The Sun. — London, England, 1860-03-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YEsTERDAY.) Lord REDESDALE, as Deputy-Speaker of the House of Peers, took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. EDUCATION IN INDIA. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH gave notice that shortly after Easter he should draw the attention of the house to the state of education in India, particularly with respect to the exclusion of the bible from native schools. CHURCH RATES. Petitions against the abolition of Church-rates were pre sented by the Bishop of Chichester, the Duke of Marl borough, the Duke of Richmond, Viscount Dungannon, and several other peers. SPAIN AND MOROCCO. The Earl of CARNARVON drew the attention of the Government to a telegram which appeared in the news ,papers stating that terms of peace had been signed between the two contending parties, and asked if the Government knew whether the terms if peace were those proposed by General O'Donnell. *deli information had been received, he wished to know *Nether there would be any objection to lay the papers re lating to the subject on the table of the house. The pro duction of the papers was of the utmost importance, if such were in the possession of the Government, as it was highly desirable the exact terms of the peace should be publicly known. Lord WODEHOUSE said the Government had received similar information to that referred to—namely, that preli minaries of peace had been signed, but they were alto gether ignorant of the details. He reminded the noble earl that peace had not been concluded. The preliminal ies ha-I only been signed. Under such circumstances, he could gi not at present ve the noble lord any more definite infor mation. SAVOY AND NICE. The Marquis of NORMANBY gave notice that on Fri day, the 20th of April, he should move the resolution of which ho had given notice, that matters of great pul)lic importance should not be made private letters instead of public despatches. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The fellowingb&wereTeacr asecond time :—Bainbridge, Li*burne, and Belfast and Ulster Railways; Belper Water, Cline Railway, Liverpool Corporation Water. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Dublin (City) Steam Packet Company, and Dublin. and Drogheda Railway. MUTINY BILL. On the motion of Earl DE GREY, this bill was read a third time and passed. MARINE MUTINY BILL. On the motion of the Duke of ,SOMERSET, this bill was read a third time and passed. CONSOLIDATED FUND (1,8511,000) BILL. On the motion of the Duke of NE W this bill was read a second time. BANKS IN INDIA. Lord 31ONTEAGLE moved for returns of all correspon dence between the Secretary of State for India and the Go vernment of India, touching the establishment of Govern ment banks ; and also for lists of all banks now existing in India. The Duke of ARGYLL laid on the table tte returns moved for by the noble lord. He did not wish at that mo ment to enter into a discussion on the subject, the more so as several noble peers, who took great interest in banking in India, were not in their places. His own opinion was .. that it was as much the duty of the Government to issue paper money as coined metal. The doctrine of the noble lord, that it could not be the duty of the Government to issue paper money, was in opposition to the opinion of the highest authorities. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought that the issue of paper money could never be important in amount, and that the attempt to issue might lead to inconvenience. He would take that opportunity of asking if the Government had yet received an account of Mr. Wilson's financial scheme in sufficient detail to lay them before the house. The Duko of ARGYLL said he had only received the document that morning, and was therefore not in a posi tion at that moment to answer the question. Their lordships then adrurned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Liskeard and Caradon Railway Bill was read a third ime and passed. The following. bills were considered, and ordered for third reading .—Cardiff Water, Chard Railway, Norwich Corporation Markets, &c. The Finn Valley Railway Bill was read a second time. THE LIGHT DRAGOONS. _ Mr. PAPIL•LON asked the Secretary of State for War, how it happened that the 14th Light Dragoons were sent home by long sea instead of overland, as intended : what were the circumstances under which the Himalaya was detained at Alexandria with the two Arm 'Aron.- batteries of Royal Artillery barracked on board; whether the Himalaya, having been further detained owing to the expected arrival of the 14th Light Dragoons, will now return empty ; and, what is the probable amount of expense to which the country will have been put owing to these arrangements ? Mr. S. HERBERT entered into an explanation, which was to the effect that telegrams sent by the Government re lative to the conveyance of troops from Bombay by Suez were not received at the former place. Arrangements were now made in reference to the Himalaya and the conveyance of the troops in question to this country. THE ANNEXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE. Mr. B. COCHRANE asked the hon. member for Bridge water (Mr. Kinglake) on what day he proposed to bring forward his motion respecting the annexation of Savoy and Nice ? Mt. KINGLAKE—The declaration of the present views and future policy of the Government which the house had heard last night from the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Atlairs with so much satisfaction, had superseded the necessity for the motion of which he had given notice on the 6th of March last. Ho should not deem it his duty to call for the interposition of the house in re- ference to this matter, so long as he believed as he then did that her Majesty's Government were determined to carry on their foreign policy in conformity with the opinion of that house and of the country at large. (Hear, hear.) LUNACY LAWS. Mr. TORRE NS asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it was intended to nominate the select committee on the lunacy laws sanctioned by the house last February; and whether it was intended, without fur ther delay, to submit reports on the evidence already given on the lunacy laws before the select committees of the two previous sessions, with a view to legislate for the ameliora tion of the condition and treatment of patients confined in insane asylums. Sir G. GREY said that the committee previously ap pointed on the subject was re-opened this session, on the motion of a private member. That committee had taken evidence, and would report the result to the house. FORTIFICATIONS. Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked the First Lord of the Trea sury whether it was the intention of Government to pro pose any vote in the present year for raising by loan, or otherwise, any sum for fortifications beyond the sum • pro posed in the army estimates at present laid on the table ? Lord PALMERSTON—The subject of additional forti fications had been the subject of inquiry before a commis sion appointed for that purpose, and their report was under the consideration of the military autkorities. The matter had to be dealt with in reference to the description of forti fications that might be deemed requisite as well as other points. As soon as the report has been laid before the Government they would deliberate on what course they ought to pursue, and then it would be his duty to bring the report before the house, and to state the intentions of the Government. CARDINAL FIESCIII AND M. THOUVENEL. Mr. BOWYER asked the First Lord of the Treasury whetheri Lord Cowley had forwarded to her Majesty a communication from Cardinal Fieschi relative to the note of M. Thouvenel ? Lord PALMERSTON considered that notice of the question should be given before he was called on to an swer it. Mr. BOWYER then gave notice that ho would esk the question on Thursday next. PACKET AND TELEGRAPIIIC CONTRACTS. • Capt. L. VERNON called the attention of the house to the report of the packet and telegraphic contracts commit •e. The hon. and gallant member contended that Mr. Churchward had been most unjustly treated, and that the conduct of the Government in regard to him was calculated to Shake the confidence of the commercial classes in the justice of Ministers. fie went in detail through the :cir cumstances relating to the contract in question as deve loped in the committee appointed to inquire into the subject last session. He was at a loss to understand upon what grounds it was sought to affix upon Mr. Churchward the charges of obtaining and accepting the contract upon co l , rupt motives. The case had already been twice tried, by a select committee and by an election petition, and in both of these cases the Administration had been exonerated ; but as far as Mr. Churchward was contemned they had sought to sacrifice him upon insufficient grounds. Mr. Church ward had found that his political opinions and financial interests were in opposition, and he had resolved to act in accordance with the suggestions of the latter rather then of the former opinions. That could not be called corruption. After having exonerated the Government, it was not, in his opinion, right to make a scapegoat of Mr. Murray, a con tractor, or such small deer. But if all persons were gibbeted who were guilty of political inconsistency, Mr. Churchward might say with Macheath : " Since laws were made of every degree, To curb vice in others, as well as in me, I wonder we haven't better company under Tyburn Tree." In conclusion, the hon. and gallant member called upon those members who had been contractors, the present and past law advisers of the Crown, and those connected with commerce, to prevent the breach of the contract which had been entered into between the Government and Mr. Church ward. The hon. and gallant member concluded by moving _ _ _ " That this house, having considered the report and the evidence presented by the select committee on packet and telegraphic contracts,.is of opinion that the contract entered into on the 26th day of April, 1859, between the commis sioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the • ,- I •Tnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Joseph George Churchward, ought to be fulfilled." . • Sir V.,I3ARING opposed the motion, and contended that the'comrnittee were fully justified in the decision to which they had arrived. There was not a vote come to by the committee which did not include among its supporters SOW gentlemen who sat upon the opposite side of the house, and he therefore vindicated the decision of the committee from the charge that thair;object was to damage the Government. There were three points for the house to consiler—first, whether the contract was really a good one and beneficial to the public interests; secondly, wh e th er the committee had come to a just or an unjust decision with respect to the . contract ; and thirdly, whether both these points being decided against Mr. Churchward, this house was still not bound in honour to carry out the contract. With respect to the first of these points, the opinion of the committee was, that the contract wa s not for the adva ntage of the country. As to the prolongation, there were some circum stances which called for the special consideration of the Nr. Chtrchward applied is 1857 for the papaw of certain sums for the discharge of duties which he stab were not included in the terms of the contract. The claim was refused by the Admiralty of that day. In 1859 he again applied for payment, with one exception, of these very same things, and the application ended . lpytpe Govern ment of that day giving him not only 'what lie 'applied for, but they gave him into the bargain an extension of the con tract. By the original contract Mr. Churcirward was bound to keep six steamers for the' English service, and ho subse quently made a contract with the French Government to keep three steamers. He had a double set of captains and a double set of colours in every ship, and when the steamer arrived at Calais he dropped the English colours, ran up the tricolour, and a French captain took command, and it was made a-French ship. What was an ample sum for the payment of six ships, might be very effectively diminished when the number was practically reduced to three. In the contract which Mr. Churchward entered lute With the French Government he stipulated that in the case of mail- time war, he was bound to give two of their ships to the French service ; and in his examination by tin committee the Secretary of the Admiralty stated that if he had known of such a stipulation he would not have sanctioned the con- tract. Mr. Churchward said that it was quite true that he had entered into such an arrangement, but he stated that he never intended to perform it. (A laugh) The contract with the English Government was thatit was to pay for six ships, but by the arrangements subsequently made two of those ships were to be handed over to the French Government in the case of a maritime war. The committee had also to deal with conflicting evidence ; on the one side they had the declarations of a gallant officer, and on the other the evi•• deuce of two gentlemen in tlirect opposition to them. This was a most disagreeable part of the duty of the committee, and he asked the house, at any rate, to believe that the com mittee did not come to a decision without giving its most anxious and careful consideration to the subject. Some reference had been made to the acts and character of Mr. Churchward. So far as his experience was concerned, it was not very easy for any Government to carry on its busi ness without some connection with gentlemen of the press —(a laugh)—and he must do Mr. Churchward the justice to say that all his articles were generally favourable to the Administration of the day. (A laugh.) But with respect to the character of Mr. Churchward, he was bound to say that he was not altogether unknown to committees of the house. In the case of the committee on Mr. Mare's election, it was reported that he (Mr. Churchward) had bribed two electors at that election; and another committee had reported that ho had asked for forty places, and had got twenty-five of them. He thought this showed, upon the whole, that Mr. Churchward was not a man to abstain from using Parlia mentary influence to get something good. (A laugh.) Mr. Murray had denied that the conversation described by Cap tain Carnegie had passed, but had said that Capt. Carnegie must have had in his mind a conversation with him (Mr. Murray) in which he had made use of such remarks as had been repeated. That was to say, Mr. Murray talked to Capt. Carnegie about Mr. Churchward assisting him, and they had therefore the admission that there was an offer to Mr. Churchward to take part in the election. But that was not all : the late Secretary to the Treasury wrote that the Government were anxious to expedite Mr. Churchward's matter, and they wanted him to go down to Dover to can vass. The reason, then, that the committee recommended that Mr. Churchward's contract should not be extended was, that Mr. Churchward thought he got his contract through his Parliamentary assistance. (Hear, hear.) He wow came to the last question, whether the contract having been entered into, the house was not bound to perform it? Was it to be understood that in every; promise of a Govern nient, involving a vote of money, the house was bound in good faith to pay whatever might be demanded ? If so, had the house any right to enter into any question connected with the retiring allowances ? If the principle were carried to its full extent, there was hardly a thing in which Parlia ment would be permitted to interfere, but he thought he could show that the house had never acted upon that doc trine. There was a contract entered into by the Minister at Paris for the purchase of a certain chapel, and part of the 'money was actually paid, but the house threw out the vote and refused to perform the contract ; and amongst those who on that occasion voted in the majority were Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Henley, Sir J. Graham, Sir W. Jolliffe, Sir J. Faking ton, Mr. S. Fitzgerald, the present Chancellor of the Ex chequer, Lord J. Manners, the present Judge-Advocate, Mr. Sergeant Ringlak e, Mr. It. Malins—in the way of whose speech, now on the other side, he was sorry to throw any difficulty—(laughter)—and the late Attorney-General for Ireland. Then, again, they had the precedent of the com mercial treaty with Louis the Fourteenth, when the house thanked her Majesty for the treaty, but threw out the clause for the reduction of duties ; and that was an instance of a most solemn contract—a contract with a foreign Power under the Great Seal of England--set aside by Parliament. The engagement in contracts such as that now under discus sion was worded thus—" We engage to pay out of moneys to be provided by Parliament and it could not be main tained that the Lords of the Admiralty had the power to make contracts to which the House of Commons were asked to assent only as a ridiculous form. It appeared to him, in the first place, that the contract was not good in itself; that whether it were or were not a good contract, the conduct (4 Mr. Churchward had been such as to render it advisable that it should not be extended ; and that the House of Commons was perfectly free to withhold its sanction from the course which they were now recommended to take. Sir S. NORTHCOTE was not prepared to argue the question upon legal grounds, but the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down had placed the question from begin ning to sad upon a totally false issue. What the hen. mem ber for Berkshire asked the house to do was not to tie, but to untie its hands. The committee submitted the question fur consideration, whether Mr. Churchward had not by his conduct rendered it impossible for the house, with regard to its honeur and dignity, to vote the money necessary for carrying the contract into effect, and this called for an ex pression of opinion upon the subject. All that was now asked was, that the house should be placed in that position that it should not be fettered :by the decision of the com mittee, but should be at liberty to give its opinion freely upon the vote in committee. In the case of the Paris chapel the contractors were about to put up the debt of the British Government to the lowest bidder, and a vote of the House of Commons was taken to prevent the discreditable transaction taking place. This was an instance, then, of the inconvenience of too hasty interference with such bar gains, and in the present case, if the house was persuaded that the Government had entered into the contract fairly, and for the public service, he submitted that it would be a most injurious and injudicious course if they repudiated the engagment upon the ground merely that they considered it inexpedient. He had stated to the house last year, he had stated again before the committee, and he would now state once more, what the grounds were upon which the late Go vernment agreed to the extension of the contract. In the first place, the extension was asked for on a ground that he did not think a good one—that Mr. Churchward had sus tained great and serious losses in the execution of his con tract. That was a ground on which the contract was extended by a previous Government, in 1855 ; but he had refused, so far as he was concerned, the extension on that ground. Then it was recommended upon the ground that Mr. Churchward was anxious to improve the service—that he was unable to carry it out so effectively as he ought without going to considerable expense, and that it was unreasonable to suppose that he would go to that expense unless an ex tension were granted to him. Now that was a ground he (Sir S. Northcote) took, and took in conformity with prece dents set over and over again - by Governments ever since they had had to deal with packet contrasts. There was one remarkable instance, in a case infinitely more important than this, namely, the extension of the royal mail contract. The royal mail contract to the West India Islands involved a subsidy of 1270,000, whereas this involved only .£15,000, or £16,000; that service was very badly done, this was very well done ; that involved a dead loss to the Government of £215,000 a year, because the postage revenue derived from it was very small, whereas in this case the contract produced an absolute gain by postage of £60,500 a year. The Royal Mail Company came forward in 1857, when Mr. Wilson was at the Treasury, their contract having four years to runt and obtained an extension for two years, on the ground that they proposed to build larger ships. He might be told that this was a case got up with a view to favour Mr. Churchward, but he contended that the case was most com pletely made out in favour of the extension ; and in proof he quoted the evidence given by Captain M'llwaine, a very competent and perfectly unbiassed witness, who stated to the committee that it would be of advantage if Mr. Church ward could put on better boats—that he had not speed for the contract in bad weather. It might be said that they ought to have allowed Mr. Churchward to drag out his contract, and made no attempt to improve the 'system. Well, that might be so ; but even those who took that view would surely acquit them of not having acted up to the best of their judgment. The next ground which had in duced them to close with Mr. Churchward was that not only had he a contract with the British Government, but likewise with the French Government. Mr. Churchward had a contract with the British Government by w hi ch he was bound until the year 1863, and one with the French Government by which he was bound until the year 1870. As far as the contract with the French Government was concerned, it was entirely beyond their control, but it so happened that at the time a correspondence was going on between the Post-office authorities, the French Govern ment, and Mr. Churchward, with respect to certain hu r;rovements in the service which bad been suggested by Mr. Churchward. These improvements could only have been carried out by the aid of Mr. Churchward, and, con• sequently, had he refused it, they must have fallen to the ground ; and the result had been that the accelera tion of the mails, which wps so much desired, did take place, and that the mails which left Dover between one and two in the afternoon now were to leave it at seven in the morning. Moreover, Mr. Churchward had accele rated the passage between France and England, and instead 'hf the voyage being performed at the rate of ,eleven knot s an hour, as used to be the case, it was now performed at four teen knots an hour. And it should be borne in mind that it was not in the English service that these improvements had taken place, but in the French service, over which Mr. Churchward had complete control. He did not mean to say that Mr. Churchward's conduct, as regarded the elec tion, was everything that was proper, but as regarded the contract there was nothing whatever to impugn. If there was any corruption at all it was on the part of the late Go- _ vernment ; and both his colleagues and himself should be ashamed of themselves if they were to be acquitted of all blame, and the consequences visited on Mr. Churchward alone. Had the inquiry been conducted before a legal tri bunal, leading questions, such as the hon. member had put, would never have been tolerated. He would again repeat that ho should feel thoroughly ashamed of himself if it could be supposed that he was prepared to ride off on the sort of acquittance accorded by the report of the committee, while Mr. Churchward, the contractor, innocent of every thing that cola be impeached, was allowed to be a heavy sufferer. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LAING, as one of the majority of the committee who had decided in favotur of the report which had been published, desired to offer a few observations to the house. He should rat his decision entirely upon the question whether or not any corrupt influence had attempted to be used by the con tractor when seeking the renewal of the contract. Were he, however, to base it oYi the consideration whether or not the bargain WAS an advantageous one for the country, he might have much to say #4, opposition to the view taken by the honourable baronet who had just spoken. He believed, for the reasons set fbrth in the report of the Post-office autho- rities, that the transaction was not upon the whole one for the good of the country. Where the case was such that it was morally certain, either from the vastness of the under taking or other circumstances, that a variety of competitors would not appear in the field, it might be better, un- doubttdly, that the Government should close at once wit an individual. But that was not the case with the Dover line ; for it was perfectly possible for a great variety of per sons to have competed for the contract—in fact, any one with five or six steaniers could have done so. And, more over, it was notorious that, as regarded the railways, there were elements of competition entering in these of which the public ought to have taken advantage. It certainly, there fore was unwise to tie up the hands of the country by so influenced an execution of the contract. However, all such considerations appeared to him to be beside the question. The simple point with him was, had corrupt motives heightened the execution of the contract. The hon. baronet had found fault with the report of the committee. Now, he was astonished that a gentleman of such acuteness was unable to see the distinction between a verdict of acquittal as regarded B the acceptor of a bill, and a verdict of guilty as against A, the offerer of a bill. There was no assertion that the contract had been obtained by the exercise of cor rupt influence, but there was a distinct assertion by a great majority of the committee, and not consisting of onepolitical party, that Mr. Churchward did attempt to exercise cor rupt influence, in the hope of thereby obtaining the con tract. The question was not in the slightest degree one of law, for undoubtedly the House of Commons had the power of rejecting the renewal of the contract by refusing to vote for the money. It should also be borne in mind that Churchward was a person whose antecedents were not satisfactory—who had been reported to the • House of Commons on a former occasion as having been guilty of attempting to bribe certain electors as a political agent. Nor could they shut their eyes to the fact of the communications between Churchward and the Admiralty on the subject of the Dover election. A select committee had since then sat on the Dov©r election, and had made their report to the house ; that report was not printed, and he (Mr. Laing) was therefore obliged to quote from the newspapers. He proceeded to read a passage from the report in qUestion, when — Lord LOVAINE rase to order, and put it to the Speaker whether the hon. member was justified in quoting the report of a committee not before house. The SPEAKER decided to hon. member was rot in order. -- - . Mr. LAING said the point was immaterial, except for the sake of argument. His general impression, however, was that the report threw a remarkable light on the con nection of Churchward with the Dover election through the agents employed. Mr. LYGON rose to order. To refer to a report not be fere the house was not in Order. The SPEAKER decided that the hon. member was again out of order. Mr. LAING said the report of the committee had been laid on the table, though it had not yet been printed ; but he did not wish to pursue the subject further than to say that the report was referred to by the hon. and gallant member, who made the motion, and that if he (Mr. Laing) was out of order, he only followed that hon. gallant member. But taking the case as it stood the question was narrowed down to the single issue—whether Captain Carnegie's evidence was to be believed or rejected ? If it was to bo rejected, then there was an end of the business. If, however, it was to be believed, then no man of sense could doubt for a single moment that Mr. Churchward attempted, by means of a political bribe, to obtain from the Admiralty a renewal of his con tract. That being the case, then came the question, was an atttrept a sufficient justification for the House of Commons to, put an end to the contract in question by refusing to vote the money for it ? The introduction of the words in the contract making it dependent on the vote of the House of Commons, was a great novelty in contracts ; but it was plain, from the state ments of the members of the Government who had made • that contract, that these words were not mere idle verbiage, but had a definite purpose and specific. meaning. Under the words of the contract they were at perfect liberty to re fuse the vote. It was of the highest consequence, moreover, that they should support the decision of their own select committee, whose conclusion was strictly based on evidence, and therefore he hoped they would not agree to the reso lution. Mr. MALINS said the house was not in possession of all the facts of the case, which was to be regretted, as the deci sion Fould be of a judicial character. Before the year 1854 Mr. Churchward had been connected with the public press on naval affairs, and had acquired a considerable knowledge of those matters. At that time the packet service from Dover to Calais was costing the country £25,000 a-year ; and Mr. Churchward suggested that this service should be performed by tender, and not by Government boats. This was agreed to. The Government advertised for tenders, and Mr. Church ward and a Captain Jenkins tendered to perform the service for £15,500, which tender was accepted, and a contract was accordingly signed on the Ist April, 1554. The right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle was then at the head of the Admiralty, and a Liberal Government was in power. That wont on until 1855, to the satisfaction. of the Government, when Mr. Churchward—who, with the knowledge of the Government had entered into an arrangement with the • French Government to bring over the French mails in his packets instead of returning empty—applied for and re ceived a renewal of his-contract to 1863, on the ground that he had been at considerable expense, and had suffered the loss of one of his vessels. That contract was on the same terms as the former, with some collateral advantages. The right hon. baronet the member for Halifax was then First Lord of the Admiralty. After that came the Crimean war and the Indian mutiny, and the arrival of the Indian mail being very irregular, Mr. Churchward put himself to great expense to have a steamer in readiness when the mail ar rived. In consequence of this, and his having suggested great improvements in the postal service, the Government of Lord Derby-increased the term of contract. It would be admitted that the Government of Lord Derby was in no danger until the middle of March, 1859, when the noble lord opposite proposed his resolution. The course of circumstances eonnected with the contract appeared to be this. On the • Gth January, 1859, Mr. Church ward, being at that time in possession of a contract which was to last till 1863, first mooted the question of its renewal. On the 11th of February he was invited by the Admiralty to make a formal offer of the terms which he pro posed. In compliance with that invitation he made an offer, proposing that his remuneration should be £lB,OOO a year instead of £15,500 a year and casualties, as under the old contract, the casualties amounting usually to about £2,500. On the 23d of February that offer was formally accepted and adopted by the Admiralty, and all that then remained was for the Treasury to put it into shape. That was a mere matter of machinery, and for all practical pur poses the contract was completed on the 23d of February. On the 26th of April, however, the contract was positively executed—" signed, sealed, and delivered" by the Treasury —and under it Mr. Churchward, was to receive £lB,OOO a year, and the contract vas to endure till 1870. On the faith of that contract Mr. Churchward had expended £16,000 upon two new steamers to enable him to perform his part of the undertaking, and it had been so fill• recognised by the present Government that on the Ist of July, when the first quarter's subsidy became due, they handed over to him the sum of £4,500. The contract having been thus entered into, it was now said that it was to be set aside on account of a conversation which was alleged to have taken place with Capt. Carnegie on the 2d April. A more ridiculous ground for repudiating a contract he had never heard. He appealed to the justice of the noble lord, and of the house, not to sanction the repudiation of a contract solemnly en tered into by a public department on the ground of mere gossip, said to have taken place in the room of. a private secretary. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he could not agree with the propositions which his hon. and learned friend op posite had laid down with regard to the law of this case. He admitted the correctness of the dates given by his hon. and learned friend, but he demurred to the conclusion which he had drawn from them. It appeared that early in 1859 Mr. Churchward proposed to the Admiralty the abrogation of and : w : h e fi to proposal,l continuet i h e e n as existing, disposed o forwardedsl leB d7 a cit n o. d r eT t l h yhi e eto tnAsoutdibihnseeit absence Treasury, lrst t eey i an o s n cuny) off' one approved ab o n n u any ar m t d h sa e c e t in point a form, the contract was not signed a t that ac s erh e 6o a l: t f l vt e i binding acceptance of the contract on the part of the Trea sury. Mr. Churchward was a man not inex • perienced in contracts, and must haveknswn the importance of the want of the ratification by the Treasury. However Mr. Church ward might exaggerate the advantages of the contract to himself, that of itself would not negative the fact found by the committee, that Mr.Churchward had at tempted to obtain an advantage to himself by means 1 hat Were corrupt. For tunately for the interests of public justice and political morality, there was in this contract so corruptly obtained a stipulation, the importance of which his hon. and learned friend had sought to evade, to the effect that the periodical payments to Mr. Churchward were to be made 'out of moneys to be voted by Parliament. No complaint, there fore, could with justice be made by Mr. Churchward, if the house should refuse to vote the fund out of which payments were to be made to him. It followed, from the terms of the contract, that they would be guilty of a breach of duty if, in the Nee of the Adverse ObiniOn of Parliament, they were to make payments to Mr. Churchward. The question they had to consider was, whether the conclusioili arrived at by the select committee were to be reversed by a vote in favour of the motion now submitted to them. In justice to their own Committee, the house might notl on light grounds, to disturb its decision. He agreed with his hon. and learned friend that the Government should not seek to evade the contract on any ground which would not be available for the avoiding of a contract between private individuals.: He denied, however, as respected the application of that rule in the present case, that the Government were in any way in fault. Such S. case as this could not happen as between private individuals. Mr. Churchward was soliciting a con tract from the Government which had sought to complete it by attempting to corrupt an officer of the Government, by promising to support the Government candidate at an election. His lion. and learned friend must know that a contract between individuals was void if corruptly entered into—if contra bonos mores—or against the statute or com mon law. Such a contract was always pronounced void on objection being taken to it. He contended that in a reference to the dates of the various steps in the transaction that Mr. Churchward had obtained an advantage to which he was not, at the time of receiving the payment of the sum of money referred to, entitled. He denied that Mr. Church ward was without a remedy in a court of law against the officers of the Government, if he conceived he had any cause of complaint, as he might proceed by petition of right against the Crown. With respect to the facts of the case, he had come to the conclusion, after a careful examination of the evidence, that Mr. Churchward had sought to ob tain that which, at all events, he by his conduct re garded as a matter of considerable advantage, by means which were to be reprobated ; and which must, if carried into general practice, tend to corruption in the public departments with respect to the grant of con tracts ; and he should, therefore, feel it impossible, by a vote in favour of the motion, to reverse the decision to which the select committee had arrived. Lord LOVAINE considered that Capt: Carnegie had acted in this affair in a manner which was most unfair to his colleagues, and ho regretted to find that so much weight was to be attached to evidence not given on oath. Lord C. PAGET defended Capt. Carnegie from the per • sonal charges which had been against him. He stated that the gallant officer bad been for many years an acquaintance of his own, and he had always regarded him as one of the most high-minded of his brother officers. Sir F. KELLY said if the conduct of Capt. Carnegie had been the subject of the debate he should not have denied him what had been denied to Mr. Churchward—a fair trial. He was glad that a lawofficerhad been induced to rise upon that occasion, but notwithstanding the arguments that had been advanced, he put it to any lawyer in the house whe ther, if an action had beenbrought upon the contract by Mr. Churchward, there would have been the slightest shadow of a defence of the course taken by the committee in recom mending that the contract should beset aside? The contract was entered into in 1854 between the Admiralty and Mr s Churchward for the conveyance of the mails between Dover and Calais, and Dover and Ostend—an arrangement which saved to the Government £lO,OOO, and no one could main tain that Mr. Churchward had departed from the strict let terkf the contract. Subsequently the contract was extended for five years, and Mr. Churchward having entered into a contract with the French Government, terminating in 1870 was anxious to extend his contractwith the English Govern ment to the same period, which would have enabled him to perform the service much more advantageously to this coun try. The approval of the Admiralty was signified to him, and communication took place between Mr. Churchward and the Admiralty and the Treasury, and the result was that in the month of April the arrangement was completed. Instead of £17,500 a-year the Government were to pay £lB,OOO a-year, and in the improved arrangements Mr. Churchward undertook, at an expense of £2,000, to pro vide a steamer for harbour service at low water. Immedi • ately after the contract was entered into on the 26th of April, Mr. Churchward proceeded in perfect good faith to expend £2,000 in the purchase of a steam vessel, and lay • ing 115,000 in supply ing the best, and most effective, and fastest steam vessel that had ever carried the mails between England and France. On the Ist of July Mr. Churchward sent in his account at a time when the late Government had ceased to exist, the present Government had eomo into power, and the first instalment under the contract was paid. This continued for three months more, until at least half of the sum of money to be paid under the contract, amounting to £29,000 and more, had been expended by Mr. Church ward and those associated with him, and in September he sent in a statement of account demanding a sum of £4,500 which was then due. The house had no more right to pre vent or defeat the full performance of this contract by the Board of Admiralty than they had to keep away by any vote the estate of any gentlemen. After the lapse of a fort night Mr. Churchward wrote that he was still bound, under heavy penalties, to the strict performance of the contract ; that he had with great cost and labour and increased risk, carried out strictly the stipulations of the contract; that he had incurred liabilities of £lB,OOO and £19,000; that the outlay was so large that it was impossible to do justice to the public unless good faith were observed by the Govern ment, and that he was advised that he could recover his de mand in a court of law. Upon this payment was made to enable him to go on and not stop the public services alto gether, and be was obliged to accept it under pretest, still insisting upon the whole of his claim. He would like to ask his hon. friend the Attorney-General and his hon. friend the Solicitor-General whether the House of Commons or the Crown had the power either to set aside one contract or to revive another which had been expressly put an end to for ever? Suppose Mr. Churchward had been a man of straw, and that the Government were obliged to full back upon his sureties, did any one imagine that the sureties under the contract of 1855 could be held liable ? Were the attempt made, the illegality and absurdity of the whole proceedings would soon be made apparent. He was inclined to speak not so much against the report as against the purposes to, which it had been applied. Now, if it were intended to report against the fulfilment of the contract on the ground that Mr. Churchward had been guilty of bribery, he would humbly suggest that before any such conclusion was acted on, that Mr. Churchward ought to be allowed the opportu nity of submitting the question to a decision of a jury of his countrymen, and of having the evidence sifted upon oath. There could not be a shadow of doubt, both legally and constitutionally, Mr. Churchward was entitled to a trial by jury before such a senf once could be pronounced against him. The question was not a vote of money, it was one of fair dealing ; and he deeply lamented that the house should be asked to set aside a contract between the Government and an individual, and so be called upon to assume the juris diction of a court of justice without any of the machinery for arriving at the truth. Under these circumstances, he trusted the precedent woulcl'hot be adopted, and that the house would pass the resolution before it. Mr. BOUITERIE differed from most of the conclusions of the hon. and learned gentleman, and thought the ques tion was not a lawyer's question, butine on which the house as guardian of the public purse, was bound to exercise a strict supervision of the public money. The hon. and learned gentleman would seem not to have read the evi dence taken before the committee,! or he would have seen that the Secretary for tho Treasury to the late Government had, stated that the provision in the contract was specially introduced with the consent of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide for the very contingency in ques tion. Technically or legally, therefore, the contractor could not complain if Parliament refused to find the money. Mr. WHITESIDE having protested against the doc trine that public contracts were liable to be rescinded, as was prcposed in the present instance, Mr. GLADSTONE denied that the present Govern ment had done any act by which they recognised this con tract. The whole question was whether the contract was to be renewed for seven years after its present term, which was yet to be decided by the house, without reference to any damage which‘Mr. Churchward might have suffered, as was implied by the present motion. It was the duty of the Government and the house also to support the decision of a committee which had been appointed with the utmost impartiality, and had carefully examined into the subject. Sir J. PAKINGTON explained and defended the part he had been alleged to have taken in the transactions re lating to the Dover election, and said that, if anything, he was to blame for not knowing enough of what was going on, especially with regard to the contract with Mr. Church ward. He denied that there was any evidence which con victed Mr. Churchward of corruption. After a few observations from Mr. G. W. HOPE, The house divided, when the numbers were— For the motion .. 117 Against it .... Majority against the motion .... 45 The Income Tax Bill was read a second time. The house adjourned shortly before two o'clock. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—The greatest happiness of a jour nalist is to introduce to his readers some new discovery calculated to benefit that vast portion of our fellow crea tures, which has the strongest claims upon our sympathies. It is with this feeling that we call the attention of invalids to the following extraot.from Du Barry's interesting report of cures without medicine of indigestion (dyspepsia), fla tulency, constipation, nervous, bilious and liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption and debility by Da Barry's Itevalcnta Arabica Food. Cure No. 180, twenty five years' nervousness, constipation, indigestion, and debility, from which I had sufiered great misery, and which no medic ine could remove or relieve, have been effectually cured by Du Barry's food in a very short time.—W. R. Reeves, 181, Fleet-street. Cure No. ,54,618, of a lady of 107 years; of age.—Wandsbeek, near Hamburgh, 12th May, 18574—1 hereby certify that my mother-in-law, Mrs. Holze, who has just completed her 107th'year, after having suffi !red for half a century and more,' from indigestion (dyspepsia), and consequent disorders, has been perfectly cured by :Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, and is now enabled to di gest almost any kind of food with great comfort.—W. 110 l ze. In tins, at is. 6d. ; Ilb., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 , .b., 265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182,, Piccadilly; Alibis, 60, Gradechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Oxfold street ; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgrde street ; 85, Tottenham-c our t- roa d. Al so a t Dublin, Bewley 'and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Co.; at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Mimi cheater, Sharp and Scott; at York, Raimcs, Blanchard, si id Co.; _at South. anipton, Ranciali and Bon, SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. NORTHAMPTON RACES.-TUESDAY. Trial Stakes of 10 ECM; each with 50 added. One mile. Mr. J. Ingham's Odo 3 yrs, 7st (H. Orimshaw) 1 baron Rothschild's North Lincoln, 4 yrs, Bst 91b (0, Fordham) 2 1 Mr. Shelley's Lifeboat, 5 yrs, 9st llb (L. Snowden) 3 M. Philippe and Ancient Briton also ran. Betting-7 to 4 Lifeboat, 3to 1 agst North Lincoln, 4 to '1 agst Ode, and 6 to 1 agst M. Philippe. M. Philippe was the first off; but on getting into their stride, Odo took up the running, with Lifeboat second, North Lincoln third, Ancient Briton being at their quarters, and M. Philippe directly in their track. Ralf way up the distance North Lincoln got to Odo's head; but, jumping the footpath at the lower end of the enclosure—a trick which ho performed last year for the Whittlebury Stakes—he was beaten by a length and a half; three lengths between the second and third, and a wide interval between each of the others. The Nene Handicap of 25 sovs, added to a Sweepstakes of 5 sovs each. Spencer Plate Course. ; Capt. Christie's,Brandy Balti 4 yrs, 7st 91b (G. Fordham) 1 'Mr. Saxon's Tom Thumb, aged, Bst (L. Snowden) 2 Mr. Higgin's Tiara, 6 yrs, Bst 71b (Crcsswell) 3 The following also ran :—Miss Eleanor, Bel Esperanza, Vigo, Julie, The Gentle, King Edward, and Little Poll. Betting-3 to 1 agst ; Brandy Ball, sto 2 each agst Vigo and Tiara, 6 to 1 agst Little Poll, 7 to 1 agst Tom Thumb. Bel Esperanza,The Gentle, Miss Eleanor, and Brandy Ball were the first to show in frent as they rose above the hill ; on approaching the distance the race was left to the first three, Brandy Ball winning a good race by three-quarters of a length ; a length between the second and third; and a head between the third and fourth ; the Gentle and Vigo were fifth and sixth; Bel Espe ranza and Julie were the last two. Her Majesty's Plate of 100 guineas. Two wiles. Mr. Ingham'. Odo, 3 yrs, Est 101 b (Challoner) 1 Mr. Halford's Athos, 3 yrs, Ost 101 b.... (H Grimshaw) 2 Mr. Shelley's Lifeboat, 5 yrs, Oat 101 b (L. Snowden) 3 Rattlebone and Actress also ran. Betting-6 to 4on Odo, sto 2 agst Lifeboat. Odo and Actress got away in front, both pulling very hard, and on passing the Stand Actress rushed to the front, Odo going on second, Lifeboat third, and Eattlebone bringing-up the rear. On rounding the top turn Ode overpowered his rider, and went up to Actress and ran with her nearly head-and-head a short distance after entering the far side of the course, and they alternately led until reaching the dip, where Odo quitted Actress and took a clear lead, with Athos second. As they breasted the hill Athos deprived the favourite of the lead, and on entering the straight Actress was beaten, and Lifeboat became third. From the distance the race was reduced to a match between the first two, Odo winning by a head; upwards of a dozen lengths between' the second and third. Actress and llattlebone were a long way in the rear, and passed the post nearly abreast. Pytchley Stakes, of 5 soya each, with 40 added. Weight for age, selling allowances, &c. The winner to be sold by auction, &c. Spencer Plate Course. Mr. Barratt's Buttercup, 3 yrs (£3O), sst 131 b (W. Bottom) 1 Mr. T. Brown's Isis, 3 yrs (£3O), sst 131 b (11. Grimshaw) 2 Mr. Fraser's Tonio, 2 yrs (£6O), 4st 111 b.. (Roper) 3 The following also ran :—Duplicity, Brine, Sobersides, Alfred, Chantress Norman, and Mr. .Rarey. Betting-6 to 4 agst the Norman, 4to 1 agst Chantress, sto 1 agst any other offered. Butter cup made all the running, and won by ten lengths. Bad third. The winner was sold by auction to the Earl of Winehilsea for 90 guineas. Great Northamptonshire Stakes of 100 soya, added to a Sweepstake of 25 sovs each, 15ft, and only 5 if declared ; certain winners extra ; 'the second to receive 25 soya out of the stakes. Two miles. 116 subs., of which . 65 de- dared. • Mr. Fuller's Simple Simon, 3 yrs, sst 91b (Mitchell) 1 Mr. Stephens ns Springwell, 3 yrs, sst 61b .. (J. Adams) 2 Mr. Stopford As Chance Shot, 3 yrs, sst 71b . • (Parsons) 3 The following also ran :—The Pitman, Claire, 'Sans Spode, Royal Sovereign, Newstead, Timandra, First Lord, Lord Milton; Tommy Noble, Mainstay colt, Forager,:and The Monk. Betting at starting-3 to 1 agst Royal Sove reign, 7 to 1 agst Simple Simon, 14 to 1 agst Claire, 14 to 1 agst Springwell, 15 to 1 agst The Pathan, 100 to 6 agst Chance Shot, 100 to 6 agst Forager, 100 to 6 agst 'Tommy Noble, 100 to 6 agst First Lord, 20 to 1 agst The Monk, 20 to 1 agst Lord Milton, 30 to 1 apt Newstead, 30 to' 1 agst Timandra. Old Robert. was struck out at 1.58. The business of the weighing department was conducted with Mr. Manning's usual regularity and punctuality, and the numbers of the starters were displayed on the telegraph in ample time to suit the convenience of speculators, and to gratify the curiosity of the large crowd of people which lined each side of the course, nearly from the half mile starting post to far beyond the top turn. The police cleared the course with much promptness, not walking abreast as at Epsom, but by an in genious use of a long rope, which they stretched across the running ground, they compelled the spec tators to retreat before them, and take up their posi:- tion behind the barriers. The horses then quitted the saddling paddock and took their preliminary canters. Tommy Noble overpowered Howey, and ran right round the far side of the course to the starting post before he was stopped. When Mr. Ilibburd had assembled the horses together Tommy Noble again displayed a will of his own, and put the lot in dis order, galloping to the distance before he was pulled up. The Pitman and Chance Shot followed his ex ample,:but did not run quite's() far. Wheti they were brought back the - starter again resumed his staff, and seizing a favourable opportunity he gave the signal, and the horses got away in good order. The front rank comprised Chance Shot, Forager, the Mainstay colt, Simple Simon, The Pitman, and Sam Spode; the last two being Timandra and Lord Milton. They ran with no material change until after rounding the top. turn, when Forager went in advance, attended by Chance Shot, with The Pitman, Simple Simon, and Stun Spode lying well up in their wake. As they descended the hill Forager increased his lead, but on reaching the Brick-kiln-hill, the last turn but one from home, The Pitman, Forager, Springwell, Chance Shot, and Simple Simon were in the van, and Royal Sovereign then began to emerge from the ruck, and take up his position in close pursuit of the leading horses. On entering the straight Sam Spode dropped back, and after stowing well up in front The Pitman was beaten, and Spring well, Simple Simon, and Chance Shot were left in front, with Royal Sovereign next. The fist two, however, had the race to themselves from the half distance, and Simple Simon won by three-quarters of a length ; the third beaten half-a-dozen lengths ; land The Pitman about the same dis• tam:o from him. Forager, The Monk, First Lord, iClaire, . I. ewstead, and Tommy Noble passed the post at wide intervals in the order named. Timandra and Lord Niihau were the last two beaten off. Whittlebury' Stakes of 15 sovs each, 5 ft, With 100 added. Weight for age. Winners extra, &c. Three-quarters of a mile. 39 subs. Mr. S. gall's Fravola, 3 yrs, Bst Slb (Charlton) 1 Lord Anglesey's Sweetsauce, 3 yrs, Sat 41b (Aldcroft) 2 Mr. Hall's Hartley Witucy, 3 yrs, Bst 31b (G Fordhani) 3 The following also ran Catawaba, Horace, Billy Dwindles, Cantab; Orion ' Bohemicnne, Kin g o f K en t, Folkestone, Prevention, Lady Little. Betting-4 to 1 cap!' agst Sweetsauce, Hartley Witney, and the' Bohanienne, 8 to 1 each agst King of Kent, Folkestone and brace, 10 to 1 each agst Fravola and Catawaba. Fravola made all the run ning, and won by three-quarters of a length; a bad third. . A HANDICAP PLATE of 30 sovs, added to a sweepstake of 5 sovs each. The winner to be sold for 40 soya. Winners extra. Spencer Plate course. Mr. Jackson's Pescatore, 3 yrs, Est 101 b (Madden) 1 Mr. Thomas's The Gipsey, 2 yrs, sst (Parsons) 2 Mr. Beaufort's Miss Eleanor, 4 yrs, 7st 101 b .. (Ducker) 3 The following also ran :—Knayton;Maradan, and Linda. Betting-3 to 1 agst The Gipsey, 4to 1 agst Pes l catore, 5 to 1 agst Miss Eleanor, 6 to 1 each agst Linda and Maradan. Won, by half a length; a neck between second and third. The STAND PLATE (handicap) of 50 soya. Winners extra. One mile. Lord Starnford's Philomela ' 3 yrs , sst 41b .... (Roper) 1 Mr. 1. Brown's Plumper, 3 yra, st 51b (Parsons) 2 Mr. Duncan's Lord Palmerstoh, 3 yrs, Est 71b... (Bundy) 3 Sir J. Hawley's Lord Nelson, 6 yrs, 9st The followin also ran :—Bel Esperanza, _Neophyte, Volunteer, Marwell, Codicil, Clovernook, Simla, Birdcage, Precise, Jenny Longlegs, and Parmesan. }letting-7 to 2 agst Clovernook, 4to 1 agst Philomela, 5 to 1 agst Parmesan, 5 to 1 agst Pre cise, 10 to 1 each agst Codicil and Lord Nelson. Won by six lengths; a length between second and third; saute distance between third and fourth. Volunteer fell at the last turn. The following notice was issued by the clerk of the scales after the race :-- "Page, the rider of Bel Esperiinia, - did not come to weigh after the race, and when called upon by the clerk of the scales to do so, stated that one of his saddle-cloths was lost. The clerk of the scales makes this report in order that the stewards may take notice of the circumstance, as many of the young jockeys aro frequently trying to avoid weighing in. • (Signed) "J. MANNI&G." fADVERTISMIENT.I—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.— Ulcers, wounds, sprains,. bad legs, old wounds, and sprains, whether recent or chronic, yield with surprising celerity to the cooling, healing, and curative properties of this in valuable ointment. It may be relied upon in all such cases as have baffled the skill of our best hospital surgeons ; no matter the length of time the malady has endured this ointment, assisted by a course of Holloway's Pills will quietly but certainly reach the core of the complaint and thoroughly eradicate it, without additional impcdinients to pleasure or business. These remedies will overcome the worst forms of diSease, and the foulest state of the blood ; while in glandular swellings, scurvy, and all ditieases of the skin they are equally ifresiatible, ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. ----F--- - TOME CIIUJUIT.—KINGSTON, March 27. (Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and a Common Jury.) REID 11. DOT/GAL. This was an action to recover• damages for false representations respecting the trade of a public house. Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Jacobs ware counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Joyce were for the defendant. The plaintiff in this action, it appeared, was for merly engaged as an engineer at Newcastle-upon- Tyne, and the defendant as an auctioneer, and en gaged extensively also as a public-house broker. In the year 1858 the plaintiff took possession of a pub lic-house called the Golden Cross, in King-street, Lon g• acre, through the instrumentality of the defen dant, and paid a sum of £450 for goodwill, &c., and he alleged that he had been induced to enter into the bargain by the false representations that were made to him by the clerk of the defendant, one of which was that the receipts of the house in ques tion were £lOO per month, The defendant posi tively denied, by his pleas, that any false represen tations had been made respecting the property. In the course of the case the written agreement between the parties was offered in evidence by Mr. Lush on behalf of the plaintiff, but an objection was raised by Mr, Tongue, the associate, that it was not receivable, inasmuch as it was not stamped. I Lord Chief Justice Erle said that the instrument Icertainly ought to bear a stamp, and otherwise he could not admit it. Sergeant Parry said that, on the part of the de fendant, he wished it to be understood that he made no objection to the reception of the evidence. Hs was most anxious to meet• the case in the merits. Lord Chief Justice Erie said that might be, but he was bound to take notice of the objection. The agreement was not legally receivable without a stamp, and therefore he could not admit it as evi dence. If the plaintiff chose to pay, the penalty under the Stamp Act the agreement might be put in. Mr. Lush said that the parties by whom he was instructed declined to take this course. His Lordship then said that, in the absence of the agreement, there certainly was no case, and he therefore directed the plaintiff to be nonsuited. NORFOLK CIRCUIT.-BURY ST. EDMUND'S, March 26. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Williams and Common Juries.) HILL V. KING. Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Keane were coun sel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Tozer and Mr. Couch for the defendant. The action was for slanderous words calculated to injure the plaintiff in his occupation as gentle man;s gardener and domestic servant. The slander complained of contained a charge of indecency. Mr. O'Malley, in opening the plaintiff's case, was commenting upon the fact that a plea ofj ustification had been originally placed upon the record and subsequently withdrawn, when the learned ser geant interposed, and desired to have the plea replaced. This request was acceded to by Mr. Justice Wil liams, but, the defendant's evidence failing to sup port the plea, the jury,after considerable deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, is. NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—LlyEstrooa, March 27. (Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.) SEYMOUR V, GREENWOOD. This was an action to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant's servant, result ing-in serious personal injury to the plaintiff. Mr. Monk, Q.C., and Mr. Leresch appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Wilde, Q.C., and Mr. T. Jones for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff is a person pos sessed of some little property in the neighbourhood of Manchester, who occupied himself in building houses, as a speculation, upon his own land. On the 22d of August last, after dining with a friend, he got into an omnibus in Chester-street,,Man-4 chester, and, according to the evidence for the plaintiff, the guard of the omnibus, who was the servant of the defendant, who is owner of the omnibus, without any apparent reason descended from the roof, entered the omnibus, and dragging the plaintiff out by the collar of ! his coat, they scuffled and fell, and the plaintiff in the fall re ceived a wound on his leg, and a cab passing by cut and injured his head. In consequence of these injuries the plaintiff was obliged to be taken to the infirmary, . and was confined to the house six or seven weeks, and was now lame and unable to attend to his usual occupation, and his memory was affected by the injury to his head. He employed an attorney to obtain him some compensation for this injury from the defendant, and the plaintiff'si attorney in consequence saw the attorney for the defendant, who stated to him that the defendant's guard got into the omnibus to turn the plaintiff out because he was drunk, refused to pay his fare, and was annoying the other passengers inside. At the close of the plaintiff's case Mr. Wilde submitted that there was no case to go the jury. The plaintiff's evidence showed only a most wan ton and unprovoked assault by the omnibus guard, for which lie ws.s liable to a penalty under the (*age Coach Act and was amenable to the criminal law, and in the commission of that assault he was not acting within the scope of his duty so as to render his master responsible for his acts. His Lordship had some doubt, on the whole of the evidence, whether the master was liable or not. He would, however, reserve the points for the opinion of the superior court whether there was reasonable ground for the jury to suppose that the conductor of the omnibus was acting within the scope of his duty; and, subject to that opinion, he would take the opinion of the jury as to the amount of damages the plaintiff ought to receive on the assumption that the defendant was liable. The learned counsel having then respectively addressed the jury on the question of damages, His Lordship summed up, and the jury retired. On their return they found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £lO5. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Hill.) Thomas Challinor was indicted for setting fire to a warehouse in Liverpool, in the occupation of Elijah Pryce, with intent to defraud. Mr. Aspinall and Mr. Preston appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Scott defended the prisoner. It appeared 'that the prosecutor, Mr. Elijah Pryce, is in partnership with Mr. Lace as a general broker at Liverpool, and that the prisoner'had been their warehouseman since October 1853. In the course of December last th e y h a d 113 casks of olive oil warehoused in Carson's cellar B, in Basingliall street, Liverpool, This cellar belonged to Mr. Hutton, and the keys were kept by his warehouse man, a man named Sharp. The room immediately above the cellar was occupied by a man named Daffy. The warehouse was locked up safely on the night of the 31st of December last, but in the course of that night a fire was discovered in the collar where the oil was warehoused, which, however, was extinguished by the fire brigade. On going into the cellar two casks of oil were found to be entirely burnt, and c partially so. A few days afterwards the prisoner absconded. Two days after wards, in consequence of some information the police obtained, the remaining casks of oil were esse,mined, and several were found to be entirely emptied and others partially so. Altogether about 10 tons 14 cwts. in weight and £5OO in value in oil weiv discovered to have been stolen. On the 13th of January the prisoner was taken into cus tody, and wished to speak to Mr. Pryce, and he then said he was very sorry for what he had done, but that Duffy had induced him to do it, and had offered him a large remuneration and to share what he got from the insurance offices; that he had been so ninth distressed about it since that he had gone twice to the King's Dock with the intention of de- , stroying himself. (The man Duffy has not since been apprehended, although every eflbrt has been made to find him by the police.) . It appeared that, on Dec. 23 last, the prisoner hired a cellar in York-chambers, Wolsteiuhohne square, from Mr. Shaw, in the name of John Stewart,. assigning as a reason that the premises he had near the docks were too small for him, and to this cellar the prisoner subsequently removed a quantity of casks of oil and bags of valona, which were sent by Daffy front his room above the prose cutor's cellar in Basingliall-street. It appeared that in the'room above Daffy's room a quantity of valona was warehoused, and Duffy, assisted by the prisoner, had contrived to abstract the oil from the casks in the cellar below belonging to the prosecutor, and to place it in casks in the room occupied by him, and had then sent it out to : the cellar hired by the pri soner in Wolstenholme-square. On examining the prosecutor's cellar immediately after the fire three casks were found at the far end of the cellar filled with oil, and on them was pla c ed a large quantity of rosin chips, which came to within two feet of the room above occupied by Duffy, and immedias tely over where these chips were piled on the casks a portion of the floor of Duffy's room was torn up. On examining Duffy's room a large quantity of rosin wood was fbuud placed over the hole in the floor across the joists, so as to catch the flames from the wood below when set on fire. The prisoner was taken into custody at Shrewsbury in a publichouse, and on being told that he was in custody for setting fire to Messrs. Pryce and Lace's warehouse at Liverpool, he said to the officer—" I'll tell you the truth about it. A man named Duffy and I did a tml the oil and set fire to the place. We made a hole through the floor, pumped the oil out of the cellar, and Duffy brought five or six sacks of rosin chips and teemed' them down the hole into the cellar. Duffy bought also four gallons of naphtha, and teemed' it on the chips. It was through Duffy that I did it; he has been at me for some time. Have you taken him ?. I'll do all I can to have him taken." He afterwards said to a detee- tine officer, named Laycock, " I and Duffy went into Duffy's room, about twelve o'clock on the night of Sunday, New Year's night; I struck a match, and set fire to the chips that were placed there, and Duffy stood with his back against the door. We both went outside the door, and remained until we saw the flames, and then we went away." The prisoner had pleaded guilty to another in dictment charging him with stealing the oil, but denied that he had anything to do with firing the warehouse, the subject of th e p resen t c h arge , which the learned counsel for the prisoner said depended , so far as it af f ected the prisoner, on th e rec ollection of the officers of statements made three mortha ago , and which might not be accurately recollected. His Lordship having summed up the evidence, The jury found the prisoner guilty. His Lordship sentenced him in a most impThisoile manner to penal servitude for 14 years. FROM TILE GAZETTE OF LAST NI GHT BUCKINGHAM PALACE, MARCH 23. This day had audience of her Majesty, Baron Be ntinci, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary froo the King of the Netherlands, to deliver a letter from h it/ Sovereign. To which audience he was introduced by Lord John Ens' sell, her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for 3 Foreign, Affairs, and conducted by Lieutenant. General the Hon. Su Edward Cust, K.C.H., her Majesty's Masten of the Cere' monies. LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S OFFICE, MARC3I Notice is hereby given, that the State Apartments ol Windsor Castle will be closed to the public after Fridalt the 30th inst., until further orders. WAR-OFFICE, PALL-MALL, MARCH '47. Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to appro . ° of the following gentlemen being appointed Pr? lessors of the new Army Medical School at Chatham :1 Clinical and Military Surgery—Deputy Inspector-B-ener s :, T. Longmore, M.D. Hygiene—E. A. Parkes, Esq., Pathology—William Aitken, Esq., M.D. BANKRUPTCY ANNULLED. Philip Andrew, brewer, Swansea. BANKRUPTS. Thomas A. Freeth, pianoforte manufacturer, Edward: street, llampstead-road, to surrender April .5, at lialf-pm ele'i'en, and May 3, at one, at the Court of flankru.ptcy. Robert Tanner, tea dealer, Stratford, Essex, April 14, v eleven, and May 4, at twelve, at th e C our t o f BankruptcP Denis Nicholas Vericchio, upholsterer, Pad dingtoot April 7, at eleven, and May 8, at one, at the Court Bankruptcy. Thomas John Boyd Wallis, draper, Colchester, April If at eleven, and May 7, at one, at the Court of BanlruptoP John Lough Moreland, draper, Lidford and Keintom, April 16 and May'l4, at eleven, at the B r i s t o l Distrim Court. SCOTCH BANKRUPTS. James Craig, Baidland, Ayrshire. James Veitch, hotel keeper, Edinburgh. Richardson and Crichton, drapers, Glasgow. Law, White, and Co., merchants, Glasgow. James Druce, salesman, Glasgow. 1 COUNTRY MARK TS. LIVERPOOL—VARcH 27. The arrivals from Ireland and coastwise during the po t week have been trifling. Front foreign ports there hal° been received 941 qrs of wheat, 1,6b0 qrs of barley, 545 cIP of beans, 10,327 qrs Indian corn, and 1,874 saci:s of floor:, The exports in the same time comprise 1,465 quarters ' 1 wheat, 200 quarters of malt, 427 qrs beans, 249 qrs pet°', 3,253 qrs Indian corn, and 1,874 sacks of flour. We&t stomp. A fair attendance of millers and dealers this molt ing, and wheat met a large business ; prices were about per cental dearer than last week. Flour Is to is 6d pet , sack higher. Barley, beans, and peas in moderate reclut for feeding. Oats and oatmeal a fair sale, and dearer. "" Indian corn a large business done at is advance. SLEAFORD—MA RCII 27. The supply of wheat was small, with a healthy demalA and an alteration in prices of fully is in advance. SHEFFIELD—MARCH 27. • A smaller supply again than usual of wheat, and an vance of 6d to is per load must be noted. Trade tolerablf active. I 3 • i9s ea Red wheat, per load o- imperial bushels...lBs Od to - 0 White II If ...19s Od to !Po New red If If ...17s Od to 1 85 0 New white „ /I ...18s Od to 1 9° od Beans If lf ... 16s Od to 2 05 0,1 Peas, per qr. 42s Od to 620 d ' Grindin.. barley, per qr 333 Od to J ` ad Malting ditto, ~ 3Bs Od to tOd Oats 7 7 2ss Od to S" ,g Millers' prices for flour—ls Bd, is 10d, and 2s Od r 141 b. LEEDS—MAncrr 27. 9, We have a fair demand for wheat, at an advance Et ft fi at the'prices of Tuesday se night. Barley in requo t, prices. Oats fd per stone dearer. Our mar N k O e t ß to7d l a C y li e - xh C i A bi l te T d rj a r'— good i s A h it o c w H o 2 f 4 s . tore cattle' comprising Scots, shorthorns, and a few Irish. A slow treo ° was effected, although there was a tolerable attendanc e ' At the close fully one• fourth of the stock remained unsold, Fat beasts a poor show, and buyers much less anliCIUS,' Scots, 4s Od to 4s ; shorthorns, 38 6d to 4s ; Od to 3s 6d ; Devons, Os Od t o O s (estimated weight when fat). Sheep—There were good supplies of sheep in the Pe n* Fat sheep, 8s 6d to 9s per stone ; prime, 9s 6d to 100. rx Pigs—A fair supply. Store pigs 25s to 30s; fat. P ° 7s 6d to 8s Od per stone. COURSE OF EXCHANGE.—YESTERVIY. Amsterdam Ditto Rotterdam - 11 16 11 161 Antwerp BrasSels — 25 25 25 30 Ilamburgh Paris 'Short. 25 '7/ 25 1 21 Ditto Marseilles 25 32} 25 Frankfort on Maine Vienna Trieste Petersburgh 'Madrid Catlin Leghorn. Milan Genoa 1171 - 1171 :13 60 13 7 0 13 50 13 70 344 314 491 494 491 49 1 1 30 32 30 40. 26 37 k 25 42 } 25 40 26 46 Naples . , . • • • Palermo Messina Lisbon Oporto Rio Janeiro New York — • • • • Foreign Gold in Bars (Standard) J.... Per oz. £ 3 1 7 9 Mexican Dollars ~, ~ Silver in Bars (Standard) „ 0 0 0 South American Doublons 401 4 122 12! 122 ' 12 521 b! 53 5; FOREIGN NAIL PACKET MS T. In the following table IC signifies that letters are des pstoU r by evening mails from London, and DI by morning 1 nail lie• DESTINATIONS. Despatch Port of of Mails. Despatch. ----- Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton Aprill2,M Southamp. DittO, via Marseilles Bahamas and Havana via New York Aprill3,E Liverpool.. Canada, &c. (by Canadn. pckt ) Mar. 28, E Liverpool.. Cape of Good Hope, Ascen sion, and St. Helena April 5, E Devonport China, Penang . , and Singa-I pore, via Southampton lApril 4, M/Southamp. Ditto, via Marseilles Gibraltar, via Southampton .. Mar. 27 ,MSouthamp. Honduras and Blewfields ....!Aprill7, MlSouthamp. India (Calcutta) and Ceylon, via Southampton April 4,M Southamp. Ditto, via Marseilles India (Bombay), via South ampton Mar. 27, M Southamp. Ditto, via Marseilles Lisbon, Brazils,Buenos Ayres, and F. Islands April 9,M Southamp. Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto IMar. 27, M Southamp. Malta, Egypt, and Aden, vla Southampton . r)Tar. 27, M Southamp. Ditto, via Marseilles Mexico and 11 avaua 1 Newfoundland 'Mar. 30, E Liverpool.. United States and British N America (by British packet) liar. 31, E Liverpool.. Ditto (by IJ. S. pocket) West Coast of Africa, Ma deira, and Teneriffe April 23 B Liverpool.. West India, California, Vene zuela, Chili, Peru, Grey town. New Granada. &c. ,A pril 2, M,Soutkamp. Ay%l Ap I ower" el° A pi A .pr s pil! l o over,7lll A:P r r j$ A.lO ll ower atil i Apr, sl A.pr' Ap overl , Atstr• „ if A ,prP 11 A ,prlA BIRTHS. Bouxu.—On the 25th inst., at Manor House, Famb ? the wife of Captain J. Hornby Buller, of a daughter'. CROSS.—On the 25th inst at Bath, Mrs. T. C. Crow," d' daughter. HAD.—On the 27th inst., at Spring-grove Cottage, 156 13 ; slow, the wife of Samuel Heath Head, solicitors vi . daughter. . . MARRIAGES. • " FERGUSSO N—NELSON.—On the 26th'Inst., at` reat MAP vern, Robert Fern - usson, Esq., 'of 1311.i=y St. Edral*"! to Mary Park, eldest daughter of Robert Nelson, „ late Judge of Malabar, H.E.I.C.S. ENGLISR—MAEING.---On the 4th ult., at BarraAPro Lieut -Colonel Fred. E ng li s h, C. 8., commanding 11•1%.. 53d Regt., to Ellen Sophia, only daughter of th_late Saunders Maling, Esq., R.N. BEAT.HS. egr BONNETT.--OR the 24th inst., at Avington Rectory , 11 „.. Winchest er , th e R ev . Charles ShrnbsCle Bonnett, , aged 74. of DOWLAND.—On the 24th inst., Capt. John Dowlaid, H.M.'s 67th Regt., at 1, Royal-hill, Greenwich. the FFOLKES.—On the 24th inst., at Hillimrton Ha% in ot ., county of Norfolk, Sir William J. 11. B. Ffolkes, aged 73. MITCHELL.—On the 21st inst., Colonel Hugh Mitchg 68, Inverness-terrace, Hyde-park, of the M a dras Arm" (late of West Villa, St. John's-wood). LONDON : Printed and Published by MIIRDO yoUNT of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the cote/ e Middleeex, Wednesday, March 28, WO. Charles Pranci, Sir w. MY. Sir Wa Thorns John I John G John I John Lewis SOH BY A Medical street, I toster-r ~ - FOr t pri PATE clef G ling q fill; Most Lti:l Aighi Rt. n The forme o ,,PESI Aru: The. G U