Matta aulr Vratniduga iu Varlimuut.

NOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, April 22.—Wills of Personalty by British Subjecte; Lord Kingsdown's Bill read a second time—Post-office Savings Banks Bill read 8. second time—Lunacy Regulation Bill read a third time and passed.

Tuesday, Apnl 23.—Marriage Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill read a second time. Thursday, April 24.—Post-oMce Savings Banks Bill committed—Leases, ec., by Incumbents Restriction Bill read a second time.

Friday, April 26.—Government of India; Lord Lyveden's Question.

House Of Ciammoss. Monday, April 22.—Ways and Means ; Debate on Motion for going into Committee, adjourned.

Tuesday, April 23.—The Ballot; Mr. IL Berkeley's Motion negatived by 279 to 164 —Seizure of Arms on the Danube ; Mr. Duncombe's Question, "Count Out." Wednesday, April 24.—University Elections Bill referred to a Select Committee- Non-conformists' Burial Bill, thrown out.

Thursday, April 21.—Ways and Means ; Debate resumed and again adjourned. Friday, April 26.—Illness of Speaker—Outrage at Bonn ; Lord IL Cecil's Ques • tion—Captain Brabazon ; General Peel's Question—The Papacy; Mr. Newdegate Question. THE BUDGET.

A general discussion on the financial position of the country and the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer arose on Monday, upon the motion that the House should go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. Tmomes BARING led the way, but he made no amendment. He said that the night a budget was proposed is not the best for dis- cussing its merits and defects, and that, as it was desirable to consider its general character, it was better to discuss the whole on the motion for going into committee than to wait until they were in committee, when it is usual to restrict remarks to particular resolutions. The budget was presented as a whole and should be dealt with as a whole. Mr. Baring next disclaimed any intention of conveying a censure or proposing a vote of want of confidence. He rejoiced that we live is days when the rejection of a budget does not entail a change of Ministry. It would be unpardonable obstinacy in a Ministry to adhere to a budget which was opposed to the wishes of Parliament. His desire was ifot to follow Mr. Gladstone in all his statements, nor revert to past legislation, but to state his opinion of our present position and of Mr. Gladstone's intended poliet' After some playful allusions to the famous "three days" lost to 1860-61, Mr. Baring came to the point. His position was that the provision Mr. Gladstone proposed to make for the the future is neither safe, politic, nor wise. There was a deficiency of 2,271,0001., and the mode in which it was met—by absorbing means available for future pur- poses, by increasing the debt, and renewing Exchequer-bonds—was not satisfac- tory. With that absorption and addition to the debt it is not wise to remit taxa- tion that cannot be reimposed. This is a time of uncertainty, when over-caution would be a virtue, and rashness a grievous vice. Assuming that we have a good harvest and that peace is preserved, then our whole expenditure is to be 69,900,0001. Yet the fact that the navy is in a transition state, and the interest on the fortification loan is increasing, suggest doubts as to expenditure. The revenue is fixed at 71,823,0001., and he did not believe, IC all is sunshine, that Mr. Gladstone has exaggerated the produce of the customs and excise. But may not circumstances occur to diminish the revenue? Last year 600,000/.. disappeared from the failure of hops and malt. Then the China item of 750,0001. is doubtful, and it would have been wiser to wait until we had it before disposing of it. The surplus is estimated at 400,0001., yet if the Chinese indemnity is not paid, there will be a deficiency of 30,0001. Mr. Gladstone disposes of his esti- mated surplus by taking one penny off three quarters' income tax, and remitting half a year's revenue from paper ; but next year he will lose a year's revenue from these sources, 2,400,0001., and he ought to pay off 1,000,0001. of Exchequer bonds in 1862, making a redaction of 3,400,0001., which, unless accompanied by a reduction in expenditure, it would be unwise to assent to. Mr. Baring did not feel sure that expenditure can be reduced, for war might arise, and if the same wants occur next year, we shall have not only to restore the penny of the income tax but add another to replace the void occasioned by the repeal of the paper duties, and thus run the risk of making direct taxation unpopular. We do not desire or take into account the probabihties of war, but how do we stand even for a time of peace? Mr. Baring pointed to the effects of the famine in India, the troubles in the United States, thii difficulties in Turkey. No one can say there is a prospect of their being overcome ; no one can tell what next year's trade will be, or next year's harvest. It is wise to be prepared for a diminished revenue. The decision in another place on the paper duty last year was a godsend. If it had been givereup the revenue would have been less by a million. Yet it is_pro- posed to give it up now, and we are told we are quite safe. Is that so? Here Mr. Baring entered into a defence of the paper duty, arguing that it is not op- pressive because it is an increasing source ofrevenue; showing that the House is not bound by its pledge to repeal that tax any more than it is to abolish the income tax, to reduce the tea and sugar duties, to establish a Sinking Fund ; while the House is bound to keep faith with the public creditor and provide means for carrying on the public service. The House is not bound to repeal a tax if it is not wise to do so. His proposal was that the duty on tea should be reduced, because thereby the poor would be benefited, the revenue increased by increased consumption, and trade with China and Japan stimulated. " Well, if we really have this surplus, and if it be not a deceptive surplus, let us apply it in such a way as will stimulate trade with these countries, benefit our manufactures, and improve the social condition of the people. (Cheers.) I confess, sir, I have a strong opinion that the course proposed by her Majesty's Government for the abolition of the paper duties is neither wise nor safe, and I beg the Ministry to reconsider the matter; I beg them to ascertain whether their future position is so secure that that they can afford to wipe off at once and completely this source of revenue. I say this from no wish to disturb their position on the bench, for there is no calamity which at present I should more deeply deplore than a succession of weak Governments, I desire a strong Government ; but I am convinced that neither this present Ministry—atrong as they may be in talent and in the majority at their command in this House—nor any other can be strong unless they possess a strong financial position. (Cheers.) I am convinced that, unless you give evidence to the world as well as to this country that your finances cannot be embarrassed, you cannot exercise that influence and that power which it is desirable you should possess abroad, nor can you with safety carry on the government at home. Let me ask the Government to remember that whatever may be the feeling of the country, whatever the pressure brought to bear upon them for the removal of a tax, it is their duty to weigh the consequences of such a remission, and upon their shoulders rests the responsibility of jeopardizing the national interests and the national finance. I beg pardon of the House for having troubled them so long, but I am bound to say that if the question be put to me whether the present financial measures are safe, wise, and politic' or even (I may say so without offence) honest to the country, I cannot, if I am to decide aye or no, answer this question otherwise than in the negative."

The debate thus began, was continued throughout the evening. Mr. WHITE argued against the reduction of the tea duty. Lord ROBERT MONTAGUE assailed the whole of the budget, quoted Mr. Gladstone's speeches of 1857 against Mr. Gladstone's policy in 1861, likened him to Mr. Micawber, predicted war, and called on the House not to en- danger the revenue predicted of some romantic visions of an over san- guine Chancellor of the Exchequer." Mr. llama reminded the House that Mr. Baring, now the critic of Mr. Gladstone, had opposed that free trade which saved the country from revolution. The budget is founded on the truest financial principles. Every free trader must have listened with gratification and surprise to the triumphant vindi- eation of the policy of last year. Mr. Baxter was grateful for Mr, Gladstone's " admirable remarks" on our national expenditure, which ought to be gradually reduced. Mr. STANHOPE denied that there was any real surplus, and argued with warmth against the repeal of the paper duty. Mr. Donsorr, with a word for the hop growers, generally approved of the budget, and saw no reason to doubt the accuracy of Mr. Gladstone's calculations. Mr. BLecazunw answered that Mr. Gladstone was wrong last year and might be wrong again. It would be better to reduce the tea and sugar duties than to repeal the paper duty. Mr. POT"! Aan-UnquesaT replied that the repeat of the paper duty would help to develop the manufacturing enterprise of Ireland, and he hoped the Irish Members would assist Ministers in their effort to repeal the tax. Mr. HENRY BATLLTE said he had no great objection to the repeal of the paper duties—although it would only benefit a few—but he thought it would be better to reduce duties that would recover themselves. The literal fact is that we have to sacri- fice 1,300,000/. of revenue for the benefit of about one hundred indi- viduals powerfully represented in the House and even in the Cabinet. The debate continued to run on this topic—Mr. EWA.RT, Mr. Noiuus, Mr. BLACK supporting the Ministerial project, Mr. Lorre- FIELD'and:Mr. LONG speaking against it. Mr. BENTINCK criticized Mr. Gladstone's budget speech, which he characterized as " admirable eloquence but also admirable sophistry." He reflected on the French treaty, and referred to the helplessness of the Government of 1854 as one source of our extravagant expenditure. He wanted to know why "the friends of the people" supported war taxes on tea and sugar in order that those interested in penny papers should be relieved; and then answering his own question, said one object was to reclaim the wavering allegiance of some members who sit below the gangway, and the other to insult, nay, defy, the House of Lords. He described the budget as an act of bad faith ; contrasted Mr. Gladstone's con- duct with that of Sir Robert Peel ; denied there was a real surplus; described Mr. Gladstone as one

" Whose word no man relies on, Who never says a foolish thing, and never does a wise one,"

and declared the budget to be impolitic, unjust, and prejudicial to the general interests of the country. Sir JOSEPH Roam; said Mr. Bentinck entertained very erroneous views. Did he imagine for instance, that paper is used for literature only? Mr. Baring had adopted a very doleful tone, and Sir Joseph wondered why with such forebodings he connected himself with the Exhibition of 1862.

Sir STAFFORD NonTaeure spoke at considerable length, and minutely criticized the budget in its scope and details. After pointing out that no Minister had risen to dispel the gloomy reflections raised by Mr. Baring's speech, he proceeded to vindicate the ground taken by the Opposition last year upon the treaty budget, by showing the errors in Mr. Gladstone's calculations, _which would have been greater had the paper duty been repealed and had not the spirit duties been augmented. Sir Stafford maintained that the House had to deal with a deficiency fur last year of at least 2,500,0001. Now how had that been met? Mr. Gladstone said he had met it by taking 1,450,0001. from the balances, and adding 460,000/. to the un- funded debt; but these two sums do not make up 2,500,000/. [Mr. GLADSTONE here said he had not explained how the deficit was met.] If that were the case, continued Sir STattiroan NORTHCOTE, then the House had a right to complain. His explanatiodof the mode in which the deficit was met was by taking the two sums above mentioned, and in addition the 200,0001. of the fortification loan, and 627,2001. "repayments of advances," which properly should be lent out again, and not applied to the service of the year. But if that were so—and observing an ironical smile on Mr. Gladstone's face he confessed he might be wrong—then there was a deficit at once, for it was an addition to the public debt though the money. might have been borrowed years ago. If it were as he supposed, adding the million borrowed to pay off Exchequer bonds, the debt was increased last year by 2,500,000/. Sir Stafford, turning to the estimates of revenue, did not find fault with them, but dwelt much upon the uncertainty of the payment of the 750,0001. on account of China indemnity, arguing that this sum would be re- quired to cover expenses in China still accruing, and if that were so then the 750,0001., be said, "is already as good as gone." (" Hear ! hear!" and laughter.) Continuing his minute examination, Sir Stafford, with the view of making out that instead of a simples of 400,0001. there would be a deficit of 900,0001., and he insisted that even if his calculations were erroneous, they showed that fuller explanations were required before the House consented to surrender a large source of permanent revenue. He elaborated this point further, by describing how ex- Potts and imports have declined and are likely to decline' and contrasting the efiects of a reduction of tea and sugar duties which would benefit trade, with the repeal of the paper duty which would simply be a surrender of permanent taxation. We ought not to part with any resources until we see how the French treaty will work, and whether the spirit duties will be remunerative. He entreated the House to pause before it took an irrevocable step. The House had too long indulged in the hope that the expenditure can be reduced. For nearly two years Mr. Gladstone had been in office, yet nothing like a reduction of expenditure had

been seen. In fact, circumstances had been too strong for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He contended that the repeal of the paper duties was not the best way of relieving the industry of the country. We ought to reserve those taxes which are our only resort iu time of need till our necessities compel us to fall back upon others.

After a conversation in which Lord PA.LMERSTON and Mr. Disaani took part, the debate wts adjourned until Thursday.

The debate was resumed early on Thursday, occupied nearly the whole of a long sitting, and was again adjourned.

Mr. SEYMOUR Ferzoznain led the way from the Opposition side of the House, beginning by a summary of the arguments of Mr. Baring, and Sir Stafford Northcote, setting them forth in a telling style, and dwelling especially on the improbability of the receipt of anything like 750,0001. from China, the sum on which the surplus depended. His argument was that the Government was bound to pay the indemnity to the merchants first, and that when this is paid, nothing will remain. He demanded explanations on the state of trade, and upon the mode in which the deficit of last year was met. He questioned the accuracy of Mr. Gladstone's estimates, and he broadly laid it down that while the House was not pledged to repeal the paper duty, it was pledged to repeal the tea and sugar duties. He taunted Mr. Gladstone with talking of unredeemed pledges, when more than any man he had left promises unfulfilled, pledges unredeemed. If they had a surplus, it ought not to be applied to the repeal of a tax which does not press heavily on the people, which if once abolished cannot be reimposed; but the surplus should be made to afford relief to the great bulk of the people.

Mr. MILNER GIBBON said that the varied criticisms which the finan- cial scheme had elicited seemed to have brought different gentlemen to different conclusions.

The estimates of Customs and Excise were honestly prepared in consultation with heads of departments, who alone could make accurate calculations on these subjects, and were not the result of a plot to cook up accounts in order delibe- rately to mislead the House ; and lie believed that just such estimates would have been produced by Mr. Disraeli if he had been finance minister. He wished to know what was the alternative which the opponents of the budget proposed ; and he fur one should have been glad to have had something more than the negative suggestions which had been made by Mr. T. Baring, and most of those who Lad followed him in debate. As to the doubts which had been cast on the receipt of the Chinese indemnity, Lord Elgin and Baron Gros had assured the Govern- ment that nearly a million would be received within the financial year. With regard to the gloomy pictures which had been drawn of the prospects of our import and export trade, although there had been a falling off in exports in the first two months of the year, there had been a remarkable recovery in the third month ; the proportion of falling off in the latter being 9 per cent. as compared with 16 per cent. in the former period ; while there was an actual increase in our exports in March of this year as com- pared with that month of last year. The shipping returns showed an increase of tonnage as compared with the corresponding period of 1860. As the calcula- tions of the Government showed a surplus of revenue over expenditure, the House mast have expected that it would have been applied to the reduction of taxation; and when there was a surplus in 1850—the duty on tea being 2s. IA.—Mr. Dis- raeli demanded the application of that surplus to the repeal of the paper duty; and on taking that course now, the Government had pursued the only just and honourable course that was open to them, the House having decided that this was not to be a permanent source of revenue. "It was impossible for the Government, if they intended to propose any remission of taxes, to pass over the paper duties. If hon. gentlemen will place themselves in our position, they mast admit that that was the right, consistent, honourable, and bold course to pursue, and I believe it is the coarse which this House will support." The discussion was continued by a g.reat number of Members. Mr. E. BALL, Mr. FARRER, Mr. BEACH, Lord INGEsTRE, Mr. HORSFALL, Mr. VANSITTART, Major HAMILTON, Mr. PARKER speaking against the Government plan with more or less asperity; and Mr. MARSH, Mr. DUTTON, Mr. PEASE, Mr. BAGLEY, and. Mr. CAIRO supporting Mr. Gladstone's proposals, and vindicating his policy.

Mr. Morem made an Opposition speech from the Liberal side. He expressed his doubts as to the accuracy of the calculations on which the estimates were founded.

He pointed out that whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated a loss of 15,0001. in the year by the abolition of the import duty on foreign paper, the amount received in the first quarter of this year was 14,0571., or at the rate of 56,000/. a year. Although the excise duty on paper was not to be taken off until October, yet practically it would be given up at once, making a loss of 1,200,0001., instead of 600,0001. in the year. The whole Customs duty of China was only 1,700,0001., of which we were to receive one-fifth yearly, or 800,0001.; the first charge on it being compensation to the merchants in China. There was in fact, a positive loss of 1,500,0001., and a probable loss of 600,0001. more, which disposed of the surplus, and there was no need to discuss the comparative claim of the paper and tea duties for remission. Let them first see whether there was really the surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated, before they took off any duty whatever. (Cheers.) He remembered hearing the right hon. gentleman say that tea was not the rich man's luxury, but the poor man's luxury, and that above all it was the poor woman's luxury. (Cheers.) There might be in the mind of the right hon. gentleman very good reasons for adhering to the opinions which he had stated when introducing his financial measure. His conviction was that we had not at the present time a surplus out of which to remit taxation, and he thought it was the bounden duty of the Go- vernment to give them proof of a surplus before they entered into a discussion as to what duties they ought to remit. (Loud cheers.) Mr. WHITESIDE began a long and lively speech on Thursday. He said, " The discussion which we have heard on this question must induce one to ask, `What is the budget ?' (Laughter.) Is it an attempt made on the part of the Government to reconcile the income of the country with its expenditure or is it a contrivance to tide over the day and postpone the hour of judgment or retribution ?" (Laughter and "Hear, hear.") He then set himself to show what was the real object of the budget: " it was framed with a design to accomplish one purpose only—the repeal of the paper duty." As a private gentleman Mr. Gladstone was bound to take that course, and when be condemned it he only spoke of Mr. Gladstone in his capacity as a Minister. He ridiculed the idea of giving up a permanent source of revenue in consideration of a thing yet to be realized—the payment of the China money. He dealt with Mr. Gladstone's legislation on the spirit duties with great severity, taunting him with failing where Mr. Disraeli had succeeded. He spoke of the "imaginary surplus," and then, supposing it real, he said the way to put the question was, whether he should impose the income tax at a particular rate, put a duty on tea at a particular rate, or repeal the paper duty. Mr. Gladstone had told them the income tax was an immoral tax and a war tax, dangerous to be employed in time of peace, and if so, if there has been a question between paper and income, why remit the paper duty? Contrasting the effect of a reduction of the duty on tea with a reduction of the duty on paper, he showed how the former would benefit the poor and the latter the penny papers. Then he reminded the House that last year the financial measures were treated !separately, but this year they were all taken together. " There can be no doubt that the object is that the measures for the general taxation of the country shall have this repealing bil tacked to them in order that the other House may bg disabled from considering this particular question." (Loud cheers.) That he described as a somewhat unconstitutional course of proceeding. Finally, be assailed Mr. Gladstone for his remarks upon our excessive expenditure, and wished to know how those re- marks could be reconciled with the language of Lord Palmerston at the Mansion House on the state of Europe. The budget is not an honest budget, and that conviction will be acted upon by the House and approved by the country.

Mr. litaanuaTox severely condemned the budget and censured Mr. Gladstone for his treatment of Canada.

Mr. Osaousx replied to Mr. Haliburton, commented on the speeches of preceding speakers, defended the budget, and then elaborately set himself to prove that the House was pledged to repeal the paper duty, and that it ought to seize the first occasion of a surplus to settle the question and bring the two Houses of Parliament into harmony. Then he made an effective attack on the Opposition who would not seize that opportunity. "I am at once surprised and puzzled by the tactics of hon. gentlemen on the other side. 1 listened to the speech of the hon. member for Huntingdon on Monday night with the respect due to his great commercial position and to his acknowledged legislative ability. He examined the budget in all its aspects, and he spoke of it in somewhat remarkable terms, for be said it was 'neither safe, wise, politic, nor even honest to the country.' (Cheers from the Opposition.) Well, if you agree with the hon. member in that statement, why are you con- tent to play the rather shabby part in which you ard now engaged ? (Cheers.) Why don't you come boldly forward and meet the budget with a direct negative? (Continued cheering.) Why are you endeavouring to follow the course which you pursued last year in the case of the Reform Bill? Do you suppose you can defeat the budget by talking it out of the House? (Cheers.) When the hon. member for Huntingdon used the strong language I have quoted—when he gave some most excellent and plausible reasons for his opposition to the budget— why did he not put a direct issue before the House? He moved no amend- ment, but

"' — back recoiled, he knew not why, Even at the sound himself had made.'

(Cheers and laughter.) What took place afterwards? Hon. gentlemen rose in rapid succession from the benches opposite and objected to the budget. The noble lord the member for Huntingdonshire was quite shocked at the very idea of the budget, and denied that there was a surplus; but he proposed no amendment. The enthusiastic member for Mallow was more violent in his language; lie called the budget a vile' budget, and told us he ' abhorred' it; but he sat down without moving a negative resolution. To-night we have had the same game played over again. We have been addressed by the hon. member for Cambridgeshire, of whom I may say, continuing my quotation from the Ode on the Passions': " With wofnl measures, wan despair—

Low sullen sounds his grief beguiled,

A solemn, strange, and mingled air,

'Twas sad by fits, by starts 'twas wild.'

(Great laughter.) That, in fact, is an epitome of most of the arguments we have heard from the other side. If hon. gentlemen opposite deny that there is a surplus—if they say, with the hoc. member for Huntingdon, that the budget is 'neither safe, wise, politic, nor honest'—they are not justified in contenting themselves with a mere display of words. Their proper course is to come boldly forward with a vote of no.confidence. (Cheers.) Are they prepared to do that?"

He concluded with an invitation to Mr. Gladstone to take the lead of the party desirous of reducing the expenditure, assuring him that he would have a numerous body of followers, and the support of all the thinking men in the country. Major EDWARDS, on the Opposition, and Mr. MactrraE, on the Ministerial side, terminated the debate for the evening, Mr. Honsmeav moving that it should be adjourned. Lord PAT.MFR.STWe reluctantly consented to adjourn it until. Monday.

THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANES BILL.

Lord STANLEY of Alderley, in moving the second reading of this measure explained its object—" to give greater facilities for the in- vestment of the savings of the industrious classes." The existing savings banks have not increased in proportion to the wealth of the country ; there are twenty populous towbanjos exist ; and great losses have been incurred by despositors. The bill proposes a remedy.

First the Government gives security for the money invested, the interest being Zit per cent. Then as to the machinery. The depositor would go to a money- order office, would receive a book from the postmaster, in which his name and the amount would be inscribed, and this book would be conclusive evidence against the Government. It would be the business of the postmaster to transmit the name and address of each depositor, with the sum invested, to the Postmaster- General, and the depositor world then receive a private letter from the Post- master-General informing him that such an amount had been placed to his name and credit. if that letter were not received within ten days, the depositor would be requested, by instructions printed in every book, to write to the Postmaster- Generel, and until an answer was received from the Postmaster-General his name in the book would be a sufficient security. Ten days' notice must be given when money was to be withdrawn. it would then be paid to the depositor without charge or deduction. The depositor would also have this advantage— that if he deposited the money in one part of the country, he could have it repaid at any other part. Lord COLCHESTER. took the objection that many of the postmasters are not competent to discharge the duties about to be imposed upon them, that they will not work for nothing, and that no estimate of the expense of working the measure has been given. Lord MoRTEAaLz elaborated the objection that the postmasters are incompetent, but his great argument was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would use the money. to go into the market and give a fictitious value to Ex- chequer bids and bonds. This system of dealing in stocks is not to be tolerated. Next year he would call for a committee of inquiry. Lord RE.DESDALE and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE regarded the bill with disfavour, and predicted disappointment and loss from its operation.

It was read a second time.

THE WEDNESDAY SITTING.

When Mr. DODSON moved that the House should go into Com- mittee upon the University Elections Bill, Sir GEORGE LBwis stated his view of the general character of the bill, and the reasons which occurred to him for and against its object, which was to sanction the voting of the electors for the Universities by voting-papers, which might be sent by the post. The Universities, he remarked, were in a peculiar position in regard to the election of their representatives. The electors were not united by any local ties, except so far as they were resident members of the Universities, and it could not be said that they had any common character. There were obvious objections to making the rale universal, which did not apply to the Universities ; but its effect would give their coustituences a much more clerical character than at present. If the bill passed this would be the first time such a mode of voting was adopted, so that there existed no authoritative model for the details of the bill, which should, therefore, be well considered, and he suggested whether it would not be more convenient to refer the bill to a Select Committee.

With some qualifications, and a great desire to avoid a mistake, a large number of Members expressed approval of the principle, and as Mr. Dodson did not object to the suggestion of the Home Secretary, the bill was ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.

After this arose a sharp debate. Sir MORTON PETO moved the second reading of the Nonconformist Burial Bill, the object of which is to legalize the burial of Dissenters in Church of England burial- grounds. He referred to the objections entertained by the High Church party to inter children who had been baptized by Dissenters, and generally deprecated the hostility which existed between different sections of the Christian community. He had taken no part in the agitation got up by.the Liberation Society, and he believed that their proceedings, in conjunction with those of the Church Defence Associa- tion, had done much to retard the progress of civil and rel*ious li- berty. The only object which he had in introducing the bill was to. remedy a great grievance, and not to achieve a Nonconformist triumph.

Mr. Hulas seconded the motion.

Sir WILLIAM,HEATFICOTE regarded the bill as a most aggressive measure, the effect of which would be to hand over to Dissenters the unconditional user of the burial.grounds of the Church, and to legalize any sort of ceremony. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to move as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Lord HENLEY supported, and Mr. HUBBARD opposed the bill. Sir GEORGE LEWIS could not admit that there was any constitutional or fundamental objection to the second reading of the bill, since there was on the statute book Lord Plunket's Act for Ireland legislating on the same subject. Before any decision could be arrived at upon the question, he thought the House should understand the precise stature of the grievance complained of. By the 68th canon a minister was bound not to suffer any delay in burying a corpse which was brought to him, according to the provision of the Book of Common Prayer. The soil of the churchyard was the freehold of the incumbent, and if there was a common right of the parishioners to interment, any person who died in the parish might be brought to the parish churchyard, and the clergyman was bound to allow the interment, and to perform the burial service over the body, provided the deceased person was not excommunicated, had not laid violent hands upon himself, or had not been baptized. "Although I deplore that clergymen should refuse to read the Burial Service when it is desired, yet this bill would establish a principle with respect to the use of churches and churchyards which would be inconsistent with our law; for it mast be remembered that although there is a comifion law right in all parishioners to be buried in the churchyard, yet the performance of the Burial Service is a matter of the ecclesiastical law. The result of passing this bill would be to throw open the churchyards indis- criminately to all classes of religionists, and to make churchyards what the ceme- teries are under the Burial Acts. Those Acts provide consecrated ground for churchmen, and unconsecrated ground for those who do not conform to the usages of the church. Under those Acts all large towns are provided for, and although this question may occasionally arise in rural districts, still the instances are not frequent. This bill would make an universal alteration, and would go. far beyond the requirements of the case, and therefore I feel it my duty to vote against the second reading." Lord ROBERT CECIL agreed that clergymen acted unwisely in scrutinizing the fact of baptism. But the bill threw open the churchyards to Jumpers, Quakers, Parsees, &c. If it passed Cardinal Wiseman might celebrate mass in Westminster Abbey. He described the bill as likely to lead to discord, and as an attempt of the dissenters to destroy the Church. Mr. BRIGHT avowed that Lord Robert could not take a reasonable view of measures affecting the Church of England, and always had recourse to hobgoblin argument. Mr. Bright was prepared to give all the securities given by the Irish Act, and if they went into committee be should hope to carry some changes. Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed and Mr. BUXTON supported the bill. Mr. WALPOLE considered that a miaow's of grievance was sought to be redressed; but a maximum of inconvenience was created by the remedy. On that ground alone instead of going into com- mittee, the promoters of the bill ought to withdraw it, and allow another to be introduced, that would effect the object contemplated. With regard to the natural desire which all must feel to lie in death near those to whom they had been attached in life, if any provision could be made for gratifying it, by all means let it be made, and he was sure that if a bill were introduced for that purpose pro- perly drawn, and under the sanction of the Government, it would meet with a ready acquiescence from that side of the House. Mr. BAINES, admitting that the bill had been discussed in a creditable spirit on both sides, agreed that objections had been established t its present shape, and counselled its withdrawal. To this Sir MORTON PETO acceded, but Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE would not give way. Sir GEORGE GREY, pointing to the moderate speech of Mr. Walpole, urged Sir William to abandon his amendment, but Mr. Dm- Rent coming to the rescue, and taunting Government with not bringing in a bill itself, there was nothing for it but to divide ; when the amendment was carried by 236 to 155: and the bill was lost.

TiiE BALLOT. Mr. HENRY BFRww.T.WY moved on Tuesday, for leave to bring in .a bill for the protection of electors in voting for members to serve m Parliament. This is the motion annually made on the subject of the ballot. Mr. Berkeley had little or nothing that was new to Urge 111 its favour. He cited the opinions of several gentlemen of experience in electoral proceedings at home and in Australia, which were more or less in favour of vote by ballot as a protection against intimidation, and a cure for bribery ; and he mentioned cases of oppression on the part of landlords which the ballot would have prevented. He said the House did not and would not understand the measure, indeed would not allow him to bring it in. He appealed on behalf of loyal men deprived of rights, but he knew he might as well appeal to the Pope or the floor he stood upon as to that House ; and he assailed anonymous writing while speaking on behalf of anonymous voting. The motion was seconded by Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS, whose speech was interrupted by cries of "Divide." The House divided without further debate, and the motion was negatived by 279 to 154.

SEIZURE OF ARMS ON THE DANUBE.

Mr. Tames DuMcoMBE moved for a copy of the correspondence with foreign powers relative to the seizure of arms carried under the Sardinian flag to Moldo-Wallachia, and brought back by one of her Majesty's ships. He inveighed against thepractice of keeping papers from the House, and charged Lord John Russell with not including in papers present to Parliament up to the 1st of March, a despatch written to the British Minister at Turin in January. If Lord John did not produce it he would get it elsewhere. He charged the Government with interfering to keep Hungary in subjection to Austria. Mr. HENNESSY seconded the motion, remarking that some of Mr. Elliot's were omitted from the blue book Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not agree that it is the duty of the Foreign Minister to place all correspondence on the table. Such a practice would be fridtful of quarrels. The despatch, however, re- ferred to was not answered by Count Cavonr on the 1st of March. A reply has since been received, and it was laid on the table on Monday. The Government desires to maintain peace, and will not produce papers tending to disturb it. The papers then asked for it would be injurious to produce. "I will only add that the correspondence which has passed arose in conse- quence of arms being sent from Genoa to Wallachia and Moldavia, without any desire on the part of Prince Couza, and very much to the annoyance of the Sultan. Now, it is my wish that the Government of Austria and the Diet of Hungary may come to an agreement; that the promises of liberality which have been given by the Government of Austria may be amply fulfilled; and that the Hungarians on their side may find that such freedom of discussion and of the press, and such guarantees for personal liberty, may be given to them that they may continue to live under their present King. But that is merely a wish which I have formed. I have never interfered in any way whatever between the Emperor of Austria and the Diet of Hungary. It is for the Hungarians to con- sider whether their interests will be promoted and their rights secured by the con- stitution which is offered by their Sovereign. Far be it from me to control their desires in the least, or to throw any obstacle in the way of their establishing their independence. But it is a totally different thing to collect arms in a neighbouring country for the purpose of disturbing the dominions of the Emperor of Austria. However unreasonable the honourable gentleman may deem it, when the Sultan found thathis dominions were being made the rendezvous of a great number of exiles, who entertained designs against Austria, and when the Emperor of Austria became aware that arms were being collected in that quarter for an attack upon his dominions, both those Sovereigns felt a great dislike to those operations. No one can find fault with them for that. No sovereign is bound to foment or even to permit an insurrection in his dominions. Our only interference has been to state to Prince Couza, whose position mainly de- pends on the treaty of 1856, and the Conventions which have been made accord. ingly, that it was his slaty to the Sovereign to send away the arms. Prince Cosa replied that it was contrary to his wishes, as it was, be believed, contrary to the interests of his people, that the arms had been introduced into the country ; that he had no objection to send them away, but that he did not see bow he could do so. At lastSir H. Bulwer, having been asked both by the Sultan and Prince Couza to convey away the arms, had them taken to Constantinople on their way back to Genoa. Being anxious to preserve the peace of Europe, I do not think it was our business to give any assistance to the disturbances which were contemplated in the Principalities. With regard to these papers, I cannot consent to their production " Mr. Tnosrs DUNCOMBE insisted that Lord John was violating, in regard to Hungary, the principle of non-intervention applied to Italy. the noble lord, he understood, wanted Austria as a counterpoise to France; but if his policy were pursued for twelve months longer he would involve us in a war with France. What was he doing in regard to Hungary ? He repeated it, be was violating every principle of non-intervention. What was his conduct in regard to Kossuth? He wrote to Sir James Hudson, ordering bins to keep a watchful eye on Kossuth. The noble lord, when reminded of this on a former occasion said he did not recollect having done so • but the matter was talked of openly at Turin. He wondered if the noble lord recollected it now.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL: " No, I don't" Mr. T. DUNCOMBE. "The policy of the noble lord with regard to Hungary and Kossuth was most contemptible. The noble lord might refuse to produce these papers, but they would get most if not all of them by hook or by crook, as they had succeeded in getting those dated the 31st of August. The noble lord, since his visit to Vienna, had shown a great predilection for Austria ; but he could assure him twelve hours' misunderstanding with France would be worse than twelve months' misunderstanding with Austria."

Mr. COCHRANE differed from the view taken by Mr. Duncombe, but complained that the instructions to Mr. Elliot, regarding his attitude towards Garibaldi, were omitted.

On a division, the motion was negatived by 119 to 33.

THE LAW OF DOMICILE.

Lord KINGSDOWN moved the second reading of the Wills of Per- sonalty by British Subjects Bill, and explained its object and purport. The inconvenience of the existing law is seriously and extensively felt. A British subject resident in a foreign country could neither tell with any certainty by what law his will of personal estate was to be made, nor, when it was made, could he feel any assurance that it might not, without any intention of revocation on his part, become null at the time of his death. The criterion applied to the validity of English wills of personal estate was irrelevant to the reg matter at issue—viz. the genuineness of the instrument and the power of the testator to dispose of it ; but it was, notwithstanding, attended with con- siderable doubt and difficulty, and enormous expense. In 1837 an Act was passed requiring the same solemnities and forms of attestation in wills bequeath- ing real and personal estate. But with respect to personal estate, the object and effect of the statute of wills was entirely defeated The validity of a will be- queathing personal estate would depend, not on its genuineness, but on a cow- ?Lance with the forms required by the law of the country in which he might be held to be "domiciled" at the time of his death. It was, therefore, necessary to inquire, not into the testator's " domicile of origin," but where he was domiciled when he died, which depended upon " an infinite variety of circumstances." Lord ringsdown said he had argued and beard many cases, but he protested to their lordships he was unable to say what constituted a domicile. Dr. Lushington had stated in a judgment that there are fourteen or fifteen definitions of the word domicile. An Englishman, resident abroad, is, in many cases, unable to say where his domicile is. They had heard from the noble lord on the woolsack that he was unable to say whether his domicile was English or Scotch, and he was not sure he did not add Irish. When questions of this kind arise enormous expense is incurred, and he mentioned one case where 30,0001. was spent determining the question of domicile; and another case where eight eminent French advocates all differed in their opinions on the case of a testator who died in France. The

principle adopted throughout Europe, England excepted, is that the will is good whether made according to the law of the place where it is executed or made according to the law of the place of domicile. To avoid the difficulty. of seeking to ascertain what could never be known with certainty, but which yet was an element in deciding where a man was domiciled—namely, whether he Intended to return to his own country, he invited their lordships tolay down that any future will good with respect to real estate should also be good with respect to personal estate, be the domicile what it might.

The bill was read a second time, but did not meet with much favour. Lord WENSLEYDALE had the strongest objection to the principle it embodied. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would not pledge himself to support the bill, but regarded the remedy proposed as worthy of careful consideration. He would be delighted to see a rule laid down by which the vexed question of Lord Campbell's domicile could be settled. (Some tmernmext.) When Lord Chief Justice he was held to have a domicile in England, but when he became Lord Chancellor no one could tell whether his domicile lay north or south of the Tweed. When he retired from his official labours he hoped he might be able to establish his domicile without dispute, so as to leave no doubt as to the law by which his will should be decided. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) Lord ST. LRONARDS objected to the bill, saying it was not to be disguised that its real object was to enable gentlemen to spend their time and money on the Continent, and to enjoy all the benefits of Eng- lish law without being subjected to its authority. He did not see why, if an Englishman chose to live in Paris,_he should be released from making his will in conformity with the Wills Act. Lord CB.A.N- WORTH saw nothing but abounding " difficulties."

THE MARRIAGE LAw.

Mr. MONCKTON MILNES, believing that an erroneous impression prevailed in some quarters that the Marriage Law Amendment Bill, of which he moved the second reading on Wednesday last, was lost in consequence of the adoption of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Northamptonshire, asked the Speaker in what way he could proceed with that measure no as to act with the greatest respect to the decision at which the House had arrived, and without availing himself of any technical advantage which the forms of the House might be thought to give him.

The SPEAKER:" On the order for the second reading of the Marriage Law Amendment Bill the House declined to read the Bill a second time, and passed a

resolution to the effect that any measure having for its of the placing of the law of marriage, in regard to the prohibited degrees, on a different footing in different parts of the United Kingdom would be highly inconvenient. That resolution does not dispose of the Marriage Law Amendment Bill, and it is com- petent to the hon. gentleman to ask the House to name another day for the second reading of the measure. I am not quite sure whether the hon. gentleman asked me how he could proceed with the Bill in conformity with the expressed opinion of the House; but, if he did, I should reply to bum by saying that I think the most correct way of making his Bill conformable to the opinion of the House, as expressed in the resolution of Wednesday, would be to withdraw the Bill, and to re-introduce it in such an improved shape as he might deem to be in harmony with that expressed opinion." ("Bear, hear," and a laugh.)

In the House of Peers the Lord Chancellor's Bill to amend the Marriage Law of Ireland has passed a second reading. The old prohibition against the celebra- tion by Roman Catholic priests of marriage between a Protestant and Roman Catholic survives ; such marriages are null, and the priest is liable to penalties, now never enforced. The Bill will not allow a marriage to be celebrated between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant without proper regulations. It was provided that such a marriage could only be recognized where certain preliminaries were observed. Notice was to be given to the registrar and a certificate was to be issued, to be delivered to the priest at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. The marriage was then to be celebrated in a building set apart for Roman Catholic worship, and between the hours of eight in the morning and two in the afternoon.