binds air Vrartrhinge in Valiant.

Norm OF LORDS. Monday, April 15.—Lunacy Regulation BM committed—Meet- ing Bill committed.

Tuesday, April 16.—Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill read a second time—Mutiny Bill read a third time and passed.

Thursday, April 18.-Subdivision of Dioceses Bill referred to a Select Committee. Friday, April 19.—The Roman Question ; Lord Wodehouse's statement

Noose or Commas. Monday, April 15.—Ways and Means; Mr. Gladstone's Fi- nancial Statement—Births, Marriages, and Deaths (Ireland) Bill read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee—Harbours Bill read a second time—Statute Law Revision Bills (from the Lords) read a second time, and referred to a Select Com- mittee—Copyright in Works of Art Bill read a first time.

Tuesday, April 16.—Street Railway Company Bill thrown out—Foreshores ; Mr. Smith's Motion, " Count Out" Wednesday, Apri117.—Trustees of Charities Bill thrown oat—Marriage Law Amend- ment Bill thrown out.

Thursday, April 113—St Domingo; Lord John Russell's Answer to Mr. Gregory— Supply ; Army Estimates—Charitable Uses Bill read a third time, and passed. Friday, Apri119. The Troubles at Warsaw; Mr. B. Cochrane's Question—Courts of Justice Site Bill read a first time.

THE BUDGET.

The annual statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was awaited this year with great interest. The period fixed for explana- tion of the budget was Monday evening, and by noon crowds had gathered in the entrances to the House, sufficient to fill the Strangers' Gallery. When the House opened, the attendance of Members was very numerous—they came to appropriate places "for the evening" in accordance with the custom of Parliament; so that when Mr. Gladstone arrived at an early hour he found a full House waiting for him.

As usual on these occasions, the financial statement was made in Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Massey in the chair. Mr. GLADSTONE was cheered when he advanced to the table and

addressed the Chairman. He began by remarking that the retrospec- tive portion of the statement he had to make was the only unfavour- able statement of account he had ever had to submit to the House. For that and other reasons, he went largely. into details, and his speech covers nearly ten columns of the morning journals. Pointing out in general terms the extraordinary character of the past year, he entered upon his retrospective statement without further preface, taking first, expenditure. The estimated expenditure was 73,661,0001., the actual 72,842,0001., a difference of 822,000/. in favour of the latter. This, however, arose almost wholly from the saving of 800,0001. in the vote of credit for the China war. Next, revenue. The year 1859-60 was favourable to the revenue, and it gave a balance of 1,200,0001. in our favour. In 1860-61, the supply of the fruits of the earth was stinted; and while the revenue of 1859-60 was 71,089,000/., that of 1860-61 was 70,283,000/. [Here Mr. Gladstone somewhat amused the Committee by showing that, among other causes of decrease was the fact that, since the past financial year began and - ended on a Sunday, and there were two Good Fridays in it, there was a loss of three days to the revenue representing 300,000/. There- fore, instead of the decrease of the revenue being 806,0004, it was only 506,0001.] Then he went on to point out that taxes to the amount of 2,900,0001. were remitted, but that additional taxation, income tax, and spirit duties, redressed the balance. But in both years drafts were made upon temporary resources-1,106,00K in 1859-60 from malt credits and Spain. In 1860-61 larger drafts were to have been made, but instead of 1,100,000/. from malt we only

t 778,000/., and this with 250,0001. from Spain, made 1,028,000/.

This still left the loss upon the revenue only 500,000/. Comparing next the revenue with the expenditure, he showed on the face of the figures a deficiency of 2,559,000/. but deducting drawbacks and items properly belonging to the preceding year, the real deficiency was 2,250,000. But since it was agreed to take 1,416,000/. from the balances of the exchequer to ,provide for the China war, the real deficiency over and above what Parliament sanctioned, was 855,000/. The next stage was a comparison between the estimated and actual revenue. The estimated revenue was 72,218,000/. • the actual, 70,283,000 ; a difference in round numbers, of 2,000,0001. To show clearly how the difference arose, he analyzed the revenue. All branches of taxation, except Customs and Excise, were estimated to yield 27,457,0001.; they actually yielded 27,542,000, showing an excess of 85,000/. [Here he described various causes which led to some of the main charges being less productive than was anticipated.] Then came Customs and Excise. The Customs were estimated to yield 23,434,000/. ; they did yield only 23,305,0001., showings small decrease. But the Customs profited at the expense of the Excise, because it was a bad year, and a nominal duty on corn gave 866,000/. of revenue, showing the de- ficient yield of our own soil, and representing sums vrithheld from revenue. Sugar, also, was imported for use in breweries, because barley was deficient, and that gave 51,000/. additional. There was an increase on the ordinary returns of 5000/. on tea, of 18,0001. on sugar, and a decrease of 21,0001. on tobacco. This would give a balance of 2000/, but 54,0001. was paid for sugar as a substitute for malt, so that the actual decrease is 62,0001. Mr. Gladstone went into details ou the operations of the wine and spirit duties, showing a decrease on home-made spirits and an increase on imported spirits. As to the wine duties. The changes in these were most difficult to make, and the slowest in giving results, yet while the estimated loss on wine was 830,0004 the actual loss was only 493,0001. Wine is thus the only

item which faced the unfavourable circumstances of the year, and gave a better return than was anticipated. In fact the total importations of all wines for 1860-61 is 1%509,000 gallons, against 9,176,000 for 1859-60. The increase upon French wine was 1,476,000 gallons, or 127 per cent. ; the total increase on all wines being 3,333,000 gallons,

or 36 per cent. The effect of the changes will take a long time to

work out. [Mr. Gladstone suggested here that some ingenious person might write "an exceedingly curious tract on the history of the taste for wine in this country," and he mentioned some anecdotes to show the fluctutations.] Then he came to the Excise. The estimated re- venue was 21,361,0001., the actual yield 19,435,000!., a deficiency of 1,926,000/. ; the entire deficit upon the revenue corresponding pretty nearly with the deficit upon the Excise. The deficit arises upon hops, 300,000/. ; malt, 800,000/. ; spirits, 96,000/. With regard to spirits, Mr. Gladstone explained that every augmentation of duty, except one, has been followed by a large decrease of revenue in the first and an increase in the second year, showing that time is required to bring these duties into regular operation. The competition of wine has something, but the consumption of malt liquor has more, to do with the decrease of the consumption of ardent spirits. He incidentally stated, as a fact, that the increase of the spirit duties has not led to an increase of illicit distillation.

Passing from these subjects, Mr. Gladstone defended the use he had made of temporary resources, by showing that the national expendi- ture has increased 10,000,0004 in two years, and that 7,000,0001. of this total were raised by taxation. Then he spoke of the balances in the Exchequer and the Debt. The balances on the 31st of March, 1860, were 7,972;0004 ; on the 31st of March, '1861, they were 6672,000/., of which 150 0001. was for the fortification loan, showing a diminution of 1,450,0064, a diminution which entails no incon- venience. Of Exchequer bonds, one million falling due has been paid off and replaced by a new one, and of a million which he took power to borrow on Exchequer bills, he borrowed 600,0001., and against that must be placed 139,000!. Exchequer bills paid off and not reissued. Before he quitted this retro- spect, he compared the year that has closed with 1853 ; his object being apparently to show that the failure of the financial legislation of 1860 to produce results similar to those produced by the legislation of 1853, is due to the increased expenditure, which in 1853-4 was, im- perial, 56,000,0001., local, 16,000,000/., total, 72,000,000/. ; in 1860-61, the expenditure was, imperial, 73,000,000/., local, 18,000,0001., total, 91,000,0004, or an increase of nearly 20,000,0001. in ten years. Esti- mating the annual savings of the country at 50,000,0001., that in eight years amounts to 400,000,0001., which, at five per cent., would yield 20,000,0001., so that the whole savings of eight years were swallowed tip in this grave of expenditure. Lastly, before quitting the past, Mr. Gladstone touched upon the French treaty, emphatically praising Mr. Cobden, and speaking of the unflinching determination of the Ministers of France, under " the animating spirit and guidance of the Emperor," to give full effect to the treaty. The exports of 1860—the largest ever known—were 136,000,0001. of declared value, against 130,500,0001. in the previous year. Taking the details, he showed a large increase in the exports of timber, of butter from 2,362,000/. to 4,122,0004, of cheese from 1,097,000L to 1,592,0001., of eggs from 315,000/. to 4970001., of rice from 890,000/. to 1,142,0001.; giving a total of 7,373,0004against 4,694,0001. In 1859-60, corn was imported to -the value of 17,384,000/. ; in 1860-61, the value was 38,159,0004, repre- senting an importation of from 23,000,000 to 24,000,000 quarters. Pursuing the subject, Mr. Gladstone showed that the imports of articles left untouched last year was stationary; that the import of those on which the duties were reduced rose seventeen and a half per cent., and on those repealed forty and a half per cent. This shows that the true basis on which to consolidate revenue is the extension of trade. We have not yet felt the full effects of the French treaty, but by that treaty and the accompanying measures'the trade has increased 9,000,000!. (Cheers.)

He now came to the future, and gave at once the estimate of ex- lure. The interest on the Funded and Unfunded Debt will be

,180,000/. ; charges on the Consolidated Fund, 1,930,0001. ; Army and Militia, 15,256,000/. ; Navy, 1%029,0001. ; Miscellaneous Civil Charges, 7,737,000/.; Charge of Revenue Department, 4,780,000/. ; Packet Service, 995,000/. ; total estimate, 69,900,0001., in round num- bers, 70,000,0001. The estimate for the revenue is—Customs, 23,585,0001. ; Excise, 19,463,0004 ; Stamps, 8,460,000/. ; Taxes, 3,150,000/. ; Income Tax, 11,200000/. ; Crown Lands, 295,0004 ; Miscellaneous, 1,400,000/. ; China Indemnity, 750,000/ ; Post Office, 3,500,0001.; giving a total of 71,823,0001.—one of the largest estimates of revenue ever presented in time of peace. [In the course of this ca- tion Mr. Gladstone described some minor changes—in hawkers' licenses to be reduced one half ; in the application of duty to refresh- ment-houses; the imposition of a tax on tobacco-shops kept open for smoking ; a slight Change in the law touching the sale of spirits, giving a license to wholesale dealers to sell retail; a stamp tax on agreements to let houses ; and a license tax on house agents.] As to expenditure. The estimate is 69,900,000, leaving a surplus on the face of the figures of 1,923,000/. (Cheers.) The Government cannot expect to be allowed to keep in hand so large a balance, and a portion may be disposed of by remittingtaxes. He did not propose, to reduce the duties on tea and sugar. What then ? The tenth porn y of the Income Tax and the Paper Duty would occur to the minds of the Committee.

"And here we are faced by the old question between direct and indirect taxation. I take some credit to myself that I have never entered into the debates upon that subject. I have always thought it idle for a person holding the position of Finance Minister to trouble himself with what to him is necessarily an abstract question—viz. the question between direct and indirect taxation, each considered upon its own merits. To many people both appear sufficiently repulsive. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) As for myself I confess that I entertain quite a different opinion. I can never think of direct and indirect taxation except as I should think of two fair sisters who have been introduced into the gay world of London, each with an ample fortune, both having the same parentage—for. the parents of both I believe to be necessity and invention—having somewhat dif- ferent manners, one being more free and open, and the other more retiring and insinuating. (Renewed laughter.) I cannot conceive any reason why there should be any unfriendly rivalry between the admirers of these two damsels ; and I frankly own, whether it be due to a lax sense of morals or not, that, as 4, Chancellor of the Exchequer or a member of this House, I have always thought it not only allowable but even an act of duty to pay one's addresses to them both, (Continued laughter.) I am, therefore, perfectly impartial as between direct and indirect taxation; but this I must say. that with regard to the remission of indirect taxes, I hope that the memorable history of the last twenty years will never be forgotten, for I do notseruple to state that if you look to its economical, and then to its political, social, and moral results, it is difficult to know which to prefer. If we had not gained a shilling by the remission of indirect taxation, it would have been worth having for the sake of the manner in which it has knit together the interests and feelings of all classes from one end of the nation to the other. (Cheers.) If, on the other hand, it had had nothing to do with any question of moral and social results, still the merely economical results in pro- moting the material well-being of the people have been so signal and extraor- dinary, that we may well rejoice to have lived in a period during which it has been our happy lot to take part in bringing about such changes. (Cheers.) But, Sir, there cannot be a grosser delusion than the sup- position that the work of Parliament has been to destroy indirect taxa- tion. The business in which Parliament has been employed has been the business of pruning the tree,—not to destroy it, but in order to strengthen it and give it greater size and vigour ; and the consequence is that at this momentp when indirect taxation has been destroyed and undermined in the public mind, as the phrase is, not once but four or five times over, indirect taxation is larger and more productive, I do not mean in this particular year, but upon the average of the last two or three years, than at any former period of our history. . . But, sir, in speaking thus of indirect taxation, I cannot deny that remissions of direct taxation are as just and as desirable, and I as fully feel, as.gentlemen opposite may feel, that our direct taxation has reached a point at which it is most desirable that we should, if we can, begin at least to apply to it the process of reduction.. (Opposition cheers.) I do not think that the condition of this country with regard to its finances can be wholly satisfactory when, in time of peace, the Income tax stands at 10d. in the pound." (General cheers.) Many held him specially responsible for the existence of the income tax. Now he would like to abolish it; he does are despair of its abolition; but in point of fact this is a question of expenditure, "and I will not speak of expenditure as a thing that can be suddenly and rapidly dealt with. Upon all sudden attempts to reduce it, and upon all promises to make sudden, extensive, and sweeping reductions in it, I should look with great suspicion and disfavour; but, if the country is content to. be governed at a cost of between 60,000,0001. and 62,000,0001. or 64,000,0001. a year, I do not believe that there is any reason why it should not be so governed without the income tax, provided that Parliament so wills. If, on the other hand, it is the pleasure of the country to be governed at a cost of between 70,000,000/. and 75,000,0001. a year, it must be so governed with the aid of a considerable income tax." What they had to deal with was a moderate surplus,. and he proposed to reduce the income tax by one penny, and to repeal the duty on paper. In that ease the income tax would be 9d. on incomes above 1501., and 6d. on incomes below it. After supporting his proposal by argument, he said: " Let me give the committee thefinancial results of this proposineki. We have a. balance of 1,923,0001. One penny taken off the income tax will deprive us for three-fourths of the year during which the change will be in operation of 850,000L We cannot propose the repeal of the paper duty from the 15th of August, the period which was fixed on last year, because that would trench rather too sharply on the balance at our command. We propose to date its remission from the lot of October. The loss on Excise revenue by repealing the paper duty will be 675,0001.; and there will be a loss of Customs duty from the same cause of 15,0001.; making together 690,000L There will be, however, a saving by reduction of the vote for stationery of about 15,000/.—a sum repre- senting but a very small proportion of the direct saving which the public- will make by the repeal. Added to this, 10,0001., the amount of the saving by reduction of the establishment charges for the half-year, the total saving will amount to 25,0001., leaving a net loss on the repeal of the paper duty of 665,0001. Coupling this with the reduction of income tax, the total remission will be 1,515,0001., which, when deducted from the balance of revenue, will leave a residue of surplus to the moderate amount of 408,0001." "penny-tax," cheers.) Mr. Gladstone entered at some length into a de- fence of his penny-tax," and declined to remit them. Then he stated that all his proposals being financial he should present them in proper connexion in a series of resolutions. That night he should move a resolution enabling him to impose a double duty on foreign chicory; and on another day, first the income tax, then the tea and sugar, and finally the paper duty repeal resolutions. In conclusion, he spoke of the general financial condition as satisfactory; declared that the spirit of the nation had-not declined; and that if there be any danger it lies in our recent policy to unbounded excess in expenditure. There has been a tendency to break down all limits. It is not only a pecuniary waste but a great political and moral evil which,steals on, unseen and unfelt, until it reaches an overwhelming magnitude. Deprecating rash reductions, he hoped they would grapple with public expenditure. " For my own part,'! say that if this country will but steadily and constantly show herself as wise in the use of her treasure as she is unequalled in the production of her wealth and moderate in the exercise of her strength, then we may well believe that England will for many generations yet to come continue to hold her foremost position among the nations of the world." (Cheers.) A conversation, when the cheers subsided, arose of the usual desultory kind. Sir STAYFORD NORTHCOTE maintained that his party were right last year, when they said the Budget did not make sufficient provision for the wants of the country. Mr. DODSON wanted the hop duty repealed; Mr. HADFIELD the duty on fire insurance diminished; Mr.. GUN assented to the proposals as satisfactory ; Mr. BALD desired a reduction of the duty on malt ; Mr. CAVE thought " the country" would regret the continuance of the penny. taxes, and asked for a reduction of the duties on tea and sugar. Mr. OSBORNE congratulated. Mr.Gladstone on the nerve and wisdom he had shown in dealing withthe paper duty and income tan—wrapping up the penny in paper. "That penny on the income tax thrown to us country gentlemen willfloat his Budget." Lord ROBERT Cecil. took exception to Mr. Gladstone's remarks on profligate expenditure. A 'Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to protest in the Cabinet, and if he cannot carry his views, to, resign. If he did not do so, he was bound not to discredit the estimates. Mr. LONG and Mr. BE/TTINCK complained that nothing was done for the agricultural interest.

Mr. GLADSTONE having made some remarks on the various subjects, suggested to him, the resolution was carried, and the House resumed-

THE ARMI ESTIMATES.

Thursday evening was set apart for the consideration of the Army Estimates in Committee of Supply, but on the motion that the House F

should go into Committee, Sir l'. SMITH, Colonel DICKSON, Colonel Duarin, and Mr. OSBORNE raised a series of objections, urging post- ponement with a view to the revision of the Estimates. They com- plained of the growth of the expenditure, objecting to the strenggth of the medical staff, to the cost of hospitals, to the appointment of a major-general to command the Guards, to the expenditure for military purposes in the colonies, to the campat.Aldershott, to the fortification scheme, especially to the fortification at Portsdown-hill at Ports- mouth, which Mr. OSBORNE condemned because it might be mined by an enemy! He called Aldershott a "job," and styled it a preparatory school for making indifferent brigadiers, a position instantly assailed by Colonel NORTH, General LINDSAY, and Colonel GILPIN.

Lord PArargasror deprecated a discussion of the items of the esti- mates when the statements of honourable members could neither be answered nor refuted. If they would go into Committee every member might speak as often as he pleased. Saying this, he turned upon Mr. Osborne.

"He is fond of sweeping assertions, fend he has at his command a most ample vocabulary of strong words. Everything he disapproves of is a job- (" hear!" from Mr. Osborne)—and everything he does not like is absurd, ridiculous, foolish, and preposterous. (Laughter.). But if we are to judge from the military opinions which he has given this evening, I think we may congratu- late the country that its military defences do not depend on his knowledge and his decision. He is pleased to talk of 'that extravagant job Aldershott.' 1 deny that it is a job. On the contrary, I assert that there never was a wiser nor a more economical application of public money. I hope, therefore, that those light and violent expressions which my hon. friend is so fond of throwing right and left at everything in his way will have only their due weight with the House, and that they will prefer to give credence to those who are better judges of the matter than my hon. friend. He talks about the demoralizing effects of Aidershott—I don't know what he means, but undoubtedly as far as the health of the troops goes they have been healthier there than at any station where an equal number of men have been collected together. Then, again, as to Portsdown-hill, he who has erected himself into a supreme judge of all military matters complains that if he were shut up there he should be undermined. Now, mining and undermining imply a long siege ; but does he suppose that we are going upon the assumption that a foreign enemy. is to be left qmet at Portsdown until he can carry on the long operations of mining? The object of occupying Portsdown-bill is to prevent a force which might suddenly be landed upon the coast from at once taking up a position there which would give them the power of destroying your dockyards. It is nonsense to tell me that an enemy lauding at Chichester, or some other such place on the coast, if Portsdown-hill were not defended, could not occupy it and do whatever damage he pleased to your dockyards at Portsmouth. The object of these fortifications is not to stand a long siege like Coblentz, Mayence, or any of the great fortresses of the Continent, but to prevent a coup de main, and if they can be maintained so long as to force the enemy to undermine them and blow them up, I shall think that they have fully answered their ojject. After more of this talk, in the course of which Mr. OSBORNE and Lord Ruarrasror again exchanged hits, the House went into Com- mittee. On the vote of 1780 ,0001. to complete the vote for land forces pay and allowances, Lord Wriaisat GRAHAM complained of the colonial military expenditure but made no motion, and other Members criticized special items. Colonel Dicxsor then moved the rednctioa of the vote by 98231., the amount of increase on the cost for the medical staff, a proceeding severely rebuked by Sir jos= PAXTON, and negatived by 66 to 46. Lord ALFBMD ( iracurrn moved the reduction of the vote by a sum of 1038/. 148. 7d., the -pay of the Major- 'General commanding the Guards and of his staff. This led to a debate in which Colonel Durre, Mr. MONSELL, and Colonel Ktiox supported the motion, and General LINDSAY and Lord PetMFiasiror opposed it. On a division the motion was negatived, but only by 89 to 86. Colonel DICKSON then proposed to omit an item of 75,0001. for 'miscellaneous and contingencies." Negatived by 182 to 28.

Other motions were made, but withdrawn or negatived without division, the more conspicuous being a motion by Mr. Comottem to deprive the officers of the Grenadier Guards of their pay and allow- ances; and another by Colonel Knox to strike out the sum set apart for dep6t battalions ! Finally the vote was agreed to and the House resumed.

THE Batuuturrcr Bun.

This great measure is now fairly under weigh in the House of Lords. The Loan CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of the Bill, and stated at great length the provisions of the measure and the evils of the present system, to which it was intended to apply a remedy. Lord CHELMSFORD said that without wishing to oppose the second reading of the bill, and having a sincere and earnest desire to see an amendment of the law of bankruptcy, still lie feared the bill would not answer the object intended without considerable amendment. He criticized the provisions of the bill, and pointed out in what respect he considered it to be susceptible of improvement. Lord CRANWORTH expressed his approval generally of the bill. Lord KINGSDOWN disapproved of the abolition of the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency ; still, as their lordships and the other House of Parliament appeared to have set their minds upon the change, he would content himself by recommending them to use great caution in making it. After some observations from Lord WENSLEYDALE, the bill was read a second time.

THE WEDNESDAY Sirruro.

Two Bills were debated and thrown out at this sitting—the Trustees of Charities Bill, and the Marriage Law Amendment Bill.

The first waspromoted by Mr. Dillwyn, and intended to render persons eligible for the trusteeships of schools without regard to their religious opinions. On the motion that the House shoal(' go into committee on the bill, Mr. SELWYN moved as an amendment that the House should go into committee that day six months. He said the bill was as dangerous to the rights of the Dissenters as to the Church of England, a fact made evident by the petition of the Wesleyan Con- ference against the measure. Mr. BEECROFT described the special eases of schools in the West Riding, which would be grievously affected by the bill. Mr. Minsort, on the other side, represented the measure as one intended to secure the appointment of the fittest men, and as one that would arrest litigation. Mr. HARDY objected to the bill al- together as an interference with the Church; to which Mr. Dillwyn answered by a denial that the bill was an act of spoliation, and by praise of the conciliatory, fair, and moderate conduct of the Liberation bociety. But when Lord ROBERT Cecil, attempted to fasten these words upon 'him, he said he did not think he used the word "mo- derate."

Thus the debate proceeded with some spirit; M. ADDERLEY, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. Burror, and Mr. WurrEsme, speaking against the bill, and Mr. Run, while speaking against it, voting for it. On a division

the amendment was carried by 200 to 171; so the bill was lost, to the great delight of the Opposition.

Mr. Moscr-row MILNES then moved the second reading of the Mar- riage Law Amendment Bill, intended to legalize, in England, marriage with the sister of a deceased wife. This was met by a singular reso- lution, and moved by Mr. HUNT, to the effect that it would be " highly inconvenient" to place the marriage law, with regard to the prohibi degrees, "on a different footing in different parts of the United Ki m."

T e amendment was supported by Mr. Hutrr, Mr. KER SETNER, Mr. LYGON, and Mr. WHITEsiDB. Their arguments were, that the exclusion of Ireland and Scotland from the operation of the bill ought to be fatal to, it ; that under it a man might be married in Inland and unmarried in Ireland and Scotland, a child legitimate in England, and illegitimate in Ireland and Scotland; that the question was not, as represented, a poor man's, but a rich man's question; and that the marriages proposed to be legalized are sinful and con- trary to Scripture. Mr. KER SEYMER made a special attack upon the Marriage-Law Association, and humorously remarked that members ceased to take a prominent part in promoting the bill as soon as they were obliged to seek a seat for some Scotch constituency. Mr. LYGON read a petition from some "Protestant Dissenters" of Dundee, pray- ing that polygamy might be permitted, and likened the reasoning of the Mormons to that of the advocates of the bill.

On the other hand, Mr. PEASE, Sir Monros Prro., Mr. 1)ErmArr, and Mr. Mums, contended that there was no prohibition of these

marriages in the Bible : that it is a poor man's question, since numbers of working men daily set the present law at defiance, and that it was an insult to compare these marriages with bigamy, incest, and

polygamy. Mr. MILNES made an effective reply upon the whole de- bate. But, on a division, the amendment was carried by 177 to 172, a result which called forth repeated Opposition cheers.

ST. DOILDTGO.

Mr. GREGORY asked the. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he had received any information of the occupation of any portion of the island of St. Domingo by the Spaniards, and if he had received any copies of any proclamations by Spanish officers relative thereto; and, if so, whether he would lay them upon the table of the House. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Government had received no account of the occupation of St. Domingo by Spaniards. That which they had received was a proclamation by General Saldanha, issued in conse- quence of a meeting which took place, in which he declared that the Sovereignty of the island should henceforth be annexed to that of Spain, and ordering the Spanish flag should be immediately hoisted. The Government had also received mtelligence that a vessel of war had sailed with troops from Cuba to St. Domingo, but no account of its arrival there had reached them. Intelligence had aLso arrived from Madrid to the effect that the Spanish Government would probably not accept the transfer of the Sovereignty of St. Domingo, but nothing official had been declared on that head. He might add that the Spanish Government had declared that they had received no official information on the subject, and he had simply to say, in conclusion, that he did not think it would be convenient for the public service that the papers to which the honourable gentleman referred should be laid on the table of the House.

FORESHORES.—Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the rights of the Crown and public, as well as of indi- viduals, as connected with the foreshores and tidal waters of the United Kingdom, the manner in which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are dealing with the same, and the state of the law affecting this description of property. Captain JERVIS seconded the motion.

Sir Joutr HAMMER contended that the rights of the Crown in reference to the foreshores were as old as the Conquest, and that although the subject might have formed one of the grievances in the Grand Remonstrance, yet it only showed that the King had in that case been guilty of encroachments, as he had in many others. The motion was most dangerous to the rights of the subject, and whenever any question with reference to those rights arose, the proper appeal was to a court of law, and not to the House of Commons. The ATTORNEY-GENEBAL condemned the motion as extravagant and revolutionary, inasmuch as its object was to lead to an inquiry both into the rights of the Crown and of the subject. The theory of the law as recognized in every court of law in the kingdom was that the right to the foreshores was vested in the Crown, as the representative of the public, and if it were not so, he would like the erudite mover of the motion to say to whom he would give it. The Crown was noni- nated the trustee of the property, and it could not be granted away but in cases where profit and benefit were derived from its use. These might be granted away, but only in the interests of the public. The motion was rejected by 176 to 67.