consideration of the bill be postponed until Wednesday,
the 6th of April.—Viscount PALMERSTON considered
that it was preferable that a great scheme for the
better drainage of the metropolis should be undertaken
by private enterprise rather than by the government.
In his opinion, if the project held out sufficient
inducement to parties to invest a large capital in its
execution, a guarantee of three per cent, was almost
inconsistent with the views which led them to
undertake the enterprise. The point of the guarantee
was, however, a question for the committee, and it
ought not to prevent the house reading the bill a second
time. The house divided upon the amendment, and
the second reading of the bill was carried by 11,
against 16.

Mr. DUNCOMBE moved the second reading of his bill
for the repression of Cruelty to Animals. He wished to
give persons convicted under the provisions of the
present act a right of appeal.— The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
did not consider that a sufficient case had been made
out for the alteration of the law. If a right of appeal
were given, it would prevent persons from prosecuting,
lest they should be exposed to the costs of an appeal.—
The motion was negatived by 91 against 17, and the
bill, therefore, is lost.

The report of the Derby Election Committee was
brought up. It was to the following effect;—"That
M. T. Bass, Esq., is duly elected to serve in this
present parliament for the borough of Derby. That T.
B. Horsfall, Esq., is not duly elected. That L.
Heyworth, Esq., was duly elected, and ought to have
been returned. That it appears to the committee that
the petition of W. Poole, so far as regards the return of
M. T. Bass, Esq., is frivolous and vexatious. That the
committee have altered the poll at the last election by
striking therefrom, for receiving bribes, the names of
W. Harriss, W. Morley, T. Blake, R. Walcop, F.
Radford, J. Taylor, H. Needham, J. Swan, F. Staley,
C. Cockayne, E. Cockayne, W. Oliver, and H. Sharrack.
That T. B. Horsfall, Esq., was, by his agents, guilty of
bribery at the last election; but it has been proved to
the satisfaction of the committee that the bribery was
without the concurrence or privity of the said T. B.
Horsfall. That W. Harris was bribed by £2 and W.
Morley by £2, and by supplementary payment of £1
in October last, subsequent to the election; T. Blake,
R. Walcop, F. Radford, J. Taylor, H. Needham, F.
Staley, C. Cockayne, and E. Cockayne, by £2 each;
W. Oliver by £1, J. Swan and A. Sharrack by £2
each. That T. Morgan seems to have been the person
principally engaged in the above-mentioned acts of
bribery, and that the funds for this purpose appear
to have been furnished to Morgan through the intervention
of a person named T. Lund. That G. Clayton, J.
Ford, and H. 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."

On Thursday March the 10th, Lord R. GROSVENOR
moved to bring in a bill to repeal the Attorneys' and
Solicitors' Annual Certificate Duty. He traced its
origin and history, and pointed out the injustice of
imposing a heavy and oppressive tax on the mental
exertions of members of a particular profession. The
yearly produce of the tax was £120,000, and he
contended that such an amount ought not to be allowed
to stand in the way of an act of national justice. The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to all
attempts at considering isolated cases of taxation. He
did not regard this duty as unjust; and there were
many which had stronger claims for removal. It
might be a question whether there should not be an
important modification of the high stamp duty on
articles of admission, which had to some extent the
effect of creating a monopoly in the profession. The
entire taxation affecting it would deserve consideration
when the whole state of the finances was under review,
but he protested against dealing with our system of
taxation in a bit-by-bit way, or at hap-hazard. The
motion was carried by 219 to 167.

Mr. FITZROY moved for leave to bring in a bill for
the better prevention and punishment of aggravated
Assaults upon Women and Children. He referred to
several notorious cases of recent date, and contended
that the present state of the law was wholly inadequate
to meet the evil shown by these to exist. The penalty
provided for such cases was that of a fine of £5, or
committal to prison for two months, to be inflicted by
the magistrate; if the case was sent to the sessions there
was but little chance of the offended party appearing to
prosecute. He proposed to extend the magistrate's
jurisdiction to the infliction of a fine of £20, or six
months' imprisonment.—Mr. PHINN suggested that
corporal punishment would be properly applied to
cases of this description.—Leave was given to bring in
the bill.

On Friday, March 11, Mr. Bright brought before
the house the question of the Government of India,
and dwelt at great length upon the abuses of the present
system. The principal grievances complained of were,
delays and expenses in the law courts, the defective
state of the police, the unjust pressure of taxation, the
defective state of all means of communication, caused
by the absence of roads, and the slow progress of the
railways, and the neglect of navigation. The condition
of the people was the great test of the merits of a
government, and judged by this test (as he showed by
statistical and other evidence) it was evident that the
government of India was altogether inefficient, and
should not be allowed renewed and permanent power
without the most stringent inquiry. Looking at the
financial and commercial side of the question, he
adverted especially to the state of the revenue and the
diminution in the production of cotton, and in asking
the government its intentions, hoped, if they had not
a favourable intention to communicate, that he might at
any rate hear that they had not made up their minds.—
Lord J. RUSSELL complained of the manner in which
Mr. Bright had taken advantage of a formal motion
(for the adjournment of the house) to make an
unexpected and denunciatory address. With regard to the
intentions of the government, they would do what they
thought best for the people of India; and he was of
opinion, as he had before expressed himself, that it was
their duty at the proper time—which he believed to be
during the present session—to bring forward a measure
on the subject. Meanwhile there was no reason why
the committee should not investigate the points
complained of, even if they increased the number and
duration of their sittings. To any information they
could gather the government would give its best
attention. They would legislate as soon as possible
upon the best facts they could obtain; and avoid a
delay which they believed would be most injurious to
the population of the Indian empire.

On the motion for the second reading of the Jewish
Disabilities Bill, Sir F. THESIGER moved the second
reading that day six months. After a long debate, in
which there was little novelty, and which was listened
to by the house with great impatience, the motion for
the second reading of the bill was carried by 263
against 212.

On Monday, March 14, the house went into committee
on the Jewish Disabilities Bill, and the various
clauses were agreed to without opposition, though many
complaints were made of the quickness with which the
bill was carried forward.—Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
however, refused to postpone the third reading till after
Easter.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON called the attention of the
government to the present state of the proceedings in
reference to the prosecution of the Household Narrative
of Current Events, and asked their intention on the
subject.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the question, which was a very complex one, was
being considered by the law-officers of the crown, who
would report in a few days.—Mr. HUME thought the
best way of simplifying the question was to repeal the
tax.—Sir F. THESIGER, as one of the law-officers of the
late government, added his testimony as to the complex