the administration generally, he referred to the speeches
and conduct of the principal members of the cabinet in
succession to show that they did not deserve his confidence
individually.—The debate was again adjourned till next
evening.

On Friday, June 8, the adjourned debate was resumed
and concluded.—The Hon. F. SCOTT censured the
government for their reticence, and declared his belief that
the house ought to have interfered at an earlier period
to inspire or to control the administration.—Sir F.
BARING explained the motives which had led him to
frame the amendment which was now under discussion.
In it he had abstained from giving expression to any
opinion concerning the conduct of the government,
believing that the time for judgment on that question
was not come. Circumstances had, however, changed
since his proposition was drawn up, and he was,
therefore, perfectly willing to alter its terms, or withdraw it
altogether, if any substitute should be proposed by
which the great issue at stake—namely, the prosecution
of the war—could be definitively presented for discussion
and decision.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported
his government.—Mr. CARDWELL objected to Mr.
Lowe's amendment, and gave his ready assent to that
of Sir Francis Baring. Deprecating "inflammatory
periods," and urging the house to guard only against
real dangers which the conduct of our enemies has
made manifest, he advised every Englishman to give
his cordial support to the sovereign and her ministers,
be they who they may, for the effectual prosecution of
the war.—Mr. WALPOLE, regretting that negotiations
had been broken off in a hasty moment, and showing a
leaning to the Russian proposals, impressed on the
government the necessity of stating the objects of the
war. The uncertain and ambiguous conduct of the
government had given rise to the most extravagant
expectations. But if they would submit to parliament a
plain intelligible and definite object, he would support
them therein. For he entirely agreed with the government,
that the war was just and necessary; so just that
they ought not to have avoided it if they could, and so
necessary that they could not have avoided it even if they
would.—After Mr. HORSMAN had defended the course
of the government, Mr. DISRAELI made a long speech.
He revived the accusation of ambiguous language and
uncertain conduct; proposed to settle the Eastern
question by converting the Principalities into a neutral
state; argued that Turkey was threatened with the
least danger from the Black Sea; complained of the
way in which the government had treated the house;
and promised that neither himself nor his friends would
vote for Sir Francis Baring's amendment.—Lord
PALMERSTON closed the debate. He showed the position in
which the several opponents of the government stood,
and the weakness of the course which each one
proposed; and made a direct appeal to the common
patriotic feeling of members in support of the crown
and government, to carry through a struggle necessary for
the interest and honour of the country. He reminded
the house, that the peace-at-all-price men were the only
members who had introduced bitterness and passion
into an important and gravely-conducted debate. He
showed how useless the first of the Russian propositions
would be, and how Turkey already possesses the privileges
which the second pretended to concede. He said
that Sir Francis Baring having framed upon the basis
of Mr. Disraeli's decapitated resolution almost exactly
such a one as government would have taken the initiative
in proposing, he foresaw that a large majority would
rally to vote for that resolution, as a means of enabling
the government to give effect to the wishes of the
parliament and the country in carrying out the object
of the war. That object, he said, was to prevent "the
partition of Turkey" by a gigantic power, which would
stride like a colossus from the Baltic to the Mediterranean;
and in so doing, not only to protect the Sultan,
but that very trade of Manchester and our
manufacturing districts which Russia prohibits and Turkey
enlarges. "I trust (said Lord Palmerston in conclusion)
that party feeling will for one night be set aside; that,
as it is no longer a conflict of party—the vote a fortnight
ago having silenced that question—we shall, at least for
one night and upon one occasion, be unanimous in our
assurances to the crown that we are determined, as the
true representatives of the people of this great country, to
give to her Majesty the best support we can in the prosecution
of the war to the attainment of a safe and honourable
peace."—Mr. Lowe's amendment was put, and
negatived without a division.—When the amendment of
Sir Francis Baring was put, Mr. LOWE said that he
should not vote.—Mr. WALPOLE said, although the
motion was unnecessary, yet, thinking that they ought to
be unanimous, he should support it.—Mr. GLADSTONE
agreed with every word of the resolution, while he
thought it was beneath the occasion: but it was a
choice of evils—the house should be unanimous on a
question of war.—Sir Francis Baring's resolution was
then agreed to.

On Monday, June 11, the debate on the second
reading of Sir John Pakington's Education Bill,
adjourned from the 2nd of May, was resumed.—Mr.
ADDERLEY replied to Mr. Henley; and supported Sir
John Pakington's bill, except as regarded the clauses
providing for new schools. Mr. Henley called the present
system a voluntary self-supporting system; but if
it is so, what need is there for the annual vote of
£300,000 from the state, and another £300,000 in forced
loans obtained by the begging exertions of the clergy?
The fact is, that the present plan is a system of private
patronage aided by government patronage. Public
rating, it is said, would pauperise the old system: but
rates are raised for parks, museums, and the lighting of
streets and highways with gas, and none of these public
works bear the stamp of pauperism; why, then, a rate
for education? The present system does not provide
education for the children of the poor, and is not
adapted to its object, that of supplying industrial
instruction to an industrial population. Hence the
children of the labouring classes do not generally attend
the schools. But if the education given fitted them for
their future life, as it does in the Cornish schools, there
would be no difficulty in procuring the willing attendance
of pupils. Rejecting Mr. Gibson's bill altogether,
Mr. Adderley held that the bills of Lord John Russell
and Sir John Pakington contained the elements of a
satisfactory settlement of the question, which a select
committee might work out.—Sir JOHN PAKINGTON
replied to Mr. Henley's speech. He showed that with
regard to the proportion of children at school in this and
other countries, while he had quoted official documents
supplied to him by the ministers of Austria, Holland,
and Denmark, Mr. Henley had quoted "from a book in
the library of the house;" that especially in comparing
the number of children at school in England and in
Austria, Mr. Henley had set the Austrian returns of 1846
against our census returns of 1851,—whereas, if he had
compared the returns of the two countries in the same
year, he would have seen that there were only 684,000
children not in school in Austria, where there were
1,000,000 in England. Sir John had said, that in eight
metropolitan parishes, out of 110,449 children, 47,532
were not at school at all; but Mr. Henley took no notice
of this statement. Sir James Kay Shuttleworth and
Mr. Ruddock protested against the construction placed
on their opinions by Mr. Henley. To show he was correct
in stating that vast deficiencies of education really
exist, Sir John quoted the Reverend Mr. Mitchell, an
inspector of schools, the Reverend Mr. Clay of Preston,
the chaplain of Sussex gaol, and several other authorities.
In defending his rating proposition and vindicating its
necessity, he quoted official documents making out
that schools are shut up for want of funds, and that the
burden of the expense in many cases falls heavily on
the clergyman. But, it was said, the bill does not touch
the real defect of the present system, the non-attendance
of the children. The answer is that fuller attendance
can only be obtained by improving the quality of the
instruction; the cause of non-attendance is the general
badness of the schools; and as the bill does provide for
improved schools, indirectly it provides for better
attendance. Touching on some other points in the
same manner,—as the religious question, and local
boards for the regulation of expense,—Sir John said he
trusted that the present constitution of the committee
of council would be changed, and that it would be
converted into a recognised department of the state,