Sitting of 21 June 1865

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Referees on Private Bill Committee (No. 393).
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolutions [June 20] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions reported—Excise Acts; County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction [Judges' Salaries].
Ordered—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Indemnity; Expiring Laws Continuance.
First Reading—Bank Notes Issue (Scotland)* [232]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Compound Spirits Warehousing*[233]; Indemnity [234]; Expiring Laws Continuance*[235].
Second Reading—Educational and Charitable Institutions [97] and committed for this day three months.
Considered as amended— Ulster Canal Transfer*[211]; War Department Tramway (Devon)* [Lords'] [204].
Third Reading—Parsonages*[Lords] [205]; National Gallery (Dublin)* [203]; Harwich Harbour* [214]; Carriers Act Amendment* [224]; Salmon Fishery Act (1861) Amendment [220]; Falmouth Borough*[200]; Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act (1856) Amendment* [219.]
Withdrawn—Grand Juries (Ireland)*[93]; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland)*[171]; Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act Amendment [54]; Merchant Shipping Disputes [90]; Bank Notes (Ireland) [124]; Railways Clauses [170].

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 54.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BLAKErose to move the second reading of this Bill. He said it was very simple in its character, and its provisions would, he thought, recommend themselves so much by their justice that it would be unnecessary for him to trespass upon the time of the House at any length. The
  598
  hon. Member read several of the clauses of the Bill, and drew attention more particularly to the 7th and 12th clauses. The latter was to place the appointment of sheriffs in boroughs in the hands of the corporations, and the reason for the change was that under the present system sectarian and personal influences were unduly exercised. In the city of Waterford only two citizen Roman Catholics had held the office since the time of James I. It was true that some country gentlemen, Roman Catholics, had held the office, but it was generally held by Protestants, though unobjectionable persons; but the population numbered eight Roman Catholics to one. The Bill he did not expect would pass this year, hut he hoped the Secretary of State for Ireland would, during the recess, do something to remedy the present defects of the former Municipal Corporation Acts, which the present Bill was intended to supply.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had been in communication with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General for Ireland, with regard to the provisions of the Bill now under consideration, and he was bound to say that in its present shape it would not be in the power of the Government to give the hon. Member that assistance in passing the measure he required. He did not think the hon. Member had any intention of pressing the Bill at present, but merely wished to ventilate the question. With regard to Clause 7, a Bill had been proposed, and which had passed that House, by the right hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. Monsell) secured, to a great extent, the object of that clause; and with reference to Clause 12, which proposed to take the appointment of high sheriff of corporate boroughs and counties from the Lord Lieutenant and transfer it to the corporate bodies, he was surprised that the hon. Member should wish to have such a change made, considering how much the corporations, both in England and Ireland, were influenced by the very feelings which the hon. Member had referred to; and which rendered it peculiarly desirable that these appointments should be made by some authority without the corporations. He had taken some pains to ascertain whether there was really any grievance in Water-

  599
  ford as to the appointment of sheriffs, and he held in his hand a Return of the going Judges of assize in the district in which Waterford was situated. Each of these Judges of assize was Roman Catholic, and it was well known that upon the recommendation of the Judges the Lord Lieutenant made the appointment to the office of sheriff. In 1861 a Protestant was returned to the Judge, and stood first on the list, and he was appointed. In 1862 a Roman Catholic was placed first on the list, but he declined; and a Protestant, who stood second, was appointed. The same thing occurred in 1860 and in 1863. He would ask was there any sectarian spirit evident in this? In 1864 and 1865 the shrievalty was offered to Roman Catholics and declined. He would therefore put it to the House whether there was any real hardship under such circumstances, or whether there was any real grievance to complain of. If Clauses 7 and 12 were removed from the Bill, it would be more likely to obtain the favourable consideration of the Government. The hon. Member might rest satisfied that if he could lay before the Government any case involving a real grievance, they would be happy to do all in their power to provide for it a remedy, and he trusted that, satisfied with that assurance, he would assent to the withdrawal of a Bill so crudely framed that it was not desirable it should pass into a law.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he had come down to the House with the intention of opposing the Bill, and was glad there was a prospect that he would be spared the trouble of entering into any lengthened argument with that object. The provisions of the Bill would affect, not only Waterford, but other cities in Ireland, and, among them, Dublin, whose interests would be prejudiced by the proposed transference of the power of appointing so responsible an officer as a sheriff from the Government to the corporation. Hitherto, as a matter of fact, the most eminent citizens of Dublin had been chosen to fill that office without any distinction of creed or party.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

MERCHANT SHIPPING DISPUTES BILL.

  [BILL 90.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. DENMAN,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the measure
  600
  had been drawn up under the auspices of the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce, and had been approved at a large meeting of delegates from the Associated Chambers of Commerce throughout the country. That the subject with which it dealt was one of considerable interest and importance, was shown by the fact that a great many petitions in its favour had been presented from all our principal seaports, with the exception of London and Liverpool, which were not so active in the matter for the good reason that the former possessed a Court of Admiralty which transacted a good deal of business in the way of the settlement of shipping disputes, while the latter also had a court presided over by a most able Judge skilled in mercantile law, by whom those disputes were decided. He had, he might add, received a number of letters on the subject, one or two extracts from which would fully explain the nature of the grievance of which the mercantile shipping interest complained, and for which, by the Bill, it was sought to provide a remedy. In a statement which had been forwarded to him by a considerable shipping firm in Newcastle, they described the decisions of the present courts for the settlement of shipping disputes as being so unsatisfactory, and the cost of the proceedings before them so enormous, that many persons preferred submitting to any amount of injustice rather than bring or defend such actions as the law now stood; referring, in illustration of their statement, to an instance which had come under their own observation in which the question of the damage done to a particular vessel might originally have been settled for £6, had ended, after considerable litigation, in the ship having been sold for £600 and £700, which amount had, no doubt, been completely absorbed in costs. He had also a communication from a firm of eminent ship and insurance brokers in London, in which they said that a constantly increasing number of shipping disputes was being settled by unprofessional persons, owing to the difficulties and expense connected with the present system. Many persons, they went on to state, who suffered injury quietly bore their loss rather than make any attempt to obtain redress. The existence of such a state of things was naturally looked upon by the shipping interest as a grievance, while they also complained that the Judges by whom the mercantile law of the country was administered were apt very often to pronounce a

  601
  decision upon written documents, acting upon their own view of the provisions which those documents contained, without any special knowledge of mercantile terms or usages. The subject, no doubt, was difficult to deal with; but he could not accept any discredit for having brought forward this measure at so late a period of the Session; for he had put down the second reading on the notice paper several times, and had been twice counted out. It was not, therefore, his fault that the measure had not been pressed on the notice of the House earlier. Having stated the grievances which were felt in regard to this subject, he would briefly inform the House what the remedies for those grievances were which the Bill provided. It was, in the first place, proposed that the measure should be applied to certain districts into which for that purpose the country would be portioned out, and which should include our great shipping ports, and each of which should contain one or more County Court district. The Bill further provided that courts should be constituted in those districts, and that they should consist of one President and Assessors; the President to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and to be selected from persons holding the office of County Court Judge, Commissioner or Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy, or stipendiary magistrate. The Assessors might be persons in business as merchants, manufacturers, or shipowners, who would be chosen in rotation for the duty by the town council of the borough within which the sittings of the Court are appointed to be held. These Assessors it was not proposed by the Bill to remunerate, but then they would be allowed certain privileges—such as exemption from serving on juries—but he thought the office would be considered so highly honourable that there would be no difficulty in finding gentlemen to act gratuitously. The advantage of the selection of such a class of persons as Assessors would be that the Judge would have persons experienced in business in the district in which the dispute might happen to arise to assist him in construing the written documents to which he had already referred. There would be an appeal from the Courts constituted under the Bill in those cases in which the sum involved was above a certain amount; and the result of the operation of the measure, he believed, would be cheap and speedy decisions. He regretted that he had been unable to bring the Bill on for second reading at an earlier period
  602
  of the Session. If he could have done so he should have moved that it should be referred to a Select Committee. As it was, he hoped he should hear from the Government that they were prepared to deal with the subject, and should for the present content himself with moving the second reading pro formâ.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Denman.)
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he could coroborate the statement of his hon. and learned Friend, that the Bill had originated with the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce, where the evils it sought to remedy were much felt, and had received the approval of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. Under all the circumstances of the case he hoped his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would give his serious attention to the subject, with a view of remedying the evils complained of.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONadmitted that the subject was one which was deserving of the fullest consideration of the Board of Trade—he was also prepared to grant that it was important technical knowledge should be at the command of a Judge who had to come to a decision on cases in which such knowledge was requisite; but, then, he was not of opinion that the Judge ought necessarily to be a man who had followed the calling out of which such cases arose. The Assessors who were to be appointed under the Bill were, he found, to have votes; so that they would, to all intents and purposes, be Judges in a cause in which, independent of other considerations, they might, as manufacturers and traders chosen by the Town Council of the borough nearest to the place at which the Court sat, have a personal interest. This, he thought, involved a principle which could not be admitted. He had no doubt that there was under the present system great delay as well as expense in dealing with the cases which arose, and it was a question deserving of consideration whether a Judge of the Court of Admiralty should not go circuit, and be assisted by Assessors, rather than that novel local courts should be established. It would, for instance, hardly be desirable to refer for decision to a court in which shipowners might have a preponderating influence the question of wages; which could, he thought, be more satisfactorily dealt with by the magistrates on the spot.

  603
  Nor was he, he might add, quite sure that the parties to an action would be relieved to any great extent from expense under the operation of the Bill, inasmuch as it would almost invariably happen that whenever a collision between vessels occurred those interested in the subsequent proceedings would be found to be residing at a distance from the scene of the occurrence. If, however, his hon. and learned Friend would allow the matter to rest for the present Session he would undertake that it should receive, during the recess, the fullest consideration, and possibly the Government might be able to propose some satisfactory measure on the subject.
  MR. HENLEYthought the President of the Board of Trade had given very satisfactory reasons why the House should not proceed further with the measure. It was probable that owing to the extension of our shipping operations the number of disputes in question had considerably increased, and it was of course desirable that those disputes should be settled as expeditiously and as inexpensively as possible. He did not think, however, that the Court proposed by the Bill would form a satisfactory tribunal. The Court was to consist of a Judge and four or five gentlemen who were to act as his Assessors; but they were all to have an equal voice in deciding both questions of law and questions of fact. The sound principle was that the Judge should lay down the law, and the juries decide as to the fact. Nor did he think that the Admiralty Court was so very popular that the establishment of an unlimited number of small Admiralty Courts, as was proposed, would be regarded by the country in the light of a blessing. He was, however, glad that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade intended to turn his attention to the subject, for it was deserving of consideration whether local courts might not be constituted with power to deal with cases in which the amount involved was under £50. Many of them would probably be better settled by means of arbitration than by any other mode.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that though he should be disposed to support any measure which had for its object the localizing and cheapening actions in shipping cases, he regarded the tribunals which it was proposed under the Bill to constitute as altogether novel, combining together as they would the duties of Judge and jury. To the establishment of such
  604
  tribunals, therefore, he would not give his assent, while he could assure his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton that the Government were anxious to afford every facility to meet the views of the promoters of the Bill.
  MR. J. B. MOOREsaid, he believed that the establishment of a speedy mode of settling those suits was extremely desirable, and he thought their thanks were due to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the Bill, although it might not be expedient to pass it in its present form.
  MR. CAVEsaid, there was no doubt that some such Bill as that was demanded by the mercantile and shipping community of this country. The measure might, he believed, be somewhat better framed, but it appeared to him that its principle was perfectly correct—namely, the principle that a mixed tribunal, consisting of both legal and commercial gentlemen, should be established for the settlement of these cases. He thought, however, that the Court should be presided over by a lawyer. Legal education was essential. He knew an instance of a practical man, as the term was, being arbitrator in a shipping case, and re-opening matters of fact which had been agreed upon on both sides. On the other hand there was as much hard swearing in shipping, especially in runniug down cases, as in horse cases, and the presence of nautical men as assessors with diagrams, who could cross-examine witnesses, as to the wind, tides, and tack the ships were on when the collision occurred, would be very useful. The Bill was crude and imperfect, but might be the precursor of a really useful measure.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

BANK NOTES (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 124.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, its object was twofold—to make Bank of England notes a legal tender in Ireland, and to do away with some restrictions which now injuriously affected banks of issue in the latter country. As things at present stood, the only legal tender in Ireland was gold, which produced inconvenience when the sum to be paid was large; and in the case of a pressure for money in Ireland gold had to be sent over from London.

  605
  Country banks in Ireland were obliged to pay all their issues in gold; while ever since 1834 a Bank of England note was a legal tender for a country bank in England. It was a monstrous thing that a Bank of England note, a legal tender at this side of the Channel, ceased to be so on crossing the water. It might he said I that the same argument would apply to a bank of Ireland note. The bank of Ireland, however, was, in fact, a private bank, while the Bank of England had always been in close connection with the Government and had more of a national character, and everything which affected the Bank of England injuriously affected the whole commercial class of the Empire. Another reason for making a Bank of England note a legal tender in Ireland was that it would promote free trade in banking in that country, where the Bank of Ireland had not dealt liberally with the public or the other banks as regarded its powers of issue. The other object of the Bill was to remedy a grievance banks of issue in Ireland much complained of. As the law now stood, every bank note in Ireland was made payable at the place where it was issued, and the consequence was that considerable quantities of gold were kept lying idle in the local branches and the formation of branch banks was discouraged. He proposed that for the future bank notes should he made payable at the head office only, as in Scotland, of the bank which issued them. At the present stage of the Session it was hopeless to expect that the measure could pass. The Belfast Banking Company, however, had petitioned in favour of the principle contained in the Bill; the Royal Bank in Dublin passed a resolution in favour of it, and other establishments, though they had not taken any active steps, also looked on it with favour. After some further observations the hon. Member concluded by moving pro formâ the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it had been his fortune more than once in following his hon, and learned Friend (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) to admit the clearness of his views and the ability of his arguments. He must, however, dissent from his proposal that this Bill should be read, even pro formâ, a second time. He would not dwell upon the objec-
  606
  tion, undoubtedly applicable as a general rule, to every proposition that the House should commit itself in the abstract to views of legislation admittedly impossible to be carried into effect at the time; nor would he object to the Bill as an attempt at piecemeal legislation, for that was the characteristic of most of our financial measures. But there were many special considerations surrounding the main propositions of the Bill to which he should find it most difficult to give his assent. The Bill touched not only the question of currency, but also the question of legal tender, the most delicate and difficult, probably, of all the considerations connected with this extensive subject. In reference to this question he must say that the proposals of his hon. and learned Friend were altogether premature. There was, no doubt, a good deal of force in the argument, applicable to Scotland as well as to Ireland, that where there was a limitation upon the issue of notes, a limit practically, though indirectly, was imposed upon banking; but, supposing even that a new legal tender ought to be established in those parts of the kingdom, it would remain a question of very great importance, and one regarding which the House at present was totally disqualified from pronouncing any opinion, whether that new tender ought to be the English bank-note. The immediate consequence of establishing the £5 English note as a legal tender in Ireland would be that the action of the Bank of England would be carried into Ireland, both as an issuing and banking body. The Bank of England had not been consulted on that point; but, as far as his opinion extended, it found ample responsibility and ample profit in discharging the very weighty and multifarious duties attaching to it in its present sphere. If he might venture to anticipate the decision of the Bank, it would pause before it accepted such a new responsibility; for this was plain—that wherever the Bank of England note went the Bank must establish agencies at which the note could be cashed, otherwise the very note by law made a legal tender would at once be at a discount. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to think that the measure would be of advantage to the Bank of England, inasmuch as it would tend to prevent a drain of gold from the Bank to Ireland. But the Bank of England did not care whether it paid in notes or gold, its power of meeting all its issues being amply pro-

  607
  vided for. Although the Government were far from paying absolute deference on such a point to the views of the Bank of Ireland, it was fair to remember that the Bank of Ireland objected to this measure; and a great deal of consideration would be requisite before it could ever be adopted. Her Majesty's Government did not deny that there were various points connected with the currency in Ireland rendering it a subject deserving of attention, but the present was not a convenient or proper time for asking the House to affirm a general principle such as that laid down in the Bill.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that however ingenious might be the proposals contained in the Bill, or the arguments put forward in its support, he could not regard as a patriotic proposal the suggestion that a great corporation like the Bank of England should be brought across to Ireland and encouraged to enter into competition throughout the country with all the native banks. This very subject of legalizing the tender of a Bank of England note had been brought under the consideration of the Select Committee of 1858, composed of many of the most eminent and experienced men of the day, with whom he had enjoyed the honour of being associated, and the unanimous opinion of that Committee was opposed to taking any action in the matter. The directors of the Bank of Ireland were examined before that Committee, and they simply proposed that their notes should be made a legal tender in Ireland. The late Sir George Cornewall Lewis thought, under the circumstances, that was a reasonable proposition; but such an enactment had never been proposed. No practical inconvenience resulted from the present arrangement, for the rate of exchange, once very high, had fallen to a point only equalling what would be requisite to cover the transmission of gold between the two countries. The question was one that, if taken up at all, ought to be left in the hands of the Government, and the hon. and learned Baronet, he thought, would act wisely in withdrawing the Bill.
  LORD RERMOYthought that at this period of the Session it was futile to discuss this important question. He was, however, glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that the whole banking system of Ireland was in an unsatisfactory state. In Ireland there was a great desire to develope the agricultural
  608
  resources of the country: but it was impossible to do this without the aid of a liberal and sound system of banking. Now, the banking system in Ireland was of the very opposite character. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his powerful intellect to that question with the view of altering the law relating to it. He trusted that before long the whole law of Ireland would be revised.
  MR. BLACKBURNwas also glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that the present banking systems both in Scotland and Ireland were in some respects unsatisfactory. He (Mr. Blackburn) had brought in a Bill last night upon the subject as regarded Scotland, but without the slightest hopes of its passing into a law. The general feeling appeared to be in favour of free trade in banking. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would devise an effectual remedy for the evils complained of.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS BILL— [BILL 97.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LYGON,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that he had introduced the measure at a much earlier period of the Session, but this was the first opportunity that had presented itself of moving the second reading. The measure dealt expressly with institutions connected with the Church of England, and Nonconformists were not intended in any way to be affected by its provisions. If it could be shown that their interests were touched in any way by the Bill, he would most willingly consent to any alteration of the measure that would remove all doubts on that point. A Bill was introduced last Session to afford facilities for Divine service in collegiate schools; but the measure now proposed was much larger in its scope, and much more satisfactory. Under the parochial system, as at present existing, it was impossible for any clergyman to perform Divine service in any part of a parish without the consent of the incumbent; and hence it followed that the incumbent had the option of prohibiting the performance of Divine service in any insti-

  609
  tution within that parish. The possible mischiefs which the Bill was intended to remedy-had not occurred in many places, though in some quarters they had arisen; and it was most desirable that Parliament should interfere before they became at all serious. Nobody who was at all conversant with the discipline and management of such schools as Harrow, Rugby, or of the proprietary colleges formed in different parts of England, could deny that it was desirable for them to have chaplains of their own, unfettered by the responsibilities resting on those charged with the spiritual superintendence of the parish. The experience of the late Dr. Arnold abundantly established how valuable an adjunct the private chapel was to the beneficial influences of the school; and his view bad been confirmed by that of almost every other head master. There were institutions also, besides schools, such as almshouses, penitentiaries, and others of a charitable nature, to which similar considerations applied; and of those, therefore, cognizance was taken by the present Bill, which proposed, instead of leaving the chaplain subject to the authority or caprice of the incumbent of the parish, to place him directly under the | jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese, to whom, and to whom alone, he would then be responsible. For the parochial system he entertained the deepest respect, and he never would do anything to weaken the practical working of the system; but the Bill, so far from interfering with the system, only legitimately extended it. All this Bill contemplated, as the House would see, was that institutions of the nature indicated, when a chapel connected with them was licensed, should be withdrawn from the parochial authority, and made, as it were, an ecclesiastical district under the immediate jurisdiction of the bishop. The Church Building Acts contained a provision authorizing, under certain circumstances, a district to be formed even without the consent of the incumbent. That, however, was an extreme course, which he did not propose to adopt. His proposal was that when the trustees of an existing institution applied to the bishop, stating the nature of the institution and the circumstances under which the chaplain was to he appointed, the bishop, if he thought fit, and not otherwise, might issue his licence, whereupon for all the purposes mentioned in Clause 3; namely, the cure of souls within the institution, the sole right of preaching, performing Divine ser-
  610
  vice, and administering the Holy Communion—the institution would become an ecclesiastical district. He had received many communications from heads of Colleges and others in positions of authority in favour of this Bill; and the advantages of putting an end to the uncertainty entailed by changes of incumbents must he obvious, bearing in mind that though one incumbent might consent to the performance of Divine service in an institution within the parish, his opinions were in no way binding on his successor.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Lygon.)
  MR. REMINGTON MILLS,in moving an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months, said, the speech of the hon. Gentleman had not satisfied him that the Bill ought to receive the sanction of the House. He admitted that the provisions of the present Bill were different from those of last year, but the object appeared to be the same—namely, that these schools should be under the control of bishops of the Church of England. The classical and mathematical education given in many of these schools was open to pupils of all persuasions; but if they were compelled to attend religious service on the Lord's Day the children of Dissenters would be deprived of the advantage of attending these schools. In many of these schools the boys were not sufficient to form a congregation, and it would be very hard to deprive the master of the opportunity he now enjoyed of assisting clergymen in the neighbourhood in the performance of Divine service. In the greater portion of these schools the pupils lived in the town with their parents, and it was the duty of the parents to take them to their own places of worship. Nor could he see the advantage of compelling the children to attend a chapel in or connected with the school, with all its associations of the rod and tasks, &c. The Bill placed these chapels under the superintendence of the bishops, yet they were told that the bishops were overworked, and that a dozen new bishops would not be too many. A Commission bad recently-been appointed to inquire into these endowed schools, and it would be quite time to consider this subject when Parliament was called upon to legislate in regard to these schools. No one had petitioned for the Bill, and he begged to move, that it

  611
  be read a second time that day three months.
  MR. HADFIELDseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Remington Mills.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. WALTERsaid, that as his name was on the back of the Bill he should like to state the views which had induced him to place it in so prominent a position. It appeared to him that his hon. Friend who had charge of this Bill, and the hon. Gentleman who opposed the second reading (Mr. Remington Mills), were acting on different grounds. So far as he was concerned, he had never contemplated the schools to which the hon. Member had just alluded. He considered this Bill as a prospective rather than a retrospective measure. He happened to know that a measure of this kind was required on principles of justice. It was well known that there was a great want at the present day of large public schools for the education of a class of persons who could not afford the expense of going to the large old educational establishments. Many benevolent persons had combined to establish schools of that character. Acting upon the denominational principle, which was the governing principle of education in England, they wished to connect their school with the religious denomination to which they belonged, and in the case contemplated by this Bill that denomination happened to be the Church of England. Take the case of persons wishing to found schools for 400 or 500 boys upon some site not within or near a town. They thought a country site best for the health of the boys; they bought the land cheap in a rural district and they founded a large institution. But the moment they began to build a chapel, or to provide for the religious services of the institution, the clergyman of the parish might step in, and control and upset their arrangements. He believed that the Wellington College was one of the most important institutions founded in modern times; yet the clergyman of the parish in which it was situated had the right to step in and interfere with the religious arrangements of the College. He, for one, did not desire to interfere with the status quo of the old endowed schools of the country,
  612
  nor with the various interests which had grown up around them. But with respect to schools of the kind to which he had alluded, he thought that the circumstances of the case called for legislation; and, as his hon. Friend had justly pointed out, although it was possible that the particular incumbent of the parish might work harmoniously with the chaplain or master of these institutions, yet it was equally possible that his successor might hold different views and might raise formal objections to the religious services of the institution. It was essentially necessary that some provision for the religious services of such large schools should be made, for the parish church might not afford the requisite accommodation. A new church would be necessary, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Mills) would not be in favour of building it by means of a church rate. Church accommodation, however, of some kind the pupils of such an institution must have, and how were they to get it except by machinery of this description? But did the hon. Gentleman think that every clergyman of a parish—that any haphazard incumbent, who might perhaps be seventy years of age—was a fit person to administer religious instruction to 500 boys? Clearly not, and the hon. Gentleman would be the last person to make such an assertion. He was sure that if a Dissenting College were to be established the hon. Gentleman would be the first person to demand that adequate means should be afforded, such as were provided by the Bill for the religious instruction of members of the Established Church. He asked for nothing more for the Church, than what the Dissenters would enjoy without question. The clergyman of the parish might be a very good man, but, on the other hand, he might be utterly unfit to have any control over an institution of this kind, and such institutions ought therefore to be looked upon as extra-parochial places and put under the charge of the Bishop of the diocese. With regard to the principle of the Bill, he could not see what objection could be raised to it. If the net included too many places within it, that was a matter open to objection and discussion. He should be sorry to disturb the status quo in respect to any school to which clergymen might now have access, or by which the claimants to the rights of a school would be interfered with. It was perhaps too late this Session to pass the measure, but he thought that the case of the institutions to which he had alluded

  613
  required legislation upon the most ordinary principles of justice and common sense.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that the Bill would place the chaplains of schools in a position of rivalry with the incumbents of the parish. The founder of these schools contemplated the teaching of the child, and not the appointment of the master as chaplain. The measure would create an empire within an empire. Why did not the hon. Member bring in the Bill at an earlier period of the Session? Last year the Bill came on for discussion in a similar manner at the fag end of the Session. Believing that the measure would violate the foundation deeds of charities and unsettle the lights of Dissenters in these schools, ho supported the Amendment, and would cheerfully divide against the Bill.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was generally admitted it would he impossible to proceed with the Bill this Session, and that the only object in discussing it was that its principle should be fully understood, and thus the way prepared for future legislation. It appeared that some grievance had led to the introduction of this Bill, and it was one suffered by members of the Church of England, because they belonged to a State Church. In fact, in some respects they were more fettered than the Dissenting bodies. There was nothing to prevent Roman Catholics, Independents, Quakers, or Mormonites from establishing a school according to the religious principles of their respective persuasions—the law did not interfere. But if Churchmen established a school, it was possible for some legally authorized person to interfere with the religious teaching which the parents might wish to be given. He did not think that members of the Church of England should, on some consideration of "Church and State" policy, lose the liberty enjoyed by other persuasions, and he was favourable to the principle of the Bill so far as it granted that liberty. There was, however, a danger to be guarded against, and care must be taken that the rights of Dissenters should not be interfered with. It was not unnatural that the measure should be regarded with suspicion by the Dissenters. There were several educational establishments which their children had the right to attend, and others as to which their rights were in doubt or dispute. It was necessary that nothing should be done to weaken the present rights or claims of Dissenters, and such a measure, if brought forward at all, should be introduced by the Go-
  614
  vernment. If it were now withdrawn, and the Secretary of State should take it up in another Session, he ought to sec, on the one hand, that it was not advisable that parents of the Church of England should be deprived of the rights enjoyed by other sects, while, on the other hand, great care should be taken not to put the Nonconformists in a worse position than they now enjoyed.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could not concur in the grounds on which the objections of his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment were founded, but he agreed that it would not be desirable to proceed further with the measure at the close of the Session. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lygon) explained that he had brought it in at an early period of the Session, but that he had not had an opportunity of asking the House to agree to the principle until the present time. If there really was a practical grievance, as stated by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), he should be sorry to object to the application of any proper remedy. He understood it to be alleged that in public schools, such as Harrow, Rugby, and Wellington College, Divine service could not be performed by the master or any chaplain attached to the schools without the consent of the incumbent, and that this consent was not always given. His hon. Friend who spoke last (Mr. W. E. Forster), said that the Government ought to bring in a Bill next Session to remedy the grievance; hut all he (Sir George Grey) could say was that not one word had ever been addressed to him as to the existence of any grievance or inconvenience of this kind. He was not aware of any practical difficulty in the performance of Divine service in such institutions. At Harrow he was sure there was none. Dr. Arnold continually performed Divine service in the school chapel of Rugby, and several volumes of most valuable sermons preached by him at Rugby had been published. He was not aware that the slighest difficulty had occurred at Rugby which this Bill would remove. If, however, there was any case of this kind—and he gathered from the speech of his hon. Friend that there was one such case—if the incumbent of any parish exercised any right which he might possess of refusing his licence to a clergyman to officiate in a public school, that might be a reason for an alteration of the law. But the present measure went much beyond that. It included within its

  615
  provisions every endowed school in England connected by its foundation with the Church of England. It would, therefore, include almost all the great grammar schools of the country. He had received a letter that day from a gentleman in one of the northern dioceses, stating, that the Bill would apply to 148 schools in that diocese, and would therefore virtually enable the Bishop to interfere with 148 parishes within his diocese. Why did the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Bill go so much beyond the object he had in view, and thus excite so much more opposition than a more limited measure would receive? It was stated that many of these endowed schools, although connected by their foundation with the Church of England, were attended very largely by Dissenters; and it must not be forgotten that the exercise of the powers conferred by this Bill would have the effect, or might have the effect, if attendance at Divine service should be enforced, of causing the children of Nonconformists to be withdrawn. He did not object to the principle of the Bill as it had been explained by his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walters), but he could not help thinking that the measure deserved more consideration than could be given to it at the present period of the Session. He suggested last year, on a similar occasion, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and he stated that if the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would consent to that course, he would support the second reading. He was ready to make the same offer on the present occasion. What the House wanted to know was the particular nature and extent of the grievance complained of, and then apply the remedy without going beyond the necessities of the case. Last year the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins), who had charge of the Bill, admitted the reasonableness of his proposal. If the hon. Member (Mr. Lygon) went to a division, he was ready to vote for the second reading, on the understanding that the measure was not to be proceeded with this Session, and that if it were again introduced next Session it should be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. COLLINSwould recommend his hon. Friend to adopt the proposal of the Home Secretary, because, although there appeared to be an almost unanimous feeling that something ought to be done, yet it was impossible the Bill could be properly
  616
  considered this Session. Wellington College was not the only instance in which a Bill of this kind was required. There was a school containing some 500 boys at Lancefield, and were they to be compelled to go to the parish church? In some cases the church only contained accommodation for 200 or 250 persons altogether; and were the parents to be at the mercy of the incumbent to say whether there should be a chapel attached to the school or not? Some legislation was wanted, hut as soon as any measure was brought in to benefit the Church of England the hon. Member for Sheffield appeared to consider it his duty to thwart it.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he was willing to accept the proposal of the Home Secretary. The reason why the measure had been deferred to so late a period of the Session was that he had been anxious to obtain the co-operation of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter). His hon. Friend took some time to consider the matter, and that was the reason why he had not been able sooner to proceed with the Bill which he had laid on the table in February. He was glad to hear so general an admission of the necessity of some legislation on this subject.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 35: Majority 14.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for this day three months.

RAILWAYS CLAUSES (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 170.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. BASSsaid, that this was the second Bill on the same subject, and a great many of the clauses which were of advantage to the public in the former Bill were not to be found in this. Now, the subject was one which required much more consideration than it was possible to give it at this period of the Session. Clause 10 in the former Bill, which related to taking possession of shops and dwelling-houses, provided that the companies should give six months' notice beforehand; but the railway magnates had succeeded in getting

  617
  this clause struck out. Again, Clause 14 of the old Bill gave compensation for loss of trade—and assuredly there could not be a fairer ground for compensation—and yet that clause had been struck out. In Clause 21 of the first Bill restrictions were imposed upon the creation of impediments to traffic; but the railway companies induced the right hon. Gentleman to strike out that provision also. Clause 22 of the other Bill provided that the companies should not stop up a street without the consent of the street authorities, and in a previous clause it was laid down that a portion of the street should be left open for traffic; but both clauses had been cut out. The fact was the railway companies at present had it all their own way. What with contractors in the House and railway directors at the right hon. Gentleman's back, those companies were a very powerful body. For similar goods and similar quantities of them it would be thought that the same rates should be charged; but that was not always the case even on different parts of the same line. Some railways charged only half what was charged by others. He could give an instance with regard to one trade, in which the difference of rates made a difference of £50,000 a year. This Bill was too important to pass in so thin a House and at such a late period of the Session, and he should therefore move that it be re-committed this day month.
  LORD FERMOYseconded the Amendment. Their constituents out of doors had reason to complain of the way in which the President of the Board of Trade had dealt with the Bill. The Bill had been subjected to so many alterations that it was to all intents and purposes a new one. The parishes of St. Pancras and Marylebone had, of all others in the metropolis, been most invaded by the railway companies, and no one except those who were intimately connected with the traders of the metropolis could form an idea of the absolute ruin which was caused by those companies running a line through a populous district. He had known many excellent and industrious tradesmen in St. Pancras and Marylebone utterly ruined in consequence of the railway companies cutting off customers from getting access to their shops. The conduct of the Government with regard to this Bill had been something very like underhand dealing with the House, and ho should give every possible opposition to the Bill unless his
  618
  right hon. Friend consented to reintroduce the compensation clause which was contained in the former Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Bass,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HOBSFALLsaid, he should feel it his duty to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby. The Bill professed to give the public protection against the railway companies; but he held in his hand a circular which would put an end to that delusion. That circular, which was signed with the name of Mr. Thomas Coates, stated that the Parliamentary Committee of the railway companies had discussed the provisions of the Bill with the Board of Trade, and those provisions were now in harmony with the views of the railway companies. Of course they were; for the clauses in favour of the public had been struck out. It was said that this was merely a Bill for the consolidation of previous enactments, and yet the Amendment which he had proposed to introduce would not be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, though the provision which the Amendment embodied had been inserted in a former Bill. In the North Staffordshire Bill a clause had been inserted which subjected railway terminal charges to arbitration, and that was the very principle of the clause which he proposed to introduce as an Amendment. That was the sum total of the protection which he proposed to give the public, and yet the right hon. Gentleman had taken exception to it. In cases of difference, who was to decide under the Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman? None but the railway companies. But let hon. Members picture to themselves a trader taking a case into Court against railway companies with their millions of capital. What, then, could be fairer than to adopt the principle of the North Staffordshire Bill, and to have arbitrators appointed? Such a protection was absolutely necessary to the public. If his hon. Friend would consent to insert a clause to that effect he should be disposed to support the Bill; but the Bill in its present shape was injurious to the public and iniquitous, and he should oppose it.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, the inhabitants of the metropolis had the greatest possible reason to complain of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. Several Bills had been withdrawn to-day on the ground that it was too late in the Session to pass them, and that was the course which ought to have been pursued with regard to the present Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman had allowed himself to be overpersuaded by the railway directors who were now sitting behind him. The Metropolitan Underground Railway was calculated to supply a grievous want, but it also brought to light a grievous want, and that was, a want of proper legislation for railways running through the metropolis. His noble Colleague (Lord Fermoy) had stated that he knew several instances of persons who had been ruined by the construction of the metropolitan railways. The law was, that persons injuriously affected might obtain damages against the companies, and many persons proceeded against them in the Sheriff's Court and had been awarded damages, which in some cases the companies paid. But at last the railway authorities took heart of grace and appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench; and the Court decided that the judgment of the Sheriffs' Court was right. The railway companies upon this appealed from that decision to the Court of Error, and there it was decided that a person might be injuriously affected without being wronged. And now the law was, in such a case, that persons not having money could not obtain compensation because they could not go to the House of Lords. One would have thought that to Clauses 21 and 22 of the former Bill there could have been no reasonable objection; and yet these clauses had been struck out, through what occult influences he would leave it to the House to imagine. He had himself presented a petition in favour of these clauses, and especially of the compensation clause. They were told that the Bill contained nothing new, and, therefore, they ought to pass it as a matter of course. But if there was nothing in the Bill but what was law at present, then let the law remain as it was until next Session; and let nothing be introduced by a side wind. If the Bill should go into Committee, which he hoped would not he the case, he should ask leave to introduce a clause which, he believed, had emanated from
  620
  the Vice President of the Board of Trade, and which was contained in the original Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman, to whose special care they must look in matters of this kind, had deliberately adopted certain clauses, was the House to submit to have them struck out at the dictation of railway companies? If the clauses were wrong why introduce them into the original Bill? If right, why strike them out?
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, that in the course of last Session a Bill was introduced for the purpose of limiting the amount of compensation to first-class railway passengers to the small sum of £300. The whole power of the railway interest was brought to bear in support of that Bill. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON: NO!] The right hon. Gentleman must know what influences were brought to bear better than he could, but at all events the Bill was favourable to the railway interests. That Bill was thoroughly considered by the House, and thrown out by a very large majority. Now, it so happened that in one of the Railway Bills passed last Session a clause was smuggled through the House limiting the compensation for killing a mechanic to—what sum did the House think? What was the value of a mechanic's life in the opinion of railway directors? [An hon. MEMBER: No; of the Board of Trade.] Well, it might be the opinion of the Board of Trade too. The clause to which ho referred was in the Bill of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway—and he mentioned the circumstance because the right hon. Gentleman said there was nothing new in the Bill. Now, he would ask, was there any general railway Act in force applying to England, Ireland, and Scotland in which the compensation for killing a mechanic was reduced to £100? And not only was the compensation not to exceed £100, but the amount to he awarded was to be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade, and not otherwise. Now, in a Christian country to introduce such a clause was the most wicked thing he ever heard of. Cicero mentioned that it was one of the moot questions of his day whether in a storm one should throw overboard a cheap slave or a dear horse. Well, he supposed the right hon. Gentleman had been considering that question. In the Canal Navigation Act the limit of compensation for the loss of a horse was £50. Assuredly a valuable horse ought in the estimation

  621
  of the right hon. Gentleman to rank with a mechanic, and therefore they had better reduce the compensation for a mechanic's life to £50. Such a clause as that to which he had referred would alone be enough to show that this Bill had been clearly introduced in the interest of the railway companies, Hon. Members might be sure that the interest of those companies had been consulted to the detriment of the public.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, there was clearly some misapprehension as to the nature and objects of this Bill. He was charged with having been advised by the railway companies and the various parties interested in order to determine what clauses the Bill should contain. Of course it was right, as far as it could be done, to consult all parties interested, so as to know what they had to urge. But in this case it happened that the only advisers he had were the Acts of Parliament and the decisions of that House. The object of the Bill was to condense and settle the clauses which had been sanctioned by Committees on Private Bills, and which were of such a character that it was thought safe and proper to incorporate them in a general Act, so as to save Parliament the trouble of repeatedly enacting the same thing. His hon. Friend objected to the Bill because it did not contain a great many provisions which would be for the public advantage. He was quite ready to admit that changes had been made in the Bill since it was first introduced. And why? Because it was found after some consideration that clauses had been introduced which it was believed had not been sufficiently sanctioned by Parliament to justify their incorporation in all future Acts. The clause in which the Marylebone vestry took such great interest had been introduced into only one metropolitan railway Act, and in consequence of which the company concerned gave up the line altogether, because the compensations would be so excessive that it was out of the question to think of making it. The Board of Trade, therefore, did not consider themselves justified in introducing that clause, seeing that it had had the sanction of Parliament only in one particular Bill. He accepted the doctrine that every person should be protected from injustice, but the present law was supposed sufficient to do that. ["No, no!"] Parliament at least had thought so. Now, so far from the Bill having
  622
  been framed in the interest of the railway companies, he had received a deputation representing the railway interest, which had asked him not to proceed with the Bill. The Bill had been introduced in the public interest, and not in that of the railway companies, and he thought it would be acceptable to the House. The hon. Member for Liverpool proposed to introduce a new clause. [Mr. HORSFALL: It has been introduced already in another Bill.] It was new matter as far as the object of the Bill before the House was concerned. It was true it had been introduced in one Bill; but that was not enough. The Government did not propose to put into this Bill every clause that had ever been introduced in a private Bill, but only such as had unmistakeably received the sanction of Parliament. The Bill was intended to re-enact such clauses only as Parliament had affirmed over and over again. There might be errors in the Bill, but those errors might be corrected in Committee; but if it was to be opposed at this period of the Session, clause by clause, he quite admitted that that was an argument against going on with the Bill. He did not wish to take anyone by surprise, but the measure was not volunteered by the Board of Trade. It was in consequence of a recommendation of a joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, which sat in the beginning of last Session, that the Bill was brought in. That Committee considered the question of metropolitan railways, and they recommended that as soon as practicable a Bill should be introduced, containing such clauses as had received the sanction and approval of Parliament, and which should apply to all future Bills. If, however, the feeling of the House was that it was too late in the Session to carry such a Bill, he would not stand in the way. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) wanted the House precipitately to enact without inquiry, as a permanent clause for the government of all future railways, a new clause somewhat similar to one once inserted in a private railway Act. This was a clause settling for the future the mode of assessing the terminal charges on railways. But the hon. Gentleman was the Member of a Commission appointed to inquire into that particular question. It was his duty to bring that subject under the consideration of the Commission, and recommend to Parliament what he thought right after

  623
  inquiry by the Commission. But the hasty legislation which the hon. Member now asked for was not prudent or justifiable. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) did not wish to prolong the Session unnecessarily. By not passing this Bill the question would be left where it was, and hon. Gentlemen must be held responsible for declining to protect the public interests covered by the Bill. He would ask leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman would follow the course which all his Colleagues had recommended should be taken with every measure that had come before them to-day; and therein the right hon. Gentleman was acting with great discretion. But the right hon. Gentleman would allow him (Mr. Henley) to call his attention to this point. The House had been informed that, as regarded the framing of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman had held no consultation with anybody, but had framed his measure by taking those clauses which were usually found in railway Acts.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONdenied having said that he had had no communication with the railway authorities in respect to this measure. He had certainly intended to say the very reverse.
  MR. HENLEYrepeated, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that his measure was framed on those clauses that were usually found in railway Acts. How was it, then, that every provision that operated as a protection to the public had been struck out of the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman's own hand? As the Bill originally stood there were five or six provisions which gave some protection to the public; but they were now gone. Now, it was the duty of the Government, in introducing model clauses, to take care to introduce those which protected the public; the railway interest was quite capable of looking after itself. The title of the Bill as amended, was, "A Bill for consolidating in one Act provisions frequently inserted in acts relating to Metropolitan and other railways." But these words should have been added, "and to give further power to certain public bodies in the metropolis to obstruct improvement, and enable railway companies further to oppress the public." He was thankful that the measure was to go along with all the other Bills already discharged, and that hon. Members would have the chance of getting away sooner.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given no explanation of the allusion made by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. M'Mahon) to the valuation of a mechanic's life at £100 in certain cases of railway accident. Now, the clause in question was really of extreme benefit to the working classes. Whereas the railway companies had power to charge at the rate of 1d. a mile, the London, Chatham, and Dover offered to carry working men at certain times of the day at the rate of one penny per journey, upon condition that the responsibility of the company should be limited in case of railway accident, and the maximum payment should not exceed £100. He saw-nothing in this arrangement but what was highly beneficial to the working man.
  COLONEL DUNNEcould not see the advantage to the working classes from such an arrangement, and asked what Parliamentary sanction had been given to this valuation of a working man's life at £100?
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

SALMON FISHERY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 220.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. LAWSONasked, Whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to alter the law respecting the Solway, as to which there was considerable uncertainty?
  MR. PEELsaid, the Lord Advocate intended early next Session to introduce a Bill making the law on that point quite clear.
  Bill read 3° and passed.

INDEMNITY BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. PEEL MR. PEEL moved for leave to introduce a Bill to indemnify such persons in the United Kingdom as have omitted to qualify themselves for offices and employments, and to extend the time limited for these purposes accordingly.
  MR. HADFIELDasked, Whether it was a dignified course for the House to pass every year these indemnity Bills? He believed that if the Government had taken up a measure for abolishing the old qualification such a measure would have passed

  625
  the Upper House; but the Bill he had submitted had been rejected by the other House of Parliament for the sixth time, for no other reason, that he could conceive, except to punish the humble individual who had charge of the Bill.
  MR. PEELsaid, the object of the Bill he was now introducing was not only to grant indemnity to those officials who had not taken the declaration required by the Act of George IV., but also to grant it to those who had not taken the consolidated oath now imposed in lieu of the former oath of allegiance and abjuration. The Bill of the hon. Gentleman had reference exclusively to the declaration under the Act of George IV., and even if passed it would not have dispensed with the necessity of this measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to indemnify such persons in the United Kingdom as have omitted to qualify themselves for offices and employments, and to extend the time limited for those purposes respectively, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 234.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND APPROPRIATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund and the Surplus of Ways and Means to the Service of the year ending thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHQUER, and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE,
  On Motion of Mr. PEEL, Bill for continuing various expiring Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 235.]

  COMPOUND SPIRITS WAREHOUSING BILL.
  Bill "to allow British Compounded Spirits to be warehoused upon Drawback," presented, and read 1°. [Bill 233.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock.