The Sun. — London, England, 1865-07-04 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAJvrTINT HOUSE OF LORDS.-LAST EVENING. The Lo CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. POOR LAW CONTINUANCE BILL. Lord RAVENSWORTH presented a petition against this bill, which stands on the paper for third reading this evening. ROMAN CATHOLIC' OATHS. Lord RAVENSWORTH gave notice of his intention early next session to introduce a bill to amend the act passed in the 10th George IV., to relieve her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in regard to oaths, by amending the existing form of oath imposed. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed —Girvan and Portpatrick Junction Railway, Northampton and Bambury Junction Railway (Deviation, &c.), North ampton and Barnhill . Junction Railway (Extensions), Bedford and Northampton Railway, Midland Railway (Mansfield, &c., Lines), South Wales and Great Western Direct Railway, and Pontypool, Cacrleon, and Newport Railway. LORD BROUGHAM AND SLAVERY IN SOUTH AMERICA. Lord BROUGHAM, in a speech of much energy, in which there were some flashes of his former oratorical powers, denied, in the most emphatic terms that he had ever sympathised with the slaveholders in South America. PROGRESS OF BUSINESS. Lord REDESDALE said that he was happy to inform the house that considerable progress had been made in rogard to the amount of private business before the house, and that there was a very small amount of business which was not disposed of. Earl GRANVILLE took that apportunity of bearing his personal testimony to the efforts of the noble lord (Redesdale) in effecting that result. (Hear, hear.) The Consolidated Fund Appropriation Bill went through committee. The Falmouth Borough Bill was read a third time and passed. The Harwich Harbour and the Colonial Governors Re tiring Pensions Bill passed through committee. Several other bills were disposed of. BURIAL SERVICE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH. Lord EBURY moved that in the opinion of this house the Burial Service of the Established Church stood in urgent need of revision. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY objected to the introduction of the motion at that late period of the ses sion, when the greater portion of the right rev. bench were absent. Earl GRANVILLE recommended the withdrawal of the motion. It had been proposed to issue a Royal commission to consider some of the rubrics, but the whole matter was surrounded with difficulty. The discussion was continued by the Bishop of London and Earl Grey; and Lord Ebury persisting with his mo tion, upon a division it was negatived by 43 t• 20. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE asked if the Governor General of India had taken steps to inquire into the titles to land in other parts of India similar to those which had been adopted in the province of Oude. Lord DUFFERIN said that Sir John Lawrence had ordered an inquiry into titles to land, but only for fiscal purposes. There had been no reversal of the policy of Lord Canning in this respect, and no steps had been taken similar to those which were adopted in Oudo. Their lordships adjourned at half-past 7 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The Srmeaczu took the chair at four o'clock. STANDING ORDERS. Col. W. PATTEN moved to rescind Standing Order 60, and to insert the following in lieu thereof :—ln the case of a railway bill authorising the construction of works by other than an existing railway company incorporated by Act of Parliament, and which has during the year last past paid dividends on its ordinary share capital a sum not less than 8 per cent. on the amount of the estimate of expense, and in the case of all bills other than railway bills a sum not less than 4 per cent. on the amount of such estimate, shall previously to the 15th January be deposited with the Court of Chancery in England, if the work is intended to be done in England, or with the Court of Chancery in Eng land, or. the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, if such work is intended to be done in Scotland, and with the Court of Chancery in Ireland, if such work is intended to be done in Ireland. The motion was agreed to. THE LEEDS BANKRUPTCY BILL. Mr. BOUVERIE gave notice that on the hon. gentleman opposite making his motion, of which he had given notice, with respect to the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in this matter, he should move an amendment to the effect that this house having read the evidence taken before the Leeds Bankruptcy Court is of opinion that no imputation rests against the Lord Chancellor. The remainder of the amendment was nearly in the same terms as the original motion. THE CASE OF MR. WINSLOW. Major S. KNOX asked the Attorney-General whether it was true that a pension had been granted by the Lord Chancellor to Mr. Winslow, late one of the Masters in Lunacy; and, if so, the amount of such pension, the grounds upon which it was granted, and whether it was refused by a formei Chancellor ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the Lord Chan cellor, it was quite true, had awarded a pension of £l,OOO per annum to Mr. Winslow, who had been for 30 years a public servant. In 1859 Mr. Winslow presented a petition to Lord Chancellor Chelmsford, praying that his case might be taken into consideration, he having been com pelled to resign his appointment through pecuniary pres sure. Before Lord Chancellor Chelmsford had time to de termine the matter, a change took place, and then a delay of two Years - occurred. A petition was, at the end of that time, presented to the present Lord Chancellor, and it was accompanied by letters of recommendation from Lord Lyndhurst, and a number of eminent legal gentlemen, and oven a letter from Lord Chelmsford, stating that it would give him great pleasure to hear that the prayer of Mr. Winslow's petition had been granted. The Lord Chan cellor having consulted tho law officers of the Crown and Mr. Bacon, he was assured he had the power to grant the pension, notwithstanding the lapse of time. The pension was then conferred, but its amount was not £1,200, but .£l,OOO THE DIINGARVAN ELECTION. Mr. HEYGATE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Mr. Barry who had mado use of certain very strong language at Dungarvan, and who appeared to hold ultra and very advanced Socialist doctrines, was the law adviser to the Castle at Dublin ? Sir R PEEL disclaimed that Mr. Barry was a Govern ment candidate. With respect to Mr. Barry, he had autho rity from him to deny most positively the words attributed to him. Mr. VERNER asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention had been given to the proceedings which are stated to have taken place at a public dinner in Dublin in honour of Mr. Gavan Duffy, at which the health of her Majesty was reluctantly and not very respectfully proposed, and received with general hissing and disapprobation, and likewise to the presence there of two members of this house, the members for Youghal and Dungarvan, the for mer one of her Majesty's counsel and the latter holding the commission of the peace, neither of whom was represented to have expressed disapproval of the disloyal conduct of the assembly. He should like to know what steps the Irish Government intended to take in the matter. Sir R. PEEL said he believed the dinner referred to was a private one, reporters, however, being present, given to a gentleman who had been absent from Ireland many years. (Laughter.) He (Sir R. Peel) was not responsible for the opinions of the gentlemen who spoke at that dinner. With respect to the toast, " The Health of her Majesty," he be lieved it was given and responded to in the usual loyal manner. He thought the proper course for the hon. gen tleman opposite was to put his questions to the two hon. members referred to. (Hear, hear.) The Lords' amendments to the Local Government Supplemental Bill were considered and agreed to. The Lords' amendments to the Navy and Marines (Pro perty) Bill were also considered and agreed to. The Naval Discipline Act Amendment Bill was read a second time. The Foreign jurisdiction Act Amendment Bill passed through committee. The Rochdale Vicarage Bill passed through committee, and was reported without amendment. VOTE OF CENSURE ON THE LORD CHANCELLOR. Mr. HUNT then rose to make the following motion : " That the evidence taken before the committee of this house, on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, discloses that a great facility exists for obtaining public appointments by corrupt means; that such evidence, and also thattaken be fore a committee of the House of Lords in the case of Leonard Edmunds, and laid before the house, shows a laxity of practice and want of caution on the part of the Lord Chancellor, in sanctioning the grant of retiring pen sions to public officers over whose heads grave charges are impending, and in filling up the vacancies made by the re tiremettt of such officers, whereby great encouragement has been given to corrupt practices ; that such laxity and want of caution, even in the absence of any im proper motive, are, in the opinion of this house, highly reprehensible, and calculated to throw discredit on the administration of the high offices of State." The hon, gentleman said he was fully impressed with the importance of the step he was taking, because it was, in fact, a vote of censure upon the Lord Chancellor, who was at onco the keeper of the Queen's conscience, the judge of the High Court of Chancery and the Speaker of the House of Peers. Ho had felt it to be his public duty to bring the matter under the consideration of the house, because it was of the highest importance that the holder of an office involving such an enormous amount of patronage—one who had the appointment of all the judges in the land, from the highest to the lowest, should be above suspicion The hon. gentleman then proceeded to read copious ex tracts from the voluminous report of the committee, and also to compare the evidence of the different witnesses, in order to justify the house agreeing to his motion. The ing that one of the Bankruptcy Commissioners had certified certain accounts which he had never seen. Well, what did the Lord Chancellor do ? Why, he signed t order for Mr. Wilde's retiring pension, after having, tated by him, read Mr. Wilde's petition and his med.. 1 certificate. Then was Mr. Wilde to be dismissed from subordinate office while the Lord Chancellor of Englvel was to go free? Was a different justice to be meted out in the two cases? (Hear, hear.) He had already adverted to the determination on the part of Miller to get Wilde out of office. Well, in proof of that, he might point to the fact that on the very day Wilde walked out of the door one way Welch walked in the other. The Lord Chancellor's explanation was that Miller told him it was very important that the appointment should be filled up immediately. But that defence might have availed if there was not such abundant evidence that Miller was throughout acting in the interests of Sir Richard Bethel!. According to Mr. Miller, in July, 1863, the Lord Chan cellor told him to tell Richard Bethell that there were so many candidates on his list for appointments that there was very little chance of his being able to do anything for Mr. Welch during his tenure of office. Nevertheless, the moment Wilde's office was vacated Welch got the appoint ment. (Hear.) Why was Welch selected out of that long list of candidates ? The Chancellor says ho was influenced by the high testimonial presented by Mr. Welch. Well, he (Mr. Hunt) was bound to say that, upon the whole, those testimonials were satisfactory, although he did not think the testimonial of Sir W. Atherton, about which so much had been said, was worth the paper upon which it was written. However, at the same time, there was no thing special in the testimonials ; they were no more than might have been obtained by 50 out of every 60 members on the circuit. But be that as it may, was it possible that the Lord Chancellor could have forgotten that the name of Mr. Welch had been brought before him by Richard Bethell as being the owner of a manor in Suffolk, which it was de sirable the Lord Chancellor should purchase, and as also a candidate for the office of registrarship in bankruptcy ? Now, what he (Mr. Hunt) desired to assert was that the moment it occurred to the Lord Chancellor that Welch's appointment was recommended by Richard Bethel! he ought to have hesitated. And was there no reason for say ing that the recommendation of Richard Bethell tainted the respectable testimonials obtained from members of the Northern Circuit ? The hon. member then cited the letter of the Lord Chancellor, dated May, 1864, ordering the re moval of his son from office, and setting out his knowledge of his son's indebtedness and also of his inattention to his official duties. 'Evidently there was something present to the mind of the Lord Chancellor relative to his son raising loans in every quarter which led him to think it was due to the public that his son should resign office. Supposing that to be the case, when the name of Mr. Welch occurred to him, he ought to have paused and inquired most vigilantly with a view to the public interest. The circumstances were so suspicious that it was his bounden duty, before he put that man's name into the blank in the order, to have seen that a searching inquiry had taken place. (Hear, hear.) Now, what version did Mr. Richard Bethel! himself give of the reasons which induced him to resign ? He said, " The main reason for my tendering my resigna tion was because I felt I was in too embairassed a position to remain in this country unless some arrangement could be made to relieve me from my liabilities. There was another reason which I may state to you. My own private reason for tendering my resignation was that the Lord Chancellor had made me acquainted with the proceedings that were pending against Mr. Wilde, and I felt in my own mind that I could not with any justice ask him to extend any favour to me or treat me in any manner different from that in which I knew he was going to treat Mr. Wilde." That certainly seemed a romantic sentiment to proceed from a man so in volved that on leaving his office he had to go abroad in order to avoid creditors. In his (Mr. Hunt's) opinion there was falsehood upon the fees of the statement. (Hear.) He had now nearly done with the case of Mr. Wilde. In his judgment the Lord Chancellor was open to a charge of culpable neglect for not reading the certificate, and satisfying himself that Mr. Wilde ought to receive a pension. He did not, how- ever, believe in his own mind that the Lord Chancellor was aware of the corrupt sale of the office to Mr. Welch. And now he came to another plot. Mr. Welch having obtained possession of his office at Leeds, and Mr. R. Bethel! having been required by his father to resign the registrarship in London, it happened that the case of the Edmunds defalcations arose. It appeared that Mr. R. Bethel thought he could induce his father to appoint him to one of the offices held by Mr. Edmunds, but the Lord Chancellor seemed to have declined to do so. It was then determined or proposed that the vacancy should be filled up by the appointment of Mr. Slingsby Bothell, who was at that time registrar of bankruptcy in London. The ac ceptance of the reading clerkship fn the House of Lords by Mr. Slingsby Bethell would vacate the office of registrar of bankruptcy in London, and Mr. R. Bethell and his friends thought this would afford a nice opportunity for his getting some such snug berth. And here another actor appeared on the scene—Mr. Skirrow. The gentleman evidently was of opinion that it would bo too strong a thing to put Mr. Richard Bethell into the London registrarship, but ho thought that if some country registrar were transferred to London, Mr. Richard Bothell might take his place in the country, as any ono would be good enough for the country. (A laugh.) The scheme was this : Mr. Richard Bethel! was to be appointed to Leeds, and Mr. Welch to London ; but ther?s-was a difficulty with the Lord Chancellor to be got over, for ho seemed to have had some sort of reluctance to appoint his son to any post whatever, and he (Mr. Hunt) thought that reluctance was well-founded after making due allowance for a father's feeling. Mr.Skirrow said he wished Mr. llich.T.d Bothell to go to Bristol, but he preferred Leeds, and accordingly went there, and it was arranged that Mr. Welch should be transferred to London, and Mr. Richard Bethell transferred to Leeds. And here he would recall the circumstance that as soon as Mr. Slingsby Bethel! had taken his seat as reading-clerk in the House of Lords, Mr. Welch lent Mr. Richard Bethell £3OO more. That was on Feb. 20, and on the 22dMr.Skirrow had an interview with the Lord Chancellor, and it appeared clear that ho obtained from his lordship no promise to do as Richard Bothell wished, but simply said ho would consider of it. Still the impression on the minds of Mr. Skirrow and Mr. Richard Bothell seemed to be that the desired arrangement would be carried out For instance, Mr. Richard Bethell, writing from Leeds to Mr. Miller, said—" I had not time to write previous to !ear ing London, but I suppose you have heard that the Lord Chancellor intends to transfer Mr. Welch from the Leeds district to London, and to appoint me to tho district." In deed, the appointments were actually engrossed and pre sented to the Lord Chancellor for signature by Mr. Miller, who asserted that Mr. Skirrow gave directions for the en grossments, though this statement was positively contra dicted by Mr. Skirrow himself. The impression on Mr. R. Bethell's mind, after the interview of Feb. 22, was that if he could get a release from his creditors the Lord Chancellor would make the appointment. On the 26th Mr. Skirrow had another interview with the Lord Chancellor, which he thus described : " On Sunday morning (the 26th) the Lord Chancellor sent for me. The moment I entered the room he was: excessively violent, and he told me that he had deeply regretted that he had sent for me on the Wednes day, as I had taken advantage of that interview, and had misrepresented to Richard what had taken place. He was very angry. I repeated to him exactly the conversation which had passed between Mr. Bothell and myself, and which I have stated hero ; but he positively told me that he would never listen, directly or indirectly, to any appli cation about his son." Now, in order to ascertain what led to this sudden change of mind on the part of the Lord Chancellor, ho would refer to the Edmunds case, and also to what had appeared in the public journals. On the 14th of February the Lord Chancellor presented a petition from Mr. Edmunds, asking to be allowed to retire on a pension. On the 17th Mr. Slingsby Bethel! was appointed by the Lord Chancellor to the office of reading clerk, vacated by Mr. Edmunds. On the 20th Mr. Slingsby Bethell took his seat ; and it was on the 22d that Mr. Skirrow endeavoured to induce the Lord Chancellor to appoint his son to the office at Leeds, which the Lord Chancellor said he would consider. On the 25th, which was Saturday, an article appeared in one of the Saturday papers, denouncing the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in filling up tho place va cated by Mr. Edmunds with his son Slingsby Bothell. (Hear, hear.) He believed that article in the Saturday paper had recalled the Lord Chancellor to a sense of his duty. He saw the noble lord opposite dissented ; but he asked him whether ho could explain upon any other grounds the sudden change in the mind of the Lord Chan cellor. (Hear, hear.) He believed the Lord Chancellor was actuated on the 22d by kindly feelings. He believed that Mr. Richard Bethell's wife had appealed to those feelings which people rejoiced to see in the Lord Chancellor as in other men. His private feelings for the moment overcame his sense of duty to the public ; and he believed when those remarks appeared in the public papers, he very properly overcame those kindly feelings, he reverted to that sense of duty to the public which had actuated him before those influences had been brought to bear upon him. That, he be lieved, was the history of the sudden change in the Lord Chancellor's mind. He believed that, but for the remarks in the public press—and not in the public press alone, forth° Edmunds scandal was the talk of the town—this second job would have been carried out. (Cheers.) Ho believed that Mr. Welch would have been transferred to a court in London, and Mr. Richard Bethel! sent to Leeds, in accor dance with a corrupt bargain made between these two men. He did not impute to the Lord Chancellor any knowledge of this corrupt bargain, but when they had said that, they could say no more for him. He did not think anyone could say that in these transactions he had shown that vigilance for the public interest which the public had a right to expect from him. (Hear.) But what he wanted to ask was, whether the evidence showed that he was shocked at the notion of having appointed a man to an office who was a creditor of his son. He was satisfied from the evidence that the Chancellor was not aware of it. In answer to question 3,370, namely, had your lordship any knowledge that Mr. Welch had lent money to Mr. Bethell before this appointment was made ?"—"Not the least." The next question was, "If your lordship had been aware of it, would the appointment have been made ?"—"lt is difficult to say what I should have done, but I think I should not have appointed him." (Hear, hear.) Now, he asked, was there that high sense of honour in the Lord Chancellor to have listened to the notion that he would appoint a man to an office who was a creditor of his son, and that son having recommended him for the post? He thought if such a would have scoutedthe notion asan impossibility. (Cheers.) He thought that one sentence of the Lord Chancellor went farther to condemn him than the whole of the evidence. (Hear.) He asked the house to take the two cases together, and not form a judgment upon one case alone. The com mittee of the other House of Parliament reported in substance that Mr. Edmunds having been guilty of defalcations in the several offices he held, amounting to a want of personal integrity, the Lord Chancellor said he would not stand in the way of his retiring upon a pension, and he presented a petition to the House of Lords from Mr. Edmunds asking for a pension, and he did not apprise the committee who took that petition into consideration of what Mr. Edmunds's irregularities had been. (Hear.) In the case of the Leeds Bankruptcy Court he himself signed the order for Mr. Wilde's retirement, after having called on him to show cause in open court why he should not be dismissed from his office. It not being in his province himself to grant the pension, he allowed the committee to grant the pension, he himself being cognisant of the strongest reasons why it should not be granted. The committee of the House of Lords acquitted him of any improper motive, and the com mittee of that house acquitted him of everything but haste and want of caution. He said, putting these two cases to gether, they showed at least a moral obtuseness on the part of the Lord Chancellor which in his judgment—and he thought, too, in the judgment of the house and the country —disqualified him from discharging those grave duties of his office. (Cheers.) When this retiring pension had been granted to Mr. Edmunds under those extraordinary cir cumstances—a pension which had been since righteously rescinded—who had been put into the place of Mr. Ed munds? The Lord Chancellor's son. (Hear, hear.) He had not a word to say against the character of Mr. Slingsby Bethell; but he wotrld say that a man of nice sensibilities would have paused before he filled up by his son a place which had been vacated in such a way. He imputed no im proper motive to the Lord Chancellor in that case, but he would say it had a bad effect upon the country. It had led people to think that the object to be obtained in granting a retiring pension was a vacancy. When these facts came be fore the public they did not enter into the evidence so nicely as that house. They did not temper justice with mercy, as the house was now prepared to do. When the facts came be fore them that Mr.Edmunds, a defaulter, was allowed, with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, to retire tremble office, and that the Lord Chancellor's second son was put in his place—that Mr. Wilde was allowed by the Lord Chancellor, on an insufficient medical certificate, to retire from his office on a pension, and that a gentleman was appointed to succeed him who had advanced to another son £l,oso—they would draw their own conclusions. He acquitted the Lord Chancel lor of any corrupt motive in making these ;appointments; but he should say he had given great occasion for scandal in the country. He had led people to think that places could be obtained by corrupt means, and that the Lord Chancellor did not stand too nicely upon reasons for remov ing one man and appointing another. He (Mr. Hunt) should say that this state of things, this want of vigilance, this supineness, this indifference, this fatuous simplicity— if such words could be applied to such a man as the Lord Chancellor—(hear and laughter)—he should say that this unsuspiciousness, that had enabled his subordinates and those around him to practise that corruption from which he admitted the Chancellor himself was free, were almost as bad for the country, though not for himself, as if he had been personally guilty. Ho had now concluded. He hoped he had satisfied the house he had not brought forward the motion on slight grounds. Ho know not whether a majority of the house would affirm his resolution, but he felt satisfied the country woulci i think it was the duty of the house to review the conduct of the Lord Chancellor. That house was shortly to be dissolved. At every hustings and at every place of election in the country, every returning officer, in obedience to an Act which in its zeal for purity that house had passed, would proclaim pains and penalties which would accrue to electors who engaged in corrupt proceedings. Would not the electors ask themselves whe ther the Legislature of the country was sincere in putting down bribery ? Was it only the bribery of £lO householders and freemen the Legislature was so anxious to punish; or would it punish the corruption pervading the functionaries of the highest court of this kingdom, and unchecked by the highest judge of the land ? He thought the electors would be entitled to ask these questions, and he had done his duty in the matter. He asked the house to consider this case calmly and judicially, as he had endeavoured to do ; and he asked hon. members, without reference to party, to give such a vote as they could best reconcile to their conscience and the interests of the country. (Cheers.) The LORD ADVOCATE said he gladly acknowledged the moderation and temper with which the hon. member had treated this question, and he proposed to consider what the effect of laying the evidence before the country had been ; for if they had como to a resolution on this very grave question a few days ago, upon the statement of the hon. member for Mallow, they would, on the admission of the hon. member who had just resumed his seat, proceeded on grounds altogether untenable. (Hear, hear.) The other day the noble lord opposite (Lord Cranbounm) had sug l i - gested that ho should not take part in this discussion upon the ground that having examined the witnesses on one side, he could not be entirely impartial. The noble lord, however, did not recollect that he himself on a former occasion had occupied a position somewhat similar— namely, when the house had driven another eminent mem ber cf the Government from office; a vote which he be lieved every member would now wish to revoke. The noble lord on that occasion did not think it unsuitable to take a very strong part in discussing the report of that committee. He (the Lord Advocate), therefore, thought that having had the advantage of hearing the evidence he should not now be precluded from offering such remarks in vindic.►tion of the Lord Chancellor—who, if present, would need no such assistance—as occurred to him on the evi dence►. (Hear.) In tho first place, he admitted the house would be sensitively zealous to the purity of official admi nistration. But there were also other matters which they would do well to consider. Charges had been made against the Lord Chancellor, some of which had been most inconsistent. He had been accused of undue leniency ono day, and of undue severity on the next. A question which had been asked in the house with reference to the Leeds Bankruptcy Court rested upon no foundation at all. That question suggested that Mr. Wilde had been called on to resign and that Mr. Welch had been appointed to occupy his office, in order to keep it open for Mr. Bethell when his outlawry was revoked. That, however, turned out to be false. It was all very well to say that those charges wore now withdrawn, but still the resolutions before the house suggested a great deal more than they expressed. The committee of the house had given its deliverance on the matter, and he should not question that deliverance. He thought the hon. member opposite and the house would do well to rest content with that decision. He did not quite know how far these resolutions went beyond the report, but he wished to recall to the house the circum stances out of which the retirement of Mr. Wilde and the appointment of Mr. Welch originally arose ; and he would consider the question under separate heads. First, with regard to the retirement of Mr. Wilde and the appointment of Mr. Welch, and the proceedings which occurred in the month of February, 1865, it seemed to him there was no connection between those two dates. What was it that led to the retirement of Mr. Wilde ? The real cause was this : A great many complaints having come to the knowledge of the Lord Chancellor with reference to mismanagement on the part of bankruptcy officials in various parts of the country, he appointed Mr. Ayrton and Mr. Harding to go through all the bankruptcy courts for the purpose of in quiring into the conduct of the officers of those courts. The fact was that the Lord Chancellor had been engaged in a very thankless task. He had felt it to be his duty to reflect in grave terms on a great variety of officers connected with the bankruptcy courts of the country. There was not one of those officers who had not friends and relations all of whom felt aggrieved by those proceedings. He trusted, therefore, that the house would take care that they did not by fine-drawn suspicions, which had no proof, weaken the hands of a man addressing himself to a task of the greatest difficulty, hampered by local influence in all quarters, and which task, even if successful, would be sure to bring down obloquy upon him. He had carried out those proceedings, and the return laid upon the table showed that the sums which had been recovered from official assignees and mes sengers in the Court of Bankruptcy amounted to over £20,000, which had been improperly retained. It might be asked how that lzore upon the inquiry ? It bore in this way, that it was utterly absurd to suppose that at that time the Lord Chancellor, or any one under him, was only looking for Mr. Wilde's office in these proceedings. He was dealing with a large question and endeavouring to check abuses of the most crying description. Was it true that he had particularly marked out Mr. Wilde for a victim ? Why, there were two registrars, two messengers, and two official assignees, and it was easy to regard to them, by a comparison of dates, to show that the charge against the Lord Chancellor was entirely baseless. On the 7th of May Mr. Miller addressed letters to the messengers, requiring them to appear in court and show cause why they should not be dismissed. The two official assignees received a similar letter. They and one of the messengers paid the balances found due from them, but Mr. Templar, one of the messengers, resisted, and on July 2, 1864, he was sus pended until he came into court. He did not come on the 23d July, three days before this letter was written. Judg ment was given against him, and on his paying hie balance• his suspension was removed, and ho was restored to office. He (I he Lord Advocate) stated that fact because it was said that the Lord Chancellor required Wilde's office, and that it was a foregone conclusion to charge him with delinquency. The fact was that Wilde was only one out of many delin quents with whom the Lord Chancellor had to deal. Both Mr. Payne and Mr. Wilde received notice that unless they could explain charges brought against them by Mr. Ayrton they would be served with a notice to show cause why they should not be dismissed. They both had given the same answer to the charges. First, with regard to having bor rowed money, they said it was an old story—they wore sorry for it, but they had repaid it. With regard to the ac counts, they said they did not mean to say that Mr. Ayr ton had certified the particular accounts to which reference had been made, but that he had certified precisely similar accounts ; and with regard to not requiring vouchers for the messenger's accounts, Mr. Wilde stated that he had followed the example of Mr. Payne. On this the Lord Chancellor required a second report from Mr. Ayrton, which was given on June 3, and sent to Mr. Payne and Mr. I T17:1,1...,, 7.,,.n Q Th, dAwn 4. the Mil July those eentle men, though there was no reason they had not received that report, had taken no steps in the matter. Up, then, to the 26th of July, was there the slightest ground to say that the Lord Chancellor had been actuated by any other than the most praiseworthy motives ? But the hon. mem ber (Mr. Hunt) said that at that time there were relations between Mr. Welch, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Richard Bethell. But what were the relations between the father and son on the 26th of July, and for two months before ? Why, on the 13th May the Lord Chancellor wrote to Mr. Miller, to the effect that his son should no longer be allowed to hold office, and that a letter of resignation should be prepared. The hon. member stated that if Mr. Richard Bethell was not fit to hold office in May, 1864, he was not fit to be appointed in 1863. Reference, however, to Mr. Skirrow's evidence showed that, though Mr. R. Bethell had been a source of discomfort to his father, he had for a considerable time previous to 1862 been living quietly, as if previous errors had been repented of. His father there fore thought in 1863 his son might be appointed to the office, of which, down to 1864, ho discharged the duty without complaint. Had the Lord Chancellor hesitated as to the course to pursue in this matter ? It seemed to be supposed that he ought to have made some inquiries into something of which he had no suspicion. The Lord Chan cellor had dealt out more than summary justice to his son, for, in spite of Mr. Miller's intercession, he insisted on his going abroad, at the very time that the proceedings were being taken against Mr. Wilde. That fact showed the utter folly of the imputation that Wilde was to be deprived of his office for the benefit of Richard Bethell—more especially as the Lord Chancellor, in writing to Mr. Miller, said, " I will not listen to any proposal for his returning to this country for some years." That was the man over whom his son was supposed to have. such influence that he was being swayed as to the way in which a public office ought to be filled up. (Hear, hear.) Was it fair that a great re putation like that of the Lord Chancellor's should be im perilled so suddenly and so gravely on suspicion and sur mise like that, when it was obvious he had been grieved to his heart's core by the misconduct of his son, and had -determined that no parental feeling should allow him for one moment to limit in any degree the justice he intended to deal out ? So far from Mr. Richard Bethel having in fluenced his father, he went abroad and remained abroad until he came back without the Lord Chancellor's leave in December of that year. But the Lord Chancellor 'never saw or heard from him, with the exception of one letter written from Paris to announce the birth of another son. If there were justice in that house, there was not a single member in that house who could lay his hand upon his heart and say that from the 13th of May, 1864, to the present time, or, at all events, to February, 1865, Richard Bethell's interest had been for one moment in the Lord Chancellor's mind with regard to filling up this office. But it was said that Mr. Welch had an interest in the matter, and that Mr. Wilde was to be summarily dismissed because he wanted the office, and that Mr. Miller knew that Welch wanted the office. There was not the slightest reason for such a statement. Reference to the evidence taken before the committee showed that neither the Lord Chancellor nor Mr. Miller knew anything of Welch, except by name, as an applicant for a registrarship in Dec., 1863, and that the Lord Chancellor had, after long delay, appointed him on testimonials from the leaders of the Northern Circuit, ex pressed in the strongest terms as to that gentleman's quali fication for the office. He (the Lord Advocate) did not be lieve that those testimonials, on which alone the Loill Chancellor had acted after the disgrace of Richard Bethell, had been obtained improperly, or for the purpose of being used for an application to the Lord Chancellor. Though Mr. Miller had shown that he was not the most satisfactory adviser for the Lord Chancellor in such matters, there was no ground for imputing to him any personal interest in this matter. In fact, the evidence proved that ho had advised the Lord Chancellor to dismiss both Mr. Payne•and Mr. Wilde, on the grounds furnished by Mr. Ayrton's report. The Lord Chancellor had not to consider the case of Mr. Wilde alone, but in the meantime he had been considering the case of Mr. Templar, who, however, did come to court to show cause why he should not be dismissed, and ho was not dismissed. Why the same course was not taken by Mr. Payne he could not say. On July 26 the Lord Chancellor had said he could not allow those irregularities to go on indefinitely, and he requested Mr. Payne and Mr. Wilde to show cause why they should not be dismissed. Mr. Payne, he believed, thought he had been ill-used, and asked an opportunity to be heard. Far was it from him to say Mr. Payne was not right in that request. All he could say was that by accepting his retiring pension ho had placed himself in an unfortunate position. But they knew that Mr. Payne, like Mr. Wilde, applied for his retiringpen sion. They knew that Mr. Miller prepared a petition both for Mr. Wilde and Mr. Payne. He did precisely the same for one as the other. But was there auy assertion that Mr. Richard Betholl was waiting for Mr. Payne's office ? That the Lord Chancellor's only feeling was for tho public was shown by his appointment of Mr. Stephens, whom he had never seen in his life, and whom he had appointed on the ground of his professional merit. Mr. Wilde was not thrust out of office. It was said that Mr. Miller's letter was couched in peremptory and startling language. Mr. Wilde was to answer by return of post; but he had had notice served on him as far back as the 2d of May, and therefore Mr. Miller was quite entitled to an answer. This peremp tory style was that of Mr. • Miller always. He wrote to Mr. Templar to pay £1,600, which was the amount he was in arrears, at a day's notice, although that was a sum which a messenger might not be able to obtain in so short a time. It was said the Lord Chancellor acted in this matter with haste, and without caution. The charge against Mr. Wilde had been made against all the registrars, in all the courts, who had failed to audit the accounts sufficiently. Well, then, it might be said, what the Lord Chancellor did with Mr. Wilde he should have done with them all. If he was prepared to dismiss Mr. Wilde, it must have been right to serve the others in the same way. If it was justice, he wa■ bound to do it ; but in carrying out a great reform it was necessary not to go further than public opinion would sym pathise with at a time when local feeling was sure to rebel. (Hear, hoar.) The Edmunds case had no analogy to this. That was a case of personal defalcations. Mr. Wilde was accused of borrowing money of subordinate officials, and had repaid it, but the Lord Ohancellor would not be satis fied with that. The question then was whether he was to turn Mr Wilde adrift, or was ho to reprimand him and allow him to remain in his office ? He, however, came to the conclusion that it would not be disadvantageous to the public 'service to permit him to retire from his office on a retiring allowance, provided he could obtain a medical cer tificate. How Mr. Miller came to make the suggestion re specting his health was a question that was not very clearly illustrated. There was an amount of confusion in his evi dence on that matter which seemed to be utterly incredible. With regard to Mr. Bond, he did not know whether that gentleman was a more impartial judge than the tribunal ho was addressing, but when Mr. Wilde went to him with that letter he said he know it was a foregone conclusion. How did he know that ? Had not Mr. Templar got a let ter of the same kind ? and had not Mr. Templar gone and defended himself in court like a man ? and when he came back, was he not rostra to his office ? How had Mr. Bond came so rapidly to a decision ? Why, Mr. Bond, in order to justify that sentence, confesses that he recom mended Mr. Wilde to become a party to that which he knew to be a fraud, on pretence, forsooth, that he would not get justice. (Hear, hear.) This was the kind of evi dence. It was impOssible to read it without seeing what it was. With reference to the certificate given by Mr. Hay, the Lord Chancellor himself said it was couched in unsa tisfactory terms. At the same time there was not only a certificate, but an affidavit and a petition. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Wilde swore to it himself, and when he came before the committee he could not help maintaining it was true. The certificate stated that the failure of Mr. Wilde'e sight was such as seriously to interfere with his duties, and it was added that he first consulted Mr. Hay in 1863. In his evidence Mr. Wilde stated that if he had had work to per form at night he would not have been able to do it. Mr. Hay had suggested he should retire some timebefore. Was the Lord Chancellor to be censured because, under these circumstances, he permitted Mr. Wilde to resign ? He could not say how he (the Lord Advocate) would have acted un der such circumstances, but if the certificate had been suffi cient, he did not think that to allow Mr. Wilde to retire on a pension was the best for the public on the one hand, and that the loss of office was a sufficient punisnment to Mr. Wilde himself. As regarded the part taken by Mr. Mil ler, he invited the house to deal with public men and pub lic offices according to tho usual practice of life. There were things occurring every day where the principal offi cer was obliged to trust to his subordinates. (Hear, hear.) Without that, public business could not go on for a mo ment. If the Secretary of State for the Home Department were not to take Mr. Waddington's word for a great deal that went on in that office, he would not be able to conduct the business. The Lord Chancellor had no reason to suspect Mr. Miller, and he (the Lord Advocate) having made inquiries, had found nothing that Mr. Miller might be ashamed to confess. Mr. Miller's recollection, he was bound to say, was not so accurate as might be desired ; and with regard to the certificate he was inclined to think the Lord Chancellor's memory was the more strict of the two. He maintained that the Lord Chan cellor was not bound to suspect what could not possibly be discovered, and he hoped the house would come to the • conclusion that his lordship was not a party to any corrupt bargain between Mr.Welch and Mr. Bothell. The learned lord then referred to the evidence given before the ccim mato°, and particularly to that of the Rev. Mr. Harding, who had in the most unblushing manner come forwai d and admitted that he was to receive the sum of £333 6s. Bd. for acting as a go-between in the transaction between Welch and Richard Bothell. Until such testimony In.d been tested in open court, be maintained that it ought not to be used against the Lord Chancellor. He then further referred to the correspondence to prove that the transaction between Welch and Richard Bethell had no influence whatever in bringing about the retirement of Wilde. Wilde, indeed, asserted that he had been frightened into resigning; but, if that were so, why had ho jumped at the offer of a pension when it was made to him ? The learned lord next referred to the correspondence to show that, previous to the coming to light of the Edmunds scandal, the Lord Chancellor was aware that his son was hopelessly involved, and to show that his determination not to reappoint him to office was irrevocable. In conclusion, he begged to move as an amendment upon the resolution of the hon. member for Northamptonshire : "That this house having considered the report of the Leeds Bankruptcy Court Committee, and the evidence taken before it, agree with the committee in thinking that the facts established acquit the Lord Chan cellor of•all charges in the matters to which it refers, except of that of haste and want of caution in granting a pension to Mr. Wilde. That this house is of opinion that some further check should be placed by law upon the granting of pensions to the holders of legal offices." Mr. HENNESSY observed that, looking at the fact that the Lord Chancellor took the precaution of invariably consulting the law officers and the Government, whilst there could be no doubt that his conduct had done great discredit to his high office, other members of the Govern ment were equally implicated in the charge. In brief, whatever criminality attached to the noble and learned lord was shared in quite as much by his colleagues. Mr. DENMAN pronounced the motion a great and cruel injustice to the Lord Chancellor. It was so framed as by its apparent moderation of tone to catch as many votes as possible ; and yet, if carried, to render it impossible for tho noble lord to hold office another hour. For his part he wished the Government had met it with a direct negative, for it was as unjust as untrue ; and it was brought forward in an unfair spirit. The Lord Chancellor had been an industrious judge and earnest law reformer, and he trusted that the house would not, by means of a party vote, insist upon driving from office a great and a good public servant because he had been guilty of certain errors of judgment in the distribution of patronage and in the acceptance of resignations with pensions where pensions might have been refused. Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE had throughout the present Par liament been a constant supporter of the Government, but the confidence he reposed in the Ministry as a whole he could not extend to the Lord Chancellor in particular. Agreeing with the report of the committee that no impu tation could be fairly made against the noble and learned lord, whom he was willing to acquit of personal corrup tion, nevertheless there might be corrupt practices resorted to amongst the officers who were under him of a gross and foul character, which the house ought to condemn. That there had been corrupt practices was notorious—more over, this was not a solitary case. A new system of cor ruption for obtaining public offices had been instituted. The process was to bribe the son of the Lord Chancellor; by that means obtain the office ;; then rob the public purse, or wink at others doing so ; upon discovery of your mai versations apply to the Lord Chancellor for permission to resign, and then retire with a pension. With re gard to the motion of Mr. Ward Hunt, ho objected to it that the terms in which it had stated the charges against the Lord Chancellor were not sufficiently explicit; he should, therefore, in the event of that motion being re jected, propose the amendment of which he had given notice and which was as follows :—" That this house, having con sidered the report of the committee on the Leeds Bank rupcty Court and the evidence taken before them, are of opinion that, while the evidence discloses the existence of corrupt practices with reference to the appointment of Patrick Robert Welch to the office of registrar of the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, they are satisfied that no imputation can fairly be made against the Lord Chancellor with regard to this appointment, and that such evidence and also that taken before the committee of the House of Lords to inquire into the circumstances connected with the resignation by Mr. Leonard Edmunds of the offices held by him and laid before this house, show a laxity of practice and a want of caution with regard to the public interest on the part of the Lord Chancellor in sanctioning the grant of retiring pensions to public officers against whom grave charges were pending which, in the opinion of this house is calculated to discredit the administration of his great office." Mr. W. HUNT intimated that if there were any ambi guity in his resolution he was quite willing to have it negatived, and give his support to the proposal of Mr. Bouverio. Mr. HOWES (chairman of the select committee) approved of the determination come to by Mr. Hunt, and opposed the amendment moved by the Lord Advocate on the ground that it simply adopted so much of the committee's report as acquitted the Lord Chancellor, and took no notice of that part of it which condemnod him. Mr. VIVIAN (a member of tho committee) supported the amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL also commended the amendment to the approval of the house, because it adopted the conclusions and verdict of the committee, and sug gested an improvement and alteration of the law to provide safeguards against the recurrence of any similar case of haste and want of caution in making those appointments. The hon. and learned member insinuated that the motion was dictated and supported by the Opposition from party considerations. Mr. E. EGERTON said that as a member of the Com mittee, whilst acquitting the Lord Chancellor of personal corruption, ho was not prepared to whitewash him by agreeing to the amendment. Mr. HENLEY could not concur in the motion proposed by Mr. Hunt, but would Tote for the amendment of which Mr. Bouverio had given notice. Col. PENNANT, a member of the committee, disclaimed being actuated by any party feeling. The SPEAKER put the question that the words of the original motion proposed to be left out—viz., " all the words after the word ' that,' " should stand part of the question, which was at once resolved in the negative. The right hon. gentleman then put the question that the words of the amendment proposed by the Lord-Advocate should be inserted in lieu of those which had been omitted. Mr. BOUVERIE said that ho proposed to negative the admission of these words, and afterwards to move the in sertion of thos• of which he had given notice. Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, the course which has been taken with regard to the original motion places this matter in au altogether new position. The motion of the hon. gentleman opposite clearly implied a charge of corruption against the Lord Chancellor. (" No, ho," and " Hear, hear.") That is my opinion, and it is the opinion of many others. That was a very grave charge, and ono which it was absolutely necessary to resist at the first opportunity that presented itself. The hon. gentleman has abandoned that charge. (Cheers.) His motion has been negatived, and it appears to me to be the unanimous conviction of the house that no charge can justly be brought against the Chancellor upon the ground of corruption in the administration of his high office. (Hear, hear.) We have now, however, before us two amendments, both of which have been proposed for the first time in tho course of this evening —one, that of my right hon. friend the member for Kilmarnock, which we heard read in the beginnfng of the evening, but which I apprehend that a great number of the members of this house have not had an opportunity of weighing in their minds. Now, under these circumstances, it appears to me that, as this is a grave question—the right hon. gentleman the member for Kilmarnock states that the object which he has in view is to call upon the house to declare that it has no confidence in the Chancellor, and that is, no doubt, a matter of very considerable importance as regards'an officer in his high position —(a laugh)—and member of the Government—it seems to me that the house is not at the present moment in a condition—(oh, oh ! and cheers)—tho Government is not in a condition—(loud cheers from the Opposition benches)—to determine in what way they will deal with that motion. (Continued cheering.) My right hon. friend takes, as it appears to me, a very narrow view of the grounds upon which public confidence ought or ought not to be reposed in a public officer. lie is of opi nion that in consequence of the particular way in which certain pensions have been granted he cannot place confi dence in the Lord Chancellor. (Hear.) My hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General has described how the Lord Chancellor has disposed of patronage much more exten sive and much more important in a manner highly deserv ing the confidence of the country. The house should also recollect the great improvement in every branch of the law (cries of oh, oh ! question ! and cheers)—which the pre sent Chancellor has introduced, and which, whatever may bo the opinion of this house with regard to his tenure of office, will, I venture to say, render his name illustrious— (oh, oh ! and cheers)—among those of the groat reformers of the law of this country. It is not necessary to enume rate the various improvements of which he has been the author. The consolidation of the statute law, by which it has been reduced from 44 volumes to 10, the practical abo lition of imprisonment for debt, and many other improve ments affecting every class of the community. (Laughter, and cries of Question ! and Order, order !) My hon. and learned friend was, them ofore, entitled to say that, what ever may be the opinion of my right hon. friend as to tho necessity of withdrawing confidence from the Chancellor in consequence of the grant of these pensions, the dis posal of his groat patronage and the manner in which the Lord Chancellor has performed his great and important duties as the head of the law do entitle him to the confidence of this house and of the coun try. (Hear, hear.) As I said before, we aro now, I think, embarking upon a new discussion—(no, no 1) —quite diffe rent from that which was suggested by the motion of the hon. member for Northamptonshire, and I should therefore propose that this debate should be adjourned until to morrow—(loud cries of " oh ! oh!" "Divide," and cheers) —in order that we may be enabled well to consider the motion of my right hon. friend, and the grounds upon which ho has recommended it. The noble lord concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate. Mr. DISRAELI, whose rising was the signal for a burst of cheering from the Opposition benches, said—l cannot help thinking that the proposition of the noble lord is ono which the house will not find it convenient to adopt. (Cheers.) The subject has boon discussed very amply to night, and with reference to the amendment of the right hon. gentleman not being in print, I cannot forget that the amendment of the Government has also not been printed —(hear, hear)—but oven under that disadvantage wo were prepared to give it a duo and fair consideration. I also think that, considering tho position in which the house is now placed, there is an air of mockery—(loud cheers)—in proposing to adjourn the debate. It appears to me that this is a question upon which the house ought at once to pro nounce a decision. The house has been unusually well attended, throughout a lengthened debate, and it is in my opinion quite qualified to come to a decision at once. I trust, therefore, that the noble lord will reconsider his pro position, and allow us to pronounce an opinion upon the amendment of the right hon. gentleman. If, however, he persists in his strange proposal to adjourn the debate— whether to the next Parliament or not I cannot say — (laughter and cheers)—l shall, under the peculiar circum stances. consider it my duty. however unwillingly, to op pose the adoption of that course. (Cheers, and loud cries of " Divide, Divide !") Sir G. GREY, whose first sentences wore rendered inau dible by cries of "Divide, divide," said—The right hon. gentleman has suggested that the object of my noble friend in moving the argument of the debate was to avoid a decision upon this question—(cheers from the Opposition benches) —and he professed ignorance whether the noble lord did not intend to adjourn the discussion until next Parliament. My noble friend, in making the motion, said distinctly that all he wished for was an adjournment until to-morrow, in order to give the house an opportunity of considering the amendment of the right hon. gentleman the member for Kilmarnock, which very few members have oven heard road. If the house should agree to the adjournment, my noble friend will to-morrow state, on the part of the Government, the course which they intend to pursue. (" Divide, divide !") The house then divided on the motion for the adjourn ment of the debate. On the paper containing the numbers being handed to Mr. Hunt as teller for the "Noes" loud and prolonged cheers roso from the Opposition benches. Tho numbers were, — Ayes 163 Noes 177 Majority —l4 Tho announcement of the result of the division was fol lowed by renewed cheering. Lord PALMERSTON then rose and said,—l merely wish to state to the house that we are anxious not to give them more trouble than is necessary, and that, therefore, we must accept the decision upon the question of adjourn ment as an expression of the feeling of the house upon the original question before it. We shall, therefore, not trouble the house to divide again on the amendment of the right hon. gentleman the member of Kilmarnock. (Loud cheers.) Mr. LYGON got up, but was unable to obtain a hearing. The amendment of the Lord-Advocate upon Mr. Bou verie's motion was put and negatived without a division. Mr. Bouverie's resolution, to the following effect,— " That this house, having considered the report of the Committee on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, ande the evi dence taken before them, are of opinion that, while the evidence discloses the existence of corrupt practices with reference to the appointment of Patrick Robert Welch to the office of Registrar of the Leeds Bankruptcy Court s they are satisfied that no imputation can be fairly made against the Lord Chancellor with regard to that appointment; and that such evidence, and also that taken before a Committee of the Lords, to inquire into the circumstances connected with the resignation by Mr. Edmunds of the offices hold by him and laid before this house, show a laxity of practice and a want of caution with regard to the public interests on the part of the Lord Chancellor, in sanctioning the grant of retiring pensions to public officers against whom grave charges were pending which, in the opinion of this house, are calculated to discredit the administration of his great office,"—was carried without a division, when the cheek-0g was again renewed. The house adjourned at a quarter past 12 o'clock. The Alleged Wife and Child Murder at Woolwich. Tho police-court at Woolwich was yesterday afternoon densely crowded by persons anxious to hear the adjourned examination of the prisoner Thomas Jones, who is charged with tho wilful murder of his infant. Mrs. Louisa Beer, of 32, Raglan-road, Plumstead, sister of the deceased Mrs. Jones, now recapitulated hor previous evidence, to tho effect that she 'took charge of the child after the death of her sister, which took place on the 30th of April. The child was born on Good Friday, the 14th of April, and was registered "Benjamin Jones." At the end of a fortnight the infant was taken back to the pri soner's house by his order, but she afterwards received it again, and kept it for about ten days. The prisoner then told her to take it home, and she did so on the Bth June. The prisoner was then at home, and ho said that a person was coining to take the infant to London to be taken care of. Witness proposed to wait until the person came, but the prisoner said, " Put the child on the bed,' and she did so, and then left the house. Two days after, she asked the prisoner if the child was doing well, and she repliede Yes, better than if you or any person at Plumstoad had it." She asked him to give hor the namo and address of the person who had the child, and ho replied that neither herself nor anybody belonging to the family should ever know. By Mr. Traill, the sitting magistrate—The infant was well the last time that she left it at the prisoner's house. The flatiron found tied to the infant when it was taken out of the water belonged to her, and she had lent it to her sister some time previous to her decease. Sho also identified the clothing found on the infant when it was taken out of the water. Mrs. Mary Holman, landlady of the house where the pri soner and his deceased wife had resided, at No. 5, Raglan road, Plumstetul, said on tho night of June 8 she returned home, and was informed that the infant had been brought home by the last witness. Sho asked the prisoner what he had done with the child, and he said he had sent it to his sister's at Camberwell, adding, "Did you not see a lady come and take it away ?" Witness replied " No," as she had but just entered the house. After that she asked the prisoner several times about the infant, and he replied that it was with his sister at Camberwell, and was doing well. She identified a portion of the clothing found ou the body of the infant. The prisoner resided in her house up to the time of his being taken into custody. After the infant was missing witness did not see any marks of blood in the apartments occupied by him. By Mr. Traill—She did not ask the prisoner to drown any cats or dogs, or give him half-a-crown to do so. Police-constable Brown, R division, proved apprehend ing prisoner at the Royal Arsenal, where he was employed. He - asked the prisoner what had become of the infant, and he replied that it was with his sister in London. Witness said, " What is her address ?" and prisoner replied, " I shall not tell you." Ho then took prisoner to the station-house, and on his way thitherhe said he would sooner suffer death than say whore the child was. Mr. W. Stuart, divisional police surgeon, proved making a post-mortem examination of the body of the infant, and finding a deep cut, from three to four inches in length, ex tending upwards to the bone at the back of the skull. He could not say whether the wound was inflicted before or after death ; but if the former, in so young a child it was sufficient to cause death. In reply to the magistrate, the prisoner, who was undo fended, said he had no wish to question any of the wit nesses, but wished to be allowed to see his friends. Mr. Traill—That you can do, and in the present state o the case, as the coroner's inquiry is adjourned until Monday next, the prisoner will be remanded until Tuesday, when it is probable that the depositions will be completed. The prisoner, after an interview with his friends, was then removed in custody, andan immense crowd of persons assembled in the streets leading from the police-court to the railway station, from whence prisoner was conveyed to the county prison. It was stated that no information has yet been received as to the analysis of contents of the stomach of the deceased woman, Mrs. Jones, and it appears that the prisoner has frequently said, "I am glad they have taken her up, and am quite sure they will find no poison." TRIAL OF DEL. PRITCHARD. EDINBURGH, July 3. This morning Dr. Edward William Pritchard, of Sauchiehall-street, Glasgow, was placed at the bar of the High Court of Justiciary charged with the murder by poison of his wife and his mother-in law. The Lord Justice Clerk, with Lord Ardmillan and Lord Jerviswoode, occupied the bench. The counsel for the Crown were the Solicitor- General of Scotland, Mr. Gifford, and Mr. Crich ton ; and for the defence were Mr. Clark, Mr. Wat son, and Mr. Brand. The prisoner entered the court at 10 o'clock. He is a person of middle age, stately and well-built, a little bald, of fair complexion, and with a light sandy beard. He appeared quite calm, and closely watched the proceedings. His brother, Charles Au gustus Pritchard, secretary to the Naval Commander at Plymouth, took his seat in the dock with him. It was moved for the prisoner that he should not, in consideration of the prejudice his cause might thereby sustain, be put on trial on both charges at once. The Solicitor-General opposed, and the court re fused the motion. There was no objection to the relevancy of the indictment, and the prisoner, on being called to plead, said audibly, " Not guilty." A jury was then balloted and sworn. After some formal evidence, Catherine Latimer, lately cook in Dr. Pritchard's service, deponed to the circumstances and events of the household up to her leaving it on Saturday last. Mrs. Pritchard's illness began in October with frequent sickness. She went to Edinburgh to visit • her mother in November, returning at Christmas. Her mother and Miss Pritchard, who lived with her grandmamma in Edinburgh, came with her. Mrs. Pritchard then appeared to be in very good health. She continued so for about a week, but after that became ill again. Witness was to have left the service on the 2d, but owing to her mistress's illness she remained till the 16th February. One night Mrs. Pritchard exclaimed, " Oh, Catherine, I have lost my senses. I never was so bad as this before." She was seized with cramp aboutthe 14th February. She was very ill, and called Mary Macleod to fetch Dr. Gairdner. Dr. Pritchard was in the room when another doctor was sent for; he was crying, and witness heard deceased say " Don't cry, you hypocrite," or " Don't cry, for if you do you are an hypocrite," and she added that the doc tors were all hypocrites together. She told Dr. Gaird ner she had chloroform, but she had never said so to witness. Witness continued in the service till Mrs. Taylor was brought back again from Edinburgh. Mrs. Taylor said to witness, " I don't understandher illness. She is one day better and another worse." Mary M'Leod, a girl of 17, housemaid at Dr. Pritchard's, was between four and five hours under examination, and gave her evidence with evident reluctance. She generally took up Mrs. Pritchard's, dinner and tea, which she sometimes got from Dr. Pritchard as he sat with his family in the dining room. Mrs. Pritchard often said, " I wonder when this sickness is to stop." When witness was sent for Dr. Gairdner she heard Mrs. Pritchard say, " Don't cry ; if you cry you're a hypocrite ; it was you that did it." On one occasion Dr. Pritchard sent her up with a bit of cheese, which Mrs. Pritchard tasted, and asked witness to taste it ; felt hot, and made witness thirsty. Witness deposed to the sudden illness of Mrs. Taylor ; she said she surely had her daughter's complaint. She died about midnight of the day she was taken ill ; she was writing letters in the consulting room at 9 o'clock, and was helped upstairs, where she became speedily ill, and died. The prisoner had used improper familiarities with witness, and Mrs. Pritchard had seen him kissing her. Witness became with child to him. He said he would put it all right. She had a miscarriage.--(lnterrogated. Did he do anything to you to procure miscarriage ? But the question was objected to, as forming a separate crime not libelled against the prisoner, and disal lowed bythe Court.)—The connexion was continued up to the time Mrs. Pritchard visited Edinburgh, but not for some time before his wife turned ill. He spoke of marriage to witness. He said he would marry her if his wife died before him. He gave witness a ring the year before last ; also a brooch the same month his wife died. He gave his photo graph in the locket, but witness had since tornit out. Cross-examined. Believed prisoner to be in joke when he spoke of marriage. The Court adjourned till next day at 10. COUNTRY _MARKETS COLCHESTER-JULY 1. The supply Of wheat again very small, and A good de mand at an advance of fully is per qr. Beans and peas very scarce, and rather dearer. Barley is dearer. Wheat, white 428 468 Beane, 36a red Vs 42s Middle and. 5ma11..35s 408 Barley ... 'ls 34s Peas, white • 35s 38s Oat* ..20s 25s grey ..36s 38s GRANTIIAII-JULY 1. With a middling oupply wheat sold steadily at is per qr. advance. Very little barley on offer, and pnces were un changed. Oats had an upward tendency. Old white wheat, 41s to 465; old red, 37s to 42s ; new white, 44s to 47s ; new red, 378 to 40s per 36 stone. Bar ley for malting, 29s to 33s per qr. ; grinding, 24s to 26s per 3U stone. Oats, old, 25a to 275; new, 22s to 24s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 39s to 40; uew, 36s to 38s per 38 stone. Peas, 34s to 36s per 36 stone. CAELIISFO: ',D-JuNz 30. The supply of wheat was moderate, and Is per qr. higher than last week. Spring corn firm at late terms. Wheat, old white.... 4 is 488 Peas, Partridge 368 38s new . .418 48s White .3k s 34s old red 40s 42s Bailing 388 428 new. 38s 428 Dun.... ..... 3lB ass Barley . 258 328 dit o, new -8 --is Chevalier 26s nri Beane, Tick, 01d......31s 37s Grind ng •Os 88 new. ...-13 - a Malt.. 61s 678 Harrow l'ickB.3ss —s Chevalier 648 88s new....—s -s Oats •• • 2os 26s Mazagan . 33s 36s NORTIIAMPTON.-JULY 1. New white wheat, 38s to 42s ; new red, 38s to 40s ; old white, 39s to 448; old red, 38s to 41s per 36 stone. Barley for malting, 31s to 338 per qr. ; grinding, 26s to 31s per 30 stone. Oats, old, 25s to 268; new, 18s to 24s per 24 stone. Beans, old, 36s to 40s ; new, 35s to 38s per 38 stone. Peas, 33s to 388 per 36 stone. ABERDEEN--JUNE 30. At this day's market there was a fair attendance. Oats is per quator higher. Flour, barley, and meal aro also dearer. White wheat 35s Od to 40s 01 621 b 11 bushel. Rod wheat 3,5 s Oct to 36s Od Potato oats 20s Od to 21s 01 40lb 1 , 1 bushel. Common oats 19 s Od t o 20 s Od Bere 21s Od to 22s Od 531 b 1-1 bushel. 1. Barley Oatmeal 15s 6d to 16s 6cl ? boll of 140Ib. Flour, flue 31s 6d to 32s Od ?sack of 280Ib. KIIIKCALDY—JuLY 1. Small supplies of all kinds of grain, and sales quiet, at nominally the same prices as last week. Wheat. Barley. Oats First 386 Od 298 (id 22s 6d 3.is 6d I —s Od 23s ed Third 416 Od 5 Od 218 6.1 COAL MARKET. Price per ton at the close of the market. s. d. Holywell Main l6 6 Hastings Hartley l6 6 South Hetton Tunstall Eden Main Ships at market, 29 ; sold, 17. s. d. Cowpen Hartley Caradoc l7 6 East Hartlepool Walls End Haswell lB 0 Foreign Mail Packet List. Australia and New Zealand, via Southampton . July—. Ditto, via Marseilles July —. Brazil and Cape Verde. by British pac&et July 4. Ditto, by French packet July 22. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena July 22. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton July 2 Ditto, via Marseilles July —. Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton.... July 2. Ditto, via Marseilles India (Bombay), via Southampton. July 11. Ditto, via M ars ei l les .. July 5. Mauritius, via Southampton July 11. Ditto, via Marseil e July 5. Newfoundland July 5. Portugal ...........Ju1y 4. Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon... United btates and British North America!by Bri tish packet ... July 5 Ditto, by United States packet, via Southamp- ton Ditto, via C.3rk Ditto, by Canadian packet, via Londonderry.. July 7. West Coast of Africa, Madeira, and Ttneriffe July 12. West Indies and Pacific (except Bahamas, Cuba, and Mexico • • July 14, Bahamas, via New Y ork. J uly 27. Bermuda, ditto July 6. Cuba and Mexico July ,S). Among the :traders who lately arrived at Cinein natti to purchase dry goods was a former slave of Jeff. Davis, named Montgomery. He is 54 years old, and quite intelligent. Ho was Jeff. Davis's slave over 20 years, and served him as a carpenter and machinist on his and his bro ther's plantation of 2,000 acres. The entire 2,000 acres are now cultivated in cotton by his former fellow-bondmen, who, ho says, are working industriously and more effec tively than under the former rule. LADvEßTlSE➢LENT.l — llolloway 'B Pills.—Unusually hot weather in thp summer months is often productive of un pleasant consequences to many. The liver, stomach, and bowels, in such cases, are more or less seriously affected, so that the natives of England are at certain seasons liable to some of the disorders which range in warm climates. People cannot have a more powerful curative than Hollo way's justly celebrated pills. They cool and purify the blood, and render the system less liable to any sort of irre gularity ; or, when disease is present, they abate its force, and at last totally destroy it. Dysentry, biliousness, aci dity of the stomach, sick headache, and debility soon dis appear before a course of these admirable pills. Births. Bincit—On the Ist inst., at 11, Kensington-square, the wife of Edward Birch, Esq., of a daughter. MOUNT EDGCUMBE.—On the 2d inst., at 6, Cromwell House, the Countess of Mount Edgcumbo, of a son. SHERIDAN.—On the lst inst., at Oaklands, Saint Peter's, Thanet, the wife of Henry Brinsley Sheridan, Esq., of a son. Marriages. CHANDLER—AUCKLAND.—On tho Ist inst., at St. Mary-1e- Strand, Charles, youngost son of J. Chandler, Esq., of Greenwich, to Marian, daughter of T. Auckland, sq., ll.M.'s Customs, London. _ _ ROUTLEDGE—STEMENSON.—On the let inst., at St. Fan eras Church, Edmuud Routledge, of 294, Camden-road, and The Broadway, Ludgate-hill, second son of George Routledge, Esq., of 50, Russell-square, to Martha, fourth daughter of Benjamin Stephenson, Esq., of 25, Tavistock square: Deaths. CHAMPAIV.—On the Ist inst., Mary Louisa, youngest daughter of Lieut.-Col. Champain, of Melrose }louse, Ryde, late of her Majesty's 9th Foot, aged 22. GARRETT.—On the 2d inst., at Albert Lodge, Waltham cross, Mr. William Garrett, late of 36, Great Tower- street, aged 73. LORENTZ.—On the Ist inst., at Chickerell Rectory, Wey mouth, Edith, Baroness de Lorentz. MURRAY.—On the 2d inst., at the Vicarage, Bromsgrovo, William Frederick Murray, Esq., of Brasenose College, Oxford, eldest son of the Rev. G. W. Murray, M.A., vicar of Bromsgrove, aged 24. POUNCY.—On the Ist inst., at Finchley, Gilbert Pouncy, Esq., aged 73. SARL.—On the Ist inst., at his residence, Chester Cottage, Upper Tulse-hill, Surrey, John Sarl, Esq., aged 81. London : Printed and Published by WIL LIAM AND:RIMS, of No. 112, Strand, Ranter, at Tsr, SUN ()ince, No 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the f.i.voy, in the County of Middlesex,--Tuesday, July 4, 1865. rim SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 4, 1865.