed his promotion to
parliamentary influences.—Mr. H. BARING denounced
and denied certain allegations respecting the officers of
the Coldstream Guards.—General Peel justified the
promotion, without purchase, of Colonel Hardinge, the
son of the Commander-in-Chief, declaring that the step
was given in strict accordance with military precedent,
and fell to the lot of the officer in question by the
fortune of service.—Mr. F. PEEL denied that any undue
influence had been exercised with regard to promotions
in the army; and, after recapitulating a variety of facts
and instances, called on Mr. Layard to retract the statement
he had hazarded.—Mr. LAYARD explained that he
had designed to offer no disparagement either to Major
Ewart or Colonel Hardinge; but, on the general question,
reiterated and adhered to his condemnation of the system
of favouritism on which promotion had been granted to
officers in the army.—The statements of Mr. Layard were
further impugned by Mr. Hardinge, Mr. Byng, Colonel
Lindsay, Colonel North, and Colonel Knox.—Lord
PALMERSTON regretted that any member of that house
should have placed himself in the position occupied by
Mr. Layard. Remarking that all his allegations had
been utterly disproved, and his charges shown to be
false and calumnious, the noble lord expressed his surprise
that he had not manfully retracted his assertions.
After pronouncing a high eulogium on the Commander–
in–Chief, Lord Palmerston adverted to the accusation
brought against the British army, of being essentially
aristocratic, contending that it was equally honourable
to the aristocracy and to the army that men of the
highest class should show themselves foremost in braving
danger for the defence of the country.

The second reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill
was opposed by Mr. BLACKBURN, who moved that the
bill be read a second time that day six months.—A long
debate ensued, at the close of which a division took
place, when there appeared—for the second reading,
210; for the amendment, 171; majority for the second
reading, 39.

On Monday, April 30, Lord JOHN RUSSELL took his
Seat for the City, on his re-election consequent on
accepting the office of colonial secretary.

Mr. DISRAELI requested to know from Lord John
Russell whether he meant to give any information
respecting the late Diplomatic Proceedings at Vienna.
—Lord PALMERSTON wished, before Lord JOHN RUSSELL
answered the question, to correct a statement he had
formerly made to the house. He stated that the
Russians, in refusing the allied propositions, made no
counter offer. He had since learned they did make a
proposal; but it was not of a nature to satisfy any one
of the allied plenipotentaries.—Lord JOHN RUSSELL
said, in answer to the question, that he understood it
was the intention of the government very shortly to lay
the protocols of the conference upon the table. He then
stated the substance of the various conferences as they
had occurred, as follows: The first meeting of the
conference was on the 15th of March. The negotiations
with respect to the first two of the four points lasted
until the 26th of March. On that day the third point
came under consideration. It was suggested by the
plenipotentiaries of Austria that the plenipotentiaries of
Russia should themselves make a proposal calculated to
satisfy the exigencies of the case. The plenipotentiaries
of Russia replied that they had no instructions to do so;
but they asked for time to refer to their government.
The consequence was that the conference was then
adjourned, and that no meeting for the transaction of
business took place until the answer was received from
St. Petersburg. On the 17th of April another conference
was held, when the plenipotentiaries of Russia informed