The Sun. — London, England, 1846-05-26 00:00:00

ACCOUCHEMENT OF TIER MAJESTY. BIRTH OF A PRINCESS. (Prom the London Gazette Extraordinary of yesterday. BUCKINGHAM PALACE, MAY 25, 1846. At Ave minutes before three o'clock this afternoon' the Queen was happily delivered of a Princess. His Royal Highness Prince Albert, several Lords of her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council, and the Ladies of her Majesty's Bedchamber were present. This great and important news was immediately made known to the town by the firing of the Park and Tower guns ; and the Privy Council being assembled as soon as possible thereupon, at the Council- Chamber, Whitehall, it was ordered that a Form of Thanksgiving for the Queen's safe delivery of a Princess be prepared by his Grace the Archbishop of Canter bury, to be used in all churches and chapels throughout England and Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon- Tweed, on Sunday the 31st of May, or the Sunday after the respective ministers shall receive the same. Her Majesty and the infant Princess are, God be praised, both doing well. RAILWAY COMMITTEES. (YESTERDAY.) HOUSE OF LORDS. GROUP I. TEE EASTERN COUNTIES. (continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) FREE TRADE. Several witnesses were called to speak to the great advantage ',stitch the Eastern Counties extensions would confer upon the traders affected. At the close of the examination of a witness named Mr. Robert Mawly, a farmer at Bourne, near Lincoln, the following opinion on free trade was elicited. Lord Vex—Do you think you will continue to send as much corn by railway after the repeal of the corn-laws as you do now ? Witness—l am of opinion, my Lord, that we shall not only con tinue and maintain our trade in corn after the repeal of the oorn laws, but that we shall also pay your Lordships as high rents as we do at this present moment.—(Laughter.) Lord Viviax —That is an argument for free trade, certainly. The Committee then adjourned till eleven o'clock to-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. GROUP X. Tha Committee on this group met to-day at twelve o'cYock, in Room No. 1 (House of Commons). Present, Mr. Deedes (chairman), Mr. Arkwright, Mr. Farnham, Mr. Vivian, and Mr. Stanley. They rearmed the consideration of the CALEDONIAN (BITNBYVAN BRANCH). Mr. Warrmoaa, who was with Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Gordon, for the promoters, called witnesses in support of their Bill, the evidence being, at first, chiefly devoted to prove that at the present moment the east part of Glasgow was abundantly and cheaply supplied with coal, and that, so far the alleged necessity for the competing line (the Glasgow, Airdrie, and Monklands Junction) did not exist, and, there fore, that the anticipated advantages would not arise. The Citsaamax interrupted this course of evidence, and said that the Committee had already bad enough of proof respecting the supply of coal to Glasgow and especially as to the east part. Mr. FORSYTH said that it was the object of himself and the other counsel for this Bill to set tip their own line by destroying Ow pre tensions of their competitors; for he took it for granted that the Committee would pass either of the Bills, and if he could show that the Glasgow, Airdrie and Monckland Junction was not an advisable line, he presumed he would have done much to establish the claims of his own mea sure. He did not, of course, venture to assume with ' certainty that the Committee had resolved to adopt either one of the Bills. He assumed it only for supposition sake to explain the pur pose of the course which be was taking. He would not, after what fell from the Committee, go further into the supply of coals, but would call witnesses to the inferiority of the opposing line. Mr. King, manager of the Glasgow, Garnkirk and Coatbridge Railway, wag examined at some length for the purpose of establish ing that the connexion of the Dundyvan branch with the Glasgow and Garnkirk, atCoatbridge,would be much more advantageous than the connexion of the Glasgow and Airdrie with the same point, by the medium of the Monkland and Kirkintolloch. Other evidence of this witness was strongly in favour of the present Bill in comparison with its competitor. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Sergeant BELLASIS appeared on behalf of Mr. Sligo, a land owner, and also for the Monkland and Kirkintillock Railway. In the latter capacity he claimed to cross-examine the witnesses, be cause his clients had a power secured to there to purchase that por tion of the Glasgow and Garnkirk line which would be affected and partially injured by the junction with the Dundyvan branch of the Caledonian Railway. Mr. FORSYTH considered any opposition on the part of his Learned Friend quite suicidal; and he denied the latter's right to appear in the capacity he affected, inasmuch as the Monkland and Kirkintilloch Toad only a contingent power to purchase by value of a private arrangement, which had not yet the sanction of Parliament. After some discussion The CIIAIRMA N said that the Learned Sergeant did not show a good ground for appearing in this case, as the Act of Parliament en which he relied had not yet passed. So far as the agreement between his clients and the Garnkirk Company was concerned, it did not place him before the Committee. If the 3lonkland and Kirkintllloch Com pany should suffer by a breach of agreement they would have their remedy by action. After further discussion the room was cleared, and on the re-ed it:llB3ton of strangers, Mr. Sergeant Braxasis was allowed to be heard, and cross-ex nmined the witness, but he did not seem to elicit anything material disadvantageous to the proposed junction of the Dundyvan branch with the Garnkirk. Further evidence of the same character having been given, Mr. JOHNSTONE, who was with Mr. Sergeant Bellasis, for Mr. Sligo, and the Monklands and Kirkintulloch, in opposition to the Bin, called witnesses who gave evidence favouring the competing line in preference to this. The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till twelve to-morrow. GROUP XIII. This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock, Sir William Clay in the chair; other Members present, Earl Jermyn, Mr. P. Ainsworth, and Mr. Cartels. NORTH BRITISH (C.B.RI.ISLE EXTENSION). The case on behalf of this line was resumed Mr. Blythe was recalled, and put in the abstract in reference to the cast of the works which counsel on behalf of the Caledonian re quested on Friday. He had had considerable experience of con structing railways, and he believed the estimates quite correct. He had made borings along the line to ascertain the strata. Mr. Miller, civil engineer, deposed that the line had been laid down by Mr. Blythe from his instructions. These instructions were given after consulting the feelings of the proprietors along the line. He had had several interviews with the Duke of Buccleuch and Sir James Graham. He believed the line as now laid down a good and practicable one. The present line was different from what it had been when originally laid down, but it had been altered to meet the ob jections of the proprietors. Had the line from Canobie to Netherby been run along the west bank of the Esk, it would have been very injurious to Netherby-park. It was the best line in an engineering point of view that could be formed without seriously injuring private property. It was their intention to run into the central station in Carlisle, the ground of which had been scheduled by the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway. The land had been scheduled not for that Company particularly, but to accom modate all the lines conveying there. The people of Carlisle were, he believed, very anxious for such a central station. The Caledonian line from Eden Water, about half a mile from Carlisle to the latter place, was nearly the same as the present line; but they could be easily run along the same ground by laying down two extra lines of rails. There would be no difficulty in constructing the two lines in the manner he described. With reference to the Canobie colliery, the line was so laid that locomotives could go up to the works. He had gene over the estimates of Mr. Blythe, and he thought them quite enough. The prices of the works in the estimates of Mr. Blythe were higher than similar works had been tendered for on other parts of the North British Railway. He knew the district well, and he thought it was important to have an outlet to the south. Cross-examined—He made the estimates of the Edinburgh and Hawick last year. He believed the works on that line had been let at prices as low as he there gave. He was not aware if the Dalhousie 'viaduct was let at a higher price than he gave in his estimates ; but if so, it must be owing to change of situation, by which the viaduct was longer. The price of the cubical quantity he was sure was not increased. The viaduct was changed from the Parliasasntary line, but within the limits of deviation. About twenty miles of the Edinburgh and Hawick had been let. At the present time, he believed, that wages were less than they were two months ago. If the works of the Bills, which Parliament has sanc ti one d , were pressed , then wages would possibly rise ; but he did not think that engineers would so push the works. The steepest gradient was 1 in 7.5 going from Carlisle to Hawick, but he did not think there would be any heavy lands going that way, They would come the other way. He thought this line would be worked cheaper than the Edinburgh and Hawick, for the reason that on the Edinburgh line, the heavy loads would go up kill, and occasion greater expense in working. He had calculated the Edinburgh and Hawick line at 40 per cent., but 37 per cent. he thought enough for the present line. An arrangement bad been made about the crossing of Borough-street, in Carlisle. The street was to be crossed by a bridge 15 or 16 feet high. According to the deposited plans and sections, the street was to be lowered 3 feet, and to be crossed by an arch 12 feet high with twenty feet span. This had been altered by arrange ment with the authorities by which the arch was to be raised and the street lowered a little more. He was not aware that the agree ment specified that the street should not be depressed more ; should there be no such depression than the alteration could not be done in agreement with the Parliamentary rules unless they could deviate the road. Another street was to be crossed by an arch instead of by the obe level crossing according believed to arrangement, but th a t could ne with the Parliament ar y deviation. mfwnlitY n no objecting parties to the present line going into the Carlisle central station but the Caledonian Com pany. The Lancaster and Carlisleo Company opposed them, because they wereobliged t o do so on Mr. Berrew,l and valuer, d .: i nt of the Caledonian Company. aetdowa 5it,0628. 170. to the value of the land, which Nelson, builder, of Carlisle, said 4 0 01 had valued the house property to be taken in Carlisle at 21,4001. This was the case for the promoters. CALEDONIAN (LANIZIKOZat 301.112/c11). The ease eke behalf of this line, and m opposition to the North B r iti s h ( Carlisle Extension) was then gone into. The formal proof, M compliance with Mr. Dunconibe ' s resolutio ns , were p u t En i f l ot. late of and received. Mr. Roxbnrghshire , and now of Dumf r i es , ex amined brother was a manufacturer in Hawick, and he had often assistsd him. He now lived about kn six ew mfi th es e from country b Ann e ee n tw' an ll had been there for about nine years. hilly district,andthe Annan and Hawick well. It was a very popu lation very thin—a shepherd population. He was now often In the habit of going Hawick. Between was to Langholna, and from thence to into Roxburgh. The road he wen t Langhelm and Hawick the mainly grazing, there being but littl e under cul fins wer e ti ar vation.Th e principal outlet of the hosiery trade of Hawick was Edinburgh and Glasgow. But a small proportion went southwards. The same applied to the other branches. He believed the total trade was not more than 800 or 1,000 tons, and if half of that went south it would not be very much. They were generally coarse goods that could not find a market in England. The population between Hawick and Lang holm, in the parishes of Hews, Westerldrk. and Eskdale Muir, through which the line passed, was in the proportion of 9%, 16 and 93 to the square mile, for these parishes there were but 10, 11, and 10 houses respectivel indow-tax. In Hoberton and Cavern , the proportion wassomewhat similar. In the whole town of Hawick but 72 houses paid the window-tax. (The witness then went through the whole route of the line, reading from a table in his hand the respective populations of each parish to the square mile and the houses in each assessed to the window -tax. A number of places for which the traffic-tables of the North British took credit, would be but little accommodated by the line. The population of Langhelm was but 2,000, and the mannfaeturers were trifling. There were two distilleries there. Throughout the extent of the country he referred to the principal occupation on the land was raising lean stock, but he did not think many of them would pass along the line. The fat stock was mainly raised on the coast of Ilawick, and Newcastle and Morpeth were the principal markets. Rut little went by Carlisle. Newcastle and Morpeth he thought would still continue the best markets. Though he resided but six miles from the port of Annan, during six out of nine years he h sent his fat sheep t o N ewcastle. Of the grain that came f ro m Roxburgh towards "Anaheim the quantity might be 2,000 tons. He thought port of the quantity of s l a t es t aken from the Langliolin would be about 1,200 tons, of w hi c h 800 tons went to traffic was coal, of which there WEIS from Iwool. The principal 8 1 ,0000 tons. For the wants of the district the Caledonian p(lLaacnetiligg Branch) would serve the town of Langholm and the Hawick would be greatly benefited by the North British wßrit, but That benefit, however, would be got at the expense of the Cf=ho nian, as it would take away the Edinburgh through traffic of that line. The local traffic of the North British filawick line) Railway could not support the railway, and it must depend on taking the through traffic from the Caledonian Railway. He was per suaded two through lines could not be supported by the traffic. The witness then went over the calculation of the number of parties that were estimated by the North British to use the railway —a quantity which he considered greatly exaggerated. Cres s - examined —At the time he was in Hawick, Cheviot wool was alone used, but now there was a great deal of foreign wool used. He knew Messrs. Long and Nixon well, and they were well qualitle , to speak as to the trade of Hawick. The trade of Hawick might have been increased one-third since 1839. He did not think.that a great quantity of grain came into Dumfriesshire from:Roxburghshire. He thought that if lean stock were taken cheaper by ailway than by driving, the former method would be preferred. The witness was strictly cross-examined by Mr. Liddell, who ap peared for the Duke of Buccleuch and Sir James Graham, but no point of material importancewas elicited. Mr. Adam Black, Lord Piovost, of Edinburgh, examined, said, that when the Caledonian was brought e, fore Parliament last year, there was a strong feeling in Edinburgh in its favour, and a numerously signed petition in its favour was sent up. The inhabitants of Edinburgh supported the Caledonian line, because it gave them a good outlet to the south, opened up the Wilsonstown coal-fields, be the means of bringing a supply of water into Edin burgh, and be a check on the Edinburgh and Glasgow Company. to would be a great injury, he considered, if anything should happen cripple the proper working of the Caledonian line. He did not think the extension from Hawick to Carlisle would benefit Edinburgh much, while it would take a large proportion of the t hrou g h traffic fromithe Caledonian line. Cross-examined—At the time the feeling was so strong in favour considerable deal of r and the line of the Caledonian, the choice was between the latte was talked of. by Dumfries through the Hawick and Car lisle line He had no doubt the Hawick line wou ld take think Hawick should be benefited a t the expense the through traffic, but he could n ot say how anse He think er H an e d d id in n er o e t important interests. g fo o:ds the wer z e nglish storedin ooficGlasgdowcialassaldhiheeisd. ealt y l e ar ry gel ll y tt in le tweeds stook and purchased urc puill has op ed me a r t ch H an a t' wi s a e r nt go to ods Glas w g er o e w. m A adein Glasgow. The t Th in either ar p y lace eo , ursbuet was the north o went to Edinburgh . The whole value of the goods mer chants to c f - om is e e e ounn o t r e clin d G th las- at go were might be 236 0001 The greater proportion of the hosiery and blankets were consumed in Scotland. The goods por tionman manufactured for the English market went by the east by steam from Berwick and e ur g er s in Hawick Leith. The English and foreign wool was brought from London to Berwick at 12s. 6d. a ton. It was of no importance that the transit should be quick, and the steamers were the most eligible conveyance. The dye stuffs were principally brought from Glasgow, and time was not of much importance in the conveyance of these. Groceries for Hawick were mainly purchased at Edinburgh. The whole of the general merchandise brought into Hawick was 1,768 tons, and the gross traffic that went from that town was, to Edin burgh 832 tons, towards Carlisle 88 tons, and towards Newcastle 234 tons. He was assisted by Mr. Thomson, of Glasgow, a hosiery , merchant, in making out his calculations. The trafilw in goods be tween Edinburgh and Carlisle was not such as to warrant the con struction of two lines. Cross -examined—He got the traffic to Carlisle, to Newcastle, and to Edinburgh from the carrier s on the roads. He had only been in Hawick two or three times, but they had communication with Hawick weekly. Re-examined—Though he did not often go to Hawick himself, his partner went there monthly, and they knew the trade well. Mr. Thompson corroborated the evidence of the previous speaker respecting the hosiery trade, which he represented to be principally for the Scotch market. The whole weight of the hosiery was 200 tons, of which about one-third might go south. Re-examined—He knew Mr. Nixon and Mr. Lang, of Hawick, and they were well qualified to speak of the trade of Hawick. Mr. Sanderson, who was well acquainted with the carrying trade, supported the evidence of the previous witnesses as to the traffic of Hawick and Galashiels. About one-sixth of the goods manufactured went to England, the remainder went to Edinburgh and Glasgow. The freight from Leith to London for manufactured goods was about Is. per foot, or 40s. a ton by measurement. He did not think there was sufficient to support two lines of railway from Edinburgh to Carlisle. He applied the same principle to Galashiels that he did to Hawick. Cross-examined—He had been at Galashiels, bat he never had carried between Edinburgh and that town. He had not been at lawick. The CHAIRMAN said there was a discrepancy between the present evidence and that of the witnesses called by the .North British re specting the traffic south. The witness said he had some memoranda which he took down at the time he visited Galashiels, detailing the information given by the manufacturers. (The witness here read several of the items he took down at the time in support of the estimate he had given in.) Mr. Syme, the witness who had deposed that the most of his goods went south, would not give him any information. Mr. Railton, manager for Mr. Mitchell, carrier, of Carlisle, said that the whole through traffic from Carlisle to Edinburgh was 742 tons each way. The Galashiels and Carlisle traffic was about 4011 tons each way. The traffic from Carlisle to Hayrick and back was 335 tons. The traffic from Hawick to Edinburgh and Glasgow was 800, and from these cities to Hawick about 2,000 tons. He had seen the goods tables of the Hawick and Carlisle line, and he thought them very much overcharged. They were more likely to be 300/. than 3,000/. He thought especially the estimate for parcels most exorbitant. Mr. Hargreaves was the only other throngh carrier. Cross-examined—He estimated the traffic on the road from the number of horses employed by the other carrier and the carriers be tween Hawick and Galashiels and Edinburgh and Glasgow. With regard to the parcels, he merely thought from his knowledge of the present trade, that no such traffic could b e h a d. H e did not, how ever, know how many parcels were carried by other lines. Mr. Carruthers generally deposed that there was but little traffic from Hawick, by way of the Annan, and Carlisle, and Liverpool steamers. He generally agreed with the evidence of Mr. Renton. Cross-examined—He only spoke of his own vessel, the Newcastle. There was another, the Victoria, but he could not precisely speak of the traffic of that vessel. He thought the present communication sufficient for the wants of the traffic of the district, except it migkt be for the coal traffic. Mr. Piper, proprieter of the coaches between Carlisle and Edin burgh, through Ilawick and Galashiels, examined—Said the pas senger traffic to Hawick was inconsiderable. There were two coaches, the mail, and the Engineer. From Hayrick, by the mail, the passengers yearly were, to Langholm 34 ; to Langton, 40 ; to Carlisle, 76. From Hawick, by the Engineer, the passengers were, to Langholm, 162 ; to Langton, 10 ; and to Carlisle, 212. The En gineer went through to Lancaster, and the through traffic made up for the small Hawick traffic. The country from Hawick was very thinly populated. He thought the estimate of 3,0001. for parceis per fectly fictitious. Mr. Tither, coach proprietor, of Carlisle, generally concurred in the evidence of Mr. Piper. Last year the passengers from Carlisle by the mail to Langholm were 282, to Hawick 388, and to Gilashiels and Selkirk 132. The traffic on that road was not great, either in passengers or posting. The passengers taken by the other coach were about 50 per cent. more than by the mail, the number of which he had given. _ _ Mr. Ausxix called tke attention of the Committee to the figures in the table of the North British, which did not materially differ in the results to which the last witness had deposed. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at twelve o'clock. GROUP XIV. The Select Committee appointed to consider the merits of the Bills comprised in this group re-assembled at the usual hour this morn ing ; Mr. Protheroe in the chair. RENT .A.TBZOSPHER,IC. The business of the day was commenced with the general evidence in favour of the Kent Atmospheric scheme. Lord Stanhope was the: first witness called—He said he had at tended the meetings 'at Sevenoaks, called to consider the merits of the two schemes. The meetings were numerously attended, and by most of the influential gentlemen of the county. At both meetings the Kent Atmospheric line was unanimously adopted, in preference to the South-Eastern scheme. For himself he decidedly thought the Atmospheric line was the beat line for Sevenoaks, and the best for ac commodating the county generally. He was interested in neither line, nor would either prove of much benefit to his own property. He preferred the Atmospheric line because it afforded the most ac commodation to the county and to his neighbours. Mr. S. Pierce, carrier of Tunbridge, Mr. B. Baker, brewer of Tunbridge, Mr. J. Chapman, of Southborough, and Mr. James M. Richards, surveyor of Tunbridge, gave general evidence In favour of the Atmospheric line. Mr. Sherrad, the engineer of the line, was then called, but his examination was interrupted by Mr. KEATING, who contended on behalf of the South-Eastern Company, that as the Atmospheric Company proposed a deviating line which would affect the Medway navigation, they were bound to show that the consent of the commissions of the navigation hod been obtained to the deviation. The standing orders provided for this, and he submitted that such consent aught to be proved befbre they could proceed with evidence in favour of the deviation line. Mr. Sergeant TALFOUBD, on the other sideZurged that the consent of the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the land near to the Medway, which was proposed to be taken for the purposes of the line, had long ago been obtained for the present case ; however, the commis sioners seemed to claim a vested right in the bed of the river, and complained that their consent had not been obtained to the deviation line Interfering with it. But the truth was, they had -no right to the bed of the river, for all property of this nature, namely, the beds of navigable rivers was vested in the Crown, and unless the commissioners could show that the Crown had transferred its pro perty in the bed of the Medway to them, they had no right to main tain this objection. Mr. Eskimo replied that if the Medway commissioners had not a right to prevent the line interfering with their navigation, they had a right to complain that their towing path, in which they had the fee, simple, was unjustly interfered with, and that before the deviation line was gone into, it should be proved that their consent had been given to it, in accordance with the standing orders. The room was then cleared, and after a short consultation, The Committee decided that the consent of the commissioners must be obtained before the deviation line could be proceeded with. Evidence was then adduced to prove that the Medway Commis sioners had given a conditional consent to the deviation line, but that the Committee decided that it was not satisfactory, and the further consideration of the point was postponed. Mr. Sherrad's examination was then -proceeded with—He said the works on his own line were, or at least might be, made as good, if sot better, than the South Eastern. His own line between Lon don and Maidstone was nearly a mile:shorter than the South Eastern ; between London and Tunbridge, four miles and fifteen chains ; between London and Seven Oaks, two miles and 76 chains; between Seven Oaks and London, nine miles and eight chains ; showing a saving of new line, in favour of the Rent atmospheric line, of 19 miles and 40 chains. The distance upon his line as between London and Dover would be 88 yards longer than the South-Eastern line, while it would save the making of many miles of additional railway. On the Maidstone line there would be a tunnel 2,376 yards in length, and on the Tunbridge line two tunnels of 342 and 2,717 yards in length. On the whole line there were only 88 yards of viaduct. Mr. Cocunusic objected to the witness going into the details of the line, as it approached Maidstone, because the Bill before the Com mittee did not relate to it, nor• did the schedule of the Bill contain the lands proposed to be taken for it. The faet was the line before the Committee was only part of the original atmospheric scheme, and the line entered Maidstone on a branch to Rochester, which was not included in this Bill. The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till to-morrow, at twelve. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 26, 1846. GROUP XVII. LONDON AND SOUTH WESTER! (11,011TSZY AND AZDERIDGETUNCTION), MANCHES TER AND S OUTHA MP TON, MANCHES TER AND POOLE. The Committee to whom these Bills had been referred met this afternoon at one o'clock, in If°. 8 Committee-room. The lion. E. Torke in the chair. Appearances against the first Bill were entered from the Commissioners for improving the port of Southampton, landowners &c., of Redbridge, the Corporation of Southampton, Mr. Perkins, Sir d . B. Mill, Bart., Corporation and inhabitants of Romsey and Andover; Andover and Redbridge Canal; ratepayers and inhabitants of Southampton ; Trustees of Knowles' Charity ; and against the Manchester and Southampton (for which Sergeant Wrangham, Mr. Alexander, Mr, James, Mr. Cripps, and Mr. R. Gurney appeared as counsel), trustees of Cheltenham Turnpike-roads (for clauses) ; Great Western Railway, London and South-Western, Southampton and Dorchester (for clauses), landowners on the line, farmers and flock masters in Dorset and Somerset ; scholars of King's College, Cambridge ; Southampton Dock Company ; Commissioners of Beck hampton Roads ; anti the Commissioners for Paving and Improving the Port of Southampton; the Corporation of Southampton (simply by the insertion of clauses) ; Manchester and Salisbury and Yeovil Junction Railway. waisafteicatirrEit axis POOLE. Mr " ElLe"hr" the agent pi n t 19 u1, gad its promoters hail agreed to withdraw it felt the ROMSEY AND EZDItTe.3I)O32 airsacTXON. Thfirst.e Committee intimated their intention of pr oceeding with line The usual formal proofs having been handed in, Mr. lIILL, Q. C., proceeded to open the case—He said the Una would be 5 miles and 4 furlongs in length, and the estimated cost 60,000/., or about 11,0001, per mile, and was intended to form a junction between two lines belonging to the South Western, namely, the Bishor - stoke and Salisbury, and Southampton, and Dorchester Railways, and would run from Romney on the first, to Redbridge on the second ammepntotionntoed Barnsley thwase piewreboseisiulgainetdt:btl;yoer: oen..:oudaiadrdesochtyutniamshet;oke in order to reach that point which the nill proposed to avoid, by Person going from South nmcreoaewstingihththerste, and would a distance of four miles, accommodate a as com p m osai tml b ca le. tion .Tho bet n w n er would save g from circuitous railway communication. There been purchased waa - - thapt Railway, and which ran along Redbridge, which he understood lied b - by the Manchester a sod line, but he need hardly tell the Committee al saf frn er nt hl_ a portion of the prop trict a n o o an W mode of communication was required, that a more expeditious Mr. Alexander Fletcher, a Southampton, merchant and estate agent, at 31ilibrook, close to for • the last thirty years, testified t o ' ich the line wo uld confer on the districts it would the advantages V" ug timber would be reduced two-thirds, traverse. The cost of conveyi ng mild also be reduced in proportion. Vessels be and other articles W greatly in dues, which would going to Redbridge would save charged at Southampton. st arted about two months after the projection of the Southampton. Cross-examined by Mr. James — This line was Manchester a:id Was in favour o f a ra i lway commun icating with the north. The Manchester and Southampton ran along the river frontage, where several wharfs were sit ua t e d, and where a greater number might be constructed. A river fro n t age would be of equal advantage to i . either of these lines the The Kennet ard Avon Canal crossed Manchester and Southampton, and would perhaps, if connected with a railway, convey timber from Devizes and its neighbourhood to that railway, and which would carry it on to Southampton ; but it was more probable that timber cut at Devizes, and south of that town, would go to Salisbury by land carriage, and so on by railway, to Southampton. By Mr. llAwurisoN, who appeared for Sir- J. B. Mill and other landowners—A vessel going to Redbridge paid twopenee a ton for dues at Southampton, but paid nothing at Redbridge, except six pence per ton for wharfage. Was not aware that the dues at South ampton wera threepence per ton, and consequently less than at Red bridge. Could not say whether the dues for corn at Redbridge were one penny per ton, and only a halfpenny at Southampton. Mr. HILL objected to his Learned Friend examining the witness with reference to parts of the line which would not affect the pro perty of those for whom he appeared, Sir J. B. Mill, the chairman of the Manchester and Southampton Company, for instance. Mr. RAWLINSON maintained, that as those for whom he appeared urged in their petitions that the line was a bad one and that a better line could be made, he was entitled to examine witnesses with re spect to any portion of it. The CRALAMAN intimated that the Committee did not consider the ition irrelevant and approved of the come of cross- lexamination. Mr. HELL, however, contended that it was necessary, at the com mencement ,beaandprtohtartaeatelanadoonwne, landowner lay e nm d c o e wn e nt of a n rules for r inquiry th e which guian p co ro of m c is o e un d s to el whose property was affected had only a right to examine witness es with respect to that portion. The CITA - men (after referring to the petition of Sir John Parker Mill) said Mr. Rawlinson might proceed, as the petition alleged that a better line could be made, and that counsel were entitled to support such allegations by evidence. Mr. Rewialisozi continued—The Manchester and Southampton Railway, from Redbridge to Ramsey, except for a very short dis tance would run along the Andover Canal. The Manchester and Southampton would not offer the same facilities between Romsey and Southampton as the other. The Romsey line ran through a tunnel— that certainly was an objection. Did not think wharfs could be con structed on the banks of the water along the course of the Man chester and Southampton, because the water was deep and muddy. By the Cnanticui—The further railways are extended to the latter. If the Manchester and Southampton had a station at Red bridge it would afford the same facilities as the other line; but if it carried timber and other articles on to Southampton without stopping at Redbridge, it would not. By Mr. Davis, a solicitor who appeared for the corporation of Southampton—Never knew a tunnel with a curve in which a piece of timber 80 feet long could not pass. Large quantities of timber were grown in the neighbourhood of Chalburgh which principally found an outlet by the Severn. Mr. M. G. Gregory, a miller at Fisherton, joining Salisbury, shipped goods at Redbridge for Cornwall. If 'the proposed line from Salis bury were made, he should send those goods by it. Imported gyp sum and bones at Ealing, and not at Wolverhampton. Shipped 2,600 bags of flour, and imported 100 tons of bones and 100 tens of gypsum at Ealing last year. Sends flour to Southampton to be shipped to London. The Committee then adjourned until 12 o'clock to-morrow. The Committee will not meet on Wednesday. GROUP XYIII. IPSWICH, NORWICH, AND YARMOUTH. This Committee met at the usual hour ; Sir G. Grey, chairman. Mr. G. Leeston, iron founder , of Ipswich, gave evidence in favour of the line. He considered that the proposed railway would afford hire great accommodation, Mr. J. Smith, of Peesinghalt, a manufacturer, also gave similar evidence. Mr. Stead, manger, of Ipswich, gave evidence of a similar nature. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Button, Mr. Crabtree, owners of property along the line, also gave evidence of a favourable nature. The Committee then adjourned, GROUP XX. This Committee met to-day at twelve o'elock, Mr. Sotheron in the chair, when the case of the LONDON, HOUNSLOW, AND WESTERN was resumed. Captain Moorsom, civil engineer, was re-called and cross-examined at some length in reference to the evidence given on Friday on the engineering peculiarities of the line, but no point of material im portance was elicited. _ The examination of Captain Moorsom continued up till four o'clock, when the Committee adjourned till to-morrow at twelve o'clock. GROUP XXII, This Committee sat at the usual hour, Mr. B. Denison, chairman. I.IE.ETNE, 'YEOVIL AND DORCHESTER., AND LONDON, SALISBURY ILIM YEOVIL. The cross-examination of Mr. Locke was resumed this morning by Mr. BIINCE. The cross-examinaton was confined exclusively to the opposition of landowners along the line. The landowners along the line, whose opposition was gone into, were the Earl of Digby and Mr. Bridges, represented by Mr. Butt; Mr, Frampton, represented by Mr. Sergeant Kinglake ; the trustees of the Wardour estate, for whom Mr. Murphy appeared, and Mr. Gordon, who appeared personally, and examined Mr. Locke at some length himself. Mr. Cockburn and Mr. 'Merrewether having re-examined Mr. Locke at considerable length, Mr. Vignoles, C.E., was then examined. He considered that the line proposed by Mr. Locke between Exeter and Yeovil was better in every respect than the line as laid out by Mr. Brunel, on the part of the Great Western Company. The Committee having intimated at this stage of the examina tien.that it would be useless to examine other engineers, who would merely corroborate the evidence of Mr. Locke, Mr. MERREWETIIEa offered, on the part of the promoters, to with draw his witness provided that the promoters of the Great Western Company confined their engineering evidence to one witness also. This proposition not having been acceded to by Mr. DENISON, on the part of the Great Western Company, the examination :was pro ceeded with, but in consequence of the lateness of the hour was brought to a close - very shortly afterwards by the Committee ad journing. GROUP X-YITI. SOUTH ESSEX. The Committee assembled this morning at twelve o'clock, Mr. M. O'Connell in the chair, when evidence was resumed on the part of the North Gravesend Railway in opposition to the South Essex line, and Mr. Beeson, a large proprietor of chalk-pits at Grays, and sove cal other witnesses, were adduced to show that the proposed advan tages would not be nearly so great as they were supposed to be at present. This closed the case of the South Essex Company ; after which Mr. RODWELL opened the case •n behalf of the River Lea Naviga tion trustees, by reminding the Committee that even in these times of railway mania, as ho termed it, the benefits of canal communication had been entirely overlooked, although at the present time the trustees were successfully competing with the Eastern Cou.ties Railway. It was well known that many of the places within a short distance of the proposed line were already in the neighbourhood of railway communication ; so that the necessity for any change in the means of communication was quite evident. The Learned Counsel then went into a detail of the plans for crossing the river Lea which Mr. Locke had submitted, and endeavoured to show that, in consequence of the Lea being tidal river, these plans were very injurious, and intimated that he should call Mr. Walker, the eminent engineer, as well as the engineer of the Lea Company, to show that they were objectionable, net only on account of the influx of the tide, but because also of the opposition that would be offered to the egress of the waters collected in the marshes of Essex. On the part of the River Lea Company, he proposed that there should either be a bridge of 100 feet, or at least one of 85 feet, with a towing path under, and a lay-to, by which the boats could be launched. Considering all the circumstances he trusted that the Committee would se. that there was no necessity for the rail way at all, or if they allowed the preamble of the Bill, that they would at least preserve the rights of the River Lea Company as they were, and as they had been secured, by several Acts of Parliament for two or three hundred years. The trustees had no private ends to serve, and were persons of the highest respectability, and had only the public interests to serve. He might add that the Eastern Counties and the Northern and Eastern Counties Companies had acceded to the terms of the company. Mr. Rodwell then called Mr. Marchant, clerk to the trustees for twenty years, stated that the parties were of the highest respectability. That the tonnage carried under the proposed bridge was 300,000 tons, the tolls for which were expended in the improvement of the river. The naviga tion extended from Hertford to the Thames, besides the branches to Hogstone. The site of the proposed bridge would pass in precisely the very worst part of the navigation, and the Company had already expended between 16,000/. and 18,0001. on its improvement. Mr. Maxon cross-examined the witness, to whom he replied that the bridge to which allusion bad been made had fenders under it, which restricted the water way, but that difficulty was likely to be obviated by the substitution of a swing bridge, w, Mai would allow a greater water way. A proposition had been made to settle this matter by the arbitration of two celebrated engineers, but It was refused by the Company on the ground that they were the best judges of the necessities of the navigation, however succinct the engineers might be. Bridges had been obtained from other compa nies of 94 feet and of 6t feet span, but none of Ino feet span. To Mr. RoDwELL's re-examination Mr. Marchant replied that they had got from other companies all that they required, and they only cams to the Committee because this Company proposed td restrict their water way. Mr. Griggs, surveyor of the Lea Company, described the course of the navigation, and stated that this was the worst part of the navi gation, and he believed that the plan proposed by Mr. Locke would amount to annihilation of the navigation. In the course of the exa mination an endeavour was made to shew that the objection was futile, but it failed. Mr. Walker, engineer, was then called to show that the bridge would impede the navigation, unless the arches were of sufficient width. The witness then went into the principles of the several bridges proposed for crossing the Lea, and showed that the bridge proposed by him would be cheaper as well as better than that proposed by Mr. Locke. The bridge to be constructed over the Tamar for the Cornwall Railway was to be 250 feet span, and that over the Drogheda Railway, supported by iron work, was to be of the same span. The effect of contracting the stream would be to increase the velocity of the stream, and to break the banks below the bridge. He thought, upon the whole, that the Company had better give the 100 feet at once. Mr. Warner and several other practical navigators bore testimony to the difficulty of the navigation at the particular spot, the tide running sometimes as much as nine or ten miles an hour, and acci dents had frequently occurred. The chance of accident would, of course, be increased by the erection of the proposed bridge. On the cross-examination of Mr. ADAms the witness described the course of the navigation and the impediments which were presented to it by the set of the stream and tide. The ordinary length of the craft on the river were about eighty feet long, exclusive of the rudder, which was nine feet. There were other bridges as narrow, but there was no place so narrow with so strong a tide as this. Nor is there any portion of the river so tortuous as this. The principal difficulty, however, would be experienced chiefly by the London lighters which were worked by one man only. He spoke from an experience of thirty-five years, and he believed that the bridge would largely In crease the chance of accident. Mr. RODWELL was prepared to adduce four or five other barge masters, and especially the chief barge-master, who would state that if this pier were erected, he would not venture to send the valuable cargoes up the Lea which he had hitherto dispatched, but _ _ The Committee declared that they were satlefied, and adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP XXVIII, This Committee assembled to-day at one o'clock ; present, Lord Dalmeny (chairman), and the other members. The following Bills are comprised in this group, viz.:— London and Birmingham (Newport l'agnall Branch). Hertford and Hatfield. London and Birmingham (St. Alban's and Luton Branch). London and York (St. Alban's, Luton, and Dunstable Branch). Northern and Southern Connecting, St. Alban's, Hatfield, and Hertford Junction. LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM (ST. AL , BAN'S AND LITTON BRANCH.) After some opposition from Mr.lWells, on the part of the London and 'fork competing line, the Committee agreed to proceed with the Bill. Mr. TALBOT, on the part of the promoters, said he would detain the Committee with but very few observations. The object of this line was to make a communication between the London and Bir mingham Railway and several important towns, which were at pre sent destitute of any efficient communication of this nature. The line from Oxford to Cambridge, which had been recently sanctioned in Committee,. embraced Luton, and that would render unneces sary a branch to that town ; but they proposed to make such, should the Oxford sad Cambridge not be carried out. The length of the line wit'h branches, was 2634 miles, and the estimated cost of the works 4C 43,0001. From St. Alban's to Dunstable there was a trade in st raw plait carried on as well as a trade in whit ing. He bell evod that he would be able te show that the opposition on. the part of the London and York, and of the inhabitants of St. Alban's, who complained of the crossing near the town, was not sufficiently just to entitle them te have this Bill re jected. He hi id no doubt, too, that it would clearly appear that there was no residential Injury inflicted which could not be compen sated by Dm ley, or which was of any great extent. The Le - ailed Counsel concl tided by calling evidence. Mr. Hawki as, of Redbourne, was examined, and stated that this railway wont d be extremely advantageous to Redbourne and the vicinity. Cor as were at present brought to that district by canals. The Commi, ttee, after hearing some further evidence, adjourhed at four o'clock. G XXX. DIZIDZA AND ROUP EASTERN COTTNTIES LIN (CAwiILEIDGE TO WEEDON). (Contini tea from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) The Comm tttee resumed at three o'clock, when the clauses, with a few nulmp, irtant amendments, were passed, and the report or dered to be ca rried up to the House. The Commi dies then adjourned. S t r mTH orningGßOUP XXXI. a A t L th E e S ns . ual hour, Mr. Bound The Comm! .ttee met Th in the ch a i r. Mr. Arts - • TI t, then proceeded to reply en behalf of the promoters of the Bill, B 5 Said adduced, met I during the whole of the evidence that had been had lost sigh throughout the addresses of his Learned Friends, they Tho Board o t of the real object of the line sought to be constructed. me ncing at erade reported favourably on the entire project, com stated that t G loucester and terminating at Fishguard. As they he " comment," _ ..neces s ity of the railway was too evident to require which it ...Kt went on to say that proposed the important district to traverse comparative isolation, i would be removed from afford direct ;communication inasmuch a with as the railway would the whole of the English counties th the metropolis of England and the Bill was I referred virtually pas.sed And the Committee to whom tug the passa re of the Severn by a bridge in its original form, includ found that ti le Admiralty objected A 5 . e ; but as it was subsequently means of a bridge, and as they t° l l l n a d eilaesing of the Severn by that portion Of the Bill, by refusing their consentto it,ver to negative amended the preamble they had passed, by erasingtl the Committee to thepassag 13 of the Severn, but assenting to theieportion relating outer portion of the linemamely from Chepstow to Pembroke and Fishguard. They at the same time it itim ated that the p romoters mi g ht apply in the next on of Peril ;Mcompelled ont for the powers they had been thus etao- W refuse. Th e poin t, therefore, to be decided was a narrow one. A gap had bet al left in their line, which they proposed to fill up by crossing the i Severn by a tunnel, and completing their line to Chep stow. The 1 hie of the South Wales Company would, to all intents and Purposes, te i just es perfect as it was before. The present opposition was worse i han a case of co m p etition. It was the case of the dog in the ' manger. The opponents would not allow the South Wales Co mpany to improve the Forest of Dean Railway, because t hey said it would tend eventually to injure the traffic; neither would they themselves improve it, because they considered the outlay of expense would not repay them. It had been agreed that . by the 52d Geo. 111., the Crown was foreclosed from in terfering w Ith the rights of the Forest of Dean Railway. It had not been denied . that The Dean Forest Company had an inchoate right to improve th . di . railway ; bat it was contended that an independent company c plt Id have no right to interfere. The Learned Gentleman then reviewed the opposition that had been offered to the eon• struction of the line, with a view to show the weakness of the alle gations of the opponents, and concluded a long and eloquent address by calling on the Committee to pass the preamble . The room was then cleared. On our re-admission the Committee stated, that their opinion was against the preamble of the Bill as it stood ; and the Committee were further of opinion, that the preamble of that part of the line from Chepstow to Gloucester had not been proved. The Committee were not inclined to allow the connexion of the Great Western with Ch eltenham and the For es t o f D ean R a i lway. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow. GROUP XXXII. The Committee met this morning at twelve o'clock ; Mr. J. De nison in the chair. BUCHINGHAMSITIRE (TILING TO BANBURY). , - After some evidence had been called corroborative of what was put in as to traffic on the line, the promoters of the line examined Mr. Robert Stevenson, the engineer of the line, who stated that this project arose out of a local requisition for better accommodation to the district through which it is intended to proceed. Several other routes were originally proposed, but the one before Parliament, from Trigg north west to Banbury, was fixed on as affording the best accommodation to the whole district, and as the most favourable for laying down a line of rail, passing, as it does, along the bottom of a valley, through a very rough and uneven country. Starting from Tring station, about half-a-mile from Tring, where it forms a junction with the London and Birmingham on the level, it passes through part of the town of Aylesbury, through the neighbourhood of Quainton to near Winslow and Claydon, where it meets the Oxford and Bletchley line, and from this it passes through Buckingham and by Brackley up to Banbury. The steepest gradient on it would be 1 in 157. There would be two tunnels, one near Claydon 1,100 yards long. and one near Farthingho of 580 yards in length. The estimate for the whole line was 900,0001., averaging 22,5001. per mile. The London and Birmingham Company have leased it, guaranteeing to the promoters 4 per cent, and half the profits. It was contemplated to carry the coals, which are a great impediment on the main Birmingham line from Rugby, by the Great Western to Banbury, and thence along this rail, and by side rails from Tring to London, by which arrange ment it was expected they could be carried at a reduced price, perhaps three farthings a ton, or less. Mr. Stephenson added that if the traffic were great, say 700,000 or 800,000 tons annually, coal could be carried at a halfpenny a ton, and at a speed of twelve miles, with a profit to the company ; but he did not mean this to apply to the project before the Committee which was rather expensive, for expense and length entered as important elements into the calculation of charge. A line, costing 20,0001. a mile, and running upwards of 60 miles, where also the speed he mentioned could be adopted, he had no doubt could pass coals at a halfpenny a ton. The formal evidence required by the standing orders of the House completed the case for the promoters. Mr. Commix, for the Great Western Railway, and Mr. Rim:calms, for Lord Carrington, then severally addressed the Committee. The room was ordered to be cleared, and parties on being re admitted were told that the Committee had decided that the pre amble of the Bill was proved. .... The clauses were then severally read and passed. The Committe adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP XLIV. This Committee (Lord Palmerston in the ehair) met at 12 o'clock, to go through the Bills of the YORE AND CARLISLE, AND 'YORKSHIRE AND GLASGOW UNION (A2HALGAIKA TION). but the Committee were engaged for two hours with a question of corn pensation to Mr. James Pullen,alandowner on the route. After the room had been cleared, the Committee decided that the Company should take the tolls on Mr. Pullen's property at 641., and thirty years' purchase, and pay Mr. Pullen the taxed costs of his opposition. The clauses of the Bill for the Amalgamated Company were then gone through and passed. The Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP LIT. This Committee re -assembled this morning at the usual hour; Mr. P. Miles in the chair. ST. HELEN'S CANAL AND RAILWAY, AND GRAND ZUNCTION (HUTTON TO WAR RINGTON BRANCH). The evidence en behalf of the promoters of the St. Helen's Rail way was resumed. Sir. Robert Dagleish, the contractor for the supply of the locomo tive power on the present St. Helen's and Runcorn Gap Railway, examined—This line was eight miles long. There were two inclines on it about half a mile long, in which the gradients were 1 in 25 and lin 30. These could not be worked by locomotive power, but a stationary engine was used. The expense of working the proposed line would be much less, and it would afford railway communication to many collieries which did not possess it at present. Examined by Mr. lIA.yEs, on behalf of Sir John Gerrard—The line would pass through this gentleman's property, and close to his corn fields, lie considered that it would be of advantage to his (Sir John Gerrard's) estate. Re was aware, however, that Sir John was op posed to the line. Mr. Rendall, the engineer of the line, was then examined. The cost of the line would be 235,7481., in addition to which, there would be the cost of a dock at Garston, amounting to 86,9711. This scheme was purely a protective measure to the owners of St. Helen's Canal. The coal trade could not be carried on efficiently unless Increased facilities of transit were given. The proposed line would meet the exigencies of the case. To take th• line along the canal was the best and cheapest mode of proceeding, The Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock te-morrow. GROUP LIII. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday. SH/LOPSHIRZ UNION RAILWAY AND CANAL (CHESTER and WOLVERH &MPTON). Mr. AUSTIN (with whom were Mr. Hope and Mr. Lang) appeared as counsel, and said that the length was 45 miles, the cost 730,0001., and as it was a canal proposed to be converted into a railway, the Committee would, of course, suppose that the gradients were not bad. The line had a great deal of local support, and very little opposition. The principal opposition would be on the part of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Corn pany. Some opposition would also be offered on the 'p ar t of certain iron masters in th e neighbohrhood of Wolverhampton ; but the great majority of the iron-masters were in favour of the line. The traffic did not support the present canal, but he should be able to show that it would nevertheless pay the proprietors when con verted into a railway. Mr. George Skee, carrying agent to the Canal Company in ques tion, was then called and examined by Mr. LANG—This witness proved that the present traffic on the canal was between 1,600 and 2,000 tons per week, the goods principally consisting of heavy Iron castings, which were taken northwards. The Grand Junction Railway had deprived the Company of almost all their other traffic. If a line were made direct to Birkenhead, the cost and trouble of transhipment of goods passing along the canal to the neighbaurhood of Liverpool would be obviated. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant ICINGLAgn—A large sum of money had lately been expended in the improvement of the river Severn for the purpose of making Stourport a convenient place for bringing up merchandise, and that sum of money would be rendered useless if this line were constructed. Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES (who appeared on behalf of the Ha berdashers' Company)—The tolls on the canal in question were re duced in February last a farthing per mile on iron goods, and a half penny on others. The arrangement for the conversion of the canal into a railway was made some time last year. The next witness not being in attendance, the Committee ad journed until twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP LIN% MIDLAND, BURTON-ON-TRENT TO NUN EATON, AND HILANCH. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) The examination of the engineer having been corroborated the case for the promoters was concluded. The opposition on behalf of the landowners on the line and the Canal Company was withdrawn, an arrangement having been come to between the parties. The preamble was then declared to have been proved, and various clauses for compensation and the arrangement of tolls were intro duced into the Bill. The Committee then adjourned, GROUP LV. This Committee re-assembled to-day at 3 o'clock. Present, the Right lion. FREDERICK SHAW, chairman, and the other members. SHEFFIELD, A BBTON •IINDER.MYNE, AND wArccuEsTErt (WHALEY BRIDGE AND HATFIELD BRANCHES.) The preamble of this Bill was proved on Friday, and the clauses were read through seriatim. This was the last Bill on the list, and the Committee accordingly separated. GROUP LVI. The Select Committee appointed to consider the merits of the Bills comprised in this group re-assembled at the usual hour this morning, Mr. Stuart in the chair. LONDON AND CROYDON (THAMES JUNG TION CANAL). The clauses in this Bill were settled, amended, and passed by the Committee. LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM STATIONS. The next case taken was that of the London and Birmingham Company, who were the promoters of a Bill for improving and en larging their stations at Camden-town and Euston•square. chief The Bill was opposed by several holders of la n d an d h ouses, whose property it i s T t was E Bir mingham Company, stated to the Committee the i nconven i ence which was felt at present from the platforms of the Euston-square i f p N ro s p o o N s!d th t e o e r g ien forengineer-in-chief i then Purposes of the improvement. . of the London and being so restricted that very often some of the arrival trains were longer than the platform itself. The Bill was f or power to reme d y the defect, as well as to enable the Company to erect new offices and a new departure station for the norther. Passenger traffic. The im provement of the Camden-town station was a couple of slips for accommodating the goods' traffic. The Committee declared the preamble to be proved, but the con sideration of the clauses was deferred till to-morrow. The Committee adjourned at four o'clock. LONDON AND CROYDON RAIL WAY COMPANY. A special meeting of the proprietors, shareholders, and scripholders of this Company took:place yesterday, at the London-bridge terminus, in compliance with the sessional orders of the House of Commons. Tho chair was taken by W. A. Wilkinson, Esq. The SECRETARY read the advertisement convening the meeting. _ _ _ The CH — AIRMAN said that they were assembled in consequence of the resolutions of the Houses of Parlia ment. The meeting was merely a formal one, as at a former meeting the proprietary had decided that the measures proposed by the Directors were most desirable. He would therefore propose the three following Bills for their adoption:— " A Bill to consolidate and unite the London and Brighton, and the London and Croydon Railway Com panies, and the undertakings belonging to them :" " A Bill to enable the London and Croydon Railway Company to construct a Branch to Deptford, and a Wet Dock and other works connected therewith :" " A Bill to enable the London and Croydon Railway Company to make a Railway in extension of the Croy don and Epsom Railway to Dorking, in the county of Surrey :" The Bills were carried unanimously. An Um PROPRIETOR wished to know whether the Duke of Richmond would oppose them? The CHAIRMAN said, he was not in the Duke of Richmond's counsel. He had opposed them last year, but he did not get much by it; so he considered that he had enough of it. Besides, he considered he had already as much as he could do on his hands in another quarter.—(Laughter.) The CHAIRMAN said that with respect to the third Bill before Parliament they had been opposed by the Grand Surrey Canal, and by certain road trustees, the consequence of which was they were obliged to omit that part relating to the wet docks. How ever it was a matter of no consequence, as they had made private arrangements with the dock proprietors which would fully effectuate their objects.—(Hear.) Mr. SAMUDA then made a statement to the pro prietors respecting the atmospheric line. He said, that since he had last the honour of appearing before the proprietory, the Company had increased the number of trains from thirty-two to thirty-nine. The present expenses of the Company were almost 4/. 4s. a mile. By the arrangements he was carrying out it would be re daced much further. The statements made in the House of Commons that their cost of working the line was 2s. 10d. a mile was quite false—it was only ninepence and a fraction, and in the course of a few months it would be reduced to sixpence. The pro gress of th e li ne had been most satisfactory. In th e fi rst f ortnight of the year 1843 they had carried 8,500 p assengers ; in the first fortnight of the present and ch a i rman, the meeting separated. n Shortly after five o'clock this evening Lord Melbourne entered the House of Lords, and took his seat in his usual place on th e Opposition benches. His Lordship had not been in the Hou se t wo minutes before . the Duke of Wellington crossed over a n d shook hands with him. The Duke and Lard Melbourne were in conversation a short time. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 25. Their Lordships met at ten minutes before Five o'clock. The House was crowded to excess in every part, and the greatest excitement appeared to prevail with respect to the all-absorbing topic—the repeal of the corn-laws. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presented a petition from several occupiers of land in the county of Berko in favour of the Ministerial measure. The Noble Duke also presented five petitions from landowners in the county of Yerk and one from Orkney to the same effect. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the landowners, farmers, tradesmen, and others, in the county of Norfolk, against the measure that stood for a second reading. Also a petition from the society for theprotection of agriculture, signed by the chairman, and two petitions from the county of Stafford to the same effect. The Earl of ERROL (as we were informed) appeared and took the oaths and his seat. The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition signed by 90,000 of the inhabitants of Yorkshire, and another from Aberdeen, praying their Lordships to pass the Ministerial measure without delay. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition signed by 26,000 of the inhabitants of Edinburgh, praying that their Lordships would pass the Corn-law Abolition Bill, but at the same time ex pressing to their Lordships a wish that they would alter their Bill, because they said that the postponement of that mea sure for three years would be extremely dangerous to all classes of the community. Now he (Lord Campbell) presented that petition with the greatest pleasure, and further, he might say that he concurred in the opinion which they expressed, that it would be better to have the immediate abolition of the bread tax than to wait until the expiration of three years; bat he must at the same time express his humble opinion that it would be much better to take the Bill with all its imperfections as they had received it in the House of Commons, than to have no such measure at all passe s by their Lordships. Earl GREY presented. petitions in favour of the Bill from Shields, signed by 40,000 persons ; nine petitions from Sun derland ; also a large number from Stockport, Bury, and other towns in Lancashire. The Earl of HADDINGTON also presented petitions in favour of the Bill, from Stockport, and from several towns in Cheshire. The Marquis of BREADALBANE also presented petitions in favour of the Bill from Glasgow, Kinros, and other places in Scotland. The Duke of RICHMOND presented forty-four petitions from the county of Wiltshire against the Bill. Lord LYTTELTON presented a petition from the Rev. W. Mallett, of the parish of Yardley, in Herefordshire, com plaining of the distress brought upon that parish by the measure which had lately passed their Lordships' House in reference to tithes. Lord CHARLEVILLE presented a petition from a place, the name of which we did not catch, against any alteration in the corn-laws. Lord LONDONDERRY presented a petition in favour of the measure now before the House with reference to corn. The inhabitants of Stockton-upon-Tees stated that they would not support any candidate for the county unless he was pledged to free trade principles.—( A laugh.) With respect to their petition, which had been presented by the Noble Duke on the cross benches, he would be glad to say a few words on it, but as he believed that their Lordships were not willing to have any observations made on petitions, he would in the course of the evening take an opportunity of stating very shortly his opinions upon the subject. BIRTH OF A PRINCESS. The Duke of WELLINGTON then rose, and said—My Lords, I have to announce to your Lordships that her Majesty was safely delivered of a Princess this day at three o'clock in the afternoon, and, according to usual practice, I now, my Lords, move that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, congratulating her Majesty on the birth of another Princess, and assuring her Majesty that every addition to her Majesty's domestic happiness affords the highest satisfaction to the House of Lords. Lord MELBOURNE seconded the motion. It was then put and carried nemine eontradieente. RAILWAY LEGISLATION. Earl FITZ WILLIAM said they were now very close upon the recess, and he was desirous of inquiring of her Majesty's Ministers what course they intended to take with respect to railway legislation. Their Lordships would recollect that some weeks ago resolutions were passed and an Act of Parliament was proposed, with a view of what might be called thinning the railways. As far as he had been enabled to observe, these measures had produced very little effect. He was, therefore, very desirous of knowing whether her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to bring in any measure which should be more efficient. If they should fail to do so, he should feel it his duty, after the recess, to propose to their Lordships some measure which he thought would be more effective. The measure which he should suggest to their Lordships would be—he was not quite determined • upon it at present—but what he thought he should recommend would be, for their Lordships to postpone the third reading of every rail way Bill which might be in their Lordships' House, until the whole number of railway Bills which might come up from the other House of Parliament should be waiting for a third reading, in order that their Lordships might take into their consideration the whole mass of those measures and select such as they might deem desirable to sanction. The Duke of WELLINGTON'—My Lords, my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade not having had any notice of the question is not at present in the House, and lam unable to give any answer myself. I will let my Noble Friend know of the notice which the Noble Lord has given. CORN IMPORTATION BILL. The Earl of RIPON, in moving the order of the day for the second reading of the Corn Importation Bill, said,—My Lords, I am desirous, as much as possible, to compress within the smallest compass the observations which it will be my duty to address to the House upon this important question. But, my Lords, I fear that the very importance of the question as well as some circumstances of a personal character connected with it, and applying in some measure to myself, will compel me, however reluctantly, to trespass longer upon your Lordships' patience than it is usual for me to do. For thattpa tience I ask your Lordships. Ido not, however, ask for your Lordship? indulgence, because it might have the appear ance of fault, or might indicate that I was about to do something for which I was bound to make excuses and apologies. But, my Lords, lam happy to say such is not the case. I have a public duty to perform, and one of which lam deeply conscious of its policy. I have, therefore, no apologies to make, but I think I know enough of this House, and have experienced upon many occasions too much of its kindness to doubt that the patience I ask will be denied me.—( Hear. ) My Lords, I have stated the importance of this question. I have always considered it the far most important question which could come under our consideration, affecting as it did so much of the social condition and happiness of the country in general. —( Hear, hear.) Important, inasmuch as it affects one way or in another, all classes of the community—important, as it is unfortunately calculated at all times when brought under dis cussion to excite warm, if not angry feelings—important be cause whilst one party considers it of great injury to the coun try, another absolutely insists upon the measure of the law for their own advantage and interest.—(Hear, hear. ) These feelings have prevailed and do prevail on both sides of the question, but it is nevertheless perfectly true that the interests of both these parties to which I allude are in reality substantially identical, considering the nature of the question itself,—considering that it refers to the absolute supply of a sufficiency of food to the people.—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, I need not say then that the question is an extremely difficult one,—difficult the more because of the identy, and because of the difference of opinion to which I have referred. I say, therefore, my Lords, that it is a question most important, inasmuch as it re lates to the supply of food for the people, while the course which Parliament has pursued upon it sufficiently indicates its difficulty.—( Hear, hear.) At one time we have had laws producing great fluctuations and great scarcity in the supply of food, and while one party has considered them of the greatest injury to the country, another has contended that they were ab solutely necessary for protecting the best interests of the nation. I think, my Lords, that those are the circumstances—the ex treme difficulty in which this question has been placed. .My Lords, I have never been insensible to those feelings, and it is true that I have taken an active part in the discussion of this subject. It was my lot many years ago, when I held a subordi nate situation in the Government of that day, to propose in my place in Parliament a very important measure for the purpose of regulating the trade in corn ; but, my Lords, I am anxious for my own vindication with respect to the course I have pursued, not only upon that, but upon many subsequent occasions, and comparing that course which I feel it to be my duty to pursue on the present occasion, I think it is but fit that I should explain to your Lordships what the principles were on which I supported those measures, and, above all, to show what were net the princi ples upon which I recommended them to Parliament. My Lords, when I introduced, in 1815, the Corn Bill of that day I did it. I may say this, for it is fair; and it is now so long since that I can hardly recollect the inferences that were drawn from the course that I then adopted ; but I did introduce the measure with the greatest reluctance. I was not a member of the Government, for I held only a subordinate situation, and when Lord Liverpool sent to me his desire that I would introduce the measure, I certainly did feel this reluctance, and took the liberty of expressing that I had a great objection to any corn-law whatever. I thought then—l have thought so ever since—that a corn-law is in itself an evil—( Hear, hear)—to be justified solely by the establishment of some paramount necessity strident in magnitude to overcome our scruples, for, as I have said, the imposition of such an evil upon the country could only be justified by the necessity of the times. And, my Lords, in the address which I took the liberty of making to the other House of Parliament, in reference to this subject, I stated that I thought a corn-law was but a choice of positive evils to meet the difficulties under which this country laboured at the time I have mentioned. And I proceeded to show the grounds on which I thought Parliament weuldbo justified in over-riding that objec tion, and adopting the measure which I then undertook to propose. My u ords, I did not, however, propose that law ; I never sup ported any corn law upon any grounds upon which that system of policy has been supported by the House. 1 never, for in stance, supported the Corn-law, or thought it wise or even justifiable. I never supported the Corn-laws upon the ground of any charge being made on the owners of land, or their mortgages, or settlements and incumbrances, which they are certainly of that nature. I consider that none of these matters would justify a measure of that kind, and I never put any weight on that argument. I am pe r f ec tl y aware my Lords that that species of argument in support of the corn-laws is now pretty generally abandoned. at least I think it is abondoned by Parliament. It may not be abandoned elsewhere, but I do think that it is not an argument upon which any one is now prepared in either House of Parliament to vindicate the maintenance of any resolution upon the importation of the first article of necessity in the way of food. My Lords, I never supported the eorn-bill upon the ground of its being the part of a great system of protection to national industry. I never supported it on that ground. On the contrary, my Lords, I always have supported the corn-law upon its own especial grounds, as entirely contradistinguished from, every article of com merce, and as standing upon grounds peculiar to itself. Indeed it would be utterly impossible for me to support the Corn Law as a part of a great system of national policy with a view to the uniform and universal protection of native industry, because I have over and over again laid down an opposite principle with regard to the principle of protection, and have shared, year after year, in the earliest measures of importance of which the object was to break in upon that principle of what is called protection to British in dustry, and to get rid, as completely as circumstances will ad mit, of the system, first of prohibition, and then of restriction, which I have always held to be dangerous, not only to the country of itself in general, but to the veryinterestwhi e h that system professes to protect. And, my Lor d s, lam n to admit the t ru th o f the arguments in favour w i corn-law not prepared system, because I find that the maintenance of h Ported and insisted upon because it is it a mi par t t he of ro t u h n a d t system. I therefore cannot su pp ort me support the corn-laws, g not on which we are to t, but permanently — as the p a rt of a only at the present m p erm anent system, fr om o w n hich you cannot depart, according to the views of those who support it, without exposing the inte rests of the countr y to very great danger. But I find it advanced in y the most positive manner —much more positively than I ever heard before, and I therefore immediately answer and state that that principle I never did support, an d therefore I am liable to no reproach if Ido not support that principle now. Now, my Lords, I have denied, sad I now deny, that that is a national principle— that it is a principle of national policy, at all times and under all circumstances to do what is called protect native in- dustry. I cannot think it, because when I come to consider what the law and policy of this country has been from time to time it never bee been found to be the principle ; the Legislature of this country has never laid it. down; on the contrary, the Legislature of the country has over and over again been in direct defiance of that principle, and the instances brought forward had no reference whatever to it. I had occasion once to state to your Lord ships, when we were about to submit for your considera tion a measure affecting the tariff in the sear 1844, I had occasion then to point out what the circumstances were which gave rise to that which was taken to be the original establish ment of that principle of protection. It is quite true that there were high duties imposed upon articles similar to those produced in this country. ' The imposition of these duties had the effect in their operation of being protecting duties. But when we are called upon to look at ' the question as a principle, we must see the mo tive for imposing those duties. Looking at the case in that point of view, you will find that in an immense number of instances all these duties were im posed as the result of fiscal necessity. The duty of 25 per cent. additional on the customs' duties was placed solely for the purpose of revenue, without any considera tion to any particular mode in which the impo sition of these duties would affect the general trade or commerce of the country. The duty on timber, for instance, which is supposed to be part of this great system of protection to native industry. Why, my Lords, whatever it may have become at the present period, it certainly was not so forty years ago. For the first time that these duties were imposed upon foreign timber, was in the year 1809. Till that time, the duty was next to nothing. There was no idea at that time of protecting the timber, either of our own countries or of the colonies, by any system of duties of that description. The imposition of these duties arose entirely from accidental circumstances — from our being engaged in hostilities with Bonaparte in the north of Europe. That was the cause, and ne other ; and the best proof that it was no other—that it was not a principle to be interwoven with the commercial constitution of the country—if I may use such a phrase—that the Act which imposed these high duties was passed for a period of only the duration of the war.—( Hear.) They might have been dispensed with immediately after the expiration of the war; they were not, however, suffered to do so. lam therefore en titled to say that this notion of a large duty being part of a system formed for the purpose of protecting native industry is a proposition not founded on nor maintainable by fact ; and so, my Lords, was it with agriculture, —the wool trade, for instance. You are aware, my Lords, that there was no duty at all on foreign wool up to the year 1819—and what was it imposed for then ? Why, for the sole purpose of the revenue to be raised from it. I must certainly know something of that circumstance, because I moved in the House of Commons at that period a resolution, from which resolution the imposi tion of this duty sprang. The result, I say, of those resolutions was, in order that the Government might have a surplus revenue. It was necessary that a sinking fund should be raised at 5 per cent. in order to meet this circumstance. This duty upon foreign wool was imposed, and not with any view to form a part of a protec tive system, it was solely for the purpose of revenue. There were several objectionable restrictions on British wool, such as preventing it from being removed from one place to another, which were quite inconsistent with free trade of any kind, but which were imposed upon that important article with the notion that ii, was entitled to have a share in a great universal protective system, upon which so much stress has been laid. Again, with respect to the minor articles, such as cheese, butter, &c., they were not originally liable to any duty more than nominal, and it was not until the year 1816 that they were proposed. Perhaps it was a wise measure, perhaps it might be otherwise, but it was no part of a general system. The only ground on which I ever looked upon a law as being necessary, was the apprehension which I most sincerely entertained that this country would become more dependent than she of right ought to be upon the produce of other nations.—( Hear, hear.) I am glad to see that I am understood, and those were the only grounds on which I have ever thought a corn-law necessary, and surely that was a ground which must be liable to question. Whether that ne cessity now exist, and whether there may not be circumstances which make it no longer advisable to continue these restric tions, which are certainly grievances, will be the question for the House to consider. But to go on with the consideration of this important subject. Some heads of it are almost too sacred to be touched, as tl-ey constitute a part of the constitu tion of this country. Before we come to the conclusion that the corn-laws are so intimately connected with the poli tical, commercial, and financial interest of the country as to require that they should be maintained permanently, we should consider their effect in other times. If they are to be main tained as a permanent principle, I would wish your Lordships to consider what has been the course of legislation from time to time with respect to these corn-laws. During a great part of last century, great changes did take place, and the law was more restrictive and :prohibitory—and there existed during many parts of last century the same alarm with respect to the condition and prospects of agriculture as is felt at this moment. I believe that you will find in the publications of that time— the time of Sir Robert Walpole —pamphlets which describe the agricultural interest as totally ruined. The landlord is de scribed as incapable of obtaining his rents, and the tenant as incapable of obtaining a due profit on his capital, and ruin was pourtrayed in its most gloomy character. The result, how ever, was that no such ruin ensued, and the agriculture of the country went on increasing in extent, and meeting more and more the wants of the country. The first system to which I shall direct the attention of your Lordships does not go so far back as the one that I have before spoken of. I allude to the corn-law of 1791. That law was very re strictive in its nature, and so were those which followed after wards, of a similarly restrictive tendency. The import duty was very high, and the duty on corn—at certain prices 503. was very high ; but they imposed, when it got to 545., a com paratively small duty, and when it got to 565. the duty fell to 6s. That system went on for two or three years, but was at length objected to, as being more restrictive than was advis able, but it went on until it was totally overturned by the serious rise of prices. It was very well'known in 1795, 1706, and during the subsequent years, that during the greater part of that century the prices were so enormously high that the protective portion of the duty had no operation at all as the prices admitted only of the duty of 6s. being paid. Now, during the season that followed, the pressure for food was so severe that Parliament, in order to induce par ties to bring additional supplies from foreign countries, gave bounties, amounting from one million and a half to two mil lions of money. This was done that sufficient supplies of corn might be brought from various parts of the world. The oppression, however, continued so tremendous, that at last, at the termination of the war, in 1804, it was found that the Act of 1791, which at the time was thought to be a perfect specimen of protective legislation, was of no value at all, as in 1803. That Act permitted corn to be introduced without being sub ject to the duty, on account of the high rate of prices that ranged. It was, therefore, found that the Act of 1791 was not sufficiently stringent, and a new Act was introduced, fixing a high rate of duty until the price of wheat realised 635. when it was reduced to a small amount. It had to reach the high price of 635. per quarter before the high duty was reduced This proposition was not brought forward by the Government, but it was supported by them, and it was submitted as a mea sure necessary for the increase and extension of agriculture, and to facilitate the production of supplies of food. But this Act, during a great part of its time was imperative, on account of the limited supplies in the years succeeding its enactment, and the consequent high prices that existed. The pressure on the poorer classes during this period was very great. At last, at the termination of the war, it was found that the Act of 1804, which was more stringent than the Act of 1791, was net sufficiently so to protect the landed in terest, and accordingly another scheme was devised—the schemes of 1791, and the extended scheme of 1804 having been found worth nothing, instead of the previous law, a new scheme was devised and adopted in 1815—a scheme which was not, certainly, popular at the time nor afterwards. Respecting the events that transpired a short time after the law of 1815 came into operation, I need not trouble your Lordships be yond this. But I recollect that that was a subject of much complaint ; and this complaint, my Lords, did not proceed from those who originally objected to it, but proceeded entirely from those who had before been so anxious to pass it. In the year 1820 it was held to be utterly inefficient for the pur poses for which it had been passed. It was not a good law for its intended purpose, I admit, but the first persons who com itpnhlgaeilnyfierads teipa o le f aseftoei or i nb t tehween w a a o ps robuerrvpoeuorgts very eh . e at on forward, fxo rendering eo e wnu r a y ds r edfr; nri p gn ei its st s Bh o n a s s s n w o A had cc r d i n so,lainw,thwehHicohuyseouerf Commons, Lordships will allow was stringent enough, still more stringent. I opposed it in that House. I opposed in 1820 a motion for the formation of a Committee to consider this question. I was beaten, and the Committee was carried; but afterwards their labours were restricted to the consideration of minor points. But in a year or two after that Committee was appointed the subject was thoroughly investigated. The Com mittee could not agree upon their report, and Mr. Huskisson was requested to draw up a report which in his view would embody the points of the evidence. A report was drawn up by Mr. Huskisson—a very elaborate report it was—containing a considerable amount of information and of good reasoning. That report became the foundation of every alteration in the law of 1815 • its object being by degrees to rel ax t h at l aw in favour of the admission of foreign corn at an earlier period than under the original provisions it could have been ad mitted. A law was in consequence brought in in 1822, which was very much objected to by persons connected with the agricultural interest ; but the fact was, it had never come into operation, because it depended entirely on the principle of corn reaching a certain price, which price it had never reached. But its inconvenience was held to be so exceedingly great, that it became necessary to call upon Parliament to interfere by an Act suspending its ope ration. Now, I cannot say much for principles wh;eti require to be relaxed in a moment of real pressorr. I cannot say much for the principle of suspension. In 1827 another altera tion was made, for in 1826 and the previous years it was neces sary, once by an Act of Parliament, and once by the Execu tive Government, to suspend the law. The new plan was devised for the purpose of abolishing all the difficulties expe rienced in the antecedent periods, and so as to arrange the na ture of protection that the law should be allowed to execute itself, by having the power of meeting every case, and so cor recting the former evils. That was the law which was finally passed in 1828. It was introduced into Parliament by Mr. Canning in 1827. It came into the House of Lords in the course of that same summer, but in consequence of certain alterations effected in it, it did not pass that year into a law. There were, however, many circumstances in the details and practical working of that law which were objects of cr iti c ism and objection. These wore obj ect i ons o f great we i g ht, the principal of which wa s th e su dd en fl uctuat i on i n t h e am ount Of the duty, and the sort of jumping scale that waLe r s d ta s Finally the law was changed in 1844. Now, y. interwoven with this system be one that is so essential, s 1 has been the least mentioned these changes for the purpose o.fmstiowing that if , blis h h a e v d e . reahntly all the interests of the country, it inventedcertay stable system that has ever be.erthings. for the purpose of Therefore it is that maintaining a permanent _e p l e c r o fe n c fea n , s m , u s lt e n r s e g t a o t t f h that, the country gone al theselon g of capital to the land has been most the a pplication improving, increased — seeing that goirg on at this very mo extensively Lords moreover, that notwithstanding 'ons which have been proclaimed in all stmchtuaeel.ntufdt.e—rienelg—i'negenaoll symptom p a t p o p m re t e h n a s t i g y t h, Lords , a y g ag riculture c e h - merit —n seexecinitgedthianttthheatcoiusnsttriyll--gnooi tng know of, at least, and I - know Parliamen and that there is no particular symptom of a decline of a rri many to the contrary—no symptom of land being thrown out of cultivation—l confess that I cannot bring !myself to think that the system at present in existence is essential for the effec tual and perfect cultivation of the soil of this country. Then, my Lords, if we look at this matter as bearing a character for permanence, the question becomes narrowed to one s prin t c J iple tim is e, gon s e v . e_ ( Ironical c h eers. ) And d of iffer t . ime nut the may ve r y reasona b ly I do not think that it is a re ph opinion the time for abolition s come. It i s as a question of time th at we are bound to consider it. Now, my Lords, there ar e , h owever, some circumstances that have a particular' bearing upon t h e question of time. First of all, my- Lords, I will allude to that which I consider to be the most important argumen at te bottom of tis queston, namel, e reat, the rapid, the uncontrolled, h and the uncontrollable inc g rease in the population of this country. my That, Lords, is a se rious matter. It is perfectly well known that the tendency in the increase of population is to decrease the means of subsistence. That, my Lords, I believe to be a maxim which no one will deny, for it has been established by the soundest reasoning to he an indisputable fact that the increase of the population of this country is not upon a geometrical or arithmetical ratio with tar merPase .1-1 the produce of th e l an d . N oth i ng can be more clear than this, and the population has so increased as to render it impossible for the land of this country to meet the demand for food. The increase in the population is admitted to be from three to four hundred thousand a year, and the ratio of that increase, I may say, increases every year.--(Hear.) Although the application of capital to land—although the in , creased skill of the farmer—skill which he applies admirably— although these things have tended greatly to increase the quantity of corn produced in this country, so far as to meet in a certain degree the increase in the population, it is a remark able circumstance, that during the last few years, although prices have not been high there has been a regular importation for consumption of a great amount of foreign corn. Now I want to know, if that corn was not wanted, how came it to be sold ? How came people to go on year after year importing large quanties of corn, if they did not think there was a chance in the market for bringing it into consumption? The consumption, then, year after year, of this corn clearly proves that the population has outstepped the means of production in this country.--( Hear, hear.) Well, there is another circum stance applied to this question, upon which considerable dif ference of opinion exists—it is the circumstances in which Ire land has been placed ; but I for one do not wish to lay particu lar stress upon the distress in Ireland. The Duke of RICHMOND--Then you throw everything over ? The Earl of RIPON—No. My arguments may be wrong, but you will observe, my Lords, that 1 do not rest the ques tion upon one state of things, or upon one argument alone. It is sufficient if I show, without pledging myself to support all the opinions of Sir Robert Peel, that the distress in Ireland is not the particular thing on which I lay the greatest stress, but at the same time, I do think it has a very great bearing on this question, and a very serious one too. My Lords, the de ficiency of food in Ireland is not exactly the same thing as the deficiency of food in this country; as a deficiency of that par ticular food, on which so great a mass of the Irish people live, must involve indescribable misery and wretchedness, a wretched ness and misery which would not apply here. Why is this? In Ireland those who suffer by the failure of that crop—l may sal ninety-nine out of every hundred of those who live upon st are persons who have not the resources and the good wages which the labouring classes here enjoy. The wages in Ireland are comparatively low, and there are hundreds of thousands who do not depend upon the wages of their labour for their sup port, but on that' which they may obtain from the small partials of land they cultivate ; and that is one of the reasons why there is so great a demand for land, and why so many evils arise in a season of scarcity, because those who depend almost solely for a subsistence are the poorer classes. The evils that flow from this system are enormous, for they have nothing to fall back upon but charity—for they are charitable to one an other, so long as they have th e means o f d o i ng so . B u t w h en large masses of th e p o p u l a ti on , li v i ng i n t h e same way, and sup porting each other by the same means, are overtaken by a season of scarcity, they virtually have no means of subsistence. It is stated that there is no famine in Ireland, as there is no de ficiency of oats and beef; and that thousands of tons of quarters of corn are coming to this country, while the people of Ireland are stated to be starving. But why do they send them to this country ? Because there is a market here where they can sell them, for they have neither employment nor money te pur chase them for their own use.—(Cheers.) If they have no money nor employmeet which them with...foe : ll, - . . when purchasers cannot be obtained for it in their own mar kets, it cannot fail to come to this country, though under better auspices it would remain in their own. But that does not make their wretchedness less. I say the existence of such a state of things in Ireland raises the question, whether it would be fit for the Government to exercise the power which they might have exercised to violate the prin ciple of the law, and to have sanctioned the importation of foreign corn to feed the people. Such a course should not be adopted unless it could be justified to the mind of every reason. able man. My Lords, when this subject was discussed about opening the ports for a limited time to. meet this particular distress, those who are opposed to the repeal of the corn-laws said—." We are not disposed to object to that." But, my Lords, I wonder that those who are prepared to take that course would agree to that suspension of the operation of the corn-laws, for the principle of the existint , corn-law is that it will meet all cases , b ecause the duty would fall in proportion as the prices rise. And if we had acted exactly in that way, there is no doubt what would have been the consequences that would have followed. But when you agree to suspend the operation of the corn-law you condemn its principle, because you could not but admit that it would be impossible for you to revert to the old system, which was proved to be incapable of maintaining itself. Now, my Lords, I contend that the only . . ground upon which this measure for the removal of the restric tions upon the importation of foreign corn can be opposed is that of the risk of throwing land out of cultivation.—(Hear, hear, and a cry of " That is only one of them.") Now that, says a Noble Friend near me, is only one of the arguments. No doubt in his view, and those who concur with him, it is only one of the general objections which exist against any alteration whatever, but in my view it is the only one—( Hear, hear)-- the only one which I have ever relied upon, and, therefore, the only question which appears to me to be of any importance is this argument. Now, I cannot—l never have been able—to ascertain upon what grounds it rests, and to what extent it it likely to go—what species of land is likely to be thrown out of cultivation. I never have been able to ascertain this yet, but I know that it has been stated that very large tracts of country would cease to be cultivated ; and that has been illustrated by reference to particular districts. Now, of one particular district that has been alluded to as likely to fall back into its original barrenness, and capacity of producing nothing but rabbits, I wish to say a few words. Now that part is as much indebted as any portion of the United Xing dom to the spirit and energy of the tenants, and there can be no doubt that it is a most pleasing spectacle to any person who traverses that country to see what a difference there nose is in that district. There is an account of it written by the Hon. Member for Berkshire, in the Royal Agricultural Journal, in which he describes very beautifully what it then was and what it is now ; and points it out as reflecting honour equally on those to whom the land belongs and those who rent it. But it is not stated by the Hon. Member that, in his opinion, this land will be thrown out of cultivation by repealing the present corn-laws. It has been referred to as a proof to what extent cultivation has been carried on • but an inference may be soug h t t o he drawn that, if the corn:laws are repealed, this land will relapse into its original sterility. Ido not think any result of the kind will take place. All the land that I possess in that county was either upon a mere heath or a. fen. It has generally been let to small farmers, it is much to the advantage of those who may have the good fortune to possess any portion of this estate that this land has been so effectually cleansed and cultivated. I know the persons who rented the soil in the years 1809, 1810, 1811, and 1812, when this great change took place, applied their capital liberally towards the cultivation of these lands, and it has gone on with the same spirit until it has now become one of' the most beautifully farmed districts in the whole county. r certainly have heard nothing of any apprehension on the part of the occupants in that part of the country, that this law is to deprive them of the means of making a fair return on the capi tal invested by them. I have heard no complaints of that kind. I have heard of no desire on their part to give up farms on this account; but so far from that it does happen, that a certain portion of the estate which belongs to me had during the last six months become vacant, and in the midst of all these discussions, in the midst of all these alarms, and all the difficulties which are said necessarily to follow on the carrying out of these measures proposed by Government, it has been my lot to be able to let a considerable portion of that land, not at a reduced rent, but positively at a considerably increased rent. What stronger proof can there be that these parties do not an ticipate these alarming results from the passing of these measures.. I do not see any proof that this apprehension is well founded. The people must be fed ; and it did not follow because foreign nations sent in their corn, that there would not be an increased spirit and energy in the production of it in this country, w h en the demand for it must be so extensive. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to enter into any details respecting this measure. It is perfectly well known to you what its provisions are; and there is, I believe, only one part of it upon which any division of opinion exists, and that it is whether the deter mination be immediate or not. The law as it at present stands gives a modified protection. Indeed, I do riot know whether I should be apprehensive if it should pass immediately. Yet, at the same time, I think it is wise that it should be as it is; and whether or no, the advantage which should be gained by its immediate operation, would not be sufficient to counter balance those which will accrue by its continuance for the spe cified time. And now my Lord, I feel—painfully feel—the imperfect manner in which I have attempted to argue this question. I cannot suppose for an instant that any of the observations which I may have made to you would produce anything like a conviction that it was wise to adopt this mea sure, or produce a change in those opinions which, after full consideration, you entertain. But I will say this, that I do not, nor can I admit, that I ought to feel any shame for having taken on myself to support and introduce this measure to your Lords. ships; and though I know it is inconsistent with what I have formerly done, and it may be said it is inconsistent with opinions which I have formerly uttered, I take no shame to myself, because the only shame that can be felt for a change of opinion is when it proceeds from a bad motive. I can only say that am not conscious of being influenced by any bad motive its. making these statements. I do so from a solemn conviction founded on much and deep refection —reflection stimulated by the necessity of taking into consideration the solemn convic tion that I am not proposing to your Lordships to adopt any measure calculated to injure any of the interests of this country, but a measure calculated to do good to them all. I may have forfeited the good opinion of many who have thought well of me . I may be supposed to have abandoned unnecessarily a cause I have always supported, and which many friends of mine have honoured me by saying that I supr,rted w ell. When I supported it, I did it because I thought it right , a nd hich a ct ed because my conscientious conviction went with it; and w , I came to the conclusion that the reasons on fair in not now exist, at least I hoped that I usl&at this Bill • ended this as one in stand in the eyes of your Lordships when I recommended move The Duke of RICHMOND said,.t h is my day six therfore ') se t o the welfare of which you are all equally that this Bill be read a second e t a im snre which is more likelyast feel in my conscience that aSo interested. Lords, mouths,r will be most British agriculture, and a measure, the effect of which n ver been proposed dangerouse to the national greatness, (Hear, hear ) f%F. I Lords, l ore in your think that effect the total overthrow of Lordships' House. of complaint against my we have just cause Noble Friend, who t down—that he has not told your Lords hi ps what has just sa_ the average priceof p 3 i n his opinion corn will be—( Hear, hear) --if thig measure shall ever come, r un,ortunately, to pass into a law. My Lords, rash an d blameable as I think 111 inisters are, I cannot think, or believe them to have been ',so reckless as not to have formed t• some e effect of their own p roposal. If the imate as to th e poss ible do they withh o ld from this r iou ave done so , I as k t h e m House that information so necessary for the better deliberation and consideration of this question ? It is most difficult f the cond uc t an d proceed' or me to account in any way f or trigs of her Majesty's Ministers since last session of Parliament, and more • particularly in the me morable month of November last. The only surmise I can make is, th a t t h e calculations on this measure were not sub mitted to the Cabinet until it was pledged by her MajestY's speech f rom the throne. The Noble Lord has not laid est the table of the House a cab:elation, the effect this measure will produce in the price of wheat, and it is the first time that a Minister of the Crown has proposed such a great change without making such a calculation as tha t I have referred to.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord in the course of his address has not made the slightest reference to this point. He has gone back as far as the altera tion in the law of 1821, but he said not a single word as to the measure of 1842—(Hear, hear, and cheers)—yet that is the Bill which the Government now propose to change.—( Hear,t hear.) They d o no t propose te alter the law of Ix2l, but, Noble Lord the A c t of 1842 ; yet, respect i ng that Act, the N oo Lord has not sp o k en a s i ng l e sy ll a b le.—( Hear, hear.) B u t o n a former occasion— an d Id o not mean to make a personal_ a a t _ _ at tack— lie expressed himself i n a d i ff erent manner to w h a t be a t c done to night. I hop e th e N o bl e L or d w i ll excuse me if I n speech of hi s couc h e d i n l anguage much better than I an ex press. I rec o ll ec t th e fi rst speec h , i n 1 815, made by th e Noble Lord whe n a M em b er o f t h e H ouse of Commons in suppor t of the measure then proposed. He said, in proposing the o mes. sure, that, looking a t th e p r i nc i p l es upon w hi c h t h e a ffairs the country had b een con d uc t e d, t h ey were not t h en t o argue t for the first time wheth er restr i ct i on or not s h ou ld prevail, fo r 0 , not only the trade i n corn , b ut a ll t h e ot h er great b ran ches trade had been conducted from time immemorial on this re.. strictive system.—( Cries of " Hear, hear. ; ) — That,therefpre ,, they were not discussing first principles, or for the first time' arguing whether restriction should or should not exist but A