said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the arrest of a young man, Mr. Nathan, a British subject, at Milan in April last, and to his continued incarceration to this time without trial, bail being refused; and, whether he will state what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken in the matter?

said, he had to say, in answer to the Question of his hon. Friend, that his attention had been called to the arrest of this young gentleman, Mr. Nathan, at Milan. It appeared that he was a mere boy, he believed of nineteen years of age, and the first intimation that the British Minister at Florence had of his arrest was on the 19th of July, when the brother of Mr. Nathan called at the Legation and informed Sir Augustus Paget of the circumstance. Sir Augustus Paget reported the fact to the Foreign Office on the 21st of5July, and Lord Clarendon directed instructions to be sent to Sir Augustus Paget on the 3rd of August, desiring that all the information he could obtain should be forwarded, requesting that the young man might be admitted to bail, and that in the meantime he should not be sent to Naples.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, "Whether he intends to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Admiralty Monies and Accounts as regards the form of the Navy Estimates, the Savings and Deficiencies, the Navy Ships' Accounts, and the Manufacturing Accounts?

said, in reply, that it was the intention of the Admiralty to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Commons with respect to the form of the Estimates, the Savings and Deficiencies, and the Navy Ship and Manufacturing Accounts. Next year the Estimates would be shown in the form recommended by the Committee. The Manufacturing and Ship Accounts for 1866-7, laid upon the table a few days ago, were framed generally on the principle recommended by the Committee, though they were not quite perfect.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copies of any Correspondence or Papers with respect to manufactures in London, Paris, and Brussels for the melting of English sovereigns; and, if he will state whether he is in possession of any evidence that such a manufacture at present exists in Brussels?

Sir, I have no Correspondence upon the subject to lay upon the table. Of course, I should not have made the statement I did unless I had strong reason to believe that such a manufacture was carried on at Brussels. The question is equivalent to asking me whether I made a statement for which I had no ground whatever. There is nothing, so far as I am aware, contrary to law in melting down sovereigns; and it seems to me that our regulations in making no charge for mintage are expressly framed to promote that practice.

May I be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay upon the table any Papers containing the evidence on the subject?

Certainly, the hon. Gentleman may be allowed to ask me that question, and I hope I may also be allowed to decline answering it.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, What number of Vessels and of Men are at present stationed on the West Coast of Africa, and if he can now state the actual reduction he purposes making in that squadron before the close of the present year?

said, in reply, that on the 1st of January, a few days after he took Office, he found, upon the West Coast of Africa and at the Cape of Good Hope, sixteen ships, containing 1,806 men. When he made his statement on introducing the Navy Estimates he explained that the ships had been reduced from sixteen to fourteen, and the number of men to 1,450. Since that time the ships had been still further reduced from fourteen to thirteen, and he contemplated the reduction of another ship, and a reduction of the number of men to 1,350. Since the present Government had been in Office there had been a reduction of four ships and about 500 men in this squadron. He would repeat what he had said in answer to the hon. Member (Mr. J. Lowther), that the squadron on this coast was not employed for the suppression of the slave trade, but for the protection of our commerce, as in other parts of the world.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to the practice of Pilots belonging to Bristol visiting Falmouth with a view of taking charge of vessels sailing from that Port, thus interfering with the Pilots belonging to Falmouth, and frequently causing the detention of ships for want of Pilots off Lundy Island; and, whether he will consider the propriety of framing any new regulations on the subject?

said, in reply, that the attention of the Board of Trade had been directed to the subject, and, after communicating with the Trinity House, they saw no necessity for interference in the matter. They were informed that vessels were not detained at Lundy Island for want of pilots.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is true that in the event of the New Palace of Justice not being erected upon the Thames Embankment site, it is in the power of the Metropolitan Railway Company to build a station in the centre of the land reclaimed from the river; and, whether it is not the intention of the Government to secure to the public the whole of the land so reclaimed between Somerset House and the Temple for the purposes of recreation?

said, in reply, that under the Act of Parliament, the Metropolitan Railway Company were empowered to build, a station in the centre of the land reclaimed from the river; but should the House decide to erect the New Courts of Justice upon the Embankment site the Railway Company had in that case agreed to remove their station to a better position for the public— namely, at the end of Essex Street. The erection of a station in the centre of the reclaimed land would not interfere with that part of the reclaimed land which, under the Act of Parliament, would be set aside for recreation purposes.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government intend to take any steps during the Recess in reference S to the erection of the New Courts of [Justice?

said, in reply, that any step which the Government might take must be one of two kinds. They must either give notice to acquire fresh land upon which to erect the buildings, or they must obtain a Grant from Parliament for the erection of new buildings. As to the first, the Committee had not recommended the acquisition of any fresh land, and therefore there would be no notice given of any Bill for the purpose; and as to the other course, as no Grant had been obtained from Parliament to erect these buildings upon either site, he could not see how the Government could possibly take any steps for the erection of buildings until Parliament met again.

said, he wished to say a few words in regard to a Question put to him on Friday last by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther), in the absence of the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson), as to the inequality of sentences passed by the Judges during the present Assizes. The Notice only appeared in the Paper on the morning of the day on which his answer was given, and having had no opportunity of communicating with the learned Judges, he could give no other than a vague and. general answer. He had since received communications from two of the learned Judges, and it was for the interest of public justice that the substance of these communications should be made known. One was from Mr. Justice Keating, who sentenced a man named William Rapson Oates — a herbalist, who was charged at the Bodmin Assizes with obtaining £2 5s. under false pretences — to five years' penal servitude, although the jury recommended the prisoner to mercy. Mr. Justice Keating stated—

"It is quite true that the sentence was as stated, and the recommendation by the jury given. But when it appeared that the prisoner had previously been convicted twice in 1868, once for obtaining money under false pretences, four months' hard labour, and once for larceny, with nine months' hard labour, besides having been in gaol under convictions as a vagrant and for assault, one month each, in 1860 and 1806, the jury stated they wished to withdraw their recommendation, which, they said, they never would have made if they had known the facts. I may add, that after getting the £2 5s. from the poor prosecutrix, he endeavoured the following day to obtain £1 under the same false pretence that he was the second son of the head warder of the gaol at Bodmin, who was known to her, and on whose account she advanced the money. I considered that the public had a right to be protected against a very clever and expert swindler and thief, and passed the sentence complained of."

The other sentence was passed by Mr. Justice Mellor. The hon. Member said of it that it was the case of

"A man named Simmons, convicted for feloniously killing his wife at Redhill. Details very revolting and brutal; guilty, but recommended to mercy; not concurred in by the Judge; sentence, five years' penal servitude."

The learned Judge wrote—

"In the case of Simmons, charged with the manslaughter of his wife, I heard no evidence of any kick or act of violence done by the prisoner other than that of the pushing which caused her fall. It is true the doctor stated that injuries such as he found might have been occasioned by the prisoner knocking down his wife and then kicking her; but, in answer to a question put by me, he stated that on the post Wortem examination he found no marks or bruises which might not have been caused by her falling down stairs. The daughter of the prisoner stated that she saw him pushing her mother out at the door, but did not see her fall. In answer to questions from me, she said that there was a landing-place outside the door of the chamber, the size of which she pointed out to the jury by referring to a partition in the court. The jury were of opinion that the prisoner had no intention to push the deceased downstairs, and recommended him to mercy. I delayed to pass sentence because I did not feel sure that I rightly understood the reasons upon which the recommendation was based. Upon considering the evidence of the daughter, it appeared to me that it might afford a reasonable foundation for the recommendation, and I accordingly passed the mitigated sentence of five years' penal servitude."

The next ease showed that the hon. Baronet who put the Notice on the Paper was not acquainted with the facts. His words were—

"Case 2, same Court, a man named Fyfield, convicted for feloniously cutting and wounding his wife with intent to murder her; details very bad; guilty; a bad case of unlawfully wounding; sentence, eighteen months' imprisonment." The Judge wrote—

"With reference to Fyfield's case the question assumes that he was 'convicted of feloniously cutting and wounding his wife with intent to murder her/ whereas he was acquitted of the felony and of the intent to murder, and of the intent to do grievous bodily harm, and convicted of the misdemeanour of unlawfully wounding only. I passed upon him the sentence of eighteen months imprisonment with hard labour."

Of the third case, where it was alleged that a man who severely beat another with his fists was sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude, the Judge said—

"In Gore's case, the indictment charged him with feloniously doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm. It appeared that under the pretence of buying a collar the prisoner went into the shop of the prosecutor, struck him behind the ear, and beat him with ' his fists' until he became insensible, remaining in that condition for many hours; spitting of blood followed, accompanied by other symptoms of so grave a character that the surgeon expressed a strong opinion that he will never recover, and will most probably speedily die as the result of the violence of the prisoner. He fainted as he left the Court. The avowed motive of the prisoner was revenge against the unfortunate prosecutor for having given evidence against him on a trial for assaulting the police. Two considerations influenced me in the sentence which I passed—in the first place, the grave and dangerous character of the violence inflicted; in the second place, the necessity of throwing such protection around witnesses who may hereafter be compelled to give evidence as a severe sentence was calculated to afford. My practice is to make a great distinction in the punishment of crimes of violence committed deliberately and with malice aforethought, and crimes of violence committed without premeditation and without malice aforethought. I endeavoured to apply this distinction in the sentences referred to; whether I succeeded or not I leave to the judgment of others."

Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed for our consideration in the Recess a curious conundrum with respect to coinage, currency, and circulation. So much misapprehension prevails on the subject that I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, in his suggestion the other evening respecting the gold coinage, he proposed that a person sending to the Mint a bar of gold, for which he now received 100 sovereigns without deduction for coining, should in future receive only 99 sovereigns of the same weight and quality as at present, the one sovereign being retained by the Mint for expenses of coinage; or whether he proposes that the same bar of gold should be coined into 101 sovereigns of less weight or quality than at present, and that the person sending the bar should receive 100 sovereigns, the remaining one being retained by the Mint for the expense of coinage. If the latter proposition were carried into effect, I wish to ask whether it would not necessarily involve the reduction of the intrinsic value of the pound sterling to be paid under existing deeds, mortgages, contracts, and other engagements, public and private, at home and abroad?

Sir, the conundrum which I proposed to the House does not involve either of the propositions. My suggestion was this—that a man, taking the words of the question, who brought to the Mint a bar of gold for which he would now receive 100 sovereigns should receive 100 sovereigns still, but that each, of these sovereigns should be lighter than the present sovereign by one grain, value somewhere about 2d., approximating nearly to 1 per cent on the value of the sovereign. The proposal was—at least the idea was, for there was no proposal—that if this one grain were deducted from the value of each of the sovereigns issued, there would re- main over and above the bar of gold brought to the Mint, after the issue of the 100 sovereigns forming its equivalent, 100 grains of gold, which the Mint would pay into the Exchequer under the head of miscellaneous income, to be applied to the general purposes of revenue. I need not, therefore, enter into the question as to the effect of the proposal in either of the hypothetical cases put by the hon. Gentleman upon contracts, mortgages, engagements, and all the other things. But as regards the practical proposition which I did make I may say one word. The hon. Gentleman asks about the intrinsic value. I do not know what "intrinsic value" means; it is an ambiguous phrase. As far as I know there is no such thing as intrinsic value. It is not an inherent quality in the substance itself which gives to it its pecuniary value; the intrinsic value, in the sense which the hon. Gentleman means, is, as I conceive relative; that is to say, measuring the value of the thing in question by the amount of labour and capital which it would take to produce it. But if the hon. Gentleman means by intrinsic value the amount of gold which the sovereign will contain, then my proposition certainly involves the reduction of the intrinsic value to the extent of one grain in 123½ grains. I will answer his Question in this way— If the sovereign be treated, not as gold, but as bullion, it will have one grain less of producing power; but if the sovereign be viewed, not as bullion, but as gold, its producing power will remain just the same as at present. And the reason is obvious. The only seller of new sovereigns is the Government; and if new sovereigns could only be acquired upon the condition of paying 1 per cent more for them than is now paid, that 1 per cent would necessarily limit the demand for sovereigns till they attained the value put upon them. As sovereigns, therefore, they would be as valuable as at present, while as bullion they would be less valuable. And that attains precisely the object I have in view, which is that the sovereign should be circulated in this country, but should not be melted or exported abroad.

I wish to understand whether the person bringing the bar of gold to be coined will pay anything for coining it?

I think I have answered the question before. The person bringing the bar of gold to be coined—assuming it to be worth 100 sovereigns—would have deducted from the value 100 grains of gold; and to that extent he would pay.

said, he regretted that his hon. Friend had been prevented by indisposition from attending on the occasion when he stated the intentions of the Secretary of State on this subject. The matter had not escaped the attention of Lord Clarendon, and a scheme was now being matured, which it was hoped would have the effect desired by his hon. Friend. The Foreign Office Agency Question had not been settled satisfactorily, and he had no hesitation in saying that before Parliament met again there would be a change.

Sir, I wish to put a question to the Government, to know whether they are prepared to announce what course they will take next Session with regard to that important measure of Scotch Education, which has met with such a disastrous end in "another place," and on no other plea than that it was the month of August when it came before the House of Lords. I wish to ask, Whether the Government are prepared to tell us that early next Session the Bill may be re-introduced?

Certainly the course pursued in "another place" in regard to the Bill has excited not less surprise than regret—regret on many accounts, both in regard to the measure which was the subject of that treatment, and in regard to the position between the two Houses. It certainly is unfortunate that a Bill introduced into the House of Lords at the very beginning of the Session, which was altered in a very large degree by that House, which occupied that House for three months and a-half, which came down here at a time when business was very important and very pressing—and which has been before this House only a month and a-half—should have been rejected in another place, on the ground that there was not time to consider it. This is, indeed, a very unfortunate state of affairs. The Bill was a most important one; and the very alterations which had been made in it in the House of Lords prove that it was a measure of very great difficulty, requiring serious consideration; and it required consideration more particularly in this House, where the representatives of the people—the representatives of those who have the main interest in the education of the country— were to be found. All that I can say as to the future is that one cause of the regret which we feel, as to the treatment which the Bill has received, arises from the fact that we had the discussion ground free to ourselves. We were in a position to undertake and to pass a measure for Scotland without being embarrassed with other questions. Sir, I can undertake nothing absolutely for the future. What can be done next Session must depend very much upon other important questions which will have to be considered. All I can say is, that what has been done in another place will not discourage us for future efforts, and should enable the representatives of Scotland especially to aid with even more harmony and co-operation in the accomplishment of their great object.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question as to the recent appointment of Revising Barristers by the Lord Chief Baron on the Home Circuit. The senior Judge on the Summer Circuit had each year the right of appointing members of his own circuit to be Revising Barristers for the year, and therefore, theoretically, the appointment was annual, but the practice had invariably been, that except for special reasons, no change should be made in the appointments. On the last occasion, however, that practice had been departed from in one, if not in two cases. In one case the gentleman who had held the appointment before very much needed the assistance it afforded him, as he had a wife and family; but he had been displaced in favour of a young man, who was, perhaps, perfectly qualified for the office, but who had only just been elected a member of the Home Circuit. He wished to know, Whether the Home Secretary had any information on the matter; and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the reasons for pursuing such an unusual course?

I said he had only just joined the circuit.