The Sun. — London, England, 1867-04-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS.—LAST EVENING. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. THE TORNADO. The Earl of 3IALXIESBURY said he would ask the noble marquis (Lord Clanricarde) to postpone his motion relative to the Tornado until after the Easter recess. There was a much more important subject which should come before their lordships, that was the capture of the ship Vic toria, which was a violation of international law, much more serious than that of the Tornado. This ship was taken fifteen miles from land, and although a de mand for compensation had been made by Lord Stanley to the Spanish Government, no answer had yet been re ceived. He (the noble earl) therefore trusted that the Spanish Government would see what was the wiser course and accede to the request of her Majesty's Government. Lord CLANRICA.RDE said that although he wished that every British seaman who served in the Tornado should receive his full wages and compensation, however, he would agree to the propos:tion of the noble earl. The Earl of CLARENDON was glad that the noble marquis agreed to postpone his motion. Great suspicion must attach to the proceedings of the ships in question. Lord CLANRICARDE denied that any such suspicion did attach, and handed in a paper relative to the proceed ings of the Spanish Government. Earl RUSSELL said that he agreed with the opinions that had been expressed. Lord CLARENDON said that his noble friend (Lord Clanricarde) had misunderstood him. He sympathised with the sailors of the Tornado. The subject then dropped. RETURNS OF THE POPULATION. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved for a return of the estimated adult male population, the number of adult male householders, and the adult males who are not householders. After a few remarks from the Duke of BUC'KINGHAM this was agreed to. The House then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed:— Cambridge Gas, Cardiff and Penarth Road, Edinburgh Improvement, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, Wells (Somerset) Gas, and West Ham Local Board of Health. THE CIVIL SERVICE. Mr. H. LEWIS asked the Secretary of State for India whether he would lay upon the table of the house the sys tem of marking proposed to be adopted by the Civil Ser vice Commissio tiers at the examination of candidates for the Civil Service of India at the examination commencing on the 9th inst.; and whether it had been proposed by the Commissioners to deduct a certain number of marks ; and, if se, what number of marks on each subject before a can didate could be allowed to count any marks to his credit ? Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that the plan adopted would be the same as on the last occasion. 125 marks, however, would be deducted on every subject except mathematics. TILE DUKE OF WELLINGTON. Mr. GOLDSMID asked the First Commissioner of Works when the statue of the late Duke of Wellington, for the erection of which in St. Paul's Cathedral the sum of £20,000 was voted in 1858, was likely to be finished and put in its place ? Lord J. MANNERS said the monument was not merely a statue. It was progressing satisfactorily, and would be completed in about two years. ENGLAND AND SPAIN. Mr. OSBORNE asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any official communication had been received by telegram or despatch from her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, relative to the seizure of the vessel Queen Vic toria by the Spanish authorities ; and, if the Spanish Go vernment had complied with the terms demanded by the Foreign Secretary in his letter to Sir J. Crampton of 30th March, 1867. Lord STANLEY said no answer had yet been received from the Spanish Government. THE FLEET IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked if there was any truth in the report that a portion of the fleet had left the Mediterranean with sealed orders, the presumed destination of the vessels being Spain ? Lord STANLEY said he did not know what orders had been given to the fleet in the Mediterranean, but there was nothing unusual in one or two vessels leaving the usual cruising ground in the Mediterranean. THE REFORM BILL.—MR. COLERIDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS. Mr. LOCKE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, supposing all the words after the word " rating" in the third line were omitted, the Government would be inclined to accept the first part of the instruction. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was very inconvenient to answer hypothetical questions. Per haps the hon. and learned gentleman would state whether ho had authority to state that the latter part of the in struction would be withdrawn. (Hear, hear, and cheers front the Government side of the house.) Mr. LOUKE said he believed it was the intention to withdraw it, providing the Government accepted the first part of it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the latter part of the instruction then having been withdrawn, said he believed the hon. and learned gentleman would never have made the inquiry without authority—(hear, hear, from the Government side of the house)—yet it would have been much more satisfactory if the author of the instruction had told them what were his intentions. (Hear, hear.) As it was right to be precise, he would read the terms of the instruction as it appeared on the paper. The right hon. gentleman here read the notice from the paper, and said—With regard to the second part of the in struction after the word "rating," he could only person ally regret that the house was to be deprived of the plea sure of hearing the speech of the hon. and learned member for Exeter, because he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had carefully read the instruction over, and he could not fix any definite meaning to it. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) However, as it had ceased to exist, he would not further pursue the subject. Her Majesty's Government had always been of opinion that the committee had power to deal with the question of rating, and the nob:0 lord the member for Chester must have been of the same opinion, or he would not have given notice of the amendment which now stood in his name ; so it required no pressure, however gentle—(hear, hoar, and cheers) —for me to say it could. The first part of the instruction having been adopted, it would be for the convenience of the house if he stated that it was his intention on Friday next to move that the house at its rising adjourn until the 29th for the Easter recess. On the reading of the first part of the " Instruction" from the chair, Mr. COLERIDGE said the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he had failed to discover the precise meaning of the latter part of his motion. He thought had he been called upon he should in a very words have been able to have made the meaning of his motion clearly apparent to the right hon. gentleman. With regard to the inquiry whether the Government were willing to accept the first part of his motion, the reason he had not made the inquiry was that he was not aware that he could, in accordance with the forms of the house, ask the question until the time arrived when he should have risen to make the motion. The question had been asked whether any communication bad been made with him (Mr. Coleridge), but, of course, there would be no difficulty to the latter part, as he should look upon it as a great calamity if the Reform Bill was not passed this session. He, however, had to inform the right hon. gentleman that that or something like it would be moved in committee. (Loud cheers from the Opposi tion.) He therefore moved that the latter part of the mo tion be omitted. Mr. LOCKE seconded the motion. With respect to the observations of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Cole ridge) that the question had been put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer without any communication from him, all ho had to say was that he (Mr. Locke) asked him (Mr. Coleridge) whether he would like to ask the question, or whether he should do so. The honourable and learned gentleman after that quitted the house for a short time, and he re-entered it just as he (Mr. Locke) was putting the question. He hoped he would acquit him of doing anything that was unfair and not in accordance with the rules of the house. Mr. COLERIDGE said he was quite ready to do that. The motion of Mr. COLERIDGE was then put and agreed to. Sir R. KNIGHTLEY said he had an instruction to move—viz., that it be an instruction to the committee to make better provision than existed fur the prevention of bribery and corruption at elections. A brief discussion ensued, when The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the bill of the Uovernmont on the subject of bribery was pre pared, and he was desirous of bringing it forward as speedily as possible. He thought it would have been for the convenience of the house not to have the discussion on the Reform Bill interfered with, and that hail prevented hint introducing it. However, after what had transpired he would introduce the bill next Thursday without fail. In separating bribery front the Reform Bill, he thought he was following out the general wish of the house. Sir It. KNIGHTLEY then withdrew his proposed in structions with respect to bribery. On the motion that the house go into committee on the Representation of the People Bill, Capt. HAYTER moved as an amendment the followin ,, . resolution :—" That all Parliament ary boroughs havingt'a less population than 10,000 persons, according to the census of 1861, and from which the second seat be taken, should be increased by adding either from the immediately surrounding district, or front one or more neighbouring boroughs or towns, a sufficient number of inhabitants to give to every such parliamentary borough a population of not less than 10,000 persons." The CHANGLLLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to the amendment on the ground that the matter was one that could be dealt with in committee. After a short discussion the amendment was withdrawn. Sir R. KNIGHTLEY moved that it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to make provision against bribery and corruption at elections. Mr. OSBORNE seconded the motion. After a reference to his own course on this question last session, he said—As I am now on my legs, and as this is possibly the last time —(loud laughter)—which this house will have an oppor tunity of discussing the principle of the bill, I will, with the leave of the house, make a few observations on the prin ciple of the bill. (No, no, and Order, order.) The SPEAKER pointed out to the hon. menaler that the question at present before the house was the motion hehad risen to second. Mr. OSBORNE urged his bun. friend (Sir R. Knightley) to persevere with his instruction, and reserved any general observations on the principle of the bill. The SPEAKER put the question. Mr. GLADSTONE-- The hon. baronet the member for Northamptonshire (Sir R. Knightley) has, like the non member for Nottingham (Hr.B.Osborne) acted with perfect consistency on this occasion, and I may perhaps venture to recall to the mind of the hon. baronet that when he made a similar motion last year, and I occupied a different position, I did not, in objecting to his motion, use any expression which was otherwise than consistent with my belief in the full integrity and singleness of purpose with which he acted. He has again shown that singlemindedness, but I find myself under the necessity of pursuing the same course as last year, and for the same reason. In the first place, the subject of bribery and corruption is most naturally and closely associated with the question of Parliamentary re form. In the second place, though naturally and closely associated with it, it is infinitely more convenient and politic to treat it in a separate bill. The grounds on which that opinion rests are very simple. Say what you will of the question of Parliamentary reform, of its vast importance, and of the desirableness of keep ing it if possible out of the vortex of party feeling, it is not practicable fully to attain that object. Passion and prejudice will of necessity mix themselves up to a great extent with the discussions on a Reform Bill. But the question of bribery and corruption is one with respect to which we may hope that, without distinction of party, we entertain general community of view. (Hear, hear.) And it appears to me that that being so, it is better to treat that question by itself rather than place it in immediate and legislative association with another subject in regard to which it is certain passions will be excited. It is not therefore from any indifference that lentertain on the sub ject proposed by the hon. baronet, but, on the contrary, from my deep conviction of the importance of that subject, and the importance of our dealing with it faithfully and speedily, that I hope the house will adhere to the course proposed by the Government of dealing with it by a sepa rate bill. I think the right hon. gentleman, at the com mencement of the session, did in the first instance propose to include in his plan for reform clauses relating to bribery and corruption. I heard that announcement, not with the least intention of opposing the Government if that had been the plan adopted, but with the belief that it would be wiser to give a separate consideration to the subject. On further consideration the Government believe that it is more expedient, with a view of effectually handling the subject, to deal with it separately. I believe they are right in that opinion, and I must support the right hon. gentle man in voting against the instruction, though 1 heartily hope that the object the instruction had in view will be attained. Mr. DILLWYN hoped that in one shape or another the question of bribery, corruption, and intimidation will be I dealt with. The necessity of protecting the voter has been opened by the question of the Waterford election—inci dentally but improperly introduced by the hon. member — (hear, hear)—and this may be most effectually accom plished by means of the ballot. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—In de ciding to separate the question of corrupt practices from that of Parliamentary reform, the Government were under the impression that they were following the general wish of the House. (Hear, hear.) If the bill which I shall bring in on Thursday is read a second time, it will be in the power of the House to refer it to the general com mittee on parliamentary reform, and when the House has seen the bill it would be bettor able to judge of its merits. The bill is not inconsiderable, and is, I think, well deserving of the deep consideration of the House ; and it will be better to consider this question separately. (Hear, hear.) After a few words from Mr. BARROW and Mr. CLAY, The motion was withdrawn. MOTION OF ADJOURNMENT. Mr. GORST rose to move the adjournment of the de bate. Members came down in the expectation of a debate which suddenly collapsed. The question of leaving the chair is the last opportunity afforded for general discus sion, and members therefore ought to be enabled, by an adjourement, to express their opinions on the whole bill. Mr. SMOLLETT seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER—I hope my hon. friend will not persist in his motion for the ad journment of this debate. (Cheers.) I frankly acknow ledge that there has not been that amount of general dis cussion I should have wished ; but that has been caused by a variety of circumstances on which it is unnecessary to dilate, and we have rather to deplore the evil than to attempt to remedy it. If this motion is carried, you, Sir, will not be able to leave the chair, nor shall we be able to take that first important practical step before the adjourn ment for the holidays. I take this opportunity of express ing the gratification experienced by the Government at the generous and kind manner in which the house has met their efforts to-night to carry a bill through, subject to such amendments as it may be considered proper to adopt ; and I trust, after the friendly and conciliatory spirit evinced this evening, we may succeed is passing a bill satisfactory to the country. (Cheers.) On the part of tho Govern ment I wish to express my grateful sense of this generous conduct. Mr. B. OSBORNE —I feel very sensible—(laughter, the hon. member having made a pause)—of the great disad vantages under which I rise. It is one of the pleasures of belonging to an united party to learn only at the eleventh hour, on the eve of discussing a great question, that the political Epicureans are so tired and sick of the strife of a Reform Bill that they are ready to pass any measure, so that they have a quiet life. (No, no.) It is extraordinary that hon. gentlemen waited till Monday to disapprove of that which they approved on Friday, and turned tail when they heard of a dissolution. (Laughter.) The position is a most peculiar one ; the object is to go into committee on a bill, the policy and principle of which have hardly been discussed in this house; for it will be recollected that the second reading was shuffled through, on the understanding that the discussion should be on the motion for leaving the chair. There are many points which this house is entitled to question, and the difficulties are not mitigated by the course of her Majesty's Government, which have displayed as much vacillation as the house has displayed forbearance. Though there was what was called a paragraph about re form in the Royal speech, her Majesty's Ministers were not prepared with any definite scheme when Parliament met. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shortly afterwards came down and made a voluminous speech. Nothing came of that, but a week after came a bundle of resolutions. These resolutions, introduced with so much pomp and circumstance, vanished with celerity and confusion, and then two Reform Bills were brought under notice. Of the first it is unnecessary to speak, further than that it quickly followed to the mausoleum of the Government policies. They have now recurred to what is called their original policy ; and the house was induced to come to a second reading of a bill which no gentleman on either side approves of in his heart, which Conservatives dislike, and Liberals distrust. The right hon. gentleman was pro fuse in his promises that he would be ready to bow to any suggestion that might be offered in committee; and lie left the house on this side with the idea that they had gained a victory, so admirable was the display of parlia mentary pyrotechnics by the right hon. gentleman oppo site. And what is the consequence ? Parliament has been bamboozled (laughter)—and we are going into committee on a bill which I believe no ten men like in their secret hearts. On March 26, 1852, Mr. Hume brought in a bill for household suffrage, lodger franchise, one year's residence, and personal payment of rates. How was that bill treated? The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stigmatised that bill as a revolutionary recommendation. That was his alliterative way of speaking of it. We find in 1867 part of this plan has become a Conservative bill. Nor was the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer peculiar in his view. The right hon. gentleman recently promoted to the Council of India, the member for some division of Devonshire (Sir S Northcote), said in 1866 that ho was obliged, with the utmost sharpness and definiteness, to say that to descend to household suffrage at once, now or at any time, with any safeguard whatever, would be a most mischievous and most reckless innovation on the constitution. (Hear, hear, by Sir S. Northcote.) Can I believe it? Has the right hon. gentleman actually come to that frame of mind that he can say "Hear, hear," to this? (Laughter.) There is no saying what a member for Devonshire, President of the Council of India, may not do under circumstances. We have got a proposition for taking votes by voting papers. This was denounced by the noble lord the Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Lord Stanley) iu 18.52 as being a project which would increase bribery and corruption. I will keep that until we go into committee on the bill. (Laughter.) There was an other member, a recent adherent of the Government— (Lord R. Montagu)—and if the house will excuse me I will here read out what I call a choice specimen of per sonal rating. (A laugh.) The noble lord said "it looked as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sat himself down to contrive a plan for swamping the constituencies. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer suppose that by lowering the franchise ho would increase the check the House of Commons now exercised oa the administration of public affairs ? Did the right hon. gentleman think he would check bribery by lowering the franchise in boroughs ?" Then there is a little quotation in the shape of poetry. I remember the noble lord standing here and shaking his finger, as he said— " Men, faithless once, are ever faithless men ; Give them but scope, they soon will turn again." (Much laughter.) That is not all. He concluded an ani mated speech by saying, " The Government having elan- Boned their character in orde(r to gala their power, would not part with their power in order to regain their charac ter." (Hear, hear.) These are the sentiments of men who opposed, to oth and nail, the bill supported by popular opi - - nion, but who now come dow - u to the house to talk of pa_ triotism and forbearance. A plan suggested by the hon_ member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) is well worthy the con sideration of the house. If you had the instruction for £5 rating you would probably have had 200,000 more voters than with a £7 rental, and with a£4 rating double the number. But while you have the right hon. gentleman here ready to dispute everything, he suddenly jumps up at a meeting on Saturday—a private meeting with a public reporter present—and states that he will die in the last di.,ch fo r personal rating. What does it all mean ? This declaration was never made to the House of Commons, grateful as the right hon. gentleman has expressed himself to the House of Commons —and I think he hasa great deal to be thankful for—(laughter)—but it was reserved for his uproarious supporters from Manchester. Now, sir, I wish to know what is the origin of this ? Has he discovered, or has ho not, that any instruction such as was going to be offered to-night is not for the interests of the Conservative party ? Because, sir, lam in possession of a very curious paper, which I don't know whether I ought to read to the house. (Cries of Read.") Well, if you press me, of course I must. (Laughter.) But I expressly tell you, sir, and the house in general, that it is a confidential communication. (Laughter.) It is a communication given to me confiden tially by a Conservative friend, who did not altogether agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, he says, he is a democrat. The letter is dated very properly the Ist of April—(laughter) —1867, and marked " Confi dential, 6, Victoria-street, Westminster Abbey, S.W." It is to the agent of a certain borough in the north of Eng land—a Tory agent, of course ;at least, I don't know what he is, for it is very difficult in these times, when my hon. friend below me is actually appearing to a certain extent in Conservative colours, to say who's who, and what's what. (Laughter.) But here is this confidential com munication My dear Sir—You are aware that the Reform Bill of the Government purposes to give a vote to all occupiers for two years of a dwelling house only, in boroughs, who personally pay the full tenement rate, not the compounded rate, and without reducing the Small Tenements Act. Notice has been given in the Rouse of Commons by Lord Grosvenor of a proposal to reduce limits of the Small Tenements Act from £6 to £5, and to give the franch i se only to occupiers at or above £5 rating. It is probable that such a qualification will not be limited to dwelling houses only, but will extend to shops and buildings, with land, as in the Act of 1832. Now comes the confidential part. I should be exceedingly obliged if you would let me know by Friday morning next (that is, last F rida y ) which of these two proposals would work most favourably for the Conservative interest in your borough , a nd which in your opinion would be most likely to be the basis of a permanent settlement. —I am, my dear sir, yours faiitslf i. u_l p ly, S OFFORTH. (Ministerial cheering) Yes ; but mark the words "in the Conservative interest." That was a mistake of the right hon. gentleman in drawing that letter— for I have no doubt he did draw it, because it is signed by the confidential agent of the party. But I m wa a n de t ttohatkndoewc,lahvaatsionthethraitghptersohaaonlourable g rating i e s n gem an point in this bill, and twe years' residence, because he thinks it is for the interest of the Conservative party, and will form a permanent basis of a Reform Bill ? I don't know what the interest of the Conservative party is; but I believe it really is the same interest we hold on this side of the house. (Hear, hear.) Sir, however anxious we s o o r o m oe ß r il s l e d o u t r h i o ng b t il he l7 present iliw e s r e e ss a ion b , ad l f m o a r y on b e e to pass a Reform would much one, postponed to another, than pass an im p erfect and in complete measure. (Hoar, hear.) I have have taken the liberty of making these few observations before you leave the chair. It is a subject on which I feel strongly, and I trust I have not expressed myself more strongly than the occasion warrants or demands. (Cheers.) Sir S. NORTHCOTE—T he hon. gentleman has referred to me as one of what he is pleased to call the recent peni tents. (Hear.) If I were a penitent at all, I should not shrink from what I have said, if I had in any degree changed any opinion which I had over expressed. But the ! opinions which I held and expressed last year are the same opinions which I hold and which lam ready to express i now, and from which I do not consider I have in any de gree departed in making myself a party to the bill which we have introduced now. The sentence to which the hon. member for Nottingham has referred, taken in connection with the rest of the speech,- refers to the argument of mine on the Educational Franchise Bill of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Clay). The argument was, that if you desire to extend the franchise in boroughs, and to include a number of persons who are excluded, you must consider by what means to do that. I was comparing that bill with the bill of the late Government for the reduction of the occupa tion franchise in boroughs from the limit of £lO to the limit of £7, and I said, "if you are to go on that principle of reducing the occupation franchise in boroughs, there is no point at which you can stop till you come to household suffrage." I said, " I am not prepared now, or at any ether time, with or without safeguards, to adopt household suffrage." I took my stand then, as now, upon the present limit of the oecapa tion rental franchise in boroughs of £lO as fixed by the Reform Bill of 1832, which though it was fixed upon not on any particular principle perhaps at the time, has become consecrated by the time it has existed, and below that I think it unwise that you should attempt to reduce that ren tal franchise. That was the view the Goveinment took in 1839, and it is the view they take now. The Go vernmont are prepared to justify the principles of the bill, in which there is nothing of which the Conservative party need be ashamed. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LOWE—I was very much struck with the speech of the right hon. the gentleman the Secretary of State for India, because the language was so entirely strange and new to me that I could not believe it proceeded from the same gentleman whom I remember hearing address the house on this subject last year. The right hon. gentleman appeared to me to say—and if I misrepresent him I hope he will be kind enough to correct me—that if the present bill really contemplated lowering the franchise he himself would have nothing to do with it. I understood him to say . that. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) And he went on to argue. " We retain the rating franchise, and in so doing retain everything. We allow men who are desirous of the fran chise to put themselves on the register, and we retain matters as they were, so far as lowering or degrading the franchise is concerned ;" and if it were not so, he would be no party to it. He treated the notion of this tending in any way to household franchise with the greatest indigna tl saya w ea a a ao amount ehe right—butaf t o tay r ehehai didhasa ie a ndh t dalna t l ocd h s tate nfefran chise—in year,aeayn_ indigna tion. He said that the question was still just as remote Go vernmentf y r f phn o pid m sreow— b x o o i nm u nd s awbe e t household hll o i l caw d hohtha ote towardsa is l suffrage ietdid.np Nr perfectly a a the next. (A laugh.) lam now quoting from " Han sard," of May 30, 1866, in the speech of the right hon. baronet "no did not intend to go the length of saying that it was desirable to extend the franchise down to household suffrage, but ho would agree that if it were the intention of the House to extend the franchise by going below a.£lo limit for boroughs"—of which be has not said one word to-night—" there was no point whatever short of household suffrage at which they could conveniently stop." (Cheers.) The right Lou. baronet is a party to a bill that does not stop at £lO or at any figure, and yet b ~t 3 argues that if you adopt it you will not have made the slightest approach to household suffrage. (Cheers.) The only thing you have to ascertain is, not whether a man possesses pro perty or intelligence, but simply whether he lives in a house, and earnestly desires to have the franchise. I can imagine no more unsafe or unsound principle. It is very easy to create the desire if it does not exist, and to take away the condition, so that the desire may not be desire of the voter as the desire of the person who wishes him to have it; and so you open the door to every species of cor ruption. (Hear, hear.) These are the principles which are considered by many so plain and manifest that they are not worth the trouble of preliminary discussion. I think we are under great obligation to the hon member for Nottingham (Mr. B. Osborne) for his courage ; he has done a great publice service in drawing attention to the subject. There never was a more complete change and tergiversation of principle than has been committed by those who have the assurance to come forward and say they held the same opinions last year. There is no consis tency or identity in those principles with what they held last year. This thing may fail or succeed ; the party may keep office or lose it ; but one thing will not fail, and that is, that such conduct will be looked upon by their contem poraries with the contempt of all honest men, and will carry down with it the execration of posterity. (Cheers.) The SPEAKER put the question : " That the debate be now adjourned," and declared " The noes have it." (Cries of " Agreed !") The SPEAKER then put the question, " That I now leave the chair ?" and declared " The ayes have it." (Loud cheering.) The house went into committee on the bill, and Mr. HARDY having stated, in reply to Mr. GOSCHEN, that the bill will be proceeded with on Thursday, it was agreed that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. Mr. Dodson then, amidst loud laughter, left the chair, and the house resumed. REPRESENTATION OF TPE PEOPLE BILL. On the motion for the adjournment of the house, Lord ELCIIO asked whether it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to proceed in committee with the Representation of the People Bill first on Thursday, or the bill of which he had given notice on bribery and cor ruption at elections. If it was not likely that much pro gress would be made with the former bill, it was hardly worth while, seeing that the house would adjourn on the following day for the Easter recess, to go into committee. In putting the question it was not his intention to throw any obstruction in the way of the progress of the bill. On the contrary, if the house had gone to a division that night he should have voted for going into committee. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he would fix the Representation Bill first, and the house could then take its own course, either to proceed with it or postpone it in order to discuss the Bribery and Corrup tion Bill, which he hoped would prove his sincerity on the subject. The house adjourned at five rainutee to ten o'clock. • THE SUN, LONUON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 9 1867 The Irish Church Establishment. (From the Westminster Gazette.) The Right Rev. Dr. Moriarty, Bishop of Kerry, has addressed an important and very elaborate letter to his clergy on the subject of the disendow- ment of the Established Church in Ireland. The document in its entirety far exceeds the limits of the space at our disposal, and we can do no more than quote a few passages as instances of the lucid and eloquent style in which his lordship deals with the subject : " VENERABLE BRETHREN, - You are aware how anxiously we have at all times desired that our clergy should abstain from interference in those things which are purely secular or political. This is the spirit of the Church ; it is the spirit of the Gospel. Our kingdom is not of this world. When we descend from the heights on which God has placed us, to take part in temporal affairs, our authority does not descend with us. We can no longer claim that reverence and obedience which are due to us while we act within the sphere of our spiritual functions. In the pursuit of its political interests society is split up into factions, divided by contending opinions. We have no mission to judge of such controversies. When we take part in them we earn the enmity of those who are opposed to our views. The world, which, in the management of its own affairs, is wiser than we are, undervalues our counsel and our help, and we return into the sanctuary lessened in the esteem even of those whom we sought to aid and serve. On the other hand, we must remember that all human action is subject to the moral law, which we are bound to explain and enforce. We must remember, too, that political action very fre quently interferes, for good or for evil, with the rights and well-being of the Church, and, with what should be no less dear to us, the rights and well-being of the poor. At the present time, when our Legislature is occupied with its yearly task of making new laws and repealing old ones, it may be advisable to have , the views and wishes of our people concerning the grievances to which they may deem themselves sub ject, embodied in the usual constitutional form of petitions to Parliament. The mind of the country," continues his lordship, " seems to be occupied chiefly with three great questions—the disendowment of the Established Church, the vindication of the just rights of the Catholic Church in the work of education, and the protection of the poor and dependent peasantry by some improvement in the laws which regulate their relations with the proprietors of the soil. Upon the last of these questions we must confess ourselves incapable of offering any sure advice. There can be no difference of opinion amongst us as to the end we should seek. Next to the moral and religious improvement of our people, nothing can be dearer to us than their temporal welfare, and our people are chiefly the peasantry of the land, for we can say, what the Apostle said of the Church of Corinth, that there are not many mighty, not many noble amongst us. But when we ask whether such or such a measure will better their condition, we are met by difficult and doubt ful problems of political economy and social science. Upon the question of Catholic education the voice of the Church is very explicit, and our duty very clear. Some few years ago we gave you our thoughts on this subject. But you do not need our guidance when a higher voice has spoken—Rome locuta est. The first question now ' occupies in a ver? prominent manner every thoughtful mind. The urgent necessity of putting an end to religious ascendancy in this country is admitted by many who were once its most zealous supporters. The disendow ment of the Protestant Church by law established is a measure which ye cannot view with indifference. It affects interests and principles, and involves speculations and projects which intimately concern us." We shall not attempt to follow the gifted pre late in his profound and philosophical remarks on the positior of the Established Church in Ire land, in the course of which he quotes with high praise Mr. Aubrey De Vere's recent pamphlet, styled Hibernia Pacanda, but come at once to the following passiges in which the gist of his lord ship's argument will be found : "Before answering the objections which we stated at the outset, we mist bear in mind that the Catholic Church is the rightful )wner of all ecclesiastical property in this country, with the exception of what the Protestant Church may have acquired since its separation. There has been no concordat ceding this property to the British Crown or sanctioning its secularization. We acknowledge no prescription in this case. The Church does not allow a state of limitation to bar our claim. The title of the Protestant Church has not even a colour of validity. Our right is in abeyance, but it is unimpaired. Wo must also bear in mind that while the Catholic Church, as a spiritual corporation, is the rightful owner of the ecclesiastical property, we, the bishops and priests, could be only possessors of it for the time being, with right of use or usufruct, according as the property might be personal or real. We have, therefore, no power to alienate it, or to demand its secularization, unless with the sanction of the Pope, who is, by Christ's appointment, the supreme ruler of our great spiritual commonwealth. This much being pre mised, when it is objected that the secularization of the Church property involves injustice, we may answer, in the first place, that if the episcopate of Ireland, with the leave of the Holy See, consents to transfer, there will be no violation of commutative justice. Scienti et volenti non fit injuria. If we consulted only political expe diency we might recommend this arrangement. We might say, let the State withdraw all religious endow ments which the nation originally bestowed. Let the tithe rent-charge, the regium donum, the Maynooth grant, be used for other national purposes. Let every man, Catholic, Protestant, or Dissenter, who wishes to save his soul, provide for himself the ministrations or the helps he may deem needful or useful. Let the State make provision only for those on whose liberty it places re straint, such as soldiers, sailors, prisoners, paupers, ezc. This is one way in which we might obtain perfect reli gious equality, and harmonize our civil state. it seems to us, however, that such an arrangement would still fur nish a precedent and a sanction for unjust and sacrilegi ous spoliation. The cessio juris on the part of the Ca tholic Church would go for nought in the deliberations of the Legislature ; and the disendowment would be effected by the high hand of the State, without refer ence to the claims of any Church. We are of opinion that religious equality and the destruction of ascendancy may be obtained in a manner more comformable to justice, and more in accordance with that high moral sense which is a nation's true dignity. There is not one man in the British Legislature, no matter to what party he belongs, or how small his intelligence, who must not see that it is manifestly unjust to hand over to a small section of the community those revenues which were set apart to supply the wants of the nation. We do not ask the Legislature to recognize the exclusive right of that Church to which the revenues were originally given, which was then the sole Church of the whole people. We hold our own opinions on this subject, but the conscience of Parliament is not formed as ours. We must consider, not what is right in itself, but what is right to be done by a body consti tuted as our Legislature is. And as that body has no mission or authority to decide on the apostolical succes sion of the Churches, nor on their rival claims to ortho doxy, the only thing it can consistently do is to apply the ecclesiastical revenues to the service of all the Churches that minister to the Irish people, and in the proportion in which the Irish people accept their ministrations_ An assembly composed of men of every Christian sect, and of men who are not Christians at all, cannot, in their award, go beyond the general rule, that the Church property and income are to be used for the spiritual benefit of Ireland, and in whatever manner the Irish people may deem most serviceable to their souls. The most obvious application of this principle would be realized if the whole Church income were paid into the Imperial Treasury, and thence disbursed to the different bodies requiring Church ministers or ministrations, and in proportion to their numerical strength, as ascertained by the decennial census. This proposal meets the objection raised against the justice and expediency of the transfer of property ; and, inasmuch as it is a partial restitution to the Catholic Church, we could, with subjection to superior authority, not only assent to it, but demand it. But, will the Catholic body in this country accept their share of the Church revenue ?" To answer this question his lordship points to the vast sums so generously expended by Irish Catholics of late years in building churches, and founding religious houses and schools, and in other works of charity, and continues : " Now, we ask, why should the Irish Cath olic submit to thi s, when i exist ample funds which cou ld be used e in no built for a small number for the purpose ? The ru s t of the old chai ns must still cling round him, f hecan paotifenptelrysobens who ar bear to seechurches way his betters, and built from funds for which he is equally taxed as they are. The independence of the Church does not require such a sacrifice. The laity do not grudge to be charged with the support of the clergy: for many reasons they approve that mode of support, and they would be the first to protest against a departure from the present system ; but there is no reason why they should not gladly receive a grant for the building of their church or the maintenance of a diocesan school, not from the common taxes of the country, but from funds which their forefathers set apart for these purposes. It would seem very absurd on our part to say to our people, You must, build your churches ; you shall not do so with the money you have paid in tithe-rent; all that you must leave to tlie Protestant Church, or for secular uses ; you must find money over and above for the needs of your own worship. The allocation we propose, besides exempt ing the Catholic laity from the burden of a double taxa tion, would make the Catholic feel that he attained social and religious equality by giving splendour and dignity to his Church. The dignity which graces a Church does not come from the wealth of its clergy. On the contrary, the poorer they are the more they are revered. The Church is clothed with that majesty which makes her • Venerable when her Dail:doter§ tixe poor, and learned, and zealous, and devout, and when her temples are rich by the beauty of their architecture, the grandeur of their dimensions, the costliness of their ornaments ; when in every parish God's house surpasses every dwelling of man ; when the organ and the choir, the vestments and sacred vessels, show that man has consecrated his best and richest to the service of his Creator. If a due pro portion of the revenues of the Establishment were thus spent in Ireland in addition to local contributions, what a glorious array - l of magnificent temples would cover the land, civilizing and refining and elevating the national taste, while they invited to prayer and pointed to heaven ! Such an arrangement as this would give us a position in a moral sense strikingly contrasted with that of the Protes tant clergy ; for while they, as a married clergy, used their revenues for their personal support, we should con tinue in our present independence, free from State control, and united to a loving people by bonds both of earth and Heaven. It will be perceived that we adopt so far the views, as to the allocation of the Church property, so ably and so eloquently advocated by Mr. Aubrey De Vere, in pamphlets which deserve the most serious attention of our statesmen and of all interested in the public welfare. What Mr. Do Vere further proposes, namely, the subsi dies to poor missions, where the scattered population of mountain districts are not able to support a priest, should be left discretionary with the bishops, is entirely in accordance with that most humble deference for episcopal authority which marks all his writings. Yet the pro posal itself suggests to many minds the first and chief objection to the whole arrangement. , It is said that, taking human nature into account, it will be hard to prevent an appropriation of the revenues to personal use. Most assuredly, if the door was opened by special exceptions, it would be hard. But we must only hope that those who come after us will be as wise andas self-denying as those of our time. We must not think it a duty to fetter their discretion. They must be answerable for their manage ment in their day as we are in ours. There is no policy more short-sighted and narrow-minded than that which pretends to bind the future by rules that suit the present ;ime." The following is the conclusion of this im portant and able epistle : " Until the last remnant of religious inequality shall disappear there can be no peace in the land. Irritation of feeling, mutual distrust, hatred of law and of authority, rebellion held in leash, all th e hi n ges of society dis jointed,—such must be the condition of Ireland as long as the Protestant Church holds an exceptional or favoured position. Let there be complete r e li g ious equality without privilege, favour, or affection, on the part of the State or of the law, for every religious denomination ; then the traces, the traditions, of past misgovernment will be obli terated. We shall have a people acknowledging the legi timacy of the a u th or ity th a t ru l e s them, and acknowled ging those obligations of obedience and respect which are essential - - conditions of the order of society, as estab lished by the Almighty. We have now considered this question solely with reference to the spiritual interests of the Church and of society, whieh are the true eter n al interests of:man. We feel certain that we have approached the subject and reflected on it without personal or party prejudice. In every possible arrangement of human affairs there must be a mixture of good and evil. We believe that in the present arrangement of the eccle siastical property of this country there is an immense preponderance of evil, and that in the arrangement we pro pose there would be an immense preponderance of good. We rest our conclusion on the paramount necessity of peace and good will for the religious well-being of our people. The events of the last fortnight make us feel this necessity more intensely. That the demon of revol ution should be let loose upon this land even for an hour, or that this fell spirit should influence even in thought the minds of our countrymen, is a cause of deepest sor row to every priestly heart. We have had some glirdpses and warnings of the horrid excesses and foul depravity to which the unchained license of rebellion so rapidly leads. When youths, who were previously unaccus tomed to deeds of crime, can be induced to make murderous attacks on the p eaceful unoffending men of the police force—men for the most part of their own race and religion, men whose chief business is not to guard the throne, but to protect our own lives and pro perties—when they can be induced, after one day's prac tice in crime, to lay pitfalls for railway trains, with the intended and imminent risk of mutilation and death to those who are not their enemies, either personal or political, what horrors a longer apprenticeship in violence would produce ! " - when once is lost the freshness Of wrong-doing, one fall's close But a new fall's dawn cloth herald." Many will think we dream when we assert that there is a connection of cause and effect between Protestant ascendancy and Fenianisin. We know full well that the leaders and organizers of the Fenian movement care not for the ascendancy, or, perhaps, even the existence of any Church ; but it is equally certain that if the traditional hatred of the English Government was not perpetuated in the country, they would have found followers ; and it is also certain that but for Protestant ascendancy that hatred would not have long since died away. One thing, at all events, we can positively assert : whatever may be the cause of disaffection, the remedy is to be found in perfect religious equality. If, venerable brethren, these views meet your approval, and that of your respec tive flocks, it were well to give them effect by petitions to the Imperial Legislature. The time is opportune ' a nd an expression of the popul ar will i s looked for by those who desire to legislate wisely. UNITED STATES SECURITIES. (From the Anglo-American Times.) Messrs. Belding, Keith, and Co. have compiled a pamphlet of much utility to all interested, or who m ay become interested, in United States Securities. The pamphlet is designed to shoW the public the method of calculating the cost in s terling of 5 -20 bonds , and of exchange, a subject of importance to every holder of these securities, of other property in the United States, as well as the pers on engaged in commerce with that coun t ry. To this is annexed three tables. The first shows the the conversion of a hundred dollar bond, at 4s. 6d. per dollar, into pounds sterling, with the market Pr i c e varying from 65 through every fraction up t o 92. Connected is an illustration of a one hundred dollar coupon bond with coupons. Th us the whole security is depicted exactly as it would come into the hands of a purchaser, while at the back is given the table of the price to the investor at every pos sible market quotation. A similar table is given of a $5OO bond, and another of a $l,OOO bond. The price at which this banking house will buy or sell these bonds is fixed and clear, leaving no room for a ny uncertainty in the mind of the purchaser or seller. He has merely to take a newspaper which gives the London quotations of the day, and if he wishes to purchase he has simply to take the buying price b •eg price (which is the highest), and add to that one per cent. for a $lOO bond, per cent. for a $5OO bond, and a I per cent, for $l,OOO bond, and he gets the exact sum of his investment, plus commis sion, and all other charges. So, if he wishes to sell, he has to take the lowest or the selling price to de duct therefrom 1 per cent, for a $lOO bond, fora $5OO bond, and 4 per cent. for $l,OOO bond, and he will arrive at the nett sum which the sale will pro duce. After calculating the cost of the investment, the rate of interest is estimated. The dollar ranges in London from 3s. 11d. to 4s, Old. But to secure uniformity this house proposes to pay four shillings per dollar for all coupons on bonds sold by them, although the market price may not be over 3s. 11d. Thus the purchaser will be able to calculate exactly what his investment will produce. Suppose he wishes to obtain a thousand dollar bond, and the market price is 70. On turning to the table the sum will be shown Opposite 701 to be £lsBls. 3d. Six Per cent. on a thousand dollars is $6O, which, at four shillings per dollar, gives £l2. Therefore £l5B ls. 3d. yields £6 on the Ist May and £6 on the Ist November in each year, or 7i per cent. per annum; the purchaser being relived from all un certainty and secure of these payments at a London bank. Satisfactory as is the security and the rate of interest, they represent but a portion of the gain to the permanent investor. These bonds are pay able in full in 1882, when the $l,OOO bond will produce to its holder that sum in the United States, or, at the lowest estimate, £2OO in London. As the original cost was £l5B ls. 3d., there will be therefore a gain in 15 years of £4l 18s. 9d., giving on the first outlay a further interest of 11 per cent., which, added to the 71 per cent., makes an aggregate of about 94 per cent, per annum. In a similar way the value of the investment as an interest bearing security, can be calculated through this pamphlet at any price these bonds are likely to be quoted at. Messrs. Belding, Keith, and Co. explain that there are other bonds payable in the currency of the United States which they describe as being equally good, though they recommend those only that are dealt in here, which are the gold-bearing bonds, for the very excellent reason that the latter are readily saleable all over Europe, while the former must be negociated in the United States, at a loss of time and money. Our readers are aware that the name Five -twenties arose fromthe agreement stated on the face of the Bond in these words ;—" Redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after the 30th day of April, 1867, and payable after the 30th day of April, 1882," that is, the Government undertook to guarantee the payment in 20 years from date, reserving to themselves the right of payment at their option after five years ; thus giving themselves an interval of 15 years in which they might pay, and a range of 20, when they must pay. To the original bonds, therefore, were affixed 40 coupons, of which on the Ist May next, ten will have been absorbed. There is a very important remark in this pamphlet which we recommend to the notice of travellers, to persons whose business sends them to the United States, and to those more especially who intend to settle there. " They can take nothing more convenient in the shape of funds than Five-Twenty Bonds. Ist, because they are always saleable at a premium ; 2 I, they can be used as re quired, and till used are constantly augmenting in value by the interest." It must 14e borne iu mind that these bonds represent the chief issue of the Public Debt of the country, which is the first claim upon its resources. The Debt was almost wholly contracted in carrying the late war to a successful close. The liabilities incurred by previous wars had long been liquidated, and 13,000,000 represented be fore that disastrous period the entire liabilities of the United States Government. The effort made by the nation to meet the Debt, as well as its accumulation, is shown by the following table. The Debt— • _ ' July, 1860, was $64,000,000 Revenue, $56,000,000 „ 1861, „ $90,000,000 I , $41,000,000 „ 1862, „ $514,000,000 1 , V 1,000,000 „ 1863, „ $1,098,000,000 „ $112,000,000 „ 1864, „ $1,740,000,000 „ $264,000,000 t 71 1865, „ $2,682,000,000 „ $333,000,000 „ 1866, „ $2,783,000,000 „ $558,000,000 The pamphlet opens with a full explanation of the currency of the United States, and the mode of cal culating exchange with England. It says— The dollar formerly in use was the Spanish dollar (in silver), the value of which was 4s. 6d. sterling. This was taken, and has since been, and still is, used as the basis of exchange, and to this cause may be attributed most or much of the misconception as to American exchange. If $1 be worth 4s. 6d., what is the value in dollars of £l, or 20s. ? 4s. 6d.•=l-1 shillings. Then 20--40 4.41.4, or 4 dollars 41 cents., and 4/ 9 10 of a cent, or 4 mills. Now, supposing the standard of American currency to be still the Spanish dollar, it is clear that $1.44-4 would represent at par the value of X 1 ster ling. But that standard has been changed, first by a United States silver coinage, and then by a gold one, so that now the par value is about 9i per cent. above $444-1, or $4.86 per X. Hence, when exchange is quoted, say 1091 to 110 in New York, it is about par —i.e., it is just as profit able to buy exchange at that price for a remittance as it is to send gold. If the price be 111 to 112, it would pay expenses and 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. in addition, to send gold ; but if below 1091 there would be loss in shipping gold. All exchange is calculated upon a gold basis, but at the present time the usual business of the United States is transacted in currency. This has to be taken into account in settling any price quoted from there, or sending remit tances for payments ; and this is done in the following manner ; for instance : What is £lOO worth in currency, with exchange say at 109 i, and geld at 40 per cent. premium ? £1=4 . 444. Therefore £lOO-114.44. And 444.44 at 1091=4486 . 65 in gold. Which at 40 per cent. premium=i6Bl.3l in currency. The same process gives the true result, let the rate of exchange and premium on gold vary as they may. And, vice versa, to find the value of a given amount of currency in sterling : A in New York wishes to pay B in London the value of 48,600 currency in sterling. Gold is 136, and exchange 108-1. How many pounds, shillings, and pence must he send him ? $4.44.4 at 108+ gives say $4.82.2 in gold. Which at 36 premium=s6.ssB per £ sterling. $8,600 Therefore £1,311 7s. 6d. amount to be remitted. $6•558 And so again : What is the value in sterling of $l,OOO in United States 5-20 Bonds, when quoted at 111+ in New York, with gold at 134, and exchange 108 ? Price of bonds-1114, i.e., 111 premium. Then $l,OOO at 11+ premium=sl,lls. $1.444 at 108=_-say $4•80 in gold. Which at 34 premium=-_-$6.432 per £ sterling. $1,115 Therefore_£l73 7s value of $l,OOO in sterling. $6•432 The difficulty to be overcome by those inexperienced will be with regard to the decimal points, in multiplying and dividing; but tho working of one or two examples, and bearing in mind what the numbers represent, will fully obviate this. By noticing the prices of exchange and gold quoted daily iu the papers, a correct answer to any query as to exchange can at once be wrought out by the above. As all American articles of produce are quoted in cur rency, this calculation must be made to determine the cost in sterling, and as the premium on gold and the rate of exchange are constantly varying (though the latter to a much less tent) one wishing to know the value of any comm exodity frothence must make fresh calculations almost daily to insure exactness. We cannot let such a favourable opportunity pass with ' out offering a suggestion which, it seems to us, might be so easily adopted, and thus save much time and trouble in making calculations in exchange. Why not adopt the standard of money now in use, and quote exchange at $4.75, $4.80, or $4.85, or whatever it may be, and do away with an obsolete sterling value, which has to be in creased by 8 per cent., 84 per cent., 9 per cent., or 10 per cent. It is only necessary for a few of the leading bankers and merchants of New York to say that they will so quote, and it would become universal in a short time. We suggested in our last issue ou Interna tional Coinage a plan which would simplify to even a greater degree, the elaborate calculation in vogue. The public are indebted to Messrs. Belding, Keith, and Co. for this useful pamphlet, which, every one who gets it, should keep as a table for reference. Those who are not holders of United States securities cannot tell when they may become interested in these bonds. Their steady rise shows that they are daily growing in favour. However prejudiced many may be whose knowledge of United States securities has not yet enabled them to understand the difference between a Mississippi bond and the debt of the nation, they can not tell when their knowledge may become more general, and with their ignorance will disappear their prejudice. They would be rather astonished if a province of New Zealand repudiated its debt, and this was brought as a charge against the Impe rial Government, and knocked down the price of 'Consols 10 per cent. We therefore again recom mend all people who get this pamphlet not only to read its contents, but to place it in where they can hereafter get it for reference. British Army Reform. From time immemorial arms have been held to be a noble profession, demanding the greatest sacrifices and returning the fewest material rewards. The soldier sought honour, not gain. Yet, strange to say, so inveterate is the money qualification by which England measures all earthly good that she has managed to import into her own service this as the only qualification she recognises. If NA POLEON I. had wished to illustrate his saying, that the English were a nation of shopkeepers, he could have alluded to the fact that commissions were sold at the War-office like bales of cotton. To measure a m an's qualification fot command by the length of his purse, is one of the strangest acts ever sanc tioned by a nation. Once the principle was intro duced it could not be limit e d b y regu l at i ons fixing the price, and decreeing that the senior of each grade, who could pay that limit, was entitled to the promotion. The wealthy man, determined to se cure the command, induced his poorer seniors by a douceur to forego their right of priority, while he tempted the holders of the higher commissions to sell by offers far beyond the fixed limits. Money freely spent became a quick and sure means of pro motion, enabling the possessor by a succession of jumps to leap from grade to grade over the heads of his seniors, till the command of the regiment fell into his hands. Thus a direct premium is held out to money, and wealthy men are induced to pur chase commissions at sums far beyond their intrinsic worth, buying baubles at a cost which would fall heavily on their families in case of death, and by fancy prices placing the legitimate objects of ambi tion to their fellows beyond reach. At the same time every inducement is withdrawn to young men to enter the service as privates. That the system is opposed to the teachings of human nature can be readily discerned. The most wealthy officer of a regiment may be the best, and, on an average, he will be found to be at least as good as his poorer brethren. None are more imbued with the spirit of honour, none have displayed a more daring gal lantry, none have more cheerfully endured the inevitable privations of field service. But men of wealth will not seek these privations ; they avoid them where possible, and only endure them when fairly caught. In a word, they are not spurred by inducements to risk their lives and health for the rewards the service can give. They seek command for the pleasure they derive from its exercise, and the personal importance it confers, but they do not seek to toil and die in ditches or in obscure skirmishes, to return bereft of every future enjoyment by ruined constitutions or frames shattered with wounds. They are not therefore the men on whom a nation should rely in an emergency, and this was fully shown by the cavalry (the essence of the system) during the cam paign of the Crimea. If the case be looked into deeply, it will be perceived that all other considera tions are sacrificed in the British service to secure this class, and yet this is the most unreliable class a nation can have. While the army re cruits in the gin-palaces of the large cities, trusting to the starvation =lung from failures in various walks of industry, and to the craving for drink, it is not probable that many thus obtained will be qualified for the grade of officer. As a rule, promotion from the ranks has been a failure, for the line is too broadly drawn over which the man is thrown. The whole atmosphere around the new-made officer instantly changes. He finds himself in a society which has scarcely anything in common with himself, and barred from all intercourse with the society he has just left. From a non-commissioned officer of weight and consideration, he becomes an ensign or cornet of no account whatever— with inadequate pay to support a dignity which, instead of being an ascent, he finds in reality to be but a descent, with little chance of anything beyond. The position is nearly 'always attained too late in life, when the character is not easily moulded, when the hopes are less buoyant. He becomes a man by himself, however kindly re ceived by his brother officers—ejected from the old society, unfitted, and therefore repelled from the new. When the extremes meet in his case they do not amalgamate, and he is the victim. The great question to be solved is, can the nation offer to re cruits sufficient inducements to attract an ample supply of the sturdiest young men of the kingdom ? Can the army be framed on such a system that there will be no desertion, and that it will be a punishment to be dismissed from its ranks ? We believe this can never be accomplished while promotion is mainly based on a money qualification. Few doubt that the supply of recruits would be ample, if every grade were freely open to the pri vate ; if study, exemplary conduct, and good ser vice were the passports to promotion. Such a change would draw thousands of young men who now fill the ranks of volunteer regiments. If the ranks could be purged of all the open and audacious wickedness, barrack-rooms would cease to be the repulsive dens they now are. Young men of the common habits and training of a respectable class would not shrink disgusted from such con tact, and if they were free to come and go, without , a binding obligation strictly enforced to serve, the experiment would be freely tried. The change that such a class would introduce into the army would be magical. The restraints that at present act as a strong barrier to recruiting would disappear ; roll calls, punishment parades, restricted hours, and the hundred annoying restraints which mar enjoyment in a soldier's life would cease, the men would be freely trusted, and those who could not be trusted, or infringed the liberty given, would be dis charged. Such discussions as that now occupy ing Parliament would be out of place ; there could be no flogging in such an army. Though the condition of the soldier must be improved as well as the prizes of commissions thrown open to his ambition, yet what the nation gave with one hand would come back to it through the other. A small army of this class would be worth a large army of the other. Trained men would be constantly passing from its ranks, and a general knowledge of drill diffused. It is extraor dinary the speed with which a large superstructure can be built on such a ground-work. Tens of thou sands of recruits could be absorbed into such a machine without clogging its working powers. The nation would possess a skeleton which could be filled up for war with surprising speed. We advocate a small army of highly-trained men as the nucleus fora big army when England takes the field. In that army she will have an abundance of what is mainly required—officers and non-commissioned officers, qualified to command and to instruct. The army would become what it ought to be—a gigantic school to prepare leaders for the nation, in time of war. We grant it is easy to theorise and hard to put into practice. Yet the writer has had better opportunities of practically learning this subject than even Sir CHARLES E. TREVELYAN. He has served in the British army, in barracks and in the field, through every grade of regimental officer. We would go further in Army Reform than Sir CHARLES, though we fear even his moderate measures are more than the Government would venture on.—Anglo-American l imes. CO UN 'LUX MaitKEIB. COLCHESTER-APRIL 6. A very short supply of grain, and millers had to pay very full prices for what wheat they required. The supply of barley may be now considered exhausted, and we shall not quote it again for the present. Beans and peas very scarce, and prices against buyers. Wheat, white 658 t9s Beans, Mazagran......3 is 40s red.: 628 67s Middle and small_ 44s 48s Barley .... 428 56s Peas, white 38s 42* Oats ..... ... —S S grey ...39s 428 NORTHAMPTON-APRIL 6. New white wheat, 58s to 655; new red, 46s to G4s ; old white, 62s to 68s; old red, 61s to 66s per 36 stone. Barley for malting, 42s to 51s per qr. ; grinding, 29s to 36s per 30 stone. Oats, old, 26s to 33s ; new, 23s to 32s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 46s to 49s ; new, 42s to 45s per 38 stone. Peas, 38s to 42s per 36 stone. CHELMSFORD-APRIL 5. This market was fairly supplied with wheat, the bos samples of which realised the prices of last week, but for inferior sorts, to press sales, a slight reduction had to be submitted to. All spring corn remains without alteration, and business altogether was slack. Wheat, uld white....s3s 76. / Peas, Partridge 4ls 438 new . .53s 89s I White :168 old red - )Is 60s .......... B-iling ........._ s —s new 51s 63s Dun.... ..... ...aBs 408 Barley .. 26s 33s ditto, new....--s —s i,hevalier —8 —s Beans, Tick, 01d......406 45s grind ng 5s 30s new. ...38s 42s Malt sBs Os Harrow i icks.42s 46s Chevalier bus 62s new.. ..40s 44s Oats •• • 2ls 27s Mazagan . :398 43s GRANTHAM-Amu. 6. Old white wheat, 65s to 725; old red, GOs to 68s; new white, 68s to 71s ; new red, 56s to 64s per 36 stone. Bar ley for malting, 38s to 455 per qr. ; grinding, 30s to 34s per 30 stone. Oats, old, 30s to 32s ; new, 25s to 30s per 21 stone. Beans, old, 42s to 525; new, 39s to 46s per 38 stone. Peas, 35s to 40s per 36 stone. ABERDEEN-APRIL 5. Our market continues without alteration, business being mostly confined to transactions in seeds. White wheat 54s Od to 58s Od? . 621 b 1.3 bushel. Red wheat 45s Od to 48s 0(1) Potato oats 2 2 4 3 5 s 0 6 ci d t t o o 2 ? 5 : o ()d df t Common oats 32s Od to 33s Od s 401b11 bushel. Bere 31s Od to 32s 6d (~ Barley 531 Ts bushel. Oatmeal 20s 6d to 21s 6d 11 boll of 2801 b. Flour, fine 47s Od to 53s 6d Vsack of 280ib. KIRKCALDY—Arum 6. Small supplies of all kinds of grain, which sold freely at an advance of is per qr. on all sorts. %V heat. Barley. Oats. .4s ud ' 35s ,d 26s ud .eeund 578 Od I 388 Od 2-8 Cot Tuird Ors Od 40s Od 31s td COAL MARKET. Price per ton at the close of the market. s. d. s. d• Holywell Main l6 6 Walls End Hetton ... 18 6 Lambert's W.Hartley 16 9 Bradyell's Hetton l6 6 West Hartley Kepier Grange l6 0 Tunstall Original Hartlepool... 18 6 Ships at market, 78—sold. 53. FADYERTISEMENT.j—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pil Hereditary Diseases.—The tendency to particular diseases transinitt,d from parent to child exercises a wide influence in prod acing disease. Few are free from hereditary pre dispositions. Consumption, gout, and scrofulous disorders are from this cause ever present, and yearly rob us of our dearest treasures. Holloway's ointment and pills have the power of removing from the blood the morbid qualities, in which lies the essence of all hereditary diseases, and not only do they cleanse the blood, but purify every living tissue throughout the frame, whether situated externally or internally. They are soothing, yet searching, and never can be wrongly used or do harm. Being free from noxious ingredients the most delicate and timid may fearlessly em ploy them. Baths. BAILLIE—On the 6th inst., at 50, Queen's-gate-terrace, Mrs. Duncan Baillie, of a daughter. NoßwooD—On the 6th inst., at 23, Queen's-gate-gardens, W., the wife of 0. M. Norwood, Esq., ➢i.P., of a son. WINDUS—On the 4th inst., at Greenhithe, Mrs. Eric Windus, of a daughter. 1 Marriages. JARDINE —VAMILTON—Ou the 4th inst., a Leny, Perth shire, Robert Jardine, Esq., of Castlamilk, Dumfries shire, M.P., to Margaret Scion, eldest daughter of John Buchanan Ramilton,;,Esq., Leny and Bardowie. KENRICK—MouGAN—On the 6th inst., at St. Ge-:orgo's Church, Campden-hill, George Kenrick, of 10, East heap, and 23, Kensington-crescent, W., solicitor, to Emma., fourth daughter of the late W. Morgan, Esq., of Bridg end, Glarnorganshire. Deaths. BUCKNALL—On the 7th inst., at Westwood Field, Syden ham, James Bucknall, Esq., aged 74. MACKINTOSH—On the 7th inst., at The Lodge, Totteridge, Hurts, James Mackintosh, Esq., aged 75. PENRUDDOCKEOII the 4th inst., at an advanced age, Cap tain Thomas Penruddocke, late of the Scots Fusilier Guards. WILKINSON—On the 7th inst., at 23, Hanover-square, Sir Thomas Wilkinson, K.C.S.T., Lieut. Colonel Bengal Army, aged 72. London: Printed and Published by WILLIAM ANDREWS , of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TuE SUN Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of April l 1867, I I