8 MAY 1858, Page 2

Erhatt5 mar Vrortthiugo iu Varlimatut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OP THE WEEK.

Borer OP LORDS. Monday, May 3. Endowed Schools (Ireland) ; Lord Cork's Inquiries—Christianity in India; • Lord Ellenborough's Statement—Exchequer Bills (20.911.5001.) Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday. May 4. Ecclesiastical Commission Bill read a second time. Thurs&y. May 6. Lord Canning's Proclamation ; Earl Granville's Question— The Liturgy ; Lord Ebury's Motion. Friday, May 7. Lord Canning's Proclamation ; Conversation on—Protection of Female Children Bill read a second time—Exchequer Bonds (2,000,0007.) Bill read a second time. Hausa op Coliiroxs. Monday, May 3. Exchequer Bonds (2,000,0001.) Bill ; mission on the Budget—Stamp Duties on Draughts Bill read a second time—Go- vernment of India ; Committee on Resolutions.

Tuesday, May 4. Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland) Bill read a first time— The Danubian Principalities ; Mr. Gladstone's Motion—The Cagliari ; Mr. Fits- gerald's Statement. Wednesday, May 5. Marriage Law Amendment ; Lord Bury's Bill read a second time.

Thursday. May 6. Lord Canning's Proclamation; Mr. Bright's Question—Te- nant Right ; Mr. Greer's Motion—County Franchise (Scotland) ; Mr. Caird's Mo- tion—Electoral Corruption ; Mr. Pease's Question—Property Qualification; Mr. Locke King's Bill read a second time. Friday, May 7. The Magistracy; Mr. Locke's Complaints—The Cagliari; Mr. Ringlake's Question—Stamp Duties on Draughts Bill committed—Government of India ; Resolutions in Committee.

TIME-TABLE.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

77te Lords.

HOW of 110112 Of Meeting. Adjournment,

Oh 7h 15m oh 711 30m No sitting. 6h 71. 45m 5h 61i 55m Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday - The Commons.

Hour of Meeting. 4h 41. Noon 4h 4h

Hour Of Adjournment. .(m), lh Om .(no) 12h 1501

. 5h 15m

. 1111 3001 .(m) 12h lbm Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 9h 26m Sittings this Week, 5; Time, 38k 151a this Session, Is; — 851.2001 this Session 55; — 35631 1201 FINANCIAL Power. The second reading of the Exchequer Bonds (2,000,0001.) Bill gave rise to a debate on the financial policy of the late and present Govern- month.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS said a report had been industriously circulated, that he had left the finances in a disordered and unsatisfactory state. He was bound to state that Mr. Disraeli had not given any sanction to that report. But to remove any impression of that nature, he showed by a reference to figures that he had redeemed 4,000,0001. of debt out of re- venue last year; that, including this sum, the actual excess of expendi- ture over income, was about 2,000,0001., and that on the 1st April there was 6,657,0001. in the Exchequer, an ample balance. He submitted that the financial condition of last year was upon the whole satisfactory. Then he turned to the budget.

Mr. Disraeli has not been too adventurous on this occasion, but rather too cautious and prudent. By endeavouring to avoid present difficulties he will produce greater difficulties hereafter. That he has presented a reduced esti- mate of expenditure, is true, in one sense, for he has reduced the Army and Navy Estimates, but he has not diminished the.eapenditure as com- pared with that of last year. Taking the Consolidated Fund charges, the

Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates, they present a total of 30,510,0001., or an excess of 280,0001. over last year. That increase may be got rid of by taking into account the supplemental vote for the Militia,- 600,000!., but we do not know whether a similar vote will not be required for this year. A larger expenditure may be required. Then comes taxa- tion. lifn Disraeli takes off two millions, Vd. on the Income-tax) and sub- stitutes a_prectuious 800,000/. to be obtained from spirits and bankers' checks. He proposes to pay off 2,000,0001. of Exchequer Bonds by advances from the Bank ; he will create a new loan tolhe same extent. On that pro- ceeding Sir George reserved his opinion. Upon the Sinking Fund he ex- pressed a decisive objection to its postponement, "as if no obligation to pay off anytlebt existed!' It is vain to expect that there will be any consider- able surplus naturally arising after the exonditure has been defrayed, un- less the House make it obligatory on the Government. However great the debt may be it is possible to reduce it ; for as it is we pay every thirty years a sum in interest equal to the whole principal of the debt. The next sub- ject was the Income-tax. Sir George disputed the doctrine that while pros- pective engagements to remit taxation are to be held sacred, engagements to pay debt are regarded as worthless. The late Government took off the war- ninepence because they thought it right. Mr. Disraeli will allow the In- come-tax to fall from 7d. to Od. because he treats it as a national obligation that the tax should expire in 1860. But the whole relief to the tax-payer afforded by the remission will be only 8s. 4d. in the pound,—a sum that will not be sensibly felt by those who pay Income-tax; and thus he violates a principle involved in the redemption of even 1,000,000/. Exchequer Bonds without giving any substantial relief. If the Income-tax be abolished in 1860, when it will yield 5,000,0001., we shall have to provide 5,000,000/. by other taxes. He further showed, in arguing for the retention of the In- come-tax, that if it be abolished in 1860 there will only remain 3,200,000/. as the product of direct taxation. At the same time he described himself as "no aolvocate for the Income-tax," and said that he only desired that when the time arrived the House should be free to act. Whether the tax will be remitted will depend upon the views of the House in regard to expenditure. At present the Government is the advocate of economy, -while the House is constantly urging at once an increase of expenditure and a remission of taxation. He thought the House should not enter into prospective arrange- ments respecting the taxation of future years.

Mr. GLADSTONE took up some points in the speech of Sir George Lewis which he could not allow to pass in silence. He regretted the growing practice of the House of Commons to urge expenditure on the Govern- ment, but he censured Governments for not having resisted that habit. He contended that the state of the balance between income and expendi- ture is not satisfactory. Among the 4,000,0001. of debt redeemed, Sir George Lewis included 1,100,000/. for Sound Dues, and it is a mistake to call that the redemption of debt. He left a deficiency of 1,500,000/. in the, year that has expired, and-an estimated deficiency of 4,000,0001., or omitting the Exchequer Bonds and Sinking Fund, about 500,0001. on the year that has begun. That is not satisfactory. Mr. Gladstone then assailed the Sinking Fund. Mr. Pitts doctrine on the subject was in a few years blown to atoms. After seeing his system fail, it has been again constituted afresh. And now the touchstone of experience is again ap- plied and the old -story is repeated. The first serious engagement, they were told, could not be fulfilled. The question should be brought to a fair issue. If the Sinking Fund is good, act upon it; if bad, have done with it altogether. "-Depend upon it you will not get out of that subject without consider- able dissatisfaction. This House, when it passed those acts, undertook that 1,500,000/. a year should be laid out absolutely in the purchase of stock. It is impossible but the fundholders must have a great interest in the redemp- tion of that pledge. Their objections were stated at the time, but they gain more and more force the longer you pretend to keep that plan alive, and at the same time do not suffer it to become efficacious. (Cheers.) The paying off 1,500,000/. a year stands inscribed on the book of your obligations at the instance of my right honourable friend, who deprecates all financial legisla- tion for future y.ears. (Laughter.) Is there any conceivable state of cir- cumstances under any conceivable Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which, having an income for the year just sufficient, without the 1,500,000/., the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come down and ask for 1600,000/. more taxes ? I say confidently, that if my right honourable friend himself is Chancellor of the Exchequer when that state of facts arises, he will not in- vite the House of Commons to lay on taxes of 1,500,000/. in order to redeem the pledge, if pledge it were, or, at any rate, to fidfil the plan which has been sanctioned by an act of Parliament.' With regard to the Exchequer Bonds, Mr. Gladstone placed them on a different footing. When the war Income-tax was in arrear funds were pro- vided by Exchequer Bonds; and the money that should have gone to pay them off was the half-year's war Income-tax outstanding twelve months ago, a great part of which was applied, not to the redemption of debt, but to the expenses of the year. our George Lewis, who was a party to that appropriation, is the last man who should complain of Mr. Disraeli for not extinguishing the Exchequer Bonds. As to the Income-tax, Mr. Gladstone resolutely combated Sir George Lewis's doctrine that it should be part of the ordinary financial system of the country. It was obtained for another purpose—namely, that our commercial and financial system might be re- constructed ; and afterwards that the honour and interests of the country might be maintained. If we are going to make this special tax an ordinary tax; the transition should not be made in the dark. Either it should be maintained for its original Purposes, or it should be allowed to drop ; for so long as it is part of the ordinary revenue, we may give up thinking of ex- tensive and efficient economy. He had a small complaint to make against Sir George Lewis—he had not said what he would do were he Chancellor of the Exchequer. "I adhere to my own belief, that it is the duty of the Minister always to have a clear surplus, and steadily to keep in view the annual reduction of debt in time of peace. I cannot think that the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer—from whom I have frequently differed in matters

of finance—is upon this occasion justly chargeable for failing to liquidate beads when he had not one farthing wherewithal to meet them ; still less do I think that that accusation ought to proceed from those who have in- duced the House of Commons to divert to a different purpose the money in- tended to be applicable to their liquidation." Mr. Csanwatt concurred in the propriety of disregarding the Sinking Fund, but he argued stoutly in behalf of direct taxation; and he seemed to imply that the Exchequer Bonds that are to be postponed should have been paid out of the Income-tax; or if they were met by re-borrowing, that the intention should be explicitly stated. By not repaying the bonds out of the Income-tax the burden of repayment is shifted from the rich who pay direct to the poor who pay indirect taxes. Mr. Thomas Baum+ appeared as the champion of the much-condemned Sinking Fund, and endeavoured to show that no Minister would reduce the debt out of surplus taxation, but rather give way to the popular pressure for the re- mission of taxes. No reductioa will be made unless Parliament makes reduction obligatory.

Mr. BRIGHT said there was a contest between the rich and the poor, and the poor as usual went to the wall. Taxes on imports are main- tained ; a tax which touches none but those who have 100/. a year is reduced. We are trying to do what is impossible—to make heavy tax- ation easily borne. Our expenditure depends upon our foreign obey- s policy that every one condemns. Not a single word of information re- specting the Persian war was communicated to the House. The Chinese war had been condemned, the condemnation had never been reversed, and no one dared ask Parliament to reverse it. We are making ourselves hateful in China, and the present Government should not delay one mo- ment in bringing the war to a conclusion. He had never seen a Minister make a real attempt to diminish expenditure. Why should we keep up an immense fleet when no other country but France has a fleet that can oppose it ?

Although I do not doubt in the least the desire of the Emperor of the French to be upon terms of friendship with this country, yet I hover had myself the slightest sympathy for that alliance which has existed between France and England. Amity with all nations, justice and courtesy to all, but intimate and political alliances with none. That is my policy, and I believe it is the only policy in these matters which can lead to good. If you ask the French Minister of Marine why his estimates are so large, what will he tell you ? He will tell you he is building great ships, which he believes will never be of the least use, because England is building great ships, which every sensible Englishman also knows will not be of the slightest use. He will say, France has almost no colonies, very little foreign commerce as com- pared with this country ; that France has no pretension whatevcr to a great navy except her nearness to England, and the policy of England in always maintaining an enormous navy." He seriously recommended Ministers to state the case to the French Government and see if they could agree to re- lieve the exchequers of both countries from the pressure of taxation to keep up armaments. He pictured the population as flying from this country to others where industry has its reward. And then he said—" And you, landed proprietors of England, remember that, however many of your countrymen may emigrate, your acres remain, and you will have by-and-by a different tone in this House after another reform in Parliament. Your succession duties will be overhauled, and will not be got rid of so easily as at present. Your property-tax which you are assisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to throw over will come back to you, and come back in an increased proportion. Rely upon it, the course which we have pursued for some years has been foolish and wicked. By casting unfair burdens upon the people you will create among them a spirit of discontent and disaffection, and when they have the power, as they shortly will have, to lay taxes upon those who have spent the money, you may depend upon it the poor will not always go to the wall and the rich will not always escape. (" Oh, oh ! ") Those are unpalatable truths." He did not like the Income-tax, but it was the duty of Parliament to maintain that tax or reduce expenditure, and they acted a cowardly, part in casting oft' the bur- den from their shoulders and throwing it on the consumers.

Mr. Disstamm contended, in reply to Sir George Lewis, that the Go- vernment had never said they had reduced the expenditure as compared with last year, but that they had made reductions amounting to 800,0001. As to the Income-tax the objections to that have not come from "the gentlemen of England," but from professional men and traders and had

reference to its injustice and inquisitorial character. Many plans were propounded to meet those objections, and a Committee considered it for some time. He believed that it cannot permanently be maintained in its present form. Sir George Lewis desired to know what had been done respecting Exchequer Bonds. The House had permitted him to raise 2,000,000/. payable in six years. He had obtained 1,000,000/. at 34 per cent, and had made arrangements to call for another, but he had a lively confidence that circumstances would render this course unnecessary. He thought he had made a prudent, and if carried into effect a successful arrangement. He had confidence in the state of the revenue because he saw that it is increasing as compared with the revenue of last year. With regard to Mr. Bright's allegations, he thought they were not just, as the main object of the House is to remove taxation from labour. But he deplored the great expenditure in armaments as much as Mr. Bright. "I do not, however, despair that—not immediately, perhaps' but in a few seasons, and when some of the excitement that has prevailed unhappily of late has passed away—the wisdom of Cabinets will bring about such It re- duction of military expenditure as would be beneficial to the interests of all nations. But that is only to be done by frank communications, by en- couraging a spirit, not only in this country, but among our more immediate neighbours, not of that exasperation which unfortunately has prevailed of late, but of mutual kindness and confidence, and which, notwithstanding the sneers we have heard, we must all see it to be the interest of both na- tions to encourage, and the great body of the population to adopt and sanction."

The remainder of the debate was chiefly occupied by Mr. WitsoN the late, and Mr. HAMILTON the present Secretary of the Treasury, who combated each other with figures in defence of the policy and estimates of their respective chiefs.

The bill was read a second time.

BANKERS' CHEQUES.

There was a short debate, but no opposition on the second reading of the Stamp Duties on Draughts Bill. Mr. Tnomes BAILING " appeared " on behalf of the members of the Stock Exchange, but he did not oppose the bill ; being unwilling to disturb the financial arrangements of his right honourable friend. Mr. GRE.AVES would not oppose the bill, but feared it would interfere with the circulation of notes. Mr. BAXTER said Scotland, where cheques are used to a greater extent than in England, does not object. Mr. TURNER, on behalf of Man- chester, declared the tax to be a step in 'the wrong direction, as it would restrict the circulating medium. Mr. DISRAELI made merry with the opponents of the measure—espe- cially that ingenious body the Stock Exchange. They say that if the tax be imposed it will be evaded—then where is the injustice ? A cheque is a convenience. Where is the injustice of paying a penny for it ? That is the whole case : it is a tax upon convenience not upon luxuries.

The bill was read a second time.

THE Daistrinew Punsereatrities.

Mr. GLADSTONE raised a debate, on Tuesday, on the subject of the union of the Danubian Principalities, His motion was expressed in these terms-

" That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, to submit to her Majesty that this House, bearing in mind the obligations imposed by the treaty of Paris, so far as they affect the Danubian Principalities, has ob- served with satisfaction the general tenour and spirit of the declaration re- corded by her Majesty's chief Plenipotentiary at the Conferences of 1856 con- taming the future organization of those territories ; and humbly to convey M her Majesty the earnest hope of this House that in the further prosecu- tion of this important subject just weight may be given to those wishes of the people of Wallachia and of Moldavia which, through their representa- tives elected in conformity with the said treaty, they have recently ex- pressed." His reason for bringing forward the motion was that the Conferences will be reopened at Paris next week ; while a strong impression has gone abroad that in defiance of good faith, we are about to change our course on the question of the union of the Principalities, and oppose the wishes of five millions of people in regard to that union ; and as it is a question of now or never, he desired the House should second the judgment of the :Executive Government expressed two years ago at Paris in fayour of what is called the union of the Danubian Principalities. Ho therefore did not desire to dictate to the Executive, but to support it.

He set out with the declaration that the people of the Principalities desire the union. When the flood of Turkish conquest set in from the East, the people of these countries vindicated their own liberty. They have enjoyed their freedom until a recent period, when their rights came to be bandied to and fro between the claims of Russia, Austria, and Turkey. The late war unfortunately increased their miseries, for they had to endure the in- fliction of a Russian occupation and the still heavier infliction of an Aus- trian occupation. They therefore rejoiced in the interest which Europe took in their condition. To show that they desire the union, he quoted, first, the Reglement Organique, dated 1834, which declared that the union would be salutary and advantageous ; next from the sixth protocol of the Conferences of 1856' the opinion of Count Waewski in favour of the union, the opinion of Lord Clarendon sharing in and supporting that opinion ; and the opinion of Sardinia on the same side. He contended that Austria, Rus- sia, and Turkey, are bad judges of the interests of the Principalities, and that England, France, and Sardinia, alone could be trusted as impartial states. , Then he showed that the article 24 of the treaty of Paris referred the question of the definitive organization of the Principalities to Divans to be convoked ad hoc by the Sultan ; and he described the subsequent pro- ceedings. The Wallachian representatives were almost entirely favourable to the union. The first election for Moldavia had to be quashed because it took place under the most shameless exercise of intimidation. The second election exhibited singular unanimity. All, even the peasantry, who are in a worse condition than the peasantry of France before the Revolution, were animated by a sense of duty. In the Wallachian Divan there were only three dissentients against the union ; in the Moldavian Divan there was unanimity in its favour. The Conference appointed Commissioners to collect facts with regard to the state of the country ; it would, however, be absurd to suppose that these Commissioners should have placed in their hands the disposal of the vital interests of five millions of people. Mr. Charles Buller said that to give the colonies representative institutions, and then to leave it to the Colonial Office to any whether their wishes should be attended to, was like "lighting a fire and stopping up the chimney." Do not let us light up the fire of a people's desires and then I charge six Commissioners to stop up the chimney. He assumed that it would not be disputed that the people desire the union. It might be ob- jected that they desired more ; for instance, they desired something of a doubtful character, namely, to have as chid a Prince taken from a foreign family. On that point we have given no pledge. But depend upon it no • people in its senses would desire the rule of a foreign Prince except as a means of avoiding internal jealousy. The main object of their wishes is the union, and that is a good and safe measure. We have increased the pcwer and prosperity of Great Britain by a union with Scotland ; we have applied the principle to the Canadas. He assumed, then, that the union will be good for the Principalities themselves. For whom will it not be good ? For Austria and Russia. No doubt the ambition of Russia will one day be re- 'awakened. We cannot again depend upon the combination of IngLand and'France to resist her. We cannot depend upon that combination as a permanent check to the ambition of Russia. We must place a living barrier before Russia ; there is no barrier like the breast of freemen. If we satisfy the desires of the people, and vindicate our own fame, we shall give Russia an antagonist more powerful than we can buy with money. Assuming that it is a great object of European policy to check Russia—" I give no opinion, I only recognize the obligations of treaties "— we are not to take measures for weakening Turkey. But what injury will ; the union inflict on Turkey ? None. The relation between the two has always been of a liberal character. The Sultan is the suzerain, not the sovereign of the Principalities. Turkey is interested in having her tribute paid, and in preventing other people from possessing themselves of the Principalities. The sentiment in the Principalities towards Turkey is not unfavourable. Turkey leaves them self-government, their own religion, - everything that a people can desire. Turkey has always found freedom and safety not in attempting to rivet her hold upon the Principalities, but in maintaining a liberal relation towards them. He desired to see that still maintained. We could not do better to embroil the east than to go into the Austrian policy. He implored the House not to desert France, who is ready,to do her part, and to do full justice to the wishes, rights, and interests of the people of the Principalities. "I say that France cannot resist ; France must give way. She cannot carry the union against Austria and Turkey, led by Austria, if England deserts her. The question whether England shall desert her is a question now to be decided, and the question of that desertion on the one hand or of perseverance in her policy and re- demption of her pledges is the question which with earnest hope and confi- dence I this night submit to the House of Commons." (Loud cheers.) Mr. SEYMOUR FrrzosnaLD expressed his astonishment that Mr. Glad- stone, so long engaged in public affairs, should have pursued a course so unprecedented and so likely- to lead to embarrassment. The Conference is about to meet to weigh the evidence of the Commissioners sent to the Principalities, and Mr. Gladstone calls upon the House not to give an instruction to the British Government, but come to a vote that must be considered as an instruction of the House of Commons to the assembled representatives of independent Europe. He agreed that the obligations of the treaty of Paris should be borne in mind ; and the treaty pledges UB not to impair the integrity of Turkey ; yet the House wasealled upon to acknowledge the independence of the Principalities. Now these Princi- palities had not expressed a wish for union under a foreign prince, if possible, but at any rate for a union ; they asked for no other union except a union under a foreign prince. That would be dismember- ment, a course totally incompatible with the obligations of the treaty. He hoped the House would not assent to a resolution that invited the House to be parties to the partition of Turkey.

Sergeant DEASY supported the motion. Lord ROBERT CECIL took the same course, and characterized the speech of Mr. Fitzgerald as the de- fence of a bad ease inherited from the preceding Government. Mr. ROE- Bum( called upon the House to tellessembled Europe that we are about to aid a free people to govern themselves. That would create the most effective barrier to Russia. Mr. Dun, followed on the same side. Then came Lord Peuennsrox. The House seemed very imperfectly to understand the subject. The real question was whether we should take the first step to dismember Turkey. The Danubian Principalities are pait of the'Turkish empire. We went to war, not to defend Mol- davia and Wallachia from Russia, but to resist Russian encroachment on Turkey. The grievance i of. the Principalities have not arisen from their connexion with Turkey, but from the occupation of foreign armies. We are not called upon to decide whether they shall be free. 4( Free they have been and free we intend them to remain." The question is what are the conditions of internal freedom which the powers of Europe are pledged by the treaty of Paris to secure them ? The treaty, of Paris entered into no engagement to effect the union. The French and Eng.. lish Plenipotentiaries only expressed an opinion that the union might be desirable, but no decision was taken. We are referred to the Reglement Organique. Why that is a Russian document, and cannot be regarded as embodying the inclinations of the people of Moldavia and Wallachia The treaty of Paris provided that Divans should be summoned. They met. It is known to everybody that foreign agency was the cause of the excitement that prevailed on the question of the union. They voted for a union. But what sort of union ? why a union under a foreign prince. " And why was that the case ? For this obvious reason—that Moldavia would never submit to be ruled by Wallachia ; that Wallachia would not submit to be ruled by Moldavia ; and that neither the one nor the other of them would consent to be governed by the Sultan. Under these circum- stances they asked for a foreign prince. And who is that foreign prince to be ? The inhabitants of those provinces nearly all profess the Greek re- ' ligion, and I sin strongly of opinion that Russia would have an insur- mountable objection to placing any other than a Greek prince in the po- sition of a governor of those united states. And where, let me ask; are you to find a Greek Prince ? Why, to be sure, among the members of the Royal family of Russia. (Cheers.) The House may therefore rest satisfied that the union of Wallachia and Moldavia under a foreign prince means nothing less than their union under the sway of the Russian Royal family, or of some one dependent upon Russia. To the appointment of a Catholic prince I doubt whether all the five Powers would assent. If, moreover, a Catholic prince were appointed, he would have to maintain himself against the powerful Greek influence which would be brought to bear upon him ; and, whether a Greek or a Catholic prince were selected, he would be forced to become subservient to Russia—to occupy the position of her vassal— in order to secure obedience from his subjects. The appointment of a foreign prince, then, I contend, to rule the Principalities, would be the first step towards effecting that separation to which some honourable Members arc opposed. For can any man believe that a prince fit to govern 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 people would long submit to be the vassal of the Sul- tan ? Impossible ! He would aspire to independence, and independence he would soon obtain. Well, then, fancy a country extremely small aecom- pared with the adjoining countries' having Russia on the one side, Austria on the other, and Turkey upon a third, and see how such a country can maintain her independence. It is impossible, in my opinion, that she could avoid becoming the vassal of one or the other of her more powerful neigh- bours. Escaping that destiny she would follow the fate of Poland, and be partitioned between them." (Loud cheers.) "We are told we ought not to deny them representative assemblies. They had them even by the organic statutes ; they ought to have had them, only the jealousy of Russia took care that those assemblies should never meet, or, if they met, that they should be but mere shadows of representative assemblies. But, the Congress of Paris intended to record the opinion that they should have real represen- tative assemblies, and it was for the purpose of asking them what conditions of internal organization they thought most conducive to their political and civil welfare, the development of their resources, and their internal prospe- rity, that the divans were called." But these unhappy Divans, carried away by agitations and intrigues, refused to go into the real points, and confined themselves to an unattainable object—separation from Turkey under a Christian prince. He urged the House not to be led by Mr. Gladstone's eloquence into acceding to a motion that would reverse the fundamental pohcy of the country, and would not be for the benefit of the unhappy peo- ple of the Principalities. Lord Joint RUSSELL vindicated Mr. Gladstone from the charge of Mr. Fitzgerald—that he was asking the House to dictate to the European powers. That is not so. Mr. Gladstone only says what should be the language held by the English Plenipotentiary at Paris. Coining to the question itself, Lord John described the relations between the Principali- ties and the Sultan, and the course pursued by Russia, before the last war, interfering in the -Principalities to their detriment. The treaty of Paris took away from Russia the power of constant interference, and then the question arose • respecting the future state of the Principalities. In- stead of revising their organic statutes for, them, or agreeing to adopt their views as expressed in Divans' a 'third course was taken, the most irritating that Could possibly be, that of assembling the Divans, and say- ing, when they had expressed their wishes, "you are disorderly, you are influenced by foreign intrigue and we throw your wishes to the winds." "There has been a great deal of talk during this debate of the pier and influence which Russia would have. It seems to me that you have inade a way for Russia. TheOnly way, as it appears to me to get out of this d1 lemma is the course proposed by my right honoured() friend." (Cheer-s.) He thought it might be proposed to the people "that they should have the union of these Principalities, but that they should have some person to rule over them unconnected with any great power in Europe, who should nevertheless be acquainted with their manners and customs." And he in- stanced the independence of Belgium, with its liberty, its religion, its sove- reign, as a bather against foreign conquest, more formidable than any arti- ficial treaty. Mr. DISRAELI said that if the House adopted Mr. Gladstone's resolu- tion, they would really find themselves in a dilemma, for there is at this moment a perfect identity of sentiment, views, and policy, on this sub- ject, between England and France and in a few days the two Govern- ments will be prepared to maintain, defend, and enforce their policy. Mr. Disraeli showed that there has been no breach of the engagements recorded in the treaty of Paris ; that Lord John Russell himself in 1855 thought a proposal of union should come, if at all, from the Sultan, and that he was then of opinion that if there were a Christian prince Ile would be practically independent. The whole question is how far we can promote institutions we can afterwards protect. We cannot main- tain the factitious independence of countries by votes of that House. "All that we should obtain by such an independence would be the re- morse which, when their 'rising civilization vitis crushed, we should all of us feel, and which would bepainted, withjmble admirable eloquence by the rhetorician of the day. (Cheers and- lyughtio.) We ought to exert all the power and influence we possess, and'should endeavour to exercise that power in a legitimate manner, to obtaidforlhese provinces good govem-

• ment and self-government., We ought to obtain that, and I believe we can do so with the cordial cooPeration of the French Government ; and if we do • that we shall not only fulfil our engagements, but obtain all that is now practicable to insure the welfare of these provinces." On grounds of high policy he deprecated the House sanctioning this address. • .

Mr. GLADSTONE, in reply, insisted that to oppose the union would be to break faith and lay the Principalities at the feet of the Emperor of Russia...-. In the opening, he said that his' eloquence appeared to have a

made 'great impreasion on the mind of Mr. Disraeli; and "he had la- vished compliments upon the rhetorician of the day.' I will not be guilty of the affected modesty of pretending to be ignorant that that de- signation was intended for myself." [This passage of arms called forth much laughter.] . The House divided, and negatived the motion by 292 to 114.

• THE CAGLIARI. • •

Next, after Mr. Gladstone's motion on the Principalities, stood Mr. Kinglake's motion, trusting that the Government would, in the case of the Cagliari, act in concert with Sardinia. As it was late, Mr. KINGLAKE did not go on, but asked for information. , Mr. FITZGERALD said he had-hoPed that Lord Malmesbury's ex- planation would have been eatisfietory to Mr. Kinglake and the country. It is Satisfactory to the _Sardinian ,Government. Count Cavour has cordially accepted Lord Malmesbury's despatch, and is prepared to adopt his• suggestions. Mr. Fitzgerald could not say that the Sardinian prisoners have been' liberated, but the establishment of harmony of action between the Government of Sardinia and her Majesty's Government must lead to consequences all desire.

GOVERNME.NT OP INDIA. '

• The House of Commons went into Committee on the Indian resolu- tions on Monday- night. The discussion recommenced with the second resolution, providing that the Secretary of State for India shall perform the duties now exercised by the East India Company, "either alone or with the approbation of the Commissioners for the Affairs of India."

. Mr. AYRTON moved an amendment, the gist of which was, that the dutiei mentioned in the resolution should be performed by a "Minister in Council." He argued that the bill did not 'provide for an efficient Council, and that no efficient control over the Minister could he looked for from Parliament, and therefore that the Minister should not be inde- pendent of his Council. Lord STANLEY opposed the resolution on behalf of the Government; and stood up for the efficacy of a Parliamentary check, and the necessity of giving the Minister undivided authority and imposing on him undi- vided responsibility. Mr. MANGLES, for the first time in his life, had the happiness of entirely concurring with Mr. Ayrton. The proposition did not mean that the Minister should only exercise his power with the approval of the Council, but that the Minister should sit in his Council, and consider, before he acted, what the Council recommended. Mr. DISRAELI said what the Committee had now to determine was whether there should be a Minister for India, and subsequently whether there should be a Council, how it should be complied, what its functions should be. Mr. VERNON SMITH objected to the creation of a Secretary of State. The Minister should be called President of the Council. Sir HARRY FERRET was for an independent Council. • Mr. ROEBUCK was opposed to a Council altogether. What he wants is that there should be a Secretary of State for India, to govern that country without the as- sistance of a Council, and to be answerable to that House for his conduct. Lord PALMERSTON regarded the discussion respecting the Council as pre- mature, and he called upon the Committee to' reject the amendment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the question raised by the amendment was, whether the Minister should be so Controlled by his Council as to lose all responsibility. He thought they did not want a Minister who should be obliged On every occasion to go to his Council and- obtain their opinions in writing.. Mr. GLADSTONE amused the House by some verbal criti- cism Of the resolution, intended to show that the amendment expressed precisely the intentions of the resolution, while the words of the resolu- tion of the Government did not express their intentions but the inten- tions of Mr. Roebuck. He should vote for the amendment, understand- ing it to mean that the Council should be cognizant of the whole busi- ness of India.

Other: Members tried to speak, but only obtained an indifferent hear- ing. On a division the amendment was negatived by 351 to 100. The House resumed, and the Chairman reported progress, without putting the resolution.

THE OUDE PROCLAMATION.

Mr. BRIGHT inquired on Thursday whether the proclamation of Lord Canning respecting Onde had been issued in accordance with instructions sent from England; if not, whether the Government had issued any di- rections in respect to it? Mr. BAILLIE said the Government received the proclamation three weeks ago and had immediately written to the Governor-General ex- pressing their views upon it. Mr. BRIGHT inquired what was the tenour of the despatch ?

Mr. DutuAvaa said the papers should be laid on the table.

"I think it, however, right to take this opportunity of stating that when we received notice of this intended proclamation we took the subject at once into our consideration' and the result was that we sent out a despatch to the Governor-General of India, disapproving the policy which he indicated in every sense." (Loud cheers.) .In- House of Lords, Earl GRANVILLE referring to this answer, askedwhether it had been given after communication with Lord Ellen- borough ? . The • Earl of ELLENBOBOUGH said that no communication had taken place between himself and "the right honourable gentleman in another place," but Mr. Disraeli had read the despatch alluded to.

• •• " ' CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA.

The Earl of SnArrusnuiv presented a petition from various Mission- ary Societies, praying that free scope may be given Jo the diffusion of Christianity in India, that caste be not recognized, that the management of hinds and the collection of dues deleted to heathen temples on the part of the Government may cease, that the Bible may be used in Government wheels, but that the Government should not either by force or bribery induce the Natives to embrace the Christian faith.

The Earl Of ELLENBOROUGH said—

"As long as I- have anything whatever to do with the government of India, I shall adhere most 'strictly to the ancient traditional policy of the British Government in that country—namely, that of absolute neutrality in

matters of religion ; and that I intend, as far as in me lies, that that neu- trality shall be real—that it shall not exist only in the language of the Go- vernment, but in its acts, and in the acts of all its officers. I have heard with satisfaction from my noble friend that the petitioners do not desire the aid of the Government. [" Hear, hear !" from Lord Shaftesbury.] Ifeel satisfied that nothing could be more injurious to their objects than even the appearance that such aid was extended to them. By themselves— by individual exertion—by private means, they may have some success ; but I feel convinced that if it were for a moment supposed that the Government extended its aid to them—as I fear may have been of late to some extent the ease—the result would be the greatest danger to our interests in India, and

the utter destruction of all the hopes of the missionaries of religion." ,

MINOR REFORM BILLS. •

Three questions of Parliamentary Reform were discussed on Thursday.

• Mr. CAIRD moved for leave to bring in a bill to assimilate the county franchise of Scotland with that of England. The object of this measure was to extend the forty-shilling freehold franchise to Scotland. At pre- sent the landlords return the county representatives, the tenant farmers and the borough freeholders having no influence in the elections. Mr. CowAx seconded the motion. It was smartly debated. Mr. MONCRIEFF objected that no great class of the community would be reached by _this franchise, and the forty-shilling proprietors would not form a desirable class of electors. Besides it would lead to the manufacture of fictitious votes. Mr. BAXTER, Mr. CUMMING BRUCE, the LORD ADVOCATE Mr: Braes, and Lord ELCHO also objected to the proposed bill. ADVOCATE, the other hand it was supported with reservations by Mr. EDWA-ILD ELLICE, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, and Mr. PEASE. 011 a division the motion was negatived by 103 to 84.

The next subject was the payment of the travelling expenses of voters. It arose on a motion by Mr. PEASE for a copy of the opinions of the Judges in the case of "Cooper versus Slade," when the Court of Exche- quer Chamber decided that the payment of travelling expenses was ille- gal. Sergeant DEASY asked what the Government intended to do ?

Wa..troLE said they could not propose the renewal of the Corrupt Prac- tices Act with all its palpable defects. •. The best course would be to bring in an amended bill. For his own part he thought bona fide tra- velling expenses as legal as any other payments.

The third question was the property qualification of Members. Mr. Loma Ifixe moved the second reading of his bill to abolish property'qualifiCi- tion. Mr. BENTINCK only raised a faint opposition. Mr. WALPOLE 'on behalf of his Government, assented to the motion for two reasons ; first, property qualification is not required from Scotch Members ; secondly, qualifications are given to Members to enable them to sit in the House of Commons, and it ill becomes Parliament to maintain what in these cases may be called a "great sham."

The bill was read a second time.

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT.

The sittings of the House of Commons on Wednesdays have come to be one-bill sittings. This week Lord Bury's bill legalizing marriage with the sister of a deceased wife occupied nearly the entire sitting. - The motion for the second reading was preceded by the presentation of a shoal of petitions in favour of the bill. General Thomrsox was first in the field. He said-

" I have a petition to present from Bradford, which would apparently reach from hero to Westminster Abbey, in favour of legalizing marriages with a deceased wife's sister. Everybody in Bradford wants to marry his wife's sister." (Great laughter.)

Then followed a crowd from various towns, and after these seven against the bill. Mr. HoPE in moving that the bill should be read a second time that day six months, ridiculed the mode in which, as- he averred, the petitions had been got up. He described them as promoted by the Marriage Law Reform Association, and drew a,ponjectural picture of Lord Bury and Mr. Mines sitting to receive thrconfessions of heart-broken widowers and longing widowers' wives sisters. Never since Mr. O'Connor pre-

sented a petition in favour of Charter had petitions of less weight been presented to the House. '"In opposition to the bill he relied upon the Scriptural prohibition in Leviticus, and the argument that if the bill passed no wife's sister would be able to live in the house of her brother-in-law. Mr. BUXTON disputed the existence of any Scriptural prohibition and made light of the social argument. Mr. COLLIER said he could assure Mr. Hope that at the meetings of the Marriage Law Reform Society there were no semi-Popish ceremonies, no altar, no wax- candles. He insisted that no prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's sister is to be found in the Bible, and that the obvious interpre- tation of the text, "thou shalt not take a wife to her sister to vex her beside the other in her lifetime," was, that a man may not marry his

wife's sister in her lifetime, but he might do so after her death. If husbands and the sisters of wives are so vicious as they are represented to be they cannot be made virtuous by act of Parliament.

Mr. M. T. BAINES, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Mr. MONCKTON MILNES, Mr. AKROYD, and Mr. MALINS supported the bill ; it was opposed by Mr. DRUMMOND, the LORD-ADVOCA.TE, and Mr. PULLER.

On a division the second reading was carried by 174 to 134. The Committee is fixed for the 20th.

r C

REVISION OF THE LITURGY. - Lord EMMY moved that an address should be presented to the Queen, praying that she would issue a Royal Commission "to consider whether the Liturgy of the Church of England be not capable of such alterations as may render it more profitable than it now is for the religious instruc- tion and edification of the people." He read a number of extracts frcm the published writings of Bishop Coplestone, Bishop Blomfield, the Arch- bishop of Dublin, the Bishop of St. Asaph, the Bishop of St. David's, the Bishop of Limerick, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, to show that some change is desired; backing these up with similar opinions deli- vered by the Bishops at a recent meeting of Convocation. He contended that a change, "some few omissions and rearrangements," is desirable, to shorten the services by omitting repetitions, and some phrases of doubtful import, which would enable us to include in our communion a Livingstone and a Havelock.- He held that it is both constitutional, and expedient to proceed by -Royal Commission ; for although ,alterations have been made without the intervention of Parliament and without the intervention of Convocation, they have been invariably preceded by a

Royal Commission. •

.: The Archbishop.of CANTERBURY objected to the motion, because if_car- ried it would be an apple of discord and agitate the minds of churchmen

from one end of the kingdom to the other. The Bishop of Sr. DAVID'S was rather favourable to the object of the motion. But he laboured to show that it is impracticable, on account of the great variety of opinions with regard to the alterations that may be desirable. Earl GREY was most anxious for some alterations, but as there is no prospect of a com- mon agreement, he hoped Lord Ebury would not divide the House. The Bishop of Cents', suggested that the body to deal with the question would be a properly constituted convocation of the prelates and clergy of the United Kingdom. The Earl of DERBY said he could not deny that in the beautiful Liturgy of the Church of England there are spots and blemishes, not suited to the great refinement of modern times, but is it desirable, for the purpose of removing them, to take the hazardous step recommended by Lord Ebury ? The public would put a wider construction on the motion than that ; and regard the commission as due issued to inquire into the merits and de- merits of the Liturgy. Such a misapprehension would have the most serious effects. He hoped Lord Ebury would not press his motion. Earl Gitersvnte and Lord ABINGER were in favour of the improve- ment; but, yielding to appeals from all sides, Lord EBURY withdrew it.

CHURCH ESTATES.—In moving the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, the Earl of DERBY explained that it was the same mea- sure which passed the House of Commons last year, but which failed be- cause it came before their Lordships too late in the session. The bill makes the transfer of episcopal estates to the Commissioners compulsory upon the avoidance of a see, and provides that they shall hand over to the see an estate of equal value free from all obligations. From the time of that transfer the Commissioners will not interfere except to see that the estate is kept in proper repair and that no improvident leases are granted. As regards chapters the bill provides that the accounts shall be kept in a cer- tain form, that no leases shall be granted after the passing of the act, but that chapters shall be entitled to an income equivalent to that they now re- ceive. The Duke of latusaorrouen has a bill before the House making a somewhat different provision as regards the estates of chapters. He pro- posed to refer both bills to a Select Committee. The House generally con- curred in the principle of the bill ; but Earl GREY took some exception to its details, being persuaded that property held at a rack-rent will never be well managed by a public department, and that Bishops are not likely to manage their estates well. The Bishop of OXFORD concurred in the scheme, and protested against making bishops mere stipendiaries. The bill was read a second time, and together with the Duke of Marlborough's bill referred to a Select Committee.

TRANSFER OF LA.ND.—Mr. WarrEsma obtained leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the sale and transfer of land in Ireland. The object of the bill is to extend to unencumbered estates the principle which nine years' experience derived from the sale of encumbered estates has been found so beneficial— the grant of a Parliamentary title. It is proposed to bring all judicial sales of the Court of Chancery within the application of a like primiple. Any person, without the intervention of a Chancery suit, might go before this !Court, to be called the Landed Estate Court, and there make out his title and sell his estate if he so thought fit. Those who do not want to sell may also obtain an adjudication upon their titles. The Court will consist of two Judges ; there will be an appeal to the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices ; the office of Master in Chancery, will be abolished ; the expense will be paid by a deduction from the purchase money and interest on the cash balances. Thus the Court will be self-sustaining. The bill was read a first time.

TENANT RIGHT.—Mr. GREEN moved that a Select Committee should be appointed "to inquire into the nature, origin, and extent of the tenant- right custom in Ireland, the recent violations of it in Donegal and other northern counties, and to consider and report how far it may be practicable to protect, for the benefit of the occupying tenants, the property which has been created under that custom."

This motion was speedily disposed of by a division ; and the motion was negatived by 232 to 43.

ENDOWED SeKooes.—The Earl of CORK, quoting largely from the report of the Irish Endowed Schools Commissioners, set forth the great deficiencies in the management of their funds and estates, and appealed to Lord Derby to use his best endeavours to remedy and rectify these evils. The Earl of DERBY criticized as impracticable the remedies recommended by the Commissioners, which involved the erection of a separate educational staff at the expense of the Consolidated Fund. He asked for time to give the subject sufficient consideration. The .Earl of CARLISLE, the Bishop of CASHEL, and Earl ST. GF.RAIANS, pressed the subject on the attention of the Government, as one of the highest importance.