On Tuesday, March 1, Mr. S. HERBERT explained
the circumstances connected with the Appointment of
Prince Albert and the Duke of Cambridge to Colonelcies
of the Guards. Mr. Hume, he observed, had been
misunderstood on the preceding evening; he had not
asserted that Prince Albert received the same emoluments
as the late Duke of Wellington, but he had complained
that the colonelcy of the Grenadier Guards had
been given to his royal highness, although the committee
of 1833 had recommended that the colonelcies of
the three regiments should be reserved for veteran
officers as rewards for long services. So far as regarded
emoluments, the recommendation of the committee had
been strictly carried out; and with regard to the other
point, Mr. Hume had misapprehended the report of the
committee, which made no mention of the manner in
which the commands should be disposed of; and, if
there had been an understanding upon the matter, the
intention of the committee would have been carried into
effect ten years ago, when Prince Albert was appointed
to the Fusilier Guards, upon which occasion no objection
was raised.—Mr. HUME renewed his statement
of the understanding upon which alone the high
emoluments of the colonelcies of the guards had been
maintained, but declared that he did not mean to throw any
reflection upon Prince Albert or the Duke of Cambridge.

Lord PALMERSTON, in answer to questions from Lord
D. Stuart, stated the views of the government as to the
Treatment of Foreign Refugees. After saying that no
application had been made on the part of a foreign power
for the expulsion of any refugees now in this country,
his lordship continued: "In reply to the other question,
what course will be pursued in the event of such an
application being made, I can only repeat that which
has been stated, I think, on former occasions in this
house, that any such application will be met by a firm
and decided refusal. It is, indeed, obvious that it must
be so, because no such measure can be taken by the
government of this country without fresh powers by act
of parliament; and I apprehend that no government—
the present government, I have said, will not do so—can
apply to this house for such a power with any chance of
success, inasmuch as no alien bill, either in former periods
or in the course of the present century, has been passed,
giving power to the government of this country to expel
foreigners, except on considerations affecting the internal
safety of this country. The British government has
never had occasion to provide for the internal security of
other countries. But I cannot confine my answer to my
noble friend's question to that statement. I must ask to
be allowed to add that while, on the one hand, the spirit
of the British laws and the British political constitution
give to foreigners of all political opinions and of all
categories a secure and peaceful shelter within this country,
I think that those foreigners who avail themselves of the
hospitality of England are bound by every principle of
honour, as well as by a regard, not only to international
law, but to the law of this land, to abstain from entering
into any intrigues, or pursuing any courses intended for
the purpose of giving umbrage to foreign governments,
or disturbing the internal tranquillity of any foreign
country." This declaration was received with cheers
from all parts of the house.

Mr. W . WILLIAMS called the attention of the house
to the injustice of Exempting Real Property from Probate
and Legacy Duties, and moved a resolution that such
property should be made to pay the same probate and
legacy duties as are payable on personal property. He
urged the partiality and injustice of the provisions of the
existing law upon this subject; the means which it
afforded to persons possessing landed estates for evading
the probate duty; and that this duty fell with undue
weight upon the poorest classes.—The CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER said, that much inconvenience arose
from partial discussions of this kind. The effect of this
resolution would only be to call upon the house to depart
from the business of legislation, and content itself with
expressing an abstract opinion. He did not deny that
the law required to be altered; that the scale, which was
most unsatisfactory, should be reconstructed; but the
question what land ought to be subjected to the legacy
and probate duties should be deferred until the house
had adopted some fixed views regarding our general
taxation, and particularly as to the income tax, which
must be the pivot upon which the whole would turn.
The land, he acknowledged, had no claim to special
favour; but the whole question should undergo the most
careful consideration, without favour towards any one
class, but with a desire to do justice to all.—Mr. HUME
supported the motion. He enlarged upon the inequality
of these duties, and thought the house ought to declare
that it was time that justice should be done. After some
observations by Mr. Henley, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Wilkinson,
the motion was negatived by 124 to 71.

Mr. COLLIER moved for a select committee to inquire
whether the Ecclesiastical Courts might not be Abolished,
and the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty transferred
to local tribunals. He did not, he said, give notice of
this motion until the intentions of the government with
reference to law reforms had been announced, and, if
those intentions had been satisfactory, he should not
have moved the house upon the subject; but they
proposed to wait until the commission had made a report.
The commission had, however, been appointed to inquire
into only a portion of the jurisdiction (the testamentary)
of the ecclesiastical courts, which had been inquired into
and condemned. But the most important point was, what
was to be done with the rest of the jurisdiction? and it
seemed to him far better to settle the whole question at
once. Notwithstanding that, of all abuses existing in the
country none were comparable to the abuses of these
courts; and, although condemned by commissions and
by the country, they had successfully resisted the reforms
which had penetrated into other courts. He then
explained the origin and nature of the jurisdiction of
these courts in respect to wills and administrations, and
the manner in which it was at present exercised. He
dwelt upon the insecure custody of wills in the Prerogative
Office, notwithstanding the enormous sums received
by the registrar; and upon the defects of the ecclesiastical
testamentary jurisdiction, part of which might be
conveniently given, he thought, to the county courts, and
the remainder, beyond a certain amount, transferred to
the courts of common law. With respect to the
jurisdiction of the spiritual courts in matrimonial suits, he
saw no reason why that also should not be transferred to
other tribunals. Church rates, he expected, would soon
be abolished. As to vested interests, it was impossible,
he said, to recognise the claims of the practitioners to
compensation; but the advocates and proctors might be
admitted to practise in courts of common law. Of the
Court of Admiralty, which had powers not possessed by
other courts, he did not make the same complaint, but
he considered that a local administration of its jurisdiction
would be beneficial. For the ecclesiastical courts
the only remedy was the knife.—Mr. HUME concurred
in all that had been said by Mr. Collier, and hoped the
motion would receive the assent of the government.—The
SOLICITOR-GENERAL recognised in Mr. Collier's vivid
description nothing but acknowledged truth, but it still
remained to ascertain the mode in which a remedy
was to be applied that would be effectual and extend
to the anomalies and evils of all antagonistical
jurisdictions. Reminding the house of the assurance given
by the Lord Chancellor that his intention was directed
to providing a remedy for these evils, he recommended
that Mr. Collier should wait for a season, and if some
measure were not brought forward by the government
for an effectual reform of these courts, that he
should himself introduce a bill upon the subject.—
Dr. R. PHILLIMORE said, the charge against the
ecclesiastical courts, that they had resisted all attempts at
reform, was entirely unfounded. A large measure of
reform had been drawn by advocates in these courts, by
which all sinecurce and 340 courts were abolished, vivá
voce evidence was introduced, and great alterations were
made in the conduct of suits rendering justice cheap,
speedy, and effectual. On the part of the practitioners
in these courts, he earnestly desired an effectual and
even sweeping reform; but they asked that both sides
should be heard before a decision was come to.—The
ATTORNEY-GENERAL urged Mr. Collier to press the
motion to a division. All agreed that the abuses of the
ecclesiastical courts were intolerable and could be no
longer endured, and the only question was as to the
remedy, which was not free from very considerable