Vehatto Auk Vrorttlfiugn iu parlianant.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE OP Loans. Monday, August 6. 'Land, Loan, and Enfranchisement

read a second time—Industrial Museum (Scotland)Bill ; passed Committee—Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill ; report, and Amendment agreed to— Landed Propeety Improvement (Ireland) Bill ; withdrawn—Naval Discipline Bill; report on Amendments received—Admiralty J urisdiction (India), Senior Member of Council Bills (India); passed Committee—Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment ; passed Committee--Syria; Conversation on •Intervention.

Tuesday, August 7. Lan of Evidence in Chancery Bill ; read a first time—Gal- way Harbour (No. 2) Bill; read a second time—Militia Ballot Bill ; Amendments agreed to—Game Certificates Bill ; read a third time and passed—Rifle Volunteer Corps Bill ; read a second time—Naval Discipline Bill; read a third time.

Thursday, August If/. European Forces India Bill ; read a first time—Local Go- vernment Amendment Act (1850) Bill; read a third time—Ecclesiastical Commis- sion Bill ; read a second time—Rifle Volunteer Corps Bill ; passed Committee—In- dustrial Museums (Scotland) Bill ; read a third time and passed—Tenure and Im- provement of Land (Ireland) Bill,; read a third time—Gunpowder Bill ; passed Committee—Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854) Bill ; passed Committee. Friday, August 10. Chancery Evidence Commission Bill; read a second time- Poor-Law Relief (Ireland) Bill ; read a second time—Militia Ballot Bill; reads third time and passed.—European Forces India Bill read a second time.

Howls OF COMMONS. Monday, August 6th. Customs-duties ; Resolutions on Paper passed—Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences (Ireland) Bill ; read a third time and passed—Plea on Indictments Bill; second reading passed.

Tuesday, August 7. Boman Catholic Charities Bill ; passed Committee— Industrial Schools Act (1857) Amendment Bill ; passed Committee—European Forces (India) Bill ; third reading passed—Customs Act,; Resolutions on Malt Duty carried—Customs Act ; Report agreed to—Titles to Land (Scotland) Act Amendment ; read a third time—Criminal Law Consolidation Bills, seven in num- ber ; withdrawn—Prisons, and Police and Towns Improvement (both Scotland) ; Lords Amendments agreed to—Land Improvements, and Emblements, &c. Bills (Ireland) ; .orders discharged.

Wednesday, Aug. 8. Union of Benefices Bill in Committee—Fortifications ; Reso- lution for Bank Expenses agreed to—Conjugal rights (Scotland) Bill ; read a third time.

Thursday, Aug. 10. National Gallery and Royal Academy ; Motion for Papers by Mr. Adderley withdrawn—Audit of Civil Service ; Sir F. Baring's Motion carried —Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) Bill ; read a second time—Ordance Map ; Sir S. Peto's Question—Galway Packet Subsidy ; vote carried—Consolidated Fund Bill ; read a second time—Industrial Schools Act (1857) Amendment Bill; read a third time—Titles to Land (Scotland) Bill ; passed Committee and reported, with Amendments—Land, Loan,and Bufranchisement Company's Act ; read a third time and passed—Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Bill ; read a second time—Roman Catholic Charities Bill ; consideration on Report adjourned—Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment Bill ; debate resumed, but House counted out.

Friday, August IO. Syria ; Mr. Sheridan's Question—Paper-duty ; Mr. Bright's

Question.

THE PAPER-DUTY.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER, before moving the resolutions of which he had given notice, explained some details. A variety of articles are dealt with In the resolu- tions, which gem-rally are placed at 16s. per cwt. duty ; books admitted under international copyright it Is proposed to charge 168. per cwt..; paper-hangings at 14s. per cwt. ; pasteboard 158. per cwt. All the other items explain themselves, and fall within a general view : the Excise- duty on paper in this country is 14s. per cwt., and 5 per cent additional, making 148. 8d. and a fraction ; and it is " proposed to add ls. 314. by way. of compensation to our paper-makers for the disadvantages of the Excuse, and for the advantages which the French paper-makers enjoy under the Customs law, so as to make the amount as near as possible equivalent to the 7th "wade of the treaty." The resolutions are in two parts : one relatei tolinportations under the treaty with France ; the other generalizes the arrangement by which we are bound under the treaty, and lays down one rule for importations from all the world : the resolu- tions are counterparts of each other. The question for discussion is a very small and minute question either as respects the revenue or its effect upon the trade. Only a few thousands a year are levied for duty on foreign paper, and the effect of diminution of that duty would be to in- crease the Customs revenue by stimulating consumption; but it is not in amount a matter of importance. Exaggerated Apprehensions in par- ticular classes exist as to the charges contemplated; one after another, every 'class of producers has been istfluenceil 'by the same tone, feeling, and 'one. But if vain imam* to lii11 on the paper-makers, it is a pr hat we have been taxing the British ptitilic to an enormous and unjustifiable extent. The Government asked, " What may we ex- pect from this disturbance of interests ? what will be the advantage to the British public by the change in the law ? " The Government " do not stand minutely or exclusively upon the advantage" from the change, but there will be advantages to certain branches of trade, particularly in certain times of special demand, when the consumer of paper will have the power to call in •aid the productive power of foreign countries to that of his own, and thus reduce the pressure upon the market. It is in con- nexion with principles of high importance, pledges of honour in con- nexion with the French commercial treaty, and pledges of policy, that this question is to be considered, as important. He had heard with great surprise that gentlemen in the House doubted whether her Majesty was bound to propose a reduction of Customs-duty on foreign paper, under the 7th article of the treaty. If the French duplicate of the treaty is re- ferred to, it will b5 found to point to the articles of merchandise named in the 8th article, which are the subjects of Excise-duties. The 9th article refers to a fens list of commodities, to be admitted duty free, con- tained in a prior article, of which it is said, that if one of the contracting Powers finds it necessary to impose an Excise-duty on any home manu- facture an equivalent Customs-duty may be imposed on its importation. The introdudtion of this article is a distinct witness" of the meaning of the 7th article. The 7th, 8th, and 9th articles all hang together ; the 7th makes provision for goods now subject to Excise-duties ; the 8th makes provisions as to articles specially mteresting to France; and the 9th makes provisions for the liberty of the Legielatures of both countries to impose duties on articles not now subject to duties. The correspond- ence between the Governments as evidence of the meaning of the 7th article- " I shall quote two very short passages from it, one which lays down the general principle, the other which explains diatinotly and positively the policy and office of the 7th article of the treaty. The general principle is this, and it will be found in the middle of the third page of the correspon- dence. On the French aide it was 'to be a general transition from prohibi- tion and high duties to duties of a -moderate rate.' On the English side it was to be ' the total abolition of Customs duties on Iron& products wherever fiscal considerations will permit, and a reduction to the lowest practical point, together with an entire abandonment of any protective imposts on behalf of British and against French commodities wherever fiscal considera- tions will not allow total abolition.' 1 address myself to the candour, in- genuousness, and honour of an assembly of British gentlemen ; and I ask whether they will not admit that, as far as the intentions of the two coun- tries are concerned, as far at least as the intention of Great Britain is con- cerned, it is beyond the possibility of dispute that our intention and mean- ing were to part in every case with every vestige of what may be called pro- tected interests. That is the general principle ; but that is not all, for in page 6 of the 'correspondence my noble friend issues this instruction in para- graph C.: To frame an article by which her Majesty's Government shall engage to propose to Parliament that the duty of customs generally on ar- ticles imported from France to this country, but which are subject here to duty of excise, shall be reduced to a rate as nearly as may be equal to the duty of excise, together with reasonable allowance for the costs which such duty of excise may be shown to entail."

The stipulations of the treaty were laid before the House one by one, before a vote was taken upon it, or before the Address was voted. It was said an assurance was given by Lord John Russell as to the prohibition of the export-duty on rags. A mountain was made out of a mole-hill. The protectionists of France proved too strong for the Government. He hoped the British House of Commons would set a better example. There is no question so insignificant as this question of rags to the paper- maker, "ragged" as is the whole case. If you want to buy in the dearest market, by all means go to France ; she is obliged to import rags for her own use. The communications of the French and British Go- vernments had been conducted in a spirit of ".uniform liberality and mutual accommodation." This is not the first attack made on the treaty; an attack had been made on the article of coal, under "the daring leadership " of Mr. Horsman. Matters looked serious.; the French Go- vernment offered to recede from that stipulation in order to secure the ac- ceptance of the treaty. We have had a repetition of the same liberal conduct ; nothing was more cruel to the paper-makers than the course Mr. Puller proposed, for he would simply keep them in a state of sus- pense between this and the opening of the next, he hoped "not too early" session. The law officers of the Crown had defined this question as within the treaty. The opposition arose from protection, which as Mr. Gladstone sarcastically said-

" Is just like a confession of sins—nobody has any difficulty at all in making general confessions of being very unworthy, of falling greatly be- low the standard of duty ; but touch him by pointing out to him some par- ticular act he has done that is wrong, and immediately he is in arms for his own defence. And so it is with protection. I admit there arc some dis- tinguished exceptions—that there are men who would be free •traders in their own case, but they are the exceptions to the rule, and exceptions which prove the rule ; for unquestionably thepeople of England have not been free traders each man in his own case. Those at any rate who have been con- nected with any particular kind of industry have unifermly entertained this originally respectable, but now I must say, after so much experience, very chimerical apprehension of mischief, and even of utter ruin that was to be brought upon them by the enforcement of the free trade principle. There is a certain kind of inconsistency and coherency to be found even in the wards of a lunatic asylum, and in the arguments of these gentlemen there is the same coherence and consistency to be found; but I never saw a class which was not devoutly persuaded that its own case was in its nature a specialt at be belongs exception, end and course oef in agreoteissoemetifteeasatumree or other that They uniformly fix, that is the form the malady takes—they uni-

formly fix upon that particular feature, and say that though free trade is perfectly right in every other case, yet that by reason of that particular fea- ture it is not applicable to their case. I believe it would be perfectly pos- • Bible for an ingenious man to frame a schedule of those protectionist argu- ments with blanks to be filled up, one day with paper, another day wit cake, another day with shoes, another day with silks ; but still—fill up the blanks as you may, the skeleton of the argument—the bone and substance of the argument are always precisely one and the same."

We have been engaged forty years in progressively extending the ap- plication of the principle of freedom of commerce, " What have you done to the paper-maker ? He seeing a country where it is so disadvantageous for him to make paper, has not he the benefit ofthe whole system of free trade ? Is there an article to which it has not been applied ? In other countries the machinery of the paper-maker is subject to a heavy tax. In this-country it is subject to no tax at all. In foreign countries the chemical appliances of the paper-maker are charged with taxes, not one farthing of which has to be paid here. In other countries every commodity which the paper-maker uses is commonly charged with an enhanced price arising from restrictive legislation. In this country the paper-maker wears shoes, and Northamptontrembled at the change in the tariff under which foreign shoes were to be introduced. The paper-maker wears gloves, and Yeovil and Worcester trembled at the importation of fo- reign gloves. The paper-maker drinks wine, and wine is now fur the first time brought into competition with British beer and spirits. Under these circumstances, unsustamed by a single precedent, but with every precedent against him, the paper-maker comes to the Legislature, and says, 'Reverse the whole principle upon which you haveacted for the last twenty years, in order to continue to me an advantage which is necessary for my existence, but which in every other class of producers has turned out to be a delusion and a snare.' " The Chancellor denied that there was any scarcity of the raw ma- erial : we have never been an importing country. He quoted a letter—. " There is positively no seareityof rags, nor ever was, in this country It is true we import, but it is a particular kind for a particular purpose. The best of all material for both coarse and fine papers is the refuse of and worn out ships rigging, and so abundant is it that on the 16th of May last, at the dockyard Government sale et Portsmouth, I bought the best and oheapest I ever had ; above half the lots.were passed, not obtaining a bidder, although the Messrs. °ohea and others who supply the trade and know their wants were present to purchase if necessary." The raw material of paper has been much cheaper of late years. In 1840, we exported 5 millions of pounds of paper, and 20 millions of pounds of rags were inported. We now import 32 millions of pounds of rage, and exptst 20 millions of pounds of paper ; increase of paper export, 15 millions ; increased import of rags, 12 millions. The 12 millions of rags represent 9 millions of paper; . we have therefore increased the export of paper over the import of rags, and we export 2000 tons of rags ourselves, and import 12,000, which make in paper 9000 tons ; so that we send out more paper than we import rags. Singularly, the paper we export is made from the rags we import. How can we do that? Does it pay ? Where does it go to ? Principally to the United States. Is it not curious that we are able to meet the French, who are to flood this country with cheap paper, and beat them in the markets of America ? there the English paper-maker goes and, in the teeth of the Frenchman, sells his paper made of rags, which he says he cannot obtain. Messrs. Cassell have to buy their paper here or pay 23s. 4d. on paper imported, say from Germany. Paper is the raw material of their manufaoture; the finished book is the manufacture itself. German paper, printed in Germany, to drive Messrs. Cassell out of the market, is bought in at 15s. per cwt.; that is the state of British legislation. The Chancellor called on the House to do justice ; setting an example of equity, firmness, and equality. " To make the case perfectly intelligible, I may say that the principle is precisely as it would be in the ease of the miller live said to him, We will admit foreign flour duty-free, but we will -maintain the duty on corn.' The miller is so nearly related to the Corn- laws that the illustration is com- plete, and it exhibits distinctly the principle on which my honourable friend is inviting us to act. These are really my last words on the subject, and I must say, with regard to the first resolution now before the House, to which I confine myself, I cannot for a moment doubt as to the dictates of our own self-respect and sense of honour and dignity as a Legislature, nor as to the conclusion towards which policy, prudence, and justice must direct us. It has been said by an observer of human nature that there is always some- thing touching in doing a thing for the last time, however insignificant the thing may be. It makes an appeal to the feelings, although the thing itself may be small, provided you know that you will never have to do it again. This is really the ' last time' with regard to the whole question of Protec- tion."

The Chancellor then moved- ' 22. That, in lieu of the duties of Customs now charged on the articles undermentioned, the following duties of Customs shall, on and after the 16th day of August, 1860, be charged thereon on importation from France, and likewise from Algeria, if the produce thereof, into Great Britain and

Ireland, viz.— s. d. Books, being of editions printed in or since the year 1801, bound or

unbound, the cwt. 16 0 Books admitted under treaties of international copyright, the cwt 15 0 Millboarda, the cwt. .....- 16 0 Paper, viz.— ' Brown paper made of old rope or cordage only, without separating or extracting the pitch or tar therefrom, and without any mix- ture or other materials therewith, the cwt 16 0 Printed, painted, or stained paper-hangings, or flock paper, the cwt . 14 0 Gilt, etained, coloured, .embossed, and all fancy kinds, not being paper-hangings, the ewt 16 0 Waste paper, or paper of any sort not particularly enumerated or described, not otherwise charged with duty, the cwt ... 16 0

Pasteboard, the ewt Prints and drawings, viz.—

Plain or coloured, the ewt......, 16 0 Admitted under treaties of international copyright, the cwt.. 15 0

--‘— Or at the option of the importer—

Single, each .... 0 Oi Bound, the dozen . 0 li"

Mr. Purina moved an amendment—" That, without desiring to pre- judice the question of a reduction at a future period of the Customs duty on books and paper, this Committee does not think fit at present to as- sent to such reduction." He did not call -upon the Committee, he said, to reject the resolution on a question of reciprocity, the paper-makers as a body being Free traders' and desiring only fair terms ; nor in a spirit of retaliation, but as a defensive measure, to save the paper-makers from urn. Mr. Puller discussed, at considerable length, the doctrines put and by Mr. Gladstone, and contrasted the manner in which Parlia- nt had treated the sugar-planters with the short and summary mode which it was proposed to deal with the paper-makers.. He disputed e construction put by Mr. Gladstone upon the language of the treaty, serving that the question was not what the Government intended, but at the plenipotentiaries did, and it was impossible that the 7th article uld bear the construction which Mr. Gladstone had endeavoured to ye to it. Even if that construction should be adhered to, still the spirit of the treaty was to give to the paper-manufacturers a protection against unfair competition.

Mr. Crumneas observed that it had been alleged, as an argument against the resolution, that the principal paper-making countries imposed a prohibition or a prohibitory duty upon the export of rags ; whereas it was a matter of fact that several large paper-producing countries, in- cluding the United States, levied no duty upon the export of that mate- rial.

It had been assumed by the honourable Member for Herta, and by others outkide the House, that the great paper-making countries of the world imposed either a high duty or an absolute prohibition on the export of rags ; and, taking that fact as a basis, they were told that they were bound to maintain this imposition in favour of the paper-makers of this country. But the principal paper-making country of the world did not place any prohibition on the export of rags. France, at the present moment, produced annually about 71,000 tons of paper ; the Zollverein. about 40,000 tons. These two countries and Belgium_were the principal instances cited. But the United States, which produced annually 120,000 tons of paper out of from 170;000 to 180,000 tons of rags, placed no export duty whatever upon rags. The population of Canada was well known to be partly French, and in Lower Canada the majority of the population were French, who would therefore naturally prefer French produce. But in the year 18.58, the import of paper by Canada amounted to 78,5001., of which 50,0001., or about two-thirds, came from England ,• 26,7001., or about the remaining one-third, from the United States ; and the amount imported from France and the Continent was only 18001. alto- gether. Again, in Victoria, the entire amount of the paper imported was 158.5001. The portion of that amount which came from the United States was only 25001., and the whole of the remaining 156,0001. came from our English manufacture. In the case of India, the item of paper was mixed up with that of books and stationery under one head ; and the whole amount of import into that colony of the three articles was 227,0001. Of this amount, 182,0001. was contributed by Great Britain, and France furnished only 20,000/. ; the remaining 2.5,0001. coming from all other nations, in- cluding the United States. So at the Cape the total imported amount was 22,0001., of which only 5001. came from foreign countries, the whole of the remaining 21,5001. being furnished by Great Britain. The total export of paper from this country was between 7000 and 8000 tons a year. In one of the colonies a newspaper was published which had the largest circulation in the world after the Times and two or three of the penny papers in London. The circulation of this paper, the Melbourne Argus, was something about 14,000 a day. It represented a large amount of capital, and one of the partners in the concern resided habitually in this country, mainly in order to make the necessary purchases for the paper, and to direct operations for the purpose. One of the priucipal of these purchases was paper. The con- sumption was about 200 reams of newspaper paper a week, making 360 tons a year, or about one-twentieth 'part of the entire quantity exported from this country. Now this amount was so large, that the purchaser would feel little hesitation if he could get paper cheaper in France and Belgium, in having recourse to those countries. The Committee well knew that in these matters nationality was not a very material consideration. But the whole of this paper was purchased in England, because it was the cheapest mar- ket. During the seven years in which the paper had been established not one pennyworth of foreign paper had been purchased for this undertaking. Now with these facts, he thought the Committee might safely assume that the interest of the paper-makers was safe in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in whose resolutions he fully concurred.

Mr. CROSSLEY said when some of his (Mr. Crossley's constituents, who were paper-makers, came to him, he asked them whether they thought it right that the whole of the West Riding should be taxed, and should give a penny more than paper was worth, in order that the paper-makers might get a living. a living. It was a mistake to suppose that paper was made from rags only. It was made from cotton waste, linen waste, ropes, and many other articles. Last year this country imported only 2,000,0001bs. of paper, whilst it ex- porlF120,000,0001bs. ; and as the effect of remitting the Customs duties would be to increase the export, the paper-makers would be better off than before. With regard to the treaty, he (Mr. Crossley) had lately visited Paris as the representative of his own business before the French commissioners, and ho f bound to say he thought there was every disposition on the part of the .rench to carry out every article of the treaty to the letter, and even more. They had sacrificed 3,000,0001. of revenue by taking off the duties upon the raw.material, and great fears had at first been expressed in France, which were now, however, giving way.

Mr. MAGUIRE observed that the question raised by the amendment was whether the Customs'-duty on paper ought to be abolished at the present moment. The paper manufacturers in this country were in the same position, fettered and embarrassed by the Excise-duty and regulations, as described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. This was not, then, a time to expose them to unfair competition. The question was one not of honour or of free trade, but of justice.

Sir H. CAIRNS said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had assigned two grounds for the resolution—that the House was bound to it by the treaty and by the principles of free trade. If they were committed by the treaty, what was the use, he asked, of any other reason ; and if not, why could not the discussion slumber on till next Session ? The object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, was transparent. If any hesitated as to the one, they might be caught by the other. What was the case of the paper-makers ? They said their trade employed a large capital and 40,000 or 50,000 persons ; that there was no material from which practically they could produce paper in any quantity but rags ; that the supply of rags in this country was limited, and they were obliged to look to foreign countries, where the export of rags was either prohibited, or

subject to a duty of 91. a-ton, which was equivalent to a tax of lid. per lb. on the paper; and that a large quantity of foreign papers was even now consumed in this country, and if the Customs'-duty on foreign paper was altered they would he no longer able to compete with foreigners. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no other reply to these allegations than an appeal to the principles of free trade, and to facts resting upon anonymous authorities. What he (Sir H. Cairns) asked, then, was an inquiry into the facts, and if they should turn out to be as stated, the paper-makers must submit. The interpretation put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the treaty, Sir Hugh subjected to a very rigorous criticism, commenting upon the conflicting constructions he had applied to paper and to hops, remarking, with reference to the latter commodity, that if the treaty had been violated, it bad been vio- lated by her Majesty's Government. He insisted that the construction of the treaty upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now relied would affect the whole of our Customs' revenue. Referring to the state- ments which bad been made on the part of the Government, that that of France would remove the prohibition of the export of rags. he suggested that there could be no objection to the adoption of the amendment to keep open the matter in order to see what the French Government would do next Session.

The ATIOENEY•GENERAL entirely concurred in the plaudits awarded to his honourable and learned friend, Sir Hugh Cairns, for the great "forensic" effort he had made, and proceeded to give what he sincerely

believed to be the true interpretation of the treaty. In a very clear exposition of the 7th and 8th articles, he showed that the ease of the Paper-duty was governed by the 7th, which provided for the admission into the United Kingdom of merchandise imported from France " at a rate of duty equal to the Excise-duty which is or shall be imposed upon articles of the same description in the United Kingdom." Besides the honourable obligation contracted under the treaty and considerations of expediency, the House was bound, he thought, in justice to consumers and other manufacturers, to put an end to a particular monopoly by adopting the resolution.

Mr. NORRIS opposed the resolution. Mr. HENLEY maintained that the Attorney-General had not met the arguments of Sir H. Cairns. He (Mr. Henley) put more faith in men's acts than in their words; and the Government had not only acted them- selves, but had made the House act in a different manner in the case of 'hops, and the Attorney-General did not venture to touch that question.

Ho could not understand, he said, why the Government should induce the House to put different constructions upon the treaty at different times, and he thought they ought not to place the House in so inconsistent a position. He should support the amendment.

Lord Rout RUSSELL said the construction put by Sir H. Cairns upon the treaty was subtle, refined, and scholastic, but it was not its plain mean- ing. The common-sense meaning of the 7th article—which might, per- haps, have been better worded—was that when articles like these, sub- ject to Excise-duty here, were imported from France, they should pay a

Customs'-duty equal to the Excise-duty. The argument against the resolution founded upon policy was the same he had often heard,—that free-trade was an excellent thing, but a particular article was always; to be excepted from its operation. At the end of a series of successful legis- lation for forty years upon free-trade principles the House, he hoped, would not be frightened by the hobgoblins conjured up by Mr. Puller. Upon the ground of obligation under the treaty, and upon that of wisdom and policy, he called upon the House not to exhibit to the world the dis- creditable spectacle of an attempt to escape from our engagements.

Mr. DISRAELI pointed out what he regarded as inconsistencies on the part of the Government, and thought it very extraordinary that on the 6th of August a jaded House of Commons should be called upon to con- sider a decision regarding a particular branch of industry, and that a great Parliamentary struggle should take place. What was the cause of this strange proceeding ? It was supposed that the House was bound to entertain this question under and by virtue of the commercial treaty with France. This question then arose—hid we entered into this en- gagement ? Upon this point the arguments of Sir Hugh Cairns had not been met. The so-called treaty, he insisted, was an unfinished nego- tiation, and there was nothing unjust or unreasonable in telling the Go- vernment that it was unnecessary to decide this question with precipi- tation, but that it would be wise and expedient to delay the decision, and accept the policy recommended by Mr. Puller. Lord PALMERSTON ob- served that the question for the Committee was whether they should or should not fulfil the conditions of a treaty with a Foreign Power, and pursue those principles of free trade adopted by all sides of the House. He was surprised that there should be any doubt as to the construction of the 7th article of the treaty, than which, in his opinion, nothing could be plainer. The House had unanimously voted an address approving the treaty, and the same House was now called upon to evade the exe- cution of one of its engagements. He had not heard a single argument, he said, that should prevail against the resolution, either on the principle of the treaty or on that of free trade and protection, and the House was bound to maintain the honour of the country.

The Committee divided—For the amendment, 233; against it, 266; majority, 33. The original resolution was then put and carried. The second amendment was negatived without a division, and the second resolution agreed to. Another resolution increasing the duty chargeable on wine, according to the quantity of proof spirit, was also agreed to.

EUROPEAN Fonces (INDIA) BILL.

On Tuesday evening, the order of the day was called for the third read- ing of the bill. A long and spirited debate occurred, principally directed against the bill as a whole, and, to a large extent, nearly a repeat of the debate of last week.

Mr. DODiON argued against the abolition of a local army, urging the authorities which had been arrayed against the measure antecedent to the mutiny, the insufficiency of that plea, the patronage that would be added to the large amount already enjoyed by the Horse Guards, and the objections founded upon sanitary and financial grounds. Sir H. Wu, Lovoitint could not help thinking that this bill would have most im- poriant consequences. The House had not been told how the amalga- mation was to be carried into effect. The problem could be solved in only one way—by causing a large number of the Indian officers to retire on full allowance ; and in the present state of the Indian finances, the embarrassments of which were becoming alarming, this would be a most perilous course. A strong objection in his mind to the change was, that it would leave no other force in India than an army of the Line and na- tive troops. The policy of the Government ought to be to induce European soldiers to remain in India. Sir T. COLEBROOXE reiterated his objections to the measure. The ground laid for it in the mutiny had been, in his opinion, emphatically contradicted by the papers. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE moved to defer the third reading for three months. He complained of the papers being kept back, and laid great stress upon the financial por- tion of the question. Mr. J. B. SMITH, referring to the reasons and the authorities brought forward by Sir C. Wood last year for maintaining a local army, observed that some mystery seemed to hang about this question. In his opinion the weight of authority was in favour of a local force. Mr. T. G. BARING defended the conduct of the Government in relation to the measure, and replied to objections which, he remarked, had been often made and as often answered, founded upon the sup- posed encroachment upon the authority of the Governor-General, the difficulty of qbtaining competent officers, the expense attending the change, the health of the troops, and the recent conduct of the local army of Bengal, termed only a "remonstrance." He insisted upon the dis- loyal and mutinous acts of that army, which bad been attempted to be palliated, as fully vindicating the alteration in Lord Clyde's opinion and the measure of the Government, who had no intention to interfere with the rights of the officers. Upon the political part of the question, he de- nied that there was any real foundation for the suggestion that the change would affect the rights and opinions of the Natives of India. Sir Ds LACY Everts, with reference to the statement of Mr. Baring that the rights and privileges of the Officers of the local force would not be inter- fered with, observed that the bill did not say that, or any thing but that there should be no local European force in India ; and his complaint was, that the bill did not tell what was intended. It was avowedly based upon the alleged mutiny of the local army of Bengal ; but he contended that there seas nothing in the papers to bear out the allegation of mutiny. The men had founded a claim upon a statement made in that House by the First Minister of the Crown. Mr. HORSHAM rose, he said, merely to enter his final proptest against passing this measure, which, when introduced, proposed the maximum of change ac- companied by the minimum of inquiryand information, and he com- plained that Parliament had not been afforded an opportunity of forming an accurate judgment upon it. He objected to the bill, not for what it contained but for what it omitted. There was nothing on the face of it which showed what was the plan of the Government; upon this point, the House had no information, and it ought to have had it before passing the bill. Mr. Horsman recapitulated the specific objections to the mea- sure grounded upon the expense of abolishing the local army, upon the patronage that would be transferred to the Horse Guards, and upon sanitary considerations ; and he contended that all these questions should have been fairly submitted to Parliament before so large a change was proposed, and this in opposition to the unanimous opinion of the Council of India, who had considered it not only as a military, but in a civil and political aspect. Sir C. Woon, in answer to Mr. Horsman's complaint of want of information, reminded the House that, when he introduced this measure he gave an ample explanation of the views of the Govern- ment, and that he had repeated those explanations, and the reason why it was necessary to take the opinion of the House upon this question. He denied that the Government were in possession of all the facts con- nected with the mutiny in August last year, when he proposed to retain the local army. Circumstances were subsequently changed, and with this change opinions altered, and it was not thought safe to maintain a local army in India. In reply to the various exceptions taken to the measure, he entered very fully into its merits, admittin? that Indian authorities differed as to the expediency of an amalgamation of the Eu- ropean army. The amendment was then negatived, and the bill was read a third time and passed.

FORTTFICATIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.

On Thursday, on the second reading of this bill, Mr. E. Jews moved a resolution that, before the bill was proceeded with, further information should be rendered as to the cost of the proposed fortifications. Sir CHARLES NAPIER seconded. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT explained that out of the five millions for defences, one half would be for land and one half for sea defences in round numbers. He entered into a variety of details, as to the probable expenditure at each point. Colonel Dresser: sup- ported the amendment; Lord ELCHO opposed it ; Sir DE LACY EVANS would vote for the second reading. Mr. MANSELL wished for further in- quiry. Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE opposed the second reading, and did so in his highest vein of sarcastic humour: he commenced by naming Lord Elcho "the founder of the Volunteers."

" The moat natural person to take up this question of 11,000,0001. is the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; but—you may call it carping criticism if you will—why is he never present, why has he never given an opinion upon this subject ? Then, again, why is the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne never here when this subject is discussed? Why, in 1858 he brought in a motion to cut down the estimates altogether, and yet now, whenever this question comes on, he cuts his stick. Nothing can be more natural when the House is asked to vote 9,000,0001., than that we should ask for every information, and therefore, instead of talking about carping criticism,' I should have been astonished if my honourable and learned friend had been satisfied with these estimates. The noble lord (Lord Elcho)—who of course has an interest in the question—for, if it be proved that fortifications are of use, no use 'Othello's occupation will be gone'—the noble lord tenders his thanks to the Prime Minister for only asking 9,000,0001. I also tender my thanks, although for a different reason—I am thankful that, in the present spirit of the House of Commons, and that which prevails out of doors, he has not proposed to erect a complete Chinese wall round the island." (Great Laughter.)

Denouncing the panic-mongering spirit, and with stinging irony ridi- culing the pamphlet of Sir D. M‘Dougall, Mr. Osborne came back to the Ministry—" When we are talking about estimates, let us remember that this House, which was to cost 750,0001., has really cost 3,000,0001. And so it ;vill be with these fortifications. We know at the beginning of the session the estimate for the Chinese war was 800,0001., and now it is 3,000,0001. 'We can't get any information upon this subject, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. I say he ought to be here to defend his plan. I ask, what is the opinion of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer upon this plan, and echo answers Nothing.' " All criticisms, foreign and English, are against the Commissioners' report. It was sim- ply the plan of seven respectable gentlemen. Sir S. Psro and Mr. Warrs supported Mr. James.

Lord PALMERSTON complained that the House had been dragged into a discussion upon the main question—" If it be the fact that truth is one, and error is infinite," he might contrast the settled views of the Ministry with the discordant sentiments about them- " It is amusing to see the different views which different Members take of this subject, according to their different lines of thought. Military men and those who have chiefly directed their attention to the manoeuvres of troops in the field say ' Do not give us fortifications, give us an important addition to the regular army,' forgetting that a great addition to the regu- lar army would be, perhaps, quite as expensive as these fortifications, thattc it would be good only for the single year for which it was voted, or that we must go on year after year maintaining in time of peace a disproportiona military establishment to stand in lieu of the permanent fortifications whin we propose to erect. Military men are for troops. My honourable an gallant friend the Member for Southwark, and other naval men, are for ships He says—' Don't tell me of men on land, don't tell me of works, give m ships. If I have ships enough I will anchor them off Portsmouth and Ply- mouth, and will take care that those ports shall be safe whatever may hap

pen to our interests in other parts of the world.' Then come the lawyers. They have been modest and have not stated their remedy. I suppose they would meet the enemy with an injunction, or issue against him a writ of ne exeat regno to prevent his leaving his own dominions. These are all mighty good methods, but upon the whole I am inclined to think that the majority the other evening were of opinion that permanent defences will be the cheapest and most effectual for the purposes for which they are pro- posed." Combating all the schemes suggested, and defending the Government plan, Lord Palmerston asked the House to pass the second reading. For, 143; Against, 32; Majority, 111.

THE GALWAY CONTRACT.

Mr. LANG moved a supply of 60,000/. for the Galway subsidy in a speech of great length, in the course of which he sketched the history of Mr. Lever and Mr. O'Malley Irwin's sub-contract most amusingly : ad- miring the " Arcadian simplicity" of Mr. Lever and the Spartan virtue" of Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Laing asked for the money, lest we should get a character for "repudiation." Mr. BOW/ERIE opposed the vote. "The transaction was shapen in iniquity and conceived in fraud and corruption." Fully going into the details, Mr. Bouverie concluded by a hope that the House would not, " by giving its sanction to the contract, make itself a party to anything so culpable and disgraceful." Mr. WHITESIDE defended the contract on national and international grounds. The action of Irwin against Lever had a ridiculous result ; it ought not to affect shareholders who knew nothing of the facts of that

case.

Mr. CRAWFORD thought that Parliament ought to have exercised the option before the company had been called upon to find the money to build the vessels.

Mr. DISRAELI defended the contract and the conduct of the late Go- vernment by reference to evidence. Mr. ROEBUCK (who was loudly called for) defended himself with great spirit and force-

" The right honourable Member for Kilmarnock has accused somebody— it is not certain whom—of corruption. It has been stated before that the contract which we are now discussing was mainly negotiated by myself ; so that, if there be corruption, I must have something to do with it. Then the person on the other side, representing the Government, is Lord Derby. Thus the two persons entering into this corrupt bargain are first of all Lord Derby and myself. Now, Sir, what motive had I ? I recollect stating some time last year that my motive was a general motive—that I thought a great ob- ject was to be attained, and a great benefit conferred upon Ireland. And I remember the right honourable Member for Portsmouth looked on me with perfect astonishment, which he expressed pretty much in words—to think that anybody could act upon such a motive. He gave the House to under- stand that he fancied I must have some personal object. Well, if there be no personal object in myself, who negotiated this contract ; if there be no personal object in Lord Derby, who, as it is stated, also negotiated it, where is the corruption ? ' Oh,' but i t is said, Mr. Lever has had a corrupt motive.' Now, Sir, there is nothi. -A. in a vase of this sort like getting hold of some one who can be made a scapegoat. Mr. Lever is that scapegoat, and he is to carry all the sins of the people into the wilderness. How does he show his corrupt motive ? Why, having expended a large sum of money in ships, he sells those ships to the com- pany. Does he get money for them ? Not a bit of it. He gets the shares of the company, and if the company failed his money is lost." Speaking for himself Mr. Roebuck added-

" He found, soon after he had taken an interest in the Galway line, that he had thrust his hand into a hornets' next. Imputations of the foulest de- scription were cast upon him, and it had actually been stated when this sub- sidy had been obtained that he had made a very large fortune, and it was seriously, believed that he was to have 5000/. a year by it. The man who showered down terms of disgrace upon another in the manner which had been done in this case must be himself incapable of feeling what was die. graceful. But when ha saw that the contract was introduced in connexion with the name of a man who was not connected with it—a man whom he never saw till he went into a court of justice, and who had no more to do with the contract than he (Mr. Roebuck) had at that moment to do with the moon, and who was now known to be a convicted forger, and to think that such a man's name should be brought into that House as the means of wounding him, was, be said, disgraceful on the part of those who used such poisoned arrows; and he was in a condition to laugh them to scorn, as he did those who used the arrows, and the arrows themselves." (Cheers.)

After some further conversation of a desultory character, the House divided. Ayes, 145 ; Noes, 39. Majority, 106.

NATIONAL GALLERY.

On Thursday, Mr. ADDERLEY moved for a copy of the plan and esti- mate of Captain Fowkes for a National Gallery ; the estimate amounted to 34,0001., but it had been rejected by the First Commissioner of Works. Mr. CONINGHAM hoped that nothing would be done in the matter of the National Gallery until the House met again next session, especially as a very large expenditure of money was involved. He had heard with astonishment that the Royal Academy was to be allowed to remain in the building at Trafalgar Square. The whole of this question called for serious and minute consideration.

Mr. COWPER had rejected Captain Fowkes's plan simply because he thought it was a bad one. In 1857, Lord PALMERSTON visited the Na- tional Gallery, and, after examination, came to the conclusion that the great central hall could be made available as a picture gallery. Plans had been given in by Mr. Pennythome. His impression was that Cap. talus Fowkes's plan would cost 60,000/. or 70,0001. He had no objection to produce the correspondence. Sir JOHN SHELLEY urged the recom- mendation of the Committee, that the Royal Academy should be removed

elsewhere. Lord Rum i MANNEns joined in the suggestion, and said that Lord Derby's Government had proposed to remove the Royal Academy to Burlington House. Lord PALurninroar urged the House not to ex- pend more at present than the 13,0001. in the vote ; a permanent arrange- ment would be costly, and had better be deferred.

Mr. ADDERLEY accepted Mr. Cowper's offer of the correspondence, and withdrew the motion.

SPAIN.

In the Commons, on Thursday, Mr. H. RuLue asked whether any application had been made to admit Spain to the rank of a first-rate Power, and if so, what was the intention of her Majesty's Government ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said it did not yet appear that Spain herself had made application or expressed any desire officially to be admitted to the rank of a first-rate Power in association with the five Powers of Europe Who were usually denominated first-rate Powers—

The Government of France, however, had expressed an opinion that it was desirable that Spain should be added to the five Powers, and in refer- ence to that proposition, or suggestion, the Government of Austria had answered that the Emperor of Austria would have no objection to see Spain placed in the same rank with the five Powers, but he thought the case ought not to be turned into a precedent for the admission of any other Power. The Government of Prussia, on the other hand, had expressed an opinion that it would be injurious to the-Protestant States of Europe if the number of the great Powers were altered by admitting a Roman Catholic Power, and if that were done it would be desirable that Sweden likewise should be admitted. It was also to be considered that Portugal signed the general treaty of Vienna, and it would not be desirable that Spain and Sweden should be admitted, and Portugal, which entertained some jealousy with regard to Spain, should be excluded. If all these States were admitted there would then be eight great Powers instead of five. But it must also be considered that Sardinia, a very thriving country, might put in her claim too, and in that case there might be nine great Powers. Now, con- sidering that since 1815 the concert of the five powers had on the whole very well preserved the peace of Europe,—and the preservation of that peace was the object of the concert—it appeared to him very undesirable to change the present state of things in this respect. At all events, before the next meeting of Parliament the Government would not consent to any change for the admission of Spain among the great Powers.

SYRIA.

On Monday, in the Lords, the Earl of SHAT resnenv asked Lord Wodehouse-

" Is it to be understood that the force sent to Syria on the present occa- sion is to be employed solely for the purpose of maintaining the peace of the country, and that the authorities in command are not to interfere directly or indirectly in the administration of the civil and religious affairs, affecting either Moslems or Christians, of the Turkish Government ? "

In consequence of the concessions of religious liberty by the Porte, large masses had fallen away from the Greek and Latin Churches, and even from the Moslems, who were called seceders and sometimes prose- lytes— " I was in conversation, not long ago, with the son of a man, a converted Moslem, who has in Constantinople a large chapel where between 300 and 400 worshippers attend every Sunday, principally Mussulmaus who have embraced the Christian religion. As contrasted with the old condition of Constantinople, this is a considerable change. An American missionary, the Reverend Mr. Dickinson, writes—' Tho Bible is sold openly in the streets and in their mosques side by side with their Koran.' There have been es- tablished in Syria a great many denominations of a similar description, and I believe your lordships will see that the Turkish Government, though i

weak, is not insincere, and that the Turkish central Government does de- sire that reforms, and particularly religious reforms, should be carried to completion. But there is a large reactionary party—the old Mussulman party—who are, in a great measure, the authors of the present disturbances. 'That reactionary party. must be overthrown, and must not receive any ex- traneous assistance arising out of the peculiar difficulties of the present time, and the agency now employed, to put down those outrages. A very curious fact is this, that the Druses, although in hostility to the Maronites, are not hostile to them as Christians. They are hostile to the Maronites as neighbours with whom for a long time they have had grievances and quar- rels, but it is a remarkable fact that the Druses show no opposition to Chris- tians. Although when their blood is up and they are in conflict they do not draw distinctions between different sects, yet to the Christians, as such, they have no hostility, and in proof of that I will read a letter from one of the moat eminent American missionaries, who, writing in February from the now famous Deir-el-Kamar, says— "The Druses appear immovable, but very useful, in the Providence of God, on account of their opening the door for Christian schools, and blunting the edge of persecution. It is very difficult to effect an entrance where they do not form a portion of the . population. They are the instruments of good to others, often screening Protestants and defending their doctrines.',

One gentleman, who had resided more than 20 years in the north of Syria, had told him that French agents in great numbers have been openly declaring that if the Mussulmans and members of the Greek Church fell away to the Latin Church they would receive the protection of the Emperor of the French. A most remarkable falling away of 40,000 to the Latin Church took place in Candia some six or seven months ago. He objected to the French troops alone interfering in Syria.

Lord WODEHOUSE said a commission would proceed to Syria to inquire and bring the guilty to punishment. It was not intended to interfere with the civil and religious administrations.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

The Earl of DERBY asked Earl Granville as to the intentions of the Government with respect to the bills now awaiting the second reading. The changes made in the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill by the House of Commons, rendered it necessary for its promoters to consider whether they would prosecute it further. The Poor-law Continuance (Ireland) Bill would require to be passed, but as it is a mere continuance bill the House should guard against considerable alterations which had been in- troduced. As to the bills in the other House, a very strong case indeed ought to exist before the rule which the. Lords had laid down is departed from. The European Forces (India) Bill could not be delayed without increase to the difficulties and dangers of the question. Earl GRAN- VILLE' after describing his proposed course upon the several bills men- tioned, and also the Friendly Societies, East India Stock Transfer and Landlord and Tenant (Ireland), and Fortification and Works Bills, hoped the House of Lords would "not strike work five or six weeks before the end of the session." He dissented from the doctrine that continuance bills ought not to contain new provisions. Lord REDESDALE was not in favour of relaxing the rule except in cases of urgency. Such a measure as the Fortification Bill might be urgent, and therefore might be con- sidered, but he did not think any other measures should be proceeded with. Other noble lords expressed the same views.

THE MILITIA BALLOT BLLL.

In the Lords, on Tuesday, on the motion that the report with amend- ments be received, the Marquis of SALISBURY objected to the reduction of the ages up to which men can be ballotted for—from 35 to 30. Earl DE GREY and RIPON urged that the younger a man is, the less incon- venient is it to him to be forcibly taken away from his civil occupation to serve in the Militia. When the ages to which the Ballot was ap- plicable were from 18 to 45, the number of persons liable to it in 1800 was 1,900,000 in 1815, it was 2,329,000; now, according to the Registrar-General, the number between 18 and 30 is 2,227,000. The Earl of DERBY suggested that if the maximum age be reduced from 35 to 30, might not the minimum age also be advantageously reduced from 18 to 16 ? Earl GrRANVIIXE thought the sugg•estionjudicious, and, on con- dition that the maximum age was to be considered open on the third reading, the report was received.

RIFLE VOLUNTEER CORPS. PRACTISING GROUNDS.

Earl DE GREY and RIPON having moved a resolution to suspend the standing orders, stated that the object of the bill which he proposed to read a second time, is to enable Volunteer Corps to acquire practising grounds ; at present, corps have the utmost difficulty in obtaining grounds. It is one of the first essentials of Rifle Corps that the mem- bers should be good shots, know how to use the rifle well, and be prac- tised in the use of it. Earl SPENCER supported the motion, which was

# carried, and the bill was read a second time.

Naval, DISCIPLINE BILL.

The Earl of READ{17001 objected, on the third reading of this bill, to some of its provisions ; the bill proposed to substitute imprisonment to be inflicted instead of corporal punishment, a step quite in accordance with public feeling. But when a fleet was in presence of an enemy, or where it was of importance that the strength of a ship should not be di- minished, punishment must proceed, very much in accordance with the old system. The bill provided that there should be an inquiry in- stituted by officers appointed by the captain of the ship : such a tribunal would exercise a great controul over the discipline of the ship which he thought would be best maintained by holding the captain responsible. He did not think the Board of Admiralty a good court of appeal; its means of judgment is written evidence against the oral evidence given before the officers. The Duke of SOMERSET hoped that the discipline of the Navy would not be impaired by the clause which required an inquiry before corporal punishment was inflicted. The captain's authority would not be impaired as he might set aside, on his own responsibility, the recommendations contained in the reports of the proposed courts of inquiry.

The bill was read a third time and passed.

KENSa'GTON GARDENS.

In the Commons, the Civil Service Estimates were resumed in Com- mittee of Supply on Thursday. On the vote of 100,4401. for Royal parks and grounds, Sir JOHN SHELLEY moved to reduce the vote by 750/. for railings (afterwards reduced to 2507. for hurdles) in Kensington Gardens. Mr. A. Steer= pointed out gradual encroachments upon the Parks which were being "nibbled away" bit by bit, and a great hard- ship inflicted upon the working classes. Lord Jorpr MANNERS and M. Marases vigorously opposed the new horse ride. Mr. A. Mnas, Mr. H. SET-morn, and General PEEL defended the new ride. A division was taken—for the amendment, 48 ; against it, 71; majority, 23.

INDIAN LOAN.

Sir CHARLES WooD gave notice that on Monday he should move a resolution to empower him to raise a loan not exceeding 3,000,0001. for the service of Government.

Out o1 a conversation arising from a question by Mr. Griffith, Captain Ammonia, defended the Grand Jury of Fermanagh from the observations of Chief Justice Monahan. Mr. CARDWELL refused to enter into a dis- cussion on the matter, as there was a bill before the House on the whole subject.

THE MALT-DUTY.

On the next order, for the further consideration of the 13th resolution of the Committee on the Customs' Acts, as to the duty on the importation of foreign malt,

Sir Errartoy KELLY moved to re-commit the resolution, in order to shove in the committee that the duty shall be 268. per quarter, instead of 25s. He discussed at much length the title of the British maltstcr to this addition of is. to the countervailing duty on foreign malt, which, accord- ing to his computation, could be brought to market for 43s. 6d. a quarter, while English malt cost 48s. 6d., snaking a difference of 6s. a quarter in favour of foreign malt, taking the price of barley in the latter case at 42s. the quarter, and in the former at 40s.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the motion, observing that no considerable amount of malt came from abroad, and he believed the great body of maltsters were satisfied with the arrangement made by the Government under the treaty. After some remarks by Major PARKER and Mr. Bass, the House divided, when the amendment of Sir F. KELLY was negatived by 86 to 49, and the resolution was agreed to.

The report and resolutions on the Customs Acts' report were agreed to, as also the report of Supply and the resolutions founded upon it.

Mr. CARDWELL stated that he had recommended the South Dublin Union to reinstate their Roman Catholic Chaplain, the Reverend Mr. Fox.

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION.

On Monday, in answer to Mr. ATE'PON, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the bills for this purpose which had come down from the Lords had been very fully considered, both by the late and the present Law Officers of the Crown, and also by a Committee of the other House. The Go- vernment, therefore, meant to proceed with them, in the hope that they would not occupy much time. On Tuesday, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose, on the order of the day being called to go into Committee upon those bills, and moved to dis- charge the order for the committal of the following bills—The Offences against the Person Bill; the Malicious Injuries to Property Bill; the Coinage Offences Bill ; the Aocesories and Abettors Bill ; the Forgery Bill ; the Larceny, &e. Bill ; and the Criminal Statutes Repeal Bill. The measures had certainly been prepared with great deliberation and care, and he believed that they would be a great improvement upon the criminal statute law of the country ; but they were not merely consolidation bills—they were bills to some extent amending the existing law, and assi- milating the law of England and Ireland. They were brought down from the House of Lords early in May, but it was not possible, owing to the state of business before the house, to read them a second time till about the middle of June. Since then Ike state of public. business had prevented. any further stage being taken ; and it was now obvious that they could not have justice done to them this session. Under these circumstances the Govern- ment felt that it would not be right to waste valuable time in making, an ineffectual attempt to pass them through committee. They hoped, however, to be able to take them up again early next session ; but whether it would then be advisable to refer them to a select committee, or piss them in the usual manner, clause by clause, it would be for the House to de- termine. Mr. E. JAMES, Sir Frey:tor KELLY, and Mr. MALEiS somewhat pointedly expressed their disatisfaction at the course pursued by the So- licitor-General. Lord PAL]MERSTON expressed• regret at being obliged to concur with the Solicitor-General.

Mrscsaxamrous.

In the House- of Lords on Monday, the ROyal Assent was given, by commission, to a large number of bills : among them were some of a pub- lie nature—Queen's Bench Act Amendment„ Enclosure (No. 2.) Friend- ly Societies Act Amendment ; Local Board of Health ; Jews' Act Amend- ment; Census, England and Ireland ; Adulteration of Food and Drink ; Queen's Prison • Postage Army and Navy ; Nuisances Removal ; Com- mon Law Procedure Act (Ireland), Amendment ; Municipal Corporation Act (Ireland) Amendment ; London and South Western Railway (Kings- ton Extension.) The Tenure, and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill, was reported to the House with amendments, as was also the Na Discipline Bill. The Senior Member of Council (India) Bill passed through Committee. In the House of Commons, Mr. M. MInzars gave notice that he would, early next session, move for a. Select Committee to inquire into the regu- lation, conditions, and rules of the diplomatic service.

Mr. Bennvi.ey asked whether, as the Atlantic cable had failed, the agreement with the Company had not become void,. and whether the Government would entertain applications from other parties? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no objections to receive. applications from others, but, in consequence of the limited success. already achieved, the applications would be considered with caution. Mr. COWPER, in answer to Sir JOHN SRELIRY, said that the ground upon which the new Foreign Office was to be built was not yet in pos- session of the Government; next yeas a vote would be taken which would give an opportunity for discussion.

In the Lords on Tuesday, the Loan CHANCELLOR brought in a bill to remove doubts as to the power of the Judges of the Courts of Chancery to carry into effect the recommendation of the commission on evidence. The bill was read a first time.

The standing orders were suspended in order to read the Census (Scotland) Bill and the Corrupt Practices (Amendment) At 1854 a second time, which was done accordingly.

In the Commons on Tuesday, at the morning sitting, the Roman Catholic Charities Bill went into Committee : the 5th clause was omitted on the motion of Mr. SELWYN, a clause was proposed by Sir G. C. LEWIS, placing the disposal of all questions as to Homan Catholic Charities under the control of the Charity Commissioners and the Court of Chancery was added, and stands as clause 1. The 5th clause was then amended and inserted in accordance with the sense of clause 1. A proviso was added that nothing in the Act should alter the Act of 10th Geo. IV., and the bill was reported. The Industrial Schools Act (1857) Amendment Bill also went into Committee : the object was to transfer the schools containing children committed under the Vagrant Act from the jurisdiction of the Education department of the Privy Council to the Home Office. The 1st clause was agreed to, and on the motion of Sir STAFFORD Nonuse re, another clause was added, enlarging the authority of magistrates to deal with complaints made by authority of the Secretary of State.

In the Commons, on Wednesday, the Union of Benefices Bill went into Committee. Considerable opposition to the clause was urged by the Metropolitan Members ; its scope was limited to the metropolis by one clause instead of five, as is originally framed. Sir SAMUEL Pero proposed a clause empowering the Secretary of State to sanction the sale of churches to other religious bodies. The principle of the clause was assented to, and it was understood that ore the report it should he. intro- duced. The House resumed at a• quarter to six. Sir GEORGE Lewis moved a resolution for a clause in the Fortification Bill to authorize pay- ment to the Bank of England for management, as is usual in the case of a loan.

In the Lords on Thursday, the-European Forces (India) Bill was read a first time, after a statement from the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH that as opposition was hopeless,. amendments might yet be introduced.

The Ecclesiastical Commission Bill was read a second time, by sus- pension of the standing orders.; a.very strong and general expression of censure was pronounced by noble- lords who spoke upon. the increase of the Deanery of York from 1000/. to 20001. a year by the. Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

:Aunrr. Sir F. BA.RING moved, on Thursday, " That the appropriation and audit of the moneys voted for the Civil Service Estimates are insufficient and unsatisfactory, and require early amendment." The resolution was supported by Mr. HENLEY, Sir H. Wrxxonorrey., Mr. HAWKEY, Sir JAMES Guineas, and being but feebly opposed by Mr.. Lem and, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, was carried. ORDNANCE SURVEY. Sir S. M. Pero moved, to discontinue-the Ordnance Survey on the 25th inch scale„ but withdrew the motion, after discussion, and. an assurance from Mr. B. HERBERT, that the 1 inch scale would be completed before another appeal was made to Parliament.