R. Grosvenor.—Lord D. Stuart opposed the measure,
which, he contended, subjected to the control of the
magistrates and of the Bishop of London an institution,
whose expense would have to be defrayed by the rate-
payers of the county. The subject of reformatory
schools was too important to be dealt with by a local
bill, and he moved that the second reading should be
taken that day six months.—Considerable discussion
ensued, turning chiefly on the point whether the general
principle involved in the measure could be properly
included in a private bill. Ultimately, however, the
amendment was withdrawn, and the bill passed the
second reading.

Mr. Ewart moved the second reading of the
Libraries and Museums Bill, and, after recapitulating
some of the benefits that had arisen from the act passed
for the establishment of free libraries, of which 3,000
towns had taken advantage, explained that the intention
of the present measure was to enlarge the facilities
afforded under that enactment. It was now proposed to
extend the act to places governed under the improvement
act, or by select vestries, to include Scotland and Ireland
within its provisions, and to enable the authorities to
increase the rate to a penny in the pound, and to
purchase books and works of art.—The rating clause
was objected to by Mr. Henley, Mr. Spooner,
and Mr. Miles. Mr. Hume and Mr. Brotherton
supported the bill.—Mr. Fitzroy, on behalf of the
government, stated that he should oppose the
provision for giving local authorities power to levy an
increased rate, unless the consent of two-thirds of the
ratepayers was made necessary to the validity of the
step.—After a few words from Mr. M. Milnes in
defence of the bill, a motion for adjourning the debate
was made by Mr. Spooner, but negatived upon a
division by a majority of 134 to 4.—An amendment,
that the bill be read a second time that day six months,
was then moved by Mr. Fitzroy, and after a
miscellaneous discussion a division was taken, and the
amendment agreed to by 88 votes against 85. The bill
is consequently lost.

The second reading of the Property Disposal Bill
having been moved, Mr. Phinn opposed the measure,
considering that it went too far. In dealing with the
property of nuns he would consent to place the inmates
of convents on the same legal footing as married women.
He did not think it right to assume, as was done by the
present measure, that every transfer of property
executed under those circumstances was actually
fraudulent.—Mr. Fagan complained that the promoters
of the bill were violating their agreement to postpone
its further progress until the committee ordered to
be appointed for the purpose of inquiry into conventual
establishments had presented their report.—Lord
Palmerston coincided in the belief that such
postponement had been promised. He objected to the bill
also upon principle. Its preamble was unnecessary and
offensive, and its provisions would not accomplish the
intended purpose.—The bill was supported by Mr.
Whiteside and Mr. Napier; opposed by Mr. Keogh
and Mr. R. Phillimore; and the debate was adjourned
to Wednesday next.

On Thursday, April 8, Mr. George Henry Moore
moved for a select committee to inquire into the
Appointment of Henry Stonor to the Office of a Judge
in Victoria, the said Henry Stonor having, in 1853,
been reported to the house of Commons as guilty of
bribery. In support of his motion Mr. Moore said
he was not striking at Mr. Stonor personally; he was
aiming at the high and not at the low. Mr. Stonor has
been hardly used; and if, instead of sacrificing Mr.
Stonor, the Duke of Newcastle, or even Mr. Frederick
Peel, had resigned, he would have been satisfied! Mr.
Moore then made an elaborate attempt to prove that
Mr. Stonor was "steeped to the lips in the corrupt
practices for which Sligo is notorious;" citing unprinted
election committee reports; and affirming that Mr.
Stonor had been appointed, not "in spite of" but
"in consequence of" the acts of bribery he had
committed. In fact, the appointment was conferred on him
because he had transferred his influence to a junior
Lord of the Treasury. Mr. Moore brought accusations
against Mr. Bowyer for urging him to be silent about
Mr. Stonor; and Mr. Gore Jones, who had obtained
the post of income-tax collector by betraying his
employer. Mr. Frederick Peel had condescended to be
the mouthpiece, and the Duke of Newcastle the instrument,
of a certain party. He did not believe the
story of Mr. Peel, that Mr. Stonor's testimonials had
not been examined: he must have had higher influence
with the Duke of Newcastle than his packet of
testimonials.—Mr. Gladstone seconded the motion;
but severely rebuked Mr. Moore for the wanton insults
he had heaped upon Mr. Stonor and others, the affected
compassion he had shown, and his departure from the
general rule of sedulously avoiding the introduction of
recriminatory matter in a motion for inquiry. He had
brought forward a charge which, if he did not prove it,
would recoil upon himself. The sole responsibility of the
distribution of patronage rests upon the executive government;
and the colonial secretary earnestly hoped the
house would make no difficulty in granting the committee.
The Duke of Newcastle had appointed Mr. Stonor in
total ignorance of his connexion with political corruption,
and on no ground of political recommendation;
and Mr. Gladstone gave the charge of Mr. Moore the
unqualified denial of an English gentleman whose word
was never doubted. On the part of the government, he
had only to request that the committee might be granted;
and that, to divest the nomination of the suspicion of
political partisanship, it should be named by the General
Committee of Selection.—Mr. Drummond hoped the
house would reject the motion altogether. It was
an attempt to bring down into the body of the house
the scenes that have occurred in the Irish Corruption
Committee up-stairs.—A warm debate ensued, in which
several members took part; and in the course of which
Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald proposed to limit the inquiry
to the appointment of Mr. Stonor. Mr. Henry
Herbert and Mr. Thomas Duncombe supported Mr.
Drummond. Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Peel, and Mr.
Sidney Herbert, urged the house to agree to the motion.
Mr. Fitzgerald having withdrawn his amendment, the
original motion was carried by 115 to 37.

Mr. Cardwell moved for leave to bring in a Bill
for the better Regulation of the Traffic on Railways and
Canals. He stated the provisions of the measure but
partially. There are 232 incorporated railway
companies authorised to construct 12,688 miles of railways,
of which 7686 are open; the number of passengers in
one year had been 95,000,000, and the persons employed
80,000; and the capital authorised to be raised was
£356,000,000, the capital actually raised £264,000,000;
and that the receipts for the last year were £16,700,000.
These great interests under separate management require
the attention of parliament. The committee of last
session recommended that there should be a greater
uniformity of system in parliamentary procedure with
respect to railway companies; that the more complete
fusion of capital into one company ought not to be
sanctioned, but that sort of combination known as
working arrangements should be encouraged; and that
the concession of running clauses should be discontinued,
and means provided for settling disputes by arbitration.
Mr. Cardwell described how the conflicting regulations
of companies interrupt the continuous course of transit
both for traffic and passengers. He proposed to give
railway companies power to enter into combinations and
to make agreements with one another, for the purpose
of bringing the whole of the railway system into
harmony and union. The bill would also contain a power
of arbitration, to be conducted under the Board of
Trade, on the appeal of persons aggrieved by infraction
of the bill, in order to protect the public, and with an
appeal to the superior courts, and power in them to
enforce their decrees. It was not intended to take power
to vary and alter the tariffs of charges established by
railway companies. The object of the committee had
been to establish uniformity of arrangement, and so to
carry out the law that the railways might become what
the common roads were, the Queen's highway; and that
in the kingdom there should be but one system of railway
communication, all companies being placed under
the ægis of the law, but the fullest benefit being given
to the public in regard to traffic both of passengers and
of goods. And he believed it would also be for the