The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-11 00:00:00

THE BALLOT.

Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice that when Lord J.
Russell's amendment to the Government Reform Bill was
brought forward he would avail himself of that opportunity
to bring forward the question of the ballot, in order that it
might receive full discussion.
ALLEGED PARTICIPATION IN THE PROFITS
OF PIRACY.
In reply to Mr. RIDLEY,
Sir E. B. LYTTON said that a commission had been
appointed to inquire into the charges against Mr. Caldwell
for a participation in the profits of piracy at Hong Kong,
and the despatch which had been received fully acquitted
that gentleman. During the trial of the Queen v.
William Tarrant, which took place at Hong Kong,
in which it was sworn that certain papers im-
plicating Mr. Caldwell had been destroyed by order of
Dr. Bridges, something had transpired that induced the
Government to suspend Mr. Chisholm Anstey, the Attor-
ney-General of the colony. Dr. Bridges was not in the
colonial service at present, and therefore Government had
no control over him. Sir John Bowring's tenure of office had
expired, and he had given directions to his successor to in-
stitute an inquiry into the conduct of the government officials
at Hong Kong, amongst whom it appeared that there was
a great laxity in the discharge of their duty.

THE NEW RIFLED CANNON.
Sir DE LACY EVANS asked the Secretary of State
for War, whether it was the fact that only 250 of the ap-
proved new rifled cannon were at present ordered or expected
to be constructed within the current year; and, if
so, whether this arrang-ementwasnotinadequate to the pre-
sent wants of the Army and Navy and to the present aspect
of European affairs ; and whether it would not be practica-
ble and more advisable for the Government to afford Sir
William Armstrong greater proportional means of con-
struction, whereby he might be enabled to provide the
country, within a short period, with a far greater number
of these national defences ?

The SECRETARY for WAR not being present no answer
was returned to the question.
THE MAGISTRACY OF THE COUNTY OF
HUNTINGDON.

On the motion that the house on its rising do adjourn
until Monday, •
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department if he could explain the cause of the recent
large additionto themagistracy of the county ofHuntingdon.
It appeared that there were,rore magistrates in that county
than policemen. Recently there had been added to the list
of the magistrates in Huntingdon no less than six, of whom
two were civilians and four clergymen. In the selection several
gentlemen of liberal politics and high respectability had
been passed over, and persons who did not occupy the same
position appointed. One of the gentlemen was a brewer who
had public-houses in every village of the county, and a
question might arise as to whether he was an eligible per-
son to sit on the bench when questions relating to licenses
were brought before the consideration of the magistrates.
Some were of opinion that these appointments were made
on political grounds, and it was desirable that information
should bp afforded to the public on the subject.
Mr. S; ESTCOURT said that he had not been able to
obtain information from the lord lieutenant of the county
with respect to these appointments, but he had applied
to the Lord Chancellor, and, so far as he could
understand, the gentlemen were very well qualified
to fill the office of magistrate, both from position and local
knowledge. The hon. member was incorrect in his state-
ment with reference to the last six appointments, for they
included three laymen. It was natural for the lord-
lieutenant of the county to give the preference
to persons of his own political sentiments in his
selection for the magistracy, a practice that prevailed in
every part of the kingdom. He did not know whether the
magistrates in Huntingdon exceeded the number of police-
men in the locality, but if they did it was not an unusual
circumstance. The magistrates for the county were
33 in number, and he believed that all their services
were required. With regard to one of the gentleman being
a brewer, any improper influence on his part with reference
to licensing was provided against by act of Parliament,
as he was not entitled to take a part in the magesterial
proceedings where his business interests were concerned.
After a few remarks from General PEEL and Mr. FEL-
LOWES who vindicated the appointments in question, and
denied that they all took part against the Liberal candi-
dates,
Sir J. WALSH denied the accuracy of the statement of
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Estcourt) that lord
tenants throughout the country were influenced in the
magisterial appointments by political motives.
After a few words from Sir J. PAKINOTON the subject
dropped.