which showed that there were great deficiencies in our
educational system—deficiencies inherent in the system
itself, and in the means available for making it effective
and universal. There had, however, been not only a
great increase of late years in the means of education,
but an improvement in the qualifications of teachers and
in the character of the instruction. Much, however,
remained to be done; and he was not averse to the
application of local rates to this purpose, seeing no real
distinction between money raised by local rates and
contributed from the general taxation of the country; great
advantages might likewise result from local management,
if means were provided for the inspection of the schools,
to ascertain their efficiency. If the principle were
recognised in the case of baths and washhouses, there
could be no objection to the application of local rates to
the still more important object of education. But there
was a serious question—what was to be the character of
the education? and he had the same insuperable objection
to the terms of this resolution as to the principle of Mr.
Fox's bill of last year, that in the schools established by
local rates—which would supersede other schools—the
education should be limited to secular instruction, and
that religious instruction should altogether be excluded.
Mr. Fox had argued that there was an aversion in the
country to the union of religious with secular education;
but he (Sir George) believed that the exclusion of all
religion would be repugnant to the general opinion of
the country, which regarded that as the best education
which was founded upon principles deduced from the
word of God.—After a debate, in which Mr. Fox's
motion was supported by Mr. Hume, Colonel Thompson,
Mr. Trelawney, Mr. Adderley, and Mr. Cobden; and
opposed by Mr. Hope, Mr. A. Patten, Mr. Wigram, the
Solicitor-General, Sir R. Inglis, and Mr. S. Herbert, it
was negatived by 139 to 49.

On Friday, May 23, Mr. REYNOLDS asked the first
minister if he intended to bring in a bill to do away
with Minister's Money in Ireland during the present
session, agreeably to an announcement made to that
effect some time ago?—Lord J. RUSSELL said so much
of the public time had been taken up with the discussion
of the ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill that it would
be out of his power to bring in such a measure during
the present session.

In committee on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, a
motion made by Mr. Thomas DUNCOMBE, to postpone
the first clause till the Papal brief or rescript which
it refers to be put in evidence formally, in order
that the house should not be legislating on the mere
authority of what has appeared in newspapers, was
supported by the mover in a clever and lively speech. It was
opposed by the Solicitor-General, and negatived by 221
to 49. The question having been put that the clause be
agreed to, Sir F. THESIGER moved as an amendment,
instead of the words "a certain brief, rescript," to insert
the words "all such briefs, rescripts," in order to include
others besides the bull of the 29th of September. He
thought this necessary to make the bill complete,
consistent, and efficacious.—The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
opposed the amendment, as weakening rather than
strengthening the effect of the clause, as a protest
against a particular outrage on national independence.
There was no doubt as to the illegality of all Papal
bulls. (Hear.)—After a long conversation, Sir F.
Thesiger withdrew his amendment, reserving to himself
the right of again proposing it on the report.—The Earl
of ARUNDEL and SURREY moved as an amendment to
insert after the word "thereby," the words "save in so
far as the exercise or use of such jurisdiction, authority,
pre-eminence, or title, shall be necessary for spiritual
purposes." His object was to prevent the enactment
from trenching on purely spiritual ground, which the
framers of the bill had declared not to be within their
contemplation.—The ATTORNEY GENERAL resisted the
amendment as unnecessary, and calculated to throw
doubt on the construction of the bill. After some
discussion, the committee divided, and negatived the
amendment by 316 to 61.—Mr. SADLEIR moved the
insertion of the words "for all temporal purposes" after
the word "thereby."—Sir G. GREY observed that this
amendment was identical with that of which the house
had just disposed. After another discussion the committee
again divided, and negatived the amendment by
317 to 57.—Sir B. HALL suggested that the house should
meet at twelve o'clock every day for the purpose of
discussing this bill, in order that the country might be
convinced that it was the determination of the government
to press it earnestly.—Lord J. RUSSELL was not
prepared to assent to this proposal immediately, as he
feared that the effect might not be to enable them to
make real progress, but he reserved to himself the
power of adopting it if driven to it. The house then
resumed, the chairman reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again on Monday.

On Monday the 26th, the consideration in committee
of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill having been resumed,
Mr. M'CULLAGH moved as an amendment the omission
of two words in the first clause, by which the titles
assumed under the papal rescript were declared simply
"void," instead of being enacted "unlawful and void."
—After discussion the committee divided, and the amendment
was negatived by a majority of 179 to 43—136.—
Mr. KEOGH moved the insertion after the word "void,"
of the words "in England," thereby exempting Ireland
from the operation of the clause.—The amendment was
opposed by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and negatived by 39
against 84.—A further amendment was then proposed
by Mr. KEOGH, by which it would be declared that
nothing contained in the clause should prevent the free
action of the catholic prelates in Ireland, as regarded
their spiritual functions.—The amendment was opposed
by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who contended that no
interference would be exercised by the present bill with
any spiritual functions of the catholic bishops, unless
exercised under the prohibited titles.—A long discussion
ensued, after which a division was called, and the
amendment thrown out by a majority of 344 to 59.—
The next amendment was proposed by Mr. SADLEIR, to
the effect that no legal proceeding should take place
under the act for anything done in pursuance of the
practice in use anterior to the year 1850.—Being
discussed and carried to a division, this was also negatived,
by 278 to 47.

On Tuesday, May 27, Mr. H. BAILLIE moved a series
of resolutions having reference to the late administration
of Lord Torrington as Governor of Ceylon. These
resolutions declared that the measures of repression and
punishment adopted during the disturbances in the
island, were excessive; that the severities had continued
after the disturbances had ceased; that the long
maintenance of martial law was in the highest degree
arbitrary and oppressive; and that Lord Grey, in officially
adopting and approving the policy of Lord Torrington,
had acted in a precipitate and injudicious manner,
calculated to establish precedents of rigour, and injurious to
the national character for justice and humanity. Mr.
Baillie entered into an elaborate detail of the circumstances
attending the rebellion in Ceylon, and of the
subsequent proceedings before the Committee of inquiry;
and he accompanied his narrative with a criticism of the
defence urged in another place by Lord Torrington, and
contended that the charges he preferred had been
sufficiently sustained.—Mr. SERJEANT MURPHY claimed for
Lord Torrington the calm hearing appropriate to a
tribunal whose functions were for the moment judicial.
He complained that in laying their accusation the
opponents of the noble lord had omitted to give him credit
for those portions of his administration which had been
eminently successful, or for the circumstances of
difficulty with which he had found himself surrounded.
The case rested upon testimony, and upon sifting the
evidence of many of the witnesses most relied upon by
the accusers, he contended that they turned out
untrustworthy, and that some had given, on the spot, very
different opinions to what they had professed before
the committee. After suggesting the possibility that
the very measures of rigour now complained of had in
effect stopped the outbreak in an early stage and thus
apparently justified the charge that they were
unnecessary, Mr. Murphy supported his suggestion by a
differently-coloured history of the occurrences in Ceylon,
which he based upon the authority of Colonel Drought,
Colonel Fraser, and other credible witnesses.
Considering the responsibilities assigned to our colonial
governors, and the emergencies on which they might be