!Matto Ruh 4,5rartthingg in Vortinmrut.
PRINCIPAL BESINESS OP THE WEEK.
Hams op Loans. Monday,,July 19. Royal Assent to the Small Debts Imprison- ment Act Amendment (Scotland) Bill, Joint-Stock Companies Bill, Advowsons Bill, Militia Ballot Suspension Bill—Italy ; Lord Lyndhurst's Statement and Lord Cla- rendon's Explanation—Parochial Schools (Scotland) Bill committed. Tuesday, July 15. The Commander-in-chief; Duke of Somerset's Question and Lord Panmure's Answer—Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill read a second time.
Thursday, July 17. Formation of Parishes, &c. Bill read a second time, and re- ferred to a Select Committee—Episcopal and Capitular Estates Continuance Bill read a second time—Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill committed.
Friday, July 18. Intestates Personal Estates Bill read a third time and passed—. The Crimean Inquiry; Lord Loran's Motion—Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed—Courts of Common Law (Ireland) Bill read a second time—Parochial Schools (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed—Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill reported—Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment (No. 2) Bill read a third time and passed.
Roma OF COXIIONS. Monday, July 14. Italy ; Lord John Russell's Motion,., Partnership Amendment (No. 2) ; Mr. Lowe's Bill read a third time, and wild- drown—Income and Land Taxes Bill read a second time—Mercantile Law Amend- ment Bill read a second time—Episcopal and Capitular Estates Continuance Bill read a third time and passed—Poor-law Amendment (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed—Indemnity Bill read a third time and passed—Mercantile Law (Scotland) Amendment Bill committed—Formation of Parishes, &c. Bill read a third time and passed—Coast Guard Bill read a first time.
Tuesday, July 15. Coast Guard Service Bill read a second time—Board of Health Continuance Bill reported—Aldershot Review ; Conversation on—Irish Master of the Rolls ; Mr. Fitwerald's Vindication—Wine-duties; Mr. Oliveira's Motion—Appro- priation Bill read a third time and passed—Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Bill read a second time.
Wednesday, July 16. No sitting. Thursday, July 17. Charities BM read a second time--Hospitals Dublin Bill committed—Cm-rapt Practices Prevention Continuance Bill committed—Vice-Pre- sident of Committee of Council on Education Bill read a second time—General Board of Health Continuance Bill committed—Evidence in Foreign Suits Bill read a second time—Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill withdrawn—Coast Guard Ser- vice Bill committed—Mercantile Law Amendment Bill committed—Cursitor Baron of the Excheques Bill read a second time and committed—Judgments Execution Bill withdrawn—Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill ; Lords' Amendment re- jected—Joint-Stock Companies Winding-up Bill thrown out---" Count out" at 2.40 a.m.
Friday, July 18. Income and Land Taxes Bill read a third time and passed
Coast Guard Service Bill read a third time and passed—Marriage Law (Scotland) Amending Bill read a third time and passed—The Birkenhead ; Mr. Gordon's Ques- tion—Cambridge University Bill ; Lords' Amendments agreed to—Civil Service Superannuation Bill withdrawn—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Bill committed —Vice-President of Committee of Council on Education Bill committed—Charities Bill in Committee—Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer Bill read a third time and passed.
• TIMR-TABLB.
The Lords.
How of Hoar of
The Commons,
flour of Hour of
Meeting. Adjourtunent.
Meeting. Adjournment.
Monday 5h . 9h lam Monday th .(n.) 2h Om Tuesday ,.. Oh 20m
Tuesday
Noon . 4h Om ith .(m) 211 15m Wednesday
NO sitting.
Wednesday No sitting.
Thursday 5h . 71i 30m Thursday
Neon .... 4h Om Sh .(4i) 2h 46m
Friday 6h Sh Om Friday Oh . 2h Om
6h .0n) lh Om
81tUngsthlsWeek, 4; Time, 14h 5m SittingsthisWeek, 7, Time, 43h om — this Bearden, 03; — 203h 5ra — thia Session, 110; — 704h 22m•
THE AFFAIRS OF ITALY.
Both Houses of Parliament were occupied on Monday with a discus- sion on the state of Italy, and the measures and policy of her Majesty's Government which have sprung out of the proceedings of the Paris Con- gress.
In the House of Commons, Lord Joixs: RUSSELL began the debate by moving, "that an address be presented to her Majesty for copies or ex- tracts of any recent communications which have taken place between her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Austria, Rome, and the kingdom of the Two Sicffies, relating to the affairs of Italy." He did not wish to blame any part of the conduct of the Government; nor would he press his motion if Lord Palmerston thought there would be any inconvenience in granting the papers to which it referred. What he desired to do was, to ask what has taken place since the House voted an address on the conclusion of peace; and if no satisfactory answers have been received by the Government, what are the intentions of Mi- nisters with regard to their future policy? For unless they are pre- pared to follow up the course they entered upon at Paris, and take some steps of serious import with respect to the affairs of Italy, it would be better that they should at once declare they only intended to make friendly representations, and that, as those representations are ineffec- tual, they will proceed no further with the subject. From this starting-point Lord John set forth. First, he described at length, quoting the documents, the steps taken by the Congress of Paris with respect to the occupation of parts of Italy ; remarking by the way, that "the clouds looming on the political horizon," which Count Walewskr wished to dispel, had become "darker and darker, and that unless some happy event takes place we shall soon see theni bursting into a storm." It is a matter of great importance whether this occupation of a part of Italy by foreign troops is to continue. There is no instance resembling it in the recent history of Europe. The modern practice of occupying a state by foreign troops to restore order has always been temporary. After the war of 1815, it was stipulated that the occupation of France should be for five years : that term was reduced to three. When the French under the Due d'Angouleme occupied Spain in 1823, Lord John himself called the attention of the House to the subject in 1824, and Mr. Canning said he was convinced that no permanent occupation was in- tended. The next year, in reply to-Mr. Brougham, Mr. Canning said the occupation would not be prolonged. It ceased at the end of three years. But in the present case the occupation which began in 1849 has continued to the present moment. When France sent troops to Rome in 1849, M. Drouyn de Lhuys said, that while they went to secure the authority of the Pope from the danger of reaction, they felt that his au- thority could only be strengthened by the help of liberal institutions that wo prevent the return of old abuses. And in forwarding the corre- spondence on the subject to the Court of St. James's, the French Minis- ter said that the object was to maintain the balance of power and secure to the Roman people a liberal and regular system of administration. Prince Schwarzenberg wrote to Count Colloredo, that the object of the Austrian intervention in the Legations was the reestablishment of legiti- mate government and social order, and when that object was attained the troops would retire. That was seven years ago. Now the restora- tion of the sovereign to his power could scarcely have occupied seven years unless there had been something vicious in the administration. In Tuscany, the Republicans were driven out, and the Grand Duke was restored by the people. Had the Grand Duke governed ac- cording to the constitution, there would have been no reason to apprehend any outbreak ; but no sooner had the Grand Duke re- turned than the Austrians entered, and remained there until the be- ginning of last year. Foreign occupation propagates itself. But there are other than these general considerations. Sardinia did not join the Allies in the late war wholly out of reaard to the general interests of Eu- rope; the Government hoped to ameliorate their position of sacrifice and danger by the acquisition of the friendship of England and France. It is a question of honour with this country and with France not to aban- don the affairs of Italy. Such an abandonment would be fatal to the independence of Piedmont. If the Austrian Government were aware that we should be content with the barren aid of protocols, they would increase their troops on the frontier of Piedmont. That would oblige Piedmont to keep up a larger army than she required; u discontent would ensue ; and it would probably be said in the Piedmontese Parliament that it would 'be better for Sardinia to diminish her armies and yield to the Austrian demands. If England and France should declare that the Ro- man States are misgoverned and the rule of the Ring of Naples is in- tolerable, and yet allow Austria to treat them with haughty disdain, the Pope with positive denial, and the King of Naples with taunts and defi- ance, they would be humbled even to the dust. He could understand that the House of Commons should say the policy of our Government was wrong; but he could not understand how, maintaining the opinions put forth at Paris, they should not execute what they said was necessary for the security of Europe and the good of Italy. If Great Britain and France, backed by the Italian people, said they would no longer permit the Austrian occupation, there would not be the slightest danger of war. "Let the people of the Roman States be freed from the incubus of foreign occupation, and let them settle with their rulers what shall in future be their form of government." Do not order them to be free, but do not let a foreign force interfere. With regard to Naples the case is different. He should doubt the permanence of any constitution granted under pressure ; but if it were merely meant that the good and virtuous men who have pined in dun- geons for years should be freed, he could understand that some inter- ference might be justified. Here Lord John referred to a part of the subject that conoerned the character of this country. During the war which ended with the fall of Napoleon, we helped to establish a free constitution in Sicily ; under which everything in that country acquired an improved aspect. In 1814 the British troops left Sicily ; and the British Government stated that it should think itself justified in interfering if persons who had appealed to British protection during our stay were molested, or if the liberties of Sicily were reduced. In 1816 the King of Naples signed a treaty with the Emperor of Austria engaging not to permit any government in Naples or Sicily that was not in conformity with the government of Austria. The Sicilians were treated with bad faith, and complained that England had deserttd them. A few years ago another effort was made by Sicily, and Lord Minto, at the request of the King, carried terms to the Sicilians, to which they would not assent. "Another effort was made, having for its object to raise the Duke of Genoa to the throne of Sicily." We should have been happy if that effort had succeeded, though we did not feel justified in interfering to divide Sicily from Naples. When Lord William Bentinck went to the coast of Italy he promised independence to the people of Lombardy. That promise was not carried into effect. Now at the present time, if we confine ourselves to notes and paper protestations, we shall altogether lose the confidence of the people of Italy. Seeing, then, that Austria is taking fresh precautions, what can we do further ? At whatever risk, we are bound to support the King of Sardinia. We can encourage, wherever we find it, the feeling that dependence on foreign bayonets is not a proper position for a ruler. We can nourish the growing spirit of independence. "I remember, Sir, very long ago, having the honour of an interview in the Isle of Elba with the first Napoleon. The Emperor talked much of the states of Italy, and agreed in the observation which I had made that there was no union among them, and no likelihood ofjiny effectual resistance by them to their oppressors; but when I asked him why Austria was so unpopular in Italy, he replied, that it was because she governed, not with the sword, (that was probably not a reflection which that great man would make,) but that she had no other means of governing
except by the stick. I believe, Sir, that that is the secret of the whole die-
favour with which Austria is viewed in Italy One thing, indeed, I have heard—it is a mere whisper, a surmise—namely, that the Government of the Emperor of the French, which agreed with us so much at Paris that its Minister for Foreign Affairs took the initiative, is not prepared at pre- sent to protest any further against the foreign occupation of Italy. I for one, Sir, cannot believe—I think it is impossible to believe—that a Sove- reign who was so faithful an ally to this country—who during the late war proved himself so ready to aid us, and to act in every way as became a monarch true to his engagements—would ever lead the King of Sardinia to rely on his support and then allow that hope to be disappointed." If we quietly sit down without obtaining any improvement in the condition of Italy, it will be to us a ground of everlasting reproach. "When Lord Byron was in Italy in 1821, and had become enthusiastic in her cause, he said that the cause of Italian freedom was the very poetry of politics.' I believe it is the poetry of politics' ; but I believe, at the same time, that it is also a practical question. I am .sure it is one on which our character and credit depend. I express no want of confidence, but I do think that before Parliament separates, this House ought to have from the Government some declaration of the one kind or the other,—either that they are not prepared to carry any further their inter- ference in the affairs of Italy ; or that, using whatever means they deem best, adopting whatever measures they think most adequate to the occasion, they do mean to attain this end, the independence of the Italian states."
Lord PALMERSTON said, the House would not be surprised that his
• noble friend, "who has taken so great an interest in so many important transactions of history," should call its attention to these interesting
matters. We have just terminated a great struggle, in a manner that will ward off for a long time a danger Europe had cause to apprehend. It was natural that the representatives of the Great Powers should not separate from the Peace Conference without directing their attention to other matters of European interest. The affairs of Italy naturally at- tracted attention. Lord John wished to know what were the intentions of the Government ; but he must know, that when the Government in conjunction with the Emperor of the French made an official representa- tion with a view of inducing the cessation of an abnormal occupation, it was not a momentary repulse, a casual disappointment, that would make
them desist from an endeavour to accomplish a result right in principle, sound in policy, and conducive to the interests of Europe. It would be unbecoming in him to state the steps Government might think fit to take ; but the object is important, and they do not abandon the hope that that object may be ultimately accomplished. If the Pope Were only to put in force the limited arrangements of the motu proprio he issued in 1849—promising institutions based on popular election—foreign troops would no longer be necessary in his dominions. As to Naples if the unjust administration there led to outbreaks, and Austria were called in, would the rest of Europe be passive spectators of such interference ? No success has hitherto attended the friendly representations that have been made to the King of Naples ; but although he may logk with jealous), on the advice of England and France "we don't despair that advice of the same kind may reach the Neapolitan Government from other quar- ters, whence they will receive it perhaps with more entire confidence." "With regard to Naples, then, as with regard to Rome, we do not despair." With regard to the King of Sardinia, he has a moral right to the sup- port and protection of France and England should any danger assail him not brought about by provocation on his own part. The knowledge of the existence of such ties will prevent him from being assailed—" at least with such dangers as will render it necessary for us to interfere to repel them." Concurring as they did with the general views developed by Lord John, he might rest assured that the Government are steadily oc- cupied in promoting them.
Mr. Mortara.' said, he could not understand from the vague ex- planation of Lord Palmerston that Ministers have done or are intending to do anything that will justify the Paris protocols or the position as- owned by the British Plenipotentiary. If it had been simply intended to make these routine representations, it was not necessary to introduce the question of Italy with so much ceremony at Paris. The representations might have been made without "rousing the passions of the population of Italy." What is the meaning of the inquiries of one who has been a First Minister and the answers of one who is now First Minister ? Lord John Russell says it is the duty of this country not to abandon Italy. It can hardly be supposed that he confined his meaning merely to a note from a Minister to the Court of Naples. The cause of the conduct of the French Minister in bringing these extraneous subjects before the con- ference was the Sardinian memorandum of the 27th March—an act of impeachment against Austria and Austrian rule tn Italy. As regards Na- ples, Lord Clarendon agreed that the Neapolitan Government had con- ferred the right and imposed the duty of interference upon Europe : ought that language to have been used without a foregone conclusion ? Lord Palmerston holds up Austria as the power that would induce the Neapolitan Government to cease its ill doing, and at the same time he points out that Austria would uphold the King in the event of a revo- lutionary movement : how inconsistent ! Lord John Russsell must be aware too, when he talks of putting an end to Austrian occupation, that nothing can be more irrational than to address violent representations to Austria with the view of terminating the occupation of the Roman States, unless our ally be also prepared to quit them. What would Lord John's motion, or anything they could say, do to support the policy of the Ministry ? Why, what is the policy of the Ministry ? It is the very point mysteriously withheld from the House.
There are two modes of dealing with the question. We can, in con-
cert with France, go to war with Austria ; and, after one of those long wars like the Punic war, we can "emancipate the people of Italy," as it is called. If that is the policy of the Government, they are bound frankly to announce it—to appeal to Parliament, and take the verdict of the country on its expediency. The second practical mode is by diplo- matic communications—first friendly advice, and then "admonitions " to the ruling Powers, and without fleets or armies set Italy in flames. Lord Clarendon says the state of Naples is " exceptional " : but what is there in the state of Naples more exceptional than there is in the state of Austria or Russia—except that these are strong powers' and Naples is a weak one ? Well, if we admonished Naples, and sent a fleet thither, the Neapolitans would know that if they rose Austria would not in- tervene.
But it is not only. a contest between worn-out dynasties and an intelli- gent class that is going on in Italy. The secret societies do not care for constitutional government. "We know something more of these societies than we did. Since 1848 we have had means of obtaining a knowledge of their numbers organization, principles, and objects ; and without some con- sideration of these it would be absolutely impossible for us to form a con- ception of what would be the consequences of our interference in the affairs of Italy. It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe—the whole of Italy and France and a great part of Germany, to say nothing of other countries—are covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads. And what are their objects? They do not attempt to conceal them. They do not want constitutionaLgovernment ; they do not want ameliorated institutions ; they do not want provincial councils nor the recording of votes ;—they want to change the tenure of land, to drive out the present owners of land, and to put an end to ecclesiastical establish- ments. Some of them may go further. Do you think that, with their (*replete organization, when Austria cannot interfere to occupy the kingdom of Naples, when the King is lectured on his throne by the Western Powers, and When, as the noble Lord says, the feelings of the people are aroused, these societies will be quiet ? We know what they did before. Their energy and their organization carried everything before them. I am told that a Bn- tish Minister has boasted—and a very unwise boast it was—that by holding out his hand he could raise a revolution in Italy tomorrow. I believe itis not impossible, with the means at his disposal, that he might. What would hap- pen ? You would have a republic formed on extreme principles ; and there may be many intelligent and well-meaning persons--I do not say in this House—who would say, And what then ?" Nothing can be worse,' they would say, 'than the present state of Italy : let us try a Red Republio, or even a republic of a still more fiery colour.' But the question of Italian politics is not of that simple character. Rome is not far distant from Naples. The passage from Naples to the States of. the Church is not diffi- cult. You may have Triumvirs again established.in Rome ; the Pope may again be forced to flee —my honourable friend behind me (Mr. Spooner) may say, 'So much the 'better '—and not a Cardinal may be left in Rome. What will be the consequences of that ? The two great Catholic Powers of urope—France, whose Emperor boasts in these protocols of being the élflest son of the Church—that ally with whose beneficent cooperation Italy is to be emancipated—and Austria, will pour her legions over the whole peninsula. You will have to withdraw the British fleet; your admonitions will be thrown into the mud, as they deserve and your efforts to free Italy from the occupation of foreign troops will terminate by rendering the thraldom a thousand times more severe, and by aggravating the miseries of the unfortunate people whose passions you have fired and whose feelings you have this night commenced to rouse.'
These secret societies are in a higher state of organization in France than in any other state in Europe. If Italy be in flames, will it have no effect on the French societies ? The ruler of France is a man of rare sagacity ; he has been schooled in adversity ; a triumphant army is devoted to him. But we all remember another great prince, whose sagacity was proverbial, who
had been schooled in adversity, who was seconded by an army which he and
his princes had formed : yet he fell, solely and entirely by the action of the secret societies. No doubt, that catastrophe was hastened by a season of un- exampled want in France. But what is the condition of France now ? A terrible visitation has fallen on that country. If you commence another campaign of Liberalism, the expression of sympathy without being prepared to support it by acts—if the consequences of raising the passions of the Ita- lians should be concurrent with agricultural distress in France, it will be fortunate for France and Europe if they escape the most fatal results. "I have touched on these points because this is no holiday question." He could sympathize as keenly as any one with Italy ; he hoped the time will come when in Italy their will be neither secret societies nor despots ; "but these are questions for the i closet, and not for a practical and popular as- sembly." As to Sartlinia, there s no danger to the King so long as he, within his own dominions, pursues the policy he believes for the advantage
of his subjects. But if Lord John Russell's policy be-followed, Sardinia
will be endangered, not by Austria, but by the revolutionary element. If they are not prepared to interfere in Italy with fleets and armies, let them
abstain from stirring up the passions of the people,—a policy that can only aggravate the thraldom of italy, and which may lead to consequences still more fraught with disaster to Europe.
Mr. BOWYER said he could furnish a few facts to throw light on the debate. He was told that Cardinal Antonelli had informed the French
and Austrian Governments that he should shortly be able to do without
foreign aid. When that takes place, Mr. Bowyer hopes there will be an end to the incessant attacks on the Papal Government. Mr. MONCKTON MILNES replied to Mr. Disraeli. Would he accept the occupation by
Austria of the whole Italian peninsula ? What have the German race to do on the soil of Italy ? Treaties strictly limit Austria to certain
parts of Italy ; they do not give her the right of intervention. No doubt, secret societies exist in a country where no man can speak his mind ; and God forbid that they should not. Mr. WHITESIDE and Sir Some WALSH supported Mr. Disraeli's views.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL complained that his speech had been miscon- strued. He simply thought it desirable that the Government should
either withdraw or proceed with the policy laid down by Lord Clarendon at the Paris Congress. It is desirable to know the policy of the Govern- ment to prevent premature action on the part of the Italians. It seemed as if Mr. Disraeli had prepared his charges before the debate, and that he had not time to alter them after hearing Lord John. Mr. Disraeli had spoken of secret societies : a despotic Government supported by foreign troops is not likely to put them down. These things act upon one another : there are secret societies, therefore there is foreign occupation —there is foreign occupation, therefore there are secret societies: The people resort to secret societies because they see no other mode of stating their grievances.
"The best intelligence I have heard is not from an official but from a semi-official quartor—the honourable Member for Dundalk, who speaks as it were on behalf of the Holy See in this House : he tells us that the troops of Austria and France will m a short time leave the territory of the Holy See."
Mr. BOWYER—" I said, from private information." Lord JOHN RUSSELL—" Private information ; yes. (Laughter.) It is not an official despatch which the honourable and learned gentleman has
received ; but his statement gives me great satisfaction, as I think it very likely that the person who wrote to the honourable and learned gentlemen that private information may have heard it from very good authority. If it prove true it will be very satisfactory." The motion was negatived without a division.
In the House of Peers, Lord LYNDHURST delivered RR oration full of swarm expressions of sympathy for Italy. Great hopes were excited Zber the publication of the protocol of the 8th April : those hopes have been .disappointed. He had otl.en questioned the propriety of that publication, unless England and France intended to follow it up by efficient action. The military tyranny of Austria is most galling and odious. Its nature -was illustrated not only in Italy but in the Principalities where the peo- ple had reason to lament that Russian invasion was exchanged for Aus-
trian protection. By the treaty of Vienna the line of Austrian power in Italy was strictly defined. They have passed that boundary : they have . stretched themselves along the coast at Ancona ; they are now in emu- ipation of the Duchy of Parma and a part of Modena with an immense military force ; they command the whole South of Italy ; a great portion iz in a state of siege. When is this to cease ? The man must be credu- lous who believes Austria will voluntarily quit possession of these dis- tricts. She may yield to pressure from France and England. Naples was mentioned in the protocol of the 8th April : "nothing can exceed the infamy of the Government." The same infamous system of tyranny and oppression has continued from the time when Mr. Gladstone de- scribed it to this moment. It is founded on no law, not even on the law of the country, for the constitution sworn to by the King has never been revoked. When, a week ago, Lord Lyndhurst inquired if the Govern- ment had received an answer to the note sent to the King, what was the explanation ?—The absence of the King at Caserta, only a few miles from Naples, was put forward as the reason for delay. "Did you ever hear, on so grave a subject, such trifling, such absolute mockery—such in- sult!" But it is said that an answer has been received. [A, gesture of assent from Lord Clarendon.] That gesture led to another question—is it satisfactory ? "I am told that it is extremely the reverse--that it de- nies the right of interference and refuses explanation." No country is more open to the power of England than Naples. If the ling sets us at .defiance, it is because he thinks we should not hire to adopt measures that may bring us into conflict with Austria. But if nothing is done, -what becomes of our prestige ? From the highest possible authority' he had learned, that since the Austrians occupied the Legations, 200 pri- soners had been shot, and between 2000 and 6000 sent into exile. Treating of Sardinia, Lord Lyndhurst pointed out the danger to that country from the concentration of immense armies on her frontier; and insisted that we are bound to give the strongest moral support to her,
and, should the emergency occur' material support. The bitter feeling entertained by Austria towards Sardinia is exemplified in the case of the sequestration.* A number of Lombards had quitted the country with the consent of Austria ; the greater number became citizens of Pied- mont; the Austrians confiscated their property, which they, as foreign- ers, had a right to hold under the Austrian law. The advice given by all real friends of Italy is that there should be no attempts at inem.rec- tion. The only- hope for Italy is in the cordial and earnest cooperation of France and England. The Earl of CLARENDON said that it was a disagreeable duty to meet with official reserve the motions of Lord Lyndhurst on foreign' policy. There is so generous an impulse in this country in favour of Italy, that he regretted he could not meet the motion by laying the papers on the table : but the correspondence is still going on, and the Government has favourable expectations of the result. We cannot improve Italy by force. Having collected all the information he could obtain with respect to the state of Italy, separated from exaggeration and party spirit, he felt certain that revolution, however momentarily successful, could not lay the foundations of substantial prosperity. " My Lords, nothing has been done by her Majesty's Government either to promote or excite revolution. I feel that it would be both unjust and cruel to excite expectations which could not be realized—or rather, I should say, expectationt which we are not prepared ourselves to realize. Because if we excite expectations on the part of a portion of Italy—if we lead them to expect aid from us, I 'say that we are bound to render that aid. And though I am prepared to say that there are cases in which intervention in the affairs of other states not only becomes a right but an obligation as strong as any treaty, still I hold, as a general rule, that interference with the internal affairs of other states is not justifiable, and can only be resorted to upon the clearest grounds and as a last resource,"
He vindicated the course taken at the Paris Congress in bringing the question before it.
It was felt that the occasion for the cessation of 'foreign occuptdion would never arise unless it were accelerated. The Italian Governments would never take the initiative. The conduct of Count Cavour at the Congress was moderate, dignified, and worthy of his high reputation. "To hirn more than to any other man was Sardinia indebted for the establishment of liberal institutions, whereby he has rendered great service to Italy, by proving that the Italian people are not unfit to enjoy liberal institutions, and that rational liberty is not inconsistent with devoted loyalty; and that both may be enjoyed in that country without risk of revolution or danger to public order." It Must not be inferred that nothing has been done because there are no visible results.
With regard to Naples, the communication from the King is not satisfac- tory. "it is impossible that any two Govennuents could be more at variance in respect of the facts of the case than her Majesty's Government and the Government of the King of Naples. Our representations were made to him in the most friendly spirit. We stated our reasons for believing that the existing state of things was dangerous to the stability of his throne and also injurious to the peace of Europe. We particularly pointed out what were the dangers which threatened his Majesty, and we more -especially pointed to the necessity of a better administration of justice. We pointed out the inexpediency, not to say the danger, of a policy characterized by systematic mistrust and unjust persecution ; and, above all, we showed hew essential it was that all subjects of his Majesty, irrespective of their political opinions; should have sufficient security for their persons and their property. I think, my Lords, that a milder representation with respect to the-existing state of things-could hardly have been addressed to any -ssernment. It is true that at last we received an answer to this representation ; but we have not yet been able to,gonfer with the Emperor of the French on the subject of this answer. I hope I shall not bring the French Government under the censure of any noble and learned friend by saying that the Emperor is absent, and that as yet, therefore, there can. be no reply given. Until we have . communicated with the French Government on the subject, and have de- termined with thorn 'upon the course which it may be necessary to pursue, , I think it will be betternot to lay that noteupon your Lordships'table ;mid I shall confine myself to. saying that it was impossible for any answer to be less satisfactory or leas indicative of future improvement." But the question of the reform of the Pontifical States has been discussed in a different spirit. The Roman Government shares and approves the wish of the French and Austrian Governments to withdraw their troops ; and he could not believe that much time will elapse before those troops are with- drawn. The policy of confiding in the Italian people has never been tried, but a policy has been adopted founded on a fear of revolution. Now that is not a natural state of things. The Italians are not difficult to govern, if- their rulers would attempt the work of reformation in earnest. Lord Lyndhurst had fully stated the difficulties of the case. "He has stated in plain terms why it is necessary that pressure, if applied at all, should come from France and England together ; and I believe that until we can supply that strong pressure in all its force, we shall not arrive at the results which we all desire. I will only say, in conclusion, that her Ma- jesty's Government have as much at heart the amelioration of the condition of the Italian people as either the Parliament or the people of this country can have ; and that all the efforts they can make and all the influence they can bring to bear will be exerted in the endeavour to ameliorate that con- dition." (Cheers.) The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that the King of Naples is kept on his throne by the belief that the Austrians would suppress any movement against him ; and yet Lord Clarendon said that under no circumstances could resort be had to force on our side. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE corrected Lord Clanricarde what Lord Clarendon had said was' that in the present state of the negotiations no recourse to force would be expe- dient, but that there are circumstances Under which a recourse to force might be a duty.
THE CORMANDER-IN-CHLEF.
The Duke of Sostauswr inquired whether, in appointing a new Com- mander-in-chief, the position of that office in relation to the Secretary for War had been in any way. altered ; and whether it was proposed to create any Board to assist the Commander-in-chief? Lord PANMURE thought it best to state briefly, in reply, that no alter- ation has taken place in the shape of giving the Commander-in-chief a Board to assist him ; and that no difference has been made in the rela- tions between him and the Secretary for War. The entire responsibility for all acts of the Commander-in-chief rests with the Government of the day. No appointments in superior departments are made without the concurrence of the Secretary for War. In the administration of minor patronage the Commander-in-chief acts on. .his own responsibility, sub- ject to the control of the Secretary for War. Lord Panmure lamented the circumstances that led to the resignation of Lord liardinge. No individual had filled the post of Commander-in- chief with such entire satisfaction to the Army, the Sovereign, and the country ; no individual was so highly qualified to fill that post as Lord Hardinge. Since Lord Panmure had been Secretary for War he had had no differences with Lord Hardinge, but all business had boon transacted with harmony and friendship between them. Lord Miuxu.L.E said that the Army would derive great satisfac- tion from that testimony to the character and services of the late Com- mender-in-chief. He must say, however, that, with the experience he has had of the service, the time has come when a Cabinet minute should be drawn up defining where the duties of the Secretary for War end and those of the Commander-in-chief begin. All promotions should be vested in the Commander-in-chief, as well as everything relating to dis- cipline. At present there is divided authority, and great difficulty has in consequence been experienced in carrying on the affairs of the Army.
• Nays': RESERVE.
At the morning sitting on Tuesday, Sir CHARLES WOOD, Apropos of the second reading of the Coast Guard Service Bill, explained the mea- sure of the Government providing a naval reserve. This measure trans- fers the control of the Coast Guard frqm the Board of Customs to the Board of Admiralty. It was not necessary to come to Parliament for power to do that, but Government desired to have the sanction of the Rouse to the plan they intend to pursue. We have learnt much by the late war. Since impressment has not been resorted to, great difficulty has been felt in manning the Navy. The mer- chant service, notwithstanding the great improvement in the Navy, is always able to outbid the Admiralty. Yet, without resorting to impress- ment, from December 1853 to November 1855, 16,000 seamen had been added to the Navy. What is wanted, however, is the means of raising a force on an emergency../4•Tow that we are in strict alliance with France and the best•feeling prevails between the two countries, we can speak freely of our national defences. Not only the French but the Dutch can, on an emergency, call together a much larger number of seamen than we. The French are making the most successful efforts to increase their navy. The'y have a plan of inscription which, according to Admiral de la Susse, yields 50,000 men, perfectly trained in naval duties. According to the same au- thority, they can from all sources count on 90,000 men. Our sailors are scattered all over the world. The whole number of men we could call into active service on an emergency is 2500. The bill will enlarge the Coast Guard, and give it a more naval character; thus there will in future be a reserve of from 5000 to 7000 men. Ships will be stationed at the principal ports of the country to form the head-quarters of the Coast Guard ; and a certain number of the gun-boats will be employed tie revenue coasters. The object will be to make the service attractive and secure a reserve. Sir JAMES GRAHAM and Sir FRANCIS BARDIG expressed their concur- rence in the plan. The CHANCELLOR of the Exeneoues said, that, looking at it as a fiscal question he should say it would be better to leave things as they are but, looking at it as a question of general po- licy, he was convinced that while there would he sufficient security for the revenue, there would be a permanent benefit to the country. The bill was read a second time.
BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM RETIREMENT BILL.
I/I moving the second reading of this bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that the Bishop of .London and the Bishop of Durham had ear- nestly represented their incapacity to discharge their duties. The Bishop of London suffered a severe paralytic attack last autumn; the Bishop of Durham is very advanced in life, and is nearly blind. They both desire to resign. The bill before the Mouse is to enable them to do so. Now, although their resignations might perhaps be effected without the aid of Parliament, yet as the law is obscure, and as no precedent can be found since the Reformation, it would have been unwise to attempt to carry out the wishes of the two Bishops without the ;consent of Parliament. The bishopric of London is not what is called a " regulated" bishopric, but the Bishop draws the whole of the revenue which may be estimated at 18,000/. per annum. If the bishopric had been regulated, the income would be fixed at 10,0001.; there will therefore be no difficulty in pro- viding a handsome allowance for the retiring Bishop, and gall leave a surplus for the Ecclesiastical Fund. • The retiring allowance will be 60001.; one half of which would be expended in keeping up insurances which the Bishop, not having saved money, had effected on his life as a provision for his family. The case of the Bishop of Durham was differ- ent : Dr. Malthy had accepted the see on the assumption that it mould yield a net income of 8000/. a year ; the income exceeded that sum by 5000/., and the Bishop had set apart the surplus to form a fund for the benefit of the diocese, called the Maltby Fund." A charge on the re- venue for a refiring allowance [amount not mentioned] would leave a surplus for the Ecclesiastical Fund. Any resignation of a benefice must be accompanied by a declaration that there had been no corrupt bargain ; but there could be nothing less open to the imputation than the surren- der of large incomes in these cases. , A considerable opposition was manifested to the motion, by Lord REDESDALE, the Bishop Of EXETER, the Earl of DLany, the Duke Of NEW- CASTLE, and the Bishop of OXFORD. One great, objection was, that a general measure had not been introduced to regulate the retirement of Bishops and the clergy. It was urged that it would be better to bear the inconveniences of a few months' delay than set the dangerous precedent of exceptional legislation. The Bishop of Exemat regarded the bill as an infringement of Church principles—especially of the sacred rule that a Bishop can only resign ni the Xichbishop,. who gave him admission. He also complained that the Episcopal Beneh had not been consulted. The Bishop of Oxi'lann asked the House to pause before it applied a palliative that would render a general mea- sure to remedy the evil next to impossible. 'The 'Earl of DERBY SHid, the bill violated the law of England, which prohibits anything in the 'way of traffic or bargain in the resignation of any office. Negotiations were entered upon with the Bishops, and that negotiation was of the kind strictly prohibited by the law of England. 'The Duke of NEWCASTLE said, it was-well known that there were two other Prelates in the same position as the Bishops of Durham and London : why are they not dealt with ? They had not resigned, because they knew the House of Com- mons would not grant pensions out of the Ecclesiastical Fund. The present proposal is degrading to the Church and injurious to the Bishops. Lord REDESDALE moved that the bill should be read a second time that
day three months. ,
The original motion was supported by the garl of Caicuarsu, the Earl of HARE.OWBY and the Archbishop of CANTERBURY. The Arch bishop expressed his surprise at the opposition which proceeded from
friends of the Church. Nothing could be less consistent with the inte- rests of religion than to leave the dioceses of London and Durham with- out episcopal superintendence for an indefinite period. The resignation of a Bishop for sufficient cause is a recognized part of the constitution of the Church. No doubt, a general measure on the subject is highly de- sirable ; but no future Bishop will be in the position of those who are the subjects of this bill. The amount of the retiring allowance of the Bishop of London had been called " extreme " ; but if the Bishop had spared one half of what he employed in charities, he would have been independent of the bill.
On a division, the amendment was negatived by 47 to 35 ; and the bill was read a second time.
On the order for going into into Committee, Lord REDESDALE suh- mitted to the Government, that the bill ought not to be proceeded with until the correspondence with the Bishops had been produced. The Loan CHANCELLOR said that there was not the slightest reluctance to lay it on the table. No doubt, it would be laid on the table on Friday. The letters would show that the Bishops did not suppose they were doing anything simoniacal. The Bishop of OXFORD said that was not a correct statement of the case. The Government ought to state distinctly whether the Bishop of London knew it to be an act of simony which they were going to lead him to do. The Bishop of London understood that this private bill would be accompanied by a geneml measure. That general measure is dropped; yet, taking advantage of a change of circumstances, the Government are going to make the Bishop guilty of simony in the eyes of the great body of the Church. Lord CAMPBELL explained, that simony is doing a thing prohibited by law, without the consent of the Legislature. But here the consent of the Legislature is asked. Whether the bill pass or not, there will be no simony either legal or moral in the matter. The Bishop of OXFORD rejoined, that if the bill passed the two Bishops would not be ;sally guilty of simony, but the same thing that they do will remain
ille in other cases.
[he Earl of CHICHESTER stated that the Bishop of London had seen and approved of the draught of a bill, not exactly similar to that before the. House, but the same in principle in respect of its being a separate measure. The Earl of SHA.FTESBURY described the prospective state of the diocese of London as it would be under an interregnum, and urged the House to go on with the bill. The Earl of DERBY supported the views of the Bishop of Oxford.
The House went into Committee without dividing. The Earl of GAL- LOWAY and Lord DUNGANNON strongly objected to the enormous retiring allowanaes--6000/. to the Bishop of London, 4500/. to the Bishop of Durham. But the bill passed through Committee without amendment in these respects.
THE Drvonea BILL.
In reply to a question from Mr. HADFIELD on Thursday night, re- specting the future of certain bills, Lord PALiontsvoN said that the in- tentions of the Government would be stated as they came on. One bill which stood for that night—the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill— he stated, would be withdrawn, "as many persons have left town."
It was the intention of the Government to introduce a bill upon the sub- ject at the beginning of the next session. It was unnecessary to say what
changes might, in consideration, be made the measure; but the Go- vernment certainly would not include in their bill the 24th clause of the present one whiph prohibited marriage between the parties convicted of adultery. Doing full justice to the motives of those who introduced that clause, he was of opinion that this would be not only a cruel but an ins - moral provision.
The bill was withdrawn in the course of the evening.
11EINISTER OF EDUCATION.
In moving the second reading of the Vice-President of Committee of Council on Education Bill, Sir GEORGE GREY explained that the object of the bill was to secure a responsible Minister, having a seat in the House, in whose hands the duty of administering the grants and superintending the department of education should be centralized. Mr. HADFIELD made an ineffectual attempt to throw out the bill, on the ground that it does not extend to Ireland, nor define the duties of the officer created under it. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months ; but his motion was negatived without a division, and the bill was read a second time.
EDUCATION as SCOTLAND.
The House of Lords, in Committee on the Parochial Schools (Scot- land) Bill, made a serious inroad' an its character. The Duke of Bee- =ten moved the omission of clause 12, which abolishes the Church test in the appointment of schoolmasters. He also proposed to amend clause 13, and to strike out clause 14—both relating to the schoolmasters. The Duke of ARGYLL and Lord P.Lvmene opposed the motion to strike out clause 12 ; but it was carried against the Government by 50 to 20.
The amendment of clause 13 was deferred until the bringing up of the report; but clause 14 was struck out.
After the Committee had dealt with all the clauses, the Duke of ARGYLL remarked, that as the bill had been so greatly altered, it could no longer be considered a Government measure, and the Duke of Buccleuch must take it in charge.
The Duke of BeecLutreit replied, that as the bill was brought in under the responsibility of Government, they must not desert their own child.
THE PARTNERSHIP BILL.
Mr. Lowe's Partnership Amendment (No. 2) Bill was read a third time on Monday, but withdrawn at the last stage. The incident that led, to the abandonment of the measure was the success of a motion made by one of its supporters.
On the question that the bill should pass Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE moved the addition of a proviso to clause 3, enacting that the announcement of all loans to partnerships established under the act should be inserted in the Gazettes of London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, in the name of the lender, together with the name of the borrower, and the portion of the profits which the lender stipulated to receive. Mr. WILKINSON said that nobody would lend money on such terms. Mr. Mu.srez, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. SPOONER, and Mr. GLYN, supported the proviso as necessary to prevent fraud.
Mr. Lowe said that the principle of the bill was that lending on profits is not a partnership. If so, why annex to it the incidents of a partner- ship? Would Mr. Glyn consent to have every bill he discounts pub- lished in the Gazette ? The House ought to attach to these loans the incidents of a loan only, and allow them, like other loans, to remain secret. The proviso amounts to this—that whereas a man may lend his money at a fired interest without making it public, and without running any risk except that of losing his money, a man who lends money, the interest of which is to vary with the profits, will be liable to his last shilling, unless he insert a number of very loosely-worded provisions —a series of 'pitfalls in fact—in the Gazette. It would be better to abandon the bill than establish such a system.
Mr. CARDWELL said that the experience of centuries is in favour of the plan proposed in the amendment. The proviso was borrowed from one in the statutes of Massachusetts establishing limited liability. When partnerships en commandite were established by Louis XIV., the absence of registration gave rise to frauds ; and under Napoleon, according to M. Troplong, registration was required to prevent "too much clandesti- nity." In dealing with this subject, the House should be guided by experience rather than theory. Mr. LINDSAY spoke against the proviso ; and Mr. THOMAS BARING attacked the whole principle of the bill. Lord PALMERSTON challenged the House to say at once whether it
would have the bill or not. He could not understand the distinction between money lent upon profit and upon a fixed interest, or why there should be such danger apprehended to the country if money should be lent upon profits without publication, whereas no publication is required where money is lent upon interest be it ever so high. On a division, the proviso was carried by 108 to 102. The announcement of the numbers was greeted with cheers by the
Opposition, repeated when Mr. LOWE stated that the Government would not proceed with the bill. His regret at the result of the division was diminished, he said, as since he brought in the bill he had seen the opinions of Mr. Justice Cresswell, Mr. Justice Wiles, Mr. Baron Bram- well, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and some other legal authorities, to the effect that loans lent upon con- dition of receiving a portion of the profits, and services rendered on the same terms, did not make the parties liable as partners. Mr. DISRAELI said, he should like to see the official consolation—the legal opinion, and the case on which it was based, which had so alleviated the pain of defeat.. Mr. LOWE promised to lay the documents before the House.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.
A bill has been introduced to continue for one year the Corrupt Prac-
tices Prevention Bill passed in 1854. On the motion for going into Committee, Mr. HENRY BERKELEY seized the opportunity to make a speech for the purpose of showing that the measure had been inadequate, and in many respects inoperative, especially to prevent intimidation ; and that the only effectual remedy for corruption and intimidation is the ballot. He moved that the House should resolve itself into Committee that day three months. Mr. 011AUFURD seconded the amendment ; but it met with hardly any support. Sir GEORGE GREY said, the Government merely asked the House to continue the bill for one year ; as next session they will pro- pose that a Select Committee shall inquire into the operation of the act in those elections which have taken place since it was passed.
The amendment was withdrawn ; and the bill passed through Com- mittee without amendment.
MERCANTILE LAW.
In Committee on the Mercantile Law Amendment Bill, clause 1, re- pealing part of the Statute of Frauds which renders "a note or memo- randum in writing" necessary to complete a bargain in all cases above 10/.—and clause 2, abolishing the privilege of sale in market overt— were struck out.
REFORMATORY SCHOOLS.
When the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill was in the House
of Lords, the Bishop of Oxford succeeded in getting a clause inserted giving Magistrates power to send to a reformatory school juvenile crimi- nals who had not undergone a previous punishment. In considering the amendments made by the Lords, Sir GEORGE Gney moved that this clause should be not agreed to ; and on a division the motion was carried by 46 to 31. The Bishop of Oxford's clause was therefore expunged.
THE CURSITOR BARON.
A bill abolishing the formal office of Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer was road a second time on Thursday ; and, the standing orders being sus- pended, passed through Committee.
MIL. FITZGERALD'S CASE.
On Tuesday evening, Mr. J. D. Frrzonuamp, the Attorney-General for Ireland, took advantage of the motion for the adjournment of the House, to fulfil a pledge he had given and make a statement in refuta- tion of the charges brought against him by Mr. Napier in the House of Commons and the Irish Master of the Rolls in his Court. Mr. Napier had placed him in a peculiar position—he had insinuated a charge which he would not make until he heard the defence ; and Mr. Fitzgerald had no choice but to take that opportunity of relieving himself.
Mr. Napier alleged that the Attorney-General had accused the Master of the Rolls of having been guilty of a breach of judicial duty, and having disregarded his oath as a Privy- Councillor. By a reference to four different reports of what he did say, Mr. Fitzgerald showed that he did not even al- lude to the oath of the Master of the Rolls. When charged by Mr. Moore with vonniving at the escape of James Sadleir, he did say, that if James Sadleir had escaped it was m consequence of the " irregular " observations of the Master of the Rolls. Mr. Napier, however, lost no tune in sending the supposed reply to the Master of the Rolls. On the 11th instant, the Master made a charge against Mr. Fitzgerald, not in delivering a judgment, but in open court to a crowded audience, who cheered him as he spoke. He accused Mr. Fitzgerald of closing his eyes and shutting his ears to everything in relation to the Sadleir frauds ; of taking no steps to proceed against James Sadleir from the 4th March to the 3d June; in short, he elaborately con- veyed the charge that the Government, and Mr. Fitzgerald as its agent, had connived at James Sadleir's escape. In the entire history of jurispru- dence you will look in vain for a parallel to that proceeding. Would bir, Cardwell, the avowed friend of the Master of the Rolls, palliate that un- precedented course ? Ilitving stated the origin and nature of the charge, Mr. Fitzgerald, by a minute history of the whole case and his connexion with it, showed that the charges of Mr. Moore and the Master of the RORS were without foundation. In the statement made by the Master on the 4th March, there was nothing to show that James Sadleir could be brought within the reach of the criminal law. The law does not directly provide for the punishment of those who issue false statements of accounts, but the parties may be indicted for conspiracy. Now, on the 4th March, the day after the Judgment was delivered, and on the 25th March, the Master wrote to Mr. Fitzgerald, beginning " My dear Solicitor," but he said nothing about the Tipperary Bank. On the 31st March, he saw the Master in the House, but neither in his letters nor in personal communica- tion did he suggest a prosecution. On the 28th March, Master Murphy decided that there was not sufficient evidence to lead to a charge of fraud against hones Sadleir. There was an appeal against that judgment to the Master of the Rolls ; who, on e 3d June, expressed un-
bounded th unded astonishment that the Irish Government had not thought fit to take
any notice of the case, and. announced that when he gave judgment be should enter fully into the facts of the case, and prove that if the Govern- ment remained quiescent they could not complain if the public charged them with conniving at conspiracy. On the 6th June these remarks came accidentally under the notice of Mr. Fitzgerald—the' Master did not com- municate with him—and he wrote immediately to the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Kemmie, and directed him to hold himself in readiness to act with prompti- tude. The judgment was fixed for the ensuing week ; Mr. Fitzgerald went to Dublin to hear it, but the Master postponed it until the following week. While at Dublin, Mr. Fitzgerald selected Mr. Brewster to assist the Solicitor-General ; and at a conference it was decided that nothing could be done until the Master had delivered his judg- ment. The Crown Solicitor applied for information to all the persons concerned ; but the reply was that the affidavits and other documents could not be furnished until the Master had delivered judgment. However, he did obtain a copy of the affidavits—a hundred and fifty in number—and read them through. Still nothing could be done until the judgment was delivered. A copy of the judgment reached him on the 21st, and he im- mediately wrote to the Crown Solicitor, saying he thought there was a case on which James Sadleir ought to be prosecuted for conspiracy, and instruct- ing him to take his directions from the Solicitor-General. That officer, Mr. Brewster, and Mr. Bemmis, held a consultation on the22d, and decid that although there might be a case against James Sadleir' it was doubtful whether a prosecution would be successful, but at any rate that it was not a case for a public prosecutor. Mr. Fitzgerald was not satisfied with that decision ; and, after a conference with the English Attorney-General, he formally directed, on the 27th June, that James Sadleir should be prosecuted for conspiracy. Mr. Fitzgerald further showed that active measures had been taken to arrest Sadleir; that a warrant was issued ; that a Government reward was offered ; but that in the mean time -.Tames Sadleir had fled as early as the 8th June. Mr. Fitzgerald read a passage from a letter, stating that on the 4th June he came into the office of his solicitor with the speech delivered by the Master of the Rolls in his hand, and said, "I must nevi stand my ground or cut." Evidently, the irregular observations of the Master of the Rolls showed him that he was in danger. After that statement, Mr. Fitzgertdd asked, did any imputations rest on him ? Mr. NAPIER, disclaiming the position of accuser, and excusing the Master of the Rolls as well as he could, said it would be uneandid and unfair to impute anything improper to Mr. Fitzgerald, after the state- ment he had made.
"lie appears to have exercised due diligence, and to have availed him- self of professional assistance of the highest character in Ireland. [Mr. Horsman here made a remark which was inaudible in the gallery.] I hope. the Chief Secretary for Ireland will not suppose that, in making this ad- mission, I do so with any reserve or any desire to keep behind any in- sinuation against the Attorney-General." The subject dropped without further remark.
WINE-Durres.
Mr. Otrveret called attention to the high duty charged on Foreign and Colonial Wines. He quoted statistics to show that there had been since 1802 a progressive increase in the consumption of spirits, which had risen from 15,000,000 galena in that year to 30,000,000 gallons in 1853; while the wine-consumption had remained almost stationary, notwithstand- ing the increase of population. It was 7,000,000 gallons in 1802, and 6,000,000 in 1853. If the duties were reduced, there would be, as there has been in the case of tea, coffee, and sugar, an increase in the con- sumption of wine. He proposed that there should be a progressive re- duction of the duty from 5s. in 1857 to 38. in 1860, when he calculated that the consumption would reach 14,000,000 gallons. Be moved, that with a view to promote increased commercial relations with France, Spain, Portugal, and other wine-growing countries, the House shouM resolve itself into a Committee to take the duties into consideration.
The CHANCELLOR of the EX.CHEQUER said, that looking to the period of the session and the state of the revenue, he should be justified in asking the House to refuse its assent to the motion, without entering into any statement of reasons for that course. But the attention Mr. Oliveira had given to the subject entitled him to a fuller answer. There- upon Sir George showed that the greater part of our taxation on articles of consumption is raised on beverages-35,000,000l.; and he argued that it is of great importance not to diminish the productiveness of that branch of the revenue. Next he gave a sketch of the changes of duty on wines from 1795 to 1840; and showed that there had been a large consumption when there were high duties. We could not expect the ordinary result from a reduction of duty—increase Of consumption. The cause of the diminution in the consumption of wine is the soberer habits of the people If it were cheaper to drink wine than beer or spirits, then, no doubt, the consumption of weak wines would increase; but in that case, the duties on other fermented drinks would be a protective duty on wine. He wished it were in his power te place the duty on wine at such a point as would increase our commerce with France ; but it would be an Elusion to expect that within any early period.
The motion was withdrawn.
THE ALDERSHOT REVIEW.
In giving notice, on Monday, of a motion that the House at its rising on Tuesday should adjourn till Thursday, Lord PALMERSTON excited some mirth by the way in which he informed the House of a treat that the Government had provided for Members, in the shape of a luncheon and review at Aldershot. Be read an account of the arrangements for carrying Members by railway to Farnborough station- " For those Members who have no conveyance at Farnborough, omnibuses will be prepared at the station. So much for the land transport ; now for the commissariat. Luncheon will be prepared for Members of both Houses at 2.30 at Aldershot. (Cheers and laughter.) Those who intend sending horses and carriages by the nine o'clock train must secure their boxes and trucks on Tuesday, at the Waterloo station, in order that there may be a sufficient number.' (Crutkuedlaughter.)
On Tuesday, when the adjournment till Thursday was moved, Mr. D/SRAELI protested against the new system introduced by the Minister, of giving holidays to the House at the public expense. It is a precedent that ought mit to be admitted. Besides it was not at all dignified for the First Minister of the Crown to be informing the House how they were to repair to this entertainment, and what arrangements had been made for the commissariat, and other matters of that sort.
Mr. Farascii said that Ministers showed a remarkable generosity in giving away what does not belong to them—" the Wednesdays." Mr. WILLIAMS wanted to know where the money was to come from. There had been "no estimate." Every Member ought to pay his own expenses. This system of treating the Members of the two Houses was quite new ; and people out of doors said that it arose from nothing but the paltry pride of the Government, and a desire to influence Members in their favour.
Lord human5-1'ms thought the House would not enter into the con- stitutional jealousy which induced Mr. Williams and Mr. Disraeli to think that these occasional military and naval reviews will corrupt the House of Commons—especially after what happened last time ! It would be unfit to adjourn over a business day on a trifling occasion ; but that objection did not apply to an oacasion when our brave troops who had returned from the Crimea were to be reviewed by the Queen. Mr. Dis- raeli thought it was unbecoming in a Prime Minister to explain the ar- rangements; but the time was short, and had he not given that explana- tion he should have been reproached with keeping the House in ig- norance of the steps they should take to be present at a review attended by her Majesty. As to the expense Mr. Williams must be aware that a considerable sum is annually voted for "civil contingencies "—that is the fund out of which this very small expense would be defrayed. Mr. HENLEY objected to the payment of expenses of this sort. The House was getting into a way once much criticized—churchwardens and overseers dining at the expense of the parish. It is a beginning, and he protested against it.
Previous page
