moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Act 1 and 2 Victoria, c. 117, commonly known as the Railway Deposits Act. The hon. Member stated that the principal alterations which he proposed to effect in the provisions of the Act were, firstly, to empower subscribers to Railway Companies whose subscriptions shall have been invested in the public funds, or other Government securities, to transfer such securities simply to the proper officer, instead of being obliged to make cash payments; and secondly, to abolish the present clumsy and obstructive machinery of the Court of Chancery with regard to railway companies, and to effect some other simplifications of the present law.

said, he had no objection to the introduction of the Bill by the hon. Member; but it must be understood that he could not pledge himself to support the details.

moved for a Return of the copy of any Instructions issued by the Poor Law Commissioners for the purpose of uniting the parish of Farnham, in Surrey, now under Gilbert's Act, with certain other parishes under the Poor Law Act; also, for a copy of any memorial to the Poor Law Commissioners from the ratepayers of the parish of Farnham remonstrating against such union or any interference whatever. The hon. and gallant Member said he had given notice of his intention to move for this return, in consequence of the extraordinary proceedings of the Poor Law Commissioners. The parish of Farnham was a single parish under Gilbert's Act, and that Act had been shown to work satisfactorily in it. The law, under certain circumstances, permitted a single parish to subsist without being annexed to a Poor Law Union; and, considering that the Report of the Parliamentary Committee relative to the Gilbert Unions had been carried only by the casting vote of the chairman against the Gilbert incorporations, it did appear extraordinary that this unfortunate parish should be taken out of them to be made the centre of a Poor Law Union. He contended that this certainty should not take place until a searching inquiry had been made into the working and operation of the Poor Law Act. He could not see the policy or expediency of the Government meddling with a parish, the management of which had been so satisfactory that it had not been considered necessary to bring it before the Gilbert Unions Committee. To annex it to a Poor Law Union without inquiry was, to say the least, most extraordinary. Great dissatisfaction existed at it; the inhabitants had met; and they had unanimously agreed to a memorial against such an outrage. Whatever opinions the Government might formerly have entertained with regard to the Poor Law, and the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department in particular, he (Captain Pechell) hoped that their change of opinion upon the important subject now under discussion in that House, would be so extended, that they would see the advantages to be derived from preserving the Gilbert Unions.

asked Her Majesty's Government whether it was their intention to lay upon the Table copies of the Papers received from those guardians of Poor Law Unions who had remonstrated against the practice of bone grinding? The right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had informed the House, on a late occasion, that there were nine boards of guardians who had expressed a wish to continue the practice until their stocks had been exhausted, and that he had given them the desired permission. He now wished to know, also, when the Papers relative to those nine cases, which the right hon. Baronet had promised, would be laid upon the Table.

thought it would hardly be wise to raise any discussion on the subject referred to by the hon. and gallant Member at the present moment. If the hon. and gallant Member had given him notice of the question he intended to put, he (Mr. M. Sutton) would have been prepared with a reply. He was at present unable to give an answer, but he would make inquiry.