The Sun. — London, England, 1845-05-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 7. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. Mr. FITZGERALD took his seat for Tipperary, in the place of the late Mr. Otway Cave, deceased. HUDDERSFIELD WATERWORKS BILL. This Bill was read a R third time and passed. AILWAYS. Mr. GREENE moved " That it be an instruction to the Committee on the York and North Midland Railway (Doncaster Extension), and London and York Railway Bills, to receive and consider petitions from the proprie tors of land on the north of the river Dun, against the London and York Railway Bill, and against the York and North Midland Railway (Doncaster Extension) Bill," which was agreed to. Mr. W. PATTEN then moved, " That the Report of the Sub-Committee on Petitions for Private Bills, on the Great Western (Ireland) Railway Bill, be printed," which was agreed to. Mr. W. PATTEN also moved " That it be an In struction to the Committee sitting on the Railway Bills comprised in Group G and G 2, that they entertain and consider the petition of the Company of Proprietors of the Parrett Navigation, which was presented to this House on the sth day of May instant, against the:Bristol and Exeter Railway Branches Bill." Mr. GREENE said that this question had been re peatedly asked him—viz., whether petitions against a railway project should be presented three clear days before the first reading, or three days before the consi deration of the Committee. It was important that a decision should be made on this subject, as it would materially affect the interests of many parties. The SPEAKER said that if the petition was against the project of the Bill the petition should be presented three clear days before the first reading, but if the oppo sition was only to a portion of the project the petition should be presented three clear days before the Bill went before the Select Committee. _ _ _ ......___ _. Mr. W. PATTEN said that as the petition had only been presented on the sth of May he should withdraw the motion. GLASGOW BRIDGE TRUST. Mr. P. M. STEWART, in moving the recommittal of the Glasgow Bridge Bill, said, that the object of this Bill was to incorporate the trusts of three bridges over the Clyde. On one of these bridges there had been an outlay of 20,0001., and there was a surplus revenue of 1,8001. a year. On another there had been a similar ex penditure, but there was an annual deficit of 1501. Both these bridges had been built for the purpose of improving the private property in Glasgow. The Bill had been passed through Committee by the casting vote of the Chairman, six of the Committee being for the Bill, and six against it, and there were ten of the proprietors of one of these bridges who wished to be heard on the Bill, and on these grounds, he moved that the Bill should be recommitted. Mr. FOX MAULE thought that his Hon. Friend had stated a very bad case very well.—(A laugh.) But the House ought to bear in mind that all the six Mem bers who voted in favour of the Bill were locally inte rested, whereas the opposing six Members were the selketed Members. Mr. HASTIE thought that a fair opportunity had not been given to certain parties to be heard in Committee on this matter, and he should, therefore, support the motion that the Bill be recommitted. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion 27 Against it 52 Majority The Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension-Bridge Bill was read a third time. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (IRELAND). Mr. F. FRENCH moved for leave to bring in the Gr. tr. Western Railway (Ireland) Bill. Mr. WARBURTON said that this Bill was one which the Standing Orders Committee had reported against, and the Hon. Member for Roscommon had induced the House to go against the Standing Orders Committee. It was proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire how far the existing standing orders with respect to Irish Railway Bills should be dispensed with. It seemed to him that, when the Standing Orders Committee had reported against a Bill, and a Select Committee was appointed to consider the subject, they ought to have the report of that Committee before they pro ceeded further. He should therefore move that the sub ject should be adjourned. Sir G. GREY did not see why the standing orders should be dispensed with. At the proper time it was his intention to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether any, and which of the standing orders in force with respect to railways in Great Britain were unnecessary, and ought to be dispensed with with respect to railways in Ireland. He thought that the House ought not to adopt the pre sent Bill until the notice he intended to give had been considered, and the Committee had come to some decision upon the subject. He thought they should read the Bill a first time, and then postpone the second reading to a future day. Mr. F. FRENCH said that all he wished was that the subject should be fairly considered ; and for that pur pose he was anxious to introduce the Bill. Mr. LABOUCHERE thought it desirable that the House should have the Bill before it. It was absolutely necessary to ascertain whether or not the standing orders which were applicable to English railway Bills were alse applicable to Irish railway Bills. Nothing could be so absurd or so unjust as if there were standing orders applicable to Irish railway Bills not to adhere to them. Under all the circumstances, however, he h >pea that his Honourable Friend would not press his notion, but would permit the Bill to be read a first time, and then the second reading could be delayed until after the report of the Committee, to be moved for by his Hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, should be presented. Mr. WARBURTON had no wish to give unnecessary trouble, and he would, therefore, not object to the first reading of the Bill, but before the second reading came on, he hoped the House would exercise RI jurisdiction over it. Mr. GREENE thought that great inconvenience would result from delay. He thought it was hardly fair to the promoters of the Bill to keep this threat of oppo sition hanging over them. He would rather that the House should vote that all further proceedings should be suspended until the report of the Committee to be moved by the Hon. Member for Devonport should have been made. He thought it would be much better to ad journ this debate until after that report should hare been made. Lord G. SOMERSET could not see how any incon venience could arise from permitting this Bill to be read a first time. But he hoped the House would seriously consider the subject before they consented to the second reading of the Bill. Before they did that they should have it determined how far the *landing orders which applied to English railway Bills applied also to Irish railway Bills, and the second read ing should be delayed until the report of that Committee should have been made. If it were attempted to press forward the Bill to a seconi reading until that report should have been made, he should feel it his duty to op pose any such motion. Mr. WARBURTON wished to be again permitted to address a few words to the House. Suppose the Com mittee should report that certain standing orders did not refer to Irish railway Bills, would it be regular in that case to refer that Bill back to the Standing Orders Committee to see if the modified standing orders had been complied with. lie wished to ask the Speaker if it would be al luwable to refer this Bill back to the Standing Orders Committee after it had been read a first time. He apprehended that it would be too late to do so, and the he thought it would be better to suspend the further progress of the Bill until the report should have been made. Mr. S. WORTLEY thought that if the Bill was read a first time, they would be precluded from referring it back again to the Standing Orders Committee. Ile thought the proposition of the Honourable Member for Devonport was hardly sufficient, and was not Of general application to Irish cases as far as the standing orders were concerned ; and he gave notice that in case the Right Honourable Gentleman should succeed in obtaining his Committee, he (Mr. Wortley) should move that the report of the Standing Orders Committee on this Bill be referred to that Committee. Lord G. SOMERSET apprehended that it would be no breach of the orders of the House to refer this Bill back to the Standing Orders Committee after it had been read a first time. Tbe SPEAKER said that after the Bill had been read a first time it might be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee. The motion of Mr. WARBURTON was then withdrawn. Mr. ESCOTT said that he believed it was not right for such a cliff', rence to be made between railways in Ireland and England. A great error had been coin ni'ved by the House, which was likely to work very in jui i .usly to many proprietors on this side of the Channel, and he should therefore wait for the second reading of this Bill before he offered it any opposition. Sir G. GREY said that there was a material diffe rence between the two cases, and there was a something peculiar in the Irish railways, which entitled them to a special reference to the con sideration of the House. From the general nature of Irish railways, it was impossible they be regulated by the same standing orders a. English railways. Sir R. PEEL said that he would not by any means vote for this Bill, if by so doing he was likely to throw the slighest reflection on the Standing Orders Com mittee. Ile thought a general impression An both sides of the House that the standing orders Gin this Bill should b e with. There were cortain circumstances connected t)ul with this Bill, which made it necessary that the rules not be strictly sipplied. lie would be the last man' should not House to throw any reflection on the Standing Orders Committee, for he thought they had done their duty with respect to this Bill in the most praiseworthy manner, and he should, therefore, support them. But le thought that in respect to Irish railways, so me of those standing orders should not 3e strictly construed. Many which worked well in this country would be entirely inoperative and injurious when they came to be applied to the projects of Irish railways, and which would under the circumstances of Ireland, work great injustice to many parties there. Ile had understood the Right Honourable Gentleman, that the peculiar po sition of Ireland should be considered, and that the ad vantages conferred upon them should be bona fide, and if that were to be the case, this Bill should enjoy the benefit of an exemption from the standing orders, and was entitled to the ecnsideration of the House. If this Bill worked any particular mischief in consequence of the disregard of the standing orders, it would be easy to oppose its further progress at some future s t a g e. It was a g reat work for Ireland which this B ill sou g ht to ef feet, and he thought, therefore, it would be a great injustice to its promo ters, and, opposing the general eense of the people of Ireland, if they threw this Dill out for a non-compliance with the standing THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MORNING, MAY 8, 1845. orders, simply on account of some omission of a' solicitor or Parliamentary agent. But he did not wish to throw the slightest reflection upon the Standing Orders Committee, and he should reserve to himself the line of conduct he might in future pursue, and vote for the second reading or not. Mr. DUNCOMBE conceived that the feeling in Ireland, in reference to having railroads in that country, had nothing whatever to do with this question. That argument had never been used during the whole of the discussion, except upon one occasion, by an Hon. Member near him, who used it on the introduction of the qnestion. He could not see how the public could have any confidence in the proceedings of this House, if upon one day they decide that a Bill should not be proceeded with, and upon another decide that a question should be referred to a Committee, to the effect that an inquiry should be made to ascertain whe ther the decisions of this House were erroneous, for that in reality was the question.—(Hear, hear.) The question was then put, and the motion agreed to without a division. CORNWALL RAILWAY. Sir CHARLES LEMON presented four petitions in favour of the Cornwall Railway. Mr. M. GIBSON proposed the second reading of the Manchester Courts of Review Bill, which was agreed to. Mr. GREENE presented 14 petitions against the Edinburgh Northern Railway. Sir J. TYRRELL moved that six petitions which he had presented on a former occasion be referred to the Select Committee.—Agreed to. Mr. DUNDAS presented a petition against the Edin burgh:Northern Railway (as we understood ita prayer.) Mr. B. BALDWIN presented a petition from Surrey, against the London and Portsmouth Railway. sermon on the Sunday previous to the day ordered for execution. Acting on the authority he possessed, he (Sir James Graham) had ordered a prison inspector to proceedito Newgate and to inquire into the circumstances connected with the last execution. The inspector had received instructions to examine into the transactions both of the Sunday and of the Monday morning. As soon as he should have received that report he should be prepared to lay it on the table, and to express his opinion on the whole matter. Alderman COPELAND was glad to hear the course the Right Hon. Baronet intended pursuing, and fully ad mitted the necessity for an inquiry. A morbid appetite was abroad on this subject. The curiosity of the public upon occasions such as these exceeded anything the House could conceive. This curiositypervaded all classes, and the desire of persons, not only to get seats at the trial, but to be present at the condemned sermon, was beyond all conception. Having been the sitting magis trate at Guildhall on Easter Monday, cases had come before him, that led him to the conclusion that the time had arrived, when the authorities ought to consider whether it was not ad visable to dispense with these public exhibitions. On Easter Monday he sent some for trial, and convicted three in a gang for picking pockets under the gallows, and this had led him to the conclusion that it would be better to adopt some means of putting an end to these executions altogether. Mr. BROTHERTON rose to express his concur rence in the remarks of the Hon. Alderman, but he was called to order by the Speaker, who put the ques tion, that the returns be laid on the table, which was agreed to. Mr. EDWARD ELLICE moved the substitution of Lord Frederick Hallyburton and Mr. David Morris for Mr. Patrick Stewart and Mr. Bickham Escott, on Select Committee on Prisons (Sentland.) Mr. PRINGLE opposed the motion, and said he would divide the House.—(Great laughter.) The gallery was then cleared, and the House divided when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority for the motion MR. MAZZINI. Mr. BOUVERIE said that it would be recollected that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had, upon the debate with regard to the opening of letters in the Post office, made a charge of a very grave and heinous character against Mr. Mazaini, which had never yet been withdrawn. A charge of such a nature as that made against Mr. Mazzini was one which, under no circum stances, could be justified, unless there was the strongest grounds for believing it to be true. That charge was aggravated, coming, as it did, from one in the position of the Right Hon. Baronet, whose Parliamentary privi leges prevented Mr. Mazzini from taking those steps which he could do if the charge had not been made by a Member of that House within the walls of Parliament. That charge was spread abroad next morning, not only through the country, but through the world, stamped with the authority of the Secretary of State. The Right Hon. Baronet derived the ground of his charge from an anonymous statement in a French newspaper, and he promised to substantiate it by papers which he would de liver to Members of the House. The only papers delivered were papers which he (Mr. Bouverie) held in his hand, but they did not contain one iota of evidence to substan tiate the charge.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped that the Right Hon. Baronet, reflecting upon the hor rible nature of the charge, would think that he ought to withdraw it. He might mention that the French Go vernment communicated to a friend of his, a Member of that House, that they carefully investigated the matter , and that they found there was not one tilde of evidence to support the charge. Sir J. GRAHAM stated that the Hon. Gentleman who had sat down gave him notice yesterday, by a note, of his intention to put this question. If there had been a House yesterday, it was his (Sir J. Graham's) inten tion to make voluntarily the statement to the House, which it was now his duty to make. On Mon day last the Honourable Member for Kilmar nock, and another Honourable Member, communicated with him on the subject, and he stated to them what was then strictly true, that he was not in a position to make a statement satisfactory to them or to Mr. Mazzini. In consequence of the question put to him by the Honour able Member for Bolton, he thought it his duty to insti tute inquiries through his Noble Friend the Foreign Secretary in those quarters where he would be likely to obtain the most correct information on the subject ; and, till yesterday, the information which he had re ceived, so far from shaking his impressions, only tended to confirm them. But, not satisfied with the question to which the inquiries were directed, he was particularly anxious that the judge who presided at the trial of Ribiero and Caprioli, in 1833, and also the public prosecutor, should be consulted, and at his request those persons were con sulted. He did not, till two o'clock yesterday, receive an answer to the inquiries made, and if there had been a House yesterday it was his intention voluntarily to have made the statement ; it was now his duty to make it, in answer to the:question:put to him. The Hon. Gen tleman referred to the statement which he (Sir James Graham) made originally. He stated that the informa tion being derived from a newspaper, and not from an official source, was not entitled to implicit confidence. And he was not aware, till the Hon. Member for Fins bury afterwards stated it, that Mr. Mazzini had, in 1840, brought an action against a newspaper for repeating a statement which first appeared in the Moniteur. The Hon. Gentleman said that in the papers which he pre sented to the House there was no recognition of the statement which he quoted from the Moniteur. If the Honourable Gentleman looked attentively at the papers he would see a letter from Mr. Foster, their agent at Turin, to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and that there was a distinct recognition of the statement to which reference was made. He was bound to state that the accounts he re ceived yesterday rested on the statements of the judge who tried Ribiero, and of the public prosecutor, and their answers to the inquiries made were full, explicit, and direct; and they stated that no evidence was pro duced at the trial which inculpated Mr. Mazzini in the least.—(Hear, hear.) Had lie known at the time he made the original statement the fact that Mr. Mazzini brought an action against a newspaper for repeating the charge, and much more, if he had known what the im pression of the judge who tried Ribiero, and that of the public prosecutor were, he would never have made the statement he did.—(Hear, hear.) He now thought it due to Mr. Mazzini to make the only and the best repa ration in his power—namely, that the retraction should be as public as the accusation.—(Hear, and cheers.) Mr. DUNCOMBE said he thought that no Member had any right to press or wish another Member to make an apology to another individual unless he was persuaded that that individual deserved to have an apology or a re traction made to him. He thought the Right Hon. Gentleman was right in abstaining from making an apology till he made :himself acquainted with the facts. But he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had reason to complain of the individual who put the Moniteur into his hands—(llear)—who must have known,that the statement against Mr. Mazzini was fabricated and false, at the time, for it was publicly known. It was the duty of the person who gave the Right Hon. Gentleman the Moniteur, to give him also the judement of the judge of the Tribunal Correctionnel, pronounced on the 23d of April,lB4l, which in itself was a refutation of the charge. The retraction came late, but certainly the Right Hon. Gentleman was right not to make it till he inquired into it. Now that it was fully made, it would be satisfactory to Mr. Mazzini, and the other exiles who were in the country; and he (Mr. Duncombe) would say, if lie did not believe Mr. Mazzini to have been innocent, he would not have introduced his name in that House, because he would then consider him not only to be unworthy the consideration of that House, but unworthy of the friend ship of many high men in this country, wh ch it was his happiness and his privilege to enjoy. —(Hear, hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Hon. Gentleman stated that the explanation came late. He would state the facts to the House. He had a letter from Lord Cowley, dated the 2d of May, enclosing the answers of the Judge who tried the case and the Prucureur du Rol, which were not received by Lord Cowley till the Ist of May. He received a note from his Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated yesterday, and stating " the enclosed papers were received yester day (on the sth of May) from Lord Cowley, and the statements are of a different tendency from those pre viously given by the Prefect of Police and the Minister of the Interior. He received the papers yesterday at two o'clock, and he could only repeat his assurance that if there had been a House yesterday he would have made the statement he now made.—(Hear, hear) Mr. DUNCOMBE did not mean to attribute any un necessary delay to the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear.) SLAVE TRADE. Lord PALMERS'rON said he rose for the purpose of putting the questions, of which he had given notice, to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite. The first question he wished to ask was founded on the 9th article of the Treaty of Washington, dated August, 1842. He wished also to know in reference to the 17th article of the treaty of December 1840, for the suppression of the slave trade, which was signed by the representatives of England, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, whether the contracting parties had in pursuance of this article made application to Belgium, Hanover, and Greece, to obtain their exertions in favour of that treaty, which stated that the parties to the treaty, namely, Great Britain and America, would unite in all becoming representations and remonstrances to Spain and Brazil, for the shutting up of markets for the sale of slaves. He wished to know whether, in pursuance of this article, the Governments of the United States and En g .. land had united in making those remonstrances ? Sir R. PEEL said that with regard to the first ques tion, several communications took place between the Government and the American Minister, Mr. Everett, on the subject, and it was considered whether more ad vantage would be likely to accrue from joint representa• dons or from separate representations, and they came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to make joint representations, and they considered that, under the 9th article of the treaty, they might, if they so thought fir, make separate representations, though the word " unite " was certainly in the treaty. Representations had been made both to Spain and Brazil, and he under stood that the Minister of the United States at Brazil had shown himself desirous to put an end to the trade, and had co-operated with them in throwing difficulties in the way of the prosecution of the trade. With regard to the second question, the Noble Lord had correctly stated that, in 1841, a treaty was signed by Great Britain to suppress the slave trade, Austria, Prussia, and Russia agreeing to uphold the right of search. France also signed that treaty, but clld not rati an fy ttyo i fw t f ; asor b uis u ti t ti t ih h ah e telt o dh t e h yi e n r invi great Powers of Europe, not ' a ft er the refusal of France not withstanding the non-ratification by France, waived any g l e a h e t t e t h o b il y v r e a th7 fy m7 point t h e e d T to, and treaty,and question , w t h a s e whether it was desirable that the communication con teaTl4ted 1 17 that t Hanover, emu Gre. reaty should be ma d e t o Belginni, eat. They had all combined against 80 22 -58 the slave-trade, although the refusal-of France to ratify the treaty gave the power to the other three nations to refuse adhering to it. He had every reason to believe that no communication had been made to that effect to the other three Powers. Lord PALMERSTON said that as to the second question with regard to the powers of the Government of the United States, he presumed that there would be no difficulty in obtaining diplomatic communication of those remonstrances from the United States' Govern ment, and in having them laid before the House; and if they were joint remonstrances, of course they would be laid before the House; as they were represented to be joint in spirit, he thought that no inconvenience could arise from doing so. WELSH MAIL. Mr. HENRY F. BERKELEY wished to ask a ques tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He understood that it was the intention of the Government to remove the mail which passed through South Wales from Bris tol, and to direct it in some other line, and as he was of opinion that it would have the effect of injuring Bristo!, he wished to know whether it was true? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the state of the case was, Vita the mail for South Wales passed through Bristol, the effect of which way to retard the letters for South Wales for several hours; and as it was the desire of the inhabitants of South Wales that their letters should be delivered as soon as possible, arrangements to that effect were in progress, and would soon be finished. He wished to state, at the same time, that Bristol would not suffer any inconveni ence. were the persons to whom was assigned the duty of teaching the highest branches of their noble profession. He conceived that a great evil would fall on the country by the degradation of the surgeons in the metropolis and the transformation of the College of Surgeons into an Apothecaries' Hall. On the other hind, he would con fess that although he did not admit all the objec tions taken by the general practitioners to be well founded—although he thought that they were in some respects exaggerated ; yet he did think that certain pre cautions which they desired ought to be taken. The general practitioners stated that in order to exalt their own station and their own power, the physicians and surgeons had endeavoured to degrade the general standard of the practitioners. On the whole, therefore, he had come to the conclusion that it was expedient to incorporate the general practitioners. He should pro pose that in future all students that should hereafter enter the profession should undergo an examination at one place only. To secure that object he proposed, in the present Bill, to establish a College of Physicians, a College of Surgeons, and a College of General Prac titioners. No student should pass through his examina tion for a general practitioner until he had attained the age of twenty two The Bill, as it now stood, made it twenty-one. He then prop: sed that the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons should hare a joint board of examiners. This board he pro posed should consist of six members of the College of Surgeons, and six of the College of Physicians. In con nexion with the Council of Health this board should have the examination of students. He then proposed that the College of General Practitioners should also appoint another board to examine exclusively the candi dates wishing to act as general practitioners, With re gard to physicians and surgeons, he proposed that the age of the student to be examined should be twenty-six years. He had new come. to this decision with the Apothecaries' Company. In the most handsome manner they had agreed to surrender all the power with which they were invested under their Act. He proposed that there should be three Colleges—the College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons, and the College of General Practitioners; and he in tended by the new Bill to transfer to the College of Go. neral Practitioners all the privileges which were now en joyed by the Apotheeaties e Company; and he should do away, at the same time, with the system of Ave years' apprenticeship, which was sq very obnoxious on the for mer occasion, when he addressed the House ; he had not attached much importance to the power and discretion given to the Apothecaries' Company; but he had now deemed it better to remove those privileges to the new College of General Practitioners, and to give them a place is the Council of Health. With respect to the per sons who were to sit on that Council, it had been pro posed to place the power of nominating them in the hands of the Crown ; but he was not the person to ac cede to such a poposition but he had, by the Bill, placed an election of these officers in the new constituents which it created. Having elected the General Practi tioners into a college, he would propose to give them a place at t Board of Health ; and this board he pro posed to make the examining board for all the candi dates for the different branches of the profession. He proposed that the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor of the Universities of London should each have a place in the Council of Health. It was necessary that the Uni versities of Oxford and Cambrige, which were them selves entitled to confer degrees, should enjoy an ex emption from the operation of this Bill to a certain extent. He proposed that the power of granting degrees, whick they now enjoyed, should still be continued to them; but there was another point which had to be considered. It was the privilege enjoyed by the College of Physicians of preventing any one practising in the metropolis, or seven miles from it, without their consent. He thought this was a hardship from which graduates of the two universities ought to be relieved, and he should propose, therefore, by this mea sure, to exempt their graduates from the operation of this rule, and to give to every one who had passed an exami nation, and possessed a diploma, the right to practice in any part of the United Kingdom. After examination by the assessors, of whom deputies from the universities were to form two, they intended to h eve only one portal to the professior, and whether a student wished to go to the practice of a physician, a surgeon, or a general practitioner, he must pass the examination of this Council of Health. Some difficulty might arise from the import of the term, in clause 23, of " inceptors of medicine. He would explain that this was simply a term of noviciate. He saw the Hon. Mem ber for Edinburgh cheering on his notice of the means by which his general practitioner was to be introduced to practice. He should say, in reply to that cheer, that the licentiates of the Scottish Universities had claims which it would be unjust to overlook. He thought that licen tiates of the Scottish Universities were entitled to the same advantages, and he should extend to them the same advantages as those enjoyed by students in the United Kingdom. Having passed a double examination in Scotland, all that would be required of them here would be to present their certificates; to the Council of Health, who would have the general power of granting licences to practice in all parts of the United Kingdom. He saw from the observation of the Hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Warburton) that he apprehended some difficulties in ascertaining the qualifications of those who came from distant parts of the country, but he conceived that there would be no difficulty in sending down assessors to the different schools and colleges in order to ascertain the mode of examination, and the ac quirements of the students. Since the 23d clause was originally framed, his views had been altered, but he saw no reason to restrict the practice of the profession to those who had obtained the licence or the degree of the collegiate authorities in London. He proposed to destroy the distinction at preemie possessed by the College of Physicians, of practising infsea urbe, and ultra urban, and to give to every person the right of practising in all parts of the United Kingdom. He proposed to lay upon the table of the House, immedi ately after the recess, or perhaps before the recess, the charter of the College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons, and of the several colleges in Scotland and Ireland entitled to grant degrees, and to show at the same time the different powers granted under the new charter. For the prospective advantages these charters would fully provide, but he admitted there was a difficulty in its retrospective effect. Some persons in the profession pos sessed peculiar rights of practising in certain places. He could not preserve that right intact, but he would give them an advantage, by allowing them to register their exclusive rights during their own lives, and thus bind, as far as the circumstances of the case would allow, the preservation of private benefit with the promotion of the public advantage. This was especially the case with re spect to the privilege of practising within seven miles of the metropolis. But he hoped by the plan which he adopted to give the advantage of practising, without too greatly interfering with the rights at present existing. There was, perhaps, a little ambiguity with respect to the assumption of titles. He proposed, by the present Act of Parliament, to render the simulation of titles punishable as a misdemeanour. Some doubt had existed respecting tee title of Doctor, which had been taken up by many of the general practitioners. He proposed to limit the right to this title to those who had derived it from the College of Physicians. He thought that the Bill might lie on the table till the middle of June, and as he hoped to have it in a perfect shape shortly after the recess, and after all the information had reached him which he could obtain, he should deem it hi s d u ty t o a d v i se h er Majesty to grant new charters, both to the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons. By the middle of June, the whole case would be before the public. He had had interviews with the heads of the profession, both physicians, surgeons, and general prac titioners, and he was happy to say that the whole body of the profession approved of the measure before the House. Of course, in so great a number of persons, there were many dissentients, but the bulk of the pro fession approved of the measure. In reply to Mr. GISBORNE, Sir J. GRAHAM stated that he proposed that the Council of Health should consist of forty-eight members of all branches of the profession, of fifteen years stand ing, and that they should be elected by a constituency of ten years standing, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. In reply to Col. T. WOOD, Sir JAMES GRAHAM stated that he proposed that every novice should be examined by the Board, in the first instance, for the degree of a general practitioner, and then they might proceed to the degree of surgeon or physician ; and that in the case of graduates from the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, the examiners should sit as assessors at the Beard of the Council of Health. In reply to Captain RODS, Sir J. GRAHAM stated that of course the Council of Health would be governed by bye-laws, which would be subject to the approval of the Seeretary of State. Mr. HAWES said that he saw no reason why the Secretary of State should despair of reconciling the dif ferences between the general practitioners and the Col lege of Surgeons. He feared that this measure would prove very distasteful to the wh o l e o f t h e profession, both in London and the country. There was a great anomaly in the 26th clause, and it was impossible to reconcile the 26. h with the 22d and 23d. (Hear, hear.) The great object of the profession was to obtain an equality of qualification. What he particularly wanted was, that the teachers of pupils should in no case be examiners for degrees, and he thought that the Board of Health should institute some means of examination which would make them acquainted with the several schools, and the numbers and intentions of the pupils. Some plan might be adopted for obviating the probability of such an evil as that to which he had alluded. Mr. WAKLEY said that he fully agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth that the altera tions introduced by this measure in the old law would be viewed by the country with the greatest possible dis satisfaction. He (Mr. Wakley) was greatly dissatisfied at the cha nges w hi c h t h e Ri g h t Hon. Baronet proposed. He had hoped that those changes would have removed the discontent which at present prevailed so generally throughout the profession. The Right Hon. Baronet meant to transfer the powers given by the Act of George the Third to the new corporation. No person was to be permitted to practice who had not been examined before the new corporation. Sir J. GR,A HA VI explained. The Hon. Member for Finsbury had misunderstood him. Mr. WAKLEY—Then, if that were the case, of what possible use was the new corporation? Did the Right lion. Baronet mean this Bill as alleviating the evils under which general practitioners laboured? He (Mr. Wakley) thought it rather degraded them. The Right Hon. Baronet virtually affirmed that the general prac titioners were utterly unworthy of sitting at the boards of examination. Did he think that this measure would give general satisfaction to those practitioners? He (Mr. Wakley) was sure that it would not. The fact was that the rifling authorities in the Council of Surgeons seemed to have sufficient influence with the Right Hon. Baronet to make him forget the claims of others. lie thought that 10,000 men, the members of the medical profession, members of the College of Surgeons, were obliged to submit to great indignities, and this Bill of the Right Hon, Baronet's was hut a continuation of the system. It seemed a point with the Right Hon. Baronet to gratify those who had retained the authority for a long period, and who, according to general opinion, had abused that authority. He repeated, it seemed to him that the Right Hon Baronet wished to prolong that authority in their hands, in spite of the many petitions which had been presented years before praying for c reform in the medical officers. In the year 1826 large medical meetings were held in London, and resolutions were pas ed condemnatory of the council of the College of Sur geons. From that time medical associations had been in existence, and from time to time the question ;ma been discussed ; but to the amazement of the members of the College of Surgeons, they found that in 1843 a new charter was granted to the council, containing pro visions of a most odious and obnoxious nature. The conduct of the members of' this council was open to re preach, and they wero rewarded. How ? By the gift of a now charter—he would venture to say clan destinely obtained--a charter that might please the clique that formed the Council, but was received with the utmost displrasure by the 13,000 members of the college. On that very day he had had a communication from Shropshire, containing a memorial which had been addressed to the Council, after having received the sanc tion of the majority of practitioners in all the counties of England. A meeting was held in that county on the 3d of April, 1845, and a resolution moved by MP. 'Brooks, and seconded by Mr. Cartwright, w a s the effect that the meeting felt themselves 'aggrieved by the ex clusive character of tb-, c h arur re e , granted to the College of Surgeo as they thought themselves justly entitled to a full participation in all the privileges which that charter denied them. But there were thirteen thousand members allowed to complain fruitlessly. Did the Right Hon. Baronet believe that the surgeons of this country would remain passive under this injury. He (Mr. Wakley) was much deceived if the surgeons of the country would not exhibit their feelings on this subject. If the Right Hon. Baronet would refer to the evidence taken before a Committee in 1834, he would find that such men as Sir Astley Cooper, Sir Benjamin Brodie, and Mr. Lawrence, all agreed that surgeons and general medical practitioners should be examined before a board of competent individuals. He was not aware that the medical practitioners of England had forfeited the good character which they had formerly maintained. Yet, why were they not allowed to participate in the privi leges of their own college? He allowed them to exer cise the elective franchise in the new corporation, then why not in the College of Surgeons? But the council themselves were not satisfied with the charter for last year they petitioned to be heard a t th e b ar o f th e House against it. The measure went upon the principle that the professional talent in the country was not equal to that in town. He (Mr. Wakley) had no doubt that in the country there were men equal in talent to Sir Ben jamin Brodie, but who had not had opportunities of dis playing it. The practitioner in the country was obliged to trust to his own resources, for, in any case of diffi culty, he could not as in town send for Sir Benjamin Brodie, or some gentleman equally celebrated, to take the responsibility of the case off his shoulders. The efforts of the country practitioners had never been surpassed, considering their opportunities, by any of the achievements of the profession in the metropolis. Those men were not merely competent surgeons, but they were physicians. They were quite equal in point of talent and knowledge to those who practised in London.— (Hear, hear.) According to the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet himself, he was going to create a new Apothecaries'-hall.—( Hear.) He believed that if the Right Hon. Gentleman would give the franchise to the general body, all the wrong that existed would be rectified. It was most unjust to disfranchise 12,000 members of the College of Surgeons for the mis conduct of a self-elected council of twenty-six persons. If the members of the College were restored to their just rights, there would be no occasion for the institution of another body.--(" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) Would the Right Hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry into the present condition of the College of Surgeons? He did not think that the council, after their recent letter, de served so much patronage as the Right Hon. Gentleman lavished upon them.—(Hear, hear.) Would the Right Hon. Baronet lay the letter upon the table? Sir J. GRAHAM said that the letter had been al ready printed. Mr. WAKLEY had not seen it amongst the papers of' the House. There was a grave misstatement in the very preamble of the Bill, which stated that the Bill was introduced in consequence of a memorial from the Col lege of Surgeons ; whereas, in point of fact, the College did not memorialise at all. Sir J. GRAHAM —The memorial had the Feel of the corporation. Mr. WAKLEY—But the memorial was written by the Council alone, which did not, in any respect, repre sent the profession. Mr. WARBURTON was happy to find so much unanimity in the House on the subject of medical re form. He understood the object of the Bill to be to create a standard of uniformity in medical education.— (Hear, hear.) He bad read that morning a statement from the professors of King's College and University College on this subject, and he agreed with them that residence ought to be made a condition in qualifying for a degree. But in London the oppor tunities were so great for pursuing medical studies, that the enforcement of residence need not extend over so long a period as in Edinburgh. An Hort. MEMBER here rose and moved that the House be counted. The galleries were accordingly cleared of strangers, but there being above 40 Members present, the debate was continued. On our return to the gallery, Mr. WARBURTON was remarking that the provi sions in clause 33, in his opinion, took away an efficient security which existed at present, for graduates under going a proper examination at Edinburgh ; and he was, therefore, bound to object to it. The Bill appeared to him to provide that graduates and licentiates qualifying at Edinburgh should be entitled to the same privileges and rights possessed by those who qualified in England. If this were so, and he believed the Right Hon. Baronet opposite admitted it was so, he thought the licentiates and graduates qualifying in England, or who had reached the requisite standard in England, should reciprocally be allowed to hold and to enjoy situations of patronage and privilege in Scotland and Ireland. He thought there was a bad system prevailing at present, and as the Bill was calculated to improve it, he hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would be enabled to carry it to-night. Mr. ACKLAND thought the Hon. Member for Fine bury had just delivered a speech, which he had carefully prepared for the previous evening, but still it appeared to him not likely to produce the beneficial effect which the Hon. Member anticipated. The Hon. Mem ber said the Bill drew a distinction between the arts of medicine and surgery, but he (Mr. Ackland) was not prepared to admit the Hon. Gentleman's proposition. Both acts were of equal importance to the country, and the Bill in his opinion was brought forward solely with a view of placing them upon a more settled and more firm footing. He believed there was much more confi dence placed in the College of Surgeons than would be inferred from the speech of the Honourable Member for Finsbury; he made this statement from considerable knowledge on the subjee. The Honourable Member had not told them what was the course that ought to be pursued, nor did he believe he could. Mr. H. BERKELEY said the reason he had moved that the House should be counted, was in order to show the disgust he felt at the course pursued by the Government in stopping last night the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, by making no House. —(Hear, hear.) He contended that that motion ought to have been made and disposed of before the measure now before the House was brought under discussion, The Hon. Member for Finsbury had intended to bring before the House the conduct of the Council of the Col lege of Surgeons, which had had disgusted every one. They had selected men without talent.' 'lnstal:lees had come before him that were perfectly disgraceful. He could point out many instances, whose the omission of persons of distinction from being selected fellows must bring upon those persons a stigma and a slur. They all knew Mr. Dermot, many of whose pupils had risen to the greatest height in the profession. This gen tleman was omitted, and the world would generally con sider that to be a slur. When Gentlemen said that it was not a slur, he really did not un lerstand what they meant. He would call upon the Hon. Member for Mid dlesex, and also the Member for Finsbury, to corrobo rate the fact, that London gentlemen had performed as many brilliant operations as their Brodies. This gen tleman was Mr. Frogly, who was as well known to the physicians of London to be as distinguished a physician, as any physician could be. He knew it could not be a slur upon such men as Mr. Dermot or Mr. Frogly, but he could not defend the omission, when he found men, not possessing half their knowledge, raised to the dis tinction of fellows. Colonel T. WOOD thought that the speeches that were made were sufficient to satisfy them that they were bound to endeavour, as far as possible, to open the pro fession widely to merit, and to avoid giving such an ab surd incorporation. Were they to have power to grant degrees or to have second examinations ? The only effect of a separate incorporation would be to create a party in the profession, instead of waiting the general body. If they had a separate incorporation a portion of the profession would look with dislike upon the system, and if they did not acquire the same power, they would endeavour to obtain the power of giving degrees. This exclusive mode would give great offence. While Mr. Frogly was omitted, the men of less knowledge in their profession were admitted. It could not be that such men would suffer that injustice. There was superiority given according to the date of the entrance of their diploma or fellowship, which practice would be very injurious to the medical officers of the naval or military department. They were necessarily absent for many years, and anything that would affect these men would be deeply felt for there was go class of men that conferred greater benefits on science than mili tary medical men. He had two instances where, in the present arrangement, two surgeons who were edu cated at Westminster School, had practised in the first hospitals in London, and had distinguished themselves at Hyderabad, would, after they had returned find them selves excluded from fellowships, and young men, who were infants when they were in practice, admitted and placed above them. General discontent would arise from the unnecessary exclusion of such men. The Right Ho nourable Gentleman, however, refused all inquiry. He (Colonel Wood) presented a petition from Dr. Guthrie, who thought that an inquiry ought to take place ; and if it were instituted, the House could put the College in a position which would be satisfactory to the whole profession. He beheld witq dismay the proposition of the Government. He thought it would create a division in the profession, which would be exceedingly injurious in a scientific point of view. Alter a few words from Captain RODS, which were quite inaudible, from the lowness of his tone of voice, The House went into Committee on the Bill. Sir J. GRAHAM, who was very indistinctly heard PUBLIC PETITIONS. The SPEAKER called on the notices of motion- Mr. DUNCOMBE said that private business now took so much time that it was almost impossible to present public petitions within the time prescribed by the House. He thought, therefore, that the public business had better be postponed for half an hour to admit of the public petitions being presented. The House acquiesced in this suggestion. Mr. EVANS presented petitions against the May nooth grant. Lord DALMENY presented two petitions, one from Stirling and another from Inverness, against the May nooth grant. Mr. TURNER presented a petition from a place in Cornwall to the same effect. Mr. H. F. BERKELEY presented a petition from tradesmen in Tewkesbury against the Insolvent Debtors' Bill of last year. Captain BERKELEY presented a petition from Gloucester, against the Insolvent Act passed last ses sion, and praying that it might be altered and amended ; also a petition from Nottingham against the Maynooth grant. Mr. SHAW presented petitions against Maynooth. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition from the medical practitioners of Rochdale in favour of the Medical Reform Bill. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented several petitions against the grant to the College of Maynooth ; also a petition, signed by 10,400 inhabitants of Lancashire, praying the House to institute an inquiry into the regulation of coal pits. The Honourable Member also presented a petition from a female named Price, complaining of the conduct of a Worcestershire magistrate, named Briscoe, who refused to grant her a summons against a common informer, who had assaulted her, and who afterwards obtained a warrant against her, signed by Mr. Briscoe, under which she was sent to prison, and otherwise ill-treated, although she was far advanced in pregnancy . ; and that upon the case coming before two other magistrates and Mr. Briscoe, although the latter gave evidence against her, the two other magistrates dismissed the case. It was his intention to-morrow to move that the petition be printed with the Votes, and afterwards to found a motion upon it. Mr. COMPTON presented petitions against the grant to Maynooth and railway travelling on Sundays. Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from the sur geons of Bath, praying the House to institute an in quiry into the manner in which the Royal College of Surgeons was governed. Colonel T. WOOD presented a similar petition from the county of Brecknock. The petitioners, the surgeons of this country, ought to have power to elect their own governing body, and prayed the House to inquire into the effect and operation of the last charter !granted to the College of Surgeons. Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from a medical practitioner residing in Bath, praying for inquiry into the management of the Royal College of Surgeons. Mr. WAKLEY presented petitions from the surgeons of Wellingborough ; also from the surgeons residing in some place in Northamptonshire ; and from the surgeons residing in some place in Glamorganshire, praying for an inquiry into the effects produced by the last charter granted to the College of Surgeons. Mr. HUME presented a petition from an individual named Johnson, who was at present a prisoner in the Queen's Bench prison, for penalties incurred by him for smuggling. He had been examined before a Committee of the House of Commons, and a re solution had been come to that whatever acts of smuggling persons might have been guilty of, if they gave evidence before that Committee they should be held harmless. This witness had been examined, and had given evi dence, but notwithstanding that he had been attached for acts of smuggling of which he had been guilty. Ile knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that he was not attached for alts of smuggling which he had detailed to the Committee, but for acts of smuggling of which he had previously been guilty. Still the case was a hard one, and was well worthy the attention of the House. The petition prayed for inquiry into his ca e. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, but was met with loud cries of " Order, order," in the midst of which he sat down. Mr. HUME gave notice that he would on an early day draw the attention of the House to the subject, in order to give the Right Hon. Gentleman an opportu nity of giving some explanation of the matter. The HONOURABLE GENTLEMAN then presented petitions from the shipowners of Durham against certain clauses in a Bill for regulating the shipping of the port of Newcastle-upon-Tyne ; also a petition from J. A. Wilson, M.D., praying for an inquiry into the state of the law regulating the practice of medicine. SCHOOLMASTERS IN SCOTLAND. Mr. HUME also presented a petition from the Pres bytery of Forfar, praying the House to take the case of the schoolmasters in Scotland into consideration, with a view to the amelioration of their condition, and an in. crease in their allowance. PAROCHIAL SETTLEMENT BILL. Mr. HEATHCOTE presented a petition, signed by the chairman and every magistrate but one in the county of Rutland. against the Parochial Settlement Bill. Mr. J. PARKER presented a petition from several persons connected with the iron trade, to the contrary effect. _ _ . CORN-LAWS. Mr. VILLIERS gave notice that he would postpone, until the 20th of May, his motion in reference to the corn-laws. PHYSIC AND SURGERY BILL. Mr. MUNTZ gave notice that upon the House going into Committee on the Physic and Surgery Bill, he would move a clause obliging all practitioners to write their prescriptions in plain English, and all druggists and apothecaries to have their jars and bottles labelled in plain English, from and after the Ist of January, 1846. WAR IN CHINA. Sir C. NAPIER gave notice for an early day, that he would move for certain returns in reference to sailors who had been engaged in the late war with China, and who had got leave of absence, and prize•money. DROPPED NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. WAKLEY said he would wish to renew his motion for any day upon which he thought that he would be able to bring it on.—(A laugh.) He con ceived he had much reason to complain of the Govern ment not trying to make a House last night.—(A laugh.) Last night the House adjourned, there being only 34 Members present. Not a single individual connected with the Government being at his post. He considered this conduct as most unfair. Instead of throwing any obstruction in the way of any individuals who had im portant duties to discharge, the Government should do all in its power to facilitate them on such occasions. Surely there ought to be some new arrangement adopted. He could suggest many, but he feared they would not meet with the favour of the House. He must therefore indefinitely postpone his motion, and bring it forward when an opportunity offered. (Mr. Wakley's motion was : " To call the attention of the House to the petitions from members of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, complaining of the unjust distinctions which have been created by the charter of 1843 ; and to move for the appointment of a Select Committee, to in quire into the operation of that Charter, and into the system of government pursued by the Council.") Mr. COLLETT postponed, till the 22d :of May, the introduction of the Bill for consolidating the dioceses of Bath and Wells, and of Salisbury, at the death of the present Bishop of Bath and Wells, and, in doing so. observed that he hoped the time would soon come when all these dioceses would be consolidated into nothing. PUBLIC EXPENSES. On the motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, returns were ordered relative to the allowances to the Royal Family, and to his Majesty the King of the Belgians ; the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ; the expenses of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Civil Departments; the other pensions on the Consolidated Fund, on the gross revenue, and the Civil List ; also, the payments for the administration of justice ; dip'o matic expenses, and an account of the sums voted for the army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous services ; also public works, bounties, and Post office. LIGHT SOVEREIGNS. Mr. lIUME wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there was any public office where persons might bring light sovereigns, and have them changed deducting the difference in the lightness ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said O r, H N PL E L I there was no such office. Captain P C O w N i E sh D ed S to ß . ,sk ON th S e . Secretary of State for the Home Department had taken place between him and itheagi: communication Sheriffs of London, respecting the admission of persons to hear condemned sermons?.and also, whether it was not hi s recent occasion the Sheriff s on l y acted opinion upon a with their undoubted rights and privileges in conformity conformity Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that, inans we inquiry of the Hon. and Gallant Member, he w as to the pre pared to say that he (Sir James Graha m ) had" under stood that a commission had reported on the subject in 1825, 'and communications had taken place between his predecessor, Lord Normanby, and the corporation of London; and that, in consequence, the corporation had made a regulation which absolutely prohibited the ad mission of the public generally, to bear the condeulued NAVY ESTIMATES. Captain PECHELL wished to know if the navy estimates were to be brought before the House that evening ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said , that that was his wish. POOR-LAW (SCOTLAND). On the order of the day being read for moving the second reading of the Poor-law Amendment (Scotland) Bill, The LORD ADVOCATE said, that as he was de sirous to give some time for drawing up the report on this Bill, he wished that the House would take the second reading on Friday week. CHATTEL INTEREST (REAL PROPERTY) BILL. Mr. SCOTT, in moving the second reading of this Bill, presented petitions from Dudley, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and Stirling, signed by lawyers re siding in those localities. He said that he did not understand on what ground this Bill could be rejected. The petitions were signed by re spectable solicitors of long standing and practice, and he believed that there were many others in other place, who were of opinion that it was a beneficial measure. He hoped they would allow the Bill to go into Com mittee, and if they put any restrictions on it, it would be desirable that they should have them brought under their consideration. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he did not feel very much oppressed by the arguments of the Hon. Gentleman in favour of the Bill, nor did he feel disposed to depart from the resistance to the second reading of this Bill which he intimated that he should be disposed to make. He never recollected having sanctioned such a measure as that. He did not see the necessity that the Honourable Member should preface his motion for the second reading of this Bill by four petitions, every one of them being in the same hand writing, and every one of them being expressed in the same language.—(Laughter.) If the Hon. Member re ferred to the report of the Real Property Commissioners he would find that they recommended no such measure as that. The evils which resulted from such a state of things were obvious. The Hon. Member asked, whose benefit was it, that the law should remain as it was ? and he said it was for the sole benefit of the lawyers ; and that the present Bill would correct this evil, and its operation would render valid titles that now were open to being questioned. Now, he (the Solicitor- General) could not foresee that this Bill would have any such effect. He could not approve of it when he saw that the Real Property Commissioners had not given any intimation of their approval of it.—(Hear.) He took no particular intertst in the measure, but at the same time he would not like to lend his sanction to it, as he apprehended that much inconvenience might follow. He would suppose a case, a man dying worth 10,000/. intestate, a party who might have been the mortgagor of the deceased might become administrator, and what then would become of those who were the heirs of that deceased ? On the whole, he should say, that he could not, in justice to the public, give his sanction to this Bill; and would, there fore, move that it be read a second time that day six months. Mr. GRANGER contended that the arguments of the Solicitor-General were contradictory. Was nothing to be (lane in that House on this subject, but what should receive the approval of the Real Property Commis sioners ? He really did think that the House should require some stronger argument than that before they rejected this measure. The many evils which were con tinually springing up by reason of defective titles, ren dered this measure absolutely necessary; and, therefore, he trusted the House would pass it, and he considered the country was much indebted to the Hon. Member who had introduced it.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. ROEBUCK said he conceived this measure had an extremely suspicious appearance, for it did not apply to the future at all ; therefore the law, as it affected all future time, would remain exactly as it was now. Then, there was the fact of the four petitions presented by the Hon. Member who introduced the measure, being all in ' the same hand-writing, and in exactly the same words. On these grounds he would oppose the Bill, unless he should find some specific object to be attained, for, in its present state, it did not alter the law as it now stood. Mr. HUME could not see the harm of letting the Bill go to Committee, for it was a very short one, and could be easily disposed of. Mr. T. B. C. SMITH would oppose the Bill on the ground that it would have a most mischievous effect, as a retrospective measure. In Ireland it was sometimes the practice of an attorney to set up his own clerk as the representative of a deceased party, in order that he might make him administrate with the view to giving himself (the attorney) the power of enforcing any charge he might have on deceased's property, an d swee p it a ll w cl l l tv oe t rf h ye giving strongly vhineothergw the h c u creditors etdhd same oaittpo oppose illthis is ; se powerßai t n i and wt a nhai ss a3 B , t this i badll o iwn t o h pu erl country.di p n r he e ia j pHv u l edee,i the ddo effect fe therefore,eee Mr. Sergeant MURPHY would wish to know were the Government prepared to say that a provision for the bond fide sale of an assignment was one which should not be made ? lie would say let the Bill be read a second time, and in the meantime the solicitors of the country would have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it.—(Hear, hear.) And let the operation of it be postponed for three or four months, in order to afford that opportunity. Mr. CHRISTIE suggested that the Bill should be al lowed to stand over, and abide the result of Lord Cotten ham's Bill. Sir J. GRAHAM said he should vote against the second reading of the Bill, without any hesitation what ever, more especially as there was a comprehensive Bill regarding probate laws coming down from the other House of Parliament, under the high auspices of Lord Cottenham. Mr. SCOTT replied. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the second reading 27 Against it Majority —3 FIELD GARDENS BILL. Mr. COWPER then moved that 'the House go into Committee proforma on the Field Gardens Bill. Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The principles of the Bill were wholly untenable, and the only way it could be improved would be to erase its chief provisions. The main object of the Bill was to supply wages—to be a sort of auxiliary to the poor-law. Poor persons were to be allowed to have land as a means of supporting ex istence, whereas it was cle it that the labourer in any well-regulated country ought to depend upon wages. They ' were about to bring down the'peopleof thiscountry to the condition of the pauperised potatoe-fed people of Ireland. He wished to remove the poor man from this kind of mock humanity. Let them . look to any place in which these allotments hal existed for twenty years and they would find a settlement of paupers. Advantage was taken of the labourer who had a little ground of the farmer, and less wages given to him, on the assumption, forsooth, that he had a pig and a garden. Mr. B. ESCOTT seconded the amendment. Sir JAMES GRAHAM hoped the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would not press the motion to a division. He (Sir James Graham) had stated to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, both in public and in private, that he had great objection to several of the clauses in this Bill. If the Hon. Gentleman should press his amend ment, he (Sir James Graham) would certainly feel it • his duty to vote for the committal of the Bill pro forma. He believed th a t t h e H on . G e ntleman who bad intro duced the Bill h a d d one so with the most humane ' motives. The acqu i s i t i on o f small plots of land by the labourer with hi s d we lli ng , was 3 great source of hap piness and comfort to him, This Bill, however, would not give him that. The provisions of the Bill were compulsory, and the land which would be allotted I to the labourer under this Bill would be at 1 a distance from his dwelling. This Bill would I enable the field wardens to say to the labourer, "You have half an acre of very productive land, ansi you pay a small rent for it, you can therefore work for me for lower wages." Thus far he agreed with the Hon. Member for Bath, and the Hon. Member for Bath had only done h;s duty in entering his pro test a g ainst a por tion of thi s measure. Should this Bill go into Com mittee, he (Sir James Graham) should most narrowly watch the details of this measure. Mr. ROEBUCK said, th a t his object was to draw at tention to th e m i sc hi evous effects of this Bill. After what had f a ll en f rom the Right lion. Gentleman , he should not press hi s amen d ment. The amendm en t was then withdrawn , and the Bill passed thr oug h C omm i ttee M EDI CAL BILL. Sir JAMES GRAHAM then rose to move the com mittal of thi s Bill. H e w i s h e d the House to commit the Bill pro :f orma , f or the pur p o se of introducing certain pro alterations which h e was a bout to submit. He had always had an earnest d es i re , if possible, to adjust the differences which unhappily existed between great bodies of the general practitioners of England and Wales, and the governing body of the College of Surgeons. The College of Surgeons was in possession of a char ter which gave them extensive privileges, and under which they enjoyed great power and influence. The general practitioners numerically were very strong and powerful, and if they were empowered to return the re presentative body in the shape of the Council, in a very short time the elected body would reflect the wishes and opinions of the constituent body He had spoken of the general practitioners in the terms of Prttise which he felt was due to them. In rural districts they were a most important class, but in the metropolis the surgeons in the gallery, was understood to say that the and Gallant M em b er w ho had just sat dowa he ' h d hadmade charges against him the most extraordinextraordinary ever h ear d. N o d ou bt he was responsible for this Bill, an d t h at re.ponsibility h e was ready to un; dertake.—(H ear , heft.,). He had h e ard a - gre at deal and he upon this subject had , .n reference to army surgeons; from his.-t listened Gallant w u, i r , i .La d tt h e t n h ti i o o n d tioiiromu:nh t t h h e at su h h a i d ec f t a: ll , c v n he i u r he i m n o r e o i du ed it, He was ready to adm.t that there al tq be complained of in the old supplea lenta s cha , ;: er , b y the surgeon which, amongst other provisions, the new self-elected, and sworn to abide by certain WI( new Act proposed to remedy that e v i l .; and several others, which the House and the , ss g tl, r ae e s astaaamwnae(riethatadvantages could easily judge of when the Bill came before the ile u s - e e d London as a school of medicine and surgery Pos ses oe pre-eminento t h e other students from London, by presenting advantages eftitt:ch a el d roe v e a an n lia t t ages from its locality. other description. In order to przvent the effeels ia. attractions, he had introduced a safeguard ; '''dio stanee, he had increased the terms of residence et iit n ot h burgh from one year to two, so ti;at students lo i g ha d e attracted from London to Edinburgh- . 11 , e oal stowed more time and attention on this subject than t° tieusrawllyhich did not postr most on any other. He had endeadviosuPlesded;isait-nlini:- make the measure useful and accept a ble to th e °° t . tbe s niand not i w e 'i m tlr h s e t r and f i o n r g Fthineshoprrye,cl he ictions ° ° con - Honourab le fid, nt th a t it wou ld rece ive the stilZr_t at the °a mble general t_ientieai a p h r a the c ti t oner Members. H fo e r l o h u s g h h o t r y the 111 . 11 .5 19.4 night, at the meeting in H a nover-square7 Vhut.°l.l , s' ,:s; tl general practitioners were not in favour of his l ye ill he (Sir J. Graham) mistook not, only ten or twe a the viduals at the meeting were in favour of the views Hon. Member. is Mr. WAKLEY—The Right Hon. Gen tieUlan Ole misinformed. he ver, Sir JAMES GRAHAM went on to say that - a erie tinted with the gentlemen who represente oft,. gsicio practitioners, and he knew the Colleges „"' Y e ded i ° and Surgeons approved of it ; thus, having 31 %f:di e s, obtaining the approbation of the three grunt 1 ' the thought there would be little difficulty in roofer measure generally acceptable. ,; en on t ile Mr. WAKLEY observed that he had a note h is prig paper for Thursday week, and would res e t le night i p h : cipal observations for that occasion. I' s % to w°`".„ 4 - attended a meeting of general practitioller"%aion the Right Hon. Baronet alluded, and his , ° „, 131- 4 , preseL that if the question were put, two-thirds of those of sm; b v c v eo n el o nl l e d gae b n e yo f i t n hi fnagvolaikreo Surgeons.vf the e ongeneraldeclared . f trhda h e e l l i r n b o a es cl etitio i exhibited at but only such dissension as difference of opi ge ntle engendered. He had been informed by thos e e pVI connected with the Apothecaries'-hall wh o w c e i to a ser„„: that from the commencement they had looke ken joy:, rate incorporation, and every step theY h ad ct• ference to this measure was guided by that ohJ; rst et% certainly surprised him, it being th e i., i teet i° 4 he had been made aware of such at i l • svi ijoie fi ii General practitioners were engaged i n poor-_ ocie ty. tia and were allowed to practise generally in s ffa irs. they were qualified to manage their own no t ell ° 0 ( were considered worthy of a licence, wily . The 4%1 them to manage a a college of their own re s ' a i twenty-two was considered sufficient to tillaili?,,,,ateialb of practitioner, who was allowed to act as s Pthe Oi,/ a surgeon, Mr a surgeon-accoucheur, to 6 . 00 surgeon or physician was not to 'be W171056'0° one under twenty-six years of age. S uc ynd was perfectly unreasonable and absurd. j'actiow bit Sir JAMES GRAHAM defended the o,„ l3 ' l ro b e r considered the terms which the Bon. .a 3 x The o : , t Wakley) had applied to it quite uncalled for. ,he st ,nl'; ,o of twenty-two was fixed as that at which ` ria itt_ A ed tar should receive his first examination , an d b i , e a l) ;eo rr " sa t practieo generally; after which he would " A to a s. 6 0 ' study four years longer, and be subj,e_Aeler to all: ri cer strict examination before being admitted -nois he the two grades of physician or surgeon. 0 sidered nothing but a fair regulation. Mr. WARBURTON said, that the'ugoill to ensure every care taken by the provisions of the proper examination of the students Pre o wl: I c y entering upon practice, yet he could not of 4 11 of mere examination was any sufficient test pryer.,l tion. There ought, in his opinion, to be , sf e ' a pils inquiring into the previous education of w ill t heir di • the course that was prescribed to thew 6 00 3 i n schools and colleges. Neither was he e lt° -ahl l " fled with the constitution of the Board offidt his opinion it would have been better to the batlOjeo ruination, as was originally proposed, 1 0 ,_,, n effie the Crown for the Government, because tPl' 't controul might be exercised over the spec' ,ns Mr. HAWES (lid not anticipate that u a l Z ha ve 0 9 0 , ference would be made to him, or he w ° n o w til st the down with documentary evidence t° s bulk of the profession were 1e t he P °- evi , ra ble .a t° ll principle of the measure before lieb bis (Hear, hear.) The Committee of 72 , d o ; s o slig n s, Friend the Member for Finsbury this hyiouthsetreo:::oo p a d be s t P wee : r 3 e , p oO re O seloi s t oi ingly, represented a body °` ht tbel be 4,000 of the profession, and he thong Of t hese •oles ° a considerable portion of the w hole. 1)6 01 7 trO nearly all the assents in writing to the °"; tm ent the Bill. With respect to the sPP ° ,,` ; 7, gone r ' h - re Board of Health, he agreed with u` ,Noo l .d " 4 0 Friend the Member for Kendal that - - been better to have left the nomination Totilhflecl Crown. There was one other point viht e- 4 s nie, ° ,„" e o( bo n no o t t ht i cheo•edre,dauncds education n t h o o f u t g h h e t m th e a d t ic t a h l e s r t e u s d h e o n u ts lr rh. l e ° b Coo,, j 7 itil tb Physicians and Surgeons, in Ediahr e bs ' d , fre . o 2 regard to the opposition of the prof?ssion, ivbere,,Fed his Hon. Friend, attended a meeting l a st nighAtivisiO3,l3o9 2 a s m o a only t t o te 3 r 0 wO twelve wi e c e r hl s v o w : as or s wsteuhrpie thirteen prese n t, tc,ro et rnpersons ~ r d eb ry his a n n s d wH o h 1 n o r!e;.iree do were o ; 0 s e oi to the Bill before the tO ouse. ffette rk oe ° Mr. MACAULAY, agreeing with the - 0° 0 ,4) " ratter of the Bill, cordially expressed his 3,11 0 , pri°, o ,o the measure and his perfect satisfaction o f tvo ar rio cl on which it was based. There were one o r ro per of detail which be would oppose when tbe,P g o ber arrived for their consideration. Ose told! certainly (if not forestalled by the Meru ll°lllber/ f th" for Finsbury, or some other Honourable wan t e the 11 . 1 use upon, namely, that the apP° ll ,lo. joi° ll Court of Examiners should rest with th e th Ed Sir JAMES GRAHAM coincided w ith for „la giber SP expressed by the Right Honourable i-vle ra i t ier 3 g i e nite burgh, that the power of appointing the otn,, e ow: e o n ' rest with the Crown, but there were so 1 11 7 e ats interests to soothe, and so many riva l i nte o e. a ed sider, that it made the selection a &I:flea% ea res st th 9 Mr. WAKLEY agreed with the oPh li° r gb, the Hon. Members for Kendal and Edinhllth t o fie nomination of this Court should rest wi ei i at _ i l l 00 0 9 i; He did not see the necessity for a C° ll° ,. an d 1- 7.! pow jowl should prefer that the whole of the bility were concentrated in one body sPP ° so d t" $ oDB Crown, The Bill was then read a second tune' Committee, and was reported. , n COLLEGES OF SURGEONS A lw r 0 J" r the the report was ordered to be broug- This Bill passed through Committee,hf o.te holidays, rr°(7- se" The Courts of Common Law (Scotia n ad . was read a second time. : it was r e a d The Court of Sessions (Scotland) B"' P . po sea°,loA' cond time. dis o e The other orders of the day were the° to 00 e the House adjourned at Twenty Minutes __ - ______---_----- -- _,,, , f ,, RAILWAY COMM IrI I (YESTERDA Y 5 Aff0119514111 Group F. LONDON, WORCESTER, AND SOUT/4 ST t fi'' ' ' RAILWAY • ' e ftiffi' This Committee met to-day at twelve ot• It l ' ^cloe , r o f tb' F. Shaw in the chair. top l ' °' The room was Committee. On our r immediately eturnl''o3, reps tof o,', the , . eloared os the re" A*4 J ,'( The Cliatuta•N intimated 'that with the ' be .° :ern , ° t T h r e ade, the statement of counsel, and the m „ e fore 1.- , specting ccnsidered theyhsd sufficient r eg ion , eir a ' ll' Mr. A traffic, without going further into that Q u o ,. oe,„ i r, 1:8TIN replitd that there was no rhictro(W' l 'c Great . Companies respecting the tufficicneY of t , thereoiel port a line of railway in the dh trictid, r y e e q - e ire o ,Or peculiarities in the kind of traffic which wou .5 case ,i jeaCr in i be examined an about it, in order to do justice to that t he e, i tti L l ' d yt Afterunderstanding being expressued :onn'si,,oll;lo,oelr traffic should be abridged as much asp ossi le , . jor , 010 lid.' justice to the subject of Inquiry, the e xarron t eo' lV ist e ' ' resumed. , i was t iri . I e ' il l ' Mr. R. Smith, • mining agent to Lord NNarr , wa rd ~,,oly ~,, Th ere wove 22 hi a his l ° , ~rili'w ,0 I I „ Lord st furnaces on • tea r oe " f''' Ward's mining property was o f 0 0 .. ri' l .. r 'rot' .. th'' , sllr the parish of Kingswinford. The 0. :ting O. tieciPtbi district was 1,400,000 tons yearly. lithe h_la.erols,Pethe,,r o af! tity of iron stone there was required other J."`" Allr Ow w s coal and lime, to the amount of 4 212,000 tout. wu ts, , a" quantity of material annually in Motion Wou ld 13 , e 6 ', 21 5 t lct i tons. the The daily material in 'motion w s' . th ' di‘t of ti lil 'CO v - hourly 1,333. The export trade 01 : , theeneir° 40104 He 224, 0 00, c principally to the :2orth, a;1. 1 0 . d to tbe ,o 0141! 0. 0 onsidered the narrow gauge best o''''' in ` h Ar/P r ;.cel edit c. , t ty' as it would prevent the change of earl7l , s gre s •S ' coal. The coal of the district was very fr. n eciat, .erd it from one , i dePre 01/61d dlls`P „-.. waggon to another won.. I he 30 0,4 1-litherto they had depended on the canal, h u pon l ' t tie ls , insufficient. He was a shareholder in the Cahala n.. freer ~,,,aer , also become a shareholder in the Railway ConWf the ju s .- to t b : the desire that had induced him to be a shareholcdeor co ° o ,l3 6 tit ion I ) t, desire of affiirding the fullest poo,ihle Itc._:t eo°Pefernrijc.. d .w istrict. He considere his experience, ilia that °° rtit' ll • better he .the'' t o een canals was ours , injur and thought it tie , hinds 0 ,,,) should regulate the rates of traffic for the Pr°tecn oet orVii, l‘lr. ALLEN said that he wished to imp on I, of I r iefid_,.jb Committee Fr the distinction in the relatileSPOl'voed not Co"„. d (Mr. Whatele,) and himself. 14° i r rni o g ri the r,, , neared for some indvidual shareholders in the coed e' iof ‘,.. titionExtension Company, whereas he (31r. Alle,r) 3 1 lie 01 : of t . ;,,, - , .a,of the Company under their corranon se.,.e orreetimitive , ..down this distinction, as he did not t ppe.;e.'"oiti r.,, i ,1 tw Company, but was there rather to elicit t his P ,. to " ' . ,fluco, . d‘ compensation to his clients He stated thio ta l..e. . esi know what course his Learned Friend intended. te Wit ° 11 4 ~,, the ~„, of 4 0 Mr. WHATILLEY then proceeded to exert'. wo os.' _... s te , ' the to 0 1 1 " specting the damages which it was a lleged , i , 19b il railway would inflict on the canal without leading ~tisi,.-' tat result. v...... , i , c.".„ I , y Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant KINOL"S. oroP°seuh.,,olo°°,) number of the great iron works are on the Il` aiver': tit' Ilan. Oa" 0 t Great Western. This line between DudleY warito, &fit f the Is more convenient to a great proportion 0- _„, thickly bri e / London and itirmingham branch. This is a verto',,ghaln. .e,lO , district. That portion of the London and s ' i , ocelot° Pi: Dudley to Kidderminster is very circuitous. ‘.l."ldireet I° , llte tiir e tj , i' l . l, considerable elevation in the grounds it) We benaaoe °it s " - ti , Great Western line, as far as it is e 7.. i, kew ti,rves, e t the same extent of country, is preferable- „ ri e Greet 'e, well. There are great salt-works there. ' ' •OgbArn P oo IF 0 went through Droitwich. The London and 13irint „en t se il' to take a br a nch there, but is not included in the Fr% th e 01 ri ft A great quantity of coal , is consumed at Droitvrien ~.% & or _:' 0 too .. r factory of salt. The gauge of the small coal Noll olio as about four feet nine inches. Were at Pilsen 9'