Vtlauttn nub 48nurthings in Vorliauflut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEER.

BOWIE or Leaps. Monday, June 9. The Foreign Legion ; Lord Panmnre's Re- ply to Lord Donoughmore—Mercantile Law Amendment Bill reported—Reforma- tory and Industrial Schools Bill read a second time. Tuesday, June 10. Conversation on Burial-grounds. Thursday, June 12. Draughts on Bankers Bill read a third time and passed. Friday, June 13. Relations with the United States ; Lord Clarendon's State- ment—Police (Counties and Boroughs); Sir G. Grey's Bill read a second time—Mer- cantile Law Amendment Bill read a third time and passed—Mercantile Law Amend- ment (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed.

Horn OF COmMosts. Monday, June 9. Oath of Abjuration; Mr. Gibson's Bill read a third time and passed—University of Cambridge Bill committed—University of Oxford Bill read a second time.

Tuesday, Ju e 10. London Corporation Reform Bill ; Petitions for and against presented by Lord John Russell and Mr. Disraeli—Punishment of Death ; Mr. Ewart's Motion—Advancement of Science ; Mr. Heywood's Motion—Property of Married Women ; Sir Erskine Perry's Motion.

Wednesday, June 11. Nawab of Surat Bill ; third reading deferred. Thursday, June 12. Mr. Baillie's Motion on the American Question ; Conversa- tion on—The Sardinian Loan ; Message from the Queen—Supply ; Civil Estimates —West India Loans Bill read a.-third time and passedPeace Preservation (Ireland) Bill read a second time—Specialty and Simple Contract Debts; Mr. Matins's Bill withdrawn.

Priddy, June 13. Relations with the United States; Lord Palmerston's Answer to Mr. Disraell's Question—Supply ; Vote for St. James's Park Road, Naval Esti- mates, and Vote of Credit—Parochial Schools ;Scotland) Bill in Committee—Oxford University Bill read a third time and passed.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment.

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday' 4h Gh 30m Monday 4h .(m) 2h 15m Tuesday

6h . eh 20m

Tuesday Mt Ills Om" Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Noon .... 511 Mm Thursday 5h 51i 55m Thursday 4h .(,$) lh 45m Friday 5h .... 6h 10m Friday ... 4h .(sn) 21i 15m Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 411 66m this Session, 64:; — 150h 40m

THE OATH OF ABJURATION.

Mr. Gibson's Oath of Abjuration Bill passed through the House of Commons on Monday.

After the bill had been read a third time without opposition, Sir FREDERICK Tnssicsa moved the omission of the form of oath inserted on the motion of Lord John Russell, with the view of substituting another form, substantially the same as that which has existed for ,a hundred and fifty years, but omitting those portions that have ceased to have any application, and terminating with the words " upon the true faith of a Christian—so help me God." Sir Frederick briefly narrated the history of the question up to the moment when Mr. Gibson proposed to brush away the oath of abjuration altogether in order to facilitate the admission of Jews into Parliament ; and when Lord John Russell, startled at a proposal to abolish an important recognition of the Pro- testant succession embodied in the oath, proposed to retain a tame, meagre, and lifeless substitute, by introducing in Committee a portion of the oath,—namely, the words " I do promise faithfully to maintain, support, and defend to the utmost of my power, the succession to the Crown, &c." In defence of his proposal to retain the old words, Sir Frederick alleged that the Roman Catholics are only waiting a fitting time to enforce the claim of a foreign Roman Catholic Sovereign to the Crown. In support of this view, he reminded the House that Dr. Cullen had, in 1841, published certain bulls, two of which, dated 1759 and 1760, were addressed to " Our most dear son in Christ, James, the il- lustrious King of Great Britain "; and that a book published in Ireland, De Hibernia Dominicanfi, contained a passage pointing out that there are fifty and more Catholic princes of either sex who enjoy the right of near- er blood to the Stuarts than the House of Hanover. Could Lord John Russell have done so consistently with obtoining the admission of the Jews, surely he would have retained the significant words "I do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare on my conscience, before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria is the lawful and rightful Queen of this realm." But if he had retained these words, he would have had no excuse for omitting the words at the close of the oath—" upon the true faith of a Christian." So long as the oath of abjuration is maintained in its integrity, there will be no occasion to bring forward any measure for the exclusion of the Jews ; but in the present position of the question, the opponents of the admission of the Jews could not raise the question directly, because it is entangled with the omission of those important words to which he had referred. Taking up in succession and replying to the arguments used by those who sup- port the admission of the Jews, Sir Frederick rested his main' objection on the high ground that Christianity is the law of the land, and that he would not consent to unchristianize the Legislature by the admission of the Jews.

Mr. BOWYER. read a letter from Dr. Cullen, explaining that the collec- tion of bulls referred to by Sir Frederick Thesiger contained some briefs not previously published ; that they were merely historical documents ; and that " it would be absurd to suppose they were published as having reference to our times, when the Stuart family does not exist." Lord Joan Rimers, described the position of the question. Sir Fre- derick Thesiger gave up the old oath, and proposed a new oath and new securities ; and in this new oath he proposed to insert words in order to exclude the Jews. That is a great advantage to those who are arguing for their admission. If there is to be a new oath, we should not go be- yond that which is necessary. The Stuarts, as claimants of the throne, do not exist ; it is therefore absurd to renounce them. The oath proposed by Sir Frederick contains a great deal that is unnecessary. Why •should persons who have taken the oath of allegiance be called upon to repeat an as- surance that her Majesty is the rightful Sovereign of these realms ? why should Members of that House any more than all other subjects be called upon to disclose treasons and traitorous conspiracies ? It is by no means the duty or the business of a Member of that House to make himself pecu- liarly acquainted with any danger likely to affect the safety of the Crown, it is the duty of all p5rsons who take the oath of allegiance to make known all traitorous conspiracies that come within their know- ledge. As to the words "on the true faith of a -Christian," they were meant to secure the fidelity of -Christians, not to procure the exclusion of the Jews. If it were intended to exclude the -Jews, the simple plan would be to compel the person seeking admission to the House to declare and testify that he professes the Christian faith. Bilt under the British monarchy that has never been required. Parliament has a right to im- pose qualifications on its members ; but that must be only done on the strongest ground of state necessity. In -the case of the Jews no such ground has been shown. Mere ground of religious faith is no proper ground for exclusion ; and if it wore, tests and oaths do not enable you to ascertain the religious opinions of any man. Religious obligation is incumbent on the House ; but that religious obligation should not be looked for in the form of an oath, but in the convictions of this Christian community. Under the present form of oath, they exclude a man who frankly tells them that the words it contains are not binding on his oon- science ; but they are quite willing to trust the man who, like Bolingbroke, is totally opposed to the Christian belief yet will take the oath. He claimed the admission of the Jews, not on their peculiar merits--it is for Mr. Disraeli to advocate their cause on that ground—but on the ground of general religious principle. Mr. WARREN supported the amendment, in a,speech which provoked the impatience of the House. Mr. BYNG and Mr. Tames Dr-scomsz opposed the amendment.

Sittings this Week, 6; Time, 44h 10m this Session, 75; — 571h 23m

EDUCATION ESTIMATES.

In Conmiittee of Supply on Thursday, Sir GEORGE GREY moved and explained the proposed grant of 451,2131. for Public Education. The grant this year exceeds that of last year by 54,292/. In defence of the extended vote, he reviewed the course of public education ; showing that the increase of expenditure, since 1839, when it was 80,0001. only, and 1850, when itwas 200,000/., has been accompanied by a corresponding extension of education. In 1850, the number of pupil teachers was 4660 ; of Queen's scholars, 39 ; of certificated masters and mistresses, 900 ; of inspectors, 19 ; of schools inspected, exclusive of 600 workhouse schools, 3098 ; of children examined, 214,873. In 1856, the number of pupil teachers had increased to 8524 ; of Queen's scholars, to 972 ; of certificated mas- ters and mistresses, to 3432 ; of inspectors, to 36 ; of schools inspected, to 6966 ; of children examined, to 569,076. That affords very satisfac- tory evidence of the advantages derived from Parliamentary grants. The increased expenditure is caused by the increase of pupil teachers, by the augmentation of salaries to masters and mistresses; the increase of capitation grants, now extended to the whole country ; and the new item of 10,0001. for industrial schools. It is not intended to apply any portion of the 10,000/. to the building of what are called " Reforma- tories " in the technical sense of the word, or establishments erected un- der the authority of acts of Parliament for the reception of juvenile of- fenders.

The actual vote for which Sir George moved was 151,213/.

Sir Josue PAKINGTON made a speech, not on the estimate before the House, but on the general question of education, with many references to the debate on Lord John Russell's motion. Ie seemed particularly anxious to explain to " out-of-doors," that the real meaning of that vote was not hostility to public education, but to the particular plan laid be- fore the House. Mr. BARNES moved that the vote be reduced to the sum voted last year-396,921/.—on the ground that education by Privy Council grants ought not to be extended ; that the people have no more claim to public education than they have to public work; and that educa- tion should be left to the voluntary exertions of the country. 31r. MILNER GIBSON replied to Mr. Barnes in defence of the present system as " better than nothing." Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, MT. ALCOCK, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. Mums, Mr. 'IV. J. Fox, and others, supported the vote.

The amendment was negatived without a division, and the vote was agreed to.

ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE.

Mr. HEYWOOD moved on Tuesday for a Select Committee to inquire what measures could be adopted to advance science and improve the position of its cultivators. Apparently the House was fast becoming empty, for Mr. Heywood made a brief speech ; and Mr. TITE had no sooner seconded the motion than an attempt was made to count out the House. It failed, however ; and Mr. Memenereos continued the debate by arguing against the motion. Science is not advanced by having large amounts of property devoted to its encouragement. Again the House became thin, and on a motion that it should be counted Members rushed out frantically. But there were still more than forty among the faithful. The debateewas continued by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER; who took tip the position that they must all sympa- thize with the object of Mr. Heywood, but that it is very doubtful whether that object would be promoted by appointing a Committee to make a general inquiry. In the midst of his speech, he was cut short by another motion to count the House. This time Members rushed en, and forty were counted. The next speakers were Mr. TrrE in favour, and Lord STANLEY against the motion. Then, for the fourth time, an ineffectual attempt was made to count out the House. Lord PALMERSTON brought the conversation to a dose. He objected, that the motion was vague ; that the session was far advanced ; and he doubted whether a board of science would produce any advantage to science it- self ; but he said the Government would be at all times most thankful to any person who can suggest to them anything within the competence of Government to propose or within the scope of Parliament to entertain which will Teeny tend to the advancement of science.—Motion with- drawn.

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE BILL.

The rnivereity of Cambridge Bill was again in Committee on Mon- day ; when the consideration of its clauses was resumed and finished.

On elapse 27, Mr. HErwoon moved that the College statutes should hereafter be framed in the English language. Negatived by 74 to 58. Mr. Wronen moved the insertion of words providing that no endowment should be altered without due regard being had to the main design of the founder. Negatived by 97 to 78. Mr. HEYWOOD moved a series of amendments,—that the Colleges should have power to frame statutes regulating the duration of "headships "that words should be inserted providing for the encouragement of studies in modem history, science, and languages • that students conscientiously objecting should be exempt from compulsory attendance at chapel. All these amendments were ne- gatived by considerable majorities. On clause 29, Mr. FcurrEseirE moved the omission of words the effect of which would be to remove from the bill the power given to two-thirds of the governing body of any College to put a -veto on any scheme of the Commissioners. Negatived by 165 to 93.

The remaining clauses were agreed-to with some slight amendment.

THE BURIAL-GROUND QUESTION.. There was another conversation in the House tedirds on Tuesday re- specting the consecration .of burial-grounds. The principal speakers were Lord PORTMAN and the Bishop of OXFORD who made some expla- nations of statements formerly made by both. In the course of the con- versation, the Bishop of Casmes said, that if it were necessary to cele-', brate the sacrament at the consecration of a church, then he had never consecrated a church in his life.

There is no religious ceremony essential to the consecration of a church. The real act of consecration is a civil act, that gives up in a solemn way a particular building to be for ever devoted to the service of God. He had known the Archbishop of Dublin go to a church to consecrate it, walk in and sign the requisite paper in the regular manner, and then go away again. When afterwards asked why he had not read the service, he said, "Do you think that anything I could read would give to the building a holier charac- ter than it derived from the fact of its being given rip to the service -of

On 'a division, the amendment was negatived by 159 to 110, and the bill passed.

God " There is, in fact, no form of consecration in the Church service, and therefore different forms are used in different dioceses. Whatever might be the practice of the Bishop of Oxford, he believed there had been hundreds of churches consecrated without the sacrament.

Lord DUNGANNON remarked that there had always existed strong pe- culiarities of opinion in the mind of Dr. Whately. Lord CAMPBELL respectfully suggested, that as there was no likeli- hood of the present conversation tending to edification, it had better be stopped. PROPERTY OF MARRIED Womme.

Sir ERSKSNE PERRY, in moving certain resolutions touching the laws relating to married women, mentioned that seventy petitions had been presented to the House on the subject during the present session, one signed by 3000 women, including many eminent names. The maxim of the common law is that a married woman can hold no personal property ; while a court of equity recognizes a separate property in married women. That conflict should be settled. All that is needed is to abolish the arti- ficial rule laid down by the common law, and allow the property of mar- ried women to be dealt with by the same rules as all other property. He moved these resolutions-

" That the rules of the common law, which give all the personal property of a woman on marriage, and all subsequently acquired property and earn- ings, to the husband, are unjust in principle and injurious in their opera- tion.

" That the principles of courts of equity, which recognize separate pro- perty in a married woman, and invest her, with respect to such property, with all the rights of ownership, are in accordance with the requirements of the age, and in conformity with the opinions and usages of the wealthier and better-instructed classes of society. " That, in the opinion of this House, the conflict between law and equity on the subject ought to be terminated by a general law, bused on the prin- ciple of equity, which should apply to all classes."

Lord STANLEY seconded the motion.

The Arromme-GEn_u. cordially concurred in the resolutions. The Lord Chancellor thinks that the time has arrived when the common law and equity should be reconciled. Government will give its best attention to the subject during the recess, with the view of bringing in a satisfac- tory measure next session.

He might take the opportunity of saying, that he should look upon such a measure, if it were passed, as only a part of a fur greater one, for which the time has fully amved,—namely, the removal of the inconsistencies existing between common law and equity, by making the more rigid and stubborn maxims of the common law consistent with equity, that is, with reason, justice, and common sense.

He hoped Sir Erskine would not press his motion.

Mr. MeLnes did not know what Sir Erskine Perry desired. If it'were to set up separate establishments in every household, that is contrary to the laws of England and of God. Mr. ltureez said, that when the -con- duct of a man is such that his wife cannot live with him, he should not be entitled to seize the fruits of her industry. The Somerrou-GENEnst. remarked, that he could not congratulate Sir Erskine Perry on the clear- ness of his resolutions. The common law gives the property of the wife to the husband, subject to the obligation of maintaining the wife ; but no provision is made for enforcing the obligation. The true evil is, that a husband may abandon his wife while possessing her property. The Courts of Equity refuse to allow a husband to obtain possession of pro- perty acquired by a wife during marriage unless he consents to dedicate a part of it to the maintenance of his wife. It well deserves consideration, whether that rule should not be made universal, and applied to all pro- perty whether obtained by the husband through the medium of .courts of equity or not. He thought it might be possible to insert a clause in the Marriage and Divorce Bill when it comes down from the other House, securing to married women deserted by their husbands the right of enjoy- ing in safety the fruits of their own industry.

Mr. WHITESIDE and Mr. COLLIER, concurring in the objects of the re- solution, said that the discussion showed how desirable it is that there should be a Minister of Justice. Mr. W. J. Fox supported and Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS opposed the resolutions.

In the end, Sir ERSKINE PERRY expressed himself satisfied with the assurances of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, and withdrew his resolutions.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. EIVAAT moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the opera- tion of the law imposing the punishment of death. The speech he made in support of his motion of inquiry was really one in favour of the abolition of death-punishment. His argument was, that to be effeetive, punishment should be certain, equal, and " reversible, revocable, reme- diable "—for human nature is liable to err. But death-punishment is one of the most ineffective punishments ever inflicted. The proportion of convictions to acquittals in cases no longer capital is 80 per cent, whereas in eases of murder it is only 20 per cent. Some criminals re- gard their fate with indifference, others with the greatest horror. He gave instances where juries refused to convict rather than allow cri- minals to be hanged. But not only does the conduct of juries render the punishment uncertain, but also the opinions and feelings of judges. In several cases judges have sobbed audibly while passing sentence. That is honourable to the judges, but is it creditable to the system of capital punishment ? Nine years ago, several judges were favourable to the abolition of capital punishment, and no doubt a greater number are favourable now. He pointed to the clement of uncertainty in the last court of appeal before the execution of a prisoner, the Home Office—one Home Secretary might be lenient, another severe. Then, many, persons have been capitally punished whose innocence was afterwards proved. Punishment by death contains the element of revenge—an ingredient that cannot last long in civilized society ; it is irreversible, and revolting to human nature. Death-punishment has been abolished with good re- sults in Tuscany, Bavaria, Switzerland, and several States of North Ame- rica. He implored the House to exclude from our.courts of justice that "scarecrow deity" which has so long deformed them. Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion. Mr. HENRY Dauramown asked what oould be the operation of death-punishment, but death—than death, what can be more certain ? If juries would not convict, it was because they had been taught to commit pe jury. He strongly objected to the present mode of im rtuning the Home Secretary in favour of rascals who are going to be rd. He recommended that they should

revert to the old plan and have a commission to which the Crown could refer cases where reconsideration might be necessary.

Sir Geonoz GREY trusted that the House would, as it had done before, concur with him in rejecting the motion_ The terms were slightly va- ried, but there was little substantial difference between this proposal for a Committee and former proposals for leave to bring in a bill. If the House agreed to the motion, it would be understood that death-punish- ment should be discontinued ' - and that would be a dangerous course for the House to adopt. The real feeling of the people is not expressed in petitions on this subject. When a criminal is convicted, many persons regard him as an object of pity, and strive to obtain a remission of his sentence ; no one will petition for his execution ; but the feeling against remission is strongly but silently entertained. Er George contended for the maintenanoe of death-punishment on the ground of expediency. It is looked upon with greater dread than any other punishment. Rob- beries, burglaries, and other felonies of the secondary class, have in- creased in number, and progressively so, since the punishment of death has been abrogated. The crime of murder, on the contrary, has remained about stationary, but stationary, be it remembered, in relation to a population which is rapidly increasing. The number of persons committed, not convicted, on charges of murder in the year 1845, was 65 ; in 1864 it was 62. The difference is scarcely appreciable, yet the population had increased in the interim by nearly 2,000,000. Sir George followed Mr. Ewart pretty closely through his other arguments, and met them with the well-known replica. In regard to juries, he thought Mr. Ewart had overstated his case ; and as regards judges, he really did not see what the natural emo- tion of a judge had to do with the matter. He described the course taken by the Home Secretary with respect to applications for mercy ; and said ho would be thankful to Mr. Drummond if he could suggest a mode whereby the responsibility of the Home Secretary would he lessened. Mr. Ewart says " that as the, science of chemistry advances the difficulty of detecting' murder by poisoning will increase. That is most dangerous doctrine i but, happily, it has no solid foundation. The crime of poisoning by arsenic used to be very common, but it has now disappeared, because the progress of Chemical research enables it to be discovered with certainty. I maintain, then, that the chances of detection are infinitely augmented, not diminished, by the improvements of science." There was no debate. Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. Baornmeros and Mr. WARNER, were met by cries for a division ; the House divided, and the motion was:negatived by 168 to 64.

RELATIONS "WITH THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. BAILLIt 1111.3 a notice on the paper respecting our relations with the United Stales on the recruiting question. From time to time it has been deferred, , on the understanding that any discussion should be taken on the Artny,,Estimates. On Thursday a conversation arose'on the sub- ject; the result of.which was, that no day was fixed either for the Army Estimates or Mr. Baillie's motion. Days were named by the Clogs- CELLOR of . the Eitcancitran, but Mr. DISRAELI thought it would be in- convenient to fix one in the absence of Lord Palmerston. Ultimately the matter rested thus—Mr. BAILLES gave notice that he should alter the terms of his motion " in consequence of very important events that have since occurred" ; and that he should put his amended notice on the paper as soon as the day is fixed: THE SAnnnsrAtt Losn.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought up, and the SPEAKER read, a message from the Queen informing the House of Commons that her Majesty has, concluded a convention with the Ring of Sardinia, whereby she has engaged to advance a second loan of one million sterling, subject to the same conditions as the first loan. It was ordered that the message should be, considered on Monday next.

• THE FOREIGN LEGION.

In reply to, the Earl of DoNOUCHMORE, Lord Paismons stated, that regiments gunents'of the Foreign Legion, when disembodied, will receive no single advant beyond those of British troops. ac _e

The Foreign ons that had been sent to the Crimea had distinguished themselves ate muet

and had maintained as good order as any troops in her Majesty's service, and had conducted themselves as valiantly as any troops that had been 'brought into the field. The troops of the Foreign Legion 4-8652 Germans, 8013 ifiiis,-iind 3535 Italians—making together 15,100 men. The Swiss and Italian Legions he hoped would in the course of a very few- weeks be, disembodied. With respect to the German Legion, -it appeared that a large portion of them were deairous of being transferred to the Cape of Good Hope: her Majesty's Government thought that such a course waehighly desirable, as those Germans were of the same character as the original colonists. Arrangements would, he hoped, shortly be made to carry out the object of their wishes by making the proposed transfer.

LONDON CORPORATION.

On Tuesday evening, Lord Jowl Rrsmitr. presented-a petition signed by upwards of 4000- inhabitant householders of the City of London, in- cluding 300 of the most wealthy and`respeetable firms, and 130 barris- ters, the tenour of which was in favour of Sir George Grey's bill for the reform of the Corporation, which they prayed might speedily pass into law. The petition having been ordered to lie on the table, Mr. DISRAELI presented a petition from the Liverymen of the City of London against the bill, praying that they might be heard at the bar of the House. Mr. Disraeli, "considering the ancient relations between the House and the Liverymen of the City of London," moved that the petition be read by the Clerk. This having been done, the petition was ordered to lie on the table.

THE NANYAB OF SURAT.

Sir FITZROY KELLY, at the time of private business on Wednesday, • moved the third reading of the Nawab of Surat's Treaty Bill. This measure is intended to remedy an alleged grievance inflicted on Meer AR Jaffier, who claims to be the heir of the family of the Nawab of Surat, and therefore entitled to a certain annuity. His claim is dis- puted.. It turns on the question whether the grant was made to the heirs natural of the Nawab, or to his heirs being successors in the Nawabahip. The disputants were Sir Frrzoor KELLY on the part of the claimant, and Sir SAISHS WEIR 11000 on the part of the East India Company. After some very long speeches, the third reading was deferred to Wednes- day next, in order that Members may look into the merits of the case.