Vrhutto auh rarer itigo in Varliaurtnt.

Horse or LORDS. Monday, May 13.—Ragged Sdhools ; Lord Shaftesbury's Griev- ance—Princess Alice's Annuity Bill read a first time.

Tuesday, May 14.—San Domingo; Lord Brougham's Question.

Thursday, May 15.—The Neutrality Proclamation ; Lord Ellenborough's Question. Friday, May 17.—Royal Assent to the Princess Alice Annuity, the Charitable Uses, the Admiralty Court Jurisdiction, the Law of Foreign Countries, the Queen's Prison (Ireland), the Royal Marine Barracks (Stonehonse, Devon), the Post Oflice Savings Banks, and Marriage Validity Bill& House or Coumoxs. Monday, May 13.—The Case of Mr. Steuart ; Mr. Roebuck's Motion—Customs and Inland Revenue Bill; debate on the second reading ad- journed.

Tuesday, May 14.—Marriage Law of Ireland; Sir Hugh Cairn's Motion—" Count out"

Wednesday, May 15—New Trials in Criminal Cases Bill; thrown out—Piers and Harbours ; Mr. Paull's Bill read a second time—Reformatory Schools (Scotland) BM read a second time—Fictitious Savings Banks Bill committed.

Thursday, May 16.—Cnstoms and Inland Revenue Bill read a second time—Excise and Stamps Bill read a second time—Volunteer Tolls Exemption (No. 2) Bill read a second time—Salmon Fisheries Bill read a first time.

Friday, May 17.—Education in Ireland ; Mr. Whiteside's Motion—Persecution in Spain ; Lord Palmerston's Statement.

THE BUDGET BELL.

Mn. GIADSTONE moved ea Monday the second reading of the Cus- toms and Inland Revenue Bill, which, while it reimposes the income- tax and the tea and sugar duties, at the same time repeals the paper duty. This led to another debate on the budget; the point raised being its form.

Mr. MAcnoliocw said that the question had assumed a political cha- racter; it was a constitutional question. Last year Mr. Gladstone brought in a bill to repeal the paper duty; it passed the Commons but was rejected by the Lords. This year he had brought in a similar bill, but annexed to a Bill of Supply. Such a course had been at- tempted once before. In the reign of Queen Anne, a bill against occasional conformity was tacked to a Money Bill, but it was rejected. The Government proposed to do now what a private member sought to do then.

Putting the privileges of the House of Commons at the highest point, be ad- mitted that the Commons originates money bills and that the Lords may reject but not alter them. But then, to annex a measure distasteful to the House of Lords to a Money Bill, is an invasion of the privileges of that House. In fact, it is a case of " tacking." It might be said that the repeal of the duty was a part of the original plan, or that it was in pari materik and therefore not a case of tacking. In 1676, a bill appropriating the Customs to the use of the Navy, and at the same time for raising a supply to provide twenty ships, was rejected. It was argued that the tack ought not to be permitted. In 1702 the Lords adopted a standing order, enforced to this day, that the annexation of any clause or dauses to Bills of Supply, the matter of which is foreign to or different from the matter of the Bill of Supply, is imparliamentary and tends to the destruction of the constitution of the country. Since then no successful case of tacking has

ever arisen. lh 1807 " the Lords laid aside an annual Malt Bill on account of a tack—a clause to legalize certain Exchequer Bills charged upon the malt and pension duties of last year." The Commons acquiesced, and a new Malt. Bill was ordered in. Mr. Macdonogh contended that the sending of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill separately to the Lords last year was that they might concur in that sacrifice of permanent revenue, and therefore that this was also a precedent. Then he urged that the paper duty repeal clauses of the bill before the House was a tack, because the repeal of those duties was foreign to the primary subject of a Bill of Supply. How could the Queen give her assent to this double bill? The word "grant" governed the whole, and was it come to this that a Commons grant was to repeal a law by their own power? Glancing at the precedents on the other side, Mr. Macdonogh challenged the House to point out an instance in which a bill that had been rejected by the House of Lords had afterwards been introduced as part of a Bill of Supply for the current year. If one such attempt had been made it had been made unsuccessfully, and ho had proved that " tack- ing'other subjects to Bills of Supply had always been condemned by the consti- tution. In conclusion, he appealed to Mr. Gladstone to retreat from his position, not revive the quarrel of last year, and not to attempt to coerce the House of Lords.

Sir JAMES Gasliam joined in the congratulations which Mr Mac- donogh, he observed, was receiving from his friends upon the able argument he had addressed to the House. Sir James himself spoke then because at a later period he should not be able to do so. [He was. suffering from indiposition.]

The discussion on the budget had cleared the ground. The surplus was ad- mitted, and it was also admitted that remission of taxation was desirable. The Paper Detty Abolition Bill passed the House last year, but the Lords, exercising a right inherent in them, rejected it. While he differed, with regret, from many friends in that view, at the same time he thought the policy of the exercise of that right was doubtful. Mr. Msedonogh had quoted precedents, but he could not quote a precedent iu which the House of Lords ever before rejected a Supply Bill on purely financial groends; and if they were acting within their right, still they were exercising an extraordinary right unprecedented in our constitutional history. In maintaining that opinion Sir James held the Government to Wright in thacourse they have now adopted. The House of Lords adopted a novel course. The time has arrived for the Commons not to adopt a new course but to refer to an ancient practice, a practice which has obtained from the revolution down- wards. in 1757 Mr. Pitt produced and carried a bill both enacting and repealing taxation. In 1800, again by the authority of Mr. Pitt, to the Act of Union were tacked two schedules of countervailing duties. In 1808 there was not a double but a triple enactment all in oue bill. It was passed for one year, and passed annually until 1822, when an important change took place, and the malt duty was made permanent The House should remark that by making perpetual large branches of revenue, it loses its constitutional hold over the Intense of Lords • and the experience of last year shows that the Commons should retrieve their position. Sir James traced in detail the adoption of the practice of making duties perpetual, and ascribed to it the weakened position of the Commons and the unprecedented step of the Lords last year. He did not wish to attack the House of Lords ; he would not support the Government if he believed the practical effect of their conduct would he to bring on a collision; but he believed that conduct to be wise and just, and he showed that it was in accordance with the recommendations of the committee on precedents last year, and with the resolutions unanimously adopted by the House. He showed that the Commons have a right to grant and tae Lords the right to assent, quoting the forms of bills of supply to illustrate his position. " It is open to the Lords to reject the whole, or, if they think fit, they may alter a part of it ; but, accord- ing to the well-known principle, altering a portion is equal to the rejection of the whole. The. House of Lords cannot take out a certain portion. They cannot refuse to remit, or refuse to reduce. The time, the manner, and the measure being in our hands, it is sent up for assent or rejection. We do not fetter the power of assenting or rejecting, but we du say they must not partly alter. (Cheers.) I do not wish to enter on the invidious subject of the party character of the question; but I must say, if hon. gentlemen opposite—strong in this House, stronger in the other House—think the time has arrived when confidence should be withdrawn from the Administration, I can conceive no more fair or legitimate opportunity, for expressing that opinion than by a rejec- tion of the budget, either iltlirowingout this bill'or altering it, which will have the same effect. (Cheers.) But if that great party he not prepared to incur the responsibility of a course so decided, then I say, as good subjects, It behoves them to allow theexecutive Government to deal with the finances of the year on their responsibility in the manner which shall seem to them most just and expedient. (C/seers.) I have heard a sort of hustings' cry, 'Down with the paper duty, and up with the tea duty.' Now, I do not wish to raise an invidious hustings cry ; but if we are to have a hustings' cry—if that fatal issue should be joined, 'Up with the House of Lords, and down with the House of Commons ;' if that issue be taken, I do not think that gentlemen on this side need be afraid of going to their constituents on that cry, and I am very much mistaken if the power and authority of the House of Commons would not be confirmed by a large majority." (Cheers.) Lord Jolts MA.NNERS said Sir James Graham had ended his speech by aparty challenge, but he had not answered the call made by Mr. Macdonogh, for any instance in which, the House of Lords having rejected a bill, the Commons had sent it back to them tacked to a Supply Bill. " He hail admitted there was no such precedent, but said the time had come when the House should make one. Considering the Budget simply in its finan- cial aspect, and granting all the postulates of Mr. Gladstone, the result was, that in order to repeal the duty upon paper, which was not felt by the people, our toiling millions were to continue to pay war duties upon their tea and sugar. Taking into view political considerations, lie asked whether the House was jus- tified In sacrificing permanently a great and increasing source of revenue, the consequence of which would be the odious infliction of an increased income-tax. Every fresh duty repealed would have the effect of riveting the taxes retained, and the duty on paper, he insisted, had not, in the opinion of the country, an equal claim to remission, compared with other taxes."

Sir F: GOLDSMID cited a passage from a speech made by Mr. Disraeli last year, in which he had recommended Mr. Gladstone to submit his whole scheme in one bill : "I should have liked to have seen the addi- tional twopence of Income tax set down in the same bill that was to repeal the duties on paper."

Af.k. RaLT said the first reason alleged in support of the bill was, that it was usual, or not unusual, to send up such a measure. But he ventured to say that, though the House had the power to adopt such a course, it was a novel measure. The second reason assigned was that it was necessary and convenient to send up the financial scheme of the Government as a whole. But the scheme might be as conve- niently submitted to the House of Lords by separate bills as by a single bill. It had been admitted that that House -had exercised last year an undoubted right; if so, it would not be a wise or just exercise of power on the part of the House of Commons to send up the mea- sure which the Lords had rejected in a new form that would bar them of their right.

Mr. COLL= insisted that the bill was the only course open to the House, if they were determined to maintain, as they were bound to their own privileges, and at the same time to avoid a colli-

sion with the House of Lords. The resolutions adopted unanimously by the House of Commons last year were a protest against a procwd-

ing of the other House, which was deemed an interference with their

Heand the constitutional argument was thereby concluded_ He cited a precedent in 1695, whch had not been referred to by Mr.. Macdonogh, where five resolutions for remitting and imposing taxes were included in one bill, which was passed by the Lords without

objection. The House of Commons had always dealt with a Budget in the manner most convenient to itself, and he contended that the placing all the main parts of the Budget in one bill was legal, consti- tutional, conformable to precedents, and a carrying out of the resolu- tions of the last year. Mr. WHITESIDE expressed his surprise that a member of the bar (Mr. Collier) should, after the argument• of the Nestor of the House of. Lords, say that the rejection of the Paper Duty Bill last year was un- constitutional. Taking:up Sir James Graham's argument, he said it amounted to this, that. the Lords had a right, to reject, but that it was

for the Commons to prevent the exercise of it, to do indirectly what they could not do directly. Mr. Whiteside declared' the precedent or 1787 no real precedent, and quoted Mr. Fox and Bishop Barnett against "tacking:" Admitting that bymaking taxes perpetual, which_ he said was wise, the taxes were in the power of the Lords, he in-

sisted that the way to get them out of their power was to submit the question of repeal in a legal and constitutional way. Mr. Addington

acted so when he repealed the Income tax ; he did not put a clause- repealing the tax into a bill imposing dirties on tea and sugar; her brought in a separate bill. If you could deal. with. perpetual revenue in a bill concerning duties on chicory and pepper, he contended that it would not be right to do so, because it would interfere with the exercise of the privileges of the Lords. Mr. Whiteside declared the present to be an instance of tacking, unfair, unwise, unreasonable ;, and an attempt to coerce and insult the House of Lords.

Lord Jonpr RUSSELL said Mr. Whiteside had argued with all his former ingenuity, but even his ingenuity cannot argue away the con- stitutional privileges of the House of Commons. As to the "tack."' nothing. is more established than that foreign matters cannot be intro- duced by way of a tack into a.money bill; it has been abandoned. for more than a century and there can be no question of its revival. The arguments against the tack, therefore, did not apply to the questions

before the House, which was whether several measures of finance may be put into one bill, and whether, if so, it would be expedient to ex-

ercise the right. As to the first question, honourable gentlemen seemed to have forgotten the resolutions agreed to last year, the first of which, said that it is the privilege of the Commons to grant supplies, and the limitation as to matter, manner, measure, and time, is solely to them. Therefore the House can place in manner, matter, and amount of taxes.

Houseto be remitted. What are the precedents for this? The House of Lords questioned whether Mr. Pitt had a surplus, and re- quested to see the estimates of income and expenditure ;int Mr. Pitt said that to grant the request would be inconsistent with the privileges.

of the Commons. The next year, 1787, he framed a budget, placing 3700 resolutions in one bill; objections were raised in the Lords, but it was answered, as in the present ease, that all those matters belonv.d to oue arrangement, and the bill passed. Again: When Mr. Pitt in-- troduced the Income tax, he included it in one bill with the repeal of certain increased assessed taxes. In 1807, in a bill dealing with ex-

cise duties in Ireland, there was a clause abolishing the duty on beer and ate in that country. That is exactlyin conformity with the course proposed-; " we are proceeding according to former precedents." Then_ came the question whether it was a convenient mode of proceeding. Admitting that the Lords have a right to reject a bill sent up to them, it was for the House to consider what might happen in future. Admitting that in the

case of last year, " which they thought an extreme case, they might exercise

such a right, is it desirable that, having been successful in doing that for which. there is no precedent whatever—viz., rejecting a bill which gave great relief to-

the people, and which the House of Commons thought compatible with sufficient provision for the year—having done that extraordinary act, is it desirable that we should admit the House of Lords to equal functions with ourselves with

respect to imposing and remitting taxes? (Cheers.) Because, that is the- extent to which the hon. gentleman goes. That was the extent to which the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud went last year. Although lion. gentlemen on the other side are not so frank as my right hon. friend the member for Stroud, that is evidently the point at which they are aiming. They say the House of Commons is rash, is inconsiderate, is ill-advised in the use of its privi- leges, and it is necessary to send to the House of Lords the financial arrange- ments piecemeal, in order that the House of Lords, by clipping and cutting,

accepting one thing and rejecting another, may have the whole financial arrange- ments settled, not by the House of Commons, but by both Houses. Now this is

what I deny. (Cheers.) My belief is not only that this was a great privilege

which in the time of our ancestors was asserted for the sake of the public inte- rests, and by which the public liberties were established, but I believe that it is

for the good of the trade and commerce of the country, which are greatly affected,

by these commercial arrangements. I believe that if it were found year by year that where certain taxes were proposed to be taken off by the Commons those

taxes were retained by the Lords—that where we had made arrangements they

had altered them—the greatest confusion would ensue. Their views of finance, as far as we learn them from the speeches of noble lords reported in the news-

papers, differ exceedingly from those which meet approval in this House. They

differ exceedingly from that system of finance which was established by Sir It. Peel, and has since been continued. What confusion, what mischiefs would

follow if we were to establish as a precedent that the House of Lords may take financial measures as ordinary pieces of legislation, and not to assert the ancient privileges of the House of Commons ! (Cheers.) If that be the case, I think

not only is this a right which we have, but a right which we ought to exercise:"

(Cheers.) Lord John proceeded to show that our financial policy does not tend to destroy indirect taxation, and that the abolition of an Excise duty, as in the case of soap and bricks, has been hitherto followed by an increase of the general. revenue. Great calamities were uever predicted as sure to follow the repeal of duties on glass and bricks, bat the moment we come to paper, things undergo a change, and some hobgoblin in the shape of penny papers rises to terrify the Opposition. At the close of his speech, Lord John commented on the desire to depreciate the measures and injure the reputation of Mr. Gladstone; that attempt

every one of his colleagues ought to resist. Mr. Gladstone has employed Ws great talents for the benefit of his countrymen, and their gratitude will stifle the accusations made against him.

Lord ROBERT CECIL, amid much interruption, repeated his attacks upon Mr. Gladstone; accusing him of want of foresight ; apologizing for having, in likening Mr. Gladstone's practice to that of an attorney. done a great injustice—("hear, hear")—'to the attorneys" ! They were honourable men, and he was sure—[The cries of "Oh, oh," prevented Lord Robert from completing the sentence.] The course of the Go- vernment was disting,uished by "legal chicanery;" any other place it would be called a "dodge.' His argument was that as all financial are now also political questions, the Lords, were they deprived of the power of considering every financial measure, would be practically excluded from deliberating on every political question- The abolition of the paper duty is a political question; a political. party hangs by it; political votes in the House are to be gamed by it; and yet the Lords are to be told that it is a financial measure. He ended by a renewed attack on Mr Gladstone.

Mr. Du CANE here moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. GLADSTONE besought him to reconsider this proposal, reminding him of the protracted discussion the budget had already undergone, and remarking that he was not aware of any intention to offer any oppo- sition at that stage. He could not accede to the adjournment of a discussion on which no issue had. been raised. Thereupon Mr. Dis- earn asked on what ground it was assumed there would be no divi- sion? and as to there being no issue, was not the second reading of the measure an issue large enough. He said that such measures had never before been submitted to the House, declared that a prolonged debate did no public injury, and demanded time for further discussion and deliberation. To thus Lord Pauseestox demurred, repeating that no issue had been raised, and that all seemed to be agreed that the second reading should pass without a division. The House divided, when the motion to adjourn was negatived by 24T to I64—majority 83. Mr. BENTINCK then moved the adjourn- ment of the House : negatived by 233 to 145—majority. 88. Colonel Dimmer next moved the adjournment of the debate. (Cries of " Oh,. oi!') Lord PALMERSTQN said: "It is useless, I know, to persist when gentlemen are determined to prevent measures from being proceeded. with at this hour" (one o'clock). " As those who succeed will be entitled to the glory of the conflict, I beg to second the motion." (Laughter and cheers.)

The debate was accordingly adjourned to Thursday. On Thursday the debate was resumed and brought to a close, with- out a division.

Mr. Du CANE made the first speech. In general terms he re- luctantly accepted Mr. Gladstone's assurance that there is a surplus, but dissented from the application of it, feeling the strongest regret

that the paper duty was to be repealed. Sir Wirazam THOOTE also objected to the financial arrangements of the Government, but be held that there was nothing unconstitutional in the form adopted by the Government of combining all their measures in one bill. lie was also authorized to say that Mr. Walpole, who could not attend, took the same view. General PEEL seemed to doubt whether sufficient provision had been made for the public service, but while doubting whether there was a surplus, he threw the ultimate responsibility upon the Government. Mr. asiosToiie answered that General Peel. had supported a pro- posal to take from the surplus 280;0001. more than. the Government thought it could dispense with. Declining to enter into any argument upon matters personal to. himself, he showed, by citing a host of precedents, that the course taken by the Government was the constitutional course. All authority was in favour of it, including, that of Mr. Walpole this, and that of Mr. Disraeli last year. It was true, as Mr. Macdonogh had said, that no bill rejected by the Lords had been sent. up to them in the following session included in a budget. For the good reason that there never had been a rejection by the House of Lords of a financial bill of the character of that of the paper duty last year. In the present bill there was no case of what was called tacking" but simply the joining together of materials essentially homogeneous ; audit was the well-established practice of Parliament to combine in one bill provisions granting money and repealing taxes. This mode of proceeding was rational and convenient, in bringing the whole financial scheme inone view before the House. lie declined to enter into controversy with regard to the privilegea of the Lords, but could only discuss the right of the Commons as to the time, mode, measure, and manner of dealing with finance; and if that right had been diminished, it was necessary to re-establish in its integrity the exclusive privilege and duty of the House to settle the revenue and: expenditure of the year; and the course adopted by the House was the most conciliatory and satisfactory mode of doing so. Unless that claim was asserted, it would be better to rescind the resolution passed bythe House last year. MT. HORSMAN objected to Mr. Gladstone's argument to a narrow issue of mere precedents, on. which he refused to consider it. There was no doubt there, were al:Rion:lent precedents for combining all the finance of the year in. one bill, but it was not so much a question of past precedent as of fresh policy. There was a motive which sug- gested the precedents for a necessity of curtailing the privileges of the Lards arising out of the proceedings of last year. The discussion should therefore be limited to the point whether that conduct justified the censure which it was now sought to pass upon the Lords. "Thepiestion was one of the principles which regulated the relations between. the two Houses, and not one of precedents and technicalities. He argued that the preponderance of Government in a single chamber untrammelled by any other power, was simply tyrannous in its irresponsibility, and a despotism of finance was the direct road to a complete despotism. He did not contend that the Commons of this country had not the sole right of originating finance, but he did contend for a power inherent in the Lords to consider and revise financial measures. He then argued that the proceeding in hand was not even in conformity with the resolutions of the House last year while it took away an undoubted power and privilege of the Lords. The resolution bound the House

i

not to take any action n future unless the Lords gave provocation, which they had not done; and yet a decided step like that which was proposed was • to be taken. In fact, as it was known that the Lords could not this year reject the repeal of the paper duty, that question had been only made the pretext for crip- pling their power. It was by no means certain that when the present bill left. the Commons the question was settled; but its entrance into the Lords might be the signal of a new struggle. Mr. Hors:nan argued in favour of submission to the Lords, insinuated that there were differences in the Cabinet on the subject, and predicted that theresult of an appeal to the country would be the dissolution

of the Liberal pa and the loss by Lord Palmerston of its leadership."

Mr. PULLER, Mr. MELLOR, M.r. WARLEY, and Mr. J. Lucius s.poke in supportof, M. NEWDEGATE, Mr. M &TINS, and Mr. E. W. DUN- cOMBH, in opposition- to, the Government. Mr. STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

had comparatively little objection to combining the financial proposi- tions of the Government in one bill, but what he did object to was the imposition of temporary instead of permanent taxation—a policy which would unsettle trade, and give rise to continual conflicts between class and class.

Lord PALMLItSTON said that the result of the debates which had taken place had gradually dissipated all the arguments against the budget. First, the doubt as to the existence of a surplus was ver-

bally and practically disposed of. Next, the dispute as to whether the tea duties or the paper duty should be removed had been satis- factorily settled. Then came the constitutional question as to the form of the bill before the House ; land after a long discussion that point had been enirely ceded. But failing all these, a new question had been raised, namely, whether taxes should be imposed annually or not ; and doubtless that would be debated hereafter. " We being so far agreed I was in hopes that the termination of our discussions might be peaceful and satisfactory, but up got the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), and he threw a torch and discord into our

comparatively peaceful debate. The right hon. gentleman wanted to set every- body by the ears, and in order to do so he first endeavoured to show that there is dissension in the Cabinet, then he endeavoured to bring the two Houses into col- lision, and then he hoped to carry his intentions still further by bringing shoot a disagreement between the House of Commons and their constituents. Well, all I can say is, that with regard to the first he will not obtain his desires. (Cheers.)- I am sure be will not succeed by any taunts in creating dissensions in the Cabinet. (Cheers.) I am equally convinced that be will not be successful, if all be true which we have heard announced on the subject, in creating collision or hostility- between the two Houses of Parliament. That is a very satisfactory consideration. With regard to any hostility between the House of Commons and their consti- tuents —(loud cheers)—speaking generally, and for the House as a body, I vin equally convinced the right hon. gentleman's predictions will fail; but so far as his observations may be founded upon any .local knowledge—[loud cheers and laughter is; which the noble lord heartily joined] —the case may be different. The right hon. gentleman may possess in regard to one particular electoral body special knowledge upon this subject. In conclusion, I can only state that there is a well-known text which says, " Blessed are the peacemakers." (" Oh, oh and laugker.) But what the fate of those may be who endeavour to sow the seeds of discord and are promoters of quarrels is not a point so clearly defined. (Loud laughter.) Whatever their fate may be, I am sure the right hon. gentleman is destined to share it. (Loud cheers and laughter.) Mr. DISRAELI thought that the remarks of the noble lord were founded on a totally erroneous notion of the result of the discussion which had taken place. The existence of the surplus had been by no means admitted ; for the fact was that an artificial surplus had been created in order to gratify a financial caprice. As to the triumph of the Government, it had been obtained by a bare, an ille- gitimate, an ambiguous, a factitious majority of 18, composed principally of those who were generally opposed to the Government; and the noble lord was in this way forcing a financial policy upon the country without giving any opportunity for its revision. The noble lord was thus straining the constitution. As to the constitutional question, there was no privilege of either House for which prece- dents might not be found; and all the ancient precedents were reconciled. in the temperate and skilful resolutions proposed last year by Lord Palmerston, and if' these resolutions had been carried out there need not have arisen any difficulty. But a sinister influence had been evoked by private feeling and private pique which had brought the House into the dangerous position in which it now stood. unnecessarily periling the collision of the two branches of the Legislature. There was no valid technical objection to the form in which the budget was now brought forward; but why was it not adopted last year? It was the conduct of the Lords which had caused the change this year, conduct which had been admitted. to have been legal and constitutional, and, as had been proved in the result, politic and advantageous to the public. Why then thus attempt to deprive the Lords of a privilege which they had so judiciously exercised? It was Lord Palmerston himself who, by adopting this course, had created discord and periled his authority in the House. He was perfectly content with the result of the discussions which had taken place, and in the peculiar position in which the House was placed there must be an assent to the second reading of the bill, but without thereby implying assent to any part of its policy except that which related to the income tax, and he should hold himself free, at the proper oppor- tunity, to take any exception to the general policy of the measure.

The bill was then read a second time.

THE NEU'IRALITY PROCLAMATION.

The Earl of Ir-LTvignotiouan drew the attention. of the House to her Majesty's proclamation on the blockade of the ports of the Confede- rated States of America, and, having pointed out the inadequacy of the language employed to convey what was meant, legally and practically, by the words " blockade" and " articles contraband of war," asked for an explanation of the exact meaning of the proclamation in regard to those phrases.

Earl GRANVILLE explained that, as far as the Powers who were parties to the Declaration of Paris were concerned, the definition of the word. "blockade" as therein laid down was bindmg, but that that declaration did not change the law of nations in respect of those nations not represented in the Congress of Paris. He briefly explained what constituted a blockade. It must be lawfully estabhshed, with proper notice, by a force sufficient to make it difficult for vessels to go in or come out. It must not be a paper blockade. He added that in respect.of " artieles contraband of war" the meaning was ever varying, for-while certain articles were looked upon by all nations as centre- band). there were others in which the determination of a Prize Court would be necessary. The Earl of DERBY thought Lord Gaaievinna's answer satisfactory.. Ile was not inclined to quarrel with the terms of theproclamation, as it was impossible to give such definitions as would include all cases. It was necessary, he considered, that the Northern States should understand that this country would not recognize any blockade that was not effectual, nor would admit the power assumed by them of constituting privateering piracy and inflicting the punishment of death for such an act, as. such a coarse of action would be contrary to the law of nations. Lord BROUGHAM wished that privateering was, by the law of nations,, Tiracy. Any subject, however, joining in an expedition. against any Power at peace with her Majesty was guilty of a piratical act, and his blood must rest on his own head. He then briefly declared his opinion of what constituted "contraband of war" and an efficient blockade. Lord CHELMSFORD dissented from Lord BROUGHAWS opinion that her Majesty's subjects joining in privateering expeditions would be 'guilty of piracy. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that, although a subject by joining a privateering expedition would violate the laws of this country, still if he accepted a commission from either of the belligerents he was car- rying on a justum helium, and was not liable to the penalties for p iracy. Lord KINGSDOWN said that, if the Northern States chose to con- sider the Southern States as rebels, they had no right to consider and treat the subjecs of foreign States as such because the Southern States had been recognized by us as belligerents. It was impossible to define contraband of war.

Mn. STzusnr's Cesz.

Mr. Roznucs called the attention of the House, on Monday,-to a matter involving a question of privilege. Before he stated the facts he told the House that he had been in communication with the Speaker, who wished him to withhold his statement, as what he wanted might be obtained by private negotiation. He• did withhold it until the Speaker told him he had failed to obtain by private negotiation what he wished to obtain by public statement, and therefore Mr. Roe- buck was at liberty to proceed. He did so with grea�tpai

•

[As soon as Mr. Roebuck mentioned the name of Mr. Steuart, Mr. MACAULAY inquired whether some notice should not have been given, but the SPEAKER decided that Mr. Roebuck was in order as the ques- tion was one of privilege.] Mr. ROEBUCK then stated that Mr. Andrew Steuart, Member for Cambridge, was afflicted, some fifteen years ago with a brain fever, that left him liable to paroxysms of insanity. He had a sort of fore- knowledge when they were coming on, and he recently obtained a cer- tificate from twophysicians in order that he might place himself under the care of Dr. Winslow. Under these circumstances, on Thursday week or rather Friday morning Mr. Steuart was brought into the House, among " 600 excited men," and voted [on the paper duty question]. This affected the personal safety of every Member, the public at large, the character of the division ; and Mr.Roebuck moved for a Select Committee to find out who was to blame.

Mr. MAcaniar, as the colleague of Mr. Steuart, described Mr. Roebuck's proceeding as unnecessary; he could not see for what public purpose Mr. Steuart's name was introduced. In an interview with him Mr. Roebuck had said that two keepers brought Mr. Steuart down and waited for him outside the House. He now told another story. Mr. Macaulay said that he himself walked down to the House with Mr. Steuart. "His mind was free from anything that can be called insanity ;" he was as sane as Mr. Roebuck himself. Mr. Macaulay had received a letter from Mr. Steuart ten days before the division, saying that he was better and well enough to go to the House and vote. At Dr. Winslow's he was under no restraint. He had told Dr. Winslow and Dr. Bartlett that he should go to the House. They tried to dissuade him but failed. Mr. Macaulay severely con- demned the course adopted by Mr. Roebuck, and said that nothing could be attained either for the public good or the protection of the House that could weigh with the unutterable pain he was inflicting on perfectly innocent people.

Sir GEORGE Lzwis wished Mr. Roebuck to withdraw the motion, suggesting that he should, instead, move for a report upon the case to be made by the Lunacy Commissioners. Mr. BALL said the ques- tion ought never to have been brought forward. Lord PALMERSTON said all must regret the pain inflicted by the motion, but higher con- siderations were involved. It was a serious thing that a person under treatment for insanity should present himself at the House to vote on a question of great public interest, and steps should be taken to prevent the recurrence of such an act. He enforced the sug- gestion thrown out by Sir George Lewis. Mr. Hommel./ thought that as one of the Lunacy Commissioners, Colonel Clifford, was in the House, he should be directed to state the circumstances ; but Sir GEORGE LEWIS objected to this at once, and it was not pressed. Mr. ROUVERIE was for meeting the motion at oupe by a negative. Was the Committee to inquire into the sanity of the unfortunate gentle- man ? Were they to take it for granted that the certificate of two medical men was to determine the sanity of a member of that House ? Mr. Roebuck's motion would raise these and other questions, and he should opipTormit. Mr. M and Lord HENRY Leicrirox said they had conversed with Mr. Steuart on the evening of the division, and had found him quite rational, And so the discussion flowed on; Mr. ROEBUCK de- fending himself amid much interruption, and other Members joining in the debate ; some seriously taking Mr. Roebuck to task for intro- ducing the Speaker's name into the discussion. The SPEAKER said:— In putting the question to the House I wish to be permitted to say a single word. (Hear, hear.) I do not complain, in any way, of what has been said by the hon and learned member with regard to the conversations which he had with me, because I think that he addressed me not in my individual but in my official capacity. I wish to do an act of justice to the hon. and learned' gentle- MIN and to assure the House that he most willingly and entirely acquiesced in my desire that he should abstain from bringing the matter before the House, if such security as he, and certainly as I, also, deemed necessary, should be ob- tained that the occurrence in question should not be repeated. I beg leave to read a few lines to the House which were addressed to me by the hon. member the Commissioner in Lunacy, who has spoken, in order to show how entirely I have failed in obtaining for the hon. and learned member that security which would have enabled me to request him to abstain from making his motion. I should state that I read the letter with the permission of the hon. member who placed it in my bands. It is as follows:—

"May 10,186L " The Board, referring to the confidential communication made to them to-day,

by Colonel Clifford, of the private wish of the Speaker of the House of Commons to receive an assurance of steps having been taken by them to prevent the re- currence of any such incident as that of the vote given in the House on Thursday, the 2nd of May, by a certified lunatic patient, express to Colonel Clifford their regret to be unable to comply with the Speaker's wish, or to offer any communi- cation on such a subject, unless required by official authority."

The House refused to permit the motion to be withdrawn, and it was put and negatived.

RAGGED SCHOOLS.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY on Monday, moved for the evidence on which the part of the report of the Education Commission which re- lated to Ragged Schools was founded. He declared that the Report

was untrue,. unfair, and ungenerous, and trusted that some explanations would be given of the conclusions arrived at therein.

" He proceeded to examine what he termed the inaccuracies of the report, quoted statistics to show that the Ragged Schools were by no means so insignifi- cant in numbers and in income as the report had assumed, and repelled with some warmth the accusations of the Commissioners against the discipline and cleanliness of the schools—accusations which he stigmatised as a "gross libel." The Commissioners, he said were decidedly wrong in asserting that the bulk of the scholars were the children of parents who could afford to pay for their educa- tion at the ordinary day schools, and as to the proposal of the report for separating the children from their families, in order to subject them to the discipline of the industrial schools, he staked whence would funds be forthcoming for that purpose, why parents should be exonerated from their duties towards their offspring, and why the indirect beneficial influence of the Ragged Schools exercised through the children should be denied to the parents themselves. In regard to the opinion of the Commissioners that better results would be obtained by clothing the children, so as to enable them to attend the ordinary schools, he was convinced that the clothes would find their way to the pawnbrokers, and that valuable funds would be so far uselessly wasted. The opinion of the Commissioners that no beneficial effects had been produced by Ragged Schools was amply refuted by the decrease in juvenile delinquency in London during the last five years, the returns showing in that period a decrease of no less than 2524 in the number of offenders. In corroboration of these returns Lord Shaftesbury quoted the opinions of Mr. Leigh, of Worship-street, and of the Rev. S. War sigh, late chaplain of Parkhurst Prison, testifying to the improved moral tone in the,youthful population since the establishment of Ragged Schools and Reformatories, and contended that it was neither just nor fair for the Commissioners to ignore the fair inferences to be drawn from such facts. He wound up a somewhat bitter oration by showing how thrift and frugality had been encouraged among the poor, and how their children had been enabled to obtain an honest living by the humane and persevering efforts of the promoters of these schools. All this, however, bad been lost eight of by the Commissioners, who in an inaccurate and incorrect report had brought vile ac- cusations' against men who had sacrificed their own comforts for the good of their humbler brethren."

The Duke of NEWCASTLE denied that there was one word in the re. port which could be construed into an accusation against Ragged Schools, congratulated Lord Shaftesbury that he had brought this subject before the House in a less "grandiose style" than he had used at Exeter Rail, and vindicated the Commissioners from the charges of misrepresentation and malignity, feeling convinced that they had exhibited the greatest impartiality to every scheme brought before them, without putting forth any such claim to infallibility as the noble earl had done.

He then detailed what steps the Commissioners had taken to carry out their objects, how the statistics in the report were obtained, and observed that if there were any inaccuracy in the numbers of Ragged Schools the secretary of the Ragged School Union was alone responsible for such inaccuracy, and that any fault ou this head must attach to the body with which Lord Shaftesbniy was connected. He next proceeded to state the grounds on which the Commissioners had come to the conclusion that " Ragged Schools in which industrial instruction was not given were not proper subjects fur public assistance,"—viz., that it would bedetrimental to the otberschools of the country,—and contended that the class of children at present in Ragged Schools would be more advantageously placed either in ordinary schools, reformatories, industrial schools, or in the pauper schools of the country. The Commissioners had dealt in their report with schools of a higher class, and had made similar recommendations to those which they offered with regard to Ragged Schools. The noble duke quoted from the reports of police superintendents and assistant commissioners who had investi-

gated the educational condition of the metropolis to show that Ragged Schools were principally taken advantage of by a class which did not so much need their assistance, and put it to their lordships whether he had not shown the accusa- tions of the noble earl to be unfounded. He defied Lord Shaftesbury to point out a single word in the report implying that Ragged Schools had done no good; what the report stated was that Ragged Schools ought not to be looked on as a permanent system of national education, and that consequently they should not be recommended for a public grant. Earl GB.ANYLLLE hoped the debate would close without any ill- feeling on either side; and after a little further consideration the sub- ject dropped.

THE IRISH ATAWRIAGE LAW.

Sir HUGH CAIRNS moved for the appointment of a Select Committee

to inquire into the law affecting the contracting and celebration of marriage in Ireland. He said that he had been prevented by acci- dental circumstances from bringing forward the question last session. This he mentioned in order that the House might not suppose that he had been influenced by a recent remarkable trial to introduce it on the present occasion.

He then proceeded to explain the existing state of the law of marriage as it affected the various denominations of Christians in Ireland. So far as the Esta- blished Church and the Presbyterian body (with the exception of the Cameronians) were concerned, they were satisfied with the law as it stood; but by the Act o 1844 the privileges which were enjoyed by the Independents, Baptists, and Me- thodists under the Act of 1781 had been removed, and the very existence of these denominations ignored. Under the present law, therefore, persons belonging to any of these persuasions had to go before the civil registrar; notice of their intended marriage must be given at three successive meetings of the board of guardians, and if the parties desired to have their union sanctioned by a religions ceremony in their own place of worship, it must be in the presence of the registrar, who must supply them with a certificate that he had married them. This was felt to be a great grievance by the various Dissenting communities, and the inconvenience was not confined to them, for it sometimes happened that several persons were married at the same time in different chapels in the same district, and the registrar not being gifted with ubiquity, much annoyance and trouble was the result. With regard to Roman Catholic marriages, a priest might marry persons of his own persuasion when and how he pleased ; but in the case of a mixed marriage the law was, that if either of the parties has professed the Pro- testant religion within twelve months before the ceremony, such marriage was held to be void in law, a state of things which struck him as the very perfection of absurdity.

Mr. Warrasma seconded the motion, and pointed out the anomalies and inconveniences of the present system.

Mr. SCULLY moved, as an amendment, "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to issue a royal commission to inquire into the marriage laws of Eng- land, of Ireland, and of Scotland respectively." Mr. CARDWELL assented to the appointment of the proposed com- mittee, and expressed a hope that Mr. Scully would not persist with his amendment. He thought it would be better under the circum- stances to confine the inquiry to Ireland, if the House desired to legis- late effectively and usefully in the present session, for the law of mar- riage in England inquiry general satisfaction, whilst in Scotland the in- stitution of any nquiry would give rise to great jealousy and alarm. Mr. PEEL DemsoN, Mr. Makuoii, and Mr. Burr expressed their approval of the committee, while Mr. hfooitE O'FARRELL protested against it.

Mr. SCULLY consented to withdraw his amendment, and the motion for the committee was agreed to.

ST. DOMINGO.

Lord BROUGHAM said he wished to know whether her Majesty's Government had given their assent to the cession of St. Domingo to Spain; and, above all, whether due precaution had been taken to pre- vent the possibility of the introduction of Spanish slavery into that island, which degraded the Spanish Government of Cuba. His hope was that the Spanish Government would not be allowed to introduce that curse into the Island of St. Domingo. He could not allow the present opportunity to pass without expressing his regret at the present state of things in America. Meetings had been held in this country which he entirely deprecated. He had himself been asked to preside at one. But when he found it was a meeting called on Ameri- can slavery, he said he should have nothing to do with any meeting of that description, and used his strong recommendation that those to whom his voice might reach would abstain from holding such meetings, as at the present moment they might do a great deal of mischief in respect of their relations with America, and at the same time be the cause of doing great injury to the negroes themselves. Anything like agitation in this country at present would be the greatest calamity, as it would tend to endanger the country without serving the slaves.

Lord WODEHOUSE said that the Spanish Government had as yet taken no final resolution. They were waiting for further information

from St. Domingo. Her Majesty's Government received information to the effect that if the offer of sovereignty to Spain met with the con- currence of the people, Spain would accept the sovereignty of that part of the island. VVhether that would be for the advantage of Spain was a matter for the consideration of Spain herself. But the House would naturally feel great interest in learning that slavery was not to be introduced into the island, and he might add that if it were intro- duced into the eastern part of the island, it would be maintained there with great difficulty as long as the western part remained free.

CRIMINAL Aersar...—Mr. Burr moved on Wednesday the second reading of the New Trials in Criminal Cases Bill, the object of which was to provide for

the formation of a tribunal to review erroneous verdicts in criminal cases. He proposed to abolish the distinction which now existed between felonies and mis- demeanours; to give a right of appeal in the former as in the latter cases; and to enable the Court of Queen's Bench to send a writ of certiorari to any court of criminal jurisdiction, in order to obtain a review of a verdict.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months. It was substantially the same as the bill which was

negatived last year, and he thought that harm rather than good would result from the alteration of the law which it contemplated. The object of the bill was to make all indictments for treason and felony removable by certiorari, and to give power to a superior court to grant a new trial. But, according to the evi- dence of very high authorities, the conviction of an innocent person was a matter of very rare occurrence, and if an appeal were given to the prisoner without a corresponding appeal being given to the prosecutor, the feeling of merciful for- bearance which was now the characteristic of our criminal administration would be very much diminished.

After is few words from Mr. liniastois and Mr. Burr, the second reading was negatived without a division.