The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-16 00:00:00

TEE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 16, 1855;

whether the Government now entertained any expecta-
tion that dies• assurances would be fulfided.
Lord COLCHESTER thou_lit they would have been
justified on the principles of international law, and it
would have been good policy, if they had issued an order
forbidding the exportation of Russian produce from any
port whatever in the Baltic, and acted on the principle
of following an enemy's goods wherever they found them.
Earl GRANVILLE, in answer to the question of the
noble lord (Berners), stated that his noble friend the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs had as yet no official
knowledge of the result of the application to the Prus-
sian Government. With reference to the question before
the how', he would ask the noble lord, who advocated
the right of indiscriminate search, to consider whether,
in a case in which they had proposed to themselves such
disinterested objects, and were so anxiaus to obtain the
sympathy of other nations, they were likely to attain
those objects by directing their cruisers to search every
Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, Danish, or American vessel
they met, in order to search for Russian produce. The
noble lord had forgotten the distinction between. Rus-
sian produce and Russian property, the latter being
Russian by origin, when once purchased by a Pome-
ranian Jew or merchant, was entirely beyond their
reach wherever it might be found. With regard to the
blockade, he Lad already explained two or three times
the difficulties that had prevented the instructions of
the Government from being carried out ; but with
the permission of the house he would read a written
statement, which would show accurately the measures
that had now been taken. With respect to the White
Sea, the orders issued to the commanding officer
on the station were, as soon as he arrived, to esta-
blish a strict blockade of Archangel and the other
ports, and not to fail to communicate the fact of his hav-
ing done so by the earliest opportunity. With respect
to the Baltic, Rear-Admiral Dundas was directed to esta-
blish a strict blockade of the Gulf of Finland, and of all
the Russian ports in the Baltic and in the Gulf of Both-
nia, and a strict blockade of all the ports in the Gulf of
Finland by a competent, force had actually been estab-
lished since the 28th of April. As to the Black Sea,
the Government had sent most positive instructions to
Sir E. Lyons to establish a strict blockade, and in two
subsequent despatches his attention had again been
drawn to the subject. From February. 1855, a block-
ade had been established by the naval forces of France
of all the Russian ports in the Black Sea and in the Sea
of Azoff, with the exception of Eupatoria, Balaklava,
and Kamiesch.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he hoped his
noble friend would not press his motion to a division.
If he did he felt he could not support it.
Earl GREY said that the speeches of his noble friends
the President of the Board of Trade and the Under-
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had conclusively disposed
of the arguments brought forward on the other side in
support of the present motion. The system of making
war with the trade of the enemy was considered so in-
tolerable, that even in this country the famous orders in
council by which it was to be carried out broke down
and were repealed in spite of the Government of that
day. But he was particularly surprised to hear his
noble friend quoting the continemal system of Napoleon
in support of his motion. Why, all the most intelligent
observers of the events of that period were agreed that
the attempt to enforce the Berlin decrees was more than
anything else the cause of Napoleon's fall. Mr. Ricardo
remarked that the extreme animosity shown by the Rus-
sians to Napoleon was traceable to the tyranny with which
he forced his continental system upon them. He ob-
served with regret and dismay more than he could de-
scribe that the motion of his noble friend seemed to be
adopted by the powerful party opposite. They incurred a
great responsibility by doing so. He thought that by giving
their countenance and support to such a motion they
gave them a new reason for rejoicing that the division of
last night was such as not to bring into the councils of
her Majesty nobie lords who were prepared to act on
such principles and views.

The Earl' of DERBY said the noble earl who had just
sat down infused into the discussion that party acrimony
and party animosity, the absence of which had happily
characterised the debate hitherto. He was at a loss to
know by what perverse ingenuity the noble earl per-
suaded himself that by assenting to the proposition of
the noble earl, the party on this side of the house, which
seemed to be the special object of the noble earl's ani-
mosity, pledged themselves to doctrines he considered so
dangerous, and the evils of which he painted in colours
such as could only proceed from so vivid an imagina-
tion as his. There was no sort of party or relationship
between the adoption of the noble earl's motion and the
adoption of those views which according to the noble
earl would produce so much danger and discontent. He
believed that every man in the country, with the excep-
tion of the noble earl, came to the conclusion that the
whole of this country were ready to submit to the
greatest privations, difficulties, and losses, provided they
tended to bring the war to an honourable and speedy
conclusion. (Hear.) The resolution appeared to him to
approach the character of a truism. There was not a
syllable in that resolution about the Berlin decrees, the
old mercantile law, the dangers of competition, or the
paralysing of commerce all over the world. (Hear, hear.)
He was ready to admit, if the noble earl would accept
of any admission from him, that in the present times
especially considering their alliance with France, it
would not be an advisable or fitting policy on their
part to adopt a system of belligerent rights differing
from that which was adopted by France. (Hear, hear.)
Nor, in the present circumstances of the world, would
it be advisable or safe, fur the purposes of war, to
adopt or to enforce the old mercantile law, which
would expose them to the risk of increasing the num-
ber of their enemies, by placing the neutral powers
in opposition to them. (Hear, hear.) But there

. . ,
was nothing of that kind in the resolution. The
arguments used by noble. lords on the opposite side
were contradictory of one another. The noble marqnis
said that the blockade was ineffectual, that the trade of
Russia ought to be crippled to the utmost, and that this
could never be done so long as they permitted it to pass
through the neutral territory of Prussia. If, then, the
Government had not adopted sufficient measures for
crippling that trade, if it was carried on through Prussia
unchecked ; and if, as the noble marquis said, it should
be a primary object with then to cripple that trade by
more efficient measures ban any which bad been
adopted or announced by her Majesty's Government,
the noble marquis ought to support the motion of the
noble earl. But while the noble marquis—in spite of
all he saw—wished that more efficient measures should
be taken, he was not willing to agree that more efficient
measures ought to be t .ken. (Hear, hear.) The argu-
me. t of the n .ble marques was quite at variance with the
argument of the noble ord the President of the Board of
Trade. That noble lord says, " You know nothing
about the figures. It is quite a mistake to suppose
that we have done nothing to cripple the trade
of Russia. It is quite true that for the first four
months of the present year there has been an increase in
the imports of Russian produce; but, depend upon it, the
trade with Russia is at an end, the people of Russia are
suffering great distress from the cessation of trade, the ap-
pearances are falacious." There was flat contradiction,
therefore, between the noble marquis and the noble lord,
and he left them to settle their differences between them-
selves. (Hear.) Then came the noble earl who spoke last
—he took a different view from both ; he said, " You
ought not to check the trade with Russia; you ought not
to check it even if you could." The noble earl admitted
that there was no objection against our putting a differen-
tial duty on articles of Russian produce ; but how, he
asked, do you mean to carry into effect these financial
restrictions ; he treated with contempt all regulations as
to certificates of origin ; no doubt these might be evaded
and falsified, but still every additional obstacle of that
kind was so much the more putting a pressure on the
enemy. (Hear.) The noble earl said the only effect of
a differential duty would be to cause Russia to bring her
produce overland to Amsterdam or Ostend. True, but
did the noble earl calculate the disadvantage which raw
produce conveyed at such expense for the purpose of be-
ing transhipped to this country would be under, when
coming into competition with produce of the same de-
scription coming from other countries (Hear.) If they
could get tallow, hemp, and flax from Russia only, they
would only inflict a grievous loss upon themselves by
f a-cin,g Russia to send her peodrice in that way, and all
the advantage of the enhanced price would go to Russia,
but it was a very different thing when, as in the case of
tallow, only 1-10th of our consumption came from Rus-
sia, and that 1-10th had to enter into competition with
9-10ths coining from other countries. (Hear, hear.)
But the President of the Bo trd of Trade- admitted that
it was by compelling Russia to a lengthy land journey
that they practically did what all, except the noble earl,
desired to do, namely, cripple the trade of Russia as an
effectual means of putting an end to the war in
which they were engaged. (Hear, hear, hear.) But, said
the noble earl even if you should succeed you would only
raise the price of Russian produce, and create discontent
at honie. If that argument was good for anything it
was good for a great deal more. It was good against
any blockade at all, against any restriction whatever.
Nay, you ought not only not to check, but you ought to
foster the trade and resources of the enemy, notwith-
standing the. state of war. This doctrine of the noble earl
was not the doctrine of the House of Lords—it was not
the doctrine of the House of Commons—it was not the
doctrine of the people of England ; and to attempt to set
up such a doctrine in time of war was one of the most ab-
surd notions that could be entertained. (Cheers.) At
present, the Prussian people warinly sympathised with the
western powers, whatever the Government might do; but
if they were deprived of the advantages which they en-
joyed under the present arrangements, they would come to
the conclusion that it was much better to be on friendly
terms with England, and would cordially unite themselves
with the western powers. He did not pretend to say how
the noble lord's proposal was to be carried out ; but a
noble friend behind him bad shown how it might be car-
ried into effect without being open to the objections
started on the side of the Government ; and, therefore,
feeling that it would cripple the trade of Russia, which
was one of the best means •f carrying on the war with
susses', he should support the resolution.

Earl GREY ini,dei.; brief statement in explanation,
alleging that Lord Derby bad completely misunderstood
his argument.
Tile Earl of ALBEMARLE, in reply,. said that no
answer had been given to his arguments. A number of
assertions had been put into his mouth ; but his oppo-
nents had had to made his giants before they killed
them. ( Laughter.)
The house then divided—
For the resolution
Against it
Majority —l6
The house adjourned at ten minutes before 10.

read a third time :—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln-
shire Railway (Lincoln Branch, &e.) ; Nottingham and
Loughborough Road (Re-clonoitt,id).

WOOLMER FOREST.

Mr. WILSON moved to nominate the select com-
mittee ol Woolmer Forest Bill :—Mr. Wilson, Mr.
Portal, 'Viscount Duncan, Mr. Compton, Sir James
Buller Fast, and Sir William Jollifice ; and five members
to be wiled by the committee of selection ; three to be
the quorum.—Agreed to.
PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented by Capt. Scobell, from places
in Somersetshire, against the Maynooth grant, and in
favour d the abolition of church rates ; by Mr. Wick-
ham, frcm the inhabitants of Shipley, Thornton, Wils-
den, Baldon, and Idle, Yorkshire, for the repeal of the
Beer Act of last session ; also from the members of va-
rious friendly societies in Bradford, of the number of
2.000, against the said act. A great number of peti-
tions were presented by various hon. members, from dif-
ferent places in favour of the abolition of church rates,
&c. ; but the indistinct tone in which the Speaker calls
out the names of members who have got petitions to
present, the buzz of conversation in the body of the
house mobile the presentation of petitions is going on,
and the careless manner in which members announce the
name cf the place from which petitions emanate, and
their prayer, render it almost a hopeless task to
try and catch what the petitions are about, who pre-
sents them, or whence they emanate.
CLERKS IN PUBLIC OFFICES.

Mr. M. MI LNES gave notice that on this day week
he should call attention to the state of the clerks in the
public offices.

ORDNANCE SURVEY (SCOTLAND).
Lord SEYNI.O UR moved for a copy of the Treasury
minute authorising the Ordnance Survey upon the scale
now in progress in Scotland.
The CRANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said as
soon as the report was agreed to he should take an op-
portunity of pre entity an early copy of it to the house.

STATUTE LAW COMMISSION.

In reply to► Mr. LOCKE KING,

Mr. iVILSON said when the vote would be taken for
the Statute Law Commission it would be impossible to
say ; but as soon as it could be done it should be laid
upon the table.

CHURCH. OF, ENGLAND (CANADA).
Mr. GLADSTONE moved for copies of any Address
from the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly
of Canada, during their present session, touching the
legal position of the Bishops and other members of the
Church of England in that colony ; and of the v6tes of
the respective houses on any such address if received.—
Agreed to.

it if erroneously paid, and return a portio❑ of it for the
use of Captain Carpenter. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. KERSHAW seconded the motion

Sir F. BARING observed that as Le was the person, I
in point of fact, responsible in this matter, he would be ;
glad to offer a few observations. The hon. and gallant
gentleman who had brought forward the motion had
withdrawn the written charge he had fir-4 made against
the Government, for misappropriating the public meney,
and had made it in his speech. But if lie would
again bring forward his motion, as originally worded,
he (Sir F. Baring) would take care that he did not want
a seconder. With regard to the subject more imme-
diately before the house, be had to observe that, when
he first became connected with the Admiralty, he
found considerable difficulty with respect to the claims
of the parties who professed to be interested in the
screw propeller. The screw propeller used in the navy
was not the specific screw of any one patentee ; but as
the Admiralty considered that they had infringed certain
patents, they believed the inventors were entitled to
compensation. The Admiralty found all the parties at
law with each other, and they declared their inability to
decide who was the proper person to be paid for the in-
vention. At length it occurred to some of the parties in-
terested that it would be far more sensible if all the in-
ventors, whose rights were infringed, should combine
togetherand endeavour to get some compensation for the
loss they bad sustained. This was the history of the
amalgamation, and which the hon. and gallant gentle-
man had dwelt upon at such length. Mr. Henry Currie,
who happened to be a member of the house, then waited
upon the Admiralty in the capacity of agent for the par-
ties whose rights had been invaded, and showed that he
w.,s authorised to settle their claims and to receive the
money to which they were entitled. The Admiralty re-
ceived Mr. Currie as an agent of the claimants, arid
treated him just as they would do any person who had a
bill to receive at their hands. Mr. Currie produce" an
authority, signed by all parties, giving him full powers
to act on their behalf, a pro..f of agency than which none
could be more satisfactory. The state of the law with re-
spect to patents, was this, that if the Government made
a screw for the navy on their own premises, the pa-
tentee had no remedy against them for an infringement
of his rights, neither had he a remedy against them if
they employed a contractor to make any patent work
for the use of her Majesty's navy. The patentee would,
however, in the latter case, have a right of action against
the contractor for using the patent. The Attorney-Gene-
ral of that day was well acquainted with the law of pa-
tents and he consulted him, and he was clearly of opinion
that he could pay the money to these parties. He, acting
under professional advice, also required a guarantee to
be given that no further claim should be made. He was
bound to state that, up to the time of the agree-
ment. he never heard that Capt. Carpenter had claimed
any money compensation in consequence of his patent
right having been infringed. No doubt Capt. Carpenter
had claimed to be employed, but at that time he bad
made no claim for money compensation. He (Sir F.
Baring) now came to the agreement. That agreement
was made with Mr. Menry Currie. The bargain was
this—it was a payment for the past, and a purchase for
the future. Capt. Carpenter bad estimated, to a certain
extent, what the value of the patent right was. He had
claimed the whole 20,0001., and a further sum of 44,000/.
He received 20.0001. as a final payment for all claims
past and future, and he (Sir F. Baring) was at a loss to
understand on what ground he could claim 44,0001.
more. When these parties combined together, the
arrangement made was this—that the money should be
distributed by an arbitrator appointed hi' them all. He
had been told that he had misappropriated the public
money, or that he had acted inadvertently. At the
time when the last vote was taken, the sum of 10,0001.
ha.) been paid under a particular agreement with these
parties. On that occasion he twice explained the whole
transaction to the house. The money was taken, in
point of words and explanation, for payment to these
persons, and it could not have been applied to the pay-
ment of Captain Carpenter. That officer had put in a
claim to the Admiralty ; and the advisers of the Admi-
ralty—Mr. Lloyd and Sir B. Walker—bad reported that
the screw invented by Captain Carpenter was not the
screw used in her Majesty's navy. It was said that
Capt. Carpenter had been hardly dealt with, and that,
therefore, a committee ought to be appointed. The ques-
tion was altogether one for a court of law ; and why had

he not proceeded against the contractors who bad been
employed by the Admiralty ? His hon. and gallant friend
seemed to think that the patent law was changed when
the screw was used in a queen's ship. Capt. Carpenter had
only once gone to law, and on that occasion the Vice-
Chancellor had refused to grant the injunction. He
should go, as other people had been compelled to go, to
the courts of law. He must protest against the •deci-
sion of a question of this nature by a committee. It
would have no weight whatever ; but, as far as he was
personally concerned, he was indifferent whether a com-
mittee was appointed or not.
Mr. KEATING, in supporting the motion, said he
did not think that the hon. gentleman (Capt. Scobell)
had imputed any misconduct to the right hon. gentle-
man who had just addressed the house, or to any other
official. The Admiralty, in taking the vote of 20,0001.,
accepted it as trustees, to distribute it as the public
desired, and the committee asked for evidence to show
whether it had been so distributed. The Admiralty
bad, no doubt, acted with the best intentions in dis-
tributing it, but their distribution was open to the fair
criticism of the house. Al! that Capt. Carpenter asked
for was to be permitted to show to a select committee
that he was entitled to the vote of 20,0001. which the
house granted to the Admiralty for the purpose of dis-
tribution to the proper party.

Admiral WALCOTT disclaimed all pretension to legal
knowledge, but he begged to express his opinion that
the house would act rightly in appointing a committee,
who would be able to determine whether or not Capt
Carpenter had any claim to the vote. He thought that
Capt Carpenter had some claim to consideration. Capt.
Carpenter was entitled to 'great merit for having ex-
pended all he possessed in bringing his great invention
to perfection. The Admiralty, was responsible to the
house for the proper distribution of the vote, and he did
not think that the Admiralty acted rightly in handing it
over to Mr. Currie, one of the parties interested in the
claim for compensation.
After a few words from Sir F, BARING, in expla•
tion,

Sir F. THESIGER said, if the motion went to a divi
sion, he should vote with the Government, thinking it
most inexpedient to assent to the inquiry proposed
by the hon. and gallant member for Bath. To those
who considered the subject, it was quite clear that Capt.
Carpenter was not entitled to any merit whatever in the
invention of the screw propeller. No less than 44 pa-
tents were taken out for this important instrument, and
the honour of the original invention had been warmly
contested by the different parties at an enormous cost ;
but it was admitted by those best able to judge that
whatever merit was due to those parties, the merit of the
practical application of the screw propeller belonged to
Mr. Smith, who took out his patent in 1836, four years
before Captain Carpenter made his known. It was al-
leged that Mr. Smith obtained no advantage from his
invention ; but being a man of no mean., Mr. Currie
and other gentlemen came forward and assisted him in
forming a company for carrying it out. The hon. and
learned gentleman then entered into a detailed state-
ment of the various legal proceedings between the claim-
ants, which resulted in the whole inventions being re-
ferred to an eminent engineer, who reduced the 44 down
to five, which he thought possessed claims to original
merit ; and the owners of those five inventions entered
into an agreement, whereby they were to appropriate
among themselves the proceedings arising from them.
Having therefore, as suggested by the Admiralty, as-
serted their rights by law to these inventions, Mr.
Currie went to the Admiralty and asked for that to
which they were entitled. The right hon. baronet then
at the head of the Admiralty referred the five inven-
tions to another engineer of the highest eminence ; and
as that gentleman reported it as his opinion that the par-
ties had properly asserted their rights, he had no other
course to pursue but to pay the money which was justly
due to them, and make the best bargain he could for
the purchase of the screw propellers. Mr. Cartmael,
who has no interest in the matter, who wag acquainted
with the history of the invention from the earliest
periods," awarded the different proportions ; under
which award Mr. Currie acted from the beginning to the
end. They now came to the years 1852 and 1853. Dur-
ing several previous years this invaluable screw had been
used ; but from 1840 down to 1853, Carpenter never
challenged its use, never once asserted his right ' • but in
1854 he went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council for the extension of his patent. Let him inform
the house of the nature of that proceeding, as undue
weight had been given to the expression of Lord Justice
Knight Bruce—a weight to which, under the circum-
stances, it was not entitled. A patent was not merito-
rious, unless it had novelty, in an action at law ; but in
the Judicial Committee the question of novelty was not
entertained. With respect to the attendance of the at-
torney-General, it was the duty of the Attorney-
General to attend there on behalt of the public. He
merely had the name of the parties on a blank sheet
of paper, and only had to state the objections, with re-
spect to accounts, &c., why the patents should not be
extended. The Judicial Committe so entirely disre-
regarded the .consideration as to whether there was
novelty or not in the patent, that in a case which he
knew the Judicial Committee extended a patent, which
was afterwards declared to be invalided on the ground
of want of novelty. If an action had been brought by
Captain Carpenter, the fact of the extension by the Privy
Council would have been no answer, but the case must
have stood or fallen according to its own merits. He
denied that the Judicial Committee bad decided that the
screw used in the Agamemnon was a novelty. Yet what
were they now called upon to do by this motion ? Car-
penter never bad established the .validity of his patent
by trial at law. Had he been invited to do so ? In 1853
he went before Vice-Chancellor Stuart, asking the Vice-
Chancellor to grant against the Peninsular and Oriental
Steam Company an injunction, which was not granted
but the judge told Captain Carpenter that be *night
proceed by action at law. Injunctions were granted to
other parties, because these parties had made good their
titles in a court of law. Captain Carpenter to this day
had never brought any action. Why not? Because he
knew the question of no novelty would be the answer
to that action. The question was, had Captain Carpen-
ter established his right to any portion of the 20,0001. ?
If he bad done so, he would have most assuredly failed.
But lie came to that' house to ask for a select committee,
although he bad no ground for making such a request,
unless he had shown that, he had a good title to the
validity and novelty of the patent. And, again, was a
committee of that house more fitted to try such a case
than was a court of law, whose functions they would
supersede, or attempt to supersede, by acceding to such
a motion. He had felt it to be his duty to express his
opinion as to the claim of Captain Carpenter, which, in
his opinion, was wholly unfounded ; and thinking the
precedent of granting a committee under such circum-

Ptmices would be irjorious, he called upon the house to
dissent from the ny,tion . . _

Sir G. PECHELL wished to state that, with regard
to the disposal of the money. he hoped there was not
a man in the house b-it believed the right hon. gentleman
the member Tor Portsmouth acted upon the purest and
best motives. The Admirilty, however, was greatly to
blame f their delay and negligence in not adopting this
wonderful and most useful invention, the screw, the use
of which he had so often urged upon the Beard of Ad-
miralty. He regretted that any brother officer should
be placed in the situation in which Captain Carpenter
was. He wished for inquiry, which he thought ought
to be granted. He did not think Captain Carpenter
would he satisfied with a portion of the 20,0001., but
what he asked for wag the whole 20,0001.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMO RE expressed himself in favour
of appointing the committee, if it were. only on- the
ground that Capt. Carpenter had as yet never been heard.
There must have been some error in the proceeding, as,
according to the judgment of Lord Cranw,rth, a portion
of the money had been actually raid to a Mr. Lowe, who
was not entitled to it. Mr. Currie was no doubt an
honourable man, but of all men in the world he was, be-
ing himself a rival to Capt. Carpenter, the last person
who should have been made the judge of Capt. Car-
penter's claim.
Sir C. WOOD denied that Mr. Currie was a judge of
the parties entitled to receive the money, and contended
that the right hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth
had proved that be acted only as the agent in the mat-
,
ter. It was the law advisers of the A•imiraity and not
Mr. Currie who had decided upon the patent rights of
the parties, and it was not fair to Mr. Currie or the
house that hon. gentlemen should assert that he was the
person to adjudge the claims of the parties, or to state
in what proportion the money had been divided. He
(Sir C. Wood) was opposed to the appointment of a
committee of the house, because a court of law was the
only proper tribunal which could establish his right. If
he could not show that he had a patent right valid against.
the world he had no claim upon the Admiralty.

Mr. RICE said that he had a distinct recollection of
having seen Mr. Smith's screw propeller at work in a
model at the Adelaide Gallery many years ago, and that
Sir Thomas Hastings, who witnessed the exp,riment,
then declared his belief that before many years were over
they would see all the ,team-ships in the navy propelled
by means of the invention.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS said it was the duty of the
house to inquire into the manner in which 20,0001. of
the public money had been expended. This was the
only tribunal to which Capt. Carpenter could come to
obtain a proportion of the sum which had been voted by
the country, if he were entitled to it. If Captain Car-
penter were to investigate this complicated subject in a
court of law, his expenses would be not much less than
3,0001. Parliament had voted a sum to be distributed
amongst the real claimants, and, under these circum-
stances, Capt. Carpenter had a right to come to the
house to ask whether he should not be included. The
bond, to which reference bad been made, could only be
put in suit by the L .rds of the Admiralty ; and by means
of a select committee all the facts would be ascertained,
and then the Admiralty would put the bond in suit at
the expense of the country, if the result of the inquiry
should justify such a course. In truth, the rights of
Capt. Carpenter had been decided behind his back,
and, therefore, he knew no other tribunal to whom that
officer could appeal but the House of Commons. He
(Mr. M. Chambers) should, therefore, support the
motion.

Mr. DRUMMOND said it was most unjust to impute
any blame to Mr. Currie, who had only had to dis-
tribute the money amongst those persons whose claims
had been decided by a court of la.v. He thought that
a committee of the House of Commons was the very
worst tribunal in the world that could be selected to
dacide the claim of Capt. Carpenter. It had, in fact,
been already decided by the Admiralty and by Sir
Baldwin Walker.
Capt. SCOBELL, in reply, said that Capt. Carpen-
ter's claim had never been investigated at the time the
money was distributed. He thought that they should
stultify themselves if they did not take care to see that
the money had reached the hands of the persons who
were really entitled.
The house then divided, when the members were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
DISTRICT PARISHES.

69
-20

The Marquis of BLANDFORD obtained leave to
bring in a bill to make better provision for the forma-
tion and endowment of district parishes.
MORT MAIN.

Mr. ATHERTON obtained le'ave to bring in a bill
to amend the laws relating to mortmain.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE QUALIFICATION

BILL.

Mr. COLVILE asked leave to introduce a bill to
enable persons to qualify as magistrates when they pos-
sessed per-onal estate of 3001 per annum, or real estate
of 1001. per annum. At present, no gentleman could
qualify for a county magistrate unless he derived an
income of 1001. a year from land.
Agreed to.
COAL MINES INSPECTION BILL.

Mr. BO UVERIE, on behalf of Sir G. GREY, obtained
leave to introduce a bill to amend the law for the inspec-
tion of coal mines in Great Britain.

THE COURTS OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill .was read a second time.
THE SPIRITS, &c., DUTIES BILL.

Admiral JONES desired that certain exceptions
should be introduced in this bill, with respect to the re-
moval of stocks of spirit dealer; io Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXC HEQ IJE R objectA,
on the grouEd that the bill already contained excep-
tional powers similar to those requested by the hon.
member.

• Admiral JONES then moved that there be added to
clause A,—" Provided always that nothing he. ein con-
tained shall interfere with the provisions of an act passed
in the 11th and 12th of her Majesty, t An Act
to Amend the Laws relating to the Warehousing of
British Spirits."'
The house divided, when the.numbers were—
Aye:,
Noes
—2B

Majority
The bill was read a third time and passed.
ALTERATIONS IN PLEADINGS BILL.
This bill was read a second time
SEWERS (HOUSE DRAINAGE) BILL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
The other orders were then disposed of, and the house
adjourned at 10 minutes to 11 o'clock until this day.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

TATTERSALL'S.—TUESDAY.
A blank afternoon, the main body of subscribers having
left town to attend the race meeting at Bath.

BATH AND SOMERSET COUNTY RACES.
TUESDAY.

The Lansdown Stakes (Handicap) of 5 sovs each, with
40 added ; for three-year-olds and upwards ; extra
weight for certain winners. One mile. 19 subs.
Mr. T. Parr's Benhams, by Van Tromp, 3 yr-, 7st 21b
(Clement) 1
Mr. Waller's Octavia, 6 yrs, Bst (Sly) 2
Mr. J. Hewitt's Postulant, yrs, 7st 101 b (Wells) 3
The following also ran :—Florist, Jacqueline, Anthra-
cite, Master Horton, and b f by Verulam.
Betting-7 to 4 agst Benhams, and 3 to 1 agst
Jacqueline. Won easily by a length and a half ' • three
lengths between the second and third ; Florist was fourth,
Jacqueline fifth, and Anthracite sixth. Just before
reaching the distance, Master Horton ran against a post
and unseated his rider.

The Biennial Stakes of 10 sovs each, with 50 added ; for
three-year-olds, colts Bst 101 b, fillies and geldings Bst
71b ; untried horAes and mares allowed 31b, but only
one allowance. The Second to save his stake. One
mile and a half. 46 subs.

Mr Howard's Oulston, by Melbourne, Bst 101 b (Wells) 1
iqr. Knowles's Sandbny, Bst 71b (Bumby) 2
Mr. Gulliver's Bessie, Bst 71b
The following also ran :—William the Third and
Rosetta.

Betting —3 to 1 and 7 to 2 on Oulston, who took a long
lead, was never caught, and won in a canter by twenty
lengths. Bessie, William the Third, and Rosetta were
pulled up.

Biennial Stakes of 10 sovs each, with 50 added ; for two-
year-olds ; colts Bst 101 b, Mlle.. and geldings B,t 71b ;
untried horses or mares allowed 31b, but only one
allowance ; the second to save his stake. T.Y.C.,
half-a-mile. 41 subs.

Mr. Parr's Coroner, by Loup-garou, Bit 101 b

_ _
(Flatman) 1
Mr. E. Parr's Stork, Bst 101 b (Quinton% 2
Lord John Scott's Wandering Willie, .Bst 101 b

(A I dcroft) 3
•
The following also ran :—Persia,,Brother to Orinoco,
Duet, Maid of the Mill, Furioso, Disraeli, Garnet, colt
out of Baleine, Secretary.
Betting—Even on Furioso, 4 to 1 agst Brother to
Orinoco, and Bto 1 each agst Stork and Coroner. Co-
roner made all the running, and, after a fine raceln, won
by a head ; two lengths between the second and third ;
Duet was fourth, Maid of the Mill fifth, Dl:,raeli,
Brother to Orinoco, and Furioso, were the next lot past
the post.

• The Somers.
etshire Stakes of 25 sovs each, 15 ft, and 5
only if declared, with 100 added ; the second horse to
receive 50 sovs, and the third horse to save h:s stake.
Extra weight for certain winners. Two miles and a
distance. 83 subs, 55 of whom pay 5 sovs each.
Lord Chesterfield's Typee, by Touchstone, 5 yrs,
7st 131 b
Mr. C. Fenning's Humboldt, 4 yrs, Gst 81b (Bates)
Mr. E. Thelluson's Rataplan, 5 yrs, 9.t21b (J. Prince) 3
Mr. Gulliver's Hercules, 4 yrs, 7st 110 (including

71b extra)
The following also ran :—Little Harry, "Gr'oorkah,
Newbold, Kiiinaprer, Cleveland, Kaffir, Mr. Sykes,
Whalebone, Mishap.

Betting-9 to 4 agst Typee, sto 1. agst Kidnapper, 6
to 1 agst Little Harry, 8 to 1 agst Mishap, 100 to 12
ag,-t Hercules, 10 to 1 agst Rival)lan, and 12 to 1 agst
Kaffir. The race in with the four placed was close and
interesting, Typee winning by a head ; a neck between
the second and third, and a head between the third and
fourth ; Kaffir was fifth, and Mishap sixth ; Newbold
and Cleveland were beaten off,
Selling Stakes of 5 sovs each, with 25 aided, for three-
year-olds and upwards ; optional selling weights.
Once-round.
Mr. J. Lowe's Donna, by Spansh Jack, 4 yrs, 6st 121 b
50/. ............. . (Bray) 1
...........................
Mr: Gully's Prince of Wales) 3 yrs, 6st 51b, 80/,
(Salter) 2
Mr. B. Land's Grey Chicken, 3 yrs, sst 131 b, 50/.
(Land, jun.) 8