The Sun. — London, England, 1861-07-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, - LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1861. IMPERIAI; PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF lORDS.—(YZSTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCFMLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. 'PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and p asse d : Lynn and Hunstanton Railway, Waveney Valley Railway, Ramsey Railway , Cockermouth, Keswick, and Penrith Railway, South Eastern Railway (Folkestone Harbour), Ware, nadham , and Buntingford R a il way, Bishop Stort ford, Dunmow, and Braintree Railway, Salisbury an d y, Mersey D oc k s an d H ar b our Dorset Junction Radwa Board, Hatfield Chase Warping and Improvement, St. George's Harbour, Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Rail way, and Kirkcudbright Railway Bills, PUBLIC WORKS IRELAND (ADVANCE AND REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL. Earl ST. GERMANS moved the second reading of this bill. After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE, the bill was read a second time. THE EAST INDIA COUNCIL, &c., BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, The Marquis of CLANRICARDE rose to ask her Majesty's Government to lay upon the table of the house copies of all reports, minutes, or other records of opinions of the members of the Legislative Council of India or of the committees of that council relating to the bills concerning India now before the house, He did not ask for these do cuments with any intention of obstructing the passing of the bill, but merely that all information on the subject should be in their lordships' possession. In his opinion is was very important that the opinions of the members of the Legislative Council should be known, especially as they had been freely referred to in the other house of Parliament. He did not think that the public service would suffer by the production of the documents he asked for, and was therefore very anxious they should be produced. Ho considered the bill a very admirable one, the only clause he was disposed to object to was that relating to the council of the Governor-General of India. Earl DE GREY and RIPON thought the noble lord laboured under the same misapprehension both as regards the existence of the papers asked for, the functions of the Indian Council, and the method of conducting business In that department. The Indian Council was divided for the convenience of business into com mittees, and the reports of those committees stood in exactly the same positionof the minutes of the head or subor dinate officers of another department. These reports were in no way records of the individual opinions of the members of the Indian Council, and he could assure the noble lord that their production would not be for the benefit of the public service. With respect to the expression of opinionin con versation amongst themselves of the members of the Indian Council no record was kept ; and as far as the bills now before Parliament were concerned, he could as sure the noble marquis there were no recordsin the Indi a Office of any objection by the Council, and with respect t o th e minor points there had been no expression of disapproval whatever. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH regretted that such a mode of proceeding was adopted in the Council of India. Their lordships then went into committee on the bill. Clauses from 1 up to 6 were agreed to, with some verbal amendments. On clause 6, The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH suggested an amend ment by which provincial councils could be held by an order of the Governor-General in council, instead of by a law or regulation of the council, and the clause, as amended, was agreed to. Clause 7 was agreed to after a short discussion. On clause 8, I The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH objected to it as a most dangerous innovation on the system of administration hitherto pursued in India ; the Governor-General had here tofore been solely responsible for the Government, but by this clause it was proposed to give the Government to diffe rent departments, and to throw upon the members of the council that direct responsibility. The Governor-General by this bill deprived himself of one of the most important of his duties, that of controlling and directing military opera ticns. Under this clause the military members of the coun cil remained in the council, and they had the power of ob structing the Governor-General in military matters. It appeared that Lord Canning intended corning home next spring, so that he would not be long in India after this act would come into operation, and his successor might be much embarrassed by the operation of this clause, Earl DE GREY and RIPON defended the clause,which had been inserted on the recommendation of the present Governor-General. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH stated his own experi ence when he filled the office of Governor-General, and from that experience he felt warranted in objecting, as he did, to the provisions of this clause. The noble earl then referred to the evidence given by Mountstewart Elphinstone before the select committee as justifying his opposition to the clause. The Duke of ARGYLL aibmitted that the evidence alluded to referred to a subject quite different to that they were now discussing. The cbject of this clause was to give the Governor-General power to make provision from time to time to divide the business among the members of the council. Earl GREY thought it was an innovation and a dan. gerous practice to pass a specific act to give the powers pro. vided for in this clause. lie thought the clause was un• necessary, and, being unnecessary, he was of opinion ii would be better to omit it. Lord HARDINGE opposed the clause. Earl DE GREY and RIPON said the Governor-Gene ral had not power legally to do that which this clause em powered him to do. Earl GREY repeated his objections to the clause. The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 9. On clause 10 being proposed, Earl GREY said he was opposed to this clause, which, he thought, would have a most dangerous effect in India. lie intended to submit an amendment which, he thought, would be an improvement, and which, he hoped, Govern ment would submit to. The bill, as it stood, would not meet the evils which it was intended and designed to correct. The danger of the Governor-General clashing with his Legislative Council could only be got rid of in one way, namely, that the course to be taken by the council it self should be first considered by the Government at home. The Government in this country was conducted differently from that of India. Here members of the Cabinet may and do differ upon certain points and a certain policy, without any evil resulting therefrom, but the case of India was en tirely different. Men who were likely to compose this Legis lative Council had devoted their whole lives in that country to what was considered there a profession, and having risen to the very highest offices by their own talents and exer tions, it could not be expected of them to resign their offices on account of any political differences they may entertain in opposition to the Governor-General. He was persuaded that ha difficult times, and as regarded questions of great public importance, it would be perfectly impossible for the Gover nor-General to enforce the penalty of dismissal upon those who did not give him their support. Tho Earl of EL LENBOROUGH reminded his noble friend that the clause did not give the Governor-General the power to dismiss them. Earl GREY continued —If that be so the difficulty was almost insurmountable. In the present state of society in India it was impossibl e t o get representative legislation, and power must therefore rest en ti rely with the Governor -Gene ral and the Executive Council, but in exercising that autho rity they must be responsible to the Government at home and to the Parliament of this country. It was also of the greatest public importance that upon every measure they proposed the public opinion of India should be distinctly known, and with that view he ventured to propose an amend ment which was similar to one brought forward a few years ago by his noble friend near him (Lord Ellenborough); and again, when the present bill was proposed to be read a second time. He should move the omission of part of the clause now before their lordships, so as to leave all authority in le gislation to the Governor-General and Legislative Council, but to create another body, which should be called a Council of State,composed of the most distinguished persons in India, natives as well as European, who, by their talents and posi tion, would be entitled to act as a consultative body. He also proposed that the Governor-General should prepare drafts of his legislativt measures to be laid before and considered by this body, before they were finally decided on by him and his council, in order that their opinions be taken and fairly expressed. In this manner the proposed laws might be fairly discussed and their merits completely sifted, before they finally passed. Under the existing arrangements there was no way of ascertaining the opinions of distinguished na• tives ; but by his plan the subjects brought forward for legislation could be made known and discussed in large towns—such as Delhi, Lucknow, and other places—so as to ascertain as nearly as possible the feelings of those for whom they were intended. His present proposal was by no means a new one, for a similar Council of State existed in France during the reign of the first Napoleon, and most certainly the laws passed by that body redeemed in some measure the horrors of the bloody wars to which it was for so many years exposed. Under the system now proposed there was greater danger of bringing the future Government of India to dead lock;' but by confining the functions of the Council of State te a mer e consultative body, to report public opinion to the Governor-General and his Executive Council, every danger would be avoided. He proposers that all the words after Governor-General and Council be left out, and to add "a Council of Stat e to assist in the preparation and regulation of all measures to los Proposed, the Governor-General hay. lag power to appoint and remove its members, subject, how in this country ever, to the a pprobation o f the Secretary of State in Council ~, Earl DE GREY and RIPON said the object of her Ma jesty's Governmen was to make as few changes as possible in the existing law —t to follo w , as f ar as could be the course of the those w hich experience had shoament, only evious legislation in Parliament, and to make Wn thanemtoer be cose absolutely necessary.he Ths noble earl ad o p ted anoth er proposed to establish for the first tittle body entirely o f a novel character, and for which no pa recedent could be found. Under these circumstances he could not agree to the amendment proposed by the noble earl. There was nothing in the present bill calculated to extend or continue the tills that AEI been Maui t. 9 gr9W Glib of tlat eaistiAs constitution of the Legislative Council. The act of 1853 s expressly used that term, but in this bill these words were ' never used, the members who were to assist the Governor- General in deliberative or legislative councils were called "additional members," and they were to be appointed by him. Then the noble earl said that there was nothing said about publicity in the bill. The reason for that was that the Government had come to the conclusion that it was best to leave to the Governor-General the power of deter mining not only the rules and regulations by which the pro ceedings of the council would be guided, but also to what extent they should be published. it was also argued that • the Governor-General might meet the same opposition from the new members of the council ; but he could hardly be lieve that would be the case when it was considered that the members who now exhibited that opposition were ex officio members of council, whereas in the proposed councils alarge proportion of the members would be appointed by the Go vernor-General, and he could not imagine that they would combine to obstruct his policy, unless there was a grave necessity for doing so. There would always be the Gover nor-General himself, and five official members of council, , and the Commander-in-Chief, while the additional mem bers would be appointed by the Governor-General from such classes as were likely to give influence to the decisions of the council. The alterations proposed by the bill, if adopted, would, in fact, raise up in India a great Councilof State, apart from the Executive G over nment; and if it was constituted as proposed, one of two things would happen, either the members of that council would be selected from classes of little weight, and so the office fall into disuetude, or it might be composed of persons of weight and influence, who systematically set themselves in opposition, and then all the evils of the present system would be aggravated and extended. On the twofold ground, that the bill made as little alteration as possible in the existing law—that it was approved . of by the Gover nor-General, and by persons of experience in Indian admi nistration as an efficient remedy for the defects which had rendered its introduction necessary, he hoped that their lordships would not agree to the amendments of the noble earl. 1 The Earl of ELLENBOROUGII said he heartily ap proved of the amendments suggested by th e no bl e ear l. S o far from being an innovation, they Were merely a restora tion of the old and the only popular Government in India. They would enable the Governor• General to do by his own authority all that it was proposed to allow him to do with the advice and assistance of his council. For his own part he should have no apprehension of a Council of State, com posed in the way proposed, interfering in any way with the action of the Governor-General in administrative matters. It was the only way in which a large body of natives could ever be introduced to a participation in the governing power of the country, and he held that such a large intro duction of natives was absolutely necessary. (Hear.) He asked the house to look at the peril in which we stood. There was now a spirit of deep hostility existing between the natives and Europeans. The Englishmen in India were to be counted by units as against thousands of na tives ; and he believed that nothing would more gratify the people of the country than to admit them to participate in the duties of such a Council of State. On the other hand, he had already stated the strong objections he entertained to the council as proposed by this bill, and he now entreated their lordships to remember that they were legislating for India, not for the people of this country, and it was an im perative duty to consider the feelings and interests of the people of India, and not those of the people of this country. The Duke of ARGYLL defended the clause, and said that the arguments of his noble friend had not been answered by the noble mil opposite, with respect to the amendments proposed by the noble earl (Earl Grey) ; they were wholly inconsistent with the objects and the other provisions of the bill ; and if they were agreed to, the bill would have to be withdrawn and totally remodelled, so as to make it a different measure altogether from what it now was. The noble duke proceeded to justify the provision for giving publicity to the proceedings of the council under certain regulations, and pointed out the advantages which had resulted from giving publicity to the financial state ments of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Laing. The noble duke at some length went on to combat other objections which had been urged against the clause. Lord DENMAN having said a few words, The clause was agreed to, as were also clauses up to 22 inclusive, with verbal amendments. On clause 23 being proposed, which went to give the Go vernor• General power to make an edict the force of law for a limited period, The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH opposed the clause, and did not think it safe to give such power to any man whatever. Ho therefore proposed, as an amendment, that in cases of emergency the Governor-General should have the power, in council. of giving an ordinance the force of law, and the power also of overruling the opinions of the council in the same manner as he had at present of over ruling their opinions for any other purpose. Earl DE GREY and RIPON thought the power pro posed by the noble earl a novel one, viz., to give the coun cil, in cases of emergency, power to deliberate on what should be done. Her Majesty's Government were of opinion it was better to leave it—as it always had been left—to the Governor-General himself, acting on his own responsibility. The clause was agreed to. Clauses 24 to 49 were agreed to. On clause 50 being proposed, providing a substitute for the Governor-General in case of a vacancy, Lord ELLENBOR.OUGH thought it would be much better to leave the law as it had been for 87 years, which invested the powers of the Governor-General, in case of a vacancy, in the senior member of the council. The present clause proposed to transfer it to the Governor of Madras. Earl DE GREY had not been able to consider the clause sufficiently so as to give the noble earl an answer. He would, however, do so ; and on the bringing up of the re port would, if possible, accede to his suggestions. The clause was then agreed to, as well as the remaining, and the house resumed. The report was ordered to be brought up on Friday next. The Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland), and the Piers and Harbours Bills, were read a second time. The Chatham Dockyard Enlargement Bill went through committee. The County Surveyors (Ireland) Bill, and the Industrial Schools Bill were read a second time. The London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance Bill went through committee. The Harbours Bill, and the Metropolitan Police Force Pensions Bill were, after some amendments, read a third time and passed. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair a t t we l ve o'clock,. but i was some time before a house was formed. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords' amendments to the Dublin Corporation Bill were considered and agreed to. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Blane Valley Railway ; Caledonian and Symington, Biggar, and Broughton Railway Companies. The Savile Estate and Westminster Life Insurance Society (Dissolution) Bills were read a second time. IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL. The house went into commiteee on this bill, and the de bate on the following amendment of Sir J. Pakington to the 9th clause was resumed :—At the end of the clause to add, "Provided also, that extra-parochial places which have heretofore paid no centributions to the common fund of the unions in which they are comprised, shall, notwith standing anything herein contained, be hereafter exempt from such contributions." He could not avoid comment ing on the change that had taken place in the order of the day. Up to a late hour last night it was understood that the Drainage Bill was to have had precedence of this bill, and that the probability was that the latter measure could not be brought forward at the morning sitting of this day. Some of the members had received a c ommunication as late as 4 o'clock in the morning, inform ing them of the change in the order of business. With re gard to the amendment, he could not give it his support. Mr. -VILLIERS entered into an explanation, from which it appeared that the transposition in question originated in a mistake, which he had endeavoured to rectify as soon as possible. After some conversationthe matter dropped. Mr. KNIGHT then proceeded amendment would not e ff ect the benefit measure, and therefore h e felt bound to contend that th e opposeelse it. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that byowners of to pr o p ose d b y t h e the thi s property which had been exempted from taxation to poor an i mpost which ra t e s would be called on to pay con t em plated when theybecame possessed o f their properties. Mr. Mr. KNIGHT moved the omission of the claus e , and the substitution of another. He maintained that the clause to which he objected would effect an alteration in the area of rating that was not required, and would operate most usjustly on a class of proprietors who had not been consulted in reference to the change. He considered that the present was a most inopportune time for making any alteration when poor rates were greatly diminishing under the operation of the existing system, which it was pro posed to subvert. There were 9,000 parishes which would be mulcted by the process suggested in this bill, while serious injury upon proprietors would be inflicted. They were disturbing by the proposed measure the actual value of property, and the effect would be that the owners of certain lands would be ruined. It was proposed to deprive owners of no less than 1-16th, or in some cases of I.Bth of their property, without giving them any compensation. If this union rating were established it would not work efficiently, and it was necessary the recipient and giver of parochial charity should be mutually acquainted. Ho did not deny that in many of the large towns relief was required by certain large parishes. There was, no doubt, great cruelty practised in regard to Irish poor, but the present measure would not effect any improvement in their condition. Mr. BARROW opposed the amendment, and denied that by this bill they were introducing the principle of union rating, but merely proposing to effect a mon) equitable and reasonable division of a particular rate. It had been said that the bill would ruin a certain class of proprietors, but the increase that would be made would , not in any case amount to 2s. or 2s. 6d. Mr. HENLEY said he could not support this clause of the bill because, as he had mated previously, he considered gm Ind apt pgitGiciat ia9rin4tl94 th, pubjoQt a Elie rhole of the ease in favour of the clause rested on the authority of the committee, and without sufficient know ledge the Government asked the house to make a perma nent alteration. He stated, on the information of the clerk of an union, that in one parish the change proposed would mulct the inhabitants in £3,000 a-year, which was equivalent to £30,000 capital withdrawn from employment. It must be admitted by any one who paid attention to the subject that the changes proposed would benefit the poor ; but the question then arose, were these changes to be effected in a manner just to the parties interested ? He thought that in the dis tribution of this rating of the taxed landed property, which had hitherto been exempted, they should also extend rat ing to mines. He drew attention to the peculiar position in which landed property was placed, particularly to what were called derivative settlements. He thought the whole question of settlement should be brought before the house prior to any permanent alteration being introduced, and that the bill should be first tested by its operation for one year. Sir J. GRAHAM said that this was one of the few ques tions of rural and domestic economy with which he differed from his right hon. friend who had just sat down. As early as 1845 he had introduced a bill containing the prin ciple of union settlement, but he did not pass it, and it passed into other hands. This question had been most fully investigated by different commissions which sat in 1847, and the majority of opinion was in favour of the abolition of the principal of removal, the extension of the area of rating for the relief of the poor, and the eligibility of unions to carry out that object. He considered that the poor law in Ireland was an example we should imitate in this country, and that the principle of settlement should not be required as necessary to entitle a pauper to local relief. He stated as his most confident opinion that there could be no more beneficial alteration as regarded a large body of their countrymen than the abolition of settlement, which must be attended with a coincidence of union rating. Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that he had not heard one argu ment in favour of the existing average on which rating was based, and ho believed its increase would inflict the greatest injustice. Mr. CAYLEY opposed the bill, and contended that what had been advanced rested on authority and not on argu ment. Mr. WALTER and Sir C. JERVOISE supported the clause. Lord LOVAINE contended that the clause would be un just in its operation to rural districts, and would benefit only parishes in large towns. Alderman SIDNEY argued that, as the management of the poor was vested in the union board of guardians, the maintenance of the poor should be in the unions. The ab sence of a wider area of rating in the metropolis was to throw the burthen of the support of the poor on the poor. In his opinion, the present law of settlement exercised a very considerable influence on the strikes in the building trades, as the men complained that they were not able to get residences near their places of work, and they were away from their homes at least 14 hours a day. He felt bound to support the clause. Sir J. TROLLOPE said that this was the first time he had ever heard that the poor laws had anything to do with the strikes in the building trade. He hoped, after the argu ments that had been advanced against the clause, that the President of the Poor Law Board would not press it. After some further discussion the house divided— For the clause 127 Against it Majority —B3 The clause was accordingly agreed to. The other clauses were also agreed to. Mr. AYRTON moved the addition of a clause to the effect that the bill shculd continue in force for a pe riod of five years, which he stated would give full time to test the efficiency of the measure, and enable them to re trace their steps. After a short discussion the motion was negatived with out a division. The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the house re sumed. REMOVAL OF SCOTCH AND IRISH POOR BILL. The house went into committee on this bill, and some discussion arose on the Ist clause, which, however, was agreed to. Some other clauses, with verbal amendments, were agreed to. The sitting was then suspended at 4 o'clock. The house resumed at 6 o'clock. THE GALWAY CONTRACT. Mr. CONINGHAM presented a petition from Mr. J. O'Malley Irwin, containing various allegations with respect to the conduct of Mr. Lever and other officials of the Royal Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, which he began to read. Mr. ROEBUCK rose to order. He wished to know whether it was consistent with the rules of the house to read a libel against individuals in the form of a petition. The SPEAKER said that the hon. member was in order. Mr. CONINGHAM stated the substance of the state ments in the petition, which concluded with the prayer that inquiry might be made into the frauds cummitied by the officials and manager of the company upon the Government and the public, and with the assertion that the petitioner would be prepared to substantiate his allegations. Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the petition be not received, and asked whether he was in order in making the motion. The SPEAKER said that any petition brought before the house was generally received upon the responsibility of the member presenting it, and upon his authority the house presumed that it contained no offensive matter, or matter which ought not to be received according to the rules of the house. If any objection was made to the petition the proper course was to have it read by the clerk at the table, in order that the house might know what it contained. Mr. ROEBUCK—Then I move that it be read by the clerk. The petition was accordingly read by the clerk at the table. It contained a long history of the circumstances un der which the company had been established, and prayed that after an inquiry had been made into frauds perpetrated by the manager and officials of the board, the Attorney- General might be directed to prosecute the parties to those frauds. On the question that the petition be laid on the table, Mr. ROEBUCK moved that it be not received. The right of petition was one of the most important rights possessed by the subject, and the house ought not to allow it to be turned to purposes of private enmity. (Hear, bear.) The man who signed the petition had been convicted of perjury, and had been nine months in prison in Ireland. He had also brought actions against Mr. Lever, which had been re jected by the English courts of law. He hoped the house would not allow itself to be made the instrument of the malicious propensities of any individual, and he asserted that the individual who had signed this petition was un worthy of credit. Lord DUNKELLIN seconded the motion. Mr. BOUVERIE said that it would have been as well if the hon. member for Brighton had given notice to the hon, member whose character and conduct were inculpated by the petition before he presented it. (Hear, hear.) But as far as he could collect, the petition itself contained nothing which should induce the house to reject it. The house should consider whether it would t receive such a petition supposing the statements it contained were true ; but if they did receive it, they were bound to ascertain whether or not there was any foundation for the charges it con tained. It was the duty of a member before presenting such a petition to ascertain the grounds on which such charges were made, and to be prepared to substantiate them. The hon. member, however, had not given notice of any motion founded upon the petition. The hon. member ought to take the earliest opportunity of laying before the house the grounds upon which these charges had been made, and if they turned out to be unsubstantial, as they all hoped they might ; if it appeared that there was not sufficient prima facie evidence to justify an hon. member in bringing them before the house, it would be a question whether the member who had brought them forward was not deserving of condemnation and censure.. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. TROLLOPE reminded the house that a committee which had been appointed to inquire into circumstances connected with the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company had not yet made its report, and suggested that the petition should be withdrawn, at all events until that report was before the house. He stated that the petitioner had sent a letter to a member of the committee containing many of the charges made in the petition, but the committee had exercised a wise discretion in refusing to enter into those charges, as they formed no part of the matters referred to them. Lord DUNK ELLlN,wished to say'a few words on behalf of his hon. colleague (Mr. Lever), who was absent. What he knew of the gentleman who had signed the petition would make him very cautious and suspicious in giving credit to any of the statements he had made. If the house should consider that these imputations reflecting on the business habits, outside the house, of one of its members, was a fitting subject for inquiry, ho would undertake on the pa r t o f hi s hon, colleague that he would not shrink such a d had anyidea h explanations u ch a petition as w o be d satisfactory to ese t n h t e e h d. ous n e. e s H up is po h r o te n d . c th ol e le m ag o t t l i e on w f o o ul r d its have attended giving p from ifhe e t een have b re jection, because he thought it had been presented 'in a way which was not calcul a t e d t o do credit to the house,. and he v ery much regretted that n o no ti ce of it had been given to the parties concerned. Sir G. GREY said that when a petition of this nature was about to be presented to the house it was usual to give to the hon. member whose conduct was Complained of noti ce of such intention, in order that he might have an opportu nity of being present and meeting the charges contained in the petition. He thought that, under the circumstance of theno n h o o t n i c . e m having f b o e r e n gi venßrighton to the jlf r h . o n. eo ning member har n f r w G o a u l l w d ay, do well to withdraw the petition, and, if he should think fit to give notice to the hon. member for Galway, to present it at a future time. (No, no—reject it.) The hon. and learned member for Sheffield had stated that the petition contained matter which was libellous ; now the charges in the petition might be utterly groundless or they might be true ; but on neither ground ought the house to reject the petition, nor ought the house to reject the petition because the hon. member was not prepared to substantiate the charges. Under all the circumstances of the case, ho thought the hon. member ought not to have presented the petition, but having done so he hoped he would not, press it u 1 304 tll9 Irmo rithole giTiPs th 9 UPIZ i ram* Or Qlll- way notice of it, in order that he might at the earliest mo ment have an opportunity of meeting the charges against him. The house ought not now to lay down a precedent by rejecting the petition because it contained libellous matter. (Hear.) Mr. DISRAELI said it would be well for the country to understand that the presentation of petitions to that house was not a matter of course. It was one of their great privi leges, but it ought to be understood that the house had the power of recepti9n or rejection of any petition. There might be good grounds for refusing to receive a petition. Some grounds might arise from the matter of the document which might be libellous and utterly untrue and unfounded. It was the duty of the house to listen to the charges which were made against any one of its members, and it would no doubt be the wish of the member himself that 110 obsta cle should be thrown in the way of having those charges fully inquired into. The petition now presented contained grave matters against an hon. member, and no notice had been given to him that his conduct would be impugned. But it was impossible to shut their eyes to the fact that these matters had been under discussion for weeks in and out of that house, and that being s,), when was the petition presented ? Why, at the fag end of the session, when it would be almost impossible, even if desirable, to appoint a committee for the purpose of inquiring into the allegations which the petition contained. He thought that would be a course which the house ought not to sanction, for the peti tion was not of that bone . fide and genuine character which petitions ought to bear. (Hear.) He trusted the hon. and learned member who had so properly called attention to the petition would be contented with the suggestion which had been made that the petition should be withdrawn. That course would show the sense of the house at this time that a petition containing such grave charges had been brought before the house, and that there had been a want of the usual courtesies which attended such a proceeding, and that it had been presented under circumstances which were full of suspicion. He would not condescend to go into the character of the petitioner. It was enough for him that the petition was not respectful to the house, and that the course which the petitioner had pursued ought not to be encouraged. (Hear, hear.) Mr. GREGORY, as chairman to the committee to which some allusion had been made, wished to observe that an application was made by the petitioner to be examined before the committee, and he wrote a letter containing certain allegations against the company. The committee, on looking at the terms of reference of the subject they had to consider, thought it would be out of place to examine the petitioner, and they refused to enter into the allega tions. He thought the house ought to mark its strong sense of the course which had been pursued by the hon. member for Brighton. The house ought to remember the position in which it stood. If any hon, member would come forward and make himself the vehicle of having published libel and slander, the character of any member might be affected by any person, no matter how low his position might be in society, and the fair fame of the member would be in jured by such a proceeding. (Hear.) These allegations would go forth to the world ; the member would be gib beted before the public, and at the same time the allega tions might be entirely groundless and false, yet the charges would go forth in the newspapers, and do the hon. member considerable damage. He thought the house ought to mark its strong sense of the manner in which this petition had been presented to them. (Hear, hear.) Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said if there were one privilege or right which the people prized more than another, it was the right of petition. (Hear, hear.) But it was a right which should be properly used and not abused. He knew nothing of the hon. member against whom the petition was presented. But if the house received the petition they would constitute themselves into a species of grand jury, and they would find a true bill without giving the hon. member an opportunity of inquiry into his conduct. The petition contained serious charges against the hon. member for Galway, and it asked the house to instruct the Attorney- General to prosecute him for these matters. (Hear, hear.) Now, if that hon. member had been guilty of the frauds im - puted, or this misconduct, that would not be the course which the house would pursue. It would not instruct the Attorney-General, but it would expel the member—expul sion would be the proper course for such misconduct. He could not understand how it was that the hon, member for Brighton had presented this petition without first giving notice of his intention to do so. (Hear, hear.) He would not go into the question whether the petition was libellous or not, or whether the allegations were true or not, it ought not to have been presented, but having been presented sim ple withdrawal would not satisfy the justice of the case. The petition ought to be rejected altogether at the present moment. If the hon. member_ should bring it forward at a future time, let him bring forward a petition properly worded, and give no' ice to the member charged ; and if the charges were true, let the member be expelled from the house. (Hear, hear.) Sir S. NORTHCOTE said a committee sat last year to consider the facts in reference to the Galway contract, and they reported all the evidence to the house, leaving the house to express an opinion upon that evidence. The house abstained from doing so. It could not be said that these matters were now brought forward for the first time. The hon. member for Brighton had not thought fit to take a course which was open to him, and it was hardly fair to the house that charges of this sort should be introduced in a petition. Tf they were worthy of attention, they should be brought forward by the hon. member in the usual manner. Lord PALMERSTON said it seemed to him that this was a matter which involved two questions—the privileges of the house, and the duties of hon. members. He could not admit that if a petition contained grave charges against a member—or it might be libellous charges—that it should not be received. On the contrary, if a member were said to be guilty of any act which was disgraceful to himself or unbecoming to him as a member of Parliament, it was for his interest that the charges should be inquired into. (Hear, hear.) It was one of the essential privileges that the subject should petition Parliament upon any matter on which any individual might think it desirable that his opinions should be submitted to the house; but he did not think that any member was to be bound to present any petition which was given to him. (Hear, hear.) No man had a right to insist upon tha presentation of any petition, and it was the duty of the member to whom the petition was given to ascertain by inquiry that the matter of the petition was fit to be laid before Parliament. If a petition inculpated the conduct of any member it was the duty of the person presenting the petition in the first place to sa tisfy himself by inquiry that there was a prime facie ground for the imputations made, and if he did not find that to be the case he should return the petition to the person from whom it came ; but if there were sufficient grounds for pre senting the petition, then it would be the bounden duty of the hon. member to give notice to the member charged that on a certain day he would present such a petition to the house, and give him the opportunity of being present to state what answer he could make to the allegations con tained in the petition. It appeared to him that the hon. member for Brighton had not, so far as his statement went, fulfilled any of these duties. (Hear, hear.) He had not stated to the house that he had examined into the charges made, or satisfied himself that there was a prima facie ground for them, nor did it appear that ha had given the member for Galway notice that he should present this peti tion, and therefore it seemed to him (Lcrd Palmerston) that the hon.. member would do well to take the petition back. If upon inquiry the matter of the petition was such that the honour of the house was involved in the conduct of the member for Galway, the hon. member for Brighton would have another opportunity on a future occasion of bringing it forward ; and he would, in the meantime, give notice of that fact to the member for Galway, in order that he might be present to answer the charges of the petitioner. At present he thought the house ought not to take any further steps on the petition, but allow it to be withdrawn. (Hear.) Mr. CONINGHAM admitted that in compliance with the wish of the house ho would withdraw the petition. The hon. and learned member for Sheffield was the last person in the world to complain of a libellous attack being made on any person, for no member of that house had made so many personal attacks on members as he had done. (Hear, hear.) To the noble lord who had reflected on his conduct of yes- terday, he would say that he claimed the right to make in quiries into the conduct of the gallant officer alluded to. (Question.) That was the question. He was replying to an attack on himself. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Galway county (Mr. Gregory) said that by bringing this libellous petition before the house he was doing a serious injury to the character and reputation of the member for Galway (Mr. Lever), and upon that ground it was proposed to reject the petition. Now he (Mr. Coningham) would venture to say that if he were attacked in this manner, so far from avoiding publicity, ho would wish that the whole of the charges in detail should be inquired into. (Hear, hear.) He had no personal knowledge of the petitioner, and he only saw the petition about half an hour before pre senting it. He found the member for Galway (Mr. Lever) was absent from London, but he also found that the peti• tioner had appealed to the committee to be heard, and that they had rejected his demand to be examined upon the sub ject of the petition ; and he also understood that the investi gation of the committee was drawing to a close, and would in fact terminate immediately. It, therefore, appeared to him to be a case of urgency. (Hear, hear.) He had no motive but that of the public interest in the matter, and if they would look back at what had taken place in reference to this contract, he thought they would see that there was a prima facie case for the petition. He would maintain that the presentation of this petition was likely to be conducive to public good, and that it was for the interest of the house that it should be referred to the select committee, and that it should be printed. In com pliance, however, with the wish of the house, he was will. ing to withdraw it, and he would leave the matter in the hands of the house. Sir J. FERSUSSON said that having been the subject of an attack of a similar nature to the present in the last, session of Parliament, he wished to observe that the hon. members who were addressed on the personal charges against his character immediately informed him of them ; and having disregarded then for some time, he in the end prosecuted the libeller, and convicted him of the crime. The hon. member had not told the house what means he took to inform the member for Galway of the charges against him. In this respect the hon. member's conduct had been very tualike that of the hou,membtre whq last year gaie hta the earliest information of the charges made against him (Sir J. Fergusson). (Hear, hear.) Mr. CRAWFORD said that having acquired some infor mation of Mr. Irwan's peculiarities, and other circumstances connected with him, he should have no hesitation in voting with the hon. and learned member for Sheffield that the petition be not received by the house. Sir F. BARING said if the petition was not to be with drawn he should move the adjournment of the debate, be cause he did not think there was any just ground for reject ing it. Whether they believed or did not believe the charges contained in the petition was no reason why they should not listen to them. He should not have spoken but for the remarks of the hon. member for London, who had come to a different conclusion to himself. The prayer of the petition was that the petitioner might be heard before the committee which had been selected for the purpose of looking into these transactions, and he did not make a voluntary charge against any member of that house. Now, rightly or wrongly, the petitioner thought he had good grounds and a right to be heard by the committee, and the house ought to pause before they rejected the petition. (Hear.) He should be sorry to see the house reject the petition. Lord J. RUSSELL said there were two questions which hon. members seemed to confound, namely, the reception of the petition, and what should be done with it on its re ception. It was one thing to instruct the Attorney-Gene - ral to prosecute, which the house would not do, and another to deny to the subject the right of petitioning against any member of that house. He must say that the hon. member for Brighton had not accounted in a satisfactory manner for the mode in which he had introduced a petition containing such grave financial charges. Still he must assert the right of the subject to petition. The SPEAKER intimated that the petition could not be withdrawn unless the hon. and learned member for Sheffield withdrew his amendment. Mr. ROEBUCK—I will not. Mr. HOPE pointed out that the petition contained mat ter entirely different from that which had been referred to the committee. The inquiries of the committee were con fined entirely to the question of the money promised to Messrs. Holmes and Irwan in case they could obtain a sub sidy. The committee looked on that transaction with great suspicion, but on the whole thinking that the contract had passed into other hands it was unnecessary to pursue the subject further. The house divided— For the reception of the petition B4 For the amendment! 75-9 After a few words from Mr. BRADY, Mr. CONINGHAM withdrew the petition. POST-OFFICE. Sir G. BOWYER gave notice that on Thursday next he should present a petition from 1,500 persons in the Post office, praying for inquiry into the management of that de partment. ROYAL DOCKYARDS. The Earl GIFFORD asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any steps had been taken to carry out the recom mendations of the royal commissioners upon the control and management of the dockyards, so far as those recommen dations relate to the accounts of those establishments, and to the placing of the department of the Storekeeper-General under the control of the Comptroller of the Navy ; and, if so, whether he had any objection to lay upon the table of the house a copy of any board minutes which had been written, or of any instructions which had been sent to the dockyards upon those subjects ? Lord C. PAGET said that in accordance with the recom mendation of the dockyards committee, the dockyard ac counts would in future be placed under the control of the Accountant-General of the Navy. The other matter con cerned the organisation of the Admiralty, and would be considered by the select committee next session. GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL. Sir J. PAKINGTON inquired the intentions of Govern ment respecting this bill, and Sir J. GRAHAM requested its postponement until some day could be allotted for its full discussion. Lord C. PAGET had intended to bring it on that even ing, but in consequence of a communication which the Duke of Somerset had had with a gallant naval officer, his noble friend thought it desirable that the bill should be deferred until Thursday nest. He proposed to take it on that day, and if unable to do so would not again bring it forward during the present session. BANKRUPTCY BILL. Lord PALMERSTON rose to state what were the inten tions of Government respecting the Bankruptcy Bill. There were three main points on which the House of Lords had made amendments. One was the appointment of the judge, another the substitute of official for creditors' assignees, and the third related to the retrospective action of certain clauses. What the Government meant to do was to recom mend the house to disagree to the Lords' amendments re specting the judges and the creditors' assignees, and with respect to the third point they had no proposal to make. They intended to have a morning sitting on Thursday next for the purpose of going into supply, and he trusted hon. members would forbear preliminary motions. Mr. DISRAELI asked when the Lords' amendments to the Bankruptcy Bill would be taken? Lord PALMERSTON—Thursday evening. COLONEL HENRY. Col. NORTH moved that an humble address be pre sented to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to grant the pension of a major, in place of that of a cap tain, to Lieut.-Col. Henry, Royal Artillery, who lost his arm when in command of an important battery before Sebas topol, he holding at the time the rank of brevet-major, which rank had been conferred upon him for distinguished conduct in the field ; and to assure her Majesty that this house will make good the same. Sir DE L. EVANS had never heard a similar case which better deserved the attention of the house, The War-office warrant was, on the whole, a very fair one, but he believed that the duties performed •by Col. Henry were more than those which would ordinarily be performed by a major of artillery. When they considered, also, that he had gained his brevet rank by distinguished conduct, and had been re commended for the Victoria Cross, he thought that the house could well assent to the motion now made. Xi% BARING said that the case of Col. Henry had frequently been under the notice of the Secretary for War, who, after mature consideration, had come to a decision on the matter. He rather questioned whether the form of the notice was in strict order. As regarded the substance matter of the notice, it was extremely undesirable for the house to express opinions on individual cases, contrary to the rules of the service. At the time Col. Henry received his reward he was acting as captain of artillery, and under the warrant was only entitled to the pension of a captain, not of a field officer. It might be a question, but certainly not one to be raised in the address, whether the duties of officers of artillery were of so much more importance than those of other officers, that the warrant should be altered as regarded their claims. As regarded the present motion, he could only say that there was no disposition at the War office to underrate the services of Col. Henry, but at the same time, under the warrant, he had only a right to claim the pension of a captain. The SPEAKER said that in point of form the motion of which the hon. and gallant officer had given notice could not have been put to the house. He would not say that the alteration might not be sufficient, but from its wording the hon. member would proceed under some disadvantages. Capt. JERVIS strongly supported the motion, arid denied that too much importance had been attached to the mere wording of a warrant. It was not a question of money, for Col. Henry was in no want of money, but it was a question in which the whole corps of Ordnance took a great interest. They objected when they performed services of more im portance than a field-officer of the line, even though they held brevet rank, to being treated not as field-officers, but as mere captains of artillery. After a few words in reply from Col. NORTH, Lord PALMERSTON—I hope the house will consider well before it agrees to the motion. It is not the province of this house to administer the business of any department of the Government—least of all of the military department. If once it is understood that an officer whose claims to hon ours or allowances has not met with the approbation of the responsible Minister might apply to some influential mem ber of this house, who, either by his position or his power of speaking, might give effect to his appeal, the house will see that there would be an end of all proper discipline in the army, and next there would be no limit to the expenditure of public money. Colonel Henry, in the letter read by the hon. and gallant member, states that he was serving only as a captain at the time he was wounded, and it was impossible for the Secretary of War to assume that he was performing the duties of a higher rank. I hope the house will see that a bad example will be set if we have to inter pret the regulation in question, instead of that being done by the public officer who is responsible for such matters. (Hear, hear.) Colonel DICKSON denied that it was irregular for an officer to bring his grievances before that house, or that his doing so was a broach of discipline. The house then divided— For the motion 34 Against it . 63 Majority against the motion CONSULSHIP AT PESTII. Mr. T. D UNCOMBE moved that a humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be gra ciously pleased to direct that steps should be taken to enable her Majesty to appoint a consul at Pesth. Mr. Dunlop, who had been withdrawn at the request of Austria, had been at Pesth for seven months, and that was prima facie evidence that some diplomatic intercourse with Pesth was desirable. If Mr. Dunlop remained, he should not have brought forward the present motion. He could well believe that Austria did not like Mr. Dunlop's reports. The pre sent population of Pesth, and of Buda, on the other side of the river, was at least 300,000, and our nearest consul was at the mouth of the Danube, some 300 miles distant. We had a consul at Jassy, who might be well transferred to Pesth. It had been said that we had had something to do with the sending back of the Hungarian address by Austria. He hoped that that was not the case. He could assure Austria that until she placed Hungary in the position in which she was in 1848, not a concession would be made by Hungary. He was authorised to say that nothing would give the Hungarians greater satisfaction than the estab lishment of some diplomatic intercourse with them. lard Z i AV5541,414 Maid that tbs lust 1319131 W ITM not correct in supposing that the British Government had 1 anything to do with the sending back by Austria of the address cif the Hungarian Diet. That did not appear to him to be a question upon which foreign Governments were likely to be consulted. He was, however. certain that if an address had been sent to her Majesty by any portion of her subjects in which her title of Queen had been designedly left out, neither he nor his noble friend at the head of the Government would have received it. (Hear, hear.) Hun gary was a rich and prosperous country, and at some future period, when matters were in a more settled state, it might be advisable for us to have a consul there ; but he did not think it would be advisable at present. After a few words from Mr. HADFIELD, Mr. DUNCOMBE replied, and said he did not mean to press the motion to a division. Mr. LAYARD was glad that his hon. friend had with drawn the motion, but he thought that his hon. friend had misunderstood what was said by the noble lord. The hon. member seemed to assume that the noble lord had contended that there ought to be no consul at Pesth. That was not so, but we could not have consuls anywhere without the con sent of the Power in whose dominion the place was situated, and if Austria wished us to withdraw our consul from Pesth we had no choice but to do so. The amendment was withdrawn. MARKETS AND FAIRS (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. CARDWELL said that as this bill had not yet been sufficiently circulated in Ireland, he should postpone it to that day week. CROWN SUITS LIMITATION BILL. The house then went into committee on this bill. After several clauses had been disposed of, Mr. ROEBUCK called attention to the fact that the law officers of the Crown were not present. Shortly afterwards, however, the hon. and learned gen tlemen entered the house. Several new clauses were added, and the rest agreed to, and the bill passed through committee. The house then resumed. METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. This bill was read a second time. METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT AMEND MENT (No. 2) BILL. Mr. TITE moved the second reading of this bill, and said that he wished it to be referred to a select committee immediately in order that the parishes of Camberwell and Wandsworth might be heard upon it, touching certain grievances of which they complained. Mr. AYRTON opposed the second reading, contending that if the bill were sent to a select committee it would in volve the metropolitan parishes in immense expense. Sir G. C. LEWIS advised that the bill should be with drawn. Mr. BRISTOW said the Metropolitan Board of Works were the principal promoters of this bill, believing that its provisions were most essential to the proper management of metropolitan affairs. Mr. LAYARD moved as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six weeks. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE seconded the amendment, and said it was preposterous that a measure of this kind, involving great parochial considerations, should be brought in at the close of the session, and brought in, too, not by a metropo litan member, but by the hon. member for Bath. Mr. TITE consented to withdraw the bill, and the bill was accordingly withdrawn. SUPPLY REPORT. The report on supply was brought up and agreed to. The house then went into committee of supply. On the vote of £12,134 for the National Gallery, Lord H. LENNOX reiterated the complaint which he had last year made against a further occupation of the Na tional Gallery by the Royal Academy. Lord PALMERSTON said that the Government had selected that plan for the alterations in the National Gal lery which they thought would afford great improvement without much expense. Many thought that a handsomer building might have been erected on a site which all ad mitted was a very fine one. He thought it was better for them to avail themselves of the accommodation which they had at present. The vote was agreed to. ' £2,000 for the Historical Portrait Gallery was agreed to. £3,000 for the Soltykoff Collection was agreed to. A vote of £6,620 for magnetic observations abroad was also agreed to. The vote of £4,500 for defraying expenses in Bermuda was agreed to. A vote of £6,278 for the ecclesiastical establishment in the British North American provinces was agreed to. £1,600 for the Indian Department (Canada) agreed to. £17,800 for the colony of British Columbia. Mr. ADDERLEY took objection to some items of this vote, particularly that for the Royal Engineers employed in the colony. Mr. FORTESCUE defended the vote, which he said was justified by the colony being in its infancy, and unable as yet to support itself. Mr. WHITE said they had been assured by the right hon. member for Hertford, when he was Colonial Secretary, this colony would be self-supporting. The vote was agreed to. £14,728 salaries of Governors and Lieutenant-Governors for the West India and other colonies. Mr. ADDERLEY protested against this vote, and com plained that the promise given some years ago, that certain vacancies in tile governorships of our colonies would not be filled up had not been kept. Mr. FORTESCUE was not aware that such a promise had been given. The vote was then agreed to, as were also the following votes, viz. : £5,706, stipendiary justices in West Indies. £15,230, civil establishment West Coast of Africa. £5,945, charge for St. Helena. £7OO for Orange River territory, Cape of Good Hope. £15,000 for British Caffraria. £960, charges for Heligoland. £3,986, charges for Falkland Islands. £8,014, for Labuan. £6OO, Pitcairn's Island. £l,BOO, Fejee Islands Inquiry. £10,090, Emigration Office. On £125,098, for Treasury Chest, Mr. DILLWYN moved that the Chairman report progress. The motion having been agreed to, the house resumed. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTS AMEND • MENT BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. SALMON FISHERIES. This bill was read a third time and passed. PAROCHIAL AND BURGH SCHOOLS (SCOT LAND) (No. 2) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad journed at half-past one o'clock. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. OXFORD CIRCUIT.—WORCESTER, July 16. NISI PRIUS. (Before Mr. Justice Keating.) ACTION FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT AGAINST THE EARL OF DUDLEY.—FARROW V. EARL OF DUDLEY. This was the great cause of the assizes. It was a special jury case, the plaintiff being lately under coachman in the service of the Earl of Dudley, at Witley Court, in this county. The action was brought under the following circumstances :—A young girl, named Mary Tyler, lived at a lodge near Witley Court, and had formed an acquaintance with the plaintiff, the result of which was the birth of a child. Letters passed between them, and the girl represents that Farrow had promised to marry her, but on his subsequent refusal she represented the matter to her master, the Earl of Dudley, inti mating at the same time that the plaintiff had first assaulted her against her will. Farrow, however, denied this, stating that they had met frequently by previous arrangement, and that she was entirely a consenting party to all that took place. However, on the 2d February last the noble defendant called Farrow before him, asked him for a true statement of what had occurred, which the plaintiff says he gave him, but that the earl ordered him to be hand cuffed and taken to the police station, where he was kept until the 4th, when he was examined at Wit ley Court, before his lordship and Sir T. E. Win nington, Bart., IM.P., on a charge of rape, but the case was dismissed. He now brought his action for false imprisonment. The sum of £lO had been offered by the noble defendant, it was said, but re fused. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. James ' • for the defendant, Mr. Huddle ston, Q.C., and Mr. Phipson. The court was cleared of females and young per sons during the trial, which excited great interest. Mr. Sergeant rigott having opened the case, and stated in detail the facts as briefly glanced at above, called Thomas Farrow, the plaintiff, who was under examination two hours. He deposed that he was formerly in the service of Sir Joseph Bailey and other gentlemen as coachman and helper in stables, and that he came to Earl Dudley's service with a four years' character. He gave his account of his first meeting with the girl .Mary Tyler on the 23d October last. He was walking along the road near Witley Court, when be met with her and ask e d her to allow him to accompany her for a short dis tance. She did not object, and they entered into conversation. They walked as far as the turnpik e , when she said he must not come any further, as renewed. was oblobliged , Another to leave her father would s ee. They bad connexio n , she being, according t o the witness's account, equally b a u cy t he was w illing, and appoint ed to meet o n the following Sunday, when theiandetin: a ppointment was m with the establishment for London, and did not keep it. Letters passed between the wanted him to marry her, and becausem, and she he refused she told his master what had hap p en e d , Routed that what had occurevir _ but re pre had been agunat her will. When he was called before his lordship on the 2d February his lordship asked him to tell all that had occurred, and he did so. His lordship asked for a lett er , w hi c h th e w it ness h a d received from Mary Tyler, which witness fetched. A por tion of the writing was torn off—perhaps to light his pipe with, and his lordship on seeing it said : "This is just what I expected. You've been burn ing this." [The letter was read. It was without date, and. requested Farrow to send her all her letters as she was going to leave that part of the country, and did not wish to trouble him to write any more letters. It also upbraided him for having done her " the greatest injury," but that part of the letter was torn.] His lordship repeated that he (witness) had torn the letter purposely, and said he should send for the police superintendent (Raby), and have him locked up, that he should have prison diet—bread. and water—and that he would have him sent for penal servitude. He added that he would make him an example for the rest of the establishment. Supt. Raby afterwards came and handcuffed him, and took him to the police-station in the village, where he was kept until Monday morning (this being Saturday afternoon). He had meals there — supper of bread and cheese, breakfast of coffee and bread and butter, dinner a slice of mutton and potatoes, and tea in the evening. He slept in a room up a ladder—(witness afterwards described the ladder as steps without any sides)—and had a mattress and rug. There might have been four rugs —he did not remember. On the Monday morning he was taken to Witley Court, before Lord Dudley and Ward, Sir Thomas Winnington, and the clerk to the magistrates. The regular petty sessions are held at the Hundred House, about a mile from Wit ley Court. After hearing the statement of the girl Tyler, and the cross-examination by Mr. Pullen, who attended as witness's attorney, the case was dismissed. After that Lord Dudley said witness was a worthless fellow, and that he had killed two valuable horses for him. As he was leaving the room with Mr. Pullen, his lordship said he should detain him, and he was detained for a few minutes. while the clerk took down a description of him. His lordship said he believed that the statement of the girl was true, that he had forced her, and that he ought to be indicted for perjury. In cross-examination by Mr. Huddleston, the wit ness admitted that he was guaranteed against all ex pense in this case, but denied that he had ever told Lord Tredegar's coachman so. He did communi cate with some one when at the lock-up, but declined. to say who, lest he should get him into trouble. It was a fellow-servant. Two persons came to the police station and saw him, Mr. Hammond (who sent him some cider) and Mr. Arthur, landlord of the Hundred House Inn. The girl in her de position stated that witness had said that he had to pay to four bastard children, and that he made it his boast that he seduced every respectable girl he could. Witness denied that he had ever made such a boast. Mr. Pullen, attorney of Worcester, who defended Farrow when before the justices at Witley Court, gave his version of what took place there, which corroborated the evidence of Farrow. There was some conversation between Earl Dudley and himself as to his presence there. Lord Dudley said he was there only on sufferance, but Mr. Pullen claimed to be there as of right, as his lordship had made his private house a justice room. When the charge was dismissed, and his lordship said he should detain Farrow, witness told him that if he did Farrow would have his remedy against him and that he should defend him. His lordship said Farrow was a worthless fellow and a liar, and ought to be charged with perjury—that he would do what he could against him—that• he would take care the girl swore the child—and that he would take the girl's deposition on that allegation at once. This was done, and it appears a summons was issued at once, citing the plaintiff to appear before the magis trates on the 29th of August next (which would be about a month after the child will be born, in the natural course of events). Some other evidence of a formal nature, and not materially altering the above facts, having been given, the plaintiff's case closed. Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., then addressed the jury on behalf of the noble defendant, justifying his con duct in every particular. The Earl of Dudley and Ward was next called, and gave his version of what took place before him. He considered the plaintiff's statement as to his connexion with the girl, that it had taken place in a public highway, between an inn and a turnpike, that he had repeated his conduct thrice in the same evening, so improbable, that he could not believe him. He considered he was a liar and a bad man, and had called him so. Farrow was only a weekly servant, was paid weekly, and was at liberty any week to leave his service. Considering the gravity of the charge, therefore, he (Lord Dudley) did not feel justified in disposing of it by himself summarily on the Satur day, nor did he feel justified in setting him at liberty , after his threat to leave the country. He had there fore ordered him to be kept in custody until the Monday, when he had the assistance of a brother magistrate. It was very likely he had called him a worthless fellow, for that was his impression. Had never threatened him with penal servitude or prison diet. When Raby came he told him he must be answerable for the safe custody of his prisoner, and that he had better, therefore, put the handcuffs on him. His lordship was under cross-examination when the last train left for London. COUNTRY MARKETS. BRISTOL-JULY 16. At our market to-day there was a very fair attendance of millers, who were buyers of wheat to a moderate extent, at last week's prices. Oats and barley rather dearer. Peas not so much pressed. LEEDS-JULY 16. Our market to-day is thinly attended by millers, and the trade in wheat was confined to the few fresh samples offering, at no reduction upon the last week's currencies. Other articles unaltered. SLEAFORD—JULY 15. The attendance was fair to-day, with a very moderate supply of wheat. Trade less active, at about former rates. White wheat ruled at 57s to 645, red 42s to 58s per qr . Barley was in limited supply, and dull, at 30s to 40s ; oats in dull demand, at lower prices„ 25s to 28s; beans from 44s to 48s ; peas, --s to --s. NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYNE—JULY 15. At this corn market there was a limited supply of wheat. The trade was inactive, and prices were at no improvement on last week's rates—white making 60s to 68s, red 55s to 635. The supply of barley was small, and not much changed in value. Oats were in limited request, with • slow sale, froml2ss' to 32s per 24 stone. Beans met will a dull sale, from 44s to 50s per qr. NORWICH CATTLE. The show of store cattle to-day was small, but more than equal to the demand. The sales were limited, and in favour of purchasers. Scots, 48 Od to 4s 6d ; shorthorns, 38 6d to 4s Irish, 3s Od to 3s 6d ; Doyens, 48 to 5s 6d (estimated weight when fat). Fat beasts a small show, and sales dull, at 8s Od to 8s 6d per 141 b. Sheep—There was a tolerable supply of sheep in the pens, and an excellent show of lambs. Fat sheep, 8s Od to 8s 6d per stone; prime, 9s Od , with out a clearance. Pigs—A fair supply. Store pigs, 15s to 20s; fat pork, 7s Od to 7s 9d per stone. [ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably ag peyote and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, dis appointment, and expense may be avoided by persons in indifferent health sending only their address to E. S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and they will receive gratis and free by post the "INVALIDS' Ox UurDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex, ruse, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs , and refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the removal of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complaints, nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitatiot, cough, asthma, consumption, dropsy, flatulency , diarrhoea, dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, ()Olds, noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruption s , hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpi. tation, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, sp asms, sinking, fits, bronchitis.--"Unanestionably the safest Guide to health." BIRTHS. Pakenham, of a son. at 9, Herbert-street, Dublin, Mrs. SomenviLLE.—On the 16th inst., Lady Somerville, of a daughter. viritactivsoN.—On the 13th ins, at ,Es Sussex-place, Hyde PAKENETA3I. On William thelsth Sandford inst ., park, the wife of Alfred Wilkinson, q., of a daughter. WHEELER.—On the 9th inst., at Kyrewood House, Wor cestershire, the lady of E. V. Wheeler, Esq., of a sou. MARRIAGES. CHAPLIN—MONTGOMERY.--On the 16th inst., at Hilling don Church, Horace Chaplin, Esq., of Stockwell, to Helen, eldest daughter of James Montgomery, Esq., of Pole-hill, Hillingdon, Essex. HARRI SON — COMPORT.—On the 15th inst., at the parish church of Newchurch, Kent, the Rev. Thomas Harrison, rector of Newchurch, to Miss Comport, of Newchurch. DEATHS. GWYNNE.—On the 14th inst., at Clifton, Colonel Gwynne, of Monachty, Cardiganshire, dep.-lieut. of that county, aged 78. _ . . - • -• HUGHES.—On the 15th inst , at 33, Cambri d g e-stre et , Hyde -park, Anne Maria, relict Gf the late Mr. Richard Hughes, of 28. Addle-street, Wood-street. NORMAN.—On the 15th inst., at Portland-Lodge, South sea, Major Charles J. W. Norman, late of the 72d High.. landers, aged 35. YNYARD.—On the 13th inst., at 13, Spring-gardens, George, eldest son of Lieut. -General Wynyard, C. 8., late Major 58th Regt., aged 35. LONDON : printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, o No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Office, No. 112,atrand in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of hliddlevox Wecluer2U, !YU'S' 17, CRE' at J ul] IS,. for the fields En (fro) Duchess Duchess Duchess Duchess Duchess Marchioi Alarchioi liarchim CountesE DOW/Igo countesE CountesE The Ei be upon Admix Voucher' tainmeni __.., Vouch ( nay, Jul Vouch( be charg, AR( with the eleven y Italian I Itto ns. L at Ni ne , at LOIN Leading on PRI] ( B s. and Stratfo r firom w Wolverl (17s. an( and Hs. ter (21s. A TR leave I 10.50 a.l the sth (14s. an( Stratfor Rronmi Wolverl bury (27 and 158 cheater Lo is TOM 44 1ston LAIC NORi L °l RET Month, Fr( To lidi To Oli To Stir To Dui To Dui Mot Abe For 1 Ruston In Lon j ec ' cm Eustc Eust DI ,The ssEN T Un a Issuedpp intere t aYab' ft3rn The th e s e the fa Th e Rico the oi Fo; Comp D' Court Patio OE Oi respc the n caust and i order cauti Cha spec Ro3 Ro3 IVE A: tau] eas acq tre Sal 4.11