'Idaho nut Sr nIiiug inpartiamtut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, March 14. Defects of Statutes; Speeches by Lord Lyndhurst and the other Law Lords—Mutiny Bills passed. Tuesday, March 15. Railway Accidents ; Lord Malmesbury's Suggestions. Thursday, March 17. Recision of the Statutes ; Question by Lord St. Leonards- Australian Mail-Packets; Statement by Lord Canning—County Polls Bill passed. Friday, March 18. Royal Assent, by Commission, to the Mutiny, Marine Mutiny, Consolidated Fund, County Election Polls, Grand Jury Cess. Indemnity, Commons Enclosure, and Inland Revenue Bills—Dwellings of the Poor; Lord Shaftesbury's Motion—Colonial Church; Petition from Sydney—Government Measures; Question and Answer.

House OF COMMONS. Monday, March 14. Austria and Turkey ; Lord John Rus- sell's Statement—Jewish Disabilities Bill in Committee.

Tuesday, March 15. New Writs for Blackburn and Bridgnorth—Canterbury ; Address for Commission of Inquiry—Westminster Bridge ; Sir William Molesworth's Statement—Australian Mail-Packets ; Question and Answer—Attorneys' Certificate Bill, withdrawn to be corrected—Aggravated Assaults Bill, read a second time.

Wednesday, March 16. County Rates Bill; House in Committee, to sit again— Attorneys' Certificate Bill, reintroduced.

Thursday, March 17. Six-mile Bridge Question ; Mr. Napier's Motion—Clerken- well Justice ; Mary Hill's Case—Norwich Petition ; Committee's Report. Friday, March 18. The Madiai ; Lord John Russell announces their release— Public Business ; after April 18, Orders of the Day to take precedence on Thursday —Clergy Reserves Bill in Committee; third clause withdrawn, by 176 to 108.

TIME- TABLE.

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 5h 711 30m Tuesday 5h 6h 55m

Wednesday No sitting. Thursday Sh 711 15m

Friday 5h .... Rh On

The COMM0113.

Hour of Hoar of

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 4h Sh Om Tuesday 4h 1111 On

Wednesday Noon .... 5h 5451Thursday 9h .(m) 4551

Friday 9h .(m) lh Om

Sittings this Week, this Session, I; Time, 35h 39in 60; — 337h 39m Sittings this Week, 4 ; Time, 911 40wthis Session. 47; — 7711 Mat

DEFECTS OF THE STATUTES.

Lord LYNDHURST put a question to the Lord Chancellor, on Monday, arising out of the proposed consolidation of the statutes.

He observed that the objects of the Lord Chancellor related almost en- tirely to the correction of past legislation and past errors; and that he had passed over the question, what steps might be taken to prevent the recur- rence of those errors, irregularities, and inconsistencies in future. That course would not be quite satisfactory to the public or the legal profession. Owing to the defective and careless manner of our legislation, judges are occu- pied for hours, sometimes for days, in attempting to reconcile inconsistencies and clear up obscurities, and in producing as it were light out of darkness, often with an unsatisfactory result, at great expense to suitors. These evils accumulate, and no remedy is attempted. The subject was brought promi- nently forward by the late Lord Langdale, and in 1848 by another Peer; but neither attempt was attended with any practical effect. A day or two since, Lord Lyndhurst happened to turn over a volume of reports of the Court of Chancery, and he was struck by the statement of one of the judges in that court, of high character and of great learning, that it was almost impos- sible to form a satisfactory opinion on the construction of a particular act, so full was it of ambiguities. It was impossible to proceed further with the measures which his noble and learned friend proposed without attempting to apply some remedy to the evil. If he were asked what was the principal cause to which those errors were to be attributed, he should say that it was to the way in which amendments are introduced into bills in their progress through both Homes of Parliament. An amendment is proposed by a noble Lord, or a Member of the other House, who has not taken the pains to read the enactment to which the amendment applied. The amendment is perhaps inconsistent with the general scope of the bill, or not in accordance even with that particular clause on which it is engrafted. Is it surprising that, under such circumstances, errors of construction and inconsistencies of various kinds should arise in legislation? Errors in an act of Parliament may often be ascribed to the careless manner which it is originally framed on its first in- troduction in either House of Parliament. Lord Lyndhurst then referred to instances, showing how, in three recent actions, where the question arose upon the word "may," whether it was to be construed in an imperative or a discretionary sense, the Court of Ex- chequer twice decided that it gave the judge a discretionary power, while the Court of Common Pleas decided that it was to be used in the imperative sense.

Sometimes the errors have been ludicrous. In a statute respecting the insertion of a false entry in a registry of baptism, by one clause the offence was defined and a pecuniary penalty affixed ; by a subsequent clause, it was provided that one-half of the penalty should go to the informer and the other half to the parish. In the progress of the bill through Parlia- ment, it was considered that a pecuniary penalty was not a proper punish- ment, and transportation for fourteen years was substituted for it : the first clause, however, was not struck out, giving one-half the penalty to the in-:

former and one-half to the parish ; so, upon the construction of the statute, it appeared that the whole of the parish were to have one-half of the penalty

—namely, seven years' transportation—and the informer the other half. He mentioned another instance, in which a bill with respect to the County Courts passed the House of Lords, but in the other House sixteen clauses were struck out and eighteen others inserted ; the result was, that there was not a single clause of that bill free from error.

He called on Government to provide a remedy ; which he thought would not be difficult. They ought to have some person of competent information appointed by the Government—with such assistance as may be necessary-- to make himself master of every bill, to watch it in its progress, and to com- municate from time to time to some authorities in either House any observa- tions that occurred to him with reference to the bill, either in its original or amended state. If the evil were not entirely got rid of, it would be very much diminished.

The Loan CHANCELLOR recognized the absolute necessity of making our legislation more perfect ; but he was not prepared with a definite plan. He renewed his statement at the opening of the session, that the best way would be, not to speculate any longer on the best mode of proceeding, but to do something at once. He had secured the services of Mr. Bellenden Ker, and the work would be commenced in the first week of next month. He proposed that three or four easy subjects should be taken and the result laid before the House as a specimen. Whether it may not be necessary, when that is done, to extend the Commission and engage more assistance in the work, he should not speculate upon. It would be one of the directions he should give, not only that they should endeavour to put the statutes in a more intelligible form as regards what is past, but should consider, by every practicable mode, how they might apply the reform of the park to pro- spective reform for the future. Lord ST. LEONARDS heard with alarm that the Lord Chancellor in- tended to alter the language of the statutes which he proposed to digest and classify. The moment you touch the wording of an act of Parlia- ment, you make a new statute. Men's titles might depend on an old act. As to future legislation, he thought every bill should be framed by a competent person, and no alteration allowed which is not afterwards sub- mitted to the person who framed the bill. Bills were often altered in a Committee of the whole House, and the bearing of the alteration not un- derstood. He also complained that bills are brought up to their Lord- ships and thrown in heaps on the table at the end of the session. The Earl of ABEBDEEN said, it was an old complaint ; every Govern- ment had professed its anxiety to find a remedy, but none had been able to do so. The present Government desired to facilitate the progress of legislation by introducing in the House of Lords such measures as could be introduced there.

Lord BROUGHAM thought the task of altering the language of the statutes, though difficult, by no means impossible, regard being had to the judicial interpretation put on certain language. But to do that would not be enough. He suggested a permanent board, under the Lord Chan- cellor as Minister of Justice, to watch the progress of bills through both Houses, and ascertain whether, at any stage, obscurity, inconsistency, or error, has been introduced by alterations. He had always been of opinion that the appointment of a Minister of Jus- tice would be a highly expedient measure. Many agree to the thing who object to the term, and he thought that the late changes, by which Lords Justices were appointed in addition to the Vice-Chancellors, had substantially given to the Lord Chancellor the power of acting as a Minister of Jus- tice. Many improvements still remain to be effected which prejudice has hitherto prevented : and on this ground he would take leave to read to their Lordships the words of a dear and lamented and most venerated friend, Sir Samuel Hominy ; who, upon his failing for the third or fourth time to obtain the assent of Parliament to some of those enlightened measures for the amendment of the law which he so often proposed, said, "I am not so un- acquainted with the nature of prejudice as not to have observed that it strikes deep root and flourishes in all soils, and spreads its branches in every di- rection; but I have observed also, that flourish as it may, it must, by laws sacred and immutable, wither and decay after the powerful and repeated touch of truth." And he added, "Whatever may be my fate, the seed which I have scattered is not fallen upon stony ground." It dice not fallen upon stony ground; for every one of those measures—and let every moderate and judicious amender of the law take comfort from this fact—every one of the measures which that illustrious man propounded has now become the law of the land, together with an amount of other improvements which even he, sanguine as he was, had hardly dared to expect. (Cheers.) In replying to questions by Lord ST. LEONARDIL on Thursday, the LORD Cmanezta.ort still more emphatically stated that he desired to spe- culate no longer, but to get something done—to see what could be prac- tically accomplished. The services of four competent men had been se- cured ; and they had been appointed on the authority of the Government. The expense would be small. When a portion of the work was done, it would be presented as a specimen; and then it would be for Parliament to say whether a commission should be issued to execute the whole work.

JEWISH Disenn,rrrEs Bum.

The House of Commons went into Committee on this bill on Monday ; and the various clauses were agreed to without opposition. Admiral Wer.corr made a speech against it, the only one of the evening. The rest of the conversation consisted of a succession of complaints and appeals addressed to Lord John Russell, urging him to postpone the third reading of the bill until after Easter. Lord Sortz RUSSELL proposed to take the third reading on Friday, because it would enable the House to get on with public business ; and if the bill were not read before Easter, im- portant business would be delayed. He would not, however, bring on the bill later thlin ten o'clock on Friday.

THE COUNTY BOARDS Btu,.

On the motion to go into Committee on this bill, postponement was de- manded, on the ground that many Members were absent, and that the new clauses introduced at the suggestion of the Government made this a new bill, which it was necessary the Magistracy should consider. These objections, started by Sir Join/ PARINGTON, were urged over and over again. Lord Pszazzitsrcer, however, supported Mr. MILNER GIBSON in urging the House to go into Committee ; which was at length agreed to. On the first clause, providing for the establishment of County Boards, Mr. HENLEY moved an amendment to provide a separate board for each of the divisions of Sussex, although that county has only one commission of the peace. Lord Pei-Ntsitsron objected, that the bill provides for a separate financial board wherever there is a separate commission. A great deal of discussion ensued ; and the amendment, pressed to a di- vision, was rejected, by 142 to 70. In the fourth clause there -was another contest. The clause provided for the constitution of the financial boards. Sir Raw PAKINGTON moved that the Chairman do report progress • and the House was cleared for a division, but none took place. Lord PALMERSTON protested against the vexatious mode of opposition ; which he characterized as an attempt to defeat the bill by delay. The motion was withdrawn. Sir Josuf PAKINGTON then moved an amendment on the clause, funda- mentally altering the constitution of the Boards and proposing simply to add certain members, elected by the Boards of Guardians, to the Magis- tracy of the counties. He showed, that under the bill there would be 400 Magistrates excluded in Lancashire, 90 in Oxfordshire, and 140 in Worcestershire. He characterized the bill as democratic, and scolded the Government for weakly yielding to the democratic spirit. Mr. AIILNER GinsoN objected to the amendment. It would be a homoeopathic dose of democracy to send the representatives of 13 Unions to meet, perhaps to oppose, 583 Magistrates. Mr. DRUMMOND said, the object of the bill is to set aside the Magistracy.

Lord PALlimasrox said, it was "claptrap" to call it a democratic measure. But the amendment would create a body which could not practically administer the finances of a county. A Board might consist of 450 members: why, it would be that House in Committee. The opposition, however, gained their point so far as to carry without a division a motion to report progress.

THE SIX-IfILE BRIDGE CASE.

Mr. NAPIER revived the story of the election-riot at Six-mile Bridge, in moving for papers connected with it. He spoke for an hour and three- quarters, seemingly with the object of fixing on the present Government a maladministration of the law.

Mr. Napier framed his speech so as to include his accusations against the Government within an account of the riot and the subsequent legal proceed- ings. His version of the story—and he quoted largely from the evidence taken at the Coroner's inquest—set forth that the voters on the ears were under military protection from the fury of their opponents; that the priests excited the people to riot ; that the soldiers fired in self-defence ; that a verdict of 'wilful murder" was inconsistent with the evidence; that the soldiers ought to have received constitutional protection, instead of being subjected to a Government prosecution ; and he demanded that an inquiry should be instituted and the ringleaders and prime movers should be brought to justice. When he was in office as Attorney-General for Ireland, he de- termined to prosecute the priests; • not because they were priests, but because they had violated the law. Lord Aberdeen had promised that there should be no difference between the soldier and the priest ; a sound constitutional doctrine, which had not been acted on. Ten soldiers and one magistrate had been proceeded against, but neither the priests nor the ringleaders had been indicted. [In the course of his insinuations, Mr. Napier mentioned the fact that the name of the Reverend Father Bourke had been put on the back of the bill of indictment as a witness, although that of the officers had been omitted; the inference suggested being, that Mr. Bourke was thus indirectly protected from being placed among the persons against whom indictments might be brought.] Altogether, he thought it was a case which demanded inquiry.

Mr. Frrzonastn gave another version of the story.

According to his account—and he also found proof in the evidence at the inquest—the voters were given in charge of the soldiers that they might be made to vote for the landlord's candidate; the appearance of the soldiers at Six-mile Bridge, under the command of a partisan magistrate, caused the riot ; the soldiers fired without orders and partly on a flying crowd ; the mili- tary and legal authorities had obstructed the administration of justice as much as possible; the Attorney-General for Ireland is a public prosecutor, and he had no option about prosecuting the soldiers after the late Attorney- General had failed to quash the Coroner's proceedings. The priests had not been prosecuted because there was not enough of evidence against Mr. Clune; and as the name of Father Bourke had been put on the bill against the sol- diers, if he had been indicted the same Grand Jury which ignored the bill against the soldiers, and before whom he gave evidence, would have had to decide on the bill against him. It was a calamitous case, and the sooner it was forgotten the better.

Mr. CAIRNS supported Mr. Napier by a critical attack on Mr. Fitz- gerald; and then Sir Joux Youxo continued the defence of the Irish Go- vernment. The Attorney-General for Ireland found himself obliged to prosecute the soldiers; and he had not prosecuted the priests, the informa- tion against whom, there was strong reason to believe, had been filed as a set-off, because the evidence was insufficient.

But it had been necessary to put Mr. Bourke's name on the back of the bill : indeed, what an outcry there would have been if the name of so ma- terial a witness had been omitted ! But it was not usual to place the names of the witnesses for the defence on the indictment, and that was why the names of Captain Eager and Lieutenant Hutton were omitted. Sir John challenged Mr. Napier to abandon insinuations and bring charges to a direct and definite issue.

Mr. Wurrusrns fiercely attacked Mr. Brewster ; imputing to him man- oeuvres, dodges, and cruel, unjustifiable, and inconsistent conduct at the trial. Sir ALEXANDER COCKBURN warmly defended him, and charac- terized the speech of Mr. Whiteside as one of the most bitter attacks he had ever heard against an absent man.

Papers ordered.

THE ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATE Brix.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR having committed an error in this bill, ap- plied on Tuesday to have the order for the second reading discharged : which was agreed to. He then moved for leave to bring in a new bill. But Mr. Gnansrosug, sustained by the Speaker, objected : no new bill on taxation can be brought in without notice, if one Member dissent. Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR hoped advantage was not going to be token of him ; nobody could object. (Laughter.) Mr. GLADSTONE said—" There is one Member of the House at least, whose duty it is to see that all proceedings relative to the taking off of taxes should - be conducted with as much regularity as those which refer to laying them on. ("Bear hear ! " and laughkr.) I must request the noble Lord to give notice of his motion; but I will offer no opposition to it." Lord R013ERT GROSVENOR gave notice; and on Wednesday leave was given to bring in the new bill.

AUSTRIA AND TURKEY.

In answer to a question by Mr. Disitszia, with an application for papers, Lord SOHN RUSSELL stated that official information has been re- ceived that a final arrangement between Austria and the Porte had taken place, and the demands of Count Leiningen been agreed to. It was demanded on the part of Austria, that the territory of Montenegro should be abandonea by the Turkish army ; and that, as previous to these events; 310 encroachment should be made by Turkey on the coast for pur- poses of trade or commerce: that demand has been complied with. Another of the demands of Austria was, that the status quo before the war, as re- garded Montenegro, should not be disturbed: that likewise has been agreed to. On the subject of this last condition a communication was made by Colonel Rose, her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Constantinople, the effect of which was, that nothing should be done with reference to those important territories Kleck and Sutorina without the knowledge of her Majesty's Go- vernment. With respect to another condition, that which related to Hun- garian refugees serving in the Turkish army, he might observe that the first demand had been modified, and that Austria now remains satisfied with their removal from the frontier. There was also a stipulation with regard to the protection of the Christians of Bosnia : the demand made upon this point has also been acceded to. Other demands related to injuries sustained by Austrian subjects; and they were to be satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money.

It is not usual, and it would not be convenient, to produce the papers ; as no hostilities have ensued, and as negotiations of this kind are often modified by comment. " The production of the papers might interfere with a pru- dent and satisfactory settlement of the question."

"But," said Mr. DISRAELI, "the ports of Klech and Sutorina—are they to be closed ?" Lord JOIIN RUSSELL presumed they would be placed in the condition in which they were before the war, and closed for the present,

RAILWAY MANAGEMENT.

The Earl of MALMFSBURY has made another speech on railway acci- dents and their prevention.

Since he last addressed their Lordships, no fewer than five accidents had occurred, involving the loss of eleven lives, and inflicting injury on nearly forty persons. His object was to prove a want of a proper presiding manage- ment; and he quoted from a letter he had received relative to the North Shields accident, where first a luggage-train broke from the rails and ran off a bridge, falling down nearly seventy feet; then a passenger-train, causing the death of the engine-driver, and serious injury to passengers. Mr. Spence, the gentleman who wrote the letter, had informed the Board of Trade of the bad state of the line ; but all the answer he received was, that the Board had no power to order alterations and repairs. He next quoted the evidence of Captain Wynn on the Dixon Fold accident, showing the dangerous state of the Manchester and Bolton line. Lord Malmesbury considered it necessary that there should be a superintending power to overlook the roads and secure safety, as in the case with a common road dangerous bridges may be indicted. He thought the maximum of speed should be ascertained and fixed, and the minimum of time which should intervene between the starting of the trains. He distrusted committees, like that in the other House, and would prefer a commission of scientific men. He hoped Government would appoint a com- mission, without waiting for a report from the Committee of the House of Commons.

A conversational debate followed this speech. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY vindicated the Commons' Committee, not a single member of which is connected with railways. Ile declined to express an opinion, at present, as to the propriety of obtaining additional powers for the Govern- ment, who are anxiously considering the subject. Lord BEAUMONT objected to any lessening of the responsibilities of the railway companies. Little good would be done by a commission ; less by a committee ; Go- vernment have enough evidence to legislate on at once. Nothing could be worse than the present system. The Earl of GLENOALL said, he has paid much attention to railway management and is sure many accidents might be prevented. He suggested carriages with longitudinal seats. "They had never heard of accidents occurring to horses ; and why ?- because there were no other horses sitting opposite them."

The Earl of HARROWBY attributed the greater number of accidents to excessive speed and excessive economy ; and these to the principle of competition. To obtain security, speed must be diminished ; that is, the principle of competition must be get rid of. Ile anticipated no good from shifting of the burden of responsibility from the shoulders of the com- panies. The Earl of WICKLOW thought the bad weather and the dete- rioration of the roads from use would account for many accidents. Lord MONTEAGLE suggested the want of punctuality as a main cause time- tables should be returnable to a Government department.

CLERKENWELL JUSTICE.

Sir DE LACY EVANS, after stating the case of Mary Hill, who had been sentenced to three years' additional transportation by Mr. Ser- geant Adams for calling a policeman "a perjured pig," inquired whether the sentence was legal ?

Lord PALMERSTON treated the subject of the question in a jocular manner.

Mary Hill, whom he styled a "lady," had been sentenced to seven years' transportation for street robbery ; she then behaved with great violence ; and thereupon "the Judge, fearing that an attempt might be made again to rescue her by some of her confederates who were in the court, increased her punishment to ten years' transportation. This sentence was provisionally recorded ; but the Judge informs me that it was done only for the purpose of deterring other persons from similar violent conduct in the court, and that it was and is his intention to exercise the power which the law gives him of altering the sentence during the continuance of the Sessions and that the punishment will be seven years' transportation, to which the litcly was origin- ally sentenced."

THE AUSTRALIAN MAIL-PACKET COMPANY.

Sir JOHN PAKE,IOTON recounted the failures of the Melbourne, the Adelaide and the Australian ; and asked a question on the subject. Sir JAMES Adelaide, replied, that the contract with the Government had been

most unsatisfactorily performed ; that penalties had been enforced; and that the contract itself had been submitted to a Committee of the Govern- ment, over which the Postmaster-General presided. He would state what the Government would do as soon as that Committee have reported.

The subject has also been mooted in the House of Peers. In reply to questions, preceded by a statement of the facts, by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, Viscount CANNING said he had no desire—far from it—to champion the Royal Australian Mail Steam-Packet Company. That channel, however, was not the only means of communication with Australia, as there were other reliable means. With regard to the length of the passage, he thought sufficient allowance had not been made for necessary stoppages. In the case of that unfortunate vessel the Australian, the letters would be sent by the Isthmus of Suez, and no great delay would ensue. Ho gave the same assurance as Sir James Graham with respect to the con- tract. The Chairman of the Company had written to the Lords of the Admiralty, stating that the Company had been 'called upon to perform the service under great difficulties; and praying for favourable considera- tion. But while Government were desirous not hastily to incur the charge of straining their legal right, they were firmly convinced that

these contracts should be observed with a reasonable amount of punc- tuality, certainty, and despatch.

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.

In reply to Sir Da LACY EVANS, Sir WILLIAM MOLESWOUTH stated that he intends to proceed with the bill of the late Government, and plans are in course of preparation. Two new bridges, one near Charing Cross and one at Lambeth, would probably be soon required ; but it would be advisable to rebuild Westminster Bridge on its present site. As it was near the Houses of Parliament, the new bridge ought to be low, wide, and at right angles with the Houses. Operations would be commenced this year.

ELECTION CONIKTITEES AND DEBATED WRITS.

Various proceedings respecting controverted elections took place on Tuesday. Mr. WALPOLE reported, Slat Mr. Stansfield was guilty of bribery by his agents at the last election for Hisddersfuld ; that the treating through- out the borough was general, systematic, and extravagant ; that between sixty and seventy public-houses were 'open ; that upwards of 1000/. was so spent in treating ; that this treating "must have the effect of exer- cising an influence over the minds of the voters as corrupting and de- basing as direct bribery" ; but that it was not proved that either the bribery or treating was committed with the knowledge of the sitting Member.

Mr. LASCELLES reported that Mr. Ponsonby was duly elected for Cirencester.

Mr. Kim SETMER moved an address to the Crown for a commission to inquire into the state of the borough of Canterbury. lie took it for granted that the House desired to put an end to bribery and corruption. ("Hear, hear !" and a cry of "It's all humbug!" followed by laughter.) The honourable Member said it was all humbug ; but at all events he could not refuse to say that hitherto the Election Committees had done their duty. (Cheers.) Bribery and corruption were on the increase ; and the middle class who stood apart viewed the system with growing dis- gust. At Canterbury there were two parties, "Blues" and '

,Reds " ; it would be too great a compliment to say they had any political opinions. Voters asked to be put down as " messengers " ; then they got two "colour- men's" tickets for non-electors, who probably owed them money ; and after the election they were paid ten shillings each. Refreshment-tickets for one shilling were given at the nomination. Then there was another kind of bribery : a man "found" five pounds in the parlour of a public-house ; others, five pounds and three pounds in a bedroom ; and these men ad- mitted that the money was for their votes. The number of persons bribed in Canterbury was stated to he 350. The word "extensive" was omitted in the report, but that was his inadvertence. He trusted the borough of Can- terbury would not escape through that omission.

Thereupon a sharp familiar conversation ensued. Mr. MALINS said, the practice of giving colourmen's tickets had prevailed on both sides for fifty years. Poor people ought not to have the franchise. Mr. Tuostes DUNCOMBE—afterwards echoed by Mr. IIume—said he would not express any opinion as to the sincerity of the House until he saw what Reform Bill would be brought in. Let them extend the suffrage, and protect the Toter by the ballot, and they would want none of these commissions. Mr. DEEMS declared that many at Canterbury wished to see the repre- sentation of the city purged from these iniquities. Lord JOHN MANNERS noticed that the address stated that bribery had " extensively " prevailed ; though the Committee had not reported to that effect. The bribery had really been extensive, but in strict point of fact that expression could not he justified. - Lord Jerrie RUSSELL acknowledged that he had been struck by the point adverted to. It was desirable the precise words contained in the act should be used. But—and on this point he was supported by Mr. WALPOLE and Sir Gzoaaa GREY—he had been told that the words sys- tem" and " generally " in the report were sufficient to authorize an ad- dress stating that bribery extensively prevailed.—Motion for an address agreed to.

The next proceeding arose out of the Blackburn election. Mr. Wristor Perres moved the issue of the new writs ; and Sir Joirx SHELLEY moved as an amendment that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the bribery and treating which took place at the last election for Blackburn. This was no party motion. A Select Committee would not upset the deterinination of the previous Election Committee, but would proceed further than that Committee had the power to go. Mr. DEEDEe considered that an objection : it placed evidence taken on oath in juxta- position with evidence not taken on oath. Lord Son* RUSSELL said, that if the House were preduded from carrying an inquiry farther because a Committee had sat on a return, it would involve a total change in their proceedings. If the amendment were pressed to a division, he should support it. MT. BARROW, Mr. BOUVERIE, Mr. STUART WORTLEY, Mr. Ilzywoon, supported the motion, and Mr. Bess the amendment. Sir JOHN SHELLEY withdrew the amendment. —Writ ordered.

Colonel Folmar= moved that the writ be issued for the borough of Bridgnorth ; and Sir JOHN SHELLEY made a similar amendment to this motion. In this case the evidence was before them; and it appeared that a regular system of treating, bribery, and intimidation, had been carried on for years past. Mr. BOUVERIE said it was admitted on all hands, that where a Member was unseated without a special report, the writ should issue as a matter of course ; and it ought to be laid down as a general rule. In this instance the Committee had been anxious to fish eut the truth, and there was nothing in the evidence to make this case an exception to the general rule. Mr. FRENCH said, he had gone over the evidence attentively, and in his opinion the Committee had not arrived at a correct decision in unseating Sir Robert Pigot. Mr. COBDEN wished to know whether there were a dozen Members ignorant' of the true state of the borough under discussion ? On the authority of Doffs .Parliamentary l'ompanion, Mr. Cadogan's evidence, and a letter he had received from Bridgnorth, he maintained, that the borough was under the influence of the Whitmore family, who if they pleased could "return their own footman." If the House would appoint a Committee, Mr. Cobden would pledge himself to find the evidence. Mr. DISRAELI, Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY, and Mr. HENRY HERBERT, rose one after another and attacked Mr. Cobden for his statements.

Mr. DISRAELI referred to the ease of Mr. George Hope, formerly a Member

of the Rouse, who had been a guest of Mr. Whitmore' and introduced by him to a public meeting, but who after a canvass confessed he could make no way, since the opinions he professed—opinions as Mr. Disraeli believed very favourable to the present Government—were not at all those sanctioned by the electors of Bridgnorth. (Cheers from the Opposition benches.) Now,

in the face of circumstances so authentic as these, to the accuracy of which he believed many gentlemen in the House could bear testimony, it was rather too much that Mr. Cobden should get up in this authoritative manner to endeavour to make the people of this country believe that Bridgnorth was in fact the rotten borough of a family, and that the free exercise of the suffrage could not there take place.

Sir deism GRAHAM said that they would not act justly, if, after con- senting to issue the writ in the case of Blackburn, they should refuse to issue the writ in the case of Bridgnorth. He was quite ready to vote that further inquiry should in every case be instituted when a Member is unseated for bribery. Mr. Homo concurred in this opinion ; and he thought Bridgnorth furnished a ease for inquiry. On a division, there were—For the amendment, 50; against it, 184; majority, 134.—Writ ordered.

Etzeriotr Commits.

The Norwich inquiry was resumed on Monday, and concluded on Thursday.

Colonel Dickson's examination was continued. He again attributed the wrong done him to "Colonel Forester, Mr. Forbes Mackenzie, and Company"; and positively denied having ever given authority for the withdrawal of the petitions, or of having led Mr. Brown to believe that he concurred in the withdrawal. Mr. Collins, clerk to Mr. Beckwith at Norwich, corroborated the evidence of Mr. Kitten. He added, however, that at the interview between Mr. Kitton and Mr. Brown, Brown said that his "instructions were to get rid of Colonel Dickson, as he was rather troublesome." On being asked who were referred to as instruct- ing him, Mr. Collins said, he "understood the Carlton Club." He thought it impossible that any contested election could be carried on at Norwich without treating. Nobody attached any importance to the "declaration against bribery and treating usually signed by the Mem- bers." Mr. Kerrison, agent to Lord Douro, spoke as to the surprise felt at the withdrawal of the petitions. Colonel Forester was examined. He deposed to the facts already given,—that Mr. Kitten had called on him; that he recommended Mr. Brown as an agent ; and that he had said if Mr. Brown withdrew the petition without authority it was an im- proper thing. The most interesting part of his evidence is contained in the following colloquy.

Colonel Dickson—" Now, Sir, I ask you a question, which I hope you will answer : did you ever say Brown was in a tremendous scrape' about with- drawing the petitions without authority ?" Colonel Forester—" I might have said that Colonel Dickson was angry about it, and that there was likely to be a disturbance." Colonel Dickson (with great warmth)—" If I say / saw it in your own handwriting, would you say I was telling a falsehood ?" Colonel Forester—" No." Colonel Dickson—" Did you not get two friends to come and endeavour to pacify me?" Colonel Forester—" I did, because I thought you were uselessly making yourself angry about the subject, and had been to Members on the other side ; and I thought it could come to no good, as I told you myself. I said If Brown has improperly withdrawn the petition, he is answerable for it, and no Parliamentary inquiry can be of any use whatever on the subject._ If the petitioners feel themselves ag- grieved, they must prosecute Mr. Brown.'" Colonel Dickson—" Where did you tell me all this?" Colonel Forester—" In the lobby of the House, when you came by and were so angry." Colonel Dickson—" The conversa- tion was a very short one, then ? " Colonel Forester—" I went to two friends, and said to them, Can't you stop him?"

Colonel Forester was cross-examined by ,Colonel Dickson. He ad- mitted that he considered Mr. Brown had got into a "scrape "—because he had been brought before a Committee of the House of Commons on such a charge, not because he had acted without authority. Witness had asked Colonel Knox and Lord Rauelagh to speak to Colonel Dickson ; and Lord Ranelagh had said he thought Colonel Dickson ill-used. He denied that the room in the Carlton where he kept "a box with papers" was private for him any more than for any other member of the club : it was one of the rooms for strangers. As to withdrawing the pe- tition, he had always thought it would go on - but it was for Mr. Kitten and Mr. Brown to judge, and to pair off with other petitions. He did not think the system of pairing justifiable. - A good petition should go on ; if not, it should be withdrawn. He had never had to do with a com- promise of the kind; but, "right or wrong, both sides pursue the system."

Mr. Bagge M.P. was examined ; and a good deal of amusement was caused by the contrast between his quietude of manner and Colonel Dick- son's great excitement Mr. Brown, he said, had never boasted to witness of having thrown Colonel Dickson over. He had once asked what was going to be done with the Norwich petition ; but he forgot whether he said any- thing about the West Norfolk petition. "I felt not the slightest concern about it myself, but I knew that Mr. Bentinek [his colleague] must be 'nervous' about it. It was done to make a 'draw' with Norwich, and my opponent and all the respectable people of the county know nothing about it"

On a previous occasion, Colonel Dickson had said that Mr. Walpole treated him discourteously : Mr. DRUMMOND, a member of the Committee, now wished that to be explained. Colonel Dickson then described how he had held the appointment of Civil Commissioner at the Cape, but had come home wishing to exchange. His case had been thought a "hard one" by Mr. Gladstone, then Colonial Secretary, and an Inspectorship of Factories was spoken of. But Lord Grey came in, and directed the Governor of the Cape to fill up Colonel Dickson's post, unless he were back there by a certain day. That was "impossible." He laid his ease before Lord Derby, "then out of office " ; who said it was "very sharp practice." When Lord Derby came in, he thought he should get an appointment, and was told "that the Chairmanship of the Sewers Commission was kept open for him." But "when he lost his election," that "exalted indivi- dual" Mr. Walpole refused to see him. Witness had felt grateful to Lord Derby, and wrote to his brother-in-law to say that he "could afford to spend a few hundred pounds as a candidate in his interest." "I would have been very grateful for sonic small appointment; and all have their motives for going into Parliament, I suppose."

Mr. Brown was examined on Tuesday. He had written letters to every borough in England from the Canton, and seen people there on election matters; but that was gratuitous service he was not acting profession- ally. In December last, he was appointed solicitor to the India Board ; and he presumed he got it through the influence of Lord Salisbury. Mr. Forbes Mackenzie, and Lord Derby's secretary. He had always believed the petitions would be paired off Mr. Kitten had never prohibited that course. Colonel Dickson had not a chance of being returned should any vacancy occur. Asked whether there was a prospect of a vacancy, Mr

Brown said, "I have no doubt that any Member of this Honourable House might be unseated on petition, and I am quite amazed when I see a petition fail." Ile explained the basis of his arrangements with Mr. Coppock.

"The 111113lB on which we communicated was this : that where petitions were pending against Members—as, for instance, in the case of Bridgnorth- and from the state of parties on either side we could not expect a change in the event of a vacancy, it was a waste of money to push such petitions. Be- lieving, as I did fully, that there was no earthly object in prosecuting the Norwich petition, I would have been among the first to have advised Colonel Dickson not to spend his money in so fruitless a contest. I have observed that as towns increase in size so they do in Radicalism also, and their Con- servative strength declines. It is so in Norwich ; and I have no hesitation in stating, that when a popular candidate like Lord Douro, long connected with the constituency, was beaten by 600 or 700 votes, no Conservative can- didate in England could win there on 'purity principles.'"

He understood Mr. Kitten not to object to pairing the Norwich petition against any except the West Norfolk. "I should not have gone on with the petitions, under the circumstances, at Colonel Dickson's expense ; for had I done so I should have considered it nothing short of robbery." The Norwich petitions "were got up by Mr. Kitten to frighten Peto into a compromise by which Warner should retire. Failing that arrangement, I saw no advantage in going on." Mr. Coppock and himself paired batch against batch. Mr. Brown's firm were the only agents the House could recognize ; and he had withdrawn the petition under the authority of the llth and 12th Victoria, chapter 98, section 8. At the worst, he had not committed a fault, but had misunderstood Mr. Ilitton's wishes. There was no error of judgment ; for he would do it again under similar cir- cumstances.

The proceedings were terminated on Thursday. Lord Ranelagh was called, and explained that he had told Colonel Dickson he was sorry Brown was emgeyed, as probably he would throw him over for the sake of the party. He did not mean that as a personal reflection on Mr. Brown ; it was a conventional term commonly used among gentlemen. Mr. Eaton was.reealled. Ho denied that the petition was got up for the sake of pairing with the other side ; but he admitted that if Brown had told him he had not a good case, he would have told Brown to take the petitions and do what he liked with them. He would have left them with Colonel Ferester, who was a man of honour, and would not make an improper use of them.

Mr. Du:scow:ea reported:the decision of the Committee to the House the same evening.

The report stated, that Mr. Kitten denied authorizing Mr. Brown to with- draw the petitions, but that Mr. Brown affirmed that he had authority. It appeared to the Committee, that in the event of not finding the case strong enough, Mr. %Won WIN quite willing to withdraw the petitions by way of compromise. No corrupt motives could be imputed to Mr. Brown; whose conduct arose from an error of judgment, proceeding from a zealous desire to serve his party. The withdrawal of the Norwich petitions formed part of an arrangement between Mr. Brown and Mr. Coppock, in pursuance of which several petitions implicating the seats of no fewer than ten Members of that House were withdrawn,—namely, Norwich two seats; Kidderminster, one; Gloucester, one; Middlesex, one ; Toughs], one; County of Down, two ; West Norfolk, two. The Committee, in conclusion, stated that they thought it right to direct the serious attention of the House to the facility that at present exists for originating and withdrawing election petitions; and to the public scandal that is notoriously created by the process of what political partisans and parties professionally engaged termed 'pairing off,"—a process which took place under colour of the 8th section of the act for regulating the proceedings of Election Committees. The Committee suggested an alteration of the law.

The report was ordered to be printed.

The inquiry into the Southampton summer election has ended in favour of Sir Alexander Cockburn and Mr. Wilcox, who have been declared duly elected. The petition is not, however, styled "frivolous and vexatious,' as it ought to have been, so as to carry costs. Mr. Baillie Cochrane has abandoned the petition against the return of the Attorney-General at the last election.

The Committee on the Medan case, after sitting several days, in which evidence was brought both of bribery and treating, terminated yesterday, in a finding thnt Mr. Miller and Mr. Ducane were not duly elected, but that they were personally innocent; and that corrupt practices prevailed "extensively" in the borough.