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

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

but not to allocate the whole of the duties to owl of the
commissioners, and consequently, although Mr. Kennedy
had practically ceased to fulfil the duties of his office,
yet an allocation of office was obliged to be left to him
for the sake of form. Under these circumstances, as
his patent was continued, when the proper officer in the
Treasury by whom salaries are paid came to Mr. Ken-
nedy, he paid that gentleman's salary as a matter of

which its importance to the gentleman concerned 60
much demanded.

The SPEAKER having put tho question that the
committee be appointed,
Mr. GLADSTONE said as the hon. member who had
just sat down had thought it his duty to impugn Ms con-

duct while in office in one of the most important functions

belonging to a Minister, it was not his intention to rote

course.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (3,300,000/.) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (20,000,000/.) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
CASE OF MR. KENNEDY.
Sir. J. V. SHELLEY rose to move for a select com-
mittee to inquire into and consider the grounds and jus-
tification of the removal of the Right Hon. Thomas
Kennedy from the office of Woods, Forests, and Land
Revenues of the Crown. He should treat this
case as if there had been no answer to a re-
cent question on the subject. He complained that
Mr. Kennedy had been improperly dismissed from
his office, and reflections thereby cast upon his character

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

and reputation. He might state, however, in passing,
that the position in which Mr. Kennedy had recently
stood reflected no credit upon the Exchequer, for it
appeared that he bad been allowed to receive a large
salary to superintend a manor that produced no more
than 4/. a-year to the country. Early last session a
committee sat upon the Woods and Forests, but that
committee did not go into the case of Mr. Kennedy, and
there was no chance of doing justice to Mr. Kennedy
unless his case was especially inquired into. Mr. Kennedy
bad been dismissed not from maladministration or

incompetency, but because his action in office was too
independent for certain members of the Government.
At his dismissal the office was offered to Cel. Romilly,
the brother-in-law of Mr. Kennedy, but, of course, that
gentleman very properly rejected it, and nothing was
heard of the matter until just before Christmas, when
it was reported that Lord Courtney had been removed
from the Poor-Law Board to this office in the Woods
and Forest. He put a question to the Government
relative to that report, and received an evasive answer
from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom he dis-
tinctly informed that he had taken up the case
upon public grounds, knowing very little per.
sonally of Mr. Kennedy himself, and the
right hon. gentleman told him that the Government
would have some difficulty in filling up the vacancy if be
proceede•l with his motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he bad no recollection what-
ever of the circumstance.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY said he was prepared to swear
to it. (A. laugh.) The immediate objection to Mr.
Kennedy was, that he promised a straightforward course
in the management of the National Forests, and pre-
ferred that which was most conducive to the public
good to bending to the wish of the Minister. (Hear,
bear.) The whole of this subject was considered
of FO much importance, that it was mentioned in
connection with her Majesty's Speech on the Bth of
August, and the Board of Woods and Forests was con-
sequently reconstructed ; and the whole of the Woods
and Forests, with the exception of Windsor, was placed
under Mr. Kennedy's care. He felt the difficulties he
had to contend with, but he felt that be had only orie
honest, straightforward course to pursue. :Out in the
evidence before the committee Mr. Kennedy complained
that a difficulty suet him at once—that among ,t the
whole of the clerks there was no one who was ac-
quainted with rural affairs. Now, he felt that before
he could go further it was necessary to make some alte-
ration in this respect. He then proceeded to make a
personal inspection of Chogwall Wood, Durham, which
had been reported to be in a much-neglected condition.
He found matters were such that he was disposed to be
of a different opinion, but he at once deemed it neces-
sary to have some support to this opinion, and he accor-
dingly appealed to a Mr. Brown, a gentleman well
known in connection with different agricultural associa-
.tions, but that gentleman, although bolding so high a
position, bad been termed a common Scotch gardener.
He (Sir J. Shelley) now came to the forest with respect
to which the dispute arose, which had led to the dis-
missal of Mr. Brown, and the removal of Mr. Kennedy
—Alice Holt Forest. The deputy-surveyor of that
forest was Mr. Higginbotham, a surgeon and apothecary
formerly residing at Pitt-town, in Ireland, where he had
taken care of the health of Lord Dancannon, who,
being first Commissioner of Woods and Forests, had
removed him from his situation of apothecary at Pitt-
town to that of a country gentleman, living in delight,
ful scenery in England, with two horses kept at the
public expense. The inspection of Alice Helt Forest
was made by Mr. Brown in August, 1852. The
whole question was ai t) how many trees stood on a
certain number of acres. Mr. Brown complained of
the system of thinning the trees, and Mr. Higginbo-
tham answered him, in a very able paper, in the pre-
paration of which it was quite clear he had been as-
sisted by somebody. The arrangement, upon the whole,
was that of a clever lawyer ; and it certainly astonished
Mr. Kennedy that there should be any dispute,
as to the number of trees, and he forwarded Mr. iliggin-
botham's report to Mr. Brown to be answered. Mr.
Brown found that since his inspotion in 1852 there had
been a vast thinning of timbeirm the forest, and that a
large quantity of bark had been taken off the trees. Mr.
Kennedy thought that the suppression of this fact of
thinning had been done intentionally to damage Mr.
Brown in his estimation. The Secretary of the Trea-
sury, instead of aiding Mr. Kennedy in his endeavours
to promote the public service with reference to the ma-
nagement of the royal forests, regarded him as a bore,
because he could never prevail upon Mr. Kennedy to
do anything which he (Mr. Kennedy) did not think was
strictly right. Mr. Kennedy proposed to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to refer the matter in dispute between
bias and the Treasury to three of 12 impartial gentlemen,
10 of whom he had never seen in his life. Mr. Wilson, the
Secretary of the Treasury, replied on behalf of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, that all correspondence on the
subject must be regarded as elosed, and that the Lords of
the Treasury would not consent to the proposed reference,
as they had taken steps themselves to inquire into the
matter. He was of opinion that very great injustice had
been done to Mr. Brown and to Mr. Kennedy by con-
demning them on evidence taken secretly, and when they
were not present. The three referees to whom the Lords
of the Treasury had assigned the duty of inquiring into
the case of these gentlemen were Messrs. Medan, Ma-
thews, and Menzies. The last-named gentleman ought
not certainly to have been selected for such a duty, inas-
much as he filled the office of deputy-surveyor of Wind-
sor, and was therefore, from the very circumstances of
his position, liable to suspicion. He (Sir J. Shelley) was
prepared to contend that the report which the referees
had sent in was not such as to justify the removal of Mr.
Kennedy from his office. Mr. Kennedy had been for a
long series of years a faithful and efficient servant of the
Crown, and he defied any man to show that that gentle-
man's conduct had been actuated,by any ether motive than
that suggested to him by an anxious and single-hearted
desire to de his duty as effectively and as conscienti-
ously as possible. The Government ought to have
been most cautions how they took any course that could
injure the character or the interests of a gentleman who
occupied such a social position as Mr. Kennedy enjoyed,
who had attained his age, and who had maintained, like
him, a character of honour, integrity, and veracity. The
hon. baronet having read copious extracts from the blue-
book, which he commented on as evidencing an unfair
prejudice against Mr. Kennedy, proceeded to observe
that, though the report of the referees was by no means
such as is justify Mr. Kennedy's dismissal, nevertheless
that gentleman received a letter of dismissal, from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, within 24 hours of the
sending in of the report. Mr. Kennedy was not allowed
an opportunity of replying to the report. (Hear, hear.)
He was not permitted to say one word in answer to the
allegations contained in the report, but the Lords of
the Treasury, who had long considered him a bore and
a nuisance, were only too glad of any pretext, how-
ever flimsy, to get rid of him. Nothing, to be sure,
could be sweeter than the letter in which the late
Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated dismissal to Mr.
Kennedy. He (Sir J. Shelley) admitted that that right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was a master of the art
of speaking, and he had always listened to him with at-
tention, but he had invariably observed that, whenever
the right hon. gentleman were a peculiarly sweet and
bland smile, he was on the point of administering a
very severe blow to somebody. (Laughter.) Nothing
could be sweeter or more courteous than the tone of
the right hon. gentleman's letter to Mr. Kennedy, but
that gentleman could only interpret it as a notice to
quit, and he accordingly replied that he would leave as
soon as possible. Subsequently, Mr. Kennedy wrote
a letter to the Prime Minister, Lord Aberdeen, request-
ing an open and impartial inquiry into his conduct, and
neave days afterwards his lordship returned an answer,
as the he had no objection to grant such an inquiry; but
matter had been brought before the House of Corn-
' wen precluded from taking any steps in re-
gard to it,
The noble earl added that the Chancellor
of the Reehumer
would be in his place to justify
the course which h
mortals could not but e had
pursued. Though ordinary
Exchequer's letter intooonstrue the Chancellor of the
who took a different view of
dismissal, there were some
Van, in a letter to Mr. Kennedy9f it for Sir Charles Trove-
said—" I have to
transmit to you the Treasury minutesoe7rlative to your re-
tirement from the office of Comni
Afterwards
Mr. Kennedy wrote to the Lords of the Treasury,
regretted,
say-
ing he had made use of expressions which h
but that he had acted from a sincere desire to benefit the
public service, and he hoped an inquiry would Ise
made
into the management of his department of the woods
and Forests and Land Revenues of the Crown. Their
lordships replied that they could not submit to their acts
being inquired into by any
tribunal except Parliament ;
but that was precisely what Mr. Kennedy asked for.
This being the state of things, Mr. Kennedy represented
his case to Lord J. Russell, and his lordship sent him a
letter, in which he said that it was with some concern
he bad learnt that a man of such high character, in-
tegrity, and honour, was, after a long and useful career
in the service of the Crown, no longer in charge of the de-
partment with which he had been entrusted; but he
would support any motion for inquiry which
might be
made in the house. The hon. baronet then alluded to
the proceedings of the select committee, and complained
of the appointment of Mr. Wilson as a member of that
committee,ton the ground that, as Secretary of the
Treasury, he had conducted the whole correspondence
. between the Treasury and Mr. Kennedy. A resolu-
tion, asserting that Mr. Kennedy had evinced much
zeal in the execution of his office, was proposed in the
committee ; and on a division being taken, the ave.
four, and the noes five, the casting vote
Mr. Wilson. He called us,—
give fair i given
earby tr;
a gentleman '
lie
rvice, nad beeri::lvonneginentiPloyed in thep pub-
an Lndiscre:tl who had been so imprudent I,S
cheth
hhise had expres.s.edtohcivsrrietts-
u,gr.....et. con.a. de
case in the hands of

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 had, as ho
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 be called to act with imperfect informa-
tion. He must confess that lie did not think the hon. 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 Went ion 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 he (Mr.
Gladstone) would quote, because if the hon. gentleman
mwaostiopnrewpaorueldd tboe srteau
an da
vbeyd
.h i s words,
The
boa .hi s
gentleman opposition
h.
dt o the
said
that "the cause for which Mr. Kennedy was dismissed
was only a mere excise for his dismissal, and the real cause
was, his being too active and zealous for certaia 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. Ho (Mr. Glad-
stone) would then agree to tho 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 home at greater length. Did the
hon. gentleman accept this offer?
Sir J. SHELLEY—If the right hen. gentleman will
grant the committee, it will bo 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. SHEL LEY—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 that it would not do for him 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 cf the deputy
surveyors, had come and advocated their cause, anti that
political pressure—(hear, hear)
Mr. GL.iDSTONE—I beg to observe that the hon.
gentleman has not answered my question. I wish to
know from the champion of public justice--;hear, be tr)
whether lie abides by the words he used in his speech, brit
he puts ins elf with a conversation betw.?c❑ Mr. Kennedy
and the Secretary of the Treasury. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman then proceeded to say that his answer
to that charge was, that Mr. Kennedy wits 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, must impartial, and most indefatigable men that is
was ever his good fortune to know in the public service ;
but his right hon. friend was not the man who bad 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 unquestionalle honour—as Mr.
Kennedy was—of a man of experience, and a public ser-
vant of long stanilins.—that he would clebgate 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 ho 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 be 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 cause
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 alone that the credit ofMr. Brown and Mr. Higginbo-
tham was called into question. The assumption was en-
tirely gratuitous on the part of the ion. gentleman, for
not one word, not one syllable could be found which could
lead Mr. Kennedy to imagine his honour or veracity at-
tacked. Ho 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 where
the zeal of a man was admitted, matters of opinion would
not reader it necessary to go to the length of dismissal ;
bat 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 were 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 not the cause of Mr. Kennedy's dismissal—the report
stated that ".a great mistake has been made in taking se
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 is a mistake ; wood which arrives at ma-
turity in two or three centuries would suffer no doeiriora-
tion for 40 or 50 years." He was beund 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 as account to the House of Commons of the Crown
estates. Lor 1 Aberdeen, when he was 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, and 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 know if want of zeal for the public
service was 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)—he did not know what was his exact object.
He did not seem to impute corruption. Did he mean that
there was irregularity? He (Mr. Gladstone). bad 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) mast
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 mast 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 Ale. 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 hen. gentleman did not seem
to have have looked at the question in this light. If the
property was mismanaged, it was on the Chancellor of the
Exchequer that the responsibility lay; and it was also his
duty, if the persons in the office were tyrannically treated,
to protest 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? Now, if a committee
were in practice to recommend the appointments to
Ministers, and any mismanagement took place, the
answer would be that by law yea must look to the com-
mittee aid not to the Minister of the Crown. It would be
impossible to maintain the responsibility of Ministers to
tchipelFlinoeuosl the
e.ofCclo.vmilmseornvsicife.this was the practice. The first
effect of this motion would be to destroy the responsibility
of Ministers to Parliament—thelfth
the
Minister next, t
and destroy h
itshe dis -
subor-
dinates did not always agree, he wanted to know how it
servant who
practice ennteuhdeYeo'reuraovalofofptholsieo
would be possible
a select committe to carry on the Government, if every
was di:Timed came to the house and demanded
justiTche hon. gentleman said he was the
friend of public y
good intentions,
tei(Mn
he wa s Gladstone)abo believedutt o
that, with perfectl
place accorwdlainicehtohlea
in-
dict a great injustice on Mr,
inquiries
into the
the house had wwonld
afterwards refer to. Theq
uni-
formly been to decline in
servants, when they bad taken
according to the apparently conscientious judgmente and
that there was one appare
lestivho lawsboym e P leiZem at ry responsible,for
antiquarianit -e g to '—
Palmer, who we-
case e-

slated, and a motion was made in 1844 for a select commit tee.
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 he 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 sot 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 he in accordance
with law and usage teiput 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 bo 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. gentlemen 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 especially 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 bo 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 bo 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.) Ile ,
would tell the hon. member that he was wrong, and he
would do something at least to mards showing him that ho
was wrong. Many things might have escaped his (Mr.
Gladstone's) memory, but it, was strong enough to hold the
cAlversation to which reference had been made. He was
sufficiently aware of the company he was in to warn him
to stamp upon the fibres of his brain the language used with
aufficient clearness to enable him to repeat it. Tho hon.
member said that he (Mr. Gladstone) used words equiva-
lent to these—" I ::in 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 snake 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 mail who knew his duty would say
that because ono 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 vacant for six menthe? (Hear, hear.) No one could
suppose that such an answer would have bean 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.)
Ho 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 ne alternative. He
would, however, endeavour to express his conviction with
all the reserve of which the case admitted. He could not
consider himself responsible for Mr. Kennely's proceed-
ines 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 misht
have been placed oa vacancies occurring—offices in which
the government of men was not involved—offices requir-
ing honesty, fidelity, and competent ability—and 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
teen construed in an improper manner. (Hear, hear.)
It was impossible for him to refrain altogether from some
reference to the merits of the case, but he would merely
state just sufficterrt 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 proceedings; 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 were necessarily destructive of all credit and autho-
rity attaching to that gentleman, so that it had become a
public necessity that he should be removed from that de-
partment, because he could not serve the publicwith credit
therein. That was his second reason. His third was, that
inferior servants, placed under Mr. Kennedy, not resident in
London, despite their plebean names, had a right to be
treated with justice. He (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 Governnient, 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. Ke-anedy 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-
them. 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. Higin-
bethom at all, but notwithstanding that he sent that letter
to his superiors in office to poison their minds. (Hoar,
hear.) It was said that Mr. Kennedy had no opportunity
to retract. But what was the fact ? On the 6th February
Mr. Higinbothom 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 it-
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 stns. " 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 en 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 moat respectfully to
remind you that among the injurious expressions which
you have °facially 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 inv.
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 gra%
tads for having afforded me the present opportunity of
charges which I
anatrornasietdt
al?norw.MKrr.eeKnspneeencdntyfeudtllyyakdei
refuting the charges which have been brought against me,
twoil
el x withdraw." ta
explain
r andaw reqdthnauotte
retract
nyoi
not yue
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 be had read,
not made upon the first or second appeal, but upon an ap-
peal most conclusive iu its character, as a statement of
facts, and supported by 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 Web.
r tain a judgment upon the facts; and on the 22d of +" -
month a minute directing the
• the 15th of Asneo
se -

.- -.... 'wile
_- .oierellee was made. On
....-... report from tie gentlemen who acted
- .. jery in the collection of facts came in, and on the
-.Quid. trip h
07 25th, Mr. Kennedy during the whole of this time having
-office—but that
-.A. precedent—the ea-se
07 jyr, failed to avail himself of an opportunity to take off shade
..... cismissed from the Post from the darkness of his charges, or to express the faintest
. -.seed on very different grounds. Mr. Palmer was a !suspicion of the propriety of his conduct, was informed
contractor for certain services, and his place in the Post- office
it would be necessary to remove him from the
office was under that contract. There were several cases vtrotewtoiT,horhde held, Onto 2tl of May Mr, Kennedy
sufficient to show the practice of the house on the other any regret - so.%brerdeenm , but he did not ayes theßise3fpr,V3l3
side, to two of which he would refer. The first, in which nant protest i,garineftrojetliftt be said he entered hie Ituelegi;
he himself was concerned, was the case of Sir .Thhn treated. Indeed, the' firstext manner
e s in
on h
i which
regret from M.
Claiidgo. Ito (Jr. Oltulsfoie) Its,i' i akeTt !,i ,:i., .:1. ~::.-Ay imic;!4,;lf:,tmly e.,-,,,, 'it, ~, ~,,ailud nolo, wlielt it
case under the impression that there was a groat must needs be unavailable •it was addressed w that house
' hardahin in,_hia fbamiaa.l p. a.._ gi. _ „Tea— cc...i..L.... 1....1._ I. .1..i.....+1+1.-.1 a thaStb. of aneither T. 4) d Aber-
-1-831 r

honour, and he moved for address praying the Crown to 1 minute was passed on the 10th, declaring Mr. Kennedy
bestow some office on Sir John Claridge. Lord Broughton, dismissed from his office. With respect to the question
then the President of the India Board, opposed it, en the of the thinnings, and the dispute between Mr. Fiigginbo-
ground that he did not see how the house could interfere, them and Mr. Brown, he was sorry to say that the hon.
and if they could who was to be responsible for the ap- baronet, in his anxiety to make out a case against Mr.
pointrnent to the house. On these grounds the motion Higginbothom, had dealt with the evidence in a very nn-
was withdrawn. Ho would mention another instance— fair and ungenerous manner. The circumstances might
that of a person named Rolls, a Custom-house officer, hold- briefly be stated. Mr. Brown reported that in a certain
ing the situation of landing waiter. He was dismissed be- ; plantation belonging to the Crown there were a certain
cause some person connected with trade had endeavoured number of trees of certain diameters. At a subsequent
to solicit his virtue as an officer, and he had kept the mat- t period, Mr. Higginbothom, in a report on the same planta-
ter secret for some time. The board dismissed him, be- tion, stated that there were a smaller number of trees with
cause after such an occurrence they thought they could not larger diameters, suppressing, said the hon. baronet, the
repose confidence in him. In the year 1842 a Crown corn- important fact that the plantation had been thinned in the
mission was appointed, of which Lord Granville Somerset interval. In support of his view, the hon. baronet quoted
was the head, to examine into the Custom-house frauds. part of a sentence from the report of the jury, in which
That commission thought the case of Rolls a hard one, and the difference between the statements of Mr. Brown and
they reported to the Crown that while expressing disap- ' Mr. Higginbothom was clearly set forth ; but he omitted
probation of Rolls' conduct, they recommended his rein- to read the last clause, which made it appear that when Mr
stalment in office. Here there was a dismissal by one Brown visited the plantation after the thinnings, he re-
Crown authority, and a recommendation by another for ported even a larger number of trees with smaller diame-
the reinstatement of the man. The Board of Customs re- 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 i t 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-
bothem. 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.
There 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 lie 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. Ile 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, is seemed to be thought that n riting a private letter
was au unjust and unwarrantable method of proceeding.
An official letter would have se, yeti his purpose equally
well. His• 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. (Hoar.) 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 end 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 hinds 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. He 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 be dispesed to fol-
low him. (Cheers.)
Lord STANLEY said upon this case he bad no prirate
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 bear witness to
the reluctance with which he would say or do anything
which would teed to hurt his feelings or his character
(Hear, hear.) But it seemed to him that, in his reply, the
sight 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 committeda
grevious injustice against an individual. (Hear.) I:he
right hon. gentleman, after a statement from the hon. baro-
net which certainly did not err on the side of 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. He 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 sight 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
hen. gentleman that justice, but he did not think they
would allow him the infallibility and the irresponsibility
which he seemed to claim. (Hear, hear.) Why, in the
army or navy,, whichwere generally considered models of
autocratic government, the lowest officer conld not be
removed without a court-martial. But the right hon.
gentleman claimed the right of dismissing a member
of the civil eervice, 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 be placed at the absolute and irresponsible disposal
of the heads of that service. Hesaid that that was an autho-
rity with which no man should be trusted, and which no
man should claim. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman did,
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 helm 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 1,1 many which de-
termined the Government to remove le 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
had 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 wieldh 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 lion, 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 f his employer ; lie got into a quarrel with
a Mr. Higiubothom, who made a statement which on its
face bore marks if 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 more than a mere error. Now
let them merk the right hon. gentleman's argument. An
error ofjudgment in a Minister of the Crown was se venial
an et:fence that it was not deemed worthy of investigation
by that house ; but yet one on the part of en official of
high character, but no doubt in a far inferior position to
that occupied by the right hon. gentleman, was so grave
en offence according to him As to justify his dismissal.
(Hear.) Well, but Mr. Kennedy, so far from shunning
an inquiry into the charges he brought against Mr. Higin-
bothoni, demanded an inquiry. The Treasury consented
to grant it; bet to what sort if 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. Higinbothem. 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 if
inquiry, whether the court proposed was each 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
pursued 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 SerYloo) numbering
16,000 persons, all that he could say Was) that these was
nothing in Russia more despotic and that the Keener the
Brltem was ehenned the better. lie contended that 3.1 r.
Kennedy bad hot had a fair trial, that thie 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. DRUMM 0 ND remarked thats thellpi
aiaheadsaielaf a w
depart.
remits bad not the power of dismissal, all
cease ; and if the louse of Commons converted itself into a
court of appeal, upon its shoulders would rest the responsi-
bility. Ho objected to the committee because
iitianytaebrifoereQdr
with the Executive, with the prerogative of the Crown, and
as introducing personal debat 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 ac
superintending a department where -
_
honest as himself a-, • .men as goon and as
A r

--4. to be dealt with,
--,...,0 maintained that the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer had acted ip. a hasty, unfeeling, and inconsiderate
manner towards a meritorious public servant.
Lord SEYMOUR mentioned some circumstances connected
with tho appointment of Mr. Kennedy.e So far as his (Lord
Seymour's) experience went, d Mr, Kennedy very
zealous, but, at the same time he did not think he was in all
thinga very judicious, and he soon began to think that the
appointment was somewhat' Unfortunate.- If the house gave 1
way to the motion, its whole time may be taken up iu inquir-
ing into the complaints of such persons as may be dismissed.
The effect would be to prevent incompetent persons from
being dismissed. Lord Seymour advised the withdrawal of
the paotion, the rather,as,the late Chancellor of the Exchequer
lo d -explained that tho'revas neiintention to impute anything
C,c-rogat Ory 0, Itiolionoui' ctud veva;,•,-ty
M of' M
LMr. SlitliTT spoke in favour of iiiquiry. Every easia mast
epend upon its own claims, and he thought Mr. Kennedy's
Aga waltz= ouslugh to instil: Aiwnt to the motion. LW
- - ......L .
„ . .

-,~-_

a sufficient retractation of the implied charge against Mr. THE LONDON GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT.
Kennedy's honour and veracity been made, the present cour, e '
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- I
municated, knowing perfectly, as he did, all the corres- I
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 he was satisfied
that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had in no manner
pressed the charge against 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, iu 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, bnt 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 in 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 offence of
trying Mr. Kennedy before an unknown tribunal, but that
was nut so. Mr. Kennedy knew, his tribunal, and made not
the least objection to it until after his dismissal.
Mr.WHITESIDE referred to the minute of the Treasury to
prove that Mr. Kennedy had been charged with' a *ant 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 an instant think to impute any reflection on his
honour, veracity, and character. (Hear.) He thought what
had passed in 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 sitaation 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 be 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, ho
should have no alternative but to press the motion to a di-
vision. (Hear.)
Mr. WILSON said the Treasury minute was an instruction
to thereferees, and had reference, not alone to Mr. Kennedy,
but to the transactions of all the parties.
Lord PALMERSTON had no objection whatever to engage
that there should be placed on record at the Treasury a full
acknowledgment that Mr. Kennedy's honour stood perfectly
unimpeached. (Hear.)
Sir J. V. SHELLEY sai' under these circumstances he
would withdraw the motion. (Hear.)
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
Mr. PHILLIMORE obtained leave to 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 be 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. HALL 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 house adjourned
at a quarter to one o'clock.

PA RIAMENTART DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FEB. 27.

LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S-OFFICE, FEB. 26.
Notice is her Oby given, that her Majesty will hold Levees
at St. James's • ,Palace, on the following days, at two
o'clock :
Wed not: aY the 7th of March next.
Wednesday the 14th of March next.

REGULATIONS TO BE OVB.I7HVED AT THE QUEEN'S LEVEES
AT ST. J'A.MEs'S PALACE.
The noblemen and gentiellion, who purpose to attend
her Majesty's Levees, at St. .3s,evies's Palmy, are requested
to bring with them two large cards, with their names
clearly written thereon, one to 14.' left with the Queen's
Page in attendance in the ante-room, and the other to be
delivered to the Lord Chamberlain, tykes will announce the
name to her Majesty.
Those gentlemen who are to be preseni"l are hereby in-
formed, it is absolutely necessary that their names,
with the name of the nobleman or gentlee.liln who is
to present them, should be delivered at the Larduham-
berlain's Office, before twelve o'clock on the Monday
previous to each Levee, or upon any earlier day 13.9 tween
the hours of eleven and four, in order that they 0,14. y be
submitted for the Queen's approbation ; it being her Ya:
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 t
be very distinctly wt itten upon the cards to bo delivered to
the Lord Chamberlain, in order that there may be no dial -
cu'Ay 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.

SOUTH WALES RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME)

BILL:

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 whore they corns) to the Lord Chamberlain's
Office, before twelve o'clock, on the Nlonday 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 be 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 addresse:l to her Majesty.
A deputation to present an address is not to exceed
four persons.

Order for second reading read ; motion made, and question
proposed, " That the bill bo now read a second time :"
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and
at tho end of the question to add the words "upon this
day six months :"—Question put, " That the word now'
stand part of the question :"—The house divided ; Ayes,
65 ; Noes, 13U.

AYES.-65.
Alcock, T. Elliot, J. Monck, Viscount
Anderson, Sir J. Ewart, W. Moore, G.
Archdall, M. Fuller, A Mailings, J.
Baring, Sir F. Gaskell, I. Otway, A.
Bateson, Capt T. Goderich, Via. Peacocke, G.
Bentinck, G. Grace, 0. Peellell, Sir GI.
Berkeley, Hon. II Graham, Lord W. Pellatt, A.
Bland, L. H. Green, Capt John Sandars, G.
Brotherton, J. Gwyn, 11. Strilly,F.
Browne, W. Hastie, Alex. Seymour, Lord
Bruce, 11. A. Hayter, W. Smith, J. B.
Butt, I. Heyworth, L. Stanley, Lord
Corbally, M. E. Higgins, G. 0. Sti utt, E.
Cowan, C. Keogh, W. Thornely, T.
Crossley, F. Lang ton, H. G. Tyler, Sir G.
Davies, J. L. Laslett, W. Vance, J.
Disraeli, B. Laurie, J. Villiers, C.
I)uff, G. Lennox, Lord A. F. Wrightson, W.
Duff, 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, R. Hadfield, G.
NOES-13S.
A'Court, C. Franklyn, G. Patten, J.
Acton, J. Freestun, Col. Paxton, Sir J.
krkwright, G. French, F. Percy, .J.
Baillie, 11. Frewcn, C. Phillimoro, J. G.
Baines, lit. Hon. M. Gibson, T Pilkington, J.
Baird, J. Goodman, Sir G. Powleti, 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.
Berkeley, C. Halford, Sir 11. Rushout, Col. G.
Bethell, Sir B. Hall, Sir B. Russell, F. C.
Biggs, W. llankey, T. Russell, F. W.
Bouverie, Hon. E. P. Harcourt, Col. F. Sawle, C.
Brarnley-Moore, J. Ileadlam, T. Shafto, R.
Buckley, Gen. Heywood, J. Shirley, E.
3ulkeley, Sir R. lirsfall, T. Smijth, Sir W.
Campbell, Sir A. King, I'. Smith, W.
Cardwell, E. Knox, Col. B. W. Smith, Abel
Castlerosse, Viscount Knox, W. S. Smith, J. G.
Cavendish, G. Laing, S. Sotheron, T.
C ayley, E. Langston, J. H. Spooner, It.
Challis, T. Lee, W. Stafford, A.
Cholmondeley, Lord Liddell, H. G. Steel, J.
Cobbett, J. M. Liddell, 11. T. Stirling, W.
Cobden, R. Lindsay', W. Stuart, W.
Compton, H. C. Locke, J. Sullivan, ➢lichael.
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, H.
Dent, J Massey, W. Wickham, 11. W.
Bering, Sir E. Milligan, R. Wilkinson, W.
De Tere, S. Milner, W. Willcox, B.
Drummond, H. Michell, Dr. W. Willoughby, Sir H.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. Molesworth, Sir R. Wilson, J.
Buncombe, 0. Morris, D. Woodd• B.
Do Pre, C. Mowbray, J. Wyndham, Gen.
Egerton, Sir P. Mulgrave, Earl of
Farrer, J. AI nntz, G.
Fenwick, H. Oliveira, B. TELLERS.
Fitzgerald, W. o.borne, R.
Forester, Cul. Packs, C. Emlyn, Vis.
Forster, C. Parker, R. Wise, A.

AUSTRALIAN MAns.—With reference to an announce-
ment which has appeared respecting a contract far the
conveyance of the mails to Australia by sailing vessels,
, we are requested to state that this contract will net pre-
' vent 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-
sate 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-
lentaArabica 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 ti.tate that DA Barry's excellent Revalenta Ara-
biea Food has cured her, after all medicines had failed,
of indigestion, bile; great, nervousness and irritability of
many years' Atitalnd. This Food deserves the confidence
of all sufferers, and may ud dcEnsideted a real blessing.
Inquiries will be cheerfully answered." Cure No. 71.-
0f 481161414, from the Right Hon. the Lord fltuart de
Decies.--‘‘ 1 have de`fi"ied considerable benefit from Pu
Barry's Revalenta Arabica end consider it dne to
yontlieFreB and the public to authorise the publication of
these ri6citio Cure No. 32,8g6.—Froin
the Venerable Archdeacon a' "Three years wee-
sive nervousness, with pains in my fleet Mid left arm, and ge-
neral debility, which rendered my life very mfgerralile,
has
been radically removed by Dn Barry's health-restoring Food
—Alex. Stuart, Archdeacon of Ross, Skibereen." Cure No.
4,208.—" Bight years' dyspepsia, nervousness, debility,
with crampß, spasms and nausea, have been effec-
tually removed by Du Barry's delicious Food in a very
short time.—Rev. John W. Flavell, Ricilington Reribablctory,
Norfolk." Cure No. 51,416.—" 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 r
No. 3,906.—Thirteen years cough, indigestion, and gene- 1
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 instrnc-
tions —llb , 2s. 9d.; 21b., 4s. 6d. ; 51b., lie. ; 121 b., 228. ;
super-refined, lib., 6s. ; 21b., lls. ; 51b., 228. ; 101 b., 33e.
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
Pio,s,t:llV ; also at Cornhin ; 60.
Graa:chui,,ll-bace.; o and *l, Strand • 63 and 150,
Oxford-street • 55, Charing-cross ;4, Che;pside ;25 and
154,17ppexihierttreet.