Vaults niat Vrartaings in Varlinnint.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF TAR WEEK.

IIOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, June 23. . Royal Assent to Sir William 'Williams's Annuity Bill, Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Bill, Public Health Supplemental Bill, Draughts on Bankers Bill, Oxford University Bill—Oath of Abjuration ; Mr. Milner Gibson's Bill thrown out; by 110 to 78. Tuesday, June 24. Joint-Stock Companies Bill committed—Factories Bill ported—Sleeping - Statutes; Mr. Locke King's Bill read a second time—Oath of Abjuration Amendment ; Lord Derby's Bill read a second time. Thursday, June 28. Grand Juries Bill read a second time—Matrimonial Causes and Divorce Bill committed—Sardinian Loan Bill read a second time.

Friday, June 27. Factories ; Colonel Patten's Bill read a third time and passed— Police (Boroughs and Counties) • Sir G. Grey's Bill read a third time and passed-- Sleeping Statutes ; Mr. Locke King's Bill committed—Oath of Abjuration Amend- ment ; Lord Derby's Bill reported:—Sardinian Loan Bill read a third time and passed. HOVEIE OP COMMONS. Monday, June 23. National F.ducatMn (Ireland); Mr. Fortescue's Motion.agreed to—Sardinian Loan Bill committed—County. Courts Art Amendment Bill read a second time.

Tuesday, June 24. Nawabof Swat's Treaty Bill read a third time and passed— Sardinian Loan Bin react a third time and passed—" No House " in the evening.

Wednesday, June 25. Maynooth College; Debate on Mr. Spooner's Bill. Thursday, June 28. The Australian Mail Service: Mr. Wilson's. Statement— Parochial Schoolmasters (Sootland) Tests- Bill reported—Parochial Schools .(Scot- land) Bill in Committee—Mr. Walpole's Address ; the Queen's Answer—London Corporation ; Sir George Grey's Bill withdrawn—Wills and Administration ; the Solicitor-General's Bill read a second time—Registration of Voters (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed—University of Cambridge Bill read a third time -and passed—Maynooth College; Mr. Spooner's Bill withdrawn. Friday, June 27. • Relations with the United States ; Mr. Moore's Question— Appellate Jurisdiction of the House _of Lords ; Mr. Curries Question—Church- rates ; Sir W. Clay's Question—Site _for the National Gallery ; Lord Elcho's Mo- tion—Scotch and Irish Paupers Removals ; Mr. Bonverie's Bill withdrawnParo- ehial Schools (Scotland) Bill committed—Wills and. Administrations Bill committed pro forma—Education (Scotland) ; the Lord Advocate's Bill withdrawn—D_wellings, for the Labouring Classes (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed—Metropolt' Local Management Act Amendment ; Sir B. Hall's Bill read.a second time-- ar- liage-law (Scotland) Amendment Bill read.a second time—Church-rates Abolition :

Sir W. Clay's Bill withdrawn—Smoke Nuisance =Abatement =Amendment Bill

read a third time.o.nd paned.. .

TIME-TABLE.

The Lord.. The Common*.

Hour of Hour of Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Meeting. Adjournment.

5h . Sh 45m Hondny 4h .(m) 2h Om

6h 7h 45m Tuesday Noon .... 46 Om Sh .... 611 lOnt No sitting. Wednesday Noon .... 511 50m H. 7h 55m Thursday Noon .... 3h 55m 61; .(m) 2h Om

5h Sh Im Friday 4h .(m) 111 45m Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 12630m Sittings this Week, 7; Time, 41h 40m

— this Session, 71 ; — 169h 45m this Session, 89; — 660k 13m

THE IRISH EDUCATION QUESTION.

In accordance with previous arrangements, the orders of the day were postponed on Monday evening, that. Mr. FORTESCUE might bring on the subject of National Education in Ireland. His object was to obtain a reversal of the vote on Mr. Walpole's motion.

There was a general expectation, he contended, that that debate would be adjourned. (Cries of No !" and " Hear !") If ever there was a debate which it was reasonable and natural to adjourn, it was that debate. Not one of those concerned in its establishment—not one Protestant Member for Ireland—addressed the House on the question ; and under these circumstances he asked the House to reconsider its decision. Mr. Walpole proposed that the principle of the National system should be given up, and that the prin- ciple of the Church Education Society should be adopted. The principle embodied in the National system, declared and maintained over and over again, was, that parental authority should be respected, and the rights of conscience should be secured to the children attending the schools. But Mr. Walpole proposed to leave the children, whether Protestant or Catholic, in all the schools, without protection as regarded their religious belief. He would impose upon all children a peculiar form of religious instruction • he would, while surrendering creeds and formularies, retain a rule peculiarly objectionable to Roman Catholics—that of reading the Scriptures without note or comment. In England, it is true, the State gives grants to different sects, and renders the use of the Church Catechism obligatory ; but that rule is not regarded with the greatest favour by the Parliament or people of this country. „ All the recent proposals for promoting education in England —the Factory Bill, Sir John Pakington's and Lord John. Russell's plans— all embody the principle of the Irish National Board. Mr. Walpole's pro- posed innovation would break up the National Board, and reverse those

damental principles which have been the salvation and essence of the Na- tional system in Ireland.

Mr. ortescue concluded with the followin., resolution—" That this House has observed with satisfaction the progress following in the instruction of the poorer classes of her Majesty's Irish subjects, under the direction of the Commissioners of National Education ; and is of opinion that in the ad- ministration of that system, or iu any modification of its Lles there should be maintained a strict and undeviating adherence to its fundamental prin- ciples, securing parental authority and the rights of conscience to pupils of all denominations, by excluding all compulsory religious teaching ; this House being convinced that no plan for the education of the Irish poor, however wisely and unexceptionably contrived in other respects, can be carried into effectual operation, unless it be explicitly avowed and clearly un- derstood, as its leading principle, that no attempt shall be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect or denomination of Christians."

Mr. RIRIE, in seconding the resolution, stated that the Presbyterians are as anxious as members of the Church of England that the Scriptures should be read, but they would not force religion upon another contrary to his conscience.

Mr. WALPOLE explained his position and intentions. Mr. Fortescue's resolution raised two questions ; one affecting the relations of the House to the Crown, the other the merits of his own 'motion. When an address is made to the Crown, the House should not rashly stir the subject again until it has received an answer. To do so would put the Itouse in a false position, by representing it to the country as an assembly deciding upon the chance of the moment; and it would put the Crown in a false position, by leaving in its hands an address while the House was delibe- rating upon a resolution to rescind that address. In passing, Mr. Wal- pole gave his adhesion to a suggestion made on a former occasion by Lord John Russell, to the effect that all addresses should be referred to a Committee, or reported to the House, so that the House might have an opportunity for a second deliberation. He should have been glad if that had already been.the rule of the House, so that they might have had an opportunity of reconsidering their former decision. As regarded the vote of Tuesday, he denied that everybody expected an adjournment—the Gbvernment voted against the adjournment. He elaborately detailed the steps that led up to his motion, to show that it was not a surprise, and that the vote was not stolen. "Never was challenge more fairly offered, never was challenge more advisedly taken up, and never was there a battle more honourably won." So far from proposing to subvert the present system, the terms of his address showed that he would leave all the schools exactly where they are. At the same time, he thought that the Churchmen who do not now belong to the system might receive a "share of the public grant. Could that be done consistently with the system so as to make it really national ? He thought so. He never said in his speech that he desired such an alteration of the rules as would enable the Church Education Society to proselytize the children of other creeds. He did not desire to interfere with parental authority or the rights of conscience. That is the reverse of what he maintained ; no such attempt ought to be made. Lay down regulations to prevent the forcing. of children contrary to their consciences, and he would support them. It was too much to charge him with attempting to introduce a system of proselytizing, when the same thing in principle had been pro- posed by Lord Granville, the representative of education. The terms of the resolution are not inconsistent with the terms of the address ; with every paragraph of the resolution he cordially agreed ; he looked upon them as a clause in a bill to which was appended a proviso.

" If you will consent to view the question in this light, I doubt not that

you will be of opinion with me, that the address and the resolution; so far from involving you in any inconsistency, present for your consideration this simple proposition—Seeing that there are schools winch, in consequence of their regulations with respect to the mode of religious instruction, cannot enjoy any portion of the public grants ; and seeing that this House, having at heart the interests of all classes and denominations of Christians:, has an earnest desire to afford assistance to such schools ; can you not contrive to frame rules and regulations which will enable them to receive some aid from the national exchequer, at the same time that you take care to conduct your educational system in such a manner as to respect parental authority and to violate no dictate of religious liberty " Believing that the address was founded on the clearest principles of

Monday" Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday justice, and that the relaxations he sought were not incompatible with the resolution—dnd counselling all sides to moderation—Mr. Walpole concluded by giving to the resolution his concurrence. Mr. LABOUCHERE said he had heard of the success of Mr. Walpole'a motion on Tuesday with a feeling nothing short of consternation. But it had never entered into his mind to suspect that Mr. Walpole had acted unfairly. If surprise there was, it was occasioned partly by the mis- calculations of individual Members, and in some degree by the attrac- tions of a more splendid scene. Mr. Labouchere contended that the opening of anything like a door to proselytism would first vitiate and then destroy the present system ; that if it were destroyed the education of the Irish people would be conducted in two hostile camps • and that although the wealthy landlords might succeed at first, the priests would be sure to beat them in the end. He was relieved, however, from the necessity of defending the National system of united education in Ireland by the ample concessions of Mr. Walpole, who, if he came to curse, had at all events remained to bless.

Mr. CAIRNS delivered a long speech on the merits of the case, in sup- port of the views of Mr. Walpole, but, like him, eulogizing the general system of education. The latter portion of his speech was interrupted by cries of " Divide !" which ceased when Lord John Russell rose.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL began by dwelling on the embarrassment thgt arises from the rule of the House allowing an address to the Crown to go

out of their hands upon only one deliberation. As regarded the question before them, he should 1)3 quite ready to come to a direct reversal of the vote of Tuesday. The only fault he had to find with Mr. Fortescue's motion was that it was not of a more direct and specific character. Mr. Fortescue said his proposition reversed the decision of the other night : Mr. Walpole took it in his hands, and, by something like ingenious Chancery pleading, made it quite consistent with the address to which Mr. Fortescue was entirely opposed. While the present Government remains in power, no material alteration will be made in the Na- tional system ; but if Mr. Walpole were once more Home Secretary, he would revert both to the address and the resolution and declare that they are confirmatory and explanatory one of the other. That is a rather awkward position in which to place the House. But as there was no other course open to him, Lord John said he should vote for Mr. For- tescue's resolution. He vindicated at length the present system • viewed Mr. Walpole's proposal as an attempt to subvert it ; and said :hat if it were to be altered, "let right honourable gentlemen opposite carry those alterations into effect, and reap the bitter fruits of them."

Mr. NAPIER taunted Lord John Russell with advocating the use of the Bible in schools at the British and Foreign School Society, and then coming to the House of Commons and charging Irish Protestants with desiring supremacy because they advocate that very principle.

Mr. Hoasussi and Mr. P. O'llnixN replied to Mr. Cairns and Mr. Na- pier. Mr. GROGAN accused Mr. Fortescue of proposing a Jesuitical resolu- tion, and moved the following addition as an amendment—

"But that, consistently with these principles, it is the opinion of this House that no school shall be disentitled to receive aid from the funds of the Board because the rules of such school require a portion of Scripture to be read each day by every child as part of the general instruction of the school."

Cries of " Divide !" now became general ; and were augmented when Lord BERNARD moved the adjournment of the debate. That motion was negatived by 331 to 50. Mr. VaNcE then moved the adjournment of the House. Mr. NEWDEGATE said that many Members wished to state their opinions. Lord PALMERSTON answered, that the adjournment of the House did not seem the proper mode of prolonging the debate, as the effect of adjourning the House would be that the motion before it would be dropped. He did not think the House would be the wiser by the speeches held in reserve. In reply to a question, "what interpretation would the Government put upon the resolution ? " Lord PALMERSTON said- - " Why, Sir, the sense in which we understand it is, that if the resolution i be passed it would be the opinion of the House, upon which the Govern- ment would act, that no change should be made in the regulations and prac- tice now existing in regard to the administration of public grants for the purpose of education in Ireland. (Loud cheers.) All men who know any- thing of the subject have reflected upon it deeply and often, and have by this time made up their minds : I therefore call upon the House now, this night, to decide whether the National mixed system of education in Ireland, which has conferred such great benefits, and which if persevered in will confer still greater benefits upon the people of Ireland, is to be continued or put an end to—whether religious peace is to be established in Ireland, or re- ligious war declared ? That is the important question upon which the House has to vote ; and I think the House is just as competent to come to a decision upon it tonight as it could be tomorrow, or any other night to which the debate might be adjourned." (Loud cheers.) Mr. NAPIER observed that he had not moved his amendment because he understood that the Government had accepted Mr. Walpole's inter- pretation of the resolution. Mr. LABOUCHERE said, he had explicitly stated that the Government had accepted Mr. Fortescue's resolution as a distinct reversal of the vote of the other night. This drew forth Mr. DISRAELI. About to vote for Mr. Fortescue's motion, he protested against being bound by any interpretation that any one else might put on his 'Atte.

" I am master of the meaning that I place upon any motion for which I may vote, and this is the interpretation I attach to the present motion—By voting for it, I shall signify my wish to support in its fundamental-princi- ples the system of National education that at present exists in Ireland ; but it will be perfectly open to me to support any modification in that system consistent with those fundamental principles. If I had supposed that, by voting for the address moved the other night by my right honourable friend, I had voted for any object inconsistent with the policy I have indicated, I should not have supported it."

Mr. J. Burr said, he had been puzzled all the evening to understand the real point in dispute. The question was not to be settled by a talk about " fundamental principles." The issue was really raised by the amendment of Mr. Grogan.

The motion for the adjournment of the House was then negatived by 328 to 39 ; and Mr. Grogan's amendment was negatived by 282 to 95. The original question was then put, and agreed to, amid loud cheering.

On Thursday evening, Lord DRUSILANRIG' Controller of the Household, appeared at the bar of the House with the Queen's answer to Mr. Wal- pole's address. It was couched in these terms--

"I fully recognize the duty of extending as widely as possible the bless- ings of education in Ireland ; and your wishes and recommendations will al- ways receive the consideration justly due to them. It affords me great satisfaction to know that experience has proved the existing system of na- tional education in Ireland to have greatly promoted this important object. It is my earnest desire to see that system upheld and strengthened by a strict adherence to those rules which, by excluding all compulsory religious teaching, have hitherto secured parental authority, the rights of conscience, and the religious liberty, of all denominations of *Christians."

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

The Wednesday sitting was given up to a Maynooth debate. The oc- casion was furnished by the motion for the second reading of Mr. Spoon- er's bill disendowing Maynooth College. In the early part of the sitting

there were cries for an immediate division ; and an amendment was moved by Mr. HENRY HERBERT, without a speech, that the bill should

be read a second time that day six months. But the supporters of the bill did not seem disposed to accept the challenge in the then state of the House, and a regular set debate was begun.

Mr. SPOONER, in moving the second reading of the bill, said that it was intended to sever the connexion existing between the Government

and the College of Maynooth in order to do away with the "national sin" of supporting such an institution. He would break up the College as a corporation, but provide for the continuance of trustees with power to govern the College and hold its property ; no more grants to be made

to the College except such as may be necessary to maintain those students already- there. Sir WILLLk3I VERNER, amid a storm of cries of " Divide !" persevered in making a speech when seconding the motion. Mr. JA3IES MACGREGOR followed in the same track. It was at this moment that Mr. Ilracay HERBERT moved his amendment in order to bring on an immedi-

ate decision. That intention, however, was frustrated by a speech from

Mr. JOSEPH NApran. The grant, he said, is devoted to the propagation of Ultramontane doctrines. Mr. Manuinn was willing to divide, but

the speeches of the supporters of the bill required an answer - and he gave one of great length, largely compounded of extracts from the evidence of Sir John Forbes, from Laing's "Notes of a Traveller," from "Eastern

Hospitals and English Nurses," from the Roman Catholic Catechism,—

intended to show the excellent character of Irish priests, the endurance and piety of Irish soldiers, and the erroneous views taken by Mr. Spooner

of Roman Catholic doctrines. Mr. DRUMMOND made a speech which told on both sides, but inculcated the necessity of abstaining from sectarian legislation. He opposed the bill. Mr. la ENV DEGATE battled for the bill ; and Mr. BLAND, "as a Protestant representative of a Roman Catholic constituency," battled against it. In the midst of this conflict, Sir JOHN PARINGTON rose and frankly declared that he had intentionally absented himself when the question was last disCussed, because he did not wish to be pledged either way.

He had hoped that Mr. Spooner's bill would have been fair to thello- man Catholics, so that he could have supported it ; but it merely reversed the policy of half a century. " The time has arrived" when those ac- customed to take part in the proceedings of the House should frankly state their views ; and Sir John, for one, felt bound to say that neither as regards Maynooth, nor as regards the larger question of national edu- cation, is he prepared to reverse the policy pursued by this country in Ireland. " I can be no party to any step which may injure or impair the system of education in Ireland." 'The wise policy is to maintain things as they are. Deprecating the periodic excitement on this subject, he suggested that some mode might be adopted to put an end to these annual grants, on a footing to which the Roman Catholics will consent.

After this statement the ordinary conflict was renewed. Mr. BOWYER declared that the Ultramontane is the only true system of theology, and that he believed " everything in Liguori's works." Mr. HORSHAM urged the House to settle a question of which both sides had been long weary. Mr. SPOONER replied.

A division took place on Mr. Herbert's amendment, which was nega- tived by 174 to 168.

Mr. BOWYER then moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. Snootanit, excited by his success against the amendment, was now all for a division on the main question. But Mr. HENRY HERBERT, greatly to the amuse- ment of the House, spoke for some twenty minutes against time ; repeat- ing what he had to say over and over again until the hands of the clock stood at a quarter to six, and no division on the main question (" that the bill be now read a second time ") took place.

After midnight on Thursday, Mr. SPOONER moved that the order for the second reading of the bill should be discharged. He complained that he had been met by an opposition pretty nearly unparliamentary ; but, exulting in the five divisions in his favour during the session, he an- nounced that on the very first notice-day he should give notice to bring in the bill again.—Order discharged.

OATH OF ABJURATION BILL.

Lord LYNDHUILST moved the second reading of Mr.. Milner Gibson's bill on Monday. In dealing with this frequently-discussed and well- understood subject, he pursued a middle course between elaborate detail and vague generalization, and only brought forward those facts and ar- guments essential to the right apprehension of the measure before the House. He could not, as on former occasions, be told that the bill re- pealed the oath of supremacy and the oath relating to the succession to the crown, because the bill did not repeal the oath of supremacy, and did contain a clause maintaining the succession to the Crown as es- tablished by the Act of Settlement. From those two difficulties he was therefore relieved. One argument which he laid down on a former oc- casion had never been answered. That argument ia, that "no British- born subject ought to be disfranchised unless by some legislative pro- vision intended to be directed against hint" That is the very basis of the constitution. The oath of abjuration was not directed against the Jews. Acts of Parliament must not be carried out contrary to the in- tention of the Legislature. No lawyer during the reign of William the Third, when the, oath was enacted, ever supposed that the Jews were excluded. On the contrary, Lord Chancellor Talbot, when Solicitor- General, and Mr.' Raymond, afterwards Lord Chief Justice Raymond, when expressly consulted, said that as regarded disabilities, the Jews were in all respects precisely in the same position as any other natural- born subjects of the empire. It is nowhere laid down in the constitution, that because the majority of the inhabitants of the country are Christian and the Government is Christian, the natural-born subjects of another

faith are not to have the same rights as the Christian subjects. If the principle be sound that Jews should not sit in a Christian Legislature, it should be acted upon with uniformity ; yet when Parliament passed constitutions for Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the Cape of Good Hope, not one attempt was made to impose upon those colonies the ex- clusion of the Jews. Tear from our statute-book this one exception, and make perfect that system which is founded in the eternal principles of reason and justice—the independence of civil rights of religious opinions.

If they rejected the bill, they would still be compelled to take that– impertinent and idle oath which forced upon them something like an act of impiety ; because if Lord Derby carried his bill for removing from the oath the part relating to the Pretender but retaining the words "on the true faith of a Christian," those words would be struck out in the other House, and the bill thus altered would come back to their Lordships and be lost.

Earl STANHOPE moved that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. He did not attempt to answer the arguments of Lord Lyndhurst, but he made a set speech in opposition to the emancipation of the Jews. The admiasion of the Jews would " tend " to divest the Legislature of its Christian character; if the oath of abjuration has not kept out of Parliament persona who are not Christians, neither has the oath of allegiance kept out persons engaged in traitorous designs. The former oath, however, has prevented unseemly discussions and irreverent allusions ; and the latter has restrained those who were not true subjects from assailing the throne. For his own part, he had always supported the extension of civil and religious liberty ; but, while he should say that the exclusion of the Roman Catholics is religious intolerance, the admission of the Jews would be religious indifference. Besides, if the Jews were admitted, there is no rite so fantastic, no superstition so pain- ful, whose adherents would not be entitled to admission.

Lord RANENSWORTH stated that he had heretofore opposed all bills ex- pressly intended to admit Jews to Parliament, but he felt bound to vote for the second reading of this bill, because it repealed an obsolete oath. The question was not whether they would admit the Jews, but whether they would continue the burden of this oath of abjuration. 'Balancing the inconveniences that might result from the admission of the Jews against the uselessness, the impiety of forcing the oath of abjuration on public men, he thought that the former were far less than the latter. There are also inconveniences attending the exclusion of the Jews,—the conflict between the constituencies and the Legislature and between the two Houses ; a conflict that cannot continue much longer without serious evil.

The Marquis of CLAXRICARDE and Earl ST. GERMANS supported the bill ; and Lord DUNGANNON opposed it. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE briefly stated that the Government cordially supported the bill.

The House divided : For the second reading—Content, (present 46, proxies 32,) 78 ; Not-content, (present 66, proxies 44,) 110 ; majority against the second reading, 32.

On Tuesday, the Earl of DERBY moved the second reading of kis Oath of Abjuration Bill. He stated that the object of the bill was to provide that in all eases where the oath of abjuration is administered, that part of it applicable to the Pretender should be omitted. Lord CAMPBELL said that the oath of abjuration is a disgrace to the statute-book.

Within the last twelve months, a most distinguished judge, Mr. Justice Willes, had to take the oath in open court. When he reached the passage referring to the Pretender he became dumb. Lord Campbell told him he was not taking the oath ; Mr. Justice Willes replied, he abjured in his heart ; but Lord Campbell was obliged to tell him that was not sufficient% as the statute required that the oath should be spoken. While the law exists it is better to enforce it, and show its absurdity. No oath is necessary but the oath of allegiance, which has been found 'sufficient for centuries. The oath of abjuration ought to be entirely abolished, but if that could not be accomplished, he was content to have it remodelled. If the noble Earl wished to give his bill any chance of passing, he must entirely alter the form of it ; for as it now stands, it is the greatest botch ever sent out of that House. On all former occasions when any change was made in the oath, the old oath was repealed and a new form enacted ; but the noble Earl proposed to enact that a clause should be left in one place, a few words in another, and a couple of words added in a third. If the bill passed, it would be impos- sible for any officer to tell what form of oath he was to administer. The Earl of DERBY said, he had been induced to put his bill in its pre- sent shape by a desire to avoid a conflict with the other House of Par- liament. Had he adopted the course recommended by Lord Campbell, the words " on the true faith of a Christian " would in all probability not have been reenacted by the House of Commons, and the bill would have been lost. The course which he had taken would effect the abro- gation of an unnecessary and therefore improper oath, without calling attention to those special words with which their Lordships are not dis- posed to part ; and he hoped that the House of Commons would not seek an unnecessary conflict by rejecting a bill which effects an ob- ject which all desire, because it does not make other changes upon which there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Par- liament.

The bill was read a second time.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

The Somerron-GENERAL, in moving the second reading of the Wills and Administrations Bill, stated that he was greatly indebted to Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr. Collier for valuable suggestions intended to im- prove this bill. Those gentlemen had agreed to abandon their bills on condition that those suggestions were embodied in the bill before the House. He proposed, therefore, that it should be read a second time, committed pro nd recommitted, so that Members might have an opportunity of considering it in its new shape. The bill abolishes the existing ecclesiastical tribunals, and creates a Court of Probate, with all the power necessary to dispose com- pletely of all the matters brought before it, and therefore armed with all the powers of administration vested in the Courts of Equity. The new Court will be governed by rules securing the most simple, expeditious, and economical administration of justice;' and the evidence will be taken exactly as it is in the Common Law Courts. It will possess the power of effectually providing for the administration of the estate of a testator where disputes arise. The business of the Court will -not be mixed up with that of the Court of Chancery; and the only connex- ion between the two Courts will be, that an intermediate appeal will lie to the Lords Justices, . as well as a final appeal to the House of Lords. _ The Court will be enabled to appoint a representative of

real estate, and grant certificates of intestacy. It is proposed to establish in London a Testamentary Office, where wills may be left for the purpose of being admitted to proof. Instead of being engrossed, as at present, it is pro- posed to get rid of the tyranny of parchment, ' and print the documents, so that everybody will be able to read what hitherto only the initiated could read. Of these printed wills the executor may receive any number he pleases ; and each copy, authenticated with a stamp, will be admitted as evidence in a court of justice. Instead of one central office, as he had at first proposed, there will be a district office in each County Court district, where wills can be proved and letters of administration granted where the personal estate does not exceed 15001. The staff of the Testamentary Office will consist of a principal and three sub-registrars, ten official proctors, and one commissioner for the administration of oaths. As to the funds, he es- timated the office fees at 92,500/. ; and to these he would add the proctorial fees, 89,0001., in all 181,5001.—that would be the annual amount of the fee fund. The expenses of the Testamentary Office would be 33,000/. ; the ex- pense of the district offices 32,0001. Then as to compensations. He pro- posed to give Mr. Moore his full income 80001.; the Judge of the Preroga- tive Court his full income of 4000/. ; the registrars their full income ; the 149 proctors one-half of their estimated income, namely 350/. ; and to aged clerks 501. a year. The sum-total of the outlay would be 160,0001. ; the sum-total of the receipts 181,000/. ; leaving a surplus of 21,0001. to cover any error in calculation.

Sir Frrznov Korix, in seconding the motion, dwelt on the importance of adopting the procedure of the Common Law Courts. Sir JAMES GRAHAM rather sharply criticized the measure. It will erect by the side of the Court of Chancery a second Court of Chancery, and afford an instance of the folly of concurrent jurisdiction, pointed out by the So- licitor-General. It would provide for an appeal to the House of Lords, when the appellate jurisdiction of that House had not been settled. It would introduce a double appeal, the evil of which is universally ad- mitted. The printing operation proposed by the Solicitor-General is ob- jectionable, as it will carry the publication of wills to an extent never before thought of. It is hardly fitting that the County Courts should have jurisdiction in the case of wills. And as to compensation, if it were given on the scale suggested, it would be difficult to say where the rage for compensation would stop. He would not oppose the second reading, but he hoped time would be given to consider the clauses. Mr. Comarde replied to Sir James Graham ; and Mr. Mormss made a stand for the-retention of the existing Courts, and their improvement. After some further conversation, the bill was read a second time.

THE LAW OP DIVORCE.

On the order for going into Committee on the Matrimonial Causes and Divorce Bill, Lord LYNDHURST stated the substance of the measure as it had come down from the Select Committee.

The bill establishes a separate tribunal for deciding upon matrimonial causes. That tribunal will consist of the Lord Chancellor, the three chief Judges of the Courts of Common Law, and the Dean of Arches. The Dean of Arches may sit alone in cases such as those that at present come under his jurisdiction, but causes for a divorce a vinculo must be decided before a full court or a quorum. An appeal will lie from the decisions of the Dean of Arches to the full Court, and an appeal upon points of law only from the full Court to the House of Lords. With regard to the alterations in the

law, the Committee decided that a woman divorced a mensa et thorn, it acquires property, shall retain it for her separate use, and dispose of as

she thinks fit ; and that she may come into court as a feme sole. In Com- mittee he had proposed that actions for damages in cases of adultery should be abolished : failing to carry that, he proposed to substitute a prosecution for an action ; but the Committee did not concur with him. He had also endeavoured to place the husband and wife on the same footing in regard to cases of adultery; and the Committee went so far as to 'decide that in all cases of adultery accompanied with cruelty, in cases of incestuous adultery, and in eases of bigamy, the wife shall be entitled to a divorce. It has also decided that a wife shall be entitled to alimony after a desertion of two years. The bill, Lord Lyndhurst said, is an important step in the right direc- tion, and he trusted that it would shortly become law. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE hoped that the bill, although not perfect, would to' a great extent redress those great wrongs suffered by our women, whose condition is inferior to that of the women of any other modern country. Above all, he trusted that some means would be found to put an end to actions for criminal conversation. The LORD CHANCELLOR hoped that the bill, although it would not abolish, would diminish actions for criminal conversation, since it would render a verdict in such an ac- tion no longer necessary as a preliminary to a divorce. But he would not abolish such actions, because there are cases where pecuniary com- pensation is reasonable—as where a poor man has been deprived of a portion of his income by the act of a rich man. It would not be prudent or safe, regard being had to public opinion, to place the husband and wife on the same footing in cases of adultery. Lord CAMPBELL took a similar view, and implored the House to pass the bill as it stands. The Bishop of OXXORD expressed his opinion, that, although it is a moot point, divorce in cases of adultery is not opposed to the Divine law ; and he argued at great length to show that if facilities for divorce were given, it would sap the morality of the lower classes, and destroy the blessed purity of English life. Therm are no complaints on the sub- ject from the lower classes—no outcry, no petitions : why then invite dissatisfaction ? The sacredness of the marriage tie among the lower classes is to be traced to the knowledge that a legal divorce is impossible; and many of the unhappy terminations of marriages in high life would have been avoided had the tie been indissoluble. Universal laxity would follow the plan now proposed ; and a measure that touches the whole family life of -the English people should not be hurried through the House.

These views were supported by Lord REDESDALE and the Bishop of ST. DAVIDS ; and combated by Lord CAMPBELL and the Duke of AR- GYLL ; Lord Campbell stating that he had heard many persona in the humbler classes complain bitterly of the law of divorce. The House having gone into Committee, and the clauses of the bill having been agreed to, the Bishop of OXFORD; to obtain time for the con- sideration of an amendment, moved that the bill should be reported on Thursday next. Lord LYNDHURST moved that the report should be re- ceived on Tuesday. On a division, the amendment was negatived by 9 to 7, and Thursday was fixed for the report.

THE AUSTRALIAN MAIL.

In reply to Sir Jorus Poitrisoros, Mr. Wu.sox stated that an arrange- ment had been made for the transmission of mails and passengers to Australia by steam. The first vessel will be ready for survey in August, and will set out from Southampton in October, going direct to Melbourne by the Cape. After that, there will be a monthly service between Suez and Melbourne, and between Southampton and Suez. All the vessels will be of 2200 tons burden ; and the time occupied in the journey he believed would be fifty days.

THE AMERICAN QUESTIONS.

Further papers touching our relations with the United States were pre- sented to Parliament on Thursday. The chief of them are Lord Cla- rendon's despatches to Mr. Dallas on the Recruiting and Central Ame- rican questions, and a very long despatch from Mr. Crampton to Lord Clarendon, in reply to the allegations and " additional proof" in Mr. Marey's despatch of the 27th May.

In his despatch on the Recruitment question, Lord Clarendon states, that the British Government were gratified to learn that its assurances had been unreservedly accepted by the President, and that all cause of differ- ence between the two Governments with respect to the question of enlist- ment has ceased to exist. He regrets that his despatch of the 30th April had not altered the opinion of the President with respect to Mr. Crampton and the Consuls. Lord Clarendon finds the additional evidence sent by Mr. Marcy unworthy of credence ; and expresses the belief of his Government that in many material points in regard to the conduct of Mr. Crampton, the Presi- dent has been misted by testimony undeserving of belief, and by erroneous in- formation. But the British Government feel bound "to acceept the formal and repeated declarations of the President of his belief that these officers of her Majesty have violated the laws of the Union, and are, on that account, un- acceptable organs of communication with the Government and authorities of the United States. and her Majesty's Government cannot deny to the Go- vernment of the United States a right similar to that which in a parallel case they would claim for themselves—the right, namely, of forming their own judgment as to the bearing of the laws of the Union upon transactions which have taken place within the Union." And therefore, although the British Government cannot but regard the proceeding of the President as one of en unfriendly character, they have not deemed it their duty to sus- pend diplomatic relations with Mr. Dallas ; - for whom they feel a high per- sonal esteem, which renders him a most agreeable medium of communica- tion.

The despatch of Lord Clarendon on the Central American question con- sists mainly of an argument on the merits of the case, and a statement of the steps in the negotiation. " If the differences between the two Governments on this subject cannot be arranged by direct negotiation, there seems no reason why they might not form the matter of a reference to a third Power. Her Majesty's Government have learned with satisfaction that you are instructed to enter into communication with me in respect to Central America, in order to ascertain, in the first place, whether existing differences cannot be promptly terminated by direct negotiation ; and, if they cannot be so settled, then to discuss the conditions of arbitration on those points of difference as to which this method of settlement may be requisite or applicable. This is the course which her Majesty's Government has throughout been willing to adopt ; and I have accordingly the honour to inform you, that I am prepared to enter into the proposed communication ; and I trust that our conferences will be conducted in that spirit of cordiality and frankness which, as Mr. Marcy justly observes, is dictated by the true interests of Great Britain and the United States."

Mr. Crampton reviews the last despatch of Mr. Marcy at great length, and supplies some convincing proofs of the discreditable character of the ad- ditional evidence supplied by the American Government to prove their case.