committee on the Friendly Societies' Bill, Mr.
DUNCOMBE suggested that subjects of the delicate and
painful nature embraced by the bill had better be
referred to a select committee.—Mr. BRIGHT coincided
in this suggestion, considering that the bill in its present
form would not work at all.—After some discussion,
Mr. FITZROY said, that in the present excited state of
feeling among the working classes, it was advisable that
satisfactory evidence should be adduced in support of
any proposed alterations of the existing law; and he
concurred in the suggestion for reference to a select
committee.—Mr. HENLEY thought that the subject was
one which ought to be taken up by government, who
were already in possession of information to enable
them to legislate with effect.—Lord PALMERSTON
assented to the proposal to refer the bill to a select
committee, with the view of securing a satisfactory investigation
on the subject. With respect to the general
regulations of these friendly societies, of course the
report of the committee which sat some years ago would
be referred to any committee that might be appointed.
The point, however, which had laid the foundation of
the various proposals before the house, was the question
of the regulations applicable to burial clubs. That was
a very painful subject, and one on which he would much
rather avoid stating his opinions. His own opinion,
however, was so strong as to the necessity of legislation,
that if no other member were to propose to the house,
any legislation upon the subject, he should himself feel
it his duty to do so. He thought that the honour of the
country, the credit of the lower classes, and their dearest
personal and private feelings were concerned in placing
it beyond the possibility of doubt or imputation, that
any such suspicions as had lately prevailed in this
matter could, by any possibility, be founded in fact.
And therefore, in the interest of the lower classes, and
with the view of consulting their honourable feelings,
and rescuing them from imputations which had for a
long time back prevailed upon that subject, he thought
some legislation was absolutely required; and he should
think it his duty, if the committee were not appointed,
in another session to propose some further enactment
on that subject.—The bill was ultimately referred to a
select committee.

On Thursday, May 11, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, in answer to questions from Mr. Baring,
respecting the New Exchequer Bonds, stated that the
amount subscribed previously to the 2nd inst. was
£1,600,000, and the remaining £400,000 had been since
applied for. All the subscribers, he added, had been
distinctly informed that no new contract could be
entered into without the authority of parliament.

The consideration of the; Oxford University Bill,
was resumed in committee, clauses up to 17 inclusive
were passed without undergoing any serious modification.
On clause 18, which specifies the various
qualifications entitling to membership in the new constituent
body of the "Congregation," Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved
an amendment, the purport of which was to include in
the congregation all resident members of the university
convocation.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
opposed the amendment, urging that it would give votes
to all the parochial clergy of Oxford.—The amendment
underwent a prolonged discussion, and was, upon a
division, carried against the government by 104 votes to
138—34.—Another division was taken upon an amendment
to clause 19, moved by Mr. Heywood, providing
that the university statutes should be promulgated in
English instead of Latin. There appeared for the
amendment, 131; against, 155—24.—The clause itself
was ordered to stand part of the bill by a majority of
215 Ayes to 68 Noes—147.

On Friday, May 12th, on the motion for the second
reading of the Education Bill for Scotland, Mr. STIRLING
moved that it be read a second time that day six
months.—Lord DALKEITH seconded the amendment.—
Lord ELCHO urged that the deficiences of the present
system were glaring, and that no extension would
remedy them. He cited returns showing the imperfect
character of the education still prevalent in the country.
—Mr. C. BRUCE opposed the bill.—Mr. John McGREGOR
denied that the measure tended to separate religious
and secular education.—Mr. MIALL dilated upon the
hideous ignorance which prevailed, especially among
the city populations in both sections of the kingdom.
The government proposition for Scotland was, he
thought, hopelessly insufficient to cope with so gigantic
an evil. He intended to vote for the amendment.—Mr.
BOUVERIE disapproved of some of its details, but was
willing to give the bill his general support.—Mr. HUME
thought that it was impossible that the general education
of the people of Scotland, should be left any longer in
the hands of a minority. The separation which had
taken place in the church of that country rendered a
radical change indispensably necessary. Circumstances
and opinions had altered, and for that alteration the
government were bound to provide.—Colonel BLAIR
denied that the measure was popular in Scotland, and
feared that, if passed, it would interrupt the present
movements for the spread of instruction in that country.
—Mr. COWAN commented upon the misrepresentations
of which the bill had been made the object, and
repudiated with some warmth the charge that it would
introduce a system of godless education.—Mr. NAPIER
objected to the measure, because it superseded, instead
of being supplemental to, the schools now existing in
connexion with the church in Scotland.—Mr. COBDEN
considered the bill deficient, inasmuch as it did not sever
secular education from religious teaching. He hoped to
find it improved in this respect when before the
committee.—The Hon. F. SCOTT supported the amendment.
—The LORD ADVOCATE pointed out the three systems
of education between which the choice was possible.
Those were the secular, the denominative, and the
national. The first was impossible in Scotland. Public
opinion there utterly scouted the idea of a scheme of
instruction in which religion had no part. The second
system had been tried and found wanting. There
remained the third alternative; and in the bill now
before the house the attempt was made to create a
perfectly national system, based upon a judicious union
of religious and secular teaching. He contended that
the measure had been framed on moderate principles,
successfully avoiding the criticism on either side.—The
house divided,—for the second reading, 184: for the
amendment, 193; majority 9. The bill was consequently
lost.

On Monday, May 15, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply
to a question from Mr. T. Duncombe, said it was not
the intention of the government to introduce a measure
during the present session founded upon the report of
the commission appointed to inquire into the
Corporation of the City of London.

On the order for the second reading of the Excise
Duties (Malt and Spirits) Bill, Mr. CAYLEY moved to
defer the second reading for six months. In taking this
course he professed to be actuated solely by a sense of
public duty, believing that the increase of the malt-tax
was not only unjust, but inconsistent with the principles
of commercial policy which had been adopted by the
present government. With regard to the war for the
prosecution of which these taxes were required, he
contended, and endeavoured to show, that it had been
brought about by negotiations at once infirm of purpose,
vacillating, and obsequious, and by the want of a firm
and stable mind in her Majesty's councils. Having,
however, been plunged into war, the country, he
observed, was willing to vote supplies for carrying it on,
but not in an unequal and unjust manner. The income-
tax, unequal as it was, had been granted; but the
duties upon malt and spirits were both unequal and
unjust, that upon malt being equivalent to a direct tax upon
cultivated land throughout the kingdom of 20s. or 25s.
an acre. Why was malt, a commodity encumbered with
restrictions, selected for a taxation which violated the
principle of free trade, and fell, not, as pretended, upon
all consumers, but only upon the poor man? Barley
was the pivot of our scientific cereal cultivation, as
cotton was of our manufactures. What reason was
there why malt should be taxed in preference to cotton
yarn? The effect of a malt-tax was to enhance the cost
of the article four-fold; its repeal would reduce the
price of beer to 1d. per pot, while it would give an
impulse to the cultivation of barley that must diminish in
the same proportion the growth of wheat and oats, and
consequently raise their prices—a compensation for the