The Sun. — London, England, 1860-05-25 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The North Eastern Railway (extension of time) and the Bucks County Rate Bills were read a second time. The London and North Western Railway and St. Helen's Canal and Railway Companies (amendment) Bill was read a third time and passed. CHURCH RATES. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY presented a number of petitions in favour of the abolition of Church Rates. SAVOY AND NICE. The Earl of CARNARVON said he had given private notice to the noble lord opposite of his intention to put a question to him on this subject. He preferred taking this opportunity, as the noble viscount (Stratford de Redcliffe) had a notice on the paper with respect to Switzerland and Turkey, when Viscount STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE inter rupted the noble earl by observing that as the motion he had on the paper was a very important one, he thought it would be better to postpone it until after the holidays. Vnder these circumstances he should not put his question until the 11th of June. The Earl of CARNARVON said that being the case he would at once ask her Majesty's Government whether they could inform the house in what state the negotiations was respecting the conference proposed to be held for settling the disputed question connected with the cession of Savoy to France. Lord WODEHOUSE said he could not give the noble earl any very exact information on the point. The nego tiations could not be carried on till the Treaty of Turin was ratified by the Sardinian Parliament. There had been a proposal for a conference, but the exact points for discus sion had not yet been deeided. CHURCH RATES. Lord LYVEDEN gave notion that on the 13th of June he should move the second reading of the Bill for the Abolition of Church Rates. UNION OF BENEFICES BILL. The house went into committee on this bill, which had for its object the removing certain churches in now very thinly populated parishes in the city of London, and to transfer the revenues to some adjoining but not largely en dowed parish. A long discussion arose, in which it was strongly urged that the operations of the bill should not be confined to the metropolis, but should be extended to other parts of the kingdom. An amendment was ultimately agreed to extend the provision of the bill under certain conditions. Several verbal amendments having been made to some of She other clauses, the bill passed through committee and was reported. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTSJURISDICTIONBILL. This bill passed through committee. PETITIONS OF RIGHT BILL. The report of amendments on this bill was considered and agreed to. ADULTERATION OF FOOD AND DRINK BILL. The select committee on this bill was nominated on the motion of Lord REDESDALE. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAILER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time :—Bedford and Cambridge Railway ; Blyth Harbour and Dock ; Burnham Tidal Harbour and Railways; Dorset Central Railway (Extension of Time, &c.) ; Grand Surrey Docks and Canal; Highbridge Markets and Gas ; Torquay Gas ; and Wat ford, Rickmansworth, and Uxbridge Railway. The Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Carlisle Railway, and Port Carlisle Dock and Railway, and Carlisle and Silloth Bay Railway and Dock Companies Bill, and North Kent Water Bill were considered and ordered for third reading. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented in favour of the Reform Bill, for and against the Wine Licenses Bill, praying that the house should take steps to protect its privileges, &c., &c. THE REFORM BILL. • Mr. HORSMAN, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to give notice that he would move, in com mittee on the Reform Bill, that in the opinion of the house it would facilitate legislation if the house proceeded in reference to that bill by resolution. SALE OF GAS. Mr. DEEDES gave notice that he would move for the repeal of the bill passed last session for regulating measures for the sale of gas. COTTON GOODS (INDIA.) Mr. GREGSON asked the Secretary of State for India if the report was correct that the tariff value of cotton goods on importation into India had been raised from £lOO to about £l5O ; and whether the previous duty of 5 per cent. on £lOO was to be raised to 10 per cent. on £l5O, thereby fixing a duty of 15 per cent. in place of 5 per cent. ; and, secondly, if the report was correct, if this excessive scale of duties would be sanctioned by the Council of India. Sir C WOOD said that he was not in rlnnqPgain. of it , He could state, however, generally that Mr. Wilson found the duty on goods in India at different rates, and he thought it advisable to impose a uniform rate of 10 per cent. HYDE PARK. Mr. E. JAMES asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he had any plans in his office for making a road across Hyde-park from Tyburnia to Brompton or Kensing ton ; and whether he would have any objection to lay them upon the table of the house, together with an estimate of the expense at which such a communication can be made. ARMY ESTIMATES. In reply to Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. S. HERBERT said it was intended to bring for. ward the army estimates next Thursday. REPEAL OF TIIE PAPER DUTY. Lord PALMERSTON said he would now move that a committee be appointed to search the journals of the House of Lords relating to the proceedings of their lord ships in reference to the bill for the repeal of the Excise duty on paper. The motion, which was merely of a formal character, was agreed to. It was also agreed that the following members should compose the committee, namely, Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir G. Grey, Mr. Clive, Mr. Laing, and Mr. Brand. After a few• minutes absence Lord PALMERSTON brought up the report of the committee amid much laughter. It merely contained an extract from the journals of the House of Lords, stating that the bill was debated, and the amendment thtit it be read a first time that day six months agreed to. On the motion'of Lord PALMERSTON, a committee to search for precedents, of which he had previously given notice, was appointed. THE CAVALIERE LUIGI VILLAROSA. Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, on or about the 11th April last, a fugitive from the Neapolitan troops at Palermo, the Cavaliere Luigi Villarosa, applied for refuge to one of the English ships of war anohored in the harbour ; that he was repulsed by the captain, alleging that his instructions only allowed him to extend his protection to British subjects, and that he was received and protected on board a Russian vessel ; and if so, whether such transaction was previous to the date of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs' late instruction to the Admiralty; and whether the officer ii question was now informed of the directions of the Government on the subject. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had communicated with the Admiralty, who, he understood, had not received any information respecting the transaction in question. THE LANDING OF GARIBALDI. In reply to Mr. HENNESSY, Lord J. RUSSELL stated that he woul .be ready to lay on the table of tho house the correspondence on this subject. ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS Mr. E. JAMES gave notice that on the first day of the meeting of Parliament after . the holidays, he would move that, in consequence of the pressure of public business, Ministers to whom questions were to be addressed, according to notice, should be in their places at four o'clock. (Laughter.) REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES BILL AS AMENDED. On the motion for going into committee of supply, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that precedence should he given to the consideration of this bill as amended, which was agreed to. The right hon. gen tleman thenmoved the following clause, which was agreed to : "Clause A, to follow Clause 13, page 7 :—(Notice to be given of application for license to retail wine to be consumed on the premises in a house not previously licensed-0 George IV., c. 61, s. 10,) Provided always, that every person intending to apply for a license to be granted under the authority of this act to retail wine to be consumed on the premises, in re -1364 of any house, reora, shop, or building not theretofore licensed for the consumption of wine therein, shall affix, or cause to be affixed, a notice on the door of such house, room, shop, or building, and on the door of the church or chapel of the pariah or place in which such house shall be situate, and, where there shall be no church or chapel, on some other public and conspicuous place within such parish or place, on three several Sundays previous to his application for such li cense, at some time j between the hours of ten of the clock in the forenoon and four of the clock in the afternoon, and shall serve a copy of such notice upon one of the overseers of the poor, and upon one of the constables or other peace officers of the said parish or place, fourteen days at the least previous to such a ppli cat i on ; and every such notice, and the copies thereof, shall be written in a fair and legible hand, or printed, • and shall Le signed by the party . intending to make such ap plication, or by his agent thereunto authorised, and shall set forth the situation of the house, shop, or building in a true and particular manner, and the Christian and surname of the party applying, together with the place of his residence, and his trade or calling during the six mouths previous to the time of serving such notice, azid hisj THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 25, 1860, intention to apply for a license to retail wine to be con- sumed in such house or premises. Several other new clauses, proposed by the Chancellor of he Exchequer, were also agreed to, and the nsideration of the amendments to the bill was concluded amidst cheer- ing from the Ministerial side of the house. The bill was then reported, and erderal to be read a third time this day (Friday). SUPPLY. On the motion that the house go into committee of supply, Mr. LAING said the object of going into committee was to obtain certain votes on account in respect of the civil ser vice, as the system of keeping the accounts for that depart ment of the public service was essentially different to the accounts of the army and navy. The hon. gentleman having explained the manner in which the aecounts were kept, stated that the reason why the Government asked for these votes on account was because no money had yet been ob tained on account of the civil service estimates, and conse- quently the balances in reference to many items had be come exhausted, and in many others they were approaching exhaustion. The Government preferred asking for these votes on account of overdrawing particular accounts, and in effect encroaching upon the provisions of the Appropriation Act. There were several precedents for the course now proposed, and during the past four or five years certain cir cumstances had arisen which made it necessary that sums should be taken on account. In the estimates presented to the house no vote for any new service would be introduced, and the Government had kept the vote within the stricter limit. All the Government now proposed to do was to ask for a vote of £400,000, and that sum would be distributed over nine separate heads of expenditure. He would state what those votes were, and the house would see that no thing was involved in them which would give rise to any discussion. The votes on account were for printing and stationery, £30,000 ; county courts, £35,000 ; Irish consta bulary, £82,000 ; public education, £lOO,OOO ; consuls abroard, £54,000 ; prisons and convicts, establishments at home £20,000 ; sundry temporary commissions, £12,000 ; the suppression of the slave trade, £17,000 ; and civil con tingencies, £50,000. All further explanations required would be given when the house was in committee. Mr. A. SMITH said he greatly objected to this system of taking money on account. Complaints had been made in former sessions that the estimates were de layed, yet it mattered not what Government was in office, the estimates were never laid upon the table until late in the session—perhaps this year about the middle of July, when it would be utterly impossible to examine them care fully. Her Majesty's Government should recollect that these estimates were not to be considered as a reason for voting the money required as a matter of course. He should feel it to be his duty to oppose the motion for going into committee, and he should take the sense of the house on the amendment. Mr. WILLIAMS protested against the system of taking votes on account. The house ought not to be asked for money without being at the same time told how it was to be spent. Mr. WALPOLE hoped that the house would feel it to be its duty to give a strong expression of its opinion on the proposition now made. Whether that opinion should be given on the question of leaving the chair or in committee was a matter for consideration, his impression being that it was better to wait for the committee. He was somewhat astonished, however, by the reason which had been given by the Government, and thought that the p ecedents of the Secretary for the Treasury were not at all in point. The only cases in which votes had been given in the manner now asked were when a dissolution was expected, or when the house had determined upon examining into the esti mates, and would only give a vote on account until that examination was completed. The house was now asked to give a sum of £400,000 on account, and he observed that when the Secretary of the Treasury was asking for that sum he made out no case of pressing exigency, but hinted at the probability of not getting into a discussion of the estimates until August. He thought it better not to oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair, but in committee the vote now asked for should be criticised with groat minueeness. If they consented to take votes in this matter, they would be depriving the House of Commons of the right to bring forward questions of grievance on going into committee of supply. Lord H. VANE was glad to hear the right hon. gentle man opposite declaring that he would not oppose the Speaker leaving the chair. He (Lord H. Vane) was quite of opinion that the estimates should be taken at an early pe riod of the session, but at the same time the demand of the Secretary of the Treasury was so limited that no evil could arise from its concession. On the understanding that these estimates would be brought forward at an early period, he should not feel justified in opposing the proposition of the Secretary of the Treasury. Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that the sum absolutely de manded by the Secretary of the Treasury (£1,000,000) was small, but the first thing the house had to consider was the question of principle. If they were merely asked for this vote with the understanding that the estimates would be taken immediately after the holidays, then the proposal was a moderate one; but if the object was to enable the Govern ment to postpone the estimates until a late period of the session, then it became not a qaestion of £lOO,OOO, nor of Theretore, although he should with great reluctance throw any difficulty in the way of the committee, he thought he should be informed of the principle upon which the present demand was made. As to the precedents, they were only three, two the dissolutions of 1857 and of last year, and 1818, when a committee was appointed to revise the raised laneous expenditure, and the votes were taken on account, in order to keep the estimates in the hands of the house. The hon. baronet here quoted the report of the committee on public moneys, and contended that if the house acceded to the present motion it would place itself in one of two dif ficulties—either they must discuss the principle of the vote then, in which case no time was gained, or else they would be withdrawing from discussion votes which it might be desirable to discuss. It was said the sum demanded was a moderate one, but some of it was for votes in class 7, in which a reduction had been promised to the extent of £200,000. He should object to give any money on account in class 7, and altogether he should object to these votes on account unless it was distinctly understood that they were to have the discussion on the estimates immediately after Whitsuntide. Lord FERMOY objected to the proposal of the Secre • tary to the Treasury on principle, and if his hon. friend pressed his amendment to a division he (Lord Fermoy) must support him. He thought it was time the house made a stand, especially as the inference to be drawn from the Secretary of the Treasury's speech was that the estimates might not be brought forward until August. Another ob jection he had was that a vote on account was a vote of confidence in the Government. (Hear.) They were at present in a very peculiar crisis. Important steps would have to be taken respecting a matter then pending between that house and the House of Lords ; and his continued confidence in the Government would greatly depend upon the conduct they might pursue in that matter. He thought the present a good opportunity to test it by postponing the vote now proposed until after Whitsuntide. Mr. DISRAELI—I have no wish to mix the question now before us with any other. (Hear, hear.) T will con fine myself, therefore, to the proposition which the Go vernment have submitted to us. On occasions like the pre sent, I confess, notwithstanding the constitutional sus picion with which the house ought to view all proposi tions of this kind, I am myself always inclined to facili tate the course of public business, and to give any gentle men who sit on the Treasury bench that fair assistance in conducting the affairs of the country which in these diffi cult times they have a right to expect from Parliament. It is impossible, however, to assent to this proposition without some consideration. I think it of the greatest importance that the house should clearly understand the proposition that is made, because I cannot at all agree with the noble lord the member for Hastings (Lord 11. Vane) in the view he took. The noble lord seemed to entertain objections of a very serious character to any course of this kind, provided the demand had been a large one ; but it was, comparatively speaking, so small, he did not see hew the house could pro perly refuse the application. To my mind the small amount of the proposition would rather add to my objection to it, in case I felt it my duty on the whole to offer no opposition to the plan of the Government. Because, what is the view of the public business given to us by the Secretary of the Trea sury ? He certainly, as has been observed by the noble lord who spoke last, and as was generally felt by both sides of the house, conveyed the impression that there a as no immediate prospect of the house forming itself into a committee of sup ply to consider the Civil Service Estimates. (Hear.) Accord ing- to the noble lord the member for Hastings, this proposi tion, being a small one, is also a safe one, but though the proposition may be small in amount, the precedent which it establishes is one of considerable moment. (Hear, hear.) And what will be the position of the house if, a fortnight hence, when this supply is exhausted, a similar proposition equally small, is made ? (Hear, hear.) The house may be occupied at that time with business, supposed to be business of great interest and importance, and an appeal may then be equally successful if it is urged, as to-night, that surely the house has sufficient confidence in the Government to supply them with funds to carry on the urgent business of the coun try for another week or fortnight ? (Hear.) Although the application may be small, the precedent may be very large ; and therefore it is only as a precedent involving a principle that the house has really to decide upon the question before it. (Hear.) I entirely assent to the speech which has been made by my right hon. friend the member for the Uni versity of Cambridge. I agree with him in all his arguments, and the only part in which I do not agree with him is the conclusion at which he arrives. It appeared to me that every argument urged by my right hon. friend would have induced him to arrive at a conclusion perfectly adverse to that which he reached ; and, so far from thinking that this is not the opportunity upon which the house should come to a decision, whatever that decision may be, it is upon the question that Mr. Speaker leave the chair that a principle being involved, and we being called upon to establish a pre cedent, I think the house ought to treat the matter frankly and fully, and arrive at their decision upon it. (Hear.) Upon the subject of precedent I need hardly touch, because I think the admission of the Secretary to the Trea sury is conclusive. All the precedents which he adduced proved that it was a course which the house adopted only under "tmordi.uary circumstances, suoh as dif6sollltiOLLS of Parliament, changes of Ministry, references to the house itself of the estimates ; and in the present session none of those extraordinary circumstances exist. (Hear, hear.) I therefore think that we may fairly throw aside all prece- dents. We are called upon to-night to make a precedent. (Hear, hear.) It does not appear to me that it is of the slightest consequence whether the application of the Go vernment be for £500,000 or £1,500,000. As far as the Go- vernment is concerned it is a question of confidence. I and every gentleman sitting on these benches are perfectly pre pared to give them that confidence, provided there is a clear undentanding of the terms upon which that confidence is to be given. If the public service is in such a state that there really are not in the Exchequer funds to carry it on from day to day, I am disposed to come to the assistance of the Government. I will not go out of the way to inquire whether a great deal of time has been wasted. I will not read the list of meetings of the house to show that, although Parliament was called together in January, a fortnight passed before any business was transacted, or that even on one or two nights the Government did not take advantage of opportunities to go into committee of supply. I Ix ill not stop to inquire why we have not been regularly in commit tee of supply. (Hear.) If the service of the country abso- Lutely requires it, I will not enter into any discussion whe• ther the sum shall be £500,000 or £1,500,000. The condition which I make with the Government, and which I think it right to make, and which I think the House of Commons ought to make, is this—if we are ready to exercise this bare confidence, will they engage that we shall have fair oppor tunities and legitimate occasions of entering into that criticism and examination of the estimates of the Govern ment which is our right and privilege ? (Cheers.) To ask us to enter into an investigation of the estimates in August, as the Secretary to the Treasury informs us, or even in the month of July, is not a fair constitutional fulfilment of the conditions which, I think, the house has a right to demand. (Hear.) If the noble lord or the right hon. gentleman will rise and tell us that it is impossible for want of supplies to carry on the business of the country until next Thursday, when we can meet and go into committee of supply, every one will be perfectly willing to grant that which they re quire; but we ought to make a constitutional condition. (Hear, hear.) When they ask this unusual assistance from the house, they ought to say—When the holidays are over we will go as early as possible into committee of supply, continue tQ take supply, and give to the house the legiti mate opportunities of investigating the expenditure of the country and of bringing before the consideration of Parlia ment those grievances which it is theprivilege of the House of Commons to bring forward under those circumstances. If the Government frankly tell us that they are prepared to do that, which I conclude a Minister of the Crown cannot hesitate for a moment in doing—if they will enter into a clear engagement that when the holidays are over, next Thursday, we shall go into committee of supply, that these estimates shall be submitted to us, that we shall not be de prived of our constitutional right to examine these civil service estimates, and to see whether in our minds they are of the proper amount and character, and that we shall have the opportunity on those occasions of bringing subjects under consideration which it is usual to bring forward when esti mates are moved, I shall support the proposition of the Go vernment. But if that offer be not accepted—if we are called on to establish a most dangerous precedent, and to risk the loss of those privileges which are most valuable, and of which we are most proud, then I shall feel it my duty to support the hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) I only ask the house to remember the position in which it is placed. Cer tainly two-thirds, if not more, of the ,usual session has al ready passed, and we have scarcely gone into committee of supply as far as the exercise of any real control over the expenditure of the country or of the privilege of obtaining redress of grievances is concerned. There is also, from the admission of the Secretary to the Treasury, a prospect that the remaining portion of the session will also pass without the house having the enjoyment of those advantages. I trust that I have placed the question fairly before the house, and treated it in a constitutional point of view. As I have said, I shall support her Majesty's Government if they enter into that engagement, but otherwise I shall support the hon. gentleman who has moved the amendment. (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON—It is quite true, as the hon. gentleman says, that there is a financial necessity for a vote for these services,—not that the Exchequer is empty, but that we have not yet Parliamentary authority to apply the money, and unless Parliamentary authority is given the services must suffer great inconvenience, and the public interest be seriously prejudiced. (Hear, hear.) That is the ground upon which we apply to Parliament for these votes on account. I cannot admit that an appli cation to Parliament for a vote on account of estimates presented is a matter without precedent. It is a matter of almost annual occurrence. (Hear, hear.) Nor do I see any great distinction between these Miscellaneous Esti mates and Estimates for the army and navy, except that perhaps the latter are more important and present a greater number of subjects upon which it is desirable opinions should be expressed. There is nothing unparliamentary , or unconstitutional, when the necessity arises, to ask for votes on account of the army and navy ; and I cannot see what Parliamentary or constitutional objection can be raised be in principle to a vote on accountof consular establishments, education. nr any nf these_ differ9nt heads of _eatimatess miscellaneous estimates does not often occur, and why ? Because these estimates—and hero I may appeal to the re collection of hon. members to bear me out—come on late in the session, and are frequently not finished till late in July, and the house has usually found nothing in that advanced period of the session to prevent it giving the necessary attention to the details of these votes. Hear.) We are accused of negl:gence in not having brought these estimates sooner before the attention of the house, but I beg to recall the recollection of hon. gentlemen that we called Parliament together ten days earlier than usual. (Cheers and counter cheers.) We showed no disclination to meet Parliament at an early period—in fact we were somewhat blamed for having anticipated the usual period for its assembling. Have we during the period which has elapsed from that time to this abstained from submit ting to Parliament measures of importance and deserving of their consideration. (Hear.) Parliament, in fact, has been uninterruptedly occupied by measures of the greatest importance. (Hear.) I am not at all disposed to cavil at the length of time which the house has thought fit to devote to the consideration of the measures submitted to them—the French Treaty, the Reform Bill, the Budget, and the finan cial measures springing out of it. They were perfectly jus tified in discussing them at length, but a great deal of time has, in fact, been occupied by these discussions, and they have se far interfered with the ordinary course of public business in regard to the estimates that at this moment we have not been able to give to the army and navy estimates, which generally take precedence of the miscellaneous esti mates, sufficient time to complete them. (Hear.) If the miscellaneous estimates, therefore, have been postponed to the present time, it is not our fault, but the result of that course which the House of Commons in the performance of its duty has thought fit to adopt with regard to the mea sures of first-rate importance which were submitted to it, and which deserved all the attention bestowed on them. (Hear, hear.) Blame ought not to be thrown on us for a result which is no fault of ours, but which has arisen from the length of time the house has thought fit to give to im portant business. The right hon. gentleman opposite made very light of the observation of my noble friend, that the objection to this course is diminished in prop ortion to the diminution of the sum asked for; but I think, even in his own view of the case, that observation had great force. The amount of money to be voted is equivalent in meaning to a certain portion of time—(hear, hear)—and those who object to these votes on account to carry on a certain service, on the ground that they place the remainder of the vote in a certain degree out of the control of Parliament, ought to feel that the diminution of the sum voted on account, as it involves the necessity of an earlier recurrence to Parliament for the remainder of the services, very much removes the objection to this course. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says he is quite willing to agree to this vote provided the Government will undertake that the details of these estimates shall be sub mitted to the house in a manner which shall enable it to give to them the full and fair consideration which is neces sary for the due discharge of its constitutional functions. Undoubtedly that is an undertaking which we are perfectly ready to enter into. Indeed, it seems to me to follow as a matter of course from that power which the House of Com mons has over the Government. It is an engagement to which wo can scarcely be said to be parties, because the house has the matter entirely in its own hands. These votes will enable the Government to carry on the services till about the middle of June, and beyond that time nothing can be done without the sanction of the house. When the right hon. gentleman, therefore, asks us to enter into such an arrangement he is rather derogating from the power of the house, because we are in the hands of the house. No further money can be issued without the authority of the house, and that authority, of' course, the house will not continue to give, unless it has an opportunity of entering fully and fairly into a discussion of the details for which the money is'required, (Hear, hear.) Mr. BENTINCK—It would be more satisfactory if the noble lord would state in what manner he understands the engagement into which he professes his readiness to enter. When does he propose that we should go into committee of supply ? (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON—It is perfectly impossible to fix a day. (A laugh.) Sir F. BARING—The hon. baronet opposite referred to some suggestion of mine in reference to the Public Moneys Committee, but that committee has in reality nothing what ever to do with the point before us. (Hear, hear.) The real question is this :—The Government state to the house that they require certain sums for the public service, and I con fess I am surprised to hear from hon. gentlemen opposite that their principles are such that they refuse to go into committee to ascertain whether those moneys are actually required by the Government or not. (Hear.) If the Govern ment were prepared to ask sums which would throw off the consideration of the estimates to an unreasonable extent, I can understand that sum being cut down in committee to a proper amount, but when the Government have stated that the public service requires certain sums to be granted, I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether they will take on themselves the responsibility of refusing to go into com mittee for the consideration of the votes asked for. (Hear.) Sir J, PAZINGION—The right hon. baronet has rais. understood the feeling which prevails on this side of the I house. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend made it per fectly clear that we have no desire to cause any public in convenience. (Hear.) The speech of the noble lord was directed entirely to an attempt to draw the house from the fact that the proposal of the Government is intended to esta blish a precedent, and that one of a very objectionable and dangerous character, and in guarding against that precedent the language of my right hon. friend and the general feeling on this side of the house showed that we had no desire to cause any public inconvenience, (Hear, hear.) We have asked the Government to state distinctly whether there will be any injury to the public service by delaying this grant to Thursday evening next, and if the Government will give us hat assurance we are ready to go into committee at once ; tut they ought not to call on us to go into committee with out some assurance of that scrt. (Hear.) If there is any necessity for the grant being made immediately, it is the Government who are to blame for bringing us into that condition. (Hear.) Parliament certainly did meet earlier than usual this year, but for the first fortnight nothing was done. (Hear.) We rose every night at Bor 9 o'clock for the first fortnight, and therefore we have a right to blame the Government for making this vote on account necessary, if necessary it be. Without some assurance of that sort, I should object to setting a precedent, for I deny that one al ready exists. The only way in which we can guard against that precedent being established is by voting now against :he motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, unless the Govemment;will promise that theywill bring these estimates before us on Thursday next. (Hear, hear.) THE CONFERENCE. Mr. KINGLAKE asked the Foreign Secretary whether the Swiss Confederation still persisted in asking for the Conferencawhich had been suggested with reference to the neutralization of North Savoy, and whether her Majesty's Government supported the Swiss Confederation in making that demand ? (Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL.—Up to the present time—and I had a despatch from our Minister in Switzerland this morning —the Swiss Confederation continues to ask for the meeting of a Conference on the subject of the neutralization of part of Savoy. Her Majesty's Government supported that pro posal from the first, and unless the Swiss Government were to abandon or withdraw that demand we shall continue to support it. (Hear, hear.) LORD CLARENCE PAGET AND THE MESSRS. GREEN. Lord C. PAGET.—I am unwilling to interpose between the house and a divison, but having received a letter from an hon. gentleman opposite informing me that he intended to make a statement affecting me on going into Committee of Supply, I think I may claim from him that he should make the statement with which he has threatened me on the occasion on which he said he desira to make it. I re ceived the following letter this morning : " Mr. Lygon presents his compliments to Lord Clarence Paget, and has the honour to inform him that it is his in tention, on going into Committee of Supply this evening, to call the attention of the house to the reports which are current respecting his connexion with Messrs. Green and Co. of Blackwall." I trust the hon. gentleman will now fulfil his intention. Mr. F. LYGON—I can assure the noble lord that it is not my intention to bring forward this question in a hos tile spirit. I have not mentioned the matter to any beyond my very intimate friends, and after the debate which has just taken place, I am quite prepared either to bring forward the subject on the motion for adjournment to-morrow, or to proceed with it at once, as may be most convenientto the noble lord by whom it has just been opened. (Cries of "Go on," in which Lord C. Paget joined.) The question is not one with regard to which it will be necessary for me to de tain the house at any length ; and, in common with every other member of the house, I shall rejoice if the noble lord, as no doubt will be the case, should be enabled to give a satisfactory explanation. I entirely disclaim all hostile feel ing towards the noble lord, and I can assure him he entirely mistakes my object if he supposes that my inquiry is made with any such purpose. But everybody, lam sure, will agree that under the circumstances which have taken place, when contractors have publicly acknowledged that they were the builders of certain gunboats which have suffered very severely from decay, and when it is reported in com mercial circles that the Secretary to the Admiralty was a partner in the firm at the period when the gunboats were built—every member of this house will see that it is for the advantage of the service, of the House of Commons, of the Board of Admiralty and of the noble lord himself that these circumstances should be explained. (Hear.) I for one have no doubt that they are capable of a satisfactory elucidation; and so far from the motion being received by the noble lord in a manner implying that he regards it as one which is brought forward in an unfriendly spirit, it ought, I think, to be matter of gratification to him to have the opportunity of meeting the reports which are current as to his being largely connected with Messrs. Green and Company. Such a report has gained notoriety, and must, it is evident, be most prejudical to the public service. (Hear, hear.) It is needless for me to enter into the question of the gunboats or the culpability of contractors. I have sim ply discharged a public duty of a very painful character. But,the importance cannot be overrate I of clearing up and setting at rest all misapprehensions which may exist on a matter so vitally affecting the credit of all public servants. fl istra 11 07eAGET—I must ask the indulgence of the house, having already spoken on this question (cheers), and very few words, I think, will suffice for the purpose I have in view, which is to clear my character from any imputa tions which may have been made upon it. The hon. gentle man opposite I understand to state that he has heard I am a partner with Messrs. Green of Blackwall ? Mr. F. LYGON—That you were connected with them at the period when the gunboats were built. Lord C. PAGET—That I was a partner with them when the gunboats were building. . I do not make any complaint of the honourable gentleman for having called the attention of the house to this subject ; on the contrary, I think that he—having been a member of the depart ment with which I have also the honour of being assooi ated—it' he heard any reports of a nature which he con sidered derogatory to my honour, both as an officer and a member of this house, was quite right in bringing them for ward. if I were disposed to make any complaint it would be that he had not placed the matter on the notice paper, in order that every member, if he had desired, might have come down to the house and delivered his opinion upon it. (Hear, hear.) I might answer the accusation very much in the same vague way in which it has been made, because the right hon. gentleman brings no proofs, but merely states that he has heard certain reports, and I think I might sa tisfy the the house by giving my word of honour that those reports are utterly without foundation. (Loud cheers.) But I think it is always best to be perfectly frank and fair in all matters where the personal honour of individsals is con cerned, (Hear, hear.) All thoroughly ingenious stories have some sort of foundation, by which a great deal more may be made of them than they are really worth, and, therefore, in , order that there may be no misunderstanding—although I really scrupple to take up the time of the house with a mat ter of this sort—l still think it my duty, holding as Ido a very high and honourable position in h er Majesty's Govern ment, to state exactly the circumstances of the case. (Hear, hear.) It is perfectly true that for many years past I have been—alas I a very small, but still a shareholder to some extent in certain ships in the Australian trade. In 1857 my right hon. friend, now the Secretary of State for India, did me the honour to invite me to take a seat at the Board of Admiralty. I will not quote his letter, because it was in terms rather complimentary to myself, and I wish to con fine my observations exactly to the point in issue ; but if I read my answer to that communication, at least that part of it which relates to these transactions, it will, I think, be quite sufficient to show the house the mo tives by which I was actuated. I should state that in that same year my right hon. friend, through his private secretary, Captain Drummond, an intimate friend of my own, expressed his desire that in the event of a vacancy taking place I should hold myself in readiness tofill a seat at the Board of Admiralty. I told my friend Captain Drummond that I had great scruples of conscience in the matter; for although I had nothing what • ever to do with shipbuilding, or with any vessels likely to be taken up by contract for the Government, yet, neverthe less, to hold a seat at the Board of Admiralty, and at the same time to retain a connexion with shipping concerns, wets what I thought would not be fair or proper. This, therefore, was the reply which I wrote to the very flatter ing letter of my right hon. friend : " Plas Lanfair, Oct. 22, 1857. " Dear Sir Charles,—l hasten to express my obligations for the flattering and friendly communication I have this day received from you, dated the 21st. When during the last session the subject of my going to the Admiralty was talked over between my friend Captain Drummond and. myself, I, from a sense of honour, stated for your informa tion that Iciould not conscientiously undertake the contract branch, which I believe falls to the Junior Lord, because I have for several years been, and still am, a shareholder in some ships belonging to Messrs. Green, and it would ill be come me to open tenders in which they might be offered for Government service. As to building, I have no connexion with him or anybody else, but I should be very loth to dis continue soy connexion, small as it is, with that eminent man." And I concluded by saying, " I have no alternative but to decline you; oflisr." (Cheers) I was altogether independent of the Board of Admiralty until the present Government was formed, when my noble friend the First Lord of the Treasury did me the honour to invite me to join that de partment. I stated to him exactly as I had stated to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, that I had been de owner of shares in a few ships, with which, however, I had nothing further to do, any more than one would have by holding shares in a railway—(hear, hear) — and that as long as I retained them I felt it incumbent on me to decline all connexion with' the Admiralty. "Nell," said the noble lord, " have you still those shares in the ships ?" To which I replied, "No ;" because cn the occa sion of my bringing forward during the last session circus's stances connected with the building of ships for the navy, to which, as an officer, I felt it my duty conscientiously to call attention, there were—l will not say open accusations —but there were inferences drawn to the effect that as I was personally connected with a shipbuilding yard, I was therefore desirous of having ships built by contract there, instead of in the dockyards, and was consequently desirous of running down the dockyards. From that moment I de termined that it was impossible for a public man, and par ticularly for a naval man, who wished to take a part in this house which would be beneficial to the service, to con- tinue longer exposed to such suspicions, and the sooner I got rid of these shares the better. (Hear, hear.) There and then—and I am bound to add at considerable loss to myself, for everybody knows that last year there were no dividends on ships—l sold my shares. (Loud cheers.) The letter which I wrote to the noble lord was as follows : " 2, Ennismore-place, S.W., June 16, 1859. " My dear Lord Palmerston,—ln accepting the post of Secretary to the Admiralty, I feel it due, no less to your lordship than myself, that I should advert to the reasons which Principally deterred me from joining your lordship's Government in 1857. I was then, and have been till lately a shipowner in the- Indian and Australian trade, and while so employed I felt I could not conscientiously fill a post whera questions of personal interest to myself might possi bly have to be decided ; such as contracts for troopships, transports, &c. Vari, us circumstances having induced me to dispose of my shipping property, I am now perfectly free to accept without scruples of conscience the office your lord ship has been good enough to offer me." (Loud and continued cheering.) Let me entirely acquit the hon. gentleman who has introduced this subject of any in tention to lower my character in this house ; I believe that was not his wish—(hear, hear)—and I am glad to have had the opportunity of making the statement which I have now done. (Loud and general cheering from both sides of the house.) •! Sir H. CAIRNS—As my hon. friend beside me (Mr. Lygon) has spoke 4 already, he is not therefore at liberty again to rise. But I hope the house and the noble lord will allow me to exgre.ss what I am sure is the feeling at this side of the house, and which I am glad to believe is shared in by the house at large, that if it be the fact—of which I confess I was not before aware—that rumours of the nature alluded to have been current regarding the noble lord, it is matter of satisfaction that in this place, where alone oppor- tmaity can be given to the noble lord to meet those rumours, the subject should have been brought forward—(hear)—and we must all rejoice to feel, after the full and frank explana tion which he has given, that neither in nor out of this house can any such rumours continue to prevail. (Cheers.) The house then divided on the question that the Speaker leave the chair. The numbers were : Ayes Noes lO9 Majority --26 SUPPLY. The SPEAKER left the chair, and the house went into Committee of Supply. A vote on account of a sum not exceeding £lOO,OOO was asked for for certain charges of the civil service, under the following heads : £30,000 for printing and stationery. £35,000 for expenses of County Courts. £82,000 for the Irish Constabulary. £lOO,OOO for charges on account of public education. On this vote Mr. LAING, in answer to a question, ex plained that the sum was required chiefly for the payment of the salaries of schoolmasters, of which a quarter was falling due. Mr. BENTINCK observed that the sum was nearly a seventh part of the whole vote fir public education ; yet it was only asked for to carry the Government over a short time—in fact, over the holidays. It ought to cover a longer period. Mr. LAING said the sum was not more than sufficient to cover the expenses to the 10th or 12th of June. £54,000 was tak en for the expenses of Consuls abroad. £12,000 for the expenses of certain temporary commis sions. Mr. LAING complained that commissions had been re cently appointed on some military matters, but their ex pense was chargeable on the civil contingencies ; this ren dered the vote necessary. Sir W. NORTHCOTE thought the item might have been deferred till the whole of the charges under Class 7 came before the committee. With regard to the expendi ture under Class 7 ; a sum of £17,000 was voted last year for a plan and works connected with the improvement of the Serpentine, and after that vote ha 1 been passed and the works begun a select committee reported against that plan; whereupon the Government not only stopped the works, which he thought they were right in doing, but had begun to spend money in carrying out a different plan, without any authority from the house. Me mentioned that as a reason why the committee ought to have the votes in Class 7 before them without delay. Col. DUNNE wished to know whether this vote included the enormous sum, amounting to between £7,000 and £B,OOO, charged by the professional accountants employed by the Weedon Commissioners to investigate the accounts of that establishment. He characterised the expenditure as unjus • tifiable, seeing that the commissioners might have had the assistance of Commissary-General Adams, an officer in the r ay of the State, in investigating and arranging the ac counts. Col. D ICK SON commented upon the circumstance of one of the Weedon commissioners being a police magistrate, and receiving an allowance for his services on that occasion, though ho (Col. Dickson) believed his duties as a magis trate only occupied his attention during six months of the year. That commission, he added, had been carried on at an expense perfectly unjustifiable; and he was astonished, at a time when there was an outcry by the country against the extravagance of the public depat tments, to see members on the Ministerial side of the house, while they were con titrahrfateetoihiriff moiieyin thit Mr. TURNER, adverting to what had been stated in re ference to the Weedon. Commission, said when the proper occasion arrived he should be able to defend the proceedings of the commissioners. In the meantime, after the immense labour which he knew the commissioners had devoted to the invesfigation in question—(hear)—he protested against the insinuation that they had been guilty of any unjustifiable act. Col. DUNNE explained that he had said the expenditure of the commissioners was unjustifiable, and he thought he should bo able to prove it when the subject came fairly be fore the house. After a few words from Mr. CHILDEfts, the purport of which did not reach the gallery, Mr. LAING said, as regarded the unfortunate Weedon Commission, he admitted it had brought an enormous charge upon the public expenditure for, he believed, a very inade quate result. The present vote, however, did not include any part of the large bill of nearly £9,000 sent in by the professional accountants, inasmuch as the Treasury had thought it their duty to take legal advice as to whether they were liable to pay the whole of that sum, and the question was still Reading. The vote did include some of the minor expenses commission. The vote was then agreed to, as were the following X10,000;for the suppression cf the slave trade ; £7,060 (:.I ( ;the Dublin Police ; and £5 Ji OClfi. fox civil contingencies. ,-‘, c MALTA HARBOUR. On the vote of £2,500 for the extension of Malta Har bour, Lord C. PAGET said the present vote had become neces sary in consequence of an agreement with the Maltese Go.• vernment, most advantageous both to the navy and the Isle of Malta, but which had not been entered into when the former estimates were prepared. Ever since Malta had be longed to the British Crown the limits of the merchant har bour and the man-of-war harbour had not been very clearly defined. The result was that the merchant vessels had en croached upon the best part of the harbour, so that the mei-of-war sometimes had great difficulty in finding a berth. The great addition in the number of ships frequent ing the harbour and the increase in the size of vessels of war made it imperative to improve the harbour of Malta, which was in a most unsatisfactory state, although Malta was our head-quarters for repairs, &c., in the Mediter ranean. An engineer on the part of the Admiralty had surveyed the harbour in the company of an engineer selected by the Maltese Government, and they had come to the con clusion that the only plan was to deepen the head of the harbour, which was now a swamp, and to give it up to the merchant vessels, while French Creek, which was safe for vessels of war, would be given up for the navy. It was necessary to bring this vote before the committee to-night, because the work was to be done at the joint expense of the two Governments, and the parties who owned the land around French Creek were only under contract to wait until the middle of June, when the agreement, unless previously confirmed, became null and void. The total estimated ex pense of the work was £111,0':0, but he only proposed to ask to .night for £2,500, in addition to the £2,500 which would be found in the estimates already before the house. Sir F. SMITH expressed his satisfaction at finding that the proposed works in connexion with a harbour at Malta, which he characterised as the key of the Mediterranean, were to be carried out. Admiral WALCOTT also stated his concurrence in the expediency, of the undertaking, and, alluding to the explanation made by Lord C. Paget, said he was extremely happy to hear the noble lord's character so completely yin • dicated. (Hear, hear.) Sir S. N6RTHCOTE wished to know whether there was any security that when the necessary property came to be bought it could be procured for the sum of £60,000, set down in the estimates. Lord C. PAGET said the utmost pains had been taken in drawing up the contract on the subject. Mr. BENTINCK, referring to the explanation made by the noble lord, in reply to Mr. Lygon, observed that no man could have listened to it without feeling that it removed all doubt—if, indeed, any such doubt existed—as to his noble and gallant friend having been implicated in any transac tion in any way inconsistent with his high character. (Hear, hear.) Colonel SYKES asked what was to be done with the mud which it would be necessary to remove in order to con struct the proposed harbour, and whether any estimate had been framed in connection with the subject ? Lord C. PAGET said an estimate had been framed which was based on the probable cost of conveying the mud clear outside the harbour. Mr. HENLEY complained that the committee were asked to sanction the vote, which would in all probability involve even a more considerable outlay than was estimated on so short a notice. The committee ought to be informed of the exact nature of the works, in order that they might form some idea of the ultimate cost. Mr. AYRTON asked whether, in the event of the estimate being exceeded, the Maltese Government or municipality would be bound to pay any portion of the excess ? Lord C. PAGET said that unless the local Government of Malta undertook to pay their moiety of the whole ez- pense, whatever it might amount to, the Government did not intend to carry out the work. This project had been in embryo for same time past, but the estimate had been re duced to a definite and detailed form only within a few weeks past. That was the reason why the house had not earlier been supplied with information on the subject. Sir S. NO ILTHCOTE asked whether the noble lord would ay on the table the agreement which had been made with the Maltese Government, and the contract for the purchase of the land that was to cost .aO,OOO. Lord C. PAGET said that as soon as the contract was concluded he would lay it on the table. Lord LOVAINE stated that this subject had been under the consideration of the lath Government, and that had they remained longer in office they would probably have proposed a scheme of the same nature as that now brought forward. Mr. J. LOCKE thought the Government ought to have furnished the committee with a full account of the various items of the estimate, and the name of the officer who made it, as a guarantee of its soundness. Mr. WHITBREAD assured the hon. member that the civil engineer employed by the Admiralty to prepare the estimate was a gentleman of much experience, and that the calculations had been made with the greatest care. Mr. HENLEY was afraid the fact that the Admiralty were bargaining against an excess in the estimate warranted the suspicion that they expected an excess. Sir J. PAXTON said that very scanty information was given to the committee. There was no account of the acre age of the work or the amount of accommodation to the navy. He wished to know whether there were to be any docks for the merchant service, and whether the expense was included. Lord C. PAGET said they expected to get accommoda tion for six line-of-battle ships, but if they grew much larger there would be room for only five. As to any new merchant yards, in lieu of those which the Government purchased, the Government would have nothing to do with any build ings on shore. Their business was to deepen the harbour. The purchase of the French Creek and all the buildings which surrounded it was included in the estimate of £60,000. Mr. WHITBREAD said the Government would have given more ample notice, but there had been many references from the Admiralty to Malta, and they found by experience that when it became known the Government intended to purchase, the property trebled in value. If the estimate were postponed to a future day, the agreement to sell the property would become void. Admiral IVALC 0T T asked whether there would be depth of water sufficient for the largest line-of-battle ships. Lord C. PAGET said there would when the harbour was deepened, but not before. The vote was agreed to, and the house resumed. WAYS AND MEANS, The house immediately resolved into a committee of ways and means. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said hehad to propose a resolution requiring the makers of British wine to take out licenses for either making or selling the same wholesale, the amount of which was fixed at half the amount which the vendors paid. The right hon. gentle man moved—" That, towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty there shall be charged and paid the following duties .of Excise, that is to say—For a licence to be taken out by every maker of any kind of sweets or made wines, or of mead or metheglin, for sale or by any dealer who shall sell the same in any quantity amountingto two gallons or upwards, or in one dozen or more reputed quart bottles at one time, £5 ss. Mr AYRTON thought the right hon. gentleman was taking effectual means to prevent the public getting good wine at all. As far as he could discover, before dealing in wines a trader would have to pay £l9 19s. for licences, which was a large tax to impose on a person before he could embark in business, The greatest chance of the public having good wine was in the establishment of many traders who would deal in it wholesale and retail, and he had hoped that the right hon. gentleman would have proposed one consolidated charge, after payment of which the dealer would be able to sell any quantity, large or small, as long as it was in bottle. With regard to British wine, it was much purer than a great deal of that which came from abroad. The process of manufacture here was, that dried grapes were placed in a vat with water, the juice being pressed out of them and allowed to ferment ; and the wine thus produced was consumed in large quantities by people who were above the vulgar pre judice of thinking that that which came from abroad and had a high-sounding name was better than home produc tions. (Laughter.) The whole tendency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals was to force the sale of wine upon the premises. Did the right hon. gentleman, he would ask, intend, according to promise, to bring in another bill regu lating the sale of British wine to be drunk on the premises ? As the case stood Parliament was called upon to alter our municipal law to promote the consumption of a foreign com modity, while it did nothing to extend the consumption of an article made in our own country. (Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declined to follow the hon. member into a discussion of the Wine Licences Bill. It might have been supposed that the hon. gentleman had had enough of this discussion, but he seemed quite insatiable. (A laugh.) As to the necessity of a new L a l v s.r, e , it.Z i-116 tAiveaqiwgatipulttlg Jird - i)i - r - e.;;;&; to have promised the introduction of any measure on the ' subject. W ith regard to British wine, which the hon. mem ber seemed to think was made much more legitimately here from raisins than by expression from the grape in the coun try of its birth, it was to be remembered that these raisins were imported at a low duty, whereas the foreign wine paid a high rate of duty. The hon. member, of course, could not be expected to sympathise with the exchequer in such a case ; but the two articles contributed to the revenue in very unequal degrees, and this was an element which could not be entirely loft out of consideration. A difference was re cognised in the amount paid for licences—namely, 10 guineas for a wholesale foreign wine, and five guineas for a British wine licence; but he should have no objection to allow persons who paid the higher amount to deal in both kinds of wine. (Hear.) Mr. BOVILL thought it would be difficult to interpret the expressions " sweets" and "made wines." . Would "sweets" include " bitters ? " Then a large proportion of port and sherry was manufactured in and about London, elder wine and logwood being prime ingredients in the former concoction. Within a short distance of that house there was a manufactory of champagne from rhubarb. (Laughter.) Would those be "made wines" within the meaning of the resolution ? • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the expressions objected to were certainly not to be justified upon abstract grounds, and fell short of the standard of purity which the hon. and learned member wished to set up in the wording of the act. But they were in accordance with usage, and would be, he believed, adequate for the purpose. " Sweets," he was informed, was the legal de - scription of British wines, and "made wines" comprised other compounds of the same sort. The resolution was then agreed to. SIR JOHN BARNARD'S ACT, &c., REPEAL BILL. On the motion that this bill be read a second time, Mr. BENTINCK moved as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The object of this bill was to legalise gambling to any extent, in order, by a penny stamp upon "time bargains," to benefit the re- venue. The SOLICITOR GENERAL replied that Sir J. Bar nard's Act was obsolete, and that the Bth and 9th Vic. ; cap. 109, sufficed to meet all cases of gambling contracts, Mr. E. JAMES said it was not known to those who advised the repeal of Sir J. Barnard's Act as a part of the Budget that it was to raise a revenue from stamps on trans actions which that act made illegal. Mr. T. HANKEY defended the gentlemen engaged on the Stock Exchange from the imputations that they were were tainted with gambling, and contended that Stock Ex change transactions had less of a gambling character in them than insurances, and yet no attempt was made to le gislate against insurance. He should support the bill now before the house. Mr. BOVILL contended that Sir John Barnard's Act was necessary to keep in check the gambling tendencies of the Stock Exchange ; and said the real reason why the Go vernment proposed to repeal that act was, as let out by the hon. member for Peterborough, that the money paid for " time bargains" could by that act be recovered back again, because time bargains were by the act illegal. Playing with dice was considered illegal ; but a man with dice had a fair chance, while in Stock Exchange transactions he had no fair chance. For those and other reasons he should oppose the Government bill, which was an unholy contract entered into by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Stock Exchange, in consideration of their consenting to give him a penny stamp revenue. Mr. J. LOCKE said the hon. and learned gentleman, who was set down as a first rate lawyer, addressed the House of Commons as if they were a common jury, and a very common jury; but he had totally failed to show that there was any ono thing that was useful in Sir J. Barnard's Act. Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY supported the bill, and After a few words from Mr. BUTT and Mr. VINSITTART ;he house then divided. For the second reading Against it Majority —l23 :Cheers and laughter.) The bill was then read a second time. EXCISE AND ASSESSED TAXES ACTS. The house went into committee on this bill—adjourned debate. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that, after consulting the officers in the department, he had reso lutions to propose of a simple nature, which he hoped would meet with the support of the committee. He proposed that a game licence for the whole season should be £3, while that for a moiety of the season would be £2. That was the essence of the scheme, which involved no alteration in the existing law, with one exception, viz., that it was intended to include deer under the head of game, and a licence would require to be taken out for killing deer also. With respect to park deer, that would be provided for by a separate clause. The clause having been read, Mr. BENTINCK said the right hon. gentleman had studied the question of revenue more than the convenience of the parties who would have to take out these game licences. What amount of revenue he expected from the measure he could not tell, but the simple effect of the raw.- sure would be to encourage a wholesale system of day poaching. Mr. FELLOWES 'said he hopedithe Chancellor of the Exchequer would' dot press the committee to adopt so im- portant a resolution at that hour of the night. It really ought to be printed and in the hands of members beforethey were called upon to decide upon the question. (Hear,hear.) With that view he would move that the chairman report progress. (Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not offer any opposition to that motion under the circumstances, and with the view of having the resolution printed. (Hear.) Lord FERMOY hoped the right hon. gentleman, before the bill again came under consideration, would remove rabbits from the list of game. It was absurd to include them. Mr. MTANN also opposed the classification of rabbits as game. The farmers, in fact, looked upon them as vermin. Lord GALWAY was glad to find that the right hon. gentleman had abandoned that part of his original measure which would have allowed certificates to be issued for a short period of the season at so low a cost as Xl. Sir J. TROLL° PE did not know in what light the Chan cellor of the Exchequer regarded this measure, whether with reference to revenue or public morality. If the former, he should like to know what amount of income he expected from it, because that might have some bearing as to the other point. At present it was well known that frequent encounters took place between poachers and gamekeepers ; that country gaols were crowded with the former, and that a frightful amount of mischief and immorality prevailed. They ought not to deal with the question in this way. If it was intended to touch it at all, the whole system of our game laws should be revised. The motion was then agreed to, and The CHAIRMAN reported progress. LOCOMOTIVE BILL. Mr. GARNETT moved the second reading of this bill, the object of which was to provide r, gulations under which locomotive machines might be allowed to travel on common roads, to aid in the development of the mineral, agricultural, and other resources of the country. Mr. D. GRIFFITH observed that the promoters of the bill had come to an understanding with the authorities in the metropolitan districts not to run the machine vehicles during the night, the only period at which the project could be worked. If such a prohibition were good for the metro polis, it must be good f©r large towns in the country, and therefore, if the bill went into committee, he should move to extend the prohibition. Without the sanction of the Secretary of State for the project, he should new move the adjournment of the debate. Mr. S. ESTCOURT urged the expediency of proceeding with the bill, and taking proper securities in committee. Mr. CLIVE, on the part of the Government, said there was no objection to the second reading of the bill. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed en the Bth of June. PIERS AND HARBOURS BILL. This bill was ordered to be referred to a select committee, consisting of the following members :—Lord C. Paget, Mr. Milner Gibson, Lord R. Cecil, Col. Wilson Patten, Mr. Corry, Mr. Headlam, Mr. E. P. Bouverie, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Gore Langton, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. M'Mahon, Mr. Black burn, Mr. Kinglake, Mr. Ridley, and Mr. Paull. Five to be the quorum. METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT BILL. On the order of the day for the adjourned debate on the second reading of this bill, a conversation took place. Mr. CRAWFORD objected to the principle of the bill. Mr. LOCKE moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. TITE defended the principle of the bill, and ex pressed a hope that if the second reading were sanctioned, the measure would be considered by a select committee, proposition which had the sanction of the IVletropolita Board of Works, whose constitution was not sought to be changed by the provisions of the bill. Mr. AYRTON complained that the bill, consisting of nearly 150 clauses affecting the metropolis, was brought forward at so late a period ; and he objected to any exten sion of the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works at; at present constituted. The clauses should be considered not only by a select committee, but by a committee of the whole house. He hoped the bill would be curtailed very much, if the hon. member (Mr. Tite) who brought it for ward desired that it should pass this session. Sir J. SHELLEY said some of the vestries disapproved of the bill, and wished to appear by counsel befdre the select committee to state their objections. He believed that the Board of Works had done their duty to the best of their ability. Mr. Alderman SALOMONS also objected to several clauses of the bill. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the bill was read a second time and referred to a select committee. SMITHFIELD MARKET. Sir JAMES DUKE obtained leave to bring in a bill to establ.sh in Smithfield, in the city of London, a metro politan market for meat, poultry, and other provisions, and for other purposes. The bill was read a first time. I..cie aajourneu au, wn minutes past one o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. MANCHESTER-MAY 24. Fresh English wheat brought le per qr advance, w hilst other kinds, as well as foreign, sold more freely at filly late rates. Flour in moderate sale, at the extreme rates of last week. Oats and oatmeal dull —Egyptian and Indian father lower. English beans firm. BIRMINGHAM—MAY 24. A fair attendance, and trade dull ; higher prices were de manded for wheat, but not complied with. Oats and bar" ley is to 2s per qr decline. Beans unaltered. MELTON MOWBRAY—MAY 22. There was a fair supply of wheat to-day, with a good business at the annexed prices :—White wheat, new, 5 33 Od to 57s Od ; red, 44s Od to 53s per 36 stone ; barley ill small supply, at 40s to 45s for malting, and 35s to 38s per qr. for grinding ; oats, 30s to 35s Od per 24 stone ; beans, 41s to 56s for old; new, 52s per 38 st. PLYMOUTH—MAY 22. The busine;B was firm to-day. Prices for wheat as before; barley scarce, and a t l a t e pr i ces ; oats were dear. A thin at market. The quotations are-English whit' wheat, 52s to 565; red, 53s to 548 per qr ; French do., 46 1 to 46s ; grinding barley, 30s to 32 s ; oa t s , 24 s t o 26 s ; an d flour, fine, 39s to 40s ; seconds, 37s to 38s. EDINBURGH GRAIN-111.ty 23. Wheat on the top 2s Od up average la 6d up. Barley on the top is Gd up.. average Os 4d doWn• Oats on the top Os 9d down. average Os 2d up. Beans on the top is Od up average 2s ld up. Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat.... Barley Oats 1 11 1 4-12ths Beans Total Supply and Sales. Wheat .1054 qrs Sold 989 qrs Barley.,. 265 qrs Sold 225 qrs Oats 604 qrs Sold 538 qrs Beans 46 qrs Sold 43 qrs DERBY SMITHFIELD-MAY 22. There was a small supply of fat beasts to-day, with a full attendance of buyers ; the demand was good, at sal advance in prices. Sheep were well represented ? and sales were ready. Fat and s t ore ca l ves were plentiful; Bala heavy. Fat pigs plenty. Beef Bd to Sid Veal 6d to 7 41 Mutton .. Lamb Od to Od Rough fat, 4 s 9d per stone. Hides, 3ld to 54d; calf skins, 7d to Od. DUBLIN- With a slow trade to-day, advance of 3s on wheat. —MAY 22. the business done was at all s. d. s. d. Wheat, white 33 0 to 3 0 Do., red 3l 0 to 33 0 Do., new Barley Oats Do., black l5 0 to 15 6 d. s. d. g. Do., new — 0 to Bere l3 0 to 14 0 Rapeseed Oatmeal l5 0 to 17 0 Bakers' flour 17 oto 22 , s u Indian corn MORMON EMIGRATION.—The William Tapscott, which sailed from Liverpool a few days ago for New York, had on board 811 Mormons, whose destiny is the Great Salt Lake. There were 125 married men and 176 married women, 146 single men and 149 single women, 80 male and 92 female children, and 18 male and 26 female infants. 351 were English, 22 Scotch, 36 Irish, and 400 foreigners. BIRTHS. HANBUILY.—On the 23d inst., at The Rectory, Shobdon, Herefordshire, the wife of the Hon. and Rev. A. A. 33. ad th inst PE at 42, Rutland-gat e , th e H o n. Mrs. Frederick Yedtehr of ie 24 ck Peel, of a daughter. IVARnALL.—On the 23d inst., at Notting-hill, the wife of Elliston Warrall, Esq., of a son. MARRIAGES. JAMES—FuRRELL --On the 23d inst., at St. Nicholas' Church, Rochester, Percy Vincent James, R.N., to Cathcrine Lincoln, eldest daughter of Frederick Furrell, Esq., J.P., of Rochester. JErrItIES—EAMES.—On the 22d inst., at the parish church of Faringdon, Southampton, Lewis, second son of H. Jeffries, Esq., of Alton, to Juliet, elder daughter of the late Mr. W. Eames, of Faringdon. DEATHS. BRTS co.—On the 24th inst., at his residence in the Albany, Arthur Brisco, Esq., of Newton Hall, Montgomeryshire, late of the 11th Hussars. BOND.—On the 22d inst., at his residence, 27, Rochester square, Camden-town, J. P. Bond, Esq., of the Stock Exchange, aged 62. GLOVER. —On the 23d inst., at the Royal Mews, Bucking ham Palace, John Hulb er t Gl over , E sq ., F. 5.., Libra rian in Ordinary to her Majesty, aged 68. MU 11.1tA Y.—On the 22d inst., Lieut.-Colonel Sir Archibald Murray, Bart., late of the Scots Fusilier Guards, aged 67. ROACH.—On the 22d inst , James Roach, of 5, Tuffnell park. terrace, Holloway, and of the" Bank of England, aged 59. LONDON : Printed and Published by•MURDO , YOUNU, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the counts of Frid4y, May 25, 1860. I