view to the recommendation and adoption | progress during the next Session, and of measures which might appear prudent also specify which of the Standing Orders and desirable. He wished the Committee of the House it might be safe to dispense to be adopted with a view to far wider with. It would, in his opinion, be highly results than were contemplated by the imprudent to create such a precedent as right hon. Gentleman's Resolution, which that which would be established by the only referred to those Bills which had Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman; been investigated and reported upon by and, therefore, he should move as an the Committees; whereas, it might very Amendment that which he had just read. easily happen, that Bills had not yet come under the notice of Committees which were far more likely to obtain the sanction of Parliament, and yet which would remain so long on the list as to give the Committee no opportunity to report upon their merits. Under the circumstances, therefore, he thought it would be far better, without pledging the House to any particular course, that he should move as an Amendment on the words read from the Chair the following Resolution:

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state and progress of the several Railway Bills now before Parliament, and to consider and report their opinion as to what measures should be adopted by the House, in order to facilitate their re-introduction, and to prevent expense and delay in the progress through Parliament, in the next Session, of such Railway Bills as it may be found impossible to pass into laws from want of time for their proper investigation during the present Session."

He anticipated no difficulty in appointing such a Committee immediately, and he thought that when it came to inquire into the subject there would be found a vast variety of cases, differing from each other, and obliging them to lay down new rules and to suggest special regulations, in order to meet those cases. One of the results would probably be to prevent those from being under the necessity of proving their case again who should once have proved it. The Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman merely embraced one particular class of Bills, those, namely, which had been reported to the House; and he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, whether it were not preferable to refer all the Railway Bills actually in existence to a Committee constituted similarly to that which had formed the rules by which railway projects had been classified and placed under their present regulations. He thought that such a Committee might, by the exertion of due diligence, select and report such cases as merited the indulgence of the House in regard to their

Viscount Howick could not think that the right hon. Baronet's Amendment would meet the object which it was desired to effect. If the Resolution of his right hon. Friend near him was too narrow in its terms, there would be no difficulty in enlarging it. His right hon. Friend had stated truly that it was desirable to give the parties promoting Railway Bills some guarantee on the part of the House, that those Bills which had received the sanction of the Committees, and had been reported to the House, should come forward again next Session without any fresh expense and without any loss of time; for, if the contending parties were made aware of the fact that the lateness of the period at which Railway Bills were reported to the House would be no bar to their being placed in the same position in the next Session in which they were when the House was prorogued, that would have the effect of stopping at once that vexatious opposition which was at present raised in the hope of defeating those projects, by delaying the reports on them. But the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet gave no such pledge to the parties, and consequently it did not answer the object which it was desirable to effect. If the right hon. Baronet were to withdraw his Amendment as far as the first Resolution was concerned, and suffer that to pass, the right hon. Baronet's Amendment might be appended to his right hon. Friend's second Resolution with excellent effect. He understood the right hon. Baronet to state that he did not object to the first Resolution; and therefore there was no difficulty in adopting the course he suggested.

Lord G. Somerset said, that the noble Lord had assumed as a recognised fact, that the opponents alone of the different Railway Bills were the causes of the delay in their progress before the Committees. Such was not the case. He had observed frequent instances in which the mass of superabundant evidence brought forward by the agents for the Bills had caused the

slow progress of those measures. He thought the House was not justified at so early a period of the Session in assenting to an abstract Resolution, professing, as that of the right hon. Gentleman did, to be founded on a fact which was not in his opinion substantiated. It was far from his wish to see the House pledge itself to a particular course by adopting such a Resolution.

prepared to establish such a precedent as that which the Resolution proposed would create. But the Committee proposed by his right hon. Friend might inquire into the course which it was just to adopt, and point out what precedents it would be right to establish in this respect, whilst its appointment by the House would give a strong indication to the public of the desire which was entertained on their part to do justice. Before, however, they could act upon this desire, some evidence must be adduced of the propriety of so acting; and the best way of proceeding was by a Committee, which should examine and report upon each case in order to show that unusual circumstances had interfered to impede the course of the private busi

But, in the absence of any such formal preliminary inquiry, he could not consent to grant such a precedent as that which the Resolution would undoubtedly create. The very act of appointing a Committee was an admission that very great peculiarity was observable in the cases under consideration, and that the parties must first make out their claims to consideration before they could be allowed. He hoped, therefore, as there

Sir G. Grey said, that the Resolution of his right hon. Friend had been before the House for a considerable period; and every one had an opportunity of making himself acquainted with its purport. The Amendment of the right hon. Baronet had only that instant come to their knowledge, and yet they were called upon to decide immediately in favour of it, al-ness. though they had not had an opportunity of weighing well its purport. The time was come, he admitted, at which the parties to Railway Bills ought, in justice, to know what the intentions of the House with respect to that branch of legislation were. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet, merely went the length of saying that it was expedient to inquire what ought to be done. He could not accept such a proposal in lieu of the Re-really existed so slight a difference besolution of his right hon. Friend. If the right hon. Baronet would give a pledge on the part of the Government that something should be done to obviate delay and expense to the parties who might be shown to merit such consideration; and if he would state that the business of the proposed Committee would be to inquire who the parties were that should be considered to be so entitled to future indulgence, then he should be satisfied, and should admit that to be a just and proper course. He suggested, that the words "should have been reported" be left out of the Resolution, and the words "wherein due diligence has been used," should be inserted instead.

tween the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution and that in which the Amendment was framed, that the House would adopt the course of proceeding recommended by the Amendment, and assert thereby the principle, that neither vexatious delay nor uncompromising opposition to a railway project would have the effect of ultimately proving successful in marring the success of such Bills.

Mr. F. T. Baring said, that as the only object in view on both sides was to do justice to the parties interested in Railway Bills, the intention of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment could not, for a moment, be called into question, except in so far as to whether it accomplished Sir R. Peel said, that the right hon. the object in view. He thought the ComGentleman had proposed for the adoption mittee might with great advantage comof the House a most uncommon Reso-mence its labours immediately, and report lution, namely, that the House should give an assurance to certain parties in terested in railway projects that their Bills, if reported upon within a certain time, should have certain advantages during the next Session. He could not assent to such a proposition; but he did think that the House was called upon to do something in the matter. He was not

from time to time its decisions upon the cases as they came before it, without delaying until the inquiry and Report were completed together. He thought also the Government ought to endeavour to save the time now consumed in the Committees on the Railway Bills, by framing some regulations under which the evidence pro and con, with respect to the

gradients and to the traffic on the pro- | York, and lines running from south to posed lines, might be collected before- north. Those lines running east and west hand, and submitted to them in a mass.

could not by any possibility obtain a hearing until very late in the Session, in consequence of having been grouped with those other lines.

Motion and Amendment withdrawn.

Mr. Labouchere said, as there did not appear to be any very material difference between the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade and himself, he did not feel inclined, particu-The Amendment was then put as a sublarly after the speech of the right hon. stantive Motion, and agreed to. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, to resist the Government proposition. He CHANNEL ISLANDS-DISTILLATION.] thought that the object which he had in Mr. Labouchere wished to put a question, view would be gained by the Government of which he had given notice, to the right proposition, and he would therefore with- hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the draw his Motion. With regard, however, Exchequer, which was of great importance to the appointment of a Committee, he to the inhabitants of the Channel Islands. must say, that his experience of Railway He understood that it had been, for some Committees of that House induced him to time past, the habit of persons in those request the Government to consider, whe-islands to manufacture spirits of materials thera well-digested scheme brought forward of British growth, and to import them by them upon their own responsibility would into this country by paying the Excise not be much more likely to prove satis-duty only. That had been stopped of late factory than anything that could result from a Committee.

Mr. W. Patten suggested, that whether the Government or a Committee undertook the subject, whatever was done should be done in the present Session. The existing delay had not so much arisen from the parties concerned as from that House itself, which spent about six weeks at the beginning of the Session in laying down rules for the conduct of private business. It was, he thought, of the greatest importance that the measure should be prepared this Session, that every one might know what course they should have to pursue next Session. It was known that 100 new Bills were ready to be introduced next Session, and unless some measure were prepared now they would be in the same difficulty next Session as at present. Sir R. Peel thought it would be better to appoint a Committee of the most active Chairmen of the present Committees, who should, if possible, lay down some rules in the course of the present Session for the guidance of parties concerned in railway business.

by the right hon. Gentleman. A Report
of the States of Jersey, who appeared to
have carefully considered the matter, had
been sent to him, and they declared that
every means had been taken to discover
whether or not fraud had been used in the
manufacture of those spirits; and they
believed that none had been committed,
but that the spirit was manufactured from
materials of British growth, and that the
inhabitants had, therefore, the right to im-
port it upon paying the Excise duty.
wished to know of the right hon. Gentleman,
if this statement were correct, why the de-
livery of those spirits into the dealers'
stocks in this country had been prohibited?

He

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that though Gentlemen acquainted with the Excise law and its different bearings must be aware how difficult it was to answer questions upon its several provisions, yet he should endeavour to explain as clearly as he could the nature of this case. The practice of introducing spirits from Jersey was of very recent growth, and was commenced by a genleman who established a manufactory Lord Worsley expressed his opinion that in Jersey. Under this Customs' law, a good deal of delay and inconvenience spirits manufactured from materials the had been occasioned by the mode in which growth of this country were admitted into some of the lines had been grouped. He this country upon paying the Excise duty; knew that his own county had suffered and in the case of plain spirits, no diffimuch inconvenience from the circum-culty existed in the Excise giving permits stance that lines running east and west on the admission of those spirits into the through Lincolnshire into the manufac-dealers' stocks; but the Customs' law speturing districts had been grouped with the cifically described that compound spirits, Cambridge and Lincoln, the London and in addition to the duty levied by the Cus

toms, should be subject to the regulations, proceeded to Canton, he directed, not of the Excise. The spirit from Jersey was that" prize agents" should be appointed called British brandy, and was a compound (that, under the circumstances, would spirit. For the same reason, such spirit have been impossible), but that "public coming from Scotland or Ireland would agents" should be appointed to take not be admitted into the stocks of dealers. charge of the property which fell into the Seeing, however, that the Excise refused hands of the British forces. The property to admit this British brandy, the parties so taken, when reduced to money, amountimporting complained to the Treasury, ed to about 110,000. The Government, and, as it was the first case, the Treasury on receiving the first instalment for the decided that they would allow that parti- ransom of Canton, thought it just that cular lot which had then been introduced remuneration should be made to the capto be taken into consumption; but they tors, and accordingly a grant of batta was gave distinct notice to the importer and made to them, under which the troops and to all the parties of the real state of the seamen received amongst them 153,000l. law, which prohibited compound spirits At the termination of the war the Gocoming from Jersey being admitted into vernment again thought it just and right the stocks of dealers. The question at to propose that they should participate issue was merely as to the construction of in another grant which amounted to about the Act of Parliament; and upon the re- 255,000l. It would, therefore, be seen fusal of the permit by the Excise, an ap- that the liberality of the Crown had been plication was made by the parties for a exercised on two several occasions to the mandamus to compel the Excise to admit extent of 415,0001. With respect to it into the stocks of dealers. The Court Scinde, the question had only been reof Queen's Bench refused to grant the cently brought under the consideration of mandamus, and it had been, therefore, the Treasury, which was in communicaclearly established by law that those spirits tion with the Board of Control on the could not be admitted. At the same time subject. He was not, therefore, yet prehe thought it was desirable that there pared to answer the hon. Gentleman's should be some alteration in the existing question as regarded Scinde. law, and the question was now under the consideration of the Treasury.

PRIZE MONEY-CHINA.] Captain Berkeley wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having rewarded our Plenipotentiary and many of the officers engaged in the Chinese war for the services which they there had rendered, it was the intention of the Government to withhold the prize money from the common soldiers, sailors, and marines, contrary to the invariable custom on such occasions; and whether the same course was to be pursued with Sir Charles Napier's army in Scinde ?

DON CARLOS.] Lord J. Manners wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government in reference to Don Carlos. When he put a similar question last year, it was stated that as long as Don Carlos maintained his pretensions to the Spanish crown, the British Government would not interfere. But Don Carlos having waved his right to the crown, he wished to know whether the English Government were prepared to make any representation to the Government of France to promote the release of that illustrious individual?

Sir R. Peel said, he had to state, since the noble Lord had given notice of his The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, intention to ask his question, a communithat those who had attended to the causes cation had been received from the French of the Chinese war, and to the manner Government by the British Government, in which it had been undertaken, would in which an official announcement had know that there was no declaration of war been made of the resignation of Don and no prize act in that case, and that the Carlos in favour of his son, and that Don property taken was consequently used as Carlos had made an application for a a fund for compensating British residents passport to enable him to leave the place who had suffered losses in consequence of where he at present resided, which he had the war, and for compensating the Govern- found prejudicial to his own health and ment for what they had done; strictly that of his family, and retire to the neighspeaking, therefore, there could be no bourhood of the Pyrenees. The French prize money. When Sir H. Pottinger Government had intimated that this re

quisition had been complied with, and no, a former occasion stated, and that disopposition had been offered to the appli- tinctly, was, that it was not within the cation by the British Government.

province of the Court of Directors to form
an opinion as to the legality or illegality
of that dismissal; that it rested, as it
ought to rest, for the good, and even for
the salvation of the service, exclusively
with the military authorities, and he hoped
it never would be otherwise.
Subject dropped.

Report had been made by the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of Large Towns and Populous Districts in England. The right hon. Baronet must be aware that the towns in Ireland were increasing, as well as the population, and that the habitations of the bulk of the people were of the worst possible description. He, therefore, begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) whether there would be any objection to extend that Commission of Inquiry?

Sir R. Peel said, that as the evils of all great towns partook so very much of the same character, he hoped that it would be possible to pass a measure on the subject relating to the health of towns generally, which might be made to extend to Ireland, without the necessity of going through any preliminary inquiry in that country.

THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT HOLLIS.] Mr. B. Escott wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of the Board of Control. Since he (Mr. Escott) put the question to the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Hogg) upon the same subject, he had received information which went to prove the hardship of the case of HEALTH OF TOWNS (IRELAND).] VisLieutenant Hollis. The case of that in-count Clements said, that a very valuable jured man, in one word was this-that he had been illegally dismissed from the service of the East India Company. The Court of Directors did not deny that he had been illegally dismissed. They admitted it, and they gave him a small pension in consideration of it-a pension, however, altogether insufficient for him to live upon. But while doing this, they refused to enter into a full inquiry into the case, or to restore him to his situation in the East India service. If this were the case of a great and wealthy man, he (Mr. Escott) should say nothing of it in that House, for if the East India Company chose to dismiss any of their great public servants, and if those great public servants chose to concur in their own dismissal, and thus become, in some degree, assenting parties to their own degradation, that was a matter with which he should have no concern; but in the case of an humble and unprotected individual, without influence or friends, when such a person was summa. rily dismised by that powerful body, the East India Company, for no reason whatever, then he (Mr. Escott) would maintain that this House, or some other competent authority, were bound to step in and teach the East India Company that they were not to trifle with the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's subjects. The question he wished to ask the noble Lord was, whether the Board of Control had taken care to inquire into the case of Lieutenant Hollis ? Viscount Jocelyn said, that the decision respecting the case of the dismissal of Lieutenant Hollis had been before the Board of Control, and they concurred in the sentiments of the Board of Directors; but the hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Board of Control had no power to interfere in the matter.

SCOTCH BANKS.] On the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee

on the Banks (Scotland) Bill, having been

read,

Mr. P. M. Stewart, rose to oppose the progress of this measure. He knew of no adequate reason why Her Majesty's Go

vernment should have ventured to touch the present system of banking in Scotland, which was acknowledged to be one of the best, not to say perfect, establishments of the kind that existed. But this was no new attack on the monetary system of Scotland; and, although coming, as it did, before them, recommended by its merely negative character, it assumed not quite so dangerous an aspect as a more direct measure might have assumed: still its tendency was such as to make it the duty of every one connected with Scotland to express their opinion upon it; and if that opinion should be in accordance with the opinion of the Mr. Hogg said, that the Court of Di-people of Scotland, he was certain that it rectors had made no such admission as would be for the entire rejection of this was alleged, as to the illegality of Lieute- measure. The system of Scottish banking nant Hollis's dismissal. 2 What he on had been supported by the opinions of the