;Auto - nu/I Srnmybiuga in 3arUnurcni.

Howe OF LOUD& Friday, May 27.--Ran Domingo; Lord Brougham's statement -Offences in Territories near Sierra Leone reported.

Tuesday, May 28.-New Zealand Provinces Bill read a second time-Offences in Territories near Sierra Leone Bill read a third time and passed.

Thursday, May 80.-Marriage Law Amendment Bill committed-Officers of Re- serve (Royal Navy) Bill read a second time-Syrian Affairs; Lord Wodehouse's Answers to Lord Carnarvon and Lord Stratford. • Friday, May 81. Cotton; Lord Tweeddale's QuestiorL House or Couscous. Monday, May 27.- Customs and Inland Revenue Bill; Mr. Newdegate's Motion defeated, debate in Committee adjourned. Tuesday, May 28. The Galway Contract; the &Donoghue's QuestIrm-Relations with America, blockades; Lord John Russell's statement-Ragged Schools; Sir J. Northeote's Motion.

Wednesday, May 29. No ratings, Derby day.

Thursday, May 30.-Customs and Inland Revenue Bill; Paper Duty Repeal Clause carried by 296 to 281. Friday, May 31. Policy in China; Mr. Dunlop's Motion-Iron-plated Ships; Sir J. Pakington's Motion.

THE BUDGET DEBATE.

Mr. NzweEGATE, on Monday, raised an objection to going into Committee of Supply on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, by moving, that whereas the embodiment of the principal financial pro- posals of the Government in one bill unduly increases the power of the Government over the taxation of this country, and the interests thereby affected, limits inconveniently the action of this House, and would annul the well-ascertained function and privileges of the House of Lords, it be an instruction to the Committee to divide the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, so that each of the taxes to which it relates may be separately treated. He insisted that annual taxation will in- crease the power of the Crown, and that consolidation bills like that before the House will diminish the o ortanities of debate in the House of Commons, and deprive the : 'use of Lords of their pri- vileges.

There was a pause after he had done speaking, and then Mr. Gin_ STONEbriefly answered him, denying that the opportunities of discus- sion were diminished, or that any insult would be inflicted on the House of Lords, except what might arise from the language used by Mr. Newdegate and others. In a short speech Mr. SPOONER sup- ported his colleague ; Mr. HORSMAN, however, "regretted" that he could not do the same; and Mr. KNIGHTLEY also said he could not vote for the motion, and did not think it should have been brought forward at that time.

The House evidently desired to go into committee; not a voice was raised in favour of the amendment, when it was put by the SPEAKER; but Mr. NEWDEGATE insisted on a division, and he was defeated by 195 to 34. The House then went into committee, and no opposition arose until the clause repealing the paper duties was.read. Mr. KER SEYMER then spoke against the clause. When he was re- cently in the country he was surprised to find how much opposition. this clause excited among Liberals as well as Conservatives. His argument was that there are no special reasons for repealing the paper duties rather than the hop or malt duties; and that the position of affairs in Europe and America does not justify the sacrifice of a large permanent revenue from paper, especially as there is little likelihood of any substantial reduction of expenditure. He chame d Ministers with inclining too much to the economical objections of those who sit below the gangway, and urged the committee to support himwith a majority against the clause. Mr. MONCKTON Muszs said he had voted last year against the re- peal of the paper duty ; he had approved of the conduct of the House of Lords and he now brought to the consideration of the Budget a. clear ant i candid mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he had a surplus, could not pass over the paper duty, and as he now be- lieved he had a surplus, Mr. Milnes thought the Government not altogether wrong in abolishing the tax. It would not have been pos- sible to hit upon a tax, the repeal of which will be so beneficial in so many different directions-not only to papermakers, but to every milliner who uses a bandbox, every tradesman who makes up a pack- age. Mr. LYGON, arguing on the other side, maintained that there was not only no popular demand for the repeal of the tax, but an. apathy on the subject altogether. Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART and Mr. MORRIS supported; and Mr. HENNESSY opposed the clause, the latter preferring a reduction of the tea duty. Sir Joni: Wersti said that evening was to be an important crisis in the session of 1861, He remembered many crises, yet of all this was• the most irritating, annoying, and troublesome. What looked like a party contest had been forced on the Opposition; they were not moved by faction; they were forced to defend their principles and in- terests. There had been no desire to disturb or oust Ministers ; Lord Palmerston was respected and admired, The Opposition believed he had "the head of a statesman and the heart of an Englishman"- (general cheering)-and they, on that side, felt much regard, he might say partiality, for the noble lord. Sir John said he did not wish to see the Conservatives again trying the painful experiment of governing- with a minority in Parliament. Now the Conservatives are gaming ground, but they ought only to take office with that support which. would Justify them in seizing the reins. They desired to postpone the change of Government because the pear is not ripe. But they had no choice; they must oppose Ministers or lose character' and it was most annoying that the question should be forced upon them by a sort of screw that honourable gentlemen sitting below the gangway were enabled to apply to the Government. Sir John took financ:al ground against the clause after this explanation of the Conservative position. Mr. AYRTON charged the Opposition with obstructing the business. of the country, in the desperate hope that something might turn up to give tone and colour to their agitation. He looked upon the paper duty as a tax which, above all others, ought to be repealed, and he called upon hon. gentlemen opposite to unite to bring a pressure upon the Government to diminish the expenditure of the country. This might make them popular out of doors, while at the same time it would help to lessen the burdens upon the people. Sir Joni/ RAMS- DEN took an opposite view to that of Mr. Ayrton, as he held that it would be rash and dangerous in the last degree to incur a final and irrevocable loss by the repeal of the paper duty. The tea duty was stationary, showing that, notwithstanding the increase of population, the consumption was checked by the high duty. He joined issue altogether with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to there being a surplus at alL In point of fact there was no surplus beyond the visions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were as fallacious as those of any speculator on the Stock Exchange. A surplus meant something in hand, while that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to be his did not exist even on paper, although he had invited the House to distribute i:. He believed that his proposition, so far as paper was concerned, was contrary to the wish of the country, and he believed if Mr. Gladstone would, even at the eleventh hour, re- treat with dignity and honour, he would receive the support of all reasonable men. For his own part he thought the wiser coarse would be for the House to confine itself precisely to a similar policy to that of last year, and leave matters as they stood for the present. Referring to the constitutional part of the ques- tion, Sir John said he thought the moat safe and statesmanlike policy would be to avoid a conflict with the other branch of the Legislature, which it was now generally admitted had pursued a wise and judicious course last session. Sir. ROBERT PEEL wished to consider the question as it bore upon the interests of the people in the current year, for, to his thinking, the " reverend Conservative of Carlisle" had disposed most effectually of the constitutional portion of it by admitting the right of the Lords to reject the bill.

He did not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his elaborate ornamentation of the Budget, had concealed the fact that there was a deficiency last year of 822,000/. If that amount were deducted from the surplus of 1,900,0801., the balance would be only 1,018,0001. The manner in which the

Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with the subject reminded him of the re- monstrance of Flavins, who acted as a sort of chancellor of the exchequer for Timon of Athens, and who complained that his master had called upon him to make great gifts out of empty coffers. In like manner Mr. Gladstone Invited the House of Commons to distribute a surplus which, as a matter of fact, had not yet been reduced to possession. The question seemed to him to be one between direct and indirect taxation, and he warned the House how it:proceeded in such a course without any corresponding advantage. The horizon abroad was dark and forbidding. France was occupying Syria, Rome, and the southern slopes of the Alps against the wishes of Europe; buccaneering Spain had seized a part of San Domingo, while Hungary was in the throes of a revolution; trade at home was waning, and, under these circumstances, he asked whether the present was the time to enter upon hazardous speculations in finance. In his opinion the paper duty could not be spared, and he should therefore vote in the same lobby with the Opposition in favour of retaining it. Mr. 1dELLOR. moved that the Chairman report progress. (Cries of "Divide divide!"). Mr. DisnAEra said, if ever there was a night, that was the night when the committee might come to a decision. But he was unwilling to be an obstacle to free discussion, and he trusted that if the adjourn- ment was sanctioned by Government, no more would be heard filial that quarter about placing obstacles to the progress of business. They might "with great 'convenience at once come to a decision ;" if Mr. Mellor wished to speal; Mr. Disraeli could promise a silent and admiring audience. Still, if Lord Palmerston sanctioned the motion to report.progress, Mr. Disraeli's respect for free discussion would not permit him to object. Lord l'AutzlisTox said he did not object to a motion (derisive cheers) suggested by the silence of the Opposition. Many Members wished to speak, and he cordially agreed to the adjournment, but he would not undertake to abstain from remarks on attempts to pro- crastinate debates.

The Chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday.

On Tuesday evening the following brief colloquy occurred between the O'Donoghne and Lord Palmerston apropos of the Galway con- tract, and with am evident eye to the coming division.

The OTIONO6FILTE.-■-" I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether itis the intention of the Government to carry out the views of the Postmaster- General, expressed in a recent letter, and annul the Galway Contract ?"

Lord PALMERSTON.—" The communication made to the Galway Company by the Postmaster-General was not the decision of the Post-office, but was a communication of the decision of the Government. It is of course competent to the parties concerned to make to the Government any representation which they may think fit in regard to the communication so made to them, and it will be for the Government to take such decision as they mav think fit upon any such re- presentation that may be made to them. I would remind the honourable mem- ber that the motion made by my honourable friend, the member for Galway, for the introduction of all the correspondence on the subject, has been agreed to. When that correspondence is laid before the House, the House will be in a better position. than it can be now to judge of the matter."

The debate was brought to an end on Thursday by a close division. Before the speaking in Committee was resumed, several questions were put touching the Galway Contract. Lord PALMERSTON stated, in reply to Mr. LANIGAN, that a very long and elaborate statement had been received on Wednesday from the Atlantic Mail Packet Com- pany, and that when it was considered and answered by the Post- master-General a copy of it would be laid upon the table, with the other papers on the same subject. In reply to farther questions from Mr. BEAMISH and Colonel FRENCH, Lord PALMERSTON said that he had no hesitation in stating that it was the opinion of the Govern- ment that a more rapid communication should be established between the United Kingdom and North America, and that Ireland was that portion of the empire from which it could be best established. Under these circumstances the Government would not be indisposed to take into consideration any proposal for the establishment of that com- munication, founded upon open competition, which might appear to them calculated to accomplish that object. The ground being thus broken the House went into Committee, and Mr. MELLOR continued the debate, arguing in favour of a repeal of the paper duty, and broaching the Galway Packet question and its effect on the votes of Irish Members, he said he did not believe they would answer the appeals made to them to join in a vote of want of confidence, but would fight the Galway question on its own merits. Mr. Disitanu next spoke. His speech was an elaborate exposition from his point of view of the course he had taken.

Asserting that it was the privilege of the House to inquire into the existence or non-existence of a surplus, he said he was willing to admit a surplus, but he joined issue on its application. He was also willing to admit that, in combining in one and the same bill a measure to impose one tax and to remit another, the Government had acted within the constitution; but he contended that in the present case there was no necessity for departing from the usual practice, and that it was unwise, unnecessary, and impolitic to do so. On the ground of con- ciliation towards the other House of Parliament, he thought that the course adopted by the Government would have a totally opposite result. Admitting, then, that there was a surplus, the first duty of the Government was, in his opinion, to reduce the income tax and the 'duties upon tea and sugar. With regard to the squabble between Ministers and the Galway Mail Packet Company, he could only say that his decision, and that of the party with whom lie acted, had been announced many weeks before the rumours about the Galway contract bad been heard. He denied that he had ever given a pledge to any person on behalf of the Atlantic Mail Packet Company that he would give any support to the undertaking, save that which, as a member of Parliament, he might feel it to be his duty to give upon imperial grounds. Lord Joan RUSSELL answered that he made no charge against Mr. Disraeli for taking advantage of the discontent of certain gentlemen with the Government in a local question to press them on the subject now before the House ; but he thought it necessary to vindicate the Government against an imputation which had been made against their honour, and which had been widely circulated. Lord Palmerston had refused to receive a deputation with regard to the Galway contract ; and as to the charge that it was intended to extend that contract for six months, it was utterly untrue, and he refuted it as a calumny. The question of the conveyance of mails from Ireland to America was not to be summarily dismissed without consideration ; but that was a different question from the Galway contract, and it would be better that ten Ministries should resign and ten Parliaments be dissolved

than that concession on that point should be used for the purpose of gaining votes for the impending division. As to the immediate question Mr. Disraeli had thrown quite a new light upon it, by suggesting some other disposal of the surplus than the repeal of the paper duty. The noble lord then proceeded to argue the matter in hand in its various phases; • and in reference to the question of privilege between the two houses, pointed out that when that question was fairly raised by Mr. Newdegate's mo- tion the other night, the course of the Government was vindicated by a majority of 190 ; while sato the repeal of the paper duty it would be clearly a relief to the industry of the country, and with the reduction of the income tax, showed a fair apportionment of remission between direct and indirect taxation. Referring to an expression of Sir J. Ramsden on a former evening, that the " repnblican bubbk

in America had burst," " My hon. friend said that the great republican bubble of America had burst. Now, for my part--I may be subject to correction—but when I find that a dark and tyrannical despotism has been abolished, and that the people are likely to enjoy a free Government in its place, I certainly confess that I rejoice in the fact. (Cheers.) It is my duty to represent her ifajesty as

friendly to all existing States, but if one of these despotisms fall, and the people inhabiting that State are likely to have a better and freer Government, 1 comet help owning that it gives me satisfaction, and that I sympathize with those

people. (Cheers.) But I own I have a very different feeling when a great republic which has enjoyed for seventy or eighty years institutions under which its people were free and happy, are drawn into a conflict in which that freedom

and happiness are endangered. I cannot but consider that that joy which 1 felt

with regard to the overthrow of some of the despotisms of Italy is counterbalanced by the pain which I experience at that which has taken place in America. (Re- newed cheers.) I admit that I have always thought, and I do think that this

country is more free than the United States of America have been. I admit that the great founders of that republic, wise and able men as they were, had not the materials at hand, as we have in this country, by which they might have been able to interpose the curb and correction of reason to restrain the passionate dictates of popular will. Bat, sir, although in some respects they have failed in

providing such restraints, from not having the materials, yet it has been for a large number of years a great and free State,increasing in happiness, giving example to the world of people in the enjoyment of riches, of wealth, and of freedom, and

thus giving prospects of improvement in the happiness of mankind. (Cheers.) Aud when I reflect upon what it was that brought on this conflict—the re- proaches that are made by the States of the North against the States of the South—when I reflect that those reproaches, and the resistance which has bent made in consequence, have arisen from that accursed institution of slavery, I cannot but recollect also that with our great and glorious institutions we gave

them that curse—that ours were the hands through which came that fatal gift— that poisoned garment which has clung round them from the first hour of their independence. (Renewed cheering.) And therefore, sir, I do not think it seemly to show anything like exaltation at their discord, and still less to reproach them as if we were the immaculate beings who had done all our-duties while they had failed in theirs." (Cheers.)

Sir JOHN RAMSDEN said that he was not guilty of any exultation over the events now occurring in America; but he only drew a con- trast between the itstitutions of this country and America, in order to impress the necessity of preserving our own. After this Captain TALBOT, Sir W. JOLIYFE, Sir M. FARQUHAR, Mr. BzuTrNex, and Mr. Monsia opposed, while Sir JOHN SHELLEY and Mr. LDIDSAY supported the clause. Mr. Osamu% amidst much interruption from the Opposition, made a playful speech in support of the Government.

Then Mr. COBDEN rose, and the Committee received him with exit- berant cheering. He said that the real question was whether the paper duty should be repealed; and not whether there was a surplus, or whether the tea and sugar duties should be remitted. It was strange to see a party united and persistent in

opposing the repeal of a tax, however such a thing might happen for the re- tention of a protective duty. In whose interest outside the House was this

opposition made? They were large paper manufacturers and large paper printers. As regarded the French government, in reference to the question of rags which had been raised, they had acted in perfect good faith ; and they re- tained the export duty in order to obtain reciprocity from countries with which they were about to make commercial treaties, and with Mr. Cobden's full assent. He denied that the paper trade had a right to protection because of the ,export duty on rags, according to the commercial principles which were now accepted

by this country. This duty on paper was condemned by Sir Henry Parnell in 1830, and now every other excise duty, except those on spirits and fermented

liquors, having been abolished, this still remained. The result of those abolitions had been the content and quiet of the country, which the opposition called con- servatism. Even admitting that there was danger to the manufacturing districts

of the country arising out of events in America, what better could be done to meet it than to remove the shackles from all industry? If the opposition turned out the government and came in themselves, they must constantly adopt the very principles and policy which they now sought to obstruct.

Mr. THOMAS BARING, while greeting Mr. Cobden's return to the House, questioned his knowledge of the opinion of the country on the paper duty. For the rest he seemed inclined to revive the question of a surplus, and pointed out what he called two additions to our ex- penditure since April. Mr. GLADSTONE, noting the difference of opinion between Mr. Cobdenand Mr. Baring, reminded the House of the comparative value of their authority. He contended that Mr. Cobden had done more than any man living or dead to promote the principles which had brought about a state of things which had made

the country as conservative as it was said to be, while on every occasion Mr. Baring had opposed those principles; and therefore it was Mr. Cobden who was best qualified to advise the House at this moment. According to those principles, the repeal of the paper duty was just and to be expected. The repeal of Excise duties which had gone on from time to time was not called for by the people ; but the repeal of the paper duty had been demanded, both out of doors and iu

the house. He contended that the removal of an Excise duty tended more to the relief of industry than that of a Customs duty. He denied that the tea duties were war duties, while their repeal would be two millions and a half loss to the revenue. The paper duty operated disadvantageously on the export

trade of the country, adding not less than,300,000/. to the expenses of that trade; and it was appropriately selected for remission at a time when every vestige of

protection in the shape of Customs duties had ceased. Having dealt with the arguments used by several of his opponents, he proceeded to meet assertions which had been made, that all his principles of finance and

politics were identical with those attributed to Mr. Bright. " With. regard to any supposed sympathies of mine with the honourable member for 'Birmingham, I must say that if I did sympathize with him, I should not have

the slightest hesitation ni avowing it, because I know of nothing in the character

—(general cries of "Hear hear!")--or in the conduct of the hon. gentleman which need make any man who agrees with him afraid to state it. (General cheering.) His character has in my opinion, always been marked with strict integrity, and his conduct has been uniformly straightforward. But, when a statement ot that kind is made against a person like myself, who am not at all aware of holdin the same opinions in pohtics as the hon. member for Birmingham, I must obsery

that neither my hon. friend who made it last, nor any gentleman who made i before, has ever attempted to support or sustain it by any language I have used er by any sentiments I have expressed. I certainly do sympathize with the hon gentleman the member for Birmingham in regard to the whole course of that commercial legislation which has conferred such immense boons and blessings on the country, and of which he has been one of the most distinguished champions. (Cheers.) And I regret to find that that policy still has many opponents in this Howie, who, though unable to prevent it from taking effect in the main, are

apparently glad to find any. opportunity of crippling it or of covering it with dis- credit. I should not be doing justice to my hon. friend the member for Birming-

ham if I attempted to describe my own opinions with respect to matters of finance by mixing them up with his, of which I have no knowledge other than that which every member in this House possesses in common with myself. But if my hon. friend, the member for Dorsetshire, wishes to make any imputation on my opinions such as I can explain, I am willing to give him an explanation. I have no doubt that he has a meaning, which I am obliged to conjecture, as he has been content to make use of vague and shadowy language. He means, perhaps, that I am one of those who entertain the concealed and covert intention of changing the system of taxation, shifting the burden from commodities to property, and affecting thereby a considerable alteration in the relative position cf classes.

(Opposition' cheers.) If such be the belief of hon. gentlemen opposite, I have no

doubt that the proposal we now make for the repeal of the paper duty is regarded as the insidious beginning of a serious innovation, fraught with danger to the country. (Opposition cheers.) It might, perhaps, be enough for me to say that not one syllable had been adduced from any speech of mine to sustain that belief. Whether such be the desire of the hon. member for Birmingham I know not, but it is not mine." He insisted that the plans he had submitted to the House were founded upon sound economical principles. g •

Sir JOHN Ramat; having repeated his opinions against the Budget, Sir Joint PAXINGTON having argued briefly in an impatient House, on the same side, Lord Paimigasroit wound up the debate.

He expressed his satisfaction at seeing Mr. Cobden again in the House, re- turned from the discharge of the valuable duties which he had undertaken on behalf of his country. In answer to Mr. Bentinck, he could say that there was nothing in the events in America which induced him to think it would be necessary to increase the armaments of the country; and as to their influence on the exports and imports of this country, he could say that in the last month the revenue had improved by half a million more than in the corresponding month of last year. The vote which would be taken that night would be remarkable as having brought together in one lobby gentlemen of the most diverse opinions on the question of the paper duty, and on every variety of question ; and it was said that this was not a party vote, and that there was nothing the Opposition desired so much as to keep the Government in office. But he hoped that it would be considered that it was a decision on a most important financial question, that the arguments in favour of the repeal of an obnoxious and condemned duty would be duly weighed, and that no questions separate from, and independent of, the matter in issue would influence the votes which were to be given.

The House then divided, when there were : For the clause, 296; Against it, 281—Majority, 15. The other clauses wereagreed to.

Colonel French drew forth an amusing speech from Lord Palmerston by denying that the Irish members had sought an interview with the Premier. Lord Pa.mamisToli said he would state what had occurred.

"I will answer the statement of the hon. member instead of my noble friend, as what the hon. gentleman has said is founded on a communication made to me.

My noble friend did not state that any proposal for a deputation had been autho- rized by the Irish members. What passed I will state exactly as it occurred. i

There is no use in concealing names. Father—that is Mr.—Daly—(la.ughtea)-- came to me on Saturday, and urged many reasons why the decision of the Government with regard to the Galway contract should be rescinded. I stated to Mr. Daly that I did not consider him authorized to represent anybody, and declined to enter into any discussion with him about the contract, as I did not consider him the ambassador of the Irish members in general, or of the Galway Company in particular. I said it was a public question ; that the hon. member for Galway had given notice of a motion on the subject, and that the question must be discussed publicly in the House of Commons, not privately in my room. (Cheers.) Mr. Daly said. if I would not discuss it with him, would I do so with a deputation of Irish members? I said I did not see that it was a matter be- tween me and the Irish members, but between the Government and the Galway Company ; nor did I see what the Irish members had to do with it more than to take part in the discussion that must follow on the motion. (Laughter.) Mr. Daly said I was mistaken because the Irish members must take some action on the subject. I said `Yea, that action will be on the discussion.' (Cheers and laughter.) Well, Mr. Daly said, That won't exactly do —(laughter); I wish to bring a deputation of Irish members to you on Monday.' But Monday I told him was the day appointed for the Budget, and the Galway Contract is a diffe- rent question. (Laughter.) I said' There is no discussion on Monday about the Galway Contract. 1 here is no reason why I should receive a deputation on that day, and, moreover, if I were to receive a deputation, I know already everything they could say to me, and I can only tell them what I tell you—namely, that it is a public question to be discussed in the House of Commons, and not in a private room in my house.' Well, but,' said Mr. Daly, 'I am anxious that you should see them on Monday, because they must take action on the subject—(laughter)- and that action must be taken on the Monday evening.' (Renewed laughter.) ` Oh,' said I, ' I now understand you—(mule laughter); and when it is put to me in that way I must, with all deference and respect for the Irish members, en- tirely decline seeing any of them.' (Cheers.) So the matter ended, and that is what 1 stated to my noble friend as well as to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know what authority Mr. Daly had for anything

which he or for his undertaking to bring me a deputation of Irish members. My noble friend did not say that he was authorized, and it is for Mr. Daly and the Irish members to settle this point between them." (Cheers and laughter.) The bill was ordered to be reported and the House resumed.

LANVEnsATION ON Alazaacem AFFAIRS.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL brought up .some correspondence on Monday relating to the blockade of the American ports, and stated its substance to the House.

On the 19th of April the President of the United States issued a notification that it was intended to institute a blockade of the ports of the seven states which had seceded, and on the 27th April another notification was issued that it was intended to blockade the ports of North Carolina and Virginia • but when Lord Lyons applied for an official notification of the establishment—the commence- ment of the blockade—he was told by the Secretary of State that it was not usual to make such notification, but that it would be made by the different naval commanders in the different ports when such blockade was instituted. The results, therefore, of the correspondence are that the blockade is to be notified in that manner, and that one blockade has been already notified in that manner, namely, the blockade of the ports of Virginia and North Carolina, by the flag officer Prendergast, by letter, who has declared that he is in a situation to make an efficient blockade of those ports. There has been no notification of a similar kind with regard to other porta. The rules, as far as Lord Lyons has been able

to ascertain them, and of which he has given an account to Admiral Milne, com- manding the British squadron in those waters, are, first, that the notification is in each case to be made by the naval officer commanding the squadron which institutes the blockade, and, in the next place, that fifteen days are to be allowed from the commencement of blockade for vessels to come out ; and it appears that whether they are loaded or not, provided they come out is the fifteen days, their passage is to be allowed. On the other hand, it is not permitted by the United States Government that any vessel shall be sent to the ports blockaded for the purpose of bringing away the property of British subjects or property of other nations in the ports blockaded. An application was made of that kind, but the Secretary of State replied, that if such permission were granted it would be used by American citizens who wished to bring away property from the ports. If the blockade is carried into effect according to the regular law of nations, we of course are bound by it, and we have only to see that the blockade is efficient,

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE wished to know what had been done to protect British subjects and British property in the Slave States. Great outrages are committed there. Neither life nor property is safe. A British subject has been tarred and feathered. British sub- jects are compelled to take up arms against the Free States. What would be done? Mr. Buncombe quoted private letters in support of wlat he said' adding that there is an advertisement in the newspapers of the Slave States offering twenty dollars for every person killed on board an American vessel.

Mr. OSBORNE protested against the language and sentiments of Mr. Buncombe. He also had reliable information from friends, and his information gave " the lie direct to the statements" of Mr. Buncombe. Not only have these outrages not been committed, but he was pre- ared to point to outrages committed by the New York Militia in land. Don't let them be led away by " an Exeter Hall feeling." He eprecated debate. Mr. BRIGHT said nothing could be more injudicious than to read from private letters. Both North and South will desire to avoid war with us. It would be well if the House adhered to the line of strict neutrality laid down by the Government. Discussion should be avoided as much as possible. -Mr. GREGORY warned the House not to be led away by stories and letters. It is nonsensical trash to talk of twenty dollars having been offered for every man slain in American ships. No newspapers and letters. cross the borders. Mr. Gregory praised President Davis for his address, and was anxious the House should accept that address as the doctrine of the Southern States. He should certainly bring in his motion for the recognition of the Southern Confederacy on the 7th of June.

Mr. Boum= reverted to the question of the blockade, and drew from Lord Joint RUSSELL an amplification of his previous statement.

SAN DOMINGO.

Lord BROUGHAM took advanta"e of the opportunity afforded by the

consideration of the Offences in territories near Sierra Leone Preven- tion Bill, to make an interesting speech on the recent acquisition of San Domingo by Spain, and its relation to the slave trade. He said,

Unfortunately the slave trade with Africa still exists, notwithstanding all our efforts to put an end to such an abominable traffic. He referred especially to the atrocious conduct of Spain in their promotion of the slave trade, notwithstanding the treaties entered into with this country, and the sums of money actually *d to that government as compensation for putting an end to it. He found from the returns made to the House that it had increased from 12,000, in 1857, to 16,000 in 1858, and to no less than 30,000 in 1859; and now that he found that Spain would increase her dominions in the West Indies he was by no means satisfied with the assurance given on a former occasion, that there was no inten- tion on the part of that power to extend slavery in her islands. Having had access to the decree itself of the Spanish Government since he last addressed the House on this subject, he observed it was therein stated that it was impossible to reject the prayers of a whole nation imploriug their readmission into the bosom of the mother-country. So said the Spanish Government. But what said General Greffard, the governor of Hayti? He called that statement an absolute falsehood, and emphatically denied that there was any such imploring on the part of the people there to be admitted into the bosom of the mother-country. That gentleman added, that under the peculiar circumstances of the country, it was utterly impossible that the free opinion of the people could be known, because General Santana had established such a reign of terror there that the people were trembling under his despotic government, and therefore it was not possible for the people to express any opinion at all. The same decree said that annexa- tion had taken place, and that the Spanish flag was flying under that sky where the immortal Columbus had, with the Bible in his hand, planted that civilization which was the most glorious then known. It was said that royal memories were proverbially short, and in reference to this matter the royal memory was no ex- ception to that rule, otherwise it would have recollected the treatment inflicted by Spain upon Columbus, and the Government of that country would have been ashamed to name that man whose immortal services were rewarded by sending him home in chains, which were subsequently struck off in compliance with popular indignation, but which the great man required should be buried with him, when in a few years afterwards he died in absolute poverty. It was also a sample of short memory on the part of the Spanish Government to refer to the Gospel, which that Government had desecrated by a constant and ruthless system of persecution. However, let them hope that now the same conduct would not be pursued in Central Africa. He observed it was stated in this decree that slavery, though the inevitable evil of other colonies, was wholly unnecessary to ensure the cultivation of that fertile colony. But was San Domingo more fertile than Cuba? Nothing of the kind. Then it was said there was no intention to re- establish slavery in San Domingo. He did not know what the intention of the Spanish Government might be. Possibly they had no intention to extend slavery when they bargained for a sum of money to put it down, and yet they had ex- tended it; and what means had they taken to carry on the government of this island that should give them confidence in their statements that they wished to bolish slavery ? Why, the execution of the decree was entrusted to the Captain- General of Cuba, and be was ordered to take the necessary means for carrying it nto effect. Now, if there were any captain-general in whom he should place leas rust than in another, in not introducing slavery into San Domingo, it was the

i

Captain-General of Cuba. He had no hesitation in saying that be regarded with he utmost possible suspicion the conduct of the Spanish Government, and lie was of in the least degree moved by their disavowal of slavery, and their professing of to re-establish slavery in San Domingo, because if they had any temptation to o so they would re-establish it there. It was well known that Cuba had been for ears the refuge of the distressed nobles of Madrid who from their extravagant abits had become impoverished, and were sent to Cuba to recover their position n society ; and those nobles generally returned to Spain in a year or two after- ards with the plunder of Cuba, which plunder was obtained from the introduc- tion of slavery iuto that island.

a n n

yd w

RAGGED SCHOOLS.

Sir STAFFORD Norritccrrz moved for a Select Committee "to inquire how the hinds voted by Parliament for the promotion of National Education may be most efficiently and most economically applied in the case of neglected and destitute children." He showed that Parliament supplied funds in aid of Industrial Schools, Workhouse Schools, and Reformatories. The first contain vagrants who may become criminals, in the second pauper children, in the third actual delinquents. But beyond these classes there is another—a class of children above the criminal and pauper class, yet below the class which is aided by the national education grants. What would the State do for them? Into that he proposed to inquire. It was said, in answer, that there had already been a Commission. He showed that the inquiry, as regards the class in question, had been inadequate. He desired to bring such persons as Dr. Guthrie and Miss Carpenter face to face with a com- mittee, and thus ascertain how far these children were proper objects for a share of the grant ; and what means there were of providing edu- cation for them ; and advanced many strong reasons in favour of an inciduir7Lowz said that the Government had no objection to an inquiry,

but he objected to the terms in which the motion was made, for it assumed that the Commissioners of Education were wrong in their recommendations. That might turn out so on inquiry, but it was not desirable to start with that assumption. Nor could he admit the as- sumption that the funds voted by Parliament had been inefficiently and uneconomically applied. He also contended that if assistance was extended to the cbss of schools indicated in the motion, it could not be done by the machinery of the education department of the Government. He proposed that the motion should stand for "an inquiry how the education of neglected and destitute children could be most efficiently and economically conducted."

Mr. HANBURY eulogized the operations of the ragged schools, and asserted for them the credit of having been the precursors of the hundred and seventy-five reformatories, with their fifteen thousand inmates, which were now open throughout the kingdom. Sir JOHN PARINGTON expressed his gratification that the Government had sub- stantially consented to the motion, which he himself had been pre- pared to support if necessary. At the same time he did not wish it to be inferred that he was dissatisfied with the report of the commis- sioners. Mr. ADDERLEY disapproved of the proposed inquiry, which he considered unnecessary, and which he believed would be intermin- able, unsatisfactory, and mischievous. If, however, the House was bent upon inquiry, it ought to have waited until the report of the com- missioners had been discussed. Mr. HENLEY spoke of the contra- dictory matter in the report of the commissioners as a reason for in- quiry. Lord Joint RUSSELL said it was important they should know what was to be inquired into. What Sir Stafford Northeote wished to do was to inquire into the operation of the present system as it affects the education of neglected and destitute children. " It is urged on one side that the children who are sent to ranged schools are, in fact, the children of parents who can very well pay for sending them to other schools. On the other side it is said that a certain number of the children taught in these schools are the children of destitute parents who would not receive any education at all if it were not for the voluntary and charitable efforts of the _pro- moters of the ragged schools. For my own part, I am inclined very much to agree with the hon. baronet. I believe that where these ragged schools are con- ducted by persons who are careful in what they are about, and who take precau- tions in regard to the means of the parents, they afford an education to children who would not otherwise attend any school at all. That will be an important point in the inquiry. If the result or the Committee is to show that these schools are worthy of encouragement and support another question will be in what way that encouragement and support ought to be given. I concur with my right hon. friend (Mr. Lowe) in thinking that in such an event it would not be expedient to place under the same body two different systems—one a superior and another an inferior system of education. If these ragged schools are to be encouraged! it will, perhaps, appear that they ought to be conducted by some other machinery, and connected with another kind of management. When the Committee of Council of Education was established, I may say, as I took a con- siderable part in the arrangements then made, that one primary object was to improve the quality of education. That object has been answered. The standard of education has been greatly improved, and I should consider it most disastrous if the effect of any inquiry which we may now enter upon should be to lower that standard. Concurring, therefore, in the appointment of the committee, I think we should watch with jealousy any changes which would would have the effect of deteriorating the quality of the education now given in the schools under the Committee of Privy Council."

The motion, as modified with the full concurrence of Sir Stafford Northcote, was agreed to.

AFFALBS OF NEw ZEALAND, The Duke of NEWCASTLE moved, on Tuesday, the second reading of the New Provinces (New Zealand) Bill. The object of this measure is simply to correct a defect in an act enabling the General Assembly to constitute new provinces. The act had been intended to enable them to constitute new provinces by an ordinary bill • the law officers, however, decided the Assembly could not do so. the bill enables them to constitute separate provinces, and renders valid a separation already effected. Earl. GREY said he did not object to the bill, but he could not allow it to be read a second time in the present critical and distracted state of New Zealand, without expressing his surprise that a bill of so insignificant a character should be the only measure with reference to that colony which her Majesty's Government were prepared to submit to Parliament. He then expressed his views at considerable length. He remarked that we had already suffered and inflicted much damage, and the reinforcements we had been obliged to send thither would have a material effect in diminishing the surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Having regretted that no efforts had been Made M arrest hostilities, and having discussed the remote causes of the war, he entered into a consideration of its immediate origin, and regretted that a policy had been pursued in total opposition to the general principles laid down by the Governor, Sir George Grey, who, not contented with mere laws, had done his best to win the affections of the natives. Had Sir George Grey's policy been carried out this great end might have been reached; but no blame could be imputed to the Go- vernor,. as it was impossible for him under the present constitution of the colony— a constitution granted to the colony before it was fitted for it—to carry out any de- finite line of policy. He urged, therefore, that her Majesty's Government skoald at once take steps to put an end to the sacrifice of the interests of the natives to the exigencies of a popular Government by suspending the constitution ofithe colony for threeyears, and by rending out Sir George Grey with special powers:to

deal with the emergency. In conclusion, he urged the Government to takejm- mediate steps to alter the present policy, for if it were not changed it would cause the loss of many lives, the waste of several millions of money, and the redaction of the island to a desert.

Lord LYTTELTON said he was satisfied with the steps taken by the Government, condemned the spirit of hostility with which the leading ecclesiastics in New Zealand had dealt with the Governor, aanndd admitted that, after reading all the papers, he felt that the question of tribal rights was open to some doubt. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he had arrived at a conclusion totally opposed to that of Lord Grey, for he was convinced that the Governor was right and Wirumu Kingi was wrong—an opinion corroborated by that of the present Chief Justice of the colony—for the only principle on which Wirimu Kingi acted was that of might making right. He vindicated the course pursued by the Governor, and contended that, although the piece of ground at stake was but insignificant, the principle involved was most important. Having proved that no undue haste had been used in settling the right of selling and purchasing the land in question, he gave reasons why the institution of a tribunal for the decision of claims between colonists and natives would not be of the advantage expected to the latter, and took occasion to animadvert on the conduct of the Bishop of New Zealand and his missionaries, who were the principal advocates for the establishment of such tribunals, in very strong terms, observing that both the interference of the Bishop and the tone of his pamphlet were a great impropriety. The question of land was a mere pre- text, the whole affair was a struggle of nationalities—a movement which had been contemplated by the Maories for some years. In the native mind the die. pate had now assumed the aspect of a trial for sovereignty between Queen Vic- toria and the Maori King, and, of course, it was impossible for us to yield on that point. Dissenting from the assertion that representative government ha4 led to the present state of things, as the gist of the evidence in the blue-books was decidedly to the contrary effect, he admitted that the change of the consti- tution which took place in 1852 had certainly curtailed the power of the Governor in dealing with the natives. The New Zealand Assembly, however, had shown by their debates no disposition to press hardly upon the native inhabitants. With regard to the expenses of the war, the Government had repudiated the de- mend on the part of New Zealand that this country should pay not only for the troops, but for the Militia and Volunteers employed, and he was glad to see that the New Zealand Government was taking means to defray the expenses. Having reviewed the present chances of war and peace, he stated that, as the present Governor's period of office was nearly at an end, Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to appoint Sir George Grey at once to the Government of New Zealand, and at the same time, to show their confidence in the present Governor, the Go- vernment had appointed him to another Colonial Government. Earl GREY expressed his satisfaction at this statement. He wished to be understood as not meaning any censure on Governor Browne.

Great mistakes had doubtless been made, but Governor Browne was not responsible for them, for he was in a false position, being deprived

of the power to carry out his own policy. He again suggested that Sir G. Grey should not be placed in the same false position, but that he should be armed with those powers without which it would be im- possible for him to bring his task to a successful conclusion. Let Sir G. Grey find, on his arrival in New Zealand, a British Act of Par- liament suspending the existing constitution of that colony, and con- centrating, as was absolutely necessary in a time of rebellion, all the power in the hands of the Governor. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he could not comply with this last suggestion of the noble lord. He believed that it would be most un- wise and most unjust to suspend the constitution on, the ground of an insurrectibn of the native races. To adopt that course would be to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty, and would create dis- satisfaction among both races. He should think that the suspension of the constitution would be under any circumstances, and certainly under the present, one of the most impolitic acts which a British Minister could commit.

The Bill was then read a second time.

OFFICERS OF THE Navel, RESERVE.—The Dake of Somerset moved, on Thursday, the second reading of the Officers of Reserve (Royal Navy) Bill; a measure to empower the Admiralty to accept the services of officers of the mer- chant service, and enrol them in the lower ranks of the navy as masters and mates. The suggestion originated with the officers of the mercantile marine themselves, and would, if adopted, be of great utility. The Earl of HARuwICKE opposed the bill on the ground that it would do great injustice to the midshipmen of the navy, and moved that it be read a second time that day six months. Earl GRANVILLE and Earl GREY supported thesbill; and the Earl of Malmesbury opposed it. On a division the amendment was negatived by 59 to 56, and the bill was read a second time.

THE DEATH OF SAID BEY.—The Earl of CARNARYON called for information respecting the death of Said Bey Djournblat, the Druse chief, who surrendered on a promise of a fair trial, who was condemned to death, but relieved from the sentence, and who has lately died in prison, not without suspicions of foal play. SrasTrorto DE REDCLIFFE interposed before the questions pat could be answered, to inquire whether the intelligence that the Ministers of the allied Powers at Constantinople has settled, at the suggestion of France, that Syria should be governed henceforward by a Christian chief. He also alluded to the possibility of future interventions in Syria [but to this he got no answer].

Lord WODEHOUBE said it was established beyond a doubt that Said hey died, not of poison, but of consumption. No decision has been arrived at with respect to the other prisoners ; but the confiscated property of the Druse chiefs will be restored to their families. With respect to the Government of Syria and the Lebanon, that matter is still under consideration.

Cosinuor or Busmatss.—When Lord Paratniirrory moved the adjournment of the House from Tuesday to Thursday, that is over the Derby Day, Mr. BEN- TISCH bitterly complained that the recent alterations of the standing orders were injurious to private members. He contended that Government should not only make but keep a House on Tuesdays and Fridays, and not permit the front benches on both sides to deprive private members of their rights and privileges. Mr. DisasErs said the Government certainly ought to make a House every Fri- day. Lord Psratherrosi said the "No House" of the preceding Friday was the result of accidental circumstances. The Government desired to secure a House on Fridays, but it was not their duty to keep one. That depends on private members, who should bring forward questions of interest.