The Sun. — London, England, 1861-06-08 00:00:00

THE 0 StyN,', LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 8 1801. which he thinks will follow from it. With regard to the titper, f and the various applications which may be made of immense spread of knowledge which is fo l low and the repeal of this duty, these arguments may do very well for Parliament, but I have not the least faith in them I hope nay noble friend Will not repeat the stale arguments about cheap literature. These have been all answered. (Earl Granville : Where?) Why, in every house, in every con versation, in Parliament, and in every society where the questionhas been argued. (Hear.) Look at the most im por taut publishers—look at the authority of Mr. Bohn, who lees surely some knowledge of the subject. (Hear.) I know None class to whom the relief would be considerable, and that would be the class of propriet Is of penny newspapers. They may expect to buy the raw material cheaper, and they certainly will not make the least reduction in the price to their consumers. Another point is that it would give re• lief to the dealers in groceries and other goods which are wrapped, or. as the noble lord in his peculiar phraseology says,"wrapped" up. (Laughter.) I belies e that the main argument in favour of taking off the paper duty con sists in an article which has been introduced for the first time this year into the discussion, and which I may call the great bandbox argument. (Laughter.) Next to the proprietors of penny papers the makers of band -boxes will derive the greatest benefit from the reduction, but as to all other classes the advantages will be nearly nil. (Hear.) I say nearly nil as compared with the reduction arf tke income tax, or a proportionate reduction of the tea and sugar duties. My noble friend surely will not deny that a redaction of the tea and sugar duties would be a !greater and more general benefit to the working classes than the remission of the paper duties. But this is a financial question, upon which the House of Commons has a second time expressed an opinion. I won't stop to examine whet may be the various ruotives which induced them to come to the conclusion at which they have arrived. It will be suffi• cient for me to say that that conclusion was not simply guided by the merits of the tax itself, or the degree of relief which it would give to the community. It was carried by a majority somewhat large than the third reading of last year —a majority of 15. But it is perfectly notorious that that majority was obtained by the votes of a certain number of gentlemen who were sincerely opposed to a reduction of the paper duty, but who were still more opposed to running the risk—not a great risk I think—(laughter)—of disturbing the Government by compelling them to resign their offices or to dissolve Parliament. lam not in the secrets pf the Government, but looking at the complacent manner in which they took the check of the House of Lords last year, I confess to a very strong opinion that her Majesty's Go vernment would have shown a placid and calm resignation. And with regard to the dissolution of Parliament, r have - too high an opinion of the prudence, sagacity, and wisdom of the noble viscount at the head of the Government to think that he would appeal to the country on any such question as to whether paper should be preferred to tea and. sugar. (Cheers.) But a majority of the House of Com mons decided in favour of the repeal of the paper duty ; and I am perfectly ready to admit that upon a question of a re peal of duties, and the financial arrangements generally, it does not seem expedient that your lordships, save in very exceptional cases, should interfere with the discretion of the House of Commons beyond i the extent to which the con • stitution gives you a right to. Suppose there is a surplus, all the the House of Commo ns , on a f u ll consideration of the circumstances, have come to a decision that it is expe dient the paper duty should be repealed, I certainly sh oul d not wish to take on myself the responsibility o f . advising your lordships to set yourselves on such a point _tn opposi tion to the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons. Last year the question was widely different. The question then was whether upon the showing of the Chancellor of he Exchequer that there would be no surplus in the follow ing year you would not give to the House of Commons a further opportunity of considering the policy of sacrificing this permanent source of taxation. But the question now arises not so much with regard to the merits of the case as with regard to the amount of interference which may be justifiable or desirable en the part of your lordships' house. And this is a point on which I find myself compelled to differ in some degree from my noble friend—namely, as to the dis cretion that we should exercise on this occasion. As to the right of the House of Lords to deal with clusters of taxation —and with regard to the privileges of the two houses gene rally, it is extremely desirable that no mistake should exist as to their respective limits. 14.• bile there is a debateable ground between the two houses there is certainly one point on which there can be no discussion at all. As to theother it must be settled as the question arises by the prudenceand discretion of each individual house. (Hear, hear.) But there is nothing more clearly laid down and recognised than that to the House of Commons belongs the initiation of every money bill. On the other hand, nothing is more in disputable--and that is the vindication of your lordships' conduct last year—than s that the House of Lords have the power of accepting or rejecting any money bill. The debateable point is whether the House of Lords has the power of altering a money bill submitted to them by the House of Commons. 'What is the meaning of " having power ?" The privileges of the two houses depend on the mutual recognition of their respective powers, and on the power of enforcing that recognition. The House of Commons would not look at a money bill which was introduced by the Lords, and their remedy is obvious— to refuse to deal with it. The Lora reject a money bill which they do not approve of, and the result is clearly the same; the bill falls to the ground and there is an end of it. The House of Lords alter a rneney bill, and send it back to the House of Commons. The House of Commons refuse to entertain it. Let us see on what does their claim rest? It rests upon a reseAution of 1671, entered into by the House of Commons ae, to the privileges and rights of that house, and incident'ally as to the privileges aid rights of the other house. With regard to the privi eges of the House of Com- In ol2B t leir resolution may be sufficient to bind them ; but witk regard to the privileges of he House of Lords, a simple resolution of the House of Commons is, with all due respect to that high authority, a piece of waste paper. The privi leges of your lordships' house cannot be restricted by a resolution of the House of Commons. However prudence may have induced your lordships to refrain from altering money bills you have never resi , paed the right of making amendment in those bills, though you have tempered the exercise of that right by discretion, and by the knowledge that if you do make amendments it is the same thing as rejecting the bill. But every authority concurs in giving this right of altering money bills to the House of Lords if they think fit to exercise it. Mr. Hallam so lays it down ; Lord Macaulay so lays it down; and in a work written by my noble friend on the cross benches, I find the opinion of Mr. Fox stated to this effect. It was a bill for regulating csrnmerce with America, and was introduced in 1787. The bill was committed, an di recommitted, with a variety of amendment, and under the next administration further altered by the House of Lords. "It was a money bill, but lam of 'opinion," said Mr. Fox, "that the order of the house respectinc, money bills should not be too strictly con strued. It would be absurd to send a loan bill to the House of Lords for their concurrence and at the same time denythem the right of deliberation." That is the opinion of Mr. Fox upon the resolution of the Houseof Commons in 1671. The privilege depends en the power of enforcing it. When you amend a bill it falls to the ground. In former times—l do not know whether the practice is still continued—it was usual I believe to kick such a bill out of the house, or to throw it tinder the table. It seems to me that such a form was not a very dignified mode of proceeding, especially when it was often followed by the introduction of a bill with those very amendments which had been treated with so much dignity. The House of Commons, if you choose to act on your constitutional rights, may refuse to entertain the bill, in which ca.e it falls to the ground, or they may introduce another bill or bills carrying out the same ob jects, and send them to the Lords in a form that they be lieved would be more acceptable to this house. This is the limit of the rights and privileges of the two Houses of Par liament, and their rights can be enforeed in no other man ner than by the rejection of the measure, in the one form or the other. In bills which are for the special purpose of taxation, not bills in which money clauses may be intro duced incidentally, this is of the highest consequence, be• cause wherever either house insists on the maintenance of its privileges in that case, according to the circumstances of the case, the matter will be judged of by the supremejudge of all in this country, public opinion—(hear)—and that house of the two which pushes its privileges to an unrea sonable extent and displays an unconciliatory spirit towards the other will be the one which, in the cause of a great ma• tional calamity —such as the shocking failure of the means of carrying on the Government —will be visited by great public in dignation—(hear) —and that is the real control and the real means by which the apparently conflicting privi liges of the two houses are prevented from bringing the w,,or_kleng , • , o o f n tehe constitution to a dead lock. (Hear, hear.) s have dealt with regard to the mode in which the t ` - ' o 7 a ul e o jil t , v to dzt wit'i this question, and with regard interpretation of ticeli I wish to refer. Accordino• to the if their privileges by the House of Com mons, that bill, contained a money provision, could not be amended the House of Lords, but the whole measure must beswallowedo or rejected alto I gether ; and it is apparent that .sd exclude the House of Lords from the exercise of thevirul slative functions. There never has been any , doubt as t m l e h ni gi e e indmissibility of tacks—as to the introduction into a with bill l of subjects wholly different from and unconnected ob ject. But a more difficult question arises wheni the introducedionie todeal wi th large financial schemes, when nothing but what has reference to finance, but in which variou s jects of finance are mixed up and put together f or the !Coin-- sideration of Parliament. lam ready to admit to my noble friend opposite that there are repeated precedents for the introduction of whole financial schemes, for their being sent to the House of Lords and agreed to by this house. But, on the other band, there are repeated cases of financial measures having been amended by the House of Lords and accepted by the House of Commons. Suppose ono bill se n t up last year for imposing a penny income tax and repealing the paper dirty; no one could complain of any excess of authority on the part of the House of Commons, and like wise nobody could complain that House of Lordsi tits h judg ment d t o h f e exercising not the opportunity and the power . by accepting the whole or rejecting the one couldthewhole.lfth two points were f a i r ly counterpoised, n com plain that this house had not an opportunity of wh fd e e n alin by g with the subject ; but the case is totally different the action of the House of Commons you take away a permanent tax and substitute for it a purely temporary one. This point has been urged in the other house by a right honourable baronet—a member of great weight and experience in that house. It was laid down in the draft report drawn up by a right h on o u rable friend of mine Whom I highly esteem and regard (Mr. Walpole), but which report was not accepted by the committee. But both of these right hon. gentlemen have come to an opinion which I think is most fallacious in its origin and most dangerous in its conclusion. The argument is this—that if you allow a large portion of the revenue to be raised by permanent taxation, which cannot be taken off without the consent of the House of Lords, and it is admitted that you cannot take it off without their consent, you weaken the power of the House of Commons. That power it is allowed has been weakened, and it is argued that it woo ld be expedient and good policy to recover that power at 'the expense of the permanent revenue of the country. ;This is a gross fallacy in argument. It is a per you can re a ll y affect the control fect fallacy to say that which the House of Commons has over the finances of the country, from whatever source derived. It might have been all very will in early days, when there was a question whether the necessities of the Crown might require that Parliament should be called together to enable toe Crown to carry on the business of the country without the House of Commons at all. tut that a .prehension has long since fallen to the. ground, and ceases to have the slightest prac tical effect. What is the power of the House of Commons, and what is its control over the finances of the country ? The supplies for the army and navy, the two great services of the country, are voted tr , m year to year, and without the sanction of Parliament to the application of the means for the payments of the country those services would at once fall to the ground. That is the case with regard to the army, the navy, the miscellaneous services, and everything which has to be provided for by annual, estimates ; that is say, nea rly the whole of the ways and means of the country is entirely and absolutely in the h an d s o f t h e H ou se of Commons. But, again, after th e services of the year po sed and provided for, after the measures - of have been d eci d e d upon, the House of Commons have t.,a2c,ltte2s anbeen a b so lute control, not only over the l ev yi ng o f ca;itio r n, but over its application, because not one single ptun 61 the Irey A mea ns reified for the service of the y s country, not titan that raised by permanent taxation, can be applied to the purposes for which they are destined with out an appropriation act which must originate in the House of Commons, and which receives as a matter of course the sanction of your lordships, to carry into etf , ct the engage ments previously entered into by the House of Commons. (Hear.) The control of the other House of Parliament over the finances of the country consists, first, in die necessity by an annual vote to provide for all the great services of the country; and next, that no step can be taken for the appli cation of the money voted without the introduction of all the items into an appropt iation act. But let us suppose that this privilege of the House of Commons is carried to the utmost, and that they do away with the whole of the per manent taxation of the country, and observe that if thispre cedent is to be followed, and that the surply for the year is to be purchased by the abolition of some permanent luty, then gradually the permanent taxation of the country will be reduced to a minimum, and if the permanent taxa tion be reduced to a minimum then all the great services of the country will be compelled to be provided for by the an nual vote of Parliament. Then if all the taxes affecting trade are required to be provided for and made dependent upon the annual votes—if permanent taxation, which alone can give security for the interest of the national debt, and for the maintenance of the credit of the country, is to be done away with, most serious and ruinous consequences must be the result. Therefore, while Ido not say that in the present case I am disposed to object to the exercise of the discretion of the House of Commons, I do say that it is a serious question, not only for your lordships' considera tion, but for the consideration of the members of the House of Commons, and I hope of the great majority of those who value the permanence of the inst tutions of the country, and I warn them to beware of any attempt to substitute annual for permanent taxation, and thereby to unsettle the whole relations of commerce, checking its credit and faith, and introducing into all financial matters an uncertainty which mu• t be prejudicial to the highest and best interests of the country. (Hear) It is in my recollection when the sugar duties used to be an annual vote, and so great was the inconvenience found to result, and such the paralysation of trade that took place from the uncertainty.whether the duty would be left unaltered, reduced, or increased in the course of each successive year, that it was found absolutely necessary to continue that which had been annual and to make it a permanent duty. And if it is this that the right hon. baronet of whom I have spoken complains of, as an infraction of the privileges of the House of Commons it was a concession by the House of Commons not of its privileges, but of that which was felt to be absolutely essential for the commercial and mercantile interests of the country. (Hear.) Therefore I do earnestly hope that this question of substitut ing annual for permanent taxation will be carefully weighea by this and the other House of Parliament before the sys -1 tern is allowed to proceed to that extent which must be adverse to the beat interests of the country. From what I have already said, your lordships will infer that it is not m y wish or desire to recommend to your lordships to inter fere with the exercise of the discretion of the House of Commons so far as relates to the abolition of the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) I think myself that it is an imprudent and improvident course in the face of the future difficulties; but it is a measure that has been determined upon twice in succession by the other House of Parliament ; it is a purely financial measure, and we are to suppose it has been decided upon by the House of Commons upon purely financial grounds, and that being so I should be sorry to see your lordships set yourselves at variance with the House of Commons upon a matter purely of their own privileges. Bat there is a question that remains. The question has been raised as to the power of the House of Lords ; not, in deed, to debate the motion of ray noble friend, and reject the bill, involving the rejection of the whole of the supplies of the year, not to put ourselves in opposition to the vote of the House of Commons, but to take a step which we cer tainly have the power to take, and which is quite constitu tional, namely, to divide this bill into two, and send the two bills down to the House of Commons, for them to ac cept or reject. I must say that the course of proceeding is one that has much to recommend it in point of principle, but in point of prudence I very much doubt whether it is a desirable course for your lordships to take. (Cheers.) The noble earl opposite (Earl Granville) has repeated to night what was said elsewhere, that in sending the bill up to your lordships' house in this form the Government were taking a measure of the most conciliatory character, and were actuated by the moat conciliatory intentions towards this house. It is certainly a strange way of conciliating, when this house has already refused to accept the proposi tion, simply to send it back and say, " Accept it now or re ject it now, but it you do not accept it you will expose the country to considerable inconvenience; but we send it up in such a form that it is practically impossible for you to exercise your own judgment upon it." The noble earl protested the good intentions of her Majesty's Government ; but when they talk of the conciliatory character of the proposition, I regret that I cannot concur with them in my view of its nature; and, moreover, I am very strongly in clined to the opinion, that if her Majesty's Government denied as a body that this should be a conciliatory measure, this was not a view which was shared by the right honourable gentleman who was supposed to be its principal author. (Hear, hear.) I cannot but believe that the right hon. gentleman, unfortunately I think for his own reputation, allowed himselt to be influenced bya feeling of mortification at the rejection of a bill last year in which he took great interest, and has unhappily adopted a mode of showing that feeling which is not altogether consistent with the right bon. gentleman's high character and high posi tion. (Cheers.) But the question is, if the House of Com mons, having cent up the bill in this form, and if we, with out placing ourselves in the slightest degree financially in opposition to the House of Commons, should make the alte ration which we have certainly the power of doing, we leave to the House of Commons only the rejection or adoption of the whole. But we have the remedy in our own hands. We can, if we please, vindicate the privileges we possess ; and in any case, where the magnitude of the interest in volved appears to justify that extreme course, I hope your lordships will not be slow in vindicating your privileges, if you think it essential for the interests of the country that you should do so. But in exercising that power upon the present occasion, we should be following the example which we so earnestly deprecate, and taking a course calculated to promote feeling of animosity on the part of the House of Commons, and we should render ourselves liable to have it said, " You have no objection to the proposition we make, but you send it down in a manner which makes ir, a chal lenge and a defiance to the House of Commons." Therefore, while I protest, in the first place, against the policy of the measure now introduced, and while I deprecate making sacrifices of permanent revenue secured by permanent Acts of Parliament, at a time when you require all the available resources of the country--at a time when, as my noble friend behind me has pointed out, the state of affairs abroad is too critical to allow us to tamper with the finances of the country, to place us in a posi tion in which we cannot at once put forward all our resources, instead of relying upon ordinary means to meet extraordinary occasions—l consider this policy improvident and unwise; and while I think .the form of the bill is not such as the noble earl told us her Majesty's Government intended it to be, namely, of a conciliatory character to this house, I do not advise your lordships to incur the responsibility either of rejecting the bill as a whole or sending it down in such a form as to render necessary the re-introduction and re-discussion of the whole question, and the re-introduction of those feelings on the part of the House of Commons, which I should be the last man to excite, but which I am most earnest to allay, and which might make us open to the suspicion of tampering with the privileges of the other house. I yield to no man in the desire to maintain to the Commons House its privileges, and I hope try noble friend will not call upon your lord ships to divide upon the question before us. (Cheers.) I earnestly hope that no proposition will be made in the sub sequent stage of the measure for its amendment, or such a division of it as I have mentioned. I think such a course would be most unfortunate ; I think it would place the c un try in a great difficulty, and that it would expose us in some degree to well-merited censure. I concur with my noble friend in many of his objections, but I hope, with me, while lam very unwilling to say content to the second reading, he will at once consent to let the bill pass without recording his dissent, and leave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government the responsibility, which I think very heavy, of having dealt in the manner they have done with the finances of the country, and with having made great sacrifices for apparently insignificant results, and deprived the country of resources which may be required in an un expected hour, and God knows how soon it may come when we may be threatened by foreign dangers. (Loud cheers.) The Duke of ARGYLL could not agree with the noble duke who moved the rejection of the bill, that debates in that house were of little value unless they were followed by a division. He thought the feeling in the house was one of relief and gratification that they had really come to the close of this controversy with regard to the paper duty, and that in the speech of the noble earl they had heard the last accents of a party contest, the strangest that had happened in Parliament of recent years. Her Majesty's Govern ment, having an estimated surplus of £2,000,000, proposed to divide it between the reduction of the income tax and the removal of an Excise duty; but in this they had been met with violent, and he must say, fanatical opposition. He confessed that he was surprised that opposition was made to the abolition of the paper duty, which was the last of a family of taxes, all the others of which had been e regard aeci to e r tte ac il rather e o fi f e t it h e° year,of repealed, and to the advantage of the country. With over -estimated last e r e as ntir year, therea t s tdh than aaCdhh been Chancellor under-estimatedl a l s r a vo saving the g in the expenditure the estimates for the China the reduction of the war of £BOO,OOO, which went to of the basis of the right deficit. ho The noble earl had complained it was quite legitimate that u • gentleman's calculations, but year and another another, he should take one basis one moos distinctly widerste rovid e d that the House of Corn calculations were made. Thethe principle upon which the the house by his _noble earl had himself bam boozled. calculations, deficit at £10,000,000, upon the basis , for he estimated the expiring taxes, whereas, if t hat of not calculating upon basis wa would have been £22,000,000 . It w s t aken, th e d efiit members would make a f ran k statementuld be int erest i ng if at a session to admit how far their predictions had be,ginni ng o f realised, but the noble earl had braved out his ag really been in this respect in the boldest manner. The noedequencies y ea r predicted a deficit of £ 2 ,800,000, and a s there earlwas an last actual estimated surplus of £ 2,000,000 sterling there would have been a deficit of £4,000,000 and deducting the ex penses of the China war the erro r of t he noble lord would amount to £2,000,000 sterling, or 1,200,000 at the 'very least, which was the whole amount of the paper duty upon which discussion was then going on. The noble earl the tura of last year would have been ass umed that tie expenditure much greater. Earl of DERBY explained that his calculations were founded on the continuance of the Chinese war. G vernment had as The Duke of ARGYLL --Surely the . o tion of that war. The good a rig • ht to calculate on the termma • ht • and yet this was the event proved that they were rig , argument last with which their lordship s were induced year to reject the bill. With respect to the tea duties, the Government would last year have been ready to accede b a proposal for their reduction, but this year they . had pre ferred the paper duties, because they tho u g ht their repeal would be more generally beneficial to the cou ntr y . Other reasons had, however, been attributed to the Govern ment. They had been accused of a wish to cast an undue burthen on the contributors to direct taxation, whilst the tea duties were persistently referred to as war duties. What were the facts? In 1851 they st)od at 2s. 2d. a lb., in a time of profound peace. In 1853 the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a gradual reduction, and that reduc tion was allowed to go on for one year, notwithstand ing the war. In 1855 Sir G. C. Lewis increased it to 1r.10., and th e year a f ter t h e war i t was re d uce d t o l s . 51, a. which it h a d rema i ne d ever s i nce. Th at rate h a d no thing , 4 whatever to do with war expenditure, but it was neverthe less his ()Pinion. that all ex expenses connected with the mili tary and n ava l in a expenditure of the cou n t r y s h ou ld be borne great measure by the whole ture w - as stilt £ 6 ,000,000 b community. That expendi ture war. With res pect beyond what it was before the Rus objected to gi ve itii to the paper duty the noble earl now nue of the country P i as being part of the permanent reve oPinion that there should be (the Duke . of Argyll) was of me consistency between the language of public men when '') 1854 a retiolutio. Condem ning the paper duty was proposed in the House of Commons, and that resolution was, slightly altered, accepted by the noble earl's Government, and his then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) interpo lated an addition to the resolution of Mr. M. Gibson, de claring that the paper duty was a tax which ought to be abolished. (Hear, hear.) Surely, after such a declaration it was hardly consistent with his former acts for the noble earl now to oppose the Government bill. Before he sat down he must allude to the personal motives which had been attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the noble earl in discussing the mode in which the bill was sent up to that house. Surely, if personal motives were attributed to any minister the accusation should be made in the house of which the accused minister was a member, and surely, if it were thought that an insult were intended to the House of Lords, the Lords should have found defenders in the Con servative party in the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) And yet when on a recent occasion a member of that party proposed a method of saving the House of Lords from in sult, the rush of the whole party from the house was so tre • mendous that the door was blocked up for several minutes. (Laughter.) The paper duty was the last of those protective duties which had been removed successively by Mr. Hus kisson, Sir R. Peel, and now by Mr. Gladstone. Without those taxes they had last year 69 millions of revenue. Sorely this was a great and triumphant result, and in spite of the solemn adjurations of the noble earl he could only say that all the ability and all the eloquence the noble earl had shown was only another proof that eloquence and ability could be wasted in resisting the most salutary reform, and in defending a bad, but which he rejoiced to think was in this case a losing cause. (Cheers.) Earl GREY said, though he trusted there would be no di vision, for he had no doubt the noble duke would follow the advice given to him by the noble earl near him,yet he should take the liberty of making some observations upon the conduct of the other house of parliament, and the speech of the noble duke who had just sat down. He thought he ought to congratulate their lordshipsupon the course which they adopted last year—(hear, hear)—although they all knew how their conduct was condemned by certain persons and papers. It was argued that this house had no right to throw out a bill in which the House of Commons had repealed a tax, but the wisdom of the course pursued last year was shown by the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to repeal the paper duties before October next. (Hear, hear.) If the arguments ad vanced were allowed they would apply to all bills relating to the appropriation of money, and that great principle of the constitution which was now recognised would be at an end. Fortunately, however, that principle was not in danger, for it had been clearly admitted that this house had a right to exercise a judgment upon all bills brought before them, whether they referred to matters of taxation, appro priation, or anything else. While contending that they had this, right, he admitted that it ought to be exercised with judgment and discretion, and no man would say that, except in extreme eases, they ought to inter- fere with the financial ai rangements of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) He could not say that he saw in the bill that desire for conciliation which his noble friend had referred to. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, he thought he observed traces of a mortified feeling, and a sense of having been in the wrong. (Hear, hear.) As to the form of the bill, there could be no doubt that the House of Commons had a right to pass it in that shape, and he Could not help saying that he saw some advantage in having the bill in this form. (Hear, hear.) Of this he felt sure, that if the Government had confined the whole of their finan cial arrangements in one bill last year, their lordships would not have been called upon to exercise their power, for the reason that the small majority of nine in the House of Commons would have been converted into a minority. The great good achieved last year was that it bad placed the right of the House of Lords in a sound posi tion, and their right would not be contested again. (Hear.) The noble duke said the noble earl opposite was in error in his statement as to the reasons for rejecting the bill for the repeal of the paper duty last year, and he added that if there had not been a bad harvest the proposals of the Go vernment would have been fully borne out by the result. Now let them consider how tar that was true. The decision of their lordships last year was quite independent of con siderations in reference to the harvest, for they had infor mation before them which clearly proved that if they re pealed the paper duties there would not be the means of ad justing the balances at the end of the year. The house came to the vote on the paper duties on the 21st May, and in less than two monthr=viz., on the 16th July—the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward a supplemental budget, and in that budget he was obliged to state that he required £3,300,000 more than he had made provision for. At that time there was nothing said about the harvest, and in the month of June the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that his expectations had been fully satisfied, notwithstanding that there was a deficiency to a large amount in the revenue. The extra expenses, no doubt, arose in consequence of the China war. But from returns which were moved for by Sir J. Pakington it appeared that all the most important orders in reference to that war ranged from September and Octo ber, 1859, to March, 1860, and therefore the expenses of the expedition had at that time been incurred. There was a de spatch from Julia which showed that the whole of the forces to be employed in China were collected and ready for action early in the year, and that they were only waiting for the French troops, and perhaps their lordships would re member that before commencing the discussion on the paper duties he (Earl Grey) asked whether it was true that . certain Indian troops would not in China be entitled to extrapay and allowance, and, if so, whether any provision had been made for the amount which would be required. The noble earl in answer said it was true that they would be so entitled, and that no provision bad been made for the expense. Then he (Earl Grey) said there were orders given before the end of the year which sub stantially involved the whole expenses of the China war, and therefore it was clear that asking for the sum of £500,000 for the expenses of that army, included in the army estimates of the year, while the gov ernment had the means of knowing that a larger sum would be required, was absolutely ludicrous for the purposes for which it was intended. (Hear, hear.) Conse quently the government proposed to repeal these duties at a time when they knew they would be absolutely necessary for the purposes of the country. (Hear, hear.) He had no ' doubt the revenue was seriously affected by the bad harvest. Well, they all remembered that the sowing time of 1859 was ' not propitious, that the growing crops never looked thin ' rishine% and consequently the government ought to have calculated on a loss from that cause. (Hear, hear.) It appeared, however, that no less a sum than £BOO,OOO had been received from the customs duties on corn. (Hear, hear.) But it shOuld be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 16th July last year not only ap plied for the sum of £3,300,000, but he impesed n:w taxes he increased the duty on spirits. which he calculated would produce £1,000,000 sterling. The result was that in spite of this additional £1,000,000 imposed in July, and in spite of their lordships having re tained the paper duties, the governe.ent admitted that there was a deficiency on the year of 21 millions—in fact, as money had bees applied for the purposes of the year which did net fairly belong to revenue, the financial situation of the country was 31 millions worse at the end of the year than at the beginning. It appeared to him that in these circumstances the right and wise rule in forming the financial scheme for this year would have been to adopt the worse view so far as revenue was concerned, and to have expected an increased expenditure. He would ask, whether, upon the showing of the government, this was the character of the present question, and of the budget now before them ? In his opinion it was a highly speculative budget. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, could any man look at the present state of America without fear ing that there would be an augmented price on cotton? If he had not been misinformed —supposing there would be no less produced in America—the price would be much in creased, for the freight had risen from 4d. to 21d. a lb to Liverpool. An increased price would lead to a slack trade, and with deficient employment there would be a diminished revenue. Then, as to the next harvest. They all knew that last autumn was not favourable for sowing grain, and ho was sorry to say the crops in the north were not very premising. (Hear.) Then, again, they were not certain of receiving the indemnity from China,upon which so much stress had been laid in the other house, and even if it was received he was afraid the expenses for keeping up a force in China would have to be paid out of the money. Again, he could not find that in the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he had made any allowance for the ex penses of the war which was now raging in New Zealand. Now, in the face o f a ll th e i n f ormat i on w hi c h t h e Govern ment possessed, or might have possessed, the extraordinary expenses of the China war were kept out of sight from Par liament. (Hear, hear.) All these were considerations which prevented him from placing confluence in the finan cial policy of her Majesty's Government, and he could not look upon it as a whole without seeing that it was ono which appeared to rest upon no principles which were steadily adhered io or deliberately considered. (Hear,hear.) Lord MONTEAGLE said he should not detain their lordships many moments. An estimate of the deficiency made by him had been alluded to in the course of the de bate ' • but that estimate was formed on the supp os iti on th a t good faith would be kept with the public, and that the in • come tax and the tea and sugar duties would be reduced. (Hear, hear.) He confessed that the estimates of revenue and the realisation of those estimates of late years were net calculated to inspire him with much confidence. The in come tax would have produced £8,928,000; under the altered circumstances in which it was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it produced £10,930,000. The malt duty, which would have produced £5,771,000, pro duced £6,374,000. The hop duty was a loss. Ilut in all these cases you were living by anticipation last near, and you were doing the same now. (Hear, hear.) The budget of the year was, therefore, as objectionable in his opinion as those of former years. The Duke of RUTLAND intimated that it was not his intention to press the amendment. Earl GRANVIL LE was glad the noble duke had ac ceded to the appeal made from-both sides of the house, and had withdrawn his amendment. The embarrassment which ho (Earl Granville) felt in addressing the house upon a question of such importance was increased by the fear of offending the critical ear of the noble earl opposite. The noble earl on the present occasion complained that he used the pronounciation "wrap," where he should have used " wrap"—(a laugh)—but this was only a peculiarity of to use pro nunciation, an d h e asserted his right, as an Eng li s h man, to pronounc e d ou b tful words in the way which seemed best to hims,e,Wlf. ra (Laughte r .) f ~B ew f or r o e , , h , o h w e e m v us er, t h kn e w oN o v u u ld po c h on w s h en at t grounds th e cap i tal of the Midland county was called satisfied with the course satisfactory to know thaYthemeasure upon( d L e a b u at g ht e h e t hades r h . o ) r tt He ake nfe,l debate t and veryth itat wellhwaads the said against the present bud, t their lordships' house. ' heard with now theal l t h a assent ncould f The points upon which been hien nobletrodu introduced into tpleo saiduse the absence u e k f e a chiefly sreltheied to)ro the surplus were of site the tea and p and the mode in sugar duties to the paper duty for repe a a l j ns that the With expenditure, in. making his calculations, should always be placed at the highest, and the income at the lowest by r w e h g i tt e r h d t t h o e th bi e ll s h u a rp d lu be s e , the Chancellor of We Exchequer. The word " honest,e whi c h the noble earl made frequent use of in his speech, could hardly be applied to su ch a p rinci p le of c alculation, and such a curse must involve the Government in in unplea sant opposition with the country. With regard M the tea and sugar duties, their abolition would have diminished the surplus still more than it would be by the repeal of the duty oa paper. Regarding the constitution al question—the m o d e —it was satisfact try to in which the bill was brought up find that the noble duke was the only person theho consti dered it offensive to the house, and contrary o n e t had ° admitted a . t ution al practice. The noble earl oppo.sit l, ste fur and the that the measure was perfectly con stituti o ns' a noble earl near him (Earl Grey) had even ') ther, and had said that the House of Commons were jus tified in the course they had taken. The gretiter part of the argument of the noble baron (Lord Monteagie) was directed not against the present budget or the present bill, lAA sesiiist the financial proceedings of last Part and - • even against propositions of the Present Chancellor of the Exchequer of an earlier date. The noble lord laughed at the Uovernment for talking of the weather as such an important element in the disappointment of their expectations, but in malt and hops there was a deficiency in the autumn of £1,000,000, attributable of course to the weather, and something like £900,000 was lost upon spirits, one of the chief reasons ,for which was that the weather had made the barley unfit for use. A great deal of irrelevant matter had been introduced into the discussion, which he did not think it necessary to go into. He should not enter into the financial statement of Mr. Gladstone, and it would be even more out of place to go into the question mooted by the noble earl (Earl Grey) with regard to the Government having borrowed money last year for fortifica tions. Again, with regard to the construction of a certain class of ships now building, to which the noble earl had ob jected, he thought that a very fair subject for debate, but certainly not upon the present occasion. (Hear, hear.) But the noble earl had referred to rumours of disunion in the cabinet. The noble earl, from his intimacy with members of the cabinet, should not have been so indiscreet as to al lude to any such rumours. If such disunion did exist it could only have come to the noble earl in private conversa tion, and he would in that case be discreet enough not to inform any of his friends upon the subject, and his sense of honour would be sufficient to prevent him alluding to it,:or he must gather it from rumour and then there was even less justification for its being mentioned. But the noble earl was the last person to talk about such rumours, for when he (Earl Granville) was young in political life he re collected the prevalence of a rumour amongst the clubs that under Lord Melbourne the noble earl objected violently to all the measures proposed in the cabinet, and that Lord Melbourne requested him at last to set down in writing his objection. The noble earl, it was said, declin d to do so, and therefore Lord Melbourne rubbed his hands and said, "Now you have no one to object to but yourself you can not get on." (Laughter.) Regarding the policy of the measure under discussion, he thought that they had a suf ficient lesson that prophecies were not safe things to indulge in. He believed the present scheme was a prudent and well considered. one; that it was wise in principle, and likely to lead to the same happy result that all similar mea sures for the removal of restrictions from commerce had succeeded in accomplishing. The bill was then read a second time. Their lordships adjourned at 10 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords' amendments to the Great Northern Railway (Purchase of Hereford, &C., Railway) Bill were considered and ordered for third reading. The following bills were read a third time and passed : —Bognor Railway ; Kingstown Improvement; Leven and East of Fife Railway Companies (Amalgamation, &c.) ; Leven and East of Fife Railways (Extension, &c.); and South Wales Mineral Railway. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Bolton Corporation, and Ware, Hadham, and Buntingford Railway. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod summoned the members to the Upper House to hear the Royal assent given by commission to several bills (for which see Lords' report). PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented from different parts of Ireland against the withdrawal of the Galway subsidy, as being impolitic and a breach of faith, being also the means of inflicting great loss on persons who had subscribed their money to the company under the impressionthe Government contract would be continued; against the Irish Poor Law Bill ; in favour of railway communication being established between Halifax and Quebec; for the opening of the Bri tish Museum at such hours in the evening as would enable the working classes to avail themselves of the benefits of the institution; in favour of promoting the cultivation of cotton in India. THE STATE OF OUDE. Mr. TORRENS moved an address for copies of any letters from the Secretary of State for India to the Gover nor-General of India in Council, subsequent to the 26th of May, 1860, calling for a reply to the reference that was then made to the Governor-General, on the subject of cer tain claims which have been preferred on the late Govern ment of the State of Oude.—Ordered. EXPORTATION OF RAGS. Mr. NORRIS moved an address for return of the names of those countries in Europe which permit of the free ex port of rags, and of those other countries that prohibit such export, or impose a duty thereon, with the amount per ton of such duty, in each case.—Ordered. TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL (1860). Mr. BEAM iSH moved that the reasons given by this house, and communicated to the House of Lords on the 17th day of August, 1860, for disagreeing to certain of the amendments made by their Lordships to the Tramways (Ireland) Bill, be printed as the same are entered in the journals of this hi/use.—Ordered. AUSTRALIAN SOVEREIGNS. Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if her Majesty's Government had any reports from the Master of the Mint, or other official persons, on the subject of making the sovereign coined at the branch mint at Sydney a legal tender throughout her Majesty's dominions; and if so, whether there was any objection to produce such reports for the information of the house ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was a correspondence in progress on this difficult and in teresting subject. That correspondence was of necessity slow in its progress, because the colony, the Government, and the Bank of England were all interested. He was ready to produce this correspondence as far as it had gone.. the merits of his character rising go conspicuously to our view, it is fitting that we should give some exprecsion to the regret and sympathy which are felt, nct only by this house; but by very, very many persons in this country. (Cheers.) . _ Lord J. RUSSELL—Having been engaged in diplomatic transactions with Count Cavour, I think the hon. baronet has taken a very proper course in bringing this subject be fore the house. I cannot but feel that it is due to him who has gone away from us to say that I believe there never was a man that devoted himself—heart, mind, and soul-- more entirely to his country and to Italy than Count Ca your. (Loud cheers.) He was endowed with great abilities. He had also a capacity for great labour ; and those abilities and that labour were d evoted from the earliest time at which it was in his power to give an opinion, to the achievement of the independence of Italy. (Hear, hear.) There is no one that looks back to the time when Count Cavour commenced that enterprise but must see that it was a task attended with great difficulties; and the manner in which he began to interest the Powers of Europe by proposing to act in concert with England and France in the Crimean war, and the way in which he afterwards, at the Congress of Paris, stated amongst the statesmen of Europe what he conceived to be the griefs and wrongs of Italy, showed not only that he deeply felt those griefs and those wrongs, but that he had a clear intuition of those means by which the indepen dence of Italy, now happily achieved, could be accomplished. (Cheers.) With regard to his historical career, this is not the time to s! - eak of the various transactions in which he was engaged. I have had the good fortune both to treat with him diplomatically, and to be personally and privately acquainted with him ; and I cannot forbear offering this tribute to the memory of a man who will stand conspicuous in history as the great liberator of Italy. (Loud cheers.) The O'DONOGH UE —I rise for the purpose of expressing my entire dissent both from the proposal of the hon. baronet the member for Tamworth, and from the praises which have been lavished upon Count Cavour by the noble lord the Se cretary of State for Foreign Afftirs. (Oh, oh.) One of the principal features of Count Cavour's policy was its decided hostility to the temporal power of the Pope. (Cheers.) The chief characteristic of that policy was a persistent and syste. matic misrepresentation—(no, no)—of the state of things in the territories of the Pope, in order to screen and cover the aggrandisement of Sardinia. (No, no.) Sucha policy might no doubt harmonise with the prejudices of many gentlemen on both sides of this house, who are ready to believe every story of Papal misgovernment, and with that stupid bigotry which is displayed by too many persons in this country— (cheers)—but I have no hesitation in saying that his policy wt .s the grossest outrage upon the most sacred feelings of a great majority of Christians throughout the world, (Cheers and Oh, oh.) I yield to no man—neither to the hon. baronet the member for Tamworth nor to the noble lord the Secre tary for Foreign Affairs—in my desire to see the people of Italy free. (Ironical cheers.) I yield to no man in the dis like I have to see Italy under the domination of Austria ; but I refuse to accept the armed supremacy of Sardinia over the heretofore free people of Italy—(Oh, oh, and laughter) —as the true definition of Italian liberty. lam not afraid, even in this House of Commons, to say that I think I see the finger of God's justice in the death of Count Cavour. (Great disapprobation, and loud cries of " Oh, oh," hisses and groans, which were repeated at short intervals till the close of the hon. gentleman's remarks.) Sir R. PEEL—I would make a suggestion. (Confusion, in which the hon. baronet resumed his seat without con tinuing his interruption.) The O'DONOGHUE (resuming)—Don't let the house misunderstand me. (Oh, oh.) I am far from expressing any exultation in the termination of Count Cavour's career. (Oh, oh.) On the contrary, I regret as much as any gentle man in this house can regret, the death of Count Cavour; but I regret it for very different reasons. , (Oh, oh.) Mr. MILNES—I think the hon. gentleman has entirely misapprehended the suggestion of my hon. friend the mem ber for Tamworth. It was not his desire that this house should begin to dispute over the dead body of a great man. (Cheers.) He desired, I believe, as most members of this house desire, without reference to any particular form of opinion, to pay the homage of the constitutional government of this country to a statesman who has foutted constitu tional liberty in his own land, and who in anition to that glorious achievement has brought about a great national unity, and made that a fact which for so many years had been the dream of the best men in Europe. (Cheers.) I feel SO deeply the disappearance of this foremost man in Europa that I am conscious that words are utterly inade quate to express the solemnity of an occasion when we are not called upon to discuss the character of an individual but to express as strongly and as simply as we can our sense of the mighty loss which Europe has sustained in the disap pearance of so great a mind— a mind which could not only grasp the destinies of Italy, but comprehend what would contribute to the peace of the world, by a combination of profound policy, moral courage, and intellectual power, such as existed in no other statesman in Europe. My hon. friend has alluded, with that modesty which becomes him as the son of so great a man, to the fact, that the National As of France entered upon its formal records an ex pression of the sympathy which France and Europe felt for the death of Sir Robert Peel. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps it is not in accordance with our usages, not being somuch within the influence of continental struggles, to adopt such a for mal course ; but I believe it will be thought right on both sides of the house to expres-= our sympathy and our regret. Perhaps it is all the better that no political feeling should be mixed up in the matter ; and I should not have said one word if the hon. gentleman opposite had not taken upon himself the function of interpreting the ways:of Providence —(loud cheers)—in a manner which I am sure in his better mind, he will feel that he would not have done had he not been led away by his religious enthusiasm. (Hear, hear.) It was hardly fair for him, neither is it for me, nor for any' other mortal man, in the exercise of his miserable and feeble judgment—(hear, hear)—to say whether the disappearance of Count Cavour from the scene will really tend to the ac complishment of even the.object which the hon. gentleman wishes to promote, or whether the confusion and difficulty to which the Church with which he is connected has in later times been subjected may not be infinitely increased by the removal of so great a leading mind. It never should be left out of consideration that he always respected the rights of the Catholic church, that he lived and died a member of that church, and that he has passed from this scene not more with the character of a great fo reign statesman than of one who had rendered the greatest services to his own country. It is not for me to pronounce a panegyric upon Count Cavour; the panegyric of Count Cavour is the sympathy of the civilised world—(cheers) — and the sympathy with Count Cavour is referable to not only, I believe, the sense we have of the loss we have sus tained, but to the fear which I believe will agitate the mind of every far-sighted statesman at the difficulties which may now come upon those great questions, which will now have to be discussed, without the aid of his great mind—of his powerful spirit—to lead them on to the glorious end he had in view. (Cheers.) Viscount PALMERSTON—I cannot. refrain from add• ing a few words to what has been said by those who have preceded me in this discussion. And I must fairly own that there was no person more fitting to introduce this subject to the house than the son of that eminent statesman whose memory was the subject of a still more formal tribute of ad miration by the legislature of a neighbouring country—that Of France. My hon. friend has suggested that some pro ceeding of the same kind should be adopted on our part on the present occasion. But with all submission, I would re mind him that each country is guided by its own habits ; that that which may be congenial to the customs of a coun try on the Continent, may not be in accordance with our own ; and I believe there is no such proceeding as that sug gested on record in the case of any of the most eminent statesmen of our own land, whose departure from amidst his contemporaries may have been iuost the subject of regret. I therefore think the house will content itself with the ex pression of sympathy with the feelings put forward by the hon. member for Tamworth, which have been already ex pressed in the course of this discussion. lam not about to follow the hon. member on the ether side, who has imported into the discussion matters which are not connected with it ; but I feel that I should be wanting to my own sentiments if I refrained from concurring with those who have ex pressed the deep regret they feel at the loss of this dis tinguished man; a loss not only to his own country, who will deeply deplore him, but to the whole of Europe—and whose memory will live embalmed in the grateful recollec tion of his countrymen, and iv. the admiration of mankind, so long as history records his deeds. When I speak of what hghas done—it ought to be borne in mind that those bril liant acts of his administration which have most attracted the notice of the world, viz., the political extension of unity throughout Italy, are perhaps Rot those forwhich his countrymen will most revere his memory. It should be remembered that he laid the foundations of improve ments, constitutional, legal, and social, in all the internal affairs of the Italian people, which will long survive him, and confer inestimable benefits, both on those who live, and on those who will come hereafter. I was going to say— " He left a name To point a moral and adorn a tale." The moral to be drawn from the life of Count Cavour is this, that a man of transcendent talents, of indomitable energy, of inextinguishable patriotism, by th e i m p u l ses which his own single mind may give to his countrymen, aiding a righteous cause—for so I shall call it, in spite of what may be said—(cheers)—and seizing favourable opportuni ties, may, notwithstanding difiliulties which at first sight seem insurmountable, confer upon his country the greatest and most inestimable benefits. That is the moral to be drawn from the life of Count Cavour. The tale with which his memory will be associated is one of the most extraordi nary—l may say one of the most romantic—recorded in the annals of the world. We have seen, under his impulse and guidance, a people, who were supposed to be torpid in the enjoyment of luxury—enervated by the pursuits of pleasure—having no knowledge or feeling of politics except what may be derived from the traditions of their history, from the jealousies of rival states—we have seen that people at his call, and under his guidance, rising from the slumber of ages, with the power of a giant refreshed, breaking that spell by which they had been so long bound, and displaying upon a great occasion the courage of heroes, the sagacity of statesmen, and the wisdom of philosophers; and attaining for themselves a unity of political existence which bad been for centuries denied to them. (prolonged cheers.) Sir, I say that this is a great event in history, and that the man whose name will go down to posterity connected with this 691615 of events, whatever taay be she Pried of his death; however premature fox' he hopes of his countrymen, cannot be said to have died too Boor, for his glory and for his fame. (Prolonged cheering,) The subject then dropped. gUPPLY—THE VOLUNTEERS. - - - - The house then went into Committee of getpi:fy. On the Volunteer vole i the Army Estimatef i Lord ELCHO called attention to the wants of the Vo lunteer force. He said that when ge.t.! the Volunteer move • ment was commenced, it was ridiculed eVeit by the Premier himself. But novt times were changed, and the toast of "The Volunteers" was teceiveri with enthusiasm at all public dinners throughout the country, and even the noble lord himself could not be elected recently for Tiverton without calling in their aid. The force numbered at present 147,955 men, and these had to provide them selves with uniform, accoutrements, bands, &c., to the amount of £1,00,000. Government were now called upon to contribute something tovtards the equipments of the force, and this they might do without in the slightest degree interfering with the independence of the corps. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge affoided his advice and encouragement to the corps, and therefore there was no ground for contending that the Volunteer movement was 'viewed with anything like hostility by the Horse Guards. the Government had already given some assist ance to the corps, and now some further assistance was respectfully demanded.. They wanted, for instance, money for drill and musketry instruction, thereby reliev ing the Volunteers from the necessity of resorting to balls, and bazaars for the purpose of raising the amount they' required to render themselves fully equipped. The noble lord referred to the expense of various corps, the result of which' was to show that they were at the rate of about 15s. per annum. Something had been said about re questing to have from the Government £1 a year, but that sum was agreed upon at a meeting held a short time since at the Thatched House, and it was there shown that the ex penses to which he referred were about 155., and the re maining ss. was put down for travelling expenses; but it was never proposed that anything so foolish was expected as that the Government would give the men £1 a-head. What was wanted was, that the Government should give them a drill-sergeant, an armourer, and a certain allowance for ammunition, &c., besides other charges for rifle practice. The Volunteers already received from Government a sum of £40,000, which was about ss. per man. In addition to this, there was a cost of £4,000 for the staff at the War Office. Now, if the Government gave the assistance which was asked, the whole expense to the country would not be, at the outside, more than 20s. or 255. per man. There were, no doubt, some persons who thought that the 1 olunteer force would admit of a reduction of the regular army. There were no persons among the Volunteers who enter tained such opinions, for no matter how largo or well trained the Volunteer force might be, it would never do to diminish the regular army. But if a soldier in the regular army cost £B3 a year a Volunteer was not dear at 255. Those who had seen the reviews at Hyde Park, Edinburgh, or Knowsley, or wherever else they had appeared, must ad mit that they were an efficient body. Colonel M'Murdo had said that he had never seen a regiment equal to the Inns of Court Volunteers, except, perhaps, the 60th Rifles at the time of its arrival in India. The Volunteer movement had effected an immense amount of social good by bringing men and classes together, and binding them in a patriotism and holy brotherhood of arms. In addition to this, the health ful exercise and good habits which were engendered had produced great physical benefits. The political results had not been less important. A short time since we had an untrained population; were unable to bring more than 30,000 infantry into the field, and were, consequently, subjected to periodical panics ; but this had been all changed. The spirits of the volunteers of 1803 had re vived, and produced the result at which they now all re joiced. The consequence of the state of things which had existed up to a recent period, had threatened seriously to affect the position of England in the Courts of Europe But if they would learn what had been the effect of this volunteer movement, they should ask the opinion of the Prime Minister, of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs— would he could ask Count Cavour. (Hear, hear.) Let them ask the Emperor Napoleon. The Englisu Govern-- Merit had been able to write, to think, and to speak, in con sequence of the Volunteer movement, in such a way as to do greater service to the cause of Italy, by its moral influence, than had been accomplished by the active exertions of France. The cause of peace was now greatly strengthened, because, in the words of a distinguished diplomatist, we were strong enough to be able to make concessions when it was thought necessary to do so. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that the answer of the Government would be favourable to the proposal which he had submitted, and that they, the Government, would be prepared to support and maintain that which had been characterised as the noblest present ever made to a Sovereign ; but if they should refuse to accede to it, they would incur the responsibility of having • caused the Volunteer forces to disappear from the country. (Hear, hear.) Lord VA.LLE FORT thought that the Volunteers had not much cause to complain of the assistance which had been accorded to them already by the Government; but considering that a sum of at least £1,500,000 had been ex pended from private sources in the promotion of the Volun teer movement, he believed that the force had established a claim for some further assistance from the Government. He thought that the permanent expenses of the corps should be borne by the Government, and these would in clude instruction, care of arms and armour and facilities for rifle practice. Sir H. VERNEY considered that the noble lord who had brought forward the subject, had asked nothing ex cessive from the Government in the shape of assistance to the Volunteers, and that opinion was, he had no doubt, shared by the majority of members present. Mr. A. EGERTON supported the motion, on the ground, among others, that if drill-sergeants were supplied by the Government to the country corps, a greater unifor mity of drill would be secured than was at present attained. Lord ENFIELD complimented the Government on the aid which they had rendered to the Volunteer corps, and while he deprecated money grants to the men, thought that valuable assistance might be rendered by the Government in giving drill-sergeants to the corps, especially if these in structors were attached as supernumerary members to the regiments in the regular service, as it would be more easy in such cases to exercise an efficient control over their con duct. (Hear, hear.) Mr. H. BERKELEY concurred in opinion with the noble lord the member for Haddington. He believed it was impossible to overrate the importance of the 4 Volunteer movement, and that the Volunteers were entitled to the gra titude of their country for the sacrifices of time and money they had made in perfecting themselves at drill. He should have been delighted to sea £lOO,OOO given to such an admi rable body. The Volunteers had supplanted the yeomanry, and were the most efficient supporters the constabulary could possess. He had known an instance in which the yeomanry had laid down their arms to an unarmed mob, and he defied any man to show him any case in which the yeomanry had been successful against a mob. He drew a line of distinction between a disciplined and an undisciplined corps of yeomanry, and related instances in which the dis ciplined corps had rendered essential service to their country, while the undisciplined had turned their backs to the enemy. He quoted the opinion of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge that the Volunteers should be auxiliaries to the regular troops of the line, and that without drill they never could hope to make themselves efficient soldiers. The hon. member read itngthened extracts from the evidence given before a committee of the house relative to the drill and general equipment of the Volunteers, some of which excited much laughter. He concluded by proposing a reduction of the vote from £91,000 to £32 000. _ _ _ Sir W. MILES hoped the Government would take the proposition of the noble lord (Elcho) into their serious con sideration, because, if not, he feared that when the novelty of the Volunteer movement had worn off, the force would gradually diminish in point of numbers. He should be glad to see the Volunteers increased by 50,01)0 men, and he did not see why this increase should not immediately take place, provided Government held out a helping hand to the c , ,rps. Mr. BUXTON urged upon the Government the neces sity of giving what assistance they grant in kind and not in money, as receiving money would tend to lower the prestige of the force in the eyes of the country and of Europe. (Hear, hear.) Major EDWARDS considered that the country had just cause to be proud of the Volunteer force, which formed so noble a contingent to the regular army, Sir W. RUSSELL approved of the proposal that the Government should provide the rifle corps with instructors who should be attached to the regular army for the purpose of ensuring more perfect discipline. Sir J. PAX VON said he entirely concurred in most of the remarks made by the noble lord the member for Had dington, believing that there was great difficulty in gather ing together the rifle companies in the country districts. He wished to see the Volunteer movement universal, and believed that that could not be effected unless it embraced the counties of England. The question wag not, whether 20s. or 255. was a sufficient payment for a rifleman, because each of these men had paid upwards of £lO. The corps numbered 150,000 men, and according to the regulations of the War-office, they had to undergo 24 days' drill per annum each. This loss of time occasioned an immense loss of money. Lieut.-Colonel Capper, who commanded the Ad ministrative Essex Rifles, was of opinion that each man ought to be allowed £2 per annum. Ho (Sir J. Paxton) though willing to give a certainamount in kind, was never theless disposed to think that compensation money was the most desirable mode of rewarding the services of the men. He had been requested by a great number of officers and men to advocate their general views. He believed the movement was national, that it had put an end to panics, and that its services would ever be found most valuable in a military point of view. Sir J. PAKINGTON regretted that in consequence of the way in which this vote was unavoidably drawn, it should have Ted to comparisons between the new volunteer infantry and the mounted yeomanry. No doubt the move ment had been a great rlational one, carried on with great spirit, and if any enieluney arose he was sure the numbers would be trebled; htat ;i• the Government could in any way aid the volunteers in,4 pecuniary way he should gladly support a vote for that effect. With respect to the annual exhibition of thehon. member for Bristol on the subject of the yeomanry they were accustomed ; but he would say that the gentlemen of England regarded the report which had been made on the subject with unanimous disapproval. if the Government thought there was no further necessity for the yeomanry let them say so frankly and part in a friendly way. He had reason to know that a large body of loyal men in the north of England had been alienated by the treatment they had received, and he hoped Government would seriously consider the subject. Mr. T. G. BARING said ho would not repeat the obser vations as to the importance and the value of the volunteer force. Government had already shown their sense of the importance of the volunteer movement by the advantages they had already made to aid in the efficiency of the volun teers. After alluding to the interest felt by the Commander in-Chief in the volunteer force, he said the actual expense this year of the volunteers amounted to no less a sum, than £117,000, but other allowances made the entire s um Xl6O an d next year it would be increased by the sum of £20,000 for for the pay of 'adjutants. Government did not gr ud g e would amo unt in the estimates, but, if necessary, re ady to increase the amount if that were needed to their efficiency. He consideredthe independence thee e y d be to add of the volunteers was a main i ng redient in their value, and he thought it would be sarong to hold out any hopes of any money payments what ever. (Hear, hear.) he thought With respect to the repairs of small arms, that greater accommodation should be afforded in that respect to the volunteers, and believing that the matter of drill in struction was ono of very great importance, he would state that the subject was at present under the consideration of the Government. As to the volunteer movement itself; he entertained no fear whatever that any failure would attend it. The sporting element of rifle shooting was, in hi 4 opinion, one of the best chances of giving permanence to the movement. No doubt great differences of opin:oa pre vailed throughout the country on the subject of the volun • teem. As about £2 per man would be sufficient, alter th first outlay, to keep up the volunteer force, he did nct thit k v t hatd iag an . s y u y ch olun an t a ee n r io c u o n r t r would have hhaisveknaonwy l d ed iffi ge cu o l f ty th i e n pa p tri ro l ptihrietrethawtapsranevayilerdeatshornoutogheaosutt athedocoaubt pnturyo,nhethde periolno nithtnny of the movement. A s to the amendment moved e a i i e n n e k e 4 the ja" ' member BriatO4 Which weld prevent the AMERICAN PRIVATEERS. Mr. LIDD FaLL asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposal made by her Majesty's Go vernment to the United States, and the so styled Confede rate States of America, to interdict the armed ships and also the privateers of both parties from carrying prizes made by them into the ports of the United Kingdom, or of any of her Majesty's colonies or p)ssessions abroad, was or was not at variance with former practice ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that what the Government had dor.e was, as he had previously stated, to give instruc tion to their authorities in the colonies to interdict privateers coming into the ports under their jurisdiction. It was diffi cult to say what was the usage of Great Britain in reference to the matter, because there were few maritime wars in which this country had not been concerned ; but it was the opinion of the Queen's Advocate that according to the law of nations it was competent for any country to make such regulations as might appear to them necessary under the circumstances. WITHDRAWAL OF MR. GRAHAM DUNLOP. Mr. DUNLOP asked-the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it was the case that the Austrian Govern ment had demanded the withdrawal of Mr. G. Dunlop from Pesth, and whether he had been, in consequence, re called to Vienna ; also, whether his conduct while at Pesth had given any occasion of dissatisfaction to her Majesty's Government, or any just cause of complaint to that of Austria? Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was according to his desire and the wish of the English Ambassador, that Mr. Graham Dunlop had been sent t' , Pesth. It was remarked soon after his appointment, that his presence might give countenance to the discontent in Hungary, and he (Lord J. Russell) stated that he would be ready to with. draw Mr. Graham Dunlop if that was the wish of the Austrian Government. Ho did accordingly withdraw him, but that was not in consequence of any complaint against him, and the Government were perfectly satisfied with his conduct. . _ -- ii;. - bUNCOMBE inquired if there would be any ob jection to lay the despatches on this subject on the table of the house ? Lord J. RUSSELL said there were no despatches on the question, and it was merely mentioned in private con versation. THE LATE VICE-CONSUL AT XERES. Lord J. RUSSELL wished to make an explanation on the subject of the withdrawal of Mr. Gordon, the Vice- Consul at Xeres in Spain. This gentleman was acccused of improper conduct in reference to interference in the free exercise of their religious duties by British Protestants at Xeres. On the 23th of May he gave orders that Mr. Gor don should be transferred to another post. THE CONFEDERATED STATES OF AMERICA. Colonel PATTEN appealed to the hon. member opposite (Mr. Gregory) not to press the motion which he had on the paper tuffs evening on going into committee of supply, as to the expediency of the prompt recognition by this country of the Confederation of the Southern States of America. Mr. GREGORY said that he could assure the house he had no desire to adopt a course that might be objectionable in reference to this subject. His only object was to bring before the house an impartial statement of the real nature of the differences between the States of America. The public had cnly heard of these differences thyough the medium of the Northern press of America However, as there was such a strong feeling in the house on the subject, he should not place himself in op2osition to the wish of hon. members. Therefore he would not withdraw his motion, but would postpone it sine die, with the hope that, before the'close of the session, he would be able to bring forward a statement on the subject. Mr. M. MILNES hoped that Mr. W. Foster would also withdraw his motion, which was as follows :—" To call the attention of the house to the inexpediency of iffOrfering in behalf of those citizens of the United States who are now in insurrection against their Government, by a recog nition of the Confederacy which they have formed." Mr. FOR'-TER, considering that itjwould be undesirable to enter into a discussion on thil subject, would consent to withdraw his motion. DAY SITTING. Lord PALMERSTON said it might be convenient if he then stated that it was proposed to have a day sitting on Tuesday next to consider the bill relative to criminal law. APPOINTMENT OF MAJOR-GENERAL EDEN. - ------ - On the motion for going i n to committee of supply, Mr. CONINGHAM called attention to the appointment of Major-General Morton Eden to the Colonelcy of the 50th Foot, and availed himself of that opportunity to criti cise the conduct of the Horse Guards in various appoint ments to the highest commissions. A discussion ensued, and the matter dropped. COUNT CAVOUR. - - Sir R. PEEL—Sir, I rise at this early period to call the attention of this house to a subject which has already been alluded to in the other house—l mean the recent death of Count Cavour. It does appear to me that this is a fitting occasion for the House of Commons to take an opportunity of expressing its deep feeling of regret and sympathy at the loss which Italy has sustained in the premature death of that statesman, certainly the most conspicuous that ever directed the destinies of any nation on the continent of Europe in the path of constitutional liberty. (Cheers.) It is not for us to scrutinise the decrees of Providence in the dispensation of human affairs, but I do think that the cala mity which has befallen Italy, and which appears at this moment to threaten the peace of Europe, is a subject which might properly engage the attention of this house, as re presenting-the public opinion of this country. I think it would be right for us not only to express our own feelings, but to put the condolence of the public into somewhat of an official form. It may not be within the knowledge of the house that in 1850 the French Assembly entered in the procos verbal of their sittings on the sth of July their regret at the loss which this country had sustained, and was then sustaining. (Hear, hear.) Now, I believe that on the present occasion it would be befitting our dignity to take some such course, and perhaps the noble lord at the he a d o f the Government might suggest some mode of entering on our j ourna l s an express i on of sympathy at the loss which Italy and Europe have sustained in Count Cavour (Cheers.) Many of us have conscientiously differed f r om his policy, perhaps from an inadequate knowledge of the 1 1 difficulties and dangers which encircled his course. But he is gone, He lies in the grasp of death; and when we ago Ibilimimmg yeomanry being called out for drill this year, he hoped. the committee would not agree to it, as their doing so would have the effect stated, and prevent the yeomanry being called out for drill this year. He (Mr. Baring) would cer tainly rather see the officers in the yeomanry not paid :at all —but as many of the men, in case that rule were adopted, would also refuse to receive pay, it might operate in juri ously in cases where men in the same corps ceuldnot afford to bear the expense, and uneleasant feelings might be' gene • rated in consequence. (Hear, hear.) He felt certain that the reduced allowance would be perfectly sufficient to main tain the yeomanry force in a state of efficiency. (Hear.) Mr. WILLIAMS fully concurred in the propriety cif the course proposed by the Government with respect to g.rant ing further assistance to the volunteers of this country, and suggested that the increased expenditure incurred C this account be obtained by a corresponding reduction in the vote of L 15,000,000 for the regular army. Major EDWARDS protested against the reduction of the vote on account of the yeomanry corps. Sir J. SHELLEY expressed his gratification at th e suc cessful result of the motion brought forward by the. noble lord the member for Haddingtonshire, and felt assurciii that the volunteers would receive with great pleasure the el •sist ance granted by the Government. Captain JERVIS hoped that nothing would be de) ne to interfere with the efficiency of that volunteer cavalry force which was provided by the yeomanry corps. Mr. WYLD thought that the Government might etc nder some further assistance by facilitating the obtain nig of tents and rifle practice grounds. Mr. PE 4c 0 CKE pointed out the great distinct ion which existed between the yeomanry and volunteer, forces, t ;he one being responsible to the civil, the other to the n tilitary authorities. He was of opinion that the best possi ble re sults would be obtained from that uniform system of drill of volunteers, which would be ensured by the appoint extent of ,drill sergeants by the Government. Mr. CONINGHAM hoped that the volunteers would endeavour to preserve their independence of the auth orith s of the Horse Guards, and referred to the field-day which hail s aken place at Brighton as a decisive proof theet the volunteers were able to conduct their own affairs. Lord ELCHO said he did not think that the a ffair at Brighton was such a very successful one, and stated that in his opinion such extended movements ought to be under the direction of competent officers, and in that opinion he was confirmed by most of the officers connected with the volun teer corps in the metropolis. After some further remarks in reply, Mr. BERKELEY withdrew his amendment, and the vote was agreed to. A sum of £158,155 for fortifications was next proposed. Mr. F SMITH proposed to reduce the vote by the , sum of £4,000, required for land in Alderney. Mr. CHILDERS thought that some further information should be given respecting these works for fortifications before the proposed expenditure was sanctioned. Tlris was especially necessary in connection with the works in pro gress in the Mauritius, the lonian Islands, and Gibraltar. Lord W. GRAHAM inquired whether the colonies would bear any portion of the expenses on account of the fortifi cations in progress, and if so, what proportion ? Mr. WILLIAMS asked whether the vote of £4,000 for land at Alderney was in addition to the sum of £1,250,000 already expended in that island ? Mr. CONINGHAM opposed any further expenditure on account of the works at Alderney. Lord HOTHAM wished to know what course the Go vernment intended to adopt with respect to the fortification of the Humber. Mr. T. G. BARING said it was intended to commence the erection of a battery in the Humber this year. With respect to the proportion of the expenses to be borne by the colonies, a committee was now considering the subject of colonial military expenditure, which was expected shortly to make its report. The whole of the cost for the lonian Islands for the year would not exceed £5,000. With respect to the Mauritius and to the lonian Islands the committee would not be pledged by the vote to any other works than the Fort SI. George in the Mauritius, and the .small work in the lonian Islands. The small portion of land required at Aldee;ney was necessary, in order to complete the whole of the purchase required on that island. The vote for forti fications was not a large one this year, and the committee would be assured that no more would be expended than was absolutely necessary. Sir F. SMITH said he was not satisfied with the expla nations respecting land at Alderney, and moved that the vote be reduced by the sum of £4,000 for the purchase of land on that island. Mr. LIDDELL wished to know whether Alderney was intended as a military work or as a harbour of refuge ? If a military work, he wished to know what it was intended to defend. Lord PALMERSTON said that Alderney was not in tended as a harbour of refuge, but as a military post for the naval defence of the Channel, and in connection with Portland would be of the greatest importance for that purp )se. Mr. GREGORY regarded Alderney as a sourceof weak ness rather than of strength, and quoted the opinion of a French officer to the same effect. Lord PALMERSTON said that if hon, members of that house were to ask French cfficers as to whether we were pursuing the proper course with regard to our fortifications, they would not be very likely to arrive at correct conclu sions on the subject. After some observations from Colonel North, Mr. Con ningham, Mr. Jackson, and Sir F. Smith, The committee divided— For the amendment Against it Majority against —93 Mr. CHILDERS thought the answer given rospecting the lonian Islands was unsatisfactory, and ask ed for a further explanation. He moved an amendment that the £5,000 for these islands be omitted from the vote. Mr. B. COCHRANE said we were fortifying the lonian Islands as if they were perpetually to belong to us, whereas ' it might some day happen that we should find out we were fortifying the islands against ourselves. Colonel DUNNE thought that if we were likely to lose) possession of them. the sooner we fortified them the better. Mr. T. G. BARING said it was intended to expend the £5,000 in repairing old works, not in erecting new fortifi cations. After some conversation, in which Mr. Bouverie, Sir F. Smith, Captain Jervis, Colonel Dickson. Sir J. Ferguson, Mr. Coningham, Sir 11. - Verney, Mr. Monsell, Mr, Clay, Colonel Dunne, and Sir F. Goldsmid took part, The committee divided— For the amendment . 59 Against it . 35 . 128 Majority against —47 The vote was then agreed to. The house resumed, and the chairman reported progress. EXCISE AND STAMPS BILL. The house went into committee on this bill, in which some verbal amendments were introduced. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER, a proviso was proposed to be added to the clause That nothing herein contained shall be construed to render any person liable to any penalty for or on account of any letters or correspondence by post, containing the terms or conditions offered or accepted for the taking or letting of any furnished house. After some discussion, the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER undertook to reconsider the phraseology of the clause, which was considered to be ambiguous. THE LACE FACTORIES BILL. Sir G. C. LEWIS moved the second reading of this bill, the object of which was to apply the general principle of the Factories Act to lace factories. The bill was read a second time. The Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society Bill was read a second time. The Transfer of Stocks and Annuities Bill was read a second time, the object of it being to facilitate the transfer of stocks and annuities. The Volunteer Tolls Exemption Bill was read a third time and passed. DURHAM UNIVERSITY. A bill was brought in and read a first time by Mr. G. C. LEWIS, for making provision for the general government and extension of the University of Durham. CIVIL SERVICE (INDIA). Mr. VANSITTART moved for certain reports from 9 ' committee of the Council on India. Sir C. WOOD objected to their production on the g round that as it was the report of a committee, and not of the C, un cil, it would be detrimental to the public interests to produce it, and would establish an inconvenient precedent. After some discussion, the house divided, when the mll bers were— For the motion Against it Majority against it —ls The other business 'was disposed of, and the house ad . journed at a quarter to 2 o'clock. Magnetic toys were, until lately, the only application of the magnet to anything like a useful purpose, now we have Herring's magnetic brushes, &c. Dr. Hassan states " regard them as the most perfect brushes hitherto made, se respects their mechanical construction, and their magoeti cal action." They are the remedy for grey hair, 3aeuralgie , rheumatism, &c. N.B.—Counterleits are being mad e ' Offices, 32, Baainghall-street, London. [ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably li g ° gi avate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoys.nce, dlO - and expense may be avoided by persons In indifferent health sending only their address to N. " IrrvA c c t t h . l e i n D removal p s in wlf t b, -B w . ill ß r a e r ce ry i ' ve E :T q. a ' tis n' an ß d e lanzinirleangora, andex i_il VIDE," or Natural Restorer, without g i r e e n e t - b e y t r poeteet, W the. , ' London, and they rnse, of perfect digestion, strong nerve s, refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring t h e di arrb ma, of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, pi Llpitatiot , cough, asthma, consumption, drops)", dysentery, bili ousnes s, fevers, so re throats, catarrhs, c olds, noses in the ears. rheumat i sm , gout, Impurities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpi tation, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, s p as ms, sinking, fits, bronchitis —"Unauestionably the safest Guide to health." BIRTHS. ArTsoiv.—On the 4th inst., at 7, College-crescent, St. John's wood, the wife of Captain Anson, R.N., of a daughter. On the 6th inst., at Ash-hall, Gl amorgans hi re , 33AILLIE.— the wife of Hamilton Baillie, Esq., of a son. MARRIAGES. BETT—BAXTER.—On the 6th inst., at Hazel Hall, near 1, , Dundee, Thomas Bett, merchant, London, to Marion Crawford, the daughter of Edward Baxter, merchant, Dundee. PECHELL—DERBY.—On the 6th inst., at St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, Mark R o b er t P ec h e l l , Commander R.N., son of the Rev. Horace , and Lady Caroline Pechell, to Ellen Maria, youngest daughter of C. Derby, Esq. , an d niece to Sir Samuel Fludyer, Bart. DEATHS. CRAMPTON.—On the sth inst., at Peckham, Miss Frances Crampton, aged 76. CRISP.—On the 6th inst., at Leighton Villas, Talbot-road, Holloway, Edmund Crisp, Esq., aged 69. HUTTON.—On the 4th inst., at 4, Camden Cottages, Cam den-town, Wm. Hutton, Esq., aged 89. PRYOR.—On the 6th inst., at Clay-hall, Walker; Harts, John Izard Pryor, EFq., age I 87. TAYLOn.—On the 7th inst., at Brinklow Cottage, Lower 4 '"- Tulse-hi.l, Thomas Taylor, Esq., aged 62. YOUNGRUSBAND.—On the 4th inst , Mr. Joseph Young husband, of Hesket Newmarket, Cumberland, aged 83. LONDON : Printed and Published by MIIRDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SuN Oftce, No. 112,Strand , in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of iliJcikeai Saturday, attitefi, 1501, 1