The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-27 00:00:00

CIRCASSIA,

Lord J. MANNERS said the house was aware that all
the forts on the Circassian Boast were now in the posses-
sion of the Circassians, and that, throughout the Confer-
ences at Vienna, no mention whatever was made of Cir-
cassia. The last despatch from Admiral Lyons stated that
Mr. Longford had been sent to Anapa to superintend the
political part of the question. He wished to ask in what
capacity Mr. Lonford had been sent to Anapa, and what
were the relations at present existing between her Majes-
ty's Government and the Circassian chiefs ?
Lord PALMERSTON said that Mr. Longford was her
Majesty's Consul at Monastir, and he had appointed that
gentleman when he was Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, in consequence of his having passed much time in
that country, and being well acquainted with its manners,
habits, and language. When an operation was contem-
plated at Anapa, it was expected that the Circassian tribes
would co-operate with the allies, and Mr. Longford was ac-
cordingly sent there, being well acquainted with the peo-
ple, as an organ of communication between the allied com-
manders and the Circassian tribes. There were no rela-
tions existing between her Majesty's Government and the
Ciroassian chiefs, except those arising out of the en-opera-
tion in the attack upon Anapa.
Mr. BAILEY asked in what capacity Col. Lloyd had
been sent to Circassia last year, with a salary of 2,000/. ?
Lord PALMERSTON said that Colonel Lloyd was ap-
pointed to open communications with the people, and to
ascertain to what extent, and upon what terms, their co-
operation could be obtained.
NEW WRIT FOR THE CIIY OF LONDON.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the issue of a new writ for
the city of London, in the place of Baron Rothschild, who,
since his election, had entered into a contract for the public
service. He said he might have proposed to send this
question to a select committee, but he considered the law
of the case was so clear that he could not agree to take
such a shabby course. Ho read the terms of the act, and
gave a history of the circumstances under which it had
been passed, and contended that the provisions of the act
would not be met if Baron Rothschild merely declined to
take his seat., for in that way 50 members might vacate
their seats and their constituents might be unrepresented.
He quoted from Mr. Fox and other members who took
part in the discussion when the law was passed, to show
that it was intended to embrace contracts for money and
obtained by public competition; and contending that the
case was clear, he moved that the writ for the seat of
Baron Rothschild do now issue.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that the iaw
was as the hon. gentleman had stated it, though perhaps
there were one or two ambiguous phrases in it. But, on
the other hand, he must remind the house that loan con-
tractors had repeatedly sat in that house since the act was
passed without any one challenging their seats; and on
that ground, and also as Baron Rothschild was not in the
house to defend himself, he thought it would be bettor
to refer the question to a select committee. There was a
precedent for this course in the select committee which
was appointed to consider the case of Mr. Daniel Whittle
Harvey, a member of this house, on his being appointed
registrar of hackney carriages.
Mr. WALPOLE seconded the amendment on the same
grounds.

Sir F. THESIGER contended that the precedent quoted
by the Attorney-General was not applicable to this case.
In the present instance there was no doubt as to the facts,
and he held there could be as little doubt as to the law ; so
that there was no reason whatever for the house delegating
its functions to a committee, who were no more competent
to the task than itself. It was very true that loan contrac-
tors had often sat in that house without challenge, but then
a blot was not a blot till it was hit. It was not a lawyer's
question at all ; every member of the house was as compe-
tent to decide upon the matter as he was. He would, there-
fore, support the hon. gentleman's motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the case was by no means
so clear. The difficulty to his mind was that so many loan
contractors had been allowed to sit in that house in former
times without challenge from any one, and it was hard to
believe that no one should have discovered the scope of the
law till the hon, member for Finsbury applied his atten-
tion to it. He reminded the house further that all who
had since taken shares in this loan had come under the
terms of the act as much as Baron Rothschild.
➢ir. M. GIBSON also thought it likely that every mem-
ber of the house who had taken a share in the loan exposed
himself to the penalties of this bill. He further called
attention to the fact that the Secretary to the Treasury
had violated the provisions of the act by allowing a mem-
ber of Parliament to take the contract, and that Baron
Rothschild had incurred a penalty of EON. for every mem-
ber of Parliament to whom he had given shares of the con-
tract.

Mr. HILDYARD denied that the act affected any one
but the contractor; and, even were it otherwise, he de-
nounced the morality which would tamper with the provi-
sions of an act for fear it should affect themselves.
After some further discussion,
Mr. BRIGHT suggested that the morality of the coun-
try, and especially of Parliament, had outgrown the pro-
visions of this act, and proposed that it should be referred
to this committee to consider whether the whole law re-
lating to contractors might not be repealed altogether.
Lord PALMERSTON was in favour of sending the
question to a select committee, and thought the suggestion
of Mr. Bright well de•erving of consideration.
Mr. DUNCOMBE then withdrew his motion, and the
amendment for appointing a select committee was agreed to.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL (1855).

The SPEAKER announced that the Lords had agreed
to the Charitable Trusts Bill (1855).
SEBASTOPOL COMMITTEE REPORT.

Mr. ROEBUCK postponed his motion on this subject
till Tuesday the 10th of July.
SUNDAY BEER ACT.
. .

Numerous petitions having been presented against this
act,
Mr. H. BERKELEY rose to move fora select committee
to inquire into the act of last session, for further regulating
the sale of beer and other liquors on the Lord's-day. He
said that when that bill passed into a law, it was hardly
known to any member of that house. There were the names
of three members to the back of that bill, which were a gua-
rantee for it ; but he thought these hon. gentlemen had
made an oversight, and he opposed it on its third reading as
a measure that would be one-sided in its operation,and that
it only curtailed the enjoyment of the humbler classes.
Every succeeding Sunday had betrayed the glarin., injustice
of that act. The greatest blessing that had bee:bestowed
on the working classes was the facilities that had been
afforded them of viewing the beauties of nature a.t a distance
from home. Mang thousands of the populition had lived
and died without having been five miles from their homes,
and many of the inhabitants of London, though living on
an arm of the sea, had never seen that glorious expanse of
water. It was ridiculous to say that people who had been
hard at work for six days should spend the seventh on their
bended knees in some dingy chapel or church, listening to
the oily outpourings of some canting Stiggins. He did not
advocate a want of religion, but he did object to the in-
terference with the working classes, as this bill (lid.
He would follow a working and a rich man through a
Sunday's excursion. The poor man, when he had de-
termined on a day's pleasure, was up at five o'clock in
the morning, locked up his house—having nothing in it
he feared losing, and went forward depending on the pub •
lic-houses for refreshment. When he arrived by the train
he would find they were all shut, and would not be open
until six o'clock; but then the train started by that time,
and he was compelled to return, and got back to town too
late for the public-houses there ; and thus, having been
defrauded out of his dinner in the country, he was obliged ,
to go to bed supperless because he nad not a well-stocked
larder. The rich man, on the other hand, could go whero
he pleased, and there was not an inn that would not open
its doors to him. He could there have luncheon, and when
he returned home his larder would supply him with every
luxury, and he could well afford to do without draught
porter for one day in the week, when his cellars were well
supplied by Messrs. Bass and Guinness. He could also, if
he chose, go to his club, whose door was never shut, day or
night, and could have whatever he desired. He might, if
he thought proper, go to any hotel, who would willingly
take him in. Therefore the law was one-sided in its ope-
ration, and he warned the house to beware how it tam-
pered with the enjoyments of the poor man. The hon. gen-
tleman then complained of the anomalousposition publicans
were placed in by the total absence of any rule to guide
them or the magistracy as to what constituted a traveller.
Some magistrates held that a man in a post-chaise was
a traveller, though in a fly he was not ; and one gen-
tleman held that brandy and water was not the refreshment
of a traveller, but was the drink of a pleasure party. Mr.
Trail, of Greenwich, will not allow parties on pleasure to
come within the meaning of the act, while the more liberal
bench of Ilford holds that any man going five miles along a
turnpike road, for any purpose whatever, was to all intents
and purposes a traveller within the meaning of the act.
Mr. Hardwicke thought that a man stopping on his return
near his own house was not a traveller, while Mr. Norton
thought ho was. The hon. gentleman quoted numerous
other instances to show the perplexity the public were 1( fs
in as to what really constituted a traveller, the complaints