The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-27 00:00:00

EMIGRATION.

Mr. SCOTT rose to ask a question of the Under-
Secretary for the Colonies relative to the conduct of the
surgeon on board of the emigrant ship the Inchinnan.
Mr. HAWES said he was aware that the conduct of
the surgeon had already been the subject of judicial in-
quiry abroad, but if his HOD. Friend would Ask the
question to-morrow, he should be able to state more ac-
curately what had been done.
In answer to another luestion from Mr. SCOTT re-
lative to a dispatch of Sir G. Gipps,
Mr. HAWES said that he had never heard of any
such dispatch.
In answer to a question from Mr. STAFFORD,
Sir GEORGE GREY said that no Treasury minute
had been issued in reference to the salaries of the clerks
of the county courts. _ _ _

Captain PECHELL asked if anything had been done
with respect to the salaries of high bailiffs?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that a Bill was
in progress which would dispose of them.
THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

In answer to a question from Mr. BAILLIE,

Lord IALMEIiSTON said that the British Govern•
went had now for twcive years taken possession of the
Falkland Isles.

In answer to another question from Mr. BALLIE,
Lord PALMERSTON said that, acme years ago,
some unjust and illegal acts had been committed by the
British cruisers on the interests of certain traders at
Senegal, and the King of Prussia had been appointed
arbitrator, and the sum awarded by him had been con-
sidered as final; nor had any further BUM for compensa-
tion been paid.
BOMBARDMENT OF ROME.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to ask the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether' he had
any objection to produce a dispatch, or part of a dis-
patch, relative to the bombardment of Rome?
Lord PALMERSTON said he would read the dis-
patch, and should probably have no objection to lay any
such parts of it as related to tries before the House.
ROMAN CATHOLIC JURORS.
- -

Mr. SADLIER rose to ask the Secretary for Ireland
whether he had received any information of the names
of eight Roman Catholic gentlemen having been struck
off the list of a special jury in Ireland at a recent trial
in Ireland, by Mr. Kemes, the Crown Solicitor, and
whether the Governthent had made any inquiry inte
the circumstance?

Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that ho knew nothing of
the facts of the case, and could therefore give the Ron.
Gentleman no information on the subject.
Mr. HORSMAN wished to know if the fact of eight
Romaa Catholic gentlemen being struck off a jury-list
on account of their religion was one which met with the
approbation of the Noble Lord at the head of the Go.
vernment?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Hon. Gentle.
man had put forward a supposition that these gentlemen
had been struck off on account of their religion, which
he could certainly not admit.
Mr. SADLIER wished to know if the Noble Lord
would object to laying before the House the names of
the forty-eight gentlemen originally on the list, distin-
guishing which were Protestant and which were Roman
Catholic; giving also the reasons why these eight gen-
tlemen had been struck off the list.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he should certainly ob-
ject to do any such thing.
The matter then dropped.
The Woikhouse Loans (Ireland) Bill and Drainage of
Lands Bill were read a third time and passed.
SLAVE TRADE (PERSIAN GULF) BILL.
_ . .

On the motion that this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. ANSTEY opposed the second reading of this
8i1.1.. The Bill would certainly militate against our
existing treaty with the powers in that 'Fluter'
as in the opinion of tho. Noble Lord this treaty was only
valuable inasmuch as it was calculated to secure the
obbdience of the Arabian chiefs against whom it was
directed to the Shah of Persia. It would appear by this
that these chiefs were not independent, but that they
were in some way or other under the surveillance of the
Government of Persia. If such was really the case, he
feared that the effect of this Bill would be to increase
the difficulties in our intercourse with those chiefs, which
at present was unsettled, and had not many years ago
proved both disagreeable and expensive. He was
not anxious to excite a vexata questw, but he
could not help remembering that the officers of
the navy, able as they had always proved
themselves, were still only men, and he was the
mon induced to remember the fact, because he
.could
not forget another, whica was that there were Innu-
merable complaints o: the merchant service t:?at these
slave trade treaties continually interfered with their
commercial proceedings. After citing seyerv,l instances,

which, frOm their technicality 'would be ueiritelligible in
a report, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, that
seeing the perfect inutility of the system which had been
adopted on the coast of Africa for the suppression of the
slave trade, he deprecated above all things the carrying
of that system to the eastern aces. They had
a trade there which it was their indispensable
duty not only to " protect but to encourage,
and feeling this ho conceived it to be his duty to move
that this Bill be read a third time this day six months.
Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE also deprecated this
attempt to carry into the eastern seas a system which
had so lamentably failed on the coast of Africa. It was
likely to involve us in most unpleasant altercations in
that quarter of the world. Then, if it was to be adopted,
who was to pay the expense. lie surely would not
throw it upon the East India Company, who were quite
incompetent to bear it; but expense there must be, and
somebody must pay, and this, if not the other, was a
matter which well deserved consideration.
Colonel THOMPSON said that he, if any one, could
throw light upon the subject, for he it was eho had ne-
gotiated the treaty with the Arab chiefs, in which the
slave trade was declared to be piracy. This was no new
matter, for it had been known and considered as long
since as the year-1820. Then, with regard to the cases
of conscience, which the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Anstev) had made oat, he assured him that be might
make -himself perfectly easy, for these Arab chiefs, of
whom he was so much afraid, were not slave dealers at all.
In negotiating with these chiefs he had hinted to them
with the greatest delicacy that it was the wish of the
English Government that the slave• trade in the Gulf
should be declared piracy. A a.hastiv laugh ran round
the circle of diplomatists, and they all exclaimed, " Ca-
pital! capital!" and he soon discovered that they who
never had been gave-traders considered it a capital joke
that the favourite pursuit of an old ally of ours, of whom
they we rHe e e
bx tarde me
the
ly t jealous,reaty shouldthus
in
hie
pocket,
ande declared
could
ppriroadTe it to the noire if it were necessary. • He should
support the Bill.
Lord PALIERSTON said that the sympathy of this
country, with regard to the slaves whose relief was con-
templated in tlis Bill, was doubly called foe- by the fact
of their being principally Abyssinian Christians. With
regard to the chiefs with whom the treaties had been
concluded, it hid been doubted whether they were inde-
pendent or not. There was not the slightest doubt about
it. It was absurd to say that the feelings of Eastern
potentates wens in favour of the slave trade when
they had the Shah of Persia, the Imaum of Muscat,
and other:Arabian chiefs joining in a treaty to put
it down, and when the Sultan had just abolished the
slave-market at Constantinople, and sending witnesses
from Constantinople to Malta, to depose against a
Maltese who had been tried for trading in'slaves on the
coast of Tripoli. This measure would not entail any
additional eepaoses on the country, it would be only
necessary to give powers to the vessels on that station to
carry into effect the agreement which had been entered
into with the Imaura of Muscat.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask whether there
was any likelihood of a Letter understanding being arrived
at with the Court of Brazil/with regard to the slave trade.
They instance of that country ought to be a sufficient
example of the inexpediency ot interference by the British
Government with other countries to put down the sieve
trade. lle should support the amendment of his lion.
and Learned Friend.

Captain PECHELL said that in all matters cennehtd
with the slave trade he pinned his faith on the Nobh'
Lord's conduct, and he should certainly support him in
this Bill,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he certainly agreed
the inadequacy of the means employed in putting down
the slave trade. He was certeinly surprised to see the
present Member for Ycughal opposing any measure for
abulishinr.r, the slave trade, since one of his (Mr. J.
O'Connell's) chief recommendations to that constituency
had been an uncompromising hostility to that infamous
branch of traffic. He should support the Gonrnment in
this Bill.

Mr. E. DENISON appealed to the report of the
Committce of the House on the slave trade, which stated
that naval intervention Was quite inefficient to put down
the slave trade. That, in his opinion, was quite suffi-
cient to justify him in opposing this Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not consider that the
passing of. this Bill would at ail commit the
House. The report of the Committee and the evidence
given before it would certainly form matter for serif us
consideration to her Majesty's Government during the
next session. But he must alto remind the Douse that
the report was not en unanimous report, that it was
only a majority of one which decided the report.
The difficulty on this subject in the Committee, whether
the means adopted were sufficient for the suppression of
the slave trade, and, in reply from the Committee, the
only answer the Government received were some vague
generalities, condemning the system. The Government
were anxious to put down this detestable slave track,
and only desired to obtain such assistance as would re-
duce the expense and increase the efficiency ef the syls-
tern which they had adopted.
Mr. HUME said that there were many objections to
carrying the system for suppressing the slave trade
farther than it had already gone. In his opinion that
system, so far from lightening the miseries of the slave
trade, only tended to aggravate its horrors. And when
they had the fact before them that not less than 500
human beings had during the last year been thrown
overboard, in consequence of the pursuit of our cruisers,
he was convinced that no efforts whatever could he suf-
ficient to mitigme the evil.

Mr. BERNAL said that, in his opinion, the question
respecting the system of putting an end to slavery on
the coast of Africs, and in the Persian Gulf, stood upon
a very different bask. In the Atlantic it was necessary
to blockade a coast tome thousands of miles in extent;
whereas it was ouly necessary to close the mouth of the
Persian Gulf, and tlin whole of the object was ac-
complished. Tll

Mr. ANSTEY was =ions to explain the way in
which his Hon. and Gallant Friend opposite (Colonel
Thompson) had misunderstood him, but was interrupted
by the impatience of the House, and strangers were
ordered to withdraw. The Hon. Gentleman, however,
declined to:divideithe House, and on our re-admittance to
tho gallery we found him moving the first of the other
amendments of which he bad given notice. None
of these amendments touched the principle of the
Bill, and were only intended to show tho technical
effect of the phraseology of the Bill, and which
was, as explained by Lord Palmerston, proved
to be perfectly consistent with the object of the
Bill. The onlyione of any importance was the following:
—After '° Admiralty,
,in line 8, page 5, to insert, " Pro-
vided always that, in applying so much of the said Act
or Acts as relate to the indicia or evidences of slave
trading, regard shall be had by all such courts respec-
tively to the general habits and customs of the said tribes,
and of their respective countries, with reference to the
build and equipment of ships." He trusted that the Noble
Lord would assent to this amendment.
Lord PALMERSTON said that so far as the mere
build and outward appearance of vessels was concerned
there could be no objection to the motion, nor any
necessity for it eitler. The grand rule in those cli-
mates was, to ascertain whether there was an excess of
food or water on board any vessels for the supply of the
crew, allowing for all contingencies.—(Hear.)
After a few words frrom Captain PECHELL, the
amendment was negatived without a division.
The other amendments were also negatived, and the
Bill was then read a third time and passed.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.—CONSIDER-
ATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that before ho pro-
ceeded with this Bit he would wish the House to have
the benefit of the Speaker's advice as to the course
which should be taken by that House with regard to the
Lord: amendments to this Bill.

The SPEAKER proceeded to state the practice of
the House. The rule was, that the Lords could delibe
rate and propose amendments on any Bill sent up to
them by this House, provided that they did not
interfere with the amount or disposal of any rates, or
with the persons who had to collect such rates. This
rule had been strictly adhered to up to the time of the
passing of the Irish Municipal Bill of 1834, when a con •
siderable infringement of these privileges took place.
The Irish poor-laws cf 1838, and of 1847, also furnished
opportunities for like infringement ; and it was for the
House to consider whether they would consent to accede
to these precedents, and waive their privileges, or
whether they would assert them.

Lord J. RUSSELL did not think that on the ground
of precedent the House was bound to assert its privi-
leges. He thought that the Legislature would be car-
ried on more amicably by the two Houses if this house
consented to waive its privileges in this case, and pro-
ceeded to discuss the amendments which had come down
to them from the other House.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it was with very great
reluctance that he had ventured to differ from his Noble
Friend on a point involving a question of such import-
ance. But he could not discharge his duty conscien-
tiously if he did not state to the House his opinion on
this point ; and in doing so he thought it was right to
endeavour to separate the constitutional question En-
tirely from the merits of the enactment which had come
down from the other House. They had had a declara-
tion from the Speaker what the privileges of
the House were, and on what occasions they had been
interferred with. In the poor-law of 1848, the Lords
entirely changed their area of taxation, and caused the
rates to press heavier upon certain parties. The ques-
tion was now for the House, whether they would consent
to waive their privileges as they had done in the case
cited by the Speaker; but he would ask of them if they
consented to do so, what claim would they after-
wards have to resist the interference of the Lords
in a question of local taxation. It would bo
better, if they decided to waive their privileges
in the present instance, at once to give up all claim to
such a privilege ; for they would never again have a
chance of asserting it. This question was not a new
one ; it had been referred to a Select Com-
mittee of the House last session, and the
opinion of that House had been decidedly
against any relaxation being given to the other House.
Now, did the alterations which had been made in this
Bill, in the whole of the clauses which regulated
the distrainment for arrears of interest and the sale
of estates, justify this House in waving its privi-
leges ? Well, supposing they were to Waive
those ancient and undoubted privileges, were
the Government so sure of their majority in the
other House of Parliament, that they would after all be
sure of carrvirg that Bill for which they were recom-
mended to make so large a sacrifice?—(Hear, hear.) He
had no pers.,nal feeling whatever in the matter; but be-
fore they came to a decision on so imporiant a matter
ho trusted that the Noble Lord would—and he was
sure their object was the same—carefully consider
the result of the proceeding which he was
about to take—(Hear, hear)--or it was his impression
that the privileges which they poL-4esk.cd sl, ()old not be
lightly rfwaiticed when the co:juncture of affaiis was
particularly important.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that there could be no

qUestion whatever as to the importance of waiving the
privileges of the House upon any occasion, especially
upon this. But yet whilst asserting this, and while per-
fectly concurring with the Hon. Gentleman opposite
(Sir j.imes Graham) in the necessity of upholding their
privileges, he still did think that at this particular mo-
ment it was not, in his opinion, either wise or expedient
to assert them so strongly at the present moment.
Lord Canterbury, when he sat in the chair which
the Speaker now occupied, had laid down
the doctrine, that while no secession' should
be made from the ground which they were entitled to
occupy on any matter which concerned money levied
for the public tervice, yet that on questions which merely
affected rates levied in local districts, for local purposes;
they might, without any constitutional danger,-,assent to
alterations which were made in the Lords. Yet he care-
fully guarded against the waiving of any general prin-
ciple, and, therefore, it was that he (Sir G. Grey) was
glad the general motion of the Member for the. University
of theord (Sir R. H. Inglis) had not been adopted. On
the present occasion, therefore, he thought there was no.
danger whatever, and he trusted, therefore, that the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord would be adopted.
After a few words from Mr. F. FRENCH in support
of the motion,
Mr. HENLEY said, that as one of the members of
the Committee he felt bound to say that those alterations
of the Lords would be greatly detrimental to the Bill,
and if they were to waive their privileges now they
would cut the ground altogether from under their feet
for any future opposition to the House of Lords.
Mr. HUME said that as a member of that Committee
ho also felt bound to give his most strenuous opposition
to the motion of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell).
The Lords had reduced the area of taxation, and in
other respects had entirely taken the virtue of the Bill.
Mr. H. GRATTAN raid, that although the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had found fault with the
arrangement which was propost d by the Government,
he had provided no alternative whatever.

Mr. j. O'CONNELL said that, in his opinion, al-
though it was unwise to waive a privilege, which was at
any time inconvenient, it was just now expedient, if not
indispensable for the welfare of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. E. DENISON put it to the Right Hon. Baronet
whether there was any possibility whatever that, when
this House was placed beside the House of Lords, and a
rivalry even occurring between the two Houses, there
was any possibility that this House would have anything
to fear from the encroachments of the House of Lords?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the course which he
should suggest would be to take that precisely which
they had pursued yesterday in their two lastevotee. In
one case they had decide to take the Lords' amend-
ments into consideration that el?), three months—(Hear,
and a laugh)—in the other, that of the Borough B 11, it
had been read a first and second time, committed, read a
third time and passed.—(Great laughter.) That was
precisely the course which he would advise them to put sue.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that the
Borough Bill, was for the purpose of relieving
some boroughs from certain local burdens when they
were subject to peculiar county•rates.—(" Hear, hear,"
from Sir J. Graham.) By an arrangement between the
magistrates of Warwickshire and the authorities of
the borough of Birmingham, the Bill was intro-
duced as a -public Bill after it had been thrown out by
the House of Lords as a private Bill, and that was the
reason why it-was passed so hastily, the object being to
facilitate its course early in the next session.
Mr. V. SMITH totally differed from the whole of the
observations which had been male in favour of waiving
the privileges of the House, and if the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), divided
the House he should certainly vote alorg with him.
Mr. LABOUCHERE would not touch epee the con-
stitutional question; but the Right Hon. Baronet oppo-
site had suggested that the House should follow the
same course as it had done in the case of a Bill intro-
duced with regard to Birmingham. Be must explain
that the cases were quite different. If the House per-
sisted in asserting their privileges, there teas little doubt
but that the Bill would not pass this session.
Mr. SPOONER said that by waiving their privileges
be did not see that any delay would be saved.
The Lords would necessarily have to discuss whatever
amendments this House made, end there would be quite
• as much time taken up.
Mr. SADLEIR should supportZthe Right Hon. Baro-
net (Sir James Graham) if he persisted in a division.
Colonel DUNNE sstd that the question for Irish
Members was, whether for the sake of a few clauses,
they should be content to sacrifice their privileges.
Certainly the whole Bill itself was not worth it, though
the Lords' am( ndments were certainly the best part of it.
Sir D. NORREYS thought that great thanks were due
to the Right Hon. Baronet for having raised this ques •
teon of privileges. He did not think that any great
harm would he done if.this Bill were delayed until next
session. He should propose that there amendments he
discussed this day three months.
Mr. MONSELL would not touch upon the merits of
the Bill before the House, or of the Lords' amendments,
but he thought that if the House was determined to as-
sert its privileges it would be impossible for the Lords
to legislate on poor-laws at all.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the House must now de-
termine whether the House of Lords should interfere
with the poor-law legislation or give it up altogether. If
the House determined to assert its privileges, he should
consider it hopeless,to introduce any measure at all; for he
could not undertake to introduce any Bill which should not
be open to amendment in the House of Lords. As for
himself he thought that the Irish Poor-law did not re-
quire any alteration. He was quite satisfied with it.
Sir J. GRAHAM said it was very difficult to pre-
serve the unanimous working of two branches of Legis-
lature without some little concession being occasionally
made. He, for his part, would much rather come to
something definite akto the privileges of this House than
establish innumerable precedents, because in time the
other branch of the Legislature would assume as a right
the privilege of interfering with local taxation;
they would have to draw a line between
poor-law taxation and other local taxation, and
ho would indeed be a clever man who could do it. And
they must consider that they were asked to surrender
their privileges after the head of the Executive bad told
them that he considered the Irish Poor. law needed no
amendment. He should certain support the amendment
of the Member for Mallow.

Mr. SHAFTO ADAIR :said that his impression
was that the Right Hon. Baronet had quite misunder-
stood the Noble Lord in his supposition as to that Noble
Lord's statement with regard to the poor law of
Ireland: Ile stated his own impression that what
the Noble Lord intended to say was, that
although he was satisfied with the principle of the
Irish Poor-law, yet he believed that its machinery might
be very greatly improved, and that was the reason wl'y
he asked them to agree to the amendments of the Lords.
And would they then interpose a vain plea of privilege
to intercept that advantage which the Bill was ►ikely to
produce to the country? Let,them remember that while
they were talking of privilege, there were parties for
whose benefit these privileges were sustained, and
whilst they were talking those parties were suffering.
Mr. H. GR ATTAN said that ho never up to that
moment felt the benefit of holding his tongue.—
(Laughter.) Why the Noble Lord had cut all their
throats.—(Renewed laughter.) Ho had intended to
have , given, if not his vote, at least a gentle
opposition to the Government, but here, after five months
of legislation, they were told that the Irish poor-law
required no amendment. It was evident that they had
all been bamboozled, and that the whole of this matter
was a mere pretence—(Hear)—and he should give to
the motion his moat strenuous opposition.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained that he had intended
to speak in accordance with the view of Mr. Shaft° Adair.
Mr. lIUME said that they, the Members of the House
of Commons, were the representatives of :the nation,
while the House of Lords only represented themselves,
and if either House gave way in a collision it ought to be
the House of Lords.

Sir J. WALMSLEY said that if there was any dif-
ficulty in the two Houses working harmoniously toge-
ther, it was evident that that House required a reform,
and a very great reform too; and be trusted that the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would persevere
with his motion. He should certainly vote with him.
Sir H. W. BARRON said, that if the views of the
Honourable Member for Montrose were to be adopted,
it was a mockery altogether to send a Bill respecting
poor rates up to the House of Lords at all, and by far
the better principle would be to adopt a resolution not to
send those Bills up at all.—(Hear.)
Sir J. YOUNG said, that, in his opinion, the idea 'of
the encroachments of the Lords was a perfect chimera.
The Members of the House of Lords were,in his opinion,
from their position both as legislators and as large land
owners, more fitted to deal with this question than the
House of Commors—(llear, hat)
Mr. HORSMAN said that it appeared by the Noble
Lord's declaration that atter five month's legislation they
were called upon, for a supposed advantage, to give up
a great and important privilege. If there were to be a
large advantage to be gained by this waiver, he would
be one of the first to assent to it.—(Hear, hear.) Such,
however, according to the intimation of the Noble
Lord, was not the case. They had had a tub thrown
to them,. and a tub had been thrown to the Committee
up-stair; and they had been amused during the, whole of
these months' discussion for nothing..
The House then divided, when there appeared :
For the considerationof the Lords'Amendments 111
Against it... ... ... 62

-49

Majerity for the Government
The House then adjourned till Half•past Six o'clock.

THE LONDON GAZETTE.

(THIS EVENING.)

WHITEHALL, JULY 26, 1549.

The Queen has been pleased to appoint the Right
Hon. Sir James Stephen, K C. 8., to be Professor of
Modern History in the University of Cambridge, in the
room of William Smyth, EA.i.
CROWN-OFFIOE, JULY 27.

Member returned to servo in this I,N6eat Parliament.
City of London—The Right Ifouourable Sir James
Duke, Knt., Mayor cf the laid city of London, in the
room of James Paulson, ,de sed,
WAR•OFFICE, jimY 27.

Ist Regiment of Foot—Staff Assistomt-Surgeon Ed-
ward Burrows Sinclair to be Atsistant•Surgeon, vice
Hoskin, who exclAr.ngcs, July 27.

4th liegiment of F'oet—Cap'.ain Henry Balguy, from
the 6th Foot, to be Captain, vice Bellingham, who ex-
changes, JOY 27-
Gth Regiment of Foot—Captain Williact Bellingham,
from the 4th Foot, to be Captain, vice Balguy, who ex-
changes, July- 27.
13. h Foot—Lieutenant George Wale to ho Captain,
without purchase, vice Brevet-Major Fenwick, deceased;
Ensign Edward Lynch to be Lieutenant, vice Wade;
Lieutenant Gerald litzGerald King to be Adjutant., vice
Wade, July ] 5.

26th Foot—Lieutenant Frederick Torrens Lyster,
from the 50th Fo -it, to be Lieutenant, vice Park, pro-
moted, July 27.
38th Foot—Captain John Mellis Nairne, from half-
pay, Unattached, to be Captain, vice Valentine Fredvrick
Story, who exchanges; Lieutenant Robert Charles Sin-
clair to be Captain, by purchase, vice Nairne, who re•
tires; Ensign Charles Edward Johns to be Lieutenant,
by purchase, vice Sinclair; Corbett Edwards, Gent. to be
Ensign, by purchase, vice Johns. July 27.
48th Foot—Lieut. Robert Blakeney, from the 75th
Foot, to ha Lieutenant, vice Fetherstonhaugh, appointed
Paymaster of the 59th Foot, July 27. .
53d Foot—Captain Thomas James Castieau, from half-
pay Unattached, to be Captain, vice Brevet-Major
Charles :Frederick Havelock, who exchanges, receiving
the flifference; Lieut. John Shiffner to be Captain, by
purchase, vice Castieau, who retires, July 27.,
62nd Foot—Ensign Richard Augustus Wood to be
superseded fur having absented himself without leave,
July 27.
69th Foot— Quarter• Master Serjeant Michael Clinton
to be Quarter-Master, vice James Hollis, who retires
upon half cay, July 27.
75th Foot—Lieutenant Robert Carter Bamford, from
half•pay of the 59th Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Blake-
ney, appointed to the 48th Foot, July 27.
77th Foot—Captain Alfred Rush, from half-pay Un-
attached, to be Captain, vice Brevet-Major William
Jonathan Clerke, 'who exchanges, receiving the differ-
ence, July 27.

86th Foot—Ensign Edward Leet to be Lieutenant, by
purchase, vice Ellison, who retires ; Ensign William
Henry Bennett, from the 46th Foot, to be Ensign, vice
Leet, July 27.

Royal Canadian Riff) Regiment—Ensign Henry
George Augustus Powell to be Lieutenant, without par-
ch:lse, vice Lloyd, appointed to the 7th Foot, July 27. '
HOSPITAL STAFF.—Assistant-Surgeon .William Thos.
Hoskin, M D., from the Ist Foot, to be Assistant-
Surgeon to the Forces, vice Sinclair, who exchanges,
July 27.