The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-07-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PAR-LIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-YERTERDAy.

The Annuity Tax (Edinburgh) Abolition Bill passed thl'ough
• _

committee.

The Leith Harbour and Dock Bill was read a third time and
passed. '

The Earl of Decay rose, in accordance with notice, to call
attention to the mode of conducting the business of the House.
The House had been sitting for six months ; and during that
tune thirty-six bills had become law, and thirteen were wait-
ing for the royal assent. These numbers were not materially
smaller than the average of previous years ; so that the
defect was the system, and not the occasion.. Alter observ-
ing that the House of Commons was the best fitted for
originating, and the House of Lords for revising measures, he
traced the mode of proceeding in the other House, and
enumerated the bills then waiting these stages in the House
of Commons, which had been down from the Lords, and com-
plaining of the tardiness of the other House in dealing with
those bills. He commented on the eonfusion in which public
business then found itself, and the number of bills abandoned
at the close of this session. He could not. hihiself venture to
propose a remedy, except that, should the prorogation be con-
sidered as an adjournment, and that measures should be
introduced in succeeding sessions, at the same stage at whiCh
they were left in the one preceding ; at all events, he thought
that the subject ought to be referred to a select committee,
and made a notice to that effect. •

Earl GRANVILLE thanked the noble lord for having in-
troduced the subject. Admitting the existence of the evil,
he confessed that he could not see his way to the remedy. It
was, no doubt, desirable that inquiry should be made, and the
best plan would be to appoint a joint committee of both
Houses. No steps, however, could be taken at present in
consequence of the lateness of the session, and the soreness
felt by a portion of the Commons at a recent proceeding of
their lordships.

After some remarks from Lord Brougham and Lord
Redesdale the motion was withdrawn, and the House ad-
journed at half-past seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY.
At the morning sitting the Mouse, after some opposition
from Mr. M'Mahon, went into committee on the Landlord and
Tenant (Ireland) Bill, and passed the clauses up to thirty-flve.
In the evening sitting the House went into committee on
the Bankruptcy Bill, when the Attorney-General immediately
moved that the Chairman leave the chair. They had only
just arrived at the 152nd clause, whereby the distinction
between trader and non-trader was abolished, and upon this
so much discussion was is be expected, that is was impossible
to expect the bill to pass the House during the present session
in time to have a fair chance of passing the other House. It
was therefore his duty, and he did it with great regret, to
announce the determination of the Government to withdraw
the bill.

Sir H. CAIRNS believed that the Govarnment had acted
wisely, and recommended that in the ensuing session a similar
bill, embracing merely the proposed amendments in the law
without aiming at a complete code, could be introduced by the
learned gentleman. He regretted for the sake of public busi-
ness, that the determination of the Goverumeat had not been
announced earlier.

Mr. MAUNA also hoped that next session a similar bill would
be introdueed on the same principle as that of the late bill.
To such a measure he promised his earnest support.
Mr. HADFIELD likewise hoped that the principles of the
bill would not be abandoned.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that the decision of
abandoning the bill had only been adopted at two o'clock that
day.
Sir J. PAXINOTON bearing testimony, as the previous Speaker
had done, to the unwearied industry and zeal of the Attorney-
General, commented on the inconvenience of his sudden reso-
lution.

Lord PALMERSTON explained that the Government attached
so much importance to the measure that they clung to the
hope of passing it till all reasonable expectation of carrying it
was gone. It was for this reason that these decisions had been
arrived at so late.

Mr. BOUvERIE admitted that the withdrawal of the bill was
unavoidable. He thought, however, that had the bill been
divided, a portion of it might have been carried. At all
events the subject had been so completely elucidated that the
time of the House had not been wasted. The great changes.
proposed by the bill could not be accomplished at a blow, it
was necessary first to prepare the public mind next session to
anticipate a triumphant success.
After some observations from Mr. Cayley and Mr. Ayrton,
Mr. HENLEY stated his strong objections to shy proposal-for
bringing non-traders under the bankruptcy law, and trusted
that the other branches of the question would be settled before
that subject was brought forward.
After same remarks from Sir G. Bowyer, the Chairman left
the chair.
On the question that the House go into Committee of Supply,
Sir G. C. Lxwis announced the intention of the Govemment
to abandon the London Corporation Bill.

Sir Minto Farquhar, Mr, Vansittart, and Sir J. Elphlnatone
expressed great alarm at the proposal of the Secretary for
India to introduce a bill affecting the civil service in India.
The Minister was at issue with his council on the subject, and
any attemit at present to modify the Indian administration
would be highly dangerous.

Mr. Hoasuxu, on another branch of the subject, protested
against proceeding with the Indian Army Bill at present, and
attacked Sir C. Wood for his conduct in withholding papers on
the subject necessary for its discussion.

. Sir G. Gm complained of this attack upon Sir C. Wood in
his absence.

Lord J. RUSSELL made an explanatory statement. in vindica-
tion of the conduct of Sir C. Wood relative to the papers._
Mr. DISRAELI maintained that Sir C. Wood ought to have
been present to answer for himself. He proceeded to censure
the course pursued with regard to legislation for India, and
especially condemned the practice of introducing irapooant
measures at a period of the session when there was no time
for their full discussion.

After some further remarks and explanations from Sir H.
Willoughby, Sir G. C. Lewis, and other members, the subject
dropped.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER moved that it is the opinion of the
House that' he report of the committee on Greenwich Hospital
should be carried into effect.
The motion was seconded by Admiral Walcott.
_ Lord C PA:tarp atatea that the .t.dmitalty Lad-alreagy
'pared plani for carrying out some of the recsnamendations of
the commissioners, but were not ready without further con-
sideration to pledge themselves to a plan so full of details.
The discussion, which related entirely to matters of detail
connected with the arrangements and management of Green-
wich Hospital, was continued by Sir .M. Seymour, Mr. BliS-
coe, Lord John Russell, Alderman Salomon, Sir J. Pakington,
Mr. Henley, and other members.

Lord PALMERSTON, observing that the Admiralty were
already devising means to carry out the report, submitted that
the interposition of the House was unnecessary. He trusted
that the motion would be withdrawn, and the house allowed
to proceed with supply.

After some further conversation the motion was negatived
without a division, and the House went into Committee of
Supply. •

A vote of £12,00 for naval retirements was proposed and
agreed to, after a miscellaneous and protracted discussion.
Other votes belonging to the series of naval estimates were
also agreed to.

The House resumed, and having disposed of the remaining
business on the paper, adjourned at a quarter past two.

WAKEFIELD BRIBERY CASE.

NISI PRIUS COURT, YORK, JULY 19.
(Before Baron Martin and a Special Jury )
THE QUEEN V. W. Y. LEATHAM.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. Overend, Q.C., Mr. Monk,
Q.C., and Mr. Cleasly, were counsel for the prosecution;
Mr. Edward James, Q.C., Mr. Mellish, and Mr. Quain,
for the defendant.

The. Solicitor-General, in stating the case, said, this
was a criminal informatiou, which had been filed by her
Majesty's Attorney-General, against William Henry
Leatham, for bribery in connection with the election at
Wakefield, in April, 1859. The charge against Mr.
Leathern was twofold. It was that he advanced or pro-
vided money for the purpose of being applied in bribing
the vuters of the borough of Wakefield, and
the second head of charge was that he caused
money to be actually paid' in bribes to different
individuals. The defendant is a gentleman of
fortune and position, and had been a partner in the firm
of Messrs. Leatham, Tew, and Co., bankers, Wakefield.
The electors of that borough had the power to return
one member to Parliament, and previous to the last
general election Mr. Leatham appeared as the Liberal,
and Mr. John Dodgson Charlesworth as the Conservative
candidate for Wakefield. The nomination took place on
the 28th of April, and the polling took place on the
following day. Mr. Leatham was returned by a small
majority, and on petition being presented, Mr. Leatham
was unseated. A commission was subsequently appointed
to inquire into the corrupt practices at Wakefield, and
it was submitted by the Solicitor-General that Mr.
Leatham had expended
money beyond what was legiti-
mate at the elections. As early as January, 1859,
Mr. Leathern advanced no less a sum than £5OO for
election purposes. It was advanced to Mr. Wainwright,
asolicitor
practice at 'Wakefield, a gentleman who
was y
engaged in the election. Mr. Thomas
a cti
actively
ei in
Field Gilbert also played an important part at the
election. On the 6th of April, Mr. Gilbert, who resides
in Loudon, and who had been in the office of the late
Mr. Coppock, appeared at Wakefield as the coadjutor
Mr. Wainwright. Mr. Gilbert remained hi Mr.
Wainwright's house during the election proceedings.
On the Bth of April Mr. Leatham applied to Mews.
Overend, Gurney and Co., London, for the loan of
£l,OOO, which he requested to be forwarded, in Bank of
England notes, in four divisions, in registered coven.
It was said to be for legitimate purposes, and the
amount was received in April. Two further siims,
amountiag to £1,560, were received on being
applied for. Mr. Gilbert received £2,000 and
also £5OO more in various sums from Mr. Wainwright.
He believed that every farthing of these sums went
before the conclusion of the polling, and he asked the
jury whether they could doubt the purpose and object
for which this money was paid, About the 7th or Bth
of April, rumours were rife that on the Conservative
side bribery was being resorted to ; and it was resolved
upon between Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Gilbert that
retaliatory proceedings should be adopted. The sum
advanced by Mr. Leatham for the purpose of the election
amounted to £3,700, and not a farthing of that stun was
vouched to the election auditor. The sum, per election,
auditor, was between £4OO and £5OO with respect to the
persons bribed. The charge in the case of George
Wainwright had been abandoned. Mr. Leatham was
charged with having caused to be given bribes to the
following electors to induce them to vote for him :—To
Samuel Croft, £3O ; to John Burton Rhodes, £4O ;
to John Finnan Tower, £4O; to Charles Clarkson,
£3O. It was not by the hands of Mr. Gilbert or
Mr. Leatham that the bribes were actually paid,
but by the hands of subordinate agents. Persons of •
the names of Sharpley, Woodhead, and Marriott, were
employed, who paid to the above individuals the sums
mentioned. It was the money of the defendant, and it
was paid to do that which they did---viz., to vote for
Mr. Leatham. The constituency of Wakefield is a little
over 900, and for some reason or other Mr. Gilbert was
characterised as the doctor, and said he had come down
to cure the people of 'Wakefield. The Solicitor-General
-told-the,jury that if the proof of bribery by the defend-
ant was satisfactory, they ought not to be deterred from
doing their duty by any consideration of the position
or respectability of the defendant.
Mr. Gilbert and other witnesses were called to prove
that the money received from London was spent, and
that the sums stated were given to Croft and others.
After an absence of twenty-three minutes the jury
returned a verdict of guilty.