said, he wished to postpone the second reading of the Bill until Friday next.

said, he must beg the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the second reading of this and the Joint-Stock Companies Bill to a later day, because, if they really, possessed that intrinsic merit which was claimed for them, they would meet with the general approbation of the country, and no inconvenience could be occasioned by giving hon. Members a sufficient time to enable them to make themselves masters of their details. He felt quite certain that the country would be unanimous in rejecting the Partnership Amendment Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought that the other would be found susceptible of great improvement; he hoped, therefore, that the Government would consent to put them off for a fortnight, feeling satisfied that the effect of such a postponement would in reality be to facilitate their progress if it could be proved that they were the valuable measures the right hon. Gentleman supposed them to be.

said, the principles of the Bills,—namely, limited liability, and the necessity of amending the Joint-Stock Companies Act—were not in contestation in that House, but the means of carrying them out depended upon details respecting which there might be considerable differences of opinion, which, however, could be expressed more properly in Committee. If he were to postpone the second reading beyond Friday, the Bills must stand over until after the Estimates had been disposed of, and perhaps could not be read a second time before Easter. The Bills were important, and should be considered as speedily as possible, but the hon. Member for Paisley objected to them in toto, and, therefore, although the hon. Member was not in a hurry to pass them, he should feel it his duty to press the Bills for a second reading on Friday.

said, he must complain that no sufficient notice had been given of the intention to postpone the second reading of the Bills until Friday. He had come up from the country expressly to consider them, although they had only been in the hands of Members since yesterday. The Bills related to very important and complicated subjects, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would really facilitate his object if he would allow a longer time to elapse before taking the second reading. The effect of taking the second reading of the Bills on Friday would be, that hon. Members would feel obliged to resort to the objectionable practice of raising a discussion on going into Committee; and as it was quite impossible that any hon. Member could, in the short time allowed, make himself acquainted with the nature of the details, he thought that they were quite justified in asking that the second reading should be postponed for a week.

said, he concurred in thinking that some further delay should take place, in order that hon. Members and the commercial community at large might make themselves acquainted with the measures now proposed. If the second reading should be pressed on Friday he would feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon it.

said, he trusted that the Vice President of the Board of Trade would proceed with the Bills on Friday, as the feeling of the whole commercial interest of the country was favourable to them.

said, he believed on the contrary, that the commercial community of the country knew nothing at all about the Bills, nor had any opportunity of seeing them. He believed the Bills would prove like that of last year, perfect delusions. They were taught to expect a sort of millennium from the operation of the Limited Liability Act of last Session, but he had looked for it in vain. His impression of the present Bills was, that on examination nothing commercial would be found in them; but that they were purely philosophic in their nature.

said, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) should have been inconvenienced by the change of day for the second reading, but the alteration had been made in deference to the suggestions of the noble Lord the Member for Hull (Viscount Goderich). He could not undertake further to postpone the second reading of the Bills, as he could not bring them in on Wednesdays, that day being inconvenient to members of the long robe who were anxious to be present, and if the Bills were not taken on Friday they could not come on for three weeks, as on Monday the Government intended to take the Estimates, and to proceed with themde die in diem. He would gladly consult the convenience of hon. Gentlemen, but the business of the Session must be done, and the Bills would not be committed until three weeks after the second readings. He therefore hoped, as the discussion must really be upon details, and not upon principles which the House had already adopted, that he would not be considered discourteous if he felt bound to press the second reading of the Bills on Friday next.

said, he would also move to postpone the second reading of this Bill until Monday, the 25th instant.

said, that the remarks just made applied with still more force to this measure. He believed that to a considerable portion of the Bill the House was prepared to give its assent, but the other portion would meet with strenuous opposition; he therefore suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should divide the measure into two Bills, and give more ample time to consider the provisions.

said, he was of opinion that the adoption of such a course would meet the views of many hon. Members.

said, he fully concurred in the view of his colleague.

said, even were he disposed to assent to the division of the Bill, it could not be done until after the second reading. The truth was, that there was one part of the Bill which was agreeable to the constituents of the hon. Members for Liverpool and there was another part which was disagreeable to them, and therefore they wanted to get one part and to reject the other.

said, he wished to know whether the Bill would impose any additional charge upon the country? Instead of two Commissioners at £1,200 a year each, it was proposed to have one Commissioner at £1,500, and two assistant-commissioners at £800 a year each, the consequence of which appeared to be an increased charge of £700 a year. He should also like to know under whose authority the Police Commissioner would be placed, and whether he was to have the power of issuing proclamations in his own name?

said, that under the present Police Act the two Commissioners received £1,200 a year each, but in addition to their salaries there was that of the inspecting superintendent, who received £600 a year, which officer, under the proposed measure, would be dispensed with. In addition to their salaries the Commissioners now received £200 from the Treasury for superintending the hackney carriages of the metropolis; but it was intended that the £1,500 allowed to the future sole Commissioner should be his remuneration for all the duties he might be called upon to perform under any Act of Parliament. The result of the changes would be a saving of £100 per annum, instead of an increase of £700 per annum as anticipated by the hon. Member for Evesham. With respect to the other points adverted to by the hon. Baronet, he (Sir G. Grey) could only say that there was no intention to change the authority under which the Police Commissioners at present acted, and which was defined in the Metropolitan Police Act. As to the proclamations which hail been mentioned, they were always submitted to the Secretary of State before being issued, and were usually of a strictly police character, referring to the duties of the police, or warning the public against infraction of the law, and he was not aware of any inconvenience having arisen from their being signed only by the Commissioner of Police.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any financial exposition of the state of the country, with reference not to what was to come, but what was past, before the House entered on the Estimates? There were certain points on which the House required information, such as the application of the Vote of Credit, the extent to which the Bill authorising the issue of £7,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds and Bills had been acted on, and other points.

said, he was glad to say that the financial position of the country was such that he did not think it would be necessary for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any statement before the Votes of Supply were taken. The various points alluded to would naturally come under discussion when the financial year was concluded. In the mean time, there was no occasion to bring the matter before the House; therefore the Votes would be taken as usual at the commencement of the Session.