, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, he wished the House to observe that the Bill was identical with one which he introduced last Session, he therefore did not propose to give a lengthened explanation of it on this occasion. It was a Bill for the formation of separate parishes. Time was when there were no parishes in the country; the clergy were congregated in cathedral towns, and thence spread themselves throughout the surrounding counties. The formation of parishes was for the sake of increased efficiency, by reason of the division of labour. It was of importance to render the parochial system as perfect as possible; and of late years great advances had been made in division of parishes, At first, a whole diocese was a parish; then it was broken up into smaller divisions, and then, as population increased, those divisions were subdivided. Some thirty years ago a large sum was voted by Parliament, and a Commission was appointed to carry on the parochial subdivision of the country, and to the state of the districts formed by that Commission he now wished to direct attention. Great good had been effected, but there still existed anomalies and defects which it was the object of the Bill he now asked a second reading for to remedy. District parishes, formed under the Church Building Acts, were taken out of large parishes. They enjoyed all the powers of performing the daily and weekly services of the Church, but not the power of performing the services of baptism, marriage, and burial, until after the avoidance of the mother church. The clergyman was merely a stipendiary curate, and the district was liable for twenty years to rates for the repair of the mother church. District chapelries were districts assigned to chapels already existing, and they came under much the same law. Consolidated chapelries were under a curious modification of the law. They were chapelries formed out of more than one parish, and full power was given at once to perform all the services of the Church. Particular districts were districts formed under the Private Patronage Act. Thus there were not less than four different districts under the Church-Building Act—district parishes, district chapelries, consolidated chapelries, and particular districts, each having rules of legislation peculiar to itself, which created a vast amount of confusion and complexity, at variance with, and repugnant to, the whole tenor of the parochial system. Another plan for the subdivision of parishes was approved by an Act passed about thirteen years ago, and commonly known as Sir Robert Peel's Act. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were by that Act empowered to form districts, to be endowed in a certain manner, to become parishes as soon as a church was built and consecrated, and to be entitled to all the privileges and status of a district parochial character. The system, under the numerous Church Building Acts, was exceedingly complicated; the other system, under Sir Robert Peel's Act, was very simple, and had been found most efficacious in carrying on the parochial subdivision of the country. There were many inconveniences under the former system. Nothing could be more prejudicial to the parochial character of a district and to the general efficiency of parochial administration than that the incumbent should not have the power of performing the services of the church in his district. It resulted in the most unseemly and indecorous performance of the services, which were thereby crowded upon the mother church. At Manchester, in consequence of the districts not having the power to perform the services of baptism and marriage, there existed in the Mother Church a state of confusion and disorder which excited general reprehension and disgust. The number of baptisms sometimes exceeded one hundred. The parties collected at the neighbouring public houses in the vicinity of the church, waiting the conclusion of the service, when the rite was performed, and oftentimes the sponsors appeared at the font in a state of intoxication. At St. Pancras', marriages were likewise solemnised in vast numbers, and the state of confusion which arose frequently destroyed the Christian solemnity of the service. In some instances, where the services could be performed in the districts, the assent of the incumbent of the mother church was necessary, and he had a right to claim a portion of the fees. Fees were demanded larger than the law allowed, and the influence of the clergy was thereby often destroyed. The districts, as he had already stated, were liable for twenty years to the rates of the mother church, and, as no benefit was derived, the district churchman frequently refused the rates more from this reason than from any disapproval of the Church as a great national institution. [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear.] He observed the ironical cheer of the hen. Member for Sheffield, but that hon. Member by no means represented the real feelings of Dissenters on the subject. The fact was, rates were often opposed, not only by Dissenters, but by Churchmen, on account of their deriving no benefit from the expenditure of the rates. The simple remedy, which he had endeavoured to embody in the Bill with respect to this question, was to declare that no church rate should be levied in a district which was not applied to the church of that district. Another objection was, that the minister was styled "perpetual curate. "It might be asked, "What's in a name?" But there was a great deal in a name. It would be generally understood that a perpetual curate was either nominally or really in a state of dependence on the incumbent of the mother church. He proposed, therefore, to alter the name to that of "vicar," and, where tithes formed part of the endowment, to that of "rector." he proposed that on the memorial of the minister, churchwardens, and two-thirds of a parish, it should be by Order in Council erected into a district parish with all the rights of parishes, and especially with the privilege of having all the rites and services of the Church performed in the church of the district. The Bill also provided that fees should be received by the incumbent of the mother church until after the first avoidance, when they should revert to the incumbent of the district church, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners having power to award compensation to the former for the loss of fees. These districts were the offspring of the mother church, and the time was now come for them to enjoy a full immunity of parochial privileges. No church rates were to be collected in any new parish except for the support of its own church. He believed that vast benefit would result from these alterations. With regard to the formation of new parishes, the provisions of the 6 & 7 Vict, for that purpose were simple enough. Its mode of procedure was to establish a parish, leaving the church to be erected afterwards. And under that Act 250 new parishes had been established. He proposed to enlarge the powers of that Act, and to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to exercise those powers not only in parishes which had no churches, but in such as had churches; and thus they would be enabled to assign parishes to churches already existing. The Church-Building Acts, which were complicated, might either be repealed or consolidated. But he proposed at present only to extend the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in that respect. The next feature of his Bill referred to the mode of endowing districts. There were two classes of parishes requiring additional endowment, and two modes of endowment. One was from the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the other from private liberality. Both those modes were very valuable, and the latter must not be neglected. It was from that source the Church had obtained its earliest endowments, and persons ought to be encouraged to devote their property to the service of God and the interests of the Church in this country. There were two classes of parishes requiring endowment—the parishes insufficiently endowed with tithes, and parishes only having pew rents. There were upwards of 3,528 ancient parishes which gave incomes of less than £150 a year. Twenty years ago the Ecclesiastical Commissioners reported that it would require £145,000 to augment the incomes of parishes in public patronage, and £131,000 to augment those in private patronage. The Commissioners had only been able to provide £46,000, and the House would see how large a sum remained to be provided for the augmentation of clerical incomes. Then there were about 1,000 parishes which had no endowment at all, or a very small one, other than pew rents. The ancient principle of endowment was always to give the patronage of churches to the parties who endowed them; and, adopting that principle, he proposed to vest the patronage in the hands of parties contributing towards the endowment. There were two Acts already existing to carry out that principle; the 1 & 2 Will. IV., one of the Church-Building Acts; and the 6 & 7 Vict., Sir Robert Peel's Act. Under the first Act parties contributing endowments of £40 a year were entitled to patronage, and under that Act £90,000 had been subscribed, either towards the erection of churches or the endowments assigned to them. Sir Robert Peel's Act left it discretionary with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to accept what endowment they might think proper in exchange for the assignment of the patronage. Under that Act £160,000 had been subscribed as capital either for churches or endowments. The House would see the great value of a principle under which £250,000 of actual property had accrued to the Church from the operation of these two Acts. Ho now proposed to extend that principle to a different class of districts:—first, to churches endowed by pew rents, of which the patronage was not specifically invested; and next, to churches the patronage of which was in the hands of the incumbents of the mother churches, who had taken no share in endowing them, and who, he thought, might be called upon to give up their patronage if parties should come forward and propose to give them a permanent endowment. The next class of parishes was those in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, of less value than £200 a year. The next were parishes in the gift of any ecclesiastical corporation, aggregate or sole, under £200 yearly value. It might be matter for consideration whether any definite sum should be named, or whether the amount of endowment should be left, as it was now, to the discretion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but, although he was willing to leave that open to consideration, he should propose that any contributors to the amount of £40 a year and building a church should have the patronage of the church vested in them. Or patronage would follow to a person endowing the church with the clear sum of £150 a year, or providing a parsonage house and contributing a sum of £100 a year. A further mode of endowment was by dividing the tithes. There were some very large parishes with very large incomes, and he proposed to give the Ecclesiastical Commissioners power, with certain consents, to divide those parishes and the endowments of those parishes. Provisions of that nature might be carried into effect without any further expense than the employment of a few clerks, since the Commissioners were already in existence, and the power of creating an increased number of districts did not carry with it a large expenditure. It would, of course, be necessary to protect existing interests by awarding compensation in some cases, and by providing that patronage should not be taken away until the first avoidance by those whose interests were affected. His Bill was merely one to simplify the old laws of the Church, and to take advantage of the experience which time gave us in adapting the Church of England to the wants of the people. He proposed no changes inconsistent with the ecclesiastical laws of the country, and he trusted that the House would, by passing the Bill, lay the foundation of great and extensive good, which would grow up and be a blessing to thousands hereafter. He had now to ask the House to agree to the second reading, and, if it were thought desirable to send the Bill to a Select Committee, he should not object.

seconded the Motion.

said, he should like to know the opinion of the Government on a Bill which proposed to alter the whole ecclesiastical establishment of the country. The affairs of the Church seemed to be in a state of great confusion and disorder. he believed the Church Building Act would expire in July next, and then the powers of the Commissioners would terminate. And he believed that no intimation had been given of renewing those powers.If the Bill were referred to a Select Committee, who were the persons to form that Committee? Would they be persons of all denominations or only of one? Were the representatives of the Nonconformists to be excluded? The Bill gave a power to the Government to apply Crown lands to the purposes of the Church; was the House prepared to sanction that? Had the Church not at present an enormous amount of wealth which no other denomination had, and were the to come and ask for the addition of the Crown lands as well? He trusted the House would never think of sanctioning such a monstrous proposition. Churchrates were now on the point of being abolished, for he was convinced that the great majority of the House would insist on their entire abolition; yet it was proposed by the Bill to still further extend the system of pew rents, and vest them absolutely in the hands of the incumbent. Was the noble Lord acting on his own authority, or on that of the Church? He (Mr. Hadfield) would be glad to know the opinion of the Government upon the Bill, and he trusted the Government would give its provisions their most serious consideration. He thought the entire subject did not come before the House in such a manner as to enable them to come to a proper conclusion upon it. It was introduced without the sanction of the Government. He was opposed to the Bill in its principle. Its provisions were ill considered; it was confined to the opinions of one particular individual, and he apparently did not know what party in the Church supported it, or what opposed it. He should, therefore, beg to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment.

said, the hon. Member for Sheffield was quite right in assuming that the Bill was brought in on the responsibility of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) and not with the sanction or concurrence of the Government; but he was bound to say that the Government thought the object of the measure to be one of importance. The principle of the Bill, so far as it could be gathered from its details, was to provide for the more effectual subdivision of large and populous parishes, and also to provide for those changes which had taken place since such parishes had been originally set out. It was impossible to say that that was not a subject to which the attention of Parliament should be directed. He thought it would be wrong in the House to refuse a second reading to the Bill, the more especially as the noble Lord had expressed his willingness to refer it to a Select Committee. Many of the clauses might require consideration by the Committee, but the noble Lord did not ask for any money from the public, or to create a power to deal with any property not the property of the Church. The noble Lord had sought increased facilities for the subdivision of large parishes, and the endowment of those which were made, and he asked for no money not the property of the Church, except by the clause authorising the heads of departments to devote property belonging to the Crown as sites for churches or the residences of the clergy— [The Marquess of BLANDFORD: Only for sites of churches.] Whether the proposal in that clause was right or wrong was a matter for consideration, but did not, in his opinion, constitute a reason why the Bill should not have a second reading. The noble Lord had also touched upon the question of church rates, but not further in the Bill than the apportionment of certain pew rents for the repairs of the church, and that apportionment was only to apply to new churches. As the noble Lord proposed to send the Bill to a Select Committee, the Government had no objection to its being read a second time.

said, he was prepared to support the Bill; he found, however, that it proposed to confer additional power on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. A Committee of Inquiry into the constitution of that Commission, and its capability for the discharge of the functions entrusted to it, was now sitting. He, therefore, thought the present Bill, and another presented by the noble Lord, ought to be referred to that Committee.

said, he wished to correct a misapprehension into which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had fallen. Power was to be given to a public department, not to grant lands for the purposes of the Church, but to grant sites for churches—a power already in existence under the Church-Building Act.

said, he believed that the Bill would extend the usefulness of the Church of England. The endowment of district churches in Scotland had been attended with the happiest results. He trusted that the noble Lord's prolonged exertions for the benefit of the Church would be crowned with success, and that this measure would be connected with his name as one of the greatest boons which had been conferred on the Church of England.

said, he hoped that one or two Nonconformists would be placed upon the Committee. He wished to know why Nonconformists should not have a seat upon it as well as members of the Church? The population had by this time overgrown the parochial system, and he did not wish to throw any impediments in the way of the improvement of that system, but it must be remembered that the number of Nonconformists, as well as of members of the Church of England, had greatly increased, and that they had an interest in the settlement of the questions proposed to be dealt with by the Bill.

said, he would not oppose the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, and would therefore withdraw his Amendment, but he intended to take the sense of the House upon the construction of that Committee, if it were not nominated upon a fair principle.

said, there was an inconsistency in the position taken up by the hon. Member for Sheffield. If the principle were conceded that no Member of the House was disqualified on account of his religious opinions from considering the subject matter of a Bill relating to the temporalities of the Church—and it would certainly be invidious and offensive to lay down an opposite principle—an admission might, on the other hand, be very fairly demanded from the hon. Gentleman, that he was bound in equity and honour to give his mind to the discussion of subjects of that kind with the view of promoting the interests of the Church. No objection could be taken to the spirit of the observations made by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt), who appeared to make such an admission. But the hon. Member for Sheffield gave it as a reason for his opposition to the Bill, that it had reference only to the Established Church, and to no other religious community. If the hon. Gentleman would adhere to the principle laid down by the hon. Member for South-wark there would be little difficulty in the construction of the Committee. With regard to the Bill itself, he thought the noble Lord and the House had come to a wise decision in referring it to a Select Committee. No man belonging to the Church of England, or taking an interest in its welfare, could entertain a doubt with respect to the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord, however, with that laudable zeal for the interests of the Church which had gained for him so much honour, was dealing with many questions of the utmost difficulty and delicacy. The House reserved to itself the right of a perfectly free discussion of those questions, and the only pledge given by hon. Gentlemen assenting to the second reading was, that they would render their best assistance to the noble Lord by proposing whatever they thought best adapted for the attainment of the object he had in view.

said, that in the borough he represented the measure had met with very general condemnation, and he believed the second reading, if persisted in, would excite serious opposition, not only there but in many parts of the country. Though the present Bill did in some measure mollify the Bill so much objected to two years back, still it was very harsh indeed. The prayer of the petition he had presented that day was, that time might be allowed to consider the provisions of the Bill. There was a deputation from York upon this subject, and also from Hull, and he had heard that great objections had been expressed at Liverpool to the measure. He held memorials from town clerks of corporations, such as Maid-stone, Preston, Walsall, Flint, Scarborough, Chester, Tenterden, Bridgnorth, Gateshead, Boston, Hastings, Winchester, Basingstoke, and a number of others he need not name, but which might be taken in round numbers at something over thirty. Those memorials were from the representatives of the towns and town councils, and notwithstanding the shortness of the time, he (Mr. Hatfield) believed other petitions against the Bill were in preparation. There had been an association formed some years ago to watch measures of this nature, but it comprised so many boroughs, that the chairman of it had not yet had time to consider the Bill, though, so far as it had been considered, the association did not approve of it at all. The great objection was, that it took away the right of self-government. Section 6 was objected to; likewise section 8, which directs the chief constable to make such reports to the Secretary of State as he may require. That would be little better than the continental spy system, which was so odious to the British people. Sections 10 and 11 were also objectionable; he should therefore move that the second reading of the Bill be postponed for a fortnight, to give time for a proper consideration of the measure. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) would not consent to that, he (Mr. Hadfield) should certainly take the sense of the House upon it. The municipal boroughs all over the country were in a very excited state upon the subject, and complained that they had had no time to state objections or suggest improvements. All that was required was, that a man, when elected to a municipal office by his fellow-townsmen, should have an independent right of action, according to the best of his ability, for the interests of the town he was set over. In the borough he represented, and he believed in most others, there was no principle more universally approved and adopted than that of self-government, which the Bill now before the House proposed to interfere with. He should, therefore, move, not the usual Motion for throwing the Bill over entirely, but that it be read that day fortnight.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he did not rise to address himself to the merits of the Bill, but simply to repeat publicly what he had said privately to two or three hon. Members who had spoken to him, that if any good or substantial reasons were shown, he would willingly agree to the proposed postponement to the second reading of the Bill, for hon. Members must be well aware, that he could have no interest in pushing it forward. He must state, however, that up to that time he had heard none such, for all the objections that had been urged were objections to be made in Committee, and not against proceeding with the Bill at present. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hadfield) said that the town councils had had no time to consider the Bill, and therefore he asked for delay. Now, to that argument the hon. Gentleman's own speech supplied an answer, for in the very next breath he declared that he had received the petitions of some thirty-five town councils, stating that they had made up their minds the Bill ought to be opposed. Well, if they had so made up their minds, let their representatives speak their sentiments, and so let the House at once proceed to discuss whether the objects of the Bill were such as to merit its receiving a second reading at their hands. However, he was in the hands of the House; while at the same time he should state, if it was agreed to read the Bill a second time now, he was willing to fix a day for going into Committee, certainly not within a fortnight from that day. Friday fortnight was the next Government day, and that would, perhaps, be convenient, though he could not pledge himself to the day. In the meantime he should be happy to attend to any representations that might be made to him on the subject. Before sitting down, he wished to correct an error he had made on introducing the Bill, in stating that Wigan, with a large population, had only eleven constables. His figures were taken from the Return for August, 1854; but the town council had referred him to the last quarterly return, from which it appeared that Wigan had at the present time one head constable, two sergeants, and nineteen policemen. He felt it his duty to correct that error, and he therefore had to inform the House—whatever that information might be worth—that there was that force, and that Wigan had twenty-two men who were liable to be called out to assist in keeping the peace, independently of which, as mentioned to him in the same letter from the town council, they had a fire brigade of twenty-three men, who were liable at any moment to be called out for police duty.

said, he had given whatever time he could dispose of to the consideration of the merits of the Bill. Nevertheless, he honestly confessed he had not been able as yet to master its provisions. For some reason or other the Home Office had kept them for a long time without any criminal returns, those for 1854 not having been as yet circulated; and the House was not in a position to deal with the measure before them until they had the advantage of examining those Returns. He believed the pressing forward with such haste the second reading of a measure so fraught with good or evil, as it might turn out to be, was quite unprecedented. For his part, he should be very glad if the Bill were postponed for a fortnight, to enable them to determine what was good in it as well as what was faulty. It could not ho denied that it introduced very extensive provisions, and he really thought, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be conciliating many who had doubts about the Bill by consenting to postponement.

said, he was of the same opinion, and he hoped the right, hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) would assent to the suggestion. It was not fair to carry the second reading of such a measure as this Bill without giving the town council an opportunity of communicating with their constituents. When one of the best men in the House at reading Bills had informed them that he had been unable to consider it properly in the time, surely a fortnight was not too much to ask for the whole country. If this were not granted, it would be thought that what the corporations often said was to some extent true, namely, that country gentlemen look upon corporations as poachers upon their manors. What was the object of bringing a Bill forward early in the Session, if it was to be pressed on faster than if it were introduced at a later period?

said, that although he did not consider the Bill as objectionable in principle as some other hon. Gentlemen did, he would urge the postponement of the second reading. Nor did he believe the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would thereby ultimately loose any time, as, by such a course, he must disarm much opposition.

said, he would not then enter upon the merits or demerits of the proposed Bill, though he had strong convictions that it was a Bill at variance with the rights of local self-government as set forth by the Municipal Act; and in that opinion he believed he spoke the sentiments of his constituents: in fact, he had on Monday last presented a petition from the mayor and two members of the Watch Committee praying for delay, that they might have an opportunity of taking the opinion of the Council thereon. In that petition, it was true, they expressed a strong opinion as to the destructive character of the measure, and which he (Sir J. Walmsley) believed would be borne out should such a Bill become law. He, however, rose chiefly to correct an error into which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had fallen, when he said that the names to which the hon. Member for Sheffield had referred were the names of the Councils, when, in fact, they were the names of the town clerks and others, stating that they had not had time to summon and consult their councillors and municipal authorities. He had therefore a right to assume that the right hon. Gentleman would at once, seeing he had fallen into such an error, consent to the postponement for fourteen days. He would not, however, have the right hon. Gentleman fail into another error, into which the assertion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) was calculated to lead him, namely, that the delay would be calculated to do away with opposition. The delay, on the contrary, was asked for to make known the evils of the Bill and the necessity for opposing it, and he did not doubt that the Bill, like another of a similar character introduced two years since and withdrawn, would meet a similar fate; in fact, if such regulations were permitted to become law, no respectable man would condescend to take a scat at Council, and the usefulness and high character of municipal institutions would be destroyed. The aim should be to uphold local self-government, not to destroy it by centralisation.

said, he would not join with those who urged the second reading of the Bill immediately, although he thought the country had reason to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the introduction of his measure.

said, as the feeling of the House appeared to be in favour of the postponement, he would postpone the second reading until that day (Wednesday) fortnight, or the earliest day afterwards, if it could not be brought forward on that day. With respect to the observation of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), about pressing Bills forward so early, he could only say that it was extremely difficult to find a, day to bring in a Bill when the Session got more advanced.

said, he should vote for the postponement of the second reading, because he intended to oppose the Bill in toto, and for the reason that the Bill made it compulsory upon magistrates to establish a rural police—a novel proposal, at all events. But, independently of that, the Bill declared that inspectors should be appointed, who should report their opinions from time to time to the Home Office as to whether the justices of a district had done their duty relative to the numbers and efficiency of their police force. Well, that would be to introduce a complete centralised system of police—a system which should receive his most decided opposition. It had been his misfortune to differ from a great number of the magistrates of the West Riding of the county he had the honour to represent, relative to the establishment in that district of a rural police; and on three several occasions he had successfully opposed the introduction of the plan. Now he and the majority of his brother magistrates thought they were competent to decide the point; while he was quite certain that several of the Gentlemen who upon the occasion he had just referred to voted in the minority, would alter their views if they were told they must consent to the establishment of a police force, more especially if its amount and its administration were to be guided by the conclusions of a Government inspector.

said, he thought it might be useful for the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to know that he had received instructions from the town council of Brighton to oppose the Bill.

said, the town council of Bath had also demanded postponement, and were astonished that a measure of the kind should have emanated from a Whig Government. Neither could he, as a county magistrate of thirty years' standing, consider the Bill, as it affected counties, free from the gravest objections.

said, he wished to know from the right hon. Baronet whether he could lay before the House any statement showing what amount of charge would be entailed upon the counties, supposing the Bill to become law; and also whether he could supply any data to inform them as to the circumstances under which one-fourth of the expense would be defrayed by the Consolidated Fund?

said, the only information that could be obtained as to the expenditure to be borne by the counties must be obtained from the counties which had already adopted the system. According to the best information he could procure, the charge upon the public would be about £200,000.

said, he was afraid that the sole use made of delay would be the organisation of an opposition, founded not upon an objection to any of the provisions of the Bill, but upon the desire felt by the corporate bodies to continue the present system, which, in his opinion, was radically a false and a bad one, especially as it affected the watching and lighting of towns.

said, he regretted to hear such statements from the noble Lord, and he thought he (Lord Lovaine) ought to particularise. For himself, he (Mr. Muntz) was entirely opposed to the Bill. He believed the liberties of the country depended upon our local institutions, which had been in existence since the time of King Alfred, and if these were destroyed we should be in the same position as our great neighbours, who, as they were happy in many things, were not happy to English minds in having a despotic Government. If the House submitted to measures of this kind, Government would only have one step further to go, namely to appoint mayors.

said, he was decidedly for the postponement of the second reading. he had himself received applications from twenty to thirty different quarters for copies of the Bill, but as yet he had not been able to procure them, which showed that in many parts of the country the measure was not as yet understood. The right hon. Baronet might rest assured that the Bill would be universally opposed by the small boroughs; for they would feel that it was merely meant to institute a police force to maintain the game laws. If it were not for the game laws a rural police would not be required, and no doubt the great landed proprietors would be unanimously in favour of a Bill which taxed small farmers to save them £200 or £300 a year. The Bill contained some sixteen clauses, to nine of which he entirely objected. As regarded the town which he had the honour to represent, he could say that for four consecutive Sessions not a single person had been brought up for thieving,—in fact, the whole pilfering of the year there did not amount to 5s.; on the other hand, in the vicinity of the borough there resided a great number of large landed proprietors, whose game they were virtually called upon to protect by the measure before them.

said, he willingly expressed his general concurrence with the objects of the Bill, while at the same time he fully coincided in the opinion stated by his noble Friend near him (Lord Lovaine), which opinion was justified by the evidence taken before the Police Committee some three years ago. As for the view taken by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michell), that was so very remarkable a one that it was hardly worth discussing. The object of the Bill he considered was to do away not with local government, but with crime.

said, he would suggest that, as the Bill was to be postponed, the speechmaking on the subject should be postponed also. When the time came he should offer to the Bill his strenuous opposition.

said, that although representing the important borough of Norwich, he was not opposed to the principle of the Bill. He thought it would materially promote the action of the police in the immediate locality of boroughs, while conferring a great boon upon them in remitting a proportion of the expense. He entertained no doubt that the police of Norwich would be found in so efficient a state as to justify the inspector in giving a certificate that the borough was entitled to the one-fourth of the expense, to be granted under those circumstances. He would suggest that police officers should be restricted from voting either for Members of Parliament or town councillors.

said, he thought an efficient police force would have been created if it had been made compulsory upon the authorities to appoint one police constable to every 1,000 inhabitants, without touching the principle of local government. He would never support a measure which sacrificed municipal privileges to the principle of centralisation.

said, the sixth section only granted to the Secretary of State the same powers in respect of borough police as those granted to him in respect of rural police under the Act which constituted rural police.

said, that the duties of the police were to secure life and property, but the Bill proposed to do something more, which was, in fact, giving fresh powers to the Secretary of State. [Sir G. GREY: No, no!] The Bill contained powers to create no less than fourteen different duties that the Commissioners might recommend for the police. Nothing could be more dangerous than such a principle.

said, he had been from time to time assured by the Inspector of Prisons that the Criminal Returns were on the point of being furnished. He had received an explanation of the delay which had taken place in their production, but he confessed it was not altogether satisfactory, and he had taken steps to prevent any such delay for the future.

said, it did not appear to him that there was any immediate haste for this Bill, as it was to affect banks created by charter ten years ago, and which had ten years yet to run. It had been said that the present measure was the same as the Bill of last year which the House had passed; but according to Hansard there had not been a word of argument upon the Bill of last year. He thought it better that the Bill should be well ventilated before it was brought forward, especially as one of the hon. Members for Edinburgh was absent, and the other had expressed no opinion. The whole question of Joint-Stock Companies was now before the House in another form.

said, that banking firms were specially excluded from the Joint-Stock Companies Acts: The Banks of Scotland had suffered great inconvenience last year from the postponement of this Bill, as it prevented them becoming corporate bodies under the Act of 1845. It was very desirable, therefore, that no further delay should take place.