The Sun. — London, England, 1867-05-08 00:00:00

pE PARLIAIO7S7 HOUSE OF LORDS.—LAST EVENING. The LORD CILLSCELLOR took hie seat on the wool sack at five o'clock. PETITION. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that in reference to a petition from Mr. O'Malley Irvine, that his action against Sir George Grey, which had been through all the superior courts of law, and also before their lordships' house, should be referred to the Appeal Committee of the house. He (the (the Lord Chancellor) considered that this would bo the best course to pursue. RITUALISTIC PRACTICES. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that he should wish to know from her Majesty's . Government whether a royal commission was about to issue relative to ritualistic practices. The Earl of DERBY said that, in answer to the right rev. prelate, he would state that a Royal Commission would issue relative to the question, but he thought that there were other violations of the rubric which would require a thorough investigation by a Royal Commission. The question of marriage was one which shouid engage their attention, and also the publication of ba►nns and the place of celebration of marriage. He considered that on these grounds there ought -to be the strictest investiga tion. Without laying before their lordships any question of religion he should propose that a Royal Com mission should take into consideration the points which he had just .nentioned. The Earl of CARNARVON said that he trusted that his noble friend would lay upon the table of the house a fuller detail of what he intended to bring in. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was quite willing to agree with the proposition made by the noble ea rl at the head of the Government. The Bishop of DURHAM said that he had read all books connected with this movement of Ritualism, and that he trusted the whole matter would be thoroughly Investigated. The Bishop of LONDON was very glad that the scope of the Commission was extended beyond the question of Ritualism, although that was most important. The Bishop of OXFORD said that he thanked the noble earl for what he had said about a royal commission, but he did not see the benefit of it when legislation had already taken place. He differed from his rev. brethren in thinking that the matter should be brought before a royal commission, but he hoped that as they had waited so long patiently the matter would now be thoroughly ven tilated. Several questions were then put to the noble earl (Lord Derly) whether he intended to alter the marriage service. Lor(1 DERBY—He had no such intention, but ho thought that there were several points which ought to be inquired into. The Archbishop of YORK thought the subject most im portant. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY denounced the unsettling of men's minds by the introduction of these Ritualistic garments. lie considered that the subject was of the most -vital importance, and he should show it in the bill he in tended to introduce. The subject then dropped. THE VOLUNTEERS. Earl COWPER asked a question of the Earl of Derby as to the authority of Volunteers in the event of an out break amongst the populace, or such an affair as that down at Chester. The Earl of DERBY said that the attention of the Legislature had been called to the question. INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE. Lord LYTTLETON moved the second reading of this bill, and stated that in doing so he was entirely supported by the Right Rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. The noble lord then enumerated the opinions of various commissions as to the creation of new sees, and stated that two of these had been carried out. W• The Archbishop of CANTERBURY seconded the motion, and tendered his thauks to Lord Lyttelton for in troducing the bill, being strongly of opinion that an in crease of the episcopate was urgently demanded to meet the spiritual wants of the people. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY suggested that the appointment of suffragan bishops might be provided for in the bill; but in his opinion the measure ought to be intro- duced on the responsibility of Ministers. The Earl of DERBY, in assenting to the second reading, pointed out several details in respect of which the bill would require careful cmsideration. The arrangements might, he thought be safely left to the Ecclesiastical Com missioners, and if he remained in office he should deem it to be his duty to go carefully over any scheme they might submit to the Government. Tho Bishop of OXFORD hoped that the simplicity of the measure would not be destroyed by mixing up with it tha very difficult question of suffragan bishops. The bill was then read a second time. Earl COWPZR having given notice that to-morrow he should call attention to the conduct of the Government with regard to the Hyde Park meeting on Monday last, their lordships adjoirned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Bishop Wearmouth Rectory and the Thames Na ligation Bills were read a third time and passed. ROYAL PARKS BILL. Mr. TAYLOR gave notice that on the motion for the second reading of this bill he should move that it be read a second time that day six months. TILE FENIAN SENTENCES. ➢lr. GILPIN asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attentio❑ had been called to the revolting character of the sentence on the Fenian convicts, that in addition to the penalty of death by hanging, they are sentenced to be dragged on a hurdle to the place of execution, to be deca pitated, and to have their bodies divided into four quarters and placed at the disposal of her Majesty and her advisers ; and if the law required the passing of such a sentence ; and, if so, he would take an early opportunity of amend ing the law in this respect ? Lord NAAS said the sentence for treason in the words pronounced by judges at the recent trials of the Fenians was set down in the 21th of Geo 111., chap. 126. The Court had no option but to pass the sentence in the terms of the act. It was open to the Crown to mitigate the sen tence; and as no Government would order the execution of those found guilty of high treason in any way different from that of ordinary criminals, he did not think there was any necessity for any alteration of the law on that subject. THE REFORM BILL. Mr. F. GOLDSMID asked the Chancellor of the Ex- Chequer whether it would not be the effect of the third clause of the Bill for Amending the Representation of the People to enable any number of joint occupiers who may be rattld and pay the rates in respect of any one house in a Vw+."Ough to be registered as electors ; and whether this bperation of the clause was in accordance with the inten tion of the Government ? The CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was net intended by the bill to allow any number of joint oc eepiers to be registered as electors. That, he apprehended, .was not the effect of the clause as it stood in the bill. 'ere was no habitation franchise, but a residential one, the rates being paid by the master of the house. If the hen. member thought otherwise it was quite competent for • him to raise the question at the proper time. LEITH FORT. Mr. MILLER asked the Secretary of State for War what quantity of gunpowder was at present stored in Leith Fort ; and what progress had been made for the promised conversion of Blackness Castle into a store house fot the powder at present in Leith Fort, and when it was probable the transference might be made ? Sir J. PAKINGTON said the quantity of gunpowder at present in Leith Fort would amount to 250 barrels. With regard to Blackness Fort, as the vote was taken for its conversion, and the necessary alterations were com pleted, the gunpowder would at once be removed from Leith Fort. THE CATTLE PLAGUE. la reply to an HOX. MEMBER, Lord R. MONTAGUE said the cattle plague unfortu nately still existed in Franconia, Belgium, Switzerland, and other places, and therefore the most stringent regula tions were still necessary to be made in this country. THE ROYAL PARKS BILL. In reply to an Hon. Member, Mr. WALPOLE said the bill stood for second reading on Thursday nest. HYDE PARK. Mr. LOWE hoped the right hon. gentleman the Secre tary for the Home Department would allow him to put a question. An opinion had been published in the papers with respect to the admission of the public to Hyde Park, signed by Sir 11. Cairns and Sir W. Bovill; it was dated July, 1866. Now what he wished to know was whether that opinion was in the possession of the Government before the riot which took place in Hyde Park in July of last year. Mr. WALPOLE said as it was a question of dates he would Postpone answering the question until Thursday. THE REFORM BILL. In reply to Mr. GLAnsToNE, The CHANCELLOR of the E XCHEQUER said be would wore fully explain the nature of the amendments be had on the paper to be made to the 3 ith clause, with respect to compound henseholders, on Thursday next. THE IRISH CHURCH. Sir 3. (MAY then brought forward his resolution, viz.—That the house will, on a certain day, resolve itself into a committee to consider tho temporalities and privi leges of the Established Church in Ireland. He said he had waited in vain for some more influential person than himself to bring this unfortunate matter under the consideration of Parliament. The hon. baronet entered at length into the origin of the Established Church in Ireland. He said it was planted under the germs of a conquering race by the soldiers, and by the power of the conquering race it was still preserved in Ire land. Non-conforming Catholics bad suffered confiscation, and had:been deprived of the privilege of leaseholders, yet under all its persecutions, they still preserved their pre ponderance. By the last census it was shown that 88 per cent. of the population of Ireland were non-conformists to the Established Church in Ireland, and it was injurious and unjust that the small minority remaining should appropriate the whole of the Church revenues in Ireland. In Scotland the Presbyterian Church was preserved, and in different countries other forms of reli gion—not excepting the Hindoo—were supported by the Crown; but in Ireland a strong effort had for years been going on to trample out Catholicity in Ireland. To show that such was the case nearly all the offices of emolument were held by Protestants. Amongst the 2,000 magistrates only 300 were Catholics, and amongst the 2,700 office-holders only 700 were Catholics ; and out of the 210 deputy lieutenants of counties only 47 were Catholics. Happily, there was ono place whore this arrangement was not in existence, and that was the judicial bench in one court, which was now called the Court of the Holy See, there was not a single Protes tant official. He thought it but justice that the Church of the majority in any country should be acknowledged by the State, and why the Catholic Church in Ireland should bo oppressed in the manner it was was most unjust. Tho committee he moved for would examine the whole of the revenues and resources of the Established Church in Ire land ; and ho trusted the house would agree to the motion ho had so imperfectly brought before it. In seconding the motion, Colonel N. GREVILLE ad dressed himself chiefly to the arguments that because the greater portion of the land of Ireland was held by Protes tants, the whole of the temporalities ought to be monopo lised by a small percentage of the population. He was himself a Protestant landowner in Ireland, but when he went to his parish church he could not find his tenants, his servants, or his labourers there, and he owned be felt bound to protest against the continuance of a - System which withheld from the majority of the people the whole of the endowments of the Establishment. He agreed with Sir John Gray that there never would be peace in Ireland while this "abominable and monstrous institution" was allowed to continue. Sir F. HEYGATE moved " the previous question," ar guing that very few traces of religious ascendancy still existed in Ireland—that the abuses of the Established Church were not very serious, and that it would be inex pedient to tear up by the roots an institution which had existed since the Reformation. Mr. VANCE (who seconded the amendment) charac terised the motion as a covert attempt to transfer the tem poralities of the Established Church from the Protestants to the Roman Catholics. Mr. GLADSTONE, who on rising was received with cheers, said—l feel a difficulty in supporting the motion which has been made by my hon. friend the member for Kilkenny, not in the slightest degree because I question the soundness of the main proposition in these words but because, perhaps, like him, and certainly like my hon. ' friend who seconded the motion, I question whether the time has arrived when a practical plan on this subject can be with advantage submitted to Parliament. In dividually I feel that were I to vote for going into com mittee of this house for the purpose of considering the temporalities of the Irish Church, I should hold myself bound to be prepared, in giving that vote, to submit a practical mode for dealing with the difficulties of the question. I therefore am not sorry that a means has been opened to us by the motion of the hon. gentleman oppo site, which, without in auy degree questioning the general proposition that the Irish Church may be fitly considered in committee, relieves us from the necessity of affirming a proposition that would excite hopes and expectations which, I think, we should not be able to fulfil. It would not be satisfactory, and it would be hardly consistent with the character and credit of the house, to exhibit such a pros pect of legislative action until the time for such action is felt to have arrived. With the exception of one or two epithets, I agree with every word the hon. gentleman said, but his speech is not applicable to the question whether we should now proceed to legislate on this matter. He takes his ground on principles of the highest and most permanent character, and his speech would be just as good in 1967 as now if the question then remain unsettled, which God forbid ! (Hear, hear.) He flings in our faces menaces which do not contain the elements of argument, and are such as may be launched in the most threadbare form in the best and worst cases. On the whole the Roman Catho lics in Ireland have, during the last forty or fifty years, pursued a course the most eminently moderate, in compli ance with the engagement given by Lord Plunkett ; but I am not bound by that engagement, and my opinions as a member of the Established Church impel me in the direc tion in which the Roman Catholic members of the house wish to move. I cannot give my countenance to that strange, anomalous, and most injurious state of things which prevails in Ireland; and the only doubt I entertain is That mischief might bo done by a premature attempt to legislate. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman says, as a topic of consolation to the Roman Catholics, the churches of the Establishment are open to all denominations; but suppose the positions of the vs o Churches reversed, it might bo said to Protestants that the Roman Catholic churches were open to them. (Laughter.) Tho hon. gentleman said after all it is only .Cl-18,001 a year, and that is only the amount of the property of a single English nobler... If is aegeaitit ance must lie amidst the most opulent members of the community. (Laughter.) I don't know whether he said that was their average income— Mr. VANCE—NO, uo. (Loud laughter.) Mr. GLADSTONE—Then it is only the occasional in come. But this is the very community where there are individuals who insist upon withholding it from the mass of the poorer population. (gear, hear.) flow different _ _ are the measures of justice and of arithmetic which he ap plies to the different portions of the community ! When he came to deal with the provision made for the millions of the Roman Catholic community in Ireland, he said "Don't be discontented. See what you have got—.£3o,ooo. It was formerly only .£6,000 ; and now, though your population is diminished, all this is given to you!" (Loud laughter.) He said they had the exclusive use of the education grant. But don't the Roman Catholic members of this house year after year call for alterations in the ad ministration which the hon. gentleman opposes. (Hear, hear.) It is a great advantage to any country to have highly-educated gentlemen distributed throughout its districts; but it is a totally new view that they are to be I endowed out of the public purse, whose funds ought, for I the benefit of the mass of the community, to be applied in another direction. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman who has moved the previous question said he could not perceive in Ireland any real remains of the system of ascendancy ; yet he said there were this session eight bills in the house affecting divers important branches of the law. These all bear testimony to the existence of the remains of such ascendancy, and are brought in to redress inequalities. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. HEYGATE—They are brought in to redress anything that may remain. (Laughter.) Mr. GLADSTONE—Then it is clear that there are at least eight of these remains. (Laughter.) The threat that by altering the present ecclesiastical arrangements, so far as the temporalities are concerned, religious strife will be increased in Ireland, argues that there is a class in Ireland which will make more disturbance if it is reduced to equality, than the Roman Catholics make at present to obtain equal treatment. (Hear, hear.) 1 hope 1 may express my disbelief in the existence of such a party. There is a natural sense of justice in cOmmunities and classes which induces them soon to acquiesce in the just decisions of the Legislature. (Cheers.) He said, "Don't commit the fortunes of the Established Church and its members to the voluntary system, which will do very well for the towns, but not for the country." But he forgets that we apply the voluntary system to the Roman Ca tholics in town and country too. (Hear.) Are they so extremely wealthy, and are the Protestants so extremely poor, that we are to claim the endowment of the latter be cause they won't be able to support the necessary charges of their Church while such charges are borne by the mul titudes of the Roman Catholi .s, who are dependent upon the sweat of their brows for their subsistence ? _(Cheers.) He said, " Beware of removing the present exceptional state of things, because if you do there will be a more active movement of religious zeal from the Protestant lido against the Roman Catholic Church." I don't know if he succeeded in carrying the terrors he intended into the mind of the Roman Catholics; but I challenge his consistency as a Churchman. He said the true ground for maintaining this Establishment is its truth ; and how should he demand our accession to his views on the ground that if you re move the Establishment the truth will be spread more ra pidly. (Loud laughter.) The general upshot of his speech is that he is prepared to withdraw the property of .the Irish Church, but that he is prepared to grant a full and searching inquiry, with the view to the removal of ine qualities and anomalies. That admission and engage ment is very fair from his standing ground. If the basis were sound nothing could be more satisfactory. Were it a country where all the people were of our religious con victions, nothing-could be more proper than that these anomalies should be removed. Rut the great difficulty is that we have to look for it at anomalies in detail ; and secondly, at one vast anomaly, iu which all the anomalies of detail are involved. If the smaller anomalies are re moved the great anomaly remains, and is the more offensive in the em; of the Irish people. (Hear, hear.) Tho argu ment of the hon. memb3r who moved the previous question conflicts with that of the hon. inembar who seconded it. There are three grounds on which a Church establishment may be maintained. On the ground that it is true (which we cannot hold and at the same time educate priests at Msynooth to teach that it is not—(hear, hear)—on the ground that it is the Church of the mass of the population ; and on the ground that it is the religion of the poorest portion of the population. (Hear, hear.) The lion. gen tleman, in his zeal for the Church of Ireland, disparaged the Church of England. I shall be ready to break a lance with him ma that subject., and to contend, that the majority of the population of this country do belong to the Church of England. (Hear, hear.) But if what we look at in the Church of Ireland are not matters of policy and temporary expediency, but broad questions of civil right and justice, we must embrace them and follow them to their conclusions, whatever that may involve. (Cheers.) Is it to be supposed that the people of Ireland will per manently tolerate this policy ? (Hear, hear.) Would we tolerate it ourselves? (Hear, hear.) Would the Scotch members tolerate the endowment of their episcopal Church in the Tray ir4 which it prevail in ird and? a 3 ON in terested in its fortunes, should resist any attempt in such a direction, if any person were insane enough to make it. (Hear, hear.) Let us give Irishmen their due, and give to Ireland the same measure which we require to be meted out for ourselves. I trust that the time is not distant when Parliament will find it its duty to look this question fully and fairly in the face, and when that time comes I am sanguine enough to cherish a hope, though perhaps there may be fiery trials in the intermediate period, that results will be arrived at the consequences of which will be so happy and blessed that we shall wonder at nothing but the folly which so long delayed them. (Laughter from the Ministerial benches, andprolonged cheering from the Opposition.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said he had heard with the greatest astonishment the sentiments uttered by the right hon. gentleman. The arguments ad duced by him as to the spoliation of the Irish Church apply equally Ireland dhiesa a as nd the much cohh tohho .)T propertyheproper typ o ro f v o fp e etri every oef pr s tt l i h N b r e t l e Cs e hhnt p li r e ec i n - h s t o . as the property of any gentleman in this house is his own. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Kilkenny said he brought thi s mot i on f orward w i th no host i l i ty to th e Established Ch urc h o f I reland, b ut merely w i th t h e d es i re o a n im w p impartial a i l s i t n o q h u e i r t y h e into res conditionresult t s of tha t tag ; a i b r e;t hef obtaining declines Can any tosay one imagine that his object is friendly to the Church which he seeks thus covertly to assail? It is ab surd to say that the Church is only a couple of centuries old. The Church of Ireland and its properties are as old as any institution in the land. The property was dedicated to the Church ten centuries ago. (Laughter, and a voice, "What Church ?") He would answer that question; it was a Church which. then, as now, was in hostility to the Church of Rome. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) He defied any one acquainted with the history of the Irish Church not to know that until 1172 it was not in communication with the Papal See. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) who asked that question An HON. MEMBER: No; tho member for Louth. Mr. C. FORTESCUE said he had not put the question, " What Church ?" (Laughter.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Some hon. gentleman or right hon. gentleman immediately opposite interrupted mo by asking " What Church ?" (Laughter.) There upon I took up the subject. From which of the three right hon. gentlemen opposite it came I care not. Mr. MONSELL: I beg to say that 1 did not ask the question. (Renewed laughter.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : I care not from whom it came. lam not shrinking from the question. Mr. MURPHY : I beg leave to say that I asked the question. (Laughter.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was immaterial to him. If the argument of equality is not sound, are we to yield to numerical superiority ? Are we not entitled to rely on the Irish Church as an integral part of the United h Church of England and Ireland ? (H ear, hear.) The t on. gentleman scouted the argume nt of the hon. gentle man on this side based upon the compact entered into when the Union was created, and he supposed it will be laughed at now. (Hear, hear.) But that eminent statesman, the Duke of Wellington, speaking in the House of Lords in March, 1816, when a motion was made for an address to the Crown upon this subject, said Parliament could not depart from that compact, for at the time of the Union the two Parliaments resolved that it should be perpetual. Are you then to be at liberty to recede from the compact, taking all the advantages which you have gained, and denying the solemn obligations which you undertook ? (Hoar, hear.) Has a convincing case been made out ? He believed that in Ireland, amongst the majority of the Roman Catholic population, apart from priests and politi cal agitators, there is no feeling of hostility to the Church in Ireland. (Oh.) There is only a sentimental grievance, which does not touch the pocket. The only argument in support of this spoliation is that there aro so many millions of Roman Catholics in Ireland, and that so much the smaller portion of the population are Protestants. (Hear, hear.) This spoliation can only bo warranted by the most conclusive necessity. The property appropriated for the use of the Church is not in any sense part of the public purse of the country. He opposed this motion because it had its root in the desire to subvert the institution of the Church. In whatever way the question may be put, no case has boon made why such an attempt should be allowed to succeed. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Lamont, and Mr. Synan supported the motion, which was opposed by Mr. Lefroy and Lord Naas, the latter coctending that the maintenance of the Estab lished Church in Ireland involved no real or practical grievance, and that it would be confiscation to deprive it of the property which it had held for three centuries. Mr. C. FORTESCUE denied that the Established Church could be regarded as the National Church of Ire land. The people of Ireland had never been Protestants, and the grievance of a State Church had now become so vast and pressing that, whenever the reform question was disposed of, the ecclesiastical condition of that country must occupy the attention of Parliament. He was in favour of a fair and impartial redistribution of the ancient Church property of Ireland and the establishment of a real and .übAtantia 1 equality between Protestants and Catholics. After some observations from Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. 3laguire, Mr. Newdegate, the house divided, when the numbers were— For the previous question Against it .. 153 Majority —l2 Tho original motion of Sir John Gray was consequently not put. Leave was given to Viscount Amberley to bring in a bill to amend the law relative to tho registration of persons entitled to vote at the elections of members to sit in Par liament. The orders of the day were disposed of, and the houso adjourned at live minutes to one, until 12 o'clock this day. Colonel Richai ds and Captain Hans Busk, TO TILE EDITOR OF " LLOYD'S NEWSPAPER." Sir,—l have seen a notice of a pamphlet about Captain llans Busk, in Lioyx, Newspaper of this week, which compels me to take some notice of the pretensions of that gentleman as " originator" of the Volunteer Movement. This pamphlet, written on Captain Busk's be half, attacks me, it would seem, as Captain Busk attacked me some years ago. I thought I had silenced him then. I will endeavour to do so now, however reluctantly, because I must speak unplea sant truths. I have not read the pamphlet. I do not know where it is to be got. Perhaps it is as well that I have not seen it, for it might increase my present labour, but I have seen enough. The writer in Lloyd's seems to think that because Captain Busk joined the Victoria Rifles in 1858, and before I did—as I admit—that " he made the first practical attempt to form a perfect Volunteer body." If so, what becomes of Captain Jordan's claims as the patron and benefactor of the corps at the time when Captain Busk joined, and what of Sergeant-major Abbott, V. R., a rifleman in 1852, who wrote in that year thanking me for my exertions i❑ endeavouring to promote Rifle Volunteer Corps? —What of the Hon. Artillery Company and Capt. Jay ?—But the pamphlet has the bad taste and in discretion to proceed as follows : "For more than 20 years Captain Hans Busk had been on terms of intimacy with Colonel Richards, and during the whole of that long period he has publicly affirmed that he . has not the remotest recol lection of ever having heard hint advocate the in auguration of a volunteer army—in fact, he rather inferred that Colonel Richards was, then at least, indifferent to the subject, or opposed to it, from seldom or never having seen him either at drill or on parade." Now Captain Busk knew, and knows perfectly well, that he entreated me at one time not to come to drill with the Victorias, because of a personal pique of his own, and that latterly I was engaged in forming a Working Man's corps, the present " 3d City of London," which I have since had the honour to command. And if we are to descend to puerili ties and personalities of this kind, what of Captain Busk's notorious incapacity for drill ? For ten years previous to the meeting at St. Martin's-hall, on April 16th, 1659, I had been writing articles on the subject, and these articles were constantly perused by Captain Busk. If, then, the matter is to rest on the assertion of either of us, I say that he is indebted for any idea he had on the subject to me, and I am sorry that his memory is so bad. I must endeavour to freshen it from his own letters. The case is this. In 1858 Captain Busk published an Opusculum on Rifles,' as he calls it in a letter to me, dated Match 27th, 1858, as king me for in formation. On July 2, he wrote saying he had sent it among other papers to the Ilforn ing Advertiser, a paper which he publicly denied afterwards ever to have seen, and he thanks me for my aid and says, " Somehow the book doesn't move off as it ought; 1 fear I shall lose largely by it." Aud again on July, 10th, 1858, " Do you happen to know whether any reviews of the Rifleman's Manual have appeared in any of the papers you kindly applied to on the sub ject? I have spent a great deal in advertising the book, but somehow it does not move off as it ought." Now, as it is stated that a vast number of these books were sold, this is important, because I say that instead of the book assisting in the birth of the THE SUN,' %01s1DON, WEDNESOA V EVENING, MAY 8, 1867. Volunteer Movement, it was the movement which sold the book. It must be remembered that this Rifleman's Manual of 1858, which did not go off, was not even an advocate of the present Volunteer Movement, and that it contained the following passage :...... " All those who duly weigh this matter must consequently admit that volunteer regiments, if they can but be obtained from the higher classes of the community, would prove the very best adjunct to the defence of the country that she could possess. One regiment of such men would be worth half-a score composed of clodhoppers and counter-skippers." On the contrary, what bad I then written ? I may fairly say, that it is proved by a hundred pas sages from my writings, that I had prefigured the volunteer movement as it exists in a remarkable manner, numerically, politically, and socially. See " Proofs," &c. But let us see how I advertised Captain Hans Busk's " Rifleman's Manual" better for him than he managed to do for himself. One day in March,lBs9, I called on him, and he lamented that his book did not go off, and was a dead loss. I told him that if he would help me to get up a public meeting to inaugu rate rifle volunteers throughout the country, that would sell his book. He replied that he was sick and tired of it, or to that effect, and asked me to distribute some copies. When I determined, in spite of every obstacle, to summon the meeting of the 16th April, 1859, at St. Martin's Hall, I urged you suggest o f a tt en di ng him very earnestly to come. In a letter dat e d M arc h 13, 1859, he says, " I am afraid I shan't b e a bl e t o spare p volunteera r e time - different" to the " inauguration of a volunteer army ?" After the meeting I went to Ripon as a candidate for Parliament, and spoke then on the hustings as an advocate of a volunteer rifle army. Within a month after the meeting of April 16, the Govern.. ment circular was issued and a War Office copy addressed personally to Sir Duncan M'Dougall, who came to the meeting, and who has since declared publicly that but for me the move ment would not have taken place. See Army and Navy Gazette, October 27, 1860, and the Times, Telegraph, and Star of August, 1861. Then Captain Busk advertised his book anew, having first altered it to suit the occasion, and soon after he began to lecture and utilise the movement. It has been asserted, if not by Captain Busk yet with his sanction, that this was all for love. Let me quote another letter, July 2, 1860 :—" I told Lever son a few days ago that if the Garibaldi Testi monial Committee liked to take a suitable room, and announce that I would lecture there on the rifle corps and rifle shooting, I would do so, and would consent to hand over half the net proceeds to the fund. I have not had a reply, but if they are in clined to the proposal, I should like to know." The generous offer was not accepted. I think it sufficient to prove that Captain Busk did not, as has been pretentiously asserted, decline any emolu ment from the volunteers, but that, on the contrary, he sought it, and in very bad taste. Emboldened by his reception as a lecturer in the provinces, Captain Busk then conceived the idea of advertising himself as the " Originator of the Volunteers," and accordingly he had his portrait taken in that capacity, and advertised it and him self freely in the newspapers. I was naturally much surprised when I saw in the Volunteer Service Gazette a letter from him stating that he had never in his life heard me :speak on the subject of the inauguration of a volunteer army. This drew me out, and I replied to him in that journal. Subse quently a paragraph and a letter from him were inserted in the Times. To the letter I replied, Nov. 3, 1860, but it was not inserted by the editor, although it appeared in several other papers. With regard to the paragraph 1 have now to record that which gives me much pain. Captain Hans Busk issued it very exteesively, but in an altered form. I have a printed "Syllabue," as he calls it, issued by him, which contains the altered paragraph in a most conspicuous position. Concerning this, Mr. P. Miles, the correspondent of the New York Herald (who was present and spoke at the meet ing at St. Martin's Hall, and who recorded it in his letter to that journal as a great event, and subsequently chroni cled its results), sent Inc the following pointed compari son of the paragraph as it appeared in the Times and the paragraph as it appeared after undergoing the process of manipulation to support Capt. Busk's "theory." "Mr. Hans Busk has printed and given a wide circula tion to the following, quoting it as an extract (an original article) from the Times ,newspoper. Certain words and phrases are here given in italic for reasons that will appear: "THE ORIGIN OF THE VOLUNTEER MOVEMENT.—SeveraI persons are vehemently contending for the honour of hav ing taking the initiative in a movement which has had so signal a success as to have produced a costless, disciplined army of 150,000 marksmen. We have been appealed to, an 1 names we have never heard of have been placed be fore us as deserving of public gratitude on this account. " Of course this great work arose mainly out of the circurn slances and exigencies of the da y , and it sprang from an trnanimous feeling of the necessity of preparing for de fence. The earliest and most strenuous advocate, however, of the Volunteer system was, as we know, Captain Hans Busk, who has continued lecturing, and writing, and coun selling upon this subject up to the present hour. He was, as we are well aware, for some time quite alone in pressing this subject upon the public notice; to him, therefore, if to anybody, the credit is undoubtedly due of having laboriously aided at the birth of this institution."—Times. Now the actual statement of the Times, instead of the last paragraph of the above (as may be seen in the copy of that journal for Sept. 15, page 9), is verbatim as follows— the portions altered and omitted by Mr. Busk being shown in italics : " of course no individual can have any claim to the merit of haring originated thie great work. It arose out of the cir cumstances and exigencies of the day, and it sprang from an unanimous feeling of t he nec essity of prepari ng f or de fence. The earliest and most stren uous advocate, how ever , of the volunteer system when in its infancy was,so far as we know, Mr. Hans Busk , who has continued lectu r i ng an d w for some tim e a l one i n pressing the subject upon the publ ic notice, and to him, if to anybody, credit is duo for having laboriously aided at th e bi rt h o f d counselling as zee kel upon this subj ect up to the present hour. riting H a e n was, know, this institution. The volunteer army, hoverer, is not an in vention, and no one has a right to patent it." Mr. Miles advised me to send the above to all the news papers. I did not, but I do now, because I am compelled in my own defence; for, if the pamphlet now issued by Cap tain Busk is correct, as I read it through Lloyd's Newspaper, lam a pretender. If Capt. Busk's assertions regarding ma are correct, I have tacitly allowed a number of gentlemen to put forth on my behalf claims to the gratitude of the nation, whereas I ought to be dubbed a charlatan and an impostor. Let me continue the story. In the latter part of 1860alo caltestimonialwas bestowed upon Col. Bousfield forhaviogsent the earliest offer of ser vice to the Government after the meeting of April 16, 1859, just before the Governmeet circular came out. Upon this Capt. Busk wrote to me (of whom he " had not the remotest " s ' elf to be " out- j ockeyed " by Bous fi e ld , w h o k s- e• &c.) Nov. 24 , 186 0, ask i ng me h ow I ca me t r o ec a o l l l l o e w cti m on y , had got all the substantial benefit "we ought to have shared?" I replied to that letter saying that I for one did not grudge Col. Bousfield the honour that had been given to him, but applauded it, and I answered as to the "part nership" as I thought its suggestion deserved. On the Ist December, 1860, Capt. Busk again wrote, and apologised for having attacked me in the Volunteer Service Gazette. He st a t e d it wa s "more in a spirit of badinage than anything e l se that he dashed off a reply" to a letter iu that journ a l. "A s for the much-mooted originatorship" he adds, " I d o not look upon it as a question on wh i ch i t is worth whil e f or us to dispute. lam quite willing to concede that you h ave done qu it e enough to have earned a statue and a snug resting -place in Westminster Abbey." He then goe s on t o say that neither he nor I will ever be rewarded, for that "some lucky charlatan" w ill o b t a in " the fruit of our arduous toil," and he finally recurs in a bitter spirit to th e recognition of Col. Bousfield. And yet he would now ignore me altogether, after I re pudiated the "partnership" which he offered! The Daily Telegraph recommended Captain Busk to ta k e an adver tising p ane l i n t h e Crystal Palace ! The Stan d ar d a l so i n an exhausti ve l eading article on the su bj ec t, N ov. 2d , 1860, utt er l y di sposing of Captain Busk's p retensions, and at the s ame ti me gave the the chief credit as promoter of the Volunt eer movement of 1859. Colonel Sir Duncan M‘Doug a ll, a h ero of the Peninsula, and the A mer i can war, in his "History of the Volunteer Movement," certainly accords Captain Busk a distinguished place, attaching full credence to all that Captain Busk could urge on his own account. But Sir Duncan undoubtedly gave me the principal honour, as he subsequently again recorded and said. But what did Sir Duncan say about Captain Busk's claims as "originator ?" He wrote to me Nov. 17th, 1860, "It would be difficult to find any one who gave more proofs of patriotism and foresight than you have done The Man in the Moon has as much claim to bo considered the originator of the Volunteer Movement as a great national defensive measure as Captain Busk has. The proofs are unquestionable of your prominence as a promoter of the great def ens i ve mo v ement. " All the lett ers an d papers from w hich I have quoted I am ready to sh ow, and it is my i n t en tion to get them at tested. I thiulr that I have sufficiently answered captain Busk. I could say a great deal More, if the matter could be influ enced, as he has sought to influence it, by bare assertion. He has the advantage of having delivered paid lectures all over England, and of having advertised himself as the founder of the movement. I say that he utilised the movement for his own benefit after it was fairly launched. I know ho was a captain in the Victoria Rifles through motives which it would be invidious to analyse, consider ing that they were at least harmless ; and I know also, so far as that is concerned, ho was excelled by his friend Capt. Jordan at the time, who gave rifles and accoutre ments to induce members to join. It is odd that Captain Busk in issuing the pamphlet containing a paragraph re flecting on my attendances on parade should not have mentioned that he afterwards sought for a commission in the corps commanded by myself, a proposition which my officers would never have approved, for reasons quite in dependent of his pretensions to the fouudership of the volunteers. Finally Capt. Dusk intimates now that he would not accept of a testimonial. Yet iu his "Syllabus" of enormous puffs he dwells approvingly on the efforts of his friends to start one, which afterwards apparently collapsed.—l am, sir, your most obedient servant, April 28th, 1867. ALFRED B. RICHARDS. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. TIMES.—A " famous victory" has been achieved over a gentleman already well know n f or a cer t a i n " alacrity at sinking," and a large portion of the community sympathise with him sufficiently to feel somewhat humiliated. Mr. Walpole has once more found himself unequal to a Fabian policy. But there remains to be asked the question which has been asked of a thousand other victories, and which it has sometimes taken the whole world many cen turies to answer. What is the worth of the victory? In what cause has it been gained ? What are the substantial fruits that have been won? What prin ciples have been established? What has been done by this success, and what stone has been added to the fabric of public liberty ? The proceedings in the park ought to throw some light on this inquiry, and we ought to be able to point to the day and hour for the unmistakable record of what Beales has done for us. The speeches delivered from a dozen platforms ought to harmonise into a grand whole as simple and intelligible as some half-dozen popular successes won from bigotry or self-interest even in these degenerate days. We doubt, however, whether one of our readers has been able to find this wheat in the chaff with which we have been half smothered. The most palpable part of the suc cess, as described by the speakers themselves, is that they have forced the Park, and established the people's right to its use ; and the speakers generally assume that this concession has been extorted from the British aristocracy, at some cost to their comfort and their p r id e . It i s h ere that they love "to dis port themselves with their finery and their lemons." It is here that peers and the sons of peers spend their ill-deserved pensions out of the public purse, or the more general fund of public industry. It is here that they meet and hate the honest working classes. It is here that they conspire, crush rising industry, and rob men of equal rights. If such is the case, the sooner Hyde Park is ploughed up and laid under corn, or covered with model lodging-houses and co-operative workshops, the better ; and Mr. Beales will be entitled to a statue, or a coronet, if he could ever be induced to accept such a bauble. But it so happens that Hyde-park, instead of being monopolised.by the aristocracy, or by any class whatever, is the most open, most unreserved, most popular, most democratic institution in the metro polis. Anybody can enter, anybody can lounge about, look at the flowers, lie ou the grass, and sleep there till nightfall. Any half-dozen fellows can form a circle and amuse themselves after any quiet fashion they choose. Anybody can stand at the rails, look at the carriages, and stare at the pretty faces: Had Messrs. Beales and Bradiaugh and Ihe O'Donoghue never been heard of, there would on so fine a day been the usual thousands of people enjoying themselves after their several ways, and not a quarter or a tenth of them could have laid claim to aristocracy or even gentility. There would have been artisans, nurserymaids, and chil dren, clerks lingering on their way home, and quiet family groups, often from distant streets. These ordinary mortals do not at all grudge the higher classes the more splendid appearance they make in the Ring or the Row. They like the equipages as much as they do the ancient trees, the fair eques trians as much as the turf and the flowers, and the London season they think the best season of the year. It is in Hyde-park, then, that the whole British family has hitherto assembled in its kind liest tmood, its most cheerful form, and its most unanimous occasion. It has hitherto been in the power of any man, woman, or child to spend the best part of a summer's day in those Elysian Fields, as, best of all public resorts, they deserve to be called. This is the place, these the ordinary occupants, this the family, this the unanimity, this the happiness, this the freedom, over which " the famous victory" of last Monday was won. But if this was not the victory, what was it ? Her Majesty's Ministers have deprived the most enthusiastic Reformers of the opport inity of a vic tory of a more political character, and the meet ing in Hyde-park is not likely to add one word to the Reform Bill, or take one word out of it. The speakers, indeed, insisted on the duty of watchingthe Bill, with a view to leaving the household franchise utterly unfettered, assimilating the borough and county franchise, and getting more if it can be got. But they well know that these questions will be settled very pleasantly without their assistance, and not quite as they would wish. This was not the victory of the day. The words utt ere d went f or nothing, and it is evident that the speakers felt it enough to be in the Park and hardly knew what to say there. They had overcome some diffi cult i es, but there remained greater which they did not over come. They could not create a cause when there was not a cause in existence; nor could they make themselves better and greater men than they were. It often happens that by force of t a l ent and enter prise, and some little daring, a m an may f orce him self into a society which is the object of his ambi tion, only to make the painful discovery that he is out of his place there, and has really nothing to say. These people had really n o thi ng to say or do that required carrying Hyde Park and frightening the Home Office out of its propriety. I t was " great cry and little wool," for any political significance. Th e y have met, and mad e no sign. They could only tell us what we all k now, t h at our rulers are exc essively pliant and good-natured, and that the question of the day is who shall give the people most. There is semething in this. It is what may be called a pregnant fact ; for a good deal more might be expected. But the speakers in Hyde Park did not even allude to the changes which might be expected from a coinpliant Ministry, and a race of concession, n, and a more democratic l eg i s l a ti on . Th e single Irishman , indeed, took a flight, and predicted that the elevation of the individual in our system would tend to larger and closer synapithy between various classes and creeds. The people of England and Ireland, he thought, would understand each other better, arid be kinder one to another, than the higher classes had been, whether landlords or rich employers. We shall see whether this be the case. But the consummation, when it comes, will not have to thank last -Monday's meeting. That meeting and its success must be measured by common rules. Who composed it? Who were th ey that displayed their numbers—not so very for midable ; and their power, whatever it be? They marched as Ref ormers, b u t th e y were T ra d e Unionists ; and there was probably not one in the procession, or in the meeting, who would not have repelled a non - unionist from his s id e as if . he had been a pickp oc k et , a tra i tor, an d a spy . This was a democratic organ i sat i on o f i n d us t r y, w ho s e right so to organi se it se lf we do not f or a momen t question, but which does it for its own interest, not for the good of th e country ; at l eas t pu tti ng the private before th e pu bli c end. Suc h a mee ti ng did not re present the population even of the metropolis, .much less of England, still less of the distant provinces, whom it is the object of all combinations to exclude. The barons w h o me t a t Runnymede and obtained for their own order privileges which future ages saw extended to the British people were not more and exclusive than these champions of freedom in Hyde-park. The merits of their cause we canvass not. No doubt the barons followed a wholesome instinct, and did good work in their days. But theirs was not the cause of popular freedom, nor was theirs th e cause th a t enjoyed an hour's triumph in H Hyde-park. It was the cause of industrial com bination, t a ki ng a d van tage of a political crisis, and showing itself in colours not really its own. THE " WESTMINSTER GAZETTE" ON LORD CHIEF JUSTICE COCKBURN AN!) BRITISH RULE IN IRELAND.— In article of last week, on the subject of Bri tish rule, we closed what we had to say on the .Jamaica question, and now resume the task we have undertaken of exposing the misrule still perpetuated in Ireland. We regard this as one of the most im portant considerations affecting British interests at the present day ; for, until Englishmen are made to understand the true causes of Irish discontent, there can be no hope of the proper remedies being applied for their removal ; and, so long as the causes of discontent are allowed to operate, we must suppose that they will produce their natural effects by generating disaffection : and with Ireland dis .affected at her side, England can never be sure of possessing at home the material strength neces sary to give force to her opinions abroad. At the present hour we have some five-and-twenty thousand troops employed in Ireland, besides some ten thousand constabulary, whilst a con: biderable portion of the Britifl fleet ifs kept hover- ing about the Irish coast, and, we may be permitted to ask sensible Englishmen, for what good pur pose is all this force employed? Perhaps we shall be answered that this immense force is required in order to keep down Fenianism. We agree that it is the duty of every provident Government to suppress disorder, and not hesitate to employ the amount of force necessary for this purpose ; but we also contend that, by suppressing public disorder, Government only discharges a part, and the least part, of its responsible duty. It will not be denied that " prevention is better than cure," and it follows, therefore, that, if a Government is to be thanked for suppressing disturbance and restoring public order, it would be entitled to far greater thanks if it had, by a wise policy adopted in good time, prevented public disturbance by removing the causes that led to it. The cause of Irish discontent is said to be complicated, yet it is simple ; for, although there be many little streams wafting poison through every avenue of Irish society, yet they all flow from one main spring, namely, Protestant ascendancy. Owing to this, an army has to be maintained in Ireland at the present day equal to that which won the battle of Water loo •, and while ever this crying injustice continues in that unhappy land—while ever the Protestant minority continues to be unduly elevated, and the Catholic majority insultingly degraded by the law, so long will England be obliged to keep up an im mense army of occupation, as it were, to garrison Ireland within, and employ a large portion of her fleet to guard it from without. We would now appeal to the common sense of our fellow-country men, and ask them is this paltry game of Protestant ascendancy, played at by some ruthless Northern. Orangemen, a few scores of money-grubbing par sons, and some half dozen plethoric bishops, really worth the price paid for it by the heavily-taxed people of England ? The army estimates will be considerably increased by the expense of transport ing troops to Ireland, many of whom have been called from distant stations, where their presence might be again required before long—but the money-cost is the least serious part of the entire. England is a great nation—but we risk our na tional greatness by perpetuating a system of unjust and persecuting laws in Catholic Ireland, which produce religious factions in every part of the three Kingdoms, and thereby tend to the weak ness of the whole British Empire. Let our coun trymen but reason on the subject of Ireland and apply to it their strong common sense, as they do to every other subject, and they will soon see that the misrule of that country is injurious to our own best interests. The Catholics of Ireland are said to be emancipated, but in reality they are not ; for they cannot, with truth, be said to be eman cipated until they are placed on a footing of perfect equality with her Majesty's subjects of every other religious denomination. This denial of religious equality extends to the Catholics of all classes in these kingdoms, but it is more unpardonable in Ireland than in any other part, because there the overwhelming majority of the population is Catholic. Protestant Englishmen talk loudly of their love of liberty. Would that they were to insist on having the same degree of liberty extended to their Catholic fellow-subjects as they enjoy themselves ! We mentioned last week that the law, as it now stands, is insulting to every class of her Majesty's Catholic subjects, and we now proceed to prove the fact. For ex ample, all Catholics in the army are insulted, be cause no one of them can rise to the head of his profession, as the law does not allow any Catholic to be Commander-in-Chief of the forces. The members of the Catholic nobility are insulted, be cause the law forbids that any one of them should be appointed to the office of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. The members of the Catholic bar are insulted, because no one of them can rise to the head of his profession, as the law forbids that a Catholic shall b ecome a L ord Chancellor. The Catholic merchants are insulted, because if any one of them becomes Lord Mayor, or Chief Magistrate o f hi s city, he is not alloWed by law to we ar hi s ro b es of, office in his own Church. The Catholic students are not only insulted, but injured, because they are not allowed the benefit of obtaining degrees in the Catholic university of Ireland, whilst the Protestant students can a , tain degrees in the Protestant university. The Catholi c arc hbi shops, bishops, and deans are in sulted, because they are forbidden by law, under heavy penalties, to use the titles of their respec tive offices, although it is only by virtue of these , titles that they can duly exercise their ecclesiastical jurisdiction. And while such is the law affecting the secular clergy of the Catholic Church, what will all impartial men think of the law enacted against the regular clergy, which dare not be en forced against them because of its severity, but which is, nevertheless,_ unfit to remain o n th e s t a t u t e book, and ought to be at once repealed, if it were only for the credit of our nation ? This law enacts that the regular clergy shall be subject to trans portation for the crime of being alive, and, if they return from transportation, shall then be liable to be hanged ! This, and other Acts of Parliament here referred to, appear so monstrous, that we ap prehend some of our readers may be disposed to question the facts, and we intend, therefore, to quote the words of the several Acts of Parlia ment in a future article. Again, the marriage law, as it affects the Catholic women of Ire land, is in a most unsatisfactory state. In substance it enacts that if any Protestant man shall marry any Catholic woman he may after wards cast her aside without any reason other than that she is a Catholic, and may marry another woman, and he cannot be punished for bigamy, and the Catholic wife thus cast off shall have no remedy whatever against him, if he simply pleads as a d e f ence that he is a Pro testant ! There is no exception to this law. Any Catholic woman in Ireland might be vic timized by it to-morrow. The man may deceive her by declaring that he is a Catholic—he may also de ceive the priest who marries them by declaring the same—and yet it has been lately decided by the twelve judges in Ireland that, notwithstanding this fraud and falsehood on his part, he is to be ac quitted, simply because his unsuspecting victim is a Catholic. Th e authority we quote,in proof of the cruel nature o f t hi s infamous atute, so insulting to every virtuous woman in the land, is one that can no t b e disputed,it is that of Mr. Justice Christian, an Irish Protestant, one of the twelve judges constituting the Court of Appeal last year in the case of the " Queen v. Fannin." Delivering his judgment in that case, in which Fannin had represented himself as a Catholic to his wife, and also to the priest who married them, Judge Christian said that, notwith standing such representation, as it had been proved on the trial that he was a Protestant, the law pro tected him, and " the law may be used by the pro fligate and base (Protestants) with impunity as a means of fraudulent seduction." Such are the words l o a f w th a i t s etmhiisnedntayPriontesftoarnete jiundghe,e,laanndd s uch is the Catholic women, all ow i ng them to be respecting e tng the i victims of " the base and profligate !" There is an other crying injustice which British rule perpetuates in Ireland, and that i s th e monstrous anoma l y o f compelling a Catholic population to pay tithes to a Protestant clergy. This of itself is so huge an injustice, spreading over every foot of that king dom, robbing the pockets of many, and outraging the consciences of all th e C a th o li cs i n it, that every enlightened and impartial man, PrOtestant as well as Catholic, who considers the question, feels only one surprise, and that is, how the people of Ireland, proverbial for their love of justice, can possibly remain satisfied whilst this impost of tithes continues to insult and oppress them. We have now enumerated the principal grievances that afflict the Irish Catholics at the present day, and with these difficulties obstructing their paths in every direction it is, surely, hard to expect that they can forget the sufferings of their fathers in days gone by. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the course of his recent charge to the Grand Jury on the trial of Colonel Nelson and Lieutenant Brand, after proving that the Sovereign of Eng land had not the power of proclaiming martial law, speaking of British misrule in Ireland at the close of the last century, says :—" Alas, it is too true that martial law had been resorted to in a neighbouring country. They all knew what took place in Ireland at the close of the last century. As early as 1795, insurrections of a serious nature oc curred in various parts of the country, and it would seem"—reader, mark well these words of the Lord Chief Justice—" it would seem that the magis trates and people in authority took upon themselves to execute a species of martial law without any authority whatever." What must have been the state of the Catholic population in Irelamndagaistttrla-itaet time, when every Protestant village could " take upon himself to execute martial law" —a power denied by the British Constitution, even to the Sovereign upon the throne! No tongue can ever tell—no pen describe the sufferings o f I r i s h Catholics at that period, and yet it is only about seventy years ago, that is, within the memory of many now living. The magistrates of that day were Protestants, and they were allowed to violate time law with impunity, and usurp au unconstitu tional power for the wicked purpose of wreaking vengeance upon the Catholic population whom they had first goaded into insurrection by means of the inhuman penal laws then in force. It is true that the penal laws in force at present against Catholics are not what they then were ; but though less in degree, yet they are the same in spirit, and our enumeration of them shows that they are still humiliating enough. Were the ascendancy party in Ireland once more permitted to administer mar tial law—were they now allowed to use the pitch- cap, the triangles, and the gibbet upon unoffending bishops, priests, and people, as they then were — would not the flame of insurrection be more widely spread in 1868 than it was in 1798 ? Why, then, we ask, keep such laws upon the statute book of England? Why retain laws there that could not possibly be enforced without producing univer sal insurrection, and, perhaps, in the present state of Europe, successful revolution, in Ireland? The grievances of that country are admitted by states men of all parties at the present day, and the sooner England removes them the better for her self and the safety of the empire, as we hope to demonstrate in another article on this subject. THE GOVERNMENT REFORM BILL. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday gave notice of his intention to move the following amendments : IN COMMITTEE ON REPRESENTATION OF TIIE PEOPLE BILL. The Chancellor of the Exchequer,—Page 11, Clause 35, line 29, leave out all after "rated," and insert " to the poor rate in respect of any premises, instead of the occupier, the following enact ments shall be made for the purpose of giving facilities to any occupier desircus of acquiring the franchise under this act, or the act of the second year of King Wm. Dr., chap 45, in respect of such premises : (1.) The full rateable value of every house or other separate holding and the full rate in the pound and the name of the occupier, shall be entered in the rate-book. (2.) The occupier may at any time claim to be rated to the poor rate instead of the owner, and in order to enable him to be so rated, forms of claim shall be obtainable, free of charge, at every post office within the borough at which money orders are issued. (3.) The form of claim shall have printed thereon the address of the overseers, and when signed by the claimant shall be transmitted free by the post to overseers. (4.) On the receipt of any such claim the over seers shall return an answer by post stating the amount of rate, if any, due in respect of the pre- Daises. (5.) The overseers, on the receipt of the claim and on the payment of the rate, if any then due, shall record the claim in the rate-book, and there upon the occupier shall be liable to be rated and paY rates in respect of such premises, and the overseers shall give notice to the owner that the occupier has so claimed as aforesaid, and thenceforth and until the termination of the tenancy of the occupier the owner shall be discharged from his liability to be rated or pay any rates in respect, of such premises. (6.) Where the occupier of any premises that have been let to him free from rate has claimed to be rated and to pay the rates, for the purpose of ac quiring the franchise under this act, he may deduct from any rent due or accruing from him in respect of the said premises any amount paid by him on account of rates. All expenses incurred by the overseers under this section shall be deemed to be expenses incurred in the registration of voters, and shall be allowed ac cordingly. To move the following clause (repeal of 14th and 15th Vict., c. 14, s. 3) :—There shall be repealed the third section of the act of the session of the 14th and 15th years of the reign of her present Ma jesty, chap. 14, intituted "An Act to amend the Law for the Registration of certain persons com monly known as Compound Householders, and to facilitate the exercise by such persons of their right to vote in the election of borough members to serve in Parliament ;" but this repeal shall not apply to the case of any persons registered as a voter at the time of the passing of the act so long as he retain the qualification in respect of which he is so regis tered, and as to such p3rsou and so long as aforesaid the said section shall remain in full force. COUNTRY MARKETS. BRISTOL—TUESDAY. There was about the usual attendance to-day, but very little business; notwithstanding which holders of wheat were firm, at last week's prices. Barley in good demand at 3d to 6d higher. Oats dearer by 6d. L E ED S —T UESDAY. The fine weather has imparted a quieter feeling to the corn trade. Millers have supplied themselves so well of late that they have declined making further purchases for the present. Holders of wheat, however, were not at all sanguine as to abundant supplies coming in for some time, and therefore former prices wore asked. Barley and other articles quite as dear, but little doing. LIVERPOOL-TUESDAY. At this market there was a good attendance to-day A considerable business was done in white wheats, both for consumption and export to New York, at an advance of 2d per cental on Californian, and the full rates of last weok for other descriptions. Flour met a slow demand at farmer rates. Oats and oatmeal in moderato request at high prices. Beans rather lower. Barley and peas were unaltered in demand or value. Indian corn 6d cheaper 43s 6d to 43s 9d for mixed American. MELTON MOWBRAY.-TUESDAY. White wheat, 67s to 73s ; rod, 60s to 68s per 36 stone• Barley for malting, 408 to 52s per qr ; feed, 32s to 38s per 30 stone. Oats old, 30s to 355; new, 258 to 32s per 24st' Beans, old, 52s to 545; new, 45s to 48s per qr. SHEFFIELD—TUESDAY. The quantity of wheat offering at our market to-day was liberal, and holders obtained quite last week's prices, but sales were slow. Beans were firm, but unaltered in price. Barley firm, at late rates. Best oats disposed of steadily at lc more money. Flour at former prices. Red wheat, per load of 3 imp. bushels 218 Od to 258:0 1 White do do 265 Od 298 od New red do do `4oB Od 215 6d New white do do 23s Od 25s 6d Beans do do 195 Od 22s Od Peas, per qr. • 1 5 (id 198 Od Grinding Pa ley, per qr 353 Od 36s Od Malting barley, t o Oats, do 27s Od 325 Od F10ttr....2s 4d to 2s Bcl per 141 b. MARKET HARBOROUGH.—TUESDAY. Old white wheat, 65s to 73s ; new red, 55s to 66s per 3 6 stone. Barley, fine, 52s ; other kinds, 23s to 36s per 30 at. Oats, new, 26s to 34s ; old, 30s to 34s per qr. Beans, old, 54s to 58s; new, 42s to 47s per qr. The Frice of Gold. The quotation of gold at Paris is about at par, and the short exchange on London is 25.15 per ft sterling. On comparing these rates with the English Mint price of .£ 3 10id. per ounce for standard gold, it appears that gold is about I-10th per cent. dearer in Paris than in London. The 'curse of exchange at New York on London tor bills AS 60 days' sight is about 1001 per cent. At this rate there 1 0 no profit on the importation of gold from the United States. [ADVERTISEMENT: —Holloway's Ointment_ ana Sores which are daily extending; ulcers which are hourly deepening, may be arrested in their torturing progress and induced to take a healthy action by applying this healing, ointment and taking these purifying pills. It s oo thes 0 1 ' distempers and extracts all morbid humour from the skin. Old ulcers of the leg, inflammations caused by varicoSs, veins, cramps in the low er li m b s, can eas il y b e ease d and shortly cured by Holloway's never-failing ointment, whit represses excessive and s ti mu l a t es s l ugg i s h eva scular and nervous action. In constitutions breaking down under piles, fistulas, and other similarly painful maladies, a fel r applications of this cooling ointment will give comfort, an a persistence in its use will effect a cure. Births. BELL-Ott the sth inst., at Newbus Grange, near Darling' ton, the wifo of Charles Wm. Bell, Esq., late 15th gns ears, of a son. Dicx—On the 4th inst., at Holbrook House, near Hereford, the wife of Harris St. John Dick, Esq., late Captai n Queen's Bays, of a son. HARttiEs—On the 6th inst., at 63, Kensington-garden's square, Hyde-park, the wife of Barrett H. Harries, Esql of a daughter. Marriages. HARRIS - HAMMOND —On the 3d inst., at St. PatirsChur ch, Clifton, Henry T. Harris, LieutemartMalras Staff Cord* second on of Major-General Harris, to Anne E l ''' youngest daughter of tho lato F. Hammond, Esq., barns' ter-at-law. POLLARD —PRIDDY—On the 4th inst, at St. John's Churc h, Tunbridge-wells, W. Pollard, Esq., of The Grove, COl berwell, to Frances Priddy, of Crown-hill, Croydon. Deaths. -- - - BLAIR n the 4th inst., at Exeter ; Thomas J. Blair, Esq" aged 47. Cox—Ou the Gth inst., at 40, Gloucester-crescent, Trydo- park, William Cox, Esq., aged 74. CHANDLER—On the 7th inst., at Chester-place, Kenningtuvi Wm. B. Chandler, Esq., aged 79. POMFRET —On the 6th inst., at Rye, Sussex, Richard C. Pomfret, Esq., aged 70. RossE— On the 4th inst., at Brighton, the Countess Dowager of Itosse; aged 87. TROTTER—On the 6th inst., in London, Caleb Tr otter, Esq., of Sherwell House, Plymouth, J.P. fur the county of Devon, aged 49. London: Printed and Published by 'WILLIAM ANDREWS, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, No 112 ; Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy , in the COUP ItLiddleux,—Wecluisclay, May 8,1887.