The Sun. — London, England, 1860-04-28 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 Manchester Improvement, the Lower King's Ferry Road, and Cheshire Midland Railway bills were read a second time. The Mirfield Gas Bill was read a third time and passed. CHURCH RATES. Lord RAVENSWORTH presented a petition against the unconditional abolition of Church-rates. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY presented a petition from the Macclesfield branch of the Independent Order of Odd-Fellows, praying for the amendment of the law regu lating benefit societies. THE DIOCESE OF DURHAM. Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition from Dar lington complaining of the large amount of revenue ab stracted from the diocese of Durham, while little or no regard had been paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the spiritual wants arising from the vast increase of its population. The petitioners prayed that such measures might be taken as should insure in future a recognition of its just and manifest demands. The Bishop of CARLISLE did not think that any injustice had been done to the diocese of Durham. While their lordships had heard that large sums had been taken from Durham, not one word had been said about the amount that had been left after the deductions had been made. In his diocese there were 120 livings under £lOO a year, and although the population was smaller than that of Durham, yet in amount of acreage it far ex ceeded it, as the diocese of Carlisle extended over 64 square miles. Distributing a portion of the large revenues of such sees as Durham among ill-paid clergymen was, in his opinion, highly praiseworthy. Earl GREY had heard the remarks of the right rev. prelate with much regret. The Ecclesiastical Commis sioners had been withdrawing revenues which had only been made considerable by the exertions of certain populations, who were thus deprived of the benefits they had earned, and he considered the principle exercised with regard to _ _ Durham was one of injustice. Lord RAVENSWORTH felt great pleasure in concur ring with the noble earl who had just sat down. He con sidered the diocese of Durham had been very harshly dealt with both by Parliament and the Ecclesiastical Commis sioners, and he hoped in a short time an alteration of the system would be forced upon the Legislature. The Earl of CHICHESTER defended the acts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The petition was then laid on the table. CHARITABLE USES BILL. Lord CRANWORTH, in moving the second reading of this bill, said it was a measure for the purpose of amend ing the Mortmain Act. Lord ABINGER, who spoke in a rather inaudible tone of voice, and who was not continuously heard in the gal l I,ery, moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months, and warned their lordships that if they passed the bill they would be completely legislating in the dark, and rendering the law of mortmain wholly impracticable. Lord WENSLEYDALE thought the best course they could adopt would be to read the bill a second time, and then refer it to a select committee. The amendment was agreed to without a division. ' TRUSTEES AND MORTGAGES BILL. This bill was read a second time. MARRIAGES (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BILL. This bill passed through committee. DIVORCE COURT BILL. On the report of this bill being brought up, Lord REDESDALE proposed to add to the first clause of the bill a proviso giving power to the judge of the Divorce Court, in a case where the husband knew that his wife was unchaste before marriage, to exercise his discre tion as to whether he should grant a divorce or not. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the object of the bill before their lordships was not to alter the law, but to im prove the mode of procedure of the Divorce Court. He did net at all agree in the propossl made by the noble lord. After a few words from Lord REDESDALE, The proviso was rejected without a division. The report was then agreed to. OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL. The bill was read a third time and passed. INCLOSURE BILL. This bill was also read a third time and passed. Their lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Marple New Mills and Hayfield Junction Railway Bill, and Stockport and Woodley Juncticin Railway Bill were considered, and ordered for third reading. The Horsham and Steyning and Beeding Roads Bill, and Wellington Suspension Bridge Bill were read a third time. ' Mr. GREGSON moved that the order of the 20th day of February last, that the Westminster Improvement Bill be committed, be read and discharged :—That the bill be withdrawn.—Agreed to. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the alteration in the poor law for Ireland; against the unconditional aboli tion of church rates; against the wine licen.es bill; from the West Riding of Yorkshire against any division for electoral purposes of that riding ; in favour of legalising marriages with a deco tsed wife's sister ; against and in favour of the Reform Bill; against the Highways Bill; from Salford, approving of the determination of the Government not to send the Reform Bill to a Select Com mittee, and praying for an additional member for that borough ; in favour of reducing the franchise lower than £6. STALEYBRIDGE AND DUKINFIELD. Mr. W. EGERTON moved for returns of the number of persons rated to the poor at £lO and upwards, and £6 and upwards, in the district within the police boundary of the town of Stalybridge, and named in schedule B of the Repte sentation of the People Bill, including part of the parish of Ashton-under-Lyne, in Lancashire, and parts of the town ships of Staley and Dukinfield, in Cheshire ; and, of the number of persons rated to the poor at £lO and upwards, and £6 and upwards, in the township of Dukinfield, so far as the same is not comprised within those limits.—Ordered. LOCAL METROPOLITAN MANAGEMENT. Mr. TITE gave notice that he would move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the management of the metropolis. THE REFORM BILL. Mr. STUART gave notice of a motion to the effect that in any extension of the franchise it should include persons possessed of intelligence and education, as well as those paying a certain amount of rent. OFFICE OF CORONER. Mr. COBBETT asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was his intention to propose to Parliament any measure to carry into effect the recom mendations of the Select Committee on the Office of Coroner. Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he was prepared to adopt certain amendments recommended by the committee, to which the bill on this subject had been referred, but he could not agree to the chief recommendation, namely, the adoption of payment by salary to coroners. TOLL GATES, In reply to Mr. INGRam, Sir- G. C. LEWIS said that the notice in question had been duly given and could not form any subject for public animadversion. He thought it desirable that some of the toll-gates near the metropolis should be abolished; but in the state of public business he was not prepared to bring in a bill on the subject• this session. TRADE IN COOLIES. Mr. BUXTON asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps the Government were taking to stop the slave trade In coolies between China and Cuba ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that the trade alluded 'to was carried on with great secrecy ; but steps were being taken by the allied Powers to suppress such a nefarious traffic. BRIDGE OVER THE NORE. Mr. SULLIVAN asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been directed to the two reports of Capt. Tyler as to the state of security of the Lattice Bridge over the Noro near' Thomas Town, county Killconny, and whether he was disposed to' enforce the adoption of the recommendation of the Government engi neer without delay. Mr. M. GIBSON acid that the Board of Trade had no power t' enforce the i•ecornmendation of the Government engineer ; but a communication had been received from the company stating thai they were ready to carry out the suggestions of Captain Tyler. Mr. KINNAIRD asked the Smietary of State for India, whether he had received any official notice of the origin and causes of the late disturbances among the ryots in Lower Bengal. Sir C. WOOD said that he was not in a position to afford any official information on the subject. GAS. In reply to Mr. l' Y:1 Mr. M. GIBSON said that the Board of Trade were not responsible for the act on the subject of gas, which had been passed by Parliament. All that the Board of Trade had to do with the matter was that when they had been written to by the Treasury to know whether the act was practicable, and having conferred witlrthe Astronomer Royal, they returned an answer in the affirmative. The Board of Trade could not give any legal explanatio n et the clauses of the act. ASSESSMENT TO TIIE POOR. Sir M. FARQUHAR ashed the President of the Poor Law Board, whether, in obtaining returns of male persons resident within each Parliamentary city and borough in England and Wales, 'or within seven miles thereof, assessed tnthe last poor-rate r_-.ade before the 7th Nov,, 1859, a t £6, £7, £B, £9, arid f.elO and over, instructions were not issued for returns, mid returns made, of malcoccupiers at £5 and under £6 ;" and, if so, why such information was not given hi the return of male Occupiers, No. 124, of the pre sent session. He contended that - the returns on which the Reform Bill 'was based as regarded rating were not accu rate. The rated rental: did not .represent the actual rent, which in;rnany was a third doter as in the case of Windsor. Mr.tatlEßS said" thitt the instructions alluded to bid been issued and exten•led to all occupiers. These returns were not made to the house, but procured solely for the information of the Government prior to introducing the Reform Bill, and when Government decided on a £6 franchise it was not thoug t necessary to bring forward any information rel t ive to any amount of rental besides that specifiel. However, it had been moved for and would be laid o a the table. There was not the slightest reason for alleging y inaccuracy in the returns, and when they were impugned they had been inquired into and found quite correct. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he did not deny the ac curacy of these returns, so far as being correct with the rate books ; but ho complained that they made an erroneous impression in the house. Did the hon. member (Mr. Vil liers) mean that these were merely correctly copied from the rate-books ? Mr. VILIAERS—Yes. Sir J. FAKING TON—Then, a correct answer had not been given to the question asked on the subject. He had re ceived ' communications from different parts of the country corroborating his (Sir J. Pakington's) statement. The writers said the returns afforded no information whatever relative to the affect on the franchise. He had also received a letter from a re vising barrister, which not being stated to be confidential, he would communicate the contents to the house. The writer said he revised three of the most important boroughs in Staf ford, and that the Home Secretary was in error, in. sayingthat these returns represented the real value of rental. In some eases the rental was described as 410, while it fell short of £6. After a few remarks from Lord STANLEY and Mr. HEN LEY, Mr. PAGET said that in reference to Nottingham in a great. number of cases the gross estimated rental accurately represented the real rental, and the effect of the £6 fran chise would be to increase the constituency of Nottingham to the same extent that was described by the returns. Mr. J. EWART also bore testimony to the correctness of the returns, as giving a fair representation of the increase that would result to constituenciee. Mr. WALroLE and Sir S. ESTCOURT argued on the other side. Mr. BRIGHT said that he agreed with hon. members who considered information should be afforded with respect to those paying a rental of £5, which would show what a vast amount would be excluded from the franchise by the Reform Bill. (Laughter.) In the borough which he represented he saw the instructions that had been sent by the President of the Poor Law Board, and he referred them to a gentleman better acquainted with those matters, and he stated that nothing could be devised in a more comprehensive spirit, or more likely to realise a correct result. That borough contained hundreds and thousands of parisbes, and he made similar inquiries in reference to Birmingham, Manchester, and Sal ford, and his information was similar. He did not deny that it was probable that in certain cases from want of intelli gence the parties to whom these instructions were entrusted might not have been accurate in their returns. Ho contended that hon. members opposite were not pursuing a fair course towards the Government in this matter. Sir M. FARQUHAR explained that he had asked the question in ne hostile spirit to the Government, and that his sole object was to get information. (Hear.) Mr. KENDALL was informed that, in the borough of Bodmin, which he had the honour to represent, the differ ence between the gross and actual rental of houses varied from 30 to 35 per pent. He believed that a Reform Bill founded on the present returns would be a complete failure. THE REGISTRATION UNDER THE BILL. Mr. E. JAMES, in putting the question which stood in his name on the paper, wished to observe that, as regarded the returns, a great deal of assertion had been made on one side and the other ; but he would repeat what he stated on a former occasion, that no one could impugn the intentions of the Government in having them made out—(hear)—or their accuracy, so far as they purported to go. He believed, however, that the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was incorrect when he stated the addition to the number of electors under this bill as amounting to 150,000. Lord J. RUSSELL-190,000. Mr. E. JAMES—WeII, 190,000. That question, how ever, must soon be decided one way or another, for it was impossible that such discrepancies could exist as those stated by the two members for Liverpool, one of whom said the constituency of that town would be increased under the bill by 20,000, and another by 30,000. The question which he wished to asked of the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or more properly perhaps the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, was whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure to provide for the registration for this year of persons who may become entitled to vote in the event of the Representation of the People Bill being passed into law during the present session of Parliament ? Sir G. C. LEWIS in reply, stated that when the house should be pleased to go into committee on the bill, all these questions must be answered. The present was not a proper time to do so, but in answer to his hon. and learned friend the member for Marylebone, he should say that the clauses he referred to wore net the result of oversight, but according to the deliberate intentions of the Government, provided the bill should pass this year. His hon. and learned friend referred to the bill brought in last year by the right hon. gentleman opposite, as containing a machinery for the registration of new voters.- - " But that was necessary, because the measure introduced new and peculiar franchises which could not be dealt with under the existing law. But this bill proposed no such changes. All it did propose to do was to extend the present franchise, and the existing system of registration would therefore be applicable. If it should happen that when the bill passed it would be too late for the new constituencies to register, they would then consider the best course to pursue. As to the question of the hon. member as to unreported criminal cases, the change was thought necessary, in order to diminish unnecessary ex penses. With respect to the statement made by the right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich with respect to the persons appointed to collect returns in the electoral dis tricts, he was very glad to find that both sides of the house agreed that her Majesty's Government had acted with sin cerity. The inquiries began last autumn, and a barrister was employed to make inquiries in a certain number of boroughs, in the hope that they would form precedents for the whole country. Mr. Vernon W. Harcourt, who under took the task, reported that such a course would be ex tremely difficult, and that a partial inquiry into a limited number of boroughs would not be satisfactory. That plan was, therefore, discarded, anctinstructions sent by the Poor law Board to make out these returns in all parts of the kingdom. i Mr. S. HERBERT, in reply to several questions, said it was perfectly true that the order had been given for the wives. and children of the soldiers of the 67th regiment to be sent back from India, but it was given under these circumstances. At the time the women and children went out to India to join their friends they were not aware that the 67th was going to China, and consequently there was no reason why they should not go out. As soon as they were informed, however, that the 67th was going to China, they ordered the women and children to be sent back. Since then, however, it had been determined that the 67th should not proceed to China, and immediately upon that being settled he had telegraphed again to India, countermanding the order originally sent out. Ife could only say he hoped that telegram would arrive in sufficient time to prevent the embarkation of those families on their re turn voyaze, after the fatigues they had sustained. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant officer (Col. Lindsay) he could only say that he had stated the circum stances very clearly, but he must remind him that the Royal Commissions were called upon to decide the question sub mitted to them quite generally, and without reference to particular cases. The officers to wh om h e a ll u d ed were most meritorious, and he should be extremely glad to bo able to carry out their wish of being placed in the numerical posi tion which they held on their first attaining the rank of colonel, but to do that would require the antedating of two commissions, a proceeding - which would be attended with extreme military inconvenience. He admitted and regretted the hardship, and would assure the hon. and gallant officer that if he could devise any plan for remedying it, he would submit it to the Commander-in -Chief. With respect to the question put by another hon. And gallant gentleman oppo site (Col. Dickson) relative to the organisation of the militia, ho had to state that circulars had been issued with a view to prevent any man being taken whose residence and cha racter were unknown. He did not deny that a great hard ship existed, to which the hon. and gallant gentleman had called attention, with reffence to militia officers serving in Ireland.' The recommendation of the militia commission was calculated to remedy the grievance, and he admitted that the case was of a nature to deserve its applica tion. The recommendation was that in cases where soldiers were billeted the officers should receive lodging money if the colonel reported the quarters to be incon venient. His only reason for not acting upon the recom mendation was, that the military expenditure of the country was so great that he was prevented from carrying out, that and other arrangements which he would gladly make for the benefit and convenience of the service. (Hear, hear.) Sir C. WOOD, with reference to the question put to him earlier in the evening by the hon. member for Hereford shire, as to the alleged misconduct of certain Indian cadets on their way through Egypt, said that there was unfortu nately too much foundation for the report, which was upon the whole correct, as appeared from an official report which had been received from the consul-general. The facts which had come to his knowledge, and which coincided in ell es sential particulars with the facts already published, ap • peered to be these :—A party of 25 or 30 cadets, after hav ing dined, went to the citadel, and behaved so viblently that they intruded themselves into the mosque during the .per • formance of worship, and placed themselves in that portion of the edifice which was set apart for the use of the Viceroy and his family, when they began to mimicand ridicule the religious ceremonies which were going on. This conduct naturally roused the indignation of the devotees; but, never theless, the Viceroy showed the greatest kindness in his efforts to screen them from the just indignation of the people of Cairo, (Hear.) The consul, who acted most properly throughout all this affair, immediately waited upon the,Vice:- roy to apologise for what had taken place, and his 'apology was at once and most kindly received. With respect to the passengers nothing particular had been asceetaine l ti in Con:. nexion with this matter, and they had no certain informa tion as to whether they were concerned in this misconduct, except that two ladies were also implicated. It was right, too, that he should observe that it was only by inference that the offenders were taken to be Indian officers. As the mail went out yesterday he had an opportunity of sending directions on the subject. He . wrote to the Governments of Madras and Calcutta directing them to inquire into and re port upon all the circumstances, and those who had thus grossly misbehaved themselves would be called upon to account for their conduct. (Cheers.) With regard to the future prevention of such occurrences, he had taken mea sures for procuring the immediate arrest of such offenders. (Hear.) That would, of course, apply equally to all British subjects in Egypt. Col. SYKES observed That the reported facts were so unlike the uniform good conduct of cadets abroad that he still thought there must be a mistake somewhere, and hoped the house would suspend its judgment till more exact par ticulars were received. THE ANNEXATION OF SAVOY. Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as stated lately in the public prints, M. Thouvenel had informed the representatives of those Powers who signed the treaties of Vienna, that, as soon as the cession of Savoy shall have been sanctioned by the " universal suffrage of the inhabitants," and ratified by the vote of the Sardinian Parliament, France would take possession of those provinces, submitting only subsequently a limited part of the question to the consideration of the proposed Conference ; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State intended to consent to the taking possession by France of the neutralised provinces of Savoy, until a Conference, or Congress, or other joint diplomatic action shall have pre viously determined on the whole question of the manner in which due consideration for the independence of Switzer land requires that the provinces placed in a state of pecu liar and exceptionable neutralisation by repeated treaties should be ultimately disposed of. He did not impute blame in the matter to the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs or to the Government; but he must say that it ap peared to him that the expectations in connection with it which the noble lord had held out to the house had, up to this point, in every respect, been disappointed. Notwith standing that all alongthe house" had shown a disposition to place confidence in the noble lord in dealing with the ques tion, the hopes in -which he had indulged from time to time as to a satisfactory settlement of it remained entirely un fulfilled. Adverting to the manner in which the subject of the annexation had been put to the popular vote, Mr Griffith said it was not to be expected that in the smaller towns of the country, where French cafes and gambling-houses abounded, the inhabitants could be otherwise than favourable to a union with France. If these two valleys running down to the Lake of Geneva were be taken possession of by France, the aggression could not be too much reprobated. France was entering on a course of history that would lead it to the Lake of Geneva, and, if it once got there, that lake would be visited by French gun boats in less than three months, and Geneva would be cut off from the rest of Switzerland. (Hear, hear.) If our al liance with France was worth anything, it should be an al liance that would give us influence with France on such questions as these; but if it meant nothing more than sub mission to that Power, we were better without the alliance. (Hear, hear.) There had been two joint expeditions with France against China ; but if such expeditions are made use of by France only as a school for her navy, and as a means of learning our naval tactics, the fewer we have of them the better. (Hear.) He had been struck with an observation made in the Prussian Chambers, by the deputy for the city of Berlin, when speaking of the position of Prussia and the other. European Powers with reference to the Savoy ques. tion. After referring to Russia as engaged at home, and Austria as meditating vengeance on Italy, perhaps on Ger many, he said England had almost made up her mind to sell her birthright for a mess of pottage in the shape of a treaty of commerce. (Hear, hear.) If this question was to be redeemed from the sphere of excellently written de spatches, and debates in that house, England must take a higher stand than she had hitherto done, otherwise she would become a mockery to every country in Europe. What ho wanted to know was whether, as stated lately in the public prints, M. Thouvenel had informed the representa tives of those Powers who signed the Treaties of Vienna, that, as soon as the cession of Savoy should have been sanctioned by the "universal suffrage of the inhabitants," and ratified by the vote of the Sardinian Parliament, France would take possession of those provinces, submit ting only subsequently a limited part of the question to the consideration of the proposed conference; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State intended to consent to the taking possession by France of the neutralised provinces of Savoy, until a conference or congress, or other joint diplo matic action, shall have previously determined on the whole question of the manner in which due consideration for the independence of Switzerland requires that the provinces placed in a state of peculiar and exceptionable neutralisa tion by repeated treaties should be ultimately disposed of. Mr. S. FITZGERALD thought this was far toe import ant a question to be discussed in this desultory manner, but he wished to put a question to the noble lord on the subject. He wished to know whether the house was to understand that it had been finally determined that this question should be referred to a congress of the great Powers ? Further, whether it had been arranged what Powers were to be par , ties to that congress, and whether it was correct that France had made a proposition to the effect that the question to be referred to the congress should merely be what measures should be adopted to secure neutralisation of these provinces in future, and that no question should be raised which would lead, in a French point of view, to the dismemberment of Savoy ? Also, whether France had made any express re assertion that she would not permit any portion of Savoy to be annexed to Switzerland ? BRITISH GRAVES IN THE CRIMEA. Capt. ANNESLEY stated that he had received informa tion that recently some of the cemeteries in which British heroes at the Crimea had been interred were broken into, the walls around them demolished, and the bones of our departed heroes sacrilegiously scattered about. He wished to know if her Malrsty's Government had been made ac quainted with those disgraceful facts, and, if so, whether it was the intention of the Government to direct their consu lar agent at Odessa to make periodical visits to Sebas topol, for the purpose of preserving those graveyards from desecration. Lord J. RUSSELL.—I quite agree with the hon. mem ber for Horsham that this question of Savoy, and the neu tralised parts of Savoy, is too important a matter to be dis cussed in the incidental mannerin which it has been brought forward this evening. I shall therefore not refer to the statements I have made at various times to the house, only saying that they were founded at the time upon the decla rations which were made by foreign Governments, or upon the despatches which I have received from her Majesty's Ministers abroad. With regard to the immediate ques tion, and which the hon. gentleman and the house regard with considerable interest—namely, the neutralised parts of Savoy, I wish to give to the house such information as I can, but it is very far from being complete. It is proposed that there should be a Conference of the Powers of Europe who signed the treaty of Vienna on a particular subject, and, that subject is, as it is stated by the French Govern ment, to reconcile the 92d article of the Treaty of Vienna, to which all the Powers of Europe who signed that treaty are parties, with the second article of the Treaty of Turin; which has lately been concluded between the Emperor of the French and the King of. Sardinia. do not believe that the French Government wish either to go any fur ther in the way of stating what other questions are to be considered or to place any further restrictions on the questions to be discussed at that conference. Ido not certainly apprehend that the French Government impose such a restriction as the hon. gentleman seems to suppose. At the same time, from communications I have received, and from the declarations which the Emperor of the French has made from time to time, I conceive that to any mea sures that may be properly called the dismemberment of Savoy we should find in the Conference that the present Government would be decidedly opposed ; but it is obvious that there may be other measures which would not amount to dismemberment, but which would yet give a military frontier to Switzerland, which might be proposed by Swit zerland. However, when Switzerland has made such pro posal will be the time for her Majesty's Government and the other Powers to consider it. With respect to the par ties to the Conference, they are, as I have stated, the eight Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna, and I believe there is no doubt that all these Powers will agree that Switzerland should be likewise represented at that Conference. With regar d to S ardinia, dis cussion still go i ng on , an d l i kewise as to the question in t theho there is some paConference. comprehended The what manner Switzerland and Savoy are to appear at the i who n l 8 3 preced ent,signedl 2 s cited m A a eoi among nd London According those dt nonthat Treaty of Vienna may appear at the Conference, eith er always, or only on certain occasions. That is amatter which, as I h ave stated, is under discussion time of the meeti ng of the Conference has been. Thelike matter of dis cuss i on, b ut the French Government w state on that subje c t th at they consider a Conference cannot be properly assembled until the Treaty of Turin is complete. Th a t T reaty of Turin is not om until the Assembly of T ur i n shall have given their complete until the Treaty. It is a part of the constitution of Sardinia that no cession of territory shall b e va lid until the treaty giving t it is confirmed by the votes of the P ar li ament of Safdinia Tho French Government say th a t, supposing the vote . of the Parliament of Piedmont should not be in favour of the cession, and should be against the ratification of the treaty, there would then be nothing for the Powers of Europe io deliberate upon, and therefore they cannot be called together until that vote has been come to. It is un derstood that the Parliament of Piedmontis to consider the question about the first week in May, or the first ten days in May, and it is proposed that the Conference should meet after that time. ,Then there comes the question to which the hon. member for Horsham called my attention the other evening, and to which we attach, as he does, considerable importance—namely, what shall be the state of possession of the neutralised portions of Savoy after the treaty has been confirmed, suppose it to be confirmed at Turin, and before the Conference has met ? We have stated more than once at Paris, and Lord Cowley has stated it even since his re return to Paris, that, in our opinion, it is most desirable that no civil or military occupation by France should take place until the,Conference has considered this questi en of the neutralised parts of Savoy, and under what restrictions those neutralised portions shall be hereafter held, and in *hat manner they shall be disposed of. The French Govern- Ment, however, I must say, on the other side, state that they ee great difficulty in assenting to such a proposition, be cause it would seem to assume that the treaty of Turin did not perfectly do what it purported to do—namely, transfer the whole sovereignty of Savoy from the King of Sardinia, its late or present Sovereign, to the Emperor of the French. They therefore raise this difficulty,without laying any stress, however, upon the practical objections to any other course. With regard to any practical result, they say that her Ma jesty's Government may be assured that there will be no precipitation in taking possession of that territory, but that there must be some authority, and that the territory cannot be left without some authority during the Conference. That discussion between the two Governments is not yet con cluded. It still appears to me, I must confess, that it would be more satisfactory that some arrangement should be come to by which the whole of that territory should not be in the possession of the French authorities during the time of the Conference—(hear, hear)—because, as from the complication of documents there arises every day questions of wounded pride or injured honour, it is desirable that the French au thorities should not be required to withdraw from any por tion of the territory of which they are in actual possession. This is a matter like other matters which depends very much on the opinion of the different Powers in Europe. I believe that the Government of Prussia takes the same view as we do on this, subject. With regard to the other Powers, wo have had communications on this particular point, and I can only say that it is not at present decided. I will not go further into this subject at present. I have only wished to give such information as I am able, and I do not think the question is one for discussion at the pre sent moment. With regard to the cemeteries of Sebastopol, I am sorry to say that I am afraid the statement of the hon. gentleman is in conformity with the truth, since it agrees in every respect with the statements we have received. We have given such directions as we think may prevent any further continuance of such shocking outrages upon the feelings of this country and the relatives of the great and gallant men who are buried there; and I have desired her Majesty's Minister at St. Peteraburgh to remonstrate in very strong terms with the Russian Government on the subject. (Cheers.) THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT. In reply to Mr. P. URQUHART, Mr. CARDWELL said that a bill was in preparation to remedy the admitted evils of the present law of removal of paupers from England to Ireland. CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL AD JOURNED DEBATE ON THIRD READING. Sir JOHN TRELAWNY moved the third reading of this bill. Mr: WHITESIDE moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read a third time that day six months. The object of this bill had been persistently pursued by its author, but these rates sprang from the common law of England and there could be no hardship attending their existence, as no rate could be imposed without the assent of the parishioners. In a petition to that house it was stated that this was an ecclesiastical impost which constituted a grievance, but some interesting evidence hid been collected on this subject by the Lords' Committee. There were two witnesses—one was Dr. Toulmin Smith and the other Dr. Lushington—to whose evidence he wished to draw the attention of the house. They had devoted their attention to see from what power, from what source Church-rates arose. The first gentleman informed them from books that in 1179 a suit was brought in respect of goods taken by distress for a rate. That established that nearly 500 years ago there was a power to summon the parishioners, levy a rate, and distrain upon a reluctant parishioner. That was the first case that could be found on the rolls, and it was stated that both the custom and the seizure of goods in default had been from time immemorial. It showed also that it took its rise in the common law of England —was made by the majority of the parishioners, and enforced by them. It was not, there fore, a mere ecclesiastical impost. The parish had a right to lay on rates for various purposes, such as sewers rates, just as they laid on the church rate, and the antiquity of this last rate was most incontestably established. It was proved by the testimony -of an eminent Dissenter—himself not favourable to the maintenance of the rate—who was examined before the committee, and in addition to that testi mony, they had that also of Dr. Lushington, who, ex amined before the committee, stated what the old principle in his mind was, namely, that the rate was of Saxon origin, and that in those days the maintenance of the parish church was regarded as necessary, and was determined upon by the majority. Now, that was the law in those days, and it was the law at present, and a very good and salutary law it was. (Hear.) It hid been argued that the city of Man chester was averse to the payment of church rates, and that the payment of them in that city was net longer enforced ; but he had it upon the most reliable-authority that church rates only fell into disuse in Manchester by carelessness, and that the belief was that, if any serious effort were now made to resuscitate them there, the parishioners would respond, and recognising the excellence of the objects of the rate, again vote for it. (Hear.) Now that certainly raised Man chester again very much in his esteem. (Laughter.) It had been said that the that opposition to the payment of those rates originated in Manchester; but that, he believed, was an erroneous impression. His opinion was that the opposition to them originated in Birmingham. Sir J. TRELAWNY—No ; in Norwich. Mr. WHITESIDE—Be that as it might, three things were certain—that they were of great antiquity, that they were essentially beneficial, and that the Dissenters, as a body, were not opposed to their maintenance.' (Hear.) The opposition to church rates was not on religious, but political grounds. It first commenced by opposing the amount of the rates, and finally, the rate itself. How had the opposi tion been continued By the getting up of petitions, and circulating papers and pamphlets throughout the kingdom. In some cases there were more petitions than'people to sign them. It was not the people Who got them up, but they were prepared by an individual and hawked about for sig nature. In many cases, the names of infants were put down as parties who prayed for the abolition of church rates. The committee, not long since appointed to investi gate these petitions, reported that, in many cases, the names of hundreds of persons were written by the same person. He did not believe the people of this country were in favour of the abolition of church rates ; it might be so in some large towns, where an opposition was got up for political purposes, but generally no such feeling existed. He opposed this bill, therefore, not as a bill on its own merits or demerits, but because it was part of an avowed movement for the destruction of the Church, and he felt that:the time had come when Churchmen must bestirthem selves. They knew that the Church was strong in the love and the esteem of the people of this country, and it was ne cessary that they should throw off the apathy they had hitherto shown, and meet the assailants of the Establish ment with an energy proportionate to the importance of the cause they had to defend. He moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months. (Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT said he felt somewhat indebted to the right hon. and learned gentleman for having come forward as a new advocate on this question, for he had infused, by thtit physical-force oratory, of which ho was such a master, new life into a questionwhich had been worn almost thfead bare. (Cheers and laughter.) But he did not think he had done much, when his speech would be read the next day, to satisfy that great portion of the people of this coun try who object to church rates, that the present system ought to be continued. He told the house that the Non comformists, the Dissenters of old, were a better class of men than those of the present day, because they made no objection to the payment of church rates; and that asser tion was received with cheers by the hon. gentlemen oppo site. (Cheers.) In answer to it, it might be said that, from the time of Elizabeth down to the Act. of Toleration, there was very little understood in this country of the question or principles of religious freedom. They knew that, not only the Church, when it had the power, but the Noncon formists themselves, held it - to be right not only that they should support their respective churches, but to coerce them who hold religious opinions different from their own. (Hear, hear.) They had not advanced so far as hon. gen- Homan opposite now had, and therefore the right hon. gen tleman's argument went for very little. In Ireland he had witnessed among the Roman Catholics, who were the poorest people in Europe, a liberality with regard to the erection of places of worship which fully vindicated the truth of the voluntary principle, and justified its efficiency. The Irish Roman Catholics asked nothing from the State, and yet they had .provided amply for all the religious wants of the population. In Wales, where eight tenths of the population had no connexion with the Established Church, there was not a nook or corner without a chapel, a minister, and a school. North of the Tweed, since the great secession took place (17 years ago), the same results might be witnessed. The Free Church of Scotland had raised more money voluntarily since that secession than the whole of the emoluments of the Established Church in that country. They had during that period built more than 700 churches and as many manses, and established about an equal number of schools. Tkese vast results sprung from a zeal and religious fervour which had raised the character high in the estimation of the people of this country and of the world. (Cheers.) If he were to say that the members of the Church of England would not be equally liberal, he would be described as a slanderer, and justly so, for through whatever part of the country you travelled you would find towers and spires and temples raised by their voluntary efforts to the worship of God. But he wished the members of that Church to rely on their own zeal, benevolence, and liberality for the main tenance of their system, and not seek compulsory aid from those who differed from them. (Hear.) He wan*/ to pur suade the house - that this bill was a good bill for the Established Church. (Hear, and laughter from the Oppo sition.) He did not want to take them in by leading them to suppose that he approved of the. Established Church as an instrument for teaching religion. On that subject he agreed with Mr. Miall and the "Liberation Society." That, however, was not a question for the house, or, perhaps, for the presentgenerationto decide. He contended, however, that the abolition of the system of levying money for the Es tablished Church in Ireland had been of great advantage to that institution. The more the Church be removed from those irritating discussionsthe more it would be consolidated. lie was inclined to believe that its fall as a State establish- THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, 160. ment would never be caused by assaults from without, but by those from within—from the strong differences of doctrines entertained by those within its own borders. (Cheers.) If the Established Church were placed in the same position as any of the dissenting bodies, it would be greatly strengthened by the religious activity and union which would then prevail among its members. (Hear, hear.) Some hon. gentlemen might describe him as a violent par tisan. He did not deny that he had taken part in contests of this kind, but he was older now, and perhaps more mo derate. He knew how such questions stirred up young and ardent minds, and he was therefore ready to make allow ances for those who differed from himself. The question now had arrived at a crisis, and he would ask the house to consider whether it would not be advantageous for the Established Church, morality, religion, and the public peace to settle this question at once, by voting for the third read ing of the bill. (Hear.) Mr. DISRAELI said he had no doubt that when the hon. member was engaged in a contest, such was his spirit of resistance that the controversy would be promoted with sufficient ardour. (Hear, hear.) Ho had assured the house that the fabric of the church at Rochdale was in a satisfac tory state, but it was to be regretted that he had given no information of the condition of the churches in Birmingham. (Opposition cheers.) Four years ago Mr. Mintz had pre sented a petition from the clergy, churchwardens, and others connected with the rural deanery of Birmingham, complaining of the suspension of the legal means of repair ing the churches and providing for the Maintenance of Divine service in that district, and stating that for the previous 25 _years the voluntary principle had failed to accomplish .what was necessary. He did not want this question to be decided upon mere instances taken here and there—but when the hon. gentleman re ferred to the ecclesiastical fabrics of his native town, he (Mr. Disraeli) thought it right to refer to the ec clesiastical fabrics of the more considerable town which he represented. But if any conclusive argument was with gravity to be founded upon questions of this kind, he thought the weight of evidence was more upon his side, from the instance of Birmingham, than that of the hon. gentleman in the single instance of Rochdale. The hon. gentleman had, throughout his speech, delivered an eulogy in favour of the voluntary system, but that was not the question before the house. The hon. gentleman had dealt in views of a speculative character, and which were founded upon pure assumption, and he necessarily referred to a state of society which did not exist in this country, and he at. tempted to prove those assumptions by instances which were entirely fallacious. The chief case which he dealt with was the voluntary system of Scotland, and the hon. gentleman told them that there had bosa there, without the aid of par liamentary grants, a large expenditure in the erection of churches, and houses, and other buildings; but he forgot that all that time, simultaneous with this great burst of religious feeling in Scotland, and those remarkable invest ments, there was an Established Church in Scotland, main tained by the most rigid and inflexible church rate, which depended upon the majority of the people which existed in this country, but which without any majority was raised. The hon. gentleman omitted to tell them that this regu larity took place, and that a church rate' was collected in this rigid manner. The hon. gentleman then told them of the picturesque views which he beheld in passing through the country, and the churches which help to make up the landscape, and he said that they were built upon the volun tary principle; and he asked why they adhered to this ancient and barbarous system, which had been so frequently recom mended should be abolished. But the hon. gentleman forgot that this voluntary principle of raising churches was not of new introduction. It had always been at work in England, and it would be very difficult to name any church which had not been raised under the same influences and the same circumstances. (Hear, hear.) And when the hon. gentle man referred to Scotland, the argument was an illusory one, and the hon. gentleman failed to enforce that , which he endeavoured to impress on the house. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the house would hesitate before they sanctioned such a change, especially at the present time, when the view of the future was so serious. No thinking man could shut his eyes to what might be the 'impending struggle of the world, and was that a time to tamper with their institu tions ? (Hear, hear.) They were considering that night an institution which had existed for centuries. Were they prepared to take a step that might in its results shatter the social fabric of the country ? He trusted the house would not sanction this proposition, but would show by the divi sion their firm and constant adherence to the institutions of I the country. (Hear, hear.) Sir JOHN TRELAWNY said that he was not a mem ber of the Liberation Society, but it supported his measure. He had nothing to do with the sense in which that society advocated the separation of Church and State, but he could assure the house that, whether they passed the bill or not, virtually- church-rates were gone. Dissenters had found how church-rates might be successfully resisted, and there fore, as the existing law could not be made practically use ful, he advised them to repeal it. (Hear, hear.) Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he intended to have brought up a clause by way of amendment, to the effect that church rates should not be paid out of any other rate, but ho was informed that, according to the forms of the house, he could not do so. He was informed that there were 400 parishes that paid their church-rate out of the poor-rate. That was a fraud, and he should have liked to have added a clause to prevent this, and leave the House of Lords to deal with it. The house then divided, when the numbers were— For the third reading ' For the amendment. Majority •• —9 Loud and continued cheering from the Opposition side of the house. On the question "that the bill do pass," there was a loud cry of " No " from the Opposition members. This was met by a cry of "Agreed" from the same side of the house, and the motion was accordingly agreed to, followed by a cheer from the supporters of the bill, which was met with laughter from the Opposition. STOCK JOBBING. Mr. BOVILL moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the statutes relating to stock jobbing as prevents persons selling and disposing of stocks or other securities of which they are not possessed. Mr. LAING said the Government had no objection to the measure, and leave was given to bring in the bill. PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS. Mr. MACAU LAY moved an address for returns for every Parliamentary city and borough in England and Wales, showing, 1. The total number of male persons in each who were charged to any of the assessed taxes, or to the income tax, underschedules B and D respectively, for the year 1859-60. 2. How many of such persons were assessed to the poor rate upon a gross rental of £2O and upwards. 3. How many upon a like rental of £lO and louder £2O. 4. How many on a like rental of £6 and under £lO. 5. How many under £6. 6. And, how many were not occupiers of tenements rated to the poor. , Mr. LAING said the only objection to the returns would be the delay which would take place in making them, but the Government, feeling that these were important returns, would not oppose the motion, and they would do all in their power to make them complete. Mr. AYRTON said the returns would be perfectly falla cious, as they would exclude from the calculation many millions of property. After a short conversation the motion was agreed to. On the motion that the Jews Act Amendment Bill be read a third time, Mr. SPOONER objected to the house going on with the bill at that late hour, and should certainly, if the hon. gen tleman persevered, move an adjournment of the house. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was assured by the hon. gentle man's colleague that no opposition would be given to the bill, and he should therefore persevere. Mr. NEWDEGATE hoped his hon. friend would not persevere with his motion. The third reading was then put and carried, and the house adjourned at 10 minutes to 1 o'clock. Premature Greyness, Weak or Falling Hair, Neural Nervous Headache, Rheumatism, Stiff Joints, &c., are reme died with ease and certainty by HERRING'S Patent Magnetic Brushes and Combs. Their use is an absolute luxury. His newly-invented Teazle Brushes for Colth, Velvet, &c,. "are admirable—they not only cleanse, but preserve the fabric in a remarkable manner. The Manufactory is 32, Basinghall st. The public are cautioned against counterfeits.—Atm. [ADvElmsEmENT.]—Holloway's Pills and Ointment. — Consequences of Neglect. —ln our variable climate the larger proportion of diseases to which mankind is liable depends upon the perfect or inefficient treatment of coughs, colds, in fluenza, and rheumatism. The prudent will pay attention to the first symptoms, which are removed at once by the use of llolloway's Pllis old Ointment. In chest complaints, while taking his pills, their effect is quickeced and increased by briskly rubbing his ointment on the back and breast twice a day for five minutes, or longer if convenient. The friction causes the ointment to penetrate the skin, whence it passes to the lungs and purifies the whole mass of blood as it flows through those organs in its circulation. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—The greatest happiness of a jour nalist is to introduce to his readers some new discovery calculated to benefit that vast portion of our fellow crea tures, which has the strongest claims upon our sympathies. It is with this feeling that we call the attention of invalids to the following extract from Du Barry's interesting report of cures without medicine of indigestion (dyspepsia), fla tulency, constipation, nervous, bilious and liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption and debilitytby Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food. Cure No. 180, twenty. five years' nervousness, constipation, indigestion, and debility, from which I had suffered great misery, and which no medicine could remove or relieve, have been effectually cured by Du Barry's food in a very short time.—W. R. Reeves, 181, Fleet-street. Cure No. '54,618, of a lady of 107 years of age.—Wandsbeck, near Hamburgh, 12th May, 1857.-1 hereby certify that my mother-in-law, Mrs. Holze, who has just completed her 107th year, after having suffered for half a century and more, from indigestion (dyspepsia), and consequent disorders, has been perfectly cured by. Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, and is now enabled to di gest almost any kind of food with great comfort.—W. Holze. In tins, at Is. 6d. ; Ilb., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 b,, 265. The 101 b. and 12Ib. tins carriage free, on receipt of post office order. Du Barry and Co., H, Regent-street, London; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly ; Abbis, 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 1.50, Oxford street; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate. street ; Tottenham-court - road. Also at Dublin, Bewley an Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Cc., at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp an. Scott; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and Co.; at.Soatk amptau, Randal land Son • LA TV INTELLIGENCE.-April 27. DIVORCE COURT. ,Before Sir C. Cresswell, Mr. Justice Hill, and Mr. Justice Willes.) PEARCE V. PEARCE AND FRENCH. Dr. Spinks and Mr. Herne appeared for the pe itioner. The other parties had not put in any answer. This was a suit for a dissolution of marriage, in stituted by Mr. Henry Daniel Pearce, on the ground of his wife's adultery with John Gainsford French. The parties were married on the 27th of February, 1847, and they subsequently resided together at Woodford-green and other places until 1852, when it was agreed between them that Mr. Pearce should go to Australia to see whether he could find a better opening than in England for the support of his wife and family. He had formerly been a merchant's clerk, and had property in houses amounting to £lOO a-year, which at the time of his departure he settled on his wife, in order that she might have a provision during his absence. The wife then went to reside with her parents at Wood ford-peen, and continued to receive the money under the deed of settlement, and she also corre sponded with her husband on affectionate terms ; but in the beginning of 1853 she removed to ano ther house, where she took in Mr, French, who was the driver of a Woodford omnibus, as a lodger. Mrs. Pearce afterwards went to live in a cottage belonging to the petitioner, and the co-respondent still continued with her, and it appeared that she had had three children by h . m. Upon the peti tioner's return from Australia, in 1856, his wife refused to live with him, and he became so dis tressed in mind that for some time he was obliged to be placed in Bethlehem Hospital. Proof of the adultery having been given, and also that there had been no collusion between the parties, The Court pronounced for the dissolution of the marriage, with costs against the co-respondent. D'ARCY V. D'ARCY. Mr. D. Seymour appeared for the petitioner. This was a petition for a dissolution of marriage, brought by Mrs. Mary Ann D'Arcy against Henry Thomas D'Arcy, on the ground of his bigamy and adultery. The parties were married on the Ist of June, 1836, and they lived together in the county of Meath and in other places in Ireland, and subse quently in England and the Channel Islands, until a few years ago. On the 12th of February, 1859, Mr. D'Arcy married a lady named Tempest at Marylebone Church, and they afterwards lived together at Union-street, Oxford-street, as man and wif?. The Court thought the wife was entitled to a decree with costs. NEVE V. NEVE AND WILEY. Mr. Aspland conducted the case of the husband. This was a suit for a divorce on account of the wife's adultery with Amos Wiley, the co-respondent. The petitioner, William Neve, was a labourer. The parties were married in 1854, at Norwich, and one day in January, 1856, upon the husband returning from his work he found a letter from his wife, say ing she had gone away and should never return to him. It was afterwards discovered that she was cohabiting with Amos ;Wiley. One of the witnesses deposed that before the respondent left her husband men frequently visited her in his absence, but it was not shown that the petitioner was aware of this circumstance. Their Lordships thought the petitioner was en titled to a decree with costs against the co-respon dent. HOLMES V. HOLMES. This was a petition for a divorce presented by Mrs. Rachel Holmes against Frederick Henry Holmes, on the ground of his bigamy, coupled with adultery and cruelty. The respondent was a builder, and he married the petitioner, who was his cousin, at St. Mary's, Islington, on the 20th of June, 1852. They lived" together until March, 1853, when Mr. Holmes was imprisoned for a criminal offence. On the 24th May, 1856, he married Charlotte Bacon at the district church of St. John's Wemley, in the parish of Harrow, and subsequently he married a person named Mary Thomas. On the 27th of October, 1856, he was tried and convicted of bigamy and sentenced to four years' penal servitude, which sentence he was still undergoing. The court decreed the dissolution of the marriage with costs. LAW AND EQW2Y BILL. Amidst the variety of opinions expressed by the law lords last Tuesday on what is called the Law and Equity Bill, there was happily one point in which all concurred. The Lord Chancellor declared that this was the crisis of Law Reform, and both Lord Cranworth, who supported the second read ing, and those who opposed it, admitted that the subject was of pre-eminent importance. The point of the discussion is clear enough, but it must be con fessed that more heat and temper have been dis played than the gravity and dignity of the subject might have led one to anticipate. The principle seems to be conceded that the court in which a cause is begun should if possible be able to admi nister complete justice between the litigant parties. In the desirability of this everybody who has patiently examined the subject concurs; and ac cordingly the aim of a large portion of this Law and Equity Bill, which has just been referred to a select committee, is to enable courts of law to do complete justice—in other words, to clothe Courts of Common Law with such powers as shall enable them to dispense with the necessity which at present exists of calling in the aid of Courts of Equity. It is remarkable that the Equity Commissioners pointed out some years ago the mischief which arose from having several distinct courts with different systems of law, which in some cases brought them into antagonism with each other. It often happened, they said, that parties in the course of a suit were driven backwards and forwards from courts of law to courts of equity, and vice versa. The defendant in an ac tion at law, who had a just ground of defence, was often obliged to resort to equity to control the decision of a court of law, or to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding to obtain a judgment which could not be permitted by a court of equity. Again, a court of common law had no power for the p reserva ti on o f property pending litigation ; but the Court of Chancery possessed such power, and suitors using the common law courts were driven to the other courts in order to avail themselves of the power possessed by these courts. Such was the statement of the Equity Judges—Sir John Hominy, Lord Justice Turner, and Sir W. Page Wood. That view was confirmed by the Common Law Judges. In the last report, signed by the Lord Chief Justice and three judges, they advocate the propriety of clothing the common law courts with such addi tional powers as shall " prevent the necessity for a resort by either party to two courts for the purpose of obtaining complete justice." Such being the opinions of the bench, both equity and common law, of the bar, and of such men as Sir James Graham and Mr. Henley, it might have been expected that if any bill were introduced for the purpose of carrying the principles so clearly enunciated into effect, it would have met with approbation. Such, indeed, was the purpose of the Law and Equity Bill, and its provisions do no more than attempt to carry into practical effect the recommendations of the Commissioners ; and knowing as the public now do that it was drawn by Mr. Justice Willes, one of the most eminent jurists upon the bench, there w as goo d ground for supposing that it would prove not quite impracticable. The effect, however, which its appearance has produced is almost startling. The equity judges—some of whom actually signed the report to which allusion has been made,.and which contained the principle upon which the Law and Equity Bill is founded—have as it were risen in insurrection against the Chancellor, and have presented a remonstrance against the bill which has been laid before Parliament. In that document, however, the judges do not confine themselves to points of detail, but in apparent con tradiction to the former recommendation of some of them they seem to question the principle 'that one court should be armed with powers enabling it to do complete justice. Many of the law lords, especially Lord St. Leonards, adopt the same view. Ignoring the principle just mentioned altogether, they insist that England has grown great under the existing system, and that nothing can exceed the economy and perfection of the present adminis tration of justice. If the objections to this Law and Equity Bill had been objections to its machinery there would have been much reason in them, for it must be ad mitted-that England contains no more able lawyers than those who took part in Tuesday night's debate. But they seemed to assail the principle upon which the bill was founded, •and to treat the proposed reform as a more fancy. If the opposition had been as moderate and reasonable as Lord Cran worth's, nothing need have been said upon the matter. He pointed out, as no doubt is the case, that to attempt a complete fusion of law and equity is unnecessary, even if it were possible. It is quite enough if ft suitor can obtain from the court into which he is first brought complete justice. If a man brings an action to recover a house or a piece of land,. why should he be compelled to apply to a court of equity in order to prevent his opponent, who happens to be in possession, from pulling down the house or cutting down all the trees P Why should not the same court which is to deter mine who is the rightful o wner, also protect the property—the subject in dispute—in the mean time ? Is it seriously said to be impossible to draw a bill which shall enable courts to do complete justice without, as some of the lords insist, intro ducing chaos into the well-ordered domain of law? Certain it is th a t many o f th e a bl es t jurists regard this task as by no means impossible, At all events, it must be admitted that the distil ction between Law and Equity exists in no other system of jurisprudence on the face of the earth—for eve n the Americans have abolished it. The distinction is purely artificial, it is not founded in the nature of things, and should, therefore, prevent no insuper able obstacle to the practical application of the principle so often mentioned—of enabling a single court to do complete justice. It will be the duty of the select committee to en deavour to solve the difficulty proposed. As the equity judges have criticised the bill, it might be well that the common law judges should be requested to answer this critique. The discussion must be useful. In the meantime, it can hardly be necess sary to deprecate any spirit of antagonism between the professors of two branches of English law. It must be admitted that the establishment of County Courts was certainly delayed by a somewhat un worthy dread lest they might diminish the amount of legal business: That fear was not unfounded. A desire ampliare jurisdictionenz is a proverbial weakness with judges: But it can hardly be sup posed that any professional, prejudice of this sort, or any fear lest the common lawyers should receive an addition to the amount of business at the expense of their equity brethren, will in any degree bias those 'eminent men who have reached the serene heights of the peerage against conferring on colt : mon law courts any additional powers which may be required.—Daily News. TILE ASOCIAL EVIL. Yesterday morning, at the hour of three, the Midnight Meeting M ovemen t C omm i ttee concluded their last midnight meeting of the present winter series, at St. James's Restaurant, Regent-street. Between 300 and 400 women attended, and the proceedings were of the usual character. The following interesting particulars are the results, in general, of the meetings held from the commencement:—More than 100 unfortunate females have been already rescued, and most of them placed into various homes, whilst some of Ahem have been restored to their friends in the country, and others have, it is be lieved, entirely and for ever forsaken their recent horrible and vicious course of life. The committee unhesitatingly contradict a statement that appeared in one of the daily papers after the first meeting was held, that only the " old, the halt, and the maimed" were gathered in, but on the con trary it is found that the average age of all that have been taken into the " Female Homes," is not much above 20 years. It is gratifying to learn that many of the " reclaimed" have made great sacrifices, independent of present circumstances, in order to re-establish themselves in virtuous society. One painfully interesting fact revealed by this movement is that the majority of those reclaimed are orphans in part or entirely, and ver7 many of them belong to the rural districts, and it is assumed that their introduction to this metropolis was to fill situations as domestic servants. It is stated by the managers of the various in stitutions into which those poor girls have been re ceived that their conduct, almost immediately after their admission, has been in perfect contrast to their apparently gay, thoughtless, and vicious nature inm= mediately previous to their rescue. The 'frail audience behaved themselves with de corum throughout, with some exceptions. Many wept bitterly, and the majority joined in the sing ing. Twenty-four young women accepted the offer of homes kindly tendered to them by the committee, and were at once removed in cabs to their respec tive destinations. A large number left their names and addresses to be visited. It is further announced by the promoters that a midnight meeting of gentlemen who frequent the Casinoes, the Haymarket, night saloons, &e., will be held some time in May, and efforts are being made to have it largely attended. COUNTRY MARKBTS. LIVERPOOL--APRIL 27. We have had rather a smaller attendance than usual at this day's market, and the consumptive demand for wheat has been only on a moderate scale; several parcels taken to hold over, and prices at late currencies. Beans, peas, and barley at fully late rates. The market closed steady, but without animation. WAKEFIELD-APRIL 27. We have a small , supply of wheat, but a steady gale at last Friday's rates. Very little English barley offering, and prices in buyers' favour. EXETER-APRIL 27. With a tolerable-attendance, tits business to-day was firm at the following. prices Wheat, white.. 6s 9d to 7s Od Barley.. 45 Od to 5s Od Ditto red .. 5s 3d to 5s 6d I Oats ... 3s 6d to 3s 9d Flour, fine, 40s to 41s; seconds, 38s to 39s per sack. CATTLE. The attendance was good, and the market was moderately supplied with fat stock. X small supply of pork carcases, at previous rates. Fat beef,p score, 10s6d to lls Ewes, per lb .... 74d to 0 Perk carcases, do Os to lOs 6d Wethers, do. .Bdto 0 I Sheep, per lb. Od to 71d Fat calves, d 0.... 514:1 to Od Rough fat, 4id per lb.' BRISTOL SUGAR-APRIL 27. Our market is steady, but rather quiet. Prices are about supported, but show no tendency to improvement. The sales of the week are limited to 350 hhds. Barbadoes and 620 hhds. Cubas, and further business would have been done but for the firmness of importers. Refiners' produce dull, and former quotations are with difficulty supported. Rum steady, at is lid to 2s per proof gallon Demerara'. COAL MARK (Prices of Coal per Ton at .ET—APRIL 27. t the close of the min ket Walla End. s. d. Buddle's West Hartleyl6 3 Byass's Bebside West Hartley . .15 9 Davison's West Hart- • P. de Braddyll's Hetton 21 3 Framwellgate 2O 9 Hartlepool. .. 21 9 Heugh Hall 20 Thorpe South Hartlepool. 20 9 Keiper Grange........ 21 3 Whitworth 16 0 Russell's Hetton 21 3 Eden Main. 20 9 Byron.. ..... 2O 6 Stewart's 22 0 Riddell 2O 0 Barton 2O 3 South Hart1ep001......20 9 Northumberland 17 6 Brandon l9 0 Hunwick South Hetton 22 0 Bel1., Nixon 'a Duffryn 20 0 Carway and Duffryn Malting 4 171 —Sold, 161. ' ley .-.-.16 3 Grey's West Hartley. .15 6 Hastings Hartley l6 3 Holywell 16 0 Howard's West Hart ley 16 0 Lambert's West Hart- ley Walker Primrose 13 6 Tanfield Moor 13 9 Tanfield Moor Butes-13 9 West Hartley 16 3 Wylam 16 0 Walls End. ..21Kelloe Hetton.... Acorn Close 20 9 Eden Haswell .... . 22 0 Ships at market FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. In the following table E signifies that letters are deepatobed by evening mails from London, and hi by morning mails. Bear , DESTINATIONS. Despatch Poreof di ail of Mails. Despatch. due. --- Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton May 12, M Southamp. May 1 0 Ditto, via Marseilles May 18, E 'may 4 Bahamas and Havana via New , York May 12, E Liverpool.. May 1 0 Canada, &c. (by Canada. pokt ) May 2, E Liverpool.. overdue Cape of. Good Hope, Ascen sion, and St. Helena May 5, E Devonport May 3 China, Penang, and Singa pore, via Southampton May 4, M( Southamp. May 2 Ditto, via Marseilles April—, E. overdue Gibraltar, via Southampton April —,M Southamp. overdir, Honduras and Blewfields May 17, M Southamp. April w India (Calcutta) and Ceylon, via Southampton May 4, 31 Southamp. May 2 Ditto, via Marseilles India (Bombay), via South ampton April—, 31 Southamp. overdue Ditto, via Marseilles Lisbon, Brazils,Buenos Ayres, and F. Islands May 9, 31 Southamp. May 6 Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto April—,hl Southamp. May 1 Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton April—, M Southamp. o v e r Ditto, via Marseilles Mexico and Havana Newfoundland • April—, E Liverpool.. -- United States and British N America (by British packet) April2B, E Liverpool.. May 2 Ditto (by U. 8. packet) ... ri May 2, E Southamp. West Coast of Africa, Ma deira, and Teneriffe . May 23 B Liverpool•• May 1 0 West India, California, Vene zuela, Chili, Peru, -Grey • town, New Granada, &c. iMay 2. .3! Southamp. May 1.; 'BIRTHS. LOVETT.—On the 27th inst., at 116, Park-street, Grosve nor-square, the wife of John H. Lovett, Esq., 2d Life Guards, of a daughter. WETTIERALL.—On the 26th inst., at 14, Upper Mount street, Dublin, the wife of Colonel Wetherall, C. 8., of a son. MARRIAGES. BRYANS —Dv FAUII..—On the 26th inst ,at SC.Tohn's, N o tti ng -hill, Richard Bryans, E sq., o f P ar kfield, Birk" enhead, to Ellen Louisa, youngest daughter of the late Frederick Du Faur, Esq., of Upper Westbourne-terra ce ' Hyde-park. STAPLETON—KING.—On the 2Gth inst., at Chadshulf Warwickshire, J o h n S tapleton, Esq., of Berwick.bi l Northumbvland, to Frances Dorothea, second daught er of Bolton King, Esq. DEATHS. AMYOT.—On the 25th inst., at Halliford, near Chertsel, Richard Amyot, Esq., aged 78. HAR'Srnrr.—On the 27th inst., H ora ti o Harnett, ESq" of Great St. H e l en ' s , L on d on, an d E lm Arc h es , Cheshunt aged 55. MCCABE.—On the 27th inst., Robert McCabe, E sq '' Of 14, Southwick -crescent, Hyde-park, and Cornhill , after a few hours' illness, aged 64. LoNnoN : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG 9 of No. 112, Strand, P r i n t er, at Ths Sun Office, NO°21 2 f Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the oolinv Middlesex, Saturday, April 28, 1800. cond perm adde miss' showi valual of foo Azt appoii JOSI . be t.l* HE tr, effecti" body, Moc-31 and cl during truss, , cumfet sent t A A Dot An lin Post cane.] for Va the Le and hp Price 3 - 1.17X 1 . 4L4 a being. t in Gre Scientil RENT, practisi coat,.th The '4' COVEI Debilit of Enei Ground Head a and M whole HINT In or, the Ant he will etamys A mg: Just I' in a sent W Perfect 15, Alb Struct CITA Early ' CHA of Mar Follies .0 HA and MI over a - CITA Gondri The eases, i Lotion "Cn . should 23d 3E: "Th little vihich old agt At h Sunda Fon 11 DEB CONS ~U Certift to apps chroni dia-rli bi —Dr. land, Bari • ...N.% So* 2d Aror the. office Man T' Tlild ejegn with EVid direc tion Door pone them :trios so VI t. can gian pints, Is 8d T 1 Barre Cases A P Cure Yni FOOl Stip