The Sun. — London, England, 1846-05-12 00:00:00

FLAILITJAY COMMITTEES (YESTERDAY.) GROUP Iv. P 25 I'+l AND INVERNESS. (Continued from our AfternoorigUition of yesterday.) Mr. AUSTIN said then it became his duty to comment upon the case of the Perth and Inverness promoters. He contended that the Committee could not, In the peculiar circumstances of these two cases, decide upon the engineering evidence without having reference to the subject of local accommodation, or without looking at the general system of the two schemes. The Learned Gentleman, after com menting upon the engineering evidence adduced on both sides, di rected the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Great North of Scotland line comprised only 138 miles of rails, while the rival schema for accomplishing the same object took up 221 miles and a half. Now the cost of the first, which was proposed to be wholly a double line of rails, was estimated at a million and a half, while the cost of the ether, which was only partially double, was 20,444,0001. while to make the line double it would take 203,0001. more, or 20,787,0001, giving a saving of a million 1n favour of the Great North of Scotland line. The CHAIRMAN said the Learned Counsel was Including the cost of the line f?om Nairn to Aberdeen, which was hardly fair, when he was comparing a line from Perth to Inverness with the Great North of:Scotland. Mr. AUSTIN said then he would not touch again on costs, but come at once to an immediate comparison with the engineering merits of the two lines. Well, then, the summit of the Highland line was 1,450 feet high, while the summit of the Great North of Scotland only reached an altitude of 500 feet. On the Great North line the severest gradient was lln 100, on the Highland line lln 70. On the Great North line out of 138 miles there were only 15 miles on a gradient of 1 in 105, while on the Highland line there were 15 miles under lin 150. On the Highland line there were 8 miles of 1 in 75, 7 of 1 in. 84, 21 of 1 in 100, 4 of 1 in 102, and lofl in 104. This summit and these gradients, he boldly asserted, were unprecedented. Mr. Mitchell, the gentleman who laid out the line, the Committee wont': see from this, was the greatest mountain climber that had ever teen heard of. He beat Napoleon outright, and quite eclipsed Hannibal. He recollected reading a work of several hundred pages, written by a gentleman at Cambridge, and detailing how Hannibal crossed the Alps, but after this line will have passed, he had n'a doubt there would be quarto's written about Mr. Mitchell.—(Laughter.) He thought then he had sho wn that this line reached the greatest altitude with the severest gradients through the wildest country, and with a single rail, of an7linekno in Bri tain. Besides the decision of the Comm ittee in its favour, then there was only one thing that would surprise him, and that was the mak ing of the line. Now he came to the question of cost of making, and after the evidence of Mr. Lee, it was important for the Com mittee to take this question into their serious consideration. Mr. Lee had told them that upon the Sheffield and Manchester, a line infinitely more superior to this in point of gradients, and nothing near its length, the cost of working swallowed up a clear half of the gross receipts. What, then, would be the cost in this case? That was an important point for the Committee to decide, and one which slime he thought ought to prove fatal to the passing of this Bill. He said then there was sufficient to justify the Committee in refusing to hear any further evidence in favour of the Perth and Inverness line, and to say that their sanction to the Great North of Scotland Bill ought not further to be delayed. The Committee postponed their decision till to-morrow, and ad journed shortly after four o'clock. GROUP VII. This Committee re -assembled to-day at twelve o'clock; present Mr. Palmer (chairman), and the other Members. EDINfITJEGR AND NORTHERN (STRATH. ERN DEVIATION BRANCH). The Committee having heard some further evidence. decided that the preamble of this Bill was proved. GROUP IX. CALEDONIAN (TERMINX AND BRANCHES, As arrangements respecting the junctions to be effected by this scheme with the existing lines south of the Clyde could not he come to this morning, it was agreed to postpone its further consideration till the 27th, in order to get the assent of the House to certain devia tions that would be required to meet the objections of the Committee, but which involved an infringement of the standing orders. GLASGOW AND GREENOCK (POLLOC AND GOVAN BRANCH). The case on behalf of this Bill having closed to-day, the Committee declared the preamble of the Bill not proved. The remainder of the sitting was occupied till four o'cloek with the Glasgow Southern Terminal, when the Committee adjourned. GROUP VIII. The Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock, Sir William Clay in the chair. Members present, Earl Jermyn, Lord Shelburne, Mr. James Ainsworth, and Mr. Curteis. GLASGOW, DUMFRIES, AND CARLISLE. The case on behalf of this line having closed on Friday last, the case for the opposition commenced this morning on the assembling of the Committee. Mr. COCKBURN said he appeared on behalf of the Glasgow and Carlisle road trustees, and the grounds on which he did so were that the line crossed their road twice on the level, between Dumfries and Carlisle, whereas the Caledonian crossed the road by bridges. The petitioners likewise thought that the Caledonian served the wants of the district better than the Dumfries scheme. The case of Scetland, in regard to compensation, was also different to that of England, and the petitioners complained that due compensation was not given to the road trustees for the abstraction of traffic which the Dumfries line would occasion. The CHAIRMAN suggested that those points were Tore subjects for clauses than to be brought against the preamblh of the Bill. Clauses ought to be drawn up to meet the objections submitted to the Committee, when, if the preamble was agreed to, they would be considered. This course being assented to, the Committee proceeded to the consideration of the CALEDONIAN (EXTENSION AND BRANCHES). Counsel for the promoters, Mr. Sergeant Wrangham, Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Hope, Mr. Rickards, and Mr. Pickering. Mr. Graham, the agent of the Bill, was examined as to compliance with Mr. T. Duncombe's resolutions, and the necessary documents in relation thereto put in and received. Mr. COCKBURN opened the proceedings for the opposition of the Caledonian against the Dumfries scheme, and also on behalf of the Dumfries branch of the former Company. He said he would reserve his statement till the close of the evidence he intended to call, when he would make a review of the whole. He hoped also, before the close of the evidence for this Dumfries branch, that the Caledonian Extension Bill would he read a second time, and ready to proceed with in Committee, in which case it would not be expedient or just to give any decision till that was likewise gone into, as it formed a material point in the Caledonian case. Mr. Locke, civil engineer, said be was the engineer of the Cale donian Company. His attention had been called to railway commu . _ nication with Scotland in 1836 or 1837. Some time after that a som mission was appointed, for which he made a survey, and laid a re pert before the commissioners. The Caledonian trunk line was the result of his survey. This line was substantially adopted by the com missioners. When the Caledonian Company was formed, witness was appointed its engineer, and the present Caledonian scheme was brought out. His scheme was brought under the considera tion of the Board of Trade, as was also the Dumfries line on the one side, and the Hawick branch, in connexion with the >forth British, on the other. He quite agreed with the passage in the Board of Trade report, that there was not traffic to support two through lines. With careful consideration that was his deliberate opinion. Last year, she believed, he estimated the Caledonian to yield but 51 per cent., after paying working expenses. That esti mate included all the Glasgow and Carlisle traffic, and a cons'. derable portion of the Edinburgh traffic also. He calculated the whole receipts of the Caledonian to be 224,0001. Deduct ing 107,0001. for working expenses, that left 117,0001., which was 91, per cent. on the whole capital. He was quite sure that the Dumfries line and this could not pay together. The Caledonian Company had already expended from 200,0001. to 300,0001., and the expenditure was now about 50,0001., and would soon be double. At the present moment 7,000 men were at work. All the works were contracted for and the land bargained and paid for as it was used. He calculated that the line would be completed by 18 months unless a great number of Bills were carried and workman could not be obtained. Had he conceived last year that the. Dumfries hoe on the one side and the Hawick Extension on the other, would be granted this year, he would not have advised those contracts to be entered into. It was his opinion that the Cale donian line was the best line to the north as well as to Glasgow and ,Edinburgh. The Edinburgh and Glasgow traffic would be much crippled by rival lines, but the north traffic could never be taken sa way. The north traffic, however, would not at all compensate the Company for the capital expended. Last year, after long and anxious Inquiries in both Houses, and after the examination of about a hundred witnesses, both Committees decided in favour of the Cale donian scheme. The Dumfries branch was then struck out as not being sufficiently digested, and being strongly opposed by the Annan gneople, because it did not touch there. This year a branch was proposed which went from Dumfries, by Annan, to Gretna. Iven, as between Dumfries and Glasgow, the distance by the Caledonian scheme was shorter than the Dumfries scheme, the Caledonian scheme also connected Dumfries in a better manner with Edinburgh. The Inhabitants of Paisley would also, he believed, be at least as well accommodated as by the Nithsdale scheme. As it respects Dumfries, the inhabitants of Ayr, 3faybole, and Girvan, would be accommodated by the Ayrshire and Galloway line from .Ayr to Castle Douglas. He considered the inhabitants of Carlisle and Canontile would also be better accommodated by the Caledonian scheme than by the Nithsdale. Should the Caledonian extension line be granted Ayrshire generally would be well supplied, and there would exist no reason whatever for the formation of the Nithsdale line, on the plea of accommodating local traffic. He had kept In view from the beginning that the Dumfries traffic would be an im portant hem in connexion with the Caledonian scheme. Re had estimated last year to run through from end to end four pa-senger trains and two goods trains ; the passenger trains t o carry twenty persons each. He applied the same data to the DUmfrieS branch. He had made allowance for all possible traffic, and this was the result. He was quite certain that the two lines could not exist on the traffic, and had he thought that two such lines would be sanctioned he would not have advised any of his friends to ' take a share, or have taken one himself. The competition that must ensue would only end in a combination, from which the public would greatly sufler. Looking at the table of the towns from which the Dumfries and ffithsdale scheme expected their traffic, he saw many P laces from wich the Caledonian line took credit for traffic last year. Cross-examined by Mr. FORSYTH—He would not say that the Ayrshire and Galloway line would be the best route from Dumfries into Ayrshire, but it would be a convenient one. He did not know what sort of line that was, as he had nothing to do with It. He had no objection to a line from Kilmarnock and Dumfries if it could be shown that the local traffic would warrant it, and if the Caledonian scheme and extension were opened, and not likely to suffer from the competition of this Nithsdale line. Still he thought the two lines too near, and the country too thinly populated, to warrant the construction of both. He was decidedly of opinion that there was not traffic for two lines. If the Caledonian line was opened and paying 10 per cent., his views would be very much modified ; then his opinion might be, that there was room for another line. At present it would be hard on those who had embarked their capital in the Caledonian scheme to allow another line of railway without waiting to see what the traffic of the line already granted would be. The Caledonian promoters as sumed the whole of the Dumfries traffic last year. He admitted the branch now proposed was substantially the sameitll the issue of th e as the south portion of the :tilthsdale scheme of last ye a r. Caledonian was tried he did not ell sc heme of the kind like the Nithai e k any new should be sanctioned by Parliament. In doing this, he did not think the inte rests of Ayrshire would be sacrificed, as they would be consulted by t h e Caledonian Extension. He thought that nothing at s hould be done that would dama g ethe const ruction and carrying out of a great national scheme like the Caledonian. The whole capital of the Caledonian Extension with which Ayrshire wasto em be rt ac ion c° r his dated, was about 1,700,0001. in theyhole. The Ayrshire' would be more expensive than that to Peebles. The expense would be from 1 9 ,0001. to 14,000/. per mile. He did not recollect the terms of the prospectus of the Caledonian issued in 1844, which set forth that the returns would be 8 per cent. He understood the capital stated there was 1,800,000/., whereas the capital in the Bill, when it went before Parliament, was 2,100,0001. This made a considerable differ ence in the calculation of returns. If Dumfries was not named in the prospectus, he had always calculated for a considerable amount of traffic from there. Re-examined—He was satisfied the estimates, when brought before Parliament last year, were fairly made. The amount of capital had been increased in order to meet the case, which close in vestigation subsequent to the Issuing of the prospectus required. lie was quite sure 5% per cent. was a fair calculation. He would not like to guarantee even that. In answer to a request of the Chairman, Mr. Locks promised to prepare by to-morrow a table of the dis tance from London to Edinburgh, by the east coast route, in com parison with the London and Birmingham Grand Junction and Cale donian schemes ; also the distance from London to Glasgow by the Caledonian, compared with the Dumfries and Ayrshire route, both by Dolry as well as by the Barrhead and Neilston direct route. Mr. Hope Johnstone , for Dumfriesshire, examined—Said he was chairman of the Caledonian Company. It had always been In view to accommodate Dumfries, but the main object was direct communication between the north and the south. He did not believe the Nithsd bothe could co-exist with the Caledonian, so as both t o pay. Had lines been granted last year he could not have advised the shareholders to proceed with the works. With his knowledge of the country, he considered if the Dumfries Branch was formed along with the Caledonian Extension that an abundant accommodation would be given—he would not say a complete, still it would be ample. The portion that would not be so well supplied was the district between Dumfries and Cumnock, which was a thinly-populated agricultural district. He agreed in the estimate that the profits would not exceed 53 j per cent. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. LIDDELL, on behalf of the Duke of Ruccleuch, the Marquis of Queensberry, and Lord Mansfield, who petition against the Dumfries Branch ; also on behalf of the , Glaegew. Dumfries, and Carlisle scheme, but no point of importance Ives elicited. Air. Smith, of Dean:ton, deposed as to the character of the valley of the VOL The country at the Ayrshire end, near to Cumnock, was very good, and abounded in minerals, but after leaving New Cum nock, the valley of the Nlth became very narrow and sterile, and continued so till near to Dumfries, where it expanded and became rich. The population in the neighbourhood of Sanquhar and Thorn tdu wa s very thin—both the agricultural and village population— :be route only supported one two-horse coach. He was well ac (Waisted with tile draining, and he thought the item of traffic under this bead, calculated by the Nithsdale Company, preposterous. He did net believe that 12,810 tons of tiles would be takenfrom Cumnock to Dumfries. He believed they could be made conveniently near Dumfries. Besides, the draining could be as well earried out with .stones as by tiles. To allow for such a tile traffic, there would be vequired 33 tile works to be started at Cumnock, which was not at all necessary. To u drained umber of tiles estimated for, 2391 acres would require to be yearly, at an expense of 24,0001. The cross-examination of the witness did not materially vary the point* elicited by his examination in chief, beyond the admission that tie dtd not know for a fact there was clay for tiles to be found in the - valley of the ► though, judging from the geological character Of the country, there must be. He had been told that clay was found at Sanquhar. To the CattumAx—He thought that clay would be found also between Thornhill and Algirth-bridge. The price of tiles at Cum flock was about 30s. a ton. Re-examined—With the facilities of obtaining stones in the valley of the Nith, he did not think that tiles would be carried at any great length. He would, under such circumstances, prefer stone to tiles. The Committee then adjourned till te-morrow, at twelve o'clock. GROUP S.Y. This Committee did not meet to-day. Its sittings will be resumed to-morrow at the usual hour. GROUP XXVII. This Committee re-assembled to-day at the usual hour ; Sir Charles Lemon, chairman, SOUTH MIDLAND. The formal evidence as to estimates, &c., commenced the pro ceedings of this morning. Mr. Brown, Secretary to the Company, was examined to prove the amount of capital, and how allotted, &c. This witness was subjected to a long cross-examination by Mr. Ser geant Wrangharn, with the view of showing that the present capital was not the capital proposed to be raised by the original scheme ; and also the extent of shares subsequently allotted to the Directors of the Midland Railway Company, the scrip being then at a premium of seven. Mr. Jay was examined upon the subject of traffic, and confirmed the evidence already given on that point. The evidence on traffic was continued, and two witnesses, Mr. Alger, front Bedford, and an agent from a colliery in Leicestershire, occupied the remainder of the day. The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till to-morrow, when the engineering evidence will be proceeded with. GROUP XXX. This Committee re-assembled to-day, at the usual hour, presen Lord Charles Wellesley (chairman), and the other Members. AYLESBURY AND TNAME JUNCTION. Mr. CORBY, on the part of the Duke of Buckingham, was heard to-day. The Learned Counsel contended that the statements with respect to the Cambridge and Oxford Railway, which were put for ward by the counsel for that Bill, were not sustained by the evi dence. The line was, to speak in general terms, defective in its geo graphical situation, and the advantages that would result to literature and science, even according to the showing of the learned gentlemen who had been examined in support of the Bill, were too trifling to call for a railway. The other advantages that would result from this railway were quite speculative. For instance, with re ference to coals, could any one that had listened to the evidence be satisfied that there would be such a traffic in that commodity as was contended for by his Learned Friends ? It was necessary for him to say a word as to the description of evidence that had been adduced to prove the nega tive of what he advanced. His Learned Friend did not call coal merchants to give evidence on this subject, though one would have supposed they would have been the most eligible witnesses, but straw-plait (manufactures, though, when they had to make good any statement respecting farms, they were sure to call farmers. But, coming at another point, it was stated by the promoters of the Oxford and Cambridge Railway, that there would be a profit of 6% per cent. on the total capital. Now, he felt satisfied that he could prove to the Committee from the evi dence, that instead of realising this profit of 6% per cent. from this railway, there would be a deficiency of 3 per cent. en the capital to be laid out on the undertaking. The gross profit was stated by Mr. Pilch, upon whose evidence such stress had been laid, as 83,6731., while the working of the line would be 33,407). This calculation was Dade on a sum somewhere about 800,0001. Now the fact was, that the capital required for this (the Cambridge and Oxford Rail way), was shown by the most unquestionable evidence to be 1,200,0001. It was also proved from the evidence before the Committee, that the income to be derived from this railway would not exceed 36,5001. It was also shown that the working of this line would be upwards of 30,0001. or 40,0001. The Learned Counsel here read copious extracts from the evidence of Mr. Stephenson and the other witnesses in support of the A3lesbnry and Thame Junction Railway, and having offered a few observations with reference to the engineering features of the line, which he described as being ex tremely unfavourable, concluded by calling on the Committee, in mercy to the promoters tkemselves, of the Oxford and Cambridge Railway, to reject the Bill. At the request of Counsel Mr. Bryce was called, and denied what had been attributed to him by one of the witnesses (Mr. Chase) — namely, that the Oxford and Cambridge would never pay a farthing, and that he was opposed to the line. Mr. HAWKINS said he appeared, on the part of the landowners, to oppose the Aylesbury and Thame Junction line. He denied that though a railway might be required in the district through which this railway proposed to pass, the present line would meet adequately these requirements, or in aay way offer advantages to be compared with the Oxford and Cambridge line. Only three persons at Aylesbury and Thame had become shareholders in this railway, so that it did not appear that the people there were very favourable to this undertaking, for there were no meetings held in support of it, but at a meeting held in favour of the other line several people from Aylesbury and Thame attended, and were unanimous in supporting it (the Oxford and Cambridge Railway). There could net be a traffic on this line that would justify an outlay of 100,0001., as proposed in this rail way, and the Committee would require considerably more evi dence before they could entertain such a Bill as the present. There was not an advantage held out by this contemptible little line that was not offered ten-fold by the Oxford and Cambridge line. (The Learned Gentleman, after a few further observations, con cluded). Mr. CALcaarr, on the part of the Aylesbury and Thame line, having replied, The Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUT =VI. GOOLE AND DONCASTER. This Committee, having but this one Bill upon their list, met to day at half-past three o'clock. They sat only for a few minutes, and adjourned till Friday next, when they will meet at twelve o'clock. GROUP XXXVII, The Committee met at twe:ve, Lord Seymour In the chair. MIDLAND, BARNSLEY, SHEFFIELD, DEWSBURY, LEEDS, AND BRADFORD. Mr. BAINES (with whom was Mr. Lee and Mr. Wordsworth) on opening the merits of this project, said it was intended to connect Dewsbury with Wath-upon-Dearne. It started from Dewsbury, forming a junction with the line from Leeds, which received the sanction of Parliament last year, and was now in course of formation, so that communication would be opened from Dewsbury by the Manchester and Lee's line through Huddersfield onward to Manchester. From Dewsbury it passed on through Cornhill, Netherton, and Darton, to Barnsley. The importance was enhanced by the connexion which it established between the main trunk line of the country, the Midland, and the Manchester and Leeds lines, and the branch had been so laid out as to shorten the distance between Dewsbury and the localities of the district, and also London. The Dewsbury district, which it supplied, was important for the woollen manufactures carried on in that part of the West Riding. The raw material for that manufacture was brought from the south and south-east ; from the coun ties of Lincoln, Derby, Leicester ; from London, and the south of England generally ; and the manufactured article went down to the south of England, the greater part for exportation, even the waste from the manufactories being sent by thousands of tons into Kent, for the cultivation of the hop. The opponents of this branch were chiefly what had been called the Sheffield and Wake field line and the South Yorkshire ; the last formed no junction with the Midland, offering a south conveyance, but depended for this on the passing of the London and York Railway Bill. In ' remarking on the former of these schemes, Mr. Baines said he would show that there were twenty gross inaccuracies in the depo sited plans of that scheme, differences in height of 5, 12, 13, and even 17 feet, the last occurring at the mouth of the tunnel with a change of gradient. The curves on that line were quick and inconvenient, five of them being of a radius under a quarter of a mile, one under a furlong, one of 25 chains, on a gradient of 1 in 118, and that at the end of a tunnel. There was tunnelling to the amount of 4,597 yards long, being one-eighth of the whole line. Mr. BAINES then called the attention of the Committee to an agreement which had been made privately between the Sheffield and Wakefield, and the South Yorkshire Companies, In which they sti pulated, among other things, to give up the Dodworth branch to the South Yorkshire In case their Bill passed, and to transfer to the same company all the powers of their Act of Parliament in respect to the portion of their line south of Barnsley station, including the Dod worth branch. Mr. Baines trusted the Committee would not hesi tate, on hearing the merits of his project in evidence, to pass the Bill. Mr. Bates, a factory inspector, on being examined, stated that in Dewsbury, and within two miles of it, there were 101 mills with 6,126 horse power, employing 6,278 persons ; that 206,616 tons of coals were consumed annually, and that the population was 50,061. Mr. Stainer and Mr. Burnley gave evidence of the mineral traffic and the accommodation which would be afforded to the wool fac tories. Mr. Waite, who surveyed the line, stated in the course of his evi dence that he had found twenty inaccuracies in the plans of the Sheffield and Wakefield line as deposited at the Private Bill-office, in consequence of which it would be impossible to ascertain the heights and depths, and thereby the amount of the earthwork. He pointed out an instance where a difference of vertical height on the plan appeared which would render the construction of the line according to these sections Impossible. The witnesses ware cross-examined on the part of the Sheffield and Wakefield Railway, and Lord Scarborough, Mr. Beaumont, and other opposing landowners os the route of the railway. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at twelve. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 12, 1848, GROUP XL LEEDS, YORK, AND MXDLAND 317 NOTION. The Committee resumed this day at twelve o'clock. Mr. Stafford O'Brien (chairman), and the other members all present. Mr. Sergeant WILKINS stated that the object of this line was to connect the important towns of Leeds and York by a shorter route than that at present existing, which is 31% miles by railway, though the turnpike road is only 24 miles; and the fact of there being two other competing lines was an evidence of a new line being wanted. Some of the peculiar advantages which this line promised over those of its competitors were that it is the shortest—that it has the best gradients—that It passes through and accommodates the towns of Aberford and Tadcaster, the latter of which is by far the most considerable town between the two termini—that the local po pulation is as great as on any route which can be adopted, and greater by far than on that of the Leeds and York—that it traverses 'valuable fields of coal and limestone—that it connects together, in the best and most convenient manner, the Leeds and Bradford, and Midland Railways, with the Leeds and Selby Railway at Leeds, and again with the Harowgate and Church Fenton and the York and North Midland Railways further along the line; thus also opening out the most direct communication :with the Port of Hull—that it effects a greater amount of public accommodation at a proportionably less cost than either of the other lines, and that it has the sanction of the principal landowners with one or two exceptions, and also of a pre ponderating proportion of the occupiers along the line. Mr. John W. Leather,:C.E., and engineer to the line, was callai by the Learned Sergeant, and gave testimony in favour of this scheme, both as regarded its engineering facilities and the accommodation that would be afforded to the population along the proposed route. Colonel Wyndham, he conceived, would benefit by the line, that gentleman being owner of a large part of Tadcaster, and the amount of earthwork on Sir Edward Vavasour's property was less than on Hr. Hudson's line. Cross-examined by Mr. HOPE—He thought Mr. Hudson was mis taken in his views regarding the merits of the proposed Hue. Had had little or no experience in working railway lines. Cross-examined by Mr. HARDY—The directors had abandoned the junction with the London and York, because they had not allotted a sufficient number of shares to raise the increased amount of capital that would have been required. Could give no account of the amount of toll that Mr. Hudson would exact for crossing his lines, and using his stations, consequently his estimate was not strictly a full estimate of the necessary expenses to be incurred in forming this line. Mr. kNOWLY.S appeared en behalf of one or two Individuals. Mr. Sergeant WILKINS having asked witness how many lines would he crossed by Mr. Hudson's line, heienumerated eight, of the majority of which, however, Mr. Hudson was chairman. Had con structed works involving much greater engineering difficulties than any on the proposed line. He thought Mr. Birkenshaw entered the field too late, Mr. Hudson hastng published no notice of his line till October, whilst he commenced operations in August. Mr. ROBINSON then called Mr. Wilson Ackroid, a worsted. spinner, of Otley, who stated that upwards of 2,000 tons of wool were carried annually from York to Leeds, to be used in Leeds, Isradford, Keightley, and other places. The Hon. CHAIRMAN here observed, that the Committee did not for a moment doubt but that a line was wanted between York and Leeds, but they really thought that the subject of mere tra2lc might now be dispensed with, as, in their opinion, it applied equally to all three of the competing lines. Mr. sergeant Wit.KlNs said, after that intimation from the Com mittee, he should not press the point. Cross-examined by Mr. HILDTARD—Paid the carrier 10s. Could not say whether the carrier put any of that into his own pocket, or whether the company only received 7s. 6d. Mr. Walker, carrier, called by Mr. Serg-eant WILIINg, stated, that during the season 60 tons of wool per week was the i a age, and 20 tons of general merchandise the average for the yearNb.eert s and York. In his opinion , any line to be constructed shoU en l e dta L k e e ed h! Aberford and Tadcaster. Mr. Clapham, called by Mr. ROBINSON, preferred the junction line for two reasons ; first, because it was the first projected, and next, because it did the least damage to the farm he occupied. The Leeds and Selby line might as well be closed for any benefit it derived from the transit of passengers. To Mr. lIILDTARD — One lin e would answer his purpose pretty much as well as the other. Mr. George Cooper was in favour of the proposed line. In reply to Lord NORREYS, who asked which line would pass through his farm, witness said Mr. Hudson's. Mr. John Beaver, farmer and cattle dealer, preferred the junction, because he would like to get out of Mr. Hudson's hands. Mr. George Edward Scriven, farmer and tallow-chandler, corn plained of the delay in delivering goods OR the York and Selby, and also of the danger at the Great Meicklefield station. To Mr. ALEXANDER—Has five shares in the proposed line. Mr. Joshua Wilkinson, haberdasher, was next c alled by Mr. RO BINSON, who corroborated last witness. By Mr. ALEXANDER- I hold fifty shares, and am a provisional committeeman of the junction line. Mr. John Wilkes, sen., resides at Aberford, and is surveyor of turn pike roads in that district. Presented a petition to Miss Gascoigne, signed by her tenants, requesting her aid to the proposed junction line. The road through Aberford and Tadcaster was the old turn pike road. The Leeds and York would not pass within a mile and a half of either Wetherby or Thorpe-Arch. He was also a shareholder. Mr. Green stated that the other line, In his judgment, passed over the more valuable property. The Committee adjourned, at foer o'clock, till twelve to-morrow. GROUP XLIII. SOBV°II7I:IETSZCIRE MIDLAND. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Mr. F. Fox was then examined by Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE, and proved the accuracy of the levels referred to by Mr. Gregory. Cross-examined by Mr. Guanzy—ln his cross-examination he ad mitted that the line could not be made within the line of deviation, unless in the form of a corkscrew. . Mr. Sturge was the next witness examined, who statakillat ho went over the ground w ith M r, F ox. and spoke) to the ACCUTAcY Of the levels taken by him, Mr. G. C. Ashmead proved the accuracy of the levels as taken by Mr. Fox. Mr. BIDDER considered that it would be much more expensive to work a line with these gradients than upon a line where the gradients were less severe, in consequence of the necessity there would be to keep engines always in readiness to ass,st trains in getting up the incline. The cross-examination of Mr. Bidder having been concluded, the Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP XLIV. FLEETWOOD, PRESTON, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION. - -- • /(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) In the cross•examination of Mr. Smith (the witness, not the coun sel) and of Mr. Cundy, it appeared that the East Lancashire line, like the Fleetwood and Preston, was a line proposing to afford com munication between Fleetwood and Elslack, which, in the case of the East Lancashire, was to be effected by the assistance of two other lines. One of these, the Blackburn and Preston, was now completed, and would be opened in a few days. It commenced at a point about four miles from Preston, where it left the North Union Railway, which had a station at Preston. It proceeded from that point to Black burn, nearly in a direct line. The East Lancashire line, which was now in course of construction, commenced at Blackburn, where It joined the Blackburn and Prestos line, and proceeded by Accrington and Burnley, to Coln. The Leeds and Bradford Lxtension Railway, a line now in progress, proceeded from the East Lan cashire Railway at Coln, to Elslack, and various other places, Mr. Smith said that he very much preferred the Fleetwood and Preston to the East Lancashire line, and if both were made he would make nse of the Fleetwood and Preston. Mr. Clough, a flax merchant, at Preston, gave general evidence in favour of the proposed line. He thought it would cause a conside • rabie improvement in the flax trade, because in the first place it would give an outlet to the flax trade itself; and secondly, it would give a communication with the coal district, and by lowering the price of coal it would enable the owners of flax mills to work them at a cheaper Tate than they can at present. Mr. Longsdale, agent at Fleetwood of a firm of carriers, gave evidence in favour of the proposed line. He gave In support of his views statistical details as to the traffic of Fleetwood, which, how ever, are of no public interest. Mr. Pennington, superintendent of the goods department on the Preston and Wyre line, gave similar evidence, with statistical details as to the traffic on that line. He thought the proposed line would give great accommodation to the people of the neighbourhood through which it passed. A discussion here ensued as to whether a petitioner against the Bill had a locus standi when the branch which would have injured his property was abandoned. The Committee ultimately declined to hear the petitioner. It was then found that the parties were not prepared to go any further in the case of the Fleetwood and Preston Railway, and the case, therefore, stood over. Mr. Sergeant WRANGUAM then opened the case of the CLITHEILOE JUNCTION. The fifth Bill on the list. The Learned Counsel addressed the Committee at great length on the part of the promoters of the Bill, and at the conclusion of his speech, it being now four o'clock, the Committee adjourned till to-morrow at twelve o'clock. STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEES. HOUSE OF LORDS. Their Lordships met this day at the usual hour. Present—The Earl of Shaftesbury (in the chair), Lords Hawarden, Redesdale, and Ilchester. WATERFORD, WExFORD, WICKLOW AND DUBLIN RAILWAY. In this case, Mr. BURKE, on the part of the Parliamentary agents, appeared before the Committee, and prayed an adjournment until Monday next, for the purpose of taking the sense of the shareholders being expressed at a public meeting in Ireland.--Application granted. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (RYE TO RYE HARBOUR.) This case came before the Committee on merits and on proof that three level crossways were of no public inconvenience. Evidence as to these points having been given at great length, Earl SHAPTESBCRY intimated that the Bill had passed. Their Lordships then adjourned at five o'clock. LAW INTELLIGENCE, COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 11. (Sittings at Nisi Prius.) TUCKER V. ELKIN. This was an action of ejectment. The plaintiff was trustee under the will of the late Mr. Tucker, for his widow, and sought to recover the possession of certain premises which the defendant held under deceased, and from whom deceased's son often received rent. Defendant contended that he held the premises under the assignee of anotker will, and was not the tenant of defendant. The case occupied a considerable time, but was of no public interest. The jury found for the lessors of the plaintiff. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 11. INGRAM W. LENNOX. This was an action for the recovery of 1001., lent upon a bill of exchange to a person named Williams, for whom de fendant became security. The defence set up was, that the date of the bill had been altered after the defendant had first seen it.—The jury found for the plaintiff. The other cases tried during the day were of the same character. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. BOW STREET. Mr. John Dowker, a medical student, and Mr. Roper, a fellow-student and companion, both of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, were finally examined on suspicion of stealing a silver fork from an oyster-shop in Vinegar-yard. The depositions of the former witnesses were fully taken, and the following additional evidence elicited : John Tozer saw his sister, who served the oysters, carry up two silver forks for the use of the prisoners, and, with her, missed one of them immediately after the departure of the young men from the shop. His sister went to look for them, and meanwhile Dowker returned for his umbrella, and was instantly charged with having taken the fork. He said, if anybody took it, it must have been the young man who ac companied him, and whom he had known only a few hours, having met him at Moncrieff's, where he had been playing at cards with him. He was then given into custody. Sergeant Chadwick took him to Bow-street. Dowker de nied that he had taken the fork ; but offered him half-a sovereign not to take him to the station-house. He said, in the first place, that he was a student in King's College ; but after inquiry had been made, he referred witness to St. Bar tholomew's. Witness did not think him drunk. He ap peared confused, and might have been drinking; but he knew what he was about. Whilst at the police-station be wrote a note to Mr. Clark, of the Artichoke public-house, in White Hart. street, in the following words :—" Dear Clark,—Come, and bring all the friends you can, as I am accused of stealing a silver fork from an oyster shop." Inspector Black took the charge at the police-station. Dowker there stated that, " as he was passing along Holborn (uot knowing his way to Catherine-street), he met this, man in the street, and asked him to show him the way ; upon which they walked together to Moncrieff's, in i3rydges street, and had some ale and played at cards together, after which they went to the ovster-shop." Ile also told. witness that he knew Moncrieff; but, on the latter being sent for, he said that "he never saw Dowker before, that lie had not been to his house, and that there was no such thing as a pack of cards in his place." The only evidence against the other youug T.nan (Roper) was, that he was the party who accompanied Tdowker to the oyster-shop, having previously dined with b,im at Clark's, where they were in the habit of meeting. Immediately on hearing that he was suspected joiatly with Dowker, he sur rendered himself for examination. Mr. HALL decided on committing them lioth to the sessions for trial, but consented to admit them to b a il. WORSHIP-STREET. John Conway, a powerful Irishman, 'gas placed at the bar before Mr. Bingham, charged with the following brutal out rage, and two other men, named Joseph Conway and James Mann, were charged with attempting to rescue the first named prisoner from custody, and violently assaulting the police in the execution of their duty. It appeared from the evidence that at 12 o'clock on Satur day night the prisoners forced their way into the Crown public•house, in Church-street, Shoreditch, and demanded to be served with drink, but the barwonsan, in consequence of the lateness of the hour, refused to comply with their orders, and requested them to leave without; on which John Conway seized a large tumbler from the counter, and, smash ing it to pieces, flung the fragments at her head. On hear ing.the uproar occasioned by the prisoners' conduct, Joseph Drew, the potman, hastened to her assistance, and was re monstrating with the elder Conway, when he seized Drew by the hair, and forcing him against the wall, attempted to gouge out his eye with his thumb, and although thwarted in his intention, inflicted such a severe laceration on the upper part of the cheek with his nails that the eye became blood shot and much swollen. He finally struck the witness several blows about the head, and was proceeding to further vioience, when several policemen, who had been attracted to the house by the disturbance inside, succeeded in getting in and seizing the first-named prisoner; but the instant two of them, Sergeant Price and M'Govern, 66 H, had done so, they were struck down and severely kicked by the other two men, who expressed their determi nation to rescue their companion, and resisted so violently that it required the united efforts of six constables to over power them and convey them to the station. In answer to the charge the prisoners all pleaded intoxica tion, and declared that they had no recollection whatever of anything that had taken place. This assertion, however, was positively contradicted by the police, who described them as being both sober and perfectly sensible of what they were doing. Mr. BLNGHAM said he was sorry to see that the horrible practice of gouging, which had been imported from the most barbarous part of the back settlements of America, was ra pidly gaining ground in this country; and as lie was deter mined, in every case of the kind that came before him, to check such brutality as much as possible, he should order the elder Conway to pay a penalty of 4/. for his attack upon Drew, or, in default of so doing, to undergo six weeks' im prisonment in the House of Correction, and in addition to that, should commit him for the further term of one month, without the infliction of any penalty, for the assault upon the police; and sentence each of the other prisoners, whose conduct had been of a less violent description, to 21 days' imprisonment in the House of Correction, also without the option of paying any penalty, for their participation in the outrage. LAMBETH. IscrrENT4 A SERVANT TO PLUNDER TTla EMPLOYER.— Thomas Smith, Edward Waller, George Greenhick, and Win. Henry Alexander, all of whom are well known to the police, were placed at the bar before Mr. Elliott, on a charge of in• citing William Curtis, a servant in the employment of Mr. Stokes, a boot and shoe - manufacturer and leather-cutter in an extensive way of business in the Walworth-road, to plun der his master. It appeared that Sergeant Morton and Po lice-constable Quinnies, of the P division, had discovered that the lad Curtis had been in the habit, for some weeks past, of assembling with the prisoners, and, knowing the characters of the latter, they acquainted Mr. Stokes with the circum stance. On examining his stock Mr. Stokes missed a quan tity of leather, and also some shoes and boots, and, Curtis being charged with taking them, he made a disclosure which led to the apprehension of the prisoners. Curtis, who was placed at the bar with the other prisoners, made a lengthened voluntary statement, in which he said he had been beset by the prisoners, who first by entreaties endeavoured to induce him to rob his master, and o d h L iin whi h liel alf h t ot h hw e eeyv v e a r l , ue of every a r ti c l e h e procured threatened t 0 0 0 i do ofo a ri n n y i i s n gm master er the f s f ( o ff r r e t rt:h upon :net Ling that would t r ge a ai n vt e s e dp himo threats, h t r i e l oa i m teso:o pi a el n ec d 00 , fm b g e po t l o oi r ed e dt doing this, ti t oh h ge i i s s r ,. A t they also length,also b threatened 3. their rteop request, and had ou more than one occasion handed them pieces of leather over a fence from the premises of his master. They subsequently pressed him to lock them into the shed o f his master some night, so that they might rob the pre mises; and also asked him if he was aware whether his master kept much money in the house, and, if so, if there would be much difficulty in getting at it. lie refused to locic them into the shed, and told them that his master had loadedbell s t o fir all ea the rns doors o n and One or windows ,tivo 0 them saidhk( e ) house, and at a srti m i l tunh i i l s s it o a oi Luk beingtito go; but they , m a a nsdt master. The did the case, The prisoners de the lad, and said that the and Curtis himself;that he fre offer to rob first came from bring. a truck with them, and he quentiv requested them to his pilaster 's leather. The pri soners fill it for them with n t g i i e m e t d e arnhretuirilechliaetsdoweofafttsihie‘e propertydi sclos u 'f r o e r tot them, the others. t n e d m e d e n t to a fu tare day, Curtis being orderd w to er b e e a k l e l pt rNe a sm p ota a a rt from WESTMINSTER ScßooL.—The noblemen and gentle men educated at the above distinguished scholastic foundation cele brated their anniversary dinner on Saturday lain, at too Thatched House Tiwern, St, James'oltreet, IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 11. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR. The Bishop of HEREFORD presented a petition from the Rural Dean of Swansea against the union of these sees. SELLING SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS ON THE SABBATH. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a petiton from the town of Canterbury, against the sale of spirituous liquors on the Lord's-day, and praying that the l a w w hi c h regulated the sale of those liquors in London on that day might be extended to the provinces. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. The Most REV. PRELATE a'so presented a petition from the Corporation of Deal against this Bill. He had heard that there w a too corporation in the kingdom which acted more consci entiously in the application of the funds entrusted to their care, Charitable purposes. than the Corporation of Deal. SUNDAY TRADING. The Earl ST. GERMANS presented a petition against the sale of spirituous liquors on Sunday. SEES OF ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition, signed by all the clergy of a rural deanery in Wiltshire, against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Lord FAVERSHAM presented petitions from York, against the Charitable Trusts Bill. Lord Eldon, the Bishop of Winchester, and Lord Campbell, presented similar petitions. Lord CAMPBELL postponed his Registration Bill, which stood to-night for the first reading. CLE;IKS OF THE CROWN (IRELAND). The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that he would, on Friday next, call the attention of the House to the late appointment of Clerks of the Crown in Ireland. The Earl of ORKNEY presented a petition in favour of free trade. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Rev. Dr. Magee, of Harold's Cross, Dublin, praying the House not to pass into a law a measure which had been introduced by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, and which would sanction the introduction of Papal bulls into this country, by which he would be much alarmed. GRAND JURY ASSESS RATES (IRELAND). Earl GREY presented a petition from Basingsloe against the rates levied under this Bill. CONDITION OF RAILWAY LABOURERS. The Noese EARL also presented a petition from Glasgow, praying their Lordships to adopt some measures to improve the condition of the labourers employed on the numerous railways throughout the country. HIGH CONSTABLES' BILL. On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND this Bill was read a third time and passed. THE RELIGIOUS OPINIONS' RELIEF BILL. The Bishop of EXETER then rose to propose that the ques tions of which he had given notice with respect to this Bill should be put to the Judges. He said their Lordships would readily believe that it was with the deepest reluctance that he rose to move their adoption, and that he hesi'ated much before he prevailed on himself to give the Learned Judges the additional trouble, which, in the event of their Lordships acceding to them, would be imposed upon them. He felt this the more be cause at the present moment they were much oppressed by the additional amount of business which they had to discharge. He did not think th e i r L or d s hi ps need go further for an opinion as to what the law actually was than their own walls. He hoped that the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack would feel himself b oun d pecu li ar l y to l oo k upon the matter in a judicial point of view. The Bill be fore their Lordships was brought in by the Noble and Learned Lord himself. By this Bill it was proposed to strike out of the statute-book those important statutes or parts thereof which have been ever considered as the main bulwarks of the constitution of England—England, as an independent mo narchy. In the Bill before their Lordships, which had been read a second time, and which it is hereafter proposed to go into Committee upon, their; Lordships would be invited to repeal so much of an Act passed in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth to restore to the Crown its ancient jurisdiction over the state of England. Their Lordships would see that the tendency of that Act was to make it no longer punishable to assert the supremacy of the Pope. He needed not to remind their Lordships that this supremacy had been claimed by the Pepe prior to the reign of Queen Elizabeth. He had claimed and exercised that power in deposing King John. The same Pope (Innocent. 111 ) claimed jurisdiction and power over a succeeding King in the year 1215, in these words—" Is not the King of England our vassal, or, rather, our slave?" This was the po wer t o b e r estored by this Bill, should their Lordships think fit to pass the same. In these remote times Paul 111. deposed Henry VIII., and released his subjects from their allegiance. Just before the Act in question passed Paul IV. had acted with equal vio lence towards Queen Elisabeth. He declared it was the height of presumption for Queen Elizabeth to claim the crown of England without his permission. It was under those provocati ons th at t h e fi rs t statute of Elizabeth was passed, and unless th ere was som e inherent vigour in the constitutional laws of E ng l an d, which would make it, in spite of the statue which the Noble and Learned:Lord proposed to re peal, penal for any one to put forth the power of the Pope to any such extent, we w ill no longer protect it from the recurrences of such attempts at power. The object of his motion was that their Lordships would satisfy themselves of that i n herent power in the constitution to prevent such offences as those. He had thought it right to propose these questions, because it was not directly in the Bill before their Lordships, nor in the Act which they proposed, to repeal any clause which made it punishable to write, print, teach by express words, deed, or act, or maliciously deny the Queen's supremacy. The express denial of the Queen's supremacy was not made punishable by the Ist of Elizabeth. It asserted the Queen's supremacy, hut it said nothing on the subject of denial, nor did the Bill which he held in his hand. Of course the Queen's supremacy was as clear, undeniable, and unquestionable as any part o• the constitution of this land, over things spiritual as well as temporal, and to deny that supremacy must be a grave offence against the constitution, and ought to be punishable at common law. But it was absolutely necessary for this House to know whether that was the case or or not before they proceeded to legislate with respect to the penal enactments of the Ist statute of Elizabeth. On the sub. jest of Royal supremacy, he need not tell their Lordships that they had the highest legal authority for stating that it was a part—a special part—of the monarchy a this land.— ( Hear, hear.) He need not say that Lord Coke and Sir Matthew Hale had expressed their opinions on that snbjeet, on the strongest terms. He, therefore, hoped that the Menial of that supremacy must be an offence against the common law. lie should be quite content if the Noble Lord on the Woolsack would answer that question decisively and say that it was punishabl e by th e common l aw. When on a former occasion he addressed their Lordships on the second reading of this Bill, when his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack proposed the insertion of a declaration of the Queen's supremacy, he deela-ed that h e s h ou ld have no hesitation in expressing himself satisfied with that, if his Noble and Learned Friend would go one step further—if he would consent to a punishment being annexed for the crime of denying the Sovereign's supre macy. But his Noble and Learned Friend refused to advance this step ; he said that this was what he could not do ; that it was contrary to the policy which had actuated them in bringing forward the Bill ; and this was the reason why he wished to extort from his Noble and Learned Friend the inquiry whether the denyi ng o f t h e Q ueen ' s supremacy would be . punishable at common l aw The Pope claimed a spiritual jurisdictio n in fro exteriorum, but if the claims advanced by him were allowed, it would give a power to him which their ancestors viewed with great jealousy, because they thought that it gave to a foreign power an essen tial authority over the Crown of this country. But he (the Bishop of Exeter) must be permitted to say, that the jurisdiction of the Pope in fdro exteriorum was of that extended character that the subjects of this country could not allow. The Pope's claim in Toro interim i, affected the' conscience, and was, therefore, of a most formidable character. The Pope had the power of deposing kings an d governments , by absolving men from their oaths of allegiance. It was, therefore, he thought, necessary to protect this country against such influence if they could do so consistently, and through the medium of an Act of Parliament. The House would find that the Pope not only still had that power, but that it was justified by some of the most modern and liberal Roman Catholic writers of this country. Dr. Milner and Dr. O'Connell, than whom there was not a more liberal man, for instance, justified, nay, advocated the power of the Pope to absolve parties from their allegiance. The extract from the work of the Rev. Gentleman went to show the great danger of the power of absolution from oath by the ministers of the Roman Catholic religion. An officer of the army, for insta n ce, professing that faith, might be absolved from the oath which he had taken and disavow his allegiance to his Sovereign.—( Heir.) The individual was not allowed to judge for himself, but was entirely in the power of those who were the heads of the reli gion which he professed, as they led him to believe that they could absolve him from any indignity. Need he say that in this consisted the whole danger to which he referred? He said this power of absolving from oath, which was admitted by the highest Roman Catholic authorities, must not be set forth in this Protestant land—that such a power could not exist without great danger to the country. —( Hear. ) Their Lordships would see that there was a wide difference between entertaining an opinion, and extolling, putting forth, and maintaining it to the world. Let those persons in com munion with the Pope believe, if they pleased, his supremacy, and let them in their conscience act as they thought the doctrine taught them; but let them not feel at liberty to set forth to the world those opinions. They are immoral, and being immoral, they are consequently indecent. Would the opinion of the Anabaptists be tolerated in this country, who maintain that everything should be held in common? The remarks he was making did not of course refer to those Noble Lords present who were in communion with the Pope. It was proposed to strike out these statutes from the statute book without any practical evil having been brought forward as resulting from their continuance on the statute-book. No; it was n o t said that there was any grievance of that kind, but they were toad that th e y were put into an invidious position. If they were a people of that sort he had, for his own part, not the slightest objection to extend t o t h em any privileges wh i c h were consis tent with the full security and enjoyment of the Protestant Constitution of this country. He would now proceed to say something with resesect to the other question that he should move their Lordships to propose to the Learned Judges—he meant that which asked, whether independently of so much of the said Act of the first year of the reign of Elizabeth before recited, and also before the said Act passed in the fifth year of the same reign, and also of the Act passed in the thir teenth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth as is above recited, intinaled " An Act against the bringing in and putting in exe cution of bull s , wr i t i ngs, or i nstruments, an d ot h er superst i tious things, from the See of Rome," it is an offence against the law of England, and punishable as such, to bring in or put in execu tion any such bull, writings,or instruments from the see of Rome. He was not sure whether this question would receive from the Learned Judges such an answer as would fully satisfy him in this case. He was afraid that those learned persons would hesitate before they spoke of bulls generally in such a manner. lie wished they might. He hoped that they might. Bulls were matters known to the laws of England. They were mentioned in the Statutes and laws of England. Therefore the Learned Judges would be prepared to put a construction upon the word " bull," Their Lordships would permit him to say that bulls were instruments that had passed as it were under the Great Seal of the Pope of Rime. They were in fact such instruments as passed under the Great Seal of our own Gracious Sovereign. " Briefs " were, on the contrary, under the Privy Seal of Rome. Bulls were so called (if their Lordships would forgive him whilst he made the explanation from a barbarous Greek word, " boula, " which igni fied a leaden instrument. There were " bulls of grace" and " balls of justice," the seals of the former being attached to the written documents by twine, whilst those of the latt er cons i sted of some less dignified material. In respect of these bulls, he would remind their Lordships that it was not until a late year that it was absolutely compul sory on Q ueen E lizabeth to propose to Parliament and on Par • liament to e nact this statute which was now about to be expunged. That statute not only made it high treason to introduce a bull such as that which Pius the Fifth issued against Queen Elizabeth, deposing that Sovereign ; declaring her throne vacant, and call. ing on her subjects tedisebey her authority. It was not for that reason that this statute was enacted, but because it was found impossible to define the bulls in suet' a way as to make it safe to permit the introduction of any bulls at all ; and therefore it was that this statute very wisely, as he thought, prohibited all bulls whatever. He should be very glad if they could possibly discover any mode in which the introduction of these bulls could be punished in a li s shter manner; but the act of introducing hulls into this land interfered with the Sovereign power of the land, and was therefore in itself an act of high treason ; and therefore it was that those two great men, Sir Mathew Hale and Coke, defended this particular Act as necessary for the best interests of the country ; that very Act it was now proposed to rescind, He should be glad if the Noble and Learned Lord, when he proposed to strike out this statute, would propose to intro duce a something which would protect them generally from the introduction of Papal bulls into this country, and if they found that the common law did not affect this object, then he trusted that the Noble and Learned Lord would insert a clause which would answer that object. Before he sat down he felt it necessary to make one or two remarks, because it was only that feeling the want of there laws he had been compelled to ask the Noble Lord these questions. They were called upon to acknowledge this Papal power which had for ages been the bane of nations without the slightest rea ssn being urged in the Bill itself for their doing so. Those who had introduced this Bill had not taken upon themselves the peril to say that it was expedient to repeal this power. There was scarcely a single statute which did not give some reason, in the shape of preamble, for its being passed ; and were they in this instance to depart from the constitutional rules of the country, and piss an Act, without sas s ss why or wherefore, which affected the supremacy of :he Crown of England? It was remarkable that it was only two years ago since the Noble and Learned Lord struck out of the Bill the very clauses he now in troduced. The Noble and Learned Lord opposite had, upon the occasion to which he alluded introduced a Bill for repealing these Acts, and he applied to his Noble and Learned Friend to know how such an Act was to be met, and to express an earnest hope that it would not be permitted to pass, and he had the satis faction of finding afterwards that it did not pass. It was for these reasons that he thought it necessary to appeal, to the Noble and Learned Lord who represented the Government in that House, and to the other Noble and Learned Lords on the opposite Benches to apply their judicial minds to the ques tions which he should take the liberty of propounding to them. The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by proposing that the fol lowing questions be submitted to the judges :—Whether, independently of so much of the Act passed hi the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, intituled, " An Act restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the estate ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolish ing all foreign powers repugnant to the same," an makes it punishable to affirm, hold, stand with, set forth, maintain, or defend, as therein is mentioned. the authority, pre eminence, power, or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical, of any foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate, theretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm, or to put in use or execute anything for the extolling, advancement, setting forth, maintenance, or defence of any such pretended or usurped jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, and authority, or any part thereof, and of an Act passed in the fifth year of the said Queen, intitled "An Act for the Assurance of the Queen's Royal Power over all Estates and Subjects within her Dominions," it is an offence against the law of England, and punishable by the same, by writing, printing. teaching, preaching, express words, deed, or act, advisedly and maliciously to deny the Queen's supremacy, or to affirm, maintain, and defend any such pretended or usurped power, jurisdiction, or authority of the Pope, or any foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate within this realm? The LORD CHANCELLOR said he wished to offer a few observations with retpect to that portion of the Right Reverend Prelate's address, which referred to some supposed ineonsis• tency on his part with respect to the Bill to which the ques ion he had just proposed ref rred. He was sure chat when he re ferred to what took place on the occasion alluded to by the Right Reverend Prelate, that their Lordships would at once acquit him of the charge which had been brought agi inst him. The Noble Lord to whom allusion had been made, introduced the measure referred to. That Bill had not been p. eviously communicated to him (the Lord Chancellor), neither had he any communication with reference tc it, but on referring to the particular Acts of Parliament to which it had reference, he saw at once that it was perfectly clear that every man of liberal p inciple anti feeling must assent to a great portion of it.— (t. beers. ) But with respect to the other portions of it, clauses might have been introduced on which inquiry was necessary, and therefore the course he pursued was this—to that part of the Bill to which he felt no reasonable objection could be made, he at once asiented. But he informed that Noble Lord, that it he would entrust the Bill to him he would refer it to the Committee then sitting on criminal law , anti that he would request them to consider the subject, and make report upon it. It was for this reason, and for this reason alone, that those parts of the Bill were struck out, that he had thought or expressed any opinon upon it. But as the sulject was one of such great import ance, and involved questions of such great magnitude, the Noble :Lord ought not to call upon him to express his opi nion upon it. He referred those Bills to that Committee; they had made their report upon the subject. and it was in pursuance of that report he had brought in the present Bill and laid it upon their Lordships' table.—( Hear, hear.) Having made these statements, lie was sure that their Lordships would acquit him of inconsistency as to the course of conduct he had pursued. He felt most anxious that the Bill should pass with the full concurrence of the Right Reverend Bench, and, if pos sible, with the concurrence of the Right Reverend Prelate himself. He had been most anxious to exe!ude from the Bill anything which could give rise to any difference of opinion among their Lordships. Since he had laid the Bill upon the table of the House a long time had elapsed before he brought the Bill before their Lord ship! for a second reading. He did this for the purpose of receiving such suggestions from Noble Lords, Right Reverend Ps elates, and from other quarters. He had received a suggestion from a Right Reverend Friend, for whom he entertained the utmost respect for his learning .mud ability. He had adopted this sugges . ion, and the amendment which he should in conse quence propose, he should introduce when their Lordships went into Committee on the Bill. There was one satisfaction which he had received from the speech of the Right Reverend Prelate, he had directed their Lordship's attention only to two points of the Bill, all the rest of the Bill he might, therefore, consider as having met with his assent. There were two points only namely, that which related to the statutes of the Ist. and 13th of Elisabeth. The Bishop of EXETER here made some remarks, which were inaudible in the gallery. The Lord CHANCELLOR.—The Right Reverend Prelate had confined his attention to the two heads to which he had referred. He knew that upon former occasions the same Right Reverend Prelate had stated that upon those points, affscted by the Bill before their Lordships, no difference of opinion could be entertained. He concluded, therefore, that the Right Rev. Prelate had no very decided objection to the other portion of the Bill. Now the Ist of Elizabeth—the Act of Supremacy it was called—expressed in the ful est and most comprehensive terms the authority of the Sovereign of this country in all matters spiritual and ecclesiastical. Nothing could be more comprehensive, distinct, or decisive, than the terms of the Act. It is expressed in terms that no persons on reading could entertain the slightest doubt upon the subject. It afterwards proceeded to impose an oath, calling upon persons filling certain offices to declare their adherence to the doctrines therein set forth. It afterwards proceeded to impose severe penalties upon persons, not who should deny the supremacy, but who should maintain and defend the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of any foreign power, prince, or potentate. Now it was perfectly clear that the abridgement of those penalties in effect rested with this Act of Parliament. But what was the state of the Roman Catholic Church now, not in England alone, but over the world ? The Act of Parliament inflicted the severest penalties, as for high treason and mis-prison of treason it inflicted the forfeiture of all property on those who admitted the spiritual or ecclesiastical supremacy of any foreign prince, prelate, or potentate. Was it not a matter of public notoriety —did any person for a moment doubt it—that any Roman Catholic, in this empire, or in any other, did not look up to the Pope as his spiritual and ecclesiastical head ? If there was any doubt upon the subject, he would refer their Lordships to the speeches of the Right Rev. Prelates who had spoken when this Act of Elizabeth was in progress through Parliament. It was by them admitted, in the most distinct, the most precise, and the plainest terms. Their Lordships would find this prin ciple admitted in the speeches of the Archbishop of York end the Bishop of Chester. But more than this, if they looked to the canons o . the Roman Catholic Church, they would find this doctrine stated in the mo.t distinct, the most direct , and the strongest terms. There can be no doubt of the t. The Roman Catholic clergy took their oaths to conform to these tenets. They must therefore take it as part of the doctrines of the s Rom' h Church that they re gar d e d t h e P ope as their superior—as ;Ile person whom they were to look up to as their spiritual and ec clesiastical head. They had admitted this in their leghlative enactments. He would refer them to the oath contained in a statute of Elizabeth, which was imposed on persons holding particular office s . B y t h at oath the parties declared that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, should have any spi ritual or ecc l es i ast i cal jurisdiction within' these realms. That form was used—that oath was universally administered, until within late years, when they themselves had altered it. They had altered it in deference to the opinions of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion. They found it impossible to impose such oaths on their fellow-countrymen, and they had, therefore, struck out the words spiritual and ecclesiastical, and inserted the words civil and temporal. After having done so, was it not clear that they admitted that persons professing the Roman Catholic religion looked up to the Pope as their religious and ecclesiastical suserior ? Then, when they allowed in this country the free exercise of the Catholic religion, and when they knew that this was a fundamental principle of that reli gion —when they knew that professors of that religion discharged their duties by maintaining the principle, how could they consistently witY themselves visit them with the penalties due to high treason and prenctsnire? How could they confiscate and take from them all their personal property ? This was an inconsistency which he was anxious to remove by the introduction of this law.—( Hear, hear.) He would say that it was perfectly improper to retain the old laws. They had gone too far. They should not have taken the steps that they had already taken, if they were not prepared to follow up the subject by this final step, to be consistent with themselves. But then it was said this law would lead to a great deal of mischief, because they did not know exactly what was meant by the term "spiritual. " And then it was said that it night lead to the absolving of subjects from their allegiance to the monarch of this country, but in reply to the statement of the Right Rev. Prelate he would again quote the case to which he had referred, as it gave a distinct answer, which was this—that if any person is the country circulated and inculcated immoral principles, he was amenable to the law, and liable to be punished by the com mon law of the country. It was not necessary to have any en actment for that purpose. The common law was sufficient to reach cases of that description, and if any such case were car ried into a court of justice, it would be properly animadverted upon by the person who might preside on it. It had been urged, bath in the House and out of doors, that if they repealed the penalties of those old laws, they would in fact abrogate and abolish the supremacy of the Sovereign of England.—( No, no.) He was glad to find that that argument had not been repeated that night, although on a former evening they had heard much of that sort of argument. But supremacy rested upon a founda tion too solid to be so shaken—( Hear, hear)—and did not de pend upon the Act of Parliament to which he had referred. It was part of the common law of the land.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate had admitted that it was so. The law upon that subject, he was prepared to show, if it were necessary to do so—he was prepared to show that it had been recognised by repeated Acts of the Legislature, and that it had been laid down by the judges of this country in all ages and at all times.— ( Hear, hear. ) Lord Cuke, in that masterly case to which ho (the Lord Chancellor) had referred, commented in an able manner upon the law and the facts, and summed up the whole by showing that, by ancient and continued decisions—by Acts of Parliament, by long practice and usage, and continual ac knowledgment, and established beyond the possibility of a doubt—the supremacy of the Crown in ecclesiastical mat ters was a part of the common-law of this country. There could be no danger, therefore, in repealing those penalties, severe as ! they were—there could be no danger to the supremacy of the monarch. He felt that it was the duty of their Lordships, if n ot to repeal, at all events to modify to a considerable extent, ( Hear, hear.) The Irish Act to which the 13111 had reference was still in force. By that Act, if a party maintainesi the spiri- ; tual supremacy of the Pope, for his first offence he was liable to the forfeiture of his personal estate; for his second offence he was liable to be punished by premunire, and their Lordships were well aware what an inflit•tion that ens; it deprived the party of all his property, and at the same time deprived him o' all the benefit of the laws—so much so that, as he stated upon a former occasion, it was once doubted whether a party who had subjected himself to a premunire might not be killed with impunity.—( Hear, hear. ) For the third offence (and this was a part of the law of the land) he was guilty of high treason. So that they tolerated the free exer cise of the Catholic religion, and they knew that it was always, a fundamental part of that religion that a party should main tain and defend the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. And it was, therefore, incumbent upon them to do so ; and if they did their duty the laws of England still declared that they should be punished in the severe manner to which he had referred. —( Hear, hear ) It was impossible to maintain such laws. All these penalties were not in force in Ireland, and he only now asked their Lordships to repeal them with respect to England.--( Hear, hear.) But, said the Right Reverend Prelate, how monstrous it was to introduce this Bill without a preamble, Why, the Bill spoke for itself ; but he did not wish their Lordships to repeal these Bills, unless they were satisfied that they ought not to remain any longer upon the statute book. Why was it necessary to point out that which must be obvious to everybody ? Was it necessary to point out the expediency t f repealing unjust, cruel, and vexatious laws ? Was it necessary to have a pre amble to explain a purpose like this?—( Hear, hear.) He thought not, and therefore it was why he had introduced none. The thing spoke for itself. _( Hear, hear.) But for tear any one should imagine that they were striking any blow at the supremacy of the Crown, he was prepared to introduce a proviso, with the view of restricting the repealing power of the Bill to those provisions which imposed the penalties.— ( Hear.) This, however, did not coincide with the wishes of the Right Rev. Prelate. He wanted, it would seem from his question, still to have some punishment for offenders against these Acts.---( Hear.) Well, then, he would tell the Right Rev. Prelate, that if any parties wilfully and maliciously in fringed the provisions of these Acts, they still would be liable to punishment under the common law of the land. If any person called in question the supremacy of the Crown of Eng land, that person was liable to prosecution by the common law of the country. He now came to the 13th of Elizabeth, by which the importation of hulls from the see of Rome was declared to be high treason. That was a simple statute en actment, and therefore he proposed to remove it. Whether or not it should be entirely repealed, or whether it should be varied and altered, it was not for him at present to say. That would be a subject for consideration. It :was perfectly well known that bulls were constantly imported from the see of Rome, and they were obliged to wink and connive at it. They declared a particular act high treason, and yet whets it took place they did not attempt to prosecute. What a state for the law to be in ; and how degrading was such a state of thibigs. But it was said that if they repealed that, statute they would sanction the introduction of bulls for political purposes, directed against the Crown, against the authority of the Government, and against the temporal interest of a private individual. He felt equally indignant with the Right Reverend Prelate, at the insolent assumption of power which had been exhibited by Pope Gre gory, in the time of Henry IV. of France, and of the Pope in the time of Napoleon, but did that apply to the present case ? The common law was sufficient to protect them from bulls being introduced for improper purposes , was it necessary then to keep this Act of Parliament in the statute book? A question had been raised as to whether they should qualify the repeal of this Act, or whether they should leave the common law to take its course. His answer was, that if they attempted to draw nice distinctions they might do that which they did not intend to do. It was a dangerous course to adopt. Nothing could be more important it, a Bill of this description than its being car ried without haste through the [louse, and therefore if their Lordships should be of opinion that the question of the Right Reverend Prelate should be submitted to t he Learned Judges, he for one should not offer any opposition to that course. Lord BROUGHAM was glad to find that the Right Rev. Prelate had said that he woul' be satisfied with the opinion of the law Lords. There could be no doubt that it was com pc' cut for them to submit a question upon legislative matters to the consideration of the Judges, but he world fain submit to ' their Lordships wheth, r it would not be better to confine such appeals to the Judges to cases of eminent difficulty Now, if this was a doubtful question, they would not be able to get an answer this session, and if it was not a doubtful question, it need not be referred to the judges at all. He entirely con • curr,sd with his Noble and Learned Friend in the answer which he had given to his Right Rev. Friend. He had no doubt upon the subject. Nothing could be more offensive than the interference of a foreign prince, and this opinion was held in France, for there no bull was allowed to go into the country without being first examinee. Yet the Pope called the King oT France the eldest son of the Church. There was no penalty in this country, according to the common law, for the intro duction of bulls, rescripts, or other writings from Rome, pro vided they contained nothing that was blasphemous, seditious, or immoral. If they contained such doctrines, they were liable to prosecution, like all other papers with similar contents, come from where they we uld. There could be no doubt that that which gave rise to this statute of Eliza beth was an infamous overt 'aet of treason; but such an act could be punished by the common law of the land. He had further observations to snake on this subject, but he should re serve them for the Committee. After a few words in explanation from the LORD CHAN CELLOR, Lord DENMAN said he had heard with great satisfaction the Right Rev. Prelate state that he was willing to accept the opinion of the law Lords in that House. An appeal to the judges would draw them from those important duties which now pressed upon them. He would, however, take the liberty of saying, that he was quite sure that if any doubt could possibly be entertained upon the question now submitted, they would sacrifice their own convenience, and even a portion of the pub lie convenience, rather than allow that doubt to exist for a sin gle hour. He had been surprised to hear the Right Rev. Pre late doubt whether the Crown of this country was imperial and independent. Even during the time when the Pope had most power in this country, it was acknowledged that he had no in fluence over the Crown of England— that he had no power above the supremacy of the Crown, and any per son who attempted to impugn or to endanger that supremacy, was liable to the punishment of loss of life, of banishment, and of confiscation of property. He had no hesitation in answering the Right Reverend Prelate, that m thing in the shape of a bull, or edict, or anything of the sort, could be introduced into this country which could in any way injure the supremacy of the Crown ; for the supremacy of the Crown depended not upon the statute, but the common law of the land.—( ear, hear. ) Lord CA SIPBELL said he wished to add a few words to wh .t had fallen from his Noble Friend who had just sat down. It was a mistake to suppose that the Charch was higher than the Crown, for the Crown had power over all authorities, whe ther civil or religious ; that it was this power which was under stood to be the supremacy of the Sovereign. That supremacy was established by the common, and not by the statute law, and any person who attempted to injure it—no matter howsoever he did so—was liabla, under the common law, to the severest punishment. With regard to the first question of the Right Reverend Prelate, he could state that the Bill applied to all bulls, no matter at what time they wet e issued, and nothing could be introduced tr. published in this country which could in any way endanger or stigmatise the dignity or supremacy of the Crown. He re joiced exceedingly that the time had arrived when they could repeal these obnoxious Acts, but he thought it was the duty of Government to follow it up by taking steps to restrict the influence of the Pope in this country. In no part of the world could Popery prove more powerful than in this, and he for one thought that some diplomatic intercourse should be established with the Pope; fur in consequence of the non existence of that intercourse the Pope possessed more influ ence over the people of this country than he otherwise would ( Hear, hear. ) Lord BEAUMONT did not think it would have been ne cessary for him to trespass on their Lordships' time, but the Right Rev. Prelate, inste,id of confining himself to the ques tions of which he had given notice, had entered into other sub jects, and had attributed to the Catholic faith powers and in fluences which he totally denied. On a former occa , ion he attempted to explain to their Lordships the great difference which existed between do g mas of faith and matters of disci pline, and declared that the Pope had no power over the su premacy of the sovereignty of this country. Their Lord,hip , , however, did not feel satisfied with his humble authority for this, and he would therefore quote to them Roman Catholic documents in favour of his declaration. The Noble Lord then quoted several answers to queries put by Mr. Pitt to the faculty of divinity of Louvain, in which it was stated that the Pope had absolutely no power or authority over the suaremae.y of the Sovereign of any country out of his own domains. He thought this was a sufficient answer to what had fallen from the Right Rev. Prelate, but as a proof of these answers made by the faculty of the divinity of Louvain he could state that there was no connexion whatever between the Pope and the Roman Catholic clergy of that empire, excepting through the Bishops, who were answerable to the State for every thing they did. and whose edicts and orders were submitted to the State before they were issued. With regard to the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, having struck out of the Bill, which he had the honour of introducing, a clause repealing some of the very Acts annulled by the present Bill, he begged to remind their Lordships that the Noble and Learned Lord did so, be cause he thought that the Bill in its then form was imperfect, but at the same time the Noble and Learned Lord promised to introduce in a future session a Bill to repeal these obnoxious Acts.—( Hear, hear.) The Bishop of EXETER, in replying, remarked, that since the answers of the faculty of Louvian were promulgated, and even within the last five years, the Pope had exercsed his authority over the supreme power of the sovereign of Spain. He had confiscated the property of several ecclesiastical divines and declared some of the Acts of the sovereign of that country to be absolute nullities.—( Hear, hear. )--It was very true that Popery would be more powerful in this country than in any other if this Bill should pass. There was no country in Europe where they would suffer the Itemish bull to be intro duced without the consent of the Secretary of State. He con sider ed it absolutely necessary that these bulls should not be introduced free of penal enactments. If the bill were passed they would have no security against papal bulls. It had been found necessary in every country to restrain the bulls of Rome. He had always opposed the spread of Popery, and he honed they would continue to do so. He considered that to allow the extolling of Popery, and to sanction the introduction of bulls would be little short of treason. The Right Reverend Prelate concluded his speech by impressing their Lordships with the necessity of determining in Committee on some measure which would ensure the tree exercise of the opinions of the Catholic people without, however, extolling the authority of the Pope, and which would support the independence of nto the Crown, and prevent the introduction of papal u the country. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. The Friendly Societies' Bill was advanced a stage. CHARITABLE TitusTs BILL. The consideration of this Bill was further postponed from Thursday to Monday next. Their Lordships thek at half-past Seven o'clock. HOUSE OF CO Lt !MONS, May 11. • - - Four O o'clock. Clockb iIIPANY. The report on this Bill was agrecil to, and ord ere d to be en _ TihILP s.STroHANKEGit A to s olt l h G e ai Chair, AND at c DUBLIN, DUBLIN, DUNDRUM, AND ENNISKERRY RAIL WAY BILL, This line was read a second time and ordered to be com mitted. BURY WATERWORKS. The report on this Bill was braight up and aE , reed to. LONDON AND BIR.QINGHAM RAILWAY. Mr. GREENE moved that the Lorain and Birmingham Railway (Coventry to Nuneaton) Bill be read a second time. notwithstanding the time prescribed by the sessional order has expired, the agents not having obtained the breviate till the 4th of May.---The motion was agree, to. REPORTS. The followi ng reports were brought up, the amendments and alteration s agreed to, and the Bills ordered to be engrossed : St. Austell Small Debts. York and North Midland Railway (Whitby and Pickering Extension). Forth and Clyde Junction Railway. Stirling and Dunfermline Railway. Bristol Waterworks. Wath-upon-Dearne Improvement. Leeds and Thirsk Railway (St. Helen's Branch Deviation). Leeds and Thirsk Rail way.(Knaresborougii Extension). Dundee and Perth Railway Amendment. s S e la o rn t t a io n h n a c n R eut a ra i y ai ( B lwa a y the p at e e r t a h nd T9 J r a ra w i c ik r i ai Bg and Stationsranchea)).. Caledonian Insurance Company. Hartlepool Gas and Waterworks. Lincoln Waterworks. Scottish Central Railway (Denny Branch). Warrington Waterworks. Edinburgh and Northern Railway (Dunfermline Branch). Great North of England Railway ( Roroughbridge Branch). Great North of England Railway ( lledale Branch). SECOND READINGS _ _ The following Bills were lead a second time, and ordered to be committed, viz.:— Scottish Central and Caledonian Junction Railway (by order). London and Birmingham Railway (Coventr y to Nuneaton). Goole and Doncaster Railway. South Yorkshire Coal Railway and Canal. Belfast and County Down Railway. Earl of Blesinton's Estate. Bury Improvement. Exeter Great Western Railway. Newcastle and Darlington Junction Railway (Durham and Sunderland Railway and Wearmouth Dock Purchase) (by order). - SOUTHPORT IMPROVEMENT. 'This Bill was read a third time and passed. LANCASTER AND CARLISLE RAILWAY. Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved that the following recom menNtion contained in the Twelfth Report on Railway Bills Classificati on be considered, viz.:—" Your Committee recom mend that the Lancaster and Carlisle and Lancaster and Pres ton be divided into two Bills; and that the amalgamation with the Lancaster and Preston be included in a separate Bill, and be referred to Group 59, and that the other powers be included in a separate Bill, and allowed to remain in Group 45." That the Report from the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills pre sented Ist May, in reference to the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway (Extension to Caledonian Railway), and Lancaster and Preston Junction Railways Amalgamation Petition, be read. That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amalgamate the Lancaster arid Preston Junction Railway Company and the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company ; and that Colonel Lowther and Mr. C. W. G Howard do prepare and bring it in. The motion was a„ reed to. WEXFORD, CARLOW, AND DUBLIN JUNCTION RAILWAY. This Bill was read a second time. LUNATIC BUILDINGS' ACT. Mr. YORKE presented several petitions from Cambridge against the Lunatic Buildings' Act. Mr. F. SCOTT presi•nied a petition from Australia praying that wheat maze and flour should be admitted into this king dom on the same terms as the wheat maize and flour of Canada. MR. S. O'BRIEN IN THE TOWER ! Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Hull, pray ing for the release of Mr. William Ssnith O'Brien from the Tower.—(Great laughter.) CHELSEA PENSIONERS. Captain LAYA RD presented a petition from 660 Chelsea pensioners, complaining that five per cent. had been deducted from their pensions, and that the periods of settlement had been reduced from three to one month in advance. THE IRISH COERCION BILL. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition against this Bill. RATING OF SMALL TENEMENTS. Mr. J. BLACKBURN presented a petition from the guar dians of a poor-law union (the name of which we did not hear), praying that the owners of small tenements should be rated instead of the occupiers. Mr. WALKER presented a numerously signed petition praying the House to restrict the sale of spirituous liquors on Sunday. THE POLICE AND THEIR RELIGIOUS DUTIES. The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY begged to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, of which he had given him notice. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet what were the regula tions with respect to the attendance of the Metropolitan Police force on their religious duties? Sir J. GRAH AM said the Noble Lord was probably aware that in the admission of privates into the police force no inquiry whatever was instituted with respect to their re. ligious duties. The force was open to all denominations. With the exception of those on actual duty on Sunday, the members of the force were at liberty to attend any place of re. ligious worship they thought fit. Those belonging to the Es tablished Church had seats provided for them in almost every church in their respective districts ; and with regard to the others, they were left at full liberty to go wherever they pleased. BRIDPORT ELECTION. Mr. G. RANKES said he had a petition to present of rather a peculiar nature, and he trusted he should have the indulgence of the House if he departed from the general rule which had been laid down, that no Member should address the House on presenting a petition. The petition, however, which he had to present on this occasion involved a matter of privilege, and a matter upon which the House would have to decide. He believed he might at once state that there was no precedent to be found similar to the case he had now to lay before the House, and he had some doubt whether it would be considered a question of privilege or not; at all events, supposing this petition to be true, and he had no reason to doubt that it was true, it deserved the serious at tention of the House. He would state the substance of it, in order that the House might judge ler itself cf the degree of importance to be attached to it. The petition was signed by William Lockhart, an elector of the borough of Bridport. The House was aware that the minutes of the evidence of the Bridport Election Committee had been printed. It would be seen from that report that the decision of that Committee turned solely upon the question as to whe ther the vote of an elector—who was the Mr. Lockhart in question—which gave the majority for the late sitting Member, had been erroneously placed in the return. The Committee found that it had, and the decision caused the sitting of the Hon. Member who now sat in the House for Bridport. The SPEAKER intimated to the Hon. Member that the question involved no matter •f privilege, and it was out of order to speak on the presentation of the petition. Mr. BANKES—It would appear, then, by this petition that there were grounds of objection to Mr. Baillie Cochrane's else tion, but it was also certain that there were equal objections to the election of Mr. Romilly ; but during the last year the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had declared the determination of the Committees should ba satisfactory. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member must give notice of a breach of privilege before he can introduce the subject in this manner. Mr. BANKES—Then I must rest upon this position, that the petitioner should be heard at the bar of the House. The petition was ordered to lie on the table. ORDERS OF THE DAY. The Bill for the Northern and Southern Connecting Rail way was postponed. NTS POLICE CASE. Mr. COLLETT wished to ask whether there was any foundation for the statement that police•constable Hale still remained in the police force of that county, and whether Sir Charles Haywood still remained in the magistracy? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the question put by the Hon. Member, the House would see, had been put upon an exparte statement. Mr. COLLETT said that that statement was the founda tion of his question ; and he had every reason to believe it was correct. Sir JAMES GRAHAM hoped that some time longer than four days would be given to make an inquiry such as that calle(1 for by the Hon. Member into the character and conduct of a gentleman of high character, and well known to them all. Mr. O'CON NELL—Let the Hon. Member hand the state— ment to the Right Hon. Baronet. Mr. COLLETT said he would persevere in his notice to. ask the question, and begged to band the statement to the Right Hon. Gentleman. TE BILL. Sir J. GRA HA 11 moved CORN the order of the day for the third reading of the Corn Bill. The Marquis of GRANBY said, that in rising to address the House upon this question, he trusted he would receive the in dulgence of the House for a short time. lie would oppose this Bill, because upon it depended the fate of the poor man and the labourer, and because it was a question of whether the Eng lishman was to be superior to the foreigner. Before he entered on the question before the House, he wished to make a few ob servations on the manufactures of this country. The Noble Lord near him ( Lord G. Bentinck) the other night said, and said truly, that they did not desire to see the manufactures of this country decline.—( Hear, hear.) They did not wish to see the stream of its prosperity conducted into worn-out and useless channels. They wished to see it, like the noble river outside those walls, flowing in a continued and full stream, and not like a rushing torrent, that at one time inundated the country, and at another dried up to an useless and unprofitable pool. They did not wish to see the manufacturing interests decline, although they knew the evils of the present system; for when properly conducted they were of benefit to the country. If any proof of that fact. were wanted, the Right Hon. Baronet the First Minister of the Crown, whom he did not then see in his place, had given it to them the other night. The Right Hon. Gen tleman had said that those counties in the neighbourhood of the manufacturing districts were more prosperous than those= counties further removed. The inference that should be drawns from that was, that they should endeavour to draw the two in terests closer together. They should endeavour to create a better circulation of the blood in their own veins, and should not assist other counties which did not require it. These were the principles which should be applied, and he believed that these were the principles which had long been entertained by many of the manufacturers. He did hope that they would show the world that her Majesty's Government were not bound by the Anti- Corn-law League, by not giving up their present t a p lct n6 l l l / 0 . , The object of the corn-laws was much misunderstood. They (the anti-protectionists) said that they starved the people. He denied it.—( Hear, hear.) He sa_id resa t t h thr t n h supply food to the people at a constant and i :Ines involved its ef those enet dw tohu its ( flear, hear.) There were two g by e i principles the. object this question. The first principle vit o e m the produce of their own soil. ET' I ) and would people gentlemenbegiven o who sat. country—healthy manly e of protection they would which, if m ab a l n) e yo t people of this country,. em ployment —an to the employment under . heated and ill -ventilated till a late hour in this -ventilated apartment would have recourse to, they would in a short time become much more vigorous, and capable to discharge their duties with ro ots etlicacy The second principle was, that if any deficiency took place in tt e supply of their own produce* they would be enabled to have from th • • ea. colonies as vouch as would meet that deficiency, and b y this means the colonies would were abbe benefiteford e; ign but if scarcity arose, a n d th e corn -lawe olished, prod lion with thei r colonial uce would th en come i nto competi -( Hear.) The Noble produce, to th e d etr i ment of the l atte r. Lord near him (Lord G. Bentinck) proved that the capabilities of thi s country were a b le to mee t the dema n d s o f its incr easingpopulation ; for f rom th e r ecent return of th e averages he showed that there were 13,00 0 quarters of increase of corn as compared with 1842.-- (" He ar , hear," from Lord oint which, th oug h i not George Bentanck). Another p mmediately connected with the corn-lawss• had yet an indirect reference to them, and was of very g reat importance. As it was much be ter stated in a book which' t lie held in his hand he would take the liberty of read; ing it from a work of Mr. Allison " On Population. The Noble Lord then read a passage, showing how corn bad been bought up by the speculators and bonded till a period of scarcity. This he considered diminished the supply in our markets, while it augmented that of the foreign market. He would advise the House to pause and consider well what effect such a system had upon the scarcity of corn, anuP' therefore, whether it would not be better to reform such JO abuse, than to pass such a sweeping measure as that before the House. The Right Hon. Baronet had informed the House that those laws which he once considered politic, were nos' unjust. L oo ki ng a t th e amoun t o f taxat i on i n th i s countr y, an . at the amount of c apit a l w hi c h h a d b een spent on t h e fait h of those laws in improving land, he could only say tt, a t they were not unjust, but highly p o liti c an d neces ;:ary to the state of the country.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord (C.. Bentinck.) But he went on to state that there was great iif;cress under the present corn•law. lle feared that might bet true in particular_ cases, but he thought that the fa rmer w h o th rew o ff his goo l l warm great coat oa a winter's day be caeLse it wa s cold w°r_ u act just as wisely as the farmer w h o threw off pro tection tection because some distress e7i The y sted.--(Cheers.) were also told that protectio n was the bane of agri culture, and that it wanted competition to excite it. denied that protection was snoh ; but if it was, must it net also he the bane of manufactures ? It was not likely tha t it should be bane of the one and not of the other. Why, what a' great injust , .ce—the Hon. Baronet was fond of the word—to protect the one and leave the other defenceless. Of course, the answer wquld be that protection wag afforded W