proposal without the concurrence of France. Any
disagreement upon that point might endanger the
alliance of France, a matter more entitled to consideration
than the prosecution of the war, as to the satisfactory
issue of which he did not despair.—Mr. GLADSTONE
admitted that the production of the papers was entirely
in the discretion of the government, and he thought
that the hon. member would act unwisely if he pressed
his motion. He considered, however, that the right
hon. baronet had not justified the government in the
continuance of a war which cost the allies so much
blood and treasure. He was at a loss to know upon
what principle her Majesty's ministers continued the
prosecution of the war. It was not to the French
government but to her Majesty's ministers that the
responsibility attached, for, according to a statement in
the Moniteur, the Emperor had rejected the Austrian
proposals, being anxious to maintain the alliance with
England, the government of which had already declined
to make peace on the basis of that proposition. It was
said that there was no assurance of the assistance of
Austria, but Austria had said should Russia decline the
proposal, then we will draw the sword. How was
Russian aggression to be effectually resisted? He
insisted that the prolongation of the war, so far from
securing the independence of Turkey would only tend
to weaken her power by exhausting her internal
resources. He entreated the house not to place too much
reliance upon the presumed exhaustion of Russian
resources. The right hon. gentleman, in conclusion,
said that he and his friends, as ministers, had counselled
this war, and must expect to be met by sneers and
taunts whenever they attempted to give utterance to their
changed opinions. But the objects of the war, as
detailed in the four points having been obtained, he
saw no reason why the war should not cease.—Mr.
LAYARD insisted that nothing short of the limitation of
the naval power of Russia in the Black Sea would
secure the independence of Turkey. He condemned
the occupation of the Danubian provinces whether by
Russia or by Austria, as from their importance they were
entitled to be treated as independent powers.—Mr.
COBDEN, after expressing his entire concurrence in the
views of Mr. Gladstone, charged the newly appointed
secretary for the colonies (Sir W. Molesworth) with
advocating the war, in contradiction to the opinions he
expressed at a public meeting held at Leeds, some time
back.—Sir W. MOLESWORTH defended his conduct upon
the ground that when he made the speech referred to
he was ignorant of the full extent of the designs of
Russia. He considered that the motion before the
house was brought forward by a nefarious combination
of parties, for the purpose of embarrassing the
government.—Sir J. GRAHAM denied that either his hon.
friend (Mr. Gladstone) or himself was aware of the
motion until the notice of motion appeared on the
paper.—A warm discussion followed, in which Mr.
Phillimore, Mr. Walpole, and Mr. Gladstone complained
of the language used by a minister of the crown
in reference to hon. members of that house.—Lord
PALMERSTON said that his right hon. friend in his
advocacy of the war was sustained by the expressed
opinion of the whole country.—Mr. DISRAELI said that
the noble lord had not extricated his colleague from
the indiscretion of applying the term of nefarious
combination of parties to hon. members in that house.—
Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the house,
and Mr. Laing not having pressed for a division, his
motion consequently dropped.

On Monday, August 6, on the order for the third
reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, Mr. T. CHAMBERS
moved to defer the third reading for three months. The
bill, he said, was intended to effect a most important
alteration in our criminal tribunals, and he denied the
validity of the reasons assigned for the change; he
denied that the bill would obviate the delay and expense
now complained of, while it was, in his opinion, open to
objections upon other grounds. The bill was unfair to
prosecutors as well as the accused; it was objectionable
likewise upon social grounds, for, by casting invidious
duties upon magistrates, it tended to widen the breach
between classes.—The amendment was seconded by Mr.
KENNEDY.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL believed that,
so far from the change proposed by the bill being
mischievous, it would be eminently beneficial. It
would prevent the expense of taking witnesses to quarter
sessions, it would shorten the period of imprisonment
before trial, and diminish the risk of contamination in
gaol. He believed that the bill would be of the greatest
benefit to the criminal, the magistrate, and the country.
—After some remarks by Mr. Barrow and Mr. Baines
in support of the bill, and by Mr. M'Mahon against it,
the amendment was negatived, and, the debate on the
third reading was adjourned.

In the evening, Lord J. RUSSELL gave a short
explanation respecting the Grant to the Royal Society,
and Lord PALMERSTON said, he proposed to issue the
sum this year out of the civil contingencies, and
to make this grant the subject of special consideration
hereafter.

On the order for going into committee upon the
Charitable Trusts Bill, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL
explained the objects of the bill (which had come down
from the House of Lords)—namely, to enlarge the
powers of the commissioners, to increase the number of
inspectors, and to improve the machinery of the bill of
1853. He proposed, he said, to alter the bill by raising
the limit of charities to be placed under the commissioners
from £10 to £30 a-year.—Mr. KNIGHT moved to defer
the committee for three months, urging that the bill
gave the commissioners enormous and unlimited powers,
changing them from an inspecting and remedial to an
administrative board, and that, before such tremendous
changes were made, that house ought to have had an
opportunity of considering the measure more fully and
deliberately than the present period of the session
permitted.—This amendment was seconded by Sir W.
JOLLIFFE.—Mr. MICHELL supported the bill, and
wished the commissioners to be armed with still larger
powers.—Mr. PELLATT spoke in favour of the amendment.
—Sir G. GREY defended the bill, the principle of
which, he said, was not questioned, and, as to the
additional powers and administrative functions proposed
to be given to the commissioners, they were found to be
indispensable. These additional powers, however, were
matters of detail.—Mr. CAIRNS insisted upon the
arbitrary authority given to the commissioners by this
bill. He advised the government to withdraw it, and
bring in another bill next year, at an earlier period of
the session, and to send it to a select committee.—The
SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied to Mr. Cairns, whose
special objections, he observed, applied to details which
might be discussed in committee. Mr. Knight, he
thought, must have been deceived when he alarmed the
house about the hydras and chimeras in the bill, which
were mere phantoms of imagination. The provisions
contained in the bills introduced by Lord Lyndhurst in
1844, 1845, and 1846 went much beyond those in the
present measure, the additional powers given by which
were supplementary to those in the act of 1853; they
had been shown by experience to be absolutely requisite,
and to deny them would be to negative the principle of
that act.—Mr. HENLEY differed from the solicitor-
general as to this bill being supplementary to the act of
1853; so far from it, he said, this bill introduced a
wholly new machinery, to various parts of which he
objected, and he thought more time should have been
given for the consideration of so great a change. This
bill set up for the first time a peculiar judicial tribunal
for charity questions, and if this was to be a secret
conclave it would not escape suspicion.—Lord GALWAY
recommended that the bill should stand over till next
session.—Sir W. HEATHCOTE and Mr. MALINS suggested
that that portion of the bill which conferred administrative
or judicial functions upon the commissioners
should be withdrawn.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said,
he should greatly regret the loss of that portion; but, if
the house was resolved upon the point, he must be
content with what he could get.—After some further
discussion the amendment was negatived, and the house
went into committee upon the bill, the clauses of which
had not been gone through when the chairman was
ordered to report progress.

On Tuesday, August 7th, Lord JOHN RUSSELL spoke
at great length on the Prospects of the War and the
Position of the Country. He referred to the subject of