try, where the provision was that protected the rights of those parties? He thought it impossible that the scheme embodied in the Bill could ever work. SIR JOHN HANMER observed, with respect to manors, that it would be unjust that the owner of the minerals underneath the surface should be bound by any proceeding which the lord of the manor, who was only the owner of the surface, might take. He hoped some words would be introduced providing expressly, and not merely by implication, for this case. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that when the Committee came to the clauses relating to the record of title, it would be fit to consider whether any more express provision should be made for a case of that kind. The present clause had reference to one of the formal steps in the process of registration. In the first instance the investigation of title would be exactly such as took place in the Court of Chancery when a title was investigated as between the parties before the Court. The next thing was to reduce into form the results of the investigation, and those results would be placed on the register, unless persons, after notice, came forward and made valid objections. With respect to the objection that persons having possible or contingent interests might be injured without notice, that was a danger that was inseparable from any scheme of indefeasible title; but experience in Ireland and of conveyance in England proved that there was practically no danger of any such result occurring. The principle of the clause was the same as that embodied in the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns), and no greater securities could be adopted against what was only a possible danger. SIR HUGH CAIRNS said, he was entirely at issue with the Solicitor General on this point. The propositions of this Bill were quite new, because it put the interests of unborn generations out of view altogether. MR. COLLIER reminded the Committee that besides notices to the persons whose interests were disclosed, notice was also to be given by advertisement, and to the occupiers of adjoining lands, and to the owners of such adjoining lands. MR. WHALLEY said, that the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, if they applied at all, applied to the 4th clause, and not to the one under consideration. MR. BARROW observed, that in mineral districts it frequently happened that the land was held by one person, while there was a reservation of the minerals to another. Under this clause there was no security that the person apparently having the fee might not dispose of both land and minerals without notice to the person really entitled to the latter. He thought some special protection should be provided for these cases. MR. SCULLY said, the production of the deeds to the registrar would give the required protection. He hoped the clause would be allowed to stand, as being a good compromise between opposing principles. Question put, "That the clause, as Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 9. Clause 10 (Identity of Lands to be cstablished). MR. MONTAGUE SMITH moved an AGUE Amendment in the clause with a view of requiring an accurate description of the property to be embodied in the notice. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL acceded to the Amendment, and suggested the further addition of words requiring a map or plan of the property in question to be deposited. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12 (Contents of Notice). MR. WALPOLE suggested that this clause should be omitted. To require that every adjoining proprietor should have notice when any land was to be registered would give rise to much litigation and expense. He would also omit the second part of Clause 14. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, the object of the clause was to secure that notice should be given to all parties entitled to receive it. He believed that object was effected by the clause as it stood; but by an alteration of a subsequent clause he would take care to leave the question of boundary open where it was in dispute. Clause agreed to. Clause 13 was also agreed to. Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday. SUPPLY-REPORT.—BRITISH MUSEUM. POSTPONED RESOLUTION. MR. GREGORY expressed a hope that the Session would not terminate without some arrangement being made to alter the government of the Museum. The Royal Commission of 1860 had made a very useful Report, but every one of its recommendations had been ignored in the Trustees' Bill. The majority by which that Bill was thrown out was an aggregate of differing elements-those who objected to the separation of the collections, those who objected to the management, and those who objected to the extravagance of the system. The proposal for the removal of the Natural History collection came from Professor Owen, he believed, almost alone; and however great that gentleman's authority, it was not, he thought, sufficient to justify the proposal, which was in direct opposition to the Report of the Royal Commission. He (Mr. Gregory) believed a satisfactory arrangement might be come to now by providing for the Natural History collection in the second floor, and the sculpture in a building upon the small piece of ground which it had been recommended should be purchased, adjoining the present building. This would involve an outlay of not more than £270,000, instead of £670,000, which was the expenditure involved in the Government proposal. The plan he proposed would admit of indefinite extension of the galleries, so as to provide for future additions to the collection. MR. CONINGHAM thought the drawings had better remain where they were than be removed to the National Gallery; and that if a vast quantity of rubbish were removed that never ought to have been placed in the Museum, and by a rearrangement, room might be found for a great deal more of what was really useful than was generally supposed. He objected to the system of restoring the sculptures in the Museum which had recently been introduced, and which he thought as objectionable as the restoration of the paintings. He should certainly be sorry to see the drawings withdrawn from the British Mu seum. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he would not follow the hon. Member through his speech, which was mainly a criticism upon a defunct measure. The hon. Gentleman, with many others in the House, found no difficulty in solving the most perplexing questions, both as to the classification and mode of exhibition of objects of art and science. It was unfortunate, however, that these gentlemen were able to agree only in objections to the plans of others, and not in support of any one of their own. It would be the duty of Government to consider what further provisions ought to be made for the national collections, and to submit any proposal on the subject to the House, in such a manner and with such informa tion as would best enable them to deliver a judgment upon it. He believed the preponderating element in the majority against the recent Bill consisted of hon. Members who held that this was not an opportune season for incurring a heavy additional outlay. He wished, however, to repeat that the second reading of that measure would have committed the House merely as to the selection of a site, and not as to the extent of the new museum. Committee it would have been competent for any hon. Member to have proposed to limit the extent to an acre or a couple of acres. The Government did not intend to cover the whole of the proposed site with buildings; but he thought it fair to inform the House of the dimensions to which the plan might ultimately be carried. The Government deemed that it would not be right to propose the extension of the Museum on so costly a site as Bloomsbury, when one so much cheaper could be obtained at Kensington. He could not, therefore, hold out any hope to the hon. Member that the Government would adopt his proposal; nor did they think it would be desirable to make any proposal on the subject to the House during the present Session. In LORD HENRY LENNOX said, he was glad to hear that the Government were going to give this question their careful consideration. He believed that Kensington was, on the whole, the cheapest and most desirable situation for the national collection. He could not concur with his right hon. Friend in approving the government of the British Museum by Trustees, and if he had the honour of a seat in that House next year, he should move an address to Her Majesty, praying that in future the Estimates for that institution might be moved by a responsible Minister, and that £100,000 of the public money might not be annually expended under the direction of gentlemen who held their offices merely because their grand them adrift at the end of their days without any provision. Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." MR. MACEVOY observed, that there was no superannuation for Poor Law Offi cers in England. MR. SCULLY said he represented a very large county, and had never been asked to present a petition from that county for superannuation such as that proposed by this Bill. He should like to see this measure introduced at Tamworth, in the first instance, by way of experiment. MR. H. A. HERBERT recommended the Chief Secretary for Ireland to withdraw the Bill, in order that boards of guardians might have time to consider what its effects would be. LORD NAAS recommended that the Bill should be postponed for another year, though he was himself in favour of the principle of superannuation. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, as almost every Member, except the hon. Member for King's County, was opposed to his press. SIR FREDERICK HEYGATE was op-ing the Bill, he would consent to withdraw posed to the principle of superannuations generally, but thought this Bill ought to be passed, being merely permissive. COLONEL DUNNE thought this Bill the very worst in the category of Irish measures. The Poor Law seemed to be made the favourite engine of wringing money in every way from the Irish taxpayers, and, looking to the present amount of the rates, he looked with alarm to the coming winter. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, the Bill had not originated with the Government, but with the Select Committee of last year; seventy-one boards of guardians in Ireland petitioned the Government to bring forward such a Bill, and only twelve raised their voices against it. Three of the most important unions had written to him by their chairman, urging the adoption of the measure as one of economy. The Bill would certainly necessitate the raising of a permanent fund of £153,000. If the Irish Members thought that amount excessive, he should be very glad to get rid of the responsibility of the Bill, but he did not feel himself at liberty to withdraw it without some marked expression of feeling on the part of the House. MR. HENNESSY hoped the measure would be proceeded with. It was one in favour of which a strong public feeling existed, and was calculated, he thought, to have a most beneficial effect. LORD JOHN BROWNE said, it was unfair towards Poor Law Officers to cast it. Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn whole country, will appreciate the national to his country, for his own glory he has loss which it has sustained. died not too soon; for he was not withdrawn from the scene until he had achieved the greatest honour that can be won by a subject of Her Majesty-he has preserved to the English Crown its most important province, and in the country which he governed he has left a people prosperous. LORD CHELMSFORD: In the absence of my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), I cannot refrain from joining in the deep sentiment of grief which we have just heard expressed by the noble Earl. I am sure your Lordships deeply sympathize with those sentiments, and I only wish I had words to express my sense of the irreparable loss which the country has sus tained. LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, there will not, I am confident, be one dissenting voice, either in Parliament or in the country, from the expression of deep regret for the loss we have sustained to which my noble Friends have given utterance. Without any distinction of party, without any difference of rank, I believe it will be admitted that the talents and the virtues of Lord Canning stand as high and in as proud a position as those of any man who has ever served the Queen. It is LORD LYVEDEN: My Lords, having been publicly associated with Lord Canning during the most eventful period of his career, I cannot refrain from saying one or two words on this occasion, although the opportunity was unexpected. singularly to the honour of Lord Canning that he went out to India impressed with the belief that he would have a long reign of peace and prosperity, during which it was his full resolve to devote his utmost exertions to promote the social happiness and the material welfare of the people of India. But during his sway the greatest and most extraordinary insurrection which history records took place, and instead of new social and financial arrangements, Lord Canning had to display his energy and his resources in defending the empire of the Queen. Lord Canning had the rare felicity of proving that he was incapable of being swayed by popular applause to do what he thought wrong and that he was equally incapable of being driven by popular detraction from that which he believed to be right. He had the infinite glory of finishing his career in the manner in which he had hoped to commence it by putting the finances of India in order and advancing its condition to a greater extent than it has ever before reached. Although, therefore, his private and attached friends, his public associates, and the whole people must deeply deplore his removal from us at a time when his services might have been so eminently useful House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock. www HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday June 17, 1862. SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 (Annual Close-time). MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE said, he would propose to add at the end of Clause 7 the following proviso:— "Provided always that in tidal waters where salmon fishing by means of net and coble can only be carried on during a certain state of the tide, it shall be lawful for persons having such rights of fishing to commence to fish by net and coble only at such hour of the Monday morning as may be suitable for the same." THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he should oppose the proviso, which would leave it in the discretion of proprietors of fisheries to say when they should commence fishing, and when they should leave off. By an Amendment which he had already proposed to the clause, the Commissioners would have power to vary the period at which the weekly close-time should commence in any district; and he did not think it would be advisable to go beyond that. Proviso negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 14 (Penalty for causing or allowing Poisonous Substances to flow into Rivers). MR. MURE said, he would move, in line 20, after the word "Scotland," to insert, "after notice duly given by special advertisement, in some newspaper of general circulation in the district, not less than ten days before any such visitation, to the proprietors of salmon fishings on | MR. W. EWART said, he should supeach of such rivers or estuaries, of their port the Amendment. intention so to visit and report." MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE opposed the Amendment. Amendment negatived. MR. FINLAY said, that he approved of the proposal of the Lord Advocate to delay the operation of the Act for a period of two years. MR. CAIRD said, he would withdraw his Amendment, and proposed in substitution for it the following:-" from and after the 1st of January, 1866," which would give three clear years to the parties to compensate themselves for the loss which they would suffer from the passing of this measure. Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 24, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words "From and after the Clauses 16 to 28 inclusive were also first day of January, one thousand eight hundred agreed to. Clause 29 (Certain provisions of Act 24 & 25 Vict., c. 109, applied to Solway Firth). MR. CAIRD said, he thought that the interests of the tenants of fisheries on the Scotch shores of the Solway Firth were sacrificed by the Bill. Under these circumstances he thought it only fair that the parties should be allowed a certain time to work out of the business, and he should therefore propose to insert the words "from and after the 1st of January, 1867," the object of which was to prevent the Act coming into operation, so far as these persons were concerned, before that period. MR. WEMYSS supported the Amendment. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he thought it would not be unreasonable to suspend the operation of the Act with respect to the parties for a certain period. He thought, however, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was too wide in its terms. He (the Lord Advocate), should have no objection to insert words providing that the Act should not come into operation till the 1st of January, 1865, which would meet the case, by giving ample time to the tenants for compensation arising out of a change in the law. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, that the Bill proposed to extend the English Act to a certain portion of Scotland in a way which would act injuriously to the interests of proprietors and tenants, and therefore he could not help thinking that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stirling was fair and reasonable. and sixty-six." Question put, there inserted." "That those words be The Committee divided:- Ayes 20; Noes 65: Majority 45. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that notwithstanding the result of the division, he did not object to make the Amendment he had himself proposed, and to extend the time for the Act coming into operation until January, 1865. Clause, as amended, agreed to. River Tay, excepting as to the Weekly Close-time). MR. WEMYSS said, he would move an Amendment, providing that the weekly close-time should commence at six o'clock on Saturday night, and end at six o'clock on Monday morning. Amendment negatived. MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE said, he wished to move the insertion of a clause to follow Clause 24, to provide that fishings in the possession of any proprietor, by virtue of a Royal grant or charter, and who should have exercised the right to fish the same for the term of forty years, and situated within certain estuaries, to be defined by the Commissioners, might be fished with fixed nets or fixed engines, until purchased. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that it was impossible for him to accede to clauses which would legalize fishing in places where it was unlawful at present. MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE said, he would point out that he had inserted the |