Artistalantous.

The Standard asserts that Ministers intend to dissolve Parliament in October ; desiring, we presume, to learn from the answer what is intended. We are not disposed to aid the ruse.—Globe.

The Gazette of Tuesday notifies the appointment of the Marquis of Nor- rnanby to be her Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the King of the French; and of Viscount Ponsonby to be her Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Emperor of Austria. The Times of Thursday notices the arrival of her Majesty's ship Ames-~ rice, under the command of Captain the Honourable John Gordon, from the Pacific, and gives an authoritative contra on to the many reports, which prevailed touching the reasons that in ced the Captain to lens

the coast of Mexico without orders. The stet t of the Times is, that Captain Gordon left the station solely at the urge

who had intrusted their money to his keeping; Skrey4 merchants COI1, that

their property would not be safe in an eighteen-gun sloop.

Baron Dedel,ethe Netherlands Minister to this Court, died on Monday, at his residence in Wilton Crescent. The Baron was in the seventieth year of his age, and had done good service to his court as a diplomatist. He was an intimate friend of the late Lord Montague and the late Lord. Holland.

Lord Bloomfield, long known as a favourite of George the Fourth, died on Saturday, at his residence in Portman Square, in the seventy-ninth year of his age.

Benjamin Bloomfield was the eldest son of Mr. John Bloomfield, of Newport in the county of Tipperary. He entered the Artillery service at the age of fourteen; but throughout his long career he was regarded more as a courtier and diplomatist than as a military officer. In 1806, he entered the Household of the Prince of Wales; and so useful did he become that his Royal master delighted to honour him; intrusting him latterly with the offices of Receiver-General of the Dutchy of Corn- wall, Keeper of the Privy Parse, Private Secretary, and confidential adviser. He seems never to have experienced a slight or a fill at the hands of his capricious patron. In 1822, he was sent as Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordi- nary to the King of Sweden; and on his return, in 1825, he was raised to the rank of a Baron in the Peerage of Ireland, by the title of Lord Bloomfield. He next succeeded to the command of the Royal Artillery at Woolwich; an office which he resigned some months ago, from weakness of health. The first Lord Bloomfield is succeeded in his titles and estates by his eldest son, now British Minister at the Court of St. Petersburg.

Sir Charles Wetherell expired on Monday evening, at Preston Hall, near Maidstone, from the effects of the accident mentioned in our last paper. Sir Charles was in the seventy-sixth year of his age; his connexion with the bar extended over a period of fifty-two years.

He was the third son of Dr. Nathan Wetherell, Dean of Hereford, and Master of University College, Oxford; from whom he inherited a large fortune, as well as a disposition to add to it. Sir Charles's long professional and political career has not passed unmarked; his talents, his eccentricity of manner, and his high Tory- ism, having brought him frequently under public notice. In 1823 he was appointed Solicitor-General, and was knighted on the occasion by Georg the Fourth. ID 1826 be became Attorney-General; but resigned on the formation of the Canning Ministry, in 1827. In 1828 he was restored to office; but again resigned in 1829, in consequence of the determination of the Government to concede the Catholic claims. Sir Charles represented the city of Oxford from 1820 to 1826; next, the borough of Boroughbridge, which was disfranchised by the Reform Bill; and he did not afterwards sit in Parliament. The riots at Bristol and the narrow escape he had with his life, are well-known events in Sir Charles;is career. At the age of fifty-six he married: he became a widower in 1881; and in 1838 he again married, a daughter of the late Colonel Warneford, who survives him. There is no issue by either marriage. Sir Charles had much practice in the Equity Courts; and in addition he was Recorder of Bristol, standing counsel to the University elf Oxford, and principal legal adviser to the King of Hanover.

The Andover Union inquiry terminated on Monday. At Saturday's sitting, Sir Edmund Head, Mr. Chadwick, Sir Frankland Lewis, Mr. Gul- son, and a Mr. Jenkin Jones, were severally under examination, chiefly with the view of allowing explanatory statements to be made. Sir Edmund Head denied that his " manner " to Mr. Gulson had been such as to discourage him from making reports as to the Unions formerly under his own care- " I recollect that be mentioned the following circumstance in illustration of the ignorance of some of those employed to teach in workhouse schools. He went into one of those schools in his district to examine its state; and the girls in read-

ing came to the word quadruped ': he asked one of them what the meaning of the word was, but she did not know; he then passed the word down the class, but

none of the girls could tell him: he turned to the mistress, and asked her if she could tell him the meaning of ' quadraped'; she said she could not: he asked her if she could tell him the meaning of biped '; she said No '; and his reply was, You are a biped.' (Greet laughter.) This incident, which occurred daring my conversation with Mr. Gelatin, made me laugh very heartily; and I mention it because it illustrates the tone of the interview, and is quite at variance with the manner ascribed to me." In reply to a remark from Mr. Manners Sutton, Sir Edmund said—" If a minute should be kept of conversations, I think pictures of our attitudes and expression of countenance could not be dispensed with." (Much laughter.) Mr. S. Wortley—" In the style alluded to by a noble Lord in another place last night." (Continued laughter.) Mr. Gulson having withdrawn his expression, and given some additional explanation, Sir Edmund shook hands with him. A pause ensued, during

which it appeared to be contemplated to continue the examination of Sir Edmund Head; but, when seated in the chair for that purpose, he ap- peared to be suddenly struck with illness. A glass of water was brought to him, and he recovered; but the room having been cleared, the Committee decided that the examination should not be proceeded with.

Mr. Chadwick then entered into a long detail of the circumstances con- nected with the disallowance by the Home Secretary, in 1837, of a proposal

by the Commissioners to give allowances in aid of wages. In doing this, his object was to show that Sir Frankland Lewis was wrong in denying that Lord John Russell had ever disallowed the order. Mr. Chadwick showed these facts. Several parish charges, proper enough in themselves, had been charged upon the poor-rates as a convenient fund; but the exist- ing act not authorizing payment of those charges, Mr. Chadwick objected. [Certain payments for pauper funerals seem to have been among the items.] In the "consolidated order," the Commissioners proposed to insert the word " excessive "—disallowing excessive charges; thus indirectly authorizing charges not excessive, which was beside the question, and equally a viola- tion of the act. Mr. Chadwick objected, but his objection was overruled. On other points, too, there were differences. The Secretary put his views into writing, and the paper was sent to Lord John Russell, then Home Secretary. The Commissioners had an interview with Lord John; who adopted Mr. Chadwick's views, and objected to the draft order prepared by

the Commissioners. They altered it to be in accordance with Mr. Chad- wick's suggestion. Sir Frankland wrote the rough minute of that inter- view, in pencil; which was now produced; and his exclamation, " Why, that is my handwriting! " coupled with the excessive astonishment of his look, caused much amusement. He still insisted that no order, "signed and sealed," had been disallowed; and he clung to the representation that the Commissioners had come to their final conclusion spontaneously with the " assistance " of Lord John Russell's advice; but, on being pressed, he added—" I think I was present at the interview with Lord John Russell— I see the rough minute of it is in my handwriting"; and he allowed that his awn mind had not been made up before that interview.

A very singular statement was made by Mr. Jenkin Jones— He entered the service of the Commissionin 1836, having previously attained a high character as a statist. He left the Poor-law Office in September 1842, and became actuary to an insurance-office. In December 1893, Mr. Lewis sent for him; and examined him touching a transaction involving a charge of misde- meanour against him for the illegal sale of a clerkship in the Poor-law Office. According to Mr. Jones, the circumstances were these. At the wish of Mr. Mar- shall, landlord of the Arundel Coffeehouse in the Strand, Mr. Jones caused to be introdaced, on trial as a clerk to the Commission, a young man named Boysson. Subsequently to this, Mr. Jones had obtained from Mr. Marshall the loan of 1801.; the consideration for that accommodation being that he had procured Mr. Boyssou's introduction into the Poor-law Office. The young man proved unfit for the situa- tion; and Mr. Jones returned the money he had borrowed from Mr. Marshall. On finding that the Commissioners were determined to proceed against him, Mr. Jones wrote, on 9th May 1844, a letter to Sir James Graham, referring to the circumstance, and preferring on his part a charge against Mr. Lewis of violating the provisions of the act of Parliament, by assuming to lilinself, when acting separately, all the powers of the Board of Commissioners, and disguising the fact by fraudulent means. Mr. Jones went on to state to the Committee, that on the 7th of June following, having received an assurance from Mr. Coode that if he would plead guilty to the charge he should not be brought up for judgment, he did so • Mr. Owen, who was present, shaking him by the hand, and congratulating him on his deliverance. Mr. Jones drew up a memorandum of this interview, and forwarded it to Mr. Coode. At the lapse of a week, he was informed that there was some " mistake"; that the Commissioners did not mean, in their authorized message of the 7th of June, that he was not to be brought up for judgment, for that a judgment of some slight sort would be passed upon him. The upshot was, that Mr. Jones was brought up for judgment, on the 23d November, and sentenced to twelve months' imprison- ment. At the trial, Mr. Jervis, the present Attorney-General, addressed Mr. Jones's solicitor, in his hearing, to this effect—" The Commissioners do not wish the case to go on; the Attorney-General does not wish it to go on; but Sir James Graham does: that man is a brute." (Great laughter.) In May 1845, a pe- tition was presented on his behalf at the Home Office, numerously and respectably signed by merchants and other persons of influence in the City; but the prayer of it was refused. On the 10th of July following, Mr. Jones wrote to Mr. Coode in the following terms—" The matter cannot and shall not rest here. I hope to hear from you by Tuesday at the latest. If I do not, I shall consider that 1 have no- thing to expect from the Commissioners." He was liberated immediately after sending that letter.

The closing scene on Monday was characteristic of the whole inquiry from beginning to end. We quote the narrative from the Times— Mr. Christie having put a question to Mr. Parker, touching the control exer- cised by the Commissioners over their subordinates in respect to giving evidence, Mr. Manners Sutton rose, and, with great excitement of manner, said, " I must have the room cleared if that question is put." " The room," says the Times, " was cleared accordingly, and for a consider- able time the Committee remained in consultation with closed doors. During the - interval, Mr. M. Sutton rushed out of the room, apparently in a very agitated state; and soon afterwards Mr. S. Wortley followed, as if in search of him. On the re- turn of parties, some minor points connected with the evidence were disposed of, after which the Committee adjourned. But no sooner did this take place, than rumours began to spread that the abrupt departure of Mr. M. Sutton was not - without its reason, and that the lengthened inquiry before the Andover Commi:- tee was about to terminate in a hostile message from Mr. M. Sutton to Mr. Christie. It is said, and on undoubted authority, that the dispute arose in the following manner. Mr. M. Sutton, when the room was cleared, charged Mr. Christie with having put the question, upon which strangers had just been ordered to withdraw, merely because he knew that the Times reporter was pre- sent [We have heard a different version of Mr. Sutton's remark—that the ques- tion would not have been put except on the eve of a general election.] Mr. Christie replied, that he treated the insinuation with contempt; and thereupon Mr. M. Sutton gave an intimation to Mr. Christie, which left upon the minds of the Committee no doubt that he contemplated sending a hostile message to the honourable Member for Weymouth. The Committee, we understand, discussed the propriety of communicating the fact to the Speaker; but we are not aware that they arrived at any decision upon the subject. Finding how matters stood, Mr. Parker proceeded at once to the Westminster Police Court; and there, to the no small astonishment of the worthy Magistrate, who seemed at first to have some difficulty in grasping the full importance of the formidable application made to him, demanded a warrant against the Honourable John Henry Thomas Manners Sutton, for contemplating a breach of the peace by sending a challenge to Mr. William Dougal Christie, M.P., with the view of fighting a duel. The warrant laving been duly made out, a Policeman, of great size and apparent strength, was commissioned to inform Mr. M. Sutton that his attendance was required at the Westminster Police Court. And so ends the last chapter in the history of the Andover inquiry." [Mr. Sutton attended at the Police-office next morning, but not in custody; and the case seems to have been " hushed up."] The report of the Committee was presented to the House of Commons on Thursday. Our space will not allow us to do more than indicate the gist of this important document—

In discussing the subjects of inquiry specially pertaining to the Andover Union and Workhouse, the Committee pronounce the Guardians to be guilty of irregu-

larity and undue severity, and of tolerating grossly defective book-keeping. The charges against the Master of the Workhouse—immorality, intoxication, undue severity, and fraudulent use of the stores—are affirmed. The Visiting Justices are censured for neglecting their duty, especially in not examining the paupers as to their treatment.

The low dietary, (further diminished by the peculation of the Master,) the pactice of bone-crushing in the Workhouse, the sucking marrow from the bones by old hungry paupers, the fact that the paupers were in the habit of mitigating their hunger with raw potatoes and with gram meant for pigs, form the subjects of indignant condemnation. The Committee notice a remarkable circumstance. In 1837, the Commissioners published six forms of dietary as actually in use in workhouses: No. 3 in that list differed from the No. 3 actually sanctioned at Andover: the published form was in fact a superior dietary, and was never spe- cially communicated to the Andover Guardians ! The Committee take occasion to condemn any labour of a disgusting or penal kind.

Mr. Parker, the Assistant-Commissioner of the district, failed in the efficient performance of his duties of inspection; but he is excused on account of the ex- tent of his district and the impracticable amount of his duties; and the Com- mittee allude to "circumstances disclosed in the evidence which have led the Committee to the conviction that the Poor-law Commissioners have not given that encouragement to their Assistant-Commissioners in the detection and re- moval of abuses which would have been the best security for the zealous services of their subordinate officers."

The conduct of the Commissioners in the Andover inquiry is condemned; par

ticularly their intrusting it to the Assistant-Commissioner of the district; their refusing blacdongal, the Master, time for his defence; their offer to join Mr. Westlake, the medical officer, in prosecuting the Master; and their evident desire to close the inquiry, and so to stop the public criticism and excitement which it produced. Mr. Parker's conduct of the inquiry is commended for ability and promptitude; his publishing an angry letter is excused as indiscretion consequent on natural irritation; and his dismissal by the Commissioners is condemned as an indiscreet exercise of their power over the Assistant-Commissioners. The Commissioners have altogether failed to justify their removal of Mr. Day. Conceding that the Commissioners ought to have a power of dismissal, "the Com- mittee think at the same time, that such power should not be exercised without warning or statement of reasons to the officer to be dismissed, without minutes being kept of all letters written and received on the subject, and without official record of the grounds on which in each case the power of dismissal is exercised." The Committee emphatically condemn the practice of making "communications of an essentially public character in letters written by a single Commissioner, and in form and language purporting to be private." In conclusion—' On a review of the conduct of the Commissioners with re- spect to the Andover inquiries, and towards Mr. Parker and Mr. Day, the Com- mittee are of opinion that their conduct has been irregular and arbitrary, not in accordance with the statute under which they exercise their functions, and such as to shake public confidence in their administration of the law. " The Committee have incidentally in the first instance, and subsequently from a feeling that accused parties ought in fairness to be allowed to answer charges made against them, received much evidence upon the mode of transacting business which has been adopted by the Poor-law Commissioners throughout the existence of the Commission, and upon the insufficiency of the present number of Assistant-Commissioners for adequate inspection and control, and upon other im- portant points connected with the administration of the Poor-law, to which they think it their duty to direct the special attention of the House; but upon which, as those subjects are not included in their order of reference, they consider them selves precluded from offering any opinions of their own."

Mr. Newman is about to pay a long visit to Rome, with the view of completing his preparation for the priesthood.—hforning Post.

The subscription for the family of the late Mr. Haydon now amounts to up- wards of 2,0001.