nn ii rartaiugn in arliantrut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OP THE WEEK.

Boom or Loans. Monday. July 18. Russia and Turkey; Question and Answer —Transportation Bill, committed—National Education, Ireland; Lord Donough- more's Motion; Lord Aberdeen's Explanation—Colonial Church-Regulation Bill, read a second time. Tuesday, Jnly.19. Scotch Bankruptcy Bill, committed—Battersea Park Bill, corn- Anitsets-Westinuister Bridge Bill, committed—Succession-Duty Bill, read a first Thursday. July 21. Battersea Park Bill,. passed—Westminster Bridge Bill, Pined—Volonial Church-Regulation Bill, committed—Transportation Bill, passed. Friday, July 22. Succession-Duty Bill, read a second time, without a division— Colonial Church-Regulation Bill, reported with amendments—Scotch Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill (Lord Brougham's), read a second time. Hoene or Caltl8ON13. Monday, July 18. Austria and Turkey. Question and An- swer—Elections for Peterborough; Mr. Bright's Motion—Succession-Duty Bill, passed by 176 to 104.—India Bill, in Committee—Thames Embankment Bill, com- mitted—Metropolitan Sewers Acts Continuance ROL read a second time. nest:lay, July 19. Edinburgh Clergy Annuity Bin; debate on second reading-- " NO House" at the evening sitting. iVednesday. July 20. Vaccination-Extension Bill, read a second time—Attorney's Certificate-duty Bill, thrown out on second reading, by 186 to 102—Recovery of Per- sonal Liberty Bill; adjourned debate on air. Phinn's Amendment. Thursday, July 21. Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill, committed—Tenant Compensation (Ireland) Bill, in Committee—Savings-Banks Bill, withdrawn—Edin- burgh Clergy Annuity Bill, withdrawn—Navigation of the Danube; Question and Answer—The Camp ; Question and Answer—Peterborough Elections; Mr. Bright's Motion agreed to—India Bill, in Committee—Charitable Trusts Bill, read a second time—Posthorse and Hackney Carriage Resolutions, agreed to—Advertisement- duty; Mr. Gladstone's Statement—Newspaper Stamp-duties (No. 2) Bill, recom- mitted, and reported. Friday. July 22. Tenants' Compensation Bill, committed—Pilotage Bill, in Com- mittee—Russia and Turkey; Mr. Layard's Question, Lord John Russell's Answer— Sessions of Parliament in Winter; Mr. Henry Drummond's Proposal—Irish Na- tional Schools; Lord Stanley's Question—Indian Judea; Question and Answer— India Bill, in Committee—Encumbered Estates Continuance (Ireland) Bill, com- mitted pro forma—Thames Embankment Bill, passed.

TINE- TABLE',

The Lords.

The Commons,

Hour of Hour of

How of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment.

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday

bh Ph 15in

Monday 4h .(m) Th 45m Tuesday 5h ... 711 Hen Tuesday Noon .... Oh Om

61; Bh 5rre Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Noon .... 6h 55ra Thursday 513 it9h 2UL Thursday Noon . 4h bra

61, .(m) 211110ra Friday 5h 9h 40m Friday Noon 4h Om

6h .00 21,30,,, Sittings this -Week, 4; Time, tab 3055 Sittings this Week, 5; Time. 441, tiOos — this Seadon. 104; — 2.34h 16ns — this Session. 146; — 97611 ellna

RUSSIA AND TURKEY.

The Earl of MALHESBURY, on Monday, put a question, with a preface, to the Earl of Clarendon, on the Turkish question. "Some of your Lordships have already observed on the tenour and language of the two notes which have appeared from the Russian Govern- ment—the two circular notes addressed to their diplomatic agents through- out Europe. I will make no observation on the tenour and subject of those notes, except to say that I do not agree in the premises laid down in many parts of those documents, and therefore I cannot agree in the arguments which have been founded on what I consider to be erroneous premises • but I have been waiting with considerable impatienee—and I think your Lord- ships must have joined in the same feeling—for the answer of her Majesty's Government to those two circular notes. I have been myself particularly anxious to avoid embarrassing her Majesty's Government in any way, by any observations relating to the unfortunate occurrences which are now going on in the East; but I think it is now time, my Lords, for the dignity of this country, and I think it is fair on the part of the Opposition, to as her Majesty's Government whether they have made any reply to those notes, or whether' if they have not, they intend to make a reply, in the same manner the Russian Government adopted when they first circulated those documents. I think it is less objectionable for me to ask, and for the noble Lord to answer' the question today, because the French Govern- ment, which is now in alliance with us in carrying out the object which we have in common, has made a very able, a very firm, but yet a very calm answer to those circulars. I think, if her Majesty's Government delay their answer to those documents, they will run the risk of being misappre- hended and misunderstood, for silence proverbially gives consent; and as we have been already told by the noble Lord that he does not agree in all the statements made in those documents, silence may here be the cause of further misapprehension. It may be supposed that the Government are unable to answer those notes; they may be accused even of fearing to answer them, under an alarm of further proceedings on the part of that powerful nation which is now exciting the attention of the whole of Europe. I therefore earnestly beg her Majesty's Government to state to the House and the country, whether they have answered those notes—one or both of them-; and whether' if they have they intend to make their replies public—however unusual that manner of treating diplomatic documents may. be—whether they intend to make them public in the same way that Russia and France have done ?"

The Earl of CLARENDON replied— "My Lords, I certainly admit that my noble friend has certainly abstained from embarrassing the Government in any way on this important question, which is now engaging the public attention ; but I think he is perfectly aware of the reason, and the only reason, why we wished to delay and post- pone any discussion on the subject. It was in the interest of .peace, and in order not to impair those chances, such as they are, of bringing this ques- tion to a peaceful settlement. My Lords, my noble friend must be aware that the mode adopted by her Majesty's Government, and by my depart- ment, is very different, for obtaining information or receiving information, from that which necessarily obtains both in Russia and France. It is con- sequently easy for the French and the Russian Governments to give to the public such information as they may think necessary at the time ; but it is the practice in this country to lay the papers on a subject of this kind alto- gether and at once before Parliament, and that is the course which her Majesty's Government have undertaken to adopt, and which will be very shortly fulfilled. The whole of those papers will be laid before your Lord- ships' House, and before the other House of Parliament; and with respect to the two notes to which my noble friend has alluded, and the doubts which he has thrown out as to our incapacity, as to the courage which we possess, to answer them, I will say, as regards the first, that it is certainly not for me to pronounce an opinion ; and as to the fear of answering those notes, my noble friend may rest satisfied that no such apprehension exists either in my mind or in that of any member of the Government. To the first note no regular answer was sent, because the greater part of it alluded to negotia- tions that had been originated with the French Embassy at Constantinople, and the negotiations to which they afterwards led, and the remainder of it had been forestalled by previous communications by her Majesty's Govern- ment to Constantinople and St. Petersburg, and part of it had been an- swered by a note in the form of a regular answer. The second circular note of Count /iresselrode, which was one of a different character, and did require an answer, was immediately answered, and the answer has gone to St. Pe- tersburg; and I have only further to add, that it is entirely in conformity with the note of the French Government, as, indeed, I may add, has been the whole of our proceedings." Lord MALMESBURY had no doubt that Lord Clarendon could satisfac- torily answer the notes of Count Nesselrode ; but there is no analogy be- tween those notes and a common diplomatic correspondenee.

"The latter are naturally secret, and when the proper time arrives they are laid upon your Lordships' table. But these notes are not a private correspondence; they are an appeal to all Europe, to the whole public—they

are published in the St. Petersburg Gazette, and are addressed, in fact, and intended to be read by every creature who can read in Europe. I cannot

help thinking, therefore, that the Government are taking an erroneous view of the case ; and that they are bringing themselves into considerable risk and difficulty, both abroad and at home, in not answering these particular notes in the same manner in which they were delivered."

Lord BEAUMONT hoped that, if not inconvenient to the public service, Lord Clarendon would answer this question—when would he be able to lay these papers before Parliament ? "I am induced to put this question to my noble friend, in consequence of the extraordinary position in which both Parliament and the country are placed in regard to what is going on in the East; because, while the utmost publi- city is given to the policy, to the actions, to the intentions, and to the opin- ions of Russia, the most complete mystery over-veils the opinions, the pro- ceedings, and the policy of this country. It is true we are told that both England and France are negotiating in the interest of the Porte, and in the interest of peace; and, further, that we have reason to hope that in that negotiation Austria and Prussia have taken a part in conjunction with Eng- land and France: but while I hope this is so, Russia is acting as though no negotiation whatsoever was going on. While we are told there is a nego- tiation in the interest of peace, Russia is actually making war. Certainly this is an awkward position for a country- like this and France to be placed ; and really it is very natural, both in Parliament and the country, under such circumstances, to ask how long we are to be kept in suspense in regard to these matters, and how soon we may expect to know what are the views and the intentions, and what have been the acts and policy of the Govern- ment, in order to carry out this desirable object, and to check the visible pro- gress of Russia in these affairs." Lord CLARENDON rejoined— "My Lords, I assure my noble friend that it is no small sacrifice to the Government that we have asked for a postponement of the discussion, or that we have delayed placing before your Lordships the fullest information upon the entire matter. We feel that Parliament and the public have a perfect right to be fully informed upon these matters. It has been our de- sire that there should be no unnecessary delay. I will not go over again the reasons that induced us to ask for delay ; but, in answer to my noble friend, I have to say, that I think that a few days—a very few days indeed —will be sufficient to ascertain whether our negotiations will succeed or not ; but, whether successful or not, as soon as those few days elapse, I can oils° to your Lordships the fullest information with regard to these af- The Marquis of CLANRICARDE observed, that he had seen it stated that the Russians had taken possession of the post-office in Moldavia and Wallachia • was it so?' Lord CLARENDON replied, that no information of the kind had reached the Government. No advance had been made towards the Danube, and he believed the Hospodar still exercised his functions.

TILE DANUBE.

In reply to a question put by Lord DUDLEY STUART, Oil Thursday, Lord Joule RUSSELL stated that the obstructions of the Danube had partly arisen from natural causes, and partly from the want of due attention on the part of the Russian Government. The latest accounts stated that the obstruction was now partially removed, and that there were several more feet of water atthe entrance of the river.

AUSTRLA AND TURKEY.

Sir JOSHUA. WALMSLEY, referring to the Smyrna affair, asked Lord

John Russell whether he could communicate to the House any informa- tion with respect to the violation of the Turkish territory by the captain of an Austrian-ship of war, who is reported to have seized an Hungarian refugee, resident at Smyrna, and to have carried him on board the Aus- trian vessel without the concurrence of the Turkish authorities ? and also, whether it is true, as reported, that the Austrian Government has de- manded the expulsion of all Hungarian refugees from Turkey ?

Lord Jolts RUSSELL replied to the questions seriatim. "With regard to the first of the questions, I have to say, that it appears that, when the Austrian Government claimed the surrender, some two or three years ago, of certain Hungarian refugees who were then residing in Turkey, there was amongst those persons one named Kossta. The Turkish Government did not consent to surrender those refugees, but agreed to send them out of the territory of Turkey. Amongst the persons who accordingly quitted the territory of Turkey was this Kossta. He was understood to have gone to the United States of America, but he lately returned to Constanti- nople, and was afterwards at Smyrna. It appears, further, that the Aus- trian Consul, instead of applying to the Turkish authorities to take measures for the removal of this person, according to the agreement between the Aus- trian and Turkish Governments, took steps for seizing him and conveying him on board an Austrian ship of war. But, at the same time, it is, as I understand, stated that this was done with the consent of the Turkish Go- vernment at Smyrna. On this point, however, we have no positive informa- tion; but the occurrence which is said to have taken place is, that certain persons engaged by the Austrian Consul seized this man and placed him on board a ship of war. With regard to the second question, whether it is true that the Austrian Government has demanded the expulsion of all Hungarian refugees from Turkey, I can only say that her Majesty's Government have received no intelligence whatever on the subject."

THE INDIA BILL.

Further proceedings took place in Committee on this bill on Monday and Thursday.

On clause 22, which provides that Legislative Councillors shall be added to the Council in India for making laws and regulations, Sir HERBERT MADDoex objected to these additional Councillors, because they would occasion expense, and because there would not be sufficient work.to em- ploy them all the year round. Mr. HUME moved an amendment, to the effect that two Natives, one a Hindoo and the other a Mahometan, should he appointed to the Council. Sir CHARLES WOOD opposed this. The whole tenour of the evidence was against putting Natives into the Legislative Council. No two Natives could represent the numerous sects of the whole Native population. Lord STANLEY and Lord JOCELYN ap- proved of the principle of the amendment, but objected, that since the Natives are not admitted to the civil service, it would be inconvenient to place them in the Legislative Council. But both maintained the fitness of the Natives for such employment Mr. BLACKETT and Mr. H. DA.NBY SEYMOUR supported the amendment ; because, if they were admitted to the Legislative Council, Natives could not be excluded from the civil ser- vice. Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Mr. MANGLES, and Sir IIENav WILLOUGHBY, objected to the amendment. On a division, it was rejected by 168 to 39. After We the clause was agreed to ; and the Chairman reported pro-

There was only one division in Committee on Thursday ; and although several amendments were proposed, all were rejected.

Sir HER BERT Mannoex moved the insertion of words in clause 24, en- acting that the Legislative Council shall have regard to the religion, man- ners, and opinions of the different races in India. This was objected to as " mere surplusage " ; as the words gave no power to the Legislative Council, but left them exactly where they were. On clause 27, providing that the Advocate-General's appointment shall be subject to the Board of Control, it was objected that this would be a gratuitous insult to the Court of Directors. A division was taken ; and the clause was carried by 115 to 59. Clause 31, relating to salaries, was amended by Sir C HA IMES Woon in defer- ence to the feeling of the House; and the salaries of the Directors were fixed at 1000/. per annum, instead of 5001. On clause 32, Mr. Mosrmerme Mime= moved the omission of the words repealing the existing provisions of the law with regard to admission to Haileybury and Addiscombe, and the rights of patronage appended thereto. He objected to making appoint- ments on the principle of competition. This question was partially argued over again ; but Mr. MO N CKTON MILNES having withdrawn his amend- ment, Sir CHARLES WOOD agreed to report progress : so that the clause remained for further discussion.

S UCCESS ION- D UTY.

On the motion for the third reading, Mr. SPOONER proposed a proviso on clause 2, to the effect, that where the father is a tenant for life, and the son is either a tenant for life or a tenant in fee or in tail in remainder or reversion of the same property, the son should be deemed to be a lineal descendant, and should pay duty accordingly. A division was taken, and the proviso was negatived by 138 to 100. Mr. Merles moved the omission of clause 23, regulating the mode of levying the tax on timber. Here the old debate was renewed and car- ried on by Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS and Mr. Ilesitx DRUMMOND in fa- vour of the clause, and Lord JOHN MANNERS against it. The House divided, and negatived the motion by 112 to 77. Sir done PAKINGTON revived the discussion respecting the taxing of encumbrances, by proposing that charges upon encumbrances incurred by succession shall not take effect until the time appointed for the commence- ment of the act. But although it was debated at some length, his amend- ment was negatived by 134 to 93. Mr. blames tried to exempt title- deeds relating to land from liability to production before the Commis- sioners. The proposal was rejected by 146 to 110.

The House then divided on the question that the bill do now pass— Carried by 176 to 104; Government majority, 72.

TRANSPORTATION BILL.

When the House of Peers went into Committee on this bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR explained the proposed system for dealing with convicts. Imprisonment and employment on public works will remain as at pre- sent ; but instead of tickets-of-leave to the Colonies, a middle course will be adopted, and a kind of colony will be established at home—at least a place where labourers with damaged characters can find employment. For this purpose, before their term of punishment has expired, it is pro- posed to employ some 400 or 500 men at Gosport, and the same number at Portland, granting them tickets-of-leave restricting them to a distance of fifty miles from Portland, within which they may take such employment as they can-get—probably harder in kind and at lower wages than those of other persons. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that con- victs who can do nothing but plunder are thrown loose upon society ; because that will not be done without providing employment. It is hoped that, prevented from returning to their old haunts, they will be reformed, first by the prison discipline, next by hard labour on the pub- lic works, and thus become gradually absorbed into society. The Earl of HARROWBY and the Earl of Hennwrexis objected to the congregation of so many criminals in one place. The inhabitants of those. places will make the same objection as the Colonies.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE denied this. The convicts would have every opportunity of going into any part of the country with certain exceptions. The proposal is to the effect that no man should come out of prison and say, "I was unable to obtain employment, and therefore I had to steaL" He did not apprehend it would be necessary to resort to the public works for employment to any great extent, but that these men would be absorbed into the general labour-market.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH suggested, that a uniform system of police for England would be necessary, now that these convicts are to be turned loose; and the Duke of BUCCLEUCH hoped that any such system of police would be applied to Scotland.

The bill then passed through Committee.

SCOTCH BANKRUPTCY.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Scotch Bankruptcy Bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR said it was intended to improve the present system.

Lord BROUGHAM, recounting some of the evils of the law as it stands, said that the bill left nine parts out of ten of the evils existing unre- dressed. Objected to because it does not go far enough, ought not the bill to be sent before the Commission issued by Lord Derby for examina- tion, and further proceedings postponed until the Commission have re- ported ? The apprehension out of doors is that the bill will stand in the way of greater improvements. He was in favour of taking whet he could get and looking forward to future reform ; but he thought his own bill ought to be read a second time.

The Loan CHANCELLOR would not push the measure if he thought it would damage the prospect of improving the Scotch bankrupt law. His sole object was to concur with the other House in amending the present law in a few particulars. The Commission on the mercantile law of the two countries might come to the conclusion that the bankruptcy law was on a wrong basis; but meanwhile, what the bill proposed to do is pure good. He was anxious to read Lord Brougham's bill a second tune; but the Government could not assent to the details of a measure contain- ing two hundred clauses. He could not even say as yet that he under- stood it completely ; but it was deserving of their attention.

The bill passed through Committee : Lord Brougham to move amend- ments at a future stage.

SAVINGS- BANKS BULL.

Mr. GLADSTONE explained why it is desirable to postpone the consi- aeration of the Savings-Banks Bill until next session. At his request, and by favour of the House, the bill had passed through- several stages without any discussion whatever. The matter now standa thus. The amount of loss sustained by savings-banks is comparatively trilling; but what they want is "perfect" security. It is hardly reason-

able to expect that the trustees should give their own unlimited personal security; and therefore a Government guarantee, on very distinct grounds, is the only way of affording that security. But the State must have sufficient control; and that could only be obtained, not by simply ap- pointing an auditor, but by placing some person in the banks who shall be under the full control of the Government, and a party to every receipt and every payment. That is the fundamental principle of the bill. This is one of the questions which can best be settled in detail out of the House. The effect of allowing the bill to proceed without discussion has been to allow Mr. Gladstone to communicate with the managers of savings-banks, and in that way he has made considerable progress, and the principle of the bill above described—giving the guarantee of the State, and taking means for an effective control over the receipt and pay- ment of money—is now generally recognized throughout the country. But there is some difficulty in arranging the extent of the liability of the State with regard to deposits not included in the list handed to its officer, and also with regard to the rate of interest. These are under discussion. If it were attempted to settle them in tho House at this period of the session, tho bill might be lost, or the session prolonged. He moved that the bill be committed that day three months. Several Members commented on the question ; all admitting its im- portance, and concurring in the reasons assigned by Mr. Gladstone. Ac- cordingly the motion passed without dissent.

CERTIFICATE-DUTY BELL.

In moving the second reading of this bill, Lord Roemer GROSVENOR complained that a tacit arrangement had been entered into between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Members for Manchester, by which it was agreed that if the latter would resist the repeal of the Certificate-duty, Mr. Gladstone would concede the Advertisement-duty. Mr. Gladstone's proposition was most distasteful to the attornies, and would also be a loss to the revenue.

Mr. Mininotem made an attack upon Lord Robert Grosvenor for not having been sincere in his advocacy of the cause. He had not brought on the bill until now, when all the "juvenile bar," the friends of the attornies, are on circuit.

Mr. Hume opposed the second reading. He supported the Budget as a whole, and he was not a person who would be thought to have changed his vote without good reasons.

Mr. GLIDSTONE exonerated Lord Robert Grosvenor from the charge of insincerity. The bill had been deferred as a matter of courtesy. He ironically commented on Mr. Murrough's speech.

Had it not been for that speech, he should have been disposed to take up Lord Robert from an opposite point of view, and to compliment him for the tenacity, he would say the chivalrous tenacity, with which he had taken up the cause of this unfortunate and helpless body. Lord Robert Grosvenoes character as a philanthropist had been long established, otherwise no more illustrious example of it could be quoted in after times than the manner in which he had held out the right hand of succour and support to a merito- rious class, entirely without organization, not represented in that House, cut off from all the ordinary means of communication with it enjoyed by other classes, and, last of all, having their friends on circuit. (Great laughter.)

Mr. Gladstone could give no pledge as to the future. Since he made his

statement in April, various changes have taken place. The surplus then calculated on was495,0001. ; but the packet contract service would exceed the estimate by 35,0001.; 56,000/. expected from the Channel Island Harbours, and 100,0001. saving from Exchequer Bills, would not be available for the present year ; while 110,000/. expected from licences had been abandoned. Here was 301,0001. of the surplus disposed of: but the Militia had cost 52,0001. less than was anticipated—that left the surplus at 250,0001. Then a sum of 150,0001. to 200.000/. would be required for supple- mentary charges—that left only 50,0001. for the surplus. If both the Certificate-duty and the Advertisement-duty be repealed, there will be a deficit. Ministers do not think it prudent to repeal the Advertisement- duty ; but if one or the other were to be repealed, it would not be the At- torney-tax. There are many other claimants for remissions.

Brief debate ensued, and the House divided—For the second reading, 102; against it, 186; majority, 84. The bill was accordingly thrown out.

ADVERTISEMENT-DUTY ABANDONED.

On a formal proceeding relating to the Customs Acts, Mr. GLADSTONE took occasion to state, that in deference to the wish of the real majority of the House, he should give up the Advertisement-duty. The announce- ment was cheered. In reply to Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. GLADSTONE further said, he believed that there was no precedent for making the remission of the duty follow immediately on the vote. They should not lightly alter the established practice ; bvt he saw no reason why the bill in which the resolutions remitting the duty were to be inserted should not become law by the end of next week, or at least by the beginning of the following week.

Tim EDINBURGH ANNUITY-TAX.

At the morning sitting on Tuesday, the LORD-ADVOCATE moved the second reading of the Edinburgh and Canongate Annuity-tax Bill. He stated that it was a tax imposed on the houses in the extended royalty of Edinburgh, amounting to 6 per cent on the rental, for the support of eighteen ministers of the Established Church. The College of Justice, however, comprising all the judges and advocates, and writers to the signet—a very large proportion of the wealthier inhabitants—are exempt. The tax is greatly objected to ; and it is proposed by the bill to abolish the exemption of the College of Justice, to reduce the ministers from eighteen to fifteen, to abolish the Annuity-tax, and to charge in place of it a municipal tax of 3 per cent, that a certain amount sufficient to make up the stipends of the clergy should be paid into the Consolidated Fund, and that there should be applied ultimately a certain sum from the reve- nues of the Deans of the Chapel Royal to the same purpose. The sti- pends to be fixed at 5501.

Mr. J. B. Sums desired to go further, and to reduce the ministers to six, on the ground that the churches are for the most part unattended,— one having only a congregation of 19, and another of 35 persons. Of twelve clergymen enjoying 6001. a year each, not one resides in the Old Town. He moved that the bill be read that day six months.

Mr. MACAULAY made an Edinburgh speech ; admitting that it was de- sirable to do away with the nuisance, but supporting the bill before the House. Colonel Bums, Lord SEYMOUR, Mr. Elate; Mr. Jelin Mac- aw:eon, Mr. MIALL, and Sir Anoneeetel CAMPBELL, opposed the bill ; huunly on the ground that it is an unsound principle to make the Con- eolidated Fund liable for the stipends, and that the Deanery revenues Should not be withdrawn from the University Professorships. Mr. Boy-

years supported the bill as a " compromise." Mr. Faaricus§corr spoke against the bill until the clock struck four ; when, by a standing rule, the House adjourned. On Thursday, Lord Eteno stated, that considering the lateness of the session, and the opposition, public and private, which the bill had en- countered, Government wouanot proceed_with the bill this session. He hoped a satisfactory settlement would be made next session.

THAMES EMBANKMENT Buss On the motion of Sir Wilasem MOLESWORTH, this bill went through Committee ; and was subsequently considered as amended, and ordered to be read a third time on Friday. The object of the bill is, that the powers of an act of 1846 relating to the embankment of the Thames, an act which would cease in August, should be extended to the 1st of July 1854. One of those enactments was for making a park in Battersea Fields ; others empowered the Commissioners of Public Works to make a bridge over the Thames at Chelsea, a new street, and an embankment. The bridge is in progress ; only a portion of the embankment has been commenced. The cost of the bridge will be 70,000!.; that of the em- bankment, roadway, and new street, 146,0001. Persons benefited by the change will contribute 62,0001.; therefore the net expense will be 154,0001. Tolls will yield 66001., or 4 per cent on the outlay.

Some objection was made to the toll, but it was not successful.

IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION.

The Earl of DONOUGHMORE raised some discussion on the present con- dition of the system of National Education in Ireland, in moving for a copy of the resolution recently adopted by the Board. He wished also to know whether any of the members of dm Board had resigned in conse- quence of the adoption of that resolution ? He complained that the pre- sent system gives the Roman Catholic clergy control over more than four- fifths of the schools, and enables them to give the children an exclusively Roman Catholic education. Thus, while the people of England suppose they are paying for combined education, they are in reality paying for direct Roman Catholic instruction.

The Earl of ABERDEEN explained, that the system as originally esta- blished was a secular one, but that shortly afterwards a certain amount of religious instruction was combined with it ; the religious works used in the schools being the "Scripture Extracts," a volume of "Sacred Poetry," and the "Evidences of the Truth of Christianity." The last- named book was objected to, and it is now determined to use it no longer in the combined religious instruction. The exclusion of this work arose out of recent circumstances. In 1849, the "Evidences of the Truth of Christianity" was, in the Clonmel school, transferred to the separate re- ligious education ; and on the Secretary's drawing the attention of the Board to this, Archbishop Whately objected to that change, oh the ground—scarcely tenable—that the Board had not the power to reject a book once authorized. Much discussion ensued, and ultimately the book was withdrawn. As yet Dr. Whately has not resigned. In reply to Lord HARROWBY and Lord MONTFAGLE, Lord ABERDEEN said, it was only last week that the alteration was made which pro- hibited the parent of a single child from causing a book to be transferred from the united to the separate instruction. The alteration watt this in- stead of that arbitrary rejection of a book from the united education it was now laid down not that the book shall be rejected, but that the cilia shall be transferred a separate class.

Lord DERBY, speaking under the correction of Lord Aberdeen, was afraid that he was wholly mistaken in the effect 4vhioli he had attributed'. to the resolution that had recently passed; and that so far from the reso- lution being of the character he had described, it was a resolution affirm- ing precisely the opposite principle.

Under the eighth rule, agreed to in 1844, it was doubtful whether the

Scripture extracts were to be excluded on the objection of the parent of a single child, or whether that child was to be protected from the risk of being compelled to read them by leaving the school during the period of their being read ; but practically the protection has been afforded to the child. The de- cision which. the Board came to the other day, as Lord Derby read it, was just the opposite of Lord Aberdeen's statement. "A motion was made by Mr. Baron Greene, one of the three dissenting Commissioners, to the effect that an intimation should be given to the parents of children, and that the book should not be excluded. A large majority of the Commissioners were

against Mr. Baron Greene, and decided that the rule should be interpreted according to its strict literal sense ; and accordingly, that the objection of the parent of any one child should be held sufficient for the exclusion of the book. I may be in error, and the noble Earl may be perfectly light; but I have that statement of the effect of the resolution from Mr. Blackburne him- self." The negation of Baron Greene's resolution sanctioned an important deviation from the original rule, and appeared to be in deference to the wishes of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

Lord ABERDEEN said, that Mr. Baron Greene's resolution sanctioned the continuance of the .Evidences of Christianity, but the mention of that work was omitted, and with the exception of that exclusion the re- solution was carried. At the suggestion of Lord Derby, Lord Aberdeen read the resolution as proposed by Mr. Baron Greene. "The Commissioners do not insist on the Scripture extracts., the Evidences of the Truth of Christianity, or the book of Sacred Poetry, being read in any of the National Schools; nor do they allow them to be read assent of the ordinary school business, during which all children, of whatever denomi- nation they may be, are required to attend, in any school attended by chil- dren whose parents or guardians object to their being so read by their chil- dren. In such cases, the Commissioners prohibit the use of these books., ex- cept at times set apart for the purpose, either before or after the ordinary school business, and under the following conditions. Firstly, that no child whose parent or guardian objects shall be required, directly or indirectly, to be present at such reading. Secondly, that in order that the child *liege parent or guardian objects may be absent at the reading of the books above specified, public notification of the time set apart for such reading shall be- inserted in large letters in the time-table of the school; that there shall be a sufficient interval between the conclusion Of the ordinary school business and the commencement of such reading; and that the teacher shall imme- diately, and before its commencement, announce distinctly to the pupils that any child whose parents or guardians so desire may leave. Thirdly, that in every such case there shall be an exclusive time set apart for such reading, sufficient time being devoted each day to the ordinary school business, in order that those children who do not join in the reading of the books may have ample time for literary instruction in the schools." Lord Dzasy said, it appeared to him, that, according to the resolution Just read, the parent of any one child in a school had the power to extend his veto to the exclusion of all Scriptural instruction during the hours of combined instruction. Lord HARROWEY said, that after the form which this discussion had token, it was not unnatural that the advocates of the National system should be taunted with the unreasonableness of carrying on a system of instruction both religious and secular amongst the people of Ireland, when at this very moment it was sufficient that the rents of any one child could raise an objection to the reading of one book.

Lord MONTEAGLE considered it most monstrous that the parents of one child should have the power of excluding any book from the entire school.

Lord DONOUGHMORII, in reply, quoted a case as illustrative of the evil effects of the resolution of the Board, by which it appeared that the Roman Catholic teacher and the Roman Catholic children in a National School had objected to the reading of Scripture extracts as formerly ; and it ap- peared by the resolution that it would be in the power of any Roman Ca- tholic priest to put an end to all Scriptural instruction during the hours of combined education, by sending even one Roman Catholic child there who might object to their introduction.

The motion was agreed to, and the papers were ordered to be laid on the table.

COLONLLL CHIHICH.REGULATION Bun.

The House of Peers having gone into Committee on this bill, the Arch- bishop of CANTERBURY briefly stated its object. The Colonies have suffered from the want of a regular administration of their ecclesiastical affairs. The members of the Colonial Church all agree that some legisla- tion is needed ; that the laity should have a considerable share in the administration of affairs ; and that nothing ought to be done which would have a tendency to separate the Church in the Colonies from the Church in the Mother-country. The bill provides that conventions should be held in which lay and clerical members should be appointed by representation, and which should pass laws for the internal regulation of the Church, but with no powers to make alterations in the Canons and Articles of the Church. In cases of doubt, an ultimate appeal would lie to the Metropolitan in this country. All the regulations would have to receive the assent of the Bishop, the Archbishop, and the Crown.

Before the consideration of the clauses was opened, a conversation en- sued, and several objections were started. Lord MONTEAGLE thought that under the operation of the bill controversies might be raised on points of faith, and that the supremacy of the Crown would be endan- gered. Besides, what is a " regulation ' ? The Earl of Ilsemovirr saw no provision for getting rid of improper clergymen. The Earl of DERBY saw that beneficed clergymen might be dispossessed who have legal rights. In reply, the Bishop of LONDON showed that "regulations" related to discipline, not to doctrine : besides, the bill especially provides that the regulations should not be at variance with the formularies and doc- trines of the Church of England. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY explained, that provision for getting rid of improper clergymen had been purposely omitted, in order that the Colonies themselves might establish their own tribunal. The bill is permissive and not compulsory. The Duke of NEWCASTLE, replying to Lord Derby, said that the danger pointed out was guarded against by clause 4, enacting that the Synods should have no power over or against the laws of this country or the colony. The bill has been studiously framed to prevent the possibility of the rights of the Colonial Legislatures from being in any way touched. Great pains have been taken by himself and the Archbishop of Canterbury that there should be no danger of creating a dominant church in the Colonies; no danger of the members of the Church of England there being sepa- rated into different minor churches by dissensions in the Synods ; and thirdly, that legislation of this character should not militate against the supremacy of the Crown. The Bishop of SALISBURY observed that the bill simply removes disabilities, caused by Imperial laws, which have pre- vented the Church from regulating its discipline. The Bishop of Oxman corroborated and amplified these explanations. On clause 1, the Earl of HARROWEY proposed to omit words enacting that the regulations should be settled by a majority of voices : but he withdrew the amendment. In like manner, Lord MONTEAGLE objected to clause 5, that it did not prohibit the discussion of matters of faith. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said, he was astonished that any one should propose to prohibit discussion under penalties : they could properly deal with results alone. It was agreed to insert words prohibiting the passing of regulations affecting the standard of faith or at variance with the Prayer-book. Lord MONTEAGLE moved the addition of the words "or shall affect the royal supremacy of the Crown of England." But he postponed his amendment, on the suggestion of the LORD CHANCELLOR ; who, while he thought existing laws sufficient, agreed to look into the matter.

The bill was reported with amendments.

INSPECTION OF NUNNERIES.

The adjourned debate arising out of the Recovery of Personal Liberty Bill was resumed on Wednesday, and gave occasion for a debate that ended in nothing.

The SPEAKER explained the state of the question. On the 22d June, the House divided on the question, "That the bill be now read a second time,", and decided, on the motion of Mr. Phinn to leave out all the words after "That." The only word remaining of the original motion was the word " That" ; and the House had now to decide whether the words "That it be referred to a Select Committee to consider whether any and what regulations are necessary for the better protection of the in- matel of establishments of a conventual nature, and for the prevention of the exercise of undue influence in procuring the alienation of their property "—or any other words—should be added thereto.

Upon this question the debate began. Mr. JOHN BALL and Mr. ED- WARD Thus opposed the amendment ; the former, on the ground that the course proposed was "unnecessary, unprecedented, and dangerous to all classes in the country " ; the latter, because conventual establishments are most useful charities, and the proposition would infringe the principle of re- ligious liberty. On the other hand, Mr. WILITESIDE and Mr. HENRY DRUM- MOND supported the amendment. It is necessary to take measures to protect ladies in convents, as we protect prisoners and lunatics ; and to prevent the alienation of property without their willing consent. It is also necessary to resist the pretensions of the Roman Catholic priest- hood, who could not be loyal to a Protestant Monarch, or share with Protestant freemen in the conduct of a Protestant Government.

Mr. CORNELIUS* O'hinizir and Mr.!. D. FITZGERALD opposed, while Sir Joust TYRELL supported the amendment. At this period Lord P.sisizasrox moved the adjournment of the debate, as there was some other business on the paper which it was desirable to expedite before six o'clock; and, at the suggestion of Mr. NEWDEGATE, the debate was ad- journed to the 10th August.

VACCINATION EXTENSION Bum.

Sir JOHN PAKENGTON moved the second reading of this bill, having for its object to make vaccination compulsory. He showed that the rate of mortality from smallpox is highest in France and England, the only two countries that have not adopted compulsory vaccination. In England,_ the lowest rate is that of London-16 in 1000; while out of thirteen coun- tries in Continental Europe the highest rate of mortality, that of Saxony, is only 8 in 1000, and in Sardinia and Bohemia it is as low as 2 in 1000. He also showed that the voluntary system has been attended with very uncertain results in this country. Sir John objected to some of the coin- pulsbry clauses ; especially to the fifth, enacting that no medical officer shall be entitled to any fee other than that it is provided he shall receive by the existing law.

Lord PALMERSTON supported the principle of the bill. The efforts of

the Poor-law Board had recently been attended with greater success than the results of previous years could show. In 1852 it appeared that there were 601,000 births, and 411,000 persons had been vaccinated—inde- pendently of private vaccination. Ile concurred in the opinion that the machinery requires alteration.

Mr. BRADY, Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, and Mr. FREWEN, opposed the bill on the ground that compulsion may be carried too far. The bill was read a second time.

PETERBOROUGH ELECTIONS.

Mr. BRIGHT moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to in- quire into the allegations contained in the petitions of certain electors and inhabitants of Peterborough complaining of the interference of Earl Fitz- william at the last and previous elections for that city. Mr. Bright went into the allegations in detail. They set forth, that Lord Fitz william, by his agents, directly interfered in elections ; that he had 337 tenants of houses in Peterborough, and that 220 of these had votes ; that his agents refused to let houses to persons not likely to have votes ; that since the last election several persons have received notice to quit, or notice that their rents would be raised in consequence of votes they had given against the wishes of Lord Fitzwilliam ; and that the possession of the franchise rendered them liable to "vindictive persecution up to absolute ruin."

Mr. FITZWILLIAM (son of the Earl) seconded the motion for inquiry, at the same time that he denied the allegations of the petition. As to the notices to quit and to raise the rents, they were served either on persons who had not paid rents for many years, or on those whose houses had been repaired.

There seemed no objection to the motion ; but as Mr. Whalley's last return had been petitioned against, the expediency of allowing two Com- mittees to sit at the same time was questioned ; and Lord JOHN Resszia. took time to consider precedents.

After a great deal of discussion, on Thursday, Mr. Bright's resolution instructing the General Committee of Elections to appoint a Committee to inquire into the allegations against Earl Fitzwilliam was agreed to.

METROPOLITAN SEWERS.

Lord PALMERSTON stated, in reply to Sir BENJAMIN HALL, that it is proposed to continue the present Metropolitan Sewers Commission for ten months. A clause had been added giving the Commissioners power to raise a loan restricted to a certain amount, so that indispensable works may not stand still. He hoped that before next session he should be able to arrange a plan by which further continuance would be given to the Commission, infusing into it a due proportion of the representative ele- ment.

Tire TROOPS AT CHOBHAM.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT stated, in answer to several questions, that the sickness in the camp was not greater in amount than would be found to prevail among the same number of men if they were in barrack. [One report makes Mr. Herbert say that there had been less sickness at Chob- ham than if the men had been in barracks.]

"No HOUSE."

When the Speaker took the chair on Tuesday at six o'clock, a Member took notice that there were not forty Members present. The Speaker counted only twenty-seven, and the House adjourned accordingly.

ELecrioN COMMITTEES.

A Committee has been sitting this week to inquire into the allegations of a petition against the return of Mr. Aspinall for Clitheroe. The pro- ceedings are without special interest. The Durham Election Committee, appointed to inquire into the cir- cumstances under which the petitions against Mr. Atherton and Mr. Granger were withdrawn, have reported. They state that the prayer of the petition against Mr. Granger was palpably illusory, and presented the remarkable anomaly of the opponents of a candi- date praying that he might be dulyelected : that Mr. Coppock, who adopted the responsibility of this form of petition, stated it to be, in his opinion, the only means of putting an end to a petition which he believed to be frivolous and vexatious, and which means he considered to be rendered necessary in consequence of the course adopted by Mr. Brown : that the Committee regard with much disapprobation an attempt made on the one side to get rid of op- position to a candidate by the threat of a petition, and on the other the de- feat of that petition by presenting another, the prayer of which was avowedly fictitious and illusory, and calculated to interfere with the rights of a con- stituency by inducing Parliament to delay the issue of the writ. The Com- mittee are of opinion that the state of the law, which permits the valuable right of petitioning to be perverted from a remedy for public wrong into a weapon of electioneering warfare, deserves the senous consideration of the House.