Ilthatro nut( rnatt(iugn iu Varlinuitut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THB WEEK.

House OF Loans. Monday, May 2. India; Petition from Sheffield—Transporta- tion; Lord Grey's Notice of Motion for Tuesday next—Lunacy Bills, committed— South Sea Annuities Commutation Bill, committed—Cambridge Election ; Address for a Commission of Inquiry agreed to. Tuesday, May 3. Charitable Trusts Bill, read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee—Lunacy Bills, reported—South Sea Annuities Commutation Bill, passed.

Thursday, May 5. No sitting. Friday, May 6. Registration of Assurances Bill, read a third time, by 57 to 29, and passed—Lunacy Bills, read a third time.

House or Commons. Monday, May 2. The Budget; debate on the Income-tax Resolution resumed; Sir E. B. Lytton's amendment negatived by 323 to 252. Tuesday, May 3. County Franchise; Mr. Locke King's Motion withdrawn— Chatham Bribery ; Sir John Shelley's Motion to prosecute Sir F. Smith, negatived by 188 to 78 —" Count out."

Wednesday. May 4. Probate of Wills; Sir. Hadfield's Bill read a second time— Payment of Wages Bill, negatived by 186 to 125—Combination of Workmen Bill; debate adjourned.

Thursday, May 5. Berwick-on-Tweed ; New Writ—Prosecution of Mr. Hale; Questions—The Budget ; Income-tax debate resumed on Mr. Lawless's Amendment to exempt Ireland ; Mr. Duffy's Charges of Corruption. Friday, May 6. Mr. Duffy, called on, explains; thereupon House passes to the order of the day—The Budget; debate on Mr. Lawless's Amendment resumed ; amendment negatived by 286 to 61; other Amendments disposed of—New Writ or- dered for Maidstone.

TIME-TABLE.

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Monday 511. Sh 35m Tuesday 5h Sh 55m Wednesday No sitting.

Thursday No sitting.

Friday 5h Th 5m

Sittings this Week, 3; Time, 9h 35m Sittings this Week, 5; Time, 40h 45m this Session. 66; — 133h 9m this Session, 85; — 536h 33m

THE BUDGET : CONTINUATION OF THE INCOME-TAX DEBATE.

Before the debate was resumed on Monday, Mr. GLADSTONE, in reply to a question by Mr. MOFFAT, stated the course Government intended to pursue. After the vote on the Income-tax resolution, they would propose the Legacy-duty resolution ; and after the vote on the Legacy-duty resolution, they would propose the second reading of the Income-tax Bill. After the second reading of the Income-tax Bill, they would propose the se- cond reading of the Spirit-duties Bill. After the second reading of the Spirit-duties Bill, they proposed to carry the Income-tax Bill into Committee, losing no time in carrying it through the successive steps he bad detailed. After the Income-tax Bill had passed through Committee, all the resolutions with reference to the remission of Customs-duty would be proposed ; and in the event of the resolution with regard to the Tea-duty being agreed to, the remission would take effect as soon as the resolution was reported to the House. (Cheers.)

The Speaker then left the chair, on the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment,

Monday 4h .(m) 9h an Tuesday 4h .... Sh 30m Wednesday Noon . 6h Om Thursday 411 . (at) 2h 15m Friday 4h .(m) lh Om Sir WILLIAM CLAY opened the adjourned debate with a speech in favour of the whole budget.

Sir Frrzaor KELLY spoke against the budget resolutions, as pregnant with new and enlarged burdens on land. He had heard no reason why the Income-tax, with all its odious inequalities, should be extended to Ireland. He objected to its being continued at all unless those inequali- ties were removed. Taking the schedules seriatim, he showed that the tax bore heavily and unequally upon all the classes upon whom it was levied. In the course of his speech he advanced the doctrine that the pledge in the Loan Acts, if it was any pledge at all, would prevent the imposition of any tax whatever on the fundholder. But then, the In- come-tax should never have been imposed on dividends arising from the Funds.

Mr. Lows ridiculed the speech of Sir Fitzroy Kelly ; who had proved too much—that every person in every schedule of the Income-tax was entitled to a large reduction. Mr. Lowe followed out Mr. Gladstone's arguments against the possibility of adjusting the tax ; he explained its easy working in Ireland as respects the truly "poor"and claimed credit for Mr. Gladstone-that his financial scheme was framed in no mean or servile spirit with a view to popularity.

The debate then fell into the hands of the Irish Members : Mr. Isaac Burr and Mr. CONOLLY supporting the amendment ; and Mr. Sergeant Muartiv and Mr. EDMUND BURKE ROCHE vindicating the fairness of the propositions relating to Ireland.

Mr. DISRAELI, speaking in reference to several other Irish Members who had shown a wish to address the Committee, said, he thought that 77= to had spread over a whole week, it would not be presump- e were to take some part in it, to express the opinion of some embers upon the question ; and whether they divided that night or not, there would in all probability be many occasions in which the Irish Members might offer their opinions, "for at present we are only upon the threshold of the debate." To the general principles upon which the budget is framed he gave his entire approbation, in no spirit of affected candour or inopportune magnanimity ; because the principles are identical with the principles which he had himself endeavoured to impress upon the consideration of the House, when he said, as the organ of the Government, that the time had arrived when it was necessary to assimilate our financial policy to our new commercial system.

Some Member, understood to be Lord John Russell, exclaimed, " Hear, hear!" and, seizing that recognition, Mr. Disraeli at once launched into the first section of his speech, which consisted in showing that several Members on the Ministerial side on former occasions had opposed prin- ciples or propositions whioh they are now supporting. Lord John Rus- sell only four months ago said it was most ridiculous to enforce a com- plete revision of our taxation. Mr. Lowe was then indignant at the idea of looking beyond the year, and said they could do no more than go on as they had done, disposing of the surplus in further remissions of taxa- tion. Mr. Lowe, who is a very highminded Member, would not say one thing one day and another tomorrow for mere ephemeral popularity ; but the difference which has happened is, that four months ago he was only Member for Kidderminster, and he is now Secretary for the Board of Control. He made a single speech, and that received a memorable re- ward. In the debate on Mr. Disraeli's budget, Mr. Goulburn was parti- cularly alarmed at the proposition to create a deficiency, and make it up by fresh taxation. Sir Charles Wood said of Mr. Disraeli, almost in a tone of derision, " he is going to impose one tax in order to repeal an- other tax." The Economist newspaper, in commenting on the budget, praised it for preventing the 5,000,0001. of Income-tax front depending upon an annual vote ; a dependence which a high constitutional author- ity, Lord John Russell, thought so necessary, that when he removed sugar-duties which had been annually voted previously to the 5th July, he said that, not to depart from a constitutional practice, he should endeavour to find some other duty which would be less objectionable. Now Mr. Disraeli would prefer a yearly vote rather than a septennial.

"What I wish to impress on the Committee is, the error of these new- fangled doctrines—that it is dangerous to have a large amount of revenue de- pendent on the annual vote of Parliament ; for I believe that if we regained the exercise of the ancient constitutional privilege from which we have been too long debarred, it would be in the power of this House to insure a better and more economical control over the finances."

Mr. Disraeli contradicted a statement which Lord John 'Russell made at his election—for " I suppose men may say anything when they are on the hustings "—namely, that Mr. Disraeli had not taken time to look over the schedules of the Income-tax. Now he had never explained that part of his budget ; he had included it in the general account of his schemes, but he had expressly reserved the explanation. He now said that he did not propose his difference of and of i per cent as a financial arrangement—he only introduced it to mark a principle ; for whatever argument there may be about it, the heart and brain of every man come to the verdict that there is a distinction between incomes derived from realized property and those the result of intelligence and skill. The prin- ciple of " unrestricted competition " having been recognized, it be- came his duty to revise the financial system with the avowed object of removing the pressure upon land. And his adjustment was proposed in a spirit of conciliation. He did not believe that the Income-tax would ex- pire in 1860. Why should not a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Ministry composed of "all the talents " come down to the House next year, and, as it happened half a century ago with the other Ministry of " all the talents," propose to extend the Income-tax to 10 per cent ? The spirit of tho times is hostile to the abrogation of the tax. Sir Robert Peel advanced it to supply a deficiency ; it was continued again to create a surplus, and to deal with indirect taxes ; and now the Government asks, not only to continue the Income-tax, but to lay on other taxes to the amount of nearly 3,000,000/ for the purpose of dealing with indirect taxation. The arguments which prevail with respect to taxation may be generally applied : what argument in favour of re- mitting the duty on tea does not also apply to the wine-trade ? what argu- ment on soap does not apply to paper? why not have cheaper sugar, cheap tobacco ? No doubt, Mr. Gladstone was sincere when he said the other night that the Income-tax would cease to exist at the end of seven years ; and if in 1860 circumstances arose adverse to that conviction, no doubt they might see him, as they did in the case of Maynooth, resign his office, retire beneath the gangway, and there recommend the renewal of the tax ; sacrificing himself to save his country. No doubt, the taxes upon soap, tea, and paper, are bad : but is it worth their while to re- lieve themselves from the incidence of these taxes by perpetuating the In- come-tax ? If its inequalities and injustice baffle both Ministers and Legislature, the best thing to do is to apply the surplus to the reduction of an impost which no Minister can manage and no people can long en- dure. Mr. Gladstone had eulogized it as a gigantic instrument, and had boasted that it was a means of raising a revenue equal to the expenses of the war : but he forgot to say that between 1806 and 1816, the revenue of 65,000,0001. had an expenditure of 67,000,0001. and the public debt was increased from 600,000,0001. to 840,000,0001. The late Government was of opinion that it was out of the question to extend the Income-tax to Ireland, and he was prepared to advocate the same policy now that he advocated when he was on the other vide of the table.

Mr. Disraeli addressed himself at greatlength to showing that the whole of Mr. Gladstone's policy is conceived in a spirit of injustice to the land. Of the 46,000,0001. of revenue raised from the ordinary sources, one quarter is raised by a duty upon a single crop of the British farmer : the average of the united duties levied directly or indirectly upon barley amounts to 230 per cent. He had himself proposed ,a reduction of the tea-duty ; he believed that the supply from China is illimitable ; but in proportion as tea is consumed, it will probably become a substitute for the spirits and beer produced from barley, without any compensation to the farmer or reduction of his own duty. It is desired to increase oom- merce with France and with China, and to admit foreign articles into competition with articles of British growth : but the only proposition with respect to indirect taxation is to add 500,0001. to that amount which is already so oppressive on the cultivator of the soil. Though M r. Gladstone ad- mitted the unequal load of local taxation upon real property, he was about to extend the legacy-duty toland. A duty on successions, whatever shape

they may take, is unsound in principle and practice, for such duties are taxes upon capital.

When Sir Robert Peel proposed the Income-tax, Lord John Russell, with the traditional spirit of Mr. Fox, denounced "this odious, this unjust, this inequitable, this inquisitorial tax," and suggested the Legacy-duty instead : now, it seems, we are to have both an income-tax and a legacy- duty in England. In Ireland, Sir Robert Peel did not propose an in- come-tax, but the spirit-duties instead: the Irish are now to have the spirit-duty and the income-tax too. Strange fate, that both the coun- tries should receive from " all the talents" such accumulated blessings. Against the new annual duty on licences Mr. Disraeli had received between two and three or four hundred letters. He had abstained from sending them to Mr. Gladstone, because he found that the honourable gentleman answers those who write to him on these matters. But the murmur of discontent had made the Chancellor of the Exchequer rise and admit the necessity of the scale being altered. Mr. Disraeli de- nounced this obsequious deference to special interests.

" The farmer must bear his Income-tax ; the proprietor of the soil must bear his increased burden of direct taxation; the cultivator must find his burden of indirect taxation unnecessarily aggravated, while he has fresh rivals in the field in the article he produces. He murmurs, but he is to get no relief. But the instant a particular class in the country are touched by the Minis- ter of Finance, orders are given—the delegates wait—and the Minister trembles. Now, Sir, I have adverted to this subject before, and think it by much the most serious of our political condition. If it be the fact that certain classes in this country, because they have a certain portion of electo- ral power, are exercising that electoral power systematically to exempt them- selves from just taxation, I cannot conceive any feature in our state as a na- tion more to be deprecated, and more perilous, and more to be arrested. Why, what has been the cause of the disturbances of nations and of the fall even of thrones ? It has been the existence of classes exempted from taxa- tion. I see no difference between a privileged noble and a privileged to- bacconist."

In a peroration of unusual length and diversity, with hits all round, Mr. Disraeli taunted Lord John Russell with having thrown away the Whig party and having accepted a subordinate office under the subordi- nate officers of Sir Robert Peel. He concluded by warning the repre- sentatives of large towns against splitting up the national character of the country into separate sections, lest they should make a first-rate kingdom into a second-rate republic.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL dosed the debate by stating the actual position of the question after four nights' discussion, and vindicating the Govern- ment proposition. He forcibly pointed out the contradiction between the amendment and the speeches of Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr. Disraeli. They alleged that the budget is framed in a spirit hostile to the land ; while the amendment actually proposed to lower the rate of the Income- tax in favour of trades and professions, and leave the land subject to its present higher rate. He briefly restated the heads of Mr. Gladstone's opening speech, in replying to the various objections urged in the debate. With regard to the effect of the relief given to Ireland, and the burdens imposed on her by the budget, he found that the burden is not so great as the Opposition make it. "I find that the increase of taxation from the in- come-tax, taking it for seven years, is 400,0001. a year, from the legacy- duty, 60,000/., and from the stamp-duty, 98,0001.—in all, 558,000/. where- as the relief is, Consolidated Annuities 245,0001., tea-duty 375,0001., and other smaller items 50,0001., being a larger amount of relief than the bur- dens ; and in 1860, according to the figures, Ireland will be relieved from 670,0001., and the only duties imposed will be the legacy-duty and spirit- duty, amounting together to 258,0001., leaving 412,0001. a year as the balance of remission to Ireland." But the real question of this taxation is, how it affects the rich and the poor. He believed that the removal of duties on consumption has been of great advantage to Ireland ; because those duties, hardly borne in England, totally prevented consumption in Ireland.

In conclusion, Lord John said—" In the course of the operations to which I have referred, beginning with the removal of the differential duties, we have come, in course of time, to abolish those duties which pressed more especially on the people, and which deprived them of many comforts, many necessaries. I believe the House cannot more worthily represent the people, more worthily consult the interests of the people, than by pursuing this course. It was said last year—and I think it was a proof of little wisdom in him who said it—that he would endeavour to rule this country so as to check the advance of Democracy. Depend upon it, that the ruler who sets himself to check the advance of Democracy will but increase the irritation and aug- ment the influence of the power against which he sets himself; but, if you consult the interests of the people, you will make Democracy conservative; you will carry Democracy with you, instead of having it oppose you as an i

enemy. This, it seems to me, is the true policy for Parliament to pursue— neither to neglect the interests of land nor the interests of trade, but to con- sult all together, giving no undue favour to any one class, but pursuing a course which each must know to be just. I rejoice that towards the termi- nation of this course, which Parliament has now for nearly twelve years pursued, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had this opportunity of laying the propositions before the House, which, whether we consider the propositions themselves, or the manner in which they were introduced, must give him a name to be envied among the Fi- nancial Ministers of this country. If, in order to do this, it has been his fortune to live before his age, I trust he will find his reward in the approba- tion and support of this House, and in the gratitude of an admiring people." (Loud cheers.)

The Committee then divided—Against the amendment, 323 ; for it, 252; Government majority, 71. The announcement was received with much cheering on the Minis- terial side.

Mr. LAwLEss then proposed another amendment, to omit from the reso- lution the words " United Kingdom," and substitute the words " Great Britain," with the view of exempting Ireland from the imposition of the Income-tax.

The debate on this amendment was adjourned, notwithstanding numerous calls for an immediate division. The Chairman reported pro- gress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday.

When the House went into Committee of Ways and Means on Thurs- day, Mr. LAwLass moved, as an amendment to the original resolu- tion, the substitution of the words "Great Britain" for the words " United Kingdom." On this amendment the debate was continued by Colonel DUNNS in support, and Mr. VINCENT SCULLY in opposition to it. Mr. Draw then rose, and his speech led to a dramatic interlude of un- usual gravity, which threw the previous debate into the shade, and occu- pied the House for the rest of the evening. He went on for some time asserting that England had always favoured herself at the expense of Ire-

land, and throwing out taunts at the Irish Members : thenho came to the vote of Monday night.

No doubt, he said, some few Irish Members had voted conscientiously. (" Oh, oh !") "But," he added, "short as my experience in this House has been, I must say I do not believe that in the worst days of the Walpoles or the Pelbams more scandalous corruption existed than I have seen practised under my own eye in corrupting Irish Members. (Confusion, and cries of "Name, name ! ") I am in the hands of the House. (Continued cries of ".21'ame, name !" and "No, no ! ") I will proceed to another part of the question. ("ro, no ! " " Name, name ! " and uproar.) If the Chairman tells me, on behalf of the House, that it is their wish I should name, I shall do so." (Laughter, cries of "No, no !" and " Name, name !") Amid great uproar, Mr. VINCENT SCULLY complained of the charge. With considerable vehemence, Mr. Jones BALL, Member for Carlow, moved that the words of Mr. Duffy should be taken down. The CHAIR- MAN asked the question, " What are the words ? " (Great laughter.) For some time nobody could hear anybody. The CHAIRMAN said that he could do nothing but report the words. Mr. JOHN BALL wrote down the words in this form, and handed the paper to the Chairman- " The grossest corruption ever practised since the days of the Walpoles and the Pelhams has been practised under my own eyes upon Irish Members of this House."

Before putting the question that the words be taken down by the Clerk, the CRAM-MAN asked Mr. Duffy whether he impeached their accu- racy. Mr. Dirierir replied—" The words read are so near to those I used, that I do not take any exception to them." (Cheers, laughter, and con- siderable confusion.)

Sir DENHAM NORREYS had already urged Mr. Duffy to withdraw the words ; but without response. Lord JOHN RUSSELL recounted the cir- cumstances under which the words were used.

If Mr. Duffy meant to make a vague assertion which he could not prove, he was justified in proposing to pass to other matter ; if not, he ought to have named the Members whom he charged with gross corruption unparal-* leled since the days of the Walpoles and Pelhams. (Cheers.) The Chair- man had no power to call on him to "name." Such being the case, the Committee might "consider those words as general words used in debate, which the honourable gentleman is totally unable to prove—(Cheers)— brought forward for the purpose of affixing a stigma on Irish Members which they do not deserve—(Renewed cheers)—and that he is utterly unable to prove any single word of what he uttered." (Loud cheers.) Lord John would vote that the words should be taken down, if Mr. Duffy, with the Speaker in the chair, should proceed to charge Irish Members individually with corruption. "But, as matters now stand, unless the honourable gen- tleman goes on to take that step, I consider it would be better for the Com- mittee to treat these words with the contempt they deserve." (Loud cheers.) Mr. Lucas understood the words of Mr. Duffy differently from what they had been described. ("Ko ! " laughter, and cries of " Hear ! ") " The words, as I understood them, constituted an accusation against the Government—(Great laughter)—and might or might not imply an imputa- tion on Irish Members. (" Oh, oh !") The words were, that the grossest corruption had been practised towards Irish Members." (Vehement cries of "Name ! ") It was only in that sense that any complaint could be made.

After a good deal of disputation on the point of accuracy, in the course of which the CHAIRMAN said they were disorderly because they imputed improper motives, Mr. DISRAELI interposed.

There seemed to be some doubt about the words. (" No, no ." and cries of " They are admitted.") He did not find any imputation of "corrupt motives.' There was an imputation of "corrupt conduct" ; and the alle- gation of corrupt conduct, especially against a Ministry, is not disorderly in the House of Commons. If we declare a Member guilty of disorderly con- duct because he accuses a Minister of corrupt conduct, we should deprive ourselves of one of the "highest privileges" of our position.

Lord PALMERSTON concurred with Mr. Disraeli as to the right of im- peaching the Government.

As far as the charge of Mr. Duffy against the present Government goes, " I challenge him to the proof." (Loud cheering from the Ministerial side.) Mr. Duffy is a young Member, and he would excuse Lord Palmerston if he suggested to him a line of conduct which would redound to his credit : " Would he not cut short the difficulty by saying, that he regrets that, in the warmth of debate, he cast reflections upon honourable Members which he has no good grounds for maintaining, and which he would not deliberate- ly put forth." (Cheers.)

This attempt to make peace was followed by a renewed protest from Mr. Lrc.ts that the words did not necessarily imply any imputation on the Irish Members. Sir GEORGE GREY called upon Mr. Duffy himself to state such a correction.

The confusion only became greater as the dispute proceeded. Mr. HENRY HERBERT, as an Irish Member, reminded the House of the ad- vice given by Lord John Russell, which he for one was perfectly ready to take- " More especially as, since that excellent advice was given, the Home Se- cretary has made an appeal to the Member for New Ross, which I think the House will understand me when I say would have been responded to by any- body deserving the name of—but I hesitate to add the word." (Loud cheers and laughter.) Mr. DUFFY then rose.

"I hoped," he said, " that I should have been protected from such offen- sive language as has just been addressed to me. (" Oh !" cheers, and laughter.) I do not think it creditable that, in an assembly of English gen- tlemen—(" Oh, oh !")—such language should be applied to me under such circumstances." (Derisive cheers.) He explained. The phrase " under my own eye" meant nothing but "during the period I have been a Member of Parliament." He was instancing the conduct of Ministers, and the shape he gave his statement was " that it was my conviction that, during the time I have been in Parliament, the present Government did operate upon certain Irish Members. (" Oh ! " laughter, cheers, and cries of " Name, name ! ") What I wished to convey to the House was, that the same kind of influence which was employed by Walpole and Pelham seemed to me to have been employed to influence the votes of a certain small number of Irish Members. (Cries of " Name ! " and laughter.) He was ignorant of the forms of the House, and might have got himself into a difficult position ; but he would not unsay' what he bad said.

Mr. BRIGHT suggested, that after this explanation they had better let the matter drop. "After all, the honourable gentleman does not say that any of the Irish Members to whom he refers have succumbed to temptation. (Much laughter.) He only speaks of their having been ope- rated on, and we all know that operations are not necessarily successful." (Renewed laughter.) While the allegation of " corruption " stood unretracted, Mr. Aux BALL would not consent to withdraw the motion.

There are, he said, three ways in which a Member might use the words complained of: he might use them in the heat of debate, and a few moments

afterwards retract and regret them; might bring specific oharges, pre- pared to make them the subject of inquiry ; or he might make a charge which he cannot substantiate, and has not the manliness to retract. Now, unless Mr. Duffy would name the gentlemen to whom he referred, and bring specific charges, which could be made the subject of a substantial inquiry, "I must rest, with regard to his conduct, on the last conclusion I have stated." (Cheers.)

The Committee then agreed that the words should be taken down and

reported to the House. Accordingly, the House having resumed, Mr. Booveare reported the words; and the SPEAKER asked Mr. Duffy whe- ther he had any explanation to offer? Mr. DUFFY said, he did not know the forms of the House. The SPEAKER informed him, that he must retract or explain the words, and then withdraw.

Mr. DUFFY briefly repeated his second statement ; and said that if the House would give him a Committee, he would lay before them the facts that influenced him in the conclusions to which he had arrived.

He then withdrew; and the House grew more tranquil.

Lord Joinr RUSSELL did not think it became him as a member of the Government to advise the House ; and he called upon some "experienced Member" to make a motion.

Mr. DISRAELI thought it would not be right to send a vague statement before the Committee. He suggested that Mr. Duffy should be summoned and asked to name those "upon whom he thinks the Government have practised those corrupt influences." Mr. Disraeli's suggestion, however, was not adopted ; but Mr. STUART WORTLEY rose at once and moved "that Mr. Duffs language be taken into consideration at four o'clock tomorrow." That would give them time to consult precedents, and Mr. Duffy time to reflect. This motion was debated a good deal. Mr.

'Moons, Mr. BRIGHT' Mr. CONOLLY, Mr. J. BALL, and Lord JOHN Bus- SELL, supported Mr. Wortley's motion : Mr. Kum, Colonel CAULFIELD, and Mr. VINCENT SCULLY, were for acting on the recommendation of Mr. Disraeli.

Mr. Sergeant SHEE then spoke at considerable length, apparently to explain that Mr. Duffy did not mean that pecuniary corruption had been transacted ; and that he had only intended to indicate the offer and ac- ceptance of places by Mr. Sadleir and Mr. Keogh. They were sixty or seventy strong pledged to oppose any Government that did not support certain measures : they had gone into the lobby against the late Govern- ment; and then they found two of their number in office.

Ultimately, Mr. WORTLEY'S motion was agreed to, with an addition suggested by Mr. W. 0. STANLEY, that Mr. Duffy should appear in his place at four o'clock.

TEN-POUND COUNTY Fiuteciriss.

Mr. LOCKE Krim renewed his annual motion for leave to bring in a bill to make the franchise in counties the same as that in boroughs. Lord Jous RUSSELL observed that such a bill could not be introduced without discussing the whole question of the representation ; and that would ob- struct the progress of the important business before the House. He re- peated his promise, on behalf of the Government, to introduce a measure at a time and in a manner which would entitle it to the serious considera- tion of the House. Mr. HUME, Sir DE LACY EVANS, and Mr. HA.DFIELD, advised Mr. King not to divide the House; and the motion was accord- ingly withdrawn.

BRIBERY PRosEcurrorr.

Sir JOHN SHELLEY called the attention of the House to the sessional order that all Members found guilty of wilful bribery should be proceeded against with the utmost severity. Then, referring to the re- port of the Chatham Election Committee, he showed that the House had directed the Attorney-General to prosecute Stephen Mount for perjury. If that report was good against Stephen Mount, it was equally good against Sir Frederick Smith. He cited a number of precedents in sup- port of the motion with which he concluded,

"That the Chatham Election Committee having reported that Joseph Greathead, an elector of Chatham, had been bribed by a situation as a let- ter-carrier in the Post-office, obtained for his son, Charles Greathead, by Sir John Mark Frederick Smith, the Attorney-General be directed to prosecute the said Sir John Mark Frederick Smith for bribery at the last election at Chatham."

Sir FE.RDERICX THRSIGER vigorously contested the motion, on the ground that neither the evidence nor the report would justify it. The precedents proved that the House had not ordered prosecutions except in cases of gross corruption ; and in this case the report of the Committee was guardedly framed. The evidence, in his opinion, did not bear out the charge of bribery. Sir Frederick Smith did not imagine he was do- ing anything illegal by getting the place for young Greathead ; and he made no secret of it whatever. Joseph Greathead had promised to vote before the place was obtained. What Member of that House was there who had not, after his return, been repeatedly applied to for places by persons who voted for him or their relatives ? He implored the House to consider the stigma they would affix on an honourable man if they or- dered the prosecution.

A warm discussion followed. Mr. WILLIAM WiLmems thought the charge against Sir Frederick Smith was light as compared with many others ; and he recommended the withdrawal of the motion. Two Mem- bers of the Committee spoke in succession. One of them, Mr. BP.AMSTON, said it would be impossible for candidates to stand for Chatham without -giving promises to voters ; but he suggested that the House, in forming such constituencies, was a party to the corruption. He admitted that the Committee had formed an opinion on the whole of the evidence. Mr. Arsrmr Psmarr said, the Committee had agreed that the case came within the Bribery Act ; but it was plain that Sir Frederick Smith laboured un- der a monomania that he might grant favours to voters even during the election without rendering himself liable to a prosecution. Mr. Nnw- BEGAT'S and Mr. Mammas Spa= opposed the motion. Mr. W. J. Fox, replying to a remark made by Sir Frederick Thesiger, said he for one had never received a single application for a place from any of his consti- tuents ; nor had he ever asked a favour of any kind from the Govern- ment.

Tuoicks Durseoxes believed there was not evidence sufficient to make a jury convict Sir Frederick Smith. Why, lately one Morgan bad been seized in the act of bribery, and had pleaded guilty in court ; the Jury recommended him to mercy, and the Judge told him be might go

ought to do was not to issue a new writ for Chatham. Pressed on all sides not to go to a division, Sir Joint SHELLEY still said he should persist; and at this stage of the debate Lord Joan Rosszu stated his views.

He had consulted the Law-officers of the Crown, and they were of opinion that there was sufficient evidence to go before a court of law and show that Sir Frederick Smith was guilty of bribery ; but they would not answer for the success of the prosecution. At some length Lord John commented on the report, and showed that it admitted of two interpretations, thus placing

the House in great difficulty. The Committee ought either to have reported that Sir Frederick Smith was guilty of bribery, and then have supported a motion for prosecution, or not have preferred a charge at alL It would ex- pose the House to great misconstruction if they did not hesitate to prosecute a low person and yet would not consent to prosecute a person of distinction. He did not think it was the business of the Government to influence the House, but for himself he should vote against any future prosecution if the House rejected this motion. Cries of " Divide !" now rang on all sides. Mr. WORTLEY, however, obtained a hearing while he argued that the prosecution would look vin- dictive out of doors; and that it was doubtful whether a jury would con- vict. Mr. DRUMMOND, met by renewed cries of "Divide !" delivered a sarcastic speech on the state of things in general as regards corruption. He kept the House in a roar of laughter for some time by wittily des- canting on the theme that there are only two methods of government— absolutism and self-interest. We have adopted the latter; and hence corruption.

You may call it bribery, or corruption, or give it any hard name you like, but it pervades your whole system, from the palace of the Sovereign, through the House of Lords, through the House of Commons, and through the whole of the constituencies ; and you cannot rule in any other way. " Why is there such desperate anxiety to come to this House ? Because this House is the great place-bazaar, the great office-market. (Laughter.) Here place-scrip is sold and bought. (Laughter, and cries of "Oh !") Why is the House blest with so many gentlemen of the legal profession. (Loud laughter.) Is it not because they find that a flashy partisan speech in this House is a surer road to the bench than hard fagging in chambers or attendance in court? But is it for the public advantage that this should be the school in which the lawyer should study for the gravity of the ermine ? He was not sure whether the Attorney-General was in his place just now, but there were gentlemen in the House of whom it was pretty well known that by this title they got the situations which they adorn. (Laughter.) To be sure, every class has its price, as well as every individual. You cannot bribe in the House of Lords by 21. 10s. or a place in the Post-office ; but is there no bribery in making Barons Viscounts, and Viscounts Earls, and Earls Marquises ? There was a bill introduced by the noble Lord, or some Reformer or other, pro- hibiting the giving a few yards of penny riband to the wives and daughters of the electors,—it was bribery! But you will find in the House of Lords the gift of three yards of green ribaud, or blue riband, very conducive to the public interest. (Laughter.) Mr. Drummond said he was not censuring these proceedings ; he justified them ; it is the only system by which your government can be carried on. He was very sorry the Government has not got a great deal more power of that sort." (Loud laughter.) They must make that House the representative of the wealth of the people, and then they would not find the bribery they now complain of. He thought the mo- tion discreditable to the House.

Mr. HUME and Sir JohN SHELLEY rather warmly resented this speech; and order was barely restored before the House divided—For the motion, 78 ; against it, 188 ; majority against prosecuting the briber, 110.

NEW WRIT.

A debate on a motion for the issue of a new writ for Berwick-on- Tweed, begun last week, was continued on Thursday by Mr. Frani ; who attempted to make out a strong case against that borough, and moved the suspension of the writ until the 2d June.

The substance of a long debate may be expressed in a few words. Last week, the Times told a story of an election in which a lawyer put himself in the position of candidate, for ulterior and collateral purposes : he was not elected, but after his defeat he preferred a petition against a successful candidate ; and then, at an interview with the Member's son, hinted in various ways that the petition would be withdrawn on payment of 20001. It now appears that the place was Berwick ; that the lawyer was Mr. Hodgson ; and that the Member was Mr. Mathew Forster. But the case of Mr. Hodgson, stated by Sir FREDERICK Timms% is very different. From that it would appear that Mr. Hodgson had lodged mo- nies for the payment of his own share of the expenses ; and that his overtures to Mr. Forster junior wore made in a spirit of confidence and friendliness, to prevent trouble and expense. The discussion furnished no data whatever for a conclusion on these conflicting statements.

Mr. Ken SEYMER and Sir FREDERICK Tiresniza opposed the motion ; on the ground that whatever inquiry the House might think fit to direct into the circumstances attending the last election, that ought not to bar the constituency from the rights of representation. On a division, the motion was negatived by 218 to 60 ; and the writ was ordered to issue.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS.

The Loan Cirerresixort moved the second reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill. He explained in what the provisions of this bill differ from that introduced in 1851.

The board of superintendence will be a branch of the Government, and composed of the Lord President of the Council ; some other Cabinet Minis- ter, who shall also be a Member of the House of Commons; and two legal gentlemen of high attainments. Their duties will consist in superintending all the charities of the kingdom; in doubtful cases advising trustees how to act—a provision much wanted ; directing, as well as forbidding, the institu- tion of legal proceedings ; and empowering trustees to build houses, ex- change land, and sometimes to purchase and to sell land. They will be empowered to sanction a different application of the funds of charities, first, wherever the objects of the charity are such that it becomes impossible to apply the funds ; second, when the object has failed in what was understood to be the intention of the founder, or where there are two or more charities for a nearly similar purpose ; third, where the funds of no one are sufficient for its object, but would be so when united ; fourth, where charities have been founded above sixty years, and where they are unfitted for the purposes contemplated. The expenses of this board will be paid out of the public ex- chequer. The two legal members will go into the country to make inquiries on the spot in every case requiring investigation. Trustees will be obliged to keep regular accounts of every item of income and expenditure, and an- nually to deposit one copy with the Clerks of the County Courts, and to fur- nish the board with another. The County Courts will have jurisdiction over all charities not exceeding 301, in amount—of which there are 22,760;

and all cases above 301. will go before the Master, who will be at liberty, in caws of importance, to direct a bill to be filed in the court. The Duke of CLEVELAND, Lord CHICHESTER, and Lord BROUGHAM approved of the bill generally. Lord ST. LEONARDS objected to the con- stitution of the Board, and to the conferring of such powers on indi- viduals. There was an amusing dispute between Lord BROUGHAM and Lord ST. LBONARDS, each eagerly affirming that the other had not attended the Charity Commission ; whereas it turned out, that, by arrangement, they had attended on alternate days, and so had never met each other at the sittings.

The bill was read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee.

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.

This bill, which appears to have attracted little notice in its progress through the House of Commons, met with great opposition on the motion for the third reading, on Wednesday. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, se- conded by Mr. GEORGE Burr, moved the third reading that day six months. The bill, they contended, would have the effect of repealing that part of the law which makes it illegal for workmen to combine, for in- timidating to persuade or induce others to leave their employ. It had been represented to the House that the bill was intended to reverse a de- cision of the Court of Queen's Bench, by which workmen, while in em- ployment, would be prevented from meeting to consider and agree upon the rate of wages they could demand. What the Court really decided was' that it is illegal for workmen to combine to induce others in the ac- tual employment of manufacturers to quit their employment for the pur- pose of compelling their employers to raise the rate of wages. That is an offence at common law.

Mr. DRUMMOND said that he had brought in the bill because half a dozen people were put in prison while the Law-officers were settling the law. The bill was declaratory of the law. Lord PALMERSTON stated that the Attorney-General had inadvertently omitted to oppose it on the second reading. The sense of the House was against the bill. It was not declaratory, but a repealing act, as stated by the Solicitor-General. Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS put the matter in a clearer light. He was astonished at the course now taken. First they were told the bill was unnecessary, and then that it altered the law. Now, the recital of the bill—that doubts had arisen as to the construction of the 6th George IV. c. 129—is true. Those doubts arose in this way. In 1847, Baron Rolfe, try- ing some workmen, laid it down, that if workmen in assembling together had no other object than to persuade one another that it was their interest not to work except for certain wages, or not to work under certain wages, or unless certain regulations were complied with, that was not an illegal object pro- vided it were sought in a peaceable manner. But, in the trial of the tin-plate workers at Stafford, Mr. Justice Erle laid down a conflicting proposition : he said that where persons combined together to obstruct and molest a master manufacturer in order to force him to alter his mode of carrying on his busi- ness, and inpursuance of that object combined to persuade other men to leave his employ, that, being an overt act, was an indictable offence ; and he told the Jury, that, in his opinion, it did constitute an indictable offence. Now, the object of the present bill is to declare plainly the law on the subject; and the only question was, did the workmen ask what is fair and proper ? After reciting the doubtful state of the law, the bill proceeded to enact, " That masters, employers, workmen, or other persons who shall enter into any combination to advance or to lower or to fix the rate of their wages, or to lessen or alter the hours or duration of the time of their working, or to peaceably persuade or induce others to abstain from work in order to obtain the rates of wages or the altered hours of labour so fixed or agreed upon, shall not be deemed or taken to be guilty of molestation' or obstruction ' within the meaning of the said act, [that is, the act of the 6th of George IV. c. 129,] and shall not therefore be subject or liable to any indictment or pro- secution for conspiracy." This was simply an enactment with reference to the construction to be put upon the Combination of Workmen's Bill. The com- mon law would not be abolished by the bill, but persons might still be indicted in case of conspiracy. The only object was to enable the workmen to meet, discuss, and decide what higher wages they are entitled to receive ac- cording to the state of trade. At present, the construction put upon what is called • persuasion" brings the workmen under the Combination Act.

Mr. Tnortes DUNCOMBE made some additions to the quotations from the charge of Baron Rolfe. He did not consider it necessary to notice the fact whether workmen are under engagement or not; they ought to be exactly on the same footing as their employers.

Mr. Huwx advised anxious consideration, and moved an adjournment of the debate. This motion was supported by Lord join? RUSSELL. When the House divided, it was negatived by 121 to 102. But the clock put an end to the sitting by striking six.

PAYMENT OF WAGES.

Sir HENRY SALFORD moved the second reading of the Payment of Wages Bill. He stated that the Truck Act requires that wages should be paid in the legal coin of the realm, but a literal construction of that act exempts certain practices from its operation. The object of his bill was to bring them within the scope of the law ; especially to prevent the deduction from wages of rent for frames used in knitting, and to submit the hiring of those frames to a fair and open competition. At present, arbitrary and excessive rents are exacted. Old worm-eaten frames are let at is., and others, worth 508., are let at 2s. 6d. a week. Another ob- ject was to prevent the imposition of excessive fines. With respect to the deduction of rent for houses, that is allowed by the Truck Act. Sir Henry believed the bill is generally demanded, both by masters and men. Mr. BIGGS, in a maiden speech, opposed the bill, as a manufacturer. He stated that there are about 50,000 stocking-frames in the country ; 40,000 of these are narrow and 10,000 wide frames. With the former, only one stocking at a time can be made; with the latter, two. The working-people cling to the former, which they can work at in the vil- lages. Hence the distress. Where they get 12s. a week in the towns with wide frames, they can only earn 58. or 6s. a week with narrow ones. But that is not the sole cause of distress. The trade is so easily learned that the market is overstocked. Rents are necessary as a security that the frames let by one manufacturer are not appropriated to the service of another. Middlemen are indispensable, as the workpeople are scattered over the country-aide, and employers cannot treat individually with each workman.

Mr. Huse moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. It was further opposed by Mr. STRUT; Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. T. EGERTON, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. WHALLEY, Mr. CHBETHAM, Mr. MUNTZ, and Mr. HErwovam They urged that the bill would not effect its ob-

ject ; that it provided no effectual remedy for the admitted grievances ; that framework-knitters stand on the same footing as other trades, and can make what agreement they please with their employers ; that the bill would disappoint the workmen and damage trade ; and that it was contrary to the sound principles of political economy.

In support of the bill were Mr. PACKE, the Marquis of GRANBY, Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Colonel BLAIR, and Lord JOHN MANNERS. The object, they said, is to get the workpeople a fair day's wages for a fair day's work ; to levy 2s. 6d. on frames which cost only 51. is an outrage ; the bill would not interfere with the rate of wages, but would enable the knitter to hire in the cheapest market ; and wages and debt should be kept distinct. It was also urged as a grievance, that the manufacturers would not give employment to men who find their own frames ; and that butchers, bakers, gentlemen's servants, and women, buy frames as an investment, which they let to the manufacturers, who Make a profit on letting them to the workmen.

Sir HENRY HALFORD having replied, the House divided—For the amendment, 186; against it, 125; majority against the bill, 61.

THE ROCKET SEIZURE.

Further questions have been put to Lord Palmerston respecting the prosecution of Mr. Hale ; the extent, if any, of Kossuth's complicity ; and the use of the Police as spies. The questioners were Mr. THOMAS DUN- COMB; Mr. BRIGHT, and Mr. COBDEN. Lord PALMERSTON stated, that it was both the interest and the duty of Government to continue the prosecution against Mr. Hale ; but that the evidence in possession of Government did not justify any proceedings against any other person, British or foreign. Government did not wish to press with harshness on Mr. Hale. With respect to the employment of the Police, Lord Palmerston repeated what he said last week, that it is one of the duties of the Police to watch all persons they thought en- gaged in illegal proceedings.

In the opening of his speech, referring to some quotations from foreign journals which stated that the Police of foreign countries were efficiently assisted by the British Police from time to time, he said that if Mr. bun- combe had read as many extracts from foreign papers as he had, he would find the weight of the accusation very different in kind.

"I was told the other day, that in the searches recently made in Italy there was a set of daggers found of English manufacture, and that the au- thorities were indignant and incensed at the detestable and diabolical con- duct of the man who had been Minister for Foreign Affairs in England, for on these very daggers his name was inscribed. They said, 'There it is plain enough—Palmer and Son. Oh, the execrable revolutionist ! to send de- structive weapons inscribed with his own name into Italy.' " (Great laugh- ter.)

Lord JOHN Russ= finished the protracted conversation by repeating Lord Palmerston's statement of the law of England ; and pointing out that there are two opinions respecting M. Kossuth—one that he is a patriot, the other that he acts from selfish motives. Lord John thought that when M. Kossuth allowed his name to be used to excite revolt at Milan, and put forward statements of his determination to make war on Austria, it was not to be wondered at that he was suspected.

Sir JOSHUA WALMSLEY, not satisfied with the replies respecting the employment of the Police to watch Kossuth, said he should move for a Committee of inquiry.

'annex REFORM.

Lord WHAENCLIFFE presented a petition from the Corporation of Cutlers at Sheffield praying for the better government of British India,— for greater fixity in the imposition and collection of the land-tax, the abolition of advances on what is called the hypothecation of goods, and especially praying that internal improvements and public works may be promoted in India. Lord Wharncliffe dwelt in detail on these subjects, particularly the last; and he was supported by the Earl of ELLEN- BOROUGH. Earl GRANVILLE encouraged the discussion of Indian affairs ; and said that the Government is anxious to carry out to the fullest extent the material happiness of the people of India. The Earl of ALBEMARLE strongly insisted on the necessity for roads.

" COUNT OUT."

While Sir J. FITZGERALD was speaking, on Tuesday, in support of a motion for leave to bring in a bill for providing that the act — of Vic- toria, which regulates the presence of soldiers at Parliamentary elections in England, should be extended to Ireland, a Member moved that the House be counted ; and there being only thirty-seven Members present, the House stood adjourned.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

The Election Committees continue their delicate investigations. This week we have three—Harwich, Bolton, and Totness.

The Harwich petition alleges bribery against both the sitting Members —Mr. Peacocke and Mr. Waddington. The charge against the former is, that he bought the seat by undertaking to pay 20001. to Mr. Elnislie, the agent of Mr. John Attwood, under the head of expenses for the last election. This is denied ; but it is admitted that an offer was made through Mr. Lloyd to Mr. Peacocke. Mr. Lloyd said Mr. Peacocke had declined to make any promise—an understanding was sufficient among " gentlemen."

The rest of the case consisted of attempts to show that voters had been bribed in the usual way ; and that, in one instance, a voter had been sud- denly put into gaol on an execution for debt, and mysteriously let out again to vote for Peacocke and Waddington. One voter received 101. to vote for them, but when brought to the polling-booth he refused the bribery oath. One witness said—" We do not know anything about principle in Harwich ; we do not harbour such a feeling there." Some of the important witnesses, who were visible last week, disappeared when the sittings of the Committee began.

The evidence against Mr. Crook and Mr. Barnes, Members for Bolton, totally failed : they were found to be duly elected, and the petition was declared " frivolous and vexatious."

The rotifers petition also failed, and Mr. Mills was declared to be duly elected. Nothing said about costs.

ADMIRALTY PATRONAGE.

The Dockyard Committee met on Monday, and proceeded to take the evidence of Cotsell. He admitted that he spoke to Mr. Stafford respect- ing his promotion to Portsmouth ; that he bad taken part in the election, canvassing one or more Dockyard voters, and attending a convivial meet- ing. He told the Committee that it was a singular fact in his history he

had never recorded his vote before at any election, yet on this occasion he voted for Sir Frederick Smith : he had known him for six years, and he took an interest in his election. Cotsell denied the deposition of Tho- mas Scott respecting what took place at the Admiralty ; and reluctantly confessed that the name of the friend he saw there was Mr. Piers. 'Tho- mas Scott was examined, and repeated the substance of the deposition previously printed ; that Cotsell had told him all about it ; that he had arrived at the Admiralty on hearing of the appointment of Wells, only just in time ; that his friend observed as much, putting the written ap- pointment of Wells into his pocket. Mr. Piers explained that ho had seen Cotsell at the Admiralty ; that the " warrant " appointing Wells was on the table at the time, but that Cotsell could not see it, as it was under the leaden weight. Recalled, Cotsell admitted that he did not make the statement to Scott, but that "it oozed out through a friend in another

his finished that part of the case. Here Sir Baldwin Walker put in two letters : one, written by Commodore Seymour from Devonport Dock- yard, on the 27th April 1852, spoke of a "foreshadowing" in that yard of a return to corrupt and dishonest practices ; and the other, written on the 9th April, from Captain Richards, Superintendent of Chatham Dock- yard, spoke of the appointment of one Ridgeway, a man declared incom- petent by his officers, to an important position. Captain Richards remon- strated with Mr. Stafford ; but Mr. Stafford insisted on the appointment's going forward : if Ridgeway were found incompetent, Captain Richards could report to that effect.

Before Mr. Stafford was examined, be made a statement ; not a narra- tive of the events as related by Sir Baldwin Walker, but rather a com- mentary on them.

He could not pledge himself as to the accuracy of conversations, although be had a recollection of the state of things at that time. He described him- self as under great pressure from his political friends, but denied that Lord

Derby or Mr. Disraeli had exercised that pressure. What he had said was, that " Lord Derby and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not, any more than any Government, permit all patronage to be in the hands of their

opponents." Innumerable letters were received by him, some anonymous, all in the strictest confidence, complaining that all the men promoted were hostile to the Government. He did not inquire of the Lords of the Admi-

ralty whether those complaints were well-founded. He took the opinions of his political friends. Letters of Members of Parliament passed severe cen- sures on Sir Baldwin Walker, but deprecated inquiry, because it would be

dangerous. Mr. Stafford thought he could remedy it by the cancelling cir- cular. He admitted that the circular was cancelled "under the cognizance" of the First Lord, and with his "sanction." As to the mode of cancelling the circular, he repeated the explanation given in the House of Commons. The circular of 1849 was not issued by a Board minute, and required no

Board minute for its cancelling. He bad "never seen or been told of" Sir Baldwin's letter of resignation. He had seen the letter of the 10th May ; but the Duke of Northumberland had shown it to him "confidentially," and he had treated it as if he had never seen it. Mr. Stafford never meant that Sir Baldwin should suppress the copies of the letters. He could not quite assent to Captain Milne's statement on this point. Captain Milne was sent to " smooth matters over," but not to " mediate" for the suppression of the copies.

The proceedings of Tuesday wore of a very various character. Sir Baldwin Walker put in a letter from Mr. Stafford, in which the writer

stated that Admiral Berkeley had given him notice of a motion " on the

subject of your correspondence," and the probability that he would " raise a question as to its existence " ; and asking Sir Baldwin to meet him at the Admiralty, when, he said, " I think I can point out a course of proceed- ing which may be adopted without the least annoyance to yourself or any one else." Mr. Cotsell put in a letter, with great reluctance, from Mr. Collings, a clerk in the Accountant-General's Office, stating the chances of Mr. Cotsell's success, and adding that Sir Baldwin was favourable to the transfer of his services' from Chatham to Portsmouth. Sir Baldwin

explained, that he was not then aware that Cotsell had been promoted

from the Portsmouth yard. He added, that in a conversation with Col- lings at the time, Collings asked him if he knew that Mr. Stafford had promised Cotsell the place, in the presence of Sir Frederick Smith ? Mr.

Briggs, reader to the Board of Admiralty, was examined; but his evidence, though amusing from its preposterous solemnity, does not throw more light on the proceedings at the Admiralty. Mr. Grant, private secretary to Mr. Stafford, said, that in his interview with Sir Baldwin Walker, at Somerset House, he had explained the inconvenience arising from the not sending reports of vacancies direct to the Admiralty. Mr. Stafford was examined as to the case of Wells. He had seen the submission of the Surveyor recommending Wells, with Admiral Parker's initials attached to it ; and he considered that in attaching his initials Admiral Parker had stepped out of his department, and that the right of appointing the mas- ter smith vested in himelf. Being asked whether he had promised the

place to Cotsell, he said he gave the stereotyped answer that he gave to thousands of other applications—that when the vacancy occurred his claims should have the best consideration. Lord Seymour then put the following question— "In your letter replying to the memorial of Wells, you use the expression, am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.' Did you bring the memorial under the consideration of their Lordships ? " Mr. Stafford—" No ; that is an entirely formal expression."

Lord Seymour—" Another stereotyped form which you use."

Shortly after, the examination took the following turn. Sir B. Hall—" When letters go out to the Superintendent of a Dockyard to the Surveyor and the Accountant-General, is not the signature of the war- rant by one of the Admiralty Secretaries a matter of course ?" Mr. Stafford—" Yes; but the warrant was stopped by Captain Hamilton in my absence. I asked him to look after my patronage while I was away ; and I am quite willing to take the responsibility of his having done so."

Sir B. Hall—" Why did he not follow the routine of his duty in this case ? " Mr. Stafford—"Because I asked him to keep back the appointment."

Sir B. Hall=" What became of the doonm.uts relating to the recom- mendation of Wells ?

Mr. Stafford—" I can't say ; they were placed on my table, but I cannot trace them out."

Lord Seymour—" You called the attention of the Committee to the circu- lar of 1849 not being a Board minute : I find on reference to the original that it is signed by the Secretary, and initialed by the First Lord : was yours so initialed ? "

Mr. Stafford—"No, I am certain it was not. I did not attach so much importance to it as it now possesses ; and I am bound to say that it was a hasty step." Mr. Stafford admitted that Sir Frederick Smith had recommended Cot-

sell ; and that from his command at Chatham Sir Frederick had the means of judging of Ceteell's capabilities.

Captain Richards, Superintendent of Chatham Dockyard, was ex- amined ; and showed that on his appointment Sir Francis Baring ex_ pressly stipulated that he should " not meddle in politics " ; that no meddling was allowed ; that Ridgeway, promoted by Mr. Stafford, had been nearly dismissed for breaking the regulations by making private applications for promotion, in 1849 ; and that Ridgeway was incompetent for the office assigned to him by Mr. Stafford. In the course of Monday and Tuesday, Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli, through their private secretaries, made application to be examinedow. less the Committee were of opinion that they had not unduly pressed Me. Stafford to exercise his patronage for the benefit of the party.

Captain Richards was again examined on Thursday, respecting the case of Ridgeway ; and he showed conclusively, that although it was known to Mr. Stafford that Ridgeway was incompetent, yet he promoted him. It seems that some suspicions had gained ground at the Admiralty that Ridgeway had been kept back from promotion in consequence of his poll_ tics. Captain Richards indignantly denied that such was the case. Se_ veral Marines were examined, to show that they had been sent for and canvassed for the Government candidate with the sanction of their com.. manding-officer. The Duke of Northumberland has intimated his readi- ness to appear before the Committee ; and, on the motion of Lord Sey- mour, a message was ordered to be sent to the House of Lords requesting permission for the Duke to attend.