The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-28 00:00:00

nexion with this matter, and they had no certain informa-
tion as to whether they were concerned in this misconduct,
except that two ladies were also implicated. It was right,
too, that he should observe that it was only by inference
that the offenders were taken to be Indian officers. As the
mail went out yesterday he had an opportunity of sending
directions on the subject. He.wrote to the Governments of
Madras and Calcutta directing them to inquire into and re-
port upon all the circumstances, and those who had thus
grossly misbehaved themselves would be called upon to
account for their conduct. (Cheers.) With regard to the
future prevention of such occurrences, he had taken mea-
sures for procuring the immediate arrest of such offenders.
(Hear.) That would, of course, apply equally to all British
subjects in Egypt.
Col. SYKES observed That the reported facts were so
unlike the uniform good conduct of cadets abroad that he
still thought there must be a mistake somewhere, and hoped
the house would suspend its judgment till more exact par-
ticulars were received.
THE ANNEXATION OF SAVOY.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether, as stated lately in the public
prints, M. Thouvenel had informed the representatives of
those Powers who signed the treaties of Vienna, that, as
soon as the cession of Savoy shall have been sanctioned by
the " universal suffrage of the inhabitants," and ratified by
the vote of the Sardinian Parliament, France would take
possession of those provinces, submitting only subsequently
a limited part of the question to the consideration of the
proposed Conference ; and, if so, whether the Secretary of
State intended to consent to the taking possession by France
of the neutralised provinces of Savoy, until a Conference, or
Congress, or other joint diplomatic action shall have pre-
viously determined on the whole question of the manner in
which due consideration for the independence of Switzer-
land requires that the provinces placed in a state of pecu-
liar and exceptionable neutralisation by repeated treaties
should be ultimately disposed of. He did not impute blame
in the matter to the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs or to the Government; but he must say that it ap-
peared to him that the expectations in connection with it
which the noble lord had held out to the house had, up to
this point, in every respect, been disappointed. Notwith-
standing that all alongthe house" had shown a disposition to
place confidence in the noble lord in dealing with the ques-
tion, the hopes in -which he had indulged from time to time
as to a satisfactory settlement of it remained entirely un-
fulfilled. Adverting to the manner in which the subject
of the annexation had been put to the popular vote, Mr
Griffith said it was not to be expected that in the
smaller towns of the country, where French cafes
and gambling-houses abounded, the inhabitants could
be otherwise than favourable to a union with France. If
these two valleys running down to the Lake of Geneva were
be taken possession of by France, the aggression could not
be too much reprobated. France was entering on a course
of history that would lead it to the Lake of Geneva, and, if
it once got there, that lake would be visited by French gun-
boats in less than three months, and Geneva would be cut
off from the rest of Switzerland. (Hear, hear.) If our al-
liance with France was worth anything, it should be an al-
liance that would give us influence with France on such
questions as these; but if it meant nothing more than sub-
mission to that Power, we were better without the alliance.
(Hear, hear.) There had been two joint expeditions with
France against China ; but if such expeditions are made use
of by France only as a school for her navy, and as a means
of learning our naval tactics, the fewer we have of them the
better. (Hear.) He had been struck with an observation
made in the Prussian Chambers, by the deputy for the city
of Berlin, when speaking of the position of Prussia and the
other. European Powers with reference to the Savoy ques.
tion. After referring to Russia as engaged at home, and
Austria as meditating vengeance on Italy, perhaps on Ger-
many, he said England had almost made up her mind to
sell her birthright for a mess of pottage in the shape of a
treaty of commerce. (Hear, hear.) If this question was
to be redeemed from the sphere of excellently written de-
spatches, and debates in that house, England must take a
higher stand than she had hitherto done, otherwise she
would become a mockery to every country in Europe. What
ho wanted to know was whether, as stated lately in the
public prints, M. Thouvenel had informed the representa-
tives of those Powers who signed the Treaties of Vienna,
that, as soon as the cession of Savoy should have been
sanctioned by the "universal suffrage of the inhabitants,"
and ratified by the vote of the Sardinian Parliament,
France would take possession of those provinces, submit-
ting only subsequently a limited part of the question to
the consideration of the proposed conference; and, if so,
whether the Secretary of State intended to consent to the
taking possession by France of the neutralised provinces of
Savoy, until a conference or congress, or other joint diplo-
matic action, shall have previously determined on the whole
question of the manner in which due consideration for the
independence of Switzerland requires that the provinces
placed in a state of peculiar and exceptionable neutralisa-
tion by repeated treaties should be ultimately disposed of.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD thought this was far toe import-
ant a question to be discussed in this desultory manner, but
he wished to put a question to the noble lord on the subject.
He wished to know whether the house was to understand
that it had been finally determined that this question should
be referred to a congress of the great Powers ? Further,
whether it had been arranged what Powers were to be par-
, ties to that congress, and whether it was correct that France
had made a proposition to the effect that the question to be
referred to the congress should merely be what measures
should be adopted to secure neutralisation of these provinces
in future, and that no question should be raised which would
lead, in a French point of view, to the dismemberment of
Savoy ? Also, whether France had made any express re-
assertion that she would not permit any portion of Savoy
to be annexed to Switzerland ?
BRITISH GRAVES IN THE CRIMEA.
Capt. ANNESLEY stated that he had received informa-
tion that recently some of the cemeteries in which British
heroes at the Crimea had been interred were broken into,
the walls around them demolished, and the bones of our
departed heroes sacrilegiously scattered about. He wished
to know if her Malrsty's Government had been made ac-
quainted with those disgraceful facts, and, if so, whether it
was the intention of the Government to direct their consu-
lar agent at Odessa to make periodical visits to Sebas-
topol, for the purpose of preserving those graveyards from
desecration.
Lord J. RUSSELL.—I quite agree with the hon. mem-
ber for Horsham that this question of Savoy, and the neu-
tralised parts of Savoy, is too important a matter to be dis-
cussed in the incidental mannerin which it has been brought
forward this evening. I shall therefore not refer to the
statements I have made at various times to the house, only
saying that they were founded at the time upon the decla-
rations which were made by foreign Governments, or upon
the despatches which I have received from her Majesty's
Ministers abroad. With regard to the immediate ques-
tion, and which the hon. gentleman and the house regard
with considerable interest—namely, the neutralised parts of
Savoy, I wish to give to the house such information as I can,
but it is very far from being complete. It is proposed that
there should be a Conference of the Powers of Europe
who signed the treaty of Vienna on a particular subject,
and, that subject is, as it is stated by the French Govern-
ment, to reconcile the 92d article of the Treaty of Vienna,
to which all the Powers of Europe who signed that treaty
are parties, with the second article of the Treaty of Turin;
which has lately been concluded between the Emperor of
the French and the King of. Sardinia. do not believe
that the French Government wish either to go any fur-
ther in the way of stating what other questions
are to be considered or to place any further restrictions on
the questions to be discussed at that conference. Ido not
certainly apprehend that the French Government impose
such a restriction as the hon. gentleman seems to suppose.
At the same time, from communications I have received,
and from the declarations which the Emperor of the French
has made from time to time, I conceive that to any mea-
sures that may be properly called the dismemberment of
Savoy we should find in the Conference that the present
Government would be decidedly opposed ; but it is obvious
that there may be other measures which would not amount
to dismemberment, but which would yet give a military
frontier to Switzerland, which might be proposed by Swit-
zerland. However, when Switzerland has made such pro-
posal will be the time for her Majesty's Government and
the other Powers to consider it. With respect to the par-
ties to the Conference, they are, as I have stated, the eight
Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna, and I
believe there is no doubt that all these Powers will agree
that Switzerland should be likewise represented at that
Conference. With regard to Sardinia,
dis-
cussion still going on, and likewise as to the question in
t theho
there is some
paConference.
comprehended
The
what manner Switzerland and Savoy are to appear at the
i whon l 8 3
precedent,signedl 2 s cited
m A
aeoi among nd London
According
thosedt nonthat
Treaty of Vienna may appear at the Conference, eith
er
always, or only on certain occasions. That is amatter
which, as I have stated, is under discussion
time
of the meeting of the Conference has been. Thelike
matter of discussion, but the French Government w
state
on that subject that they consider a Conference cannot
be properly assembled until the Treaty of Turin
is complete. That Treaty of Turin is
not
om
until the Assembly of Turin shall have given their complete
until
the Treaty. It is a part of the constitution of Sardinia that
no cession of territory shall be valid until the treaty giving t
it is confirmed by the votes of the Parliament of Safdinia
Tho French Government say that, supposing the vote.
of the Parliament of Piedmont should not be in favour
of the cession, and should be against the ratification of
the treaty, there would then be nothing for the Powers
of Europe io deliberate upon, and therefore they cannot be
called together until that vote has been come to. It is un-
derstood that the Parliament of Piedmontis to consider the
question about the first week in May, or the first ten days
in May, and it is proposed that the Conference should meet
after that time. ,Then there comes the question to which
the hon. member for Horsham called my attention the other
evening, and to which we attach, as he does, considerable
importance—namely, what shall be the state of possession
of the neutralised portions of Savoy after the treaty has been
confirmed, suppose it to be confirmed at Turin, and before
the Conference has met ? We have stated more than once
at Paris, and Lord Cowley has stated it even since his re-
return to Paris, that, in our opinion, it is most desirable
that no civil or military occupation by France should take

place until the,Conference has considered this questien of
the neutralised parts of Savoy, and under what restrictions
those neutralised portions shall be hereafter held, and in
*hat manner they shall be disposed of. The French Govern-
Ment, however, I must say, on the other side, state that they
ee great difficulty in assenting to such a proposition, be-
cause it would seem to assume that the treaty of Turin did
not perfectly do what it purported to do—namely, transfer
the whole sovereignty of Savoy from the King of Sardinia,
its late or present Sovereign, to the Emperor of the French.
They therefore raise this difficulty,without laying any stress,
however, upon the practical objections to any other course.
With regard to any practical result, they say that her Ma-
jesty's Government may be assured that there will be no
precipitation in taking possession of that territory, but that
there must be some authority, and that the territory cannot
be left without some authority during the Conference. That
discussion between the two Governments is not yet con-
cluded. It still appears to me, I must confess, that it would
be more satisfactory that some arrangement should be come
to by which the whole of that territory should not be in the
possession of the French authorities during the time of the
Conference—(hear, hear)—because, as from the complication
of documents there arises every day questions of wounded
pride or injured honour, it is desirable that the French au-
thorities should not be required to withdraw from any por-
tion of the territory of which they are in actual possession.
This is a matter like other matters which depends very
much on the opinion of the different Powers in Europe. I
believe that the Government of Prussia takes the same
view as we do on this, subject. With regard to the other
Powers, wo have had communications on this particular
point, and I can only say that it is not at present decided.
I will not go further into this subject at present. I have
only wished to give such information as I am able, and I
do not think the question is one for discussion at the pre-
sent moment. With regard to the cemeteries of Sebastopol,
I am sorry to say that I am afraid the statement of the hon.
gentleman is in conformity with the truth, since it agrees
in every respect with the statements we have received. We
have given such directions as we think may prevent any
further continuance of such shocking outrages upon the
feelings of this country and the relatives of the great and
gallant men who are buried there; and I have desired her
Majesty's Minister at St. Peteraburgh to remonstrate in
very strong terms with the Russian Government on the
subject. (Cheers.)
THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
In reply to Mr. P. URQUHART,

Mr. CARDWELL said that a bill was in preparation to
remedy the admitted evils of the present law of removal of
paupers from England to Ireland.
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL AD-
JOURNED DEBATE ON THIRD READING.
Sir JOHN TRELAWNY moved the third reading of
this bill.

Mr: WHITESIDE moved, as an amendment, that the
bill be read a third time that day six months. The object
of this bill had been persistently pursued by its author, but
these rates sprang from the common law of England and
there could be no hardship attending their existence, as no
rate could be imposed without the assent of the parishioners.
In a petition to that house it was stated that this was an
ecclesiastical impost which constituted a grievance, but
some interesting evidence hid been collected on this subject
by the Lords' Committee. There were two witnesses—one
was Dr. Toulmin Smith and the other Dr. Lushington—to
whose evidence he wished to draw the attention of the house.
They had devoted their attention to see from what power,
from what source Church-rates arose. The first gentleman
informed them from books that in 1179 a suit was brought
in respect of goods taken by distress for a rate.
That established that nearly 500 years ago there was a
power to summon the parishioners, levy a rate, and distrain
upon a reluctant parishioner. That was the first case that
could be found on the rolls, and it was stated that both the
custom and the seizure of goods in default had been from
time immemorial. It showed also that it took its rise in
the common law of England—was made by the majority of
the parishioners, and enforced by them. It was not, there-
fore, a mere ecclesiastical impost. The parish had a right
to lay on rates for various purposes, such as sewers rates,
just as they laid on the church rate, and the antiquity of
this last rate was most incontestably established. It was
proved by the testimony -of an eminent Dissenter—himself
not favourable to the maintenance of the rate—who was
examined before the committee, and in addition to that testi-
mony, they had that also of Dr. Lushington, who, ex-
amined before the committee, stated what the old principle
in his mind was, namely, that the rate was of Saxon origin,
and that in those days the maintenance of the parish
church was regarded as necessary, and was determined upon
by the majority. Now, that was the law in those days, and
it was the law at present, and a very good and salutary law
it was. (Hear.) It hid been argued that the city of Man-
chester was averse to the payment of church rates, and that
the payment of them in that city was net longer enforced ;
but he had it upon the most reliable-authority that church
rates only fell into disuse in Manchester by carelessness, and
that the belief was that, if any serious effort were now made
to resuscitate them there, the parishioners would respond,
and recognising the excellence of the objects of the rate,
again vote for it. (Hear.) Now that certainly raised Man-
chester again very much in his esteem. (Laughter.) It
had been said that the that opposition to the payment
of those rates originated in Manchester; but that, he
believed, was an erroneous impression. His opinion was
that the opposition to them originated in Birmingham.
Sir J. TRELAWNY—No ; in Norwich.
Mr. WHITESIDE—Be that as it might, three things
were certain—that they were of great antiquity, that they
were essentially beneficial, and that the Dissenters, as a
body, were not opposed to their maintenance.' (Hear.) The
opposition to church rates was not on religious, but political
grounds. It first commenced by opposing the amount of
the rates, and finally, the rate itself. How had the opposi-
tion been continued By the getting up of petitions, and
circulating papers and pamphlets throughout the kingdom.
In some cases there were more petitions than'people to sign
them. It was not the people Who got them up, but they
were prepared by an individual and hawked about for sig-
nature. In many cases, the names of infants were put
down as parties who prayed for the abolition of church
rates. The committee, not long since appointed to investi-
gate these petitions, reported that, in many cases, the
names of hundreds of persons were written by the same
person. He did not believe the people of this country were
in favour of the abolition of church rates ; it might be so
in some large towns, where an opposition was got up for
political purposes, but generally no such feeling existed.
He opposed this bill, therefore, not as a bill on its own
merits or demerits, but because it was part of an avowed
movement for the destruction of the Church, and he felt
that:the time had come when Churchmen must bestirthem-
selves. They knew that the Church was strong in the love
and the esteem of the people of this country, and it was ne-
cessary that they should throw off the apathy they had
hitherto shown, and meet the assailants of the Establish-
ment with an energy proportionate to the importance of the
cause they had to defend. He moved that the bill be read
a third time that day six months. (Cheers.)

Mr. BRIGHT said he felt somewhat indebted to the
right hon. and learned gentleman for having come forward
as a new advocate on this question, for he had infused, by
thtit physical-force oratory, of which ho was such a master,
new life into a questionwhich had been worn almost thfead-
bare. (Cheers and laughter.) But he did not think he
had done much, when his speech would be read the next
day, to satisfy that great portion of the people of this coun-
try who object to church rates, that the present system
ought to be continued. He told the house that the Non-
comformists, the Dissenters of old, were a better class of
men than those of the present day, because they made no
objection to the payment of church rates; and that asser-
tion was received with cheers by the hon. gentlemen oppo-
site. (Cheers.) In answer to it, it might be said that, from
the time of Elizabeth down to the Act. of Toleration, there
was very little understood in this country of the question
or principles of religious freedom. They knew that, not
only the Church, when it had the power, but the Noncon-
formists themselves, held it-to be right not only that they
should support their respective churches, but to coerce
them who hold religious opinions different from their own.
(Hear, hear.) They had not advanced so far as hon. gen-
Homan opposite now had, and therefore the right hon. gen-
tleman's argument went for very little. In Ireland he had
witnessed among the Roman Catholics, who were the
poorest people in Europe, a liberality with regard to the
erection of places of worship which fully vindicated the
truth of the voluntary principle, and justified its efficiency.
The Irish Roman Catholics asked nothing from the State,
and yet they had .provided amply for all the religious
wants of the population. In Wales, where eight-
tenths of the population had no connexion with the
Established Church, there was not a nook or
corner without a chapel, a minister, and a school.
North of the Tweed, since the great secession took place
(17 years ago), the same results might be witnessed. The
Free Church of Scotland had raised more money voluntarily
since that secession than the whole of the emoluments of
the Established Church in that country. They had during
that period built more than 700 churches and as many
manses, and established about an equal number of schools.
Tkese vast results sprung from a zeal and religious fervour
which had raised the character high in the estimation of
the people of this country and of the world. (Cheers.) If
he were to say that the members of the Church of England
would not be equally liberal, he would be described as a
slanderer, and justly so, for through whatever part of the
country you travelled you would find towers and spires and
temples raised by their voluntary efforts to the worship of
God. But he wished the members of that Church to rely
on their own zeal, benevolence, and liberality for the main-
tenance of their system, and not seek compulsory aid from
those who differed from them. (Hear.) He wan*/ to pur-
suade the house-that this bill was a good bill for the
Established Church. (Hear, and laughter from the Oppo-
sition.) He did not want to take them in by leading them
to suppose that he approved of the. Established Church as
an instrument for teaching religion. On that subject he
agreed with Mr. Miall and the "Liberation Society."
That, however, was not a question for the house, or, perhaps,
for the presentgenerationto decide. He contended, however,
that the abolition of the system of levying money for the Es-
tablished Church in Ireland had been of great advantage to
that institution. The more the Church be removed from
those irritating discussionsthe more it would be consolidated.
lie was inclined to believe that its fall as a State establish-

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, 160.

ment would never be caused by assaults from without, but by
those from within—from the strong differences of doctrines
entertained by those within its own borders. (Cheers.)
If the Established Church were placed in the same position
as any of the dissenting bodies, it would be greatly
strengthened by the religious activity and union which
would then prevail among its members. (Hear, hear.)
Some hon. gentlemen might describe him as a violent par-
tisan. He did not deny that he had taken part in contests
of this kind, but he was older now, and perhaps more mo-
derate. He knew how such questions stirred up young and
ardent minds, and he was therefore ready to make allow-
ances for those who differed from himself. The question
now had arrived at a crisis, and he would ask the house to
consider whether it would not be advantageous for the
Established Church, morality, religion, and the public peace
to settle this question at once, by voting for the third read-
ing of the bill. (Hear.)

Mr. DISRAELI said he had no doubt that when the
hon. member was engaged in a contest, such was his spirit
of resistance that the controversy would be promoted with
sufficient ardour. (Hear, hear.) Ho had assured the house
that the fabric of the church at Rochdale was in a satisfac-
tory state, but it was to be regretted that he had given no
information of the condition of the churches in Birmingham.
(Opposition cheers.) Four years ago Mr. Mintz had pre-
sented a petition from the clergy, churchwardens, and
others connected with the rural deanery of Birmingham,
complaining of the suspension of the legal means of repair-
ing the churches and providing for the Maintenance of
Divine service in that district, and stating that for the
previous 25
_years the voluntary principle had failed to
accomplish .what was necessary. He did not want this
question to be decided upon mere instances taken
here and there—but when the hon. gentleman re-
ferred to the ecclesiastical fabrics of his native
town, he (Mr. Disraeli) thought it right to refer to the ec-
clesiastical fabrics of the more considerable town which
he represented. But if any conclusive argument was
with gravity to be founded upon questions of this kind, he
thought the weight of evidence was more upon his side,
from the instance of Birmingham, than that of the hon.
gentleman in the single instance of Rochdale. The hon.
gentleman had, throughout his speech, delivered an eulogy
in favour of the voluntary system, but that was not the
question before the house. The hon. gentleman had dealt
in views of a speculative character, and which were founded
upon pure assumption, and he necessarily referred to a state
of society which did not exist in this country, and he at.
tempted to prove those assumptions by instances which were
entirely fallacious. The chief case which he dealt with was
the voluntary system of Scotland, and the hon. gentleman
told them that there had bosa there, without the aid of par-
liamentary grants, a large expenditure in the erection of
churches, and houses, and other buildings; but he forgot
that all that time, simultaneous with this great burst of
religious feeling in Scotland, and those remarkable invest-
ments, there was an Established Church in Scotland, main-
tained by the most rigid and inflexible church rate, which
depended upon the majority of the people which existed in
this country, but which without any majority was raised.
The hon. gentleman omitted to tell them that this regu-
larity took place, and that a church rate' was collected in
this rigid manner. The hon. gentleman then told them of
the picturesque views which he beheld in passing through
the country, and the churches which help to make up the
landscape, and he said that they were built upon the volun-
tary principle; and he asked why they adhered to this ancient
and barbarous system, which had been so frequently recom-
mended should be abolished. But the hon. gentleman forgot
that this voluntary principle of raising churches was not of
new introduction. It had always been at work in England,
and it would be very difficult to name any church which
had not been raised under the same influences and the same
circumstances. (Hear, hear.) And when the hon. gentle-
man referred to Scotland, the argument was an illusory
one, and the hon. gentleman failed to enforce that, which
he endeavoured to impress on the house. (Hear, hear.)
He hoped the house would hesitate before they sanctioned
such a change, especially at the present time, when the
view of the future was so serious. No thinking man could
shut his eyes to what might be the 'impending struggle of
the world, and was that a time to tamper with their institu-
tions ? (Hear, hear.) They were considering that night
an institution which had existed for centuries. Were they
prepared to take a step that might in its results shatter the
social fabric of the country ? He trusted the house would
not sanction this proposition, but would show by the divi-
sion their firm and constant adherence to the institutions of
I the country. (Hear, hear.)

Sir JOHN TRELAWNY said that he was not a mem-
ber of the Liberation Society, but it supported his measure.
He had nothing to do with the sense in which that society
advocated the separation of Church and State, but he could
assure the house that, whether they passed the bill or not,
virtually- church-rates were gone. Dissenters had found
how church-rates might be successfully resisted, and there-
fore, as the existing law could not be made practically use-
ful, he advised them to repeal it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he intended to have brought
up a clause by way of amendment, to the effect that church-
rates should not be paid out of any other rate, but ho was
informed that, according to the forms of the house, he could
not do so. He was informed that there were 400 parishes
that paid their church-rate out of the poor-rate. That was
a fraud, and he should have liked to have added a clause to
prevent this, and leave the House of Lords to deal with it.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the third reading '
For the amendment.
Majority •• —9
Loud and continued cheering from the Opposition side
of the house.

On the question "that the bill do pass," there was a
loud cry of " No " from the Opposition members. This was
met by a cry of "Agreed" from the same side of the house,
and the motion was accordingly agreed to, followed by a
cheer from the supporters of the bill, which was met with
laughter from the Opposition.