added, that unless there was more probability of public
agreement in regard to religious matters, he saw little
hope of the success of a general educational measure.
—Sir J. PAKINGTON was not satisfied with Lord J.
Russell for not pressing his educational bill of last
year, and counselled him to a bolder course.—Mr.
MIALL objected to government interference with
education, and moved the reduction of the vote from
£263,000 to £180,000.—Mr. HENLEY said that the
church of England had reason to complain of the
conditions upon which this assistance was given to its
schools, and thought that next session an inquiry
into the system ought to take place.—Lord J. RUSSELL
said that he should offer no opposition to such an
inquiry.—Mr. W. J. FOX approved of the proposed
inquiry, and expressed his opinion that results showed
that the present system was a failure. He protested
against a sectarian spirit being given to popular education,
as the lower classes were much opposed to it.—
Lord SEYMOUR concurred with Lord J. Russell in
believing that religious differences would prevent a
general educational measure from being adopted.—Mr.
E. BALL insisted upon the importance of religious
teaching. That the humbler classes required such was
shown by their so extensively joining the Mormons.—
Mr. COBDEN said it was impossible for us to have
"a little national education "—there were a million of
children who ought to be taught and were not. He felt
that henceforth it would be necessary habitually to
make that best of all investments, an educational
provision; and they must come to local rating at last.
Referring to the good feeling which had arisen in the
house upon all social questions, he said that he was
convinced, if they were to address themselves to the
problem of education, they would be able to solve it.
As regarded religious teaching, we must teach all
religions or none, but he thought that such difficulty
was a mere bugbear, and might be got over by an
act which would enable local administrators to adopt
the details most suitable to their own localities, and
believed that the good sense of the country would
do the rest. He opposed Mr. Miall's motion.—Lord J.
RUSSELL said that Mr. Cobden's own speech had shown
with how many difficulties the question was surrounded;
and, in further illustration of this, his lordship sketched
the attempts that had been made to legislate on the
subject.—Mr. EWART supported the proposed vote.—
Mr. HEYWORTH censured Mr. Cobden's want of
confidence in the voluntary principle.Mr. MIALL, on the
understanding that there was to be an inquiry into the
subject next session, withdrew his amendment.—The
vote was then agreed to.—On the vote for £193,040, for
educational purposes in Ireland,—Mr. KENNEDY called
the attention of the committee to some suggestions
of his own, for the purpose of improving the system of
national education in Ireland.—Sir John YOUNG
entered into details to show the beneficial working
of the existing system, of which he gave a gratifying
account.—The vote was agreed to.—Some succeeding
votes were discussed and agreed to, and a division was
taken upon the item of £2,006 for the professors of Oxford
and Cambridge, which was carried by 154 to 25.

On Monday, July 3, on the third reading of the
Public Revenue and Consolidated Charges Bill, Mr.
SPOONER moved an amendment for excepting from it
the Grant to Maynooth.—After some debate this amendment
was negatived by 106 against 90, and the bill was
read a third time and passed.

On Tuesday, July 4, Lord J. RUSSELL stated that the
government had come to the determination not to proceed
with the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill this session.

Lord W. GRAHAM asked Who was Responsible for the
Translation of a Foreign Document lately presented to
the house, intituled "Additional article to the treaty
between Austria and Prussia, dated April 20, 1854,"
same important words being omitted in the translation?
The words "if possible" were left out, which was an
omission of great importance.—Lord J. RUSSELL was
not able to say who was responsible for the omission.
The article was translated at Berlin in the first instance,
and the fault of the original translation was inadvertently
overlooked in London.

Mr. J. PHILLIMORE brought forward the question of
Neutral Rights in Time of War. He moved a resolution
to the effect that, however, from the peculiar
circumstances of the present war, a relaxation of the
principle that the goods of an enemy in the ship of a
friend are lawful prize may be justifiable, yet to
renounce or surrender the right would be inconsistent
with the security and honour of the country.—Sir W.
MOLESWORTH in an elaborate speech, denied the validity
of the principle contended for by Mr. Phillimore, and
maintained the doctrine that "free ships make free
goods."—After some further debate the house was
counted out.

On Wednesday, July 5, the adjourned debate on the
Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill, was resumed by
Sir J. Young, who opposed the measure. It was also
opposed by Mr. J. O'Connell, Mr. Napier, Mr. Maguire,
Mr. G. H. Hamilton, and Mr. Lucas, and the debate
was again adjourned.

On Thursday, July 6, the second reading of the Church
Buildings Act Amendment Bill was moved, by Sir J.
Pakington.—Mr. R. PHILLIMORE moved as an amendment
that the bill be read a second time that day six
months. Under this measure he contended churches
were destroyed or removed without the consent of the
parishioners, and merely because the incumbents wished
to follow the wealthy members of their flocks from the
city to the suburbs. It was, besides, arbitrary in its provisions,
and would occasion a desecration of churchyards
utterly repugnant to public feeling.—The amendment
was seconded by Mr. HADFIELD.—Sir J. PAKINGTON
defended the bill, and vindicated the motives on which
it was founded.—Mr. Moffatt opposed the bill, as did
Mr. Christopher.—Mr. S. HERBERT supported the
measure, arguing that as the congregations had migrated
from the metropolis the churches should be removed to
such places as rendered them again available.—The bill
was opposed by Lord R. Cecil, and defended by Mr.
T. Hankey.—Mr. HENLEY feared that by adopting the
measure a precedent would be set for the transplantation
of churches when their congregations had dwindled
below a certain standard.—Mr. MASTERMAN believed that
the metropolitan public were much opposed to the bill.
—Sir J. DUKE concurred in that persuasion.—Mr. T.
DUNCOMBE also strongly objected to the measure.—Mr.
H. DRUMMOND inquired what was the use of consecration
if consecrated ground could be violated; and what
was the use of bishops if consecration was useless?—On
a division there appeared for the second reading, 59; for
the amendment, 143: 84. The bill is consequently lost.

In a committee of supply on the Civil Service Estimates,
the vote of £38,745 for dissenting ministers in
Ireland was objected to by Mr. BRIGHT, who contended
that the Regium Donum to the presbyterian ministers
of Ireland, which was political in its origin, was altogether
unnecessary, and pernicious to that body; that it
tended to stimulate to pious frauds, and had been
described by Dr. Candlish as "hush-money of the state;"
the presbyterians in the north of Ireland, being well
able according to his calculation to pay their own
ministers.—Mr. KIRK supported the grant in its full
extent, declaring that the ministers among whom it was
distributed performed most beneficial services to the
country.—A long discussion ensued, in which the
amendment was supported by Mr. Hadfield and Mr. W.
Fox, and opposed by Mr. Cairns, Mr. V. Scully, Lord
Naas, Mr. Spooner, and Mr. Napier.—Lord J. RUSSELL
defended the vote. It bore the character of a contract,
and the just expectations or even the subsistence of the
presbyterian clergy would be sacrificed if it were
withheld.—Upon a division the vote was carried in its
original amount by 149 votes to 62.

A discussion arose on the vote of £11,855 for the
General Board of Health. The necessity of remodelling
the board, and the failures which had constantly
attended all its proceedings under the present management,
were urgently insisted on by Sir G. Pechell and
other hon. members.—Lord PALMERSTON announced
that he would next day ask leave to introduce a bill for
reconstructing the Board of Health under a modified
organisation, and placing it under the control of the
home office.

On Friday, July 7, the consideration of the Lords'
amendments to the Middlesex Industrial School Bill