Frlint rurthiiig n It arlinnitnt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Housx or Loans. Monday, Feb. 23. Probates and Letters of Administration ; the Lord Chancellor's Bill read a second time.

Tuesday, Feb. 24. Ionian Subjects Commissions Bill read a first time—Royal Marine Forces Bill read a third time and passed—Hostilities with China ; Lord Derby's Resolutions ; Debate adjourned. Thursday. Feb. 26. Law of Libel; Lord Campbell's Motion—Hostilities with China; Lord Derby's Resolutions negatived by 146 to 110. Friday, Feb. 27. No business of importance.

HOUSE OF Ccnrmoxs. Monday, Feb. 23. The Budget; Adjourned Debate ; Mr. Disraeli's Amendment negatived by 286 to 206—Committee of Ways and Means ; Income-tax Resolution—lonian Subjects Commissions Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday, Feb. 24. Parliamentary Reform ; Sir J. Walmsley's Motion—Railway Accidents ; Mr. Bentinck'a Motion—Irish Civil Service Examinations ; Mr. Deasra Motion—The Franklin Search ; Mr. Napier's Motion—Savings-Banks ; the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution—Carlisle Canonries ; Mr. Ferguson's Bill read a first time.

Wednesday, Feb. 25. Irish Fisheries ; Mr. M'Mahon's Bill thrown out—Judgments Execution ; Mr. Craufurd's Bill in Committee—Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland); the Attorney-General's Bill read a first time. Thursday, Feb. 26. Hostilities with China ; Mr. Cobden's Motion ; Debate adjourned. Friday, Feb. 27. Sir John M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch ; Mr. Layard's Question, Mr. Palk's Notice of Motion—Hostilities with China ; Debate on Mr. Cobden's Motion again adjourned.

Tax BUDGET DEBATE.

In the brief notice of the commencement of the Budget debate at the close of last week, which was all that the limits of our Postscript ad.mined, we took no account of the rhetorical or passionate parts of Mr. Gladstone's remarkable speech. Some of those passages we now supply in continuing the report of the debate. Mr. GLADSTONE said, in speaking of Sir George Lewis

" The idea of the remission of indirect taxation of the simplification of our commercial laws, of giving to trade all the freedom compatible with the effective maintenance of revenue, has no place in his mind. In his mind there is only room for disparaging estimates of what yet remains to be accomplished in order to perfect the work which I venture to sayis destined to fill a bright page in the history that shall record the doings of our times. . . . . It appears to me, that the real questions for the House to consider are--whether, in the first place, all the pledges which were given in 1853, and all the expectations which were then held out, are now to be cast to the winds by the same persons who gave those pledges and who raised those expectations; and, in the second place, whether by an improvident expenditure and a reckless system of finance we are to charge the country with a great and growing deficiency.. It appears to me, Sir, that the present state of things imperatively calls upon us to make such arrangements in our system of finance as will be abeolutely necessary if we really mean to pay the puolic creditors. (Loud cheers.) . . . . I believe it has been the boast of the Liberal party in this country to associate itself especially with the remission of indirect taxation. As I said before it has been a work in which Conservative Governments have largely shared; but theliberal party appear to me always to have had a peculiar pride in their close identification with it. Sir, if they feel that sentiment of pride, I trust they will have an equal regard for consistency and honour in adhering steadfastly to that work ; that they will not allow it to be pulled to pieces. With respect, however, to this House at large, I beg you to observe the position in which the Government now invite you to place yourselves, and compare it with the position you occupied in 1842. In that 3,.ear you had a Ministry of the Conservative party, with a triumphant majority at its back. And well do I recollect the day when Sir Robert Peel turned round to his supporters, and, having shown the deficiency in the revenue, and stated his intention to propose the remission of 1,400,000/. of indirect taxes, then said—' I make an appeal to the possessors of property : I call on them to come forward and saddle themselves with the burden of an income-tax, in order to enable them to dispense great and precious boons to the mass of their fellow countrymen.' That appeal was cheerfully and honourably answered. There were political objections raised to the income-tax on other grounds, but that great majority in the Parliament of 1841 to a man stood firm, to a man answered the call, and took upon themselves, the wealthy classes of the country, the burden of the income-tax, in order to supply the deficiency, and to repeal 1,400,0001. of indirect taxes. Can any man fail to be struck with thepreelse correspondence in particulars, with the complete inversion in spirit and • principle, of that arrangement and of this? Then you were called upon to remit 1,400,0001. of indirect taxes—now you are called on to impose indirect taxes to that amount ; then you were called on to fill up a deficiency at your own cost—now you are called on to create a deficiency at the cost of others ; you were then called upon to take a burden on yourselves to relieve the great mass of your fellow countrymen—now you are called upon to take a burden off the shoulders of the wealthier classes in order that you may impose indirect taxes upon the tea and sugar which are consumed by every labouring family in the country. (Cheers.) I can only say that, for my own part, I entertain on this subject a most decided opinion, and nothing shall induce me to refrain from giving every constitutional opposition in my power to such a proposition. Before the Speaker leaves the chair, if health and strength be spared me, I shall invite the House to declare that, whatever taxes we remove, we will not impose more duties upon the tea and sugar of the working man. When we are in Committee there will be other opportunities of renewing this .protest. These things, if they are to be done, shall, at least, not be clone in a corner. The light of day shall be let in upon them, and their meaning and consequences shall be well understood. . . . There is an enormous deficiency created by the proposal of the Government; and that we are asked to supply by a most objectionable mode of raising money, and to which I hope nothing will induce this House deliberately to resort. That increases my obligation to vote for the motion. I frankly own, that motion appears to me in complete conformity with the declaration which I, in common with the rest of the House, heard from the lips of the right honourable. gentleman on the first night of the session ; and it offers, I think, the most practical mode of doing good to the public. The right honourable gentleman invites us to affirm that we will have no defi

ciency. The '

proposal of the Government shows a glaring, gross and increasing deficieney,—a deficiency unparalleled by anything that I can recollect during an experience of some twenty-five years. The first duty of the House of Commons is to say that it will leave no deficiency ; and when we have once said that, our course will be clear, because if we are to have no deficiency, we must square our accounts, either by keeping on existing taxes, by laying on new taxes, or by reducing expenditure." [One great motive that would lead him to support Mr. Disraeli's motion was, that he could not grapple with the question of undue expenditure except under cover of that motion.] "But I have other motives on which I regard this motion as being entirely in conformity with the pledges to which I hold myself bound, and to which I thought that most of those who sit on the Treasury-bench were likewise bound in common with me. They, however, are the 'best judges of their obligations. I feel myself bound, and I shall do all in my power to redeem those pledges. Let it not be said that this is an impracticable proposition. I believe that it is perfectly practicable, by a wise economy, by a fair appeal to the good sense of the Commons of England, both to grunt relief from taxation and to make a reduction in the expenditure which will enable you to maintain a surplus income, and thus to look forward with confidence to that large and satisfactory relief in 1860, which, so far as was in our power, we promised in 1853. 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 first time—I will not say that I have heard a deficiency recommended and sanctioned by the Government, for, unfortunately, I have heard that, and 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 Chancellor of the Exchequer, a plan which seems to threaten to throw the land into financial confusion. I felt that it was our duty to strip the veil from a statement which was certainly calculated to convey false impressions to the country, and from the discharge of that duty I could not shrink. Every year that a man lives he learns to estimate more humbly his own powers ; he must be content to see remain unaccornplished much that he may earnestly desire ; but in this free and 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 undermine this principle. That duty, with the indulgence of the House, I have endeavoured 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." (Loud cheers.) The resumed debate on Monday was opened by Mr. James M'Gnecion; who asked the House to support Mr. Disraeli's motion' and reduce the expenditure so that all the engagements of the country may be kept andthe Income-tax may be extinguished in 1860. • Lord Joan RUSSELL said, he should have been satisfied with giving a silent vote had it not been for the speech of Mr. Gladstone on Friday night. In that speech grave charges were made. It was said that Sir George Lewis had departed from the principles of the budget of 1853: that he wished to destroy them and to falsify the promise then held out in the most solemn manner that the Income:tax should cease in 1860. Those charges affected not only Sir George Lewis, but all the members of the Cabinet of 1355; and as none of them had risen, Lord John felt himself bound to disclaim in the strongest possible manner, and to disprove as far as he was able, the charges which Mr. Gladstone had made.

He went on to say, that he concurred generally in the principles on which

the Chancellor of the Exchequer had founded his budget ; having no ordinary difficulties to contend with. He had to cheek the extravagant expenditure which the Naval and Military Departments reconunended under the head of " efficient establishments "; to satisfy the general desire of the country by taking off the " war ninepence "; and to place no obstacles in the way o the total abolition of the tax in 1860. There was also the obligation not to press unduly on articles of great consumption. But what said Mr. Gladstone ? " I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in this situation, that if he had proposed very considerable remissions of taxes, such as have been (minted in former years, it might have been said—' You are parting with the ways and means which furnish the revenue, and you will thereby make it impossible to provide for the cessation of the Incometax at the end of three years.' If, on the other hand, he had provided for the supply of the revenue at its present amount for three years by retaining the taxes which must furnish it, he would then obviously havelean open to the opposite charge—that he had not followed in the track of his predecessors since the year 1842, who had gradually relieved the trade and industry of the country. But what I should not have expected is, that these two charges, so opposite and so inconsistent, should come from the same person, and be uttered by the seine voice and in the same speeoh in the course of our discussions." (Cheering.) Parliament had the option in 1853 of reconstructing the Income-tax, or, considering it as a tax for extraordinary emergencies, to provide for its cessation at a fixed period. The latter course was adopted. In 1846, Sir Robert Peel said the House might either part with the Income-tax, or continue to take off some and lower other duties : and that is the alternative before the House now. But Mr. Gladstone made it a charge that there was not a /are remission of duties ; that there was a departure from the policy adopted fifteen years ago. "Now, I think my right honourable friend gave a very imperfect account of the policy begun in 1842. No doubt, that account was more likely to be agreeable to honourable gentlemen opposite, whose cars my right honourable friend seemed to be rather anxious to please —(Laughter)—than a more accurate description "would have been. No doubt, there were proposals to simplify the revenue, and either to abolish, or reduce to a very low scale' a great number of small duties : but that was not , the principal merit of the budget of Sir Robert Peel, nor was it Its chief feature ; and, indeed, some parts of that policy, especially with regard to many small articles, wore, I think, even of questionable expediency. But what / and others approved in that budget—and I include the present Chancellor of the Exithequer among the number, because I know he always subscribed to the principles of the great philosophers who laid down the doctrines of free trade—was the groat diminution it made in protective duties, the abolition to a great extent of differential duties, and the consequent throwing open of the road to much larger and more important changes. I remember, that at that time many persons interested in the subject came to me from different parts of the country. The ropemakers in particular complained that their protection was taken away from them ; the boot and shoe makers said that their industry was similarly treated ; the manufacturers of stranlait in the Midland counties, the fishermen in the North engaged in the herring-fishery, and various other classes, all came to me to represent the injury done them . by these measures. My answer to them—and it was an answer which Sir Robert Peel himself in 1847 deemed a lust one—was that all these questions hung together; that if protection was broken in upon in regard to the articles produced by these artisans, other protected interests would soon be forced to yield ; that it might be a national policy in the eyes of many, though I might think it a mistaken one, to protect all interests—the shuttle as well as the loom, the fisherman along with the sugar-planter ; but that to apply the principles of free trade to a number of minor branches of industry, would pave the way for the final downfall of the whole protective system, I therefore told the dealers in ropes and shoos, not to complain that while they could no longer sell their articles at protection prices they had to pay an increased price for their corn, because they might depend upon it the day would soon arrive when, the minor monopolies being swept away, the producers of corn and sugar would be equally subjected to the regime of unrestricted competition. Well, this result came to pass ; and this, I think, was the merit of the policy of 1842, that it firmly dealt with these questions, and led to the ultimate establishment of free trade, the principles of which we all acknowledge—or nearly all, for I believe there were some fifty recalcitrants at the commencement of the present Parliament. (Laughter.) Now, has my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer departed from those principles ? Having been a Free-trader all his life, is he now about to betray them ? Has he in any way inaugurated a now policy ?—Far from it. He has done nothing of the kind." But he might certainly have spared a good part of his speech—his. panegyric on the paper-duty' and the duty on lire-insurances, and his disquisition on direct and indirect taxation. Mr. Gladstone had said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was endeavouring to defeat the understanding of 1853: now Lord John was most desirous that the Income-tax should come to an end in 1860, and he could not see that any obstacle has been interposed in the way. On the contrary, the addition of 2d. in the pound to the Income-tax for the next three years, and the proposal that the duties on tea and sugar should be higher than those fixed by act of Parliament, are specially, intended to effect that object. There will be 6,000,000/. of Mr. Gladstone's Exchequer Bonds, and 9,260,

in repayment of the principal of the new Debt, in all 13,202,0001., to provide for in the next three years : how can that be done without keeping up taxation ? Mr. Gladstone had made it a heavy charge that Sir George Lewis was indifferent to the necessities of the poorer classes : but there was nothing in his speech to show an inclination to tax articles of great censumpdon. Then it was said Sir George had misstated the whole case, and boasted that he had remitted 11,000,0001. of taxes as a free gift. But there was no such boasting or undue assumption in the speech. Here Lord John stepped aside to advocate the adoption of the proposal of the tea-dealers that the duty should be fixed at la. 4d., as thereby the pressure of the tax on the poorer classes would be mitigated. Then he

returned to Mr. Gladstone. I do not think my right honourable friend the Member for the University of Oxford was at all justified in his allegation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was treating us like children. That part of my right honourable friend's speech made me think that he was somewhat like an anxious mother, who, having a favourite child in lb, cradle, has a vision in the night that it is falling over a precipice, and wakes screaming with fright There was really so much passion in my right honourable friend's speech, that it could have been prompted by nothing else but a paternal feeling of apprehension for his own budget. (" Hear, hear P' and laughter.) But, Sir, as that mother, rising from her bed, and finding her child in the cradle safe and well, would go back to her rest reassured, so I trust that, after the division on this subject, even if it should be in opposition to his views' my right honourable friend will awakefrom his delusion, and will find that his child is safe, and has been in no danger." Towards the close of his speech, Lord John said, that although it would Lie unreasonable to demand an estimate of the expenditure of 1858 and 1889, he thought it might be justly asked, why, if the expenditure of 18453 could be adopted in 1858, it could not be adopted in 1857. In 1848, Lord John himself had proposed estimates that were called extravagant, amounting, including cost of collection, 5:c., to58,206,641/. Ile was obliged to abandon

those estimates ; yet they were 5,018,000/. below those now before the House. We are entitled to ask for peace estimatesbut before we consider them, "it is our duty to require from the Ministers of the Crown a statement of the position of the country with regard both to foreign and domestic affairs. Parliament has a right to know in what relation the country is placed with respect to those Powers with whom we are now engaged in hostilities, before it consents to vote away the money of the people and to assent to increased estimates."

Mr. BENTTNOK said the House had two objects—to repeal or reduce the Income-tax, and to vote the estimates with the utmost economy.

With those objects in view, he could not vote either with Mr. Disraeli or with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been the practice for centuries to vote the estimates before going into Committee of Ways and Means. He therefore moved that the present debate be now adjourned, with the ulterior object of moving at the proper period, that the Committee of Ways and Means be postponed until the House have agreed to the report of the Committee of Supply on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates.

Mr. MoNexrces MILNES called upon Mr. Gladstone to state what course he wished thorn to adopt. As the diffieulties of the Chancellor of

the Exchequer were imposed by Mr. Gladstone's budget of 1853, he had not the excuse sometimes urged that he could not prescribe until legitimately called in. Mr. Mikes once feared there would be extravagant expenditure, but now he seemed to fear that there would be unwise reduction.

Sir ;OEN TYRELL took up a peculiar position. Since 1830 he had not seen such a strange state of things as they now beheld in that House—

Lord John Russell perched up behind Lord Palmerston, Sir James Graham and Mr. Gladstone below the gangway, Mr. Disraeli in opposition, and all ready to pounce on the leader of the House when they

thought he had made a mistake. Sir John was one of those who thought a gigantic fraud—in a Parliamentary sense—had been attempted on the Opposition. Ho was alarmed to BOO such a similarity of sentiment between Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Disraeli, and the Peace Society.

Unless he could see his way more clearly than he did at present—and he was sorry to say that, notwithstanding the attention that he had paid to the

incomprehensible speech of the right honourable gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, he was still himself in an incomprehensible position —(Laughter)—he was inclined to follow the noble Lord the Member for the City of London pro hAo vice : but he saw such dark clouds of electioneering electricity in all parts of the House, that he thought he should best discharge his duty hy walking into the lobby with Mr. Bentinek. Mr. Wit:miaow approved of the budget, except the part relating to the tea.duties ; and commented on the violent terms of Mr. Gladstone's speech. Mr. LIDDELL supported Mr. Disraeli ; but expressed some fear lest reductions in expenditure, especially in the Army and Navy Estimates, should be carried too far. He was for "wise, but not wild reduction." Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE submitted that the budget was satisfactory; and then he fell upon Mr. Gladstone. Mr. WHITESIDE spoke in support of Mr. Disraeli's resolution.

Sir FRANCIS BARING noticed, as singular, that Mr. Disraeli did not say what he meant to do with the war income-tax. Early in the session

he had declared that he would bring the question to a speedy decision ;

now he said nothing about it Was there a difficulty in reconciling the two schools who had united in support of the resolution? Could not the

gentlemen on one side be brought to assent to the reef intentions of gen tlemen on the other side ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to deal with circumstances of great difficulty; he has manfully encountered that difficulty, and he is entitled to some consideration at the hands of the House. At the same time, Sir Francis thought that Parliament should do all it could to keep what is called the compact of 1853. It is difficult to make sudden reductions ; everything cannot be done in a day : the proper course would be to make what reductions are needed in Committee on the Estimates. For instance, he would readily vote with gentlemen opposite if they would oppose the vote of 120,000/. for keeping up the County Police. Mr. WArscemi, concurred with the views of Lord John Russell, but not with his conclusion that the House should go into Committee of

Ways and Means. Ministers had a twelvemonth to fix the peace establishments, yet the House did not know what they would be. One wish of the nation has been met, the war ninepence will cease ; but two others have not been met—the expenditure has not been reduced sufficiently, and the Income-tax is to be 7d. instead of 5d. He contended that the " compact " of 1863 was morally binding on the House ; and it concerned the honour of the House to fulfil it.

What are the words of the Act of 1853 ?—" This act shall commence and take effect from and after the 5th day of April 1863, and, together with the duties therein contained, shall continue in force until the 6th of April 1860, and no longer." These are words that require the completion of the compact. The House was bound to see that the budget fulfilled the pledge so solemnly given in 1853; "from which we cannot depart without a breach of faith and a violation of all principle."

Mr. CARDWELL characterized the amendment as " dilatory " ; as one that kept the House from the first practical stage—the removal of the war ninepence in Committee of Ways and Means. He did not despair of retrenchment; and he recommended those who did to vote increased taxes. Denying that there was a compact in 1863, he said that if there were, surely the best way to meet it is to replenish the Exchequer.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON arguing stoutly for reduced expenditure—for taxation that spared articles of general consumption and for retaining an income-tax even after 1860, as the keystone of a consumption, commercial policy

—was for voting on the budget as a whole as it would be vain to try and reduce expenditure in Committee of gupply. He explained, how ever, that he should vote with Mr. Disraeli in the first instance, but against his resolution when submitted as a substantive motion. This explanation excited a good deal of merriment; observing which, Mr. Gibson added, that a Member was sometimes under the necessity of separating himself from his political friends. Thus "the noble Lord at the head of the Government the other night led thirteen or fourteen of his devoted adherents to vote with honourable gentlemen opposite against the extension of the franchise."

Mr. NEWDEGATE took sides with Mr. Bentinck, in objecting to voting the budget with closed eyes ; and referred Mr. Gladstone's excitement and irritation to the discovery that direct taxation has its limits. Sir threats:a WOOD began by stating that the Government had not adopted the course of making the financial statement before discussing the Estimates of their own free Rill, but in deference to the general wish of the House expressed on all sides. [Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone successively denied that they had ever pressed upon the Government any snob course.] Sir Charles Wood said that his ears, then, had very much

deceived him. Nobody dissented from the proposition. The Government could not, therefore, accept the amendment of Mr. Bentinck, any more than that of Mr. Disraeli. He could see no practical result to be

attained by these abstract resolutions, unless it were to bring Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli into office together. It was alleged that the Go

vernment had altered its tone on the Estimates : but the Government

had not been allowed to speak. Mr. Gladstone when he found that the Estimates were not his estimates, insinuated that they were not the esti mates referred to in the Queen's Speech : but the Estimates were fixed at their present amount a week before Parliament met; and in Committee of Supply Ministers are ready to justify the votes they ask for. A prominent section of Sir Charles's speech was bestowed on the correction and castigation of Mr. Gladstone ; who, he said, had used language towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer "hardly decent from one gentleman towards another."

Ministers were told that they had deserted the principles of the budget of 1853; that there was a compact. Now he denied that there was a compact

binding in the sense intended by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli. at dicl-Mr. Gladstone himself say in 1853? He Baia, it was desirable that the Income-tax should be marked as a temporary tax. "By this," he said

then, "I do not mean merely, or chiefly, that I would commit the Govern

ment to an abstract opinion to be acted upon in future Tears I do

not ask you to rely on the words of the Government, to bind them or your selves, irrespectively of what may occur in the interim I invite you

to lay the ground for placing Parliament in such a position that at a given period it may, if it think fit, part with that tax." With every syllable of that Sir Charles Wood agreed-. If we look to the year 1854, we shall find

the then Chancellor of the Exchequer providing for a war-expenditure by loan, by taxation direct and indirect. 'What taxes? The Income-tax, the

duties on malt, sugar, tea, and spirits. He did not place all the increase on

one article ; he took one item of direct and four items of indirect taxation— the very items with which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to deal. Why, Mr. Gladstone himself carried out the principles of Arthur

Young to a greater extent than Sir George Lewis. How does the supposed deficiency for next year occur ? It is strictly war-expenditure—Treasury Bonds. The expenditure, in fact, is of the same description as in 1854;

yet Mr. Gladstone upbraids Sir George Lewis for doing precisely what he did himself three years ago. "Mr. Gladstone has thought fit to lecture the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to lecture the Government for the course

they have pursued. The right honourable gentleman must forgive me for protesting against his right to lecture us in such a manner. I admit the

superiority of my right honourable friend's talent and ability. I admit

that he is a more able advocate of the doctrines of free trade than I can retend to be but I am at least as old as my right honourable friend, and I think myself quite as well qualified to judge whether a particular course is or is

not a departure from the principles of free trade. I think I am as little likely as the right honourable gentleman to desert the principles upon which I have acted ever since I came into Parliqment. I supported those prin

ciples in adverse circumstances. I voted akainst the Corn-laws twenty-five years ago ; and the first thing I had to do as Chancellor of the Exchequer was to put an end to the last monopoly—but one of the most mis chievous monopolies—that ever existed. I therefore do not regard myself as open to the censure of the right honourable Member for the

University of Oxford. That right honourable gentleman must be ac

quitted of any departure from the sound principles of free trade; but I cannot acquit him of the language which he was pleased to hold

with regard to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Sir George Lewis was placed in an unfair position ; he could not reply to the unjustifiable and acrimonious attacks made on him the other evening. .11r.

Gladstone "said—and I was surprised to hear such expressions applied by

one gentleman in this House to another—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had misrepresented what he was doing, that he bad deceived the

House, and that his assertions—not as to matters of argument, but as to matters of fact—were untrue." Mr. Gladstone affirmed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had represented that he was about to remit upwards of 11,000,000/. of taxes : the Chancellor of the Exchequer never made such an assertion. "The misrepresentation is on the part of the right honourable Member for the University of Oxford." The Chancellor distinctly said that the malt-tax ceased in July last, arid he stated the amount of the drawback. Neither did he say that the country would be immediately relieved from 9,000,0001. of Income-tax ; on the contrary, he reminded the Committee that

a considerable amount of arrears would be receivable in the present year.

"It is not true that he represented in any way that the grace and virtue of these remissions were to be attributed to the resolution he was about to place

in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means. That was the assertion of the right honourable Member for the University of Oxford, charging the Chancellor of Exchequer with misrepresentation and falsehood. I say that

it is a charge utterly unjustified by the facts." Mr. Gladstone had accused him of saying that the Income-tax ought to be perpetual : but he had never said anything of the kind. What did Mr. Gladstone mean by his speech; what did he propose ? To keep on the war ninepenee ? If not, he indicated no course by which future deficiency could be met. Sir Charles drew to a close by seine remarks on the difficulties that attend a sudden reduction of expenditure; and by intimating that the Estimates will be lower next year.

Mr. GLAnsrosrs offered a brief explanation. Sir Charles Wood had said that he had used words hardly decent for one gentleman to apply to another: he wished his exact words had been quoted. "But if I used any language which, when fairly construed, can be said to impute to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the shadow of anything that is dishonourable or unbecoming his high ens

mater and position, it is not my duty only but my pleasure at once to apologize for language so unintentionally employed. ' He had no desire to

charge falsehood and misrepresentation on the Chancellor of the Exche

quer ; but he said that the Chancellor had, without the smallest intention, conveyed erroneous impressions to the country. "If any word fell from

me which I ought not to have used, and which may have given pain to the right honourable gentleman, I only wish to have it recalled to my recollection, in order that I may express my great sorrow for having used it." (Loud cheers.)

Sir GEORGE LEWIS regretted that it should have been supposed that anything Mr. Gladstone said had been interpreted as imputing intentional deceit.

"At the same time the language which he used did convey in very distinct terms to my mind the idea that I had, in order to support my argument,

and to obtain undue advantage and reputation to the Government, laid be fore the House a statement substantially deceptive and untrne." Sir George vindicated and repeated his previous statements with regard to the remis sions of taxation, to show that he had stated the exact truth, except where he had once used the expression "I propose to remit" instead of "the M

lowing taxes will be remitted" ; and that he had made the fullest explanation in his power.

The House divided on Mr. Bentinek's motion for the adjournment of the debate—For the motion, 25; against it, 477. Then the House divided on Mr. Disraeli'a amendment—

For the Amendment 206 Against it 286 Majority against the Amendment 80 The House then formally went into Committee; and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved this resolution

" That towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, there shall be raised annually, during the term of three years from the 5th day of April 1857, in lieu of the rates and duties chargeable during the same period under the several acts now in force relating to the Income-tax, for and in respect of all property, profits, and gains, chargeable under the said acts, the rate and duty of 7d. for every 208. of the annual value or amount of all such property, profits, and gains respectively."

The resolution having been read a first time, the Chairman, on the motion of Mr. DISRAELI, was directed to report progress.

THE CANTON PROCEEDINGS.

The House of Peers was occupied nearly seven hours on Tuesday evening by a debate on the policy of our proceedings at Canton. In introducing the subject, the Earl of DEBBY addressed the House as the highest judicial assembly in the world ; appealed to the Peers to approach the question in a purely judicial spirit; and described himself as an advocate for weakness against power, for perplexed and bewildered barbarism against the demands of overweening and self-styled civilization, for the feeble defencelessness of China against the overpowering might of Great Britain." He described our large trade with China ; how that trade was suddenly stopped, and war carried on without justification, and with every degree of aggravation and severity. Having delivered this exordium, he entered on the details of the subject; first laying before the House the two articles of the treaty said to have been infringed. The 9th article runs as follows

" If lawless natives of China, having committed crimes or offences against their own Government, shall flee to Hongkong, or to the English ships of war, or English merchant-ships, for refuge, they shall: if discovered by the English officers, be handed over at once to the Chinese officers for trial and punishment ; or if, before such discovery be made by the English officers, it should be ascertained or suspected by the officers of the Government of China whither such criminals and offenders have fled, a comffiunication shall be made to the proper English officer in order that the said criminals and offenders may be rigidly searched for, seized, and, on proof or admission of their guilt, delivered up. In like manner, if any soldier or sailor, or any other person, whatever his caste or country, who is a subject of the Crown of England, shall, from any cause or on any pretence, desert, fly, or escape into the Chinese territory, such soldier or sailor, or other person, shall be apprehended and confined by the Chinese authorities, and sent to the nearest British Consular or other Government officer. In neither case shall concealment or refuge be afforded." The 17th article provides for the case of various small cutters, schooners, larches, &c., belonging to the English nation, and lays down the following rules— "I. Every British schooner, cutter, lorcha, Sze., shall lave a sailing-letter or register in Chinese and English, under the seal and signature of the Chief Superintendent of Trade, describing her appearance, burden' &c.. "2. Every schooner, lorcha, and such vessel, shall report herself, as large vessels are required to do, at the Bocca Tigris ; and when she carries cargo, she shall also report herself at Whampoa, and shall, on reaching Canton, deliver up her sailingletter or register to the British Consul, who will obtain permission from the Hoppe for her to discharge her cargo, which she is not to do without such permission, under the forfeiture of the penalties laid down in the third clause of the General Regulations of Trade."

Having laid these grounds, Lord Derby proceeded to deal with the case of the Arrow, and gave her history ; telling how she was "Chinese built, Chinese captured [by pirates], Chinese sold, Chinese bought and manned, and Chinese owned—and that is a British merchantman!" By what means was this ship metamorphosed into a British vessel ? In March 18.55, the local Legislature of Hongkong passed an ordinance with a view to remedy the illegal acts which they alleged had obtained with regard to the registering of vessels employed solely in trading with the mainland of China. That ordinance enacted, among other things, that

"From and after the passing of this ordinance, no ship or vessel whatsoever owned by a British subject shall be at liberty to trade in any of the harbours of this colony, unless, in the case of an outward trading ship or vessel, she be provided with a certificate of registry in conformity with the Imperial acts of Parliament on that behalf ; and in the case of a China trading ship or vessel she has in all respects complied with the requirements of this ordinance." It goes on to say—" And be it further enacted and ordained, that henceforward when any person or persons shall be desirous of obtaining a register for a ship or vessel in this colony, it shall be necessary for such person or persons to forward to the Colonial Secretary a declaration in writing, stating whether the ship or vessel for which such register is sought is intended to be employed solely in trade with China, or on more distant voyages, and that according to such statement a register shall be granted to such ship or vessel, either an Imperial register, as prescribed by the Imperial acts in that behalf, or a Colonial register, as laid down in this ordinance: provided always that should such declarations be false, or the ship or vessel to which it relates not be employed in conformity with it, the register thereby obtained, whether Imperial or Colonial, shall ipso facto become null and void."

That ordinance was illegal. It is a rule that no Colonial Legislature can in any case pass laws which are repugnant to the law of England. But this ordinance annulled and repealed the whole law of England with regard to the qualification of British vessels. It could only have been passed under the 17th and 18th Victoria ; but that act did not come into operation until May 1855, whereas the Colonial ordinance was passed in March 1855. Here Lord Derby read the opinion of the Attorney-General of Hongkong; from which it appeared, that in order to prevent the abuses arising from small craft carrying the British flag, he had recommended that registers should be granted to such Chinese as had by becoming Crown tenants, so far as in them lay, made themselves British subjects. But in passing the ordinance' the Colonial Legislature had changed the qualifications prescribed by this country as essential to every British ship. The Imperial act required also that the ordinance should he confirmed by an order in Council. But no order in Council has confirmed this ordinance; and it is therefore waste paper. The Arrow, then, was neither legally a British vessel, nor a British vessel in any sense of justice or policy. These are not technicalities, but matters of substance and importance. Further, he contended that no Government ought to sanction such an ordinance ; that the Chinese in Hongkong have not abandoned their allegiance to China and taken an oath of allegiance to England ; that we had no right to pass an ordinance utterly abrogating Chinese rights ; that we should not dare to apply such an act to any European country. On the question whether the flag was flying on the .Arrow when she was boarded, he seemed to think that it was not flying, and contended that if it VMS it was not legally flying. The ordinance provided increased facilities for the smuggling of opium and salt ; it was not communicated to the Chinese Government at the time it was passed; it was communicated for the first time when the Chinese had seized and dismantled two lorchas engaged in smuggling. In proof that the lorcha had no right to hoist the British flag, he quoted Sir John Bowring's letter of the 11th October—" It appears, on examination, that the Arrow had no right to hoist the British flag ' • that she had not been entitled to protection since the 27th September ; that the register of the Arrow had not been presented regularly at the office of the harbourmaster " according to the regulatkns." Yet, on the 14th November, Sir John Bowling wrote to Yeh—" There is no doubt that the lorcha Arrow lawfully bore the British flag, under a register granted by me." And what is his defence ?—that the Chinese did not know that the licence had expired. Summingup this part of the case Lord Derby said—" That the vessel was to all intents and purposes a case, vessel, Chinese owned and Chinese manned, and was in no respects a British vessel under any interpretation which could have been put upon it by eitherof the parties to the treaty at the time of making the treaty ; that if she ever had been entitled to protection, that protection had been forfeited by her own act, by the cessation of the register and the infringement of the ordinance ; but that the ordinance itself was a piecea waste paper, null and void ; and that the register was utterly valuekss, giving no claim to the character which was impudently assumed of being a British vessel."

The remainder of Lord Derby's speech, copiously interspersed with long quotations from the Canton papers presented to Parliament, was devoted to two points—the history of our claim to free admission into Canton ; and the conduct of British officers in having recourse to hostilities without the sanetion of the Imperial Government. In treating the first question, he began with the treaty of 1846, which clearly specified, that at " a more favourable period," British subjects should be admitted into Canton. Into 1847, Keying fixed 1849 as the period. In 1848, Mr. Bonham, then Superintendent, applied to the Secretary of State for instructions respecting the course he should pursue in the following year ; intimating at the same time his opinion that "no material advantage" would be gained by an indiscriminate admission of British subjects into Canton, while there would be great danger of hostilities, as "not one month would pass without some gross act of insulter violence being committed against British subjects." Lord Palmeraton's final determination was expressed in a despatch to Mr. Bonham on the 25th June 1849.

"I have now to state to you, in reply to these despatches, that although it would no doubt simplify matters if her Majesty's Government were to renounce entirely and for ever the right accorded by treaty to British subjects to enter Canton ; and although it would possibly, on the other hand, place our future relations with China upon a more certain and satisfactory footing If we were by force of arms to compel the Chinese Government to fulfil this engagement, which there can be little doubt that they could do if they chose; yet, all things considered, her Majesty's Government are not disposed to take either of these courses. A renunciation of the treaty right would be inexpedient, because, though the exercise of the right may not for the present be attainable without efforts winch would be disproportionate to the object, or without risks in the enjoyment of it which would counterbalance its value, yet at a future time the state of things may be different, and the privilege may be willingly granted and safely enjoyed. An enforcement of the treaty right by military mid naval operations would require an expensive effort, might lead to loss of valuable lives on our part, and much loss of life and destruction of property to be inflicted on the Chinese, while the chief advantage which it seems, by your account, we should derive from a successful result would be that, by giving such an example of our determination and power to enforce a faithful observance of the treaty, we should deter the Chinese from attempting future and other violations of that treaty. But her Majesty's Government are not disposed for this object to make the eflbrt or to produce the consequences abovementioned ; anti they prefer waiting to deal with future violations of the treaty according to the circumstances of the case, if such violations should occur."

Here Lord Derby entered on an examination of the plea of the Chinese authorities at Canton, that the people would not permit them to admit the English ; quoting Chinese documents to show that the despotism of Chins is controlled by maxims, one of which is the "vox populi vox Dei " in another form—" Heaven sees as my people see, Heaven hears as my people hear." The Emperor himself said— When the people of Kwangtung are unanimously determined against the admission of foreigners into the city, can an Imperial injunction be laid on them by proclamation so to do, whether they will or no 1 It is not in the power of the Government of China to cross the wishes of the people out of deference to those of the men from afar; on the other hand, it behoves foreign nations to study the temper of the people, to the end that the capital of their merchants may work free from risk."

So far up to 1849; then a new actor came on the stage—Dr. Bowring. He may be a man of great attainments, but on this subject of admission into Canton he is possessed with a perfect monomania. "I believe he dreams of entrance into Canton. I do not believe that he would consider any sacrifice too great, any interruption to commerce to be deplored, any bloodshed almost to be regretted, when put in the scale with the immense advantage to be derived from the fact that Sir John Bowring had obtained an official reception in the Yamun in Canton." (Laughter.) Tracing the course of Sir John on this question, Lord Derby showed how he had applied to Lord Granville, to Lord Malmesbury, to Lord Clarendon, for leave to obtain, if possible, admission into Canton • how he considered all times favourable times •, and how each Minister hisi withheld the encouragement he sought, and had strictly enjoined him to do nothing in the matter. Lord Derby followed Sir John through the negotiations with respect to the Arrow, and showed how, "as soon as he had picked a quarrel, nominally about the lorcha," he took advantage of it to bring in "the vexata questio of our entrance into the city." "Among the other great acquirements of Dr. Bowring, I believe he has considerable proficiency in the Chinese language; and I know it has always been a fixed idea in his mind, that if for one hour he could obtain the advantage of an admission into Canton and be permitted to harangue the multitude in Chinese, all difficulties would disappear before him, and from that moment there would be a most amicable and friendly understanding between the two races-" (Lasseter.) Lord Derby quoted passages from the correspondence to show how moderate, forbearing, gentlemanlike," the Chinese were—how "menacing, disrespectful, and arrogant," the British officers were; and pathetically described, quoting their own language, the sufferings and miseries inflicted on the Chinese by the armed forces of England. Ile contended that Sir John Bowring's calling in those forces was in direct defiance of his standing instructions. On this point, the following letter was written by Earl Grey in 1847, with the full concurrence of the Duke of Wellington.

Earl Grey to Major-General D'Ayuilar.

"Colonial Office, November 24th, 1847.

"Sir—The Governor of Ceylon has communicated to me an application which you have made to the Major-General commanding her Majesty's troops in that island, for a reinforcement of half a company of artillery, with two gunners and a proportionate supply of ammunition, to be held in readiness to be forwarded to Hongkong, should circumstances render it necessary to undertake any further military operations at Canton. I have desired the Governor of Ceylon not to send to Hongkong the detachment for which you have made application; and I have further to signify to you, that her Majesty's Government peremptorily forbid you to undertake any further offensive operations against the Chinese without their previous sanction. Iler Majesty's Government are satisfied that, although the late operations in the Canton river were attended with immediate success, the risk of a second attempt of the same kind would far overbalance any advantage to be derived from such a step. If the conduct of the Chinese authorities should, unfortunately, render another appeal to arms inevitable, it will be necessary that it should be made after due preparation, and with the employment of such an amount of force as may afford just grounds for expecting that the objects which may be proposed by such a measure will be effectually accomplished without unnecessary loss, I have, &e., GRIM" Thus Sir John Bowring had acted ccntrary to the instructions of Lord

Grey, Lord Istahuesbury, and the Duke of Newcastle, who in 1853 sent him hustractions similar to those of Earl Grey.

In his peroration Lord Derby made a solemn appeal to the Right Reverend Bench—which he would have preferred to see more numerously, filled—urging the Prelates to endeavour to stay the hand of violence and rebuke the shedding of innocent blood; asking whether the scenes he had described were likely to advance our holy religion among a heathen people; and "what must be the feelings of the ignorant native of China, when, after hearing of those maxims of forbearance, long-suffering, and kindness taught and inculcated by the Christian religion, he finds the representatives of a Christian nation uncharitable, unforbearing, barbarous and blood thirsty ? Would he not say, 'Away with such a religion as " "But, my Lords, if I should be disappointed in this hope as regards the Right Reverend Bench, then I turn with undiminished confidence to the hereditary Peerage. I make my appeal to those who have done me the honour of listening with patience, with exemplary patience, to the long and painful statement which I have laid before you. To the hereditary Peerage I turn humbly, earnestly, but with confidence—(and this is the last word with which I shall trouble your Lordships)—I appeal to them by their vote this night to declare that they will not sanction the usurpation by foreign authorities of that most awful prerogative of the Crown the declaring of war ; that they will not tolerate, nor by their silence appear to approve, upon light and trivial grounds of quarrel, and upon cases of doubtful justice as far as regards the merits of our first demands, the capture of commercial vessels ; that they will not tolerate the destruction of the forts of a friendly country; that they will not tolerate the bombardment and the shelling of an undefended and commercial city ; and that they will not on any consideration give the sanction of their voice to the shedding of the blood of unwarlike and innocent people 'without warrant of law and without moral justification." Greatly cheered as he closed his oration, Lord Derby moved the following, resolutions before he sat down " That this House has heard with deep regret of the interruption of amicable relations between her Majesty's subjects and the Chinese authorities at Canton, arising out of the measures adopted by her Majesty's Chief Superintendent of Trade to obtain reparation for alleged infractions of the supplementary treaty of the 8th of October 1843.

"'That, in the opinion of this House, the occurrence of differences on this subject rendered the time peculiarly unfavourable for pressing on the Chinese authorities a claim for the admittance of British subjects into Canton which had been left in abeyance since 1849, and for supporting the same by force of arms.

"That, in the opinion of this House, operations of actual hostility ought not to have been undertaken without the express instructions, previously received, of her Majesty's Government ; and that neither of the subjects adverted to in the foregoing resolutions afforded sufficient justification for such operations."

The Earl of CLARENDON began by complimenting Lord Derby on his " able and powerful speech" ; which displayed more conspicuously than ever those talents and energies for which we have long known that he is remarkable."

Lord Derby had "certainly neglected nothing which the most careful investigation, the most ingenious interpretation of documents and instruments,,the boldest assertion of facto, the most touchineappeal to your sympathies, and the moat commanding eloquence, could. effect." -But Lord Clarendon had also confidence in their Lordships, and felt that they would take the facts of the case as they really stand, and not the facts as the had been presented by the noble Earl. When e called our relations with the Chinese authorities "amicable," he did not represent the real facts of the ease. There has been for a long series of years a determination on the part of the Chinese to humiliate us, and to restrict our rights and privileges; while on the other side great annoyance and irritation have been tempered by a moderate and forbearing spirit. There has been no resident at Canton, official or unofficial, no matter of what nation, who has not felt that the present state of things was unendurable; that a rupture must

come. All who are on the spot approve of the course which has been taken and if they were present, they would ask the House not to assent to Lord Derby's propositions. They feel that their lives, property, trade, all they possess in China, depend on the respect paid to the British flag ; that if that flag can be insulted with impunity, there is an end to all safety for British residents in China. The ease of the Arrow may be a miserable case, but a principle is involved in it, and "the Consul and the officers of her Majesty in China could not, without a complete dereliction of their duty, have acted otherwise than they have acted." Lord Clarendon showed that it was for the purpose of preventing abuses of the British flag, carried by virtue of the Imperial act, that the Hongkong ordinance was passed. The Arrow held her right to carry the British flag under the ordinance passed in March 1855, which ordinance was passed before the Merchant Shipping Act, and contravened no existing British law. The same kind of licences are granted at Gibraltar and Malta ; and the case of the licences granted at Hongkong to Chinese lessees of the Crown is a strictly analogous case. The same system prevails at Malabar and Singeore. Mr. Crawfurd, the Governor of Singapore, says that "both British

bern alien Chinese are, without distinction as to nationality, owners of coasting craft and of square-rigged vessels making distant voyages; and all sail under the British flag. The coasting Chinese and other native craft sail by registered passes, which run for a year only, and are renewable. These passes resemble the certificates of registration of the Hongkong ordinance of 1855, only that the conditions on which they were granted were far leas stringent." But the real question is, whether the lorcha Arrow was considered by the Chinese authorities at Hongkong a British vessel, and entitled to carry the British flag and claim British protection. She was known as a British vessel trading in the Canton river. She bore a British register; for "although the time for which the register was granted had expired, the vessel was not deprived of the protection of that register, inasmuch as she was still at sea, and vessels at sea are not called on to renew their licences until they reach the waters of the colony to which they belong." Now, the 17th article, which the Chinese infringed, is looked upon *as a species of extradition treaty; no article comes so constantly into operation ; none is looked upon aS of greater importance as regards maintaining peaceful relations with a country so abounding in malefactors as China. The Chinese did not observe this article' and would any of their Lordships, in his position, have acted differently from Mr. Parkes ? Had the Consul shrunk from his duty, the Chinese would have regarded that as a triumph, and have proceeded to graver insults. Such a ease could not have occurred in Europe. "But these things do occur in China ; and they therefore prove that there is not that amount of civilization there and not that respect for international law which exist among other nations; and, painful though it may be to admit it, and repugnant to our feelings as it is, I fear that we must come to the conclusion, that in dealing with a nation like the Chinese, if we intend to preserve any amicable or useful relations with them, we must make them sensible of the law of force, and must appeal to them in the manner which alone they can appreciate." The High Commissioner denied that the vessel was British, and sibjected to the system of registry, because he thus preserved to himself the right of treating all other British vessels in the same way. He admitted, however, the binding force of the treaty by restoring some of the men ; but he refused to make a reasonable apology. And having once made a demand, we could not withdraw it ; we were bound to prove we were in earnest ; and to put an end to the prevailing system ofviolating our ruts. " The noble Earl said a great deal about the monomania of Sir San Bowring with respect to admission into Canton. I fully admit that Sir John Bowring attaches the greatest importance to that object ; but I am sure, under the instructions which he has received and the knowledge which he has of what are the feelings of the Government on the subject, that he never would have committed any act of which the Government or this country could have had to complain by way of gratifying that predominant sentiment and opinion of his. I say that we never should.have heard of it if that case of the Arrow had been satisfactorily settled." With regard to our admission into Canton' Keying was of opinion that there would be no insurmountable difficulty in carrying it out Sir John Davis stated that the entrance was refused under the pretext of the people's wishes. Mr. Bonham, in 1848, regretted that " no advantage had been taken of the few opportunities of humbling in the Cantonese (at whose hands our countrymen have suffered Bo much both in insult and injury) that at, regent spirit to which is to be attributed their arrogant refusal to concede" our right. And when he was directed to take a middle course, in 1849, "Lou and Lieutenant-General Yeh immediately declared that all discussion on the subject had been abandoned; and they received Imperial honours for

the construction they had put upon our display of moral force This i question of entrance into Canton has a wider bearing and greater conse

quences than might at first sight be imagined. The measure—in itself insulting—is always cited sea proof of our humiliating position, and of our inability when we were at war with China to secure for ourselves by force of arms that to which we are fairly entitled. Our exclusion from Canton is even made the subject of taunt and reproach to the other ports where we are admitted, and where large numbers of Cantonese reside ; and it has been the fertile source of that tendency to mischief and deterioration that has marked our relations with China. In 1846, it was the calm of a serious riot at Souchong, when the lives of the foreign residents were endangered ; and at Shanghai it was used by the Cantonese to involve British subjects in collision with the natives. Moreover, the present anomalous and nominally amicable state of things excites the greatest apprehension in the minds of all foreigners, because their exclusion from the walls of Canton implies the seclusion within the walls of all the Chinese authorities ; and their obstinate refusal to communicate with foreign representatives upon those matters of every-day occurrence in which personal communication might prevent small differences from welling into serious and perilous misunderstanding. I repeat, however, there has been no change in the policy of the Government' no different instructions have been sent out; and nothing would have been done if the Arrow question had been satisfactorily arranged." In treating of the third resolution, Lord Clarendon showed that what occurred in 1847 was analogous to what occurred in 1856. There were outrages then ; General d'Aguilar was called in, and promptly brought the Chinese to agree with our demands. Lord Palmerston and Earl Grey both approved of the course taken at that time. Earl Grey wrote to General d'Aguilar—" It has afforded much satisfaction to her Majesty to receive your report of those operations, ero,p. Ted as they have been with complete success." General d'Aguilar was successful, but he felt that his force would be tob small forfurther operations, if they were required ; so he asked the commandant at Ceylon to lend him a small force for a short time. That brought him to Lord Grey's letter which had been quoted by Lord Derby. When Lord Grey, on a former occasion, described that letter, Lord Clarendon "understood that it was a general prohibition addressed to the authorities in China against undertaking any operations whatever without instructions from home. [Earl Grey= °femme operations."] And my noble friend added that he had the Duke of Wellington's approval of that prohibition. ("Hear, hear from Earl Grey.) I was very. much astonished that the Duke of Wellington should have approved of orders being sent to officers at the other extremity of the world, with sufficient forces under their command, that, whatever might occur, whatever outrage might be offered to life or property, they were tamely to stand by and look on until they received instructions from home. My astonishment at this was very great; but it altogether ceased when I looked at any noble friend's letter and the despatches upon which it was founded. I then found, that so far from being the general instruction, it was only a wise,. prudent, and necessary order, because it was quite clear that no force which could have been sent from Ceylon could have placed General d'Aguilar in a position to undertake any further operations against the Chinese with any chance of a successful issue. My noble friend limits his prohibition to further operations against the Chinese,' evidently alluding to the operations which had just been concluded, and to continue which General d'Aguilar had asked for a force which my noble friend rightly considered would be wholly insufficient for the purpose." Lord Clarendon closed by strongly urging the House not to assent to the third resolution. That resolution, 'as it now stands, can only and will only be considered by her Majesty's officers in China, and more generally throughout the world, as a positive prohibition to engage in any offensive operations without instructions from borne. If it be so considered, I can conceive nothing more calculated, or rather more certain, to cast dismay into the hearts of every British resident, not only at Canton, but in any part of China. If it be established here and become known in China that we abandon this system upon which we have have been absolutely compelled to act; that when our rights are violated or injuries are inflicted upon us our demands for reparation are not to be supported by force,—if it be once understood that any insult or wrong may be inflicted upon us, and that four or five months must elapse before it can be avenged, the position of every British resident in China will be one not only of the deepest degradation but of the utmost danger; and certain I am, that every British resident who does not quit China will be compelled for the safety of his life and of his property to renounce his nationality, to abjure the British flag, and to seek protection from the French or some other foreign Power. If such a general order as this be enforced, what chance will your Plenipotentiary and Consuls have of obtaining redress for the violation Of treaty rights, not merely from the Imperial Commissioner, but from the Mandarins of the lowest class ? The Chinese authorities will laugh in their faces, and tell them to wait until instructions come from England."

Lord LYNDHURST, holding that the proceedings at Canton cannot be justified on any principles either of law or reason said that the question was, whether the Arrow was an English ship within the meaning of the treaty. In no respect whatever was the Arrow an English ship. You may give any rights to a foreigner or to a foreign vessel as against yourselves, but not as against foreigners. You cannot, therefore, where you have a foreign ship owned by a foreigner, convert that vessel into an English ship so as to bring it within the terms of the treaty. You may allow all American vessel to assume the English flag, but you cannot prevent the Government of the United States from exercising its ordinary dominion over it. You may give a foreigner a certificate of naturalization, but that confers on bun no right whatever as against his own.

country. Therefore, "on general principles, this being a Chinese ship, owned by a Chinese, nothing can at all affect the right of the Chinese Government to go on board on any occasion to exercise dominion over it, to take out one or more of the crew, or to do any act which they might be disposed to do in consequence of events brought to their knowledge." A Chinese vessel cannot be converted into an English ship by a law of the Colonial Legislature. "Under the Act of Parliament no vessel can by law use the British flag but a British ship, and any one who attempts to use a British flag, except on board a British ship, is by the 133d section cadeject to a very grievous penalty. Therefore, both on general principles and on the particular point of this ordinance, the justification in this ease entirely fails." Having stated these views of the law, Lord Lyndhurst went over the other considerations involved in the proceedings; condemning the course pursued by Sir John Bowring as "the mischievous policy of one of the most mischievous of men."

"But man, proud man !

Dust in a little brief authority.

Most ignorant of what he's most assured, His glassy essence, like an angry ape Plays such fantastic tricks before high Heaven As make the angels weep ; who, with our spleens.

Would all themselves laugh mortal."

The Loan CHANCELLOR took a different view, and insisted that there had been an infraction of the treaty. "If the British Government authorizes a ship to go into a foreign port awl carry the British flag, as between us and the foreign country this is certainly a British ship. It may be that you had improperly authorized the use of the flag; this may give the foreign authorities a right to redress as against you; and if Yeh had represented this to Sir John Bowring, and that offieer had refused to attend to such a representation, he might have laid himself open to grave censure. That, however, was not the course taken by the Chinese authorities. They said, 'We will of ourselves decide that the Arrow is not authorized to carry the British flag.'" If it be admitted that the authorities of a country may board a ship and decide a point of nationality for themselves no man can tell to what consequenees it may lead. He further showed, 'that as long ago as 1819 local licences were granted at Gibraltar, not merely to British subjects, but to any persons who had resided on the rock a given number of years,—clearly showing that the

Crown had this power. was done at Gibraltar might be done at Hongkong. And as the owner of the Arrow was a registered lessee of the ‘Crown, and the master of the Arrow a British subject, both the qualifications necessary to make it a British ship were fulfilled.

Earl GREY began by referring to his letter of 1847, in order to show that it was not intended to apply only to the then existing circumstances. Sir George Bonham, two years after it was written, understood it as prohibiting offensive operations without orders from home. In 1863, the Duke of Newcastle caused a copy to be sent to General Jervois, and that implied a repetition of the order. It did not, of course apply to defensive but solely to offensive operations. Would they admit the principle that any Vice-Consul in Central America m*ht levy war on his own responsibility? Such a principle is fraught with danger. Quitting the personal matter, Lord Grey turned to the general question; and, pursuing the argument started by Lord Derby and Lord Lyndhurst contended that a Hongkong ordinance cannot overrule the acts of the Imperial Parliament ; that the Arrow was not a British ship within the meaning of the treaty when the treaty was made ; and that under the Hongkong system any smuggler or pirate might obtain a register and claim exemption from the jurisdiction of his country. "Let us consider how such a system would work nearer home. Suppose it were established that any British smuggler, by renting a small piece of land at Boulogne or Calais, acquired the right to have his vessel registered as a French ship, and that when once so registered no British Customhouse-officer should be entitled to go on board unless he obtained the preliminary sanction of the French Con • sul ; suppose, further, the Thames and the Mersey filled with vessels of that description. I ask what chance we should have of maintaining the security of our property or collecting our revenue ? Yet that is the precise position of the Chinese." There was no argument, nothing but a naked blustering assertion that the Arrow is a British ship. Lord Clarendon had in his speech used some incautious phrases, which might give encouragement to the monstrous doctrine heard out of doors, that it does not matter whether we are right or not, so that we have a colourable opportunity for making the Chinese feel our power' and that the Chinese are only sensible to the law of force. "I do not think that is a correct doctrine. I believe—and that opinion is confirmed by these papers—that, instead of understanding only force, they are a nation very open to reason. Although inferior to ourselves in civilization, they are a nation among whom good government and good order were established ages before the nations of Europe emerged from barbarism. They are a people among whom the useful arts have made great progress, and who are singularly industrious and ingenious in their agriculture. With such a people our true policy. i the policy of forbearance and conciliation." He threw the blame of interrupting such a policy. on Sir John .Bowring He described the suffering inflicted by our proceedings, not only in Canton but in the country, exposed to banditti in consequence of the withdrawal of the troops,—suffering he could not contemplate without shuddering : and he urged their Lordships to say that they did not approve-of such "inhuman proceedings."

After a brief defence of the Government by the Duke of ABovee, the Earl of CARNARVON moved the adjournment of the debate. At first Earl GRANVILLE opposed this ; remarking that there was a full House, and that they would lose character by adopting the practice of adjournments. Lord DERRY urged him not to resist the motion : two Peers had left the House anticipating an adjournment of the debate. There were cries of" Divide!" Some Peers left the House thinking Lord Granville had cOnsen.ted to adjourn. Earl lerrzwremeen whispered to Lord Hardwicke, in passing, "Keep on dividing." Earl GREY, in his greatcoat and out of breath, ran in to testify that several Peers had gone thinking the debate adjourned. At length, on an assurance from Lord Derby that Peers had departed without pairing, Earl GRANVILLE consented to adjourn the debate until Thursday.

The resumed debate on Thursday was carried on with great spirit on both sides for six or seven hours. The Earl of CARNARVON led the way. He admitted that the previous debate had thoroughly exhausted the subject, bathe deemed it would be well worth while to recall the main facts to the recollection of their Lordships ; which he did at moderate length, and with considerable force. Lord Me-races briefly supported the Government view of the OW and then Lord St. Leonards and Lord Wensleydale rose together; but, after some contest for precedence, Lord Wensleydale, gave way. Lord ST. LEON1tRDS took up the same ground on the law of the question as Lord Lyndhurst; and insisted that the. Lord Chan cellor had misrepreseated the law of nations in stating that if a foreign nation gave a flag to a ship, and she went to a foreign port and there gave some offence, the foreigner was bound not to interfere with the ship, hut must apply to the country to which she belonged for redress. When Lord St. Leonards eat down, the LORD CHANva,,,on rose to clear himself from the grave charge of misrepresenting the law of nations. His position was, that it depends upon the licence or register of each particular country to say whether a ship were a national ship or not, and that if the Chinese entered a British ship they contravened the treaty. After this interlude, Lord WENSLEYDALE spoke. In treating the legal part of the case, he contended, that assuming the existence of the licence,, whether it did or not give a national character to the vessel was not a point for the Chinese to determine. Respect was due to the national character as indicated by the flag and licence. Then he was of opinion, that the Colonial Legislature had a right to pass the ordinance under which the licence was granted ; and he doubted whether it was even repealed by the Merchant bhipping Act of 1856. It is true that the Chinese of Hongkong are still subjects of the Chinese empire; but the real question was, had the Government a right to redress itself by seizing with violence criminals in a ship actually possessing our national flag ? We had no right to twit the seizure as a wrong when it occurred in the port of Canton, unless the Chinese had by treater given us the right ; as in this case they have. He also thought Sir John Bowring was mistaken in saying that the licence had expired. He concluded that the Chinese were wrong, and the British officers right in the course they had pursued. The Earl of Mamarsetieer reviewed the proceedings at Canton, and dealt severely with Sir John Bowling. The Earl of ALBEMARLE justified the Government, not on the ground furnished. by the papers, but from a consideration of the previous condition, in which we, in common with other European nations, have stood towards that peculiar people, the Chinese. The Earl of EL.LENROROUGH censured the whole of the proceedings ; and spoke with great severity of" Doctor" Bowling. We might by tact, discretion, and judgment, have maintained the policy established in 1842. We have been plunged into a war that is a "folly and a crime," by "Doctor" Bowling, who is "an eternal obstacle to peace,"—who has shown "the ferocity of a Nadir Shah by the side of the miserable and wretched policy of a clerk in a counting-house." He called on the House of Lords to vindicate itself from agreement with the Government, and from following in the wake of" Doctor" Bowling.

Earl Gmeervrexa summed up the case with a view to vindicate the British officers at Canton and the Government for approving of their conduct. He reproved Lord Ellenborough and previous speakers for having endeavoured, by ridicule, exaggeration, tone of voice, and even by laying a peculiar stress on the word "Doctor," to hunt down Sir John Bowring; whose conduct should at least have been seriously and dispassionately reviewed. The Bishop of ORPORD closed the debate with an elaborate denunciation of Sir John Bowring as the guilty cause of this war ; and by warning their Lorclehips, that there is a Power which can and will find a way "to show the weakness and rebuke the pride and strength of Britain." On a division, there appeared—Content (present 53, proxies 67) 110; Non-content (present 71, proxies 75) 146; giving a majority of 36 against Lord Derby's resolutions.

On the same evening that the House of Lords came to this decision, Mr. COBDEN moved his resolutions in the House of Commons. Thereupon rose a debate which was not finished that night. As a matter of course, much of the speaking included substantially the same arguments and recitals of fact that had already been used in the Upper House ; and frequent references were made during the debate to the speeches of Lord Lyndhurst, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Clarendon. But Mr. Cobden and Lord John Russell, by the range of their speeches, imparted a new tone to the Commons debate.

Mr. COBDEN, at the outset, disclaimed any vindictive feeling against his old acquaintance Sir John Bowring, whom he had known for twenty years ; but who, he admitted, had a "monomania," as Lord Derby said, on the subject of obtaining admission into Canton. Mr. Cobden said that he had no personal or party object in view ; his only motive was to arrive at a just decision on the question he should submit to the House.

"To begin at the beginning "—Mr. Cobden narrated the story of the Arrow, and the hostile proceedings that arose : and supposing that the occurrence had taken place in the United States instead of China, at Charleston instead of Canton, he asked whether we should have dealt with Charleston as we dealt with Canton. He next described the case of Sir John Bowring as reefing on a threefold illegality,—the licence had expired on the 8th October; the licence itself was illegal; and the ordinance under which itwas granted contravened British law. Next he showed, that there was reason to believe that the Chinese did not premeditate an insult in boarding the Arrow. The Mandarin who hauled clown the flag permitted tho master to run it up again. There is a great deal of irregular trade on the coast; the Chinese have occasion to visit our vessels in search for smuggled goods. Here he read a letter from Mr. Cook, for four years United States Marshal at Whampoa, stating that he had seen ten or fifteen torches arWhampea bearing the British flag, and that of these eight or ten were engaged in smuggling salt. The Chinese seized them, and the parties who had a right to fly the flag subsequently claimed their vessels. This is the testimony of a writer who wishes "every success to every one who will attack the Chinese," but one who thinks that in the case of the Arrow we "have not a leg to stand upon." Such transactions dishonour our flag. "Mr Cook said to me, in a very significant tone, I don't allow any such doings as these under our stars and stripes.'" Look at the advantage of having one of these licences. A smuggler with a register can carry on a trade with nothing to fear except the occasional loss of a cargo. This is a reap= why we should not assume that an insult was meant when the Chinese boarded the Arrow. Mr. Cobden eulogized, as Lord Derby had done, the moderate, courteous, temperate bearing of Yeh, contrasted with the arrogance of Mr. Parkes and Sir John Bowring. He insisted that there was a preconceived. design to pick a quarrel, and suspected that there must have been encouragement from head-quarters. He contended that If the Chinese, as Lord Clarendon assumed, had shown a disposition to infringe the treaty, that some more statesmanlike mode of checking that should have been adopted. A garbled blue-book is laid before the House, entitled "Correspondence respecting insults in China," which only contains stones about a few note, a few villsge rows. To prove that this book was garbled, ho read extracts from papers previously laid before the House—extracts from the letters of Sir John Davis, Admiral Cochrane, General .D'Agiular—showing that the causes of seer of violence and disorder in China were "our own people,'

who " are more difficult to deal with," wrote Sir John Davis in 1846, "than the Chinese Government."

In following up this topic, Mr. Cobden turned upon the English merchants. His sympathies, e said, were with the mercantile class—with the

position of the merchants residing at Canton. But many of them are en gaged in a traffic detrimental to the souls and bodies of the Chinese, and with them he did not sympathize. That trade flourishes in lawless times. It is not for their benefit that they should be able to summon an overwhelming force to their aid. "There may be, too much protection for British mer chants as well as for British agriculture." Our growing exports are_passing into the hands of foreigners; in the Mediterranean or the Levant the English merchant is declining ; he is replaced by Greeks, Swiss, or Germans. It may be that he is not well acquainted with foreign languages ; but it may be that he carries his haughty and inflexible demeanour into his dealings. " Civis & menus sum "'is not a very conciliatory motto to purover our counting-houses abroad. From dealing with merchants abroad Mr. Cobden turned to those at home—to Liverpool petitioners, who levy local dues, and ask for a re vised tariff and free ports in China. What would Liverpool say if such a demand were addressed by Russia to Turkey ? The Liverpool East India and China Association wants free ports ; but can trade be increased by open

ing ports forcibly ? Since 1842 we have not increased our exports to China at all, as far as manufactures are concerned. We have increased our consumption of tea, but that is all. OgLimpoits have increased, but they are largely paid for by opium; and if offrexports have increased, they are exPorts to India to pay for opium. On the exhausted topic of the demand for entrance into Canton, he expressed his belief that the plea of the Chinese in refusing that demand was made in good faith ; and he thought that our admission to Canton would not be of a farthing's use.

The last topic was a warm argument against a proposal of the Friend of India, calling on Sir John Bowling to play the part of Clive and annex China! He moved these resolutions— "That this House has heard with concern of the conflicts which have occurred between the British and Chinese authorities in the Canton river; and, without ex pressing an opinion as to the extent to which the Government of China may have afforded this country cause of complaint respecting the non-fulfilment of the treaty of 1842, this House considers that the papers which have been laid upon the table fail to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measures resorted to at Canton in the late affair of the Arrow. " That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of our commercial relations with China."

• Mr. LABOUCHERE replied to Mr. Cobden, and vindicated the conduct of the British officers at Canton. His vindication was substantially the same as Lord Clarendon's—only the manner was different. But a few special points may be noted. Mr. Labouchere said that Mr. Cobden had libelled the British merchants in saying that they advised the British authorities at Canton to adopt a course against which not only every English but every Christian and every human feeling revolts. [Mr. Cobden—" No, no !"] Mr. Labouchere—" Yes." [Mr.

Cobden again denied, and demanded the words.] Mr. Cobden had said the Chinese are scrupulous in their dealings Mr. Labouchere would appeal to testimony on that point, which Mr. Cobden himself thought of importance —a proclamation of the American Chief Superintendent at Macao. That proclamation stated, that the reply of the Imperial Commissioner, "with the semblance of a desire to maintain friendly relations between the two coun

tries, showed that the same disposition to evade obligation, misrepresent facts, and erroneously interpret treaty stipulations, which for years has character

ized the correspondence of Imperial Commissioners, stall obtains with his Excellency Yeh. [Mr. Cobden—"What is the date ?") The date is December 27, 1856. I therefore imagine that it was put forward after the recent diffi

culty between America and China was for the moment settled ; and expresses, not the effects of any temporary irritation, but the deliberate judgment of this the chief Americans officer in China, as to the general character of the proceedings of the local Government at Canton." With regard to the future, Mr. Labouchere hoped there would be no war with China. "I trust the result will be, not only that commercial relations will be established between the Enghsh and Chinese authorities, but that our entire relations with the empire of China will be placed on a far more satisfactory footing. I believe these objects, which are not narrow or selfish, but such as may be sought by all civilized Christian nations, will be accomplished with the cordial cooperation of America and France. If that be the case, I believe that immense benefit will accrue in the first instance to the trade of this and all other European nations, and ultimately to the -Chinese empire itself. I trust in God the time may come, and that we may see it, when the vast population of the Chinese empire may be brought into communication with the more fortunate races which enjoy the blessings of civilization, and that we may see them emancipated from the ignorance and thraldom of heathenism, and, above all, from that tyrannical and cruel Government which, like its Commissioner at Canton, seems only to exist fel' the misery and degradation of the human race."

Sir EDWARD Lrerow, in a debating rather than an oratorical speech, put forward the Opposition view of the case as expounded by the chiefs of his party in the House of Lords. Mr. DAVIES was strongly inclined to vote for the first resolution, but he could not consent to the appointment of a Special Committee. Sir Joust RAMSDEN took the Ministerial, and Sir THOMAS HERBERT the Opposition side. Sir ERSKINE PERRY argued the legal merits of the question, and agreed with Lord Lyndhurst. Ile distinctly explained, that his vote would be given for the motion, "but not with any intention of turning out the Government " : had the resolution been proposed by an Opposition Member, he should have voted against it. Mr. GREGSON spoke on behalf of the merchants engaged in the Chinese trade.

Lord Ram RUSSELL caned upon the House to decide according to its views of the rights, interests, and honour of the country, and not be guided by the opinions of any set of merchants, however respectable they may be. He divided his speech into three parts,—the case of the lorcha ; the demand for admission into Canton ; and the future policy of the Government. With regard to the first, he held that the licences are illegal wherever they contravene the laws of this country.. If a Spanish-owned vessel, holding a pass from Gibraltar, entered Algesnas with a Riff pirate on board, and the Governor of Algesiras seized the man, would the Governoe of Gibraltar have caused the forts to be blown up ? No such course would have been pursued.

The British Government would have demanded and obtained redress from Spain. As to the right of entrance into Canton, our demand has been post poned from time to time. "My noble friend at the head of the Government, when Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stated most able reasons and conclusive arguments against .pressing that question. He said—' Above all, it is one of those advantages which, if you can obtain it by fair negotiation,

may hoof considerable use ; but the whole advantage will be destroyed if you attempt to obtain it by force of arms. Every OORCOSSIOR which you might obtain will become useless and barren, and even injurious in your hands, if thus obtained." It would be within the province of the British Government to give the Chinese Government notice,' that unless the treaty were fulfilled within a certain time, war would be declared. A question so long in abeyance ought not to be settled without a full, solemn, and deliberate determination of the British Government. That course has not been taken. Instead even of giving a reasonable time after making the demand, Sir John Bowring proceeded the very day he made it to destroy the forts. Is that the way is

i claim so long n abeyance should have been revived ? " It does seem to me that her Majesty's Government should have considered that these officials had committed a serious offence against the interests of this country ; that they had without cause put in jeopardy our amicable relations with a great and populous empire, and had presumed to take upon themselves the solution of a question which three different Secretaries of State had declared, in the clearest and most explicit language, should not be decided without a reference home, and without due deliberation by her Majesty's Government." • 3n simply giving their approbation, without saying what was to be done, Go vernment was neglecting a solemn duty.

The last question was, "What is it that is to be our policy ? " What did Sir John Bowring mean' when, in writing to M. de C,ourcy, he talked about "the revision of our treaties with China" ? We have a right to insist on the strict fulfilment of the treaty, but we have no right to insist on new terms, without going to war: but two such contemptible pleas as the hauling down the flag of this miserable loreha, and the refusal of admission into Canton, do not form a justifiable cause of war. Sir John Bowring may be insisting on new demands at this moment, "and we, the Commons of England, are not informed what these demands are." Mr. Labouchere said that we were to emancipate China from its cruel and tyrannical government. Mr. LABOUCHERE interrupted Lord John, to say that he only expressed a hope that the result would be to emancipate Canton from " the government of a man whom I believe to be one of the greatest possible curses and inffictMns to those under him."

Lord dome RIISSELL—" Here at all events we have a new demand." Laughter and cheers.) We are not satisfied with the appointments of the peror of China : this gentleman is to be removed, and some one, recommended by our Foreign Secretary, put in his place. "In the matter of tendering advice to an independent Government, I should have thought that our recent experience at Naples would have sufficed to warn us not to interfere with the internal affairs of China. (" Hear, hear p and laughter.) . . . . Besides, how do you know that after all the Emperor might not say, Well, my Commissioner may be a very intractable and violent sort of man ; but I can't see that your own Superintendent has so very mild and easy a temper.' " (Laughter and cheers.) Lord John regretted that no expression of sorrow for the havoc and misery caused by our acts is to be found in the papers presented to Parliament.. "Sir John Bowling, while declaring to his Consul that the flag was not rightly used, and that the vessel had lost all right to British protection, stands up for her claim as against the Chinese Commissioner, and bids him apologize for this insult to the British flag, which had been lawfully used. We have learned much of late—a great deal too much, I think—of the prestige of England. We used to hear of the character, of the reputation, of the honour of England. I trust, Sir, that the character, the reputation, and the honour of this country are dear to us all; but if the prestige of England is to be separate from those qualities—if it is to be separate from the character, from the reputation, and from the honour of our country— then I for one have no wish to maintain it. (Loud and continued cheers.) Be just, and fear not. Never will England stand higher in the world's estimation than when it can be said that, though troublesome and meddlesome officials prostitute her arms and induce a brave Admiral to commence hostilities which never ought to have been begun, yet the House of Commons, representing her people, have indignantly declared that they will be no par

i

ties to such injustice; and that neither for commercial advantages, nor for political advantages, nor for any other immediate advantages to their country, will they consent to stain that honour which after all has been and must be the sure foundation of her greatness." (Long-continued cheering.) Mr. LOWE was the next speaker. He justified the granting of licences at Hongkong, by stating that the Chinese residents at Hongkong are entitled to the protection of England. Mr. WARREN moved the adjournment of the debate. Before the motion was agreed to, Mr. COBDEN, explaining that his resolutions had been printed as one instead of two, was allowed to divide them ; and the first resolution having been put by the Speaker, the debate was adjourned.

TESTAMENTARY TURISDICT/ON.

The Loan CHANCELLOR moved the second. reading of the Probates and Letters of Administration Bill, and reexplained its provisions. Lord St. Lizonsans commented on the changes made in the different bills submitted to Parliament, and objected to several provisions in the present measure,—chiefly to the transfer of the jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, and to the provision for taking from the heirs-at-law of real estate their established right to have the validity of a will, by which they are disinherited, tried by an issue. Lord LYNDHURST observed that there was just a third of a Peer to each bench of the House, and as he did not possess the faculty of addressing empty benches he should postpone his remarks on the bill. Lord-Cefeenem, said, as he was about to go on circuit, he must speak then or not at all. He objected to making every contentious suit on a will a Chancery suit, and hoped the bill would be sent to a Select Committee to be improved. Lord WYNFORD took a similar view.

The Loan CHANCELLOR, in reply to Lord St. Leonards, said that am heir-at-law could only be disinherited by the verdict of a jury, and the bill would leave that as it stands.

The bill was read a second time.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Sir Josn-crA WALMSLEY moved for the appointment of a Select Committee "to consider and report upon the most practical means of lessening the existing inequalities in our representative system, and for extending to the unenfranehised that share of political power to which they might be justly entitled." He said he adopted this course because it is impossible, at present, to carry a specific measure of reform. Sir Joshua supported his motion by figures and statements intended to prove the necessity of extending the suffrage. The motion was seconded by Mr. HAnprztn. It met with the opposition of Sir GEORGE Snuestsaen, Mr. STAFFORD,. and Mr. THOMAS DIINCOMBE. Sir George objected lo it as undefined. Mr. Stafford ironically commented on the unpleasant position in which such motions placed the supporters and members of her Majesty's Government. Mr. Buncombe characterized the motion as unpractical; and, insisting that a great principle—the right to the suffrage—was involved in the question, declined to insult the 4,500,000 unenfranchised by referring their claim to a Committee up-stairs, as if it were a B.oad or a. Railway Bill. Mr. WmtnEas made a single remark—" I have only one word to say. Only think of referring the British Constitution to a Select Committee I am so tickled with the idea that I have nothing else to say." (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. W. J. Fox supported the motion, as "the fittest mode of bringing the question to a settlement." Lord PALMERSTON said, that an objection often made to proposals for Committees, that when obtained they cannot arrive at a concurrent conclusion, could not be made to this proposal, if they might judge from the almost unanimous opinion of the House on the motion ; for the mover had succeeded in ranging on one side those who are for comprehensive reform, those who are for gradual or what is called bit-by-bit and stepby-step reform, and those who are opposed to reform in the abstract. He recommended his "honourable friend" to rest content with the achievement of the evening, and not attempt to produce a similar concurrence of opinion in a Committee. Lord Palmerston rested his opposition on the unanswerable argument that the matter is one of too wide a range to be thrown loose upon the chance decision of a Committee. Other Members objected ; but Sir Joshua Walmsley penated, and the House divided—For the motion, 73; against, 190.

Tun Passitinz ExrEnrriosr.

Mr. NAPIER called the attention of the House to the communications with Government respecting the Franklin Expedition ; stated the case as it stands, and as our readers are familiar with it ; urged the Government to direct a further and complete search, and moved, as a matter of form, for correspondence. Captain SCOBELL warmly supported the appeal. Admiral WALCOT, on the contrary, thought that all has already been done which can be done. Sir CHARLES WOOD said, Government could give no encouragement to the proposal to send out another expedition. There would be an unnecessary risk of life : there is no hope of finding any survivor of the Franklin expedition : the hope of finding records even is so slight that it will not justify the risk of life : 610,000/. has been spent on public expeditions alone. Government could not incur a fresh responsibility. Mr. LINDSAY, Mr. MONCKTON MILNES, MT. WHITESIDE, and Mr. W. J. Fox expressed regret at the decision taken by the Government, and said that the decision would not be accepted by the country. On the other hand, Admiral BERKELEY and Mr. E. DEsrisox approved of the decision. Mr. Denison added, that the Government would not avoid responsibility if they lent assistance to a private expedition.

The formal motion was withdrawn.

IRISH CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.

Mr. DEASY moved an address to the Crown for assimilating the mode a conducting the examinations for the Civil Service in Ireland to that adopted in London. At present, one examiner, Dr. Ball, conducts all the examinations ; whereas in London they are conducted by two permanent examiners, eight occasional examiners, and twelve other gentlemen employed for special purposes. Mr. NAPIER seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated, that the examinationpapers are prepared in London, sent to Ireland, and returned to London when filled up. The examinations in Scotland, Ireland, and the Provinces, are conducted on the same plan, except that in Ireland there is a gentleman regularly employed, Dr. Ball. It is necessary to maintain unity in the standard of examination, and that can only be done by one system. Out of 237 persons examined in Ireland, only 47 were examined for offices exclusively Irish.

On a division, the motion was negatived, by 41 to 36.

SAVINGS-BANKS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law of Savings-Banks, and to provide for the establishment of Savings-Banks on the security of Government. The bill proposes, without imposing any additional charge beyond that which would be necessary for payments that might be made to a limited extent for inspection, to give to depositors the advantage of Government security to the whole extent of their deposits in all cases where certain conditions, to provide against fraud and embezzlement by officers, are complied with.

JUDGMENTS EXECUTION, ike.

In Committee on Mr. Craufurd's Judgments Execution &c. Bill, Mr. J. D. Frrzosasuo moved an amendment on clause 1, to the effect that "a copy" instead of a "memorial" of the judgment should be transmitted to a court out of which it might be desired to issue execution under this bill. The amendment was carried by 99 votes to 77. Mr. BOWYER then moved that the Chairman should report progress. Mr. CIIAUFURD seconded the motion, in order that he might have time to consider whether it was worth while to proceed any further with a bill of which the Attorney-General for Ireland had succeeded in destroying the principle.—Motion agreed to.

Lew or LIBEL.

On the motion of Lord CAMPBELL, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire whether the privilege now enjoyed by reports of law proceedings might not be safely and properly extended to proceedings in other bodies.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

On the motion of Mr. BMITMCK, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the causes of accidents on railways and to the possibility of removing any such causes by further legislation.

i