i4g 311rtma1o.

The Administrative Reform Association, after a long period of inac- tivity, held a meeting on Saturday, at the London Tavern, "to take into consideration the circumstances connected with the fall of Kars." The President, Mr. Samuel Morley, took the chair. There Were only three Members of Parliament on the platform,—Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Apsley Pel- lett, and Mr. Tite ; the other chief persons were Mr. Ingrain Travers, Mr. Gassiot, Mr. Alfred Bate Richards, Mr. iNfechi, and Mr. Frederick Lawrence. The chairman, in bringing under the notice of the meeting a memorial to the Queen touching the fall of Kars, did not keep very closely to that topic, but discoursed also on "the impure process by which appointments are made " ; the impropriety of sending the Duke of Cambridge to the Council of War at Paris ; the indifference of the people to administrative reform, and their culpability in not electing inde- pendent representatives. Ile hoped, that at the next election the City of London will secure at least one honest man who "will knew-nothing of Goveriunent—who will not impede Government in its proper work, but guide it in the right direction." The memorial which was read and adopted set forth, that during the whole period of the siege of Kars thousands of her Majesty's troops and Turkish troops and an immense fleet of transports, remained ineffective ; that General Beatson had ap- plied to Lord Stratford for permission to march his 4000 Bashi-Bazouks to the relief of Kars, and that the very soldiers had petitioned to be sent, but that neither general nor soldiers got any answer from the British Ambassador ; and that General Williams sent thirty-six despatches, de- manding relief, be14re he recei,ved a single reply from Lord Stratford. The memorialists inny that her 'Majesty will "direct a full and public inquiry into the whole of the circumstances involved in the fall of Kars."

The adoption of this memorial constituted the sole business of the meet- ing; but the speaking continued to be discursive. Mr. Gassiot was not sure that lie "thoroughly understood the subject" on which he was speaking, but he was determined to say out what he had to say—what is said in private society. There is a growing tendency to shift re- sponsibility to irresponsible parties. This proposition he illustrated by telling the meeting that the late Brigadier Mayne was summoned from India to form the Cavalry of the Turkish Contingent ; that when he was preparing for the appointment he was told that it must first be sane- .tioned by Prince Albert ; and that ultimately the appointment did not take place, not because Lord Hardingc objected to Brigadier Mayne, but because Mince Albert did. Now when the name of the Prince Consort is made the scapegoat for imbecility and incapacity, then indeed it is time for the country to complain of responsibility being thrown on irre- sponsible shoulders. He narrated two instances of the "red-tape sys- tem."

"A captain in the Navy—a young and active officer, especially conver- sant with naval gunnerv—had made himself acquainted, under very peculiar circumstances, with all the soundings about Cronstadt up to St. Petersburg. This was known to the Admiralty; but when he asked for a command in the Baltic, to which he was entitled from his rank, instead of sending him where his services would have been valuable to his country, they despatched him with troops to the Cape of Good Hope. Who could say what might not have been done had Sir Charles Napier had this officer with him in the Baltic in the first campaign. In the same way they had sent a young naval cadet, who had been at school in St. Petersburg, and who could speak Rus- sian like a native, to the West Indies ; where of all places he would have least chance of turning this valuable acquisition to account, and where he would be soonest likely to lose it."

Mr. Ingrain Travers and Mr. Lindsay also followed Mr. Gassiot on to the delicate ground of Prince Albert's influence. Mr. Travers said the inquiry demanded would give the "honest" portion of the Cabinet an opportunity of exculpating themselves.

They would feel grateful to any one who would relieve them from an in- fluence which is tying their hands, and which prevents them from doing that which they believe to be necessary for the honour and glory of the country they govern.

Mr. Lindsay also read a letter from a "Brigadier-General" of the Turkish Contingent, bitterly complaining against "the head-quarters party" in the Crimea, who are jealous of the Indian officers of the Con- tingent, as the cause of the inactivity of that body of troops.

"The inhabitants of Westminster" assembled in public meeting in St. Martin's Hall on Wednesday, "to protest against the conclusion of any peace on terms inconsistent with the honour and dignity of this country." Mr. Charles Westerton took the chair. The audience was very large, and, as it ultimately turned out, the Chartist element predominated. Sir De Lacy Evans sent a hitter expressing his concurrence in the object for which the meeting was called, but stating that as it would be his duty to speak in the House of Commons the next day he did not see that it would serve any useful purpose to speak in St. Martin's Hall. The Honourable Charles Smythe Vereker moved, and Mr. Alfred Bate Rich- ards seconded, a resolution to the effect that an armistice ought not to be concluded until preliminaries of peace were signed, and that "no treaty will be satisfactory which does not secure to the Allies an indem- nity for the expenses of the war, and which does not guarantee the inte- grity and independence of the Turkish empire." Both speakers declared that the terms as they stand are vague and unsatisfactory. Mr. Rich- ards summed up his view of the matter neatly enough : "We have had a sham war ; we have had a sham blockade ; now we are drifting into a sham peace." Major Lyon, who followed, had lately returned from the East : from what he saw he was satisfied that through ignorance, if not throughtreachery, the army had been allowed to starve. Turkey could have foughtbetter alone. Russia, unable to maintainthewar, now sued for peace ; but the best policy for us is to fight it out. So far all had gone smoothly-. But here Mr. Fission, Chartist, interposed a resolution, demanding the impeachment of "the present negotiators,"—that is, the Ministers. Mr. Hart, who seconded the resolution, reminded the meeting that it had as- sembled on the anniversary of the death of Charles I.; and "shall the people" he asked, "who once took a King into open court, tried him be- fore his country, and rolled his head on the scaffold, shrink from doing justice to Ministers ?" Great was the confusion and cheering. Other members of the party spoke ; the original movers in the matter were swamped ; and the Chartists tumultuously carried their resolution.

The Lord Mayor entertained his rival, the President of the Metro- politan Board of Works, and a large number of the members of the Board, at dinner on Wednesday. The City potentate said he was anxious "to see harmonious relations established between the Board and the Corporation." Mr. Thwaites reciprocated this anxiety ; and thanking the Lord Mayor for his "splendid hospitality," naively hoped he should "see it often renewed."

The statements put forward last week respecting the Westminster Im- provement Commission have drawn forth an answer from one of the parties indirectly concerned—Mr. Mason, the solicitor to the Ccmimission. He distinctly denies that the law-costs were " 100,082/. and 148,8131." The fact is, he says, that the total amount of law-costs ever received or claimed by his firm, for business transacted for the Commission, is 29,509/. 2s. 6d. ; and the larger sums referred to are "chiefly interest on the mortgage and bond debts of the Commission." Mr. Mason denies that he has ever exercised a control forbidden by the provisions of the acts; he has always acted "under the direction and authority of the Com- missioners." The statement circulated last week, he says, was derived from ex-parte or unauthorized documents. He thinks that the suit now pending in Chancery will afford the Commissioners an opportunity of stating their case : and he refers the present position of the bondholders to these circumstances—" a capital inadequate to the magnitude of the undertaking, the unfavourable state of the money-market at the com- mencement and during the progress of the works, and the high value of the property in the line of Victoria Street."

Mr. Croysdill, the accountant of the Commission, has also favoured the public with a correction. He shows that the amount of bonds in actual circulation, instead of being 977,050/., is 686,980/. But he ad- mits that there were 290,080/. worth of bonds, in addition, lodged as collateral security with the mortgagees—figures that bring back the total to 977,060/. "If the means could have been raised to get the ground covered, the assets would have more than sufficed to meet all demands."

The adjourned meeting of the Eastern Counties Railway Company was held, at the London Tavern, on Tuesday ; Mr. Waddington in the chair. Two proposals, it may be recollected, were submitted to the meeting last week,—one, to continue the Committee of Investigation; and an amendment on that, to the effect, that Mr. Waddington should continue to be Chairman of the Company. The results of the poll de- manded on Friday were stated on Tuesday. For the amendment, there were 21,120 votes, representing 1,452,2201. of stock, including 552 prox- ies, representing 1,174,880/. stock. Against the amendment, were 15,704 votes, representing 927,480/. stock, including 175 proxies, representing 231,500/. stock. This gave to Mr. Waddington a majority of 29 pro- prietors, representing 524,740/. stock, and 5121 votes. The announce- ment was received with cheers and groans. Some recriminatory dis- cussion arose on a motion to print the names of the proprietors as given on the poll; a motion ultimately agreed to. Mr. Ball M.P. boasted of the "moral triumph" gained by the Committee; a triumph Mr. Wad- dington claimed for himself, as he, after being assailed in a most vindic- tive manner, had refuted his calumniators, and had received the support of a majority of the shareholders.

The Court of Queen's Bench have granted an application, made by Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, on behalf of Palmer of Rugeley, that the venue of Pal- mer's trial shall be changed to any other county than Stafford. The appli- cation was supported by affidavits from Palmer, and Mr. Smith his solicitor, declaring that he should not obtain a fair trial at Stafford, and praying that the venue might be changed to London in order to facilitate the attendance of scientific witnesses for the defence. Lord Campbell expressed a hope that the press would now abstain from discussion on the subject ; and intunated that the Court would know how to punish those who, actuated by improper motives, discussed the matter. The Stockton and Hartlepool Mercury appears to have published a libel ,upon the Town-Clerk of Stockton-on-Tees. The Town-Clerk filed a crimi- nal information against the proprietors in the Court of Queen's Bench ; and when the rule to show cause was made absolute, the counsel for the de- fendants said he appeared to express regret on the part of his clients, and to retract the injurious expressions. This was accepted by the opposing coun- sel, on condition that the defendants should pay the costs of the action. Lord Campbell, in closing the case, expressed his anxiety that the doctrine laid down by the proprietors of this journal should be abandoned, for it was utterly untenable,—that a journalist might publish imputations on the private character of another, and then imagine that he satisfied his duty if he offered to open his columns to a contradiction. Before any crimina- tory matter is published in a newspaper, great care must be taken to see that there is good foundation for it. It is not the duty of a journalist to lay open his columns to slanderous imputations, and then to say that he would hear the other side. That is not the line of proceeding which a respectable journalist pursues, and certainly it could not meet with the ap- probation of this Court.—Rule discharged on payment of costs by the de- fendants.

The Court of Queen's Bench has discharged the rule for a new trial in the ease of Carlon v. Ireland, in which a publican had taken a crossed check, and crossed it anew to another bank. An affidavit by the clerk who stole the check was the ground for the application—the Court held him to be unworthy of credence.

Mr. Jones, a homceopathist, brought enaction in the Court of Common Pleas, against a patient, to recover 581. for journeys and medical attendance. The defendent paid 251. into court. Several medical gentlemen, who were called as witnesses, said the charges were fair and reasonable. One of them, Mr. Watkins, a member of the College of Surgeons, was asked to look at the prescription of the medicine given to the defendant. He said he could not make anything of it. The plaintiff was called ; and he said it prescribed four ounces of aconite, four ounces of belladonna, and an "ordinary lotion of silica." This he further explained—the " lotio ordinaris " is what ho- mceopathists call " flint-water" : that is, said the counsel for the defend- ant, "what you would term aqua puinpagenis—pump-water with flint in it." Mr. Watkins said he had never heard of this solution of flint in his life. It was shown that the homeopathist had, after the first ten or twelve visits, offered to call upon his patient as a friend. The Jury were of opinion that the 25/. paid into court was a sufficient remuneration.

Sir John Dodson, the Judge of the Prerogative Court, gave judgment on Saturday on the disputed validity of the will and codicil of Mr. Dyee Sombre. The will and codicil were propounded by Mr. Prinsep, one of the executors, and the East India Company. They were opposed by Mrs. D_yce Sombre, and Mrs. Troup and the Baroness Solaroli, the sisters of the late Mr. Dyee Sombre. The opposition was founded on the averment that the de- ceased was of unsound mind, that he was labouring under monomania when the testamentary papers were executed. After going carefully over the evi- dence, Sir John Dodson came to the conclusion that the testator laboured under insane delusions in 1843, and that he continued to entertain them when the papers propounded were executed. He therefore pronounced against the will and codicil, and condemned Mr. Prinsep and the East India Company in the costs of the two other parties.

Some time ago, Mr. Arnold, the Westminster Magistrate, decided that a cabman could not charge for one child under ten years of age, as an extra person. The other day, Samuel Brown refused to carry a child ; and forth- with a complaint was made at the Westminster Police Court. Brown con- tended that he was certified to carry five persons, that Mr. Arnold had de- cided that two children were a person, but that one was not. "If a child is a person," said the astute Brown, "a cabman has a right to charge for it as an extra ; if he can't charge for it, why then it can't be a person. Under your decision, a child under ten years of age don't constitute a per- son, and therefore, as it isn't a person, I refuse to carry it." Mr. Arnold and Mr. Paynter concurred in the opinion, that although a cabman cannot charge for a child under ten years of age, he is still bound to carry it ; but as Samuel Brown might have acted under an erroneous impression, they would not inflict a penalty. Brown, sturdy to the last, asked and obtained a week's adjournment, "to take legal advice."

Guignet and Javal, the foreigners accused of large frauds on Mr. Sleyffers, a commission-agent at Paris, have been set at liberty : by their means Mr. Sley-ffers got back all his property ; and when they were brought up at Guildhall on Saturday-, no one attended to prosecute. Sir William Magnay complained that the criminal law had been put in force to obtain back the property of Mr. Sleyffers, and then the case against the alleged swindlers was abandoned : he thought it might have been prosecuted to conviction ; as it was, "this nest of swindlers were to be let loose upon society to carry on their practices with impunity." But as no one answered to the call for a prosecutor, the indignant Alderman was obliged to set the prisoners free.