The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-04 00:00:00

WEB SUS, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY di, MO,

" Page 6, line 1, after respectively,' insert 'provided
always that such special rules shall be suspended in the
manner provided in the fifteenth section of this act, for the
period of fourteen days, before the same are transmitted to
the Secretary of State.' "
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CLIVE moved the following amendment :
" rage 7, line 3, leave out after accordingly' down to and
including established' in page 8, line 4, and insert in
case of the death, incapacity, or refusal or neglect to act of
any arbitrator under this Act, another arbitrator shall be
appointed in his place."
The clause with the amendment was agreed to.
On clause 20,

Mr. CROOK moved the following amendment :—" Line
39, leave out serious ;' and after injury,' insert which
shall be of such a nature as shall have prevented the per-
son or persons injured from returning to his or their work
at such mino or colliery before nino of the clock in the
morning of the next following working day."
The amendment was adopted, and the clause as amended
was agreed to.

Mr. SULLIVAN moved that the chairman report pro-
gress, as it had been u derstood from the Government yes-
terday that the Irish Tenure and Improvement Land bill
should come on first to-day.
Mr. ROEBUCK protested against this course being
adopted. This was a private day, and the Government had
no power to make such an arrangement.

Mr. CARDWELL stated that an endeavour had been
made to induce the gentlemen interested in the bill now un-
der consideration to postpone it, but without success, as
there were a large number of gentlemen in town waiting
to see it disposed of.
Mr. SULLIVAN withdrew his motion.

Mr. VIVIAN moved an amendment, the operation of
which was to make the operation of the bill perpetual, in-
stead of limiting it to five years.
After some discussion the motion was agreed to.
The remainding clauses of the bill were agreed to with
verbal amendments.
Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN moved the introduction of an
amendment in the preamble making the provisions of this
act applicable to limestone pits.
The amendment was negatived.
The bill was reported with amendments to the house.

INCREASE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND

(IRELAND) BILL.

The house went into committee for the further considera
tion of this bill. The clauses from 38 to the conclusion of
the bill were agreed to with verbal amendments.
The CHAIRMAN reported the bill with amendments.
The remaining orders of the day were then postponed.

fair thing that these old offices, having taken their promo-
tion at the time they did, should find themselves no better
off when they arrived at the rank of general officers.
Mr. S. HERBERT would entirely assent to what the
hon and gallant gentleman had laid down, assuming this
to be a question of bargain. If a bargain had been made,
it ought not to be set aside ; and if justice required that
these officers should have this increase of pay, they ought
to have it. The amount involved *as not such as to cause
any difficulty, for it was only the dif&rence between paying
9s. 6d. a day and 255. a day to seven old_officers. There
was no consideration, therefore, which could bias his mind
upon this case, except his sense of duty, and the fact that
upon examining the claim, he did not think it was justified
by the facts. The hon. and gallant officer had said that
these officers went on half-pay fof the benefit of the ser-
vice; but he (Mr. S. Herbert) did not see what that had to
do with the matter. Of course it was optional for them to
accept that arrangement, and when they accepted it they
did so, not for the sake of service, but for their own sake.
They went on half-pay, receiving at the same time a step
of rank ; they had been brevet majors, and they became sub-
stantive majors. An example of this had occurred of late
years, when some officers, NI ho had got brevet rank for ser-
vices in the Crimea, accepted the substantive rank of majer
instead, and thought it was a good bargain for them to go on
half-pay with that step,expecting of course to exchange back
on full pay,and so realise the benefit of it. But they did so at a
time when the lists were full, and the small room for promotion

that existed made it difficult for them to get back. The
old officers referred to in this motion had made a more ad-
vantageous arrangement, for whilst they went on half-pay
at their own request, they were not to suffer tho disadvan-
tages attached to half••pay with regard to the provision for
widows. It might be said they were not married men at
that time, but they were not then too old to have wives,
who would be entitled to pensions. The rule had been laid
down that no man was to be deemed fit to rise to be a
general officer, with certain advantages, unless ho had
served six years as a rank and file officer; and a man
could not become a colonel unless he had served a certain
reriod as a lieutenant-colonel. It was to ensure the effi-
ciency of the higher rank of officers that these rules were
made. But it was now proposed to make an exception in
the case of these half pay officers, who had never served
since 1826. For these reasons, acting on the best judgment
he could form, he had declined to accede to their request;
and now, with regard to the hon. and gallant gentleman's
motion, he would frankly say that he did not think the
House of Commons was a proper tribunal to decide this
question.

General PEEL said that for his own part his judgment
was quite as free from bias in this matter as that of the
right hon. gentleman. He had never known these officers
or heard of any of them until their case was brought before
him when he held office. But ho had no doubt whatever
that they were entitled to be placed in the same position as
that in which they h id reasonably imagined they would be
placed. He thought it would be far better to let the officers
have the committee they asked for. It was a bad bargain
for the country, but they ought to keep it.
Colonel SYKES said it appeared to him that Government
had not kept faith with these officers. A good case required
only a plain and complete statement, and the very elabo-
rateness of the argument of the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
S. Herbert) showed that his case was a bad one, If the
gallant colonel pressed his motion he should go into the
lobby with him.
Colonel DUNNE was always unwilling to submit a mili-
tary question to a select committee of that house ; but as
the present and the late Secretary for War had given diffe-
rent opinions, what were they to do ?
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority --11

The announcement of the numbers was received with
cheers by the Opposition.
CADETSIIIPS IN THE ROYAL NAVY.

Captain ESMONDE moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the present system of nominations for cadetships
in the Royal navy. He said he believed there was a general
impression in the country that her Majesty's navy was in a
great degree, and especially as regarded the middle classes,
a sort of close borough. He believed that there was not
sufficient publicity attached to the nominations. A hon.
friend of his moved at the commencement of the session for
a return of all nominations to cadetships to the Royal navy
from 1821 to 1859, showing by whom they were made, and
from that return it appeared that the whole number of no-
minations was 1,019, of which 12 were by the colonies, 14
by the Royal Naval School, 248 by flag officers, and there
remain9cl 745 to be accounted for, they being made by the
board. Ho by no means asserted that there was any abuse.
If there were no abuse there was no reason why the com-
mittee should not be granted, and if there were an abuse
the committee would discover it, He had a precedent for
the course he was taking. At the commencement of this
session the member for King's County moved for a com-
mittee to inquire into the present mode of nominating and
examining candidates for appointment to the civil service.
The Secretary for the Treasury opposed it, but said he
wished it to be distinctly understood that Government
opposed it because the inquiry was premature. That did
not apply to the system of appointing cadetships. The
hon. member for Sheffield said the object was to find
out what the system was, and the noble lord at the head
of the Government thereupon said he had no objection to
the appointment of the committee. His object was precisely
the same, and he trusted, therefore, that the committee
would not be refused.
Lord C. PAGET said he had heard no complaint of the
present system of nominations. Many gentlemen had asked
him, and he had told them how nominations were made.
He believed the Admiralty had always been ready to con-
sider the claims of officers and others who were solicitous
to get appointments for candidates. He was quite aware
that the opening of the nominations of cadetships had a
great many things to recommend it, and he was bound to
admit that he himself had brought the matter before the
house. He believed it would be advisable if by some means
or other a system of limited competition for nominations
should be introduced into tiaeWvy. He bad thought a
great deal over the matter, as had 'the Board of Admiralty,
and it was attended with considerable difficulty. If they
were to have competition, it was necessary, of course, that
they should have a very high class of education. They
knew very well that an examination of a parcel of boys 12
years of ago in arithmetic was no test of what a boy would
come to in after life. The Duke of Somerset had intro-
duced competition in the appointment of cadets to the
marines, and if it should succeed there they might consider
whether that system could not be applied to naval cadets.
P9tiVrer,arci to the engineering department also the Board
drAfainirralltYy had issued a regulation that there should bo
a competitive examination of the factory boys. There were
many inconveniences attending a competitive examination
of candidates. How should they, for instance, with such a
system, deal with the claims of the colonies for cadetships ?
Were they to have half-a-dozen boys sent from Australia or
Canada for examination, one of whom might be successful,
and the remainder have to be sent back disappointed ? Now
with regard to the claims of old officers, the only boon
held out to them was the hope of putting their sons into
the navy ; and would it not be a hard ease that they should
be excluded from direct nomination ? That would be a
great act of injustice towards those officers, and a great act
of impolicy. The proportion of naval cadets who were
nominated by old officers was three-fourths. He did not
think that the gallant officer had made out anyctfse for in-
quiry. So far as regarded the patronage, if he were to con-
sult his own feelings, he shoull be glad to get rid of it, He
(the noble lord) was satisfied that no committee that the
house could appoint could deal with the subject so well as
the department to which it naturally belonged, and he hoped
therefore that the motion would be rejected.
Mr. LINDSAY found from a return which had been
placed in his hand that out of 1,019 nominations between
the year 1854-9, only 12 had been bestowed on young men
from the colonies. The argument of the noble lord on that
score did not therefore amount to much. lle (Mr. Lindsay)
had never asked for but one appointment, and that was for
a san of General Niel. It was refused him, but at the re-
quest of Mrs. Niel he repeated his application. It met with
the same result, and he would never ask for another nomi-
union. He perceived that of the 1,019 nominations 745
had been distributed by the board, and he should like to
know on what principle they acted ?
Lord C. PAGET—Three-fourths of them were service
claims for merit,

Mr. LINDSAY nevortholess thought that the explana-
tion which the noble lord had given was unsatisfactory,

- -
and if no better one was offered ho should Yote for the
inquiry.

Mr. TAYLOR also supported the motion.
Mr. WHITBREAD said that the object of the proposed
inquiry was merely to ascertain what the existing system
was, and not because any case had been made out against
it. It was not pretended that the appointments were jobbed
away, or that the boys who received them were not the sort
of boys who ought to have them. Before the hon. and
gallant gentleman asked the house to, agree to his motion
he ought surely to have sketched out some better plan than
the oneJhat already existed.
Mr. LOCKE said it was very well to have a list of can-
didates, but what the house wanted to know was on what
principle persons were taken off it to receive the appoint-
ments. The Government could have no objection to
the motion if their system was straightforWard and above-
board.
Mr. BEAMISH expressed a similar opinion.
Sir F. BARING said it was quite without precedent to
ask for an inquiry without first making out some case to
justify an examination into the practice of the Executive
Government ; but he (the right hon. baronet) had not yet
heard a single word to explain what the object of the com-
mittee really was. If the house wanted any information as
to the number of appointments given to the sons of naval
or military, or India officers, they could easily obtain it by
moving for returns ; and he (the right hon. baronet) had no
hesitation in saying that those officers might obtain appoint-
ments for their sons without any interest whatever beyond
their services. Of course cases might occur of the failure of
an application; but it was obvious that that must neces-
sarily happen if it was made at a time when the list was
already crowded with good claims. He for ono could cer-
tainly could not agree that the appointments should be re-
served for the sous of officers only ; for he thought it would

be a treat evil to shut the door against tho admission of
civilians.
The house then divided

Ayes

NOcs

81-57
LIEN FOR PREIGLIT.

Mr. M. GIBSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to faci-
litate the unshipinent of goods, and secure the shipowners'
lien for freight.
MANCHESTER CATHEDRAL CHURCH BILL.
Mr. MASSEY obtained leave to bring in a bill to enable
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England to apply cer •
thin funds towards the repairs of the cathedral church of
Manchester.

The first order of the day was then called, and the house
resolved itself into a committee on the Attorneys and Soli-
citors' Bill, when an hon. member moved that numbers be
taken, and Mr. Massey, the chairman of the committees,
having counted the committee found the number present to
be 33. The chairman then vacated the chair, and the
Speaker having re-entered the house again took the num-
bers, and finding them to be 34 only, the house immedi-
ately adjourned at a quarter past eight.

=
:THE PACKET SERVICE COMMITTEE.

The following is the supplemental report in re-
ference to the Galway contract :
" 1. Since their first report was presented to the
house, your committee have been compelled to re•
sume their inquiries into the matter of the Galway
subsidy, in consequence of a document having been
transmitted to the chairman, a document purport-
ing to be a copy of an agreement for the payment
of a large sum of money for procuring that subsidy
in the event of its being obtained. The result of
these inquiries your committee now lay before the
house.

" 2. It appears that in the month of March pre-
ceding the sailing from Galway (June 19, 1858)
of the Indian Empire, the first vessel of the
Lever line of packets, Mr. Lever became ac-
quainted with Mr. George O'Malley Irwin,
a member of the Irish bar, who was a native of the
county of Galway. Mr. Irwin professed great in-
terest in the success of Mr. Lever's undertaking,
and on the 19th of May, 1838, Mr. Lever addressed
to him a letter, in which, after offering to make
him a present f £5OO on obtaining a specified sub-
sidy from the Government and the Midland Great
Western Railway of Ireland, for the trial trip of
the Indian Empire, he adds—' I also wish to say
that if you obtain me a subsidy of £150,000 per
annum for the conveyance of the United States
mails to and from this country, I will present you
with a sum of £lO,OOO in addition.' _ _

" 3. This undertaking was subsequently reduced
into the form of a regular agreement, to which Mr.
Thomas Knox Holmes, member of a firm carrying
on business as parliamentary agents in Westmin-
ster, was admitted as a party jointly with Mr.
Irwin.

"4. The original of that deed, executed on the
2d of June, 1858, was produced to the committee.
By this deed, which is printed in the evidence,
Messrs. Irwin and Holmes, ' on the one part, under-
take to use their best efforts, and to exert all their
influence with their friends and others in order to
promote a subsidy from the Government, or from
any persons having the power to obtain or grant
such subsidy from the Government in favour of the
said John Orrell Lever, in the matter of his pro-
jected undertaking for establishing steamboat com-
munication between Galway and America ; and in
the event of such subsidy being obtained, the said
John Orrell Lever on the other hand undertakes
to pay to them, the said George O'Malley Irwin
and Thomas Knox Holmes, at the time the same is
obtained, the following sums of money,' namely,
£lO,OOO if the subsidy were £172,840 (the amount
anticipated, on the same footing with the Cunard
contract, if a weekly service were fixed on), or a
corresponding proportionate sum if the subsidy
were less or more on that amount. The sum was
to be payable on the joint receipt of Messrs. Irwin
and Holmes, and the agreement was to be binding
on Mr. Lever, though he should at any time ' part
with or assign his interest in the undertaking to a
company or otherwise.'
" 5. A corresponding agreement as to the subsidy
for the trial trip of the Indian Empire was exe-
cuted at the same time.

"6. Some time after the Galway contract had
been granted, at a yearly subsidy of £78,000, for a
fortnightly service, Mr, Lever not having made
any payment to Messrs. Irwin and Holmes, a suit
was instituted against him for payment of £5360, as
the sum proportioned to that subsidy due under the
agreement. This action, though originally raised on
the sole instructions of Mr. Irwin, was afterwards
authorised by Mr. Holmes.
" 7. In defence, Mr. Lever put in a plea of fraud,
to the effect that he had been induced to enter into
the agreement by false and fraudulent representa-
tions on the part of the plaintiffs ; and under an
order of the judge a statement of particulars of
fraud' was lodged, setting forth that Messrs. Irwin
and Holmes had falsely and fraudulently repre-
sented themselves to have great influence with
members of the Government and other persons,
which would be of service in procuring the con-
tract, on the faith of which representation he had
undertaken to pay the money stipulated for in the
agreement.

"8. This action was set down for trial, first, on
the 31 of February last, and again on the 14th
inst. ; but on both occasions it was withdrawn,
contrary to the remonstrances of Mr. Irwin, by the
instructions of Mr. Holmes, on the ground, as stated
by him in his evidence, of anticipated legal difficul-
ties, till the Galway packet contract should have
been approved of by Parliament. The suit is still
undischarged.
"9. A separate action has been raised by Mr.
Irwin individually against Mr. Lever, not founded
on the deeds of agreement above-mentioned, as to
procuring a subsidy (although these were produced
at the trial), but for alleged services in the forma-
tion of the company. This action was tried on the
12th inst., when a verdict of £l,OOO was found
against Mr. Lever. Your committee have obtained
short-hand notes of the trial, and they desire
to call the attention of the house to following
observations of the Lord Chief Baron, before whom
it took place I very much doubt whether
any action had is maintainable at all, in point of
law, in respect of services of this sort. I do not un-
derstand what is meant by a man's selling his sup-
posed interest with any member of Parliament or
any member of the Government, In point of law it
appears to me to be a temptation to corrupt prac-
tices. These very bargains would lead to all pos-
sible mischief in public and political life.'
" 10. Messrs. Irwin and Holmes deny that any
false or fraudulent representations were made by
them to Mr. Lever, and there seems to your com-
mittee no ground for supposing that any corrupt
means were resorted to by them in carrying out
their part of the agreement; but undoubtedly the
largeness of the sum stipulated, together with the
fact of its payment being made conditional on suc-
cess, and the nature of the plea stated in defence,
appear to your committee to lead to the inference
that the exertion of undue influence could not have
been excluded from Mr. Lever's view when ho en-
tered into it.
" 11. However that may be, your committee are
at all events clearly of opinion that that agreement
is in itself deserving of the strongest reprobation ;
and that the allowance of such undertakings would
present a temptation to corrupt practices, and open
a door to evils most injurious to the public service.
" 12. If, therefore, Mr. Lever, who entered into
this agreement, were himself the contractor under
the Galway contract, your committee could not
doubt that the house should withhold the moneys
necessary for carrying it into effect. The case, how-
ever, does not present itself in that simple form.
At the time when the agreement of 2d June, 1858,
was entered into, Mr. Lever was substantially the
owner of the Galwav line ; but the company which
he was then engaged in forming, and associating
with himself and his immediate friends, was not
actually constituted till the September following,
when the articles of copartnery were executed,
and the first directors thereby appointed, these
articles being subscribed by seven individuals,
holding 7,150 shires, of which Mr. Lever
held 5,000 ; since then many new shareholders
have become proprietors in the company.
Mr. Lever now holds shares to the amount
'if about one-fourth of the whole stock, and he has
been throughout, as he is now, one of the directors.
The company took over from him, at prices agreed
ow, the vessels held by him; and besides 250 free
shares presented to him in consideration of his per-
sonal services in getting up the company, they al-
lowed him a sum of £27,700 for his 'interest in the
line, concessions, privileges at ports,' &c., which
sum does not include preliminary expenses,' for
which a sepirate charge of £13,901 is entered in
the company's balance-sheet. The board of direc-
tors, however, do not appear to have been aware
of the transaction between Mr. Lever and Messrs.
Holmes and Irwin, and they have goneTorwarcl in
making preparations for the performance of their
part of the contract under which, on the requisition
of the Government, the first vessel is to sail on the
26th of the present month.
"Your committee have thus stated the facts
which been proven on their further inquiry. Of
these facts they were ignorant when they made the
recommendation contained in their former report ;
but having now set forth the whole case, they deem
it most advisable to leave the decision entirely
to the judgment of the house, without suggesting
any opinion of their own."

. -
In consequence of the •recent failures there was
nearly a total suspension of business in the Leadenhall
leather market yesterday. Market hides declined 30 to 40
per cent, 1
.. .

P AI2LL4MI?N2 Al Y CO ittAIIiTEES:

EMBANKMENT OF THE THAMES.
This committee met again yesterday—Sir Joseph
Paxton in the chair.

Mr. Scott, City Criamberlaiti,who had been exa-
mined on a former day, was again called, lie pro-
duced three Acts of Parliament, of the present
reign, empowering the corporation of London to
borrow £300,000 fbr making certain improvements
in the city of London, including Now Cannon-
street. The coal duties were not specifically men-
tioned in any of these acts. The rental of land
belonging to the corporation in the City was
£lOO,OOO per annum, about, £40,000 of which was
leasehold property, which would expire in seven
years, so that their permanent, income might be set
down at £60,000. Since 1832 the corporation had
paid £302,480, which went to the credit of the
coal meters, whose employment was destroyed by
Parliament, and the corporation undertook to pen-
sion them in order that the experiment of weighing
coal might he tried. The expenditure of the cor-
poration was somewhat as follows in round figures :
—Magistrates, about £7,000 ; police, between
£9,000 and £lO,OOO, one-fourth of which was paid
by the City, and the remainder out of the Consoli-
dated Fund ; prisons, £6,000 ; Holloway Prison,
£5,700 ; Debtors' Prison, £5,400; administration
of criminal justice, about £8,000; coroner, £BOO ;
Lord Mayor, Mansion-house, sheriffs, keeping up
Guildhall, printing and stationery, ut £5,000,
which, with some other items, made a total expen-
diture of about £BO,OOO a-year.
Mr, Alderman Cubitt—ln addition to this animal
expenditure, the corporation had, during the last
twenty years, laid out very large sums of money ;
£92,000 for the new prison at Holloway, a portion
of which- was paid off recently. They had
also paid £B,OOO for the Debtors' Prison, and
for the iiew civil courts probably £lO,OOO
(which were for the benefit of the whole
.country) ; and during the last ten years they had
expended £11,600 a-year on metropolitan improve-
ments—that is, in the improvement of streets still
going on in conjunction with the Office of Works.
The contribution of £200,000 to the fund for the

construction of the Metropolitan Railway was made
by the corporation with the view of restoring •the
value of their property in the neighbourhood of
New Victoria-street, in Smithfield, and in the
neighbourhood of the old Fleet Prison, and he felt
convinced the outlay would be remunerative.
The Chairman requested the witness to furnish
the committee with the estimated value of the pro-
perty to:which he referred.
Witness said he was prepared to give the com-
mittee all the information in his power, and was
proceeding to reply to the question put by the
chairman, when

Mr. Alderman Cubitt objected, saying he was at
a loss to know what this committee, sitting on the
question of the embankment of the Thames, had to
do with an inquiry into the property of the cor-
poration of London.
The room was ordered to be cleared, and when
the public were again admitted no decision on the
point was announced ; but
Mr. Scott was recalled, and in reply to the chair-
man, stated that the corporation were very favour-
able to an embankment of the Thames, and twenty
years ago they had originated a plan for the em-
bankment of both sides of the river.
Mr. Penrose, architect and surveyor to the dean
and chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral, was next
examined. He described the nature and character
of the strata on which the construction of the
sacred edifice rested. He did not apprehend any
danger from the sewer proposed to be carried near
the cathedral, supposing proper care and caution
were used in the construction. An open cutting
would be highly dangerous and objectionable.
Mr. Perry, a vestryman of St. Luke, Chelsea,
was next examined at considerable length in re-
ference to the efforts which had been made by that
parish to secure an embankment of the river from
Battersea-bridge to Vauxhall-bridge.
The committee then adjourned.