The Press.
London, England, 1858-03-20 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MARCH 20, 1858.

Lord J. RUSSELL was enabled to make a reply to
the inquiry. With regard to the first question.
whether he could count upon a majority in the other
house in favour of the bill, he observed that it
appeared very difficult to say who had the majority
iu that (the Commons) house, and it would be very
presumptuous in him to predict what would be its
tate in the other house. As to the second question,
his experience, be said, had taught him that any
decision regarding parliamentary privileges which
might come under the consideration of a court of
law should be come to by the general consent of Par-
liament. The bill was framed in a most conciliatory
manner, and he thought it was inexpedient then to
discuss any ulterior measure.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE considered that Lord John had
evaded the questions, which were perfectly legiti-
mate, and he reproached him with a change of
opinion upon this subject, applying hard epithets
to the bill, which denoted, he said, a retrogressive
policy.
Mr. HUGESSEN recommended that this bill should
be passed by a large majority, and if their endeavours
should fail it would be time enough to consider any
other proceedings.
After a few words from Mr. JOHN Loom the
motion for adjourning the debate was withdrawn, and
the house went into committee upon the bill, the
clauses of which were agreed to, with the amendment
proposed by Lord John Russell.
The report of the Committee of Ways and Means
was brought up and agreed to.
The house adjourned at half-past one o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TIIMISDAY.
THE " CAGLIARI."

Lord LYNDIIURST drew the attention of the Go-
vernment to the case of the engineers of the Cagliari ;
he contended that it was now the duty of the
Government to interfere to obtain their liberation,
as the Neapolitan Government itself had made
statement by which it appeared the Cagliari was
not within the jurisdiction of Naples when she was
captured.
The Earl of llALmEssurtv reminded the house
that the present Government was in no degree
responsible for anything connected with this case
up to the 26th of February. He admitted that
some new facts bad been ascertained which would
justify the Government in referring the whole
matter again to the law officers of the Crown ; their
opinion and all the papers would be laid before Par-
liament ; and in the meantime every means would
be taken to secure for the prisoners an alleviation of
the cruelty of their confinement.
Lord WENSLEYDALE suggested that the question
should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council for its opinion.
The Earl of DERBY thought there was no precedent
for that coarse. _ _

Lord REDESDALE believed, under the circumstances,
that the Neapolitan Government was, to a certain
extent, justified in what it had done.
Earl GREY supported the suggestion of a refer-
ence to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council.

Lord BROUGHAM objected to it that the com-
mittee was also the tribunal of appeal, and might
have to decide judicially the question on which it
was required to give an opinion.
The subject then dropped.
The Indian Loan Bill went through committee.
_ _

Lord BROUGHAM moved for certain returns con-
nected with the County Courts, which were ordered.

MEDICAL REFORM.

The Earl of DEBBY, in answer to a qaestion from.
Lord Talbot de Malahide, stated that the Govern.
ment did not intend to introduce any Medical Reform
Bill during the present session in addition to the
three bills already before the House of Commons on
the subject. But it would give its best consideration
to those measures, with the hope of effecting some
arrangement between the parties to them. The
Government would, however, be prepared to take
some steps to regulate the sale of poisons.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-THURSDAY.
NEW MEMBERS.

➢lr. Mownnwy, for the city of Durham, and Lord
DUNICELLIN, for Galway, took the oaths and their
seats.

DELHI PRIZE MONEY.

Mr. BAILLIE, in reply to Mr. Kinnaird, stated
that the six months' hatta awarded by the Governor-
General of India to the army before Delhi was the
utmost sum fixed by law which be was entitled to
grant ; but that the case of both the Delhi and Luck.
now forces was under the consideration of the Go-
vernment.