The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-07-13 00:00:00

introduced a new element into the question. The concessioa
made by the King of Naples to his subjects might now
prove too late. It was still, however, a very doubtfil
question, whether the , people of Northern and of Southern
Italy could be amalgamated under the rule of one
sovereign. It might be that the King of Naples could cont ive
to reconcile his former subjects to a continuance of his sove-
reignty. It might be that the Sicilians would. require and
obtain a separate constitution. The British Government were
ready to acquiesce in either settlement, preserving only their
adherence to one principle, viz. that the issue, whether rela-
ting to Sicily, to Naples, or to the Roman States, should be
entirely left to the free arbitration of the subject-population
themselves. All the sympathies and interests of England
were enlisted on behalf of the independence and prosperity of
Italy.
Mr. KINOLAKE rejoiced to heat that Austria had abandoned
all idea of maintaining its military predominance in Italy. He
inquired whether there were any security against the exercise
of a similar domination by the Emperor Napoleon, and showed
cause for believing that Sardinia had already become an
obedient vassal of France.
Further comments of a miscellaneous character were offered
by Mr. Whiteside, Mr..Monsell, Mr. Griffith, and Mr. Scully.
The motion was then negatived, without a division.
On the following motion : "That the Speaker should leave
the chair,"
Sir J. TRELAWNEY interposed some comments upon the dis-
graceful and discreditable position in which, he contended, the
House was left by the unsatisfactory result of the controversy
with the House of Lords, on the question of privileges.
Sir IL WlLLoconav called attention to the unsatisfactory
state of the estimates for the expenses of the China war, and
insisted that a more detailed statement ought to be submitted
to the House, distinguishing between the various kinds of
expenditure, and setting forth in particular the expenses on
account of the British forces, and giving an abstract of the
moneys that had already been paid or drawn for up to the
present time on account of the Chinese war.
General PEEL entered into various details respecting the
military expenditure; and remarked that as long since as
February last he had declared that the 000,000 then asked
for would prove altogether insufficient to defray the charges
already incurred in anticipation of the war in China.
After a few words from Mr. B. Cochrane and Mr. Warner,
Th:, House divided. For going into committee, 198 ;
against, 13; majority, 185.
The House having gone into committee of supply,
Mr. S. HERBERT moved a vote of credit to the amount of
£3,800,000 on account of the war with China. Admitting that
the estimate now before the House was given in the gross, and
to a great extent upon guess-work, he submitted that it was im-
possible to state details upon the subject, and that any attempts
to specify particular items must prove illusory. After giving
some explanations touching the despatch of troops, transports,
tirc., he observed that the vote comprised a sum of about
£443,000, relating to past transactions arising
,out of charges
left unsettled from the last China war. Of the total amount
now asked for, he believed, on a rough calculation, that
£2,000,000 would be required for expense incurred in India ;
£1,500,000 for military, and £300,000 for naval expenses, in
England.
Sir. H. Wat.obounir observed that the mixing up of India
and home expenditures was introducing serious confusion into
our finances. He hoped that reason would be found hereafter
to keep accounts separate.

After some observations from Mr. F. Hankey, Sir J. North-
cote, General Peet, and Sir F. Baring,

The CHANCELLOR ,of the Excusciusa said that the announce-
ment of the large sum required for the Chinese war took'him-
self by surprise, as it seemed to have surprised the House. The
demand was also so recent that he knew nothing about it when
Making his, budgetary statement,. and could not then even
introduce the £443,000 for past transactions. He proceeded
to explain the method by which charges incurred for wars in
Asia were defrayed in part by the Indian government, and
which placed it out of the power of the home ministry to form
detailed estimates, obliging them to submit merely conjectural
statements of the probable expenditure to Parliament.
Sir J. PAKINOTON thought that the House had a right to
demand fuller information, not only as to t.4e expense, but
also as to the policy of the Government with regard to the
China war. If the costs of the war could not be told when
the Budget was brought forward in February, the event was
at all events probable, and the Government were not justified,
under such circumstances, in remitting taxes, and tampering
with the finanees of the country.
Lord J. RUSSELL recognised the serious responsibility arising
out of the proceedings in China, but observed that the late
Administration must share in that responsibility, the events
which had since culminated in war having occurred while they
held office, and in pursuance of instructions sent out by Lord
Malmesbury or Sir J. Pakington himself.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE having briefly spoken,
A motion was made for adiourriing the debate, but, after a
few words from Lord Palmerston and Mr. Disraeli,rthe motion
was withdrawn, and tb,e vote agreed to. .
The House then resumed.

On the motion' for 'the third reading of the Annuity Tax
(Edinburgh) Abolition Bill,
Mr. DUNLOP moved that the bill be read a third time that
day three months.
On a division, there appeared for the third meeting, 204;
against, 17 ; majorfty, 187.

The bill was then read a third time and passed.
The remaining businers was disposed of, ;and the House
adjourned at thirteen minutes to four.

THE MYSTERIOUS TRAGEDY NEAR
F R 0 M'E.