begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Drainage Advances for Ireland Bill? whether, in the meantime, orders have been issued to the Board of Works to proceed with the drainage works already commenced; and, also, whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any extension of the purposes to which money borrowed for the improvement of landed property in Ireland may be applied?

said, in reply to the first question, that the Bill was quite ready, and would have been laid upon the table if there had been any prospect of proceeding with it, but the time of the House was, at present, pretty fully occupied. With regard to the second question, he was not authorised to make any of the advances proposed to be sanctioned by that Bill until the Bill had passed; but the balance in hand would be applied to the continuance of works, so far as it went. In reply to the last question, he might state that he intended to propose that money borrowed for the improvement of landed property, both in Great Britain and Ireland, might be applied to farm buildings. He must say that he had some doubts as to the propriety of this measure, and he believed there would be very great practical difficulties in carrying it out. He thought, however, that the question ought to be settled by the House, and he would make the proposal in the Bill, in order that the subject might be fairly and fully discussed.

inquired whether the Bill would apply to flax-mills, because it was most important to encourage the growth of flax in Ireland?

said, that was a point on which he must decline to give an opinion at present, but which might be fitly considered in Committee on the Bill.

asked if there was any objection to lay the Bill on the table at once?

said, the Bill was a mere repetition of the clauses of former Bills. He had made some corrections and alterations in the Bill only an hour ago, and he hoped to lay it on the table in a day or two.

said, he rose to put a question to the right hon. Home Secretary which related to a matter of considerable importance to the public. A short time ago, two persons took third-class tickets at one of the stations on the Eastern Counties Railway. When the train came up, there was no room in the third-class carriages, and an officer of the company directed them to take their seats in a second-class carriage. The passengers hesitated, but the officer told them to get into the carriage, and they accordingly did so. When they arrived in London they were asked for their tickets, and, on producing the third-class tickets, they were told they must pay the difference between the second and third-class fare. They refused to do so, explaining that they had been placed in a second-class carriage by an officer of the company. They were then taken in charge by a constable, and were locked up until the arrival of the superintendent, who, instead of dismissing them, directed them to be taken before a magistrate. The magistrate, on hearing the complaint, at once dismissed it. One of the parties, Mr. Gay, had since brought an action for false imprisonment against the company. The case was tried, and the jury returned a verdict that the company were liable for the acts of their servant; but they were directed by the Judge to reconsider that verdict. He, therefore, wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to the recent charge of Baron Alderson to the jury in the case of "Gay against the Eastern Counties Railway Company," and whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure for the protection of the public against the misconduct of those acting in the employ of railway companies?

said, that without professing to be very accurately informed as to the particulars of the case to which his attention had been called, he believed the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman were substantially correct. A person named Gay brought an action against the Eastern Counties Railway Company for an alleged illegal imprisonment by the servant or servants of that company. He was advised—and he spoke under the correction of hon. Friends of his learned in the law—that it had long been the settled rule of law, that when a servant wilfully did an illegal act in the course of his employment, the master was not liable, unless there was evidence to show that such act had been done by his authority or with his consent. The case, he believed, resolved itself into this, that the plaintiff had brought his action against the wrong party; that he had proceeded against the company instead of against their servant. He could only say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's question, that the Government had no intention of altering the long-settled rule of law by which the liability of masters for the acts of their servants was determined.

rose to put a question to the Chief Secretary of State for the Home Department. On Tuesday last at the Clerkenwell Police Court a man of the name of Reardon was put into the witness box. The New Testament was handed to him, but before he was sworn the officer of the court, after ascertaining that he was a Roman Catholic, told him to make the sign of the cross. Reardon refused, stating that it was an insult to him to ask him to do so, as it implied that unless he first made the sign he would not consider his oath on the Evangelists binding. Mr. Combe, the presiding magistrate, then took up the matter, and said he had never before known a Roman Catholic witness refuse to make the sign of the cross before being sworn. Reardon still refused, and Mr. Combe said, that if a Roman Catholic priest were present, he would say that unless he first made the sign of the cross, a Roman Catholic would not consider himself bound by his oath on the Evangelists to tell the truth. Rearden persisted, and was sworn without making the sign. His evidence contradicted that of witnesses on the opposite side. Mr. Combe said, he would believe the other witnesses in preference to him (Reardon). The latter asked Mr. Combe if he meant to say that he (Reardon) was a perjured man? Mr. Combe distinctly told him, twice over, that he was so. He (Mr. Fox) wished to know what notice Her Majesty's Secretary of State meant to take of this extraordinary proceeding?

said, that his attention having been called by his noble Friend the Member for Arundel to the report in the Times newspaper of the proceedings at the Clerkenwell Court in the case referred to, he directed a letter to be written to Mr. Combe requesting any explanation or observations he might wish to make with regard to it. Mr. Combe stated, in reply, that the report in the Times newspaper was generally accurate. The witness named Reardon was asked by the office-keeper to cross himself before he was sworn, according to what appeared to be the usual practice at that court; and Mr. Combe stated that in some instances he had known Catholic parties insisting upon Catholic witnesses being required to cross themselves, because otherwise the witnesses would not consider the oath to be binding. In this case, on the witness saying that the oath would be binding without his crossing himself, it was administered; and Mr. Combe added, that the opinion he afterwards expressed as to the credit due to him was not on the ground of his refusal to cross himself. He (Sir G. Grey) must, however, say that the practice was one of which he never before heard; and that, having now inquired of several persons well informed on the subject, it appeared to be clear that, although in frequent instances Roman Catholic witnesses among the lowest classes voluntarily crossed themselves before they were sworn, not the slightest right existed to require them to do so, and that the practice of requiring them to do so was wholly unknown in the ordinary courts both in this country and in Ireland, and he (Sir G. Grey) believed it did not exist in any other of the metropolitan police courts. This opinion had been communicated to Mr. Combe, and he had been informed that the practice should be forthwith discontinued at the Clerkenwell Court.

said, the Bill, which contained no fewer than 377 clauses, had only been delivered that day. The Lord Advocate had, however, paid great attention to the suggestions that had been made to hire, and he (Mr. Hume) believed that all the material objections raised against the Bill had been removed. It was not, there-fore, his intention to offer any obstacle to the progress of the measure.

hoped the Government would not think it necessary to proceed with the Public Health (Scotland) Bill, because he believed this Bill would carry out sanitary measures very efficiently, and would be generally acceptable to the country.

said, he would not proceed with the Public Health Bill to-night, and that ample notice would be given of the intention of the Government with regard to that measure. The Bill was not intended to supersede private Acts, but those towns which had private Acts would be enabled to place themselves under the operation of this measure.

said, one could not help congratulating the Committee, and especially the Members from Scotland, on the wonderful despatch and unanimity with which a Bill, consisting of not fewer than 380 clauses had been disposed of; and he begged to say that he thought the Committee bad that night effaced all memory of the evil precedent of yesterday.

hoped that every Bill would come into the House equally well considered beforehand. The hon. and learned Lord Advocate, by the great attention he had paid to the suggestions offered him, had saved a vast deal of time to the House, and had also completed a very satisfactory measure.

said, that this clause gave the Railway Commissioners power to annul the resolutions which any meeting of shareholders might adopt. This was a most extraordinary power to vest in the Commissioners, and he would divide the Committee on it.

said, the clause was not in the Bill originally, but was introduced when the Bill was in Committee in the other House. In his opinion the clause was not of much importance; but he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not divide upon it.

admitted that the power conferred by the clause was an unusual one, but the Bill proceeded entirely on the principle of vesting a large discretionary authority in the Railway Commissioners.

thought the power given to the Commissioners by this clause was of a most arbitrary character.

suggesed that the clause might be amended by merely giving the Commissioners power to direct, when they deemed it necessary, that a fresh meeting of shareholders should take place.

assented to this suggestion; and

stated that, although the clause required certain advertisments to be published in in the Edinburgh Gazette, yet the Bill itself did not apply to Scotland any more than the Winding-up Act. It was desirable that it should.

was apprehensive that the machinery of the Scotch courts would not tally exactly with the arrangements of the Bill, But he would consult the Lord Advocate with the view of ascertaining whether the Bill could be applied to Scotland.

said, he was unwilling to interrupt the course of any Motion, but he must beg to express to the hon. and learned Gentleman his opinion that the Motion which he (the Chairman) found the hon. and learned Member was about to propose, did not come at all within the scope of the Bill under discussion, which was "A Bill to Shorten the Duration of Elections in Ireland, and for establishing additional places for taking the poll thereat;" whereas the Motion of the hon. and learned Member had reference to the mode of taking votes, and could not be admitted as within the scope of the Bill.

said, he did not much like to be thrown over in such a manner; but, of course, if the hon. Gentleman in the chair decided against his proceeding with the Motion, he should at once submit. He begged, however, to observe, that when he first contemplated to bring the matter forward, it was his intention to propose his clause as an Amendment on the Irish Parliamentary Voters Bill; but then he was told he could not introduce it into that Bill, and that the present Bill would afford the fitting occasion. His Motion had been for sometime on the Paper, and he really thought the objection now started ought to have been communicated to him before. However, he was in the hands of the Chairman.

had had no communication with the hon. and learned Member as to the fitting occasion on which to propose the Motion.

said, no doubt the rule propounded from the chair was quite clear; the course for the hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue, however, was equally clear; all he had to do was to withdraw his Motion, of which he (Mr. Aglionby) entirely approved in itself, and which he should cordially support, both as an act of justice towards Ireland, and as a valuable precedent for England, and to propose it again on the third reading as a separate clause. The Bill, if so amended, would then have to be put from the chair "as a Bill to shorten the duration of elections in Ireland, for establishing additional places for taking the poll thereat, and for taking the votes thereat by way of ballot."

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would adopt the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, and upon the House resuming give notice of the clause as a separate clause to be proposed on the third reading. The House would then have full notice of what was intended; and all who desired to give this most necessary protection to the people of Ireland would, he trusted, be in their places when the occasion arrived for recording their votes.

cordially thanked the hon. and learned Member for Tralee or bringing forward this proposition; it would have been disgraceful to the Irish representatives, if not one of them had been found prepared to assert the right of the electors of Ireland to protection; and he trusted that all friends to the principle would be present in the House when the Motion should be made.

fully concurred in the hope that his hon. and learned Friend would give the notice suggested, so that all the Irish representatives might have the opportunity of rallying for the protection of the Irish constituencies, and for the benefit, ultimately, of the electors of England.

had certainly not consulted the hon. Gentleman in the chair upon the point; but, on the other hand, the objection had not seemed to strike the hon. Gentleman until he (Mr. M. O'Connell) had made some progress in his observations introductory of the Motion. The Government, as all other parties ought to be, had been quite aware that the Motion was on the books; he himself had been in attendance every evening watching the Bill; and he must repeat his feeling, that it would have been more courteous to him had he been informed that this special demurrer would be started. As it was, he should adopt the course suggested.

had really not been aware of the scope of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion; indeed, he had so many things before him, that he had not had time to notice it at all.

said, that the clause proposed to give powers to the Lord Lieutenant; the office might be abolished.

apprehended that in that case the duties of the Lord Lieutenant would devolve by statute upon some other functionary.

then opposed the whole clause, because it was different to the provision of the English Act. It was desirable to assimilate the laws of the two coun- tries as much as possible, and he objected most strongly to leaving such power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.

agreed entirely with the noble Lord. If the Executive Government could alter the polling place as they pleased, the elections would be virtually in their hands.

explained that his attention had not been particularly directed to the clause. As the principle of the Bill certainly was to assimilate the law of Ireland to the law of England, it would be better to leave out the clause, and introduce a new clause with similar provisions to the English Act. If the noble Lord had prepared any such clause, perhaps it could be introduced then.

said, he would sooner leave it in the hands of the Government; and the clause was struck out.

thought it would be for the convenience of the House that he should state the course which he intended to pursue with reference to this measure. He did not propose to make any statement on the present position of the Bill, but he agreed with his noble Friend who had hitherto taken charge of the measure, and who had announced his intentions publicly, though not as yet to that House, that the framework of the proposition brought forward by Her Majesty's Ministers was more likely to produce a beneficial result than the framework of the measure which he and his noble Friend had introduced. Thus far he agreed with his noble Friend, and he was prepared to accept, with him, the machinery by which Her Majesty's Government proposed to carry out the object they had in view. But beyond that his concurrence with his noble Friend did not go, and therefore, on the bringing up of the report, he would move that "half-past five" be substituted for "six o'clock" in the evening—an alteration which, in point of fact, would make the proposal of the Government an effective Ten Hours Bill. He would say no more than that he conceived the honour of that House and the rights of the people were concerned in passing an effective Ten Hours Bill.

appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether they might not go into Committee that night, pro formâ, and take the discussion of the clause proposed by the Government on the report?

said, the Bill was not under his charge; and, as the noble Lord the Member for Bath had gone away after expressing a wish that it should be left over till Monday, he did not think they would be justified in taking it up.

begged to move for a return of the names of all persons appointed, or recommended for appointment, by the President of the Board of Control, to any medical situation in the East Indies.

opposed the Motion, as being one of a very objectionable and invidious character. A similar return was moved for by the hon. Member for Carlow on the 16th of April, and on a division it was rejected by 53 against 23 votes. That return, indeed, extended to every description of appointment excepting the judges of the courts of law in India. Why the President of the Board of Control should be so particularly pointed out for this exhibition, as if he had done something worse than any other Minister of the Crown in the dispensation of patronage, be could not understand. As far as he was himself concerned, he could say that the distribution of patronage was just the most disagreeable thing that attached to the office he held.

did not intend to cast the slightest imputation on the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had dispensed his patronage. He had made the Motion at the request of the medical profession in Ireland, among whom there prevailed a suspicion that they were not fairly dealt with in respect to the appointments in India.

could confirm the statement of his hon. Friend, that the medical profession in Ireland felt themselves aggrieved in this matter; and the return now asked for would show whether their opinion was well founded or not.

had omitted to mention that, after all, the appointments put in his hands as President of the Board of Control were only two in each year, for, in point of fact, it was the East India Company who made the appointments, he only having the power of recommending the parties to the Company.

could not understand why the return should be confined to the medical appointments. It might, with as much reason, be extended to the whole patronage exercised by the East India Company.

, though not satisfied with the explanations given, would withdraw the Motion.