Erbiif nub ruruIriug inparlianaut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE OF Loans. Monday, July 25. -National Defences ; Lord Lyndhurst's Complaint—Chief Superintendent (China) Bill read a second time. Tuesday, July 26. North Western Territories (British America) Bill read a third time and passed—Public Health Bill read a third time and passed—Spiritual Des- titution; the Bishop of London's Statement.

Thursday,: July 28. Divorce Court Bill reported—Diplomatic Pensions 1B1ll read a second time—Chief Superintendent (China) Bill read a third time and passed. —Cambridge University Commission (Continuance) Bill read a second time. _Friday. July 29. The Liturgy ; Lord Ebury's statement.

HOUSE or Commows. Monday, July 25. Discipline in the Navy ; Mr. Liddell's Question—Supply ; Civil Service Estimates—National Defences ; Mr. S. Herbert's reply to Mr. Adderley and Sir De Lacy Evans—Supply ; British Museum—yexa- tious Indictments Bill read a second time—Roman Catholic Charities ; Sir G. Lewis's Bill read a first time.

Tuesday. July 26. Church Rates Abolition Bill in Committee—" Count out."

Wednesday, July 27. City Gas Bill read a third time and passed—Imprisonment for Small Debts ; Mr. Collier's Bill in Committee—High Sheriffs' Expenses Bill thrown out—Municipal Corporations Bill Committee—Supply ; Mr. Coningham's Motion on the National Gallery—Income-tax Bill read a second time. Thursday, July W. Supply ; Civil Service Estimates—The Italian Question ; Lord John Russell's Statement—Municipal Corporations ISM read a third time and. passed—Church Rates Abolition Bill in Committee. Friday, July 29. Income-tax iU committed—supply; Civil Service Estimates,- THE ITALIAN Quseriox.

At the evening sitting on Thursday, in a full House, the Secretary Los Foreign Affairs made his promised statement on the position of the Go- vernment with respect to the Italian question. Lord Joim Roast's, said that he would have postponed the statement he had to make had he seen a prospect of a definite settlement before Parliament rises. Remarking first on the contradiction between the reasons assigned by the two Emperors for making a sudden peace, and admitting that both had a certain validity, he said that no concert had been agreed upon by the neutral Powers. There had been overtures on the part of Prussia, both in London and at St. Petersburg. Another reason—the losses on the battle-field—must have had its weight with both Emperors, for while they maintain their feelings as monarchs they retain their feelings as men. Then he went to the peace of Villafranca.. It consists of two parts. One relates to the cession of Lombardy. It is not for us to criticise that; for it " does not create such a great dis- turbance in the European system that the Powers of Europe have any right to interfere in regard to it.' The other part proposes a reorganization for the future of Italy. Lord Elcho had given notice of a motion asking the House to declare that this country should not take part in a Conference to settle the details of a peace made by two sovereigns. Everybody will agree to that. But the fate of Italy is a different question. In 18,56 Lord Cla- rendon brought the question of Italy before the Paris Conference on the ground that the state of Italy- was of the utmost importance to Europe. It has never been denied that the peace of Europe might depend on the solu- tion of the questions then agitated. The French Government now proposes that England should go into Conference, not to consider the details of the Treaty of Villafranea, but "to confer," as Count Walew ski writes, in general terms, "on all the questions raised by the actual state of things in Italy, and which are connected with general interests." The British Government have not thought it necessary to give a precise answer to this proposal. They have told the French Ambassador here that there are two conditions which must be complied with before England can go into Conference. One is that they must see the Treaty of Zurich about to be negotiated, the other that the Emperor of Austria must be a party to the Conference The Emperor of Austria at Villafranca objected to a Con- ference, but it would be absurd to attempt to settle the affairs of Italy with- out the assistance of Austria, and probably of Prussia. It is important that we should know beforehand the points to be considered. "The Treaty of Villafranca has left the state of Italy quite unsettled." The Treaty of Zurich may go no further. The Misty of Villafranca deals with three matters of very great importance. "The first question which it raises— and raises, I believe, in consequence of the strong opinion of the Emperor of the French in favour of the project—relates to an Italian Confederation. The article of the treaty does not say that a Confederation is formed, or that a Confederation shall be formed it only states that the two Sovereigns making the treaty will favour and further the creation of a Confederation." Although it stands upon this strong foundation, that, whereas Italy has been the prey for centuries of the armies of contending foreign Powers, if she could have an organization of her own, capable of affording protection of the defensive character which has always been assigned to a group of fede- rated States, she might then be strong enough to withstand aggression, and there would be no necessity for the intervention of foreign Powers ; yet it Is doubtful whether the time is come when such a Confederation could be use- fully carried into effect. "We must consider of what members it is to consist. According to the plan conceived at Villafranca it would consist of the Pope as its president, the Emperor of Austria as one of its members, two Archdukes, the King of Naples, and the King of Sardinia. Now, Sir, I cannot con- ceive that a Confederation so formed would be for the benefit of Italy. It is in the nature of a Confederation of this kind that it should meet to consider of general subjects. Sardinia, as we all know, and as we have ob- served with satisfaction, has for sonic years enjoyed a free constitution, and those privileges which belong to a free constitution; but how could it be expected that the Pope, as chief of that body—that the Emperor of Austria, as one of its members—that the Archdukes, nearly related to the Emperor, and following, of course, his inspiration, would favour such views as the King of Sardinia and his ministers would entertain ? Take as an instance the question—which is as good as any other—of the liberty of worship, —a privilege highly prized in this country, and conceded, to the great satis- faction of many persons here, at Turin and in all parts of Sardinia. In the States of the "King of Sardinia there is freedom of worship ; in Tuscany there has been established what is called liberty of worship—that is to say, any Tuscans or Italians who leave the Catholic Church and become Protestants are left unmolested, but are not allowed to assemble for public worship. In the Papal dominions even that privilege would hardly be al- lowed. When the Confederation came to meet and to lay down rules on this subject, how could such opposite views be reconciled,—how could the Pope or the Emperor of Austria favour that liberty of worship which the people of Sardinia regard as one of their highest privileges? It appears to me, there- fore, that, although a Confederation may in time become a good system for Italy, the proposition made at the peace of Villafranca hardly fulfils the con- ditions which are necessary to form a united defensive federal Power. But then, Sir, arises another question, and that is as to the mode in which this treaty is to be carried into effect. On that subject it would be necessary to have a full and complete understanding, before her Majesty could be advised to send any representative to a conference of the great Powers of Europe. We all know that by one of the articles of the treaty, very short and somewhat ambiguous in its terms, it is declared that the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Duke of Modena return to their States, granting an amnesty. Now, how are they to return to their States ? The Grand .Duke of Tuscany is in a position not very dissimilar to that of a sovereign who once reigned in this country. He reigned by virtue of a constitution. He violated the principles of that constitution. His people made representations to him. They called upon him to abdicate. Ho did not abdicate, but withdrew him- self from the country. The Grand Duke is therefore in the position of a sovereign who has violated the fundamental laws and withdrawn himself from the territory over which he ruled. That is a position, I must say, very unfavourable to his return with the full will, approbation, and consent of his people, to the throne which he before occupied. On the other hand, the people of Tuscany have enjoyed many years of happiness under the mild rule of Leopold I. and his descendants, and it may be that they will choose to recal the ton of the Grand Duke to the throne which he has abdicated. But when I inquire with respect to this subject, I must tell the House that, although I have no official assurance of the fact, I feel convinced—and 1 have good reason to be convinced—that the Em- peror of the French has no intention of employing French troops for the restoration of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.. ((",r8.) I believe likewise, from all I can hear, that the Emperor of Austria does not intend—he cer- tainlyhas not avowed any intention—to use his troops for the purpose of restoring these two archdukes, and I think I may presume from what I have heard that even if he were disposed to do so the Emperor of the French would not give his consent. Well, if that be so, a great difficulty at once arises in carrying the treaty into effect. It is doubtful—very doubtful in- deed—what may be the result of the well-considered deliberations of the TUSCEIII people. They are about to choose representatives, and I think it is much the best course they can take, according to the constitution which their Grand Dukes had abolished, and when that body of representatives meet they will consider for themselves—as we in former times considered for ourselves—whether they will have the sovereign who hasthus conducted hirneelf, or whether they will choose another sovereign to reign over them. Well, for her Majesty's Government there can be but one course in such a case. If the representatives of the people of Tuscany—and I must say they are a most tranquil and orderly population—if their representatives meet and declare that a certain Government is that under which alone they can live happily, it will be impossible for any representative of her Majesty to go against that declaration." (Loud cheers.) These are things upon which, supposing we are to go into a Conference at all, it would be need- stay to have the cleared understanding before that Conference assembled. Another question of which these preliminaries treat is one which is now, and has been for centuries, perhaps the most difficult of all in Italy— namely the temporal government of the Pope. Now, the declaration made by the Emperor of the French and by the King of Sardinia at the outset of

i

the late war, produced at Bologna, as n Tuscany, a change in the Govern- ment. Bologna, as the House is well aware, has been kept in obedience for the last ten years by an Austrian garrison, which maintained order in that town and in the neighbouring provinces. . . . . As soon as these Austrian troops left Bologna, the Cardinal Legate imme- diately followed them. (A laugh.) Ile was allowed to go away in his coach quite quietly ; nobody interfered with him but still he found it necessary to leave the town as soon as the Austrian troops were gone. This puts me in mind of something that I heard many years ago concerning a Roman Cardinal who was then Legate at Bologna. Every one knows that these Roman Cardinals are apt to utter very refined and witty sayings about political affairs in respect to which they are not always tho wisest legislators or administrators. This Cardinal, whose name I need not men- tion was asked how the people of Bologna were going on. He said, Very

quietly; they really behave very well ; but I believe there are but two persons attached to the Government of his Holiness, myself and the Vice- Legate, and as to the Vice-Legate I am not very sure of him.' (Laughter.) Now that, I believe, has been the state of things in Bologna ever since, and accordingly we have seen that when a man who is revered and beloved all over Italy, Massimo d'Azeglio, went there with a communication from the King of Sardinia, 70,000 people, it is calculated, attended his reception and gave him an ovation. How, then, is the Government of the Pope to be made palatable to the inhabitants of the Legations ? The Emperor of the French and the Emperor of Austria say they will recommend to the Pope certain indispensable reforms • but the Pope who likewise exercises rights of sovereignty, has always said, 'I may be driven out of Rome • I may be driven to the most humble village in Italy ; but I will maintain my au- thority even in the most humble village, and while I am here I must govern wording to my own judgment and the dictates of my own con- science.' How that difficulty is to' be got over I really do not know. I am told the Pope is not averse to a Confederation or even to the as- sumption of the title of its President; but then we must remember that he has always expressed it to be his opinion that he ought not to mingle in questions of war, and that if war were deelared he could not, as Vicar of Christ, place hiniself at the head of a warlike enterprise or Confederation. These, Sir, are some of the difficulties by which this question is attended." Lord John next stated the King of Naples desires to put an end to the system that existed in his father's time ; and that though he is thwarted by his police, and has not done all the friends of popular institutions desire, yet that he has made a beginning. " We find ourselves, then, in this posi- tion—A treaty is about to be made at Zurich. A confidential agent of the French Government has been sent to Vienna in order to settle with the Emperor of Austria what the bases of the treaty shall be. So far as I can learn, the Emperor of the French is most anxious that that treaty should enable the Italians to enjoy the privilege of self-government. Now, whether they enjoy that privilege under one sovereign or under another, whether there is to be a Confederation, or whether there are to be two or three powerful States in Italy, I am convinced—and her Majesty's Government are con- vinced—that an independent State or States in Italy would be for the welfare of Europe. (Cheers.) I cannot say—it is impossible at the present moment to say—that there will be any Congress or Conference on this question. This, however, I may state with the utmost confidence, that it would not be wise on the part of her Majesty's Government, and still less wise on the part of the House, to come to any permanent and absolute decision on the subject." It would never do for a Minister of the Crown of Great Britain to say that this country, which has taken part in all the great concerns of Europe since 1815—in the formation of the kingdom of Greece—in the formation of the kingdom of Belgium—to say that we should now suddenly and without any reason withdraw from any such meeting or assembly of the Powers of Europe if there be any chance that the situation of Italy might be improved, that peace might be con- firmed, and the independence of the Italian States secured by our taking such a course. (Cheers.) . . . . " The Emperor of the French bas always said, and I think truly, that Italy has been a source of danger, and was in peril of revolution, but that that danger could not be completely averted, or revolution finally stayed, unless the Powers of Europe generally were consenting parties to a settlement to which the people of Italy would give their assent, and would recommend itself to the minds of reasonable and just men in all parts of the world. Such being the difficulties which are imposed upon our taking part in any such Conference, he might be per- mitted to say, in spite of Mr. Disraeli's sneers, " that if Italy could be made prosperous, and her sons afforded a fair scope for the exercise of their talent and their energy, so that they might be enabled to take their part among the nations of Europe as coutiabuting their quota—and I feel assured a rich quota it would be—to the progress of that great European family to which they belong—if such an object could be attaiued, then, Sir, I, for one, should not hesitate to declare that her Majesty's Government would rejoice at its consummation." (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI said that Lord John's explanation respecting the term supposed to be offered to the Emperor of Austria was ambiguous. Were not certain terms, more severe than those he accepted, laid before the Emperor of Austria ? "It has reached me that the scheme for the settlement of hostilities which the Emperor of Austria, comparing it with the terms offered by his enemy, found so repugnant to his feelings and interests was brought to his cog- nizance through the influence and agency of her Majesty's Government." If so, although it might be said that Ministers offered no opinion on it, they gave a kind of sanction to it by making themselves the organs of communi- cation. They had, in fact, committed the mistake they made in 1848, when the proposal now made by France and accepted by Austria, was made by Austria herself. We then repudiated the Austrian proposition, and now those very terms have been accepted from the enemy of Austria. Thus the affair is settled without our interference. Had we said that the terms offered to Austria were too severe, if we had modified them, and Austria had ac- cepted them, "we should be in a great position." Now Austria regards us as one who has deserted her.

Mr. Disraeli went into a long argument to show that England ought not to attend any Congress, because the balance of power is not affected ; be- cause it is one thing to propose a Congress to prevent a war, another to go into one 'after a war, be bound by its engagements, and save other persons from difficulties they have created, and for whioh we are not answerable. ",I tell the noble Lord this—that it is his misfortune to believe that there ex- ists throughout Italy a Whig party, and until he gets that idea out of his head he never will be able to consider the question in a manner becoming a statesman of his degree. It has always been the fashion of the noble Lord, when speaking of Italy, to speak of establishing a sort of Brookes's Club at Florence. I told the noble Lord some years ago that the course he was re- commending was one which must end in the confusion of Italy ; and that, if he thought the regeneration of Italy could be effected by the secret so- cieties of that country, he would find that he was only playing the game of some great military despot who would reap the profit."

At the end of his speech Mr. Disraeli commented on the announcement that the French Army and Navy is to be reduced to a peace footing, and expressed a hope that there would be a real reduction of armaments, not a mere exchange of fine phrases, and that the policy of the Emperor would be met in a reciprocal spirit by the English Parliament.

Mr. BOWYER made a long speech, defending the Roman Government and attacking Sardinia, whose proceedings in the Duchies and the Ro- magna have been contrary to the law of nations. Lord PALMERSTON recapitulated in the main the atatemente of Lord John Russell. On one point be made a statement of some importance.

"The right honourable gentleman wished to know whether the Powers that were neutral in the war—and especially the British Government—made any proposal of terms of arrangement to the Emperor of Austria which were lees favourable to the Austrian Government than those afterwards agreed upon at the peace of Villafranca. My noble friend stated that, as far as he was aware,—and certainly so far as this country was concerned,—no proposition was made to the Austrian Government from any of the neutral Powers. The right honourable gentleman seems, however, to have had pretty accurate information from some quarter or other as to what took place. There was a period of the war at which the French Ambassador at this Court gave my noble friend a small bit of paper, upon which there were certain terms of arrangement, stated very generally, asking that the British Government would transmit them to the Government of Austria, and re- commending the terms as the bases upou which a treaty of peace might be concluded. My noble friend, in concert with his colleagues, felt that on the one hand it would be unbecoming on the iced of this Government, anxious as we must naturally have been for the cessation of the war, to refuse altogether to be the channel of communications which one of the parties thought might be conducive to a peaceful settlement, and which the other party might or might not accept. We did not think it necessary absolutely

to decline to be the channel of such a communication ; on the other hand, we felt that the state of the two contending parties in the war was not such

as, in our opinion, justified us in interposing by any communication on our own part. We, therefore, took the course which, I think, was the proper one. We said, We will communicate the proposals to the Austrian Minis-

ter ; they contain your notions, not ours ; but we will not accompany them by any advice or opinion, and we shall distinctly say that it is not a com- munication from us, but from you.' That was what passed ; my noble friend gave the memorandum to the Austrian Minister, telling him that it was not our proposal, but the proposal of the French Government, and that the Austrian Government might deal with it as it saw good; bat as to the terms, we expressed no opinion whatever." Again, with respect to Mr. Disraeli's allusion to the Whigs in Italy. "There is not only a great Whig party, but a Tory party also in Italy ; and that Tory party, haviog posses- sion of the Government of the country, though in a minority, and being in conflict with thelVhigs, has been the cause of much of the troubles we have witnessed. ((Theers.) The Whigs are the more numerous body, but they have not yet been able to get a vote of No confidence' in their oppo- nents passed ; and they are still writhing under the miseries entailed on them by the arbitrary and despotic party which governs. 1 don't deny, then, the constitutional sympathies which the right honourable gentleman imputes to us, and I frankly avow that we should be very glad to see in the ascendancy those true friends of Italy who desire to establish in every part of the Peninsula that rational and moderate freedom which is the only solid foundation of happiness." (Cheers.) The Government wishes well to Italy, and if the councils of Europe can lay the foundation of improvement, the Governments that do so will deserve the applause of mankind.

Mr. H. BAILLIE discouraged interference : Mr. MONCKTON MILNES supported the policy sketched out by the Government. Mr. Wirrresine insisted that the Emperor of Austria must have been influenced by the little bit of paper transmitted by the British Government, since he must have inferred that the arrangement proposed had their assent. There- 'fore they were the cat's paw of another power. Mr. Whiteside alto- gether objects to England taking part in the Congress, and is of opinion that nothing can come of the Confederation. Mr. DRUMMOND defended the course taken by Sardinia, insisted that the whole question is a re- ligious question, that England ought to keep out of the business, and that nothing can keep Italy free unless the power of the Church is con- trolled. At a later period Mr. Meerane put in a long defence for the Papal Court, which he called a "progressive" Government. Lord Jome Russma. replied to Mr. Maguire, and asked that "exponent of Papal opinion" why, if the Papal Government is so excellent, it is necessary that there should always be a French garrison at Rome ?

In the course of the debate there was an episode. Mr. Mutant'

alluded to the mistake of 1848. Lord PALMERSTON corrected his general account by showing that the Austrian proposals were quite inadmissible at the time they were made. Mr. WHITESIDE, however, revived the subject in his speech, and went deeply into dates and details to show that Austria was ready to give up Lombardy in June 1848, and that Lord Palmerston refused the proposal and suggested the line of the Piave. In two or three days a battle changed the whole face of the campaign, and then Lord Palmerston stated he was willing to accept the terms Austria had proposed. To these allegations Mr. GLADSTONE replied. Mr. Whiteside had entirely misrepresented the case. Ile said Austria offered to make Lombardy independent, and give Venice a free constitu- tion. Is that a fact? Mr. Whiteside has made the gross mistake of citing a document expressing the individual opinion of Baron Hummel- lauer as an offer made by Austria. This point Mr. Gladstone amply made out by quoting documentary evidence. The plan drawn up by Baron Hammellauer was his own plan, and it never received the assent of the Austrian Government.

At the close of the debate Mr. DISRAELI manifested a desire to have the

Indian Budget postponed in order that Lord Elcho's motion might come on next Monday ; but Lord Etcno, after what had taken place, although he was anxious that England should keep aloof from the Congress, said he was in the hands of the Government, and would submit his motion when it was most convenient for them to do so.

THE NATIONAL DEFENCES.

Some discussion on the state of our national defences took place in both Houses on Monday evening.

In the House of Peers, Lord LYNDHURST replied to an attack made upon him in another place. [Mr. Bright was his assailant.] He had been charged with laying down doctrines not suited to the present day. That is perfectly untrue. All he said was that our naval and "Military defences should be put in a state that would restore to us the security we have hitherto enjoyed. He had not laid down doctrines referable to a period sixty years back. "My Lords, it is very well for Englishmen in private life, when they are smitten upon one cheek to turn the other cheek to the smiter. But that is not my feeling, and least of all ought it to be the feeling of a great and powerful nation. I might cite a passage from an eminent orator,—an Athenian orator,—which I think somewhat in point. He says in substance, Nations build large fortresses, and lay out great sums of money for that purpose, but there is one common bulwark which every prudent man will take care to maintain. It is the great security of all nations, particularly of free states, against foreign despotic power.' He goes on to ask, What is this?' The answer he gives is, Distrust, distrust. Be mindful of that, adhere to it, and you will be free from almost every calamity.'"

He asked whether the Duke of Somerset was aware that the French are arming their fleet with rifled cannon?

The Duke of SOMERSET said that he had heard the report ; but it is not based on any authentic information in his possession. He was aware also that, although we have many improved cannon in course of pre- paration, they will not be ready for months to come. As to Lord Lynd- hurst's remarks on a former occasion, he thought many of them ne- cessarily offensive to other nations ; and that Lord Lyndhurst might have tendered his advice in other language. Lord LYNDHURST thought these observations utterly unfounded. Let every one answer for himself the question whether he puts confidence in the Emperor of the French. "For myself,. I answer it in this way-1 will not trust the liberties of this country, its honour, and its interests, to any declarations or promises of any friendly Power, or of any Power whatever. I will rely on my own power, on my own resources, on my own vigour' and on the strength of my own right arm. I will not rely in particular on the Emperor of the French, because from his situation, I think he cannot rely on himself." Is there anything that any man, however sensitive, can complain of in these to- marks?

In the House of Commons, on going into Committee of Supply, Mr. ADDERLEY called attention to the military defences of the colonies, with the view of showing that the proportion they pay for their defence is very small, and that while the inferior stations are taxed to the utter- most, the larger, Canada, Australia, the Cape, pay little or nothing. Nor is this costly system efficient. Everything like military spirit is crushed out of the colonies. The colonial militia is the best force for colonial defence. To garrison colonies with English troops leads to a

wasteful expenditure ; and under the existing system the more troops the colonies obtain the richer they become. If the colonies were called upon

to provide for their own defence, they would look sharply after the mili- tary expenditure. Lord A. CHURCHILL concurred in these views. Mr. Musir showed that if British men-of-war did not protect the Aus- tralian trade, the empire and not the colony would be the loser; but he admitted that the land defences come under a different principle.

Next Sir DE LACY Evasui' with a few prefatory remarks touching the little attention paid to the subject, moved that a Commission, consisting

of civilians and military and naval officers, should be appointed to in- quire into the condition of our national defences, collect information, and suggest improvements.

Then Mr. DANNY SEYMOUR drew attention to the undefended state of the coast between Southampton and Weymouth, considering its proximity to Cherbourg. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT replied to each speaker in order. In answer to Mr. Adderley, he admitted that the varying proportions of the payments

made by the colonies are capricious and unreasonable. It is indefeasible

to maintain British troops in colonies as a police. A distinction between military and police expenditure should be maintained. He quoted

figures from a return showing the disproportionate payments, especially in the Mauritius, Hongkong, and the Cape of Good Hope. The lest furnishes the strongest instance. For the defence of this colony, the empire pays 635,0001.; the colony pays only 29,000/. Governor Sir George Grey has kept the German Legion in pay from the time of their arrival in the colony. He did not feel sanguine of making an inroad in the system, but, as the subject ought not to be neglected, a Committee had been appointed to ascertain the proportions of expense, and lay down the principle on which the expenses ought to be apportioned.

As to the question of Mr. Denby Seymour, he could only say that the subject has not escaped the notice of the Government. In the first- in- stance, we must defend our ports and arsenals, not at present in a good state of defence.

In answer to Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said the sub- ject has caused the Government great anxiety. Far from not having

paid any attention to it, he found that the plans of defence prepared did great credit to the ability of he engineer officers ; and although the Government do not distrust them, it has been determined to appoint a Commission to look into and reconsider the plans so that public con- fidence may be obtained. It is hoped that the country will be perfectly satisfied when it is called on to pay for the works, and will thus be satis- fied that the plans have been well considered and are adequate for the purpose intended.

Mr. HatmetriaroN and some other Members rose, but as a new Member the House called loudly for Mr. Halliburton. He thanked Mr.

Sidney Herbert for the mode in which he had dealt with Mr. Adderley's speech. Having lived his whole life in British North America he might be permitted to speak upon it. It was said the colonies ought to defend themselves. Be it so. It will not be the first time they have done it, and they are able to do it again. But there is a mutual interest—loyal attachment on one part, and protection on the other. Canada has or- genized her militia. They have done great service before, and they can do it again. If it were announced that the troops would be withdrawn, the colonies must protect themselves, but that will lead to trouble with their neighbours, while the very knowledge that England will protect the country in time of need is a protection of itself. If they withdraw the troops, what do they want with the colonies ? Under these circumstances give them their independence. They do not ask it or want it, and will receive it with regret ; but they will say, if you are come to the con- dition of Rome and must gather up your legions give us our in-

dependence and leave us. Mr. Halliburton contended that England does

not govern, but mis-govern her colonies—sending boys of fifteen to com- mand their militia, taking away their coasting-trade and ruining their shipping. If the chain of railways which runs from Halifax to New Brunswick were completed they need not keep a single soldier in Canada, because they could send there as many troops as they liked at any season

of the year. Mr. HORSI4AN heard the speech of Mr. Sidney Herbert

with great satisfaction. He hoped to have an early report from the Commission; and he hoped the Commission would recommend the mini-

mum force which we ought always to maintain. Lord Emile was also glad to hear that the Commission had been appointed. Lord HARRY Vales, in answer to Mr. Horsman, thought it impossible that any Commission could lay down the exact number of troops, artillery, and ships requisite for the defence of the country.

Lord PALMERSTON said that Mr. Iforsman's proposal amounted to a larger range of inquiry than that contemplated by Mr. Herbert. The

force that we must maintain will vary with changing circumstances. The Commission will ascertain what permanent works are necessary. That subject has already occupied and will continue to occupy the atten- tion of the Government.

Mr. Arnrost said that there should be an inquiry to fix the minimum force that ought to be maintained and to report on the best means Of raising it to a sufficient strength to repel invasion. The Amendment of Sir De Lacy Evans haying been negatived, the House went into Com- mittee of Supply.

CHUCH-RATES.

At a morning sitting on Tuesday Sir John TB.ELAWNY moved that the House should go into Committee on the Church-rate Abolition Bill. Thereupon Mr. Newnnakra rose and moved that the House should on the next day resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the propriety of establishing in lieu of church-rates, thenceforth to be abolished, a charge on all hereditaments, in respect of the occupancy of which church-rates have been paid within the last seven years; such charge to be levied with the county rate at an uniform rate of poundage, the occupier being in all cases entitled to deduct front his rent the amount of the charge levied on his occupation. In Committee he said that he should fix the rate at 2c1. in the pound. If any occupier felt scruples he could deduct the rate from his rent. The amount collected would be handed to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and the balance left, after paying for the repairs and maintenance of the fabric, would form a fund for extraordinary repairs or for endowment purposes. Mr. Steamiest seconded the amendment. The House hardly discussed the proposal—not one speaker supporting it. Mr. llitwimoere, how- ever, pressed it to a division, and it was negatived by 199 to 91. -Lord Joyce MANNeas next tried to induce the Member for Tavistock to postpone the bill; but Sir JonN TnEtewsri told him that he did not being it forward as a delusion or a sham, and it would be his duty to proceed day by day and hour by hour until he got a decision on it.

The measure, however, made no progress in Committee; the clock putting an end to the proceedings before clause 1 had been discussed. Another attempt to proceed was made on Thursday ; it was met by the same tactics.

ILHE DIVORCE COURT.

The House of Lords went into Committee on the Divorce Court Bill on Thursday, and made some amendments in its clauses. A clause was adopted extending theract to Ireland and India. On the question that the Court if it pleased should sit with closed doors, the Committee di- vided, but the proposal was carried by 26 to 9. Clause 5, intended to guard against collusion, and empowering the Court, at its discretion, to cal in the Attorney-General to sift any suspicious case, was agreed to without a division. The bill as amended was reported.

SPIRITUAL DESTITUTION.

The Bishop of LONDON, on Tuesday, presented petitions from different parts of the country, and one in particular from the London Diocesan Church Building Society, upon the spiritual destitution of the Metro- polis and of the large manufacturing towns. He took advantage of the occasion to draw the attention of the House to the importance of appointing a separate department in the Ecclesiastical Commission for church building purposes. He complained of the inadequacy of the accommodation provided by the Commission in places where large funds were placed in their hands and suggested that unnecessary difficulties were thrown in the way of obtaining sites for churches by the law of mortmain. A Select Committee of their Lordships' House had recom- mended that the Ecclesiastical Commission should be obliged to attend first to the local claims of those places in which they had property, if actual spiritual destitution existed there. He was aware that the officials of the Ecclesiastical Commission had a strong objection to any alteration in the present law, but he must confess that he thought that they would have no cause of complaint against the bill which was he believed, to be introduced. That bill he should object to if it did not embody the clauses recommended by the Select Committee, as it would be only increasing the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He was sorry to say that comprehensive measures to render the Church more efficient were never proposed. At the same time he could not pass over without praise the efforts made by private individuals to extend the blessings of the Gospel by building churches. The Earl of CHICHESTER defended the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and showed the incorrectness of some of the allegations of the petition. There is a separate department of the Commission for church building business. Lord Emmy insisted on the necessity of taking measures to remedy the spiritual destitution among the lower and middle classes, especially since they are about to extend to them the political franchise.

The Bishop of Oxman hoped that any bill that may be introduced will provide for local claims.

There is great misapprehension as to what was a local claim. It is not in any sense a claim to have the whole of the property applied to the place in which the property was situated, but simply to have the spiritual necessi- ties of that place first considered. He thought it required no inconsiderable hardihood for any man to stand up and say that it could be just or right to give the property of the Church away to distant localities, while no con- sideration was exercised as to the spiritual necessities of the place itself. There is no doubt that after the fullest consideration of the places in which the property was situated, there would be a large surplus for distant places. They did not ask Parliament to stay the flow of that surplus to those distant places, but in justice and right they did ask that the places in which the property was situated should have their own spiritual necessities first con- sidered.

Earl GRANVILLE was understood to say that the Government could not pledge themselves to introduce at the present advanced period of the session a bill to carry out the object which the right reverend prelate who had just spoken sought to attain.

THE BRITISH MUSET,M.

In Committee of Supply, on Monday, the House continued to discuss the votes for Education. Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the vote paying the expenses of Agricultural Schools in Ireland, and Mr. arnrretn supported him asking whether the public paid for teaching cutlery in Sheffield or cotton-spinning in Manchester. Mr. CA.RDWELL defended the vote by showing that it was necessary in Ireland to instruct the people in useful industrial arts. The amendment was withdrawn, and the vote was agreed to.

On the vote of 1500/. for theological professors at Belfast and Belfast Academical Institution, Mr. BAXTER moved that the vote should be re- duced by 4501.—the retired allowances of professors of the Belfast Aca- demical Institution : negatived by 145 to 38. On the vote of 47,4251. to complete the sum voted for the British Museum, Mr. GREGORY complained of various matters connected with the management of the Museum. Large portions of the collections are in danger of being destroyed. The Government should consider whether the natural history collection should not be removed from the Museum ; whether they should not separate the works of nature from the works of man; whether they should not raise the pay of the assistants, who are badly paid, because they do not mix themselves up in politics. Mr. MINES Mr. TURNER, and Mr. DANEY SEYMOUR supported the sugges- tions oeMr. Gregory.

Mr. WAtrote said that no Committee of the House could deal with the question of separating the collections in a proper way ; the Govern- ment ought to deal with it. As to the payment of the assistants, Mr. Walpole did not mean to say that any of them are paid according to their attainments, but who is ? If Professor Owen were paid according to his attainments, he would be paid a higher salary than the first Minister of the Crown. He did not wish to prevent the raising of those salaries, but if they were raised honourable Members should not come down to the House and complain of the increase of the Civil Estimates. The v3te was agreed to.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY. In Committee of Supply, on Wednesday, Mr. CONINGHAM moved that the vote of 15,985/. for the National Gallery should be reduced by 6501., charged as tranelling expenses. He repeated, his complaints touching the effect of the Royal Academy upon national art, which has steadily

declined ever since the Royal Academy was established. He Oensured the management of Sir Charles Eastlake, as keeper and afterwards Pre- sident of the Academy, and as Trustee of the National Gallery. The motion he submitted to the Committee had reference to expenses. Last year the charge for a travelling agent was struck out of the votes : now it reappears as travelling expenses. Eight paintings were purchased last year for 30001., and he should like the opinion of their worth that some experienced appraiser would give. He desired to see the expenditure diminished.

Mr. WILLIAMS had hoped that it would be proposed to strike out the item of 10,0001. for the purchase of pictures. Mr. GLADSTONE said no one was more competent than Mr. Coningham to deal with the subject before the Committee. The present system, however, was adopted for five years in 1866. Next year it will expire, and it will be the duty of the Government to see if they can alter it for the better. He defended the item for travelling expenses, and explained that the sale of Lord Northwick's pictures rendered it desirable to have a sum available for use. In reply to Mr. Danby Seymour, Mr. Glad- stone said that he had had no time to investigate the arrangements of the late Government with regard to Burlington House. Mr. STIRLING said if Mr. Coningham's motion succeeded the travelling expenses would be thrown on the salary of Sir Charles Eastlake, whereas it was understood that his travelling expenses should be defrayed. Ile characterized Mr. Coningham's statements as assertions, and defended Sir Charles Eastlake, whose great mistake was his candour.

The motion was negatived by 171 to 42:

Mr. SPOONER moved that the vote be reduced by 10,000/. for the pur- chase of pictures. Art is best left alone. Negatived by 136 to 64.

The vote was agreed to.

IMPRISONMENT FOR SMALL DERMA Mr. COLLIER moved that the House should go into Committee on the Imprisonment for Small Debts Bill. His object' is to abolish. the power of imprisonment without a hearing. Sonic lawyers say the bill will not alter the law, but it is necessary to clear up doubts. He showed that imprisonment operates as a great hardship, and mentioned a case where a man had been imprisoned nine times for nine pounds. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL concurred in the propriety of passing the first clause of the bill, for he was of opinion that a minority of the County Court Judges—some 13 or 14 out of 60—put a wrong construc- tion on the 98th section of the County Court Act. It is important that doubts on the point should be removed, for all the hardships and scandal with respect to these commitments have arisen from that erroneous though conscientious construction of the law, The late Lord Chancellor directed the Standing Committee of the County Court Judges to ascertain what the practice of the County Court Judges had been in respect to the matter to which the attention of the House had been called ; and it appeared from the report made that it was only thirteen or fourteen of those Judges, es he had just stated, who put that peremptory construction of which the honourable and learned gentleman complained on the 98th sec- tion of the Act. He, therefore, thought that the public was indebted to the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth for introducing the present measure to set the matter at rest. - Mr. Hustey said that harder measure is dealt out to the poorer debtors who come under the County Court system than to persons who obtain credit in a different situation. Where there is no fraud no person ought to be imprisoned for the same debt time after time. He supported the bill. Mr. CLIVE said there must be a summary power of imprison- ment in certain cases. The imprisonments complained of are for non-- payment of debt in cases where the debtor is able to pay. The first clause being declaratory of the law is unobjectionable. Mr. PAGET asked for time, and moved that the chairman Should report progress. Mr. EDWIN Jaams and Major STEWART, and other Members, supported the bill. Sir GEORGE LEWIS said it would be best to go at once into Committee. He called attention to two points. The County Court judge acted in a double capacity—as a judge of the County Court for small debts, and as a judge in eases of insolvency. In the latter capacity he had the power of bringing an insolvent before him for ex- amination, but lie did not possess such a power as a County Court judge, and from that inability to call before him a debtor and ctuestion him on the subject of his debt arose the necessity for a power of imprisonment. If, therefore, the County Court Judges were deprived of the power of imprison- ment, the only means of acting upon debtors would be taken away from them, and the inducement to give credit would be diminished in a corre- sponding degree. He thought there was a disposition to form a somewhat harsh estimate of the conduct of County Court Judges with regard to the exercise of the power of imprisonment. Now, it must be remembered that before the passing of the County Courts Act a number of Small Debts Courts, or Courts of Request, existed throughout the country, the judges of which had the power of imprisonment. Several of the judges of these courts, ten or twelve of them, he believed, were appointed County Court Judges, and he apprehended that their practice had been somewhat arbi- trary, and that they had imprisoned debtors upon very loose evidence. He hoped the Committee would not entertain the erroneous opinion that the County Court Act had introduced a more lax system, for he was satisfied that the appointment of a superior class of judges had tended materially to improve the administration of the law by increasing the strictness of that administration.

Mr. PAGET withdrew his amendment, and the bill went through Com- mittee.

EtecrioN Costarrrees. Several Election Committees have been sitting during the week, and the revelations, though not unusual, have rather startled metropolitan readers as indicating the open and careless manner in which money is scattered and voters are bribed in the small boroughs. At Ashburton the sitting Member was returned by a majority of one, and as a' consequence of the close contest the price of votes ran high. Lord Clinton is the local Magistrate and his agent Mr. Whiteway is said, on the evidence of several witnesses, to have gone about offering as high as 100/. for single votes for Mr. Astell, to whom Lord Clinton gave his influence. In the Dartmouth case, Mr. Sehenley, the sitting Member, declined to con- test the petition ; but the Committee insisted on unveiling the corruption : agents of Mr. Schenley paid 751. for a vote, and in one case paid 251. for non-voting to a man who had promised to vote for the rival candidate. Mr. Scheitley has been unseated and the election declared null and void. In the Huddersfield ease, Mr. E. A. Leathern, the sitting Member, is brought very near, as far as the evidence has gone, to a general knowledge of the bribery that was carried on actively on his behalf. The bribery at Ayles- bury (where there is the curiosity of a double return), seems to have been managed rather craftily : we have none of the gross, open cases revealed at

Ashburton and Dartmouth, nothing striking came out and Smith and Bernard are found "not guilty" of bribery. The sitting Members for Gloucester, Messrs. Monk and Price, are accused, through their agents, of very direct bribery on the testimony of a witness named Bounce, and others. The Wakefield Election Committee, after a short investigation unseated Mr. William Leathern, who had, by his agents, been guilty of bribery.

CORM' OUT. The House had not been assembled more than a few minutes at the evening sitting on Tuesday, when it was moved that the House should be counted. Only thirty-eight being present, the House ad- journed.

GREENWICH HoserrAe. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply on Wednesday, Sir CHARLES NAPIER moved that the Crown should be prayed to appoint a Commission to inquire into Greenwich Hos- pital. Mr. WHITBREAD, on the part of the Government, resisted the mo- tion, on the ground that the Government has not had time to look into the subject. The charge was that the Hospital is a "nest of corruption and abuse." The charge of corruption was denied, but that abuses exist seemed to be generally admitted. Sir Charles was asked to leave the inquiry to the Government ; but, supported by Mr. ROEBUCK, Sir CHARLES NAPIER re- fused ; and, pressing his motion to a division, it was negatived by 142 to 82.

HIGH SHERIFFS' EXPENSES Thus At the Wednesday sitting a smart debate arose on the motion to go into Committee on this bill. The whole question turned upon whether the "javelin men" should be retained to escort the Judges, or whether more modern civil guards, the police, should be substituted. It was also alleged that, while this substitution would con- stitute the only saving the bill would effect, it would throw a charge of 10,000/. on the Consolidated Fund. The squires of England, it was said, do not repudiate the duties incident to their position, nor the attendant ex- pense. On the other hand, it was alleged that the "idle show" ought to be abolished. The motion that the House should go into Committee that day three months was carried by 115 to 112.