to make his way through them, in order to assist in
forming a house, had had his coat nearly torn off his
back.

On Wednesday, the 4th, Lord MELGUND moved the
second reading of the School Establishment (Scotland)
Bill. He contended that the means of education in
Scotland had not kept pace with the increase of population,
and were admitted on all hands to be at present
very deficient. The number of children between the
ages of five and fifteen was 600,000; of these it was
calculated that not more than 200,000 were educated by
the Established and Free Churches, and 100,000 by
other denominations, leaving 300,000 without any means
of instruction. This bill provided for the establishment
of schools for secular, or for combined secular and
religious instruction, supported by local rates, and subject
to local management, no religious test being required
from the schoolmasters.—Mr. F. MACKENZIE was
opposed to the subversion of the present system of education
in Scotland, and moved as an amendment that the
bill be read a second time that day six months.—Mr.
Hume supported, and Mr. C. Bruce opposed the bill.
—The Lord Advocate said he should give the measure
his most cordial support, as he was satisfied of the
absolute necessity of increasing the means of education in
Scotland. If the scheme proposed excluded religious
instruction, he should oppose it to the utmost; but
there was nothing in the bill to preclude the conjunction
of religious and secular instruction, should this be the
wish of the rate-payers.—Sir R. H. INGLIS thought it
incumbent on the government to lend the weight of
their influence to the rejection of this measure. It was
the right of the Established Church of Scotland to
superintend the religious education of the people, and
history showed how well she had discharged the duty.
—Mr. Macgregor and Mr. Cowan supported the bill,
and Mr. Charteris the amendment.—Lord J. RUSSELL
could not see in this bill any stipulations which would
have the effect of restricting the instruction given to
secular knowledge, and could not, therefore, assent to
the request made by the hon. baronet, that the government
should oppose it. Considering the religious feeling
which pervaded the mass of the Scottish people, he
thought there would be few instances in which there
would not be an anxiety to conjoin religious with secular
instruction.—Sir G. Clerk and Mr. F. Scott supported
the amendment.—After a reply from Lord Melgund,
the house divided, and rejected the bill by 137 to 124.

On Thursday, the 5th, Sir G. GREY moved the
second reading of the Metropolis Water Bill, Mr.
MOFFAT moved the second reading that day six
months. He contended that the bill would do no good,
while it would perpetuate a huge monopoly and impose
a heavy charge on the metropolis.—Sir B. Hall and Mr.
W. Williams opposed the bill on similar grounds.—Sir
G. Grey said that the principle of this bill was to substitute
for different boards of management irresponsible
and uncontrolled, one combined management, under
certain restrictions and subject to the control of parliament
and government. He then entered into a general
defence of the provisions of the bill, replying to
objections, and in conclusion asked the house to assent to the
second reading, in order that the bill might be referred
to a select committee, where the whole of the details
might bo thoroughly sifted.—Sir J. JOHNSTONE, on
behalf of the water companies, objected to the proposed
amalgamation, and suggested that inquiry should
precede legislation; that a committee should be appointed
to consider all matters connected with the water supply
of London.—Mr. MOWATT strongly opposed the bill,
objecting to its principle, as well as to its monstrous
clauses, and he explained the provisions of a bill he had
introduced, the main features of which were that it
proposed to divide the metropolis into seventeen districts,
which would choose four commissioners, who, with four
nominated by the corporation of London and four by the
government, should constitute a commission, with power
to nominate an executive committee, not exceeding five,
for carrying into effect the provisions of the act, and to
provide funds for constructing new machinery and plant,
by rates not exceeding 3d. in the pound upon rateable
property. The bill was supported by Sir W. Clay, and
opposed by Lord Ebrington, Mr. Wakley, and Sir
De L. Evans. On a division the second reading was carried
by 95 to 79.

A resolution against the Adulteration of Coffee with
Chicory was moved by Sir T. BARING, and, after some
discussion, was negatived by 94 to 89.

On Friday, the 6th, in committee on the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill, a number of amendments made by Mr.
Reynolds, Sir H. Willoughby, Colonel Sibthorp,
and Sir F. Thesiger, were discussed, and negatived
on divisions.

The house afterwards went into committee on Lord
Naas's resolutions regarding Home-made Spirits in Bond.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the
chairman do leave the chair.—The committee divided—
for the motion, 123; against it, 140: majority against
ministers, 17.—The resolutions were then agreed to.—
The house then adjourned for Whitsuntide, to Thursday,
the 12th.

On that day the house resumed its sittings.—Mr.
ANSTEY moved, by way of amendment, a resolution
condemnatory of the conduct of Sir W. Denison,
Lieut.Governor of Van Diemen's Land, in Revoking the tickets
of leave held by Messrs. M'Manus, O'Doherty, and
O' Donohue.—Sir G. GREY said, all the information of
which the government was in possession relating to this
subject was contained in a despatch from Sir W. Denison,
dated 14th January, 1851, which was upon the table of
the house, whence it appeared that these prisoners,
who were convicted of very grave offences, had been
indulged with tickets of leave, subject to conditions;
that they had, however, acted in direct disobedience of
the regulations, and, under the circumstances, he hardly
believed, he said, that the house would agree to a vote
of censure upon Sir W. Denison.—Mr. Hume and
Colonel Dunne recommended Mr. Anstey to withdraw
his motion, which, after a few remarks by Sir L.
O'Brien, he consented to do.

The house then went into committee of supply upon
the Navy Estimates, when certain votes were agreed to,
after a very long discussion, in the course of which the
plan proposed by the Admiralty, and which was
developed by Sir F. Baring, with reference to retired flag
and other officers, was much considered. The Chairman
having been ordered to report progress, the house
resumed, when the petty sessions (Ireland) bill, and the
collection of fines, &c. (Ireland) bill were severally read
a second time.—The British white herring fishery bill
was read a third time and passed.—On the motion of
Mr. J. BELL, the house resolved itself into a committee
on the qualifications of pharmaceutical chemists, and a
bill was ordered to be brought in to regulate the same.

On Friday, June 13th, Lord J. RUSSELL moved for
leave to bring in a bill to improve the administration of
justice in the Court of Chancery and the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. The noble lord
referred to the measure he had produced a few weeks
back in which it was proposed that the Master of the
Rolls and one of the common law judges should sit to
assist the Chancellor; but this was objected to, as
tending to the delay of justice in the Rolls Court. The
present bill provided for the appointment of two new
judges as judges of appeal, who should sit in the Court
of Chancery as assessors to the Lord Chancellor, when
he was able to be present, and without him when he
was unable to give his attendance. The only objection
he could anticipate to this plan was, that it would
greatly increase the judicial staff; but he was not
apprehensive that great weight would be attached to it by
those who considered the great increase which had taken
place in the business of the Court of Chancery. It
appeared, from a return presented to the other house,
that from November, 1850, to May, 1851, the total
number of matters disposed of by the Court of Chancery,
in all its branches, was 5207. The bill also empowered
one judge of appeal to sit and dispose of the business in
case of the absence of the other. He felt that in these
times, when reforms of the law were so eagerly looked
for, it was desirable that the Lord Chancellor should be
enabled to give his mature and deliberate attention to
subjects of this kind. He had stated on a former occasion,
that he proposed that the Lord Chancellor should
receive £10,000 a year, instead of £14,000, with the same
retiring pension, and that the Master of the Rolls should