said, that in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he wished to ask a question of the hon. and gallant Admiral near him (Admiral Berkeley). A few years ago Lieutenant Maury, of the American navy, devised a plan for effecting great improvements in navigation. He prepared certain charts, and distributed them to every merchant vessel as well as every ship of war in the United States service. The result of the experiments and observations made by these vessels, had been a great and manifest improvement in the art of navigation, so much so that one voyage which formerly occupied forty-one days, was now performed in twenty-one days; while a voyage to California, which formerly took one hundred and eighty days from New York, was now done in one hundred days. The plan had been adopted by the American Government, and they had suggested that it should be adopted by the Governments of the other maritime States. He, therefore, wished to ask the hon. and gallant Admiral whether Her Majesty's Government, having referred this plan to the Royal Society, and having received from the Royal Society, through its council, a strong recommendation in favour of its adoption, and having been made acquainted that the British Association had almost simultaneously recommended it, were prepared to state that they would adopt the suggestion of the United States Government as to the plan of Lieutenant Maury?

said, that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to enter into, and to take their part in, any well-digested plan for effecting the object in view. With regard to the Royal Navy, most of the observations required, such as related to currents, wind, tides, depth of water, and temperature, were already called for from the commanders of Her Majesty's ships by the Admiralty. But with regard to the mercantile marine, there was very great doubt, as well as very great difficulty, how the object was to be attained. When he stated that in thermometers alone, if they were supplied to the mercantile marine, the cost would amount to 3,500l., and that there were fears whether they would be much used, he thought it would be seen that there was much difficulty as regarded this part of the question.

said he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Home Secretary on the subject of this Bill, which stood first in the Orders of the Day. He saw that there many hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite who had attended, no doubt, with the view of assisting him to perfect the measure proposing Amendments. But before proceeding he wished to know whether there was any truth in a rumour which had reached him, that Her Majesty's Government, being in favour of the principle of the measure, were prepared to bring in a Bill to carry out that principle, or to devise such improvements upon it as they might think best calculated to effect the purpose? If he could have an assurance to that effect from the Government, it might change the course of the proceedings today; but until he had heard what the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department might state in reply to his question, he should decline making his final remark on the subject.

, in reply, said, that though the right hon. Gentleman invited his friends opposite to hold a conversazione on the subject of this Bill, there was little chance, he believed, of its passing in the present Session. Therefore he (Viscount Palmerston), should suggest that his right hon. Friend should postpone his further notice of the weekly meeting. He should leave his right hon. Friend to do so in his own terms, for that House having frequently considered the principle of representation with reference to the administration of county affairs, and that House having repeatedly admitted that principle, he (Lord Palmerston), if the right hon. Gentleman should drop the Bill, was prepared to say that in the beginning of the next Session Her Majesty's Government would propose to Parliament such a measure as they might think fit to recommend, founded on the principles of popular representation as regarded the administration of the affairs of counties.

said, that under those circumstances he should move that the Order of the Day for the Committee on the County Rates Expenditure Bill might he discharged. He should do so on the understanding that the noble Lord had undertaken to introduce a Bill on the subject in the next Session.

said, he was extremely glad that the House, was not to be engaged in a conversazione of six hours' duration—which on the 13th of July would be a great waste of its time—on a matter which involved at least four large subjects of detail; and, though the House had devoted the whole sitting to the purpose, they could not hope to make any material progress, nor could the right hon. Gentleman have any prospect of passing the measure this Session. From what the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had said, it appeared that he had brought something of the caution of the Foreign Office into the transaction of our domestic affairs. The noble Lord had given an answer as cautious in its tone as was necessary and becoming on this subject. He (Sir J. Pakington) was one of those who had contended for several years that if any legislation on this subject were to take place, it ought to be brought forward with the authority, sanction, and weight of the Government. The right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), who had fought most gallantly for several years in favour of the Bill, must have found how difficult it was for an independent Member to pass a measure of this nature. But, as the noble Lord had consented, and wisely so, to take up the measure in a future Session, he (Sir J. Pakington) must express his earnest hope that the noble Lord would not think it ne- cessary to prescribe for all England after feeling the pulse of Lancashire only. In other words, he hoped he would not adopt a remedy which was applicable to only a particular part of the country, and force it upon the whole. Even assuming that the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman were right in regard to the principle, he was convinced that the noble Lord would find many difficulties in the details. The noble Lord, he hoped, would approach the subject with those feelings of caution which had been shown to-day, and would be cautious how he meddled with a system which had worked so long and so well for this country.

said, he would suggest that in any future Bill on this subject the noble Lord would do well to direct his attention to the great distinction between the assessment of county rates and the administration of county expenditure. These two things were essentially different.

said, he wished to repeat an observation he had made before, that such a Bill as the County Rates Expenditure Bill ought to extend to a country which appeared to be almost altogether forgotten. As an hon. Member once reminded the House that there was such a country as England, he should remind the House that there was such a place as Ireland. The case of Lancashire was a strong case, but was not equal to that of counties in Ireland—the county of Tipperary, for example, having no control over nine-tenths of the county expenditure. He hoped the noble Lord would include Ireland in the measure. Separate legislation for England and Ireland was an immense waste of the time of the House, and did a great deal to sever the two countries from each other.

said, he fully concurred with the hon. Member who had just spoken, and, as an English Member, begged to remark, that since the short time he had been in that House he had wondered to see the waste of time from Scotch law officers bringing in Scotch Bills, Irish law officers bringing in Irish Bills, and English law officers bringing in English Bills. The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had preached caution to the noble Lord the Home Secretary; he (Captain Scobell) should preach boldness; he should exhort the noble Lord to do what he did in no niggardly way.

said, he must express the hope, that, if the noble Lord meant to remove the anomaly of taxation without representation, which distinguished the administration of county affairs, he would carry out fairly and effectually the removal of that anomaly, and not impose such restrictions as should render the measure a mere mockery. Lancashire alone was not interested in this question; and it was hard to understand why an anomaly which extended to the whole of England should be treated as one connected with a single county.

said, that two other hon. Members whose names were on the back of the Bill, were not present. As being connected with the Navy, he had been requested to let his name be put on the back of the Bill. He was not acquainted with its details, and he understood the Government where prepared to oppose the Bill. He had no authority to withdraw it he had no authority to go on; and he was not in a position to enter on the subject.

said, he thought the best way to settle this Bill was, that he should move that the House go into Committee on the Bill this day three months. If the persons who drew the Bill had referred to the Acts of Parliament, they would have found that an Act existed which carried out the purposes of the Bill, seamen having power by the 4 & 5 Vict. of remitting money to the Accountant General, who placed it in savings banks, where it stood to their account. Improvements would be better made by means of the department which had to do with the subject. He would, therefore, move that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.

said, he had received a note from the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, stating that the whole subject with which this Bill was connected was engaging the attention of the Government. He now wished to ask the noble Lord the Home Secretary, whether it was in the contemplation of the Government to bring in a measure next Session by which one probate might be sufficient for the United Kingdom? The present system was one of the most intolerable grievances ever known.

said, the subject to which the Bill of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield) related, was no doubt one of very great importance, and of great public interest. But his hon. Friend must be aware that it formed but a part of that greater and larger subject which his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had announced his intention of dealing with by a Bill, which he had hoped to be able to bring in—that was, a Bill with respect to Ecclesiastical Courts. He (Lord Palmerston) stated, the other evening, in answer to a question for the reasons why no such measure had been brought in this Session, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to be prepared with some measure upon the general question in the early part of the next Session. He, therefore, submitted to his hon. Friend that it would be better for him to defer this partial measure. He called it partial only because it related to one branch of a great subject; but he could not, in answer to the question, make any specific pledge as to the details of the Government measure, though he could confidently assure his hon. Friend that the general subject would be dealt with, and that the Government would be prepared with their measure in the early part of the next Session.

said, he should like to have an assurance from the noble Lord that the general measure would include the particular point he had stated?

said, he apprehended that any measure which dealt with the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts must also deal with the question of the probates of wills.

said, in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phil- > limore), he begged to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The subject was one of the utmost importance and ought not to be lightly treated by that House. It would, he thought, be presumptuous on his part to touch upon the legal questions connected with this subject; but he would merely ask the House to consider whether the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth (Mr. G. Butt) had justified his opposition to the measure. In his (Viscount Goderich's) opinion, the hon. and learned Member had made out no case whatever against it. The Bill was consistent with the spirit of past legislation, by which remedies had been from time to time applied to evils that had grown up in the course of years. He would not advert to that part of the subject which the hon. and learned Member had treated so lightly—the question of what might have been the canon law in former times; but he would ask the House to look to what had been the character of legislation on the subject since the Reformation. The first opinion expressed in any manner since that event by authority—for be did not think that the hon. and learned Member would deny that it was held illegal to sell presentations to livings previous to the Reformation—was contained in an instruction issued in the reign of Edward VI., by which this sale was forbidden. If the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman were sound, it seemed to him that they were opposed to the continuance of the existing law, for if objection were taken to the Bill now before the House on the ground that it contained a violation of the rights of private property, it seemed to him that that objection applied equally to the present law, which prohibited the sale of a living after the death of the incumbent. It was not, however, he thought, a mere question of private property; the right to present to a living was in its nature essentially different from other descriptions of property, for it involved the exercise of the duty of providing for the spiritual welfare of a portion of the people. In his opinion the measure of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tavistock was consistent with the course of past legislation, inasmuch as it merely endeavoured to extend the law in the same spirit in which it had been enacted in former times. The hon. and learned Gentleman who opposed this measure was doubtless a great legal authority; but he believed that there were many gen- tlemen belonging to the legal profession who would give it their support. But he was most anxious that the House should not look at this question merely in a legal point of view, but should also observe the important moral and social considerations which it involved, What was it, he would ask, that the right of presenting to a living conferred? It was the right of selecting a man who, as a minister of the Church of England, was to be intrusted with the spiritual guidance and instruction of his parishioners, who was to preach the doctrines and perform the rites of the Church, to discharge the duties of visiting the sick, comforting the unfortunate, and defending the oppressed; and he could not conceive any duties of a more sacred nature. The law prohibited the sale of a judgeship, and any Minister of the Crown so offending would be impeached. The law prohibited the sale of the smallest public office, and any Minister so offending would have to quit his post. The law prohibited the sale even of a cadetship in the East India Company's service, and all persons involved in such a transaction would be liable to punishment by fine and imprisonment. He asked, therefore, since such had been the course of our legislation in these cases, that that House should prohibit the sale of presentations to livings. For what in truth was this sale? It was putting up to auction to the highest bidder the right to preach the word of God; and to sell that sacred trust was, in his opinion, a monstrous scandal on the Church, and upon that common faith which all the members of that House professed. He would ask to those who were not members of the Church of England, what they would think of their ministers paying a sum of money for the right to preach in a certain district; and he entreated them to assist in removing from the Church of England a scandal and a stigma which in their own case they would not for a moment permit. It was not uncommon that on a living becoming vacant, a minister was presented to it whose sole recommendation was his precarious state of health. Now that was a scandal which, in his opinion, the House of Commons had a right to endeavour to prevent. It was not only the rights of the patrons which had to be considered; those of the parishioners seemed to him to claim at least an equal degree of consideration. What must be the feelings of the parishioners, on the death of an incumbent whom they had respected, to find their spiritual affairs in- trusted to an old and incapable man; and, in addition to that, to see an advertisement in the newspapers, that the next presentation to the living was to be sold, and to discover that it had been given to a man whose ill health would enable him to serve as a mere warming pan for the purpose of evading the law prohibiting the sale of a void term, and would thus secure a living for the son, or a portion for the daughter, of the patron? A system of this nature, by which a man was able to buy the next presentation to a living, and thus provide a means of livelihood for a son who might be too ugly to go into the army, or too stupid to go to the bar, was surely calculated to reflect discredit upon the Church. When his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tavistock had asked him to allow his name to be placed on the back of the Bill, he recollected that in all probability he would have at some time the right of presentation to a living; and he felt the responsibility which would thus devolve upon him, and with these feelings he had considered it his duty to endeavour to promote a measure calculated to remove what he felt to be a great scandal on the Church of England. He had no doubt whatever that the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth was a friend to the Church, and ready to maintain all its rights as far as they were consistent with the rights of private property; but he thought that there was one Member of that House who must have heard his speech of last Wednesday with the most lively satisfaction, and that was the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall), the able and persevering, advocate of the separation of Church and State. He had felt considerable difficulty in bringing forward this Motion for the second reading of the Bill in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock. But he trusted that the House would assent to the measure, for he believed that it would tend to remedy a great and crying evil, and remove a great scandal from the Christian faith.

said, he would move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He did so because of the character and the certain effect of the Bill. He had last Wednesday had an opportunity of expressing the views which he entertained of this measure, and the objection which be entertained to it, and which be trusted would be shared by hon. Gentlemen who considered its nature and object. The noble Lord (Viscount Gode- rich) had regretted the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore); but that hon. and learned Member had on a previous occasion stated very fully the object which he had in view in introducing this measure. The noble Lord appeared to him to forget completely what the object of the Bill really was, and assumed that object to be what it really was not. The noble Lord assumed the object of the Bill to be to provide that by some special legislation a better class of clergymen should be presented to livings; and he stated one of the evils which it endeavoured to prevent, was that of old men, utterly incompetent, becoming clergymen of the Church of England; but if he had looked carefully at the Bill, he would have found that such was not its object at all. He would remind the noble Lord, that the law, as it at present stood, provided a most effective safeguard against the evils of which he had complained. The noble Lord must be aware that it was the duty of the bishop of the diocese, when a clerk was presented to a living, no matter by whom such presentation were made, to judge of his age, learning, and general qualifications; and, he would ask, what better security could there be for the appointment of persons duly qualified? He quite agreed with the noble Lord that it was most essential that the persons appointed to livings should be those persons who were best adapted for the discharge of the necessary duties. But how did the noble Lord secure the fitness of the minister and the due performance of his duty? By taking away the sacred title of the lay impropriator to his tithe. The title of the lay impropriator to the tithes was as sacred and secure as the title of the noble Lord to his estates. His main objection, then, to the Bill was, that it destroyed the rights of property, without accomplishing any beneficial object, or remedying any existing defect. The hon, and learned Member for Tavistock had stated that the Bill did not attack advowsons, but it attacked the next presentation, and an advowson was simply the right to every next presentation. If this Bill were passed, next presentations, purchased some time back, would, as property, be destroyed. The measure was not, in his opinion, prospective, as stated by the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock, but retrospective. A man who purchased five years ago the next presentation to a living held it as a chattel interest, going to his executors, which they were bound to sell to pay off debts on the estate; but this Bill would prevent the sale. When the noble Lord said that his measure was not an interference with the rights of private property, he should like to know what he meant, for in all cases next presentations were liable to be sold by the executors to pay off the debts on au estate, and in many cases they were made the subject of mortgage security; and if the sale were prohibited, the mortgagee lost all security. Whatever might have been the state of the law on this subject before the Reformation, he would not, at present, touch upon that matter; but there could not, he thought, be the slightest possible doubt that since that period advowsons and presentations to livings had been always looked upon and considered property, just like any other chattel. The old laws of simony were full of absurdities. The noble Lord was anxious to secure good clergymen, and so was he. He would conclude his remarks by saying, if any parties wished to get the property of the Church into their hands, and wished to promote a scheme by which they could get advowsons and presentations cheap, all they would have to do was to get such a measure as this, and then they could get such property for a mere song. The introduction of such a Bill, which destroyed property without remedying abuse, was only productive of unmixed evil; and he trusted that the House would see that it ought never to have been brought forward, and would not allow it to be read a second time.

said, that while he concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his Amendment, he did not participate in his fear of the danger to property from passing this Bill. His objection was that it was a very trifling and insignificant change in the law, utterly unworthy the consideration of the House. The noble Lord (Visct. Goderich) contended it was undesirable, on spiritual grounds, that any layman shonld have the power to dispose of next presentations; but that is sue was not raised by the Bill. That was much too wide a question to be discussed incidentally; but as to this proposition, he could not see why men should not acquire by purchase that which they could acquire by intestacy, as heirs at law, or by will. This Bill aimed a blow at the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage in lay hands; but he believed the patronage was exercised quite as much for the interests of the Church in lay as in clerical hands. The Bill, as now framed, prohibited only Eases of Most unfrequent occurrence, where the next presentation to a living was purchased by a layman for him self. He believed the House would agree with him that it was very unusual for a layman to purchase the next presentation with a view to go into orders, and then take the living himself. The case was so exceptional that it did not require the interposition of Parliament. He cordially concurred in the Amendment, as he objected to disturb the law in this infinitesimal degree without further consideration

said, he felt that with the opposition which the measure had received, it would be impossible to pass it through Parliament that Session. He should therefore withdraw his Motion for the second reading of the Bill.

said, he would now beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill which, though limited in its scope, was destitute neither of interest nor importance. The object of the Bill was the establishment of reformatory schools throughout England and Wales, to which young children detected in the commission of offences and vagrant children might be sent by the magistrate. The measure, in fact, was but the corollary to the Act of the 11 Vict., chap. 82, introduced by the right hon. Baronet near him (Sir J. Pakington who gave magistrates summary jurisdiction over peccant children, and authorised their discharge on security being given for their good behaviour. The present Bill went a step further in the same direction, and would enable magistrates to send juvenile offenders to schools to be successively established in counties and boroughs in which the magistrates might agree to apply to the Secretary for the Home Department for that purpose. He conceived that no apology was necessary on his part for in- troducing this Bill, because there was no measure which the country was so ripe to receive. It might, indeed, be said that the country had anticipated legislation on the subject, for a considerable number of institutions such as those he proposed to establish by law had already been established by private contributions in many parts of Inland. What was still more important was this, that the magistrates and justices had also anticipated legislation, and taken the law into their hands by adopting most of the provisions included in the Bill he was about to introduce. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent on Parliament to deal with the question, although at the same time he feared the Session was too far advanced to allow him to hope that his Bill, however limited its object, could be passed into a law. He could plead this excuse for introducing the Bill at so late a period—that a Committee which, under the able superintendence of the right hon. President of the Poor Law Board, had for two years indefatigably and minutely investigated the subject, bad only just reported some Resolutions to the House. The Bill embodied these Resolutions. He anticipated at least this advantage as likely to result from the introduction of the Bill, and the discussion which he hoped would take place on its second reading, that Ministers would feel the necessity of maturing a measure on the subject during the approaching recess, and introducing it with all the authority of Government in the next Session.