thought, of the nature of bugbears, and stated the reasons why he had preferred the method proposed in the Bill to that of 1851. He had expected that the proposal would have been generally acceptable; but, as the great body of Protestant Dissenters had manifested a very strong repugnance to it, he was not prepared to insist upon retaining the words "religious profession," and he acquiesced in the amendment. Mr. Osborne, noticing the inconsistency of Sir George Lewis in withdrawing the obnoxious proposal after giving such excellent reasons for adhering to it, said he objected to the proposed inquiry because it was an infraction of religious liberty, and because the information obtained by it would be most imperfect. He added, that he thought it was not wise on the part of the Government, or worthy of them, to provoke sectarian differences. Mr. Henley hoped that when the discussion of the education question came on, equal weight would be given to "conscientious scruples" and "intuitive feeling." Although the Amendment was not formally opposed and was ultimately agreed to, the subject underwent much discussion, in the course of which Mr. Monsell expressed a hope that the Government would not take the same course (in regard to a religious census) in Ireland, where the same difficulties, he said, did not arise, no person being ashamed to avow his religious profession. Mr. Cardwell thereupon stated that it was the intention of the Government to include religion in the Census for Ireland. The Bill then passed through Committee, and finally became law. A debate on that much-vexed question, the system of National Education in Ireland, took place in the House of Commons towards the close of the Session, at the instance of Mr. Isaac Butt, who moved an Address to Her Majesty, representing that the House had learnt with regret, that many of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland are prevented by conscientious objections from availing themselves. of the benefit of the funds voted for the promotion of National Education in Ireland, and praying Her Majesty to direct inquiries to be made, whether such changes might not be made in the rules under which that grant is distributed, as would enable all classes in Ireland to enjoy the advantages which that grant is intended to secure to the Irish people. He argued that, although the object of the national system was to give a combined education to all classes, including Roman Catholics and Protestants, the mixture was only apparent, and the combination nominal, the system being really separate. He asked why the Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ireland should not be put in the same position as they were in England, and why the conscientious scruples of those Protestants, who regarded instruction in the Scriptures as interwoven with education, should not be consulted. He contended that the theory of National Education was disapproved by the nation; that it was not consistent with our free institutions nor just to Ireland. Mr. Whiteside, who had a notice upon the paper of his intention to move for an Address upon the same subject, cordially seconded the motion, urging the objections entertained by the Pro testant laity and clergy to the system administered by the National Board. He insisted upon the vagueness of the rules as to religious instruction, and that it was impossible to conduct the system satisfactorily under the doubtful and conflicting interpretations put upon them. He contended that the moment a distinction was established between vested and nonvested schools, the principle of the national system was at an end, since it was impossible that there could be a united education in non-vested schools. In Presbyterian, as well as Roman Catholic conventual schools, the rules of the Board were constantly and sy stematically violated; monks were teachers in the Roman Catholic schools, though prohibited by the rules of the Board, as well as by statute. The system of mixed education had been condemned by the statutes of the Synod of Thurles, confirmed by the Pope, and not one Roman Catholic school had been since placed under the Board. The adoption of the motion would put an end to these anomalies, extinguish heartburnings, and give free course to the full current of secular education. in 1831 by Lord Derby, and opposed these facts to the arguments of Mr. Butt and Mr. Whiteside, as proving irresistibly that the system commanded the respect and retained the affection of the community. It was said that the system had failed as a system of mixed education; but, in localities where the population was mixed, the statistics showed that the attendance in the schools was mixed, and he contended that, considering the discouragements it met with, the National system had not disappointed just and reasonable expectations. He denied that the cardinal rules of the system had been, as alleged, set at nought or compromised. On the contrary, they had been maintained up to the present time in the convent schools as well as those of the Presbyterians; and, with regard to the monks, for a long time past the Board had determined that the rule which prohibited clergymen of the Church of England and Presbyterian clergymen from being teachers in the schools should be applied to monks. Mr. Cardwell then proceeded to defend the principle of the National system, compared with denominational edu cation, as furnishing the only means of securing the advantage of mixed instruction, and insisted that it had been one cause, and not the least, of the material prosperity and the social improvement of Ireland. It would be a very great mistake, he observed, to suppose that the education in the National Schools was of a non-religious character; he was present by accident at the examination of the scholars at one of these schools, and was struck with the proofs they gave of religious instruction. He be lieved that the House, which had Mr. Cardwell observed that, thirty years ago, the House had withdrawn its support from the system of education then existing in Ireland in consequence of its total failure, and that during the thirty years which had elapsed there had grown up in Ireland a system which, though its details might be criticized, scarcely any one would deny, had conferred upon the whole population the greatest be netits. He showed the vast and gradual increase in the number of schools and scholars since the National system had been introduced been firm in its adherence to the system in its difficulties, would not desert it in the time of its success. Mr. Lefroy expressed his regret that the Government had not thought it right to make a concession to the conscientious objections of clergymen of the Established Church. Mr. Henessey supported the motion for the Address, contending that this was a question of freedom of education, and that the mixed system ought not to be forced upon any persons contrary to their wishes. After a short reply from Mr. Butt, the House divided, when there appeared An addition of some importance to the legislation of the sister country was made by a Bill introduced by the Secretary for Ireland, for the amendment of the laws relating to the tenure and improvement of land. The objects and character of this measure were explained by Mr. Cardwell, in his speech on bringing in the Bill on the 29th of March. He desired, he said, to make one more attempt to settle a question which had occupied the attention of successive Governments and Parliaments for a long period -a question of great difficulty, and to Ireland of great importance, the condition of that country at present being favourable for its settlement. After suggesting reasons why the law should be different in Ireland from what it was in England and Scotland, resulting from the different cirthe former, he cumstances of showed the obstacles presented to He improvements in the land by the state of the law in Ireland. He proposed, he said, to deal with the land in three categories; first, land in the hands of the landlord; second, land in the hands of the tenant protected by lease; and third, land in the hands of the tenant who had no lease. then proceeded to explain in detail the provisions it was proposed to apply to each of these conditions. In treating of the last, he premised that there were things he could not do, and he avowed that it was not intended to attempt to make compensation for what were called "retrospective improvements;" the Bill would be prospective only. Then, with respect to prospective improvements, he believed it was absolutely necessary that the landlord should have a right to object; but he thought the improving tenant might be assured of a certainty of compensation by a cheap and simple process, the machinery of which he explained. This Bill, like most Irish measures, underwent ample discussion, and, after undergoing some modifications, it was successfully carried through both Houses, and received the Royal Assent. Among the Bills brought in by the Government, which the pressure of business made it necessary to abandon, was one for the long-deferred Reform of the A meaCorporation of London. sure was introduced for this purpose at the beginning of the Session by the Home Secretary, but it encountered considerable objection in the House of Commons from opponents, who alleged that it embodied scarcely any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission to which the conside ration of the subject had been referred, and that, if passed, it would leave some of the greatest of the existing abuses uncorrected. Sir George Lewis admitted to a certain extent the truth of this allegation, but he stated that the measure had been drawn up to carry out the views of the Select Committee to which it had been referred, and he believed that it would be useful as far as it went. After a division, in which the Government obtained a majority, the Bill was read a second time, but was not further proceeded with. Another measure, and a very important one, was likewise compelled to undergo postponement, in consequence of the other business of the Session proving too heavy to allow time to proceed with it. This was a comprehensive scheme for the reform and consolidation of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws, prepared with great care and labour by the Attorney-General, and received at the outset with much favour by the House of Commons. The Bill, however, was unavoidably long and complex, and, after occupying several days in Committee, it became evident that it could not be passed through the Commons early enough to allow the proper time for discussion in the Upper House. It was therefore given up, much to the disappoint ment of the commercial classes, but with a promise on the part of the Attorney-General to renew his attempt to settle the question by legislation as early as possible in the ensuing Session. The last debate of the Session which calls for notice was one which arose in the House of Lords on the 3rd of August, in reference to the massacre of the Christians in Syria, which about this time excited much horror in the public mind. The subject was appropriately introduced by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, whose long residence in the East and great knowledge of Oriental habits and policy, well qualified him to speak with authoríty upon these transactions. Lord Stratford said that he did not think it necessary to enter in detail into the atrocities which had been committed, nor into the origin from which they had sprung. He could not refrain, however, from remarking upon the necessity for taking prompt and efficient measures, in order to put an end to the present state of things in Syria with the least possible delay. The despatch of a Commissioner to Syria was a sufficient proof that the Government was alive to this necessity; but neither that nor communications with other Powers would put a stop to the atrocities which had been perpetrated. It was a difficult matter, no doubt, for the European Powers to arrange means of interference; but if the Turkish Government were not strong enough to suppress those disturbances, he for one should not object to see European interference, or even the interference of one particular Power, under the sanction of a treaty. Such a course was, no doubt, open to risk. Syria was the key to Egypt, and any extension of the interference might lead to a war between the maritime Powers. Then, the Lebanon never had been fully subject to Turkey, and promises been made to the tribes of that district by the British that their independence should be secured, and Turkish troops should not be admitted within their confines. Still, such atrocities as had recently taken place could not be permitted to go unpunished, and he was sorry to say that he placed but small reliance on the securities which the Porte could give on that point, as it had been guilty of the greatest remissness, if not of actual connivance. He hoped that a judicial investigation would be made into the conduct of the authorities, and especially into that of Osman Bey. He then proceeded to inquire into the causes of the movement, one of which, it was asserted, was the weakness of the Turkish Government. This weakness, if it existed, arose from the state of the finances being too much reduced to keep up the proper strength of the army. There was no excuse for this state of things, as Turkey had frequently been warned of the results likely to ensue from it. With these disturbances the great Eastern question had again been brought home to our doors. As long as Turkey continued in her present course, and did not put in practice the reforms which she had promised, it would be in vain for Foreign Powers to patch up this question, which might at any time involve the country again in war. One of his objects in the motion was to obtain more comprehensive information than appeared in the papers before Parliament, and to learn under what instructions our Consul-General had acted. In another point of view this question was most grave. The great war of principles had hitherto been kept in the distance by palliatives, but we were being rapidly brought in presence of that tremendous war which had been so long impending. He was therefore glad to see that Her Majesty's Government were making every effort to place the country in an efficient state of defence by the erection of fortifications,— efforts which he trusted would receive the support of their Lordships' House. Lord Wodehouse said it would be impossible to assent to the production of the papers moved for, as they referred to matters of great consequence and delicacy and their publication would be detrimental to the public interests. The peculiar position of the Syrian population with regard to the Porte was due to an agreement made between the European Powers and the Porte, after the evacuation of the country by the Egyptian troops in 1840. The Government had this day received a despatch from the Consul at Damascus, giving an account of the atrocities and their origin. He proceeded to mention what those causes were, and to observe on the difficulty of taking a dispassionate view of the subject, owing to the sympathy excited by the sufferings of the Christians. The different European Powers had acted in conjunction on this matter, and the result of their deliberations had been a protocol signed at Paris, defining the conditions under which the intervention of an European force ought to take place. This protocol had been signed by the five great Powers and the representative of the Porte, and was to the following effect:-"That a force not exceed ing 12,000 European troops should be sent to Syria, of which France would immediately furnish 6000; that the other 6000 should, in case they were required, be furnished by such one of the Powers as shall be deemed expedient, and |