23 JUNE 1860, Page 2

!that ant Vrtartilingo in Varliamtnt.


House OF Loans. Monday, June 18. Ecclesiastical Courts and Registers (Ire- land) Bill committed—Church Temporalities (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill com- mitted —Infants Marriage Act Amendment Bill read a second time—French Troops at Naples; Lord Brougham's Question.

Tuesday, June 19. Church-rates Abolition ; Sir John Trelawny's Bill rejected by 128 to 3I—Highland Roads and Bridges Bill committed. Thursday. June 21. Pleas on Indictment Bill read a second time—Adulteration of Food and Drink Bill committed.

Friday. June 22. Fusion of Law and Equity Bill, referred to Select Committee— Cherbourg Dockyard ; Lord Dungannon's Question—Fisheries (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed.

House OF COMMONS. Monday, June 18. Non-commissioned Officers; Mr. M'Evoy's Motion—Papal Enlistments; Mr. E. James's Complaint—supply; Army Estimates—Inland Bonding Bill read a first time. Tuesday, June 19. Harbours of Refuge ; Mr. Lindsay's Motion—Diplomatic Service ; Mr. Duff's Motion—South Kensington Museum ; Mr. Lowe's Motion- Metropolie Local Management Bill read a second time. Wednesday, June 20. Professional Oaths Bill read a second tirne--Aggravated Assaults Act Amendment Bill, rejected by 174 to 57—Valuation of Land (Scotland)

Bill, rejected on second read Felony and Misdemeanour Bill read a second

—Sealeesetical Commission am; debate on second reading adjourned.

Thswestey, June 21. European Forces (India) Bill ; leave given—Local Gore meet Supplemental Bill read a third time and passed—Inland Bonding Bill cm... mitted—Caledonian and Crinse Canal Bill read a third time and passed—Roman Catholic Charities Bill in Committee.

Friday, June 22. Debate on Foreign Politics ; Mr. Griffith's Question—Foreign Policy of the Government ; Sir Robert Peel's Remarks. •


Lord LYVEDEN, on Tuesday, moved the second reading of the Church- Rates Abolition Bill. He supported the motion in a speech of some length, dealing with the subject very fully, and therefore necessarily going over ground often trodden before. At the outset he reminded the House of the important measures which, rejected over'and over again, had at length been passed. He did not come forward as an enemy of the Church, but as one desirous of promoting its welfare by relieving Dis- seaters of the payment of Church-rates, a Drying evil. He showed that many attempts have been made to effect a compromise, by Lord Althorp, Mr. Walpole, Sir John Easthope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that they have all completely failed. Lord Lyveden regretted that Dr. Sum- ner's plan had not been adopted, and argued that, as all oompromises had failed—including that of the late Government—Sir John Trelawny's bill was brought in and pressed forward. It is for the interests of the Church that the impost should be removed, for dissent gains most by its continuance.

He should prefer a substitute if one could be found, but a substitute had been looked for in vain, and the supporters of the bill therefore had been compelled to resort to entire abolition. It should be steadily borne in mind that the chief supporters of the measure in the other House were not Dis- senters, whose wish it might be to destroy the establishment ; Churchmen were its leading advocates. The majority .comprised seven Cabinet Ministers, one ex-Premier, and the present ['rime "Minister, of whom it would not be said by the right reverend bench that he was an unworthy son of the Church, or that his recent appointments to the episcopal bench had been prejudicial to the establishment. Among other Members in that ma- jority he recognized the rising hopes of the country. Who stood higher in public esteem than Lord Stanley ? His lordship was for the abolition of Church-rates, and so were Lord Ashley, Lord Grosvenor, and the Marquis of Hartington. Were those enemies of the establishment, or were they not as sincere friends to the Church as any of their lordships could be? Before he sat down, perhaps he might be allowed to address one word in the way of remonstrance to the right reverend bench. If he were addressing an assembly of attorneys who strained to the utmost'every possible technicality of the law' he would deserve to be laughed at if he engaged in any Quixotic endeavour to induce them to give up any right, however uncertain, for the sake of peace and good will. But he was now speaking to men who knew there was no exercise of the Christian virtues equal to that of self sacrifice, and who had for the benefit of the Church and the advancement of religion consented to be shorn of some portion of their episcopal revenues. He en- treated them, then, not to raise their hands to strike their Dissenting bre- thren; but, in the words of Mr. Secretary Stanley in 1834, to consider whether the interests of the Church were advanced by the desecration of the House of God by squabbles about Church-rates ; or, in the words of Sir Ro- bert Peel, whether social harmony should be allowed to be interrupted by these discussions.

The Duke of kfAiumonotrou contended that all the compromises have failed, because the persons who are arrayed against the establishment have declared that they would accept no compromise. It was said there was a legal right to Church-rates, but no legal remedy. If the House acted fairly they would establish a remedy. The Duke referred the agi- tation out of doors to Dr. Foster and the Liberation Society, and ac- counted for the large number of petitions by imputing them to the same source. If they passed the bill it would be a violation of Magna Charta, which provided that the church should be free, and have her "whole rights and liberties inviolable." He contended that there is no griev- ance. It was said if the church would depend on voluntary support she would receive it ; but the fact is, she largely depends on voluntary sup- port, and implied that more money could not be obtained. Then he ar- gued at length to show that the object of the Anti-Church-rate party is to overthrow the church itself, and in support of this view he quoted the opinions of Dr. Forster and Mr. Morley. For himself he was anxious to see the question fairly and equitably settled, but the course recommended by Lord Lyveden neither satisfied justice nor sound policy. He moved that the bill should be read a second time that day three months. Lord WESSLEYDALB expounded the law of the case in a short but learned speech. He said it is erroneous to suppose there is no legal ob- ligation on the vestry to make a rate for the repair of churches. They are legally bound to make a rate. And there is a remedy if they re- fuse, for those who refuse can be punished for contumacy by the Eccle- siastical Court, but the remedy is difficult and costly, and cannot be practically effective. Earl de GREY and RIPON said the House must deal with the question as it stands, and not as it stood in the time of Magna Charts, when the legal obligation to pay could be enforced Now there is no penalty at common law for neglecting to pay. Lord de Grey combated the asser- tion that the levying of Church-rates from Dissenters is no grievance. Why Churchmen as well as Dissenters regard it in that light. The Committee of the House of Lords looked upon it as a grievance for they proposed that persons should be exempt from payment. The fact was, noble lords opposite did not want a compromise, and were for making the most of a temporary chante of opinion in the other House. That is not a wise policy. Enumerating the proposals that have been made, and finding objections to each, Lord de Grey declared that seeing no feasible compromise he felt bound to vote for the second reading.

Here is a grievance, the existence of which is admitted by all parties, which is felt in every parish, and the continuance of which places in the hands of Mr. Morley, -Dr. Forster, and the Liberation Society, their only powerful weapon against the Established Church. If their agitation has spread, and is, as they say, a growing agitation, its growth and its con- tinuance are due mainly to the continuance of Church-rates. Believing therefore, as he did, that the present system entails a distinct hardship upon Dissenters, and that that hardship has been admitted by almost everybody whose opinion on this question is worth having ; believing that the exist- ence of the grievance inflicts wrest injury on the Established Church by weaning from her the affection of a large portion of the people ; believing that the impost tends to destroy peace and harmony throughout the coun- try, and to prevent that community of Christian feeling which ought to ex- ist among various denominations of Christians ; seeing no mode of coin- proinise open, though it a feasible compromise were proposed in committee

d gladly support it, he should feel it his duty to vote for the second *ling, not only because he had always been anxious to do justice to his ,nting fellow-subjects, but because he desired to widen the basis and to strengthen the fabric of the Church of which he was a member. (Cheers.)

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY dissented from the views of Lord de Grey, argued that the Church could not depend upon a voluntary rate, and declared that the effect of abolition would be to destroy the inde- pendence of the Church, since it would (impel the clergyman to place himeelf under an obligation to his parishioners. "But I confess that I earnestly desire the success of a measure which shall annihilate the plausible objection, and put an end to a question which has been so long debated, and will continue to be debated while the de- batable ground remains. I trust that Parliament will enact a law which shall make a rate compulsory upon Churchmen and upon Churchmen only —a rate so far voluntary that it shall not attach upon Dissenters, and so far compulsory' that the members of the Church shall pay an equal share towards its maintenance, according to the rateable value of the property which they possess or occupy. This was the conclusion to which the Select Committee alluded to by the noble earl was brought after a full and patient inquiry. I trust it will become a legislative measure. I do not Bay that it is free from objection. I do not deny that it is a concession rather than a compromise. But I think that the concession may be defended, that it may be justified, as conferring a benefit on both parties. It would relieve

i the Dissenter from the temptation to which he s now exposed, and which must be, I think, very distressing to his conscience—the temptation to stir up strife in parishes which would otherwise be peaceful and harmonious. And it would relieve the clergy from the annoyance of such disturbances, and leave the Church to conduct its own affairs without the interference of those who do not belong to its communion. My lords,I regret that, accord- ing to the forms and privileges of the House of Commons, such a measure cannot originate with your lordehips. But I hope that it may be intro- duced into the Lower House, and meet with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament. Meanwhile, my lords, I trust that you will agree with the noble duke and reject the bill which is now before you."

Earl GREY in an argumentative speech said he was opposed to com- promise on the matter, as he thought that by so doing they would be ad- mitting the principle of the abolition of Church-rates. The law, in his opinion, as it now stood, is just, right, and proper. Formerly this was not so, but the decision of the highest legal authority, that the majority of a parish may tax themselves for the repairs of the church had made the law perfectly just. r He knew that Church-rates gave cause to acri- monious discussions, but was of opinion that those very discussions oc- casioned a more lively interest to be taken in the affairs of the Church. The law as it stood at present answered its purpose in the great majority of parishes, and he therefore would not, especially after the revelations of the designs of the Dissenters, made before the Committee, be a party to the alteration of that law. It was his belief that if they once conceded the principle that the inhabitants of a parish were at liberty to tax themselves, if they thought fit, for the maintenance of the fabrics of the Church, they would virtually concede the whole principle upon which an Established Church could be upheld. The Earl of Aritiaz spoke for the motion, and the Duke of RUTLAND for the amendment.

The Duke of SOMERSET supported the bill in a short and emphatic speech, dealing with the arguments of the Opposition. The Duke of NEWCASTLE made a brief speech, confined entirely to an explanation of the vote he was about to give. I came down to the House with my mind prepared to repeat the vote which I gave two years ago, but my confidence in my ability to do so had been shaken by what had since taken place. I have found an altered tone in the House of Commons. Many of those who in former years have been anxious to devise a course which should be agreeable to Dissenters, and at the same time in accordance with the feelings of the members of the Church, now exhibit a different spirit, and all compromise is repudiated; they voting against the Bill avowedly with the intention of making it impossible to pass this House. Then, when I looked to this House, I found that a committee had been moved for by the noble duke, the result of which was a proposal that is described by the noble earl near me (Earl Grey) as worse than entire abolition, but which still gives up completely the principle upon which Church-rates have hitherto been supported. I come to the conclusion of voting for the second reading of this bill with great pain and hesitation, and I came down to the House, as my noble friends near me are aware, hoping that the debate would take such a turn as to enable me to vote against the second reading. But I find that the noble duke, the author of the resolution on the report of the committee, not only moves the rejection of the bill, but does so in a speech in which he places the maintenance of Church-rates on the highest pinnacle of principle, and quite abandoning that ^-r.ciliatory tone which on former occasions he has exhibited both in this house and in the other. I have again the pain to hear from the moat reverend Primate—to differ from whom IS always a source of pain, both on account of his high position, his eminent abilities, and his estimable cha- racter—I heard from him a speech, the tone of which was quite different' from that of former speeches upon thisquestion. The most reverend prelate on a former occasion himself brought in a bill abolishing Church-rates in parishes where the levying of a rate had been successfully resisted for two consecutive years ; but now he holds that Church-rates should be held in- violable. I see now the position in which this question is now placed. I see in my own neighbourhood the progress which the spirit of opposition to these rates is making • that, while a few years ago Dissenters were the only opponents in rural districts and small towns of 5000 or 6000 inhabitants, members of the Church are now opposed to the levying of thew rates, al- though I know Dissenters who not only support but cheerfully pay them. While I should regret that the bill in its present shape should pass into law —that cheer is premature, for I will give a reason for supporting the bill— when I find noble lords _prepared to say that they will not adopt any other mode of settlement if this bill is rejected, but will maintain Church-rates as at present, then I see no other practical way of bringing the question to a speedy solution than by passing the second reading of this bill, and en- deavouring in committee to introduce such amendments as shall reconcile the abolition of Church-rates with the interests of the Church of England itself. Therefore I am prepared to vote for the second reading." The Archbishop of CANTERBURy—" I said that while I objected to the abolition of Church-rates, which I believed4d be essential for the main- tenance of the churches, I wished that the rate should be compulsory on members of the Church alone." The Duke of NEWCASTLE—" Then, if Church-rates are abolished as re- gards Dissenters, and are compulsory upon members of the Church alone, it seems to me that it will be a penal tax imposed upon them." The Earl of Dr.eair having criticized the change of vote which the Duke of Newcastle had stated his intention of making, denied the impu- tation that the supporters of Church-rates had not pursued a conciliatory course, and thought that that reproach ought to be on the other side. as the opponents of the Church-rates bad rejected all compromise. If Lord Lyveden had only seen the overwhelming majority of their lordships against this bill last year, or had considered the decreasing majorities of the House of Commons. he would have hesitated before he had asked the House to again express their opinions by voting on this subject. Re- pelling the attacks of the Duke of Newcastle against the decision of the Committee, he denied that the Committee had practically abandoned the principle of Church-rates by acknowledging the principle that the ma- jority of the parish should have the right of taxing themselves to main- tain the parish church. They had by that course endeavoured to main- tam the principle, but to modify the practice—a vast difference from practically assenting to the principle of Church-rates abolition. The supporters of the existing law, then, had not been backward in concilia- tion, but had been met in the most uncompromising spirit by their oppo- nents.

After a few words in reply from Lord LYVEDEN, the House divided, when the numbers were—for the second reading, content, 31 ; non- content, 128 ; majority, 97.

The bill was therefore thrown out.


Lord STANLEY, on Thursday, resumed the debate on Sir Charles Wood's motion for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the Act of last session authorizing the Government to raise European troops for local service in India.

At the outset and at the close, he denied that he was actuated by party motives in opposing the bill ; nor did he oppose it because it differed from his own plan : but, knowing the opinions of those most competent to form a judgment, it would have been an act of cowardice in him were he to hesitate to express his honest opinions from any motive whatever. Out of doors it is supposed that the point at issue is a contest of pa-

tronage between the Military Department and the Indian Administration. That is a mistake. Organization and patronage are distinct, because the patronage might be held by the Indian Administration, if amalgamation were carried out. There is another prejudice current. It is said it is an anomaly to keep a separate military organization under the same power. But in England we are broken in to anomalies. If there be an anomaly it is our tenure of India. We have no parallel to guide us. India is not a colony, a settlement, a province. It is an empire in itself, with its own laws, finances, civil service and army. Then he reverted to the disadvantage of the form in which the question was brought before the House, because it pledged the House to a certain thing and left the details uncertain. You cannot consider the Europeak army apart from the Native army. If the two armies were kept separate, the Native officers would be placed in a position of inferiority. The efficieneyof the Na- tive force would be destroyed, and without a Native force it is impossible to rule India. An European force of 80,000 men could not be main- tained in India, during a war, without enlisting foreign mercenaries. Regarding the maintenance of a Native army as inevitable, he argued that they could not be disassociated from a local European force without the officers and men losing their esprit do corps and self respect. It is only some of the younger officers who favour amalgamation. In support of his views he quoted Sir John Malcolm and Lord Canning. Local troops and a Native army are required to supply the Civil Service willeenen of military education. How can you get them from the line ? " said the Governor-General, "there are few Englishmen indeed who will readily make up their minds to devote themselves to a career in this country, unless they are trained to look to it, and are bound to it from their youth." On this point Lord Stanley insisted with great force. Dealing next with the argument drawn by the advocates of the bill from the so-called " mutiny " of the local Europeans? Lord Stanley answered it at great length, showing how inapplicable it is to the ism.

"Can you show, have you ever attempted to show that, placed in the

same circumstances, influenced by the same opinions, and exposed to the same —I will not say real but supposed—provocation (and even if it was ill- founded the men felt it to be real to them), troops of the line would not have acted precisely as they did ? Then, is the accident of a single mutiny to condemn a service of 100 years ? You had a mutiny at the Nore, but did you, on that account, condemn the the whole constitution of your Navy ?" Sir Charles Wood "said it was the opinion of military men that a local force was apt to deteriorate, because it had no opportunity of access to the highest military authorities. Well, I want to know who the highest mili- tary authorities are ; because I should say none is, or ought to bei higher than the Commander-in-chief in India. His power and responsibility are really equal to, and sometimes even greater than those of Commander of the Forces at home ? Quoting distinguished authorities, the right honourable gentleman spoke of the inefficiency as well as the bad discipline of the local European force, and he used words to this effect, that it is the commonly received opinion—I am glad my right honourable friend did not endorse that opinion—that officers cannot pass ten or fifteen years in India without losing something of their energy. This is an invidious subject ; but if one is to compare the services of the two armies respectively, I will venture to say that those who were lately known as Company's officers have bad their full share of all the honour acquired in Indian warfare, and that there has certainly been no inferiority on their side." When the great disaster at Cabal befel us the Army was commanded by a royal Feneral, and it was Native officers who retrieved the disgrace. When Delhi fell, who were the chief agents in producing that important result ? Why, those eminent In- dian generals—Wilson, Nicholson, and Neill, and that great Indian civilian, Sir J. Lawrence. (Cheers.) And when I hear it said that officers after ten or fifteen years of Indian service lose a part of their energy, I ask myself whether I am dreaming or under a delusion when I suppose that Munro, Malcolm, Ochterlony, Henry Lawrence,Outram, Herbert Edwardes and many others not undistinguished in this House, were men who spent not ten or fifteen years, but the whole of their working life in active employment in India." lie quoted Sir Thomas Franks and Sir William Cotton in testi- mony to the efficiency of the local Europeans. Sir James Outram said, "if, as is alleged, the discipline of the local army is bad, the fault of bad discipline is generally supposed to be with the Commander-in-chief, and of all the Commanders-in-chief who have served in India, only one has been appointed from the local service." Lord Stanley met other arguments showing that there were causes for the jealousy between the local and royal, officers, that the local troops are as healthy 88 the royal troops. Be feared the ;feet of the bill would be to add to the power of the Commander- in-chief at the expense of the Governor-General, who should be supreme. General PEEL stated the grounds upon which he bad come to a per- J., fectly different conclusion from Lord Stanley. He had changed his opt- nion up= this question; he could not get over, he said, the fact of the mutiny among the local Europeans, and there were other reasons that had contributed to the change. He was convinced that there would be no penury of qualified Line officers for continuous service in India; and as to the expense of maintaining a single army, he agreed with Sir Charles Wood that the most efficient force was the cheapest, and did not bee why the expense should be greater than at present. "An objection which has affected the opinions of many has reference to the transfer of patronage from those who now hold it to the Commander-in- chief, or, as it,. called, the Horse Guards. I have shown that original ap- pointments would be open to the whole world. The Commander-in-chief has expressed his willingness to give up all such patronage, and the only thing left to him would be the common regimental promotions, in -which there is no patronage whatever. They are almost matters of course and are the subject of fixed regulations. The selection of officers to fill situa- tions in India would be left entirely to the Governor-General and the Indian authorities. All appointments to commands in India ought to rest with the Governor-General, with the exception, perhaps, of those upon which depends the discipline of an army—such as the posts of Adjutant-General and Quartermaster-General. I believe, indeed, that, so far from the patro- nage or power of the Governor-General being at all affected by the proposed change, that great functionary will be placed in a much higher position than that which he now occupies. The only difference will be that you will de- prive the Indian Council and the Commander-in-chief of the patronage of original appointments."

Colonel Svsiss contended that the grounds assigned by Sir Charles Wood for the amalgamation of the two European armies were not founded on facts. He palliated the alleged mutiny of the local Euro- peans, suggesting instances in which regiments of the Line had made a stand against what was deemed injustice, and read strong testimonies to the character of the local army. He insisted upon the question of ex- pense, the constitutional question, and the question of patronage, as furnishing reasons why Sir Charles Wood should not persevere in his measure. Mr. PEACOCKE said he was a partisan of a thorough and entire amalgamation of the two armies. Sir DE LACY EvANs objected to the form in which the House was called upon to give a vote upon the ques- tion, whether there should be a local European force in India. The alleged cause of the bill was the mutiny of that force ; but he contended that the soldiers had been led into the belief that they were entitled to the bounty or their discharge by the language of the First Minister of the Crown. He condemned in severe terms the conduct of the ruling authorities towards these men, and, adverting to the brilliant services and high character of the local corps, he expressed his astonishment that they should now be stigmatized as unworthy of trust. Assuming that the amalgamation of the armies would augment the military patronage at home, he expressed in very plain language his distrust of the Horse Guards and the War Department. Captain Jnavis observed that this was not a question of amalgamating the two armies, but of creating a new local force. He complained of what he termed the unwarrantable attack made by Sir De Lacy Evans upon the Horse Guards. Leave was then given to bring in the bill.


Mr. LINDSAY on Tuesday, called attention to the report upon harbours of refuge, and moved the following resolutions - 'That it is theAnty of her Majesty's Government to adopt, at the earliest possible period, the necess-sry mmais to carry into effect the recommends- tiona sof the Commissioners appointed in 1858 to inquire into the formation of „ Airs of refuge on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland." •

'Showing how great a loss of life, how vast a loss of property- 1,5000,001. a year—Mr. Lindsay attributed the loss to the want of har- bours of refuge whither vessels could run for shelter. What is wanted is not such harbours as Dover' or Alderney; the country will not get value for its money, he said, in the works going on at those places. As one of the Commissioners, he expounded their views as to the nature of the harbours required, and their localities, embodied in the recommenda- tions contained in their report :— " They met in London, and agreed on certain points. The first object they had in view was the saving of life. That was their first consideration. The next was the saving of property, next came the consideration of giving facilities for commerce, and then came the question of defence, by fixing on such sites as might afford anchorage for our ships-of-war in cases of emer- gency, or where their convoys could assemble. They held their first meet- ing at Wick, and found that through the Pentland Firth 10,000 ships passed annually, and that no less than 1700 boats were employed in fishing, giving occupation to from 8000 to 10,000 men. They found that along the whole of that iron-bound coast there was not a single harbour which one of those boats could take if caught by an easterly gale of wind.What was the consequence ? No less than 120 men had lost their lives in one gale alone while attempting to make Wick. If the works, limited as they were, which the Commissioners had recommended had been constructed, the whole of those men would have been saved. Proceeding along the coast they found a very large passing trade and fishing trade, and yet they met with no harbour which any ordinary vessel could make at low water be- tween Wick and Peterhead. They then arrived at the North-East coast of England, where they found that from the port of Shields sometimes from .300 to 400 vessels sailed in one tide, manned by about 6000 men, and yet between the Firth of Forth and the Humber, a distance of 150 miles, there was no harbour which a vessel could take at low water in a gale of wind. The consequence was that in one gale alone sixty-five ships were driven ashore, and eighty-five lives were sacrificed. With respect to the Tyne, al- though the works the commissioners recommended should be constructed there would cost a million, the people of the Tyne said they would be wil- ling to 'give 750,0001. towards them, and all they asked from that House was 250,000/. The people of Hartlepool also offered to give 600,0001. to- wards the million which would be required at that place for a like purpose. Going further South they came to Filey Bay, where they found a remarkable site for a harbour not inferior to that which Port- land afforded, and for which 800,0001. would be required. From the Thames to the Land's End they found many excellent and some natural harbours, and from the northern coast of Cornwall to the Bristol Channel they found there was no necessity to make any expenditure of the public money, because the coast in many places afforded excellent shelter for ships. They, therefore, confined their attention to the necessity of a harbour lower down the channel—that was to say, between the Land's End and Hartland Point. This would give shelter to vessels, and be of vast im- portance in facilitating commerce, and a magnificent harbour might be completed then for 400,0001. Nature had done much for the north and east coasts of Ireland. On the west, they found the magnificent harbour of Gal- way and on the south, the still more magnificent harbour of Cork. To the north, there was Belfast Loch and Loch Foyle, both affording excellent anchor- age ground. Coming to the east coast, they examined a fine natural bay. There was a splendid sheet of water,_ in itself fit to receive almost Utim,e navy of England, but there was a bar of rock, which engineers, he,. er, agreed could be easily removed. They therefore recommended that 'mile sum of 50,000/. should be expended at Carlingford, and a like sum at Wats...- ford. The Isle of Man was the last they visited, and they found there were I really no harbours at all on its coast, the passengers being obliged to land in small boats. They strongly recommended the construction of a herbedr of limited extent at Douglas, the expense to fall on the Exchequer ; but the people of Douglas came forward and said that as they were to be benefited by the construction of the harbour and pier, they were willing to give 50,0001., inviting the Exchequer to come forward with another 50,000/. The whole sum which the Commissioners recommended for these harbours was 2,365,0001. He did not ask the House to vote this two millions and a half of money now, but to adopt a resolution to the effect that, the Govern- ment should, at the earliest possible period; undertake to commence these great national and necessary works. All he desired was to induce the Go- vernment, at the earliest possible period, to commence this national and ne- cessary undertaking; to make preparations forthwith, and next year begin works that would mitigate the heavy losses of life and property.

The motion was seconded by Mr. F..tanza.

Mr. BAXTER hoped the Government were not prepared to give a hasty assent to a proposal that would involve an expenditure, according to the Commissioners, of 2,365,0001., but which many thought would be double that sum, and he urged reasons why, in his opinion, the House should be cautious in adopting the motion. He would prefer the expenditure of a moderate sum of money on the improvement of existing harbours. He moved the previous question.

Mr. DODSON seconded the amendment.

The resolution was supported by Captain TALBOT, Sir HARRY VERNEY Mr. BEEcitorr, Mr. H. D. SEYMOUR, Mr. H. TAYLOR, and Mr: KENDALL.

Mr. A. Ssura cautioned the House against the delusion that the pro- posed works could prevent more than a small proportion of wrecks, un- less the coast was studded with harbours of refuge. He supported the previous question.

Sir JOHN PARDZOTON complained of the silence of the Government. No one, he said, could deny the extreme interest of this question, or that it was the duty of the Government to form a distinct opinion upon it ; and when such a motion was made they were bound to state their views at once, instead of waiting to see which way the cat jumped. He con- sidered this an object of the greatest national importance, and though it was objected that the finances of the country could not bear the expense, he hoped, if we could afford to throw away the duties upon silks and wines we could spare a moderate sum to mitigate the enormous annual sacrifice of life and property.

Mr. Muzinn Gres= observed that Sir J. Pakington had fallen into an error in taunting the Government with indifference in regard to this question. They have given attention to the subject, in order to devise a measure, if not to carry out all the recommendations of the Commis- sioners, to make a commencement. The proposed abstract resolution would fetter the discretion of the House by pledging it to a particular course. If passed, it would bind the Government at the earliest period to give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners, which would prejudge a great number of separate questions, and in particular as to the way in which the funds for these harbours of refuge were to be pro- vided. He had not found the smallest desire on the part of the shipping interest to contribute, and it would be a delusion to suppose that any considerable amount of money could be collected in the localities. Then the House has never had estimates before it upon which it coati rely. Although the calculation of the number of lives and the amount of pro- perty that would be saved by harbours of refuge was, in his belief, ex- aggerated, he assured the House on the part of the Government that they bad no desire to put aside this great question. They had prepared a which was ready to be laid upon the table, for the improvement of ex- isting harbours and constructing new ones, and he hoped the House would do them the credit of believing that they were in earnest on this question.

Sir F. SMITIL, MT. LIDDELL, Sir J. JOHNSTONE, Mr. PAULL, Mr. BLAKE, Sir Join" ELennsszoira, and Sir M. Pero, spoke in favour of the object of the resolution. Mr. BENTINCIL condemned severely the expenditure upon the works at Dover and Alderney, upon which, be said, more money had been wasted than would have sufficed to construct several harbours of refuge. He objected to a harbour at Wick, one of the places recommended.

Lord PALMERSTON said the Government were convinced of the vast importance of the matter under consideration, and of the absolute neces- sity of taking some measures for providing places of refuge on the coast, and if they objected to the motion it was because it pledged the House and the Government to adopt blindfold the recommendations of the commissioners, although there were great diversities of opinion as to the localities of the different harbours. Mr.. Gibson had stated that the Government had a measure prepared for the commencement of operations, and he hoped the House would not commit itself to so sweeping a resolution.

Mr. LINDSAY said he must take the sense of the House on his resolu- tion as the Government had only made evasive statements and would not do their duty.

Mr. Gr.Aiss.roNn repeated and enforced the views set forth by Lord Palmerston and Mr. Gibson.

The House then divided upon the previous question—namely, "that this question be now put," which was carried in the affirmative by 146 to 128.

The original resolution was then put and agreed to.


Mr. HENLEY resumed, at slate period of the Wednesday sitting, the debate on the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill. Mr. Selwyn' he said, had brought the question to a narrow issue—he had said the bill would centralize, involve compensation and confiscation. These are ugly words and ought to be well supported. Mr. Selwyn said the annual rental of the estates in the hands of the commissioners was 173,0001., the cost of management, 43,000/. But in this 43,0001. he had included items that have as much to do with the rental of estates as they had with the Pope of Rome—such as costa of survey, legal expenses, and expenses of commutation. How could these be called costs of agency ? But Mr. Selwyn was not correct in his statement of rental. It was 216,0001., not 173,0001. for 1859. The real charge for agency was 10,0001., about four or five per cent. According to Mr. Selwyn, if the legal estate was transferred to the commissioners for the use of the Bishops and Chapters' that was confiscation ; but if each of these persons or bodies was allowed to have a slice of the property, that was not con- fiscation. That was rather too fine a distinction for Mr. Henley. The real question for decision was, which of these two modes of dealing with the property would conduce most to the comfort and convenience of those who were interested in it. He believed they ought all to have but one object, to get the property in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners as well managed for everybody as they could, and at as little expense as possible. The Bishops and the capitular bodies should have their fair share of it in the manner most conducive to their interests and most grateful to their feelings. He also thought that the remainder should be placed under the best possible management. Mr PEASE complained that the county of Durham, which contributed something like 55,000/. a year to the funds under the care of the Eccle- siastical Commissioners, was not fairly treated by that body. A sum of 600/. had been given by the Commissioners to the town of Hartlepool, which contained a population of 10,000 souls, but an equal amount had been bestowed upon a small village in Yorkshire with not more than 150 inhabitants. Of twenty-three churches built or enlarged in the country, eighteen were done by the people themselves, and the remainder by the aid of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He thought that a preference should be given to what had been called the golden see of Durham. Mr. BENTINCIC opposed the bill, and was proceeding to sketch the ori- gin and history of the Ecclesiastical Commission, with the view of show- ing that it had not produced any useful results, when, at a quarter before six o'clock, the hour beyond which opposed business cannot be pro- longed, he was stopped by the SPEAKER, and the debate stood adjourned.


On the motion for resuming the adjourned debate on the consideration of the Roman Catholic Charities Bill, the ATT'ORNEY-GENERAL explained the nature of the amendments he had made in it :— The enactment of the first section was that a good charitable use should not be tainted and rendered invalid by its being connected with a supersti- tious use. He considered that those uses which were declared to be super- stitious by the statute of Edward VI. still retained that charadter, and were consequently illegal and void. The present law was, that if there were a gift to a good charity, but so mixed up with a superstitious use that what VMS given to the one could not be distinguished from that which was given to the other,—if the superstitious use were inseparably connected with the good use, the result would be that the superstitious use voided the good charity, and the whole of the property became forfeited to the Crown. But that seemed to be unreasonable and unjust. The object of the first clause was, consequently, to alter that state of the law, and to render the good use valid and free from objection, notwithstandine•' its connexion with the superstitious use. But no validity was given to the super- stitions use, which remained bad as before. The second section of the bill provided that no prosecutions were to be instituted as to dealiugs with Ro- man Catholic charities prier to the 2d and 3d of William IV., and the word " charity " was carefully explained by the interpretation clause to mean such charities as were good and valid under the Charitable Trusts Act of 1853. It did not appear to him that there was any ground for the appre- hension which some honourable Members seemed to entertain, that the effect of the first clause would be to encourage and render valid superstitious acts and observances; for by the interpretation clause the charities included in the bill were "to mean and include the same matters and things as the like expression means and includes "-in the General Charitable Trusts Act, while the-whole effect of the second section was to render good and valid the ad- ministration of charities as existing prior to the Act 2d and 3d of William IV., excepting always in those cases where fradulent appropriation of "* property might have taken place. The third section provided that the deeds of existing Roman Catholic charities should be enrolled within twelve months after the passing of the Act, such deeds to apply to charities made subsequent to the passing of the 9th of George II. The object of this

enrolment was to give notoriety to the charity, and it was enjoined that the

trustees shod give in a statement explanatory of its constitution and of the mode of administration during the previous twenty years. The fourth sec-

tion merely provided the means of defraying the coat of enrolment. The next section introduced, with reference to Roman Catholic charities, the rule of law that in the absence of fixed or written settlements as to the adminis-

tration of real or personal estate, the uniform usage or custom of the last

twenty years should be taken as a final manifestation of the nature of the Charity. This was the sum and substance of the enactments contained in the bill.

On the motion of Mr. HENLEY the bill was recommitted, and its clauses were reconsidered in Committee. So much objection was raised to the first clause, Members apprehending that it went too far, that the ATTORNEY-GENERAL undertook to recast it in a simpler form, and the clause wasoostponed. But on clause 2 the Opposition, led by Mr. NEW- DEGA'FR, Mil. STEUART, and Mr. WHALLEY, offered a pertinacions resist- ance, dividing the House five times on the motion to report progress. In the first division they mustered 14, in the second 16, in the third and fourth 9, in the fifth 7. The supporters of the bill varied from 50 to 46. Finally, the clause, as amended, was carried, and the House adjourned at twenty minutes to four o'clock a. m.


On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr. EDWIN JAMES called attention to the enlistment of men in Ireland for the army of the Pope, and elaborately explained the law which forbids direct and in- direct enlistment in the service of a foreign power. The enlistments in Ireland are a violation of the law, yet the Government has done nothing to vindicate the law. There can be no want of evidence ; journals defy the law ; and there is a papal rendezvous on Tower Hill. Do the Go- vernment want the power or the will to stop this illegal enlistment ? Mr. CARDWELL said he would state the facts as far as he knew them. In May the Government heard that persons were enrolling themselves in the Pope's army. They immediately issued the police notice, wrongly called a proclamation, telling the people the state of the law. They had since received reports from the constabulary officers, but no case had been reported in which the law officers thought the Crown could institute a prosecution. As regards the rendezvous on Tower Hill, the Home Secretary is also without evidence that would justify a prosecution. Mr. VINCENT SCULLY made an amusing speech, and created great merriment by reading extracts from letters written by Papal recruits, showing how they had lived "like princes" on the road from Ireland through England and Belgium to Trieste ; and how they had fought among themselves at Ancona, and had thrashed the gendarmes for inter- fering in a quarrel that did not concern them. He took Lord Palmerston to task for using incendiary language about the Pope ; suggested that the Government should not use such language, but pass a good land bill, and keep the people in Ireland.

Mr. M`Manox complained that people in England and Scotland openly subscribed for Garibaldi, and that equal justice should be meted out towards both.


Several interesting questions were mooted in Committee of Supply on Monday in the Army Estimates.

On the vote of 1,865,088/. for warlike stores, Sir JOSEPH PAXTON asked for some information about the Whitworth gun. Mr. Whitworth had told him his rifles could be manufactured at Enfield as cheaply as the Enfield rifles.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said Mr. Whitworth had been in communication with the Government ; he had, indeed, received considerable assistance from it. Mr. Whitworth proposed two things,—that the Government should try his gun, or buy it ; on the whole, the Government had decided on buying the gun without trying it. If on trial the Whitworth gun should prove the superior arm, Mr. Whitworth would supply a little ad- ditional machinery to the Government manufactory which would enable the Government to make the gun without difficulty, Mr. Whitworth re- ceiving a certain royalty on each gun. As to the Whitworth rifle, it was certainly a very good weapon ; but it cost 10/., while the Enfield rifle cost only 2/. 18s. The Government must hesitate before it decided on adopting the more costly article. The life of a rifle is estimated to be about ten years; and there should always be in store 500,000; to replace the arms new in use, by the Whitworth rifle, and have the proper num- ber stored in reserve, would cost 10,000,00Q/. Mr. Whitworth was try- ing a less expensive process of making the rifle barrels, by which, if it succeeded, a great advantage would be gained. He thought the Govern- ment would be acting unwisely if, when the present weapon was in ad- vance of that of all other armies, it changed it for one more than three times its cost.

On the vote of 707,607/. fot barracks and military buildings at home and abroad, Colonel NORTH complained of the want of an asylum for lunatic soldiers. Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE pointed out some large items, charges for buildings, questioned the propriety of employing the royal engineers, and suggested the employment of the Board of Worics. Mr. Picorr and Colonel LINDSAY complained of the foul state of the wooden huts at Aldershot.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT replied to these and other questions. The Sanitary Commission did not recommend lunatic asylums for soldiers, who would be better placed in private asylums. Mr. Herbert agreed in condemning Nedey Hospital, but said that many hospitals in London are.not a jot better. As to building, the engineers build large works more cheaply and solidly than private contractors, but when they under- take small works they are at the mercy of subordinates. The married men will be placed in separate quarters free of charge. Mr. OSBORNE objected to a vote of 5000/. for a gymnasium at tho. Curragh, and moved that it be struck out. He preferred cricket to the drill-like exercises of the gymnasia. On a division the amendment was negatived, and the vote was agreed to.

FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR BILL. This bill ■-utrie on the motion of Mr. DENMAN. Its object is to assimilate the prof, on trials for felony and misdemeanour to those on trials at Nisi Priug Its far as relates to the regulation of addresses to the jury. That object would be attained by making it the duty of the judge presiding over such trials at the close of the case for the prosecution, to ask the prisoner or defendant whether he intended to adduce evidence, and in the event of the answer being in the negative, the prosecuting conned should then be allowed to address the jury a second time in support of his case. • If OH the other hand, the accused or his counsel announced his intention to call evidence, he should be permitted to open his case and then examine his witnesses, he being also entitled afterwards to sum up the whole of the evidence when it was concluded. That practice had been adopted for the last six years in lin hearing of civil actions, and it had been found to afford greater facilities for the discovery of the truth.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS. Lord RATNIIAM moved that the House go into Committee on the Aggravated Assaults Act Amendment Bill. Lord ENFIELD urged that the present law had not proved inoperative, and doubted whether, if the degrading punishment of flogging were awarded to a husband in eases of wife beating, the injured persons would be willing to prosecute. He moved, as an amendment, that the bill be committed that day three months. Mr. HARDY seconded the amendment, which was sup- ported by Mr. Paula.. Mr. W. EWART, as an opponent of the punishment of flogging altogether, said he should vote against the bill. Sir GEORGE Lswis said the bill was contrary to the spirit of modern le- gislation, which had been to diminish rather than to increase the severity of punishment for criminal offences. Mr. Hall, Mr. Poynter, and other metropolitan magistrates had expressed strong opinions as to the inutility of flogging, and also believed that it would be most injudicious to protect the woman by degrading the man. Mr. BONHAM-CARTER supported the bill, but said lie should move, if it went into Committee, that the punishment of flogging should only be in- flicted in case of a second offence.

The House divided, and the bill was rejected by 174 to 57.

OATHS. Mr. W. EWART moved the second reading of the Professional Oaths Abolition Bill. The object of it is to abolish unnecessary oaths in certain cases, and more particularly in respect to members of the legal pro- fession, when those oaths are taken merely professionally. Oaths ad- ministered judicially are not to be interfered with. The bill does not make any change in the law with regard to soldiers, and it would not interfere with the administering of the oath of allegiance in cases in which it might bo deemed necessary. Mr. NEWDEGATE said he entertained strong objections to the bill, and should move its rejection on the motion for going into committee. Mr. A. Mims and Mr. DENMAN supported the bill. Sir GEORGE LEWIS said he attached very little importance to promissory oaths, which had, he believed, never formed the subject of a prosecution for perjury. He should, therefore vote for the second reading of the bill. Mr. SOTHERON-ESTCOURT expressed a hope that before the bill was committed it would be submitted to the law officers of the Crown.

Bill read a second time.

&oval LAND VALLATION. Mr. BLACKEL RN moved the second reading of the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act Amendment Rill. Mr. BLACK op- posed the bin, on the ground that it would introduce great confusion, and

moved that it be read a second time that day six months. The LORD ADVO- CATE supported the amendment ; and, after some discussion, the House di- vided, when the second reading was negatived by 116 to 69.

SOUTH KENSINGTON Messum. Mr. Lows moved for a Select Committee to inquire what buildings were necessary for the South Kensington Museum. He described the cost of the " Brompton Boilers," as he described the buildings, and explained that the object of the inquiry was to determine whether the institution should, or should not be further extended. Mr. JOHN LOCKE, Mr. Dirrivirst, and Mr. CONLNGHAM expressed views strongly antagonistic to -the Museum. Sir GEORGE LEWIS supported the

motion for inquiry. The resolution was amended and agreed to in this form ;—"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report concerning the South Ken- sington Museum.

DirLosianc SERVICE. Mr. GRANT DUFF moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the Diplomatic Service and the best means of increasing its efficiency. He was interrupted by cries of "Divide." Colonel SYKES seconded the motion. Lord louts RUSSELL called on the House to reject the motion. Mr. Duff had made out no case.

Motion withdrawn.

PROMOTION FROM THE RANKS. MT. IVETOY pointing out that many non-commissioned officers are now raised to the commissioned ranks, and placed thereby in a position of embarrassment, moved that in future they should be allowed to reckon their previous service in the ranks, thus placing them all on a level with paymasters and quartermasters. Colonel Dessz seconded the motion.

Ms. Smarr HERBERT said there was a distinction between paymaiters and other commissioned officers raised from the ranks, inasmuch as the post of paymaster req res special qualifications. Mr. ll'Evoy should also con- sider the ads' es given to men who rise from the ranks. They do not amination, they receive money for an outfit ; they can

e rvice as. one year, and take 100/. for every year the ishing reasons It would not be wise to adopt the motion. Colonel measure. Mr. PPA .1.71.TDSiT supported the motion.

amalgamation et a divla-

form in which ti's AT NAPLES. In answer to a question from Lord tion, whether !Gn.s..Nvn.a.s said he had received no information stating allenee s'rench Government had sent or 'was preparing to send a large thai".0. force to Naples. The report is inconsistent with the declaration of 13.,..sench Emperor, that his policy is one of non-intervention. The report .,8 without foundation.

SAVOY AND Nies. Sir ROBERT PEEL vehemently complained that the Governmentdiagracefully shirked its responsibility on foreign questions. Lord John Russell had promised to state to the House the contents of a despatch from M. Thouvenel, which Sir Robert knew had been received. Yet Lord John was not there. Sir GEORGE LEWIS said the Foreign Secretary could not be expected to attend merely on the chance that Sir Robert or any other person might put a question ona subject of which no notice had been given.

Tits PRIVILEGE OF PETITION. Mr. DUNCOMBE said he wished to pre- sent a petition from the borough of Finabury, remonstrating with the House on the needless waste of time displayed in asserting its privileges against the House of Lords. He moved that it should be read. The CLERK was proceeding to read the petition commencing :—" The raspert:al remonatance of the undersigned _to the Honourable House of Commons," when :— , Mr. Disitaimt said—" I rise to order. I conclude that it is against our orders to Teceive a form of netition praying for nothing, but being, in fact, a remonstraine. I believe iltis is an entirely irregular proceeding." , T ,' ti SP ICER—" I understand that it concludes with a prayer." ,......._", will ask •youhen, whether a prayer can be received

wh.a, ilcomes in the shape of a reuionstrance ? " - • The SPEAKER—" There are precedents, I believe, for the case now before the House,—that when a petition 'concludes with a prayer properly and res- pectfully worded the House will receive it." The petition was read.


Busiszas. Lord .REDESDALEj on Monday..ttrKeifliTrannual motion that the House should not read a setronVerinii any bill after the 17th of July, ex- cept supply bills, or bills declar4s1,fiy the House to be urgent. On the same day, Lord Pai,s9s1serost carried a resolution making Friday 1112 order night, and giving Ainvernment orders precedence of notice of mo- tion.