The Committee of Inquiry into the existing state of
the Corporation of the City of London, have issued a
comprehensive report, which has been presented to
parliament. The report enters very minutely into the
constitution, rights, and government of the corporation.
The following are the heads of the principal recommendations:—
"1. That a new charter be issued, containing
all such provisions in existing charters of the corporation
of London, and all such customs of the city, as it may
be deemed expedient to preserve. 2. That the Lord
Mayor be elected by the Common Council, from the
common councillors, or from persons qualified to be
common councillors. 3. That the aldermen be elected
by the burgesses of the wards for six years, and be re-
eligible; that they be justices of the peace during their
term of office. 4. That the powers of the Municipal
Corporations Act with respect to the appointment of
stipendiary magistrates be extended to the corporation
of London. 5. That the Court of Aldermen be abolished,
and that its functions be transferred to the Common
Council. 6. That the number of wards be reduced to
some number not less than 12, nor greater than 16; and
that their area and population be, as far as possible,
made equal. 7. That each ward return one alderman
and five common council-men to the Common Council;
and that their qualification be that prescribed by the
Municipal Corporations Act for the larger class of
boroughs—namely, the possession of real or personal
estate of £1000, or being rated on an annual value of at
least £30. 8. That the voters in the wardmote elections
be the occupiers of premises in the ward rated to the
amount of £10 per annum, without any additional
qualification. 9. That the elections in Common Hall be
abolished. 10. That the sheriffs be elected by the
Common Council. 11. That the Lord Mayor's Court
and the Sheriff's Court be consolidated, and that an
appeal be given from such court to one of the superior
courts at Westminster. 12. That the Court of Hustings
be abolished. 13. That the Court at St. Martin's-le-
Grand be abolished. 14. That all regulations
prohibiting persons not free of the city from carrying on
any trade, or using any handicraft within the city, be
abolished. 15. That the metage of grain, fruit, and
other measurable goods be no longer compulsory.
16. That the Fellowship of Porters be dissolved, and
that other privileges of porters be abolished. 17. That
the admission of brokers by the Court of Aldermen be
abolished. 18. That the street toll on carts not the
property of freemen be abolished. 19. That the city
police be incorporated with the metropolitan police.
20. That the conservancy of the river Thames be
transferred to a board consisting of the Lord Mayor, the
First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Board
of Trade, the Deputy-Master of the Trinity-House, and
the First Commissioner of Woods. 21. That the exclusive
privileges of the Company of Watermen and
Lightermen on the river Thames be abolished. 22. That
the accounts of the revenue and expenditure of the
corporation be consolidated. 23. That the money and
securities of the corporation be lodged in the Bank of
England. 24. That the election of auditors be amended.
25. That the provisions of the Municipal Corporations
Acts, with respect to the mortgaging of lands, and the
making of an annual return of the revenue and
expenditure to the Secretary of State, be extended to the
corporation of London. 26. That the Irish Society be
dissolved; that its trusts be declared by act of
parliament; and that new trustees be appointed by the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland. 27. That the external
boundaries of the city remain unchanged; but that the
municipal connection between the corporation of
London and a part of the borough of Southwark be
abolished. 28. That the rest of .the metropolis be
divided into districts for municipal purposes. 29. That
in the event of such division being made, a Metropolitan
Board of Works be created, composed of members
deputed to it from the council of each metropolitan
municipal body, including the Common Council of the
city. 30. That the coal duties now collected by the
corporation of London, so long as they remain in force, be
under the administration of this board; and that, in
case the coal duties, which expire in 1862, should not
be renewed, the £4 duty now levied on behalf of the
city should cease at the same time. 31. That this
board be empowered to levy a rate, limited to a fixed
poundage, for public works of general metropolitan
utility, over the metropolitan district. 32. That no
works be executed by this board unless the plans have
been approved by a Committee of the Privy Council."

On Wednesday, the 26th of April, the Day of
National Humiliation and Prayer was kept throughout
the United Kingdom with the solemnity prescribed by
the royal proclamation. Public business was suspended;
the churches and places of worship were crowded; and
collections were everywhere made for the wives and
families of the soldiers engaged in the war.

The select committee which has been sitting upon the
subject of the Business of the House of Commons has
made a report, suggesting a simplification of some of the
forms at present observed with respect to bills, and
proposing the abolition of the hebdomadal motion for
adjournment to Monday. In the main, however, the
committee seems to prefer trusting to the good sense
and right feeling of members, and the effect of the
evidence given by the speaker and others respecting
impediments to the despatch of business.

NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

IN the Arches court, on the 25th ult., Sir John Dodson
gave judgment in the case of Roberts versus Roberts—
a suit brought by the Reverend Edmund Roberts for
Divorce from Elizabeth Ann, his wife, by reason of
Adultery. The charge was sustained by circumstantial
evidence. Down to the spring of 1852, no misconduct,
nor even levity, was imputed to Mrs. Roberts. In
March, 1852, James Mowatt, a youth of twenty, was
engaged by Mr. Roberts as a tutor or assistant in the
education of young gentlemen in his house: and
evidence was tendered to prove that Mrs. Roberts, who
was forty-two years of age and the mother of nine
children, treated Mowatt with peculiar attention; that
she walked with him, arm in arm, when the pupils
went out; that they had been locked in the library
together; that, keeping her address secret from her
husband, she lived in the same house with Mowatt in
London and at Bath; and that they were heard, at
various times, kissing each other. No direct proof of
adultery was put in; but the judge held that proof of
proximate acts was sufficient under the circumstances.
He pronounced for a separation. Mrs. Roberts's proctor
instantly asserted an appeal.

In the Court of Exchequer, on the 2nd inst., an
aggravated case of Trafficking in Bills came before Mr.
Baron Alderson. Thomas Newcombe, a lawyer's clerk,
wanted very much to get an acceptance from John
Meiklam, a young gentleman twenty-two years of age,
who was described as living with his parents in Bryanstone
Square. To effect this, he suggested to a Mr.
Elliott, formerly a wine-merchant at Liverpool, and
having some knowledge of Meiklam, that he should get
his acceptance. Meiklam gave him one for £100 at two
months; "understanding (as he said) that the other
person wanted to speculate" on his bill. Elliott took
the bill, and handed it to Newcombe, who thereupon
lent Elliott £11, and it was understood that if he "got
the bill done" he should have £30. Newcombe tried,
and he says failed, to get the bill discounted; and being
in debt to an attorney named Sherwood, he, without
stating under what circumstances he became possessed
of the bill, gave it to Sherwood as a security. All this
time, the original acceptor, Meiklam, had not received
a farthing's consideration. The bill became due on the
27th of January last. On the 15th December, Meiklam
wrote to ask that it might be returned. From that
time, he heard nothing of the bill, until the 25th of
February, when he received a letter from Sherwood,
the attorney, stating that, as Elliott could not be found,
he was compelled to take proceedings against Meiklam;
and accordingly Sherwood commenced this action. On
learning, however, the true nature of the case, that no
consideration had been given for the bill, Sherwood at
once consented to a nonsuit. The bill was impounded.
In the course of the trial, Mr. Baron Alderson made
these remarks.—"I think I could cure this bill-system