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

THE REGISTRATION UNDER THE BILL.

nexion with this matter, and they had no certain informa-
tion as to whether they were concerned in this misconduct,
except that twoladies '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 allßritish
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 Parlinnient, 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 along the 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 td a satisfactory settlement of it remained entirely un-
fulfilled. Adverting to the manner in which the subjecf
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 Genera, 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.) Tbero 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
he 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 aeon 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.
Ho 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 Majesty'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 manner in 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 conaiderable 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. I 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. I do 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, there is some dis-
cussion still going on, and likewise as to the question in
what manner Switzerland and Savoy are to appear at the
Conference. The Conference in London in 1831-2 is cited
as affording a precedent. According to that precedent, the
parties not comprehended among those who signed the
Treaty of Vienna may appear at the Conference, either
always, or only on certain occasions. That is a matter
which, as I have stated, is under discussion. The time
of the meeting of the Conference has been likewise a
matter of discussion, but the French Government 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 complete
until the Assembly of Turin shall have given their assent to
the Treaty. It is a part of the constitution of Sardinia that
no cession of territory shall be valid untitilptphoesituregattyheai
voteving
it is confirmed by the votes of the Parliament of Sardinia.
The French Government say that, a
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 to 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 ha 3 been
confirmed, suppos%it to be confirmed at Turin, and before
the Conference has met ? We have stated more than on6e.
at Paris, and Lord Cowley has stated it even since his re-
return to Paris, thnt, in our opinion, it is most desirable
that no civil or military occupation by France should take

Mr. E. JAMES, in putting the question which stood in
his name on the paper, wished to observe that, as regarded
the returns, a great deal of assertion had been made on one
side and the other ; but he would repeat what he stated on
a former occasion, that no one could impugn the intentions
of the Government in having them made out—(hear)—or
their accuracy, so far as they purported to go. He believed,
however, that the noble lord the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs was incorrect when he stated the addition
to the number of electors under this bill as amounting to
150,000.
Lord J. RUSSELL-190,000.
Mr. E. JAMES—WeII, 190,000. That question, how-
ever, must soon be decided one way or another, for it was
impossible that such discrepancies could exist as those stated
by the two members for Liverpool, one of whom said the
constituency of that town would be increased under the bill
by 20,000, and another by 30,000. The question which he
wished to asked of the noble lord the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, or more properly perhaps the right hon.
gentleman the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, was
whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government
to introduce any measure to provide for the registration for
this year of persons who may become entitled to vote in the
event of the Representation of the People Bill being passed
into law during the present session of Parliament ?
Sir G. C. LEWIS in reply, stated that when the house
should be pleased to go into committee on the bill, all
these questions must be answered. The present was not
a proper time to do so, but in answer to his hon. and learned
friend the member for Marylebone, he should say that the
clauses he referred to were net the result of oversight, but
according to the deliberate intentions of the Government,
provided the bill should pass this year. His hon. and learned
friend referred to the bill brought in last year by the right
hon. gentleman opposite, as containing machinery for the
registration of new voters. But that was necessary, because
the measure introduced new and peculiar franchises which
could not be dealt with under the existing law. But this
bill proposed no such changes. All it did propose to do was
to extend the present franchise, and the existing system of
registration would therefore be applicable. If it should
happen that when the bill passed it would be too late for
the new constituencies to register, they would then consider
the best course to pursue. As to the question of the hon.
member as to unreported criminal cases, the change was
thought necessary, in order to diminish unnecessary ex-
penses. With respect to the statement made by the right
hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich with respect to
the persons appointed to collect returns in the electoral dis-
tricts, he was very glad to find that both sides of the house
agreed that her Majesty's Government had acted with sin-
cerity. The inquiries began last autumn, and a barrister
was employed to make inquiries in a certain number of
boroughs, in the hope that they would form precedents for
the whole country. Mr. Vernon W. Harcourt, who under-
took the task, reported that such a course would be ex-
tremely difficult, and that a partial inquiry into a limited
number of boroughs would not be satisfactory. That plan
was, therefore, discarded, and instructions sent by the Poor-
law Board to make out these returns in all parts of the

kingdom.
Mr. S. HERBERT, in reply to several questions, said it
was perfectly true that the order had been given for the
wives and children of the soldiers of the 67th regiment to
be sent back from India, but it was given under these
circumstances. At the time the women and children
wont out to India to join their friends they were not
aware that the 67th was going to China, and, consequently
there was no reason why they should not go out. As soon
as they were informed, however, that the 67th was going
to China, they ordered the women and children to be sent
back. Since then, however, it had been determined, that
the 67th should not proceed to China, and immediately
upon that being settled he had telegraphed again to India,
countermanding the order originally sent out. He could
only say he hoped that telegram would arrive in sufficient
time to prevent the embarkation of those families on their re-
turn voyatre, after the fatigues they had sustained. With
regard to the question of the hon. and gallant officer (Col.
Lindsay) he could only say that he had stated the circum-
stances very clearly, but he must remind him that the Royal
Commissions were called upon to decide the question sub-
mitted to them quite generally, and without reference to
particular cases. The officers to whom he alluded were most
meritorious, and he'shonld be extremely glad to be able to
carry out their wish of being placed in the numerical posi-
tion which they held on their first attaining the rank of
colonel, but to do that would require the antedating of two
commissions, a proceeding which would be attended with
extreme military inconvenience. He admitted and regretted
the hardship, and would assure the hon. and gallant officer
that if he could devise any plan for remedying it, he would
submit it to the Commander-in-Chief. With respect to the
question put by another hon. and gallant gentleman oppo-
site (Col. Dickson) relative to the organisation of the militia,
he had to state that circulars had been issued with a view
to prevent any man being taken whose residence and cha-
racter were unknown. He did not deny that a great hard-
ship existed, to which the hon. and gallant gentleman had
called attention, with reference to militia officers serving in
Ireland. The recommendation of the militia commission
was calculated to remedy the grievance, and he admitted
that the case was of a nature to deserve its applica-
tion. The recommendation was that in cases where
soldiers were billeted the officers should receive lodging,
money if the colonel reported the quarters to be incon-
venient. His only reason for not acting upon the recom-
mendation was, that the military expenditure of the country
was so great that ho was prevented from carrying out that
and other arrangements which he would gladly snake for the
benefit and convenience of the service. (ffear, hear.)

Sir C. WOOD, with reference to the question put lo him
earlier in the evening by the hon. member for Ifereford-
shire, as to the alleged misconduct of certain Indian cadets
on their way through Egypt, said that there was unfortu-
nately too much foundation for the report, which was upon
the whole correct, as appeared from an official report which
had been received from the consul-general. The facts which
had come to his knowledge, and which coincided in vll es•
sential particulars with the facts already published, ap •
peared to be these :—A party of 25 or 30 cadets, after hav-
ing dined, went to the citadel, rind behaved so violently that
they intruded themselves into the mosque during the per •
formance of worship, and placed themselves in that portion

of the edifice which was set apart for the use of the Viceroy
and his family, when they blgan to mimic and, ridicule the
religious ceremonies which were going on: This conduct
naturally roused the indignation of the devotees ; but, never-
theless, the Viceroy showed the greatest kindness in his
efforts to screen them from the just indignation of the people
of Cairo. (Hear.) The consul, who acted most properly
throughout all this affair, iminaliatoly waited upon the Vice-
roy to apologise for what had taken Place, and his apology
was at once and most kindly received. With respect to the
passengers nothing particular had been ascertained in con-

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, P.,60.

place until the Conference has considered thia question of
the neutralised parts of Savoy, and under what restrictions
those neutralised portions shall be hereafter held, and in
what manner they shall be disposed of. The French G avern-
ment, however, I must say, on the other side, state that they
see 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— (bear, 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, we 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. Petersburgh 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 1379 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 not 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 first 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, resorted 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 bestir them-
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. Ho moved that the bill be read
a third time that day six months. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT, said he felt somewhat indebted to the
right lion. and learned gentleman for having come forward
as a new advocate on this question, for he had infused, by
that physical-force oratory, of which,he was such a master,
new life into a questionwhich had been worn almost thread-
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 held religious opinions different from their own.
(Hear, hear.) They had not advanced so far as hon. gen-
tlemen 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.
These vast results sprung from a zeal and religious fervour
whichliad 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, ho 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
bed. 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.) Ile wanted to pur-
suede the house that this bilj 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
au instrument fur teaching religion. On that subject he
agreed • with Mr. Miall and the " Liberation Society."
.That, however, was not a questionfor the house, or, perhaps,
for the present g-eneration to decide. Ho contended, however,
that the abolition of the system of levying money for the Es.
tablished Church in Ireland had been of greaf a,dyintage to
that institution'. The-more' tha Church be removed from

thoseirritatingdiscussionktbemoreit would be consolidated.
Ile was inclined to believe that .its fall as a State establish-

ment weed 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. Ho 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.) He 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 inßirmingham.
(Opposition cheers.) Four years ago Mr. Muntz 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. gentlaman 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 hqn.
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, andle 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 bcea 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 theyadhered 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 thesame
circumstances. (Hear, bear.) 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
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-
ratea should not be paid out of any other rate, but he was
informed that, according to the forms of the house, he could
not do so. Ho 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
Thud cry of " No" from thebpposition 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.
STOCK JOBBING.

Mr. BOVILL moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal
so much of the statutes relating to stock jobbing as prevents
persons selling and disposing of stocks or other securities
of which they are not possessed.
Mr. LAING said the Government had no objection to
the measure, and leave was given to bring in the bill.
PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS.

Mr. MACAULAY moved an address for returns for
every Parliamentary city and borough in England and
Wales, showing,
1. The total number of male persons in each who were
charged to any of the assessed taxes, or to the income tax,
underschedules B and D respectively, for the year 1859-60.
2. How many of such persons were assessed to the poor
rate upon a gross rental of £2O and upwards.
3. How many itpan a like rental of £lO and under £2O.
4. How many on a like rental of £6 and under £lO.
5. How many under SG.
6. And, how many were not occupiers of tenements rated

to the poor.
Mr. LAING said the only objection to the returns would
be the delay which would take place in making them, but
the Government, feeling that these were important returns,
would not oppose the motion, and they would do all in
their power to make them complete.
Mr. AYRTON said the returns would be perfectly falla-
cious, as they would exclude from the calculation many
millions of property.
After a short conversation the motion was agreed to.
On the motion that the Jews Act Amendment Bill be
read a third time,
Mr. SPOONER objected to the houso going on with the
bill at that late hour, and should certainly, if the hon. gen-
tleman persevered, move an adjournment of the house.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was assured by the hon. gentle-
man's colleague that no opposition would be given to the
bill, and he should therefore persevere.
Mr. NEWDEGATE hoped his hon. friend would not
persevere with his motion.
The third reading was then put and carried, and the
house adjourned at 10 minutes to 1 o'clock.

Premature Greyness, Weak or Falling Hair, Neural ia,
Nervous Headache, Rheumatism, Stiff Joints, &c., arc reme-
died with ease and certainty by HERRING'S Patent Magnetic
Brushes and Combs. Their use is an absolute luxury. His
newly-Invented Teazle Brushes for Colth, Velvet, &c,. are
admirable—they not only cleanse, but preserve the fabric in
a remarkable manner. The Manufactory is 32, Basinghall-
st. The public are cautioned against counterfeits.—Anrr.

[ADVERTISEMBNT.]—HoIIoway's Pills and Ointment.—
Consequences of Neglect. —ln our variable climate the larger
proportion of diseases to which mankind is liable depends
upon the perfect or inefficient treatment of coughs, colds, in-
fluenza, and rheumatism. The prudent will pay attention to
the first symptoms, which are removed at once by the use of
Holloway's Pills Ind Ointment. In chest complaints, while
taking his pills, their effect is quickened and increased by
briskly rubbing his ointment on the back and breast twice a-
dsy for five minutes, or longer if convenient. The friction
causes the ointment to penetrate the skin, whence it passes to
the lungs and purifies the whole mass of blood as it Rows
through those organs in its circulation.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—The greatest bappinesS of a jour-
nalist •is to introduce to his readers some new discovery
calculated to benefit that vast portion of our fellow crea-
tures, which has the strongest claims upon our sympathies.
It.is with this feeling that we call the attention of invalids
to the following extract from Du Barry's interesting report
of cures without medicine of indigestion (dyspepsia), fla-
tulency, constipation, nervous, bilious and liver complaints,
cough, asthma, consumption and debility by DU Barry's
Revalenta Arabica Food. Cure No. 180, twenty. five years'
nervousness constipation, indigestion, and debility, from
which I had suffered great misery, and which no medicine
could remove or relieve, have been effectually cured by Du
Barry's food in a .very short time.—W. R. Reeves, 181,
Fleet-street. Cine No. 54,618, of a lady of 107 years of
age.—Wandsbeck, near IJamburgh, 12th May, 1857.—1
hereby certify that my mother-in-law, Mrs. Holze, who
has just
.completed her 107th year, after having suffered
for half a century and more, from indigestion (dyspepsia),
and consequent disorders, has been perfectly cured by Du
Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, and ie now enabled to di-
gest almost any kind of food with great comfort.—W. llolze.
En tins, at is. 6d. ; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 h.,
265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post-
office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London;
Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; Alobis, 60,
Gracechureh-street ; 4, Chcapside ; 63, and 15Q, Oxford-
street; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate•
street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin,
Bewley 'and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Cc.,
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp are
Scott; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and_Co. ; at.Souit
funpton, Randal 'and Son