said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the unanimous Resolution of the Corporation of Dublin in favour of the purchase of the site of the Exhibition Palace for the Royal Irish Institute has been received; and whether the Government intend to accede to its prayer?

replied that the Resolution had been received, and that due weight would be given to it. There was a Commission sitting on the subject, and until their Report had been taken into consideration it would be premature on the part of the Government to announce what course they proposed to take with respect to it.

said, the Pharmaceutical Society did not wish to retain the words, and they were not originally in the Bill.

said, he objected to the omission of those words, which would unnecessarily limit the retail of common articles of household use. The clause which he proposed to substitute for the 17th clause in the Bill, would in the way of regulation give as much security as could reasonably be expected against the careless sale or wrong use of ordinary poisons.

said, he only desired that poisons should be bought, sold, and kept in bottles or wrappers properly labelled; so that, if possible, no mistakes should occur in their use.

said, he would beg leave to move, at the end of the clause, to add—

"Provided always that registration under this Act shall not entitle any person so registered to practice medicine or surgery, or any branch of medicine or surgery."

proposed that this clause should be struck out.

proposed that the clause should be amended. There were two Amendments, in fact, before the Committee. The noble Lord proposed to substitute a new clause, and he (Mr. Lowe) would amend the present clause. The Committee would have to decide which was the preferable alternative. He admitted that the clause proposed by the noble Lord was a considerable improvement on the present state of things; but there was a good many objections to it. The noble Lord proposed that poisons should be divided into two classes, but both were to remain in one Schedule, and to be distinguished only by asterisks. Now, that was a most inconvenient way of dealing with the subject. The noble Lord proposed:—

"It shall be unlawful to sell any poison whatsoever to a person unknown to the seller, unless he gives evidence that he requires it for a legitimate purpose, and is aware of the uses, danger, and proper dose, as the case may be, of such poison."

What chance was there that these requirements, if of any value, would be complied with by the little shopkeepers throughout the country? How was the "evidence" that the person "required it for a legitimate purpose" to be given? He might want it "for a legitimate purpose," but he was not to have it unless he was well read up in public and forensic medicine. And, then, who was to be the judge of all this? Perhaps some old woman. This seemed to him a very inadequate way of dealing with the subject. What he proposed was this—They had already the precedent of the Arsenic Act, which, although it dealt with only one poison, was a most salutary Act, and it seemed to him that the proper course would be to place all ordinary poisons under the same restriction. With this view he begged to move in line 18, before "It," to insert—

"Of poisons which are not articles in the British Pharmacopoeia, none shall be sold except under such conditions as are prescribed in regard of Arsenic by sections first and second of the Act fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter thirteen, intituled 'An Act to regulate the Sole of Arsenic,' which sections for this purpose shall be read as if the word 'poison' were throughout substituted in, them for the word' arsenic;' and of poisons which are articles in the said Pharmacopoeia, none shall be sold otherwise than under the same conditions as aforesaid, or else under the written order of a. legally qualified medical practitioner, unless it be prepared as an ointment or liniment or otherwise for external use, or, if for internal use, be in quantity not exceeding one ordinary medicinal dose of the article; and"

in line 22, after "any," leave out "seller of any poison not so distinctly labelled," and insert "person selling poison otherwise than as herein provided."

observed that the inconvenience of "asterisks" might be got rid of by having two Schedules. His right hon. Friend had admitted that the clause which he proposed to bring up was an improve- ment on the Bill as originally drawn. The clause embraced all the regulations which the Pharmaceutical Society—a body of gentlemen in daily practice, and to whom (lie public were under great obligations—considered requisite, establishing, as it did, the proper medium between drawing the law so tightly that it must break in their hands and that laxity which would be prejudicial to the whole community. He was informed that the Arsenic Act was too stringent, and was practically a dead letter. He objected to the proposed Amendment.

said, he wished to know how a seller of poison was to ascertain the truth of a customer's assertion that he required the poison for destroying rats? He should support the Amendment.

said, the clause would compel the homœopathist to put the word "poison" upon all his bottles.

said, the answer to the hon. and learned Member's observation was that a whole bottle of homœopathic medicine would not amount to a dangerous dose. The difference between his clause and that of his noble Friend was that by his clause the buyer of poison must be introduced to the seller, whereas by his noble Friend's clause the buyer might be a person unknown to the seller.

said, that his clause required that the buyer should satisfy the seller that he required the poison for a legitimate purpose.

said, that would leave the decision to the conscience of the seller, who had an interest in selling.

said, he would submit that the principle of the Bill being to require education on the part of those who sell poisons, the clause was wholly indefensible:n making the distinction of a modified examination. It is urged that these persons have a vested interest. A vested interest in what? A vested interest in ignorance—in not knowing enough to pass the examination usually required.

said, he thought it would be very hard upon those now dispensing medicines if they had to pass the same examination as apprentices entering the business. A modified examination in their case would give the requisite protection to the public.

called attention to the fact that many of the present assistants had been in business and failed, and others were married. It would be very hard upon them to insist on their passing a stringent examination.

suggested the insertion in the fourth line of the words "for not less than four years."

said, he was willing to modify his clause to the extent suggested by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave)—namely, that the assistants must have been actually engaged in the dispensing of medicines for four years.

said, he assented to the clause on the understanding that the assistants affected by it should have been engaged in the dispensing of medicines for four years, and should be registered assistants under the Pharmacy Act.

said, he would suggest that the term should be reduced to three years.

s said, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and to reduce the period of service required to three years.

proposed, in place of Clause 5, to insert a new clause (Registration of Chemists and Druggists), by which chemists and druggists should be entitled to be registered under the Act without paying any fee.

proposed a clause in lieu of Clause 17, rendering it unlawful to sell certain poisons marked with an asterisk in Schedule (A) to persons unknown to the seller, laying down certain regulations respecting the registration of the sale, and imposing penalties for breaches of such regulations.

said, he objected to making a dintinction between poisons which a man might sell and poisons which he might not sell to unknown persons. He contended that those poisons referred to in the Schedule as poisons which ought not to be sold to persons unknown were really not more used for criminal purposes than other poisons. The asterisk would apply to arsenic, prussic acid, cyanide of potassium, strychnine, and corrosive sublimate; but oxalic acid, chloroform, aconite, belladonna, essential oil of almonds, and such things, do not fall within the provision.

said, the reason why was that these latter are used in the common purposes of life. Ho would suggest that the Schedule should be divided into two parts—one containing poisons in common use for ordinary purposes, and the other those of a more subtle character, and generally selected for criminal purposes.

submitted that the distinction utterly fails. The distinction between the poisons in the Schedule was omitted from the clause; and—

then moved that poisons should not be sold to persons unknown, unless such persons were introduced by a person known to the seller.

thought that such a provision would lead to a system of touting.

proposed an Amendment to the effect that no poison should be sold unless a purchaser could satisfy the vendor that he really required it for medicinal purposes.

pointed out that the Committee had already agreed that no poisons should be sold to persons unknown. To pass this Amendment would render legal the sale of poisons to any one.

asked in what position a person would be if in a strange place where he was unknown he required to purchase a poisonous drug? Suppose, for instance, he was in Birmingham, and wanted a dose of laudanum to cure the toothache, how was he to get it?

said, the chemist might think the noble Lord wanted to destroy himself.

said, he was not a Cornishman, and had no direct interest in this matter. He accepted the principle laid down by the House, that the law of rating should be applied to all mines. It would be very difficult, however, to apply it to the Cornish mines, unless special provisions were introduced, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances and conditions of that business. It was impossible to determine who was to be looked upon as the owner or occupier of such mines. The subject had been considered by a Select Committee last year, which recommended certain clauses that would have effected the object in view. But, instead of being agreed to, those clauses had been swept clean away at the last Wednesday's sitting. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) came to the table, and performed the unprecedented feat of concocting a Bill that was altogether new in five minutes. They had heard of the "Ten Minutes Bill;" but that was nothing to the legislative performance of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He felt confident that its provisions would be found not to work. The yield being precarious it would be impossible to ascer- tain the annual value. Then the Bill said the mine was to he rated; but the mine could not be rated; they must determine on some particular person who was to be rated. If the word occupier was taken, and nothing more, then no one could doubt that both the landlord and the lessees would be liable. In cases of limited liability, all the partners would be occupiers. The only effect of the measure would be to puzzle all the overseers in Cornwall, put a large amount of money into the pockets of the lawyers, and cause a vast amount of confusion to everybody. The Bill would be altogether inoperative except for the benefit of the legal profession. It was beyond the ingenuity even of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to solve in five minutes a question which had puzzled lawyers and the Legislature for two years. He had had various communications from attorneys and others in Cornwall, all agreeing that under the present clauses it could not be determined who was to be rated, or on whom a distress was to be levied. It would be impossible to leave the Bill in its present condition. The Bill must be altogether redrawn and re-considered. He believed it would be necessary to revert substantially to the provisions recommended by the Select Committee, which he thought might be adopted with some modification. As it was manifest that the Bill would not work, he thought it ought not to be proceeded with further during the present Session. Precipitate legislation would not promote the object in view, and he therefore begged to move that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed to that day fortnight.

said, he regretted that the clauses framed by the Select Committee were not discussed last Wednesday, but hoped the provision contained in them would be brought forward again and fully considered. He thought the objections to the clauses were quite secondary to the affirmation of the principle of the Bill. Amendments might be introduced to meet the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier). As to the clause for dividing the rate between the landlord and the occupier, two distinguished lawyers had stated their opinion to be that it would have that effect. Mines were already rated in many parts of the country, and he did not believe that the Bill would cause the Cornish mines to be rated in an objectionable or oppressive manner.

said, his constituents were so much interested in this matter, that he must be permitted to speak on their behalf. He did not speak in virtue of his office. Unless the greatest care was taken in the mode of rating Cornish mines, that industry must come to an end. The Bill as it now stood, he took to be nothing more than a pointed sarcasm on the part of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). The hon. Member doubtless judged from the discussion which had already taken place, that there was no likelihood of bringing the question to a practical issue, and in the vein of which he was a master, he suddenly drew up a bald clause, which he offered to the Committee as a solution of the difficulties of the case which had perplexed all parties for years, and this clause the Committee, weary of the discussion, had suddenly adopted. It could not possibly work. To pass the Bill, therefore, as being a measure which dealt with all the difficulties of rating would not, he thought, redound to the credit of the House. The subject required further consideration. He could not help thinking that under these circumstances the House would do well to postpone legislation on this subject till the next Session of Parliament.

said, that this was a question of Cornwall against all England. The Committee had come to the conclusion that mines in Cornwall as well as elsewhere should be rated; and he was sure that if the general law of rating were applied to Cornish mines, the local authorities would carry it out in a fair manner. If, however, difficulties arose, they could come to Parliament and ask for their removal. If the Bill was unworkable there were a sufficient number of Gentlemen of the long robe in the House to suggest such alterations as would make it workable. Some new clauses had been given Notice of, and be trusted the House would proceed to consider them, so that legislation might not be postponed till next Session, there having already been too much delay.

said, he felt bound to inform the House that his constituents viewed with great dissatisfaction the course which had been taken with regard to this Bill, since it did not attempt to redress the anomalies under which coal mines laboured. He, however, thought it due to the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) to state that what was done on a former occasion was to avoid laying down any hard lines of assessment. The House sanctioned the principle that the exemption of mines other than coal mines ought to be removed. Considering that a Law Officer as well as an ex-Law Officer of the Crown had pronounced this measure to be unworkable, he thought that the only course which the House could pursue was to postpone the further consideration of the matter, and to throw on the Executive Government the task of saying how the difficulty was to be got over, and of bringing in a Bill next Session providing for the proper assessment of mines. The coal mine interest would be sorry to see the anomalies under which they suffered extended to all other mines.

said, that though interested in coal mines, he thought that great question had properly been excluded from the present Bill. He wished to ascertain from disinterested parties whether the objections raised by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier) were well-founded? It had been said that the Bill would not work. In that case, it should be re-committed.

said, that having carefully examined the clause, he was of opinion that the wording of it was so vague that it would not properly work; and he recommended the hon. Member for "West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) to adopt the suggestion which had been thrown out, and to allow time for the further consideration of the matter.

said, that what he understood the House to mean was that all the mines in England should be rated on the same principle as far as possible, and that clauses were to be brought up at the present stage to render the measure workable. But on looking at the clauses on the Paper, he considered the objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Robert Collier) perfectly valid. He therefore thought it desirable not to proceed further with the Bill during the present Session. He thought that the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) having obtained a decision from the House in favour of the rating of mines, should rest satisfied with that, and postpone further legislation on the subject till another opportunity. He was himself very anxious that there should be legislation on the subject, and, though it would not come within his Department, he earnestly hoped that the question would be disposed of next Session.

said, he would also join in the appeal to the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) to postpone the further consideration of the Bill. He knew that the hon. Member would feel disappointed at not being able to pass the Bill; but it had been shown that it would cause great doubt and uncertainty, and the hon. Member would be much more disappointed if it were to give rise to dissatisfaction among the mining classes.

said, that the hon. Member had obtained a clear expression of opinion on two points—that all mines at present exempted should in future be rated, and that there should be no special mode of rating. Without assistance from the Government the hon. Member could not hope to pass the Bill, and he would do well to withdraw it for the present.

said, he must oppose the Bill as one that would involve the mining interests in ruinous complications. The mining interests of Cornwall were not opposed to the principle of rating mines; but they insisted that if a measure were passed to assess mines, it should be a well-considered one, which would deal fairly with all parties.

said, after the appeal to him by several hon. Members on both sides of the House, he would withdraw the Bill.

said, he desired to take that opportunity of expressing his opinion that it would be more useful to Sir Robert Napier and his family to give him a lump sum of £50,000 instead of the proposed annuity. Besides, the giving of a lump sum would be to throw all the burthen on ourselves, whereas this pension would throw a burthen on posterity. He very much regretted that Her Majesty had not been requested—if it would not be interfering with Her Majesty's Prerogative—to make Sir Robert Napier a Peer for life, instead of conferring upon him a hereditary dignity. He felt certain that the decision of the Lords on the question of life peerages would have to be re-considered. The introduction of such peerages would be one of the greatest improvements that could be made in the House of Lords.