The Sun. — London, England, 1860-01-31 00:00:00

LAIPERIAL PA RLIAMENT . HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY•) The LORD CDANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack E. fiTe o'clock. TYE MARRIAGE LAW. Lord CHELMSFORD presented a petition against the 10 for legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister. GRAND JURIES. I The NOBLE LORD also brought in a bill for the abolition )f grand juries. The bill was read a first time. GLEBE HOUSES. Viscount DUNGANNON said he should postpone ask ing the question with respect to glebe houses, which stood ku his name for to-morrow, until a future day. CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTE LAW. The LORD CHANCELLOR introduced five bills for the consolidation of the statute law. His lordship explained the provisions of the bills, and remarked that several bills with this object had bean introduced into their lordships' ho use, but none had up to the present time been passed. He thought it was very desirable that such a measure should pass, and ha had undertaken the task. Lord CRANWPRTH expressed his gratification at the introduction of the bills. The bills were severally read a first time. THR DISTURBANCES IN ST. GEORGE'S-IN- THE-EAST. The BISHOP of LONDON asked whether any steps had been taken for preserving the peace in the parish of St. George's-in-the-East. His attenlion had been called to the disgraceful scenes that were taking place in the parish church. It was impossible the clergy could do anything in the matter themselves till quiet was restored. Concessions that might be right could not be made to violence ; and it was gratifying to know that the police had orders to prevent, as far as possible any disturbance. He would Rot express any opinion upolii the original ca us e o f quarre l, b u t h e thought it strange that disturbances were allowed to take place in a parish church which would not be allowed in any other building. Various modes had been thought of to prevent the unseemly scenes taking place, one of which was to exclude all but parish ioners entering the building, but that had been found to be impracticable. He therefore would feel great pleasure in hearing that strict orders had been given to the police to interfere vigorously for the future in quelling any other disturbances that might occur. Earl GRANVILLE said he could not answer the question of the right rev. prelate, as the police report of the disturbances had not yet been received at the Home-office, and all the information at present possessed was gathered from the morning papers. With respect to the law there was some difficulty ; but there could be no doubt that it was the duty of the authorities to prevent a recurrence of proceedings such as those which took place last night. CHURCH RATES. Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition, of which he had given notice, on the subject of church-rates, from the clergy and laity of Wrexham, praying that they should not be abolished without an equivalent. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH moved the re-appoint ment of the committee which sat last year to inquire into the operation of church-rates. The committee was then re-appointed. REAL PROPERTY. Lord BROUGHAM postponed until to-morrow the pre sentation of certain petitions on this subject. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEIXER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. Col. W. PATTEN nominated the select committee on standing orders :—Col. Wilson Patten Mr. Walpole, Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, Mr. Henley, Sir Robert Ferguson,. Mr. Deedes, Mr. Bramston, Mr. Bonham-Carter, Mr. Wright son, Mr. Lefroy, and Mr. Lockhart.—Agreed to. The h on . and gallant member also nominated the following committee of solection, which was agreed to :—Sir. R. Ferguson, Mr, Deedes, Mr. Bonham-Carter, Mr. Dunlop, and Mr. Ker Seymer. The standing orders were declared to have been com plied with in the case of a large number of private bills. PETITIONS. Mr. W. EWART presented a petition from the inhabi tants of Calcutta and its neighbourhood against the system of exceptional taxation on the industrial classes aM on tradee and professions, and ainst placing them under fiscal license ; for the establishment of an equitable in come and property tax in conjunction with other taxes ; and for an annual statement by the Executive Government of income and expenditure and of the financial state of the Government ; for the publication of the ease for the information of the public of India ; for an inquiry into the general administration of the Government, and the causes of the present discontent and financial embarrass ment; and for the opening of the Legislative Council to the non-official classes, in order to represent independent publio opinion _; for the consequent abolition of Executive Coun cils, and for placing the offices of Goveraer General and Governors in a proper state of freedom and responsibility. SUGAR. Mr. BASS moved for the following returns, which were ordered :—Returns of the rate of duty chargeable on the let day of Jan., 1820, and the let day of Jan., 1860, respectively, upon sugar, tea, coffee, foreign spirits, colonial spirits, French wines, other foreign wines, colonial wines, and malt; of amount of duty paid upon each article in the financial years ending the sth day of Jan., 1820, and the Ist day of Jan., 1860, respectively ; and of quantity, or estimated quantity, of each of the aforesaid articles consumed per head by the population in the years 1820 and 1860. MR. CHURCHWARD. Captain L. VERNON presented a petition from Mr. Churchward, the Government contractor of the mails transmitted from Dever, and gays notice that he would to morrow move that the same be printscl and circulated amongst the members. BUTTER. Mr. W. EWART moved for a return, showing the quan tities of butter, cheese, and eggs imported into this country annually since the last reduction of the duties on those articles ; with the quantities imported annually in each of the five years preceding such reduction, and the amount of annual duties received during the same periods respectively; showing also from what countries in each year, during the same periods, the supplies of those articles he been re ceived ; the annual amount of such several supplies, and the amount of duty derived therefrom in the case of each supplying country.-4 greed to. BULLION. Mr. T. HANKEY moved for a return of the amount of bullion purchased and sold by the Bank of England, distin• guishing gold from silver and bar gold from foreign gold coin, in each month from the 31st day of December, 1858, to the 31st day of December, 1859 ; also, the excess of pay ments to, or of receipts from, the public of British gold coin; and also the amount received from the Mint during the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary paper, No. 75, of Session 1859).—Ordered. THE OFFICE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Mr. E. JAMES, in accordance with a notice which he had forwarded to Lord Palmerston this morning, asked if it was the intention of Government to appoint any per son to the office of Chief Commissionership of Works, va cant by the death of Mr. Fitzroy ; whether it was intended to make the came appointment immediately ? MR: DRUMMOND HAY. Mr. MAGUIRE gave notice that, on the motion for the adjournment of the house on Friday, he would call the at tention of the Foreign Secretary to a statement which ap. geared in the limes, from a special correspondent of that journal, relative to Mr. Drummond Hay, the British Con sul at Tangiers, in which misconduct was imputed to that THE BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION AT GLOUCESTER AND WAKEFIELD. Mr. HADFIELD asked the Chancellor of the Exche • quer whether any engagement had been entered into by the Government, or on their behalf, or by the Commissioners, for investigating the cases of bribery and corruption at Gloucester and Wakefield, or either of them, whereby the parties who had given or received bribes were to be indem nified, or were not to be proceeded against for any illegal ransactions in those boroughs at the last or any other elec ions. Sir G. LEWIS explained that in the case of Gloucester no certificates were granted by the commissioners at the time of the inquiry to the persons alluded to, but they had been since granted to no less than 500 persons. In three eases only they had not been applied for. As regarded Wakefield certificates had been granted in 140 cases, and refused in 38, _ . _ GUATEMALA. In reply to a question, Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was necessary that the country of Honduras should be correctly defined, and a sur vey had been authorised, as well as the construction of the road in question. The expense, though at present borne by this country, would ultimately be defrayed by the republic of Guatemala. INVESTMENTS IN EAST INDIA STOCK. Mr. A. MILLS asked the Attorney-General whether any measure would be introduced in the present session to amend so much of the act 22 and 23 Vict. 35, as related to investments by trustees in East India Stock The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the act in question had become a dead letter, but that a measure on the subject would be introduced by Lord St. Leonards. SAVOY AND NICE. Mr. DISRAELI asked the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it was intended to lay n the table the communications that had taken place with ae French Government in reference to the annexation of %Tice and Savoy ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that last July the Govern tent had received the communications alluded to from their presentative in Switzerland, but he must take some time to onsider whether they would be produced. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF WORKS. Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to the question of Mr. 'dwin James, said it was intended by Government to fill p the vacancy in the Chief Commissionership of the ''''''td of Works, but in the meantime the ex officio Imraissioners were competent to deal with any subject re tiring immediate attention. THE RELIGIOUS DISTURBANCES IN ST. Mr. - BlJ TL an E y ß b a il s l k e d if GEORGE'S- IN THE EAST. introduc e it I NTas intended by Government Lg. suck scenes as to prevent parishioners from witness- Lrish ? had recently taken place in the above Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he had, when applied to on Le subject of the disturbances alluded to, given instructions Sir Richard Mayne to the church ef St. Geor of police in uniform Ilelrinasi-xrEset. That instruc . sti l c l ceseive Sundays, Lti was carried out for it they were afterwards withdra tlfortunately, since l renewed, but .sir withdrawal the disturbances hvfandiebheen Argo body of i arrangement was now made by .e police would be stationed near the chur a :e, if necessary , . to prevent disturbance .' aa g n in „,L e f . nit did not intend to introduce any bfij . " -- o subject, but they would give their consideration t o o y measure which any hon. member might bring forward propriate to the matter. Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR moved the adjournment of a house, and read the account which appeared in that re papers of the disturbances of St. George's-in-the ist yesterday. Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion of the hon. mem, r. The motion was than put to the house and negatived :thout a division, after which the subject dropped. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT. In reply to Mr. CRAWFORD, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it el the intention of Government to make the usual finan d statement on Monday evening, The ratification of the laty would be exchanged in a few days, and the house Juld be acquainted with its contents on Monday evening, ad also with the financial chsnges it was proposed t 9 troduce this year. With regard to the treaty, it was im portant that the house should come to a decision in reference to it as soon as possible, considering t'le period of the year, so as not to:effect trade injuriously. SUPPLY. On the bringing up of the report of the motion for sup 1p The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,. in reply to hon. members, said that from the returns received from the War Department, the excess of expenditure over the amount voted in the estimates would be about £470,000. ST. MARY IN RYDAL (MARRIAGE VALIDITY) BILL. This bill was read a second time. PETITIONS OF RIGHT BILL. Theecond reading of this bill was postponed. ANNUITY TAX ABOLITION (EDINBURGH). The LORD ADVOCATE moved that this house do re solve itself into a committee for the purpose of introducing a bill to abolish the annuity tax in Edinburgh, and to make provision in regard to the stipends of the clergy in that city. The house having gone into committee, The LORD ADVOCATE said that the subject had been often'under the consideration of the house, and a short state ment only would be necessary of the provisions of the bill. ' As the house had been often told, the annuity tax was a rate amounting to 41 per cent. upon the rental of houses 1 within a certain limited area of the city, and which was laid upon the occupiers of those houses, the proceeds being paid to 18 ministers of Edinburgh. He must also explain that the congregations covered a much larger area than the districts taxed. Nor did the tax extend to all the occupiers, inasmuch as there was a special exemption of a large and wealthy class, consisting of members of faculty, judges, barristers, and solicitors. Without entering into the ques tion whether the principle of this taxation was right or wrong, no one could deny that it was very unjust in the mode of its imposition. Several plans for modifying it had been introduced into the house, and he would now pro ceed with a new attempt in the same direction. His hon. friend and colleague the member for Edinburgh had twice introduced a measure, which on both occasions had received the assent of the house on the second reeding. By the pro visions of those bills the ministers of Edinburgh, when the last vacancy had occurred, would be dependent on seat rents, church-door collections, and a sum of £2,000, which was drawn from the Exchequer, being part of a rent-charge levied from the City of Leith. That proposal had twice re ceived the sanction of the house. Therefore, the question was not now as to the continuance of the tax, or its aboli tion, but upon what terms and conditions it:should be abo lished. His proposal was not the same as the bill of last ses sion. The result of that bill, if carried, would have been that for 15 years the citizens of Edinburgh would have been subjected to a payment of £3 7s. 4d. per cent. The tax would have gone on for 16 years longer-31 years in all—and after the payment of £3 7s. 4d. per cent.for 15years, there would have been a further total sum paid of £63,000, so that the burden would not have been extinguished tor a very consi derable period. In the present year two contingencies had occurred. One of the ministers had been appointed to a professorship, and another had been translated to another benefice. These contingencies might happen in years to come, but they were things that could not be calculated on. The proposal of last year, leaving the clergy to a great ex tent dependent on voluntary contributions, would in all pro bability have met with very strong opposition. It occurred to him that their tine and money might be used with more economy ; and the proposal he had now to make would at once relieve the ratepayers of Edinburgh, extinguish the tax in a more limited period, and provide an equitable and just substitute. Formerly there was a fund, payable by the railway company, as the price of Trinity College Church. A committee which sat in 1851 recommended that it should be applied in extinguishing this tax; but a law suit had arisen as to the right of the town council to deal with this money, and it was not now available. There was also a sum payable to the deans of the Chapel Royal, which it had been proposed to apply to this purpose ; but these funds also were now beyond reach, the University Commissioners having recommended that they should be applied in endowing more professorships. The third source was Government money, but he was happy to say he did not propose to have recourse to that. His proposition was one by which the citi zens of Edinburgh would be enabled to redeem the tax ; and at all events it contained the materials for an amicable set tlement of the question. Great scandal resulted from the pre sent mode of collecting the tax. The other day there was a trial for resisting the officers in the execution of their warrants, in which the prosecutor failed to get a verdict ; and it was most desirable that the question should be settled. At present the ministers were 18 in number. Three of the churches were collegiate. It appeared to him that they were not bound to provide for the second charges in those collegiate churches. He did not propose to abolish one of them ; but in providing a substitute for the annuity tax, and providing for existing interests, he did not think that it would be necessary to pro vide for those second interests ; and that opinion was shared by many members of the Established Church. That would leave 15 ministers—a larger proportion for Edinburgh than was provided for in other towns. Ho thought it too much. He wished to say nothing invidious against the Established Church; but still his measure was a practical one. In 1837, when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners re ported, the attendance at the Established Churches of Edin burgh was very nearly equal to that of all other denomina tions put together. In 1843 there WAS an unfortunate dis ruption in the Church ; end in the census of 1851 it was found that of 48,1100 attendants on divine service in the morning, about 8,000 only belonged to the Established Church—showing that the attendance had greatly fallen off. The seat rents, in the five years from 1832-7 amount e d 'to £5,835 •in the ve years from 1853-8, they yielded only £3,235. The surplus derived from that source in the former period was £3,400, against £1,600 in the latter. He had no wish to pare down the revenues of the Established Church in proportion to the number of attendants ; but it should be remembered that they were dealing with an equitable ad justment. In the Old Church, Edinburgh, there were only 47 seats let, and 641 unlet—(hear)—and the tendance was certainly not 200. Of the 47 seats let, only one was let to a parishioner. The 011 Church was under the rule of the High Church, and the High Church was a collegiate church. The Tolbooth Church had only 14 seats let, against 634 unlet. He did not propose to abolish the church. The present incumbent would retain the right to share in the annuity tax as long as he lived ; but they were not bound to make provision for future incumbents of those two churches. The Old Church was vacant at present ; and ho proposed that the minister to be appointed should not have the right to share in the annuity tax. He should therefore give power to the commissioners to be appointed by this bill to nominate one of the ministers in the collegiate church to the Old Church. His proposal was to the follow ing effect :—An ecclesiastical commission to be appointed nnder the bill; two or three members to be appointed by the Presbytery, two by the. Town Council, one by the Fa culty of Advocates, and one by the Society of Writers to the Signet. To those commissioners would bo transferred the property in the churches, the right to the seat rents, and all liability for repairs. The seat rents, now amounting to £1,600 a year, would be collected by them ; it was quite certain the amount was far below what it ought to be ; in all probability there would be an increase of about £6O a year. It is proposed that that fund of £1,600 a year should be accu mulated for 15 years at 3/ per cent, interest ; and supposing the fund to increase at the rate of £6O a year, the 'whole amount would be £33,600 at the end of that time. Then there was a sum of £2,000 a year paid frOm the Exchequer, part of a rent-charge derivable from the docks at Leith. It had been said that if the annuity tax were abolished, this charge ought to be remitted ; but he saw no sound reason for doing that, and proposed that it should be continued. He would allow it to accumulate in the same way for 15 years, at 3/ per cent, interest ; and the amount of the two funds at the end of that period would be about £BO,OOO. He proposed that the annuity tax should be abolished, but that there should be laid on by the Towd Council for that 15 years an assessment of fro n Bd. to 10d. in the pound. The latter was lower than the present rate. The rate, if levied on the pre sent police law assessment along with the police rate, and paid by all occupiers, would give a surplus produce in the year of £1,494, after paying the stipends of the ministers now chargeable on the fund. This annual surplus, accu mulated in the way he had described, would yield at the end of 15 years a sum of £34,000 or £35,000. Then he pro • posed that the exemption in favour of the lawyers should be abolished—an exemption which ought never to have existed. (A laugh.) If the lowest amount of rate were taken-Bd. in the pound—the capital accumulated at the end of 15 years would amount to £106,000. If 10d—the highest rate—were exacted (and that was lower than the existing rate) the capital would amount to no less than £160,000. That, how ever, would be more than sufficient, and what he proposed to do was, either to take the sum to be collected at £120,000, or the sum to be furnished by the town at £42,000. The two things would be very nearly th same, and the result would be that at the expiration of 15 years there would be an annual income to the ministers of the interest of £120,000 at 31 per cent.—£4,2oo. There would be £2,500 from the seat rents, and £2,000 from the Leith Docks, giving £8,700 a-year. To give £6OO a-year to 13 ministers, £7,800 was all that was necessary, and there would still remain a balance in the hands of the commissioners appli cable to expenses. The plan would have this advantage ; it would put an end to the tax altogether at the end of 15 years, unless it should be found that the assessment on the town aor town, e bg a t r l a i ei s an e te d nedo . r robnf H uo rtr e dhaec hf ai d occuch m uot m a made eru e alrata n ott o i oeo p a fn l ia l n o t we interest had not yield e d £42,000 , b ut he thought this was sure to be e than the p i no per increase r e e e a n s t e . of he 1 12 1 i g e y eThistha n p o t p h o e s p a a w n would a s n t not l n a r y , for ed. in the pound was only £3 6m. per cent., instead of £3 78., and the whol e amoun t o f £60,000, pa yable on the other scheme, would be saved. He certainly did not expect that this measure would satisfy general or abstract views of this troublesome question, but at all events it afforded a means of extrication. If the ratepayers considered the rate too heavy they might reduce it, by spreading it over a greater number of years, over 20 instead of 15 ; oa the other hand, if they thought it desirable to terminate the tax sooner, they could do it by making the rate 10d. instead of Bd. Much depended on churchmen themselves ; the incomes of the clergy might be increased and yet diminish the rate mate rially. It had been suggested before, and again to him on that occasion, that the salaries of the ministers might be re duced from £6OO to £5OO or £550. If the members of the Established Church thought that a more desirable plan, and proposed that reduction in order to maintain the two churches, he had no objection. But he had not m ade the propos al, o lord extend t o e o n n be cause he thought it infinitely better for the Church that 13 their strength over a larger Nu clergymen should be fully paid ria t o h o o . ug a h ,no th l e e y arn a e d d t billintroduced on Sir R. FERGUSON said that any eluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill. any objection He therefore did not rise on that occasion to o ffer such a subject was deserving of the utmost res p ect from the objection to its introduction. He was glad to find that the learned lord adopted a different principle in framing this measure from that on which others had framed their bills. He was glad to find that the learned lord recognised the duty of the State to support the Established Church of the country, and the obligation that lay on the city of Edinburgh to provide for the payment of the ministers of that church. The tax which was the subject of the present bill had been levied for two centuries and a half, and he could not under stand why the clergymen of the city of Edinburgh should be dependent on voluntary support, any more than the clergy in any other part of the country. The learned lord endeavoured to find a substitute for this tax which had been 50 much complained of, though he confessed he could not see the j us ti ce o f th ose comp l a i n t s . Th e measure was en titled to respectful consideration, but he saw one or two difficulties to its progress. In the first place it seemed hard especially that ccp city of no was s that the E s t a b lished Church in Edinburgh should be de privescdialalyt p o ne when le in ss or t e h a a s n in fi g v i e n o po f p it t e ila m t i io n n is . I ters, t had been found necessary to build what in Scotland were the population, and iturches to meet the spiritual wants of called woad sacra o to reduce the number of clergy seem ed rather inconsistent, therefore, tent objection affecting the bill , • There was a more impor tant the imposition of the ' inasmuch as it proposed to deprive the poorer classes of church seat a rents, and thereby to Established Church were anxious to reduceccommration. The I rents, but they were unable to do so because they w er e te h e e of the corporation of Edinburgh. Thebi,.l:Cref l o a r r e e r was open to grave objection on that 6-round. Ho hoped the friends of the Established Church in this country would support the friends of t h e Church of §qotinucl in ratan • that church from any attack upon its principles or revenues. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BLACK said it was not his intention to oppose the introduction of the bill, but he must say that, perhaps with something of the natural fondness of a parent, he preferred the bill which he had introduced himself last session. He was so anxious to see an accommodation of this vexations question that he had supported almost every measure which had been brought in for its settlement, and would even submit to many inconveniences to get rid of it. He believed the opposition to its settlement had proved injurious to the cause of religion. It could not be advantageous to the interests of religion when ministers who called themselves the ministers of peace sent messengers with manacles in their hands for the purpose of handcuffing men who conscientiotsly refused to pay this tax. (Hear.) He thought it unjust that the present generation of citizens in Edinburgh should have to bear the whole burden of the measure proposed by the learned lord. He was willing to bear his portion of the burden, but he doubted whether the inha bitants generally would submit to it. With regard to the seat rents and their effect in keeping away the poorer classes, it was notorious that half the seats were vacant, and were open without the payment of any money at all. With regard to the historyof this tax, it was first imposed by Charles 11., and the people of Edinburgh, instead of deriving any benefit, felt it to be a burden and a grievance. For himself, he should be prepared, on the proper occasion, to show thatthe right hon. and learned lord was wrong as to the history of this tax. He thought that by making some alterations the measure might be made more acceptable than it was at pre sent, as well as more useful to the Church. Mr. MILLER thought that the inhabitants of Leith had good right to complain of this measure. This tax bore heavily and unjustly on the shipping interest of the town which he represented. If the citizens of Edinburgh had cause to complain of the oppressiveness of this tax, much more had the inhabitants of Leith reason to complain of it, for they derived no benefit whatsoever from it. He should object to that part of the bill which affected the Town of Leith ' at a future stage, and he hoped he would receive the sup port of the house. Mr. BLACKBURN would not object to the plan for the abolition of this tax in 15 years ; but with regard to the proposal en the subject of the seat rents, he thought consi derable objection might be urged. He thought it ♦ery de sirable that the question should be settled. In reply to Lord W. GRAILAM, The LORD ADVOCATE said that the proposed com mission was to be an unpaid one. Leave was then given to bring in the bill. CORPORATION OF LONDON. of the coal duty, the eightpence and the penny were not applied to City purposes : they were collected by the officers of the City, and handed over to the Board of Works, and were applicable to the payment of any debts created by ad vances for general improvements.. The purposes for which the penny duty was levied had already been satisfied, and the sums arising from it were now paid over to the account tent at the Bank of England, there to accumulate under the control of the Commissioners of Works. The purposes for which the eightpenny duty was levied would expire in April, 1861. in saying what he had said he must be understood as not expressing any opinion, but merely stating for the information of the house how the coal dues stood. As for Hertford and towns situated like it, what the advocates of the tax said was, that those towns by their proximity to the metropolis derived a corresponding advantage from the im provements in the means of communication, &c., and that the value of their land was raised by their contiguity to London. (A laugh.) This view he did not defend. (Hear.) Mr. E. JAMES deprecated this sort of piecemeal legisla tion and would much prefer seeing the whole question of civic rights and civic finance placed on a broad and intelligible footing, and dealt with in one comprehensive measure. (Hear, hear.) The present state of things was most anoma lous. One day the Court of Common Council sat at Guild hall, another day the Board of Works, both possessing large powers. He must designate the bill of the Government as a paltry bill, and one unworthy of the subject with which it proposed to deal and of the sanction of the House of Com mons. (Hear, hear.) Leave was then given to bring in the bill. PACKET AND TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose to move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the manner in which contracts extending over periods of years have from time to time been formed or modified by her Majesty's Government with various steam packet com panies for the conveyance of mails by sea ; and likewise into any agreements or other arrangements which have been adopted at the public charge, actual or prospective, for the purpose of telegraphic communication beyond sea, and to re port their opinion thereon to the house ; together with any recommendation as to rules to be observed hereafter by the Government in making contract services which have not yet been sanctioned by Parliament, or which extend over a series of years ; with power to report from time to time. The right hon. gentleman had little to say beyond propos ing to the house the re-appointment of the committee. The motion carried its own recommendation, and he was not aware that there existed any intention to oppose it. For a considerable number of years this department had been under theeharge of the Admiralty, but the Government considered, after due examination of the subject, that it would be desir able to make a ellange lu ehwt reopc. t, aaa transfer it to the Poet-ant:a department, which was immediately connected with the receipts from the packet service. Upon the whole, he thought this would be the more suitable arrangement. The Treasury would then have control ; and in respect to the maritime portion of the duty they would be assisted by the marine department of the Board of Trade, and, where necessary, would call in the advice of the Admiralty. Such a change would, in the opinion of the Government be conducive to public advantage. (Hear, hea r .) Th e com mittee upstairs would, however, deliver such opinion as it thought fit. With respect to the notice given by the right hen. baronet the member for Droitviich, it would be of course open to him to make what remarks he pleased upon the con duct of the committee which sat last session, nor would he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) attempt by any defence of the committee to anticipate the remarks of the right hon. gentleman, nor indeed was he aware of any ground for im peaching it. He wasnot himself a member of the committee, but had understood that th e comm itt ee , so f ar as regar d e d the subject-matter before it, was unanimous. He did not mean to say that the committee was unanimous upon all questions, but he had not un d ers t oo d th ere was an y differ ence of opinion with regard to questions which it was com petent for them to decide, and to which it was bound to ap ply its attention. The Government would not be under stood as either casting any censure upon that committee, or joining others who thought fit to censure it. With these few observationshe would leave it to the right hon. baronet to address such remarks to the house as he might think fit, only placing his motion in the hands of the Speaker. The motion was then read from the chair. Sir J. PAKINGTON said he rose, according to the notice which he had given, to submit to the house certain considers flows v 4102 regard to illse manner in which the inquiries before this committee had been conducted in the last session of Par liament, and the manner in which he thought it desirable they should be conducted in the present year. Before stating thoseconsiderations hewished to clear the ground, by stating that he did not desire to enter into the evidence, nor to touch upon the contract of Mr. Churchward, made by him with the late Government to convey the mails from Dover to Calais. A notice had been given that a motion would be made next week upon that subject, and it was not quite clear whether it would be consistent with the rules of the house that that question should be raised upon this motion. Whether the house would confirm or violate the contract made with Mr. Churchward would be considered at a future time, and he did not intend to notice the matter further. Nor did he intend to touch upon the grounds upon which the commit tee intheir report had passed a censure upon Mr. Murray. The evidence was such that, if he were to go into it, it would bring on a discussion which might at present be incon venient. He proposed therefore to limit himself to the ob ject which he had given notice of, viz., "to call the atten tion of the house to the manner in which the inquiry in trusted to the committee in the last session was conducted, and to the necessity that the proceedings of the select com mittees should be strictly limited to the matters referred to them by the house." The question was whether the mode upon which the examination was conducted, especially the manner in which the committee had drawn up their report, was consistent with justice, consistent with parliamentary practice, and more especially whether it was consistent with the constant practice of this house in relation to all matters which involved anything like .a charge of personal miscon duct. He would submit his views in the most temperate manner, and he very much desired not to express anything which might excito or give rise to angry feeltngs, for in the discussion which took place last year there was mixed up a good deal of party feeling and party acrimony, and it was very desirable to avoid everything of that sort at this time. (Hear, hear.) He would remind the house of the acknowledged rule of parliament, which might perhaps be considered as part of the lex non scripts of parliament; and in the very valuable work of Mr. Erskine May—which was accepted as the authorised rules of parliamentary prac tice—the necessity was pointed out of confining the com mittees to their orders of reference. The rule stated that "the select committee were restrained from considering matters not specially referred to them by the house, and when it was necessary to extend the reference a special authority ought to be given for that purpose." Such an authority was necessary when select committees had to con sider questions touching the character and honour of indi viduals; and the house should remember that the honour and character of men were the most precious things they had. No doubt it sometimes became their duty to consider the conduct of men ; but no man would deny that when it did become the duty of the house to entertain charges of per sonal misconduct, it behoved them and the committees of the house to be scrupulously cautious that all charges should be dealt with in strict regard to the requirements of justice. (Hear, hear.) He wished to call the attention of the house to the order of reference, or rather that portion of it which related to the mail-packet contract. It was to this effect, "that a committee be appointed to inquire into the manner in which contracts extending over a period of years have been from time to time framed or; modified by the Govern ment for the conveyance of the mails by sea ; and to make recommendations as to what ought to be observed by the Government in making contracts for services not sanctioned by Parliament and which extended over a series of years." He would next read a passage from the report of the com mittee from which it seemed to him that the conduct of the committee had not been limited to the terms of the order of reference. The passage was this—" It appears to the com mittee that neither the Admiralty nor Treasury officers were influenced by corrupt or political motives in granting a re newal of the contract for the mail service. The conduct of Mr Murray, the secretary of the First Lord of the Admiralty, was open to grave censure, but there was not sufficient evi dence to show that any member of the Government was cog nizant of the communications which passed between'Mr. Mur ray, Mr. Churchward, and Capt. Carnegie." Now, he would submit that that paragraph was not consistent with the terms of the order of reference, nor did the order justify the committee in acquitting, or convicting, or censuring any gentleman for personal misconductt. He expected—indeed, he desired, that the committee would institute a full and searching inquiry into the principles and the policy upon which these contracts had been made ; and he further ex pected that the comnrittee would investigate and report their opinion to the house upon the wisdom and prudence with which successive Governments had made these contracts ; but he did not expect that they would enter into questions of personal corruption and personal misconduct which had not been referred to them, and they were not competent to deal with. If the committee had possessed a right to deal therewith, why of course they would have authority to ac quit, and convict, and censure. Perhaps ho ought, on be half of himself and colleagues, to say that they were thank ful they had been acquitted of political corruption. But they had not been before the committee, and no charge had been preferred against them, and consequently the commit tee had no right, morally or legally, to entertain those charges. The right to esprit and convict involved a trial, and in order to have a fair trial two things were necessary —a distinct accusation and competent tribunal. (Hear.) In this case both these elements werewanting. (Hear, hear.) It had been said that it was quite true the committee had no authority to try the question of misconduct or corruption en the part of any individual, but that there was a sort of un derstanding in the house that they should enter into these questions. He denied the existence of any such understand ing. (Hear, hear.) But if there was any, he must enter his protest against the idea that the conduct of any man, or a charge against any man, might bo referred to an incom petent tribunal, unless, indeed, the person charged were a party to it; and therefore it appeared to him that the committee went beyond the powers which the house had entrusted to them. (Hear, hear.) When the right hon. gentleman the Chancellcr of the Exchequer moved for the committee, he did so upon public grounds, and did not intimate to the house that the committee was to be made an engine of attack upon individuals. The hon. gen tleman the member for London (Mr. Crawford) strongly approved of the appointment of the committee, and dwelt upon its expediency, but he did not suppose that it was ap pointed to pass a censure upon this or that Government, and he (Sir J. Pakington) was justified in saying that th e tone of the debate was entirely in harmony with the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the object of the com mittee was to inquire into questions of public policy alone. Subsequently another debate arose in consequence of a peti tion being presented on behalf of Sir Wm. Russell, which prayed that the committee might be restrained from enter-- mg into an inquiry respecting the Dover contract, which might prejudice his interest on the inquiry of the petition in reference fo the return of members for that borough. The hon. member for Kilmarnock (Mr. flouverie) expressed a strong opinion that the committee was not a fit tribunal to investigate personal charges, if any should be preferred, and the right hon. gentleman the member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) also expressed an opinion that if personal charges were to be brought forward in connexion with these contracts they ought to be referred to a judicial tribunal, and in con sequence of these speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer particularly referred to them, and to the unfitness of the com mittee to enter upon judicial duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said "the committee was not appointed to con duct cases of criminatory accusation against any Govern ment in particular, nor to try the cases of the Dover that gentleman convinced and Galway con t rac t s i n any o th er sp i r it th an th a t of examini ng i n t o e ll cases o f contract w hi ch m i g ht come before th em ." H e h a d no h es it a ti on i n say i ng that the hon. teu con struction i t should was nterthe i nten ti on into which t tnhhaenmov i ng t o questions vin o f g h m e t fh u : or t p ut upon thepauuv public Government,oi be n ee t n h t o hs committee, those principlesa n a d v mean ing aht r nh words right that w t t h h a a e s y t h hef d public policy, and no thi ng else • and he would add this, of the right hon. gentleman, because if the right hon. gentleman had at that moment in his mind the notion that they would be at liberty to asperse the character of indivi duals and to prefer charges of corruption the right hon. gentleman was bound to state it to the house. (Hear, hear.) Having accepted that construction, he made no objection to the appointment of the committee, and he thought it a most proper atop eat the peat of the QoTermeoilt to teas; Sir G. C. LEWIS, in moving for leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the corporation of the City of London, said the house was doubtless aware that when the Municipal Corporation Act was introduced uu exception was made in favour of the corporation of the City of London. That exception was mainly founded upon the generally popular character of the local municipal government of that corpo • ration. Before the Municipal Act was passed a very large number of the corporations of England were practically close. The governing body was confined and limited in its character, and frequently the vacancies which occurred were filled up by self-election. The main object of the Mu nicipal Act was to popularise the constitutions of the cor porations of this country. But the Common Council of the City of London was already a popular body and well known in former times. The City of London exercised great influ ence, and generally assisted the popular party in this coun try. It was not considered necessary, therefore, that the corporation of the City of London should be included in the general act. But a separate report was made soon after with regard to the City of London. Some time ago a commission was issued of which he had the honour to be a member, to inquire into the state of the corporation of London. That commission made a report, and a bill was introduced into the house founded upon that report. At a later period that bill was referred to a select committee, who reported upon it, with amendments. The till which he now asked leave to introduce was practically and to all intents and purposes the bill reported upon by that select committee, and might be considered as the recommendations of the commission, whose report was referred to the select committee. The bill so framed was limited to the present state of the corpora tion and its officers. It did not include the question of the coal tax, for this reason, that as those duties would shortly expire, he should have a future opportunity of dealing with that tax. At present he should merely ask the louse for leave to introduce the bill. . Mr. AYRTON opposed the motion. The question of the corporation of London had engaged the attention of the house and the metropolis for a great many years, and he did not complain of the candour of the right hon. gen tleman in now introducing the question. No doubt the right hon. gentleman had for many years past been a very strenuous supporter of liberal ideas and of the liberal party, but the question which they had to consider was, whether the services to the liberal party were a sufficient reason for maintaining an institution which was not only said to be of no practical utility, but was in truth a very serious public inconvenience. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had introduced a bill of a very curious character. The house was aware that a bill was introduced by the late Go vernment to regulate the franchise, and they as well as others before them maintained that the franchise should not be lower than £lO. Yet, though the Whigs declaimed against that, it was singular that they should now cometo the house and propose a 110 franchise for the municipality of London. (Hear, hear.) One was at a loss to know how to deal with such a Government. (A laugh.) He wanted to know what induced the Government to hold up this par ticular franchise within the limits of this antiquated cor poration. He could discover ne solution except that this corporation attached itself so affectionately to the Whig party, and consequently it became necessary for that party to think more of the influence of the corporation in a City election than to consider those great political principles which they professed. The corporation of London was in its origin a mere local corporation, confined to the walls of London, and to all engaged in trade in the City. The livery companies subsequently combined in one great cor poration, and that was the corporatien of London, there fore it RAI mat a more looal coxpviativu, but a great trad ing corporation also, the mayor of which represented the trade of the metropolis—that was the theory—and without him nothing could be done. What was this bill to do ? The corporation was now to be a mere local municipa lity, supported for' i those tradingcharacteristics which would be found in any other corporation in the country ; and if I the bill proposed to deal with it in that way, it must aban don all the pretensions it had hitherto enjoyed. He could not understand how this Government, though commanding a majority in the House of Commons, should bring forward a little trumpery measure which was totally inadequate to the occasion. They had left out of the question the tax upon coal, which was a great injury to the manufacturers of London and those living within 20 miles of it, whilst they announced with great satisfaction that they had got the taxes taken off the manufacturers of Paris who were to deal with us. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman was a com missioner to inquire into the state of this corporation, and he knew, as was often asserted, the fact that the City of London had no real right to levy the smallest tax upon coal, or to levy any other tax whatever upon the metropolis. That tax was granted without any restrictions in past times, but it was for specific purposes and objects. Those objects and purposes had been more than fulfilled, and, in point of fact, the corporation of London was now levying a coal tax which had long since accomplished the objects for which it was originally imposed, which was most injurious to the community, and yet the Government did not like to quarrel with the corporation, because it had influence at the elections. (Hear.) He hoped every effort would be used against this bill, and that they would appeal to the justice of the House of Commons, and ask whether they would allow Ministers to use their influence for such legislation as was shadowed forth in this bill. They would, no doubt, have the noble lord the member for the City of London telling them that this corporation was as ancient as Magna Charts, but he hoped the house would not be led away by any such views as these. It was a remar k a bl e thi ng , th a t th e house, having a few years ago determined upon a system of muni cipality for the metropolis, the right hon. gentleman did not adhere to that course, but went out of his way to revive a system which everybody out of the house condemned. He hoped if the right hon. gentleman was not prepared to con sider whet her he would allow a useful municipal body to re main side by side with this plaything, some gentleman con nected with the metropolis would do so, and put upon the table of the heuse a bill which would deal with the all-im portant questions which would arise. The metropolis ought to be a county of itself ; it ought to have the legal as well as municipal institutions ; it ought to have a recorder for itself and one sheriff instead of half-a-dozen, so as to secure a general harmony of administration of ono uniform character, which would afford great relief to the inhabitants and an im partial administration of justice. Mr. W. WILLIAMS was of opinion that the measure had better be altogether postponed, and from what he knew of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) he thought it more likely that his measure of reform would have been more efficient. The City of London did not comprehend one-twentieth part of the population of the metropolis, and he could see no reason for framing a mea , sure for London on principles totally different from those which governed every other great corporation in England. For his own part he was aware that the convivial meetings of the corporation of London had triumphed over the good intentions of the Government. Mr. Alderman CUBITT observed that in the bill of last year the livery.of London, a large and influential body of ten or fifteen thousand persons, was altogether ignored. As to reforming the corporation its members were of opinion that this question ought to be, once for all, set at rest. He hoped the livery might be retained in the position they now occupied, with the power they now enjoyed of electing the Lord Mayor and some other functionaries, and this he thought would, on the part of the Government, be a very wise concession. Mr. JOHN LOCKE remarked that the livery of Lon don ought not to be forgotten. They were not confined within the walls of the City of London, but were scattered throughout the metropolis, and this formed a strong rea son why the Government should not be allowed to carry through, a bill of this description, for it only dealt with a comparatively small portion of the metropolis. The Metro politan Board of Works was intended to be some thing like a corporation for the whole of London, controlling its municipal government in an essential respect, having the power of levying rates for improvements—a body, too, which he felt bound to say almost everybody disliked. When this bill of the Government passed we should have two kings— the Lord Mayor and the chairman of the Board of Works. Was this expedient ? Why not instead adopt the course for merly adopted, and extend and enlarge the corporation— cietonb e t o t w b a e r wards, dayn whichd l et thebeeLuoldrd govern n or and e opolis g Common rl bhdwwa corporation— dividing i o ogousadblhhne laugh )— but _ g u g so e f e l . f d bd Lt Ch p i t cl e ta r n o r u n e e dm it a fs : o t a n I n e tr it helr? It had been said that by so doing these u p td e o r it apprehensionsth u h e m ecl i h n duone i r pvem Queen o p tru e ha r i pteoi o t onht , naeabxrneieondrf taxing throne wnd e dee v orbw e n n eoo—vu t n h eroar e anuhnmeti corporation the metropolis and they would soon be unpopular enough. The corporation of the city of London was now a powerful body, because it possessed a hereditary revenue of £60,000 a year, not arising out of taxes, and which they could do as ' they pleased with. If the corporation were extended in the manner suggested they would become a most useful body. The bill now brought in by the Government was, so far as he knew, totally inconsistent with its professed object, and was unworthy of the consideration of the House of Com mons. He hoped to se e before long a suitable me asure l a i d befora them. (ear,r.) Sir M. FARQUHAR protested against the injustice of taxing the coal of the ci ty ho represented (Hertford), b e _ Secretary o the e sta p t ro e p iar er as time came the of cause e metropolis.chaneed to Thatbe w ithin w radiussaurely a g o r f ea t t w i e n n i t o y a - t o i : a m n i d le a s very great hardship. H e hen. . the Home Department would n ot re-impose this tax, and that he would give a promise to t hat effec t . Sir G. C. LEWIS, in reply to th e re q uest j ust made to bartorunsettetdhothat when him by the hon. gentleman the member for Hertford, said it was quite true that Hertford was included in the coal tax. The house was probably aware that the coal tax consisted of three portions tax of 4d. per ' ton amounting in the whole to 13 d. per ton. A ton was for the benefit of the City. They claimed it as their property, and it stood upon the same footing as the town dues of Liverpool. The fourpence was charged with a certain capital sum raised upon it for metro politan improvements and other purposes, which would not o liatimitod tcor woun Tema t 9 may, at 9 the ctlier partiom 1 THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 31, 1860. but if he had had the idea that the committee Yrefe nett going to investigate the public policy of these contracts, but to deal with the characters of individuals, and with charges of misconduct and corruption, nothing would have induced him to agree to the appointment, constructed as it Was. Ho strotigly4ecte d to the committee as being fitted to undertake the .fy*. of inquiring into personal charges, He would admit that the tontreittec was most carefully selected,'and it would be difficult to meted nineteen men more fitted to carry out the object in view; but at the seine time he could not find nineteen men more unfitted to enter into an investigation or trial of questions affecting charges against the character of individuals, and for this reason, that he found scarcely one gentleman who was acquainted with the rules of evidence, or conversant with the business of the courts of law, or in any way accustomed to judicial inves tigations, or the way in which examinations of witnesses ought to be conducted. The chairman (Mr. Cobden) was no doubt a very acute and able man, and there could not probably be found a better man to undertake an investiga tion into a case of public conduct; but, on the other hand, there could not be a worse man to conduct an investigation into charges against individuals ; and he would appeal to any lawyer of eminence to look through the printed evi dence upon the personal parts of the ease, and to say whether one half of the questions would net have been dis allowed by any court of justice. (Hear.) He made no charge against the committee, except that they had been led into the error of assuming powers which they did not legally possess, and of discharging a duty for which they were not competent. On the grounds he had stated he should object to a repetition of the committee of last ses sion; but, no matter what might be the determination of her Majesty's Government, he thought it desirable that, before any committee were appointed, the opinion of the house should be taken as to the extent of its duties and jurisdiction. If the inquiry were to be one within the general principles of parliamentary committees, he should not object; but if it was to be a judicial inquiry he should demand two conditions—first, a specific accusation ; and secondly, that such specific accusation should be referred to a competent tribunal. (Hear hear.) There was no lack of precedents to guide their deliberations, and any gentle man who had sat any time in that house must recollect how cases involving charges against individuals had been dealt with. In such cases, the house had always selected persons who were fit for the duties of investigation ; and three conditions had always been observed—first, that instead of being unusually large, the committee should be unusually small, in order to give greater concentration and responsibility ; secondly, that at least some of its members should belong to the legal profession ; and, thirdly, that the remaining members should be chosen as free from party bias as possible. He trusted that a similar line would be observed in this case, and that a competent committee would be appointed. He begged to disclaim any ill-feeling against the committee of last session, but he must repeat his strong conviction that the course they had followed had not been consistent with the order of reference, and he trusted that in whatever course might now be taken due regard would be had for the inte rests of the public, and for the interests and character of that house. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. T. BARING was sorry that the unfortunate ab sence of the chairman of the contract committee cast upon him the duty of making some observations in reply to those of the right hon. baronet. He did not complain of the right hon. baronet's strictures, as all public men were fairly open to comment ; but he wished thoroughly to understand the issue which the right hon. baronet put to the house At present, ho believed it to be, whether the committee were Justified in the course they had pursued, and whether they had been fitly constituted to conduct such an inquiry. He (Sir F. Baring) was glad that this question had been brought forward, because it related not only to the past but to the future, seeing that another committee was about to be appointed to inquire into the general system of Govern ment contracts, and it was desirable that such committee should know whether it was to go fully into the inquiry, or whether it was to avoid every question connected with per sonal character or misconduct. So far as he could under. stand the right hon. gentleman, his objections to the com mittee were, first, that it was not competent to a judicial inquiry ; and, next, that the order of reference did not per mit them to go into certain subjects. He was not prepared to say that any committee might not be open to a similar objection, for the fact was that it was almost impossible to get a committee in that house which rose to the strict judicial standard of impartiality. Their only expedient was to take half from one side and half from the other, and trust to the truth coming out in discussion between them. But it was not his business to defend the selection of the committee. The house had selected it, and the time for objection was when the names were being put from the chair. But committees selected according to the right hon. baronet'S notion had not been more satisfactory. In the Admiralty inquiry were four legal gentlemen; in fact, no thing could have been more judicial. They came to an unanimous• decision, but that decision was received with anything but, unanimity by the house. But the point to which he (Sir F. Baring) had to look was, whether the House of Commons had a right to inquire into what the committee now complained of had inquired into. No diffi culty on that point had struck any member of the committee during its sitting, If they looked back to the minutes of that committee t hey would find that not the slightest objec tion to the course of proceeding had been taken by any of its members. He was surprised that the right hon. gentle man, after the discussion on Sir Wm. Russell's petition, should imagine that certain matters would not be inquired into. On that occasion the late Secretary to the Treasury de manded inquiry, and said that it must not be "skin-deep." The Attorney-General for Ireland demanded for the late Government an investigation of the charges which were made against them, and Mr. Henley said that there were many allegations, every one of which demanded investiga tion. How then could the right hon. gentleman blame the committee for acting strictly in the spirit in which it had been appointed? He maintained it was quite right that com mittees should know whether they were precluded from in quiring into questions of character, unless they had a lawyer amongst them, and he trusted the right hon. gentleman would take the opinion of the house on his motion. For him* self he had no , wish to remain on the committee, in which a great deal that was disagreeable to him had occurred, nor had he the slightest desire to say anything offensive respecting any of the matters which had been brought before them. Lord J. MANNERS concurred in the opinion that it was important the opinion of the house should be taken as a guide for future committees. At the same time he must say that his impression as to the unanimity of the late committee was diferent from that of the right hon. gentleman. He remem bered much dissent from the course that was being pursued, but as four of the committee had been members of the accused Government they could not have divided without exposing themselves to all the malevolent insinuations of party rancour. He agreed with his right hon. friend that when the commit tee was appointed, it was understood that these personal questions were not to be referred to it. But the complaint was that the committee travelled beyond the legitimate terms of reference. The committee did travel out of its beaten course, and did implicate the conduct of private individuals, not members of the late Government, in a way quite unpre - cedented, and, as he thought, in a manner unprecedentedly unfair. As a member of the coreniittee, he felt he should be out of place in an investigation of that nature. If, therefore, it was the pleasure of the house that this committee should be re-appointed, and that the same painful circumstances should be again referred to, he trusted the house would be good enough to relieve him from the necessity of attending it. Sir F. BARING explained that all he meant to say was he did not rec,ollect there being any difference of opinion with reference to the matter of inquiry itself, but that there was some difference of opinion as to whether certain ques tions should be put. Mr. E. OSBORNE said that there was this great pecu liarity about the speech of the noble lord (Lord J. Manners), that he had taken the opportunity te protest against the de cisions of a committee of which he had been a member—he during the whole time sitting patiently by, voting on it and making no protest. He confessed, although he had a great temptation to go very fully into the case, he should resist it, and he thought the right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwitch would have acted a wiser part if, instead of being a party to create two debates on this question, he had left the matter in the hands of the members of the committee, who had given notice of a motion for next week, because it was most inconvenient that they should have two debates raised on this question. Now, the right hon. gentleman said this was not a competent tribunal, and he (Mr. B. Osborne) fully agreed with him, although not for the same reasons. He thought the late Government, or rather the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was greatly to blame for the formation of that committee; but the right hon. member for Droitwich did not take exception at the proper time to the constitution of that committee. What were the circumstances of the forma tion of that committee? Instead of having the usual number of 15 members, 19 were appointed, and what was the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that appoint ment? The right hon. gentleman said his chiefdifficulty arose because he was obliged to put four extra members on the committee, and those four, members of the late Govern ment, were accused. The right hon. gentleman said to night, where was the man who would bring forward any specific charge ? He (Mr. Z. Osborne) took an opportu nity of bringing forward a specific charge. He said he had strong grounds for suspecting the right hon. gentleman had been tampering with the elective franchise of Dover to oust him. Sir William Russell made that allegation in his pe tition. If the right hon. gentleman wanted an accuser let him turn to the election petition for the borough of Dover, which pointed directly to the conduct of the right hon. gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty, and his private secretary. The committee itself was manifestly an attempt to hush up the inquiry altogether, as if the whole matter were proceeding en the Scotch principle of "scratch me, and I'll scratch you." (Laughter.) To that end the four members were appointed. The hon. member for Bir mingham protested at the time against the constitution of the committee, and declared that it was improperly consti tuted, saying that if the house wanted a committee that would bring respect to its judgment they should get it ap pointed by the committee of selection. The right hon. gentleman talked of there being no lawyers on the com mittee I Why, one-fifth of the members sat in judgment on their own case. Why, the right hon. member for Stamford could not sit on the committee when they came to vote, and left the room. (Laughter.) The noble lord, however, voted manfully through it, and now, forsooth, he would not servo on any further committee. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Was not this an at tempt to whitewash the private secretary of the right hon. gentleman the member for Dreitwich ? (Hear, hear.) Don't tell him (Mr. B. Osborne) that the right honour able gentleman was not aware of what his private secre tary was about. There never was such a committee as that on the Dover contract ; and when the verdict had been returned the right honourable gentleman was discontented, and said, "Don't have a committee so framed again." Surely the house and the country must see through the veil attempted to be thrown over the transaction by the right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwish. But he said the committee did not act in accordance with the forms of reference. He was surprised that the right hon. gentleman, of all members of the house, since he spoke on almost every occasion, had not protested at the right time against this irregularity. The right hon. gentleman's political friends had presented him lately with a splendid gold shield, but in its compartments of colonies, justice, and mercy, he (Mr. Osborne) did rot see that there was any view of Dover.-- (langhter)—or a medallion of his private secretary. (Re newed laughter.) If a supplementary shield should be pre sented to the right hon. gentleman, he hoped he would have the defect remedied, and get a view of that seaport. On the 7th of July, when the subject was first mooted, Mr. Glad stone said it would be the study of the Government to select the names of members who were to constitute the commit tee, and to see that there should be an impartial and thorough going inquiry. Now, Mr. Gladstone was not always so clear and plain spoken, but no one could misconceive what a thorough going inquiry meant. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. member for Droitwich did not object on that occasio a to the functions of the committee so described. But on the 12th July, when a committee was nominated, the Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. gentleman the member for Stamford, was exceedingly animated, and even indignant, and declared that he would not submit to any skin-deep inquiry. He said it must be a full and proper inquiry, ob serving that the further it was earried the more it would redound to the credit of the late Government. He made no protest as to the line the committee was to take, but he put as able questions as any lawyer, and refused to vote, (gear, liver,) IWO 99 into, ana Ant t 9 it LW Most suspicious character about it. It was acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the four gentle men were his greatest difficulty, but he got over that difficulty, and said nothing more about it. He (Mr. B. Osborne) did hope that in the appointment of the com mittee which was now called for, different grounds would be proceeded upon, and different men selected. The house would do well, in his judgment, to refer this matter to the committee of selection ; but do not let them have any endeavour to hush up the question, or have a member dis senting from the verdict after it had been given. It was very unfortunate that they should have gone into the Dover case at all. How did it stand ? Next week a committee would be struck to try the Dever petition ; and only see the labyrinth of difficulties in which they would be involved with this inquiry . going on pending a commission. If the house wished its judgments to be respected they must have no such manes as they had had that night. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman volunteered to be examined be fore the committee which he now distrusted. The right hen, member also gave a distinct denial to the fact that he had ever given a letter to Capt. Carnegie to go down and contest Dover, but his memory must have been singularly defective on that occasion. For his own part, he (Mr. B. Osborne) was exceedingly grateful to the right hon. gentle man for having got rid of him out of Dover. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But what was the effect upon the public with regard to the votes on Parliamentary committees in that house ? The decision which the country was taking was this, that committees were not to be trusted. If any would support him, he would oppose altogether the nomi nation of this committee by the Chancellor of the Exche quer, for if they wished that the judgment of this commit tee should give satisfaction they should entrust its appoint ment to the committee of selection. Let it not be a matter of selection by those two benches. Questions like these were naturally distasteful to Governments, but they should not be suffered to remove their full investigation from the public eye. (Hear.) Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that after the astonishing statement which tho hon. and gallant gentleman had made with regard to him, be felt bound to say that no agreement had been come to in this matter between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself, and he was altogether at a loss to knew on what ground the assertion could have been made. It was usual to inquire in the first instance whether an hon. member could act upon a committee if nominated, and he had been so consulted ; but no contract or agreement had been entered into by him to sit on the committee, but not to vote. Some hon. members had stated that the com mittee had travelled out of its legitimate terms of reference, but he did not take this view himself. They were charged with renewing the • contract without sufficient public grounds, and suspected of having done so from party and corrupt motives. He knew that he had pronounced for the contract on public grounds, and he was anxious that those grounds should be inquired into. It was not sufficient that a member of a committee implicated In the matterof inquiry did answer the questions put to him. In courts of law a witness so circumstanced would have counsel to ask him questions founded upon a knowledge of the facts, but if they had no member on a committee who knew the facts—such Members being excluded from adesire to obtain impartiality —it was impossible to elicit the case which ought to be made out in justice to those who were interested in the re sult. They had to choose, therefore, between two evil s ; and, though he confessed he did not see his own way be tween them, it appeared to him that the exclusion of those who were acquainted with the facts was opposed to reason and common sense. (Hear.) Mr. HOPE said that as a member of the late committee he could state that its resolutions were voted unanimously, and that there was no formal discussion. In reference to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant wentleman oppo site (Mr. B. Osborne), he would observe that the four mem bers to wheat he had alluded did not influence the decision of the committee, because they were in the minority. Mr. H. HERBERT observed that if it were intended to appoint the members of the last committee, there should be some distinct understanding of exactly how far the committee was to go, and how far the words of reference covered the inquiry. He took great interest in the debate of last session on the subject, and he certainly did derive the impression that the committee would have a political character, and that it would have to try the character and conduct of the late Government. He was fortified in thatimpression by the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks, who made use of these words, " If there is no prospect of the proceedings at the Dover election being examined info this session, it would not be fair to deprive the members of the late Government of an opportunity that presented itself of going into an investigation of all the circumstances of this case. So entirely was he impressed with the view he had stated that, although, he was a member of the committee, yet, laming been prevented from serving by having to at tend an election committee, when he was requested to be present at the drawing up of the report, he said he did not think it was right when a member of a committee had not heard the evidence that •he should assist in drawing up the report. Lord LOVAINE said—lf this committee had a judicial character, there was great danger in allowing the character of persons who had no opportunity of defending themselves to be affected by it. Capt. L. VERNON observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he believed that the whole of the committee were unanimous as to the description of informatian they re quired. He (Capt. Vernon) was an independent member of the committee, and as far as he was concerned he was no party . to that unanimity. He thought that the committee in entering rather upon the personal than the public question departed from its line of duty ; and that when the house granted the committee it was certainly not with the idea that it would be made to serve a political purpose. When the committee devoted nearly the whole of its time to an inquiry whether Captain Carnegie was justified in coming to the extravagant conclusion that when Mr. Churchward offered him his support, he meant thereby to seduce him from Admiralty virtue, it stepped aside from its particular duty, and it postponed the interests of the public to those of individuals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that this was not the time, nor the place either, to make the objection. He could only say that he took both the time and the place, but he was put down by being told that the public out of doors were anxious about the Carnegie and Churchward case, and that the public out of doors must be satisfied. He ventured to say that he did not think they had anything to do with the public out of doors, and that what they had to do was to attend to the business with which they were concerned. He said that at different times during the investigation, but ho was always put down by the shibboleth of "the public out of doors." Now he had a great respect for the public out of doors, but there was a time for everything. Independent members like himself found themselves brought into a perfect whirl pool of party struggle, and it was obvious that there were those on the jury who ought to have been in the witness box. He could also see that some who were ever nice and scrupulous as he thought them, would refrain from voting on matters which concerned them, and there were others not quite so scrupulous, who would be restrained by no such fanciful ideas. Hei intended to call the attention of the house to the report on the 7th of February. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I was sorry to hear my hon. friend the member for Liskeard say that it was the desire of all Governments to hush up these matters—for my hon. friend has himself been a member of various Governments, and one is led, therefore, to suppose that he is giving reminiscences of his own sentiments in such cases. (Laughter.) For my own part I beg leave to disclaim such a disposition. I am desirous that this matter should be fully inquired into. My hon. friend gave loose to his imagination to an extraordinary extent in what he said about soma secret understanding between me and my hon. friend opposite, with whom I had once the honour of being intimately connected in a public capacity. There never wa s any such understanding between us. I don't believe I ever exchanged a single word with my right bon. friend on the _ _ subject - except across this table: A. fertile imagination is certainly sometimes a most inconvenient thing. (Laughter.) This question appears to me a very simple one. It would - , seem that if the committee were not unanimous in the view they took with regard to the scope of their inquiry, at all events no gentleman who differed from the rest of the com mittee thought proper to place his dissent on record ; it is also quite clear that a great majority of the members enter tained no doubt whatever as to the nature of their duties, and I am bound to say, as a question affecting the practice t of the House of Commons, that it is very inconvenient that Members of a committee who entertain op inions with t - pad to the proper limits of their inquiry which differ f re rom those of the majority, and which differ from the course l h e i n e t h i i t h t e h e committee e is L a ( actually h e p a u r r ) s_u gd b should restr a ine remainsiy the fear of imputatiois from putting their views upon re - com mittee and n then, an intelligible havingform, stated sr na s theirhenld. views afterwards to the make appeals om p e l h am a t e s e o n f rs t e h a e pp co ea n r d s u t c e t of that committee. to h t house, and e m a r ,haekaer .) Such a m t h e e t r o be m e hardly fair o t o h n e t e h e e m p m a t t t e o e f tgentlemen theytow a b r d e i s o n the other members of the c ommittee to which they bekng. With regard to the merit s of this particularc was pursued terms of the reference and th e line of inquiry which —I confess that the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich, who introduced this question, I must say in the mos t temperate manner , appears, if I may be permitted to say so, to be in error in the view which he has taken. The opinion of the House of Commons is generally in favour of the course which a committee has pursued. Ido not speak now of the judgment which they came to, for that is a per fedi,- proper matter for review and question by this house ; but it is perfectly impossible for a committee appointed ander an order of reference such as was passed in this in stance, altogether to avoid what may be called personal matter. Undoubtedly the inquiry was one directed in the main to the policy of certain measures, and therefore I think it would be an inconvenient course to refer the subject to the Committee of Selection ; but although such was its cha racter, it was not simply an inquiry into an abstract matter of policy, but into the conduct of executive Governments ; and collaterally and in a secondary manner it was, of course, a question involving praise or blame of the conduct of those Governments for the manner in which they had acted. How is it possible for a committee required by this house to in quire into the manner in which contracts were framed or in mo q d n i i fi ry ed th b a y her rang Majesty's Gov h and dseareh ingif er t n . to re make strained their fram pronouncing a sentence of eith er p r: • me on the men by whom those contracts have been so' or modified. The right hon. baronet very fairly and says that the inquiry was one into the wisdom and p en . ce of the con duct e d n that e f n t t h i e n committee n d f o p u r nj that othei rthe conduct Government, had dence, no doubt they ought to express their sentiments with regard to it. But although he admitted that they might declare their conduct not to have been prudent, they were not from that circumstance to infer any blame. (Hear.) The right hen. baronet also finds fault with the committee for having alluded to "corrupt motives." It appears to me that the committee, instead of being censured, deserve rather to be commended for the mention which they have made of this branch of the subject, because the committee having, by a very large majority, arrived at the conclusion that the Dover contract was made without sufficient inquiry into the grounds of the claim for its extension, and having gone on to express their views with respect to it, they after wards, in a spirit of equity and of consideration for those whose conduct they had been condemning, inserted a para graph declaring the opinion of the committee that, notwith • standing an error had been committed, no ground existed for the imputation of corrupt motives. The resolution was thus worded :—" It further appears to the committee that neither at the Admiralty nor at the Treasury were the officsrs with whom thedecision rested, influenced in regard ing the renewal of the contract by any corrupt or political motive." That passage appears to me clearly to show that the committee not only acted with equity and fairness, bat that they adopted it with a view of precluding any suposi tion of invidueus interference that might otherwise be en tertained. I believe, moreover, that the constitution of the committee was well adapted for the purposes of the general inquiry for which it was appointed. I grant you Plat the mixture of what may be called personal mat ter is productive of much inconvenience, and is to be regretted when it comes incidentally under inquiry and cannot le made the subject of investiga tion by itself, without entailing other and very serious in conveniences ; but this cannot be charged upon us by way A isAtta of owita4t rocurrcuco quiries by this house. The committee 'on contracts, for example, which sat in the years '55, 's7', and '5B, was ap pointed, not as a i committee for crimin story c h arge , not withstanding which, n the investigati( m of a g rea t num ber of proceedings of this nature, they found it necessary to express opinions in the nature both of praise and blame with reference to the conduct of those concerned in the making of those contracts. (Hear.) A great and natural desire has been expressed by members of the committee that the sense of the house shoul I be e - kpressed as to whe ther they have exceeLled their jurisdiction. Now, sir, hav ing listened attentively, and I hope cal.inly and impartially, to this debate, I must say that I collect the sense of the house to be that the committee did isot exceed the jurisdic tion given to them, and that they could not but pronounce a sentence of blame or praise upon the framing of the con tracts whieh they were appointed to examine, when such an expression of opinion appeared to them to be called for. (Hear, hear.) But it is of course my duty to remind the hon. baronet that if in his opinion the committee have ex ceeded the bound assigned to them, and that for the future they will require to be 1 united in their proceedings other wise than by the discrethm of the members, it rests with him to move an amendmei it in words, orin some other man ner to obtain an expression of the positive opinion of the house ; and I have no doubt that any opinion which may be expressed by the house will receive attention at the hands of the committee. (ILear, hear.) Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked if the house were again going to inflict upon 19 gentlemen the necessity of hearing a mass of evidence, altogether losing sight of the great question, what was the best public policy in managing these contracts ? The right hon. gentleman would do well to consider whether it would not be best to limit the question to the public policy. If it were proper to bring personal charges of corruption let them be treated separately. The report omitted 300 questions and answers, and they con tained very important evidence. Mr. G. NV. HOPE explained that the evidence of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Rose, which was taken on the last day, it was agreed should be omitted, because it opened a fresh subject. The motion was then agreed. to. PRISON ACTS (SCOTLAND) CONTINUANCE. The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in a bill to continue until the Ist day of January, 1862, and thence to the end of the then next session of Parliament, certain acts for the improvement of prisons and prison dis cipline in Scotland. OXFORD UNIVERSITY. Sir G. LEWIS obtained leave to bring in a bill to pro vide for the consideration of an ordinance which had been laid before Parliament in a report of the Oxford University Commissioners. LONDON CORPORATION REFORM BILL. The bill was brought in and read a first time, the second reading being fixed for Monday week. The keen rose at a quarter to 10. COUNTRY MARKETS COLCHESTER-JAN. 28. A good supply of wheat, the little quantity in condition was taken at last week's prices ; damp samples unsaleable. Fine malting barley in request, at very full prices. Grind ing samples more scarce. Beams and peas without change. Wheat, white 445 to 50s I Beans, Mazagan.. 32s to 36 4 red 38510 46s I Middle & small 33s to 42e Barley 36s to 46s I White pe as 3 85 t o 413-i Oats 2os to 28s Grey.. 325 to 36s CHELMSFORD-JAN. 27. There was a fair supply of wheat, but generally in such bad condition that it could not find buyers at any price, Fine malting barley firm. Wheat, white 40s to 50s Peas, Partridge...37s to 38 5 red 38s to 43s White ..37s to 334 Barley 30s to 37s Boiling Chevalier ....32s to 42s Dun .32s to 355 Grinding 21s to 26s Beans, Tick ......38s to 405 Malt 60s to 66s Harrow Ticks 40. to 43s Chevalier ~ 63. to 68. Mazagan .35s to 373 Oats ' 22s to 32. NORTHAMPTON-JAN. 28. At this corn-market wheat was in middling su ipply, with a heavy trade, at about fully the rates of thi a day se'n night, prices ranging from 40s to 48s for oiet, and 38s to 46s for new. There was a slow business passil tf; in barley► —2Bs to 40s per qr. Oats in limited show, ith a g ood sale, quoted at 20s to sss per 24 stone. B esins old, 48 0 to 525; new, 34s to 40s. Rye, —.5 to —ll ; ialt, 64s to 66a ; flour, 31s to 34s per sack. D—JAN. 28. seat held heaver,, at about tli• STAMFOR At our market yesterday wh prices of last week Wheat 40s to 45s I Oats.. White do 48s to 50 s Beans Barley ....38s to 42s Ditto, old 48e to 501 COAL MARKET—JAN. 30. (Prices of Coal par Ton at the dose of the market.) s. d., Was End. Byass's Bebsid• West Hartley ......15 3 Bell's Primrose ......13 3 Lambert's West Hart- s. d. Russell's Hetton 19 9 Trimdon :Hartlepool-20 0 North Hartlepool 15 6 Firth's Robin Hood lb 0 Braddyll's Hetton 19 9 Whitworth .... le ' 0 Haswell .... . 20 6 Riddell lB 9 Harton ........ 1 8 8 g Gosforth Wrenthorpe Alber;s• • , s 6 Belmont . ......... i . South Hartlepool. ..... 19 0 Hetton 2O A 6 v Trimdon Thornley 18 Eden 19 0 Acorn Close 19 0 Northumberland 18 0 Eden Main l9 0 Heugh Hall 19 0 South Kelloe l9 6 ley 15 0 Walker Primrose 14 0 Tanfield Moor 13 9 Tanfield Moor Butes 13 9 Davisen's West Hart- ley ....15 0 Bower's West Hartley.ls 3 Buddle's West Hartleyls 0 Burnhope 13 3 Grey' nWeet Hartley l4 9 Holywell 16 0 Howard's West Hart- ley 15 0 West Hartley l5 3 Wylam l6 0 St. Cuthbert's Hartley 14 9 Bate's Hartley _ 14 6 Walli End. Hunwick l6 0 Ships at market, 103—Sold, 85. FOREIGN MAIL PACKET LIST. In the following table E signifies that letters are despatehei by evening mails from London, and M by morning mails. Next DESTINATIONS. Despatch Port of Mail of Mails. Despatch. due. ------ Austi eda and Mauritius, via SOU Ll.lOll3D' "`"1 I Feb. 11, E Southamp. Feb. 9 .) Feb. 3 Ditto. N.:a. Mame:Wel Feb. 18 , I. I Bahamas and D avana vla. We r I 10 lc Feb. 17, Eililverpool.. Feb.! 16 Canada, ~ c. (I. f Conedn. pekt ) Feb. 1, E , TAverpool.. ; Feb. 1 Cape of Coot Hope, Asem-i s i oi a i n ,e 6 n S ai t , . ,T He r l i c la la s;na., Feb. 0, March 3 E Devenport i pore, via Southampton Web. 4, 31 Southamp. Feb.i 1 J Feb. 10 Et !F e b * II Gibraltar, via Southampton.. Feb. 4, MiSouih am p. loverdue Ci D n'., , v ; a Marseilles Honduras and Blewfields via Soathampton Feb. 4, MlSouthamp. Feb. 1 India (Calcutta)DlL it). via 3I.7rseilles and Ceylon. India (Bombay), via Slulll ampton Feb. 11, 3C 7outhamp. overdue Ditto. %la Marseilles Feb. 3 It Feb. 3 Lisbon. Brazils,Buenos Ayres,' ! and Islands ' Feb. 9, Di Southatap. Feb. 5 Lir,boA,•Vig,O, and Oporto F e b . 7, M'Settthamp. Feb. 1 Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Soutliamptot. Feb. 4, 51 Southamp. overdu' Ditto, via Marseilles Feb. 3 E Mexico and Havana ...... , .. i , ,Soulhamp. Newfoundland .............. 'Feb. 3, E'Liverpool — United States and British N' ; •1 America (by British nacket)'Feb. 3, E Liverpool Feb. 8 Ditto (by U. S. packet) ....Jan. 31, E.Southamp. West Coast Mof Africa, a- deira, and Teneriffe ... . .... F e b. 23 E'Liverpool ,Feh. 10 West India, California, Vene zuela, Chili, Peru, Grey- Ace Feb. 2 MIS tham i town, New Gran a d a, Feb. 1 ____ - - - - - [ADVERTISEMENT.)—A few more of the Extraordinali Cures without Medicine of indigestion (dyspepsia), tiatn lency, constipation, nervous, bilious, and liver complaints, cough, asthma, consumption, and debility effected by Du Barry's delicious health-restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, are here given :—Cure 52,422.—Bridgehouse, Frimley, 3 d April, 1854--33 years' diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangement, deafness, singing in the ears, constipa tion, debility, shortness of breath and cough, have been re moved by your Revalenta Arabica. My lungs, liver, stomach, head, and ears are all right, my hearing perfect, and my recovery is a marvel to all my acquaintances. James Roberts, timber merchant. From the Venerable Archdeacon of Ross.—No. 32,836—Three years' excessive nervousness, with pains in my neck and left arm, ead general debility, which rendered my life very miserable, has been radically removed by Da Barry's health-restoring food.—Alex. Stuart, Archdeacon of Ross, Skibbereen. In tins, at ls. 6d. • llb., I 3s. • 21b. , ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 1211 i., 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, Graceehurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 150, Oxford street; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgata street ; 85, Totfanham-court-road. Also at Dublin* Bewley :and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Co. at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew ; at Manchester, Sharp and Scott ; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and Co. ; at South' ampton, Randall, and Son. BIRTHS. GREENIIILL.—On the 23d inst., at Edinburgh, the Hon. Mrs. Greenhill, of a daughter. HIGGINSON.—At Blackhall, co. Kildare, the lady of Sir James Macaulay Hieginson, of a son. McMußDo.—On the 29th inst., at Plumstead-commont the wife of Colonel Montagu M'Murdo, of a daughter. SITWELL.—On the 27th inst., at 39, Green- street, Grospr nor-square, the wife of Sir Reresby Sitwell, Bart., of Eon. MARRIAGES. - - - BOOTIEBY-3 Ean.--On the 28th inst., at Fulham, Capt& Basil Charles Boothby, to Emily, second daughter of Sir Joshua Jebb, K.C.B. LAURITO—HELBERT.—At Naples, Count Alfred de Mont' fort Laurito, to Lydia, eldest daughter of John Holber t Helbert, Esq., of Gloucester-place, Portman-square. DEATHS. BLAXEMOTLE.—On the 28th inst., at Velindra, near Car diff, Jane Ann, relict of the late Thomas Wm. Booke r Blakemore, M.P. for the county of Hereford. HASTINGS.—On the 27th inst., at Hertingfordbury Recta' Hertford, Herts, Hugh Francis Plantagenet, infant Se ° of the Hon. and Rev. Godolphin Hastings. KEMP.—On the 27th inst., at Cheltenham, Mrs. /C.„.er a f' widow of the l a t e J o h n K emp, E sq., of Thetford, •Lle`- folk, aged 91. KINNAWAY.—On the 25th inst., at Vienna, suddenly, Co lonel Edward Kinn awa y, ag e d 45. MACDONALD.—On the 27th inst., at Settrington I° l l 'gallon, Victoria Alexandrine, infant twin daughter ° Lord and Lady Macdonald. NORTH.—On the 28th inst., at Wateri ng b ur y, the I,rd North, aged 31. NEWTON.—On the 29th inst., at the Ch ar t er -house, g r • George Newton, aged M. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 11 0 . 1 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, hi the cowl/ Tuoadayi 'Amory ?1, 1860. t'; ; . i~~ -T '~