as upon principle, that they formed part of funds for the
endowment of an established church. With regard to
the proposition of Dr. Phillimore, he should not object
to the introduction of the bill, though, as at present
advised, he could not consent to its passing into a law.
The evils of church-rates, he thought, had been very
much exaggerated; still it was desirable that questions
connected with these rates should be decided without
the delay and cost now attending them, and which
could be done without infringing the general law, as
soon as that law had been determined in the House of
Lords in the pending "Braintree case." The churches
generally throughout the country were not edifices
originally intended for a single sect, or a majority only
of the community, but for the nation at large, and it
would be a national shame and disgrace if the cost of their
repairs were cast upon a portion of the community, or
they were left to fall into ruin. He would rather,
therefore, that the law should remain as it then was
than adopt either of the proposed remedies in the shape
they were proposed; and he warned the house not to
sanction the doctrines involved in the proposition of
Sir W. Clay.—Mr. BRIGHT accused Lord John Russell
of inconsistency; and, with regard to Dr. Phillimore's
plan, he admitted that it was open to very serious
objections. He was of opinion, however, that provision
might be made for the repair of churches out of church
property. The question of church-rates, if the house
chose to grapple with it, was very simple; if a bill
were passed merely abolishing those rates, without any
other provision, sufficient sums, in his opinion, would be
raised by voluntary contributions in every parish for the
repair of the fabric of the church.—After a reply by
Dr. PHILLIMORE, upon a division both motions were
negatived; the amendment by 207 to 185, and the
original motion by 220 to 172.

On Friday, May 27, Mr. DISRAELI put questions to
the government respecting the state of our Relations
with the Ottoman Porte. He inquired first, whether
the English and French ambassadors at Constantinople
were at the present moment acting in concert; and,
secondly, whether her Majesty's government could
communicate to the house the scope and tendency of the
instructions they were fulfilling together.—Lord J.
RUSSELL said that the English government had been
informed by that of Russia, that the Emperor had
thought it necessary to send a special ambassador to
Constantinople to obtain a confirmation of certain
concessions heretofore made by the Porte to the Greek
church with reference to the holy places at Jerusalem,
and some security that those concessions should not be
withdrawn; the nature of the securities not being
stated. On the arrival of the Russian ambassador at
Constantinople circumstances occurred which created
some uneasiness in the mind of the Grand Vizier, who
applied to Colonel Rose, acting in the absence of Lord
Stratford, our ambassador at the Porte, to procure the
presence of an English fleet in the Dardanelles, and
Colonel Rose sent a steamer with a despatch to Admiral
Dundas, at Malta, who forwarded the despatch to
England, determining to wait the orders of her Majesty's
government. In the meanwhile Colonel Rose was
informed by the Grand Vizier that there was no necessity
for the English fleet to leave Malta. The negotiations
proceeded; Lord Stratford lent his assistance to enable
Prince Menschikoff to obtain from the Turkish government
declarations and acts which were considered
sufficient, and it was hoped that the matter was settled,
and that the mission of the Prince Menschikoff would
terminate favourably. But it appeared that further
proposals were made by the Prince, which, although in
the estimation of the Prussian government were no more
than necessary to secure the fulfilment of the declarations
made by the Porte, in the opinion of the Turkish
government, as well as in the opinion of her Majesty's
ambassador and that of the ambassador of the Emperor
of the French, were of such a nature as to endanger the
independence of the Porte. His answers to the questions
were, that the most perfect confidence and accordance
subsisted between her Majesty's ambassador at
Constantinople and the ambassador of the Emperor of the
French, who took the same view of the Russian
proposals: that in the present state of the negotiations it
would not consist with the good of the public service to
produce the instructions upon which Lord Stratford
acted; but that the policy which dictated them was
that of maintaining inviolate the faith of treaties and the
independence of Turkey.

The house went again into committee upon the
Income-tax Bill. On the 26th clause, Mr. J. BUTT
moved to exempt precarious incomes under £150 a year,
and clerical incomes.—The CHANCELLOR OF THE
EXCHEQUER objected that the alteration would introduce
the principle of investigating the sources of income, and
embarrass the measure with difficulties which it was
intended to avoid. The proposed amendment was
negatived upon a division.

The Registration of Assurance Bill was, after a short
conversation, read a second time, and referred to a select
committee, with power to call for evidence.

In a committee of ways and means, a Vote of
£4,000,000 was Granted to her Majesty, out of the
consolidated fund.

On Monday, May 30, the house went into committee
on the Customs Acts. Mr. T. BARING protested against
the principle of abolishing duties simply because they
were insignificant in amount; he considered that duties
should be remitted only on the ground of relieving the
consumer, increasing trade, or economising the collection
of the revenue.—Mr. DISRAELI was of a similar opinion.
He believed it to be an unwise policy to aim at indiscriminate
reduction, a moderate and general system of
customs duties being, in his opinion, the best means of
benefiting the revenue, without the infliction of any
special burdens.—Lord J. MANNERS urged some illustrative
arguments on the same side, which were answered by
Mr. CARDWELL, who defended the policy of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, charged Mr. Disraeli with
inconsistency, and reminded Lord John Manners that
although the cost of collection had not diminished with
the reduction in customs duties, the number of articles
passing through the custom-house had considerably
increased.—With regard to that portion relating to tea,
a discussion arose, in consequence of some remarks made
by Mr. Disraeli, who considered that recent events in
China rendered it desirable that an opportunity should
be given for a more deliberate discussion. Ultimately
the resolutions were agreed to.

On Tuesday, May 31, the Report of the Committee on
the Customs Acts was brought up and agreed to.

Mr. George Henry MOORE moved for a select
committee to inquire into the Ecclesiastical Revenues of
Ireland, with a view of ascertaining how far they are
made applicable to the benefit of the Irish people. The
grievance he called on them to consider was no new one;
it has tormented the legislature almost as much as the
people who have endured it. It was the fashion to call
the Irish loyal, but they are not loyaL If a fight took
place off the Irish coast between an English and an
American ship, a very large majority of the lookers-on
would wish the Americans to win. That state of feeling
is an imperial danger; and its cause is to be found in the
religious policy of England towards Ireland, a policy
condemned by all authorities among English statesmen.
He maintained that the Church revenues are a fund set
apart by public authority for a public purpose, and not a
tax paid by the Protestant owners of land, or by the
people, to a minority. Those revenues were set apart
for the education of the people and the maintenance of
religion, and they ought not to be diverted from their
original purposes. The proportion of Catholics to
Protestants was still as five to one; and yet revenues which,
by proper management, might be made to yield a million
a year were given to the minority. But the policy of
England was even more evil in principle than destructive
in practice; for it contained the evils both of the voluntary
and the endowment principles—endowing the
religion of the rich, and handing over the religion of the
poor to the voluntary principle. Mr. Gladstone had
defended the establishment in Ireland, on the ground
that Ireland was an integral portion of the British
empire, and that Protestantism was the religion of the
great majority of the people: but if this were a sound
argument, why not pay for this imperial church out of
the imperial revenue? The case of Scotland, too, which
was also an integral part of the United Kingdom, but