The Sun. — London, England, 1853-03-11 00:00:00

Aberdeen Ambg. Nottng. Bost & Eastn. Junct Birmg. Wolverh. & Stour Valley Birkenhd. Lancsh. & Cheshire Junct. Do. Chesh. & Birk., £5O and £25 Cons. Do., £2O Bristol and Exeter Caledonian Chester & Holyhead Cork and Bandon Cork, Blackrock and Passage Dublin&Belfast June Dundee Perth&Aber deen Junction Do. New East Anglian (£25 L and E. & L. & D.) Do. Do. (181. E.& H.) Eastern Counties Eastern Union, Class A. (late E. U. Sh.) Do., do Do., B. and C East Lancashire East & West Ind. Dk & Birming. Juno Edinburgh & Glasgow Edin. and Peebles Edin. Prth. & Dundee Glasgow &S. Western Great Northern Stk Do., A. Stock Do., B. Stock Great Southern and Western (Ireland). St. 100 'Great Western 12 n South-Eastern 50 a ll Lancaster & Carlisle 16* 114 Do., Thirds St. 100 ,Lancash.& Yorkshire 20 15 IDo., Fifths 14 114 Do., Wst. Riding Un 50 a ll 'Leeds Northern 20 a ll ILiv.Cuby.&Southpt 11i all 'London & BlackwaE 10 3 Loud. Tilb. & Sthend. St. 100 Lond. Brigt. &S. Cst. St. 100 London &N. Western 20 12 Do., Fifths 10 1 D0.,£10 Sh.M. &B. C St. 100 London &S. Western 50 42iD0., £5O 40 31 Do., £ 4O 25 a n L on d erry. &C o l era i ne 25 all Lndndrry. & Ennisk. Bt. 100 Manch. Shef. 8 1 1 4.00., Man.& Lin. Un. St. 100 'Midland St. 100 Do. Birming. & D er by 50 47b Midland G. West. (Ir.) 1 25 17i Do. Shares all Newcastle & Carlisle St. 100 Newmarket g Do. Bu r y E x t ens i on ~,4 5 Newp. A.berg.&Hftd LAI 7i Newry & Enniskillen 41.) all Newry, Warrenpoint, and Restrevor • 100 Norfolk all Do., New 3 Northn.Counties Un 1 ,00 North British 3 North Devon, No. 1 6i Do., No. 2 a Do., A Deferred .. 5 Do., B G uaran t ee d ',A, North Staffordshire 611 North Western .0 N. &S. Westrn. June 10 Oxford, Worcester, & Wolverhampton 10 Scottish Central 10 Scottish Midland )0 Shrewsbury & Birmg )0 Do., L. & N. Westn Guaranteed Stock 8 Shrewsby.& Hereford ,11 Shrewsby. & Chester (Nor. W. Min.) .., 611 Do. Halves do II Do Do. Oswestly 6i Shropshire Union . 1 1. South Devon South Eastern.. South Wales., 25 25 St. 50 100 14 100 - , 100 100 100 100 100 16 1 4 ; : 16 26 ?() „ lo I 3 7 . 1 ( , st• st• 11 st• 11 2 iii al 26 ' Bo ht. 1 ; to 26 , a, I 1 L 5 S. Yorksh. River Dun. 5 Do. 161 Stockton & Hartlepl. 19 Thames Haven Dock and. Railway' N O 2° 17 Vale of Neath all Waterfd. & Kilkenny , n "" all Waterford& Limerick ri t 13 West Cornwall 1/.18 Wimbledon&Croydn 1. Woodford * 100 York Newctl.&Berw. r,,, 20 Do. Extensions " 11i Do. G. N. E. Purchase York & N. Midland , THE SH ARE MARKETS. BRITISH RAILWAYS. RelLwora. Closing Prices this day. Business done this day. 29i - 6i - 9 icsi 7i —6idxcl 21 22 d 3i —23dxd 105 107 22 22Ai 18i 194 pcl) 8 9 5 i 3 13i —l3axtli 10} - llj - 72i —73ixd 55 57xd 76 78 32 34 61 63 81i —B23xd 45 47 122 —l24xd 1.07--108hxd 91i -- 92 92 -- 9 7 13i -- 14Ap 78 -- 4i - 78; 4i -- d -33. d 15t 164 88 - 94-ad 104 105 119 i —126 j, 2i —3p ad 1i —lipad 904 311 I 4:4d 4 11 12 19 21 2 3 91 3 di 76 761 44 46 50 52 3 3 3 3 - d 3 33 9 10 53 55 2 28 d 35 34- 6 d 4i— 4d l 8 -- 8i 32 441 474 - 48 100 - 102 64 - 66 64 - 66 70 - 75 18 -- 20 9 -- 10 14 -- 15 -- 8d 21 -- 22 78i -- 79 36 37 12i -13 h 4 -- 44 2 -- 24 141 -- 15 94 -- 10 29 -- 31 9i d p 69 io 7i -- 7i d 2i ' 2d 58i -- PREFERENCE SHARE: 'Aberdeen . Do., No. 2, 7 p. . & Ex. 4 p. c. Do. 4 p. c. Share s .• Caledonian .tlO Chester & Holyhead Guar. 5i per cent . C or k&Bandon p .e Dundee, Pe*Ah, and Aberdeen Junction E. Ang. (705.) 6 1). c. Do. (£5), 7 per cent. Do. (X 7 17s), 7. p et. Eastern Counties Ex tension, 5 p. c. No.l Do., No. 2 ............ Do., New 6 p. e. St. Eastern Union Scrip Guar. 6 per cent... East Lancash. 6 p.cts. Edinb. Prth.& Dund. Glasgow &S. Western Guar. 5 per cent... Great Northn. 5 p. e. Do. 5 p. a., Redeem. at 10 p. a. prem.., Gt.S outhn. & Westn. (Ireland) Eights Gt. Westn. (Berko & Hants Ex. 5 p. c.) Great Western, fixed 4i per cent Lan. & York. F. X2O Do., 6 p. c., Stock London and Brighton Guaranteed 5 p. c Do. Pref. 5 p. c., St Do. Convertible, 5 p c., 1852 Do: New Guar. 6 p. e. London &S. Western, Con. Thirds Londonderry & Coler i Shares Londndry. & Ennisk 4 Shares Manch. , Shef. ,& Lin., Shares, No. 1 Do., New, £lO Do., £6 Marypt. & Ca-• 1 .4 p.c. Do. 4i per cent....... Do all all 100 - 100 D ll D o i d . c C o o n n s s o o l 1. 6 ris . p. Bt e o . l Bt i Birm. 6 per cent.... Do. Pref. 4. percent;. Norfolk Extension... e. Guar. 5i per et. Do. Waveney Valley, . 5 per cent North British . North Staffordshire.. Oxford, Worcester, & Wolverh. £15,6p. c. Do. Shrewsbury & Birm. New Guaranteed Shrewsby. & Chester Nor.W. (Min), 3 p.c. Do. 5 per cent. South Devon Do. New S. Eastern (Reading Ann.) f£l Os. 6d. S.Yorksh. 4p. c. Guar. Waterfd. 3, Kilk. 6P- c. "York, Newcastle, and Berwick, 4 p. c. Pref Do York & N. Midland, H. & S. Purchpse.., FOR: Antwrp. &Rotterdam Belgian Eastn. Junct. Charleroi & Eng din Dijon and Besan9on , Dutch Rhenish 8 8 all 1. East Do. Extension Gt. Indian Peninsula Gd. Junct. of France Gt. Westn. of Canada Shares Lucca and Pistoja, 5, 7 15i 1 146 22i per cent. pref Luxembourg Do. Do. (Railway) Do. (Canal) Do. 6 p. cent. pref Lyons & Med*erran. Madras Maria Antonia Do. New Namur & Liege (with interest Do. (ex interest) Northern of France Do. 201. 3 p. c. (fmy. B. & Ams Shs.] Norwegian Trnk. Pre Paris and Lyons Paris and Orleans Paris and Rouen Paris and Strasbourg Par is Caen &Cherbrg. Quebec & Richmond Rouen and Havre Sambre and Meuse Do. 5i per cent. pref. Southern of France Upper India Scrip West Flanders Do. Si per c. Pref Western of Franco_ .Now. of Switzerlan. Zealand... .99 000 :GN. 106 - 108 - 107 19 20 id 31 -- 4 141 P 14i 15 18i- 19 3 - 3i 1f27 - 129 1111 - 113 81 - 9 61 -- Tixd 105 -- 107 p P 150 —152 fgo 153 31 - gnn 10 11 13?.$ - 14 8 - 9 10 -- 11 - 148 - IP - 23 2 - 21 107 - 109 25 - 26 1 lip 11 11 174 —14 p 16 - 17 par 3 P 26 —2 6 ti 20 21 i a par koo 102 6 —5, par -- 04 d 1 -- 14 13 -- 134 21 -- 2tp 2 -- d 6 -- 6t p 1 p 1 --24 p 1 —2 p i - iP qt 7 xin 4 —4' xin 1 —1 xin 1 --I sin dis 9 11 p 2 2i p 81 6 7 36a -36 i 141 — l4 8 9 - 18 pl -. 4341 -- 34 - 5i -- p -- ..0.1) - 24 •- 9 P - ,5,1 d loi -- 11 p' a(.l _ 1 1 pm d 105 4 x d 65 41 54 22 46i 6 a d 51 13i 1 x d 76i .33 2i 62 82 x d 46 7 124 3i 4 xd 92 li I 784 I pm 104 5_41 1191 20 DB x d x d 91i 1 i 29i 30f 76i ft 54" 364 51 13 I 101 645 78i 36 i 9 69i 12f 591 I Pra 14-1" - 18A toy li 147 i 1071 6i 71 11 ,i 11 2i a i 6 x in x in x ix x in 36 14. 8 27 8 42t 334- LINES LEASED AT FIXED RENTALS Id. I RAILWAYS. Leasing Compaus Closing Prices this day. Business this day ►ll Bedford and Blotchley.... 11l Birm. & Oxfd. guarantee.... ll Do. withoutgr ll Birm. Wolv. & Dudley guar. '1 Do.wtht guar. Buckghamsh. Clydesdale Jc. E. Lincoln gr. 6 per cent. Olstr.dEDn.Fr all Hrtlpl. Dk. & Hallway__ 50 all Hull & Selby 25 all Do. Shares. 124 all Do. Shares. 13i all Lon.& Green 20 all Do. Preference 20 all Lowestoft gr. 4 per cent. ,11 Do. 6 per ct. 611 Manch. Bitn and Matlock 11l Middlesbro' Eedcar ll Midld.Bradfd .11 Northern and Easternsp.c. al Do. 6 per et. 11 Do. Fixeds p c 11 Prest. & Wyre 50 I a] 3041 a] 3041 a: 3011 a] 20 I a] 5 50 I a: 100 I a] b 0 I a] 50 a 50 al 25 a] Do. Shares. K) Roystn.& Hit. K) Do. Shepth.S t .8 Shot Roth.and Goole g. 5 p. c. 9, 1 , S. Staffordsh, 61r Wear Valleygr 6 per cent 11 Do O Wilts&Somrst, 12i 1 : St. 10 St. 10 25 11 25 1 St. ill i l London & N. West. Gt.Westn Do L. &N. W. Caledon .. Gt.Nrthn. Gt. Westn Yk. New. & Berw. Y.&NMd Do Do 0. Easternl Norfolk Do L.& N. W. & Midld. Stckton lc Darlingt. Midland.. E. Count , Do L. &N.W &Ln&Yk Do Gt Northn Lancash& Yorksh. M. Mclean Stockt. & Darlingt. D 0........ . [GtWestn, 30 31 29h —3ok 30 31 29 30 .05 —lo7xd 52h —s3rd 151 - 153 32i -33 i 111 --113xd 553 --56ixd 263 —273xd 13i -- 14 25A -- 263 19 --19ixd 25 -- 27 3 - 3I Ilo7i -108 i 64 66xd • ad • ad ••• - Pm 152 - 154 ,151 - 153 . i —id. xdi 32 - 103 - 104 MINES. 1 all Agua Fria 10s all. Anglo Californian.. p 10 2 Australasian,,,,,,,,,,, 1 —24 p 4 20 5 Australian 1 all Australian Cordillera par p 1 1 1 1 all Australian Freehold. p ' 1 all Ave Maria - P 1 all Baden (Gd. Duchy o f) par p 1 all British Austrin. Gold s P ,„ 20 , 13.5 British Iron 7 9 p 35 246 Brazilian Imp. (issued at X 5 pm.) 4 5 43 30 all Do. Cocaes & Cuiaba 24 - 24 20 15 Do. St. John Del Rey 29 —3O 1 6 Carson's Creek Par p 40 all Cobre Copper 44 46 464 5 1 Colonial Gold 24 —24 p 34 4 14 Copiapo 64 Si. all CopperMinersof Eng 6O —7O 70 25 all Do. Preference 74 —B4 p 5 all English and Austin Copper Smeltg. Co l4 d 20 all General 176 184 18 2 all Great Nugget Vein 34 —34 p 54 3 all Great Polgooth lB 14 p 1 all Lake Bathurst 4 dis— par # 1 ll Liberty 1 a 1 a ll Lon P Quartz Crush. Co 4 4 d 1 all Mariquita ed par 10 9 Mexican &S. Americ 64 7 1 all New Granada 4-- P 1 all Nouveau Monde — 14. p 24 5 1 Port Philip l— 1 4 p 26 2 1 all Quartz Rock par— p 1 50 all Rhymney Iron 22 =24 24 15 Do. New 7 74 30 10i Santiago de Cuba 1 all South Australian par p 10 7 Tin Croft ll —,13 12 284 all United Mexican 66 7 64 1 all Waller — P 1 all West Granada — p 11 1 all West Mariposa par — p 16 1 all Yuba P JOINT-STOCK BANKS. 40 all Australasia 92 - - 93 921 50 all British N. American 20 2 Chrtd. Bnk. of India, Australia, & China 26 2ap 46 100 25 Colonial — 100 20 Commercial of Lon don — 4 English Scottish and Australian 24 —34 p 7 20 76 Lond. Chart. Bk. of Australia — sap 124 50 20 London and County 50 10 London Joint Stock ... 100 20 Lond. &Westminster 20 2 London Bank of Aus tralia and India 50 224 National of Ireland 25 all Oriental Bank of Corporation. 55 56 25 5 Do. New — 100 25 Provincial of Ireland 10 all Do. New — 5 1 Royal Australn.Bkg & Gold Imp. Co par— 1 p 25 25 South Australia 52 53 25 all Union of Australia 77 78 26 Do. New B4 9 81 50 10 Union of London • • 40 all Union of Madrid •• • MISCELLANEOUS. • 100 35 Australian Agrieult 1 112 117 114 17 12xPeel 20 6 Austriasn.Pcific.Mair [ex Peel &ad [and xd 10 5 Australn. Royal Mail 38A Brit. Americn. Land 50 100 324 Canada 6 6 Crystal Palace 4 2 Crystal Pal, of France 20 1 Eastern Steam — 1 1 Electric. Teleg. of Ir — 15 14 Gen. Steam Navigat 100 50 General Screw Steam, 20 24 Irish Beetroot Sugar 1 all Nat. Pat. Steam Fuel ••• 10 2 Netherlands Land — •.. 20 24 Nrth.ofEumpeSteam • 50 all Peninsular &Oriental 50 25 Do. Do. 100 60 Royal Mail Steam B2 25 25 South Austral. Lan 59 61 58 961 1 1 Submar. Telegraph 1 1$ 6 2 Universal Emigration I - 1 and Colonisation... Eii Tan Diemen's Land.. 1s -- 20 120 19 20 19 i i MARKMHIS DAY.) CORN EXCHANGE. During the present week, the arrivals of English wheat, coastwise, have been on a very moderate scale, and in middling condition. Fresh up, to-day, the receipts were small ; hence, the show of samples of both red and white was limited. The attendance of buyers being small, the d em and for wheat of home pro duce ruled very inactive, yet Monday's prices were supported. For forward .delivery, next to nothing was doing. The imports of foreign wheat have been only 3,4C3 quarters. Selected samples sold slowly, at previous rates. Low and middling kinds were very dull, at barely last week's currency. Floating cargoes were much neglected. Malting barley was scarce, and quite as dear. Grinding and distilling sorts moved off slowly, at late figures. We were but moderately supplied with malt, in which a good business was doing, at full currencies. There was rather more doing in oats—the supply of which was very moderate —at Monday's quotations. Beans, peas, and, flour' were very dull, but not cheaper. ARRIVALS THIS WEER. Wheat. Barley . Malt. I 1,890 Oats. 1 Flour. 2,140 1,350 1,630 1,070 - 8,840 9,120 English .. Irish .... Foreign .., 3,400 SMITHFIELD. For the time of year, the supply' of beasts on offer in to day's market was tolerably good, and in fair average con dition. The attendance of buyers being limited, the beef trade was in a sluggish state, at Monday's decline in the c o ut e ati v s fy to The primest Scots sold at 4s per Blbs.. Sheep Lift stocknd ; ruled inactive,th a e t l demand ato en r r fo o r n that o descrition of . Prime Old Downs, in th e woo l, realised. 5s to 5s 2d per 81bs. Prime small calves sold steadily a t full prices. Otherwise, the veal trade w as h e avy. Pigs mot a dull in quiry, at late rates. Mich cows sold slowly at from 16/. to 191.50, including their small calf. Per Ms to sink the offals. s. d. s. d. Inferior Beasts ...2 10 to 3 0 Second quality ...3 2 3 4 Prime large oxen 3 4, 3 8 Prime Scots, &c. 3 10 4 0 Inferior sheep ...3 10 4 0 Second gunny ...4 2 4 6 Primo erse.-wlled.4 8 4 10 d. 0.. d. 0. Prime Southdown 5 0 5 Large crse. calves 3 0 4 0 Prime small do 4 2 4 6 Large hogs 210 3 2 Small porkers 3 6 4 0 Suckling calves 20 0 25 0 Quarter old pigs 19 0 25 0 FORBIGN SUPPLY Beasts 3OO Sheep BOO Calves 2OO Pigs LEADENHALL. TOTAL SUPPLY. Beasts Sh e ep Calves 290 I Pigs 3OO I NEWGATE AND The supplies of each kind of meat on offer to-day were tolrably good. Generally speaking, the demand ruled inactive, as follows Per Sibs by the carcase. s. d. a. d. Beef, inferior 2 8 2 10 Do.,middling 3 0 3 2 Do., prime large 3 2 3 4 I Do., do. small —.3 4 3 6 Pork, large 2 8 3 2 e. d. a. d. Mutton, Inferior 3 4 3 6 Do.,middling 3 8 4 0 Do., prime 4 2 4 6 Veal 2 8 4 4 Pork, small 3 6 4 0 BOROUGH HOP. The supply of all kinds of hops being very limited, the amount of business doing is comparatively small. Prices, however, are firm. Mid and East Bent pockets, 100 s to 160 s ; Weald of Kent, 95s to 126 s ; Sussex, 95s to 115 s FORGERIES IN BIRMINGHAILrA young man, named Wm. Peck, of gentlemanly exterior, and connected with a highly respectable family formerly resident in Hull, was on Wednesday brought before Messrs. Charles Shaw and Thomas Pemberton, the sitting magistrates at the police-office, Birmingham, charged with uttering a forged cheque for 1471., at Messrs. Taylor and Lloyd's bank, purporting to be drawn by Mr. W. Ryley, factor, in favour of Messrs. Ya tes and Son, electroplate manufac turers. When apprehended, the prisoner was found in possession of several other forged cheques upon Bir mingham banks, purporting to be signed by respectable firms, and of very considerable amounts. The clerk at the bank detected the imposition and detained the mes senger. Police officers were called in, and by pretend ing to send the cash, full evidence of the prisoner's guilt was obtained. The prisoner was remanded until Satur day next. 30 ii 1 St. 11 50 i St. 1( IDo.. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 11, 1853. IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. - The Duke of ARGYLL presented petitions from dif ferent parts of Scotland, against the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sundays, and against the Maynooth grant. The Earl of BEAUGHAMP presented petitions from places in Worcestershire, against the, admission of Jews into Parliament. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a great number of petitions to the same effect. The Duke of MONTROSE presented petitions from different parts of Scotland, praying for the inspection of nunneries, and against the Maynooth grant. The BM* of EGLINTON presented a petition to the same effect ; the noble lord also moved for copies of all papers and correspondence respecting the reinstatement in the Irish magistracy of Mr. Kirwan. Earl FITZWILLIAM presented petitions from Cam bridge, praying for inquiry into the corrupt practices prevalent there at the last election. The Designs Act Extension Bill was read a first time. LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE BILL. Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of this bill. The bill contained many details, which would be much better discussed in committee than on the present occasion ; but he wished to make a few observations upon three or four of its leading features. The act of 1851 made the parties to a suit competent and compel lable to be examined, with the important exception of the case of husband and wife, and at the time this excep tion was made, the proximate possibility of removing it, and putting the husband and wife upon the same footing as all other parties, was certainly contemplated. Now, one of the objects of the present bill was to repeal that exception with but one modification, and to enable the husband to bring forward his wife as a witness ; for ex ample, where she was the shopwoman in cases of small debts, and where the exclusion of' her evidence would de prive the husband of the benefits of the law ; but not al lowing her to be cross-examined when thus produced, nor allowing her to be called when there was an adverse party, nor allowing her to be examined in either of those instances upon matters communicated to her by her hus band during couverture, and likewise preventing the husband from being compelled to disclose anything com municated to him by his wife during couverture. He next came to those parts of the existing law upon which, owing to its obscurity and the conflicting decisions that had been given with regard to it, declaratory and posi tive enactments were necessary. The law at present prevented a witness from being called upon compulsorily to answer any question the answer to which might tend to criminate himself. Now, apart from the anomalies and uncertainties in the practice and application of this principle of law, he was about to contend that the prin ciple itself was untenable. The object of a witness being produced in court was to obtain from his testimony a knowledge of the truth, and thus to further the ends of justice ; and how did the objection to his giving his evi dence arise ? If the question put to bim was irrelevant, it was objectionable on a totally different ground, and there fore no controversy arose as to the protection of the wit ness. But, suppose the question was admitted to be rele vant, and further, that his answer, be it in the negative or in the affirmative, was not only most material, but so important that the truth could not be got at without it, and the cause could not be well tried, even in that case the law exempted him from answering such a question ; and why ! Because the witness said that the answer he might give might peradventure criminate himself. It was not necessary that the question should be one his answer to which would absolutely and undoubtedly criminate him, in order to enable him to claim the protection of the court ; if he only undertook to swear that he thought his answer might tend to criminate him, he could claim to be exempted from answering, and the cause of truth must be sacrificed. But, assuming that he swore de facto that it would criminate him, and assuming that even the court was of opinion that it would criminate him, then he (Lord Brougham) asked, was that a good reason why the witness should not be compelled to answer ? It might he granted, be an exceedingly good reason why he should be protected from his answer being used in a prosecution against him ; and no doubt it would be very hard to force him to answer a question, and then upon his own deposition to indict him, and convict him out of his own mouth. The principle that he (Lord Brougham) laid down was, that the witness should be protected from the effect of his deposition as regarded a future trial, but that he should be compelled to give his answer in order that it might be evidence in the cause. At present they put totally out of view the interest of the parties to the cause, and confined them selves entirely to the protection of the witness. The parties to the cause were innocent persons—there was no charge against them—no suspicion—but they could not have their cause tried, because a man upon whom, on his own showing suspicion rested chose to say that he would not give his evidence. For that reason the parties were to be deprived of justice. A man might be in jeopardy for his property or hi§ life, ay, and even that which many held dearer than life, his reputation, might be in jeopardy on the trial ; and the witness who was put into the box to swear away his estate, or his life, or his character, might only the day before have com mitted the most atrocious crimes, and which, if he were compelled to name, would make his evidence impossible to be received, or even listened to for an instant by the court and the jury ; and yet the man who was on his trial for his reputation, or his property, or his life, was not suffered by the humanity and the even-handed jus tice of the law to ask the question whether the witness was a miscreant, utterly incredible upon his oath, or a man perfectly honest, honourable, and worthy of belief. Knaves, no doubt, would not choose to give evidence voluntarily, if they knew they would expose themselves to the risk of being detected ; and yet the evidence of a man who had committed some offence might be very valuable in a case in which he had no personal interest ; and it might be very fit that such a man should be ex amined for the benefit of the cause and for the ends of justice. And let the man be ever so untrustworthy, the greater his untrustworthiness the stronger became the argument, because if such a witness were compelled to give an answer that would expose -his own character, it might be the means of destroying his evidence, and thereby of saving the property, or the reputation, or the life of the person who was on his trial. But it was said that the law abhorred the trial of collateral issues, and no doubt it was inconvenient, that when they were trying the general issue an incidental issue should arise ; but there was even a worse and more inconvenient thing, and that was the giving of judgment without trying col lateral issues. To all intents and purposes it was decid ing without hearing particulars, if they heard part, one half, of an untrustworthy witness's evidence, and ex cluded the other half, which would have gone at once to discredit the whole of his testimony. He would now turn to the contrariety of decision, the variety of autho rity, and the uncertainty of the law which prevailed at present both as to the extent of the principle which he was combating, the mode of its application, and the prac tice under it. He should begin with the last head, the practice under it. Upon the question whether, on examining a witness, and the answer being given by him without reluctance, evidence might be given to rebut it, there had been decisions both ways. Upon the question whether, . under certain circum stances, any question could be put at all, such as ques tions of rape and seduction, there were also decisions both ways. Upon the question how far a witness, hav ing begun to answer, had a right afterwards to sa y, " I have gone so far ; I shall stop short and answer no more, there were also decisions both ways. For in stance, in one very remarkable case, where a witness having said, after answering three or four questions "I won't answer any more, for I begin to think than HI do it will have a tendency to criminate myself," it was held by two most learned chief justices, Lord Wynford and Lord Tenterden, in several cases, that the witness was bound to go on—that he ought to have taken his objec tion at the outset—that having once begun to answer, he could not stop. Not so did Lord Eldon hold, but quite the contrary, and in the strongest possible terms. Lord Eldon said the witness might stop where he pleased, that they could not carry his examination further than he chose voluntarily to go, and he (Lord Brougham) took leave to say that he humbly thought Lord Eldon was right ; and his noble and learned friend Lord Denman even went further, and held that the examination, having gone so far, ought to have stopped at first ; and the con sequence was that the man proved himself guilty of for gery, and was tried and coavioted. His noble and learned friends were well aware of the means by which a skilful counsel got round a witness, and made him an swer a few ques tions ; at last the witness discovered to what his evidence was tending, and said, " Oh, I won't answe r any more,, having been honestly and bond fide ignorant, up to that moment, that what he had been as ked had therefore,theleastiftietnwdeenrecygtooodl:ismustown b i e n c u l carried pati o n t 0 . The rule, witness ought not voluntarily chose ti ( o ll n ea a r n , d h l e i a m r its ) oBfutthint rule,was the point to which tobe asked E kion t h n ad gn ca b rr ey ie n d nd it w ; h a a n t d h a n not self, m th er a e t l uncertainty, which was admitted by all the most emi nentan w far the rule extended. but likewise with rseggarrpedattodit.shnerepsuabnsntay n o c f e doefntishiennrsu,leanitd text-writers, as to ho no clear and decided case in . pom that it was impos sibleflicting decisions had been given, that The uncertainty With regard to the substarce o . f t, th a e nd rul s e n , m th a e n r y e n w n a n s . to lay down any rule at a protected from answering questions was no more nor less than this—how to implicate him in the confession of any . offence, or to h w ich far di a d m no a t n t w en a d s to degrade and disgrace him. Ma expose him to risk of prosecution, bu n t whleiachrnoendly, judgeswent in his (Lord Brougham's) day had held it to be quite clear that the rule extended so far as to include cases of this kind. Others there were, both in his own time and at the present moment, who were equally clearly of opinion that the rule did not extend so far ; and if he (Lord Brougham) were to ventrre an opinion of his own on the subject, he should say that the rule did not ex tend so far, and for this reason, that at all times it had been held, except in one or two cases, that protection did not extend to cases where, from lapse of time, pro secution had become impossible, or to cases where the ythaesretowtaht: application taint had been removed by a free pardon. But if that were so—if you might question a man about what he had done in either of those cases, since he could not be put in jeopardy by his answers, it was quite clear that you allowed him to be examined on matters which tended to his own disgrace and degradation. And he (Lord Brougham) drew from this, which he took on the whole to be the law, a very strong argument, in his ap prehension, in favour of the measure which he was bringing under their lordships' notice, because he had now a right to place his foot on this basis, that the law aimed only at protecting a man from prosecution, and not at protecting his character from injury—that it was not to save a witness from disgrace and degradation that you did not compel him to answer but only to shelter him f r om p rosecut i on. Now this bill protected the witness from prosecution, but not from disgrace and degradation. He had spoken to their lordships of cases in which a contrariety of decisions was manifest. Take the case of rape. He remembered a case in which Baron Wolfe had laid down that no question could be put to the prosecutor in such a case as to former incon tinency, even with the prisoner at the bar, who, from Ithe evidence, w as p u t i n j eopardy of his life ; and one of the reasons given by the learned judge for that decision was, that the offence might he committed by the prisoner, even although he had had in timacy on former occasions with the prosecutor. But this was totally to forget that the question at issue was as to the probability of the evidence being true, and that it was infinitely more likely that the evidence should be true in one case than in the other. Nevertheless that case had been brought before all the judges, and with the exception of three or four of them, who were absent, they had been unanimously of opinion that the rule laid down by Baron Wolfe was right, and that the question could not be put. So with respect to seduction, in which case it had been held by some judges that a question as to the previous inconti nency of the person seduced, even with that very person against whom the action was brought, or at all event's with others, was collateral, and could not be put. But they had lived to see the day when that rule was entirely done away with ; for in the year 1835 Lord Chief Jus tice Tindal had allowed the question.to be put, and the only doubt that arose in his mind was, whether a con tradiction to the evidence of the witness could be given without first cross-examining her as to previous inconti nency (as we understood). In that case the witness was recalled and cross-examined. Evidence was then given, and that decided the case. So that it appeared that what had been the law in 1812, when a decision to the for mer effect was given, had ceased to be law in 1835. But he believed he might say with confidence that the law was not very certain and clear either way. Lord Ellen borough had laid down twice, in 1803, that a man could not be asked whether he lad been committed for felony who was called as a witness in a civil suit. But in 1818, on a witness being asked, " Were you ever in such a gaol for theft ?" and the witness refusing to answer the ques tion, on the principle that he had a right to protect him self from self-crimination, Lord Ellenborough said, "If you do not answer the question, I will send you there" —whereupon- the question was answered. He (Lord Brougham) believed that he had said enough to satisfy their lordships that the state of the law on this subject was such as to require some settlement by declaration. Now, it was said, that though a man was protected by the provisions of the bill from prosecution, so that his own depositions should not be given in evidence against him in any other case, yet that he was not protected from this most important risk, namely, that the particulars which he might tell might furnish persons with a clue for obtain taing evidence against him, and enable them to put him upon his trial, and to convict him. And upon this point; also, there was no little discrepancy in the decisions as to how far the witness himself was to judge, and how far the court was to be allowed to judge, and whether it was enough that the witness should say, "I think the ques tion will tend to my conviction." How far that was enough, or how far it was necessary for him to satisfy the court that he had reasonable and well-grounded ap prehension, was a matter of considerable doubt, and oc casioned material difference of opinion. But he (Lord Brougham) believed that he might venture to state most confidently that the strongest cases were the most re cent, and placed the rule of law in the greatest possible relief of absurdity and injustice. Many years ago it had been decided in the Court of Common Pleas, by Lord Mansfield. An objection being taken that a witness had only said, "I think I should feel myself in danger if I were to answer that question," and it being affirmed that that was not enough, and that the court must see in what manner the witness was to be in so great risk— in that case Lord Mansfield said—" It is enough if the witness swears that he thinks that he should be in dan ger ;" and the court being moved against this ruling had confirmed it, and that was the leading case upon this subject. Well, but then came a decision in some court which amounted to this. The judges said, without entering into particulars, without stating at all how he was to be in danger, it was quite sufficient if a witness swore in answer to any question, "My answer to that will expose me to prosecution." And in some instances magistrates had gone so far as to warn witnesses not to answer questions if they believed that they would tend to criminate themselves. A witness had only to say "1 think such and such a question will tend to crimi nate myself'," in order to deprive parties of the benefit of his testimony, while at the same time you could not by possibility convict the witness of perjury, because he had only used the words, " I think.' It was said that it was hard upon a witness to compel him to answer; that you placed him on the horns of a dilemma, and called on him either to commit perjury or to con fess something to his own disadvantage. But there was another party whom under the present system you ac tually gore on one.horn, and that was the party against whom the witness was brought. You were unwilling to allow a knave to be exposed, but instead of the knave you were ready to sacrifice justice. Excluding the possibility of the witness's evidence being employed against himself, what harm would there be in giving the benefit to any prosecutor of what he might disclose of the facts, or of collateral matter ? The only harm would be this, that public benefit would arise from the guilty man being suc cessfully prosecuted, that he would not escape, and that an innocent party would not be damnified by the evi dence ; the only harm would be, that justice would be promoted by the truth being discovered through a full investigation of the case. The course which the Legis lature had taken upon this subject had been very remark able, and showed a consciousness that the principle was unsound. In various instances you had endeavoured to get rid of the rule of law by indemnifying parties against prosecution; in one or two cases you had even compelled witnesses to answer, not trusting to the inducement held out by indemnity. There had been a case, he believed, some five or six years ago, of an offence against the combination laws, in which witnesses bad not been al lowed the benefit of protection, but were compelled to answer, and were indemnified from prosecution. In the case, also, of an election inquiry at St. Alban's, when a commission had sat there, witnesses had been compelled to answer the questions put to them. And in a bill which had come up to their lordships from the other house, which provided that an election commission should be appointed in any case upon an address to the Crown, in that case parties were compellable to answer, and were only to be indemnified in case the commission , certified that they had made a fair and true disclosure. He would venture to say that there was no one chapter of the law which fell more within the following words, uttered by Lord Denman before he was raised to the bench—" The wilful blindness, or rather the perverse preference of darkness to light, the self-imposed tram mels by which justice often seems to take a pride in securing her own delay or defeat, the multiplied faci lities for evasion, the thousand premiums held forth to encourage deceit and fraud, are disgraceful to civi lised life:" He (Lord Brougham) now came to ano ther part of the bill, which he hoped would meet with less objection now than it had encountered on a former occasion when he had proposed it. He believed that we might safely follow the example of the County Courts, and make some beneficial change in the pre sent law of procedure. When he (Lord Brougham) had originally introduced measures in 1830, '3l, and '33, which ended in the establishment, in 1846-7, of courts of local jurisdiction, there were one or two very material improvements in the law which had since arisen from the practice of those local courts which he had not intro duced into those measures, and, amongst others, one which he had only omitted from his great unwillingness to encounter more obstacles than were necessary in ef fecting that important change in the law. But clearly a more complete abolition of written pleadings ought to have formed a part of that measure. Equally clear was it that a more general power of paying money into court ought to have been given, and not limited to certain actions, but extended to all. He certainly had been afraid that that was a change too great to be suddenly introduced, and he had, therefore, in the bill of 1830, '3l, and '33, limited the payment of money into court, as it was still limited under the bill of 1847, to some few cases of tort, indeed, but generally speaking to cases of debt and contract. It was quite clear that there ought to have been no exception whatever, and that in all cases parties ought to have the option of endeavouring to stay proceedings by paying money into court. In the case of debts of small amount, say from 40s. to 51., the law would not tell the party who was sure of a verdict being given against him to pay the money into court, but com pelled him to go to trial ; alter which, instead of 51., he had to pay perhaps 1501. The bill now before their lordships made the payment of money into court possible in all cases. With respect to trial by jury, he would say that no person entertained more reverence or more , deep and lasting affection for that great institution than he did ; but still was it not worth considering whether it was necessary that a jury should be empanelled to try a cause whether the parties desired it or not ? What had been the result of the experience of the county courts ? Of the thousands of causes tried in those courts every year, what proportion were tried by juries ? Their lordships were aware that by the County Courts Acts, in all cases between 51. and 501., whether of tort or contract, parties had the option of a jury, and unless both parties agreed to take the opinion of the judge and to have him to try their cause, a jury there must be, as a matter of course. And yet of the 40,000 causes, between the value of 51. and 501., which had been tried in one year, in each of which either party must have had a jury if he had been so minded, what proportion had been by consent tried by the jury ? Why, about 24 per cent. ; so that in every 100 cases there had been from 97 to 98 in which both parties had preferred a judge to the jury. He had framed a clause in this bill giving this option in all cases of tort as well as of contract. Some thought that the option ought to be confined to cases of contract, but he did not quite agree to that, and he thought it a fit subject to be con sidered in committee. The change which he proposed would effect a saving of expense to the parties. The expenses at present in special jury causes were about 30/. That, however, was only :money paid out of pocket, but there was another expense to the parties, to the court, to the public, and to the juries, to be considered. n d a e ff r s e e t t o i o o d n t o o f speak those w who i t h a d p r m o f i o n u i n s t d e r respect the bench, but also of the p ractitioners at the bar. But thehe he were profession,ask e d fromto say aHinnesdtiwwtuoitutihlodnwbaoerfnutrial by jury, not merely of th e j u d ges on i a judge that now took place before a jury, he before w h e ther precisely the, same procedure w ou ld t a k e p l ace should hesitate before giving his answer. (H ear , h ear .) wlleeectiohneueadndteexpeeerYienthceat offf an affirmative answer to the question, W ou ld, or w ould G ene rally speaking, he should not be p re p are d t o g i v e recollection not, some addresses take place before the judge which now took place before the jury ? He would even take upon himself to say that he had no doubt whatever that these addresses would be very considerably different in many material respects. In the first place, which went to the question of the expense of time, they would be very considerably shortened, and not only would the addresses be shortened, but they would be of a different descrip tion from what they were at present, and the examination of witnesses, too, would be altered. His learned friends near him would remember well what a sensible portion of the cross-examination of witnesses was owing to the jury. (Hear.) Whateverlessened the expense of time to the court also lessened the expense to the country, and to the suitor. who, in one way or another, paid for all these costly proceedings. He (Lord Brougham) had no doubt what ever that criminal procedure continuing under a jury, and the great bulk of cases of tort continuing under a jury, whether they extended the option to these cases or not—there would still remain a great bulk of cases of a certain kind of mote importance than others - which had better go before a jury of twelve men than a single judge. There were some questions peculiarly adapted for a jury, and less for a judge, such, for instance, as the assessment of damages ; a single mind brought to consider the amount of damages was not half so compe tent to come to a satisfactory conclusion as twelve minds of different structures, different habits, and different ways of feeling. As to cases of conflicting evidence also, he was inclined to think that twelve men would be likely to arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion than one man but upon this subject there were great differences of opinion. But, in a very large proportion of cases now brought into court, his opinion was decidedly in favour of an option being given to the parties. This bill further contained a very important provision with respect to the payment of costs by the Crown, in cases where the Crown was, as it were, the suitor, and also in cases where there was a removal of the trial from one county to another. The noble and learned lord concluded by moving the second reading of the bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that with a con siderable portion of the bill not only was he not dissatis fied, but he felt that the country was much indebted to his noble and learned friend for the perseverance and zeal with which he was carrying into more complete and effective operation the great measure which he intro duced two years ago on the subject of the law of evi dence. This task had been reserved for his noble and learned friend who introduced that great change in the law, which was looked at with jealousy by many, and with apprehension by still more, enabling courts of jus. tice to examine the parties themselves in all matters in which they were interested. That that alteration in the law had been most eminently successful, they had the concurrent testimony of all the judges, all the practi tioners, and all the parties interested in the subject. There was one exception in the measure, relating to hus band and wife, and he (the Lord Chancellor) was one of those who thought it a useful exception, although he believed his noble and learned friend would not have made any such exception if he could have carried the bill as he wished to do. (Hear, hear.) It was thought better to reserve that change for a future occasion, if the measure answered the purpose for which it was intended. Tha measure had answered its purpose, and he thought the time had now come when his noble and learned friend was conferring an additional benefit on society by the change proposed in the opening part of the bill—namely the putting an end to the distinction respecting the ex amination of husband and wife. His noble friend had introduced a clause which never occurred to his (the Lord Chancellor's) mind, but which met many of the difficul ties which he and others had felt on the subject—namely, a clause that, notwithstanding the authority given by the wife to examine the husband, and vice versa, no hus band should be compellable to answer anything which had been told to him, and which he knew only in domes tic confidence, and that the wife should be privileged in a similar manner. This was an exception for which the law furnished a precedent in the ordinary case in which a solicitor was not bound to disclose any matters known to him in professional confidence from his client. The ex ception introduced by his noble and learned would be exceedingly useful. (Hear, hear.) The next point in the bill of his noble and learned friend related to that provision of the law of evidence which exempted a party under examination from the obligation of saying anything that which might tend to criminate himself. He entirely concurred in the feeling which had prompted his noble and learned friend to devise a mode of getting rid of that difficulty ; for, in common with all who had taken part in.the administration of justice, he had con tinually been shocked by the knowledge that injustice was done, that truth was excluded, by a wit ness saying "I cannot , answer that question, it will tend to criminate me." Even supposing that principle to be retained, whether it might not pro perly-be one of the provisions of a bill to restrict it in some manner, was a matter on which he would give no opinion ; but he felt bound to say that until Parliament was prepared to alter the law a great deal more—until Parliament was prepared to say it should be lawful and part of our system to interrogate parties on charges, he did not think the clause now introduced by his noble and learned friend could possibly become the law of the land. If the law was, that a person charged with pick ing his pocket had the right to say, " I shall answer nothing—prove it if you can," would it not be a ♦ery strange anomaly to get out of that law by calling that same person as a witness in another proceeding ? Sup pose he had strong reason to suspect a person of having picked his pocket of his watch, and that person was brought up on suspicion, the law said, "You have no right to interrogate him on the subject." Now, he was ready to concur with his noble and learned friend in any reasonable inquiry whether the law was correct in that principle—whether the maxim, "neino tenetur seipsum inculpare," was or was not a correct principle. But as his noble and learned friend's bill did not profess to alter that, as a general question he thought it would be im possible to introduce a clause authorising the interroga tion of a witness on a matter with which he was directly charged. In the case which he had just put, his noble and learned friend's bill did not propose to interrogate the person, and say that if he declined to answer that would naturally be strong presumptive evidence of his guilt. But his noble and learned friend said, "If you can call him in any other proceeding you may make him answer as you please." Now this would be getting rid of that principle of law which prevented the getting di rectly what was to be attempted indirectly, and his noble and learned friend had introduced a clause with the difficulty which he experienced in altering that general principle of the law ; for although a witness was to be bound to answer, there was a proviso that his answer should not be given in evidence against him. That would be a mere illusory protection. He would take the case which he had already supposed. If a man was brought up as witness on some other occasion, it might be said, " I suspect you picked my pocket the other day ; did you do so ?" At present he might de cline to answer the question ; but, under the new bill, he would be bound to answer. He might then be asked, " What did you do with the watch ?" and if he answered, `• I locked it up in my box," and a policeman should find it there, the man would be compelled to convict him self. In this respect he thought the present bill would introduce a greater anomaly than it was intended to remedy, but he considered it a matter which ought to be looked into. He should view with considerable appre hension any system which would create a sort of rival dexterity among the judges to entrap a witness with the greatest shrewdness and accuracy—a course of proceed ing witnessed in some foreign courts of justice, but which was much more unpleasant to contemplate than the occasional escapes from justice under our system. This was the reason why he could not give his concurrence to that part of the bill. With regard to the expediency of allowing parties to have their actions tried by,a judge, and not by a jury, he thought that was a question de serving the most serious attention. He did not think it very happily or properly introduced into a bill to im prove the law of evidence, the more so as it had formed the subject of an inquiry, the result of which would shortly be presented to their lordships in the shape of a report. The commissioners had agreed to a most ela borate report on the procedure in the courts of common law, rather leaning, he believed, to the views ofhis noble and learned friend ; and it seemed to him that the con sideration of that report would be the most fitting time for the discussion of the subject. He agreed with his noble and learned friend that there were many cases which a judge would decide much better than a jury. But, on the other hand, there might be very great diffi culty in beginning to remodel the trial of facts in these courts. And for this reason. This must not be looked to as a mere question as to how the particular issues might be tried, but whether a better decision generally would be come to if a few cases were selected for juries, instead of allowing them to become familiar with such matters. He could not but feel an apprehension that cases would not be so well decided under such circum stances as they would be if juries were continually em ployed. With regard to the question of expense, he thought his noble and learned friend in error. His noble and learned friend had referred to special jury cases. Now, it was most probable that such cases would be tried in the same manner as heretofore ; for in mercan tile cases the judge would often be completely at sea without the assistance of a jury. That being so, _ juries must be summoned to the assizes, and the ex pense really consisted, not in carrying the case be fore the jury, but in the jury having to pass a week or more in the assize town : for the expense must be incurred whether the jurors were engaged in trying the case or in walking about. He thought this a question deserving of consideration, and should look with great anxiety to the details. His hon. and learned friend had suggested some other useful alterations, but there were other matters in which he did not fully concur with his noble and learned friend. As he had before said, there sel f . (Hea r , h e , Ito - thhnr intoee. was a great deal in the bill which met with his concur rence, and on those points on which he differed from his noble and learned friend he trusted that full credit would be given to him for sincere and disinterested motives. (Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM rejoiced to hear what his noble and learned friend had stated with respect to the report of the commissioners. He thought the result would be that in the progress of the bill in committee, he should be disposed to divide it into two parts, and to pass those portions respecting which there was no difference of opinion between reference eEs r friendABERDEEN, eeEac a wdoE n ynoN d sueo, h him self. consented t m eber d - e. the n e l oo r mfm e t a mwat d htoi ttesTriet committee, sln s aeE e Ner t: e a: r o wsr nil Besides, eotees t i flhhni i d m Lye L e s . Bs i: Lord BROUGHAM said he must decline referring referring tw t oh over whelmed On billhlninedivideebt dh t i o l e l twi ; v met as hob select tioil t quite unnecessary. Mutiny Bill an T d H t E he M M U a second time. re read a THE EASTER HOLIDAYS, The Earl of ABERDEEN gave notice of his inten tion to move the adjournment of the house for the Easter holidays f: mu Friday, the 18th March, to Mon day, the 4th April. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Lord BROUGHAM was understood to express a hope that the attention of her Majesty's Government would be directed to the introduction of some measure for the effectual checking of bribery and corruption at elections. One of the benefits of the measure which obtained so far the concurrence of their lordships as to pass a second reading was, that the removal of the pro tection— from guilty men when examined as witnesses would tend incalculably to promote, if it was possible in any way to promote, the purification of our electoral system, which purification, if it should be long delayed, would end in making men lean toward.; those opinions of which he wished to say nothing, as they were the opinions of foreign countries—he meant those opinions of distrust and jealousy of Parliaments and the repre sentative system, (Hear, hear.) Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY. OATHS. Mr. PELLATT then rose to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of Oaths, and the operation of the Act 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 4, and the Act 5 and 6 Will. 4, c. 62, for the substitu tion of Declarations in hew of Oaths in the Customs, Excise, Public Offices, and Corporations named in the said acts, and the advantage of extending the principle of those acts to the courts of law, and further to inquire into the oaths now taken by members of Parliament at the table of the house, with the view of substituting one uniform declaration for members of all religious persuasions, and to report thereon from time to time. Mr. HUME seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was well known that the attention of the house had been directed from time to time, in a long series of years, to the important subject of unnecessary oaths ; and very great advantage had undoubtedly attended the operation of the measures which had been passed in that respect. He entirely agreed with his hon. friend who spoke last, and he was quite sure there was a general concurrence in the sentiment, that unnecessary oaths were a very great evil—first of all by the positive temptation they offered to bad men, and even to men who could not be called altogether bad men ; and secondly, because they had the effect of diminishing the reverence for the sacred name of the Deity. He was sure that, for the purposes he had expressed, the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution might count upon the universal sympathy of the house. At the same time he hoped the hon. gentle man would rest satisfied with the opportunity he had had of pressing his views upon the attention of the house ; and that he would not call upon them to assent to the motion. The motion, he perceived, pointed to three objects, which it appeared the honourable gentle man had in view. First, it was proposed• to inquire into the operation of certain acts passed for the sub stitution of declarations in lieu of oaths in certain public departments ; secondly, it was proposed to inquire into the advantage of extending the princi ple of those acts to the courts of law ; and thirdly, it was proposed to inquire into the oaths now taken by members of Parliament at the table of the house. It could hardly be made a matter of argument, and it was not necessary therefore to make it sl.subject of inquiry. They had it now before them, and that in the most convenient form in which it could be presented —in the shape of a bill which stood for the second reading to-morrow evening. The question was, no doubt, one of immense importance, but it was not the practice of the house to refer it to a select committee indeed it would be an abnegation of the functions of the house to give such a question over to the consideration of a select committee. It would be different if they required examination into facts ; but here they required no examination of facts—it was a matter for argument and intelligence, and the sitting of a select committee would only tend to perplex and con fuse their deliberations. He doubted also whether a select committee, fairly and impartially composed, as it ought to be, of members of different religious opinions, would be able to agree upon a report which they could present to the house. For these reasons, and without objecting to the principle of inquiry, or to the possibility of further restricting oaths, or as to their being taken with greater reverence and with less risk of the mon strous evils of perjury —without referring to that, he thought he had stated grounds on which it would be in convenient at present to accede to the motion of the honourable gentleman. As a division on the subject would give rise to false impressions, and leave it to be supposed that there was a difference of opinion among the members, which was, in fact, entirely groundless, he must express his hope that the honourable gentleman would not proceed with his motion. Mr. J. BALL, Mr. MAGUIRE, and Mr. VINCENT SCULLY made some observations as to the nature of the present oaths as affecting Roman Catholics. Mr. V. SMITH was satisfied with the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. C. FORTESCUE, as a Protestant, was opposed to the present system, as an injustice to all classes. Mr. A. PELLATT withdrew his motion. OUTRAGES ON WOMEN. Mr. FITZROY rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to provide for the better prevention and punishment of aggravated assaults upon wom en an d c hild ren . H e said the evil fin. which he now asked the house to provide a remedy was one which was, alas ! universally felt, and generally acknowledged to be rapidly growing, and to constitute a great blot on the national character. He conceived, therefore, that in attempting to provide against it, he would be freed from the imputation of making a motion which was unnecessary or uncalled for. It was impossible to take up one of the public journals without being struck with horror and amazement at the cruel and brutal outrages which were perpetrated upon the weaker sex by men whom one blushed to think should be called Englishmen. The mind recoiled from the thought of the dastardly and cowardly assaults which wore perpetrated upon defenceless women and children by brutes in the shape of men ; but as he wished to impress upon the house the full atrocity of the assaults to which he referred, there was one case which lately appeared in the public journals, where a man, or rather a brute, followed his wife, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy, into the street, and put his foot under her clothes, that he might with more effect kick her on the lower part of her person. It was in vain to attempt to submit to the house a penalty adequate to such an offence as this. (Hear, hear.) Nothing but some ignominious penalty, such as corporal punish ment—(hear)—or some other measure which he would not be justified in bringing forward. Nothing else would meet the sense which the English people entertained of such atrocities. Now what was the state of the law? Unfortunately the summary powers of magistrates were confined to the infliction of a penalty of 51., or imprison ment for two months without hard labour. Now was that a fit retribution for the offence he had mentioned ? (Hear, hear.) It went against his feelings to ask the house to follow him through a description of some of those out rages ; yet he feared that unless he did that, he would be considered not to have made out his case. He would ask them, therefore, to bear with him for a few moments while he mentioned a few cases which had recently oc curred : " On the Bth•of December, 1852, a man named Henry Ben net, was charged at the police-court, Bow-street, with assault ing his wife. It was proved that the defendant's wife had ceased to lire with him for some time ; that ou the morning of the 4th of December, 1852, she was walking in Drury-lane, when she met the defendant. He asked her how she was getting on ? She replied, Pretty .well.' He then called her a w-, and, without any provocation, struck her as hard as he could and knocked her down, and injured her back severely. With the assistance of others she got from him, and went home. He followed her there, and struck her re peatedly with all his force ou various parts of her body. On the following morning he again went to her room, seized her by the hair of her head, drew a knife fromhia pocket, opened it, and attempted to cut her throat. She endeavoured to prevent his doing so, and her fingers were severely cut. The magistrate, fearing the wife would not appear at the sessions if the prisoner were committed for trial, fined the prisoner 51., and in default of payment committed him to prison for two months." " On the 17th of January, 1853, at the same court, James Coghlan, a floorcloth-worker, was charged with beating his wife. The husband, between twelve and one at night, was outside the house iu which they resided, and the wife, fear ing ho might go and drink with the persons who were with him, went to him and begged him to come in. He shortly after entered the room in a passion, and began to beat her with his fists, gave her two black eyes, and then beat her severely with the tongs, saying that she had made him look little in the eyes of the persons with whom he had been out side the house.' Her screams were heard, and a policema,l . went to the spot and saw the husband strike her, and, old serving that she had been severely beaten, took him into cus tody at the instance of the woman ; punishment, fined 51., or two months' imprisonment." " At Marlborough-street . Police-court, in December, 1851, Thomas M'Millan, a tailor, was charged with beating his wife. It appeared that at twelve o'clock at night she re turned home and found him there. He immediately began to abuse her, and struck her several blows with his fists on and about the head ; that, on her screaming murder, he took a bit of iron, used as a poker, and struck her w ith it on the arm and on the head several blows. Her screams were heard by a police constable and he went to her assistance. The man was in liquor, but tho woman sober. The magistrate, seeing the disposition of the woman to screen the husband, sum marily convicted ; 51., or two month." " On the sth of January, 1853, John Mullett was charge 1 at the same court with beatin g hi s w i fe. The man missed (a most severely ; small bit of cloth of the value of 3d., became an about to break open a drawer, when she endeavogruryedantod ply:I.:- and store ide vent his doing so ; he, therefore, beat b©r andbaasl e a p p e a r e d a when she appeared to give evidence before the m a n .._ e,te, and, lest the one of her eyes presented a shocking appearance, of her face was discoloured and swolle ma ead n splc o tr ld le. go She pleaded fiofr committed h a r e ' d n ber,1852, at the Wfe:rtmtifinsalte'rhPeolwicaes finie‘dordn.choer2t3wdoofmNonotvhesm' -ir aP - Aannmeut " court, Frederick Giles appeared to a nswer the c omp l a i nt o f Susannah Prest on, who had been living with him for two years. After being out all ni g h t, she returned in the morn ing, and saw Giles puttiir, into had provided, in order tot, a.basket some food which rho he struck her and with the buckle end of hands, till she on her carry blood. A constable heard her and found her clothes of her fingers beaten ' veyed toit a way ; she remonstrated her hands, then abusing him, he beat be; Was one a strap about the neck, arms, and _ , es . into the flesh of bruises, and enve! v . e „pet, her screams, went to r :: on one saturated with blood, and . a s , _ was co , to the bons, 0 ' Pu a a Mal and the ring was cut out; Si., or two months.i" " At Worship -street Police-court, on 1852, on a charge that about half-past one o'clock in - ' Murder' and ' Police' road ; that a police-constable proceeded the cries issued, and found the ' 4 7 tended by two females; which was bleeding much; ; appeared to suffer great ..--- nisinnent, ' d of November, the 23 it appeared against Jegemiah Do neva r l g , the cries of rd. the -fees -street, Mile-cud were heard in deti to the room whence d acs,,,r t sittingchair, at e cut over the left eye, she had . blackened, and she her ey were ~,tin in her stomach. The wife was taken to an hospital, and remained there for some time. Both parties were sober. It appeared in evidence that the defend.. ant had brutally ill-used her, and when she was on the ground had jumped upon her, and severely injured her. She was unable to attend before the magistrate for some time ; when she did attend she endeavoured to make it appear that she had been very slightly assaulted, and from her conduct tho magistrate perceived that unless he disposed of the case in a summary way, the husband would go unpunished. Fined 51., or two months, and to find two sureties in 201. to keep the peace for six months." Now, he would ask the house whether such a state of things was not calculated to brinn the administration of justice into disrepute ? (Hear, hear.) No doubt the magistrate had the alternative power to commit the offenders to the sessions, but he need hardly state that this alternative was seldom resorted to, because those who were acquainted, not only with the soft and kindly nature of women, bat who knew the influences that were brought to bear upon her during the interval—the coaxings, the intimidations, the threats that were used to induce her to abstain from appearing at the sessions—would understand that the adoption of this alternative was practically to allow the offender to escape altogether. And even supposing ' that the woman did appear , - it must be evident to every member of th e h ouse that 'her appearance after the lapse of a few weeks would present a very different spectac l e to the jury as compared with her appearance before the magistrate. He would, therefore suggest that greater summary powers should b e g i ven to the magistrate. He was aware that objections were felt to the increase of the summary powers of the magistrates ; but still he thought that the cases to which he had referred were exceptions, and to be dealt with differently from the general rule; and therefore he proposed that they s h ou ld g i ve the magistrates in such cases power to imprison with or without hard la bour for six months, or to inflict a penalty of 201. He would not ask the house to go farther than this. He only asked them to put these unfortunate females under the same protection as they put donkeys, dogs, or cats. (Hear, hear.) If they would refer to the act against cruelty to animals they would find that if persons overdrove a don key, or if they ill-treated a dog, or a pig, they were liable to a still heavier penalty than for the perpetration of the brutalities to which he had called their attention, for they were liable to three months' imprisonment with or with out hard labour ; while by the Bth and 9th Viet., the sen tence on a dog-stealer was for the first offence six months' imprisonment, or 201. over and above the value of the animal he stole. He asked them then to extend to the weaker sex the same protection which they now extended to a lady's lapdog, or a spaniel of King Charles IL breed. There were two or three other provisions in the measure to' which he also wished to call their attention. The first was to take away the power of removing a misde meanour, by writ of certiorari, from the court where it was to be tried, except on an affidavit that a fair trial could not otherwise be had. This provision had been in troduced into a measure by the Attorney-General last year, but, on account of the pressure brought to bear upon him from the bar, he withdrew it. It had been his (Mr. Fitzroy's) fate before to encounter the prejudices of that learned profession, he hoped with some little advantage to the public, and he should feel it his duty not to shrink from the same course on this occasion ; because, now that they had established criminal courts of appeal, there was no reason for facilitating the removal of trials for misde meanour from the ordinary courts. One alteration he pro posed to make was with regard to the forfeiture of recog nizances by persons who were bound over to answer charges of assault. At present the recovery of those recognizances was so cumbrous and expensive, that, though happily it was not generally known, the recovery had practically become a dead letter, and could not be enforced. He pro posed, therefore, to put those recognizances on the same footing as in the case of persons bound over to give evi dence. There was another provision which he thought would be of great advantage—to give power to the Secre tary of State to issue an order for the bringing up of a pri soner who was in custody on a civil process to give evidence, thus doing away with the expense of a writ of habeas cor pus. Such were the main provisions of this short bill, the principal object of which was to give protection to the defenceless female ; and he had no doubt the house would aid him in according them protection. (Hear, hear.) Mr. PHINN had only to regret that the hon. gentleman did not propose to carry his measures farther. It appeared to him that they ought to introduce corporal punishment for persons who committed such offences. (Hear, hear). Mr. J. PHILLIMORE approved of the suggestion as to corporal punishment, because it was scarcely possible to conceive those feelings and sympathies which revolted at such a punishment should have any application to a person degraded by ono of the savage assaults which this bill was intended to prevent. (Hear, hear.) The Government, he considered, by this measure would add another to their claims upon the gratitude of the public. (Hoar, hear.) Mr. PACKE wished to know whether the present law, requiring two magistrates to be present at the hearing of assault cases, would be at all altered by this bill ? Mr. FITZROY said it left the jurisdiction as it was. Mr. STAPELTON dissented from the opinion of the hon. member for Bath, strengthened as it was by the hon. member for Leominster, as to the efficacy of corporal pun ishment. Leave was then given to introduce the bill, and it was subsequently brought in and read a first time. COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS. Mr. FRENCH, in pursuance of notice, renewed his mo tion to extend the number of the committee on Indian ter ritories from thirty-one to thirty-three, and to add to it the names of Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Bowyer. He justified his motion on the ground that some members professing the Catholic religion should be on the committee to protect the interests of that Church in India, and complained that Irish members were systematically excluded from cora mittes not on strictly Irish business. As to the two gen tlemen he proposed to add to the committee, the hon. member for Dundalk possessed the full confidence of the Catholic clergy, was perfect master of the subject, and had been in communication with the learned prelate Dr. Carew with respect to the treatment the Catholic Church received in India. He proposed the name of the other gentleman, the hon. member for Louth, not alone for the protection of the interests of the Catholic Church, but really for the enlightenment of the committee itself, as the hon. member was thoroughly acquainted with the want of the means of communication between different parts of India, and would, therefore, be able to draw out information from the wit nesses as to the necessity of that want being supplied. He instanced the conduct of the Government with respect to Kilmainham Hospital, as proof of how the opinions of Irish members were disregarded, and concluded by moving the addition of the names of Dr. Bowyer and Mr. Kennedy. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER really thought it very confusing to attempt to settle the question of adding two members to the committee on Indian ter ritories by reference to what had been done at Kilmain ham. It was mixing up matters which had no relation whatever. (Mr. French—l submit they have everything to do with it.) Their only relation to each other was their being combined in .the same speech. (A laugh.) Besides that, he protested against any such connection. (Hear, hear.) The honourable reember proposed now the addition of these two gentlemen to the Indian committee. It was a matter of regret to him to hear the honourable gentleman propose them on grounds which it would be very much better not to introduce. (Hear, hear.) The honourable member, too, was not accurate in his statement that there was a systematic practice of excluding Irish members from select committees, excepting on subjects immediately connected with Ireland, and he found the means of contradicting him in the very paper in which the honourable gentleman's notice of motion appeared. There was a notice on the paper of his honourable friend (Mr. Wilson) to propose the names of the committee on life assurance associations. That subject was not exclusively Irish. It was extremely English, and very highly Scotch. There was a vast number of assurance offices in England, and a large number in Scotland. In Ireland there were very few, and those few were doing business to a compa ratively small extent. Yet, if the honourable member looked at the names about to be proposed on that com mittee, he would find there those of the hon. member for the Dublin University and of the hon. member for Carlow. Ho (tke Chancellor of the Exchequer) protbsted against try ing the composition of this committee upon the ground of the number of Protestants or to the number of Catholics. (Hear.) It was not really a question of what quantity of money was to be assigned to Protestants and what quantity to Roman Catholics. It was not that they were going to consider, but the interests of nearly 120,000,000 of men, neither Protestants nor Catholics. (Hear, hear.) They were, however, their fellow-creatures, whose interests they were bound to consider. (Hear, hear.) The committee, he contended, was carefully chosen and well chosen. They had a selection of the best men for the examination of the subject. It so happened that Irish, Scotch, and English had all their representatives upon it. He found the names of two Irish members—Mr. Chichester Fortescue (Mr. Fortescue expressed dissent)—that gentleman's name was withdrawn. At all events, there was the n ame o f the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside), and the Irish mem bers had an able champion in him. (Hear, hear.) H rable figxeenduruetaleasnin( mthrera. I ra :r a e ti n a n g h . e i i management considered it absolutely necessary for the house, if the H e wished to pay due. regard to the constitution and conaposir committee, of f on tb o e f m c o . mmTibtete hone s ample opportunity on a former oacccacespiotnedto oMee under the tion. A number of those previously on t he lse the queB - sgetrtele2aan. had himself amongst the number, Crown, and their names were witladr7n. proposal when their laces allowed the e atNoing allowed it to go hon. g o ent ed lem u a p n ? not Th m e ptb the o e, phhe house uoopportunityanforwardt r o a tgi nowoo 1 1 tbooyf the,p a ash Pressure I.;s numberrein oofbtthaioncinomg modify the rule of That alteration, he ventured to say, was very objectionable. They were under extreme men to serve on committees, peti tions and private bills was he number of election possible to supply the demand. eat that it was almost committee. was already cod Posed of th The Indian committee fairly representing all the various members, well selected, and containing the e various portions of the houso Indian affairs. The most competent men to 'leal withl lowed the proper honourable gentleman, having a - a) by, now wanted to alter the number 2tt ertunitY tArl te 811 - He hoped the house would abide by the rul e e, ce an m d m n it ot Consent to qualify it on this occasion. (Hear, hear.) The number of the com mittee was very extreme. large, and the inconveniencleemwanuld 's b sue- Encouraged by the honour . able, gta enlarge the as eess, other m em b ers wou ld be proposing to se, surance and other committees. He hoped the house, a therefore, would stop the evil in the beginning, and adhere 'o the rule. (Hear, hear.) members, the house from several hon. After a few words vided, when there appeared, For the motion ... .............. Against it ••• Majority Colonel HARCOURT, to notice,. of the General Board of Health have tending i pe ns - A c t s the engineers, in carrying out the works which either of the supenn ving?Puvsuant have e th Act, 1.845, called the attention of the house w hich 131°Yvilt--c-° Public Heal b ee n e ti xe ß c T u ' ted under the authority of the who was employed by the t e the fact t i ll a a c t e d Kr ilim i tf ng i e n v, opposition to the wishes of board, had P i n th e town of yd©, and also of the town wlakitt.ecrhcaheseh, had made, na bt e b , r t o h u o g u h g t h in h a e the rate-payers 13f:erns:turn of an cases in nm? was paid three guineas a day for his services by the Board of Health. t ; the s l a n ry t e h y e Sir W. MOLESWORTH would offer no opposition to the motion, in the absence of the noble lord who was at the head of the board, especially as the whole question would come before the house on the following day. ELECTION COMMITTEES. boifilSouthoiam. fpo P M E o R ti jonußagreyeßdEthEacczErdingly. Mr. L. KING rose to call the attention of the house to the following resolution of the Chatham Election Committee " That it is the opinion of this committee, that there are strong grounds f or b e li eving that Stephen Mount, in giving his evidence b e f ore th e committee, has been guilty of wilful xd 53 s d x d xd xd 65 xd ad ad l : lei 20 41 2 10 25 ,10 406 1014 261 2i 7i 114 hr. In