The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-02 00:00:00

TILE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 2, 1854.

SECOND COURT-MARTIAL ON LIEUT.

PERRY.

FOURTH DAY-TUESDAY.

The questions not reported in our impression of yes-
terd ty, and put by the prisoner to Colonel Garrett,
were as follow :
Prisoner—Was not the fact of my complaining to you
the reason of my being sent to Coventry ?
Colonel Garrett—l know of no officer in the regiment
having been sent to Coventry, in the common accepta-
tion of the term, and if you were avoided and shunned
it was not because you had complained.
Prisoner—Was not my case an approximation to
being sent to Coventry ?
Coonel Garrett--1 cannot say. I merely spoke of
you being shunned, but I have no distinct or personal
knowledge of such a thing.
Prisoner—For what cause, then, was it ?
Colonel Garrett—l really cannot say. They did not
like you, I suppose.
Prisoner—You say I wrote a hurried letter to you,
complaining of being annoyed. Could you produce it ?
Colonel Garrett—No ; being a private note, I don't
*link I can. I did not keep it.
Prisoner—Could you state to the best of your recol-
lection what words you made use of when I made my
complaint ?
Colonel Garrett—l made no observation at all in
reference to that note.

This morning the court re-assembled at half-past 11,
Colonel Kelly presiding. Major Dalgetty officiated as
deputy-judge-advocate. Major-General Wetherell was
in attendance as prosecutor. Lieutenant Perry was as-
sisted by his legal adviser, Mr. Darvill, of Windsor.
The cross-examination of Colonel Garrett was re-
sumed.
Prisoner—You say there were three distinct cases of
complaint. Will you state what they were ?
Colonel Garrett—Two of them, I think, had reference
to cases of annoyance in the barrack-room, and the
other I am not certain whether it had not reference to
the barrack-room, or whether it was not in reference to
some dispute between yourself and some other officer.
Prisoner—You stated that the complaint was as to

pulling the room about. As you admit three cases,
does not your memory admit you to be more specific as

to other cases ?

Colonel Garrett—l have already stated that two had
reference to cases of annoyance in the barrack-room.
What the other was I cannot state. I think it was in
reference to some dispute.
Prisoner—ls your recollection as defective as to the
complaints, as it was with regard to the words you used
when you reproached me ?
Colonel Garrett—That really is a question which I do
not understand, and cannot answer.
Prisoner—Do you not now recollect that the first
complaint I made was after I had been dragged from
my bed, between two and three o'clock in the morning,
when you were over your grog in the ante-room ?
Colonel Garrett—l have already stated that a note
came to me from you when I had a number of guests in
the ante-room, and I do not think it was so late an
hour. I have no knowledge that you were dragged
from your bed, and no recollection that it was so stated.

Prisoner—Do you not know that I was dressed in
full uniform, and attempted to enter the mess-room,
but was prevented by two officers, one of whom threa-
tened to knock me down if I proceeded, and the other
called me an ass, and told me to go to bed ?

Colonel Garrett—l have no knowledge of such a
thing, nor even heard of it. I never heard the slightest
hint of anything of the kind.
Prisoner—Did you ever see me or speak to me in re-
ference to the complaints I had made ?
Colonel Garrett—l have already stated that I have no
recollection of having done so. I repeat that I do not
think I did.

Prisoner—Are you not aware that I was subsequently
subjected to similar treatment and wrote to Major Max-
well ?

Col. Garrett—The question has reference to the second
cause of complaint, and ought to be made through Ma-
jor Maxwell. I cannot say whether it bad reference to
similar treatment, but I think it was in reference to some
dispute.
Prisoner—Did I not, in my letter to Major Maxwell,
say that I could not be expected to get up at six o'clock
in the morning for drill if my rest was disturbed, and I
was compelled, every night, to get out of my bed ?
Col. Garrett—l do not remember that I ever heard
anything of the kind.
Prisoner—ls it possible that Major Maxwell could
have received such a letter, and not have consulted with
you how to act ?
Col. Garrett—lt is possible.
Prisoner—What was then the result of my application
to Major Maxwell ?
Col. Garrett—The settlement of the matter, as I un-
derstood.

Prisoner—Do you recollect, or did the acting adjutant
tell you, that I threatened to report the circumstance to
the general of the Dublin district ?
Col. Garrett—l do not recollect, nor did my acting
adjutant tell me, that you threatened me.
The next question from the prisoner was objected to by
Capt. the Earl of Longford, and the court was cleared.
On the re-admission of the public,
Major-Gen. Wetherell said—l know that the wish of
the Court is that Lieut. Perry should have the fullest
latitude to cross-examine every witness. But I only pro-
duce evidence to prove the truth or falsehood of a, single
expression whether the colonel had reproached Lieut.
Perry and called him a fool for his pains. The court
was cleared to consider the last question, and it has no
wish to restrict the prisoner in his defence ; but as the
prosecutor has confined his evidence to the first charge, and
that alone, they wish the prisoner to do the same. He
will have every opportunity afterwards of using his pri-
vilege of cross-examination to any extent.
•
Prisoner—This is a question of credibility.
The President—You can recal Colonel Garrett at any
time.

Prisoner—lt was irrelevant matter, not on my part,
that c tused the inquiry.
The President—You must confine your questions to
the first charge.
Prisoner—l wish to shake the testimony of the first
witness en the first charge, and all my questions tend to
that end. I may have evidence to disprove.
After a lengthened consultation by the Court,
Prisoner—l did intend to go into much more irrele.
vaut matter to shake the testimony of Colonel Garrett.
My questions go to show that Colonel Garrett does not
recollect the particulars of my charges, and it therefore
cannot be said that they were false. If the witness is
not right upon one point, how can he be right upon
another

After a brief consultation,
Prisoner—Shall I be restricted to the second charge
when it is entered upcn ?
The Deputy-Judge-Advocate—The Court adhere to
their decision ; but they do not intend to restrict your
cross-examination on any of the other charges to those
particular charges.
Prisoner—Then I am quite satisfied. I wish, how-
ever, questions already in should be put.
The following questions were then put :
Prisoner—Did I not threaten to report the circum-
stances to the general of the district, and did I not com-
municate to Colonel Garrett matter to that effect ?

Colonel Garrett—l do not recollect anything of the

kind.

By the Court—You state that Lieutenant Perry com-
plained to you, and that you desired Major Maxwell to
inquire into the matter. What was the nature of those
complaints ?
Colonel Garrett—The first of these complaints I have
already stated, I referred to Major Maxwell. On the
third occasion when I found the desired object not to be
carried out—that was, to stop the annoyance of which
Lieutenant Perry complained—l assembled all the
junior officers (I believe the whole of the subalterns),
together with Major Maxwell, and the adjutant, and
desiied that the annoyances of which Lieutenant Perry
had complained should cease ; and reprimanded, in par-
ticular, one officer of whom he complained especially ;
and to ensure, as far as I was concerned, against any
further acts f annoyance to Lieutenant Perry, in his
room, I desired that, on no account, should he enter
Lieut. Perry's room without my permission. I believe
that had the desired effect.

By the Court— Did ever a complaint reach you from
Lieut. Perry, or any other officer, of Lieut. Perry's
having been pulled out of bed, while the regiment was
quartered in Dublin, and beaten with an umbrella ?
Col. Garrett—l think a report might have reached
me of his having been pulled out of bed. As to the
other details, as to his having his shirt torn, or having
been beaten with an umbrella, had they been inquired
into, it is hardly possible that I should not have recol-
lected ; and I do not remember anything of the kind.
By the Court—Did Lieut. Perry give you any reason
to believe that he was satisfied with the way in which
his complaint had been disposed of ?
Colonel Garrett—He gave me no direct reason to
think otherwise. On the contrary, I had every rea-
son to believe he was satisfied, because all aggressions
had ceaged from that time.
Prisoner—May I not request that the witness may
refresh his memory by looking over the notes of his exa-
mination-in-chief ?

The evidence was read over to Colonel Garrett.
By the Court—Did you, after the third complaint
was disposed of, hear of any other ?
Colonel Garrett—To the best of my belief, I did not.
By the Prisoner—Do you mean to say that you as-
sembled all the officers. And do you mean to say on
your oath, that there were more than four officers as-
sembled on the occasion ?

At the suggestion of the Court, and by consent of the
prisoner, the words "on your oath" were struck out of
this question.
Colonel Garrett—l should think there were more than
four officers present. The duties in Dublin were very
numerous, and some of the subalterns might have been
away on leave, for all that I recollect. And I did not
pay particular attention to the number of officers, so
long as I effected the object I had in view, and which I
succeeded in doing.
Prisoner—lf, as you state, all annoyances ceased after
that time, how was it that Lieutenant Dunscombe was
brought down, in his shirt, between one and two o'clock
in the morning, in the presence of yourself and other
officers ?

Colonel Garrett—My observation as to the stop-
page of annoyances had reference to Lieutenant
Perry. I was very much surprised one evening at
hearing a great deal of noise among the youngsters,
in the just outside the ante-room. There was
alsoa partypaeegeaet whist. There was a sudden rush of young.
sters into the room, with Lieutenant Dunscombe, who
was brought to the door of the ante-room. When
I looked around, not being at all aware of what had
they all turned about and ran away. I sup-
posehapnpetheed' y were not aware that I was there at the time.
The President intimated that the ease of Lieutenant

Dunscombe had nothing whatever to do with the ques-
tion before the Court.
Prisoner—l allude to the case, because I might be a
champion for others who have suffered in a like manner
with myself.
The Deputy Judge-Advocate--The prisoner cannot
appear here as the champion of others. He has nothing
to do with others.
The Prisoner—Then I will not press the question I
have just handed up. I have no more questions to ask
Colonel Garrett.
Major Maxwell, of the 46th Regiment, was then
called and sworn.
Prosecutor—Do you remember Lieutenant Perry
making any complaints of acts of violence against him-
self, by other officers of the 46th Regiment, whilst
quartered in Dublin ?
Witness—l do.
Prosecutor—What was done on that occasion ?
Witness—Colonel Garrett ordered Captain, then Lieu-
tenant, Nicholas to go to the prisoner's room and in-
quire into the matter. Lieutenant Nicholas was then
acting as adjutant, in the temporary absence of the ad-
jutant. Shortly afterwards Lieutenant Nicholas came
back to the mess-room where we were—p, friend and
myself—and on his passing me I said, " What is the
matter ?" He reported to me that he found everything
settled and quiet when he went to Lieutenant Perry 's
room. I told him to report that to Colonel Garrett,
which he did. ,
Prosecutor—Was any inquiry made into the com-
plaint made by Lieutenant Perry ?
Witness—No, not at that time.
Prosecutor—Have you ever been present when Col.
Garret reprimanded an officer or officers for annoying
Lieutenant Perry ; or have you been present when
Lieutenant Perry made complaint of personal an-
noyance ?

Witness—l have been present when Colonel Garrett
reprimanded an officer, in the presence of Lieutenant
Perry, in consequence of a complaint of personal an-
noyance made to him by Lieutenant Perry. I never
heard Lieutenant Perry complain personally to Colonel
Garrett of annoyance. Lieutenant Perry was himself
present during the reprimand, which was made in the
presence of the subalterns assembled for that purpose.

Prosecutor—ls it within your knowledge, Or have
you any reason to believe, that Colonel Garrett did, on
that or any other occasion, call Lieutenant Perry a fool
for his pains, or reproach him for making complaints ?
Witness—l never heard Colonel Garrett call Lieut.
Perry a fool for his pains ; and I verily believe Colonel
Garrett did not. I never heard Colonel Garrett reproach
Lieutenant Perry for making complaints.
By the prisoner—How many complaints have been
made by me, to your recollection, to Colonel Garret,
with reference to treatment received by me ?
Witness—Three.

Prisoner—Will you be kind enough to state the nature
of the first complaint, and the mode in which it was
dealt with ?

Witness—l have stated that there were three com-
plaints made by Lieutenant Perry to Colonel Garrett
within the space to the best of my recollection, of two
months. The first was settled, as already stated, by
Lieutenant Nicholas, who was sent by me to inquire
into it.
Prisoner—May I ask you the same question with
respect to the second and third complaints ?
Witness—As regards the second complaint, Colonel
Garrett one day put a private note into my hand, com-
mencing "Dear Sir," and ending "Yours truly, J. E.
Perry," in which note Lieutenant Perry complained of
treatment to him by two officers of the regiment on the
previous night. It would be as well to mention, before
going further, that it has been Colonel Garrett's custom
to depute me, since I have been major in the regiment,
to inquire into and settle, if I possibly could, any dis-
putes between the junior officers. On receipt of the
note in question, I called together Lieutenant Perry and
the two officers in question in plain dress, and, on in-
quiry into the complaint, I was of opinion that the two
officers had decidedly behaved themselves improperly
towards Lieutenant Perry. At the same time I was of
opinion that Lieutenant Perry had given them just cause
to complain against him. The three officers were most
anxious for me to settle the affair, without its going be-
fore the commanding officer. I did so, by reproving
most severely the two officers in question. At the same
time I desired Lieutenant Perry in future to be more
cautious in his conduct. I also pointed out the impro-
priety of the note written to Colonel Garrett by Lieute-
nant Perry. and told him it was a very irregular way to
lay such a complaint before a commanding officer. His
reply was, that being young in the service, he did not
know what course Co pursue. I told him then that his
course in future, in the event of any complaint against
another officer, was to go to the captain of his company
in the first place ; the captain would give him the best
advice, and if he (the captain) could not settle the mat-
ter, he must send him (Lieut. Perry) to me ; and if it
was too serious a matter for a major to entertain, it
would be at once laid before the commanding-officer.
With regard to the third complaint, I cannot remember
how it was made. I remember the adjutant telling me
that I should be required to be present in the orderly
room, whilst Col. Garrett was adjudicating upon a com-
plaint made by Lieut. Perry against one or more of the
officers ; whether it was one or more of the officers, I
cannot remember. Colonel Garrett heard Lieutenant
Perry's statement of his grievances on that occasion, and
at the time told all the young officers present that he
(Colonel Garrett) wished them to consider how very
irregular and improper those proceedings were ; and
then addressing the officer complained against, in plain
dress, he reprimanded him most severely. At the same
time he told him that, to prevent the possibility of his
annoying Lieutenant Perry further, he had his (Col.
Garrett's) orders never to go to Lieut. Perry's room by
day or by night.
Prisoner—Will you be kind enough to state what cause
of complaint there was against me—as you say I had
given cause of complaint—and state all that you know
thereof? _ _ _

20
20
10
10

20
20
50
20

Witness—The cause of complaint.was that Lieutenant
Perry had told people in Dublin that one of the officers
in question was known in the regiment by a very ugly
name, which I shall not mention. That was the cause
of complaint. On inquiry, as I stated before that I
inquired into the case, I had reason to believe that
Lieutenant Perry had made use of the offensive name,
in Dublin, which gave great offence to that officer, and
was the origin of the complaint made by Lieutenant
Perry to Colonel Garrett—l mean the cause of the com-
plaint.
Prisoner—As you state you inquired into the case, of
whom did you inquire, and what did you ascertain?
Witness—l inquired of the two officers already al-
luded to, and of Lieutenant Perry ; and ascertained, as
I have stated, that there were faults on all sides, and so
ended the matter.

Prisoner—May I request that the question be put
again, as I submit that it has not been fully answered.
The question and answer were read, and the Court
decided that the question had been satisfactorily an-
swered.

Prisoner—Do you know that the ugly name you
speak of was the soubriquet of the officer in, question,
and that you, oni examining into another affair, ascer-
tained it to be so ?
Witness—l know it was not the soubriquet of the
officer in question, and I never found, on inquiry, that
it had been.
Prisoner—On my asking Ensign Knapp whether it
was so, did he not tell me that it was ; and did he not
say so in your presence ?
Witness—l have no recollection of Lieut. Knapp's
name being mentioned in the matter ; and if he had told
me so, I should not have believed it.
Prisoner—May Ibe allowed to produce the officer
said to bear the soubriquet ?
Major-General Wetherall said such a course would be
unusual. A witness could only be examined on the
evidence he had given.
Prisoner—My questions arose entirely out of the evi-
dence Major Maxwell has given.
The President—You can call the officer in your de-
fence.
Prisoner (to witness)—Did I not write a letter to you
to this effect :—" If I am pulled out of my bed nearly
every night, and pulled about, how can I be expected to
be at drill every morning ?"
Witness—l never received such a letter, or, to the
best of my recollection, any complaint from him on the
subject. I have complained of him being late for drill,
and he never gave that as a reason for being late.

Prisoner—You state that the reproof given on the
third complaint for irregular al. d improper conduct was
severely expressed. Shortly afterwards, did you not, at
the Royal Barracks, Dublin, order Lieutenant Duns-
combe, in my presence, to be brought down-stairs from
his bed-room, between one and two o'clock in the
morning, before the colonel of the regiment, yourself,
and guests, in his shirt ?
The court was then cleared. On the re-admission of
the public, it was announced that the question should
be put.

Witness—The reprimand was so strong, that the only
instance of a practical joke that I know of was the in-
stance alluded to. But I never ordered Lieutenant
Dunscombe to be brought out of his bed. So much the
reverse, that I went outside of the ante-room to prevent
the young gentlemen bringing him in. The ante-room
is close to the bottOm of the stairs. The door was
burst open by the party carrying Mr. Dunscombe, and I
was carried into the room along with them. There were
several civilians in the room. Colonel Garrett was
sitting with his back to the door, in an armchair. Re
must have heard the laughter, but to the best of my
belief, did not see Mr. Dunscombe. Mr. Dunscombe
appealed to me, saying, "Major, will you stand this l"
At the time Mr. Dunscombe appealed to me, I told the
youngsters to bundle out of the room. They did so ;
they went upstairs ; and Mr. Dunscombe appeared in his
uniform in the ante-room about five minutes afterwards.
It being now four o'clock, the court adjourned until
to-morrow (this day).

THE ROUSES OF PARLIAMENT.— It is proposed to
place the management of the ventilation of both houses
and all the committee-rooms and other chambers (ex-
cept the library of the House of Lords), to which the
librarian will attend, under the superintendence of Mr.
Goldsworthy Gurney. The alterations lately made by
him in the ventilation of the House of Commons appear
to have given general satisfaction. The Serjeant-at-
Arms, indeed, when asked by the Lords' committee if
he was content, said, "I think I have never been quite
contented with the ventilation of any building that I
have ever been in in rny,,life ; I enjoy myself so much
more in the open air ; but he added--" I think the,
House of Commons now is quite, as well ventilated as
any building that I ever was in. The cost of lighting
the two houses is as follows :.--House of Peers, with its
lobbies, 18s. 111 d. per hour ; House of Commons, with
its lobbies, 365. 11d. per hour.
The navy contract for 50,0001b5. of tea has again been
taken by Mom. Stericker and Co., of Fenchurcla-street.

SHARE MARKETS.

(THIS DAY.)

BRITISH RAILWAYS.

lelostztg Prices
1 yesterday.

23.4 --- 24!
5 - 54

9 - 10

11i --10ia
17 -- 18
7 -- ad

98 - 100
631 - 64
154 - 161
12 - 14

"i = id

7 - 8

r.ii - ii

134 -13 i
33 -- 37
25 -- 27

65 - 67
57 - 59

ii - i 6

66 - 68
88 - 89
73 - 75
126 - 128
97 - 99
79 -79 i

St.
194

89 - 91
11 -130
11 -13 1.,
67 - 81
6Ai
--6i6 d

1.6" -- i'i

ii - .8;

107 108
106 1064
lip
4 d
814 854
8 7 d
7 6 d

100-
426
34
all

• -- ...

812 s
St.

- -
23 - iii
66i _ Eil
38 - 40'1

''''.
• ••

4 d par
7 6d
2i 3i
6 8
50 52
34

lu ii

2/ 2s
100
100
100
100

34 - ... 3-5

•••

2/ 2s!
all !
165
100

52 55 I
par -- § p
4id P
i 9id
6 6i
ld 1 p

32 - 34

94 - 6-6
53 - 60
68 - 72

65 70
2i - 2i ,
18 20
9 10
14 15
3i —'3id

1s 16
64 - 6,4
356 - 366

34 - 36

Business done
this day.

88
72
127
791

81
1071 i x d
106 51 6i

31 - 35
184 - 19
4 - 5
23 - 25
61 - 71

all
81s.
100
20
13§
100

6 - 7

8h i

234 i
67i.

5
10
St.
5

per cent.

10
25
10
1.0.6

561 6

PREFERENCE SHARES.

Aberdeen
Do. No. 2, p. c.
Blyth and Tyne 10 per
c. pref. (issd. at 500
Bris. & Ex. 4 p. c. St.
Do. 4 p. c. Shares
Caledonian £lO
Chester & Holyhead
Guar. 5i per cent
Cork &Bandons4p.c
Dundoe Perth &Aber-
deen Junction
EastAngliaa (£3los)
6 per cent

, . .... ...

95 = 97

ii -id
--id •••

all
all
LOO
all

3i -
4 -

IDo- (X 5) 7 per cent.

Do. (£7l7ii) 7 p. c.
Eastern Counties Ex-

i -

tension, 5 p. c. No. 1
Do. No. 2 7
Do. New 6 P. C. St.
Eastern Union, Scrip
Guar. 6 per cent
Do. 51., 10 ner cent.
Do. 101. Debentr.Sh-
East Lancash. 6 p. cts.
East and West York-
shire June. Pref...
EdiubPrth.&Dundee
4 per cent.
Glasgow &S.Western
Guar. 5 per cent
Great Northn. 5 p. c
Do. 5 p. c. Redeem.,
at 10 p. c. prem...
Do. 4 p. c. Scrip
Gt.N. of Scot. Ist Fret
Gt. Southn. &Westm.
(Ireland) Eighths)
Do. 4 per c. Pref. Sh
Gt. Wostn. (Berks &
Hants Ex. 5 p. c)...
Do. cov. red. 4i p.c.
Do. con, red, 4 p. c.
Do. irred. 4 p. c.
Lan. &York. F. £2O
ID°. 6 p. c. Stock ... 1

1 --
t --
131 --.

Leeds N. 6 p. c.
Do. Quarters, 1848
London and Brighton
Guaranteed 5 p. c
Do. Pref., 5 p. e. St.
Do. Convertible, 5 p.
c., 1852

Do. New Guar.6 p. c.
Lon. &N. W., Coy. &
Nuneaton
London & S. Western
Con. Thirds

Londonderry& Coler
Shares
Londy. & Ennis. s Sh
fan., Shef., & Lin.,
Shares, No. 1.
Do. Now, £lO
Do. £6

Nfarypt & Carl. 4 p.c.
Do. 4l per cent
Do

lip
p
13i

11, lid. Consol.6 p.c.St.
Do. Consol. Bristol &
Uirm.. 6 per cent....
Do. Pref. 4i per cent
Norfolk Debenture ..

o. Pref. 4 p. c. Stock
o. 5 p. c. Eat
o. 5i per et . pref.._
Do. Way. Val. 5 p. c
North British
orth Staffordshire ,
Oxford, Worcester, &
Wolverh.Xls, 6 p.c
Do 1

Scot. Cent. , New Prof
Shrews. & Birm. N.G.

hrewsby. & Chester
(Nor. W.Min), 8 p.c.
Do. 5 per cent
South Devon
De. fixed, 4i per cent
S. Eastern (Reading
Ann.) of XI, Os. 6d.
Do. 4 iper cent.
S.Yorksh.4p.c.Guar
Stockton and Dar-

lington, 4 per cent.
Do. do. do.
IStockton and Hartle•

pool, guar. 5 p. c.
till Ist July, 1856
Watorfd.&Kilk.6p.c.
York, Newcastle ,and
Berwiok,4 p.c. Prof
Do
York&N.
and S. Purch

pm
1

22 - 24

1021

104 i •

134 f
dis

MINES.
1 all Azua Fria
1 all Anglo Austrin. Gold • •
10s. all Anglo Californian
10 2 Australasian 1 d
20 6 Australian
1 all Australian Cordillera * I
1 all Australian Freehold *
1 all Ave Maria
1 all Baden (Gd. Duchy of) a
50 all Blaenarvon Ir. & Coal 7 9
1 all 'aritish Austrin. Gold _—
20 13.5 British Iron
35 244 Brazilianlmp.(issued
at X 5 pna 3 4
30 all Do. Cocaes & Cuiada 1 21
20 15 Do. St. John Del Rey 26 —2B
1 4 Carson's Creek
1 4 Clarendon Con. Min
Co. of Jamaica
40 all Cobro Copper 45 47
5 1 Colonial Gold l—
... 15 Copiapo
St. all Copper Min. of Eng. 50 —55
25 all Do. Pref. 74 p. cent. ...
5 all English and Austrin.
Copper Smeltg.Co. 11 1 11
20 all General
2 all Great Nugget Vein_
2 all Do. Registered
3 all Great Polgooth
1 all Liberty
3 all Linares
1 all Lond.&Californ.Gold
Quartz Crush. Co. •
1 all Mariquita
10 9 Mezican&S.Amerien 6 —63
1 all New Granada .
1 all New Linares Mining
and Smelting Co ..•
1 all Nouveau Monde . #
20 all Pontgibaud Silver
Lead Min. di Smelt 1G 17
5 1 Port Philip — 1
*
1 all Quartz Rock
50 all Rhymney Iron
15 15 Do. New 9 —lO
30 104 Santiago de Cuba _ 4 5 4i
1 all south Australian _
10 7 Tin Croft 1 3
284 all United Mexican 3l 3i
1 all Waller' —
1 all West Granada
1 all West Mariposa
1 12s. Worthing Mining of
Australia •••
1 all Yuba
JOINT-STOCK BANKS.
40 all Australasia B4 86
40 all British Colonial Bank
and Loan Company _
50 all British N. American —•
25 5 Chartd. Bank of Asia —4 d
20 2 Clutd. link. of India,
Australia, & China —'_d
100 25 Colonial •••
100 20 Commercial of Loud.
20 14 English Scottish and
Australian ... .3—24 d •
20 20 Lond. Chart. Bk. of
20i
5500 2100
LondonL(nn sd
to
r an
"aji noa oint
Stock. n" t• 2:
:0:
100 20 Lond. & Westminster ...
100 35 National Provincial
of England —
20 10 Do. New
42
122500:505
a 2221115:
pONDNeirooliowt.e7inNoi
tal
oncial o.
Bank.N
10 all Do. New
5 1 Rpyal Australn.Bkg
& Gold Imp Co
25 all South Australia 4O —42
25 all Union of Australia.- 67 69
2. Do. New
50 10 ,Union of London :.•..

PARLIAMENTARY SUBSERVIENCY-
CONSERVATIVE POLICY.

The observations which we felt it our duty to
make on Friday lass have excited more attention
than is generally conceded to the remarks of jour-
nalists at this busy period of the session. We are
well pleased that it should be so ; but the manner
in which these remarks have been made use.of ren-
der it necessary to return to the subject, as we
are resolved that there " shall be no mistake" with
regard to the end and object of observations which
have called forth a more than ordinary portion of
comment. Our readers will remember that we at-
tributed the great mass of the undeniable evils of
which we complained entirely to the system of
" Parliamentary subserviency," which allowed a
Coalition', to carry on a system of false pretences,
and produced an Opposition " purposeless, object-
less, and consequently powerless. These state.
inents of ours have been used by different persons
for different purposes.
It will be remembered that some days since, in
commenting upon the feelings of the press with
regard to the Coalition, we leaned strongly upon
the opposition evinced by journals which, under
ordinary circumstances, would be inclined to
support the Ministry. Amongst these we pointed
out the Daily News, the Morning Advertiser, the
Sun, and Punch, while we laid but little stress
upon the habitual supporters or opponents of the
Government. Referring to this Mr. Urquhart, in
a recent letter, has remarked that the blame which
we felt it our duty to attribute to the Opposition
side of the House ought to remove us into the
category of neutrals. We cannot assent to this.
Our opposition to Lord Aberdeen's Ministry is
founded upon the total want of principle which the
Coalition have manifested—a want of principle
which is the result of an unnatural aggregation of
materials, and which, from the strange fusion of an-
tagonisms of which it is compounded (each destroy-
ing the other, and rendering the whole worthless
and useless, stagnant and foetid), deserves well the
dirtiest title which in political parlance can be ap-
plied'to any conceivable entity amongst parties at
the pres9nt crisis. We are not neutrals, and. we
are the opponents of those who have neutralised
themselves ; we, therefore, cannot accept the ad-
vantage which Mr. Urquhart would assign to us.
Our opposition to Lord Aberdeen arises from an
imperative sense of duty, and we must be hostile
to him and his adherents.

On the other hand, the Morning Advertiser, in
an article published yesterday, and which is in
many respects highly complimentary, wishes to in-
terpret our remarks as bearing exclusively against
the Conservative part of the Opposition.
The particular portion of Parliamentary history
upon iwhich we grounded our remarks was the
debate which arose upon the vote of credit for
3,000,000/. ; and, speaking of the Conservative
party, we said that a portion of them refused to sup-
port Lord Dudley Stuart upon the plea of his being a
Radical, and that portion must bear as they may
the censure which they have deserved. Another
part of the Conservative opposition we stated feared
to censure the Government directly, and therefore
they made a move on their own account to restrain

the granting of a practical despotism to the Minis-
try for the next six months. This, we think, is
much to be lamented, but, as being grounded upon
what we consider an error in judgment, it is not
open to the same unmitigated disapproval which
we have thought it necessary to apportion to the
first departure from duty.
With regard to the opinion of the Conservative
party with reference to the mode of—not—carry-
ing on the war, no mistake can possibly exist ; but
we consider that it would most certainly have been
desirable that a record of that opinion should have
been made, whether they divided in a minority or
otherwise. Their votes would have been appre-
ciated hereafter.
To return, however, to those who would not vote
with Lord Dudley Stuart because he was a Radi-
cal, we repeat that no excuse can be made, for it
was a desertion of duty ; but when we look at the
modified course pursued by some of the members of
the Opposition, a palliation in degree may be easily
found for theiroffence. Now, to this part of the sub.
ject we wish more particularly to call the attention
of the Morning Advertiser, which perhaps will be
surprised to learn that during the entire session the
Radical portion of the opposition has upon any
question which bore upon the existence of the
Ministry systematically deserted the Conserva-
tives.

We need hardly refer to the frequent exhibi-
tions of Mr. Layard, wherein he disported. himself
in the character of the " Craner,' immortalised
by Byron, who in the hunting field kept continually
looking over a fence, which he would neither take
himself nor let any one else.
The " cross" connected with the meeting at
Lord John Russell's was too self-evident to re-
quire any comment at our hands ; but more notice
is required with respect to the latest failure—
namely, that of procuring a Parliamentary decision
upon the subject of au autumnal session.
Upon that occasion various persons on the Radi-
cal side of the house were understood to be anxious
to make the proposition ; but one after another.
they shrunk from doing so, and the matter was
left in the hands of Lord Dudley Stuart, and ulti-
mately it fell to the ground.
With Lord Dudley we have no fault to find.
He is an honourable, straightforward gentleman,
though not popular in the house as a speaker ; and
we are satisfied that he acted with perfect sincerity
in the whole matter. Nevertheless it was a coup
manqué from the distrust excited by the very open
manoeuvres of other and more active partisans.
If the Advertiser is anxious to know who, under
a pretence of great zeal for the cause, has been the
great support of Ministers throughout the entire
session we shall have no objection to enlighten
him ; but at present we shall content ourselves
with stating that there are two members for Mary-
lebone.

To conclude these observations, which have been
in a degree forced upon us, we may say that the
great fault which has been committed on the part
of the Conservatives for the last few months has
been the want of a distinct declaration of policy,
and an apparent want of unity of action, which
induces those who do not see beyond the surface
to infer a separation of sentiment. This opinion
w ;
e can state most positively is a great error but
it must not be denied that facts, when known
to but few, do not produce their proper impres-
sion. The facts which positively bear upon pub-
lic events are the conclusions which are drawn
by the people, who, after all, constitute the great
court of appeal ; and nothing can be more mischie-
vous than allowing them to be deceived as to the
real condition of things.
The Conservative policy, about which no mis-
take ought to be allowed to exist, is to be summed
up in a very few words. It consists in a determi-
nation to support the constitutional Protestantism
inseparably connected with the liberties of England,
and to oppose the Romanist conspiracy against
freedom all over the world, so powerfully denounced
by Lord John Russell in his Durham letter, but
so feebly met by him in action. To this must be
added a genuine interest in the wellbeing of the
the working classes, as exemplified in measures de-
signed to improve their social condition, n contra-
distinction to those misleaders, who tell them that
the ballot or extension of the suffrage is of more
importance than moral improvement and propor-
tionate political privileges.
Further, we believe Conservatives to hold that
the centralising principle, lately exemplified by
Lord Palmerston in his Police Bill, has been car-
ried far enough, if not too far, and that its exten-
sion would be injurious to the real liberties of the
people.
To the foreign policy which would render the in-
terests of England subservient to the preservation
of Russian or Austrian despotism,
party have proved their opposition more than once
duringthe continuance of the present complications,
and nothing has prevented their taking more active
steps upon this subject except the anxiety—,
Fer-
haps carried too far—of not opposing the Govern-
ment during war in any way which malevolence
itself could construe into faction.
We believe these to be the principles of the Con-
servative party; we are sure the enunciation will
find an echo in the hearts of the people of England,
who will sooner or later appreciate their true
friends, and shake off the delusion which has bound
them to those who, upon false pretences, have re-
.duced the country to its present unsatisfactory po-
litical condition at home, and its position of utter
degradation in the eyes of foreign nations.--Morn-
jug Herald.