The Welshman

BIPERIAL P ARLIA)'JET. I IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY, JUNE 11. I Their Lordships met at five. On the motion of Lord C-imnhol], the Delete in I Lease,; Bill was lead a third time and passed. BANKRUPTCY L.i'.VS C«SSni.I DATION AND AMEND- Nt LI.Ir Bil.L. Lord Brougham said he had a most important coinmurrnati in to r.v;ke to the house. It would be in the rec,lect¡<1n oi their Lordships that the Bankruptcy Laws Consolidation and Amendment Bill had passed in that house with almost unexampled unanimity, and that he had in his possession the approbation in writing uf my Lord Char.it ilui By the kindness of his friend, who so admirably discharged the duties of their lurd- ships' first clerk, that bill had been sent down to the other house oil Thursday. It was obvious that at this time of th<o session it was most important that any bill which was to pass at all, should pass as quickly as pos- sible. The bii! according to the usual practice ought to have been read a first time on Friday but it was not ■ read a first time on Friday. His own impression was, mat there was an underhand opposition to the bill some- iviiere, arid lic- vxas prepared to demonstrate in what quarter the blame lay. He would have some parties take care what they were about. The Marquis of Lansdowne said that certainly the omission of which the noble and learned lord complained v,. ai an unusual one, but he was convinced that nu blame was attached to the government. Lord Brougham said that he found on referring to the proceedings of the other house on Friday, that they had found time to transact a great deal of unimportant business on that dav, but had not been able to read a first time the bill with which their lordships had taken 30 much pains. LEASEHOLD TENURE OF LANDS (IRELAND) DILL. Lord Campbell said that he proposed to introduce rertain clauses into this bill, preserving to the Irish Society the powers which they at present enjoyed, and, when they were printed, he would name a day for the thiid reading. The Turnpike Trusts Union Bill passed through com- mittee on the motion of Lord Redesdale. After a discussion on a petition presented by the Earl of St. Germans from Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney respect- ing hi" valuable invention for the ventilation of mines, Lor-i Campbell moved the second reading of the En- cumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill, and after insisting on he great importance of the measure, proceeded to ex- 'ain its provisions, and to combat the objections which jd been raised against them. Lord Br..nghara thought the bill as it stood a most tranrdinarj one, and suggested certain modifications ths unlimited power of sale given by it, which he t ii, be introduced without cutting into the ..nciple of the measure. The Earl of Glengall expressed his surprise that any .^n could have the hardihood to propose such a mea- 'E'. based as it was on the deepest principles of Com- tF.im, ar.d involving as it did a downright confisca- Jr. of property. After considerable discussion, in which Lord Mon- tsie, the Earl of Wicklow, the Marquis of Lansdowne, I Lord Stanley took part, it was ultimately agreed L. it the bill should be referred to a select committee. Their Lordships then adjourned. TUESDAY, JcSF. 12. Lord Beaumont brought the Italian question before le House, and at the close of his observations asked hether since the landing of the French at Civita T" cri.ia, any communication had been received by Her Iioisterll relative to the intentions of Franc? 'hat expedition whether any advice had been asked by or given to France as to its ultimate object and .'•r.ether Her Majesty's Ministers could explain the "ws of France as to the future settlement of the Ro- -in States. The Marquis of Lansdowne replied that he was not 'l)J,d upon to explain the motives which had influenced *1" French Government to send an expedition to Italy. he demed it necessary to state was that the Go- t-, nirenti though aware of the intention to send that i' -dition, had been no party to it, and that it had been T;Vrtaken by the French Government entirely on its n responsibility. After some further discussion, the matter dropped. The order of the day for the third reading of the Na- rration Laws Bill was then brought forward, when— rhe Earl of Ellenborough rose to protest against the .'1, after which he proceeded to detail the measures 7-ticti it would be necessary for the Government to in- .?,ice without delay in order to neutralise its bad fe c ts. L,e Earl of Winchelsea, Lord Stanley, and Lord Froimham then briefly repeated the objections which 'lured them to oppose the bill; and the Marquis of .Ti,downe, after commenting on the unconstitutional ntlrse pursued by the opponents of the measure when ury called in question the right of certain noble Lords i > vote by proxy, invited the House to assent to the il' ird reading of the bill. The bill was then read a third time. A clause by way of rider was then proposed by the • Ihop of Oxford, the effect of which was to exclude the -ir,l'zils, in consequence of the great encouragment given to the slave trade by that country, from any participa- lion in the benefits of the measure. After considerable discussion, in which Lord Roden, Lord Denman, and the Marquis of Lansdowne took part, the clause was rejected on a division, in which the cumbers were. for the clause. 9 Against it 23 Majority 14 The bill was then passed, and their Lordships ad- journed. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY, JUNB 11. The Speaker took the chair at 4 o'clock. Sir David Dundas took the oaths and his seat for Sutherlandshire on his re-election, after being appointed Judge Advocate General. Mr. J. O'Connell gave notice that he wonld on Thurs- day next move that the house should recognise the practice of giving publicity to its debates. In answer to a question from Mr. Hume, with respect to the assertion made by the President of France, that England had agreed in the French interference in the affairs of Rome, Lord John Russell said that the British government was in no way connected with the French force which had been sent to Rome. The opinion of the government was asked as to whether there was any objection to a French ambassador being sent to Gaeta, and the En- glish government had expressed no disapprobation of such a measure, but that they had not approved, nor expressed any approval, of the sending of military forces to Rome, nor did he understand the expressions -of the President of France in his speech to the Assembly, to indicate that England approved of sending forces to Rome. In answer to a question from Mr. Herries, Lord J. Russell said that Lord Elgin had transmitted to Lord Grey (by desire) certain Canadian newspa- pers, with respect to what passed in the Assembly of that country, but he objected to the production of these as authentic or binding sources of information on either the one side or the other as he was not prepared to pledge the government to the correctness of what might be contained in those newspapers. In answer to a question from Mr. Hume, Lord Palmerston said that no particular communica- tion had lately been made to the British government by the French government of their intention to send an expedition to Rome, but a communication had been made by the French government in November and December last, to the effect that it was the intention of the French to send a diplomatic agent to Rome without saying anything as to the ultimate effects which might 1 arise from doing so. In answer to a question from Mr. John O'Connell, Lord Palmerston said, that the English government had all along refused to take any part in the restitution ,of the Pope to. the throne of Rome, but had expressed an opinion that if such restitution took place some con- cessions should be made to the demands of the Roman people. In answer to a question from Mr. Horsman. The Attorney General said that he had made up his mind as to the power of the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners (loud laughter). Air. P Israeli gave notice that he would on Thursday next pat a question to the noble lord at the head of the "irSVermneflt as to the probable conductuf public business, during the rest of the session. .J PARLIAMENTARY PATHS BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this bill, Mr. Law rose to mow that the bill be read- a third time that day six He objected to the alteration of the oath by Quitting the words upon the true faith of a Cliristian" when tendered to Jews in order to admit them into parliament; and, laying down in the outset the position that it was a pure fiction to say it ws inci- -.Aental to a natural-born subject's birthright) that he should be permitted to sit in Parliament, he argued from the history of the JPWH in this country,—an<J fro III -,their having been from the earliest times kept separptp j and apart from pther subjects of the realm from their having been expelled for 300 years, and front their having been treated, so late as the reigr. of Wiljiim HI, by act of Parliament, as merchant-strangers under protection,—that the statin and condition of the Jews in this country were distinct from those of British-born >ubj< cts generally. He then proceeded to show from the language of Judges and the enactments of statutes that Christianity was so much parcel of the common law that nothing could be allowed to contravene it, and •- .ttJllt this doctrine was true, not in a modified, but an absolute and 1táCt sense. Whilst everything of a per- S.ecuting or asi^re^sive character a gainst the Jews should be removed, the orifice of legislation could not be dsle- gated to those who were eternally separated from Christian; who were incapable of incorporating with th*e, miss of the nation- and with whom Christians could not commingle, as with other, foreign races, by mårri'lg'rithnflt breaking the fundamental principles pf our Constitution, "Lid. was essentially Ç¡¡ri"tiaiJ: Mr R-iphael, though a stanch supporter of the Go- Ff:; '1: "P')o."ri this bill, as he had done the last, i. «. t-d 13 paying a kind of homage T .;J U -I II-II I I. M Kco,:h S¡p;1f.rt;l t1-!P h. ■ ;\1; 'i,a;e exposition ,f tlr doa- j '"Mines and -tenet* he'ni by the Jcv«s, and-d-i-n't ended tk*t j li.t-v .fvero io: ~m; .tiib'e wi' h the difcMtrae f the d, i es Mr. Cro-.vder said, the ground upon which he Mr. CrowdH said, the ground nprm ,hich he auppt?tt'd the bill was, that it was unjust and incoh- sistent with the general principles of the Constitution that any set of mer> should be excluded from the enjoy- of civil rights and political privileges on the i = re ground of tuir entertaining peculiar religious opinions -U;. Goring observed, j. had been urged that Jews were i'xe!ui.i-d by accident but no' one would content1 that their admission into Parliament »>.s evei con- templated. Our duty towards God he considered to be antecedent and paramount to the duty towards our neighbour; by removing the barrier which kept out the Jews we should disobey God, and upon this ground he opposed the bill. Mr. Sadleir insisted that the Jews had not been exclu- ded by deliberate leislation. Mr. Sheil said, nothing but a clear and absolute necessity could justify exclusion from a seat in Parlia- ment, to which he attached a great value but so far from that necessity being proved, the reverse had been established. He showed the anomalies to which the existing state of the law gave rise. A Jewish sheriff might empanel a jury before whom a Christian might be put upon trial for hi- life. A Jew could vote for the worst possible Christian member of Parliament. When it was said that the admission of Jews would UIl. christianize the House, was the National Assembly of France unchristianized, where Jews now sat? Could it be supposed that if a Jew sat in that House he would abuse his privilege by the utterance of blasphemy ? Jews were good citizens and subjects they were loyal and faithful to the throne; thev were interested in the prosperity of the country in which they were born they were industrious, they were distinguished for their charity, and many of them were eminent for virtue. A Jew had been returned by the city of London, and could it be maintained that this was no expression of public opinion, or that a spirit of infidelity and indifference to religion pervaded this great metropolis? The cause of Christianity and of toleration was the same the victory of the one was the triumph of the other. Mr. Goulburn was prepared to resist this measure as altering the character of Parliament, and thereby affecting its influence. The question was not whether Jews were excluded by accident, which was a notion founded upon misapprehension, but whether, upon the principles of the Constitution, Jews should be excluded, and that was capable of proof by the whole course of our legislation and by the forms of the House. Mr. Goulburn reviewed the chief arguments urged in sup- port of the bill, and rested his opposition to it upon the ground that it would damage the character of the Le- gislature, and create in the minds of a very numerous class a distrust in the deliberations of Parliament upon matters affecting religion, and especially ecclesiastical questions. The admission of another element into that House adverse to the Church would give weight to the arguments of those who desired to see such subjects withdrawn from its cognizance. » Mr. Roebuck claimed for this House a right to be considered as fully competent to deal with such a ques- tion as this. If, as recently asserted, it represented correctly the feelings and wishes of the country, Mr. Goulbourn had no right to appeal from its decision, which must be assumed to be the opinion of the people of England. After reminding Mr. Goulburn that he had used the same- arguments now as against the admis- sion of Roman Catholics, and had the following year changed his opinion, he showed the futility of his argu- ment that a Jewish member would unchristianize the House. He accused Mr. Newdegate of impeaching unjustly the honour and honesty of the Jews by reading extracts from a book he did not understand; whereas the necessity for this legislation arose from their tender- ness pf conscience and their nice sense of moral obliga- tion. The right conferred by this bill was one to which a priori Jews were entitled, and if they were to be deprived of it, the onus was upon those who sought to de- prive them of it. The only grounds were, that the House would be unchristianized, the flimsiness of which he had shown, and that Jews were aliens, which was equally untenable. The principle at the bottom of this bill was that of religious liberty that was the principle which had recommended it to this House and out of doors, and upon which he supported it. Mr. Napier said the question was whether ChrUtanity was the basis of the Constitution, and if it was, men who repudiated Christianity could not be qualified to be members of our legislature. Mr. Wood hailed this bill as a measure by which the last badge of the anti-Christian and persecuting spirit was parted with, and it was as a Christian no less than as a politician that he gave it his support. Mr. Plumptre denied that the people of this country were favourable to the measure. Lord J. Russell noticed briefly the chief arguments used against the bill, which, he observed, differed but little from those which had been urged on former oc- casions, and he adopted the view taken by Mr. Roebuck, that this was regarded by the electors of London as a question of religious liberty, and he believed the charac- ter of the country was involved in making that liberty full and secure. The House then divided, when the third reading was carried by 272 against 206. The diminished majority excited much cheering. The bUt then passed. The Silver Coinage Bill was also read a third time and passed. The County Cess (Ireland) Bill passed through com- mittee. The Collection of Rates (Dublin) Bill, and the New- gate Gaol (Dublin) Bill, ivere severally read if second time. The Solicitor-General obtained leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the abandonment of railways and the disso- lution of railway companies in certain cases, the objects of which he explained.. Lord D. Stuart had leave to bring in a bill for giving parties sued in the Palace Court a right of election to be sued in a county court. Sir W. Somerville had leave to bring in a bill to con- tinue certain acts for regulating turnpike roads in Ire- land, and another to continue the act for the better prevention and punishment of assaults in Ireland. Mr. Frewen had leave to bring in a bill to abridge the holding of benefices in plurality. Mr. Hawes brought in the Australian Colonies Bill. The House adjourned at a quarter past 12. TUESDAY, JUNE 12. The Speaker took the Chair at Four o'clock. Mr. F. O'Connor pos'poned his motion with respect to the Charter until the 3d of July. STATE OF THE NATION, Mr. Disraeli-I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall move that this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into con- sideration the state of the nation.-(A laugh, and cries of Hear, hear.") Sir De Lacy Evans gave notice that on an early day he should move that the suffrage be extended to all tax- payers. ARCTIC EXPEDITION -SIR JOHN FRANKLIN. Lord Palmerston laid on the table documents ill re- ference to this expedition. Sir. R. H. Inglis wished to make, a few observations. It was now four years ago since 138 of as gallant men as ever went forth on an expedition bad sailed for the purpose of exploring the North-West Passage. No in- telligence had been received with respect to them. Lady Franklin, on behalf of herself and child, had ad- dressed a beautiful letter to the President of the United States-a letter which, in beauty of language and senti- ment, could not be excelled by any which man or wo- man could address to another—and the result was that the Government of the United States had, in the most creditable manner, agreed to send but two expeditions. And Russia had also sent ships to the eastern coast of Asia in search of the adventurers. So also had this country And this had been done by other countries, I not for their personal aggrandisement, but on the purest grounds of humanity.—(Cheers.) Such acts would tend more than anything to promote a good feeling between the nations. Lord Palmerston fully coincided in the remarks of the Right Hon. Baronet. It was most gratifying to find other nations sending out ships after these enterprising navigators.—(Cheers.) Mr. Disraeli was glad that the sympAthj of this House- would reach the United States, since the-4exalted con- duct of the President of that Government confederacy was above all praise. Supto conduct was -indeed /worthy of the sacred cause in vthrw'h they nad engaged. Such, incidents would, in his opinion, and he was sure such would be the-opinion of the House and; the country, do more than arbitration schemes to promote that fraternal feeling among ?he nations which'They must all desire to see..  V3*: I niT ER x A Tlq: A L ARBl.TltA Tio; .1 Mr. Cobden then rose to:movo that art-liutnb* ad- dress be presented to h'e'r Majesty, pra ,-ig^ she-witl be graciously pleased to direct" her prTricipal -Seefetary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with foreign Powers,"inciting them to concur in trea- ties binding the respective parties, in the event of any future misunderstanding which cannot be arranged by amicable negotiation, to refer the matter in dispute to the decision of arbitrators.After presenting a mass of petitions, he began by expressing. his regret that there should be so much misapprehension even in that House upon the subject of his motion, and he referred to the "sneer" thrown out by Mr. Disraeli upon it, in the matter just brought before, the House, relative to the conduct of America and Russia towards our missing navigators, and he accepted their acts as a proof that we liied in altered times. With reference to this motion, he represented two distinct classes-a body of Christians who upon principle repudiated the doctrine of war in any case; and a large proportion of the middle and working classes, who entertained an. abhorrence of war, and desired a guarantee against future hostilities. He did not ask the House to pledge itself against war for defensive obiects; but he assumed that it would not sanction so great a calamity unless it was imperatively demanded in vindicating our honour and our just in- terests. His plan was to adopt for corpmunities the mode of adjustment resorted t.) by Individuals, by em- ploying arbitrators, not ¡¡e(}"'sarilJ('t'1""E'd heads,— who had, however, arbitrated successfully, but commis- sioners; and Mr. Cobden adduced instances in which, during the last 50 years, commissioners had been em- ployed to adjust disputes between nations, and in no instance had such arbitration Ud to war. There was, therefore, nothing visionary, nothing even novel, in his plan nor could t here be any difficulty in the details I f.) 'ir of nrocedufe which was habitual iu private "11' He of his plan was that it would fail a\orti!> war; Ú(I¡ t:I:) •. vent our situ- ation wO:1d be To \V¡)¡: "tnll bti;1g tl:i(:fd. j -=-=.=- Mr. Ewart, in a few words, seconded the motion. Mr. B. Cochrane opposed it, taunting Mr. Cohden with the falsification of some f his most confident prognobtications, and insisted upon identifying him with the Peace So-iety, notwithstanding Mr. Cobden's dis- claimer. He considered that this was the mot inap- propriate moment for such a motion, which was calcu- lated to bring ridicule upon the House. Lo- 1 R. Groswr.sr, without .1loV;n, ail the views of .\lr. C,deu, rccollec!ill the success which had at- tended Lord Ilardinge's scheme of arbitration in check- ing duelling, thought that the motion, if adopted, might, by influencing public opinion, suggest some scheme by which the great evil of war might be avoided. Mr. Cobden had proposed nothing impracticable, and if other nations found us sincere in our abhorrence of war, they might adopt the same views, and this would lead to great retrenchments. Mr. Mackinnon took a similar view of the motion, which he thought would do infinite good, and he gave it his cordial support. Colonel Thompson was instructed to support the motion, and he did so most heartily. Mr. Urquhart opposed the motion as utterly futile and absurd. Mr. Ilobhouse supported it, considering that wars had occurred through the very want of the arbitration proposed by Mr. Cobden. Nations often needed an honourable and a graceful reason for retreating from a contest. So moderate and practicable a scheme did not deserve to be treated with scorn, ridicule, and contempt. Distinguished as this country had been in war, it was the fittest to lead the way in the endeavour to establish a compact amongst nations for a better mode of accom- modating differences than that of force. Lord Palmerston assured Mr. Cobden that in opposing his motion he did not mean to treat him, or those whose organ he was, with anything but the greatest possible respect. He agreed with him in attaching the greatest value to peace, and in entertaining the utmost horror of war and he was glad that Mr. Cobden had made his proposition, because it would convince the world of our sincere and honest desire to maintain peace. But whilst it was desirable to show that in England there was a fervent love of peace, there should not exist an impression that the manly spirit of Englishmen was dead, and that England was not as ready as ever to re- pel injury and aggression, for nothing would be more dangerous than that an opinion should go abroad that so rooted was our aversion to war that we would submit to anything to avoid it. This was an answer to the complaint of Mr. Cobden against the provident precau- tions made against a possible war. He opposed the motion because he considered the plan to be founded upon an erroneous principle, and that it would be im- practicable. It was based upon an analogy between private life and the transactions of nations but amongst individuals there was some legal tribunal to enforce the award, which gave effect to arbitration and this essen- tial ingredient Mr. Cobden admitted was wanting in his plan for he had abandoned, or not proposed, what had been believed to be a part of his scheme, namely, a great tribunal, and he proposed that the arbitrators should consist, not of States or Sovereigns, but commis- sioners in private life. But, if Governments were asked to bind themselves to refer their disputes to a third party, the party must be named at the time, or when the dispute happened; the former course would not be agreed to, and the latter would be difficult. In the Maine boundary question it was most difficult to agree in the choice of an arbitrator, and, when chosen, Ame- rica refused to submit to his award. The plan would be cot only impracticable as respected foreign nations, but it would be dangerous for England to submit her rights to the final judgment of a foreign Power and his objection was not removed by the proposal to sub- stitute for a Government, which acted in the face of the world, some irresponsible private persons. The princi- ple of the plan was new, for Mr. Cobden had cited no cases of successful arbitration the cases he had ad- duced were cases of mediation or inapplicable to his argument. It was most desirable that where two na- tions differed they should come to an understanding to allow a friendly third party to step in and bring them to a compromise; and the present practice opened a door to this kind of mediation which was becoming frequent. He should be sorry to meet the motion in such a way as to appear to negative the principle upon which it was founded he would, therefore, meet it by moving the previous question, which, though not strictly appli- cable, was the most courteous mode of resisting the motion. Mr. M. Gibson undervalued the objections of Lord Palmerston, which afforded no answer to the motion. Mr. Roebuck had listened to no speech with more unmixed pleasure than to that of Lord Palmerston; but its conclusion was not worthy of its noble commence- ment. He (Mr. Roebuck) had no Utopian idea that the resolution would immediately extinguish war but it would have a solemn and beneficent effect upon other nations if this powerful country set them the example which the motion proposed, and induced them to avoid as much as possibe lthe necessity of an appeal to arms, and acknowledge that arbitration was a wise mode of settling disputes. Mr. Milnes adverted to the phenomenon exhibited by a debate upon such a subject in such an assembly but, with referrence to the situation of Europe, contended that this was not the peculiar moment when this pro- position, which in the abstract he approved of, could, as a practical measure, be proposed by the Foreign Secre- tary to other Governments. Mr. Hume, after the avowal of Lord Palmerston, that he had employed mediation to prevent war, was surprised that he should take the false step of refusing his assent to a motion the principle of which he admitted. He showed from example the advantage and facility of arbitration in international disputes, and he depicted in aggravated colours the results of war, which had added hundreds of millions to our debt. Lord J. Russell had hoped that the speech of Lord Palmerston had been so clear as to be liable to no mis- construction but this had not been the case. Some of the arguments urged in support of the motion were wide of the question. No one had maintained the para- dox, that war was not an evil; nor was it denied that it was desirable, either by negotiation or arbitration, to take means to prevent it. Lord Palmerston had shown that the Government did not require pressing in their efforts to preserve peace; and in most cases peace had been preserved, not by arbitration or mediation, but by the old method of negotiation, so that it was unneces- sary now to decide upon a new mode of adjustment; and that was what the meaning of the previous ques- tion implied. He did not think that Mr. Cobden's plan would afford a better means of preserving peace than the present mode, and he pointed out the many difficulties attending the devolution of all political dis- putes to arbitrators. The advance of civilization had mitigated the horrors of war, and he saw no reason why, in its further progress and development, war might not be stigmatized generally as barbarous; and, so far as related to the maintaining of peace by not pertinaciously insisting upon points in which our national honour was not involved, he agreed with the spirit of the motion. Captain Harris opposed the motion, and attributed to the mover and his party a design, which might be sincere, to denude the country of its defences. Mr. Cobden having replied, the House divided, when the previous question was carried by 176 against 79. Sir John Hobhouse had leave to bring in a Mutiny Bill for India. The Select Committee on Receivers, Courts of Chan- cery and Exchequer (Ireland) was nominated. The Highways (Annual Returns) Bill was read a third time, and passed. The House adjourned at half-past 12 o'clock. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13. I The Speaker took the chair at 12 o'clock. The Marquis of Worcester moved the second reading of the Cruelty to Animals Bill, which was only an im- provement of the act of 183-5, by rendering the owners of horses liable, as well as their servants, for the fines inflicted. Sir G. Grey supported the bill, but said he would move some. amendments in committee. The Bill was read a second time, and was ordered to be committed this day week. Mr. Hume moved the second reading of the County Rates and Expenditure Bill, the object of which was to correct the present mode of expenditure of the county ratps, and to place them in some measure upon the c lame footing as to management as were the borough rates throughout the kingdom. The hon. gentleman entered into a variety of details exhibiting the enormous increase, which had taken place in the county rates of late years, and contended for the necessity of placing them upon a better system, so as to give satisfaction to those who had to pay them. Mr. H. Drummond agreed with the hon. gentleman, that the county rates had been enormously increased, but the magistrates had no option in the case. Sir J. Pakington contended that the rate, which was both impracticable and objectionable, would not effect the object which its promoters had in view. At no period heretofore had the county expenditure been so closely looked after as it was at present by the county magistrates. He should therefore move, as an amend- ment, that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the expenditure of counties, with a view to ascer- tain if it could not be placed upon a better footing, as regarded its management, than that upon which it now rested. Mr. R. Palmer seconded the amendment. Mr. Heywood said the magistrates deserved great credit for the manner in which they had performed their duties, but the great body of ratepayers considered it a grievance that they had no voice in the expenditure. He would therefore vote in favour of the second reading of the bill. Sir G. Grey said, as Mr. Hume was ready after his bill should be read a second lime to refer it to a select committee, he could see but little difference between the two propositions before the house. Mr. Hume treated the amendment as an insidious attempt to shelve the bill, and said, to use a common expression, that he was "sold" by the government; but he called on all those who were favourable to the prin- ciple of representation to vote with him on the division. The house then divided, «r;d the numbers were— For the amendment 1 VI j Against it DS j Majority. 58 Mr. M. Gibson proposed an amendment to the amendment (now become the oiiginnl motion), the ob- ipet of which was that the select committee should con- • ,>n prnpriPty or introducing the principle of re 11 r' r~° r.r>yr>rs. i Mr. B. Denison ù:d not fhiiik the amendment of the .right hon. gentleman objectionable, though he feared it would be diiffcult practically to carry it into e'^ect- Mr. Ilrfrtie was-glad to Dud the hou. gr.ntleman was favourable to the principle of representation. Mr. Disraeli objected "to referring to a select commit- tee' the question of representation, wiiuh should be a question entirely for the consideration of the house. It was a constitutional question, upon which the house should be prepared to enter without the preliminary labours of a select committee. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. gentleman would not persevere in his amendment. Mr. Roebuck animadverted on the course pursued by the government in voting against the second reading of a bill in the principle of which they concurred. Sir G. Grey defended the course he had pursued as the proper one, considering that he had objected to many of the details of the bill. He did not object to the amendment of his right hon. friend (Mr. M. Gibson). After some observations Mr. Henley in the absence of strangers, was understood to have moved the ad- journment of the debate. Mr. Disraeli said the question of representation should be submitted to the ordeal of a discussion in the house, and should not be entrusted to the investigation of a committee. After some observations from the Attorney General, The house divided upon the question of adjournment and the numbers were— For the adjournment. 83 Against it 131 Majority —48 Lord Brooke then moved that the house do now ad- journ." Mr. Christopher seconded the motion. Mr. Hume said the object was evidently to defeat the amendment of Mr. Gibson by delay. It would be a more manly course for the country gentlemen to come forward and avow their hostility to allowing any control but their own over the county expenditure. Sir J. Pakington said, Mr. Hume was himself wasting their precious moments. Mr. B. Denison was addressing the house when, six o'clock having arrived, the Speaker left the chair, and the House broke up amidst considerable laughter. THE NATIONAL SoctETY.—The annual general meet- ing of the members of this.society was held at the Cen- tral School-house, Sapctua/y, Westminster, on Wednes- day. The discussion which has been for some months past going on with reference to the management clauses, and the proceedings of the Committee on Education generally, rendered the meeting one of unusual impor- tance. The Archbishop of Canterbury presided, and was supported by a numerous body of the nobility and clergy. After the report had been read, the Rev. G. A. Denison moved a resolution, deprecating the compul- sory imposition of any management clauses whatever as the condition of state assistance. Archdeacon Allen moved, as an amendment, that the committee of the National Society be requested to urge upon the Lords Commissioners of the Council of Education the desira- bleness of allowing the promoters of church schools to leave the appeal on all matters to the bishop of the dio- cese, whenever three-fourths of the promoters shall express in writing their desire to do so. A lengthened discussion ensued upon this, and ultimately Mr. Denison withdrew his motion, and Archdeacon Allen's amend. ment being almost unanimously rejected, one proposed by Archdeacon Manning was carried, being as follows —" That this meeting acknowledges the care and atten- tion of the committee in conducting the correspondence with the committee of council, and regrets that a satis- factory conclusion has not yet been arrived at; that while this meeting desires fully to co-operate with the state in promoting the education of the people, it is under the necessity of declaring that no terms of union can be satisfactory which shall not allow the clergy and laity full freedom to constitute schools upon such prin- ciples and models as have been approved by the Church of England and that whenever it shall be desired, the schools should be placed under the superintendence of the clergy, an appeal being allowed to the bishop of the diocese." The proceedings lasted upwards of eight hours. The Atlas makes the following remarks respecting this meeting The National Society of Education have had one of the usual discussions. Mr. Denison made a motion, to the effect that the society would, on behalf of the Church, receive no State grants, unless the Church dispose of them in her own way; and Arch- deacon Manning moved an amendment, that no terms of co-operation can be satisfactory which are not based on principles sanctioned by the Church of England;" which very unobjectionable principle was carried by a large majority. The Committee of Education insist on the appointment of laymen, under certain regulations, to assist in the management of those schools to which they grant money. This regulation offends most grievously a large party in the National Society, who pocket the money, nevertheless, but abuse the donors, and take every opportunity of protesting against the conditions under which they dispense their bounty. Did the evil stop here, we should be apt to tell Mr. Denison and his friends to protest and go about their business." But this determined opposition to the secu- lar part of the education of the poor will have the effect of disgusting an influential portion of society with Church Education altogether. It is all very well to talk about the old usages of the Church of England. The duties of education have been so materially altered of late years, that old usages of any kind must yield to the re- quirements of the day. No man, unbiassfd by the most violent Church prejudices will refuse to acknowledge that the variety of employment of the poor, and the immense progress in the style of working both in town and country, give to secular instruction for the lower classes an importance, nay, a necessity, which it never possessed before. But Mr. Denison will have nothing but clerical instruction and old usages. No matter if the children educated under his system starve in after life through the competition of more educated workmen— they will, at least, have been educated in the principles of the Church of England according to Mr. Denison- though it is ten to one but want in the end will make thieves and vagabonds. It is our high sense of the im- portance of the Church to education which induces us to notice in any way Mr. Denison's ravings. As the guide and leader of secular education, the Church is in- valuable-as the master of secular education, it is by itself worse than useless. Our only fear is that if it will persist in claiming what it will never get, it will be driven out altogether from its high and most useful position, as the general engine of education throughout the country. i A DISQUISITION ON NAMES.—On Thursday in the Court of Common Pleas the case of Kinnersley r. Knott was heard.—The plaintiff, an indorser of a bill of ex- change for £65 los., brought an action against the defendant as acceptor by the name of John M. Knott," being that by which he had signed the note. The de- fendant demurred on the ground that the declaration had not properly set forth his Christian name, nor as- signed reason for not doing so.—-Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, 'l on behalf of the defendant, said their lordships were [ often told that a case rested on a word, but here it rested on a letter only- The Court had decided that the letter I," being a vowel and capable of pronunci- ation, might be taken to be a Christian name, but they had at the same time intimated that such would not be the case with the consonant, which, as it could not be sounded alone, would be deemed to be not a name, but an initial letter only. Now in this case M" was plainly an initial letter, for it could not be pronounced by itself. Standing by itself, therefore, it meant nothing. As used in the present action, it did mean something, which something ought to have been stated or explained under the statute. Suppose a person of the name of John Robins, the Court would hold a declaration bad, which described him by the word John and figures of the redbreast. In like manner the Court would hold this declaration bad, because it either put a sign for one of the defendant's names, or described it by the initial letter. A consonant by itself was a mere sound without meaning. The letter H, indeed, by the custom of London and some other places, was no sound at all—(laughter)—though elsewhere it often protruded itself on all occasions.—Mr. Jus- tice Maule: I had a policeman before me as a wit- ness the other day, who told me he belonged to the li hen" division, and it was not until some further stage in the cause that I discovered it was not a division de- signated by the name of a bird, but by N- the alpha- betical letter. (Great laughter.)—>Mr» Serjeant Talfourd It will, probably, be contended that cthis person might have been christened in the manned the fcrfll is signed, but I submit that the Court will not assume that. It is trur. we often hear of absurd Christian names, and I myself remember when many persons insisted upon having their children christened "Sir Francis Burdett." but having, I hope, convinced the Court that M by itself cannot be a name, and means nothing. I submit it must be understood as an initial, and, therefore, that it ought to have been so stated. Mr. F. Robinsftii, on behalf of the plaintiff, said it was assumed that the M." in the name John M. Knott," was an initial letter, but he believed there were instances in which persons had been christened in this remarkable way. He was told there was lately a bank director who was christened "Edmund R. Robinson;" but were it other- wise in this country, did it follow that in no other coun- try, Jew, Turk, or heathen might not use such names ? Such a name might originate from an error of the cler- gyman at the christening. There are many Scotch and French names, such as M'Donald, M'Taggart, D'Har- court, D'Horsey—how are such names to be set out in the pleading ? Suppose, again, a man's name were the name of a river, as X ?—Mr. Justice Maule But that is not spelt so; it is idem per idem, X for ex. Beer, I believe, is sometimes called X, but not water. (Laugh- ter.)-illr. Robinson There are some of our names which are precisely those of letters, as Gee, Jay, K u-, &c.—Mr. Justice Maule: But here it is not sonans, only consonans, and cannot be sounded without other letters.—Mr. Robinson Their lordships should remem- ber the existence of a publication called the Fonetic Nxiz, and unless they meant to give a "heavy bloiv and great discouragement" to that rising science, he hoped I they would not decide against his client. (Laughter)— Mr. Justice Maule sugesfed that as 165 10-1. depended upon the question, it would be better for vhintiff to amend. Mr. Robinson, however, declined.-Tlie Lord Chief Justice The Courts hav<> decided that they will not assume that a consonant letter expresses ;• name, but they will assume it expresses a-ti initial only mid thev hare further decided that the insertion of an-initial letter instead of a name is ground of demurrer, and is not merely an irregularity. I tliink -.ve niti,:zt (leci(ie ill favour of the demurrer. The other judges ooi;uri ing, judgment was given for the defendant.