Banta an Vrotetbings in Varliament.

THE QUEEN'S ANSWERS TO THE RECENT ADDRESSES.

Colonel Dawsox DAHER presented to the House of Commons, on Tuesday, the following reply from the Queen to the address of con- dolence on the death of the Duke of Sussex— "I have received with satisfaction your loyal and dutiful address of con- dolence upon the death of my beloved uncle the Duke of Sussex ; and I am gratified by this additional proof of your loyal attachment to my person, family, and government."

The following is the reply to the address of congratulation on the birth of a Princess-

" I return you my hearty thanks for your dutiful and affectionate address, and cordially receive your congratulation upon the birth of another Princess ; and I gratefully receive every additional proof of your attachment to my person."

Similar replies were presented in the House of Lords by the Earl of LIVERPOOL.

REPEAL OP THE CORN. LAWS.

The adjourned debate in the House of Commons on Mr. Villiers's motion, for a Committee of the whole House on the Corn-laws with a view to their total and immediate repeal, was resumed on Monday, by Mr. W. 0. STANLEY; who defended his conduct in forcing an adjourn- ment on Friday, in order that many Members who were desirous of ad- dressing the House might have an opportunity of being heard. He taunted the agricultural Members with not coming forward in greater numbers ; and condemned the existing Corn-law, but intimated his in- tention of voting against the motion. It was supported by Dr. Bowanto and Mr. EWART. Mr. CHILDERS thought that it would be dangerous to repeal the Corn-laws in the present state of the country ; but the sliding scale could not last, and the measure of last session was only exceeded in its folly by its unpopularity. Captain LAv.san had last year opposed Mr. Villiers's motion, wishing to give some protection to agriculture, and hoping that discontent with the new Corn-law would force Sir Robert Peel to adopt a small fixed duty ; but now he supported the motion both with speech and vote. Mr. EDWARD BULLER could not entirely support either side; for he could neither assent to free trade in corn, nor approve of the existing state of things; but he voted for a Committee, with a view to alter the existing state of things. Sir Cumu.za BURRELL opposed the motion. Mr. Pom.Err SCROPE supported it ; arguing that taxation should be impose solely for revenue and not at all for protection, and that the last thing to be taxed is the subsistence of the people. The hostile tariffs of other countries, which are so much deplored, are "the spawn of the Corn- laws." Colonel WOOD (Brecon) advocated the Corn-laws; remarking, that if free trade were the order of the day, he hoped that, among other things there would be free cultivation : at present the farmer cannot malt his own barley, cannot grow tobacco, and there is a duty of 44, per ton on beet sugar. Mr. MOBERLY brought the experiences of hits travels in the United States in favour of throwing off all restrictions o the trade with that country ; and he quoted private letters, one receiveff that morning, urging speed in the removal of restrictions: if the Corn- laws were once put upon a rational footing, he had very little doubt that the Congress which was to meet in December would modify the tariff and enact measures so as to favour the introduction of British manu- factures. Mr. &mow, to controvert Sir Robert Peel's argument that the repeal of the Corn-laws would be a rash measure, appealed to Mr. Ward's motion for inquiry into peculiar burdens on land, which had been refused by the advocates of the Corn-law : if Ministers had only asked time to provide for existing interests, he should be prepared to, give such a proposition the attention it deserved. Sir HOWARD Dona. LAS assailed the doctrines of Free Trade, and avowed his disregard of certain Liverpool members of the League who had required him to vote for the motion. Mr. Musrrz descanted on the impossibility of main- taining cheap money and high prices—the existing monetary system and the Corn-laws.

Mr. COBDEN, (who was loudly called for by those who were anxious to close the debate,) analyzed the operation of the Corn-laws on the several classes of the agricultural community— The law inflicts scarcity on the people, or it does nothing; and the con- dition of the agricultural labourers is the severest condemnation of the law. A return up to Lady Day 1840 showed that ten of the largest agricultural counties stood highest in the list in the population of pauperism, and that was after the law had for three years maintained wheat at 67s. per quarter. Such is the ex- tent of pilfering and crime in the agricultural districts, that landowners are obliged to wink at it, or they would not be able to carry out their own plans. ("No, no!") He had heard it both in Wiltshire and Somersetshire. The capital of the farmer is wasting away, because the money which should go to pay labour is spent in paying landowners' rents. [" Your rents," Mr. Cobden said at this part of his speech, addressing the agricultural Members in the second person.] What benefit has the farmer derived from the Corn-law.? The Corn-law of 1815 undertook to maintain wheat at 80s. per quarter : seven years after it was sold at 42s. ; yet "your agents" valued farms on the calcula- tion of 80..; • farmers were ruined by hundreds of thousands, and one newspaper in Norwich contained 120 advertisements of the sale of stock in one day. There was "agricultural distress" and inquiry : the law of 1828 promised to maintain corn at 64a.; seven years after it was selling at Ns. Then came general distress : the law of 1841 promised to keep wheat about 568.; it is now selling at 45a. or 461. Sir Robert Peel now said that he never intended to maintain the price, and that he did not maintain it : what then is all this legislation for? Whatever its motives, the fact is that there has been one continued juggle of the farmer, enabling landowners to keep up rents. Let the fact go forth, however, that Sir Robert Peel cannot by act of Parliament guarantee to the farmers even 30s. a quarter. But new grounds have been taken, and we are now told that the law is SO compensate peculiar burdens on land: the landowners, being in absolute possession of the legislation of the country, have, with a disinterestedness truly angelic, laid exclusive burdens on their own shoulders ; and they have, to reim- burse themselves, passed a law which is now confessed to be inoperative I But there is another view of the subject : Mr. Beads says that the law is to keep down mortgeges, Sir Edward Snatchbull to pay settlements and doweries: but " you " are obliged to confess that you cannot illigare its operation ia securing ihe

farmer's priceoand who then pays the settlements and doweries?—why, in that caseithey must be paid out of the pockets of the farmers. (Loud and long cheer- ing,) He contended, then, that if the law creates a profit at all, that profit pasess into rent : in further proof of which, he cited the evidence of agriculturists,— Mr. Gladstone of Fasque, (father of the Vice-President of the Board of Trade,) who replied to an application to reduce his rents, that the new Corn-law was not calculated to lower prices, and therefore he did not feel bound to lower his rents; the Duke of Richmond, who told his Scotch tenants the other day, that he would not hold them to a bargain under altered circumstances, and that if they wished they might throw up their leases : what did that amount to, if not to the admission that the Corn-law influences rent ? Mr. Cobden did not wish to deprive landowners of their rents, but let them not come down to the House to raise them by legislative enactment. He went on to quote returns showing the increase of rental in Scotland since 1793 to be threefold, in Lincolnshire since 1828 to be 50 per cent.

In another view of the question, the landlords had made the Corn-laws the stepping-stone to political power. Sir Robert Peel's talents would most probably have obtained for him his post ; but with his colleague near him, (Sir Edward Knatchhull,) there was no such preponderating consideration : he obtained power as" the farmer's friend." A noble duke who is a "farmer's friend," (Nottingham,) has a son in the Commission of Woods and Forests, (the Earl of Lincoln); the "farmer's friend "par excellence has obtained a blue.ribbon. But whilst all this patronage and honour have been showered on the "farmer's friends," what has the farmer himself obtained ? "You taught the farmers to believe that if they elected you—their friends '—to Parliament, you would speedily repay them for thew trouble. You can't guarantee the former 85s. a quarter for bis corn. That delusion is at at end. Those who are most rampant for protection are the landlords of the worst-farmed land, the Members for Wilts, Dorset, Sussex, Somersetehire, and Devonshire : and why is it so? Not because the tenants are-inferior to those elsewhere—Englishmen are much the same anywhere; but the reason is, there are political landlords- men.who will not give their tenants lessee but with a view to general elections.

He combated Sir Robert Peel's error that if the Corn-laws be repealed the whole system of revenue must be cut down : he had carefully gone over all'the revenue-returns, and he found that the protecting duties only amount to 2,000,0001. He concluded by declaring, that the Anti-Corn-law League would persist in their agitation until the attainment of their object.

COLONEL Surraorte rase amid impatient cries of "Divide !" and stated, among other things, that on his estates there were no leases and never should be, yet some of the tenants had held their land since the time of their great-grandfathers ; that many of the honourable gentle- men opposite had "sprang from nothing "; and that honourable gentle- men opposite and those who abetted them were filled with folly and humbug. Mr. MILNER Ginsou, (the confusion increasing,) declared the desire of his constituents for the repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. VILLIERS briefly replied.

On a division, the motion was rejected, by 381 to 125; majority,256.

On Thursday, Lord Joiarr RUSSELL gave notice, that after Whitsun- tide he should move for a Committee of the whole House on the im- portation of corn.

Some reference was made to the subject of the Corn-laws in the House of Lords on Monday : Lord WHARNCLIFF£ denied words imputed to-him by newspaper reports of the proceedings on Thursday : he was reported to say that Ministers had no intention of repealing the Corn- laws "this session " ; an expression which never escaped his lips.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM bore testimony to that contradiction.

CANADA. CORN.

' That, in consideration of the duty so imposed by the said act of the Legisla- ture of Canada, it is expedient to provide that, if her Majesty shall be pleased to.give her sanction to the said act, the duties imposed upon wheat and wheat- flour imported into the United Kingdom from Canada should be reduced. "That, during the continuance of the said duty, in lieu of the duties now payable upon wheat and wheat-flour imported into the United Kingdom from Canada, under an act passed in the last session of Parliament, entitled An Act to Amend the Laws for the Importation of Corn,' there shall be levied and paid the duties following—viz.

For every quarter of wheat, ls. " For every barrel of wheat-meal or floor, being 196 pound, a duty equal in amount to the duty payable OD 38i gallons of wheat.

Lord_Joine Russel. announced, on Thursday, that in Committee on the bill, be should move that all those words be omitted which make the act of the Imperial Parliament dependent on the act of the Legisla- ture of Canada.

COMPLETE SUFFRAGE.

On Thursday, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD introduced his motion "for leave to bring in a bill to secure the full Representation of the People, and to shorten the duration of Parliaments." He took successively the "six points" adopted from the Charter— The first related to the extent of the suffrage ; and he endeavoured to prove that before the act of the 8th Henry VI. c. 7, the great body of the people

enjoyed the suffrage. That statute first limited the franchise. The preamble states, first, that whereas elections of the knights of the shire have been made by very great, excessive, and outrageous numbers, most part of people of small substance and no value, pretending an equal voice with the most worthy knights and esquires: the preamble their goes on to state—what ? not that outrage had been committed, but that riots, batteries, and divisions among the gentlemen and other people of the same counties shall very likely rise and be: and for this reason the act goes on to limit the franchise to those possessed of 40s. freeholds. Thus it appears, that previously to this statute, the great

body of the people did attend and vote at elections for knights of the shire,

and that they were disfranchised on an imsginary prospective case, without any real charge having been made or substantiated. But it was not neces- sary to rest the case on that preamble : the 7th of Henry IV., repeat-

ed by the 6th of Henry VL, enacted "that elections shall take place in full county court, where all shall attend" "in pleno comitutu." Pryme says, that " bycommon right every inhabitant and commoner of each cO5nt had a-voice in the election of knights, whether he were &freeholder or nut' ; and with regard to horeughereaveraleherters save the most extended,

suffrage, even to every man who boiled his own pot upon his fire. An early Committee of the House decided that the election of burgesses in all boroughs did of common right belong to all commoners; and a Committee in 1623-4

repeated that decision in all cases where there is absence of any special usage or prescription. Mr. Crawford quoted old acts, the Petition of Right, Sir T.

Smith, and Blackstone; authorities which declared that there should be no taxation without representation, and which described every Englishman as being present in the House of Commons—" from the prince to the lowest person of England, " said Smith—either in person or by his representative. Mr. Crawford asked—" Is there any House of Commons now in existence which answers the description given by Blackstone, or by the other authorities quoted? Are we such a House of Commons? Are we the representatives of the Coin- moos of England ? Who are the Commons of England? Are they not the whole people ? Are the voters as now limited by law entitled to the name of the Commons of England ? If the average of voters be compared with the average of population in the United Kingdom, the voters are not in a larger proportion than as one person to every nine families." Their rejection of Mr. Thomas Duncombe's motion last year, that each member of the Compro- mise Committee should take a test that he bad not undertaken to pay money for his return contrary to law, was an admission that the House was returned by other means than the voice of the electors. The remedy for the evil is, to go back to the original principles, and to restore to the people their full rights.

Parliaments have been unconstitutionally lengthened, through powers usurped by representatives without appeal to the represented. Originally Par- liaments were summoned for a particular purpose, and dissolved after that pur-

pose was answered ; the same Parliament did not sit a second BeflOi0D. The statute of the 34th Edward, c. 14, provided that Parliaments should be called once every year, or oftener if need be : and such was the practice, with few ex- ceptions, till the time of Henry the Eighth ; but it was afterwards relaxed, and the 16th Charles II. provided that the intermission of Parliaments should not

be longer than three years; the Act of the 6th William and Mary authorized the duration of Parliaments for three years; and the 2d George I. extended the duration to seven years.

It cannot be shown that at early periods any qualification for Members was required. The first act, so far as he could find, was the 23d of Henry VI. c. 13, which provided "that those chosen should be esquires of the county able to be knights, and no man to be such knight as standeth under the rank of a yeoman.' Coke on Littleton says, "No manner of property qualification was required of citizens and burgesses" : so this remained till the 9th of Anne when the qualifications which existed previously to the alterations of a late act were presided. No qualification was required for Members of the Irish Par- liament. None is required for Scotch Members, for Members of the Universi- ties of Oxford, Cambridge, or Dublin ; or for the eldest sons and heirs-apparent of Peers or of Commoners qualified to serve as knights of the shire. Why than should these anomalies remain ?

The payment of Members at common law, confirmed by statutes, is 4e. per day for a knight of the ;hire, and 2s. for burgesses. These laws remain unrepealed. Thus it appears, the ancient principles and practice of the con- stitution were—extended suffrage, annual Parliaments, no money qualifica- tions, and payment of Members. He proposed to recur to those principles— and to those it seemed to be necessary to add vote by ballot as a protection to the voter, and a new arrangement of electoral districts as essential to a fair representation of the people. Mr. Crawford urged upon the House a calm and earnest consideration of his proposition; to determine whether the mass of the people should retain the rights of freemen, or be reduced to the condition of serfs ; for every man must be considered as belonging to a slave class when the right of franchise was refused him without just or sufficient cause. The public mind is in a more agitated state now than it has ever before been ; it is in a state which may lead to convulsion; end all he wanted the House to do was to take measures to save the country from scenes of violence and bloodshed.

Mr. WILT-um WILLIAMS seconded the motion ; but without binding himself to the details of the bill.

Mr. CURTEIS, a convert to the ballot, would vote for the motion, though not going so far as Mr. Crawford. Mr. FIELDEN supported it more earnestly ; referring to the payment of 20,000,0001. slavery-com- pensation, the Poor-law, the Rural Police, the Juvenile Offenders Bill, and other measures, as grievances inflicted by the Reformed Parliament on the people. General JOHNSON followed his colleague. Mr. ROSS cited extravagant opinions which he had heard in the manufacturing districts—such as a wish for the demolition of all factories, and feared that the motion tended to strengthen such doctrines ; but, discontented with the existing state of things, he should vote on neither side.

Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed the motion— He enlarged upon Mr. Ross's inconsistency in virtually adopting correctness or error of opinion as a test for the franchise. He should treat the motion more respectfully by directly expressing his dissent. Into a subject, however, embracing five distinct propositions, each requiring ample discussion, he could

i

not enter n full. He could not admit that every man who was not allowed to exercise the franchise was in the condition of "an alien and a slave," as Mr. Crawford bad said. And how, if the franchise were accorded to every man, it would be possible to work that principle with the ancient monarchy of this country, be could not understand. He found, however, that he was placed in the condition of being the defender of the Reform Bill—(" Hear ! " and a laugh)—for he saw none of the immediate authors of that bill in the House. (Cries of "Look behind l") [Amidst the laughter of the House, Sir Robert Peel turned to Sir James Graham, who was then sitting beside him.] He combated Mr. Fielden's arguments ; and, referring to conflicting views of national policy entertained by Mr. Fielden, Mr. Muntz, and others, he said that he very much doubted whether, after the proposed alteration, if it were agreed to, they would not find the same division of feeling as at present; and whether the tendency of the change would not be to sacrifice the best interests of the country for the purpose of introducing those plausible measures for which some honourable gentlemen opposite appeared to be such Strenuous advocates. However, he opposed the motion as being incompatible with the existing constitution.

Mr. THOMAS DUNCONBE defended the working-classes from Mr. Ross's charges ; laughed at Sir Robert P el' fear that the constitution would be swept away ; and attacked 'tbetifted rliament, whose

only great work was to vote the 20,000,111. kcompensation. The motion was supported by Dr. Bowarno and -Mr. Ilisamze. Mr. Idurcrz, Mr. TRELAWNEY, and Mr. STANSFLELD, could not give it their concurrence. Sir WALTER JAMES opposed all organic changes. Mr. FERRAND remarked, that if the grievances of the people were redressed, they would relinquish political agitation • and he passed to the Truck- system and Poor-law. Lord Joust MANNERS explicitly denied the position that the people are the source of all legitimate power; and ob- served, that as power was taken from the Crown and the Mitre and transferred to the People, their physical and moral happiness decreased. He would extend the feeling of responsibility between the rich and the poor, and shorten the interval which in his opinion was growing too wide between those for whom wealth was made and those who made it.

Oa a &vision, the motion was rejected, by 101 to 32.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

On Thursday, Mr. ROEBUCK moved the resolution of which he had given notice, against the inculcation of peculiar opinions in any system of State education— No system of education could be concurred in by the people which recognizes the predominincy of any particular sect. In establishing a system of educa- tion, the Legislature should well consider what it has in view; and then its means to the end. A portion of the people are unable to educate their children ; and the object is, to enable those children to perform their duties in their allotted station of life, and to consult their own happiness consistently with the happiness of others; and the thing required is, to know how to give the knowledge it is requisite for each child to receive, and how to form the habits of mind which will enable each child to follow out that knowledge when given. All were agreed as to the kind of knowledge to be taught ; but with regard to the habits of mind, there were various sanctions, the knowledge and import- ance of which were to be made apparent to the mind of the child. For example, he might teach a child that it was not to steal ; but then, he had to teach it why : be had to show that it was for the happiness of others that no violent abstrac- tion of their property should take place, and for its own happiness that no other practice than that of perfect purity in this respect of stealing be estab- lished. But he had another thing to do—he had to create the habit of mind which should induce the child not to desire stealing. Now, of the means of creating this habit, a vast portion was beyond the reach of legislation—such as the circumstances of the pupil, from the earliest birth till the hour of his death, except the period passed in school. All those effects which scholastic discipline could produce were within the power of legislation ; all that re- lated to the various sanctions of society—as, for example, the sanctions of law and the sanctions of public opinion—might be taught by any person without fear that any danger or ill-will should accrue. But there was one of the sanctions which was found to create the greatest possible doubts, animosities, and ill-blood among mankind—the religious sanction. Now, there was no dispute that the Legislature might take into its own hands the management of this sanction in a community where there was only one religion ; but in a com- munity where there were many religions a difficulty arose ; and the question the Legislature had to ask itself in a community consisting of various sects was, whether all the other sanctions might not be employed and taught the child—and whether the sanctions of religion might not be safely left to the teaching of those who were dedicated to teaching religion, each in his particular sect or division. He asserted two propositions,—that in a country where various re- ligions coexist, and the great doctrine of reliance on private judgments is in- troduced, any way of education which seeks to make poverty the means of in- structing children in doctrines which the parents don't desire they should be instructed in, is an infringement of that great doctrine of private judgment, and therefore unjust ; that, wherever there were various sects, it must be im- politic as well. He thought that, from the circumstances which they wit- nessed in the House and out of it, any such attempt must frustrate itself, and that every measure based on such a principle would be found to be utterly im- practicable. To be educated, every rude and uneducated people must be excited ; from the time of Greece and Rome to that of John Wesley religion Lash been used as a means of excitement ; and it was a means of instruction which he should be happy to see employed, if the condition of the many would permit.

He proceeded to demonstrate his two propositions more at length. The

state says that it canuot give secular instruction without instruction in religion ; the poor man says that he cannot accept, because the schools are closed up—his child is treated with some distinction from the others, and he finds that tbat arises out of teaching religion. Sir James Graham had attempted a compromise, which was scouted; and Mr. Roebuck drew the con- clusion, that the state must leave the teaching of religion to the pastors of the several sects, and confine itself to secular instruction. But here he was met by an objection on the part of "the religious world," who said that they must have some religion taught; and they could make an arrangement agreeable to the majority. Ile could not understand that. If he was to make any compro- mise, it should be that of Sir James Graham, and he would make the state re- ligion be taught. Ile should be carrying out the opinion of the majority by doing so, for there could not be a doubt that the Church of England in Eng- land comprised an enormous majority of the population. But if anybody doubted it, let him look to the return which had been moved for by Sir Robert Inglis, of the number of marriages, and he would find that the Dissenters married were in proportion to the Churchmen as one to four. If, then, he was to follow out the principle of private judgment, he claimed it for all sects—for Jew, Turk, and Deist, and, if there were such a being, for him who was of no religion : if that was denied him, he went back to the proposition of the Home Secretary. Religious teaching is but in _aid of all other teaching; and no- thing is lost in leaving it to be taught by the various sectaries.

There were two minor points to which he objected : the bill made education depend upon the accident of employment, and made no provision for education in the first eight years of a child's life ; and the whole machinery for working the bill was thrown into the bands of Churchmen—all, from the Secretary of State and the Privy Council down to the teacher, must be Churchmen ; they could not stir a step in thi. bill but they met with some wonderful attempt on the forbe arance of the people. Ile should show that in a moment. Supposing a child to gain the ill-will of any of the persons connected with the school or of the teacher—he could not come to school, he could not work, therefore he could not get his bread ; so that they made the life's-blood of the child depend on his creed.

Exhorting Government to place itself,at the head of public opinion, and to set an example of toleration, Mr. Roebuck concluded by moving—" That in no plan of education maintained and enforced by the state should any attempt be made to inculcate peculiar religious opinions ; because, as such an attempt would be considered a plan for maintaining and strengthening an undue supe- riority of one sect over all others, the animosities and strife already existing among different religious denominations would thereby unhappily be greatly increased, and the cordial cooperation of all sects and denominations, which is absolutely necessary to insure the success of any plan of public education, ren- dered impossible."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, he had been prevented by his pressing avocations from devoting so much attention to the subject as it deserved, and he could not follow Mr. Roebuck through his perspicuous philoso- phical disquisition ; but he opposed the resolution, because it was abstract, and surrounded with practical difficulty— Mr. Roebuck had treated the bill as a scheme of national and general edu- cation : but, in introducing the measure, Sir James had especially guarded the Government against any such admission : he had distinctly said that it was never intended as a scheme of national education—that it was meant to grapple with a particular difficulty, confined within certain limits specified in the bill. The loll purposed to deal only with the education of that portion of the people of the-county who are now compelled by law to be educated. Mr. Roebuck

wits ve

g'rthigIn describing the machinery of the bill as exclusively in the hands 42. Ati,Churchineu: of the three Secretaries of State one is actually a Presbyterian, "" i-andMr. Shed, a Member of the Privy Couucil, is a Roman Catholic. Sir ts4.es expressed his belief that there is an almost universal feeling in the .ic i country, that education, to be sound, must be based upon Scriptural know- r-- - J ledge : let Mr. Roebuck omit in his resolution the word " peculiar," and an overwhelming majority of the House and of the country would decide against him ; and Sir James was quite convinced that a great majority of the people of the country are prepared to oppose the adoption of any plan of education by the state which does not inculcate religious opinions. It so happens that in Scotland, though they quarrel on points of discipline, education is given to the people in connexion with the state. On the other hand, the attempt in Ireland to avoid the difficulties which peculiar opinions throw in the way of education, instead of evading animosities, has only aggravated them. Another fallacy of Mr. Roebuck's was the treating religion as a mere excitement : the truths of Christianity must powerfully excite the feelings of those who believe in them ; but the legislator directs the operation of those truths not for excitement but salvation.

Sir James defended the preponderancy given to the Established Church : the very fact that it is established presumed a preference ; and, supposing there

were a school with but one master, was it a hardship that his creed should con- form to that of the Established Church of this country ? He for his own part thought that the Church would not do its duty if it made any concession upon

this point, and it was one upon which he felt that he could not conscientiously give way. At the same time, the measure which he proposed to the House afforded every facility and security to those who wished to preserve their own peculiar tenets.

Mr. SHEIL, who contended against the preference given to the Church, disputed the correctness of the analogy which Sir James Gra- ham drew from Scotland and Ireland— In Scotland, although there certainly were Dissenters from the Church, there was very little doctrinal difference between them and the Establishment in that country, and the parochial schools in Scotland were supported by pro- perty which formerly belonged to the Church, and which at the time of the Reformation was transferred for this purpose. It was said that education could not be instituted except in connexion with the Established Church; but was there in Ireland no Established Church ?

Mr. MONCKTON MILNES observed with sorrow the manner in which the Government education plan had been received by the country ; and,

regarding Mr. Roebuck's proposition as a last and grievous necessity, he called upon the House to do all in their power to avert that sad and mournful alternative ; which, however, he would rather accept than leave the people of England in their present degraded state of ignorance, and with the total absence of anything like national education.

Mr. HAWES opposed the motion— Claiming for the Dissenters perfect equality, not in matters of state but in religious teaching, and therefore persisting in opposition to the Government

scheme, he could not agree that, because there were difficulties in teaching pe- culiar opinions to all, the Legislature must go to the other extreme, and say

that no other system of national education could be adopted except that which was purely secular. He mentioned the Irish system and the British and Fo- reign School Society as instances of success in a combined system of education with the Scriptures as a basis: no system of education would be acceptable to Dissenters which should exclude the Bible from the schools.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS opposed mere secular education. Mr. EweaT supported the motion.

In his reply, Mr. ROEBUCK disclaimed the desire to prevent all reli- gious instruction, but only sectarian instruction : he did not wish to ex- clude the Bible from the national schools.

The House divided ; and the motion was rejected, by 156 to 60.

FEMALE LABOUR IN MINES AND COLLIERIES.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Major Cumarmo BRUCE, having presented several petitions for alteration of the Mines and Collieries Act, moved for leave to bring iu a bill for that purpose— The petitions which he had presented were one hundred in number ; and in them more than a thousand women and thousands of men complained of one grievance and united in one prayer. He approved of the principle of the act, that women should ultimately be excluded from labour in mines, and that the labour of children should be regulated; but there might be a want of caution even in the application of remedial measures. No desire was felt that females under the age of eighteen should any longer be employed in mines ; and all agreed that married women also should be excluded from that employment. All he required was, that unmarried females above the age of eighteen, who were employed in mines up to the date of the 1st March last, should be per- mitted to return to that occupation if they pleased. Those females were re- duced to a state of extreme distress, for they were unable to procure fresh em- ployment either in agriculture or manufactures, in both of which branches of industry there was already a superabundance of hands. Major Bruce contended that the labour in mines was not so prejudicial as had been represented ; reading documents to that effect: and he impugned the accuracy of the Sub-Com- missioners' reports, especially that by Mr. Franks. He asked by what right the Legislature stepped in between the women, who were accustomed to the kind of work, and their employment ; and he read several accounts of hardship in the working of the act, to prove that it needed modification. One case was that of a widow with six unmarried daughters. Five of these daughters had worked in the Reding mine, where their joint wages amounted to 1001. a year ; with which they had maintained their aged mother above ground, and one of their sisters to take care of her. Their con- duct was exemplary, and their cottage one of the neatest in the neighbourhood. These five women were, on the 1st March last, turned out of work by the operation of Lord Ashley's bill; and they were now begging about the country for work, which they were unable to obtain. He could cite a hundred cases equally distressing. At the Elgin Collieries, 108 women had been dismissed, many of whom had aged persons and infants depending on them. [Lord Ashley was understood to say—" Put your hands in your pocket."] Major Bruce was astonished to hear such a remark from the noble Lord. Was this the only answer the noble Lord meant to return to these petitioners ? He had no more connexion with the mine he was speaking of than the noble Lord had.

He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to amend an act of the 5th and 6th years of her present Majesty, for regulating the employment of persons in mines and collieries. Captain LOCKHART seconded the motion.

Lord ASHLEY opposed it— He contended that beneficial effects had resulted from the act of last session; and if the House would allow it to run its full course and come into complete operation, all the good effects which he had expected would follow from it. Those who observe the law carry on their operations to a great disadvantage as compared with those who disregard it ; and Major Bruce proposed to give all Scotland an advantage over England, though the same difficulties prevail in the English as in the Scottish mines. Lord Ashley read a great number of accounts bearing testimony to the beneficial operation of the act—from Dews- bury, Barnsley, Silkstone, Leeds, Prescot ; all of which described men and boys as taking the places left vacant by the women. A letter from Lord Francis Egerton, dated from Worsley in February last, strongly commended the measure ; said that the writer had met with no parents who did not at once admit that the occupation was unfit for girls; praised the behaviour of females

since the change; and deprecated any alteration of the act, as it would he in- troducing the small end of the wedge. Other documents described the treat- ment of women and children before the change; but they did not differ in general character from hie former accounts.

A third set of extracts which he read related to the nature of the opposition against the bill, which was attributed to the interested motives of the masters. A gentleman of great experience in the management of Scotch coal-mines says —" These lamentations for the destitute females are crocodile's tears; Slavery, oppression, love of gold." From an agent of great experience—" The opposition to Lord Ashley's measure might not appear to much advantage if clothed in the garb of pounds, shillings, and pence ; and accordingly we find its opponents lamenting the injustice that will be done to poor females, their want and destitution, and so on. Of course we are all aware that no great change, like that contemplated by Lord Ashley's act, can take place without causing some inconvenience." Others spoke in similar terms. Others again said, that the bill had the full concurrence of the workpeople themselves, and ascribed the Petitions from them to the coercion of the masters. Extracts from corre- spondence of masters themselves engaged in getting up petitions afforded further evidence. "My own opinion, says another, "is, that each work which employs females under-ground should get those females to petition both Houses of Parliament : I fear that the heritors in parishes petitioning Parliament would rather be injurious, as their petitioning would evidently appear as for the pur- pose of saving themselves, as many of the females will have to apply for the parish for aid. I am now resolved that my female workers shall petition as a body : I should advise all coal-workers to get their females to do so likewise." Another letter—" I have received a letter from the coal-manager of my land ; and from his letter, and all that I can learn, the colliers in Clackmannan and Fife are in a state of mutiny, and I understand they all belong to the Colliers Union. If such is the case, you may rest satisfied they will not allow the fe- males working in pits to sign any petition by intimidation."

Major Bruce had suggested that married women should be excluded from la- bouriog in the pits, and unmarried women alone allowed to work : was not this holding out a premium to concubinage ? No doubt there were many cases of hardship; but he thought that some compensation ought to be made by the proprietors themselves : they have bad enough of the sinew and muscle of these unfortunate females, and they are now bound to make them some compensation.

Mr. HUNK supported the motion ; remarking that Major Bruce's ac- counts were as "harrowing" as Lord Ashley's ; and casting doubts on the descriptions of immorality in the Scottish collieries: he was of opi- nion that no part of the kingdom exhibited a greater proportion of mo- rality, and even of education.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM praised Major Bruce's motives; observed that the subject had been fully discussed last session ; admitted that so im- portant a change could not be effected without cases of individual hard- ship, though that must not stand in the way of the general good ; and, thinking that the pressure of the first inconvenience had passed and the people of Scotland were becoming reconciled to the change, he felt bound to vote against the motion.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, opposing the motion, called to mind that the practice of excluding female labour from mines was begun by William Hutton many years ago, and carried out in Lord Francis's own mines. Mr. ROEBUCK supported the motion, on the principle that Par- liament is not so well able to judge for the labourer as the labourer is for himself. The motion was further supported by Mr. P. M. STEWART, Mr. FORBES, and Mr. LOCKHART; and opposed by Mr. CURTEIS, Mr. BROTHERTON, Mr. CHARLES HINDLEY, and Alderman THOMPSON.

The House divided ; and the motion was rejected, by 137 to 23.

NAVAL ADMINISTRATION AND PENSIONS.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Sir CHARLES NAPIER in- troduced a resolution to establish a naval retired list; but his speech also had the further object of recommending the appointment of a naval man to the head of the Admiralty—

He proposed, "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to give directions that a certain number of old officers be permitted to retire on a separate list, with additional pay, with a view to bringing forward young and active officers." He proposed to allow Post- Captains at the age of sixty, when within one hundred of the head of the list, to retire with an addition of 100/. to their pay. The plan would be beneficial to the country ; for the command of a frigate requires extreme activity on the part of the captain; and he knew from experience, that when a man grows old he is unfit for such active work. An efficient retired list might be obtained for 20,000/ a year.

Lord INGESTRE seconded the motion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL addressed himself solely to the second part of Sir Charles Napier's speech ; passing that part which had been discussed last year with the remark that it would be unwise to fetter the prero- gative of the Crown in the choice of Naval Ministers— He deprecated the combination of professional men of opposite parties to force measures upon Ministers. He was informed by high authority, that un- less the option of accepting increased pay, which the honourable and gallant officer proposed to offer to 100 Captains, were extended to 150 at an annual ex- pense of 26,000/., the arrangement would be productive of no advantage what- ever. How could it be known what Captains would accept the offer of in- creased allowance to waive their contingent claim to a flag. He believed that those who were oldest on the list would not avail themselves of the option, be- cause they would know that they were certain of promotion when a brevet took place. The younger Captains only would be likely to accept the increase of pay, and the object which the honourable and gallant Member had in view would be defeated. And against the policy of having a retired list at all, he quoted the report of the Commission of Naval and Mffitary Inquiry.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL deprecated the attempt to prescribe to the Crown a particular course of action. The motion was also opposed by Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, and supported by Captain PECHELL. Captain BERKELEY recommended that the motion should be withdrawn. Sir CHARLES NAPIER did SO.

IRELAND: RAILWAYS AND REPEAL.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved that the body of the Second Report of the Irish Railway Com- Missioners be printed— The joint address of both Houses of Parliament, in 1834, coupled with a declaration against the Repeal of the Union a promise of "attention to the removal of all just causes of complaint, and to the promotion of all well-con- eidered measures of improvement." Subsequently to that address, a variety of public works had been carried on; but such works had ceased. Now, he thought that Government could not take a more wise course as regarded Ire- land, or one more likely to conciliate the minds of the people, than by consider- ing bow they could in a proper and discreet manner give encouragement to the introduction of a railway at least in Ireland. Capitalists not only mistrusted the tranquillity of Ireland, but they pointed to the encouragement given to them by Foreign Governments, and they carried their capital abroad in pre- ference. He pressed upon the Government to consider whether a main trunk railway would not be advantageous to the great populous towns of the South and West of Ireland, and the great populous counties. And in regard to the agitation for the Repeal of the Union, there was no use in putting down great meetings and passing coercion-laws : if they wanted to govern the country well, they must conciliate the honest, sensible, and sober feeling of the country.

A short discussion ensued. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL supported the motion. Lord BROUGHAM imputed the obstruction of the influx of capital and all improvement in Ireland to agitators ; and called upon the true friends of Ireland to put down agitation. The Earl of WICKLOW said, that if the South of Ireland were tranquil, railways would be es- tablished there, as they have been in the North because it is quiet : he hoped the shrewd people of Ireland would soon see through the acts of persons who took from the poor their miserable pittance in the shape of " Repeal rent " and " O'Connell tribute." The Marquis of LONDON- DERRY was for putting down the agitation : these are not tiny s for throwing into that country money for railways. The Earl of DEVON supported the motion, believing that the people are fonder of employ- ment than of agitation. Lord CAMPBELL deprecated harsh measures. This gave a new turn to the discussion. Lord BROUGHAM rebutted the charge of using harsh language— Was it harsh to say what he bad said of those who made Ireland a country unlike any other country on the face of God's earth—a scene of excitement and agitation, and of every thing short of rebellion. Lord Campbell had not yet arrived at the distinction of being held up by name with his noble friends as an enemy of Ireland. " We have been called the paltry Whig faction, the cruelest enemies of Ireland ; we have been thus called, with my noble friend Earl Grey at our head, who were out of office for a quarter of a century, because we were determined not to take office till the Catholic emancipation of Ireland was conceded." He went on to vindicate the constitutional duty of Government to employ all means of morel influence, legislative authority, and ph3 sloe' force, to save the empire from the wretchedness and danger with which it was menaced. It was the duty of the Government to remove those Magistrates from the commission who attended certain meetings ; as Lord Plunket did when he struck Mr. Butler out of the list of Deputy-Lieutenants.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said he had shared the abuse with Lord Brougham, and he was happy to find himself in such good company : he should continue to do his duty in the service of his Sovereign, and should pay little attention to what was said of him; and he recom- mended the same course to others.

The motion was agreed to.

The subject of Repeal was alluded to in the House of Commons on the some evening. Mr. REDDINGTON asked whether Sir Robert Peel whs authorized by the Queen to repeat to the House the declaration of King William ; and whether the Government intended to sanction any measures for the removal of the just causes of complaint of the Irish people, and to bring in:measures for the improvement of Ireland further than the two measures now before the House? Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, that he was authorized by the Queen to repeat King William's declaration ; and generally, that Ministers were desirous of governing Ireland in a spirit of fairness, moderation, impartiality, and justice; and though it was difficult beforehand to declare any thing as to measures to be introduced, Ministers were most earnest and anxious to improve the condition of that country. Lord CLEMENTS asked if the Arms Bill was one of the measures for the improvement of Ireland ? Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that considering the nature and extent of the outrages committed within the last two years, he thought it was calculated to improve the condition of Ireland.

TOWNSHEND PEERAGE.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, kird BROUGHAM moved the second reading of the Tow nshend Peerage Bill— He recapitulated the evidence which had been taken before the House, and treated the case alleged in Lord Charles Townhend's petition as having been proved. He exonerated from blame Lady Townshend—who had authorised him to say that she acted under the influence of Mr. Margett's and Mr. Dunn Gardner ; and he excused Lord Leicester, (Lady Townshend's eldest son,) since he could not be expected to know better than his parents or more than they had told him. Ile intended to make an alteration in the bill: instead of declaring the children illegitimate, he meant to declare that they were not the issue of the Marquis of Townsbend. That was a batter form of expression, and the enactment would equally obtain its object ; and the children, would be left, if they pleased, to prove their own legitimacy—if they knew how.

Lord Corm:mem opposed the second reading of the bill— He admitted that the case had been made out : the fact of the adultery was clearly proved, and its continuance ; it was clearly proved that the husband did not beget the childrea which his wife bore. But the very strength of the case was an argument against the extraordinary interposition of the Legis- lature, which might be less objectionable if the case were doubtful. Counsel had been more successful than the Committee appointed by the House in finding precedents for the bill; but they were not worth much : two cases occurred in the time of Henry the Eighth and one in the time of Charles the Second, all drawn from a period when there was no remedy but the interference of the Parliament. After the Reformation, the Ecclesiastical Courts would not adjudge a divorce fur adultery ci vineulo matrimonii, nor declare the children illegitimate, while the husband was within the four seas : but that rule bad been abandoned, and the ordinary courts of law could and would now investigate such cases; and as the circumstances warranted, the judge and the grand jury would find that the children were legitimate or illegitimate. It had, indeed, been the rule in all cases of divorce for adultery, to pronounce the children to be illegitimate : the last case of the kind occurred in 1799. In 1828, in a case before the House of Lords, application was made to declare the children illegitimate, inasmuch as there was ground for showing that they could not be the issue of the husband ; but the House replied, that it bad for years discontinued inserting such a clause in divorce bills, because there was no one to represent the infants among the children. Lord Cottenham contended that there was legally before the House no evidence against Lady Townshend which on being sifted might not turn out to prove nothing but mere flighty irregu- larities; and he objected to opening the door to inquiries such as this into the proceedings of particular families, of husbands and wives whom no legal measure had separated, and who might at the very time, for anything that legally appeared to the contrary, be again united and living in mutual happi- ness. Of the alleged grievances—the assumption of the courtesy-title of Leicester, the right to sit as a Peer's son at the foot of the Throne, and the qualifying as such to sit in the House of Commons—he made very light. He objected to the House's coming to a legislative decision upon a question which might come before it in its judicial capacity; especially if the House of Corn- 1B01111 were to place the Lords in a still more delicate position by rejecting the bill. He further objected to the interference with the law of succession to property, which should pass per kgem terne or by the act of a jury. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

The principle of the measure having been discussed on a former oc- casion, other Peers merely announced their intentions: Lord DENMAN, Lord LANGDALE, and Lord CAMPBELL, supported the bill, as rendered necessary by the circumstances ; the Earl of WICKLOW concurred with Lord Cottenham.

On a division, the second reading was carried, by 55 to 8. On Thursday, the House went into Committee on the bill; and Lord Baocronam introduced the amendment of which he had given notice ; with another, to exclude one of the children from the operation of the bill, because he was an infant, and had therefore no representative in the recent inquiry. After a brief discussion, both amendments were adopted.

MISCELLANEOUS.

PRIVILEGE. The SPEAKER called the attention of the House of Commons, on Tuesday, to a branch of privilege. The Schoolmasters' Widows' Fund (Scotland) Bill had been amended in the House of Lords, and returned to the House of Commons with amendments on the 2d May ; the amendment had not been considered by the House, nor had the bill been signed by the Clerk ; but on the 5th May. a message from the Commons took the bill up to the Lords, it was inserted in the commission, and it received the Royal assent, without the amendments which it had received being considered by the House. Something similar happened in 1829 with a bill to amend an act relating to the employment of children in cotton-mills,l and a fresh bill was introduced to render that valid. On the motion of Sir ROBERT PEEL, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the circumstances.

SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. In the House of Lords, on Thurs-

day, the LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that the House bad sat at ten o'clock to hear evidence in support of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill ; when Mr. Austin the leading counsel for the bill, admitted that no evidence could be produced to prove general bribery. The Lord Chancellor therefore moved that the bill be reada second time that day six months. But, after a short discussion, the subject was postponed for a day.

EDUCATION. Lord JOHN RUSSELL has postponed his resolutions on the subject of education to the 30th instant.

TAHITI. Sir GEORGE GREY having moved, on Thursday, for papers re- lating to the French occupation of Tahiti, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that he had received from the French Government, in writing, an assurance that they would be faithful to the three great principles—of perfect liberty of religious worship, the protection due to the subjects of a friendly power, and the favour- ing of labours undertaken for the purpose of extending the influence of Chris- tianity. The motion was agreed to.

Scum& Mr. ROEBUCK has given notice, that on the 30th instant he will call attention to the late transactions in Scinde.

SLAVE-TRADE. On Tuesday, Lord BROUGHAM withdrew his Foreign Slave-trade Abolition Bill, and introduced an amended hill.

CONTB017ERTED ELECTION.

The Cambridge Election Committee opened their investigation on Wednesday. The petition alleged that the return of Mr. Fitzroy Kelly was brought about by bribery and other corrupt practices— Mr. Kinglake, in stating the case, recounted proceedings before and at the election, in which Mr. Bartlett, a tutor in Cambridge, Mr. Naylor, a barrister, and Mr. Southey, a surgeon, were conspicuously busy, as committee-men; and they, with others in similar or subordinate parts, were those actually charged with the bribery. Mr. Southey was ubiquitous—he was member of Mr. Kelly's central committee, of a Pitt Club, of a Mechanic's Conservative Association, of a "watch committee," appointed to watch what was going forward at night; and he opened a public-house which had been closed for some time, and the care of which was intrusted to certain "door-keepers" and "messengers," who had been appointed by the central committee. Various offers and pay- ments of money to electors were alleged. Mr. Kinglake produced a letter, ex- horting George Smith, a chimney-sweeper, to vote for Mr. Kelly, on pain of never hearing from the writer again : the letter was signed " A. Pringle,' the name of one of her Majesty's Lords of the Treasury.

The Committee proceeded to take evidence in support of the petition.