to strike his flag.—Sir Charles WOOD said, he had
never witnessed a course similar to that pursued by Mr.
Malins, and he must protest in the strongest manner
against it. It is impossible, consistently with the interests
of the public service, to produce papers discussing
the possibility and the mode of attacking certain
fortresses in the Baltic, just as a fleet is about to proceed
to the Baltic.—Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Whiteside, Mr.
Otway, Mr. Cowper, and the Attorney-General supported
the government view.—Lord PALMERSTON said he
must vote against the motion; but he should be sorry
to think, admiring as he did the professional and
personal character of Sir Charles Napier, that he stood in
the position of a man who had been censured and
dismissed. Sir Charles had rendered important service in
the command of the Baltic fleet; and nothing which
occurred last year in the slightest degree diminished the
high character he had previously attained in the service
of his country.—Mr. MALINS having obtained this
recognition of Sir Charles's merits, withdrew the motion.

On Friday:, March 9, a New Writ was Ordered for
Tamworth, Sir R. Peel having accepted the office
of a Lord of the Admiralty.

On the motion for going into committee of supply, the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to questions,
stated that the government intended to proceed with the
Newspaper Stamp Bill, of which he should move the
second reading, on Monday week.

Mr. WILLIAMS having inquired whether there was
any intention of forming Volunteer Rifle Corps, Lord
PALMERSTON replied in the negative, observing that
such corps would occasion considerable expense without
offering any corresponding advantages. The persons who
had volunteered for the service were chiefly engaged in
civil employments, and were wholly unfit to endure the
hardships of a soldier's life. He had accordingly
abstained from countenancing the offers made to the
government on the subject. The house then went into
committee of supply, and proceeded to pass the
remaining votes belonging to the series of Ordnance
estimates.

On resuming, the second reading of the Lunatic
Asylums (Ireland) Advances Bill was moved, and a
protracted discussion took place respecting the course
which should be adopted in regard to this measure in
subsequent stages. Ultimately the bill was read a
second time, on the understanding that if certain
objections urged by the Irish members to its details could
not be obviated by special arrangement the measure
should be referred to a select committee.

On Monday, March 12, on the motion for going into
committee of supply, Sir J. PACKINGTON remarked
upon the injury to the public service that must arise
from the Prolonged Absence of the Colonial Secretary.
Very important questions were at the moment arising in
various dependencies which called for immediate
solution, and he considered the ministry highly censurable
if, without the excuse of absolute necessity, they
had left the business of the colonial office to be
performed by a colleague already sufficiently loaded with
the duties of his own department.—Lord PALMERSTON
assured the house that, under the arrangements that
had been made for the performance of the duties of the
department by the home secretary, there was no
danger of any colonial question being neglected.—Mr.
ADDERLEY pointed out several cases and incidents in
different colonies, which, he contended, required
immediate and exclusive attention from the colonial
secretary.—Sir G. GREY adverted seriatim to the cases
alluded to by Mr. Adderley, and argued that they either
presented no difficulty or no urgency for their solution.
Neither the public service, nor the interest of the
colonies would, he submitted, suffer damage from the
temporary absence of Lord J. Russell.—Mr. LOWE
criticised the compact which, he asserted, Sir J.
Packington, when colonial secretary, had attempted to
conclude with the legislature of South Australia.—Mr.
MACGREGOR, from his knowledge of Austrian policy,
feared that Lord J. Russell would undergo a long
detention at Vienna before the purpose of his diplomatic
mission could be accomplished. During this interval
the most pressing affairs of the colonies must be left
unattended to.

The house then went into committee of supply, when
the votes for the Commissariat Service, comprising a
gross amount of about £2,400,000 were brought forward
by Mr. F. PEEL, and agreed to after considerable
discussion.

On Tuesday, March 13, Mr. HEYWOOD moved for
leave to bring in a bill to amend the law as to Marriage
with a Deceased Wife's Sister or a deceased wife's
niece. In support of the motion he went over much
of the ground traversed in preceding discussions,
insisting upon the growing feeling in favour of a change
of the law, and the increasing number of these marriages
in spite of the law, and that the simplest remedy for
this state of things was to repeal the prospective
prohibition of these marriages contained in Lord Lyndhurst's
act of 1835, which legalised those of antecedent date.
He referred to authorities in favour of permitting such
marriages, contending (mainly upon the interpretation
put by Sir William Jones on a certain phraseology in
the 18th chapter of Leviticus) that they were not
forbidden by scripture, the prohibition having originated
in the Greek and Roman canon law, and that the
principle of avoiding such marriages on the ground of
affinity could not be traced to any competent authority,
while it was irreconcilable with that of allowing natural
affection to prevail.—Sir F. THESIGER opposed the
introduction of the bill, because the question had been
thoroughly discussed in the house, the details were
comparatively insignificant, and the whole question was
embodied in the important principle of the bill. He
was satisfied that, even if Mr. Heywood should gain a
temporary success, he had no chance of finally carrying
the measure; and he appealed to him whether it was,
under such circumstances, desirable to stir a subject of
the kind, upon which, he said, no new light had been
thrown since the last decision. In considering the
question of expediency, he denied that the
violations of the law had been so frequent as Mr.
Heywood alleged, and argued that it would be
of the worst example to legislate for the relief
of deliberate offenders against the law. Upon the
religious part of the question, respecting which he
regretted that a diversity of opinion should exist, he
maintained that the precept in the 18th chapter of
Leviticus was part of the moral law; that it contained
a general prohibition, including the case in question;
and that the marriage law of the Jews was binding
upon Christians, if possible, in a closer and higher
degree than upon the Jews. This was the uniform
opinion of the early church, until the abuse of papal
dispensations placed the church of Rome in a dilemma
upon this point. He traced the English law in respect
to these marriages down to the year 1835, when the
act passed which, by a compromise (which he
condemned), remedied the unsatisfactory state of the law
by legalising preceding marriages, and rendering future
marriages within the degrees of affinity, not merely
voidable, but absolutely void. Mr. Heywood's bill did
not propose to include all cases of affinity; but if the
legislature once began to extend the limits of the
marriage law, it must sweep away all the degrees of
affinity, and confine the prohibition to the degrees of
consanguinity. He opposed the bill because it would
be legislating contrary to the law of God, while it would
introduce discord and discomfort into families, and
destroy the finer feelings of domestic affection.—Mr.
Bowyer, Mr. E. Ball, and Mr. Milnes supported
the motion.—Mr. R. PHILLIMORE protested against
what he considered to be extraordinary doctrines of law
propounded by Mr. Heywood and Mr. Bowyer. If he
wanted an argument against the bill, he should find it,
he said, in its limitations, since it touched only certain
cases of affinity, and excluded Scotland from its
operation. Without entering upon the theological ground,
he thought, as no case had been made out for this
measure, the house would exercise a wise discretion in
rejecting the motion, on the grounds of policy, expediency,
and justice.—Mr. SPOONER said he should vote
for the introduction of the bill, without pledging himself
to all the details. He believed the existing law exerted
a most demoralising influence upon the middle and
lower classes of society, and that it was completely
against the law of God.—Mr. DRUMMOND observed that