foreign music may be performed at Her Majesty's dinner parties; that third-class railway carriages may be made as luxurious as first-class; that primogeniture may be abolished; that a man may be at liberty to marry his grandmother; and that no person shall be hanged under any circumstances whatever.

Ingenuus will probably ask how this list is obtained, for he finds that it is quite impossible to hear what is said at the presentation, and he sees that the reporters are talking to one another and, apparently, taking few notes or none. They are saved this trouble by an officer of the House, who obtains from any member who desires that it should be known that he has discharged his trust, a memorandum of his name, that of the petitioning locality, and the purport of the prayer. The list thus made out is handed to the leading newspapers.

Questions are to be
There is a certain

But now comes a more stirring time. asked, and the Ministers are to answer them. document, called the paper,' which is in every one's hand, and which is the programme of the business of the evening-a parliamentary play-bill. It is printed every day, and retains the Latin heading Saturnii, 29 die Aprilis 1854,' supposing that such Saturday were the day of sitting: Saturdays, however, are seldom invaded until late in the session. On this paper, after the orders of the day, comes a list of questions of some such description as the following:

Mr. Lucas. To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has heard the report that a midshipman of H. M. S. Roarer, off the West India coast, remarked to a companion that the image of the Virgin in one of the Catholic churches at the Havana reminded him of the black doll over a marine store shop, and whether such midshipman is still retained in Her Majesty's service,

Mr. Williams. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sums of money which he is perpetually advertising as receipts from Tender Consciences are really received, and if so, what is done with the money; and whether any instructions are given to the police to trace the senders, who, having obviously long pursued a dishonest career, seek to quiet their self-reproaches by such reimbursements.

Mr. F. French. To ask Lord John Russell whether he has any objection to explain to the House the whole designs of our Government in the conduct of the war, and to produce copies of all the secret instructions given to our commanders.

But all the questions are not placed upon the paper. Of some the interrogator gives private notice to the minister whom he designs to question, and others are asked without notice, either

on

on the ground that the events occasioning them (as the arrival of tidings of a battle) have only just occurred, or in the hope that no preparatory notice will be required. It is hardly necessary to say that the form of the answer depends at least as much on the character of the respondent as upon the nature of the subject. As regards the present Cabinet the difference is considerable. Even if Lord John Russell intends to reply to the question at all, he usually speaks in rather an under voice, and is moving from the table to sit down before he has quite done, by which means his last words are often lost. With attention, however, and if not very far off, you can make out his meaning; but if it is a case in which he does not particularly care about being heard and reported, the articulation is most artistically confused. As a rule, and unless the proposed question be a means of enabling the Government to state what it wishes should be known, Lord John Russell, doubtless without intending it, contrives to convey the impression that the interrogating a Minister of the Crown is, after all, rather taking a liberty. Not so Lord Palmerston. He springs to his feet, as if quite glad to have an opportunity of satisfying so very reasonable a curiosity as that of the honourable member who has asked the question. He then states the matter his own way, makes the House feel that everything is quite right, or if otherwise, that it is not Lord Palmerston's fault, and adroitly seasons the explanation with some jocose but good-natured allusion to the querist, which calls up a laugh. No man, however, can give, upon a serious question, a better weighed or manlier reply than the Home Secretary; but he well understands the art of silencing those whom his friend Mr. Canning used to call the yelpers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is grave enough. He poises himself upon the green box, and points his finger, as one who is not going to let you off until you quite understand the subject, and then he explains it to you at such length and with such a copia verborum that you feel quite ashamed of the unreasonable trouble you have given to a man who has so much else to attend to. He presents you with such an elaborate essay on the matter, looking at it in various lights, and analyzing its various bearings, doing it withal in so pleasant a voice and with so gentlemanly a manner, that you receive the address as a personal compliment. His answers contrast a good deal with those of Lord Palmerston. Supposing each minister were asked what day the session would be over, the Viscount would reply, that it was the intention of Her Majesty to close the session on the 18th of August. Mr. Gladstone would possibly premise that inasmuch as it was for Her Majesty to decide upon the day which would be most acceptable to herself, it was scarcely com

patible

patible with Parliamentary etiquette to ask her ministers to anticipate such decision; but presuming that he quite understood the purport of the right honourable gentleman's question, of which he was not entirely assured, the completion of the duties of the House of Commons, and the formal termination of the sitting of the Legislature, being two distinct things, he would say that Her Majesty's Ministers had represented to the Queen that the former would probably be accomplished about the 18th of August, and that such day would not be unfavourable for the latter, and therefore, if the Sovereign should be pleased to ratify that view of the case, the day he had named would probably be that inquired after by the right honourable gentleman. Sir James Graham's long experience and shrewd practical habit of mind enable him to give one of the best answers which is heard in Parliament; but the low voice in which he usually replies prevents the House from having the full advantage of his information. The law answers of the Cabinet are given by the Attorney-General with promptness and clearness, and by the Solicitor-General with more elaboration, and with a precision most acceptable in print, but marred into apparent pedantry to the ear, by the singular delivery of this accomplished lawyer.

Petitions and questions having been disposed of, and notices of motion given-that is, members having announced that on a certain day they intend to move for leave to bring in a bill, or for the appointment of a Committee, or that a certain resolution be agreed to-what comes next? This is a Government night, which means that the business of the nation, as administered by the Government, is discussed before private members are entitled to be heard. The difference is enormous. For example, on Tuesday, which was not such a night, and private members had a right to begin the evening with their own subjects in the order in which they stood on the paper for that Dies Martis, a melancholy event occurred. Two liberal members, both patriots of great merit, and both dreadful bores, had motions on the paper. The subjects were very important. Ingenuus would have felt that out of the 654 members of the House, at least 650 should have attended, and if the other four were ill, they should have sent medical certificates.

1. Mr. Proser. To call the attention of the House to the want of educational provision for the humbler classes.

2. Mr. Droner. To call the attention of the House to the circumstances attending the arrest of a Jew pedlar, called Moses Shobbus, who on the 27th of March last was taken into custody at Ditchford fair while pursuing his regular and licensed business, and who was committed by Colonel Baffy and the Rev.

Peter

Peter Brown, magistrates, to the county gaol on a charge of embezzlement, of which he has been ascertained to be innocent.

To constitute a House, there must be forty members present, including the Speaker, and when he took his chair at four o'clock, and began counting with his three-cornered hat, there were but twenty-three. It is even said that members who had come down to the House had not only refused to go in themselves, but had prevented others from entering until the counting was over. At least so Mr. Proser asserted, when on another night he adverted with patriotic wrath to the subject, and desired that Government would give him one of their own nights for his discourse, a proposition which was very unfavourably received. It may be well to add that undue blame must not attach to Parliament for this and similar occurrences. It was felt that Mr. Proser was of all men the most unfitted to deal usefully with a great subject; it was known that he had taken it up for the sake of promoting his own reputation, and it was foreseen that after a couple of hours or more of dreariness, citation from blue-books, and common-place oratory, Mr. Proser would have sat down, and been told by a member of the Ministry that his good intentions were appreciated, and that the facts he stated were admitted, but that the subject must be dealt with by Government, and not by a private member. These considerations it might be felt justified the no-house as regarded Mr. Proser; but how 654 members, less 23, could stay away when such a case as that of Moses Shobbus called for their indignation, Ingenuus must discover for himself.

There was no fear of such a catastrophe to-night, for it is, as we have said, a Government night, and the Secretary to the Treasury, that restless, pleasant-looking person, who is here, there, and everywhere (his appearance has reminded somebody of Napoleon, with a tight boot on his mind), has seen to his duty. 'The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day,' says Mr. Shaw Lefevre. Supposing it were possible to 'take' them all, there would be a goodly night's work before us; but the fact is that the time will be almost exclusively occupied with a discussion on the second:

1. Ways and Means.

2. Criminals' Enfranchisement Bill. Second reading. The homely sounding phrase 'Ways and Means,' which is the first item in the list, implies the machinery by which the funds are raised for meeting the national expenditure. In a Committee of Ways and Means the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his proposals for taxation, and when the Committee has agreed to resolutions in favour of his propositions, they are re-cast, as

bills, and are regularly passed by both Houses, the hereditary legislature having the right to throw them out altogether, but not to alter them. This Committee is frequently the arena of a grand battle, but to-night it will not occupy more than five minutes, a merely formal vote being taken. Mr. Hume, however, interrupts, in order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has introduced his promised alteration as to certain drawbacks, and the Chancellor courteously assures him that the subject has not been forgotten, but that some technical difficulty has prevented the blanks from being as yet filled up. Mr. Hume complains that this is really sadly irregular-here is another stage passed through, and nobody knows what he is voting -but, though disapproving, allows the matter to pass. The gentleman in wig and gown comes round to the front of the table, lifts up the mace, and restores it to its place; for when the House is in Committee the mace is off the table, but when the Speaker resumes his chair the emblem of dignity is again laid before him. But perhaps the most amusing ceremony in which 'the Bauble' figures is when a Master in Chancery comes with a message from the Lords. The Serjeant-at-Arms goes reverently up to the Speaker and announces the fact, and the Speaker kindly lends him the mace, that he may receive the Master in a more imposing manner. Armed with-almost staggering under the gilded load-the Serjeant walks down the House to fetch the Master. The pair form in line, and come marching up to the table, the Master being more splendid in regard to costume, but the Serjeant borrowing the reflected glory of the mace. They bow at various stages of the journey, and the Master having arrived, delivers the message of the Lords, the Serjeant standing by him with his grand weapon, and looking as if he were ready to castigate him on the spot if he should show any lack of reverence. Then they retreat, pari passu, bowing whenever it occurs to them, and in this retrograde movement the Serjeant has an advantage, his legs being unincumbered, whereas the heels of the other are in Chancery, and his gown is traitorous. However, we have never seen a Master fall down, and perhaps the dexterity of the official is due to long rehearsals. Finally, the Serjeant having seen his companion back to the bar, comes up again with more reverences to return the Speaker his mace, and then bows himself back to his own chair, after these six promenades. Strangers do not always look respectfully upon this ceremonial, but nothing is so wholesome as etiquette between neighbours.

But now comes the real battle of the evening. The second reading of the Criminals' Enfranchisement Bill is called. The

process