go to the common law courts. He also proposed that
an appeal from the decisions of the inferior courts should
be to the courts of common law. There could be no
doubt as to the applicability of these courts to decide
such matters, and the pecuniary advantages would be
very great. The circumstance ot the common law court
being movable was another advantage. These courts at
present decided questions of fact; and he now wished
to extend that jurisdiction, leaving equitable questions
to the Court of Chancery. He proposed to attach to
each of the common law courts an officer to be called
the clerk of probate, who would generally be an officer
discharging similar duties in the ecclesiastical courts.
With regard to compensation, he would limit it to those
who actually hold office. As to proctors, they might be
permitted to practise as attorneys in any court in the
kingdom. For the purpose of probate, he would
consolidate the metropolitan County Courts into one.—
After some remarks leave was given to bring in the bill.

Mr. CORBETT moved for leave to bring in a bill to
Limit the Hours of Labour of Females and Children
in Factories. His object was practically to restore and
extend the principle of the ten hours act of 1847. He
entered into a long statement of the causes which had
led to the passing of that act, its operation, and the
effects of the compromise act of 1800, which he
condemned as inflicting a serious injustice upon the
employed, by imposing upon them an additional half–
hour's labour per diem. He quoted a variety of
evidence, in order to show the numerous violations of
the present system, and the necessity for some further
legislation. His proposition was to restrict the hours
of labour of all persons employed in factories, including
women and all young persons and children, to ten
hours a day for the first five days in the week, and
seven hours and a half on Saturdays. In order to
ensure the working of this regulation, the bill provided
that the motive power in all factories should be
suspended from half–past five o'clock in the evening, on
the first five days in the week, until six the next
morning; and on Saturdays in a similar proportion.
The objection made to this plan was the restriction on
the motive power; but he maintained that the bill
could not be made effective in any other manner, and
that it was a course which had the support of
distinguished authorities, whose evidence he cited. These,
and a provision for a more efficient system of inspection,
were the main features of the bill, which he described
at considerable length to a very thin but still attentive
house.—Lord PALMERSTON would not oppose the
introduction of the bill, but reserved to himself the
privilege of taking any course which he might think
proper on the second reading. He intended to bring in
a bill himself to limit the hours of labour as far as
children were concerned, providing that children should
not be employed before six in the morning or after six
in the evening. It was difficult to say how far general
interference was expedient between the employers and
the employed, and the question required careful
consideration.—After some discussion on the respective
propositions of Mr. Cobbett and Lord Palnierston, leave
was given to bring in the bill.

Mr. KEATING moved a resolution Censuring the
Board of Admiralty for their Conduct Relative to
Dockyard Appointments.—Sir John PAKINGTON
defended the board. Several motions for the adjournment
of the debate were put and lost. At length a
motion for the adjournment of the house was carried
at four o'clock in the morning.

On Thursday, July 7, Mr. LAYARD complained that
his motion on the subject of Turkey has been postponed
during his absence, and said that he should bring it
forward on Monday unless satisfactory reasons were
given him to the contrary.

On Friday, July 8, Lord PALMERSTON applied to
Mr. Layard to withdraw the above motion, on the
ground that bringing it on would produce inconvenience
and perhaps injury. After some conversation, Mr.
Layard withdrew the motion.

The house went into committee on the Indian Bill.
Several amendments on various clauses were rejected
upon divisions.

On Monday, July 11, Lord John RUSSELL in
answer to a question from Mr. Disraeli respecting the
Circular Dispatch of Count Nesselrode, which had
appeared in the newspapers of that day, said that it
was undoubtedly an authentic document, but he did not
think that the Russian government could substantiate
the allegation that the entry of the Russian troops into
the Danubian principalities was caused by the appearance
of the English fleet in the Turkish waters; neither did
he know, from his reading of the document, that there
was any declaration in it to the effect that matters
would not be arranged between Russia and Turkey
unless the English and French fleets first left the
Turkish ports. He added, in answer to a further
question, that her Majesty's government had not received
any information of the occupation of Bosnia by the
Austrian army, and that the Austrian ambassador in
this country had expressed his disbelief of the report.

The house then went again into committee upon the
Government of India Bill, commencing with the third
clause, which enacts that her Majesty may, before
April, 1854, appoint three persons, who shall have
served ten years in India, to be, from that date, directors
of the company for two, four, and six years, such
persons having the same qualification in East India
stock as is now required for a director. Mr. V. SMITH,
condemning the principle of nomination by the Crown,
moved to amend the clause by substituting election by
the Court of Directors, subject to the approbation of her
Majesty. He urged that, if nominees of the Crown were
admitted, the independence of the Court of Directors
would be destroyed, and the advantages of the check
afforded by the mixed government would be lost.—Sir
C. WOOD opposed the amendment. After very full
consideration, he said, the government had adopted this
mode of rendering the Court of Directors, as they
believed, more efficient, without destroying the
independence of that body.—Ultimately the amendment was
negatived, upon a division, by 193 against 111.—Sir H.
WILLOUGHBY moved another amendment of the clause,
the effect of which was to direct that the fifteen directors
appointed to act as the court, should prepare a list
of twelve persons who shall have been twenty years in
the Indian service, out of whom her Majesty should be
authorised to select the three nominated directors.—Sir
C. WOOD, on various grounds, resisted this amendment,
which was negatived without a division.—Mr. RICH
moved that the three nominees should be appointed for
three, six, and nine years, instead of two, four, and six
years.—In the debate which ensued, some remarks of
Mr. Bright called forth a vindication of himself by
Sir J. Hogg.—This amendment was negatived.—Mr.
T. BARING moved, as an addition to the qualifications
of the three nominees, that they should not have quitted
the Indian service for more than five years; but, after a
short discussion, he withdrew the motion.—Mr. BRIGHT
proposed to expunge that part of the clause which
required that the nominees should have the same
qualification in the stock of the company as is now required
for a director.—Sir C. WOOD said, the object of this
part of the clause was to place the nominated directors
upon precisely the same footing as the elected.—Mr.
Bright was of opinion that this was no valid reason
for the possible exclusion of men otherwise well qualified;
and Lord J. Russell consented to the omission
of the words, which were accordingly expunged.—On
reaching the third clause, the chairman was ordered to
report progress.

On the motion of Mr. SEYMER, the Canterbury Writ
was further suspended till the 29th of July.

The ATTORNEY–GENERAL obtained leave to bring in
a bill for the Suppression of Betting–Houses, which
would be done, he said, without interfering with the
older species of betting, and thus put down a mischief
which had repeatedly been denounced.

Lord W. GRAHAM inquired whether any measures
were in progress or under consideration for Altering the
Dress or diminishing the Weight of the Accoutrements
of the Infantry Soldier?—Mr. S. HERBERT stated, that
the instructions to Lord Seaton called his attention to the
subject, and that there was every reason to hope that
improvements would be effected.

On Tuesday, July 12, Mr. E. BALL moved the house
resolve itself into a committee for the purpose of