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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 5. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Wool , few minutes before five o'clock. RAILWAY TRAVELLING ON SUNDAY. The Bishop of LONDON presented a numerously signed petition, complaining of the desecration of the S a bb a th b y t h e - present system of railway travelling on that day. The Right Rev. Prelate proceeded to make some observations on the subject, and was followed by The Earl of FITZWILLI AM, who said he entirely concurred in everything which had fallen from his Right Rev. Friend. He was decidedly opposed to all commercial traffic passing on railways on Sundays, and be thought it was the duty of Par liament to prevent the present Sabbath desecration on rail ways. Lord CAMPBELL addressed a few words to the House in favour of some restriction being made between commercial and passenger traffic on the Lord's day. The subject was then allowed to drop. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Messengers from the Commons brought up certain Bills. NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY. The Earl of H ADDINGTON presented a petition from the inhabitants of Coldstream, against the proposed branch of the North British Railway from Berwick to Wooler, which was ordered to be referred to the Committee on the Bill. LUNATIC ASYLUMS ACT. The Duke of RLHMOND presented a petition from the rate-payers of Ross, in the county of Hereford, complaining of the operation of th e L unat i c Asylums Regulation Bill, to which he would call the attention of the Government. Th e Bill, he thought, w as th e worst o f t h e many b a d Bill s that h ad been introduced into that House, and one which he thought should have been referred to a Select Committee_ ofat the the •ime. There was one c l ause a t the end f _ . Slit to which th e p e tit ioners particularly o referre d. It declared that every idiot wa s a lunatic. consequence o f In ,o this great alarm was excited in the minds ofththr h that epoeutgitioners,a well as throughout the country at large, as with their in terpretation harmless idiots, instead of stayi ng relations or being maintained in an ine x p ensive man ner in the workhouses, w e r e affection c w t iiot with He considered that in the m ajo ri ty sentto lunatic asylums. was entertained by the paren t s for their of c c a ri children ra g reat affectede n idiotey, and they would fe el an insuperable objection to having their children takers from t hem. their He chargeconsideredall the lunatics that Govern mentnatics should take under of the country, and that they should establish a separate institution for those . persons aff ec t e d w i t h t the earlier stages of madness or to cy, where , by a system of kind and gentle treatment, the inmates might be restored to their right and proper senses. The Noble Duke also presented a petition from the board of guardians of the Ross Union to a similar effect. The petitioners stated that their expenses, which now amounted to 8001. per annum, would be increased to 3,6001. solely for the charges of the maintenance of these persons. Lord AS HBURTONpresented a petition to the same effect. Earl KINNAIRD presented a number of petitions from manufacturing towns praying their Lordships to pass the New Corn-Bill as speedily as possible. LORDS HARDINGE AND GOUGH'S ANNUITY BILLS. The Earl o f RIPON then moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee on these Bills, and observed, that as he bad already had an opportunity of addressing their Lordships on the subject of the important services which had been ren dered to this country by these two illustrious individuals, be would not detain their Lordships for many mo ments. The first of these B lls gave to Lord Hardinge an annuity during his own life, and during the life of his two next heirs bearing the title, the annuity:of 3,0001. per annum. He was sure that their Lordships would not think that sum was more than the justice of the case warranted or the generosity of Parliament called for. But there was a peculiarity in that Bill, and also in that which related to 'Lord Gough, to which it was his duty to call their Lordships' attention. The East India Compare", as their Lordships were aware from what had fallen from him on a previous occasion, had granted very liberal annuities to Lord Hardinge and Lord Gough, and this Bill proposed that the annuities to be granted by Parliament should be suspended whilst the East India Company continued their annuities. The Bill relating to Lord Gough gave 2,000/. a year to him during his We. He would therefore move that it should go into Committe. Lord MONTEAGLE said he had a strong objection to the principle of the Bill, and he was sorry some more influential party had not addressed the House upon the subject. The Bills contained a provision unjust and unbecoming, and which he considered would be detrimental to the public service. His objection was to the clause which suspended the public gratitude to those distinguished men because the East India Company had recognised them. What will be the con sequence in future? Why, the East India Company will not step forward, because they will find that they are not rewarding public men, but th.at they are only making a miserable saving to the Exchequer. Now he would most strenuously protest against any such narrow principle being adopted by their Lordships' House, because he believed that if they did adopt it they would en.ail a bad principle upon the country, which would finally do exceeding harm to the country. The grant of the East India Company ought not to diminish the grant of Parliament. They ought not to allow that to influence them to curtail the grant, but it ought rather to be a motive for increased liberality. It was well for the East India Company to reward them for services performed to them, but it was also the duty of the Government and the British people to reward these distinguished officers for ser vice, not done for a commercial body, but for the nation at large. The conduct of the East India Company should be a reason for an increased allowance, instead of the grant being curtailed, stinted, anti abridged, as it had been by the Go vernment.—( Hear, hear.) The Duke of RICHMOND hoped that he should have an opportunity of recording his vote against the Bill. It ap. peared to him a shabby, mean, and saving piece of economy, inconsistent with the desert of the gallant officers, and was a disgrace to the credit of the country. He was not prepared to give his sanction to a measure which he considered wrong in principle and most shabby in practice. The Earl of RIPON said that he would be the last person in the House to propose anything mean or shabby to their Lordships. The curtailment was not made upon a principle of economy, but the Government had acted entirely upon pre cedent. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the sug gestion of the Noble Lord (Lo r d M on t eag l e ,) an d h e hoped h would suggest it to the Committee in such a manner, as would not fetter the Bill. Tre Earl of WICKLOW considered that an adjournment of the question should take place, in order to give time to search for precedents up m the subject. The Earl of RIPON considered that such an adjournment would have no effect, as he admitted there was no precedent to he found. The Earl of GALLOWAY said, it was impossible for the House to estimate in money the services which these distin guished men had done for the country. It seemed to him that these individuals were entitled to a much larger amount than these Bills proposed, and he for one should rejoice if her Ma jesty's ministers had thought proper to propose a more li beral sum. The House having then resolved itself into Committee, The Duke of RICHMOND moved that the 3rd clause, which provided that the annuities proposed by the Bill should be sus pended as long as the East India Company continued to pay The annuities which they had granted to Lords Hardinge and Gough should be suspended.—( Hear.) The Earl of ?UPON said, if they acceded to the motion of the Noble Duke, the Bill would be destroyed. It ought to be borne in mind, that the grant of the Government was pro posed to be extended to the two generations next preceding, which did not apply to the grant of the East India Company. The Duke of RICHMOND said, that nothing was so easy as for the Commons to bring in a fresh Bill should the anemdment be agreed to. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the view taken 'by the Noble Duke. Lord MONTEAGLE followed on the same side. Suppos ing the East India Company had not made the grant, would not they have considered it their duty to have rewarded these distinguished officers; or supposing that Parliament made :he grant before the East India Company, and should the latter Company agree to a similar grant, would that be reason fur the Go vernment suspending their grant? any The Marquis of NORMANBY considered that if the amendments proposed by their Lordships were not received by the other House, they could bring in a fresh Bill on the sub ject. The Earl of ST. GERMANS stated that had Lords Harding,e and Gough been persons of large property no pension would bare been proposed at ail. Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared— Non-Contents... Contents Majority against the Clause The Amendment was then agreed to. The Duke of RICHMOND then proposed that the same alteration should he made with reference to Lord Gough. The Earl of RIPON would not trouble their Lordship to divide um n the question after the opinion already pro nounced ir, Lord Hardinge's case. Tha Amendment was then agreed to. RAILWAY LEGISLATION. Earl FITZWILLIA NI rose to move the resolutions of - which he had given notice, with reference to railway legisla tion. From a retu-n which he held in his hand, the Bills now in progress before their Lordships involved an expendi "are of 90,000,0001. The greatest loan that was ever 'raised in this country was 49 000,0 t. Of. The sum required I for these railways was, therefore sum doublo the amount of that sum. He expressed the feelings nizant with monetary affairs "thualr'tof every individual cog should be put upr m ra il way ' .was necessary a stop He was not so wedded to any elan of his , iwn sP , e t e t li t 't t i b ) al he would withdraw any portion of his resoltttio n , if au better one could be su g .. gestcd. The great misfortune connected with the ' Bills was, that they were considered as private It was evident' from the arrangements of both Rouse s of Parliament, that they considered them something more than mere private for they had classified them in gro u p s , according to the want s of certain districts. The Government should take some large and comprehensive measures with reference to them. The Noble Earl then proposed the following resolutions : —l. That all railway Bills, which had been read a second time i n th e i r Lordships' H o use, should be referred to a Select Committee. 2, That it be an instruction to select Bills not exceeding be ceeding se th n e t 'amount of sixty millions. 3. That a message should to the House of Commons, requesting a conferenceurion Noble ri e li railway s as were then pend i ng i n P ar li ament . The Earl then moved the resolutions. Earl DALHOUSIE thought that, however desirable i might be to li m i t railway enterprise, and however they might feel inclined to put a stop to railway speculation, still he sub- Snitted that after what had taken plac- in both Houses of Par liament their Lordships could not, with common justice, sup port the resolutions of the Noble Earl. At the commencement of this session a Committee was appointed in both Houses of Parliament to consider the propriety of making a selection of the Bills before the Legislature. That Committee came to a report that it would not be advisable to make a selection of these Bills. There was no intimation given to them by the Government as to any course they should pursue. A great number of these Bills had been now five months under the con sideration of Parliament. They have expended large sums of money, and ne few of them have obtained the deliberate sanc tion of Parliament. In common fairness they could not now turn round and say to them, " We shall now select those Bills which we consider the best to be passed." It would be tanta mount to a Brea ih of faith on the part of Parliament. They had also interfered by establishing a sort of keels pcnit2ntiar. , in the shape of sessional orders. Thu parties had held meetings under these orders, they had satis fied the tests which their Lordships had imposed upon them, and it would certainly be unfair to turn round noon them and say that they eauld make a selection of those Bills. With reference ti) limitin g the capital to be ex ended to 60,000,(M01 , he was not repared to say that that was P the limit to which speculation could fairly be carried. Their Lordships had a remedy in their own hands, in the cise of th e powers i ntrusted to them in committee ; if the strict e very would come to the co ns id era ti on o f t h e Bill, not so much with a view of det erm i n i ng if th ere was any fatal objection to the Bill, but whether they would, under the present circumstances, be advantageously made. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would not support the resolution of the Noble Earl. Lord KINNAIRD quite agreed with the Noble Earl who bad just spoken, that it would be a breach of faith on the part of Parliament to compel these companies to go before another Committee. He did think that if time were given to the parties for consideration it would have a desirable result, while it would not he a means of preventing any good lines THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY _ EVENING, JUNE 6, 1846. from being proceed e d w ith ; an d a l so b y li m i t i ng the time for making the calls it would greatly tend to relieve the labour market. But he should deny that it was in the power of the Committee to . remedy the evil, as th e N o bl e E ar l appeare d to think, because in some cases lines of railway came before the Committee and were not opposed, and then the Committee had no remedy but to pass them. Lord ASHBURTON could not clearly see his way through the difficulty with which this question was surrounded ; but he did think it would be a means of inflicting great hardship upon individuals if railways which had made a certain progress were now to be stopped. The Duke of WELLINGTON would like to see the in struction intended to be proposed by the Noble Lord before he could consent to it. He thought it would be very inconve nient to allow all the Bills to be collected into one mass, before any step should be taken to limit them, and that would be the effect of the first resolution. Lord AIONTEAGLE was of opinion that if some step should not be taken to put a stop to these railway . speculations, the Leg:slature would find itself surrounded by ddficulties. Many railways had been started, not because they were useful public works, but because they were mere speculations. He was of opinion that it would be well to give parties, under certain circumstances, at least twelve months' time for consideration. The Duke of RICHMOND quite agreed with his Noble Friend in the observations he had made about specul a ti ve rail. ways, but he found it would be a n a c t of injustice to some to stop them, if they were now in progress ; but he would sugge=t that some measure should be taken to remedy the evil by the next session, arid he thought the best way of doing it would be by limiting the means of borrowing money. He was also of opinion that the standing orders ought to be revised, and made more decisive. After a few words from Lord KINNAIRD, Lord REDESDALE admitted that there were de fects in the standing orders, and they ought to be remedied, but if they restricted the time of taking land, they ought to en. large the , ime for preparing the preliminary plans and sections. Earl FITZ WILLIAM spoke a few words in reply, and with drew his resolutions. Several Bills on the table were advanced a stage, and their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, J une 5. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. EDINBURGH AND NORTHERN RAILWAY (BRANCHES FROM THE DUNDEE AND AR BROATH RAILWAY, AND TAY FERRY DI PR 0 YEMEN T). This Bill was read a third time and passed. DUNDEE NEW GAS BILL. The Lords' amendments on this Bill were considered and agreed to. STIRLINGSHIRE MIDLAND JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND (EASTERN EX TENSION) BILL. This Bill was also read a third time and passed. ALFORD VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. NORFOLK RAILWAY EXTENSION BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. GREAT GRIMSBY AND SHEFFIELD JUNCTION RAILWAY—( HUMBER FERRIES). This Bill was also read a third time and passed. BRISTOL AND SOUTH WALES JUNCTION RAIL WAY AND FERRY BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this Bill, Mr. H. BERKELEY proposed that the standing order No. 121 be suspended in the case of the amendments pro posed to be made on the third reading of the Bristol and South Wales Junction Railway and Ferry Bill, of which notice has been Elven in the Private Bill office. The amendment wa. agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GLASGOW TERMINI AND BRANCHES). The report on this Bill was brought up and agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL (MAIDSTONE TO STROUD, NEAR ROCHESTER). The report on this Bill wns brought up and agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed. LEICESTER AND BEDFORD RAILWAY. Mr. PACKE moved the consideration of the report on the Leicester and Bedford Railway Bill. Mr. V. SMITH objected to the consideration of the report, on the grounds that there was no traffic on the line. He would, therefore, move that it should be postponed until next session, such a proceedin g cou ld d o no i n j ury to any one. He hoped the Bill would be postponed till next year, when all the five Bills involved might receive full inquiry. Under the circumstances, he would move the further consideration of the report that day six months. Mr. HUDSON seconard the motion. Sir CHARLES LEMON, as chairman of the Committee, would not have spoken had not the Honourable Member who had just sat down made some insinuations about the proceedings of the Committee. All he could say en the matter was, that everything the Hon. Member had urged against the Bill was as well stated, if not bk tter stated, before the Committee than it had been now before the House; and yet after a careful investigation and deliberation on the merits of the Bill, for ten days, the Committee decided unanimously in its favour. There was not the least doubt entertained by any of the members, and, therefore, he thought the result ought not to be interrered with by th e H ouse. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the report adopted. GREAT GRIMSBY AND SHEFFIELD JUNCTION RAILWAY This Bill was read a third time and passed. REA DING, GUILDFORD, AND REIGATE RAILWAY. Mr. MANGLES moved that the report of the Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Railway Rll be brought up. Captain PECHELL said he had been waiting to ascertain what Hon. Member of that House would have had the courage to move the adoption of the report of the Committee upon this railway, for he should say that the line had been supported by the most extraordinary documentary evidence he had ever heard of, and which inflicted upon the committee very consi derable labour. The tables of traffic that had been produced were such as he thought would not be justified had they been produced by the London and Birmingham Co - npany. The amount of traffic in carriages and horses and passengers had been estimated at a higher figure than had been known to have been received upon the London and Birmingham line. He thought that the reasons ought to have been stated why the Committee approved of the preamble on the single vote of the Chairman. He should therefore move that the second reading of this Bill should be postponed till this day week. On the motion b'ing put, Sir C. DOUGLAS said that he was ready to give the reasons of the Committee which the Hon. Member had required. He would beg, as one of them, to remind the House that in the report which the Committee had made they had stated that, in consequence of the circumstances pleaded by the opponents of the Bill, the Committee had delayed its consideration for several days. This circumstance they had stated in their report to the House. if the Honourable Member would refer to the last paragraph of that report, he would find that this circumstance was stated as a reason why, instead of re.• porting strongly, they bad left it to the election of the House whether the report should be adopted or not. Certainly in the opinion of the Committee there were sufficient reasons for its adoption, and amongst them was the fact that the number of shares in the company was 40,000 at 201. each ; the amount of deposit required by the Act was 24,0001., but the money actually deposited was 92,0001 ., and considering that this sum had been paid in for fully five months, the Committee felt fully justified in reporting favourably, although, in the absence of one member of the Committee, it was carried by the casting vote. The House then divided, when the numbers appeared to be_ For the motion 7l For the amendment Majority — 66 Mr. BARRY BA LDWIN presented a petition in favour of the London and Warwickshire Railway. IRISH MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. The Midland Great Western (Ireland) Bill (Mullingar and Galway) was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. SION COLLEGE ESTATE. This Bill wa; read a third time and passed. GORBALS GRAVITATION WATER-WORKS. This Bill was read a third time and passed. DUBLIN AND KINGSTON EXTENSION RAILWAY. This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR PIER. This Bill was read a third time and passed. TOBACCO DUTIES. Dr. BOWRING begged to give notice, on behalf of his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that he should, on Monday week, bring under the attention of the House the inordinate amount of crime and misery which is suffered by the country by the enormous duties on tobacco. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Mr. YOUNG moved the adjournment of the House at its rising until Monday next, when he was interrupted by Mr. G. BANKES, who rose to present a petition from Bridport, but he was interrupted by The SPEAKER, who declared him out of order. The motion for adjournment was then carried. BRIDPORT ELECTION. - - Mr. G. BANKES resumed by stating that this mas the last day, under Lord John Russell's Act, fer presenting public peti tions, and he trusted, therefore, the House would hear from whom it originated. It was signed by six persons, who stated themselves to be free and independent electors of Brid port, and that at the last election they had been par tisans to neither of the candidates. They stated that at the preceding election serious acts of bribery and cor ruption had been practised.; that these acts had been preva lent for a long series of years, and that this bribery and corrup tion interfered with their rights as free and independent electors. The petitioners went on to state that some measure ought to be taken by which to protect the electors I t o h tlili e borough from being overborne in this way in the exercis e that in presenting this TAM in they were w holly th eirrulfrantineutiete—d hy any private feelings, but they hoped thatgtehjeirrationaflorable House would show to the country in borough in particular, that the electors would be protecteilits the fi rm and independent exercise of their eleutorial duties. Mr. G. BERKELEY hePg° g S e T t OF .k FIC h E. . h 1.1 purita the Secretary of State for ihe ' in reference to the Home Departme . nt, a question being made to close the post wh co lc u h ntry was to n w o n w s on Sundays. He would wish to know whether it was in the power of the Postmaster-General to do this? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the Hon. I 1 i cHa 11 attempt e _ i . R n 1 g t on. aronet Member had been so obliging as to have sent him notice that morning that it was his intention to put that question during the sitting of the House to-day ; a n d, in answer,, he begged to say that since then h e h ad no opportunity of consu lting had the Postmaster-Gene ra l upon the subject. He believed that the Postmaster-General h a d the power to reg ulate the hours of closing offices of country towns on Sundays; a n d he believed that l tter-b that was to be oen re gulation was, that the e d the non-delive p ry during the wh o le day, an of letters was confined only to the hours of • divine ser v i ce . B u t th e question M of the Hon.ember was one of a leg a l c h arac t er, w hi c h h e w as present competent to not at answer. POOR-LAW IN IRELAND. in reply to questions put by Colonel RAWDON, as to the proceedings of the Poor-law Commissioners with respect to a parish in Ireland, Mr. S. HERBERT stated that the Poor-law Commissioners were cognisant of the circumstances ; that they had appointed a commissioner to inquire into the facts, who had made a re port. which he should have no chjection laying on the table, together with any correspondence. to a first, second, or third reading ; and stating the term of years within which the works so provided for are to be completed. Agreed to. AW beingr ßEMOVAL read for BILL. On thegoing into Com mittee on this Bill, Mr. EVELYN DENISON rose to mo ve certa i n instruc- R tions to the Committee connected with th e l aw of settlement, order PO o O th L eay but he was interrupted by Mr. 'l'. DUNCOMBE, who rose to a point of order. It was not competent, he said, for an Honourable Member to move an instruction to a Committee, if the Bill to be committed would accomplish the object the Honour able Member had in view. Now, he maintained that the object of the Hon. Member for Nottinghamshire could be ob tained under the provisions of this Bill. It might be done by moving clauses on the Bill when it went into report. The Bill affected the whole law of settlement, and recited every Act of Parliament at present in existence connected with it. It was quite unnecessary, therefore, to have any discussion, or to waste their time upon any views of the Hon. Member. The SPEAKER said the Bill was to amend and consolidate the law relating to the removal of the poor, and without instructions from the House it would not be competent for the Committee to consider the law relating to the settlement of the poor. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE repeated his opinion that the Bill did in fact involve the law relating to settlement. Mr. G. BANKES would not presume to offer any observa tions upon the opinion given from the chair, but he did object to the Hon. Member for Nottinghamshire having precedence on that occasion, because it should be recollected, that it was distinctly understood on the second reading of the Bill, that the discussion of its principles should take place, at this stage of its procedure through the House. If, therefore, they allowed that opportunity to slip by them, the prin ciple of the Bill could not be considered at all --(Hear.) He certainly thought that he had a right of precedence of the Hon. Member for Mahon. It would be in the rec illection of the House, and especially of his Right Honourable Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, that no discussion should ensue on the second reading. And this course was adopted with the express un derstanding that what ever dispute might arise it should not interfere with the principle of the Bill, but only affect the provisions by which that principle should be carried out. He did not think it right that the Hon. Member should introduce any such material alteration as this, and he had in fact intended to ask some Member of the Treasury bench what course they intended to pursue in 1 the next stage of proceeding? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his Honourable Friend who had just sat down had been perfectly right in the assumption that on the second reading of this Bill there should be no discussion of its principle, though he did think, from the point which had been started and the reasons assigned by the Honourable Member for Finsbury, that there might be some instruction given to the Committee to regulate its provisions. The Bill in no way interfered with the law of settlement ; it only had tedo with the removal of the poor. The Hon. Member for Melton would introduce another prin ciple into the Bill, and he thought that the Chair was per fectly correct in the view which it had taken. of giving instructions to the Committee. He did not think the House was competent to introduce any alteration or principle whatever at this stage, and he conceived therefore that the House could nut entertain what the Hon. Member proposed to do. Mr. HINDLEY thought the House ought to know what course they ought to take, for, if the speakers were correct, it was only another instance of the great inconvenience that would arise upon their usual mode of proceeding in such Bills as these. Then with regard to the settlement question ; this Act would repeal the clause which it had been stated would not be meddled with, and then they would have to go back to the 13th and 17th clauses of Charles 11. By repealing the clause which gave a settlement after forty days residence, this Act would give a settlement without any residence at all. Another clause relatine to the law of settlement would also be repealed, though the Right Hon. Baronet had stated that this Act would not interfere with the law of settlement at all. Now he considered that most important questions affecting the law of settlement were involved in it, at least so he thought as he had read the Bill, though he might be wrong ; but if the House agreed to turn over this Bill, by agreeing to have it read this day six months, it would be teachirg a good lesson to those who had introduced this Bill.—( Hear, hear, and laughter. ) Mr. DUNCOMBE would wish to a'k, did not this Bill in fact prevent persons who had had a settlement from being re moved ?—( Sir James Graham was understood to assent. ) Then he (Mr. Duncombe) would say surely that the Bill did open the whole question of settlement. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it would only affect those who had had a settlement of five years. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he thought the more regular mode of proceeding would be to discuss this question when the Bill should go into Committee on the second reading. But he did not see how the course the Hon. Member suggested would effect the object he had ir, view, for as he (Lord John Russell) understood him, his motion would have the effect of remodel ling the whole Bill. He conceived, also, that it was perfectly competent for the Hon. Gentleman to do that on the third reading which the rules of the House prevented him from doing now. Mr. DENISON was very anxious to meet the convenience of the House. He trusted that after the discussion which had taken place, the House would allow him to proceed with the instruction to the Committee, of which he had given notice. He could not help considering that great inconvenience had arisen from the title of the Bill, which stated that it referred to the removal of the poor, whereas it would raise the poor rates in every parish in the kingdom, therefore every person who paid poor-rates would be affected by it. It was introduced as a measure intended to he reconcileable to country districts as regarded great towns, and was received with great approbation, but it appeared to him that it would work such great injustice between different parishes, that he was anxious to draw the attention of the House to the subject. At present what was the state of the labouring poor, and the chief evils under which they suffered ? They suffered from bad cottages, and from too few of them. Men were crowded together into small and single groups—that was one of the greatest evils from which they suffered. Lord Stanley had stated that one of the greatest evils from which the industrious classes suffered was bad accommodation. He (Mr. Denison) regretted to say that that inconvenience was not confined by any means to great towns, and the same warning voice which made the remark with respect to towns mi4ht with equal justice have been applied to country districts. But it was not necessary for him to offer his own opinion on this point, because there was an authority in existence to which the House could not refuse to attach importance. It was the Report of the Commissioners anointed in 1843 to inquire in'o the state of the children employed in agriculture. Mr. Aus tin and the Rev. Mr. Gutch, in that report stated, that the want of accommodation in the cottages of families employed ir, agriculture was the cause of much of the demoralisation which existed in this country. If this were to be allowed, the labourers would in some sort have a right of retaliation; within the depths to which they were thrown there would be still lower depths. This system prevailed throughout a large part of the country which surrounded the borough which he had the honour of representing, and might be said to prevail largely throughout the wolds of Yorkshire. In that county it was the custom to drive the labourers into the small towns, where they were obliged to take houses for their wives and families. but with this arrange ment the farmers were not content. They required the men to be near to their employments, and consequently the men were obliged to sleep in some loft or stable, whilst their wages were to be paid partly in money, and partly in food. The wages, which were sufficient for the maintenance of a family when together, were quite insufficient for their nutriment when they were separated ; and not only was there the evil of a de privation of food, but all those evils which arose from a division of a man from his family, and he thought this was a matter vi ell worthy of consideration. If they were to wait for a settle ment of five years, the probability is, that no man would obtain a settlement at all. In his part of the country there were what were called close and open parishes. What was meant by a close parish was, where one owner alone held the property. In the southern district there were 60 parishes, of which 28 were (Anse, and 32 open parishes. In the Loughboro' district there were 12 close parishes and 23 open. In the Shardlow district, 23 close and 23 open. In Baysford 23 close and 33 open. In the Malton district there were 31 close and 37 open; and he had understood frcm an lion. Friend of his there were 41 parishes in his district, of which 21 were close and 21 open. He did conceive that this opened up a principle which ought to be taken into account. If these parishes were all thrown open, and the settlement was made a union settlement, it would obviate the great evil. It would remove the inducement to pull down cottages, and would prompt the individual proprietors to care for the destitute poor in their neighbourhood • it would pr omp t t h em to provide employment whilst the people were in health and strength, and would occa sion a feeling for their maintenance when old ante rendered them unfit for labour. The Hon. Member for Cornwall had said, that the first effect of the repeal of the corn-law would be to awaken one thousand farmers from their sleep. The first thing they would discover would be the inadequate employment and remuneration of their labourers. They would find that the labourers were employed in their work at a distance of 4 and 5 miles from the houses, and that distance theyhad to return at night. There were many farmers who would prefer the building of cottages on their own farms for the accommodation of their labourers, to a diminution in their own rents. He believed that if this Bill were to pass, and the provision of which he had given notice were to receive the favourable opinion of the House, there would no longer exist any apprehension from the working of any antagonistic principle. The measure would re sult most beneficially to the interests of the labourer and the farmer. Their predilection for ancient statutes with respect to the parochial system should not prevent them from correct ing existing abuses. He found that the total expense con nected with the poor-laws amounted, in the year 1834, to 7,597,0001., and in the year 18t4, the corresponding expense was 5,440,000/. ; so that a saving of upwards of 2,000,0001. was made, owing to the superiority of the working of the new law over the old law. The Hon. Member concluded by thanking the House for their patient attention, and moved the adoption of the resolutions of which he had given notice. Colonel WOOD was sorry that his Hon. Friend should persevere in pressing his motion. He was opposed to the motion because it contemplated giving the poor man a union settlement instead of a parochial settlement, so that, as far as the individual pauperwasc li o e n vw c ea e ds rned, the pa r i s h i n w hi c h th e miunn:itnoen.as-dsheootfut i s te e hme w e a pn s at placed.rishwhich He be would b e c h arged for his maintenance, thatl egal t l h y e e d h a a y rg w ea a b s l n e o with d t i t: e ... tent when funded property would be rated to the relief of the poor, and that a rate, not exceeding sixpence in the pound, would be levied on funded and other property, which wo u ld furnish a settl ement f or t h e whole of the poor in ' the kingdom. He was opposed to any proposition which, after a certain number of years, would deprive the poor of their proper set tlement. Mr. BANKES was anxious to hear the opinion of her it would have the of unemployed labourperr Ma iestY's Governmentorpe the and than unjs es . e T nt he rn y o in ti u on s: lbooeckatuose different system that tendency of producing a useless mass t e h r e e nt commonsyst em ed for the protection a of j however, the motion would operate m they ustly on many of all parts of the country. cruelly t gtri,eat difficulty in remodellingentrY. lands. now possess Government were an ' would House considered Mr. RICE thought th kTnhoewr whethere certainly Bill; and he considered h a be t t a e P " r 10 the the red such a remodel] . xious to sary.—( Hear, hear.) .ing neces _ Mr. CHRISTOPHER said if he u I),mi-fit the poor he would vot e f or it, consideredatwas not of an the Bill would such opinion. A parish would not support its e w ould throw their support on the whole own p- or, b u t union. He ha d great en respect for the old paro c hi a l system of En l d a considered it engendered good feelings betweg art , as he the middle and the poorer classes. He considered also that some of clauses of the Bill , ins tead of relievin g the poor , would . the Inflict new burdens upon them. Mr. STRUf T was as anxious as any other person to see the evils in the present sy3tent removed, but he considered the amendment which had been moved would lead to some other abuses to those which already existed, equally objectionable. With respect to the question of general settlement he consi dered it an evil ; any law upon the subject was a positive evil —( Hear, hear)—but it was necessary. On general grounds he was dispGsed to support a union settlement ; but he would prefer to hear the question further debated. If the pr e _ sent Bill were to pass into a law, it would be most objection able, unless it was accompanied by some such measure as that proposed. Mr. PAKINGTON feared that the amendment moved by the Hon. }Heather for Malton would have the effect of throw. ing out the Bill, but he did consider that a union-settlement was in principle a very good one. If the question came to a division he would support the amendment of the Honourable Member for Mahon, and his only fear was that it would delay the Bill, which was so important to the poor of this country. Sir J. GRAHAM said on the ahstrect merits of the question he would not trouble them at any length, as it was the very same Pill he had brought in on a former session. The Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he mentioned the introduction of the measure to the House, said it was a measure to limit the removal of the poor, but that it would not interfere materially with the law of settlement. Now that was the real nature of the Bill. His opinion on the mea sure remained unchanged, and he considered the measure would remove many of the abuses which at present existed. The law of settlement was a grievance in itself ; and that view of it was ably maintained by the Hon. Member for Derby. Adam Smith, if he remembered rightly, also strongly disapproved of its existence, and considered that it inflicted enact ment injuries on he s t a o t n n t t e he labouring -b ook. The law athan as it tnow stood he o do wast r a e h n l a e c t t 0 - t g o r g a e v t e h o e r b j m e c e t o h n y s , thebu n h s e t r d n i d e t i n o n o t o t f h t i h n e k H t on e evil Aie m w h o e u r le h There e were several parishes at present in which the land was in the hands of a few great proprietors, and no person was allowed to marry in such parishes, or to remain in them should they hap spiedne r t e o d get the r m e rri ed should. e T a o n m e e w e a t r s r u a n c h g e m c a e s n e s t s t o h e a r s e ftoor extende , he e o then operation of the law of settlement over a larger tract of country than these restricted parishes. By that means the proceedings of such persons as he had referred to would be counteracted.— ( Hear, hear.) He had had a commun i cation f rom M r. Ch a lk , the dairman of the Board of Union, strongly in support of the substitution of unions for parish settlements. The Right Hon. Baronet read the document in question, which was in substance, that there was 14,500 parishs in England, and but 600 poar-law unions; and that the substitution of union settlements, for the present system of parish settlement would allow of the free circulation of labour, and get rid of the evils of the present system. The Right Hon. Baronet read a letter from the Reverend Mr. Alcroft, Chairman of the Medway Union, to the same effect. He had a letter from another Rev. Gentleman, connected with the manage ment of the poor, to a different effect; his objection being that the able-bodied and strong labourer would alone be able to take advantage of the extent of range allowed under the present law, and that the weak and inactive would not be able to go beyond the limits of their parishes. If that objec tion were of any force, it would be that the present law was in favour of idleness—(Cries of " No, no")--or of those who were not disposed to make any exertion for their own main tenance. It was, therefore, no argument against the proposed change. Such were the opinions of those who had had expe rience of the management of the pour ; in addition to which he would add the testimony of Mr. Tuffnell, the Assistant Poor law Commissioner, who, in a report made in 1841, pointed out in a forcible manner the evils of the present law of settlement, and the necessity there was for such a change as that now proposed. The changes of the Hon. Member, he considered were volun tary, still he did not think they were proposed in the manner they ought to be, and that in their present shape they might interfere with the proper working of the Bill. He hail al ways thought the various laws relating to the removal of the poor should be consolidated into one general Act, as was now proposed in the Bill before the House. When they went into Committee he would then be prepared to give every explana tion on the various provisions of the Bill that might be required. In reference to the operation of the law as at present, and the changes which were now proposed, he would call their atten • titan to the relative number of persons in the locality where they resided to those from other quarters, in the manufacturing districts as compared with the rural districts. In 1841, in the city of Westminster, 114.000 were born in the county ; 188,000 born elsewhere. In Liverpool 180,000 were born in the county; 103,000 born elsewhere. In :Manchester 103,000 were born in the county ; 55,000 elsewhere. In Birmingham 96,000 were born in the county; 41,000 elsewhere. In Glamorganshire 126,000 were born in the county ; 41,000 elsewhere. In Surrey 156,000 were born in the county; 151,000 elsewhere. Compare this with the state of things in the rural districts. In the agricul tural county of Buckingham 127.000 were born in the county; and but 28,000 elsewhere. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, 1'14,000 were born in the county ; '20,000 elsewhere. In Anglesea 48,000 were born in the county ; but 2,1560 else where. And in three hundreds of Norfolk 54,000 were born in the county; and only 65 persons elsewhere. This showed the law of settlement pressed on small agricultural localities. In conclusion he must say, that believing the in struction of the Hon. Member (Mr. E. Denison) to be founded on a correct principle, should he press it to a division, he (Sir J. Graham) should feel it to be his duty to give it his support; and in the event of the House affirming it, he would be able in a few days to submit the amended Bill to the House.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. BROTHERTON considered that the principle of union settlement would be beneficial to the working classes, and at all events it, would be much more just to the rate payers. The present system was attended with great expense, which he considered would be removed by the adoption of the suggestion. Sir R. INGLIS could not see why, if the Right Hon. Gentleman entertained such a strong sense of the value of the prineiple, he did not introduce it in the Bill for which he now sought to ohtain the sanction of the House.—( Hear, hear. ) The Hon. Member said that the measure would be gi•eatly prejudicious to the manufacturing interests, and yet he said it would not be opposed by them, as they believed it would work immense good. But he contended that it would be most be neficial to the manufacturers, as they had congregated (for their own good t o b e sure) an i mmense concourse of people around them, of many of whom they would be relieved. The measure had been announced with great triumph by her Majesty's Government, as one of those remedial measures intended to be introduced as a boon to the agricultural interests. But lie considered it a very small gift, and quite unworthy of the Government. But the amendment would certainly be pre judicial to the measure, as, if it were adopted, it would throw it over to the next session. He looked upon it as another attack upon the parochial system, and that it would weaken the local ties which bound society together, and give parishes a tempta tion to relieve themselves of those persons who were no longer able to work, by throwing them on the union ; and believing this, he would reject, as far as in him lay, the amendment. Mr. C. WOOD could not take any step which would have for its object the severing of any of the local ties which bound society together. He did consider a union settlement was most necessary to remedy the evils which would flow from the immovability of the poor from particular parishes. If the Bill did not give settlement, he would vote against the Bill.— ( Hear, hear.) At the same time he was quite ready to vote that the Committee have a power to introduce a clause for union settlement. Mr. HENLEY considered that the Government had taken a most extraordinary course in reference to the Bill. When the Government introduced the Bill they clearly said it should have no reference to settlement,. yet, notwithstand mg, the Secretary for the Home Department got up, and said he was quite prepared to carry out a suggestion which conferred very great powers of settlement. How such a course could be pursued he did not know. If the benefit to the poor was not clear and certain, they had a right to look at the inconvenience the measure would cause to the rate payer. He did not think that the man who was physically incapacitated from hard work should be put on the same level with the full-bodied labourer, and thrown into the union be cause he was unable to work. If the maxim of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market was fully carried out, the inferior labourer would be immediately thrown out of employ. If the parochial settlements were to be broken down, he thought that the principle ought to be carried much further than was at present contemplated. He could not agree with the proposed instruction to the Committee. He was afraid, that as labour was the great charge upon agriculture, and as facilities would be afforded for procuring union settlements for the weak and infirm, inferior labourers would, of necessity, be thrown out of employ. He thought it was unfair to deal with the question of settlement as at present proposed, and should therefore vote against the motion. Mr. VERNON SMITE! thought that the course pursued by the Government on the present measure was a most in jurious one. The 3overnment had inte d r o fe w r n ed, an o y n vdaerfiionuitseoncr insegttlemen", as at p resen t p e r as a i c o t n ic s al of pr la in te cip v e a s. rs, T w h it e ho l u aw t laying constituted, was a most unsatisfactory one. He should cer tainly vote for the instruction moved for by his Hon. Friend, because it would place the law of settlement on a satisfactory basis. He thought the Hon. Member for Mahon would find a difficulty in assimilating the averages he had taken with re spect to the unions. The only argument he had heard with respect to the passing of the poor off the parish was ascribed to the generosity of the landlords, who preferred giving them employment, in order to keep them from being burdensome to the parish. He was not disposed to go so far as that, and he should give his support to the motion, because he thought it would lead to satisfactory results. Mr. NEWDEG ATE said that the present subject had been most fully canvassed in the district with which he was con nected, and he was assured that his constituents were as much opposed to the proposed alteration in the law as they had been to the measure of 1844. It would create feelings of dis satisfaction and discontent among them Mr. GRAINGER was of opinion that the principal argu ment upon which the Hon. Member had founded his motion for the instruction to the Committee had totally failed, and he should oppose the motion. Lord MORPETH said he would confine his observations to matters which fell beneath his own local experience. Many evils arose from the system of parochial settlement; in the wolds of Yorkshire, near where he resided, more than three ' fourths of the persons removed had lived from their parishes more than five years ; he would therefore support the instruc tions moved for by the Hon. Member for Mahon. Mr. PACK E considered that it was mostpreposterous for them to come to a division on the subject, seeing that the country was not generally aware of the change about to be introduced into the Bill. Petitions might be presented against it, which might have weight with the House, and he considered the mea sure would only aggravate the evils which already existed, and he would therefore object to the instructions. Mr. DUNCOMBE said that he would have been content to have supported the Bill, had it remained the same as it was at first introduced by the Government. But now that the Secre tary for the Home Department had signified his willingness to support the instruction moved by the Hon. Member for Male ton, the question assumed a perfectly different appearance, and he did consider that the Right Hon. Baronet supported the in struction most unadvisably, and he would vote against any such instruction. He would move that they should repeal all pro. vision for the law of settlement, and that the poor of each dis trict be relieved in the particular district where the distress hi a m r a ci od s p e e , nr.o an t dTathrhreaiyvte might could but x tt s ch a eeh y e t hgearotenat contended commercialdt i e m d e t f sucho h r at it had,an ch a a n r g r ef a o3 n r g we when co n hn t principle From all th e of t h ey It was impossible. any longer maintain readily furnished. He was therefore c o mp e ll e d to m ov e i n th e returns should be furnished forthwith. From House th a t th ese these returns, defective as they were, it appeared, 15,260 per.. sons were sent from these large manufacturing towns to the rural district. In Manchester, there was the case of one o'd man, who was sent back to his parish after a residence of thirty-five years. Ie the years 1841 and 1842, there were sent over from Stockport to Ireland a great number of per sons, with families averaging from eig • h t to twelve each ; but the clerk of the union of Stockport, with a strange forgetful ness, could not far the life of him tell how long these p eop l e had resided there. H k now e did n o t of his amendment, but whatever it what would be the effec t was, he should have the satisfaction of placing it upon the records of the Ho s use— (Cries of " Hear.") During the l . recess he had travelled through all the manufactu • rine districts, and was pleased to see the marked improvementthe • He believed that if the law amongf settlement could be altered with safety at any time, it was the present. Ile believed that an alteration, or a total ah 1 . •be met with plea o ition, of the existing laws would sure by all General JOHNSON classes of the community. satisfied, after thirty years seconded the amendment. He was give general satisfaction 3 s experience, that the only way to the present law ofs to the public would be to totally abo lish Mr. BRIGHT had beenettlement—(Cheers. speech of the Hon.consider, from the at a loss to . tended to oppose the es _ embe r far Finsbury, whether he m- Biil or to have blow at the manufac a turers. The Hon. ]ember those parts of the count been down in er for Finsbury had to find the grievancesryird had possibly been endeavouring . t aroong the trades unions. The Hon. Member proceeded t atten tion paid by th e lar : e ar e g a ne ita tli . at theore was the more welfare of labourers employed than cap itali sts small capitalists. The Hon. Member should recollect when he spoke o f the apathy of the capitalists in times of distress, that there had been several large firms which paid a great sum for wages during the three years of distress, and had not received a single shilling of profit on that labour. There was one firm in Hall fix which paid 389,0' 0/. in three year , fur wages, but had rot paid a single farthing to the income-tax. The manufacturers did not consider the poor-laws a burden, and they would not come to the House to be relieved from such rate'. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE— You relieve yourselves by sending the paupers away. Mr. BRIGHT—It was not to be supposed that when the landlords of Ireland were expatriating their population, that the town of Stockport was to be filled with these people without some effort being made to relieve themselves from this burden. The Hon. Member did not represent the interests of the labourer in the manufacturing districts, the party he represented, with whom he associated, and whose bad passions he instigated, were but a handful of the population, and they had been among the sternest opponents of the association which had effected the emancipation of industry in the repeal of the corn-laws. Lord G. BENTINCK said, the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had appealed to the report of the Government Commissioners, to sho e the comparative prosperity of the ma nufacturing operatives of Stockport, but he thought that the Hon. Gentleman should not have forgotten the report that had been made by Mr. Trimmer, one of the Factory Commis sioners, who, speaking of the injuries done by ma chinery, stated that in Stockport alone, in the years 1e37, 1835, and 1839, no less than 340 eases had occurred in which persons had suffered injuries. whilst working in the cotton factories.—( Hear, hear.) And compensation by toe master manufacturers had been made in only two of these cases. He defied the Hon. Member to show that the landed gentry had so treated those who had been in - jured in their service.—( Hear, hear ) The Hen. Member had also said that the Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Dun • eombe) had no right to speak in that House as the representae tire of the working classes. Why, then, if that Hon. Member was not, he would ask who was ? ( Hear, hear.) He felt him self bound to oppose the proposition of his Hon. Re!ative. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had not the slightest pretence for saying, as he had done that evening, that the Government did not contemplate any material change in the poor-law. He contended that after the poor of this country had been worked out by the manufacturers, it would be unjust to send them back as paupers to the agricultu ral pa-ishes in which they were born.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped that the discussion of this measure might be postponed to afford a better opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of the people at large.—( Hear, hear.) Sir T. ACL AND thought that the motion of his Hon. Friend the member for Melton was entitled to a great deal of very serious consideration ; but in giving his vote for the fur ther consideration of the measure, he did not consider himself bound to adhere to the provisions proposed by his Hon. Friend. His great object was, that the main intent and object of this non-removal law should be attained, because it approximated in a great degree to effect non-removal altogether. Nothing in his opinion could be more equitable than that three years should constitute a settlement, and it would be a great act of justice to that •class of the poor men who were the means of creating the wealth of the rich. On those grounds he would support the Bill, and because it made residence a ground for non-removal. Mr. BANKES agreed with the Hon. Member that this Bill had many meritorious recommendations ; but still the amendments of the Hon. Member for Mahon would have the etT.-ct of embarrassing the measure, and, therefore, he could not see how the Government could ap prove of it. He would also contend for it that this measure would be injurious to the agricultural interest ; but it would certainly be upset by the amendment which hail been intro duced. He had no objection to the settlement of the question as to whether three or five years should constitute a settlement ; but whichever way it was to be, let it be settled at once. If a pauper was to be removed, he could not resist it ; but if he was to be removed from one parish to another, at the expense of the parish, then one parish could defend it, for they had the means of doing so, and would resist the infliction of an addi tional burden upon them, if they thought it was unjust. These were the observations which he bad deemed it necessary to make on the motion of the Hon. Member for Mahon, which he should certainly oppose. Mr. SPOONER could assure the Hon. Member for Fins bury, that he gave his cordial assent to the proposition that a residence of five years should give a right of settlement ; and he was further certain, that there was no disposition on the part of the great manufacturers of the country, to deprive the la bouring classes of that protection to which they are entitled. With regard to the question before the House, he should feel compelled to vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for Melton, as it would extend the power of the Poor Law Com missioners, to which he had a most decided objection. He did not think the way in which the Commissioners had recently used their power furnished any reason for giving them addi tional infiuenee.—( Hear.) Sir J. G RA HAM wished to offer a few observations in explana tion on account of what had fallen from several members. He ad mittted there was difficulty in defining what residence was ; still he thought that could be overcome in Committee, and he could assure Hon. Members that both in the House and out of the House he would do his best to make the definition as clear as possible. With regard to the proposition of the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, he agreed with the Hon. Member for Durham, as he was persuaded the change the former Member recommended would lead to most important conse quences, which they would do well to consider. It had been said that the Government had not acted with good faith in regard to the present measure, in supporting the instruction of the Hon. Member for Melton. To that he could say, that since the Bill had been introduced he had had many communications with Members on both sides of the House, and the result was that he now thought that the mea sure would not be complete without such a provision as that which he proposed last year, and which was now incorporated in the motion of the Hon. Member for Melton. As he had previously observed, there were many parishes which had but few proprietors, and in which the poor were placed under great difficulty in obtaining a settlement ; to these a union settle ment would be a great boon, as it would remove the restrictions under which they at present laboured. He therefore supported the instruction, and if it were adopted by the House, the Bill, as amended, could be ready in six or seven days for pro ceeding with. He was anxious tnat the measure should pass, and he would do everr hing in his power to facilitate it. Mr. BROTHERTON called the attention of the House to Lancashire, in which the parishes were in many instances di vided into townships, each township supporting its own poor. Lord J. RUSSELL, like his Hon. Friend the Member for Halton, wished not to fetter himself in giving a vote upon that occasion with rezard to any future vote upon this most difficult question. The difficulty of the question had certainly not been diminished by the course which the Right Honourable Baronet appeared inclined to adopt. He agreed with some Honourable G mtlemen , that where a man had been engaged in work for a long time in a particular parish he was entitled to claim relief from the rates of that parish when he was reduced to a state of poverty. Acting upon this principle the Right Hon. Baronet proposed by this Bill that a person residing in a parish for seven years should be eligible to relief, but his Hon. Friend the Member for Mahon had stated that there were certain localities where there were no rates at all, and the labourer was thus driven to seek relief in a neighbour ing parish ; he was, therefore, to some extent, inclined to sup port his Hon. Friend's proposal; but then, by doing so, he would be inflicting great hardships upon particular districts, and it become necessary for them to consider how they could get over that difficulty. The question then being so surrounded with difficulties, he was most anxious to obtain every informa tion upon it, arid he was therefore prepared to go into Corn mittee upon this Bill, in order that they might elicit the opinions of those who were experienced in the matter. There were diffi culties, as he had already stated, in the way of adopting the plan of his Hon. Friend, but it seemed to him that those difficulties were increased when the Right Hon. Baronet opposite de clared that he wished the House to agree to the instruc•ions. The Right Hon. Baronet said he should vote for them, because he thought they were conformable with justice, so that in fact the tone the Right Hon. Baronet had taken, made him the mover of this proposal, and if the House went into Committee armed with these instructions, the Right Hon. Baronet would alter the terms and form of his Bill ; and no doubt the Committee would he purely of a pro forma character, and they wool f have the Right Hon Baronet intro ducing an entirely new Bill. Now let the House reflect well upon this, and consider the circumstances under which this measure had been brought forward. It was introduced in conjunction with a larger measure of reform, and the House had had ample time for looking into its provisions. What time would they have, though, to examine either the principles of the clauses placed in their hands in the month of June ? He thought the best chance then, for them was, sur rounded as they were with so many difficulties, to go into Com mittee and consider the Bill of the Government as it at pre sent stood, and see whether the House generally was prepared to agree to its provisions. They must recollect, too, that the Right Honourable Baronet had several times changed his mind with respect to this question. At one time he was only for birth settlement, and now he proposed to alter that principle saltogether. At another time, the Right Hon. Baronet had protested that it was highly necessary that Government should not hastily adopt any amendment upon the subject of the corn-laws, until they had seriously considered the proposal, and were prepared to carry it out through the medium of a Bill. He (Lord John Russell) must confess that he thought, after what had fallen from the Right Honourable Gentleman, his opinions must have undergone an extensive and a very sudden change.—(Loud cheers from the protec tionist benches.) Up the whole, he was decidedly of opinion that the best thing they could do was to go into Committee on the Bill, and thus enable many gentlemen who were conversant with the subject to supply them with some valuable information bearing on the subject, and to tell them what they thought was the opinion of the working classes in their respective districts with regard to this measure. This he did think, that any further alteration on this subject ought not to be made wishes' grave previous consideration.-- ( Hear, hear.) Therefore, in giving his vote for the instruc tions moved for by his Hon. Friend, he wished to say, that if upon further consideration he found that no further alteration ought to be introduced, he should not feel himself pledged to any particular course by the vote which he should give on this occasion. —( Hear, hear.) Lord J. MANNERS admitted that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had been rather severely dealt with during this discussion.—( Hear.) That Right Hon. Gentleman had said, during the last year, that the Bill which he had brought in last year was a sound Bill, hut, as it was objected to by the country, he was obliged to bring in another Bill more calculated to meet the wishes of the people. He wished to call the attention of the House to the position in which Members would place themselves who were disposed to adopt the course recommended by her Ma jesty's Government. They found the Bill introduced by her Majesty's Ministers as a sort of compensation to the agri cultural interest. But what would their astonishment be to find, at ten or eleven o'clock, a professed opponent of the mea sure giving it his support?—(Hear, hear.) Ile confessed he was much disposed to agree as to the course suggested by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, and, should he press the amendment to a divison, he should have his (Lord J. Manners) support.—( Hear, and cries of " Divide, divide.") Mr. P. BORTHWICK (amidst great laughter, cries of " Oh ! oh !" and " Divide, divide") said he rose for the pur pose of moving the adjournment of the debate, inasmuch as many Hon. Members were absent, as they were under a mis apprehension as to the course which the Government intended to take that night with regard to this question.—(" Divide, teo, divide.") He tho ug ht th at t h e peop l e at large were entitled the measure e ask for an adjour nmen t o f t hi s di scuss i on , i n o rder ie th h measure might he fully c o n sid e red.—e" Divide, die .') Mr. BANKES h a ving seconded the adjournment, d The SPEAKER put the motion, when Mr. DUNCOMBE rose for the purpose of replying to the remarks which had been that evening made by the Hon. Mem- Gentleman had ber for Durham (Mr. Bright). That lion. said, amongst other things, that if th e measures which were now before the other House of Parliament had been left to him (Mr. Duncombe) and his associates, they never would have passed. He had also said he had been in the manufacturing districts, for the purpose of fomenting discord between em ployers and employed. He was also pleased t o y that with regard to the feeling s o f the say classes he was totally in error. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not know what right he had to make his assertions, be cause he had the honour of sitting in that House for nearly twenty years, and he had always vo t e d f or a repeal of the corn_ laws.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Durham had not condescended to say who those persons were with whom he associated, nor did he now know to whom he alluded. He certainly had had what were called League meetings, and he had always openly stated what were his views as to ticket meetings.—(L oa d cheers from the Protectionists.) BRITISH MUSEUM. Sir ROBERT PEEL intimated that her Majesty had con sented, in reply to 'he address of the House, to grant a sum of money to the Commissioners of the British Museum. Mr. RAILWAY COMPANIES. H. RICH moved for the following returns :—Re turn of all Moneys to be raised under the sanctio n of the Acts, whereby Railroad Companies have been incorporated, between the lit day of January, 1844, and the Ist day of January, 1846 ; distinguishing the sum to be raised as principal from the suns to be raised by loan or mortgage. Return of all moneys liable to be raised by Acts for the incorporation or for the increased powers of railroad companies, and for which Bills are now before this House; distinguishing the sum to be raised as principal from the sums to be raiser' by loan or mol tgage, and classifying them according as they have passed Jig He had always said he would attend public meetings in favour of a repeal of the corn-laws, provided they were open meetings.—(Repeated cheering from the protectionists benches.) He had, of course, great objection to take part in the genteel comedy at G vent-garden Theatre —(Laughter)— and he had also refused to tumble with certain gentlemen at Sadler's Wells —( Cont inued laughter.) An attempt was got up by the League in Finsbury to call into account why he did not go to Sadl-r's Wells, aril tumble with them, and he openly avowed that 1 - ie could not take any part with the League, be cause they did not submit the principle of free-trade to public opinion.—( Vehement cheering from the protectionist benches.) The working classes believed that the League, in bringing forward their free-trade mea , ure, were not actuated solely by the desire of furthering the interests of the working classe., but rather to forward their own interests, and he ( Mr. Duncombe) was of the same opinion. —f Protectionist cheers.) He supported the motion for the adjournment in consequence of the divided state of feeling in the Howe, he would certainly take the sense of the House on his amendment. Mr. P. BORTHWICK, then withdrew his motion for an adjournment, in order to allow the House to express their sense on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment Against Majority against the amendment —46 The House again divided on Mr. E Denison's motion, when there appeared For the amendment ... Against Majority for the amendment ... —22 Mr. T. DUNCOAIHE moved that the House should go into Committee on Mundy next—( Hear, hear)—and he consi dered that an amendment in the law of settlement would be more acceptable to the people of England than any debate upon the Irish Coercion Hill ; he would, therefore, move that the question should have a preference to that Bill on next Monday night. - Mr. HENLEY said, the Member for Mahon was not pre pared with any of his clauses. It would be monstrous to go into Committee on the Bill before the country would have an opportunity of considering the question. Sir J. GRAHAM said he did intend to give his support to the amendments of the lion. Member for Mahon. He (Sir J. Graham) had certainly been opposed to both sides of the House to-night on the subject.—( Laughter. ) But he would ask the Hon. Member to consent to the proposed arrangement, by which time would be afforded to the House to consider those amendments; and if it was postponed till Monday, he would have an opportunity of conferring with the Hon. Member. He would then ask the House to go into Committee pro forma upon the Bill. Colonel SIBTHORP said it appeared to him that the Right Honourable Baronet was glad to catch at any port in a storm.—(Great laughter.) It was then aareed to postpone the Bill till Monday. GREENWICH OBSERVATORY. Sir R. INGLIS wished to ask his Right Hon. Friend at the head of her Majesty's Government whether he had re ceived any report as to the dangerous state of the Observatory in Greenwich; and if so when that report would be laid upon the table. In the event of that report not being received he should move that the Hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would move the order of day upon Monday next. Sir R. PEEL said that his Hon. Friend (the Secretary of the Admiralty) had just informed him that the report had been received at the Admiralty, and would be laid on the table on Monday. Only he hoped that the Hon Member who had charge of the Bill would make a motion upon it. ROPE MAKERS' BILL. _ This Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Monday week. COUNTY WORKS PRESENTMENT (IRELAND BILL. This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be corn. mitted on Wednesday next. STEP NI NAVIGATION AND SALVAGE. Sir G. CLERK obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the re gulation of steam navigation, and for requiring sea-going ves sels to carry certain boats ; also a Bill for consolidating and amending the laws relating to wreck and salvage. BRIDPORT ELECTION. The following Members were appointed to serve on the Committee on this election :—Mr. Christie, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Parker, Mr. Pakington, Mr. Thornely, Mr. Seymer. Lord James Stuart, Mr. Henley, Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Dickin son, Sir Wm. Molesworth, Mr. Bankes, Sir E. Colebrooke, Mr. H. Drummond. arid Lord A. Hervey. Mr. IVIACKINNON obtained leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the nuisance of smoke from the furnaces of steam engines. Mr. BORTHWICK gave notice that on Monday, on the question being put that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Poor Removal Bill, he should move that such Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. RAILWAY COMMITTEES (ie ES TE RDA Y.) HOUSE 01? LORDS. GROUP I. LONDON AND YORE, (THE EASTERN COUNTIES). (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIAM then proceeded at some length into the question of the estimates of the line. The cost of constructing the London and Birmingham and the Grand Junction Railway was not more than the estimate for the proposed London and York. Their Lordships would not, he was sure, sanction a scheme which proposed to lay the traffic of the north of England by a circuitous route on a crowded line. With reference to the residential injury to the palace of the Archbishop of York, that would be avoided by a deviation. In conclusion he called upon their Lordships to sanction the London and York in preference to any other scheme proposed, as it had the confidence of the public, and afforded the most direct and continuous line from London to York, and the north of Eng. land and Scotland itself. At the conclusion of the Learned Counsel's observations, which occupied the whole of the period of the sittings of the Committee, The NOBLE LORD intimated that the Committee would reserve their decision till Monday next. Room A. ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY, The Committee appointed by their Lordships to inquire into the merits of this Bill assembled for the first time this morning. Mr. limr„ Q.C., appeared for the promoters, and in a speech of some length stated the interests likely to result to toe country from the establishment of this company. The Bill was opposed. as it had been in the Commons' Committee, by Mr. A, Bain, who claimed priority of inven tion, and who also stated that the last improvements which had been patented by Messrs. Cooke and Wheatstone were not of a nature to benefit the public. The Committee intimated that Mr. Webster, who appeared for Mr. Bain, must confine his evidence solely to the ques tion of the piracy by Messrs. Cooke and Wheatstone of Mr. Bain's invention. The Committee then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. GROUP XVII. MANCHESTER AND SOUTHAMPTON, AND SOUTH-WESTERN (ROMSEY AND zstED BRIDGE BRANCH). The Committee met this morning at the usual hour, the Hjn. E. Yorke in the chair. MANCHESTER AND SOUTHAMPTON. The cross-examination of Mr. Edwards, collector of the port of Southampton, was resumed by Sir T. Piiiwrs, on behalf of the Great Western Railway and landowners on the route of the proposed line. The witness detailed the various items and quantities which made up the aggregate quantities and sums adduced in his evidence yesterday. It will be recollected that he estimated that the traffic of this line to the north would be 88,000 tons, 30,000 of which were estimated as the probable increase, owing to the facilities which it would afford. The imports at Southampton would be materially increased on account of direct and moderate communication with the north; corn, for instance, would come in greater quantities from Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, and, in fact, from the whole north of Europe. The aggregate quantities were made up of the following:— raw silk, 300 tons; mohair yarn, 12 tons; worsted, 20 tons; saffron and gums, 150 tons; goat's hair, 187 tons; manufactured silks and stuffs, from France, 300 tons; merinos, green and dried fruit, wines, spirits, and other articles from France, 2,000 tons; corn from France, 2,400 tons; goods of various kinds from the Channel Islands,l,ooo tons; from the Mediterranean, 1,000 tons; East Indies, 400 tons. 12,000 tons of corn now sent by water and other modes of communication to the north, would be diverted to this line, 200 tons of coffee, 150 tons of manufactured and uninanufactured tobacco, and 6,000 tons of the present coast traffic. When he estimated the cost of transmitting a ton of goods from Southampton to Manchester at U., he did so at the rate of a penny per mile, which he considered would before long be the general rate of charge for goods on all the railways in the country; and the Great Western, he ex pected, would be the first to set the example. When he said the ccst of transit at present was 34 Is. 6d., he did so at the rates now charged by the existing lines, and included the charge of transit between the termini of the South-Western and London and Birmingham. Re-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER—He found that the charge would be the same for all the proposed lines which ran in any way towards the north, and that the Manchester and Southampton, owing to its direct and short route, pos sessed an advantage to that extent over all. By the proposed line, the saving in transit to the public in the 88,000 tons would be 6,600 tons. If the line were now made there could be no doubt that 58,000 tons of goods would go by it, and instead of the increase being 30,000, it could not fail to be much greater. The necessity of such a line had long ex isted in his mind, and he had even suggested its construction to individuals connected with the Great Western, but they had not thought proper to take it up. 11. Mildmay, Esq., M.P., one of the Members for South ampton, examined by Mr. JAmEs—Had received frequent communications from his constituents and from the public bodies of the town with respect to obtaining more direct and cheaper communicati on w ith th e manu f acturing districts to of the north. He considered that such a communication n as that afforded by th e p ropose d li ne wouldbeofgr independentea advan tagel to the inhabit an t s o f th e town. Another station would also be an advantage. soCutrhosasm-epxthanni,iannedd not at Falmouth. linS3.oturrttir.—Bullion was landed at u o t t v-1 Company, stated that mayor l‘lr f j o o r se th ph e t r ar b d b li d m e e P the South of England Steam-packet andthe acoduinretcytnarnodf of the town council, in a resolution was passed at amee Southampton,l deputy-lieutenant k ten t a n _ t o f Julv last year, in favour of the Manchester i and Southampton, port it in Parliament. A meet and for the Isle of Night_ to ofthetos P vn was held on the 12th August, ing of the inhabitants . and calling on the Members for the borough, for the county d by parties paying more than half of the petition signed at which resolutions in favour of the line were passed, and a assessment tne o . f the borough. That feeling continued up to the At a meeting held in London, m compliance tie sessional orders, he held 5,000 shares belonging to presentwith persons in the town of Southampton who assented to the li ne ; others, who were present also, held large numbers of shares, and, in fact, the meeting was unanimous for pro ceeding with the line. The inhabitants of the town generally were in favour of the line. The opening up . of a direct communication with the north would ' he of the utimst advantage to the line. A station on the pier would also be of advantage; besides an independent sta tion, and an independent line would lead to competition, by which the public would be benefited. By Mr. AUS:IN—Had fifty shares allotted to him, which he sold at 51. ss. premium. He had since bought five shares; he could not say at what price, as he had not paid for them. He could not sas , whether the other Town Councillors held shares but if they aid not they ought to be ashamed of themselves He did not simply look at the saving of the distance to the north by the Manchester and Southampton, but to the ad vantage which it possessed over any other proposed line on account of avoiding break of gauge, which was a serious drawback. About 7,000 shares were allotted to persons in Southampton. Re-examined by Mr. JAMES—The shares were not at a GREAT MUNSTER RAILWAY. A meeting of the shareholders in thisroject was heldt. l " three o'clock yesterday, a t t h e Company's Offices, 29, Parlia ment-street. Colonel DAME R, having taken the chair, called on th e Secretary to read the a d ver ti sement calling the me eting. tie then said that the gentlemen present would be aware that at a former private meeting a special Committee bad been appointed to examine the accounts of the Company, and that this meeting had been called to hear their report, which one of the gentlemen appointed would read. Mr. D. W. HARVEY, one of the special Committee, mid this meeting had been called for a specific purpose, namely, to say whether this line should he prosecuted or abandoned. At a former meeting a Committee had been appointed to examine into the condition and prospects of this Company, with a view to shareholders coming to a vote this day. The committee had discharged the duties which devolved upon them, and had formed their report, which of course, when read would influence the mind of the shareholders by as much as it might appear worth. lie then stated that the attention of the Committee had been called to one point in their report since coming into the room. They had reported that the Provisional Committee in February last, when it was for them to decide whether they should go on or not, were in a deficiency in respect of the deposits required by the stand• ing orders of both Houses, amounting to 10,000 1 4 whereas it appeared that they had funds in hand reducing that deficiency to 7,0001., although as it affected the finances of the company the correction would ultimately leave them they were. Mr. HARVEY then read the report, which stated the Original capital of the Company was 1,100,0001., and 21 shires, at 501. each with a deposit of 21. 104.; but of theme shares only 14,350 had been allotted, and only 11,670 had been paid upon, realising 29,175/., which, with in o t_er. e . et .. allowed by the ank, was, 29,4131., the total capital . f company. The expendit ure up t o t h e presen t time had been 16,618/, and th e una dj uste d con j ectural c l a i m s agers.t . the company wo u ld near l y a b sor b the d i sposa ble capital In February the amount of canital in hand was 12,7941., or near 10,0001. less than was required to be paid in accordance to the standing orde r s o f th e H ouse. The repor t concluded i, with an opinion that it wou ld ne i t h er b e practicable n prudent to prosecute th e Bill, an d recom mended th e _ appointment of a select comm itt ee o f three sha r. _e A fielders, "who should instit u t e suc h proceedings, and make such arrangements most conducive, under all the, cir cumstances, to ensure the largest return of the deposits. Mr. ADAM SMITIL moved an adjournment, that the share holders might have an opportunity to consider the report . The CitAttatAx said the point before the meeting, and which they had to decide, was, whether they should prose cute the Bill to a third reading, or not ? u A es f t t i e o r n o w bs as en p -a u t t io t n o s t h h a e d vo b t e e e , n w m h a e d n e t b h y er s e everalpersons, q th is appeared— Agrinst proceeding 3,745 shares. For 655 Majority against proceeding with the Bill 3,090. It was moved and seconded that the report of the special ' committee should be adopted. This was put to the meeting and carried unanimously. The CHAIRMAN then retired, and Mr. D. W. HARVEY, having taken the chair, proposd the adoption of the Committee's recommendation to appoint a Select Committee of their shareholders for the purpose stated in the report, and added the following resolution : " That only those shareholders should be entitled to the benefit of these arrangements, who had given in their names on or before the 15th of June instant, and that all expenses be borne rateably by the shares, and on the understanding that expenses should not be incurred above 2s. per share, without calling together the owners themselves, who, at such meeting, should be at liberty to retire altogether, after paying such expenses, not being more than 2s. per share." _ _ These resolutions were carried unanimously, and the fol lowing gentlemen were nominated on the Committee :—Mr. C. H. Baldwin, M.P., Mr. Harvey, and Mr. Whalley. The meeting, after a vote of thanks to Mr. Harvey, then broke up. LAW IN TELLIG ENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, June 5. WHITWORTH V. GAUGAIN. The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed his judgment. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 5. (Sittings in Banco.) LAWTON V. HICKMAN. specialCas r e ep O li n ionin condteaminurg mined demurrer, as to proceedingsThThis was a in a cat and fact, were sufficient; and also involving the question whether the decision of Mr. Baron Alderson in the matter was the correct decision, or wh e th er it was no t suc h a deci sion as this Court ought to set aside. Mr. Pashley appeared in support of the demurrer, and gr. Cole in that of the replication. The questions at issue sprung out of a litigated railway scheme, denominated " The Union Railway," the proposed object of which was to unite several railways. The Company was provisionally registered, but did not obtain an Act of Parliament to constitute it a Company incorporated by Act of Parliament. The main question upon which issue Was taken was, whether the Company, in relation to the positio! l in which it stood, wa s au th or i se d t o trans f er i ts scnp.certt ficates. The Learned Counsel on both side." put forth their partiFtv lar views of the various sections of the Act. The 23d section of the Act was relied up on by M r . C o l e , amongstother s, as giving the necessary a u th or ity ; b u t t o thi s particular sec: 'ion Mr. Pashley took objection, contending that all it settlea was, the opening of subscription lists, obtaining subscribe' allotting shares ; th ere was no t one wor d, h e submittal, in it, to sanction the sale of scrip. The Learned Gentleman concluded . his reply to th e arguments o f M r . Cole by $ 0 , 13 : nutting that the matter wa s a quest i on o f l aw , and that the defendant was entitled to the judgment of the Court. The Court took time to consider. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. William Hampton, a person who was formerly in the employment of Mr. Reed, of Mill-street, Bermondsey, corn-lighterman, was brought before Alderman Gibbs upon th e c h arge o f h av i ng f orge d an or d er f or g oods Ili the name of his late master. Mr. Jenkins, of Cornhill, tailor, stated that Mr. Reed was a customer of his, and that on the 21st of April the prisoner brought to him a forged request to the tollowing purport:— " Mr. W. Jenkins—Sir,—l want for my friend in Scotland the same quantity of the best black cloth and, kerseymere. If not of the same piece it must be of equally good quality. I should have sent you the cheque for the other parcels, but unders_t_antting.mti friend was likely to want a little more, g. would leave it, and draw a cheque a u s g it is not ex&etly in my lino of busines and then it him. I wish to make it one oks, if transac t ion, his is the same me for the whole as I need not pass through my forbuttuly to oblige come to market.—Yours obediently, price. I will bring a withdraft " H. T. REED. in Mr. R ee d' s hand writing, the witness let the prisoner have the goods described in the no te. Mr. H. T. T Reed stated that be had formerly emp l o y e d the prisoner as a clerk, and had dischar ge d hi m. Th e " Mill-house, Bermondsey.'' ol order iase Y was Believingl h u s t e h , a be written by witness, was forged, and he believed request produced byaimlerat.osJeusesnce:hianisss,.inomaf Cornhill, purporting to that it was in the handwriting of the prisoner, who had o prisoner, Theresauthorityon er, " w e h r o ef r%s:•eamvseerhommitted for tria iml l ae u l: charges. In his pocket were found duplicates for the goods he thus obtained. koinndfolaidnissttinthcot Lord Granville So;;;;TiiiTa;;;6l 7 iiham the Bight lion. Sidney H er b ert, the President of th e Board of Trace: and the Vice-President, had an interview with Sir Robert Pee' yestmlay. On the Ist i ns t ., BIRTHS the wife of H. B. Wilkinson, place, Cam berwell New-road, of a s on . t/ o the 2d i nst., at Carlow, Ireland, Mrs. Jeremiah Kavanagh, of a son. Esq., of Grosvenor- On the 4th inst., at Grove-place, Brixton-road, Mrs. Cope, of a datuzliter. - • --- On the ills inst., at Eltham, the wife of Henry RaInSAY Esq., of a on: On Thursday, Lady Mary Wood, of a son. 011 the 16th nit , at Oporto, the lady of George Warre, Esq. , of a daughter. On the 3d inst., at Harpenden, the lady of Frederic R. Spackman, M. 8., of a daughter. On the 3 d d au tt g li h t t ., er a . t Beaufoy-terrace, Richard Bows, ot . a MARRIED. On the 2d inst , at St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, Ronald Johnstone. Esq., of Glasgow, to Mary Ann, daughter of Mr. A. Burstall, builder. St. llarthes-lane. ara iso, On the 2d inst., at Glasgow, Frederick A. Eck, Esq.. of alp taJanet, only daughter of Edward Alexander, Esq.. of G las g ow• 'V DIED. On the 3d inst., at Marlow, Buckinghamslre, Francis GlilllYille, Esq., of Catchfrench, Cornwall, aged 81. On the 31 inst., In the Kent-road, Mr. John Back , aged 64. On the 3d inst., at Laugleigh, near Ilfracombe, Louisa Sonnners, the youngest daughter of Captain Down. R.N.. aged 17. and. On the sth 111,4., Ann, the wife of Mr. Charles Fallow, a t h e Str London: Printed and Published by I‘II7RDO YOUNG, of No• 1 12, Strand. Printer, at The Sun Office, N 0.112, Strand, in the Precinct of the SAY O 7, in the County of Middlesex, StltarditY , Jo" 6, 1646, premium when be applied for them. He did not think of a premium. He applied in August, and received his allot ment in October-7,000 bore but a slight proportion to the !lumber of shares a ppli e d f or . O n l y ore shareholder, hold ing twenty shares, was dissentient at the meeting referred to, notwithstanding the depreciation of the shares of the last lines since the autumn of last year. The town was quite as unanimous in favour of the line. A company was in course of formation whose boats would no doubt effect the passage between Southampton and Havre in from eight to ten hours. Mr. W. A. Somers, partner in a steam boiler foundry and iron ship-building establishment at Southampton, examined by Mr. Untrrs—lle received from 950 to 1,000 tons of Pig and bar iron in the course of the year from Stafford-_ shire and Sh rops hi re, and from 1,200 to 1,300 t on s of coal and co k e f rom Newcastle. The iron genera ll f came by ca na l t o L ondon, and from thence to South ampton along th e coast. T he coke and coal came f ro m Newcastle b y coasters. The delay occasioned great inconvenience, and comp e ll e d t h em to use a greater amoun t of capital i n th e i r b usiness in keeping stock than would b e necessary if they h a d di rect communication with the nor th. _ So great h a d b een th i s inconvenience and loss of time, that they had r ecen tl y h ad some of it by railway—by the iiirrn: ingharn and South-W es t ern R ailway. The breaks of ga ng; by the course au th or i sed by Parliament would he of grea t disadvantage, in addition to being eighteen miles longe r. Could come a ll th e way from Southampton in the same truck. It was elicited by the Chairman that the line would run from Manchester to Southampton on lines made or to 1 . 1.. 8 constructed, and th a t th e whole of them were in favour of it as it could not be otherwise than an important feeder. The Committee then adjourned until eleven o'clock for morrow. WEXFORD, WATERFORD, and VA LENTIA RAILWAY. A special meeting of the subscribers to the deed of this Company, took place yesterday at the George and Vulture Tavern, in order to receive a report from the directors re lative to Valentia Harbour. W. Richardson, Esq., in the chair. A report from Mr. Walker to the Lords' Commissioners of the Admiralty, on the Harbour of Valentia, was read. It ,strongly recommended the adoption of the Harbour, as as American Packet Station. A resolution to withdraw the Bill for the present session, in order to obtain the support of Government to it in the next, was agreed to by an almost unanimous vote. The meeting then separated.