Vtliutts nut( VrnErrhiugo in Vartiumtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Horsa or Loans. Monday, March 7. Irish National Schools ; Lord Clancarty's Motion for Papers. Tuesday, March 8. No business of importance. Thursday. March 10. Law of Evidence and Procedure Bill, read second time— Mutiny Bills, read a second time.

Friday, March 11. Government of India ; Petition presented by Lord Ellen- borough—Mutiny Bills passed. Boma or Cosaimm. Monday, March 7. Shipping Interests ; Mr. Cardwell's Statement on introducing, the Pilotage Bill—Mutiny Bills passed. Tuesday, March 8. Pilotage Bill, read a first time—Scotch Sheriff-Courts; Mr. Craufurd's Bill—Assurance Associations ; Committee appointed—National Gallery; Committee appointed. Wednesday. March 9. London Drainage Bill, read a second time—Board of Health ; Government announcement.

Thursday. March 10. New Member; Colonel Boyle for Frome—Attornies Certi- ficate Licences; Bill to be brought in, carried by 219 to 167—Oaths; Mr. Apsley Pellatt's Motion—Assurance Associations ; Committee nominated—Assaults on Wo- men Bill, read a first time.

Friday, March 11. Government of India ; Question and Answer—Jew Bill, a second reading carried by 263 to 2I2—Sheriff-Courts (Scotland) No. 2 Bill, read a first time.

TIME- TABLE,

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment. Monday 5h 9h 40i0

Tuesday 5h 5b 30m

Wednesday No sitting.

Thursday Sh 7h Om Friday 5h .... 7h 45m

Sittings this Week, 4; Ttme, Oh 551u Sittings this Week, 5; Time, 37k 15m Chia Se551.. 43; — 6712 42m this Session, 5.5 — 302h Om

NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRIGAND,

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment, Monday 41s . (as) lh Om fuesday 95 10h Om

.. . Wednesday Noon . Out Thursday 12h Om Friday 4h .(m) 12h 15m

The Earl of CLANCARTY made a long speech in the House of Lords on a motion for returns connected with the system of National Education as pursued in Ireland. He alleged that the experiment had failed, espe- cially in its main objects—the education of Protestant and Roman Catho- lic children in the same schools, and in inducing the Irish people to carry out the system by local contributions. He asserted that the returns in the report of the Commissioners were inaccurate in respect to the number of children receiving education under the system. He complained that the extracts from the Bible are not permitted to be read in some schools. He ridiculed as Utopian the idea of carrying out the system by a mixed board.

The Earl of ABERDEEN admitted that the system had not succeeded so extensively as it was expected to do when proposed by Lord Derby : but to whom was that failure to be attributed ?

Was it not to be attributed to the noble Earl and his friends ? (Cheers from the .Ministeria( benches.) Wherever it had been supported by the clergy, it had been always successful. He must confess, that when he saw this system of education so strongly opposed, and the best chance—perhaps the only chance—for the permunent improvement of Ireland, rejected and wantonly thrown away, it was with some difficulty that he could repress his feelings of indignation. Had that system been supported as it ought to have been"? He defended the accuracy of the Commissioners' report for 18,51. They had attained the real objects of the promoters of the system—a joint secular and a separate religious instruction ; and there had not been a single case of proselytism. The reading of the Scripture extracts had never been prescribed. Some advantageous modifications might be made in the rules; but he did think it would be one of the greatest misfortunes of Ireland if the system were changed in any essential point. Several Peers then engaged in conversation on the subject. The Earl of Euturrox vindicated the system. He went to Ireland with a preju- dice against it, 'but after an unremitting investigation he had decided in its favour. He agreed with: Lord Aberdeen, that any want of success must be attributed to the Protestant clergy who withheld their support. He thought that partly owing to the policy of Lord Clarendon—the only blame he had to bestow on him—who had refused to extend the Govern- ment patronage to any but supporters of the National system. The Earl of CRAnmsinoN unequivocally denied that he had so bestowed the Govern- ment patronage. In making inquiry into the antecedents of clergymen, he had included the course they had taken, not the course they would take on the question; and, emteris paribu.s, he had selected those who favoured that system. The Earl of HARRownr suggested a strict inquiry into the operation of the system. The Bishop of LIMERICK said there was no system so suited to the wants of the people of Ireland as the National system.

Where it had failed, who had been in fault? Those influential persons, lay and clerical, who would not assist the Government in carrying out the system but denounced it in the most unmeasured terms. As to the books employed, they are admitted to be incomparable. Nothing could be more detrimental to Ireland than any attempt to invalidate the fundamental prin- ciples of the National system. No one cohld venerate the Scriptures more than himself; but he wished to do as he would be done by, and not make the reading of them compulsory on any man.

The Bishop of LONDON avowed that he had from the first been a most strenuous opponent of the National system. This system, it was said, had originated in a report of thIPCommissioners appointed to inquire into the subject some years ago. But those Commis- sioners had recommended, not that the parochial schools should be dis- couraged and suppressed, but that they should be increased, improved, and enabled to develop themselves. Now, that recommendation has not been acted on ; for the parochial schools, when they have applied for the means of extension and improvement, have not been at all encouraged. The principle of the system may be sound, but it has not been carried out, and the ob- ject has not been attained. He complained, that although the selections from the Bible might be judicious, yet the children were not made acquainted with them as the Word of God. A lad, when asked whence he derived his knowledge of our first parents, replied, "from the Second Book of the School Readings "—he had no notion that what he repeated was a portion of the Word of God.

The Bishop of Nonwien observed, that the religions element was the most important in all systems of education, whether private or national ; but that when you attempt to introduce it into the latter, it constitutes the main difficulty ; that the fault is not one of legislation, but of our re- ligious division; to which legislation is forced to accommodate itself.

Lord Clancarty thought that the difficulty ought to be met by giving sepa- rate grants to the several religious denominations. The Bishop of London seemed, to some extent, to have the same view. But such an arrangement would operate most disadvantageously to the members of our Church, for the grants must be made in reference to numbers, and the Roman Catholics are in the proportion of five to one to the Protestants. It is not only that there is this aggregate disproportion, but in very many parishes of the South and West of Ireland, you could not collect children enough from the Protestant popu- lation to form a school at all. The result must be, that under a system of separate grants, they must go to the Roman Catholic schools and receive the teaching of the Roman Catholics. Agreeing, then, that the National Educa- tion in Ireland can only be fairly conducted by bringing together the chil- dren of different denominations at the same school, we are forced on one of two alternatives : if, on the one hand, the religious teaching is sufficient for religious education, you must violate the rights of conscience by forcing it on some whose parents object to it ; if; on the other hand, you respect the rights of conscience, it becomes necessary to pare down the religious teaching until it is defective and meagre.

The Bishop vindicated the present system—combined education in secular matters, separate in religion—as the only one which could meet the circum- stances of Ireland. He also defended the system against -the charge of making no adequate religious provision for the children ; which he said was done by giving sufficient and convenient time in all the schools for separate religious instruction, and by the supplementary aid of Scriptural extracts and the little book of evidence. He did not hesitate to express his h opinion that this system, with all its drawbacks and shortcomings, is the greatest in- strument now at work for the regeneration of Ireland, and the greatest legislative boon which has been conferred on that country since the Union. The Earl of DERBY, while concurring with those who defended the system, supported the suggestion for an inquiry ; which he said might consist partly of facts, partly of effects." He too regretted the course pursued by the clergy, but he thought it ought not be brought as an accusation against them. He exposed the fallacy of Lord Clancarty's criticisms on the statistics of the returns. He argued that great progress had been made ; and laid it down that they could not learn the practical working of the system unless they bore in mind the state of education in Ireland before its introduction. If they did away with the fun- damental principle of the system—joint secular and separate reli,gious in- struction—they would run the greatest risks of sacrificing all the advantages they had gained. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE deprecated inquiry into the effects of the system on the moral passions and political feelings of the country ; as it would rouse at once all those passions which it was their object to con- trol. The system had educated Ireland when every other system had failed ; and the increasing propositions from the Protestant clergy for Protestant schools showed that it was working in a way no system had ever worked before.

The returns moved for by Lord Clanearty were ordered.

SKIPPING LEGISLATION.

Mr. CeanwELL, in a Committee of the whole House on Pilotage, stated the intentions of the Government with respect to the mercantile marine.

Before he did so, however, he quoted some figures to show the vast in- crease of British shipping. a 1815 the amount of tonnage was 2,651,000 tons ; in 1825 it was 2,553,000. But from the time of Mr. Huskisson to the present day there was scarcely an instance of a reverse ; and no instance of a confirmed and continuous reverse ; and if the Committee compared the year .1852 with 1849, they would find that while the total amount of British ton- nage inwards and outwards in 1849 was 8,152,000 tons, in 1852 it had in- creased to 8,727,090 tons ; and the number of ships built and registered had increased from 121,000 in 1849 to 167,000 in 1852. It has been determined not to effect any change in the constitution of Tri- nity House or the Boards of Ireland and Scotland, the three light-managing bodies ; but to make them accountable to Parliament through Ministerial re- sponsibility for their proceedings, and to lay their accounts before the House every session. The views of the Government had been communicated to Trinity House ; and it had been unanimously agreed that Government should control the expenditure of their revenues, and periodically their accounts. The Elder Brethren, however, prayed the Government not to press for the cessation of pensions and charities out of the light-dues proposed by the Go- vernment; but they agreed, pending the final decision, to suspend the grant of any new charities or pensions. Proceeding to enter into details with respect to the other shipping griev- ances, Mr. Cardwell proposed to institute an inquiry into "passing tolls "— a subject beset with difficulties. It is not intended to maintain the restric- tion which requires that a British ship should be manned with a crew con- sisting of three-fourths British subjects; but shipowners will be allowed to man their ships with British and foreign seamen in what. proportions they think fit. The system of volunteering from the merchant service to the Royal Navy will not be abolished ; but should any loss fall on a shipowner by volunteering, he will be compensated from the funds of the Admiralty. Salvage also will be retained ; but arrangements are in progress by which the lien which the law gives upon a ship in such cases may be released, and the case transmitted to the Admiralty Court. The grievances of desertion

abroad are to be redressed by bill; and that of Consular fees will be redressed by the Foreign Office. Upon the question of pilotage, it is proposed to amalgamate the Trinity House and the Cinque Port pilots, and to place them under one control, giving the pilots of the Cinque Ports the right to take ships out of the Thames, and she Trinity House pilots the right to bring them in ; to confer upon the Board of Trade, in extreme cases, the power of remedying the defects of local acts affecting pilotage in the Mersey; and to invest the Board with powers of a mediatory character in the Severn, both for these purposes and for instituting a strict inquiry into all by-laws, rates, and re- gulations, with the aid of the officers of the mercantile marine department of the Board. It is proposed to reduce the pilotage of the port of London 25 per cent, while the pilotage of vessels tugged by steam will be raised from one-fourth to one-third.

After some friendly comment and criticism from Mr. Hunts, Atr. Huislasv, Mr. LABOUCHERE, and others,. leave was obtained for bringing in a bill on pilotage.

ASSURANCE ASSOCIATIONS.

In moving the appointment of a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the subject of Assurance Associations Mr. JAMES WILSON entered with some minuteness into the views entertained by Government, and the state of assurances generally.

He declined at the outset to offer any opinion as to whether Government should. interfere or not; and he guarded himself against being supposed to advocate either proprietary or mutual societies. His only object was to see that the privileges conferred by Parliament were not abused and that the public should not be placed in a condition of insecurity. The enormous magnitude to which these associations have grown, and the immense amount of capital now invested in the hands of the managers, are not, perhaps, generally understood. In Scotland alone, the liabilities of fifteen insurance- companies are 33,000,0001., their paid-up capital 6,000,000/., and their an- nual income above 1,500,000/. In England, the capital of these associations amounts to 150,000,000/. sterling at the smallest estimate ; the gross annual revenue, contributed by the most deserving classes of society, not less than 5,000,01111. sterling—equal almost to the entire amount of the Income-tax. When the House heard of the numbers springing up one day and falling like autumn-leaves the next, they could hardly be prepared to go on with- out placing them on a more satisfactory basis. Government feel, that as they were formed under acts of Parliament, Parliament is by implication re- sponsible for the evils that may arise. But the responsibility of the ma- nagers cannot be overlooked. He would be satisfied if in all cases these in- stitutions were started for bona fide objects, and not, as he suspected in many instances, as a mere cover for fraud of a most gross description. He looked upon them much more as a sacred trust for the future, than as a means of mercantile operations for the present. For this reason, he thought they ought to be taken out of the strict category of commercial institutions ; and if Parliament interfere with joint-stock banks, they are doubly justified in interfering with assurance societies.

By the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1844, it was provided that these in- stitutions should be registered like other joint stock companies, and that each company should be obliged to return to the Registry Office an annual balance- sheet, which should prove the financial condition of the company. He ex- tremely regretted to say, and that was the ground on which the Govern- ment felt bound to take other steps, that both those provisions had been grossly violated and abused. In many cases the registration has been in name and not in fact. The act requires that the deed of the company should be registered, and that it should be signed by a certain proportion of the partners for a cer- tain proportion of the capital. But it is a notorious fact, and that fact would be elicited in the Committee in a remarkable degree, that the greatest frauds and deceits are committed under this registration. Two or three persons getting up a company find little difficulty in procuring thirty or forty per- sons to put their names down for enormous amounts, who, when inquiries are made, are either not to be met with, or are discovered to be men of no responsibility whatever.

In illustration of these views, Mr. Wilson read a striking paragraph from the report of the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies ; relating how a " direction " had boldly advertised a company with 1,000,0001. ster- ling, and had defrauded the public of 200,0001.; the only real capital being those very contributions of the defrauded men.

Another security., which has been as much evaded as the other regulations laid down by Parliament, is the production of the annual balance-sheet. No man would undertake to state what the affairs of these companies are, judg- ing from the balance-sheets which they exhibit, they could be put into so many forms and shapes. It appears that in twenty-five of these insurance- offices, the receipts for the last year amounted to the sum of 462,000/., while the cost of management, according to their own showing, reached to 387,000/., leaving a balance of only 85,0001. out of an income of nearly half a million sterling. He did not wish to alarm the public mind. No doubt, the "respectable' companies are in a highly sound condition; but they are the exceptions and not the rule. It has been proposed with great reason that the insurance- companies should be subjected, like other joint-stock companies to a test of solvency, by requiring them, to pay up a portion of their capital they are allowed to be registered. He was sorry to say that so numerous have been the institutions of a mushroom description which have sprung up of late, and so palpable the frauds which they practise to entrap the unwary, that they deserve to be characterized as swindling establishments. Since the Joint-Stock Companies Act passed, 335 new insurance-offices were projected, of which 149 were actually founded, and 90 had ceased to carry on business ; so that out of 335 projected, there were only 59 in existence. In the last year—for every year appeared to make matters worse—there were 72 new companies projected, 18 founded, and 12 had ceased to exist ; leaving only 6 out of 72 which had been projected. In the conversation that followed Mr. Wilson's long speech, there was a general expression of satisfaction at the course taken by the Govern- ment. But Mr. Hums asked, what, if the people cannot take care of themselves, can acts of Parliament do for them ? and Mr. THOMAS CRAM- Bras doubted whether the advantages expected would be secured by the course proposed to be taken.—Motion agreed to.

The Committee has been nominated as follows—Mr. Wilson, Mr. Card- well, Mr. Henley, Mr. Hamilton Mr. Glyn, Mr. Sotheron, Mr. Matthew Forster, Mr. Denby Seymour, Mr. Thomas Chambers, Mr. Mullings, Mr. Freshfield, Mr, Geach, Mr. John Abel Smith, Mr. Cowan, and Mr. John Ball.

ATTORNEY-CER'rIFICATE DUTIES.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR has successfully made his annual motion for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the attornies' and solicitors' annual cer- tificate duty. For the sake of the two hundred new Members, Lord Ro- bert explained, that the tax falls with great inequality on the profession, amounting to an income-tax of one or two per cent on persons in large practice, and to five, six, or seven on others.

"Why does not the Government levy a tax upon barristers, or upon sur- geons, and other professions? An attorney pays a tax of 1201. upon enter- ing into articles, and another duty of 25/. upon admission to practise. Ho pays three per cent Income-tax ; and then the Government superadds this tax (on the average of the whole profession) of three per cent upon their earnings."

Mr. COWAN in seconding the motion, suggested a licence or certificate duty to include all trades and professions.

Mr. GLADSTONE resisted the motion, on the ground that the tax is not unjust ; that it is not a proper time to move the repeal of a single tax, which ought to be considered in conjunction with the claims of others. When the proper time arrives for considering these questions, it will be for the House to say whether the profession would not be more benefited by an important reduction of the duty on articles. As to the question why the tax is not extended to barristers, the mover must know that there is all the dif- ference in the world between keeping a tax we have got and getting one we want. (Cheers and (aughter.) Mr. Gladstone enforced at some length the impropriety of dealing with particular taxes before we have determined what the necessary expenditure for the year should be. Sir FREDERICK MESMER and Mr. J. FirzoEnamn supported the mo- tion; and Mr. HUME opposed it. The House divided—For the motion, 219 ; against it, 167 ; majority against Government, 52. Leave was therefore given to bring in the bill.

Law OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE.

Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of a bill to amend in cer- tain particulars, and to declare in important particulars, the law of evi- dence and procedure.

He described the three principal amendments embodied in the bill. Under the Law of evidence of 1851, the husband and wife were made excep- tions to all other parties ; and he proposed to repeal that exception and allow the husband to bring forward the wife as his witness, and vice versa, except in cases where anything was disclosed during domestic con- fidence.

The next point he argued at great length. It was with respect to that im- portant principle, as it was called—sinning in his judgment, against all principle—which prevented a witness from saying anything which might tend to criminate himself. The bill proposed to compel a witness to give even criminatory evidence ; protecting him from prosecution, but leaving him to disgrace and degradation. That is substantially the law as it new stands, only the bill would make it clear, definite, and certain.

Then he came to trial by jury. He appealed to the result of experience in the County Courts with respect to trial by jury, showing that out of 40,000 cases only 21 per cent were tried by jury, yet all might have been so tried ; and in 97 or -98 cases out of every 100, both parties preferred to be tried by the judge. He proposed that in allthe courts the parties should have the same option in all cases of tort as well as contract. The Loin) CILANCELLOR, concurring with a considerable portion of the bill, and especially the change in the law of evidence as regards man and wife, objected very strongly to the proposal for altering the rule of law " Nemo tenetur seipsum inculpare." Until the law were altered a great deal more—until it became a part of our system to interrogate prisoners upon charges—he did not think Lord Brougham's proposal could become the law of the land. Ile argued that the protection to the witness would be illusory ; and that a sort of rival dexterity among different judges in examining and entrapping a prisoner might be created. He thought, also, that if juries were set to try only selected cases, their minds would not be so well adapted to the work as if they tried sometimes easy and sometimes difficult cases.

Lord BROUGHAM felt disposed to divide the bill into two, one including those provisions which were not objected to.

The bill was read a second time.

SHERIFF-COURTS IN SCOTLAND.

Mr. CHAUFURD, after some opposition from the Government, obtained leave to bring in a bill to alter the constitution of the Sheriff-Courts in Scotland.

He had intended to move for a Committee of inquiry ; but as notice of a bill was given by the Lord-Advocate, he suspended his motion. That bill has been brought in, and has completely disappointed him. For this reason he has determined to bring in a bill himself; and on the second read- ing, to move that it be referred to the same Committee as the Lord-Ad- vocate's.

His bill goes to abolish the offices of sheriffs depute and substitute, and empowers her Majesty to divide the counties into districts for the establish- ment of local judges. It creates sheriffs in lieu of the sheriffs now existing who should be resident, and the only judges in matters of fact up to 50/. At present the sheriffs have summary jurisdiction up to 81. 6s. 8L; and he pro- posed to extend it to 501., with no appeal on matters of fact, nor any on matters of law up to 2-5/. It provides for the qualifications of sheriffs, and defines their several powers ; among others, that of deciding, with the con- sent of parties, beyond 504, and of summoning witnesses from England or Ireland. It makes provision for an appeal direct to the Court of Session, instead of an advocate sitting in Edinburgh. He proposed to raise the salaries of the judges, and to abolish the fees which form part of their pre- sent remuneration.

No doubt, many learned authorities might be cited against his plan ; but they are never the foremost in matters of reform. If Sir Islay Campbell were quoted against him he would remind the Lord-Advocate„ that that dis- tinguished lawyer had also said that if one of the five Exchequer Barons in Scotland were removed, there would be an end of the administration of jus- tice; and yet, not many years afterwards, Lord Chancellor Brougham abol- ished the whole five.

The success of the English County Courts had made the people of Scot- land impatient for speedy and effectual justice. The great evil of the bill of the Lord-Advocate is, that it maintains written pleadings, and the appeal to the sheriff-depute (or principal) in Edinburgh. But the one necessitates the other, and the written pleadings must be maintained while the sppeal from the sheriff-substitute in the country to the sheriff-depute in Edinburgh is maintained. This bill meets the difficulty by abolishing both the written pleadings and the double judicature. It is a much more accurate represent- ation of the want and feeling of the great mass of the people of Scotland out of Edinburgh.

Mr. Joni; MACGREGOR seconded the motion, raging similar arguments. The LORD-ADVOCATE complained that the course taken by Mr. Craw- ford was not the most convenient : it would have been much wiser in him to have waited until the sentiments of the Scotch Members were known.

He could not, of course, refuse to consider its provisions; but, judging from the outline, it was not likely he could support the bill. So tar front being a reform, it would be a retrograde and mischievous movement. He defended the theory and administration of Scotch law, againat its alleged in- feriority to English law. The abolition of the sheriffs principal and sitbsti- tate would impair the judicial, and cut up by the roots the administrative functions of the sheriff; for the vast proportion of business in the Sheriffs.. Courts involves amounts above 501., and questions of possession and disputed right, which cannot be estimated in money. The Lord-Advocate might quote the opinion of the Faculty of Advocates, although Mr. Craufurd would think nothing of that ; but he could point to a resolution passed at Dumfries in favour of the Government measure.

Mr. HUME, Mr. EWART, and Mr. FORBES supported the motion; while Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE, Mr. FERGUS, Lord Dittamerinro, and Mr. Warns= opposed it. Mr. DUNLOP did not agree exactly with either bill. Mr. NAPIER and Mr. CUMMING BRUCE hoped that both bills would not be referred to the same Committee ; while Mr. Cowarr, Mr. Duirearr, and Mr. ALEXANDER HASTIE, trusted they would.

Lord Jonas RussELL thought the judicial system of Scotland singularly well adapted to procure the administration of justice speedily and cheaply.

If it were made exclusively local, then there was danger of partiality ; if central, there were the evils of expense and delay. The system of Scotland combines the advantages of both—the cheapness of the local administration, and a central authority competent to correct the local judge, who might get rather too fond of his own opinion. Lord John was surprised there were any gentlemen who wished to change this system root and branch, on the ground that the post of sheriff-depute is a sinecure, which it is not. Unless he heard some more conclusive reasons for it, he could not give his assent to such a complete change in the judicial system of Scbtland as that proposed by the bill.

The bill VMS brought in, and read a first time last night.

COUNTY COURTS.

Lord BROUGHAM on presenting petitions from Margate and Brighton praying that bankruptcy jurisdiction might be vested in the County Courts, said that he wished once more to call attention to the immense importance of these courts of local judicature. Of the number of cases tried in the Supreme Courts in one year—between 1900 and 2000—by writs issuing from all the three Courts in Westminster Hall, more than one-half were under 501., and they might have been tried much more expeditiously and infinitely more cheaply in the County Courts. The .County Courts within the same period had tried about six thousand cases between 20/. and 50/. Anything more monstrous than the present state of the law could not well be imagined : the whole of the salaries of the Judges -of the Superior Courts are now paid out of the Consolidated Fund, it being the duty of the Government to provide the whole expense of the adminis- tration of justice ; but in the County Courts, where there is such an im- mense mass of business, instead of the country paying the expense, the poor suitors have to pay it, because they are less capable of doing so. He hoped he should not have much longer to press this on the attention of Parliament and the public. Not less than 174,000/. a year is extorted from those poor suitors in the County Courts to pay the expenses of their machinery ; about 100,0001. more is contributed to the generallee-fund ; and there is even a surplus, after paying all these expenses, which goes into the Consolidated Fund.

OATHS. Mr. APSLEY PELLarr moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the abject of oaths, the working of the acts under which a declaration is sub- tituted for an oath, the propriety of extending the principle to courts of aw, and generally into oaths taken by Members of Parliament with a view to the substitution of one uniform declaration in place of the oaths now taken. Mr. GLADSTONE hoped Mr. Pellatt would not press the mo- tion. Inquiry is unnecessary in regard to the substitution of a declara- tion for an oath, for that has given universal satisfaction' and the re- port of the Commission on the Procedure of the Courts has given a full

- consideration of the subject as regards the law courts. With respect to oaths taken by Members of Parliament, that is a subject of immense importance, but one which it is not the practice of the House to give over to a Select Committee.

After a brief debate, in which Members generally concurred with Mr. - Gladstone, the motion was withdrawn.

ASSAULTS ON WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

Mr. Frrznos moved for leave to bring in a bill for the better preven- tion and punishment of aggravated assaults upon women and children. To show the necessity of legislating on the subject, he read to the House a series of accounts of disgraceful assaults in which the perpetrators had es- caped with comparatively light punishment. The bill would give Magis- trates power to inflict imprisonment for not more than six months, or a fine not exceeding 20!.; it would take away the power of removing indictments by writ of certiorari, except upon affidavit that a fair trial could not be had in the court in which the indictment was originally laid ; it would enforce the payment of recognizances, now almost inoperative, in cases where per- sons were bound over to appear to answer a charge of assault but did not ; and it would enable the Secretary of State to issue a warrant to bring up a prisoner in custody under a civil process, who might be wanted to give evi- dence, and thus do away with the necessity and expense of the writ of habeas - corpus in such cases.

Leave was given, and the bill was read a first time.

LONDON DRAINAGE.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON moved the second reading of a private bill called the Great London Drainage Bill. Under its provisions, the promoters propose to make two great sewers, one on each side of the Thames, termi- nating on one bank at Barking Creek, and on the other at a similar dis- tance from London: works to be erected at the termini to convert the sewage into manure for sale. There is a guarantee clause in the bill, em- powering the company to tax the Metropolis 3 per cent. The bill was opposed by the Metropolitan Members ; and Sir BENJAMIN HALL moved the postponement of the second reading till the 6th of April. Lord ParanutsToN supported the second reading ; and it was carried, by 111 to 16.

AMENDMENT OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH.

In reply bra complaint from Sir GEORGE PECHELL, that the wishes of the inhabitants of towns were not sufficiently attended to by the Board of Health in bringing the Health of Towns Act into operation, Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH stated that the subject is under the serious consideration of the Government ; and that it is their intention to amend the constitution of the Board, and to make certain alterations in the act itself: he hoped before long to bring in a measure on the subject that would give satisfaction to the public.

RAILWAY AMALGAMATION.

Mr. CARDWELL, instructed by the Committee on Railway Amalgama- tion, moved, and carried, the following resolution- ' That no Railway or Canal Bill containing any powers of amalgamation, base, working arrangement, or other combination of interest between dif- anies, be read a second time before the 11th day of April next, es interested in promoting ouch bill shall elect to proceed with

the same on the terms of striking out in Committee all such powers afore- said."

NATIONAL GALLERY : INQUIRY.

On the motion of Colonel MURE, the appointment of a Select Commit- tee has been ordered, " to inquire into the management of the National Gallery ; also to consider in what mode the collective monuments of anti- rityand fine art possessed by the nation may be most securely preserved, judiciously augmented, and advantageously exhibited to the public." No objection was made to the appointment of a Committee ; but Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND and Mr. Hums thought it included too much; while Lord Jonir RUSSELL and Mr. GransToNn were of opinion that Co- lonel Mure had framed his motion very judiciously. Incidentally, strong opinions were expressed against removing the National Gallery to Ken- sington; and Mr. GLADSTONE said that he had been informed no decision on the subject had been come to. The late picture-cleaning having been severely reprobated, he remarked, that, pending investigation, such judg- ment on the works of public servants of high character should at least be suspended.

EFFECT OF Gorm SUPPLIES.

In reply to Mr. DRUMMED, Mr. GLADSTONE said that he had carefully watched the recent course of monetary transactions, especially with respect to the influx and efflux of gold ; but he did not see any clear proofs of the reduced value of gold, and he had no intention of proposing a Com- mittee of inquiry on the subject. Mr. Jaws WrIsocr gave an answer to Mr. Bass on a collateral sub- ject—Mints in Australia. Government is disposed to afford every faci- lity which the Colonies may require to establish mints. As yet, only Sydney has applied for a mint, and forwarded the necessary funds, 10,0001. Government would grant it, and probably to the other Austra- lian Colonies also, on condition that this country Incurred no liability, and that the mints were placed under due regulation.

FOREIGN REFUGEES.

Referring to a report that Signor Mazzini had been received on board the British frigate Retribution,—which was, he said, if true, "a most ill- judged act of humanity on the part of the captain of that ship,"—the Earl of Matstvantraz inquired whether the report was correct ? The Earl of ABERDEEN answered, that Government have received no information whatever on the subject.

Erzoncor Coatiorrszs.

The Committee on the Chatham petition reported on Saturday, that the case was ripe for decision but that they wished to hear arguments as to the law applied to such facts as had been stated before them. Accord- ingly, the Committee met on Monday, heard counsel, and decided; After stating that Sir Frederick Smith was not duly elected, and that the elec- tion was void, the report states-

" That it was proved to the Committee, that Joseph Greathead, an elector of Chatham, had been bribed by a situation as letter-carrier in the General Post-office, obtained for his son Charles Greathead, by or through the Ma- ence of Sir T. M. F. Smith.

"That it was proved to the Committee, that a large number of the electors of the borough of Chatham are employed in her Majesty's Dockyards and other public departments, and that they are under the influence of the Govern- ment for the time being ; and that it further appears that there is no in- stance of a candidate being elected for the borough who has not had the sup- port of the Government. Under these circumstances, it will be for the House to consider whether the right of returning a Member for the borough of Chatham should not for the future be withdrawn.

"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Stephen Mount, in giving his evidence before the Committee, has been guilty of wilful and corrupt pejrury.

Following up the resolution of the Committee, the House has ordered that Stephen Mount should be indicted for perjury.

Hull has furnished another instance of extensive bribery. It was stated in evidence, by one of the agents for Mr. Clay and Lord Goderich, that the " accessible " voters, probably one out of four, were "set down" on either side, and paid, after the election, thirty shillings a head, besides treating. The Committee met last week and heard this evidence. When it reassembled on Monday, the counsel for the sitting Members, with their consent, withdrew the opposition to the petition, and consented to the passing of resolutions to the effect that "they, by their agents, had been guilty of bribery and treating, but without their personal knowledge or consent." The Committee, accordingly, passed the usual resolutions, and added these-

" That there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the last election for the borough of Hull.

"That the Committee also find that there is reason to believe that a sys- tem has existed in the borough of Hull of bribing the poorer classes of voters in great numbers by the payment of about thirty shillings a head at the last and at former elections.'

The issue of the new writs for Chatham and Hull has been suspended until the 11th of ApriL

The Committee on the Derby case have arrived at strong conclusions. Besides Mr. Flewker, Mr. Moss, and some of the bribed voters, who told the oft-repeated story of the County Tavern and its golden mysteries, Mr. Horsfall volunteered for examination. He positively stated that he was not a party, either directly or indirectly, to any improper practices, and that he had expressly stipulated that he should only pay his legal expenses. He had remitted 8001. to Derby, had paid 5791. as his ex- penses, and had received the balance. The Committee wished to have evidence as to whence came the money found in the hands of Morgan : but Mr. Coppock said that Lund, "the man in drab," and George Ri- chardson Cox, who obtained the letter to Frail from "W. B.," could not be found ; while Henry Radford was so ill that he could not be moved. Upon this the Committee came to a conclusion. They reported, that Mr. Bass was duly elected, and the petition against him frivolous and vexa- tious; that Mr. Horsfall was not duly elected, and that Mr. Lawrence Heyworth was duly elected ; that they had altered the poll by striking off the names of fourteen persons who had received bribes; that Mr. Horsfall was guilty of bribery, by his agents, without his privity or con- currence; that Thomas Morgan was the principal agent in the bribery, and that Lund supplied the money ; and that three other persons, George Clayton, John Ford, and Alfred Ackerman, were also engaged in various acts of bribery and corruption. "That it has been proved as to several of the other parties, that at former elections they had received money for their votes; and the Committee have reason to believe that such corrupt practices have been prevalent in the said borough; and they desire to state their opinion that parties who are reported

to the House as guilty of bribery should be disqualified for the future from the exercise of any Parliamentary franchise."

The late Rye election presents a singular case, as represented by the evidence before the Committee. The constituency numbers 510. There were two candidates—Mr. Mackinnon and Mr. Pomfret. It was stated that Mr. Pomfret received a requisition to stand, signed by 260 voters. Be only polled 208; and Mr. Mackinnon was elected. But it was shown that Mr. Curtis, the late Member, had given a grand dinner to 300 voters, "to celebrate his own retirement and Mr. Mackinnon's appearance in his place." Before any evidence could be taken, the counsel for Mr. Mac- kinnon stated that he would submit to a resolution finding that he had been guilty of bribery by treating, but without his knowledge. The Committee resolved accordingly. When they met again, they added other resolutions, to the effect that a list of ten persons had been laid heft& them, and an allegation that treating had taken place in twenty-nine pub- lic-houses, between the 1st of June and 25th of August, in the interest of Mr. Mackinnon. They recommended further inquiry, and a suspension of the writ. The counsel for Mr. Mackinnon stated that he was ready to repel the allegation of bribery and general treating.

The Select Committee appointed to investigate the circumstances at- tending the "withdrawn petition" in the matter of the Norwich election met on Thursday ; Mr. Thomas Duncombe in the chair. The allegation is, that Mr. Brown, Parliamentary agent, withdrew a petition against the return of Mr. Pete and Mr. Warner, without the consent of the local agent or Colonel Dickson, the principal petitioner. The first proceeding of the Committee was to call up Mr. Brown the agent ; but he objected. The demand, he said, was perfectly "unparalleled "—and he reiterated the word—to examine a man without having a charge preferred against him. He threw himself on the " mercy " of the Committee. He admit- ted, however, that he had written the letter withdrawing the petition, on the authority of Mr. Kitten. After deliberation' the Committee agreed to postpone Mr. Brown's evidence, and take that of Mr. Kitton, the local agent. Mr. Kitton was subjected to a long examination. We gather from his evidence the following statement.

After the last Norwich election, resulting in the defeat of the Marquis of Douro and Colonel Dickson, it was agreed by the Conservatives to petition against the return of the sitting Members, and Mr. Kitten took charge of the petition. He came up to London, and saw a gentleman who recommended Mr. Brown. "What gentleman ? " Mr. Kitten reluctantly mentioned "Colonel Forester," whom he saw at the Carlton Club. Subsequently he saw Mr. Brown in the City, and the result of the negotiations and inquiries into the grounds of the petition was a determination to proceed; and Captain Ives and Colonel Dickson became sureties for the expenses. On the 18th January Kitten again saw Brown; who asked him "if he would set off the Norwich petition as against the West Norfolk." The proposition was de- clined on that occasion and also on the Saturday before the petition was withdrawn, at "Brownie office, in Parliament Street, at about three o'clock ; and Brown went over to Coppock's, saying, 'Your petition will not come on before Easter; the matter does not press.' These were Brown's last words on the subject." He then saw by the Times that the petition was with- drawn. He demanaed to have it restored; but, on the 14th February, Brown wrote—"I have withdrawn the Norwich petitions, with those for Middlesex Kidderminster, and Gloucester. Coppock has withdrawn Youghal, County Down and West Norfolk."_ [Mr. T. Duncombe—" In that case, then, Coppock'had not the advantage ?'r] Mr. Kitten explained, that there was a separate petition against each Member, so that one might be withdrawn if expedient. He did not know that it was to facilitate com- promise. Being the sole agent, Brown had no right to do anything without his instructions. Colonel Forester also thought Brown had acted indis- creetly ; and Lord Ranelagh had expressed to Colonel Dickson a bad opinion of Brown, saying,. "He'll sell you." Colonel Forester had offered 6/. or Si. for a preliminary investigation. He did not understand that the Carlton were to contribute to pay the expenses of the matter in London. Thompson, Debenham and Brown, were, professionally speaking, electioneering agents of the Cailton. Mr. Duncombe—" What was the connexion between your remaining in Brown's office and Brown's going to Coppock ?" Mr. Kitten- " When Brown came back, he said, Coppock's list is nearly exhausted.' He talked about Coppock's 'fighting petitions,' which witness supposed were against Conservative Members." Mr. Duncombe--" They appeared to be balancing an account-current of fighting petitions ?" (Laughter.) Mr. Kitton—" Yes." Mr. Duncombe— Did you understand that Coppock's powers of compromise were nearly exhausted ? " Mr. Kitton—" That was what he understood. When he said there were certain lists in Brown and Coppock's hands, he only spoke from on dit. He was not acquainted with the arcana of the Reform Club. It was generally understood that both acted in concert as to these petitions, and that, somehow or other, when Brown withdrew a petition Coppock withdrew one also. They were called 'fight- ing' petitions, he supposed, because when they came into Committees of the House the parties assumed the attitude of fight. The other petitions had no particular name, but in genie cases the sitting Member carried too many guns for the petitioner. Some were fictitious, others were fighting' peti- tions, and some were bon& fide. The Norwich petitions were no specula- tions."

The Committee adjourned.

In the course of the pending inquiry respecting the Southampton election in 1852, a witness named Bower refused to take the oath ; al- leging that he is a Separatist, meaning by that "separate from all sects." The declaration for the sect called Separatists was tendered, but ho re- fused that. The Committee ordered the Sergeant at Arms to take him into custody, and the House confirmed the order. But, last night, on the motion of Mr. HENRY HERBERT, he was discharged, without pay- ment of fees, on the ground that his scruples against taking the oath were conscientious.

Inquiries are proceeding also into the elections at Huddersfield and Wigton Burg/se: in the former, treating and detention—" bottling up"— of the electors in public-houses constitute the allegations ; in the latter, intimidation.

The petition against Mr. Mangles and Mr. Bell, the Members for Guildford, has been declared "frivolous and vexatious " ; and costs were granted against the petitioners.