The Sun. — London, England, 1865-06-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS.-LAST EVENING. Th© LOUD CIIANCULLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. ABOLITION OF OATHS. Lord HOUGHTON gave notice that, unless the ques tion of the abolition of all statutory oaths were taken up in another place next session, he would ;nova for a select committee to inquire into the subject. TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH presented two petitions against this bill, setting forth that the state of the harbour of the port would be rendered dangerous. The Duke of SOMERSET objected to opposing a bill which stood for third reading. After some discussion, the subject dropped. DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT. Earl GRANVILLE said with reference to what had been stated by the noble lord Tedesdale) last evening, that Lord Palmerston had been communicated with on the subject of the time for dissolution, he (Lord Granville) could state that the Government considered there were important reasons why the private bills before the house in certain stages should bo postponed after the public business had been disposed of, and Go vernment would advise her Majesty to dissolve Parlia ment on Thursday the 6th of July. He believed that no great inconvenience would be experienced with regard to private business by the rising of the house at the time proposed, as considerable progress had been made that day with respect to several private bills. It was most desirable for the country that there should be no delay in proceeding to the general election, as it would do consider able injury to certain districts. At the present time much injury was done to manufacturing districts by the excitement caused by the approaching elections, and he believed that there would be ample time for the public business by the date in question. Lord REDESDALE said that a large number of private bills had been got through, but there were several other bills which were not disposed of, owing, in many cases, to the neglect of the parties themselves. He trusted the house would not adopt the principle of " hanging up bills," so as to allow their being resumed at the stage where they left off. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway (No. 2) ; East Glouces tershire and Wiltshire Railway ; Sirhowy Railway ; Alex andra (Newport) Docks ; Strathspey Railway ; Aboyne and Braemar Railway ; and Midland Railway (Ma,ccles geld, &c., Lines). The following bills were read a third time and passed : Baroness Windsor's Estate; London, Chatham, and Dover and London and South-Western Railway Companies ; Sevenoaks, Maidstone, and Tunbridge Railway; Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway (No. 1); Monkland Railways; West Yorkshireßail way; Caledonian Railway(Bougholm branch); London, Chatham, and Dover (No. 2) ; Bury St. Edmunds and Thetford Railway; Tyne Improvement; Callandar and Oban Railway ; Ipswich and Felixston Railway ; Greenock Railway ; London, Chatham, and Dover No. 1) Railway ; Tooting and Merton Railway ; Bishops Castle Railway (Deviations, &c.); and Leeds New Railway Sta tion. ORDERS OF THE DAY AND NOTICES. Lord REDESDALE moved the following notice on Standing Order No. 179, sec. I:—That Wednesday next shall be considered as a sitting day with respect to any petition praying to be heard upon the merits against any bill mentioned in either of the two classes of private bills ; and also moved that Standing Order No. 178 sec. 9 be dispensed with for the remainder of the session. The motion was agreed to. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SrEAXER took the chair at 20 minutes past 12. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords' amendments to the Burnham Tidal Harbour; Belfast Water ; Edgware, Highgate, and London Railway ; Fulham Railway ; Lancashire Union Railway ; Lynn and Sutton Bridge Railway; Southport Improvement; South wark Bridge Transfer ; and Sunningdale and Cambridge Town Railway Bills were considered and agreed to. THE STANDING ORDERS. Col. W. PATTEN called the attention of the house to the report of the Committee of Referees on Private Bills, and moved the following alteration in the Standing Orders : —To repeal Order 88, and to substitute the following : " The Chairman of Ways and Means, with such other persons to be appointed by Mr. Speaker, and for such period as he shall think fit, shall be referees of the house on private bills ; such referees to form one or more courts, and three at least to constitute one court ; the chairman of each court to be a member of this house." After No. 90, to insert the following :—" In case the promoters and opponents of any bill shall agree that all the questions in 'issue between them upon such bill shall be re ferred to the referees, it shall be competent to the referees to inquire into the whole subject matter of the bill, and to report their opinion thereon to the house ; and, in case they shall report that such bill ought to be proceeded with, the same shall, unless the house shall otherwise order, be re ferred to the committee on unopposed bills, and shall be treated as an unopposed bill." After No. 91 : "In case the referees shall report, with reference to any bill, that the estimate deposited in respect thereof is insufficient, or that the engineering is inefficient for the proposed object, the bill shall not be further proceeded with unless the house shall otherwis3 order." The hon. and gallant gentle man went at great length into the matter, and said he was of opinion to compensate the members of the house for the sacrifice of time they were called upon to make in filling the office of referees. Mr. AYRTON objected to tho proposition of paying members of that house for services rendered in committee. Mr. LIDDELL thought it would be better to postpone the consideration of the matter until the next Parliament met. He did not think that a thin house at the close of the session ought to determine the matter. Sir E. COLEBROKE was quite ready either to take the motion into consideration on that occasion, or leave it to be dealt with in the next session of Parliament. He did not think they could carry out effectually the committee of referees without the members were adequately compensated for the undivided attention they were called upon to give for the public good. Lord HOTHAM objected to the payment of the refe rees without they were placed in the same position as the chairman of committees. Mr. HENLEY was quite disposed to vote for the conti nuance of the arrangement of the court of referees, pure and simple, but he was indisposed to give his assent to a proposition now made for payment of the members of the house forming the court. A long discussion ensued, which terminated in Colonel Wilson Patten withdrawing the 88th order, which involved the question of payment of members, and the other alterations suggested by the hon. and gallant member were agreed to. The SPEAKER, at the conclusion of the debate on the standing orders, said ho had to thank the several members who had taken part in the transaction of the private busi ness of the house, and Sir G. GREY, on the part of the Government, also said that the house and the country were under deep obliga tions to the hon. gentleman for the valuable services per formed. The amendments to the Clerical Subscription Bill were considered and agreed to. The amendments to the Turnpike Act Amendment Bill were considered and agreed to. The County Courts Equitable Jurisdiction Bill was read a third time and passed. The Colonial Docks Loan Bill, as amended, was further considered, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The Poor Law Board Continuance, dm., Bill was read a third: time and passed. The Marriages (Lambourne) Bill passed through com mittee, and was reported without amendment. ADMIRALTY ACTS REPEAL BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, Mr. HENLEY hoped the bill would not be proceeded with at that moment, as he had certain observations to offer upon the bill. The order for committal was postponed until to-mor row. The committee on the Dockyards Ports Regulation Bill was postponed until to-morrow. _ . The Lords' amendments to the Union Chargeability Bill were considered and agreed to. The Lords' amendments to the Lunatic Asylums Act Amendment Bill were considered and agreed to. Ths sitting of the house was then suspended. At six o'clock the house resumed. THE LORD CHANCELLOR AND THE LEEDS BANKRUPTCY COURT. Mr. LO NGFIELD said he did not know how far he was in order in prefacing the qu es ti on o f w hi c h h e h a d g i ven notice by making a statement of facts. He would, how ever, endeavour to comp ress the observations he had to make into as narrow a compass as possible, in order that the house and the country might be in a position to un derstand the reasons which had induced him to bring this subject forward. (Cries of " Order.") The SPEAKER interposed, and said that it would not be competent for the hon. member to make any introduc tory statement unless he made some motion. I n th e pre sent instance there was onl y a question on the paper. Mr. LONGFIELD said that such being the c ase h e would put himself in order by moving the adjournment of the house, and though that was a n unusual course, and one which he himself had never before taken, he thought the unusual circumstance of the case justified him in pursuing an unusual course of proceeding. Those circumstances were, unhappily, rather too notorious. It appeared that a member of her Majesty's Government, holding the very highest station that could be held under the Crown, had now, within three months, given occasion for two separate investigations into the purity andpropriety of his conduct, and on both occasions his conduct has been very familiar. In each case, having, in the course of his judicial functions, found out that certain offences had been committed, he took advantage of those offences to force out of their offices the pers ons w h o h e ld t h em, an d , tak i ng a d van t age of their detection, he made a profit to himself by appointing two members of his own family. One of these investiga tions took place in the House of Lords, and was connected with a gentleman named Edmunds, and that inquiry had a considerable bearing upon the question which was recently concluded in the House of Commons. The former investi gation had scarcely terminated when another unfortunate event was adverted to in this house—the circumstances under which a gentleman of the name of Wilde had been forced to resign an appointment at Leeds. The Lord Chan cellor's son had been promised that appointment, which, however, was not subsequently made. The matter formed a subject of discussion in this house, and resulted in a committee being appointed to inquire into the whole transaction. It was said that the Lord Chancellor courted the fullest, freest, and most open inquiry, and the com mittee of selection named five gentlemen, certainly of the highest character and respectability, to inquire into the circumstances, which cast as deep as possible a slur upon the administration of justice, and upon judicial appoint ments. That committee followed the most objectionable precedent which was set in another place, and fell into the very grave mistake of conducting the most solemn inquiry, which the Lord Chancellor said he wished to be full, free, and open, with closed doors. They concluded their labours rather more than a week ago, and their report had been submitted to members. It now became his duty, and a painful duty he felt it to be, to bring before the house all the circumstances detailed in that report, and to ask the Attorney-General what proceedings her Majesty's Govern ment would take in the matter, or whether they would think it unnecessary to take any further proceedings. The person chiefly involved in this transaction was the head of the profession to which he (Mr. Longfield) was proud to belong some little time ago ; but if two or three more transactions such as this should take place, he did not know with what shame the members of the profession might hang their heads and hide their faces when, instead of piquing themselves on their esprit de corps, and the high character borne by its members, and on their profession being an honourable one, they found the person whom they ought justly to look up to and revere as the head of the profession tainting and polluting in its very source the administration of justice by more than suspicion of corrupt and gross practices in favour of his family. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Longfield) proposed to go through the report of the com mittee and to call attention to the dates of the different transactions, interspersing an observation now and then, for the purpose of connecting them with one another. The house would then see how grave the matter had become, and why the public imperatively demanded that the earliest possible notice should be taken of it in this house. The Government, he believed, could have no rea son, political or otherwise,- in screening the offenders from justice, and if that justice could not be meted out in the strict measure of the law, the Government could have no object in not meting out to him the same measure of jus tice which he himself insisted upon being meted out to those who, untried and unconvicted, were beneath his power. (Hear.) He would now come to the commence ment of this melancholy, dark, and discreditable transac tion. The Lord Chancellor appeared to be a great law re former in bankruptcy, and passed a bill relating to tho sub ject in 1861. He seemed to have slumbered and slept over it, for there were no very lucrative appointments to be made, all the places which were valuable having been filled up by his predecessors ; and the office of chief judge, the appointment to which ho was anxious to have, having been rejected by both Houses of Parliament. In the year 1864, however, he awoke very disagreeably from his lethargy, and found in truth that everything was going wrong everywhere in the Bankruptcy Court and all the courts over which he had control throughout the country. In particular there were grievous complaints from Leeds as to the impropriety of conduct on the part of some of the officers of the Court of Bankruptcy there. The paper num bered 295, referred to in the report of the Leeds Bank ruptcy Committee, contained some documents which gave the first insight into the origin of these transactions, and he (Mr. Longfield) would trace them date by date to their conclusion, and the house would then see what the happy conclusion would have been but for the scandal in another place ; and they would also see the way in which this nobleman fell a second time into the same unfortunate error of ignoring guilt that he might profit by the guilty. On the 6th April, 1864, Mr. Miller, the Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy, who was the intimate friend of all the Bethells, addressed the following startling communication to Mr. Wilde, of whose eyes and health they bad already heard ; "By direction of the Lord Chancellor I lately trans mitted to Mr. Commissioner Ayrton the accounts of the offi cial assignees and messengers of the Leeds Court, with a view to an investigation of them, and in a letter dated the 27th ult. Mr. Commissioner Ayrton writes as follows ; I have not yet looked into the accounts of the official assignees ; but, on opening the large paper returns made to you, I see the words "Submitted to, and approved by, Mr. Commissioner Ayrton, on the Bth April, 1862.—H. S. Wilde, Registrar." The fact being that I never saw that sheet, or the accounts it refers to, till I received it from you.' lam now directed by the Lord Chancellor to ask what explanation you have to give of this very grave offence. On the 9th of April Mr. Wilde wrote a reply, and, as he heard no more of the matter, ho deemed it satisfactory. In the middle of April another per son appeared upon tho scene, and ho regretted to add that it was a clergyman, for it should be borne in mind that the Lord Chancellor had a very considerable amount of ecclesi astical patronage. The person he referred to was the Rev. G. Harding. On the 6th of May, 1861, an arrangement was made, through Mr. Harding, under which a cheque was given by Mr. Welch to Mr. Bethell for the sum of £5OO, for the latter to use his influence with his father, the Lord Chan cellor, to procure an appointment for Mr. Welch. Mr. Hard ing positively stated that the £5OO was to be paid down, and that £l,OOO more was to be given, of which latter sum Mr. Harding was to got a third. The bill, which was drawn at a short date, was dishonoured, and Mr. Welch finding that he did not obtain an appointment became dissatisfied. But the committee elicited an account of a most extraordi nary transaction. It appeared that in Mr. Miller's letter book there was an entry in Miller's handwriting at the foot of a page of a copy of a letter which he said had been sent to Mr. Wilde. Now that was the only letter which Mr. Mi ller had himself copied in the book, and the index to the book contained an erasure and an interlineation, so that it was manifest to every person who looked at it that this letter was an interpolation, and that the index had been altered to give colour to his letter of July. There could not be the slightest doubt about that. Well, the bill became due, and the place was not vacant, and communications passed between Mr. Wilde and Mr. Bethell. And here again there occurred a miserable discrepancy between the for getful principal and the skilful deputy. The hopeless contradictions between Mr. Miller and the Lord Chan cellor in everything that was important in dates were such that, if they were permitted to continue without public notice being at once taken of them, certainly the purity of the administration of justice and of official appointments must for ever hereafter be despaired of. On the 26th of July, Mr. Miller, finding it necessary to be a little expedi tious, and after communication with the Lord Chancellor, wrote this letter—" It grieves me much to inform you that unless I hear in course of post that you mean to apply to be allowed to retire, I have instructions from the Lord Chancellor to serve you with notice to appear before him publicly in open court, and show cause why you should not be dismissed from your office of registrar. It is said that your state of health is such that you can have no difficulty in obtaining such a medical certificate as would entitle you to retire under the 33d section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861; and if this be so, I sincerely trust, for your own sake, that you will see the propriety of relieving the Chancellor from the very disagreeable, and indeed painful, duty which is thrust upon him." Mr. Miller stated before the commit tee that the first portion of this letter was strictly in accord ance with the directions of the Lord Chancellor ; but the second part he attributed to his over zeal, and said that he had net written it by authority. At all events, however, it answered its purpose completely. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Wilde transmitted a certificate given by Mr. Samuel Hey, as follows—" I hereby certify that I have been consulted by Mr. H. S. Wilde, on account of a failure in his sight, which was a serious hindrance to him in the performance of the duties of his office. Mr. Wilde first consulted me in August, 1863. At his age I cannot look for any im provement in his vision." He (Mr. Longfield) had not for a long time past seen a gentleman who appeared to be more sharp-sighted than Mr. Wilde. (A laugh.) That certificate was transmitted to Mr. Miller, who actually drew up the petition for Mr. Wilde's resignation, and he stated that he laid the petition and all the documents before the Lord Chancellor. The certificate, affidavit, and petition were sub mitted to the Lord Chancellor by Mr. Miller on the 30th June. Mr. Miller stated that he called the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the unsatisfactory character of the cer tificate. But the Lord Chancellor said, that putting the language of the three documents together, he considered there was a sufficient case to allow Mr. Wilde to retire. Conscientious and kind-hearted Chancellor. (Laughter.) That was Mr. Miller's version. But what was the Lord Chancellor's ? The Lord Chancellor made matters worse. The Chancellor stated he could not remember his attention having been called to the papers ; but he admitted that the three papers had been presented to him, and that he ought in strictness to have read them all. But that was precisely what Mr. Wilde should have done with his accounts. (Hear, hear.) Poor Mr. Wilde was dismissed, or at least a strong hint was given him that he ought to retire while the Lord Chancellor still occupied the woolsack. The Lord Chancellor stated that he certainly could not have read the medical certificate, or he should not have allowed it to pass. There was a confession for the keeper of her Majesty's conscience to make, that he had connived at a fraud on the part of an officer whom he had summoned before him ; or, at best, that on a sham certificate which he did not ger through the formality of looking at, he allowed an officer to escape the punishment due to his detected crimes. They all know it had been said that a judge who would not punish would in time connive and at length participate in Crime. They had here the Lord Chancellor not punishing but conniving, and he would presently show him partici pating. The Lord Chancellor stated he considered he had no alternative, and he therefore allowed Mr. Wilde to re sign and signed the order for his pension. Upon this the committee remarked " that such haste and want of caution necessarily gave rise to suspicion that a vacancy in the office was the object sought rather than justice to the officer or the public." Mr. HEADLAM—Read on. Mr. LONGFIELD resumed—He would read on, as he THE SUN, LONDON, - WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 28, 1865. intended to do. The committee added—" In this instance, however, your committee consider that no improper motives are to be imputed to the Lord Chancellor." (Ironical cheers.) He would be sorry to have deprived the Lord Chancellor of the benefit of that opinion. But there was a committee beyond the committee of that house. There was an appeal ,to the public ; and he believed the public would not endorse that opinion of the committee. Let them couple that case with another precisely similar, in which the Lord Chan cellor condoned the criminal and got the place. Was there not in that case alsoa wilful connivance—a wilful shutting of his eyes to offences to which he ought to be awake ? Was there not evidence in this and the other transaction to show how wholly unfit he was, probably either from the guilelessness of his nature, of which he had never heard before (a laugh), or from the audacity and insolence of office, which was characteristic of the man, for the high position he occupied ? Was there not evidence to show that he was answerable for the misappropriation of the public funds to the endowment of a criminal whom he had sentenced to dismissal ? The very day the Lord Chancellor signed the order for the pension the office was filled up, and it was curious to observe that it was filled up at the suggestion of Mr. Miller, the friend of Mr. Bothell, and who was always put in motion whenever it was necessary to extricate Mr. Bethell from his embarrassments. That very day the office was filled up by the appointment of Mr. Welch, who had lent £5OO to the Lord Chancellor's son. The committee thought that no imputation rested upon the Lord Chancel lor in this matter. But what, he asked, would the public think ? Mr. Welch having got the appointment, Mr. Bethell's credit at once rose, and he returned to this coun try, where he became as importunate as ever. On Sept. 10, 1864, he obtained £2OO, in addition to the £3OO already obtained from Mr. Welch, without any security, although he had become hopelessly insolvent. On Feb. 7, 1865, he obtained £5O more, and on the 20th of the same mouth a further sum of £5OO. With reference to these money transactions the committee stated that the evidence of Mr. Harding was irreconcilable with that of Mr. Welch and Mr. Bothell, but it was unfortunately too reconcilable with the facts. They had before them evidence of the motives for the loan, of the promise of the loan, and of the agreement for the loan ; and it was too much to say that because the evidence of the parties implicated was at variance, there fore they were to ignore the existence of the facts, and not pass judgment on them. The committee stated " that they consider it their duty to observe that the indisputable facts are such as to render it essential to the public interest that the case should as soon as possible be made the subject of legal investigation." In that remark he quite con curred. First, they had the Lord Chancellor inculpated for haste and oversight, and for having permitted a gross tran saction to be glossed over; next for granting a pension to an officer who, if the circumstances stated were true, was wholly undeserving of it, and who could not have obtained it but for the connivance of the Lord Chancellor. They had next Harding, Welch, and Bothell implicated in what ap peared to be a corrupt bargain for the sale of offices. But what took place afterwards? Immediately after the loan of £5OO this year, only two days after the committee reported that the Lord Chancellor, at the instigation of Mr. Bethell, Mrs. Bethell, and Mr. Skirrow, promised that in the event of a vacancy in the country occurring, it should be bestowed on Mr. Bethell. Mr. Bethell knew where to look. He fled to Leeds, and saw Mr. Welch in his office on the 24th, and though it was explicitly denied in that house that he had gone to Leeds, it was generally understood in the Bank ruptcy Court of Leeds that Mr. Bethell was to succeed Mr. Welch, and that the latter was to be transferred to a more lucrative position in London. Mr. Miller, the intimate friend of all parties, prepared the two appointments for carrying out the corrupt agreement, which the Chancellor wilfully abstained from knowing, because he must have known that persons about him were trafficking in his name. The Chancellor wilfully ignored the fact. It was not con venient to ask questions; but he knew he was nominating a person at the instigation of a worthless son. In fact, it was a transaction discreditable to all parties connected with it. (Hear.) On the 24th February, 1865, the appointments were filled up; but on the 26th the Lord Chancellor stated that, in consequence of information he had received of the conduct of his son in Paris, he was determined not to ap point him to any office. He (Mr. Longfield) believed that the real motive for not completing the appointments was the Edmunds' job having been completed, and on the 27th having become the common topic in the clubs and newspapers, and three days later the subject of ques tions in that house. The information which the Lord Chancellor had received was simply the universal outcry at the job which had been perpetrated in another place similar to this, by which the keeper of the Queen's con science, first ignoring an offence, and then condoning and conniving at it, obtained a pension for a worthless person, which, to the eternal disgrace of the Lord Chancellor, had been granted, but which, to the honour of the House of Lords, had since been rescinded ; and which would have been dishonest to the country if it had been permitted to stand. (Hear, hear.) That was the true reason why the ap pointment was not carried out, and Mr. Miller's zeal on that occasion was not successful. Such were the transac tions in which this unfortunate family—(laughter)—were engaged—and engaged beyond all hope of wiping away the stain which was thus cast upon the administration of jus tice. The highest officer of the Crown had been twice con victed, and up to this time twice pardoned, for having sanctioned and connived at a crime for his own family pur poses in order that things might bo done pleasantly and secretly. He might say—and the whole country would echo the sentiment—that it was a wonderful thing that a person filling the high office of Lord Chancellor—the highest office under the Crown—should under these cir cumstances be still Lord Chancellor—(hear, hear)—when, at the indignant call of the country, the pension granted by reason of his misconducthad been rescinded. Was there no pride among men ? was there no attempt to make his conduct pure 'n the eyes of the country ? Was he insen sible to shame ? was he really destitute of the glimmerings of those principles which actuated other men ? If he had not a virtue, might he not affect one ? (A laugh.) Might he not tender his resignation, and thus offer some repara tion to the country for the outrage which his neglect had allowed to be committed upon the administration of jus tice ? The questions he was about to ask were connected with the concluding observations of the report. The com mittee stated, "The general impression created by the re tirement of Mr. Wilde, and the pecuniary transactions which took place between Mr. Bethell and Mr. Welch, coupled with the representations made by Mr. Bethell on his visit to Leeds, were calculated to excite the gravest suspicions ; and your committee are of opinion that the inquiry which they have conducted was, for this reason, highly desirable for the public interest." In that obser vation he quite concurred, and he wished to ask the fol lowing questions :—" Had the pension bestowed on Mr. Wilde been recalled ?" " Had Mr. Welch been dismissed from his office ?" "Had Mr. Miller been dismissed from his office ?" (Hear, hear.) "Had the Lord Chancellor been kindly asked to retire upon a pension—(laughter)—in jus tice to those officers who were guilty of no greater miscon duct, but who were not equally protected by the arm of the law ?" In conclusion he begged to move the adjournment of the house. (Opposition cheers.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said—The hon. and learned gentleman has imposed upon me a task of no ordi nary difficulty. (Ironical cheers.) But the difficulty which I feel is much more owing to my own determination not to permit the feelings which I entertain to get the mastery over me than to any embarrassment in dealing with the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman, or with the ques tions which he has put. I thought that in this assembly —perhaps of all others in the world—even the meanest man may expect justice. (Cheers.) I should have thought that the same measure of justice would not have been consi dered unfit to be extended to one filling the highest and most dignified position in the service of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) But it seems that there are gentlemen sitting oppo site whose ideas of justice are far different to mine. (Op position cheers.) I thought that, in order to judge and condemn, we should be in possession of the evidence on which our judgment is to be founded. The report of the committee on this question was presented to the house on Saturday last, and no time has been lost in preparing to print and distribute the evidence on which it was founded. On Thursday next, or, at latest, on Friday, that evidence would be printed and in the hands of hon. members, and then they will able to form their own opinions upon this subject. Then those who are disposed to attack will have the legitimate materials for doing so ; and then those who have to meet that attack will also be in possession of the materials by which that is to be done. But I never before heard that, whether a man was great or small, in high degree or low degree, it was &course worthy of this house, or of any member having the honour of a seat in it, that a deliberate arraignment and attack should be made upon a report, itself based upon evidence, without waiting until that evidence was in the hands of members. (Hear, hear.) But if anything could aggravate the wrong that was done in so dealing with the question, it was to find that the hon member who so brings it forward does not adopt the decision of the report to which he refers. (Hear, hear.) Whereas I find in that report it is the deliberate judgment of the committee, upon the evidence before them, that the facts they believe to be established by the evidence acquitted the Lord Chan cellor of everything except haste and want of caution. (Ironical cheers.) That may or may not be the conclusion which the house will adopt whore it has the evidence before it. But to ask the house not only not to wait for the evidence, but to reverse the decision of the committee before the evidence is printed, is a course which 1 believe has been hitherto unprecedented, and which, I hope, will never be sanctioned. But, to a certain extent, I am able to say—and for which we need not wait for the evidence —I am able to point out the wrong which has been done by the remarks of the hon. and learned gentleman. The hon. and learned gentleman has spoken as if the house had grounds for believing that there was not any abuses in the Court of Bankruptcy to be inquired into. Mr. LONGFIELD—I did not say so. I said that there were so many of them, on account of the Lord Chancellor's supineness. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Then all I can say is, that it would have been—l think it would, at least—candid to believe that the head of that court, bound to discharge the great function of superintending the administration of that court might at least have instituted the inquiries which he did institute into tho manner in which the sub ordinate officers of that court discharged their duties, from some other motive than that of obtaining an appointment for his own advantage. Unless the house departed from the judgment of the committee so much as to presume and believe that the Lord Chancellor had cognisance of the corrupt means which are said to have been used by individual after individual, with the Lord Chancellor's sanction, to procure an appointment under the Court of Bankruptcy, then I venture to say, upon the facts known to all, that it appears that in these matters the Lord Chancellor could not possibly have been actuated by any improper motives. (Hear.) What are the facts of the case ? They are these. He instituted the inqui ries which commenced on April 6, 1864, when the son of the Lord Chancellor who has been named was already in possession of an office more valuable than that at Leeds, and could have no possible reason for desiring to have anything to do with such an office. It was after these in quiries were instituted that the Lord Chancellor called on his son to resign his office, on account of finding that he was then in pecuniarfembarrassment. From that day to this the Lord Chancellor has never been reconciled to that son, and, so far from having since that time been accessible to the influence of that son, exercised in any matter of appointment, he has not even seen him or had any per sonal communication with him—(cheers)—not even by letter, except upon the occasion of a family event to which I need not refer, and when a letter was written upon the subject of these very inquiries. Whatever may be the culp ability of that person, it is the deep misfortune of the Lord Chancellor, and not his fault, that a member of his family should be so little worthy of him, and, I am pained to say it, who has cast dishonour on his name. We might have thought that a generous House of Commons would not have regarded that event as ground for surmising and be lieving all sorts of evil things against the highest officer of the realm. I shall be in a position when the evidence is before the house to challenge any one to show that when Mr. Bethell was by the Lord Chancellor himself compelled to give up a more lucrative appointment in London at the beginning of April there was the slightest possible ground for believing that he exercised any influence in obtaining any appointment whatever. Were these things done in a corner ? Far from it. In the month of June the com mittee on the subject of the law of bankruptcy appointed by this house was sitting, and the Lord Chancellor communicated to that committee the whole proceedings with respect to the investigations going on at Leeds in the matter of Mr. Wilde. The papers down to that' date were printed with the evidence taken before that commit tee, and laid upon the table before Mr. Wilde's resigna tion had taken place. Therefore it was totally impos sible to believe for one moment that in the conduct of these proceedings the Lord Chancellor had, or could have had, any motive or object whatever, except that of discharging his duty towards the public. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Welch, the Lord , Chancellor never saw Mr. Welch in his life. (Ironical cheers and laughter.) Does the hon. and learned gentle man mean to say that recommendations, coming from pro fessional and creditable sources, may not be such as to jus tify the appointment of an individual personally unknown to the man who gives the appointment ? Mr. Welch had been long before recommended to the Lord Chancellor for a similar appointment by the late Sir Wm. Atherton, by Mr. Edward James, the Attorney-General of the county palatine of Lancaster, and by Mr. Manisty, Q. 0., on that circuit, and other gentlemen of eminence. So he had good reason to believe that whatever had been said in his favour by Mr. Bethell had been—long before these disgraceful pecuniary transactions which we read of 'with so much sor row—had been said before by competent persons in the ordinary way. Unless the house is capable of believing, against the judgment of the committee, that the Lord Chancellor knew of this attempt to bribe, there was no pos sible motive of the Lord Chancellor of a corrupt character in appOinting Mr. Welch. But it does not end there, for there is another gentleman in the same situation as Mr. Wilde, viz., Mr. Payne. The same proceedings were taken against Mr. Payne, who resigned a little later, and the Lord Chancellor made the appointment in favour of a perfect stranger in the month of September. There never was a more gratuitous, unjust, or unworthy abuse of these mate rials—(oh, oh)—than the accusation that the Lord Chan cellor could have been actuated by anything corrupt or im proper in the steps which led to Wilde's resignation, or in the appointment of Welch in his stead. Really I heard with pain from the hon. and learned gentleman the language of the advocate at the bar—of the gentleman addressing the jury—of the counsel at the Old Bailey. (Oh, oh, and cheers.) Surely it would have been well for the hon. and learned gentleman to have limited himself to what the com mittee did say in the absence of the evidence. What the committee did say is now the candid statement of the Lord Chancellor. (Laughter.) I should think there are very few gentlemen here present who, if they suffered their feelings to guide them in such a matter, instead of party spirit or per sonal animosity—(oh, oh)—would severely condemn a father for this, and no more than this : that, intimate personal friends, near relatives, ladies, and others coming and repre senting prospects of improvements in a son—for whom, of course, after all, for a father may be permitted to have a father's feelings—he did not say that he would or could then accede to what at all former times he had refused to do, but simply said that he would take what they had repro sented to him into consideration—for it never went further than that, in the finding of the committee—and that after considering three or four days he finally decided that it should not be done. He candidly told the committee that he had come to that conclusion from information of his son's misconduct at Paris. What would have been more easy, if the Lord Chancellor had been what hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to think, than for him to say that he had reflected on what would be his public duty, and that he had crane to the conclusion that a person who had acted as his son had done before, was not a person on whom dependence could be placed, and therefore he had decided not to appoint him ? But ho informed the committee that he was influenced by circumstances which told to his own positive detriment against the application in favour of his son. What is the sum and substance of the charge against the Lord Chancel lor? It is that for a period of four days he suffered himself to consider whether he could possibly justify a more mer ciful and lenient course to his son than he had previously thought it his duty to take, and that he came to the con clusion that he could not, and at once peremptorily refused to appoint his son. The committee have given their verdict on these transactions, and find no grounds for imputing to the Lord Chancellor anything but want of caution with respect to the pension of Mr. Wilde. The hon. and learned gentleman, not waiting for that evidence, desires the house to infer in some way or other that the Lord Chancellor has been guilty of corruption in this matter. With regard to the pension to Mr. Wilde, the Lord Chancellor stated, as far as I can recollect, that Mr. Wilde's offences were quite serious enough to justify the notices which he did give ; but at the same time it would have been a harsh and severe course to dismiss him without allowing him to retire on a pension. Therefore, giving the pensions, though done in some haste, pro ceeded from no motives of an improper character. In the questions which the hon. and learned member has put to me there are other persons implicated in this matter, and I will state what her Majesty's Government thought it their report was last the resolution was in print they took idtuitnytotocodnos.idAersatsioon,onaansdthoi on Saturday s was arrived at by the noble lord at the head of the Govern ment to lay the evidence as soon as it was printed before the law officers of the Crown in order that they might, if they the criminal proceed ings foundag a i nst t sufficienthepersons implicates in the charge of corrup tion which the committee appear to think ought to be taken. I believe the house will be of opinion that that is the pro per resolution of the house to adopt. The house will also be of opinion that as such criminal proceedings are pend ing, it would not be desirable to go now into the grounds maybe liable to be brought other individuals Mr. u ag po ain n w at h t ic h h os t e ha p t e c ra rim on in a. al c A h m ar o g n e gat Welch is one of those who, if the committee have come to a right conclusion, may be subject to a criminal prosecu tion. Should that be so, it would be unjust to Mr. Welch to finally 'remove him from his office, and it has been thought proper to suspend him from the discharge of his office. With regard to Mr. Miller, Ido not understand the committee to have done more than express disapprobation of his mode of expressing himself, and of his officiousness on several occasions. Ido not understand him to be im plicated in any charge of corruption, although, if I rightly understand, the hon. and learned gentleman opposite seemed to be of a different opinion. But whether there were such grounds or not is another point which we shall be better able to understand from the evidence. In justice to him I think the evidence ought to be seen before we can deter mine wlit steps ought to be taken with regard to Mr. Mil len I have now, I believe, answered all that portion of the hon. gentleman's questions to which I can be expected to give an answer, and I think that the house will agree with me in regretting that he should not have thought it right to postpone discussion of this matter until a future day. kr. HARDY contended that, by allowing Mr. Wildo to retire upon a pension after very serious charges had been made against him, the Lord Chancellor had perverted the course of justice and disgraced the high office he held. Mr. E. EGERTON, asa member of the committee, urged that in fairness the house should withhold its judgment until the production of the evidence, which ought, how ever, to be circulated without a moment's unnecessary delay. The LORD ADVOCATE defended the conduct of the Lord Chancellor, who, he said, hadsufferedfrom unfounded imputations, and had acted throughout in an honourable and upright manner. Lord CRANBORNE said that the Government would not be doing their duty unless they instituted a close ex amination of the whole of the facts, and ascertained how far Mr. Millerhad been cognisant of all that Richard Bothell was doing, and also inflicted some punishment upon Miller for his rash misuse of his official trust. For there could be no doubt that thO' Chancellor's patronage had been set up for sale. Observations were also made by Mr. Denman, Mr. Hen nessy, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Scully, and Sir L. Palk Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I am sorry to prolong this discussion, even by a few words, but I cannot let it close without expressing tho pain—l may say indignation—with which I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Mallow in introducing this subject. This house is com posed of opposite parties, and it is perfectly fair for mem bers of one party to take advantage of any fair ground of conimenting upon the conduct of persons belonging to tho opposite party, and especially of persons who happen to hold office. But hitherto it has been the characteristic of this house that, however great have been our animosities, and however strongly party feeling may have divided one side from the other, at allevents the persons accused have had fair play. (Hear, hear.) Now the Lord Chancellor has not had fair play from the hon. and learned member for Mallow. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member for Mallow it appears was present during the whole of the in vestigation. (Hear, hear.) He knows, therefore, exactly what the evidence given was ; and yet it was stated by those who were also present that he has made assertion of matters which will not be found in evidence when it is produced. Well, it will be for the hon. and learned mem ber for Mallow to justify his conduct by making out the correctness of his assertions . Mr. LONGFIELD—I did not make a single assertion that is not in the evidence. Lord PALMERSTON—I was also, I must say, much grieved to hear the bitterness of invective which the hon. and learned member threw into his charges made against the Lord Chancellor. He was perfectly justified in stating that which was borne out by the evidence he heard, but he was not justified in that bitter personal invective which has not been inaptly stigmatised by the Attorney-General as being more characteristic of the Old Bailey than of the or dinary practice of the profession to which he belongs. But I complain of the manner in which the hon. and learned gentleman has brought the subject under discussion (Hear.) If he had intended to make an attack upon the Lord Chancellor, founded on evidence not in the hands of mem bers, but of which he had cognisance, at all events he should have given notice of his intention. (Hear.) But the notice he gave was of a question to be asked ; and so little did that notice indicate an intention of going into a personal and virulent attack on the Lord Chancellor that I myself was going to answer the question instead of the Attorney-General, believing that the real question he in tended to put was simply as to the course the Government intended to take upon the evidence when it was produced. I was going to tell him that it was the intention of the Government to remit the matter to the law officers of the Crown, in order that such legal steps might be taken as might be justified by the state of the case. (Hear, hear.) And so much did the question put upon the paper imply that it was directed against other persons, and not against the Lord Chancellor, that it asked whether steps were to be taken against the persona implicated. I can-only say that I regret, for the character of the House of Commons, that the hon. and learned member has taken a course so entirely opposite to that usually taken even by the most violent party members. I trust—l am convinced—that when this evidence is in the hands of members they will come to a very different conclusion to that which the honourable and learned member has drawn; and that they will see so far from that evidence being made the foundation of charges such as those which the hon. and learned member has made against the Lord Chancellor, that it bears out the report of the committee, and acquits the Lord Chancellor of being actuated by any incorrect motives throughout the course of these transac tions. (Hear, hear.) The motion for the adjournment was then negatived without a division, and the subject dropped. THE APPROACHING PRORO G ATION OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. C. FORSTER asked the noble lord at the head of the Government, with reference to the present state of public business, when it was probable the session might be brought to an end ? Lord PALMERSTON—In answer to the question of my hon. friend I may say that, as far as the public busi ness of the two houses is concerned, there is nothing to keep Parliament sitting longer than Thursday in next week, and that that event which we are all looking forward to may take place on that day, the 6th. I know there are opinions that the discussion on certain railway bills before the House of Lords would be concluded some few days later than the 6th, and a wish has been expressed that Par liament should be kept sitting for the purpose of settling the squabbles of these railway companies. But we all know the great public inconvenience which arises from unneces sary delay in a matter in which the whole United King dom is interested, and the great expense that is caused thereby. (Hear, hear.) And, therefore, I think the house will be of opinion that the Government is right in prefer- Hag the public advantage to the interests of those parti cular railway companies—(cheers)—the more especially as it is entirely in the power of those who are concerned in these disputes to meet the next Parliament under the same conditions in which - they are found by the dissolution, which will take place on Thursday. (Hear, hear.) PLACES OF DETENTION. Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, who had a notice on the paper for a select committee to inquire into the mode in which persons, unconvicted of any crime or offence, are treated in places of detention, withdrew it for this session, and expressed a hope that the subject would receive attention in the next P artiament. The house then adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock. The Cotton Supply Association. .1^ - The eighth annual meeting of this association took place yesterday afternoon at the Town-hall, Man chester ; Mr. John Cheetham, M.P., the president, took the chair. Mr. Isaac Watts, the secretary, read the report of the executive committee, which said that ample proofs of the usefulness of the association continued to be received from the various countries to which its efforts continued to be directed. One of these was in the report of the vice-president of the Imperial Cotton Commission of Anatolia,which said that this rssociation had been the means of re storing Turkey as a cotton-growing country, and that its labours would be a permanent benefit to the empire. The special aim of the committee during the past year had been to promote everywhere the._ growth of an improved quality of cotton, in antici pation of the period when competition with America would again have to be encountered. Withthisview they had urged:the:extensive use of New Orleans seed wherever soil and climate were suitable, and, as the result, had received from all quarters earnest applications for American seed. Turkey alone would gladly have taken 300 tons, and having bought all they could the committee had endeavoured to appor tion so as to secure it the widest possible distribution. They rejoiced at having established a general con viction that the interests of cultivator and manufac turer imperatively required that inferior indigeno us cotton should be superseded by the produce of New Orleans seed. The exceptionally dimstrous storms and inundations of last year demonstrated that this description suffered less from such causes, and was consequently more profitable to the grower than any other. They were glad to find that along the shores of the Mediterranean, in Syria, Asia Minor, Turkey, Greece, Italy, &c., the determination existed to use American seed more than ever. Disappointed that so little had been done to render India a satisfactory and permanent source of supply, the committee had made another appeal to the Indian Council, urging them by encouraging improvement to preserve the magnificent cotton trade of that country. A consignment of Indian cotton from Dr. Shortt, of Madras, recently sold at 14d. per lb., the value of middling Orleans at the time being 160., proving that India was capable of producing aquantity which would bear comparison with American. The com mittee congratulated their constituents upon the ter mination of the American war, drawing from it an argument in favour of the continued exertions of the association if they were to be secured from dependence upon any one source of supply liable to be cut off by intestine or foreign wars, blight, or other causes. Their correspondence during the last year had com prised 1,700 letters, and they had received about 200 samples of cotton, showing the progress that hadbeen made, most of them having been grown from seed snppliedby the association. They came from thethree Presidencies of India, from Java, Rangoon, Bokhara, Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales, West Indies, Cape Verd Islands, Porto Rico, Costa Rica, Grenada, Venezuela, Peru, the Argentine Re public, Bahia, Honduras,Brazil, Mexico, Carthagena, Cape Coast, Natal, Madagascar, Turkey, Asia Minor, Smyrna, Syria, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Algeria, Malta, the Caucasus, and the United States. From the latter they had received four bales, being the first cotton grown by free labour ever received from that country. The distribution of seed last year had been in excess of the previous one, being 1,998 cwt. sent from Manchester and 300 cwt. from Alexandria. The /greater portion was American seed obtained in the United States. The committee believe the association was never more needed than now to sustain and guide the exertions of countries it had encouraged to enter upon the cultivation of cotton. A statement of accounts shows receiptslast year to the amount of £6,121, of which £2,393 were derived from subscriptions and £3,302 in payment for seed, gins, and machinery (described as grants in previous years), and £669 balance from last year. The expenditure had been £2,142 in seed (for wiaich some remittances may be expected), £862 for gins, £864 for shipping charges, leaving in stock cotton seed, gins, agricultural implements, and office fur niture, valued at £784 ; total, £5,337 15s. Bd., leaving a balance in cash or in the bank of £783 4s. 6d. The Chairman moved the adoption of the re port and accounts, and the meeting then proceeded to re-elect the officers of the association for the en suing year. Mr. Bazley, M.P., Mr. J. B. Smith, M.P., Mr. Hugh Mason, and the Mayor of Man chester were present at the meeting. SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. TIMES.—Lord Derby laboured on Monday under the great disadvantage of having his majority in his pocket. It led him to trifle with his subject, and to • entertain sympathetic listeners with historical re miniscences instead of practical reasons. His for tune was made for him, and he had only to amuse himself. He had little to say to existing difficulties, to the living generation, with its conscience still quick and still perplexed, but a great deal to say to prelates and politicians, and associations and decla rations, and controversies and debates from the reign of James I. to the year 1829. It was all very interesting, but not much to the purpose. The real questions now are the fair interpretation of the Roman Catholic Oath and its actual operation in the present day. There might have been very good reasons five hundred years ago why every Irishman should be compelled to cut his hair short, why Jews should be obliged to wear yellow gabar dines and confine themselves to one small quarter, why a tradesman's wife should be forbidden the dress of a lady, and why a Roman Catholic gentle man should not be permitted to keep a horse ; but .if these rules were still statutory, the question we should have to ask and to meet would be their present justice and usefulness. Lord Derby, indeed, was not wholly silent upon the interpretation and the operation of the Oath. In the first place, he is ready to admit that in these days a Roman Catholic gentleman may reasonably ask to be excused a declaration that he is not an equivi cator, a rebel, or a murderer. But for a point of etiquette and respect to the Lower House he would have proposed himself to strike these things out of the oath. What he and four-score peers will not give up is the repudiation of designs upon the Established Church and thegeneral settlement of property. They think it desirable that a Roman Catholic gentleman, upon taking his seat in the Legislature, should solemnly swear that he will defend the existing settlement of property, that he does not intend to subvert the Church Establishment, and that he will not use any privilege he may possess against the Protestant religion or Protestant Government. What we miss in Lord Derby's speech is some account of the probable operation of this part of the oath and the positive reasons for retaining it. To indicate what we want we will suppose that an ancient but greatly improved mansion was injured, as some thought, by the immediate vicinity of a pond, or a moat, or a dozen pollard oaks, relics of the mighty past. They might have been very use ful, very necessary indeed, and very ornamental in their day, before the pond had been superseded by a deep well, the moat and drawbridge by the rural police, and the pollards by a beautiful shubbery ; but the present question is what good they do now, and how they look now. If they are not only superfluous, but nuisances also, a sensible man will not retain them from purely ancestral conside rations, most probably not of a cheerful character. As to the settlement of property, Lord Derby does not pretend that a single Roman Catholic member, not the most lackland young Irishman, is more ready for a destruction of new tide-deeds and a hunt for old parchments and endless genealogies than any other member. We cannot remember to have heard from the mouth of any Irishman one single lax expression as to the right of the existing settlement. The declaration, in its actual and posi tive import, is so much surplusage. But Lord Derby says that, if we ceased to require it, the Irish pea santry would hear of it, and would immediately con clude it to be no longer unlawful to seek to wrest estates from their present owners in favour of men supposed to represent the dispossessed owners, and generally not to recognise the rights of the existing owners. But it certainly is hard that a gentleman should be compelled to repudiate an error because a peasant may possibly entertain it. The encourage ment to these foolish traditions, if any, would only be momentary, for in a few years it would be for gotten that members had ever had to make the re pudiation. As to the other point which Lord Derby wishes to retain, the repudiation of designs upon the establishment and the promise dc, no harm to the Protestant religion and the Government, his own interpretation, indeed his own life, rises in judg ment against him. He does not think that the oath should prevent Roman Catholic members from voting upon questions affecting the Church esta blishment and the Protestant religion and Govern ment. But, if there be no hindrance, it becomes a duty, and a duty which a man must discharge upon his own responsibility, not as we may choose to pre scribe for him. Lord Derby has himself invited the assistance of Roman Catholic members to aid him in reducing the number of Irish bishoprics, and 113 ac cepts with thanks their assistance in measures re ducing the nominal property of the Irish Church, and reducing its apparent status, though increasing its security and usefulness. But, after all, the gene ral good must be the only rule of legislation, for no partial good can be real and permanent. This is a calculation which each man must make for himself. Then, as to the actual effect of this part of the oath, Lord Derby does not say that it does the Church or Protestantism any good. It may have vexed a few scrupulous men, but it has certainly not affected one vote, one speech, one division, or the fate of a single measure. Of course, its spares Dissenters, who on principle object to an Establishment, which Roman Catholics do not, and has even tended to an alliance between Roman Catholics and Dissenters. The only real operation of the oath is its insulting, irritating, perplexing effect on the mind of the Roman Catholic member. It represents the policy which taught, us, to ask the public registration of the monastic orders under the idea that every priest was a Jesuit in dis guise. Professing to be armed against treason and conspiracy, it suggested crimes. Such a debate, such a line of opposition, and such a result belong to the bygone days, when Parliament met not as a deliberate body and the general Council of the 'whole nation, but as a Council of War against an open enemy. The tone of Lord Derby's, speech would have been admirable if Ireland had seceded from the Union, and we were con sidering what terms we could offer it with safety and consistently with historical precedent. But instead of an armed secession, we have the fact of some six or seven millions living among us in the interchange of good services. In fact, they are of us, and only happen to be not quite so many, or so rich, or perhaps so prudent, as the rest of us. All our deliberations are as much in their interest as in our own, and, if it is not necessary to our own safety to lay them or their representatives under offensive oaths, it becomes our plain duty to relieve them of the infliction. But, says Lord Derby, the bill before the house would have gone too far. While professing only to relieve Roman Catholics, it would have given them an advantage as compared with members of the Church of England by sparing the recognition of Royal supremacy in spiritual causes. What does his lordship expect of Govern ment or the Legislature ? Was the bill to be a serious affair or a very bad joke ? It would have been a very bad joke indeed to propose to relieve Roman Catholics by requiring them to recognise the Sovereign as Head of the Church. Grant that the terms and the jurisdiction implied are older than the Reformation, and that there was a time when English Roman Catholics admitted the Royal supre macy. This was, however, when the King himself was Roman Catholic, and when matters were on that footing between the King and the Pope that the subjects of the former could suppose that they had the consent of the latter for what they did. As things now are in this country, the Royal and Papal supremacies are irreconcilable, and Lord Derby was only proposing to clog the gift with an impossible condition. But we appeal from a state of war to a state of peace and union. The Roman Catholics are our fellow-subjects, and really as good subjects as the Dissenters and ourselves. We have no right to place them under our axes and harrows except for self-preservation. But there is no such danger. The danger is in jealousy and suspicion, for they irritate, estrange, and prevent cordial co operation. It is a law of nature that we make people what we choose to think them and as we choose to trust them. It is thus that we can drive the quietest and most loyal into faction and rebel lion. By a contrary course—that is, by smoothing away old differences and effacing the landmarks of faction—we can make them one with us. Lord Derby was once forward to lead in this good work. Why not end as he began ? POST. —ln calling the attention of the House of Commons to the report published on Saturday last by the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances of Mr. Wilde's resignation of the Registrarship of Bankruptcy at Leeds, and the sub sequent appointment of Mr. Welch, Mr. Longfield justly laid himself open to the charge of being too hasty. That report is in the hands of the public, but the evidence on which it is founded will not be in their hands before Thursday or Friday next. Whe ther the Lord Chancellor has laid himself open to those charges of corruption brought against him by Mr. Longfield is no doubt a legitimate matter for discussion in the House of Commons, but the Attor ney-General had certainly common sense and common justice on his side when he protested against any decision being pronounced before the complete evidence on which the committee based their report is in the hands of those who act as the Lord Chan cellor's judges. Adopting this view, we will for the present postpone any analysis of the scanty evidence set forth in the report, evidence which the Attorney-General states furnishes a faint, and pos sibly erroneous, idea of the testimony on which the committee acted. If the report, with such facts as it sets forth, be accepted as the basis for arriving at a conclusion, it is apparent that no choice is left but to accept the decision of the committee. To act otherwise, as Mr. Longfield did last night, is to adapt the premises according to our own bias and to ignore the conclusion at which the committee arrived. The guilt or innocence of the highest per sonage in the land, as of the lowest, ought to be determined on the most ample evidence which can possibly be obtained. There are two different modes in which the report of the Select Committee may be treated, namely, the verdict pronounced may be ac cepted as final, irrespective of the evidence on which it is based, or it may be discarded, and the evidence alone employed as furnishing the meant' to each individual of arriving at his own con clusion. Now, although it is open to the Houle of Commons to accept or to reject the report as it may think proper, still it must be ap parent that those who had the opportunity of examining the witnesses, judging of their de meanour, and estimating at its proper value the evidence which they gave, are the best qualfied to arrive at an accurate decision. The select committee have exonerated the Lord Chancellor, but on the evidence before them it is suggested that they should have passed on him somewhat more than that m. l▪ 1d censure with which they have thought proper to viillu, him ; or, in other words, the Chancellor having been acquitted by the tribunal before which he was cited, the public would be justified in reversing the verdict, and declaring him to be guilty. Now, such a cours . c of proceeding would appear to be as unfair as it would be unsatisfactory. Both in connection with the appointment of Mr. Welch to the Registrarship of Bankruptcy at Leeds, and the supposed arrange ment by which Mr. Welch was to have made room for Mr. R. Bethel, by being transferred to London, the committee declared that the Lord Chancellor was absolutely guiltless. There may have been a corrupt agreement between Mr. Welch, Mr. Bethel!, and Mr. Harding, but there was certainly no evi dence to fix the Lord Chancellor with a knowledge of it, and if if one were to judge of the case by its pr e " babilities, we should say that nothing was more un likely than that the patron should have known of tho terms on which his patronage was purchased. r• Welch had, long previous to his appointment, ap plied to the Lord Chancellor for office, and had ac companied his application with testimonials the cor rectness and value of which have not been questioned. It would therefore have been impossible for the committee, without obvious injustice, to have cen sured Lord Westbury for the appointment of Mr. Welch, simply because the latter purchased the influ ence of the Chancellor's son. As regarded the sug gested replacement of Mr. Welch by Mr. Bethell, the evidence showed conclusive that within two days after Lord Westbury, yielding to repeated solicita tions, had thrown out a hint that in the event of hu▪ t son's obtaining a release from his creditors he would obtain a country appointment, he altered his inten tion, and declared positively that he would give hum no office. The evidence of Mr. Skirrow is clear on this point, and Mr. Miller, the chief registrar, him self admitted that the orders of appointment whi ▪ ch were made out by him were never shown to Lord Westbury, nor did their existence come to his know ledge until the recent inquiry before the select com mittee had been ordered by the House of Common 0- On this issue also the committee had no alternative but to declare the Chancellor blameless. The cir cumstances attendant on the resignation of 31r- Wilde, and the grant to that gentleman of a retir ing pension, are those which undoubtedly press heaviest against the Lord Chancellor. The com mittee have acquitted hina of improper motives, but on his own admission it is impossible to say that he was not guilty of an amount of negligence whic h may well seem inconsistant with that good faith towards the public for which the select committee have given him credit in their report. M r . Wilde had committed indiscretions so serious as to justify the Lord Chancellor in calling on him to show cause in open court why he should not be dismissed, and yet within the very same week he was per mitted to retire on a pension of £666 a year, or only one-third less than his working salary. Lora Westbury, one might have imagined, would have been somewhat surprised that a gentleman who; he threatened with dismissal for misconduct should by return of post petition to be allowed to retire as an invalid, and curiosity to discover the ailment which had so opportunely incapacitated Mr. Wild a from discharging his functions as a public officer one would have supposed might have prompted 11 ' 11• 1 to examine the medical certificate on which th e petition for a retiring pension was based. But Lon: Westbury told the committee that he never looked at the certificate, and, further, that if he had done so he would not have acceded to Mr. Wilde s ap plication. Of this point the Lord Chancellor IS contradicted by Mr. Miller, who states that he called the attention of his lordship to the unsatisfactory nature of the certificate, but Mr. Miller's evidence is so replete with contradictions that it cannot wit▪ h safety be relied upon. Admitting, however, the eihancellor's version to be accurate, it must be con ceded that he discharged a trust confided to him by the public with a carelessness which justly exposes him to severe censure. The committee express the opinion that the chief object of all the parties con cerned appeared to be rather to procure a vacancy than to advance the public interests, and the ap pointment of Mr. Welch to the vacant post does certainly not tend to negative this presumption- When, however, the entire evidence adduced before the committee is published, a better opportunity will be offered to all parties of deciding on the justice of the general verdict pronounced by th e select committee. COUNTRY MARKETS LIVERPOOL—T UESDAY. With a fair attendance of buyers at this day's market wheat has met a good consumptive inquiry, and the best qualities may be quoted id to 2d dearer than on Tuesdai last. French flour attracted more attention, but the ad" vance of is per sack asked by sellers checks business. 111- dian corn maintained its prices. Beans, peas, and barley are rather more plentiful, and somewhat irregular in value Oats rather higher, but oatmeal is not quotably O. O le market closes very steady. SHEFFIELD—TUESDAY. Red wheat, per load of 3 imp. bushels. lss Od to '6s Od White do do l6B Od 38s Oct New red do do l6s 6d 37s 61 New white do do 37s Od 18s 0 1 Beans do do l5B 6d I's 6 d Peas, per qr 40s Od 42 8 O A . Grinding barley, per qr 30s Od 32s Od Malting barley, co 32s Od 350 Od Oats, .• do 23s Od 27$ O d F10ur....1s 6d to is id per 141 b. LEEDS—TUESDAY. We have again a good demand for wheat to-day, and the extreme improvement noted on Friday is fully maintained. Barley nominal. Beans and oats inquired for at r ather better prices. Other articles fully as dear. The average prices for the vteek ending June 26 were :--- Wheat, 42s 9id per qr. ; barley, —s Od ; and oat-, 23s nd. MELTON MOWBRAY.—TemsDAY. - White wheat, 41s to 46s ; red, 38s to 43s per 86 stone• Barley for malting, 32s to —s per qr; feed, 25s to 30s Pe r 30 stone. Oats, 18s to 255. - Beans, old, 41s to 445; 36s to 43s per qr. MONMOUTHSHIRE—MONDAY. The following are the average quotations :—Wheat, 40 9d to 5s 4d per bushel ; barley, 2s lld to 3s Gd ; oats, lg i 10d to 2s sd. A child two and a half years old was decapitated by a train near the Wiley station on the Salisbury and Bristol line a few days since. The poor little thing ha d strayed with another child from some adjoining fields O the railway line. LADVERTISEMENT.I—HoIIoway's het weather in the summer months is often productive of Wl ' pleasant consequences to many. The liver, the stonef il i and bowels, in such cases, are more or less affected, so W I , natives of England are at certain seasons liable to some °' the disorders which range in warm climates. People ow' not have a more powerful curative than Holloway's j celebrated pills. They cool and purify the blood, and roll' der the system less liable to any sort of irregularity ; °ft when disease is present, they abate its force, and at Ja4 '; ustl9 totally destroy it. Dysentry, biliousness, ac idity of stomach, sick headache, and debility soon disappear hef°r a course of these admirable pills. Births. CORICES.—On the 25th inst., at Woolwich-common, t he wife of Captain J. E. Comes, Royal Engineers, of daughter. Hood.—On the 25th inst., at 1, Bedford-square, Mrs. Jebes Hogg, of a daughter. NAIRN.—On the 24th inst., at Thorn Leo, East Mat 1 .10 0" Surrey, the wife of H. P. Nairn, Esq., of a son. Marriages BUDD—GORE, -On the 26th inst., at St. Margaret's Chnr cii ; Plumstead, George Budd, Esq., Royal Artillery, to qt-r gina, youngest daughter of Major Gore, Royal lery. SAUNDERSON—DE MOLEYNS.—On the 22d inst., at Dalk e i Church, co. Dublin, Edward James Saunderson Bs1; of Castle Saunderson, to the Hon. Helena EmilY ' Moleyns, youngest daughter of L or d an d Lady Ven tll of Burnham House, co. Kerry. Deaths. _ ARNOLD.—On the 25th inst., at Leamington, the no' 144. W. Arnold, D.D., third and last surviving' so n of Ge org e Arnold, Esq., of Ashby St. Leger, Northamptonshire' F.A.S., aged 69. - +ho DAvis.--On the 21st inst. at Cannington Vicarag e, Rev. Robert Davis, 31. A., vicar of Cannington, Somers ° shire, aged 71. ERSKINE.—On the 24th inst., at 8, Rutland-street, Beci. burgh, Lieut.-Col. G. P. Erskine, late Paymaster, 1A" • Hussars. GUDE.—On the 26th inst., Mrs. Gude, of Chobham-oorato°l3l aged 89. 3loNsoN.—On the 25th inst., at The Grange, Bedale, Ycl; shire, Sarah, the relict of the late Hon. and Rev. Thom Monson, aged 78. TYRWHITT.—On the 24th inst., at 7, Chesham-street, the - Dowager Lady Tyrwhitt. London : Printed and Published by WI L LIAM A NPR of No. 112, Strand, Pt inter, at Tun Sun Office, N O 1 Strand, In the Precinct of the Savoy, in the COMO' " Middlesex. --Wednesday, June 28, 1865. QA Vi KJ you CIGAR nur. LEND of 420 tc one, two Von ena No inqu. Discoun directed The A house b 3 terms m T HE The Rig JAMES Arms• JAMES James C Alexani Charles Adolphe Co.). ] The II( Agenc Bevau Comp Richard Lond4 Charles henry 1 Joseph, Co), ( Edward John V Comp Albert , The Messi The Ire] The the This Govern Co-ol other El Make Public .&ego Ae;fi tinderti Make ito.; Make hold S Lone ....__. TH ISSUI The the Co viz. : In ei Covet Forl Whom T' II 1 Lon Thil of xii day U At' FOR` Not 1( Iteyot teyor ttoyor For Whom Capii mo Depo me CAA J. A. Po Geor $. r N( Join Li Prat • an FreC Low Jose Nies Mes 11l Mos the . Bat lain the La bal the