would arise if care was taken that in every step of
promotion an officer kept up his attainments. The
qualities which constituted a good general were inborn;
a great many more men were fit for good statesmen than
for good commanders. At the same time it was important
that officers should maintain a progress; and, if
examinations were tests of military knowledge, he
thought they should take place, not only upon an
officer's entrance into the service, but that he should
know that unless he kept his mind going he would not
gain a step in promotion.—Mr. RICH withdrew his
motion, and the House went into committee of supply
on the Ordnance Estimates.—Mr. MONSELL, premising
that these estimates were large beyond precedent,
proceeded to explain the several votes, stating that the vote
for the Ordnance-office was withdrawn.—In the course
of an animated discussion which arose upon the first
vote of £1,402,964 for barrack supplies, wages and
ordnance stores, severe comments were made by Mr.
Muntz, Sir J. Paxton, Lord Seymour, and Mr.
Newdegate upon the alleged mismanagement of the
Ordnance Department with reference to the small-arm
factory at Enfield and the huts and barracks to be
erected at Aldershott and Mr. Muntz moved to reduce
the vote to £15,000; but the motion was negatived
upon a division by a large majority.

On Tuesday, March 6, Mr. CRAUFURD moved the
appointment of a select committee, to take into
consideration the circumstances under which Mr. Edwin
James, Q.C., had been Appointed to the Recordership of
Brighton. He based his motion upon various allegations
touching the past professional career of the above-named
learned gentleman, especially as regarded some transactions
connected with the Horsham election in 1847.—
The motion was seconded by Sir J. Walmsley, and
resisted by the Attorney-General, who denounced with
much indignation the attempt to affix a stigma upon
the character of an honourable man on account of long
past transactions, which had never been impeached at
the time.—After some further discussion, the motion
was withdrawn.—Mr. BUTT moved that all record of
the motion just proposed should be omitted from the
journals of the house.—Mr. CRAUFURD objected to such
a step as implying the falsehood of the statements
set forth in the resolution he had placed upon the
paper.—The house was cleared for a division, but none
took place, owing to the impossibility of finding a
second "teller" to co-operate with Mr. Craufurd. The
motion accordingly passed with the solitary negative of
that hon. member.

Mr. MACKINNON called the attention of the house to
the importance of establishing Tribunals of Industry,
by whose intervention any claims or controversies
between masters and operatives might be easily and
satisfactorily adjusted. After briefly explaining the
advantages which might be expected from the operations
of tribunals such as he had indicated, the hon. member
concluded by moving for the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into the law and action of
the analogous institution known as the Conseils des
Prud'hommes in France.—Sir G. GREY urged that all
the information which a committee could collect was
already within the reach of hon. members.—One or two
members having briefly spoken, Mr. Mackinnon
withdrew his motion, and during a motion made by Mr.
A. PELLATT for a select committee to inquire into the
operation of the acts regulating Interments in Parochial
Burial Grounds and Proprietary Cemeteries, the house
was counted out.

On Wednesday, March 7, the house having gone into
committee on Public Libraries and Museums Bill,
considerable discussion took place on the successive
clauses of the measure, and several amendments were
proposed and carried affecting the details of the bill.
Among others a proviso, moved by Mr. EWART, for
enabling the libraries established under the new measure
to take in newspapers, was adopted upon a division, by
a majority of 64 to 22—42. The bill went through
committee, and was ordered to be reported.

The second reading of the Judgments and Execution
Bill was opposed by Mr. MACARTNEY, who moved that
it be read a second time that day six months.—Legal
arguments for and against the bill were advanced by
the Solicitor-General, Mr. Napier, the Attorney-General,
Mr. Whiteside, Mr. I. Butt, and other members.—Mr.
CRAUFURD, who had charge of the measure, having
offered some brief vindication of its principle, the house
divided—For the second reading, 18; against, 89. The
bill is consequently rejected.

The Exchequer Bills (£17,183,000) Bill was read a
third time and passed.

ON Thursday, March 8, Mr. HEYWOOD moved that a
select committee should be appointed "to inquire into
the best means of affording to the nation a full and
equal participation in all the advantages, which are not
necessarily of an ecclesiastical or spiritual character, in
the Public Schools and Universities of England and
Ireland, and of improving the educational system in
those great seats of learning, with a view to enlarge
their course of instruction in conformity with the
requirements of the public service."—Mr. EWART
seconded the motion.—Lord PALMERSTON opposed the
motion. Commissions had inquired into and reported
upon the state of the universities of Oxford and
Cambridge. A bill was in preparation for applying to
Cambridge, mutatis mutandis, the improvements carried
out at Oxford. The proposed inquiry would be a waste
of time, and would lead to no practical result.—The
motion was withdrawn.

Sir Henry HALFORD moved for leave to bring in a
bill to Restrain Stoppages from Wages in the Hosiery
Manufacture. It was literally the same as the bill of
last session. Mr. Packe, Sir Joshua Walmsley, Mr.
W.J. Fox, and Mr. Newdegate, supported the motion: it
was opposed by Sir George Grey, Mr. Gardner, Mr.
Biggs, and Mr. Barrow. On a division, the motion for
leave was negatived by 96 to 58.

Mr. MALINS called attention to the Recent Naval
Operations in the Baltic, and moved for a copy of any
correspondence that had passed between the Board of
Admiralty, or any member of the government, with
Sir Charles Napier, since the 20th of December last.
The object of the speech with which Mr. Malins
accompanied his motion, was to show that Sir Charles
Napier had been unjustly treated, and had been
censured and dismissed from his command. In
doing this, he made a large use of a private
correspondence which had passed between Sir Charles
Napier and Sir James Graham, and which had
been supplied him by Sir Charles himself. His main
allegations were, that the conduct of Sir Charles had
met with the unqualified approval of the Admiralty up
to the 24th September; that subsequently Sir Charles
had been goaded to attack Sweaborg, at a season when
the weather could not be depended on for two hours at
a time, and when the French fleet had departed; that
on the 10th October Sir Charles tendered his
resignation; that an "angry correspondence" ensued; and
that when Sir Charles returned he was ordered "to
strike his flag and come ashore."—Sir Thomas HERBERT
seconded the motion.—Sir James GRAHAM commented
severely on the conduct of Mr. Malins, in making a
lawyer-like use of a brief held for Sir Charles, reading
"garbled extracts" from documents that could not be
produced, and from private letters without the
permission of the writers. Sir James complained that he
should be called upon to defend himself with his hands
tied: for he had brought no papers, and his fidelity to
the public service would not permit him to disclose
confidential correspondence respecting naval operations
only suspended during the winter, to be carried out
in the spring. Sir Charles had not been urged to
attack Sweaborg except in accordance with his own
plans, at the time he should select, and "at his own
discretion." Upon "the whole," Sir James had
approved of the discreet conduct of Sir Charles in his
command; but his language in addressing the Admiralty
was "turbulent and insubordinate," and could not be
submitted to; nor could the course he had subsequently
pursued be passed over without animadversion. The
course taken by the Admiralty in what was called the
"dismissal" of Sir Charles was only in accordance with
precedent.—Admiral WALCOTT said that Sir Charles
Napier was dismissed in a curt way, but then the
Admiralty deals in curt ways. He thought that some
mark of approbation should have accompanied the order