The Sun. — London, England, 1860-06-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 20, 1860, said that dissenters were the only persons who had never proposed a compromise. The fact was that the party op- posits had always opposed a compromise until now it had become impossible. The government of Earl Grey, of Lord Melbourne, even the short Ministry of Sir R. Peel, had each endeavoured to deal with this measure and had failed, but since then a compromise had boen proposed, which gave up the whole principle upon which a church rate rested. The noble duke had himself laid on the table a bill the preamble to which began, " Whereas it is expedient to abolish church rates for the maintenance of Divint ser vice." (Hear.) It was true that the noble duke proposed to retain church rates for the sustentation of the fabric ; but in which he gave up the whole principle for which he had been contending, and admitted the whole grievance of which the supporters of the bill complained. The noble duke said that the noble lord could not be very eager about the mea- sure, for while it was•brought up from the other house on the 30th of April, he was moving the second reading on the 19th of June. But to that his noble friend had an obvious retort—the report of their lordships' committee was dated on the 28th of February, and the noble duke had not yet brought in any measure to give effect to its recommenda tions.. (Hear, hear.) The fact was the noble duke and his friends thought there was a temporary change of opinion in the other house, and they wanted to make the most of it. But it was surely not a wise policy to adopt with regard to a question which had been so long agitated. It was ad mitted that church rates could not much longer be levied from Dissenters, and the only question they had to consi • der, therefore, was how they could best remedy the grie vance that existed, and set the matter at rest, for unless they altogether disposed of the queetion they did nothing. (Hear.) Was there, then, any longer a comprofilise that was possible ? There had been two proposed, to which he supposed the opponents of the church rates could not ob ject. The one was that a substitute should be provided out of other funds that were at the disposal of the Church. The other was a proposal of his right hon. friend the Chan cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir G. Grey), and it had been treated in a very singular manner. It was that a substitute should be provided by the legalisation of pew rents. To that plan there was no doubt a great deal of objection. He quite agreed that it was a characteristic of the Church of England to be the church of the poor man, and he should be the last person in the world to consent to any measure by which the poor would be excluded. In fact his own individual opinion was that there ought to be no appropriation of seats in churches at all. (Loud cheers.) But they all knew that if they attempted to make seats everywhere free, it would in many places meet with the strongest opposition, and would drive many persons from church altogether. If, then, seats were appropriated, not withstanding that by the theory of the Church they ought all to be in common, the appropriation was a privilege for which those who enjoyed it might very fairly be expected to pay towards the sustentation of the buildings in which they held appropriated seats. (Hear, hear.) But, as he had said, the friends of church rates had met the proposal of his right hon. friend in a vary singular manner. They first of all received a proposal of Mr. Newdegate, which must surely have been conservative enough, with such dis favour, that the hon. gentleman declined to divide upon it, and then they joined with Sir J. Trelawny to defeat the plan of Sir G. Grey. There were other suggestions for a compromise which were far more objectionable. One was to register the Dissenters, or, at all events, to make people sign a schedule, after which it was proposed that they should be exempt from the payment of church rates. He (the noble earl) had always objected to ticketing. Dissenters—not because they did not like it (and they did not), but because such a plan would put an end to occasional conformity from which the Church derived great benefit ; and because it would really, as the noble duke said, reduce the Church of England to the level of a sect, and get rid to a great extent of its national character, (Hear, hear.) There remained only to be considered the scheme proposed by their lord ships' committee—namely, to give up church rates Lind to substitute voluntary rates in their room. The Marquis of SALISBURY—No, no. Earl DE GREY—Surely a rate from which a man might if he pleased exempt himself was a voluntary one. (Hear, hear.) Now a " voluntary rate" was a contradiction in terms. Eeither they wanted to catch people and make them pay because they had inadvertently omitted to sign the schedule—a system which would not last three years—or else they wished to establish a system of a purely voluntary rating, which was not worth the trouble of enacting. At the same time they would deprive the Church of the ad vantage which it would reap from its frank surrender of a quarter of a million of revenue. He was not one of those who thought that voluntary exertion and endowments were incompatible; for they had a striking example of the way in which both might work together in the existing sys tem of public educallitm. Their lordships' committee, how ever, had proposed an irritating and annoying machinery for raising voluntary contributions, and one that would pre - vent the fair development of a principle which, if they relied wholly upon it, he felt confident would be found quite ade quate. (Hear, hear.) The question came, therefore, to this—they must either retain the existing law as it was— for he defied them to make it either consistent or workable —or else they must consent to the abolition of church rates. But the noble duke said that if they passed the bill they would throw down an important outwork of the Church, and that Dr. Foster would walk in and destroy the establishment. Ho (Earl De Grey) was bound to confess that the evidence to which the noble duke had referred produced on his mind a wholly different impression. He (the noble earl) denied that the great body of Dissenters had any ulterior object in their opposition to church rates ; and in spite of the inge nuity with which Dr, Foster and Mr. Morley had been cross examined, nothing of the sort could be inferred from their testimony, for they both had distinctly stated that they wore giving merely their individual opinions. The noble duke had accused by implication those hon. gentlemen who voted for the bill in the other house of having been actuated by a fear of the hustings. The Duko of MARLBOROUGH was understood to say that he had merely quoted the expression of Lord Lyveden. Earl DE GREY—The noble duke had at all events adopted the statement; but ho (the noble earl) did not think that, as regarded the great majority of the hon. gentlemen, there was any ground for such an imputation, or for sup posing that they were actuated by any spirit of animosity towards the Church of England. He believed that the admitted grievance which existed constituted the chief— and indeed the sele—weapon in the hands of Dr. Fos ter and the Liberation Society ; and thinking that the existing law as to church rates tended to destroy that peace, harmony, and communion of Christian feeling which ought to exist between different rt. ligious denominations, he should feel it his duty to suppot t the second reading. He should do so, not only because he had always regarded it as an act of justice to Dissenters, but because he felt confident that it would be found beneficial to the Church of England itself. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY assured their lord ships that the right reverend bench would not be unwilling to yield to any measure of conciliation to which they felt they could consistently with their sense of duty agree. The bill had been mainly supported on two grout' !s—lst, its beneficial effects upon the Church; and, 2dly, its being an act of justice to Dissenters. They were told that if it passed the Church would greatl3 gain in popularity—and he gave the noble lords who had used that argument full credit for their sincerity ; but exactly the same reasoning had been re sorted to by the Liberation Society for another purpose. They wore told by that society that the Church would be so much raised in spirituality and power by the entire sever ance of its connection with the State, that it would be greatly benefited by a dissolution of the tie which bound them together. The coincidence between the two arguments was certainly m st singular. (War.) As to the effects that would follow the loss of church rates, its advocates had bet ter means of judging than i a opponents. They knew how mach its ministers would suffer in influenel and position if they were made dependent on their flocks; and they did not hesitate to say the Establishment would lose what was now one of its most valuable characteristics. In 90 eases out of 100—to speak within the mark—the church rate was paid without any further complaint than was generally made when the tax gatherer came to a man's door ; but it would be different if the force of law were removed. In theory the voluntary system was perfect, but in practice it might rather be called " the begging system." The result of its adoption would be to throw upon the clergy a great portion of the expense now defrayed by the church rate; and it should be remembered that while there were 7,000 clergymen whose incomes did not exceed £2OO a year, they already taxed them selves to the utmost of their power, and 1 eyond their power, for the support of educational and charitable institutions. He would now say a few words upon another subject— namely, the injustice which was said to be inflicted upon Dissenters by the existing state of the law. His answer to that argument was simply this, that such was the condition upon which they held whatever property belonged to them. (Hear.) At the same time, he should not be unwilling to see some measure adopted which might relieve them from the imputation of inflicting a hardship upon any person. He should be glad to see a measure introduced which would give the Church a rate ao far voluntary that it should not be imposed upon Dissenters, but which should be so far compulsory upon Churchmen that they should be compelled to con t r ib u t e th e i r quo t a to t h e expense of main taming the services of the church. He was quite aware mthaanty objections a mode of dealing w ith th e ques ti on t o w hi c h might be urg e d ; b u t it was th e conc l us i on to whic the select committee appointed by their lordships had arrived. Many people look e d upon it as a concess i on ; but it was a concession end which circumstanc es j us tifi e d w ith the view of putting a to a que s ti on w hi c h h a d b een so long debated, an d which would,he believed, continue to be debated so long as there remained any debate a bl e groun d . He trusted that a measure to this meet effec ttheir would be shortly introduced, and th a t it would lordship s ' ap proval present bil. In the meantime h e h oped that they would reject Earl l: Earl GREY said his noble friend who spoke last but one (Earl da Gi cy and Ripon) and his noble friend who moved the second reading of the bill had both rested their Sup ma i n ly upon the argnment that as ch urc h rates connlpdrnooipt r t i r i b r 6 e e gono ra lly paid under the present law, the only co possible was to throw the maintenance of the fabric of the Church at once upon the voluntary contributions of its sup porters--that, in fact, the Church was to be s u p ported hi the same manner as the chapels of Dissenters were, by those only who used them. If he were prepared to agree in the main conclusions of his noble friend, ;till he would venture to say that their lordships ought not to give their assent to the second reading of this bill. If they were to deprive the Church of the advantage of church rates, and to defray the expense of maintaining the fabric of the church—if they were to leave each of the parishes of the country without any legal security for Oe maintenance of those ancient fabrics which were so dear to the hearts of the inhabitants, they were at all events bound to take care that those who were anxious to make sacrifices in order to provide the necessary charges should be enabled to do so. (Hear.) He would ask their lordships to look at the pre- sent bill, and observe the manner in which it was drawn. It abolished for ever the imposition of church rates, but in doing so it made no provision whatever in reference to the future property in the churches. The fabric would remain as at present the property of the inhabitants, but the Church would be deprived of all means of levying rates for maintaining it, and if money were voluntarily subscribed for the purpose the subscribers would have no assurance that those who refused to join in the subscription and re fused to take part in the burden would not come forward and control and overrule them as to the manner in which the money should be applied. Even if it were assumed that church rates ought to be abolished, the bill committed this monstrous injustice—it placed the control of the parish churches in the hands of persons of whom the majority might be Dissenters. (Hear, hear.) He might be told that this was a fault capable of being remedied in com mittee, and that it was easy to correct the evil by the intro duction of a carefully considered provision to secure to those willing to take on themselves the burden of main taining the fabric of the church the proper control of it. But they knew perfectly well that those who refused to be taxed to maintain church rates refused equally to give up their full right and share in t e property. Therefore, if they w, re to attempt to introduce provisions to correct the evil, the probability was that they would find many difficulties in their way. If there were really a bona fide desire to get rid of church rates, and, in getting rid of them, to give to Churchmen the fair power and right of managing the Church property for their own benefit—if that were the sincere intention of the promoters of the bill, there ought to have been introduced into the measure some provision to that effect. If their lordships now gave a second reading to the bill, they would give to the advo cates of the change this great advantage ; they would have adopted the principle that church rates were not to be main tained, and at the same time would have obtained no secu rity that a reasonable adjustment of the question would be assented to. (Hear, hear.) Therefore if his noble friend were right and it was reasonable to abolish church rates, this was still a bill which their lordships ought not to read a second time. (Hear, hear.) lie would not, however, rest his argument upon such low grounds. lie was prepared to take a much higher groand for maintaining that the law as it stood was just and right. He admitted that formerly there was a grievance. Before the famous decision of the Braintree case, when it was held that the minority of the parish or the churchwardens might impose a tax on the parish at large, he felt that here was a grievance that ought to be removed, but as the case now stood the majority of the• parish were at liberty, if they thought fit to tax themselves for the maintenance of the ancient fabric of the church. That was the real substance of the law. He was quite aware that there were defects in it—defects which he should be glad to see remedied ; but let them not run away hastily with the notion that the law was so very bad. In his opinion the defects were simply these :—ln the first place there was a want of restrictive conditionsin respect of the applicability of church rates. His noble friend who introduced the bill -mentioned instances in which church rates had been imp: o perly applied; but that was simply an abuse. It would however, be right and proper to restrict the application of church rates to the maintenance of the fabric ; and he be lieved the friends of the Church were:perfectly prepared to assent to such a restriction. (Hear, hear.) Again, great changes had taken place of late years in some parishes, so that those who were now rated to church rates were not those who derived benefit from the church to which they contributed. Some amendment was required in such cases, so that the rates should be confined to those parts of parishes in which the churches really required to be main tained. Lastly, it was a fault in the existing law that those who imposed church rates were liable to be defeated in the carrying out of these desires by a small minority who could avail themselves of technical means to effect their object. That was a serious evil, and ought to be remedied. (Hear, hear.) But granting that these amendments of the law were necessary, he for one was not prepared to say that any further change should be made. He would ask if it were not consistent with the whole spirit of government both local and general, that the people should have the right of taxing themselves for all purposes affecting them selves ? It was said that it was unjust on the minority that they should be compelled to pay a tax imposed by the will of the majority. But how would such an argument apply to the administration of government generally ? For example, he was of opinion that the war in which we were now engaged in China was as unjust as it was im politic. He believed it was a great sin which the nation had committed, which sooner or later would bring pun ishment upon it ; but he did not say that upon that ground he ought to be excused from contributing his share to the taxation which was deemed necessary to defray the cost of such a war. (Hear, hear.) So it might be said with regard to sanitary arrangements, gas lights, or any other question involving an additional expenditure of the public.money. But such an argument was obviously unjust, and as to the particular grievance of this tax upon Dissenters, it was at once disposed of by the fact that no man was charged with the impost who had not acquired property which he knew at the time he acquired it was subject to the burden. It was a burden which had existed from all times, and in taking it away it was the poor of the country who were plundered, inasmuch as they had in herited from their ancestors the right of having a cluirch maintained for their benefit. By depriving them of church rates the Legislature would, as far as they could deprive them of that right. It was said that the state of the law was exceedingly objectionable because it created so many anomalies ; that church rates were levied in some places and not in others, and that there was no uniform practice. This, in his opinion, was the greatest recommendation of the tax. He thought it would be highly inexpedient to levy church rates in parishes where there was an equal divi sion of different religious sects, or in large towns where the sums necessary to maintain the church could be easily col lected by pew rents. Pew rents, however, were only ap plicable to towns, and not to the rural districts, where the majority of the congregation were labouring men. (Hear.) It was said that the - levying of church rates was a great grievance upon the inhabitants of a parish; bit what was said upon that subject by the opponents of church rates themselves ? Why, it was urged that the technical diffi culties in the way of collecting the tax were so great that in a short time any person, if so determ'ned, could get rid of the rate altogether. If that were really so, the neces sary inference was that in the levying of church rates in rural parishes were so entirely in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, that any person inclined to oppose the imposition of the tax was compelled by mere shame to re frain from carr3 ing his desires into effect. It was farther said that the abolition would remove a good deal of ill-will, disputes, and dissensions. He admitted that it would, but in all free institutions differences of opinion prevailed, and discussions were carried on with more or less acrimony. Ile was happy to note the change that was growing up on this question in the feelings of the people of this country ; he observed that they were vieing with each other in maintain ing the churches in a good and proper state : and he could say that in his memory the change in this respect was very marked. (Hear.) lie believed it would be a very great evil if the people were prevented from meeting together as they now did for the purpose of levying a church rate, He could not help concurring to a great extent in what had been said with respect to the proposal contained in the report of their lordships' committee, and if he was driven to choose he should prefer abolishing church rates altogether to such a course as was suggested by the report then upon their lord ships' table. But he contended that oven if the law remained as it was it would be found that practically in a great ma jority of cases it answered its purpose, and he for one would not consent to surrender the principle, especially after the revelations which had been made by some of the witnesses before that committee. In this case the house was consider ing a principle, and if they surrendered that principle and left persons at liberty to tax themselves or not, they would be virtually conceding the principle upon which the Esta blished Church was founded. The Earl of AI RLI E supported the bill. He said he ob nrveeda n t d h t a e t m a p v e e r r yo f m th a e rk h e 9 d us e e h o a n ng t e ht h a a ri d ne t a a t k io e n n s p i l a a e c e e i i t n w th as e ob served last before them. With regard to the pecuniary loss which it was said the Church would sustain if church rates were abolished, he believed that was very greatly overrated. No doubt a large majority of the landowners of the country were members of the Church of England ; but supposing this rate was, abolished to-morrow, did their lordships sup pose they would pocket the money they had hitherto paid for church rates and leave the churches to tumble down or not ? It was a libel upon the character of the gentlemen of England to say so, and he was surprised that such an argu • ment should come from the opposite benches. Another argument used by those who supported the church rates was that the ulterior object of those who wished to abolish them was to destroy the Church itself; but if that argu met t was good for anything it would go against reforms of overy kind, because there were always a class of men who wanted to go further in any raform than others. He had no objection to a compromise on this question, but believing that church rates could not be much longer maintained, and that their abolition would greatly tend to the peace of ,so many parishes, he felt bound to support the present bill. (Hear.) The Duke of RUTLAND said, with regard to the state ment of the noble lord who introduced the bill that the poor were not able to find accommodation in the churches, if thc: noble lord visited the church of St. Giles's and oth r churches in similar neighbourhoods he p would find the po or attended there in large numbers, and also in the country church - es. The noble lord had also referred to the want of church accommodation for the r oor in Manchester, but if they had church rates in Manchester instead of pew rents they would have free sittings for the poor. It might be that there were some Dissenters who were not hostile to the Church establishment ; but he believed on the other hand that th ere was a gr at body of Dhsenters who wished to keep the Church in the position of a religious sect, and made . the abolition of the church rates the ground of ulte rior objects, lie should vote against the bill of the noble lord, because he believed it would not produce peace, but encourage the Dissenters to proceed in their opposition to the Church ; because he felt that he should be relieving his own property from a charge to which it was fairly liable, and, above all, because he felt it would deprive the posr man of a right that had been handed down to him from time im- memorial. (Hear.) The Duke of SOMERSET said it was admitted on all hands that the present state of the law affecting church rates was unsatisfactory and required amendment ; and accord ingly, many suggestions had been made for modifying and amending the law, though as yet none had been put for ward that had proved generally acceptable. The noble duke (the Duke of Marlborough) gave as a reason for not abolish ing church rates, that the parish churches were expensive, and that clergymen did not like to go round among Church men for subscriptions to maintain them. He did not think that a good reason for insisting on the retention of the rates, but, after all, what was it that the Church was asked to give up ? From a return made last year it appeared that the average rate raised during seven years in 10,000 parishes was .E 218,000. Divide that sum by the parishes, and it would be found that the amount was only £24 in each parish. (Hear, hear.) Surely such a sum as that was not worth disputing for, and not worth the labour of collection. (Hear, hear.) They were told that the remission of church rates would just put so much money into the pockets of the landlords. What an enormous sum this £2l a-year would be to the landlords of any parish I (Hear, hea .) They might, surely, put aside altogether the idea that the fabric of the Church would be in danger if this sum of £24 were lost. He did not say there might not be in some places some inconvenience, but it must be after all, very immaterial. The noble earl (Earl Grey) said he would keep up the rate for the maintenance of the fabric, but not for the small, continually recurring expenses, but it was with regard to those small expenses that the greatest diffi culty existed. (Hear, hear.) He thought the existence of the rate caused ill-will among the different classes of society, an evil which the money obtained would never compensate for. (Hear, hear.) It was said the opposition to church rates proceeded from an organized society established for the separation of Church and State. Even if it were so, he did not think it a good argument. There were many organized societies in this country, but they generally failed if they did not take up some question that was popular. (Hear.) It appeared that within a period of eight weeks not fewer than 400,000 people subscribed petitions for the abolition of church rates, and surely that showed great strength on the part of the opponents of the rate. His belief was that the repeal of church rates would strengthen the Church. The question was now put as a test to candidates for seats in Parliament in all the great towns, and the result was that the members of great constituencies were placed in a posi tion injurious to the Church. He believed, therefore, that the repeal would be an advantage to the Church. (Hear.) It was manifestly absurd to proceed year after year with a law that could not be enforced. Tht it lordships might re ject this bill, but practically the question was settled in towns, and was gradually settling itself in country town ships. Still he thought it was unwise to give constituencies the continued opportunity of making this question a test of candidates for Parliament, and therefore he hoped the house would agree to the second reading. ( hide.) The Duke of NEWCASTLE—I would not have risen to protract this debate but that I wish to say a few words in explanation of the vote I am about to give. I came down to the house with my mind prepared to repeat the vote which I gave two years ago, but my confidence in my ability to do so had been shaken by what had since taken place. I have found an altered tone in the House of Com mons. Many of those who in former years have been anx ious to devise a course which should be agreeable to Dis senters and at the same time in accordance with the feel ings of the members of the Church, now exhibit a different spirit, and all compromise is repudiated ; they voting against the bill avowedly with the intention of making it impossible to pass this house. (Hear, hear.) Then, when I looked to this house, I found that a committee had been moved for by the noble duke, the result of which was a pro posal that is described by the noble earl near me (Earl Grey) as worse than entire abolition, but which still gives up completely the principle upon which church rates have hitherto been supported. I come to the conclusion of voting for the second reading of this bill with great pain and hesi tation, and I came down to the house, as my noble friends near me are aware, hoping that the debate would take such a turn as to enable me to vote against the second reading. But I find that the noble duke the author of the resolution on the report of the committee, not only moves the rejec tion of the bill, but does so in a speech in which he places the maintenance of chuich rates on the highest pinnacle of principle, and quite abandoning that conciliatory tone which on former occasions he has exhibited both in this house and in the other. (Hear.) I have again the pain to hear from the most reverend Primate—to differ from whom is always a source of pain, both on account of his high position, his eminent abilities, and his estimable character—(hear, (hear —a speech the tone of which was quite dif ferent from that of former speeches upon this question. The most rev. prelate on a former occasion himself brought in a bill abolishing church rates in parishes where the levying of a rate had been successfully resisted for two consecutive years ; but now he holds that church rates should be held inviolable. Reference has been made to what fell from me on a former occasion. What I said then was that a great majority of those who opposed church rates were not op posed to the existence and prosperity of the Church. I see now the position in which this question is now placed. I see in my own neighbourhood the progress which the spirit of opposition to these rates is making; that, while a few years ago Dissenters were the only opponents in rural dis tricts and small towns of 5,000 or 6,000 inhabitants, mem bers of the Church are now opposed to the levying of these rates, although I know Dissenters who not only support but cheerfully pay them. While I should regret that the bill in its present shape should pass into law—(hear)--that cheer is premature, for I will give a reason for supporting the bill—when I find noble lords prepared to say that they will not adopt any other mode of settlement if this bill is rejected, but will maintain church rates as at present, then I see no other practical way of bringing the question to a speedy solution than by passing the second reading of this bill, and endeavouring in committee to introduce such amendments as shall rec , ncile the abolition of church rates with the interests of the Church of England itself. There fore I am prepared to vote for the second reading. The Archbish , pof CANTERBURY—I said that while I objected to the abolition of church rates, which I believed to be essential for the maintenance of the churches, I wished that the rate should be compulsory on members of the Church alone. The Duke of NEWCASTLE—Then, if church rates are abolished as regards Dissenter s, and are compulsory upon members of the Church alone, it seems to me that it will be a penal tax imposed upon them. (Hear.) The Earl of DERBY --I feel well convinced that your lordships will adhere to the ordnions which you have for merly expressed on this question, and I should therefore have been perfectly content to go to a division without troubling your lordships with any remarks of my own if it had not been for one or two statements from the noble duke which it is impossible to pass without observation. The noble duke has explained the change of vote, not of opinion, which we are about to see recorded, and he has justified this course on grounds wholly irrespective of the merits of the question. Now, as far as I can judge, there is no founda tion for such a course. The noble duke says that he still disapproves the .measure; that he should be extremely un willing to see it passed into a law; but in the vague expec tation that some amendment may be moved in this house which may be adopted by your lordships, and in the san guine belief, I suppose, that it willbe subsequentlyaccepted by the other house, he proposes to vote for the wend read ing of a bill which he considers dangerous in principle and hostile to the interests of the Church. The noble duke pro ceeds to say, " I ground my change of opinion upon the al tered course pursued by the House of Commons." Now, the altered course of the House of Commons indicates, I am happy to say, a very considerably increased feeling in favour of maintaining the existing law. (Cheers.) When I see ma- jorities successively diminishing from 74, I think, to 59, then to 29, and finally to what the noble baron (Lord Lyve 7 den) called the " ominous number" of 9, I think it indicates a considerable change in the feeling of the House of Com mons in favour of maintaining the principle of the existing law. And I must say I think if the noble lord who opened this discussion had been a member of this house last year, and had seen the overwhelming expression of opinion of which the division on this measure was then indicative, and if he had been a member of the other house this year and had seen the dwindling and the meagre majority by which the bill was lately passed, he would have exercised the better part of valour and would have refrained from inviting your lordships to any new expression of opinion upon this sub ject. (Hear.) The noble duko gives as a reason for his altered vote on this bill that its opponents in the House of Commons have shown an absence of the conciliatory spirit which they formerly displayed. Now, I ask confidently upon which side is it that there has been an absence or a presence of conciliation ? Why, the very groundwork of the legislation which we are now invited to undertake con sists, according to the noble lord, in this,--that concession and compromise are impossible, and that it is necessary to choose between the maintenance of the existing law and the absolute and entire abolition of church rates. (Hear.) This has been the language of all who have supported the abolition of church rates, whereas what has been the course pursued by us? One after another we have proposed this and that concession, this and that compromise, in favour of those who conscientiously object to the payment of church rates; but the result has only been that every attempt which we have made at compromise, for the purpose of establishing a good feeling and in order not to push our principles to extremity, has been met by the allegation that we were sacrificing our principles, were abandoning the whole case, and were bringing forward measures which, in fact, were worse than the total abolition of church rates. That has been the spirit in which our attempts at concilia tion and compromise have been met; and, that being the ease, it is a little too much for the noble duko now to justify his altered vote on the ground of the total absence of conciliation displayed in the other house. (Hear.) But I must also protest against the statement that in the recom mendation of the select committee of the House of Lords we have practically abandoned the principle of church rates. What we have done is this—we have maintained the right of the majority of the parishioners to tax themselves, and for their own purposes to levy an equal rate, as opposed to a voluntary contribution ; and we have, in the same re port a point which has been altogether passed over to-night —recommended that, in consideration of our taking that course, the law should be strengthened for the recovery of the compulsory rate so imposed. (Hear, hear.) If we have consented for peace sake to the exemption of persons who claim exemption upon rights the abstract justice of which we do not recognise—if we have assented to their relief under those circumstances from the general burden borne by the parish, we have at the same time provided that the persons so exempted shall in no degree be entitled to take part in the administration of the funds to which they refuse to contri bute their share. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps this is an extreme concession, but it is one which I am quite ready to justify ; it is one of which I am not ashamed, though it may not be consistent with strict justice. We have not proposed that persons who decline from conscientious or from other motives to pay this rate should thereby be deprived of the benefits and advantages which are conferred by the existence of the Church on a whole parish. We do not deprive them of their rights as parishioners, but we do take away from them the ri:ht of regulating or administering the funds from the pay ment of which they wish to be exempted. (Hear.) Thus we have endeavoured to maintain the principle, though we have modified the practice; but that is widely different from the proposition now made of leaving to every person the option whether he will contribute at all, or how much he will contribute, and to leave every parish church in this country liable to be closed or abandoned at the caprice of those whose bounden duty it ia to maintain the fabric. (Cheers.) I repudiate the idea that wo concede the prin ciple by the exceptions we have consented to introduce, and on the other hand, I contend that if there has been an ab sence of conciliation and concession it is not against us, the supporters of the existing law, that such charges should be made. (Hear.) We have endeavoured to meet our op opponents half way, and more than half-way; but we are told by them that there shall be no alternative between ab solute abolition and maintenance of the existing law. Now, great as are the objections which I see to some of the pro visions of the existing law, and desirous as I should be to amend the law, if our opponents should permit us to do so, yet, if there be no alternative between the maintenance of the existing law and the absolute abolition of the provision made from time immemorial for the support of the fabric of the church, and for bringing home the blessings of religiox to every poor man in every parish in the kingdom, I am without hesitation for maintaining the existing law with all its imperfections as against the entire abolition of church rates. (Cheers.) Lord LYVEDEN said the debate had been se satisfactory to him that after the speeches of the noble earl (De Grey) and the two noble dukes below him he felt that nothing re mained for him to answer. The noble earl who had just spoken had addressed a short lecture tohim for not showing more discretion than to bring this bill again before their lordships after its defeat last year. That, however, was quite a new doctrine to him. He had been bred up in the same political school as the noble earl, and there he had always been taught that the smallest minorities were en titled to respect, and the principle which had been affirmed by small minorities had eventually triumphed by large ma jorities. (Hear.) He should never be deterred, therefore, if, when convinced that a measure was right in principle, he pressed it forward, whether backed up by small or large majorities. (Hear.) The noble earl did not consider the report of th select committee an abandonment of the com pulsory scheme. Now, could anything be more voluntary than a system which allowed any man to object, whether with reason or without reason? (Hoar.) He was surprised that the noble earl, who was so powerful a reasoner, should attempt to justify the report on that ground. He wished that he could feel as satisfied with the probable result of the division as he did with the debate, but nothing which had been said led him to abate his confidence in the volun tary system. The house then divided, when there appeared : For the bill .. 3l Against it.. Majority —97 The bill was consequently lost. The Fisheries (Scotland) Bill passed through committee. The Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland) Bill was reported. HIGHLAND ROADS AND BRIDGES BILL. On the motion to go into committee on this bill, the house divided : For the motion Against it.. Majority for the motion —l The bill was then passed through committee. The house adjourned at 20 minutes after 10. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after twelve o'clock PRIVATE BUSINESS. The West Cork Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. The Auchterarder Common Muir Bill (Lords), Portadown, Dungannon, and Omagh Junction Bill (Lords'), and Symington, Biggar, and Broughton Railway Bill (Lords') were considered and ordered for third reading. The Forest of Dean Railway Bill was read a second time. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the Highways Bill, against the alleged aggression on the rights of the House of Commons by the rejection of the Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duties by the House of Lords, and praying the house to preserve its privileges intact ; from females, against the Aggravated Assaults Bill, &c., &c. TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRE LAND) BILL. The house went into committee on thiS bill, resuming al clause 10. Lord NAAS moved an amendment to the effect that the Landed Estates Court should be substituted for the chair man of the Quarter Sessions as a tribunal fer appeals in differences arising respecting improvements proposed to be made by landl3rds having a limited in' crest in their estates. The noble lord contended that the duties of the chairman of Quarter Sessions were already too onerous, and they could not consequentlrdischarge efficiently the jurisdiction which this bill endeavoured to impose on them. He believed the adoption of his amendment would afford considerable satis faction to the landlords in Ireland. Colonel FRENCII opposed the amendment, on the ground that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions enjoyed the confidence of the country, and there would be a large and unnecessary expens2 in conveying witnesses to Dublin in curred if the proposed substitution were adopted. He denied that the Landed Estates Commission had given satisfaction in dealing with a large number of estates, though he admitted that there had been an improvement in that Court lately. Mr. BRADY congratulated the house on the temperate tone of members in reference to this question, and trusted that nothing would arise to delay its settlement. He thought it would be unjust to compel a landed prop , ietor to go to Dublin and remain there for days, besides incur- ring the expense of bringing witnesses to prove his title. He believed the adoption of the amendment would entirely paralyse the operation of the bill. Mr. MOORE O'FE RRALL supported the amendment, as he considered that although there were some able law yers amongst the thirty assistant-barristers in Ireland, there were others who were not, and ho certainly preferred the Landed Estates Commission as a tribunal of appeal. Mr. DAINION opposed the amendment. Mr. H. ITERBERT followed on the same side, as he considered that a lawyer of ordinary capacity would be competent to decide any question brought before him under the jurisdiction conferred by this bill. Mx. GEORGE supported the amendment, and expressed his pleasure at the manner in which the bill had been dis cussed by both sides of the house, and the general desire exhibited on the part of honourable members to pass this measure. He approved of the reasons which induced the framers of the bill .to select the chairman of Quarter Sessions in preference to the Landed Estates Commission—in the first place, the former was a local tribunal, cheap, expeditious, easily accessible, and capable of being appealed to on every occasion. This bill dealt with small as well as large estates, and the proprie tors of the former would be deterred by the expense from availing himself of an appeal to the Landed Estates Court. Powers similar to those proposed to be given to the chair man of Quarter Sessions had been conferred on Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland, an analogous tribunal, and the result had been very satisfactory. A chairman of Quarter Ses sions would be quite able to decide on any question arising out of this new jurisdiction, and ho would also have the advantage of being able to inspect all property personally. Mr. HASSARD referred to tho amendment he had placed on the paper, and contended that the Board of Works would be the proper triLunal of appeal. After some discussion, Mr. CARDWELL said that the bill was framed most carefully, and he believed that its operation would prove as beneficial in Ireland as the Enclosure of Land Act had done in this country. He did not consider that, whichever tribunal was decided on, much expense would be incurred by suitors, and as the majority of speakers seemed in favour of the se lection of the Landed Estates Commission, he would make that cencession, though ho was in favour of the chairman of Quarter Sessions. After some further discussion, _ The committee divided, and the numbers were— For the amendment Against Majority —76 Colonel FRENCH•considcred that after the adoption of the amendment the bill would be a dead letter, and there fore he would move that the chairman should report progress. After some discussion tho hon. and gallant ruemlnr with drew his motion. Mr. LONGFIELD moved the following amendment : " Line 21, after outlay,' insert 'to a charge upon the lands upon which such improvements shall be made, not exceed.. ing four years' rent of such lands, or shall be entitled as he may elect." Some conversation ensued, and tho amendment was with drawn. Mr. V. SCULLY moved a series of resolutions having for their object giving the Lynded Estates Court the power to use the machinery of the Board of Works and the Gene ral Valuation Office, and also to avail themselves of the services of the assistant barrister in the discharge of their daty as an ultimate court of appeal, Re stated, however, that if the Government were opposed to his view he would not press his amendment. After a few words Mr. CARDWELL, the clause, as amended, was agreed to. On clause 11, Mr. M'MAHON suggested the omission of paragraphs 2 and 3, in order to prevent landlords claiming as their pro perty land covered with tidal water. Mr. CARDWELL said it was not 1 roposed by these paragraphs to confer any power other than that which was exercised daily, and merely enabled a landowner to spend money on his own land. After a short discussion, the clause as amended was agreed to. Clause 12 was also amended and agreed to. The clauses from 13 to 20 were agreed to, with some verbal amendments. The house suspended its sitting at four o'clock. The house resumed at six o'clock. THE BUDGET. Mr. AYRTON asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I whether the means proposed by him in the budget would be sufficient to meet the supplies required for the current year, including the war in China and any other contemplated ex penditure, and if the means were insufficient, when he in tended to make a statement of the manner in which he pro posed to make good the deficit. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was not prepared to give any information, because he did not know what were the supplies for the present year. There were two sobjects which st.ll remained open, namely the vote for fortifications, which had been reserved subject to any correction that might be required, and the war with China, respecting which his hon. friend had promised to lay estimates on the table. Having regard to the advanced period of the year, it would be the duty of the Government to produce that estimate, and then he would make a state ment to the house. THE CHANNEL FLEET. Mr. MILLER asked the Secretary to the Admiralty why the Channel fleet were made to encounter the risks of a diffi cult navigation and to remain out of sight at St. Margaret's Hope, 12 miles from Edinburgh, instead of being brought to anchor in Leith-roads. Lord C. PAGET explained that the fleet was composed of a number of very large vessels, and it was believed that St. Margaret's Hope afforded a safer anchorage. SAVINGS' BANKS. Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY asked the Chancellor of the Exch!quer whether it was the intention of the Government to irceecd with the Savings Bank Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes. ANNEXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE. S:r ROBERT PEEL inquired whether any congress was about to be held with reference to the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. . Lord JOHN RUSSELL said despatches were expected, and until they arrived no information on the subject could be given. ARMSTRONG GUNS. Mr. BAILLEY inquired whether there was any founda tion for the statement that officers appointed to inspect the Armstrong guns had reported against them. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said there was no founda tion for the rumour. HARBOURS OF REFUGE. -Mr. LINDSAY moved, that in the opinion of this house, it is the duty of her Majesty's Government, to adopt at the earliest possible period the necessary measures to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners appointed in 1858 to inquire into the formation of harbours of refuge on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland. He had brought this question under the consideration of the house because he happened to be acquainted with maritime affairs, and be cause the Government had neglected to do so. In 1854, no fewer than 1,549 persons lost their lives. He did not speak of sea. going ships, but only spoke of the loss of life, and of vessels stranded on our own shores. The average loss of life annually on these shores was 1,000 l ersons, but last year considerably exceeded that number. The loss of pro perty annually on the coasts of the United Kingdom amounted to a million and a-half. These important facts were brought under the notice of .the house in 1857, and the house then, with one accord, appointed a committee to inquire and see if anything could be done to mitigate this fearful loss of life and property. That committee sat for two sessions, and took evidence on the subject from all parts of the country, thereby having it thoroughly investigated, and in 1858 the committee re ported that they were under the strongest conviction that on national grounds these works should be undertaken as speedily as possible, and that they should be placed under some system which would ensure their early and steady progress. Considering the extensive loss of life and property upon their coasts, no money, he thought, could be more use fully employed than in giving protection from the dangerous and unprotected state of their coasts, both for the present and future welfare of the country. To that report there was not a dissentient voice in the committee, and the re sult was that a Royal Commission was appointed, com posed of men who were eminently qualified to perform the duties, and at the head of which was Admiral Hope, now in command of the fleet in China. He (Mr. Lindsay), with the honourable member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith), were the only members of that house upon the commission. They met in London and agreed upon certain points, the first object they had in view being the saving of life, the next was the saving of property. Then came the conside ration of giving facilities to commerce, and also the ques tion of defence by fixing upon such sites as might be ad visable for their ships of war in cases of emergency, or where their convoys could assemble for that service. They held their first meeting at Wick, and they found that through the Pentland Firth 10,000 ships passed annually. They found that from Cromarty to the Pentland Firth there was not one harbour of refuge, .though there were as many as 1,700 boats engaged in the fishing trade, and having from 8,000 to 10,000 men. On one occasion there were 120 of these fishermen lost in endeayouring to make the harbour of Wick. They found that from 300 to 400 vessels entered the port of Shields, and that the whole sea in that direction was covered with ships, and that for 120 miles there was no harbour which could offer refuge. The fearful. gales of the present year brought misery upon many families besides a great loss of property. The Tyne would require a million of money to make a good harbour of refuge, but the people there said they would contribute £759,000 if that house would give £250,000. (Hear, hear.) At Hartlepool the same amount of expenditure would be requisite, and there £50.000 was offered. At Portland a harbour had been constructed of great general advantage. Passing further south, the) found great want of harbours of refuge. He passed over Dover, and he would oppose large grants to the harbours of Dover and Alderney. Be tween Lundy Island and Bristol there seemed to be no want, but looking to the Bristol Channel, they found that from that port alone there was one-sixth of the trade of the whole kingdom, and with that amount of trade there was 60 miles of iron-bound cost without any harbour for shelter. .They were unanimously, therefore, of opinion that at St. Ives a national harbour should be formed which would offer great general advantage at a cost of £lOO,OOO. Now, look ing at the west of Ireland they found the magnificent har bour of Galway in the west, and in the south the harbour of Cork. In the north they found the harbours of Belfast and Lamlash, which offered excellent anchorage. They found also that the Bay of Carlingford, at an expense of £50,000, could be made an excellent harbour, and that for a like expenditure Waterford could also be made an excel lent place of anchorage. Then as regarded the Isle of Man they found that at Douglas an excellent harbour could be made at an expense of £lOO,OOO, £50,000 to be granted by the Exchequer. All the harbours which they deemed to be necessary could be constructed at a cost of £2,365,000 ; a large sum certainly, but ho did not ask the house to vote that amount at present, but he asked that the Government would, at the earliest possible moment, say they would commence these great national works. It would' take ten years to complete, these works, but all he wished was, that the Government should be pledged to make a commencement at the earliest possible period. It might be said there was no good in an abstract resolution; but was not an abstract resolution come to to' give up the paper duties, which was asking the house ix effect to give up a million and a quarter sterling for evert That was a far less important resolution than the one he now proposed. We were essentially a maritime people, and our great strength must ever be upon the waters. It was upon the seas that we must look for our chief defence, and it was for that reason he asked the house to agree to this resolution. The land defences, he thought, were com paratively of less importance than the wooden walls of Old England. There was no end to land defences. They might begin, but it was impossible to draw aline as to where they should cud, for if the enemy were to land, it would not likely be at any spot entirely commanded by our guns. He thanked the, house for the attention it had accorded him, which in itself was an indication of the importance of the subject. (Hear, hear.) Mr. FARRER seconded the motion, which he consi dered of national importance. On the morning after the last great storm there were 36 vessels wrecked within ten miles of Hartlepool, and three vessels were lost with all their crews, involving a frightful loss of life, which would not have occurred had there been proper harbours of refuge. He hoped the Government would apply themselves to those Farts of the coast which required immediate attention, so that more ample means would be provided for the preser vation of human life. The hon. member referred to the Shipping Gazette for the details of the loss of the vessels and property last year, which it appeared was very great. He was most anxious and felt most deeply on the sub- ject, and earnestly urged its importance on the Govern ment. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BAXTER hoped the Government were not prepared to give a hasty assent to this motion,which involved the ex penditure of two millions sterling, and in the opinion of some persons a very much larger sum. There were very serious , reasons why the house should pause. The re port of the committee had been referred to, but the selec tion of that committee was most unfortunate, for they were representatives of seaport towns which had a direct inte rest in the expenditure of money. The annual ave rage loss of life by shipwreck was estimated at 780, and the loss of property from the same causo was 1,500,000. But he thought it very problematical whether if the means recommended by the commissioners were carried out, there would be any very material saving in either. He did not mean to say that the construc tion of new harbours would be useless; but they them selves looked much to the improvement of existing har bours. 111-found and unseaworthy ships caused greater loss of life than heavy gales. This was the opinion of the commissioners. Of 1,700 voyages made in 15 years by ves sels belonging to a Glasgow company, there were only 13 shipwrecks. This was owing to the good quality of the vessels. The commissioners were also of opinion, that it was better to repair and improve existing harbours, which might be done at a small cost, than to lay out large sums in the construction of a few small harbours. It was re commended that £200,000 should be expended on the har bour of Wick, and £300,000 on Peterhead, and that one half of the former and one •third of the latter should be paid out of the Treasury. This was a preposterous proposal. But equally extravagant was the recommendation to spend £250,000 on the Tyne, and £400,000 on the harbour of St. Ives, in Cornwall. They were also asked to spend £500,000 at Hartlepool, and £890,000 at File Bay. He hoped the house would not sanction such an expenditure. He felt deeply convinced that if the house permitted it they would never see the end of extravagant outlays on harbours of refuge. He would conclude by moving the previous question. The resolution was supported by Captain Talbot, Sir H. Verney, Mr. Beecroft, Mr. H. D. S ..ymour, Mr. H. Taylor, and Mr. Kendall. Mr. A. SMITH cautioned the house against the delusion that the proposed works could prevent more than a small proportion of wrecks, unless the coast was studded with harbours of refuge. He supported the previous question. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that no man could deny the extreme interest of this question, and the great extent to which it effected the welfare of the country. It was the duty of the Government to have made up its mind on the subject. He was surprised to see the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Milner Gibson) sitting silent on the opposite benches, apparently having no opinion on the subject—(a laugh)—and seeming to wait to see if means could be found to oppose this motion. He (Sir John Pakington) felt the importance of the argu ments used in the report of the committee in favour of the appointment of the commission, and he lost no time in ap pointing that commission, at the head of which was Ad miral Hope, who had lost his life inthe service of his coun try. The commission had done their duty, but the present Government had not indicated their opinion. The house were entitled to some distinct expression of opinion on this important subject. He could not see by the arguments used the amendment could be supported. The argument that the finances of the country would not bear the pro posed expenditure, was a bad one. If we could take the duties off foreign wines and silks, we surely could afford to lay out £250,000 to save the lives and properties of our fel low-subjects. (Hear, hear.) If the Chancellor of the Ex chequer could afford to remit the paper duties—which hap pily had been saved by another branch of the legislature— it would nearly defray all the expenses of the proposed harbours. (Hear.) The foreign trade at Swansea in 1843 was only 60,000 tons, in 1857 it was 260,000 tons. The mer cantile shipping in our ports in 1843 amounted to 7,181,000 tons, and in 1857 it rose to 13,964,000 tons, while the foreign tonnage rose from 2,143,000 in 1813 to 9,984,000 in 1867. The general increase between these two periods was about 136 per cent. These facts showed the great importance of providing harbours of refuge. Now, what were the disas trous facts to which the hon. gentleman called their atten tion ? The average amount of casualties exceeded 1,000, two-fifths of which were a total loss—about 800 lives and a loss of £1,500,000 per annum. The hon. member for Mon trose said these would not all be safe if we had the pro • posed harbours of refuge. That might be, but in this estimate fishermen were not included. He never heard anything more shocking than what appeared in the papers it fortnight ago, thousands of persons on shore witnessed vessel after vessel go down, all of which might be saved if we had proper har bours of refuge. (Hear, hear) Holyhead, Portland, and other harbours were crowded with ships during stormy weather, vessels which put in to these harbours for no other purpose than to obtain shelter. It was impossible to esti mate how much had been saved by the harbours we had or how much might be saved by the harbours that should be constructed. He therefore entreated the Government to give their attention to this subject, believing, as he did, that the money they wished recklessly to throw away would provide all that was required. (Hear.), Mr. M. GIBSON said the right hon. baronet (Sir J Pakington) had fallen into an error in charging the Go vernment with indifference to the importance of this ques tion. But the Government had not only to consider the propriety of providing harbours of refuge on parts of the coast now deficient of any shelter, but also the propriety of placing this resolution of the hon. member for Sunderland on the minutes of the house with a view to influence its fu ture deliberations and decision. In expatiating on the great evils arising from the absence of harbours of refuge, the right hon. bart. mentioned the. Mumbles, in the Bristol Channel, and also referred to the great loss of life of fisher men near Yarmouth. But if he bound himself to this re solution he would find that the report of the commission would give him no assistance, for that report distinctly re jected the Mumbles scheme. While they were asked to pledge themselves to do certain things, it should be re membered that the recommendations of the commissioners had not yet been considered or discussed. It might be very well to bring forward an abs ract proposition, but if the Government adopted the resolution of the hoe, member for Sunderland, they would bind themselves to carry out as speedily as they could the views contained in the report of the commissioners. The mode in which the necessary money should be raised had yet also to be considered. Some had proposed to defray the expense by passing tolls, but there was at present a bill before the house to abolish the passing tolls in the harbour of Rams. ,gate, because of the hardship which these tolls entailed upon shipping. It was remarkable that not one ship owner had come forward with a proposal to bear a por tion of the expense of providing harbours of refuge. Ap plications for their establishment had come from persons living in the vicinity whose interest would be promoted in consequence. Ho would then ask the right hon. baronet whether they were in a position at present to say what amount should be expended, and where these harbours should be established. The proposal made was, that about two millions should be given by Government and that three-fourths of the interest should be paid by levying passing tolls. That was the recommendation of the com mittee, but the commissioners recommended that four millions should be raised. But if Government agreed to the resolution it was to be remembered that the estimates had not yet been considered. (Hear, hear.) They all knew that these estimates were generally greatly increased, and they might find that the proposed four millions would be increased to six millions before the proposed works could be carried out. He could say, on the part of the Government, that they greatly regretted the loss of life which had re cently occurred, hut it was to be feared that the advantages to be derived from these harbours of refuge would not be to the extent anticipated. The right hon. gentleman then quoted some statistics to show the correctness of that sup position. and at that moment, he said, in the south of England, where there were fine natural harbours—better than any harbours of refuge which could be constructed— there had been great destruction of life and property. It was, no doubt, the duty of this great maritime country to provide every security they could against the loss of life and property ; but the mode of doing so required very careful consideration. A bill had been prepared for the improve ment of piers and harbours, which would have a very bene ficial tendency in a general sense. It was most important to improve the entrances to harbours, which would give more facilities to vessels getting in and avoiding the stress of weather. The bill he had referred to would make pro vision for such improvement. That bill he should be glad .to induce the house to proceed with as soon as possible, and the Government would give their best attention to the sub ject. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. Smith, Mr. Liddell, Sir J. Johnstone, Mr. Paul and Sir M. Peto spoke in favour of the object of the resolu• tion. Mr. BENTINCK condemned severely the expenditure upon the works at Dover and Alderney, upon which, he said, more money had. been wasted than would have sufficed to construct several harbours of refuge. After some remarks by Mr. Blake and Sir J. Elphinstone in support of the resolution, Lord PALMERSTON—I can assure the house that we are as sensible as any one who have spoken of the vast im portance of the matter now under consideration. (Hear.) It is impossible for any one to have gone through the reports of the committee and the commission, and to have seen the vast amount of valuable life and property which are annu ally lost by shipwrecks on the coast without being convinced of the absolute necessity of taking measures to provide hal , . bours of refuge for the protection of shipping. Therefore, if we object to the motion of my hon. friend, it is not in the slightest degree from any indifference upon the subject, nor from our not having made up our minds upon the matter, nor from the motives which have been imputed to my right honourable friend, that he wished to evade or shirk the question altogether; but the reason we object to it is because it pledges the house blindfold to the whole of the recommendations of the commission, to which recommen dations the present debate has shown that even those who are prepared to vote for the motion are not prepared to give an unqualified assent. Wick is one of the points that have been adverted to. Now, is everybody agreed chat Wick is a case where a great outlay should be made ? The hon. member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) says that Wick is not a place for a national harbour. Another hon. gentleman has told us that a harbour at Wick may be useful for local purposes, but not for national uses. One hon. gentleman says that there is no need for harbours on the south coast of England, while another hon. member says there is the greatest need of harbours between the Foreland and Ports mouth. There is great diversity of opinion as to the diffe rent harbours, but my hon. friend who makes this motion calls upon the house, without consideration, without goinr , ofl I a h into details, to p led g e the Governme nt to adopt the recom mendations of the commissioners in their enti re t y. There wa s great difference bocathloti ea . o f commissionospai Some a o amongnaw eree d t ihnot favourhecommitteewitnesses a in o l r n ead y r l Filey, and some for other poi My right hon. te friendseoxarat Trade f the President of the B oar d of ;adehas told i house that the Government have a measure prepared upon this subject, That measure might be brought in d uring • the e present session if the other business before the house did not seem to make it impossible to hope that it might be carried into law before the prorogation ; but we are prepared to assure the house that in the next session this matter will assume a shape in which the house will be called upon to take it practically into consideration. (Hear, hear.) I will net follow the hon. member for Norfolk into what he has said about Alderney, but he has admitted that all those who have successively occupied the Treasury benches, and who from their official sources of informadon may be supposed to know more about the subject than hon. members not pos sessed of that information, have been of opinion that Alderney was a proper place to form a harbour. The Duke of Wellington, who may be considered a competent judge, attached the greatest importance to Alderney in conneotion with Portland. I can assure the house that this subject has occupied the attention of the Government. It is suffi cient to know that a great number of our most valuable seamen are annually sacrificed to storms and disasters, some of whom might have been preserved were these harbours of refuge on the coasts. (Hear, hear.) But at the same time I can't help suspecting that a cer t a i n p ro p or ti on o f th ose calamities aro traceable to ships being sent to sea insuffi ciently manned, or not properly found, and not in a condi tion to take the sea; and if on the one hand the Govern ment is urged to take measures by providing at the public expense .harbours of refuge, on the other hand I hope the owners of ships will feel the deep responsibility which rests upon them if, in order to avoid expense, they send ships to sea in a state not fit to cope with the difficulties which may arise. I hope the house will not commit themselves to this sweeping resolution, but will be satisfied with the assurance of the Government that this matter has received and is re ceiving our serious consideration, and that undoubtedly it will be our duty in the next session to bring it before the house in s^me practical shape. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LINDSAY briefly replied. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the hon. member having replied it was not his intention to detain the house—(divide, divide)—but there were one or two points on which it appeared to him to be abso lutely necessary to set the house tight. If the house divided upon the speech of the hon. member, it would be upon a very different point from that which was contained in the motion. The speech of the hon. member was in favour of carrying out the recommendations of the committee of 1868, whereas the ihotion of the hon. gentleman urged the house to carry out the recommendations of the commission subsequently appointed. These recommendations involved an absolute expenditure of the public money to the extent of £1,000,000 in the creation of harbours of refuge, while the proposals of the committee would only have required £2,500,000, and that to be partly met in other ways. The lion member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) was going to vote fur the motion, though he was opposed to the formation of a harbour at Wick, which was one of the recommendations of the commission. (Oh, oh, and Divide.) It was right that he should place these facts before the house, because he thought it would be wrong for it to commit itself to the terms of a motion which would bind the Government to carry out the recommendations as to the creation of harbours of refuge in places upon which there was the greatest pos sible difference of opinion, as well as to the sources from which the money was to come. He would say nothing then as to the charges of insincerity which had been brought against the Government on this subject, because &her op portunities would arise which would enable him to show that they were altogether unfounded. The house then divided— Fo • the previous question .. 128 Against it Majority • —l7 The motion was then put and agreed to amidst cheers. DIPLOMATIC SERVICE. Mr. DUFF moved for a select committee to inquire into the present condition of the diplomatic service, and the best means of increasing its efficiency, suggesting the points to which he wished the inquiry to be directed. Lord J. RUSSELL acknowledged that the hon. mem ber had not made a personal attack upon any of the gen tlemen who were engaged in the diplomatic service, but the fact which he had statel—that there was no reason for finding fault with the diplomatic service—could hardly be used as an argument for appointing a committee of inquiry. He believed that the proposed committee would produce little or no result. The questions which the hon. member had mooted were not questions to be examined by a committee, although they might from time to time occupy the attention of the Executive Government For example, there was no great number of persons who applied for the post of attache,which, indeed, was not one that would gene rally be an object of great competition, and consequently nothing would be gained by making it the subject of a com petitive examination. Again, the hon. member thought that more attention should be paid to the Roman law ; but, without going into that matter at the present time, it might be said that there were other things required in our diplo matic service of much more importance than the knowledge of the Roman law, and, generally speaking, our diplomatic servants obtained that information which it was necessary their Government should possess, and inspired that confi dence which it was desirable that Englishmen represent icg their country abroad should enjoy. Nor was the ques tion whether the Persian mission should be under the Foreign or the Indian office worth the consideration of a committee. It was one which might be decided either way without any great risk of harm being done. The fact that no committee had ever been appointed on the diplomatic service was a great compliment to that service. If things were going wrong let a cemmittee be appointed to inquire and report; but if, as the hon. member had stated, there was no fault to be found with the diplomatic service, why put gentlemen to the trouble of attending a committee? He hoped the house would reject the motion. Mr. KINNAIRD said that, as a member of the Consu lar Committee, he could assure the house that upon exami nation the service was found to be infinitely more effective than they were led to suppose from the attacks which had been made upon it. (Hear, hear.) Although the speech of his hon. friend showed great research, he recommended the withdrawal of the motion. Mr. DUFF said he should take the earliest opportunity next session of bringing the matter more fully before the house. The motion was then withdrawn. Mr. SPOONER obtained leave to bring in a bill for re gulating the business of dealers in marine stores. Mr. DEASY moved for leave to bring in a bill for grant ing to her Majesty certain duties on wine licenses and re freshment houses, and for regulating the licensing of re freshment houses and the granting of wine licenses in. Ireland. Mr. HENNESSY moved the adjournment of the de bate; but the motion was negatived, and leave was given to introduce the bill. Mr. LOWE moved fora select committee to inquire and report what buildings are necessary for the South Ken sington Museum. Mr. JOHN LOCKE thought the wording of the motion ought to be altered, and that the question referred to the committee should be whether the Museum should not be done away with altogether. Mr. DILLIVYN moved that the debate be adjourned; but, after some discussion, this motion was withdrawn, and the original motion, modified in its terms, was agreed to. The orders of the day having been disposed of, the house adjourned at half-past 1 o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERPOOL -JUNE 19. We had a small attendance at to-day's market, and a fair consumptive demand for wheat and flour at generally last week's rates. Oats and oatmeal were quiet at late rates. Beans, peas, and barley in fair request. Indian corn sold at rather less money. SHEFFIELD-JUNE 19.' There was a fair supply of wheat, and farmers asked an advance, which was not conceded. A moderate business was done. Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...22s 0(1 to 23s NI White f) f, ...23s Od t o 25 s Od New red If ~ ...175 Od to 185 Od New white If ~ ...18s Od to 195 6d Beans /, ,' • ..19s Od to 21 5 Od Peas, per qr Grindmg barley, per qr . 335 Od to 36s Od Malting ditto, )) 3Bs Od to 43s Od Oats 2Bs Od to 33s Od Millers' prices for flour—ls 11d, 2s ld, and 2s 3d per 141 b. LEEDS—JurtE 19. Fine fresh new wheats must be quoted slightly cheaper than last Tuesday,. but the demand is limit e d. All o th er descr i p ti o ns of grain mainthiu their value. BIRTHS. ANTROBUS.—On the 18th inst., at 40, Lowndes-street, Mrs Lindsay Antrobus, of a son. GRAVES.—On the 18th inst., at Hastings, the Hon. Mrs. Adolphus Graves, of a son. KYNNAIRD.—On the 3d ult., at Rome, the Viscountess Kynnaird (Marchioness Bandini Giustiniani), of a son and heir. MARRIAGES. CHARSLEY—Fox.—On the 14th inst., at Plympton Saint Mary, Wm. H. Charsley, Esq., M.A., Ch. Ch., to Eliza Mary, youngest daughter of the late Thomas Were Fox, Esq., of Hoe House, Plymouth. M‘CHRISTIE—NOWELL.—On the 16th inst., at the Holy Trinity, Islington, W. H. M'Christie, Esq., of 37, Great James-street, Bedford-row, eldest son of T. Y. M'Chris tie, Esq., Revising Barrister for the City of London, to Annie, only daughter of R. Nowell, Esq., of 1, Stone field-terrace, Barnsbury. DEATHS. BOSWELIp—On the 18th inst , at the East Indian Chap laincy, Poplar, the Rev. R. B. Boswell. GLYN.—On the 17th inst., at 12, Orsett-terrace, Hyde park, the Rev. Thomas C. Glyn, of Durrington. House, Essex, aged 71. - GRANTIiArI.—On the 18th inst., at 13, Campclen• gTove, Kensington, Major-General Grantham, late of the Royal Artillery, aged 73. _ _ HARVEY.—On the 18th inst., at Mousehold House, near Norwich, General Sir R. J. Harvey, C. 8., K.T.S., &c., aged 75. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, In the county of Iliddleoer, , Wednesday, June 20, 1860. vril an( bri an( on me and T Ha' par Mil 13 an t( 01114 Job Ed` C. F. Sir Bei Wil Ble( The Ale Fre Cha fly Rol Wn Jas tici par I flea een