The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-30 00:00:00

were each read a second time. The Aggravated Assaults
Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. COLLIER, in moving a writ for the election of
a. new member for the borough of Chatham, in the room
of Sir F. Smith, unseated by the committee, said that the
case of the borough of Chatham was one that did not re-
quire the appointment of a commission to inquire into it
as only one zase of bribery had been proved before the com-
mittee. It might be a question if the dockyard employes
were to have the franchise ; but it was not fair to single
out that borough for punishment.
Sir J. SHELLEY begged to remind the house of the
nature of the report. It stated that there was in the dock-
yards a great number of persona employed who, in the
exercise of the franchise, were altogether under the in-
fluence of government ; but if it oared so little for the re-
ports of its committee as to set them at nought, it was
time that some other tribunal should be appointed for the
trial of controverted elections.
Mr. BRAMSTON, as chairman of the committee, said
that that body had two courses open to them when making
their report—namely, either to ask to be re-appointed or
to recommend a commissiox for further inquiry ; but as it
had followed nether course, it was impossible for the house
to issue a commission. It had, however, received evidence
from the agents of both parties that out of the consti-
tuency, which numbered 1,200 or 1,300, there were 300
or 400 under the influence of government. He would not,
however, refuse the issuing of the writ.
Mr. AGLIONBY said it was very well for the chairman
of the committee to come down to the house, and say that
there was but one case of bribery proved ; but it did not
follow that there was not a great accumulation of them.
If they issued the writ, their proceedings and those of the
committee would be regarded as a farce.
Lord J. RUSSELL considered the present was a pecu-
liar case, as the committee had suggested the propriety of
depriving those persons employed in the dockyards of the
right of voting. That appeared to him to be a very
semious question. Besides, he considered that the question
of disfranchisement was one which should go upon grounds
of great public importance ; but he did not think that it
could at that late hour be properly discussed, and would
therefore suggest that the further consideration of the
motion should be postponed to Friday next.
The adjournment of the debate was then agreed to.
MAIDSTONE ELECTION.

Mr. CRAUFURD moved for a new writ for the election
of a member for Maidstone, in the room of Mr. Dodd,
whose election has been declared void.
Mr. DISRAELI having once had the honour of being
member for Maidstone was naturally interested in that
constituency. (Hear.) He must say he thought there
were very suspicious circumstances here. (Hear.) He
would suggest an adjournment to Friday next.
The debate was accordingly adjourned.
BANKRUPTCY LAW (SCOTLAND).
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, leave was
given to him to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating
to bankruptcy in Scotland.

CASE OF LIEUTENANT INGLEDUE.
She G. PECHELL then called the attention of the house
to the case of Lieut. Ingledue, who was dismissed the ser-
vice for impertinence and disobedience of orders. This
gentleman, he said, had represented that he could be very
useful to the Government in the election at Southampton,
and was restored to his rank in the .month of January,
1852. -He had memorialised three Boards of Admiralty ;
he had memorialised the fourth, who had refused his appli-
cation, and who afterwards appointed him as soon as cer-
tain explanations were made as to his political value in the
town of Southampton. The very day after his appoint-
ment the Government of the Duke of Northumberland
was very properly bundled out of office ; but the whole
case was so suspicious, and reflected so much discredit on
the Government by whom the appointment had been made
that he thought the case ought to be referred to the dock-
yard appointments committee.
Capt. SCOBELL seconded the motion. He complained
that a gentleman who had been ten years out of the ser-
vice had been restored under these circumstances, after
having rendered himself useful at the Southampton election.
Mr. STAFFORD said the difference between the appli-
cation in June, when it was refused, and in December,
when it was accepted, was contained in•the three last lines
of the last paragraph of the memorial to the board. [The
hon. gentleman read an sk-tract from the memorial ofLieut.
Ingledue to the board tendering his services for the pur-
peva of assisting (as we understood) in the manning of oar.
tain vessels of war.] The house might agree, in a Naval
point of view, with the opinion of the late Board of Admi-
ralty. They would remember that additional forces were
ordered, and that great difficulty was experienced in pro-
curing seamen to enter the service. Under such circum-
stances, the late board felt that the services of such a man
as Lieut. Ingledue were partly necessary towards the
equipment of the navy. And, therefore, though it was
quite true that they did refuse him in June, they thought
it was not compatible with their sense of duty to throw
overboard his proposition when he might be of great ser-
vice to the board in procuring seamen. Now for the poli-
tical aspect of the case. Did it show much skill to refuse
Lieut. Ingledue when on the point of a general election ?
It would have been perfectly competent for the Board of
Admiralty to have appointed him then, or have postponed
their answer to the memorial. But that was not done.
In the face of a general election they refused to reinstate
him. Well, when the general election came on what was
Lieut. Ingledue's conduct ? In Southampton the borough
was contested, yet Lieut. Ingledue divided his vote equally,
and voted for both candidates. Did the hon. member op-
posite, therefore, wish to lay it down as a principle that no
officer should ever be promoted because he had voted for
the Government. (Oh, and hear.) He believed that the
late Board of Admiralty had only done their duty in not
rejecting the application made to them at such a time and
from such a person, and if that house thought otherwise it
would be for the Executive Government to consider it, and
it was quite within the power of the present Board to
in a small gun-brig, to the coast of Africa, and
strike Lieut. Ingledue's name off the list altogether, or to
order him,
if he declined to go, to dismiss him. (Hear.) If the house
thought fit to send the present motion to the committee
sitting upon the question of dockyard appointments, it, of
course, could do so ; but he was bound to maintain that
the Itte Board had merely done what was necessary for the
good of the service in reinstating that officer, and whose
re-appointment he denied had given any offence to the
service.
Mr. PHINN would not detain the house at that late
hour with more than one or two observations. It appeared
to him, and he believed to the country generally, that the
appointment was not given at once to Lieut. Ingledue,
because it was reserved until he had displayed his zeal at
the general election. The labourer was worthy of his
hire; but he believed he never got his hire until he had
earned it. With regard to his having given his vote to a
Conservative and Liberal candidate, he voted for the chair-
man of the Steam Packet Company, his master, and
against the Attorney-General, against the return of whom
the whole efforts of the Conservative party were directed
at that time. (Hear, hear.). The circumstances of the
case were at least suspicious, and he thought that they
were made more suspicious by+ the fact that two of the
naval lords of the late board had protested against the ap-
pointment.

- Mr. STAFFORD was not aware of the precise circum-
stances that took place at the board as he was away from
town at the time that the application was made. If the
hon, member who had just sat down would look to the
paper he would find that the appointment was signed by
one of the secretaries to the board (Captain Hamilton we
believe). He (Mr. Stafford) was of course jointly answer-
able with him for that document, but he must protest
against being called upon, as Secretary to the Admiralty,
to state the divisions that took place at that board, and th e
course of the various debates—if he might use that term—
which occurred in their official meetings. (Hear, hear.)
Though he was not aware of any division of opinion hav-
ing occurred, as he was not in town at the time, it was
done by the Board of Admiralty, and he must therefore
refuse being called upon, as their secretary, to give any
explanations with regard to the matter. (Hear, hear.)
Captain DUNCOMBE said, as one of the late Board of
Admiralty, he was bound to bear testimony to the zeal
and efficiency with which Lieutenant Ingledue had dis-
charged his duties since his re-appointment. The tact and
discretion with which he had equipped those vessels which
were ordered for sea was beyond all praise, and he was
entitled to any reward which the country could give him.
The motion was then agreed to.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at twenty minutes past one until
Monday next.

RAILWAY RETURN&

TRAFFIC RETURNS FOR THE PAST WEEK.