any member of the house nominated to the directorate
to be re-elected before he could sit again in the house.
The bill passed.

On Monday, August 1st, Mr. ADDERLEY, on moving
the second reading of the Juvenile Offenders Bill,
which he did not propose to press forward this session,
stated that its sole object was to sanction the permissive
establishment of reformatory schools to which young
criminals might be sent, and the adoption of a new
system of treatment, including industrial training,
instead of imprisonment in ordinary gaols, which
aggravated the evil it was intended to remedy, by stimulating,
instead of subduing, the propensity to crime.—Mr.
BAINES expressed his perfect concurrence in the object
of the bill, which embodied the principal recommendations
of the committee. By the existing law no sufficient
provision was made for the treatment of young
offenders, who, if sent to prison, generally came out
worse than when they entered it. He had the greatest
difficulty in assenting to the proposition that a work-
house should be converted into a prison, though the
treatment of juvenile criminals should be of an industrial
kind, and it was essential to insist upon parental
responsibility. The evidence showed that well-directed
efforts had been attended with eminent success, and he
had no doubt that if legislation next session were well
devised, and the machinery properly adapted to the
purpose, the most sanguine hopes might be entertained.
—Lord PALMERSTON assented to the second reading of
the bill, with a full understanding that it should stand
over till the next session. The objects of the Iegislature
in dealing with criminals, he observed, were threefold—
in some cases, example; in others, example coupled
with reformation; and in others, purely reformation.
With regard to children, reformation must be considered
the prime object, and example a matter of secondary
importance. The machinery of this bill, he thought,
would require very mature consideration, and it might
be combined with the bill which had come down from
the house of lords. The best course, in his opinion, was
to read during the recess the evidence taken before the
committee, and to come prepared to discuss the question
as to a practical remedy next session.—Mr. HUME
objected to reading the bill a second time, and thereby
affirming a principle which he thought wrong.—Sir J.
GRAHAM said, the house might well affirm the principle
of a bill "for the better care and treatment of juvenile
offenders." It would not be thereby pledged to the
details or the machinery.—The bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed that day three months.

The house then went into committee on the Naval
Coast Volunteers Bill, when Sir J. GRAHAM gave a
general outline of the measure, the object of which was
to raise a volunteer force for the naval defence of the
coast, limited to 10,000 men, to be trained twenty-eight
days in the year, the period of enlistment not exceeding
five years, her Majesty being empowered, in case of
invasion, to require the services of the men afloat for a
period not exceeding a year, except under special
circumstances.—The clauses of the bill were agreed to by
the committee, without amendments.

The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill was read a
third time. On the question that it do pass. Lord
MONCK moved the omission of the words in the seventy-
first clause which gave to landlords the power of
distraining growing crops.—The motion, though opposed
by Mr. G. A. Hamilton, was carried, on a division, by
94 to 70.—Sir W. VERNER expressed his regret that
Lord Monck had lent himself to propose the omission of
the only words in the bill that were calculated to protect
the landlords of Ireland.—The bill then passed.

The Tenant's Compensation (Ireland) Bill was also
read a third time.—On the question that it do pass, a
series of discussions and of divisions look place upon
amendments proposed on the part of the government,
all of which were agreed to.—The bill then passed.

The Merchant Shipping Bill was read a third time.
On the question that it do pass, various new clauses
were moved by Sir J. Graham, Mr. Hutt, Captain
Scobell, and Mr. Horsfall, and certain amendments by
Mr. Cairns, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Ingham, each of which
underwent discussion, most of them being negatived.
—The bill then passed.

On the report upon the Hackney Carriage Bill Mr.
LOWE moved a clause which provided that, when the
driver was hired by time, and was detained longer than
an hour, he should he entitled only to 6d. for every
fifteen minutes.—This clause was agreed to and added
to the bill.—Mr. F. SCULLY moved a clause empowering
the commissioners of police to prevent the withdrawal
of carriages from public use, by the infliction of a penalty
for the offence and forfeiture of the license, which was
not objected to on the part of the government, but he
consented to defer the motion until the third reading
of the bill.—The back-fare clause gave rise to much
desultory discussion, and various suggestions were
offered for a new radiating point of the circumference,
instead of Charing Cross. At length, on the motion of
Mr. Lowe, Temple Bar was substituted for Charing
cross.

On Tuesday, August 2, before going into committee
on the Charitable Trusts Bill, Lord J. RUSSELL
reminded the house that, at an early period of the session,
in announcing the general views of the government with
respect to education, he had urged the necessity of
establishing a better management and an approved
application of the funds of charitable trusts—a subject
which had for more than fifty years engaged the attention
of parliament. He had stated that it was proposed,
as many of these charities had reference to education,
that the body intrusted with the direction and
superintendence of their administration should be the
committee of privy council for education, with the necessary
legal assistance. This bill, which had passed the other
house, had been there referred to a select committee,
who had paid very great attention to the subject, and
they had recommended, in order to separate the
questions of administration and superintendence from
politics and party, that there should be persons named
by the Crown, and holding office during good behaviour,
to whom the general administration should be confided;
in which suggestion the government had concurred. He
should propose, he said, a few alterations of the bill in
the committee. One was that, as the services of the
three persons named in the bill, who were to receive
salaries, might not, probably, after a time be required,
one of the appointments should, at a certain period,
cease. Another related to Roman Catholic charities,
the placing of which under this body, without special
provisions, he was sorry to find, might lead to questions
affecting the very existence of some of them, unless
great care were taken. He proposed, therefore, that
Roman Catholic charities should be excluded from the
operation of this bill, not, however, with a view of
omitting them permanently. He thought it would be
a great advantage that they should be brought under a
body of this kind, to prevent their being diverted from
their proper objects; but this would require a separate
bill and very special provisions.—The house then went
into committee upon the bill, the clauses of which were
agreed to, after much discussion, the amendment of the
sixtieth clause, exempting Roman Catholic charities,
being deferred by Lord J. Russell until the report.

In answer to questions by Lord D. Stuart regarding
the Turkish Question, Lord J. RUSSELL said he could
not fix a day for the discussion of that question, but was
willing to give every information in his power. He
then explained the diplomatic measures that had been
adopted in concert with Austria as follows:—"When
the ambassador of the Emperor of Russia left
Constantinople, it appeared to her Majesty's government that it
was desirable that there should be a conference of the
representatives of all the great powers of Europe, in
order to arrive at the terms which might put an amicable
termination to the difference between Russia and the
Sublime Porte. It was the opinion of the government
of Austria that it was not desirable to have any such
conference while the matter remained in the state of
diplomatic relations, and that it would not be desirable
to have such a conference unless the Emperor of Russia
by invading the principalities should for a time, indeed,
have disturbed the status quo of Europe. When that
event occurred, the government of the Emperor of
Austria, in conformity with its previous declaration,
declared its willingness to hold a conference at Vienna,
and it summoned the representatives of the four other