The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 9, 1861

doubt there may be as to her future course. (Hear, hear.)
I am sure that it will be a satisfaction to your lordships,
and to the country, if the noble earl is able to clear away
any misconception on the subject. (Hear, hear.)
Earl RUSSELL—It is quite true that in one case at least
an American captain found among the papers—not the re-
gular, but the private papers—of a captured ship an order to
break the blockade. In regard to the other and more serious
matter referred to, the noble earl certainly misunderstood
me—(hear)—when he supposed I meant to say that a ves-
sel going to Nassau, intending afterwards to make another
voyage, ought to be captured on her way thither. What I
alluded to was a case of simulated destination—that is, a
vessel pretending that she is going to Nassau when she is
in reality bound for another port. (Hear, hear.)
Lord CRANWORTH observed that Lord Stowell had
laid it down very decidedly that if a vessel were actually
going to a neutral port, whatever suspicion there might be
as to her cargo or its ultimate destination, she ought not to
be seized. (Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said if it was incon-
venient to produce the papers he had asked for he would
withdraw his motion.

The motion was then withdrawn.
DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT BILL.
This bill was passed through committee, as was also the
Marriages, &c. (Ireland) Bill.

Their lordships adjourned at 10 minutes past 8 o'clock

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.

The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
The following bills were read a second time :—Brecon
and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway; Rumney and
Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railways; and Stir-
ling's Estate.

The Milford Railway Bill was read a third time.
PETITIONS.

By Sir G. GREY against the closing of public-houses on
Sunday; Mr. W. WILLIAMS, from Cook's Company
against the amalgamation of the City with the metropoli-
tan police; a few in favour of the closing of public-houses
on Sunday.

Mr. BRIGHT supported it on the ground of civil and
religious liberty.
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr.
ADDERLEY,
The house divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading
Against it
Majority --29
The bill was then read a third time.
THE CASE OF WM. STUART FARQUHARSON.
Colonel NORTH asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department if it was true that a convict of the
name of Wil jam Stuart Farquharson alias Frederick
William Stuart, had lately arrived from Bermuda, and
was now in Millbank Prison ; and if so, what was proposed
to be done with him ? This man, who had been acting as
a curate of the Established Church upon the authority of
forged documents, and who had likewise served as an
officer in various militia regiments, was indicted at the
Oxford Assizes, in 1859, for forging the endorsement of a
bill of exchange, and having been found guilty he was
sentenced by Mr. Baron Martin to twelve years' penal ser-
vitude. He hoped this man w uld be sent out of the coun-
try again, and that when he was sent out he would not
receive a ticket of leave.
Sir G. GREY said the convict Farquharson had been
brought back to this country from Bermuda on the breaking
up of the convict establishment in that island, and the hon.
and gallant member might rest assured that, as regarded
his future treatment, he would he dealt with in the same way
as all the other convicts, and that, for some years to come
at all events, he m ould not be entitled to a ticket of leave,
THE COUNCIL AT MALTA.

Sir G. BOWYER asked for information regarding thy
circumstances under which the Royal assent was given to
the extradition ordinance lately passed by the Council at
Malta. It was important to notice that whereas the extra-
dition treaty with France and America only referred to three
or four crimes of the greatest magnitude, this ordinance
with the Council of Malta comprised 14 different offences.
He had been told there was a clause in the ordinance by
which no person could be tried for any offence except for that
upon which ho was delivered up ; but such a clause was
altogether a delusion, for, as there was no treaty with Italy
on the matter, this country could do nothing for the person
after he had been given up. That of which he complained
was, that after repeated applications at the Colonial Office,
he should be told the ordinance was like all similar extradi-
tion treaties, and that the ordinance should have received
the Royal assent without giving hon. members a sufficient
opportunity of reading the papers relating to it. The rapers
had been laid on the table on the 16th of March, and on the
31st the Royal assent was given to the ordinance at Malta.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE said he should be sorry if the
hon. baronet thought that he had been deceived at the
Colonial Office on the subject of the extradition ordinance
with the Maltese authorities. The facts were shortly
these :—Some time back the Governor of Malta had
brought under the notice of her Majesty's Government that
criminals were constantly arriving in Malta from Sicily and
other parts of Italy, and suggested the expediency of having
an extradition ordinance for the purpose of remedying the
evil. The subject received careful consideration both at
the hands of her Majesty's Government and also of the
local authorities of Malta. The matter had also been dis-
cussed and considered at Turin, and negotiations were
opened between this country and Italy, for it was essential
to the validity of the ordinance that a corresponding decree
should be passed in the Turin Parliament. After much
discussion and consideration a modified ordinance had been
passed to which the royal assent was given. The case was
one of urgency, and her Majesty's Government did not think
it well to delay any longer the royal assent. It was impos •
sible that any abuse could arise under the ordinance as sup•
posed by the hon. baronet.
After some remarks from Mr. D. GRIFFITH, relative to
the prerogative of the Crown in connection with our colo-
nies, the subject dropped, and house went into
SUPPLY—THE DOVER PACKET SERVICE.
Mr. F. PEEL moved the sum of £250,000 on account of
the estimate for the packet service for the present year, "in
part of the sum of £956,878 required for the year ending
March 31, 1864, which sum includes provision for payments
to Mr. Joseph George Churchward, far the conveyance of
mails between Dover and Calais and Dover and Ostend,
from April 1, 1863, to June 20, 1863, but no part of which
sum is to be applicable or applied in or towards making any
payment in respect of the period subsequent to June 20, 1863,
to the said Mr. Joseph Geo. Churchward, or to any person
claiming through or under him by virtue of a certain con-
tract, bearing date April 26, 1859, made between the Lords
Commissioners of her Majesty's Admiralty (for and on be-
half of her Majesty) of the first part, and the said Joseph
Geo. Churchward of the second part, or in or towards the
satisfaction of any claim whatsoever of the said Joseph
George Churchward, by virtue of that contract, so far as
relates to any period subsequent to the 20th day of June,
1863 (in committee of supply)." He said he had departed
from the usual course in naming Mr. Churchward's contract,
for the purpose of stating that no portion of the sum to be
voted should be applicable to or applied in payment of that
service. The estimates contained four services, in respect of
which new contracts had been agreed to be entered into, or
were proposed to be entered into, viz., the Galway service,
the Brazil service, the West India service, and the Cape
service; but neither of them would be binding until the
tcoo contracts a c
resolutiont s hadbnefe been
hlaid onus
et,hfeo
r tablenn n of
month,the house,
withoutaccording
being
cstebdhuaeaiasbp.ppstjonie.osed of. He was not, however, able to lay them on the
table of the house, and he should defer taking so much of
the estimate as applied to them until they had met with the
approvalof the house. The Galway contract was still the
l
Cape
eetsl
ngaiwodhdecomsrndt
oaemeysetendrrfehod,pveoc:farbiariwvadreatnei
acneaicceisustGdnoessivn
ileoelpegtxahwsTvreai
ptseaseivdhafidisprdenrpeeneoincrbridinciyodpfswi
netincoe:tahnoenirthr
ttetriecsehhtedwtebhteceoa,
tepeteohbeGasbttualnal
eeneelfpovi
nkatdovteweerhobeshenfeeamtteeehffrtotoln hehon
eroßdt
raeeoiduzet Government
house,
bnehieerryraalvnewaitdsn.oteu.
Taludhn
ens
odto
ohelinstruc-
tionsandndre
which,
aorot vieuvoceepnoi
Govern-
her
contribution
colony.
bent Government
t prepared
riTeeeposhwuateeyhrsl
ydeyi
Majesty's
tftmotviohhrnereaedruninttle the service unless the colony would pay one-half
of the net less for carrying it on for the future. Un-
derstanding that was likely to be acceded to, and to pre-
vent a temporary interruption of the communication, ar-
rangements were made with the old contractor to continue
the service until the Home Government had received a
definite answer from the Cape. Upon receiving a satis-
factory answer from the Cape the Government entered
into another contract with the old contractors, under which
the mails would be carried for the future. With regard to
Mr. Churchward's contract, the Government had adopted
the present course for the purpose of giving effect to a reso-
lution of that house, which was tantamount to a declara-
tion on its part that it did not consider Mr. Churchward's
contract ought to be fulfilled, having regard to the circum-
stance that he had resorted to a corrupt expedient for the
purpose of inducing the Government of that day to enter
it. It did not matter, so far as the question was concerned,
whether the Government of that day was or was not in-
fluenced by those expedients, or was cognisant of them—
but nevertheless they were resorted to for the extension of
his contract, and he obtained it. The resolution to which
he referred had not been rescinded, and it became the duty
of the Government to follow it out, and they had prepared
the estimate accordingly. In the beginning of 1859 Mr.
Churchward was a contractor for the service from Dover to
Calais, and also from Dover to Ostend, which contract,
supposing a year's previous notice to be given, would have
expired in June, 1863 (next month). He was paid under
that contract £15,500 per annum for the ordinary service,
and a rate of remuneration for the extra service fixed by
the contract. In 1859 Mr. Churchward appeared to have
been dissatisfied with the extra service remuneration. Mr,
Churchward complained that the number of the Indian
mails which he had to bring had increased considerably,
and also that the bulk of the Australian mails had become
so large, that once a month he was obliged to provide a
special vessel to carry them over to this country. Under
those circumstances, in June, 1859, he was called upon by
the Government to state what he required, and his an-
swer was that in the first place his contract, which
would terminate in June, 1863, should be prospectively
extended to April, 1870; and secondly, that he should be
paid for his extra duties at a commuted fixed rate of
£2,500 a year. These proposals were favourably enter-
tained by the Admiralty, and they were forwarded to the
Treasury by the Admiralty with a recommendation that
they should be acceded to. After some delay the sanction
of the Treasury was given to them, and a new contract was
made out, which was to endure until April, 1870, and under
which the subsidy was increased to £lB,OOO a year. It hap-
psned, however, that these proceedings with Mr. Church-
ward took place at a time when a general election was going
forward ; and when the new Parliament assembled attention
was called by an hon. member to the circumstances attend-
ing negotiation of the extended contract by Mr. Church-
ward. The consequence was a committee was appointed to
investigate the extension of the contract, and towards the
end of the session the committee made its report. The right
hon. gentleman read an extract from the report of the com-
mittee, which was to the effect that the committee considered
it proved that Mr. Churchward had volunteered to support
the candidature of the Hon. Capt. Carnegie, who was a Lord
of the Admiralty, for the representation of Dover, on con •
dition that Mr, Churchward's contract was extended ; and
then they submitted whether, under such circumstances—
Mr. Churchward having resorted to corrupt expedients in
order to obtain an extension of his contract—the house
would feel called upon to vote the funds necessary for giving
effect to the renewed contract. Shortly aftek the re-assem-
bling of Parliament in the next session, the late Capt. Lei-
cester Vernon moved a resolution declaring that the house
having read that report, was of opinion that the renewed
contract with Mr. Churchward ought to be fulfilled. That
resolution, however, was negatived by a majority of 45, in a
neie
committee,, a t the price ric
ho use of nearly 300 members. He must say that, in his opi-
nion, the view taken by the committee represented the true
state of the case, viz., that Mr. Churchward offered to sell
hihs:Jholoi house,
political
having 1 influence in the borough of Dover to Capt. Car-
thegcaemof the extension of this contract. (Hear.)
T
givteeatkoeenfftheceitncttooon
otclhuoensisroiend:eorbmay a
tmioennladrtaghteeionirnesapjooorfrtitthyoef
i that it ought to
committee. Now, he need not say that it would be under
no ordinary circumstances that the House of Commons
would be induced to break through a contract entered into

by the Government, but he must say that if ever there was
a case in which the house was both morally and legally free
to act in such a manner, it was the present. Recollect what
had been the offence of Mr. Churchward ; it was a breach
of the privileges of this house; it was an attempt to inter-
fere with the freedom of election and the independent
choice of a member of Parliament; and an attempt to enter
into a corrupt bargain, which was to be binding not only
upon the executive, but upon the House of Commons.
(Hear.) Under those circumstances it appeared to him that
the house might fairly refuse to make any further provision
for the service to be performed under the renewed contract.
The passage which he had read from the report of the com-
mittee showed that what they especially desired was that
Mr. Churchward should not have the benefit of the exten-
sion of his contract from June, 1863• until April, 1870. The
hon. gentleman then read the correspondence which subse-
quently took place between the Treasury and the Post •office,
and which settled that the service was to be continued by
Mr. Churchward until June, 1863, without prejudice to the
right of Parliament to reconsider the whole question at the
expiration of that period. It only remained fur him to state
the steps which the Government had taken in anticipation
of the refusal to vote funds for giving effect to the contract
of 1859. Having given a year's notice to Mr. Churchward of
the course which they were now taking, they advertised for
fresh tenders, and the result was an offer from the Belgian
Government to perform that part of the service between
Dover and Ostend, now devolving :upon Mr. Church-
ward for £4,000 a-year. That offer had been conditionally
accepted. With regard to the Dover and Calais contract,
they had received several tenders, and amongst the rest'
oue from a Mr. Harrington, who undertook, provided
the contract was to endure for a period of seven years, to
perform the service for a sum of £5,000 a year. Well, if to
that amount be added the sums payable as extras for the
special conveyance of the China, Australian, and Indian
mails, the contract with Mr. Harrington and the Belgian
Government taken together would be covered by a sum of
£12,000 against £lB,OOO, which was the amount received by
Mr. Churchward under the contraet of 1859. (Hear,hear.)
At the same time, Mr. Harrington had since applied to be
allowed six months for the preparation of his vessels in case
his contract should be accepted.
Sir S. NORTIICOTE, in moving as an amendment to
omit all the words of the resolution which related to the
contract of Mr. Churchward, observed that the mode in
which the question had been put before the committee
would lead to the supposition that by the proceedings of the
select committee and the vote of the house the merits of the
case had been virtually decided, and that the house had no-
thing to do now but to confirm or reverse a decision already
arrived at; but that was not a true view of the case, for
the question was not concluded either by the committee's
report or the vote of the house. In the debate upon Capt.
L. Vernon's motion in 1860, Mr. Laing, the Secretary to the
Treasury,himself stated that in 1863 Mr.Churchward would
be in as good a position as any one else, and be able to com-
pete with ethers, or his contract might be renewed from year
to year until the Government called for new tenders. This
was confirmed and strengthened by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, who gave an assurance that this year the
merits of the case would be reopened ; and that was the posi-
tion in which this question now stood. If, however, the
Government thought it necessary to set aside the contract,
their proper course would have been to show that lit was
their positive intention to do so. They well knew that
the contract was legally binding, and that if they
went into a court of law they would have con-
siderable difficulty in setting it. aside. They ought, there-
fore, to have brought in a bill to put an end to the contract.
But instead of that, they allowed the service to continue
under the contract of 1859, called upon Mr. Churchward to
build new ships, kept the matter in abeyance because they
thought that contract was more convenient than the pre-
ceding one, and had then turned round, thrown him over-
board, and given the contract to others. They had not,
. _

therefore, fulfilled their promise to put him in the position
of coming forward and making a tender; and he believed
that if they went into a court of law they would have no
good and valid defence against any action that Mr. Church.
ward might institute, for there was no pretence whatever to
say that he had m t performed the service efficiently and
well. With regard to the bargain by the Belgian Govern-
ment, no doubt it would save the country some money, but
Mr. Churchward had some time ago offered to perform that
service for the same sum, whilst by the az rangement with
Mr. Harrington the actual saving, he believed, would not
be more than £lOO a year. The fact was that the Govern-
ment, by their proposition, were bringing about a collision
between the House of Commons and the courts of law ; they
were seeking to establish a precedent under which persons

would find it impossible to enter into contracts with them;
and they ran the risk of causing great detriment to the pub-
lic service without the prospect of any corresponding advan-
tage. In conclusion, the hon. barenet condemned the con-
duct of the Government as casting a slur upon a man upon
whom a stigma ought not to rest, and as being equally un-
fair and un-English.
Sir M. PETO was of opinion that Mr. Churchward ought
to be permitted to continue the contract so long as he exe-
cuted the service satisfactorily.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the proposal
of the Government to proceed by resolution in committee of
supply. He admitted that the proceeding was special and
unusual, but so was the transaction to which it related.
Mr. MALINS characterised the proceeding of the Go-
vernment as shabby and unbecoming, and hoped the house
would refuse to give it their sanction.

Sir G. BOWYER, regretted that the time of the house
should be taken up with the affairs of Mr. Churchward. He
had himself an important question to bring on, and an hon.
member came to him to request he would postpone it in
order that Mr. Churchward's case might come on before
dinner hour. It was now nearly ten o'clock, and they were
still considering Mr. Churchward's affairs instead of the
business of the country. It had been his misfortune to be

listening to the discussion, and he would tell the committee
the impression that had been produced upon his mind by it.
The impression was that he thought Mr. Churchward had
many friends in that House. (Hear, hear.) Many people
primed and loaded had come down to support his case. He
thought it was one of those cases which ought to be left to

the Government for the time being ; he would vote against
Mr. Churchward , and for the Government; and that which
induced him to do so was, that there seemed to be a sort of
packed house on one side in favour of Mr. Churchward.

(Cries of " No " from the opposition.)
Mr. COBDEN said the question lay in a nutshell,and that
which they were now discussing turned entirely upon the
evidence of one gentleman. After having been two years out
of Parliament, and not having taken any part in the general
election, and the proceedings of that house, he had been en-
tirely unconnected with the previous discussion, which had
given a party character to the question. It was on that ac••
count that he had been appointed chairman of the commit-
tee, for there were many gentlemen of greater experience
than himself upon it, but it was probably thought that he
occupied more of a neutral position. The first question
that had come before the committee was a personal one, It
appeared that early in 1869, in consequence of a remark
from the right hon. gentleman the member for Droit-
wich, a letter had been drawn from Captain Carnegie,
which had appeared in the public papers, explaining the
reason why be refused to stand as a candidate for Dover;
and this question got mixed up with the renewal of the
contract for the Post Office packet service from Dover to
Calais. The first thing which the committee had to inquire
into was the renewal of Mr. Churchward's contract and the
proceedings connected with Captain Carnegie. The whole
question depended upon the testimony of Captain Carnegie,
and everything outside that was surplusage. (Hear, hear.)
Captain Carnegie had come before the committee reluctantly,
and had given his evidence reluctantly. This was the
statement he made : that at the time of the general election,
in 1859, he filled the post of Lord of the Admiralty, and it
was proposed to him to seek a seat in Parliament, and to
try Dover. He described how in a public office, in the
presence of a gentleman whose name he (Mr. Cobden)
would no t mention, that Mr. Churchward had come up to
him and spoke of the possibility of his becoming a candidate
for Dover ; that Mr. Churchward then proposed to give him
his support, and coupled with the offer the special condition
of having his contract renewed for the postal service between
Dover and Calais. The whole question was there--(hear)--
the question whether Captain Carnegie's testimony was to
be credited. But what motive could he have, filling the
high post of Lord of the Admiralty, in refusing to go to
Dover ? In his evidence he stated it was the indiscreet pro-
posal of Mr. Churchward, which had induced him to decline
becoming a candidate for Dover, It might be that he con-
sidered he would be called upon to exercise a kind of surveil-
' lance over Mr. Churchward. (No, no.) Hon. members might
cry "No," but he had more experience in these matters, and
he would tell them how this was done. All the mail packets
on their arrival and departure were inspected by the officials
of the Admiralty, and there was power to levy fines or
remit them. Captain Carnegie, from scruples of honour,
might have thus shrunk from a proposal of such a
nature as that made to him by Mr. Churchward. If
it had been the question of renewing a service between
this country and the West Indies or New York there
would have been some excuse for looking a few years
ahead ; but it was not necessary in the postal service between
Dover and Calais, which might be arranged in six months.
There was no necessity for the extreme haste which took
place just at the critical moment of the election. According
to the evidence given by Captain Carnegie before the com-
mittee, that gentleman clearly understood that Mr. Church-
ward's support was to be contingent on the renewal of the
contract. If Captain Carnegie spoke the truth, this was an
attempt to suborn a high functionary to dispose of the public
money by the acceptance of the worst species of bribe.
(Hear, hear.) It was a shallow view of the question when
the hon. baronet the member for Stamford said that if Mr
Churchward was to be stigmatised as guilty, he also was
guilty. He thought there should be no doubt or hesitation
about the matter. The committee suggested that the con•
tract should be declared null and void, but then a legal
difficulty would arise. Rather, however, than pay the money
illegally, he would vote the money necessary to pay Mr.
Churchward's expenses, and let them try the question, and
establish, if he could, his claim. It was the duty of the
house to express its decided opinion against the course that
had been pursued by Mr. Churchward.
Sir It, CAIRNS said two questions were involved in
the discussion—one with regard to their form of proceed-
ing, and the other what was the duty of the Executive. G-
overnment. They were called upon to pass a resolution

which was without precedent, and, as he presumed from
the statement of the Attorney-General, en the advice of the
law officers of the Crown. He warned the committee against
passing a resolution which would anticipate the enactment
of the Appropriation Bill; and when a similar course was
proposed on a former occasion by the insertion of a clause
in another bill, the proceeding was declared irregular by
the Speaker. The committee had nothing whatever to do
with the contract, but only to vote or refuse the money,
and the present course had been pursued, thinking Mr.
Churchward would bring an action at law. That
was what Mr. Churchward wanted to do ; and the
law officers knew very well that, if nothing more was done
by the house than had been done up to that time, Mr.
Churchward was certain to recover damages for a breach of
the contract ; and the Appropriation Bill not being passed
before the 20th June without the required amount being
inserted in it, the Government would be at the mercy of Mr.
Churchward—that being the day when his contract was to
terminate—and therefore it was that the law officers had
advised the Government to do in this case what had never
been done before, to bring in a resolution to do the work of
the Appropriation Bill, and enable them to show that no
money had been voted by Parliament with which to pay Mr.
Churchward, in accordance with the terms of the contract,
viz., that he was to be paid out of moneys appropriated by
Parliament for that purpose. (Hear.) That was something
like what would be calicd by other parties sharp practice.
Another point of equal importance, as regarded public faith,
was the course taken by the executive Government in this
case. The contractor was to be paid out of moneys to be
provided by Parliament, but how was Parliament to have
the option of paying or refusing the money unless it was
asked for ? The Government, he contended, was bound to
propose to Parliament a sum sufficient to fulfil their part of
the contract, and they could not take any other course con-
sistent with proper constitutional proceedings in that house.
He believed that at no distant day the report of the com-
mittee would be looked upon with amazement, particularly
when it was borne in mind that Mr. Churchward's conver-
sation with Capt, Carnegie took place six weeks after his
contract had been approved of by the Admiralty ; and, in
conclusion, he called on the house, on the ground of public
expediency and justice, to support, the amendment.
Mr. HUBBARD was of opinion that the interests of the
taxpayers had been overlooked by both Administrations
in the hasty arrangement that they had made with Mr.
Churchward. (Hear, hear.) He could not understand
why, if the contract had been a loss to Mr. Churchward,
he should yet have been so anxious to retain it. (Hear.)
As a member of the committee, he might state that the
clause in their report which charged Mr. Churchward with
having acted from a culpable intention was only carried by
a majority of two.
Mr. NICOL, as one of the representatives of Dover,
solemnly declared that Mr. Churchward never addressed
to him a single word on the subject of the contract during
the who'e course of the election of 1859. And he believed
he might say the same with respect to his colleague in the
representation (Sir Henry Leake). The fact was, the terms
of the contract had been adjusted two months previously.
(Ironical cries of " Hear" from the Ministerial benches.)
The SOLICITOR• GE NERAL said, the one great ques-
tion which lay at the bottom of the whole controversy was
whether the control of Parliament over the public expen-
diture was to be maintained in a substantial form. He quite
agreed that, as a general rule, contracts which were bona
fide entered into by the Executive would be adopted by Par-
liament; but he must protest on the part of the public
against the idea that it was in the power of any Adminis-
tration to bind Parliament, and against their being told that
the refusal to vote a sum in furtherance of a contract entered
into by the Executive amounted to a breach of faith. He
maintained that if ever there was an occasion on which
Parliament should insist upon its right to determine as to a
contract upon its merits, it was the present. The contract,
as they all knew, was made in the heat of a general elec-
tion. (Cries of "No, no.") Well, the Treasury minute was
not drawn up until the 16th April; Parliament was dis-
solved upon the 19th April—notice of the dissolution having
of course been given for some time previously ; and the con-
tract was signed upon the 26th April, at the moment when
the elections were going on. The right hon. gentleman oppo-
site, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Derby's
Government, when referring to the Galway contract, ex-
pressed his opinion that it was competent for the house to
reject the vote for that contract whenever is was proposed.
And with reference to the very contract now under con-
sideration, it had been statechon a former occasion that the
contract was subject to ratification by the house. The ob-
ject of the vote now proposed, and of the terms in which it
was expressed, was to have the contract rectified by the
house. The contractor himself was supposed to have notice
to that effect, and he should not have relied upon or made
any expenditure upon it until he knew whether the house
would ratify the contract or not. When the new Govern-
ment came in, and Parliament met, a committee was ap-
pointed, and it was in pursuance of the report of that com-
mittee that the last decision of the house had been taken.
An hon. member who had differed from the committee moved
that the house should supi ort the contract, which was an
admission that such matters were subject to the decision of
the house; and this was the very thing which the Govern-
ment were now doing. The learned gentleman next pro-
ceeded to consider the general merits of the case, and after
giving a history of the facts he read an exti act from a letter
written by the hon. member for Bridgnorth, (Mr. Whit-
more), stating, "We are anxious to expedite Mr. Church-
ward's departure for Dover to canvass." (Hear, hear.)
There was also proof that he was pressing the subordinates
of the Government to get the contract extended. Mr.
Churchward's loose politics permitted him to vote for one
Government candidate and one independent candidate,
thereby neutralising his vote ; and he rather complained at
being expected to vote for two Government candidates
be-
fore the extension of his contract was granted. It was the
duty of the house to discourage such proceedings for the
future, and with that view he should support the vote as
proposed by the Government. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel DICK F. ON characterised the speech of the hon.
and learned gentleman as a dissertation on local politics,
and asked if such a dissertation could come from any hon.
gentleman with less grace. (Cries of " Oh, oh," and
laughter, which was increased by the deep acknowledgment
of the compliment by the Solicitor-General, who took off
his hat, accompanying the act with the lowest of bows.)
The cenduct of a public servant was unjustly assailed in
the vote, and he should therefore support the amendment.
The committee then divided. The numbers were—
For the amendment l6B
Against it
...... 176
Majority against
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud and continued cheers from the Ministerial side of the
house.
The vote was then agreed to.
Mr. DISRAELI asked when the report would be
brought up.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that it would be brought up to-day (Tuesday).
Mr. WALPOLE thought the house would do well to
provide for another opportunity being afforded for the dis-
cussion of the main question on its merits.
Mr. DISRAELI reminded the Government that a very
important question already stood for the day, and therefore
it would be impossible to take the report of this resolution,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, while ad•,
mitting the importance of the question to be raised that day,
said the house must not overlook the fact that the service
had to be provided for, and, that being so, he could not
think of naming a later day for taking the report of the
resolution than Thursday, the first day after the recess.
The Chairman was then ordered to report progress.
THAMES EMBANKMENT (NORT 11 SIDE) BILL
This bill was read a third time and passed.
VACCINATION (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was also read a third time and passed.
OFFENCES (SOUTH AFRICA) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
NEW ZEALAND BOUNDARIES BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
LAND DRAINAGE (PROVISIONAL ORDERS)
BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
SALMON FISHERIES (scOTLAND) ACT CON-
TINUANCE BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
ADMIRALTY COURT (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. MAGUIRE was proceeding to show the necessity
for placing the court on a better basis than at present,
when

An Hon, Member moved that the house be cotmtEd ;
And there being only 33 members present,
The house stood adjourned at 20 minutes past one o'clock.

The Imperial Library of Paris has just received
—and, we hope, also, our own British Museum—a copy of
the splendid work issued by Czar Alexander 11. as a memo-
rial of his coronation at Moscow. It contains a series of
chrome-lithographs surpassing in richness of design and
gorgeousness of colour anything of the kind ever published.
These chromo-lithographs, 30 in number, are said to cost,
without letterpress, binding, &c., above a million of francs,
—Athenceum.

The celebrated French photographer Nadar, who
lately had the catacombs of Paris illuminated by electric
light for business purposes, is now—we learn from the
Alhenceum—said to be preparing an immense balloon, in
which he intends sailing, in company with 20 friends, into,
or rather over, the interior of Africa to take sun-pictures.
The start is to take place from the south of Algeria, Most
of the Paris papers give this news ; which, however, has
very muchthe appearance of a canard.
[AnvEnTisEmxT.l—Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Help under Suffering.—No diseases which afflict the
human body are more irksome to bear or more difficult to
cure than skin diseases, whether superficial sores or deep
ulcerations. Holloway's ointment has proved itself a
ready remedy for these maladies. It at once assuages
pain, cleans the wound, and works out a sound and lasting
cure, more certainly and more rapidly than any other appli-
cation. In old affections, debilitated habits, and constitu-
tional ailments, Holloway's pills ahould be taken to in-
crease the salutary effects of his unguent. These admir-
able remedies scarcely ever fail to perform the cure of what
were considered incurable cases till Professor Holloway
made his invaluable discovery, now most deservedly prized
throughout the world.