Mr. Labouchere, in moving the second reading of
the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Ireland) Bill,
observed that there were circumstances in the tenures of
land in Ireland which called for a more simple,
summary, and effectual mode of proceeding in the valuation
of lands taken for railways than by jury trial, for which
he proposed to substitute a system of arbitration, upon
the details of which he would consult Irish members.
He asked the house, at present, merely to sanction the
principle of the bill.—Mr. DISRAELI protested against
such a course of proceeding as that of obtaining from
the house an assent to the principle of a bill and then
settling its details with certain members out of the house.
This course was a new and dangerous one.—The debate
which ensued turned chiefly upon this point. The
principle of the bill, though objected to by Mr. J.
Stuart, was generally approved of by Irish members.—
Mr. Labouchere explained and justified the course he
had taken; and the bill was read a second time.

On the consideration of the General Board of Health
Bill as amended, a discussion arose as to the exclusion
of the town of Hastings from the schedule, which was
affirmed on a division.

On Tuesday, the 24th, the third reading of the
Smithfield Market Removal Bill having been moved, Mr. A.
STAFFORD, after protesting against the measure,
declared his conviction that it would be negatived in
another place.—Mr. HUME also objected strongly to the
bill, and moved that it be read a third time that day six
months. Some considerable discussion followed, when
a division was taken, and the bill was read a third time
by a majority of 81 to 32—45. The bill was then
passed.

In moving the second reading of the Church Building
Act Amendment Bill, Sir G. GREY described the effect
of the measure which was designed to accomplish a sub-
division of large parishes in proportion to their population,
with the object of facilitating the erection of
churches, and providing an increased accommodation
for the public.—Mr. HUME apprehended that the
measure would tend to diminish the number of free sittings
in churches, since powers were conferred on the bishops
to levy a charge both on the seats to be constructed in
new churches, and on those which were now enjoyed
by the poorer members of congregations without cost.
Believing the bill to involve many considerations of
great importance, he objected to its being hurried
through the house, and moved that it be read a second
time that day six months.—A prolonged discussion,
turning chiefly upon the point whether the house had
had time enough to consider and comprehend the bill,
ended in the adjournment of the debate until Friday,
the 27th.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON moved for the appointment of a
select committee to inquire into the working of the
Bonded Wareliouse System at Manchester, as far as it
affected importers, dealers, and the general interests of
trade in that town. Manchester, as related by the hon.
member, had enjoyed bonding privileges for a few
years, upon the understanding that the corporation
should pay all the custom-house expenses. The arrangement
was, however, left at the discretion of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had indicated a purpose of
withdrawing the privilege hereafter. This step, he
contended, was uncalled for and mischievous, and he
maintained that, so far from the bonding system being
retrenched, the government ought to pay the expenses
attending it, seeing that the public revenue had
profited by it nearly as much as Manchester itself.—
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained that
the privilege of bonding was about to be withdrawn
from Manchester, simply because the borough authorities
had objected to continue to defray the consequent
expenses, about £2,700 per annum. If they thought
the benefits worth paying for, he was willing to extend
them, but there was no reason why an exceptional
concession should be made in behalf of Manchester, all
other inland towns being obliged to obtain the establishment
of a bonding system by providing the cost of
collecting the customs duties therein.—Mr. BRIGHT
contended for the general principle, that no distinction
should be drawn between inland towns and seaports in
conferring on them the advantages of the bonding
system. He referred to the enormous trade and
manufacturing products of Manchester, as proving the title
that town could urge for a share in the facilities accorded
to ports of comparatively insignificant consequence.—In
the subsequent discussion the motion was opposed by
Mr. Hume, Mr. Labouchere, and Lord Galway; and
supported by Mr. Tatton Egerton, Mr. Brotherton,
Mr. Spooner, Mr. Heywood, and Mr. Kershaw.—On a
division it was negatived by 65 to 50.

Mr. FREWEN moved a resolution recommending the
extension of the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal
Court over the whole of each county comprised in the
circuit. The motion, he stated, was designed as a basis
for legislation in a future session.—Sir G. GREY
deprecated, as premature, a resolution which would tend to
limit the future action of the legislature.—Mr. FREWEN
consented not to press for a division, and the motion
was then negatived by consent.

Mr. H. HERBERT moved a resolution, pledging the
house, on some future day, to consider in committee an
address to the crown, praying that a similar measure of
relief might be afforded to the depositors in the late
Rochdale, Scarborough, Tralee, and KillarneySavings
Banks as had been already extended to the sufferers by
the failure of the savings bank in Cuffe-street, Dublin.
The hon. member defended his proposition on the score
of justice, since the depositors in the defaulting banks
had relied upon the ostensible guarantee of the government;
and urged further, on the score of humanity and
policy, that the loss had fallen upon a large number of
very poor depositors, and that if they were not
reimbursed, at all events partially, the principle of self-denial
and providence among the operative classes would suffer
a severe shock. The cost of providing a dividend equal
to that paid to the Cuffe-street depositors, for the
sufferers set forth in his resolution, he estimated at
something under £100, 000.—The CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER submitted that by passing the proposed
resolution, the house would affirm the principle that all
losses incurred by the failure, from any cause, of any
savings banks, must be repaid from the public revenue.
This principle he could not admit. Explaining in some
detail the respective functions performed by the manager,
the trustees, and the government, in respect of those
banks, he declared that the only responsibility assumed
by the latter was that of holding a certain portion of the
invested balances, and to that extent the depositors
were perfectly safe. But here he limited the liability
of the government.—Mr. BRIGHT feared that the
resolution would offer a premium upon delinquency, and
would result in the annual application for a vote to
cover similar defalcations. But as the law was defective,
and the government had so far interfered with the
savings banks as to lead to an impression among the
depositors that their money was placed upon a national
security, he suggested as a measure of justice that a bill
should be brought in to regulate the future liability,
and that the house should take a charitable view of the
past.—The motion was supported by Mr. Hume, Col.
Thompson, and Col. Dunne; and opposed by Mr. Henley
and Mr. J. A. Smith.—It was negatived by 63 to 56.

On Wednesday, the 25th, Mr. COWAN moved the
second reading oi' the Universities (Scotland) Bill. He
observed that these universities were not ecclesiastical,
but merely educational institutions, unconnected with
the Church, and that the tests applied there were more
of a political than of an ecclesiastical nature, having
been originally directed against Prelates and Papists, in
order to eject such individuals, then holding professorships,
and to exclude them in future from the chairs.
There was no real dissent in Scotland; the differences
had no relation to spiritual doctrines, but arose from the
inroads of the civil power. The object of the bill was to
declare that individuals had been driven out of these
universities by an act of the civil powei , and that it was
fair and just that they should not be debarred from
their rights as British subjects, by the enforcement of
tests which he characterised as an absurdity and a
mockery.—Mr. W. LOCKHART said that this was an
unfortunate time to bring this subject forward. He
denied that these tests had a mere political origin; they
were introduced in order to strengthen the Church, and
to give the people of Scotland a religious education.