to the suggested college, stated that the number of naval
instructors employed in the service would be materially
increased.

On Friday, July 6, the Earl of DERBY moved the
second reading of the Religious Worship Bill, on which
a sharp conversation took place between himself, the
Earl of Shaftesbury, and the Bishops of London and
Oxford. The result was, that the bill was withdrawn.

On Tuesday, July 10, the Earl of MALMESBURY called
the attention of Lord Clarendon to the despatch of
General de Berg, vindicating the Massacre at Hango,
and wished to know the course which the government
intended to pursue in the matter.—The Earl of CLARENDON
replied that the government thought the letter of
General de Berg most unsatisfactory. Instructions had
been sent to Admiral Dundas, who was desired to inform
General de Berg that it was impossible to disbelieve the
statement that the flag of truce had been hoisted and
had been seen, that being the known custom in which
it was usual to announce a peaceful mission, and that
even if the flag of truce had not been seen that would
afford no justification to the Russians, who might easily
have taken prisoners the few men who with their
prisoners were standing unarmed upon the pier. With
respect to the assertion that there were muskets in the
boat, Admiral Dundas was directed to state that the
muskets were at the bottom of the boat under the
tarpaulin, upon which the prisoners' luggage was laid,
whence it was evident that the fact of their being in the
boat must have been unknown to the Russians at the
time they made their murderous attack. The other
statements of the Russian general, with respect to the
abuse of hoisting the Russian flag and the taking of
soundings at Kertch, were also contradicted. Admiral
Dundas was instructed to demand the immediate release
of the prisoners, and a communication had been made
through the Danish government with the Russians on
the subject. Until answers had been received to these
demands, the government could not say what course it
would adopt.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for a return of
all persons employed in the Diplomatic Service, and
expressed an opinion that the attacks so frequently made
on that branch of the public service were unfair and
unfounded. Instead of deserving blame, our diplomatists
were worthy of praise for the way in which they
discharged their duties in positions neither easy nor
lucrative.—The Earl of CLARENDON concurred in every
word that had fallen from Lord Clanricarde, and
declared that any reduction in the number of our
diplomatic missions would be impolitic. He had no objection
to the production of the returns.—The returns were then
agreed to.

On Thursday, July 12, Lord LYNDHURST said that
with regard to the bill for the Abolition of the Oath of
Abjuration, which stood for second reading on Tuesday
next, he had been so strongly urged not only by the
opponents of the bill, but also in a quarter from which
he had anticipated the most efficient support, not to
proceed further with it this session, that he felt compelled
to yield to the pressure, and should for the present
withdraw the bill.

On Thursday, July 19, Lord BROUGHAM presented
two petitions against the Scotch Education Bill, and
urged the Duke of Argyll to postpone the measure.—
The Duke of ARGYLL declined to accede to this
proposition, and, after a lengthened speech, in which he
entered fully into the details of the bill, moved that it
be read a second time.—The Duke of BUCCLEUCH
enumerated the many objections which he felt it to be his
duty to entertain against the bill, and moved that it be
read a second time that day three months.—Lords
Brougham and Eglintoun followed on the same side.—
Lord PANMURE regretted the fate which evidently
awaited the bill, and, after some observations from Lord
Haddington, the Duke of ARGYLL consented to withdraw
the bill.—The Duke of RICHMOND resisted this
proposition, and ultimately the bill was rejected on a
division, in which the numbers were—for the bill, 1;
against it, 86: majority, 85.

On Friday, July 20, Lord LYNDHURST complained
of the abortive issue to which the Attempts to Pass
Legal and Other Measures had led during the present
session.—The LORD CHANCELLOR explained the reasons
that had caused the abandonment of certain bills, and
threw much blame on the commons, who had evinced
much inattention to measures originating in the upper
house.

On Monday, July 23, the Earl of AIRLIE inquired
whether any official information had lately been
received by the government respecting the Progress of
the War in Asiatic Turkey.—The Earl of CLARENDON
stated that the last intelligence from Asiatic Turkey
bore date of the 23rd June. At that time the Turkish
army was nether discouraged nor demoralised, the
Russians had been repulsed in more than one attack,
and Kars was considered safe from any sudden attempt
at its capture.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, on Tuesday, June 26,
Mr. OTWAY inquired whether the Sunday Trading Bill
was sanctioned by the government, and whether Sir G.
Grey intended to offer any opposition to its further
progress?—Sir G. GREY replied that it was not a government
measure, and that it was not his intention to offer
any opposition to the house going into a consideration
of the bill in committee.—Mr. OTWAY gave notice that,
in the event of Lord R. Grosvenor going on with the
bill, he would, on the motion for the third reading,
move, as an amendment, that it be read a third time
that day three months.—Mr. ROEBUCK said he should
move that all the clubs in London be included in its
provisions.—Lord R. GROSVENOR said he intended to
persevere in the measure.

Mr. GIBSON, referring to certain statements made in
the communication of the Times correspondent, of
Excesses Committed by the Invading Force at Kertch,
which in his (Mr. Gibson's) opinion, not only charged
the lieutenant-general commanding with apathy, but
cast an imputation upon the English character, inquired
whether Lord Palmerston had received any information
upon the subject?—Lord PALMERSTON said, government
had received no information with respect to the
transaction, but his attention had been called to the
statement, and Lord Panmure would call for such
information touching the transaction as could be given by
the officer in command.

Mr. H. BERKELEY moved for the appointment of a
select committee to inquire into the operation of the
Sunday Beer Bill of last Session. He said the act had
passed last session without the knowledge of a great
many members of this house. He himself attempted to
stop it, but at too late a stage. The working of that act
had been very grievous to the poor and working classes,
and equally so to the licensed victuallers. It was true
the act exempted from its operation bonâ-fide travellers;
but that exemption was an additional grievance to the
publican, on account of the contradictory decisions which
were given by magistrates in different parts of the
country, and even in different districts of the same town.
He went on to deny that the act had stopped drunkenness.
It might have stopped it in public-houses, but
only to open unlicensed places, which had increased a
hundredfold since the passing of this act. It had been
contended that drunkenness had diminished since last
year. If that were true, it was to be accounted for by
the high prices and low wages of the times; but he
denied that it was so, and he read returns to show that
the number of drunkards in two of the chief towns of
the kingdom were on Whit-Sunday of last year 85, and
on the Whit-Sunday of this year 113. He hoped the
house would give him an opportunity of proving these
facts before a committee, which he now moved for.—
The motion was seconded by Mr. COBBETT, who cited
cases of hardship under the act, and asked for a
definition of the term "traveller," and the distinction
between a "traveller" and a "bonâ-fide traveller."—
Sir G. GREY said, although he did not admit all the
arguments of Mr. Berkeley, he was quite prepared to
consent to an inquiry into the operation of the act of
last session. At the same time he reminded the house
that there had been a strong feeling throughout the
country against keeping open public-houses on the Lord's-
day, and the question was, on the one hand, how to
prevent drunkenness by limiting the hours at which