PASSING TOLLS-QUESTION. On the Question, That the House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday next," MR. HUDSON said, he wished to draw attention to the grievance pressing on the shipping interest with reference to Passing Tolls. Years ago a pledge had been given for the repeal of those tolls; the pledge had been repeated again and again, and Bills on the subject had been brought in unsuccessfully. He now asked whether it is intended to bring in a Bill on the subject this Session, and whether the Government mean to deal with the whole question of local dues? Another matter of importance was that of pilotage, as to which many ports laboured under great difficulties. There was another question, also, which he wished to ask relative to the abolition of the duties on timber, on which abortive pledges had been given. Did the Government mean to bring in this Session any Bill on the subject of passing tolls, and also for the regulation of the appointment of pilots? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that the subject of passing tolls was one which was in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lowe). The hon. Member for Sunderland not having given notice of his question, his right hon. Friend was not in his place to reply to it, but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might observe that the state of public business was such as to render it improbable that any measure upon the subject would be speedily introduced. Motion agreed to. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, in reply, that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Police Bill for Scotland during the present Session. CIVIL SERVICE-QUESTION. MR. BASS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the course pursued when candidates for employment in the Civil Service are nominated by Members of Parliament; whether a candidate so nominated is necessarily admitted to examination; whether there is any competition for employment in the Civil Service, and whether, in fact, with the exception of a simple examination as to the ordinary qualifications for office, the old system of patronage and favouritism did not still remain in force? He had been induced to put these questions in order to remove all uncertainty with respect to the subject to which they related. That such uncertainty now existed he was convinced, from the number of letters which had been addressed to him, stating that a general impression prevailed throughout the country that if a Member of Parliament were to recommend a candidate for an appointment he was not subjected to examination, and that, in fact, there was no competition. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER said, the impression which his hon. Friend had described as prevailing out of doors was entirely erroneous, as Members of Parliament possessed no right to nominate candidates for public situations which was not enjoyed in an equal degree by every other member of the community. House at its rising to adjourn till All the regulations which existed upon. Thursday next. PUBLIC BUSINESS-MOTION. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, he would now move that on Thursday, the 18th of June, and upon every succeeding Thursday during the present Session, Government Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion. Ordered, "That upon Thursday, the 18th June next, and upon every succeeding Thursday during the present Session, Government Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motions." POLICE BILL (SCOTLAND)—QUESTION. MR. MACKIE asked the Lord Advocate if it is his intention to introduce a Police Bill for Scotland during this Session? He the subject were embodied in an Order sons. VISCOUNT GODERICH said, he would take that opportunity of giving notice that upon the Motion for going into Committee upon the Civil Service Estimates he should bring the subject to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Bass) had called their attention under the consideration of the House. CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT. QUESTION. MR. CROSS asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to extend the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, to Municipal Elections? He believed that Act had been found to work very well throughout the country. cretion, and he might add that the com- | public of Honduras, the other with the petition was not unlimited, but existed Government of the United States. The between a certain limited number of per- object of the treaty which we entered into with Honduras was, among other things, the cession to her of what are called the Bay Islands-namely, Ruatan, Bonacca, and two or three other smaller islands. Those islands were, under the provisions of the treaty, ceded to Honduras upon certain conditions which Her Majesty's Government deemed it to be necessary to impose for the security and well-being of such British settlers as had property within them. The treaty also provides that the islands in question should not be allowed to fall into the possession of any great maritime Power; that no fortifications should be erected upon them, but that they should continue to be-that which they hitherto have been-inoffensive and non-military stations. The treaty which we concluded with the United States divides itself into two distinct parts. The first part contains the articles of the treaty which Great Britain and the United States were to propose to Nicaragua and Costa Rica for the purpose of settling the differences which have arisen between the Spanish American States in Central America and for the future regulation of the condition of the Mosquito Indians and Greytown. That was one part of the treaty. It contained articles which the two Powers were to propose to those Central American States-as a treaty to be concluded between those States and England and America. The other part of the treaty contained the conditions of certain engagements between England and the United States, and one of these articles was to this effect-that whereas a Convention had been concluded between Great Britain and Honduras whereby, on certain conditions, the Bay Islands had been ceded to Honduras, Great Britain and the United States engaged henceforward to acknowledge those islands as part of the territory and sovereignty of Honduras. This treaty was signed by my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department (the Earl of Clarendon) and Mr. Dallas, the American Minister here. This treaty was sent to Honduras and Washington respectively for the ratification of those Governments. We have not yet SIR GEORGE GREY said, it was not the intention of the Government to propose the extension of the Act to Municipal Elections. It was a measure of a temporary character, and, although the hon. Gentleman had said that it had worked well, it had been deemed expedient last Session to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into its operation. That Committee had not been reappointed in the present Session, and for the very good reason that perhaps the best test of the working of the Act would be obtained from the inquiries which were about to take place before the Election Committees upstairs. HONDURAS-QUESTION. MR. DISRAELI: I rise, Sir, to make inquiry of Her Majesty's Government as to the reasons for the non-ratification of the treaty between Her Majesty and the Government of the United States about Honduras. I should be glad if the noble Lord at the head of the Government could state to the House the reasons why that treaty has not been ratified, and I should wish that he would also inform us as to the present state of the negotiations, and whether papers will be laid before Parlia ment. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman I have to state that in the course of last summer two treaties were concluded by Her Majesty's Government-the one with the Re received an official notice from Honduras whether the treaty to which I have alluded has been ratified or not by the Government of Honduras. We have, indeed, heard privately that some technical difficulties have prevented its ratification, but we have no official information on the subject. The treaty with the United States was referred, as a matter of course, to the Senate. The Senate proposed several alterations in that treaty. Some of those alterations were of considerable importance, and one was of very great importance. The treaty so amended was sent back to this country with the ratification of the Government of the United States, and we were asked to accede to that ratification and adopt those alterations. Now, of course, the Senate of the United States have an undoubted right to modify and alter any treaty with which they are not satisfied, and which, not having been ratified, may become the subject of discussion. But the ratification of a treaty by a sovereign Power means that that sovereign Power adopts and ratifies by its signature the engagements taken in its behalf by authorized diplomatic agents; and to ratify a treaty which, having been altered by another Power, is no longer the treaty that was concluded by an authorized diplomatic agent would be against all rule and against all the principles of diplomatic usage. Therefore, even if the British Government agreed to adopt the alterations made in the treaty by the Senate after the signature of the representative of the United States, it would be necessary that a fresh treaty should be concluded, adopting and embodying those changes, and that this new treaty should be ratified by the sovereign Powers of the two countries. There were several changes made in the treaty, none of them, as I have stated, unimportant; but, nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government being desirous of not raising unnecessary difficulties upon a question which it was highly desirable should be settled, waived their objections to all but one, and that was a change made not in the treaty which the two Governments proposed to Nicaragua and Costa Rica, but in the recital of that treaty. There were alterations in that draught of the treaty-if I may so call it which was embodied in the Convention with the United States. They were far from unimportant, yet we were prepared to adopt them. But in the other articles which were agreed to be directly contracted between the United States and Great Britain there was an alteration which I will mention. The article relating to the Bay Islands contained, as I have stated, the recital of a Convention between Great Britain and Honduras for the ces The Senate of the United States proposed to omit all reference to the Convention between Great Britain and Honduras, and that the article should simply stand that England and the United States acknowledged these islands as part of the territory of Honduras. Now, the obvious effect would have been, by implication, and, indeed, directly, that we were making an unconditional cession of these islands to Honduras divested of those steps which we thought necessary for the protection of the colony and the well-being and future political interests of the country. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, expressed their regret that they could not adopt that alteration, but they proposed an addition to the article as it was amended by the United States, which would have made the cession of these islands conclusive only upon the acceptance by Honduras of the conditions and stipulations we proposed. That proposal was sent to the United States, and the matter is still under negotiation. Therefore, with respect both to this treaty and to the treaty with Honduras, it is not in my power, according to the established practice, to lay these papers before the House. If, unfortunately, these negotiations do not turn out successful, it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to lay before the House the grounds of the stand which they have thought proper to make. If, on the other hand, the negotiations are successful and the treaty should be ratified and signed in the form which the interests of this country require, then the House will probably be content with the treaty without inquiring into the differences between the two countries. MR. DISRAELI: I wish to know whether the alterations made in the treaty were not communicated to our representative at Washington, and whether an announcement of those alterations was not received from him before the treaty was ratified and sent to this country? VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I do not quite comprehend the right hon. Gentleman's question. MR. DISRAELI: My question is, whe ther the alterations which Her Majesty's Government could not accede to were not communicated to our Representative at Washington, and whether an answer to the alterations of which the noble Lord complains was not sent out before the treaty was sent over here for the ratification of Her Majesty's Government? like to see a Queen Consort of England placed in that position; and he felt confident there would be a strong feeling, especially among the middle classes of this country, against an annual payment to the Queen Consort of an independent nation. Such a continued payment would be a constant source of irritation in the country, and candidates on the hustings would be asked whether they concurred in it, or would propose its repeal. Some illustration on this point was afforded by the case of the King of Belgium, who, it was well known, did not apply to his own personal use the sum he received as VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I might take exception to the word "complains." We made no complaint. [Mr. DISRAELI: Well, "objects."] The Senate of the United States had a right to make what alterations they pleased in the treaty if they thought it not fit to be agreed to. No doubt the probability of some alterations having been the husband of the Princess being made in the treaty by the Senate was communicated by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington. That anticipation arrived before the treaty, but the answer of Her Majesty's Government was founded on the official communicatiou of the result of the deliberations of the Senate of the United States. PRINCESS ROYAL'S ANNUITY BILL. COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Charlotte. Yet candidates at elections had been questioned in regard to that pension and a strong feeling had been expressed at the hustings against the sovereign of a foreign country deriving anything from the Exchequer of England. For this reason he thought the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was right when he proposed the payment of a capital sum instead of an annuity. He (Mr. Bowyer) was aware that precedents might be cited against him. His answer was that precedents drawn from things done in the reigns of George II. and George III., under unreMR. BOWYER, who had given notice formed Parliaments, ought not to be bindthat he should move to add an Amending upon them. Indeed, such precedents ment to Clause 1, said, that the reasons rather resembled the lighthouse placed on both for and against his Amendment were a rock to warn people off than the signso obvious that it would be best to introduce it briefly. He need scarcely say that he participated in those feelings of affectionate loyalty which pervaded not only that House but all classes of this country. Indeed, when he looked back to the history of this country up to the time of the Norman Conquest, he did not find amongst the long line of princes who had filled the Throne a better sovereign than Her Majesty the Queen. But these feelings, however laudable and just, ought not to influence the House in deciding a matter like the present. It seemed to him that all the reasons in favour of this provision for the Princess Royal, however just they might be under present circumstances, did not apply to the event of Her Royal Highness becoming Queen Consort of Prussia. It was most desirable for the honour of the Prussian Crown that the Queen Consort of Prussia should not be in the receipt of a pension from a foreign State. He was sure that we should not post which pointed the way they should go. His Amendment, which had been slightly altered since he put it on the paper, was that the annuity to the Princess Royal should be suspended during the time she might be Queen Consort of Prussia. But looking to the possible contingency, which he trusted would not occur, of her becoming a widow, he proposed that in the event of her Royal Highness surviving her intended husband, after he had been King of Prussia, her allowance should revive, and its payment be resumed. His reason was this: on becoming a widow her Royal Highness would very probably return to her own country. At any rate she would be regarded more as an English than a foreign princess. In this shape he believed his proposal would be more favourably received by many hon. Members than if it made the annuity entirely to cease from the date of the Princess Royal becoming Queen Consort of Prussia. The hon. Gen THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said: I will endeavour to follow the example of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk by addressing the House very briefly; and I can hardly think that any very elaborate argument is needed to convince them of the propriety of rejecting the Amendment which he has proposed. I could understand any hon. Member of this House objecting that the whole proposition of the Government respecting the provision for the Princess Royal was excessive and extravagant; that, looking to the compact made between the Queen and the country at Her Majesty's accession, it is Her duty to provide for Her children; and that this House ought not to be called upon to vote anything for the dowry of Her eldest daughter. I could comprehend, I say, an hon. Gentleman taking that course, and putting an entire negative on the proposition of Her Majesty's Government; but I confess I cannot appreciate the merit of such counter Motions as have been submitted to the House —such minute, such "nibbling" Motions (if I may be allowed the word), first reducing the annuity of Her Royal Highness from £8,000 to £6,000 per annum, and then crowning this species of propositions by the singular Amendment at present under discussion. The hon. and learned Member has now made his Motion smaller and more diminutive than the one of which he originally gave notice. The notice he gave at the outset was to put an end to the annuity if the Princess Royal should become Queen Consort of Prussia. now amends his Amendment, and converts this into a sort of shifting or springing annuity, to be paid as long as she remains the consort of the son of the Prince of Prussia. She would continue, I presume, to enjoy this allowance if her father-in-law should succeed to the throne, and if she became consort of the heir apparent. Should she, however, become Queen Consort of Prussia, she is to be deprived of her annuity! But the hon. Gentleman He hopes that she may die during the life of her husband. [Mr. BOWYER: No, no!] He wished her, as I understood him, to be short-lived, in the hope that she might not survive her husband; but in the event of the unfortunate calamity of her being blessed with longevity, her allowance is to revive-this grant is to spring up again, and she is to be entitled to £8,000 a year. I do not believe that an arrangement of that sort would redound to the credit of this country. For myself I would far rather agree that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, and give up the arrangement altogether. What should we think of the person who proposed such an arrangement in private life? Would anybody really propose, on the marriage of a lady to the heir of a fortune or a landed estate, that she should enjoy a certain annuity till her father-inlaw died-that, on her husband succeeding to the estate, she should be deprived of that annuity; but in the event of her becoming a widow, that the allowance should again come in force? Such a settlement would not be deemed very honourable to those who framed it; and I cannot think it is the wish of this House that if the Princess Royal forms an alliance with the presumptive heir of Prussia-a marriage higher perhaps in rank than any contracted by a Princess of this kingdom for many years past-she should be placed, if her husband succeeds to the throne, in a situation of entire dependence on the bounty of the Royal Family of Prussia, and that no contribution should be made by the country of her birth to maintain her dignity and support the exalted position she will have to occupy. Without considering what is due to the honour of the Crown, I cannot but believe that even the national pride of this country would prevent the House from acceding to a Motion such as the hon. and learned Member has invited us to sanction. I therefore trust it will not receive the countenance of hon. Gentlemen, but will be negatived by a large majority. MR. W. WILLIAMS said, that having himself given notice of a Motion similar to the present, he should cordially support the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal. He was not a little surprized to find Her Majesty's Government opposing so reasonable a Motion. What, he should like to know, could be the feeling of a King of Prussia who could allow his Queen to be a pensioner paid out of the taxes extracted from the people of England? A man of |