Ethotto null Vrortrifings iii Varliumtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Horn OF Loans. Monday, Feb. 6. Volunteers ; Lord de Grey's Answer to Lord Vivian.

Tuesday, Feb. 7. St. George's-in-the-East ; Lord Derby's Question—Annexation of Savoy ; Lord Normanby's Motion.

Thursday, Feb. 9. Endowed Schools ; Lord Cranworth's Bill read a second time. Friday, Feb. 10. Nice and Savoy ; Lord Grasville's Answer toLord Normanby. HOUSE or CORMONS. Monday, Feb. 6. Budget Postponed—St. George's-us- the-East ; Mr. Byng's Question—Probate and Administration (India) Bill com- mitted—Newspapers, &c. Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday, Feb. 7. The Italian Question ; Lord John Russell's Statement—Divorce Trials; Lord John Manners's Motion—Window Cleaning Bill read a first time— Bleaching and Dyeing Works Bill read a first time. Wednesday, Feb. 8. Church Rates Abolition ; Sir John Trelawny's Bill read a second time.

Thursday, Feb 9. Bribery at Elections ; Sir Fitzroy Kelly's Bill, leave given— Indian Finance ; Mr. Vansittart's Motion—The Ballot ; /dr. Duncombe's Motion— Conveyance of Voters. &c.; Mr. Collier's Bill, leave given—" Count out." Friday, 10. The Budget ; Mr. Gladstone's Statement.

POSTPONEMENT OF THE BUDGET.

It became known on Monday morning that Mr. Gladstone was too unwell to make the financial statement that evening. Soon after the House of Commons met, Lord PALMERSTON formally stated the fact, and gave notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make his state- ment on Friday. Mr. DISHAEM said all had heard with universal regret the cause of the delay ; and asked whether the treaty with France would be produced before Friday.

Lord PAL/Celli/TON said that Lord John Russell would lay the treaty on the table on Friday—an announcement received with some cries of " Oh ! Oh ! " In answer to Mr. Baxrau, he added, that the House, after hearing the statement, would decide for itself when the debate should take place. In the House of Peers, the Earl of DONOUGHMORS and the Earl of DERBY obtained from Earl GB.ANVILLE, substantially, the same answers.

NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING ITALY.

Lord CLAUD HAMILTON, on Tuesday, asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if it was true that Lord Cowley had been instructed to communicate to the French Government a project for the definitive set- tlement of the Italian question ; if so, whether the details of that pro- ject had been carried out ; and, if so, whether he had any objection to communicate the details of that project to the house.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that, to give satisfaction to the noble Lord, he must give some account of what has taken place ; but he could not pro- duce the papers because a negotiation is going on. What has passed is this :— " The House is aware, from her Majesty's Speech, that her Majesty. was invited to take part in a Conference, or Congress, respecting the affairs of Italy. At a certain period, when it was expected that that Congress would meet, we received information from the French Government that that Con- gress was adjourned sine die, but that we should be informed if there were any intention that it should assemble hereafter. It was said that the delay, or rather the entire postponement of the Congress, was owing to the publi- cation of an anonymous pamphlet at Paris. But, be that as it may, her Ma- jesty's Government felt that it would be a very serious condition of things if the Italians, who have been hitherto waiting in expectation that Italian affairs would be settled by a Congress, should have no regular form of Go- vernment, and no apparent means of solving the difficultaes in which they were placed. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, made a proposition to the Government of France and the Government of Austria, with a view to the definitive solution of the Italian question. These proposals were con- tained in a despatch to Lord Cowley, dated, I think, the 14th of January. It was proposed, in the first two of these proposals, that, as the rivalry of France and Austria had occasioned great evils to Italy, and great dangers to Europe, these two powers should consent in future not to interfere by force in the internal affairs of Italy, without the consent of the five great Powers of Europe. It was proposed also, in consequence, that the French troops should, at a convenient time, and with all proper precautions, withdraw from Lombardy and the Roman States. By the third proposition, it was proposed that the Governments of Europe should not interfere in the internal govern- ment of Venetia, and that no proposal should be made in order to regulate the internal government of Venetia by the Emperor of Austria. To these three proposals, the Government of France, with certain modifications as to the time and seasons of withdrawing their troops, gave their ready consent. With respect to the fourth proposition, they begged to have time to consider it, and time also to communicate with the Government of Austria. The fourth proposition was to the effect, that the King of Sardinia should be asked not to send any troops into Central Italy, until there should be an opportunity, by a new election, and a new vote of the States and provinces of Central Italy, to obtain a clear and unbiassed expression of their wishes with respect to their future destiny—that, if these wishes should be in fa- vour of annexation to Sardinia, then that restriction which it was proposed to ask the King of Sardinia to place upon himself, should be removed, and that there should be no objection made to his introducing his troops into the provinces of Central Italy ; these provinces, of course, having declared that they would no longer obey their former Sovereigns. The French Govern- ment have, accordingly, communicated with the Government of Austria on that subject, and no official communication of the decision of the Austrian Government has been received. But, this very morning, I received a de- catch, saying that a communication has been made to Count Rechberg, that Count Rechberg has proposed to take the Emperor's orders, and that he could not give any official answer without receiving the commands of his Sove- reign. With respect to ourselves, the Austrian Government, upon receiving a communication of the three propositions to which France has given her consent, objected that it was not in conformity with their views and opinions as to the rights of sovereignty, to make any absolute engagement with regard to non-intervention. With regard to the fourth proposal, they declared that they could not acknowledge, or recognise, a state of things in Italy which had arisen from insurrection. At the same time, Count Rechberg declared to Lord Adolphus Loftus, at Vienna, and Count Apponyi said to me in London, that the Austrian Government had no intention whatever to interfere with affairs in Italy ; that they were not going to send any troops beyond their own frontiers; but would confine themselves strictly to the defence of their own possessions, which were declared by treaty to form a portion of the dominions of the Emperor of Austria. These declarations, combined with the willingness of the French Government to entertain the first three proposals, give great hope that we shall arrive in time at a settle- ment of Italy, such that, although it may not be immediately acknowledged by all the powers of Europe, it may, at the same time, be a pacific settle- ment., and will give us reason to think there will be no renewal of the war. I should state that immediately after these communications with the govern- ments of France and Austria, I directed a communication to be made of the details of these proposals to the Governments of Paussia and Russia, for their information and subsequent consideration. With regard to Russia, I have not received any answer whatever. The Prussian Government have not made any objection to the proposals, but have delayed making a definite answer fill the opinions of France and Austria shall have been ascertained. The noble lord will, therefore, see that these are rather the beginnings of negotiations, and that I am authorized by her Majesty, at present, to lay the papers on the table."

FRANCE AND SAVOY.

The Marquis of NORMANDY brought under the notice of the House of Lords "the supposed project for transferring Savoy and Nice from Sar- dinia to France." Remarking that Lord John Russell, in another place, had stated that the Government had expressed their disapprobation of the proposed annexation, even so long ago as July, he expressed a hope that the House would cooperate with the Government in the line they had traced out. He pointed out that the French press, in which not one word ab- solutely displeasing to the Emperor is allowed to appear, has been directly lecturing the Piedmontese Government for daring to allow the Governor of Savoy to interfere with what they are pleased to call a popular demon- stration in Savoy. M. Grandguillot, "the publishing secretary of the Government," said the question of annexation arose from the develop- ment of public opinion, founded on the inexorable logic of facts—a for- midable logic, taken in connexion with a ruler of 600,000 armed men. He could not put implicit faith in the general belief that a compact ex- ists between the Emperor Napoleon and King Victor Emmanuel, but it would be more satisfactory if the French government would state posi- tively that, neither before nor since the war, have there been any engage- ments of the kind alluded to.

Lord Normanby said that since 1848, practical grievances, heavy taxation, the transport of a brave peasantry to fight beyond the Alps, may have mo- dified the loyalty of Savoy since 1848. Even in Milan, the taxation has in- creased 15 per cent, and the ladies apply those annoyances to Piedmontese officers, they used to apply to the Austrians. Lord Normanby is anxious that we should keep on the beat terms with France ; but he hopes that the treaties of 1815 will not be altered without the consent of all the Powers. He moved that an humble address to her Majesty, to represent to her Ma- jesty that this House has been informed that her Majesty's Government has made to the Government of France the objections entertained by her Ma- jesty's Government to the annexation of Savoy and Nice, which has been reported to be in contemplation ; to thank her Majesty for having conveyed that opinion to the Government of France, and to pray that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct her Government to use their best en- deavours to avert the transfer of the above named territories to the French empire.

Earl GRANVILLE said he did not know that he could communicate to the House any new information on the subject. " Yon are aware that, during the Administration of the noble Earl oppo- site, some intelligence was received respecting a treaty between France and Sardinia which contained a clause affecting Savoy. Lord Cowley was re- quested to ascertain whether or not the report which had reached our Go- vernment was accurate, and he was assured by Count Walewski that no treaty between France and Sardinia was in existence, though it might be considered necessary to make an offensive and defensive one. Count Walewski, however, did not seem to attach any importance to the rumour respecting Savoy. Lord Cowley concluded it was incorrect, and the subject was dropped. I may state to your lordsphips that the present Government of her Majesty have continued making friendly communications to the Governments of France and Sardinia with respect to the reports of a pro-

posed annexation of Savoy to the French empire. We have been told by the Imperial Government, that there is no question at present of the annexa- tion of Savoy ; that one of a great many points discussed before the war was the annexation of Savoy, under certain contingencies, but that those contingencies not having occurred, there is, at this moment, no question of annexation. The French Government adds, at the same time, that, in the event ;of Sardinia, with the addition of Lombardy and other provinces, becoming a powerful Italian State, they will feel themselves at liberty to consider what conditions they should attach to the sanction they might five to such an arrangement. From Turin, the answer we have received is that there is no engagement whatever between France and Sardinia res- pecting the annexation of Savoy; that it is not the intention of the King of Sardinia to yield, sell, or exchange Savoy ; that, if the Savoyards hare grievances to allege, they possess the constitutional right of petitioning the Sardinian Parliament ; that their petitions will be respectfully considered ; and their just complaints will be removed by appropriate legislative mea- sures sanctioned by the Crown."

It is the duty of England to speak to other Governments in a perfectly

open manner. What renders these communications more easy with France is, that it does not make any great difference to England whether France ac- quires certain strategical advantages on her southern frontier; but it is of paramount importance to England to do all she can to maintain the balance of power, and to prevent the commission of acts calculated to shake public confidence on the maintenance of peace. " Therefore, I think it would have been most unfriendly of her Majesty's Government if they had not laid be- fore that of France all the objections which, in an European sense, would arise to the aggrandizement of the French territory which, it was rumoured, was in contemplation. It is hardly necessary to dwell upon those objections to your lordships. No doubt France, occupying so magnificent a geogra- phical position as she does, and having so gallant a people, who have lately shown how able they are to defend themselves upon all occasions, cannot pretend to be jealous of a country like Piedmont, even though her power should be increased by the addition of a certain number of Italian subjects. On the other hand, there is no doubt that this question goes beyond the ex- tension to the Alps, and that, if you go to the Alps, there is no good reason why yoir should not, at a subsequent period, go beyond the Rhine. Were this not so, however, it is clear that the annexation of Savoy to France would give rise to great European difficulty." At Milan, the Emperor of

the French uttered the noble words that he did not make war for the ag- grandizement of France ; but, if Savoy were annexed to France, his enemies

would say that his policy is not consistent with his declaration. In con- clusion, Lord Granville said that the policy of the Government is not that of nationalities, nor of separate action. " Our simple policy—that which we have been urging upon other Powers, and in regard to which we have been met very cordially by France, and as cordially as we could expect by Au.- tria—is to avoid any armed interference in the affairs of the peninsula, and to secure that the Italians shall be left to judge what is good for themselves, and in what mode their ideas of liberty and independence can be best carried out." He hoped the motion would not be pressed, as it would rather weaken than strengthen the Government.

Earl GREY said the House;was obliged to Lord Normanby for bringing forward a subject the importance of which cannot be over-estimated.

Lord Granville's speech, reporting the unsatisfactory language of the

French Government, was a proof of the necessity for the motion. It is difficult to conceive that the annexation scheme has not gone further than

we could wish. If carried out on the grounds put forward in its support, it would be pregnant with evil to Europe, not in its direct but in its in- direct effects. If it were permitted that a few agitators should declare

that the opinion of the country is against a long established government,

and that government be not allowed to repress them with a strong hand, then, no government in Europe is safe for a day. We may be presumed

to have acted unwarrantably in 1848, when we would not suffer persons to put the question to the people of Ireland whether or not the dominion of England over that country should be continued.

" We are further told that the Alps are the natural boundary of France, and that the Savoyards are united to the French people by a community of language. Do these pleas diminish the danger ? My lords, we cannot help seeing whither such principles as those lead. Do not the majority of the people of Belgium speak French as well as the inhabitants of Savoy ? If such grounds as these are to be assigned for the desire of unjust territorial

acquisition on the part of France, what security has Europe that other ag- gressions of the seine kind may not be attempted ?" (Cheers.) Lord Grey

argued that the Emperor has a deep interest in abstaining from this project ; for, if it were carried out, it would produce in France and Europe a shock which would be felt by trade and industry for years to come. "We all know that statements have been made in the newspapers that this annexation is only the execution of a design long entertained, though studiously concealed. We know also that it has been asserted—I trust falsely—that this would be merely the carrying into effect of a secret stipulation entered into between Sardinia and France, some considerable time before the breaking out of the late war, by which Sardinia was to be put in possession of a great increase of territory in Italy, and, in return for it, France was to obtain Savoy and Nice. Now, my lords, if that were true—and 1 trust most sincerely that it is not—it would be impossible to find terms sufficiently strong to describe the iniquity and the immorality of the two parties concerned. When we remember the language that was used in France before the breaking out of the war—the solemn protestations of her desire, up to the last moment, to preserve peace, her asseverations, even after the war had made some pro- gress, that she had no selfish object in view, and had no intention of pro- moting her territorial aggrandizement, can we believe that all these as- sertions were made while, at the same time, there existed a private stipu- lation lair dividing the prey, entered into before the quarrel took place, and before the booty could be obtained ? If such a compact were entered into between France and Sardinia, I say it would be difficult to find, in the an- nals of the world, a case of more flagrant iniquity. I hope these things arc

not true. They have seemed to me so bad that I have tried as much 99pos- sible to reject them. I still do so, but I cannot deny that those who affirm

them appeal to the strongest circumstantial evidence in favour of their as- sertions. I hope that, in spite of appearances, the fact is not as stated ; but if, in addition to the circumstantial evidence we have had, should this de- sign of joining Savoy to France be carried into effect, it will be impossible, however anions we may be to do so, longer to retain our incredulity." He wished the Government had assented to the motion, because it would have strengthened their hands, but he did not desire it to be pressed against their wish. He regretted, however, that the Government had not obtained an authentic disavowal of this design before they signed the commercial treaty.

The Earl of SHAFTESIRID.Y in an eloquent speech, condemned the policy imputed to France, as abounding in dangerous elements of mischief, and

the annexation scheme as a most pernicious and disgraceful project. It

would be a step towards making the Mediterranean a French lake. Might not a demonstration be got up in Geneva, in favour of annexation

with France ? On the principle of this annexation, why should not Ger- many demand the Baltic provinces from Russia, and Russia the &lave- nic provinces from Austria ?

" Once let such a principle be recognized, and everything will be broken up; all things will be at sea ; and all to gratify the ambition and the policy

of one man, who thinks he has new schemes to propound, but whose object is to break up the whole European system established on the treaties of 1815. We are told that, if we will but assent to this proposition, the French Government will be content with annexing part and surrendering part to the Swiss Republic. But, is such a proposition as that to be entertained in the present day ? Is it not a revival of the wild principles that led to the partition of Poland, from the effects of which the nations of Europe are still writhing. If annexation is to take place—which God forbid—let Savoy be annexed bodily to the Republic of Switzerland—the country that has the

deepest interest in the peace of Europe, in the maintenance of treaties, and in the liberty of all nations. But, God forbid that anything of the kind should take place. I believe that nothing could be more prejudicial to the state of Europe; or more disastrous to the future peace of the world and the progress of civilization. (Cheers.) These are 'he general and detailed ar-

guments against such a measure ; but it rests on great and broad principles that far exceed in importance any arguments founded on details which can

be urged against it. To the latest hour of my life, I will protest—and, in doing so, I mu sure I speak the sentiments of the great mass of ley

countrymen against handing over a nation that enjoys free institutions under a despotic dynasty—(Cheers)—and against handing over a free people, bound hand and foot, to a country where they can enjoy no free expression of opinion, or, if guaranteed that expression of opinion, can exercise no power in giving it practical effect. I protest against a country where re- ligious liberty is proclaimed, being banded over to a nation where religious liberty, if proclaimed, is often violated ; and I protest also against the policy of treating nations like flocks of sheep, and making them, regardless of their consent, the subjects of barter and exchange. We, in this country, have long protested against the traffic in human flesh. I equally protest against any traffic in human or national rights. (Cheers.) I implore the Govern-

ment, in the name, of great principles, to use every effort in their power to

place before the Emperor of the French the fearful consequences of such a measure as this—to appeal to his judgment, to his sagacity, and to his better feelings, and I doubt not that he will be brought to a wise conclusion. But, be that as it may, let the Government go forth, representing the deep sense of the people of this country, acting on the convictions of justiee and the rights of nations, and I doubt not that then we shall succeed in the object we now have in view, and beat back, by the unanimous voice of the people of England, the consummation of this most pernicious and disgraceful pro- ject." (Cheers.) The Duke of NEWCASTLE rose to deprecate the use of the violent and irritating language the House had just heard, and to appeal to Lord Shaftesbury whether he was justified in calling on Sardinia to resist an- nexation by force. If Peers came forward to support the Government by violent speeches, the annexation will be carried out. The Govern- ment has done all it could by representations to prevent the annexation, and will continue to do so.

Lord BROUGHAM begged that the motion might not be pressed, as it was calculated to disturb the rood understanding between France and England. The opinion of the House was against annexation ; for, if it took place, what security is there for the boundary of the Rhine ? The Earl of DERBY said he felt some disappointment that the Duke of Newcastle had not added to his speech that the advice tendered by the Government has been conclusively satisfactory, and that the mischievous project is not likely to be carried into effect. The late Government fore- saw the consequences that Sardinia and Savoy would have to apprehend from the outbreak of hostilities. Those consequences are now more dearly seen ; and he hoped the unanimous opinion of Europe will pre- vent a dangerous measure. The debate, or conversation of that evening, would be a strong element in the preservation of peace. Like preceding speakers, Lord Derby showed that, by consenting to such acts, the Emperor would contradict the liberal sentiments he had uttered, and suffer in honour and character. Sardinia would incur on indelible dis- grace in giving up Savoy. He would not attribute such an act to Sardinia, but would trust that she would declare her inability to comply with the wishes of France on the ground of her treaty engagements with Europe. As to France, it is not her armed force, nor the fact that she is ruled by one man, which creates apprehension. " No, it is this which causes alarm,— that she has never yet been able to succeed in inspiring Europe with perfect confidence in the steadiness of her policy, or in the pacific character of her

intentions I must, at the same time, observe, my lords, that a great opportunity is now afforded to the Emperor of the French to maintain un- impaired his character for scrupulous adherence to the principles of good faith. Let him, then, declare that he concurs with her Majesty's Govern- ment in the view which they take of the evils which would be likely to flow from any infraction of those territorial limits which have been so long es- tablished, and that he desires the maintenance of the balance of power and the peace of Europe. Let him prove to the world that he went to war—as he declared it to be his intention to do—for the liberation of Italy from fo- reign control, and not with the view to wield himself that power the exer- cise of which he condemned in another ; let him show that he respects England, and that right of self-government and independent action, which we freely recognized in the case of that mighty empire over which he reigns by the choice of its people ; let him make it plain to Europe that neither upon the side of the Rhine nor the Alps is he to be tempted by any vain idea as to what may seem to him the natural boundaries of France, to depart from those just principles which are far more patent than any natural limits whatsoever—(Cheers); let him frankly and avowedly take that course, not under menace, for menace no nation would venture to offertim ; but acting on the friendly representations of a country with which it is his boast that he is on terms of close intimacy and alliance, whose policy he de- clares to be identical with his own, and with which he does not hesitate to announce that he acts hand in hand and side by aide. (Cheers.) Let 'him my lords, I repeat, pursue that course ; let him proclaim to the world that no violation of the existing boundaries of Europe is to be apprehended at his hands, and that he has given England the most solemn assurances that, in common with her, he will proceed upon the principle of absolute and entire non-interference with the affairs of other countries. If he so acts, then indeed, my lords, will he have nobly availed himself of the opportu- nity which is now presented to him of reaping that best and most priceless fruit of the victories which he has won—the establishment over the minds of his fellow-men of that moral authority which, unlike his great military power, is only to be attained by the observance of good faith, by scrupulous integrity, and by a strict adherence to the principles of justice and the rights of nations." (Loud cheers.)

Lord SHApresnerRy expressed regret for having used the word "phy- sical," in describing the policy of resistance which he recommended to Sardinia.

Lord STRAreonn DE REDCLIFFE followed the same course pursued by the other speakers, and spoke with approval of the language used in the debate, as not inconsistent with the language which so great an assembly is entitled, nay, bound to use.

In the course of this debate, a just tribute had been paid to the honour and the consistency of the great FE1 an now at the head of the French empire. As far as the direct relations between the two countries were concerned, this tribute, was no doubt, just and well-founded. But, at the same time, no one could help observing, that during the last few years there had been cer- tain transactions, by the side, so to speak, of the direct and public relations between the two countries, which had excited astonishment, combined with some degree of distrust, not only here, but throughout Europe. When these matters were brought before Parliament, and opinions were frankly interchanged there respecting them, he thought their Lordships had a right to expect that, instead of being treated as causes of offence or of quarrel by other Powers, these opinions should, on the contrary, be regarded as arising from a just sense of duty, not only towards our own country, but towards Europe at large, and from a sincere desire for the continuance of that peace which was of so much importance to ua and the whole world. This free ex- pression of opinion on all subjects affecting our foreign relations, was not only of value in preventing bloodshed, but in extending also those greet commercial interests which strengthened the friendship of nations ; and he hoped that the present discussion would so be regarded, and would not fail of that happy effect.

The Marquis of NORMANBY consented to withdraw the motion, and thus the debate came to an end.

ENDOWED ScHoors.

Lord CRAiewortni moved the second reading of the Endowed Schooli, Bill. This measure is intended to remedy a grievance felt by Dissenters. Up to a recent period Dissenters were trustees of endowed schools, and their children shared the benefits of those schools without being com- pelled to attend the Church services or receive Church instruction. A few years ago the question was raised whether this was legal, and it was found not to be so. This unexpected state of the law created the grievance. Lord Cranworth went minutely into the legal history of the question. The remedy he proposes is, that unless Dissenters are ex- pressly excluded in the trust deed, the trustees shall be enabled to intro- duce and act upon the "conscience clause" ; and that Dissenters may be elected trustees without any restriction as to usage. This latter pro- vision is the point in which the bill differs from a measure recommended by a Committee of the Lower House. Their proposal was that the appointment of Dissenters as trustees should be limited to cases where there had been a usage of Dissenters acting as trustees for five and twenty years. This, however, might act injuriously, since five and twenty years might elapse without the appointment of a trustee. In the debate which arose, Lord CHELMSFORD expressed regret that intolerant persons should have raised the question, and thus have cur- tailed the privileges which Dissenters had enjoyed for centuries. He objected, however, to the bill, thinking that its scope was too extensive, and that it would take in many schools undoubtedly belonging to the Church of England, such as the National and other schools. The bill strikes at the root orthe rules of prescription by which property is held, and, by abolishing the restriction of usage, would enable Dissenters to become trustees of property with which they had never been connected. He would not move the rejection of the bill, but would support any Peer who did move it. The Earl of CARmAnvoN took the same line. The Loan CHANCELLOR said the simple question was, should the bill be read a second time. Those who dielike its details would have ample oppor- tunity to alter them. The Bishop of London assented to the second reading on condition that the bill only applied to " endowed schools." The Earl of DERBY admitted the existence of a grievance ; thought the bill went too far ; regretted the unfortunate interpretation of the law which prevented the Court of Chancery from acting in accordance with the practice of former times, and agreed to the second reading, wishing to remedy the admitted grievances of the Dissenters under the new in- terpretation of the law. Earl GRArtvu.LE voted for the second reading. The Bishop of OXFORD, willing to redress admitted grievances, but not trench on the rights of the Church, did the same.

The bill was read a second time.

CHURCH-RATES.

The Wednesday sitting was devoted to a debate on the well-worn sub- ject of church-rates. Sir JOHN TRELAWNY moved the second reading of his Church-Rates Abolition Bill. He did so in a speech taking a wide and comprehensive survey of the whole question, and combining the old arguments with new illustrations. He showed that the weight of authority is in favour of a settlement. Church-rates are not, as it is alleged, a permanent, but a vague and defective fund, and, therefore the House was not asked to abolish a fixed fluid fora precarious substitute. Church-rates are not, like tithes, a tax upon land, recoverable by civil process ; they are a tax on persons. It was said, most indiscreetly, that the poor derive great bene- fits from the fund, whereas there is in the churches very small accommo- dation for the poor. Sir John showed that there were other church funds which might be applied for the purposes of the rate, and cited facts warranting the belief that the deficiency could be made up by voluntary contributions. Sir CHARLES DouGLAs seconded the motion.

The opposition speakers were Lord ROBERT MONTAGUE, who moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months ; Mr. R. Lose, who made his maiden speech against the bill ; Mr. KER SErmica, Mr. IfunBARD, and Mr. DISRAELI. The tenour of their arguments was that the agitation had a political object—the separation of the Church from the State ; that conscientious scruples had nothing to do with it ; that many Dissenters do not desire exemption ; and that where reliance is placed on voluntary contributions, churches fall into decay. Mr. Dm- RAELI advanced a novel argument against the bill. It calls upon the cen- tral authority to interfere with the parochial constitution of the country.

" It is recommended only upon speculative grounds ; it is no longer brought forward as a redress for practical grievances, and there is no necessity whatever for entering into those speculative discussions, be- cause, totally irrespective of all other considerations, it is clearly in evidence before the House that this is a proposition for a tyrannical interference by the central authority of the State with the parochial constitution of the country, I shall give to it a hearty and an absolute refusal." (Cheers.) Sir GEORGE LEWIS supported the second reading. He thought that a substitute might be found in pew-rents and voluntary contributions.

On a division, the second reading was carried by 263 to 234. The comparative smallness of the majority elicited shouts of delight from the Opposition.

PUBLICITY AND THE DIVORCE COURT.

Lord Joao' MANNERS moved for leave to bring in a bill to enable the Divorce Court to sit with closed doors. His reason for this step was, that details of trials, as corrupt as the publications of Holywell Street, are sown broadcast through the land in the newspapers. The publication of these trials not only injures public morality, but it prevents persons who shrink from the ordeal, from asking relief in the Court, and thereby does them injustice. The evil is flagrant and increasing. The power of sitting with closed doors is possessed by the House of Lords, the Eccle- siastical Courts, the Court of Chancery, and the analogous courts in Ire- land and Scotland, and he asked, in the interests of morality and decency, that it might be extended to the Divorce Court. Mr. EDWIN JAMES met the motion by moving " the previous question." The measure has been already fully discussed, and disposed of. It is said that the Lord Chancellor can sit with closed doors. He can, with the consent of the parties, hear cases in a private room, but he cannot close his court. Why did not Lord John Manners propose to extend his bill to the Police Courts and the Criminal Courts? Mr. James held that publicity is vital to the administration of justice, and declared that it would be better to rely on the good sense of the press than pass this bill.

Mr. Rom it:ex quoted Swift—" the nicest persons have the nastiest ideas." The bill originated in the feeling possessed by the American lady whose modesty was offended by the naked legs of the pianoforte. The Court of Divorce does not merely affect private rights. It not only determines that a man shall be divorced from his wife, but declares why, and by that means affects public morality. If the Court were shut up, one great means of influencing the public would be taken away. Another groat object which had been effected by the publicity of proceedings iu the Di- vorce Court was the dispelling of the idea that immoral practices were con- fined to the upper and lowest classes of society ; and it had been shown that, among the middle class, what was particularly recognized by English- men as immorality was as rife as in any other, and he thought this a very great benefit—(laughter)—he hated shams, and he believed the morality of the middle class to be as great a sham as had ever existed. There ought, then, to be a degree of healthy hardihood in a man's character which would enable him to bear this exposure. The noble lord had stated that it was impossible to put a newspaper into the hands of one's wife, or daughter. This statement he denied altogether ; and ho maintained that nothing had been more creditable than the conduct of the public press on this question. They had the most filthy details before them—ay, and from the middle class too, and they had not shocked any decent man's or woman's mind by what they had disclosed. One great use of a court of justice is to serve as a guide to the morality of the people. If the proceedings were secret, they would seem to be a thousand times worse than anything the public was likely to read. The motion of the noble lord, therefore, though made with the best possible intentions—hell was paved with them—would do the greatest possible mischief, and he should oppose it.

Lord ROBERT CECIL briefly repeated the arguments of Lord John Manners.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS said the bill peoposed to create a privilegium for the Court of Divorce. It does not propose to alter the law, and include all proceedings in criminal courts and the police courts, but singles out the Divorce Court for exceptional legislation. Yet, cases far more gross occur in the administration of the criminal law than occur in the Divorce Court. Women and children are sometimes excluded from criminal courts, but no attempt is made to sit with closed doors, or exclude re- porters. Why this differential legislation ? Had a general measure been brought in, he might have voted for the second reading, but not deeming an exceptional measure necessary to protect public morals he should vote for the amendment.

Mr. Mariam did not deny the existence of the evil, but declared the remedy to be unconstitutional. It is for the interest of the public that they should know the causes that led to the disruption of the marriage- tie. Mr. lime/erns MaceunaY supported the motion, on the ground that the publication of trials injures public morality, and operates as a denial of justice. The amendment was carried by 268 to 83.

THE BALLOT.

Mr. THOMAS DIINCOMBE moved for leave to bring in a bill to provide that, at the next elections for Gloucester and Wakefield, the votes of electors may be taken by ballot. Mr. Duncombe supported his motion by an amusing speech. His argument was that the Corrupt Practices Act had failed ; that the severer remedies proposed would also fail, and that the true remedy is secret voting. Let the experiment be tried. The motion was opposed by Sir GEORGE LEWIS. Was the proposal intended as a punishment upon two boroughs, menaced with a suspension of their electoral privileges. (Cries of "No !") At least, it is a visitation —a penal visitation. Is secret voting a fitting remedy for bribery ? He had always understood it was intended to cure the vice of intimidation. That might be done could secrecy be insured ; but secrecy cannot be in- sured, even in America. He:thought the experiment inexpedient. If the remedy is good, apply it generally.

Mr. CROSSLEY said the argument is inconsistent. If the experiment failed, it would be an argument against the general application of the remedy. Mr. Mires objected to the experiment. As long as there are men content to represent beer and bank-notes, all attempts to stop bribery will be futile. Mr. Be-wore-1r said the ballot would be a screen to bribery and corruption. The proposal would not be a punishment but a reward bestowed upon Gloucester and Wakefield.

He would like to know whether the House was dealing with this matter with clean hands ; whether the more guilty :party was the comparatively poor and ignorant man who took 5/. for his vote, or the gentleman of die- tinction who abandoned his political principles, and was guilty of gross po- litical tergiversation in return for a place and perhaps a salary of 6000T. a year? (Laughter and cries of " Name r) The name was legion. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. BONHAM CARTER thought the measure moderate and judicious. It would restrain both bribery and intimidation.)

Lord Penman-es has always opposed the ballot on principle, and could not consent to apply as a remedy what he thinks is an evil. Mr. Cwrimens, speaking from actual knowledge of the working of the ballot in Australia, assured the House than it had prevented bribery and intimidation ; that the voting was secret, but that in case of alleged ir- regularities it was easy to ascertain on scrutiny how a man voted. It works best at single elections, because where more than one person is to be elected there is a tendency on the part of electors to vote only for their friends.

On a division, the motion was negatived by 149 to 118.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Sir Frrzawr KELLY introduced and explained the provisions of his bill for the prevention of bribery at elections and the punishment of offenders. [Its provisions have been already explained to our readers.] Ho moved for leave to bring in the bill.

Sir FRANCIS GoLnssun suggested that a provision should be introduced, enabling a defeated candidate, who proved bribery against his opponent, himself being free from such charges, to obtain the seat. Mr. Eesviar

James pointed out parts of the bill which he considered:impracticable. Mr. CROSS desired to get rid of paid agents, canvassers, and messengers. (Cheers.) Mr. MALLNS said that the practice of professional men receiv- ing fees from candidates is highly objectionable. They may call it a re- tainer if they like ; Mr. Malin calls it a bribe. (Cheers.)

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

Mr. V.L.Nsrrrucr, moved for the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the following questions—

"1. Whether it is practicable to introduce a new Civil Service upon a cheaper footing ; 2. Whether it is not desirable to abolish the Legislative Council, at Calcutta, and the Supreme Councils of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, and substitute a Legislative Council for each Presidency ; 3. Whether it is not advisable to amalgamate the Supreme and Sudder Courts; and 4. Whether it is not expediegt to put a stop to the existing system of raising loans, at the present high rates of interest." Mr. Vansittart, in his speech, supported the affirmative of each propo- sition. • Sir CuNRLFS AV oon, taking the questions mooted in succession, showed that no advantage could be derived from the proposed inquiry. The first question, has not escaped the attention of the Government ; inqui- ries have been made in India, and the results examined at home. Some saving may be effected, but nothing like a sweeping reduction is possible. As to the Legislative Council, Sir Charles has serious doubts whether it is desirable to keep it up in its present form. It seems desirable that it should be put an end to, and high officers placed at the head of each de- partment, all of them forming a sort of Cabinet Council for the Go- vernor-General. Although it might scent unconstitutional, he thought that, practically, the legislation must be left in the hands of the Governor- General. The three first questions referred to, arc all either under in- quiry or about to be the subject of legislation. The loan question had been discussed, and nothing need be said about it.

BAILLIE drew a deplorable picture of the condition of British India. Practically, in a financial point of view, it was, ho said, in a state of insolvency. A vast portion of the finest land in India, formerly in the highest state of cultivation, had become a desert waste. But the great Indian difficulty, in his opinion, was not a financial one ; it arose from our system of administration, which was odious to the people, and had been one of the chief causes of the late rebellion in the north-western provinces, the temporary success of which had been the reselt of the policy pursued in the Punjaub. The result of our policy, as regarded the present position of India, was, that we were governing that country, where we had 100,000 European troops, as Austria governed Lombardy —a system which could never last. He believed that, if a different sys- tem of government was adopted in India, half the number of European troops now in India might be dispensed with. Colonel SYKES observed, that the revenues of India had increased in a greater ratio than the inte- rest on the debt, and that the pressure upon the resources of India was in reality not heavy. In the present condition of India, with no native prince who could resist us, and the people disarmed, we did not require 100,000 European troops there ; 50,000 would suffice. Colonel PERCY HERBERT said the general conclusion he drew, from what he saw and heard in India, was most favourable to the administration of our coun- trymen for the last hundred years.

After further debate, the motion was withdrawn.

ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

Mr. BYNG, on Monday, called attention to the " outrages " at St. George's-in-the-East, and asked whether Sir George Lewis intended to take steps for preventing the repetition of such scenes for the future.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS demurred to Mr. Byng's designating as outrages the "scandalous scenes" in the parish church of St. George's-in-the- East. There had been no forcible breach of the peace. The police have no power of summary interference, in cases of noisy disturbance in places of public worship. All steps necessary to maintain public peace, have been taken. Sir George can go no further. He regrets that the mode of performing public services at St. George's-in-the-East, which the in- cumbent has thought fit to adopt, should be such as to create so much dissatisfaction.

The same evening, the Earl of DERBY said he should ask whether the Government have taken any, and if so, what steps, to check " the dis- graceful exhibitions" on Sundays at St. George's-in-the-East, which, whatever may be the errors of the clergy, have arrived at such a point, that it is impossible for any Government to submit to this constant vio- lation of all order and decency. Lord BROLIGHA3I quite agreed that this " weekly nuisance" should be stopped. The question of putting it down, has nothing to do with the supposed errors of the elergy. Be the clergymen ever so much in the wrong, this does not furnish an atom of excuse, or even of extenuation, for such scandalous exhibitions.

On Tuesday, the Earl of DERBY fulfilled his promise. Declaring that he had no feeling in common with those clergymen who introduce into the simple forms of the Church, novelties unpalatable to the bulk of their congregations ; that he could not understand how any right-thinking clergyman could incur the frightful responsibility of driving the congre- gation from his Church ; making every allowance for the parishioners, he said that the course pursued by the clergy in St. George-in-the-East affords no palliation for the disgraceful scenes that have occurred in the church. He had been told that the rites and ceremonies at that church did not differ from what is the continual practice at St. Paul's and West- minster Abbey ; but he, for one, did not think a full choral service suited to parochial churches, and, if it were introduced into his parish church he should prefer attending where the service is more simple, and to him more devotional. He had been informed, however, that the practice had existed for fifteen years in St. George's-in-the-East, and he thought that, where two services are conducted in the usual form, and a third with a full choir, there is ample room for compromise.

Describing the riots in the church, he said he hoped the answer of Lord Granville would not be like that given " elsewhere "—[by Sir George Lewis]—that Government had done their utmost, that they are not prepared to take ulterior steps ; and that it is matter for regret that the clergyman's proceedings should have led to this unhappy state of things Had the Government inquired into the state of the law, ascer- tained whether it is sufficient to put an end to scenes so disgraceful, and if so, to enforce that law. It is the duty of the Government to stop these disgraceful brawls, if they have the power ; and, if not, invoke Parlia- ment to devise a remedy.

Earl GRANvILLE concurred with the remarks of Lord Derby, touching the proceedings of the clergy and the nature of the disturbances ; but, de- clining to state what the law is, dwelt on the difficulty. in the way of interference by the police. The police are ordered to give every assist-

ante to prevent the repetition of the disturbances, and, failing that, to bring the offenders before a Magistrate.

Lord BROUGHAM said the real difficulty was that what had been done in the church did not amount to a breach of the peace. He strongly re- commended that the police should enter the church, detect the real in- stigators of disorder, and interfere if there is a riot. If it were difficult to obtain effectual assistance, he hoped the Bishop would close the church. The Bishop of LONDON said that two distinct laws have been violated, the 1st of William and Mary. cap. 18, and the 1st of Mary, cap. 3. Un- der each, the offenders might be punished. The difficulty is how to identify the offenders, and he trusted the police would take steps to find them out.

" The noble and learned lord has requested me, if all other measures fail, to close the church. That course, ns your lordships are aware, has been already taken by me, and I did hope that the opportunity for reflection thus afforded, would have led both parties to consider the duty of forbearance, and that it would have resulted in a cessation of these disgraceful proceedings. I have no hesitation in saying that, if both parties had been willing to place the matter in my hands, I could have settled it without difficulty. I do not seek to magnify my office, but, if the clergymen of that church will do what I feel confident I would do in their places, and would request me, as their superior officer, to take the matter into toy own hands, declaring themselves willing to abide by my decision as to what should be the services in the church, I believe we could put an end to these distressing occurrences."

VOLUNTEER CORPS.

In answer to Lord who made some remarks inaudible in the gallery, Earl DE GREY AND Rirox said that the Volunteers offered their unpaid voluntary services, and that it would be inconsistent with their character, to become a charge on the revenue. The present Government has guaranteed a rifle to every effective member of a volunteer corps. But Lord Vivian proposed that they should be supplied with clothing, targets, ammunition, and, in the case of artillerymen, that they should be paid. Now, it would be more consistent with their origin and charac- ter, to help them in their drill. An inspector has already been appoint- ed, and six assistants are to he appointed. The Government contemplate appointing paid and efficient adjutants, and allowing sergeants, dis- charged from the Army to act as drill-sergeants, and to count every two month's service with volunteers as one month for pension. They can- not, however, find volunteers in clothing, butts, ammunition, still less pay volunteer artillerymen for volunteer drill. Their efficiency may be raised to a high pitch on the voluntary system, and the present state of efficiency and aptitude of many regiments, has already excited the sur- prise and admiration of military men of high rank.

CONVEYANCE or VOTERS. Mr. COLLIER has obtained leave to introduce a bill prohibiting the payment of the expenses of conveying voters to the poll.