The Sun. — London, England, 1860-04-25 00:00:00

to the question whether it is necessary to adopt the proce dure of the Court of Chancery in cases where it is proposed to borrow from its remedies ; and we have arrived at the conclusion, strengthened by an experience of the working of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, that the desired objt•ct can be attained as effectually, and with less expense, by means of the ordinary proc2edings of the common law arts." This report having been presented to her Majesty, no time was lost to carry it into execution: The bill of which he now moved the second reading had been framed entirely and exclusively on the suggestions of those eminent lawyers the commissioners. The bill, for which he took no merit, was drawn by Mr. Justice Willes. He had introduced it without altering a single line. It was approved by all the common law judges. But the equity judges, including the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Knight Bruce and Turner signed a memorial against any further fusion of law and equity. He should not ask their lordships to pass this bill unless the objections of the equity judges could be ob viated, and therefore he proposed, if the bill were read a second time, to have it immediately referred to a select committee. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had assured him that after having carefully considered the question he did not believe those objections to be tenable, and Justice Willes was of a similar opinion. He should not enter in detail into the pro visions of the bill, but he might observe that in those cases in which a court of equity possessed the right on fixed prin ciples to grant relief against the forfeiture of leases, and an ejectment was brought by the landlord against the tenant, relief was sought to be afforded by dispensing with the pre sent dilatory proceedings. The noble and learned lord con cluded by moving the second reading of the bill. Lord ST. LEONARDS opposed the second reading. The measure had for its main object an alteration in the present jurisdiction in law and equity, and it was called a bill for the fusion of law and equity. He thought it might more properly be called a bill for the confusion of law and equity, for it proposed to give to one court powers which could be more properly exercised by another tribunal. The bill emanated from the report of the Common Law Commissioners, and his noble and learned friend had taken especial care to inform their lordships that he (the Lord Chancellor) had not altered one line in it, and therefore he was in no respect answerable for its framing. He must draw the attention of his noble and learned friend to this question, whether the commissioners ought to have made the report in question? It appeared to him that the learned commissioners had gone beyond their power in entering upon the subject of equitable jurisdiction. He did not see the necessity for al teration, for never in any country was there a code of law, Roman or any other, by means of which justice could be had more cheaply or more promptly than ix the courts of equity as at present administered. The law courts were already overwhelmed with business, and therefore he wondered that his noble and learned friend had brought forward this bill, seeing that he had so recently introduced a divorce bill ; the object of which was to relieve the commonlaw judges of some of their work. The consequence of this bill would be that the courts of equity would be half idle, whilst the law courts would have too much to do. Another more important mat. ter to be considered was the machinery of these courts. They were so constituted as efficiently to perform their work but he would defy them to do the business which was about to be transferred to them from anothet. There was, how ever, a still more serious question, and that was whence to derive the necessary knowledge. The law judges were most efficient in their own branches, but they knew nothing of equity, and the consequence would be a constant conflict of decisions instead of the satisfactory code we had at present. Why, even in the Bank of England there was a separate department for the Court of Chancery. Did they mean to have a separate establishment for each court, or did they mean to entrust it to an individual who might appropriate it, as had happened before ? The fact was that the bill pro posed to give the common law judges a power which they had before possessed, and which they had practically relin qxished as being incompatible with their general jurisdiction. If there was one thing more than another to which he had a great objection it was that of driving suitors into arbitra tion. A case might arise in which the accounts might be difficult to deal with by the court, and if so the attorneys immediately suggested that it was a case for reference. Counsel were called to consider it, and they joinedin saying it must be referred, and thus the poor unhappy suitor was forced into an arbitration, which, he believed, was a poor way of obtaining justice. But such things as accounts were not difficult to wind up in the Court of Chancery. There the whole law was administered. A good deal was often said as to what took place in America, and he had thought it his duty to look into the matter. lie found that formerly the equity jurisdictions were in the most deplorable condi tion possible, and the delays in the transaction of the busi ness of the courts occasioned vast expense. But what was done there ? Why, they made the mitts of law courts of equity, and the same judge sat in both cases. He first heard the question of law and then he heard the question of equity. This country once had a court which had jurisdic tion in matters of equity and law, namely, the Court of Exchequer. What became of that court? Why, equity was administered so unsatisfactorily in it that all men be came dissatisfied with the court, and it was resolved to get rid of the equitable jurisdiction, and an Act of Parliament put an end to that part of the court. He need scarcely say that in doing that a vast expense was thrown on the coun try for compensation. Now it was desired to go back to the old system. Then why not revive the old Court of Exche quer ? The fact was, in this country the system of fusion, as it was called, had been tried and it had failed. He would ask their lordships to hear in mind a good old maxim— " Leave well alone." He firmly believed that if they dis turbed the jurisdiction of the courts they would destroy or weaken them. They could not obtain a better than was already possessed in the Courts of Chancery. The clauses of thin bill surprised him, and it was felt by every lawyer in and out of the house that it ought not to be passed. On his suggestion it had been thought advisable to refer the bill to the working equity judges ; and the reason he suggested that was that the report, of which this bill was the mere echo, was by common law judges is :thout the assistance of a single equity judge. If there had been a single equity judge on that commission they would not have had the same report. However, the bill had been referred for the consideration of the equity judges, and their report was upon the table. The unanimous and unreserved opinion of the four equity judges—the Master of the Rolls and the three Vice-Chan cellors—was a full condemnation of the bill. That opinion was expressed in sound, sober, and clear reasoning, and there was not a single word in it which he could not adopt. The four judges condemned the -shole scheme of the mea sure. There were two other learned judges in equity ; they had not been referred to by his noble and learned friend, but both of them had expressed their utter dislike to this bill. There were seven judges in equity, who deal with mixed cases of law and equity every day of their lives, and they, with the exception of his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, were unanimous against this bill ; vnd with all respect to his noble and learned friend, lie might observe that he was new t, the court and new to the juris diction, for he had recently come from a court of law, which he het adorned for so long a period. He concurred in the opinion expressed by the equity judges, that this bill should not be passed, and therefore he should move an amendment that it be read a second time that clay six months. Lord CRAN WORTH said the professed object of the bill wes to effect a great improvement in the law ' and he hiped their lord s hip s wou ld well consider it. The measur was certainly in every part of it not all that was desirable lie thought it would prove a grea t advantage' if ' s . ttitor l' S were to have the opportunity of having their caScs decid,d in the court in which the action was brought without, being driven by the forms of law into other courts before a final decision could be come to, but he agreed with his noble and learned friend who last addressed the house that there were certain equitable clauses in the bill which ought to be sub jected to the most rigid consideration. With regard to the suggestion that the bill ought to be submitted to a select committee, he thought that also a question for fur ther consideration. Why was it that one court could not at present transact the same class of business ? It was because the two classes of courts required different machinery. Some parts of the bill he certainly approved of, but he did not see how a single machinery could be de vised by which the measure would work for the benefit of suitors. In the general scope of the bill he concurred ; but in its details it was susceptible of, and ought to receive, much amendment. By this bill, it was proposed to enact that a party should be able to obtain an ex parte injunction upon what was called a summons from the judge at cham bers. At present, such injunctions were only granted by the Court of Chancery to prevent irreparable mischief. Upon a bill and affidavit disclosing all the circumstances, both for and against the party applying, no such security would, as he understood the bill, be obtained under the pre sent measure. If injunctions were to be granted by judges at chambers during vacation, it might be several weeks before parties considering themselves aggrieved had an opportunity of applying to a court of common law for their dissolution. He had felt it his duty to state his view s upon these subjects to their lordships, but at the same time, the bill contained a great many useful provi sions, and he, therefore, hoped that it would be read a second time. They could then determine whether it was more de sirable to have its provisions considered by a committee of their lordships' house, cr by a select oommittee. L ord KINGSDOWN sa id th a t no bill more i mpor t an t i n its consequence than this h a d ever b een l a id b e f ore th e i r lordships, because, whether rightly or wrongly, it would subvert the system of law which had prevailed in England fur 200 years, and would introduce into the administration of justice a confwion and an uncertainty to which the na tion had hitherto happily been a stranger. The distinction between law and equity arose from the circumstance that any system of jurisprudence which pretended to effect jus tice, must apply different remedies to the assertion of different rights, and to the redress of different wrongs. The evil which was proposed to be remedied by this bill, and which the report of the learned commissioners suggested required a remedy, was not that the system administered by the Court of Chancery required to be altered, not that it was wrong, not that it failed to do j ust i ce —but that it would be more efficiently applied by courts other than those to which its administration was now en trusted. It was said that the science of law was one, and ought therefore to be administered by a single court. The same observation might, however, be made with regard to both military and medical science, yet both these sciences, were applied to practical purposes by different classes pf persons. Having pointed out the expense and delay which would be caused by transferring to courts of law the juris diction exercised by the Court of Chancery, and expressed his opinion that under the provisions of the bill it would be utterly and entirely impossible for parties litigating to obtain justice, he said he had the highes respect for the ability and learning of the Commo 1 Law Com missioners on whose recommendations Ihe bill was founded, but it was not in the nature of things that they should be acquainted with the princip'( s, practice, and 1 doctrine of the Court of Chancery. No could he persuade himself that the Attorney •General had given the sanction of his high authority to one single clause of the bill. This measure which proposed to give courts of law the jurisdic tion exercised by courts of equity, instead of confining the jurisdiction, as the Court of Equity was confined, extended it in every possible case in which an action could be brought. Injunctions may be applied for and granted against threatened breaches of contract, or other injury of such a nature, that an action at law for damages might be made. There was no action that could be brought in a court of common law that might not be made applicable to the equitable jurisdiction of this bill. He deprecated a con• fusion in law and equity, and he believed that under this bill that confusion would arise. The judicial system of this country was like the legislative system. Although there might be some irregularities in each, yet under both this country had obtained a social and political position which made it the envy of the world. He hoped their lordships would pause before they assented to the measure under con sideration. Lord WENSLEYDALE agreed in the compliment paid to the law commissioners in consequence of whose recom- mendation certain salutary alterations had been made in the administration of the law—but while he approved of what had been already done in the way of confirming equitable jurisdiction on the common-law courts, he still entirely agreed with the noble lord who first addressed their lord ships (Lord St. Leonards) that the present bill was most objectionable and mischievous in its tendency. Ho thought, however, that the bill should be read a second time, and that when it was before the select committee the objection able clauses might be struck out. - Lord CHELMSFORD agreed in all that had been said by his nimble and learned friend in opposition to this bill. He would have another opportunity of stating his views on this measure, but he thought it was worth while for their lordships to consider whether a bill of this kind— which would make a serious alteration in the jurisprudence of the country—should be sent to a select committee. He thought it would be better to reject the bill altogether, and that another bill should be brought in, including the clauses in this bill, to which there was no objection. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said that he never meant that there should be a general fusion of law and equity in our courts. All that the commissioners pro posed by this bill, and all that he proposed was, that when a matter of equity arose in a case tried in a court of law, that the question should be sent to a court of equity for adjudication ; and that when a question of law arose in a case in a court of equity, the question of law should be sent to a common law court to be decided upon. The noble and learned lord, in answer to Lord Chelmsford, said that Lord Chief Justice Cockburn called upon him, and stated that the Common Law Judges had read his observations respect ing the provisions of the bill, would take it into consideration, and furnish him with their opinions in writing. The equity judges would also furnish him with their objections to the measure, and when he should have received those opinions he would lay them before their lordships. He world then move that the bill be referred to a select committee. The bill was then read a second time. MARRIAGES (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BILL. This bill on the motion of Lord CRANWORTH, was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. SELLING AND HAWKING ON SUNDAY BILL. Lord CHELMSFORD postponed his motion, that this bill be now committed ; and gave notice that he would on Thursday move that their lordships' house resolve itself into committee on the measure. Their lordships then adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY. The SrEAxmit took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Conway and Llanrwst Railway Bill was read a third The Horsham and Steyning and Beeding Roads Bill was considered, and ordered for third reading. The Bainbridge Junction Railway Bill was read a second time. The Sovereign Life Assurance Company (Stamp Duties en Memorials) went through committee. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Mr. MOWBRAY, a new writ was ordered for Berks, in the room of Capt. Vernon, deceased. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented in favour of and against the Wine Licensing Bill, against the extension of the Bleach and Dyeing Works Bill to Ireland, against the abolition of church-rates, in favour of and against legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister, from medical practitioners in Surrey praying for a more adequate remuneration to medi cal officers employed in poor-law unions, for the extension of jurisdiction in bankruptcy to county courts. JAPAN. Mr. B. COCHRANE gave notice that on the motion fcr the adjournment of the house on Friday, the 4th May, he would ask the Government what steps were taken with a view to protect British commerce in Japan. REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, &c. (IRELAND). Lord NAAS gave notice that on an early day he would move for leave to bring in a bill to assimilate the registra tions of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland with the law of this country. THE FRANCHISE. Mr. HOWES asked whether it was the intention of the Government to cause to be laid upon the table any further returns which might afford information as to the probable effect of the extension of the franchise proposed by the Bill for the Amendment of the representation of the People of England and Wales, or might throw light on the grounds or scope of the provisions of the bill ; and, if so, when such re turns would be laid upon the table ? Sir G. LEWIS said that the Government had laid on the table all the information of which they were possessed. The house must be aware that it was impossible to make any attempt to obtain so correct a census as that which the hon. member required in reference to tenements rated to the poor and other rates in this country. All the Government could effect was to obtain returns of the existing rates, and it would be for the house to consider how far that abstract was satisfactory. FISHERIES IN SCOTLAND. Col. SYKES esked the Lord Advocate whether it was his intention to introduce amendments into the Het-ling Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, in accordance with views ex pressed at recent public meetings by persons having a prac tical knowledge of the fisheries in Scotland ? The LORD ADVOCATE said it would be impossible to give a general answer to the question of the hon. mem ber. The object of the bill was, as far as practicable, to prevent the exercise of a practice in reference to fisheries in Scotland, which was very objectionable ; but, at the same time, he assured the hon. member he was quite willing to introduce any provisions in the bill which were calcu'ated to render its operation more effective. THE VACANT PROFESSORSHIP AT THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY. Mr. A. STEUART asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any special cause has pre vented the filling up of the vacancy existing in the Pro fessorship of Modern History for the University of Cam bridge; and whether the vacancy would soon be filled up ? Sir G. LEWIS said he had no official connection with the University of Cambridge, and was not in a position to answer the question, which the hon. member might repeat, and obtain from some other member of the Government the information he required. TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND IN IRELAND. The O'D - ;NOGIIUE asked the Chief Secretary for Ire• land what day he intended to fix for the second reading o. the bill to amend the law relating to the tenure and im provement of land in Ireland ; also, whether he could name an early day for the consideration of the other bills having reference to the same subject, and which were now before the house ? Mr. CARDWELL said he was extremely desirous to bring forward the bill alluded to respecting the law of tenure and improvement of land in Ireland, as well as other Irish bills, but no day was appointed By Government for the second reading of the former bill. It would, however, be brought forward without any unnecessary delay. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL. In reply to Lord J. MANNERS, Sir G. C. LEWIS said that it was his intention to bring in this bill during the present evening, provided the state of business would allow him to do so before eleven o'clock, ARTILLERY FOR CHINA. Mr. PAPILLON asked the Secretary of State for War what were the respective dates of the embarkation of the two Armstrong batteries of Royal Artillery for China, of their arrival at Alexandria, of their disembarkation there, and of theirre-embarkation at Suez ; whether there was any truth in the statement that the ammunition was seriously damaged, if not entirely spoiled, owing to tho defective arrangements on board of the steamer Himalaya ; and whether any steps had been taken in consequence to ensure a sufficient supply of serviceable powder by the time that the batteries can be required for action ? Mr. S. HERBERT entered into an explanation to the affect that with reference to the transmission of Royal Ar tillery to China, there had been a mistake in reference to the message forwarded by the Government, which produced some derangement in their plans. With regard to the last part of the question, necessary steps had been adopted. FORESHO ;ES, &c. Mr. A. SMITH moved for a select committee to inquire into the rights of the Crown as connected with the fore shores, tidal rivers, estuaries, and bed of the sea round the coasts of the united kingdom, and the manner in which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are dealing with the same He said that, on previous occasions, when he had brought on this bill the house had been counted out, from which he inferred that the subject was not considered of •sufficient importance to commani the attention of house, and he regretted that he had not the rhetorical abi- time. THE SUN, lity to render the subject attractive. Notwithstandin these circumstances, he felt that, having taken up this question, and having received deputations from different parts of the country in reference to this subject, hi ; was bound to bring it again before the attention of the house. He had presented a petition from a gentleman of . _ property and a magistrate, residing in South Wales, named Rees, and he would again draw attention to this docu ment. Mr. Rees stated that there were fisheries in Car marthen which bordered on his estates, and that he had been involved in serious litigation with the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests with reference to certain claims they had advanced of late years on behalf of the Crown, with respect to these fisheries. He then proceeded to state that great hardship, and, as he considered, injustice, had been inflicted on the gentleman in question, and that this case was by no means singular. It was most desirable that this matter should be satisfactorily settled, and the rights of the Crown clearly defined. At the present time there was no certainty in reference to the rights which the Crown put forward relative to its territorial possession as regarded this description of property; and referring to an act, the 27th mt . Elizabeth, he contended that the powers exercised by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were not legally con ferred. At all events, there could be no valid objection to the appointment of the committee he proposed. He adverted next to the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests having disposed of several acres of land by virtue of the rights they claimed in reference to these fisheries, to the detriment of the public interest as well as individuals. He hoped that the question would on this occasion meet with more atten tion than it had previously done, and he deprecated the personal allusion made to him previously by the Attorney- General as having an interest in these fisheries. The motion having been seconded, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the hon. gen tleman in stating that on the occasion of his bringing forward this question before, the house was counted out by the agency of the Government, had done great injustice to the Government, and to himself still greater. The house was emptied on that occasion by the unassisted efforts of the hon. gentleman. (Laughter.) This question had unfortunately been attended with some heartburnings which a considera tion of the question would entirely remove. It was founded upon the petition of a gentleman of the name of Rees. The claim of this gentleman had been heard and discussed before the Master of the Rolls, and his judgment was now pend ing. It was therefore not a seemly thing that this house should discuss a matter which was still sub judice. But there was a most conclusive answer to the case of the hon. gentleman. In the year 184.5 Mr. Rees, for his owe per • sonal benefit, thought it right to lease the coal under the seashore to a company who were desirous of working it. lie granted therefore to this company the means of raising coal under property which he must have known belonged to the Crown, for in 1813 Mr. Rees had addressed a letter to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, praying that they would grant him a lease of the property which he had since taken himself, stating that he was the owner of the adjoin ing lands, and wished to work a vein of coal which ex tonded under the sands in front of his property. The reply to this application was that it was impossible to give Mr. Rees a positive answer, as the right to the property was still under litigation ; but an offer was made to him of a lease of such part of the land as in the opinion of the law officers the Crown was entitled to grant. This offer was declined, and Mr. Rees had no one to thank but himself. If he had accepted the offer of the Crown, he would have been in possession of a valuable property. But he had taken upon himself to deal with the question, he had failed, and had the cause been tried before the passing of the late act, Mr. Rees would probably have had to pay the costs of the suit. This, therefore, was a claim which ought not to have been brought before the house. It was a claim obstinately and ignorantly brought forward, after the Crown had re covered judgment against him. Mr. A. SMITH said that Mr. Rees only laid claim to the land and the minerals under it as far as high water mark, that is to say, not below high water mark. The ATTORNEY-•GENERAL said that the question in dispute was—what was high water mark. The shore in that neighbourhood was' extremely flat—for the Attorney- General had been by the sea-side—(laughter)—and in some places the extent of land between the two lines was very great. Mr. Rees claimed the high water wark at neap tide ; the Crown claimed the average of the lines of high water mark throughout the year. Mr. Rees, having raised the coal under the soil between these boundaries, was found to have worked wrongfully. Then who were the commis sioners ? They were trustees of the Crown property for the public benefit. This was not a question between the public and commissioners who were seeking to admit their rights, but a question between the public and an individual who was trespassing on their rights. The commissioners had no other alternative than to act as they had done. There was another ingredient in the matter—namely, the case of the Submarine Telegraph Company. If the facts had been stated, it would have appeared that in every case where the public benefit was concerned the commissioners acted in the most liberal manner, and made their rights subser vient to the good of the publie. But besides this, a great principle was involved, in the case of which the house would not be unobservant. The house was asked to in quire into the rights of the Crown, as though the title of the crown to this property was not perfectly ascer tained. The rights of the crown to this property involved those of a large number of private persona to whom grants had been made, and the House of Commons would not do so unconstitutional a thing as to attempt to exercise judicial functions upon such a question. The manner in which the commissioners were dealing with the property was quite another matter, and was a very proper subject of inquiry by Parliament. But upon this part of the subject he thought it would be apparent that the conduct of the commissioners had been most beneficial to the country. From a return made to the House of Lords it appeared that during a period of 27 years, from 1830 to 1857, 29 suits had been instituted on the part of the commissioners to recover property be longing to the crown—this property being for the most part mineral. Between the year 1830 and March, 1860, the re sults were these. Twenty- two of those suits trrminated successfully for the crown, three were still pending, two were put an end to, and in two caees only were there ad verse decisions. By these means property to the amount of £490,000 had been recovered to the public. Nor was this sum alone an adequate measure of the benefits attained ; for in consequence of the rights of the crown being estab lished grants of land had been made to the extent of £134,000. This made a total of £224,000 up to the present time. It must be remembered that the crown had to bear the whole cost of these proceedings, which were estimated at £15,000. lie thought, therefore, the house would be of opinion that the commissioners had been faithful and suc cessful trustees for the public benefit. What was to come of those proceedings? The Commissioners of Woods and Forests had acted under the directions of the law advisers of the crown. The shore, by the ordinary law of the land, was vested in the crown, but the public had rights over that shore for embarking and di-iembarking. Consistent with the enjoyment of those rights there remained the right of digging under the, shore by any railway com pany. The cases brought forward by the hon. gentle man were all cases in which the crown had asserted the rights of the public. Tl. is had been the law from the earliest period, and it would so continue. Allis ion had been made by the hon. gentleman to eases where leases of foreshore had been granted to private individuals. The hon. gentleman, as one of those lessees, had claimed the property in those foreshores, nod had charged sixpence for the deposit of a stick or umbrella. (Laughter.) It was unfortunate that the hon. gentleman was not better in formed as to his rights to the foreshore; he had nothing to blame for what he complained of but his own obstinacy and want of judgment. THE PROCLAMATION AGAINST VICE AND IMMORALITY. Lord PROBY brought up her Majesty's answer to the address praying for a revision of the proclamation against vice and immorality. Her Majesty stated that the procla mation should be carefully considered, w:th a view to its re yisign. TIIE FORESHORES. Sir F. GOLDSMID denied the right of the crown to the foreshores beyond the ordinary high water mark. The house then divided — For the motion Against it Majority l7 BRITISH MUSEUM. Mr. GREGORY rose to move for a select committee to inquire how far and in what way it might be desirable to find increased space for the extension and arrangement of the various collections of the British Museum, and the best means of rendering them available for the promotion of science an I art. Last year he made a motion very similar to the present one, which was carried by a large majority, and he could only say that the same necessity which then existed for inquiry existed at the present moment. He then showed upon the testimony of Professor Owen that not a single specimen of the collection in his department couldbe exhibited for scientific purposes. The head of the ornitho logical department said that tho specimens in his keepin g were hidden from th e pu b l i c, and were perishing from damp. The magnificent colle c ti on o f pr i nts were also shut out from. the public eyes for want of space. The marbles from Carthage and the antiquities from Cuidos remained in the packages in which they were brcught to the Museum. There was a more hopeless state of congestion in the 3lu scum at the present time than when he had proved these facts. It was well known that valuable bequests would be made to the Museum, but for the state in which it was. (H e ar.) Objection had been made to his motion last year on the ground that the terms of it were too large, and that it might lead to an inquiry into the trust itself. What he proposed to effect by the committee was fir;st of all that in quiry should be made whether there shoul d be a separation of the collection in the Museum, and if so what that sop a _ what t th b e ss collection place lleioc t t n o f ration should be. He then prop osed that the y should in quire as ptorestehnet site, expediency and which it could be removed. The se cond p ortion of t he in quiry would relate to the future struc ture and arran g em ent if s of o , a removal was oval h of e of the Museum. It was absolute l y necessary that there should be an inquiry on this point, beca use there was a difference of opinion with regard to it between the trustees and, as far as he could judge, between the truste es them and those who had the superintendence of th e collections, ENING, APRIL 25, 1860. selves. It appeared that Mr. Smirke's plan was made with out the slightest consultation with the heads of depart ments. Mr. Hawkins handed in a virtual protest, contra dicting aluiost every position of Mr. Smirk° with regard to the structure of the building and the arrangement of the collections. Professor Owen bad proposed another plan, which lie sent to the trustees, but the trustees decided not to send the report to the Government, altbcugh they knew that the government were considering the question at that very time.}le trusted the Government would acquiesce in the motion ; and he only hoped that by means of this committee full justice would be done to the magni ficent collection which they possessed. (Cheers ) ALT. KINNAIRD seconded the motion, which he be- Rested the government did not intend to oppose. Sir G. LEWIS had no objection to that portion of the mo tion which hadbeeu agreed to in a previous session, and which was not carried irlto effect because of the dissolution of parlia ment. It was an appeal to vulgar prejudice to say that the mem bers of the Government were not discharging their duty in seeking to inform themselves on questions of this nature, and attending and voting upon them as they did at the meetings of the trustees. lle (Sir G. Lewis) was not pre sent at the particular meeting to which the hon. member for Galway had referred, but if he had been he should certainly have voted in the majority. He believed it would be mast expedient for the interests and the management of the Mu seum that there should be no attempt made to purchase land in the immediate vicinity of the present building, but that portions of the collection should be removed. He said nothing as to the site to which such removal should take place. If Kensington was thought to be too far west, let the hon. gentleman point out some eligible situation to the east or to the north, and it would be considered. But what ever the site, he had no doubt it could be procured at far less cost than land could be purchased for enlarging the building in the immediate neighbourhood of the Museum. A. plan had been suggested, and it was fully considered at the meeting of the trustees, to enlarge the building by adding to it another story ; but, upon inquiry, it was found that the removal of the collection to an upper floor would be so difficult and so inconvenient, seeing that it would necessitate the closing of the collection altagether for seve ral years, that though favourable to the plan generally they decided against it. The honourable gentleman had adverted to the qaestion of duplicates, and proposed that duplicate specimens should be removed to other places in different parts of the country where branch museums should be established. This was also a question of expense. If the house was disposed to found a number of district museums and send to them any duplicate specimens there might be in the British Museum, that was a question for the House of Commons to determine. But they would be under a mistake if they supposed that any great advantage would be derived from the duplicates. The house already voted £1,200,000 for science and art, independent of the Museum vote, and if this suggestion were adopted a very considerable increase would be necessary. So far as perso nal considerations went he should rejoice at such a deci sion, but the state of the public revenue and expenditure rendered it necessary before incurring such a charge to con sider the matter in connexion with other questions of a similar nature from which public benefit might be proved to be obtainable. Mr. A. TURNER observed that if five acres and a half surrounding the present Museum were purchased, and the buildings planned by the architect erected, the cost would be £807,000, and if five acres and a half were taken at Ken sington, and the same plan was there carried out, the ex pense would be £594,500. Now, he held that the country was not prepared under existing circumstances to spend either the one or the other of these sums upon the proposed object. Suppose they adopted the Kensington proposal, con sidering the experience they had of the estimate as compared with the eventual cost in the case of public business, they might expect that the sum that they would have to pay would be very largely beyond the £600,000. He was informed that the cost of removing the natural history collection would not be less than £20,000, and that the fittings neces sary to receive it and snake it presentable to the public would cost at least £30,000 more. Then, if the building were ready, the removal would take twelve months ; but if it had to be erected, and all the fittings to be made and fixed, the Museum must be closed to the publicfor two years, or perhaps longer. Then, look at the risk of removing a collection, many of the articles in which were of a very de licate nature, and perfectly unique, so that if broken and destroyed, they could not be replaced. He believed that all that was necessary might be accomplished by purchasing the row of houses on the south aide of Montague-place, which might be done at no very great expense, and, upon the a lditional ground so obtained a building might be erected, on the ground floor of which all the heavy articles of antiquity might be arranged, while the room above might be devoted to the lighter articles. Colonel SYKES urged the house not to lose sight of the immense advantage which belonged to the present central situation of the Museum, and also to endeavour to come to some arrangement to render the collections available to the inspection of the public on week-day evenings. Lord PALMERSTON remarked that the whole question of expense was entertained by the trustees of the British Museum, and he felt it to be his duty to attend one of their meetings to consider that matter, on the part of the Government and the public. The trustees had no interest but that of the public, neither had the Govern ment. There were many additions made to the Museum for which there was no room, and the qtestion arose as to where those collections were to be placed, so that the public could see them with advantage. After a careful considera tion of the whole subject it was considered, that if any part of the additions were to be removed it should be the natural history department. Then came another subject for inquiry, namely, as to how additional space could be obtained in the immediate contiguity of the building, and it was found on inquiry, that such a place could not be obtained under £200,000. Surely, no one responsible for the expenditure of the public money could approve of such an outlay. He therefore thought that it was the duty of the Government to find adequate space elsewhere at less expense. He cer tainly could not approve of the suggestion of the hon. mem ber for Manchester, that a sum of £590,000 should be expended for additional space. He hoped the committee would go into the inquiry, with the view of providing ade quate accommodation for the public and the specimens, and without incurring any unnecessary expenditure. (Hear, hear.) Mr. JACKSON thought the ratepayers of the metro polis should bear all the necessary expenditure, as they would derive all the advantages from the institution. Mr, GLADSTONE differed from the doctrine that the persons employed at the British Museum were underpaid. The offices were of an exceedingly agreeable character, and, according to the la se of supply and demand, the salaries were at their natural level. The motion was then agreed to. DOCKYARDS. Mr. JACKSON moved that a humble address be pre sented to her Majtsty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Jommission to inquire into the sys tem of control and management of her Majesty's dockyards, the purchase of materials and store; the cost of building, repairing, altering, fitting, and refitting her Majesty's ships. The system was, in itself, most imperfect, and the time was coma for inquiry and alteration. The cost of building ships differed in almost every yard, and in some yards there were two officers to one is other yards. In some places the man who measured the work participated in the profits of the work, and there was no one to overlook him. Then, in order to reward captains and admirals they made them superintendents of dockyards, and by the time they learned something of their duties they were promoted. If private establishments were conducted in the way these public esta blishments were, they would soon be in the Gazette. The Government had given him every assistance, and, as the ,members who were to compose the commission Were already settled, ho should no longer take up the time of the house. Mr. KINN AI RD seconded the motion. Mr. CORRY had no objection to the appointment of a commission, and hoped it would be attended with public benefit. He hoped the motion was not brought forward in any spirit of disrespect to the report of the committee. (" No," from Mr. Jackson.) With many of the recommen dations of the committee he did not agree, and he thought the system of shipbuilding followed in private yards could not be introduced into the Government establishments. No doubt the cost of building ships latter Majesty's dockyards was more than the cost of building in private yards, but it should be recollected that the work was heavier and better done. However, the subject was well worthy of inquiry, although he was not very sanguine as to results. Mr. BENTINCK feared the hon. member was setting about this inquiry in the wrong way. The best persons to make an inquiry was a properly constituted Board of Ad miralty, and the best thing they could do was to recon struct that board with a view to this and other improve ments. He did not, however, think that the charge of wastefulness would be substantiated against her Majesty's dockyards so far as building ships was concerned, although there might be waste in a thousand other ways. But the root of this evil was in the constant changes that were going on amongst the superior authorities, and until that system was changed little good could be done. Mr. LINDS .1Y asked what the hon. member would pro pose instead of the present system of having the Board of Admiralty go out with every Administration. If he pro posed that the Board should be for life, he (Mr. Lindsay) would decidedly object to it, although he concurred with him that the First Lord should have a knowledge of nauti cal affairs. What he stated on a former occasion with respect to the cost of buil in ships in her Majesty's dockyards was not on his own authority, but on that of the committee appointed by tho late Government. He hoped the commis sion would perform its duties efficiently, and especially in quiretwlwao h o s u ti el session s extendns suggest ioona etichto that tno to fit t‘v,h, lr e,ea i s smmei o dei o n re n . gis f ia r v i ,oe e l ncv n h d into the charges ma d e aga i nst t h e d oc k yar d authori ties of unnecessarily expen di ng t h e pu bli c money. H e t o t h made e a t o h u e n ts motion were ch kept. The present S ecre t ary o f the Adm i ralty stated money h e w e s li r o o u e l x d p e likend e t d h a o t f to be inquired into, as well as the manner in which the men oburrde he toc w i o nt r the k tpo e A d t h . G eE‘country He o rwbd in al believed elo m , dpo uo o as v r e e edgf a eat s non eabirnena inquiry, a a ud m fi der amendment, dment, the words he suggest e d t o hi s h on. friend. surveyor's duties w ere per f ormed, and the mode in which the e rLoo 'inatogndthehmeeismstae:‘-' tion of his hon. friend the member for Sunderland. Public opinion had lately given its impressions in pretty strong terms as to the manner in which money was spent in the dockyards, and the Government he thought very properly were ready to grant an inquiry into the subject. The only difference now was, whether it should be a committee or a commission, and as no inquiry could be properly canyed on without visiting the dockyards and examining the actiounts, and bearing in mind that a considerable portion of the session had already past—that report could be made by any commit tee in the present year, he thought for all these reasqns that a Royal commission would be better. He did not complain of the committee that sat last year on this subject, but there was one part of the system, viz., that Of ship building, which they entirely passed over. Now, he believed that omission to be one of the best grounds for granting that commission. One of the duties will be to ascertain if tho strenzth of the Comptroller's Office was sufficient for the discharge of its enormous duties, and ho believed it would be found that some additional assist ance was necessary. First of all, the Comptroller had the entire management and control of the whole of the ship building in the dockyards, the repairing and fitting them out, the superintendence of contracts, and the purchasing of a great number of stores. In addition to this, he must look to the promotion of officers in the various dockyards, and a considerable portion of his time was taken up in the consideration of new inventions, which had of late years become considerable. So that he could not visit the dock yards to see if the works were properly carried on, but was imprisoned in his office in London. Now that question was never discussed by the committee, but so strong did the Admiralty feel the necessity of procuring him assistance that an assistant was about to bo appointed. When, however, his noble friend the Duke of §Ornerset saw the motion oi his hon. friend on the paper, he thought it better not to do so until he saw the result of the commission. He himself believed the present work at the Admiralty was only exceptional, btit it was better the inquiry should go into every point. Another part of it ought to be, whether it was possible to give the House of Commons the cost of every ship that was built, and of every ship repaired or altered. He had himself, some years ago, brought this subject forward, and urged it on the attention of that house and the Admiralty, but without effect, and it passed unheeded. In 1858, when he returned to the house, he ear nestly called its attention to it again. He stated that there were two mysterious votes in the estimates, amount ing to £2,326,000, and defied any one to say how the money was expended. He did the same thing last year, and he wished on the present occasion to say a few words in reference to it. The right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich said the other night that he (Lord Clarence Paget) ought to have expressed his regret at the statement he made respecting the five millions which he said could not be accounted for. What he said was in answer to a question put to him by the hon. and gallant admiral the member for Southwark, who had acted in this matter rather ungenerously towards him. The right hon. gentleman opposite did the same thing in accusing him of making statements which he was unable to substantiate. He had never for a mernent believed or stated that the money was not properly accounted for by the proper authorities, but that it was not already ac - counted for to the house, and put so clearly in the estimates that it could be understood. He was -willing to admit that there were some sums in the account of which he had no knowledge whatever. If he was asked his deliberate opinion as to the economical management of these large funds, he could not say that the money spent during a long series of years had been expended with due economy in the ship building department of the navy. If the commissioners should report that he was wrong in that opinion, and that the department had been conducted with a due regard to tke public service, no one would rejoice more than himself. He had troubled the house with these fewpersonal remarks be cause he did not wish that night after night hon. members should make observations on statements supposed to have been made by him, but which be had never either made or intended. On other subjects he would not trouble the house with any lengthened remarks. The hon. member for New castle had objected to the practice of giving the men at the dockyards a half-holiday when the Lords of the Admiralty visited them. The fact was, that the Lords of the Admi ralty last year did not give the half-holiday, and though it had been a rule from time immemorial to do so after mustering the men, the rule had now become obsolete, and the practice had been given up. With resp ect to the motion, all ho could say was that the Admiralty would give every facility to the inquiries of the corn • missioners in every department, and in acquiring in formation on every subject embraced in the address. He could not agree to the proposal of the hon. member for Norfolk, that the inquiry should include the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. That was a very different ques tion; but on the part of the Government he would offer no opposition to the motion of the hon. member for New castle. (Hear.) After a few words in reply from Mr. JACKSON, the motion was agreed to. PAWNBROKERS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This hill passed through committee. Several orders of the day were postponed. LONDON CORPORATION BILL. On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, Mr. Alderman SALOMONS appealed to the Home Se cretary to postpone it, because many hon. members who ' intended to take part in the debate had left the house in the belief that other matters would occupy the whole of the evening, and consequently that it would not come on. Mr. S. ESTCOURT said the_ bill had already been post • polled some half dozen times, without any apparent cause, and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would not yield to the appeal that had beon made to him. Mr. AYRTON in rising to move, according to notice, " That it be committed to a select committee, with instruc tion to inquire into and report upon the charges and taxes on the metropolis, and the expediency of constituting the metropolis a county of itself, for all purposes of local ma nanagement, and for the administration of justice," said it was no doubt much to be regretted tha t the conduct of the Government with respect to the postponement of orders of the day should lead to so much misappre hension on the part of members, who could never be cer tain what business would be brought on. The late Govern ment never acted in that way. When they resolved to postpone a bill due notice was given ; but the present kept their determination in their own breast till the last moment. The present Homo Secretary especially seems) to take a delight in thus perplexing, confusing, and baffling hon. members in this way. However, as he was there to watch her Majesty's Government, he should feel it to be his duty to proceed with his motion. He must say, at the outset, that he could not understand the reason why the Govern ment should have devoted a single hour's labour b this question —to the reform of this municipality. The time wis past when it could do any good whatever, although, unfortunately, the :imo had not passed' when it could be an obstruction and a nuisance to the rest of the metropolis. He saw no reason why the Government should trouble themselies with an attempt to improve this petty munici pality. It occupied an area of 700 acres out of the 7,000 acres which constituted the area of the whole metropolis, and had a population of only 113,000 in the midst of a me tropolitan population of at least two millions and a half, and it was also certain that the population was diminishing in proportion to tho increase of business premises. An at tempt of a remarkable character was now made. That municipality was really at one time metropolitan, but why it should now receive so much respect from the right hon. gentleman he could not possibly understand, when it had long lost all claim founded upon its original character as guardian of the trade of the metropolis and the seat of the capital of the empire. In ancient times the city of London had a double basis, arranged in a double manner; for every trade was a guild, and each guild was connected with a great corporation. It was necessary, before any person could be admitted as a mem ber of the general corporation, that he should be a mem ber of some guild, that he should be a freeman of a city company, before ho could be a citizen of the general municipality. At the time of the first Edward, the power of electing the members of the common council of the cor poration was vested, not in the local inhabitants, but in the trading companies of which the corporation was composed. The City was divided into wards, and each ward was to select a member of the governing body. That gave rise to a feud between the inhabitants on one hand, and the guilds on the other; but the guilds continued, nevertheless, to be the basis of municipality. But when the City had reached its ancient limits, marked at the present day by the words Ludgate, Newgate, and other places where the City gates formerly stood, and which occupied the crests of the hill on the other side of the Fleet, the City, with a degree of wis dom well worthy of imitation at the present day, expanded itself to the wants of its population at the time, It then extended to an outer ring, traces of the course of which were still indicated by the words " bars," such as Temple bar," " Holborn-bars," " Smithfield-bars," 4C:c. That trans action took place at a very remote period, but when the bridge was built across the Thames, of which the City were justly proud, the corporate limits were extended, and South wark became a part of the corporation. The citizens, how ever, never gave to Southwark a share of their municipal privileges. There were other indications, also, of a desire on the part of the Crown not to narrow the Metropolitan Corporation to the limits of its walls. It obtained from the Crown control over all the markets for seven miles round, so as to include the whole body of traders whose produce was sold in those markets. More than that, to show that it regarded its position as being not merely local, but as en titled to the care and control of the traffic of the Thames, it conferred upon it the jurisdiction and guardianship of that river from Staines to its mouth. (Hear.) The City was deprived of that jurisdiction only two or three years ago in the spirit of reform ; but he had said enough to show that it was not a corporation of that narrow character with which that bill sought to invest it, as a final settlement of the question. In the course of time, how ever, the City came to be regarded as the seat of a malig nant body. It had become a place where those who had in curred displeasure fled, he would not say for protection, but for consolation and support. That had been the case from a very remote period ; for after the Barons had signed.Magna Charta, they proceeded to shelter themselves behind the City walls, where they wer e splendidly feast e d 13 , the citi zens in safety. The last person who had availed himself 9f the countenance of the City was Wilkes, a man by no means worthy of the respect he had received. It was probably on account of that incident however that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was desirous of preserving the corporation. He remembered how, for a period of two centuries the Crown had endeavoured to limit the privileges and the boundaries of London, and to rrevent the building of houses in its neighbourhood. In those endeavours the Crown generally failed, but it never would recognise the increase of the City, and it got Parliament to make its increase penal. The same spiritremained in the ascendant down to the time of James the First, orof Charles the First, when it was finally broken down, and people were at length allowed to build upon the vacant ground between London and Westminster. Temple Bar no longer remained the termination of the inhabited part of the metropolis, and one nobleman's estate came to be built upon after another, until at the beginning of the present century its dimensions had become fully doubled. Still the City did not grow in favour with the court. Every Lord Mayor, when presented to the Sovereign, formerly received the Royal congratula tions, curl the honour of knighthood, but when a Lord Mayor ventured to criticise the conduct of a Minister of the Crown, that honour became restricted to such of them only as presented a glass of wine to the Sovereign, or performed some service of a like nature. (Cheers and laughter.) The metropolis had increased very much in its dimensions, but the question he had to submit was, whether there was on that account the less necessity for efficient municipal insti tutions. One of the most useful acts of the reformed House of Commons was to inquire into the state of the several municipalities of the kingdom. It found them in the hands of wealthy and intriguing persons, the freemen greatly de based, and it passed a general law of considerable import ance and wisdom, by which they were brought more into harmony with existing ideas. But why was London not included in that bill ? The only reason he had heard stated, for it was, that the case of London, from its extraordinary magnitude, was altogether exceptional, and should be dealt with by a special measure. The City, therefore, had long had a clear prospect of reform before it, and it was, no doubt, in consequence of it that it had adopted the very wise course of choosing for its representative the noble lord who was the head and front of the Reform movement. (Cheers and laughter.) The City had certainly found its account in that step, inasmuch as, though they had often heard of Corporation Reform, the promises they had had of it had not been fulfilled. At length, however, a step was taken to divest the Corporation of its useless charac ter. Two commissions were appointed, nominally to in vestigate the question, but really to allay the alarm which the reform cry had raised. Still, however, the body pos sessed vitality er ough to withstand the constant exposures to which it was subjected; and the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary, with all his philosophic turn of mind, lost himself in the miserable twaddle of that petty Inunici pality. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) One reform did at last come out in answer to the powerful demand for it. The trade of London, which had increased enormously, would no longer submit to be trammelled by the Corporation, and the Government at last introduced a bill which divested the Corporation of one of its most useful attributes—the conservancy of the Thames. There was one right hon. gentleman too, a member of the previous Government of the noble lord the member for Tiverton, representing a me tropolitan borough (Sir B. Hall), who did not choose to maintain every abuse, fashioning it merely into some new worthless form, but set himself to carry out a useful measure that would meet the requirements of the metropolis. That right hon. gentleman had been elevated to the House of Peers, he presumed, for that good service, for he never heard of anything else that Lord Llanover had done. (Laughter.) He was sorry, too, that the right hon. gen tleman the Home Secretary did not follow in his steps—he did not mean to the House of Lords—(renewed laughter) —for they were very glad to see him where he was. He maintained that there were very absurd pretensions to the inhabitants of the small area of London having a sheriff of London representing persons who had no sympathy with him. Then, as to the City Solicitor, he also was not a fair representative as a legal adviser. He was elected by a few to look after the interests of the many. Then, as to the police, the City of London police and the police magistrates wero too circumscribed to give satisfaction to the metropolis, using the word in its largest acceptation. Another matter with which his motion proposed to deal was the question of taxation. The coal tax was reasonable when established, but it was no longer consistent with reason or justice that it should now be levied. Having stated the origin of this tax, and traced its history, he asked whether an act of Parliament which had been obtained by such . false means and pretences ought not to be inquired into. Ought they not to investigate how it was that the cor poration lived and flourished at the expense of those who were weak enough to pay this impost ? The coal tax was now 13d. per ton, but he believed that the corporation of the City of London was not entitled to levy one farthing upon coal at all. The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Heine Department stated that he would tell the house when he should be prepared with a statement respecting this mat ter. But this was a question which they should investigate before a select committee• They ought not to be asked to sanction a bill to reform the corporation of London, for the purpose of taxing the rest of the inhabitants, without some indication of what was done with the money which the cor poration was in the habit of levying. There was another tax called the metage upon the import of corn, which, he behoved, brought £14,000 a-year. Now, this tax ought strictly to be levied not for the benefit of the corporatiem, but for the benefit of the conservancy and improvement of the navigation of the Thames. He hoped he had said suffi cient to satisfy the house that there was abundant ground for an examination into the existing taxation. Another monstrous grievance was the carriage tax of £70,000 a-year. Were they to pay that sum for using their own roads and get nothing inreturn There were other questions of finance also equally deserving of investigation. In point of form he could not put his motion, but he hoped that when the,bill went into committee it would go charged with the inquiries he had indicated. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that the'cost of administer ing the corporation of London was much more than would be required for administering the corporation of the whole metropolis, and what was wanted was a reform based upon a comprehensive view of the wants of the entire inhabitants of this great capital. The present Cor poration was the most corrupt, the most wasteful, and the most extravagant that he knew of. They expended three times as much as their revenue. The late commission had laid bare the whole of their affairs, and even the members of the corporation were not aware of the abuses, and were surprised at the discoveries that were made. In the year to which he referred 12 of the principal officers of the Com mon Council received £2,955 more than 12 of the Cabinet Miniiters. There was no provision in the bill to rectify these grievous abuses. Of the £400,000 a year received by the Corporation, £155,000 was received from coals, corn, salt, and potatoes coming 'into the port of London. He thought the house ought to reject the bill altogether, and he was sure that even if the matter was left to the Corpora tion they would bring in a better bill themselves. The ex penditure of the Corporation was enormous, and ought not to be continued. It was equal to £2 12s. 6d. a head upon the population of London. Sir G. C. LE WIS said he was sure that nothing had been stated that evening that would warrant the house to reject the bill before it. He would not go through the various antiquarian researches presented to the house in the course of the lengthened address of the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets, but would proceed to observe that, after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1831' one of the first recommendations of the house was, that it should pro ceed to pass an act for the reform of the municipal corpo rations of England. That act was passed, but the Corpora tion of London was excluded from that act, and the reason given was, that the basis upon which the Corporation of London rested was a model of popular representation; and for years afterwards it remained unaffected. Subsequently complaints having been made, the commission of 1854 sat to inquire by what means the abuses complained of could be remedied. It should be borne in mind, however, that the question referred to that commission was not the extensive question of reform for the whole of the metropolis, but merely for the city of London itself. The commission (of whom he was one) expressed certain opinions, and made certain sug gestions, and most of those opinions he retained still un changed. The commissioners did not propose, as had been said, a corporate administration of such dimensions that it would overshadow the dignity of the Crown. On the con trary, they recommended the adoption of a scheme for the City only. They proposed that the metropolis should bo divided into districts, each under a separate municipal organisation, and that there should be a general metropo litan board of works. [The right hon. gentleman then read from the report of the Commissioners the passages embodying those suggestions.] He had no wish to detract from the credit which had been given to Lord Llanover for what he had done in reference to the Board of Works. The principle, however, of the Metropolitan Board of Works Act was first proposed by the Commissioners of which ho (Sir G. C. Lewis) was one, and the noble lord, in proposing his measure, referred to the report of the commission as that upon which he founded his measure. His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster founded his bill for a reform of the Corporation of the City of Lon don on the report of the Commission of 1854, which con tained many more of the recommendations of the commis sioners than this bill. (Hear, hear.) That bill was referred to a select committee, and it came out of the committee substantially in the form of the present bill, and that was the reason why he had founded this bill on its present limited basis. He did not concur in the opinion that it differed from the report of the commissioners, and he believed that it would be found to be a useful bill as far as it went. Ho trusted the house would not refuse a second reading to this bill because seine gentlemen did not think it went far enough. With regard to the prepos' 1 • the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, it was not in his (Sir G. C. Lewis's) power to accede to it. He could not understand how it was possible t s form the metro polis, which had no defined limits, and r included a part of Middlesex, Surrey, Essex, and Kent, into a county with a lord-lieutenant, its yeomanry and militia, with its various governments, and the disposal of its judi c i a l business at one assize. It was quite a novel plan, and in which ever way it was looked at, he could not see how any advantage was to be obtained by it. It had never been sug gested by any previous inquiry, neither had any consider able persons recommended it. lie should, however, be glad ..,,,...... 1i.......414 to see the administrative fan ctions of the Board of Works extended, and he assured the house he was not blind io the anomalies that existed in the Corpomtion of London, bit could not see how these, anomalies were to be got rid of, ex cept Ly bills being brought in is reference to them. The real object of the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) was to distribute the £400,000 a year income of the Corpo ration of London on the various districts of the metropolis. This was a plan never before suggested, encl . & thought it was one not fair to the city of London.' He therefore hoped the house would agree to the second reading of the bill. Mr. JOHN LOCKE moved that the debate be adjourned. The house then divided, when the namteers were— For the;)djournment Against Majority —4s On the question that the bill be read a second time, Mr. ROUPE LL moved that the house do now adjourn. Sir G. C. LEWIS thought the house was agreed as to the second reading of the bill, and he hoped the hon. gen tleman would not persevere. The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be cmumittedpro forma, the further discussion to be resumed this day fortnight. THE CENSUS ENGLAND BILL. On the second reading of this bill, Mr. CAIRD suggested that two or three new poihts adopted in Ireland may be introduced into the bill. The first would be the size of the dwelling-house, and the next agricultural statistics. He would suggest to the right hon. gentleman that as those wars matters of great importance it would be well to refer the matter to a select committee. Mr. BAINES was desirous to know whether it was in tended to conduct the census on one uniform principle for England, Wales, and Ireland. On the last two very im portant features were introduced into the bill, namely, one the religious, and the other the lay census ; and he hoped those points would be also introduced in this bill. There was one point in the bill which he thought objectionable, namely, that which proposed to ask every person his or her religious profession; and it was provided that the per • son refusing to answer should be subject to a penalty. It was difficult to ascertain in all cases of what religion per sons were. Some would object to tell, and some could not tell, inasmuch as they did not know. (Laughter.) They had in Scotland, for instance, 10 or 12 sects of religionists —some of them Trinitarians, and some Unitarians. Sir G. C. LEWIS, in answer to the question of his hog. friend, whether there would be an uniform system, said it was intended that the census for England and Scotland should be uniform. The census in Scotland was taken by the constabulary. In Ireland there was no expense for the numerators, and the census would be consequently taken on a moro extensive scale there. The bill, after a few words from Mr. HADFIELD, was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. DUCHY OF CORNWALL BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS BILL. This bill was also read a third time and passed. The other business on the paper having been iisposed of, he house adjourned at tea minutes to one o'clock. cOUN TRY NA.REBTS. BRISTOL-APRIL 24. At our market to-day there seems to be a little pause in the advance, which for the last six weeks has amounted to 6s on foreign and about 8s on English wheat, but no giving way in price. In other grain little doing. NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE-APRIL 24. A quiet demand for wheat to-day, at Saturday' prices. Oats firm, but an inactive inquiry. Beans and peas were in better request. Fine barley lower, and grinding aorta wanted. Flour firm. LIVERPOOL-Arm', 24. A fair attendance of the trade to-day, and wheat met a fair consumptive demand at generally the full p ricee of this day week. Flour 6d to la per sack dearer, but a slow sale. Oats and oatmeal at the extreme quotations of Tuesday last, with a moderate business. B eans and barley dearer. yeas advanced about 6d per qr. Indian corn inquired for, but the transactions not extensive. LEEDS-APRIL 24. The attendanCe of farmers and factors was moderate, and there was a fair consumptive demand for wheat, for which last week's prices were obtained. Oats and beans quite as dear. SLEAFORD-ArRiL 23. The supply of wheat was fair, with a slow but firm in quiry, and no alteration in prices. White, 54s to 58s; red, Ns to 555. Barley in moderate demand, at fully late rates. Oats and beans scarce, but a steady sale. HOWDEN-APRIL 21. There was only a moderate supply of grain to-day, and $ fair business done at about late prices. The average price was 55s per qr. NORWICH CATTLE-APRIL 21. This morning our market exhibited an exceedingly good show of store cattle, comprising Scots, Devons, short horas' and a few Irish. A brisk trade was effected, on very good terms, and there was also a tolerable attendance. I'at beasts a large show, and sales brisk. Scots, 4s Od to 4s 6d ; shorthorns, 3s 6d to 4s ; Irish, 3e Od to 3s 6d; Devons, Os Od to Os (estimated weight when fat): Bhcep—There were good supplies of sheep in the pens. Fat sheep, 7s 6d to 8s per stone ; prime, 9s 6d to 10s. Pigs—A fair supply. Store pigs 26s to 30s; fat pork, 7s 6d to 8s Od per stone. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. In the_ ollowing table E, signifies that ldtters are despatched by evening mails from London, and M by morning mails. MM. DESTINATIONS. D op matk D P es o p rt a of . t u t! .--- Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton May 12, M ? Southamp. May 10 Ditto, via Marseilles May 18, E May 4 Bahamas and Havana via New York May 12, E Liverpool.. Maylo: Canada, &c. (by Canadn. pckt ) April2s, E Liverpool.. April 2 5 Cape of Good Hope, Ascen i sion, and St. Helena May 5, E Devonport May 3 China, Penang, and Singa pore, via Southampton )May 4, 11/ISouthamp. May' 2 Ditto, via Marseilles Gibraltar, via Southampton .. , April27 ,11 Southamp. April 25 Honduras and Blewfields .... May 17,31 Southamp. April 20 India (Calcutta) and Ceylon, via Southampton May 4, 51 Southamp. May 2 Ditto, via Marseilles ' April 26, E April 26 India (Bombay), via South- • ampton April 27, M Southamp. April 26 Ditto, via Marseilles Lisbon, Ilrazils,Buenos Ayres, ' and F. Islands May 9, 51 Southamp. May 6 Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto April 27 ,M Se uthamp. May 1 Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton April t 7,111 Southamp. April 26 Ditto, via Marseilles Mexico and Havana Newfoundland April27, E Liverpool.. United States and British N America (by British packet) April2B, E Liverpool.. May 2 Ditto (by U. S. packet) West Coast of Africa, Ma deira, and Teneritre April 23 B Liverpool.. May 10 West India, California, Vene zuela, Chili, Peru, Grey town, New Gramm., ',to. ,May 2, M,Soutkamp. May 14 The Mysterious Power of the Magnet is most beautifullY developed by Mr. F. M. HE RRING, of 32, Basinghall-stree i + in his Patent Magnetic Brtishes and Combs, which are the remedy for grey hair, weak or falling hair, neuralgia, nervcce headache rheumatism, stiff joints, &c. Ills Teazle Brushes for cloth, velvet, &c., are admirable; they not only cleanse but preserve the fabric in a remarkable manner. The public are cautioned against counterfeits.—[ADVT.) - - [ AD VERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills: Happiness Nothing makes a man more wretched than a disordered sto mach or torpid liver. From them sifting our gloomies t thoughts and most dismal forebodings ; but happily form' kind such disorders may at once be rectified by a course of these digestive pills, which act most beneficially on the se' cretions of both stomach and liver, whereby perfect digestio n is restored, bringing with it strength and comfort to bodl and mind. Biliousness, nausea, headache, and dimness -of sight soon disappear before their potent sway. They regu: late every function in the human figure. In whatever Par' impurities exist, these peerless pills search them out and el-. pel them from the system ; wherever any organ is deranged they correct its irregular action and reproduce health so ° hap, iness. BIRTHS. BEAUCHAMP.—On the 19th inst., the Hon. Mrs. Bee n ' champ, of a son. BRADBURY.—On the 23d inst., at Manor-place, Streatham► the wife of Augustus Bradbury, Esq., of a eon. DICEY.—On the 23d inst., at Waltham Abbey, the wife 0 Captain Dicey, of a daughter. MARRIAGES. ERRINGTON— SHUCKEURGH.—On the 24th inst., at St' James's, Piccadilly, the Rev. John R. Errington, M.A- 9 vicar of Ashburne, Derbyshire. to Charlotte Georgian ° Amelia, the only daughter of Sir Francis Shuckburght Bart., of Shuckburgh, Warwickshire. VANE TEMPEST—PELHAM CLINTON.—OH the 23d Wt., by special license, a t St. Mary's Church, Bryanston square, Lieut.-C ol. Lord Adolphus Vane Tempest, MY.' tr , the Lady Susan Pelham Clinton, only daughter of his Grace the Duke of Newcastle. DEATHS. CRAWLEY.—On the 23d inst., at Hastings, Richard IV' Esq., of Bow, aged 51. CA C :tr aw nE le L.. ' .—On the 21st inst., at Bath-street, GloogoWt Mungo Campbell, sen., Esq., aged 85. FITZHERBERT.—On the 15th inst., at Warwick ReerLlA Nottinghamshire, th e Rev. Allayne Fitzherbert,tw" - tiOn of the late Sir Henry Fitzherbert, Bart., aged 44. FLEMING.—On the 23d inst., at Gloucester-square, nYd e i pat k, Lieut.-G enera l E dward Fleming, C.D., Colonel of the 27th (Ittniskillens). II EDGE.--On the 21st hut., at Park-street, leington, Chas. Hedge, Esq., aged 52. TURN HAII.-021 the 25th inst., after a short illness, the dearly beloved wife of Mr. George Turnham, the Angel, 37, Th a y er - s t ree t, Manchester-square, t o th e inexpressible loss and grief of the family and a larg circle of friends. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Ths BIM Office, No• 112 . Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the email Bliftdlerea, Wednesday". April 25, 1860. This eleznt with I EVE] direct tion Dom punct all owi val nal of foc Age appoil JOS] tims Disegu tion ie during avert' alike I Pre] and 10 R. Pa IMPO SIR, nage' have t able tt be ver T' Jolt' Fiel Von Fret the 17,11? Wal indi; Cnn TCIII Dery Cone Dr. Lain cola • on / why Fiv pric of Shii FOl Fri( Jur of F dap, be 1: be t Exe 1;. Ject CI to' CI .TOM JA MC Mr. J A' °omit perm wide( T 1 T' Barre Caseg A r To] - E) HMI In 4 the A be wi atami Ad, Bedfc Fos' DE CO: D' Sur tet hal Mir Ste' ItCll