• Vthnito au rombingo in TA arliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OP THE WEEk. House OP Loans. Monday, August 20. Royal Assent to the Census (Scotland( Bill, the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854) Continuance Bill, the European Forces (India) Bill, the East India Stock Transfer, &c., Bill, the Poor-law Con- tinuance Bill, the Prisons (Scotland) Bill, the Lind Clauses Consolidation Act (1845) Amendment Bill, and the Maynooth College Bill—Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Investments Bill read a second time—Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) Bill read a second time—Defence of the Realm Bill read a second time—Wine Licences (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed.

Tuesday, August 21. East India Loan Bill read a first time—Rifle Volunteer Corps Bill, Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, Fortifications ( Provision for Ex- penses) Bill, Customs (No. 2) Bill, Stamp-duties (No. 2) Bill, and Defence of the Realm Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday, August 23. Excise-duties Bill read a third time and passed—East India Loan Bill read a second time—Spirit-duties Bill read a second tune—Appro- priation Bill, Naval Discipline Bill, Roman Catholic Charities Biltread a first time. Friday, August 24. Highways Consolidation Bill read a first time—Law Re- form ; Lord Campbell's 'Statement—Roman Catholic Charities Bill read a second time—Appropriation Bill read a second time—Spirits Bill read a third time and passed.

ROME OP COILMONS. Saturday August 18. Supply ; the last items of Miscella- neous Estimates—Militia Pay Bill read a first time. Monday, August 20. The Syrian Question; Lord Palmerston's Answer to Mr. Monsell—Appropriation Bill read a first time—Exchequer Bond Bill read a first time—East India Lean Bill read a third time and passed—Spirit Duties Bill read a third time and passed—Party Emblems Bill committed— Sale of Gas Act Amend- ment Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday, August 21. Appropriation Bill read a second time—Local Government Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2) Bill read a third thee and incised—New Zealand Bill withdrawn—Naval Discipline Bill committed—Party Emblems Bill reported. Wednesday, August 22. Appropriation Bill committed—Union of Benefices Bill committed—Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment Bill withdrawn—Naval Discipline Bill reported—Roman Catholic Charities Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday, August 23. Suez Canal; Lord Palmerston's Statement—Isthmus of Darien Canal; Lord Palmerston's Statement—Appropriation Bill read a third time and passed—Naval Discipline Bill read a third time and passed—Divorce Court Bill read a second time—Union of Benefices Bill read a third time and passed- " Count out."

Friday, August 24. Austria and Italy ; Lord Palmerston's Answers to Questions —Switzerland, Persia ; Mr. Ifinglake and Mr. H. Seymour's Complaints—Divorce Court Bill read a third time and passed—" Count out.'

NATAL DISCTPLINE.

The House went into Committee on the Naval Discipline 13111 on Tuesday, and the Secretary of the Admiralty took advantage of the op- portunity to explain its object and provisions.

Lord CLARENCE Pastels said that very little change had been made in the code kir the government of the Navy since the days of Charles II., and then he went into detail.

"The first great defect which the present Act manifests is the extreme difficulty of holding courts-martial. As the law at present stands no court- martial can be held unless five ships are in presence so that it has happened on many occasions that a fleet has been kept together to hold courts-martial when the public serviee required that they should be dispersed. Another very great inconvenience which has for a long time been felt is that,- how- ever large may be the fleet in presence, there are no means of holding more than one court-martial at a time, so that although there may be twenty line-of-battle ships present, and although in such a large fleet many cases must necessarily occur' there are no means of trying a second offender until . the first case has been disposed of. We propose to deal with both these in- : conveniences by a clause making the presence of three ships sufficient, and a,llowing lieutenants to sit as members of the court from which they are now excluded. As lieutenants are placed in a very responsible position, and have often the entire discipline of a ship to manage, it is manifestly an anos • inaly that they should not be thought worthy to sit on courts-martial. Ity this pro_posal we shall greatly facilitate the holding of courts-martial. It re impossible to over-estimate the importance of this point, because not only is there the inconvenience to which I have alluded of fleets being kept to- gether when they should be dispersed on service, but it continually happens, that offenders are kept awaiting their trial for many weeks—I may say : months. Having stated the facilities in holding courts-martial which will be afforded if the Committee approve this measure' I will now endeavour to -explain the clauses with regard to the crimes and punishments which are set f,orth in the bill. And if any should think how Draconic they still ap- pear, I pray them to bear in mind that we have to deal with a great body of: men shut up in a box, which a ship is—men of all classes, and some with- out religious or moral principles. If any honourable gentleman thinks the punishments too severe, I beseech him to bear in mmd that, unless we maintain the discipline of our fleets, no longer will our, fleets do honour to the country. "The first thing which we found necessary was to classify the crimes. The law at present deals with crime without reference to the motives under which that crime was committed. I will take the cases of crimes before the enemy. Everyone will remember the case of Admiral Byng. He was tried under the 12th Article of War, which declares death to be the punishment of every person in command who through cowardice, negligence, or disaf- fection, withdraws from action, or does not dome into action, or does not take every ship of the enemy which it is possible to take. The court-mar- tial which condemned 'Admiral Byng acquitted him both of cowardice and disaffection, and found that he had only been guilty of an error in judg- ment; and thereupon, although the clause obliged them to sentence him to death, they recommended him strongly to mercy, and wrote a petition to the Admiralty of that day, conveying their sense of the enormity of the punishment for such an offence. Unfortunately, it was not until twenty-two years afterwards that a clause was introduced giving power to inflict a less punishment. After that cruel execution of Admiral Byng, a small modifi- cation was made giving the court power to mitigate the punishment. We go further. We not oaly give the power of mitigation, but ' do not permit the court to award the extreme penalty unless the motives for the crime are such as to deserve capital punishment. We deal with the class of offences before the enemy by dividing it into three categories. To the first- treachery—we award death, and I do not suppose that any honourable gen- tleman will think that too severe. For cowardice we propose that the of- fender shall suffer death, or be imprisoned and dismissed from her. Majesty's service ; and for neglect of duty, which may arise from remissness, careless- ness, drunkenness, which may incapacitate a man for discharging his duty, or for a variety of other causes, we propose to inflict a punishment of a lesser degree. My object is to show that we intend to define the crimes, and to define the motives which impelled the offender to commit a particu- lar crime, and to deal with him accordieg to the motives.

"There is an anomaly in the present law which we propose to do away

witl12 mid which I confess I am surmised has. isat been remedied long ago, and it is fais,—you give a court-emetial power to inflict death for almost ' an,y grave .0ffence, but you :give it no power of intermediate punishment, like mead servitude, which would be commensurate with a grave offence

short of * capital crime. We propose togive pewer to courts-martial to ins ilia death or penal servitude, or other punishments of a lesser character. That I believe will be a great improvement. The next point he what is, and what is not mutiny ? I believe the highest legal authorities are divided on this point. Is mutiny the act of one man, or must it necessarily be the act of more than one ? Legal opinions differ about that. In the original bill,

as drawn by the Admiralty, we defined mutiny to be the act of two or more persons—a combination, m fact. The hill, however, was very carefully ocmsideeed by il'Belect Committee of the Upper House, on which some of gie most eminent law lords sat ; a great deal of evidence was taken' andikey came to the conclusion that we had better not define mutiny in the bill. The definition therefore, of mutiny has been expunged ; but it will be seen that every mutinoua act which can be committed has been dealt with under the head of mutiny and insubordination. The next difficult point which we have dealt with is desertion. A man may desert from his ship with the in- tention of stopping away, and be caught and brought bask in twenty-four hours, and another man may stop away twenty or thirty days and yet not intend to desert ; lert both are desertions now. Under the present law, there is really no definition of the crime, any more than in a mere general way— it has been dealt with according to the custom of the service, rather than according to any known law. At present, we have no power to deal with offences committed on shore. If any officer, or sailor, or marine misconducts himself in a town, the captain has really no power to bring him aboard ship and try him. This has frequently been the cause of great inconvenience, and we have taken powers in this respect which will be &ovally to the ad- vantage of the service. In addition to clearly defining offences, we purpose to give power to courts-martial to find a man charged with a greater offence guilty of a lesser offence only if they seefit, and if they find him guilty of the lesser offence they will have power to award Use leaser punishment. For instance, they may find a man accused of murder guilty of manslaughter only, if they think the evidence warrants them. They have no power of the sort now. Then, there comes the question of corporal punishment, which has always excited a great deal of attention in this country. I can assure the committee that there is not au- officer in the Navy who does not suffer the greatest possible pain in inflicting -corporal punishment. I am speaking the general opinion of the profession when I say that officers would give anything to get off flogging a man, and it is only because the punish- ment is a positive necessity Ill the service as at present constituted that it is indicted, So long as there are men of bad character in the service, who can ouly be acted on by fear, so long will it be impossible to suppress corporal punish- ment altogether ; but every Admiralty has endeavoured as far as possible to oheok the infliction of the punishment and to bring it under control. The Commanderdn,chief has recently established in the Army a system of clas- sification. Every soldier who goes into the Army is placed in the first class, and is not liable to corporal punishmeut until he has forfeited his position by a aeries of misconduct and is degraded into the second class. The honour of establishing that sy.stem is due to his Royal Highness. We have copied it in the Navy, and since last autumn we have classified the men in such a way that every man who goes into the Navy goes in with the certainty that

i

he s not liable to corporal punishment until he has forfeited the privilege by a series of misconduct. This has had the best effect. Don't let gentle- men run away with the idea that because we have had disturbances in our fleet that therefore the discipline issgone, and that therein a want of good feeling among the men. On the contrary, I can assure the Committee that, notwithstanding the marvellously. short time in which our fleet has been formed (10,000 men have entered in the past year), the admirable state of efficiency and discipline to which it has been brought is most creditable to the officers. We propose that whenever a sailor or marine shall be accused of any offence which will make him liable to corporal punishment there shall be a preliminary inquiry by one or more officers into the cinsumstanoes of the offence. Whoa they have completed their inquiry it will be their duty to report to the commanding officer, who will either confirm their find-

ing, or refuse to be guided by it; for we have thought it necessary atilt to leave in his hands the power of inflicting punishment, although the com- mittee of o tiers may have reported against it. I am prepared to admit that this is not strictly in accordance with the usage of courts of justice hut it is

impossible to divest the captain of the responsibility attaching to his_posi- tion ; and besides, we are but legalizing what is the practice in all well-re- gulated ships." T•ord Clarence Paget read to Om Committee some returns showing that corporal punishment hat; decreased since 1858 from one in thirty-nine to one in exty-seven ; and he significantly remarked that "'the decrease has kept pace with the improved condition of the men, for whom the House of Com- mons has generously. *voted better pay, better food, mid increased allowauces of every- description.' Sir .Jcous Pasmarosr and Sir Cnantas NAPIER having expressed their satisfaction that the Admiralty had grappled with this important subject, the Committee proceeded to discuss the (Jetties. No amend- ment of any moment was made, except ope limiting the number of lashes to 48.

THE FORTIFICATIONS BILL.

Earl CluareVILLE moved the second reading-of the Fortifications (Pro- vision for Expenses) Bill, without remark.

The Earl of EL1E1ill01101IGH expressed the gratification with which he regarded the measure, and said that he had for many years endeavoured to mill the attention of successive Governments to the almost defenceless state of the country, and had urged upon them the necessity of no longer permitting ourselves to remain unarmed in the midst of a world in arms. He viewed the bill with all the more satisfaction, because ho entertained • that distrust of the French Emperor which Lord John Burwell had pre- dicted would be the result of his persevering with the annexation of Nice and Savoy. Before that event about 30,000 men had formed themselves into rifle corps' but the movement had since acquired increased force, and 70,000 men had been added to the Volunteer ranks. That was the commentary which the people of Eugland had chosen to pass upon the policy of the Emperor of the french. He regretted, however, that the Government bad stopped short in regard to the fortifications at Saudown in the Isle of Wight ; and he himself would have gone further than they proposed to go in adding to the defence of the dockyards. The state of Woolwich would materially affect the results of any expedition that might have for its object an attack upon the metropolis. In his opinion, Woolwich ought to be made the citadel of London, upon which, if pro- perly fortified, it would render an attack nearly impossible. Referring again to the rifle Volunteers in eulogistic terms, Lord Ellenborough ob- served that, admirable and useful as an arm of defence they might be, it would be unreasonable to expect them to act as the regular army against disciplined troops in the field, and he thought the Government would have done wisely if they had taken steps to increase the regular forces. -Earl-natEinar and Ittrfrf 1r613 much gratified at the approval by the stable earl of the general scope of the measure. To carry out the noble earl's suggestion, however, with regard to Woolwich would involve an enormous expenditure ; and as to the regular army, it was larger at the present moment-than it had been for some years past-

" The noble earl has alluded to the Furmliness of the regular force we should be able into the field. I entirelysigree with the noble earl in think- ing that we must look very much to regular troops for operations in the field. But we have made a great stridein the means of national defence by the creation of our Volunteer corps. I do not desire to exaggerate the jai- portanoe of that movement ; but I may be allowed to say that I entertain a strong hope that it may be found to be of great utility in the maintenance of peace by the manifestation which it affords of the spirit which animates the people of this country, and of their determination to defend their native shores. I believe, too, that when the hour of peril arrives—if, indeed, it does come—the Volunteer force will be found to be of the greatest possible advantage in occupying our various garrisons, in operating against the flank of the enemy, and even in:the ease of some battalions—I speak upon good authority—in taking part in operations in the field. Whether we should maintain in this country a much larger regular army than we have hitherto kept up is of course a question for Parliament to decide. But upon that point I may observe that the regular force which we possess at the present moment is greater than that which we have had at almost any pre- Inoue period of our history; that it has undergone no diminution during the last fewmonths, and that it stands numerically at a higher point than it did in the spring of 1859. It is a force, I may add, which, in the opin- ion of the Government, is eufficient to meet the exigencies of the time ; but whether they be right in entertaining that opinion or not, it is satisfactory to know that the tendency of this bill is to utilize that force to a greater extent than independent Of its operation would be possible. I cannot, under these circumstances, my lords, doubt for a moment that you will give a second reading to a measure which is purely of a defensive character, which is aimed against no -country, which has reference to no Government, which the great changes which have recently taken place in military science have rendered necessary, and which is to be regarded not so much as a war- like proposition as one calculated to insure and mnin'ain the peace of Eu- rope. ' (Cheers.) The bill was read a second time ; and also the Defence of the Realm Bill, enabling Government to obtain land for the construction of works.

THE -SYRIAN QUESTION.

Mr. MONSELL asked Lord Palmerston for some further explanations on the Syrian Question. He complained that the origin of the troubles had been attributed to the Maronites, and that attempts had been made to exonerate the Turkish Government. Mr. Monad ll quoted Parliamentary papers to show how- the Druses and Turks had acted, and said he looked back with pain to'the part he had taken in the war of 1854. Lord PA.LMERSTON said- " I confess I regret that the right honourable gentleman has thought it advisable to trawler to this House the dispute which has unfortunately taken place between the Dragea and the Maronites. He has quoted pas- sages from the papers which have been laid before Parliament, which have been read 'before two or three times, and which, though they must always be heard with regret and Indignation, have really nothing to do with the question which he has put to me. I have also to regret that the right honourable gentleman has thought fit to become the advocate of the dismem- berment of the Turkish Empire. Be omitted, however, testate which was the foreign Power to which-he was desirous of tranderring Syria. I sup- pose it would not be England, and he will allow that it would not be for the interests of this country or for the general interests of Europe that other foreign Powers should divide the Turkish empire between -them. No doubt, 'there are great and just complaints made against the Turkish rule. It is not from any predilection for the Turkish race that I think it desirable to maintain that empire, but any man who has paid the slightest attention to the matter annst knew that the Turkish 'empire could not he partitioned without involving 'a general European conflict, or, at all events, in its results -without adding to other Powers posi- tions of great military and naval importance, to the serious detriment of the interests of this country. I am surprised that the right hon- ourable gentleman should have given us his opinion on this subject with- out telling us candidly to what foreign Power he thought it desirable to give Syria ; and probably he might also have favoured us byinforming us what other foreign Power -he would wish to see at Constantinople. My right honourable friend that said by the arrangement rnade for the internal admin- istration of Syria, by which the Maronite districts were administered by Ma- ronite chiefs, and the Druse districts by Dense chiefs, both became easily subservient to the Turkish Pasha. He is totally mistaken. It is in conse- quence of the weakness of the Turkish authority in Syria that, from tines to time, these deplorable animosities of nice between the Druses and the Ma- sonitexi have burst out. I don't dispute what is proved by these papers, that the Turkish authorities in Syria—my right honourable friend talks of the Turkish Government, but that is a misnomer—have behaved infa- mously ill—infamously ill; that some of the Turkish soldiers have behaved abominably ill. But, so far from the Turkish Government sheltering or protecting those miscreants, Fund Pasha, who has been despatched to Syria with a large military and naval force, immediately on his arrival proceeded to arrest 400 of the principal offenders, and sent Osmau Bey and Kursohid Pasba-to Constantinople ti be tried. It was felt that their trial would be better conducted on the spot than at Constantinople, and after having been degrndedinpresence of all the military—after having had their ordersand

magma stripped from them—they were sent bac.k to Beyrout in order to be tried, condemned, as I believe, and severely punished, as I trust, for their infamous crimes. My right honourable friend's question had very little to do with the greater part of his observations. Ile wants to know why I stated that I had reason to believe that the Maronites were the first agree- sore. I am very reluctant to advert to these things, because I think it of no use to inquire who struck the first blow. I was sorry when he forced from me my opinion the other evening, but I cannot now refrain from an- swering his question. The facts of the case are these—For several months before the outbreak there certainlywore among all the Christian com- munities in Turkey and other parts of Europe rumours that such an out- break would take place in Syria. It is well known that large supplies of arms were furnished to the Maronites—European arms, coming from Eu- rope—I cannot tell whence they came—some of them were sold openly in Beyrout, and beyond those great numbers were supplied to the Marmite population. If my right honousable friend will refer to the papers pre- sented he will see in a despatch of Mr. Moore that the war began with an attack by the Maronites on four or five villages in which there was a mixed population of Druses and Maronites, for the purpose of expelling the Druses. It was also currently believed that there was a Maronite committee sitting at lleyrout, of which Bishop Tubia was the directing agent, and that the object of their deliberations was to excite the Maronites to take advan- tage of this opportueity of expelling the Druses at all events from the mixed districts. My right honourable Mend says that reports pre- railed in places he mentioned that the British Government would bear the Dunes harmless for any atrocities they committed. I don't know whence he gathered his information. I never heard of it, and it must be the invention of those from whom he received it. Such a tbport is totally baseless ; it has no foundation whatever, and can only be circulated by persons who wish to serve their own purposes by doing so. The British Government has had no more intimate communications with the Druses than with the Maronites. Having stated thus much, I am at liberty to add that not long ago Lord Cowley, in conversation with M. de Thouvenel on the subject, expressed the opinion that the Maronites had been the first aggressors, and M. de Thouvenel said he believed so too ; that he believed the Maronite priests had excited their flocks to commit acts of aggression against the Druses. At the same time that is no excuse for the Druses; it is no palliation for the enormities they have committed. I dare say that if the advantage had been on the side of the Maronites they also might have been guilty of some excesses ; but I do not believe they could have been capable of anything like the atrocities of the Druses. The answer, there- fore, which I have to give is, that he will find at page 6 of the papers pre- sented to Parliament an account of the attack by the Maronites upon the mixed Christian and Druse villages, and that, in the opinion even of the French Government, the Maronites were the first aggressors. No doubt there had been from time to time border feuds between the two hostile races, and therefore it is very easy, by holding up single cases of outrage, to make either party the aggressors. But the question is, who began the war ? Individual outrages, I fear, were too common on both sides ; and it is im- possible to say that either the one or the other began those attacks. The question is, who commenced what may fairly be considered a war between race and race, and that question I have already answered."

THE SUEZ CANAL.

Mr. HENRY SEYMOUR put several questions to Lord Palmerston re- specting the shares in the Suez Canal alleged to have been taken by the

Porte. of Egypt, and loans raised by him without the sanction of the Lord Parateasrox made an interesting statement in reply. He said that it was true that the Paella of Egypt had taken a large number of shares in the Suez Canal Company (one of the greatest delusions of mo- dem times). The Puha had in the first instance taken 35,000 shares ; but, refusing to take any more, M. de Lesseps had placed a number of others in his name, to nearly the amount of 3,500,0001. Whether he would pay when called on remained to be seen. lie was not aware of any negotiations going on in Paris on the subject of the Suez Canal; the French Government had taken no part in the matter, and Mr. Cobden had received no instructions on the subject. The Pacha of Egypt had contracted a loan in Paris, but it was on his private account, and did not require the sanction of the Porte, in accordance with the treaty on tho settlement of Syria in 1840.

In answer to Mr. SPOONER, Lord PALMTMSTON said that Mr. Cobden was fully: authorized, with Lord Cowley, to negotiate any commercial transactions with the French Government.

Tan IsTasars Or DARIEN.

In answer to questions from Mr. BRADY, Lord Patareas-roe made au explanation touching the proposed ship canal across the Isthmus of Darien. He said there was no political difficulty as to forming a canal across the Isthmus of Darien; on the contrary, there was no agreement between the British and American Governments to promote any such plan. In 1854, surveys were made by English and American official' engineers of the Isthmus, and they had come to the opinion that the scheme of a ship canal was impracticable. Therefore the Government was not prepared to afford any material or pecuniary assistance tewarde further surveys.

THE DIVORCE COURT PRIVILEGE.

When the motion for the second reading of the Diveree Court Bill— a measure which originated in the House of Lords—was made en Mon- day, Mr. HENNESSY moved that it should be laid aide, en the greemd that it contained a money clause, and thereby infringed the privileges of the House.

The SPEAKER stated that clause 5 did infringe the privileges of the House, as it provided for the payment of moucy to be appropriated by Parliament. During the last six years a practice has grown up in the House of Lords of inserting such clauses absolutely, instead of inserting them as suggestions, and it ought to be discontinued. As, however, the bill was an amending bill, he advised the House not to set it aside.

The debate was adjourned at this stage ; but on Thursday Lord PAD- MERSTON resumed it, calling attention to the observations made by the Speaker on Monday, and expressed his opinion in concurrence therewith, that the fifth clause of the Bill was a violation and infringement of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. Considering, however, the important nature of the Bill, and that steps had been taken by the Speaker to put a stop to a practice on the part of the other House which had, in this instance, been carried to an extreme, he thought the House would do well to adopt the suggestion of the Chair, and not lay the Bill aside but read it a second time. He recommended, however, that there should be a special entry on the Journals of the reasons ior the non- enforcement of their right.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said his first impression was that the Val shoal& be laid aside ; but, upon further consideration, he concurred in the course recommended by Lord Palmerston. The time, he thought, had arrived for a decided check to the practice.

Mr. WHITE and Mr. WHALLEY were for more stringent measures, hut they were overruled. Mr. HMINBSSY withdrew his amendment ; the bill was read a second time by a majority of 48 to 11, and, passing through Committee at once, was ordered to be reported.

Rairry EMBLEMS.

The House went into Committee on the Party Emblems (Ireland) Bill. Mr. CARDWELL moved the omission of clause 1, in order to substi- tute a new clause. This was agreed to, and the new clause was then moved. It was thus framed-

" Every person who shall wilfully do any of the acts hereinafter men- tioned in such a manner as may be calculated or tend to provoke animosity between different classes of her Majesty's subjects and lead to a breach of the public peace, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour ; that is to say, the publielyexhibiting or displaying upon any building or place, or the wilfully permitting or suffering to be publicly exhibited or displayed upon any building or place any banner, flag, or party emblem, or symbol, or the publicly meeting and parading with other persons, or the playing of any music or discharging any cannon or firearm in any public street, road, or Plea)." Great objections were taken to the clause by Mr. Bterr, Mr. VANCE, and Mr. HENLEY. It was contended that the terms were unconstitu- tional; that the clause, indeed the whole bill, was a piece of dangerous legislation; that it went beyond the penal law ; and that its passing would afford a triumph to the Roman Catholics. A sharp contest arose between Mr. OSBORNE and Lord PALMERSTON on one side, and Captain ARCHDALL on the other, on the social antagonism peculiar to Ireland, or as one Member said, to Ulster. It was proposed to insert the words "in Ireland," in order to confine its operation to that country, and the amendment was carried by 71 to 21. The words were inserted. An amendment., to insert the words, "and knowingly," was agreed to, and another amendment, substituting the words, "with the intention," for "in such a manner as may be calculated or threaten to." Sir EDWARD GROGAN moved the insertion of the word "public" be- fore " building ; " negatived by 68 to 28. Mr. Ptoorr moved the re- jection of the whole clause ; negatived by 59 to 32.

The other clauses passed, and the operation of the Act was limited to three years.

THE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

On the motion of the Duke of ARGYLL, the House of Lords on Monday passed a resolution declaring it urgent that the Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Investment Bill should pass. He then moved that the bill should be read a second time, a motion agreed to without a divi- sion, after a debate between Lord MONTEAGLE and Earl GRANVILLE.

SUPPLY.

The last votes of Supply were taken at a sitting of the House of Com- mons on Saturday.

A great variety of subjects were discussed ; the principal of which were a vote of 20,000/. for three submarine telegraphs—the Mediter- ranean Extension, the Channel Islands, and the Red Sea' a vote of 2000/. for the British Historical Portrait Gallery ; a vote of 15,000/. for the National Gallery ; a vote of 17,0001. for the Kensington Museum ; and a vote of 80,117/. for public works in Ireland. All these votes were agreed to, but some of them not without divisions. Mr. SPOONER divided the Committee against the vote for the Portrait Gallery on the ground that it neither promoted art nor morals. Mr. CONINGHAM did not object to the vote, but thought that the money was badly expended, and that there should not be a separate Committee of Selection. Mr. GLADSTONE and Sir GEORGE Lewis contended that special knowledge is required. The vote was agreed to by 37 to 8. Lord HENRY LENNOX moved the rejection of the vote for the National Gallery. The vote was said to be to increase the accommodation for the painting and sculpture. Lord Henry Lennox thought that if faith were kept with the public, the expenditure would be useless next year and if faith were not kept, the Royal Academy would remain in year; Square for some eight or ten years longer, instead of having speedy no- tice to quit, in accordance with the arrangement made by Mr. Disraeli in 1859.

. Mr. COWPER defended the vote. The question of the future of the National Gallery has not been decided. Some time must elapse before a gallery can be built capable of receiving all the National pictures ; the House would not like temporary buildings, and therefore it was ex- pedient to make the existing space in the National Gallery available.-

What he proposed was to continue the floor of the galleries across the centre hall, which would provide a saloon of 75 feet by 40, and 35 feet high ; and he asked the House to vote the money for the purpose of making this interior alteration without touching the external walls. In addition, an- other large room would be formed out of the lower portion of the central hall on the ground floor, which, including the space occupied by the Royal Academy for sculptures, would be made into one large room, containing very nearly the same superficial area (3000 feet) as the other floor ; and for the present this would be handed over to the Royal Academy for their sculptures. The measure proposed will be only a step towards making the building available for an uniform purpose, and will not interfere with its final destination.

Mr. OSBORNE and Mr: CONINGHAM replied to Mr. Cowper and strongly objected to the vote. Lord PALMERSTON came in to the assistance of his colleague and gave a fuller explanation of the contemplated application of the money. The Committee, however, were very reluctant to receive these explanations, and the vote was only agreed to by 31 to 23. On the vote for the South Kensington Museum, Mr. AYRTON and Mr. Coxixottam objected to this section of " a colossal scheme of expenditure at Kensington;" but the vote was agreed to. Mr. HENNESSY moved the omission from the Irish vote of 2000/. for the model school at Cork, but he was defeated by 40 to 3.

This was the last item, and Mr. Massey was cheered as he left the chair.

When the report was brought up on Monday, Mr. CONINGHAM re- vived the discussion on the National Gallery, declaring that if the Royal Academy were turned out very slight alterations would make the Na- tional Gallery suffice for the National pictures for years to come. He desired to postpone the vote ; but he met with no effective support. Mr. Coxrivailem divided the House against the item for the South Kensington Museum ; but he was defeated by 60 to 21. Mr. SCULLY took up the opposition to the Cork Model School, and presaed it to a division ; but the vote was sustained by 68 to 13.

REFORM BILL EXPENSES.

On the report of the last supply votes, Mr. JAMES took exception to items for expenses incurred in preparing the two last Reform Bills- 36681. 178. for the bill of 1858, and 2622/. for collecting statistics in con- nexion with the bill of this year. These charges are monstrous. While a great responsibility devolves upon the Government for bringing in the Estimates so late, there are Members who filled those benches—[Mr. James here indicated the benches below the gangway on the Ministerial side]—and who talked very loudly of economy, retrenchment, and reform— and he referred particularly to some of the Manchester School—(cheers)— who left to twenty-five or thirty Members at the end of the Session the duty of exercising a vigilant control over public expenditure. (Cheers.) When -these honourable Members talked so loudly upon the hustings and at Man- chester about economy and retrenchment, they ought not to desert the ques- tion of economy and retrenchment in that House when the estimates came on for discussion. (Cheers.)

Mr. Lama said the Government were not responsible for the first item. The second defrayed the expense of checking the Poor Law re- turns which had been questioned in that House. Mr. MaLnis said that the introduction of Reform Bills for the amusement of Mr. Bright was evidently expensive, and he hoped they would not be pestered with another. Mr. Mmaka twitted Mr. Malins with not voting against a bill which he thought would destroy the greatness of England.

Mr. Pr6orr proposed that the item of 3600/. for drawing the Reforn Bill of 1859 should be struck out, but desisted when he found that tl sum had been paid.

THE NEW ZPAT.AND BILL. Lord PALMERSTON intimated that owing to the late period of the session it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with the New Zealand Bill. The object of the measure was to pro- tect the interests of the aborigines of the colony, and had time allowed he was convinced he should have been able to remove the objections which were entertained to it. Bet the Government were of opinion that the powers which the New Zealand constitution vested in the Crown in respect to the rights of the aborigines would, &properly used, be sufficient for the purpose they had in view. Should it, however, appear that these powers were in- adequate, he should not hesitate to call upon Parliament to legislate on the subject. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON complained with some bitterness of the course which had been pursued by the Government in relation to the measure and observed that nothing had been stated by the noble lord at the head Of the Government as a reason for withdrawing the bill which he could not have communicated to the House a week ago. It was a pity the noble lord had not made up his mind sooner ; but he presumed the Government had die- covered that, late as was the session and skeleton as was the appearance of the House, it would refuse to pass a bill so utterly opposed to the general principles of our colonial policy, and so unwise in itself. The right hon- ourable baronet also complained that he had been -put to the inconvenience of coming up from Worcestershire to oppose a bill which the Government could not have seriously intended to proceed with. Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Sir GEORGE LEWIS explained at some length the views of the Government, which were an amplification of Lord Palmerston's succinct statement. Other Members joined in the debate be- fore it closed.

' Rosouv CATHOLIC Cuaurriss. The adjourned debate on amendment or, consideration of the Roman Catholic Charities Bill as amended was resumed on Tuesday, by Mr. Ifmoressr, who invited the Attorney-General to ad- dress the House on the first clause. The Attorney-General not responding, the House divided, when the amendment (which in reality was the first clause) was carried by 70 to 13. Sir GEORGE BOWYEa complained that the Attorney-General had broken faith with him, and that the effect of the clause just agreed to would be to render the bill a penal statute, inasmuch as it declared as superstitious the prayers for the dead, which were an essential portion of the Roman Catholic religion. He called upon the Government to add a proviso which would re- move this grave objection. The ATTORNEY.-GENERAL said he had tried to frame a clause which would be acceptable to all parties, but that he found, like others who essayed the difficult task of pleasing everybody, that he had pleased no one. In a mo- ment of weakness, he undertook to prepare a clause, and he gave it as his opinion that that which the House had just affirmed would not affect the present disposition of the law on the subject of superstitious uses. Sir GEORGE BOWYER stigmatized the clause as mischievous, insulting, and injurious to the Roman Catholic body. The bill, however, would have to be referred back to the House of Lords, and he trusted that, despite of the jeers and laughter of the Treasury Bench, the large class of her Ma- jesty's subjects who would be injuriously affected by the bill, would receive more consideration in that place than in the House of Commons. Lord PALMERSTON denied that the Government were guilty of any breach of faith, inasmuch as the clause, as originally proposed, had been agreed to without a division.

Mr. Herr (whose name is on the back of the bill) said that the pro- visions of the measure as they now stood were perfectly satisfactory to the large body of Roman Catholics in the North of England, who had requested him to bring the subject under the notice of the House.

UNION or BENEFICES BILL. In Committee on this bill, on Wednesday, Mr. Gairerrii and other Members protested against the progress of the measure. Clause 14, however, was carried by 38 to 26, and the other chums were agreed to. The most important addition made to the bill, after a sharp debate, was a clause moved by Mr. VANCE providing that no scheme for the sale of churches should be submitted a the Queen unless it were approved of by both Houses of Parliament.

THE DEAN OF Yoax. On the order for the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, Mr. OSBORNE took ex- ception to the recent addition made to the salary of the Dean of York, and submitted a motion to the effect that in all cases where any schemes are pro- posed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by which the income of any eccle- siastical dignitaries are altered or increased, the same shall be laid before the two Houses of Parliament six weeks at least before they are submitted to her Majesty in council. Sir GEORGE LEWIS opposed the motion, on the ground that it was not re- levant to the amendments of the Lords. Mr. KINNAIRD regretted that the Home Secretary had not treated the motion on its merits, but had chosen to avail himself of a technical objection upon which to rest his opposition. The SPEAKER ruled that the motion was not relevant to the question immediately before the House. The Lords' amendments were ultimately agreed to by 35 to 18.

" COUNT OUT." The House of Commons was counted out on Thurs- day, while Sir DE LACY EVANS was moving an address to her Majesty, to direct to be carried into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the National Defences for the construction of a fortified work on Shooter's Hill, to assist in the protection of Woolwich Dockyard and Arsenal, and as an important element in the means of defence for the metropolis ; also to direct that a Royal Commission be appointed to report on the lines of marsh available to an invading army advancing against London ; on the obstacles or positions which may be occupied or prepared to obstruct or defeat an

i

enemy on these lines ; and on the points d'appui or support of the national forces n their operations in the vicinity, and for the defence of the metro- polis.