The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-04 00:00:00

THE DUNGARVAN ELECTION.

Mr. HEYGATE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland
whether Mr. Barry who had made use of certain very
strong language at Dungarran, and who appeared to hold
ultra and very advanced Socialist doctrines, was the law
adviser to the Castle at Dublin ?

Sir R. PEEL disclaimed that Mr. Barry was a Govern-
ment candidate. With respect to Mr. Barry, he had autho-
rity from him to deny most positively the words attributed
to him.

Mr. VERNER asked the Chief Secretary for Irefand if
his attention had been given to the proceedings which are
stated to have taken place at a public dinner in Dublin
in honour of Mr. Gavan Duffy, at which the health of her
Majesty was reluctantly and not very respectfully proposed,
and received with general hissing and disapprobation, and
likewise to the presence there of two members of this
house, the members for Youghal and Dungarvan, the for-
mer one of her Majesty's counsel and the latter holding the
commission of the peace, neither of whom was represented
to have expressed disapproval of the disloyal conduct of
the assembly. He should like to know what steps the
Irish Government intended to take in the matter.
Sir R. PEEL said he believed the dinner referred to was
a private one, reporters, however, being present, given to
a gentleman who had been absent from Ireland many years.
(Laughter.) He (Sir R. Peel) was not responsible for the
opinions of the gentlemen who spoke at that dinner. With
respect to the toast, "The Health of her Majesty," he be-
lieved it was given and responded to in the usual loyal
manner. He thought the proper course for the hon. gen-
tleman opposite was to put his questions to the two hon.
members referred to. (Hear, hear.)

The Lords' amendments to the Local Government
Supplemental Bill were considered and agreed to.
The Lords' amendments to the Navy and Marines (Pro-
perty) Bill were also considered and agreed to.
The Naval Discipline Act Amendment Bill was read a
second time.

The Foreign Jurisdiction Act Amendment Bill passed
through committee.

The Rochdale Vicarage Bill passed through committee,
and was reported without amendment.

VOTE OP CENSURE ON THE LORD CHANCELLOR.

Mr. HUNT then rose to make the following motion :
" That the evidence taken before the committee of this
house, on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, discloses that a
great facility exists for obtaining public appointments by
corrupt means ; that such evidence, and also that taken be-
fore a committee of the House of Lords in the case of
Leonard Edmunds, and laid before the house, shows a
laxity of practice and want of caution on the part of the
Lord Chancellor, in sanctioning the grant of retiring pen-
sions to public officers over whose heads grave charges are
impending, and in filling up the vacancies made by the re-
tirement of such officers, whereby great encouragement
has b3en given to corrupt practices ; that such laxity and
want of caution, even in the absence of any im-
proper motive, are, in the opinion of this house,
highly reprehensible, and calculated to throw discredit
on the administration of the high offices of State."
The lion. gentleman said he was fully impressed with the
importance of the step ho was taking, because it was, in
fact, a vote of censure upon the Lord Chancellor, who was
at once the keeper of tho Queen's conscience, the judge
of the High Court of Chancery and the Speaker of the
House of Peers. He had felt it to be his public duty to bring
the matter under the consideration of the house, because it
was of the highest importance that the holder of an office
involving such an enormous amount of patronage—one who
had the appointment of all the judges in the land, from
the highest to the lowest, should be above suspicion
The hon. gentleman then proceeded to read copious ex-
tracts from the voluminous report of the committee, and
also to compare the evidence of the different witnesses, in
order to justify the house agreeing to his motion. The
hon. member said Mr. Wilde was to be dismissed for stat-

ing that one of the Bankruptcy Commissioners had certified
certain accounts which he had never seen. Well, what
did the Lord Chancellor do ? Why, he signed the order for
Mr. Wilde's retiring pension, after having, as stated by
him, read Mr. Wilde's petition and his medical certificate.
Then was Mr. Wilde to be dismissed from a subordinate
office while the Lord Chancellor of England was to go free?
Was a different justice to be meted out in the two cases ?
(Hear, hear.) He had already adverted to the determination
on the part of Miller to get Wilde out of office. Well, in proof
of that, he might point to the fact that on the very day Wilde
walked out of the door one way Welch walked in the other.
The Lord Chancellor's explanation was that Miller told
him it was very important that the appointment should be
filled up immediately. But that defence might have availed
if there was not such abundant evidence that Miller was
throughout acting in the interests of Sir Richard Bethell.
According to Mr. Miller, in July, 1863, the Lord Chan-
cellor told him to tell Richard Bethell that there were so
many candidates on his list for appointments that there
was very little chance of his being able to do anything for
Mr. Welch during his tenure of office. Nevertheless, the
moment Wilde's office was vacated Welch got the appoint-
ment. (Hear.) Why was Welch selected out of that long
list of candidates ? The Chancellor says he was influenced
by the high testimonial presented by Mr. Welch. Well,
he (Mr. Hunt) was bound to say that, upon the whole,
those testimonials were satisfactory, although ho did not
think the testimonial of Sir W. Atherton, about which so
much had been said, was worth the paper upon which it
was written. However, at the same time, there was no-
thing special in the testimonials ; they were no more than
might have been obtained by 50 out of every 60 members
on the circuit. But be that as it may, was it possible that
the Lord Chancellor could have forgotten that the name of
Mr. Welch had been brought before him by Richard Bethell
as being the owner of a manor in Suffolk, which it was de-
sirable the Lord Chancellor should purchase, and as also a
candidate for the office of registrarship in bankruptcy ?
Now, what he (Mr. Hunt) desired to assert was that the
moment it occurred to the Lord Chancellor that Welch's
appointment was recommended by Richard Bethell he
ought to have hesitated. And was there no reason for say-
ing that the recommendation of Richard Bothell tainted
the respectable testimonials obtained from members of the
Northern Circuit ? The hon. member then cited the letter
of the Lord Chancellor, dated May, 1864, ordering the re-
moval of his son from office, and setting out his knowledge
of his son's indebtedness and also of his inattention to his
official duties. Evidently there was something present to
the mind of the Lord Chancellor relative to his son raising
loans in every quarter which led him to think it was due to
the public that his son should resign office. Supposing that
to be the case, when the name of Mr. Welch occurred to
him, he ought to have pau;..l and inquired most vigilantly
with a view to the public interest. The circumstances
were so suspicious that it was his bounden duty, before
he put that man's name into the blank in the order, to
have seen that a searching inquiry had taken place.
(Hear, hear.) Now, what version did Mr. Richard Bethell
himself give of the reasons which induced him to resign ?
He said, " The main reason for my tendering my resigna-
tion was because I felt I was in too embarrassed a position
to remain in this country unless some arrangement could be
made to relieve me from my liabilities. There was another
reason which I may state to you. My own private reason
for tendering my resignation was that the Lord Chancellor
had made me acquainted with the proceedings that were
pending against Mr. Wilde, and I felt in my own mind that
I could not with any justice ask him to extend any favour
to me or treat me in any manner different from that in which
I knew he was going to treat Mr. Wilde." That certainly
seemed a romantic sentiment to proceed from a man so in-
volved that on leaving his office he had to go abroad in order
to avoid creditors. In his (Mr. Hunt's) opinion there was
falsehood upon the face of the statement. (Hear.) He had now-
nearly done with the case of Mr. Wilde. In his judgment the
Lord Chancellor was open to a charge of culpable neglect
for not reading the certificate, and satisfying himself that
Mr. Wilde ought to receive a pension. He did not, how-
ever, believe in his own mind that the Lord Chancellor
was aware of the corrupt sale of the office to Mr. Welch.
And now he came to another plot. Mr. Welch having
obtained possession of his office at Leeds, and Mr. R.
Bothell having been required by his father to resign the
registrarship in London, it happened that the case of the
Edmunds defalcations arose. It appeared that Mr. R.
Bothell thought he could induce his father to appoint him
to one of the offices held by Mr. Edmunds, but the Lord
Chancellor seemed to have declined to do so. It was then
determined or proposed that the vacancy should be filled
up by the appointment of Mr. Slingsby Bethel], who was
at that time registrar of bankruptcy in London. The ac-
ceptance of the reading clerkship fn the House of Lords by
Mr. Slingsby Bethell would vacate the office of registrar of
bankruptcy in London, and Mr. R. Bethell and his friends
thought this would afford a nice opportunity for his getting
some such snug berth. And here another actor appeared on
the scene—Mr. Skirrow. The gentleman evidently was of
opinion that it would be too strong a thing to put Mr.
Richard Bethell into the London registrarship, but he
thought that if some country registrar were transferred to
London, Mr. Richard Bothell might take his place in the.
country, as any one would be good enough for the country.
(A laugh.) The scheme was this : Mr. Richard Bothell was
to be appointed to Leeds, and Mr. Welch to London ; but
there was a difficulty with the Lord Chancellor to be got
over, for ho Roomed to b.a.va !Lad wow.) .tart at roluet.tnen to
appoint his son to any post whatever, and he (Mr. Hunt)
thought that reluctance was well-founded after making duo
allowance for a father's feeling. Mr. Skirrowsaid he wished
Mr. Richard Bethell to go to Bristol, but he preferred Leeds,
and accordingly went there, and it was arranged that Mr.
Welch should be transferred to London, and Mr. Richard
Bothell transferred to Leeds. And here lie would recall the
circumstance that as soon as Mr. Slingsby Bethell had taken
his seat as reading-clerk in the House of Lords, Mr. Welch
lent Mr. Richard Bethell £3OO more. That was on Feb.2o,
and on the 22d Mr. Skirrow had an interview with the Lord
Chancellor, and it appeared clear that he obtained from his
lordship no promise to do as Richard Bethell wished, but
simply said he would consider of it. Still the impression on
the minds of Mr. Skirrow and Mr. Richard Bethell seemed
to be that the desired arrangement would be carried out
For instance, Mr. Richard Bethel], writing from Leeds to
Mr. Miller, said—" I had not time to write previous to leav
ing London, but I suppose you have heard that the Lord
Chancellor intends to transfer Mr. Welch from the Leeds
district to London, and to appoint me to the district." In-
deed, the appointments were actually engrossed and pre-
sented to the Lord Chancellor for signature by Mr. Miller,
who asserted that Mr. Skirrow gave directions for the en-
grossments, though this statement was positively contra-
dicted by Mr. Skirrow himself. The impression on Mr. R.
Bethell's mind, after the interview of Feb. 22, was that if he
could get a release from his creditors the Lord Chancellor
would make the appointment. On the 26th Mr. Skirrow had
another interview with the Lord Chancellor, which he
thus described : " On Sunday morning (the 26th) the Lord
Chancellor sent for me. The moment I entered the room
he was: excessively violent, and he told me that he had
deeply regretted that he had sent for me on the Wednes-
day, as I had taken advantage of that interview, and had
misrepresented to Richard what had taken place. He was
very angry. I repeated to him exactly the conversation
which had passed between Mr. Bethell and myself, and
which I have stated here ; but he positively told me that
he would never listen, directly or indirectly, to any appli-
cation about his son." Now, in order to ascertain what led
to this sudden change of mind on the part of the Lord
Chancellor, he would refer to the Edmunds case, and also
to what had appeared in the public journals. On the 14th
of February the Lord Chancellor presented a petition from
Mr. Edmund; asking to be allowed to retire on a pension.
On the 17th Mr. Slingsby Bethell was appointed by the
Lord Chancellor to the office of reading clerk, vacated by
Mr. Edmunds. On the 20th Mr. Slingsby Bethell took his
seat ; and it was on the 22d that Mr. Skirrow endeavoured
to induce the Lord Chancellor to appoint his son to the
office at Leeds, which the Lord Chancellor said he would
consider. On the 25th, which was Saturday, an article
appeared in one of the Saturday papers, denouncing the
conduct of the Lord Chancellor in filling up the place va-
cated by Mr. Edmunds with his son Slingsby Bothell.
(Hear, hear.) He believed that article in the Saturday
paper had recalled the Lord Chancellor to a sense of his
duty. He saw the noble lord opposite dissented ; but he
asked him whether he could explain upon any other
grounds the sudden change in the mind of the Lord Chan-
cellor. (Hear, hear.) He believed the Lord Chancellor was
actuated on the 22d by kindly feelings. He believed that
Mr. Richard Bethell's wife had appealed to those feelings
which people rejoiced to see iii the Lord Chancellor as in
other men. His private feelings for the moment overcame
his sense of duty to the public ; and he believed when those
remarks appeared in the public papers, he very properly
overcame those kindly feelings, he reverted to that sense
of duty to the public which had actuated him before those
influences had been brought to bear upon him. That, he be-
lieved, was the history of the sudden change in the Lord
Chancellor's mind. He believed that, but for the remarks in
the public press—and not in the public press alone, for the
Edmunds scandal was the talk of the town—this second
job would have been carried out. (Cheers.) He believed
that Mr. Welch would have been transferred to a court in
London, and Mr. Richard Bethell sent to Leeds, in accor-
dance with a corrupt bargain made between these two men.
He did not impute to the Lord Chancellor any knowledge
of this corrupt bargain, but when they had said that, they
could say no more for him. He did not think anyone could
say that in these transactions he had shown that vigilance
for the public interest which the public had a right to
expect from him. (Hear.) But what he wanted to ask
was, whether the evidence showed that he was shocked at
the notion of having appointed a man to an office who was
a creditor of his son. He was satisfied from the evidence
that the Chancellor was not aware of it. In answer to
question 3,370, namely, had your lordship any knowledge
that Mr. Welch had lent money to Mr. Bethell before this
appointment was made ?"—"Not the least." The next
question was, "If your lordship had been aware of it, would
the appointment have been made ?"—" It is difficult to say
what I should have done, but I think I should not have
appointed him." (Hear, hear.) Now, he asked, was there
that high sense of honour in the Lord Chancellor to have
listened to the notion that he would appoint a man to an
office who was a creditor of his son, and that son having
recommended him for the post ? He thought if such a
question had been put to the Lord High Chancellor, he

would have scouted the notion as:an impossibility. (Cheers.)
He thought that one sentence of the Lord Chancellor went
farther to condemn him than the whole of the evidence.
(Hear.) He asked the house to take the two cases together,
and not form a judgment upon one case alone. The com-
mittee of the other House of Parliament reported in substance
that Mr. Edmunds having been guilty of defalcations in
the several offices he held, amounting to a want of personal
integrity, the Lord Chancellor said he would not stand in
the way of his retiring upon a pension, and he presented a
petition to the House of Lords from Mr. Edmunds asking
for a pension, and he did not apprise the committee who
took that petition into consideration of what Mr. Edmunds's
irregularities had been. (Hear.) In the case of the Leeds
Bankruptcy Court he himself signed the order for Mr.
Wilde's retirement, after having called on him to show
cause in open court why he should not be dismissed from
his office. It not being in his province himself to grant the
ponshin, he allowed the committee to grant the pension, he
himself being cognisant of the strongest reasons why it
should not be granted. The committee of the House of
Lords acquitted him of any improper motive, and the com-
mittee of that house acquitted him of everything but haste
and want of caution. He said, putting these two cases to-
gether, they showed at least a moral obtuseness on the part
of the Lord Chancellor which in his judgment—and he
thought, too, in the judgment of the house and the country
—disqualified him from discharging those grave duties of
his office. (Cheers.) When this retiring pension had been
granted to Mr. Edmunds under those extraordinary cir-
cumstances—a pension which had been since righteously
rescinded—who had been put into the place of Mr. Ed-
munds? The Lord Chancellor's son. (Hear, hear.) He had
not a word to say against the character of Mr. Slingsby
Bothell 4ut he would say that a man of nice sensibilities
would have paused before he filled up by his son a place
which had been vacated in such a way. He imputed no im-
proper motive to the Lord Chancellor in that case, but he
would say it had a bad effect upon the country. It had led
people to think that the object to be obtained in granting a
retiring pension was a vacancy. When these fitcts came be-
fore the public they did not enter into the evidence sonicely
as that house. They did not temper justice with mercy, as
the house was now prepared to do. When the facts came be-
fore them that Mr. Edmunds, a defaulter, was allowed, with
the sanction of the Lord Chancellor, to retire from his office,
and that the Lord Chancellor's second son was put in his
place—that Mr. Wilde was allowed by the Lord Chancellor,
on an insufficient medical certificate, to retire from his office
on a pension, and that a gentleman was appointed to succeed
him who had advanced to another son £l,oso—they would
draw their own conclusions. He acquitted the Lord Chancel-
lor of any corrupt motive in making these ;appointments;
but he should say he had given great occasion for scandal
in the country. Ho had led people to think that places
could be obtained by corrupt means, and that the Lord
Chancellor did not stand too nicely upon reasons for remov-
ing one man and appointing another. He (Mr. Hunt)
should say that this state of things, this want of vigilance,
this supineness, this indifference, this fatuous simplicity—
if such words could be applied to such a man as the Lord
Chancellor—(hear and laughter)—he should say that this
unsuspiciousness, that had enabled his subordinates and
those around him to practise that corruption from which he
admitted the Chancellor himself was free, were almost as
bad for the country, though not for himself, as if he had
been personally guilty. He had now concluded. He hoped
he had satisfied the house he had not brought forward
the motion on slight grounds. He knew not whether a
majority of the house would affirm his resolution, but he
felt satisfied the country would think it was the duty of the
house to review the conduct of the Lord Chancellor. That
house was shortly to be dissolved. At every hustings and
at every place of election in the country, every returning
officer, in obedience to an Act which in its zeal for purity
' that house had passed, would proclaim pains and penalties
which would accrue to electors who engaged in corrupt
proceedings. Would not the electors ask themselves whe-
ther the Legislature of the country was sincere in putting
down bribery ? Was it only the bribery of .£lO householders
and freemen the Legislature was so anxious to punish; or
would it punish the corruption pervading the functionaries
of the highest court of this kingdom, and unchecked by the
highest judge of the land ? He thought the electors would
be entitled to 'ask these questions, and he had done his duty
in the matter. He asked- the house to consider this case
calmly and judicially, as he had endeavoured to do ; and he
asked hon.members, without reference to party, to give such
a vote as they could best reconcile to their conscience and
the interests of the country. (Cheers.)
The LORD ADVOCATE said he gladly acknowledged
the moderation and temper with which the hon. member
had treated this question, and he proposed to' consider
what the effect of laying the evidence before the country
had been ; for if they had come to a resolution on this very
grave question a few days ago, upon the statement of the
hon. member for Mallow, they would, on ther admission of
the hon. member who had just resumed his seat, proceeded
on grounds altogether untenable. (Hear, hear.) The other
day the noble lord opposite (Lord Cranbourne) had sug-
gested that he should not take part in this discussion upon
the ground that having examined the witnesses on one
side, he could not be entirely impartial. The noble lord,
however, did not recollect that he himself on a former
occasion had occupied a position somewhat similar—
namely, when the house had driven another eminent mom-
be/4 cf the Government from office; a vote which he be-
lieved every member would now wish to revoke. The
noble lord on that occasion did not think it unsuitable to
take a very strong part in discussing the report of that
committee. He (the Lord Advocate), therefore, thought
that having had the advantage of hearing the evidence he
should not now be precluded from offering such remarks in
vindication of the Lord Chancellor—who, if present, would
need no such assistance—as occurred to him on the evi-
dence. (Hear.) In the first place, he admitted the house
would be sensitively zealous to the purity of official admi-
nistration. But there were also other matters which they
would do well to consider. Charges had been made
against the Lord Chancellor, some of which had been most
inconsistent. He had been accused of undue leniency one
day, and of undue severity on the next. A question which
had been asked in the house with reference to the Leeds
Bankruptcy Court rested upon no foundation at all. That
question suggested that Mr. Wilde had been called on to
resign and that Mr. Welch had been appointed to occupy
his office, in order to keep it open for Mr. Bethel' when
his outlawry was revoked. That, however, turned out
to be false. It was all very well to say that those charges
were now withdrawn, but still the resolutions before the
house suggested a great deal more than they expressed.
The committee of the house had given its deliverance
on the matter, and he should not question that deliverance.
He thought the hon. member opposite and the house
would do well to rest content with that decision. He did
not quite know how far these resolutions went beyond the
report, but he wished to recall to the house the circum-
stances out of which the retirement of Mr. Wilde and the
appointment of Mr. Welch originally arose; and he would
consider the question under separate heads. First, with
regard to the retirement of Mr. Wilde and the appointment
of Mr. Welch, and the proceedings which occurred in the
month of February, 1865, it seemed to him there was no
connection between those two dates. What was it that led
to the retirement of Mr. Wilde ? The real cause was this :
A great many complaints having come to the knowledge
of the Lord Chancellor with reference to mismanagement
on the part of bankruptcy officials in various parts of the
country, he appointed Mr. Ayrton and Mr. Harding to go
through all the bankruptcy courts for the purpose of in-
quiring into the conduct of the officers of those courts. The
fact was that the Lord Chancellor had been engaged in a
very thankless task. He had felt it to be his duty to reflect
in grave terms on a great variety of officers connected with
the bankruptcy courts of the country. There was not one
of those officers who had not friends and relations all of
whom felt aggrieved by those proceedings. He trusted,
therefore, that the house would take care that they did not
by fine-drawn suspicions, which had no proof, weaken the
hands of a man addressing himself to a task of the greatest
difficulty, hampered by local influence in all quarters, and
which task, even if successful, would be sure to bring down
obloquy upon him. He had carried out those proceedings,
and the return laid upon the table showed that the sums
which had been recovered from official assignees and mes-
sengers in the Court of Bankruptcy amounted to over
£20,000, which had been improperly retained. It might
be asked how that bore upon the inquiry ? It bore
in this way, that it was utterly absurd to suppose that at
that time the Lord Chancellor, or any one under him, was
only looking for Mr. Wilde's office in these proceedings. He
was dealing with a large question and endeavouring to check
abuses of the most crying description. Was it true that
he had particularly marked out Mr. Wilde for a victim ?
Why, there were two registrars, two messengers, and two
official assignees, and it was easy to regard to them, by a
comparison of dates, to show that the charge against the
Lord Chancellor was entirely baseless. On the 7th of May
Mr. Miller addressed letters to the messengers, requiring
them to appear in court and show cause why they should
not be dismissed. The two official assignees received a
similar letter. They and one of the messengers paid the
balances found due from them, but Mr. Templar, one of
the messengers, resisted, and on July 2, 1864, he was sus-
pended until he came into court. He did not come on the
23d July, three days before this letter was written. Judg-
ment was given against him, and on his paying his balance
his suspension was removed, and he was restored to office.
He (the Lord Advocate) stated that fact because it was said
that the Lord Chancellor. required Wilde's office, and that it
was a foregone conclusion to charge him with delinquency.
The fact was that Wilde was only one out of many delin-
quents with whom the Lord Chancellor had to deal. Both
Mr. Payne and Mr. Wilde received notice that unless they
could explain charges brought against them by Mr. Ayrton
they would be served with a notice to show cause why they
should not be dismissed. They both had given the same
answer to the charges. First, with regard to having bor-
rowed money, they said it was an old story—they were
sorry for it, but they had repaid it. With regard to the ac-
counts, they said they did not mean to say that Mr. Ayr-
ton had certified the particular accounts to which reference
had been made, but that he had certified precisely similar
accounts ; and with regard to not requiring vouchers for
the messenger's accounts, Mr. Wilde stated that he had
followed the example of Mr. Payne. On this the Lord
Chancellor required a second report from Mr. Ayrton,
which was given on June 3, and sent to Mr. Payne and Mr.
Wilde on June 9. But down to the 26th July those gentle-

men, though there was no reason they had not received
that report, had taken no steps in the matter. Up, then,
to the 26th of July, was there the slightest ground to say
that the Lord Chancellor had been actuated by any other
than the most praiseworthy motives ? But the hon. mem-
ber (Mr. Hunt) said that at that time there were relations
between Mr. Welch, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Richard
Bethell. But what were the relations between the
father and son on the 26th of July, and for two months
before ? Why, on the 13th May the Lord Chancellor wrote
to Mr. Miller, to the effect that his son should no longer
be allowed to hold office, and that a letter of resignation
should be prepared. The hon. member stated that if Mr.
Richard Bethell was not fit to hold office in May, 1864, he
was not fit to be appointed in 1863. Reference, however, to
Mr. Skirrow's evidence showed that, though Mr. R. Bethell
had been a source of discomfort to his father, he had for a
considerable time previous to 1862 been living quietly, as
if previous errors had been repented of. His father there-
fore thought •in 1863 his son might be appointed to the
office, of which, down to 1864, he discharged the duty
without complaint. Had the Lord Chancellor hesitated as
to the course to pursue in this matter ? It seemed to be
supposed that he ought to have made some inquiries into
something of which he had no suspicion. The Lord Chan-
cellor had dealt out more than summary justice to his son,
for, in spite of Mr. Miller's intercession, he insisted on his
going abroad, at the very time that the proceedings were
being taken against Mr. Wilde. That fact showed the utter
folly of the imputation that Wilde was to be deprived of
his office for the benefit of Richard Bethell—more especially
as the Lord Chancellor, in writing to Mr. Miller, said, " I
will not listen to any proposal for his returning to this
country for some years." That was the man over whom
his son was supposed to have such influence that he was
being swayed as to the way in which a public office ought
to be filled up. (Hear, hear.) Was it fair that a great re-
putation like that of the Lord Chancellor's should be im-
perilled so suddenly and so gravely on suspicion and sur-
mise like that, when it was obvious he had been grieved
to his heart's core by the misconduct of his son, and had
determined that no parental feeling should allow him for
one moment to limit in any degree the justice he intended
to deal out ? So far from Mr. Richard Bothell having in-
fluenced his father, he went abroad and remained abroad
until he came back without the Lord Chancellor's leave in
December of that year. But the Lord Chancellor never
saw or heard from him, with the exCeption of one letter
written from Paris to announce the birth of another son.
If there were justice in that house, there was not a
single member in that house who could lay his hand upon
his heart and say that from the 13th of May, 1864, to the
present time, or, at all events, to February, 1865, Richard
Bethell's interest had been for one moment in the Lord
Chancellor's mind with regard to filling up this office. But
it was said that Mr. Welch had an interest in the matter,
and that Mr. Wilde was to be summarily dismissed because
he wanted the office, and that Mr. Miller knew that Welch
wanted the office. There was not the slightest reason for
such a statement. Reference to the evidence taken before
the committee showed that neither the Lord Chancellor nor
Mr. Miller knew anything of Welch, except by name, as an
applicant for a registrarship in Dec., 1863, and that the
Lord Chancellor had, after long delay, appointed him on
testimonials from the leaders of the Northern Circuit, ex-
pressed in the strongest terms as to that gentleman's quali-
fication for the office. Ho (the Lord Advocate) did not be-
lieve that those testimonials, on which alone the Lord
Chancellor had acted after the disgrace of Richard Bethell,
had been obtained improperly, or for the purpose of being
used for an apgiication to the Lord Chancellor. Though
Mr. Miller had shown that ho was not the most satisfactory
adviser for the Lord Chancellor in such matters, there was
no ground for imputing to him any personal interest in this
matter. In fact, the evidence proved that he had advised
the Lord Chancellor to dismik: both Mr. Payne and Mr.
Wilde, on the grounds furnished by Mr. Ayrton's report.
The Lord Chancellor had not to consider the case of Mr.
Wilde alone, but in the meantime he had been considering
the case of Mr. Templar, who, however, did come to court
to show cause why he should not be dismissed, and he was
not dismissed. Why the same course was not taken by Mr.
Payne ho could not say. On July 26 the Lord Chancellor
had said he could not allow those irregularities to go on
indefinitely, and he requested Mr. Payne and Mr. Wilde
to show cause why they should not be dismissed. Mr.
Payne, he believed, thought he had been ill-used, and
asked an opportunity to be heard. Far was it from him to
say Mr. Payne was not right in that request. All he could
say was that by accepting his retiring pension he had
placed himself in an unfortunate position. But they knew
that Mr. Payne, like Mr. Wilde, applied for his retiringpen-
sion. They knew that Mr. Miller prepared a petition both
for Mr. Wilde and Mr. Payne. He did precisely the same
for one as the other. But was there any assertion that Mr.
Richard Bothell was waiting for Mr. Payne's office ? That
the Lord Chancellor's only feeling was for the public was
shown by his appointment of Mr. Stephens, whom he had
never seen in his life, and whom he had appointed on the
ground of his professional merit. Mr. Wilde was not thrust
out of office. It was said that Mr. Miller's letter was
couched in peremptory and startling language. Mr. Wilde
was to answer by return of post ; but he had had notice
served on him as far back as the 2d of May, and therefore
Mr. Miller was quite entitled to an answer. This peremp-
tory style was that of Mr. Killer always. He wrote to
Mr. Templar to pay £1,600, which was the amount he was
in arrears, at a day's notice, although that was a sum which
a messenger might not be able to obtain in so short a time.
It was said the Lord Chancellor acted in this matter with
haste, and without caution. The charge against Mr. Wilde
had been made against all the registrars, in all the courts,
who had failed to audit the accounts sufficiently. Well,
then, it might be said, what the Lord Chancellor did with
Mr. Wilde he should have done with them all. If he was
prepared to dismiss Mr. Wilde, it must have been right to
serve the others in the same way. If it was justice, he was
bound to do it ; but in carrying out a great reform it was
necessary not to go further than public opinion would sym-
pathise with at a time when local feeling was sure to rebel.
(Hear, hear.) The Edmunds case had no analogy to this.
That was a case of personal defalcations. Mr. Wilde was
accused of borrowing money of subordinate officials, and
had repaid it, but the Lord Chancellor would not be satis-
fied with that. The question then was whether he was to
turn Mr Wilde adrift, or was he to reprimand him and
allow him to remain in his office ? He, however, came to
the conclusion that it would not be disadvantageous to the
public service to permit him to retire from his office on a
retiring allowance, provided he could obtain a medical cer-
tificate. How Mr. Miller came to make the suggestion re-
specting his health was a question that was not very clearly
illustrated. There was an amount of confusion in his evi-
dence on that matter which seemed to be utterly incredible.
With regard to Mr. Bond, he did not know whether that
gentleman was a more impartial judge than the tribunal
he was addressing, but when Mr. Wilde went to him with
that letter he said he know it was a foregone conclusion.
How did he know that ? Had not Mr. Templar got a let-
ter of the same kind ? and had not Mr. Templar gone and
defended himself in court like a man ? and when he came
back, was he not restored to his office ? How had Mr.
Bond came so rapidly to a decision ? Why, Mr. Bond, in
order to justify that sentence, confesses that ho recom-
mended Mr. Wilde to become a party to that which he
knew to be a fraud, on pretence, forsooth, that he would
not get justice. (Hear, hear.) This was the kind of evi-
dence. It was impossible to read it without seeing what it
was. With reference to the certificate given by Mr. Hay,
the Lord Chancellor himself said it was couched in unsa-
tisfactory terms. At the same time there was not only a
certificate, but an affidavit and a petition. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Wilde swore to it himself, and when he came before
the committee he could not help maintaining it was true.
The certificate stated that the failure of Mr. Wilde's sight
was such as seriously to interfere with his duties, and it
was added that he first consulted Mr. Hay in 1863. In his
evidence Mr. Wilde stated that if he had had work to per-
form at night he would not have been able to do it. Mr.
Hay had suggested he should retire some time before. Was
the Lord Chancellor to be censured because, under these
circumstances, he permitted Mr. Wilde to resign ? He could
not say how he (the Lord Advocate) would have acted un-
der such circumstances, but if the certificate had been suffi-
cient, he did not think that to allow Mr. Wilde to retire on
a pension was the best for the public on the one hand, and
that the loss of offiee was a sufficient punisnment to Mr.
Wilde himself. As regarded the part taken by Mr. Mil-
ler, he invited the house to deal with public men and pub-
lic offices according to the usual practice of life. There
were things occurring every day where the principal offi-
cer was obliged to trust to his subordinates. (Hear, hear.)
Without that, public business could not go on for a mo-
ment. If the Secretary of State for the Home Department
were not to take Mr. Waddington's word for a
great deal that went on in that office, he would not be
able to conduct the business. The Lord Chancellor had
no reason to suspect Mr. Miller, and he (the Lord
Advocate) having made inquiries, had found nothing that
Mr. Miller might be ashamed to confess. Mr. Miller's
recollection, he was bound to say, was not so accurate as
might be desired ; and with regard to the certificate he was
inclined to think the Lord Chancellor's memory was the
more strict of the two. He maintained that, the Lord Chan-
cellor was not bound to suspect what could not possibly
be discovered, and he hoped the house would come to the
conclusion that his lordship was not a party to any corrupt
bargain between Mr.Welch and Mr. Betholl. The learned
lord then referred to the evidence given before the com-
mittee, and particularly to that of the Rev. Mr. Harding,
who had iu the most unblushing manner come forwat d and
admitted that he was to receive the sum of £333 Gs. Bd. for
acting as a go-between in the transaction between Welch
and Richard Bethell. Until such testimony had been tested
in open court, he maintained that it ought not to be used
against the Lord Chancellor. He then further referred to
the correspondence to prove that the transaction between
Welch and Richard Bethell had no influence whatever in
bringing about the retirement of Wilde. Wilde, indeed,
asserted that he had been frightened into resigning; but, if
that were so, why had ho jumped at the offer of a pension
when it was made to him ? The learned lord next referred
to the correspondence to show that, previous to the coming
to light of the Edmunds scandal, the Lord Chancellor was
aware that his son was hopelessly involved, and to show
that his determination not to reappoint him to office was
irrevocable. In conclusion, he begged to move as an
amendment upon the - resolution of the hon. member for
Northamptonshire : ",That this house having considered

the report of the Leeds Bankruptcy Court Committee, and
the evidence taken before it, agree with the committee in
thinking that the facts established acquit the Lord Chan-
cellor of all charges in the matters to which itrefers, except
of that of haste and want of caution in granting a pension
to Mr. Wilde. That this house is of opinion that some
further check should be placed by law upon the granting
of pensions to the holders of legal offices."
Mr. HENNESSY observed that, looking at the fact that
the Lord Chancellor took the precaution of invariably
consulting the law officers and the Government, whilst
there could be no doubt that his conduct had done great
discredit to his high office, other members of the Govern-
ment were equally implicated in the charge. In brief,
whatever criminality attached to the noble and learned
lord was shared in quite as much by his colleagues.
Mr. DENMAN pronounced the motion a great and cruel
injustice to the Lord Chancellor. It was so framed as by
its apparent moderation of tone to catch as many votes as
possible ; and yet, if carried, to render it impossible for
the noble lord to hold office another hour. For his part ho
wished the Government had met it with a direct negative,
for it was as unjust as untrue ; and it was brought forward
in an unfair spirit. The Lord Chancellor had been an
industrious judge and earnest law reformer, and he trusted
that the house would not, by means of a party vote, insist
upon driving from office a great and a good public servant
because he had been guilty of certain errors of judgment
in the distribution of patronage and in the acceptance of
resignations with pensions where pensions might have
been refused.

Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE had throughout the present Par-
liament been a constant supporter of the Government, but
the confidence he reposed in the Ministry as a whole he
could not extend to the Lord Chancellor in particular.
Agreeing with the report of the committee that no impu-
tation could be fairly made against the noble and learned
lord, whom he was willing to acquit of personal corrup-
tion; nevertheless there might be corrupt practices resorted
to amongst the officers who were under him of a gross and
foul character, which the houso ought to condemn. That
there had been corrupt practices was notorious—more-
over, this was not a solitary case. A new system of cor-
ruption for obtaininepublic offices had been instituted. The
process was to bribe the son of the Lord Chancellor; by
that means obtain the office ;] then rob the public purse,
or wink at others doing so ; upon discovery of your mal-
versations apply to the Lord Chancellor for permission
to resign, and then retire with a pension. With re-
gard to the motion of Mr. Ward Hunt, he objected to it
that the terms in which it had stated the charges against
the Lord Chancellor were not sufficiently explicit; he
should, therefore, in the event of that motion being re-
jected, propose the amendment of which he had given notice
and which was as follows :—" That this house, having con-
sidered the report of the committee on the Leeds Bank-
rupcty Court and the evidence taken before them, are of
opinion that, while the evidence discloses the existence of
corrupt practices with reference to the appointment of
Patrick Robert Welch to the office of registrar of the Leeds
Bankruptcy Court, they are satisfied that no imputation
can fairly be made against the Lord Chancellor with regard
to this appointment, and that such evidence and also that
taken before the committee of the House of Lords to inquire
into (he circumstances connected ,with the resignation by
Mr. Leonard Edmunds of the offices held by him and laid
before this house, show a laxity of practice and a want of
caution with regard to the public interest on the part of
the Lord Chancellor in sanctioning the grant of retiring
pensions to public officers against whom grave charges were
pending which, in the opinion of this house is calculated
to discredit the administration of his great office."
Mr. W. HUNT intimated that if there were any ambi-
guity in his resolution he was quite willing to have it
negatived, and give his support to the proposal of Mr.
Bouverie.

Mr. HO WES (chairman of the select committee) approved
of the determination come to by Mr. Hunt, and opposed the
amendment moved by the Lord Advocate on the ground
that it simply adopted se much of the committee's report
as acquitted the Lord Chancellor, and took no notice of
that part of it which condemned him.
Mr. VIVIAN (a member of the committee) supported
the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL also commended the
amendment to the approval of the house, because it adopted
the conclusions and verdict of the committee, and sug-
gested an improvement and alteration of the law to provide
safeguards against the recurrence of any similar case of
haste and want of caution in making these appointments.
The hon. and learned member insinuated that the motion
was dictated and supported by the Obposition from party
considerations.

Mr. E. EGERTON said that as a member of the Com-
mittee, whilst acquitting the Lord Chancellor of personal
corruption, he was not prepared to whitewash him by
agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. HENLEY could not concur in the motion proposed
by Mr. Hunt, but would vote for the amendment of which
Mr. Bouverie had given notice.
Col. PENNANT, a member of the committee, disclaimed
being actuated by any party feeling.
The SPEAKER put the question that the words of the
original motion proposed to be left out—viz., " all the
words after the word ' that,' " should stand part of tho
question, which was at once resolved in the negative. The
right hon. gentleman then put the question that the words
of the amendment proposed by the Lord-Advocate should
be inserted In lieu of those which had bCen omitted.

Mr. BOUVERIE said that he proposed to negative the
admission of these words, and afterwards to move the in-
sertion of those of which he had given notice.
Lord PALMERST ON—Sir, the course which has been
taken with regard to the original motion places this matter
in an altogether new position. The motion of the hon.
gentleman opposite clearly implied a charge of corruption
against the Lord Chancellor. (" No, ho," and "Hear,
hear.") That is my opinion, and it is the opinion of many
others. That was a very grave charge, and one which it
was absolutely necessary to resist at the first opportunity
that presented itself. The hon. gentleman has abandoned
that charge. (Cheers.) His motion has been negatived,
and it appears to me to be the unanimous conviction of
the house that no charge can justly be brought against
the Chancellor upon the ground of corruption in the
administration of his high office. (Hear, hear.) We have
now, however, before us two amendments, both of which
have been proposed for the first time in the course of this
evening—one, that of my right hon. friend the member for
Kilmarnock, which we heard read in the beginning of the
evening, but which I apprehend that a groat number of
the members of this house have not had an opportunity of
weighing in their minds. Now, under these circumstances,
it appears to me that, as this is a grave question—the right
hon. gentleman the member for Kilmarnock states that the
object which he has in view is to call upon tho house to
declare that it has no confidence in the Chancellor, and
that is, no doubt, a matter of very considerable importance
as regards an officer in his high position•—(a laugh)—and a
member of the Government—it seems to me that the house
is not at the present moment in a condition—(oh, oh ! and
cheers)—the Government is not in a, condition—(loud cheers
from the Opposition benches)—to determine in what way
they will deal with that motion. (Continued cheering.) My
right hon. friend takes, as it appears to me, a very narrow
view of the grounds upon which public confidence ought
or ought not to be reposed in a public officer. He is of opi-
nion that in consequence of the particular way in which
certain pensions have been granted ho cannot place confi-
dence in the Lord Chancellor. (Hear.) My hon. and learned
friend the Attorney-General has described how the Lord
Chancellor has disposed of patronage much more exten-
sive and much more important in a manner highly deserv-
ing the confidence of the country. The house should also
recollect the great improvement in every branch of the law
(cries of oh, oh ! question ! and cheers)—which the pre-
sent Chancellor has introduced, and which, whatever may
be the opinion of this house with regard to his tenure of
office, will, I venture to say, render his name illustrious—
(oh, oh ! and cheers)—among those of the great reformers
of the law of this country. It is not necessary to enume-
rate the various improvements of which he has been the
author. The consolidation of the statute law, by which it
has been reduced from 44 volumes to 10, the practical abo-
lition of imprisonment for debt, and many other improve-
ments affecting every class of the community. (Laughter,
and cries of Question ! and Order, order !) My hon. and
learned friend was, therefore, entitled to say that, what-
ever may be the opinion of my right hon. friend as to the
necessity of withdrawing confidence from the Chancellor
in consequence of the grant of these pensions, the dis-
posal of his great patronage and the manner in
which the Lord Chancellor has performed his great
and important duties as the head of the law do
entitle him to the confidence of this house and of the coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) As I said before, we are now, I think,
embarking upon a new discussion—(no, no !)—quite diffe-
rent from that which was suggested by the motion of the
hon. member for Northamptonshire, and I should therefore
propose that this debate should be adjourned until to-
morrow—(loud cries of "oh ! oh!" "Divide," and cheers)
—in order that we may be enabled well to consider the
motion of my right hon. friend, and the grounds upon
which he has recommended it. The noble lord concluded
by moving the adjournment of the debate.

Mr..DISRAELI, whose rising was the signal for a burst
of cheering from the Opposition benches, said—l cannot
help thinking that the proposition of the noble lord is one
which the house will not find it convenient to adopt.
(Cheers.) The subject has been discussed very amply to-
night, and with reference to the amendment of the right
hon. gentleman not being in print, I cannot forget that the
amendment of the Government has also not been printed
—(hear, hear)---but even under that disadvantage we were
prepared to give it a due and fair consideration. I also
think that, considering the position in which the house is
now placed, there is an air of mockery—(loud cheers)—in
proposing to adjourn the debate. It appears to me that this
is a question upon which the house ought at once to pro-
nounce a decision. The house has been unusually well
attended, throughout a lengthened debate, and it is in my
opinion quite qualified to come to a decision at once. I
trust, therefore, that the noble lord will reconsider his pro-
position, and allow us to pronounce an opinion upon the
amendment of the right hon. gentleman. If, however, he
persists in his strange proposal to adjourn the debate—
whether to the next Parliament or not I cannot say—
(laughter and cheers)—l shall, under the peculiar circum-
stances, consider it my duty, however unwillingly, to op-

pose the adoption of that course. (Cheers, and loud cries of
" Divide, Divide !")
Sir G. GREY, whose first sentences were rendered inau-
dible by cries of "Divide, divide," said—The right hon.
gentleman has suggested that the object of my noble friend
in moving the argument of the debate was to avoid a decision
upon this question—(cheers from the Opposition benches)
—and he professed ignorance whether the noble lord did not
intend to adjourn the discussion until next Parliament.
My noble friend, in making the motion, said distinctly
that all he wished for was an adjournment until to-morrow,
in order to give the house an opportunity of considering
the amendment of the right hon. gentleman the member
for Kilmarnock, which very few members have even heard
read. If the house should agree to the adjournment, my
noble friend will to-morrow state, on the part of the
Government, the course which they intend to pursue.
(" Divide, divide !")
The house then divided on the motion for the adjourn-
ment of the debate.

On the paper containing the numbers being handed to
Mr. Hunt as teller for the "Noes" loud and prolonged cheers
rose from the Opposition benches.
The numbers were,—
Ayes 163
Noes 177
Majority —l4
The announcement of the result of the division was fol-
lowed by renewed cheering.

Lord PALMERSTON then rose and said,—l merely
wish to state to the house that we are anxious not to give
them more trouble than is necessary, and that, therefore,
we must accept the decision upon the question of adjourn-
ment as an expression of the feeling of the house upon the
original question before it. We shall, therefore, not trouble
the house to divide again on the amendment of tho right
hon. gentleman the member of Kilmarnock. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. LYGON got up, but was unable to obtain a hearing.
The amendment of the Lord-Advocate upon Mr. Bou-
verie'e motion was put and negatived without a division.

Mr. Bouverie's resolution, to the following effect,—
" That this house, having considered the report of the
Committee on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, ande the evi-
dence taken before them, are of opinion that, while the
evidence discloses the existence of corrupt practices with
reference to the appointment of Patrick Robert Welch to
the office of Registrar of the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, they
are satisfied that no imputation can be fairly made against
the Lord Chancellor with regard to that appointment; and
that such evidence, and also that taken before a Committee
of the Lords, to inquire into the circumstances connected
with the resignation by Mr. Edmunds of the offices held
by him and laid before this house, show a laxity of practice
and a want of caution with regard to the public interests
on the part of the Lord Chancellor, in sanctioning the grant
of retiring pensions to public officers against whom grave
charges were pending which, in the opinion of this house,
are calculated to discredit the administration of his great
office,"—was carried without a division, when the cheering
was again renewed.

The house adjourned at a quarter past 12 o'clock.

The Alleged Wife and Child Murder

at Woolwich.

The police-court at Woolwich was yesterday afternoon
densely crowded by persons anxious to hear the adjourned
examination of the prisoner Thomas Jones, who is charged
with the wilful murder of his infant.

Mrs. Louisa Beer, of 32, Raglan-road, Plumstead, sister
of the deceased Mrs. Jones, now recapitulated her previous
evidence, to the effect that she :took charge of the child
after the death of her sister, which took place on the 30th
of April. The child was born on Good Friday, the 14th
of April, and was registered "Benjamin Jones." At the
end of a fortnight the infant was taken back to the pri-
soner's house by his order, but she afterwards received it
again, and kept it for about ten days. The prisoner then
told her to take it home, and she did so on the Bth June.
The prisoner was then at home, and he said that a
person was coming to take the infant to London to be
taken care of. Witness proposed to wait until the person
came, but the prisoner said, " Put the child on the bed,'
and she did so, and then left the house. Two days after,
she asked the prisoner if the child was doing well, and she
replied,j" Yes, better than if you or any person at Plumstead
had it." She asked him to give her the namo and address of
the person who had the child, and he replied that neither
herself nor anybody belonging to the family should over
know.

By Mr. Traill, the sitting magistrate—The infant was
well the last time that she left it at the prisoner's house.
The flatiron found tied to the infant when it was taken out
of the water belonged to her, and she had lent it to her
sister some time previous to her decease. She also identified
the clothing found on the infant when it was taken out of
the water.

Mrs. Mary Holman, landlady of the house where the pri-
soner and his deceased wife had resided, at No. 5, Raglan-
road, Plumstead, said on the night of June 8 she returned
home, and was informed that the infant had been brought
home by the last witness. She asked the prisoner what he
had done with the child, and he said he had sent it to his
sister's at Camberwell, adding, "Did you not see a lady
come and take it away 2" Witness replied "No," as she
had but just entered the hou;e. After that she asked the
prisoner several times about the infant, and he replied that
it Was with his sister at Camberwell, and was doing well.
She identified a portion of the clothing found on the body
of the infant. The prisoner resided in her house up to the
time of his being taken into custody. After the infant was
missing witness did not see any marks of blood in the
apartments occupied by him.
By Mr. Traill—She did not ask the prisoner to drown
any cats or dogs, or give him half-a-crown to do so.

Police-constable Brown, R division, proved apprehend-
ing prisoner at the Royal Arsenal, where he was employed.
He asked the prisoner what had become of the infant, and
he replied that it was with his sister in London. Witness
said, " What is her address ?" and prisoner replied, " I shall
not tell you." He then took prisoner to the station-house,
and on his way thitherhe said he would sooner suffer death
than say where the child was. _ _

Mr. W. Stuart, divisional police surgeon, proved making
a post-mortem examination of the body of the infant, and
finding a deep cut, from three to four inches in length, ex-
tending upwards to the bone at the back of thesskull. He
could not say whether the wound was inflicted before or
after death ; but if the former, in so young a child it was
sufficient to cause death.

In reply to the magistrate, the prisoner, who was unde-
fended, said he had no wish to question any of the wit-
nesses, but wished to be allowed to see his friends.

Mr. Traill—That you can do, and in the present state o
the case, as the coroner's inquiry is adjourned until Monday
next, the prisoner will be remanded until Tuesday, when it
is probable that the depositions will be completed.
The prisoner, after an interview with his friends, was
then removed in custody, and an immense crowd of persons
assembled in the streets leading from the police-court to
the railway station, from whence prisoner was conveyed to
the county prison.
It was stated that no information has yet been received
as to the analysis of contents of the stomach of the deceased
woman, Mrs. Jones, and it appears that the prisoner has
frequently said, "I am glad they have taken her up, and
am quite sure they will find no poison."

TRIAL OF DR. PRITCHARD.

EDINBURGH, July 3.

This morning Dr. Edward William Pritchard, of
Sauchiehall-street, Glasgow, was placed at the bar
of the High Court of Justiciary charged with the
murder by poison of his wife and his mother-in-
law.

The Lord Justice Clerk, with Lord Ardmillan
and Lord Jerviswoode, occupied the bench.
The counsel for the Crown were the Solicitor-
General of Scotland, Mr. Gifford, and Mr. Crich-
ton ; and for the defence were Mr. Clark, Mr. Wat-
son, and Mr. Brand.
The prisoner entered the court at 10 o'clock. He
is a person of middle age, stately and well-built, a
little bald, of fair complexion, and with a light
sandy beard. He appeared quite calm, and closely
watched the proceedings. His brother, Charles Au-
gustus Pritchard, secretary to the Naval Commander
at Plymouth, took his seat in the dock with him.
It was moved for the prisoner that he should not,
in consideration of the prejudice his cause might
thereby sustain, be put on trial on both charges at
once.

The Solicitor-General opposed, and the court re-
fused the motion.

There was no objection to the relevancy of the
indictment, and the prisoner, on being called to
plead, said audibly, 46 Not guilty." A jury was
then balloted and sworn.

After some formal evidence, Catherine Latimer,
lately cook in Dr. Pritchard's service, dcponed to
the circumstances and events of the household up to
her leaving it on Saturday last. Mrs. Pritchard's
illness began in October with frequent sickness.
She went to Edinburgh to visit her mother in
November, returning at Christmas. Her mother
and Miss Pritchard, who lived with her grandmamrna
in Edinburgh, came with her. Mrs. Pritchard then
appeared to be in very good health. She continued
so for about a week, but after that became ill again.
Witness was to have left the service on the 2d, but
owing to her mistress's illness she remained till the
16th February. One night Mrs. Pritchard exclaimed,
" Oh, Catherine, I have lost my senses. I never was
so bad as this before." She was seized with cramp
about the 14th February. She was very ill, and called
Mary Macleod to fetch Dr. Gairdner. Dr. Pritchard
was in the room when another doctor was sentfor ; he
was crying, and witness heard deceased say " Don't
cry, you hypocrite," or " Don't cry, for if you do
you are an hypocrite," and she added that the doc-

tors were all hypocrites together. She told Dr. Gaird-
ner she had chloroform, but she had never said so to
witness. Witness continued in the service till Mrs.
Taylor was brought back again from Edinburgh.
Mrs. Taylor said to witness, " I don't understandher
illness. She is one day better and another worse:,
Mary M'Leod, a girl of 17, housemaid at Dr.
Pritchard's, was between four and five hours under
examination, and gave her evidence with evident
reluctance. She generally took up Mrs. Pritchard's
dinner and tea, which she sometimes got from Dr.
Pritchard as he sat with his family in the dining-
room. Mrs. Pritchard often said, " I wonder when

this sickness is to stop." When witness was sent
for Dr. Gairdner she heard Mrs. Pritchard say,
" Don't cry ; if you cry you're a hypocrite ; it was
you that did it." On one occasion Dr. Pritchard.
sent her up with a bit of cheese, which Mrs.
Pritchard tasted, and asked witness to taste it ; felt
hot, and made witness thirsty. Witness deposed to
the sudden illness of Mrs. Taylor ; she said she
surely had her daughter's complaint. She died about
midnight of the day she was taken ill ; she was
writing letters in the consulting room at 9 o'clock,
and was helped upstairs, where she became speedily
ill, and died. The prisoner had used improper
familiarities with witness, and Mrs. Pritchard
had seen him kissing her. Witness became with
child to him. He said he would put it all right.
She had a miscarriage.—(lnterrogated. Did he
do anything to you to procure miscarriage ? But
the question was objected to, as forming a separate
crime not libelled against the prisoner, and disal-
lowed by the Court.)—The connexion was continued,
up to the time Mrs. Pritchard visited Edinburgh,
but not for some time before his wife turned ill. He
spoke of marriage to witness. He said he would.
marry her if his wife died before him. He gave
witness a ring the year before last ; also a brooch
the same month his wife died. He gave his photo-
graph in the locket, but witness had since tornit out.
Cross-examined. Believed prisoner to be in joke
when he spoke of marriage.
The Court adjourned till next day at 10.

COUNTRY
,MARKETS.

COLCHESTER-Jimy 1.

The supply of wheat again very small, and a good de-
mand at an advance of fully is per qr. Beans and peas
very scarce, and rather dearer. Barley is dearer.

Wheat, white 42s 46s Beans, Mazagan......33s 368
red &is 428 Middle and 5ma11...35s 40s
Barley ..... 2es 848 Peas, white 35s 38s
Oats ...20s 25s grey ...368 388

GRANTHAM-JULY 1.

With a middling supply wheat sold steadily at is per qr.
advance. Very little barley on offer, and prices were un-
changed. Oats had an upward tendency.
Old white wheat, 41s to 465; old red, 37s to 425; new
white, 44s to 47s ; new red, 37s to 40s per 36 stone. Bar-
ley for malting, 29s to 83s per qr. ; grinding, 24s to 26s per
80 stone. Oats, old, 25s to 27s ; new, 22s to 24s per 24
stone. Beans, old, 39s to 41s; new, 36s to 88s per 88 stone.
Peas, 34s to 36s per 36 stone.

1-JuNE 30.

koderate, and is per qr. higher
firm at late terms.