The Sun. — London, England, 1846-06-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 5. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Wool few minutes before five o'clock. RAILWAY TRAVELLING ON SUNDAY. The Bishop of LONDON presented a numerously signed petition, complaining of the desecration of the Sabbath by the present system of railway travelling on that day. The Right Rev. Prelate proceeded to make some observations on the subject, and was followed by The Earl of FITZ WILLIAM, who said he entirely concurred in everything which had fallen from his Right Rev. Friend. He was decidedly opposed to all commercial traffic passing, on railways on Sundays, and he thought it was the duty of Par liament to prevent the present Sabbath desecration on rail ways. Lord CAMPBELL addressed a few words to the House in f e favour of some restricti on b e i ng m ade between commercial and passenger traffic on the Lord's day. The subject was then allowed to drop. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Messengers from the Commons brought no certain Bills. NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY. The Earl of H ADDINGTON presented a petition from the inhabitants of Coldstream, against the proposed branch of the North British Railway from Berwick to Wooler, which was ordered to be referred to the Committee on the Bill. LUNATIC ASYLUMS ACT. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the rate-payers of Ross, in the county of Hereford, complaining of the operation of the Lunatic Asylums Regulation Bill, to which he would call the attention of the Government. The Bill, he thought, was the worst of the many bad Bills that had been introduced into that House, and one which he thought should have been referred to a Select Committee at the *fate. There was one clause at the end of the Bill to which the petitioners particularly referred. It declared that every idiot was a lunatic. In consequence of this great alarm was excited in the minds of the p e titioners,. as well as throughout the country at large, as through t that Ti terpretaton harmless idiots, instead of staying with th r relations or being maintained in an inexpensive man ner in the workhouses, were sent to lunatic asylums. He considered that in the majority of cases a great affection was entertained by the parents for their children affected with idiotcy, and they would feel an i nsuperable objection to having their children takers from them. He considered that Govern ment should take under their charge all the lunatics of the country, and that they should establish a separate institution for those persons affected with the earlier stages of madness or idiotcy, where, by a system of kind and gentle treatment, the inmates might be restored to their right and proper senses. Th e Noble Duke also presented a petition from the board of guardians of the Ross Union to a similar effect. The petitioners stated that their expenses, which now amounted to 8001. per annum, would be increased to 3,600'. solely for the charges of the maintenance of these persons. Lord ASHBURTON presented a petition to the same effect. Earl KINIVAIRD presented a number of petitions from manufacturing towns praying their Lordships to pass the New Corn-Bill as speedily as possible. LORDS HARDINGE AND GOUGH'S ANNUITY BILLS. The Earl of RIPON then moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee on these Bills, and observed, that as he had already had an opportunity of addressing their Lordships on the subject of the important services which had been ren dered to this country by these two illustrious individuals, he would not detain their Lordships for many mo ments. The first of these Bils gave to Lord Hardinge an annuity during his own life, and during the life of his two next heirs bearing the title, the annuitylof 3,0001. per annum. He was sure that their Lordships would not think that sum was more than the eeestice of the case warranted or the generosity of Parliament call* for. But there was a peculiarity in that Bill, and also innhat which related to Lord Gough, to which it was his duty to call their Lordship? attention. The East India Compan:, as their Lordship were aware from what had fallen from him on a previous occasion, had granted very liberal annuities to Lord Hardinge and Lord Gough, and this Bill proposed that the annuities to be granted by Parliament should he suspended whilst the East India Company continued their annuities. The Bill relating to Lord Gough gave 2,0001. a year to him during his We. He would therefore move that It should go into Committe. Lord MONTEAGLE said he had a strong objection to the principle of the . Biil, and he was sorry some more influential party had not addressed the House upon the subject. The Bills contained a provision unjust and unbecoming, and whieh he considered would be detrimental to the public service. Hi; - objection was to the clause which suspended the public gratitude to those distinguished men because the East India Company had recognised them. What will be the coo segeence in future? Why, the East India Company will not gwp forward, because they will find that they are not rewarding public men, but that they are only snaking a miserable saving to the Exchequer. Now he would most strenuously protest against any such narrow principle being adopted by their Lordships' House, because he believed shat if they did adopt it they would en ail a bad principle upon the country, which would ,finally do exceeding harm to the country. The ge,ant of the East India Company ought not t o diminish the grant of Parliament. They ought-not to•olloiv chat to influence them to curtail the grant, but.it ought rather to be, a motive for increased liberality. It was well for the East India Company to reward them for services performed to them, but it was also the duty of the Government and the British people to reward these distinguished officers for ser vice, not done for a commercial body, but for the nation at large. The conduct of the East India Company should be a reason for an increased allcwance, instead of the grant being curtailed, stinted, and abridged, as it had been by the Go vernment.—( Hear, hear.) The Duke of RICHMOND hoped that he should have an opportunity of recording his vote against the Bill. It ale peared to him a shabby, mean, and saving piece of economy, inconsistent with the desert of the gallant officers, and was a disgrace to the credit of the country. He was not prepared to give his sanction to fib measure which he considered wrong in principle and most shabby in practice. The Earlnf RIPON said that he would be the last person in the House to propose anything mean or shabby to their Lordships. The curtailment was not made upon a principle of economy, but the Government had acted entirely upon pre cedent. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the suggestion of the Noble Lord (Lord Monteagle,) and he hoped he would seiggest it to the Committee in such a manner, as would not fitter the Bill. Tte Earl of WICKLOW considered that an adjournment of the question should take place, in order to give time to seareh for precedents upon the subject 3he Earl of RIPON considered that such an adjournment would have no effect, as he admitted there was no precedent to be forted- The Earl of GALLOWAY said, it was impossible for the House to estimate in money the services which these distin guished men had done for the country. It seemed to him that these individuals were entitled to a much larger amount than these Bills proposed, and he for one should rejoice if her Ma jesty's ministers had thought proper to propose a more li beral sum. The House having then resolved itself into Committee, The Duke of RICHMOND moved that the 3rd clause, which provided that the annuities proposed by the Bill should be sus pended as long as the East India Compan y _ continued to pay the annuities which they had granted to Lords Hardinge and Gough should be suspended.—( Hear. ) The Earl of RIPON said, if they acceded to the motion of the Noble Duke. the Bill would be destroyed. It ought to be borne in mind, that the grant of the Government was pro posed to be extended to the two generations next preceding, which did not apply to the grant of the East India Company. The Duke of RICHMOND said, that nothing was so easy as for the Commons to bring in a fresh Bill should the amendment be agreed to. The Marquis of (!LANRICARDE supported the view taken by the Noble Duke. Lord MONTEAGLE followed on the same side. Suppos- Mg the East India Company had net made the grant, would not they have considered it their duty to have rewarded these distinguished officers; or supposing that Parliament made the grant before the East India Company, and should the latter Company agree to a similar grant, would that be any reason for the Government suspending their grant? Toe Marquis of NORM AN BY considered that if the amendments proposed by their Lordships were not received by the other House, they could bring in a fresh Bill on the sub ject. The Earl of ST. G E RMANS stated that had Lords Hardinge and Gough been persons of large property no pension would have been proposed at all. Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared — Non-Contents... 33 Contents ..... „, 26 Majority against the Clause ... The Amendment was then agreed to. The Duke of RICHMOND then proposed that the same alteration should be made with reference to Lnrd Gough. The Earl of RIPON would not trouble their Lordship to divide upon the question after the opinion already pro nounced in Lord Hardinge's case. The Amendment was then agreed to. RAILWAY LEGISLATION. Earl FITZ WILLIA al rose to move the resolutions of which he had given notice, with reference to railway legisla tion. From a return which be held in his hand, the Bills now in peeeeess before their Lordships involved an expendi- tore of 90,000,000/. The g reatest loan that was ever raised in this country was 49,00,0001. The sum required for these railways was, therefore, nearly double the amount of that He expressed the feelings of every individual cog nizant with monetary affairs, that it was necessary a stop should be put any upon railway speculation. He was not so o any portion of Phitus resolution, own, but that he would withdraw The great =l Z: t e n % if a better one could be sng nested. e p rn a nected with the Bills was, that they were considered a n * Bill o s. It was evident from the arrangements of both"iir move thau f Parliament, that they considered them something 'mile private Bills, • for they had classified them in groups , Itecordrok to the want ~f certain districts. The tii Govern men t should tak e s ome luxe s and comprehensive measures w ith reference ,,, own. The Noble Earl then proposed the following resolutions :—.l. That all railway Bills, which had been read a second time in th e i r Lordships' House, should be referred to a Select Committee. 2. That it be an instruction to select Bills not exceeding the amount of sixty millions. 3. That a message should be sent ' to . thellHuse of Commons, requesting a conference upon such -`its railwaye as were then pending in Parliament. The Noble Earl then moved the resolutions. Earl DALHOUSIE thought that, however desirable it might be to limit railway enterprise, and however they might feel iacliaed tee put a stop to railway speculation, still he sub mitted that Otttr what h a d taken place in both Houses of Par liament thelF Lordships could not, with common justice, sup port the resolutions of the Noble Earl. At the commencement of this session a Committee was appointed in both Houses of Parliament to consider the propriety of making a selection of the Bills before the Legislature. That Committee came to a report that it would not be advisable to make a selection of these Bills. There was no intimation given to them by the Government as to any course they should pursue. A great number of these Bills had been now See months under the con sideration of Parliament. They have expended large sums of money, and no few of them have obtained the deliberate sanc tion of Parliament. In common fairness they could not now turn round and say to them, " We shall now select those Bills .which we consider the best to be passed." It would be tanta mount to a breath of faith on the part of Parliament. They had also interfered by establishing a sort of locus penitent' are in the shape of sessional orders. The parties had held meetings under these orders, they had sane. :fled the tests which their Lordships had imposed ,apon them, and it would certainly be unfair to turn round upon them and say that they could make a selection of those Bills. With reference to limiting the capital to be expended to 60,000,000/ , he was not prepared to say that that was the limit to which speculation could fairly be carried. Their ;Lordships had a remedy in their own hands, in the strict exer cise of the powers intrusted to them in committee ; if they would come to the consideration of the Bill, not so much with a view 0411,drmining if there wa s any f ata l o bj ec ti on t o th e porwillpfigVadrbsr they would, under th e present c i rcums tan ces , ' 4 i je ly made. He hoped, therefore, that their imr .of support the resolution of the Noble Earl. , e ... 4 „,. As' D quite agreed with the Noble Earl who ' 4 4, - 4 : ;': , 00 \ ..4- aw , ,at it would be a breach of faith on the I se * t L I :. i -- 7.::- . , x, -- , r....,,, .7 - : to compel these' companies to go before e ne, e , e . , e ,_ _ t;P., 4 3r 1,114 4 .er H at e io d tl id t think that #eince were ices to t ~..:\ . i. c . _— vari .. 444l4t d be a means,oupprheavveentlideg!=eiskiluln, i• 1 a S from being proceeded with ; and also by limiting the time for making the calls it would greatly tend to relieve the labour market. But he should deny that it was in the power of the Committee to remedy the evil, as the Noble Earl appeared to think, because in some cases lines of railway came before the Committee and were not opposed, and then the Committee bad no remedy but to pass them. _ . Lord ASH . BURTON could not clearly see his way through the difficulty with which this question was surrounded ; but he did think it would be a means of inflicting great hardship upon individuals if railways which had made a certain progress were now to be stopped. The Duke of WELLINGTON would like to see the in struction intended to be proposed by the Noble Lord before he could consent to it. He thought it would be very inconve nient to allow all the Bills to be collected into one mass, before any step should be taken to limit them, and that would be the effect of the first resolution. Lord MONTEAGLE was of opinion that if some step should not be taken to put a stop to these railway s p e culations, the Legislature would find itself surrounded by difficulties. Many railways had been started, not because they were useful public works, but because they were mere speculations. He was of opinion that it would be well to give parties, under certain circumstances, at least twelve months time for consideration. The Duke of RICHMOND quite agreed with his Noble Friend in the observations he had made about speculative rail • ways, but he found it would be an act of injustice to some to stop them, if they were now in progress ; but he would suggest that some measure should be taken to remedy the evil by the next session, and he thought the best way of doing it would be by limiting the means of borrowing money. He was also of opinion that the standing orders ought to be revised, and made more decisive. L A o f t r e d r a R f e E w p words A f r i o E m Lor d admittedK IN N t A ha i t ßp t ' here were de fi e f c t t h s e i y n t r h e e s t s r t i a e n te d d i n t g h o e r d t e im rs e , an n d f t t h a e k y i n o g ug l a h n t d t , o t b h e e y r e n m n g e h d t t e t d n , e b n u t . large the time for preparing the preliminary plans and. sections. Earl FITZWILLIAM spoke a few words in reply, and with drew his resolutions. Several Bills on the table were advanced a stage, and their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 5. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. EDINBURGH AND NORTHERN RAILWAY (BRANCHES FROST THE DUNDEE AND AR BROATH RAILWAY, AND TAY FERRY IM PROVEMENT). This Bill was read a third time and passed. DUNDEE NEW GAS BILL. The Lords' amendments on this Bill were considered and agreed to. STIRLINGSHIRE MIDLAND JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND (EASTERN EX TENSION) BILL. This Bill was also read a third time and passed. ALFORD VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. NORFOLK RAILWAY EXTENSION BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. GREAT GRIMSBY AND SHEFFIELD JUNCTION RAILWAY—( HUMBER FERRIES). This Bill was also read a third time and passed. BRISTOL AND SOUTH WALES JUNCTION RAIL- WAY AND FERRY BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this Bill, Mr. H. BERKELEY proposed that the standing order No. 121 be suspended in the case of the amendments pro posed to be made on the third reading of the Bristol and South Wales Junction Railway and Ferry Bill, of which notice has been given in the Private Bill office. The amendment wa. agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GLASGOW TERMINI AND BRANCHES). The report on this Bill was brought up and agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL (MAIDSTONE TO STROUD, NEAR ROCHESTER). The report on this Bill wns brought up and agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed. LEICESTER AND BEDFORD RAILWAY. Mr. PACKE moved the consideration of the report on the Leicester and Bedford Railway Bill. Mr. V. SMITH objected to the consideration of the report, on the grounds that there was no traffic on the line. He would, therefore, move that it should be postponed until next session, such a proceeding could do no injury to any one. He hoped the Bill would be postponed till next year, when all the five Bills involved might receive full inquiry. Under the circumstances, he would move the further consideration of the report that day six months. HUDSON seconded the motion. Sir CHARLES LENION, as chairman of the Committee, would not have spoken had not the Honourable Member who had just sat down made some insinuations about the proceedings of the Committee. All he could say on the matter was, that everything the . Hon., Member had qrged against the Bilt . was as well not, better stated; before the Committee 'thin it had been now befou .the House; and yet after a careful investigation sad deliberation on the merits of the Bill, for ten days, the Committee decided unanimously in its favour. There was not the least doubt entertained by any of the members, and, therefore, he thought the result ought not to be interfered with by the House. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the report adopted. GREAT GRIMSBY AND SHEFFIELD JUNCTION RAILWAY. This Bill was read a third time and passed. READING, GUILDFORD, AND REIGATE RAILWAY. Mr. MANGLES moved that the report of the Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Railway Bill be brought up. Captain PECHELL said he had been waiting to ascertain what Hon. Member of that House would have had the courage to move the adoption of the report of the Committee upon this railway, for he should say that the linelad been supported by the most extraordinary documentary evidence he had ever heard of, and which inflicted upon the committee very consi derable labour. The tables of traffic that had been produced were such as he thought would not be justified had they been produced by the London and Birmingham Company. The amount of traffic in carriages and horses and passengers had been estimated at a higher figure than had been known to have been received upon the London and Birmingham line. He thought that the reasons ought to have been stated why the Committee approved of the preamble on the single vote of the Chairman. He should therefore move that the second reading of this Bill should be postponed till this day week. On the motion being put, Sir C. DOUGLAS said that he was ready to give the reasons of the Committee which the Hon. Member had required. He would beg, as one of them, to remind the House that in the report which the Committee had made they had stated that, in consequence of the circumstances pleaded by the opponents of the Bill, the Committee had delayed its consideration for several days. This circumstance they had stated in their report to the House. if the Honourable Member would refer to the last paragraph of that report, he would find that this circumstance was stated as a reason why, instead of re port!ng strongly, they had left it to the election of the House whether the report should be adopted or not. Certainly in the opinion of the Committee there were sufficient reasons for its adoption, and amongst them was the fact that the number of shares in the company was 40,000 at 201. each ; the amount of deposit required by the Act was 24,0001., but the money actually deposited was 92,000/., and considering that this sum had been paid in for fully fivemonths, the Committee felt fully justified in reporting favourably, although, in the absence of one member of the Committee, it was carried by the casting vote. The House then divided, when the numbers appeared to be— For the motion 7l For the amendment Majority — 66 Mr. BARRY BALDWIN presented a petition in favour of the London and Warwickshire Railway. IRISH MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. The Midland Great Western (Ireland) Bill (Mullingar and Galway) was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. SION COLLEGE ESTATE. This Bill walread a third time and passed. GORBALS GRAVITATION WATER-WORKS. This Bill was read a third time and passed. DUBLIN AND KINGSTON EXTENSION RAILWAY. This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR PIER. This Bill was read a third time and passed. TOBACCO DUTIES. Dr. BO WRING begged to give notice, on behalf of his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that he should, on 3londay week, bring under the attention of the House the inordinate amount of crime and misery which is suffered by the country by the enormous duties on tobacco. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Mr. YOUNG moved the adjournment of the House at its rising until Monday next, when he was interrupted by . Mr. G. BANKES, who rose to present a petition from Bridport, but he was interrupted by The SPEAKER, who declared him out of cyder. The motion for adjournment was then carried. BRIDPORT ELECTION. Mr. G. BANKES resumed by stating that this ti as the last day, under Lord John Russell's Act, for presenting public peti tions, and he trusted, therefore, the House would hear from whom it originated. It was signed by six persons, who stated themselves to be free and independent electors of Brid port, and that at the last election they had been par tisans to neither of the candidates, They stated that at the preceding election serious acts of bribery and cor ruption had been practised ; that these acts had been preva lent for a long series of years, and that this bribery and corrup tion interfered with their rights as free and independent electors. The petitioners went on to state that some measure ought to ' be taken by which to protect the electors of the borough , from being overborne in this way . in the exercise of their franchise— that in presenting this petittJn they were wholly uninfluenced by any private feelings, but they hoped that their Honourable House would show to the country in general and this borough i n p ar ti cu lar, that the electors would be protected in the fi rm an d independent exercise of their eleatorial duties. THE POST OFFICE. Mr. G. BE THE . . rotary o f begged to ask the Right Hon. Baronet the in reference to the for the Hom ftt e aloi D iatth e t p is ar il tment, a question being made t o c l os e e ranicar attempt which was now on Sundays. He wo u ld ,: itu Pold.oilices in country towns power of the Postmaste r -Ge n 6 t r o s i t novishether it was in the Sir JAMES GRAHAM said notice t that morning Hon. Member had been so obliging as to have sent hi m . a Ztj on during that it was his intention to the sitting of the House to-day • he begged to say that . since dl en be i'l ha rsw h e a r d fievcoednsulting the Postinastee-Geueral upon the be o l t h at the Postmaster-G eneral v g ea th t e hat re_ had the subject . jeet . opportunity ff e to regulate th e post power hours on s o n f nd el a o y s s i n ; g an an d d h o e pen be li tn e offices of country towns gulation was, that the letter-box wa s to , be open that t and he y during the whole da y , to the non-d hours eliver of of letters was confine d on l y ' Member was one divine service. But the question of the Hon. t competent to of a l ega l c h arac t er , w hich he was not at presen answer. POOR-LAW IN IRELAND. WDON as to the In reply to ques ti ons p u t by Colonel RA - , proceedings of th e P oor -l aw C o mmissioners with respect to a parish in Ireland, Mr. S. HERBERT stated that the Poor-law Commissioners were cognisant of the circumstances ; that they had appointed a commissioner to inquire into the facts, who had made a re port, which he should have no objection laying on the table, together with any correspondence. BRITISH MUSEUM. Sir ROBERT PEEL intimated that her Majesty had coil , sented, in reply to the address of the House, to grant a sum of money to the Commissioners of the British Museum. RAILWAY COMPANIES. Mr. H. RICH moved for the following returns :—Re. turn of all Moneys to be raised under the sanction of the Acts, whereby Railroad Companies have been incorporated, between the Ist day of January, 1844, and the Ist day of January, 18 46 ; distinguishing the sum to be raised as principal from the sums to be raised by loan or mortgage. Return of all moneys liable to be raised by Acts for the incorporation or for the increa►ed powers of railroad, companies, and for which Bills are now before this House ; distinguishing the sues to be raised as principal from the sums to be raised by loan or mortgage, and classifying them according as they have passed to a first, second, or tN‘ird reading ; and stating the term of years within which the works sn provided for are to be completed. Agreed to. POOR LAW REMOVAL BILL. On the order of the day being read for going into Corn mittee on this Mr. EVELYN DENISON rose to move certain instruc tions to the Committee connected with the law of settlement, but he was interrupted by Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, who rose to a point of order. It was not competent, he said, for an Honourable Member to move an instruction to a Committee, if the Bill to be committed would accomplish the object the Honour able Member had in view. Now, he maintained that the object of the Hon. Member for Nottinghamshire could be ob tained under the provisions of this Bill. It might be done by moving clauses on the Bill when it went into report. The Bill affected the whole law of settlement, and recited every Act of Parliament at present in existence connected with it. It was quite unnecessary, therefore, to have any discussion, or to waste their time upon any views of the Hon. Member. The SPEAKER said the Bill was to amend and consolidate the law relating to the removal of the poor, and without instructions from the House it would not be competent for the Committee to consider the law relating to the settlement of the poor. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE repeated his opinion that the Bill did in fact involve the law relating to settlement. Mr. G. BANKES would not presume to offer any observa tions upon the opinion given from the chair, but he did object to the Hon. Member for Nottingham s hi re having precedence on that occasion, because it should be recollected, that it was distinctly understood on the second reading of the Bill, that the discussion of its principles should take place, at this stage of its procedure through the House. If, therefore, they allowed that opportunity to slip by them, the prin ciple of the Bill could not be considered at all.—(Hear.) He certainly thought that he had a right of precedence of the Hot,. Member for Mahon. It would be in the rec illection of the House, and especially of his Right Honourable Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, that no discussion should ensue on the second reading. And this course was adopted with the express un derstanding that whatever dispute might arise it should not interfere with the principle of the Bill, but only affect the provisions by which that principle should be carried out. He did not think it right that the Hon. Member should introduce any such material alteration as this, and he had in fact intended to ask some Member of the Treasury bench what course they intended to pursue in the next stage of proceeding ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his Honourable Friend who had just sat down bad been perfectly right in the assumption that on the second reading of this Bill there should be no discussion of its principle, though he did think, from the point which had been started and the 'reasons assigned by the Honourable Member for Finsbury, that there might be some instruction given to the Committee to I regulate its provisions. The Bill in no way interfered with the law of settlement; it only had te do with the removal of the poor. I The Hon. Member for Mahon would introduce another prin ciple into the Bill, and he thought that the Chair was per fectly correct in the view which it had taken, of giving instructions to the Committee. He did not think the House was competent to introduce any alteration or principle whatever at this stage, and he conceived therefore that the House could not entertain what the Hon. Member proposed to do. Mr. HINDLEY thought the House ought to know what course they ought to take, for, if the speakers were correct, it was only another instance of the great inconvenience that would arise upon their usual mode of proceeding in such Bills as these. Then with regsrd to the settlement question ; this Act would repeal the clause which it had been stated would not be meddled with, and then they would have to go back to the 13'h and 17th clauses of Charles 11. By repealing the clause which gave a settlement after forty days residence, this Act would give a settlement without any residence at all. Another clause relating to the law of settlement would also be repealed, though the Right Hots. Baronet had stated that this Act would not interfere with the law of settlement at all, Now he considered that most important questions affecting the law of settlement were involved in it, at least so he thought as he had read the Bill, though he might be wrong ; but if the House agreed to turn over this Bill, by agreeing to have it read this day six months, it would be tvachirg a good lesson to those who had introduced this Bill.—( Hear, hear, and laughter. ) Mr. DUNCOMBE would wish to a. , k, did not this Bill in fact prevent persons who had had a settlement from being re moved ?—( Sir James Graham was understood to assent. ) Then he (Mr. Duricombe) would say surely that the Bill did open the whole question of settlement. Sir JAMES 'GRAHAM said it would only affect those who had had a settlement of five years. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he thought the more regular mode of proceeding would be to discuss this question when the Bill should go into Committee on the second reading. But he did not see how the course the Hon. Member suggested would effect the object he had in view, for as he (Lord John Russell) understood him, his motion would have the effect of remodel. bog the whole Bill. He conceived; also, that was- perfeo,.ly competent for the Hon.. , Gt.ntlerr.an- tis 4o that on the third reading which the rules of the House prevented-lhittarom doing now. 1 Mr . . DENISON was very anxious to me e t th e conven i ence ' of the House. He trusted that after the discussion which had taken place, the House would allow him to proceed with the instruction to the Committee, of which he had given notice. 1 He could not help considering that great inconvenience had arisen from the title of the Bill, which stated that it referred I to the removal of the poor, whereas it would raise the poor rates in every parish in the kingdom, therefore every person who paid poor-rates would be affected by it. It was introduced as a measure intended to be reconcileable to country districts as regarded great towns, and was received with great approbation, but it appeared to him that it would work such great injustice between different parishes, that he was anxious to draw the attention of the House to the subject. At present what was the gate of the labouring poor, and the chief evils under which they suffered ? They suffered from bad cottages, and from too few of them. Men were crowded together into small and single groups—that was one of the greatest evils from which they suffered. Lord Stanley had stated that one of the greatest evils from which the industrious classes suffered was bad accommodation. He (Mr. Denison) regretted to say that that inconvenience was not confined by any means to great towns, and the same warning voice which made the remark with respect to towns naisht with equal justice have been applied to country districts. But it was not necessary for him to of f er his own opinion on this point, because there was an authority in existence to which the House could not refuse to attach importance. It was the Report of the Commissioners appointed in 1843 to inquire in.o the state of the children employed in agriculture. Mr. Aus tin and the Rev. Mr. Clutch, in that report stated, that the want of accommodation in the cottages of families employed in agriculture was the cause of much of the demoralisation which existed in this country. If this were to be allowed, the labourers would in some sort have a right of retaliation ; within the depths to which they were thrown there would be still lower depths. This system prevailed throughout a large part of the country which surrounded the borough which he had the honour of representing, and might be said to prevail largely throughout the welds of Yorkshire. In that county it was the custom to drive the labourers into the small towns, where they were obliged to take houses for their wives and families. but with this arrange ment the farmers were not content. They required the men to be near to their employments, and consequently the men I were obliged to sleep in some loft or stable, whilst their wages were to be paid partly in money, and partly in food. The wages, which were sufficient for the maintenance of a family 1 when together, were quite insufficient for their nutriment when they were separated ; and net only was there the evil of a de privation of food, but all those evils which arose from a division of a man from his family, and he thought this was a matter 11 ell worthy of consideration. If they were to wait for a settle ment of five years, the probability is, that no man would obtain a settlement at all. In his part of the country there were what were called close and open parishes. I% hat was meant by a close parish was, where one owner alone held the property. In the southern district there were 60 parishes, of which 28 were ekes, and 32 open parishes. In the Loughboro' district there were 12 close parishes and 23 open. In the Shardlow district, 23 close and 23 open. In Daysford 23 close and 33 open. In the Mahon district there were 31 close and 37 open; and he had understood frcm an Hon. Friend of his there were 41 parishes in his district, of which 20 were close and 21 open. He did conceive that this opened up a l principle which ought to be taken into account. If these Iparishes were all thrown open, a n d th e se t t l ement was ma d e a union settlement, it would obviate the great evil. It would remove the inducement to pull down cottages, and would prompt the individual proprietors to care for the destitute poor in their neighbourhood •, it would prompt them to provide employment 1 whilst the people were in health and strength, and would occa sion a feeling for their maintenance when old age rendered them I unfit for labour. The Hon. Member for Cornwall had said, that the first effect of the repeal of the aorn.law would be to I awaken one thousand farmers from their sleep. The first thing they would discover would be the inadequate employment 1 awl remuneration of their labourers. They would find that the labourers were employed in their work at a distance of 4 and 5 miles from the houses, and that distance theyhad to return at night. There were many farmers who would prefer the building of cottages on their own farms for the accommodation of their t la h b a o t u tf re t r h s t , 9 t ß o il a l d w im er i e nu te tion pass i , n their own andthepre rents. He believed provision nof whtehh l eh ved had g il i o v u en se, r t io h t e i r e e e w w e e e r l e d t ri o () r l e e n c g e i e v r e e x t h t s e t a f a n v y o u a p r a p b r e l e opinion h ens e Il ern f t t h h e e working of any antagonistic principle. The measure would re sult most beneficially to the interests of the labourer and the farmer. Their predilection for ancient statutes with respect to the parochial system should not prevent them from correct ing existing abuses. He found that the total expense con nected with the poor-laws amounted, in the year 1834, to 7,597,0001., and in the year 1844, the corresponding expense was 5,440,000/. ; so that a saving of upwards of 2,000,0001. was made, owing to the superiority of the working of the new law over the old law. The Hon. Member concluded by thanking the House for their patient attention, and moved the adoption of the resolutions of which he had given notice. Colonel WOOD was sorry that his lion. Friend should persevere in pressing his motion. He was opposed to the motion because it contemplated giving the poor man a union settlement instead of a parochial settlement, so that, as far as the individual pauper was concerned, the parish in which the union-house was placed would be charged for his maintenance, instead of the parish which was legally , chargeable with the man's settlement. He believed that the day was not far dis tant when funded property would be rated to the relief of the poor, and that a rate, not exceeding sixpence in the pound, would be levied on funded and other property, which would furnish a settlement for the whole of the poor in the kingdom. Ho was opposed to any proposition which, after a certain number of years, would deprive the poor of their proper set tlement. Mr. BANKES was anxious to bear the opinion of her Majesty's Government on the general subject. He should, however, oppose the present motion, because he believed that it would have the tendency of producing a useless mass of unemployed lab ourers . Th ey must l oo k to a diff erent system ithanskt.hertylenEowth possessed e m fo o r ti t o h n e 17 p o r u o l t d ect o i p o e n n o to f t m he ost co p m ni m ei o ly n lands. ' Unjustly on many of the poor i n all parts of the coun t r y. There certainly wou ld b e a great difficulty in remodellin Bill; and he co ns id ere d that the Government were axi ' g the I know whether the H ouse cons i dered such a remodellinngneeuesetso sary.--( Hear, hear. ) Mr, CHRISTOPHER said if he considered the Bill would benefit the poor he would vote for it, but he was not of any I such opinion. A parish would not support its own p_..or, but would throw their support opooaodfrporf ecetehlhili relieving feelings whole t e w union. eoefn tgia li ad e , h a a s d he a considered also that some of the h ri e middle and s n Y g se t e h l : poor, would inflict anxious as any other person to see I I eieglokraeneusasitreedioeroroe,:s,esrteii:te: el Bran f s o igTi r eel :ni s t .d h i ane e firs te : }ida l ;s d edg. n e w burdens u pon them ? d h e e r c e o d n t s h i e . : I t t h l e ed en c en n t si l ld b s which had moved would ea to some other amendment which already existed, equally objectionable ti:Merv.iii!Tinfithrie present beensyetem of general abases te those With respect to the q 4 , a s , sti : p n on the subject was a positive evil dered it an evil ; anyi n ecessary. On geriorsi gi'utines union settlement • but he h—e(Nlivaesard, disposed d —b o ut it was necessary. a ass into a b ie qt; ch measure as that able, unless it was / son accompanied s w e o a n t ld ut p ll re v fe e r re to te hear thseup@oerstliaown, it would be most objection able, debated. if the pre. proposed. hays the effect of threw the Hou. Member for llialtou would h a Mr. PAKINGTON feared that the amendment moved by ing out the Bill, but he did consider that a union-settlement was in principle a very good one. If the question came to a division he would support the amendment of the Honourable Member for Melton, and his only fear was that it would delay the Bill, which was so important to the poor of this countrv. Sir J. GRAHAM said on the abstract merits of the question he would not trouble them at any length, as it was the. very same Bill he had brought in on a former session. The Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he mentioned the introduction of the measure to the House, said it was a measure to limit the removal of the poor, but that it would not interfere materially with the law of settlement. Now that was the real nature of the Bill. His opinion on the mea sure remained unchanged, and he considered the measure would remove many of the abuses which at present existed. The law of settlement was a grievance in it se lf ; an d that view of it was ably maintained by the Hon. Member for Derby. Adam Smith, if he remembered rightly, also strongly disapproved of its existence, and considered that it inflicted more injuries on the labouring classes than any other enact ment on the statute-book. The law asit now stood was liable to grave objections, but he did not think tl.e evil would be al together met by the instruction of the Hon. Member. There were several parishes at present in which the land was in the hands of a few great proprietors, and no person was allowed to marry in such parishes, or to remain in them should they hap pen to get married. To meet such cases, therefore, he con sidered there should be a new arrangement, so as to extend the operation of the law of settlement over a larger tract of country than these restricted parishes. By that means the proceedings of such persons as he had referred to would be counteracted. ( Hear, hear.) He had had a communication from Mr. Chalk, the Chairman of the Board of Union, strongly in support of the substitution of unions for parish settlements. The Right Hon. Baronet read the document in question, which was in substance, that there was 14,500 parishes in England, and but 600 poor-law unions; and that the substitution of union settlements, for the present system of parish settlement would allow of the free circulation of labour, and get rid of the evils of the present system. The Right Hon. Baronet read a letter from the Reverend Mr. Alcroft, Chairman of the Medway Union, to the same effect. He had a letter from another Rev. Gentleman, connected with the manage ment of the poor, to a different effect ; his objection being that the able-bodied and strong labourer would alone be able to take advantage of the extent of range allowed under the present law, and that the weak and inactive would not be able to go beyond the limits of their parishes. If that objec tion were of any force, it would be that the present law was in favour of idleness—(Cries of " No, no")—or. of those who were not disposed to make any exertion for their own main tenance. It was, therefore, no argument against the proposed change. Such were the opinions of those who had had expe rience of the management of the poor; in addition to which he would add the testimony of Mr. Tuffnell, the Assistant Poor law Commissioner, who, in a report made in 1844, pointed out in a forcible manner the evils of the present law of settlement, and the necessity there was for such a change as that now proposed. The changes of the Hon. Member, he considered were volun tary, still he did not think they were proposed in the manner they ought to be, and that in their present shape they might interfere with the proper working of the Bill. He hail al ways thought the various laws relating to the removal of the poor should be consolidated into one general Act, as was now proposed in the Bill before the House. When they went into Committee he would then be prepared to give every explana tion on the various provisions of the Bill that might be required. In reference to the operation of the law as at present, and the changes which were now proposed, he would call their atten tion to the relative number of persons in the locality where they resided to those from other quarters, in the manufacturing districts as compared with the rural districts. In 1841, in the city of Westminster, 114,000 were born in the county ; 188,000 born elsewhere. In Liverpool 180,000 were born in the county; 103,000 burn elsewhere. In Manchester 103,000 were born in the county ; 55,000 elsewhere. In Birmingham 96,000 were born in the county; 41,000 elsewhere. In Glamorganshire 126,000 were horn in the county; 41,000 elsewhere. In Surrey 156,000 were born in the county; 154,000 elsewhere. Compare this with the state of things in the rural districts. In the agricul tural county of I3uckingham 127,000 were born in the county; and but 28,000 elsewhere. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, 174,000 were born in the county ; 20,000 elsewhere. In Anglesea 48,000 were born in the county ; but 2,660 else where. And in three hundreds of Norfolk 54,000 were horn in the county ; and only 65 persons elsewhere. This showed the law of settlement pressed on small agricultural lucalities. In conclusion he must say, that believing the in - struction of the Hon. Member (Mr. E. Denison) to be founded on a correct principle, should he press it to a division, he (Sir J. Graham) should feel it to be his duty to give it his support; and in the event of the House affirming it, he would he able in a few days to submit the amended Bill to the House.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. BROTHERTON considered that the principle of union settlement would be beneficial to the working classes, and at all events it would be much more just to the rate payers. The present system was attended with great expense. which he considered would be removed by the adoption of the suggestion. —Sir R. INGLIS could not see why, if the. Right Hon.. (4entleentin entertained such a strong sense of the valise .of the . principle, he did not introduce it in. the-Bill for now sought to obtain the sanction of the Houge.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member said that the measure would be greatly prejudicious to the manufacturing interests, and yet he said it would not be opposed by them, as they believed it would work immense good. But he contended that it would be most be neficial to the manufacturers, as they had congregated (for their own good to be sure) an immense concourse of people around them, of many of whom they would be relieved. The measure had been announced with great triumph by her Majesty's Government, as sine of those remedial measures intended to be introduced as a boon to the agricultural interests. But he considered it a very small gift, and quite unworthy of the Government. But the amendment would certainly be pre judicial to the measure, as, if it were adopted, it would throw it over to the next session. He looked upon it as another attack upon the parochial system, and that it would weaken the local ties which bound society together, and give parishes a tempta tion to relieve themselves of those persons who were no longer able to work, by throwing them on the union ; and believing this, he would reject, as far as in him lay, the amendment. Mr. C. WOOD could not take any step which would have for its object the severing of any of the local ties which bound society together. He did consider a union settlement was most necessary to remedy the evils which would flow from the immovability of the poor from particular parishes. If the Bill did not give settlement, he would vote against the Bill.— (Hear, hear.) At the same time he was quite ready to vote that the Committee have a power to introduce a clause for union settlement. Mr. HENLEY considered that the Government had taken a most extraordinary course in reference to the Bill. When the Government introduced the Bill they clearly said it should have no reference to settlement ; yet, notwithstand ing, the Secretary fur the Home Department got up, and said he was quite prepared to carry out a suggestion which conferred very great powers of settlem en t. H ow suc h a course could be pursued he did not know. If the benefit to the poor was not clear and certain, they had a right to look at the inconvenience the measure would cause t o t h e rate payer. He did not think that the man who was physically incapacitated from hard work should be put on the same level with the full-bodied labourer, and thrown into the union be cause he was unable to work. If the maxim of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market was fully carried out, the inferior labourer would be immediately thrown out of employ. If the parochial settlements we re t o b e b ro k en d own, he thought that the principle ought to be carried much further than was at present contemplated. H e cou ld not agree w i th the proposed instruction to the Committee. He was afraid, that as labour was the great charge upon agriculture, and as facilities would be afforded for procuri ng un i on sett l ements for ,1 the weak and infirm, inferior labourers would, of necessity, be thrown out of employ. He thought it was unfair to deal with the question of settlement as at present proposed, and should therefore vote against the motion. Mr. VERNON SMITH thought that the course pursued by the Government on the present measure was a most in jurious one. The Government had inte r f ere d, on ser i ous oc casions of late • ears, without laying down any definite or practical principles. The law of settlement, as at present constituted, was a most unsatisfactory one. He should cer tainly vote for the instruction moved for by his Hon. Friend, because it would place the law of settlement on a satisfactory basis. He thought the Hon. Member for Melton would find a difficulty in assimilating the averages he had taken with re spect to the unions. The only argument he had heard with respect to the passing of the poor off the parish was ascribed to the generosity of the landlords, who preferred giving them emplasment, in order to keep them from being burdensome to the parish. lie was not disposed to go so far as that, and he should give his support to the motion, because he thought it would lead to satisfactory results. Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the present subject had been most fully canvassed in the district with which he was con nected, and he was assured that his constituents were as much opposed to the proposed alteration in the law es they had been to the measure of 1844. It would create feelings of dis satisfaction and discontent among them Mr. GRAINGER was of ()Pinion that the principal argu ment upon which the Hon. Member had fottuded his motion for the instruction to the Committee had totally failed, and he should oppose the motion. Lord MORPETH said he would confine his observations to matters which fell beneath his own local experience. Many evils arose from the system of paroc!iial settlement; in the wolds of Yorkshire, near where he resided, more than three fourths of the perms removed had lived from their parishes more than five years ; he would therefore support the instruc tions moved for by the Hon. Member for Malton. _ _ Mr. PA CK E considered that it was most preposterous for them to come to a division on the subject, seeing that the country was not generally aware of the change about to be introduced into the Bill. Petition! might be presented against it, which might have weight with the House, and he considered th e mea sure would only aggravate the evils which already existed, and he would therefore object to the instructions. Mr. DUNCOMBE said that he would have been content to have supported the Bill, had it remained the same as it was at first introduced by the Government. But now that the Secre tary for the Home Department had signified his willingness to support the instruction moved by the Hon. Member for Mal ton, the question assumed a perfectly different appearance, and he did consider that the Right Hon. Baronet supported the in struction most unadvisably, and he would vote against any such instruction. He would move that they should repeal all pro. vision for the law of settlement, and that the poor of each dis trict be relieved in the particular district where the distress arose, and that the State should make a provision for the relief of the poor in such proportion as it aught in its wisdom think proper. They might say that the time for such an arrangement had not arrived, but he contended that it had, for when they reflected on the great commercial changes which had beer, made, could they any longer maintain the old principle of settlement? It was impossible. From all the towns except Stockport, these returns had been readily furnished. He was therefore compelled to move in the House that these returns should be furnished forthwith. From these returns, defective as they were, it appeared, 15,260 per sons were sent from these large manufacturing towns to the rural district. In Manchester, there was the case of one o!ci man, who was sent back to his parish after a residence of thirty-five years. h the years 1841 and 1842, there were sent over front Stockport to Ireland a great number (If pe qms, with families averaging from eight to twelve each ; but the clerk of the union of Stockport, with a strange forgetful ness,d hots:ehifacpedr rh residede his satisfactiono) ehi jeglyafdel markeddi e , ?t, cfhtt amendment,tp e. improvementrr at if t) i .4te manufacturing ing t i dwD e i ,4up o ae vvrol l f t onivot l k h m rmiaf ~g tegiiehostt, t nett e rrgi,,,, l eiew i rematetho h st i :hews nizocdo l suofeho n i uwogis Cladabr. bs t ene h dbg e ptell s h!.h e eroaecaavue ca.isteffect classes. people :hetp sdget. e glteresl with safety at any time, it was the present. He believed that an alteration, or a total abolition, of the existing laws would t eg e p r t i ! ea i e c e,. be met with pleasure by all elasses of the community. is s l iT t h i e s satisfaction t r: c y t gene:o ..!OHNSON seconded the amendment. He was years t o the present leer Qt settlement.--:( cheers. Mr. BRIGHT had been at a lois to consider, from the would b tt e e to 9n to ly tal7y 4Y abo t !: speech of th e H on. M ember for Finsbury, whether h e in tended to opp ose t h e Bi ll or to have a blow at t h e manufac turers. Th e li on , mem er for F n.bur h a d been dovn . in iy those part s o f t h e country;and had Possibly been endeavormi h to find th e gr i evances fert ' amOng t h e " t ra des uni ons. 'The lion. Member proceeded to argue that 1 there was more atten re of the larg e c a pitalists to th e welfare lanourers eniplqed than - by ene small capitalistv. The' lion. Membe r Should recCltect, When he spoke ot the THE SUN, LONDON, SATUIVDAY EVENING, JUNE 6, 1846 apathy of the capitalists in times of distress, that there had been several large firms `which paid a great sum for wages during the three years of distress, and had not received a single shilling of profit on that labour. There was one firm in Hali fax which paid 361,0'0/. in three years for wages, but had not paid a single farthing to the income-tax. The manufacturers did not consider the poor-laws a burden, and they would not come to the House to be relieved from such rate'. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—You relieve yourselves by sending the paupers away. Mr. BRIGHT—It was not to be supposed that when the landlords of it-eland were expatriating their population, that the town of Stockport was to be filled with these people without some effort being made to relieve themselves from this burden. The Hon. Member did not represent the interests of the labourer in the manufacturing districts, the party he represented, with whom he associated, and whose bad passions he instigated, were but a handful of the population, and they had been among the sternest opponents of the association which had effected the emancipation of industry in the repeal of the corn-laws. Lord G. BENTINCK said, the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had appealed to the report of the Government Commissioners, to sho w the comparative prosperity of the ma nufacturing operatives of Stockport, but he thought that the Hon. Gentleman should not have forgotten the report that had been made by Mr. Trimmer, one of the Factory Commis sioners, who, speaking of the injuries done by ma chinery, stated that in Stockport alone, in the years 1837, 1838, and 1839, no less than 340 cases had occurred in which persons had suffered injuries. whilst working in the cotton factories.—( Hear, hear.) And compensation by the master manufacturers hal been made in only two of those cases. He defied The Hon. Membeebeta'show that the landed gentry hail so treated those who had been in jured in their service. —( Hear, hear ) The Hen. Member had also said that the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Dun • combe) had no right to speak in that House as the representa tive of the working classes. - Why, then, if that lion. Member was not, he would ask who was ? ( Hear, hear.) He felt him self bound to oppose the proposition of his Hon. Relative. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department hod not the slightest pretence for saying, as he had done that evening, that the Government did not contemplate any material change in the poor•law. He contended that after the poor of this country had been worked out by the manufacturers, it would be unjust to send them back as paupers to the agricultu ral parishes in which they were born.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped that the discussion of this measure might be postponed to afford a better opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of the people at large.—( Hear, hear.) Sir T. ACL AND thought that the motion of his Hon. Friend the member for Milton was entitled to a great deal of very serious consideratioa ; but in giving his vote for the fur ther consideration of the measure, he did not consider himself hound to adhere to the provisions proposed by his Hon. Friend. His great object was, that the main intent and object of this non-removal law should be attained, because it approximated in a great degree to effect non-removal altogether. Nothing in his opinion could be snore equitable than that three years should constitute a settlement, and it would be a great act of justice to that class of the poor men who were the means of creating the wealth of the rich. On those grounds he would support the Bill, and because it made residence a ground for non-removal. Mr. BANKES agreed with the Hon. Member that this Bill had many meritorious recommendations ; but still the amendments of the Hon. Member for Melton would have the effect of embarrassing the measure, and, therefore, he could not see how the Government could ap prove of it. He would also contend for it that this measure would be injurious to the agricultural interest ; but it would certainly be upset by the amendment which had been intro duced. He had no objection to the settlement of the question as to whether three or five years should constitute a settlement ; but whichever way it was to be, let it be settled at once. If a pauper was to be removed, he could not resist it ; but if he was to be removed from one parish to another, at the expense of the parish, then one parish could defend it, for they had the means of doing so, and wonid resist the infliction of an addi tional burden upon them, if they thought it was unjust. Those were the observations which he bad deemed it necessary to make on the motion of the Hon. Member for Melton, which he should certainly oppose. Mr. SPOONER could assure the Hon. Member for Fins bury, that he gave his cordial assent to the proposition that a residence of five years should give a right of settlement; and he was further certain, that there was no disposition on the part of the great manufacturers of the country, to deprive the la bouring classes of that protection to which they are entitled. With regard to the question before the House, he should feel compelled to vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for Halton, as it would extend the power of the Poor Law Com missioners. to which he had a most decided objection. He did not think the way in which the Commissioners had recently used their power furnished any reason for giving them addi tional influence.—( Hear. ) Sir J. G RA HAM wished to offer a few observations in explana tion on account of what had Mien from several members. He ad mittted there was difficulty in defining what residence was; still he thought that could be overcome in Committee, and he , could assure Hon, Members that both in the House aed out of the Irmise fie weul e l do his best to make the -definition .aS clear as Polsible. - Wcift regard ilie ler6Po4tiori 'of '.the` Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, he agreed with the Hon. Member for Durham, as he was persuaded the charge the former Member recommended would lead to mast important conse quences, which they would do well to consider. It had been said that the Government had not acted with good faith in regard to the present measure, in supporting the instruction of the Hon. Member for Melton. To that he could say, that since the Bill had been introduced he had had many communications with Members on both sides of the House, and the result was that he now thought that the mea sure would not be complete without such a provision as that which he proposed last year, and which was now incorporated in the motion of the Hon. Member for Milton. As he had previously observed, there were many parishes which had but few proprietors, and in which the poor were placed under great difficulty in obtaining a settlement ; to these a union settle ment would be a great boon, as it would remove the restrictions under which they at present laboured. He therefore supported the instruction, and if it were adopted by the House, the Bill, as amended, could be ready in six or seven days for pro ceeding with. He was anxious tnat the measure should pass, and he would do everrhing in his power to facilitate it. Mr. BROTHERTON called the attention of the House to Lancashire, in which the parishes were in many instances di vided into townships, each township supporting its own poor. Lord J. RUSSELL, like his Hon. Friend the Member for Halton, wished not to fetter himself in giving a vote upon that occasion with regard to any future vote upon this most difficult question. The difficulty of the question had certainly not been diminished by the course which the Right Honourable Baronet appeared inclined to adopt. He agreed with some Honourable Gentlemen, that where a man had been engaged in werk for a long time in a particular parish he was entitled to claim relief from the rates of that parish when he was reduced to a state of poverty. Acting upon this principle the Right Hon. Baronet proposed by this Bill that a person residing in a parish for seven years should be eligible to relief, but his Hon. Friend the Member for Melton had stated that there were certain localities where there were no rates at all, and the labourer was thus driven to seek relief in a neighbour ing parish ; he was, therefore, to some extent, inclined to sup port his Hon. Friend's proposal; but then, by doing so, he would be inflicting great hardships upon particular districts, and it become necessary for them to consider how they could get over that difficulty. The question then being so surrounded with difficulties, he was most anxious to obtain every informa tion upon it, and he was therefore prepared to go into Com mittee upon this Bill, in order that they might elicit the opinions of those who were experienced in the matter. There were diffi culties, as he had already stated, in the way of adopting the plan of his Hon. Friend, but it seemed to him that those difficulties were increased when the Right Hon. Baronet oppo-its . de clared that he wished the House to agree to the instrucoone. he thought they were conformable with k the thatb ecausei n fact mover of this proposal, and if the House went vote tjset infeo:r,tehe made ohua t ldd hese instructions, the terms and form of his Bill ; the T ßin h itgo e h t oitlniegcohonti Committee Hon. Righttenßee Baronet r l a H n or i n o t l n cei s . d a a ß i l d t a e r h wr o e i n t th e s h h e t and no doubt the Committee would he purely of a pro . fornui character, and they woul l have the Right Hon Baronet intro ducing an entirely new Bill. Now let the House reflect well upon this, and consider the circumstances under which this measure had been brought forward. It was introduced in conjunction with a larger measure of reform, and the House had had ample time fcr looking into its provisions. What time would they have, though. to examine either the principles of the clauses placed in their hands in the month of June ? He thought the best chance then, for them was, sur rounded as they were with so many difficulties, to go into Com. mittee and consider the Bill of the Government as it at pre sent stood, and see whether the House generally was prepared to agree to its provisions. They must recollect, too, that the Right Honourable Baronet had several times changed his mind with .respect to this question. At ore time he was only for birth settlement, and now he proposed to alter that principle altweether. At another time, the Right Hon. Baronet had protested that it was highly necessary that Government should n hastily adopt any amendment upon the subject of the corn-laws, until they had seriously considered the proposal, and were prepared to carry it out through the medium of a Bill. He (Lord John Russell) must confess that he thought, after what had fallen from the Right Honourable Gentleman, his opinions must have undergone an extensive and a very sudden change.—(Loud cheers from the protec tionist benches.) Up the whole, he was decidedly of opinion that the best thing they could do was to go into Committee on the Bill, and thus enable many gentlemen who were conversant with the subjeet to supply them with some valuable information bearing on the subject, and to tell them what they thought was the opinion of the working classes in their respective districts with regard to this measure. This he did think, that any further alteration on this subject ought not to be made withoW grave previous consideration.— ( Hear, hear.) Therefore, in giving his vote for the instruc tions moved for by his Hon. Friend, he wished to say, that if upon further consideration he found that no further alteration ought to be introduced, he should not feel himself pledged to any particular course by the vote which he should give on this occasion. —( Hear, hear.) Lord J. MANNERS admitted that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had been rather severely dealt with during this discussion.—(Hear.) That Right Hon. Gentleman had said, during the last year, that the Bill which he had brought in last year was a sound Bill, but, as it was objected to by the country, he was obliged to bring in another Bill more calculated to meet the wishes of the people. He wished to call the attention of the House to the position in which Members would place themselves who were disposed to adopt the course recommended by her Ma jesty's Government. They found the Bill introduced by her Majesty's Ministers as a sort of compensation to the agri cultural interest. But what would their astonishment be to find, at ten or eleven o'clock, a professed opponent of the mea sure giving it his support?—(Hear, hear.) Be confeseed e R a ‘(as Member ford (amidst g was much disposed to agree as to the c ourse suggested b y t h e Uo e a t Finsbury, ahua gv a he n t ehd rcries should ( d he Jo.f press ... the p e .o amendmentntßlm Gentleman H the to a v be v n, he should r Manners) support.—( Hear, a n d cr i es o f " Divide, divide. " ) l rt sl . 0 " Oh ! oh !" and " Divid e , di v id e ") said he rose fo r the pur pose of moving the adjournment of th e d e b a t e , i na smuch as n hlem to be t r he sweeoruersae whichbsen t,a t s he theGyo in wyzeu;dt intended t{ tmia ap a p n r eYh ie i union to take that night with regard to this question.—(" [fluids, divide. He thquoht thet the people at large were entitled to ask an adjournment of this discussion, in ordertat the measure might be fully considered.—( , Divide, divide. ' ) Mr. BANKES h av i ng secon d e d the adjournment; ide e , The SPEAKER put the motion, when the the Hon. Mem remarks which had been that evenine made G tleman had That Hon. en her for Durham (Mr. Bright). Mr. OUNCOMBE rose for the which were other things , that if the measures said, amongst for nearly now before the other House associatee, they never would have im (Mr. buncombe) and his b Uen in the manufacturing ti I` had also said he as 1 ,22, c5r ose of fomenting discord between r;a4 also pleased to I"Y er t e „an with regard regard to the feelings of the Working masses he wa did not know what right he had to make his assertions bee cause he had the honour of sitting in that House lid he Lad alw voted foeof twenty years, a.. . a repeal the corn- Hear; hear.) The Hon. Member for Durham had t z i ?. fe y i r i c not condescended say who those persons were with h associated,' nor did he now know to whom he an Y. ' ar certainly had had ghat were eatii,d I,4gt4emeetings,LAed. life 024 aesesys' openly Stated what were his and he views as to ticket meetings.--(Loud cheers from the Protectionists.) r d the totally nP aerrlriroartim.re:Ht"hebao(diAbri eerp.ellilEgfe buncombe) be He had always said he would attend public meetings in favour of a repeal of the corn-laws, provided they were open meetings.—( Repeated cheering from the protectionists benches.) He had, of course, great ohjection to take part in the genteel comedy at Ci vent-garden Theatre—(Laughter)— and he had also refused to tumble with certain gentlemen at Sadler's Wells. —( Cominued laughter.) An attempt was got up by the League in Finsbury to call into account why he did not go to Sadler's Wells, and tumble with them, and he openly avowed that Fe could not take any part with the League, be cause they did not submit the principle of free-trade to public opinion.—( Vehement cheering from the protectionist benches.) The working classes believed that the League, in bringing forward their free-trade measure, were not actuated solely by the desire of furthering the interests of the working classes, but rather to forward their own interests, and he (Mr. Duncombe) was of the same opinion.—! Protectionist cheers.) He supported the motion for the adjournment in consenuence of the divided state of feeling in the House, he would certainly take the sense of the House on his amendment. Mr. P. BORTHWICK, then withdrew his motion for an adjournment, in order to allow the House to express their sense on the amendment of the 1-1 , 81. Member for Finsbury. The House then divided, when there appeared— . For the amendment Against Majority against the amendment —46 The House again divided on Air. E Denison'i motion, whet) there appeared For the amendment 92 Against Majority for the amendment —22 Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that the House should go into Committee on Monday next—(Hear, hear)—and he consi dered that an amendment in the law of settlement would be more acceptable to the people of England than any debate upon the Irish Coercion Bill ; he would, therefore, move that the questim should have a preference to that Bill on next Monday night. Mr. HENLEY said, the Member for Malton was not pre pared with any of his clauses. It world be monstrous to go into Committee on the Bill before the country would have an opportunity of considering the question. Sir J. GRAHAM said he did intend to give his support to the amendments of the Hon. Member for Malton. He (Sir J. Graham) had certainly been opposed to both sides of the House to-night on the subject.—(Laughter.) But he would ask the Hon. Member to consent to the proposed arrangement, by which time would be afforded to the House to consider those amendments; and if it was postponed till Monday, he would have an opportunity of conferring with the Hon. Member. He would then ask the House to go into Committee pro forma upon the Bill. Colonel SIBTHORP said it appeared to him that the Right Honourable Baronet was glad to catch at any port in a storm.—( Great laughter.) It was then agreed to postpone the Bill till Monday. GREENWICH OBSERVATORY. Sir R. INGLIS wished to ask his Right Hon. Friend at the head of her Majesty's Government whether he had re ceived any report as to the dangerous state of the Observatory in Greenwich; and if so when that report would be laid upon the table. In the event of that report not being received he should move that the Hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would move the order of tho. day upon Monday next. Sir R. PEEL said that his Hon. Friend (the Secretary of the Admiralty) had just informed him that the report had been received at the Admiralty, and would be laid on the table on Monday. Only he hoped that the Hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would make a motion upon it. ROPE MAKERS' 8111. This Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Monday week. COUNTY WORKS PRESENTMENT (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be cow witted on Wednesday next. STEP M NAVIGATION AND SALVAGE. Sir G. CLERK obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the re gulation of steam navigation, and for requiring sea-going ves sels to carry certain boats ; also a Bill for consolidating and amending the laws relating to wreck and salvage. BRIDPORT ELECTION. The following Members were appointed to serve on the Committee on this election :—Mr. Christie, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Parker, Mr. Pakington, Mr. Thornely, Mr. Seymer. Lord James Stuart, Mr. Henley, Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Dickin son, Sir Wm. Molesworth, Mr. Bankes, Sir E. Colebrooke, Mr. H. Drummond. and Lord A. Hervey. Mr. MACKINNON obtained leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the nuisance of smoke from the furnaces of steam engines. Mr. BORTHWICK gave notice that on Monday, on the questiim being put that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Poor Warnoval Bill, he should move that such Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. Itteo 's`‘.otttoll -;, : ;_ MEETING OF LIBERAL MEMBERS (THIS DAY). A very numerous meeting of Liberal Members of Parliament was held, at three o'clock this afternoon, at Lord John Russell's house, in Chesham-place. We understand that the subject of their delibera tions was the course to be taken with regard to the Coercion Bill and the Sugar Duties. The meeting was attended by Lord Palmer ston, Lord Morpeth, Mr. John Hobhouse, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Sheil, Mr. Bright, Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Ward, Mr. Hume, Sir Thomas Wilde, Sir W. Somerville, Mr. Wakley, Sir Charles Lemon, and a great num ber of otber Members of every shade of opinion in the Liberal party. We understand that the meeting was unanimous, with the single exception of Lord Clements, in de termining to resist the second reading of the Irish Coercion Bill, and quite united in sup porting a proposal of Lord John Russell's for an extinction at no distant period of the differential duty in favour of colonial sugar, accompanied by ef fective measures for the promotion of immigration of free labour into the West India colonies. Among those who addressed the meeting were Lord John Russell, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Bright, Mr. Hume, Mr. Grantley Berkeley, and Mr. Ward. The meeting lasted rather more than an hour. RAILWAY COMMITTEES (THIS DAY.) HOUSE (,F et )WSIONS. GROUP XVII. MANCHESTER AND SOUTHAMPTON AND ROMSET AND HEBB ictIDLE BRANCH (SOUTH—WESTERN). The Committee met this morning shortly after eleven o'clock, the Hon. E. Yorke in the chair. Mr. Gibbs, a wine-merchant and a proprietor of bonded warehouses at Manchester, was then called and examined by Mr. ALEXANDER—He considered that a direct communica tion between Manchester and Southampton was very much wanted, and that nearly all the brandy and wine imported at London, and a great portion of that inverted at Liverpool, would be imported at Southampton if the line were made. The charges made at London and Liverpool on the impor tation of wines and spirits was much greater than those at Southampton. The sating, in comparison with the Lon don charges, would be 2s. per pipe, Is. 3d. per hogshead, and Is. per cask; and with Liverpool, 3s. 4d. per pipe, 2s. 7d. per hogshead, and Is. Bd. per cask. The silks which are now imported for the use of the manufacturing districts would certainly go to Southampton. A large quantity of goods now find their way to Manchester by way of Southampton and London. but at a very large expense, and besides being subject to damage in their conveyance from one line to an other. The goods therefore imported at Southampton would certainly go by the proposed line. Trans-ways would be laid along the quay at Southampton to accommodate the un loading of vessels. In the event of a supply of cotton being stopped in the event of a- war with America, no deubt quantities would be imported from Egypt, where it was manufactured. This cotton would be conveyed by way of Southampton to the districts of the north. Ha supported this line because it would be of importance to both Man chester and Southampton. Cross. examined— The length of the line was about 213 miles. By the present means of conveyance by London goods from Manchester were sent four or live days before a vessel sailed from Southampton in order to meet it in time. A saving of two or three hours between Manchester and Southampton would not be of practical importance, but a break of gauge would be a great inconvenience. By Mr. SMITH—The West India produce destined for Manchester was imported at Liverpool. If Southampton was the natural port fur the Mediterranean Liverpool was now the natural port for the West Indies. Two hours longer occupied in tha transit between Southampton and Manchester would not depreciate the value of goods ; but the ditierence of two hours would in some transactions be of great import ance to the merchant. By Mr. ALEXANDER—Three hours would be of great im portance in complying with a foreign ordar. An uniform gauge between Manchester and Southampton was of great import ance. Mr. Avington , a partner in the firm of 'Ridgway an d _ r Co. firm to at Henley, in Staffordshire, was examined—examined—Thewhich he belonged was one of th e o ld es t a t Henley ployed 4SO persons, He earrried on very li tt l e trade with the counties of Rallis, Wilts, and Dorsetitlyhtll:eheheeuantttireisb.utiend to the w4nt of a direct communication with to great inconve sc,,nding goods there, they were subject ed _Parties in that nience3 by the frequent change consequentlye driven to purchase part of the countrx werewholesale houses in London at an of carriage. their eartheilware at the ,incpaased cost. In ex pof t t i l l . l, s g om ea u r i t a h m en p r o a n re w t o o ul f d oi b v e ig o n f c g o r u ea n i tries a communication ..y Tile principal part of the clay used at the Pot advantage. r the neighbourhood of Poole in Dorsetshire. teries c a l l e n "m a tpoole, and taken to Liverpool, where it It "trsaths-fle);reded into flats and conveyed by canal to the pot pens% was very large, and the clay Was greatly t w e a t r es . The ex damaged by . the ‘ ,fregi the change of carriage. The earthen ware manufactures north had greater facilities in con veving clay and at a le-s cost. li r e,examined by Mr. JAztl5S_A break of gauge in a lin e eighteen miles longer than th e Manchester and Southamp. t m would be a most serious disadvantage, not only on ac count of the delay of tram:hint-Acta, but th e d anger of in juring the goods, delays sums of money had been expended by thc o n.anitfacturers in the Potteries, and in order to use that capital to the best advantage it was of great importance to la) in a conditi on, by ltavilig direct rail wa y communica tion from the =ill to the south, to compete succesafkillY kith the manufacturers of Whitehaven and Stockton-upon- Tees. Mr. Samuel Payne, carrying on the largest hardware trade at Southampton, obtained his goods from Staffordshlre ,canal to London, and thence to the South - WeStern ter• . minus at :Niue Elms, and so on to Southampton.. The cost per ton was 31. 18. i.; otheva,'nuuwer, paid more. Also ob tains earthetiwke ix; great riuttntitiell by canal from Stoke, Stonrpo, by. tai& Severn to Bristol, and from thence by cok - ofe . i;; round the Land's end to Southampton . g v.o.st of 2). per ton. By th a t route great d e l ay took Southampton, and the goods were in addition liable to, breakages. In one case, goods sent on the 27th ,g October, did not reach lam until the 22d of February last. The average, however, was two months. Had not - less than 200 tons in the course of the year, and paid about 7004 a year for carriage, about half of which he considered the Manchester and Southampton would save. Has also glass from Birmingham, but the manufac turers pay the expense of transit, which of course increased the price of the article. Should also keep less stock, and con sequently require less capital in his business. In his re-examination Mr. James handed in a copy of , the Illustrated London News con t a i n i ng la rg e wood cuts of the break of gauge at Gloucester, and the mode of tranship ment, with the confusion it has created amongst the pas sengers.— Is that an accurate picture of the mode of this transhipment ? You see your crockeryware is being smashed to pieces, two children also have lost their mother, and one old gentleman put by mistake into a horse-box? I do.-- (Roars of Laughter.) The Committee then adjourned until twelve o'clock on Monday. ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.) Lord Langdale was occupied during the early part of the day in hearing consent petitions, of which there was a large number on the list. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BEDDENFIELD. Mr. Twrss, on the part of the Crown, applied for the post ponement of this cause, as well as three others under the same title, till Thursday next. He stated that they would be all embodied in a petition, and thus come properly before the Court on that (the general petition) day. The application was granted, LOCKIIAItT V. HARDY. This case, which was part heard, came before the Court for argument on one point, namely, as to the payment of a sum of 1,0001. to the petitioners. The arguments turned chiefly on the terms of the will of the testator. Lord LANGDALE, after h ear i ng th e argumen t s on both sides, said this was a matter of great importance, and be must consider the point. If he could satisfy himself by the perusal of the schedule and other documents in the case, he should then give his opinion on the point before the Court. EYVES V. THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON. Mr. TURNER, on the part of the defendant, said this Was a hill filed by an alleged legatee, who claimed, under all al leged will, as the personal representative of the Princess Olave, the daughter of Henry Frederick, Duke of Cum berland, a suns of 15,0001., which it was stated had been devised to her by his late Majesty George the Third. His Grace the Duke of Wellington lodged a de murrer to the will, and it would be his duty to state to the Court the circumstances under which the claim was made, and the grounds upon which his client had entered the present demurrer. It was alleged by the bill of the plaintiff that the will in question was duly exe cuted in 1774, that it bore the sign manual and was as follows. [The Learned Counsel then read the will , which it was stated was in the handwriting of his Ma jesty George 111., and stated that he bequeathed a sum of 15,0001. "to Olave, daughter of our brother Henry Fre derick, Duke of Cumberland, in compensation for any losses she may have sustained.") The bill then stated that at the decease of his Majesty George the Third, his late Majesty George the Fourth became entitled to the chattels and other property of his father, with this liability of 15,0001. That legacy had not been paid to the plaintiff. The affidavit of the plaintiff then set forth that Lord Warwick told his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent that he wished to communicate some particulars respecting his brother to the Priecl Olave, who had au interview with his Royal Highness and the latter nobleman That after receiving a pledge frol n her not to divulge what he was about to communicate Lord Warwick informed her that she was the lawful daughter of the Duke of Cumberland, and that there were pape rs in his po s session which he had obtained f r om the Earl of Chathameste; blishing this fact. These d ocumen t s th e a ffidavit stated Vrer were in her possession i n th e same s t a t e in which she had f received them, with the exception of the corners of some the sheets, which were torn off. The case cam e before the Prerogative Co ur t, an d t h e j u dge rejected, the application, not on the groun d that th ere had not been a just cause made out, but that there was no probate of the will alleged lodged in that Co urt. The affidavit of the plaintiff then went on to state till the late King Geor g e th e F our th m ade his wilL in the presence of the Duke of Wellington and Sir W illiam ' Knighton, whom he app o i n t e d hi s executors; that the latter was dead, so that his Grace was the only surviving executori It further stated that his Maje s ty Geo rg e IV. died Poss esseu. of the same property as his father, including this lega c y to, the Princess Olave. It was objected by the ruble de fendant that the Princess Olavel was not the party In e t l ; tinned in the will, and even that if she were, was not bound to comply with the present demand. Th e hill then stated that Dr. Wilmott was present at the birth of the Princess, and that his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland never had any other daughter of the same name. The Bill then prayed that an ac count might be taken of the personal estate of his late Majesty George IV., and that the defendant m i l s J)e compelled _to , pay - the -legacy. It appeared that, t, a Princess Olaiw. - htid made the plaintiff .her rheir, and she ac cordingly instituted the present -proceedings, Aia_ noble client thought fit to resist. The Learned Counsel then cited the Acts 3d and 4th of William the Fourth. to respecting legacies, the case of "Peck v. Horn , " decided I.n_ the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and the Book of Noyal Wills, show that under the peculiar circumstances of the case the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the legacy. Mr. Turner had not concluded his arguments when the Court rose. • THE FUNDS—(C.LOSINca,GE PRICES.) CLOSIStI PRICES. 13R1TIS1.1 FUNDS O'CLOCK. 205% Bank Stock .. 205% Three per Cent. Reduced Annuities .. 95% • 95* Three per Cent. Console Annuities .. 96)i 96% 34 New Three-and-a-Quarter p e r C en t. A nns . 97%% 97 % Long Annuities, Expire Jan. 6, 1860 .. 10 1 4 10% Console for Opening ••• .• •• •• 95% %ex dly 95 % Exchequer Bills. I%cl. 1 tid. 1,0001... • . .... 16 22 pm. 22 5001. .... 16 22 pa, 22 Ditto. Small • .... 16 22 pm. 22 ONE CLOSING FOREIGN FUNDS. O'CLOCK. PRICES. Chilian Bonds, 6 per Cent .. . Ditto, Deferred, 3 per Cent .. 50% 504 Mexican Bonds, 1837, 5 per Cent .. Ditto, for the Account .. 29 Ditto, Deferred 17% 16% Portuguese Bonds, 5 per Cent .. Ditto, for the Account ao bo Ditto, 4 per Cent .. Spanish Bonds, 5 per Cent .. • Ditto, Passive Bonds .. 375 Ditto, Three per Cent .. 37% Dividends on the above payable in London. 96% Belgian Four-and-a-Half per Cent .. 96% 60 Dutch Two-and-a-Halt per Cent .. 60 BUSINESS CLOSIKG PAID. DONE AT PRICES. ONE O'CLOCK. Buckinghamshire 425. .... % •• i cllg if; Caledonian •• •• • • 10 .. • • 11% • • ••• " • • Ditto, Extension •• .... 1% .. •••• • • •• Cambridge and Oxford.. .. 1%.... %.• ...• •• • • 214 v Chester and Holyhead .. 22% .... 21%1( •• 314 Direct Manchester (Rastrick's) IS Direct Northern .. 2% .•• .. Eastern Counties . 141. 165... 23% %..•• .. • • 93 Do. Perpet., 5 per Cent. No. 1.61. 13s. 4d. .... ••.. •• Ditto, ditto, .. .. No. 2. Cl. 13s. 4d. 5 1 3 • •••• • •• Ditto, York Extension .. .. 105..... 1 % ..... •• • Edinburgh and Glasgow .. 50 . .. 17 Ditto 56 Shares .. .. 10 .... 17 Ditto New 3q Shares.. .. 12% .. 18 %; Exeter, Yeovil, and Dorchester .. ..... 2 Goole, Doncast., and s hatleld, &e. 425..... % die. • • • % Great Southern & West. (Ireland) 20 .... . Great Western .. 65 .... „ Ditto, Quarter Shares .. .. 5 .... ........ 16)11 Leicester and Birmingham .. 22 5 . tn i Leicester and Bedford.. 225. p,.; ••• Leicester, Tamworth, &c. •.. 425, dls ..... London ant Birmingham . • •100 .... 228% ..... •• • 2 ?,;44 ^. 8 Ditto Thirds .. 24 62% .... "'" London and Blackwell, .. 16/. 13s. 4d. •• •• Ditto, New ••• • " 69 )6 London and Brighton . 50 .. . 65% • • ••• • • • London and Greenwich .. 121. 15 s . 41. • 9si Lot .don and South-Western 41/. Cs. 10d... •• •••• •• " 52 Ditto, New Cunsol. Eighths .. 34 .... 52 ••• • •• 293 i Ditto, New .. 2934 ...• ••••••• • 251. London and York .. •• •• ••• • • • London and Windsor .. 1% •• • • fts ••••• • • "• 13 Lynn and Ely .. 15 .. • • — Manchester and Leeds .. .. • • 62 •• • • --• •••• • • • • 2 P Ditto Extension .. 425, p.. • • • • • • Manchester and Birmingham .. 40 . .• ........ 13 Ditto, Quarter Shares (B) .. 4 .... •••• • .. Do. Cont. and Welsh Junction Ise ••••• • '• • • P Manchester, Buxton, & Matlock 425. •• • • Ts P•••• " .• ..100 .. • • „. • • „••32 Ditto, New 1.8 31%743 0 • 31N4 •• 2. 5s . ..• New cmtic; and Berwick .. •• 15 ••• • •• • ... Newark, Sheffield, and Boston • . 1% •• • • • • ' 29% North Hritisli „. 22% • • 2934 ••• • " • _ 1136 PRICES OF RAILWAY SHARES. Ditto. Ball Shares :. • • • • 8%•••• 11; ****** •• " Ditto, Carlisle Extension .. Ik.• • • • • • North Kent and Direct Dover •• 2 %.• • • •• • • '''• - North Staffordshire .. 42.5. •... 3%% 4 p.. • • ; ► Scottish Central .. • • . .. 10 .• 15% • • Ditto New • •• • • .. .. 2 •-•• •• •••• •• South Midland .. 425..... .4% die.. • di 39% South Eastern and Dovor • • • • 3 3 4 •• • • 39 % ••• • • *l3 Do., New (d 0.331. 6s.ad.) No. 2. 10 .... 131 i *** 1 )0., New (do. 30/ , ) • • No. 3. 15 .• . 18Vi_ Staines and Richmond .. • • .. 1 .• Warwickshire and London • 425... •. tq die...... • • k Welsh Xidland .. • • .. 2)4.... 1 k ........., West hiding Union ••.. .. 4.25. ••..2%p• • . , •. P FOREIGN RAILWAYS. Boulogne and Amien5.......1 2 .... 11% 11 Bord., Toul., & Cette (Mackenzie) 2 .... • Ditto, ditto (Espelete) 2 .•—•••• •• • • • • 1 % Central of Spain .. • • .. .. 2 • .• 2.• • . • • • . 2 East Indian bs. •• .. •• •• i• • • Luxembourg .• • • .. 4 .• •' •• •• •• •• Sambre and Bordeaux •• • • • • "••—• •'"• ' • " 97 Orleans and Meuse ••• • • • • •.•.• — 6 - tz ••••• • • • •• Paris and Lyons Constituted • • • • ie "•• • . 62ir JOINT-STOCK BANKS. London and Westminster • • MINES.• ••• • • • , 26% MINES. Real del Monte, Unregistered • • 4 LAW INTELLIGENCE. . COURT OF CHANCERY, June 5. WHITWORTH I/. GAUGAIN. The LORD CHAICCELLOR postponed his judgment. Lord Granville Somerset, Sir James Graham, the Righ t Hon. Sidney Herbert, th e P res i dent of the Board of Tr a y .:1 and the Vice-Presid en t, h ad an interview with Sir Robert -2 yesterday. NOTIONS OF TEMPERANCE.--" See here, friend , 3 : 1 ! three years. You see, my are drunk !" Drunk !to be pare I am, and have been th no temper . mission ; he lectures, white I serve as a frightful examP brother and I are on a tem On the Ist i BIRHS nst., the wife of H T B. Wilkinson, sq., of Grooenor. Plato, CaMherwell liew•road, of a son. ...oh' , • On the id inst., at Carlow, Ireland, Mrs. Jeremiah ICall '" of a son. ~, Cope' the 4th inst., at Greve-place, Brixton-road, Mrs. W , "" ., ** — of a On the daughter. .y DAUMP 6 ' 4th inst., at Eltham, the wife of Henry itam - - Esq., of a son. On Thursday, Lady Mary Wood, of a son. gso ' era On the 16th ult., at Oporto, the lady of George WaiTe. daughter. AC On the 3d inst., at Harpenden, the lady of Frederic R • SP Wasi Esq.. M.D., of a daughter. Rieliar i. On the 3d inst., at Beaufoy-terrace, Maida-vale, Mi l ' Rowe, of a daughter. _____.------------- MARRIED. Ou the 2d bast , at St. Martin's-In-the-Fields, Ronald Johnsto_n, awl., of Glasgow, to Mary Ann, daughter of Mr. .L. St. Martin's-lane. On the 2d inst., at Glasgow, Frederick A. Eck, EEL.. .f ygdparaisoi• toJetnet, only daughter of Edward Alexander, Esq.. of DIED. On the 3d inst., nt Marlow. Ilnekinghamidre, Francis Glanville, Esq., of Catchfreneh, Cornwall, aged 84. On the 3d inst., in the Kent-road, Mr. John Back. aged 64 . On the 3d inst.. at LaugLeigh, near Ilfracombe, Louisa Sommers, the youngest daughter of Captain Down, MN.. aged 17. O. the ath inst., Ann, the wife of Mr. Charles Farlow, of the Strand• ---"—"'"n---'' 1, London: Printed and Published by 11417RD0 YOUNG, of No. I - . Strand, Printer„ at Me Sun Office, N 0.112, Str A nd, in the Precinet of the SaVny, In the County of Middleesu, Suturday, 4011. G. 1146. - r