The Sun. — London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.) Their lordships assembled at four o'clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Royal assent was given by commission to the fol lowing bills : The Consolidated Fund (19,500,000). Oxford University. Marriages Extra Parochial Places. Common Lodging-houses (Ireland). Matlock Water. Great Western (Clifton Extension). Limerick and Ennis. Manchester and Buxton Road. Metropolitan Railway. Banbridge Junction Railway. Belfast and County Down Railway. Belfast, Holywood, and Bangor Railway. Dublin and Kingston and Dublin and Wicklow Railway. Keith and Dufftown Railway. Chard Railway. Midland Railway (Burton -upon-Trent branches). Midland Railway (Rowsley . and Buxton lines). Midland Railway (Station in St. Pancras). Widnes Gas and Water. Sheffield Water. Sirhowey Tramroad. Tewkesbury, Upton-upon-Severn, and Malvern Junc tion Railway. The Royal Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of St. Germans, and Viscount Sydney. Several bills having been brought up from the Commons, Their lordships adjourned until Monday, June 4. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. Lord G. LENNOX took the oaths and his seat on his election for the borough of Lymington. PRIVATE BUSINESS. Tho Lords' amendments to the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton, Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford, and Worcester and Hereford Railways Bill were considered and agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time. The following bills were read a third time :—Doncaster and Tadcaster Road; London Hydraulic Power Company; Maxchbtun, Kelso, and Lauder Road; Sudbury, Melford and Clare Railway ; Swansea Local Board of Health ; and Wimbledon and Dorking Railway. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod summoned the members to the Upper House to hear the Royal assent given by commissioi to several bills (for which see Lords' re- Port)• PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented praying for a more effi cient provision for the poor blind in Ireland ; in favour of the repeal of the excise duty on paper; from Lancashire, to the effect that the house should maintain its privileges intact in respect to originating bills of taxation; against the repeal of the wine duty, &c. ASSESSED TAXES AND CUSTOMS EXCISE DUTIES, &c. Lord R. MONTAGU moved for a return of the amount of Excise duties collected during the past financial year, showing, in separate columns, those collected in the metro politan districts, and those collected in the rest of the United Kingdom, and distinguishing each branch of re venue ; also, a return showing, in two columns, the amount of assessed taxes levied in the metropolitan districts, and those levied in the rest of the kingdom ; and also the amount of customs levied in London and in the•other ports of the United Kingdom.—Ordered. CONVOCATION IN THE PROVINCES OF CAN TERBURY AND YORK. Mr. KINNAIRD asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Majesty's Government had advised the Queen to sanction the sitting of Convoca tion in the provinces of Canterbury and York for any other than the ordinary purpose of adjournment. Sir G. C. A..EWIS said, that last February there had been a resolution by Convocation for an address to her Majesty, praying that she should direct the revision of the 29th canon, which provided that a father should not be godfather to his child. SALE AND PURCHASE OF GOVERNMENT LAND AT PORTSMOUTH. Lord W. GRAHAM asked the Secretary of State for War whether the land, or a portion of it, which had re cently been bought at a high price by Government for the defences of Portsmouth was not formerly in the pos session of Government, and sold by them a few years back at a comparatively cheap rate ; whether there was not, at the time of selling such land, an official plan for the defence of Portsmouth, embracing such land, in the hands of Government, or of the military au thorities ; and, whether he would lay upon the table of the house a returnof the price at which the land was sold, the price at which the land has been rebought, and the name of the official who sanctioned the sale. Mr. S. HERBERT said that the facts were, that about twenty years ago, it had been deemed advisable to sell the land in question for £20,000, and now it was considered de sirable to purchase it for a snm of £28,000. INDIA. Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN asked the Secretary of State for India whether instructions had been sent to the Indian Government to take steps to reduce the amount promised by the Home Government for compensation for losses by the Indian mutiny : and whether or not a special de spatch to India was sent about January last upon the subject of these compensations ; and if so, wh4 ther there was any objection to lay that despatch, or the last despatch upon the subject, upon the table of th , house : and, further, whether the million ster ling awarded by the Home Government, as compensation to sufferers by the Indian Mutiny, was to be the minimum as well as the maximum of such compensation. If it was the intention of the Imperial Government to deduct English income tax from the interest payable on promissory notes of the Indian Government, where such interest was payable in this country by drafts on the India Treasuries : Whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to allow the Indian Government to deduct Indian income tax from the interest payable on promissory notes of the Indian Government after English income tax had been already deducted from such interest in this country : Or, whether, in other words, interest on Indian promissory notes was subject to a double income tax ? Mr. BARING said that no instructions had been given in reference to the amount of compensation. As regarded the income-tax, he thought it not advisable to give any answer to the question at present. TAX BILLS Lord PALMERSTON moved that a select committee be appointed to search the journals of both Houses of Parlia ment, in order to ascertain and report on the practice of each house with regard to the several descriptions of bills imposing or repealing taxes. That the committee do consist of Lord Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Walpole, Lerd J. Russell, Mr. S. Estcourt, Sir G. Grey, Sir J. Pakington, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Henley, Mr. E. P. Bouverie, Colonel 'Wilson Patten, Mr. Massey, Mr. Ben tinck, Mr. John Bright, the Attorney-General, Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. More O'Ferrall, and Sir William Heathcote. He considered it would be desirable for hon. members at present to abstain from entering into any discussion on the subject. In his opinion the better course would be for hon. gentlemen to defer their observations (whatever their opinions might be) until after the committee had made their report. The appointment of the committee pledged the house to nothing except that hon. members wished for in formation which they did not at present possess. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that be thought no one could object to the course which the noble lord the First Lord of the Treasury proposed, and the assent of hon. members was not required by the adoption of the present motion. Mr. E. JAMES said he regretted that he could not agree with the right hon. baronet. He thought that dis cussion before the present time would have been premature, but now that the house was in posses sion of the decision of the House of Lords, all the precedents of the House of Commons justified hon. members in taking some active course in reference to the act of the Upper House. (Hear, hear, and no, no.) He had no desire to urge on her Majesty's Government a course that would be premature ; but he thought the House of Commons had a right to know what steps her Majesty's Government proposed to take in reference to the vote of the other house. Having referred to the course adopted by the House of Commons in 1742, when the House of Lords rejected a bill for an inquiry into the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole, the hon. and learned gen tleman said he could not help thinking there was no neces sity for moving for a committee to ascertain precedents, and, without meaning any disrespect to the Government, the course they had adopted was merely a pretext for delay and temporising. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He thought some immediate action was necessary for the asser tion of the privileges of the House of Commons, and for the vindication of the dignity of the Government. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE followed on the same side, and read a resolution agreed to at a recent meeting of delegates from different bodies interested in the repeal of the duty, suggesting that the house should meet in November next for the purpos e of considering the subject. He agreed to that suggestion, for the House of Lords did not reject the bill—they merely postponed the second reading, and at the time specified the finances of the country might be in such a position as to remove the objection on the ground of the fiscal position of the country. He concluded by amo t ion to the effect that the house at the close of the session should not be prorogued, but should merely postpone its sitting until November, during which the question mi g ht be more fully considered. Mr. WHALLEY seconded the amendment, and said he had supported the financial scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the faith of the duty on paper being repealed. Mr. BRIGHT said—l have been sorry to observe that since this question has made its appearance in this house a few members on the other side have been disposed to treat it as if it was one of no importance. Now if I was unfor tunately a member of the party opposite, I hope I should be able to discover that there was something rave and impor tant in this question, and in the position in which the house is placed in regard to it. (Hear.) I hope also I should be able to dispossess my mind of those feelings which too oft en attend party ti iumPhs' and which too often blind the eyes to -~ ~`' 1 ,~_ the real conse luences of the course we are taking. I presume that the noble lord at the head of Government and his col leagues, who have a peculiar interest in the matter before us, do consider it as a question of some moment, a Al I believe the more the question is discussed the more t << house will be of the same opinion. I agree with the hon. member for Finsbury in what he said with regard to th^ pinion grow ing up in the country on this subject. (U ar.) Let hon. gentlemen bear in mind that never in t lifetime of the oldest members of this house, or hardly in that of their fathers, has any great question arisen as to what might be termed the rights of the people, or the rights of their repre sentatives, in this house. Generally speaking, men have assumed that certain things are irrevocably fixed, as for ex ample that men may travel in this country without passports, or that a man's house cannot be broken into without a war- rant, or, if apprehended, he must be brought before a judge or a magistrate to determine on the case. These are things fixed and unquestioned ; men do not ask how they came to be fixed ; they take them as they take their daily bread or their night's sleep—as things which are natural and unchangeable in their condition. So it is in regard to questions of finance. They have understood,withoutbeing able to give chapter and verse for it, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a mem ber of the Government is chosen by the Crown and has the confidence of Parliament specially for the purpose of arranging the finances of the country for the year ; and they have always seen that when the Chan cellor of the Exchequer has brought his scheme before Parliament, and that scheme has received the assent of the House of Commons, it has invariably be come law. (Hear, hear.) Now, having seen that, and never having seen anything else, it is not to be wondered that the great bulk of the people of this country had not instantly discovered, the very first day the report of the division in the House of Lords went out, that there had been some in fraction of the constitution, and an infraction of the liberty of this house, to levy taxes as the representatives of the people. And when they had in connexion with this unfor tunate affair the fact of the press—particularly of the press of London—more especially that portion of it which was the most ancient and the highest in price, and which has not yet undergone that revolution which is approaching the press of London—that press of London which, I will not say is actuated by base motives, but by the alarms which we can all understa❑d, has attempted to cover the disaster which it has been sought to inflict on this house and the country, and endeavoured to misrepresent the whole state of the question—when you take this into consideration, we may easily understand how it is that in three or four days there has been no expression of public opinion on the sub ject throughout the length and breadth of the United King dom. But judging from what I see in the provincial press and in private letters respecting what is taking place in London now and in some of the largest towns in the king dom, I am perfectly satisfied that in a few days there will be a wide and universal discontent at the course which has been taken. (Hear.) In considering this question I have not at heart the slightest regard to the particular tax which it was proposed to repeal. If it had been a proposal to levy an additional tax of the excise duty on paper, and it had gone up to the House of Lords with the assent of this house, and it had been rejected as this bill has been, I believe I should have been one of those who would have insisted with all those with whom I sit in this house, to protest against the interference of the other house of Parliament ; and though I confess I have for many years felt a warm and growing interest in the abolition of the paper duty, since that division has taken place that particular question has fallen into insignificance in my sight compared with the far greater question which the House of Lords has opened to the consideration of Parliament and the country. Passing from these observations, which may be considered general, and coming to the point strictly before us, I am willing to admit that a great deal may be said as to the ordinary course of proceeding, and to the mode proposed to be taken by the noble lord at the head of the Government. The noble lord has:proposed a committee, and if he had excluded my name from it, I say it would be impossible to select 18 names in the house mere capable of representing the solid judgment of the house in any matter that might be referred to them. At the same time there is, I think, some force in what has been said by the hon. member for Southampton (Mr. Digby Seymour), and that a name or two more might have been chosen from this quarter of the house. But lam satisfied that from whatever quarter of the house those names might be selected, so far as making an accurate search for prece • dents and making an honest report to the house—that there are no 19 members of this house who might not be trusted to do what is right and just in this important matter. But what I complain of is the vagueness of the terms of the re ference under which the committee will have to act ; and I think the noble lord lays himself open—l will not say to suspicion, for I am not anxious to cultivate such a feeling— but to some doubt of the earnestness of all concerned when he proposed that the committee should search and report as to a particular description of bills with regard to the action of imposing or repealing taxes. When I read those words this morning, it occurred to me that I was very unlucky in being nominated a member of this committee, for I con sidered we should have to propose not a report but a volume to the house. If I had had the drawing up of the resolution it should have been more effectual and more strictly to the point before the house. In a wide order of reference like this, every gentleman must feel that the real pith and point of this question may be lost sight of. (Hear, hear.) What we have to inquire into is this. Wo find that the House of Lords has increased the taxation of the country during the present financial year without the consent of the House of Commons. Now that is a grievance—if there be a grievance—of which this house ought to complain ; and as this is not a question of this Government, or of this ses sion, or of that opposition, but a question of years—it may be of generations, or it may be of centuries, in England—l hope I may appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite to discuss and consider it, not as one that appeals to any party objects, but one to which they would direct their attention with calmness as one of the gravest questions that can come be fore a national legislature, The noble lord states in his resolution that the committee are to report upon the prac tice of each house with regard to the several descriptions of bills for imposing and repealing taxes. Now, there are two descriptions of bills which some people imagine are strictly one, but which are very distinct. These are bills which have been passed in former times for the protection or regulation of any particular trade or interest ; and these bills have in them taxes or imposts of one kind or another, but not for purposes of revenue, but for the protection or regulation of some particular trade or industry. Now that is what may be called in a subordinate sense a money bill ; and there are some bills of that kind which in some cases have been altered, or even rejected, by the other House of Parliament. But then there comes that description of bill in which this one now before us must be included—namely, one for revenue purposes solely connected with the ways and means for the service of the Crown. Now, if I could have advised with regard to the motion for this committee, the reference would have been of a more distinct character; because I would have asked the committee to ascertain whether the House of Lords had in recent periods, or since the Revolution, or even further back than that, refused to give effect to any bill passed by the House of Commons for the repeal of a tax which was no longer deemed necessary for the service of the crown, or for which a sub stitute had been provided. (Hear, hear.) I am told that in a great speech upon this question it was stated that no substitute had been provided ; and I read the other day in one of the newspapers, that in a house in St. James's square, a member of the other House of Parliament and of dominant influence in that house, in discussing this ques tion with a deputation which had waited upon him, gave them to understand that he never so much as heard that there had been a substitute provided by the House of Com mons for this tax. I cannot conceive anything more un fortunate than that the fortunes of the country should have been in the hands of a man who was so little observant of what was passing in this house, and who knew so little of what had been done even by the party of which he was himself the acknowledged leader. The hon. member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles) must be astonished that his patriotically intended but mistaken efforts in _this house were so little recognised by his leaders. He moved this resolution :—" That, as it appears that the repeal of the duty on paper will necessitate the addition of one penny in the pound upon the property and income tax, it is the opi nion of this house that such repeal is, under such circum stances, inexpedient." The whole discussion of the house during one long night, so far as I can recollect from the speeches delivered upon the other side, went upon the ques tion, not that the paper duty was a good duty—because all admitted that it ought to be repealed, and nobody has been more enthusiastic in the expression of that opinion until very recently than the right hon. member for Bucks, and all through than the right hon. member for Hertfordshire —but because it was said we would prefer, for a time at any rate, the continuance of this bad tax rather than we would add ld. to the income tax—a tax so grievously oppressive upon persons in the receipt of incomes under £2OO or £3OO a year. That was the argument of every speaker on the other side of the house. It was the precise point upon which the house went to a division, and when there were more than 410 present, the house decided by a majority of 53 that the paper duties should be abolished, and that a penny should be added to the income tax as a substitute. That being so, let us not be told that noble lords elsewhere wore in entire ignorance that the matter has ever been discussed, or that the House of Commons have provided no substitute. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I think the question which ought to be put to the committee is this :—" Has the House of Lords refused to give effect within recent times to any bill passed by the House of Commons for the repeal of a tax no longer deemed necessary for the service of the crown, and for which a substitute has been provided ?" I object to the order of reference upon that ground, and I think that the noble lord has not done justice to himself, or to the Cabinet of which he is the head, or to this house, which has so strong a claim upon him, or to the country, which has so - often maintained him in power, by not taking a more decided line upon this great question. (Hear, hear.) lam of opinion that the noble lord is taking a course which is not only perilous to the house, but may prove fatal to the administration of which he is the chief. lie knows that when Parliament assembled at the beginning of the session there was only a nominal majority in his favour. It was only by 13 votes that the noble lord was placed in his present position. And lam satisfied that he can retain that position no longer has. he retains the confidence of all those on this side of the h°"e by whose votesheretofore ho has been supported, and , of that great party in the country which is represented on this side of the house. With regard to the amendment of my hon. friend the member for Finsbury, I can assure the house that I had never seen it until I entered the house, and I confess that it is one that has never for one moment suggested itself to me in the remotest degree ; but it seems to me that it is dictated by a clear and visible regard for the constitution of this country and for the honour and just functions of both houses of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) It was received with something like merri ment, but the more the house considers it, the more I am satisfied they will feel that it is a motion by which the supremacy of this house with regard to matters of finance can be . maintained, whilst the dignity of the House of Lords, which I am one of the last who would seek to im pair, can be upheld. (Cries of " Oh, oh" from the oppo sition.) Do not let hon. gentlemen for a moment fancy that I wish any governing power in this country to be degraded. .f I were an avowed republican—if I thought that in this country the monarch and the aristocracy were of no good— still, so long as a monarchy and an hereditary chamber ex isted, I would say, "By all means maintain their dignity, and support them as far as you can in the free and honest estimation of the people." At the same time I would ad vise them, as I have advised them before—sometimes as they have thought in an unfriendly tone—so to rule and exercise their power that their power may be perpetual. My hon. friend the member for Finsbury does not ask the house to take any active steps in this matter. He des not ask us to throw out any challenge to the House of Lords. Ho does not ask us to express any resentment against what their lordships have done, nor does he ask the noble lord to vary from the statement which he made the other night, that he did not seek to bring the two houses into collision. My hon. friend's motion is of a different character, and I think it can be shown it is one which, if the house had a little time to weigh the question, would meet with a favour able consideration. Indeed I am not at all certain that if the matter were left over until the house meets next Thurs day, the noble lord and his colleagues might not have ar rived at the conclusion that it is the mode of getting out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves placed most cense. nant'with the dignity of the house and the just rights of the people we represent. What my hon. friend proposes is time and reconsiderati n, which we all know in private affairs are the great mediators in our difficulties, should act as mediators between the House of Lords and this house. I cannot tell the house, because I am not profound upon the subject, but I suspect that there are precedents for the course which my hon. friend has proposed. I know there are precedents for a course which is not a greater deviation from our ordinary rules than this. There are cases where the House of Lords have rejected a bill which this house intended should pass when Parliament has been prorogued for a week or a fortnight and assembled again to enable the Government of the day to re-introduce the bill, and send it up to the House of Lords for their ac ceptance. My hon. friend does not propose, however, that Parliament should be prorogued, but simply that when the business of the country is fairly disposed of the house should adjourn for three months, if necessary, in order to meet again in November, when it would be seen whether the House of Lords after reconsidering the question would ac cept the bill. I should like to make one suggestion to the noble lord, namely, that he should not force the house to a division to-night upon his motion for the appointment of a committee I think it would be advantageous to all parties if the debate were adjourned until Thursday next, in order that all parties concerned might have a greater opportunity of coming to a more decided opinion upon the matter. I am convinced that the result of the discussion after such an adjournment would be hailed with much more satisfaction by the country, and, with the permission of the house, I would move that the debate be adjourned until Thursday next. (Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, it is not because I underrate the importance of the question now before the house that I ask the house to assent to the motion of my noble friend, and not to agree to either of the amendments which have been proposed. It certainly appears ome that there has not been within my memory a question of greater import ance. (Hear, hear.) It is a question which undoubtedly affects the most essential rights and privileges of the House of Commons; but for that reason, and especially bearing in mind the observation N't hich the honourable member for Birmingham made that there is no reason to sup pose that any portion or section of the members of this house are either indiferent or lukewarm to the maintenance of its most sacred privileges, I would endea vour in our present proceedings to do that which would most enlighten the house without prematurely coming to anything in the nature of a decision. Now, that is the cha racter of the proposal of my noble friend. Myhon. friend the member for Birmingham says that the motion cught to have been of a different kind—namely, that it should have been a proposal pointing out the difference of various kinds of tax-bills, and founding on that difference a reference to a committee. Now I will own to my hon. friend that when I first considered this question I was disposed to take that view of it. There isundoubtedly a clear distinction between bills of a taxing character. There is one set of bills for the purpose of imposing taxes or of relieving the people from taxes and providing the supplies necessary for the charges of the year, and there is another kind of bills in whichtaxa tion is merely incidental, as for instance if there were a very high duty placed on foreign corn of such a nature as to amount to a prohibition, it would be obvious that a duty of that kind would not be for the purpose of revenue, but for the purpose of protection. It would not however be advis able in my view that we should make that distinction in our order of reference, because it might be supposed that such a distinction would not leave the committee perfectly free, but would point out the conclusion to which the com mittee ought to arrive. Therefore it seems to me that the best course we can take is that which, after much delibera tion, my noble friend has adopted, namely, that the various descriptions of bills should be mentioned and the committee be left at liberty to ascertain what the precedents are in re ference to legislation upon them. Those precedents no doubt will be found to be of various kinds, and it will be the business of the committee to ascertain whether the House of Lords in this instance have gone beyond or have varied from former precedents, and, if so, in what respect they have done so. There are certain questions upon which the House of Lords are jealous, and not unnaturally jealous, of their privileges. There are questions of taxation, where this house has mixed up in a taxing bill other questions not properly belonging to it. For instance there have been bills in which this house has endea voured to fix upon points of legislation and to prescribe how they are to be settled under the name of imposing or re lieving taxation. In those cases the House of Lords have, I think, rightly interfered in order to prevent an encroach ment which would have carried our privileges'beyond the mark we have ourselves assigned to them. There is an in stance in which that kind of objection prevailed, and I men tion it as an example, because it happens to have been upon an occasion not totally dissimilar from the events of the present year. I refer to the bill passed by Mr. Pitt in this house under the commercial treaty of 1787. It was objected in the House of Lords that in that bill three separate sub jects wore introduced—namely, that the commercial treaty with France was sanctioned, that new duties were imposed beyond the subject of the commercial treaty, and that, be sides all this, there was a great consolidation of duties, making a new species of legislation with regard to customs It was objected that these three subjects ought not to have. been contained in one bill ; but that objection was over ruled. I have mentioned it only as an instance in which the jealousy of the House of Lords was properly expressed with regard to bills which went beyond the province of im posing or remitting taxation. Now, I think it would be wise for this house to furnish itself with every kind of in formation, to enlighten itself in reference to these historical precedents. There can be no harm in so doing, for our powers are very great. lam not one of those who think that the powers and privileges of the House of Commons are about to succumb to the great authority of the House of Lords. I believe that our privileges will be maintained, and I believe that by taking time to consider the subject, and by taking care that we walk in the paths of the constitution, we shall at last arrive at a right decision upon the question. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend the member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) has moved an amendment upon my noble frond's motion,which seems to me certainly to go not onlybeyond the occasion, bnt far beyond it. The fault that many of us find with the decision of the House of Lords is that it trenches upon our privileges, but my hon. friend's amendment trenches upon the prerogative of the Crown. (Hear.) I will not argue the question whether the course he proposes be right or wrong. It may be right that her Majesty should not proregue Parliament, nor that a long adjourn ment should take place, but it would neither be constitu tional nor respectful for the house to declare by resolution that her Majesty's prerogative of prorogation should not be exercised. (Hear, hear.) Without an adjournment for a week, without altering the terms of the motion which com prehended everything, I think this house might fairly and properly now proceed to agree to my noble friend's motion, and when the report of the committee is presented hon. gentlemen of all parties, duly considering the privileges of this house, may come to a conclusion more consonant to those which have been arrived at in former times, and more bearing the symptoms and fruits of deliberation than any conclusion we can arrive at at the present moment. (Cheers.) Mr. CLAY said the real question was whether the House of Lords had or had not trenched upon the prerogative of the Commons. For his own part he was prepared to • trust himself in the hands of the noble lord the member fur the City of London, and was willing to wait before taking any further step until the nature of former precedents had been ascertained. Mr. H. BAILLIE supported the motion of the noble lord at the head of the Government, regarding the amendment as a virtual postponement of the whole question. After a few words from Mr. WHALLEY, Mr. BRIGHT said he just wished to explain the object he had in moving his amendment—it was to give the noble lord an opportunity of reconsidering the proposition before the house. But bearing in mind what had been said by the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,: the tone of the house in regard to his observations, and the altered state of his own feelings in regard to the question, perhaps the house would allow him to withdraw his amendment, and probably the hon. gentleman the member for Finsbury would also think it right to withdraw his amendment. Mr. P. O'BRIEN desired to know when the question would be brought before the house again ? Mr, T, DUNCOMBE said he thought that under all the ~• JJ :V circumstances of the case the house would permit him to withdraw the amendment, but ho would do so only upon the distinct understanding that when the committee should have made its report in reference to the precedents found, he should be permitted to bring the matter forward again. Mr. KNIGHTLEY objected to the amendments being withdrawn by consent of the house. They ought to be negatived in a becoming manner. Mr. SHERIDAN asked whether the noble lord at the head of the Government intended to enlarge the number of the committee. Perhaps the house would permit him to state that the large section of members below the gangway were as much interested in this question as those hon. gen tlemen who sat above it. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON said he hoped the hon. member for Northamptonshire would not oppose the withdrawal of the amendments. It would be a very unusual course to take, as the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham wished to prevent a division. As to the formation of the committee, he would merely observe that when the names were moved would be the time for proposing that the number of the committee should be increased. Mr. KNIGHTLEY said that he merely wished that the amendments should be negatived, and not withdrawn. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER believed that the manner in which the question was put would pro elude the house from coming to a vote " aye or no" upon the amendment. After a few words from Lord J. MANNERS, which were inaudible, the withdrawal of the amendments was agreed to. The question was then put that a select committee be ap pointed to search the journals of both houses of Parliament in order to ascertain and report on the practice of each house with regard to the several descriptions of bills impos ing or repealing taxes, and it was declared that the " ayes" had it. On the question that the committee do consist of 19 mem bers, Mr. BRIGHT asked whether it was intended that the committee should meet to-morrow, or not until Thursday next, when the house assembled after the holidays. It might be that some members of the committee could not remain in town. Lord PALMERSTON said it would be for the conve nience of those members who were to servo on the commit tee that the usual course should be followed, and therefore that the committee should not meet until after the recess. (Hear, hear.) He had no objection to enlarge the com mittee. (Loud cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") Tire noble lord, after consultation with some of his col leagues, said he found that in point of order ho could not propose any new names at that time, but that notice must first be given of them. When the house met again the question could be brought forward. (Hear.) Lord FERMOY said he happened to be one of those who out of consideration to the request made by the noble lord, that remarks should not be made upon this question, had abstained from doing so. He wished the noble lord as leader of the house to declare his policy upon this subject. Still he thought that some deference ought to be shown to those below the gangway in the selection of the names of the committee. He was quite unwilling to adopt the mode suggested by the noble lord upon this question, but as the house had decided upon following it, it would be manifestly unfair that the largo section of opinion below the gangway should not be represented upon the commit tee. The two large sections on the committee could not re present all parties, nor the strong opinions entertained be low the gangway. The noble lord should state that he would rather give notice to add to the committee, and that he would not restrict the new names to one side of the house. The question having again been put, Mr. WYLD moved an amendment that the committee do consist of 23 members, instead of 19. Mr. S. ESTCOURT believed that the suggestion of the hon. member could not be accomplished at that moment, but notice must first be given of the names, and then a mo tion should be made that the list of the committee should be extended to 23. He thought the noble lord's course would be the best solution of the difficulty. Mr. ROEBUCK did not agree with the right hon. gen tleman. According to the rules of the house when a ques tion was put from the chair any amendment might be pro posed, and consequently the hon. member for Bodmin was in order. Mr. SHERIDAN (Dudley) said that as the noble lord had not responded to his question in the way he expected, he should move that the debate be adjourned. The question was one of great importance ; it was whether any hon. members except those belonging to the two gre It parties, should be represented on the committee. Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR seconded the motion for ad journment. Lord PALMERSTON said he begged now to give notice that on Thursday next he would move to add to the number of the committee. Sir J: PAKINGTON heard with regret the announce ment just made by the noble lord. On the ground of con venience he felt sorry that the number of 19 should be departed from. It was also inconvenient in practice, and it made the transaction of business more difficult. If the number should be increased it would be desirable that the constitution of the committee should be fairly balanced. At present it was so fair that no man could take exception to it. There were 10 from one side and 9 from the other, and that was a very near approach to equality. If two mem bers more were added, one should be taken from each side of the house. Sir G. GREY said nothing had been mentioned as to se lecting two members from one side of the house. The sug gestion was that there should be two additional members from each side, but his noble friend thought that he should be acting in fairness if he adopted the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman the member for Wiltshire, and fixed the committee at 21. It would not be competent to make any motion as to the names without notice. The names would have to be placed on the notice paper, and submitted to the house, but the house could now determine that the committee should consist of 21 members. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY objected to the composition of the committee. It had not been selected upon the right basis, therebeing too many official gentlemen upon it. There were no less than 12 gentlemen who were and had been Cabinet Ministers. Mr. SHERIDAN (Dudley) said that upon the under standing that one additional member from each side of the house would be placed on the committee he would with draw his amendment. The motion for adjournment was then negatived. Mr. WYLD having withdrawn his amendment, The motion that the committee consist of 21 members was agreed to. The following names were then put seriatim and agreed to :—Lord Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Walpole, Lord J. Russell, Mr. S. Estcourt, Sir G. Grey, Sir J. Pakington, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Hen ley, Mr. E. P. Bouverie, Col. W. Patten, Mr. Massey, Mr Bentinck, Mr. Bright, the Attorney-General, Sir H. Cairns, Mr. M. O'Ferrell, and Sir W. Heathcote. THE 'WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS. Lord PALMERSTON having moved that the house at its rising do adjourn till Thursday next, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked what the Government in tended to propose in reference to the boroughs of Wakefield and Gloucester, and if they had nothing to propose why they delayed the issue of the writs ? A debate followed, in which many appeals were made from legal members urging that the Government should not persist in pressing prosecutioni against witnesses who had made full disclosures, and who ought to be indemnified. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that, however he might respect the humanity and forbearance contained in their appeals, they did not relieve him from the obligations of his duty as a public functionary. He would most gladly acquiesce in any direct resslution which should so relieve him. But the house hid already taken steps which it was bound to pursue if it wished to avoid the imputation of hav ing acted with solemn mockery and the charge of organised hypocrisy. He had no choice except to prosecute those who, according to the decision of the commissioners, were greatest culprits. After some further debate, Sir G. C. LEWIS complained of the embarrassment caused to the Government by these discussions, and de manded that some definite motion should be brought for ward on the subject. He made a similar complaint as to the various opinions with regard to the suspension of the writ. If the writ was to be suspended beyond this present Parliament, it could only be done by a direct bill, which the Government, with the Reform Bill in prospect, did not propose to do. In reply to Mr. DILWYN, Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the Government would not insist on the clauses in the Census Bill imposing a penalty on those who refused to state their religious profession. THE POPE'S IRISH BRIGADE. The O'DONOGIIUE said he rose with reluctance to call the attention of that house, of the country, and of Europe, to the course which within the last few days the Irish Go vernment had thought fit to take. At any time that course would have been extraordinary, but now, contrasted with what the Government had done in England, it was also unjustifiable. A proclamation had been issued, signed by the Chief Commissioner of Police, purporting to be a caution against foreign enlistment. It seemed to have been put forward to preventa few Irishmen from taking service in the army of the Pope. Let the house now remember that Eng land was not at war with the Pope, nor was she likely to be at war with him. He was not at war with any one with whom England was in alliance. Why then should Government arbitrarily interpose to prevent those Irishmen who sympa thised with him from taking service in his army ? Let the house observe that, at the time when the Government were issuing this proclamation in Ireland, the Government in England wore countenancing, and he believed actually en couraging the collection of subscriptions in aid of Garibald and others. These acts had been pronounced by lawyers on both sides of the house to be illegal, and they were known to be contrary to the laws of nations. It was aiding men to make war upon sovereigns with whom ostensibly we were on terms of amity; and such conduct between indivi duals in private life would be , considered treacherous and hypocritical. The case steed thus :—The overwhelm ing majority of the people of Ireland were Catholics. They sympathised w ith th e P o pe, a nd as the natural result they were anxious to aid him in his distress. But the Govern ment had no sympathy whatever with the Pope. Thispro- , clanAtion was oppressive and tyrannical, as an attempt tt 1860, fetter freedom of action. It looked very much like a triumph given to the protestant feeling of this country at the expense of the catholie feeling of Ireland. Numbers of volunteers from other Catholic nations went to join General Lamori- ciere, and not only money but guns were given to the Pope by noblemen and gentlemen in France, and there was no pro clamation to forbid such subscriptions. But her Majesty's Government wished success to the conspirators in Italy, and were determined to crush the expression of Irish zeal. This repression was an instance of tyranny in its most odious _ _ form. The noble lord the Foreign Secretary the other day sneered at the notion that Catholics should resent an attack on the Pope's legitimate sovereignty; but Mr. Pitt, in a debate in that house, during the war with Napoleon, alluded very differently to the outrages and insults inflicted on Pius VII., that venerable Pontiff, saying that "such conduct seems even to me, a Protestant, hardly short of the guilt of sacrilege. What would be the effect of this proclamation on Ireland ? It would cause every person who was leaving the country to have his movements watched, and magis trates who wished to be promoted would send reports to Dublin Castle, and there would be a renewal of the old state trials. It was said it was contrary to the law to enlist per sons for the service of the Pope. Well, suppose it was ; but why was not the law with regard to subscriptions to aid an insurrection in a country with the Government of which we were in amity put in force also ? Suppose it had been determined to stop these subscriptions, and that the enlist ment in the service of the Pope had been allowed to proceed, her Majesty's Government would not have been allowed long to occupy the Treasury benches. He thought Govern ment were bound either to enforce the law in this country or to withdraw the proclamation in Ireland. Mr. CARD WELL said he was very sorry that the hon, member should suppose that the conduct of the Irish Go- vernment had been extraordinary. Whether extraordinary or not, it had been simply that of obedience to the law. The hon. member supposed that they had issued a proclamation, and he said that proclamation was tyrannical and oppressive. Now, in the first place, they had issued no proclamation at all, and in the next place their conduct had been anything but tyrannicil and oppressive. There was a law of this United Kingdom which rendered it penal for any subject of her Majesty, without her Majesty's permission, to take service under a foreign sovereign, and it was the duty of the Government both in England and Ireland to carry that statute into effect. They did not desire to see persons brought into the meshes of the law through ignorance of its provisions, nor did they desire a state of things to con tinue under which persons who when they knew what the law was might be willing and ready to obey it, should breakit through not haNing information. What they did was this, they directed a notice containing the terms of the statute in clear and unmistakeable language to be printed and circu lated. He submitted that it was their plain duty, so long as Parliament kept that statute on the statute book, to en force it, and that it was not only not tyrannical and oppres sive but consistent with propriety to inform the people of Ireland what the law was. Then the hon. gentleman said the Government had pursued an entirely different course in England from what they had pursued in Ireland, and that there had not been equality of justice between the two parts of the United Kingdom (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentle.. man could not say that there had been any tendency to in fringe this statute in England. If there had been he had not the slightest doubt that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have issued in England the same notice that had been issued in Ireland. But the hon. gentle man said they had been parties to the encouraging illegal subscriptions for the purpose of supporting an insurrection in° Sicily. Now, he entirely denied that they had been guilty of anything of the sort. If the hon. gentleman was aware of any evidence that they had done so, it was his duty to adduce it. He was not about to renew the discussion that took place the other night with regard to the difficulty of obtaining convictions of conspiracy. His object was simply to show that the Irish government, having desired to give effect to the law, had thought it equitable and right to couple that with a notice calling the attention of those who might otherwise have exposed themselves to punish ment to the provisions of that statute. The Government had instituted no prosecution in Ireland or in England, for the same reason in both countries, that they had no evidence that would. justify any such proceeding with regard to any infringement of the law. The hon. gentleman said the issue of this notice would lead to mischievous consequences in Ireland, Now, he had shown, with regard to the past, that the hon. gentleman was mistaken aito the conduct of the Irish Government, and he ventures to say, with regard to the future, that he would be equally mistaken. The notice was legal, and it was fair to give the people informa tion of the law, to which they were bound to conform. Mr. BOWYER said he rose to call the attention of her Majesty's Government and the house to a most extraordi nary despatch from her Majesty's representative at Naples which had been laid before the house. He referred to the correspondence rear ecting the reception of political refugees on board her Majesty's ships of war, and the passage to which ho wished to call attention was to be found in a de spatch from Mr. Elliot to Lord John Russell dated the 23d March, 1860, and which sounded more like an extract from a speech in a Jacobite club than from a despatch from a Minister of State. Mr. Eliot said, "In the present excited state of Italy an announcement that political refugees would ftnd an asylum on board her Majesty's ships would pos sibly be sufficient to produce an outrage, but on the other hand it must be recollected that when this Government and its agents are prosecuting individuals in defiance both of law and justice—(hear)—they may be fairly considered as somewhat in the same position as those who escape from the Lynch law of a mob." (Hear.) Now, he was not going to say one word of the merits or demerits of the N ea politan Government, and he should abstain from doing so because he was addressing the British House of Commons, and not a Neapolitan Parliament. We had no business with the internal government of the, country, or of any foreign country, but he did say that if a Minister who was accredited to any Government spoke in a public despatch in terms of gross insult towards the sovereign of that coun try, that was an outrage against the usage and the law of nations, and against the proper decencies of civilised life. He wanted to know whether such a despatch as this would have been written by a Minister accredited to the Court of France ? These insults were only offered to the minor States of Europe. :No insolence was considered too bad for them if it accorded with the prejudices of this country. He did not believe that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs really entertained those sentiments towards foreign Governments in his own secret heart, but the noble lord truckled to the feeling of this country against the Catholics. He wanted to know if it was possible that a minister who had used such lan guage as this could continue at the court to which he was accredited? There was no doubt that according to the law of nations Garibaldi had been guilty of an act of piracy, and those who formed committees in London for the pur pose of assisting him were guilty of a conspiracy to commit piracy. He (Mr. Bowyer) hoped that an opportunity would be afforded before the close of the session for discussing the foreign policy of the Government, and it would then appear that in that policy there would be no impartiality, and a very curious sort of neutrality. Lord PALMERSTON—I am afraid I cannot satisfy the wish of the hon. and learned gentleman by informing him that her Majesty's Government have expressed any disap proval of the despatch which has met with his censure, (Hear, hear.) The chief characteristic of that despatch is that it states the truth—(cheers)—and I apprehend that it is the duty of her Majesty's diplomatic agents abroad to state the truth, however disagreeable to the Government whom they address, with regard to the facts upon which they have to communicate. (Hear, hear.) This was not a volunteered communication from Mr. Elliot. It arose from a discussion which took place here as to the supposed conduct of a naval officer in giving refuge to a Sicilian flee ing from persecution on shore. The orders which have been given on those matters are recorded on the other page of the paper from which the hon. gentleman read an extract, and he will find that the orders, given by my direction when at the head of the Foreign-office, and under which all naval officers are acting in places where these circumstances are likely to occur, are simply these—that when any one flees from justice, to escape from a trial or from the condemnation of a tribunal, to any ship of war which may be stationed in a foreign port, he is not to be received; but that if an indi vidual flees from persecution on account of political opi nions, or political conduct, and gains access to the ship, then the commanding officer is not to refuse him asylum, It is upon the principle that every British ship of war is British territory (cheers) ; and that principle has been acted upon in other places and with regard to other countries besides icily. During the civil wars of Spain, Gibraltar was the place of refuge alternately of all the dif ferent parties. Carlists :at one time, Progresistas at an other, fleeing from the power of their adversaries, trium phant for a moment, have equally found refuge under the sanction of the British flag at that place. (Hen., hear.) On the same principle it would be an act of barbarous cruelty on the part of the commander of a ship to turn adrift and force back into the hands of his pursuers a man who had committed no distinct offence, who had been tried by no tribunal, who had been charged and found guilty of no civil or criminal offence, but who was persecuted simply on account of his political opinions, and sought a tempo rary refuge on board ship. (Hear, hear.) Mi. Elliot states when ho last wrote that the condition of Sicily at the time was such that I ersons flying for refuge from the police in this way, were like persons flying from the Lynch law of a mob. [Mr. Hennessy.—They were flying from the go vernment.] Yes, but the Government of Sicily is the police. (Cheers.) That is the gravamen of the charge. The hon, and learned gentleman says Mr. Elliot showed disrespect to the laws and institutions of the country, but I say he showed respect to . them. The laws and institutions of the Neapolitan kingdom are now entirely set,aside, and consigned te obli vion—the whole government of the country is in the hands of the police. (Hear, hear.) In the kingdom of Naples there is an excellent code (" hear, hear," from:Mr. Bowyer) —the Code Napoleon [Mr. Bowyer.—" No, it is not so"], adapted to local circumstances and to the usages of the peo ple. There is a Constitution and a Parliament, granted by the late King, sworn to by him in the most solemn manner (hear, hear); with adjurations of vengeance on himself and his successors if ever it were set aside—but yet that Constitution is a dead letter. (Cheers.) The police do everything—they arrest - people without any charge against there, they 'keep them in prison without any trial, and if by any accident any prisoner is brought to trial and acquitted he is equally kept in prison, because it is said he is suspected. (Hear, hear.) Innocence is no protection there—(cheers)--and the utmost barbarities have been per petrated by the police of Sicily on the unfortunate popula tion of the country. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman does not know *hat is passing there; if ho did, I am sure his generous feelings would revolt against the barbarities which we hear and know are practised in that country. I believe that no such case as that of M. Rosa which has been brought forward has occurred; the report is entirely unfounded. We don't know that there is such a person, but, putting a hypothetical case—if any man flying from the fangs of the police were to seek refuge on board a British ship, there is no man I believe in this country who would not deem that that officer had misconducted himself who, under these circumstances, should drive such an in dividual back to be the victim of the barbarities I have described. (Cheers.) These are matters of feeling on which we must all think alike. It is no departure from our posi tion of neutrality in regard to the contest now going on. No encouragement has been given to those who are sub scribing in aid of Garibaldi. The hon. and learned gentle man says the speech of my noble friend the other night was an encouragement, because at the moment he compared Garibaldi to an historical personage ; but if the hon. gen tleman has no other ground than that for asserting that the Government has given any such encouragement, he is rather straining facts and assertions in order to prop up the opinions which ho wishes us to receive as sound. (Hear.) Therefore, as far as this queston goes, there is no censure to be applied to Mr. Elliot. With regard to the feelings of the Neapolitan Government upon that despatch, I should think when they read it, all they could have to say to it would be " . . Pudet hwc opprobria nobis, "Et dici potuisse et non potuisse refelli." (Hear.) In respect to the other points there is a great dis tinction between the two cases. In the one case there is a positive statute, plain, intelligible, and simple, to the viola tion of which certain penalties aro attached—that is the Foreign Enlistment Act, The other is an infraction of the law of nations, which may be punished ; but every man must see that a prosecution in this case would be much more uncertain than in the case of offences against the Fo reign Enlistment Act. In the one case a warning was thought necessary to certain people in Ireland who did not seem to be aware of the state of the law ; in the other case it was stated by a hon. and learned member opposite, that the discussion in this house would be sufficient warning to those who were supposed to be engaged in these subscrip tions, which were deemed to be contrary to the law of na tions. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HENNESSY said the noble lord's description of the state of Sicily reminded him of a statement which had been made some years ago by a colleague of his on a similar matter. In 1857 the Foreign Secretary of the noble lord's Government stated in another place, that Baron Poen* had had an operation performed on him while still wearing the chains which caused the wounds for which that opera tion was required. That statement was also repeated in another form by the right hon. gentleman opposite, whose book about Naples was full of the grossest misconceptions. The moment that charike was made the Government of Naples took steps to give it a proper contradiction. A State paper was published to which were attached the certificate a of the surgeons who performed the operation. They denied the story about the chains, for the Baron wore no chains — Mr. GLADSTONE—Oh, oh 1 Why I saw them myself. (Loud cheers.) Mr. HENNESSY—Did the right hon. gentleman mean to say that he saw the chains upon the baron at the time of the operation, . and that it was in consequence of the chains; because that was what Lord Aberdeen stated in the House of Lords, and what had been asserted by the right hon. gentleman ? But they had now the declaration of the medical officers that they saw no chains, no mark of a chain, and that the disease for which the operation was performed was of long standing. Yet it was upon such statements as those that our Ministers insulted Naples, and used language which must lead to a rupture of diplomatic relations with that Court. (Great laughter.) With respect to the religious question he would say nothing, but as to liberalism either in Italy or anywhere else, he did not ap prove of it. (Hear, - and laughter.) Mr. CARD WELL desired to remark that he had not said any proclamation was issued in Ireland against foreign enlistment. The warning given was merely an ordinary .police notice. Mr. P. O'BRIEN could not concur in his hon. col leage's defence of the Sicilian Government. He regarded it as most abominable, and he hoped it would be overthrown by the nationality of the people, under the guidance of the Catholic clergy, and not by the exertions of Garibaldi, with whom he had no sympathy. DEFENCES OF THE COUNTRY. - Col. DUNNE expressed a hope that the report on the defences of the country would be laid upon tho table before the house was asked to vote the army estimates. The motion for the adjournment to Thursday was then agreed to. ANNUITY FRANCHISE. Colonel SYKES gave notice that, in committee on the Reform Bill, he should move the insertion of a clause con ferring the elective franchise on each male person of full age holding a Government deferred annuity of £26 after twelve months' residence in any county or borough. THE CASE OF WILLIAM AND MARTHA BRIGHTMAN. Sir JOHN TROLLOPE moved an address for copies of the correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Clerk of the Spalding Board of Guardians, relative to prosecutions, at the last assizes for the county of Lincoln, against William and Martha Bright man, for bigamy. The hon. baronet entered at some length into the circumstances of the case, complaining that the board of guardians had been saddled with the cost of the prosecution, because the learned judge who tried the parties refused to allow any expenses ; and, in passing the slight sentence of one day's imprisonment, commented se verely on the conduct of the prosecutors for bringing such a ease into court. It seemed that William and Martha Brightman were married about 25 years ago, but they parted on the day of their marriage, having never cohabited toge ther. The man got married to another woman, and having four children which became chargeable to the parish, it wa i k then ascertained that the man had been already married to another woman who was still alive. Mr. Justice Willes termed the prosecution " a persecution," passed a nominal sentence of one day, and mulcted the board of guardians in all the costs. Now he (Sir John Trollope) wanted to know whether these were proceedings to be sanctioned by the Se cretary of State, and ought a judge of the land to use the language which he had described ? He begged in conch'. sion to make the motion for, the returns in question. Sir G. C. LEWIS agreed that his hon. friend was justi .. . . fled in bringing this question before the house. There could, however, be no question upon the integrity of the learned judge in this case. The question simply related to the learned judge's discretion. The matter itself lay in a very limited compass. The parties were married in 1838, and a quarrel having ensued, no cohabitation took place, and it was supposed by the parties that no marriage had really taken place. This was of course`a vulgar error. In 1842 both parties married again, and the children of the husband by the second marriage becoming charge able on the parish, the board of guardians laid an indict ment for bigamy against the htisband, when a verdict was given against him. Tho guardians of the poor of the parish in question felt it their duty to bring a similar action against the wife, whose :children by her se cond marriage became chargeable on the parish. To this indictment she pleaded guilty. The judge passed a lenient sentence, and made some remarks upon the impolicy of indicting those persons under the circumstances of the case. No doubt the learned judge entertained a strong opinion on the case, and expressed him self strongly. No doubt it would havi3 been better if he had abstained from making those remarks. It was not in tended he (Sir G. C. Lewis) supposed to censure by a vote of thakhouse the language of the learned judge in question. While - he (Sir G. C. Lewis) admitted that the learned judge had been guilty of indiscretion in using the language in question, still he must observe, that he had no doubt the learned judge used them in the perfect belief that the in dictment ought not to have been laid against the parties in question. . Sir J. TROLLOPE said that under the circumstances he begged to withdraw the motion. - The motion was withdrawn accordingly. UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES ESTATES ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. 'WALPOLE obtained leave to bring in a bill to ea• tend the provisions of this act. _ _ _ GUN AND MORTAR BOATS. Sir F. SMITH moved for a select committee to inquire into the circumstances which had caused the alleged de feetiye state of a considerable number of the gun and mor tar boats and vessels of the Royal navy. IRREMOVABLE POOR COMMITTEE. Col. DUNNE moved , that Lord Naas and Mr. Henry Herbert be added to the select committee on irremovable poor. Mr. C. P. VILLIERS said he had proposed the re-ap pointment of the previous committee, except such as did not get returned to this Parliament. He proposed to add the names of Sir E. Grogan and Mr. Abel Smith. The house then divided on the appointment of Lord Naas, when there appeared— For the motion 56 Against it 57 Majority against the motion —l The announcement was received with cheers. The committee was then nominated and appointed. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. SOTIIERON ESCO URT obtained leave to intro duce a bill under this head, and the bill was read P a first time. LANDS CL A.USES CONSOLIDATION ACT. Mr. S. ESTCOURT also moved for and obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act (1845) in that part relating to compensation for land ill the shape of a rent charge. The bill was read a first time. SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES WILLOUGHBY, the bill passed through that stage, and th e house resumed. SPIRITS BILL. This bill was read a second time. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. RUSSELL moved the second reading of this bill, which he said was intended to remove an anomaly in the Irish Municipal Corporations Act with reference to the ap pointment of coroners. It had received the sanction of the Irish Government. The motion was agreed to. INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL. The committee on this bill was resumed. Mr. M'MAHON opposed the bill, which he said made a great change in the ancient law of the country with regard to the remedy of a guest against an innkeeper for lost pro perty left in his care. He would move that the chairman do leave the chair. Sir G. C. LEWIS said he had consented to the second reading under the belief that innkeepers were labouring under a grievance in the existing state of the law, which ho did not upon inquiry find to be the case. The preamble too, was rather strangely worded, inasmuch as it stated that it was desirable to reduce the' amount of security at present afforded to travellers. On consulting the law officers of the Crown subsequently to the second reading, and carefully examining the bill, he had come to the con clusion that it would be unsafe to make the proposed change in the law. The committee then divided, and there appeared— For Mr. M'Mahon's motion . 4O Against Majority The bill was accordingly lost. REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES BILL. This bill was read a third iims and pseud amidst loud cheers. SUPPLY. Mr. MASSEY brought up the report of the Committee of Supply, On the vote of £2,500 for Malta Harbour, Mr. KINNAIRD raised the objection that this small sum was merely the prelude to a large draught on the Im perial Exchequer —a draught which he believed would ulti mately amount to £250,000. The Council of Malta had formally• resolved to pay only a fixed sum, so that any excess of expenditure would haye to be borne by the Impe rial thivernment. He would like to know whether the rights of the navy in those waters would be secured after all that outlay. Sir H. WILLOUGMY asked whether there was any ikelihood of the estimate being exceeded ? Mr. WHITBREAD said that the greatest pains had been taken to secure accuracy in the estimate ; and unless , any unforeseen accident arose the work would be completed without exceeding it. The local Government of Malta had certainly passed a resolution restricting their liabilities to half the amount of the estimate, but unless they would consent to bear their share of the whole expense, whatever it might come to, the Admiralty would limit the extent of the work executed to the amount voted by Parliament. He assured the hon, member that the rights of the navy were fully secured. 1 The report was then agreed to. WAYS AND MEANS. The report of the Committee on Ways and Means was brought up and agreed to. SIR J. BARNARD'S ACT, &c., REPEAL BILL. This bill passed through committee, COUNCILLORS OF BURGHS AND BURGESS (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was read a second time. The House adjourned at half-past 12 o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. INVESTMENTS BILL. The house went into committee on this bill on the motion of the CHANCELLOR - of the EXCHEQUER, in order that a clauin or two might he introduced in it. After afew words from Mr, S, ESTCOURT and Sir Er, 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 minty of Middlesex, Saturday, May 26, 1860, LIVERPOOL-Mir 25. We had about the usual attendance at to-day's market, the consumptive demand for wheat was moderately good, at last week's .currencies. Flour a slow sale, but no altera tion in price. Indian corn in better request. WAKEFIELD-MAY 25. There was rather a firm market, though not active, at last week's rates. Barley was rather cheaper. English beans steady, and is decline. Oats and shelling rather cheaper. Averages for the week : Wheat 4,462 qrs., at 52s 3id Peas Beans .. 10 463 :Od 8ar1ey......... 100 — 36 s Od Oats — —s Od Rye — —3 Od EXETE With a tolerable attendance firm at the following prices : Wheat, white.. 7s Od to 7s 3d Barley. 4s 4d to 5s 8d Ditto red .6s9dto7s Od I Oats —MAY 25. ;e, the business to-day was Flour, fine, 408 to —s ; seconds, 38s to —s per. sack. CATTLE. The attendance was good, and the market was moderately supplied with fat stock. A small supply of pork carcases, at previous rates. Fat beef,p score, 1 1 sOd to 12s Ewes, per 1b....6 d to Od Perk carcases, do 9s 6d to lls Wethers, do . 8d to 8} d Sheep, per lb. 7d to 71d Fat calves, d 0.... 5d to Od Rough fat, 4d per lb. BRISTOL SUGAR-MAY 25. The market has been very firm, and all the West India brought forward has been taken at steady rates. There have also been some sales of cargoes to arrive, but at ra ther lower prices. Refiners' produce continue in good de mand, and values are bupported. There is not much busi ness doing in rum, and prices are the turn cheaper. COAL MARK: (Prices of Coal per Ton at FAT—MAY 25. the close of the market.) s. d. Bell's Primroso ......13 0 Davison's West Hart- Walla End. a. d. Heugh Hall ..16 0 Framwellgate l6 0 Whitworth ..15 0 Eden l6 0 Harton . • l5 6 Keiper Grange 16 6 Acorn Close ..16 0 Hunwick l5 0 Eden Main ..16 3 Haswell..... 17 9 South Hetton .. 17 6 Cassop .. 16 9 Kelloe l6 9 8rand0n....... Riddell l5 6 South Hartlepool 16 3 Hartlepool.... l7 3 ley ... .15 9 Walker Primrose 12 6 Carway and Duffryn Malting 22 6 Lambert's West Hart- by 15 9 Tanfield Moor 13 6 Tanfield Moor Butes l3 6 St. Cuthbert's Hartley 14 6 West Hartley 15 9 Wylam 16 6 Holywell 15 6 Birchgrove Graigola 2O 41 :t, 99—Sold, 63. Walls End. Hetton 17 91 Thorpe l6 Ships at marke THE MAILS. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and Mauritius (via South ampton) Overdue. Do. (via Marseilles) Juno 4. Bahamas and Havana (via New York) .. June 7. Canada, &c. (via Cork) • .. May 28. Cape of Good H o p e , & c. .. June 1. China, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) June 2. Do. (via Marseilles) May 27. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .. .. May 25. India (Calcutta), Ceylo n , &c. (vi a S ou th am pt on ) Jima 2. Do. (via Marseilles) May 27. India (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. May 25. Do. (via Marseilles) June 4. Lisbon, Brazils, Buenos Ayres, &c. .. June .5. Lisbon, "Vigo, and Oporto • • • • .. June 1. Malta, Egypt, and Aden (via Southampton) .. May 27. Do. (via Marseilles) May 27. United States, California, &c. (% ia C or k) May 30. Western Coast of Africa, Madeira, Teneriffe .. May West Indies and Pacific, Carthgena, Cuba, &c. May 29. [ AD VERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills and Ointment.—• Convulsions, Fits, Epilepsy.—These attacks common to all ages and all seasons cannot be neglected without danger to intellect or life. Epilepsy especially requires prompt treatment, and springs from a scrofulous state of the habit which can only with certainty be removed in early life! For curing this terrible class of diseases, Holloway's remei dies have held an enviable notoriety for more than quarter of a century. The Ointment should be rubbe t w ice daily over the stomach and spine as perseveringl as salt is rubbed in meat. At the same time Holloway' Pills should be taken in doses to act energetically on the bowels, so that the system generally may be thoroughly cleansed. BIRTHS. C A A N E the 24th inst., at El ac k stones, Red-hill, t n e Rev. A. Cazenove, M.A., o f a d aughter. E the 24th inst., at Eastern-parade, South sea,ETe 3, wifei . 0 f EASTMAN.—On the the wife of Mr. Thomas Eastman, R.N., of a daugh ter. - - • - I v EST.- - on the 24th inst., th e w if e of Edward West, Esq., of Hollis-place, Haverstock-hill, and Newgate-street, city, of a son. MARRIAGES. • HORWOOD -Z •MORELAND.—On the 24th inst., at St. Mary's, Stoke Newington, Matthew, eldest son of M. Horwood,, E s q., of Stoke N ew i ng t on , to Elizabeth, elder daughtell of h. Moreland, Esq., of the same place. MACDONALD—HELsrum.—On the 24th inst., at Chelteni ham, Captain R. M. M ac d onald, 29th Madras N. 1., the eldest son of Colonel W. P. Macdonald, Madras Army, to Caroline, daughter of the late Richard Helsham, Esq.l DEATHS. ASITLEY.—On the 24th inst., Edward Ashley, Esq., at hie' residence, 4, Clifton-villas, Grange-road, Canoubury, aged 38. BUTLER. —On the 24th inst., Mr. James Butler, of 4,z Church-street, Borou g h market, Southwark, aged 65. 1 DIINDAS.—O n the 24th inst., at 4, Clarges-street, Lieut.:\ Colonel Thomas Dundas, of Carron Hall, late of the 15t Hussars, aged 68. EL DRIDGE.—On the 24th inst., at Cheltenham, John Eldridge, Esq., aged 86. STRANGWAYS.—At Clevedon, Edmund Ludlow, second son of Captain and Mrs. Strangways. Smrru.--On the 23d inst., llenrySmith, Esq., of Chaulden House, Boxmoor, Harts, aged 70.