23 FEBRUARY 1861, Page 5

IJrbatr an rnrrriug iii18grlinmut.

-HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, February 12. Constructive Notice Amendment Bill read a second time. Tuesday, February 19. Policy in China; Lord Grey's Motion—Mr. l'urnbull's Case, Conversation on. Thursday, February 21. Indictable Offences (Metropolitan Districts Bill) read a third time and passed—Fictitious Savings Banks Bill read a third time and passed ConstructiveNotices Amendment Bill read a third time and passed—Parliamentary Reform; Lord Stratheden's Motion. Friday, February '22. Tipperary Militia; Lord Donoughmore's Statement—Church Rates; the Duke of Marlborough's Bill read a first time.

Houss OF COMMONS. Monday, February 18. Belligerent Rights at Sea; Lord .John Russell's Answer to Mr. Horsfall—Bankruptcy and Insolvency; Sir R. Bothell's Bill in Committee Parochial Assessment Bill read a second time—Red Sea and India Telegraph Bill, Committee nominated, Tuesdai, February 19. Extension of the Country Franchise; Mr. Locke King's Mo- -tion—Real Property; Mr. Willfams's Motion—Income Tax; Mr. Hubbard's Motion —Mr. Hardy's Bill read a first time—Burial of Dissenters; Sir IL Peto's Bill read a first time—Borough Franchise; Mr. Baines's Motion. Wednesday, February 20. Qualification for Offices; Mr. Hadileld's Bill read a .second time—Trustees of Charities; Mr. Dillwyn's Bill read a second time—Church- rates; Mr Alcock's Bill read a first time. Thursday, February '21. Conduct of the Sardinian Government: Lord E. Howard's Question—Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill in Committee—Markets and Fairs (Ire- land) Bill read a second time—Bank of England Payment •Bill committed—Cri- minal Law Consolidation (Ireland) Bills read a second time. Friday, February 22. Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister; Mr. M. Milnes's Bill read a first time—Metropolitan Government; Mr. Ayrton's Motion.


THE House went into committee on Monday on the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill, and considered fifty clauses, postponing those only which bear on other sections of the whole.

On clause 2, sanctioning the appointment of a new Judge, Mr. ROLT raised some objection, pointing out that a new Judge is not re- quired so long as there are five commissioners. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL said that he contemplated ultimately two commissioners with a chiefjudge, and he contended that there would be work enough for them. 'The bill for the first time brings every trust deed within the control of the court, and will increase the business of the court fourfold. The clause was agreed to. In clause 5, relating to the commissioners, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed, at the instance of Mr. BOLT, to strike out words providing that there may be always three commissioners in London; and the clause, as amended, was agreed to. Clause 6, giving County Courts jurisdiction, was, after some oppo- sition from MT. BOLT, agreed to. Clause 8, giving power to create additional County Courts, led to a short debate. Mr. A. SMITH said the power should rest with Parliament. Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY said that, on economical and constitutional grounds, a limit should be fixed to the power of increasing these courts. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL showed that there are districts so large that the existing machinery therein is inadequate to the due performance of the func- tions of the court. Mr. EDWIN JAMES, Mi. M. Ssunr, and Sir F. GOLDSMID objected to increasing the power of the Crown. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that no scheme for a new district could take effect without the consent of Parliament, and he agreed to insert words making that necessary. The clause was agreed to. Clause 2l, reducing the number or official assignees, and clause 37, fixing their remuneration, were agreed to, after some contention in

favour of the existing state of things. It was agreed that the maxi- mum remuneration of an official assignee should be 1200/.

Clause 42, providing that the " compensations" to various officers under old acts should be annually voted. by Parliament, led to a divi- , sion. Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY moved an amendment, the effect of which was to leave these old compensations a charge on the Suitors' Fund. Mr. BARROW and Mr. HENLEY supported the amendment, but it was negatived by 78 to 28, and the clause was agreed to. The bill was again considered in committee on Thursday, as far as clause 117.

The principal debates took place on the non-trader clauses. Sir FITZROY KELLY asked that clause 81, abolishing the \ Istinction be- tween the trader and non-trader, should be postponed. \ Sir RICHARD. BBTRELL declined to give way, and the committee cheered Mr. Mem.xs when he said he was glad the Attorney-General would not postpone a clause which is of the essence of the bill. Lord JOHN MANNERS and Sir F. P.u,ic reinforced Sir Fitzroy Kelly, but the committee were against them, and the clause was agreed to without a division. In like manner a strong verbal opposition arose to clause 82, which assi- milates the law applicable to the two classes of debtors, but it passed without amendment or division. It is understood that the whole question shall be debated at a future stage.


The Tuesday sitting was partially devoted to debates on the intro- duction of little Reform Bills by independent Members.

Mr. LOCKE KING moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend the franchise in counties in England and Wales to occupiers of premises of the annual value of 10/. Many years ago, he said, when he brought the question before the House, the Liberal party were not united on it; but in 1852 Lord John Russell admitted the soundness of its prin- ciple, and a ten pound county franchise formed part of the bill of 1854. In 1857, and an in 1858, Lord John supported it as an isolated measure, remarking that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Lord Palmerston, after opposing it, voted in its favour, and the Reform Bill of the Derby Government in 1859 adopted the principle of the bill denounced as dangerous by Lord Derby in 1852. As to Reform in general, Mr. Locke King thought it almost a happy omen that it was not mentioned in the speech from the throne,.and there is a chance of obtaining reform now the matter is no longer in the hands of a Govern- ment.

Mr. WARNER, who was to move, as an amendment, for a Select Committee on the Representation of the People, postponed his motion. In the course of a long speech he stated that he was not opposed to Mr. Locke King's motion, although he thought it would do no good. Its great fault is that it is unfortunate. Everything that a bill could do, except pass, it has done. It has impeded legislation, been con- nected with two dissolutions, and half a dozen changes of Minis and, further, it has been the parent of a large family of Reform Bills, and its adoption has been the chief reason for the failure of those measures. Mr. Warner vindicated Lord John's discretion in not bring- ing in a bill having any resemblance to the unfortunate measure of last session, but there were other courses open to bun; he might have proceeded by resolution, or have moved for a select committee, or


have brought n a new bill. But the question was not not what Lord John ought to have done, but what independent Members should do. There might, continued Mr. Warner, be a little more consultation and arrangement among the Liberal Members before they introduce& isolated measures. (Cheers from the Opposition.) They ought to measure their own strength before they brought in bills. (Ironical cries of" Hear, hear.") They must remember that they were but the remnant of a great party. (Loud cheers from the (pposition.) Two years ago there was a great Liberal party in that House—a great exulting party—who spurned Lord Derby's Reform Bill, and who fol- lowed Lord John Russell into the lobby on that memorable night when, it would now appear, he saved his country in vain. ("Hear, hear," and laughter.) Mr. Warner contended that what is wanted is the extension of the franchise to the working classes, and he therefore preferred the bill of Mr. Baines to that of Mr. Locke King. Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH moved, and Captain JERVIS seconded, an amendment declaring that it is not expedient to reduce the county franchise below 20/.

Mr. NEWDEGATE, who is in favour of some reform of Parliament at the right time, objected to Mr. King's measure because it would swamp the forty shilling freeholders, and give power to the occupying classes, as opposed to labour and property and Mr. BENTINCK said the practical effect of the bill would be to inundate the rural districts with town voters, and render the whole country one great borough from beginni 0- to end. Lord Parainas.roN took up his position on the question in a cha- racteristic manner. "Sir," he said, 'there are two things which I do not mean to do. The first is to oppose the motion of my honourable friend for leave to bring in his bill, and the second is to argue the sub- ject of which that bill treats." Mr. Warner lamented that he be- longed to a small remnant of the Liberal party; far from that he and those who agree with him are the centre of a large Liberal party, for all sides of the House have, more or less, come round to principles we used to call Liberal. Lord Palmerston re,gretted that Mr. Locke King had made this motion, and that Mr. Baines was to make an- other, because he deems it inexpedient to revive the question of Reform this session. The bill of last year failed partly because its success would have led to the dissolution of a newly-elected House, and partly because "it was not altogether to the taste of the majority," Well, is the time much altered? Do the objections to the substance vary ? There is a time for waiting as well as for acting, and as Lord Palmer- ston does not think the representation of the people should be referred to a select committee, and does think that organic changes should be proposed by a responsible Government, those who bring in those bills must take upon themselves all responsibility for their further pro- gre,ss, and not expect any facilities from Government. tdr, Dissem said he should not have spoken had it not been ne- cessary to correct Mr. Locke King. In the Reform Bill introduced by Mr. Disraeli, a 10/. occupation was a secondary, a 101. land occu- pation was a primary, qualification, and there were besides ten other qualifications of a highly conservative nature. 'llerefore Mt. Locke King is not justified in saying Mr. Disraeli had adopted his principle. Mr. Disraeli is of opinion that measures of reconstruction must be large and comprehensive, and if you cannot pass them, there is no ne- cessity for them. He objected in the strongest manner to Mr. King's bill, and proceeded to ridicule the attempt to reform the House by "measure of retail." The great wholesale firm, he continued, "have announced that it is a transaction beyond their powers of capital and enterprise. What probability of success can attend these hucksters"— (great lairgkter)—" who come forward to satisfy the wants of the nation when the great association has announced that it is impossible for them to accomplish the feat ?" Not to obtain popularity in the coun- try ?—nothing is so unpopular as Reform. Not to obtain popularity in the House ?—last year he had seen inen representing large cities whose teeth chattered in their heads, and whose visages grew pale, whenever he order of the day was read, What, then, was their motive ? To show that they 11..id not changed their opinions? They might have shown that by once more hiring Willis's Rooms and hold- ing a public meeting. It is a pity there cannot be a private arrange- ment by which we should hear nothing more of the subject of Reform ; and then he and his friends would join in a "testimonial" to mark their gratitude and respect.

This speech, which amused the House, having been delivered, and the amendment having been withdrawn, leave was given to bring in the bill.

Later in the evening, Mr. BArsiEs moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend the Parliamentary franchise in the boroughs of England and Wales ; in other words, to reduce the franchise in boroughs from 10/. to 6/. Mr. Baines spoke with regret of the tone adopted by Lord Palmerston and Mr. Disraeli. A Minister sincerely attached to a cause on which his Government was based, would not throw obstruc- tions in the way of private Members. What business would Reform impede; what foreign .question is so absorbing that Reform must give way to it? Then it was said that private Members should not introduce questions of Reform. Mr. Baines ran over a list of private Members—Lord John Russell, Lord Grey, Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Pitt, the Duke of Richmond—who, being private Members, had brought in important bills, and forced them on Governments. Then it was said that Reform should be dealt with in a comprehensive measure. Why, the measures brought on have failed because they were comprehensive; that is, because they attacked many interests and prejudices. The House is more likely to arrive at a safe conclusion if it takes the ques. tions separately. Mr. Baines contended that the deliberate opinion of the people of 'England is in favour of Reform, and that it will not be safe to delay the admission of the working classes to the full 'privi- leges of the constitution. In the course of his speech, Mr. Baines rebuked Mr. Disraeli for applying to independent Members the term hucksters. He really wondered that the right honourable gentleman, who, except for two years, had been a "huckster" himself all his public life, casting this imputation upon others.

Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion.

Lord PALatEasxon, repeating in substance his earlier observations, said he should not oppose the introduction of the bill : and leave was given to bring it in.

In the House of Peers, on Thursday, Lord STRATHEDEN, in moving for a return, stated arguments against a comprehensive measure of Reform, and in favour of a bit by bit legislation, in the hope of raising a debate ; but the Peers listened and said nothing.

THE INCOME TAX. • Mr. HtrBBARD moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the present mode of assessing and collecting the income tax. Regardingthe tax as unequal and unjust, yet "inevitable," Mr. Hubbard desires to see the mode in which it is raised revised. Means should be pro- vided for the more "equitable" incidence of the tax, using that word to mean "the levying of the tax upon everybody according to his means." If levied justly, the income tax should be levied on the same principle as indirect taxation, which, to a certain extent, it has re- placed. Now incomes come under three heads, with one of which, that derived from the product of unskilled labour, we have no concern. The first, derived from visible property, money lent, or securities, he Called "spontaneous incomes ;" the next, all trading and professional


incomes, all salaries, offices, and employments which labour forms an indispensable element. [And here he expressed a hope that the House would deal with classes of income and not with individual owners.] Taking the first category : he would make an abatement on"land" equivalent to "necessary outgoings," on houses and mines a larger abatement, on industrious and precarious incomes an abate- ment of one-third. His precedents were the clause in the Succession Duties Act, winch allows the deduction on necessary outgoings, and the Income Tax Act of 1854, which allows the deduction of one-sixth df an income if invested in the purchase of a life or deferred annuity. In its present shape an immense amount of fraud attends the collec- tion of the tax under Schedule D. The people feel that they are robbed, and when people feel this they endeavour to do themselves justice in their own way. What he proposed was that spontaneous incomes should be assessed on the "net" instead of the gross rental, and that on industrial incomes there should be an abatement of one- third, or on land one-twelfth, on houses one-sixth, on industrial incomes onethird. The revenue would sustain some loss by a reduc- tion on the first categoi-y, but Schedule D would make up for it, for, when fairly treate.d,Englislunen will act fairly in return. Mr. Hub- bard enumerated eight enactments that would be required to give effect to his scheme, and moved for a Select Committee. Mr. GLADSTONE said that his opinions on the subject were declared long ago [in 1853], and that he has not departed from them. To a committee of general inquiry Mr. Gladstone saw no vital objection, but he held that the House could not vote for this inquiry withoutot. tachiw, a provisional sanction to Mr. Hubbard's plan. Government could 'not do that. Ridiculing the idea that a deduction of one-third would bring the morality of the tax.-payer under Schedule D to par, and regretting that Mr. Hubbard had given encouragement to waver- ing consciences by his line of argument on the robbery perpetrated by the state, Mr. Gladstone proceeded to deal with the proposals of Mr. Hubbard in the same strain, commenting on their unbounded gene-

rosity, and arguing that the abatement of one man would be the taxa- tion of another. Nobody denies the inequalities of the present tax, but Mr. Hubbard would simply give a boon to some tax-payers, and aggravate the inequalities sustained by others. Why shouId the Scotch landlord have one-twelfth deducted when the tenant bears the charges ? How, in case of houses, can you make an average for re- pairs ? An examination of " outgoings" would be impracticable in the case of the income tax ; a valuation of mines would cause enor- mous expense. Mr. Hubbard omits the fimdholder : he has no de- ductions for him ; and to all businesses, some worth twenty-five, some

worth five years' purchase, he applies one uniform deduction of one- third, and calls that curing an anomaly. "Necessity," said Mr. Glad- stone, " drove us to the income tax in 1812, and necessity has attached us to the use of it." (" Rb, no 1') "When I used the word 'at- tached,' I meant not as a bridegroom is attached to his bride, but as a. captive is attached to the car of his conqueror." (Laughter and cheers.) Mr. Gladstone contended that the question was set at rest in 1853, when the Succession Duties Act was passed to increase the relative burden on fixed property ; and he warmly recommended the House to ' reject the motion.

There were cries for a division, and Mr. HUBBA.RD replied, explain- mg that he did not intend to confine the committee to his own plan, or identify itself with his scheme. Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE re- commended the withdrawal of the motion, but Mr. HUBBARD per- sisted, and on a division, the motion was carried by 131 to 127, the announcement of these numbers being loudly cheered.


The Wednesday sitting was mainly occupied by a debate on the motion for the second reading of Mr. baLwrie's Trustees of Charities Bill. The preamble of the bill stated that "doubts have arisen as to, the eligibility of certain persons to be trustees of certain charities.' - If this statement were objected to, Mr. Dillwyn said he would alter it. The object of the bill was to declare that Dissenters might be trustees, where schools were not Church schools proper, to make, in fact, the appointment of Dissenters as trustees legal. Mr. SEravvic objected that no "doubts" have arisen ; that the prac- tice of the law has remained unchanged for many years; that its opera- tion has been as beneficial to Dissent as to the Church ; that the Courts decide according to the will of the founder; and where the will does not contain an express declaration, recourse is had to extraneous circumstances to show the intentions of the founder ; and that, far from arresting, the bill would increase litigation and, disturb internal harmony. ex. MELLOR rejected all artificial considerations, and sup- ported the bill on grounds of common sense. He challenged the Opposition to define what a Dissenter is. Unless a man makes an open declaration, the law hews nothin„0. of hirn as a Dissenter. In initiatory litigation how is it to be known whether a man is a Dissenter or not? The bill would stop litigation. Sir WinmAx HE/Iv:room held a con- trary opinion. Mr. LOWE asked whether the state of the law is suck as to prevent the necessity of legislation. Upon this point we have in the Ibninster case the decision of Lord Campbell, that whether every trustee of a Church of England school shall be a member of that Church is a matter for the discretion of the Court ; while Lord Chelmsford laid it down as the rigid and unbending rule of law that every such trustee mast be a member of the Church of England. If it were conceded that the Courts are to exercise discretion, Mr. Lowe' would be content to leave the law as it stands; but if there is a doubt it should be put an end to, and litigation, which eats up the funds of charities, with it. Sir Ruoff CAIRNS answered that the propositions of Lord Campbell and Lord Chelmsford are identical. "The first objection to this bill is that it proceeds oft a false basis, and that if the House should affirm it ba second reading, itallirms that which cannot be substantiated by the House. The second proposition of the bill is„ that no one shall be ineligible as trustee on account of his religious opinions, unless the founder in his treat deed expressly says that the trustees shall be members of a particular sect. Now, why do you say that? Why are you afraid of your own principle? Wh_y do you say,- 'unless it is expressly said in the deed to the contrary?' You are afraid of your own proposition. You say you do not want to interfere if the author of the charity says the trustees shall be of a particular creed. You say you want to carry out the will of the founder. Now I want to know on what logical principle you obey. the will of the founder when it is expressly stated in the trust, and refuse to obey it when he has equally declared his will by a necessary implication." Mr. HENLEY followed on the same side ; but on a division the seconi reading was carried by 164 to 157.


Great complaints were made in the House of Commons on Monday against the Government for its mode of managing business. When Sir' GEORGE LEWIS moved the second reading of the Parochial Assess- ment Bill, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. A. SMITH, Mr. EDWIN SAXES, Mr. BRIGHT, all urged the postponement of the second reading, alleging that time had not been given for a due consideration of the bill in the country. Mr. BRIGHT said Government had reduced the policy of doing nothing to a system and they might very well adjourn the de- bate for a fortnight, so tliat nobody would be taken by surprise. Sir GEORGE LEWIS said it was hard on the Government to complain that, they did not bring on their measures early in the session, and then, when they did so, to raise a cry for postponement. All he asked was that they should affirm the principle that there should be greater uni- formity in assessments. He would fix the committee for Monday week, and then, if the House desired it, the bill might be sent to a Select Committee. The bill was, accordingly, read a second time on that un- derstanding. Next Mr. DISRAELI complained that the Highways Bill, which stood first on the paper, had not been proceeded with, and that when the order was called a second time, Sir George Lewis did. not take it up. The Bankruptcy Bill was only carried to a certain stage. If the House is thus treated by the Government, how can business be satisfactorili carried on? Mr. BA.RROW and Mr. HENLEY complained of the in- convenience caused by the postponement of the Highways Bill and- the Post-office Savings Banks Bill. Government may fairly be expected.

to arrange their bills in the order in which they are to come for dis- cussion.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS said he had intended to move the second reading of the Highways Bill, but that Mr. Hardy asked him to postpone it, and he therefore did so. The Post-office Savings Banks Bill- would have come on, but Mr. Gladstone was confined to his room by indispo- sition.


Mr. HORSFALL asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps had been taken by her Majesty's Government with the view of carrying out the recommendations ot the Shipping Com- mittee of last year on the subject of belligerent rights at sea. Lord JOHN PLUSSELL said: "No steps have been taken by her Majesty's Government with a view of carrying out the recommendations of the Shipping Committee of last year on the subject of belligerent rights at sea, and perhaps the House will allow me to state the reason for which I have not taken any such steps. I found that when the matter was under discussion with the American Government the opinion of Lord Clarendon seems to have been unfavourable to the proposal that private property at sea should be respected during war. No final decision was come to, and no official communication was made, and the American Government expressed a wish that all communication upon the subject should be suspended. Some time afterwards Mr. Dallas read to me a despatch of considerable length and much ability, which was addressed to Mr. Mason at Paris. In that despatch it was stated by the American Government that it was impossible that private property on board belligerent vessels should be respected at sea ; but General Cass added that he considered that the right of blockade as authorized by the law of nations was a great abuse ; that the only case in which a blockade ought to be permitted was when a land army was besieging a fortified place, and a fleet was employed to blockade it on the other side ; but that any attempt to interrupt trade by a blockade, or to blockade places which were commercial ports, was an abuse which ought not to be permitted. That, of course, opened a still wider question. My answer to that despatch was simply that, as the war had ceased, and the treaty of Paris had been concluded, it was not advisable to continue that discussion. The proposition itself seems to me to be one of the utmost magnitude. It is, in fact, a proposal that there being two Powers, one of which has a very strong army and a strong navy, the other having an army inferior in numbers, but a superior navy, the Power which has the superior navy should forego all the advantage to be derived from that source, and allow the contest to be decided by military force alone. Its adoption would in the next place tend rather to prolong than to shorten wars, because one way in which a great maritime Power can act as a belligerent is to cripple the trade of its opponent. The greater its strength as a maritime Power the greater is its power to do this, and the better its chance of bringing the war to a favourable termination. If this proposition were accepted, the whole of the power would be gone which has hitherto rendered Great Britain so formidable at sea. In the next place, I perceive difficulties in detail which would be insurmountable. The mercantile navy of a belligerent would be free from capture, but no one could say when a number of vessels, apparently mer- chant ships, appeared off the coast, that they might not be used for purposes of war, and that they did not contain—" Mr. BRIGHT rose to order. He wished to know whether the noble lord was acting regularly in going into a lengthened argument on a difficult subject in reply to a question put to him, when no other member holding different views would have an opportunity of answer- ing, hirn. The SPF.AILER interposed : "It has always been usual," lie said, "to accord greater latitude to a Minister than to a private individual in answering questions which may be put to him. Questions, indeed, are seldom addressed to private individuals. The noble lord was ex- plaining the reason why he had not acted in the manner which the hon. member who put the question assumed that he had done. Under these circumstances the House will probably not consider that the noble lord was out of order." (Cheers.) Lord Joan RUSSELL continued : "A select committee of this House having made certain recommendations in, I think, very positive terms, it might be assumed that it was my duty to have acted in conformity with them, and to have taken some steps for carrying them out. I therefore ventured to explain to the House why I did not consider it prudent to adopt such measures. I do not wish to enter farther into the argument, beyond saying that I regard the question as one affect- ing the whole maritime. power of this country—(Oppositioo cheers)— and that I think any Minister of the Crown ought to be most cautious in taking any final step." A PLEA FOR HUMANITY.

Lord EDWARD HOWARD said that, hearing that atrocities had been, and were likely to be, committed by the Sardinian Government and army in Southern Italy, he wished to ask the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether her litIajests Government would use its influence with his Majesty King Victor Emmanuel to prevent bloodshed in his present hour of success, and instruct its diplomatic and consular agents to keep it fully informed of the measures ordered or adopted by the present (k facto Government of Southern Italy for the purpose of re-establishing order. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had not thought it necessary to use his influence with King Victor Emmanuel to prevent bloodshed. The Sardinian army have behaved with as much humanity as courage. Those with whom they have dealt severely are the felons and convicts let loose and armed, and encouraged from Rome and Gaeta to commit every atrocity. This encouragement continues, not from Gaeta now, but from Rome. It would be almost an affront to the Government of Sardinia to preach humanity to them. An agent of her Majesty's Go- vernment had said that, now Gaeta has fallen, Southern Italy will become tranquil. Lord Joust Mamans asked whether the information just given appears in any papers before the House, and, if not, whether he would name the source whence he obtained it.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL: "The information came to me from the Sar- dinian Minister." (Opposition cheers.) "I have no documents to pro- duce, but I certainly believe that it is true information." (Ministerial cheers.)


Earl GREY moved, on Tuesday, for copies or extracts of any des- patches explaining the objects of an expedition reported to have been ordered to proceed up the Yang-tse-Kiang. His main object, however, was. to eview the whole course of our policy in China for the last thirty years, omitting altogether the war arising out of tue Arrow case, because he was content to leave the subject where it had been left by

Parliament. Going back to 1833, when the trade monopoly was broken up, Lord Grey traced the evils which have arisen in China to our in- terference, to the support and encouragement we gave to the opium smuggling, to the immoderate terms of peace, including the large i pecuniary ndemnity we exacted by the Treaty of Nankin, to the abuses of power on the part of our own anti of foreign consuls, which abuses were the fruit of our policy, which converted foreign trade

into a system of overreaching and frauds. To our policy he also traced the horrors of Coolie emigration, and insisted that the Treaty of Nankin

was the primary cause of the great rebellion , and of the inability of the Chinese Government to repress it. Then he pointed out that by our recent war and treaty we exact a greater indemnity, and insist on the abolition of transit duties, on which the Chinese rely for meeting. local expenses, and dictate a lower tariff. Will not the Chinese Govern- ment sink under the burdens we have inflicted,- and if so, to say nothing of the deep guilt resting on us for producing such a cata- strophe, will it be for our own interest ? Shall we not be obliged to abandon China to anarchy, or attempt what will be a task beyond our own strength—to govern her by our own power ?The Treaty of Tien- tsin, he holds, has sown the seeds of future difficulties and future wars, mid he warned the Government to pause in the policy they are pursuing.

Lord WODZHOUSE first explained that Lord Elgin was about to pro- ceed up the Yang-tse-Kiang, not to interfere in the civil war, but to

make arrangements for carrying on trade. To that expedition the Chinese Government at Pekin have made no objection. After this short preface, Lord Wodehouse proceeded to point out that Lord Grey, while he dilated on the difficulties of our relations with China, and

condemned our policy, did not suggest any alternative course. As regards the payment of duties, we could not well have acted otherwise

than we did act, and the responsibility of the evils that arose lies with the Chinese Government, which was too weak and corrupt to see that the duties were fairly enforced. He showed that the Chinese Govern- ment, under the system of independent foreign inspectors, established by us, receives large sums, and that we have done our utmost to ensure a fair execution of the stipulations. As to the horrors of Coolie emi- gration, the British Government has been actively engaged in prevent- ing them, and have established so good a system that the Chinese offi- cials permit the emigration of women. Lord Wodehouse contended that we have worked hard to suppress piracy, that our demands in 1857 and 1860 were characterized by great moderation, that we have made a just and righteous effort to prevent the evils which Lord Grey apprehended, and that the responsibility of those evils, if they occur, will not fall on us, but on the Chinese Government.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH expressed his concurrence with Lord Grey, aud predicted that the fourth would not be the last campaign of Sir John Bowring's war. In his reply, Lord GREY was more explicit than in his speech. Formerly, he said, the Chinese had a system they were used to, and

which they perfectly understood. If we had allowed them to continue their Hong, and if the trade had been confined to it, the Chinese agents would have levied the duties. It might have been a barbarous system, but the Chinese understood it, and it answered the purpose. We forced them to change it, and the responsibility rested on us. The Treaty of Nankin was a mistake; it had been proved a mistake by its results. Its extension, therefore, was only an extension of the mistake; it was a further step on a wrong road, and a pernicious course of policy.

QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES.—Mr. HADFIELD'S bill to repeal the clause of the Test Act, making it incumbent on all who take office,

civil or military, to declare that they will not use the influence of their

official position to the detriment of the Church and clergy, was read a second time on Wednesday, after a brief debate, by 93 to 80. Sir. GEORGE LEWIS supported the motion, and Mr. SOTHERON ESTCOURT only opposed it, because he thought the bill should have been btought in by the Government. TAXES ON BEAL PROPERTY.—MT. WILLIAMS moved his atmual re- solution declaring that real property should pay the same probate duty as personal property. Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion. It was met by a speech from Mr. GLADSTONE, showing the injustice of the proposal; and negatived on a division by 167 to 51. MR. TURNBULL'S CASE.—The Marquis of NORMANBY has given notice that he will bring Mr. Turnbull's case under the notice of the House of Lords at an early day. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, on Mon- day, complained of this indefinite notice, and defended the conduct of himself and the Protestant Alliance. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGLL wished to be informed what the Protestant Alliance is which has so kindly undertaken the protection of the Protestant religion; and the Earl of DONOUGIIMORE, declaring himself a staunch Protestant, dis- claimed all partnership in a transaction undertaken for the purpose of driving a man from an employment because he is a Boman Catholic. On Thursday, Lord NORMANEY placed on the paper the terms of his notice of motion, and fixed Tuesday for the debate. The terms are these : That this House has learnt with regret the intended acceptance of the resig- nation of Mr. Turnbull, of the Record-office, as tending to cast an unmerited im- putation on a gentleman of acknowledged talent and integrity, and to induce an impression on the public mind that the profession of the Roman Catholic re- ligion is a sufficient ground of exclusion from public offices from which Raman Catholics are not debarred by law, and for the faithful discharge of the duties of which their religious opinions do not in any way disqualify them."

THE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE BANIL—On the motion for going into Committee on the Bank of England Payment Bill, a measure giving,

effect to the recent arrangement between the Bank and the Treasury,

Mr. BASS objected to the length of the term—twenty-five years—for which it is to last. Mr. GLansTostz defended the arrangement which he said brings under the control of Parliament a matter in which it had been held doubtful whether Parliament has a right to interfere. In Committee Sir JOSEPH PAXTON moved that the term should be ten " instead of twenty-five years, but he gave way to the remonstrances of Mr. GLADSTONE, and the bill passed through committee. RED Sze TELEGRAZIL—The following gentlemen have been nomi- nated a select committee on the Red Sea and India Telegraph Bill. Mr. Peel, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Cave, Mr. &hole- field, Mr. Edward Egerton, and Mr. Bonham Carter.