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

TILE SHARE MARKETS. BRITISH RAILWAYS. Closing nice; Yesterday. Bas?new done thLl day. 293 - 303 61 - 63 10 - 102; 6t —6ldxdj 21 -- 22 3 -- 2A d 105 -- 107 64i -- 65 22 -22 i 18i -- 196 if - 8 - 58 - 54 4 44 13 - 1341 10 3:4 ... 8i - 8g 724 - 73t1, 55 -• 57 76 --- 78 32 -- 34 61 -- 63 81 82 44 -- 46 122 - 124 107 -- 108 9 6 1i -92 i i -- 92 -- 97 13i 14ip 77i -- 784 4g -- 4d 3 L A -- 3 d 15t -16 i 8i - _9 -2 p 104 - IGS 1 119 - 1204, 26 3 17, —14 p 91 92 56 Cid 4 6 3id 11 12 19 21 29 80 3. 3 d 76 —76 i 44 46 50 -- 52 31 -- 3i 3 -- 3d 3 -- 3a 9 -- 10 53 -- 55 7i -- 8i 2f -- 21 d 35A -- 364 - 64 -- 64-d 4i- 4d 8i 4i p 47 48 100 102 64 - 66 64 66 70 75 ... dis 18 -- 20 9 -- 10 14 -- 1t 31 -- 3 d 21 -- 22 781 -78 i 36 -- 37 12i -- 13 4 - -- 4 2 1 - 3 2 5i 9# 91 28 - 30 gi - 10 I - a p 69 -- TO d 2i - Sid 59 60 Shr. p; Aberdeen .. • Ambg. Nottng. R . o;t. & Eastn. June...... 1 tirmng. Wolverhi & Stour Valley 3 Birkenhd. Lancsh & Cheshire Junet a Do. Chesh. & Birk., £5O & £25 Cons.... 84 Do., £2O 0 Bristol & Exe'z,er )0 Caledonian. di Chester & Holyhead 611 Cork and Banclon._ Lll Cork, Black. & Pass. 65 Dublin&BelfastJunc. al Dundee Perth &Aber deen Junction all Do. New 6.11 East Anglian (L 25 L. dr E. & L. & D.) 11 Do., (£lB E. & H.).. 11 Eastern Counties- ... .11 Eastern Union, Class A. late E. U. 5h.... 81 Do., do.. 11 Do., B. & C. 0 East Lancashire 11 East & West Ind. Dk. & Birming. June St. 0 Edinburgh & Glasgow 10 1/ Edinb. and Peebles St. 100 Edinb.Prth.&Dundee St. 100 Glasgow &S. Western St. 100 Great Northern Stk St. 100 Do., A. Stock St. 100 Do., B. Stock St. 100 Gt. Sth. &West. (1re.,1 St. 100 Great Western........ 12 11 Trkin South-Eastera. 50 all Lancaster & Carl isle.. 16i 14 Do., Thirds St. 100 Lancash. &Yorkshir: 20 15 Do.', Fifths 14 114 Do., Wst. Riding Un 50 all Leeds Northerr 20 all Liv. Crsby. & Sou:l pt. 11A all Lo-don & 812 ekwall 10 3 Tion.d. Tilb. & Stb end. St. 100 Lon.d.Bright...lS.Cst. St. 100 Loidon &N. Western 20 12 Do. Fifths 10 1 Do. JO/. S 1 . C St. 100 London & Western 50 421 Do., £50........ .... 40 34 Do., Vo._ 22 I I 50 al 50 al 20 a] 50 4; 5 a] 25 a] 18 l a] 25 I a] al Lndndrri.&Colerainc ill Lrdndrry. & Ennisk. )O tranch.Shef.&Lincln. 44 Do., Man. &Lin. U 2. 10 Midland ................ XI Do. Lim' tg. & Derby' ai Midland G.We-1.(Ir.) 1 Do. Sba .es .......... 11 Newcastle &Carlisle.. 10 Newmarket, 3 Do. Bury E:_ lions L 6 Newpt.Aber_ a ltfd 7i Newry & Enniskillen, al Newry Warrenpoint & Rostrevor 10 Norfolk.. 11 Do., Ne 3 i I Norihn. Count'es Un )0 North B 1: :ish .3 ;North Devon, No.l 6i Do., No. 2.... all Do., A Deferred 5 Do., B Guaranteed L7i North Staffordshire 611 North Western. 1) N. &S. Westrn. June )0 Oxiord Worcester & Wolverhampton )0 Scottish Central )0 Scottish Midland_ )0 Shrewsbury & Birmg )0 Do., L. & N. Westn Guaranteed Stock 8 Shrewsby. & Herefd ill Shrewsby. & Chester (Nor. W. Min.) in Do. Halves, do 11 Do. Oswestry .... 6: ShropOire di South Devon )0 South 611 South Wales L 5 S. Yorksh. lt , ver Dur 5 Do .6; Stockton & Hartlepl. Thames Haven Dock and 20 17 Vale of Neath 20 all Waterfd. & Kil!zenny BO all Wate - lord&L 4 rceScl: 20 13 West 10 21s. Wrcb l ed on &Croydon 10 1 W00df0rd........ Bt. 100 York Newctl. & Berw 25 20 Do. Extensions 25 11i Do. G.N.E. Purchase St. 100 York d; N. Midland 20 l' 20 al 10 11 St. le 201 a ] 20 60 al Bt. 10 60 al , 20 11 20 ; iill PREFERENCE SHARES, (Aberdeen ..... ..... Do., No. 2, 7 p. a.. Bris. & Ex. 4 p. c. St Do. 4 p. c. Shares .. Caledonian .RJ 0 •. • Chester & Holyoea.cl Guar. .%, per cent Co -k data^ d on 5a p . C . Dundee Pert' ci;ber: deen Jur cL'on... EastA neall (X 3108) 6 per cent. Do. (25) 7 p e: cant— Do. (£7l7s) 7 P. et— E as t er n Couut 4 e 3 Ex ter sion, 5 P. c. N 9 .1 Do., No. 2...• ••• ••• ••• Do., New 6 p. s. St Eastern Unlo - 1, Scrip Guar. 6 per cent EastLancash• 6 Mts Edinb. Prth. &Dundee 5i per cent..... Glasgow & S.WesLern guar. 5 per cent Great Nordir. 5 p. c Do. 5 p. c., Redeem., at 10 p. c. prem Gt. Soutlm. &We - itn (Ireland) E , 3hths Gt. Westn. (i 3 arks & Hants Ex. 5 p. c.) G. Wes';,. fixed 4l p c, Lan. & York. F. £2O, Do., 6 p. c., Stock ndon and Brighton Guaranteed 5 P. c Do. Pref., 5 p. c. St.. Do. Convertible, sp. c., 1852. , Do. New Gum.. 6 p. c London & S. Western, Con. Thirds Londondei,7& Coler. Shares .............. Londy. & Ennis. Sh Manch. ,Shef. , & Lin., Shares, No. 1 Do. New, £lO Do., £6. Marypt. &Carl. 4 p. c. Do. 4i per cent IDo Mid. Coned!. 6 p. c. St. Do. Consol. Bristol & Bh in. 6 per cert.... Do. Pref. 4i per cent. Norfolk Extension Do. Guar. 5 Do. Way. Val. 5 p c North BrF.Ash ...... North S 'caTord shire .. Oxford Warees;:er & Wolverh. £15,6p. e. Do . . I Shrews& Birm. IT. r. I Shrewsby. & Cho er (Nor. W. Min),B p. c. I Do. 5 per cent I South Devon : I Do. New S. Eastern (Reading Ann.,) of £1 Os.6d. S. Yo:ksh.e.p. c. Guar. Waterrd.&Kihr..6p.c York Newcas4le and Berwick, 4 p.c.Pref Do York & N. Midland H. 1 & S. Purch 106 - 1081 1106 - 107 19 20 4 d pa, 61 - 3g -- 3B 3 , 4*-- 4 lip -2 p 1B -- 1i P 148 -14 i 18; -- 19 1 3 - 3A! 127 = 129 111 - 113 8i - 9 '6l 71 105 —107x(1 1 nz-z P 1 50 152 _ xd xd xd 3k - 3; P 10 - 11 13k - 13 8 -- 9 10 -11 A pi ••• ....... .--- 146 —l4Bscl v 221 P 5 2 —2/ 107 109 25 26 11 17A 18 Lip 16 17 par P 26 —26 i 20 21 id par 100 - 102 5 p - 1P! FORE. :IGN. Intwerp&Rotterdam BelgianEastn. Junct. Charleroi & Erquelin. Dijon and Besangon Dutch Rhenish East Indian . Do. Extension .... Gt. Indian Peninsula Gd. Junct. of France Gt. Western of Canada Shares Lucca & Pistoja sp.c. pref.. Luxembourg.... Do. (Railway).. Do. (Canal) Do. 6 p. ci. pref , 'Lyons & Mediterran. Madras Namur & Liege (with interest) Do. (ex interest) Northern of France Do, 201. 3 p. c. Bds (fmy. B. &Ams. Shs.) NorwegianTrunkPref Paris and Lyons Paris and Orleans Paris and Rouen Paris and SL - :.sbourg ParisCaen & Olierbrg. Quebec &Richmond Rouen and Havre Sambre and Meuse._ Do. 5i p. ct. pref Southern of France Upper India Scrip West Flanders no. 52 per c. Pref.... Western of France..., West. of Switzerland, Zea1and.........•• ••• ••• 25 25 ; St. 11 88 St. 11 Bt. 10 SO 4 25 1' 100 a] St. 10 6 ; 25 ii 50 ~ 20 al St. 110 is 1 1 100 all id I RAILWAYS. 20 20 20 25 25 St. 50 St, 11 St. 11 St. 11 St. 11 141 -14 i 8 - 9 - 18ip 42 -4! 42 - 42 - 34 5 - s t ip 2 2 0/ 9 - 94, sip P 51 jdis p L 2 loi pi Ad p 11 LINES LEASED AT FIXED RENTALS. Leasing Compans. Closing Prices Yesterday. Businesz this day. Shr.j Paid RAILWAYS. Bedford . and Bletchley Birm. & Oxfd. guarantee Do. without gr Birm.Wolv. & Dudley guar. Do. w-thtguar. Buckghamsh . Clydesdale Jc. E. Lincoln. gr. 6 p. cent Glstr.&Dn.Fr Hrtlpl. Dk. Railway [lull & Selby.. Do. Shares Do. 4 Shares Lon.&Greenw Do. Preference Lowestoft gr. 4 per cent Do. 6 per ct Manch.Bxton and Matlock Middlesbro' e Reeez Midld.:3radfd. Northern and Eastern sp.c. Do. 6 per ct.. Do.Fixedsp.c Prest. & Wyre Do. i Shares. Roystn.& Hit. Do.Shepth.St. Shef. Roth. & Goole g. 5. p. c S. Staffordsh WearValleygr 6 per cent Do 1 Wilts &Somrsti London di N. West. Gt.Westn. Do Do Do L. eiN.W Caledon Gt. Notrhu Gt. Westn. Yk. New. & Berw Y. &N. Md Do 'Do S. Eastern Do Norfolk Do Lu. &N. W. & Midld. Stckton d: Darlingt. Midland...l E. Count Do D 0... L. & 1\ . W ,SLLn&Yk Do i G p t.Northn Lancash. it ' Yorksh .. MrMelean Stockt. & Darling Do aGt.Westn 30 -31 29i -30 k 30 —3l 29 30 105 —lo7xd 52i —s3ixd 151 153 32,1 —33 i 111 —ll3xd 551 —s64xd 26h —27lxd 134 14 25h 26 19 —lNxcl 25 —27 j 3 - 31 LO7A -108 A 64 —66xd ". xd xd -- pm 152 - 154 151 - 153, , - 32i -33 i 103 - 104 MINES. 1 all Agna Fria 10s. all Anglo Californian • —1 p g P 10 2 Australasian 20 5 Australian —2l p 6 66 p 1 all Australian Cordillera pis s p 1 all Australian Freehold. -4 - P 1 all Ave Maria par p 1 all Baden (Gd. Duchy of) par P 1 all British Austrin. Gold a P 20 13.5 British Iron 7 9 35 246 Brazilianlmp.(issued at 25 m 4 4} 5 30 all Do. Coeaes & Cuiada 21 21 20 15 Do. St. John Del Rey 29 —3O 1 4 Carsons's Creek par 4 P 40 all Cobre Copper 44 46 5 1 Colonial Gold 2 - 21 31 4 14 Copiapo St. all Copper Min. of Eng 6O 7 . 0 25 all Do. Pref. 76 p. cent 73 8 41 , 5 all English and Austin Copper Smeltg , Co l/ d 20 all Ge - eral 18 2 all Great Nugget Vein 3 —3/ p 51 / 3 all Great Polgooth lB 1 p 1 all Lake Bathurst 4 dig— par / 1 .1 a ll Liberty g - p 1 all Lond.&Californ. Gold Quartz Crush. Co / I d 1 all Mariquita ld— par 10 9 Mexican&S.Americn 6l 7 1 a ll New Granada 4 - p 2 i 1 a ll Nouveau Monde l/ —14 p 1 Port Philip l— 11p 24 2 1 all Quartz Rock par 4p 1 50 all Rhymme Iron 22 —24 p 15 Do. New 7 —76 30 10/ Santiago de Cuba 6 7 64 1 a ll South Australian par —1 p 10 7 Tin Croft ........ 284 a ll United Mexican 6l 7 63 1 all Waller — P 1 all West Gl...nada 4 - pl 4 a 1 all West Mariposa par— 1 p 1 all Yuba 4 P MISCELLANEOUS 100 35 Austratian Agricult. 110 115' 114 17 x Peel 20 4 Australsn.Pcific. Ma!' (ex Peel &ad [and xd 10 5 Australn. Royal Mail xd ... 383 Brit. American Land 100 326 Canada — 5 5 Crystal Palace —65 i 4 2 Crystal Pal. of France 20 1 Eastern Steam — 1 1 Electric Te'eg. of Ir — 15 14 Gen. Steam NaN:gat — 100 50 General Screw Steam ... 20 2A Irish Beetroot Sugar 1 all - Nat. Pat. Steam Fuel ... 10 2 Netherlands- : hand 20 24 Nrth.ofEuropeSteam 50 all Peninsular & Oriental 50 25 Do. Do. 100 60 Royal Mail Steam 25 25 South Austral. Land 57 59 1 1 Submar. Telegraph 5 2 Univeral Emigration and Colonization..... . .- 100 24 Van Diemen's Land 19 20 20 19 20 MARKET NEWS-(THIS 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 demand for wheat of home produce 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 clear. 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 VHS WEEK. Wheat. 2.110 Barley. 1,350 English .. Irish •• • • Foreign .. Malt. i Oats. Flour. 1,630 1,890 1,070 8,840 3,400 9,120 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 quotations. The primest Scots sold at 4s per Blbs. Sheep came slowly to hand ; nevertheless, the demand for that description of stock ruled inactive, at late currencies. Prime Old Downs, in the wool, realised 5s to 5s 2d per 81bs. Prime small calves sold steacEly, at full prices. Otherwise, the veal trade was heavy. Pigs met a dull in quiry, at late rates. Mulch cows sold slowly at from 16/. to 191.55, including their small calf. Perilbs to si ink the •ffals. s. d. s. d. Inferior Beasts ...2 10 to 3 0 Second quality ...3 2 3 4 Prime large oxen 3 6 3 8 Prime Scots, dm. 3 10 4 0 Inferior sheep ...3 10 4 0 Second quality ... 4 2 4 6 P r ime crse.-wlled.4 8 4 10 0. d. s. d. Prime Southdown 5 0 5 2 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. TOTAL SUPPLY• Beasts ........... Sheep ........... Calves ............ 944 4,020 290 300 Beasts . 3OO Sheep 200 Calves Pigs Pig 5................ NEWGATE AND LEADENHALL. The supplies of each ffer kind of meat on o to-da y Perew t o l era bly good. Generall.y speaking, the demandled inactive, as follows : Per Sibs by the carcase. d. s. d. s. Beef, inferior 2 8 2 10 Do., middling 3 0 3 2 Do., prime large 3 2 3 4 Do., do. small —.3 4 3 6 Pork, large 2 8 3 2 5. d. o. d. Mutton., Inferior 3 4 3 6 ...... 3 8 Do., print ......... 4 2 4 6 ............. 2 8 4 4 Pork, ...... 3 6 4 0 BOROUGHed, he The supply of all ki n d s o f hops bei;lig v er y limit HOP. amount of business d o i ng i s comparatively small. Prie,tes, 160 s • Weald of Kent, 95 s to 126 s ; Sussex) however, are firm. Mid an d East Kent pock ets, ICOs to per Cwt. 95s to 1158 COLONIAL. SUGAR.—The market for British plantation has been rather quiet, but the qualities entering most into ordinary consumption have been firm. Barbaeloes by auction has realised 36s to 39s 6d ; Demerara 345 6d to 40s for ord. to fine crystalised. Refined has been firm at 45s to 47s 6d for low to fine grocery lumps. East India—Benares, good to fine white, has been sold publicly at 38s to 39s ; low to mid at 36s 6d. to 37s 6d ; mid to superior yellow, at 378 6d to 39s 6d ; and good yellow, date sor::, at 378 to 37s 6d. Madras sold at 31s to 35s for low to good mid yellow ; and at 30s to 30s 6d for fine brown. Mauritius has been at full rates privately, and Bengal also. Foreign —holders are firm. A cargo of Paraiba has realised 20s for brown, and Manilla charged 35s to 35s 3d. Havannah, ord to good yellow, was taken in at 36s to 38s 6d. ; and Bahia, low to good brown, at 31s 6d to Rs 6d. COFFEE.—There has been a dull market generally, but Plantation Ceylon has been held very firmly. Good mid sold at 60s to 63s 6d ; and mid 57s to 58s ; for fine ord and mid colory, 55s 6d to 59s • and triage, 33s to 51s. Some pea.berry brought 65s and 675. Native Ceylon has been sold at 47s 6d for good. Rio, afloat, 5,030 bags has been sold at 425. Jamaica good ord was taken in at 52s per cwt. COCOA.—Good red Bahia has been. sold at 25s 6d. SPlCES.—Pimento has lien firm at. ssd to 6d ; for coarse to mid were being id Tier lb eseaner- Pepper was mostly taken in at 30. to 31 for inic.. Jamaica ginger partly sold at 46s to 70s for ord end mid. RlCE.—Ma dras has been sold at lOs to 108 6d for mid small, and Bengal at 10a for ord yell )w, duty paid. SAGO, &C.—Pearl sago brought :10s for mid and_ good medium, a nd Bermuda arrowroot sol d at is id for good. COCllNEAL.—Teneriffe silver brought 3s 11d, and black 4s to 4s 2d. COTTON. —Very little has been done. medium TEA.—There has been a g ood demand for congou, at full prices. has had a free sale, and is also firm. TALLOW.—Thisre:tliele has been &nil at 44s to 445 3d per cwt, on the spot. GREEN FRUAT.—A good business is doing in all kinds. The reduction in the price of . oi . anges has causedbuyers to take stock. 5, wille sours arriving out of condition owing to long voyage s ; two cargoes, sold laT Keeling and Haut at public sale, went at prices proportionate to condition. Black Spanish nuts sustain their price.. The stock of Bar celona is accumulating, and little basin h e doing in the article. s o mo 94r rivals of Messina lemons are to hand. 65 4 5i 22 46/ , x d 5i 131 , a x ci 33 2i 62 82 x d 46 7 124 3i x (1. 92 13 a d 78i ipm 104 5 119 i 20 19i x d x d 91; 1 i d 29 304 761 1 ad 13i i x d 1 78 i 9 36 x d 69i a d 128 a d 59i i a d Pm 1 pm 14i x d 1061 i x d 151 a d 147 x d 11} 11 i pm IMPERIAL PARLIANIENT. 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 BEAUCHAMP 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 Batt 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 thg 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 smal, 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 i m p or tant 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 1 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 mouths. 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 his 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 say, " 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 that if I 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 convicted. 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 questions ; at last the witness discovered to what his evidence was tending, and said, " Oh, I won't answe r any more," having b een honestl y and bona fide g-norant, up to that moment, that what he had been asked had the least tendency to his own inculpation. Th e rule, th e refore, if it were good, must be carried to to be asked to go beyond what he witness the poinotntgohtwhniecth Lord Eldon had carried it ; and a voluntarily and limits of the rule, chose to state. (Hear, hear.) But it was not merely as to . the application a discrepancy of decisions, and self, that there was . gr which was admitted by all the most emi nentan uncertainty, but likewise with regaredttothe substance of the rule of the rule, there was to the substance With regard in point, and so many con case no clear and decided text-writers, as to how far the rule extended. nwyh le io a cffh rne d judges any than this—how far a man was was no more nor less down any been rnle g a iv t en a , ll t . ha T t h i e t wunacserimtapinotsy uestions which did not tend f -bcltei protectedn f decisions eafcyri from i md o ( 1 ) 1 expose him to risk of prosecution, en on ce ly , n w r en to t disgrace him. Many to degrade and ' ) day had held it to be quite in his (Lord Brougham answering to implicate him in the cgoncifenstioennobfuat clear tlfat the rule extend ed so far as as in to hi this kind. Others there we re, both all cl tiinas ear e ely a opinion that the rule did not e xtend sos of at the present moment, wh o were equ f n r ; and if he i s n e cl w udec n o d f a (Lord Brougham) were to venture an on the subject, he should saytheopi rulei nn did f his no t o (7 7 x n that - tend so far, and for this reason, tha t at all times it had been held, except in one or two ca ses, that protectiono bad become impossible, or to c ases where the did not extend to cases where, from lapse of time, pro secutiontaint 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 x d 53 x d 65i a d ad 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 from prosecution. 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 the evidence, was p u t i n j eopardy of h i s 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 others, whom, wasaction some judges that a ques ti on as to the prev i ous inconti nency of the person se d uce d , even with that very person orwa a s nd br c o o u u g l h d t, notb ate p a u ll t. eve ß n u t t s they had lived to see th e d ay when that rule was ent i re l y againstwit h hers the collateral, 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 had 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 roost 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 thi n k th e 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 "I 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 lie 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 had 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 disclosui-e. 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 ; after which, instead of 51,, he had to pay perhaps 150/. 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 50/., 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 2 3 / 4 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 301. 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. He would be understood to speak with profound respect and with warm affection of those who administered the institution of trial by jury, not merely of the judges on the bench, but also of the practitioners at the bar. But lie was bound to say that if he were asked from his recollection and experience of the profession, to say whether precisely the same procedure would take place a judge that now took place before a jury, he before should hesitate before giving his answer. (Hear, hear.) Generally speaking, he should not be prepared to give an affirmative answer to the question, Would, or would not, some addresses take place before the judge which n ov took place before the jury ? He would even take upon hinaself to say` that he had no doubt whatever that those 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 more 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 waf 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. That 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 diffioul 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 very 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—whe:;her the maxim, "nemo tenetur seipsum inculpare," was or was not a correct principle. But as Ins 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 pemon, 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, C. 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 of his nobl e and learned friend ; and it seemed to him that the con sideration of that report would be the most fitting time forithe 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 Bach 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 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 thouht 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 his noble and learned friend and him self. (Hear, hear.) The bill was then read a second time. Lord BROUGHAM said he must decline referring the bill to a select committee, which was already over whelmed with other matters. Besides, if he consented to divide the bill into two parts such reference would be quite unnecessary. THE MUTINY BILLS. On the motion of the Earl of ABERDEEN, the Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill were read a second time. THE EASTER HOLIDAYS. The Earl of ABERDEEN gave notice of his inten tion to move the adjournment of the house for the Easter holidays from 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 o f some me asure for the effectual checkin g 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 o f our electoral system, which purification, if it should be long delayed, would end in making men lean towards 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.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock. NEW MEMBERS. Mr. HEYWORTH took the oaths and his seat for Derby Col. BOYLE took the oaths and his seat for Frome. RAILWAY AMALGAMATION. Mr. CARDWELL moved that no railway or canal bill, containing any powers of amalgamation, lease, working arrangement, or ,other combination of interest between different companies, be read a second time before the 11th day of April next, unless the parties in terested in promoting such bill shall elect to proceed with the same on the terms of striking out in committee all such powers aforesaid.—Agreed to. MALDON ELECTION. The committee appointed to inquire into the allega tions in the petition against the return for Maldon w ere called to the table and sworn. The committee, of which Lord R. Grosvenor is chairmaji, was appointed to sit at 12 to-morrow. CIRENCESTER ELECTION. The committee appointed to inquire into the allega tions against the return for -Cirencester was called to the table and sworn. The committee, of which Mr. Lascelles is chairman, was appointed to sit to-morrow at eleven. PETITIONS. Mr: MUNTZ presented a petition from a parish in Warwickshire in favour of the abolition of church rates. Mr. T. PARKER presented a petition from Preston against the attorney's certificate duty. Mr. TURNER presented a petition from Liverpool against the endowment of Maynooth. Mr. A. PELLA= presented a petition from South wark against the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sun day. Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE presented a petition from Liverpool, praying for -legislation in regard to I savings banks. Mr. SOTHERON presented a petition from working men in Wiltshire, against the Crystal Palace being opened on Sunday. Mr. V. SMITH presented a petition from Cambridge, praying for some inquiry into the corrupt practices which prevailed in the borough at the last election. Mr. SULLIVAN presented a petition from sixteen solicitors of Kilkenny against the attorney's certificate duty. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented several petitions from working men against the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sunday. Mr. Sergeant SHEE presented several petitions from the county of Donegal praying for the passing of the Tenant Right Bill ; also a petition from the county of Down, complaining of the intimidation at the last elec- tion for that county, and praying for the protection of the ballot. (Hear.) Mr. COLLIER presented a petition from the Law Society of Plymouth against the attorney's certificate duty. Sir J. SHELLEY presented a petition from certain electors of Bridgnorth, complaining of the gross bribery and treating at the last election and previous elections for that borough, and praying for inquiry. The hon. member gave notice that to-morrow he would move that the petition be printed, as he intended to found a motion upon it. - Mr. CAYLEY presented a petition from Newcastle on-Tyne, complaining of the loss of life in coal mines, and praying for legislation. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Mr. PHINN gave notice that, at an early day, he would move for leave to bring in a bill to enable penal ties to be recovered in county courts against persons who have been guilty of bribery at elections. WATER COMPANIES. Lord R. GROSVENOR, not seeing the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade in his place, wished to ask the noble lord at the head of the Home Department what were the intentions of the Government with regard to bills for the supply of water to the metropo lis, introduced, or to be introduced, in the present ses sion. It was understood last session that no new Water Bill was to be passed until the existing companies had had an opportunity of testing their plans, and he wanted to know if that understanding was to be adhered to ? Lord PALMERSTONwas not aware of any stipu lation having been come to which should prevent the present Parliament from dealing with any water bill, and passing it if they so thought fit, but if he was asked what were the opinions of the Government with regard to the expediency of granting such new bills; he should say that it was most desirable that no new bill should be passed until the existing companies had had a fair trial, and had been allowed sufficient time to test the feasibility of their scheme for supplying the metropolis with an ample quantity of good water. The Government would there're be disposed to recommend the house to abstain from establishing any new water company for the present. VALUE OF GOLD. Mr. DRUMMOND said, in the year 1810, the report of a committee which sat upon the subject of the value of gold was laid upon the table of the hduse. Upon that committee the late Sir R. Peel was placed by the Government of the day to support their erroneous opinions, but he (Sir Robert Peel) became a convert to the sound principles of Locke and Newton, and from that period down to the present time the same views had been taken by various Governments of the value of gold. Recently, however, circumstances had occurred of an unprecedented character, which were cal culated to overthrow those principles ; and he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether her Majesty's Government had taken into consideration the effects of the reduced value of gold, the consequences of this re duction of value upon the industrious classes, and espe cially upon contributors to savings banks ; and whether he did not think it advisable to appoint a committee to inquire into the altered value of the standard, and to suggest some remedy for any evil that may be likely to arise. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, in answer to his honourable friend, he had to state that the Government had carefully watched and observed the course of recent transactions, especially with respect to the influx and efflux of gold into and out of this country ; but they had failed to perceive so clearly as the hon. member that they were calculated to depreciate the value of gold, and therefore they had no intention of appoint ing a committee of inquiry into the matter. (Hear.) ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATE DUTY. Lord R. GROSVENOR then rose for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the attorneys' and solicitors' annual certificate duty. Before he went into the merits of the case he wished to bring under the notice of the house the position in which the question was now placed. For twenty years the attorneys and solicitors of England had never ceased to petition the house to be relieved from this tax, and in 1849 he gave notice of his inten tion to move for the repeal of the tax. In 1849, how ever, he was not able to bring the question before the house, but in the following year, 1850, he then asked for leave to bring in his bill ; and although he was op posed by the Government of the day, the house yet ac ceded to the propriety of his motion. He carried the bill through several stages with the assistance of the house, until the end of the session drew near, when, owing to the difficulties that were incidental to every private member who attempted individual legislation, the measure fell through. In the following year, 1851, owing to the Ministerial crisis, and the debate on the Ecclesias tical Titles Bill, he was unable to bring his motion on ; but last year he successfully renewed his motion, and no doubt, had his friends remained in office, there would have been no necessity for his troubling the house now. Thus stood the question then, and were the present not a new Parliament, which had not pronounced its opinion upon the matter, he should have contented himself with simply moving his motion as it stood upon the paper. The history of the certificate duty was very simple. Towards the close of the last century Mr. Pitt was in great distress for money, and he proposed this and seve ral other taxes—not as a part of any general scheme of finance, but because they were more likely to obtain the sanction of the house. From that time up to the present the tax had been gradually augmented, and it now amounted to 121. for metropolitan, and Si. for provincial solicitors. The operation of the tax was most unjust to the profession, for while the more wealthy members of it only paid at the rate of a quarter or a half per cent, on their profits, the poorer members had to pay five, six, and sometimes even seven (per cent. He did not see - why attorneys should be taxed any more than barristers, surgeons, apothecaries, painters, or architects. In fact, they might be more fairly taxed, as they had not to contribute to the State at the outset of their m career so large a sum as solicitors. It was sometimes said that attorneys were extortioners, blood-suckers, ande vampires ; indeed, a certain member of the house on being asked what was the difference between an attorney and a solicitor, said the difference between a crocodile and an alligator. So far, however, from the attorney, being extortioners, he thougahnt unfair ealrand Executive deserved that character, in ret a i n i ng unjust t ax o f that the Cha nce ll or of the Exchequer w H en e ld h i a i d hoped avehoeeneen consented to its repeal, an d t h us this relieved him (L or d H . Grosvenor) from tl i again addres s i ng t h e house on the sub jee e t . n e l c f e s h s i e t y a of hi Ise umgobtti,on,evietnw oifuldthere was not a suffi cient SU only i a ce n d d ed h t h eo thought, su r pl us to enable that nvolve 120,000/., a case had no t w i thstanding been made t o ou b t e wh r i el h e a w le a o d r: , ranted the h ouse in at once relieving the profession I the burd en w hi ch they had now to bear. considered that Mr• COWAN • The any circumsta tax u • briefly seconded the motion. CHANCELLOR of the no person holding his officeEX c ould C,,li nces consent to the repeal of undo • ts tits aboli ntal he had heard the argu ngen c — f th r e abolition tion in connection with the arguments ` ° ti r rely disagreed of other taxes. (Hear, hear.) - ! in the opinion that the annual Irincaetne duty was cerrtny trades, and to E art Q l jj cu E l: un just. Tha imposts which were Which they had been accustoniedb,owere far from being the worst description of duties. There were man y other Which had a far stronger claim for abolition. (Hear, hear.) He admittes, however, that when the proper time arrived, the whole of the different duties which pressed on attorneys would well deserve consid,r tion, such as the duty of 1251. on the admission of attorneys, which was excluded from the noble lord's motion, but which had the effect of making the profession a monopoly by operating as a great burden on young men Who were about entering upon it. He thought that it would be much better to diminish this duty on admissions, in order to give the public the benefit of freer competition in the profession, rather than abolish the annual certificate duty. He protested against the practice of dealing with isolated cases of taxation, as if persevered in it would prove most destructive to the finances of the country. If, however, the noble lord thought there was such an exception as to require particular discussion, the proper time to submit it to the consideration of the house was after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid his financial plans before the house. He should on these grounds oppose the motion of the noble lord. Sir F. THESIGER considered that if the noble lord consented to postpone his motion to an in definite period, as suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would entirely fail in ever attaining his object. He thought there was no batter time than the present to bring forward this subject, ELS it was desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have an opportunity of hearing the opinions of the house upon it, before he presented his Budget. He saw no reason whatever why the noble lord should not be allowed to bring in a bill for the abolition of such a gross and shameful tax. Mr. FITZGERALD supported the Motion. Mr. HUME would give the noble lord his support if he would propose the abolition of the imposts on all the other thirty-five trades which were compelled to pay duty to the state, but he could not think of relieving one elan while others were liable to similar burdens. After a words in reply to Lord R. GROSVENOR, The house divided, when there appeared— _ 219 167 For the motion. Against it Majority in favour of the bi 11... 52 Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill. OATHS. Mr. PELLAIT 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 liew 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 ' • rel igious persuasions, and to report thereon from time to time. He said he attached a paramount degree of im portance to the motion of whibh had given notice. It was eminently a question of truthfulness, and con cerned the stability of our political and social institu tions. It was his desire, in connection with this great subject, to furnish the committee which he sought to obtain with ample means of inquiry and with full in structions, in order that they might arrive at a proper conclusion upon the subject. The present condition of the law in reference to this question abounded with in equalities. The people called Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists objected to oaths on principle, and they had been relieved ; but there were numerous other classes of subjects to whom no relief had been granted. The various reports which had emanated from the House of Lords had thrown considerable light on the subject. In 1834 the lords made a report in which they concurred in following out the principle which had been adopted with very considerable success in the customs and ex cise, namely, the substitution of affirmations for oaths in almost all cases, from which a large amount of commercial benefit had accrued. The hon. member proceeded to describe the various forms of oaths and adjurations in use among the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, which, irrespective of their bearing upon the subject in hand, he characterised as curiosities of literature. He also quoted the opinion of Paley, who said that in no country in the world were the _ . forms of oaths so circuitous and ridiculous as those in England. He (Mr. Pellatt) contended that the constant practice of administering oaths in courts of justice, and especially in the various police-courts, had the effect of bringing the ceremony into contempt. In the year 1831 an act was passed which opened a better prospect with regard to the abuse of oaths. He need not remind the house that before this time oaths were taken by the bushel, as it were, and without discrimination, not only in public offices, but in counting-houses and other private establishments. This act of 1831 afforded relief in this particular to members of the Society of Friends and other separatists, by enabling them to affirm. In re ference to this subject, he would take the liberty of asking the house upon what ground the Society of Friends were to enjoy a superior degree of freedom to himself and other dissenters, who might wish to have the option of affirming I There was no justice in pre serving such distinctions, especially as their continuance was a sore injury to tender consciences. At one period the Society of Friends had no resting place owing to the requirement of oaths ; and nearly 500 of their members were on this account confined in prisons in various parts of the kingdom, some of whom only obtained their re lease upon the accession of William and Mary. Whilst on this subject, he would state his conviction that the house might safely dispense with that part of the oath required from members on taking their seats which had the effect of excluding a particular class of reli gionists. Why not have a common declaration which all could adopt, and no oath whatever ? He did not think their loyalty would be the less, or that they would be less anxious for the promotion of the interests and the happiness of their fellow-subjects. (Hear, hear.) He was anxious, then, to ext e nd th e principle which had been recognised in 1849. The truth was that oaths were not wanted. They did not increase truthfulness. They were only demanded by governments and corporations for purposes of their own, and were totally unnecessary between man and man—between merchant and merchant —between banker and banker. At the same time he must admit that the corporation of the city of London had in this respect set an example to the Commons House of Parliament, inasmuch as they had enabled any person to take up his freedom and settle in London upon taking an oath according to the form sanctioned by his own religion, and in the manner most binding upon his conscience. Previously to this, they would not allow a Jew to trade in the City although he might be British born. In one case, a Jew had been converted to Chris tianity ; he had a son, who was born in London and married a British woman, yet the son was refused the freedom of the City because his father was a Jew. This man was put to an expense of 1,0001. before he could establish his claim so as to enable him to open a shop in Whitechapel. This, however, was now changed ; and if the House of Commons would follow the example of the city of London, there would be no difficulty in ad mitting Jews into Parliament. It appeared to him - therefore, without anti c ip a ti ng th e quest i on o f t h e ad mission of Jews, that the question as to oaths ought now to be finally settled, and with that view he trusted the Government would consent to the motion for a com mittee. In conclusion, he called upon the house to aid him in unrolling this dark mummy of by-gone supersti tion in respect to unnecessary oaths ; for by so doing they would only be expanding a principle which had already received parliamentary sanction. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME seconded the motion. His hon. friend was quite right in bringing the subject under the consi deration of the house. Our laws were made, or ought to be made, for the benefit of the community without reference to religious distinctions or to oaths ; and, being of opinion that a bad man would take an oath while a good man would refuse, he thought it was hard that laws should exist for the punishment of good men which had no influence upon bad. (Hear, hear.) He could not tell how many millions of oaths had been saved by tire late change in the law ; but he was sure that the effect' had been to increase the respect of the people for reli gion. (Hear, hear.) He trusted her Majesty's Govern ment would not object to the committee ; for in his opi nion it would be the means of proving that great advan tage could arise from the abolition of all oaths. (Hear.) 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 great important ea e tadvanta su geh bect of unnecessary ad j undouhiyatte oaths ndedt ; and he very operation of the measures which h a d b een passed in that resp ec t. 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—firat of all by the positive temptation they offered to bad men , and even t o men who could not be secoil d l y, forbecause tthe sacredth ey the rever en ce hcaaldledthealetffogecetthoefrdb,adiminmisheinng; He as sure that, for the purposes name of the Deity. he had expressed, the hon. gentleman who moved the the house. At the sameP?n resolution might count u man would rest satisfied the universal sympathy of time he hoped the hon. gentle had of pressing house ; and that he his • three objects, whichwith the opportunity be had to the motion. vi stas upon the attention of the Would not call upon them to assent The motion, he perceived, P appearedthe h o nourable gentle man had i n of declar a tions inquire operation to inquire view. First, it was proposed into the operation o f certain sed for the ointed to sub stitution acts p_ publicproposed t 0 inquire into the advantage of extending the _ tiidepartmerda.secoinndlliyeu it in certain princi ple of those acts to the courts of law d it was proposed to inquire into the oath f sn ; members of Parliament at the could hardly be made a mattehrelft not necessary therefore to make With regard to the secon d which the hon. member proposedtolaw, table house. It and it was argument,a subject of inquiry. the o wan tak en ?:),' branch of the motion, in thextend his inquiry would submit to to the oaths taken iu chounr.s f member conclusive reasons the judgment of the why a commission was appointed Some time ago at present. ent, of which his noble friend the mem ber he should not Take ° such a reference to a committee by the Governm of the courts of common law. That into the procedure one report, and he was I h a d already made ber for the city of London was at the head, to inquire commission , i n a con dition to state on the authority o f t h e Attorne y - General, that it was now ready to present its second report, in which there was contained a full considera tion o f t h is v ery question. (Hear, hear.) When that report was laid upon the table, the hon. gentleman wOuld find that the subject was dealt with in such a, manner as even he would pronounce to be efficient. With regard to the third part of his motion—the inquiry into the oaths taken by members at the table of this house—he would submit to the hon. member that that fithesuthbejrectthfeoroaathcosmininowttrakoefuthbiys househ.ersThoef question,was not a w Parliament should be repealed, and on e mem bers uniform declara tion to Ye taken by members of ~Y 101 1.0.6 all all 8 100 100 all all all 100 all 100 7 4A 21 1 li 36i 101 i PI 4 d 11 p p 22., 8 21' 36i i 27i 8 3n i xd xd xd xd 123 12 20 20 113 100 100 18i THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 11, 1853.