Vault)) nuit itrottttliugs iu Varliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

-MINISSi OF Loans. Howley, April 30. Church Rate Abolition Bill read a first Smithfield Market; Lord Ebury'a Question—NationalEducation in Ireland.; sCiancarty's Motion. ag, May, 1. The Navy; Lord Lyndhurst's Statement and the Duke of &Mersa's Answer

Thursday, May B. Belling and Hawking Goods on Sunday; Lord Chelmsford's Bill committed. Friday, May 4. Army Organization ;]Lord 1 ucnes, Complaint—Pawnbroker's Act Amendment Bill read a second thaw Holum or Connotes. Moe sliti4 April 30. Reform Bill; Adjourned Debate on the second reading—Customs Biltrepontedi. Aluidati May 1. The Navy; Sir Charles, Narder'o. Motion—Berwick Election ; Mr. liters hfiotion—Attorneya, and Solicitors, committee—Common Lodginghouses (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed—Customs Bill read a third time and passed. Wednesday, May 2. Aggravated Assaults Act Amendment Bill read a second time—Fisheries (Scotland) Bill committed. Thursday, May 3. Wakefield Briberies ; the Attorney-General's statement— The San Juan Difficulty ; Lord John Russell's Statement—Reform Bill read a second time.

THE REFORM BILL DEBATE.

The House of Commons returned to the Reform Bill again early on Monday, and the discussion occupied nearly the whole sitting. No statesman of eminence took part in the debate. The Opposition speakers were Mr. BENTINCK' who led the way, Lord Joni MANNERS, Mr. HOP.. woo», Mr. Bur-Luz COCHRAN; Mr. Du CANE, and Mr. A. Mugs. On the other aide, were Mr. WALTER, Mr. HODGRINSON, Mr. CAIRO, Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART, Mr. CLAY and Mr. JOHN LOCKE.

In the main, the arguments on the Opposition bide were those already before the House. The extension of the franchise to 61. householders will only "enlarge the area of corruption," and throw the great interests of the county into the bands of mere numbers. The bill contains none of the details that a Reform Bill should contain, making no provision for registration, none for polling, none to regulate expenses. In the redis- tribution of seats it ignores the rural districts, the claims of counties. The county electors resident in boroughs will still be able to overwhelm the purely rural constituencies, Mr. Du CANE bitterly complained of the reduction of the county franchise to 101. The county ten-pounders will preponderate in all elections. Then the 51. building restriction will disfranchise small occupiers, who live in 81. houses and rent land at the rate of from 201. to 501. a year, unless their landlords put up useless buildings on the land. If the Louse has irrevocably decided on a 101. county franchise, the Conservatives are entitled to ask for some pro- vision of a modifying character in regard to towns. Mr. A. MILLS in- sisted that the Whigs have no monopoly of Reform ; and that the Con- servatives do not fear the working classes.

The salient speech in the debate was made by Mr. WALTER. He her an by asserting that the effects of the bill, if carried, would be extremely insignificant ; it will fall short of the expectations of those who oppose and those who favour it. Then he asked why is it wanted ? Not a sin- gle grievance affects the lower class as a class. They pay less taxation than other classes. There are three reasons for reform, First, it is agreed that some of the anomalies in the distribution of seats should be removed, but that is not a question of principle. Next, they were all agreed that it is possible to extend the franchise to a large section of the working classes without injury to the constitution. Thirdly, and this is the most important reason, that the expectations held out for many years should be fulfilled. It is dangerous to keep the question of reform dangling before the working classes as a temptation, Then this is the season when it should be conceded ; and, if conceded, it need not be followed by a dissolu- tion. Answering some speeches made at Manchester in favour of a much wider measure he said—" To come now to the Bill immediately before us— this child of the noble lord's old age—(laughter)—which the noble lord treats with paternal fondness, or, as some one has said, with grandfatherly affection—(laughter)—but which its unnatural relatives seem to look upon with unconcealed dislike." (Cheers.) Describing the schemes of Mr. Mill and Mr. Hare as utterly impracticable, he expressed his approval of the grant of a third member to large towns and counties in order that minorities might thereby be represented. He does not distrust the work- ing classes ; but he does not forget that in periods of excitement they are misled by orators. This led to a temperate attack on. Mr. Bright [the butt of all the speakers on the Opposition.] Mr. Bright had spoken at Manchester of the regular trade of imposture on the letter of the Duke of Wellington to Sir. John Burgoyne, and of the coldness with which the House received the Treaty with France.

" After repeating the statement made in his former speech, that the treaty was received with a marked coolness in the House, and was opposed by a large minority of Members, the honourable Member proceeded to ex- plain the motive of that opposition :-

", The real objection to the treaty, I say, has been, for the most part, concealed. It menaces the great patrimony of the taxes. It takes away, or threatens to take away, that which has been for 170 years almost the only cause of your incessant in- crease of expenditure, of debt, and of taxation. It promises confidence and peace with France, instead of perpetual distrust and occasional war.'" (Cheers.) Again, he says :—

I have said that they are afraid that this treaty menaces the great patrimony of the taxes upon which this great aristocratic power in your country so much depends for promotion and for income.' " (Cheers from the _Ministerial side.)

Do honourable gentlemen cheer that ? ("Hear. hear," from the Opposition.) Are we to be told that a great minority in this House opposed the treaty, not because they thought that the Apostle of free trade had been over- reached to some extent by the Apostle of annexation, but because they thought it would produce the greatest blessing which could befall mankind ? Did the honourable Member for Birmingham give them credit for the most diabolical motives which could influence human beings ? (Loud cheers.) Sir, when an hononourable, Member enters this House, he claims to be a statesman. He cannot play the part of a demagogue and a statesman at the same time, and he has no right to go down to the great centres of population and tell the people in unmeasured terms that large numbers in the House of Commons have been actuated by motives of the grossest baseness in opposing treaties not on account of defects which they have discovered, but because they thought those treaties would confer the greatest blessings upon mankind and that for the sake of the beggarly pittance which the military and naval professions- received in the shape of pay for their services. (Loud cheers.) I will not trouble the house with any remarks upon the other topics referred to by the honourable Member for Birmingham—about his ideas of social liberty as connected with the tenure of land, or with his letter to the people of Glasgow, in which he wondered how amen could breathe in a country in which the land was monopolized by the nobility and gentry. But the honourable Member has asked whether we distrust the working classes? I say God forbid but I certainly do distrust those who address to them such language as this. (Cheers.) I am, as little of an alarmist as any one. I think that neither property nor even life is a subject for alarm to any one who entertains a due sense ot the dignity othuman nature ; but, so long as one has, to live, in this world, one would like to be governed with some re- gard to the principles of truth, honour, ancljustice ; and I should rather expect to find those principles exhibited under the dictatorship of a second Cromwell than under a Government based upon the doctrines of the honour- able Member for Birmingham." (Cheers.) The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr. MACAULAY, one out of a host of Members who rose altogether. On Thursday, this leng,debate came to an end without a division.

Mr. Msestrtev, the first speaker, objected that the bill took no ac- count of fitness ; and imposed an uniform instead of a multiform fran- chise, taking no test but that of rent. Nor would it be a permanent set- tlement., for it is only accepted as an instalment; the beginning of a new agitation. It is regarded with universal dislike and suspicion.

Mr. GREGORY said he believed that forty out of fifty Members of the House looked at this measure with apprehension and alarm. When he recalled the language of Mr. Bright, with reference to the effects of this bill, he felt convinced that its anomalies would be greater than those complained of under-the existing system. His first objection to the bill was that it created no satisfaction, and it involved no principle of per- manency. His next objection was that it was an endeavour to recruit the constituency out of one stratum only of the community, containing a class most exposed to pernicious influence and corruption. He expressed his fear that in process of time the possession of power in the manufac-

turing districts would pass from the employers to the operatives, and that this measure would accelerate the change. He enforced his arguments

and justified his estimate of the political capacity of the working classes, and the action of the democratic element upon Government, by quotations from the work of M. de Tocqueville on America, and public documents, and by the results of his own recent personal observations ie. that coun-

try, where, he said, this bill excited a deep and painful interest. He adverted to the state of things in our own colonies, in Canada and Aus- tralia, where those principles of the British constitution which were ne- cessary for the amelioration of the human race were becoming daily more inapplicable, and the same effects would follow here from the same pre- disposing causes. He gave a variety of extraordinary details, some of them a little ludicrous, in confirmation of what was, he said, a fact uni- versally acknowledged in the United States—that there was a despotism in the public opinion of that country more grinding and more bitterly felt than the despotism of one man. If these were the fruits of demo- cratic tyranny in a country like America, he warned the House, and es- pecially the manufacturing interest, that dangerous doctrines were al- ready appearing on the surface, and that, as great questions would be left to the decision of a reformed House of Commons, including the inci- dence of taxation, the constituency which returned it should be persons of intelligence and character, not led by caucuses or associations. Mr. LONGFIELD opposed, and Mr. W. D. SEYMOUR supported the bill. Sir jostx RAMSDEN confessed some disappointment at the prospect be- fore them. They had, he said, good reason to hope that a measure might be framed in which all parties might agree. But those who had spoken most strongly in favour of the bill had supported it on different grounds from those assigned by the Government, who had proposed it as their mode of settling the question, But the supporters of the bill did not so regard it. Its warmest advocates had complained of its shortcomings, and considered it only as an instalment of further changes. He thought it most desirable that a measure of this nature should be not only safe but permanent, and, however averse to delay, he did not desire to pass an imperfect and unsatisfactory measure, with the knowledge that the question must come before them in an exaggerated form another year. It would be far better, in his opinion, to postpone the question, than to pass a temporary measure, unsettling everything and settling nothing.

Mr. WALPOLE admitted-that there was much force and justice in the observations of Sir John Ramsden. With respect to the extension of the borough franchise proposed by the bill, taking the principles of the Re- form Act as his guide, he joined issue with Lord John Russell as to whether the principles of thisbill were identical with those of the Act. The avowed policy of Lord John, in his previous bills, was to introduce a variety of franchise ; so that he had deviated from the policy he had himself recommended. With regard to the character of the new con- stituency, the bill would throw an undue preponderance into the hands of a class not qualified by education and station to exercise the franchise wisely, and who were peculiarly exposed to influence and corruption. Then, with respect to the county constituency, the change introduced by the bill altered its whole character, and militated against a known prin- ciple of the Constitution ; and it must end in establishing a homogeneous qualification; which would bring into the House one class only of Mem- bers, instead of the present variety, contrary to the policy recognized by Lord John Russell himself. The proportion between property and occu- pation would be wholly changed by the bill, and Mr. Mill had shown the mischievous effects of such a change. A variety of franchise and a variety of constituencies had an important influence upon the character of that House, and he doubted whether its deliberations would be more just or its decisions more sound if men from the country, the represen- tatives of property, were excluded. If the bill passed in its present form, the same policy must carry the Legislature to much greater lengths.

Before Easter, he was disposed to vote for the second reading. But he frankly owned that circumstances had occurred since which seemed to him of so startling a character that he hardly knew what he ought to think, or what he ought to do. Two circumstances had since occurred. They had now been told, on undoubted authority, that the announced intention of reopening the subject of Parliamentary reform was made by the First Minister of the Crown, without the knowledge or consent of his col- leagues. Lord Joni RUSSELL—" Not true." (Loud cheers.)

Mr. WALPOLE said the point was so important that he was extremely glad the noble lord had interrupted him. The noble lord said the statement was not true, and he implicitly believed him. But a colleague of the noble lord had, at any rate, said that when the proposal was afterwards made, he, being a member of the Government, disagreed with that proposal, and only con- sented to it because he-felt that a tax was going to be made upon a particu- lar department, of which he held the seals of offioe. And the noble earl went on to say that- he confessed and regretted the mistake- he had made. This statement had been before the public, and yet, down to the present mo- ment, it had never been. contradicted. Of course, after the denial of the noble lord, he could-not press that circumstance upon the House, but he was reminded that since, that statement was made thanoble, lord had addressed the House on the subject of the bill, and yet given no explanation—((rposi- tion cheers)—and any member might justly have thought that, enti.. some explanation was made, they were warranted in receiving the statement as true. The other circumstance was-that a Committee of Inquiry has been granted to the House of Lords. If that inquiry were not comPleted„ the measure would be laid on the shelf; if it were completed) and theinforma-

lion of the Government were not accurate, the House would be humiliated. " Under these circumstances, I say again it is-diftloult to know what it is beet to do. On the one hand, I am anxious to redeem the pledge which this House and which Parliament has given, because I think that the expecta- tions which we have raised among the people ought not to be disappointed. On the other hand, I am equally confident that you ought to proceed with i

this measure in such a manner, and on such information, that the settle- ment you make will be something like a permanent one. How it can be eo under present circumstances I know not, and nothing can be more mis- chievous than to leave this subject of agitation before the constituencies."

He urged them to pass a satisfactory bill, and not one which no one approves, and which cannot last.

GLansrose spoke at great length. He said that Mr. Walpole's perplexities on the subject perplexed him. The first circumstance that startled Mr. Walpole—the allegation against Lord John Russell —had been disposed of by Lord John Russell himself. The next circumstance—the grant of a committee to the House of Lords —was disposed of by the remark that the committee was granted on the express understanding that it should not be used to postpone the progress of the Bill. Government were satisfied themselves they granted the committee out of deference to °there not satisfied. He hoped that would be the last night of the debate. There is no example of a debate being continued for six nights without a motion on which the House was to divide.

Many seemed to suppose, he proceeded to observe, that it was a treason to the Constitution, or at best a condemnation of it, to introduce a Reform Bill ; but the Government had brought forward this measure, not because the present system had failed, but because, excellent as it was, it was nevertheless susceptible of improvement. He put by, ho said, questions that might be dealt with more practically in the committee, and addressed himself to the objection to the great principle of the Bill—that the 6/. franchise would swamp the constituency by admitting an overwhelming mass of voters who would be bad in quality. Was that true ? " Is it

altogether just to hold the language that has been held even by my right honourable friend, although in a less definite form than by others, with respect to the inferior qualities of the working man ? Sir, I don't admit that the working man, regarded as an individual, is less worthy of the suffrage than any other class. (" Hear, hear " from the Opposition.) I don't admit the charges of corruption which my right honourable friend, amid cheers from many of those who sit around him, read from the report of a committee of the House of Lords. I don't believe that the working men of this country are possessed of a disposition to tax their neighbours and exempt themselves, nor do I acknowledge for a moment that schemes of socialism, of communism, of republicanism, or any other ideas at variance with the law and constitution of the realm, are prevalent and popular among them." Then, what would be the numbers admitted to the borough franchise ? It could not exceed 200,000, and was much, more likely to be short of 150,000. He entered into calculations in support of this statement, and, with referenoe to the alarm manifested on account of the gross estimated rental being below the real rent, he denied the truth of the allegation, and its importance if it were true. A large allowance must, moreover, be made for migration from residences, which amounted in one parish to 25 per cent of the population. How did these facts, he asked, justify the allegation that the new constituency would swamp and bear down the old ? "Are the working classes to have the lion's share ? What is the position of the working classes in regard to the constituency of the country ? You have already got a constituency of 410,000 ; you are going to add 150,000, or at the most extravagant estimate 200,000. That is 660,000. You have got a county constituency of 530,000. We expect to add about 150,000, making in all 686,000. Adding the Universities, the total constituency of England is 1,345,000. That number will be very largely diminished on account, of course, of plurality of votes. I cannot estimate the diminution, but I imagine it would diminish the total number by not less than one-sixth, and the general result would be that after popu- larizing your representation in a country with a population of 20,000,000, and with 5,000,000 adult males, you would have a constituency of about 1,100,000 or 1,200,000. Surely a system which enfranchises one-fourth part of your adult males, and selects that one-fourth part, upon the whole, with great judgment and discretion, is not a very unreasonable system." (Cheers.) Referring to Mr. Gregory's allusions to America, he described them as far-fetched. " To describe to us the state of things which exists in America as an argument bearing on the discussion of this bill is a matter fetched from far, and wholly irrelevant. It is not only unworthy and unjust in reference to the present bill, but in reference to the people of England, to travel across to America, and in no charitable spirit—(" Oh, oh !")—I think I may rather say in a peevish spirit, to describe the many weaknesses, the many defects—perhaps I may say even the many scandals—of American institutions. (Cheers.) Critics coming to England might., perhaps, find something on which to remark. I think it is a licence which we shouli do well, as far as we are able, to curb ourselves from indulging. Having spoken of America, I need not depre- cate in the same way reference to institutions in the colonies. We are not going to adopt the laws of the colonies; and, if we did, my own belief is that, such is the attachment not only to the law, not only to the institu- tions, but to their social superiors, even among the trading community, and still more in the rural districts, that even with a very extended popular suffrage you would.probably still continue to see the monarchy and aristo- cracy flourish, as they do now, by the free assent and affectionate support of the people. (Cheers.) For what is it, after all, which in the main sup- ports them now ? Do not suppose that it is any conventional arrangement. Do not think that it is anything which may be written on the statute-book. It is the heart, the inclination, the happiness, the sense, the conviction of the mass of the people. That very same feeling, that same tone, character, and sentiment, which made the working classes repose contentedly in your arms, and accept your legislation without a murmur, that same feeling which made them content without the suffrage, will make them still more content and still more trustworthy as the main support of the insti- tutions of the country, after you have made such additions to the representative portion of them as is contemplated by this bill." (Cheers.) lie admitted that it was desirable that a measure of Reform should have the character of permanency; but he warned the House that it was more likely to obtain permanency by a liberal than by an inappreciable concession to the working classes. The Government, he said, had no such dream as that of withdrawing the Bill; but if the other side disliked it, let them adopt the remedy in their own bands, and move its rejection. At all events, let them not pursue a course, by delay, that would render legislation upon the sub- ject impossible. Mr. CouuNs (understood to be one of twenty-four, each "good for an hour ") attempted to address the House. He, wss cheered' on by his Tory friends, but the cries of "Divide !" and those signs of impatience with which the House knows how to cut short an inopportune speaker, soon caused Mr. Q,Uins to sit down. The Bill was then read a second time, and, on the motion of Lord Joie; RUSSELL' it was ordered to be committed on Monday, the 4th of June. (Loud cheers end laughter from the Opposition.)

Mr. Macrame:or gave notice of his intention, on going into a Com- mittee of the whole House on the Reform Bill, to move the following resolution:— " That, in order to obtain a safe and effective reform, it would be inex- pedient and unjust to proceed further with the proposed legislative measure for the representation of the people until the House has before it the results of the Census authorized by the bill now under its consideration."

THE STATE OF THE NAVY.

The state of the Navy occupied the attention of both Houses of Par- liament on Tuesday ; Lord Lyndhurst bringing the subject forward in the House of Peers, and Sir Charles Napier in the House of Commons.

Lord LYNDHURST asked for an account of the present condition and proba- ble future progress of the Naval Reserve. In the speech by which he pre- ceded his question, he necessarily travelled in a path somewhat worn of late, but his clear style and method almost made it new. Setting out from the point that the safety of the country depends on the strength of the Navy, he went on to refer to facts within his memory, the destruction of the French navy during the wars of the revolution and the empire, and the

irritation rritation that has ever since acted on the French mind. Then he showed how the present strong navy of France owes its exis- tence to the present Emperor, who as President appointed the celebrated commission on whose advice the measures to reconstruct the Navy were founded, and who, immediately after the coup d'etat, called for the report, and began to carry out its recommendations. In this report, England is the sole object in view. The Commissioners said the basis for a settlement of the strength of the French fleet was certain ; " the enemy is known ; there can be no question but of England." The result is a navy equal, if not superior to our own. If ours is only nominally equal, it is in reality inferior to that of France. From the number of ships, Lord Lyndhurst went to the personnel ; and he here showed that by the Inscrip- tion Maritime, and the Levee Permanente, France can suddenly man all her ships :—

" If France were to obtain the mastery of the Channel and to blockade your ports, what becomes of the country 5 what becomes of your revenue ? what becomes of your trade ? what becomes of your means of feeding your people ? The whole island would be thrown into a state of permanent con- fusion. These are grave considerations which should convince you that you ought not to be content with an equal force. Nothing short of what is necessary for your absolute security ought to satisfy you on a subject of this kind, so vital to your interests, and even to your existence." Then he showed, by citing facts familiar to every one, that for years we have not been able to man single ships, much less a fleet. A commission has recom- mended the addition of 4000 men to the home reserve, but not one has been raised. Not a single marine has been raised, although the commission re- commended an increase of 5000. The Coast-guard is in great confusion, and only 3200 men can be relied on. It was proposed to raise 30,000 Royal Naval Volunteers. Only 800 have been raised, and although the report was made in February 1859, nothing was done until January 1860. The Admiralty have failed to carry out the scheme, and the chief cause is the absurd document containing the regulations, 159 in number, which in the vigour of his life, Lord Lyndhurst would have required the assistance of Mr. Coulson or some other eminent man to understand. "The conclusion on the subject to which I have been addressing my- self at which I have arrived is, I may add, that in point of material —that is to say, in ships—you are far below the requirements of the country, while so far as the manning of the fleet is concerned you are in a situation the most deplorable." Lord Lyndhurst complained of the con- stitution of the Board of Admiralty, and attacked Mr. Bright and his friends for their avowed intention to compel a reduction of our fleet and army by in- troducing direct taxation, and Lord John Russell for bringing in a bill set- ting class against class at a time when all unite in support of the honour and independence of the nation. (Loud cheers.)

The Duke of Sostsaszr said he was not sorry this important subject had been brought forward. It is in no way a party question. The sole desire of the Admiralty is to maintain the Navy in an efficient condition.

It had been his object, since he entered office to carry out the pro- gramme of the late Board, and during the last eight months more men have been employed in our dockyards than at any previous period of our history, not excluding the time of the great war. We have got forward in ships-of-the-line, and are now bringing up the smaller vessels. There are now 50 ships-of-the line afloat, 37 frigates, 17 corvettes, 88 sloops, many of which are very powerful vessels, 26 smaller vessels, 24 gun vessels of a certain class, and between 150 and 160 gun boats. The-French have 33 ships-of-the-line afloat ; they are building 8; they have 38 frigates afloat, and 12 building; and 104 of all other classes. We have 22 sail-of-the-line at sea more fully manned than at any other time. As to men, there is at present no difficulty, the number being 5000 in excess of the vote. In addition, there are in the Coast-guard service 6862 bona fide seamen, a most efficient and excellent body. Where are 7000 Naval Coast Volunteers; 1000 fine men and excellent trailers have joined the Naval Reserve, " all we want in regard to this force is a little time." The total reserve is 14,850 men. But what he considered .tlie most important part of the force is the boys. " What we want is, to •bring boys to serve in the Navy " ; and there are now 8200 first and 'second class boys serving in our ships. More vessels have been prepared for training the boys. " Captains just returned from sea have told ree that the boys are the best sailors in the Navy, and that we cannot have too many of them." The Duke of Somerset defended the constitution of the. Admiralty Board so far as relates to the First Lord. It-is not necessary that he should be a naval man:- - " I Oran not follow the noble and learned Lord into other questions upop which he touched. We may talk about them more conveniently when we come to consider the budget. 'Let us not Adz up anything of party with this question. What we all want is; that our Navy should be powerful. • It mo. be that, difficult times are coming, and we ought to be prepare& for %UM Let no consideration of party, er of Admiralties, .or of Govern- prevent os from doiog whatever is necessaryto reader our ,navy nt. ,,That, I think, is the-right course to be taken, and it is one, in I hope and believe all parties will co-Operate together for the common " (Cheers.) a Earl of HARDWICKE spoke of the Duke of Somerset's speech as a swer to Lord Lyndhurst. Lord STANLEY, of Alderley, _thought sr arines should be increased. Lord COLCRESTER said the House meat have been gratified by the clear and satisfactory speech of the no- ble Duke ; and the Earl of SHREWSBURY and TALBOT pronounced it to

be " most satisfactory." - _

In the House of Commons, a very similar debate took place, except that Sir CHARLES NAPIER, in his opening speeeb, entered into minute details, and spoke much of the grievances .of the men, imputing in- subordination and bad management. He moved an address to the Crown praying her Majesty to direct that the recommendations of the Manning Commission should be carried out.

Lord CLARENCE PAGET rebuked him for indulging almost weekly in a recapitulation of details as to the discipline and management of the fleet in one stereotyped ,speech. It is not conducive to the interest of the service. He then made a statement similar to that made by the Duke of Somerset. He intimated that the Government intend to carry out the recommendations of the Commission.

Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Sir MICHAEL SEYMOUR, Mr. CORRY, Sir GEORGE PECHELL, and Sir Hearty VERNEY, expressed their satisfaction. Mr. BE.NTINCY said the question of manning the Navy lies in a nut- shell. The Admiralty can always get the men if they will pay enough for them.

At the general request of the House, Sir CitAntre NAPIER withdrew his motion.

THE. SAN.JUAN DIFFICULTY.

Mr. SEYMOUR Frrzointsto asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was prepared to give any information as to the pre- sent position of the negotiations between this country and the United States with reference to the Island of San Juan ; and whether he had any objection to lay the correspondence with the United States on that sub- ject upon the table of the House. Lord Jens, RUSSELL said :— " It will not be expedient to explain entirely what the honourable gentleman calls the compromise which was proposed, but which we think was fairly in accordance with the terms of the treaty of 1846. The present state of the question is this, though I can add but little to the information I gave the other day. We made a proposition in August Last, which was re- fused by the American Government. They stated over again their claim to the same channel, which they originally claimed soon afWr the treaty. We have again replied to that statement, and there is some question whether the American Government will make an answer to our despatch. The last intelligence we have received is, that General Cass expected to receive or- ders from the President to prepare a reply ; and,it depends upon the terms of that, whether we can at once lay the correspondence on the table of the House, or whether some rejoinder will not first be required on the part of her Majesty's Government. With respect to the occupation of the island of San Juan, the honourable gentleman and.the Rouse are aware that General Harney thought it proper or necessary to place 800 Men on the island, and also a battery of guns. General Scott went there with orders from the President to use his own discretion, on the basis of Secretary Marcy's de- spatch, which is well known to the House. General Scott, acting in the spirit of that despatch, immediately sent away all General Harney's force, with the exception of 100 men, and declared that neither party ought to ex- ercise exclusive jurisdiction on the island. Re also sent away the battery of guns, and he informed the Governor of Vancouver's, Island and the Ad- miral what he had done, but the Governor did not think himself authorized to enter into any compromise or agreement with General 'Scott till he had received orders from home. Orders had been sent to the Admiral to land 100 marines, being the same number of men as the United States had placed there, and we stated at the same time that it was entirely in accordance with what the American Government had stated on their part, namely, that while the matter was under discussion there ought to berm exclusive juria- diction exercised in the island. There has been some doubt in the mind of the Governor of Vancouver's Island, whether we ought not to have a. magis- trate in the island. What is the state of things there at the present time I cannot say.; but what I have stated is the latest intelligence that her Ma- jesty's Government have received."

NATIONAL EDUCATION. IN IRELAND.

The Earl of CLANCARTY, in moving for the production of certain letters, which have already been published in the newspapers, called upon the Government to reconsider the whole.' question. He gave as a reason the fact that the system is opposed both by the Roman . Catholic priests and the clergy of the Established Church., The landed gentry do not support the system, and even the poor do not send their children to the schools in great numbers. He asked for st system that would secure

the cooperation of the clergy of all denominations, •

The Earl of Conit'said'a grave responsibility tests on those who oppose the system. The Roman Catholic laity of Cork have shown that they are in favour of it. Re regretted that the system had been altered, and professed agreement with Archbishop Whately,. The Bishop of CASHEL thanked the Government for refusing the demands of the Roman Catholic bishops, and made an attack upon their management of schools. He would not join the Roman Catholics in:upsetting the Board, but he declared the system a great failure, and advocated the demands of the Church.Edireation Society. - The Earl of CARLISLE said the Government did not mean, to introduce any change into the National system ; " but .if at.any time, from any quarter, from one side or another, there should be laid before us any propositions for practical improvements, or any objection§ to existing practices we should, so far as they might not be iactMeistent with the prineiple of the, system, be always-willing to.give tire% esfaircind candid consideration." The schools may stand in need of improvement, but they will bear, ;comparison, with those of the„,citurgli .Education

Society. . . .

. Lord LIFFORD said. the original system was as good as- could possibly be desired but it has been injured by continual euncessionaip the. Roman Oatholies--such as the withdrawal of the reading' prepared by Dr. Whately, and the building of schools near, convents.t....;__, - -He could not sympathise with those who opposed-the T.Tational system on religious grounds. ;He did not think-it was a Obristireethityto refuse secu- lar . education, to.children whose parents-dissented •fronr,the religious in- struction given in a school.i. He rejoiced tofffieer theyLetdelientenant of Ireland say thattheiGovernurent.hadsno intention4ccohangethe system. - The Bishop of Pones answered kffibord Olancarty and the' ishop be- ashel; insisting on the progress•mrdsitility.nf the National s tent' air& An the fairness of its rides regwedintrelignms instruction.

e hehleptime fe bishop, there. were drily relates in 'favour of lie enlisted'oli it:la/Ad& IV f if0.04.‘if .the epic- copal body. , Two:thirds of Ail? of viler 10.ple support it.

of Dr: 040ft:tie's letter—" that y in, and ,charity."] [Both Lortft &Map and the 'Mak fhehighest terms

The' Earl of DONOE011310RE' spat:alma' the iiewif -lord Clinearty, and sharply criticized the letter of the Primate. _lgilrion agreed

FLOGGING AS A PUNISHMENT.

At the Wednesday sitting, Lord RAYNHAM moved the second reading of the Aggravated Assaults Act Amendment Bill. He argued, that as- saults on women and children have not decreased since Mr. Fitzroy's Act, giving magistrates power to inflict a sentence of six month? impri- sonment on the offenders ; that the punishment is inadequate for an offence that in many eases causes the death of the victims ; and a remedy is required. He finds it in extending the power of magistrates, and enabling them, if they think fit, to sentence a man to twelve months' imprisonment and fifty lashes for the first offence, making it compulsory on them to award eighteen months' imprisonment and one hundred and fifty lashes for a second offence. Magistrates at quarter sessions have the power of ordering corporal punishment in certain cases, and he does not see why magistrates in petty sessions, and stipendiaries, should not have a similar power.

Mr. CLIVE moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The bill will increase the difficulty of getting wives to appear against their husbands ; and_ magistrateswill shrink from inflicting cor- poral punishment on adults. It would be dangerous to give them the power.

Mr. DARBY Gnirrrrits warmly supported the bill. Nothing short of direct personal punishment could have much effect upon these degraded beings. Mr. WARNER said something should be done to cure the dread- ful evil of woman beating. Mr. HENLEY argued that Lord Raynham had not shown that the law is ineffective. It would be objectionable to leave the power of flogging in the hands of one or two magistrates. The true mode of dealing with the people is to improve their tastes and habits. Mr. DILLWYN supported the bill. It would be unnecessarily squeamish to exempt in tenderness such wretches from a punishment which was inflicted for less brutal crimes upon the defenders of the country. Mr. ESTCOURT thought the bill would do more harm than good. Flogging is a proper punishment for men who act in a brutal manner, but he did not think it would be effectual. Sir GEORGE LEWIS reinforced the views of Mr. Clive and Mr. Henley. He did not seem to object to the extension of the term of imprisonment, but he did decisively object to the flogging. He especially dwelt on the difficulty of getting wives to prosecute.

The bill was supported by Mr. BRADY, Mr. BONLIAM■CARTER, and Sir B. LEIGHTON, and opposed by Mr. ConnsonAsi, Mr. WALTER and Mr. CLAY.

On a division, the motion for the second reading was carried. At first, the numbers were said to be 139 to 85; but they were afterwards cor- rected, the true numbers being 109 to 85. The bill was read a second time.

BRIBERY- AT BERN-WIC.

Mr. FREDERICK PEEL, chairman of the Election Committee appointed to try the Berwick petition, moved an address praying that her Majesty would cause inquiry to be made, by the appointment of Commissioners, into the existence of extensive bribery at the last election for the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. He had, he said, no party object in the motion; he took this course simply with the view of discharging the duty that de- volved upon him as chairman of the Election Committee, and in conse- quence of the nature of the evidence before the Committee. He stated the particulars of the case, showing the nature and result of the inquiry, which was; he said, incomplete, and it was for the House to consider whether it would carry the inquiry further. He thought it desirable to ascertain to what extent corruption had prevailed at the last election, and the persons who supplied the nimiey for the bribery.

Mr. MATORIBANKS, Member for Berwick, vindicated his own conduct, and, on behalf of his supporters, welcomed inquiry.

Then arose a curious debate. The motion was opposed by Member after Member rising from the Opposition benches. Mr. MACAUL-AY thought the case not one coming within the scope of the statute. Lord ROBERT CECIL saw grounds for inquiry ; but regarded these commissions as a delusion and a sham. Mr. LONGFIELD asked the House to pause be- fore it issued one more abortive commission. Mr. M. SMITH saw no ad- vantage to be gained by agreeing to the motion. Mr. MALTNS protested against the reacting of an expensive farce. The practical result would only be another blue book, at great expense. Mr. LONG, Mr. CoLu.sis, Mr. HARDY, Mr. Wirrresins followed the same course.

On the other side, Mr. JAMES demanded some assurance that the Go- vernment would act on the report of the commission. Mr. COLLIER said the exposure of the offences committed did good. Mr. BRIGHT took the same view. The House would act perversely in refusing to issue the commission. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt it right that some pledge should be given to the House that, so far as the criminal jurisdiction was concerned, the proceedings of these commissions should not be without results ; and be assured the House that it was his determination that every man guilty of bribery, and not protected by the report, for whose convic- tion the evidence afforded reasonable ground, should be brought to a cri- minal bar.

Lord PALMERSTON described the arguments of the Opposition as " flimsy." " There has been no case in which a committee has made such a report upon a borough as has been made in this instance in which a commission of "inquiry has not been issued. The only grounds upon which I have heard that motion objected to are—first, that the House has not settled before- hand what it will do when it gets the report of commission, and next that we ought to be deterred from making the inquiry by the expense with which it will be attended. I must say that more flimsy arguments against that which I hold it to be the duty of the House to do I never heard ad- vanced. I cannot bring myself to believe that the House of Commons, which is now engaged with a bill to improve the representation of the people—(much laughter)—will, in a ease of manifest bribery and corruption, refuse to issue that commission which, according to the law and practice, it is, I think, bound to issue. If this House should refuse to issue a com- mission to inquire in what degree bribery has prevailed, it will shrink from its duty." (Cheers.)

No formal opposition being made, the motion was agreed to.

Mr. PEEL then moved that Mr. Attorney-General be directed to pro- secute William M'Gall for wilful and corrupt perjury in giving his evi- dence before the Berwick-upon.Tweed Election Committee; and this mo- tion was likewise agreed to.

THE BRIBERY AT WAKEFIELD.

In-reply to a question from Mr. JAMES, whether any proceedings had been commenced against any of the parties concerned in bribery at the Wakefield and Gloucester elections, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL said :— " I am much obliged to the honourable and learned gentleman for ask- ing the question. It has just been communicated to me that some persons have discovered that these delinquents will escape. I can only assure those who have made that discovery that they have found a nidus equinus. Now, sir, it was never my intention to proceed against those persons for any penalty or pecuniary fine or forfeiture. I stated moat clearly that I should bring them to the bar of a criminal court of justice. The offence which they have committed is, first of all, a misdemeanour at common law, to which I would resort if there were any difficulty under the statute. But the statute leaves no doubt on the subject to any informed person who will take the liberty of reading it. The statute enacts in the clearest manner that not only should the offence be punished, but every party committing it shall be liable to a fine of 1001., but shall also be guilty of a misdemeanour, and the time limited for the recovery of the penalty is applicable only to civil and not to criminal proceedings. It is impossible, therefore, for any lawyer's ingenuity to strain the language of the statute so as to bring the criminal proceeding within the limited time. I do intend immediately— in fact, I have given directions this morning—that a criminal information shall be filed, first, against the chief delinquents, namely, the two candi- dates, Mr. Leathern and Mr. Charlesworth, and then against the principal persons who aided and abetted them."

SUNDAY TRADING. Lord CHELMSFORD moved the Committee on the Selling and Hawking of Goods on Sunday Bill, the object of which is to prohibit the sale of goods in certain portions of the metropolis after nine o'clock in the morning. The Earl of ST. GEILMA.NS objected to the bill on the ground that it would produce a state of things worse than the present. The noble earl moved, as an amendment, that the committee be postponed for six months. Lord TEYNIIAM supported the amendment, and pointed out the evils which, in his opinion, would result from the partial action of the bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR advocated going into committee, in order that the bill might be reduced to a practical shape. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH ex- pressed himself in favour of the principle of the bill, whether viewed in a moral, social, or physical aspect. Lord CRANWORTH was not indisposed to go into committee ; at the same time, he could not consent to give the police the arbitrary power of seizing goods exposed for sale after nine o'clock. Earl GRANVILLE referred their lordships to an opinion expressed by Sir Richard Mayne, Chief Commissioner of Police, that the provisions of the bill never could be enforced, except at the cost of constant riots and conflicts between the police and the people. He was therefore opposed to any legis- lation of the description proposed. The Earl of DERBY thought the bill was deserving of support, as it was evident that the present law was altogether insufficient to suppress Sunday trading. After a few words from Earl GREY, who suggested that the bill should be referred to a Select Committee, the House divided, and the amendment was negatived by 54 to 25. The bill was then committed pro forma, on the understanding that the discussion would be taken a week hence.

SMITFIFIELD MARRF.C. Lord EM MY moved a resolution on Monday, the object of which was to preserve the open space at Smithfield free from build- ings, in order to promote the health and recreation of the inhabitants. Earl GRANVILLE said the question had been compromised between the Go- vernment and the Corporation. A large portion of the area is to be kept free from buildings. The Earl of Sicarrnmitur protested against the com- promise, solely on the ground of the public health. The motion, however was withdrawn.