Watts out rurtgaugn in Vaxliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BTEIHESS OF THE WEEK.

limas or Loans. Monday. May 19. Central America; Lord Clarendon's State- ment—India ; Lord Albemarle's Motion—Marriage-Law Amendment ; Lord Brough.- am's Bill committed.

Tuesday, May 28. Divorce and Matrimonial Causes ; the Lord Chancellor's Bill referred to a Select Committee—Smoke Nuisance Abatement Amendment Bill com- mitted.

Thursday, May 22. Affairs of Italy; Lord Lyndhurst's Motion withdrawn-- Bankers' Compositions Bill read a third time and passed—Maritime Law ; Lord. Colchester's Resolutions negatived by 156 to 182.

Friday, May 23. Public Buildings and Statues ; Lord Bavensworth's Com- plaints—Transportation; Select Committee appointed—Smoke Nuisance Abatement Act Amendment Bill, read a third time and passed.

HOUSE OP COmmows. Monday, May 19. The Sunday Bands ; Questions to Lord Palmerston—Committee of ways and Means ; the Budget—Fire-Insurances ; Sir George Lewis's Bill committed.

Tuesday, May 20. The Secret -Treaty; Lord Palmerston's Answer to Lord Granby—The Ballot; Mr. Berkeley's Motion—Ecclesiastical Judges ; Mr. J. G. Phillimore's Bill, leave given. Wednesday, May 21. Ecclesiastical Judges ; Mr. Phillimore's Bill read a that time—Church-rates ; Mr. l'acke's Bill withdrawn—Justices of the Peace Quaiitica- uen Bill in Committee.

Thursday, May 22. Factories ; Colonel Patter's Bill committed—Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill reported—Formation of Parishes ; Lord Blandfoni's Bill in Committee—Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Bill committed—Sleeping Sta- tutes ; Mr. Locke King's Bill committed—Industrial and Provident Societies Bill reed a third time and passed. Friday, 'May 23. Orphan Cadets at Sandhurst ; Colonel North's Question—Suf- fragan Bishops ; Lord Blandford's Question—The Illuminations ; Mr. T. Duncombes Question—Oath of AbjuratiOn ; Mr. Milner Gibson's B91 committed--Police (Coun- ties and Boroughs); Sir G. Grey's Bill reported—Poor-law Amendment (No. 2); Mr. touverie's Bill read a first tine-Tire-Insurance; Sir G. Lewis's Rill read a third time and passed.

TIME-TAB L E.

The Lords.

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Hour of . Hour of

Meeting. AdiesanMent. Meeting. Adjosiriiment.

Monday 5h , 7h lam Monday 45 .(m) l4h•45m Tuesday 5h Sc 50m Tuesday 4h .... dh 15m

Wedneeday

No sitting. Wednesday

Noon 4h om

Thursday 511 12h Om Thursday

lh . On) In Min

Friday 5h 7h 15m Friday A .(in) lhNOm Sittings this ,

Week, 4; Time, 145 20m Sittings thisWeek,

5; Time, 35h lam ---- this Session, 52 ; 128h 1.5m this Session, 8.14 4811b.lem

Tax Bracer.

The House of Commons reassembled on Monday, and after a few questions had been put, went into Committee of Ways and Means.

The CHANCELLOR of the Exenacruala reminded the Committee, that in the financial statement he made at the end of February, the- estimated deficiency for the service of the last year was 3;560,0007. ; that to cover this deficiency he proposed to borrow 5,000,9001. ; that this sitar had been borrowed-3,500,0001. being paid in'the last and 1,500,0001, in the present financial year ; that he had also received the assent of Parlia- ment to a proposition for funding 3,000,0001. of Exchequer Bills; and that after this operation the Exchequer Bills rose from 7s. discount to par. Since he made his statement in February, the balance-sheet for 1855-'6 had been laid before the Mouse. The expenditure for 18M-'6 was 88,428,3551.the revenue derived from taxes was 65,704,4911 ; excess of expenditure, 22,728,8541. To this excess must be added 1,000,0001. for the loan to Sardinia, and 213,0001. for the redemption, of . hereditary pensions ; which made the excess of expenditure over revenue 23,936,0001. To cover this excess, he bad raised by loan—in Consols 19,501,000/.' in Exchequer Bonds 977,7501. ; Exchequer Bills -6,000,0001. ; total 26,478,7501. To account for the excess in the amount borrowed over the excess in payments-2,542,0001.—he stated that the balances in the Exchequer, which were 3,949,0001. on the 31st March 1855, were 5,600,0001. on the 81st March 1856; showing a difference in . favour of the Exchequer of no,00qi., -awing to money received on ac- remit of funding of Exchequer Bills. - The expenditure of the pest year has been in a great measure for war and he desired to show esfairly as possible, the expense incurred purposes two years of war. "The total expenditure in two years of war, 1864-'6 and 1855-'6, for all public purposes whatever, including 1,000,0001. advanced on Loan to Sardinia, lies amounted to 1.56,121,3071. The expendi- ture in two years of peace, 1852-'3 and 1853-'4, for the same purposes, was 102,032,596/. Deducting, then, the expenditure of the two years of peace from the expenditure of two years of war, we find that the excess of expenditure in the two year:: of war was 53,088,711L I think it is impossible, according to this calculation, that any expense which is fairly due to the war can have been overlooked. The revenue from taxation during the two years of war amounted to 125,200,645/., and in the two years of peace to 108,016,1231.; the increase of revenue from taxation in the two years of war having been 17,1 sat' 5224 To this amount I will add the money raised by additions to the funded and unfunded debt, amounting to 33,604,263/. ; and therefore the total receipt during the two years of war from increased revenue and from money borrowed has been 50,786,785/. To this sum the surplus income above the expenditure during the last two years of peace--6,985,527/.—should also be added; thus making the total sum applicable to war-expenditure over and above the sums applied to peace-expenditure 56,772,3121. Now, if we compare the estimated expen- diture for the present year with the expenditure of the years of peace ma- modiatek_ _Preceding the war, we shall find that there is an excess of 24,500,mue•; and, adding to that amount the excess of expenditure in the two years of war-63,088,0001.—we arrive at a total expenditure for the three years of 77,588,0004" Here Sir George Lewis dwelt on the peculiar character of the late con- test, to show how, by applying the means of science, we were able to crowd into a small space of time operations that in former times were spread over a far longer term ; and how thereby we have avoided those drains upon in- dustry and trade, and, by waiving our maritime right, those incidental dis- putes, so severely felt in former wars. The alight cloud that has arisen be- tween this country and the United States, he trusted, would be speedily re- moved. When we went to war we were unprepared ; but during the last two years we have extended and improved our naval and military eetablish- mente. And all our expenditure has not been merely to accomplish tempo- rary objects ; much of the outlay remains in a permanent form. Sir George next stated the estimated expenditure for 1866-'7. For all practical purposes, the present year must be looked upon as a year of war- expenditure. An expenditure in preparation that has proved unnecessary has been incurred. There is also the expense of bringing home the troops from the Crimea, including the Sardinians. Notwithstanding these sources of expenditure, the Government are happy to be able to present a reduced estimate. " The original estimate for the Army, presented before Easter, was 34,998,000/. • the revised estimate, presented a short time ago, was 20,747,000/. ; making a difference of 14,261,0004 Theo riginal estimate for the Navy was 19,876,0001.; the revised estimate was 16,568,0001. ; showing a difference of 3,308,0001. The total estimates for the Army and Navy,

as o y presented, were 64,874,000/. • the revised estimates were 37, 1. ; showing a total reduction of 17,559,000/."

Besides these expenses, there is an expense arising out of our convention with Sardinia. By the convention of January 1856, Great Britain under- took to lend a second million to Sardinia if the war should not have been brought to a close at the expiration of twelve months after the payment of the first instalment. The act carrying the convention into effect received the Royal assent on the 26th April ; the treaty of peace was ratified on the 27th April 1856—exactly one year and one day after the convention re- ceived thFRoyal assent. Some delay, in no way attributable to the Sar- dinian Government, took place in 1855, and the first instalment was not paid until the 3d May. But the Government felt that although, by a literal construction of the convention, they would net be justified in advancing a Becloud million, yet that practieelly the second year of war had commenced, and thatthe spirit of the treaty required the payment of the second million. He trusted the House would authorize the Oevernment to carry into effect the spirit of the treaty.

He next,' stated the estimated expenditure for 1856-'7; explaining that the vote of credit for 2,000,0001, was taken as a measure of precaution.

Net.

£27.636,000 1,025,000 1,760,000 44,115,000 2,000,000 1,000,000

Total Expenditure £02,113.000 , £77,525,000 The next subject was taxation. Beginning with the Inconiestax, which will continue for the present and another yetis, he estimated the produce ikt round numbers at 16,000,0001. The taxes onted, oeffee, and sugar, he pro- posed to continue at their present amount during the current year, that is, from the 3001 March ltiat until the 6th April next. He entered into details to show. that, since 1835, there has been such a great increase the Con- sumption of tea, coffee, and sugar, as has materially benefited the revenue ; that in spite of the increase of the duties on spirits during the war, these duties, were never in a sounder state ; that although there has been a dimi- nution in the consumption; yet it is not wholly due to the inereasedsluty, but is in a great degree attributable to the improved habits of the people, and to a large increase of the s .rt to the Continents-4,268,697 gallons--in conse- quence of the failure of e e wine crop. He showed that the war-duty on.mAlt will fall on the let July, under the present law, from 4s. to 28. 8d. per bushel. Ile admitted that the pressure of the dirty has considerahly dinernahed the consumptiOn of malt; but he expressed an opinion that the consumption would not be materially increased were the duty diminished:is Taking the malt- duty as a beer-duty in another form, he theught it right to show that beer is lightly taxed. In 1829 there was a beer-duty, as well as a malt-duty and a hop-duty ; and the three produced, on an average of three years, 7,192,474/. During the last three years the average produce of the malt and hop duties was 6,530,8861. ; the tax on beer in 1829 yielded 7,192,474/. ; whereas including the war-duty on malt, it hes during the last three years only been 6,530,8861. Again, the duty on beer, 25 per cell_ t per barrel, is altogether insignificant compared with the duty on spirite; Weser emit per gallon. Beer, therefore, . is very moderately taxed. Here She rgeread the estimate for.the current year in a tabulated form.

Gross Estimate, Net Estimate.

Customs £23,850,000 £22,524,000

Excise . 17,170,000 16,348,000

Stamps - 7,166,000 7,000,000 Land and Assessed Taxes 3,110,000 2,950,000 Property and Income-tax 16,865,008 16,000,000 Post-office 2,810,000 1,070,000 Crown Lands 260,000 260,000 kiseellaneous 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total £71,740,000 £67,152,000

Expenditure, Funded Debt, including New Loan , . 421,17r62.570008.

Uqfwaded Debt 1,025,000 Permanent Charges on Consolidated Fund 1,760,000 Army £20,747,000 Navy 16,568.000 Civil 6,800,000 44,115,000 Charges of Collecting the Revenue 4,588,000 Vote of Credit 2,000,000 Loan to Sardinia 1,000,000

Deducting the estimated revenue from the estimated expenditure, there will remain a deficiency of 10,373,0001. But from that deficiency must be deducted 1,600,000e received m the current year as the produce of the loan of 6,000,0001. effected before Easter, and the 2,000,0004 margin ; which reduces the deficiency to 6,873,0001. In this state of the revenue and expenditure, the Government has resolved not to propose any new taxes, nor to dimihiah any source of revenue, but to make up the deficiency by borrowing. In the first instance, a loan of 5,000,0004 has been taken at 1871. 108. 7d. or equal to Consols at 98. The price offered was 1001. for 108/. Consols ; but Baron Rothschild agreed to accept the terms offered by the Goyemment. Sir George dwelt on this transaction as illustrating the great resources of the country. Baron Rothschild had that morning informed him that deposits of 10 per cent in hank-notes or money had been placed in his hands by persons desirous of obtaining a share of the loan, to the amount of

4,000,000/.--equal to a capital of 40,000,0001. But this loan, will not cover the estimated deficiency, and he proposed to cover the remaining estimated deficit of 1,873,000/. by taking power to borrow 2,000,0001. in Exchequer

Bonds or Exchequer Bills. At present it is inexpedient to increase the amount of the Exchequer Bills in the market. The increase of railway de- bentures, and the placing of money at call with bankers, abridge the de-

mand for Exchequer Bills. The outstanding amount of Exchequer Bills 124,000/. ; but of this amount 6,000,0001. is in the hands of the Na- tional Commissioners, and there are therefore no more than 16,124,0001. in the hands of the public.

Here Sir George compared our present position with the state of our debt at the end of the war in 1815. " On the 5th of January 1816, the capital Of the funded debt of England was stated at 816,311,9391.; on the 5th

of January 1866, it was 766,778,5991. • showing a decrease of 49,633,34AL That decrease has taken place notwithstanding the addition made to the

debt last year. I come now to the unfunded debt, where the com- parison is even more favourable. On the 5thof Jammu 1816, the unfunded debt was stated at 43,939,708/. ;. on the 5th of January last, it was

26,614,2001.; showing a decrease in the capital of the unfunded debt Of 17,325,508/. The total diminution in both the funded and the unfunded debt since the end of the last war is 66,858648/. Let us now see what change has taken place in the charge of die debt. On the 6th of

January 1816, the charge of the funded debt was 30,468,204/. ; • on the 6th of Jesuitry 1866, it was 27,275,7681. showing a diminution of 3,182,436/.

With regard to the unfunded debt, the charge ou the 6th of January 1816

was 2,326,964/. ; on the 5th of January 1856, it was no more than 993,76W. showing a diminution of 1,332,1954 The total diminution iu the charge of

the funded and unfunded debt since the close of the last war is 4,514,6314"

In connexion with this subject, he stated the accruing liabilities in future years. In 1857, 2,000,0001. of Exchequer Bonds will fall due ; in 1868, another

2,000,0001., and a sinking-fund for war-loans of 1,500,0001. The accruing lia-

bilities will be the same in 1869. In 1860, the Exchequer Bonds due will be 1,000,000/., the sinking-fund 1,500,000/. From 1861 to 1873, there will be an annual payment of 1,600,000/. for the war sinking-fund; from

1874 to 1877 the payment will be 500,0001. per annum. In 1880, however, annuities will cease to the amount of 2,160,0001. • and iu 1867 there will

be a cessation of the dead-weight of naval and military pensions to the ex-

tent of 585,7401. That statement exhibits the only.inanner is which a tui- tional debt can be extinguished—not by any mysterious self-acting sinking- fund, but by raising a surplus revenue by taxation, and applying it an-

nually to the extinction of the debt. All other contrivances are delusive. There is no instance in which power is given to any public body to borrow that is not accompanied by a condition that an annual sinking-fund shall be set apart to extinguish the debt. Parliament alone has been remiss in applying that mode of extinguishing the debt of the nation itself. The loan that would be

submitted to the Committee had not been taken in terminable annuities, hes cause perpetual annuities are the most mils us to the borrower and louder. A perpetual annuity is not a permanent debt ; the one can be en- uiahed as well as the other. in the last section of his speech, Sir George Lewis said that there seemed . to bean impression abroad that at this period of transition we should revise OW system of taxation, Before that view is adopted, the great exertions made of late years to revise taxation should be consideied. The whole tariff was reviewed by Sir Robert Peel in 1842 ; a large part of it again came under consideration in 1846; and in 1853 the Customs-duties under- ' went revision ; and thus all prohibitive, protective, and excessive duties, were swept away, except the duties on foreign spirits and hops. Sir Charles Wood had dealt with the Stamp-duties, Mr. Gladstone with bills and gee ceipte ; the Brick-duty, the Soap-duty, the Window-tax, have been we,' pealed; the Assessed Taxes revised, the Hackney Carriage, Post Home, sad Stage Carriage duties, have been reduced. The- great obstacle to an WS, proved system of taxation is not a want of oare on the part of rarharnentr but the necessity of raising a large revenue.

He read a series of tables showing the relation of expenditure in this country to that of other countries. In 1866-'6 the rate of taxation per head

in Great Britain was 3/. 5s., mid the rate per head exclusive of public debt was U. 6a. 4d. In France, the rate of taxation per head, in 1865, was 11.17s. 7d.; and the rate per head, exclusive of the debt, was 11. ar. 3d. In Prussia, the rate per head was 19s. 3d., and the rate exclusive of the debt was 17s. 3d, He thought that if we leave out of consideration the great annual charge for our debt, the comparison showed that the portion of the public expenditure within the control of Parliament is reduced within reasonable limits. He mentioned three taxes, however, which are mains tallied at higher rates than they otherwise would be in consequence of our great expenditure—the duties on tobacco, ine, and fire-insurances. All these duties are inconveniently high, but 'be did not see how they could be reduced. lie had now laid before the Committee his plan : it did not inn volre any departure from the existing financial system ; it was intended merely to supply the deficiencies of the year ; and he trusted that it would feketive the support of the House of Commons. He moved a series of rest. lutions, in the usual form, authorizing the loan of 6,000,0001. contracted 14 the morning. Mr. .Atssoen regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not made up his mind to reduce the duty on fire-insurances to one Mr. HADFIELD promised to move that the duty should be so red Mr. E. Best hoped the additional 6 per cent upon malt would be remits ted. Mr. Yawn remonstrated with Sir George Lewis on the retention

of the present duty on Irish spirits. Mr. Gresoe did not like to hear Sir George discredit the idea of revising our financial system, and in- stanced the fire-insurance and paper-duties as demanding abolition.

Mr. DISRAELI said, it seemed to. Aliso that there was little prospect theta Chancellor of the Exchequer *Rig, pose to reduce any existing fax (hut he would leave Sir George Mae • s:th his habitual supporters. of Liberal opinions the, doctrines of fin: .Vir3lity just promulgated He also took the epportianitsga expressing his h Mad* Government would'adopt measures of -wisenflue7igid economy. "Tinditie the only spirit of legislation in which, we call` cenform to " the wise principles pr finance upon whi Lein %now generally established." He de- . predated, iaVgd( Inients ; there is a great difference

tween an effective and an expensive army. But he looked with some distrust at the large reduction proposed in the original estimate for the Militia—a force that should be largely and liberally maintained.

The greater part of Mr. Disraeli's speech, however, had reference to our relations with the King of Sardinia. They are perplexing, and look peril- ous. In the Paris Conference we encouraged him by our language to fulfil his mission—the liberation of Italy. How can we explain that " sub- terranean policy" which claps Sardinia on the back, and signs a tripartite treaty. consolidating a policy adverse to that adopted by Sar- dinia, and meaning, if it means anything, that the Government of Europe is in future to be carried on by Austria, France, and England. He would say nothing against the tripartite treaty ; but when asked for treasure, he must request some explanation of the mysterious circumstances that affect our relations with Sardinia. He described his object in speaking as being to prevent a repetition of what occurred in 1848, when our conduct was dis- graceful to ourselves and injurious to Italy ; when, during Lord Minto's mission, the Italians were excited to tumult by English influence, and de- serted by English power. Mr. Disraeli closed with a flourish describing the deep interest he felt in Italy; his trust that "Time the great reformer, will save Italy " ; and his belief that if anything " baffie her advancing destinies, it will be the intrigues of politicians who are not Italians, and who for the sake of getting an impulse and support which otherwise they might not command, trifle with the fate of a great people, pander to the lusts of secret societies, pretend to sympathy they do not feel, and, for the love 'of popular applause and a momentary success, compromise the destiny of a great and gifted nation." Lord PALMERSTON briefly addressed the Committee, wholly on the Ita- lian point. They had heard, he began, a good deal of the eloquence which. Mr. Disraeli could command at any moment; and it would be well deserving of attention, did it not want one essential—foundation in fact. He talked of " mysteries " where none exist ; and attached to simple treaties meanings which any one who had once read them would see were inapplicable. His assertions respecting the conduct of the Government in 1848 imply charges totally untrue. Sardinia, it is true, has a great mission to fulfil—" the high destiny of holding out to all the other states of Italy a bright example of liberal institutions and constitutional go- vernment." There is not the shadow of a pretext for saying that we are .engaged with Sardinia in a secret project for revolutionizing Italy. ]'f Sardinia is ever menaced by an unfriendly power, she will have a fair claim on England and France for protection ; but it never entered into the contemplation of England and France to make that noble alliance a means of enabling Sardinia to set forth on a career of aggression. In the treaty between Austria, France, and England, there is not one word about guaranteeing the territories of the contracting parties—nothing to war- rant the impression that it makes those three Powers the arbiters of Eu- ropean destinies. Lord Palmerston thought that the military occupations of the Italian states are misfortunes that should cease as soon as possible ; but there is no engagement for that purpose, except what is patent to all the world on the face of the protocols.

Sir FRANCIS BARING recalled the attention of the Committee to the Budget, and advocated that economy and efficiency which generally go together. Mr. GLADSTONE began by a reference to Sardinia. Ho attached great importance to maintaining a conviction abroad that we are unanimous in our feeling of respect for the Sardinian Government, and of our sense of the duty of lending it all the moral support we can. If Sardinia should, as Mr. Disraeli seemed to think, entertain schemes of aggression, we can scarcely wonder at it. She labours under great difficulties ; but if she carries into her foreign the spirit of her domestic policy, she will renounce her schemes of aggression. She must practise self-denial, and -exhibit a right example to Italy ; and in the moral force flowing from that she will find her reward. Passing from this subject to the Budget, Mr. Gladstone combated the impression that the parsimony of the House of Commons had been the cause of our disasters in the late war. As instances that an efficient army need not be an expensive army, he pointed to Prussia and Sardinia. He also criticized the narrow provision made to meet the expenditure—a surplus of 160,0001. upon a sum of 77,000,0001. is sailing very near the wind indeed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must hold decided lan- guage, and prevent incursions on the revenue; and, however Members may differ, they should not set the pestilent example of abolishing taxes and borrowing money in their stead. The House of Commons has become favourable to increased expenditure, and Mr. Gladstone was sorry the House had not taken the Chancellor of the Exchequer to task on the amended Navy Estimates and the vote for works. After some further desultory discussion, the resolutions were agreed to, and the House resumed.

Mearnicir LAW.

Lord COLCHESTER brought the late declaration on maritime law, agreed to at Paris, under the notice of the House of Peers. The point he wished to raise was, whether that declaration would render war less inconve- nient to neutrals. He did not object to the abolition of privateering, but he did object to the maxim that the neutral flag covers an enemy's goods. That question, first raised in 1752 by Prussia, and put forward subsequently on several occasions, has been successfully resisted by Eng- land; the contrary has been upheld as the law of nations, maintained by argument, and enforced by arms. The recent declaration on maritime law would, he was convinced, tend to prolong wars. He objected to it also because the question was decided without previous reference to Par- liament ; the whole matter was arranged with unbecoming haste. Here- after, the power of the Crown to assent to these changes may be called in question ; the declaration may not be held binding in a court of law ; the maritime law has been declared the law of the land, and it remains to be seen whether a British Plenipotentiary can sign away the law of the land without the consent of Parliament. He submitted to the House the fol- lowing resolutions. "That the most eminent jurists of all ages have accepted as a principle of international law, that the right of capturing an enemy's goods on board of neutral vessels is inherent in all belligerent powers; that the maintenance of this right is of essential importance, and its abandonment of serious in- jury to a power whose main reliance is on her naval superiority. in-

jury That Great Britain consequently, although occasionally waiving the ex- ercise of the right by epeeffic treaties, has invariably refused to recognize the abimdonmeat of a principle which auceessiii Governments have con- curred in considering identified with her national greatness. " That this House deeply regrets that a principle so long and so strenuously maintained should, in the recent Conferences at Paris, have been suddenly abandoned, without the previous sanction or knowledge of Parliament, by Plenipotentiaries assembled for the purpose of discussing the terms on which peace with KUMAR might be concluded and the affairs of the East satisfac- torily adjusted." The Earl of CLARENDON, acknowledging the urbane spirit and polished courtesy with which the motion bad been made, promised to imitate Lord Colchester's example. It bad been laid down, that to surrender the right to seize enemies' goods under a neutral flag would not conduce to the dignity or welfare of Eng- land. If that were accepted, it must be accepted aolutely, everywhere and for ever a most unwise proceeding where mutation is the law of so-

ciety, more ever; in the case of a law which Lord Colchester admit-

ted had been often altered to suit the exigencies of the times. Jurists are

apt to state the law as it is, not as it ought to be ; and in the time of Grotius jurists were found to defend the killing of women and prisoners after sur- render. Eminent men in former days upheld the worst parts of our penal

code. We have no more reason to suppose that they would now maintain their opinion on international law, than that they would defend the penal code. Nor could he admit the principle that we are justified in resorting to extreme measures to hasten a period of peace—that would justify the most barbarous usages. A heavy responsibility lies on those who can and will not mitigate war. In the resolutions it is laid down, that modern jurists are favourable to Lord Colchester's principle : but men of authority—Hub- ner, Rayneval, Martens, Chitty, Pardesaus, Wheaton—all these describe his principle as a relic of barbarous times. We have a right to blockade the porta of an enemy and prevent neutrals from breaking that blockade ; but neutrals have a right to trade with ports not strictly blockaded. Hitherto

we have claimed a more extensive right, under the name of privateering, and delegated it to buccaneers, giving them a royal licence but neutrals, havingjustice on their side, have constantly protested against that viola- tion of their rights. Lord Colchester says that we have occasionally waived our right to take an enemy's goods out of neutral ships: the first English treaty containing the principle of " free ships, free goods," was concluded between Oliver

Cromwell and John IV. of Portugal, and for a hundred and fifty-six years that was the invariable rule of our intercourse. The principle was ex- pressed in the treaty of St. Germain en Lae in 1677, and was the rule of

our amicable relations with France until 1793. In 16657 the role of "free

ships, free goods," was recognized in a treaty with Spam; it was the

rule of our intercourse with Spain for a hundred and hirty-one years.

We had various treaties with Holland from 1667 to 1780, all of which con- tained the rule. "In the interval between 1654 and 1793,. we were six

times at war with France, seven times with Spain, and three times with the

United Provinces of Holland and we terminated those were by six treaties with France, seven with Spain, and three with Holland, all of which re- cognized the rule." It is true, these engagements were frequently violated,

and by none more flagrantly than by ourselves. After the-French Beiolu- tion, the French and English Governments vied with each other, by orders

in Council and Berlin decrees, in violating all the rights of justice and the ties of international treaties. But in the course of the last two centuries, one hundred and thirty international engagements have been made between

the principal Powers of the world, in all of which except eleven the rule "free ships, free goods," is contained. In the heat and animosity of war, men lay aside this principle ; but when under the influence of reason, they declare that it should-be the rule of civilized nations.

When we commenced the war, it was necessary that our cooperation with France should be complete. But the principles of the maritime law of the two countries were diametrically opposed to each other. The French re- spect enemies' goods on board neutral vessels, but they confiscate neutral goods on board enemies' vessels; while we confiscate enemies' goods on board neutral vessels, and respect neutral goods in enemies' vessels. What could be dorte but assimilate the maritime code of the two powers ; and when these rights were waived, how could they be restored? Every mari- time nation protested against our practice : had we maintained our old rule we should have stood alone in the world, because we maintained a law con- trary to public opinion. The United States has almost always been neu-

tral. In 1811 her tonnage was 1,000,000, it is now 5,300,000: would the Americans have submitted to our law and practice ? Should we allow any nation on earth to inflict injury on us incarrying out a law we do not re- cognize? Lord Clarendon read Mr. Marcy's dignified note of 28th April 1854, to show in what light the United States regarded the principle, and

how greatly satisfied they were that it had received the qualified sanction of England. and France. Haa anything occurred to render less obligatory the motives that led to the Order in Council of 1854 ? He vindicated the right of the Crown to conclude treaties without the consent or knowledge of Parliament ; quoting Lord Stowell in support of this opinion. The course adopted in relation to this declaration was the same adopted at Vienna with regard to the suppression of the slave-trade. Many important matters would have been left unsettled, nothing would have been said about Italy or mediation, had the Plenipotentiaries confined themselves to their specific

attributions. The declaration places the maritime code of England and France on the same footing ; the abolition of privateering is more than an equivalent for the abandonment of the right to take enemies' goods out of neutral ships; and the declaration will mitigate the horrors of war and bring about a cordial feeling among nations.

An ordinary party debate ensued. The resolutions were supported by the Earl of Caariaavoe, the Earl of Haanwrexa, and the Earl of

DERBY; while the Earl of HARROWBT, the Earl of Atintarear.e., the Duke of ARGYLL, and Earl GREY, approved of the maritime declaration. Lord Caxerenvos questioned the value of the declaration : it is not a treaty--is it a convention, or a mere understanding ) The principle in-

volved lies in a nutshell—it is, that in war we have a right to seize an enemy's goods where we can find them. The change conceded has never been demanded except in a spirit of bitter hostility to England. Minis- ters ought to have frankly informed Parliament of the great revolution they contemplated. The preamble of the declaration says that differ- ences arose from the uncertainty of the law : why, the stream of author- ity is all in favour of England. He could not sufficiently express his sense of the impolicy of making suck vast concessions to neutrals, for a document which was neither a convention nor a treaty, but something exceedingly yague and shadowy ; for a pre- amble which was not consistent with fact ; for an abolition of privateenng, which in the present temper of the United States could not be realized; and for the removal of paper blockades, which practically never existed.

The Earl of ALBEMARLE thought that the step taken reflected the highest honour on England and France.

Savages originally ate their victims ; torturing them before roasting— that was the lowest step in the grade : a step higher was to put them to

death without torture ; a higher step still was to keep them as slaves ; a little further advance was to sell them for a good round sum ; then came the exchange of prisoners, treating them well while in prison ; and last and highest of all was the recognition of the principle that neutral flags consti- tute neutral The Earl orr :lint objected to what had, been done, and to the mode of doing it. He drew a distinction between a treaty and an act or de- claration placing the Government in the position of judge of international law. If such an act is within the prerogative, then it is a flagrant abuse of the prerogative. It was an underhand proceeding ; it took the coun- try by surprise, and even the Plenipotentiaries themselves. It amounts to an abandonment of our naval superiority. With strange inconsist- ency, it dogmatically lays down what is international law, yet it also declares that this international law shall not be so in fact except with regard to those nations who accept the whole of it. Now the right to seize enemies' goods in neutral ships is the recognized law of Europe. It has been maintained by Mr. Pitt—not the man to tell us " we stand alone "—by Lord Hawkesbury, Mr. Canning, Lord Grenville, Lord Shel- burne, Professor Wheaton, and the Chancellor Bent; none of whom lived in " the barbarous ages." But we are told to remember 1812. We did not quarrel with America about taking enemies' goods out of neutral ships, but about the right of search ; and the question of the right of search has been studiously kept alive. But what have Ministers done ?—they have " sacrificed the maritime greatness of England on the shrine of Russia" • they have abandoned their means of defence, and abandoned them too at the suggestion of France. Was ever Minister so led by the nose ! In the event of a war with the United States, France would carry her goods, and she would enjoy the right of privateering. We ring our bells now, but we shall wring our hands hereafter. He so- lemnly protested against what he could not but characterize as " the Clarendon capitulation of Paris."

In the course of his speech, Lord Derby charged Lord Clarendon with having signed a protocol implying the necessity of interfering for the regulation of the Belgian press. At the end of Lord Derby's speech, Lord CLARENDON explained this. ' " It may be inferred from what the noble Earl has said that I took part against the independence of the Belgian press, and was prepared to join with other Governments in its repression. The Earl of DP.RBY—" You signed that protocol."

The Earl of CLARENDon—" -The contrary is the case. I defended the liberty of the press in Belgium, as I do at home • and the only newspapers condemned by Count Walewaki, in bringing the matter under the notice of the Congress, cannot be called a portion of the Belgian press, but were those papers sur- reptitiously printed without the names of the printers on the Continent, for the Fourpose of being smuggled into France, which preach the assassination of the Emperor and the subversion of the present state of things in France. Those are the newspapers which I condemned ; and those are newspapers which' I think will be condemned by every friend of the liberty of the press of England." (Cheers.) Berl GREY, who said he had listened in vain for argument amid Lord Derby's eloquent declamation, made an effective speech against the reso- lutions, by describing the working of the principle they contended for, mid showing that while it inflicted intolerable injuries on neutrals, it did set effect its object, as the, law was evaded by gigantic frauds.

Earl GRANVILLE read a letter from Lord Campbell, detained judi- cially at the Central Criminal Court, expressing his opinion that the modification of the law of maritime warfare is beneficial to England, and was constitutionally entered into by the English Government.'

The House divided—For the motion, Content (56 present, 46 proxies) 102 oigeinst the motion, Not-content (88 present, 68 proxies) 156; majority against the resolutions, 64.

Tim " SECRET TREATY."

- The Marquis of GRANBY questioned Lord Palmerston respecting the truth of a-rumour that a secret treaty has been- concluded between AM- tria, France, and England.

_Lord PALMERSTON replied in a manner which excited much amuse- ment—

" If there were a secret treaty, I think the noble Lord would excuse me for declining to make it public. It is something like the question put to 'me by my honourable friend the late Member for Montrose, who asked for _ returns of the application of the secret service money. I have no hesitation in saying that the only treaty which has been concluded is that already laid upon the table of the House."

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.

Lord LYNDHURST said, that in giving notice of the motion which stood in'his name for Tuesday next, his intention was to do good to the cause of Italy ; but as it had been intimated to him that the reasons which in- duced him to withdraw his former notice still exist, it was not his inten.- -tier to proceed with the motion on Tuesday next.

The Fowl of CLARENDON expressed his satisfaction at this determina- tion. He believed that the course which had been taken by the Govern- ' went was likely to have an effect in Italy, and he thought that any dis- cussion which might lead to irritation would endanger the success of the negotiations now in progress.

THE BALLOT.

Mr. HENRY BERKELEY made his annual motion on the Ballot on Tues- day, evening ; moving for leave to bring in a bill " to protect the electors of Great Britain and Ireland by taking votes by way of ballot." The speech supporting this motion was of the usual character,—censuring the Whigs for relying on Tory votes to defeat his motion ; pointing out that the minority in the House represented a majority out of doors ; meeting the argument that secret voting is unEnglish ; adducing the example of America to show that in those States where the ballot was not strictly carried out intimidation and bribery came in, and that the law of 1851, - making the ballot compulsory, was violently opposed by monopolists, capitalists, and slaveholders. Coming home, he went into details, drawn from recent elections, such as Wells, Boston, and Midhurst, to show that , the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act is the laughingstock of the country, and that intimidation still returns Members of Parliament. One amusing incident occurred. Mr. Berkeley, remarking "cowardly Sir James Graham was fond of the argument that the ballot is cowardly and unEnglish," • said the argument appeared to him to be a simple mockery of common- sense. Here Sir James, amid great laughter, raised his hat in acknow- ledgment of the complii;:ient. Whereupon Mr: Berkeley rejoined, that the army, the navy, the nobility and the commonalty vote in that way ; and that if it were cowardly to do so, they must be regarded as a pack of cowards. " Now " he added, addressing Sir James Graham with a low bow, "answer that" He also caused much merriment by the number of illustrations he drew from the prize-ring.

, The House declined to debate the question, Only one Member, Mr. PrAcoexe, spoke in opposition ; without adducing anything in that way

_ •

pointed or new. When he closed, loud cries of " Divide!" arose ; and the House, after hearing a brief reply, went at once into the lobbies. The result of the division was, that the motion was negatived by 151 to 111.

THE LAM' or DIVORCE.

In moving the second reading of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, the Loan CHANCELLOR explained the character of the bill. He proposed to constitute a new court of divorce, composed of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, competent to deal with the whole matter without reference to any other court whatever. All matters re- lating to mere disputes between man and wife he propmed should be dealt with by the Judge of the Court of Probate. He proposed that the appeal should be to the bar of the House of Lords; that if there is no appeal within three months, the marriage shal be dissolved without remedy. He did not propose to give the wife an equal right with the husband in obtaining divorce.

Lord LYNDHURST characterized the measure as most insufficient ; it ought not to pass into law. In a luminous and comprehensive speech, he described the present position of married women ; liable, in case of separation, to have all their property, all the proceeds of their own in- dustry, taken from them ; liable to be deprived of personal protection, reduced to a state of outlawry, homeless, helpless, hopeless ; and he asked if that was fair or honest ? In actions for criminal conversation again, while it is only a matter of money between the plaintiff and de- fendant, it is a matter of life and death to the wife. She is not heard ; she may not give evidence; has everything at stake, yet the law treats her as if she had noting. As to cases of divorce, the bill would create a process more expensive than under the present law, and it did not enable the wife to obtain a divorce in the case of adultery on the part of the husband. Is it to be borne that there should be no equality of justice, that an injured wife shall have no relief? He quoted several authorities on that point, among them Cranmer and Bishop Cozens ; and warmly advocated the adoption of the Scotch law of divorce, equally just to husband and wife. Lord Lyndhurst moved that the bill, together with the law and practice of divorce, should be referred to a Select Com- mittee.

Lord Baotonase, in seconding the amendment, adduced cases illus- trating the grievances of married women. In his capacity as President of the Law Amendment Society, which recently summoned a general meeting to consider the wrongs of married women, he had been over- whelmed with evidence of the grievances practically sustained by that class under the law as it now stands ; and unless something were done to change it, we must be content to be held up to the rest of mankind as pretending to be a civilized country, while in reality living under a sys- tem more barbarous and more inconsistent with itself than exists in any other part of the world.

Lord REDESDALE and the Earl of ABERDEEN supported the amendment. Lord Aberdeen's only objection to referring the bill to a Select Committee was, that it might prevent the application of a remedy to an unjust sys- tem within any reasonable time. The Loan CHANCELLOR would not oppose the amendment ; but the Committee would be Lord Lyndhurst's, and he must state his remedies. The bill was read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGES.

Mr. J. G. PRILLnicem moved for leave to bring in a bill "to take away from all Archbishops, Bishops, and Ecclesiastical persons in Eng- land and Wales, all power of appointing Judges and Chancellors, and :vesting such powers in the Lord Chancellor." He said that he should have abstained from this course had a more comprehensive measure been introduced.

The motion met with no opposition from the Government; but it led to a personal discussion. Mr. HADFIELD sought an explanation of the absolute dead-lock of all the bills before Parliament relating to the Eccle- siastical Courts. The Somerron-Gaimest said, that the Government was anxious to facilitate discussion ; but the House knew how its time had been occupied. Now that the more urgent subject which engaged their attention is at an end, he trusted that the House would devote itself to the proper discharge of its functions, instead of spending so much of its time in what he would venture to designate unprofitable talk. The House must determine for itself whether, at the end of the session, it would present again a hecatomb of useful measures introduced only to be abandoned, or whether it would give up all party contests and debates and proceed with the real business of the nation. Mr. GLADSTONE took up the matter rather warmly ; and, cheered on by the House, said that their real offence was that bir Richard Bethell's bills had not met with sufficient favour. No one Member has a right to take upon himself to be the corrector of the faults and follies of the House, and to assume such a position of marked superiority, such an ex- emption from common failings, as was implied in Sir Richard's speech. Mr. Gladstone went on to deprecate, in strong terms, the introduction of bills that have no rational chance of passing. Year :fifer year, either the leader of the House or one of the Law-officers gets up and says, for in- stance, that the Ecclesiastical Courts are no better than an Augcean stable, and that it is time the Augnan stable should be swept. But when the bills are discussed, then those who introduce them fall foul of one another, and as many remedies arc suggested as there are legal Member'. The Ecclesiastical Courts present a strong case for legislation, but no Administration within his recollection had ever seriously set its shoulder to the wheel in the matter. To talk of " Augman stables" is to pass off a delusion on the country for the sake of popularity. AS to the bill of Mr. Phuhiniore, he should not oppose its introduction, but he hoped the House would not adopt itsprinciple. " I hope we are not to infer that her Majesty's Government are prepared to adopt this left-handed manner of initiating ecclesiastical reforms. If we are able to get a serious issue taken and a serious judgment upon these bills, by all means let us proceed ; but, if we cannot take that issue, let us be content to wait until we have the opportunity of doing so. At all eventai_I hope something will be done to prevent this incessant introduction 9f bills without any adequate sense of their importance ; which, whatever may be our intentions, has the effect of deluding the country, and with regard to the Ecclesiastical Courts, raising hopes which are doomed to be disappointed." (Loud cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON said that the Solicitor-General did not deserve the animadversions of Mr. Gladstone. All he bad said was that the House passed much of its time in unprofitable talk ; and in that opinion Lord

Palmerston begged to concur. Mr. Gladstone had pointed out the true state of the case when he referred the want of success in cleansing " the Augsean stable" to diversity of opinion. The Government earnestly wish to correct the evils, but the House is occupied with such a diversity of subjects that it is difficult to find opportunities for urging forward a particular class of measures. Mr. GLADSTONE said that perhaps he had said too much. Sir Richard Betlaell had zealously exerted himself, but the subject seemed to have been played with for a considerable number of years.

After a speech from Mr. Kuno following up the criticisms of Mr. Gladstone, Ind Joule RUSSELL briefly spoke, to show the difficulty of tlealinf with bills of this nature. There are the estimates ; then the Opposition has to play its constitutional part ; it is June almost before proposed great changes are considered ; there is diversity of opinion, and either an incomplete measure or no measure is passed. This state of things is unsatisfactory, and we must come to some other mode of trans- acting business.

" The only serious proposition of that nature which I remember was made by Lord Derby who proposed that after a bill had passed through certain stages it should be sent to the other House. That plan was opposed by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Groulburn, and was generally unpopular, for I remem- ber that I was almost the only supporter of it. I am quite sure, however, that there are other plans which we might adopt to avoid the difficulty. of taking up important measures at the end of the session, and endeavouring to settle intricate details between this and the other House of Parliament— at a time, too, when we are deprived of the assistance on legal questions of gentlemen of the long robe, who are absent on circuit, and when the gene- ral attendance of Members is thin."

Leave was at length given to introduce the bill.

CHURCH-RAT'ES.

The Wednesday sitting was mainly devoted to the Church-rate ques- tion. Mr. PACKE moved the second reading of his bill ; the principle of which was that Dissenters should be relieved from contributing towards divine service in the parish-churches, but not from the liability to main- tain the fabric. Sir WiLLIAis CLAY moved that the bill be read a se- cond time that day six months. Mr. Procrrr seconded the motion.

The bill was opposed by Sir Gronoz GREY and Mr. HADFIELD, as inconsistent with the decisions of the House to abolish church-rates. At the suggestion of Sir JOHN FAKINOTON, Mr. PA= withdrew the bill.

REFoRaLtrone Senors.

In Committee on the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill, Sir STAFFORD Nonrncove moved additional clauses : one to compel parents to pay for the maintenance of young persons throughout the whole term of their detention ; another giving power to magistrates to arrest chil- 'firm who have escaped from the schools. Both these were negatived. He then proposed a clause inflicting a penalty of five pounds on any per- son who induced a child to abscond from these schools, or who prevented their return. This clause was added to the bill Mr. GORDON moved a clause repealing the provision that children shall not be sent to reformatory schools until they have been imprisoned, and making it lawful for magistrates to send children direct to these schools. Negatived by 80 to 57.

Mr. MILES proposed a clause making it lawful for county or borough authorities to purchase lands and build reformatory schools, and pay for them out of the county or borough rate. But the clause was withdrawn, after debate ; and the bill was reported to the House.

FACTORY MACHINERY.

On the motion for going into Committee on Colonel Patten's Factories Bill, Mr. CoEsErr moved that the Committee should be deferred for six months. The present law provides protection from machinery for adults, but the bill before the House only extended to young persons and children. He admitted that the law is so defective that it cannot be carried out; but the bill would be wholly unworkable.

After a brief discussion, the House decided on going Committee by 207 -to 60.

In Committee, Mr. Com= prowsed to amend clause 4, so as to pro- tect all persons from machinery. This led to much debate : on one side it was urged, that the protection afforded by the clause was as ample as that under the existing law ; on the other, that important words were omitted in the bill, and that the protection would not be so ample. Co- lonel PATTEN said, that the present law is not obeyed in a single in the kingdom. His object was to make a law that could be obey On a division, the amendment was negatived by 169 to 33. The bill passed through Committee.

During the discussion Mr. Muni% said that nobody knew anything about it except Mr. Hardy ; and there was little use in discussing the subject. To this Sir JAMES GHANA/a replied, that such might be the fact ; but surely if non-acquaintance with the subject was a reason for not talking about it, it was a much stronger reason for not making an enactment with regard to it.

FIRE-INSURANCE.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on the Fire-Insurance BM, Mr. BANTER, Lord STANLEY, and other Members, opposed the measure, on the ground that the present tax is excessive, preventing the use of insurance; and that the imposition of the duty on foreign in- surances will not effectually prevent the resort to France, where the duty is light; the foreign companies having already established agencies in this country. The House, however, resolved to go into Committee, by 172 to 31.

In Committee, Sir FITZROY KETLy, Mr. HENLEY, and others, pointed out defects in the bill. It did not provide for enforcing the liability on the insurer. But, answered the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, no honest man would be guilty of evasion, especially as he would incur the costs of a suit. The SoLterrort-GENERAL admitted that it would be necessary to introduce a clause pointing out the manner in which the duty should be paid ; and that it would be necessary to correct two of the clauses, which, as they stood, would compel persons to pay the duty twice over. Mr. HADFIELD moved the insertion of a clause to reduce the duty from three shillings to one shilling for every hundred pounds insured. But the CHANCELLOR of the ExcaranirEn begged that the question might be deferred until the House should have a surplus revenue to deal with. The clause was negatived, and the bill passed through Committee. The Earl of ALBEMARLE moved for a Select Committee on the governA went of Indian territories. His allegation was, that Parliament had passed " the crude and ill-considered" act of 1853 without sufficient in- quiry. There had been no investigation on any subject relating to the material and social condition of the people of India. Their Lordships' table groaned under petitions complaining of excessive taxation ; a bar- barous mode of assessment; torture ; the disgraceful condition of the courts of justice; the neglect of public works. These were the grounds on which lie relied in asking for the appointment of a Committee. Earl GitANTILLE, supported by the Earl of FELRYBOROUGH, resisted the motion, on the ground that Lord Albemarle had not made out a case for inquiry; that his charges were vague ; that so far from there having been any neglect of public works, the promotion of public works was one of the brightest points in Lord Valhousie's administration ; that the tor- ture case had no bearing on the question of the constitution of the Indian Government ; and that inquiry would tend to unsettle the minds of the Indian people. Lord ELLENBOROUEGI, however, said he should be sorry to conclude that the House was precluded from making an inquiry, al- though he could not agree in the present motion.

After a few words from the Marquis of CLANIIICAIME, showing that there were matters for inquiry, the motion was negatived without a division. CENTRAL AMERICA.

In reply to a question from the Earl of ELoix respecting the authen- ticity of a letter signed " B. Hammond," and purporting to be a reply from the British Government to an application of the Costa Ricans for arms, the Earl of CLARENDON admitted that the letter of Mr. Hammond was genuine. It arose in this way. Since Walker attacked the Govern- ment of Nicaragua, the agents of certain South American states applied for assistance, and asked the British Government to assume a pro- tectorate. All their proposals were declined. The British Government said they were sorry for the attacks on Nicaragua, but they had nothing to do with the affairs of Central America. All their action would be limited to sending such a naval force to the coast of South America as would be sufficient to protect British subjects and British property. A bad return had been made for the interest shown by the British Govern- ment for Central America. An exception, however, must be made in favour of Costa Rica, which had kept its engagements. Mr. Wallerstein then said that the Costa Ricans were determined to make a stand ; and as they had no means, he asked for a few arms for the purpose. It was then that the offer contained in Mr. Hammond's letter was made. Mr. Wallerstein declined to accept it : he has since died, and no interference even in an indirect way has taken place in the affairs of Costa Rica. Some time since, Walker took possession of Nicaragua and British pro- perty there ; Lord Clarendon communicated with the Government of the United States; and Mr. Crampton, in a despatch, reported a conversa- tion he had on the 16th of March with Mr. Marcy; there being no disguise with the Government of the United States as to what the British Govern- ment were doing, their only wish being to protect British property. Mr. Marcy then said that the Government of the United States entirely disap- proved and regretted the existing state of things in Nicaragua, which they thought dangerous and calculated to cast a shade on the reputation of the United States ; that they were as anxious as the British Government to see the Government of Walker rooted up, and were determined to take measures for the redress of injuries inflicted on citizens of the United States. Under these circumstances, Lord Clarendon intimated that there could be no better plan than for the Government of the United States and the British Govern- ment to combine together for the protection of the property of the citizens of both countries.

THE BAND QUESTION.

In reply to Mr. OTWAY, Lord PALMERSTON stated the purport of his letter in answer to an apPeal against the playing of broads in the Parks ; and said that the order to discontinue the playing of the bands did net apply to other towns. Further, in reply to Mr. Roznucx, he stated that no deputation of Scotch Members, as reported in the newspapers, had waited upon him in reference to the band playing on Sundays.

TALBOT'S DIVORCE.

The Lon]) CHANCELLOR gave judgment, on Thursday, in the case of Talbot versus Talbot. The question arose out of a petition presented by John Talbot, of Mount Talbot, in the county of Roscommon, praying that his marriage with Mary Ann, his now wife, might be annulled, and that he might be allowed to marry again ; the question being this—had Mrs. Talbot been guilty of adultery with a person named William Mul- bane ? The Chancellor was sorry to say that he fully believed the act of adultery bad been committed. There was no evidence to confirm the suggestion that there had been a conspiracy to destroy the reputation of Mrs. Talbot. Lord BaoresAm and Lord ST. LEONARDS concurred in the judgment ; and the bill was read a second time.