hoped that the noble Lord opposite would not consider him pertinacious or troublesome, if he again ventured to request some information from him on the subject of the expiration of the patent held by the Queen's printer in Scotland. On a former occasion, the noble Lord told him what the Government did not intend to do. The noble Lord stated, that it was not intended to renew the patent, or to give the exclusive power of printing the Bible in. Scotland to any corporate body, which might derive a profit from that exclusive privilege, and avail themselves of it to enhance the price. The noble Lord said also, that at the same time measures would be taken which should insure the authenticity of all copies of the Bible hereafter to be printed in Scotland. If, in order to carry this object into effect, the noble Lord intended to proceed by a legislative measure, ample opportunity would be afforded for the discussion of its details; but he believed, that an opinion was entertained that precautionary measures might be taken, without the intervention of Parliament. If so, he hoped, as the people of Scotland regarded this question with much interest, that he might be excused for saying, that they would be glad if the noble Lord would give them an outline of those precautionary measures.

said, that the right hon. Baronet had correctly stated what had passed on the former occasion. It was not intended to give to any individual, or to any corporation, the right of printing the Bible, or to grant any monopoly which would enhance the price. The right hon. Baronet was perfectly justified in asking what precautions were proposed on the part of the Crown, to prevent the chance of error. It was proposed to incorporate a limited number of persons—say five, to whom would be granted the exclusive right of printing and publishing the Bible. One of these was to be the Moderator of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, two others were to be divines of the Church of Scotland, and two others were to be laymen, but members of the Church of Scotland; and if any larger number than five should constitute the board, it would still be constituted on the same principle. It was proposed, that this board should have the exclusive right of printing and publishing the Bible, upon condition of allowing the free importation of the authorised version of the Bible, printed by authority in England. Another condition was, that the board should have power to grant an imprimatur for Bibles to be published by certain publishers, but that such liberty should not be granted, unless the board appointed correctors of the press, or unless some person was appointed by the board to supervise the Bibles so printed, and see that the version was correct. With these limitations, it was proposed generally, that no preference should be given to particular publishers, but the publishers must, in addition, enter into an agreement, by bond, to pay any costs that might ensue from a failure in the performance of any one of the conditions, or the costs occasioned by any in- correct version which might be circulated in consequence of the imprimatur granted to them. In case of any pirating any former edition of the Bible, it would be competent to the board to proceed by injunction, and to prevent such unauthorized and fraudulent publications. The mode by which this plan was to be carried out was jure coronœ—it was to be done by the power possessed by the Crown, under which, by the well-known judgment of Lord Lyndhurst, the Crown might grant a right to persons to print the Bible, and under which it was competent to proceed by injunction, to prevent any fraudulent or unauthorised publication. The right hon. Baronet had also asked whether it was proposed to proceed by statute during the present Session. He (Lord John Russell) had consulted his right hon. and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, and he had also taken the opinion of his hon. Friend the Attorney-general, and they were of opinion that it was not necessary to proceed by statute, but that the Crown had the authority requisite to insist on all the conditions necessary for the purpose. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman would understand, that it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose any bill, as they were of opinion the present authority of the Crown was sufficient for the purpose. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman required it, he (Lord J. Russell) would furnish him, in writing, with a copy of the exact conditions which were proposed, that he might consult those who were interested in the subject. The intention was not to enhance the price of the Scriptures to the people of Scotland, but, at the same time, to secure the perfect accuracy of the text.

thanked the noble Lord for the candour and fairness with which he had made this statement. It would be irregular for him to express any opinion upon the merits of the plan, and he should therefore not do so. Nothing could be fairer than the noble Lord's proposition to give him, in writing, a detailed statement of the conditions under which the proposed privilege was to be conferred. He should be able to communicate this to the authorities in Scotland, and he would then let the noble Lord know, whether it was satisfactory to them.

wished to call the attention of the House to the fact, that some days ago he presented a petition from Mr. Samuel Wells, a barrister, relative to the financial affairs of this country, which, upon his motion, was ordered to be printed, but that had not been done.

begged to move, that the petition be ordered to be printed forthwith.

said, the hon. Member for Coventry had stated no reason why the petition should be printed, nor had he intimated that it was his intention to bring forward any motion founded upon the petition. He could not think, that it would be wise for the House to order petitions of this kind to be printed at the public expense. When grievances were complained of, the House was bound to give every facility to the printing of petitions, if motions were to be founded upon them; but it could not be proper for the House to order financial pamphlets to be printed at the expense of the public. This petition made suggestions relative to the management of the revenue, and complained of no grievance; he thought it would be highly improper for the House to sanction the printing of such a document. In his opinion, it ought to have been forwarded, not to the House, but to-the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, that when he presented the petition he had distinctly stated, that he would call the attention of the House to the statements which it contained on Tuesday next.

agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite, that there was a wide distinction to be made between petitions complaining of actual grievances and petitions presented merely for the purpose of giving publicity to the theories of private individuals. He thought it would be highly improper to order the publication of petitions which could only be considered as the speeches of individuals who, from not being Members of Parliament, were unable to state their views and opinions personally in that House. If the petition alluded to came under that description, it certainly would not be proper to order it to be printed at the public expense.

contended, that it was not a speech, but a petition on a subject of the highest importance, and containing matter well deserving the attention of the House.

said, that when the hon. Member for Coventry presented the petition he had given notice, that it was his intention, on a subsequent day, to call the attention of the House to the statements which it contained. The hon. Member had then moved, that the petition be printed, and to that motion the House at the time assented. The committee on petitions had, however, refused to order the printing of the petition, and the question now was, whether the order of the House should be discharged. The order having once been made, must be complied with, unless rescinded.

would move that the order be now discharged.

hoped the hon. Baronet would state some reason in justification of that motion. He believed, if the hon. Baronet would read the petition, he would find, that it related to matters worthy of the gravest consideration, and that it contained a statement of facts founded upon Acts of Parliament. If there was anything disrespectful to the House in the petition, or anything improper, he should be glad to have it pointed out. He knew Mr. Wells to be a most respectable person, who had devoted much of his time to the subject of finance, and, as he intended to call the attention of the House to the petition he had presented, he trusted the hon. Baronet would withdraw his motion.

believed, that the hon. Baronet opposite had no intention to read the petition himself, and that he was inclined to prevent every other person from reading it. He had no doubt that it contained matter worthy of the most serious consideration, for Mr. Wells had devoted much of his attention to the subject of finance. The House, too, had ordered the petition to be printed, and let hon. Members consider what the effect would be if its authority was to be set at defiance or its orders disregarded. In this case the House had ordered a petition to be printed, but here was a committee placing itself above the House, and refusing to allow the order to be complied with. In his opinion, hon. Members were not aware of the effect on the public mind of the manner in which petitions to that House were presented. The people were complaining, and justly, of the way in which their petitions were treated; and the restraints which were imposed upon hon. Members of that House, relative to the presentation of petitions, were rendering the other House of Parlia- ment, instead of that House, the popular branch of the Legislature. The other House of Parliament was ever ready to attend to the complaints of the people, and to allow their petitions to be read and discussed, but in that House, hon. Members were not even allowed to read the petitions which were intrusted to them. If an hon. Member attempted to read a portion of a petition in that House, or to state at any length the complaints it contained, he was instantly assailed with groans, and a noise was raised, which absolutely prevented him from calmly directing his mind to the complaints of the petitioners. Was that fair to the public, or was it possible that such proceedings could have any other effect than that of lowering the House in the estimation of the country? If a Member said he would read any petition intrusted to him, he immediately found himself addressing empty benches—no one would listen to him. He hoped the resolutions of the House relative to petitions would be reconsidered and revised; for if they were not altered, so as to allow the complaints of the people to be fully stated, that House must fall into disrepute with the country, and the House of Lords become the popular assembly. How were petitions treated? They were laid on the Table, backed by Mr. Ley, and then sent into a room where they were never more heard of. Ay, they went before a committee, and that committee followed the example of Mr. Ley, few of them being printed, and nothing being done to make them public. In his opinion, every Member ought to be allowed to state fully the nature and object of the petitions which had been intrusted to him, and he hoped the day would come when petitions would be discussed also.

said, it was evident that the hon. Member for Finsbury was totally ignorant of the mode in which the Committee upon Petitions disposed of the petitions presented to that House. So far from obstructing the printing of petions, or interfering with the orders of the House, the Committee afforded every facility to the publication of the complaints of the people. He did not think it was fair to say that the Committee treated petitions slightly, for every one acquainted with the subject knew that the reverse was the case. From his own experience, he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the present system was the best, and if they were to discuss petitions, it would be impossible to transact the public business,

said, the House had already ordered the printing of the petition, and he was, therefore, of opinion that the hon. Baronet by the rules of the House was bound to give notice before bringing forward a motion for discharging that order.

had no objection to withdraw his motion for the present, and to give notice for a future day, if such was the wish of the House. He was perfectly sensible that if the attention of the House had been called to the petition at the time it was presented, it never would have been ordered to be printed. The reason why it had escaped the attention of the House was well known. Hon. Members could not fail to recollect the state of the House on Friday. Before hearing counsel on the Jamaica Bill the House was nearly empty, and the Members who were present were employed in conversation, as all the public business had, most strangely, been disposed of. It was at that time the petition had been presented, and the motion for printing had in consequence escaped the notice of the House. The votes of Friday, the House would observe, contained no order for the printing of the petition, for it was only stated, that it was ordered to lie on the table. It was not till the votes of Monday were published, that they found an order for printing the petition. He did not mean to say, that the petition contained anything improper, nor did he question in the very least the respectability of the petitioner; but he must again repeat, that the document was not of that character which entitled it to be printed at the public expense. When petitions were presented, complaining of grievances, the House was always ready to give its attention to the prayer of the petitioners, and when a motion was to be founded upon a petition, there was never any unwillingness to allow it to be printed. But if the House were to allow those who were unable to obtain such publicity for their opinions as they might wish—if they were to allow every theorist and speculator, whether in finance, medicine, or law, to forward pamphlets to that House in the shape of petitions, and if they were to order those pamphlets to be published at the public expense, they would, in his opinion, be doing great injustice to those who had signed the 8,600 petitions which had been presented during the Session, and who were legitimate petitioners, because they complained of grievances, and asked for redress. As he said before, the petition ought to have been forwarded to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as he now saw the right hon. Gentleman in his place, perhaps, he would have the goodness to state whether he was of opinion that the petition was of sufficient importance to be published at the public expense.

would not allow what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury relative to the Committee on Petitions to pass without notice. The hon. Member was far from being correct when he said that the petitions sent to the Committee were never afterwards heard of. The Committee had already presented to the House twenty-seven reports upon petitions, each of which was of considerable bulk.

said, the Committee examined fully and with great care the petitions confided to them, and always ordered the publication of every petition which they considered important, or which they deemed it necessary that the House and the public should be made acquainted with.

said, a copy of the petition had certainly been forwarded to him, and he ought, therefore, perhaps, to be the last person to raise any objection to its being printed. He could not, however, help saying, that if the House were once to sanction the printing of petitions complaining of no grievance, and only making suggestions, they would soon, in his opinion, have cause to regret such a proceeding. It was not merely the expense which he objected to, but such a course, if once adopted, would not fail seriously to obstruct the public business. He thought there could be no difficulty in postponing the motion; but if it was postponed, hon. Members would do well to consider the nature of the paper before voting for its being printed.

understood that the order for printing the petition had been made on Friday, and he could not think that it was fair to move that the order be now discharged. Surely notice ought to have been given.

wished to ask the hon. Member for Finsbury whether, as it was not likely there would be much chance of the attendance of the House affording him an opportunity of bringing forward his motion relating to the three Scotch witnesses examined in regard to the operation of the Factory Act, whose petition had been presented to the House, it was his intention to postpone it; and if so, whether he would bring it forward on a future day.

said, it certainly was his determination to bring forward the motion to which the noble Lord had referred, but he very much regretted, that there was little chance of his doing so that night with the slightest chance of success. The hon. Member for Penryn had a motion on the paper which was likely to occupy several hours, and, more than that, he found that her Majesty's Government were determined to oppose him. It was, therefore, his intention to postpone his motion until that day three weeks, when he should certainly bring it forward, and press it to a division.

could not allow this motion to be postponed without protesting against the course which the hon. Member for Finsbury had taken. The motion carried with it an attack upon a public servant, and he must say that putting it off from day to day—this being the second time it had been deferred—was most unfair, not only to that individual, but to those who had to defend his character, and who had a considerable quantity of other business, both in and out of the House, to attend to. He had come down to the House prepared to meet the motion of his hon. Friend, and he thought it rather hard that it should be put off in this way.

said, he had not before postponed his motion at all. He had fixed on a day for bringing it before the House, and he had lost no opportunity of doing so; but he now found that the Government were strongly opposed to it, and that they had "whipped" for it. He had no means of "whipping" in support of the motion. He could see very well what the state of the benches was at this moment, and he knew equally well what it would be when the time came for him to be called upon by the Chair, He had made no attack on the character of Mr. Stuart; but if he had done so, he should not have acted worse than that individual had behaved towards three helpless men. He felt convinced that he should be able to prove that, when he had a proper opportunity of bringing the case before the House.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the laws regarding turnpike trusts, and to allow of unions of the same, said, he hoped to be able, by the statements he was about to make, to show that such a measure was necessary. He moved for leave to bring in this Bill in his capacity as Chairman of a Committee which had sat to consider the-subject, and, although it was a dry one, the House would be convinced that it was an important one, when he reminded them that these trusts were at the present time in debt to the extent of 9,000,000l. sterling, and that they had no means of discharging the debt. On the contrary, it was increasing every day from various causes. One of the chief causes was, that those who managed the trusts, finding themselves unable to pay the interest of the debt, gave bonds for that interest, thus converting the interest into principal, and, in fact, increasing; their debt at the rate of compound interest. Another cause was the establishment of railroads, of which there were now no fewer than six lines diverging from the Metropolis and extending into different parts of the country. It must also be recollected, that by the Act of George 3rd, cap. 123, any creditor of a trust bad the power of taking possession of the tolls, and dividing the produce as he should think proper among the other creditors of the trust. It was impossible not to foresee the ruinous consequences which were likely to result from such a course. Another point of great moment in this question was the entire abolition of statute labour, by which these trusts had sustained a loss of not less than 200,000l. annually. A bill was brought in last Session to remedy that evil; but, though it passed through that House, it did not unfortunately get through the other House. But he confessed that there would be considerable difficulty in suggesting any remedy far the distressed state of the tolls. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State had brought in a bill, in which he made an attempt to consolidate all the turnpike trusts into one, and to have them managed solely by a Board in London. Although the hon. Gentleman was supported by the whole of the interest of the Government, such was the opposition he met with that he was unable to carry his measure. He believed the chief cause of the opposition to that bill was the system of centralization which he adopted. The country gentlemen of England felt averse to any plan of that kind, and they thought the power of superintendence and management should remain in their hands. Another cause was the arrangement which the hon. Gentleman made, that trusts of every description should be consolidated together; and that, he (Mr. Mackinnon) thought, was the great error of his bill. Moreover, he gave the commissioners to be appointed to carry out the measure, sitting in London, power to unite wealthy trusts with poor ones, and thus saddle them with debts which others ought to pay. Another objection to the plan of the hon. Gentleman was, that he left all the machinery of the old trusts without any means of subsistence; the solicitors, secretaries, clerks, and others employed by the old trusts were left wholly unprovided for, and they of course raised such a clatter throughout the country, and made such strong appeals to hon. Members representing places in their respective localities, that his hon. Friend was at last compelled to throw up the bill altogether. Now, the Committee had endeavoured to meet all these objections: they proposed that there should be unions, not a consolidation of turnpike trusts; and that those unions should be under the superintendence, not of a board in London, but of persons selected by the trustees, who were to have the whole management of the same. Still it would be impossible to carry this plan into effect without allowing the Government to have a central board, but not with such powers as were contemplated by the former bill; because without some such central authority the other board could not be made to act in a satisfactory manner. The bill he wished to bring in would also have for its object the catching of the traffic which now ran to the railways by by-roads and cross-roads. The traffic on all the cross and by-roads which led to the termini of railways had very much increased, and his object was to give these trusts a power to transfer the toll-gates to those cross and bye roads; in fact, to use a simile which the hon. Member for Finsbury would understand, to make the veins of traffic arteries, and the arteries veins. He was the last man who would wish to stand forward on a question of this importance, but as Chairman of the Committee which had sat upon this subject, he did not feel himself justified in withdrawing from the task until he had at least elicited from her Majesty's Government whether or not the Commission which had been appointed was likely to lead to legislation in this matter upon their authority. He should, therefore, now move for leave to bring in a bill for making Unions of Turnpike Trusts in England, and for consolidating the bonded debts of those trusts.

did not rise to throw any difficulty in the way of the introduction of the bill. He felt that the hon. Gentleman opposite, as Chairman of the Committee, to which he had alluded, could not have taken any other course than that which he had pursued; but he feared that the hon. Member's Bill would, in the face of the commission which had been appointed, share the same fate as the bill formerly introduced. The bill he had introduced had a recommendation which the bill proposed by the hon. Member had not—namely, that under his bill the Government proposed to advance a considerable sum of money for the purpose of consolidating the debts due by turnpike trusts. At present it was impossible the Government could propose any such measure, and it was in order to get some more grave authority than the report of a committee, an authority on which the country gentlemen could place reliance, that the Government had been induced to issue a commission, consisting of the Duke of Richmond, the Marquess of Salisbury, Lord Hatherton, and Lord Eliot, to inquire into the best mode of treating this subject. It was a subject which might not, perhaps, interest many persons in that House, but in it the poorer classes were deeply concerned, because many individuals who had lent their "little all" on the security of turnpike trusts, the best security on which to advance money at the time of lending, were now absolutely in despair as to the probability of recovering one farthing of their money. That this state of things ought to be remedied, nobody could deny. He thought the efforts of the hon. Member most praiseworthy, and he was ready to consider and give him every assistance in aid of his measure, but at the same time he must say that at this period of the Session it would be impossible successfully to legislate. Next year the commission which had been appointed would, he thought, present such a report as that the Government might found upon it a measure which would then be fairly and fully considered by Parliament.

thought the House was indebted to his hon. Friend, the Member for Lymington for having elicited the statement just made by the hon. Under Secretary. He rejoiced that the Government had issued this commission, because he was of opinion that unless Government took up the matter, the difficulties that surrounded it would never be got rid of. He saw no way out of those difficulties except by the Government taking the whole tolls, paying the debts of the trusts, and establishing one uniform rate of toll throughout the country.

rose to move, pursuant to his notice, for a "Return of the number of days the Court of Exchequer, as a Court of Equity, sat for the despatch of business for ten years, ending 1838 inclusive, showing the number of days the Court sat in each term and at the sittings after each term," and was proceeding to state to the House the grounds of the motion, when the House was counted out.