The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 16, 1861.

Branches), Eastern Counties and Saffron Walden Railway,
and Kinross-shire Railway.
PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against the sale of in-
toxicating liquors on Sundays ; in favour of amendments in
the Irish Poor Law ; and, from Agra, in favour of estab-
lishing independent local presidential councils throughout
India.
INDIA.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY gave notice that on the second
reading of the Enlistment East India Bill, he would move an
amendment to the effect that it was not expedient, at this late
period of the session, to impose on the Indian revenue the
charge of £220,000, as proposed by the Government mea-
sure.
GENERAL WINDHAM.

Mr. CONINGHAM asked the Under Secretary of State
for War upon what principle had General Windham been
appointed to the colonelcy of a regiment, and what military
exploits had he performed to justify such an appointment ?
Mr. BARING said that when the hon. member for
Brighton had previously addressed the house he had en-
deavoured to explain as satisfactory as ho could the prin-
ciple on which the appointment was made. The conduct
of Gen. Windham on different occasions, and particularly
at the Redan, had been spoken of in the highest terms by
his commanding officer, and in 1855 formed the subject of
special praise in the Gazette. He strongly protested
against the practice that prevailed of making attacks on
distinguished officers in this houses hen they had not an
opportunity of defending themselves.
THE GOVERNMENT WORKS A r CHELSEA.
Mr. CONINGHAM asked the Under Secretary of State
for War whether a body of men belonging to the Royal En-
gineers had been employed by the War Department on the
barracks at Chelsea, in consequence of the strike among
the masons; and, if so, whether such a proceeding be con-
sistent with the principle of non-interference between the
masters and men ? _ _

Mr. J. T. BARING said that a few sappers had ,been
sent to Chelsea, owing to the strike alluded to, and in order
to prevent the works being suspended.
THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

In reply to Sir F. KELLY,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the amendments in this bill
would be taken on. Thursday, and his noble friend at the
head of the Government decided that evening, or to-mor-
row, the course which the Government proposed to take in
reference to these amendments.
BRITISH SUBJECTS IN AMERICA.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs if he had received any fresh complaints of
the treatment of British subjects in the Secession States;
and to make a statement upon the subject. The hon. mem-
ber entered into some explanations in reference to some
statements which had been made when he brought this
subject before the house.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had not heard that there
was any complaint against the conduct of the British COn-
sul at Savannah, but there had been some complaint in re-
spect to the case alleged of a captain of a merchant
vessel having been tarred and feathered. He believed that
the British consul had done all in his power in regard to
this subject.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

In reply to Colonel WILSON PATTEN and Sir F. KELLY,

.. _
Lord PALMERSTON said thathe would state to-morrow
the course which the Government would pursue with refer-
ence to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency and other public
bills,

Sir G. C. LEWIS said that if possible the Election Law
Amendment Bill would be brought on next Friday. He
stated subsequently that the bill would not be brought on
this week.

EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

On the motion for going into committee of supply,

Mr. BUTT moved " That, in the opinion of this house,
it is expedient in distributing the grant for the purposes of
Irish education to enforce the rule of refusing aid to all
schools in which religious teaching is made a part of the
general instruction of the school." The hon. and learned
gentleman said that this grant had risen from £30,000 to
£300,000 a-year, and in proportion to that increase should
be the vigilance exercised in the application of the
vote. He contended that the house had been deceived
by the returns made relative to the extent of
united education in Ireland. From these returns it
appeared that there were in Ireland 3,000 when it was sup-
posed that the system of united education was in opera-
tion, and that they were attended by 300,000 children of
different religion. The fact was, however, that out of
these 3,000 schools there were only 478, when there was no
more than 478 when united education was given, and in
some of these there was only one Protestant child. He
contended that the present system was opposed to the na-
tional feeling, and he called on the house to deal with this
important question in an enlightened and comprehensive
spirit, which would strengthen the ties that bind the people
of Ireland to this country and to Parliament.
Mr. M'EVOY seconded the motion.

Mr. LEFROY said that he concurred with some of the
observations of the hon. and learned member (Mr. Butt),
and was of opinion that much good was not effected in pro-
portion to the amount subscribed for the purpose of na-
tional education in Ireland. He cited the authority of
Archbishop Whately to prove that, both in principle and
practice, the working of the existing system, since
the change in the constitution of the national
board, had been a faiiure. At the same time it would be
more advisable to have the money for the educational grant
dispersed through the mediation of a responsible board than
according to the mode which prevailed in this country; but
that board must be considerably altered before it would
possess the confidence of the people of Ireland. That board
must be composed of men of business, responsible to Par-
liament, and prepared to conduct the duties entrusted to
them with impartiality.
Mr. M'EVOY contended that a very false impression
was abroad respecting the support given by private aid to
schools in Ireland. That aid constituted the main support
of the schools, while in England a much larger proportion
were maintained from public grants. He argued at length
against the system of mixed education, and still more
strongly against the model traaping schools. It was in the
education of teachers, more than in the education of
the people, that the system worked injuriously. He believed
the Government had been deceived in the matter, and
trusted that the tone they had adopted would, before long,
be distinctly repudiated by Parliament in the interest both
of Catholics and Protestants.

Mr. CARDWELL observed that the principles advocated
by Mr. Lefroy would inevitably lead to the denominational
system, and would cause a most invidious distinction be-
tween the education of the rich and of the poor. He traced
the history of national education in Ireland. It was founded
on the commission of 1824, the recommendations
of which were backed by a subsequent committee. The re-
sult was the present system, founded on the celebrated let-
ters of Lord Stanley, permitting all religions to share in a
common education during school hours, and allowing the
patron to teach his own religion out of school hours. A
system under which, in thirty years, 5,600 schools had been
established, could not be said to be wanting in public
fa-
vour. He believed that Lord Derby still adhered to his
opinions of 1831, and reminded the house that whatever
changes of detail the system might have undergone, its
principles remained the same. Those principles had been
adopted by- successive Governments, and constantly sanc-
tioned by Parliament—all denominations had given in their
adhesion ; and he trusted that the legislature would con-
tinue that support under which the system had already
worked so well.

Sir 11. CAIRNS referred to the former disputes of the
National Board, complaining of the changes introduced by
the Government, without notice, in the constitution of the
Board. He denied that the Presbyterians of Ireland were
satisfied with the Board and the changes which had been
introduced. They had appointed a Committee of Vigilance
to watch over the proceedings of the board. The Metho-
dists were of the same opinion, viewing with great jea-
lousy the changes introduced last year, and which all de-
nominations of Protestants considered as radical changes,
and likely to destroy the system. It was evident also that
the Catholics viewed the present position of affairs with
anything but satisfaction. He believed that the changes in-
troduced by the Chief Secretary last year had thrown back
Irish national education for a quarter of a century.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL observed that while the letter of
Lord Stanley on which the system was founded expressly
disclaimed proselytism in any shape—still the; very first
attempt to constitute a National Board was warfare
towards the Roman Catholics. The system which was
originally intended for the poor population of Ireland
was now become a strictly Governmental system, and
was more under the control of Government than any other.
He contrasted, in this respect, the Irish system with the
Scottish, which last protected religious interests, while
those interests were utterly ignored in the former.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had certainly maintained with
regard to England that it was a very great advantage to
give a religious as well as a secular education to the poor,
wcohueltdhehraoltamhen member
ochools were entirely or partially supported by
theGaosvernment. That was a principle which he always held,
and boetrheor. of the
The h
Brein. tish
gentlemanand opposite
Foreign
mhe
de
to think that he had changed his opinion on that subject ;
but 'he would not be a member of that society unless he
held Buchan opinion. In this country the national church
proposed to read the scriptures daily in school ; the British
and Foreign Society also proposed that the Scriptures should
be read daily; the Wesleyane said that the whole Bible
should be read ; and the Congregational Society and the
other societies were in favour of religious education. The
whole of these bodies, comprising the great majority of the
people, were, therefore, in favour of religious education.
The Established Church made it part of her rule that the
Church Catechism should be taught ; but they all agreed as
to the general nature of the religious education to be given;
soa itvwi
tahs
re
gg. ra eat t d
tblessinga
nt
do t htielec o
puenotpry le tohf atth it should
a t
eeounni d be
o,
rye,
whether they belonged to the Established Church, Free
Church, or the Secession Church, thought it necessary to
teach the doctrines contained in the Shorter Catee#iem.
le
in
g, Admitting,
an dthen,
maintaining,
deducationthat
wasa g
education r
w complete without it, a question arose at the beginnihg of
this century whether it was possible to adopt a systera l'"ed
upon that principle in Ireland. At that time the Kildare-
street Society, which taught the Scriptures, but not the for-
a notes-
.;
paulal 9f the chlgch) wet) eatAlished ; bat it wag; auspected

to be a proselytising society, and excited jealousy on that
ground. His noble friend (Lord Monteagle) obtained a com-
mittee of the house, in which he proposed means by which
the children of persons of different religious opinions may be
taught together ; and the report of that committee was the
foundation of the letter of 1831, well known as Lord Stan-
ley's letter. He believed that that letter contained the basis
of the system, which was the best that could be applied to
Ireland. It was in effect said by those who supported this
resolution, " Why not allow religion to be taught in
these schools ?"—meaning thereby that the religion to
be taught to a child must be the religion of that child.
That was what lie had always understood was proposed;
and it brought him to the great question whether there
should be a denominational system in Ireland as in Eng-
land. If they gave religious instruction from the Bible
to every child in a Protestant school, and aided that educa-
tion by a Parliamentary grant, they would violate every
principle of equity if they did not also give a grant to the
extent which was required to Roman Catholic schools
where the religious education was under the direction of
the, Church of Rome. Supposing that £280,000 were asked
as a grant from that house for education in Ireland, they
might safely reckon that about £lOO,OOO of that sum would
be given to schools in which the religion taught to all the
children was under the direction of the Church of Rome.
(Hear, hear.) Common equity would require that should
be done ; but, on the other hand, when he spoke to mem-
bers of that house who were strong Protestants, with re-
gard to the equity of that system, they pointed out that
such a system would have to be watched with extreme :vi-
gilance. What would be the consequences of watching
with such extreme vigilance ? Why, there would be no end
to the sectarian controversies in that house in respect to the
nature of the education given in those schools. (No, no.)
Well, at all events, that was his belief. Those who ob-
jected to the grant to Maynooth would understand that
when they remembered the discussions which took place on
that question, and how much stronger would be the objec-
tion if they proposed to grant £200,000 for the purposes of
Roman Catholic schools in Ireland. (Hear.) The best way
to preserve peace, and the best way to render instruction,
was to persevere in the grant according to the principles
laid down in Lord Stanley's letter, which, up to the present
time, had in all material points been persevered in. (Hear.)
The hon. and learned member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns)
had stated that the Presbyterian body objected to the board,
and that they proposed to have three commissioners to be
provided by the State—one belonging to the Established
Church, one to the Presbyterian body, and the third a
Roman Catholic. Now, considering what the proportion of
the Roman Catholics of Ireland was to the Protestants,
where would be the fairness of the proposition of having
two-thirds of the commissioners Protestant and one Roman
Catholic ; and that that commission should superintend the
education of the poorer classes of Ireland, among which
classes there was a much greater majority Roman catholics
than in the higher classes. He owned he thought that
peace could not prevail under such a system, seeing as they
did every day proofs of the extreme keenness of religious
controversies, and how intolerant men were of any person
being in a position contrary to those entertained by them-
selves. He could not conceive a better scheme than that
which had been adopted. His right hon. friend who spoke
had told them of 1,200 Roman Catholic children being the
subjects of proselytism. That might have been • the case
formerly, but it would not be the case now if ordinary vigi-
lance were used. (Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend had
said that originally there were five commissioners, two
of whom were Roman Catholics, and the other three
Protestants, and that what he had done was to appoint ten
Protestants and ten Roman Catholics members of the board.
Now, he thought that that would be a great security both
for the Protestants and the Roman Catholics, while at the
same time there would be no material change in the system.
Under that system 800,000 children had been educated, it
had made its way amongst the rocks and shoals through
which it had been steered, and he did not believe that any
better system could be adopted. (Hear.)

Mr. MONSELL had always understood that the princi-
ple laid down in Lord Stanley's letter was that which ought
to be followed in the national schools in Ireland. That
principle had been acted upon during the first seventeen
years of the system, and he had often warned the house
that unless they recurred to that principle, it would be
utterly impossible to maintain the system at all. The vote
for the model schools—X2o,ooo—was under the absolute
control of the commissioners. It had often been a question
whether the present system had been adverse to morality.
Upon that point the Rev. Mr. Blake, well known as the
writer who signed himself "A Hertfordshire Incumbent,"
said, that to force the rising generation to live on the moral
and religious capital of the past tended to make bankrupt
future generations. He thanked the Chief Secretary for
the changes he had made, and hoped that the right hon.
gentleman would endeavour to place the model schools in
harmony with the system as it existed.
Sir G. LEWIS said that the complaint of the hon. gen-
tleman was, that they did not extend to Ireland, in the
matter of education, the principle acted on in England. He
did not un lerstand the hon. gentleman to say that he
thought the denominational system of England should
be extended to Ireland. The substance of the honourable
gentleman's complaint was, that in certain particulars
the rules laid down at the commencement of the Irish
Education System had been deviated from. On 14ehalf
of the Government, he did not admit that any mate-
rial deviation had taken place. Another complaint of
the honourable gentleman was, that the interference
of the S ate with the administration of the grant, both
as respected the schools and the Queen's Colleges, was un-
necessary and unconstitutional. Let them consider whether
there was the smallest difference between England and Ire-
land in this respect. This grant in England was entirely
under the control of the Committee of the Privy Council.
It might be true that the system on which the grant rtes
administered differed from the system on which the Irish
grant was administered. He was quite aware that inEng-
land it was the denominational system upon which the
grant was administered, and that that was not the case in
Ireland. (Hear, hear.) In England the rate was under
the entire control of the Privy Council, and the interference
of the State was neither greater nor less in the one country
than in the other. (No, no.) The Privy Council followed
the administration of thegrant into its most minute details,
and they were bound to do so, and not to give money to
irresponsible persons to expend as they pleased. He there-
fore held that what the hon. member called unconstitu-
tional was not only constitutional, but necessary.
Mr. BUTT, with the permission of the house, would
withdraw the motion.

Mr. P. HENNESSY was sorry to hear the hon. member
express a willingness to withdraw a motion so simple, so
easily understood, and so true. He, for one, should not
consent to its withdrawal.

The house then divided, when the numbers were—
Ayes (for going into committee)
Noes (for the amendment) .. 6
Majority against the amendment .... —3O

The house then went into Committee of Supply, when
the adjourned debate on the vote for Irish Education was
resumed by
Mr. WILLIAMS, who commented on the large amount
of several of the items, particularly those for music and
agricultural schools. There were more than two agricul-
tural schools in every county in Ireland, seventy-four in all.
Now, he admitted that agricultural schools would be of
great advantage in England, but it was unjust to
apply the money of the English ratepayers for the main-
tenance of such schools in Ireland. He should, therefore,
move the omission of the item (£13,000) not that he would
grudge it to give education to the Irish people, but he should
not assent to such a vote to spare the pockets of the Irish
landlords, who 1,1 ere the persons who would be advantaged
by the improvement of agriculture, and ought to pay for it
Sir M. PETO complained of the want of local and deno-
minational control which existed in England, and also said
that it was absurd to talk of the model schools as being for
the education of the poor ; they were for the education of
the schoolmasters, and of persons of the middle classes.

Mr. BIAGUIRE had riot altered the views he had ex-
pressed last year, which, indeed, were confirmed by almost
unanimous testimony of Irish members in favour of un-
mixed education. No system could succeed in which the
teachers were not well paid and well qualified.
Mr. DAWSON said that the miserable pittance of 10s.
a-week which the Irish teacher received, stood very little
chance of being supplemented by private liberality. He
hoped the strong case which had been made out by the hon.
member for Dungarvan would be taken into the earnest
consideration of the right hon. gentleman, the Chief Secre-
tary for Ireland, who had manifested on many occasions
great goodwill towards that country. . .

Capt. JERVIS complained of the system which too gene-
rally prevailed in Ireland of seeding incompetent teachers
to the poor, uncivilised districts, where really clever men
were most needed, and of keeping the competent teachers in
towns—places which at all times would take care of them-
selves. .

vv
Mr. LONGFIELD fully admitted that the teachers de•.
served increased salaries, and complained that there had
been lavish expenditure in the administration of the funds.
After the lapse of a century special care had been taken
that the salary of an Irish schoolmaster should not exceed
that of Goldsmith's parson, who "was passing rich on £4O
a year."

Mr. M. O'FERRALL expressed his fears that the Go-
vernment would be unable to increase the salaries of the
teachers until they carefully examined the whole system,
with a view to economy.
Mr. FITZGERALD also was of opinion that economy
in several of the departments might with great propriety
take place.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the sum of £13,000, being
the amount for the agricultural schools, be deducted from
the vote.

Mr. A. SMITH complained of tin great increase which
had taken place in this vote within a coral aratively limited
period.

Mr. CARDWE LL said that the votes for reformatories
both for England and Ireland were taken separately for
obvious reasons, from the general vote for education. In
Ireland, whenever money was expended in the construction
of schools, it was under the inspection of the Board of
Works, and therefore included in the vote for that depart-
ment. With regard to the model schools, he should be most
ready to add his testimony to the admiration which those
schools had e4cite4 in the minds of all who had visited them.
With regard to agricultural schools, expenditure on them, in

the view of the Government, had gone beyond the proper
mark, VIA at the same time they must remark the benefits
which had accrued from them. The Government had, in 1;
point of fact, anticipated all the objections which had been
raised, but at the same time they had seen, as he hoped the
house would see, that sudden change would be very inex-
pedient. (Hear.)
After some further conversation,
Mr. 'WILLIAMS moved that the vote be reduced by
£13,000 for the agricultural schools.
Lord PALMERSTON said that if any one kind of in-
struction was more useful in Ireland than another, it was
instruction in agriculture. The sum that would be saved
by toe reduction proposed would go but a small way to in-
crease the salaries of schoolmaEters. If he recollected
rightly, the hon. member for Dungarvan said that to in-
crease these salaries 14s. a week, would, require a sum of
£50,000 a year.

Mr. 'WILLIAMS objected to the people of this country
being taxed for the benefit of the landlords of Ireland.
Lord PALMEItSTON said that whatever increased the
prosperity of Ireland was of advantage to this country.

The committee divided—
Ayes ......
Noes .. 93
. . _

Majority against the amendment —B9
The vote was then agreed to.
STADE TOLLS.

Mr. PEEL proposed a vote of £155,000 to Hanover for
the redemption of the Stade tolls. By a treaty with Hano-
ver the tolls were to be extinguished on payment of a sum
equal to the revenue derived from them. The toll was to
be redeemed at years' purchase. In 1858 a committee
of that house had examined the grant, and had reported
that the toll was most injurious to the trade of this coun-
try. The sum to be paid had been divided between this
country and other countries trading up the Elbe.
Mr. A. SMITH did not think that the explanation of the
hon. gentleman satisfactory.
The vote was then agreed to.

On the vote of £1,257 for the salary of the secretary, and
expenses of the offices of the Commissioners of Education
in Ireland,

Mr. WILLIAMS asked for some explanation which was
given by Mr. Cardwell.

The vote of £4,995 for the University of London was
agreed to.
The vote of £16,225 for the Scotch Universities was
agreed to after a few words from

Mr. WILLIAMS, who objected that this vote was
doubled this year, as compared with former years, while
our own universities got nothing.

The votes of £2,330 for the Queen's University of Dublin,
and £4,800 for the Queen's College, Ireland, were agreed to.
On the vote of £2,500 for the Royal Irish Academy for
the theological professors at the Belfast Academical Insti-
tution,

Mr. HADFIELD objected to such lavish pay to profes-
sors of a wealthy sect, and moved the reduction of the vote
by £2,050, leaving £450 for retiring allowances already
granted to three professors.

Mr. CARDWELL, considering the great importance of
the Presbyterian body in Ireland, hoped the amendment
would not be pressed.
Mr. DAWSON supported the vote, observing that if it
was to be opposed at all he was glad the objection came
from a gentleman who was probably not aware how benefi-
cial it was to the interests of the country,
Mr. WILLIAMS supported the reduction, and the com-
mittee divided, when the numbers were—.

AyQs (for the amendment)
Noes (against the amendment)
120

Majority (against the amendment) ~ —lOO
The vote was then agreeed to.
The corqmittee reported progress, and the house resumed.
THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.
The amendments to this bill were considered.
Mr. HENLEY proposed in clause 4 to leave out the
word "felony," and to insert those of "a misdeameanour."
The criminal returns of Ireland did not go back further
than 1839, but he would state them to the house, and he
thought he should show that the law in Ireland might be
left in the same position as now. There had been a re-
markable change in the criminal returns of that country.
It had gradually decreased every year except in the fearful
years of the famine. The clause dealt with conspiracy to
murder and manslaughter; and seeing the great decrease
in those crimes in Ireland, it could hardly be said that this
increased severity of the law was required. And he did
not think it would be inconvenient to introduce the heavier
penalty into the law of Englant In the criminal returns
of England there was no special return of the offence—it
was included under the term misdemeanour, but he thought
it was a fair conclusion that there could not be many, or
they would have been speedily noticed in the statistics.
But conspiracy was a very awkward crime for persons to be
accused of. In cases of felony the police had always exer-
cised much larger powers of an arbitrary character than in
cases of misdemeanour. There were in England a vast
number of foreign residents, and nothing would be more
easy under this new law than for a foreign Government to
get hold of the correspondence of any foreign refugee in
this country by a charge of conspiracy under which the
police would seize the papers of the accused.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL trusted that the house
would not be induced to adopt the amendment. The ob-
jection of the right hon. gentleman was, that under this
law the police might be invested with certain arbitrary
powers of interference with persons and with papers which
might lead to injurious consequences, not so much to the
individual accused, supposing him to be a foreigner, as
to those with whom he might have been in correspondence
out of this realm. For the purpose of establishing this
objection the right honourable gentleman supposed a con-
spiracy with considerable ramifications, and a conspiracy
also between the Minister of the country to which the
refugee belonged and the Government of this country, be-
cause unless there were some understanding by which the
papers should be communicated to the foreign Government
the interference of the police could not have the effect
pointed out. He (the Attorney-General) did not believe
that any Government of this country would lend itself to
such a proceeding. This was a consolidation bill, and, at
the same time, a bill for assimilating the laws of England
and Ireland. The effect would be, if this and the other
bills with similar objects passed,that in five acts there would
be consolidated the statute law of England and Ireland upon
most of the heads of crime most familiarly dealt with by the
tribunals, and which the occurrences of life brought most
frequently under the cognisance of the magistrates.
Mr. WALPOLE said that this vote involved an impor-
tant question. He had often hesitated as to the course he
should take, but had at last come to the same conclusion as
his right hon. friend. (Hear, hear.) The object of this bill
was to enable the Queen to punish what was not then a legal
offence, namely, conspiring to murder some person abroad.
The Attorney-General told them that bills of the kind had
been introduced before ; true, but they had never come on
for discussion. (Hear, hear.) This bill was not consistent
with the law either of England or of Ireland, but altered
the law of both. As regarded Ireland, they made the
offence punishable by penal servitude, and the question
raised by his right hon. friend was neither as to the crime
or the punishment, but simply as to the mode in which the
police of the country were to deal with the offence, and
which would be decided by the simple technical difference
of whether it was called a misdemeanour or a felony. If
the latter, the police might do things by abuse of authority
to a person accused which were wholly opposed to the feel-
ing and the constitution of this country. The object of his
right lion. friend was to remove the possibility of such con-
duct, and he must therefore support his right hon. fiend's
amendment.

Mr. CONINGIIAM thought it most extraordinary con-
duct on the part of her Majesty's Government to attempt
to renew this clause. He should support the right hon.
gentleman's amendment.

Mr. AYRTON intended to move to strike out "felony"
and retain "misdemeanour." This clause was limited to
conspiracy without overt act. (Hear, hear.) The ques-
tion was whether an offence short of committing murder
should be put in the same category as the attempt itself to
commit murder. He contended that such legislation would
be at variance with every principle which had guided the
House of Commons in dealing with the criminal law of the
country. Not one of the commissioners had suggested that
it would be wise to abolish the moral distinctions of the
common law of England. What was the necessity for this
change ? It was never proposed until the Emperor of the
French desired that a change should be made; but the pro-
position of the Premier on that occasion was negatived by
a majority. He objected to the change then, and he now
objected to it on the same principle.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said what he understood the right
hon, gentleman to object to was simply the distinction be-
tween misdemeanour and felony. He confessed he did not
think the matter was worthy of any lengthy (Attention ; and
should therefore be pdrfectly ready to agree to the amend-
ment. (Hear, hear.)

The clause as amended was then agreed to.
Lord RAYNHAM moved in clause 43, page 12, line 10,
to leave out " six" and insert " twelve."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the amendment was
one of a series which would, if agreed to, indicate that a
considerable change had come over the temper of the house
since the amendment which it had just carried; for it
would greatly augment the severity of the present law
against aggravated assaults. The noble lord though pro-
posing this increased severity was, strange to say, actuated
by a spirit of benev.)lence, by proposing to enact that any
male prisoner twice convicted might be subjected to 48
lashes, whereas the present law fixed the maximum age at
which corporal punishment might be inflicted at 16.
The amendment was then negatived.
Lord RAYNIIAM then moved to omit the provision of
fine and imprisonmett in order to insert the following:—
" And whosoever having been twice convicted of any such
offenca as aforesaid shall afterwards commit any such
offence shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being con-
victed thereof shall be liable to be imprisoned in a common
gaol or house of correction, with or without hart labour, for
any period not exceeding three years, and if the said last
mentioned justices shall so think fit, the person, if a male,
so convicted, shall be once privately whipped with not more
than forty-eight lashes."
This amendment was also negatived, and •
The report was received.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT AMENDMENT

clause :—" Provided always that the right to take the chair
of such meeting of justices shall not attach to the office of
mayor, unless the person filling that office shall have been
commissioned and have qualified to ac as justice of the
peace within the borough at least three years before his
election to be mayor."

Sir G. LEWIS resisted the proposition, which, he said,
would neutralise the object of the bill.
Mr. DEEDES opposed the clause as it stood•in the bill.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD thought it would be expedient to
follow the universal practice of the country, by giving the
mayor precedence on all occasions.

Mr. S. ESTCOURT supported Mr. Newdegate's amend-
ment, with some modifications.

Mr. SPOONER said that a borough magistrate ought to
be put in precisely the same situation as a county magis-
trate.

The house then divided on the question that the clause
moved by Mr. Newdegate be read a second time.
Ayes .
Noes:

Some further amendments were also agreed to.
SALMON AND TROUT FISHERIES BILL.

On the consideration of the amendments to this bill,
Mr. HENLEY moved the omission of clauses 28 and 29,
giving power to the Home-office to appoint inspectors and
to pay them such salaries as may be settled by the Treasury.
Mr. CLIVE opposed the amendment.

Mr. BENTINCK objected to the payment of these func-
tionaries out'of the public purse, and to the extent of the
powers which might be entrusted to them by the Home-
office.

Sir G. LEWIS said that the clause conferred no com-
pulsory powers upon the secretary of State.
The house divided, when the amendments were agreed to.
The Turnpike Acts Continuance • Bill passed through
committee.

The amendments to the Parochial and Burgh Schools
(Scotland) (No. 2) Bill were considered and agreed to.
ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

In answer to a question by an Hon. Member,
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the Roads and
Bridges (Scotland) Bill would not be proceeded with this
session.

The order for going into committee was accordingly dia.
charged.
The Dublin Revising Barristers' Bill was read a second
time.

The Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Act Continuance Bill
was read a second time.

The Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society Bill was
read a third time and passed.
The Public Works and Harbours Bill was read a second
time.

The Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) Bill was read a
second time.

The Portpatrick Harbour (Scotland) Bill was read a
second time.

The Dealers in Old Metals Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Metropolitan Gas Act Amendment Bill was read a
first time.

The house adjourned at 20 minutes before 3 o'clock.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YORK, July 15.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Wilde.)
ATTEMPT TO POISON AT SHEFFIELD.

James Windle, 40, was charged with attempting
to administer five grains of strychnine to Sarah
Liversedge, with intent to murder her, at Sheffield,
on the 27th May last.
Mr. Maule prosecuted, and Mr. V. Blackburn de-
fended the prisoner. _ _

The prosecutrix is a widow, and on the 27th May
last lived at a place called Darnall, near Sheffield.
Her house was near a public-house kept by her
sister-in-law, and to which she was in the habit of
sending her little boy for small quantities of ale.
The prisoner is a labourer, and after his wife died in
August he went to lodge at the house of Mrs.
Liversedge. After a time he commenced to pay his
addresses to the prosecutrix, and eventually proposed
marriage to her, which proposal was courteously re-
jected. His importunities however became so annoy-
ing that she gave him notice to leave her house.
This proceeding enraged the prisoner, and in con-
sequence he let fall several revengeful menaees when
he was conversing with the prosecutrix. On the
day above named she sent her little boy for some
beer, which he procured, and was returning home
with it when he met the prisoner, who engaged
him in conversation a moment or two while he got
the opportunity to drop something into the beer.
The act was noticed by the boy, who wiped some
" white stuff" off the surface of the liquid. When the
boy reached home he told his mother what had hap-
pened, and she at once poured the ale down the sink,
and sent for some more. Her attention was after-
wards attracted to a green sediment on the sink, and
it was collected, together with what could be
scraped from the boy's pinafore, and given to a
chemist in the town, who discovered that the
powder contained strychnine, and what is com-
monly called " Battle's Vermin Killer."
Mr. Blackburn, for the defence, contended that
the prisoner had no motive whatever for committing
the offence imputed to him, and if he had used the
vermin killer it was with no intention to commit
any serious crime, but rather with an ignorance of
the powerful and fatal effect of the poison.
Verdict—GUilty. To be kept in penal servitude
for life.