The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 28 1855.

which its importance to the gentleman concerned so
much demanded.

The SPEAKER having put tho question that the
committee be appointed,

Mr. GLADSTONE said as the hon. member who had
ust sat down had thought it his duty to impugn his con-
duct while in office in one of the most important functions
belonging to a Minister, it was not his intention to vote
upon the motion when the house came to a division ; but it
was his duty to contribute as far as lay in his power to
the knowledge of the house with respect to the matters un-
der discussion. He must first of all remark upon one fact,
that he observed an absence of the blue books bearing upon
the question in the hands of hon. members around him ;
but as he saw in the hands of many information in the
shape of a pamphlet, in which Mr. Kennedy bad, as he I
had a perfect right to do, stated his case, he (Mr. Glad-
stone) was afraid that the subject was one in which hon.
members would bo called to act with imperfect informa-
tion. He must confess that he did lot think the hen, gen-
tleman had employed to the best advantage the time which
he had occupied, and it would be necessary for him (Mr.
Gladstone) to call attention to one or more omissions from
certain quotations which he had made, and which were
more remarkable than the allegations with which he had
interspersed his oration. At the commencement of his
speech, the hon. gentleman used words which ho (Mr.
Gladstone) would quote, because if the hon. gentleman
was prepared to stand by his words, his opposition to the
motion would be removed. The hon. gentleman had said
that "the cause for which Mr. Kennedy was dismissed
was only a mere excuse for his dismissal, and the real cause
was, his being too active and zealous for certain mem-
bers of the Government." Now, it was in the power of
the hon. gentleman to save the house from a wearisome
speech from him (Mr. Gladstone), and perhaps from other
members also. Let him reduce to writing these words of
a specific charge, lay that charge upon the table, and under-
take to prove it before the committee. He (Mr. Glad-
stone) would then agree to the committee at once. (Hear.)
The hon. gentleman would then have placed himself upon
a sound footing before the house, and have made a tangible
charge on a man for his conduct in office. Let the hon.
gentleman do this, and he] would save him from the obli-
gation of addressing the house at greater length.. Did the
hen. gentleman accept this offer ?
Sir J. SHELLEY—If the right hen. gentleman will
grant the committee, it will be my duty to prove my case.
Mr. GLADSTONE—Now, sir, I find that the hon.
gentleman is not prepared to stand by his words. (Hear.)
Sir J. SHELLEY—WiII you read the words again ?
Mr. GLADSTONE, having read the words above quoted,
again asked—Does the hon. gentleman, who says he ap-
pears on the part of public justice, abide by his words?
Sir J. SHELLEY—I alluded to a conversation which
took place between Mr. Kennedy and the right hon. gen-
tleman in the presence of the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr.
Wilson), in which Mr. Kennedy informed the Chancellor of
the Exchequer that up to a certain time the Secretary of the
Treasury had been favourable and friendly towards him, but
had stated to him thatit would not do forhim to go on perse-
cuting the deputy surveyors. for persons of influence, both
in the Government and out of the Government, both in
Parliament and out of Parliament, friends of the deputy
surveyors, had come and advocated their cause, and that
political pressure—(hear, hoar)
Mr. GLADSTONE—I beg to observe that the hen.
gentleman has not answered my question. I wish to
know from the champion of public justice—(hear, hear)
whether he abides by the words he used in his speech, but
he puts me off with a conversation between Mr. Kennedy
and the Secretary of the Treasury. (Hear, hear.) The
right hen. gentleman then proceeded to say that his answer
to that charge was, that Mr. Kennedy was not dismissed
by the secretary of the Treasury. He (Mr. Gladstone) was
the man who was responsible to the House of Commons for
the management of the . Crown estates. His right hon.
friend (Mr. Wilson) was one of the most upright, most
able, most impartial, and most indefatigable men that it
was ever his good fortune to know in the public service ;
but his right hon. friend was not the man who had dis-
missed Mr. Kennedy. He (Mr. Gladstone) was not re-
duced so low, or so degraded in the discharge of duty of
any kind, that he should be guilty of so monstrous a breach
of good faith and honour that when a subject relating to
the dismissal of a man of unquestionable honour—as Mr.
Kennedy was—of a man of experience, and a public ser-
vant of long standing that he would delegate to another
man the task of judging a gentleman of such character,
and allow him to be dismissed without having himself
examined the case and made himself responsible. He
would not ask the hon. gentleman the question again, but
he thought he was entitled to say that the hon. gentleman
was not prepared to abide by the allegations which he had
rashly made in his speech—whether with a bad grace or a
good grace, the house would judge more adequately than
he could. The honourable gentleman was not prepared
to make good his words. The Secretary of the Treasury
would probably refer to the charges made against him, and
he (Mr. Gladstone) wished the hon. gentleman a better
deliverance than he had met with at his hands. (Laugh-
ter.) His wish was to state frankly that if an intelligible
charge was brought against a Minister, it was a fair reason
for the house to grant a committee to investigate it, and
it would have been the most acceptable course to him
personally. He must state that there could not lee a
grosser mistake than to suppose that Mr. Kennedy was
dismissed on account of matters affecting his integrity,
veracity, or honour. The hon. gentleman seemed to have
overlooked the manner in which these expressions came
into the correspondence. If he looked into the report he
would find that it was Mr. Kennedy who spoke of the in-
quiry generally, and it was with reference to matters of
fact aline that the credit ofMr. Brown and Mr. Higginbo-
tham was called into question. The assumption was en-
tirely gratuitous on the part of the hon. gentleman, for
not one word, not one syllable could be found which could
lead Mr. Kennedy to imagine his honour or veracity at-
tacked. He must have known that the fullest satisfaction
would be offered with reference to these matters of fact.
He (Mr. Gladstone) therefore begged the house to under-
stand that whatever the question might be, there was
no question about Mr. Kennedy being dismissed for
any matter relating to his integrity, veracity, or honour.
Neither was it true that Mr. Kennedy was dismissed on
account of his management of the Woods and Forests ;
and Mr. Kennedy had made a strange and unfortunate
mistake on that point in his letter to Lord Aberdeen.
That was not the cause, and he fully granted that whore
the zeal of a an was admitted, matters of opinion would
nut reader it necessary to go to the length of dismissal ;
bet at the same time he was not prepared to accede to
what was stated with respect to Mr. Kennedy's manage-
ment of the Woods and Forests. He was, notwithstand-
ing, disposed to place confidence in the report of the three
gentlemen whom the hon. gentleman had erroneously sup-
posed were acting as arbitrators between Mr. Kennedy and
the Treasury. They were not employed •as umpires, but
they wore called in to aid the Treasury in an extreme de-
sire to use the best means of coming to a correct and ac-
curate knowledge of the facts. The report stated—but it
was net the cause of Mr. Kennedy's dismissal—the report
stated that " a great mistake has been made in taking so
much old timber in the last few years, when the price was
low, and the timber could be purchased at lower rates from
other sources. The plea has been, that much of the tim-
ber had arrived at maturity, and would deteriorate in
value. This also in a mistake ; wood which arrives at ma-
turity in two or three centuries would suffer no deteriora-
tion for 40or 50 years." He was b Rind to say that the
system of management of Mr. Kennedy, in deriving from
the Woods and Forests a greater amount of profit than
they would yield, was less beneficial than a course which
would have made better provision for the future. It was
not, however, on account of his management that
Mr. Kennedy was dismissed. He (Mr. Gladstone) was
the person whose duty it was to form an opinion on the
case of Mr. Kennedy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was the person, and nobody else, whose duty it was to
render an account to the House of Commons of the Crown
estates. Lor 1 Aberdeen, when he we's appealed to, most
properly made an inquiry into the case. Mr. Kennedy
had, from some misapprehension, in the meantime, ap-
pealed to Parliament; but when the Earl of Aberdeen had
been made acquainted with the facts of the case, he con•
curred in the view which he (Mr. Gladstone) had taken.
When it was said that her Majesty's Government enter-
tained such and such opinions, that, he believed, was the
proper course. It was the duty of the Treasury to deal
with the case of Mr. Kennedy. The Treasury did deal
with it, and there was no irregularity. The hen. gentle-
man wished the house to suppose that Lord Aberdeen, the
Secretary of the Treasury, anti himself (Mr. Gladstone)
were actuated by motives of prejudice against Mr. Kenne-
dy on account of his zeal. He (Mr. Gladstone) would ap-
peal to the house to knew if want of zeal for the public
service wan his besetting sin. (Hear.) He would show
that his prejudice in the first instance was in favour of Mr.
Kennedy. When he came into office he had heard that
Mr. Kennedy was a great reformer—that he had found
the department full of abuses, and was on that account
at war with the whole corps of deputy surveyors. He was
now ashamed to say that he had given too ready a cre-
dence to the statement, and the impression upon his
mind was, that if he had to apologise to any one, it was
not to Mr. Kennedy, but to those deputy-surveyors, for
he had yielded too ready a credence to him because he
was a reformer, and they were the obstacles to his re-
forms. Although he followed the hon. gentleman through-
out his speech, which was not one of extreme brevity—
(laughter)—ho did not know what was his exact ebject.
He did nut seem to impute cbrrnption. Did he moan that
there was irregularity? He (Mr. Gladstone) had already
shown that there was no irregularity in a proceeding which
was taken on the advice of the two Ministers who are re-
sponsible by law, and who are responsible for the acts of
Mr. Kennedy to Parliament hereafter, nor was there any
precipitancy. It appeared that the hen. gentleman meant to
impute an error of judgment. He (Mr. Gladstone) must
ask whether it was the practice of the house, or convenient
for the public service, for select committees to be granted
in every case of a dismissal. He mist beg attention to
what appeared to be the thread of the hon. gentleman's
speech ; for he appeared to argue the case as if the Trea-
sury and Mr. Kennedy were situated on the same ground
As if Mr. Kennedy had an independent tenure of office, and
had to answer for himself to the House of Commons. Mr.
Kennedy was not so responsible by law, but the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was. The hon. gentleman did net seem
to have have looked at the question in this light. If the
property
yw was
sin
the ismanaged'it was on the Chancellor of the
Exchequer that responsibility lay; and it was also his
duty, if the persons in the office were tyrannically treated,
to proteot them. Now, if that had taken place—if it had
happened that the persons below him were so treated by
Mr. Kennedy—the first question that would be asked was,
was Mr. Kennedy still in office? New, if a committee
were in practice to recommend the appointments to
Ministers, and any mismanagement took place, the
answer would be that by law you must look to the com-
mittee and not to the Minister of the Crown. It would be
impossible to maintain the responsibility of Ministers to
the House of Commons if this was the practice. The first
effect of this motion would be to destroy the responsibility
of Ministers to Parliament—the next, to destroy the dis-
cipline of the civil service. If the Minister and his subor-
dinates did not always agree, he wanted to know how it
would be possible to carry on the Government, if every
servant who was dismissed came to the house and demanded
a select committee? The hon. gentleman said he was the
friend of public justice, but he (Mr. Gladstone) believed
that, with perfectly good intentions, he was about to in-
flictservants, when they bad l.
a great injustice on Mr. Kennedy, which he would
itte.nriwya.bredesneetfeedr
eteol.ineTil:lequrirraiecstice of the house
ohaptinu tee-
according to
who by lawtaken -)1into
ae the
according
INth:rapparently consciontiqus judgment of those
Parliamentary antiquarian should trip him up,
lest some P
that there was one aserent precedent—the case of Mr.
case rested on very
Palmer, who was dismissedtfrom the Post-office—but that
contractor for certain services auerhils place in the Post-
officeis,vere several cases
Mr. Palmer was a
was tinder that oontrect.
The first,
the other
ft, in which
Sir John
safficient to show the practice of the
side, to two of which ho would refer.
he himself was concerned, was the case
Claridge. He (Mr. Gladstone) had taken up his
case under the impression that there was a great
hardship in his dismissal after Sir John Claridge had
an apparent promise from the Crown, the fountain of

honour, and he moved for address praying the Crown to '
bestow some office ou Sir John Claridge. Lord Broughton,
then the President of the India Board, opposed it, en the
ground that he did not see how the house could interfere,
and if they could who was to be responsible for the ap-
pointment to the house. On these grounds the motion
was withdrawn. He would mention another instance—
that of a person named Rolls, a Custom-house officer, hold-
ing the situation of landing waiter. He was dismissed be-
cause some person connected with trade had endeavoured
to solicit his virtue as an officer, and he had kept the mat-
ter secret for some time. The board dismissed him, be-
cause after such an occurrence they thought they could not
repose confidence in him. In the year 1842 a Crown com-
mission was appointed, of which Lord Granville Somerset
was the head, to examine into the Custom-house frauds.
That commission thought the case of Rolls a hard one, and
they reported to the Crown that while expressing disap-
probation of Rolls' conduct, they recommended his rein-
stalment in office. Here there was a dismissal by one
Crown anthority, and a recommendation by another for
the reinstatement of the man. The Board of Customs re-
sisted, and a motion was made in 1844 for a select committee.
On that occasion Mr. Goulburn expressed his sympathy
with Rolls, but objected to the motion ; and the house,
under the leadership of Sir R. Peel, refused to entertain
the question. The Chairman of the Board of Customs at
length restored Rolls, and in the course of about three
years ho was known as a most able officer, and was chosen
in 1851 to conduct the arrangements connected with the
reception of foreign goods for the Exhibition. Now,
with respect to the appointment of a committee, he did not
pretend to set any limit to the right of the house to in-
quire. In 1784 a resolution was passed to the effect—
" That it is constitutional and agreeable to usage for the
House of Commons to declare their sense and opinion re-
specting the exercise of any discretionary power which,
whether by act of Parliament or otherwise, is vested in
any body of men in the public service." Now, if the hon.
member would fix his charges, it would be in accordance
with law and usage toiput the Minister en his trial for con-
duct amounting to corruption ; but if the hon. member
merely set up his judgment against that of the Minister,
and the house should consent to review errors of judgment
on the part of the Minister, it would become responsible
for the whole service, and it would be better to abolish the
Treasury bench altogether, and save the salaries paid to
the gentlemen by whom it was occupied, and with the
responsibility of Ministers would be destroyed the disposi-
tion of the civil service. (Hear, hear.) Now, with respect
to the conversation to which the hon. gentleman alluded
—and, with all due respect, he must be permitted to say
that the hon. member was rather a dangerous man—
(laughter)—and it would behove his brother members,
and espe?,ially those who were in office, to think twice
before entering into any conversation with him during a
ride in the park, for things might pass in conversation
innocently enough which it might not be altogether plea-
sant to have repeated to the house—(hear, hear, hear)—
he would tell the hon. member, who came to give instruc-
tion, but who would get instruction before he had done
with this matter—(cheers)—that it would be well for him
to be careful in repeating conversations. If conversations
were repeated, they ought to be repeated as they did take
place, and not as they did not take place. (Hear.) He
would tell the hon. member that he was wrong, and he
would do something at least to wards showing him that he
was wrong. Many things might have escaped his (Mr.
Gladstone's) memory, but it was strong enough to hold the
conversation to which reference had been made. lie was
sufficiently aware of the company he was in to warn him
to stamp upon the fibres of his brain the language used with
sufficient clearness to enable him to repeat it. The hon.
member said that he (Mr. Gladstone) used words equiva-
lent to these—" lam sorry you have given notice of the
motion of a committee about Mr. Kennedy, because it
will entail the holding the office open until you make the
motion."

Sir J. SHELLEY—What I said was, that you stated
that, in consequence of my notice, it would be very diffi-
cult for the Government to fill up the office.
Mr. GLADSTONE resumed—He would appeal to any
gentleman who had had the experience of office whether
such a thing was not ridiculous and untrue upon the face
of it ?—whether any man who knew his duty would say
that because one of 654 gentlemen in the House of Com-
mons, even although it might be the wisest, as had hap-
pened on this occasion—because such a man had thought
fit to give notice of a motion for inquiry, was it likely that
a member of the Government should say he would keep an
office -recast for six months? (Hear, hear.) No one could
suppose that such an answer would have been given.
But he would tell the house the answer which he did give
to the hon. member. It was this— and he repeated it now
without the slightest hesitation :—" I am sorry you have
given notice of a committee about Mr. Kennedy, because,
while that notice respecting him is on the books, it would
be very difficult for the Government to place Mr. Kennedy
in any other appointment in the public service." (Hear.)
He was bound to state his opinion of Mr. Kennedy,
although he was grieved from the bottom of his heart to
do so • but the ill-judged friendship of the hon. member
towards Mr. Kennedy had left him no alternative. He
would, however, endeavour to (*press his conviction with
all the reserve f which the case admitted. He could not
consider himself responsible for Mr. Kennedy's proceed-
ings in the office which he at:, that time held ; but, in his
opinion, Mr. Kennedy was a man who had never failed in
point-of trustworthiness to the public—(hear)—and there
were various offices in the public service in which he might
have been placed on vacancies occurring—offices in which
the government of men was not involved--offices requir-
ing honesty, fidelity, and competent ability—mid he should
be delighted even now to see Mr. Kennedy put into some
such office—(hear)—but if such an appointment had been
made when the motion was on the paper, it would have
been construed in an improper manner. (Hear, hear.)
It was impossible for him to refrain altogether from some
referenca to the merits of the case, but he would merely
state just sufficient to show that there was nothing to
induce the house to grant the committee. The reasons
for the dismissal of Mr. Kennedy were these :
In the first place, he could not, as a Minister of the Crown,
after the experience which he had had of Mr. Kennedy's
views of public duty, and method of discharging them,
consent to sit on the Treasury bench and be responsible
for his prosseedings ; but he was bound to say that, even
had he been prepared to do se, the circumstances which
had occurred in Mr. Kennedy's department were such that
they ware necessarily destructive of all credit and autho-
rity attaching to that gentleman, so that it bad become a
public necessity that he should be removed from that de-
partment, because he could not servo the public with credit
therein. That was his second reason. His third was, that
inferior servants, placed under Mr. Kennedy, not resident in
London, despite their plane:in names, had a right to be
treated with justice. Hs (Mr. Gladstone) was the protector
of the characters of these men as muchas of Mr. Kennedy.
Now, with respect to the letter which he (Mr. Gladstone)
had felt it is duty to write to Mr. Kennedy. It was written
in the mildest manner, and was intended to convey to Mr.
Kennedy's mind that his case had been the subject of the
most careful deliberation with the Government, and that
they had come to a conclusion which would require his re-
moval from the office which he held. The cases on which
Mr. Kennedy's removal turned were those connected with
the names of Brown and Higinbothom. The case of Higin-
bothom was the immediate cause of removal, but irrespective
of that case the removal of Mr. Kennedy would have been
necessary. Now what was the case of Higinbothom? It was
said that Mr. Kennedy had used harsh expressions, and was
sorry for having hastily done so. Now his letter of the 26th
of January showed no signs of any hasty proceedings. The
controversy was going on between Brown and Higinbo-
thom. In that letter Mr. Kennedy stated that he pur-
posed to forward a statement of facts, and on matters of
fact he wished to be judged. But was it only a statement
of facts ? On the contrary, the letter contained an an-
nouncement on the part of Mr. Kennedy to the Treasury
of his intention to dismiss Mr. Higinbothom. The hon.
member, in his anxiety to be concise—(laughter)—forgot
to mention that matter. Mr. Kennedy, in his letter to
the Lords of the Treasury, said " I can entertain no doubt
as to the course which it will eventually become my duty
to pursue, as regards Mr. Higinbothom, founded on the
facts which are at present known to myself, altogether in-
dependent of the statements which may be made by Mr.
Brown, but which will, no doubt, augment the number
and decisive character of the facts connected with this
subject." That showed a foregone conclusion in Mr. Ken-
nedy's mind. At that time he had not heard Mr. Highs-
bethona at all, but notwithstanding that he sent that letter
to his superiors in °flee to poison their minds. (Hear,
hear.) It was said that Mr. Kennedy had no opportunity
to retract. But what was the fact ? On the 6th February
Mr. Higiabothom addressed the following letter to Mr.
Kennedy :—" I must express my regret that, before com-
municating to the Lords of the Treasury such serious impu-
tations against my veracity as are contained in your re-
port of the 26th ult., you did not state to me the doubts
which had arisen in year mind • I beg leave respectfully to
observe, if you had done so, I should have been enabled to
show that, from a misconception of some important facts,
you had been led to form erroneous conclusions, and I
should, I have no doubt, have satisfied you that there is no
ground whatever for the grave charges you have brought
against roe." That letter was written with admirable
temper and feeling, but did not produce any response from
Mr. Kennedy. The only answer he got was to make a re-
port on the charge of Mr. Kennedy, apart from his contro-
versy with Mr. Brown. On the 14th, Mr. Higinbothom
sent in a full defence upon the charges, supported by a mul-
titude of affidavits which he had the prudence and fore-
sight to obtain. (Hear.) In his letter of that date -he
uses language of a somewhat different character from that
employed in his former letter, but not to be complained of.
He said, "In conclusion, permit me most respectfully to
remind you that among the injurious expressions which
you have officially placed upon record in your report to the
Lords of the Treasury (which document, I may add, you
have requested may be printed), the terms ' deceptive,'
fraudulent and untrue,' unscrupulous,' and the reverse
of facts,' have been applied to statements which I have
proved to be perfectly correct. You have also made a dis-
tinct intimation to their lordships, that it is no longer
possible to place the slightest reliance on any statement'
which I make; that I have been guilty of a suppression
of facts,' and that I have made a daring attempt to im-
pose' upon you. These attempts, you will allow me to ob-
serve, were submitted to their lordships without my being
afforded any opportunity for explanation on any points
on which yen might have misapprehended my former re-
port. I have to add, that I must request you to convey to
the Lords of the Treasury an expression of my deep grate,
tude for having afforded me the present opportunity of
refuting the charges which have been brought against me,
charges which I must now respectfully request that you
will withdraw." Did Mr. Kennedy take that opportunity
to explain and retract ? Mr. Kennedy did not retract one
iota of what he had said; on the contrary, in transmitting
a paper on the 18th of February, he said, " I shall state
some of the grounds on which I formed the opinions which
I still retain." Were they to be told that Mr. Kennedy
had no opportunity to retract after the words ho had read,
not made upon the first or second appeal, but upon an ap-
peal most conclusive in its character, as a statement of
facts, and supported hr the testimony of numerous inde-
pendent and impartial witnesses ? Mr. Higinbothom, on
the 28th of February, again sent in a further answer ; and
Mr. Kennedy, on the 2d of March, wrote to the Treasury
that he insisted upon a further inquiry; but even then he did
not express the slightest regret, or withdraw any one of his
expressions, orannounce a change in his intention to dismiss
Mr. Higinbothom from his situation. On the 7th of March
Mr. Wilson wrote that the Treasury had taken steps to ob-
tain a judgment upon the facts; and on the 22d of the same
month a minute directing the reference was made. On
the 15th of April a report from the gentlemen who acted
as a jury in the collection of facts came in and on the
25th, Mr. Kennedy during the whole of this time having
failed to avail himself of au opportunity to take off shade
from the darkness of his charges, or to express the faintest
suspicion of the propriety of his conduct, was informed
that it would be necessary to remove him from the
office which he held. On the 2d of May Mr. Kennedy
wrote to Lord Abet dean, but he did not even then express
any regret ' • so far from that, he said he entered his indig-
nant protest against the manner in which he had been
treated. Indeed, the first expression of regret from Mr.
Kennedy unfortunately came in a channel from which it
must needs be unavailable ; it was addressed to that house
in his petition of the Bth of May; and neither Lord Aber-
deen nor himself was aware of it when the Treasury

minute was passed on the 10th, declaring Mr. Kennedy
dismissed from his office. With respect to the question
of the thinnings, and the dispute between Mr. Higginbo-
them and Mr. Brown, he was sorry to say that the hon.
baronet, in his anxiety to make out a case against Mr.
Higginbothom, had dealt with the evidence in a very un-
fair and ungenerous manner. The circumstances might
briefly be stated. Mr. Brown reported that in a certain
plantation belonging to the Crown there were a certain
number of trees of certain diameters. At a subsequent
period, Mr. Higginbothom, in a report on the mune planta-
tion, eta ted that there were a smaller number of trees with
larger diameters, suppressing, said the hon. baronet, the
important fact that the plantation had been thinned in the
interval. In support of his view, the hon. baronet quoted
part of a sentence from the report of the jury, in which
the difference between the statements of Mr. Brown and
Mr. Higginbothom was clearly set forth ; but he omitted
to read the last clause, which made it appear that when Mr
Brown visited the plantation after the thinnings, ho re-
ported even a larger number of trees with smaller diame-
ters than were mentioned in the first report. Was that
the mode in which evidence was to be presented to the
house? (Hear.) He lad given the house a fair statement
of the facts of the case, and he thought the hon. baronet
would attempt in vain to show that he had misrepresented
any material circumstance. Again, he wished the house to
understand that the head of a department could not make
light of the feelings and characters of those under him.
But the state of the department in question was such that
it was plain that either Mr. Kennedy or the deputy sur-
veyors should resign. All his own prejudices were in fa-
vour of Mr. Kennedy as an alleged reformer ; but he was
bound to add that these impressions were not sustained
when he came to look into the facts, and it was important
to remember that the impartial witnesses who were called
in to examine the matter made a report which was entirely
in accordance with that opinion. He therefore put it to
the house that, even if Mr. Kennedy had retracted his
words, it-would still have been a case of extreme difficulty
—because a superior in office, when he had in a certain
manner and to a certain extent committed himself in the
face of his inferiors, was unfit to continue in his place, even
though he might evince a disposition to retract his errors.
That was all which it was necessary for him to say in the case
of Mr. Higinbothom. But there was besides the case of Mr.
Brown, which would of itself have rendered the removal of
Kennedy necessary, irrespective of the case of Mr. Higgin-
bothom. The hour, however, was so late that he would
not go into that question, particularly as his object was
not so much to make the house judges of the whole de-
tails of the case as to satisfy them that there had been an
earnest, honest, and sincere endeavour to deal with it fairly.
Where was one point, however, upon which he must touch.
The hon. baronet accused him of having been governed by
prejudice against Mr. Kennedy. Now, the peculiarity of
the case of Mr. Brown was this—while he was under a for-
mal charge as to his character and veracity, he appointed
him deputy-surveyor of Dean Forest. But he did that at
the instance of Mr. Kennedy, after a consultation of three
hours, and he did it simply and solely to prevent the dis-
missal of Mr. Kennedy. By declining to appoint Mr.
Brown he would have driven Mr. Kennedy out of office,
because the latter told him that if Mr. Brown was not ap-
pointed he could net be responsible for the forest. He did
not think that would have been a generous course. He
thought the best plan would be to stretch a point even in
favour of Mr. Kennedy, rather than drive him to extremi-
ties. 'With respect to the ultimate dismissal of Mr. Ken-
nedy, it seemed to be thought that writing a private letter
was an unjust and unwarrantable method of proceeding.
An official letter would have served his purpose equally
well. Nis object in writing privately to Mr. Kennedy
was to enable him in some way or other, either personally
or through his friends, to retract his offensive words, and
express views which might facilitate his transfer to some
other public employment. (Hear.) It was in vain to say,
" Why not give Mr. Kennedy an opportunity of discuss-
ing the report of the jury?" There must somewhere be
an end of investigation. But did Mr. Kennedy think
there was any reason for examining that report? On the
contrary, acting under the directions of the Treasury,
he did not make the slightest difficulty when he-received
the report. then and there to dismiss Mr. Brown ; and
therefore it was too late for the hon. baronet, after Mr.
Kennedy had recognised the sufficiency of that report, to
say there ought to have been further discussion. He had
already shown that the report was contrary to Parliamen-
tary usage—that the adoption of such motions would in-
volve them in favouritism, and disorganise the public ser-
vice—and that in the present instance there was no prima
facie case for inquiry. His last objection was, that the
hon. baronet had not brought forward- his charge in a
tangible shape, but he was content to leave the matter in
the hands of the house. He was convinced they would do
everything that was fair and just, acting on those prin-
ciples of prudence and propriety which governed their
proceedings. Ho had contributed, so far as he could, ma-
terials for enabling them to form a right and sound judg-
ment, and having done that, he thought his part in the
debate was altogether closed, and he should therefore
leave his place for those who might km disposed to fol-
low him. (Cheers.)
Lord STANLEY said upon this case he had no private
or peculiar sources of information. He judged simply by
the Parliametary papers, by the pamphlet of Mr. Ken-
nedy, and by the conflicting arguments which they had
heard that evening. He claimed, therefore, as between
the two parties interested, to stand in a position of en-
tire impartiality. Of Mr. Kennedy himself he knew
nothing, and the right honourable gentleman the late
Chancellor of the Exchequer could hear witness to
the reluctance with which he would say or do anything
which would tend to hurt his feelings or his character
(Hear, hear.) But it seemed to him that, in his reply, the
tight hon. gentleman used the weight of his reputation to
supply the place of something like a deficiency of evidence.
( Hear, hear.) There was here no personal charge against the
right hon. gentleman. It was a charge against a public de-
partment—that, from whatever motive, it had committed
a grevious injustice against an individual. (Hear.) The
right hon. gentleman, after a statement from the hon. baro-
net which certainly lid not err on the side •f a want of
candour or vehemence of language, suddenly turned round
and said that if the hon. baronet desired to bring a personal
charge against him, he would accede to his request for a
committee ; but, in that case, the charge must be reduced
to writing, and the hon. baronet must pledge himself,
under some unknown penalty, to stand by it. Ho appre-
hended that the hon. baronet would say that he never in-
tended to impute, and never had imputed, corrupt motives
to the right hon. gentleman. That reply of the i ight hon.
gentleman seemed to amount to this, that he would grant
a committee to clear his own character, but that he would
not do so for the sake of Mr. Kennedy. (Hear, hear.) He
believed that both sides of the house would do the right
hon. gentleman that justice, but he did not think they
would allow him the infallibility and the irresponsibility
which ho seemed to claim. (Hear, hoar.) Why, in the
army or navy, which were generally considered models of
autocratic government, the lowest officer could not be
removed without a court-martial. But the right hon.
gentleman claimed the right of dismissing a member
of the civil service, which actually divided with the
legislature the power of government, without any appeal
from his decision. The result of this must be that the
character and reputation of any member of that service
must bo placed at the absolute and irresponsible disposal
of the heads of that service. He said that that was an autho-
rity with which no man should be trusted, and which no
man should claim. (Hear.) The right hon. gentieman (lid,
indeed, say that an inquiry might be permitted, if any
member of that house would get up and offer to prove that
the officer in question had been dismissed from corrupt
motives. Now he contended that that was a wholly unte-
nable proposition. (Hear.) The charges against Mr. Ken-
nedy, whether well founded or not, were at any rate pa-
tent. But, said the right hon. gentleman, the case of Mr.
Brown and Mr. Kennedy was only one of many which de-
termined the Government to remove Mr. Kennedy, and
the house would concur with the Government in the steps
they had taken. Now let the house see to what that argu-
ment amounted. Suppose that Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Brown
Lad made certain charges against the officials whose part
he (Mr. Gladstone) took in this matter, and had said, "There
are other charges which we suppress which we keep to our-
selves, but which if you knew—which you do not—would
induce you to agree with us," he believed that if that argu-
ment had been used by Mr. Kennedy, no one would have
been more ready to detect its ,fallacy than the right hon.
gentleman himself. And yet that was precisely the argu-
ment of the right hon. gentleman himself. (Hear.) Let
the house look at the short facts of this case. The
Woods and Forests having been confessedly mismanaged,
Mr. Kennedy was put there to reform their management.
Almost necessarily he must have been unpopular in the
department, and very likely, as he alleged, obstacles were
placed in his way; that compelled him to employ a nomi-
nee of his own, named Brown, who, of course, shared the
unpopularity of his employer ; he got into a quarrel with
a Mr. Higinbothom, who made a statement which on its
face bore marks ef fraud. Mr. Kennedy, at any rate, be-
lieved that it did, and acted on that belief. Now, whether
Mr. Kennedy ought or ought not to have believed this
statement did not affect the present question, because the
late Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the step
he took amounted to no mdre than a mere error. Now

let them mark the right hon. gentleman's argument. An
error of judgment in a Minister of the Crown was se venial
an offence that it was not deemed worthy of investigation
by that house ; but yet one on the part of an official of
high character, but no doubt in a far inferior position to
that occupied by the right hon. gentleman, was 110 grave
an offence, according ta him ow to justify his dismissal.
(Hear.) Well, but Mr. Kennedy, so far from shunning
an inquiry into the charges he brought against Mr. Higin-
bothom, demanded an inquiry. The Treasury consented
to grant it; br t to what sort of a tribunal did they pro-
pose to refer it? According to Mr. Kennedy's statement,
its members were nominated without his knowledge, and
without his having the least opportunity of making an
objection to them. To two of the gentlemen appointed
he did not object, but to one he did. Mr. Menzie he did
object to, for in that gentleman's office were actually the
son and son-in-law of Mr. Higinbothom. Besides, apart
' from other objections, the trial was to be one of a superior
officer by his official subordinates, andunder circumstances
which were peculiarly likely to bias the court against him.
Now, he asked the house whether this was a fair mode of
inquiry, whether the court proposed was such a one as
they would send a felon to for trial under similar circum-
stances. Bat it was said'that this was the regular system
punted in the civil service. So much the worse for the
system. If that was the way in which justice was ad-
ministered to the members of that service, numbering
16,000 persons, all that he could say was, that there was
nothing in Russia more despotic and that the sooner the
system was changed the better. He contended that Mr.
Kennedy had not had a fair trial, that this house was the
only tribunal to which he could appeal, and that they
would be wanting in their duty if they did not give him a
fair hearing. (Cheers.)

Mr. DRUMMOND remarked that if the heads of depart-
ments had not the power of dismissal, all discipline would
cease ; and it the House of Commons converted itself into a
court of appeal, upon its shoulders would rest the responsi-
bility. 11• objected to the committee because it interfered
with the Executive, with the prerogative of the Crown, and
as introducing personal debit s which all must gladly avoid.
He believed Mr. Kennedy to be a most zealous public ser-
vant, but he was convinced that he was totally incapable of
superintending a department where men as good and as
honest as himself had to be dealt with.

Mr. MALINS maintained that the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer had acted in a hasty, unfeeling, and inconsiderate
manner towards a meritorious public servant.

Lord SEYMOUR mentioned some circumstances connected
with the appointment of Mr. Kennedy. So far as his (Lord
Seymour's) experience went, he found Mr. Kennedy very
zealous, but, at the same time ha did not think he was in all
things very judicious,
and ho soon began to think that the
appointment was somewhat unfortunate. If the house gave
way to the motion, its whole time may be taken up in inquir-
ing into the complaints of such persons as may bo dismissed.
The effect would be to prevent incompetent persons from
being dismissed, Lord Seymour advised the withdrawal of
the motion, the rather as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer
had explained that there was no intention to impute anything
derogatory to the honour and veracity of Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. STRUTT spoke in favour of inquiry. Every case must
depend upon its own claims, and lie thought Mr. Kennedy's
case wan fstrog enough to juatify anent to the motion. Had

a sufficient retractatiou of the implied charge against Mr.
Kennedy's honour and veracity been male, the present cour o
might not have been taken.
Mr. WILSON begged, on his own behalf and on that of
every member of the Government with whom he had com-
municated, knowing perfectly, as he did, all the corres-
pondence that had taken place between every Minister of the
Crown and the friends of Mr; Kennedy, to declare in the
most ample manner that any charge against Mr. Kennedy's
honour and veracity had never been made, but on the con-
trary had been disclaimed and disavowed. The charge against
Mr. Kennedy, which had led to his dismissal from the public
service, really resolved itself into this—that Mr. Kennedy
had not the temper, nor the manner, nor the power of con-
ducting a great public establishment in such a manner as to
conduce to the public good. Beyond that be was satisfied
that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had in no manner
pressed the charge agakst Mr. Kennedy. The report of Sir
James Campbell, and the letter of Mr. Higginbothom, had
both been referred to Mr. Brown. That gentleman, on in-
specting the forest, found that the faults existing in 1852
still existed in 1854, in an aggravated form. This report
again was referred to Mr. Higginbothom; but into this part
of the case it Was needless for him to enter, as it had been
fully discussed by his right hon. friend the late Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Want of zeal was never attributed to Mr.
Kennedy, but he was certainly deficient in discretion. It
would be impossible for the Government to carry on the ad-
ministration of the country if the House of Commons were
to interfere iu every case without having a good prima facie
case for inquiry made out. The noble lord the member for
Lynn had charged the Government with the heavy offense of
trying Mr. Kennedy before an unknown tribunal, but that
was not so. Mr. Kennedy knew his tribunal, and made not
the least objection to it until after his dismissal.
Mr.WHITESI DE referred to the minute of the Treasury to
prove that Mr. Kennedy had been charged with a want of
veracity, of integrity, and of honour. . . .

Lord PALMERSTON said he could understand that those
who were interested, by long acquaintance and friendship, in
Mr. Kennedy, might be 'anxious to bring on a discussion in
that house to vindicate the character of that gentleman from
aspersions cast on his private honour, his integrity, and his
veracity; but he was sure that no man who knew the gentle-
man could for au instant think to impute any reflection on his
honour, veracity, and character. (Hear.) He thought what
had passed iu this discussion ought to be satisfactory on those
points, and should hope therefore that those who had brought
on the debate in the interest of Mr. Kennedy would be satis-
fied with what had passed. He hoped they would feel that
Mr. Kennedy came out of the debate without any imputation
being cast upon his character and honour; and as far as re-
garded that gentleman, he thought the hon. baronet who had
brought the motion forward ought to rest content with the
discussion. But he must request the house. very seriously to
consider the consequences that would ensue from the establish-
ment of such a precedent as the appointment of this commit-
tee would involve; it would, in his opinion, strike at the very
foundation of the civil service of the country—it would re-
duce the civil service to a state of anarchy that would be
attended with the utmost inconvenience and prejudice to the
public interest. He could quite understand that if the Go-
vernment had appointed a person whom Parliament thought
unfit for the situation to which he was appointed it would be-
come a fit subject for inquiry in the house ; because the house,
as the guardian of the public institutions, was entitled—nay,
it was its duty -to interpose and prevent the appointment of
improper persons to perform public duties in the service of
the State—but this case was widely different to that. He
contended that there must necessarily he left in the hands of
the servants of the Crown a discretion as to removing from
office those whom they might think incompetent or unfit to
conduct the duties of the office in which they were placed.
He could assure the house that if they were to establish a pre-
cedent of this kind, it would induce the civil servants of the
Crown to believe that they had a right to appeal to the house
as to the propriety of their removal, and there would not
only be an end to all discipline in the service of the State,but
the interests of the country would be most seriously damaged
by it. Therefore, without trespassing further upon the in-
dulgence of the house, he would anxiously entreat hon. mem-
bers well to weigh the vote they were now called upon to give,
while he could assure them, from his knowledge of the details
of the public service, that they could not strike a worse blow
at the efficiency of that service than by acceding to this mo-
tion. (Hear.)
Sir J. V. SHELLEY said the honour of Mr. Kennedy was
in his hands. Now the Treasury minute impugned the honour,
integrity, and veracity of that gentleman, and unless he had
some assurance that this minute would be rescinded, he
should have no alternative but to press the motion to a di-
vision. (Hear.)
Mr. WILSON said the Treasury minute was an instruction
to the referees, and had reference, not alone to Mr. Kennedy,
but to the transactions of all the parties.

Lord PALMERSTON had no objection whatever to engagp
that there should bo placed on record at the Treasury a full
acknowledgment that Mr. Kennedy's honour stood perfectly
unimpeaehed. (Hear.)
Sir J. V. SHELLEY said under these circumstances he
would withdraw the motion. (Hear.)
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

Mr. PHILLIMORE obtained leave t• bring in a bill to abo-
lish the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts of England
and Wales in cases of defamation.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.

Sir B. HALL moved that Mr. T. Egerton. bo added to the
committee on this bill.

Mr. M. MILNES complained that Viscount Ebrington, who
had taken so much interest in matters connected with the
public health, had not been placed on the committee.

Sir B. HMI said it would be inconvenient to have two
members representing the same borough en the committee.
The motion was then agreed to.
The report of the Committee of Ways and Means was
brought up and agreed to.
COMMONS' INCLOSURE BILL.

This bill passed through committee, and the other orders
of the day having been disposed of, the Louse adjourned
at a quarter to one o'clock.

PARIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FEB. 27.

SOUTII WALES RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME)

BILL:

Order for second reading read ; motion made, and question
proposed, " That the bill be now read a second time :"
Amendment proposed, to kayo out the word " now," and
at the end of the question to add the words " upon this
day six moats :"—Question put, " That the word now'
stand part of the question :"—The house divided; Ayes,
65 ; Noes, 130.

AYES.-65,
Alcock, T. Elliot, J. Monet, Viscount
Anderson, Sir J. Ewart, W. More, G.
Archdall, M. fuller, A Mullings, J.
Baring, :air F. Gaskell. J. Ot way, A.
Bateson, Capt T. Clcdericb, Vis. l'eacocke, G.
Itentinck, G. Grace, 0. Pecliell, Sir G.
Berkeley, Hon. II Graham, Lord W. Pellatt, A.
Bland, L. H. Green, Capt John Sandars, G.
Rrotherton, J. Gwyn, 11. 15vitly, F.
Browne, W. Ilastie, Alex. Seymour, Lord
Bruce, H. A. Hayter, W. smith, J. B.
Butt, I. Heyworth, L. Stanley, Lord
Corbally, M. E. Higgins, G. 0. Stiutt, E.
Cowan, C. Keogh, W. Thornely, T.
Crossley, F. Lam ton, 11. G. Tyler, Sir G.
Davies, J. L. Laslett, W. Vance, J.
Disraeli, B. Laurie, J. •Tillers, C.
Duff, G. - Lennox, Lord A. P. Wrightson, W.
Dull, J. Mackinnon, W. A. Wyvill, M.
Duke, Sir J. McTaggart, Sir J.
Duncan, G. Maguire, J. TELLERS
buncombe, T. Mandeville, Vis. Talbot, C.
Dunlop, A. Milnes, It. Hadfield, G.

NOES----138.
A'Court, C. Franklyn, G. Patten, J.
Acton, J. Freestun, Col. Paxton, Sir J.
irkwright, G. French, F. Percy, ,J.
Baillie, H. Frewen, C. Phillimore, J. G.
Balms. lit. Hon. M. Gibson, T Pilkington, J.
Baird, J. Goodman, Sir G. Powlett, Lord W.
Ball, J. Gordon, A. Reed, J.
Barrow, W. Gower, F. Ricardo, 0.
Bell, J. Graham, Sir J. Ricardo, R.
Berkeley, Admiral Greene, Thomas Roebuck, J.
Be? keley, C. Raiford, Sir 11. Rushout, Col. G.
Bethel!, Sir R. Hall, Sir B. Russell, F. C.
Biggs, W. Hankey, T. Russell, F. W.
ISouverie, Hon. E. P. Harcourt, Col. F. Sawle, C.
Bramley-Moore, J. Headlam, T. Shafto, R.
Buckley, Gen. Heywood, J. Shirley, E.
3alkeley, Sir R. Horsfall, T. Smijth, Sir W.
Campbell, Sir A. King, P. Smith, W.
Cardwell, E. Knox, Col. B. W. Smith, Abel
Castlerosse, Viscount Knox, W. S. Smith, J. G.
Cavendish, G. Laing, S. Sotheron, T.
Cayley, E. Langston, J. 11, Spooner, R.
Challis, T. Lee, W. Stafford, A.
Cholmondeley, Lord Liddell, H. G. Steel, J.
Cobbett, J. M. Liddell, H. T. Stirling, W.
Cobden, R. Lindsay, W. Stuart, W.
Compton, H. C. Locke, J. Sullivan, Michael
Cowper, W. F. Lowe, R. Verner, Sir W.
Crook, J. Lytton, Sir G. Walmsley, Sir J.
Dalkeith, Earl Macartney, G. Walter, J.
Dalrymple, Viscount Mackie, J. Whatman, J.
Deedes, W. Macgregor, Jas. Whitmore, 11.
Dent, J Massey, W. Wickham, H. W.
Bering, gir E. Milligan, R. Wilkinson, W.
Da Were, S. Milner, W. Willcox, B.
Drumunond, 11. Michell, Dr. W. Willoughby, Sir H.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. Molesworth, Sir W. Wilson, J.
Duncombe, 0. Morris, D. Woodd, B.
Du Pre, C. Mowbray, J. Wyndham, Gen.
Egerton, Sir P. Mulgrave, Earl of
Farrer, J. lliuntz, G.
Fenwick, H. Oliveira, B. TELLERS,
Fitzgerald, W. 0-borne, R.
Forester; Col. Packe, C. Emlyn, Vis.
Forster, C. Parker, R. W ise, A.

AUSTRALIAN MAILS.--With reference to an announce-
ment which has appeared respecting a contract for the

conveyance of the ;nails to Atistrali; by sailing vessels,
we are requested to state that this contract will not pre-
♦ent the re-employment of steam-vessels when the exi-
gencies of the war shall no longer prevent their use, as
the Postmaster-General has reserved a power to termi-
nate the contract at any time by giving a notice of six
weeks.
[ADVERTISEMENT.)—Many thousand cures have been
effected without medicine, by Du Barry's Delicious Reva-
lenta Arabica Food, of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation,

nervous, bilious, and liver complaints, paralysis, &c. We
quote a few :—Cure No. 52,612.—Fr0m the Dowager
Countess of Castlestuart.—" Rosstrevor, County of Down,
Ireland, 9th December, 1854.—The Dowager Countess of
Castlestuart feels induced, in the interest of suffering hu-
manity, to state that Du Barry's excellent Revalenta Ara-
bica Food has cured her, after all medicines had failed,
of indigestion, bile, great nervousness and irritability of
many years' standing. This Food deserves the confidence
of all sufferers, and may be considered a real blessing.
Inquiries will be cheerfully answered." Cure No. 71.-
Of dyspepsia, from the Right Hon. the Lord Stuart de
Decies.— I have derived considerable benefit from Du
Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, and consider it due to
yourselves and the public to authorise tho publication of
these lines.—Stuart de Decies." Cure No. 32,836.—Fr0m
the Venerable Archdeacon of Ross.- "Three years exces-
sive nervousness, with pains in my neck and left arm, and ge-
neral debility, which rendered my life very miserable, has
been radically removed by Du Barry's health-restoring Food
—Alex. Stuart, Archdeacon of Ross, Skibereen." Cure No.
4,208.—" Eight years' dyspepsia, nervousness, debility,
with cramps, spasms and nausea, have been effec-
tually removed by Du Barry's delicious Food in a very
short time.—Rev. John W. Flavell, Ridlington Rectory,
Norfolk." Cure No. 51,410.—" Fifty years' indescribable
agony from dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, consti-
pation, flatulency, spasms, sickness at the stomach and vo-
mitings, have been removed by Du Barry's excellent Food.
—Maria Jolly, Wortham, Ling, near Diss, Norfolk." Cure
No. 3,9o6.—Thirteen years' cough, indigestion, and gene-
ral debility have been removed by Du Barry's excellent
.Food.—James Potter Athol-street, Perth."—ln canis-
ters, suitably packed for all climates, and with full instruc-
tions-11b., 2s. 9d.; 21b.' 4s. 6d. ; 51b. 11s. ;121b., 225. ;
super-refined, 11b., Os. ; 21b., lls. ; 51b.,P 225. 101 b., 335.
The 101 b. and 121 b., carriage free, on receipt of post
office order. Barry du Barry and Co. 77, Regent-
street, London ; Fortnum, Mason, and CO., purveyors to
her Majesty, 182, Piccadilly ; also at 68, Cornhill ; 60,
Gracochurch-street ; 330 and 451, Strand ; and 150,
Oxford-street ; 55, Charing-cross ; 4, Cheapai tie ;25 and
51, llpperßaker-Etreot.

THE ONDON GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT.

LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S-OFFICE, FEB. 26

Notice is hereby given, that her Majesty will hold Levees
at St. James's Palace, on the following days, at two
o'clock :

Wednesday the 7th of March next.
Wednesday the 14th of March next.

REGULATIONS TO BE OBSERVED AT THE QUEEN'S LEVEES
AT ST. JAMES'S PALACE.

The noblemen and gentlemen, who purpose to attend
her Majesty's Levees, at St. Jtmes's Palace, are requested
to bring with them two large cards, with their names
clearly written thereon, one to be left with the Queen's
Page in attendance in the ante-room, and the other to be
delivered to the Lord Chamberlain, who will announce the
name to her Majesty.
Those gentlemen who are to be presented are hereby in-
formed, it is absolutely necessary that their names,
with the name of tho nobleman or gentleman who is
to present them, should be delivered at the Lord Cham-
berlain's Office, before twelve o'clock on the Monday
previous to each Leveo, or upon any earlier day between
the hours of eleven and four, in order that they may bo
submitted for the Queen's approbation ; it being her Ma-
jesty's command that no presentation shall be made at
the levees but in conformity with the above regulations.
It is particularly requested, that in every case the names
be very distinctly wiittcu upon the cards to be delivered to
the Lord Chamberlain, in order that there may be no diffi-
culty in announcing them to the Queen.
The state apartments will not be open for the reception
of company coming to court until half-past one o'clock.

Notice is hereby given, that all persons having petitions
or addresses to present to her Majesty at the levees, are to
send a card (having on it their names, a statement of the
object of such petitions or addresses, and the names of the
persons from whom they come) to the Lord Chamberlain's
Office, before twelve o'clock, on the Monday previous to
each levee ; and that two other cards, having on them pre-
cisely what is written upon that sent to the Lord Cham-
berlain's Office, are to lee taken to the levees ; one of the
two cards to be delivered to the Page in the Ante-room,
and the other to the Lord Chamberlain, who will read its
contents to her Majesty ; and, on these occasions, no
other statement is to be addressed to her Majesty.
A deputation to present an address is not to exceed
four persons.