The Sun. — London, England, 1863-03-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL P . HOUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening. The LOUD CHANCELLOR took his seat On the woolsack at five o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—Colne Valley and Halstead Railway—Sligo and Ballaghaderreen Junction Railway—Wexford and Enesourthy Railway— Cardiff and Caerphilly Railway—Rumney and Breeon and Merthyr Tydfil Railway—Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Railway—Walford and Ritkruansworth Railway— and Morayshire Railway. GREAT EASTERN (METROPOLITAN) EXTEN- SION RAILWAY. The Earl of DERBY presented two petitions from Finsbury against this bill. PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES' ANNUL. The bill passed through committee and was reported without amendment. DRAINAGE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL. The Earl of LIFFORD moved the second reading of this bill, which, if it passed, would be attended with the most beneficial results in Ireland, No less than 10 bills for a similar purpose had received the sanction of Parliament, yet, notwithstanding that, Ireland was still one of the worst drained countries in the world. The bill was nearly similar to the English Act, the 24th and 25th of Victoria, and ono of the grounds on which he trusted it would receive the approval of Parliament was that it would give employ ment to a vast number of people who were now suffering from the results of three defective harvests. The Earl of LUCAN thought the bill had better be referred to a select committee. The Earl of LIFF , RD objected to such a course. The Earl of CORK was in favour of referring the bill to a committee up stairs. The bill was read a second time, and referred to a select committtee. _ _ During the time that the Earl of Lifford was addressing the house, his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales entered the house and took his seat on the front row of the cross benches. NAVAL COAST VOLUNTEER ACT AMENDMENT The Duke of SOMERSET, in moving the second reading of this bill, said that they were in a better position with regard to reserves for the navy than at any former period. On the 1st of Feb., 1863, the number of Royal Naval Re serve men was 14,000; of Coast Volunteers, 8,000; of Coastguard on shore, 3,000; and of Coastguard in ships, 2,000. The total number amen available as a reserve was 28,800, and as the number was increasing week by week they might expect it to be 30,000 by the end of the year. The only drawback to this great scheme of a reserve was that the Coast Volunteers were not to be taken more than 300 miles from the shores of the country. Vessels might be manned principally with ordinary seamen, or men of Um Royal Naval Reserve, but might have a few Coast Volun teers, and if these vessels were in pursuit of a privateer or required to leave the Channel for any purpose the service must be given up, unless they chose to break faith with the men. It was of the utmost importance that faith should be kept with the men, and that the terms on which they entered should not be violated. It was proposed to reserve to the present Coast Volunteers the limit on which they had taken service, but not to enter any morewith that limi tation. It might lead to some small diminution of the Coast Volunteer force, but, seeing how the Royal Naval Volun teer force was increasing, the advantage of the absence of the restriction as to distance would more than compensate for the disadvantage of that diminution. The bill contained oaly one clause. He had now explained the principle, and lie asked their lordships to read it a second time. The Earl of HARD WICKE suggested that without any definite law the Admiralty might allow it to be understood that men being settled with their wives and families on the coast would not be taken out of the Channel except under circumstances of great emergency. The bill itself was a very good one, but probably many men would withdraw if there was any idea of sending them on foreign service. With regard to the general subject of the naval force of the country he well remembered that when the Royal Commis sion sat it was calculated that in the event of a war with France, which was the only naval Power of any seri ous importance, a force of 56,000 seamen and marines, and a force of 30,000 men in reserve would be sufficient. We had nearly 30,000 men in the reserve now. Of course, as a naval officer, he liked all the advantages of a large navy, but as a member of Parliament who had some regard for the finances of the country, he certainly was astonished that the Government should ask for so large a force as 76,000 seamen and marines. In 1854 and 1855, during the Crimean war, they bad only from 65,000 to 67,000 men, and with so large a Naval Reserve to fall back on at any moment, he could not understand how the Government should ask for 76,000 men. The noble duke probably might be able to state some good reason for this extraordi nary demand, but he could not himself see any ground for it. The American States were too much weakened by their own quarrels to be dangerous to the peace of Europe, and though there might be some threatening elements in the Polish difficulty, that question had not arisen when these estimates were framed. The Duke of SOMERSET—I did not expect on this Volunteer Bill to be called on to go into the whole question of the naval expenditure of the year, but I must make a few observations in answer to the speech of the noble lord. I agree with him that we ought not to make use of the Coast Volunteers for the general purpose of manning the navy. They are only entered for one year, and of course it would be impossible, therefore, so to make use of them. The 30,000 men of the reserve are never to be used except on a great emergency, when this country itself is in danger. Of course the Government would be slow to issue the pro clamation, unless circumstances had occurred which were of such vast importance as to make it absolutely necessary that they should adopt a measure which would disturb the whole mercantile marine of the country. In regard to the manning of the fleet the noble earl seems to have forgotten that portion of the report of the Commission which recommends that a force of 20,000 marines shall be kept up. It is always inexpedient to keep up a large force of marines unless you can send a considerable proportion to sea, and I have thought it right to reduce the number to 18,000. The Commission recommended that we should always have a number of men in all our seaports to be ready for any ships which were put into commission. Your lord ships may remember that in 1859, though there was a bounty of £10 offered, ships were kept many weeks in port waiting for men ; but now I am happy to say that whenever a ship is put into commission in a day or two I hear that she has got all her men. (Hear, hear.) We get the best men, too, for we now reject all men who have not good cha racters or who may be physically unfit for the service. We have got, therefore, not only a large force but a good force. The noble earl must deduct from the 76,000 men the 18,000 marines and also those men who are employed in the pro tection of the revenue, amounting to several thousands,who are now reckoned part of the navy. Though the state of our foreign relations is satisfactory, yet there are disturb ances in different parts of the world which make it unad visable largely to reduce our naval force. I would Fcint to the far East—to China and Japan, and I would say that, looking to the disturbances in which we have been involved in those distant parts of the world and the expenditure which we have been forced to incur, it would be unadvis • able suddenly and rapidly to reduce our naval force there. It wouldbe bad policy, and it might lead to fresh disturbance and a new outbreak, and might necessitate another naval expedition to vindicate the honour of our flag. Again, a large force is needed in consequence of the disturbances in North America. Our trade is continually hampered and harassed, and it looks to the Admiralty for protection in that quarter. Every one of our island possessions in that part of the world asks for the presence of a ship to see that they are protected from vessels of one side or the other, which might otherwise not be very particular in respecting the Queen's proclamation of neutrality. Governors of colonies are continually asking for vessels, and Admiral Milne, the commander on the station, a man of great prudence and judgment, and who, having been at the Admiralty. knows the importance of economy, has fre quently written to me to say that it would not be for the public service to reduce our force on that station. In the Mediterranean we have been able to make a large reduction in consequence of the state of our relations with the Powers of Europe. I fully agree with the noble earl in the impor tance of economy in this branch of the public service, and I carefully considered in what departments reductions might judiciously and safely be carried out. I could not consist ently with my duty recommend to the Government a reduc tion in the number of men ; but in the department of stores I found that we had a very large supply en hand and that the consumption was comparatively small. In that depart ment, therefore, we have been able to make a reduction; but still, at the end of the year, I shall leave the navy in a better condition as regards stores than it has been at any time within the last 20 years. (Hear, hear.) The bill was then - read a second time. G ARDENS IN TOWNS BILL. This bill was read a third time, and Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COmmo Ns _ :L at four Th e SPEAKER took the chair o'clock. Evening. SECOND READINGS The following bills were read a second time man :—Dengie g R ot a s i fi to Railway— Peterborough (Essex) Reclamation —Midland Railwa y Bath)—Oswestry, Elle smere, and Whitchur ch Peterborough Cattle Marke t —Potteries Juncti on Railwayay -Welch and Midland Countie s Junction Railways --West Drayton, Staines, and Woking J unction Railways--Tra more Embankment. REGENT CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL. The second reading (with respect to which Mr. Lewis has a notice on the paper to postpone further progress with this bill for six months), was postponed till to-morrow. PETITIONS. Mr. Cox and Col. TORRENS, complaining of the recent encroachments in Epping Forest, and praying for in quiry ; Mr. W. PATTEN, from places in Lancashire against the Union Rate Continuance Bill; Mr. C. TURNER, from Liverpool, to the same effect ; Mr. .1:10DSON, from Carlisle, in favour of a reduction in the fire insurance duty; Sir J. SHELLEY, from 'Westminster, and Mr. FENDER, to the same effect; Mr. C. YNNE, from Carnarvon, for a reduction in the income tax, and praying that incomes under £150 may be altogether exempted from the operation of the impost; Mr. BRADY, from several places in Ireland, in favour of the Salmon Fisheries' Bill. RETURNS. ARMY-WAR DEPARTMENT. On the motion of Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, an address for the following was agreed to :—Return of the number of all officers, foremen, artificers, and labourers employed in the various manufactories of the War Department in 1861-2 and 1862-3; and, similar return of the proposed number to be employed in 1863-4. On the motion of Mr. W. FORSTER the following return was agreed to—Return showing approximate amount paid into the Exchequer as extra receipts on account of army services during 1862.3, in the form shown in the last column of page 3 of the Army Estimates of this year. On the motion of Mr. STANLEY, the following return was ordered :—Return from the several unions in North Wales, giving the population at the last census ; the num ber of paupers in receipt of relief in each union according to the latest return to the Poor Law Board ; the rate per cent. of paupers according to the population, and the rate in the pound on the poor rate valuation for each union for the last five years, stating those unions that have a work house and those without. ADMIRALTY.-THE DEVONPORT ELECTION. Mr. FERRANI) gave notice that on Tuesday next ho should ask the Secretary of the Admiralty whether shortly previous to the recent Devonport election the First Naval Lord received a deputation of dockyard men com plaining of the restriction of promotion after 45 years of age; and whether he did not promise that the subject would have his attention immediately after the elec tion, and that if, on inquiry, the system was found inju rious to the service, it should be rescinded. Also, whether, on inquiry, the authorities of the dockyard reported in favour of an amendment ; and whether the noble lord would have any objection to lay all the papers on the table of the house ? Mr. COBDEN gave notice that on going into committee of supply, he should call attention to the large number of officers employed in active service. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS. In reply to an HON. MEMBER, Sir G. GREY stated that ho should not proceed with this bill after 10 o'clock. CONVICT PRISONS. In reply to Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR, Sir G. GREY stated that he was not aware that the recent report had not been placed in the hands of all hon. mem bers, but he would institute an inquiry. THE CHINA PRIZE MONEY. Col. W. STUART asked the Secretary of State for ar whether any prize money was coming to the troops en• gaged in the China expedition of 1860, from the sale of guns, &c., captured from the enemy; and, if so, whether it was likely soon to be distributed ? Sir. G. C. LEWIS replied that there had been a sale by auction of these guns, but it was not intended to distribute any additional prize money. OUDE. Mr. TORRENS asked the Secretary of State for India what steps he proposed to adopt for the adjustment of the claims of the several parties on the late State of Oude? Sir C. WOOD replied that an investigation was made some time ago under the guidance of Mr. Bailie, but some objections had subsequently been set up against that in vestigation by the parties interested, on the ground that they had no notice of what was about to take place, and were, therefore, unable to bring forward their claims. The Government of India intended, therefore, to institute an other investigation. CONFEDERATES, Mr. CAIRD asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether information had been laid before the Government regarding the preparation in this country of any ships intended, like the Alabama, for the service of the Confederate States ; and, if so, what course they in tended to adopt in regard to such ships ? Mr. LAYARD replied that the attention of her Majesty's Government had been called to more than one vessel which appeared to be fitting out for the service of the Confederate States of America ; but as yet no evidence had been ob tained by her Majesty's Government to enable it to act in accordance with the law. Orders, however, had bees given that suspected vessels should be closely watched. (Hear, hear.) Mr. KINNAIRD asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in order to enable the magi strates about to assemble in quarter sessions, and others interested in the management of prisons, to consider the provisions of the Prison Ministers Bill, he would postpone the second reading till after Easter ? Sir G. GREY replied, if a general desire was expressed by gentlemen connected with quarter sessions that the bill should be postponed until after Easter, it was not im • probable that he should accede to their request, but as yet he had received no communications of the kind. He was, however, unwilling to postpone the bill to a distant period ; in the meantime he should defer the second reading until Monday fortnight. THE SEWAGE COMMISSION. Mr. K. SEYMER asked the hon. member for Leitrim, on what day he intended to call ,the attention of the house to the reports of the Sewage Commission ? Mr. BRADY replied that he would take the earliest opportunity of bringing the matter forward. VAGRANCY (SCOTLAND). Mr. CARNEGIE asked the Lord Advocate if it was his intention to introduce a measure on the subject of vagrancy in Scotland ? The LORD ADVOCATE replied that the subject was surrounded by so many difficulties that he should be unable to introduce such a bill during the present session. EXTRADITION-MALTA. Sir G. BOWYER asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when the papers regarding the extradition ordinance, which had lately been enacted, or which had passed council in Malta, would be laid upon the table ? Mr. C. FORTESCUE replied that the papers would be laid on the table as soon as possible. The house went into committee on this bill, when several amendments were agreed to, and the bill passed through committee. TOBACCO DUTIES. The debate on Mr. Ayrton's amendment to the Tobacco Duties Bill was resumed by Colonel DUNNE, who said that scarcely a day passed wherein he did not receive some request to remonstrate with the Government on the impropriety of pressing on this bill without further examination. He believed from the state ments which had been made to him that the bill would seri ously affect the trade of Ireland. Irish snuff was made from the stalks of tobacco. The manufacturer had to pay for these stalks ls. per lb., and as it required a pound and a half of them to make one pound of snuff, the cost to the manu facturer was Is. Gd. Add to this 2d., the c.:st of the manu facture, and 3s. 2d. for duty, and the cost was 4s. 10d. Now in the foreign manufacture the stalks were of no value what ever, and therefore there was a difference of the value of the stalks to the English manufacturer in favour of the fo reigner. The consequence was that this measure, instead of being a measure of free trade, was a measure of protection to the foreign manufacturer against the Irish. The con sumer would not be benefited, for the foreign manufacturer would raise the price, and they would find that their home trade would be transferred to the foreigner, as they had found in many other cases. And so with regard to roll tobacco, which was the sort principally smoked in Ireland. The proposal to admit cavendish by this bill would drive that article out of the market, and transfer the trade to the foreigner, without any corresponding advantage to the consumer, for the price would be raised as the result of the monopoly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of giving the home manufacturer a boon by providing that he might manufacture this tobacco in bonds ; but the many arrangements made for fiscal purposes prevented the Irish tradesman from manufacturing in bond at all. He made these statements on this serious subject not upon his own authority, but on that of the Irish manufacturers them , selves. Sir S. NORTHCOTE could not help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been ratherunfortunate, or somewhat ill advised, i n th e course which he had pur sued in regard to this bill, becau se w hil e he had brought 't or rather the resolutions upon which it was founded, before the house at a period so very early in the ses s i on th a t it hadr') created some surprise at his dealing with a matter of some importance to the financial statement, yet certainly the course he took did give ample time for fully considering the matter. At the same time, he had brought forward-a measure which did not seem to be one of first-class impor tance ; but still ho had contrived to provoke two discus sions upon it in consequence of the time of the evening at which it was brought on, and twice to have a debate upon a principle that by far the greater majority of the house had agreed on, and to have adjournments upon a very simple question. He (Sir S. Northcote) thought this was to be re gretted because the measure had been brought forward at so early a period of the session that it might have been fully discussed and considered ; and because he thought the NH culty was not now to consider what should be the principle. Another circumstance was that, in consequence of the hour at which the previous debates had taken place, they were now coming to a vote having many members present who had heard what had been said upon one side or the other. As the matter now stood, however, they had nothing to do but to consider how to deal with the motion of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets. He himself had not heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday. last, but from the published reports he believed that two his objections t o the motion of the hon. member were it would onlyrst, that at it was unprecedented; and, secondly, that bave the effect of wasting the time of the house, and of putting off the discussion upon the bill. With regard to its being unprecedented he (Sir S. Northcote) did not know whether there was any exact precedent for it ; but they ought to bear in mind that they were dealing with a moat important and at the same ti me p ecu liar branch of the revenue, the tax realising bet ween 45,000,000 and £t3,000,000—one-fourth of the customs revenue of the coun try, and being, in fact, a duty of 1,200 per cent. upon the article upon which it was imposed ; and in order to ensure the revenue being raised they were obliged to subject the commodity to a very great number of complicated excise re strictions, and a number of delicate questions were raised. It must also be borne iu mind that it was the wish of the whole house to consider whether they should touch this tobacco duty at all. There was no saying to what conse quences it might lead if they proceeded hastily and incon siderately to deal with one portion of this subject. In 1840 they had made some alterations in the tobacco duties, and the result was that in two years afterwards they had to re trace their steps, and therefore they should be very careful as to what they did on the present occasion. Then came the question whether the motion now made was a mere dila tory motion and a waste of time? He himself should vote for the motion, because, though he thought that the mea sure was good in principle, still he was of opinion that it re quired so much consideration in point of detail, that they ought to have authentic information to guide them in voting. Now, would they waste time by proceeding by way of com mittee ? There was a case in point which occurred last year when the sugar duties were referred to a select com mittee ; and he apprehended that the questions which were raised in reference to the sugar duties were at least as great in importance and in complication as those raised by this bill, and he found that that committee upon the sugar duties occupied very little more than two months, and that they presented a very good report. Now if they were to send the present bill to a committee for discussion, and the com mittee were animated by a like spirit to that which ani mated the committee upon the sugar duties, they would get through their work in very good time. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—That is not the motion. Sir S. NORTHCOTE.—His right hon. friend reminded him that that was not the motion, and he entirely agreed in so saying ; and he was going to add that he thought that the motion of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets was not the one best adapted to meet the circumstances of the case ; and he himself should very much prefer to see that bill:read a second time, and that then the Chancellor of the Exchequer should agree to refer it to a select committee in order that they might affirm the principles of the bill and afterwards discuss its details. He quite felt with the hon. and gallant member (Colonel Dunne) that they would be utterly at sea it they were to discuss this question in a committee of the whole house, in which most of the mem bers must necessarily know nothing of the details. He himself had had communications with several persons engaged in the tobacco business, and he had heard their statements, but he did not know whether to take those statements as correct or not, for he had not had an oppor tunity of sifting them, and he did not know that he could do so in a committee of the whole house. If they dis cussed the matter in a committee of the whole house there would b© many members coming in on a division who would vote with the government or with the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets without having heard the discus sion, and it was quite impossible that they could satisfac torily dispose of a complicated matter of this kind in such a way as that. As he had said his wish was that the govern ment should consent to send the bill to a select committee, and if he should have an assurance that they would pursue that course he should vote against the motion of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, but if he failed to get that assurance he should feel obliged to vote for the motion of the hon. member, because he thought it impossible to go properly into this question without having that amount of information which could only be got through the medium of a committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he wished them to examine this matter for themselves, and when they said they wished to examine it by means of a committee he sa;d, " I do not wish that, and you must ex amine it in my way." He (Sir S. Northcote) did not think that this was quite fair. He differed to some extent from the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, who seemed to be taking a line which was not quite in accordance with the received opinions of the majority of the house; and he was quite prepared to admit in principle this was a good mea sure and a step in the right direction. It was plain that Vas duty upon foreign cigars was almost prohibitory, and it should be so altered to allow foreign cigars to come into fair competition, but it was also clear that if they reduced the duty too low they would injure the British manufac turer, and put the revenue itself in some jeopardy. They had smuggling and adulteration to deal with, and whilst they might reduce smuggling by lowering the duty, yet on the other hand they might reduce the duty upon cigars so low that they would throw great temptation in the way of the English manufacturers to resort to adulteration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself told them that it was necessary to make a distinction between the manufactured and the unmanufactured article ; and what they wanted to know was, whether they had got a sufficient amount of difference or not, and that was clearly a question to be dis cussed in committee. Were the arrangements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in reference to the manufacture in bond satisfactory or not P They were told by the manufacturers that they were not satisfactory, and they wanted to know how that was, and they ought to hear what the manufacturers on one aide and the Custom-house officers upon the other said upon this. Then came the question, would they give the cigar makers power to manu facture in bond ? and that was one of the questions upon which he should like to hear the opinions of the manufac turers and of the Custom-house officers. When he had put the question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was answered that ho would take the matter into consideration ; but now, he said, without giving any reasons, that he thought that it would not do. They ought to know what his reasons were, and how far they would bear examination, and he must himself confess that the only reason which he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer give was not a satisfactory one. He said that he could not allow the manu facture in bond because such permission would only be ap plicable to large manufacturers; that was to say, that it would be an advantage which the larger manufacturers should not have over the small ones ; but did he not put the large manufacturers upon the same footing of disadvantage with regard to the foreigner that he had refused to put the small manufacturers upon in reference to the large manu facturers ? This seemed to load to the conclusion that the privileges given to the foreigner were too great, and they wanted to know how this was. There was also another point in reference to the systems of drawbacks. They were giving drawbacks, but upon:such badly-arranged terms that no manufactured articles were exported from this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now said that he was going to give them a better drawback, under which they could export, but it was confessed that the present draw back was ineffective for this purpose, and that the custom house officers and the Treasury had hitherto made a mis take, and possibly they might on this occasion too be mak ing a mistake. These were the grounds upon which he thought that there should be a committee, and surely no thing could be worse than passing a measure of this kind, seriously affecting a trading interest, and then having in a short time to alter it again. As he said, if the Government would consent to refer the bill to a select committee he would vote for the second reading ; but if not, he must vote for the motion of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CRAWFORD said it appeared to him that the mo tion of the hon. member seriously invaded those principles of free trade upon which the commercial legislation of this country had of late years been founded. Having given the statement of the Chancellor of the Excherquer consideration, and having communicated with some of his constituents, he must say that he had come to the conclusion that there was nothing in this particular article of tobacco which should exempt it from the operation of those principles to which he had referred. The correct principle was that every con sumer should have the article he consumed without any fictitious enhancement of cost by duties except those which were levied for revenue. The proposition of the Govern ment rested upon three points ; in the first place, they said that the alteration which they proposed would be for the a , vantage of the revenue—that it would prevent smuggling and that it would benefit the consumer, and he had come to the conclusion that the Chancellor of theExchequer was right in his views as to what principles the house should be go vered by when dealing with this matter. They were not at present in a position to say what the advantage to the reve nue would be. As to the next point, it was said that smug gling was not much carried on, but it was clear that the consumption of tobacco had increased much more than the revenue, and he could come to no other conclusion than that smuggling was largely carried on. Now, as to the consumer, he had a right to have his tobacco without any increase of price, except that which was imposed for pur poses of revenue, and if they imposed a duty to protect the home manufacturer, they would be introducing again that system which had been so repeatedly protested against. Considering the means they had of discussing the mutter in that house, he thought that there was no need to go through the tedious operation of having a select committee. The growth of tobacco in Ireland had been referred to. He would remind the house that there was a committee upon that subject in 1830, and that committee reported an im mense mass of valuable information, He might remind the hon. and gsllant member (Col. Dunne) that the permission which existed for the growth of tobacco in Ireland for home c i o 8 n 2 s z n th pt o ln o o gh w d a u s rin n g ot th ta o ke s n uco a e d e s d 'a in n g tag fi e ve of f yea r r o s m ab l o 7 u 9 t 9 50 t o o a a r e t r i e c s l e weie produced brought d was s u o n in e f r erio t r oba th cc a o t a cu d l u ti t v y at o io pis b . u 8 t d. th a e s against one of 3 s. e w u a ld sn b o e t thought a sufficient protection. EnglishTh e urn g rorequiredws grower sv to protect l s 8td.h andIrish he grower asked against thehouse the was it willing to grant a protective duty of that kind ? For his part ho should not be willing to throw over 99 of his constituents who were consumers to promote the interest of one man. Sir E. GROGAN concurred in the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they should inquire into this subject by a committee, but he desired that it should be a committee up stairs, and not one of the whole house. There hon. gentlemen would come in only to the division, and give their votes hurriedly and without a full knowledge of the subject. The Government here proposed a large redaction in the duty on an article of revenue, and desirous as the representatives of the people were to reduce taxation, they were now discussing this matter for the third night, and this was simply because they considered the examina tion of the question by a committee would be of great profit not only to the house but to the Government, and he should, therefore, support the amendment unless the Government consented to an inquiry. They all knew that Ireland was suffering from a want of labour, and this tobacco manufac ture was one of its most important industries, as hon. gen tlemen well knew that Ireland was remarkable for its excel lent snuff. But there were other considerations. He had always understood that objects of luxury were, as com pared with those of prime necessity, fitsubjects for taxation, and tobacco was certainly a luxury compared with many other taxed articles. Morco%er, the revenue from the to bacco duties was increasing. In 1860 it was £5,600,000; in 1862, £6,714,000 —showing that the trade was growing. The army and navy estimates were now before them, and there was a reduction of £2,000,000, and they heard that the revenue was in a very flourishing state; if they adopted the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, and endan• gered a portion of the revenue derived from tobacco, they might prevent a reduction in articles of prime necessity, such as sugar and tea, and the income-tax. For these rea sons he thought it desirable that they should hear the finan cial statement, and consider whether there were not other duties which might be diminished with advantage before giving up perhaps £2,000,000 of the tobacco revenue. (Cheers.) Mr. CHILDERS argued that this was not a mere matter of detail as to the amount of duty. On the one hand, they were told that the committee of 1811 had found that no change was neoessary, and that the tobacco trade was pro gressing satisfactorily. On the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it did not progress as it should, that smuggling was carried on largely, and that the trade was generally in a most unsatisfactory and anomalous con dition. In the latter view he entirely concurred. The trade was at present in a position different to that of every other trade, and the time had come when it should no longer remain an exception to the general rule. They had now little or no import or export trade in tobacco, and the home trade was not as flourishing as some hon. gentlemen seemed to suppose. In England the consumption of tobacco was 2 or 2f per cent. of the whole consumption, whilst in other countries, where the people had the same tastes and habits, it was as much as 11 or 12, and in some cases 14 per cent., clearly showing the effect of the existing law. As to whether 9s. was a proper amount of duty the evidence was most conflicting, but many of the manufacturers even admitted that it was tco high. According to the evidence taken by the tobacco duties committee the proper amount of duty to be imposed on cigars would be 4s. 6d. to 5s. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated good reasons for adopting the principle of the bill, and he thought the de tails of the figure should be left to gentlemen sitting on the Treasury benches. He cordially supported the second reading of the bill. Mr. HORSFALL said the question was one not con nected with the subject of free trade. The question was whether the house was to proceed at once to legislate on this subject of the tobacco duties, or whether legislation should take place after the whole subject had been tho roughly investigated in committee. (Hear, hear.) Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose this altera tion of the tobacco duties before bringing his financial statement before the house ? It might be said that there were precedents for the course which had been taken by the right hon. gentleman. But there were bad precedents as well as good ones—(hear, hear)—and he thought the present course was a following of a bad precedent. He (Mr. Horsfall) was ready to vote for the amendment of the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets if the house came to a division, but he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would render a division unnecessary by consenting to take the second reading on the understand ing that the bill should afterwards be referred to a select committee. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CARDWELL hoped the house would not, by vot ing the amendment, let it go forth to the world that they wished the assistance of a select committee in order to de termine whether it were desirable to alter the duties on to• bacco. The principle of the bill was to apply to tobacco the same free trade principles which had already been ap plied to almost every other article of food and luxury form ing the subject of either customs or excise duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped to accomplish by this measure three objects—increase of revenue, cheapening the article, and reduction of smuggling. The opposition to the measure, he was ninch afraid, was the opposition of the monopolists. (Hear] hear.) But all monopolies were ad verse to the interests of the consumers of the articles with regard to which the monopoly existed. As to the pecu liarity which it was alleged attached to tobacco, why there was not a single article in the list of commodities affected by the free trade principles which had been carried out since 1843 which had not also its own peculiarity. (Hear, hear.) " Brave men existed before Agamemnon ;" but he never before knew an instance like that afforded by the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets of a reformer meeting a measure of reform by a proposal to refer it, in favour of the monopolists, to a select com mittee. He entreated the house not to adopt the evasive and retrograde proceeding involved in the amendment. He begged them, on the contrary, to consent to the bill being read a second time, and then his right hon. friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer would bring forward the fist ...+l de tails and fully justify all the alterations which he proposed to adopt. Sir IL CAIRNS said the proposal of the hon. member for Stamford was, not that the bill should be read a second time and be referred at some future day to a select committee, but that the Government should consent to the second read ing, with the understanding that there should he a reference to a select committee, of course, at once ; and this proposal had not been answered. As to peculiarities of different articles, he would mention this peculiarity with regard to tobacco, which attached, he believed, to no other article— that the home manufacturers were willing to pay duty on the raw material, and manufacture under excise regulations, if allowed the same terms as to manufacture and drawback export as were enjoyed by the foreigners. Therefore, here was no question of the infringement of the principles of free trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he could not ask that the manufacturer in bond should pay the same duty as the foreigner paid at the Custom House The right hon. gentleman admitted that there must be a diffe rence, and the whole question was, how was the proper amount of that difference to be ascertained ? There was a difference in the statements put forward with respect to the quantity of stalks which was required to make snuff, and that was a point which might be advantageously referred to a select committee for the purpose of ascertaining the real facts of the case. Then, again, it was alleged that the native manufacturers of roll tobacco; which was largely consumed in Ireland, would be subjected to a restraint which would not be imposed on the foreign manufacturer ; and that surely would not be a fair application of the principle of free trade. In the inland towns of Ireland tobacco was very exten sively manufactured, and he wanted to know whether the manufacturers in that case were to transact their business in the nearest seaport, or whether bonding warehouses were to be established in these towns. In the former case an ad ditional expense would be imposed on the manufacturer, and in the latter case an additional charge would be incurred by the public exchequer, and the net receipts from the duty would be proportionately diminished. He admitted that the high duty which had hitherto been imposed on foreign to • bacco was inconsistent with the general tone of our modern legislation ; but that was no reason why they should not carefully strike the balance between the native manufacturer and the foreign manufacturer; and that would be hereafter a very fitting subject for the consideration of a select com mittee, as suggested by his right hon. friend the member for Stamford. Mr. BUTT said that the amendment they had then to consider was whether they should appoint a select commit tee for the purpose of inquiring into the expediency of alter ing the present tobacco duiies. Now, that was a proposal which was, in reality, equivalent to a rejection of the motion for the second reading of the bill. He believed that a com mittee of the whole house would afford them the best oppor tunity of considering the details of the measure; while, on the other hand, no practical advantage could be gained by the inquiry proposed by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets. He felt convinced that it was not advisable they should continue in that case to impose a prohibitory duty, and he should therefore vote for the second reading of the bill. Mr. NEWDEGATE felt bound to support the proposal of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, who asked that the case of his constituents, in as far as they would be effected by the bill, should be made the subject of a special inquiry. Let the house consider the position in which they stood. The whole of those £6,000,000 of revenue were based on a prohibition—a prohibition to grow tobacco in this country; and yet while they maintained the prohibition they went on talking about protection or the abolition of protec tion. He believed that the prohibition was neces sary for the purposes of the revenue; but it was still a prohibition, and any question of protection that could arise in the consideration of that bill was com paratively a matter of utter insignificance. He did notlike prohibition. Commercially and economically it was as ab surd as unrestricted competition. He had risen, however, mainly for the purpose of protesting against the perpetual reiteration of the praises of a system of free imports which were thrust on the house in season and out of season. That was a mere waste of the time of the house. It reminded him of the crowd which shouted—" Great is Diana of the Ephe sians." The question was whether the house would con sent to alter the tobacco duties without more information than that which they at present possessed. They had high commercial authGrities deprecating that course, and stating that the interests of certain manufacturers were involved in the matter; and under these circumstances ho should cer tiinly support the amendment of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that what he proposed to do was this. If the bill were then read a second time he should fix the committee for Thursday or Friday next, not with a view of challenging a general dis cussion in committee on that day, but for the purpose of in troducing into the measure such corrections, or rather ad ditions, as he might think would tend most to the benefit of the trade. The bill would then be printed as a whole ; and after an opportunity had thus been afforded for its con sideration he would in the course of another week or ten days propose that they should go into committee, when be would be prepared to give the best consideration in his Power to any i ur th or amen d ments that might be sugge sted i inits provisions. Mr. AYRTQN said that after that statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would wait to see the bill in its altered form, and would not press the amendment. The amendment was accordingly withdrawn, and the bill was read a second time. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. On the motion to go into committee on this bill, Mr. LYGON expressed his disapproval of the principle of the measure. He held that the question whether or not bribery had been committed should not in the first instance be tried by a Parliamentary Committee. Ho thought that the law would never be in a satisfactory state until the con viction for bribery before the ordinary criminal tribunals was made a condition precedent to the institution of pro ceeeings in the house for the purpose of obtaining a seat. The law should define clearly what was bribery, the offence should be referred for inquiry to the ordinary tribunals, and there should not attach to it a punishment out of all proportion to the sense entertained of it by the community, In his opinion clause 8 was a departure from the wise and just principle of law, that no one should be compelled to criminate himself. By that clause the witness be fore a committee or a commission was bound to an swer every question, and it was left to the discretion of the' committee or commission to give a certificate of in demnity. If witnesses were to be compelled to answer questions which might tend to criminate themselves, there ought to be no option, and the certificate ought to be given as a matter of course. With regard to the form of the certificate he would suggest that it ought not to be that the witness had made a true disclosure of all things upon which he had been examined, because it was impos sible for any tribunal to pronounce that certain answers were true, but that the witness had answered fully the ques tions which had been put to him. There would be no satis factory legislation on the subject of corrupt practices until the distinction was drawn between bribery as an offence against the law, and bribery as a means of obtaining a seat. There should be due legal proof of the commission of the offence before any action was taken upon it in the House. He trusted that either the bill would be very much amended in committee, or that on a future occasion the whole subject would undergo full revision. Sir G. GREY said the points adverted to would be very proper points for the consideration of the house in com mittee. The motion was agreed to, and the house went into com mittee on the bill. Clause 1 was agreed to. Upon clause 2, Mr. COLLINS moved the substitution of " such " for "other" before the word "capacity," so as not to disqualify from voting persons employed incidentally in .n election — as, for instance, the publisher of a newspaper in which the advertisement of a candidate appeared. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. PULLER said the object of the clause was to dis qualify persons who were employed as agents, canvassers, poll-clerks, and messengers, He proposed to add to the list persons of whom committee-rooms were hired, and also per sons who were paid for furnishing meat, drink, or entertain ment on the order of any candidate, or any agent of any candidate, for the purpose of influencing any person to vote for such candidate. Sir M. FARQUIIAR said the bill was fast becoming a bill for the wholesale disfranchisement of electors. (Hear, hear.) The existing law made it an offence to furnish meat, drink, and entertainment for the purpose of influencing any person to vote for a particular candidate, and he was at a loss to understand why a man was to be disqualified for letting a committee-room to a candidate for a small consi deration. (Hear, hear.) Lord R. CECIL thought it might be possible to obtain a legal definition of a "committee-room," but what was to be said of a room used as a committee-room, " or otherwise for promoVng the election of any candidate ?" There was no end of the ways in which a room might be used for promot ing the election of a candidate. A letter might be written, an address be drawn up, a speech might be composed in a room, and each of those acts might be said to be an act for promoting the election of a candidate; but was the owner to be deprived of his vote for allowing his room to be so used ? He came to the next part of the amendment, which was perfectly bewildering. It provided that if A gave drink to B, in order to induee C to vote for B. then A was to be disfranchised. (Laughter.) Why was A to be disfranchised fora process which ended such a long way off ? He thought such a complicated machinery could not be made to work, and that under the shelter of such provisions a great deal of real bribery and corruption might be practised with im punity. Sir G. GREY was afraid that it would be impossible to give effect to such minute regulations as those proposed by this amendment. Its words would seem to imply to the keeper of the hotel where any candidate might be staying, and where he might see his friends or talk over the arrange- ments of the election. The result would probably be that the candidate would go to a hotel kept by a warm partisan of his opponent and thereby cause him to be disqualified. (Laughter.) The other part of the amendment relating to treating would be hardly more practicable. Mr. LYGON pointed out the harsh operation of the amendment upon butchers and bakers. Mr. PULLER did not contend that in all cases contem plated by the amendment the publican necessarily did anything corrupt, but that on the whole, to preserve the purity of elections, it was essential to watch jealously all pecuniary arrangements between candidates and voters, When a candidate went to canvass a publican, in nine cases out of ten the publican said, " I have not made up my mind; I don't think I shall make it up till the la t day." They all knew pretty well that this meant that if the can didate would open his house he would vote for him, or if he would not open it he would vote for the man who would. Nobody had suggested any better remedy for this than by making it not the interest of the candidate to employ his money in that manner. Captain JERVI S said the unfortunate borough which be represented (Harwich), having no supply of water, had in consequence an unusual number of publicans—(laughter)— and if this proposal were agreed to a very great number of his constituents would be disfranchised. If voters were to be prevented from acting as poll clerks, messengers, and the like, they would get their friends and relatives employ ment in these capacities, so that the object of the amend ment would be frustrated. The amendment was then negatived. Mr. PAGET proposed the insertion of words making it a misdemeanour for a person who had been hired by a candi date as an agent, clerk, messenger, door-keeper, &c., to re cord his vote at the election. Sir G. GREY said the select committee had certainty m• commended that this should be made a misdemeanour, but on consideration he had thought it better to declare that the vote should be void. Mr. GRIFFITH supported the amendment. Mr. COLLINS thought it would be sufficient to impose a penalty of £5 or so upon such persons. Mr. Alderman SIDNEY asked whether the persons pre vented from voting would be capable of enforcing their pe cuniary claims against the candidates. Sir G. GREY said that under the clause as it stood at present the person hired would be entitled to claim remune ration, but would be deprived of his vote. If the amend ment were adopted, which made the offence a misdemeanour, of course he would not be entitled to claim remuneration. Mr. GRIFFITH supported the amendment, which he thought would make the clause more efficient. The amendment was negatived without a division. Mr. CAVE then moved the omission of the clause. He fully admitted the magnitude of the:abuses against which it was levelled, and when we heard of 25 solicitors employed on each side in a small borough, and changing sides with their retainers, it ought not to be doubted that such a state of things ought, if possible, to be put an end to. The ques tion was whether this enactment would have the desired effect. Ile very much doubted it. Why were these solici tors paid ? Was it for their own votes or those they could command ? By striking off their own votes would their in fluence be destroyed ? If a man could bring 50 votes would he be much less valuable with 49 ? Besides, by the present law the procuring of votes for a fee was bribery as much as voting for a fee, so that no new enactment was required. He admitted that the influence of solicitors over voters might be most oppressive, but it would not prevent it to deprive the agent of his vote or obliging him to act gratuitously. Was employing a solicitor or other agent in itself bribery, or was it not ? If it were prohibit it, and make it fatal to the seat. If it were not bribery, but merely liable to abuse and extra vagance,adopt the Irish Acts, the 35th of George III., cap 4, and the 1st and 2d of George IV., cap. 58, and fix the number and fees (as in the case of polling-clerks). (Hear, hear.) This was recommended to the committee as work ing well in Ireland. If this were objected to, leave the law as at present, with the votes liable to be struck off on scru tiny, and let the election committee determine whether the number was too great or fees too abundant. This was done in the Oxford case, when an undue number of messengers unseated Mr. Neate. Especially let committees inquire whether agents had been in the habit of changing sides. His own experience was that agents were chosen, like bishops and judges, not to buy their support, but in conse quence of their declared opinions. He had not heard of re spectable solicitors accepting retainers from the opposite side, and it seemed hard to cast upon them the slur of dis franchisement and stigma of bribery and corruption. (Hear.) The result would probably be to throw candidates into worse hands. Unscrupulous people would easily evade the law by payment of relations, as widows were put into post-offices to gain their sons' votes. An attempt had been made to prevent this by the 5th and Gth of Victoria, cap. 102, but the law could never be carried out. Again, the fee to solicitors for lookirg after the registration might be increased, on the tacit understanding that they should act as election agents gratuitously. If it were wished to save the candidate's purse let him not be saddled with charges which ought to be borne by the public, In other respects, no one could protect the candidate but the candidate him self. There was no doubt he ought to pay nothing, and when in former days there was as much disinclination tobe member for a county as there was now to be sheriff of a county, this was so. Things Were much changed now, and when we heard of £600 a year paid by a distinguished statesman for a borou g h i n the West, wo could hardly won der at the idea prevalent among the poorer classes of voters, that Parliament was a lucrative appointment to some of the crumbs of which th ey were entitled, (Hear, hear.) Legis lation on this subject had been spasmodic, but not success ful. When th e l egislators themselves conspired to make legislation abortive the case was well-nigh hopeless, The clause would impose disabilities on honest men which the unscrupulous would evade. It was the mere revival of a clause of the 7th and 8th of George IV., cap. 37, which worked so badly that it was subsequently repealed. Mr. J. POWELL seconded the amendment. Sir M. FARQUIIAR also supported the omission of the clause, which he thought pushed legislation much tco far. In the town which he represented he had always employed a most respectable firm, and if he were in their place he should think it very hard if he were called upon to give his services gratuitously or else forfeit his vote. All this was mere subterfuge, and looked very much like sham and humbug. He should, therefore, undoubtedly support the omission of the clause. Lord HEN LEEY had seen so many instances of real poli tical principle on the part of professional men that he thought it would be hard to deprive them of their votes, although paid for their services. Mr. G. HARDY did not think, as men of common sense, they could expect professional men to give up the business in which they were engaged for the sake of any candidate without receiving remuneration. - Mr. F. S. POWELL observed that the provisions of this clause had been enacted by Lord Althorp, but being found inoperative were afterwards repealed. They would inflict injustice on parties, and tend to degrade the character of the electors, They would introduce the elements of uncer tainty in every case, and make a petition almost inevitable, One curious difficulty would arise from the clause. A petition must be presented within a certain number of days, while a longer period was allowed to elapse before the pay ment of election accounts, and thus petitions would be presented upon the thence of some ground for their being found in the accounts to be subsequently published. Mr.• VANCE thought the clause was not so much to carry out the views of the Government as to comply with the supposed duty of carrying out the recommendations of a committee which sat three years ago, If the clause were adopted it was certain to be evaded, as candidates would not employ voters, but would employ the sons and other relatives of voters, who would be influenced just as much as at present. The law as it stood at present was quite sufficient to punish over-employment at elections. Mr. Alderman SIDNEY thought that if the clause were struck out the remainder of the bill would be of little or no value. Mr. COLLINS hoped that, whatevercourse the committee might take, it would not place the humbler class of electors who acted as messengers and clerks upon a worse footing than the professional agents. Sir G. GREY said the hon. and learned member for Cam bridge (Mr. F. S. Powell) had referred to the 7th and 8th of George IV., chap. 37, in which a similar clause existed, and which Act had been repealed. It was true that the house declined to renew the Act until the whole subject had been inquired into by a select committee. A committee did sit during two sessions, and they reported that the repeal of the Act 7th and 8th George IV. had been prejudicial to purity of election, and it was proved that since the repeal it had become the practice to employ large numbers of voters, not only as professional agents, but as doorkeepers and messengers, who, under the guise of payment for their ser vices, actually received payment for their votes. All that the Legislature could hope to do in reference to this matter was to make bribery and corruption as difficult and their detection as easy as possible, and it was no valid objection to any provision suggested with that view that it was open to evasion. The committee on which both he and his hon. friend the member for Leominster (Mr, Hardy) had sat agreed in recommending this clause. He had not himself been present when this decision was come to, but his hon. friend was there. Mr. HARDY said that, though he attended the meeting of the committee on the day in question, he was not present when this vote passed. Sir G. GREY said that at all events those of the com mittee who were present were unanimous in favour of the clause, and that being so he felt that he was bound to pro pose the clause in deference to their opinion. The evil which it was intended to meet was clearly proved before the committee, and since the Bill was printed he had received letters from persons in different parts of the coun try who said they attached great value to this clause, because the practice extensively prevailed of giving colour able employment at elections to persons who were really paid for their votes. The committee then divided. The numbers were— For the clause 103 Against it 110 Majority against the Government —7 The clause was accordingly negatived, amid loud cheers from the Opposition benches. Clause 3 was agreed to with some verbal amendments. On clause 4, Mr. AYRTON suggested that some substitute to whom bills might be forwarded should be provided for the agent; otherwise in case of death or departure of the latter the cre ditor's claim would be defeated. (Hear.) Sir F. KELLY hoped his right hon. friend would add a proviso to meet the point to which attention had just been called. This clause was then agreed to. On clause 5, providing for the publication of a statement of election expenses, Mr. HUNT thought the time for publishing this state ment ought to be curtailed from three to two months, as it frequently happened that election committees were unable to procure this document. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was understood to as sent to the proposed amendment. LOrd H. CECIL ventured to suggest that for all practical purposes the legislation which was going forward might as well be carried on out of the house. (Hear and laughter.) The conversational tones of the Home Secretary and the right hon. member for Durham prevented members below the gangway from hearing a single word. Mr. POWELL observed that the returning officer was to publish the statement " as soon as conveniently may be.' A. very wide scope for discretion was thereby given, and he suggested some definite time should be named. Sir G. GREY replied that the fixing of any definite time —say one or two months, would be accepted as the period within which publication was to be made, and would retard instead of accelerating the publication of the statement. Mr. POWELL moved that " 14 days" be inserted, and the motion was agreed to without a division. Clause 5, as amended, was ordered to stand part of the Bill. On clause 6, Sir F. KELLY asked whether it was intended to apply a limitation of one year to prosecutions under this Act, and to place on limitation at all to prosecutions for offences at common law that might be committed at the same election. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it would be incon venient to introduce into a bill of this kind a limitation of the period during which prosecution s might be brought for common law offences, such as bribery. The present bill was not intended to interfere with the common law. Sir F. KELLY thought it undesirable to leave a vindic tive person the power either of prosecuting,within a year under this act, or beginning a prosecution at common law three or four or five years afterwards. Clause Cwas agreed to. Clause 7 was also agreed to. On clause 8, Mr. LYOON moved the omission of the first part of the clause which enacted that no person called as a witness be fore an election committee should decline to answer any question on the ground that the answer might criminate himself. Sir G. GREY said that witnesses frequently refused to answer questions before election committees, and the com mittees in consequence were unable to get to the bottom of the questions referred to them. It was then necessary to address the Crown for the appointment of a royal commis sion, by which considerable expense was incurred. If the power in question could safely be given to three gentlemen sitting as commissioners, it could surely be safely exer cised by a committee of the house. Mr. LYGON objected to the employment of this power either by a committee or a royal commission. The principle sought to be established was a very dangerous one, and he should prefer to see it restricted rather than extended. Ho should certainly take the sense of the committee upon the subject. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that it was a departure from the ordinary rules of English law that per - sons should be bound, whether they would or not, to answer questions which might criminate themselves. But the pro viso at the end laid down that no statement made by any person should, except in cases of indictment for perjury, be admissible'against him. The clause was therefore disarmed of its sting. The committee was aware of the almost insu perable difficulty there was in detecting corruption in the cases to which the bill meant to apply, and it was therefor e necessary to have recourse to such a provision as that which was now the subject of discussion. After a few words from Lord LOVAINE, which did not reach the gallery, Mr. HARDY said he had in committee opposed the re solution upon which the clause was formed, and he had still greater objections to the clause itself, because it was wider in its scope. The resolution of the committee was to the effect that no one should be allowed to refuse to answer a question which might tend to criminate him on the subject of bribery, but as the clause stood no one could refuse to answer any question, on the ground that it would tend to criminate him. He contended that was too large a power to put into the hands of either a committee or commission. (Hear, hear.) The committee could not be called to account for giving or refusing a certificate, no matter how truly a witness might have answered. Prosecu tions had been instituted in the Gloucester and Wakefield cases, and convictions bad been obtained, but the feeling of the house and the country was against the proceedings, be cause it was felt that the persons had been trapped into an admission of guilt. (Hear, hear.) It was true that the ad missions were not actually employed as evidence against the gentlemen in the Wakefield case, but they were used in procuring testimony against them. (Hear, hear.) The power which this clause would give he would not intrust to the judges of the land, still less would he intrust it to a committee or commissio n . Th e provision was i n hi s opi nion more corrupt than corruption itself. (Hear, hear.) Mr. AYRTON thought the power which the clause would give too lar ge , b ecause according to it a w i tness might be cross-exami ne d on any point whatever. (H ear , hear.) It would be nece ssar y, th ere f ore, to res t r ict the provision to cases of bribery. Then it was not compulsory on the corn- mittee to give a certificate, it was only said it should be lawful for them to do so. Therefore, while the witness was compelled to make a disclosure there was no guarantee that he should be protected. (Hear.) The effect of the clause would probably be that election agents would commit every possible offence, and if they could not keep everything hidden, they had only to make a full disclosure, and they would get an indemnity. The clause was so loosely drawn that the committee could not pronounce an opinion upon it. Sir G. GREY observed that the amendment, if affirmed' would deprive commissions of the power they now exercised' and if that power were taken away bribery would be screened in the most effectual way. Mr. HUNT said that the words in the clause were so large in their application that the sitting member whose election might be under investigation by a committee would be bound to answer any question put, and if the answer led to the loss of his seat the proviso at the end of the clause would afford him no protection. Mr. PEA.COCKE thought it ought not to be left to the discretion either of a commission or committee to give an indemnity. The grant of the indemnity should be obli gatory, and if the person receiving it had not spoken the truth he should be liable to an indictment for perjury. Mr. BOVILL did not regard bribery as a greater offence than larceny or murder, and the principle of the clause ought, in consistency, equally to apply to the latter crimes. If the house affirmed by legislation that persons answering all questions with respect to bribery should be protected, where could they stop ? It was difficult to say, from the wording of the clause, whether those who would be com pelled to answer would be certain of obtaining a certificate. Of all tribunals the least fit to be trusted with a discretion on such a point would be these commissions and committees. Mr. J. POWELL remarked that the clause merely effected the extension of a provision which had been in operation in this country for some time, and had produced most benefi cial effects. There was a distinction between the cases of trial for larceny, murder, or other criminal offences, and the proceedings before these commissioners, because while in the former case a particular individual was charged with a specific crime, in the latter there was no allegation of EV' cific offen ces against individuals, but the commissions were distinctly and essentially commissions of inquiry. Unless persons were compelled to answer questions it would be Of no use to send these commissions into the country. Sir F. KELLY thought that the granting of certificate 0 ought to be imperative upon the committee in cases 1 11 which witnesses had made a full and fair disclosure. Sir G. GREY pointed out that the part of the clause novi under discussion did not raise the question to which the hon. and learned gentlemen had referred. After a few words from Mr. COLLINS, Mr. LYGON said that he should persevere with hi 0 amendment. The committee divided, and the numbers were— For the amendment 96 Against it ... 104 Majority against the amendment -- 8 On the motion of Lord R. CECIL, the Chairman WO order to report progress, and the house resumed. BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION PE' LAND) BILL. This bill, as amended, was considered. Lord NAAS proposed that any person should be eligible for the office of registrar, and that the appointment should not be confined exclusively to medical officers. He moved an amendment to that effect. Sir It. PEEL said the question had already been cool' dered by the house, the general opinion of which was ill favour of the employment of medical officers. Mr. M'MAHON said there was no provision in the bill that there should be a certificate prior to every burial, in England. He approved the amendment. Mr. MAGUIRE thought the Government were quite right in their proposal, and that the English system neve r could be adopted in Ireland. Col. DUNNE could not conceive a more clumsy or ill drawn measure. Every clause had been forced on in th e absence of many Irish members, and on every clause the majority of Irish members present had been against the Government. He did not see why the Irish people should not choose whom they pleased for r eg i s t rars , an d h e s hould support the amendment. Mr. STACPOOLE and Colonel VANDELETIR approved 0f the bill, believing that no better appoi n tme n t th an that 01 , the medical officers could be made. Mr. DAWSON hoped the Chief Secretary would 210/ yield to the objections of the bill. The house divided, when there voted— For the amendment 40 Against it 78 Majority —38 The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morro'v POST •OFN'ICE SAVINGS BANKS BILL. On the motion fer going into committee on this bill, Mr. HUBBARD said he thought the provisions of the bill should be confined to the first three clauses. The bill then went through committee pro forma, an a was ordered to be recommitted. ADMIRALTY COURT (IRELAND). Mr. MAGUIRE obtained leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the procedure and practice of the Court of Ad . miralty in Ireland, and the bill was read the first time. ASSURANCES REGISTRATION (IRELAND). Sir R. PEEL obtained leave to bring in a bill for th e , registration of assurances in Ir e l an d, an d t h e bi ll was re ad the first time. ROYAL NAVY. On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON, the Select cora mittes on Promotion and Retirement in the Navy vrt ° nominated as follows :—Mr. Walpole, Sir Francis Baring , Sir John Pakington, Lord Clarence Paget, Sir John HaY , Mr. Stansfeld, Sir James Elphinstone, Mr. Ayrton, S ir Henry Willoughby, Sir Harry Verney, Sir William Mr. Finlay, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Dodson, and Mr. Scour . field, with power to send for persons, papers and records-' five to be the quorum. The house adjourned at five minutes past one o clock' COUNTRY MARKETS. COLCHESTER—FEB. 28. A fair supply of wheat, but trade was wretchedly duly rates. Beans and peas unaltered. and late prices barely supported. Barley quiet, at form Wheat, white 46s 52s B eans, Mazagan..300 A30,31 red 42s 48s m iddl e & sma11.360 Barley 30s 42s Peas, white 400 " Oats • 20s 26s gray 350 391 GLOUCESTER—FEB. 28. t To-day there was a mo d erate supply of English svIlea from the farmers, which sold generally at 18 below ar o prices of last week, B ar l e y, b eans , an d oats were at 1$ prices. CH ELM SFO At this corn exchange to• again in everything, and price Wheat, old white...34s 62s new ..36e Ns old red....40s 49s )RD---FEB. 27. i-day there was a dull trade es the same as last week. 4O P Partridge Partridge 37s White 39s 430 Boiling 408 Dun 350 a f t —0 Ditto new 390 Beans, Tick, old 34s ; new - 0 I A Harrow Ticks 35s new - 5 age Mazagan 30$ Bar 2'4; 36 s new 36 s 47 s Chevalier 28s 39s Grinding 22s 31s Malt..... 61s 67s Chevalier 64s 69s Oats 20s 28s KIRKCALDY GRAIN—FEB. 28. We had large supplies of wheat, oats, and barlei• Sales slow. Prices 6d to is per qr down. Wheat. Barley. Oats. Od 26s 6d I 20s ad Second ..40s Od 27s Od 21s 6d Third....42s Od 29s Oct 23s Od [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Pills.--Nervous orders.—Derangement of the nervous system totally ups to all human comfort, and unless speedily rectified leads d serious indisposition. The purifying, alterative, o il strengthening qualitie s o f th ese well-known Pills ren de , l • 11 them remarkably efficacious in those var i ous an d painfu l affections which attack the nerves, as neuralgia, hysteric* and habitual low spi r it s . H o ll oway ' s P i lls cool the bod9: clean the tongu e , regu l a t e th e li ver, and so strengthen tae stomach and bowels that th e y are ena bl e d to perform the, 1, .; offices regularly and steadily. Thi s me di c i ne never c aus i , u o any pain or in the sli g ht es t d egree annoys persons o f 6 ; 0 most relaxed, delicate, and irritable habits. Hollovial so Pills are small, tasteless, and easily swallowed, when ordinary sized Pill could not be. COLLYER.—On the 1st inst., a t C roydon, the wife ()- f Collyer, Esq., of a daughter. .4. of PELLY.—On the 28th ult., a t W areham Court, the wife Sir J. Henry Pally, Bart., cf a son. SHEAR W 00D.—On the 1st inst., at Cedar Lodge, S t° f well-park, the w if e o f G eorge P. Shearwood, Esq., o f son. Marriages. GRIFFITHS—AVERY.—On the 28th ult., at St. Matthe vi ,,, a . ° ' Bayswater, Mr. John Griffiths, of Brecknock, S. Wi l ,'" to Juliet, the youngest daughter of W. R. Avery, g" . " ; H. E.I C.S. — - - • — d (TENNINGS — TEMPLETON.—On the 26th ult., at Caw- e n, road Chapel, John Jennings, of Mildmay-park, ton, to Frances, eldest daughter of Francis Templetorb Esq., of Northampton-park, Canonbury. Deaths. — - L • FRANKLIN.—On the 28th ult., Maria, the wif e of ..- n • a F g r e a d nk 4 l 6 in, EEq., of 6, Gordon-place, Co r d o n-squar er HIRE.—On the 27th ult., at the Royal Marine Infirmary,' Woolwich, Richard Davis Hire, E sq ., R . N ., ag. Cornwallis. of LpL i 1. O IOEw a l Ac ti iR i xe l ph. at-law, 3 . _E:Ob. Captain___. a o n —g ao t : h d n t e n h 4 t 2 h 8t eF 6T r t e h lalsn 2 stte d tilt., i1. i nn n L i the late John Johnson, formerly o ye f aiT S He t m o os k p e plei N a e bi w ,ara in rir g se E lizi a c g A h e r a d r 1 9 . e - 7 s . tt a h4 E 8 t e h q. u , let? theat 11 40 i dd L l upus-street, Pini lierit ss s tat t it . : , at Richmond, Mary, relict I, VERIvoN.—On the 27th ult1.'300 Lock, aged DI.Hammersmith,tatthieurnieol, infant George child . 0 ' ft 0 ardet, Rai - , aged 65. aged . 6 A. 5 u . Augustus and Lady IaltarE'ritilliss J. L. r efiVP Hon Ile Vernon.er _.....a .......-- London : printed and Published by WILLIAM AND ---R-51 g. of No. 112, Strand, Printer, a t T HE SUN Offi .., Ce, 01 Strand, in the Precinct of th e S avoy , i n the GOP" lilddlefsex—Tuesday, Much 3 1863.