further from their intention than to reduce the rate of
wages to the seamen.—Lord COLCHESTER was of opinion
that the employment of foreign seamen was highly
prejudicial to the English sailors.—Earl GREY could not
regard the measure which the government were about
to introduce as calculated to reduce the wages of British
sailors. His belief was, that the employment of foreign
seamen would not have the effect of decreasing the rate
of wages.—The discussion concluded with some remarks
by the Duke of ARGYLL in support of the measure
proposed by the government.

On Monday, April 11, on, the motion of the Earl of
ABERDEEN, the house agreed to the address which had
been adopted by the House of Commons, praying for a
commission to inquire into the Corrupt Practices at the
Canterbury Elections.

On Tuesday, April 12, Lord LYTTELTON moved the
commitment of the Vaccination Extension Bill, and
entered at some length into the history of vaccination in
England.—The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH suggested
certain modes of accommodating the system of compulsory
vaccination to the prejudices of the poorer classes, and
proposed that his and other amendments to the bill
should be printed, and then that it should be re-
committed on another day.—After a few words from Lord
REDESDALE, the house went into committee on the
bill, and the clauses, with the amendments suggested by
the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, were agreed to, and the
bill was ordered to be re-committed.

On Friday, April 15, Lord BERNERS moved the
second reading of the Poor Removal and Local
Assessment Bill.—Lord STANLEY of Alderley hoped the
noble Lord would not press the second reading of the
Bill, as it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers
to introduce a measure for the purpose of improving the
whole law of settlement.—The Earl of DERBY, whilst
admitting the importance of this subject, was of opinion
that it would be advisable to leave it in the hands of
the government.—After a few words from Lord
BEAUMONT and the Duke of RICHMOND in favour of
the Earl of Derby's suggestion. Lord BERNERS
consented to adopt that course.—The bill was accordingly
withdrawn.

On Monday, April 18, the Earl of WINCHILSEA
moved for the appointment of a committee to inquire into
the System of Education Pursued at the College of
Maynooth, and alter inveighing with great vehemence
against the insult offered by the Pope to the Queen by
his recent bull, proceeded to attribute most of the evils
of the Romish system to the pernicious tenets inculcated
by the canon law, according to which the Pope assumed
temporal as well as spiritual authority over the subjects
of other Sovereigns. If these tenets (he said) were
taught at Maynooth, it was high time that such a system
of education was put down, and with this view he
brought forward the present motion, which, however, he
would consent to withdraw in favour of Lord Aberdeen's
amendment, if the commission proposed were composed
of four members, two nominated by the crown and
two by himself.—The Earl of ABERDEEN declined
to enter into the question of Papal aggression, and
thought it rather late, after the College of Maynooth
had been sanctioned by parliament for sixty years, that
the House should be told that it had abandoned its duty
to its country and its God, because the noble Earl had
made the discovery that Protestant doctrines were not
taught in a Roman Catholic College. The tone of Lord
Winchilsea's speech showed plainly that his object was
not inquiry into the system pursued at Maynooth, but
the annihilation of the college. The government had
no objection to appoint a commission, but it could not
accede to the noble Earl's motion, and he therefore felt
it his duty to move for a Commission of Inquiry, as an
amendment to the motion.—A long debate followed, in
which Lords Roden, Desart, Dufferin, and Beaumont,
the Bishop of London, the Dukes of Leinster and Argyll,
the Marquises of Clanricarde and Lansdowne, and the
Earls of Derby, Shaftesbury, and Harrowby took part.
The question was then put, when the numbers were
for the motion 53; against it, 110.

On Tuesday, April 19, the Earl of EGLINTON in
moving for certain papers, called the attention of the
house to the Case of Mr. Kirwan, and complained of
the conduct of the Earl of St. Germans in reinstating
him in his post as a magistrate after his suspension by
him (the noble earl).—The Earl of ABERDEEN said that
he would not object to the production of papers which
had no existence; and he disavowed any intention to
cast a slight upon the administration of Lord Eglinton
by the step which the government, and not the present
lord lieutenant, had taken. A short discussion as to
the propriety and policy of the proceeding terminated
in the withdrawal of the motion.

On Thursday, April 21, the Earl of ABERDEEN moved
for an address to the crown for a commission of inquiry
into the Corrupt Practices in the Hull Election. After
some discussion, in which Lords Campbell and St.
Leonards took part, the motion was agreed to.

The Earl of MALMESBURY asked in what state the
negotiations now stood with the United States Government
respecting the Colonial Fisheries, and whether it
was the intention of the government to protect the
British fishermen.—The Earl of CLARENDON said, that
Mr. Crampton, British minister at Washington, in
obedience to instructions from Lord Malmesbury when
in office, had entered into negotiations on the subject of
the fisheries, which were still pending. With respect to
the protection to be afforded to British fishermen, the
present government had adopted precisely the same
instructions as those sent out by their predecessors.

On Friday, April 22, the Duke of NEWCASTLE moved
the second reading of the Clergy Reserves (Canada)
Bill, and was met by the Bishop of EXETER, who moved
that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
A debate followed, in which Lord Lyttelton, Lord St.
Leonards, the Bishop of Norwich, the Earl of Derby,
and Earl Grey took part. The result was, that on the
suggestion of Lord Derby the amendment was withdrawn,
the opposition to the bill being reserved for committee.
—The bill was then read a second time.

On Monday, April 25, the house went into committee
on the Canadian Clergy Reserves Bill, when a long
and warm debate arose on an amendment proposed by
Lord Derby to the first clause; the effect of that
amendment being to preserve to the Established Church
in Canada all the proceeds of the revenues guaranteed
to it, and already appropriated under the acts of 1827
and I840, but to give the Colonial Legislature free
power to deal with any portion of the Clergy Reserves
which was not already so appropriated and allotted. In
this discussion the Earl of Derby, the Duke of
Newcastle, Lord Wicklow, Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Desart,
The Bishop of St. David's, the Bishop of London, the
Duke of Argyll, Lord Grey, Lord St. Leonards, and
the Bishops of Oxford and Exeter took part. Upon a
division the amendment of Lord Derby was rejected by
117 against 77; and the bill passed.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, on Monday, April 4,
Lord John RUSSELL made his promised statement of
the intentions and views of government with respect to
National Education. He began by describing what has
been done in the matter of education for the poorer
classes since public day schools were established; he
then examined the voluntary and secular systems—
deciding against either; and followed that up by an
outline of the government measures,—embracing an
extension of the present system, a plan for dealing with
educational charities, and an outline of University
Reform. Early in the present century Joseph Lancaster
and Dr. Bell were instrumental in establishing day
schools for the education of the poor. The system of
Lancaster was adopted by a society called the British
and Foreign School Society, established in 1805, liberally
patronised by George the Third, and promoted by the
late Duke of Bedford, Lord Brougham, Sir Samuel
Romilly, and others. But it was objected on the part
of the Established Church, that although the Bible was
read in these day schools, the formularies of the Church
of England were not taught; and in 1811 the National
Society was formed in order to give instruction in the
Catechism as well as the Bible, making it a rule that
the scholars should attend the Established Church on
Sundays. Hence arose a controversy as to the
principles on which these schools should be conducted; and