happy to receive the assistance of the residents in the
neighbourhood.

On the motion for bringing up the report of the
Scottish Education Bill, Mr. E. LOCKHART complained
of the abrupt manner in which the committee came to
a close on the former occasion, by which means several
amendments were prevented from being brought
forward, and moved that the bill be now recommitted.
—The LORD ADVOCATE resisted the motion, and
characterised it as a factious one. After some
conversation, the motion was negatived by a majority
of 147 to 82, and the house proceeded to consider the
report. Several new clauses were brought up and
amendments proposed; after which the report was
received.

On the motion for going into committee on the
Partnership Amendment Bill, Mr. HASTIE said that
the bill was artfully drawn to induce old merchants to
retire from business, leaving their £5000 in the hands
of one of the cleverest of their clerks, with which he
might speculate to any extent, the wealthy partner
running no risk beyond his £5000. He then proceeded
to quote from a work of Mr. M'Culloch on this subject,
which he did at such length that first Mr. E. Ball and
next Mr. J. M'Gregor rose and appealed to the speaker
whether the reading of a whole pamphlet was
conformable to the rules of the house.—The SPEAKER, who
had some difficulty in preserving his gravity amidst the
general laughter of the house, decided that a member
was entitled to read quotations from a pamphlet; the
disputed point was a question of degree.—Mr. Hastie
went on, and after reading some more extracts, he
supposed the case of two partners, with a capital
between them of £10,000. In the course of trade they
made £25,000 and they lost £30,000. It would then be
worth their while to become bankrupt, when their
liabilities would only be to the extent of £10,000 which,
with their profits, would enable them to retire with a
clear gain of £15,000. Believing, then, that this bill
would encourage fraud, he moved that it be committed
that day three months.—Mr. MITCHELL seconded the
motion. He laid down this principle, that persons who
were permitted to make unlimited profits ought to be
liable with their whole fortunes to loss.—Mr. JOHN
M'GREGOR, who supported the bill, said nobody but the
large capitalists were opposed to limited liability.
Therefore he was not surprised that Lord Overstone was
hostile to it. He should much like to know, however,
whether that nobleman's father, when he travelled about
as a Unitarian minister, would not have been glad to
invest £5 if he thought he could get 5 or 10 per
cent. interest for it. He (Mr. M'Gregor) thought
it right to tell bold truths, because Lord Overstone was
now a millionaire of commanding influence in that city,
but for which circumstance he would never have been
Lord Overstone. There were many persons who wished
to become Lord Overstones by preventing the poor man
from investing £5 without incurring an unlimited
responsibility.—Mr. WILKINSON spoke in favour of the
bill, considering the principle—that of altering the law
so that a man lending money for a share of the profits
should not be responsible for his whole property—to be
a good one.—Mr. MALINS replied to Mr. Hastie and
Mr. Mitchell, whose speeches, he said, abounded with
fallacies. They had overlooked the fact that the bill
applied only to dormant partners.— A few remarks
having been made by Mr. Gregson, Mr. W. Brown, and
Mr. H. Vivian, the amendment was negatived, and the
house went into committee upon the bill; but, after the
second clause, the chairman reported progress.

On Tuesday, July 10, Sir E. BULWER LYTTON gave
notice that on Friday night, on going into committee of
supply, or at the first suitable opportunity, he would
move the following resolution:—"That the Conduct
of Our Minister in the Recent Negotiations at Vienna
has, in the opinion of this house, shaken the confidence
of this country in those to whom its affairs are entrusted."

Mr. STAFFORD inquired Whether Dr. A. Smith had
Retired, and whether Dr. Hall still continued medical
inspector- general of the army in the east.—Mr. F. PEEL
stated that Dr. A. Smith continued to officiate until his
successor was appointed, and that, with respect to Dr.
Hall, during the time Lord Panmure had been at the
head of the war department there had been no complaint
as to the manner in which he had performed his duty,
and that Lord Panmure had therefore not removed him
from the headship of the medical department of the
army in the east.

Mr. SCULLY brought forward the subject of
Administrative Reform by moving an address, thanking her
Majesty for the order in council of the 21st of May last,
by which certain persons were directed to examine into
and certify the qualifications of all young men proposed
to be appointed to junior situations in any department
of the civil service; and praying that her Majesty will
be pleased to direct the examination to be an open one,
and held in public, and that the examiners do have
regard to superior qualifications and merit. He
mentioned instances in which he thought the latter condition
had been neglected, and in the course of his speech
he gave some entertaining proofs of the greediness for
places under government, and the extravagant expectations
indulged by those who could command any avenue
to members of parliament.—The motion was seconded
by Lord GODERICH.—The CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER said the government were as desirous as Mr.
Scully of promoting administrative reform; but the
question was, what is administrative reform, and would
the measure proposed further administrative reform?
Under this term were included two classes of measures,
—one, the examination of all the existing departments,
with reference to the distribution of labour, the number
of persons employed, and their efficiency. A series of
investigations had been instituted by successive governments
into the different departments of the state, and
all practicable recommendations had been carried into
effect. The other class of measures involved an inquiry
into the general character of the civil service, and the
order in council of the 21st of May was intended to
improve the state of that service, subject to the existing
condition, by placing the examination of nominees
under a board independent of all influence connected
with the several departments, establishing a standard of
qualification, in conjunction with the existing rule with
respect to nominations, and under this order
commissioners had been appointed, who had entered upon their
duties. Mr. Scully thought this order did not go far
enough in the way of reform, and desired that the
examination should be open to the public; that any person
might offer himself as a candidate without any preliminary
examination; and that the persons appointed
should be selected out of a given number of persons.
The necessary effect of adopting this plan would be that
all civil servants under the crown would be appointed
without any reference to the power of the crown, or of
persons appointed by the crown, which would have no
veto upon their nomination. Sir C. Lewis examined
the different parts of the scheme, the really important
feature of which was, he observed, the rendering
examinations competitive. The first objection to this
proposal was, that the introduction of the principle of
competitive examination would destroy that of personal
responsibility for the choice of civil servants. Another
objection was, that by such a principle intellectual
excellence might be obtained, but it would be impossible
to gauge moral qualities. If the scheme were adopted
it must, in the end, be extended to the whole circle of
appointments, including magistrates and public servants
of every description. The general experience of
mankind was not favourable to the scheme, which had not
been adopted by any other nation, ancient or modern:
neither did our own mercantile bodies or railway
companies act upon such a principle. After stating the
results of the working of the order in council, he put it
to the house whether it was desirable so soon to rescind
it for the sake of a questionable experiment, fundamentally
different from the existing system, and whether it
would not be better to have some further experience of
the order of May. He therefore moved the previous
question.—Mr. WILKINSON supported the motion.—Mr.
W. S. LINDSAY likewise advocated the motion, which
he considered a step in the right direction of administrative
reform.—Sir S. NORTHCOTE denied that it was
intended by the mover to revoke the order of May,
upon which supposition the chancellor of the exchequer
had founded an objection. The real object was, that in