railroad through an uninhabited and mountainous
district.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, without
laying it down as a rule that the state should in no
case assist in forwarding enterprises of this nature,
thought no sufficient grounds had been shown justifying
such assistance in the present case. He did not deny
that a railroad would be an advantage to the district,
but he reminded the mover that there was an annual
grant applicable to such purposes. Supposing the object
to be a proper one, and it were put forward on sound
data, an application made to the Loan Commissioners of
Public Works for a grant would meet with due attention.
—Sir A. CAMPBELL reminded the house that the
proposed railway partook more of a public than a private
work.—Mr. HUME was satisfied that the only remedy
for the distress in the Highlands was emigration. He
saw no advantage that could result to the country from
a railroad in the district in question, where there
was no traffic to make it remunerative.—After some
further conversation, Mr. F. SCOTT moved the adjournment
of the debate for a fortnight, to give the
Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of further
considering the subject, which was agreed to.

Mr. NAPIER moved for a select committee to inquire
into the State of the Disturbed Districts in Ireland, the
object being to ascertain the cause of the crime which
had disgraced those localities, and the sufficiency or
insufficiency of the laws to meet the evil. As proving
the organisation of ribbonism, he quoted the charges of
the judges at the special commission, the failure of justice
in so many instances arising from the intimidation or
complicity of jurors and witnesses, and the open-day
murders committed almost with impunity. No doubt,
if it could be properly administered, the law would be
sufficient; but to do this they must convince the people
—who were now prevented by terrorism from aiding
the law—that the law could vindicate itself and protect
them. He recommended an alteration in the jury laws,
in order that juries to try cases which affected the security
of life and property should be composed of a class of
persons who would not be likely to be intimidated; and,
as an additional safeguard, he would suggest that the
judges should have the power to direct the trial to be
holden in another part of the country. He thought,
too, it might be wise, under certain restrictions, to
re-enact the law making it penal to be in possession of
signs and pass-words.—Mr. HATCHELL took on himself
all responsibility in regard to the late special commission,
and explained the cause of the failure of justice,
suggesting, at the same time, that where it had failed,
the Crown had still the power to try the parties in other
parts of the country. He admitted some alteration was
necessary in the jury laws, but deprecated any change
which should interfere with the liberty of the subject.—
Mr. M'CULLAGH ascribed much of the outrage in
Ireland to the want of confidence existing between
the owners and occupiers of land, the neglect of the
duties of property, and the wholesale evictions that
were from time to time carried on. He denied there
was any necessity for changing the law because in a
particular district there had been a difficulty in obtaining
convictions.—After a few words from Mr. GROGAN, the
motion was agreed to.

The second reading of the Manchester and Salford
Education Bill was moved on Wednesday, the 17tn, by
Mr. BROTHERTON, who stated that the measure had
originated with the inhabitants of those boroughs,
amongst whom were three parties, all desirous of
promoting education, but who differed as to the means, the
bill being promoted by the party in favour of a combined
religious education, whilst only the advocates of the
voluntary system opposed the bill altogether.—Mr. M.
GIBSON moved, as an amendment, the appointment of a
select committee to inquire into the state of education in
Manchester and Salford, and to report whether it was
desirable to make any and what further provision for
the education of their inhabitants by means of local
rates. He looked upon this as a very extraordinary
private bill. The reasonable mode of dealing with this
subject was by settling the general principles of a
measure applicable to the whole community, and then to
allow particular localities to avail themselves, if they
thought fit, of the general provisions. So important a
change in public policy should be preceded by inquiry.
Independently of this preliminary objection, he disliked
some of the provisions of the bill, though not averse to
the supporting of education by local rates.—Mr. ROEBUCK
seconded the amendment.—Mr. WALPOLE, commending
the motives of the promoters of this measure, and
desiring to assist them, thought the house should not
sanction the second reading of the bill, but should adopt
the amendment, with some alteration. The rating
clauses of the bill would supersede the voluntary efforts
of religious bodies to contribute to the education of children
of the humbler classes, and the making all schools
open to all children was a principle the consequences of
which should be well weighed. There were other
principles in the bill which required consideration, and he
recommended the house, as the safest course, to adopt
the amendment, omitting the words relating to local
rating.—Lord J. RUSSELL agreed in the main principles
laid down by Mr. Walpole, and thought the promoters
of the measure could not do better than consent to the
appointment of a committee, and suspend the bill until
the committee had made its report. Lord John
indicated his views upon the subject of these schools, which,
he believed, could only be supported by something in
the shape of a local rate. He concurred in the great
principle contained in the bill, that education ought not
to be purely secular.—After some observations from Sir
R. INGLIS, Mr. W. J. FOX, and Colonel THOMPSON,
Mr. GIBSON consented to alter his motion as suggested,
and after a few remarks by the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, the second reading of the bill was deferred
for a month, and a select committee was appointed.

On Thursday, the 18th, Mr. REYNOLDS moved a
resolution, pledging the house to consider the Losses
sustained by the Depositors in the Cuffe-street Savings
Bank, with the view to granting them compensation.—”
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER resisted the
motion, on the ground that the £ 30,000 granted in 1850
was paid as a settlement of the question.—Mr. H. HERBERT
advised Mr. Reynolds to withdraw the motion,
which it would be scarcely fair to the present government
to press at the present moment.—Mr. NAPIER
said that, as this was a question between the depositors
and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National
Debt—in other words the public—their losses ought to
be made good. He rejoiced to say that the whole
subject was now under consideration, with the view of pre-
venting such defalcations in future.—Mr. HUME
expressed a similar opinion as to the right of the
depositors.—Sir H. WILLOUGBY considered all savings
banks should be placed under the control of some
responsible officer. It was well known that the funds in
these banks had not been used on the principle of a
trust.—Mr. SCYLLY and Mr. GROGAN spoke in favour
of the claims of the depositors, and Mr. W. WILLIAMS in
favour of an alteration of the law, so as to afford security
to the depositors and the public.—Mr. REYNOLDS
insisted on taking a division, the result of which was the
loss of the motion; 149 against 40 votes.

On Friday, the 19th, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER being questioned on the subject, intimated
that government intended to propose the continuance of
the Irish Incumbered Estates Commission Act, which
expires in July next, for another year.

On being further questioned by Lord John Russell as
to the intentions of government with regard to the
Dissolution of Parliament, the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER said, that it would be highly indecorous
and impolitic for ministers to say they would advise her
Majesty to dissolve at any specific period, for
circumstances might arise to prevent the performance of the
pledge, if given. He was, however, prepared to say,
that it was the intention of government to advise her
Majesty, so soon as those measures necessary for the
public service and good government should have passed,
to dissolve the present parliament; and he added, that
this would be done sufficiently early to enable the
opinion of the new parliament to be taken on the policy
of the ministry in the course of the present year.

The house then went into a Committee of Supply,
and Major BERESFORD brought forward the Army
Estimates, stating that they were the same which had
been prepared by the late government. A very long