said he would beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.

said, he wished to know what would be the effect of the Bill on the salaries of the collectors of the income tax? There was one officer in the City of London who received not less a sum than £6,700 a year; others received £500 and upwards. He understood the intention was to secure £500 a year to those persons. He apprehended the effect of the Bill would be greatly to increase the expenditure in the shape of salaries.

said, he did not understand the meaning of one of the clauses of the Bill. It appeared to him to guarantee to those who might not recive as much as £500 a year out of the poundage a sum which should make up that amount. But what he wished to ask was, whether the same amount would be so guaranteed when the reduction of the income tax should take place?

said, he had not with him a list of the salaries paid to the different collectors, but, according to the best of his recollection, the salary of the collector to whom reference had been made, at present amounted to between £6,000 and £7,000. The effect of the Bill would be to reduce his salary to about £3,000, out of which sum he would have to pay certain expenses. Although he must allow that that would be a considerable salary, yet he did not think it would be an excessive one. It was not intended by the Bill to increase the salary of any person now engaged in the collection of this branch of the revenue. The provision more particularly referred to was introduced in order to prevent a vast increase of salary; but if the effect of reducing the poundage to 1d. should be to lower the salaries below £500 of those who now received a higher sum, it was certainly intended that the amount of £500 at least should be secured to those parties. In point of fact, the object of the clause was rather to prevent a reduction of salary below a certain amount than to increase it beyond that amount. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) as to what would be the amount of the salaries of the collectors when a reduction of the income tax should take place, he confessed that his hon. Friend looked so far into futurity that he could hardly answer him. At the present moment the question was not one of any practical importance. But should the provision, as now drawn, not have the effect of placing the salaries of the officers on a proper scale, it would, of course, be his duty to consider whether it would not be necessary at some future time to introduce a provision to meet the exigency of the case, and prevent any undue increase of the salaries.

said, that having paid some attention to the land-tax as an impost, he must say that, in his opinion, such a tax ought not to exist, as being levied by the Government, but that a considerable benefit would arise to the country and to private individuals if a general redemption of the land-tax were to take place under the authority of Parliament. It appeared that in April 1798, Mr. Pitt, when much straitened for money, proposed that the tax should be redeemed. The proposition was not sanctioned at the time by the House of Commons, but in the present day such a measure would, he thought, be both beneficial to the country and satisfactory to individuals. Now, he would ask what was the present state of the case? The land-tax produced a revenue of about £1,400,000 out of which £33,000 was deducted for collection. If sold, say at twenty-four years' purchase, the income tax, at 1s. 4d. in the pound, would be saved. If the proprietors were allowed the preference for the first six months, and after that period the public were allowed to purchase, many benefits would arise, and he could not see any loss or any inconvenience to either the Government or the public. A reduction of £24,000,000 might be made in the national debt if the tax was redeemed, and secure investment for trustees of settled property would be laid open to the public. At the present season of the year, and at the close of the Session, it was scarcely necessary to enter into the subject, but he hoped that early next Session the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow the appointment of a Committee of the House to enter into a full consideration of it.

said, it was his opinion that the Bill had been brought in for the purpose of giving relief to persons in Scotland who were at present charged with the payment of the land-tax; and he thought that similar relief ought to be extended to Ireland, especially as the poor rates were exclusively borne by the occupiers of land in that country.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman laboured under a mistake. The effect of the Bill was not to impose a tax on the landlords, nor was the relief it afforded exclusively given to the landholders of Scotland, but the same privileges would be enjoyed by the landholders of Ireland.

in answer to a question by Mr. W. LOCKHART, said, that the present law imposed a duty of £3 17s. upon all horses kept or used for races; and the Judges had expressly decided that the case of yeomanry horses, though only hunters, if used as racers, in yeomanry races for instance, did come strictly within the purview of the existing law. It was, however, the practice of the Revenue Department not to charge the duty on those horses, or on any horses which were not properly speaking racehorses.

said, he should be glad to know what would be the amount of increased expense incurred by the Bill?

said, he had already stated that when the whole system contemplated by the Government should be brought into full operation a very considerable increase of expense would be incurred. The formation of a large naval reserve was a most important national object, and the country must be prepared to bear a great expense to accomplish that object. But during the present year he did not expect that any large expense would be incurred. In future the coast-guard service would be a purely maritime service, and the Vote for wages and other expeses would be taken by the Admiralty, but for the present year the sum which had already been voted for the Customs would be sufficient to pay as many men as he could expect to raise before next year.

said, that considerable inconvenience would be experienced if one of the Barons of the Exchequer had to come up to town to be present when the sheriffs were sworn in, a duty till now discharged by the Cursitor Baron. He begged, therefore, to move an Amendment in order to enable the Barons to direct how that duty should be performed.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether it was the intention of the Government to grant to the sergeants of the army, while serving, the good-conduct pay which they were in possession of at the time of their promotion to the rank of sergeant?

said, that the War Department were disposed to allow sergeants to receive, while serving, the good-conduct pay which they had previously earned, and a correspondence had taken place on the subject between the War Department and the Horse Guards. There were difficulties in the way, but the matter was under consideration.

said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of the Government to give effect to the first recommendation of the Smithfield Site Committee, namely—

"That the best appropriation, for the general benefit, of so much of the site of Smithfield as reverts to the Crown, would be to adopt it for the enjoyment and recreation of the public"?

said, that at present no final decision had been come to by the Government with respect to the recommendation referred to. The Government was certainly disposed to give effect to the recommendation; but before coming to a final decision with respect to it they would have to confer with the Corporation of the City on the subject; for though the Government believed that the site formerly used as a cattle-market at Smithfield, to a certain extent, became re-vested in the Crown on the abolition of the market, yet it would be necessary to communicate with the Corporation of London before coming to a final decision.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War whether he would have any objection to furnish a Return of the expense incurred in conveying Members of both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday last by railway to Farnborough station, and providing refreshment for them at Aldershot; and also a Return of the number of tickets issued for that occasion by the War Department, so that by an easy arithmetical calculation any Member who wished to pay his own expenses might ascertain what they were?

said, there would be no objection to grant the Return. The whole expense had been very small, not, he believed, exceeding £260.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether the same gratuity awarded to the men of the Army Works Corps, on their discharge from the service, would be given to the artificers of the Land Transport Corps?

said, the two corps stood on a different footing. The Army Works Corps had been engaged under a special arrangement, with a promise that they should receive this gratuity, but the Land Transport Corps were enlisted like all other ranks in the army, were attested, and received a bounty.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he had any objection to lay on the table of the House copies of the recent correspondence on the subject of the slave trade, between Her Majesty's Minister, Mr. Jerningham, and the Government of Brazil; and also copies of any correspondence on the same subject between the Brazilian Minister and the British Government?

said, there would be no objection to lay the papers on the table. That part of the correspondence which had taken place before March would be given in the ordinary course in the papers relating to the slave trade for the present year, and the remainder in the papers for next year; but there would be no objection to give it complete form as far as it present gone, according to the hon. Member's desire.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in consequence of the several memorials presented to him from highway districts in Glamorganshire, pointing out various difficulties those boards had to contend with in carrying out the provisions of the South Wales Highway Act, and praying the same might be amended, it was the intention of the Government, either in this Session or the commencement of the next, to introduce any measure for the purpose of rendering the South Wales Highway Act more just and efficient?

said, that the Act affected several counties, but, as only one had complained of its operation, the Government had not thought it necessary to consider the expediency of introducing a measure to amend it,

said, he wished to ask whether the Government intended to proceed with this Bill, which had only that morning come down from the Lords. He believed that it would meet with considerable opposition in that House, and it was too late to refer it to a Select Committee. The Bill stood for second reading on Monday next. Now, there was a strong objection to the Bill, and it would be strenuously opposed; therefore, considering the uncertain position in which it stood, he thought it would be better for the Government to withdraw it at once, and so remove the suspense of those who were opposed to it.

said, he was not aware that any serious objection was intended to the Bill, but if there were any such intention it would, perhaps, be better not to proceed with the Bill during the present Session. He would communicate on the subject with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who had charge of the Bill as one of the Charity Commissioners. The present Bill was one of a number which had been laid before Parliament for the purpose of carrying into effect a scheme provisionally approved of by the Charity Commissioners. He thought that there was no serious objection to the principle of the Bill, although there might be some matters of detail open to opposition. It had passed through the Lords, where it had been considered in a Select Committee. However, if any serious opposition should arise, the Bill, partaking somewhat of a private nature, would have to go to n Select Committee, and, of course, under those circumstances, there would be no time to get it through Parliament this Session.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, whether it was contemplated to introduce next Session any measure for establishing, under proper organisation, a new fund for the relief of aged and disabled seamen of the merchant service who were not entitled to relief from the fund to which the Act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 102, applies?

replied, that the Board of Trade had no intention to introduce any such measure.

said, that it had been reported that a serious affray had taken place at Aldershot, between the soldiers of the German Legion and some British regiments, and he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War whether this had been the case, and whether the disturbance had been attended with loss of life; and, also, whether the regiments of the German Legion were intended to remain much longer quartered with British troops?

said, that he had received no intelligence of such an affray. The German Legion would not occupy their present quarters much longer.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether he intends to propose any Amendment of the criminal law to meet the defects pointed out by him in relation to the Tipperary Bank case.

replied, that the Tipperary Bank case having disclosed the existence of a very great defect in the criminal law, owing to which more frauds might pass unpunished, it was his intention early next Session to introduce a full and complete measure which would, he hoped, meet all cases of fraudulent appropriation of the property of others.

said, he would avail himself of the opportunity which the Motion afforded of calling attention to the long time the Foreign Legion had been kept in this country. At the time the Foreign Enlistment Bill was passed, it was distinctly understood that the men enlisted under it would only be brought here for the purpose of being trained, and the second clause of the Bill contained an enactment to that effect; and yet how stood the fact? Why, a short while ago a portion of the German Legion was sent to perform duty in Plymouth garrison. He should have thought that the Government would have seized the earliest opportunity to disband these troops, and to apply their horses to the use of our cavalry regiments, who so much wanted them. It was quite humiliating to see those foreigners well mounted and our own troopers absolutely marching before their Sovereign without horses. The matter was one of so much importance that he was sure he should be excused for asking the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for War, what really were the intentions of the Government with respect to the foreign troops?

said, he would also take the opportunity of asking the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) whether there was any truth in the report that officers who had not served in the army three years and were about to be reduced would only receive a gratuity, instead of half-pay. He admitted that under the warrant of October, 1854, the War Office had power to make such an arrangement, but he would submit that the services of those young officers, among whom there were forty or fifty captains, had been such as fully to entitle them to their half-pay.

said, he rose to inquire what requital was intended to be made by Her Majesty's Government for the services of the chaplains in the army? He would likewise take that opportunity of expressing his opinion that some information should be given as to what was to be done with the Foreign Legion. It was originally promised that those troops should remain in England only to be trained for warlike operations. Some months had now elapsed since the conclusion of the war, but no preparations appeared to have been made to fulfil this promise by disbanding the legion. No estimate of the probable or the actual expense of the foreign troops had as yet been laid before the House, but he had himself made some calculations on the subject, from which it was to be inferred that these 14,000 or 15,000 foreigners would cost the country between £800,000 and £900,000 more than British troops. True, the House had granted to the Government the means of raising about 50,000 militia which were not embodied, and 40,000 troops of the line, which, though they were much needed the Government had not had the ingenuity to raise, and it was possible that the money voted for such purposes might now be available for the payment of those foreigners; but he considered that some statement ought to be made upon the subject before the termination of the Session, He begged to ask the First Minister of the Crown what were the intentions of the Government as to the retaining or disbanding of these troops?

Sir, I must, in the first place, respectfully enter my protest against the practice that has been growing up of late in this House of hon. Members getting up and asking the Government what is their intention upon this, that, and the other matter. No doubt there may be subjects of sufficient importance to justify prospective inquiry, but I apprehend that, speaking generally, the position of the responsible advisers of the Crown in Parliament is to be responsible for what they do, and that they are not called upon to take this House into their counsels in regard to what they are going to do on every small matter. In reply therefore to the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, I beg to observe that what we are going to do with respect to the disposal of the German Legion, will, I trust, when done, be found perfectly consistent with law and propriety. More than this I am not prepared to say.

I beg, Sir, to call the attention of the noble Lord to this significant fact, that when we ask what the Government are about to do we are met with the objection that we are too early, and when we venture to inquire what they have done we are told that we are too late.

said, he wished to put a question to the hon. Under Secretary for War, respecting the dismissal of the acting assisting surgeons of the army. He had received numerous communications from those gentlemen complaining that they were about to be dismissed with two months' pay, while the surgeons in the Turkish Contingent and other corps were to receive twelve months' pay. Inducements had been held out to those gentlemen at the beginning of the war to enter the army; they had laboured with the greatest skill and diligence—sometimes under the guns of the enemy—dressing the wounds of the soldiers; and now they were to be sent to the right-about with a miserable gratuity of two months' pay. One gentleman stated that he had been at above £150 expense, and had only received £19 as pay. They were about to present a memorial to Lord Panmure, in which they stated that they had given up a comfortable position and their private practice, and had volunteered to go to any part of the world. Mr. O'Callaghan, a gentleman who had received the thanks of the commanding general, stated that he had regularly taken his turn in the trenches at the siege of Sebastopol, and had been the means of saving several lives at the attack on the Redan.

said, that after what had fallen from his noble Friend at the head of the Government, he need only refer to the questions respecting the reduced officers in the army, and the acting assistant surgeons. With regard to the reduced officers, the regulation in force was that no officer was entitled to full and permanent half-pay unless he had served three years upon full pay. If the officer was not brought again upon full pay, and chose to sever himself from the prospect of being so, he might receive from the Treasury the price he had paid for his commission. As to the acting assistant surgeons, it was distinctly explained to them, that in the event of their not being brought into the list of regular surgeons they would not be entitled to half-pay, and would be discharged with two months' pay. It was on this account that a rate of pay had been given them higher than they would otherwise have been entitled to. He believed it was raised from 10s. to 11s. a day. He could not hold out any promise that it would be in the power of the Government to alter the terms that had been proposed.

said, that not seeing the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the propriety of erecting, in the chapel of Chelsea Hospital, or elsewhere, some permanent memorial of the gallant and self-devoted conduct of the officers and men lost in Her Majesty's ship Birkenhead on the 25th day of February, 1852. He might be asked why he raised such a question at a period so long after the event to which it referred. His answer was, that it was not an unfitting time for us, now that the war was happily terminated and we all evinced our gratitude to the army which fought and suffered for us in the Crimea, to recognise services which, though of a peaceful character, were universally admitted to be as brilliant and distinguished as any recorded in our country's annals. The circumstances connected with the loss of the Birkenhead must be so fresh in the memory of all that it would be unnecessary for him to make any but the most passing allusion to them. The Birkenhead, a large troop-ship, was employed in carrying to the Cape of Good Hope the draughts of various regiments to the number of 600 men, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Seaton, and she sailed from Queenstown in the month of January, 1852. She arrived at Cape Town at the end of February, and left shortly afterwards for Algoa Bay. On the 25th of February the disaster occurred which called forth that display of gallantry and self-devotion to which he wished briefly to advert. There were on board the Birkenhead, when the melancholy catastrophe occurred, in addition to the soldiers, a number of women and children and sick persons. What he wished to call attention to was the calm heroism, the stern adherence to duty, the magnanimous disregard of life shown by those brave men, while the vessel was going to pieces under their feet. The only boats available were filled with the women and children, and sent off from the ship's side; so that the officers and soldiers, remaining on deck, deliberately deprived themselves of their only means of safety, and, calm and motionless, awaited the sinking of the vessel. Their noble conduct was well described by Captain Wright, one of the survivors, who, in a private letter, said that all the officers received their orders and had them carried out as if the men were embarking, instead of going to the bottom; that, indeed, he never saw an embarkation conducted with such an absence of noise and confusion; that there was not a single cry or murmur from any of the men; that just before the final plunge, a suggestion having been made that all who could swim should jump overboard and join the boat, the officers begged them not to do so, because the boats were filled with women and children, and must inevitably be swamped if their living freight were increased, when the men replied by a cheer, and only three of them attempted to reach the boats. This act of cool heroism, which had been estimated at its full value, not in this country alone but abroad, and had done much to sustain, and even to raise, the high character of our army for unflinching discipline, was beyond all praise. This result was in a great measure due to the efforts of Colonel Seaton, who was certainly no ordinary man, and whose rare talent for gaining the affections of the soldiers under his command and moulding them to his will had trained these men, most of whom were young and untried levies, to face danger and death with unshaken fortitude. An equal meed was due to all the other officers and men present on this trying occasion. The youngest officer of the regiment, to whom life was full of hope and promise, trod the deck by the side of his commander with as firm a step, and looked upon the ghastly horrors of death with as much bravery and composure as those who had been longest inured to peril. He (Mr. Gordon) assuredly did not think it too late to mark the country's sense of the discipline and heroism of men who had thus calmly sacrificed their lives to save others, and he therefore begged to put the question of which he had given notice.

said, that every one acquainted with the circumstances just described by his hon. Friend must fully concur in the feeling tribute which he had paid to the gallant and devoted band of British officers and men who lost their lives on the melancholy occasion of the wreck of the Birkenhead. That act of noble daring, performed by men who were not inspired by the incentives or surrounded with the glory and excitement of the battlefield, but under circumstances in which there were no approving eyes to see them, deserved an equal measure of admiration and gratitude with the brightest achievements in our military history. With those sentiments Her Majesty's Government were certainly prepared to take into consideration the propriety of erecting some permanent memorial to commemorate the magnanimity and adherence to duty of those brave men.

said, that, some years ago, several gentlemen of high character belonging to the Danubian Principalities were banished from their native country without having been previously brought before any tribunal, or condemned for any offence. If they had really been guilty of any crime, it was one in which this country had largely participated—namely, opposition to the protectorate proposed to be exercised over the Principalities by Russia. The case of these persons was laid before the Conferences at Paris, and, as a Commissioner had been appointed for the Principalities, he (Mr. Otway) wished to know whether the Government would give instructions to that Gentleman with the view of ameliorating the condition of those individuals and enabling them to return to their own country? To enable the noble Lord (the First Minister) to answer this question, if so disposed, he begged to move, as an Amendment to the Motion before them, that the House, at its rising, adjourn till to-morrow.

said, that such an Amendment was irregular.

said, he was prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The case of those natives of Moldavia and Wallachia had been brought under the notice of the Congress at Paris. It was still under the consideration of the Government, who hoped that an arrangement would be made by which the parties would be enabled to return to their own, country.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was his intention to institute an inquiry, by way of Committee or otherwise, in the next Session of Parliament, into the commercial, monetary, and financial operation of the Charter of the Bank of England, and of the departments of banking and issue respectively, under the provisions of the Act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 42? It would be in the recollection of the House that early in the Session, the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was the intention of the Government to institute any inquiry before a Committee of that House, or otherwise, into the working and effect of the Act?—and that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was, that if there should be a general wish for such an inquiry the Government would not oppose it; but that at the same time, under the extraordinary and exceptional state of things caused by the war, that would not be a favourable moment for an examination into the affairs of the Bank. In another place it had, however, been recently stated that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to the House any Motion for the appointment of such a Committee. It appeared, therefore, that the Government were contented with the present state of things, and apprehensions were consequently entertained in the commercial world that no inquiry would be instituted into the operation of the Bank Charter Act which was passed in 1844. According to the provisions of that Act, the Bank Charter might be revoked after the 1st of August, 1855, upon twelve months' notice being given by the Speaker after a Vote of the House, and he thought it most undesirable that a body like the Bank of England should be placed in a position of such uncertainty. In 1847, the Bank was subjected to a severe pressure, and Committees were appointed to inquire into the matter without, however, coming to any result; and it appeared that since 1844 the fluctuations in the value of money had been greater than they were between 1819 and 1844? and from 1844 to the present time there had been no less than forty-four different rates of discount. Such a state of things was very inconvenient to the commercial community, and it was desirable to ascertain whether it was attributable to the Bank Charter Act or to other causes. He would, therefore, now put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which he had given notice.

said that in the early part of the session when a similar question was put to him, by the hon. Member for Kendal, he stated that as the country was at that time engaged in hostilities, and as various financial and pecuniary operations were in progress of an extraordinary and exceptional nature, it was not a convenient moment for instituting any inquiry. Later in the Session the same question was again put to him, and his answer was, that, looking to the period of the Session and the extent of the inquiry which a subject of this nature would necessitate—that it was not his intention to propose appointment of a Committee; but that, if any hon. Gentleman moved the appointment of such a Committee, and the proposal received the support of the House, the Government would not feel it to be their duty to oppose the appointment. No such Motion had been made, and accordingly the Session was approaching an end without any Committee having been appointed. The hon. Gentleman now asked whether it was the intention of the Government to move, at the beginning or early in the next Session, for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the Bank Charter Act. The only answer it was in his power to give was that the question was one which the Government had not yet considered with reference to the proceedings to be taken next Session, and that consequently they had come to no decision upon the subject.

said, he proposed to move that the House should agree to the whole of the Amendments. The first four Amendments had reference to various provisions in the Bill respecting the constitution of the electoral body of the University, the powers of the Commissioners, and the right of voting in the University. Those Amendments were comparatively unimportant, and the only important Amendment was one in the 44th clause, which really consisted in the restoration of the words of the clause as it stood when the Bill was originally introduced by him into that House. The clause originally proposed to give to persons who were not Members of the Church of England, and who had hitherto been excluded from taking degrees, the right of taking degrees and all consequent privileges, with the exception of votes in the Senate of the University. The hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Hey wood) proposed an Amendment, which was adopted, and which conferred upon persons who were not members of the Church of England, not merely the right of taking degrees, but of voting in the Senate, and so enjoying a share in the government of the University. The other House by a very large majority, exceeding two to one, had struck out that Amendment, or rather had restored the clause to the form in which it originally stood. He did not think there was any reasonable probability that the House of Lords would agree to any modification of the clause, and he would therefore propose that the House should agree to the Lords' Amendment, which, he believed, was the most that could be got. He must say, looking to the feeling which had often been exhibited on this subject in the other House, that he thought the Lords had made great concessions of opinion in agreeing to the clause as it at present stood, and he hoped that House would be disposed to meet them in the same spirit. On those grounds he should, therefore, move, that the House do agree to the Lords' Amendments.

said, he had an Amendment to propose, the object of which was to meet certain objections made against the clause as it stood originally. His Amendment was to give Dissenters, and other persons not members of the Church of England, the same powers as were possessed by members of the Church of England; and the main point was with regard to the public interests of the body, to open the Senate to them all. While his object was to give to Dissenters the right of admission to the Senate, he was quite willing that when the subject of theology was brought forward, only those persons should take a part in the proceedings who declared themselves members of the Church of England. He regretted the course which the Lords had taken on the Bill, as the ameliorations he asked for were in entire accordance with our national policy. The unsuccessful working of the Oxford University Act afforded one very strong reason why they should not in the present instance agree to the Lords' Amendments. It was supposed, when that Bill was passed, that the University would adopt a more modern and liberal system than before; but, so far from that, bigotry and intolerance had swelled at Oxford to a degree far higher than they had ever done in the days of the old oligarchy. The same ecclesiastical spirit reigned in Cambridge, and they might consequently expect the same results. The constituent body in Cambridge did not exceed 200 gentlemen, of whom 150 were clergymen of the Church of England, and even of the fifty remaining probably one-half intended to take holy-orders, so that not more than twenty of the number could be regarded as laymen. With such a constituent body they could have no difficulty in guessing what would be the system of government in the University. He therefore contended that it was humiliating to Dissenters to allow them to take degrees without sharing in the rights and privileges which those degrees ought to impart. No harm could accrue either to the Church or the State by the admission of Dissenters to the Senate, especially when he provided that they should take no part in theological examinations. Dissenters would be allowed to take the degree of B.A. or M.A., but with regard to any power, or emolument, or office, they would all be closed against them. He (Mr. Hey-wood), by his Amendment, wished to make the Bill one of religious liberty; whereas, as it stood, it was only one of toleration. There was, however, a much larger question for consideration, namely, the system of education pursued in the University, and he believed the introduction, of new blood would be a great improvement. He would conclude by moving the Amendment upon the Lords' Amendments, of which he had given notice—namely, after the words "entitle him to," to leave out "be or to become a member of the Senate," and insert, "take any part in those proceedings of the Senate which direct the course of study, and determine the books prescribed for the examinations in Church of England theology."

said, there was one practice in the University of Cambridge which he thought they might imitate with advantage on the present occasion, as well as on many others—namely, not to deliberate, but merely to vote. The hon. Member for North Lancashire did not now propose to give Dissenters votes for all purposes; but, being pressed with the difficulty of allowing them to take a share in directing the theological studies of the University, he wished to make them piebald members of the Senate, having votes for one purpose but none for another. Now, of the three proposals which had been made, that was decidedly the worst; and, believing that three-quarters of a loaf was better than no bread, he hoped the House would agree to the Lords' Amendments.

said, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for North Lancashire was a fair compromise, and not open to very serious objection.

said, he would appeal to the Government not to proceed with the Bill. The evidence taken before the Committee to which the subject had been referred, and the Resolutions at which they had arrived, had not yet been laid before the House; and, under those circumstances, considering that the Bill affected the interests of a large number of public servants, it would hardly be right to proceed with the Bill during the present Session.

said, he hoped the Government would withdraw the Bill. It was not of so pressing a nature that it could not stand over until the next Session, and he believed that those who were affected by it would prefer that course. He would, therefore, appeal to the noble Lord opposite, who had so often conceded the point of not proceeding with Bills at that late period of the Session to withdraw the Bill for the present.

said, he also thought that the best course which the Government could take would be to withdraw the Bill.

said, as a Member of the Committee, he must appeal to the Government to withdraw the Bill. The civil servants, he was afraid, would be more dissatisfied with the Bill than they were with the existing state of things. It certainly was not pressing, and could be left till next Session without inconvenience.

said, he should also support the proposal for the withdrawal of the Bill.

said, he could not see what other course was left to the Government but to withdraw the Bill, as the evidence and the Report of the Committee were not before the House. If the subject was worth being sent to a Committee, it was worth being well considered, but at present the House was positively not in a position to pronounce an opinion upon the question.

said, that early in the Session he had obtained leave to introduce a Bill upon the subject of Superannuation in the Civil Service, and he had upon that occasion made a statement of the existing state of the law upon that subject. The Bill had, with the consent of the House, been referred to a Select Committee, which had received full powers not only to consider that measure, but also to investigate the entire system of superannuation in the civil service, it having been previously known to the House that great complaints had been made by members of the civil service in reference to that system. Those complaints had been principally directed against that provision in the existing law under which annual deductions were made from the salaries of all persons who had entered the civil service since the year 1829, those deductions being considered to be made with reference to the right of those persons to obtain a superannuation on the conditions prescribed by the Act. The Committee entered very fully into the investigation of that subject, and they had ultimately come to a conclusion upon it at variance with the principle on which the Bill as originally introduced was founded. They agreed to recommend the abolition of the annual deductions, but they at the same time recommended that the salaries of the existing civil service should be revised, with a view to reduce them to an amount corresponding with the annual abatements. There were, besides, some further alterations in the Bill, partly affecting the scale of remuneration, and partly affecting other subjects, so that the measure, as it came out of the Committee, differed in some very material respects from the measure as it had been proposed by him at the commencement of the Session. He felt fully the justice of the appeal made to him by many Members, that it would not be fair to the House to enter into a consideration of that question before they were put in possession of the very detailed evidence which had been taken before the Committee with respect to various parts of the subject, and more especially with respect to the question of the annual abatements from the salaries. He readily admitted that that subject materially affected not only the feelings of the members of the civil service, but also the efficiency of that service; because that efficiency would naturally be impaired by the prevalence of discontent among those members. He, therefore, felt that it would be improper on his part to force the consideration of the Bill at that moment on the House; and he thought it desirable that its discussion should be postponed till a future occasion. He should, however, observe, that as he had been aware that the Bill in its altered shape was by no means acceptable to many members of the civil service, he had thought it his duty, considering the extent to which it had been changed by the Committee, to lay it before the House in order that the House might have an opportunity, if it should be thought proper, of considering its provisions. He had felt himself called upon to act in some measure as the organ of the Committee which had altered the Bill; but as it appeared to be the wish of the House that the measure should not be proceeded with; at present, he would at once consent to its withdrawal, and he should conclude by moving that the Order for its committal be discharged.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood one important recommendation of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said, the Committee had recommended that the salaries of the civil servants should be revised with a view to their reduction by an amount corresponding with the annual abatements. That was not, however, as he (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) understood the recommendation of the Committee. They had only recommended that the salaries should be revised, because they had not thought it desirable that the civil servants should at one swoop be made a present of some £70,000 or £80,000 a year. The Select Committee wished to have the salaries revised, but to have them revised with a due regard to the fair claims of the members of the service. The Bill had no doubt been altered in the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to have varied in his views upon the subject, and it was only by his casting vote that the Committee had agreed to change one of the provisions in the right hon. Gentleman's own measure.

said, that a difference of opinion between the Members of the Committee on such an important point was sufficient proof of the propriety of withdrawing the Bill. He wished, however, to make one suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His right hon. Friend was aware that the question, whether the deductions did not amount to a great deal more than was commensurate with the advantages given to the civil servants, had been before the Committee over; and over again, and had been referred by them to two eminent actuaries. Those gentlemen stated they had not sufficient materials for a decision, and in consequence of the view taken by the Committee they were directed not to proceed with their calculations. He would suggest, therefore, that as the Bill was postponed, those Gentlemen should prosecute their inquiry, and get at the truth of the question. The civil servants would then see how far their complaints were well founded.

said he begged to express his concurrence in the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in withdrawing the Bill; if they proceeded without having the evidence and Report before them, the Bill would appear to be the Report of the Committee, which it was not. He hoped measures would be taken as soon as possible to relieve the civil servants from the agitation and uncertainty in which they were placed in regard to a question of so much importance to them.

said, he wished to say a word as to the decision of the Committee with regard to the annual deduction. The Member of the Committee who-proposed the Resolution was decidedly of opinion that all the salaries should be reduced in proportion to the abatement, but he had used the words "revised, with a view to reduction," in order to enable the Government to deal with any case of particular hardship that might arise.

said, he wished to propose, after Clause 19, the following clause: —

"The Court shall be at liberty to grant any application under this Act in any case where the applicant, or any party entitled, has previously applied to either House of Parliament for a Private Act to effect the same or a similar object, and has not obtained such Act."

said, he hoped the Committee would reject the clause, because it sought to exclude one individual from the benefits which the measure would confer on all the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. The object of the advocates of the clause—although they had not the manliness to avow it—was to restrict Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson in regard to his Hampstead estate; and the words proposed would reach that gentleman, and that gentleman only, quite as effectually as though they had specified him by name. The circumstance that Sir Thomas Wilson had applied for a Private Act and been refused it was seized upon as a means of fixing him, a proceeding no less arbitrary or capricious than if they had hit upon that gentleman's stature, and declared that no man of that particular height should enjoy the advantages of the Bill. The covert design of the clause was, no doubt, to protect the public against the enclosure of Hampstead Heath—a thing, if possible, to be avoided; but, if the heath was common land, it could not be enclosed; and if it were private property, which it was desirable should be kept as it is for the use of the inhabitants of the metropolis, let the public purchase it. Certainly, nothing could be more unjust than that Sir Thomas Wilson, merely because he had an estate in a very agreeable situation, should be deprived of the power over it which all other owners of land were to be permitted to exercise. The Bill, although one of the very highest importance, had passed rapidly through the House, because its benefits were to be extended without distinction to all Her Majesty's subjects; and why, at the last moment, was the discussion to be embittered and the impartiality of the measure blemished, by the invidious exclusion of one individual from its benefits? The property belonging to Sir Thomas Wilson was not built upon, because, by the will of his father, he had not the power of granting leases; and when he applied to Parliament to confer that privilege upon him, it was denied by reason of a prejudice respecting the enclosure of Hampstead Heath. That privilege would be extended to him in common with every other proprietor by the provisions of the Bill, unless the very objectionable clause of the hon. Member for Sheffield was carried. It was a delusion to suppose that the proposition of the hon. Member would protect the public. Sir Thomas Wilson was not a very young man; he was the tenant for life, and, in the course of nature, would soon be succeeded by the tenant in tail, who could easily obtain the fee simple, and then snap his fingers at their endeavour to prevent him from granting leases.

said, the Lord Chancellor had no objection to the clause. The noble and learned Lord had said, his objection was not to its principle——

said, he must remind the noble Lord, that the course he was taking was irregular.

said he could, at all events state, that the opinion of the Lord Chancellor was in favour of the clause in principle.

said, he rose to order. Surely it could not be regular thus to appeal to the opinions of noble Lords with respect to a Bill under discussion.

said, he thought there was no danger of that House being brought into collision with the House of Lords by the adoption of the clause, for he was able to state that not only the Lord Chancellor, but Lord Campbell and Lord Brougham were in favour of the clause. The Earl of Derby had likewise stated, that he did not consider this the case of a Private Bill at all. He believed, therefore, that if the clause were sent up to the House of Lords they would be willing to accept it. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) seemed to imagine that his (Lord R. Grosvenor's) constituents wished to inflict an injury upon Sir Thomas Wilson by obtaining his property for less than it was really worth, but he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that they were desirous of paying its fair value. Arrangements were now in progress which he (Lord R. Grosvenor) hoped might lead to the purchase of the property upon just and equitable terms. All his constituents objected to was, that the House should, by passing a retrospective measure, give a fictitious value to the property in question. He, therefore, hoped the hon. and learned Solicitor General would assent to the adoption of the clause. As regards the principle of the clause, it could not possibly be impeached, for surely the Court of Chancery ought not to be permitted to reverse the decision of Parliament.

said, that, when a similar measure to the one now under discussion was introduced last Session, he was informed that strong opposition would be offered to it because it would afford facilities to Sir Thomas Wilson to accomplish objects which he had previously been unable to attain. He (the Solicitor General) was, however, enabled to allay the apprehensions which were felt upon the subject, and he stated then, as he would state now, that, while he entertained the strongest objection to the introduction of any clause in a public Bill which amounted to a privilegium in the case of a particular individual, he knew no reason why any particular individual should be exempted from the operation of such a measure. He stated, also, that if the House of Commons approved the principle that propositions which Parliament had deliberated upon and rejected should not be reviewed by a court of justice, that principle should be embodied in the Bill, and that any Member who supported such a principle ought to be able honestly, candidly, and sincerely, to pledge himself that he believed the principle a just one, and that he did not advocate the introduction of the clause with the view of accomplishing any remote or sinister object. The notion that the Bill would give Sir Thomas Wilson the opportunity of doing what he had hitherto been unable to do was altogether idle and unfounded. Hampstead Heath would not be in any danger if the Bill were passed; but, if Sir Thomas Wilson had any private property adjoining the Heath which he could not now lease for building purposes, he would be enabled by the Bill to apply to the Court of Chancery for power to grant such leases. Why should the fact of Hampstead Heath being adjacent to Sir Thomas Wilson's property deprive him of that right? There might be many other cases in which applications had been made to Parliament, and such applications had been referred to the Judges; for, when a Private Estate Bill was proposed, it was generally referred to the Judges for their opinion, and if the Judges had reported Against such applications, and they had afterwards been rejected by Parliament, he thought it reasonable that the question should not be re-opened. If hon. Members were of that opinion, then they might vote for the insertion of the clause; but, unless they could conscientiously say that they supported it on that ground, the clause ought not to form part of the Bill. In any case he thought the clause could not stand as it was proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, because it simply rested on the fact of a Bill having been brought in, and not obtained. The clause, if inserted at all, ought, instead of the words, "has not obtained such Act," to read thus, "and such application has been rejected on its merits, or has been awarded against by the Judges to whom the Bill may have been referred." He hoped, however, the hon. Member for Sheffield would not persevere in the clause. He did not believe the Court of Chancery would ever grant an application that had already been adjudicated on by Parliament through the medium of a reference to the Judges.

said, he thought that, if the provisions of the Bill were correct, they should not be swayed by the circumstance that they might possibly affect the case of a particular individual. The object of the Bill was to substitute applications to the Court of Chancery for applications to Parliament, and, though he approved generally of the Bill, he knew the difficulties with which such applications to the Court of Chancery were beset—difficulties which rendered it almost impossible for the Judge to come to a sound judgment regarding them. He would, therefore, vote for the clause, should the hon. Gentleman press it to a division.

said, the question was brought to a very narrow issue. The House of Lords had given up their privileges, and consented to vest them in the Court of Chancery, and the point was, would the House of Commons do the same?

said, he considered the Bill as a measure attacking private property. It was an attempt, aided by a newspaper cry, to obtain Sir Thomas Wilson's property with or without his consent.

said, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) did not say one word as to the general effect of the clause, but argued it solely on the ground of its application to a gentleman whose name had been drawn into the debate. Everybody, however, knew that the application of the clause would be much wider. Those Estates Bills were always rejected by the House of Lords, and the clause would apply to any such case. If he thought it could affect some one individual only the clause would not have his support, but it was a general clause, as the hon. and learned Solicitor General had clearly shown to the Committee. If it caused inconvenience to A or B, it could not be helped. It had been whispered about, though it could not of course be true, that the Bill would never have been heard of had it not been for the rejection of a private Bill. Such things were said, but no one of course could believe it. He hoped the clause, as amended by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, would be assented to by the Committee.

said, he was satisfied with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General—that there would be no danger of the Court of Chancery, within a short time, granting an application which had been refused by Parliament. It was a monstrous proposition to maintain that, because a person had at any time in his life applied to Parliament for a private Bill, and been refused, therefore he should for ever afterwards be precluded from applying to the Court of Chancery, under a general Act, although circumstances might have entirely changed. Such a limitation, if adopted, might in many cases defeat the object of the Bill. If any doubt were entertained as to whether the Court of Chancery would or would not, immediately after the passing of the Bill, reverse any decision to which Parliament had already come, then, no doubt, a restriction as to time might be introduced; but if the hon. and learned Solicitor General felt confident, as he had professed himself to be, that no application under the same circumstances would be granted in one place which had been refused in another, there could be no good reason for adopting the clause.

said, he must maintain, notwithstanding what had been said on the other side of the House, that in dealing with this question they could proceed upon general principles. He knew nothing of the individual to whom allusion had been made, nor, so far as he was aware, had he ever been on Hampstead Heath, unless, indeed, he had passed it on the top of a mail-coach many years ago. He therefore felt no personal interest in the matter one way or the other, but, upon general principles, he held that Parliament had a right to lay it down as a rule that, having itself already refused an application for a private Settled Estate Bill, no inferior authority should be at liberty to reverse its decision. Circumstances could not possibly vary, for the circumstances upon which Parliament had decided in any given case were those in which the property had been settled; but, supposing that a change of circumstances did take place, to whom should a renewed application be made? Surely to the persons who had decided in the first instance. They were the parties to whom the alleged change of circumstances should be submitted, in order that they might have an opportunity, if they thought fit, of altering their decision. Upon those grounds he was prepared to vote for the clause.

said, that the arguments which had been advanced in favour of the clause, if sound, would, in his opinion, be fatal to the principle of the Bill. But he was not aware that any person who had applied to Parliament for a private Bill and been refused was thereby debarred from making a second application. Where Parliament had refused it would be proper, generally speaking, for the Court of Chancery to object also; but, if it were right to empower that Court to deal with one case, why should it be prevented from deciding in all? He regarded the Bill as one of great importance. It was to extend to Ireland; and in that country he knew many properties which could not be used with advantage on account of the limited leasing powers. He should certainly vote against the proposed clause.

said, he thought that the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General would be a great improvement to the clause, and he would, therefore, be willing to adopt it.

said, he would suggest that the hon. Member should also add to his clause:—"And where no material alteration in the circumstances under which such Bill was refused has since occurred."

said, that the more he listened to the discussion the stronger became his objections to the clause. If they could not trust the Court of Chancery, they ought not to pass the Bill.

said, he did not believe there was a single Gentleman in the House, with the exception, perhaps, of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow), who was so simple-minded as not to see that the real object of the clause was to deprive one individual of the right of using his property as he pleased. They wished to preserve Hampstead Heath, but were in reality preventing Sir Thomas Wilson from using another property at least a mile from the Heath.

said, he wished to move a clause to the following effect—

"That the Court of Chancery shall not be at liberty to grant any application which a Committee of the House has rejected or reported against."

said, he wished to propose an Amendment upon the hon. and learned Solicitor General's clause, namely, after the word "rejected," to add, "on its merits."

said, he proposed to fill up the blank left for the salary of the Vice President with the sum of £2,000. The Vice President would be a Member of the Privy Council, and by analogy with other offices it was thought that the salary ought to be £2,000 a year.

said, he thought that, under the circumstances, the salary was enormous. When the Bill was brought in the Government had an Education Bill in the other House of Parliament, and there was an extensive scheme in that House proposed by a noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) which, if carried out, would have required constant supervision of extensive machinery at headquarters. That large scheme and the smaller scheme of the other House had equally miscarried, and he did not consider that there was any occasion to set up an expensive Minister who would only have to discharge a moderate amount of duty.

said, he must defend the proposal, on the ground of the amount of duty which the Vice President would have to perform; for the office, if it were to be properly filled, would require a person of some official experience holding the rank of a Privy Councillor, who, having a seat in that House, would be able to give any information that might he required on the subject of education. Having regard also to the amount of other salaries, he did not see how a lower amount could be proposed.

said, he wished to guard himself against expressing any opinion as to the amount of salary. He directed his observations against, any salary being paid at all. At that late period of the Session, when so many Members had left town, there was no opportunity of dicussing such an important subject in a full House. The Bill had been for many months on the paper, and there did not seen now to be so much prospect of the national system being adopted as there was eighteen months ago. As no inconvenience would result in the recess, he should prefer to have the subject stand over.

said, he would like to take the sense of the Committee upon the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. He would, therefore, move that the Chairman report progress; and if he did not succeed in that, he should subsequently move that the salary be reduced to £1,000. The sum of £2,000 a year was enormous when they considered that a County Court Judge would only receive £1,500.

Being aware, Sir, of the sentiments entertained by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) on matters of this sort, I feel that the course which he now proposes to adopt is in perfect conformity with his opinions. The Committee, however, ought to recollect that, although this measure has been proposed by Her Majesty's Government, yet it has been pressed on them by parties on both sides of the House. Indeed, I know of nothing on which there has been a greater degree of consent than the advantages of appointing some person who would be responsible for the education of the country, and I, therefore, hope that the Committee will not by its vote sanction any attempt to defeat the Bill, as it would be entirely at variance with what has been understood to be the strong opinion of hon. Members on both sides of the House as expressed not only during the present Session, but also last year, when they urged on the Government how important it was that there should be in this House some official person responsible for the education of the country, and ready to give the House every necessary explanation in reference to it. With regard to the time, the hour was not so late but that those hon. Members who had objections to the measure might have ample opportunities of stating those objections.

said, he was aware of the enormous quantity of work which devolved upon the President of the Council and the Secretary of the Education Committee, and believed there would be ample employment for the new officer whom it was proposed to appoint. He also thought the appointment of a lay Vice President, to represent in that House the secular view, would be an advantage as tending to diminish the ecclesiastical supremacy which at present pressed upon the cause of education. The Oxford Commission would expire in a year, and it was desirable to have some authority to attend to the proceedings of that University.

said, he quite agreed in what had been said by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley), and should oppose the measure. He should very much dread the introduction of political bias into the management of the education of the youth of the country. He did not think that a Vice President selected, as such an officer would be, from the Government members, would have sufficient weight in the Council to prevent rash changes in the education system. There could be no greater misfortune than the introduction of political bias into the Committee of Council; it would be most detrimental to education; and, believing that the Bill would lead to such calamitous results he should vote against it.

said, that the Committee of Council of Education consisted exclusively of members of the Government for the time being; and the object of the present Bill was merely to individualise the duties, and make one person responsible to that House for the execution of those duties.

said, he could not imagine a stronger objection to the measure than that afforded by the fact that it would so individualise the responsibility. The vesting of the responsibility to one person holding particular opinions was pregnant with danger to the educational system, particularly in its connection with the Church.

said, he thought it would be much more convenient to have one recognised member of the Committee of Council in that House to act as a Minister of Education. The Secretary of State for the Home Department could not make himself sufficiently acquainted with the details of educational matters to give satisfactory answers to the questions of hon. Members on those subjects. He, however, thought that a salary of £1,500 a year would be sufficient for the Vice President.

said, he should move that the salary be £1,200 only. He did not think that it ought to be greater than the salaries of such officers as County Court Judges.

said, that the Bill was an ill-judged one. The duties of the Vice President were also ill-defined, and they were taking a leap in the dark. He I thought that £1,200 was quite sufficient.

said, he would suggest that the salary should be £1,500.

said, it was very desirable that the office should be held by a person of official experience, and for that reason it had been thought requisite to name £2,000. The Bill, however, did not fix the salary at that amount, but merely laid it down as a maximum, which was not to be exceeded. The salary would come every year under the revision of Parliament.

said, he thought that as the creation of the office was an experiment £1,200 was well enough to begin with.

said, the office was one of the highest importance, and it would not, in his opinion, be judicious to name a salary which would make it unworthy of the acceptance of any person holding the rank of a Privy Councillor.

said, though he was opposed to proceeding with the Bill at so late a period of the Session, he was not willing to reduce the salary so low as to make it unlikely that it would be accepted by a person of high position and experience.

said, he thought that £2,000 a year was not a shilling too much.

said, that until they had arrived at some clear idea of what was to be the national system of education which they were to adopt, it would be unwise in his opinion to appoint an officer with so large a salary.

said, that the Government had almost pledged itself last Session that a Minister of Education should be appointed. Under all the educational schemes proposed, such a Minister was considered essential. He would point out the advantages to the country and the Committee of the appointment of a President of the Poor Law Board. At one time, all poor-law questions were answered by the Secretary of State. The salary was fixed by the case itself, as no Privy Councillor holding office had a salary of less than £2,000 a year. The case of the office of Judge of the County Courts was not applicable, as that office was a permanent one.

said, that it was accidental that the President of the Council happened not to be in that House, otherwise he would be the person to answer educational questions. As he did not know what the duties of the proposed officer would be he could not determine what the salary ought to be, and should vote against all salary. There was no complaint of the way in which the work was done at present.

said, he wished to propose the following proviso—

"Provided always that the duties of the said Vice President shall extend to the superintendence of grants of money for educational purposes in all parts of the United Kingdom and the application thereof, and the reporting of the benefits which may from time to time result therefrom."

said, he must oppose the proviso, which, if carried, would create an unnecessary interference with the Irish educational system, admirably managed already.

said, he should move the substitution of July for September. In 1853, the House had been promised that the Roman Catholic charities should be only temporarily exempted from the operation of the Act, but that promise had not hitherto been redeemed. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines) had, however, pledged himself to introduce a measure of this kind next Session, and the object of the Amendment was, that the right hon. Gentleman might redeem his pledge early next Session, when there would be a full attendance of Members.

said, he could not accede to the proposal. The House had determined in favour of a Continuance Bill, but he had never heard of one extending only over ten months. How could he answer for any delays which might take place in carrying the Bill through this and the other House next Session? Yet if it had not received the Royal Assent by the 1st of July, all those charities would, from that time, if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment passed, be completely unprotected.

said, he was of opinion that the Bill ought to be general, and that all exemptions were objectionable. He was persuaded that the popular feeling would be strongly opposed to the continued exclusion of Roman Catholic charities from the operation of the measure.

said, that it had been admitted on the previous day, by the hon. Members for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) that there were special circumstances affecting Roman Catholic trusts which would render it undesirable that they should be included in the Bill in its present form. After the pledge which had been given by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to bring in, early next Session, a Bill which should include Roman Catholic charities, he trusted that no objection would be made to the continuance of the present Bill for another year.

said, he would adduce the case of the Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Act as a precedent for the continuance of an Act of Parliament for a shorter period than one year.

said, that the special reason for continuing that Act for ten months was, that Irish Members who wished to discuss it could not be present at the end of the Session. There was no such reason for continuing the measure before the House for ten months instead of a year.

said, he should support the Amendment on the ground that it was objectionable to continue partial legislation upon the subject, and that the Government had given a pledge to introduce a general measure. Having, in his capacity of Chairman of the Mortmain Committee, examined into the circumstances of many of the Roman Catholic charities, he believed that there was no reason whatever for their exemption, and that they would not suffer from being subjected to the Board as it was now constituted.

said, that there was nothing magical in twelve months any more than ten, and, as the present Bill was a measure which would require a good deal of legal discussion, it would be desirable to bring it on before learned Gentlemen went on circuit, which they did early in July.

said, he could only repeat that he would bring in a general measure upon the subject early in the next Session, and he hoped that there would be ample opportunities of discussing it before July. That he had promised to do, and he had no doubt that he should be able to fulfil his promise; but he wished to avoid involving himself in a pledge that the Bill should pass before July.

said, he was clearly of opinion that the duration of the Bill should be limited to next July.

said, he should support the Amendment, because he had a distinct recollection that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London pledged himself, when the Bill was first introduced, that within two years he would bring in, another measure to meet the case of the Roman Catholic charities.

said, he should move that the Bill be committed that day three months. The Bill proposed to do away with a security granted to shareholders by the Banking Act of 1844, which required that a change should take place in the direction of banks from lime to time. That provision of the law had worked no inconvenience in the case of the banks of England or Ireland; on the contrary, it had proved a great safeguard in both instances. The Act of Sir Robert Peel did not compel directors to retire by rotation, for the old and experienced directors might remain, while the younger ones could retire. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Shelley), however, the framer of the Bill, would alter that, and allow all the directors to retain their seats year after year—there were, in fact, to be no retirements at all. Having seen the disasters to which banks were exposed under the management of self-elected directors in the case of the Tipperary Bank, and also in that of a Yorkshire bank with which he was acquainted, he should call upon the House not to permit such a dangerous innovation, but to let the law remain as it was. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.

said, he would only observe that the Bill was not intended to do away with the system of the directors retiring, the only change which it would effect was to render those who retired re-eligible, which the existing law did not allow.

said, he rose to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to extend the Act to facilitate the improvement of landed property in Ireland, and the Acts amending the same, to the erection of improved dwellings for the labouring classes in Ireland. His object in introducing the Bill at that advanced stage of the Session was, that its merits might be canvassed during the recess.