The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-15 00:00:00

CASE OF GENERAL DARLING.

The SPEAKER having called upon Mr. Maurice O'Connell,
Sir G. GREY begged to suggest to the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the propriety of withdrawing the motion of which
he had given notice relative to the conduct of General Darling,
the late Governor of New South Wales. The House was
aware that Captain Robison had been convicted of publish-
ing a libel upon General Darling, and on the 27th January
last, on being brought up for judgment, certain affidavits
had been put in on the part of Captain Robison
in mitigation of punishment, and Sir William Follett, the
present Solicitor-General, who was Counsel for General
Darling, asked for time to answer these affidavits. The de-
fendant would be shortly brought up for judgment, and under-
these circumstances, he thought the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman would agree with him, that any discussion upon the
subject would be injudicious until after the Court of King's
Bench had pronounced its judgment.
Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL was in the hands of the
House. The matter had been before the public for the last
five or six years and had excited a good deal of public interest.
It would be in the recollection of Hon. Members who were
then in the House, that he (Mr. O'C.) had last year post-
poned it, at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The 27th of this month would be the first day of next term,
and if it was understood that no opposition would be made by
the Government to his then bringing it forward, he
would have no objection to postpone it to that time.
could not postpone it for a longer period, as there was a
petition against his (Mr. M. O'Connell's) return, which
was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 16th
June, and he might never have the honour of bringing it
before the House.—( Hear and a laugh.) Under the circum-
stances stated, however, he had no objection to postpone his
motion to the 27th May.
Sir WM. FOLLETT said he thought it was scarcely
possible for the case to be disposed of on the 27th of May, as
he believed that was the first day upon which it could come
on. He had no doubt but it would be disposed of during
the ensuing Term, but if the case was now strong enough
for the postponement of the motion, it would be equally so on
the proposed day. He (General Darling) had filed most full
affidavits, which answered all the charges contained in those
of Captain Robison.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER suggested
that the postponement of the motion should be to the 23d of
June, by which time the King's Bench would have done with
the case, and on that day he was disposed to give every faci-
lity for bringing it on.—Motion postponed.
CHURCH RATES.

Mr. DIVETT also postponed his motion for the Abolition
of Church Rates, throughout England and Wales, till the 2d
of June, as he had received communications from many gen-
tlemen who wished to take part in the debate, who were at
present out of town.
Mr. HUME said he had a petition upon the subject of
Church Rates, which he had not yet had an opportunity of pre-
senting. He wished to give notice that to-morrow, on going
into a Committee of Supply, he would put a question to the Go-
vernment—he would ask them how far they were prepared
to go, and if they had any measure in preparation respect-
ing the important question of Church Rates?
CASE OF MR. BAKER.

Mr. F. SHAW then rose to move for a Select Committee
to consider the petition ,of Mr. Baker, presented some time
ago. He said the matter was of a personal character,
and ought to have been pressed on before—he would
have done so, but from the circumstances which had
taken place. The Hon. Member for Dublin had made a
statement which induced the House to postpone the ballot
for a Committee—then he made some statements which
reflected severely upon the character of Mr. Baker, who had
denied every one of the statements upon oath. Now, when a
Member of that House reflected upon the character of a third
party under his privilege, surely it was but justice to the
third party to give him an opportunity of meeting those charges
made against him. So it was here—strong imputations were
thrown upon the professional character of Mr. Baker, and he
had petitioned for an inquiry into all the circumstances of the
case, and be trusted the House would think that justice de-
manded that it should be granted. If the House gave
him a Committee, he wished that it should be selected most
impartially. He had put down the names of a few gentlemen
from the English and Scotch Members, who could have no
partiality at all ; and, if it were granted, he would not serve
upon it himself. He concluded by moving for a Select Com-
mittee to consider the petition of Mr. Baker.
The petition was then read by the Clerk of the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he certainly had recommended that the House should inter-
pose, because if such proceedings were to be permitted, there
would bo no security for any sitting Member. The decision

of the House of Common; also was, that Mr. Baker's• con.
duct was a very fit subject for inquiry, becatite unquestinßably
if there ever was a subject whic: called upon the House to
vindicate the integrity and correctness of its proceedings, it
was this.
Mr. O'CONNELL had not the least ob-Petion to a Com-
mittee upon this subject. There were five persons on o' side,
and one on the other, and it was for the House to say to which
of them they gave credit.
Mr. HUM did not see any necessity for A Committee
upon the present occasion.
Mr. ROBINSON agreed with the Hon. Member* for Mid-
dlesex, that it would be inexpedient to enter into Ca nmittee
upon this occasion. It would be wasting the time uf the
House to no purpose.
Sir R. PEEL also suggested to the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Shaw) that it would be better to withdraw ids
motion. He thought they would only involve themselves in
difficulties by proceeding farther.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had only
acted in the manner he had done, from the circumstance of
his having pursued the same course upon a former occasion.
Whatever his feelings might be, he was sure it would he
better not to establish a precedent which might lead to un-
pleasant results hereafter.
Mr. J. SHAW was unwilling to press his motion upon the
rouse, as its sense appeared to be against it. On the other
hand, he felt that a gentleman's character was involved, and
he felt reluctance in withdrawing it. Very heavy imputations
were cast ups i that gentleman, and he challenged investiga-
tion. He (Mr. Shaw) could not deny the inconveniences
that might result fro.vn such a course. With the qualification
that nothing citiald attaCh to the character of the individual,
and with the hope that it would serve as a caution to
Members of that House not tom` make charges lightly, affecting
the character of any individual, he would (the opinion of the
House being against him) consent with some reluctance to
withdraw his motion.

THE TEA TRADE.
Sir R. PEEL begged to ask the Right lion. the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer a question, and if he was not prepared
to give him an answer upon that evening, ,he holed
he would be able to do so on a future occasion. It was•neces-
sary that some public declaration should be shortly made upontbe
subject; he alluded to the state of Tea Duties. At presort there
was a graduated scale, varying with the description: There
were three different rates, aid the Committee appointed laFt
year, by whom the subject had been investigated, had advised
that for a certain period the present duties should be continuo',
and that afterwards the matter should be left to the considera-
tion of the Government. If it was not intended to make any
alteration in the present duties, that should be mole
public-4 Hear, hear)—and, if it was intended to do so, it
was of equal importance that public notice should Le
given of such intention from the importance of ,the subject,
and the parties engaged in the trade. This waC the only
question connected with the finances of the country upon which
he wished any premature declaration should be made.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUE} was
ready to give the Right Hon. Baronet the earliest possible in-
formation upon the subject. He was unable to do so upon
that evening—he had to meet a deputation connected
with the trade, and he could give no opinion until he had se:el'
the Gentlemen composing that deputation.

OUTRAGES IN ARMAGH.
Lord MANDEVILLE nioved for a return of the following;
documents:—" The Chief Constable's report of the outrages
which were perpetrated at the Armagh races in October
last—the dying declaration of a man named M‘Whinney—
the committals of the persons charged with the assaults
upon the M'Whinneys—the various bail bonds, with their
several dates, and amount of bail—the date of M‘Whinney:s
arrest, and the cause—copy, (if any) of the recogni-
zances entered into by M'Whinney previous to ad-
mitting the offenders to bail—copies of any declarations cr
depositions taken by Mr. Jones, the Stipendiary Magis-
trate, of men wounded by musket shots, or otherwise,
,about that time—the numbers, names, and religious be-
lief of all men wounded by musket shots, or otherwise,
at or about that time—copy of the reports from the Stipen-
diary Magistrates, and of the reply to the Right Honourable
Secretary for Ireland, respecting the Portreeve of Charlet:tont
—a list of the Magistrates summoned by the Lord Lieutenant
to the county Armagh, at the investigation held in the town.
of Armagh in February last." He read the directions sent to
Lord Gosford by Sir Henry Hardinge, to inquire into the cir-
cumstances connected with the outrages, which 'inquiry was
to be by an assemblage of magistrates, to be a full inquiry,
and going back, if necessary, to the Armagh races, where the
original cause of quarrel was said to have arisen. The charge
he made against Lord Gosford was that of not having.carricd.
the Lord Lieutenant's directions into effect. In the first
place, neither the summons to the magistrates or to the wit-.
nesses stated that the inquiry was to go so far back as Sir
Henry Hardinge's letter.had desired. In the next place, the
summonses to the magistrates were only delivered the day
before they had to meet, so that they had no time to make
themselves acquainted with the facts, before entering upon
the inquiry. Moreover, he had himself asked for a list of
the witnesses to be called, awl it was refused .him. Several
magistrates, and himself among the number, pointed out
the necessity of carrying the inquiry back to the Arniagh
races ; but he would not do so, although he ought the
more readily to have done it from the fact of his having
permitted the races to be held after being warned that a*,
disturbance was likely to occur. ,The disturbances really
originated with the Catholics, the only act of violence or
which the Protestants were guilty being in self-defence.
There was evidence of the Catholics having cemmitted,acts
of violence on the same day as that established'.against the
Protestants ; but Lord Gosford refused to take it, on the
ground that they should ,he.ar that against. the,Protegtanta ,first,
and that in their favour afterwards,, so that by this meals,instead of an impartial inquiry, the Protestants were froih the
beginning thrown upon their defence. Thenext graviichargo
he had to make against Lord Gosford was, tltt_.he-. denied
the magistrates an opportunity of making their report, saying
that there was to be none except that of 11.`n evidence. Not-
withstanding this pledge, howeeer, .he himselLniadearnport,
as did also Mr. Jones, the stipendiary magistrate, to, whose
account of the result of the investigation he referred the-Lord
Lieutenant as correct. Moreover, Lord Gosford his- re-
port threw the blame on the Protestants, and made, a.most
unfounded attack on the gentry of the county. He 'stated that if
they used their influence the happiest results might be expecteri
from it. Great injustice, he added, was done to iYie Protestants
consequence of the sudden manner in which the Court hadbeeit
closed by the Earl of Gosford. He held in his hand ii-returit
of at least a dozen men who had been wounded upon the oce-n-
-sion, but who had not been examined, or evert subpoenaed
to
give evidence upon the subject. He had also a return of the
names of the magistrates summoned to attend the_inyestiga-
tion, but their summonses were dated only the day. before their
attendance was demanded. He had also to complain of the
imperfect manner in which the notes of the proceedings were
taken.
Dr. LUSH INGTON said it was not his intention in the
slightest degree to throw any impediment in die way of the
production of any papers, or of any information which could
tend to shed any light on the unfortunate circumstances which
had occurred about the commencement of the year in the neigh-
bourhood of Armagh. He (Dr. Lushington) took part in the
present discussion in consequence of hearing the Noble lama
on a former occasion make strong assertions with respect -to
the Earl of Gosford, the Lord Lieutenant of the count„
which he confessed struck him not only with astonishment but
alarm ; for if he could conceive it possible for the charges
which the Noble Lord then made to be well founded, it would
become the bounden duty of his Majesty's Administratioll,
whether the present Government held the reins of power, er
the gentlemen who lately filled their places, to make an ea-
ample of the Earl of Gosford for the benefit of all Ireland.
But he (Dr. Lushington) maintained that the charges ad-
vanced by the Noble Lord were altogether destitute of a sem-
blance of the foundation of truth.—( Cheers.) On a former
occasion the Noble Lord preferred a charge against the Nalis
Earl ( Gosford) than which it would be impossible to prefer
a more serious charge against the character of any mr'e
living—a charge of having packed the magistrates who ;Lt
upon the inquiry, of having. garbled the evidence adduced iu
the course of the investigation, thereby deceiving the Govera-
metit to whom he was to transmit the evidence for their pi-
dahre, and thereby again committing an act of the grossest
and most atrocious injustice against the individuals wholat
conflicting claims (if he might so call it), were then under the
consideration of the magistrates of the county.—( Hear, hear.)
Before he went further, he must take the liberty of readies:
to the House what the Noble Lord (Mandeville) said on -
former occasion to which he alluded. The Noble Lord's state-
ment was to the effect :—" The case was brought before tLe •
Irish Government—an investigation was ordered—the Lola
Lieutenant of the county, whose duty it was to act with impie.- ,
tiality, summoned only the magistrates who belonged to his
own party."—( Hear, hear.)
Lord MANDEVILLE—I affirm positively that I did :'t
say that.
Dr. LUSHINGTON—The Noble Lord might, if to
thought fit, retract upon that occasion any expression imputa.l
to him, and it was not for him (Dr. Lushington) to determine
what his accuracy of memory might be with respect to the
language used by the Noble Lord on the former occasion to
which he was alluding. He believed that for the general ac-
curacy of the statement to which be (Dr. Lushington) was
calling the attention of the House, he might appeal, not to his
own memory only, but to the memory of every gentleman who
was present on the occasion. The Noble Lord went on to sly,
" He (meaning the Earl of Gosford) absolutely excluded ma-
gistrates who were known to be friendly to the Protestant
cause." Was this all the coinage and invention of the reporter ?
er if not so expressed in terms, were not the Noble Lord's de&a-
rations tantamount to this in reality and substance ?—(Cheer4.)
The Noble Lord continued, " This was a complicated inquiry,
involving the interests of two parties. Why, I ask, should the
inquiry be conducted by the partisans of one side only ? Tiro
conduct of the Lord-Lieutenant of the County was highly re-
prehensible. He selected his own court; formed his own tri
bunal ; selected his own witnesses, for even the witnesses
were all chosen from one side, to the utter exclusion of all re-
butting evidence." It would not be for him (Dr. Lushington)
to exaggerate the statement of the Noble Lord, but if he spo!!.0
only one-tenth of what was attributed to him, he might well
have required the interval of the last six weeks to study a re-
traction. The Noble Lord continued to describe the conduct
of the Earl of Gosford in these terms—" He did more—he
made the investigation a secret and partial one; he excluded.
the public press, no reporter was present; all was done with
closed doors, by the organs of a particular party, and with the
view of preventing a fair and impartial report from getti,k
abroad. I have felt it my duty to mention these mattera,sea-
tinued the Noble Lord, in order to put the House in pos,es-
sion of what I firmly believe to be true. I agaiii repeat; that
there was no evidence,given in the _co e_ of the ipquiry
show that the parties who attacked the houses of te CatbniiaA
were Orangemen." Ho (Dr,- •Luslringzon) -put these • points

to the Noble Lord at the time ; and the Noble Lord never
got up to deny that any part of them was not perfectly
true. Why, good God 1 had it been otherwise, what might
the Noble Lord have done ? He might have got up and
repelled with indignation the observations which he (Doctor
Lushington) had made ; but the Noble Lord remained
erfectly silent. Yet if the observations which he (Doctor
Lushington) made were not well-founded—if they were not
strictly correct--if they were not an exact echo of what the
Noble Lord had stated, the Noble Lord would have been
bound in common justice to himself, in common justice to his
own character, in common justice to the truth, in common de-
cency to the character of Lord Gosford, to have risen and
Lave said—" The charges you have attributed to me I never
made. "—(Cheers.) Instead of that, what had been the course
pursued by the Noble Lord? He had suffered his statement
to go out to Ireland for six whole weeks without any opportu-
nity of contradiction—without any means being afforded of
elucidating the truth, and during that period had suffered
Lord Gosford's character to remain exposed to all the conse-
quences of the charges he bad brought against him. He (Dr.
Lushington) should now proceed to meet those charges,
-which, he again repeated, were utterly destitute of all foun-
dation. In the first place, he would state that there were
thirty-seven resident Magistrates in the county of Armagh.
A letter, dated the 24th of January, was addressed to the
Earl of Gosford, directing him to institute an inpuiry into
the burning of the houses in question, and also, if necessary,
of investigating the cause. In compliance with the directions
contained in that letter, the Earl of Gosford immediately
summoned the whole of the thirty-seven Magistrates to at-
tend the investigation ; out of these thirty-seven Magistrates,
twenty-four were opposed to Lord Gosford in politics; six
were not of the same politics, but more properly speak-
ing, were neutral; the remainder—all who could have been of
the same party as Lord Gosford, were seven.—(Cheers.) The
investigation lasted seven days. On the first day, twenty-six
nagistrates attended, of whom sixteen were Tories ; on the
second day, fourteen attended, of whom nine were Tories ; on
the third day, the proportion of Tories was ten to five ; on the
fourth day, ten to four; on the fifth day, thirteen to four; on
the sixth day, fifteen to four ; and on the seventh day, ten to
one.—(Loud cheers.) So much for the packing of the ma-
gistrates. The Noble Lord had stated that no notice was
given to the magistrates previous to the time that their at-
tendance was required. Upon that point, ho (Dr. Lushing-
ton) must be allowed to observe, that the letter of Sir Henry
Hardinge directed that the inquiry should be immediate. Sir
Henry's letter was dated the 24th of January, it was received on
the 25th; and in compliance with the injunction to use dis-
patch, Lord Gosford issued a circular on the 26th, requiring
the attendance of the magistrates, and of all persons interested
in the matter, at the Court-house in the town of Armagh, on
the 28th.

Lord MANDEVILLE had spoken only of the shortness of
the notice given to the magistrates. The notice was given
only the day before that appointed for the inquiry. He had
spoken only of the shortness of that notice.
Dr. LUSHINGTON—And I am speaking on precisely
the same subject ; so that, thank God, there is not the slightest
misunderstanding upon this point, at least, between the Noble
Lord and myself.
. __ _

Lord MANDEVILLE—The notice to which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman has referred, is not that which was
given to the magistrates.

Dr. L USHINGTON—If the Noble Lord meant to say,
technically speaking, that this was not actually the public no-
tice given to the magistrates, he was ready to admit it—(hear)
but he (Dr. Lushington) was showing that Lord Gosford,
without one moment's delay, made public to the whole world
his intention of holding the investigation on the 28th. The
Earl of Gosford next caused a letter to be delivered person-
ally to all the magistrates; but, said the Noble Viscount, the
notice was too short, considering the urgency of the question.
In truth, two or three magistrates did express their sorrow,
that the notice was so short, and the Earl of Gosford said he
was ready to postpone the investigation if agreeable to the
bench of magistrates, but the bench negatived any such post-
ponement. The Noble Viscount had complained that the in-
vestigation was of a more limited nature than what was re-
quired by the letter of Sir Henry Hardinge ; and that the
Noble Earl concealed the extent of the requisition made by
Sir H. Hardinge. Now, the first letter of Sir H. Hardinge
to the Earl of Gosford, dated the 21st of January, 1835, stated
that " his Excellency the Governor General considered it ex-
pedient that all the circumstances should receive the fullest
investigation, and that it was the desire of his Excellency that
the inquiry should extend, if necessary, to the period
of the races, three months ago, when the quarrel was
said to have commenced." In a second letter, dated
the 24th of January, 183 b, Sir Henry Hardinge
Mated, that " his Excellency concurred in the opi-
nion that Armagh was the most convenient place for the in-
vestigation, and was desirous that the inquiry should be com-
menced at the earliest moment at which it was practicable."—
( Hear, hear.) There were two questions on this part of the
case--first, Ought the inquiry to have gone back farther ? and
if so, secondly, Was the Earl of Gosford free from blame for
not so extending the inquiry ? Having read the evidence, he
(Dr. Lushington) was of opinion that it was not necessary to
extend the inquiry back beyond the point to which it was ac-
tually carried. But if it had been necessary, still the Earl of
Gosford was not to blame : he did not limit the inquiry.—
( Here Lord Mandeville was understood toexpress his dissent.)
Did the Noble Lord say " nay" to this? Then he (Dr.
Lushington) would meet him on that point. He had the as-
sertion of the Earl of Gosford in support of this fact, that
after mature discussion it was determined by a majority of the
magistrates, and not by the Earl of Gosford, that the inquiry
should not go back further than the limit to which it was really
carried. Another charge made against the Earl of Gosford
was that he acted partially and unfairly in the production of
witnesses. Now, first a general notice was given to all per-
sons to attend to give evidence ; secondly, the police were
directed to serve summonses upon all witnesses ; and thirdly,
Sir Frederick Stoman (the chief of the constabulary force)
sent a list of the witnesses to be summoned, the most of whom
were Orangemen. He (Dr. Lushington) would aver that
Lord Gosford caused every witness to be summoned whose
name was delivered to him for that purpose, and he did not
refuse to examine any whose evidence was offered. Of the
witnesses, twenty-six were Protestants, and nineteen were Ca-
tholics. The next point made by the Noble Viscount was as
to the manner in which the evidence was taken. But what
did Lord Gosford do? Being desirous of the utmost pos-
sible accuracy, he applied to the Clerk of the Peace to ob-
tain a person to take notes. The Clerk of the Peace,
who was no Catholic— no follower of the Noble Earl in po-
litics—employed a Mr. Blair for that purpose. This Mr.
Blair was himself an Orangeman, and the editor of a high
Orange paper—the Newry Press.—( Hear, hear.) At a
subsequent meeting of the magistrates, Lord Gosford proposed
to read Mr. Blair's notes. They were read and collated with
the notes of the magistrates themselves, and even the Noble
Viscount (Mandeville) himself suggested alterations to be
made in them.—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Viscount now
complained that the evidence on the cross-examinations was
omitted. Did the Noble Viscount, when present, require
such evidence to be taken down ? He did no such thing. It
was therefore too much for the Noble Viscount, having had an
opportunity of doing this, now to bring forward a charge
against the Earl of Gosford, because such evidence was not
reported. He would now read some letters which had been
addressed to the Earl of Gosford by several of the magis.
trates who attended the investigation, all of whom most dis-
tinctly denied the truth of any one of the accusations that had
been made by the Noble Viscount against the Noble Earl.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read a letter from Sir
Frederick Stoman, the Chief of the constabulatory force, who
called upon the Noble Earl "to denounce and destroy such
infamous and false statements" that had been made against
him—a letter from Mr. Jones, a stipendary magistrate, who
stated that he had seen the reported speech of Lord Mande-
ville, and he observed—" To all these charges I beg you to
give the most unqualified contradiction. Being present offi-
cially, and having attended—and abstracted from all local
feelings—l can assert that a more open inquiry I never wit-
nessed, and further, that your Lordship evinced the greatest
anxiety to extract from the various witnesses the truth, and
the whole truth." After reading two or three other letters,
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman read one from
the Reverend James Blacker, which he (Dr. Lushing-
ton) humbly commended to the consideration of the
Noble Viscount and to his recollection hereafter. The
Noble Viscount had charged the Noble Earl with the breach
of an engagement, inasmuch as that, after having promised the
magistrates that the evidence should be transmitted simply to
the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, without note or comment, he
bad nevertheless made a report upon the evidence. Now he
( Dr. Lushington) would deny that any such promise was
made.--( Hear, hear.) He called upon the' House to read
the letter written by Earl Gosford, and he maintained that in
that letter there was not one syllable which was not justified
by the evidence on the table--one statement destitute of foun-
dation, or one assertion untruly made.--( Hear, hear.) A
more moderate report, or one couched in softer language,
could hardly be conceived. He would conclude by saying on
the part of the Earl of Gosford, that be challenged all inquiry
into his conduct ; the most searching investigation, the most
ample production of documents, and the most scrutinizing ex-
amination of every act he had done or ordered to be done.
Whatever course the Noble Viscount might pursue, to that
House and to the public be now appealed with perfect and en-
tire confidence.

Colonel VERNER contended that the investigation which
had taken place, could not be considered a fair or impartial
one—the blame rested somewhere--where, he would not under-
take to say. His own character had been assailed by the sti-
pendiary magistrate, Mr. Jones. He hoped, in justice, the
Government would call upon him to state on what grounds he
Lad designated him (Colonel Verner) as the leader of the
party by whom the outrages were committed, and afford him
.an opportunity of justifying himself. There was no one word
in the evidence to bear out the assertion of the lion. Member
for Armagh (Mr. Dobbin), that the houses had been burnt by
Protestants ; and though letters had been read from several
magistrates who had been designated as Orangemen, the fact
was that they were opposed to that party in Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER— The
lion. Gentleman who had just sat down had put the House in
Possession of one very material fact—namely, that he did not
mean to charge the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Ar-
snagh with any improper conduct.--(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord had, in the course of the few words of mitigation and
npology which he had felt it his duty to utter on th occasion,
thought proper more than once to express his regret at having
ever made use of offensive terms. He retracted the words,
hut he adhered to the fact. Why, where was the fact to
which be did adhere ?---(Cheers.) Where was the single fact
which had not been taken from him by the irresistible state-
ment of facts made by the Hon. and Learned Member for the
Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington)? If the Noble Lord
thought there remained one shadow of a fact by which to sus-
ttin his refuted accusation, all he could say was, that no one

unprejudiced person in that House, or out of it, could accom-
oany him in the conclusion at which he arrived.—(Hear.)
Had he produced. or could he produce, evidence to support his
statement ? If he could not, would it not have been a more
manly as well as a more Christian proceeding to have come
forward and done justice to an injured man, instead of making
at the latest moment an insufficient and inadequate apology ?
( Cheers.) He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would say
that that was not a condition in which any man coming for-
ward as the Noble Lord did as a public accuser, but who now
appeared as the party accused, ought to be placed--it was not
a course which any honourable man was bound to take.--
( Hear, hear.) He was sure that the friends of Lord Gosford,
and the friends of good government, would not regret the
hands into which the defence of the Noble Earl had fallen.
As for the Government, they were in no way concerned in this
matter, excepting so far as it was proper that justice should be
done to a public Magistrate, and he was glad that the defence
had fallen into the hands of his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for the Tower Hamlets. If the Noble Lord was con-
vinced of the truth of the charge which he brought against
the Earl of Gosford as Lord Lieutenant of Armagh, it was
not by a motion for papers that he should have brought the
charge forward.—( Hear, hear.) As the character of the
Noble Earl was involved in the charge, the Noble Lord was
bound to come forward with a distinct resolution upon the sub-
ject; and had he done so, he (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) would tell the Noble Lord that the House would have
viewed with just indignation any such resolution, as there was
not even the shadow of truth in all the imputations brought
against the Earl of Gosford.—( Cheers.) But the Hon.
and Gallant Officer who spoke after the Noble Viscount had
brought a new person into the field, and brought charges
against Mr. Jones; but after the failure of the charges brought
by the Noble Viscount against the Earl of Gosford—a failure
which he believed to be unexampled in Parliamentary history
—( Hear, hear)—a failure so complete that there was not even
the smallest ground upon which the charges could be rested—
(Hear, hear)—he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not
feel inclined to make any further inquiry into the charges
brought against Mr. Jones.—(Cheers.) It was enough to
say that Mr. Jones had been sent by and acted under the au-
thority of the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland. He wished to keep to the charges brought against
the Earl of Gosford, and in the first place he would beg the
House to observe that some of the Magistrates who came for-
ward were not connected with the political party which the
Earl of Gosford supported. There were only two other points
to which he would refer ; one was as to the entire openness of
the tribunal in question, and the other as to the mode in which
the Magistrates were summoned. Now as to this last point,
the Magistrates were summoned in the only way in which
they could be summoned by the Lord-Lieutenant. The
Lord-Lieutenant wrote to the Clerk of the Peace, and
directed him to summon all the resident Magistrates with-
out exception.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Then as to those who
thought that the Earl of Gosford had carried on the investiga-
tion in a secret meeting, he only thought it necessary to men-
tion that among the magistrates present was the Rev. Morti-
mer O'Sullivan, whose presence was a sufficient guarrantee
against any such charge. The House had heard the charges
brought by the Noble Viscount, and the answers made to them
by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for the Tower
Hamlets, and he would ask if there was a gentleman then
present, with the single exception of the Noble Viscount him-
self, who would rise and state to the House that the tribunal
in question was a secret one, or that the Noble Earl had
either refused or cast aside any evidence—(Cheers)—and
having done so he would congratulate the Noble Viscount
upon the painful pre-eminence which he had attained in being
the only person to bring forward this charge, and when:he had
brought it forward in being the only person in that deliberative
assembly who persisted in maintaining the truth of the charge.
—(Cheers.) He appealed to the honour and justice of the
Noble Viscount to retract the accusation. The Noble Vis-
count had but two alternatives : he must either retract the
accusation, or he was bound in justice to go on with the
inquiry, and bring the charges home to the Noble Earl.
Hear, hear.) If he would not retract, let him ask for a
Committee of the House to inquire into the charges, and he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would support him. He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) regretted that the House
had not an opportunity of coming to a distinct vote upon the
subject, for it was withheld from doing so by the manner I.:
which the Noble Viscount had brought it forward. He would
feel inclined at once to negative the charges by a vote of the
House, and he was restrained from making a motion to that
effect only by the feeling that it might be said he had taken
the House by surprise.
Mr. DOBBIN then rose, and made some explanation in
answer, as we understood, to Colonel Verner, but we were
not able to gather the purport of what he said.
Lord ACHESON would trouble the House only while he
read three lines of a letter from the Rev. James Blacker, in
reference to the charge made by the Noble Viscount against
his Noble relative. Mr. Blacker said, " I distinctly heard
you say that you were ready to summon any witnesses, and go
as far back in the investigation as was necessary, in order tho-
roughly to sift the matter."—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord
then said, that he viewed the part taken by the Noble Viscount
more in sorrow than in anger; at the same time he could not
but complain of the manner in which the charge was brought
forward. He considered that the Noble Viscount was placed-
in the predicament of either retracting the charges, or going
forward with them.

Mr. SHAW said that his Noble Friend bad retracted the
accusation that the Earl of Gosford had garbled the evidence.
In fact, he had retracted all that he could retract with honour.
But it should be remembered that his Noble Friend was
placed in a very peculiar situation.—( Cheers.) He was pre-
sent when the investigation took place, and left the court under
feelings of irritability, conceiving as he did that the investiga-
tion was not fairly conducted. It was a fact admitted, that
some magistrates had not been summoned.—(No, no.)
Dr. L USHING TON—AII the resident magistrates were
summoned.

Mr. SHAW believed that some were not summoned.—
(Loud cries of " Name.") He would name one. He was
informed that Mr. Greene was not summoned.

An HON. MEMBSR—He is not a resident magistrate.

Mr. SHAW said it was true he was not resident in the
district, but he was on the borders of it, and was only sepa-
rated from it by a stream.—(A laugh.) His Noble Friend
said that there were two or three more who were not sum-
moned, and that circumstance annoyed him. He was annoyed,
too, that the magistrates would not carry back the investigation
to the period of the Armagh races, and though he now re-
tracted the charge of having garbled the evidence, he was
satisfied as to the correctness of the other charges, and he
still adhered to them. At the same time that he (Mr. Shaw)
could not but regret that the charges had been brought for..
ward at all ; he could not but express his sorrow at the lan-
guage used in regard to his Noble Friend, especially as he
had retracted all that he could retract with honour.

Mr. HUME then rose and said, that during the whole time
he had had a seat in the House, he had never heard such a
charge brought forward as this.—( Hear, hear.) If ever
there was a complete refutation of serious charges, and there
could not be a more serious charge than that of a magistrate
perverting public justice, it was in this case.—( Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Hume) was surprised at the counsel given by the
Hon. and Learned Member, that those who opposed the Noble
Viscount should rather endeavour to conciliate than to irritate
him. Did the Noble Viscount deserve conciliation ?—( Hear.)
He (Mr. Hume), on the contrary, had to charge the
Chancellor of the Exchequer with using language which
was too conciliatory, when he counselled the Noble Viscount
to express that regret and confusion for having brought such
unfounded charges, which his own sense of honour and justice
should have induced him to do, without any such admonition.
He thought also that the House, for its own character's sake,
should state its decided opinion on the subject. What object
would be attained by having the chief constable's Report ?
What would be the use of the dying declaration of the man
M'Whinney ?—( A laugh.) But it appeared after all that this
man was alive and well.—( Laughter. ) Would the papers
moved for by the Noble Lord throw even a shadow of light on
the subject? He was surprised at the pertinacity of the Noble
Viscount ; and whether he persisted in his motion or not, of
this he (Mr. Hume) was satisfied, that the House ought to de-
clare its opinion on the conduct of the Noble Viscount.—
( Cheers.) It appeared to him that the Noble Earl (Gosford)
had acted in the most upright manner—and would to God that
all Lords Lieutenant manifested a similar independent and im-
partial conduct !—( Cheers.) He hoped that the House, in
vindication of an impartial Lord Lieutenant, and an upright
and honourable magistrate, would at once reject the motion,
and at the same time adopt such a course as to mark the sense
it entertained of the conduct of the Noble Viscount in making
such charges.—( Cheers.) He concluded with moving " That
it is the opinion of this House that the conduct of the Earl of
Gosford in the recent investigation in Armagh, did not afford
the slightest ground of complaint, and that the imputations
made against him by Viscount Mandeville were entirely with-
out foundation."—( Cheers.)

Mr. SHAW observed, that if this amendment was persisted
in and carried, it would be evident to all, and the public would
be convinced, that it was the act of a tyrannical majority.—
( Hear, hear, and loud cries of " Oh, oh.") He appealed to
the Speaker whether the amendment was not contrary to order.
Mr. HUMS remarked, that if there was any thing disor-
derly in his amendment, he would strike it out.

•
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think that there was any thing disorderly in the amendment of
his Hon. Friend ; but there were two points involved in it.
Ih would suggest that the real issue they had to try was the
conduct of the Earl of Gosford as Lord Lieutenant of Armagh,
and it would be improper to mix up any extrinsic matter in the
motion. If the latter part of the amendment was continued, it
would be unintelligible hereafter. lie recommended his Ilon.
Friend to confine his motion to a declaration that the conduct
of the Earl of Gosford had been faultless as Lord Lieutenant
of Armagh.

The SPEAKER thought that if the amendment was
adopted, it would be liable to considerable difficulty. He
would suggest to the Hon. Gentleman, that the motion should
in the first place be disposed of, ay or no, and that the amend-
ment might afterwards be brought forward as a substantive
motion.

Mr. El UNIE would alter his amendment as follows : " That
the conduct of Earl Gosford, as Lord Lieutenant of the
county of Armagh, in the recent investigation in that county,
afforded not the slightest ground of complaint, and that the im-
putations made against him were entirely without foundation."
After a few observation from Dr. Lushington, Mr. G. F.
Young, and Mr. Hume,
Mr. O'CONNELL expressed his anxious hop© that his
Hon. Friend would persist in his motion.
After a few words from Mr. Roebuck, Col. Perceval, Col.
Verner, and Lord Mandeville, in reply,
The original motion was put and negatived without a di-
vision ; and the amendment moved by Mr. Hume, declaring that
the charges against the Earl of Gosford «ere unfounded, was

agreed to. This decision was received with cheers from both
sides of the House.
STEAM CARRIAGES.
Mr. CA YLE Y moved the le-appointment of the Select
Committee to inquire into the case of Mr. Goldsworthy Gur-
ney, as recommended by the Committee of last session.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
King's sanction not having been obtained last session, which
perhaps was unnecessary, as there might be other means than
a grant of money of remunerating Mr. Gurney, and a grant of
money not being a necessary consequence therefore of this
motion being agreed to, he should not object to the re-appoint-
ment of the Committee.

Mr. HAWES objected to so many grants of money on
merely speculative grounds.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG supported the same view.
The motion was then agreed to.
PENSIONS OF EX-LORD CHANCELLORS.

Mr. HUME moved for a return of the names of the several
ex-Lord Chancellors of England and Ireland who now receive
or are entitled to receive, pensions as having been Chancel-
lors ; stating the date of appointment or several appointments
as Chancellor, the time each actually held office, the dates
of resignation or loss of office, the dates from which respec-
tively each received, or are entitled to receive, their pennons ;
the amount of such yearly pensions, and from what fund paid ;
stating also the Acts of Parliament under which they respec-
tively receive their pensions. The Hon. Gentleman observed,
that there existed now four or five ex-Lord Chancelllors, who
were receiving each four or five thousand pounds a year, and
in the course of the next two years they might have, for aught
he knew, as many more.—( A laugh.) He thought it ex-
ceedingly objectionable that for a few months' service the
country should be called upon to pay such large sums. He
was altogether opposed to the principle of the Pension List :
he was rather disposed to pay individuals at a high rate
for the time that they rendered services, and let them
take their chance of making a proper provision for themselves.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
state of the law was, that whoever was appointed Lord Chan-
cellor was entitled under the Act to receive for the time being
the salary attached to the office. The individuals, there-
fore, who had been appointed the Commissioners, would re-
ceive their proportion of the salary under that Act. This
was what he had intended to convey when on a former eve-
ning he stated that the present arrangement, which was only
provisional, would not throw upon the country any additional
charge.
Mr. HAWE S had hoped that the Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex, when he alluded to this subject, would have urged on
the House the propriety of a division of the political and judi-
cial functions of the Lord Chancellor, by appointing a per-
manent equity judge, and a Speaker of the House of Lords.
--(Hear, hear, hear.) Seeing the Hon. Gentleman the So-
licitor-General in his place, he would ask him whether any
Bill was in preparation for carrying such an arrangement into
effect ? _ .

Mr. D. HARVEY said, that what appeared to him to be
objectionable was, that the sum of 10,000 L, the salary of the
Lord Chancellor, should be divided amongst the three Learned
Individuals who were acting as the Commissioners, and who
at the same time were receiving ample salaries as judges, on
the presumption that the whole of their time was required for
the discharge of their judicial duties. One of the Commis-
sioners was the Master of the Rolls, another was the Vice-
Chancellor, and the third was a Judge of the Court of Com-
mon Pleas. The, Master of the Rolls received 7,0001. a year;
the Vice-Chancellor, he believed, obtained nothing less; to
the Judge of the Common Pleas was paid 5,500/. a year.
These were salaries that afforded a remuneration abundantly
adequate, and that gave the country a right to demand from the
individuals so paid the whole of the time which, consistently
with their mental and bodily labour, they could afford.--
( Hear.) Now, if the sum of 10,000/. further were to be dis-
tributed amongst them, they would be receiving that amount
in addition to the liberal salaries which they were paid as the
price of their full services to the country. If they had any
time to spare for the administration of the high duties of the
Great Seal, they must have time to spare as judges of their
respoctive Courts, whence it followed that as judges they were
paid too much. The noxt vio•-• +n the ir-infroment
tl,e patronage miner the Great seal. 'the Chief
Commissioner,who, he understood, was to possess the patronage,
had, as Master of the Rolls, and might again have, a seat
in that House. In point of fact, then, they might have the
Lord High Chancellor of England sitting in the Commons
House of Parliament, with all the mighty patronage of the
office at his disposal.— (Hear, hear.) That in itself he felt
to be a formidable objection which might be urged, but which
he abstained from urging at present, because he understood
the existing arrangement to be only temporary, and to have
been made in order that time might be afforded for another
arrangement, by which the Seals were to be separated from
the Speakership of the House of Lords. Such a separation
was known to have been recommended by a Noble and Learned
Lord in the other House (Lord Brougham), who had declared
that the Lord Chancellor ought not, in his opinion, to be a
political office—that the office of judge, in order to secure the
independence of the individual, ought to be a permanent ap-
pointment, and free from political influences. If, then, such
a change were contemplated, it would be well for the suitors
in the Court of Chancery, and for the country; but if it were
not, and if it were intended that the existing arrangement,
instead of being provisional only, should be permanent, then
he must say that he could not conceive a state of things more
unsatisfactory, or so assailable on every constitutional princi-
ple. After the explanation, however, that had been given by
his Majesty's Government, he thought it unnecessary to say
more at present than to renew his declaration—that if, at no
distant period, another arrangement were not made, he should
consider it his duty to bring the subject under the considera-
tion of the House.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. YOUNG thought that a better course might have been
taken than one which must occasion an abstraction from the
time of the judges, which they would have devoted to the
performance of their own duties. A loss of this kiud was one
which he would not attempt to estimate by any money consi-
deration.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the Act un-
questionably provided that the salary of the Lord Chancellor,
amounting to 10,0001. a year, should be paid out of the
Suitor's Fund. This was clearly the law ; and if the Act was
an improper one, the proper course to pursue would be to ef-
fect an alteration with respect to it. He admitted, however,
that if the putting of the Great Seal in commission were any.
thing but a temporary arrangement, the distribution of the sa-
lary of the Lord Chancellor amongst the Commissioners might
perhaps, form a fit subject for inquiry. Under existing cir-
cumstances he was satisfied that no inconvenience would arise
from the appointment of Commissioners ; and with respect to
the expenses which the arrangement would entail upon the
public, he had been informed, in a conversation which he lately
had with one of the Learned Commissioners themselves, that
the amount of fees and the other expenses to be defrayed by
them upon their instalment would fully compensate for the
amount of salary which they would receive during the period
for which they might hold the Great Seal.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) There was another topic introduced in the course
of the discussion ou which he was anxious to say a few words.
It had been thrown out that the time necessarily consumed in
discharging the duties of the Lord Chancellor would prevent
the Commissioners from sitting in the Courts to which they
belonged, for such a time as would enable them to discharge
the duties which respectively devolved upon them ; and it had
been further asserted, that if they were found able to get
through the business which belonged to the Court of Chancery
as well as that of their own Courts, it might fairly be said that
their ordinary duties did not entitle them to the amount of
salary which they received. Now the fact was, that the Vice-
Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls sat every day in the
week five hours; and he, without any hesitation, left it to any
one conversant with the nature of the usual proceedings in
these Courts, to say whether it was possible that the
human mind could be usefully employed in the inves-
gation of those matters which formed the general
subjects of their judicature, for a longer period than
that which he had mentioned.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The
late Vice-Chancellor (Sir John Leech), who was most
anxious to devote all the faculties of his powerful mind to the
consideration of the questions which were brought under the
cognizance of his Court, declared that the mind could not be
advantageously kept on a stretch in the discharge of such du-
ties as he had to perform, for a longer space of time that that
to which he had referred.—( Hear, hear.) The judges, then,
to whom he had referred, usually sat from ten o'clock till
three, which, for six days, amounted to thirty hours a week.
But although these individuals professed their inability to sit
for a longer time than five hours each day for a lengthened
period, they declared themselves willing to sit six hours for
five days in pursuance of a temporary arrangement, thereby
continuing to transact business in each of their courts for ex-
actly the same space of time as that during which they sat be-
fore their acceptance of office as Commissioners.--( Hear,
hear.) The House was aware that the former Lord Chancel-
lors sat only two days in the week in the Court of Chancery,
and were engaged for the other three days in the House of
Lords. The Learned Commissioners (as we understood the
Hon. Gentleman) sat one day in the week in the Court of
Chancery, and were now employed for three or four extra
days'during the vacation in disposing of the business --which
had accumulated in consequence of the change which had
been effected with reference to the office of Lord Chancellor.
He trusted he had\shown, that under this temporary arrange-
ment, the minds of the Learned Judges who had been ap-
pointed his Majesty's Commissioners, were devoted as closely,
and with as little loss of time, to the subjects brought under
their consideration, as they well could be.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. PEASE would content himself with merely calling
the attention of the House to a list of the salaries paid to re-
tired Lord Chancellors and Commissioners. It contained the
following names, with the sums which each received annexed
To Lord Eldon ......... , £-1,000
Lord Lyndhurst
Master of the Rolls .
Vice-Chancellor
Puisne Judge
Lord Brougham, as Chancellor )0,000
Ex-Chancellor
Lord Chief Justice ... B,OOO
Speaker of the House of Lords 4,000

Total £54,500
pect of economical redactions.—(
t(of.l
The motion was the:' agreedhat he should move to-morrow for
This certainly held out to thes.c_out.%.7 very cheering pros.
Mr. HUME
a return of the fees and stamps p-
Commissioners, as well
gave n°ticb -,id on the appointing of Com-
missioners ;of the duties which those to perform, togc-
as the Speaker of the House of Lords, him; -clesiastical,
thcr with an account of the patronage, Lay and t;od,
which they were to enjoy.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the )
House adjourned at ten minutes past eleven o'clock. dor',

MEDICAL EDUCATION.

EVIDENCE GIVEN BEFORE THE COMMIT-

TEE appointed to INQUIRE into and CONSIDER
the LAWS, REGULATIONS, and USAGES re-
garding the EDUCATION and PRACTICE of the
MEDICAL PROFESSION. PART I.
[This Part relates to the Royal College of Physicians.]
The first witness examined was Dr. Hawkins (Re-
gistrar of the College), the only important part of
whose evidence is, that though a statute was enacted
in 1772, qualifying " any Licentiate of 36 years of age
and seven years' standing," as admissible to an exami-
nation for Fellowship, yet no Licentiate has ever been
elected under this law ; Drs. Wells, Sims, Stanger, and
others having been rejected on the putting of the mo-
tions.
The next witness was Sir H. Halford, from whose
evidence we make the following extracts and summary :
Sir Henry—being asked the origin of the bye-laws of
the College which restrict the admission into it almost ex-
clusively to the graduates of the English Universities,
although that practice is not according to the original bye-
laws of the College—replied that he thought that practice
had originated from the original connection between the
Universities and the College. The first founder of the
College, Linacre, established lectures at Oxford. The
successor of Linacre founded a College at Cambridge,
Caius College, and there has been a natural connection
between the University and the College of Physicians ever
since.
54. Has the College any reason to doubt the legality of
confining the choice of the electors to the Graduates of the
two English Universities, there being no mention of any
such restriction in the Charter and the Act of Parliament
confirmatory of it ?—I apprehend the College is convinced
that it does not necessarily confine itself to the members of
the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge ; there is a cer-
tain preference of those members in the mind of the Fel-
lows of the College, fur they are people who have under-
gone a moral and intellectual trial in the Universities from
whence they came, to which they are not subject at the
foreign Universities. They are domiciliated at Oxford and
Cambridge, but not at Edinburgh or Aberdeen, or any
other Universities from whence they may come ; and the
reason, I apprehend, for the probation of ten years is, that
those people who have not been so domiciled may have an
opportunity of giving a proof of their moral qualifications,
as well as their intellectual ones. That is the reason of
the preference of the members of the English Universities
in the minds of the Fellows for the election of Licentiates
into their body.
96. How do you account for Licentiates having been
admitted according to the statute on the proposal of the
President, and none having been admitted under the statute
on the proposal of a Fellow ? I know not any reason,
excepting that on the proposal of a Fellow the Licentiate
is to undergo an examination, on the proposal of the Presi-
dent he is not examined.
99. Did you exercise the privilege as President of
recommending a Licentiate for admission last year ?
No, I did not last year. I have done it within this last
fortnight, and I will state fairly before the Committee that
if I had seen a person of extraordinary eminence, who was
entitled to that distinction, I would have done it last year.
101. Was not Dr. Wilson Phillip (the person you have
selected for admission into the College this year) as cele-
brated for his discoveries in physiology last year as he is this
year ? I believe he was ; but there was a controversy going on
at the time with an eminent person with whom he was en-
gaged—and perhaps it was better to let that be determined
before he was proposed.
In answer to the question as to whether pains are
taken by the College to inform itself of the course of
medical eritic7t:on which the ffraduates of Oxford and
Cambridge, soliciting admission into th::, Coll?ze, have
passed through ; or whether they merely go through
an examination into the three departments of physio-
logy, pathology, and therapeutics,----Sir Henry stated
that they were examined in two dead languages, in
anatomy, physiology, pathology, and the practice of
physic ; but that the College did not require that they
should have gone through any regular curriculum of
study, nor that they should produce testimonials from
Professors of the courses of lectures they had attended ;
nor to have attended any course of hospital practice ;
because if the candidate " is. well acquainted with the
theory of physic, it affords a good presumption that he
will acquire practical knowledge in time." Neither is
the candidate examined as to his knowledge of mid-
wifery (though he is expected to know the diseases of
women and children), nor upon the practice of surgery.
201. Have the bye-laws ever been suspended for the
purpose of admitting a King's Physician to be a fellow of
the College ?—No ; there was an instance, some ten years
ago, of the King desiring to make a Licentiate his physi-
cian, and he spoke privately to me, and said " You had
better make him a Fellow of the College." He was pro-
posed by me as'President, and was elected.
203. The preamble of the statute for the admission of
Fellows into the College by the President is this—" Quando
quidem fieri potest ut inter permissosnumerentur viri quidam
egregiis et de re medicii preclare meriti, quos statutum, nos-
trum de sociis in ordinem seciorum cooptari vetat." Was the
principal point in which the candidate was one of the
" egregii et de re medicii, preclare meriti," that he was Phy-
sician to the King ?—No ; I beg pardon, I do not know
that we have a more intelligent or able Fellow of the Col-
lege than this gentleman is. It might be so far a recom-
mendation that he was a Physician of the King. He was
a PhysiCian of a considerable hospital at the time, and he
had acquired a certain degree of eminence in the country
before ho came to London, and was living in the good es-
teem of the whole medical profession.
204. How did it happen that his qualifications had not
already recommended him to attention, and occasioned his
being admitted a Fellow of the College by the exercise of
the President's privilege ?—There might have been others
who appeared to the President, short-sightedly perhaps,
even more talented than that individual—elder men.
225. Does the statute of the College still exist that none
engaged in the practice of midwifery shall be admitted as
Fellows of the College ?—Certainly.
226. Therefore none of the censors of the College
whose business it is to examine those who claim a license
can have a practical knowledge on the subject of mid-
wifery ? That does not follow ; they have attended in their
studies through the hospitals as well as others. It does
not follow that they are ignorant of that ; they have every
knowledge of the homine nato et non nato. The reasons the
College gave, I presume, were satisfactory in the eyes of
the Secretary of State, who referred it to the College.
231. Since, according to your own statement, mid-
wifery forms one of the subjects of the examination of the
College, would it not be desirable to repeal that bye law
which excludes from admission into the College any person
engaged in the practice of widwifery ?—No, I do not think
it is expedient.
232. Will you state your reasons ? I think it is consi-
dered rather as"a manual, and we should be very sorry to
throw anything -like discredit upon the men who had been
educated at the Universities, who had taken time to ac-
quire their improvement of their minds in literary and sci-
entific acquirements, by mixing it up with this manual la-
bour. I think it would rather disparage the highest grade
of the profession to let them engage in that particular
branch which is a manual operation very much. As to all
the knowledge of the diseases of women and children it is
expected of us, and we hope we are thoroughly informed of
them.
234. If the admission to the fellowship were restricted to
those of good moral character and of good education,
would it, in that case, tend to lower the character of the
College ? I think it would be better not ; it has never
been done. It has always been objected to. There is a
sort of manual operation, a sort of surgical operation, with
the practice of physic, which, we think, does not quite ac-
cord, and we are sure it is not necessary."
The whole evidence before the Committee agrees in
the opinion that there should be an uniform standard
of qualification, and a general Board for conducting
the examinations of those about to enter upon the
practice of the profession. The honours and the ap-
pointments should be afterwards distributed according
to individual talent, merit, and experience. It may be
perceived that the expense of becoming a surgeon in
London is at present ample to the attainment of the
highest qualifications, but from the over-reaching spirit
of monopoly, neither the student nor the public receive
an adequate return. The following occurs in the evi-
dence of Sir Astley Cooper, Bart. :-
5506. What is the present expense of hospital attend-
ance in London ?—There are three classes : the first is the
apprentice, who usually pays 5001. or 6001. to be boarded
and lodged in the house of the surgeon to whom he is at-
tached.
5507. Do you mean of the hospital-surgeon ?—Yes.
The second is the dresser, who pays 501. for the advantage
of dressing for 12 months. The third is the pupil, who
pays 261. ss. to be considered as a perpetual pupil, but, in
reality, to enter only for twelve months ; because it was
thought right to hold over him, if he did not conduct him-
self properly, the power of disposing of him at the end of
the year.
5510. Would the 5001. or 600/. include the whole ex-
pense he would have to pay for the run of the hospitals ?
No, he has to enter for lectures of different kinds besides.
5512. What is the minimum expense incurred by a sur-
gical student studying in London ?—As an apprentice, it
"iuld cost him 2,0001. for the six or seven years of educa-
.
--A he could embark in practice. That is about

the sum which a man ought to calculate that his son would
spend under such circumstances.
5513. What class of practitioners is it whose education
would cost that sum ?—A person designed to be a surgeon
in London, a surgeon of an hospital in London, and a lec-
turer.

5514. Can you give the items of which that sum would
be composed ?—The board and lodging, if he be appren-
ticed, is paid for at once upon his entrance ; that is 600/.
The going to Edinburgh would cost him a considerable
sum, and the going on the Continent, according to my sys-
tem of education, a further sum.

5515. Then the 2,0001. includes the cost of the year at
Edinburgh, and the year at Paris, &c.—Yes.
5516. Supposing him educated for a general practitioner,
and in London, what would the expense then be ?—I
should say from 2001. to 3001.
5517. Including the expense of the licence of the Apo-
thecaries' Company, and of the diploma of the College of
Surgeons ?—No, I do not include those ; but 300/. would
cover the whole if he were a prudent man.

The suppression of irregular practice and empiri-
cism would be a desideratum to the profession and the
public ; but as experience has shown the best educated
men in society to be the greatest patrons of quackery,
attempts at its suppression by legislative enactments
might serve only to render it of greater importance.
The Charletans of London derive great advantage
from the opposition of medical men. It would, per-
haps, be advisable to lay a heavy duty on secret medi-
cines, and inflict, according to the offence, fine or im-
prisonment on those who practise under a false title
and without due qualification ; or, as Mr. Guthrie
proposed, to make them take out a licence for the de-
struction of their dupes, similar to that for shooting
game. In this way, if the state should suffer in its
members, it would gain in its revenue.
The regulation of fees is a subject which must be
attended with extreme difficulty, as well in proportion-
ing them to the experience and standing of the practi-
tioner, as to the circumstances of the patient. On
this account, much must be left to individual discre-
tion ; but it is essential to the respect necessarily due
to men taking charge of human life, that they be paid
in fees like gentlemen. The apothecary is at least as
honourable a member of society as the attorney, and
should, like him, be legally entitled to his fee. The
present practice of charging for the quantity of drugs,
for the most part needlessly forced upon the patient,
is an abomination. In most cases the drugs are of
mere fractional value, and though an attractive colour
be given to the useless contents of the phial, on paying
of the bill, suspicion, disgust, and are fre-
quently excited towards the medical attendant. Were
the system of paying the practitioners an annual salary,
instead of occasional fees, more generally adopted, it
would tend much to harmonize the profession with the
public. The following extracts, from the evidence of
John Scott, Esq., deserve attention.

6387. Ought the education of the Surgeon and the edu-
cation of the Physician, to run pari passu to a considerable
extent ?—I think, throughout the whole extent, from be-
ginning to end. No man ought to practise surgery that is
not qualified to practise medicine.
6388. Is the distinction, undefined as it is, that is made
between the two departments of practice, a useful one ?
Yes, to attain eminence, in any particular branch, a man
should devote a considerable share of attention to that
branch.

6389. Though, the education of the Physician and of the
Surgeon should be the same, you think that science and prac-
tice will be brought to greater perfection, if some profes-
sedly devote themselves to physic, and some to surgery ?
Yes, after having each thoroughly studied the whole.
6390. Were Surgeons and Physicians to be united in one
common profession, would not the public, unaided by any
distinction of professional title, be able to discover who the
parties were that were best able to operate, if necessary—
and who to advise, as to the nature and treatment of any
internal complaint ?—They do so now ; and I believe are
equal to do so. .
6391. Do you approve of the present constitution of the
Council of the College of Surgeons ?—No.
6392. What alterations ought to be made in its constitu-
tion ; or, if you contemplate some general Board to superin-
tend the whole of the profession, state your views upon that
subject ?—I think there should be an amalgamation of the
three divisions under one superintendance.
6394. I consider that the science of medicine is one and
indivisible, and that therefore it is proper to unite, in the
way I have suggested, the Boards who examine upon it. It
seems to be wrong that the Physician should be examined
only in physic, the Surgeon only in surgery, and the Licen-
tiate apothecary only in medicine and pharmacy. They
ought all to be examined on all the three subjects.

The feelings which the regulations of the College of
Surgeons generate in the profession are thus plainly
expressed by J. C. Carpue, Esq.
6722. To what sort of practice is a professional man re-
quired to confine himself, in order to be eligible as a Mem-
ber of the Council ?—I know nothing of the College ; I
am so disgusted with it altogether, that I have not been
near it for many years.
6723. The following is the description contained in the
bye-laws of the College :—" No member of the College,
whose professional practice is not confined to surgery, shall
be elected a member of the Council." And again, " Any
member of the Council that shall not confine his profes-
sional practice to surgery shall be liable to removal from
the Council." By reading over the list of the College,
would you be able to say how many of the members actually
come under this description ?—There are 10,000 names to
read over, and I am not acquainted with many of the
members. There are 10,000 members governed by 21.
6724. Would any come under this description if inter-
preted strictly ?—I almost doubt it.
6728. But if they were to act strictly according to their
own bye-laws, most of them would be found disqualified to
sit upon the Council ?—Most of them I think.

Whatever differences of opinion may exist with re-
gard to minor questions, there are certainly leading re-
forms in our medical institutions, the necessity of which
the impartial reader of our report will at once admit to
be of self-eVident demonstration.

1. The abolition of restrictions of the College of Physi-
cians in favour of the English Universities.
2. The demolition of the inzperium in inzperio, which the
Fellows have established in the mode of electing the mem-
bers of their own body and their President.

3. The establishment of a Board of Examiners, whose
members, chosen equally from the three departments of
physic, surgery, and pharmacy, should investigate the can-
didates' knowledge of each, and leave to circumstances and
his own discretion the choice of that he would pursue in
practice.
4. The equalization of the qualification of the three Me-
tropolitan Colleges—London, Edinburgh, and Dublin ; and
the privilege to their several members to practice in any
part of the United Kicgdom.
5. The institution of annual examinations in each branch
to which a student may profess to apply himself, in order
to withhold his certificate when found deficient.

6. The limitation of hospital appointments to a certain
number of years, so that experience might be diffused
through the profession. The, elections to be decided by
merit, not by patronage.
7. The preliminary education to be tested by exami-
nation previously.to the commencement of studies purely
medical.

8. The professional attendant to be paid for his advice
and skill, not for his drugs.

As the advantages which the public and the profes-
sion would derive from these changes scarcely admit of
question, it is needless for the present to enter upon the
discussion of their merits. We are prepared, however,
for a further exposition of mal-practices, and also the
suggestion of remedies in detail when the important
subject of medical reform will be debated in the legisla-
ture. The existing medical, like other corporations,
are the strongholds of injustice and fraud—they must
be reformed altogether. Institutions must conform to
the times, or be overturned by the weight of that in-
telligence which is at present pervading and penetrating
society to its depths.

The inhabitants of Camden Town are about to erect
a noble column of granite, to commemorate Lord Camden's
sacrifice of his pension as one of the Tellers of the Exchequer.

CORONER'S INQUEST.—On Tuesday evening an
inquest, which lasted several hours, was held at the Elephant
and Castle, Pancras-road, before Mr. Stirling and a respectable
Jury, on view of the remains of a new-born female infant,
which was discovered on Saturday last in a dusthole of a house
in Sussex-street, Bedford-square. So great has been the
destruction of unfortunate babes in the parish of St. Pancras
for the last few months that a very painful feeling has been
manifested by the inhabitants, and on the discovery of the hap-
less infant forming the subject of the present inquiry the
parochial authorities interfered, and suspicion being attached
to a young female named Jane Thomas, residing with her parents
in the house where the remains of the child were found, as being
the mother of the infant, she was apprehended, and underwent
an examination before the Magistrates of -i-latton-garden, and
remanded until the result of the inquest was known. The
Jury returned a verdict, "That there was not sufficient evi-
dence to prove that the child was murdered, but that the Jury
were of opinion that Jane Thomas is the mother of the child,
and that she is guilty of the concealment of the birth." A
warrant was' in consequence issued by the Coroner for her
commitment, to take her trial for the offence.