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

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 women and children. He 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 with 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 beating his wife. 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 man .._
e,te,
and, lest the
one of her eyes presented a shocking appearance,
of her face was discoloured and swolle
maeadnsplcotrldle.go She pleaded fiofr
committed
hare' d n
ber,1852, at the Wfe:rtmtifinsalte'rhPeolwicaes-
finie‘dordn.choer2t3wdoofmNonotvhesm' -iraP-Aannmeut "
court, Frederick Giles appeared to answer the complaint of
Susannah Preston, who had been living with him for two
years. After being out all night,
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 away ; 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 tor::
on one
saturated with blood, and
. as, _ 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 '47
tended by two females;
which was bleeding much;
; appeared to suffer great ..---
nisinnent,
' d of November,
the 23
it
appeared
against Jegemiah Donevarlg, the cries of
rd. the -fees
-street, Mile-cud-
were heard
indeti 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 the house that 'her appearance after the lapse
of a few weeks would present a very different spectacle
to the jury as compared with her appearance before the
magistrate. He would, therefore suggest that greater
summary powers should be given 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 should give 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 name of the hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside), and the Irish mem-
bers had an able champion in him. (Hear, hear.) H
rable figxeenduruetaleasnin(
mthrera.
Ira:raetinangh.eii management
considered it absolutely necessary for the house, if the
He
wished to pay due. regard to the constitution and conaposir-
committee,
of
fontboefmc o. mmTibtete
hone s
ample opportunity on a former oacccacespiotnedto
oMee under the
tion. A number of those previously on thelse 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. goentedlemuapn
?notThme
ptb
the
oe, phhe
house
uoopportunityanforwardt
roa 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 2ttertunitY tArlte 811
-He hoped the house
would abide by the rulee,ceanmdmnitot 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 members would 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-Actsthe engineers, in carrying out the works
which either of the supenn-
ving?Puvsuant
have
eth Act, 1.845, called the attention of the house
which 131°Yvilt--c-°
Public Heal been etixeßcTu'ted under the authority of the
who was employed by the
te the fact tillaactedKrilimitfngienv, opposition to the wishes of
board, had P in the town of yd©, and also of the town
wlakitt.ecrhcaheseh,
had made,
nabteb,rtohuoguhgthinhae
the rate-payers 13f:erns:turn of an cases innm?
was paid three guineas a day for his services by the Board
of Health. t;
the slanrytehye
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
PMEoRti
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 for believing that Stephen Mount, in giving
his evidence before the committee, has been guilty of wilful

s nd corrupt perjury;" and to move that the Attorney-General
be directed to prosecute the said Stephen Mount for per-
jury, and that in all cases in which a committee shall re-
port there are grounds for believing a witness to be guilty
of perjury, the Attorney-General be directed to prosecute
at once. His great object in the latter part of the motion
was to prevent the recurrence of perjury as much as pos-
sible, while these committees were sitting, by insuring the
speedy punishment of the offence.
Mr. BR A MSTON said that, as chairman of the Chatham
committee, he would second the motion. He could not say
that he was authorised by the committee to do so, but, at
the same time, having heard the evidence of Mount, he liad
not the slightest doubt—and he believed that was the feel-
ing of every member of the committee—that he had com-
mitted wilful and corrupt perjury. If the committees
omitted to direct their chairman to move for the prosecu-
tion of witnesses whom they declared to have been, in
heir opinion, guilty of perjury, there would no doubt be
plenty of private members to take the matter up. He
hoped, therefore, that the hon. member would not press
the latter part of the motion, which seemed to infringe the
independence of the house.
Lord PALMERSTON cordially concurred with the opi-
nion expressed by his hon. friend as to the able and im-
partial manner in which the election committees had per-
formed the duties committed to them. (Hear, hear.) They
had acted with the greatest impartiality, and what was
better, with becoming promptitude. He attached as
much importance as any man could possibly do to
punishing, and thereby preventing, perjury, before these
committees ; because it was obvious that, if wit-
nesses before these committees were prepared to pursue
that course of perjury which had in some cases been fol-
lowed, the functions of the house, and the purposes of
the committee, would be entirely defeated. It was, there-
fore, the duty of the house to visit with every possible de-
gree of seventy every case of perjury which could reason-
ably be established against any witness. On these grounds
he concurred with that part of the resolution which di-
rected the prosecution of the witness in this case. He be-
lieved that in ordinary cases it should be the part of the
committee to resolve that their chairman should make the
motion for a prosecution ; and he so far concurred with
the hon. member who seconded the motion, as to think
that it would be better, after agreeing with that part of
the motion which ordered the prosecution in this instance,
and thus making good the omission of the committee to
leave the committee to purstie the regular course, and not
to take out of the hands of the committees the functions
which properly belonged to them ; reserving, of course,
the right of the house to make good any cases of omission
on their part. He would, therefore, suggest to his hon.
friend to omit the latter part of his motion—the former
would, he was sure, receive the unanimous support of the
house.
Mr. NEWDEGATE fully concurred in the course re-
commended by the noble lord, and regretted, as a member
of the Chatham committee, that they had not desired their
chairman to make a motion for the prosecution of this wit-
ness. He had acted as a magistrate for many years, and
scarcely ever heard evidence which he believed to be more
wilfully false, or more deserving the reprobation of that
house.

Mr. KING said that, as it seemed to be the wish of the
house, he would withdraw the latter part of his motion.
Sis J. SHELLEY said that while one sessional order of
that house declared that it would proceed with the utmost
severity of the law against persons who had given false evi-
dence before the house or any of its committees, an-
other set forth that if any person was elected
or returned as a member of the house, or en-
deavoured to be, by bribery or any other corrupt prac-
tices, that house would proceed against him in a similar
manner. He hoped, therefore, that the house would pro-
ceed with even-handed justice under both those orders, and
that as Sir F. Smith was by the report of the same com-
mittee found guilty of bribery, the committee would re-
commend that the same course should be pursued with re-
spect to Sir F. Smith as to Stephen Mount.
Mr. BRAMSTON said that he thought it was right, as
some misapprehension existed on the point, that he should
state that Stephen Mount was not called by the late sitting
member, but by the petitioners.
The resolution, as amended, was then agreed to.
THE ADMIRALTY COURT.

Mr. R. PHILLIMORE then moved for a return of the
number of actions or suits in the High Court of Admiralty
of England for each of the six years preceding the passing
of the act 3 and 4 Vic., c. 65, intituled, " An act to im-
prove the practice and extend the jurisdiction of the High
Court of Admiralty in England," and for each of the six
years preceding Christmas, 1852 inclusive, specifying the
nature of each action or snit, and whether personal or
against the ship, distinguishing foreign from British ships,
and in cases of damage, whether single or cross actions, and
in cases of possession or bottorary bonds, whether involving
claims in equity, and in cases of wages, whether involving
claims of masters and seamen against bankrupt owners of
ships. His object in moving for this return was to furnish
the house with a practical refutation of certain statements
with reference to the Court of Admiralty, which had ob-
tained currency both within and without the walls of that
house—statements which were false in most cases, and in
all cases grossly exaggerated. He hoped to show that in
time of peace justice between individual parties was as
satisfactorily administered in this court as in of war
international justice was done, to the honour and credit of
the country. The 3d and 4th Victoria furnished practical
evidence of the efficiency of this tribunal, for while it
largely extended its jurisdiction it gave parties who had
suffered damage from collisions or other causes an oppor-
tunity to seek their remedy in a court of common law if
they prefe..cd it. The object of this motion was to show
that that option had, since the passing of the act, been
almost invariably exercised in favour of the High Court of
Admiralty.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. NAPIER obtained leave to bring in a bill to faci-
litate the more speedy arrest of absconding debtors in Ire-
land.
THE LIFE ASSURANCES COMMITTEE. •

On the motion of Mr. WILSON, the following members
were nominated the committee on life assurance associa-
tions :—Mr. Wilson, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Henley, Mr.
Hamilton, Mr. Glyn, Mr. Sotheron, Mr. M. Forster, Mr.
D. Seymour, Mr. Thomas Chambers, Mr. Mullings, Mr.
Freshfield, Mr. Geach, Mr. John Abel Smith, Mr. Cowan,
and Mr. John Ball.
COUNTY POLLS BILL.
-

The County Elections Polls (Scotland) Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed on April 13th.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL.
The Consolidated Fund Bill was read a second time.
CATHEDRAL APPOINTMENTS BILL.

This bill was read a third time.

On the motion that it do pass, ,
Mr. FREWEN moved that a clause, of which the fol-
lowing is the enacting part, should be added to it :—Be it
therefore enacted, that after the passing of this act the
provision of `An act to abridge the holding of benefices in
plurality, and to make better provision for the residence
of the clergy' (except in the case of any benefices situate in
any city or town where it shall appear desirable to the
bishop of the diocese to pull down and remove one or
more churches) shall only extend and be applicable to and
for the union of the two benefices, or one benefice and one
spiritual sinecure, rectory, or vicarage, the aggregate
yearly value of which does not exceed six hundred pounds,
and the churches (or if there are more than two, then the
churches which are the furthest from each other) shall be
within one mile and a half of one another by the nearest
road, and the annual value of. one of the said benefices,
or spiritual sinecure, rectory, or vicarage, shall not ex-
ceed two hundred pounds, or the population of one of
them shall not exceed one hundred persons, according
to the census taken by the authority of any Act of Par-
liament ; provided always, that nothing herein contained
shall be construed to alter the provisions of the twenty-
sixth section of the said recited act for annexing isolated
places to the contiguous parishes, or making them separate
benefices." His object was to prevent the consolidation of
two or more contiguous parishes where there were endow-
ments sufficient for two clergymen, and to bring the law
back to more like what it was before the act of 1850 was•
passed. If the house should agree to this clause, he should
then move that the following words be added to the title
of the bill—" and to prevent the union of benefices above
a certain value."
Mr. S. HERBERT said that the clause which the ho-
nourable member proposed to add to this bill constituted
the main part of one which was thrown out on Wednesday
week last.
Mr. FRE WEN said that this was only one clause of
that bill, which was withdrawn and not rejected.
Mr. HERBERT said that the fact was that this clause,
which the house had already considered and decided
against, was one so entirely foreign to the subject matter
of the bill upon which the hon. member proposed to en-
graft it, that he was actually obliged to alter the title of
the bill. If the hon. member had proposed to add this
clause to the bill for the repeal of the attorneys' certificate
duty, it would have had as much reference to that as to
the bill now before the house, which did not relate tO the
cure of souls further than by enacting that for the next two
years any appointments made to fill vacancies occurring
after the 3d of March should be subject to any enactments
recommended by the commission now sitting. He would
not now discuss the clause on its merits, but merely remind
the house that Parliamentary proceedings would be in-
volved in inextricable confusion, if on the third reading of
a bill they allowed a clause to be inserted in it which had
no reference to the matter in hand.
were--
The house then divided on the clause, when there

For the clause.
Againwt .........

Majority
42
The clause was
passed. therefore rejected. The bill was then
METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS (REPAYMENT
OUT OF CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL.
The debate on the motion for going into committee was
resumed by
Mr. HENLEY, who remarked that at by the operation of
this bill a sum of between 130,0 e
140,0001. would
find its way into the revenue of the Woods and Forests,
e of the finan-
cial would, consequently, increase theb:.,:a
dansesirable, but it
year of 1853-54. That might
should be recollected that it would be
do
substantive sum on the Consolidated Fund, o " by taking a
balances of the Exchequer, and transferringr it into of the
the
ways and meads of the year. The money was to
out of the balances of the Exchequer to pay the interestiakela
certain mortgages, but the right honourable gentleman did9f
not tell them when it would be paid off. Neither did i
tell them when it was probable that the London-bridge
Approaches Fund would commence to recoup the money
into the Exchequer which the right hon. gentleman was
now going to take out of it.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said they should not charge the
general revenue of the country for local purposes, and asked
also why they should throw any portion of the debt on the
Consolidated Fund without certainty of repayment. The
right honourable gentleman had not shown how he
sum that
was to come out of the London-bridge Approaches Fund
would be realised ; and he reminded the house that it ap-
peared from the last return from the London corporation
account that there were many burdens upon that fund.
Mr. ALCOCK would oppose the bill, because the duties
upon coals would be continued under it.
The house having gone into committee,
* The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to
correct an error in his statement on the preceding day. He
had stated that the consumers of coals would not have to
Pay a farthing more or less under this bill, whereas he
Should have stated that the consumer of coals would pay
considerably less under this bill than he paid
.before. By
the opposition'
~.....6c, of the hon.gentleman who spoke last, the
~.,....„ nsurcer of coals
-a. • .., iAlwi,,,- might have to pay more than he would
-..)----; -- - ^ ,Als`e be sabiect t
. _ .4,i,4- old o for the amount
the slowness or rapidity with i
r - -,.., ,--1. a depend u'. he would have to
~-, .7(-which the bill should I)
aniss through the house, because the 1
, ..• ' • re4eithe debt remained in
n existence the greater the in-
Tea?, hear.) The
„,„,
,i',,,: -. .dberhst 4 upon it would
vg'
and liable
li for the whole of
, --.,"7, 'l. bi4dggi Approaches Fund,London-
•e rat operation of
, ~*,: We,p4l cipal and interest,
,--/ ' '."'i`i4)
, •

.i •.