Mr. FOX'S Education Bill came on for second reading
on Wednesday 17th. Mr. STAFFORD opposed it on
philogical grounds. It did not accurately define the word
"secular," which might mean "atheistic." He
concluded by moving that the bill be read that day six
months.—The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY maintained
that secular education is quite inconsistent with
religion, and warned the House, that in this country
there are books of a highly intellectual character,
beautifully written and widely circulated, which would
utterly destroy every vestige of the Christian religion.
The noble Lord read a scries of extracts from
works by Dr. Ullathorne, a Catholic vicar apostolic,
Mr. Laing, Mr. Newman, two American writers, the
Rev. Mr. Rose, and also from several newspapers; winding
up with a stanza from "Reverberations." His lordship
then having thanked the House for having allowed him
to "disgust" them by the passages he had read, proceeded
in the following strain:—Every one knew what his
particular religious belief was; but he was not advocating
the claims of the Roman Catholic Church; he was
speaking on behalf of the poor of every religious
denomination, that they should not be exposed to the peril of
their souls. Some three centuries ago a great convulsion
arose in men's minds; what was called the Reformation
took place, and the Scriptures were set up for the
teaching of the Church. He did not say whether that
was right or wrong; but now they had arrived at another
period;—the Scriptures were to be utterly laid aside.
Lord Arundel wound up with a tremendous peroration.
The present movement he regarded as that of a mere
skirmishing party which would be easily driven in; but
what he called on the House to consider was, that this
was not the last attack; the two armies were joined;
the battle-cry was "religion" or "irreligion," "God"
or "devil," and the issue for which they must fight was
heaven or hell!

"The mover of the amendment," said Mr. ROEBUCK,
in answer to these various remarks, "had come with
his quiver full of arrows, feathered with epithets, and
barbed with imputations. In a mellifluous voice and
well-poised sentences, he had nakedly charged the
supporters of the bill with supporting Atheism." The
noble seconder, continued the honourable gentleman,
had followed with quoted doctrines which had as little
to do with the bill as the doctrines of every saint in
the calendar. His lordship objected to the Reformation;
and why? Because it took mankind out of the
thraldom of that priesthood which the noble lord would
call a Church. Mr. Roebuck denied it. The priesthood
were neither the Church nor the exclusive teachers of
religion. Every father of a family when he opened the
Bible and taught his children from its pages, was as
much a teacher of religion as the meddling priest; he
formed as much a portion of the Church as he who
propounded doctrines from the pulpit. Mr. Roebuck
asked for the education of the people, and he asked it
upon the lowest ground. As a mere matter of policy, the
State ought to educate the people; and why did he say
so? Lord Ashley had been useful in his generation in
getting up Ragged Schools. [Here a titter arose in the
house.] Mr. Roebuck saw nothing to laugh at, it was
a great imputation upon this kingdom that such schools
were needed. Why were they needed? Because
of the vice which was swarming in all our great
cities. We pass laws, send forth an army of judges
and barristers to administer them, erect prisons and
place aloft gibbets to enforce them; but religious
bigotry prevents the chance of our controlling the evil
at the source, by so teaching the people as to prevent
the crimes we strive to punish. It was because he
believed that prevention was better than cure; it was
because he believed that the business of Government was
to prevent crime in every possible way, rather than to
punish it after its commission, that he asked the House
to divest themselves of all that prejudice and bigotry
which was at the bottom of the opposition to this
measure. Mr. Stafford's speech was in the same
spirit as Lord Arundel's. The latter represented
Grandmother Church, and the former Good Mother Church;
and he had no doubt that many hon. gentlemen
would be found on the Ministerial side of the house who
represented some of her improper daughters. Mr Roebuck
then proceeded to ask how the secular knowledge
which it was proposed to give under this bill would shut
the mind of the children? He begged it to be borne in
mind that it was not proposed to take the child away from
home for seven years and then restore him. He was to
be at home day by day, and almost hour by hour;
at school, and at home, alternately. The school would
teach him secular education, and he would go home
trained for the moment; by degrees he would be
better trained to receive religious instruction at home.
Mr. Roebuck concluded by remarking in reference to
Mr. Fox, the framer of the bill, that he was glad to see
that there was a gentleman in the house who had courage
to face all the imputations that had been brought
forward—for he must have known that he would
have to face them—and having now broken the
ice, he hoped he would no longer halt by the way
—that he would, in the language of the noble lord,
continue the great fight, for a "great fight" it
undoubtedly was. During some portion of the learned
gentleman's speech, the house resounded with cheers.—
Lord ASHLEY believed that this was the beginning of a
series of conflicts; and he confessed alarm that the
propounders of this measure persevered in renewing their
attacks on the religious education of the country. He
then quoted certain statistics to show that the educational
resources of the country were much under-estimated.
—Lord John RUSSELL believed that if it were
totally impossible to agree on any mode of religious
instruction, it would be better to have secular education
than none; but nothing short of absolute necessity could
justify the omission of religion. The bill is despotic;
it would altogether destroy existing schools; for when
so much was demanded in rates, the voluntary resources
for promoting education must fail. It would be extremely
hard that those who had spent their money, time,
and labour, in establishing schools upon the religious
basis, should have their purposes defeated.—Mr. HUME
regretted Lord John Russell's opposition, as contrary to
the whole tenor of his previous conduct and opinions.—
On the motion of Mr. ANSTEY, the debate was adjourned
to 2nd of May.

On Thursday the 18th, an attempt was made, but
defeated, to prevent the Larceny Summary Jurisdiction
Bill from going into committee. Two amendments
were carried; one removing adults from the operation
of the bill, and the other that no offender above the age
of 14 should be whipped.—Mr. ROEBUCK—whose
personal appearance is rather juvenile—caused some
amusement during the latter discussion. He remarked that,
speaking of himself, he could say, that if anybody had
laid hands upon him as a boy—(here he was interrupted
by much laughter). He spoke what he felt as an individual,
and had a right to suppose that the same feelings
existed in the breast of the peasant.—In the end,
the bill was reported as amended.

The Australian Colonies Bill was debated in committee
on Friday the 19th. On the sixth clause Sir William
MOLESVVORTH moved an amendment, for the
purpose of establishing "in the Colonies of Van Diemen's
Land and South Australia respectively, a Legislative
Council and a House of Assembly." After a sharp debate,
it was lost by 218 to 150.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, on the 22nd,
gave his promised explanations of what he intended to
do with the Stamp Duties Bill. It was simply this;—
that the amendment carried on a former evening would
produce so great a diminution of revenue, that if it were
persisted in, he should be obliged to abandon the bill.
Meantime he proposed to abide by the vote of the House
as to the 1s. duty on sums under £50; then to raise
that by 1s. 6d. on every £25, up to his own scale of 10s.
for £200, and to carry it uniformly up, from that
amount, to £100,000, at one-fourth per cent.; finally
to adopt a limit, and to confine the maximum duty
to that which was payable on borrowing £100,000,
viz., £250.

The details of the Australian Colonies Bill were then
debated at great length, and most of them affirmed.
—Mr. C. LUSHINGTON moved an amendment to clause
17, namely, that that part of it which provides for
the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure on every
bill which shall be passed by the council in any of the