said, he wished to move the insertion of words providing that in any burghs in which commissioners of the police were elected by occupiers of land and premises of a yearly value below £10, the word householder should mean a male occupier of lands and premises of the yearly value required in such burgh for the election of police commissioners.

said, he would take that opportunity of expressing his opinion of the general scope of the measure, to which he entertained strong objections, He believed, however, that the Bill would never pass into a law. He did not oppose going into Committee on it, because he feared he should not be supported. But some of the provisions of this Bill of nearly 500 clauses were monstrous; many of them were nonsensical. His main objection was that it tied hand and foot the proprietors of land and occupiers of houses, and placed them at the mercy of a body of commissioners and magistrates. The only hope was that those commissioners who had to carry the Act into effect would have the good sense not to put in force many of the clauses.

said, he could only account for the strong expressions of the hon. Member, by supposing that he had not read all the clauses of the Bill. The measure, he believed, would be fraught with the greatest benefit to Scotland in a sanitary point of view. A Police Act was passed in 1850, relating to the same matters; that Bill contained 350 clauses; but some of its machinery was found difficult of adoption. The present Act was an improvement and consolidation of that measure. The Bill had been very carefully gone over, and he believed was generally approved by the Scotch boroughs. If the hon. Member objected to any of the clauses, he hoped he would state what those objections were to the Committee.

said, he approved of the Bill generally, though he felt that some objections might be made to it. One of those objections was, that the £5 householders were not to have the right to vote.

said, he believed the Bill had not yet been generally read in Scotland, and that as it became better understood, a strong opposition to it would arise.

said, the Bill had been sent round to all the boroughs of Scotland, and he believed that no objection had been raised in any quarter to the Bill generally. There had been objections to matter of detail; but in most cases those objections had been met on representations being made to the Lord Advocate. On the whole, the Bill would prove of great advantage.

said, he had such a strong objection to the clause, that if any Member would move its omission he would support him.

said, the clause was precisely the same as the clause on the same subject in the Act of 1850.

said, he objected to the clause as it stood, as it would prevent the Bill working in Edinburgh. Under the existing system, the magistrates of Edinburgh were in the habit of levying one rate on rentals above £10, and a lower rate on rentals less than £10. The clause however, would compel them to levy the same rate upon all. He hoped, therefore, that the learned Lord Advocate would accept the following Amendment:—

"Provided further, when in any burgh, under the provisions of any Police Act, a higher rate of assessment is now and has been in use to be levied upon lands and tenements above a certain fixed rent than upon lower rented lands and tenements, it shall be in the power of the Commissioners, in laying on the assessment under this Act, to continue the same relative rates of assessment, if they think proper."

said, he thought that a graduated scale of rating was objectionable in principle.

said, the graduated scale in Edinburgh was fixed by Act of Parliament. He would accept the Amendment.

proposed, in page 31, line 22, after the word "may," to insert the words "if they think fit, exempt from the police assessment under this Act all premises which shall be let at a, rent not exceeding £3, or such lower sum as they may fix for that purpose; and in respect to premises let at any higher rent, they may also—"

said, that the matter had been fully considered at the private meeting of Scotch Members, who discussed the clauses of the Bill, and he believed they were almost unanimous in agreeing to the principle laid down in Clause 87, which gave the power to the commissioners to levy from the owners, and to allow them a reduction of one-fourth of the assessment.

said, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, on the ground that the clause, as it at present stood, took away from the commissioners the discretion which they now had of exempting certain property from taxation, for police purposes, which in their opinion ought not to be assessed.

said, the effect of the Amendment would be to benefit the owner, not the occupier. The occupier might be exempted, but it was well known that in the long run such exemptions only caused the rents to be increased.

would suggest that the exercise of the power of assessment in Clause 87 should be made imperative and not optional; and if that change were made, he thought it would be sufficient.

said, he should be satisfied if that change were made.

said, he had no objection to make the alteration.

said, he should press his Amendment.

said, the clause appeared to him most objectionable. It provided that no house should be built higher than the width of the street.

said, he would consent to have the clause struck out.

proposed to leave out this clause.

said, rather than leave out the clause be wished that it should be amended by providing that no contract for the removal of a toll-bar should he valid unless agreed to at a general meeting of trustees, and confirmed at another meeting; and that when a toll-bar had been re-erected, the same tolls should be levied as were levied before its removal.

said, he would move that the clauses from 230 to 242, inclusive, be struck out. They gave power to the Commissioners to purchase and lease gasworks and manufacture and supply gas.

opposed the omission.

said, he proposed to add a clause after Clause 14, providing that where the Act shall be adopted within a portion only of the territory comprehended within the Parliamentary or municipal boundaries of any burgh, the commissioners of supply of the county may petition the sheriff for extension of boundaries, so as to make the place affected by the Act co-extensive with the Parliamentary or municipal boundaries of the said burgh.

said, he could not consent to the clause, as it was generally objected to by the burghs.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Under what circumstances the sum of £19,385 15s. 3d. was paid to the German Military Settlers at the Cape of Good Hope during the financial year 1860–1, which sum was not provided for by Parliament, and which was stated at page 4 of the Detailed Account of the Receipt and Expenditure of Army and Militia Services of that year to be one of the causes of the excess of expenditure on Vote 3?

said, that the sum to which the right hon. and gallant Member referred was made up of excesses on Votes for the Land Forces in the year in question, which were transferred under the authority of the Treasury.

said, that his question referred, not to the authority, but to the circumstances under which the payment had been made.

said, that as the payment was not made while he was Secretary for War, he was not master of the circumstances. He would inform himself of them, and would then answer the question of the right hon. and gallant Member.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Writs for the Election of Coroners for Middlesex will be issued?

said, that only one application had been made for the issue of a Writ—namely, for the central district of Middlesex. That Writ had been issued that afternoon.

said, he wished to ask the Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders, Whether he intends to move for the appointment of a Committee for the purpose of ascertaining whether any alteration can be made in the conduct of Private Business, so as to diminish the expense now incurred by Promoters and Opponents of Private Bills?

Sir, it is my intention to move for a Select Committee to revise the Standing Orders of the House; and if the House accede to my proposition, I intend to propose certain Resolutions connected with the Standing Orders which will have the effect of reducing some of the expenses of private legislation in this House. There are other expenses incurred in private legislation before Parliament which have no reference to Standing Orders. I am not in a position to investigate that subject, inasmuch as certain Returns which I moved for at the early part of the Session hare not yet been furnished. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of giving notice to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that on to-morrow I shall ask him why the Returns having reference to the expenses incurred by Railways and other Companies in private legislation have not sooner been furnished to the House.

said, he would beg to ask whether the contemplated changes would include any diminution of fees to the Officers of the House?

Some of the fees are dependent on the Standing Orders of this House, which will be under the cognizance of the Committee I shall have the honour to move for. But there are other fees which can only he investigated by a Committee having the power of examining into the whole question.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman intended to move for the Committee this Session?

I shall give notice this evening of my intention to move on Thursday.

said, he rose to move for a Return of Grants, &c., by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the year 1861. He had put a similar notice on the paper a month ago, but abstained from pressing it then, in consequence of a representation made to him that it would occasion considerable inconvenience.

said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. A Committee was now sitting, within the scope of whose inquiry the information asked for clearly came; and until that Committee made its Report, it was undesirable to call for such voluminous Returns.

said, it was rather hard on his hon. Friend, who had given notice of his Motion a month ago, to get such an unsatisfactory reply.

said, he had explained at the time to the hon. Member that the request for delay was made in consequence of a communication from the Earl of Chichester, the Chairman of the Commission.

said, that in his opinion the information asked for was very valuable, and that the House ought to insist upon any return which could throw light on the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He hoped some assurance would be given by the Government, that when the plea of inconvenience no longer held good, the Returns would be granted.

said, there was not the smallest desire to withhold any information. It was simply a question whether the trouble and expense of printing these Returns separately ought to be incurred, when they might be included in the proceedings of the Committee.

said, that he scarcely felt inclined to withdraw his Motion. Some of the information asked for in the Returns, especially with regard to the order of necessity in the judgment of the Commissioners, would be very valuable. Many gentlemen would be glad to offer large benefactions if they knew what was likely to become of them. On those points the Report of the Commissioners was not at all satisfactory.

said, that he hoped the Government would not decline to grant the Returns. A great deal had been said about the expense of printing Returns; but when the matter was looked into last year, it was found to be comparatively a trifle.

said, the matter stood thus. The House having appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of the Ecclesiastical Commission, the question was, whether they would order the Returns before the Report of that Committee was presented. The Committee might probably be already in possession of the information required, or of such information as might render the Returns unnecessary. The usual course was, when a Committee was appointed, to abstain from inquiry until the Report was presented.

said, that he sup- ported the Motion, and would support any Motion calculated to enlighten the minds of the Church party, and stimulate their zeal.

said, that he, as a member of the Committee, was under the impression that the information asked for would be found in the evidence given before the Committee, which would shortly be published.

said, that he hoped his hon. Friend would insist on the Motion There were large charities belonging to the borough he had the honour to represent, and an impression existed that they were not fairly distributed. The fact was they were under the management of one party.

said, that he was compelled to bring forward the Motion, of which he had given notice, for a Select Committee to inquire into the transfer of Hull Citadel and adjoining premises from the War Department to the Woods and Forests, owing to the refusal of the Government to produce the case agreed to by the two departments and the opinion of the Law Officers thereon. From the time of Henry VIII. it had always been deemed an important fortification, and during the Civil Wars was used as a fortification. The language of numerous Acts of Parliament, from the beginning of the reign of George III. down to the 5 & 6 Vict., uniformly declared that such property was vested in the Government as trustees for the public. The foundation of doubt seemed to be laid in the 39th section of the 5 & 6 Vict., c. 94, and upon that section was based the claim of the Woods and Forests to this considerable property, as belonging to the hereditary possessions of the Crown. A part of that very property had, a few years ago, been made over to the town of Hull for the purpose of forming docks, having ceased to be useful for military purposes; and if any one but the War Department had a right to it, it was the town of Hull. The Woods and Forests, however, claimed it, and the Law Officers by their opinion confirmed that claim. No one knew whether, in the case laid before them, the facts had been fairly stated, and the House was in equal ignorance of the grounds of their opinion. It was said to be unusual to publish the opinion of the Law Officers; but the public had a right to know how this property, upon which large sums had been laid out by the War Department, had been filched from them. It was the more incomprehensible, because an opinion had been given by two very eminent gentlemen in the legal profession that Hull Citadel never was part or parcel of the hereditary possessions of the Crown, and that it was vested by the 18 & 19 Vict, in the Secretary of State for War. With regard to Crown property, he maintained that it was held by the Crown for public purposes, and it should not be supposed that the Crown had an antagonistic interest to that of the public. Very important public rights were connected with this question, and he hoped the House would assent to the appointment of a Committee.

said, that the proposal was substantially the same as had been submitted by the hon. Member, and rejected by the House, on a recent occasion. If a Committee were appointed, they must have before them the case which had been submitted for counsel's opinion, this case containing the evidence of title on the part of the Crown; and, in point of fact, the question which the Committee would consider would be the title of the Crown to this property. Well, that was rather a question to be decided by a court of law than by a Committee. As between the corporation of Hull and the Crown, the Court of Chancery had already decided in favour of the latter; and that was really therefore an attempt to appeal to that House from a decision of a court of law. Since the decision of the Vice Chancellor the Crown had entered into an arrangement with a company at Hull respecting the land. That arrangement had been embodied in a Bill, and it would be inconsistent, after dealing with the property in this way, now to inquire whether that property belonged to the Crown or not. The hon. Member had asked whether the citadel was part of the hereditary possessions of the Crown. The Government regarded it as Crown property. They were fortified in this view by the opinions of the Law Officers of two successive Governments and the opinion to which the hon. Gentleman had referred as having been given by two gentlemen of the legal profession, was given upon an incomplete case and in ignorance of material facts. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that because the land had been in possession of the War Department it had therefore become public property; but the Tower, Chelsea Hospital, and Dover Castle, were in the same way under the control of the War Department, and yet nobody supposed that those places were not part of the hereditary possessions of the Crown. The Hull citadel was, no doubt, temporarily in possession of the War Department; but when that occupation ceased, the property reverted to the Crown and came properly under the management of the Commissioners of Works. He hoped the House would not sanction the appointment of a Committee.

said, that if the hon. Member for Truro divided the House on the question, he would divide with him. The arguments urged by the right hon. Secretary of the Treasury did not appear to him to be in point. The value of the proceedings in the courts of law, ho understood, went for nothing, inasmuch as the case should have been submitted to a court of equity instead of a court of law. He believed the question to be a proper one for inquiry, impressed as he was with the conviction that the property had never been purchased by the Crown at all. The investigation, if entered into, would doubtless prove a most interesting one to archaeologists, as it would commence with a disputed sale of the citadel to Henry VIII., the fact being that the citadel formed no part whatever of the Hull property that was sold to Henry VIII.

said, that on the part of the War Department he rose to confirm the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. He had himself inquired into the case, and had seen the opinions given on the question by two separate Law Officers of the Crown. Whatever question there might be in the matter would be one as between the War Department and the Woods and Forests. There was really no necessity for the inquiry at all.

, in reply, observed that the principle of the Government seemed to be that any property applied to public uses, when no longer required for those uses, must be held to be the property of the Crown. A more dangerous doctrine he could scarcely conceive, or one that required more careful attention when they were voting the estimates.

said, that he rose to call the attention of the House to the position in which the Atlantic Royal Mail Company was placed, and to inquire what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the restitution of postal communication between Galway and North America. It would he in the recollection of the House, that some years ago a contract was entered into between the Government of the day and the Atlantic Royal Mail Company, for the purpose of conveying the mails between Galway and North America. After many mishaps an end was put to that contract; but it was the opinion of many hon. Members at the time that that contract had been terminated in a very summary manner, and therefore a Committee had been appointed to consider the subject, which, however, expressed no opinion as to the advisability of re-establishing communication between the west coast of Ireland and America; but it was of opinion, that if such communication were desirable, the claims of the Atlantic Royal Mail Company were deserving of favourable consideration. Upon the very last day of last Session the noble Lord at the head of the Government said, in answer to questions that were put to him, that "he thought it was clear that a rapid communication between the United Kingdom and North America, and more especially a communication with St. John's, which would give facilities for telegraphic notices, would be of great advantage to the commerce of the United Kingdom. He did not think that the advantage to the United Kingdom would be less because the communication would be attended with benefit to Ireland." The noble Lord further said that he thought that the restoration of postal communication between Ireland and America would be of advantage to the empire at large, and that he should be disposed to give a favourable consideration to the claims of the Atlantic Company when they could show that the capital and shipping at their command afforded a reasonable prospect of their being able to fulfil the engagements into which they might enter with the Government. The question therefore resolved itself into this:—Had the Company, when they applied to the Government for the restoration of the subsidy, a reasonable prospect of being able to fulfil the engagements into which they might enter? He hoped to show that they had. Their application was made by a letter to the Lords of the Treasury on the 24th of April, and they had then ready to carry out the service three ships, on which since last August they had expended £180,000, and a fourth was being prepared. In the beginning of May he waited upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government, accompanied by a deputation of men of all parties and all religions, to support their request. Neither to the memorial of that deputation nor to the application of the Company had any answer yet been given. On the previous Saturday a letter was received from the Secretary of the Treasury asking for a detailed statement of the means possessed by the Company for carrying out any engagement into which they might enter, but as yet nothing definite had been done. At this moment the Company had three ships ready to perform any postal service that might be required. That was, they would he ready to do so as soon as the contract could be arranged—say in a month or six weeks. If Parliament should be prorogued without the renewal of the contract, the expense of keeping four ships idle for nine months—that was, until a contract could be made next year—would be £100,000. All he now desired was, to get a definite answer from the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether that scheme was to be allowed to fall to the ground and the capital invested in it to be sacrificed. There was a strong feeling among the people of Ireland, that as their country contributed its fair quota to the Imperial Exchequer, it was entitled to its fair share of the expenditure incurred in promoting the postal communication of the empire. To that Ireland had the greater right, as it would not only tend to develop her own natural resources, but would also facilitate the commercial intercourse of the three kingdoms. He could, if necessary, easily give the House a long list of the names of those who had invested their all in the undertaking, which, while it would benefit themselves, would still more benefit the whole country. But at that late hour he forebore to do so. He had endeavoured to divest his remarks of any party or political character, and he now simply offered the noble Viscount an opportunity of stating distinctly whether the hopes that had been raised on this matter were to prove fallacious or to be realized, and whether an end was to be put to the uncertainty which paralysed the energies of that Company.

My noble Friend has stated the case with great clearness and great fidelity in his recital of what took place on this subject on former occasions, and I have nothing to remark upon either the form or the substance of his statement. It is quite true, as he says, that some time ago—I think in the month of May—a deputation did me the honour of coming to me on the subject of this contract. That which they stated, as I understood it, was not with regard to their present ability to carry into effect any contract which might be entered into with them, but referred to their expectation that at a future time, not far distant, they would be in a condition to execute any engagement into which they might enter. Her Majesty's Government has not had from them, after that, a statement that they were in that condition. A letter was addressed to them last week, to which I understand an answer was received at the Treasury this morning expressing their view as to their ability to fulfil any contract which they might undertake. I can assure my noble Friend that it will be the duty of the Government to give the earliest attention to that answer; and we feel, for the reasons stated by my noble Friend bearing on the period of the Session, that it is due to the company and due also to the Government that a definite answer should, founded on the statement which has been sent in, be given at the earliest possible moment. And I do not doubt that in the early part of next week we shall be able to communicate to them our decision. It would not, I think, be useful or convenient for me to anticipate, one way or the other, the conclusion at which we may arrive. I can only assure my noble Friend, and those interested in this subject, that nothing which tends to promote the interests of Ireland can be a matter of indifference to Her Majesty's Government. On the other hand, the House must perceive that we have duties to perform as the guardians of the public purse, and that there are therefore these mixed considerations to be taken into account with the view of giving a final answer to the application which we have received.

said, that he understood that the Government were prepared to give the most favourable consideration to the claims of the company, provided it could prove itself to be in a position to carry out the engagements into which it might enter. Therefore, knowing that his noble Friend at the head of the Government was quite incapable of violating any promise which he gave, he was perfectly willing to wait till the beginning of next week for the answer of the Government.

said, that he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to allow certain persons to make affirmations in all cases where an oath is or shall be required. He observed that last year a Bill received the sanction of Parliament altering in a certain degree the law of oaths, and he was anxious that the same principle should be carried a little further, to include jurors and others who were placed at a disadvantage as regarded the present state of the law. The Bill proposed also to enable persons not at present competent according to the English law to give evidence, to be heard upon making simple affirmations in the place of solemn affirmations, adopting in this respect a principle which already prevailed in India.

begged to second the Motion.

said, that he should have felt disposed to oppose the Bill, were it not for the lateness of the Session, and the improbability of its passing into law. At the same time he could not help stating his objections to the measure. It seemed monstrous to ask the House of Commons to abrogate a rule of the law of England and of every other civilized country merely because it was not part of the law of India. He affirmed that by the law of India perjury was permissible, and, in fact, was one of the institutions of the country. He did not like to move the rejection of the Bill on the first reading; but, in truth, the principle of the Bill might as well be discussed then as at any other time; and without wishing any discourtesy to the hon. Baronet, as he should not probably have the opportunity of addressing the House again upon it, he should move that leave be not given to the introduction of the Bill.

said, that his objections to the Bill were wholly of a practical nature. The object of judicial procedure was to discover the truth; and it was notorious, as a matter of experience, that many witnesses who would not scruple to tell a lie hesitated before they committed perjury. That principle had been affirmed by the practice before Committees of the House. He could not agree in thinking that the law of India sanctioned perjury; but he opposed the Bill simply because it would remove a principal means of obtaining the truth from a large class of witnesses.

said, that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) had used the most extraordinary argument. He was ready to admit into the courts of India witnesses amongst whom, he said, perjury was an institution, and yet he would not agree to the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock, which rendered the violation of an oath, impossible. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had omitted altogether the circumstance that administration of an oath subjected the witness to the penalties of perjury, if he deposed to what was false. It was not the oath, but the penalty for perjury, that induced witnesses before Parliamentary Committees to be more careful than they were before. He hoped that the House would enable the hon. Baronet to bring in his Bill, in order that they might see how the measure was worded, because a great deal depended upon the verbiage employed.

said, that he wished to look on the question merely as a practical one—merely as a mode of arriving at the truth in the administration of justice. Now, if they doubted the truth of a witness, what was the first thing they did? They examined him on the voir dire. If the witness was a truth-telling man, he might say that he did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments, although he might know that it would tell against him. The witness, having thus given proof of his love for truth, would be ordered at once to stand down. But suppose he lied, and said that he believed in a future state when he did not, he was allowed to give his evidence. There were three motives which would restrain a person from bearing false witness. One was the fear of punishment, another was public opinion, and the third was religion. Now, what was the value of this last standing alone? The university oaths were an example in point. In that case there was no fear of punishment or dread of public opinion. There was nothing but the fear that Almighty God would punish them if they did not speak the truth. Well, persons took those oaths and broke them immediately. Such being the value of the religious sanction by itself, his hon. Friend asked that a person who professed not to be influenced by it might be allowed to get into the box and tell his story. He asked the House to put aside the poor little petty feeling about civilized nations aiding and assisting perjury. Had not the whole of the people of India been indignant at the assertion of a judge, who said that perjury was the common system of evidence in their courts. At present truth was dragged out of lying witnesses by cross-examination, and it was most ridiculous that they should reject the evidence of a man whose very first answer showed that he had a regard for the truth, and yet admit a witness who had no such regard for it. He trusted that the House would offer no objection to the introduction of the measure.

said, that he hoped there would be no division, and that the hon. Baronet would be allowed to bring in his Bill, in order that the House might see what it was like. His own impression was that there were very few persons who would tell a falsehood that would not also swear to the truth of it.

said, that it was not his intention to proceed with the Bill this Session, nor was it his intention to trouble the House by raising a discussion or dividing upon it, but he would state the principles of the Bill. Having endeavoured to improve the law relating to grammar schools, he found that all his attempts at conciliation had been in vain; he had therefore drawn this Bill so as to embody the principles which he wished to carry out. As the House was probably aware, Endowed Schools were of two kinds, those with royal foundations and those founded by private individuals. A great many of those with royal foundations were founded in the reign of Edward VI. out of the spoils of the monasteries, and the principle he sought to establish with reference to those schools was that they were for the nation at large, and that no one should be excluded on account of religious belief. With regard to schools founded by private persons, he did not propose to touch them where it was distinctly proved that they were founded for any particular sect; but he proposed to make them available where there was no such restriction.

said, he wished to guard himself while consenting that the Bill be laid on the table from its being supposed that he concurred in it.

moved that the House should go into Committee on this Bill.

said, that he objected to proceeding with the Bill at that late hour of the morning (half-past twelve), especially as no explanation had been given on the first or second reading of the Bill. He begged to move that the debate be adjourned.

said, the objects of the Bill had been twice explained, and it had been sent to a Select Committee. He hoped the House would consent to go into the Bill at that comparatively early hour of the morning.

said, that he hoped the House would go into Committee on the Bill.

said, that although the hour was late for a Committee on a disputed Bill, he still hoped, that as the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee and fully investigated, the House might now proceed to a decision at once as to whether they should go into Committee or not.

said, that ho protested against going into Committee on so important a Bill at half-past twelve o'clock at night, which seriously affected the rights of private property.

said, it was too late to proceed with the Bill at that hour. There were other orders on the paper waiting to be disposed of, and he therefore moved that the House do now adjourn.

said, that he hoped the hon. Member would not persevere with his Amendment, so that the House might be enabled to discuss a measure of that vast importance. No discussion had as yet been taken on this Bill. It was read a second time after a speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Limerick (Colonel Dickson), who had charged him with wantonly obstructing his measure.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that he must resume his objections to the Bill, which he characterized as a measure of confiscation. He was, however, willing to discuss the provisions of the Bill, clause by clause.

said, that he objected to the words "one tenth," and proposed to substitute for them "one third," having reference to the number of proprietors that were empowered to put in operation the provisions of the Bill.

said, that he proposed to defer it till the 9th of July.

said, he would move that the order be discharged.

said that the hon. Member had taken a most unusual course.

begged to second the Motion, and expressed a hope that the House would at once put an end to the Bill for the present Session.

said, if his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) intended to propose that the order be discharged, the proper course would be for him to make a Motion to that effect on the 9th July.

said, he thought the proposed expenditure unwise because, assuming that there was danger from our neighbours, the object of the House should have been to get an iron squadron. But if £1,200,000 was to be spent, he contended that the mode of raising the money was inconvenient; and, again, there was no sufficient guarantee how the money was to be spent. There should be in the Bill not merely a schedule, but a specific estimate with every detail, and then, if hon. Members objected to a particular fort, they could discuss it with adequate information. There should also be a provision for a proper audit.

said, he wished to be informed when the discussion would be taken on the subject. It was desirable that the House should have before it the results of experiments lately made, which had shown that the largest guns might be used on board Captain Coles' cupola ship without jar or detriment to the vessel, thus upsetting the theory that ships could not carry as large guns as forts.

said, that he was anxious to introduce the Bill, which would be in exactly the same form as that of 1860, and he proposed to fix the second reading for the following Monday.

said, the objection to the Bill proposed was that it was exactly in the same unsatisfactory form as the Bill of 1860. If the precedent were followed, for instance, the twenty-two works at Plymouth would all be classed together, and there would be no separate detailed account for each of the ports.

said, it appeared to be the feeling of the House when the subject was last discussed, that the schedule to the former Bill was a very unsatisfactory one, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared with a detailed estimate.