Fehatto auit Vrurtrhiugs iu Valiant.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

11005K or LORDS. Monday, May 21. Paper-duties Repeal Bill ; thrown out on second reading by 193 to 104—Public Improvements Bill ; thrown out on third read- 6Tan 22, Selling

and Hawking Goods on Sunday Bill reported Adol

teration of Food and Drink Bill read a second time—Bankrupt Law (Scotland) Amendment Bill read a third time and passed—St. George's-in-the-East ; Lord Dungannon's Motion, Thursday, May 24. Union of Benefices Bill committed—Petitions of Bight Bill reported—Mr. Lyle ; Lord Belmore's complaints. Friday, May 25. Royal Assent to Consolidated Fund (9,500,0001.) Bill, Univer- sity of Oxford Bill, Common Lodging Houses (Ireland) Bill—House adjourned until June 4.

Horn of CONBONS. Monday, May 21. Refreshment Houses and Wine- Licences Bill committed—Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Salaries) Bill committed— Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill in Committee. Tuesday, May 22. Court of Probate ; Sir J. Shelley's Question—Bermuda Con- vict Dens ; Lord Naas' Statement—County Rates and Expenditure ; Sir J. Tre- lawny's Bill, leave given—Regium Donum ; Mr. Baxter's Motion—Coroners' ; Mr. Cobbett's Bill, leave given—'• Count out." Wednesday, May 23. No sitting. Derby day. Thursday, May 24. Paper-duty Repeal Bill ; Proceedings thereon—Refresh- ment Houses and Wine-Licences Bill considered as amended—Supply ; Votes on Account—Lord Clarence Paget and the Messrs. Green ; Mr. Lygon's Statement— The Conference; Mr. Ringlake's Question—Sir John Barnard's Act Repeal B111 read a second time—Excise and Assessed Acts Bill in Committee—Smithfield Mar- ket Bill read a first time.

Friday, May 25. The Vote of the Peers ; Committee to search for precedents appointed—Papal Volunteers ; The O'Donoghne's Complaint—The British Minis- ter at Naples; Mr. Bowyer's Complaint—House adjourned until June I.

THE LORDS AND THE PAPER-DUTIES.

The Paper-duties Repeal Bill came on for the second reading in the House of Lords on Monday. The House sat until nearly two o'clock the next morning, and the report of the debate filled eighteen columns of the leading journaL The Lords came to a decision, and threw out the

Earl GRANVILLE, in moving that the bill be read a second time, began his speech by a brief reference to the history of the tax, dwelling on the modern period, and citing the opinions of several eminent members of the Opposition, adverse to the Paper-duties. Then he went into the im- post on its merits, dealing with facts made perfectly familiar by long years of discussion; how it interferes with trade, weighs heavily on periodical literature and school books ; and how, in the opinion of the Government, its repeal would give great relief to trade and industry. The House of Commons has discussed the question—should a reduced. Income-tax have been imposed and the Paper-duties retained, and has decided not to retain those duties. In dealing with the budget, he con- tented himself with a general survey of its principles, and insisted that the Goverment has provided enough for the service of the year. The China war is an element of uncertainty, but it would not have been wise to make an enormous provision on that account. Then there is the question of fortification. The report of the Defence Commission is before the Cabinet. If it be rejected, the sum already, voted will leave the finances as they are ; if it is acted on, then that sum will pay the interest on the loan which may have to be raised to carry it out. There is one circumstance which tells against him. The surplus of 460,0001. provided by Mr. Gladstone has already disappeared, 230,0001. being swallowed up to rectify an erroneous calculation by a department ; and 180,0001. by the abandonment of taxes. But that has occurred to many Governments, and they have not thought fit to modify their financial proposals. In 1853, the estimated surplus disappeared ; yet in 1864, there was a surplus of 3,500,0001. Dealing with the prospective deficiency, he estimated it at 750,0001., protesting, at the same time, that itis not safe to make these estimates. Lord Derby [on Saturday] had dwelt upon a dis- tinction he saw between a motion to reject the bill by Lord Monteagle and one by himself. Surely he was not waiting to see whether an independent member would take up the matter before he made up his mind. Lord Derby has great qualities and many gifts, but he has not the gift of pro- phecy, for he erred in his prediction that the Succession-duties would extract 4,000,0001. from the landowners. In 1846, he foretold a serious deficiency in 1847 ; but in 1847 there was a large surplus. Lord Gran- ville proceeded to deal with statements made by Lord Derby to a de- putation, and then turned to the constitutional question. He declared that the amendment was not in accordance with constitutional practice, but he did not attempt to deny that the House has a technical right to reject these bills. By rejecting this bill, they would be acting uncon- stitutionally and imposing a burden on the people. There is no prece- dent for the rejection of a measure forming part of a whole financial scheme. Nor is the course just to trade, because contracts have been entered into on the faith of the repeal of these duties. Was it wise or expedient to place the House in opposition to the House of Commons ? " What ground for financial alarm is there, I should like to know, to be found in such a position of affairs ? None ,• and I shall not, therefore, mince the matter, but shall take it for granted that many among your lord- ships look with some anxiety to foreign countries, and see certain signs in Europe which you think may possibly lead to war, and to complications which may result in dragging England into the contest. You take this view, and you seek to make due provision against the contingency which you apprehend. Heaven forbid, my lords, that I should give expression to a single syllable which would tend to encourage such an apprehension in the slightest degree ! but if, unhappily, such a consummation as that to which I allude should arrive, what, let me ask, would be the best position in which we could stand to meet its approach ? Which would be more de- sirable,—that its advent should find the two Houses of Parliament acting with cordiality together, without a particle of jealous feeling towards one

another, under their beloved Sovereign, directing in unison the energies of the wealthiest and the most public-spirited nation on earth, or that it should oome upon us at a moment when a series of recriminations between the two branches of the Legislature had sprung up—and nobody can tell how soon they might under a certain state of things break out—affording a scandalous spectacle to the other nations of Europe ? "

Was it wise of the House, now so popular, to furnish food for declamation and agitation—to introduce a new system, and make its hand seen and felt in every burden that presses on the people ?

Lord Lvimauast took up the constitutional question and the privi- leges of the House, taking as his starting point the doctrines laid down by the orators at the meeting in St. Martin's Hall. He proposed to lay before the House the facts, the principles, the authorities, the precedents in connexion with the point under discussion. But first he disposed of those points not disputed—that the House cannot alter, or originate, or amend, a money bill. There have been controversies on the point in former times, but the House abandoned the claim to alter or originate money bills because they could not enforce it. But this principle does not apply to the rejection of money bills. The right to reject money bills has never been denied. Those who argue that because the House has no right to amend or originate, therefore it has no right to reject a money bill have omitted, in quoting authorities, to quote those that tell against them, and which are in the self same book from which they quote. Is this fair, or candid ? In 1689, the Lords amended a money bill ; the Commons disagreed, a conference took place, and the Commons, while in- sisting in ample and precise terms, that the Lords had no right to alter or amend a money bill, laid it down that the Lords had no right to inter- pose in such bills, otherwise "than to pass or reject the same for the whole, without any alteration or amendment though in case of the sub- jects." Nothing can be more distinct than this admission. But they don't stop there. They go on, and use a kind of simile :—" As the Kings and Queens, by the laws and constitutions of Parliament, are to

take all, or to leave all, in such gifts, grants, and presents from the Com- mons, and cannot take part and leave part, so are the Lords to pass all or reject all, without diminution or alteration." This is not an admission of power, but of a right (cheers),—an admission by the Commons of a constitu- tional right of this House.

In 1671, in conference on a bill amended by the Lords, the Lords said that the two Houses should be checks to each other ; and the Commons answered, " so they are still, for your Lordships have a negative on the

whole. They said to the Lords—" the King must deny the whole of every bill or pass it ; yet this does not take away his negative voice—

why should it take away yours ? " In discussing the Succession-duties Bill in 1853, Lord Aberdeen—" and no man can be more conversant with our privileges "—said, " Your Lordships cannot alter a title of this

bill, not a particle. You may, and this you have a full right to do—

throw it out upon the second reading. That is perfectly within your Lordships competence to do." This right to reject a bill has been acted on without dispute at a recent period. In 1809, a bill granting duties

on malt was rejected. In 1789, a bill imposing a duty on cocoa-nuts was rejected. In 1790, a similar bill was rejected. No complaint was

made by the House of Commons. A distinction is drawn between bills imposing taxes, and bills giving relief from taxes. That is a new doc- trine. What is the practice ? In 1790, a bill relieving the coasting trade by abolishing stamps was rejected. In 1805, a bill to abolish fees payable to the Custom-house was rejected; and again in 1807. In 1808, a bill to repeal duties on coal carried coastwise was rejected. In 1811, a bill to suspend for one year the duties on corn and to permit distilla- tion from sugar was thrown out. Lord Liverpool made no complaint., but in bringing a bill to make amends for the loss, the Minister said, introduce this bill in consequence of the rejection of a bill by the other House." The present is a stronger case than that. It is the case of a tax in progress :— " The moment a Bill has passed this and the other House, and received the Royal Assent, it becomes the law of the land. All individual authority on the part of the Rouse of Commons is at an end—has terminated, and the House has no more authority over it than your Lordships have. It is a law which, like any other law, can only be revoked by the joint action of the two Houses of Parliament and with the consent of the Crown. The question comes to this. If your Lordships are satisfied, as you must be, that you have not only the power but the constitutional right to reject this

Bill, and if you are satisfied that there is an actual deficiency, that next year there must be a most enormous deficiency, and that the present state of Europe is such as to create, continual anxiety, than I ask your Lordships will you consent to give up, not for the present year only, but permanently, a sum of nearly a million and a half ?"

Lord MONTRAGLS mainly addressed himself to the financial question, but before he came to that subject, he took occasion to deny that there

was any combination between himself and Lord Derby, and to add to the precedents cited by Lord Lyndhurst. In 1758, the Lords threw out a bill discontinuing for a limited time the duties on tallow imported from Ireland. In 1816, they rejected a bill to repeal the excise-duties on stone bottles, and impose other duties in lieu thereof. Mr. May has been quoted by those who deny to the House the priviledge of rejectins a bill, but Mr. May distinctly says—" the functions of the House of Lords in matters of supply and taxation, are thus reduced to a single assent or negative." Lord Monteagle denied that if the House rejected tae bill, it would be imposing a tax on the people, for the tax does not exist by virtue of a vote of the House of Commons, but by the law of the land, on the assent of the Queen, Lords, and Commons. It was said the penny Income-tax is a substitute for the tax on paper ; if the bill be re- jected there will be nothing to prevent the House of Commons from applying the 1,400,000/. to reduce the Income-tax on the tea and sugar- duties.

Having made these remarks, Lord Monteagle entered minutely into an examination of the Budget, and combatted the financial principles of Mr. Gladstone. We have no money to spare. It was only a pretty imagi- nation in Mr. Gladstone to say that, when the Long Annuities fell in, we had 2,000,000/, at our disposaL The payment of that money was anticipated, and there is not a single sixpence of it available. Mr. Glad- stone's surplus of 474,0001. has already passed away. But this is not all; there is the expense of the Chinese war, as yet unascertainar; and during the progress of the Budget there has been an extra loss of 171,000/. on the Wine-duties. How shall we stand neat year ? Ac- cording to his calculations, there will be a deficit of 11,033,0001. Were they, then, justified in parting with a revenue of 1,400,0001., which only costa 62501. to collect it, which represents a capital sum of 36,000,0001., and which is a growing revenue. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord DEFERRER gave the Government his most hearty and conscien- tious support, holding that it is not for the House of Lords to take the

responsibility of deciding what taxes shall or shall not be levied, and

appealing to the House to act in a constitutional spirit, and thus advance another claim to the confidence of the country. The Marquis of CLAN. RICAMDE spoke in favour of the bill, and, while admitting the right to reject it, urged the impolicy of doing so. The Duke of Rerraucn, using Protectionist arguments,-supported the amendment.

Lord Cnatewourn, admitting that the House could reject a bill, .whether it be for relief or burden, declared that the House had never refused to concur in the repeal of a tax under circumstances such as now exist. The Crown has declared the wants of the State, and the House of Commons has decided that the Paper-duties arc not necessary for the wants of the State. A hill founded on such considerations has never been rejected by the House of Lords since the Revolution. The bill re- jected in 1790 had several objects, and when anything is tacked to 'a money bill the House may reject the whole. The bills to abolish Cus- tom-house fees, which were rejected, did not affect the annual revenue of the country. The precedent of 1811 was strained. The bill came before the House on the 6th of May. The Government desired to ascer- tain whether the landowners would approve of the distillation of spirits from sugar. They did not, and the Government budget brought in on the 20th of May was framed accordingly. Here the budget has been introduced, and the House was asked to repeal a particular tax not wanted for the public service. Lord Monteagle's precedents were dis- cussed in detail and declared invalid. He hoped the House would not take a step sanctioned by no substantial precedent since the Revolu- tion.

Lord CHELMSFORD said, he thought that the speech of Lord Lyndhurst had settled the constitutional part of the question. He briefly sup- ported the arguments in favour of the power of the House to reject any bill.

The Duke of ARGYLL, at the opening of his speech, took occasion to correct a misunderstanding respecting the political aspect of the French treaty. "The object of the treaty was simply to increase the commer- cial relations between the people of England and the people of France, without the slightest reference to their form of Government or to the foreign policy of either the one country or the other." He disclaimed an object constantly attributed to the Government, namely -- " That they drew up their financial scheme with the distinct design of fretting and impairing the sources of revenue from indirect taxation, and imposing an undue burden upon the owners of property. I am bound to say that this misunderstanding has not been wholly unnatural or unjustifi- able. There have been individuals, who happened for the moment to be supporters of the Government upon certain questions, who have under- taken to defend the Budget upon principles which it is the duty of the Go- vernment wholly and absolutely to disavow. I am now speaking of the in- tentions of the Government; the effect of their measures is matter for argu- ment; but I disclaim as regards their intentions any wish whatever to break down the great system of indirect taxation, and to impose an undue burden upon the owners of property. . . . Not only do I disclaim that as the inten- tion of the Government, but I declare my conviction that direct taxation in its present form has arrived at a point where it cannot be maintained with safety to the country in time of peace. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Yes, I have always held that such a mass of direct taxation in timo of peace is incompatible with the financial prosperity of the country. That also is the opinion of the Government." That opinion is not inconsistent with the policy adopted, for the Go- vernment could not provide for the service of the year without a high in- come-tax; and experience has shown that a high income-tax in time of peace cannot be maintained unless it be levied to remedy a deficiency and promote commercial reforms. He then proceeded to analyze the Budget and to expound and defend its remissions of taxation, showing that Mr. Gladstone had struck off unproductive duties, and duties expen- sive in collection. Turning to the paper-duties, he made out that they interfere with trade and production, that the customs-duty is a protective duty, and that the excise-duty interferes with trade. On the constitutional question, the Duke of Argyll admitted the legal right of the House to reject the bill; but he said, the gist of the question does not lie on technical but on substantial grounds. The House was not invading technical _privileges ; but it was strik- ing at the root of the constitution. There is a distinction between money bills and supply bills. Lord Lyndhurst's precedents were all mere money bills, not one of them was a bill of supply ; and there is no instance on record since the Revolution of the rejection of a Supply Bill by the House of Lords. " It runs against the whole spirit of the constitution." As to the alleged deficit, the Duke contended that there is a large margin, founding himself on the ordinary increase of the re- venue. The Earl of DERBY rose after midnight, and in a lengthened speech brought the debate to a close. At the outset, he replied to an argument of the preceding speaker, by holding up a supply bill which had been rejected by the House, by remarking that the Paper-duties Repeal Bill was not a supply bill at all, but a bill to repeal a tax, and by saying that the argument of the noble Duke involved an absurd limitation of the powers of the House. Touching on other arguments of the Duke of Argyll, he replied to Lord Granville's observation, that he ought to have made up his mind about the course he would take, and not have waited for Lord Monteagle's amendment. " I had made up my mind completely and absolutely " ; but, had he brought it forwa4 it ,would have been called a party move. "I was glad that the initiation of this amendment should lie with the noble baron, who could not be suspected of being actuated by any feelings of hostility to the Government. But I will go further, and I will say that in supporting this amendment with the full conviction that I am performing a sacred and solemn duty I can assure noble lords opposite, sincerely and distinctly, I do so with no desire whatever to embarrass, still less to disturb or overthrow, her Majesty's Government. I can assure them I have no de- sire to relieve them, from the responsibility which they have incurred. Still less do I desire that any friend of mine should be so unfortunate as to have to replace them. (Laughter.) I don't hesitate to go further, and to say, that in the present state of affairs—in the threatening state of affairs abroad, in the alarming condition of our financial prospects at home—I think it would be a national misfortune if to these causes for anxiety were added the complications and difficulties which might arise from the noble lord at the head of the Government being compelled to retire from its pre-

sent position. I can assure you, with all sincerity, that it is with no spirit of hostility to the noble lord at the head of the Government that I am taking this course. I come forward because I believe that your lordships' inter- ference is necessary to save the country from great present and much greater future financial difficulties." (Cheers.) With this exordium he passed on to discuss the Budget, and said that

for all the objections he should advance, he should have the high au- thority of Mr. Gladstone himself. Having described the broad details of Mr. Gladstone's Budget, dwelling especially on the enlargement of a de- ficiency he said:—

"I shall not stop to show how completely different the measures now pro-

posed by her Majesty's Government are from those successive systems and plans originated by the late Sir Robert Peel, but the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer laid down this paradoxical doctrine :—Most persons hold the opinions that periods of prosperity, in which the revenue is fairly produc- tive, are those in which you ought to make financial amendments and im- provements; on the contrary, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that IS quite a mistake ,. the worse the position of your affairs, the more desperate your deficiency, the more serious your loss, and the greater your danger, the more imperative is the necessity for an audacious and daring Minister to enlarge that deficiency and to increase the difficulties, so that you may take your chance of throwing 'double or quits.' (Cheers.) You are al- ready half through, he tells you ' . one more dashing move, it is possible you may recover your fortunes, and if you fail you cannot be much worse off than you were before. My lords, I say that is not the policy of a statesman —it is the policy of a desperate and improvident gambler." (Loud cheers.)

Going on with his description of the Budget, he showed that the esti- mated surplus had already disappeared ; and that the Chinese war ex- penses, the fortification expenses, have to be provided for. All this he did with great minuteness and many figures. Then what are the finan- cial prospects of 1861-2 :— " I am assuming that the expenditure for 1861-2 will be no greater than that of the present year—that is, 70,100,000/.. and the amount by which it is under-estimated, 230,000/., makes it 70,330,000/. The revenue of 1860-1 is 70,564,000/. From that sum we have to deduct malt and hop credits, which will not be available again, 1,400,0001. ; the Spanish payment, 250,000/. ; the loss upon the tariff, according to the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer 700,000/. ; and another sum of 150,0001., being the difference of the balance of Income-tax for the first quarter of a year. These sums taken together make 2,500,000/. ; and therefore, supposing all other things to remain as they are, the surplus in 1861-2 will be less or the deficiency greater by that amount, reducing the amount of the income for 1861-2 to 68,064,000/. leaving a deficiency of 2,266,000U The remaining section of Lord Derby's speech was devoted to an at-

tack upon Mr. Gladstone as a financier. Mr. Gladstone pledged himself to take off the income-tax in 1860. Lord Derby did not blame him for not doing so, but he contended that Mr. Gladstone had no right to say that the falling in of the Long Annuities afforded him the means af re- moving indirect taxation, inasmuch as he had calculated upon the falling in of those very Annuities to remove the Income-tax. Then, in 1857, Mr. Gladstone supported an amendment, moved by Mr. Disraeli to the Budget of Sir Comewall Lewis, to the effect, that the income and ex- penditure should be adjusted in a manner that appeared to be best cal- culated to enable Government to remit the Income-tax in 1860. In 1857, Mr. Gladstone declared that the failure of the Succession-duty and the Russian war did not absolve the Government from the duty of straining every nerve ea fulfil the pledges of 1853. But Mr. Gladstone was not then Chancellor of the Exchequer; Sir Cornewall Lewis held

• that office. Up to 1858, Mr. Gladstone declared himself solemnly bound to redeem his pledges ; yet, now the Annuities have fallen, he remits indirect taxes and not the Income-tax! In 1857, Mr. Gladstone was opposed to granting the Income-tax from year to year, saying it was a sign of " a transition from a solid and steady system of finance to a fivacillating and merely provisional finance." Yet, now he proposes the

tax for one year. In this strain, Lord Derby proceeded, amusing the 16House by reading spicy extracts from Mr. Gladstone's speeches, contain-

in arguments in support of Lord Derby's views :— -- Lord Derby said he did not object to the repeal of the Paper-duties if

we could afford to do so ; but he contended that under the circumstances it is improvident to throw away 1,285,000/. a year. He should like to hear from the Government that they are not playing into the hands of the Man- chester school, whose object is to renter taxation odious by the pressure of direct taxes, so that under no circumstances could the country go to war. The Government may have different views, but if they have the same ob- jects they could not more effectually promote, them than by the system of finance they are encouraging. He concluded by reading an eloquent ex- tract &Om a speech delivered by Mr. Gladstone in 18,57, language more elo- quent and forcible than any he could use. It was as follows :-

" I feel strongly upon this subject, and I dare say I have expressed myself in

strong language. I hope it has not been stronger than the occasion demands. I confess I do feel strongly the nature of these propositions. I will conceal nothing. I may be wrong, and my judgment may err, like that of other men ;, but this is the firt time—I will not say that I have heard adeficiency recommended and sanctioned by the Government, for, and unfortunately, I have heard that, in principle it was quite as bad as this proposition, though in degree it was entirely different ; but, certainly, that I have heard propounded from the Treasury Bench by the Chancel- lor of the Exchequer a plan which seems tathreaten to throw the land into financial confusion. I felt that it-was our duty to strip the veil from a statement which was

i certainly calculated to convey false impressions to thd country, and from the dis- charge of that duty I could not shrink. Every year that a man lives he learns to estimate more humbly his own powers. lie must be content to see remain unac- complished much that he may earnestly desire ; but in this free, happy country there is one privilege and one corresponding duty which remains to man—it is to bear his testimony in open day to the duty and the necessity of maintaining public obligations, and to strip away every veil from every scheme which tends to under- mine this principle. That duty, with the indulgence of the House, I have endea- voured to discharge. No consideration upon earth would induce me by voice or by vote to be a party to a financial plan, with regard to which I feel that it undermines the policy which has guided the course of every great and patriotic Minister in this country, and which is intimately associated, -not only with the credit and the honour, but even with the safety of this country."

Earl GRANVILLE made a brief reply, emphatically denying that the scheme of Mr. Gladstone was that of a gambler playing at double or quits.

The House then divided on the question that the word "now " stand part of the question. There were Content (present 90, proxies 14) 104; Not Content (present 161, proxies 32) 193 ; Majority against the second reading 89.

[The announcement of the numbers was received with much cheering, even " the strangers, "'so far forgetting themselves as to-take up the "song of triumph."]

THE VOTE OF MONDAY.

Lord PALMERSTON, on Tuesday evening, gave notice that on Thursday he should move that a ComMittee be appointed to inspect the Journals' of the House of Lords in relation to any proceedings of that House on the bill for repealing the Excise-duty on paper made in the United Kingdom. . "I think," he adds, " it is desirable that that Committee should be followed up by a Committee to search for precedents. It is important that the facts with regard to what has passed should be ascer- tained, but her Majesty's Government disclaim any intention of taking any step that would place the two Houses in a state of hostility.', (Cheers.)

Various attempts were made during the evening to provoke a debate, but they failed, the House being unwilling to discuss the question at that time.

Accordingly, on Thursday, Lord PALMERSTON moved the appointment of a Select Committee to inspect the journals of the House of Lords with relation to any proceedings upon the bill to repeal the excise duty on paper, and to report thereon to the House. The motion was agreed to without discussion, and the committee proceeded forthwith to discharge the duty delegated to them.

After an interval of a few minutes, Lord Palmerston appeared at the bar and presented the report of the committee, which was read by the clerk at the table. It stated that the committee had inspected the Jour- mils of the House of Lords, and it recited the terms in which the rejec- tion of the Paper-duties Bill had been recorded.

Lord PALMERSTON announced, amid cheers from the Ministerial benches, that he would, the next evening, move for a Select Committee to search the journals for precedents as to the practice of the two Houses on the subject.

BANKRUPTCY.

The House went into Committee on Monday, on the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill, after receiving a petition from the mercantile firms of the City, praying for the passing of the bill this session.

On clause 2, Mr. WALPOLE moved to omit words, which if left in the clause, would have rendered the London Commissioners, whose functions

are to cease, liable to perform duties in the country. The A.rroaresv-

GENERAL said no disrespect was intended to the Commissioners, of whom he spoke in very handsome terms, and consented to make an alteration

in the clause, making them only liable to discharge "extra duties of the same character and quality as now in, and not out of London." Amend- ment withdrawn.

On clause 11, words were inserted declaring that the Chief Judge, if a Privy Councillor, should be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. On clause 14, the ArronNEY-GENERAL explained that the County Courts within the London district, but beyond the metropolitan district, will have the power of receiving any bankruptcy up to the extent of 10001. assets, which the creditors by a majority may chose to delegate to them. His aim is to bring the County Courts into a state corresponding to the Sheriff's Courts in Scotland.

On clause 21, fixing the salary of the Commissioners of the District Courts of Bankruptcy at 18001. a year, Mr. BOUVERIE moved that the, salary of 18001. should be limited to the existing Commissioners. He thought 15001., the salary of the County Court Judges, quite sufficient for the District Bankruptcy Commissioners. On a division, there were 68 for, and 68 against the amendment. The CHAIRMAN gave his casting vote for the "Noes." Mr. Bouverie then divided the Committee on the clause, when it was carried by 118 to 38. On clause 24 Mr. BOITUERIE, founding himself on'the report of a Com- mission which sat six years ago, and reported against- the transfer of bankruptcy jurisdiction to County Courts, moved to omit a proviso at the end of the clause giving such courts bankruptcy jurisdiction ; his reason being, that county courts are contentious and ambulatory;

whereas the Court of Bankruptcy is administrative, not essentially con- tentious, and ought not to be ambulatory. Mr. Wer.voidi also objected

to mixing up two district jurisdictions. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the reasonable expectations of the public would be disappointed if the proviso were omitted. Mr. HRADLAM made the same declaration. On

the other side were Mr. j Axps, Mr. Manna, Mr. M. &arm, and Mr. Baines. The Arromeey-Gexenan stoutly defended the proviso ; of ambulatory courts, of the old Saxon principle of provincial and local ad- ministration of justice. The County Court judges would have plenty of time to perform the new duties. The amendment was - negatived without a division; the clause was agreed to ; and the Chairthan reported progress.

VOTES ON ACCOUNT.

Mr. LAING moved that the House should go into Committee of Supply in order that the sum of 400,0001. spread over ten items, .might be granted on account. He said that a sum of 1,400,0001. would be required to prevent the overdrawing of accounts on the supposition that the House sat late in August, and that the. Estimates were late. He only asked 400,000/., but that sum was absolutely necessary to,carry tie pub- lic service over the Whitsun Holidays.. M. A. &urn, Mr. Wir.twas, Mr. WeLrote, and Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE objected to the proceeding as irregular. Lord FiNMOY said no special ease had been made out, and the principle acterl..on was bad. Lord HARRY VANE thought Mr. Laing's proposal reasonable. Mr. DISRAELI admitted that the 'proposal was a small one, but the precedent which the House was called upon to , make, he remarked, was very large, and the House, meeting the question frankly, and fully, ought to express its opinion on the questien of the Speaker leaving the chair. If the House placed this confidence in the Government, •would Ministers, he asked, pledge themselves that the House shOuld have a fair and timely opportunity of exercising its constitutional right of criticising the Estimates ?

Lord PALMERSTON said there was' A financial necessity for this vote, a Parliamentary authority being wanting for the application of money, and there was nothing unconstitutional in asking for a vote on account for the Civil•SerfiCe any more, than for the Army or Navy. Ther delay of the Estimates was no fault of the Goveinmenf; and with respept to the engagement desired by Mr. Disraeli, he remarked that it would derogate from the power Of the House, Which bad' in its, own hands the

means of controlling the Estimates. _ ,

Sir Fii.ANCL4- BARING `supported,and Sir JOHN PARINGTQN opposecIthe motion.

On a division the motion was carried by 135 to 109; and the House going into committee, passed the votes demanded.

THIS CONVICT DENS AT BERMUDA.

On the motion for the adjournment until Thursday, Lord Nsas brought under the notice of the House the state of the convict establish- ments at Bermuda. There are now there 1200 persons employed on pub- lic works, at a coat of 68,0001. a year. No fewer than 360 of the worst criminals were sent home and liberated during the past year.

Here he might remark that the system was wrong, which sent to a place where there was the least supervision, offenders who required the strictest discipline and control, Their reformation under such circumstances was impossible and their contamination certain. It was hard to say which was worse, the management of the public works or of the convict department. Carelessness and wasteful expenditure were exhibited on all sides. Nobody is responsible, great waste ensiles, and the works make no progress. The iccommodation for the officers who are in charge of the prisoners is quite in- adequate, and the consequence is that one-third of them have been allowed to absent themselves from duty at night, when the prisoners are left without sufficient control. The great majority of the convicts are confined on board the hulks. "Bermuda," said the chaplain, "is the solitary exception under the British Crown where these dens of infamy and pollution are permitted to exist. Both on the score of civilization and humanity they have been every- where else condemned. Few are aware of the extent of suffering to which a prisoner is exposed on board of bulks, or of the horrible nature of the associations with which he is surrounded. There is no safety for life, no supervision over the bad, no protection to the good. The hulks are unfit for a tropical climate." As long as these hulks are maintained, improvement in the treatment or reformation in the character of the prisoners is out of the question. With the exception that the convicts are healthy, there is hardly a single evil connected with the worst system of prison management which does not exist at Bermuda. It is idle to say that the evils cannot be re- medied. If they contrast the system which prevails in Bermuda with the sys- tem which exists in Ireland they would find that, while one is the worst imaginable, the other is most successful.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS said the state of Bermuda requires the immediate and urgent attention of the Government. He was not prepared to defend the ifiteni of eonfining convicts in hulks at Bermuda. But the question is one of expense, and can best be discussed in Committee of Supply.

ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

The Earl of DUNGANNON called attention to the disturbances in the parish of St. George's-in-the-East. If the ordinary cannot put down these scenes of violence, an act should be passed to confer on him that au- thority. He implied that the police, the magistrates, the cluirchwardens, the GoVernment, have not done their diity, and insinuated that the police sympathize with the rioters. He moved a resolution, declaring that sufficient energy has not been displayed in putting down these dis- turbances and inflicting punishment on the offenders. Earl GRANVILLE said the insinuation against the police is unwar- ranted. They were ordered to arrest anyone against whom a direct charge is made, but if no one is found to make a charge, what are they to do ? Lord WENSLEYDALE said that the statute of Mary, duly en- forted, affords a remedy. Lord GRANVILLE said there is a practical difficulty in enforcing the statute. Here the Earl of Wicstow gave a new turn to the debate by bringing accusations, on the authority of the Reverend Bryan King, against the Reverend Hugh Allen, whom Lord Wicklow described as the cause of these disfurbances. The accusations were, that Mr. Allen is a notorious drunkard, and an intimate friend of Mr. Spurgeon.

The Bishop of LONDON desired Lord Wicklow to read the letter, and he was _shout to read, when Lord GRANVILLE interposed, characterizing the proceedings as disordeily ; a view , of them supported by Lord Crieratsixie.n. But the Duke of NEWCASTLE thought it would be unfair to allow the charge to go forth uncontradieted. Whereupon the Bishop of LONDON said the vestry have, the power of appointing a lecturer, and the Bishop must institute him. If he be an improper person, the bishop would refuse to institute at his own risk. When Mr. Allen was nomi- nated, Mr. King wrote a letter to the bishop, objecting. to Mr. Allen, as unfit, because he had been present at a tea-party with Mr. Spurgeon, and making reflections on his character. The bishop inquired, and at once Obtained testimonials to the good and pious character of Mr. Allen from three'beneficed clergymen. Mr. Allen has maintained an excellent character, and:he has a wonderful faculty for filling churches.

As to the question before the House, it is one in which everything goes wrong in the estimation of everybody, and yet no specific charge is brought against the churchwardens. It is,. in short, one of those miserable cases which are found in all departments of society in con- nexion with which, when men arc determined to stand strictly by their legal rights, considerable disturbance is occasioned.

The"IJORD CHANCELLOR and the Bishop of CASHEL bore testimony to the good character of Mr. Allen. Earl STANHOPE said that Mr. Allen's character bad been vindicated. He threw blame on Mr. King. After further discussion, interrupted by: attempts to stop it,' Lord DUNGANNON agreed to withdraw a resolution which Lord Citmattiroan declared to be futile and useless.

THE NEUTRALITY OF SWITZERLAND.

Mr. KINGLAXE asked whether the Swiss Confederation persisted in asking fora conference of the powers with regard to the annexation of Southern Savoy, and, if so whether her Majesty's Government were as- sisting the Swiss Confederation in making that demand.

Lord Josh RUSSELL had received a despatch from the British Minister in Switzerland, stating that the Swiss Confederation did still ask for a conference of the powers in regard to the neutral parts of Savoy. Her Majesty's Government supported that demand, and unless the Swiss Confederation themselves abandoned it, they would continue to give that support: THE REGIUM DONUM.

Mr. BAXTER, prefacing his motion by a statement of reasons on this often-discussed question, moved a resolution declaring that the grant should cease and be extinguished as speedily as may be consistent with the just expectations of the recipients, and that no new grant should be made. Mr. CROSSLEY seconded the motion.

Mr. CONOLLY moved an amendment that the grant no longer be ex- pee ed to the annual criticism of the House, but should be placed on the Consolidated Fund. Mr. Dawsow seconded the amendment.

Mr.. Csanwria, objected both to the motion and the amendment, and, the House being impatient to break up, he condensed his statement of reasons.

On a division, the amendment being withdrawn, the motion was negatived" by 217 to 68.

Sue JOHN BARNARD'S Aer. The often adjourned debate on the second reading of Sir John Barnard's Repeal Bill, was resumed, and closed on Thursday. Mr. Binerraca moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months, on the ground that the repeal of the old statute would promote gambling on the Stock Exchange. Mr. Hanke,y said the statute interfered with really honest transactions, and the Solicitor-General in- sisted that its stringency led to evasion. Mr. HUBBARD and Mr. Mamas supported, while Mr. Bovril. and Mr. HENLEY opposed the second reading. On a division, the amendment was negatived by 181 to 58, and the bill was read a second time.

THE COURT OF PROBATE. Sir JOHN SHELLEY, dwelling on the in- sufficiency and inconveniences of the offices of the Court of Probate, asked what steps had been taken to acquire the property ? Mr. COWPER said the i question is will the Board of Works purchase the property from the College of Advocates. Ile thought they had better not; because it is desirable that the Probate Registry should be united to the law courts. He preferred to hire houses near the Court, and thus obtain additional room, instead of to buy the property. Re hopes that the Commission for the concentration of the law courts will report a plan for placing them together.

Loan CLARENCE Ewan Mr. LYGON, who had addressed a private note to Lord Clarence Paget, Secretary to the Admiralty, stating that he in- tended, on going into Committee of Supply, to call attention to a rumour that the noble Lord was a partner in the firm of Messrs. Green and Co. when the rotten gun-boats were built, said that, in noticing the subject, he disclaimed all personal feeling, his object being merely to give Lord Cla- rence Paget an opportunity of making any explanation which might be due to himself and to the department to which he belonged.

Lord CLARENCE PAGET said that the rumour was utterly without founda- tion. For many years past he had held a share (alas ! but a very small one,) in certain ships of Messrs. Green and Co. trading to Australia and India, but no share in the shipbuilding concern. When, in 1857, Sir Charles Wood, then First Lord of the Admiralty, invited him to join the board, he declined on the ground that he felt he could not consistently with his duty accept office while ho held an interest in a shipping firm. When the present Government was formed, Lord Palmerston offered him the Se- cretaryship to the Admiralty, and as he had in the interim' and previously to bringing under notice the manner in which her Majesty's ships were built in the royal dockyards, sold his shipping shares at a considerable loss, in order that it might not be said that he was influenced by any private considerations, he fouud himself in a position to accept the office.

MR. LYLE. The Earl of BELMORE called attention to the recent appoint- ment of Mr. Acheson Lyle, Receiving Master in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, to the office of Lord lieutenant of the County and City of London- derry, and asked for explanations. The Earl of CARLISLE defended the ap- pointment, and explained the circumstances under which Mr. Lyle had been nominated. The noble earl contended that as there was no resident peer in the county eligible for the office, the Irish Executive was perfectly justified in appointing Mr. Lyle, who was a gentleman qualified by social position and property for the office.

PUBLIC Busncess. The House of Commons, on the motion of Lord PAI: MERSTON, agreed, nem. con., that after Whitsuntide, Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motion on Thursdays, Government Orders having precedence of other Orders, and that on Friday Notices of Motion shall have precedence of the Orders of the Day.

" COUNT OUT." The House of Commons was counted out a little before seven o'clock on Tuesday, the eve of the Derby.