Palau ad Vrnrtttiug iu Varlinnitut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OP THE WEEK.

ROUSE on Loans. Monday, July 23. Newspapers, &c., Bill; second reading lost —Mines Regulation and Inspection Bill passed Committee with Amendments— Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Queen's Bench (Amendment) Act, and Enclosure Bill (No. 2) passed third reading. Tuesday, July 21. Bleaching and Dyeing Works Bill, Land Clauses Consolida- tion Act (1845) Amendment Bill, Nuisances Removal and Diseases-Prevention Bill, Oxford University Bill, and Census (England) Bill passed through Committee— Queen's Bench Act Amendment Bill, Crown and Judgment Debts Bill, and Felony and Misdemeanour Bill read a second time—Friendly Societies Act Amendment Bill read a third time.

Thursday, July 26. Bermuda Convicts ; Lord Carnarvon's Question—Rifle Volunteers ; Lord. Fortescue's Question—Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ire- land) Bill read a second time—Felony and Misdemeanour Bill passed Committee. 1.Priday, July 27. Bleaching and Dyeing Works Bill, Land Clauses Consolidation fict 1845, and Nuisances Removal: Bill read a third time and passed—MilitiaIBill read a second time.

House or COUMONS. Monday, July 23. Sir J. Fergusson's Question upon Syria—Lord Palmerston's Resolutions upon Fortifications adjourned—Mr. H. D. SeTmour's Resolutions upon Ecclesiastical Court negatived. Tuesday, July 24. Poor-law Continuance Bill passed Committee—Sir John Pakingtoo's niot,on for Commission to inquire into Promotion in the Navy nega- tived—Votes it Elections Bill read a second time—Local Government Supplemental Bill, and Militia Bill passed Committee—Turnpike Act Continuance Bill read a thd time sag -paned. IFeassesday, July 25. Coroner's Bill withdrawn—Ecclesiastical Commission Bill in Committee—Local Government Supplemental Bill read a third time—Lord's Amendments to Jew's Act Bill agreed to—Highway Bills 'withdrawn. Thursday. July 26. Militia Bill read a third time and passed—Lord Palmerston's motion on Public Business—European Forces (India)Bill in Committee; debate -ourned—Rifle Volunteer Corps Bill passed Committee.

ay, July 27. Militia Ballot Bill passed Committee—Mr. Griffith's Ques- tion to Lord John Russell upon Naples and Sicily—Indian Army ; Resolutions con- sidered.

FORTIFICATIONS.

On Monday, in the House of Commons, Lord PALMERSTON introduced a resolution on the subject of fortifications, founded on the report of the Commission which had been laid on the table of the House.

The object was to secure the dockyards,—the ports of Dover and Port- land, and also to create some central point upon Cannock Chase as a substi- tute for Woolwich. At the conclusion of the last war, this country had asserted a supremacy on the ocean ; and we were then far from alarm of maritime attack. The nations had exhausted their resources ;. every country from the Tagus to Moscow had been submerged by the tide of war and conquest except this country and Sweden. Naturally nations fixed their thought and desires upon a long continuance of peace ; and those respon- sible for the conduct of affairs here were " content to rest upon the glories we had gained; upon the recollection of the strength we had displayed and upon the victories we had achieved."

" The consequence was that for a great number of years we acted with regard to our dockyards, and other vulnerable points .very much as we had done during the war. And so long as the movement of ships depended upon wind and the chances of weather, that calculation was right, because we had then a very large fleet. Not longer ago than 1848 we had eighty-four sail of the line. We were, therefore, still in

a condition, as long as war was carried on by sea in sailing ships, by our superior skill, by our superior aptitude for naval combat, to rest on the strength which we bad. The same difficulties which interposed in 1804 and 1805 to prevent a large army drawn up on the opposite side of the Channel from crossing over to this side continued to exist. And therefore the successive Governments of the day were justified in abstaining from any great measures for the purpose of artificial pro- tection to our dockyards and coasts. But progressively steam began to be intro- duced. Every man at once saw that the introduction of steam as a moving power for naval armaments had totally altered the character of naval warfare, and entirely changed the condition of our insular position. These events which, if not impos- sible, were at least extremely difficult, while ships were only sailing vessels, be- came comparatively easy when steam was introduced. In fact, I remember Sir R. Peel saying that steam had bridged the Channel,' and for the purposes of war bad almost made this island cease to be an insular country. Well, sir, I will not state now—because these things are better made in general terms—I will not state the degree to which the absence of artificial defences has rendered us in particular and critical periods very liable to any hostile attack which any person may be disposed to make upon us. In 1847, 1 think it was, in consequence of an able memorandum drawn up by Sir John Burgoyne and sent to the Duke of Wellington, the Duke wrote and published—or at least it was published—the famous and well-known letter, in which he described, with all the knowledge which belonged to a great captain, and with all the anticipations of evils which his experience in war had led him to expect, in the event of the country being the scene of warlike operations, the want of artificial defence, and implored those who were charged with the con- duct of this country to provide better for its security against foreign aggression. Well, sir, that appeal fell on deaf ears, as far as this country was concerned."

The condition of the country might be described by the words, " Magni stat nominis umbra." Praising the Government of Lord Derby, and parti- cularly Mr. Walpole, for the efforts used in the reorganization of the Mili- tia, Lord Palmerston described his own efforts when in office

I found that one department acted without the knowledge of the other; that each acted independently, and without combining the measures which were neces- sary. I asked the Commander-in-chief for the time being, the Master-General of the Ordnance, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Inspector-General of Fortifica- tions, and the Secretary for War, to meet at my office, and we established a system of mutual consultation and combination, which led the way to great improvements in our defences, both at home and at some of our foreign stations. Since that time that system has gone on ; and whereas Gosport had at one time no defences what- ever, except a salute battery of comparatively small guns—whereas Plymouth was imperfectly defended—whereas Sheerness had at one time only one gun that would go off. I remember hearing that, soon after the war, two French steamers once came in there under the pretence of coaling, and that having sent on shore to know whether a salute would be returned, they were told there was only one gun avail- able for firing, and the officer must excuse the authorities if there was a little inter- val between 'the salutes—whereas at the period to which I allude all these impor- tant establishments were very imperfectly and inadequately defended."

With great cordiality and without jealousy the Secretary of War and the Commander-in-chief had cooperated ; and owing to their exertion a greater advance bad been made than ever took place in the same period of time. A commission had sat and inquired, and their recommendations, confined bv military officers, required an outlay of 11,000,0001., inclusive of 1;500,0001., for armaments of floating defences. He held it absolutely ne- cessary for the safety of the country that these recommendations should, substantially, be adopted.

"-Now there are two ways of doing this. You might either vote annually such a portion of annual income as alone the country would like to spend upon a matter of that kind, and by so doing defer, perhaps for eighteen or twenty years, the accom- plishment of those defences. Or you might take the course which it will be my duty to recommend to you, and endeavour to complete them at the earliest possible time—without at the same time laying upon the country for a considerable period of years, a larger annual burden than would be incurred if you prosecuted those works more slowly—I mean 'that you may, by raising terminable annuities, running for thirty years, obtain a sum which will be sufficient in the course of three or four years to complete these works. You may get within a short period the security- you want, and not lay upon the country a much heavier burden than would be incurred if you were to wait till the slow process of annual votes brought the money that was necessary. But if these works are necessary, and I think common sense will show you that they are, they are necessary as soon as you can get them. They are ne- cessary for the time present. It would be folly to postpone for eighteen or twenty years the completion of a security against dangers which may not, indeed, arise, but which may be contemplated as possible, and if they be possible, they may be so within a comparatively short period of time. This is a course which I know is in some degree a departure from usual practice."

Admitting the impropriety of raising loans for the annual expenses of the country, he drew a distinction between current and permanent outlay. Parliament had given individuals the means to borrow for public works which were also permanent improvements of landed properties, and allowed the repayment to be spread over long periods. He was convinced that this was sound policy, and equally as applicable to the state as to individuals. Coming' to the question, and commencing with the necessity of the works, he said :- ' With regard to the necessity of these works, I think it is impossible for any man to cast his eyes ov r the faze of Europe, and see and hear what is passing, and not be convinced that future is not free from danger. It is difficult to say where the storm may b t, but the horizon is charged with clouds, which betoken the possibility of a tem t. I am aware that the House knows I am now mainly speaking of our immetE to neighbours across the Channel. There is no use in dis- guising the matter. It s in no unfriendly spirit I am speaking. Nobody has any right to take offence at 'the conclusions and reflections which are purely founded upon the principle of self-defence. It is trim we have recently concluded a treaty of commercial relations with France. (Ironical cheers and laughter from the Op- position.)

Rebuking the " le ty " of the Opposition bench, the speaker expounded the value of treaties.

" They are not arra ments without great value. It is perfectly well known,

and, I am sore, proved by experience, that nations which have with each other great commercial intercourse, nations in which large interests are involved in the maintenance of peace, are less likely to fall out and become antagonists than nations between whom these ties are not cemented. But at the same time these things are not brought about all at once. A great nation, whose energies have not hitherto been directed to commerce—a great nation, whose achievements and glories have induced them to turn to warlike operations, cannot be expected, on a sudden, to be entirely free from all her former habits, and at once to understand all the benefits and advantages which arise from peaceful and commercial relations. I hope much from that treaty. But that treaty alone would be a frail security for a great nation with mighty and extensive interests, with great wealth, with shores more open to attack than the land frontier of any country."

It would be folly to rely on the effects of the commercial treaty. Is there nothing in the state of Europe to lead us to think that we may be called n n to defend ourselves from hostile attack ? France had an army of

10,000 men ; 400,000 actually under arms, and 230,000 who were on fur- lough, and might be called into active service in a fortnight. It was too great an army to be required simply for defensive purposes and no nation would unprovoked attack France. He did not mean to say that the French army was "raised for the deliberate purpose of aggression : but the possession of the power to aggress frequently gives the desire to do so." We cannot rely on the forbearance of a stronger neighbour; • our means of defence must be proportionate to his means of aggression. It was not only in men but in ships also that France exceeds our means of defence, for she has made ex- ertions to create a navy nearly equal to our own, and it could land consider- able bodies of troops on our shores- " While, on the one hand, the French navy has increased beyond any amount which it has reached since the end of the last war, ournavy has, through the change from sailing-ships to steam, necessarily diminished in number. We had at one time as I have stated, upwards of 100 line of battle-ships, at another 84 ; but they were all sailing ships. Sir John Pakington, when First Lord of the Admiralty, did very good service by proceeding to substitute steam line of battle ships for sailing ships. I trust that we are going on in the same course, and that in time we shall re- establish our navy upon the same footing of superiority to that of any foreign power which I hold to be absolutely necessary to our existence as a nation." Again deprecating the idea of our trusting to the forbearance of our neighbours, the speaker pointed out the difference between a constitutional country and an absolute monarchy, and examined the exact dangers to which we were exposed:- ` They are of two kinds. The dangers to which we are exposed would—I say nothing of our colonies or foreign possessions—be those of invasion, for two pur- poses. One is that of greed, or the hope of conquest—that I think no county would imagine to be possible. Much has been said about getting possession of the metropolis—of levying heavy contributions ; and, by overbearing the spirit and hopes of the country, dictating in the capital terms of peace that would be ignomi- nious to the country and advantageous to the invaders. A third, and I think a much more probable attempt would be, by a sudden attack by sea and byland ; or by land, if our sea defences were too strong, to get possession of our naval arsenals—the cradles of our naval strength—the cradles of the navy, which is our national strength; and by striking at the root of our naval power, to lay us open afterwards to other measures which they might be inclined or able to effect. I say that I dis- miss the notion that any foreign power could have an idea of conquering this coun- try with a view to its ultimate or permanent retention, because that could never enter into the mind of any man. No doubt London might be occupied. Well, London is too vast a space to be surrounded by artificial defences. You cannot fortify so vast a circumference ; London must be defended in the field. There are strong natural positions close to London, which skilfully taken advantage of, might enable a smaller force to resist a larger force, and successfully to repel invasion. And there is this to be said, that whatever amount of force an enemy might land upon our shores, so long as we retain our naval power, that force would ulti- mately be lost, because its connexion would be cut off, its supplies would be im- possible, and sooner or later that force would be compelled to surrender as prisoaers of war."

Much mischief would be done, though no permanent injury. But,-

" if the dockyards were destroyed, our Navy is cut up by the routs; because then, if a naval action were to take place, whatever the result might be, while the enemy would have his dockyards, his arsenals, and his stores, to refit, replenish, and re- construct his navy—your basis is gone, your dockyards are burnt, your stores have disappeared, and you have no means of refitting a fleet to sail again to meet the enemy. If you once lose the command of the sea, what becomes of this country2" import mport annually ten millions of quarters of grain ; enormously coffee, sugar, tea, and cotton ; our exports amount to more than 100 millions sterling. Our wealth depends upon the exportation of our manufactures : what would become of us if London, Liverpool, and Bristol were blockaded by hostile forces ? London must be defended in the field; is too vast to fortify. Some gentlemen thought our military establishments already too large, but :- " If London were in danger, what you would want would be to fight one, two, or it might be three battles—I have no doubt the first would be sufficient—(cheers)- but to fight a battle with the greatest possible amount of military force against the forces that might be brought to attack you. But for that purpose, in order to have the largest possible amount of military force to meet an enemy in the field, you must make such arrangements thatanu need have the smallest amount possible of mili- tary force to defend those important positions, your dockyards and arsenals. If there are no national defences, and you are obliged to keep at such places a force sufficient to meet in the field the forces that might be brought in array against you, it it obvious that, to scatter your small amount of military means, that you would probably not be able to concentrate for the defence of London that amount of force that would be necessary to meet an invading army. Therefore, it is most important to have fortifications for your dockyards, the effect of which would be to equalize, by artificial means, for the purpose of resistance, a smaller force within and a larger force without ; so that those fortifications of your dockyards are, in fact, the means of defence for London, rendering unnecessary the concentration of a large force for the defence of those arsenals, and leaving a larger force for the defence of Lou- don by operations in the field."

Nor can we confine our attention to London alone, Liverpool, Bristol, and Newcastle would also require protection.

" Those towns partake M a great degree of the nature of London—that is to say, they contain a vast population, for the supply of which it would be difficult to pro- vide if they were surrounded by walled inclosures ; and their suburbs cover a vast space, extending far beyond what might be called the town. You could not have these fortifications with open spaces beyond them free from houses ; and, therefore, to defend those houses by land against forces brought against them by land would be as difficult as to procure the same means of defence for Loudon."

But the taking of Liverpool would not have the same effect as that of London, the capture of which involves " the political existence of the country " an enemy who wished at once to strike a blow would come to London, and-lose no time by attacks on the extremities. Measures for the protection of Liverpool and other commercial ports had been taken against the only attacks likely to be made by small squadrons coming to levy con- tributions. Many gentlemen think the sum proposed by the commissioners is too large, and therefore the speaker examined the outlay of other coun- tries. That portion of the proposed outlay for floating armaments would come out of the annual votes, and in the course of four years artillery enough, in the ordinary course, would be provided. Instead, therefore, of 'eleven the Government proposed an outlay of nine millions, of which 1,835,0001. would be expended in purchase of land, a part only of which would be covered with works, the rest would be profitably available :- "That would reduce the actual sum for works to 7,153,0001. Now, what has France done in regard to defences ? France is not a country so likely to be invaded or requiring so much defence as England ; its only accessible frontier lies through Switzerland on one aide and Belgium on the other ; because an attack upon France by the Alps, or from Spain and the Pyrenees, is now out of the question. But in 1841 the French Assembly voted 13,255,0001. for works, of which the fortifications of Paris alone cost 5,600.000/. And that I am told was not done by contract to be paid in the usual way; but the workmen employed were soldiers, who probably re- ceived only the pay due to them in that capacity. Well, Cherbourg has cost, from first to last, 8,032,000/. France now feels that the great improvement in cannon, the greater range of missiles, has rendered both Cherbourg and Toulon less secure from attack at sea than they were before. Further works at Cherbourg are going on which I have included in that eight millions ; but at Toulon other works are in progress which will cost 475,000/. In the Netherlands, at the end of the war, it was deemed right to improve and extend the works on the frontier, and now forming part of Belgium ; and there was spent on those fortresses 6,409,000/. There was no land to purchase ; works already existing merely had to be improved • and less bad to be done, comparatively speaking, than we have to do in the works proposed. But how are the Germans off in regard to defensive works ? Why, the fortresses of Cobleutz, of Haulm, and of Radstadt, have cost three millions sterling—necessary and important for them, no doubt, those fortresses are ; Posen, Thorogstadt, and another fortress, not yet finished, will cost 2,800,0001. The works of Aleseandria, in Italy, have cost nearly seven millions of francs. Russia has laid out on her fortifi- cations 7,255,0001., of which two millions belonged to Croustadt. But Russia is not inactive now. During the whole of this winter most energetic means have been taken still further to strengthen that fortress. Two thousand carts have been em- ployed all the winter through in conveying over the ice immense masses of stone, in blocks of 24 feet square, and placiug them upon the ice, so that they may sink when the thaw comes, and make the barrier more effectual to Cronstadt on the northern coast. I say, then, when every other country is alive to the possibility of attack, and is laying out immense sums in its defence, it really would be criminal in this country to neglect doing something of the same kind, fur the purpose of defending those important positions on our coast." Applauding the rifle volunteers, who numbered 130,000, he had no doubt if necessary, we could have a number " manifold greater " than now. De- scribing the proposed course as to raising the money, the speaker said " TM course which we propose to take is this—we do not ask the Ilouse to vote at once the 9,000,0001., which we think necessary for the completion of the works. The works must necessarily be spread over three or four years, and we think that 2,000,000!. are as much as can be advantageously expended between the present time and this time twelve months. We have therefore limited the present demand to that amount, reserving it to ourselves, if we should be in office, or to those who may succeed us, to apply to Parliament for such successive portions of the 9,000,000/. as may be found necessary in the course of each successive year. There will be an an account laid before Parliament each year of the appropriation of the money so voted. I propose to bring in a hill, which will be au Appropriation Act, for the purpose, by which the money so raised shall be put into a separate account, to be kept separate from the account of the ordinary revenue of the country; that the money shall be strictly applicable to this purpose, and to no other ; and that an annual account shall be laid before Parliament for each instalment. 1 do not pre- tend to say exactly what may be the annual interest payable on these 9,000,0001.; that will :depend upon the nature of the market. But it happens that there are terminable annuities which were raised for a period of forty-four years in the year 1823, which will expire in 1867. They involve an annual payment of 580,0001. It is unite clear, whatever may be the rate of interest at which these terminable an- nuities may be disposed of, that the aggregate charge will fall far short of 5a0,000/., so the only additional charge beyond that now incurred, which will arise fi ...I this measure, will be limited to the period of time between this and the year IBG7. In 1867, these terminable annuities will drop in, and from that period to the end of the thirty years the money at present appropriated to the payment of these annui- ties will in part be chargeable with the interest of the money now raised. 1 tin •. that the course we have proposed is one which, whilst on the one hand it prove e adequately for the defence of the important positions of the country, involve on other hand as small a charge as possible on the country. The 2,000,000/. wide we propose to raise in the present year will apply more or less to all the different places which are pointed out in the report of the Commissioners. IL is obvious that it will not be sufficient to undertake all the works ; but, as all are not to be under- taken at once, we think that 2,000,000/. will he sufficient for the purpose. A schedule will be laid before Parliament which will show in what proportion that 2,000,0001. will be divided between these different places." With a peroration of great eloquence, in which his Lordship declared that the Government neglecting this duty would be guilty of " a high crime and misdemeanour, and deserve, and I say it in sadness and seriousness, the penalty of impeachment," he moved amid loud cheers:— "That it is the opinion of this Committee that towards providing for the con- struction of works fur the defence of the royal dockyards and arsenal of the ports of Dover and Portsmouth and the creation of a central arsenal, a sum of money not exceeding 2,000,0001. shall be charged upon the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom, and that the commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by annuities for a term not exceeding thirty years, such annuities to be charged also to the consolidated fund." Mr. HUBBARD questioned whether the form of terminable annuities were most economical ; a sacrifice of 5 or 10 per cent on the total sum would be required; out of the whole twelve millions one would be thrown away. Mr. BRIGHT, complaining of want of notice for the resolution, urged that while the proposed expenditure was 2,000,0001. the real outlay would be double.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT furnished details. The Government proposed to commence with the defences of Portsmouth. It had been stated that its de- fence should be by a fleet (Hear ! from Sir Marks Napier.) But we must defend that which makes the fleet, by something better than the fleet which is made by it. At Portsmouth the Government proposed :— " To fortify the Needles, the landing places in the Isle of Wight, which was pro- perly the breakwater of Portsmouth. They took three out of the five points pro- posed for the defence of Spithead, and when they knew that it was possible by means of steam vessels to snake a rapid incursion into Spithead, and that merchant vessels took refuge there in bad weather, it was important that this place should be pro- perly defended. They proposed to complete the works at Gosport, and to finish the other works at Portsmouth. The cost of the whole works for Portsmouth, when complete, would be 1,920,0001., including the purchase of land. Of this sum they proposed to spend about 510,000/. in the present year. On Plymouth and the sur- rounding bays they proposed to spend 1,200,0001., of which 300,0001. was to be spent in the present year. On Pembroke and the landing places in the neighbourhood they proposed to spend 220,0007., of which 130,000/. was to be spent in this year. He thought no gentleman would deny that whatever was to be done in this way ought to be done at once. It was proposed to expend 180,0001. on the defence of the Thames, and the same remark applied to the Medway and Chatham ; at Dover and Portland also it was pmpesed to erect large works. The only place which re- mained to be mentioned was Cork, where there was a magnificent harbour, and where it was proposed to commence works to put that harbour in a good state of defence, at a coat of 20,000/. for the present year. The effect of all this would be to involve the nation in an expenditure which would amount as nearly as possible to 5,000,0001. for the works which they proposed to commence thisyear. (Hear.)

Excluding everything perishable from the calculations of the Government, such as cannon and floating batteries, as not proper to be charged on another generation even in the form of terminable annuities, the estimates would be found sufficient.

General PEEL thought Government and not individual members were responsible. " It had been a great fault of former administrations that where great errors were committed, one never was able to put one's hand upon the persona who were in fault. In this manner large sums of money had been thrown away ; but he did hope that now they should have some responsible person with regard to the manner in which those large sums of money were spent. It should be borne in mind that in addition to these fortifications a large addition would be required to the regular army, as the total number of her Majesty's forces available for the defence of England and India was only 245,000 men. The largest number required for the defence of India was 80,000; for the defence of the colonies and our dependencies about 40,000. That would leave 125,000 regular trhops in this country. If they added to these 17,000 pensioners who would be available for garrison duty, and be quite as good as any other troops for that purpose, and that portion of the 80,000 troops required for India who would be in depOt in this country, they would be able to bring into the field at a short notice 80,000 regular troops with the finest artillery in the world, and when they added to them the militia and that magnificent army of volunteers which was now springing up, and which he hoped would be increased and properly organized, he thought there was no reason for alarm. The defence of the country depended materially on the organization of the army of reserve, and he must say that he was not satisfied that the organization which his right bonoumble friend proposed for the militia would render them as efficient as they ought-to he. He had no doubt they would be made as efficient as any body of men could be made who had only twenty-eight days' drill in a year, but his opinion was their army of reserve ought to consist entirely of regular drilled soldiers. Depend upon it if their reserves were ever required they would have little notice. Wars were not carried on as they used to be. They did not have six months' notice of a war now. It was a word and a blow, and the blow might come first. As their militia was at present constituted he was afraid it would not be efficient. Mr. B. OSBORNE supported Mr. Bright's complaint of haste, and want of notice.

" This report had been in the hands of the Government since February 7. Since then they had had a budget brought forward. Most material statements had been made in the budget, the Ministry knowing at the time that this demand of 11,500,0001. was to be made ; and yet, on the 23d of July, the House was called upon for the first time to take the matter into consideration, and to give an imme- diate vote, under the influence of a panic. ("No.") Yes, because the delay of three or four days could not be of any possible moment, seeing that these fortifica- tions could not be completed in less than four years. Now, with regard to the pub- lication of this report, the right honourable gentleman said that in a constitutional government they were obliged to make these statements. He did not assent to that doctrine. He thought there ought to be secrecy in warlike operations, and that publishing their weakness to the world was inviting attack. When Wellington formed the famous lines of Torres Vedras he did not inform the enemy of them, and until Messina found himself confronted by them, no one was aware of their exis- tence. Those lines of Torres Vedras saved the liberties of the world, because if Spain and Portugal had fallen at that time, the whole world world have been with- in the grasp of Napoleon. Therefore, he said that he for one looked at the publica- tion of this report as most mischievous."

Mr. DISRAELI doubted the wisdom of the plan suggested for raising the money. Lord PALMERSTON consenting, progress was reported, and the discussion adjourned for a week.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

On going into committee, Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR moved that the Church Discipline Act should be amended. He mentioned some facts indicating great research :-

These Courts were still between 200 and 300 in number, 56 of them being diocesan courts. Of the judges of those tribunals a large proportion were clergymen ; and on the authority of Lord Cranworth he might say that in nine cases out of ten the reverend gentlemen were not properly qualified for their office. When the bill of the noble viscount's Government was introduced in 1856 there was great jealousy on the part of the bishops at the increased powers that were proposed to be given to the chancellors ; but the object of the bill was only to restore those functionaries to their ancient importance. It was proposed to reduce their number to six, and to pay them, not by fees, but by salaries of sufficient importance to attract to the office judges of an ability calculated to bring the ecclesiastical law of the country into a creditable position. It appeared to him that in addition to their judicial functions they might be well employed in the consolidation of the laws which they would have to administer ; but that no such task 'ought to be undertaken by judges who were not appointed by the Crown. From the reports of the committee of 1850 on fees, it appeared that out of ninety judges seventeen were minors, and that a large proportion of the whole number disCharged theirjudicial functions by deputy. The registrar E

of Norwich was the Reverend E. Bathurst, who was appointed at the age of ten, in June 1825, and his income was 14271. 8s. 9d. per annum. The registrar of London was the Reverend R. Watson, appointed at the age of eight, on the 20th of July, 1776, and receiving 4951. a year. The registrar of Winchester, Mr. Brownlow North, was appointed in December, 1817, at the age of seven, in reversion, and of fifteen when he came in possession of his office ; his income was 8601. The amount levied on the public by these courts was 49,2151. in England and Wales alone, many of the fees being illegal and some of them quite contrary to the canons. The gross revenue of the Prerogative Court in the year ending the 30th of March, 1848, was 30,8321., of which 3,9001. was paid to the judge, and 85001. to the registrar, who did nothing whatever for the money ;the duties of this office being discharged by deputies who received separate salaries. The motion was negatived without a division, but not before Sir G. GREY had indicated the intention of Government to introduce a bill, for the reform of these courts, next session.

SYRIA.

In the Commons on Monday, Sir JAMES FERGUSON, referring to the Constitidionnel of Saturday on the subject of Syria, asked the Foreign Secretary several questions, the drift of which may be gathered from the reply.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL declined to enter into the statement of foreign newspapers, but he supplied a narrative of proceedings in Syria- " Some time ago, upon an account being received of massacres near the coast committed by the Druses, orders were sent by the Admiralty that Admiral Martin should proceed to the coast of Syria, and put himself in communication with the consuls, and that if it should be found necessary in order to stay the progress of the massacre, he should be authorized to land the marines of his fleet. After that, other accounts were received of a still more dreadful character. There came accounts of a massacre in Deir- el-Ramer -, and that transaction was marked with some peculiar features. Statements were received from various quarters that the Pacha who was in command of the town informed the Christians that he expected an attack would be made on them by the Druses, who were encamped at a short dis- tance ; and he therefore advised them to come into the place. They did so ; the Christians were then assembled, and he advised them to give up their arms, as the Druses had made that demand. The arms were accordingly given up, and they were sent away apparently with the view of being taken to Damascus ; but they were all captured by the Druses. After that the Pacha ordered the Christians to be confined within a building at the centre of the town, where they were kept for eight days with very little food, till they became in a very weak condition. He then assembled them all in the 'court and ordered the gates to be thrown open. The Druses entered, armed with muskets and swords, and they cut down and killed nearly the whole of these unhappy people. Some few escaped and fled to Beyrout, where they related what had occurred. A gentleman who was well acquainted with some of the Druse chiefs was prevailed on to go to one of them and en- deavour to stay the progress of the massacre. He accordingly saw the chief who told him that he had been opposed to this attack upon the Christians ; that he had said all he could against it and could say no more ; that he had no influence, and that the massacres would probably continue. On his re- turn to Beyrout, this gentleman saw the town and described the streets as being strewed with dead bodies. The stench from them was terrible ; and the Druses went about with their heads partly covered for the purpose of saving them from the stench; but at the same time they were plundering, laughing, and joking amidst the horrors of the scene. There seemed to be a

impression mpression among the Europeans on the coast that the Turks, for some reason which I will not now discuss, had not done, either at Beyrout or in other places, all that they might in order to stay these massacres, and that they had appeared to show more sympathy with the Druses than with the unhappy victims of their ferocious attacks. Soon afterwards accounts were received of a rise at Damascus, in which 500 Christians had been killed, including-but that report might not be true-one of the consuls." Lord John stated the substance of the communications between the French Ambassador and himself on the subject of an intervention by Eu- ropean troops :-

" I paid I would consult the Cabinet, and give him an answer the same evening. The answer which I gave him, in concurrence with the opinion of the Cabinet, was, that seeing the accounts which had been received, her Majesty's Government could not object to European troops being despatched to Syne. We were of opinion, however, that as we hoped to be able to send asquadron it would not be necessary to send English troops; that Austria might send some troops, but that the force would of course be chiefly French. I added, that her Majesty's Government were of opinion that, in order to regulate the proceedings, especially with regard to the time of the stay of the troops, it would be necessary to have a convention, and that, above all, the Porte should be a party to that convention. At the same time, I said that, if the principle of the convention were agreed to, I did not Link it would be necessary to wait for the arrangement of all the details,. or for the signature of the document before the expedition sailed, supposing the ur- gency to be great and the lives of the Christians to be in jeopardy, The communication of her Majesty's Government was transmitted to Paris, and the other Powers were at the same time, or immediately afterwards, con- sulted. I have been informed by the French Government that Austria and Russia had agreed, and that the Foreign Minister of Prussia had concurred, but had stated that he must take the orders of the Prince Regent, who was at Baden. The European Powers generally appear, therefore, to have agreed, but we have not yet received any information as to what the Porte is prepared to do. We have thought that, under the circumstances' it would be impossible not to agree that a corps of European troops should be sent to Syria ; but it is still a matter of negotiation what shall be the terms of the convention, what shall be the stay of the French troops, and what the manner in which they shall proceed. We were informed, on Saturday last, that French troops had been ordered for service ; but a convention must first be made with the Powers of Europe and with the consent of the Porte. If the honourable and gallant gentleman asks me as to the accounts we have received stating that the country has been pacified and that peace has been made, I can only say we have had a telegram from Constantinople, stating that peace had been signed between the Druses and the Marinates

i on the 10th instant, but those were all the words of the despatch, and we have received no confirmation of them."

NAVAL PROMOTION AND RETTREKENT.

On Tuesday, Sir Sons PAKINGTON moved for the appointment of a Royal Commission "to consider the present system of promotion and re- tirement in her Majesty's Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of naval officers." He did not bring forward this proposal in a party spirit, but on the grounds of justice. First, an improved system has become necessary to the welfare of the naval service, and the Ad- miralty proposal is not satisfactory. His experience at the Admiralty had taught him that the service had reached " a state of absolute stagnation." He had received letters from officers of all ranks objecting to the plan of the Admiralty. "One of the writers states that he was an officer in the navy before my noble friend opposite was born, but did not obtain his commission as lieutenant until my noble friend bad been two years in the service. Another informs me that he served nineteen years as mid- shipman and mate before he obtained his lieutenant's commission, but now all that service was to be disregarded. Surely that was a great and manifest hardship." He also thought the arrangement as to the coast- guard unsatisfactory ; one of his correspondents stated that under the new system of retirement his thirty-four years' service would only count as seven-and-a-half. He could multiply such instances. The commis- sion, of which the Duke of Wellington was the head in 1840, recom- mended an increase in the rates of sea-pay allowed to navy lieutenants ; and the commission also considered and reported as unsatisfactory the pay of captains. There were six classes of ships ; formerly a captain of a sixth-rate received 3001. a year, and the captain of a first-rate 8001., but that is now changed, and the rating of the ship makes no difference in the captain's pay. One of his correspondents said :-

" I question if 40001. would repay me for what all my ships cost me from the day I was made commander until I got my flag, and I had seven differ- ent fresh commands."

The writer of this letter would be regarded by the officers of the Navy generally as a fortunate man ; and, without reference to his inte- rest or his position, I doubt whether the profession would not say he is the most brilliant and best officer we have. He had what is usually called the good luck to obtain seven commands between his commander's rank and his flag. How little do the profession suppose that these advantages, as they are termed, have been gained at a cost to his own pocket of 40001. The next letter comes from an officer also of high distinction, now commanding one of our block-ships. He wrote- " I have dipped heavily into my small private means to arrive at and keep up my position, and unless there were a naval war, when I would live on bare ship's allowance rather than not serve, I could not afford to take a more active command than that I at present hold, from the feeling that I should be unable to support my _position as it ought to be maintained in the service afloat, and at the same time do justice to my children ; and I know of many officers who are similarly circumstanced.' "

A captain, on receiving his commission, is put to an expense of 3001. or 400/. ; he is obliged to exercise hospitality to others. An officer wrote to him-

" This distressing and undignified position I have personally experienced

in the ship you gave me a commission to At this time, an American commodore and other foreign ships were at anchor in the bay, when, of course, the usual civilities of calling, &c., were exchanged, and I was fre- quentli invited to dine on board one or other of these ships, when I was at once p aced in the painful and perplexing position of accepting these invi- tations without the means of returning them, or refusing them, and feeling ashamed to state the plain reason, that my country did not pay me sufficiently to enable me to return their hospitality. This is the position every cap- tain or commander commanding a ship is more or less subject to on receiv- ing an appointment-a position which I feel confident the House of Com- mons will never 'permit the captains of the English Navy to be placed in when it is fairly pointed out to them-and is a complete corroboration of your statement in the House."

He had received a statement of the payments of the service of France. " A French lieutenant in command receives 15f. a day as table money, which is equal to 12s. 6d., and his daily pay is 73. ; total, 19a. 6d. An English lieutenant receives, daily pay, Ils. ; light money, 18.; value of rations, 10d. ; total, 12s. 10d., as against 198. 6d. A capitaine de frigate receives, daily pay, 98. 5d. ; table money, 16s.; total, 11. Ss. 5d. An Eng- lish commander receives, daily, 16s. f3d. ; light money and rations, 18.10d. ; total, 188. 4d., as against 11. 5s. 5d."

Recapitulating the pay of the various descriptions of officers -in the Navy, Sir John concluded by earnestly asking for the commission ; and

reminded the House of the celebrated expression in the Wellington re- port, "contented and therefore efficient." Sir Id. SEYMOUR. seconded, and Captain TALBOT supported the motion. Lord C. PAOET twitted Sir J. Pakington, when himself in office, with not having redressed the grievances of which he now complained ; he had produced a scheme as to chaplains which was an utter failure. In com- parison with the rates of the sister service, the Admiralty plan was a fair one. " I admit that we, who were born with silver spoons in our mouths, have had great advantages over many gallant and meritorious officers."

"If vou appoint a Royal commission, it will be taken throughout the Navy that you are going to adopt a grand scheme to improve the position and increase the pay of all officers in the service. I hold that that would be en unwholesome proceeding. I maintain that, upon a comparison of the Navy with the Army, as a general rule, officers in the Navy are as fairly paid as officers in the sister service. I will just refer to the case which my right honourable friend has brought 'before the House' by which he sought to show that the pay of captains in the Navy is not commensurate with their position, and that they are compelled to incur great expenses in show- ing hospitality as incidents of their position. But, supposing that the right honourable gentleman has this strong feeling for captains, any one would believe that when such cases came before him, when he was in office, he would immediately have taken up the matter and have adopted steps to re- medy those grievances. When he alluded to this case the other night, I went back to the Admiralty, expectinse that I should find he had taken some steps while he was at the Board. I did find a very respectful memorial drawn up by a captain of a line-of-battle ship, setting forth his expenses, and urging that his pay was inadequate to his expenditure. I looked to see what the right honourable gentleman had done. I found that all the other members of the then Board of Admiralty expressed strong opinions that the pay should be increased ; but when the memorial reached the right honour- able baronet, I only found the word 'Read.' That was all the notice he then took of a very respectful memorial which was laid before him."

Next year the Admiralty intend to propose some allowance to cap- tains. Captains in the English Navy have allowances for plate, linen, &c., which are not granted in the French navy. As to the reserved cap- tains, the position of those officers, according to the Admiralty scheme is this

" Reserved captains, who have served less than nine years, will continue to receive the half-pay which they may be receiving at the time of retirement. Officers who have served over 9 years and under 12 will receive 10s. 6d. per day ; those who have served over 12 and under 15 years' 128. 6d. per day ,• those who have served over 15 and under 20 years, 148.6d. per day ; and those who have served more than 20 years, 16s. 6d. per day. I beg the honourable Member for Portsmouth's attention to this. Every reserved cap- tain who has served at sea above 20 years will receive an addition of 6s. a-day to his half-pay."

No dissatisfaction exists in the Navy, and Sir John trusted the House would negative the motion. Sir Jamas Esenriesposrs supported the motion. He quoted the figures of the American service :-

A senior captain received, 11771. per annum ; a captain in charge of a squadron, 1041/. ; all other captains, 9111. 9s. 2d. ; commanders who had served five years, 6501. 58. ; those who had commanded less, 5881. 108. 10d. ; lieutenants after 13 years, 4681. 168. 11d. ; after 11 years, 4161. 13s. 4d. ; after 9 years, 396/. 103. fid. ; after 7 years, 3541. 3s. 4d. ; under 7 years, 3121. 108. ; mates, 1721. 18s. 4d. Lieutenants after 13 years' service got 181. a-year more than post captains in the British Navy ; junior lieutenants more than commanders ; and mates within a few pounds as much as com- manders. (Lord C. Paget-" Read the half-pay.") Captains on leave or waiting for orders, which answered to our half-pay, got for the first five years $1900, and for the second, $2016 ; lieutenants received from $1200 to $1450.

Sir C. NAPIER, Mr. COCHRANE, and Mr. LINDSAY supported, and Sir F. Baring and Mr. Whitbread opposed it. Sir J. Pakington having re- plied, the House divided. For 56. Against 89. Majority against 33.

PACKET AND TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS.

Mr. DUNLOP moved resolutions to bring these contracts under the more effectual controul of the House. The question involved a million per annum; the contracts were made, but did not commence till a year or more afterwards, when the votes were taken. In dealing with the sub- ject he did not wish to allude to any special contract, but he might nevertheless be permitted to glance for a moment at the case of the Cunard contract in support of the views which he entertained. That contract, which was, he believed, carried out in the most admirable and successful manner, had been renewed in 1858, so that, instead of expiring in 1862, as it would have done if it had been allowed to run its regular course, it would not come to an end until 1867. The Canadian Govern- ment represented to our own, that injustice was done to them by this contract. In the case of the Red Sea and Indian telegraph the agree- ment had been confirmed by a private bill ; but the agreement itself was not recited either in the bill or in the schedule, and was not added till it reached the House of Lords ; yet this was a contract involving a charge of 41 per cent. on a capital of 600,0001. for a period of fifty years. The Acts of Parliament passed in the case of the Atlantic Telegraph Company contained clauses enabling the Government to enter into agreements un- fettered by any limitation whatever ; and, being private bills, these un- usual powers passed without attracting the attention of the House.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed generally with the reso- lutions and after observations from Mr. ROEBUCK, Sir G. C. LEWIS, and Mr. Horn, they were agreed to by the House.

Poor-Lew CowrixuANCE BILL.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, on going into Committee, Mr. BAZLEY moved an amendment on the first and only clause of this bill, that the continuance of the Board should be for one year instead of five years, as proposed; he grounded his objection upon the defects of the Poor-law Act, but was not opposed to a Central Board, if more discre- tion were given to guardians. Mr. S. Esreounr defended the Poor-law Board, which was at issue only with guardians in certain localities. It was necessary to provide some check upon local boards. Mr. DEEDES moved another amendment, limiting the Board to an existence of three years, but he did so to promote an inquiry within that period. Mr. OSBORNE heartily defended the Poor-law Board, " the administration of which under all Governments had been excellent ;" a saving of 33,000,0001. had been effected to property, and 150,0001. a year in law expenses alone. Mr. T. Dom:oaths, Mr. Donsors, and Mr. ADDERLEY, were in favour of inquiry. Sir W. Mimes would ask for the five years if the Government would grant an inquiry. Mr. Vmumts had expected some charges to have been made against the Board. In the absence of any charge, the real issue was the existence of a central authority The question was not started, as formerly, by those who represented the poor, or by those whose properties were taxed for their relief, but it was considered, in the words of the Member for Manchester, an obnoxious au- thority by some of these local administrators of the law who were impa- tient of the control of the Central Board, and wanted to return to the old system of local and uncontrolled management, the effects of which in i

former times were recorded in many volumes in the House, and which, as Members knew, terminated in a kind of servile insurrection, and which forced upon the Government the great reform that was effected. The House, then, ought to be satisfied that if the central authority was weakened or shaken the same evils would not recur which existed before. The old argument in favour of local self-government was adduced on these occasions against the Central Board •, but there was no one more friendly to that system than he was, or would promote it more ; but it was easy to draw the line between things that were properly the subject of local government and those that belonged to the State ; and he ventured to say that the morals, wellbeing, and independence of the poor were properly matters of national concern, and that the State had properly interposed its authority to avert the misery, vice, and mischief that followed from what was called the management by every parish of its own poor, which consisted in every parish resorting to every scheme it could devise to keep down the rates at the expense of the character and welfare of the poor ; and, though it was popular to hold this language still against the interference of the Board, he trusted the State would never again abandon its duties and rights with regard to the poor ; and for this reason he must contend against their being again placed exclusively in the hands of uncertain and irresponsible persons. He proposed the continuance of the national and central authority for a period of five years, because that had been the time for which it had been at first established, and that this had been the period for which it had been continued on the last °melon."

He would not oppose but support the inquiry. The agitation was not spontaneous, but had been stimulated by a union in London ; out of 660 unions only 70 had petitioned against the board. Mr JAMES complained that the board " issued edicts which had the force of acts of Parliament."

Sir G. C. LEWIS defended the board; the resistance to it came not from the poor, but from local, medical, and other officers. Medical authorities sought to make a sort of " medical established church," and to have medical endowments diffused over the country of which any person might take advantage.

Colonel Palms, Sir join; SHELLEY, and Mr. BRIGHT, pointed out the necessity of changes in the board. Lord PALMERSTON urged the ne- cessity of prolonging the existence of the board for five years, without regard to changes which the government would bring in next session. Mr. BAZLEY withdrew this amendment. The Committee divided on Mr. Deedes'a amendment. For, 147; against, 92; majority, 55.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.

On going into Committee on the bill, Sir jolts Amsorr condemned the Irish Poor-law. " It was enormously expensive, nearly half of the whole funds being absorbed in the expenses of the administration, yet the streets still swarmed with beggars. While 4,+ per cent of the popu- lation in England, and 4 per cent in Scotland, received relief, the per- centage was only I in Ireland. The convicts, the prisoners, the insane, were carefully watched over, but woe to the helpless poor who were sane and honest, for they had no friends. The time had come when an entire change in the Poor-law Administration of Ireland was absolutely ne- cessary. Such a change need not be accompanied by an increase of ex- pense, for, judiciously administered, the present rates were amply sufficient. A small trifle of ls. a-week of out-door relief would give to many an opportunity of earning something by their industry, while it would amount to much less than their maintenance in the workhouse. The present workhouses, if outdoor relief were judiciously administered, might be reserved for hospitals. He trusted that the Secretary for Ire- land would next year meet Parliament with a more humane and eco- nomical system of Poor-law administration, so that Ireland might be re- lieved from a system so discreditable to civilization and humanity."

Mr. Osnonsrs: said the Irish Poor-law was " the most infamous system " ever foisted on any country. Ho asked for a searching in- quiry. Mr. CARDWELL admitted the propriety of inquiry ; and after several divisions the bill was reported.

NAPLES AND SICILY.

Mr. D. Gareerrx, on Tuesday, asked the Foreign Secretary whether he knew if the King of Naples had ordered the evacuation of Sicily to avoid a civil war ?

Lord J. RUSSELL.-" I have received a telegram from her Majesty's Minister at Naples, saying that the King of Naples had ordered that Messina and other parts of Sicily, still occupied by his troops, should be evacuated. With respect to the honourable gentleman's second question, I have to say that the Neapolitan Minister, at present in London, in- formed me that the Neapolitan Envoy at Turin had had an interview with Count Cavour, and after that interview, the King of Sardinia sent an aide-de-camp to Sicily with a message to General Garibaldi. What the purport of the message was I am not informed."

In the- House of Commons on Thursday, Mr. D. Garsrrrir asked if any proposition had been made by the special envoy of the Neapolitan Government for imposing and enforcing an armistice of six months, be- tween Naples and General Garibaldi ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL completing his answer of the previous day, added :- " The honourable gentleman asked me whether an envoy had been sent by the King of Sardinia to Garibaldi, and what was the purport of the mes- sage which he carried. I told him that we were informed that such an en- voy had been sent, but I could not at that time say what was the nature of the message. Since then I have been informed from Turin that the mes- sage which was sent was one from the King of Sardinia to Garibaldi, pro- posing that he should make a truce with the Neapolitan forces, and should engage not to make any expedition against the territories of the King of the Two Sicilies on the mainland. That message was entirely in conformity with the opinion which her Majesty's Government have expressed to the Court of Turin. In answer to the present question, I have to state that it is true that an envoy from the Neapolitan Government has lately arrived in this country, and has proposed to her Majesty's Government that they should mediate between the King of the Two Sicilies and Garibaldi; and that if that mediation, for the purpose of obtaining an armistice, and pro- viding that there should be no attack upon the territories of the King of the Two Sicilies on the mainland, should not be accepted by Garibaldi, force should be used by the Governments of Great Britain and France, with a view of imposing such an armistice upon him. To that proposition her Majesty's Government have declined to assent." (Loud cheers.) Piratic Bum-Doss.

Lord PAL3rEusToN moved that on Tuesday orders of the day shall have precedence of notices of motions, Government orders having the priority. He had fixed Tuesday next as the first Tuesday on which this arrangement should commence. But he found that honourable Members bad motions for that day whom be should be sorry to disappoint, and therefore proposed that it should commence on and after Tuesday, the 7th of August. Mr. DISRAELI denied that the House had refused to assist the Govern-

ment. Thursdays were surrendered without a murmur ; public business also commenced at a quarter instead of half-past four. Now the Govern- ment asked for the only day belonging to Members. - The House had not been fairly treated nor in candour. The Paper-duties Bill should be brought forward so as to allow the widest discussion.

Mr. HADFIELD, Sir G. BOWTER, Mr. MONSELL, Sir W. FARQUHAR, Mr. BENTECCK, Mr. Maims, and Sir G. GREY conducted a discussion princi- pally as to the Paper Duties Bill, upon which the Government was pressed to name the date of introduction.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after reminding the House of the

position of the Savings Banks Bill, which yet contained some minor clauses to be got through, touched the subject of the paper duties. " I will now answer the challenge of the right honourable gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) and the honourable Member (Mr. Bentinek) on the subject of the paper duties. The honourable gentleman said he thought it must have been the

Chancellor of the Exchequer who bad postponed the discussion of this bill in the expectation of carrying it by such postponement ; and he likewise said it was utterly impossible to have a good attendance here on the 6th of August. Now, he is entirely mistaken in both those propositions. I myself have seen an excellent attendance in this House, not on the 6th of August, but on the 1st of September. As for the Chancellor of the Exche- quer being responsible for postponing this business, I think if the honour- able Member were conversant with the interior working and anatomy of any Administration he would know that all the members of the Government are in a state of conflict as to which of them shall bring on his own business first, and it certainly never happens that the person who is departmentally concerned in a bill is the agent in postponing it. Setting aside the com- mercial importance of this question of paper duties, it is a question on which a great deal of interest is concentrated. It is, therefore, a subject which cannot be disposed of in a debate of an hour or tivout we must have

G a clear and unbroken evening to deal with it. The Government are, of course, aware that at this period of the session you cannot expect a large number of gentlemen to remain permanently in town, and they have there- fore thought that they would best consult the general convenience of the House by selecting for the purpose of the discussion an unbroken evening, with regard to which they could give notice some time before, and with a perfect confidence of their ability to carry out the arrangement. That is the principle on which the Government have proceeded."

Sir HUGH CAIRNS thought Mr. Gladstone had given a good reason for pursuing an opposite course ; he would test the Government ; let them put the Paper-duties down for Thursday. Mr. BRIGHT asked for a little more consideration towards the Govern- ment :—" I have risen to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a different sense. I don't ask him to avoid postponing the paper duties be- yond the 6th of August, because all the world is expecting what will be done in this matter; for, after :Al, it is a question of three farthings or seven- eighths of a penny per pound in the Import-duty on paper, and the course which the right honourable gentleman proposes is greatly in favour of the revenue, with which honourable Members opposite so much sympathize. I ask because there is one point which renders it most essential that the ques- tion should be settled. At this moment there are coming. into this country, under the low duty provided for by the specific article in the treaty, very considerable quantities of paper, under the name of paper-hangings, and, I think, card-board, and competing with the paper which is now paying a high duty and a high excise. That state of things cannot be allowed to go on, as it is injurious to trade." Sir L. PALS denied that the Government was unfairly treated. Mr. HORSHAN complained of the public inconvenience arising from the non-attendance of Ministers in their places :—" We are now on the 26th of July, and the most important—the financial portion—of our business has yet to be gone through, and we shall be neglecting our duty if on every occasion we do not obtain from the Government precise information of the course they intend to pursue. We now see daily what is certainly a no- velty; upon one important measure after another the Government is de- feated, and not only submitting to defeat, but positively showing an insen- sibility such as has never been witnessed before. We have never before seen Ministers undergoing defeat without manifesting any opinion or shame, and it is a question whether the House of Commons will allow a state of things to continue which is most injurious to the public interests, and damaging and degrading to all parties concerned." Sir G. C. LEWIS defended himself as a minister, but Mr. B. JOHNSTONE, with a well-timed suggestion, pointed out at once the cause and remedy of the present state of business :—" If honourable Members would make shorter speeches there would be no counts-out, and the public time would not be wasted. They saw the result of these long speeches at the end of the session, when nothing had been done. He had never detained the House for ten minutes, and he hoped he never should. If a Member could not say what he had to say in twenty minutes he ought not to have the ear of the House. He would give Ministers and ex-Ministers an unlimited time for speaking upon great questions ; but twenty minutes was quite long enough for other Members to say all they had to say. ' Lord JOHN RUSSELL letaliog the way with a recapitulation of the buai- new yet to be done, and Sir W. Krises, Mr. M. Miistas, Mr. Vh.Nsrrranz, Mr. Housman., and Sir J. ELPHENSTONE following as to the separate im- portance of individual measures, Mr. CONLVOHAM interposed with the re- mark, " that the House was wasting a Feat deal of time over this discus- sion." Then Sir W. MILES withdrew his motion, and Lord PALMERSTON'S resolution was agreed to.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord DE Garr and RreoN, in reply to the Marquis of BREADALBANS, said it was true that her Majesty intended to review the Volunteer Corps in Scotland and the adjoining parts of England on the 7th of August next. The same course would be pursued with regard to the arrangements for the review of the Scotch corps as was adopted at the recent review in Hyde Park. Those corps which desired to take part in the review must signify that desire to the Secretary for War through the Lords-Lieutenant of their respective counties. Applications for that purpose would be received up to the 1st of August. After a few words from the Duke of BUCCLEUCH, the subject dropped. Lord STRATHEDMN moved the second reading of the Newspapers, &e., Bill. After some discussion, Lord CHELMSFORD moved that the Bill be

read a second time that day three months. On a division, the numbers were—For the second reading, 10 ; against it, 31; so the Bill was lost.

On Tuesday, Lord MALMESEURT drew attention to the extreme im- portance, in a military point of view, of having a double line of rails between Southampton and Dorchester, and asked Lord Granville whether he could inform-the House why the London and South-Western Railway Company had not conformed to the Act of Parliament, which pledged them, when the traffic receipts reached a certain amount, to make such a line ? Lord GRANVILLE said he believed that the traffic receipts had not yet reached the suns specified in the Act. A short conversation took place on the Census (Ireland) Bill between Lords ELLEWBOROUGH, MONTEAOLE, and Gasx-vm.s, as it was passing through committee, on the unnecessary details required by the Bill.

The Census (England) Bill passed through committee. The second reading of the Felony and Misdemeanour Bill, the object of which is to place the practice in the Crown Courts on the same footing, so far as regards the speeches of counsel, as in civil cases, was brought up for a second reading. It gave rise to a short discussion, terminating in a division, when the numbers were for the second reading 13, against it 10; so the Bill was read a second time.

CONvices AT BERMUDA..

In the House of Lords on Thursday, Lord Csiintavox directed attention to the state of the convicts at Bermuda, and drew a deplorable picture of their moral and sanitary treatment and state. Earl GRANVELLE promised inquiry ; probably the Duke of Newcastle would himself undertake the investigation before he returned.

MISCELLANEOUS BUMNESS.

On Monday, the House of Commons went into a Committee of Supply upon the Civil Service Estimates. On the vote for public offices and buildings, the sum of 12001., asked for the erection of a building for the reception of the Wellington car, was objected to by Mr. MILDMAY and other members, and was withdrawn from the vote by Mr. COWPER. The other votes were agreed to without alteration, tut not without much dis- cussion and many objections.

The Maynooth College Bill and the Sheriff Court-houses (Scotland) Bill passed the Committee. The Heritable Securities, &c. (Scotland), Bill was read a third time and passed.

On Tuesday, leave was given to Sir C. WooD to bring in a bill to re- move doubts as to the authority of the senior member of Council, the Governor-General of India, in the absence of the President. On the mo- tion for leave to bring in a bill to extend in certain cases the provisions of the Superannuation Act (1859), Mr. Holism/sic put it to the House whether so many bills ought to bo introduced at so late a period of the session, and without a syllable of explanation. Sir C. WooD shortly ex- plained the object of the bill, and then moved for leave to introduce a. third bill, to extend certain provisions for Admiralty jurisdiction in the colonies to her Majesty's territories in India. Mr. Honssmw repeated his objection, to which Sir C. WooD replied, and leave was given. The- Votes at Elections Bill was read h second time. The Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) Bill passed the Committee. The Turnpike Acts Bill was read a third time and passed.

SIR CHARLES WOOD AND bin. HORSMAN.

In the course of a debate on the Superannuation Act Amendment Bill, Mr. HoussiAN made some personal remarks, which called up Sir CHARLES Woon, in his own vindication- " I have to apologize to the House," he said, " for not being in my lace. I was not far from it, however. I was in the library discussing an Indian question with a supporter of the right honourable gentleman ; but I should certainly have been here had I been aware that these bills were under discus- sion. The right honourable gentleman gave me notice the other evening that he intended to put a question to me in reference to what he called may ' mysterious' disappearance on Thursday last, and, as he has referred to the. subject to-night, I will explain how that happened. I was in my place when the House met on Thursday, and I continued in it until the House went into Committee on the Bankruptcy Bill. I then went into the lobby, and had a long conversation with the honourable member for Perth. Some honourable gentleman came to me, and said that Sir Sichard Aires, was waiting at the door to see me. I think it was the Member for Carnarvon- shire. I went to the door, and found Sir Richard Airey, who was waiting to see me on some military business. I walked with him along the lobby towards the House of Lords, along. St. Stephen's Hall and into Westminster Hall. There was nothing 'mysterious ; ' a score of members must have seen. us. We walked about Westminster Hall, and after that I did go and get some dinner, having been absent from home all day-. There was no mys- tery about it. I did not go out at the back door or the window—a crowd of members saw me go. The right honourable gentleman sent me a note to tell me that he meant to ask a question on the subject, and I was here at a quarter past four o'clock to answer him, but he was not here to put it."

On Wednesday, the Coroners Bill of the Government was withdrawn by Sir G. C_ Lewis. The Gunpowder, &c., Bill passed through commit- tee. On the order of the day for going into committee upon the Eccle- siastical Commission Bill, Sir G. C. LEWIS stated that he should not per- severe with the clause transferring the capitular property to the Ecclesi- astical Commissioners. Lord J. MANNERS urged the further withdrawal of the clause giving increased powers to the Commissioners over episcopal property. Alderman Corr:J.:ism demanded that the bill should be with- drawn altogether, till the accounts of the Commissioners were examined, which, it was stated, were in a very confused state, and had not been au- dited for three years. After some further debate, in which Mr. WALPOLE defended the Commissioners, and declared that much good had resulted from their labours, the House went into committee on the bill. On the 5th clause, Lord J. MANNERS protested against further powers being given to the Commissioners, who had entailed great expenses already on ecclesiastical property, and moved the omission of the clause. Lord J. RUSSELL supported the clause, which could not be omitted without aban- doning all further review of ecclesiastical property: Sir J. GRAHAM re- commended that the powers given to the Commissioners should be dis - cretionary, and not compulsory. After a long debate, this suggestion was adopted, and the clause passed. The next clause, giving the man- agement of capitular property to the Commissioners, was struck out. Clauses up to 15 were agreed to On the 16th clause, entrusting the management of the episcopal property to the Commissioners, con- siderable discussion arose. Ultimately the House divided, and the clause was adopted by In to 41. The rest of the sitting, was occupied by the discussion of the subsequent clauses. CONSOLIDATION OF TUB Caeun..en Lew. Mr. HA.DFIELD asked if the Government proposed to proceed with the seven bills, whichhadcome from the Rouse of Lords. Lord PeLatessrorr said, if it was necessary to go through the bills clause by clause and examine every provision which they contained, it would be impossible ever to consolidate the law ; or the House might take upon trust the accuracy of the consolidation, pass the bills, and, if upon ex- amination, it was found that any of them required amendment, might take them up separately with that object in a future session. He intended, on a future day—probably in the course of a week—to ask the House to deter- mine which of these courses it would adopt. He should hope it would take the latter.

STORES FOR INDIA. Lord ELLEN-Bowman quoting and relying upon the testimony of Mr. Willoughby, who stated that stores were sent out to India without any tequisition from the local governments, asked by whose direction and under whose inspection certain articles of the value of be- tween 30,000/. and 40,0001. of a perishable nature and inferior quality, equal to fifteen years' supply, were sent out to India for the use of the Royal Artillery at Bombay, as mentioned in a letter from the Governor of Bom- bay, dated the 12th of March, 1860, referred to in Mr. Willoughby's dis- patch, page 11, Lords' Parliamentary Paper (242) ? Earl DE GREY and &row admitted that stores should only be sent out on the requisition of the Government ; when he found the charge contained in that report adopted by Mr. Willoughby, a member of the Indian Council, who, he was bound to suppose, from his official position, had taken the ne- cessary pains to test its accuracy—he had deemed it to be his duty to insti- tute the closest inquiry at the War Office into the matter. Having done so, he found that the charge related to the issue of harness to batteries 6 and 7 of Artillery, which were despatched to India in 1857 during the period of the mutiny, and being originally intended to serve as garrison artillery, had not, therefore, been provided with saddlery. In the course of that year it had been found necessary to send out to them saddlery and harness for field equipments, and immediately afterwards a duplicate set of harness had been despatched for those and other batteries in India, in consequence of representations made by officers of Artillery ; but in the case of that du- plicate set—and it should be borne in mind the transaction had taken place before the present Government came into office—he had not been able to discover that any requisition for it had been received from the Indian Go- vernment. An irregularity, therefore, might have been in that instance committed ; but inasmuch as the mutiny was raging at the time, it could hardly de regarded as so great an irregularity as if it were to occur at the present day. Lord ELLENBOROUGH promised to renew his question. In the Commons, Sir DE L. EVA-NS questioned Sir C. Wood upon this matter. Sir C. WOOD said he had written to the War Office on the 12th of May, but had not yet received an answer. " The inquiry was going on." (Laughter.) "My right honourable friend stated the other night that he had addressed a letter to us in November, to which he had not received an answer. The honourable member for Birmingham took notice of that, and said that it was much after the fashion of the India House. Literally, my right honourable friend was correct. No answer was sent to his letter ; but the reason was, that a joint committee of (officers of the Indian and War De- partments was appointed, which fully investigated the mode of supplying stores to India, and placed it upon a proper footing—viz., that colonels of regiments, instead of making requisitions home, shall make them to the local governments, by whom the stores needed shall be obtained from this country. With reference to the subject of the honourable and gallant gentleman's question, I can only say that during the war stores were sent out with the Royal Artillery which were not required. That was owing to the pressure of the mutiny, and would not have occurred in ordi- nary times."

Sprarr Therms. In reply to Mr. Baruirr, the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER said that this bill had the effect of increasing the duties perma- nently, and not by annual votes of the House.

EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) BILL. On the question that the House go into committee, Mr. HENNESSY moved that it be an instruction to the com- mittee, that the half of all vacancies to be filled up in the ranks of the Eu- ropean commissioned officers of her Majesty's line or local troops serving in India be allotted to the sons or orphans of officers, line or local, or the sons or orphans of her Majesty's Civil Service of India; who have served in India and who shall have passed the prescribed examination; and that the re- maining vacancies be filled up by open competition, the successful competi- tors to pass through one of the royal military colleges. Mr. S. HERBERT submitted that the proposition of the honourable member would neither benefit to any extent the persons whom he wished to favour, nor the Indian army itself. A proportion of commissions without purchase were already allotted, as a matter of right, to the orphans of officers or civil servants who had served in India. It was no advantage to any but the rich to give them the privilege of puichasing commissions. He objected to limit the grant of commissions to any particular class on any pretext, upon the principle that the officers were made for the army, and not the army for the officers. The resolution was negatived by a majority of 73 to 15. Sir Jeatzs En- PHLISTONE moved that it be an instruction to the committee, that they have power to make provision for the future regulation, discipline, and pa- tronage of the European forces serving in India. The honourable Member entered at much length into details respecting the management and disci- pline of the Indian army, citing passages from the minutes of Sir J. Wil- loughby and Sir James Anderson, and opposing the proposal for amalga- mating the two armies. The debate was adjourned until Friday.

Mr. Buttner gave notice that on Monday, when the question of the na- tional defences came before the House, he should move, as an amendment, a resolution to the effect that, having regard to the 29,900,000/, which sum the House has either voted or is prepared to vote for our military and naval expenditure, and likewise to the sum of 3,800,000/. to be voted for the Chinese expedition—having regard to this large expenditure, the House would postpone the consideration of our national defences till a future period.

THE VOLUNTEERS. Replying to a question from Earl FonrEseuE, Lord DE GREY and RIPON stated that the Government had it in consideration to grant an increased allowance to adjutants in Volunteer Corps, but did not propose to make any grants for the payment of permanent sergeants, except in the case of those corps of mounted Volunteers whose numbers were not sufficient to require the services of an adjutant. The present number of Volunteers enrolled was 130,000. The Earl of Ettzmionoroet proposed that a rate of one halfpenny in the pound should be levied, at the discretion of the justices of the peace, upon different districts, in order to pay for ad- jutants and other training expenses for the Volunteers. Private subscrip- tions could not, he believed, be relied upon permanently to make sufficient provision for this purpose. Lord Einetevuout did not believe after the re- sults which had been already achieved by the public spirit of the Volunteers that they would suffer the movement to flag in the future for want of sub- scriptions. If anything were calculated to render the movement unpopular and evanescent it would be the levying of a rate.