The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-16 00:00:00

BURY,

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he had to ask a question, and
in order to do so formally, he would move that the house at
its rising do adjourn till Monday. It appeared that five
magistrates had been appointed by the Lord Chancellor for
the borough of Newbury in opposition to the wish of the
municipal body, three of whom were Conservatives and two
Liberals.
MAGISTRATES FOR THE CITY OF HEREFORD.
Colonel CLIFFORD asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whether he had received any subsequent
information which would enable him to qualify the state..
ment ha had made the other eveninc, as to a public meeting,
alleged to have been held in Hereford, previously to the
recent appointment of magistrates in that city, and if not,
whether he would state his authority for the same ? and
called the attention of the house thereto.
Mr. SECRETARY ESTCOURT said, in reference to
the question of the hon. member for Finsbury, the Lord
Chancellor had been informed by the Recorder of
Newbury that additional magistrates were required for
the borough of Newbury, and that he had applied to the
town council for that borough for the names of per-
sons to supply that deficiency ; but they could not agree as
to whom they should nominate, and they replied that
no additional magistrates were required. The Recorder of
Newbury again applied, and the appointments were then
made. With respect to the question put by the hon. and
gallant member (Col. Cliffold), he held in his hand letters
to the effect that meetings were held in Hereford such as ,
he had previously described; but if it could be proved to
him that the statement was incorrect, he would be most
happy to make the atonement necessary.
After some conversation the subject dropped.
GOODS IMPORTED INTO INDIA.

Lord Duncan, Mr. Hadfield, and Mr. Wilson put ques•
tions to the Secretary of State for India on this subject.

INDIAN ARTILLERY AND ENGINEERS.

Colonel KINGSCOTE asked the Secretary of State for
India whether it was the intention of Government, now
that the commissioned ranks of her Majesty's Indian
artillery and engineers had been so fully assimilated in
other respects to those branches of the army at home, to
complete the uniformity extending to the retired field officers
the privilege enjoyed by those of the royal artillery and
engineers, of not allowing them to be superseded (in rank)
by their brother officers who remained on the effective
strength of their corps.

THE TROOPS AT TRINIDAD!
Sir DE LACY EVANS asked the Secretary of State for
War by whose authority, and for what reasons, the detach-
ment of the 41st Regiment at Trinidad) which had been
moved out of barracks into camp, on account of the mor-
tality and disease which had occurred in the former, were
subsequently ordered back into barracks, where the severe
losses they had previously been exposed to were mnewed.
THE DISTURBANCES AT TRAVANCORE.
Mr. KINNAIRD asked the Secretary of State for India
whether he had received the papers in reference to the
recent disturbances at Travancore, and whether he would
lay the same on the table. He took the opportunity of
vindicating the conduct of Sir John Lawrence from some
imputations that had been thrown on it by an hon.
member of that house.

Mr. V. SMITH, as the member alluded to, said that he
had stated nothing which he intended to be detrimental to
the reputation of the gallant officer in question. His state•
meat was made on the authority of papers presented to the
house, but the denial of the accuracy of what
appeared in those various papers was quite
sufficient to satisfy any one in the Government. But even
admitting that the sources were correct, his remarks on a
former occasion could not be considered to reflect on the
conduct of Sir John Lawrence in reference to what
he had alluded on the occasion in question, for that con-
duct might have been distinguished by great ability.
THE STAMP DUTY TO BE PAID BY SECRE-
TARIES' OF STATE.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS asked the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer whether, according to his promise, he had obtained
the opinion of Mr. Attorney General respecting the legality
of the Earl of Malmesbury refusing to pay the £2OO stamp
duty required by the Act 55 Geo. 111., c. 184, to be paid on
the patent of appointment to the office of Secretary of State?
He understood that other Secretaries of State for War had
paid that duty, and he could not see why the noble lord
who occupied that station had not paid for his patent. His
not doing so was a violation of the law, and it was setting a
bad example, for a noble lord who had £5OOO a year, not
to pay £2OO, which his predecessors had paid.

INDIA.
Lord STANLEY rose to answer the somewhat miscella-
neous questions which had been put to him in the course of
this discussion. In the first place he would refer to what
had been stated by Mr. Kin . aird with reference to the delay
which that hon. gentleman complained occurred with refe-
rence to the transmission of official intelligence. There
were two reasons for that delay. In the first place it arose
out of the very nature of official communications. It was
hardlypossible that official communications could be received
in the same time as private communications. A private col.-
respondent, or the correspondent of a public journal, did not
write under anyofficial responsibility, he took his facts from
their current rumour. But as official communication was
made under a grave responsibility, it was necessarily requi-
site that the party making it should not do so without due
consideration. But, further, it frequently happened that
those communications had reference to local questions, and
in such case further time was taken up in referring to the
locality to which they had relation. With regard to the
alleged disturbance at Travancore, to which the hon gentle-
man especially referred, he had not received any official com •
munication. Ile had seen several accounts relating to that
r air, all of them varying much in their statements of the
'acts.
would The hon
The
Supposing those facts were of a certain nature.
answer
of for
_,,w lace must say, in all courtesy to the hon. member and
cw'enmveuisrct to the house, that it was not consistent with
which, on the him to answer such a question. The only
aware
of
thelifa.
the could give was this, that when he was
and in answerltcl:ettr
ts then he would say what was the course
Ptart of the Government, ought to be followed.
He would ne
kV that
t,o the statement of Colonel Kingscote;
itestion of the hon. and gallant mem-
ber he must
vernment to take 4.,_ was not the intention of he Go-
It
details to state the
It would take him"'"Cps to which his question alluded.
oo long a discussion of profes-
vernment based their resolve upon upon which their Go-
Govern and gallant raeraeberlle could, however, assure
eettaird the house that the
ment had maturely
anered the question. The
next matter alluded to was the
articles of hardware.
The hon. member for Sheffield (Ilanr.citaretnhaofd lanstiead
Now, the only copy of tho tariff
what was the duty tow which
japiatheed_ laen
was the draft

which had not yet passed the Council of Calcutta. In that
draft the duty on hardware was fixed at from 5 to 10 per
cent. The hon. member had also asked whether the Indian
Government had power to impose this duty. He understood
that since the act of 1853 the legislative body in India had
power to make alterations in any laws not affecting the pre-
rogative of the crown. In this case the Government had
sent out instructions to impose duties corresponding closely
with the course actually taken by the Indian authorities
upon their own responsibility. Lord Canning had in fact
communicated to him that it would be impossible for him
to meet the pressure upon him unless on his own authority
he took the step of levying this impost. He had, therefore,
taken upon himself to follow that course, relying upon the
Government to give him their support. That support he
need hardly say the Government were prepared to extend
to Lord Canning. The hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Wil-
son) had asked him whether these taxes were intended to
be an increase upon British manufactures only, or upon all
others also. In answer he had to state that they would
affect all manufactures. (Hear.) He thought he had now
answered all the questions put to him.
RIBBONISM IN IRELAND.
Mr. M‘MAH ON asked the Attorney. General for Ireland
whether he could give any explanation relative to the setting
aside of jurors on the late trials for ribbonism at Belfast,
and the cause for which each juror was set aside ?
Mr. WHITESIDE thought, with all respect to the house,
that it was not a fit tribunal to inquire into a matter of this
kind. He found that a few years ago, when a motion of this
nature was before the house, Sir J. Grant, then the Attor-
ney-General of the Government, opposed the motion, and
stated that it was an inquiry which could only be gone into
in the case of corruption of a public officer, or in the case of
oppression. He had received a report from the crown soli-
citor on the subject to which the hon. gentleman referred.
He must premise that 25 years ago an order was made by
the Attorney-General (Sir M. O'Loughlin) that in cases of
conspiracy a licensed victualler should not sit on the jury;
that was a rule based on the fact that most of these socie-
ties were held at the publichouses, and it was a rule which
had ever since been acted upon. Now in the case to which
the hon member referred nine jurors had been told to stand
by—four of them under the rule laid down by Sir M.
O'Loughlin ; the others were directed to stand by because
they were party men. In no case was a juror challenged on
account of his being a Catholic. The house, perhaps, would
allow him to advert to a statement made the other even-
ing by the right hon. gentleman the member for Kerry (Mr.
H. Herbert). The right hon. gentleman adverted to a trial
which recently occurred at Tralee, and said he regretted
much the course which the Crown officers had thought
it right to take there. The case to which allusion was
made was that of the Phcenix conspirators. The indict-
ment in that case was framed under the Pains and Penal-
ties Act, the object being to avoid the extreme capital
penalty. The trial took place, and 50 witnesses were ex-
amined, and after some consultation it was found that the
jury could not agree. There was no imputation that could
be properly cast on the Crown Solicitor in the matter ; he
had acted with due zeal and impartiality. The Crown
Solicitor had felt deeply the remarks whieh the right hon.
gentleman had made, and he had forwarded to him (Mr.
Whiteside) a letter from the late Mr. O'Connell, speaking
of him in the highest terms, and as one who " was a model
for all Crown Solicitors." NVell,-as he had said, the jury
could not agree; two of the jurors—he mentioned only
what was openly stated to the court—would not listen
either to honour or reason. When another jury was em-
panelled, a gentleman was desired to stand aside because
twenty-five years ago he had been tried and fined in a tithe
case. It was true that he was on the list of magistracy, but
in appointing him the Lord Chancellor was not aware of
his having been concerned in such a case. It was felt, and
justly, that in a case like that before the court, this gentle-
man, though many years had gone by, might not be alto-
gether without bias. In conducting that case, the Crown
officer followed the course which had been pursued in the
case of Mr. Mitchell, the most recent case of conspiracy.
The Attorney-General of that day, himself a Catholic, wrote
to the Crown solicitors "that it was not his desire that any
person should be set aside on account of religion, but that as
to the propriety of setting aside persons on account of poli-
tical bias, he did not think the instructions usually issued
applied to the case of a confederacy." He (Mr. Whiteside)
was present at the trial, and there were then 39 jurors or-
dered to stand by, in which number all the Catholics were
comprised. In the recent trial at Tralee fewer persons were
set aside than he had recolletced to have seen challenged in
a political trial, and he put it to the right hon. gentleman to
show a case in which the prerogative of the Crown had been
exercised so leniently.
Mr. H. HERBERT must still express his regret at the
course which had been pursued on the trial to which he al-
luded. He had listened carefully to the speech of the right
hon. gentleman, who had given them no reason why eight
other gentlemen now besides the nine he had particularly
instanced, were told to stand by. With regard to this being
a political confederacy case, he must remind the house that
it received no sanction from the body of the Roman Catho-
lics of Ireland. They before the Government moved had
nipped the thing in the bud, the small tenant farmers, even
the class known as the " boys," who were proverbially ready
for mischief, stood aloof from it, and the priests had de-
nounced it from the altar. Their reward was to be told that no
member of their community was fit to serve upon a jury.
Mr. WHITESIDE—I never said so.
Mr. H. HERBERT—It might not have been said, but
the opinion was acted upon, as all Roman Catholics were
struck off. Amongst others who had been struck off was a
magistrate whom he (Mr. Herbert) had recommended to the
commission. The grounds were that this gentleman had
been convicted of conspiracy, the facts being that 27 years
ago he was convicted of making an anti-tithe speech in an
obscure village, and for it he was sentenced to a fortnight's im-
prisonment. This gentleman had felt so acutely the obser-
vations which had been made in that house, that he had
tendered his resignation to the Lord Chancellor. He (Mr.
Herbert) had felt himself justified in recommending this
gentleman to the commission, and the attorney-Genera
told him he was unfit to be a juror.
Mr. WHITESIDE had never said that the gentleman
was unfit. What he had said was that a man who had him-
self been convicted of conspiracy was not the fittest person
in the world to try another person for conspiracy. (Hear.)
Mr. HERBERT considered the objection to this gentle-
man to be no more than a quibble, and was still of opinion
that the ends of justice would have been better served by the
empanelling of Roman Catholic jurors on these trials. A
Protestant and a Whig, writing to him, said, "It was ex-
ceedingly improper to strike off these jurors," and a high
Tory was of opinion " that the Crown made a grievous mis-
take in rejecting Mr. Gerard O'Connor." (Hear, hear.)
NAVAL PROMOTION.

Admiral DUNCOMBE complained that the order in
council of June 211ast, providing for the retirement of naval
officers above 70, had not yet been fully acted upon. Nine-
teen vacancies had occurred, of which 18 had been filled up,
but the 19th still remained unprovided for. He considered
the delay to be a great hardship, as it kept back a vice and
rear admiral, and prevented the promotion of a senior cap-
tain. Should the latter die before he obtained the promo-
tion to which he was entitled, his widow would only be en-
titled to a captain's widow's pension.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he had delayed the appoint-
ment alluded to, because he had had it in contemplation to
publish some comprehensive and satisfactory scheme of naval
retirement. However, the vacancy had been offered to one
gallant officer and had been declined. However, recent cir-
cumstances had convinced him that the vacancy should not
be kept open any longer, and he had therefore determined
upon making the appointment.
THE ARMY IN INDIA.
Sir G. C. LEWIS wished to know precisely what was the
exact number of imperial troops at present in India, and what
reauctions were contemplated during the present year
as no doubt the estimates would be framed with a view to
the prospective reduction. He wished also to know whether
there was any foundation for the statement that the Indian
Government had been required from this side of the water to
maintain a greater number of her Majesty's troops than they
desired or required for the peace of India. He thought it
most undesirable that any unnecessary burthen should be
cast on the finances of that country. He asked whether, in
case a greater number of regiments than was at present em-
ployed could be spared, means might not be found, by the
disembodying of militia regiments, for their remaining at
home.

Mr. MONSELL asked why the recent examinations at
Woolwich had not been advertised generally in the news-
papers, according to the previous praetice ; also why the re-
port had been delayed ?
THE TROOPS IN TRINIDAD.

Gen. PEEL would first answer a question which had
been out by the hon. and gallant member for Westminster
respecting the troops in Trinidad. The authority rested, in
the first instance, with the local authorities in that Island,
and upon the outbreak of the fever in September they sent
the troops into camp. In December, the fever having abated
they were sent back to barracks. He had received that day
accounts from Barbadoes, from which it appeared that the
health of the troops in Trinidad had greatly improved, but
that it was still desirable to keep them in camp, in order
that the barracks might be throughly cleansed and white-
washed. The Colonial Secretary had sent out all the neces-
sary authority for whatever removals might be neces-
sary, and power had been given to the officers in command
to incur a certain amount of expense for sanitary purposes.
He believed, although there might be occasional outbreaks
of fever in Trinidad, that the general average of mortality
amongst the white troops was only four per cent., while
that of the black troops was three. From the accounts he
had received he hoped for the early abatement of the fever.

THE ARMY IN INDIA.
Gen. PEEL proceeded to say that, speaking from me-
mory, the army in India amounted to 73 regiments of in-
fantry and 12 of cavalry, of which he should be happy to
withdraw as many regiments as possible • but a late letter
of Lord Clyde's stated that seven regiments ef infantry and
one of cavalry were all that could be spared. In fact, the
great difficulty wa4 in satisfying the Indian Government,
without whose requisition no troops could be sent out. If
any more could be spared, there was no doubt but that, by
means of the militia, means of accommodating them might
to a great extent be found. Looking at the state of
Europe, he should not have the slightest objectionto receive
as many regiments as could be spared. (Hear, hear.) With
respect to artillery, the Indian Government were preparing
to raise 12 batteries of their own. In answer to the right
hon. member for Limerick, he had only to say that the ex-
aminations in question were duly advertised in the Gazette,
and would have appeared in the newspapers as before, but
that the latter refused to insert them again, unless t hey were
paid for as advertisements. The report of the last examina-
tion would be published in a few days.

JAMAICA IMMIGRATION.
Mr. GILPIN, in the absence of the Secretary for the Co-
lonies, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the
Government assent had been given to the Jamaica Immigra-
tion Bill. Also, if the papers on immigration, which the
right hon. baronet thought would be ready by the 31st of
March, were yet ready. And if the following papers would
be ready to be laid before Parliament previous to its disso-
lution :—Returns of the number of immigrants from India
and China who had been introduced into the British East
or West India colonies since 1835 ; with a statement of the
mortality on the passage ; the duration of the voyage; of the
number who had left each colony to return home ; of those
who had died there ; of those who had become chargeable as
paupers or otherwise on the colony ; how those that remained
were employed ; and a statement showing what proportion
of the expenses on immigration account had been paid out
of the funds of each colony, and how much out of the Im-
perial Exchequer ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the Jamaica Immigration Bill had been confirmed by the
Privy Council. The reports asked for were, he was sorry to
say, very voluminous, and would not be laid on the table
previous to the dissolution. Lastly, no return of the number
of immigrants had reached the Colonial-office.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
Mr. CONINGHAM said he wished to ask the right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with
respect to some recent purchases of paintings which had
been made for the National Gallery. He perceived that
three purchases of early Italian pictures had been recently
made. One of them was said to be a picture of Marco Ba.s-
saiti, which he had carefully examined, and with respect to
which he had consulted persons who had great experience
in the purchase of pictures, who entirely agreed with him
in the opinion that the whole surface of the picture had
been restored, and that it had been rendered worthless.
There was also a picture by Cima da Conegliano which