asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether Her Majesty's Government intended to bring in a Bill this present Session to assimilate the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland to that of England?

said, that in the month of March last, in reply to a similar question, he had stated that he would during the recess take the opportunity of consulting the Irish Judges on the subject, and that he had now to state that he had drawn up a Bill with their almost unanimous concurrence, which he should lay before the House in a few days.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government meant to proceed with the Corporation of London Bill this Session?

said, he could not give a decided answer to the question until he had seen what progress was made with other and more important business.

asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill during the present Session for the regulation of Petty Sessions Clerks' salaries in Ireland?

said, it was the intention of the Government to reintroduce in the course of the present Session the Bill which had been laid before the last Parliament with modifications.

asked the Vice President of the Board of Trade whether the Government intended to take any steps for collecting agricultural statistics in England?

said, he was not aware that the Government had any such intention at present.

asked the President of the Board of Control whether it was intended to apply any portion of the money borrowed by the Government of India from the King of Oude [see printed Return, No. 102, 14th March, 1856] to the payment of public and bonâ fide debts still unpaid and payable to the creditors of that Prince?—[See printed Return, No. 140, 18th March, 1857.]

said, that all the public and bonâ fide debts of the King of Oude would be referred to the Government of India, and, though he was not prepared to say that any particular sum would be allotted for the purpose of defraying them, yet any debt which was shown to be public and bonâ fide would no doubt be paid out of the ordinary revenues of the, country.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report of the Civil Service Superannuation Commission would be laid upon the table, and whether the Government contemplated introducing, at an early day, a Bill to alter the system under which the superannuation allowances were at present provided?

said, that he had been informed by the Secretary to the Commissioners that the Report would probably be presented in the course of the next week, and until they had seen the Report the Government could not come to any decision upon the subject of their inquiries.

asked the Vice President of the Board of Trade when he intended to introduce a Bill for the abolition of the Passing Tolls; also, whether he proposed to introduce any Bill for the abolition of the charges on shipping at Liverpool and other places, and also for taking away the power of the Trinity House at Newcastle in the appointment of pilots for the port of Sunderland?

said, that it was the intention of the Government, when the stale of public business would allow, to introduce a Bill founded on some of the recommendations of the Commissioners for inquiring into the subject of the shipping dues, who reported in 1854, but it would be more convenient if he were to reserve a statement of its details until he asked for leave to introduce the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill embodying such of the suggestions of the Committee of last Session upon the Ecclesiastical Commission as required the sanction of Parliament?

said, that he hoped very soon to be able to give notice of a Bill founded on the Report of the Commissioners.

said, he wished to put to the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question of which he had given notice. He believed it was well known that an expedition was being fitted out in the ports of the United States the destination of which was said to be the coasts of central America and the territory of New Granada. The question he had to ask was, whether Her Majesty's Government intended to station a naval force in that quarter for the protection of British interests?

Sir, in reply to the question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that the Government have stationed, or are about to station, on the coasts of Central America, on both sides, naval forces which they think sufficient for the protection of British interests; but, considering the interest—I may say the anxiety—which has been excited in the public mind by the rumours to which my hon. Friend has referred, it would be more agreeable probably to the House that I should give a short explanation of this question, and of its present position. My hon. Friend and the House are aware that some months ago there occurred a very deplorable scene of violence and outrage at the Isthmus of Panama; that a quarrel began—nobody well knew how—some people say that it was a simple dispute between a passenger and a native about a water-melon; but, at all events, it acted like a spark thrown upon a smouldering fire, which burst out into a flame, and the reciprocal dislike which had been long growing up led to acts of great violence and scenes of bloodshed which everybody must deeply deplore. The United States' Government applied for redress for the past and security for the future, but I am sorry to say that the Government of New Granada, which is not particularly celebrated for accurate recollections of duties or performance of obligations, refused compliance with those demands. Thence arose negotiations and communications between the United States and New Granada Governments, which have not yet led to any satisfactory termination. It is quite clear, I think, that that which is true in regard to private property is true also in regard to sovereignty—that there is attached to it duties as well as rights; and that the Government of New Granada is bound to provide for the security of persons and property passing along the railway through its dominions. The excuse which it gave for refusing compensation to those who suffered by these excesses was, I think, to a certain degree, its own condemnation, because it alleged that the high-handed proceedings of the passengers for a long time before had created great exasperation, and it, therefore, was not wonderful that a slight cause should produce very considerable results. Now, I must say that if they knew that this great exasperation existed, it was their duty to take measures to prevent the commission of outrages, either by foreigners upon their own subjects, or by their own subjects upon foreigners. We have been in communication with the United States Government upon this matter—a matter which evidently concerns not merely the interests of the citizens of the United States, but also those of the citizens of all other nations whose people are in the habit of traversing this isthmus. I am happy to say that the United States' Government profess the most just and honourable intentions. They disclaim any desire to occupy or take possession of any portion of the territory of New Granada, or of occupying the railway. That which they say they are naturally entitled to expect is security for their citizens in passing and repassing the isthmus by railway; and they naturally also require some redress for the injuries which were sustained upon the occasion to which I have referred. I am happy to say that their requirements are such as would be made by any Government in a similar position, and that they entirely disclaim any intention of taking advantage of this quarrel for the purpose of putting forward any unjust or aggressive demands against the Government of the State of New Granada.

in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Act 16 & 17 Vict., c. 30, and to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of Aggravated Assaults upon Women and Children, and for preventing delay and expense in the Administration of certain parts of the Criminal Law, said, that he trusted that he should be able to show to Her Majesty's Government that the time had now arrived when some alteration in the Act of Parliament upon this subject was imperative, and that he would have their support for the Bill he now proposed. When a similar proposition was brought forward in 1853 the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, speaking of an Amendment to the existing Act, moved by his Friend Mr. Phinn, then Member for Bath, by which Amendment it was proposed to inflict corporal punish- ment for aggravated assaults upon women and children, asked the House first of all to try the remedy then proposed, and then if it failed he should not oppose the introduction of some stronger measure. Experience had shown that such a measure was now necessary, the offence in question not being perceptibly affected by the Act in question, and being very far indeed from a light one. He said this Bill was similar to that which he introduced last year, and one of his reasons for proposing it again was, that he had a new House to appeal to on the subject. He did not intend his measure to apply to cases in which a man had simply struck a woman, although that was unmanly enough, or had reasonably chastised a child. The cases with which he wished to deal were those in which a man, infuriated by evil passions or by drink, knocked down, kicked, trampled upon, and dragged by the hair the unfortunate victim of his brutality, or systematically beat a young child. To show that such cases really occurred, he quoted two cases from the police reports of the last year. In the first of these cases, which was tried at the Westminster Police-court—

"William Eberland, a tinker, living at Maidenhead-court, St. Ermine's-hill, Westminster, was charged with cruelty to Ellen Eberland, his child, aged twelve years.

"Complainant, a wretched picture of misery and neglect, said,—The defendant is my father. I have a mother, who lived at home with us, but is now in prison. My father heat me last night with a whip, because he had left some money on the shelf, which got lost, though I knew nothing about it. My father was drunk; he never beats me when he is sober. My mother has been away a long while. My two little sisters and brother were the only persons in the house. He took me out of bed, and beat me with the whip. I had nothing on but my chemise. I cried out till a woman came into the room, and then I went down stairs, and was taken to the workhouse.

"Ferris Carr, 206 B, said,—About half-past I this morning I was fetched to the house. I went upstairs and found the child naked, excepting a bit of a skirt round her body, bleeding from the shoulders and back. The prisoner had got a gutta percha whip in his hand, which he threw away when I entered. I told him I should take him to the station, when he said, 'I'll throw you out of the window.' I got assistance and took him into custody. He was drunk, but knew well what he was about.

"Mr. Arnold: What was the condition of the children?

"Witness: Most wretched; I never saw anything so bad in my life.

"Mrs. Elizabeth Perry, the next witness, said,—I was passing and heard shrieks and cries. I heard the poor child say, 'Father, father, pray don't beat me any more, I'll try and find the money;' but he kept on boating her. A woman told me he had been beating her for two hours. I went to her; she had no skirt on. She was naked. I put the skirt on her, and covered her with the shawl she now wears. I noticed her back. She had been much beaten about and ill-used. I saw blood from the marks of the whip on her back and shoulders.

"The child was here examined, and her back appeared one mass of severe lacerations, reaching from the shoulders down to the waist. The gutta percha, whip (a stout riding whip with a thin point) was produced in court.

"A sergeant said that besides the lacerations exhibited on the body and shoulders, the child's legs were literally covered with wounds.

"A nurse from the workhouse proved that the child's back was bleeding very much. There were similar injuries on both thighs and the calves of the legs. All the children were in the most filthy state.

"A next-door neighbour to the accused proved hearing fearful cries of distress from the child for half an hour. She remonstrated, but he continued to beat her. Witness never heard cries before.

"The case was adjourned, in order to procure the evidence of other persons in the same house to show prisoner's previous treatment of the child.''

In the second —

"James Martin, a carpenter, was charged before Mr. D'Eyncourt with cruelty to his wife.

"Bristow, N 59, said, at two this morning, while on duty in Hoxton, I heard the sobs of a woman in Founder's-place, and on going a little further found the prisoner's wife crying, with a little child, which was almost naked, in her arms, and six other children in grief clinging to her. She said her husband had turned them all out, and on my asking why he had done so he invited me in. I refused, and as the woman and children came trembling up he exclaimed to his wife, with an oath, that he ' would give it to her,' and dealt a kick at her with all his force. The woman did not cry out, but I seized him, saying I could not see him commit such violence as that, and he instantly exclaimed 'I'll do for you, and struck her with his fist in the face. The blow, in my opinion, was struck as hard as he could hit her, for she reeled staggering against the wall of the passage, and when I saw her face full half an hour after wards it was very badly swollen. The man was somewhat the worse for drink, while the woman was perfectly sober, and, as she refused to charge him, I took hint to the Robert-street station and charged him myself.

"Mr.D'Eyncourt: I find that half the outrages upon women brought here arise from drunkenness. What do you say to the charge?

"Prisoner: Why, I don't recollect much about it. I have not had any work since Christmas.

"Mr. D'Eyncourt: And yet you can find money enough to get intoxicated, and while in that state ill-treat your wife and turn her and the whole of your children into the street at two in the morning. This is really too gross; you will go for two months' hard labour in the House of Correction, where, in spite of your inclination to the contrary, you will be kept sober, and when you come out of prison do remember the ties that bind you, and try and keep sober in consideration of your wife and her helpless children. (To the officer of the district.) You will see if a little assistance is not wanted by his family during the man's imprisonment,"

Cases infinitely worse than these had occurred, but, as he did not wish to overstate his case, he would not refer to any others. The crime was one of frequent occurrence. In order to ascertain what effect the liability to a long imprisonment had in deterring persons from committing such assaults, he had moved for certain returns, by which he found that in the years 1854, 1355, the total number of convictions for this offence in the metropolis was 877. During the course of last year the number of convictions in the metropolis under the present Act were 374, and although the number was smaller than that of the preceding year, the diminution was very small, and there were a great many cases in which men who had been previously convicted of aggravated assaults were again brought before the magistrate charged with the same offence,—a circumstance which clearly proved that the present punishment of a lengthened imprisonment was inadequate to deter men from the commission of those assaults. In the Bill which he now asked for leave to introduce, he proposed to give power to inflict the only punishment which he believed would tend to check the offence, He proposed to diminish the term of imprisonment, but at the same time to place in the hands of the magistrates a power of ordering the ruffians a sound flogging, which was the only thing, he believed, that would be found really effectual. When he had brought forward this subject before, one of the leading prints had entirely mistaken the object he had in view, and had spoken of it as an interference between husbands and wives. In reality, it was not a question between a man and his wife, but between man and woman—between brute force and helpless weakness, as was easily proved; for during the past year, in the Hammersmith Police-court, out of forty-seven of these assaults, only twenty-seven were committed upon wives, while there had been one upon a sister, fourteen upon strangers, and five upon children, He hoped, therefore, that there would be no misapprehension that he intended to interfere between a man and his wife. The evil existed to a great extent, and having tried both fines and imprisonment, he appealed to the House to try something which the perpetrators of it would feel. Generally he was averse to corporal punishment, but in these cases he thought it deserved. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, and to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of Aggravated Assaults upon Women and Children, and for preventing delay and expense in the administration of certain parts of the Criminal Law.

seconded the Motion.

said, he had no great confidence in the efficiency of the remedy proposed, but would offer no objection to the introduction of the Bill; he wished, however, to add that in his opinion the hon. Gentleman had incorrectly assumed that the Act at present in force had been inoperative because a great number of cases of assault had been brought before the police-courts. The great object of that Act was to provide a remedy by affording immediate means of punishment. Before that Act it was found that in cases of Aggravated Assaults it was necessary to send them to sessions, and then in a vast majority of cases the sufferers would not come forward to give evidence, and the culprits escaped. That Act, however, provided that the person committing an assault could be brought before a magistrate immediately after the injury had been inflicted, and be summarily sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Under these circumstances, no doubt, a greater number of cases were brought under the notice of the public than had been under the previous system; but still he had no doubt that that Act had in reality tended to diminish the actual number of these assaults. It had not, nor had any criminal act, put a complete stop to the crime which it was intended to reach, but it had produced results decidedly beneficial, and they would do well to pause and examine the matter well before they adopted an experimental remedy. If any further remedy, however, could be proposed, it was the duty of the House to take it into consideration, and he should not therefore oppose the introduction of the Bill.

moved, that the Acts to Regulate the Sale of Beer be read at the table.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the general sale of beer by retail, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment; and observed, that it was not his intention to occupy the Committee with any lengthened remarks in introducing this measure, because it was before the House last Session, and it was quite clear that the subject to which he referred required legislation. Indeed, the Secretary for the Home Department stated, only a few days ago, that the whole of the licencing system required consideration, but at the same time did not hold out any expectation that the Government, either in this or in any other Session, would introduce a measure upon it. [Sir G. GREY: I said that I should not oppose its introduction.] But even if it had been the intention of the Government to have done so, he should have felt it to be his duty to persevere with his Bill, in favour of which he had received the strongest assurances of support from all parts of the country. Now, without referring to the details which had been laid before the Committee who had sat upon the subject of the Bill, he should content himself with appealing to the experience of those hon. Gentlemen who were accustomed to act as magistrates and grand jurors whether that subject was not one which demanded the most careful scrutiny? At present there was an extraordinary anomaly existing in connection with it to which his attention had been particularly directed, and which consisted in the fact that there were two descriptions of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors—namely, those public-houses which had been established for the sale of wines and spirits, and those houses known under the name of beer-shops, which had been established since the year 1830. Now, it seemed to him to be somewhat remarkable that the latter class of houses, which had originally been licensed for the purpose of meeting the wants of the poorer classes of society by supplying them with a wholesome beverage, which they might either drink on the premises, or carry home to their own houses, should be permitted to receive their licenses without any satisfactory examination being entered into as to the characters of their proprietors or the general fitness of the establishments themselves, while the higher class of public-houses were liable to a much stricter scrutiny. It was also, in his opinion, a great anomaly that, when magistrates in the exercise of their jurisdiction deprived the keepers of public-houses of their licences in consequence of some misconduct, those very persons, as a matter of every-day occurrence, opened beer-shops for the sale of intoxicating liquors, under the very noses of the magistrates, and gathered around them the very class of people who had previously been their customers, and who had brought their establishments into disrepute. He wished, therefore, to see both descriptions of houses placed upon the same footing, and the main object of this Bill was, that beer-shops should be licensed in the same manner as public-houses. It had been said that the question was one with which it was difficult to deal on account of the amount of capital which was invested in the trade; but he had also directed his attention to that point, and he did not propose to interfere with the existing beer-shops, which would still continue, as at present, under the Excise while in the same hands, unless by some misconduct upon the part of their proprietors they were brought under the cognizance of the magistrates. When such an occurrence took place, he proposed that the person who sought to obtain a licence should go to the magistrates and not to the Excise, as was at present the case, He wished, moreover, to extend the operation of the Tippling Act, and thus to put a stop to that system of giving credit in beer-shops which was the cause of the ruin of so many families. It constantly happened that men under the influence of intoxication ran up considerable scores at those places, the payment of which they always disputed, for a man when drunk could not tell what quantity of liquor he had had, and the consequence was that the County Courts were very frequently occupied in trying actions for debts of that description, which under the beneficial rule which prevailed in the old Courts of Request could not lawfully be recovered. That was an evil with which the Bill proposed to deal. There was also another matter, in reference to which he wished to make a few remarks. A question had been asked as to the manner in which he would treat places of public entertainment—not public-houses in the ordinary sense of the word. That question was gone into very fully by the Committee of 1853–54, and the result of their inquiries was to convince him that it would be beneficial to place coffee-shops, and places of that description where spirituous liquors were not sold, under the superintendence of the police, and to regulate them so, that if their proprietors happened to lose their licences for misconduct, a certain time should elapse before the licence could be renewed; and his firm conviction was, that by making these coffee-shops more respectable, a great benefit would be conferred upon the classes by whom they were frequented. He had heard a great deal said upon the subject of unfair licensing, but he felt assured that anybody who had paid attention to the report of the Committee must perceive that the imputation of unfairness which had been cast upon the magistrates was to be attributed rather to the colouring which disappointed applicants for licences had given to their acts, than to any want of fairness in those acts themselves. As the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had informed him that he would not oppose the introduction of the measure, he should not trouble the Committee further, but would at once conclude by moving to resolve—

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the general Sale of Beer and Cider by retail in England, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment."

regretted that the hon. Gentleman had not asked for leave to introduce two separate Bills to effect the two distinct objects which he seemed to have in view—namely, the licensing, under certain restrictions, of coffee as well as of beer-shops. There was no doubt in his (Mr. Seymer's) opinion that coffee-shops and similar places of public entertainment, did require regulation, and that they ought to have a moderate licence imposed upon them as a means of bringing them from time to time under the cognizance of some public authority. If his hon. Friend had brought forward a Bill to effect that object, he would have had his sup- port. He, however, not only did so, but proposed to carry to a greater extent the anomalous state of things in reference to public-houses and beer-shops which had been already condemned by the report of a Committee of that House. That anomaly of having two classes of licensed houses for the sale of wine, spirits, and beer, the Committee had suggested should be got rid of by granting but one licence, and by the institution of a strict investigation into the character of those establishments. No magistrate, however, ought to be called upon to decide what were the wants of a district or neighbourhood; and the present system under which the beer trade was regulated involved, in point of fact, the question of monopoly or free trade. His hon. Friend, however, had adopted a different course, and as he (Mr. Seymer) believed the question involved in the Bill to be one of principle, he should most certainly oppose it when it came on for second reading.

said, that he felt great regret that Her Majesty's Government would not deal with the subject of the Bill instead of leaving it in the hands of a private Member. He was a Member of the Committee which had just been referred to, and should much have wished to see legislation follow on their Report. The evils connected with the existence of the present state of things was so great that he for one felt disposed to support any measure by which relief from those two evils could be obtained. He could not, however, hope that his hon. Friend near him was likely to carry his Bill to a successful issue, considering the brief period which would probably elapse before the close of the Session, and he therefore was anxious to ascertain from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department whether, considering that the Committee had been presided over by a Member of the Government—had been promoted entirely by the Government—and that fourteen years had elapsed since their reports were presented to the House, he could hold out any hope that in the next Session of Parliament the Government would themselves bring in a Bill upon the subject? If any such hope could be held out, although he could not pretend to say what course his hon. Friend might choose to adopt, he should advise him not to press his measure now, but wait the appearance of a Government Bill.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who asked for leave to introduce the Bill under the notice of the Committee had last Session brought in a similar measure, which had stood for a second reading, but which, the House had never had an opportunity of discussing at that stage of its progress. He had therefore informed the hon. Gentleman that he should offer no opposition to its reintroduction. He had not, however, pledged himself to support the Bill, and he might now state to the Committee that he had received several communications expressing the strongest desire that it should not pass into a law. The enormous amount of capital which was invested in the beer trade rendered it necessary that the question should be dealt with with the utmost care. Coffee-shops might be much more easily regulated than the other establishments to which reference had been made, but he must at the same time observe that he did not think it would be advisable to consider the two classes of houses separately. In answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, he could only say that the Government had no intention to introduce a measure to regulate the sale of beer during the present Session, nor could he make any promise with reference to the introduction of a Bill next year which would justify him in asking the hon. Gentleman opposite to withdraw the Bill which he had submitted to their consideration. They must, first of all, see what were the evils it was desired to remedy, and also the difficulties in which the subject was involved. The discussion on the second reading of the present Bill might clear the way to a considerable extent; but if the measure was the same as that introduced last year, he was afraid he could hold out very little hope of its receiving the support of the Government.

referring to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. K. Seymer), said, that if the hon. Gentleman should introduce a Bill in strict accordance with the suggestions contained in the Report of the Committee, but—as he (Mr. Hardy) should undertake to show—not in accordance with the evidence, he should be prepared to offer to it as strenuous an opposition as the hon. Gentleman had promised to offer to the measure under the notice of the Committee. It had been said that the Bill he proposed was contrary to the principle of free trade. But the report of the Committee was not in favour of free trade. It was free trade with a prohibition, for it was recommended to put on such a duty as would prove a prohibition to all but the richer class of tradesmen.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish Property Qualification for Members of Parliament, said that it appeared to him a fitting time for bringing the question forward when the whole House, with some few exceptions, had been so recently compelled—many of them at some trouble and expense—to hand in a statement of their qualifications. The present state of the law was surrounded by anomalies, He was well aware that it was still considered by some to be desirable that differences and anomalies in the qualifications of electors should be kept up—that while an inhabitant in one locality was represented if he occupied a house of a certain value, an inhabitant in another locality must occupy five times as much in value in order to be an elector. He could not understand why there should be anomalies among the elected—but county Members were obliged to have a property qualification of £600 a year, while borough Members were only called upon to show a property qualification of £300. Gentlemen north of the Tweed were elected without any property qualification at all. Members for the Universities, the eldest sons of Peers, and the sons of knights of the shire also took their seats without producing any property qualification. When he compared those Members who produced a property qualification with those who were exempt from this necessity, he could not see that the Members for counties, and for England, Wales, and Ireland generally, were so superior to those from Scotland and the Universities as to show the necessity for the distinction. Among other anomalies which the present state of the law presented, it would be in the recollection of many Members that an hon. Gentleman had a seat in that House, and remained a Member of it for forty years. He sat as the eldest son of a Peer, and at the general election after his father's death he continued to sit without banding in his qualification. Had it not been for the leniency of the House in acceding to a Motion that he might be allowed to hand in his qualification, this Gentleman might have been in a serious dilemma. The case of the son of a knight of the shire was another absurd anomaly, for if re-elected after his father's death he could not take his place without handing in his qualification. But the strongest argument of all was that supplied by the right hon. Gentleman in the chair. He had been unanimously elected by the House, and the Crown had approved the election; yet the right hon. Gentleman stood upon the steps of the chair, and before he could take his seat in it, was obliged to hand in a statement of his qualification. The property qualification had its origin at a period when it was considered desirable to shut out the trading classes from the House, and an actual qualification, in landed property, was accordingly insisted upon. But that necessity for a qualification had been removed, and the trading classes were now allowed to sit without landed qualification if they possessed the requisite amount of personal property. If Members were elected by universal suffrage there might be some argument in favour of a property qualification, but as there was no approach to such a state of things, he saw no reason for any longer insisting upon a property qualification. He would accordingly move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Property Qualification for Members of Parliament.

Sir, I thought it had been the understanding of the House that all questions connected with the representation of the people in Parliament and the organization of this House, should be postponed until next Session, and should not be brought into discussion in the meantime. At the same time, if my hon. Friend is desirous, as he may well be, of laying before Parliament the ideas that he wishes to see embodied in a Bill on this subject, I am not going to oppose his intention. It will be satisfactory to him, no doubt, to lay before Parliament the arrangement that he prefers to see adopted in the place of that which exists. Under these circumstances, I hope he will not think it amiss if I abstain from entering upon a discussion of the Bill that he proposes, that I approve of it, and I hope he will forgive me if I say that he has not stated any very conclusive grounds why we should agree to the change he proposes. It appears to me that my hon. Friend has himself acted on the understanding that exists, that discussion on these subjects is not desirable during the present Session. I trust, therefore, he will not complain if I follow his example; and if, while he has not given us any reason in favour of his Bill, except that there are anomalies at every point in in our legislation, I should, on the other hand, abstain from entering into a discussion or from offering any objection to the Bill, I shall not offer any obstruction to the introduction of the Bill, but I hope my hon. Friend will be content to let his Bill lie on the table for consideration between this and the next Session of Parliament.