Resolutions respecting the Irish Poor Law were
moved on Tuesday the 4th, by Mr. FRENCH. They
were, in substance, that no permanent system of poor
relief in Ireland can he beneficial unless founded on a
strict application of in-door relief; that vice-guardians
are unconstitutional; that the present administration
of the poor is extravagant and demoralising; and that
it is unjust to throw the chief burden on one kind of
property.—In his statements as to the evils caused by
the present working of the poor law he was
supported by Lord NAAS, who described the demoralisation
in the Irish workhouses as frightful. There are 119,000
children undergoing contamination by being mixed
with a concourse including the most abandoned of each
sex. In the South Dublin union, a multitude of young
girls are thus drafted among a crowd of able-bodied
women who are almost all prostitutes. They are
necessarily perverted, and soon enter a vicious course,
which keeps them travelling in a perpetual circle from
the workhouse to the brothel and from the brothel to
the workhouse. It is enough to bring a curse upon the
country.—Sir W. SOMERVILLE affirmed that the recent
introduction of out-door relief had been necessary to
prevent the people from perishing of famine, and
vindicated the vice-guardians from the charge of
mal-administration and extravagance.—The resolutions,
after being supported by Colonel Dunne and Mr.
O'Flaherty, and opposed by Mr. W. Sharman Crawford
and Mr. Poulett Scrope, were negatived by 90 to 65.

The debate on the second reading of Mr Fox's
Education Bill, adjourned from the 17th of April, was
resumed on Wednesday, the 5th. Mr. ANSTEY
supported the principle of the bill, without pledging himself
to the details.—Mr. H. DRUMMOND drew a somewhat
subtle distinction between education and instruction.
Secular instruction might he given by the state, but
education—the drawing forth of that which is good, and
the non-drawing forth of that which is evil—is a work
for the parents while the child is young, and afterwards
for the Church.—Mr. Page WOOD took a review of
what had been done by the Church in the cause of
education; and, from what the Church had already
done, he inferred that she was worthy to retain the
trust.—Mr. Milner GIBSON contended that if school
attendance was made compulsory upon persons employed
in factories, schools ought to be provided at the public
expense, open to all religious denominations. The bill
did not interfere with the present machinery for
religious education. No less than ten millions was
annually spent in England on what was called religious
education—twice as much as in any other country. The
bill did not touch this enormous sum, so that religious
education was amply provided for; and what was now
asked was provision for secular instruction within the
reach of the people. Secular instruction was not the
province of the Church; if it were, what a reproach
would it be to the Church that forty in the hundred of
the adult population of England and Wales could not
write their names in the marriage registers!—Mr. FOX
summed up the debate, and replied to several
misrepresentations of the nature and objects of the measure. On
a division, the bill was thrown out by 287 to 58.

On Monday, the 6th, the house went into committee
on the Factories Bill. The proceedings were almost
confined to the discussion of an amendment on the first
clause, moved by Mr. ELLIOT, to the effect of legalising
relays, provided that young persons and females should
not be employed for more than ten hours daily, between
half-past eight in the morning, and half-past eight in
the evening, and provided that the relays should be
absent from the factory for not less than three consecutive
hours.—Sir G. GREY opposed the amendment as
contrary to the whole spirit of the bill.—Mr. EDWARDS
charged Lord Ashley, "the Champion of the Operatives,"
with having abandoned their cause by concurring
in the government measure.—Lord ASHLEY replied,
with great earnestness, "I never considered myself as
their champion, but I did consider myself their friend;
and I declare before God, that I have done that which
appeared to me to be the best for their interests; and
every successive hour, and all the intelligence I receive,
convince me that, by God's blessing, I have been
enabled to judge aright. I may be permitted to state,
solemnly and before this august assembly, that I have
sacrificed to them almost everything that a public man
holds dear to him; and now I have concluded by giving
them that which I prize most of all—I have even
sacrificed for them my reputation."—After some further
debate, the amendment was rejected by 246 to 45.—Lord
ASHLEY moved another amendment on the same clause,
to the effect of giving children of tender years the same
protection as that enjoyed by adult females and young
persons, namely, that they were to work only from six
to six o'clock.—This amendment was also negatived by
102 to 72, and the remaining clauses were agreed to.

The Metropolitan Interments Bill was then resumed
in committee, and clauses, up to the 23rd, were agreed
to. The principal points on which the discussion
turned were; the power to remove bodies from the
present burial-grounds with or without the consent of the
incumbent, and subject or not subject to payment of
fees; the suspicious absence of any schedule of fees in
the bill, and the backwardness of government to give
any pledge as to the amount of fees; and on the proper
width of the space, or belt, which should be drawn
round the cemeteries, and whereon no house may be
built. Lord John RUSSELL deprecated the fixing of a
schedule of fees without further experience. It was at
last agreed that the fixing of the fees shall be left to the
board of health, subject to the approval of the secretary
of state.

On Friday the 7th, Lord John RUSSELL announced
that the Lord Chancellor intended to resign as soon as
he had disposed of the causes heard by him; and that
he (Lord J. Russell) had advised the Crown to put the
great seal in commission.—Further progress was made
in committee with the Metropolitan Interments Bill,
the clauses up to 30 having been agreed to.

Her Majesty's answer to the address on the subject of
Sunday Labour in the Post Office was communicated to
the house on Monday the 10th by Sir G. Grey. It was
as follows:—"I have received your address, praying
that the transmission and delivery of letters may in
future entirely cease on Sunday in all parts of the kingdom;
also, that inquiry may be made as to how far,
without injury to the public service, the transmission of
the mails on the Lord's Day might be diminished or
entirely suspended: and, in compliance with your
request, I shall give directions accordingly."—Lord
John RUSSELL afterwards announced that no exception
would be made in favour of foreign correspondence, it
being the intention of government completely to carry
out the vote.

The grant for the New Houses of Parliament then
came under consideration. Mr. HUME moved that the
amount should be £100,610 instead of £103,610; his
object being, by this retrenchment of £3000, to put an
end for the present to the proceedings of the committee
of taste, and prevent any further expenditure on
pictures before they knew the cost of completing what was
useful and substantial. He complained of the enormous
expense created by incessant alterations, which had
swelled the original estimate of £707,000 into two
millions.—The motion was opposed by Sir C. WOOD and
by Sir R. PEEL, who taxed Mr. Hume with having
himself been one of the main suggesters of the alterations
of which he now complained; and made good his
charge to some extent by reference to parliamentary
documents, amid loud laughter.—Mr. OSBORNE
supported the motion, observing that the house should be
finished first and adorned afterwards. His opposition to
the sum proposed to be granted for Mr. Landseer's
pictures was grounded on his respect for that artist, and
his unwillingness to see his works in so bad a position.—
Sir R. PEEL explained that the place intended for those
pictures had been assigned with the full concurrence of
Mr. Landseer himself.—Lord John RUSSELL defended
all the parties concerned in the new building, and
opposed the motion, which was negatived by 144 to 62.—
Mr. HUME then moved for a select committee, which
after a short discussion was rejected by 85 to 55.

The Irish Lord Lieutenancy Abolition Bill, on the
question of its second reading, was warmly opposed by
several Irish members, Mr. Grattan, Mr. G. A. Hamilton,
Mr. Maurice O'Connell, Colonel Dunne, and Mr.
Grogan, who reiterated objections previously made to