I do not know, Sir, whether it is regular or not; but whilst I am in possession of the House, and this being the last evening on which I should have an opportunity before the departure of the next mail for America, I am anxious to take this opportunity of announcing the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the alterations about to be made in the import duties on timber. We propose, Sir, to make, ultimately, a reduction in the differential duties upon upon foreign timber, so that the duty shall remain, after the reduction has been effected at 15s. instead of the present amount. On hewn timber the duty is at present 25s. We propose to reduce it to 15s. But with the view of insuring to the consumer as much benefit as possible from the proposed reduction, we shall effect it in the manner I am about to explain. With regard to timber from the Baltic—in consequence of the very great demand for it, we do not propose that the reduction shall be immediate. We propose that it shall commence on the 5th April, 1847, considering that period as one most suitable. We propose that on the 5th April, 1847, the duty shall be reduced 5s., and on the 5th April, 1848, we propose to reduce it by another 5s. Sawn timber we propose to reduce by 6s. on the 5th April, 1847, and by 6s. on the 5th April, 1848. With respect to the small timber, such as laths, spars, and other sorts, we propose to make a proportionate reduction; but whether or not the reduction, having regard to the interest of the consumer, should be immediate, is a subject for consideration. Whether it should be effected without anymore gradual reduction, we should wish to reserve for further opinions, as it may be a question whether the reduction might not be absolutely made on the 5th April, 1847, In the course of the evening the full details will be laid on the Table of the House; but I thought it necessary to make these few observations at the present opportunity.

There will be no alteration of the duties this year?

The duties will remain the same until the 5th April, 1847. From that date there will be a reduction in hewn timber of 5s., and in sawn timber of 6s.; and from the 5th April, 1848, there will be a further reduction of 5s. and 6s. respectively.

, as he was upon his legs, would ask a question of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, or, if the hon. Gentleman was not in the House, the question could probably be answered by some of the hon. Gentlemen who usually acted with him. The hon. Member had given notice that he would, on Monday next, on the Motion being put that the Speaker leave the Chair, on the House going into Committee on the commercial policy of the country, move an Amendment. Perhaps it would be well that the House should be put in possession of the nature of the Amendment the hon. Gentleman intended to move.

rose to move for—

"1. Copy of the Warrant, or other document of authority, by which H. S. Chapman, Esq., Assistant Commissioner under the Commission appointed to inquire into the condition of the Hand-loom Weavers, and acting in that capacity in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1838, was afterwards appointed Chief Judge of the Supreme Court at Wellington, in New Zealand, in 1843. 2. Papers relative to Tariff's published in the United States, and presented in pursuance of an Address of the 18th of July, 1828, viz.: Copy of a Despatch from H. U. Addington, Esq., to Mr. Secretary Canning, dated Washington, May 30, 1824, and of Mr. Vaughan to Viscount Dudley, dated Washington, August 13, 1827, with other Inclosures.

In moving for those returns he begged to state most distinctly that he had no notion of doing so in a spirit of hostility towards Mr. Chapman. It was due to that gentleman, who had received the highest testimonials from the Judge-Advocate, from the hon. Member for Liskeard, the hon. Member for Cumberland, the hon. Member for Bath, the hon. Member for Westminster, and other friends of his, to state that he believed the noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colonies was perfectly justified in the appointment he had made. But he was justified in bringing forward his present Motion, because in the report which Mr. Chapman had made when he was Commissioner under the Commission issued to inquire into the Condition of the Hand-loom Weavers in 18,38, there were errors—errors of so serious a kind that it was quite impossible to pass them over. For instance, he had said, in speaking of the price of wheat from the year 1800 to 1815, that it was above 80s., not unfrequently 100s., and that in the few following years after 1800 it approached 125s., whilst in 1802 it was but 67s.; in 1803, 57s. 1d.; and in 1804, 60s. 5d. In 1814 and 1815, Mr. Chapman said that wheat at that period was rather less dear. Now, what he called rather less dear, was 75 per cent. less. But as most of that gentleman's calculations were drawn from the year 1800, he would pass to that period, which was the most remarkable in the annals of this country, it having been the last year in which there was the visitation of famine. In that year there was a Report from a Committee of the House of Commons, presented on the 12th February, in which the Committee express regret at the mistaken application of charity, in the distribution of flour and bread to the poor at a very reduced price, which too free distribution, it was feared, would have the effect of increasing the inconvenience of the deficiency in the past year's crop. In the same year there was a Committee of the House, before which Mr. Claude Scott, a corn-merchant, was examined. The following was the opinion of that gentleman:—

"I think generally the supply will be moderate; the crops in general abroad have not been very productive, and in some parts, where we usually look for supplies, the exportation has lately been prohibited—I mean the Prussian provinces bordering on the Elbe. Our principal sources of supply may be looked for this year from the Baltic, and chiefly from Poland; for the produce of the harvest in the Prussian provinces bordering on the Baltic has been unusually bad, and the quality very light and inferior. A considerable quantity may be looked for from Poland, if there is no obstruction to its passage to the shipping ports. I have no means of judging the precise quantity from that part, but I hope it will be considerable, for the high prices in Great Britain will be the means of bringing all they can spare. The King of Prussia has already prohibited the export of all other grain but wheat, and it is apprehended that prohibition may be extended to wheat, particularly in the event of a further advance in the prices in Great Britain, which might create an alarm in those countries. Some quantity of wheat may also be expected fram Russia, but I have no means of ascertaining how much. The exportation of corn is strictly prohibited from Holland, Flanders, and France."

The whole of the supplies which were then conveyed to this country was at an expense of not less than 20,000,000l. He next begged to draw the attention of the House to an extract from a Cabinet Order of the King of Prussia, dated Sept, 12, 1801:—

"With respect to taking off the new duty on wheat, I do not see that the country can suffer from its continuance to the end of this year, as the shipments of the present calendar year cannot continue much longer; the threshing out of the wheat will not be finished before the end of the current year, and therefore the supply to the seaport towns can only begin with the month of January next year. It is the fault of the merchant himself if he has encumbered himself with a larger stock than he could send to England before the 1st of October, as he is sure of a good price to that time; and the new measure of the English Government for reducing the bounty, having occasioned an unnatural rise in the prices of the best wheats, will make up to him in price what he would otherwise have received in bounty. Under these circumstances I consider it so much the more advisable to postpone the taking off the duty on wheat till the month of December, as we shall then be able to judge with more certainty whether the report of an unusually abundant wheat harvest in England is founded or not, and regulate our measures accordingly. Should the prices in England continue to that time between 50s. and 60s. per quarter, the duty shall then be taken off; and shall only be continued in full if they rise again to 80s. to 90s.; should they in this period rise something less than this last-mentioned price, the duty can be modified accordingly."

An avowal such as this ought not to be lightly thrown aside. The Member for Durham, and others who acted with him, were of opinion that the King of Prussia had a right to do as he pleased with his corn; but he thought that the Parliament of England would do well to recollect that five-and-forty years had passed since the people of this country had been visited with famine. They had since that time been carried through strange vicissitudes, and supported mainly from the produce of that soil the decay of which they might lament when it was too late, and the hurt of which the Executive Government of the country, as if in league with the League, viewed apparently with feelings of indifference, if not altogether determined to destroy. He would pass from that question to another, on another document included in his Motion: he meant the Papers published in the United States in pursuance of an Address of the 18th July, 1828. His object in moving for those Papers was to show a most deliberate delusion, and mischievous perversion, by a person holding a situation of authority under a Government appointment. The letter for which he would first call would be the copy of a despatch from Mr. H. U. Addington to Mr. Canning, dated at Washington, on the 30th of May, 1824, and detailing in the fullest manner the conflict of feelings displayed by every description of party in the United States. Nothing could be more comprehensive than that letter, and there was the remarkable fact that neither Mr. Addington nor Sir Charles Vaughan made any particular allusion to corn as being mentioned in it, but spoke of the articles alluded to as Swedish iron, hammered iron, and bar iron, corn having been in fact hardly ever mentioned. The concluding paragraph of Mr. Addington's letter was as follows:—

"I have only to add, that had no restrictions on the importations of foreign grain existed in Europe generally, and especially in Great Britain, I have little doubt that the Tariff would never have passed through either house of Congress, since the great agricultural States, and Pennsylvania especially, the main mover of the question, would have been indifferent, if not opposed to its enactment."

Such was the version of Mr. Addington—now take the construction of Mr. Chapman, "That our Corn Laws were an apology for the hostile tariffs of other nations required no proof." ["Hear!"] Hon. Members cried "hear." Let them "hear" by all means. Mr. Chapman added, that it would suffice to allude to the note written by the British Minister at Washington (Mr. Addington), to Mr. Canning, in which he had said that he had only to add, that if no restrictions upon the importation of foreign corn had existed in Great Britain, the Tariff would never have passed through either house of Congress, since the agricultural States, and especially Pennsylvania, would have been indifferent, if not opposed to it—thus erasing from the passage all that had reference to other parts of Europe, except Great Britain, and all that had to do with other articles of commerce, and opinion, except corn, and leaving the extract to stand in that position as if the entire allusion had been to this country alone. He (Mr. Wodehouse) had a conversation with the late Sir Charles Bagot on the subject, and another with Sir Stratford Canning. He had the honour of having had many communications also with that distinguished diplomatist, Lord Heytesbury—never had the honour to have one with Lord Clarendon. He believed, however, that all would concur in the feeling that there never was a stratagem more unworthy of any man who held the station of a gentleman. He would next call the attention of the House to matters that had taken place before the Import Duties Committee, in 1840. The Chairman of the Committee, the Member for Montrose, appeared, during the whole time it was sitting, to have been brewing his celebrated peroration to the Report. The hon. Member having read the peroration, in which the expression "the whole family of nations" occurred, observed, that a gentleman who sat with the whole family of nations in his lap might well be excused. The hon. Member proceeded to read extracts from the evidence given by Mr. Smith, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Manchester, who had quoted from the letter of Mr. Addington, as published. But he (Mr. Wodehouse) was not aware that any publication of that letter existed, with the exception of the deliberate forgery of the commission which he had read. The hon. Member then read the resolution passed at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in Manchester, and extracts from the proceedings, including a vote of thanks to Dr. Bowring for the active part he had taken, and the services he had rendered the cause of free trade, especially for the interesting statement he had made on the subject of the German League. The hon. Member also read the address which had been moved by Mr. Cobden, and passed, and which contained the following allusions to the letter of Mr. Addington:—

"That this meeting having heard with the deepest interest the able address just delivered by Dr. Bowring upon the subject of our commercial relations with the States comprising the German League, earnestly invites public attention to the incontrovertible evidence thus afforded, that the Governments and people of Germany are desirous of exchanging their productions for the commodities of this country, proving from undoubted authority that we are prevented solely by our restrictive laws from embracing the manifold advantages offered to us."

There was incontrovertible evidence that that paragraph was altogether false, and the right hon. Baronet blamed them for not backing up these Gentlemen who used it as if it were true. The hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) had written upon the same subject to Lord Palmerston. That hon. Gentleman had played a distinguished part in Egypt; but he (Mr. Wodehouse) had received information upon that subject, as to the appearance of the hon. Gentleman when there. The interpreter could hardly keep from laughing. He had the information from a source on which he could implicitly rely, It was from a friend—from a particular friend—a person on whom reliance could be placed. The friend was a lady—a married lady. She was not an actual eye-witness, so there could be no doubt of the authenticity of the information; and she assured him (Mr. Wodehouse) that those who saw the learned Gentleman now in every-day life beheld him shorn of his beams. If hon. Gentlemen had only seen him as she saw him, with a large straw hat, nearly as big as the clerk's table, a full flowing beard and moustaches; and—for the best was yet to come—with a pair of wide Circassian trousers—The hon. Member begged to add one word more in reference to the opinion of Dr. Harding, to whom was committed the examination into the state of the hand-loom weavers in the east of Scotland. Dr. Harding expressed himself thus:—

"The only remedy universally, and often exclusively, suggested by the weavers and their employers, is the gradual, but ultimately total, repeal of the present Corn Laws. I have already stated the means by which it is supposed that their operation is peculiarly injurious to the hand-loom weavers; but it by no means follows that their repeal would be as beneficial as their enactment is supposed to have been injurious. Notwithstanding the excitement and the prejudices existing amongst the weavers on this subject (which are not a little encouraged and fostered by its political bearing, and the efforts of itinerant orators), the most intelligent are aware that if such repeal should have a very injurious effect on the agricultural interest, this effect will ultimately be felt by themselves; and it is from a great increase of the demand for textile manufactures on the part of those countries which, in the event of such repeal, would supply us with corn, that they expect a certain and considerable gain. How far any such increased demand might be checked by the commercial regulations of foreign Governments, influenced by a desire of what is called 'protecting' their own manufactures from British competition—how far the repeal of these laws might affect the value of money, or the prosperity of other classes of the community, under existing circumstances, it must, of course, be for the wisdom of the Legislature to consider."

He did not wish to occupy the time of the House, and he would, therefore, at once conclude by moving for the Papers.

said, that as the hon. Gentleman had distinguished him by his personal allusions, the House would allow him to say a few words. And, first, he would assure the hon. Member that the lady whom he had quoted had—no doubt with that knowledge of character for which ladies are remarkable—drawn very largely upon his credulity, and amused him with an oriental tale. That tale he seemed eagerly to have believed, and its romantic parts the more readily. Now, he would tell the hon. Gentleman what was true in the story—and it was true that he had discussed the subject of the Corn Laws with the Pacha of Egypt. It was true that the Pacha had defended his corn laws with as much, perhaps more, talent than the hon. Gentleman had exhibited in the maintenance of his own. Mahomet Ali fancied that he could regulate prices by legislation—provide food for his people by restrictions—and advantageously interfere between demand and supply by his own sovereign will. But he failed as others have failed. While residing at Cairo, with a commercial commission from the British Government, strong representations were made to him (Dr. Bowring) on the subject of the Pacha's decrees, which ordered that corn, beans, and bread, should be sold only on such and such terms. But neither farmers nor bakers would obey—the bazaars were left without grain—the shops had no supplies of bread—the more rigid and severe the ordinances for lowering prices, the higher those prices mounted. Famine menaced the city—the people were on the verge of insurrection. In such a state he had undertaken to be the organ of the public voice to the ruler of Egypt, and to represent to him, that however benevolent his intentions, his decrees were fearfully augmenting the alarm and the misery, and would infallibly lead to extensive and enduring distress. He told the Pacha that the causes which led to the rise and fall of prices were, for the most part, beyond the control even of the mightiest monarch, and that the only way to secure ample supplies at moderate rates was to remove all impediments to the ingress and egress of food; that prices would best regulate themselves; and that by allowing them to mount upwards was the certain means of bringing corn to the market. And it was his good fortune to persuade the Pacha of the correctness of these opinions, and to induce him to withdraw the decrees which interfered with the freedom of the trade in grain. The consequences were what he had ventured to foretell. Abundance succeeded to dearth—an ample supply poured into the markets, and the Pacha acknowledged that the advice proffered to him had been sound and wise. The hon. Member had referred somewhat disparagingly to his reports on our commercial relations with the north of Europe. They stated, what he (Dr. Bowring) now repeated, that had our Government been willing and able to repeal the Corn Laws some years ago, important advantages might have been obtained for our manufactures in the markets of Germany. But nothing would then persuade the hon. Gentleman and his friends to make any such concessions, and the opportunity was lost. The Ministry of that day, whatever their wishes might have been, was altogether helpless in the matter; Parliament would not place in their hands the power to treat for any advantages which were to be purchased by the more free admission of foreign corn. Could this have been done, a vast field would have been opened to British industry. It was closed against us by the pertinacity of the protectionist party. But a better era had arrived. He offered his humble but most hearty thanks to the right hon. Baronet, for having adopted wiser and better views. He had placed the question on more sound and solid ground than that of socking to convince other nations by arguments, showing that the protective system was pernicious to us and them. He said—and he (Dr. Bowring) was very grateful to him for saying it—that he was weary of those appeals to other Powers—that he was convinced our example should precede our negociations. He had thus taken away the sting from the allegations of strangers. When employed in those matters, he (Dr. Bowring) could answer many of the reasonings and many of the statistics of foreign protectionists; but he could never answer the arguments based on our own restrictive and prohibitory tariffs. If pointing out the defects and diseases of foreign commercial legislation, what could he reply to those who said "Physician! heal thyself?" Of what use was it to exhibit the blots and follies in the tariffs of others, when they were ready and able to retort upon him the greater blots and follies of our own? He looked forward now to better days. The expanse was widening. British commerce would make its way to general favour. Already from every country which had received the intelligence of the intentions of the Government, communications of the most promising character had arrived. We should be entering on a new era of prosperity. We were occupying our true position. We were giving a noble example—and when a country like this became a teacher of commercial wisdom, she was sure to find many and apt learners.

having moved an Address to the Crown for a return of the gross and net Incomes (in the years 1844 and 1845) of the Archbishops and Bishops of England and Wales, etc., whether arising from their archbishoprics and bishopries,

The question of Bishops and Archbishops being before the House, I think that I am not out of order in rising to express my regret that the death during the recess of the late Bishop of Bath and Wells, and the appointment of his successor, have prevented my bringing this year before the House that which last Session I was so frequently under the necessity of postponing—my Bill for the consolidation of the dioceses of Bath and Wells, and of Salisbury, at the death of the present (now the late) Bishop of Bath and Wells. Now, Sir, although no doubt the right hon. Baronet would have resisted its introduction, and would, no doubt, have had a majority to support his views, still he would, I think, have had a difficulty in combating my argument, which may be put in the shortest compass possible. This performance of the duties of two sees by one bishop during the last seven years, has either been efficient and satisfactory, or inefficient and unsatisfactory. If inefficient, it was the duty of the Government to have provided a remedy, by superseding the late bishop, and appointing in his stead one more capable of properly attending to the business of the diocese; if, on the contrary, this double duty was discharged in an efficient manner—if for seven years one bishop could properly attend to this accession of business, it stands to reason, Sir, that one bishop could attend to it for seventy years, and for ever. I have, indeed, every reason to believe, not only that the Bishop of Salisbury did discharge this duty in a satisfactory manner, but that he did not feel himself at all embarrassed by the weight of it; on the contrary, he has recently assumed a new duty by taking to himself a wife, who must be looked upon as a third see or spouse of this Minister of the Church. Whatever opinion to the contrary may be entertained by others—however some may wish to have again separated the now about to be consolidated sees of St. Asaph and Bangor—however some right rev. Prelates may in another place come forward and say with the coolest assurance, "My Lords, that of which the country is at present most in need, is of a farther supply of bishops;" I, on the contrary, give it as my decided opinion that we have too many bishops already, and on my part no effort shall be wanting to reduce and consolidate these bishops, and to expose to the country the amount annually squandered on this proud, ambitious, and overpaid hierarchy. The establishment of bishops with seats in the Rouse of Lords is, according to my ideas, the concentrated essence of all that is bad and objectionable in ecclesiastical matters. I consider that from their occupations and appointments these bishops must almost of necessity be useless and faithless to the laity and to the Crown—useless and faithless to the laity, because instead of residing in their dioceses—instead of watching over their clergy—instead of endeavouring to promote real piety, and by real piety contributing to the eternal salvation of the people—the time of these bishops is taken up in attending to politics in the House of Lords, in looking after translations for themselves, and in endeavouring to promote the private worldly and pecuniary interests of their families. I consider this bench of bishops useless and faithless to the Crown, because they are no sooner erected by the Crown, than like the monster in Frankenstein, they take the earliest opportunity of denying and setting at defiance that very power that called them into existence.

said, that as he then saw the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, he wished to put to him a question, to which the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government had been unable to give a complete and satisfactory answer. It appeared that the measure adopted in the southern part of Wales with respect to turnpike trusts had completely succeeded; and he wished to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward during the present Session any general measure for the amendment and consolidation of the turnpike trusts of England and Wales; or whether they thought it advisable to have a further Parliamentary investigation of the subject, and to move the appointment of a Committee, who would inquire into the operation of the present laws, and the expediency or inexpediency of altering them in consequence of the recent extension of railway communication?

wished to apologize to the hon. Baronet for not having been in his place at an earlier hour. He understood that during his absence his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had assured the hon. Baronet of the success of the measure respecting turnpike trusts in South Wales. No doubt he (Sir J. Graham) had reason to hope and believe that that experiment, so far as it had yet gone, had been successful. But in answering the question put by the hon. Baronet, he felt it right to remind the House how different was the question affecting the turnpike trusts of so limited a sphere as South Wales, from the great question of the turnpike trusts of all England and Wales. In the first place, the debt constituted the great difficulty of the question. The debt in South Wales amounted to only 280,000l.; and under the peculiar circumstances of the case the Legislature had thought it expedient to give the aid of the public credit for the liquidation of that limited sum. A composition had been effected in that case by the equitable decisions of a Commission, by which the whole debt in the hands of private creditors had been extinguished for a sum of about 200,000l. Now, let them contrast that case with the condition of the turnpike trusts throughout England generally. The gross amount of the debt for turnpike trusts throughout England was a sum of no less than 9,000,000l. He certainly was not prepared to say that an extension to the whole of England of the experiment which had taken place in South Wales might not possibly be effected; and he believed that upon the whole a satisfactory adjustment might take place, if the public were willing to advance the necessary amount of money. But he was not prepared, on the part of the Government, to announce any proposition in the present Session upon that subject. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, in submitting the other evening an extensive scheme for the consideration of Parliament, had stated, on the part of the Government, that it was their intention to bring forward during the present Session an amendment of the Highway Act, and also to propose the advance of a very considerable amount for the improvement of land by thorough draining. Under these circumstances, he could not reconcile it with his sense of duty to call at present upon Parliament to advance, for the purpose of altering our system of turnpike trusts, a sum so considerable as that which he had mentioned. He did not think that any advantage would be derived from the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state of our turnpike trusts. The House had already most ample information upon that subject, in the most authentic form, in the very able reports of various commissions. The facts of the case were notorious. It was, however, most difficult to deal with them, and the principal difficulty was the one he had mentioned—namely, the enormous amount of the outstanding debt.

said, the hon. Gentleman was aware that the Sugar Duties were granted by an annual vote of Parliament; whereas the Custom Duties, to which his Motion the other night had express reference, were permanent duties. But, in taking a general view of our commercial policy, although he intended to reserve a discussion on the Sugar Duties until the Bill relating to them should he brought forward, he had thought it right to intimate the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to those duties. The Sugar Duties were not included in the Tariff, because it referred to permanent duties only.

wished to know whether the discussion on the Sugar Duties would be taken at an advanced period of the Session, according to the usual practice, or would be taken at a very early period, as had been the case last Session?

said, that, before the right hon. Gentleman answered that question, he wished to remind him that a discussion on the Sugar Duties would raise two important questions. The first of these questions related to the amount of differential duties; and the second related to the subject of free-labour sugar and all other foreign sugars, which had been frequently discussed in that House. Those two questions would be raised when the Sugar Duties came under discussion; and although he did not wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward the subject either on an early day or a late day, he begged of him to consider what course it would be most conducive to the public interest that he should adopt on the matter.

should have no objection to bring forward the Sugar Duties on an early day after the measures to which he had called the particular attention of the House had been disposed of. He thought that as far as the Government business was concerned those measures were entitled to precedence, and until they had been disposed of he would not take the sense of Parliament upon the Sugar Duties. He had been aware of the inconvenience that would necessarily arise from a reference to the Sugar Duties sometime before the sense of Parliament could be taken upon the subject. But he had been convinced that he would have been asked what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government upon that question; and he had felt that to have declined to give an answer, or to have given an equivocal answer, would have subjected the trade to greater embarrassment than any to which it could otherwise have been exposed.

said, he had heard that a noble Lord (Lord Ashley), one of the Members for Dorsetshire, and another hon. Gentleman, had accepted office under the Crown. He wished to know whether these rumours were well founded; and if so, whether new writs were about to be issued?

said, it was perfectly true that the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman to whom the hon. Member referred had accepted office under the Crown; but that office was the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. (Laughter.)

wished to know whether it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to move for new writs in the room of the noble Lord and of the hon. Gentleman? If that were not his intention, he begged leave himself to move for a new writ for Dorsetshire.

said, that before the Motion for a new writ could be made, certain forms must be gone through. These forms had not yet been complied with. The moment they had been through, he would make the fact known to the hon. Member.

wished to know whether it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward any measure during the present Session on the subject of Charitable Trusts?

said, that his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor would, at an early period, bring forward a Bill in the other House for the Regulation of Charitable Trusts.