The house having gone into committee on the subject
of Pilotage, Mr. CARDWELL, stated generally the
views of the Government with respect to the Mercantile
Marine. He set out by quoting some figures to show
the vast increase of British shipping. In 1815 the
amount of tonnage was 2,681,000 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 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 tonnage inwards and outwards in 1849 was
8,152,000 tons, in 1852 it had increased to 8,727,000
tons; and the number of ships built and registered bad
increased from 121,000 in 1849 to 167,000 in 1852.
It had been determined not to effect any change in the
constitution of Trinity House or the Boards of Ireland
and Scotland, the three light-managing bodies; but to
make them accountable to parliament through
ministerial responsibility 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 government; 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
grievances, Mr. Cardwell proposed to institute an
inquiry into "passing tolls"—a subject beset with
difficulties. It was not intended (he said) to maintain
the restriction which requires that a British ship should
be manned, with a crew; consisting 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 was not
to 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 submitted to the Admiralty Court. The
grievances of desertion abroad were to be redressed by
bill; and that of consular fees would be redressed by
the Foreign Office. Upon the question of pilotage, it
was 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 the 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 regulations, with the aid of the officers
of the mercantile marine department of the board. It
was proposed to reduce the pilotage of the port of
London 25 per cent., while the pilotage of vessels tugged
by steam would be raised from one-fourth to one-third.
After some remarks from Mr. HUME, Mr. HENLEY,
Mr. LABOUCHERE, and others, leave was obtained for
bringing in a bill on pilotage.

On Tuesday, March the 8th, Mr. CRAUFURD moved
for leave to bring in a bill for the better administration
of justice in the Sheriff Courts in Scotland, the leading
provisions of which he explained, and he offered to refer
the bill to the committee which was to consider the bill
recently introduced by the Lord Advocate. The
subject, he said, had excited the greatest interest in
Scotland.—The LORD ADVOCATE did not oppose the
introduction of the bill, but from the outline given by
Mr. Craufurd, he could not flatter him that the measure
would be met with his (the Lord Advocate's) support,
since he considered that, so far from its being a step in
the direction of reform, it was, for reasons which he
stated, a retrogression.—A discussion ensued, in which
the expediency of continuing the existing grades of
sheriffs, the advantages and disadvantages of these local
jurisdictions, and the propriety of referring both bills
to a select committee, were considered. Leave was
given to bring in the bill.

Colonel MURE moved for a select committee to inquire
into the Management of the National Gallery, and to
consider in what mode the monuments of antiquity
and fine art may be preserved, augmented, and exhibited.
He observed that since the year 1850 there had
been a great advance in public opinion upon these
subjects, and that it was desirable that there should be
an expression of the opinion of the House of Commons
thereon.—Mr. EWART, in seconding the motion, dwelt
upon the deficiencies of our national museums and
schools of study compared with those on the continent.
—Mr. B. WALL hoped that, if the committee should be
appointed, it would be the last, there being an anxious
desire on the part of the public that there should be an
early decision on this subject.—Mr. H. SEYMOUR and
Sir G. STRICKLAND thought the objects of the
committee's inquiry not sufficiently defined.—Lord J.
RUSSELL was of opinion, on the other hand, that the
terms of the motion had been very judiciously chosen,
so as not to limit the scope of the inquiry. He thought
it of great importance to consider whether the pictures
and other monuments of art might not be made more
of a national collection than at present. He approved
the motion, and anticipated a very useful result
from the inquiries of the committee.—The CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER stated, that with reference to
the removal of the National Gallery the government
had come to no conclusion, and, in respect to cleaning
the pictures in the gallery, that whatever had been
done had not been done carelessly or hastily.

Mr. J. Wilson, in moving for a select committee
on the subject of Assurance Associations, said that
the government had no desire to interfere with private
enterprise, or to forward any particular interest; their
only object was to see that the privileges granted by
the act of parliament were not so far abused as to
place the public in a state of insecurity. When the
enormous magnitude of the sums raised by these offices
was considered, as well as the unsatisfactory way in
which thousands of these associations sprang up one
day and became extinct the next, no one could doubt
the necessity of some measure to place them upon
a more substantial basis. These institutions, affording
the means of making provision for the future and
being depositaries for capital, were highly advantageous
to the community; but he feared that, in too many
instances, they were mere covers for fraud, the
securities provided by the existing law, by registration,
and the annual balance-sheet, having been grossly
violated. With these startling facts before them, it
would have been criminal for the executive government
to stand still; though he was bound to say, in order to
prevent unnecessary alarm, that these were exceptions
to the rule, and that the great bulk of the offices were
not only solvent, but in a highly prosperous condition.
The committee for which he moved would examine
the subject, in order to see what provisions were
required to provide against the evils he had pointed out.
In the conversation that followed Mr Wilson's speech,
there was a general expression of satisfaction at the course
taken by the government.—But Mr. HUME asked, what
if the people cannot take care of themselves, can acts
of parliament do for them?—and Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS
doubted whether the advantages expected would
be secured by the course proposed to be taken.—The
motion was agreed to.—The committee has been
nominated as follows—Mr. Wilson, Mr. Cardwell, Mr.
Henley, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Glyn, Mr. Sotheron, Mr.
Matthew Forster, Mr. Danby Seymour, Mr. Thomas
Chambers, Mr. Mullings, Mr. Freshfield, Mr. Geach,
Mr. John Abel Smith, Mr. Cowan, and Mr. John
Ball.

On Wednesday March the 9th, on the motion for the
second reading of the Great London Drainage Bill, Sir
B. HALL, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, Sir DE LACY EVANS,
and Mr. WILLIAMS took objection to the claims
whereby the company were empowered to tax the
inhabitants of the metropolis at three per cent, in case
the speculation did not yield its promoters a sufficient
dividend.—Sir B. HALL moved that the further