Education in Ireland, gave rise to a long discussion. The
Earl said he wished to show that the operation of the
system of national education in Ireland, though it had
received great support from the countenance of
government and the liberality of parliament, had failed in
effecting the objects for which it was established.—The
Earl of ABERDEEN admitted that the system had not
succeeded so extensively as was expected by its
promoters; and he attributed the result to the unfortunate
prevalence of sectarian differences. He lamented to find
that it had from the first been opposed by a large
proportion of the clergy; but he denied that it had failed
to the extent imputed by the noble earl. It would be a
great misfortune to Ireland if this noble system were
destroyed; but he trusted that it would yet be attended
with the happiest results.—The Earl of EGLINTON bore
testimony to the advantages of the system, and said there
was no plan by which the wishes of the noble earl could
be satisfied without incurring the certainty of driving
the Roman Catholics from the schools. The returns
were ordered.

On Thursday, March 10, Lord BROUGHAM moved
the second reading of the Law of Evidence and
Procedure Bill. He explained the principles of the bill; after
pointing out with great minuteness the anomalies which
at present existed in the law by which the rules of
evidence and of procedure were governed, and the
various steps taken by the legislature to remedy them;
he described the manner in which this bill proposed to
deal with them.—The LORD CHANCELLOR cordially
approved of a considerable portion of the measure, but
intimated that he could not give his concurrence to the
whole of it.—The bill was then read a second time.

On Friday, March 11, Lord ELLENBOROUGH called
attention to the grievances produced by the present
Government of India. He presented a petition from
the British and other christian inhabitants of Calcutta
and the neighbouring parts, in the lower province of
Bengal, with respect to the renewal of the act for the
government of the Indian territories. He took a review
of the grievances set forth in the document, and
expressed a hope that measures would be taken for the
better government of our Indian empire.—A debate
followed, in which Lord Brougham, Lord Monteagle,
Lord Broughton, Lord Derby, Lord Aberdeen, and the
Marquis of Salisbury took part.—Lord ABERDEEN
thought there could be but one opinion as to the
necessity of legislating upon the subject; but that the
present system essentially should form the foundation of
any future government of India.

On Monday, March 14th, Lord LYNDHURST, in
calling the attention of the House to the Consolidation
of the Statutes, and asking whether it was the intention
of the government to introduce a measure on the
subject, expressed it as his opinion that so far as he
could collect from the statement of the Lord Chancellor,
his objection related almost entirely to the past— to
correct past Acts of Parliament and past errors, and to
take no measures for the purpose of obviating the
recurrence of those errors in future. If that were the
course which he intended to pursue, he (Lord
Lyndhurst) would venture to say that the measure
which he wanted to carry into effect would not be
satisfactory either to the profession or the public.—
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the government
were taking measures, but he did not think there would
be much result till after Easter. The first work would
be to ascertain of what the statutes actually consisted;
and he believed that the whole forty-eight volumes
might be compressed into six or seven. When that
work was done, the government would consider how to
effect reform for the future.—After some suggestions by
Lord REDESDALE, Lord St. LEONARDS commented on
the difficulties which would have to be contended with
in altering the language and forms of Acts of Parliament.
—Lord BROUGHAM agreed with Lord St. Leonards in
recognising the difficulties, but he thought it was not
impossible to surmount them.

Lord BROUGHAM inquired whether it was intended
to do anything to stop the enormous evil of Bribery at
Elections.—Lord ABERDEEN replied that the subject
was undergoing the anxious consideration of the
government.

On Tuesday, March 15, the Earl of MALMESBURY
again drew attention to the subject of the numerous
Fatal Railway Accidents which had lately occurred, and
remarked that since he had alluded to the question a
fortnight ago, no less than five serious accidents had taken
place. He suggested the appointment of a commission
of persons unconnected with railways, but of scientific
attainments, to inquire into the following points:—The
maximum speed consistent with safety; the interval to
be permitted between the starting of trains; and how
far government might enforce the safe and proper
condition of the lines.—Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY
replied that it undoubtedly was the duty of their lordships
to attain the objects which they had in view; but
too much interference on the part of the government
might perhaps defeat it. The question was not new,
but he was not prepared to say whether it might be
advisable to give government greater powers or not;
for, after all, it must be remembered that the safety of
railway communication must depend on the manner in
which the regulations, whether established by government
or by the railway companies, were carried out.
He, therefore, declined giving an opinion, but said that
government were anxiously considering the subject, and
would not hesitate to apply for any increased powers
which, after full consideration of the question and
examination of evidence taken by the committee, they
should deem necessary.

On Thursday, March 17, Lord WHARNCLIFFE
inquired whether her Majesty's government proposed
to take any measures for the more certain Transmission
of the Mails to Australia, and for effectually enforcing
the contract for that purpose with the Australian Royal
Mail Steam Navigation Company.—Viscount CANNING
entered into a detailed statement with regard to the
contract existing between the government and the
company referred to. The mails were carried each
alternate month by different companies, and—although
it was impossible for any one to become the champion
of the company—he could assure their lordships there
were reliable means of communication between this
country and Australia. With respect to the enforcing
of the contract, a letter had been received by the
Admiralty from the chairman of the company, setting
forth the difficulties under which the company conceived
that they had laboured, and praying for a favourable
consideration. That letter had been referred to the
committee on the mail packet service, whose report had
been sent in the day previous. But he was not in a
position to state that any distinct action had been taken
upon that opinion.

The Earl of DERBY inquired what course the government
would pursue in order to put an end to the system
of Bribery and Corruption at Elections.—The Duke of
NEWCASTLE replied that he believed the proper course
would be for their lordships to ask the House of
Commons to favour them with any evidence taken
before any election committee, and after a sufficient
time had been given for considering the evidence, it
would be proposed that that house should agree with the
House of Commons in an address to the crown for the
disfranchisement of any boroughs proved guilty.

On Friday, March 18, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY
called the attention of the house to the Dwellings of
the Labouring Classes, and moved for a bill to restrain
companies, commissioners, &c., from occasioning any
pecuniary loss to the labouring classes, or any
overcrowding of other dwellings, by the removal of houses
under the pretext of alteration or improvement. He
supported his motion by adducing instances in which,
although a particular locality had been to all appearance
improved, physical suffering and moral evil had accrued
from the change, and instanced among other cases that
of the opening of New Oxford-Street, in which
neighbourhood it had been proved by the Statistical Society
in 1848 that the average number of residents in each
house had increased from twenty-seven to forty. He
besought their lordships for the benefit of the whole
community, as well as the labouring classes themselves,
to remove an evil which had become intolerable.—The
Bishop of LONDON expressed a warm sympathy with
the object of the motion, and remarked that in many of
our metropolitan embellishments we had beautified our