Vttintrz nut frurtritings infarliannt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

House OF LORDS. Monday, March 26. Mutiny Bills committed.

Tuesday, March 27. Spam and Morocco ; Lord Carnarvon's Question—Mutiny Bills read a third time and passed. Thursday. March 29. Dwellings for the Labouring Classes (Ireland) Bill com- mitted—Indian Finance; Lord Ellenborough's Strictures. Friday, March 30. China ; Lord Grey's Motion.

House OF t OMMONS. Monday, March 26. Annexation of Savoy ; Mr. Horsman's Complainti—Ways and Means; Report agreed to—Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill, second reading, debate adjourned. Tuesday, March FL Fortifications; Lord Palmerston's Answer to Sir S. North- cote—The Dover Contracts ; Captain Vernon's Motion—Income-tax Bill read a second time. Wednesday, March 28., Church-rates ; Sir J. Trelawny's Bill committed— Su ly ; Naval votes on account—Income-tax Bill committed. rsday. March 29. Indian Army; Colonel Sykes's Motion—Navigation Laws ; Mr. Lindsay's Motion—Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) ; Mr. Card- well's Bill read a first time—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) ; Mr. Deasy's Bill read a first time.

iday. March 30. Corrupt Boroughs ; Sir George Grey's Announcement— Savoy ; Sir Robert Peel's Complaints—Income-tax Bill considered—Stamp Duties Bill considered.

SAVOY AND NICE.

When the report of the Committee of Ways and Means was brought up, Mr. Semmes took advantage of the opportunity offered to recur to the question of the annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French empire.

He described his object as a vindication of the rights and privileges of the House. He complained that questions affecting the Suez Canal, the expedition to China, the relations of Spain and Morocco, have been ob- jects of diplomatic controversy between England and France, yet that no information on these questions has been given to the House. He repre- sented France as taking a high tone, and described the French Govern- ment as one not to be diverted from any course by our representations. The Government has not fulfilled its promise to nrsliate between Spain and Morocco. Not a line of correspondence on'the joint expedition to China has been produced, yet the organs of the French Government have stated that France would not assist England in China, .unless England would help France out of her difficulties in Italy. On the Savoy ques- tion, Mr. Horsman repeated the whole story from June to January, with the view of showing the forbearance of the House, and that the assur- ances given by Ministers based on reported statements of the French Government were falsified by the event. Why, he went on to say, did not Lord John Russell produce his answer to M. Thouveners de- spatch? Why fear hostile criticism, if that answer be in harmony with English sentiments ? M. Thouvenel did not fear criticism. His despatch was published. Yet Lord John kept hack his despatch for fear of dis- agreeable criticisms. Pursuing this theme, Mr. Horsman argued that when action is taken by a foreign power, it is time for Parliament to in- terfere. As to criticism of the acts of the French Emperor, what is to be the limit of that ? So far as his acts relate to the internal govern- ment of France, we have nothing to do with them; but as to his external policy, we should never take our eyes from that. We are to consider the interests of England, and not what may be hurtful to the feelings of the Emperor of the French. The more the voice of adulation is heard on the Treasury bench, the more speech should be free in other quarters. "I denounce," said Mr. Horsman, " the recent policy of the-Emperor of the French in Italy as a policy of deceit. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear ! ") I say that he has deceived the English Ministers, and has made them his tools for deceiving the English Parliament. (Cheers.) I say that he has treated them with a duplicity which they had not the candour to avow, and with a contempt which they had not the spirit to resent. (Renewed cheers.) And, speaking of his proceedings in Savoy and Sardinia, and the manner in which he has announced his policy to Europe, I say he has added insolence to aggression, and perfidy to injustice. (Cheers.) Am I to be rebuked from that bench (pointing to the Treasury bench) for this language ?'Why, I look around that bench, and I see such an array of Ministers as never sat there before, so associated with Parliamentary censures and horrible and heartrending ' disasters. (Cheers.) In 1865, there was a Cabinet occupying that bench apparently stronger than the present, and with quite as reliable a majority, though I don't think it was 9uite so intolerant of all who dif- fered from them as the majority which sits behind them ; but in one night a storm of indignation arose and the Cabinet, by an unprecedented ma- jority, ceased to exist. In 11358, the noble Viscount was at the head of a still stronger Cabinet, but it was stated openly that he had truckled to France, and because he had done so, he was censured, and his Cabinet was swept away. And now I would warn those who would attempt to fetter the freedom of speech in this House, that the spirit which, on two occasions, came to the rescue and vindicated the honour and interests of nations is still alive, and it may inflict a third penalty as sudden and more severe than any which has preceded it." (Cheers.) Lord Jens HUBBELL said that Mr. Horsman had raised and fought more with speetres than realities. He had given a tolerable specimen of the freedom of speech. Ministers have not rebuked that freedom. They are satisfied with the forbearance displayed. Mr. Horsman is fond of giving advice. Lord John would give him one piece of advice— Why did he not go over to the Opposition benches, and show, to the shame of the right honourable gentlemen there, what faction can effect? There has not, as Mr. Horsman pretends, been any animated controversy on the aellie.e_, ef lifxsect, or any bargain about China. Then, with regard to Savoy, Lord John. not being certain, never could have told the House in what sense the French Emperor meant to consult the Great Powers. If those Powers had unanimously disapproved of the annexa- tion, Lord John had said he did not believe the plan would be proceeded with. But the Austrian Government said it was not worse than the an- nexation of Tuscany to Sardinia, and the Emperor of Russia said the King of Sardinia was free to give away his own province, and the Em- peror of the French free to take it; so that any opinion of the British Government would not have the same weight as if it had been eon- curred in by the other Great Powers. Lord John is not ashamed of his despatch to M. Thouvenel, and when produced, the House will not think the Government ought to be ashamed of it. But the independence and neutrality of Switzerland are of the greatest importance. They have been guaranteed by Europe, and the transfer of i Savoy to France s a great change. Switzerland has applied to the Great Powers, with a view to maintain her neutrality, and Government will ascertain the views of the Courts of Vienna, Berlin, and St. Petersburg. The two former attach the highest importance to the neutrality of Switzer- land. The Powers of Europe will be called upon to say whether Swit- zerland is safe under this treaty. It is because negotiations are going on that the reply to M. Thouvenel is not produced. Lord John,- loudly cheered by the House, having emphatically described the policy of France as having produced great distrust in Europe ; and having insisted that it was only a plausible pretext to say that the language used in the House had made it necessary for France to do what she has done, proceeded thus :— " Sir, my opinion as I declared it in July and January, I have no objec- tion now to repeat—that such an act as the annexation of Savoy is one that will lead a nation so warlike as the French to call upon its Government from time to time to commit other acts of aggression; and, therefore I do feel that, however we may wish to live on the most friendly terms with the French Government—and certainly I do with to live on the most friendly terms with that Government—we ,ought not to keep ourselves apart from the other nations of Europe—(Loud cheers from both sides of the House)— but that, when future questions may arise—as future questions may arise— we should be ready to act with others, and to declare, always in the moat moderate and friendly terms, but still firmly, that the settlement of Europe, the peace of Europe, is a matter dear to this country, and that settlement and that peace cannot be assured if it is liable to perpetual interruption— (Loud cheers)—to constant fears, to doubt a and rumours with respect to the annexation of this one country, or the union and connexion of that other; but that the Powers of Europe if they wish to maintain that peace, must respect each other's rights, lutist respect each other's limits, and, above all, restore and not disturb that commercial confidence which is the result of peace, which tends to peace, and which ultimately forms the happiness of nations." (Loud cheers.) Lord Joss MANNERS expressed the warmest approval of Lord John Russell's sentiments, and thanked Mr. Kinglake, Mr. Horsman, and Sir Robert Peel, for the bold and honest stand they had made, and the Eng- lish spirit they had manifested, in bringing the subject before the House. Mr. BRIGHT deprecated these interruptions of public business. They were there for the interests of England, and England ought to be glad that Savoy is transferred to France because Sardinia thereby compensates France for the aid rendered during the Italian war. The French Em- peror has acted in good faith; the Great Powers care nothing about the annexation ; no one has any interest in the matter but England, and her interest is smaller than that of any other power. Mr. Bright attacked some newspaper, distinguished for "piety and ruffianism," for vitu- perating the French Government every day. He suspected that the press was influenced for the benefit of a deposed family or faction. No- body cares about Savoy but Mr. Kinglake and Mr. Horsman. ("No, no !) Mr. Bright took Mr. Horsman to task for making war on the Treasury. bench, when it is in the right. He is against barking where it is not intended to bite. The policy of England should be such as not to estrange us from any power, and we should only give our opinion when it is asked. The past policy of England has been needlessly meddling, and in future Mr. Bright hoped she will not interfere when interference can be avoided. Lord CLAUD HAMILTON lectured Mr. Bright, and congratulated the

'WINE LICENSES.

Mr. GLADSTONE moved the second reading of the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licenses Bill, and explained its provisions. The measure is one of practical importance, and has no party character. It takes its rise from the fiscal proposal to reduce the wine duties, and it enlarges the channels for the sale of wine. Two parties have acted together in opposing it, the licensed victuallers and the temperance societies ; the former being the more formidable.

The channels for the sale of wine are unduly. nay, ludicrously restricted. Such is the state of the law, that no man can have a licence for the sale of wine, unless he has a licence for the sale of sprits also ; but he may have a licence for the sale of spirits without having one for the sale of wine. Thus the sale of wine is restricted in favour of spirits. Nor is the distinction theoretical; out of 63,000 licensed to sell spirits, only 25,000 are licensed to sell wine. Then the quality distributed is another reason for enlarging the channels of distribution so as to intro- duce the principle of competition. Now the Government will not be respon- sible for reproducing the existing licensing system. At present, duties are imposed on magistrates, which it is impossible for them to discharge. They are made judges of the quantity of liquor a given number of human beings ought to consume. This leads to an inequality dependent upon personal discretion, and to the greatest heartburnings, while for moral purposes it is inefficient. And that is the system with which the Government is asked not to interfere. The bill before the House propeses to give enlarged means for the sale of wine not to be consumed on the pre- mises, by giving retail shopkeepers power to take out licences for the sale of wine not to be consumed on the premises. It is proposed that all houses whatever in which any description of refreshment is usually and or- dinarily sold, shall be brought under,the control of the police, and shall with that view be made liable to the payment of a small licence duty. All houses below 10/. in value, in places containing less than a certain popula- tion are to be exempt. The third part of the bill refers to licensing eating-

houses. Eating and drinking should go on together. You have contrived a system of law which does everything short of absolute enactment to sepa- rate them one from the other. You have, therefore, got in England some 70,000 or 80,000 drinking-houses that are not eating-houses at all ; and not only that, but what else have you done ? You have constituted a monopoly in the sale of drink, and to those who hold that monopoly you have not given a monopoly of the sale of victuals. What has been the consequence ? That the trade in drink has been fostered, favoured, and prosecuted by those who have the monopoly of it, to the comparative neglect of the trade in vic- tuals, which, not being the subject of a monopoly, has gone forth and be- come the property of a different set of parties, the social result of which is, that you have done everything in your power, by the construction of your law, to separate the business of eating from that of drinking." Under this bill "every one who keeps a refreshment-house, subject to certain limited exemptions, will be liable to take out a small licence, and will so come under the control of the police. All those who keep eating-houses will be entitled to apply to the Excise for a wine licence, but before it issues the officer of Excuse must make known the fact to the magistrates, who have power under the bill—very large and even arbitrary power, I admit,—power which cannot be justified unless you have confidence in their integrity and intelligence—to object to the issue of the licence, and to put an absolute veto upon it, provided they can assert either that the home is not an eating- house within the meaning of the Act, or that it isa house kept or frequented by disorderly persona The reason why I have given such a power with respect to the application by the magistrates of the definition of an eating. house is that if you were to entitle the parties themselves' upon undertaking to sell bread and cheese, to call themselves eating-housekeepers, and to in- vest them on that ground with a title to take out a wine licence, the effect would be that you would give licences to drinking-houses under the name of eating-houses. The object of the bill is to give a wine licence only in cases where the business of drink is so far subsidiary to the business of eating that the house can be declared to be kept open for the pur- pose of selling victuals?' Then, as to the subsequent management of houses. "In the first place, the licence must be renewed from year to year, and, though it would not be just to impose upon the party who wants a renewal of his licence the necessity of going through the same process of giving notice, yet the bill, duly requiring the magistrates to take the initiative, gives them the same powers, to be an- nually exercised, if they think fit, in the case of renewals of licences as they are to exercise upon notice received from the party in the case of

original granting of a licence. . . . . There is, besides, in the bill, a system of penalties. This portion of the bill has been copied in general from the Beer Acts, which contained very severe penalties; but they have been im- proved and made more workable by changes of various kinds. I intend myself to propose an amendment at the commencement of the 26th clause, of which the necessity will at once be recognized. The words of that clause have been taken from the Beer Acts, and provide that everybody licensed under the Act who shall permit any person to be guilty of drunkenness or disorderly conduct in, their houses shall be subject to certain penalties ; but, oddly enough, the section which makes it penal to permit drunkenness or disorderly conduct does not make it penal to commit drunkenness or dis- orderly conduct. I propose, in Committee, to make an amendment to that elnct."

Mr. Wvim moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. Avirrox sup- ported the motion, on the ground that the bill is a taxing bill, and should be preceded by a resolution in Committee. Government en returning to old allies. Mr. KINGLAKE declared Mr. Bright's speech to be characteristic of the man, because it displayed his firm reliance on the infallibility of his own opinions. If Mr. Bright says no one has shown that England has no interest in the question, the an- swer is that he has not attended to the statements made in debate ; and, when he describes Savoy as "politically worthless," it must be supposed he means worthless in a military sense, and in that he contradicts the opinion of all military men. Turning from Mr. Bright, Mr. Kinglake said he had heard Lord John Russell's statement with heartfelt satisfac- tion—he had been gratified more than he could express. His own views are those happily entertained by the Government. [After this, Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY brought the House to the sub- ject formally before it—the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means—and objected to the inequality of the Income-tax. Then arose a wide-spreading conversation on the whole of the Budget. Sir JOHZIT Pearsiorosr, Mr. DISRAELI, and Mr. HUBBARD, repeated the arguments against the financial plan which they employed on Mr. Du Cane's motion, and other Members entered strong protests against the Income-tax, stamp duties on contract notes, &c., not forgetting our military and naval expenditure. But, finally, the report was agreed to without opposition.] Mr. Knoar.swe informed the House on Tuesday that the speech of Lord John Russell had superseded his motion, and he should not press for the interposition of Parliament, so long as the Government act on their declared policy—a policy in harmony with the feelings of Parlia- ment and the country. Mr. Gtensroian denied this proposition, and divided the House upon Mr. Wyld's motion; which was negatived by 160 to 122. Mr. Avirrow continued his opposition, and Mr. GI-timorous then ac- ceded to it- Mr. GrAesaaree proposed that the bill should be taken at a morning sitting on Thursday ; but a host of opponents appeared against the pro- position. Mr. DISRAELI said the real business of the country could be carried on without a morning sitting before Easter -- But if the Government chose to bring forward a measure in which neither the House nor the country was interested—(" Bear, hear !" and a laugh) —it became matter of serious consideration whether the business of all the Committees should be suspended, in order that attention might be given to a Measure of that kind. It only interests one or two individuals. The House was called on to suspend the valuable labours of all the Committees in order that this caprice of legislation might have another opportunity of being held up to the scorn and derision of the country. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. EDWIN James said he had warned the Government that. embar- rassment would arise if they delayed to introduce the Reform BM. Whereupon Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT remarked that Mr. Disraeli had not named the measure he considers of such slight importance, and which the country, he says, regards with scorn and derision. He should re- member that that despised question, the representation of the people, was not only discussed last year, but led to a general election. Lord JOHN MANNERS said the bill of last year was a bill for the real reform of Parliament. Sir GEORGE GREY said that what was called a real Reform Bill had been last year rejected on the second reading, while the bill be- fore the House has not met with the slightest opposition though the un- precedented course is resorted to of endeavouring to defeat it by delay. Mr. Whiteside said the bill of the late Government was not rejected. He declared that the Government would at this moment be glad to escape from their bill, and predicted that the House would hear nothing more of the Reform Bill.

After further debate of this sort, Lord PALMEESTON gave way, and agreed to postpone the second reading of the Licensing Bill until Monday TENANT RIGHT.

Mr. CARDWELL moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to the tenure and improvement of land in Ireland. He said he should make one more attempt to settle a question which has so often been before Parliament. The present time is favourable. While many of the reasons for legislating on the subject remain as they were when the Devon Commission made its report, in other respects great changes have taken place.

"We all know that live stock is a mach more remarkable and critical test of prosperity in Ireland than in this part of the kingdom. The earliest record we have of the value of live stock in that country is now about twenty years old. It was then supposed to be worth 21,000,000/. sterling. By the last return, if calculated at the same price, it would be now worth nearly 36,000,000/. sterling. But that would be a most feeble and imperfect index of the true merits of the case, because the quantity itself has not more perceptibly increased than the quality has improved and the price risen. At a moderate estimate, the value is double what it was. If we take the holdings, the proportion of small to large ones is entirely changed ; whereas at the time the report of the Devon Commission was made the number of holdings under five acres was six times that of holdings above thirty acres. Now, however, the former are much less numerous than the latter. You have sold in the Landed Estates Court 2,000,000 acres of land for 23,000,001W., most of it, I am happy to say, Irish money, not money im- ported from this kingdom, to more than 8500 owners, who, having purchased it for purposes of improvement, must be taken to have expended a con- siderable capital in different improvements. I have no accurate informa- tion as to what the wages of agricultural labour were in Ireland in 1841, but if I put them at &I. a day I think I shall not be far wrong. At present, the general average throughout the four provinces is ls. 3d. per day. Ten years ago, the number of persons evicted was 72,000; last year it was 2308. Looking at crime of an agricultural character, I find that ten years ago there were fifteen agrarian homicides; last year, four. Ten years ago, there were twenty cases of firing at the person, attributed to agricultural causes ; last year one. Ten years ago, there were 87 serious assaults of the same character; last year, there were 19; making ill the whole 122 agricul- tural crimes committed ten years ago, against 24 in the year just ex- pired. If we turn to pecuniary results, we find that ten years ago the number of paupers relieved amounted to 2,142,000; last year it was 161,000. Ten years ago, the expenditure amounted to 2,199,0001.; last year to 414,0001. It is only right that I should state these facts to the house, because it would be uncandid to claim as the basis of a measure on this suject the statements made by the Devon Commission without also referring to the progress which has since been made." Ile proposed, he said, to deal with the land in three categories ; first, lands in the hands of the landlord ; second, lands in the hands of the tenant protected by lease ; and, third, lands in the hands of the tenant who had no lease. He then proceeded to explain in detail the provisions it was proposed to apply is each of these conditions. In treating of the last, he premised that there were things he could not do, and he avowed that it Was not intended to attempt to make compensation for what were called retrospective improve- ments; the bill would be prospective only. Then, with respect to prospec- tive improvements, he believed it was absolutely necessary that the land- lord should have a right to object ; but he thought the improving tenant might be assured of a certainty of compensation by a cheap and simple process., the machinery of which he explained. Lord FERMOY. Mr. MAGUIRE, Mr. POPL'HENNESSY, the O'Dosoottuv, Mr. MONSELL Mr. WHITESIDE, objected to the measure as one increasing the powers of landlords, by enabling them to evict tenants. But Mr. DBASE, Mr. GEORGE, and Mr. CARDWELL showed that the bill gave no such power. Leave was given to introduce the bill ; and also, on the motion of Mr. DEASY, to introduce a bill to amend and consolidate the law of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland.

INDIAN FINANCE AND THE LNDIAN ARMY.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH called attention to the speech of Mr. Wilson, and moved for some returns. He objected to the lieence-tax, as antiquated and distasteful ; to the income-tax, as calculated to excite discontent; and to the tax on tobacco as sure to create dissatisfaction. Mr. Wilson had said that the local European army was gone, when there existed in Bengal 12,000 local Europeans, 6000 of whom were artillery, and an additional force on its way to India and in this country, making the total 16,000 ; while the total force of the Sepoy army, of whom Mr. Wilson spoke disparagingly, amounted to 200,000 men. Lord Ellen- borough showed how useful the officers of the LocalpanddNhaotiwpo yeimeoristsaiarblee

in discharging staff-duties, both civil and military ; n it would be to obtain men of the same kind from the Queen's regiments. He objected to a homogeneous army, and recommended them in re- organizing their military institutions to build the vessel in compartments, so that in the event of a collision a part might remain intact. He depre- cated uncertainty, and demanded justice for officers and men.

The Duke of ARGYLL said he could not produce Mr. Wilson's speech and lay it on the table. He defended the course taken by Mr. Wilson, remarking that his language touching the Sepoy army applied to the old Bengal army. The Government have not come to any conclusion re- specting the local Europeans. The Duke seemed to lean to the opinion that some local force would be necessary. Lord LYVED/IN spoke in suppor=riir. Wilson's plan with some re- serves.

In the House of Commons, Colonel SYKES moved for a series of im- portant papers relating to the reorganization of the Indian army. He was seconded by Mr. BUXTON who made a very forcible speech in favour of retaining a local army, Marshalling in compact array the strongest

i

arguments n support of that arrangement. Sir Ds Lear EVANS and Sir Joust Eraninffiroim spoke on the same side.

Sir Caesium WOOD declined to discuss the question, upon which, he said, the Government had not made up their mind. If they determined that there should be only a force of Queen's troops of the Line in India, it would be necessary to bring the question formally before the House, when full information would be given, and this important question might be discussed. He did not think it right at present to produce all the papers moved for. Mr. BRIGHT considered the answer of Sir C. Wood far from satisfac- tory. He thought some of the papers called for would furnish very use- ful information. He admitted that this was not a time to discuss the question whether the army in India should be under the Horse Guards or the Indian Government ; but the House he thought, would commit a grave error if, without good reasons, it handed over 60,000, or 70,000, or 80,000 troops to the management of the Horse Guards, which would cause a rapid rise in the military expenditure in India, and an increase of the evils attending patronage.

Mr. ARTHUR MILLS deprecated further delay. Sir EDWARD COLE- BROOKE thought the papers ought to be produced. Mr. T. G. BARING, in reply to Mr. Bright, observed that, if it should be decided to dispense with a local force in India, there would be no addition to the patronage of the Horse Guards.

Lord PALMERSTON said this question did not merely regard the in- terests of India ; it was an Imperial question, and must be decided upon grounds of military and political expediency, concerning the empire at large. He noticed and replied to arguments urged in favour of a local force in India, and objected to the production of the papers moved for, as containing only partial information, tending to mislead.

Motion negatived.

THE ROMS MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. &mon- HERBERT stated in the House of Commons speaking, apropos to a motion for military returns, that a large portion Of the aug- mentation proposed in the Army will not take effect, because more than seven regiments are on their way from India, and they will provide force more effective than those that would have been raised by the pro- posed augmentations. The Army Estimates, therefore will be with- drawn, and new ones presented, but no material change will take place in the amoupt. A vote on account will be asked for to enable the Govern- ment to go on until after Easter.

FORTIFICATIONS.

In answer to Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Lord PAL/dEBETON said the report of the National Defence Commission has not been submitted to the Government in a final shape :— "There are two considerations connected with such arrangements : one is what defensive works it would be desirable to erect, supposing that the Go- vernment had an unlimited command of men to man them, and the other is what defensive works are absolutely necessary without requiring for their occupation a force larger than would leave a sufficient army to operate in the field. These are the questions which are still under consideration. As soon as the report is laid before the Government in a final shape, it will be the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to take it into consideration' and to determine what course it will be proper to take upon it. When that has been done, I shall have to lay the report before Parliament, and to state what course the Government, after full consideration, recommends the House to take with regard to the matters to which it relates."

SPAIN AND MOROCCO.

The Earl of CARNARVON inquired whether it was true that conditions of peace have been signed between the Government of Spain and the Emperor of Morocco, and whether the Government would lay further papers on the table ? It is important that Parliament should have ample information on the subject, as very great interests are involved. Lord WODEHOUSE said the Government' had received a telegram, stating that conditions of peace had been signed, but he had no exact in- formation. He could not promise to produce further papers, as the ne- gotiations are not concluded.

CHURCH-RATES.

Preceded by a crowd of petitions for and against, the question of abolishing Church-rates again came before the House of Commons on Wednesday.

Sir JOHN Tamely-NY moved that the Speaker should leave the chair, in order that the House might go into committee on the bill. Mr. PACKS stated that he should not, as he had intended, oppose the motion. Mr. NEWDSGATE, however, moved an amendment to the effect, that the House should on the next day resolve itself into a committee to consider the propriety of establishing, in lieu of church-rates, thenceforth to be abolished, a charge on all hereditaments in respect of the occupancy of which church-rates bad been paid within the last seven years ; such charge to be levied with the county-rate at an uniform rate of poundage, the occupier being in all eases entitled to deduct the amount of the charge levied on his occupation. r. Cnoss seconded the amendment.

A short debate ensued. Mr. ROSEMAN thought the question should be settled by a Government measure. Had Sir John Trelawny appealed to the Government ? Sir JOHN TRELAWNY said he had understood in 1857 that the Government would bring in a bill, but they did not do so. The bill of the late Government was no settlement, and Mr. Newdegate's scheme was open to the same remark. For himself, he was heartily tired of the question. He desired to settle it ; he was prepared to give a candid consideration to any other plan, but he thought that proposed by himself to be the only practical plan. Mr. Plumes, in the absence of any alternative; would divide with Mr. Newdegate. Sir S. M. Par) said that nothing will satisfy Dissenters but unconditional repeal. They do not desire a shilling that rightly be- longs to the Church ; but they will resist an impost affecting their con- sciences. Mr. WATLINGTON and Mr. EVANS opposed the amendment. Lord Joni( MANNERS thought it would be best to allow the bill to go up to the House of Lords, "there to meet its fate," as that might lead to a compromise. Mr. IlEnnon and Mr. WALTER supported the original mo- tion ; Mr. WALTER showing, with great force, that either the decision of the House of Lords in the Braintree ease must be repealed, or church- rates must be abolished.

On a division, Mr. Newdegate's amendment was negatived by 222 to 49.

The House went into Committee. When all the clauses were agreed to, Sir GEORGE GREY moved a clause providing that the incumbent and churchwardens might levy pew-rents on "pews appurtenant to any house, or specially appropriated to the occupier, according to a scale to be fixed by the incumbent and churchwardens. This clause found favour on neither side, and was negatived without a .division, and the House re- sumed.

FRENCH NAVIGATION LAWS.

Mr. LINDSAY moved an address to her Majesty, praying that she would be pleased to enter into negotiations with the Emperor of the French, with the view of making a treaty for the reciprocal abrogation

of all discriminating duties levied upon the vessels and their cargoes of either of the two nations in the ports of the other, and for procuring such alterations in the navigation laws of France as might tend to facilitate the commercial intercourse and strengthen the friendly relations between England and France. Having given a history of our own navigation laws, and described the success which had followed their relaxation and final abrogation, he explained the restrictions imposed by France upon foreign shipping, British ships being practically excluded from certain parts of the trade of France ; and he showed what she had lost by her protective policy. France, he observed, had a greater sea-board than any other country in Europe, studded with ports, and might have a large mercantile navy ; but her shipowners depended upon the Government in- stead of themselves ; the French people were taxed to an enormous ex- tent to create a merchant service, and they were beginning to understand that this was a mistaken policy. He believed that the entire repeal of her navigation laws would be beneficial to the shipowners of France.

Mr. HORSFALL seconded the motion.

Mr. Minims Gtissox, on the part of the Government, offered no oppo- sition to the motion ; they would, he said, use their utmost endeavours, at a fitting opportunity, to effect its object. Motion agreed to. Tim Dovna Cosrraaer.

Captain Lniussmn VERNON moved, on Tuesday, that "the contract entered into on the 26th of April 1859, between the Admiralty and Joseph George Churchward ought to be fulfilled." The term of this con- tract, which was to expire in 1863, was extended by the late Government to 1870 on the recommendation of the Admiralty, but in opposition to the views of the Postmaster-GeneraL The Committee said this had been done without sufficient inquiry. They censured Mr. Murray, private secretary to Sir John Pakington, but stated that there was not sufficient evidence to show that any member of the Government was cognizant of the communications between Mr. Churchward, Mr. Murray, and Cap- tain Carnegie ; but the Committee submitted to the House whether Mr. Churchward, in resorting to corrupt expedients, affecting injuriously the character of the representation of the people in Parliament, has not ren- dered it impossible for the House of Commons, with due regard to its honour and dignity, to vote the sums necessary to the fulfilment of the contract. Captain Vernon contested this position; asserting that it was sought to sacrifice Mr. Churchward as a scapegoat. The report of the Committee bore a party stamp. Having absolved the Derby Govern- ment, why did the Committee condescend to contractors, secretaries, and such small deer ? Captain Vernon raked up the whole case ; going mi- nutely into Mr. Churchward's relations with the Admiralty from 1847 down to 1859, justifying his course in shifting from side to side and de- nying that his conduct was corrupt. Contractors, like other Are men, have a right to wear their politics as loosely as they please. To break the contract with Mr. Churchward, would be to destroy commercial con- fidence and do a gross injustice. A very long debate ensued. Mr. Churchward's supporters were Sir

STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Lord LOVAINE, Mr. MALINS, Sir FITZROY KELLY, Mr. Warn:sum, and Sir JOHN PAKINGTON. The Select Committee were sustained by Sir Flamm BARING, Mr. Lanni the Somorron-GENERAL, Lord Cimino= PAGET, Mr. BouvEnin, and Mr. GLADSTONE. The argu- ments used on both sides went deeply into details, often personal details. The gist of the debate was that the opposition contended that a contract once made ought to be fulfilled; that this contract was not a corrupt bargain nor obtained by a resort to corrupt expedients ; that the evidence of Captain Carnegie with regard to the conversations at the Admiralty could not be relied on ; and that the conduct of Mr. Churchward during the Dover election had nothing to do with the contract. These state- ments were met by citations from the report and evidence, and a recapi- tulation of the facts showing the connexion between the renewal of the contract and the election. It was pointed out that in the contract itself there were words providing for the assent of Parliament, for the payments were to be made out of money voted by Parliament, but these were said to be mere words of form. Mr. GLADSTONE distinctly laid it down that the House has the power to avoid a contract on the ground of corruption ; that an impartial Committee had said there was corruption, and that the Government desired, nevertheless, to be guided by the decision of the House. The whole question was whether they could fulfil a contract declared to be corrupt in its origin by a Select Committee.

Sir Joins Paxmozor vindicated himself from any improper share in the transaction, and said a good word for Mr. Murray. Sir &ammo NORTHCOTE undertook the defence of the Treasury. On a division, Captain Vernon's resolution was negatived by 162 to 117.