of a sweeping reform.—Mr. WIGRAM deprecated the
threats held out by Lord John against the Universities;
but he thought that the general measure proposed
deserved the favour of the house.—Mr. BLACKETT
regretted that Lord John Russell had omitted all
mention of Durham, a University which required as much
reform as either Oxford or Cambridge, as it was conducted
on the same exclusively ecclesiastical system.—Lord
John MANNERS said that the minute of June 1852, was
intended solely to remedy what the then government
believed to be a violation of the rights of conscience.
The right of constituting trusts for the management of
their schools most accordant with their religious opinions,
had been conceded to the Roman Catholics, but withheld
from the Church of England. He put a series of
questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; in reply
to which Mr. GLADSTONE stated that the minute in
question did not say that the founders of the Church of
England schools should constitute their trusts as they
thought fit; its object, if it had one, and no doubt it had
a rational object, was to prevent the retention of
improper persons as schoolmasters; and he trusted that by
the minute which had now been adopted, and which
there was no objection to produce, that would be fully
secured. Scotland would not be included in the plan;
but the intentions of government with respect to Scotland,
would, when matured, be explained on a distinct
occasion. With respect to the regulation of charitable
trusts, separate bills would not be required where the
trustees gave their consent; but a number would be
combined, as schemes of enclosure were combined, in
one act.-—Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

On Tuesday, April 5, Mr. BROWN brought forward
the subject of Railway Accidents and moved a
resolution to the effect that it was the duty of government
to propose more effectual measures than exist at
present for the security of the public. He stated his
case at considerable length, dwelling in succession upon
the various railway dangers to which travellers are
exposed, and warned the government against the
probable outbreak of popular indignation upon the
subject. Until some authority were established, to
which the public could appeal against railway
mismanagement, the columns of the newspapers would, he
said, continue to be filled with the details of lamentable
accidents. The government had at present no power
beyond that of sending an inspector before a railway
opened, after which his authority ceased.—Mr. FRENCH
seconded the motion.-—Mr. CARDWELL said that the
house itself had already placed this subject in a
certain position, and a committee, appointed under
the late administration, but of which he was now, ex
officio, the chairman, was conducting a most careful
examination into the whole question. He had himself
directed inquiry into the precautionary measures adopted
on the French lines, and the result of that inquiry was
before the committee and the house. He thought that
the house, having appointed a committee, should wait
for its report before taking any further step. The
evidence of the Lord Chief Justice Clerk had been taken
before that committee, and other investigation into the law
affecting the subject was being made. The time for a
practical motion had not yet come, and it was not
customary for the house to accede to abstract propositions.
He would therefore move the previous question.—Mr.
J. M'GREGOR declared that railway directors took
every possible precaution for the protection of travellers.
—Mr. HUME thought that the country was indebted to
Mr. Brown for bringing forward the subject, but as the
government had admitted their responsibility, and
were taking the best means in their power to deal with
the question, he advocated the withdrawal of the
motion.—Mr. WADDINGTON dwelt upon the excessive
care taken by railway directors for the safety of the
public.—Mr. LAING promised every support, on the
part of railway directors, to any deliberate measure
government might produce, but he protested against
any government interference with the minute details of
railway management. He admitted that accidents had
occurred which ought not to have occurred, and against
a recurrence of which legislative provision should be
made.—Mr. BROWN withdrew his motion.

Mr. OLIVEIRA  moved for a committee to consider the
Import Duties on Foreign and Colonial Wines, with a
view to reduction to one shilling per gallon. He urged
the reduction as a means of social benefit, asserting that
in countries where wine was drank by the people their
moral condition was better than elsewhere. He adduced
statistics to show that the import of wine had not
increased in the ratio of our population, and contended
for the carrying out of the principles of free trade, and
he also insisted upon the advantage the reduction would
bring to the shipping interest. He referred to the great
quantity of wine sold over the counter to skilled
labourers, small tradesmen, and others, in proof that
the humbler classes would willingly drink wine in
lieu of spirits, and, after some further observations,
submitted his motion.—The CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, after disclaiming any intention of
discourtesy, declined to enter into any detailed discussion
upon the question at the present time. The day for
bringing on the budget being fixed, it would be a
departure from his duty to state what were the
intentions of government on the subject, but on that day
he promised either to announce a change in regard to
the wine duties, or to explain why such a change had
been precluded. He thought it would be very desirable
if wine-drinking could be popularly adopted, and knew
no article in the tariff in reference to which a change
could be more to be wished; but, unfortunately, the
difficulties in its way were proportionately great. He
had not confidence in the prophesied rise in consumption
on the reduction of duties, for national taste was not to
be revolutionised in a day.—Mr. M'GREGOR thought
that all protective duties should be abolished, but that
mere revenue duties should be reduced gradually.—Mr.
MOFFATT supported the motion.—Mr. HUME advocated
the reduction of the wine duties as a means of reducing
the consumption of spirits.—Mr. G. DUNCAN strongly
urged a reduction in the French wine duties, in order
to encourage the linen trade of Scotland and Ireland.—
Mr. OLIVEIRA, after a brief reply, withdrew his motion.

On Wednesday, April 6, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL,
in moving the second reading of the Probate of Wills
and Grants of Administration Bill, described the
measure as imperfect in plan, and calculated, from its
wording, to increase the evils which it was intended to
remedy. He suggested that if the bill be read a second
time, it should be on the understanding that it should
be laid upon the table until the government should be
able either to bring in a larger measure on the subject,
or so to amend the present one as to embrace the objects
which they had in view. It was the intention of the
government in their bill, to abolish altogether the
metropolitan court of the Archbishop of York, and to
establish one probate court, which should have
jurisdiction throughout England and Wales. He proposed
at the same time to retain the existing diocesan courts,
for the purpose of receiving and passing wills not
exceeding a limited amount; and intended that to the
metropolitan court, which should keep a general
registry, all the original wills proved throughout the
country should be regularly transmitted. To the
county courts he would allow a limited jurisdiction.
In reply to Mr. Hume, the learned gentleman said that
he desired so far to extend the bill to Scotland and
Ireland, that henceforth the probate of a will granted in
London should be of effect throughout the United
Kingdom.—Mr. HENLEY thought the house had a
right to complain that the larger measure promised by
the government, and which was apparently in a forward
state, had not been sooner and more regularly
announced. The best course would be to postpone the
second reading of the bill before the house, until they
knew something more definite with regard to that
more comprehensive measure to be proposed by the
government.—After some remarks from Dr.
Phillimore, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Walpole, the
second reading of the bill was postponed for a month.

The house went into Committee on the Aggravated
Assaults Bill.—Mr. PHINN moved an amendment on
clause 1, giving the magistrates power to order public
or private whipping in addition to six months' imprisonment
in the case of aggravated assaults upon women or
children. Public opinion, he said, supported him in
his demand. It was the only remedy, and one not new