ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

Houss or Loans, Friday, March 21.—Writ of Habeas Corpus into her Majesty's Possessions Abroad BM: third reading.—.Officers' Commissions Bill: third reading— Consolidated Fund (18,000,00013 Bill: third reading.

Monday, March 24.—Lunacy Regulation Bill: Committee.

niesday, March 25.—State of Poland : Lord Carnarvon's speech. Thursday, March 27.—lndian License Tax : Lord Airlie's Question.

House or Colimoss, Friday, March 21.—Colonial Fortifications: Mr. Baxter's motion.—Reserved Captains in the Navy: Sir J. D. Hays motion.—Civil Service Estimates: Mr. H. Smith's motion.— Merchant Shipping Acts, &c., Amendment Bill: first reading.

Monday, March 24.—Revised Code : Notice of Motion by Mr. Baines.—Poor Relief (Ireland) No. 2. BM: Committise.—College of Physicians (Ireland) Bill: second reading.—Pier and Harbour Act Amendment Bill: Committee.—Mutiny BM: Com- mittee.

Tuesday, March 25.—Revised Code : Mr. Walpole's motion. Wednesday, March 26.—Register of Voters Bill: Committee—Whipping (No. 2) Bill: Committee.—Turnpike Tolls Exemption (Scotland) Bill: Rejection on Motion for going into Committee.

Thursday, March 27.—Revised Code: Adjourned Debate on Mr. Walpole's Motion.

In the House of Lords a number of petitions were, presented against the Revised Code, and the House adjourned without transacting any business of importanee.

In the House of Commons, Mr. BAXTER (Montrose) moved a resolution to the effect that the cost of fortifications in self-governed colonies, except in the case of naval stations, was not a proper charge upon the Imperial Treasury, and that the extension of such fortifications involved a useless expenditure. The honourable mem- ber contended that fortifications in our colonies, though extensive and costly, were necessarily inefficient, and only served to invite attack, while in almost every case the colony would have to look to our naval supremacy for protec- tion. He denied the right of a self-governed colony to tax the Imperial Trea- sury with its defence, and believed that the withdrawal of such aid would serve to encourage a healthy spirit of self-reliance. In support of these views, Mr. Baxter quoted portions of the evidence given before the com- mittee of last year by the late Lord Herbert, the Duke of Newcastle, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others. Mr. Can...Inns (Pontefract) having seconded the motion,

Mr. CAVE (North Shoreham) spoke in opposition to the motion, espe- cially urging the importance of our maintaining fortified coaling stations for our cruisers in every possible locality. In proof of the strength of the fortifications of Mauritius, which had been referred to by Mr. Baxter as of no real value, he adduced the fact that 10,000 men, under General Abercrombie, and a fleet of 70 sail, were required for their capture.

Captain JERvis (Harwich) also opposed the motion. Sir G. C. Law's (War Secretary) contrasted the separate systems on which England and the United States, the only two nations of the present age which ruled over any very extensive portions of the world, managed the government of fresh acquisitions of territory. In the one case, every such territory was admitted into an aggregation of States, sending representatives to a common Congress on equal terms with any other state ; but our plan was to retain a dependency, and protect all our colonial ac- quisitions : that protection was the main advantage derived by the colonies from the connexion with the mother country, and if it were withdrawn the desire to maintain that connection would be materially lessened. His answer to the argument that ample protection could be extended to our colonies by our naval power alone was that the necessity of maintaining an effective Channel fleet was paramount, and absolutely forbade our scattering our strength in defence of far-distant possessions. His opposition to the motion, however, was chiefly grounded on the fact that the House, in reality, had the whole matter in their own hands when dealing with the army estimates.

After some further discussion, the motion was withdrawn.

Sir J. D. RAY (Wakefield) brought before the House the claims of certain naval captains on the reserved list who had been "cajoled" by Sir F. Baring, First Lord of the Admiralty in 1851, out of increase of pay of 2s. a day, and accordingly, he maintained, they had a legal claim. He concluded by moving an address to her Majesty, praying her to take such claims into consideration.

Admiral Watecrrr (Christchurch) seconded the motion, protesting, how- ever, against the use of the word " cajoled."

Lord CLARENCE PAGET (First Lord of the Admiralty) denied the justice of the alleged claims of the officers in question, though he granted that the ambiguous wording of the original order in council might have led them conscientiously to assert them.

After some discussion, in the course of which Sir Joux PARINOTON (Droitwich) spoke in support of the motion, a division took place, wino the motion was negatived by 72 to 66.

Mr. MiLszs. Ginsox (President of the Board of Trade) obtained leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act. Its principal objects were to extend to engineers the system of certificates of competency, now in operation with regard to captains and mates of mer- chant ships, and to extend the operation of the discipline clause of the act to fishing smacks and other light vessels at present exempt In the Upper House, Their Lordships went into Committee on the Lunacy Regulation Bill.

In Clause 3, after the omission, on the motion of Lord DERBY, of cer- tain words which might be so construed as to deprive the Lord Chan- cellor of the power of extending the inquiry over a period of more than two years prior to its date, and an unsuccessful attempt of Lord SHAFTES. Busy to insert words excluding the testimony of "mad doctors" only when not founded wholly or in part on facts indicating insanity observed by himself.

Lord Cnawassoan moved the omission of the clause, and deprecated hurried legislation under pressure arising from the recent extraordinary proceedings in lunacy. He considered that the establishment of a fixed and arbitrary rule restricting the inquiry to a period of two years would tend to fetter and embarrass the judge to a most serious extent. Of course, it was not intended to debar the alleged lunatic himself from adducing evidence of more than two years' standing, as in many cases his only means of explaining apparent delusions might be by reference to occur- rences which had taken place more than two years previously, though the evidence of the petitioners might have been confined to that period. If the rule was so rigid and inflexible it would be productive of the greatest possible hardships ; while, if it were to be frequently relaxed, its enactment was little better than useless. As to medical evidence, he thought its ex- clusion, when founded on the special knowledge of the witness, and not trenching upon the issue of fact to be tried by the jury alone, would be injudicious.

The Lord CHANCELLOR defended the clause, and protested in the strongest terms againsithe system by which the sanity of any man was at the mercy of half-a-dozen "mad doctors," each with his speculative theory or crotchet, and making up for an utter absence of explicit statement by a flow of hard names—" amentia, dementia, mania, melancholia, co-existent mania and fatuity," &c., &c.

On a division, the clause was retained by 38 to 26. The remaining clauses were adopted, with the exception of Clauses 5 and 6, which were struck out, and their Lordships adjourned.

In the House of Commons, On the motion for going into committee on the Poor Rates (Ireland) No. 2 Bill, a warm discussion arose on the dismissal of Roman Catholic chaplains in workhouses, the exclusively Protestant constitution of the Poor Law Commission, and similar subjects, in which The O'Connor Don, Mr. Bernal Osborne, Sir G. Bowyer, &c., took part After a lengthened debate, the first eight clauses were agreed to, and the Chairman was ordered to report progress.

In committee on the Mutiny Bill, Mr. Wnrra (Brighton) moved the omission of clause 22, which authorizes the infliction of corporabpunishment by court martial. On a division, the clause was retained by 67 to 14: the remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the House adjourned. , In the House of Lords,

The Earl of CARNARVON called the attention of the House to the state of Poland, and detailed at length the acts of violence and tyranny practised by the Russian Government during the recent disturbances. The present Emperor of Russia, he believed, was placed in circumstances of extreme difficulty, and thought much good might be expected from his personal character. He was surrounded by those whose interest it was to mis- represent facts. Poland could never be peacefully governed unless a certain amount of self-goverment were granted, and the selection of men who enjoyed the trust and confidence of the Poles as officials. At present Poland was dining the strength and treasure of RENA& in the employment of nearly one-half her army in enforcing martial law. The wise and generous policy which had led to the emancipation of the serfs refuted the charges of those who stigmatized the Government of Russia as illiberal and tyrannical. No doubt there was a powerful retrograde party in Russia, but he entertained a sincere hope that the Emperor might ulti- mately be induced to adopt the same liberality towards Poland that had been shown towards the serfs.

Earl Rinssitta, reminded their Lordships that while Lord Carnarvon had brought this most painful subject before them with great prudence and temperance, he was compelled by his position as Foreign Secretary, to be even more cautious and reserved in dealing with it. It would be undigni- fled for him to use language which was not either acceptable to the Russian Government, or, on the other hand, to be maintained by material assistance to the Poles, and earnestly as he desired to see peace and happiness pre- vailing in Poland, he did not think any interference or remonstrance would be calculated to effect the object proposed.

After a few words from the Earl of CARNAIIVON in reply, their Lordships adjourned.

In the House of Commons, Mr. WaLroix (Cambridge University) moved that the House should go into Committee on the resolutions on the Revised Code of which he had given notice. The two great objects of the code—the application of some effective test to the results of an educational system supported by national grants, and the simplification of the machinery by which such grants were

administered—met with his unqualified approval ; but from the proposed mode of carrying them out, which, though principally affecting the minu- test details, endangered the stability of the whole system he entirely dissented. Mr. Lowe, in setting forth the merits of the Revised Code, had promised one of two things, that it would secure either efficiency or economy, both combined he did not venture to predict. The statement, he considered, implied that the minister who proposed the code could not even tell what its effects ,would be. Economy without efficiency was folly, and efficiency -without economy was waste. He could not but think that the Privy Council, embarrassed by the mass of evidence brought befOre them, and oppressed with the cumbersome costliness of the old system, had simply cut the knot without an attempt to untie it. After arguing at great length against the grouping of children for examination, the subversion of the pupil teacher system, and other points of the code, and expressing his dis- satisfaction at the mode in which the Privy Council had taken the matter into their own hands, Mr. Walpole concluded by moving that the House should go into committee for the consideration of his resolutions.

Sir Gxentoit Grow (Home Secretary) said Government were prepared to meet Mr. Walpole in Committee in the same conciliatory spirit as that he himself had displayed, but he could not help regretting that he (Mr. Wal- pole) had not placed upon the motion paper the amendments he would advise the House to adopt, instead of merely moving a series of resolutions negativing the proposals of Government. He did not intend to follow Mr. Walpole through the details of the Revised Code, which would be more properly discussed in Committee ; but, he maintained, that wifile hitherto a very large proportion of children in schools in receipt of Government grants were imperfectly taught, the changes introduced by the Revised Code would, on the whole, effectually attain the objects with which the grant was made.

Mr. Berms STANHOPE (Lincolnshire) spoke at some length against the portion of the code by which payment was to depend entirely on the exa- mination of each individual child, and contended that the real error of the supporters of the Revised Code was a tendency to expect a vast deal too much from village schools. The difficulties of extending education among labourer's children were almost incalculable, and he feared that by grasp- ing at a shadow in the shape of a certain proficiency in reading and wri- ting, they would throw away the substance, and entirely destroy the present system, by means of which so much good had been effected.

Mr. BUXTON (Maidstone), as having been for many years a manager of a school of 1200 children, said he had no fears that religions instruction in schools would be in any way affected by the Revised Code, and the over- whelming evidence as to the utter absence of rudimentary education in such a large proportion of children was ample proof of the necessity for the application of some test by which a really greater amount of education could be secured in return for the lavish expenditure.

Lord ROBERT CECIL (Stamford) opposed the Government scheme as adding to and intensifying all the .evils of the existing system. Managers would give up their schools, pupil teachers would be reduced to the condi- tion of monitors, all trust and confidence in Government would be destroyed without possibility of restoration, and the fabric built up with so Much care would be pulverized at a blow.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER (Bradford) regretted that on such a rare occasion as the promulgation of an administrative reform by an administration, he should be compelled to oppose it. He believed, however, that the Revised Code would involve the utter destruction of the present system. He had taken all possible pains to ascertain the probable effect of the Revised Code on schools in his immediate neighbourhood, and he had come to the con- clusion that the Government aidafforded under the proposed system would be in inverse proportion to the needs of the schools. He urged upon Mr. Lowe the expediency of contenting himself with carrying through the House the great principles of payment for results, and Government dealing direct with the managers and warned him that if he pertinaciously pushed the details of the Code upon the House, he would destroy education instead of reforming it. Mr. PULLER (Hertfordshire) opposed the Revised Code ; and, after a few words from Mr. LEATHAM (Huddersfield) in its support, the House ad- journed.

No business of importance was transacted in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday night,

The Earl of AIRL/E asked whether Government had received information of the abolition of the Indian License Tax. Be should be glad to hear that the Indian Exchequer was in such a flourishing condition that a tax of such importance could be dispensed with. The Duke of ARGYLE said no official information had been received on the subject, and the last private letters from the Governor-General con- tained no decisive intimation of the intentions of the Indian Government with regard to the tax.

In the House of Commons,

The adjourned debate, on the motion for going into Committee on Mr Walpole's resolution was resumed by Mr. WHITESIDE (Dublin Univer: sity), who contended that in reality the Code was not based upon the re- commendations of the Commission—in fact, that their recommendation on the most important functions of the school had been disregarded and per- verted. The very pith and marrow of the Commissioners report was the stress they laid on the vast moral influence exercised by our present system, which they regarded as the one paramount object of education. The Com- mittee of Council on the other hand, had deliberately ignored this portion of the report, and wished to give reading and writing a preference over morality and religion. Mr. B. Ossonxx (Liskeard) said the one fact alone that our educational expenditure had reached its present enormous and still increasing amount, was enough to prove the necessity of a change. Mr. Lowe had exposed all the defects of the present system, and a loud outcry from all connected with it was not to be wondered at. After stating what he eonsidered to be the principal working defects of the present system, he concluded by ur ging upon the House the report drawn up bya minority of the Commission, in which they stated their conviction that the time had come for all annual grants whatever to be gradually withdrawn, and for Government to confine their assistance to union schools, reformatories, and schools connected. with public establishments. He concurred to a great extent in the general purport of this report of the minority, and he was convinced that even the Revised Code itself was not sufficient to deal with the present system of lavish outlay, which only tended to cripple private energy.

Mr. ADDERLEY (Staffordshire) said it was clear that the time had come for the establishment of the popular education of this country on one distinct basis. It must either be conductcd exclusively on the voluntary principle, or else it must be altogether taken into the hands of the Government, who could then conduct it on a far cheaper and simpler system than that which the combination of the two rendered necessary at present.

Mr. LIDDELL (Northumberland) hoped that the discussion would result in an amicable compromise, but that the House would not consent to make all the public grants dependent solely upon the examination.

Mr. BAINES (Leeds) maintained that a vast amount of public money was now squandered on schools that had no title whatever to receive it, and. he hoped the House would come round to the opinion that it was not for the benefit of the people that the State should relieve them from the discharge of their own dray.

Sir J. PABINGTON (Droitwitch) announced his uncompromising opposi- tion to the Revised Code, which could only be regarded as absurd in con- nection with the report of the Commission, which it practically ignored and. repudiated. The plan for making the Government grant dependent upon the examination of each child would, in his opinion, cut away the good. from the present system, and aggravate all its evils.

Mr. Lows (Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education) said, that as there was really no question before the House, he should_ reserve his answers to the numerous objections which had been urged against the Revised Code until they entered upon the consideration of all its de- tails in Committee on Mr. Walpole's resolution. He repeated, that the present system was neither cheap nor efficient, and reminded the House that the great object to be borne in mind was not the interests of schools. or managers, or masters or teachers, but the education of the poor, and any assistance in carrying that object out would be gladly received from gentle- men of all parties.

The House then went into Committee on the resolutions pro fornui, and then adjourned their eonsideration until the following day.