Vtintits Ault ruttaiuge it Vatliamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEER.

Horn OF Lonna. Monday, June 15. The Princess Royal's Annuity Bill read a.third time and passed—Justice in India ; Lord Clanricarde's Complaint. Tuesday, June 16. Reformatory Institutions ; Lord Carnarvon's Bill; debate adjourned—Sound Dues Bill read a first time. Thursday, June 18. Ministers'-Nioney (Ireland) Bill read a second time—Police (Scotland) Bill read a second time. Friday, June 19. Resignation of the Bishop of Norwich ; Lord Redesdale's Question—Smoke Nuisance (Scotland) Abatement ; Lord Kinnaird's Bill committed —Transportation and Penal Servitude ; Sir George Gray's Bill read a third dme and passed. Horn OF COAIMONS. Monday, June 15. Oaths sin; Sir F. Thesiger's Motion negatived; Bill committed—Sound Dues Bill read a third time and passed—Fraudulent Trustees Bill committed—Savings-banks (No. 2) Bill committed pro forme. Tliesday, June 18. Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland) Bill in Committee— Equalization of Poor-rates ; Mr. Ayrton's Motion—Grand Juries ; Sir F. Thesiger's Bill in Committee—" Count out."

Wednesday, June 17. Registration of Long Leases (Scotland) Bill committed— Industrial Schools; Mr. Adderiey's Bill in Committee—Grand Juries (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday. Arne 18. supply; Army Estimates—Military Departments ; General Peel's Complaint—The National Survey ; Sir D. Norreys's Motion carried against Ministers—Ecclesiastical Corporations ; Lord Blandford's Bill referred to a Select Committee—Ecclesiastical Commission; Sir G. Grey's Bill referred to a Select Committee—Married Women's Property ; Mr. Malins's Bill committed. Friday, June 19. Privilege, Rochdale Election—Outrage at Greytown ; Lord C. Hamilton's Question—Rules of the House ; Sir D. Norreys's Motion—Supply ; Civil Ser. ice Estimates.

THE OATHS BILL.

Monday evening was almost entirely devoted by the House of Commons to the consideration of the Oaths Bill in Committee. The points in dispute gave rise to several strong divisions, and to an amount of speechmaking that covered sixteen columns of small type in the morning journals. The House having gone into Committee, Mr. DEASY moved the first of a series of amendments on clause 1, which prescribes the oath to be substituted for the oaths of allegiance, supremac-y, and abjuration in order to place the Roman Catholic Members on a footing of equality with all the other Members of the House. He said he was actuated Vilely by a sense of duty to his church. There should be but one test of adnussibility to the House—that of bearing true allegiance to her Majesty, and of promising to continue that allegiance in the line of succession pointed out by the Act of Settlement. He asked them to abolish the distinction that exists between Protestant and Catholic, as Lord Palmerston asked them to abolish the distinction between Christian and Jew. The oldest and greatest of the Christian churches should not stand in an infbrior position to the unbelievers in our common Christianity. If it is unnecessary and offensive to exact from Protestants an abjuration of the doctrine that sovereigns deposed or excommunicated by the Pope may be murdered by their subjects, and a declaration that they take the

oath without mental reservation, is it not offensive and unnecessary to exact them from Roman Catholics ? Why not repose confidence in the

loyalty-of the one as well as the other ?It is said that there was a com

pact in 1829 that prevented Roman Catholics from seeking to alter the oaths : but he denied that it was so • he quoted Sir Robert Peel

to show that Sir Robert did not regard them as necessary although he proposed them, and Sir Charles Wetherell to show that the oath really did not restrict a Roman Catholic from seeking to injure the Church

establishment. The formidable foes of the Established Church are not

the Roman Catholics, but the Protestant Dissenters. fte showed that the Roman Catholic Members regarded the language of the oath as am biguous, by quoting three different constructions put on it by the Duke of Norfolk, the late Mr. Shiel, and Mr. John O'Connell. It is now an. opportune time for effecting a change that would not impair the security of the Church, and would gratify the wishes of millions of their fellow countrymen. Mr. Deasy moved that the words "temporal or civil" should be substituted for "ecclesiastical or spiritual" in clause 1. Lord PALMERSTON said that he should imitate the temperate tone of Mr. Deasy and avoid religious disquisitions. He thought it would be desirable, if practicable, that there should be only one oath. If he had power to frame the oath, there are parts which he should not think necessary. But the question was, not whether Catholics should be placed on a footing of equality with those now excluded, but whether, while Protestants are relieved from superfluous declarations, we should at the same time admit a section of our fellow countrymen who for years have been excluded from Parliament. Mr. Deasy should consider the question as one of prudence as well as principle. If he succeeded in altering the oath, it would cause the failure of the aggregate measure. Mr. Deasy said the oath was not a part of the general arrangement of 1829, and he quoted Sir Robert Peel: but the stronger the evidence adduced to show that the oath was not in conformity with the opinions of Sir Robert Peel, the clearer the inference that it was a compact between Sir Robert and those opposed to him—a bridge by which some might parse over to support the bill—an arrangement that would justifSi others in ceasing their resistance. Lord Palmerston trusted that the Committee would not acquiesce in the amendment. "At the same time, I would add, that those who vote against this proposition do not thereby pronounce an opinion that the Catholic oath is exactly in all respects such as they would wish it to be •' for I am sure that there must be many who think with me that there are things undoubtedly in that oath which are unnecessary, but that this is not the time for disturbing the settlement which was made in 1829."

Mr. DnummoNn said, he was astonished that Lord Palmerston, who himself stirred up the question, should reproach the Roman Catholic Members for bringing forward the question. Why not, as Sir Robert

Peel said, try the effects of confidence The time has come for putting an end to these distinctions. Mr. STArixToN thought that the amendment was opportunely proposed, but he objected to it, because its adoption would imply an acknowledgment of the ecclesiastical and spiritual power of the Pope Mr. W WILT' opposed the amendment. Mr. Reissues said there was one quality of an oath that had entirely escaped attention—truth. Is it true, as the oath declares, that no foreign. potentate has any power, authority, or preeminence, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms? In the course of his life he had been twenty times called upon to swear an actual lie, for there is not a man in the House who does not know that the Pope does exercise ecclesiastical and spiritual dominion in the realm, nay, in this very city. To declare that he does not, is swearing to a lie knowing it to be a lie ; and as he disliked such formal lying, he should vote for the amendment. Sir FREDERICK TRESICEER said that construction of the oath astonished him. The oath involved a declaration of the supremacy of the Crown; it did not mean that the Pope had no de facto jurisdiction, but that his authority was not a legal authority. Sir Frederick could not consent to omit words which he regarded as the keystone of the arch on which the Protestant religion rests in this country. In 1849 Sir Robert Peel objetted to the omission of these very words, because it would give rise to a presumption that he recognized the existence of spiritual jurisdiction on the part of the Pope of Rome. Mr. BBRESPORD Herz thought the bill would, by injuring the consciences of millions, do more evil, than the toleration of the Jews would do good. Mr. G. H. MOORE supported the amendment.

If the Parliament of England declared that Jews and Protestants might record their religious attestation by one common and mutually convenient formula, and that Roman Catholics should take a separate oath, he, as a Roman Catholic, accepted the difference as a distinction. In that case, the only additional favour they could afford him would be, that when they had discarded the concluding words of the oath, they would permit him the exclusive privilege of making this attestation on "the true faith of a Christian." (Laughter and "Hear, hear!")

After a further passage of arms between Mr. ROEBUCK on one aide, and Mr. NAPIER and Sir FREDERICK THESIOER on the other, respecting the truth or falsehood of the oath, the Committee divided, and negatived the amendment by 373 to 83.

Mr. Roneeex then moved an amendment, to the effect that the Pope had no power, ecclesiastical or spiritual, " by law," within these realms: Negatived by 243 to 68.

The novelty in the debate on the Jew Bill of 1857 was now disposed of, and the remainder of the discussion was replete with the characteristics of former debates, and with the arguments used on so many occasions for and against the admission of the Jews. Sir FREDERICK THESIS-ER raised the question by moving the addition of the following words to the oath

" And I do make this promise, renunciation, abjuration, and declaration, heartily, willingly, and truly, on the true faith of a Christian."

He was supported on this occasion by speeches from Mr. T. B. STANHOPE, Mr. WIOR.AM, MT. WARREN, Mr. 1sTAPIER, MY. NEWDECIATE, and Mr. WinTrsms. On the other side were Mr. KINGLAKE, in a maiden speech, Mr. T. W. EvANs, Sir JOHN PARINGTON, Mr. HonsmAN, Lord Jona Russrxr., and Lord PALMERSTON. Sir JOHN PAIC1NGTON said he had hitherto given a silent but unhesitating vote in support of the principle embodied in Sir Frederick Thesiger's amendment : but he has been led to give the subject more anxious reflection, and the result is, that he could not repeat his vote for excluding the Jews. Having arrived at that conclusion, he could not shape his vote according to the manner in which the question has been brought forward. He regretted that manner. He thought it desirable to retain the words "on the true faith of a Christian" for Christian Members. It would have been wiser to have emancipated the Jews on the principle that the ROMER Catholics had formally been emancipated. But as he could not continue to oppose the admission of the Jews, it only remained for him to support the form of proceeding on which the Government has decided. In giving his reasons for his change of opinion, Sir John contended that the admission of the Jews would not, in the sense in which the argument is used, unchristianize the Legislature; for in that sense it has been unchristianised, already by the admission of Unitarians, and by a form of oath that would admit even Mormons. He could not believe that the admission of Jews would deprive the ROWS of the character which it has so long had of being in its best and widest sense a Christian House of Commons. If the House wished to sanction the view of his honourable friends in regard to the maintenance of the Christian character of Parliament, they should exclude the Jew by explicit legislation as in the solitary ease of Schleswig-Holstein. The Jew is a recognized subject of the Queen ; he holds property, pays taxes, fills political offices. The Jew, indeed, has no inherent right to political power from the fact of his being born a citizen of this country : but on the other hand, though there is no legal right to the possession of political power, every Englishman has a moral right to all the privileges enjoyed by others who are similarly qualified to himself, unless there is some state necessity to the contrary ; and if you are to debar him from those rights by reason of his religious opinions, you are bound to show that there is something in the nature of his creed which renders the imposition of such a disability imperative. Both in Roman Catholic and Protestant countries—in France, in Belgium, in Holland, in Prussia—the Jew may enjoy political power. In this country, not only statesmen on the Ministerial side, but those to whom he had been accustomed to look up with respect—Lord Lyndhurst, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Ellesmere, Lord George Bentinck, and others, had uniformly advocated the admisaion of the Jews. Although personally he might prefer that Jews should not have seats in that assembly-, yet he did not feel justified in depriving them of the full enjoyment of the privileges of the constitution under which they live. (Own.) Mr. Wurresres, in an eloquent oration, went deeply into history to show that the Jews had not only been excluded from Parliament by the jurisprudence of the country and the practice of the constitution, but that they had no rights, and, as Mr. Macaulay said, it was with difficulty they could, keep their teeth in their heads. He reminded tho House that the common law still regards all those as criminals who write against the Christian religion ; and that if Baron Rothschild wrote a short exposition of the doctrines es he conscientiously holds, the Attorney-General, if he could spare a moment from the British Bank delinquents, would appear in the Queen's Bench and prosecute Baron Rothschild. The question they were called upon to decide was, whether Christianity should continue to be exclusively the religion of the state. Fifteen hundred years ago the Roman Senate decided that question for themselves, and "the temples of voluptuous heathenism were overthrown, the statues of the false gods were shivered, the idols and the groves were desecrated, and Christianity became the religion of the Senate and of the Empire." The argument against the Jew was that he resisted the lessons which the wisdom of Newton, of Pascal, and of Locke inculcated ; that he was untaught by the divine song that Miltonsang ; and that though the sun was darkened, though the earth quaked, and the graves gave back their dead to testify to the Creator's triumph, yet, unlike the Centurion of old, Baron Rothschild would not believe. (Cheers and murmurs.) He came there to triumph over our ancient faith, over our ancient customs, over our ancient establishments, and over the principles of our constitution. And he would add insult to victory, for after this bill became law, no Christian man, however sincere he might be would dare to utter at that table the words "on the true faith of a Christian." (Cheers.) It was not enough that he should not himself utter the words "on the true faith of a Christian "—no other man was to be permitted to do so. And those were charged with bigotry who stood up to oppose this state of things, and for the maintenance of.that system that had for centuries preserved our common Christianity in the land. He glorified the Conservative party as "the true party after all." It is their business "to stand up for the maintenance and supremacy of that faith which they believe has been revealed from above, and for the establishment of which, in its present form among us immortal patriots laboured and blessed martyrs died." (Much cheering.) Called up by this outburst, Lord JOHN RUSSELL protested with some warmth against the persecuting doctrines of Mr. Whiteside, which they would nearly all condemn : for, not content with a reference to times before the Reformation when Roman Catholics persecuted, he had gone hack to the days of the Roman Senate, when the persecuting spirit, in spite of the change of religion, remained, while the Christians, instead of being persecuted, became persecutors. That is not an example to be followed.

"It is not by imprisonment, and still less by capital punishment, that the Chiistian religion is to be promoted. I believe that if you open your doors wide, and the Jew is permitted to come into the House, the greatnees and glory of Christianity would be more truly seen, and that you would do more to diffuse a Christian spirit and induce others to respect and follow Christianity, than by acting upon the intolerant laws of a former time. I therefore am of opuuon, that to refer to those former examples is leading the House entirely astray, and I trust that the House by its decision tonight will show that it is guided by better examples and better precepts." (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON' brought the debate to a close by a brief speech on behalf of religious liberty, in the course of which he complimented Sir John Pakington for the honourable and bold course he pursued, regardless of the taunts of those who "still wander in the region of error" ; and Mr. Whiteside for his "display of talent."

On a division, the numbers were—For the amendment, 201; against it, 341; majority, 140.

On the question that the clause should stand part of the bill, Mr. WALPOLE asked whether it was intended that the bill should stand as it was, or whether clauses were to be introduced restraining Jews from holding certain offices ? Lord PA.LMERSTON said that the Government had no intention of altering the bill as it stood. Lord ROBERT CECIL thought the minority ought to have an opportunity of registering a protest against a measure which would not prevent a Jew from becoming Prime Minister and appointing a Bishop. He moved that the Chairman should report progress. Lord PALILERSTON exhorted the Committee not to sanction a motion intended to defeat the bill by delay.

The motion was negatived by 278 to 142. After eosin farther opposition, a second motion for reporting progress was made and negatived without a division ; and the clauses having been agreed to, the House resumed,

MINLSTERS.-MONEY.

The House of Lords was occupied on Thursday evening in debating the proprietyof reading a second time the bill for the abolition of Ministers'-inoney in Ireland. Earl GRANVILLE, in moving the second reeding, described at some length the origin and incidence of the tax ; the reasons for its abolition ; and the mode in which it is proposed to satisfy the ministers whose stipends have hitherto been derived from the impost, by making them a charge on the fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The tax was imposed on houses in eight towns in Ireland in the reign of Charles the Second. In 1864 an set was passed directing the corporations of those towns to collect the tax. The Corporation of Dublin alone performed this office ; in the other towns the corporations refused. An action was brought against the Corporation of Cork, and judgment given against them in the Irish court whereupon they determined to appeal to the House of Lords. That appeal could not be settled within two years, so that there would then remain four years of arrears to be collected. Under theso eiremnstances, the Government had no alternative but to propose the transfer of thecharge to the Ecclesiastical fund. By adopting that proposal, the House would remove the sole remaining ground of irritation against the Established Church in Ireland.

In the COMBO of his speech, Lord Granville appealed to Lord Derby,. to say whether in 1833 Lord Grey's Government intended to omit ministers' -money from the scope of the Church Temporalities Act ; and he read a dense which seemed to imply the abolition of the tax. By that act, church-cess, yielding 70,000/., was abolished; and every argument in favour of that course was infinitely stronger in favour of the abolition of ministers' -money. He also asked what measure Lord Derby himself intended to propose when he was Minister in 1862, and whether he was prepared to suggest any course on this occasion ? The Earl of DERBY, moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months, explained at great length the policy pursued by Lord Grey. in 1833, with respect to tithes, ehurch-oess, and other matters. He thus defined the diftbrence between churoh-cees, then utterly abolished, and ministene-money Churelweess was a voluntary assessment, uncertain in amount, dependent on the will of the vestry whether they would choose to levy it or not, and to what amount they would choose to levy it, and levied exclusively by Protestants, while it fell mainly on Roman Catholics, and consequently excited great ill-will and ill-feeling. But ministers'-money was a tax two hundred years old, of a definite amount, fixed upon certain property, and just as much attaching to the individual house as any chief rent payable by any one of your lordships. Supposing I bought a house liable to the payment of 501. a year for the support of a Jewish synagogue : I should like to know what would be said of me if from conscientious motives I refused to pay money for such a purpose. A wise man would call me a fool, and an honest man would call me a rogue ; and the law would say' that, being liable, I must put my conscientious scruples in my pocket, and take my money out of my pocket and pay the amount." He argued, that the act of 1854 removed all the valid objections to the tax. That act confirmed by Parliamentary sanction the right of the clergy and the liability of the ratepayers. But they were now asked eu grounds of expediency of tho lowest description—" E rame and passive submission to the successful opposition of those whose duty it was to levy the tax—to take away that property which in 1854 they themselves declared to he inviolable." The bill is a confession of the inability of the Government to maintain the law. They proposed to abolish the tax because it was not paid by Cork, while it was paid by Dublin. He insisted that the Government had power to enforce the collection ; and he felt bound to resist an alteration of the law for which there is no ground either on principle or expediency. The Earl of HARDAWAY said, that if variableness and uncertainty was a ground for the abolition of church-cass in Ireland, surely it was ground for the abolition of church-rates in England. Lord Derby had by this argument thrown overboard the English clergy. He warned the House, not to leave open a dangerous sore that might.spread to any extent.

The bill was also supported by the Earl of CORIL, Lord TALBOT us Melanie; the Earl of Eiissreononon, and the Duke of NEWCASTLE. On the other side, it was opposed by the Bishop of KILMORE, the Earl of

DUNGANNON W

, the Earl of ICILLOW, the Earl of DONOIJOILMORE, and Lord Beniesns.

In his reply, Lord GRANVILLE reminded Lord Derby that he had not answered the challenges thrown out in his opening speech ; and again pressed him to show in what the principle of the bill differed from the principle of a particular clause in the Church Temporalities Act. Lord Dreary, -unable to meet this, referred Lord Granville to Lord Campbell, who as Attorney-General in 1833 had assisted to frame the clause. Lord CAMPBELL said, he could not give any explanation ; but he believed that minieters'-money, at that time, was overlooked. If Lord Derby had thrown it overboard with the bishoprics and church-rates in 1833, the ship would have righted long ago. On a division, the numbers were—For the second reading, (present 66, proxies 38) 101 ; against, (present 71, proxies 26) 96; majority 5, The bill was read a second time.

THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.

When the report of the Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates was brought up, General PEEL called attention to the evidence taken before the Sebastopol Committee and the Chelsea Commission, and cited a number of passages to show the necessity of defining the responsibility and duties of the various departments. He thought the House had a right to know what alterations had been made. Such clear regulations, ought to be at once laid down as would define the duties and responsibilities of the departments, and their issue should not be postponed until, the breaking out of another war. He asked no more than Lord Panmure himself in his place in Parliament admitted to be necessary but he asked for a fixed and definite plan, not speeches in the House of Lords. Mr. ELLICE having been appealed to, said he concurred with General Peel. He had understood that Lord Pan-inure had organized the departmeets; but a more detailed statement of that organization should be laid' before tie House. Mr. Ellice closed with some remarks against, the establishment at Aldershott. Sir JOHN PARINGTON supported the appeal' for a writt m statement of the duties of the war departments. General C2DRINGTON thought that the Commander-in-chief should be entirely responsible for the discipline and punishment of the Army, and for the rewards bestowed on officers; and that the Secretary of State should confine himself to finance. Mr. HENLEY supported General Peers view. There is no one more competent to the task of drawing up a code of regulations than Lord Pamnure, if he would devote himself to it.

Lord PALMERSTON explained at length the past and present condition of the War departments, to show that the evils had been remedied. Where there were four offices there are now only two—that of the Commander-in-chief, and that of the Secretary of State for War ; "the result being great simplification in the transaction of the various duties connected with the Army, and increased efficiency and expedition in the

performance of those duties." He contended, that in a country governed by Parliamentary arrangement and where some one must be responsible for every act done by the Crown, though the most distinct line of separation were drawn, one , department must from time to time avail itself of the assistance of the other.

"The fundamental distinction between the two offices is, that the Secretary of State for War is responsible for everything relating to the political and financial arrangements of the Army, while the Commanderin-chief is primarily responsible for all which has reference to the discipline and promotion of the troops." But they must hold that constant personal intercourse without which the service cannot be efficientlyadministered. "I am happy to be able to say, than such is the nature of the communication which now subsists between my noble friend at the head of the War department and the illustrious Prince who holds the office of Commander-in-chief. Nothing indeed, can be more completely harmonious and confidential than their intercourse." He stated a variety of instances to show that it is impossible to draw an impassable line ; but he promised that if it were practicable to frame a single document like that required by General Peel, it should be laid on the table. After this speech, the House fell into a desultory conversation on minor points connected with the Army Estimates.

THE NATIONAL SURVEY.

On the report of the vote of 151,7441. for the Education of the Scientific

branch of the Army, including the cost of the National Survey, Sir DENHAM NORREYS moved that it should be reduced by 36,0001., in order that the survey of Scotland should be taken on the same scale as that in Ireland and England—six inches instead of twenty-five inches to the mile. The great ground of his objection was the expense. The Scotch survey would cost 2,000,0001., and the English survey on the same scale 4,000,000/.

The question was very warmly debated ; and drew out a great conflict of opinion. Lord Desres.x, Lord Elm:to, and the Loan ADVOCATE, opposed the motion and argued for the completeness and usefulness of the survey on the extensive scale of twenty-five inches to the mile. They urged, too, that as the cultivated portions of Scotland have been surveyed on this scale, it would not now be worth while to interrupt it. In favour of the motion, were Sir WirmArc SOLUTE, the Earl of Gireonn, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. JOSEPH LOCKE, and Mr. EDWARD ELLICE. They urged that the large survey would benefit the Scotch landowners alone; that the snap of Scotland would be 250 yards long, and would require a telescope to inspect it. Lord PALMERSTON, in closing the debate commented on the diversity of opinion among the opposition, and on the impossibility of ascertaining from the speeches what the House meant. He urged the House to regard the survey as a national question.

On a division, the reduceevote was carried by 172 to 162. A second division was taken on the Motion that the reduced sum, 115,7401., should stand part of the question. This was carried by 290 to 22.

Asked what interpretation he put on these divisions, Lord PALMMISTON said, he understood them as implying that no farther surveys should be made on a twenty-five inch scale.

THE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.

In Coranlittee on Mr. Adderley's Industrial Schools Bill, the clauses from 1 to 10 were subjected to searching criticism. The principal critics were Mr. Henley and Mr. Bowyer. Mr. HENLEY pointed out, that by using the words "vagrancy or begging" in clause 5, implying that there is a difference between the two, a new offence was created, begging itself being a species of vagrancy. Another point was, whether the magistrates should have the power of remanding vagrant children to prison. Mr. ADDERLEY expressed his willingness to omit the words "or begging," and to insert words on the report to prevent children from being remanded to prison. Mr. BOWYER regarded the measure as highly penal with regard to children. As the Committee could come to no agreement, Mr. ADDERLEY consented to strike out the clause and bring up a new one on the report. In like manner, clause 6 was struck out, because it gave magistrates power to send children to Reformatory Schools, and because it depended on clause 5. On clause 7, Mr. HENLEY suggested that the proviso empowering a magistrate to bind over a parent on his own recognizanoes to the extent of 1/. as a security for the good behaviour of his child for a year, should be struck out. Mr. ADDERLEY concurred; saying that he should like to consult his friends on the point. Mr. Deasy moved the insertion of words limiting the term for which magistrates might order a child to be sent to an Industrial School to any period not exceeding two years. On this point Mr. ADDERLEY pressed for a division in order to take the sense of the House. The amendment was negatived by 197 to 63. A proviso was added on the motion of Mr. GREGORY, to the effect that a child should be sent to an Industrial School conducted on the principles of the religious persuasion to which his parents belonged, if there should be such a school in the county where the child was apprehended or in an adjoining county. Mr. HENLEY moved a proviso, that the child should be sent to the Industrial School within the county where he was apprehended or an adjoining county. Negatived by 200 to 66. Clause 8 was postponed. Clause 9 was agreed to, after a motion to report progress had been negatived by 192 to 16. The near approach of six o'clock (it being Wednesday) stopped further progress in the midst of clause 10.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS.

The Earl of CABSTARVON moved the second reading of the Reformatory Institutions Bill. By this measure he proposes to enable magistrates to send offenders to reformatories up to the age of twenty ; to provide that an offender shall undergo half his sentence before he receives a condi tional pardon ; to facilitate the classification of offenders ; to empower•Justices; and to grant money to reformatories solely for building pur because he thought that the more private they are kept the better. .tiie measure is ancillary to the present law—permissive ; and can only be put in operation at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Lord Baonettam said he would not object to the second reading; but it was his duty to point out that there are objections which may be urged at a future stage. Earl GRArivir.xn suggested, that the second reading should not be pressed until the Government bill come up from the House of Commons. He could not consent to commit the Government to the establishment of reformatories for young persons between the ages of sixteen and twenty.

After some further debate upon the course most fitting to be pursued, it was agreed that the debate should be adjourned.

EQUALIZATION OP POOR-RATES.

Mr. Avirrox moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of the inequality of the poor-rates in the Metropolitan districts, and whether measures should be adopted to render the rates more equal. The subject was important. It embraced the interests of 2,500,000_ persons ; it related to property worth 14,000,0001. ; and to rates levied on that property amounting to 869,0004 The Metropolis differs from the country in this that the whole town, although divided into separate quarters is really blended into one community. But there is nevertheless a line of demarkation which enables the rich to enjoy their wealth without contributing substantially to the support of the poor. The rating anomalies are very striking. The London Docks pay 19,0001. a year poor-rates ; the St. Katherine Docks 7141.; yet they are only separated by a party-wall. The Bank of England and the Royal Exchange pay 70/. poor-rates Apothecaries Hall pays 230/. Twenty houses in Bridge Street, Blackfriers, pay 1200/. a year poor-rates ; while Lombard Street, Cheapside, King William Street, only pay 615/. Certain parishes rated at 172,0001. pay 69501.; other parishes rated at 62,000/. pay 11,3501. These absurd inequalities demand the attention of the House. It was intended by the Act of Elizabeth that:the rich should support the poor : it embodied a provision that where the people of any parish were not able to maintain the poor within it, the Justices should be empowered to call in aid other parishes within the hundred; and if the hundred was unable to maintain its own poor, recourse was then to be had to the county at large. Mr. TOWNSHEND seconded the motion.

Mr. Bonvniun opposed the motion for a Select Committee. He first showed how deeply the House is already engaged in Committee business —90 Members sitting on private bills ; 160 on Select Committees; 64 on Standing Committees ; 150 probably on Election petitions-400 in all. It would be unadvisable to increase the number. But apart from that, he objected to the motion on the ground that Mr. Ayrton had not made out his case. There is nothing special in the circumstances of the Me-. tropolis. It is a province covered with houses. To a great extent the extremities have no more connexion with each other than Manchester has with Liverpool. The increase of the rates and the inequalities pointed out have gone on in the country as well as in London, and in that respect no distinction could be drawn between them. Mr. Ayrton's proposal was simply that the burden should be shifted from one property to another. The rates are not paid by the tenant but by the landlord, and the property is bought with a full knowledge of the burden upon it. If the House were to deal with the Metropolis they must be prepared to deal with the conpitry, aTi.i he could not believe that a national rate could "be maintained for an lefigth of time. The motion was -Supported hy Mr. BUTLER, Mr. Tonle Locx-s, Mr. C. BUXTON Mr. Manure, and Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR. It was opposed by Mr. BUXTON, and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. OR a divi

sion, the motion was negatived by 123 to 81.

In the House of Lords, the Earl of MALMESBITRY presented five petitions from London parishes for the equalization of the poor-rates ; and expressed himself as approving of the prayer, if adopted with proper guards against abuse. JUSTICE TN INDIA.

The Marquis of CLANR/CADDE, in moving for returns, made an attack upon the maladministration of justice in India. He complained of the unsatisfactory state of the Company's courts, and of the incompetence of the judges ; and described the restrictive civil service regulations as the chief obstacle to reform.

The Duke of ARGYLL observed that Lord Clanricarde delivered just such another speech two years ago : having replied to it then' he should not weary the House by again going over the same ground. Mr. Hallsday's minute contained a full statement of the views of the Indian Government ; and when they found a gentleman who was LieutenantGovernor of Bengal writing a minute in which he acknowledged the evils, and stated that measures were taken by the Legislative Council for their removal, they need be under no apprehensions in reference to the future.

Lord MONTEAGLE said that the Duke of Argyll's advice was always "Wait, wait, wait." There has been nothing but waiting since 1833. Her Majesty's Government, and not the Indian Government, should effect the desired reform.

There were now not more than six Peers present, and the Earl of ALBEMARLE, who held up three petitions, said he should reserve what he had to say for another opportunity.

A portion of the return moved for was ordered to be produced.