Frilattu nut' 4,rurrtttiugs in Varlinuttut.

PRINCIPAL BrSINESS OF THE WEEK.

_ HOUSE OP LORDS. Monday, May 7. Sunday Trading; Lord Chelmsford's Bil committed.

neaday, May 8. Bankrupt Law (Scotland) Amendment Bill read a second time -Revision of the Liturgy; Lord Ebury's Motion. Thursday, May 10. Paper-Duty Abolition Bill read a first time-Petitions of Bight Bill read a second time-Offences against the Person Bill, Forgery Bill, the Courage Offences Bill, the Accessories and Abettors Bill, and the Criminal Statutes Repeal Bill (Consolidation Bills) committed-Customs Bill read a second time. ' Friday, May 11. The Bay of islands; Lord Mahnesbury's Question-Protes- -Rants in Turkey ; Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's Statement-Ecclesiastical Courts lieurisdiction BM read a second time-Pawnbrokers' Act Amendment Bill read a 'rd time and passed.

or COMMONS. Monday, May 7. Personal Explanation; Mr. Walter v..a.unrsman-llefreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill read a second

time-Census (Ireland) Bill read a second time-Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Bill read a second time. amnion May 8. Registration of Births and Deaths (Ireland); Lord Ness's BM read a first time-Civil Service Examioers; Mr. Bentiuck's Motion-Paper-Duty Abolition Bill read a third time and passed.

Wednesday. May 0. Piers sad Harbours Bill read a second time-Bleaching and Dying Works Bill in committee.

Thursday, May 10. Ways and Means; Wine Licences-Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill in committee-Registration of Births, &c. (Ireland); Mr. Cardwell's Bill read a first time.

THE PAPER DUTY.

The adjourned debate on the third reading of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill was resumed on Tuesday, by Sir Srarronn Nownrcara, who moved, as an amendment- " That the present state of the finances of the country renders it undesir- able to proceeti further with the repeal of the Excise-duty on paper."

He had heard, with great surprise on Monday, that Mr. Gladstone intended to go on with this bill, thinking the House would have been allowed to ascertain whether we are now in the same position we were in when the bill was brought forward. This year, there has been a de- parture from the practice of making some progress with the estimates before the financial statement is delivered, and this is not a year which should have been chosen for such a deviation, nor is this the time to go on with the bill. He protested against the doctrine of Mr. Gladstone, that the House was bound by a loose abstract resolution passed two years ago. Not that the Paper-duty is a good tax; but this is not the time to repeal it. Two years ago, it was said that there were other things to be done before this tax could be repealed • and if 1868, when the expendi- ture was 63,500,00a, was not a .good time, still less can it now be a good time, when the expenditure is 70,100,000/. Then there are dis- crepancies between the statement of Mr. Gladstone and the estimates; an excess of 232,3421. in the charge for the collection of the revenue • an excess of 272,564/. may be anticipated in the miscellaneous estimates; and changes in other parts of the estimates. Then there is the vote for China, the vote for fortifications, the vote for warlike stores, each uncer- tain in amount. What he contended for was that we are not in a posi- tion to part with the Paper-duty, that if we abolish the duty, and the Government is obliged to ask for more money, there will be no means to raise it except by adding a penny to the Income-tax. He admitted that his objection was hostile to the whole financial scheme of the Govern- ment, but all he asked the House to do was not to condemn the principle of the bill, but refuse assent to it for the present. He doubted whether the French treaty would add to our prosperity, and referred to the dis- trust of the Emperor of the French, which has increased from time to time, as rendering the success of the treaty doubtful.

Mr. GIBSON said the proposal was to hold the repeal of the Paper-duty in suspense until the Income-tax had been made satisfactory to the country. After the bill has reached the third reading without material opposition, Sir Stafford Northcote came down and asked them to aban- don the repeal of the Paper-duty and substitute for it a reduction of duties on tea and sugar. It is somewhat late to make that proposal: How was it that Sir Stafford did not expect the House would resume an adjourned debate? Was it nothing to keep an industry in suspense em- ploying 10,000,0001. of capital ? Many contracts have been entered into on the faith that the House would not retrace its steps :— " The honourable Member for Stamford has made out no case for calling upon us to retrace our steps and to upset the financial proposals of the Go- vernment. He asks us to admit that in the measures we have introduced we have made a grave and grievous error. ("Hear, hear !" from the Op- position.) Yes but we cannot admit that. Neither, after the divisions that have recently taken place, do I believe the House of Commons will admit it. Nothing has transpired since those measures were brought for- ward to induce us to adopt a total change in our policy. I entreat honour- able gentlemen, then, on all sides to support this bill." Mr. E. BALL argued for the retention of the protective Customs duty on paper. Mr. Punnan said the real question raised was a question of confidence in the Government (Cries of " Oh ! "L Sir M. FARQUHAR dwelt on the deficit that would exist next year. He also asserted that "since the period when the Budget and the Commercial Treaty were brought forward, the feeling of the country had materially changed. (Cheers.) The people had seen that there was not the desire supposed to exist, on the part of a neighbouring country, to meet the free-trade proposals of the Government. Under these circumstances, it might fairly be argued that the House ought not to press the passing of the bill." Lord HARRY VANE spoke against the bill. He did not see why the repeal of the duty should not be postponed until we can afford to repeal it. It would be imprudent at a moment like this to part with 12,000,0001. of revenue.

Mr. ELLICE said he must vote against the third reading. Mr. Glad- stone's Budget placed the revenue in jeopardy: During the half century he had sat in that House, he never knew an instance of a Chancellor of the Exchequer asking the House to repeal certain taxes, and admit at the same time that he left a deficiency of 12,000,000/. to be supplied by new taxes in the ensuing year. It is a course full of danger. As to the paper-duty, it is as odious a tax as one can imagine ; yet we should wait until we can repeal it without robbing the Exchequer.

Mr. Horn said he Was once disposed to vote for the second reading, because he thought the repeal of the duty would relieve a great manu- facture, increase the purposes to which it can be applied, and reduce the price of the article. But he had found it a delusion to expect those re- sults, and he should vote against the motion.

Mr. GLADSTONE argued that the objections of Mr. came too late, and he could only regret that a voice so authoritative had been misled by considerations so entirely erroneous. If he really entertained these dismal apprehensions, it would have been better that he should have uttered them before or not all. He would not reargue the general grounds against the tax. That was not the question. Sir Staitvd Northcote stated the case not unfairly. Admitting the elernent of uncertainty in our expenditure, he said that the case is still precisely what it was When he made his statement. There have been changesin the estimates, but not changes that justified the motion. Mr. Herbert would stand by his army estimates. The vote for fortification is submitted visitant details, because the report of the Defence Committee is not/ yet before the Cabinet. As to the increase in the Miscellaneous Rainless, that is sheer anticipation—they will nearly approximate to tha.figwe he stated at the commencement. Even if the charge for the nollettion of the revenue involved an increase of 200,0001., that would not justify the

House in arresting the repeal of a duty six times that amount. Mr. -Ellice says he has been in the House nearly half a century ; did he ever know of a vote like that he was about to join in ? Has the House of Commons ever interfered before at the third reading and arrested a boon

on its way to the people. Let them have the precedent. When the re- peal of a tax on trade has been accepted by a vote of the House, that repeal is taken for granted. If there be an instance to the contrary, would Mr. Ellice produce it ? The House has a right to do what it pleases; he did not question its right, he only appealed to its sense of fairness. They had gone too far to reanimate the Paper-duty now.

Mr. Thostes Reams contested Mr. Gladstone's views, and opposed the bilL Mr. Disneere made a sharp attack on Mr. Gladstone. Repeating the allegations of Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Disraeli said they had not been answered; indeed, he insisted that Mr. Gladstone's admissions supported those allegations and asked, what then had become of the surplus calcu- lated on at the beginning of the year? Why,some of the taxes proposed, taxes embarrassing to trade, have disappeared ; yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had positively given Mr. Ellice a lecture for not being aware that these measures had been sanctioned by the House.

"Is that so ? I have watched the progress of these measures, and I have observed that the changes in the various operations in warehouses, such as tapping, regauging, bottling,' &c., which stoodon the motion paper of the House for a considerable time have disappeared from that paper .(Cheers and laughter.) I have made, not a public inquiry, but an inquiry, I be- lieve at an authentic quarter in this House, and I shall be Featly misled, if those measurea will ever reappear. They are dropped.' (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. Gladstone had evaded the objections of the mover of the amendment. Then as to the resolution passed in 1858. The then Government proposed a financial policy unanimously agreed to by the House, and most cordially by Mr. Gladstone. The Government desired to reduce the duties on tea and sugar, but could not because they felt bound to complete the consummate polity of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer., and guide the revenue and expenditure, so that the Income-tax might be got rid of in. 1860. Could it be supposed that this policy could be upset by a resolution to repeal the Paper-duty.? He had always desired to repeal that duty as soon as the revenue permitted. But the Income-tax has not terminated in 1860, nor have the tea and sugar duties been reduced. "The right honourable gentleman is now responsible for the finances of this country. He has doubled the Income-tax—(load cheers); he has retained the war duties on tea and sugar ; and than he turns round upon me, and says I called for the abolition of the duty on paper ! Why, anything more illogical or inconsequent, any plea more futile or falla- cious, was never put forward. (Cheers.) . . . . The right honourable gentleman—with all, the mysterious dogmatism he knows so well how to assume when it suits him, contradicting himself as he constantly does—with rapid incohevence,. but covering hie contradictions with that robe of glitter- ing phraseology which prevents one from detecting the weakness- of his ar- gument—(cheers)—first laid down the principle that when once this House has consented to the remission of a tax it is impossible to offer any further resistance to its repeal. The House seemed astonished, and the right honourable gentleman, besoming more audacious, advanced another prin- ciple, that when a Minister once proposed that a tax should be repealed the House had no right to interfere. (Cheers.) I gave, unfortunately, an indiscreet cheer, as much in admiration of his coolness as anything- (laughter)—which reminded the right honourable gentleman that he had better reconnoitre his position. Having, therefore treated the right honourable the Member for Coventry to another admonition, the right honourable gentlemen turned round and said, that there was no instance in which the House of Commons, having once voted the repeal of a tax, had afterwards refused to carry out its vote." Mr. Disraeli re- membered a determination Co repeal the sugar duties, and another to repeal the Halt-tax, but the determination was reconsidered, and those duties were not repealed. "What more do we propose tonight ? We think the House on the subject of the Paper-duty has arrived, at a very im- prudent, premature, and precipitate decision. (Cheers.) What has been the condition of the House in the present case? It had an immense scheme with respect to the commerce and the finances of the country placed before it the moment it assembled. It had not a decent opportunity to consider that scheme. (Cheers.) If any gentleman asked for those fair opportuni- ties which the forms of the House and Parliamentary precedents secure to us, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose like a dictator and a despot in this House, and under a species of terrorism, the House arrived at a premature and precipitate decision, which has been ruinous to our trade and has made us ridiculous in the eyes of Europa. (Cheers.) He asked the House in the year when he had pledged himself,, so far as a statesman can pledge himself, to abolish the Income-tax, to double that impost ; and when his propositions were not received with all the enthusiasm which he seemed to count upon—for inconsistency is always sanguine—he vindicated his policy, as he has vindicated it torught„ by a statement which upon reflection he must feel has no foundation. He told us that he had been disappointed in the policy which he had established in 1866; that the Russian war had occurred and had baffled all his plans. He quite forgot that, in 1857, when he was not in office, and when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Home Secretary, wanted to induce the House to consent to re- tain the war income-tax, on the ground of the great expense of the Russian war, which had added to the national debt an annual charge of 1,200,0001., he roseand scoffed at the rig,h thonourablegentleman, and treated him with intense and unutterable derision. (Cheers.) He asked the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, in an indignant tone, whether he would pretend for a moment that the ohatr occasioned by the Russian war ought to induce the House to abandon those solemn pledges which it made to the nation in 1853— pledges which induced the people of Ireland to consent to the Income-tax being extended to that country ; and then he referred to the succession tax, by which alone the Government had been able to settle some of the most difficult and delicate questions ever submitted to Parliament. Such was his Itingnage in 1867. What is the moral ? What confidence can we have in fallowing the counsels of the right honourable gentleman ? (Cheers.) I showed you, on 'a previous occasion, when you were in the delirium of the French, treaty, which every man on both sides looks back to now with shane hew the right honourable gentleman had failed in every one of the great TfoPositions of his famous budget of 1853: (Cheers.) Having traded upon that falsecelebrity for seven years, you now meet him again in 1860. Three months of the session have not yet passed, and you already deplore the course which, following hie counsels, you have pursued. (Cheers.) Above all, will you do this at- a moment-when Europe is in a condition which must make the boldest man quake and the wisest man tremble ?" ((Ireat cheering.)

Mr. Greinstroste said he-must directly contradict the statement of Mr. Disraeli, that in 1857 he had urged that the financial consequences of the Russian war made it impossible to fulfil the pledges of 1853. He also gave a direct contradiction to the statement that he had said there was no instance of the House changing its mind after voting for the remission of a tax. What he did say was, that there was no instance in which the House, having voted the repeal of a tax upon the proposition of the Executive Government, had afterwards reversed that vote, which he stated to be equivalent to a pledge to the country. On a division, the amendment was negatived by 219 to 210—the ma- jority for the Government being only 9. [Mr. Herbert Ingrain voted with the minority by mistake, but his vote was counted.] The bill was read a third time and passed.

When the bill was read a first time in the Upper House on Thursday, Lord MossreanLe gave notice that he should, at the proper time, move that it be read a second time that day six months.

The Earl of Wiextew said he Should feel bound to support that amend- ment.

Subsequently, on the second reading of the Customs Bill, the Earl of Dann; attacking the whole financial policy of the Government, and es- pecially that springing out of the treaty, said he could not oppose the Customs Bill, because it fulfilled the obligations undertaken in the treaty, but as regards the Paper-duty Repeal Bill, the terms of the treaty do not interfere with that ; it involves a dangerous sacrifice of 1,500,000/., and he should do everything in, his power to promote the rejection of that bill. It would be convenient when the bill comes up for a second read- lug to discuss the whole financial policy of the Government.

THE WINE LICENCE BILL.

The adjourned debate on the second reading of the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill was resumed and concluded on Monday. Mr. Avalon was the first opposition speaker. He complained of the bill because it taxed those who sell the food of the people, because it exempts shops in small towne, because it will promote the sale of intoxi- cating drinks, when "the only way to promote temperance is to dimi- nish the facilities for drinking." He drew a gloomy picture of the excess of drunkenness in Paris, at Nantes and in other wine-growing districts, and denied that sobriety and wine growing exist together. He argued, at the same time, that light wines will never be drunk in this country, and insisted that spirits would be imported and sold under the name of wine. He expressed great opposition to free trade in what is injurious to society, and said that if the measure were passed, it would add te the great category of vice and misery at present existing.

Mr. LIDDELL said the measure would encourage drinking, take the middle classes from their homes, and introduce into England the conti- nental café, with all the lazy habits it engenders. There is already a wine shop for every 280 persons and many places where those two "luxuries of life "—eating and drinking—were combined. He argued that the measure is not required for public convenience, and said that a quarter of a million of persons had petitioned against it. Alderman SAD:mons supported, and Mr. Rua( opposed the bill. Mr. V. SCULLY said the bill would create a taste of intoxicating drinks, Mr. HUNIBERSTON saw no necessity for combining eating and drinking. It is good thing that a working man can go into a refreshment shop and eat without feeling compelled to drink intoxicating liquors. Mr. JAMBS opposed the bill on the broad ground that it would be unjust to the licensed victuallers who have vested their capital on a monopoly created by the Legislature.

Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS said that a Committee over which he had pre- sided had come to a conclusion different from that of Mr. James. The bill carries into effect the recommendations of that Committee ; directing Magistrates to inquire into the character of the applicant for a licence, giving them power to withdraw it, and giving the police authority to watch the licensed houses. The licensing system is merely a system givimsp value to property connected with the sale of intoxicating drinker, and has nothing to do with police or the maintenance of order, or any other of the moral considerations introduced into the discussion. It was said that the bill is a second Beerhouse Bill ; but thero is no evidence that this bill has failed ; on the contrary. Nor do beerehops promote drunkenness. It is said all sorts of crime are concocted therein. The crime particularly he had in view is poaching ; but poaching exists now as it did before the Beer Act was passed. One-fourth of the persons con- - fined in the gaols am o committed for offences against the game-laws. He favourably compared the beerhouses with the coffeeshops of London, and defended the proposal to bring them under supervision. People who talk about free trade in drunkenness, do not properly understand the phrase. It is not fair to say that the bill will not alter the taste of the people by giving them an appetite for foreign wines, and to say that it will promote drunkenness.

Mr. HENLEY denied that the bill carried out the recommendations of the Committee. Why, the Committee recommended that there should be one uniform system of licence for the sale of intoxicating drinks. Is that on all fours with the bill ? The bill brings a third system of licen- sing into competition with the two existing systems. Then the Com- mittee said the trade should be open to all persons of good character, but the bill says nothing whatever about character. The Committee said

that coffee-shops, shellfish-shops, should not be liable to inspections ; the bill says, not only these shops, but the shop of every old woman who sells an orange, a nut, or a glass of ginger-beer, shall be liable to inspec- tion. [Dissent front Mr. Gladstone.] The bill says, "any persons sell- ing victuals or refreshment." Is not an orange or ginger-beer refresh. ment. "I find an orange refreshment," [said Mr. Henley taking one up and sucking it, amid great laughter.] These persons must pay for a license and be subject to the invasion of the police. The bill insists that all who sell food shall take out a licence and come under the harrow of the police. Mr. Henley proceeded to dissect the bill, objecting especially to the proposal that licences should be withdrawn without a hearing, and showing that the work of magistrates under the bill would be more diffi- cult than ever. He counselled Mr. Gladstone to withdraw the bill, and put it in a leas objectionable shape, since it cannot be altered in Com- mittee.

Mr. Beal-on, explaining that the brewers do not care a farthing about

the bill, opposed on the ground that it will promote intemperance. [Cries of " Divide !" were frequently heard during his speech.] Si? SaMens. PETO, while objecting to some details, supported the measure because it can be amended in Committee. He brought filets drawnfin e his own experience as a contractor of foreign railways to disproveth statements of Mr. Ayrton.

Mr. GLADSTONE replied upon the whole debate. He pointed out that

Mr. Henley's speech referred to details, which could best be discussed in Committee. He said it never was his intention to impose the liability to take a licence upon all houses open for the sale of food. That disposes of the ginger beer and barley-sugar cases. He did not regard the part of the bill relating to the supervision of the police as essential ; he only asked for it a candid consideration. He did not intend to give magis- trates power to take away a licence without a hearing. But the real question is, does the House mean to rigidly stand by the present licensing system ? Here Mr. Gladstone entered into an examination of the system, and showed how the bill supplies some of its deficiencies. Then he argued at great length that the bill will not promote intem- perance, but encourage the use of a drink, lighter and more innocuous in comparison with spirits which are sold now. Reverting again to the licensing system and showing how it reduces to nothing the difference between good and bad character in public-houses, he again asserted that the bill modified the system, by excluding that arbitrary discre- tion which makes the magistrates the judges of the number of houses and the quantity of liquor that ought to satisfy the demands of a district. Not because the magistrates are distrusted, but because it is beyond the power of man to regulate such matters.

On a division, the second reading was carried by 267 to 193.

The bill made further progress on Thursday. In Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. GLADSTONE proposed the rates of licence : 108. 6d. for houses under 20/. a year ; 11. ls. for houses above 201. a year ; 3/. 38. under 501. ; and 51. 5s. above 501. per annum, for licence to sell wine for consumption on the premises ; and. 2/. 2s. for a licence to sell wine not to be consumed on the premises. Mr. AYRTON moved the rejection of the first resolution, but he was de- feated by 173 to 103. He then moved that the Licence-tax for all houses under 501. should be 10s. 6d. ; negatived by 159 to 88. The resolutions were reported and ordered to be embodied in the bill. But the Opposition did not stop there. On the motion for going into Committee on the bill, Mr. PALK moved that the bill should be com- mitted that day six months. He found a seconder in Mr. PACK; but no supporters, and the amendment was negatived without a division. The House went into Committee. It was decided, after much debate, that wine not to be consumed on the premises, shall be sold in bottles, and in "reputed quart or pint bottles." Mr. AYRTON "stood upon the quart," and was defeated by 90 to 33. At the suggestion of Mr. ILuiny it was resolved that all refreshment houses that keep open between the hours of nine at night and five in the morn- ing, shall be compelled to take out a licence. Finally, it was arranged that the bill should be committed pro forma, in order that it might be reprinted, as amended.

MR. WALTER AND MR. HORSMAN.

Mr. Walter moved the adjournment of the House on Monday in order to make a personal explanation. Premising that Mr. Horsman had made an attempt to place him in a false position and impair his freedom of speech, he stated the circumstances. On the preceding Monday, he had spoken on the Reform Bill. In the course of it he had argued that the passing of the Reform Bill need not be followed by an early dissolu- tion. On Wednesday, he received a letter from Mr. Horsman warning him to be in his place when the debate was resumed, as he intended to notice Mr. Walter's suggestion, especially as that suggestion had ap- peared in the Times, coupled with Mr. Horsman's name, brought in to illustrate a general meanness of the House of Commons which Mr. Horsman felt bound to repudiate. Mr. Walter read the letter. He also read his reply thereto stating that he should be in the House. He was there, but Mr. Horsman intimated that he should not speak as it would cause public inconvenience. Mr. Walter could not let the matter drop, and he wrote to Mr. Horsman telling him he could not but think that his letter must have been written in a moment of irritation, and under circumf stances of gr t misapprehension, which his better judgment might have led him regret. If so, he should be glad to have an assurance to that effect if not, he should bring the question under the notice of the Housg./ He had arranged to do so, when Mr. Horsman sent him a long better. He would not read it, but Mr. Horsman might if he would _mad it all. With respect to the passage in his speech referred to by Mr. Horsman, he had nothing to explain or to vindicate. He did not intend to convey, nor did the language he used convey the meaning Mr. Horman placed upon it. "What I complain of is that the right honourable member seeks to con- nect my speech with an article in the limes, with which I had no more to do than he had himself, and of which I can only say that I do not at this moment know who wrote it. But as this statement may surprise the honourable member, and as he founds his inference as to my connexion with this article, upon a speech which I made at Nottingham in 1859, in which he says that I avowed my connexion with the press, and pleaded. it as an excuse for not having taken a more active part in the debates in this House, I will explain fo the House the reasons which led me to make that statement. There is, in my opinion, a necessary antagonism (I know not by what other name to call it) between Parliament and the press, which ought to keep the functions of each entirely apart, and which requires a good deal of delicacy to be observed in the relations be- tween them. Now, I have observed a growing disposition of late years on the part of a certain section of this House to import into the debates in this House very frequent references to the opinions of the press to an extent which appears to me to be hardly consistent with the dignity of Parliament. And in the year in which my speech to which the right honourable gentleman refers was made, I was particularly struck by the circumstance that a right honourable gentleman, now a member of the Cabinet, had in the debate on the Conspiracy Bill quoted very largely from leading articles in the Times, with a view to strengthen the case against the noble lord now at the head of the Government, whom he succeeded in ousting. That circum- stance, coupled with the growing fashion to which I have referred, has always made me feel that the position of any honourable gen- tleman in this House who was supposed to be in any way con- nected with the prose has become somewhat embarrassing. Ac- cordingly, in the speech delivered on the occasion referred to at a public dinner at Nottingham, in reply to a toast in which my name was connected both with the House of Commons and with the press, I made some remarks On that circumstance, and mentioned that any honourable gentleman sup- posed to be connected with the press laboured under some disadvantages in this House. But if I have felt unduly sensitive on that point, it was be- cause I never before had the opportunity which the right honourable gen- tleman has now afforded me, which I could not have made for myself, and without which I could not volunteer the statement I now make,—that my connexion with the Times newspaper, although of a nature which makes me feel the deepest interest in its concerns, is not of an editorial character, and does not involve any responsibility on my part for any opinion or statement which it contains. (Cheers.) If the right honourable gentleman wants any more information, all I can say is, that I have not got it to give him ; nor can I be responsible for any conjectures which public gossip or the imagination of any private individual may lead him to form on the subject. (Cheers.) I have thought it due alike to the House and to myself to offer this explanation, and, having done so, I will only say in conclusion that, in the event of any similar attack being directed against me, I shall take no notice of it whatever." (Loud cheers.) Mr. HORSMA-N made a long reply to this speech. Professing great esteem and respect for Mr. Walter, he said he regretted on Mr. Walter's account that he had brought the matter before the House. Mr. Hors- man had failed in attempting to settle the matter by a personal explana- tion, and he had warned Mr. Walter that he must inflict pain if he were forced to speak. He then gave his version of the facts. On the Monday in question he was told there was to be a compromise on the Reform Bill and no dissolution for two years. Mr. Walter's speech seemed to advocate that mode of settlement. That same morning the Times published an article, stating that the progress of the Reform Bill might have been facilitated, had it been announced that there would be no resolution " The idea, we believe " said the Times, "has occurred to many, but per- haps it has been thought so candid as to verge upon indecorum. We believe that if such an assurance had been volunteered even Mr. Horsman would. have indignantly repudiated any suggestion of an unwillingness to test the confidence of the electors of Stroud. (A laugh.) But still it might have helped the Bill." The construction he put on that was that Members were to sell their votes in return for a two years' lease of their seats, and a greaser calumny was never uttered. Mr. Horsman then wrote to Mr. Walter, but as no man saw his letter, he thought that when he abandoned his intention of speaking, Mr. Walter's character would not require vindication. Mr. Walter then asked for an apology and accompanied it with a threat, and under these circumstances he could give no apology. It was then he wrote the long letter referred to by Mr. Walter, and which Mr. Horsman read to the House. [This letter explains at greater length Mr. Horsmaia's views, fixing on Mr. Walter the responsibility of the articles in the Times, express- ing regret that "one of our own body" should have given weight and authority to the sentiment expressed by the Times in coarser terms and a more offensive spirit. He hoped to induce Mr. Walter as "the proprietor of the Times, the leader in its councils, and more than any man responsible for its acts" to weigh well the advice he privately offered, not to impute low morality to public men. Then followed some remarks on the duties of jour- nalists, and a special reference to the Times. "Now, you must excuse my taking the liberty of reminding you that there is not a leading man on either front bench that the Times, guided with such wonderful ability and wielding such a terrific power, has not by turns lauded and calum- niated, flattered, and vilified. By turns it has vehemently espoused and bitterly vi- tuperated every party, and advocated and abandoned every principle. And there is this painful and distinctive peculiarity about the Times,—other journals are content with opposing the policy or censuring the acts of the Minister, but the Times al- ways tries to crush the man. For some years it seemed its special vocation to hunt down, ruin, and destroy Lord Palmerston, whose official life is now deemed vital to the nation. Lord John Russell was once the idol to be worshipped, but more re- cently he would have been driven altogether from public life if the acrimony of the Times could have accomplished it. So, again, Lord Derby's first Administration was supported by the Mires; but, in his second one, in the personal persecution of every leading member, it furnished only another instance of consistency and con. sideration, and thus with every public man that is capriciously—and personally, as distinct from politically—assailed, it is not criticism but extermination that is aimed at. The practical consequences of all this on our political condition are very serious. Governments and parties have been lately in a state of weakness and dis- organization alike deplorable and dangerous ; but all this is enormously aggravated when all the vast machinery of the Times and its gigantic writing power are directed to one end—that of pursuing to the death, day after day, every leading man on whom, in turn, the nation (as the Times comes round to show) must rely ; and doing this to an extent that thew public acts don't justify. The result is that all our best public men become not only politically weakened,but personally discredited. Pub- lic principles are unsettled and discredited also, respect for Parliamentary govern- ment and political institutions are much shaken, and strong government becomes impossible. I avow to you my deliberate and solemn conviction, founded on much observation and reflection, that the present confusion in our political world is to a

i

great extent owing to the manner n which every leading man and principle and cause have been damaged by the wavering invective of the Pines. As I wish you to receive this before you go to the House, I have not time to remark on the per- sonal influences by which the Times is supposed to be affected—on the peculiar in- fluences that draw Mr. Helene to Lord Palmerston, and the anomalous position and proceedings of Mr. Lowe on the Treasury bench. They are the subject of com- ments which I will not now repeat, but which affect both the House of Commons and the press. If you receive my observations in the same frank spirit in which I make them I shall be happy fo follow them up by a further expression of views that may be useful to you. Few public men are in a condition to speak boldly to the Times. There are few men in Parliament who, like myself, are so indifferent to party, to office, or to their seat, that they are as independent of the Times as the Times is of them, and fear it as little as it fears them. As I am in that position, I have felt it a duty to tell you what may be useful truths, and in a plain though not unfiiendly spirit : and if they should have the effect of leading you to consider what I have said, and if you will permit your judgment to be influenced by it, I shall not regret the difference—I trust in that case only of a temporary nature—that has ansen between us, and which will have been productive of good results through a circle beyond ourselves." May! read the postscript ? ( Mr. Walter assented.) "In ehaIshond have expressed theev1 s t t,fTean, of course, he press, without pereow.0syourlforote.r Mr. Horsman contended that the letter showed he did not make it a per- sonal question, and that he had not necessitated the bringing of the question before the House. Then he proceeded to insist on that the press ought to be responsible, and that the Times is not. "Conventionally you may say the press is responsible, but practically you find that the press is irresponsible. Why ? Because it is anonymous. But its being anony- mous, does not remove the responsibility. It only makes it difficult to enforce it. You cannot enforce it against a man working in the dark— having a mask before his face. When a muffled figure, who plants a dagger, is not punished, it is because you cannot identify him. (Opposition cheers.) Nor can you punish the midnight burglar whom you cannot catch.' He said he would fix on Mr. Walter the responsibility. "He says he has no editorial functions with the limes—he does not know who was the writer of the article. Who, I ask, employed the man who wrote it ? (Opposition cheers.) Who paid the man who wrote it ? (Opposition cheers.) And if, Sir, he, as the proprietor of the Times— Mr. WALTER—" A proprietor or 'the' proprietor ?" Mr. HORSMAN—" As the leading proprietor of the limes. If the honour- able gentleman gets up and tells me he is not the leading proprietor, I have

done.

Mr. WALTEll—" My proprietary interest in the Times, if the honourable gentleman wishes to 'know, is of a very limited description. I have large property connected with the Times, wholly independent of a limited pro-

prietary interest in it.

Mr. TIonsmsiv—" I am sure the House will feel that it unworthy of the House, aid unfit in me to descend to a controversy with the honourable gentleman the Member for Berkshire on the exact amount of his interest in the Times. The honourable gentleman cannot deny that he has a leading interest, and that he is the greatest authority in the limes. I ask, again, then, who employs the man who writes, who pays the man who writes 11V articles ? (Opposition cheers.) Because the gentleman he employs (irks in secret, his employer thinks he is to evade responsibility. I lay '• down boldly and confidently this principle, that between a public writer and a- public speaker, on the ground of responsibility, there is no distinction Whatever. The only distinction is as to the difficulty of identification and detection." Mr. Hemmen ended by eulogizing the conduct of Mr. Walter as a landlord and a gentleman.

Lord PALMERSTON made an amusing speech :— " I hope this discussion may end at the point at which it has now reached. It has not, so far as I can see, led to any result of greater importance than the causes in which it appears to have originated. For my own part, I should not have presented myself to the notice of the House on the present occasion were it not for the mention which my right honourable friend, has made of my name. (A laugh.) My right honourable friend, in al- luding to that topic, has stated that for a certain period of time—now, I am glad to say, gone by—I was made the subject of very bitter attacks in the columns of the Times. (A laugh.) Now, it is perfectly true that during a portion of my public life I was, so far as the newspaper press is concerned, one of, I believe I may say, the best abused men in England. ("Hear," and a laugh.) I, however, submitted with patience to the attacks which were thus made—(cheers)—and lived on in the belief that an answer to them would, sooner or later, be best furnished by my public conduct. It never occurred to me to rise in my place in this House and formally to com- plain of what had been -with no little bitterness, said against me ; but whether my example in that respect is one which is deserving of being fol- lowed, or whether those who have taken a different course Bela with more propriety, I do not pretend to say. My right honourable friend has stated, I think, in the letter which he has just read, that he did not know what the influence was which drew Mr. Delano, one of the editors or managers of the Times, to me ; and if by that statement he means to imply a wish on my part to exercise any influence over the line of conduct which is pursued in the case of that journal, I can only say, in answer to this charge, in the words of Mrs. Malaprop, that I should be but too glad to plead guilty to the soft impeachment and to know that the insinuation which it involves was really founded on fact. (A laugh.) If there are influences which, as the right honourable gentleman says, have fortunately led Mr. Delane to RIC, they are none other than the influences of society. My right honourable friend has observed, in that glowing address which he has just delivered to us, that the contributors to the press are the favourites and the ornaments of the social circles into which they enter. In that opinion he is, it seems to me, perfectly correct. The gentlemen to whom he refers are, generally speaking, persons of great attainments and information. It is, then, but natural that their society should be agreeable. My acquaintance with Mr. Delane is exactly of that character. I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Delane frequently in society, and he has occasionally done me the honour to mix in society, under my roof. That society was, I may add, composed of persons of all shades of politics—(Cheers)—of various pursuits, and, I need hardly say, I feel proud when persons so honour me without undertaking any other engagement than that which Mr. Delane always makes good—of making themselves very agreeable during the time of their stay. (Cheers.) I have had the honour—and I need, I am sure, scarcely add that I esteemed it no small honour—of receiving occasionally under my roof the right honourable gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire and the right honourable gentleman the Member for the University of Cam- bridge. The influences which led them to do me that honour were of the same nature as those which induced Mr. Delano to confer upon me a similar honour—the expectation of meeting agreeable society, and I trust they were not disappointed. (Cheers.) I had also myself the honour, on more than one occasion, of being a member of the society which assembled under Lord Derby's roof,. an.d, in availing myself of that privilege, I did nothing more than that which the right honourable gentleman the Member for Bucking- hamshire, the right honourable gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, or Mr. Delane did, when they visited me that is to say, mix on fair and equal terms in the society in which they met, and endeavour to make themselves as agreeable as possible." (Loud cheers.)

Mr. Dismays.' commented on the objectionable practice of enforcing views delivered in that House by quotations from anonymous con- temporary writings. Newspapers are responsible to the laws of the country and to the public. He had had his share of hostile criticism, and it was neither so agreeable nor so indifferent to him when it began as it is now. From it public men may derive no inconsiderable disadvantage :— " I agree with the noble Lord that with these views it is, on the whole, very unnecessary to ask the House to be the confidant of our plaints when- ever we may be subjected to severe remarks. The House must admit that if the public press in this country is to be a free press it is not for us to cri- ticize with too much promptitude intellectual efforts which it must be re- membered are written under conditions of immense difficulty. And as for responsibility, we must always recollect that these enterprises are respon- sible to the general opinion of the country, and that public opinion cannot i be enlisted n their favour unless it is found that, either by their informa- tion, their criticism, or the general intelligence which pervades their per- formance, they are, on the whole, of advantage to the community at large." The motion for adjournment was then withdrawn.

BANKRUPTCY LAW OF SCOTLAND.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of the Bankrupt Law (Scotland) Amendment Bill. The measure is intended to remedy a flagrant evil in the administration of the bankruptcy and insolvency law.

By the law of Scotland, a person who had been resident in that country forty days was domiciled so far that he might sue and be sued in that part of the United Kingdom, and he might have a commission of bankruptcy, or sequestration as it was called there, taken out against him, discharging him from all his obligations. This had been taken advantage of by. a great number of persons who had gone from England to Scotland, and having lived there for forty days, amusing themselves with grouse shooting or deer stalk- ing, they had a sequestration issued at their own request. To be sure, an advertisement was inserted in the papers informing the creditors, but it called upon them to appear perhaps at Aberdeen or at Inverness. Nay, a few months ago he was told that at Pomerory an English colony was established, consisting of English bankrupts and insolvents who were in the course of being what was called whitewashed,—getting rid of the obligation to pay their debts. The Scotch courts were very much ashamed of this, .but it was found that they had no power whatever to prevent it. The olyect of this bill was to remedy the evil, and to enable the courts in Scotland, by petition, showing that the majority in number and in value of the creditors resided in England, to recall the sequestration, discharge the insolvent, and compel him to go where justice would be done. Lord Thionomixi expressed his approval of the bill. Lord CHELMS• PORD suggested that the clause, giving it a retrospective operation, should be altered.

The bill was read a second time.

REVISION OF THE LITURGY,

Lord EBURY, after an elaborate preface, going deeply into the history of the adoption of the Act of Uniformity, and showing reasons for changes that would bring Dissenters back to the Church, especially by shortening the services and devising new ones, moved :- " That whereas the particular forms of Divine worship, and the rites and ceremonies appointed to be used therein, being things in their own nature indifferent and alterable and so acknowledged, it is but reasonable that, upon weighty and important considerations, according to the various exi- gency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein as to those that are in _place of authority should, from time to time, peem either necessary or expedient. He also moved, that whereas the Book of Canons is fit to be reviewed and made more suitable to the state of the Church, and whereas it is desirable, as far as may be, to remove all un- necessary barriers to a union of the people in the matter of public worship, that a humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to be pleased to appoint a Commission to prepare such alterations and amend- ments in the Canons and Book of Common Prayer as to them may appear desirable, and to consider of such other matters as in their judgment may. most conduce to the ends abovementioned."

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said he was convinced that the object which Lord Ebury had in view was the benefit of the Church, but he was also convinced that the mode by which he proposed to confer that benefit would only result in injury. Although he had met many who desired alterations, he had seldom found any two persons who agreed as to what alterations should be made in the Prayer Book, and he, there- fore, could not help considering that the proposed alterations might seriously damage the peace of the Church. He therefore felt bound to oppose the motion. Lord LYTTELTON also opposed the motion.

The Bishop of LONDON said the question was a practical one, and he should much like to know what was the practical grievance complained of, and what was the practical good to be obtained. The grievances alleged did not arise from the causes alleged, nor would they be re- medied by the means proposed. As to the Canons, it is perfectly com- petent for Convocation, with the consent of the Crown, to alter these Canons, and he therefore asked what use could there be in applying for a commission in order to do that which could be done already without it ?

Earl STANHOPE said that the large majority of the bench of Bishops and of the clergy opposed to the motion of Lord Ebury was a sufficient proof of its great unpopularity and the small need there is of the revision of the Liturgy. Earl GRANVILLE thought it would be desirable, as the expression of opinion had been all on one side, that the motion should be withdrawn.

The Bishop of OXFORD wished to understand whether Lord Ebury in- tended by this motion to alter the doctrinal status of the Church of Eng- land, or to abbreviate certain prayers which he deemed too long. The only means of judging of the intention of Lord Ebury was, not by his speech, which was most obscure on this point, but by the opinions of those who put him forward. It had been an argument in favour of the motion that a revision of the Liturgy would conciliate the Dissenters. Now, he did not think for a minute that the alterations in the Prayer. Book would bring back Dissenters to the Church, and, even if he had any reasons for thinking so, he should grieve, much as he desired to bring them back, to allure them back by any such means. He protested, vehemently, against the alterations of "only a few words here and there," as it would, in his opinion, be striking at the belief of the great body of the English people. The man who proposed to make alterations in the Prayer Book for any but the greatest results was, in his opinion, rash and unadvised. The objection to the mere length of the services was a mere bugbear. In his own diocese, the services which had, in some instances, been shortened had been subsequently resumed at their full length, at the request of those very persons who had begged they might be shortened.

Motion negatived without a division.

THE WEDNESDAY SITTING.

Two measures were keenly debated at the Wednesday sitting—the Piers and Harbours Bill, and the Bleaching Works Bill.

Mr. LINDSAY, resuming the adjourned debate on the Piers and Har- bours Bill, moved that it be read a second time that day six months ; alleging that it referred those who wish to improve harbours to the Ad- miralty and not to the House. Mr. BUCHANAN seconded the motion. Mr. Penni. said the bill would provide a cheaper mode of effecting im- provements in harbours, prevent waste of capital in preliminary expenses, and the necessity of getting private Acts of Parliament. Sir] Joule PAKINGTON and Lord CLARENCE PAGET supported the principle of the bill; and on a division, it was read a second time by 99 to 88. The motion for going into Committee on the Bleaching and Dyeing Works Bill was the signal for a sharp debate. Mr. BABLEY met the mo- tion by a proposal to refer it to a Select Committee. Favourable to le- gislation, he said the masters would not object to a reasonable bill, but they are unwilling to be coerced into the adoption of a system bad for them and their workpeople. Lord ASHLEY was of opinion that sufficient evidence has been collected. Colonel PATTEN would be no party to the postponement of the bill to another session but he supported the demand for further inquiry. As it stands the bill session, interfere with commercial interests. Lord JOHN MANNERS replied, that to send the bill to a Select Committee, would be to reopen the whole question and shelve the mea- sure for the session. Sir TAMES GRAHAM, who pointedly confessed that the Factory Bill, which he opposed, had worked well, was in favour of referring the bill to a Select Committee. The extension of the Short Time Act to bleaching and dyeing works should be cautiously effected; On the understanding that the Select Committee should be a dilatory plea, and appointed to waste time, Mr. HENLEY supported the amend. ment. Mr. TURNER was opposed to all legislation on the subject. MT. ROEBUCK, Mr. COBBETT, and Major EDWARDS would vote for the original motion.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS desired to proceed, but to consult the wishes of the promoters of the bill. He would prefer a Committee of the whole Housal to a Select Committee. MT. CROOK, MT. CUNINGHAM, and Sir James FEROUSSOIII, were for going at once into Committee, and Sir Hum' CAIRNS, speaking for the Irish bleachers, preferred a Select Committee.

by On a division, the amendment was negatived House went into Committee. 134 to 147, and the

STOCK-IOBBING. Mr. Bovrtn moved the second reading of the Stock- Jobbing Bill. He said that Sir John Barnard's Act not only interfered with stock-jobbing, but with legitimate purchases and sales. His bill abolished every restriction on these transactions, but it did not countenance any tran- saction of a wagering character. Mr. Bovill accused the Government of de- siring to make a revenue out of gambling in the funds. But Mr. COLLIER having moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months, and being supported by Mr. Mann:a and Mr. MELLOR, the amend- ment was carried without a division, and the bill was lost.

REGISTRATION OF Burrits, DEATHS, &e. Lord NAAS has brought in a bill to provide for the uniform registration of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland. He proposes to make use of the constabulary, and to obtain returns of all Roman Catholic marriages through the priests. Mr. CARD- WELL welcomed the bill, and said he hoped that some measure would pass ; but he seemed to object to the employment of the constabulary and to pre- fer the English system.

Cron, SERTICE ExAmmanoss. Mr. BENTINCK moved for copies of the examination papers, and the answers thereto by certain boys examined at Portsmouth by the Civil Service Commissioners last January. His case was that the Commissioners had done injustice to a particular boy of superior ability who had been rejected for bad spelling. The Commissioners had declined to let him see the papers. He wished to know whether these Commissioners were to be the only irresponsible body in the county ? Mr. GLADSTONE opposed the motion, and defended the Commissioners. Unless a certain standard is reached, the Commissioners will not take no- tice of the other acquirements of a candidate. "The whole weight of per- sonal feeling and political influence is continually working against the Civil Service Commissioners, and unless this House and the Government afford them full support, it will be impossible for those gentlemen to exer- cise satisfactorily the functions that have been assigned to them. It must be borne in mind that the Commissioners have in no way declined the juris- ffietion of the House. They do not deny that it is within the power of this House to inquire into the acts of any public officer ; but the question is, whether it would be prudent or politic to exercise those powers. I think it would be most imprudent and impolitic, and would defeat the useful la- bours of the Civil Service Commissioners."

Mr. MONCKTON MILNES thought there should be some supervision. Lord ROBERT CECIL attacked the whole system ; and Sir GEORGE LEWIS defended it.

The motion was negatived by 80 to 50.

TROOPS FOR CHINA. DI answer to a question from Sir STAFFORD NORTH- carE, Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT described in detail the composition of the force to be sent to China. The totals are from India—Europeans 7484, natives 4600; from England 1999 men, and fromthe Cape 845 men, giving a total of 14,928. Deducting 1000 for over-estimate, the force stands at 14,000.