of the house were voted to this gallant officer, the
minister of war was in possession of facts which, in his
opinion, justified him in recalling him in disgrace.
Either this was not acting fairly to the house of
commons, or it was acting unjustly towards Lord Lucan.
He did not think the motion was one which the house
ought to sanction.—LORD PALMERSTON observed that
nothing had passed in the debate which could be
considered as casting any imputation upon the military
character of Lord Lucan. The house ought not to
forget that the command of the army was by the
constitution vested in the crown, and if it fell into the habit
of interfering with the discipline of the army, great
injury would ensue. The present was a case in which
it was impossible for the crown to grant a court-martial
upon general and particular considerations. The vote
of thanks to Lord Lucan placed his character as high as
his best friends could desire, and the ground of his
recall was simply a personal difference between him and
his commanding officer, which rendered it impossible
that they could usefully act together.—Mr. BERKELEY
then withdrew his motion.

Sir W. CLAY, in moving for leave to bring in a bill
for the Abolition of Church Rates, stated its character
and objects. The main element of the bill was the
entire abolition of these rates, in which respect it was
similar to the bill of last year; and it contained like that
a provision for the maintenance of church-rates where
they were legally charged under acts of parliament.
The main provisions of this bill were—first, to remove
all difficulties in the way of applying the principle of
enabling the members of the church of England to
maintain the fabrics of their churches and the administration
of their services; secondly, to empower parishes
to allot a certain portion of the area of the church to
pews, and to apply the rents to the purposes to which
church-rates were now applied, a proportion of the
area to be appropriated to free sittings.—Mr. WIGRAM
said this bill, which in object and principle was the
same as that of last year, was founded on no plea of
justice or necessity. The land of the country was
liable to the common law obligation of maintaining the
fabric of the churches of the country. He opposed the
introduction of the bill.—Mr. R. PHILLIMORE did not
object to the first reading of the bill, but condemned
the project of letting pews to the best bidders as
continuing the very worst anomaly in the church of
England.—Lord STANLEY observed that everybody
agreed that the present state of the law was unsatisfactory.
Repeated attempts had been made to amend it,
which had failed, and, in the absence of a satisfactory
measure, he thought the house would not be justified in
refusing to entertain one that dealt with the question in
the only manner in which it could be effectually met.
The question of pew-rents was very much a matter of
detail, so, without pledging himself to the approbation
of this measure, he thought the house was at least bound
to give it a fair consideration in the absence of any other
proposition to amend the law.—Lord PALMERSTON
observed that this question was beset with great
difficulties, and they were of two kinds. It was difficult to
maintain the law as it was, and it was extremely
difficult to alter it in a satisfactory manner. Those who
said that the maintenance of the fabric of the church
was part of the law of the land should recollect, he said,
that by a recent decision there was no power of enforcing
it. Some alteration of the law was therefore desirable,
even in the interest of the established church. When
it was said that this bill was identical with that of last
year, he did not think that quite correct. Some
modifications had been shadowed out as contained in the
present bill, and he should oppose its introduction.—
After some further discussion, the house divided, when
the motion was carried by 155 to 76.

On Friday, March 30, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL
obtained leave to bring in a bill for Abolishing the
Jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts over Wills and
Administrations; and Mr. ELLICE to bring in a bill for
the Better Administration of the Poor Law in Scotland.
The house adjourned till the 16th of April.

On Monday, April 16th, a great number of petitions
were presented in favour of a Halfpenny Newspaper
Stamp.

The Metropolis Local Management Bill was read a
second time, after a slight discussion.

The house went into a committee of supply upon the
Civil Service Estimates, when several votes were agreed
to; a vote of £100,00, on account of Public Education
in Great Britain, was also agreed to.

On Tuesday, April 17th, additional petitions were
presented in favour of a Halfpenny Newspaper Stamp.

Colonel BOLDERO, after commenting on the
deficiencies of the Medical Departments in the Army and
Navy, illustrated by the evidence given before the
Sebastopol Committee, moved for a select committee
to inquire into the state of those departments. The
motion was seconded by Sir JOHN TROLLOPE, who
contended for the establishment of a Medical Board,
and the abolition of the useless, elaborate, and unwieldy
books and forms now in use. The best thing (he said)
to be done with them would be to burn them in the
barrack square.—Mr. PEEL objected to inquiry, on the
ground that the state of the medical department, if not
the special subject of inquiry by the Sebastopol
Committee, is embraced in its scope. If that inquiry should
prove incomplete, it would then be time to appoint
another committee. The measures of the government
—by concentrating power over the other authorities in
the hands of the minister of war; by the appointment
of a medical board, including a civilian among its
members; by the establishment of professorships of military
surgery at Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dublin; by the
establishment of a regular hospital corps; and by
rendering the purveyors subordinate to the medical
authorities,—by these measures the government had
superseded the necessity for this committee.—The motion
was supported by Mr. Brady, Mr. Muntz, Mr.
Montague Chambers, and Sir George Pechell; and opposed
by Admiral Berkeley, Mr. Ellice, and Sir George Grey.
—With regard to the navy it was complained that a
large number of young and incompetent men had been
sent out to the Baltic; but Sir GEORGE GREY explained
that a certain number of pupils have been appointed to
do duty with that fleet, not as surgeons or assistant-
surgeons, but as supernumeraries. The fleet has its full
complement of surgeons and assistant-surgeons; and
these dressers were sent out that they may qualify by
practice for the office of assistant-surgeons hereafter.—
On a division, the motion was negatived by the majority
of 73 to 69.

Lord R. GROSVENOR moved for leave to bring in a
bill for the prevention of unnecessary Sunday Trading
in the Metropolis. As he understood the bill would not
be opposed, he postponed the explanation of its details
till the second reading.—Lord EBRINGTON seconded the
motion on religious, social, and economical grounds.—
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

On Wednesday, April 18, the Intestacy (Scotland)
Bill was read a second time, Mr. DUNLOP, who had
charge of the measure, explaining that it was designed
merely to assimilate the law of Scotland with that of
England, as regarded the disposal of intestate estates.

The second reading of the Sea Coast Fisheries
(Ireland) Bill, was moved by Mr. M'MAHON, and
opposed by Mr. NAPIER, who contended that the measure
was designed to benefit a small class of Wexford fishermen,
and would seriously compromise extensive vested
interests. He moved as an amendment that the bill
should be read a second time that day six months.—
After some discussion a division was called, when there
appeared for the motion, 19; for the amendment, 145.
The bill was consequently rejected.

Mr. Serjeant SHEE moved the second reading of the
Tenants' Improvements Compensation Bill, suggesting
that the measure should be allowed to pass the pending
stage, and the discussion, which the house was so
evidently not then disposed to undertake, should be
postponed until the bill came on for committal.—This
arrangement was ratified by Mr. HORSMAN, on the part
of the government; but was criticised by Mr. NAPIER
and Mr. WHITESIDE; and the collateral discussion
respecting the course which ought to be sanctioned was
protracted until a quarter to six o'clock, when the
debate stood adjourned in conformity with the customary
rule for the Wednesday sittings.

On the motion of Mr. STAFFORD, it was agreed that the