The Week.

THE WEEK .

THE COURT . —Her Majesty still continues at AA'indsor , and will hold a Court at Buckingham Palace on Monday . The Prince of AVales held a levee at St . James's Palace on Wednesday . His Royal Highness , accompanied by the Princess , left AVindsor Castle that he might officiate on her Majesty's behalf at St . James ' s Palace . The levee was very numerously attended . Prince Arthur , era route for the East , paid a visit to the

Emperor of the French at the Tuileries at the close of last week . On Tuesday his Royal Highness was at Turin . IirrBEiAi . PARLIAMENT . —In the HOUSE OF LOJEDS on Thursday , the 2 nd inst ., Lord Stanhope presented a petition from the Trustees of the British Museum setting forth the utterinadequacy of the present space for the accommodation of the

rapidly-increasing national collection . The noble Earl gave notice at the same time of his intention to bring the whole subject before their lordships on a future occasion , On Friday , the Royal assent was given , by commission , to an Irish law bill ; and the Government measure conferring upon the County Courts equitable jurisdiction in cases involving small amounts

was , after some discussion , read a second time . On Monday there was no business worthy of notice . On Tuesday the Lord Chancellor made a statement in reference to Mr . Leonard Edmunds—a case which has excited some interest . He described how , in 186-lj an inquiry was instituted into the conduct of that individual as Clerk of the Patents and Clerk to the

Commissioners of Patents . Mr . Edmunds had declared that he courted inquiry . AVhen the commissioners reported , they stated that Mr . Edmunds had received , and not accounted for , public moneys to the extent of £ 2 , 681 , and they urged that he should be removed from the offices . His lordship then , having consulted with his brother Commissioners of Patents , informed

Mr . Edmunds that he must before them answer the charge made against him . In reply to this he asked leave through his solicitor to resign , and after consulting with the Master of the Rolls , he ( the Lord Chancellor ) permitted him to do so . He was informed further that the opinion of Lord Cranworth and Lord Kingsdown would be taken as to whether , under the

circumstances , he should be allowed to continue in his offices of Reading Clerk to the House of Lords and Clerk of the Private Bills Committee . Mr . Edmunds expressed a hope that Lords Cranworth and Kingsdown would not be consulted on the matter . He ( the Lord Chancellor ) had sent the papers to those noble lords , but on this request desired that no further

proceedings should be taken in the mutter until Mr . Edmunds had put in his answer . That answer was put in , and to his ( the Lord Chancellor ' s ) surprise , Mr . Edmunds paid in ,-67 , 872 , although his defalcations had only been stated at £ 2 , 081 . A second report , however , said that Mr . Edmunds still owed £ 9 , 100 . To that report Mr . Edmunds had not replied , though

he asserted that the £ 7 , 872 ( the amount paid in ) covered all that he owed to the Treasury . He ( tho Lord Chancellor ) then consulted the Government as to whether he ought not to state these facts to the House of Lords , and it was thought lie ought . He caused an intimation to that effect to be conveyed to Mr . Edmunds , and on the night when

he proposed to make it , a petition from Mr . Edmunds was put into his hands praying leave to resign , and asking for a pension . The committee to which the petition for a pension was referred sat at a time when the Lord Chancellor was unable to attend it , and he could not bring his mind to pursue Mr . Edmunds before that committee with all the facts . The Crown law officers had decided that tho alleged defalcations were matter for civil proceedings , and if it should turn out that Mr .

Edmunds owed more than he had paid , the pension would bo taken in satisfaction . After briefly stating that he had appointed two of his relations to two of the offices held by Mr . Edmunds , his lordship moved that the whole matter be referred to a committee for inquiry . The Earl of Derby said he understood that Mr . Edmunds , instead of handing over tho fees he received to the Treasury , had placed them in a deposit

bank , and received the interest on them , and that when the claim was made he returned the whole sum on deposit . He ( Lord Derby ) thought there had been haste in reference to the resignation of Mr . Edmunds as Reading Clerk . After some conversation , the committee was agreed to . ¦ In the HOUSE OF COMITONS on Thursday , the 2 nd inst ., Mr .

Baines , in reply to a question from Mr . Collins , said he was willing to postpone the second reading of the Borough Franchise Bill until the 25 th of May . —In answer to Mr . Laird , Lord Hnrtington said the Government had no exclusive right over tha Armstrong shunt guns , and guns upon that principle had been made by Admiral Porter at Fort Fisher . —On the motion

for going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates , Mr . H . Baillie moved that a select committee be appointed to inquire whether Her Majesty's ships are at present armed in a manner suited to the necessities and requirements of modern warfare . Sir John Hay seconded the motion , submitting that the royal navy was so badly armed that it was practically unfit

to meet " any of the navies of Europe or America . " Lord Hartington opposed the motion . He pointed out that a parliamentary committee would not possess the necessary practical knowledge of the subject ; but his main objection was that the Government had been , and was , doing its duty iu the matter . It was impossible in the present state of things to adopt definitely any one of the numerous rival systems of ordnance which

were being pressed upon the attention of the Government ; but he felt no hesitation in affirming that the English navy was as well armed as any navy in the world . After some further discussion the Honse divided , when the motion was negatived by 57 to 28 . On Friday , Mr . Layard , in reply to a question from Mr . Shaw Lefevre , said that Her Majesty ' s Government

were entirely opposed to the princip le laid down in a minute of instructions issued some time ago by the Government of the Confederate States , with reference to the disposal by Confederate cruisers of neutral vessels and cargoes without any adjudication by a prize court . It would not , however , conduce to tho interests of the public service to state what steps the

Government had taken in regard to the subject . —Mr . Newdegate moved for a select committee to inquire into ihe character and increase of conventional institutions in Great Britain . He submitted that these religious houses were " mere sinks of iniquity and corruption , " and referred to several cases which , in his opinion , showed the necessity for the investigation he proposed .

MrHennessey opposed the motion , and declared the cases cited by Mr . Newdegate to be mere inventions . After some remarks from Mr . Keate , Sir George Grey opposed the motion , contending that no public advantage could arise from the appointment of a committee . The motion was rejected by 10 G votes against 79 . On Monday , Mr . Villiers stated , in reply to Mr . Mitford , that

the Bill for the renewal of the Poor-law Board would include provisions for carrying out the recommendations of tho Committee with i-espect to unions and parishes under Gilbert ' s Act . Lord Stanley put a question to the Government with respect to the alleged defalcations of Mr . Edmunds , formerly of the Patent Office and Reading Clerk to the House of Lords . The

Attorney-General said Mr . Edmunds had paid £ 7 , 870 into the Treasury , but the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the matter alleged that there was a further deficiency of £ 9 , 000 .