Viistro nut frurtriugo in Vialianint.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Moose or Loans. Monday, June 11. The Fermoy Peerage ; Lord Derby's Mo- tion-Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Bill committed.

Tuesday, June 12. Religious Worship ; Lord Shaftesbury's Bill reported-Church Patronage Transfer Bill committed-University of Cambridge ; the Lord 'Chancel- lor'e Bill reported-Roman Catholic Charities; the Lord Chancellor's Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday, June 14. Needlewomen of the Metropolis ; Lord Shaftesbury's Bill referred to Select Committee-Cambridge University; the Lord Chancellor's Bill read a third time and passed. Friday, June 15. Royal Assent to the Newspaper Stamp-Duties Bill, the Regis- tration of Births (Scotland)Bill, and several others-Validity of Proceedings (House of Commons) Bill-Religious Worship ; Lord Shaftesbury's Bill referred to a Select Committee-Education of Poor Children Bill read a third time and passed.

lianas or COMMONS. Monday, June 11. Consequences of the Speaker's Illness -Metropolis Local Management; Sir B. Hall's Bill in Committee-Validity of Pro- oeedings ; Sir George Grey's Bill read a first time-Education (No. 2) Sir John Pak- ington's Bill ; adjourned debate-Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill read a second time-Youthful Offenders ; Mr. Adderley's Bill read a second time. Tuesday, June 12. Validity of Proceedings.; Sir G. Grey's Bill read a second time -Metropolis Local'anagement; Sir B. Hall's Bill in Committee-Administrative Reform ; Arrangement with Mr. ayard-Decimal Coinage; Mr. Brown's Motion- " Count out" on Mr. Kennedy's Motion respecting Education in Ireland. Wednesday, June 13. Sunday Trading (Metropolis); Lord Robert Grosvenor's Bill in Committee-Office of Speaker; Mr. Walpole's Motion for Select Committee agreed to.

Thursday, June 14. Education (Scotland); the Lord-Advocate's Bill in Commit- tee-Victoria :Government; Lord John Russell's Bill read a second time-New South Wales Government; Lord John Russell's Bill -read a second time-Waste Lands (Au, trails); Lord John Russell's Bill read a second time-Hardware, firm, Trade ;• Mr. Haddeld's 13illivithdrawn.

Friday, June 15. Stipulations of -the Seceding Ministers ; Mr. Otway's Question -Administrative Reform; Mr. Layard's Motion; debate adjourned.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords. The Commons.

Moor of sour of Hoer of Hoar o7 Meeting. Adjosmoment. Meeting. Adjournment. Monday .. 6h .... 9h linn Monday Noon 4h Om eh .(m) lh lOra

Tuesday th . Sh-46m Tuesday Noon dh Ora

6h .... 11h SOm

Wednesday .... ...... No sitting. Wednesday ..... Noon eh 59,11 Thursday ..... 5h .... 6h rem Thursday Noon . 4h Om eh .(.1n) 411 dem Friday th 65m Priday........... ...... 411 .10) lh 443m Slitingsthis Week, 4; Time. 1 lh 56m I Sittings this Week. 8; Time,48h 29ra this Session. 75; - 155h 35m — this Session. 94; - 610h 22m THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT BILLS.

In the House-of Commons, on Thursday, Lord Joan RUSSELL moved that the Victoria Government Bill be read a second time. Answering the objection that Government ought to have taken the course of enacting de novo all the provision which might have been thought necessary by the Colonies, he said it would have been inconsistent with the promise con- veyed in the bill of 1850 that the Colonies should be empowered to settle their own constitutions : and Parliament would Lave found great diffi- culty in deciding the details,-in settling, for instance, why there ehould be an elective Upper Chamber in Victoria and a nominated Chamber in New South Wales ; why 50,0001. 610.64111 given for religious worship in Victoria, and 28,0001. for the same purpose in2tew South Wales. In- steaa-of begin:flag de nee°, glad been thought 'better to take the bills as they bad been sent back from Victoria .and New South Wales, to strike out those clauses limiting the-power of the Crown, to which it was im- possible her Ma_ esty could give her assent, and to render the acts in that form valid and effective from the day on which the Royal assent should be given to them.

Mr. Brim moved and Mr. Miem. seconded an amendment, that the bills be read a second time that day six months: both Members laying great stress on the interference with the self-legislation of the colonists, and on the 50,0001. granted for religious purposes.

Mr. Lowe objected to the bills before the House, as combining an in- fraction of Colonial and of Imperial privileges. The very preamble of the Victoria bill showed that the Legislature of the colony had overridden reservations in the Australian Colonies Constitution Bill, restraining the local Legislature from interfering with the Royal authority in certain cases, and with the control of waste lands. The Colonial Legislature, therefore, had done that to which it was not competent. It was admitted that the Queen could not give her assent to the Colonial'ill ; and there- fore the Colonial act incorporated in the present bill would be ab initio invalid. On the other hand, the Colonial Legislature had proposed a measure quite inconsistent with the views and interests of the majority of the inhabitants,-a civil list of 112,0001. for a colony of 300,000 in- habitants, the same Legislature having incurred a deficit in the revenue of not less than 1,086,000/.and the most extravagant qualifications for the two branches of the Legislature. The best course for the Colonial Secretary would be to send the bill back to Port Phillip for reconsidera- tion ; Ministers conceding as much as they thought they ought to concede to the wishes of the colonists.

In the debate which followed, Mr. ADDERLEY supported Mr. Lowe. Mr. DUFFY lent the weight of his influence to 'Government-though objecting to particular clauses. Mr. BALL deprecated a decision upon technical and legal grounds ; and pleaded the overwhelming majority of the Legislature which had passed the bill. Sir Joan Peicixofron held himself bound to support the bills, as completing an arrangement entered into in 1853 by Lord Derby's Government for meeting the repeatedly expressed wishes of the Colonies. Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained, that the Colonies will still have power to make future amendments, especially in reference to the appropriation of the 50,0001. As Government had consulted the wishes of Canada in regard to the Clergy Reserves, they wished to allow the people of Victoria to alter the provision now. made if they thought proper, which would be done by a clause in the bill. The civil list had been fixed by the colony itself ; and if the Colonial bill were invalid, it would be rendered valid by an act of Parliament.

Mr. Baia., understanding from the Speaker that the House would have- the power of dealing with the details of the bill in Committee, withdrew his amendment, and the bill was read a second time.

On the order of the day for the second reading of the New South Wales Government Bill, Mr. LOWE moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months ; and raised a debate very similar to that upon the previous measure. He made a speech of greater length and detail, going into the history of the local squabbles and disputes between the Colony and the Government. He expanded the argument, that as the Legislature of New South Wales was elected by a limited constituency, it did not represent the colonists ; and as the colony had been raised upon a convict basis, the transfer of waste lands to a Legislature elected by a restricted constituency would erect upon that convict basis a land-mono- poly, totally inconsistent with the social state of the colony, the more dangerous from the constantly changing and increasing value of land and stock, and calculated therefore to bring the Government into contempt and the colony into confusion.

Mr. BAXTER seconded the amendment, and, as a merchant connected with Australia, entered his protest against the constituencyand against the nominated Upper Chamber. On this point also Mr. MAGUIRE de- scanted at length. Mr. Join( BALL contended for the necessity of obey- ing the wishes of the colonists through their authenticated representa- tives, and stated some facts connected with the distribution of land and population, to show that the representation had not been unwisely ar- ranged by the New South Wales Council.

On a division, Mr. Lowe's amendment was negatived by 142 to 33 ; and the bill was read a second time.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

The debate on the second reading of Sir John Paltington's Education Bill, adjourned on the 2d May, was resumed on Monday by Mr. ADDER- LEK ; who, at the opening of his speech, gave a succinct description of the position of the question.

The question has been brought before the House in every possible form. Et has been the subject of a _private measure and a public measure. It has been treated as a local question and as a general question. It has been brought forward by strings of resolutions in both Houses, like those moved by Lord Brougham in the other House. It has been brought before Parlia- ment in the reports of 'Select Committees ; and it has been met by the moat contradictory arguments. When a private bill was brought in, It was said that the subject was too large for private legislation, and that it must be dealt with by a general measure. when a general measure was brought in, it was said that educational provision must be made for distinct localities, and that the state of education varies so much in different places that no general measure would apply. Seven years ago, a majority of all the rate- payers of Manchester petitioned Parliament for liberty to tax themselves for the purposes of education. This permission was then, and has ever since been, refused to them. They might sate themselves in every way-for the punish- ment of ignorance, and for almost every other object-but not for the dif- fusion of knowledge and religious education. He objected to the dangerous and unconstitutional course of reading all these Education Bills a second time profermi and shaping them in committee. The principle of these bills could not be shaped in Committee, but must be decided by the House. Mem- bers appeared to have three courses to pursue. Mr. Henley was content with the principle of the present system, which he thought might be developed to a satisfactory extent. The second proposition, embodied in the bills of Lord John Russell and Sir John Pakington, was, that where private resources fail, public rates for education may be allowed to come in ; these rates being dia- tributed under the control of religions bodies which have been recognized in this country for a number of years. The third proposition was that of Mr. Milner Gibson ; who, agreeing in the necessity of public rates, 'was for

sweeping away all the existing schools and wholly ignoring religious in- struction.

In his general argument Mr. Adderley replied to Mr. Henley ; and supported Sir John Pakingtod's bill, except as regarded the clauses pro- viding for new schools. Mr. Henley called the present system a volun- tary self-supporting system : but if it is so, what need is there for the an- nual vote of 300,0001. from the State, and another 300,0001, in forced loans obtained by the begging exertions of the clergy ? The fact is, that the present plan is a system of private patronage aided by Government patronage. Public rating, it is said, would pauperize the whole system but rates are raised for parks, museum; and the lighting of streets and highways with gas, and none of these public works bear the stamp of pauperism ; why, then, a rate for education ? The present system does not provide education for the children of the poor, and is not adapted to its object, that of supplying industrial instruction to an industrial popula- tion. Hence the children of the labouring Classes do not generally attend the schools. But if the education given fitted them for their future life, as it does in.the Cornish schools, there would be no difficulty in procuring the willing attendance of pupils. Rejecting Mr. Gibson's bill altogether, Mr. Adderley held that the bills of Lord John Russell and Sir John Pak- been contained the elements of a satisfactory settlement of the question, which a Select Committee might work out.

Mr. EVELYN DENISON argued in favour of the insertion of clauses compelling the attendance of pupils. Lord JOHN MANNERS opposed all the bills; and said that if he were compelled to choose, he should say, " Give me the bill of the right honourable Member for Manchester." Mr. W. J. Fox urged that the three bills, founded on the same principle, that of free schools, might be practically amalgamated, if subjected to a Select Committee.

Sir JOHN PARINGTON, after noticing the disadvantages under which he laboured in meeting arguments and statements made six weeks before, proceeded to give a detailed reply, point by point, to Mr. Henley's speech ; correcting errors, supplying omissions, and pointing out evasions. This led him greatly into detail, for which he apologized. Sir John showed, that with regard to the proportion of children at school in this and other countries, while he had quoted official documents supplied to him by the Ministers of Austria, Holland, and Denmark, 14r. Henley bad quoted " from a book in the library of the House" -' that especially in com- paring the number of children at school in England and in Austria, Mr. Henley had set the Austrian returns of 1846 against our census returns of 1851,—whereas, if be had compared the re- turns of the two countries in the same year, he would have seen that there were only 684,000 children not in school in Austria, where there were 1,000,000 in England. Sir John had said, that in eight Me- tropolitan parishes out of 110,449 children, 47,532 were not at school at all; but Mr. Henley took no notice of this statement. Sir James Kay Shuttleworth and Mr. Ruddock protested against the construction placed on their opinions by Mr. Henley. To show he was correct in stating that vast deficiencies of education really exist, Sir John quoted the Reverend Mr. Mitchell, an Inspector of Schools, the Reverend Mr. Clay of Preston, the Chaplain of Sussex Gaol, and several other authorities. In defend- ing his rating proposition and vindicating its necessity, he quoted official documents making out that schools are shut up for want of funds, and that the burden of the expense in many cases falls heavily on the clergy- man. But, it was said, the bill does not touch the real defect of the present system, the non-attendance of the children. The answer is that fuller attendance can only be obtained by im- proving the quality of the instruction ; the cause of non-attend- ance is the general badness of the schools; and as the hill does provide for improved schools, indirectly it provides for better attend- ance. Touching on some other points in the same manner,—as the religious question, and local boards for the regulation of expense —Sir John said he trusted that the present constitution of the Committee of Council would be changed, and that it would be converted into a recog- nized department of the State, represented in the House of Commons by a Minister able to give authoritative answers to questions put to him upon the subject of education.

The question involves not mere considerations of a social or reli- gious character, but it involves a great political question ; for, at a time when it is expected that at no distant period there will be an extension of the franchise, it is of the utmost importance to fit those persons who will be called on to exercise the suffrage, to perform the duties they will be called upon to discharge."

On the motion of Mr. EWA.RT, the debate was again adjourned, till Monday next.

SCOTCH EDUCATION BILL.

The morning sitting on. Thursday was taken up with the consideration of the Lord-Advocate's Education Bill in Committee ; but so much op- position was offered that four o'clock arrived before a decision could be taken on the -first clause. The preamble was not agreed to without four divisions. Mr. HADPERLD moved an amendment destructive or the whole principle of the bill but he found only 6 supporters, opposed to 167. Mr. CUMXDIG Blame moved the insertion of words declaring that the Christian religion should be taught in the schools : but the LORD-ADVOCATE said the religious principle was expressed with suf- ficient clearness in the preamble as it stood ; and in this the Committee agreed, rejecting the amendment by 105 to 68. Then Mr. F. Seorr moved, that instead of the words declaring that the super- intendence of the schools should be "altered and amended," the words " extended and amended "-should be substituted : negatived by 115 to 64. Lastly, Mr. He.DFLELD divided the Committee against the preamble altogether ; but it was carried by 122 to -63.

On-the motion of the LORD-Anvocere„ some amendments were made in the first clause, constituting the Board of Education for Scotland : but the Chairman was compelled to report progress before a vote could be taken on the clause..

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.

On the order of the day for reporting to the Lords the Religious Wor- ship Bill with amendments, the Earl of SHAITESETTBX explained its ob- ject, and why it is necessary. The object is to repeal a portion of the 52d George III, which prohibits, under penalties, the-assembling of more than twenty persons, above the number of a household, for religions wor- ship, in any house not registered for that purpose. The reason why it is necessary to repeal this enactment is, that while it is practically aslead letter and cannot be enforced, it yet &rows impediments in the way of

imparting religions Untied-ion to large masses of the people—the millions who never attend any place of worship. In order to meet existing evils and offer encouragement to attend Divine worship, the clergy of the Church of England have set on foot school-room and cottage lectures, ail Bible classes ; and the London City Mission, with its 400 agents, held last year 25,315 meetings, 1304 of which were in the open air. But as all the Church meetings, and 22,000 of the City' ission meetings, were held within-doors, and began with prayer, the whole of them were stamped with illegality. Yet if the law were enforced, a stop would be put to the labours of the Church and the Nonconformists in the evangelization of London. Nor would it atop there, but nine-tenths of the Ragged Schools would also be extinguished, for they too mostly commence with .a regular service. Then there are what are called the " Mother meetings," where women who have been accustomed to neglect their children are gathered into a room, and are taught to knit and sew, while some one reads to them. Within a short distance from the Houses of Parliament, he could show their Lordships a meeting of 500 or 600 mothers who had been reclaimed by the Missionaries to habits of decency and carefulness. Yet all these meetings are illegal ; and are they to be put down ? You may attend a meeting where the Bible is denounced ; but a meeting that opens with prayer is illegal. Nay, the opening of the Crystal Palace by the Queen, when the Archbishop of Canterbury ,offered up a prayer, was a violation of the law. There are many who often violate it. The Secretary at War violated it last Sunday ; the Home Secretary, to his knowledge, violated it - and many of their Lordships did so ; and many in the land are determined to persist in doing so.

It was said the law is obsolete : but it could be revived for intimi- dation. rn 1820, Lord Romney caused Lord Barham to be fined 401. for two religious meetings in his own house. In 1850, Moses Green, a la- bourer, was fined 20s. for permitting more than twenty persons to meet for religious worship in his cottage at Charlton, although the curate testi- fied to the fact that the discourse might have been preached in any church in. England. In 1854, a Magistrate in one of the Northern counties, finding the parish in which his estate lay neglected, read the Bible in the largest cottage in the village once a week, until it was hinted to him that an information would be laid against him for breaking the Con- venticle Act ; when he desisted, not desiring to set the example of break- ing the law. In fact, the reason for this law has passed away. Did the Bishops desire to maintain this system of connivance ? did Ministers think it right to leave the law in its present state ? lie called upon them either to enforce the law or to repeal it at once.

The Bishop of LONDON and the Bishop of Oxman opposed the bill ; contending that Lord Shaftesbury's cases did not apply ; that there were no difficulties in the way of registering houses for the use of Dissenters ; that the proceedings were rendered legal by the sanction of the Bishop ; that the present state of the law is not imperfect, and places no obstacles in the way of the evangelization of the people ; and that it is not de- sirable to enable houses to be opened for the private celebration of wor- ship in communion with the Church of England. At a meeting of the Bishops, it had been unanimously agreed that the bill should be opposed; and the Bishop of Oxford moved that it be reported that day six months. The measure was supported by the Earl of HARROWBY, the Duke of ARGYLL, the LORD CHANCELLOR, Lord LYTrELTON, and the Earl of Remiss On the other hand, the Earl of CARNARVON, the Earl of CHICHESTER, and the Bishop of ST. ASAPH spoke against it. Pressed-to a division, there were—For recommitting the bill, 31 ; against it, 30 ; majority for the bill, one.—Report agreed to.

SUNDAY TRADING.

The Wednesday sitting of the Commons was occupied by a discussion on Lord Robert Grosvenor's Sunday Trading Bill, on the motion for going into Committee. Mr. Messer moved to postpone the Committee till that day three months. The bill, he said, would have a mischievous effect in aggravating the evil it attempts to put down. Such was the opinion of Sir Richard Mayne. The working classes are unable to make purchases until Sunday morning : if they were paid on Friday, it would lead to dissipation and idleness. He characterized the bill as a onesided measure, since it would not affect the pleasures of the rich, and ano- malous, since it was not extended to the whole country.

A long and rather sharp debate ensued ; in the course of which, Lord STANLEY, Mr. KER SEYMER, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. BARROW sup- ported the motion;_while Mr. W. I. Fox, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, Mr. DRUMMOND, Mr. MAGUIRE, Sir -JOSHUA WALMSLEY,! Mr. B.ENTINCK, and Mr. WuzirstsoN, stoutly opposed it. On a division, the House decided to go into Committee, by 158 to 51. But the opposition was renewed on the first clause; and before the-Chair- man was ordered to report progress, there were no fewer than five divi- sions in Committee. One was taken on the question whether the sale of milk, a perishable article, should be prohibited between the hours of nine a. m. and one p.m. ; and was decided that it should, by 133 to .69. A proposal to substitute "eleven o'clock" for nine o'clock was negatived by 107 to 100. A third division arose on the clause prohibiting the tale of newspapers after ten a. m. It was proposed by Lord JOHN Moinseas to leave out the word "ten," for the purpose of inserting "nine" ; but negatived, by 53 to 169. Mr. DUNCOMBE immediately moved that the words "in the morning" be omitted, and the words ` in the after- noon" be inserted ; so that no newspaper might. e sold after ten at night. This was negatived by 159 to 61. Mr. CRADFUED then proposed that newspapers might be sold after two in the afternoon : negatived by 140 to 62.

The Chairman reported progress and the Committee was ordered to sit, again on the 4th-July.

NREDLEWOMEN'S SHORT TIME BILL.

The Earl of Snerreseuny moved that the bill for the Limitation of the Working-Hours of Needlewomen in the Metropolis should be referred to a Select Committee. This bill, rendered necessary by the excessive labour exacted by their employers from milliners and-dressmakers—labour extending to fifteen and eighteen hours a day, and sometimes throughout the twenty-four hours without rest—prohibits, during 4' the London sea- son," that is, from the 1st of May to the 1st of August, all work between the hours of ten at night and eight in the morning, and during the re- maining months of the year between eight at night and eight in the morn- ing. He cited a great deal of medical testimony to show hew this excessive labour is destructive of health ; and contended,--that as the needlewomen are practically helpless, it is the duty of Parliament to pro- tect them. Earl GRANVILLE did not oppose the motion; but he urged the House seriously to consider the effect of the provisions of the bill—whether they could be carried out, and if so, what limit could be set to interference with labour. The Earl of MALMESEURY and Lord TALBOT supported Lord Shaftesbury's views; but Lord CAMPBELL, Lord STANLEY of .Alder- ley, Lord OVERSTONE, and the Duke of Anovr.m, expressed the strongest doubts of the propriety and practicability of the measure.—Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM.

On Tuesday, Sir EDWARD LYTTON, under the form of a question, stated that as Mr. Layard's motion stood for Friday, to be brought forward on going into Committee of Supply, and not as a substantive motion, no amendment could be moved. It would be unfair to Members if they were compelled to appear either as hostile to a principle they accept, or else to accept with that principle the propositions contained in Mr. Layard's resolutions. If it were brought forward as a substantive mo- tion, he should move an amendment.

The result of this statement was, that Mr. LAyAltD expressed his willingness to bring on his resolutions as a substantive motion and that Lord PALMERSTON, declaring that the Government had no wish except that the question should have the fullest discussion, undertook to move on Friday that the orders of the day should be postponed untll. after Mr. Layard's motion should be disposed. of.

DECIMAL COINAGE.

Mr. WILLIAM BROWN prefaced by a speech in which he referred to various authorities—Huskisson, Babbage, De Morgan, Pasley—and used several arguments in support of his scheme for a decimal coinage, moved the following resolutions, which embody the change he proposes. " That, in the opinion of this House, the initiation of the decimal system of coinage, by the issue of the florin, has been eminently successful and sa- tisfactory : " That a further extension of such system will be of great public ad- vantage : " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to complete the decimal scale with the pound and the florin, as suggested by two Commissions and a Committee of the House of Commons, by authorizing the issue of silver coins to represent the value of the one-hundredth part of a pound, and copper coins to represent the one- thousandth part of a pound, to be called 'cents ' and pills' respectively, or to bear such other names as to her Majesty may seem advisable."

Lord STANLEY, as a member of the Committee on the subject in 1853, seconded the motion; representing that there is virtual unanimity in opinion as to the abstract propriety of the change, and a preponderance of opinion in favour of that particular change sanctioned by the Com- mittee and proposed by Mr. Brown. Three plans were suggested. One took the penny as the basis, made the next coin tenpence, and the highest one hundred pence : but this plan would deetroy every existing coin ex- cept the penny, and make the largest coin employed in large transactions smaller than that now in, use,, and consequently increase the labour of cal- culation. The second plan proposed to retain both the penny and the pound, dividing the pound into twenty-four tenpenny pieces : but this would fail altogether in large transactions. The third plan was that pro- posed in the resolutions : it was a change that would cause the least pos- sible derangement of the present system, and inflict the least loss upon all parties.

Mr. J. B. SMITH insisted upon further inquiry, and the establishment of a decimal system of weights and measures simultaneously with that of a decimal coinage; and moved an amendment, to the effect that the Queen should invite a congress of all nations to meet at some convenient place for the purpose of considering the practicability of adopting a common standard of moneys, weight& and measure&

Mr. LOWE observed that the authorities referred to by Mr. Brown were in favour of a decimal coinage, and not of the particular plan he proposed. In that plan the unit is taken too high. By taking a large unit, they were guided by a decimal scale, instead of the convenience of mankind. What merit is there in a florin, except that it is the decimal of a pound? His only experience of the conveniene of florins was, that when he ought to have received half-a-crown he generally received a florin, and when he ought to have paid a florin he generally paid half-a-crown. Then they came to 2.2-5the of a penny : but who ever bought anything, or wished to reckon anything, in such a coin as that ? Then there is the mil, whose only recommendation is that it is the thousandth part of s pound. The integer was taken so high that it would add a fourth column to the pre- sent three columns in book-keeping. To show the difficulties of the pro- posed system, be put several cases. What would have to be done? Every sum would have to be reduced into a vulgar fraction of a pound, and then divided by the decimal of a pound— a pleasant sum for an old apple-woman to- work out ! (Laughter.) It would not be an agreeable task, even for some Members of that House, to reduce 4}d., or nine halfpenc& to mile. Suppose he owed another man a penny; bow was he to pay him Was he to pay him in mils ? Four mils would be too little, and ilve mils would be too much. The honourable gentle- man said there would be only a mil between them : that was exactly it. He believed there would be a " mill "- between them. (Much laughter.) What would be the present expression for fourpence ? why, -0166; for threepence ? -0125 ; for a penny .004166, and so on ad infinitum ; for a halfpenny ? -002083, ad infinitum. What would be the present expression for a farthing? 'why, -0010416, ad infinitum. And this was the system which was to cause such a saving in figures ; and these were the quantities into which the poor would have to reduce the current coin of the realm ! (Cheers.)

The House should pause before it rushed into a system that would in many cases multiply trouble and disturb the comfort of the poor. Mr. Joint MAcGEE0oR and Mr. EANKEy treated Mr. Lowe's objections very lightly, and insisted that some means should be taken to put an end to the present system, which is a disgrace to this great commercial coun- try. Mr. J. L, RICARDO also ridiculed Mr. Lowe's speech. If the de- cimal system were introduced tomorrow, the labouring classes would adapt themselves to it in less than a month ; and if Mr. Brown's plan were adopted, it would entail fewer disadvantages than any other. Sir GEORGE LEWIS entered at some length into the history of the ques- tion, and detailed to-the Hbese the; particulars of several plans which had come under hie notice. Passing thete by, ho examined Mr. Brown's plan. The cent an the mil are too small as, coins. The cent would be incon-

veniently ft if it were silver, too bulky if it were copper. To illus- trate the i lonveniences of the plan, he stated the figures in which the ,tint and ink prices of gold would have to be described. "The Mint price of gold is 3/. 178. 103e/ ; and this amount must be thus expressed

3/, 8 florins, 9 cents, 3.7500 mils. The Bank price of gold is 31. 178. 9d. ; which would have to be thus described-3/, 8 florins, 8 cents, 7.5000 mils." Quoting Sir John Herschell's evidence, (which he afterwards acknow- ledged be had quoted erroneously,) Sir George urged that the proposed coinage could not be adjusted to prices fixed by act of Parliament, such as tolls, without exciting universal dissatisfaction ; and he pointed out that no change in the currency could take place at all without an act, because the existing denominations of coins are prescribed by statute ; so that the adoption of the motion could not lead to a practical change. The subject is of great intricacy, and requires further consideration. Mr. CARDWELL spoke decidedly in favour of a decimal coinage ; but be urged caution in dealing with a subject so delicate as the currency, in which confidence is so easily shaken. The great mass of the people are ignorant on the subject, and require time to make them familiar with so great a change. He therefore hoped Mr. Brown would be satisfied with a discussion in which no scheme had been brought forward to compete with his own, and that he would not divide the House.

Mr. BROWN expressed his willingness to omit all except the first reso- lution : but to this Mr. Hxsamest objected. Lord PALMERSTON enforced the appeal of Mr. Cardwell ; but in vain, and the House divided on the first resolution—For the resolution, 135 ; against it, 56 ; majority for, 79. The second resolution was carried without a division, and the third with- drawn.

THE FERMOY PEERAGE.

The Earl of DERBY called the attention of the House of Lords to the ele- vation of Mr. Burke Roche, former Member for the county of Cork, to the Peerage of Ireland, by the title of Baron Fermoy ; out of which has grown a question affecting the privileges of the Peerage, and the con- struction of the Act of Union between England and Ireland. Lord Derby charged the Government with putting a false construction upon the act, to serve a political purpose; and he moved for a Committee of Privileges.

By the Act of Union, it was provided that the Crown should have power

to create one Irish Peer whenever three vacancies occurred ; and that Peer- ages in abeyance should be deemed still existing. The question was, whether the existing vacancies justified the. Government in creating a new Peer. He had moved for returns of the three Peerages which had become extinct; and, to his surprise, he found that the first of the three had fallen vacant in 1802. That was the earldom of Mountrath. It appears that the last Earl of Mountrath, having no issue, obtained for himself the barony of Castle- code, with remainder to the female heirs ; and at his death his nephew became Lord Castlecoote; and he dying in 1822 without issue, the Government of that day availed themselves of the vacancy tom.eate a new Peer. There were nine similar cases up to 1840. In the present instance, the right to appoint a new Peer accrued in January 1854, but it was not until March 1855 that the privilege was exercised. But it was only the other day that the Govern- ment 'bethought them of 'this Mountrath Peerage. In March 1854, the title of Viscount Netterville became extinct; that made up three Peerages, and Mr. Roche was promised the new title. But one .month before the time at which he could legally be created, a claimant appeared for the Netterville Peerage, and consequently it could not be deemed extinct. It was then that this Mountrath Peerage was raked up, as Lord Derby believed, for a political purpose. Since the Union, fifty or sixty Peers have died, many of whom held four, five, or seven peerages. Did each of these extinct peerages au- thorize a corresponding proportion of new creations'? The principle on which the Government had acted would raise the. number of Irish Peers above, instead of keeping it below one hundred, as was intended by the Act of Union/ '

Earl GRANVILLE would not enter into the matter, but conceded the Committee. However, be defended Mr. Ruche from Lord Derby's at- tacks, and denied that undue political pressure had influenced the Govern- ment. Not only the Irish Law-officers, ,but the Attorney-General of Lord Derby's Government, had confirmed Ministers in the opinion that the course taken was perfectly legal.

There seemed a disposition on the part of Lord ST. LEONARDS to enter into the merits of the case but-Lord Baotronsse and the LORD CHANCEL- LOR deprecated anything of the kind, as the case would be sure to come judicially before the House. The motion of reference to a Committee of Privileges was agreed to.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE SPEAKER'S ILLNESS.

In resuming his place in the chair, at the morning sitting on Monday, Mr. SPEAKER thanked the House for its indulgence; and called atten- tion to a difficulty that had arisen during his absence. The act which re- gulates the taking of Members' oaths, &c. provides that it shall be done while the House is sitting, "with their Speaker in the chair." Lord Haddo and Mr. Tite had taken the oaths during this time 'the Deputy- Speaker occupied the chair; and doubts had been raised whether the words did not make it necessary that the Speaker himself, and not the person appointed to act for him, should be in the chair. These doubts having arisen, the two Members might be placed in an inconvenient posi- tion, unless some act were passed to protect them from the penalties they might have incurred.

GEORGE GREY, after complimenting the Speaker on his reappear- ance, said he had consulted several Members learned in the law, and found them unanimous in thinking that a doubt might be raised; and as no blame attached to the two Members, who had done all they could to comply with legal formalities, he should introduce a bill to remove all doubts on'the subject. In this course Mr. WALPOLE expressed his concurrence ; and sug- gested, that as they had the first practical experience of the working of the resolution for appointing a Deputy-Speaker, it would be better to ap- point a Committee to consider the best means of appointing that officer in future. Mr. PATTEN said that a Committee was not needed ; but Mr. Fn2EoY concurred in Mr. Walpole's suggestion. Later in the evening, Sir GEORGE GREY brought in the Validity of Proceediugs Bill, for the purpose he specified.