first lieutenants of marines, but are excluded from the
ward-room and from the society of their equal officers,
and put into the cock-pit. "Then," said the captain,
"where is the cock-pit? Why, in the hold of a
ship, where the sun never penetrates, where the only
light afforded is by lamps or candles, where an impure
atmosphere constantly prevails, where it was impossible
to study, for study could not be carried on in the midst
of middies fond of larking and full of fun!" The schoolmaster,
the engineer, his assistant, and even boatswains
and carpenters have each a separate room.—The resolution
was opposed by Admiral DUNDAS, because there are
plenty of applicants for the place of assistant-surgeons in
our navy under the existing arrangement; and secondly,
that the proposed alteration is impracticable. When
the House divided, ministers found themselves in a
minority; for 48 voted with Captain Boldero, and 40
against him.—Sir Francis BARING afterwards remarked,
that the wish of the House was one thing, and the
practicability of the resolution another; and he feared that
it could not be carried out with advantage to the
service. The ward-room of each ship was already fully
crammed with officers entitled to use it.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of
Supply, when Colonel SIBTHORP proposed to reduce
the number of lords of the Admiralty from six to four;
and that their salaries, and those of their secretaries, and
other officers in that department, should be curtailed so
as to effect a saving of £7,100 a year.—Sir F. BARING
contended that the number of the lords was not
disproportioned to the mass of detailed business to be
superintended, and that their salaries should be left to the
consideration of the committee upon public salaries.—Upon
this, Colonel SIBTHORP restricted his motion to the
reduction of two lords, which, upon a division, was
negatived by 110 to 33.

Mr. HUME sought to retrench the vote of £689,971
for home naval establishments by the £10,000 for drilling
the dockyard artificers. He too was beaten by 66 to 15.

On Tuesday the 9th, the Repeal of the Window Duty
was brought under notice by Lord DUNCAN. When,
he said, the deleterious effects of this tax upon the public
health is so notorious, it seemed a mockery to have dwelt
so strongly on sanitary measures in the Queen's speech
unless ministers had intended to abolish the tax upon
the light of Heaven. The Health of Towns Association
had pronounced it "more vicious in principle, more
injurious in its practical consequences, than a tax on
food." If the £100,000 a-year voted for the impossible
endeavour to suppress the Slave trade on the coasts of
Africa were saved, there would be no necessity for
taxing houses containing fewer than fourteen windows.—
Sir Charles WOOD said, the tax already presses as lightly
on the poor as possible. Out of 3,500,000 houses, it is
only paid by 500,000 of the better class of houses; and
even for those the duty is ultimately paid by the capital
of the landlord in reduction of rent, rather than by the
tenant. The superiority of the dwellings of the poor in
England over those in Ireland, where the tax does not
exist, refutes, according to Sir Charles, much of the
sanitary argument. The exemption of all houses having
fewer than twelve windows would cost, not £100,000
but £250,000—the duty now received from such houses.—
Sir George PECHELL recalled the fact, that since 1835,
five Chancellors of the Exchequer have promised to
"consider" this subject, and not one has considered it
in the way the public voice requires.—Lord Robert
GROSVENOR was obliged to tell the Government, that
after the Commissions issued by them, which without
exception have recommended the abrogation of the tax,
their refusal to mitigate or moderate amounts to a great
loss of character on their part.—When the House
divided, there were for the motion, 77; against it, 80;
Ministerial majority, 3. The announcement of numbers
drew hearty cheers from the minority.

[Subsequently Sir George PECHELL'S's annual return
of the window-duties was printed. It shows that the
amount assessed in the year ending on the 5th, was
£1,893,988, and the net amount received was £1,813,629
The number of houses charged, 487,411.]

The County Courts Extension Bill came on for second
reading on Wednesday 10th. It was opposed by Ministers
and a portion of the Protectionist party.—Sir
George GREY advised caution. The sum to be sued for
in these courts was now limited to £20, but it was
proposed to enlarge the limit to £50 for debts, and from
£6 to £20 in cases of "tort," in which damages for wrong
were sought to be recovered. Where, urged Sir
George, was this to stop? The House may next year
be called on to extend the jurisdiction indefinitely. The
bill also proposed an increase of the judges' and clerks'
salaries and to remove the limits of counsel's fees, which
will detract from the present advantages of cheapness.
To test the opinion of the House with respect to the
bill, he moved that it be read a second time that day six
months.—Mr John EVANS, in astonishment at Sir
George Grey's objection, asked, why deter the
legislature from continuing in a course of utility? The
frequency of decisions on pitiful quibbles is so great in the
superior courts, that the judges will find it impossible to
go on much longer, from mere contempt and ridicule.—
Mr. MARTIN conceived the bill to be a step towards the
abrogation of trial by jury. All experience proved that
the best system of jurisprudence was that in which a
jury decided upon matters of fact, and a judge upon
law. Reverse that system, and allow 60 gentlemen [the
present number of County Court judges] through the
country to decide both fact and law, and serious evils
would ensue. [In a County Court it is at the option of
parties to have juries or not, as they please.]—Mr.
COCKBURN gave his cordial support to the bill. As to trial
by jury in civil actions, he believed that a single judge
of knowledge, education, and experience, was infinitely
better than juries, especially those selected at assizes.
In the course of equity, where property was dealt with
in masses and in its most important relations, there were
no juries. If important points of law arose, the case
might be brought before a superior court. The public
would do without juries willingly, for they very seldom
asked for them in County Court trials. The principle
of these courts simplified the law, which is so voluminous
and perplexing, that a lawyer's lifetime is too short to learn
it, and even at last he cannot understand it; while, to
the subject, the law is a sealed book; a state of things
to be ashamed of.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, opposed
the bill with emphatic warmth. His arguments rested
chiefly on the grounds that the County Court judges are
unrestrained by the opinion of a professional bar; that
the admission of persons to be witnesses in their own
cause either promotes perjury, or hinders sensitive
parties from seeking justice.—On a division. Sir George
Grey's amendment was negatived, by 144 to 69; and
the bill was read a second time.—Mr. HUME inquired
whether, after this demonstration of feeling, the
Government would persevere in opposing so salutary a
measure?—Sir George GREY said, he should object to
increasing the salaries of the judges; but he could not
undertake to say whether Government would oppose
the measure any further.

The Public Libraries and Museums Bill was now to
be moved into committee, and Mr. EWART announced
that he had modified it in two points:—First, To limit
its operation to boroughs whose populations exceeded
10,000; Secondly, To make it necessary for the town
council of any borough, before determining to carry this
act into effect, to call a public meeting of rate-payers,
and to obtain their distinct consent.—Colonel SIBTHORP
would still oppose the bill; inasmuch as it would impose
a fresh tax, and he moved that it be committed on that
day six months.—Lord J. MANNERS also objected to the
bill as doing that for libraries and museums what the
legislature had refused to do for churches, hospitals, and
charities.—Mr. OSWALD wished to know whether the
bill was intended to apply to Scotland? If so, he should
oppose it.—Colonel CHATTERTON asked whether the
bill was to apply to Ireland? These eager questions
produced a laugh.—Mr. Ewart said that the bill was
not intended to apply to Scotland, but he should be most
ready to include Ireland in its operation, if the majority
of the Irish members so desired. He regretted to find
a proposition for the establishment of libraries and the
extension of knowledge opposed by three of the four
members for our universities.—Colonel Sibthorp's
amendment was eventually lost by a majority of 35 out of 163
votes.

On Friday 12th Lord John RUSSELL moved for a