The Sun. — London, England, 1846-06-10 00:00:00

A I' - I r to 6 ti ' kW • ti SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS DAY). HOUSE OF COMMONS. THE DANISH CLAIMS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (in con tinuation from our Afternoon Edition) said—The fact is that captures of cargoes at sea during war have always been considered to be rightful captures.—(Hear, hear.) That has been the uniform practice and rule with all nations at war, and I have no doubt that it ever will be the practice in future. And if you permit a sense and feeling of justice for these in d v:duals to be imported into this discussion, bear in mind that by greeting their claims you impose a heavy tax and great burden upon every other class of the community, and you should also make them compensation for what they have suffered during the war by contributing to its expenses. I say, therefore, that you will act most unjustly in granting these claims, for you will thereby law a tax upon the people of this country.— (Hear, bear.) If you think fit to remunerate one clas s, you should also remunerate another, but you tell me that the war itself was an unjust one, and that, therefore, those claims should be paid. Whether the war was just or not, I say the principle will equally apply. inutile as a fact that it is perfectly just that these l n p w _a o re a s s:tould be compensated for the loss of their proper)tyhaemd;th but t the sum of 250,000/. should be handed over t whilst these merchants have lost their propertyb-ected to heavy the people of this country have been . subject t , ' the whole of They have burdens for the purpose of carrying , _t and in some twenty borne those burdens, cheerfully, they a , have paid the taxes for the purpose of carrying on the war, w several persons engaged years afterwards you discover t in trade during the war have,_ r, l o st their property, and you agree to a vote for theaccording to the law of nations and the on , livary practice wa pur pose of compelling those people who have borne the burthen of that war to pay another tax of 250,00:1. I think in a claim of this sort you are acting not only in contradiction to the ordina'y practice of nations during war, but you are doing an injustice to this country; and not only to the extent now demanded, but von are establishing the principle that during all future wars with this country compensation shall be made for the cap tures that may be made.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, this case has really been so often argued that it is with great difficulty that I can brine myself to enter into any further discussion upon it. I think the ground upon which it has been stated by the Hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the subject is, that there was no war between Denmark and England. If there was no war between this country and Denmark without a declaration of war on the part of England, then England has never been at war with any other nation. A declaration of war was made on the part of Denmark on the 16th August, 1807. That declaration was made by the King of Denmark, who said, " We do hereby make known, that on the 13th of this month hostile operations commenced between Denmark and England; and we therefore call upon our faithful subjects to take up arms in the first instance against the enemy, and to repel all hostile attacks." This Danish declaration was made on the 16th day of August, 1807 ; and, sir, it is perfectly true that a declaration of war was not made on the part of England, for it is not the policy of this country to make declarations of war. This country has been in the constant habit of suspending for a long time all hostile operations against othenations, and the war does not commence until all hope of conciliation is abandoned. Wars have, by these means been often prevented, and, Sir, I should be unwilling that any course should be taken by this country that should operate against that pi:ac tire. In the year 1812, when America declared war against Great Britain, what was the course pursued in this country ? Great Britain, as the House may remember, made no declaration of war with America. Two or three months elapsed while captures were made by us on American property, as she had declared war, but we not having declared war, remained so until the September following. It is no argument in the case to say that we were rot at war, and that we could not justify the capture of any property until the 2d of November following, the date of our declaration. Let ns see how this case has been construed by competent authorities. I have looked back on many de tails on this subject which have never before been under my consideration, and I will now state what was the view taken by the Government at that time with regard to the position of Denmark and this country, in reference to this war. At the period of which lam now speaking (August, 1807), certain privateers cap tured a number of Danish ships in different parts of the high seas, near the shores of Great Britain, on or about the 16th of August, 1807. On the 29th of August in that year, the Treasury had before it under its consideration the cases of the captures made by these Bri tish privateers. They had speculated on the chances of war either with Spain or with Denmark, and had fitted out ves sels, thinking that in either case they should make some thing by it. The Treasury came to the conclusion that their speculation on the chances of war was so bad a prac tice that they would give no captor of a ship under these speculative circumstances any remuneration. The captors of these vessels came to the Treasury, in order that they might have the ships given over to them, and also the property contained in :them What 'was the decision of the Treasury ? They were referred to the law officers, stating that the commencement of the Danish hos tilities had been pressed on by the circumstance of these speculative attacks, and that there would be enough to do to remove the imputation of rash pro ceedings. The declaration of hostilities by Denmark has been ascertained to have been on the 16th of August, 1807, and the mission of Mr. Jackson was concluded on the 13th, and then an order was issued with reference to all his Majesty's ships on the coast of Denmark. All these were public events, and it was more or less known to all individuals what would be the probable result. The Treasury said tlat it was expedient to consider the 16th of August the date of the Danish declaration of hostilities; and, in reference to the decision they had already given, they acted against their own interest to say that there had been no declaration of war but they acted against their own interest, and in conformity with the justice of the case. They revoked the order with regard to the speculative captures in favour of the individuals who made them; they awarded to these private ships rewards in proportion to the various sums taken. In short, everything affirmed I the declaration of war upon the 16th. I see no doubt as to the existence of that war ; it was acted on as a war by all of our authorities, although no declaration of war was ever issued by Great Britain until the 2d of November following. Another argument of great weight is that the Danes made their captures because we made captures to a large am, un' on the Danish property. The Danes succeeded in taking from you a large amount, and you took a large amount from them, which was paid to the public account. I do not admit that tact—it is no greater ground for remuner ating there parties than any other favourable circumstance they can allege. It is unfortunate that from the mixed mode in which the accounts of the registry in the Court of Ad miralty were kept it is not possible to devise what is the amount which was paid on account of the Danish prize-money. Tw© of these accounts are, however, quite clear. The Dalai ,h claims realised a property of a million sterling, and out of that sum Parliament has voted to parties suffering from the confiscation of book debts no less a sum than 278,0001., and the proportion of the captors' share in respect of the remainder is very considerable. We gave to the cap tors in the navy concerned in the capture 348,000!., making a sum of 626,000/. out of the gross sum of a million. No ac count of what was specifically paid to individual captors of priva e vessels can be obtained, but it appears to have been considerable. The accounts laid on the table of the House say that it varied from one-half and two-fifths to four-fifths, according to the amount taken; so that if we take from the total amount paid into the registry, and apply that to the total amount paid in compensation to parties who had suffered, and other expenses, the balance would possibly give an idea of what the average proportions paid to private individuals were. We are now called upon to make a serious inroad en the public revenue, and are called on also to impose on the country a tax of 250,0001. to repay those people who uns tained losses of property in the war. The Honourable Member, as I understand, says that he has abandoned the question of the justice or injustice of the war. I am very glad to hear him say so; we have had enough of that argument, and on that point I shall not address the House, but I shall content myself with proving to the House that these captures made during this war stand on no different feoing from those captures made during any other war. If you are prepared to remunerate those merchants who have lost their property during the war, you must after wards extend the principle to persons who have suf fered in property during any other war. These are the peculiar circumstances which entitle me to your con sideration. On these grounds I think it my duty to oppose this grant. It is important that the payment of a vast amount, and the great expense also, should not be en tailed on the country. The principle is not a safe ene, and it is for the House of Commons to consider well before they allow such a measure to pass. Mr. HAWES--Sir, the Right Hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made certainly a singular assertion. He says that frern time to time the advocates of the Danish claims have forced atew arguments in their favour, and have th e n ventured to refe r arse a deba them to this H ouse . It, is the natural Le, that as you. find an argument adduced against urg z i l ,, to examine those arguments you have already Jure, and if you can end matter to overcome the ar gu , conapelle . l to communicate against you, so to do. If I we re ef t r e ebar.d—all that I am going to urge—to the Chancello r so with great pleasure), he w „,, ut E n x a chequer (and I would do seek in anlace there waa a Gentleman has for argument to refute it. The Ri g j e nt to sh)w that exerted himself aration of war, and a declaration of war on e a t i h th e art of b faith held ntatk ; he has adhered in all points to owhenhas theei declaration of veer to )k place, and with that faith he ' I have here before me thell' eavo . urea to opinion o decide that question. al on this case, which was sub mitted. her Majesty's Solicitor-General will give to the House, as it is to him, and which I A his opinion that the dec laration o n very short. He state d the part of Denmark, on the 16th f Angus' was not a , decla ration of war; the language is precise and explicit, and I will take the liberty of reading it very s h or tly; this is his opinion :—" I am of opinion that the instrument of the 16th of August, to whi c h re f erence has b e en made, is not a decla ration of war, and that it merely orders an embargo on Bri tish ships, and not the confiscation of them." (I beg the House to mark that.) " There is a distinction between an embargo and a confiscation. It is stated by the law of Eng land and of nations, that an embargo directs only the de tention of the property from the owner, and a confiscation takes away the property altogether. There is nothing in the instrument in question which authorises the taking away permanently any British property." It would be presump tams in me, against the experience of the Right H on . Gen tleman, and against the opinions of the law-officers of the Crown, to eater upon a legal argument ; but, in order to entiiie myself to the consideration of the Hou.re, I can quote the opinion of her Majesty's Solicito -General, in answer to the Right lion. Gentleman. Tne case must no', however, be allowed to rest there. The Right Hon. Gentleman has said that I have never raised the question of the justice or the inju,tice of the war. I have never argu e d t h at quest i on i e t h e di scuss i on o f th e Danish claims. The 'tight lion. Gentleman has assumed the complete • lush= of the war, and on tl •the 1 has proceeded to argue that, suppo s i ng Danes to have declared the war, that all that was taken was the prize of the Hon. Gentleman I am captors. Against the Right sorryGentlenan to oppose this argu ment. The Right Hoe. was a great war on the part of England, and t saidas that it Denmark declared war. If that be so, every s t a t e paper published the time of the war is in direct contr a di ct i on to the Hon.at Gentleman's statement. We went to the Court of Denmark and said that we wanted, as friends, to co n ti nue the nmegok tiations which were pending before we went there. We have . teen the declaration that passed between the two nations, and we have seen the convention, on the part of Denmark, was kept. Now, then, can we say that it was a just war on our part? We went there for the purpose of effecting a particular object by mean s o f nego ti a ti on , b u t h a d no t d ec l are d war at the time—so it is asserted and recorded in all thesttae papers of the time—that we were not at war, that we went as friends, and desired to continue so. The Danish Minister never left THE SUN, LOND - ON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 10, 1846. this country until the 20th or 22d of November, and Mr. Canning said that we were then proceeding with negotiations. But if this was to be argued on the ground that some British vessels had also been taken, then I say it should not be for gotten that the Danish Government did not confiscate our vessels until the month of December, that is to say until we had confiscated theirs, and then the Danish Government re solved upon the course they adopted by the issue of what I way call an order in council. Well, then, we have had it stated to us by a British Minister of the present day that we were at war with Denmark when this was done. But suppose we were, a negotiation subsequently took place, and yet, notwithstanding that, in one month after, or rather more, the English Government confiscated the Danish vessels one month before they confiscated ours;_ that is to say, we confiscated their vessels in the month of November, and they confiscated ours in t he month of f that there De cember. But, supposing the Right Hon. Gentleman to be right in what he states, let him not forg et matters right. I beg to refer th e Ri g ht Hon. Gentleman to, was a convention immediately aft er which should have set the 7th rule of the convention.—[the Hon. Member read the rule he referred to, which was to the effect that from the daf e of that document each power shou s ld ho a u t d be th a e o ther protec tion to property - , and that there good under standing and a hatrnony of feeling between the two nations.] I therefore say, that if it be an: argument as against me, that there had been a declaration of war, then I say there can be no doubt but at the time when this act was done we were not in a state of war or hostility with Denmark, or that the avowed hostility alleged to have existed was not such as could warrant this proceeding. I say further, that e ven if the facts were as the Right Hon. Gentleman had re presentedshoerpeewcueireiarciaractitmo s t ta ak n e ce i s t c o o u n t ne o c r te th d e w i i i t , h t a nature l t this esse ofa them, u Again, the tw tiro entl e nations m a n , opposed to an to eae other. cs f all Right s Hon. of argu ment against my proposition, that there was no surplus left out of which to pay this l • c ann, and therefore there were no funds from which to pay them ; he also stated that 60,0001. had already been paid, as well as certain grants, the amount of which he has not named ; then I say, if the Right Hon. Gentleman admits that, he cannot say that there was no sur plus fund. If there was no surplus fund, I ask why were these claims referred to a commission, in order that the claimants should have an opportunity afforded them of making out their claims, and to produce proof of them, and then to bring up their report before this House? That commission did sit, and heard the nature of the claims, which they reported upon, to the effect that, amongst other matters, they had reduced the amount of claims from 524,000/. to 225,0001., which amount tley re ported to have been proved. If, then, there were no ;claims, why was this Commission appointed to adjudi cate upon them?—(Hear, hear.) Let the House bear in mind this fact in reference to these claims, that upon five distinct occasions you have, by your vote, recognised the justice and fairness of those claims ; and that they were not deemed to have been illegal or unjust by the Commission to which they were referred, is proved by the fact that that Commission, after having heard the whole state of the case, reported that claims to the amount of 225,000/. had been made good ; and on these grounds, then, I say that the present Government have no right now to withdraw from that report. If the Government now adopt this argument then it would be arguing that the Commission appointed by the Government to make the inquiry had come to an erroneous or an unjust conclusion. But, surely, after this House had decided upon the justice of those claims no fewer than five times, and after a Commission appointed by this House had reported to the effect that those claims were just and fair, the present Government should not now turn round and say that this was a seizure which had been made ac cording to the law of nations, and that, therefore, there should be no inquiry at all granted now. Ido say that such a course would not be correct or becoming to adopt. But there are other circumstances connected with this case to which I would wish to call the attention of the House. I think I have now satisfactorily shown the House that that which has been stated by the Right Hon. Gentle man to have been a declaration of war, was not a declara tion of war; or that if there was, this louse did consider the case one of such grvat peculiar hardship that it was re ferred to a Commission for examination, and that Commis sion reported in its favour. I must now refer the Home to what Dr. Lushington said upon the subject. (The Hon. Member then read an extract, which was to the effect that though this seizure of the vessels was not contrary to the law cf nations, yet it was not fair or equitable.) I want to know then (continued the Hon. Member) upon what grounds am Ito rest these claims, if not upon these grounds? The Right Hos. Gentleman has stated that the public bore their portion of the expense of that war, but the Right Hon Gentleman should not forget that those claimants also bore a portion of those expenses.—(Hear, hear.) If this were an ordinary case perhaps I would not be warranted in thus urging it on the attention of the House, but I contend that this is not an ordinary case, but that, on the contray, it is one such as never occurred before, and such as perhaps never would occur again, and therefore no precedent could be quoted in support of it. And here I must say that it appears to me that the Right Honourable Gentleman has deserted his old arguments with great facility. I remember the Right Hon. Gentleman urging, as an objection against those claims,'that such a pre cedent should not be established ; but that is a point upon which no previous Chancellor of the Exchequer ever said a word ; and when an opportunity offered when this question might have been easily settled to the satisfaction of all parties, that opportunity was suffered to pass and was neglected.—( Hear, hear.) When this question was first argued before this House, Lord Althorp was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he acceded to this motion, and expressed a wish that all just and fair claims should be paid. It has been said that those claims were not legal, and that if they were not, then the ground was taken from under me. Upon this point we have the opinion of a distinguished lawyer, the late Sir W. Follett, who said that they were not legal, but that they were just and equitable. Well, it is not upon the grounds of the legality of these claims that I advocate them, but upon the grounds of their equity and justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman has said that it was very important that these claims should be resisted, lest any canvassing should be going on, and other similar claims be brought before the House. Undoubtedly there may have been some " canvassing " going on; but if it was practised on one side, so it was on the other. Ido not think that any of my friends have canvassed in my favour, though I venture to say that the Right Hon. Gentlemen has taken the ordinary means of securing an attendance of his supporters. I say, then, that Ido think that these claims are just and equitable, and therefore I ask the Govern ment now, after this House has already decided four or five times in favour of these claims, to grant this inquiry. But in whatever way you deal with it, let it be done as it has not been one before. Heretofore it has been dealt with in a slovenly and careless manner, but let it now be dons clearly and distinctly. My Hon. Friend near me will resist the application upon the ground that there had been a declara tion of war when this occurrence took place, but take that argument away from him, and no other remains ; and in order to defend that argument, I do not now see any law officer of the Crown in his place ; but I still say that this is a question which does require a little more attention than has hitherto been given it, and if it does not receive that attention now it never will receive it. With regard to the declaration of war, if my Hon. Friend contends for that, then he must encounter the opinion of the Attorney-General and other eminent authorities, expressed in the year 1807 ; for it appears that at that time there could have been no state of hostility between the nations, for some of the British ships, in passing by the Danish batteries, were actually saluted by a discharge from their guns.—(Hear, hear.) I do not think my Right Hon. Friend can even find a techni etl ground on which to refuse this motion But Ido not put it on anything like a technical ground—l want him, and I ask him, to put it on a large and comprehensive ground. I hope my Right Hon. Friend will take the case of these merchants and shipowners into their consideration simply on the grounds of justice. On the 27th of July Lord Cathcart set sail, and the bombardment took place on the 29th. It is true that the Hon. Member for Hull called the attention of the House to a very important document, which made out that a declaration of hostilities had taken place. If that was the case, it should be remembered that it was not by the inter ference of the British authorities, and therefore the parties who suffered must be considered en titled to our protection. I have endeavoured to .con fine myself to the legitimate limits of this case, and I trust that after the House itself having allowed the justice of the claim by the proceedings on a late occasion, it will not now stultify itself by refusing a Committee. I trust it will not be considered unreasonable of me in asking that the House shall now allow a Committee to settle these claim. One word more—this case has been brought for ward by men of great authority, and the equity of the claims has never been denied, but it has been set aside simply on the grounds that it was a dangerous one, and that to comply with the justice of the claims would be setting up a dangerous precedent. This is a most unworthy view of the case, for it should be borne in mind that justice never sleeps, and that though not at one moment to be had, yet it would in the end assert itself. Mr. CARDWELL—My Hon. Friend who has addressed the House said that he was willing to have this question settled by fair and legal argument, and for .that reason he has quoted the opinion of the late Sir William Follett. Now, the Honourable Member should have borne in mind that that opinion was not given upon legal, but upon equitable grounds. The Honourable Member, how ever, did not quite forget that the opinion was only an opinion on equitable grounds, and for that alone is it that he now asks this House to have the question argued upon comprehensive grounds. My Hon. Friend has laid much force upon the opinion of Sir W. Follett, and_j cannot help thinking that he has relied sr 4tle too much upon it. The whole of those clatata-turn upon the fact, that if a com pensation was due to the .laimants by any act of the British authorities, that that compensation should be granted to those subjects. Were those ships taken when the law of nations was respected by both the British and Danish Governments, and in op en d e fi an ce of the law of nations, or we re th ey ta k en e u t a time when no such law existed, and was not respected, 'Weap:areintt,9tti:oaet eon a lwrah t \ i ve m tlue l ar g w e i_i h el e : n tairo h o o d. t is h tisn n ic a rt t i i o o ji n ia s m w es ere m a a t ek w in a t r o : h That took be made between the seizure two. lie took care t w o as l between these two of the distinction which should a great difference between the iuerhesteoo k place Honourable Gen ance of the law of nation s , sad the cargoes of ships in defi ance hostilities. The merits of uethseeizure of ships during e.cument turned upon this point aline. present question Memberhantgroundsa the that juhs-e tlemon said that when like war existed, and upon hat war did exist, and that h which proves t ostilities had tice of the present claim. . I ll h o o n. l o d l ace e ween ng and D b t E land Denmark. the ur in abl nl e y I would remind a most dangerous establish precedent, is about to well consider of the door which he he and I beg he will actually taken p b the arguments which he has open up in such cases Y advanced. explained, but in so low a tone as Mr. HAWES rose and not to be heard in the gallery wrong when Mr. CARDWE Member was LL—The lion. broken up, he said that. even if a:war had existed, that it nas or considered to be broken up by the convention which had taken place. Now, he should h a ve rememb e red that this was ur of a convention which had been come to for the p pose saving the town of Copenhagen from all the evils which would otherwise accrue to the property of the inhabitants, I and it was such a convention as was rendered nece ssary to the safety of the people. On the 9th of the month after this notable convention the hostilities recommenced. Now there is a document which shows that, if a declaration of war was not made, hostilities and all the accompani manta of a war existed. The Hon. Gentleman has said that no declaration of war was made by Great Britain by proclamation ; but should it be contended that Great Britain was to wait till a proclamation of war before she is to defend herself from the aggression of an enemy ? ( The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to read several documents in support of his arguments, but so rapidly and indistinctly as not to be clearly understood in the reporter's gallery.) The Hon. Gentleman said that the opinion of a great lawyer was taken on the subject and that that opinion was in favour of the claimants. Now he should remember that when the opinion of Sir W. Follet was taken it was a period when he was not in that House, and when he had not an opportunity of'hearing the question argued on all its merits — it wee taken when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was not a member of the Governm hi e m nt, in wh z e i n vi hz haandonpointhioinn upongl an official capacity to guide the true bearings of the whole subject. In fact, it was an opinion given in answer to a case laid before him as a pro fessional man, and it was well known how the cases for such opinions were prepared, and it was also known that on the manner in which they were prepare d depended the opinion of the counsel. Was that opinion expressed after Sir William Follet had heard the speeches on the matter in that House ? Was it given after h ear ing the speech of the Hon. Member for Worcester? On the contrary, it was given without knowing the grounds upon which the case rested, and simply upon equity, and not law. The Hon. Gentleman has said that after cutting down this claim very considerably, we now refused to pay it. This is not the fact, for the justice of the claim is not made out But the Hon. Member has adverted to a document quoted by the Hon. Member for Hull, and he admitted, , not only on former occasions, but on the present, that if that document was not got over it was fatal to his case. He, however, said he considered that that document was cured by the notice of the second of September. Now, Sir, I put it to the House, and I put it to the Gentleman himself, has he not been under a mistake in the view he has taken of that notice from the documents which I have quoted, which plainly prove that war existed on the 9th, two days after the friendly state of things which he alleged existed? Does not this then prove the Hon. Gentlemen in error, and on his own showing, I put it to the House, has he made out his case? nay, has he not shown that he has failed? I will not further go into any legal arguments, as I should weary the House by their repitition, and I will entirely leave out that part of the case which depends on written or published documents, which are beforethepublic, and there are only one or two other observations with which I shall trouble the House. The Hon. Member has said that my Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has com plained that new arguments have been introduced into this question. Now the Hon. Gentleman was not quite right in that assertion. What my Right Hon. Friend com plained of was, that new arguments were introduced in the Hon. Member's reply, which it was impossible to re ply, to, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) only desired that the House would review a hasty and erroneous decision to which they were induced to come by specious arguments. Mr. HAWES—There has been no decision yet. Mr. CARDWELL—Yes ; that decision, which now calls upon us to go into Committee, which de cision, I say, was palpably influenced by new arguments introduced and brought forward by the Hon. Gentleman for the first time in his reply. In the cases where compensation was given and refused by the Treasury the decision turned upon the same point—whether there was or was not a state of war existing between Great Bri tain and Denmark. The Treasury, if a state of war did not exist, would have refused to have made the payments which had then been made if there was not some claim, founded upon justice, for the demand—and they would have equally been ready to meet other claims also founded in justice. The pre cise question at issue was, whether there was, or was not a war ; and, in 1810, when the decision was given that there was one, although it was then adverse to the Treasury, they abided by it, and have done so to the preent moment. The Honourable Gentleman called upon them to reverse a decision on grounds upon which Sir James Macintosh had never ventured to rely—(Hear, hear)—grounds from which he was most anxious to disconnect his case, and on grounds which are now for the first time brought under the notice of Parliament. The Hon. Gentleman says that the question has been always kept alive. But the question was first brought under discussion in 1839—the war existed in 1807—nearly thirty years after the time of the occurrence, not to mention that the grounds on which the House are required to come forward to give their decision have been carefully kept back. I, therefore, Sir, believing that the pre cedent will be dangerous, beg leave to second the proposi tion of my Right Hon. Friend that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this question this day six months. Colonel SIBTHORP—I wish to call the attention of the House to those Members who did vote upon the question in 1841, and who are not present now. I find that, on the occasion of the division in that year (1841), the ayes were 127, and the noes 96 ; and I find on that occasion the names of the following gentlemen, who are not present now : The Solicitor-General (Fitzroy Kelly), Sir Frederick Trench, the Attorney-General, Sir Charles Douglas, and Lord Eliot, who is now Lord St. Germans.—(Laughter.) Where are all the Hon. Gentlemen gone ?—(Hear hear.) Will no one tell me ?—(Laughter.) But I would say on this occasion that you have spent sums of money in ornamenting Tra falgar-square and other public places, but that it would be much better for you to be just before you become generous. I do look upon this whole transaction as a mean one on the part of the Go vernment. Your merchants, who are paying an income-tax of five millions a year, have a right that their pro perty should be protected. Let us pay our debts, and when we have a surplus let us give away, This will be the proper mode of proceeding with oar business. I have nothing whatever to do with these claims; I am no way interested in them, but I think them founded on justice, and as such ought to be discharged. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion 5B Against it B5 Majority against going into Committee —27 The House consequently by this division reversed its former decision. PLACES OF WORSHIP (SCOTLAND) BILL. Mr. FOX MAULE then move the second reading of the Places of Worship and Sites (Scotland) Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman after going at considerable length into the disruptions that had taken place in the Church of Scotland, stated that the present measure had been rendered necessary by the course that had been pursued by many of the landed proprietors in Scotland refusing to grant sites in that country for the erection of churches by the members of the Free Church in Scotland. Among those who had refused to grant sites were Lord Macdonald, who had large property in the Isle of Skye. Sir James Riddell, Lord Murray, Lord Seafield, Mr. Campbell, of Lochnell, Lord Ailsa, Lord Cawdor, Lord Forbes, the Duke of l3uccleuch, and the Duke of Richmond—all these persons had in his opinion acted with great intolerance, and inflicted hardships upon the people of Scotland that were unworthy of them. He contended that the honour of Scotland was en gaged in the refusal by these noble personages of sites forplaces of worship for the members of the Free Scotch Church. It was necessary that some remedy should be applied to the evil, and the only remedy he could devise was that which he had laid down in this Bill. The free church of Scotland, in addition to all that it had done since its establishment, was about to erect a noble col lege in the city of Edinburgh, for which institution 216 individuals had subscribed the magnificent sum of 21,0001. This Bill to build gave the same powers as were granted in Lord RolLsbury's Act, passed a few years ago, fur the purchase of certain sites. All disputes this Bill would leave to the decision of the Sheriff of the county in which the site sought for might happen to lie. He admitted that this Bill was an inter ference with the rights of property, but he conceived that the circumstances in which the free church people were placed by the owners of land justified such a measure, and he conceived that if Parliament refused to adopt this measure they would not be acting justly towards a portion of the people,of Great Britain. The duties of private pro perty had been grossly abused by the landed gentry to whom he had alluded. He would ask the House which of the two alternatives they preferred ? Whether it was not more desirable that the House should pass a Bill, which, at the discretion of a certain judicial officer, responsible to the Government, should convey half an acre, an acre, or at the most two acres of a certain individual's land,which was to be applied for the erection of churches ; or was it better to adopt the other alternative of engendering, by refusing to adopt this Bill, a spirit of discontent in a large portion of the people of Great Britain—a spirit of hostility to the Government and the landlord, under whom they lived. He called upon them to endeavour to put a stop to the present persecution towards the people of Scotland, for some day or other it must end by some means or other. He called upon them by sanctioning this Bill to prevent the ignorance and barbarism which must afflict in a short time a great portion of the people of Scotland. Let them prevent religious toleration, which was the boast of this empire, from being nothing but a farce, and so secure the affection and respect, not only of the class to which he belonged, but of every right-minded man in the world. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill. The SPEAKER having put the question, Sir J. GRAHAM said he could avow with great truth that he approached the discussion of the subjeet a second time with heartfelt pain. He thought that the conduct of the Members who seceded from the Episcopal Church of Scot land was pure and disinterested.—( Hear.) He was also prepared to admit many other grounds maintained by the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. But it was said that this sympathy on his part was only sympathy in words on the part of the Government, but the Earl of Aber den was the very first landlord to grant a site for the erection of a free church. Instances of refusal had been adduced, but they were not many or important, for the Right Hon. Gentleman had admitted that several of the landlords who had been instanced as opposed to the granting of sites, refused to give sites with the hope that the disruption might be healed. He would not follow the Right Hon. Gentleman through all the cases he had entered into. The Right Hon. Gentleman here referred to the case of a Noble Colleague of his, and had admitted that he had in every way promoted the moral and religious education of the people, and had offered every facilities to the building of places ("worship. He had also re ferred to the name of others, among whom was Dr. Chalmers. In passing, he would observe that he could never hear the name of Dr. Chalmers mentioned without bearing testimony to that enlightened and christianlike zeal with which he hail always promoted any measure calculated to be beneficial to society in general. There were two causes which bad ope rated very much to cause the present ill-feeling. Those who had originally seceded from the Church had inveighed against it in no measured terms. Such terms being heard by those who still remained with the Church and revered it, naturally caused ill-will against those who maligned an Establishment which they respected. Another reason was, that a spirit of bitterness and anger had been generated in consequence of the ministers of the church having given way to their feelings, and denounced the pro prietors to their own tenantry. That such a course had been taken was much to be regretted, and it was the true cause of the angry and acrimonious feelings which had lately shewn themselves. The Right Hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of the Duke of Riche mond. On his property there were twelve parishes, and to eleven out of the twelve the Noble Duke had granted sites. The promoters of the parish churches in Scotland had built 600 churches, and 10 more were in progress, and a million of money was in the hands of those entitl e d t o take care of the funds of the Society. If they extended principle to Scotland, they should also extend it to Ire land. It It was the duty of a Legislature to have a church under the sanction of the Legislature, within a reasonable limit of of w the v centre of a district, in which people e hieh wouldos worship. Ha could not 9.e any benefit co ri n eo scientious belief was, that i f t ro r ni vould su c e re h ate a an i m in e,u ne u n r st the H is deal of mischief; and, not seeing any necessity for it, lie could not support it. There was no precedent whatever fur legislation on such a subject, an d t h e Estebl ishedChurch it. self bad not such a power; if it had, it was so strictly guarded orkeiandg freedomt then,l ata and what h Bai rt s ohße ROBERT little hßa Ed RusedT stated,i t N h A G a hs t er , i wi t fso w a ru a l sd considereda sa moveh mere e thc taohtu althe nullity. dt see Bill religiousßelieving, bl oe day six months. and religious toleration should be extended to all, without any distinction. arose ; and its t fact, members of the Free they would find that proportion of cases the grievance away the invariablycongrega chosen for the sites of their churches Church had juxta-position with that on whick the olden church i t t h w e a s q o u n es l) t! question a very small AM act of injustice to grant this pro , tion. He called this a g and say that no . property grounds in position ; but he would go further, t a h a l also ol purpose ofdrawing had been built w fo ai r ns he would say, he did think with. Under all circumstances . . it would be consistent with the principles he had always ad vocatedof which possession had been taken, should then be interfered time that day six months. rnent of the debate to Mr. BAINE proposed the adjourn to vote for the motion, that the Bill be read a second that day week, which, After A few wc , r d 4 f r om aEr. FOX MULE, wan agreed to. RAILWAY COMPANIES DISSOLUTION BILL. Sir GEORGE CLERK moved the second reading of this Bill, which he said was one which would be found of great utility, and which might in fact be called the winding up Act, in 9:13r to give to cslri - a'n clmpanies in an inchoate state the power of di3olving, if they should deem such a course necessary. Mr. HUDSON said, he felt that he was taken a good deal by surprise, by the manner in which this Bill had been brought forward, as he had certain clauses to propose to be inserted in it, which he looked upon of so much importance, that he would take the sense of the House upon them. He had submitted those clauses to the Solicitor-General, and he had expressed his approval of them, and therefore he could not see why they should not be inserted. He then handed in the proposed amendments. Mr. HUME wished to know how they were to avoid liti gation in the cases provided for in the Bill. He thought that the Government should introduce a clause appointing an auditor. Sir GEORGE CLARK said, it had been considered, and the only provision they could make was to have a fiat in bankruptcy. Sir G. CLERK moved that the clauses be brought up to morrow (Thursday), and that the Bill be then read a third time. Mr. HUDSON hoped that the third reading would be postponed to Friday, as he had to leave town to-morrow to open a railway. _ The third reading was then postponed to Friday. POOR REMOVAL BILL. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, at five minutes to six o'clock, moved that the House should go into Committee pro forma on the Poor Removal Bill. The House then went into Committee, and immediately after resumed, when the remaining private business was gone through, and the House adjourned at six o'clock. RAILWAY COMMIT FEES. (THIS DAY ) HOUSE OCUoIitiAIONS. GROUP CORNWALL lULTIVTAY. The Committee met at the usual hour ; Vi*cuuntl Morpeth in the chair. Several witnesses were examined, who gave evidence in favour of the central line ; among the rest Lieutenant Dunstan, R.N. During his cross-examination, however, by Mr. MERIVALE, on the feeling of the inhabitants of Coik in favour of a communication with Padstow, he stated that he attended there as a deputation to point out the superiority of a line communicating between Exeter and Padstow, and moved a resolution to that effect; Major Beamish, however, moved the following amendment, which was carried unanimously (we give it verbatim, and we need not say that the reading of it in the Com mittee caused roars of laughter) :—Resolved, "That the people of Ireland have long and painfully experienced the evils of strange in terfereoce in our internal concerns, proceeding as well from the ignorance as the arrogance or those who have unjustly and fraudulently usurped the power of making laws for our Government, and irrespective of our laws. That our melancholy experience of the calamities inflicted on our country by such interference plainly suggests to us the in - money of any attempt on our parts to interfere in the conflicting local concerns of England, and that it does not become us as Irishmen to approach the Board of Trade wills any expression of preference for either line of railway professing to connect Exeter with Padstow, such connexion being exclusively art English interest, and therefore to be determined by English opinion. That in thus practising towards England a spirit of forbearance with regard to her separate interests, we hope to receive at her hands a reciprocal observance, and we respectfully solicit Lieut. Dunstan, that on his return to his native land he will impress on his own countrymen the justice of that principle for which we contend namely, the rights of her people to manage their own affairs. Several other witnesses were called, who gave general evidence in favour of the line. The CHAIRMAN stated that he hoped the parties would bear in mind that they had already heard a considerable quantity of evi dence of that nature. He also stated that he had received a letter from the Lords of the Admiralty, stating that they had no objection to the construction of a bridge over the river Tamar of four arches, of the same size, and of the greatest possible height consistent with the standing orders, provided that the Cornwall Railway Company would provide a steam-tug at their own expense for the purpose of towing vessels through tho arches. The Committee, after having heard the evidence of Mr. Bampton, engineer, of Plymouth, with reference to the expense of constructing a larger ferry to accommodate the railway traffic, and also to build the bridge at Saltash, adjourned till Friday next, at twelve o'clock. GROUP XIII. AYR,SIMLIO AND GALLOWAY. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) 11Ir. Knight, on his cross-examination, said this was the rirst line he ever estimated for. His estimate of severance damage, for 56 miles, was 8,6001. The land to be taken for the line was 374 acres, which he set down at 19,1741. Several other witnesses were examined on similar points to those referred to by the preceding witnesses. . . Mr. M'Callum, civil engineer, was then examined at length en the engineering character of the line. It was proposed to be a single line, with passings and sidings, and with bridges and land for a double line. The severest ascending gradient to the Dalmellington coal field was 1 in 75. There was another ascending gradient beyond the coal field of 1 in 55, about four miles long. The heaviest descending gradient was lin 75. There was no tunnel on the line. The sharpest curve on the line was one in twenty-two chains. None of the works throughout were of an extraordinary chatacter. His estimate of the whole was 520,000/., which he thought quite sufficient. The whole value for land and residential damage was 35,000/. The permanent way was 2,6741. per mile, or In all 163,1641. The earthwork was 201,701/. ; masonry, bridges, &c., 44,715/. ; stock engines, 41,3501. stations, 15,3151. ; contingencies, 18,715/. The working expenses he estimated at 16,0321. The maintenance of the way was 4,095/. addi tional. His estimate of the gross receipts was 48,857 i. Mr. Sergeant BELLASIS asked the witness if he could produce by to-morrow morning the particulars of the cuttings, value of Icc., up to Dalmellington, by themselves ; and also the same parti culars with regard to the portion of the line Irom Dahnellingten to Balcory Bay. He asked for this, as the two parts of the case were essentially different. Mr. PAT TEN objected to that course as unusual. The witness did lot think he would be able to give a detailed account by that time. Mr. Sergeant BELLASIB said he might as well ber easy with the details in writing, as he should certainly ask him for all these par ticulars, and he ought to be prepared. Witness was then cross-examined, with the object of showing that he had but little experience in constructing rabways. The Conunittee adjourned at four o'clock till one o'clock to-morrow. GROUP aay. MID KENT MrSTSUCT. The Committee met at eleven o'clock. Present, Mr. Protheroe (chairman), Lord Emlyn, Mr. John O'Connell, and Mr. Grogan. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD replied Ou behalf of the Kent Atmo spheric Railway. He said that the line he represented laboured Under considerable disadvanteges in coming before the Committee as a line competing with the lines for which the South-Eastern Company had obtained Acts Of Parliament. The object of each company, he must confess, was to shorten the distance between London and Tunbridge, London and Maidstone, London and Dover, and London and Has tings. Direct lines had attracted public attention, and the Legisla ture seemed determined at no very distant period of time to insist upon those advantages which the Kent Atmospheric now held out to the public under the most favourable and economical circumstances. The distance to Dover through Maidstone, by their proposed atmos pheric line, would be 24% miles, whereas the distance by the South- Eastern line is 32 miles. In addition their line would accommodate the town of Sevenoaks, a most important neighbourhood, which the South-Eastern had neglected, except by casting out a branch a mile and a half in length, with a gradient of 1 in 69. The South-Eastern making that effort, bad as it was, showed the importance of affording a traffic and a communication ac commodation to the town of Sevenoaks. The Earl of Stanhope, in his usual straightforward and intelligent manner, had given evidence of the value of the proposed atmospheric line as regards Sevenoaks and the district around it, and had told the Committee that the general feeling of the jinhabitants was decidedly in favour of that project . The line to Dover was shorter than the South-Eastern line t o th a t place by four miles. The Ke nt Atmospheric proposed to use three in England, the C r oyd on , an d the construction traction of the most expensiv e t crossing the streets a n d over of the hou ses o f London. The South-Eastern proposed to avoid the Croydon a lt oge th er , and thus do that important railway the most serio us i n j ur y, and pwm Ia part u le d thus t ao h fi r d o uatgsilealv save t by diverting its traffic. The Learned Sergeant the n rev i ewe d th e t h o u h f en e in s e t h_ee masses lvt best e s a evidence on both sides, and entered into the details of the advan tages the Kent Atmospheric possessed over the lines of the South-Eastern Company, and contended at some length, and with considerable animation, that the Kent Atmospheric Railway was entitled to a preference over the schemes of the South-Eastern Company, as affording better accommodation to the public at a less amount of capital, and over a shorter length of road of lesser gradients and better levels. He concluded his ad dress by insisting upon the superiority of the atmospheric principle as laid down by Mr. Cubitt, who sanguinely anticipated its ultimate success, and even if the atmospheric traction should be laid aside, the line they projected was the best locomotive line, and for that reason, setting aside all others, they were, according to:the general conduct of committees similarly circumstanced entitled, to a preference over the South-Eastern schemes. But as respected the atmospheric traction, he firmly believed it would supersede the icco motive principle. Sir Robert Peel, no mean prophet, some years ago told the locomotive advocates to pause, for it was his opinion that it would in course of time be superseded by the atmospheric. He (the Learned Sergeant) thought that the time had now arrived, or„if it bad not it was not fair distant; therefore it behoved the Legislature to pause before they sanctioned an outlay of money upon w hich would eventually b e public works, useless. The atmospheric system might be beset and crowded with minor and insignificant difficulties now, but science could overcome all obstacles, nothing was imposs ibl e to genius : that great man Coleridge had in that brilliant and beautiful poem, the " Ancient Mariner," anticipated the atmospheric traction it had dawned upon him in an happy hour of inspiration:— " 0 wherefore delves that ship so fast, Without a tide or wind ? The air is cut away before, And closes in behind." The principle, then, of the atmospheric was true and p rac ti ca bl e. It had been successfully tried, and he sincerely believed its adoption would be a boon to the nation. Mr. CocaßuaN, for the South-Eastern, then proceeded t o a dd ress his seir clients,o opponents were divided i n t o t wo or threebecause they wer e a s t rong united the Committee. He contended that the line from London to M a i dstone ashamoulpdanybe; whereasmadeby managements, and the Committee well knew that union was an essential ingredient in the success of any undertaking, both as respected the public and the undertakers. The Kent Atmospheric had not that element, and, therefore, their chance, compared with that of the South Eastern, was proportionably 'decreased. It was quite evident that the accommodation to Maidstone should be supplied by an established company whose expences had hitherto been enormously great and their profits nothing. The superiority of the South-Eastern was evidenced from the fact that their rivals where last year Lefore Parliament, with a project similar to their present one, had been obliged to abandon apart of their scheme through a want of funds, and the difficulties inseparable from the atmospheric system. Mr. Cubitt, no doubt, was influenced by a fear that he could not venture to propose au atmospheric line on a locomotive one, with a gradient of 1 in 80, between London and Ashford ; therefore he would make the Tonbridge branch their main line, and take advantage of the excellent levels and direct road of the South-Eastern Railway. It was but Justice that now the angle by Red-hill had been cut off (and the ad vantage of the opening of the continental lines about to be derived), that the South-Eastern Company should be allowed to remedy the defect, and provide the required accommodation. It had been stated that there was a superiority, as respected gradients, distance, and expenses, over the South-Eastern Railway—that a saving of 4}6 miles between London and Dover would be effected by the proposed Kent Atmospheric. He contended that the advan tages thus trumpeted were all superficial—they had no foundatioa, and that the only advantages offered to the public by the two companies worth accepting were those the South-Eastern, and the South-Eastern only, had the power of offering. Thu gradients of the atmospheric were bad. Some of them were as low as I in SO ; while the very worst gradient in the South-Eastern was lin 105. The works on the atmospheric were heavy, and would cost enormous sums of money. There were two tunnels, one 3,343 yards long, the other above 2,000 yards long. As to ,going to Seven Oaks, they would never be able to get there ; and they did sot intend, the Committee would observe, to have any station there, in fact, the going to Seven Oaks was a lure thrown out to deceive, because the popula tion and the district around Seven Oaks did not demand any railway such as that the atmospheric said they were about to make. The mile and a half branch of the South-Eastern would be quite suf ficient, and quite as acceptable to the neighbourhood of Seven loul d submitted command a t Oaks. Instead of a line running near the Seven Oaks the South-Eastern proposed to go through the Valley of Eapford, and open up a communication by a branch with Wester ham, and other populous l oca liti es . Th e l i ne th roug h the Valley would ie large ie o am nin o L u it n t t ee, of that iva i water power, n pvi nt or which gradients, Would and be to used to a still further extent—i n d ee d t o nn incalculable extent. He then other engineering capabilities, the South-E as t ern li ne to Maidstone was the one that should be pr e f erre d . The Learned Counsel , then went very minutely through the evidence, and concluded by urging the superior claims of the South-Eastern sche of the Committee. me upon the attention The room was then cleared, and on our re-admission, The CHAIRMAN intimated, that the preamble of the Bill of the South Eastern Company was proved ; and that the preamble of the Bill of the Kent Atmospheric was not proved. The Committee then adjourned until twelve o'clock on Friday next. XVII. mancumsmen AND P SOUTHAMPTON, AND SOUTH-LASESTMV.N (.7.loMarlt AND EEI2- BRID(*E BP-ANCH). The Committee met this morning at the usual hour. MANCHESTER, AND socTIMIYIPT°I7. The promoters continued to call evidence in support of their line. The first witness ca l led was Mr. W Dennison, William Denson , Governmen contractor, Portsmouth who stated that for the last ' t thirty years h e had sup lied the regiments stationed at Portsmouth, In Lancashire Il am pshire, Kent, and oth er counties, with me a t , bread, flour, ' and forage . Killed about 160 beasts a-week, m any of whietthe purchased at Salisbury and other fain /11 svraervitshire and DorsiMhlrc, PAO% injured the peseta about 4/. per cent. Supposing the railway were made t he would get them direct from the dealers, which would effect a great saving of time and expense. He sent great quantities of meat, bread, and forage to Birmingham and Coventay, for the transit of which this line would be most advantageous. Frequently it is necessary to supply the ships with these articles at twelve hours' notice, so that he was obliged t olkeep a large stock on hand, hi the event of a supply being required, which of co, - arse entailed considerable expense upon him. The railway would go a great way to effect a saving. By the CHAIRMAN—TtIe increased facilities which the line will afford, would enable him to fulfil the Government contracts without difficulty. The Government would likewise be benefited by it. Mr. Gue, a builder a 4 z. Andover, deposed as to the delays which occurred in transmission of goods by the canal from Redbridge to Andover. The charge for conveying goods per ton by the !South- Western to Andover was 1/. 10s. 6d. By the proposed line a saving would be effected of 12s. per ton. It would be of great benefit to the town of Andov , ar. Meetings had been held in that town, at which strong feelings were expressed in favour of this undertaking. The same feelings were entertained by every person in Romsey. This witness was subjected to a cross-examination, but only confirmatory of the evidence which has been already given. Mr. Thomas Hill, shipping agent of the Oriental Steam Naviga tion Company, Southampton, was examined respecting the traffic carried by these vessels. They conveyed a great number of passen - ter, and also large quantities of packages from the manufacturing districts. Mr. Wm. Faulted, cattle dealer, at Cricklade, near Cirencester, deposed that the line would open up a communication to the north for the conveyance of agricultural produce. This witness was examined at some length with regard to the advantages which this railway possessed for the conveyance of cattle and sheep to and from the different cattle markets. _ _ Mr. P. Matthews, a farmer at Hicken, near Cirencester, said that the district between Cheltenham and Cirencester was much in want of a direct communication to Birmingham. The whole of tee agri culturists in the district supported the undertaking, because they knew that it would open up a more ready market for their produce. The Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP X.Y. LONDON. HOUNSLOW, AND WESTEEN. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) The cave of the Duke of Northumberland having been concluded, the Committee adjourned at four o'clock to twelve on Friday. GROUP XXIV. NOT/MICH AND SURLY. The Committee assembled this morning shortly after twelve o'clock ; Mr. Granville Vernon in the chair, when a long conversa tion ensued as to the necessity for further evidence of the traffic, which was followed by the testimony of Mr. Bruff, the engineer, who stated the general features of the line, which is easy in its character, and light in its earthworks. The object in making this line was not so much to accommodate the two towns of Cambridge and Bury, as to form a communication with' distant parts of the country, Cambridge being thefocus of a series of ramifications to Lincoln, Weedon, and all those and other places which the great trunk lines accommodated. The people of Bury had always been very desirous of a direct connexion wi.h London, and this line in conse quence of the throwing out of the Direct Norwich, the East Suffolk, and other lines, would be the nearest. He had surveyed the line of the Ely and Bury Company about fifteen months ago, but had abandoned it for several reacens, but principally on ac count of the great expense of repair to the subsoil. He had sent his assistants to try the soil on both sides. It ran through the valley of the Lark, where, of course, there was the greatest deposit of vege table matter. This would occasion a much greater outlay than could be met by the estimates of the engineer of that line. By the reports of his assistants, as well as by his own observations, he found that the subsoil was loose and the surface shakey. The generality of the line was flooded in wet seasons. By the report of one of his assistants, he learned that the boring-bit had sunk, at the distance of 12 miles 7 furlongs, by a pressure of 5 pounds, 12 feet ; at 13 miles 3 furlongs, it sunk 23 feet by Its own weight; at 16 miles it sunk 18 feet by its own weight also, and in wet sea sons the land was all flooded. He had b imself made an embankment in similar land, and lie found that as fast as the stuff was put in it pushed out at the side, and he believed that some such accident had occurred to the opposing Company, and that it took them weeks, if not months, to repair it. The ruling gradient on this line was, as on the Norwich, Ely, and other lines, 1 in 132. The estimate for the whole line is 300,0001. ; for earth-works the sum allowed is 49,729/. 17s. 7d. ; for brickworkand hridges,3o,Bo7l. ; permanent way, 185,7501. ; for stations, 25,9871.; for land, 30,000/. ; for contingencies, 23,700/. ; and for management, 18,400/. ; which, together, allowing for incidental differences, would make a total of 300,0001. A long examination then ensued, upon the way in which the line would affect the property of a gentleman named Webb, the object of it being to show that this was not the best line which the country could afford. On the cross-examination of Mr. Sergeant WitAwassm, it was shown that the gradients on the Ely and Bury line were so much superior, that the power which on that line would draw sixteen carriages, would on this line serve es traction power only for nine. The access to Bury also appeared to be bad, it requiring great in genuity to make a junction with the Eastern Union line. It was also shown that the subsoil was not of so unstable a character as the engineer conceived it to be, or at least that the danger and difficulty which he apprehended in the formation of the embankment would not or might not arise. Mr. CALVEET then entered upon a long examination of the mode in which the line affected the interests of the several landowners on the line, which had merely reference to private interests. A discussion then ensued as to the course of practice to be pursued, after which the Committee adjourned till twelve to-morrow. GROUP XXXI. ERISTOL AND EXRIWINGiTAIVI (GLOUCES TER AND STONEETOUSE JUNCTION.) The Committee assembled this morning at twelve o'clock, and proceeded with the further investigation of the schemes comprised in the group which had been confided to them. Mr. HOPE appeared on behalf of the Bristol and Birmingham (Gloucester and Stonehenge Junction), and opened the case. It ap peared from the Learned Gentleman's statements, that the construc tion of the proposed branch would be attended with the greatest benefit to the various localities through which it would pass, and would also materially advance the interests of the Bristol and Birmingham Company, and be generally beneficial to the public at large. The present line was proposed to form a continuous communication on the narrow gauge principle, between Gloucester and Stonehenge. The Great Western Company had established a communication from the junction at Swindon on the broad gauge, and it was intended to supply the remaining portion of the district with railway accommo dation oh the narrow gauge principle. This was the object which the promoters sought, and which he hoped the Committee would concede. Witnesses were about to be called to give evidence as to the pro posed junction, when lir. AUSTIN objected to the evidence being received as to the pro posed junction between Gloucester and Stonehouse, as it would materially affect the interests of the Great Western Company, and would also be a contravention of the agreement at present subsisting between that company and the Gloucester and Bristol Company, with reference to the district between Gloucester and Stonehouse. The room was ordered to be cleared. On our re-admission The CHAIRMAN stated that the Committee were of opinion that the promoters of the proposed junction should be allowed to proceed with their evidence ; but at the same time they entertained a strong feel ing with reference to the agreement of 1840 between the Great Western and the Bristol and Gloucester Companies, and recommend that its leading provisions should be made the foundation of an amicable arrangement between the parties. The Committee then adjourned. GROUP XXIIII. RUGBY, LEAMINGTON, LLND (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) After receiving the traffic and engineering evidence, the Com mittee heard witnesses against the line under those two heads of evidence, the speeches of counsel being postponed until after the evi dence shall have been concluded. ♦djourned, at four, till twelve o'clock to-morrow. GROUP XXXIX. OLDHAM 111ZSTRAECT. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) Mr. Nightingale, a manufacturer of lucifer matched and pill boxes at Newton Heath, stated that ho used 600 tons of timber, and that he employed 300 persons on au average throughout the year ; that he exported to all parts of Europe and North America and Australia, besides sending large quantities to every part of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The timber cost him 39. a ton for carriage to Manchester, and his goods the same for return carriage to that place. This line would be of great con venience to him. To Mr. WADDINGTON the witness replied that the station of the Oldham districts line would be close to his works, and that at pre sent there was no railway accommodation whatever. The witness also spoke to the feeling of the inhabitants in favour of this Mr. Philip Lancashire, a land agent, at Newton, Mr. Harrop, of Saddleworth, Mr. Halliwell, and Mr. Frank Andrews, of Mossley, a cotton manufacturer, were respectively examined by Mr. RUSSELL in favour of the Oldh..m Districts line, all giving evidence of the same nature. To Mr. TINDAL ATKINSON the witness replied that the whole of the horse-power is about 600, of which 150 will be accommodated by the Manchester and Huddersfield Railway. On re-examination the witness replied that the bulk of the popu lation of Mossley resided on the brow to which the Manchester and Huddersfield line would afford no accommodation whatever. To Mr. TINDAL ATKINSON, the witness replied that the principal public-house would be taken by the opposing line for a station. To the Cuemicex, a reply was made that the road from the bottom of the hill to the top is on a gradient; of one in six, and the ruling gradient is one in ten. - . Joseph Kershawe, of the firm of Joseph Kershawe and Song, testified that the carriage of the articles of their business from Man chester was 10s. a ton, and that the proposed railway would save the firm 3001. a year in that item. Their concern was 400 feet above the level of the canal, and the only line thet could accommo date Mossley was that of the Oldham Districts Company. Mossley is increasing rapidly in population—he should say that the numbers were doubled within the ast ten years. To Mr. Arfaxsofs, the witness replied that the inhabitants of Mopley got their goods from Liverpool by railway and canal, the dis lance being about 46 miles ' but he was arguing on th e suppos i t i on that the Huddersfield and Manchester line would never be made. He conceived that because the Act had been long obtained, and although they had broken ground, and had purchased ground, but had never paid for it. Such, at least, was the case with him. To the Cns.fasfatt, - - the witness replied that the l an d h a d been purchased from him, but it was not his, and be could say nothing whatever cf the title of the property. To Mr. RUSSELL, the answer was, that if the Huddersfield line were made it would not serve his purpose so well. By permission of the CHAIRMAN, Mr. ATKINSON here called the solicitor of the Huddersfield and Manchester Company, who stated that the works had been let for the whole line, and all the contracts entered into ; that works up to Staley bridge were already in progress, that the buildings bought in that town had been destroyed for the purpose of the railway, that all the land to the end of the line had been bought, and that the pur chases had not been completed, simply because there had not been time to investigate the titles. of which there are some hundreds, but the cash is now lodged in the bank, ready fox expenditure. Captain Lawes, manager of the Manchester and Leeds: Railway, stated that between Rochdale and Oldham, [before the opening of their railway, there was only one coach, which was kept up rather for accommodation than with a view to profit, while during last year they company had carried upwards of 50,000 passengers. From Haywood there was no conveyance at all, while last year they carried upwards of 25,000 passengers. From Middleton, a place scarcely known beyond the district, they had carried more than 17,000 persons. ;Great convenience would also ensue to the poor who were employed in Oldham, and whose families live at a distance, and who obtained a ticket for their journey here on Saturday and their return on Monday. As an in stance of the benefit of railway communieation, he might state the fact that tons of water creases are carried from London, and for con sumption in Lancashire, as much indeed as thirteen tons annually. A variety of other instances might be adduced to prove the same fact. The other line, the Oldham and Manchester, was laid out with difficulty, and there was one gradient as steep as lin 27. By the formation,of the Oldham Districts line the company which the witness represented would reap a small dividend. To the Cusiamex,raptain Lawes replied that the Manchester aid Leeds Company now derived 6 3 ,4 per cent. dividend, and he might put one fact to prove the utility of his own railway—that was, the circumstance that the saving to the public since the line had been formed was equal to the whole expense paid by the public for transit before the line was formed, as shown before Lord Stanley. Last week they had carried as many as 40,000 passengers ; during last year they had carried 469,000 third-class passengers and 41,000 first-class. To Mr. WADDINGTON, the witness replied that the Manchester and Leeds station at Oldham was as bad as possible, although the difficulty of the rise was great, and had been well surmounted. After cross-examination on the same point, the Committee rose at five o'clock, and adjourned till twelve o'clock on Monday, GROUP XLVI. NEWCASTLE AND DAULINGTON ZUNC.• TZON", AND TYNE DOCIC. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) A question then arose as to Whether a plan should be submitted to the Committee and the counsel for the petitioners against the Bill or not. Thl room was then cleared, and on our re-admission, The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee had sent for the plans and sections of these docks, which were deposited in the Private Bill-office, and they could not find there any appearance of the proposed alterations. They were therefore of opinion that a plan marked with the alterations should be laid before them, and that a copy should be furnished also to the parties opposing the Bin.. The further hearing of the Bill was then postponed tin the next Bill had been concluded. NEWCASTLE—UPON-TYNE ANSI CAE:L.ISLO :12 >LIMN S X 0 N. The case for this Bill, which was opposed, was ope , ied by Mr. Knowles. The Committee then adjourned. GROUP LI minopsnxit,E UNION AND CANAL C - 13133. rximu, Tt) I.97l:l7.VZ=Taill'aPTol7). (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) Mr. MALIM, on behaof Lord Hatherton, then addressed te Committee in opposition to the line. He contended th at it Was h a project totally uncalled for, and would never give remuneratio n There was no evidence brought forwardtoofpBroovo,eooitosi heceetshsiotugy,hatridt w hen it was proposed to lay out a capital was incumbent on its promoters to bring forward strong and over- Grand Junction Com evidence in its favour. If they wi s h e d to prove that the Company had too Much tratile at present on their line, witnesses ought to have deposed to that fact. They ought to have called some gentleman connected with that company in proof or OW, if it Were the case. But not a single witness stated any tiiitungceo: in th t e o so m rt c . wil li t, e,t ttherefore contended, taking all the thatcircum -9 ommitt oo C9Ol not lan9tl9ll the proposed undertaking, inasmuch as it was not required by the wants '• of the district. Mr. LAING, on the part cf the promoters, replied on the general Case. The room was then cleared, and on the re-admission of parties, The CHAIRMAN said the Committee would not give any decision at present. The Committee then adjourned. GROUP LW. MEXCZSTER AND IiZaLIZATGIIAW, WITH A 73 AVii Cu. The Committee met at the usual hour this morning, and were oc cupied the whole day in hearing the case of the opponents to this Bill. As the opposition was principally confined to the objections of the landed proprietors: on the part of the competing lines and private ludiv.duals, no point of any peculiar public interest was elicited. Several witnesses were exam'ned, but their evidence was mere'y a recapitulation of the statements already made known, in connexion with the line. The Committee then adjourned. GROUP LXIV. IRISH GREAT 'W'ZSTER.W (PORTAR-• LINGTOrg TO GALWAY.) (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) _ _ The Marquis of Clanr;carde was examined, and bore testimony to the general advantages of the line. His Lordship considered that the railway which would afford to the inhabitants of Galway an op portunity of sending their corn to Cork and other parts of the south of Ireland where distilling was extensively carried on, must de cidedly be of great national importance, and promised to be highly remunerative. Mr. Denis Kirwan, of Galway, was examined, and stated that there was a considerable traffic from Galway to the south. Colonel Foster, Assistant Adjutant-General of the Forces in Ire land, was examined, and expressed his opinion as to the benefits of the proposed line in a military point of view, as it would afford facility in sending troops to Cork, Fermoy, and other parts of the south of Ireland from Athlone, which was a matter of the greatest importance. Mr. Robinson, of Clare, stated that the population of that town was 18,000 ; that there was a great quantity of corn sent from Athlone, and that a railway would afford a communication with the markets of the south of Ireland. After hearing some additional statements as to traffic, the Cora mittee adjourned. QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY) THE QUEEN V. SHARP. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) At the close of the argument, the COURT, after reviewing the whole case, agreed that it did not come within their jurisdiction, the vicar being an ecclesiastical officer, and in virtue of his office sole scrutator and presiding officer in all matters relating to the Church. He was, therefore, in that capacity not amenable to the jurisdicti o n o f thi s Court.— Rule discharged accordingly. ASCOT RACES. (THIS DAY-BY EXPRESS.) (Continued from our Afternoon Edition.) A Sweepstakes of 25 sous. each, with 100 added, for four yrs old colts, Bst 81b, and fillies, Bst 21b ; a winner of the Derby or St. Leger, or the Ascot and Doncaster Cup, 91b; of the 2000 gs Stakes, the Oaks, the Welcome Stakes, or the Gratwicke Stakes, 51b extra; no horse to carry more than 91b extra; maiden horses at the time of starting to be allowed 71b. Four horses to start or the public money will not be given. To start at the half-mile post on the New mile, once round and in. Jericho.. Mentor.. Sweepstakes of 10 sous. each, &c. Evenus, 6 yrs. Cherokee, 3 yrs Philip, aged Prudence, 4 yrs The Town Plate of 501. His Serene Highness, 2 yrs Barbakin filly, 2 yrs Kalmia colt, 2 yrs , LEICESTER AND BEDFORD RAIL WAY.—(THIS DAY.) A meeting of the Scripholders, duly summoned, under the sessional orders, was held at the London Tavern, to-day at one o'clock, to consider whether the Company would pro ceed further with the Bill, WYNN Eus, Esq., M.P., took the chair, and said he had done so as Chairman of the Board of Management, feeling it his duty to attend and render them every aid in his power ; but having been for some time unable to attend the meetings of the board from bodily indisposition, the necessary state ment would be made by Mr. Lindsell, the deputy-chairman, who would also answer any questions which proprietors might think proper to put. .Mr. LINDSELL, after having expressed his regret that Mr. Ellis had been prevented from. participating inure actively in the business of the day, said that, in addressing gentlemen who were well acquainted with railway matters, it was hardly necessary to tell them that the meeting had been convened in pursuance of the sessional orders of Parliament, which made it binding on every company applying to Parliament to hold a meeting prior to the third reading of the Bill, for the purpose of sanctioning further procedure in the case. He called on - The SECRETARY, who read the advertisement calling the Meeting. Mr. LANDSELL then proceeded to say, that he saw there was a numerous meeting present, and he took it for granted that there was then in the room, or would be soon sufficient to constitute the meeting legal—(Hear.) The directors, then, took this opportunity to bring be fore the meeting everything connected with the interests of the Company, their original object and the means which had been used to carry that object out. The district of country through which the line passed was Bedford, on the south of Leicester, and Hitchin on the nortfi ; it opened up the coal fields of Derby and Leicester, whereby the inhabitants on the route would be supplied with that necessary article; and they would, besides, find a ready market for their produce. But beyond all these considerations, the great object of the Company was a communication between London and Man chester. To effect this it was an object with the Company to form a junction with the companies at both ends of the line; with the London and York in the south, and with the Midland Counties in the north. The directors, therefore, put themselves in communication with the London and York at an early period, and he was glad to say that they had met with the most friendly iaid and assistance ' • but while this friendly aid and assistance wa s ren d ere d them, both companies had maintained their independence.— (Hear, hear.) He said that the direct communication with the metropolis had already been achieved in that great triumph of the London and York, on which he had the greatest pleasure in congratulating those gentlemen. Not withstanding the success they had achieved,l it was still the intention of this Company to preserve their integrity, and only make use of the London and York line in their approach to the metropolis.—(Hear, hear.) It had been also the intention of the Company to effect a connexion with the Midland Counties and by their line to complete a direct communication with Manchester and the ether large towns of the north. At an early period after the formation of the Company the Chairman opened a correspondence with that Company and the result was an invitation to meet with their board at Derby ; but he was sorry to say that notwithstanding their friendly disposition, they had not met with that attention and en couragement from that Company which they had been led to expect. When they arrived at Derby, they were told on the part of the other company, that they must form an alli ance with the South -Midland, and that after that the Mid land would be ready to treat with them on the subject of an alliance. But after, a connexion was to h ave b een f orme d w i t h the South Midland in addition to that of the Midland, to whom by the way 15,000 shame were: to have been offered, they were told that there they must form a union with the London and Birmingham, —a, line which they had always looked upon as directly opposed to the Leicester and Bedford.— (Hear, hear.) He asked whether gentlemen would think it right to accept these terms.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Stevenson was the gentleman deputed from the Mid lands to communicate with them ; to him, then, the first thing that they had said was, that their object wa not to stop short with a communication between Leicester and Hitchin ; it was their object to proceed on to London, and with this view they had put themselues in correspondence with the London and York. What conveni ence would the Midlands offer? It was not their intention to use the London and York line except between Hitchin and London. Mr. Stevenson said, " name not the London and York, for between the London and York and the London and Birmingham there was war —war to the knife." He said they asked Mr. Stevenson whether the Midlands would agree to their employing Mr. Cubitt the engineer on the London and York, but he answered that they could not consent to any engineer from a hostile line being employed in connexion wih theirs. Such was the in terview that had taken place between them and the Midland Company. They still hoped, however, to effect an alliance with that Company, and with this view asked time to consider the terms before they gave an answer. This having been agreed upon, they drew up a resolution worded with every care to avoid offence, to the effect, first, that no terms could be accepted compromising the indepen dence of this company; or second, inconsistent with its posi tion with the London and York; and third, that they offered to the Midlands an interest equal to that offered to the Lon don and York.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that he had by this time shown that the directors, after completing an alliance with the London and York, but failing with the Midlands, their failure was in consequence of the course of conduct pur sued by the Midland Counties.—(Hear, hear.) Notwith standing these difficulties, he saw nothing to prevent them prosecuting their original object. But there was one im portant feature which he wished to explain. At the time that this line commenced, the sessional orders had not been issued requiring 10 per cent. deposit, and they had only required of the shareholders a deposit of 5 per cent. ; but the directors having the fullest confidence in this line that it would be profitable to the shareholders and pro:: h a great advantage to the public, h a d t a k en it upon theirt_e own responsibility to pay 10 per cent. into the hands of this Ac countant-General.—(Hear, bear.) He was sure t hat would meet with their entire approv made by the the deposits al. The director s a lso would take care in respect of all shareholders and other sums yet to be paideilleiaart,thieleayr.spolliilde receive five per cent. on a" suchmoney than that the meetin g had no other expectation then would unanimously app r o ve of proceeding . with the Bill. The solicitor then r ead the Bill. The CitAramarr moved a r esolution, approving of the Bill, proceed. t. to and giving the directors power Mr. IminsEt. t. seconded after stating that he a p proved of the t e made,day in sroaiiwe aremarksc o t s n . Mr. D. W. HARVEY ith the preselnn Bill, and of proceeding w the th e caution necessary at He said he wished that some of those Noble persons, Earl Fitzwilliam or some other peer, would take steps to pass an order prohibiting all line unless who had got their Bill from making their instalments as would be a guaranteneletshsatthteh3erydewpeorseiteadblseuctho complete it, allki giving power to h on receiving b ac k t h eir t e shareholde rs t o re ti re penses.deposits, minus the reasona bl e ex- Mr. RIC the Direct HARDSON asked whether they could not p ersua d e Manchester line to join them in prosecuting their obj • ect? lie also asked, being himself a share holder in the London and York, whether there was any ground for the rumour which he had heard, of its being improbable that the Company would obtain their Bill? Mr. LINDSELL said, in the presence of the Chairman of the London and York, he would say nothing of it. As to the other question, he had to answer, that they had tried to effect a union with several of the direct lines to Manchester, but as yet without success. Mr. RASTALL, chairman of the London and York, and a director in the Leicester and Bedford Company, said that the Hon. Proprietor knew as much about the probabilty of the London and York Bill ultimately passing as he did. After eighteen days examination before a comminipuer of the House of Commons, which produced a favourable effect, and after nineteen days examination on oath before the House of Lords, which also produced a favourable impression there, it would be bold to say that the Bill would not be granted. Mr. J. J. M. RICILUIDSON made some remarks on Mr. Hudson's conduct in the House of Commons towards this Bill, and on the Hon. Gentleman's conduct in the managC• ment of the railway companies with which he was connected, and cautioned the directors to watch his movements, lest at an unguarded moment be might show out their Bill. Tae CAAIIIMAN then put the resolution, when the vote showed that the meeting was unanimous in favour of pro eeeding. The — CFrainmAN then intimated that additional capital, the amount of some hundreds, must still be represented, t make the meeting legal, and therefore he adjourned it till one o'clock on Tuesday next. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS• LEEDS, JUNE 9. STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Eastern Counties, York El' tension, 7s. p.-Great Grimsby and Sheffield Extensions, % dis.- -- Huddersfield and Manchester, 225. dis.-Huddersfield and Sheffield. 514 p.-Leeds and Dewsbury, 28s. 9d. p.-Leeds and Thirsk, 5% d 1• -London and Croydon, 211-Manchester and Leeds Extensions, 21. 6s. 6d.-Newcastle and Berwick, 9% p.-York and North Midland Extension, 18 p.-Chelmsford and Bury, 16s. dis.-Clitheroe Junc tion, 255. dis.-Essex and Suffolk, 149.6 d. dis.-Grand Union, 15s. 6d. dia.-Lancashire and North Yorkshire, % dis.-Leeds and York. 28s. 6d. dis.-Leicester and Bedford, 6d. p.-Liverpool, Ormskirk. and Preston, 13s. p.-Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland.. 13s. p. -Midland and Thira Junction, 219. dis.-Northumberlan d and Lancashire Junction, 15s. 6d. dis.-North Staffordshire, 21. 198. p.-North Western, 6d. p.-Sheffield and Lincoln, Is. p.-South land, % dis.-Welsh Midlands, 1% dis.-West Riding Union, 4. HULL, JUNE 9. STOCK EXCRANGE.-The sales are-Hull and Selby, Half Shea , 35%-North British, Half Shares, 328.-Ditto, Carlisle, 31s. 9d. - Ditto, Dalkeith, 6- Buckinghamshire, 6s. dis.-Chelmsford and Burl 11s. 6d.-East Lincolnshire, s -East Coast, 165.-Grand Union, 120. 6d.-Huntingdon, Wisbeach, and St. Ives, 1%-Leicester and Bed ford, 245.-Leicester and Tamworth, 255. 9d.-London and York, 400: -Manchester, Buxton, and Matlock, 2/. 158.-Nottingham and Mansfield, ss. dis. -North Western, 225. 9d.-North Staffordshir e, N. 4s. 6d.-Northumberland and Lancashire Junction, 275. South Midland, 315.-Shrewsbury and Birmingham, 21. 128.--Wo b Riding Union, 41. 4s. SHEFFIELD, JUNE 9. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Midland (Sheffield and Ro: therham), 35}x—Sheffield and Manchester, Quarter Shares, l'In• (Scrip), 7s. p.—Grimsby and Sheffield, 3 1 ,, a dis.—Ditto, Quarter Shares, 7s. dis.— Sheffield and Lincolnshire, Is. p. HUDDERSFIELD, JUNE 9. STocE EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Oxford, Worcester, and Wol verhampton, 8 —Great Eastern and Western, 21s.—Grand Union. %—Huddersfield, Halifax, and Bradford Union, 31. 15s.—Leicester and Bedford, 265. 6d.—London, Salisbury, and Yeovil, 11. 161. Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Midland, 3. YORK, JUNE 9. STOCK EEC/LAMM—The sales are—Eastern Counties, York EX' tension, —Grind Tinton (Nottingham and Lynn), 12s. 6d.—LeiCeS' ter and Bedford, 1/. 4s. 6d.—London and York, 21. 4s.—Malton and Drifileld Junction, 2/. 9s.—Manchester, Buxton, Matlock, and Mid' land, 2/. 16s. 6d.—Newcastl e and lerwlck, 24%—Newcastle and Darlington Extensions, Si. 145.—North British, Carlisle Extension. 1% —Ditto, Dalkeith, 31—North Western, 1 (—West Riding Union. 4% —York and North Midland, New (East and West Riding, 101. Ils. 3d. TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. DIVIDENDS DECLARED. T. Turner, D. Brade, and C. Schwind, merchants, Liver" pool—third div. of 2d. and 11-16ths in the pound, any Mon day, at the office of Mr. Bird, Liverpool. J. Banning, stationer, Liverpool—first div. of 4s. 2d. le the pound, any Monday, at the office of Mr. Bird, Liverp oo , l * W. L. Brown, merchant, Liverpool—first div. of 3s. 74d. to the pound, any Monday, at the office of Mr. Bird, Liverpool:, H. Gardner, merchant, Liverpool—second div. of 4id. the pound; any Monday, at the office of Mr. Bird, Liverpool. G. F. Fairclough, money scrivener, Liverpool—second diC• of Sid. in the pound, any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Teru el ' Liverpool. G. Middleton, wine merchant, Nottingham—first div. of 2s. Bd. in the pound, any Thursday, at the office of c"' Christie, Birmingham. R. and J. Campion, bankers, Whitby—fourth div. 0f..„ 214 Bd. in the pound, any Tuesd a y, a t th e o ffi ce o f Mr. K3ll*- ton, Leeds. J. Walker, jun., butcher, Leeds—first div. of 3s. 2d. in the pound, any Tuesday, at the office of Mr. Kynaston, Leeds a S. Elliott and J. Allen, corn factors, Wakefield—first an ,. final div. of 2s. 11d. in the pou n d, an y T ues d ay , a t the da— d Mr. Kynaston, Leeds. W. Collinson, shipwright, East Butterwick, Lincolnshire"' second div. of 3d. in the pound, any Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Freeman, Leeds. W. and H. Bell, seed crushers, Hull—second div. of fil l in the pound, any Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Fr ee ' man, Leeds. R. Marshall, stone mason, Deptford—third div. of .4-. he the pound, Juue 6, and three foll o wi ng S a t ur d a ys, et " office of Mr. Groom, Abchurch-lane. J. Durtnall, ironmonger, Dover—third div. of Is. 10d• i the pound, June 6, and three followin g S a t ur d a ys, at the office of Mr. Groom, Abchurch-lane. J. Fowler and G. M. Linthorne, tea-dealers, Little Tower street—first div. of 2s. 6d. in the pound, June 6, and three following Saturdays, at the office of Mr. Groom, church-lane. Alexander and Richards, warehousemen, Upper Clift2 ri g : street, Finsbury—third div. of ls. 6d. in the pound, J lll ' l _7;7 and two following Saturdays, at the office of Mr. Gl w "" Abchurch-lane. W. W. Butcher, commission agent, Great Mar.nlbord c t u b g r h e; street—first div. oi3s. 10d. in the pound, June Ab following Saturdays, at the office of Mr. Gym, church. lane. r 2s. 10d. in the G. C. Bridge, grocer, Maldon—first div. c• the o f fi ce of pound, June 6, and two following Saturdays, at Mr. Groom, Abchurch.lane DIVIDENDS. At the Court of Bankruptcy, iiasinghall-street. W. W. Sanderson, baker, Great Russell-street, Covent ' garden, June 30, at half-past twelve-J. C. Adams, woollen warehouseman, Basinghall-street, June 30, at half-pas! eleven-J. Mann, woolstapler, Norwich, Jun 30, at half-past one-T. Streeter, draper, High -street, Camden-town, June 30, at one-H. Turner, cowkeeper, Theobald's-road, Bedford' row, June 30, at half-past twelve. In the Country. J. C. Chambers, needle manufacturer, Ipsley, Warwick' shire, July 4, at twelve, at the Birmingham District Court . J. Harford and W. W. Davies, i ron mas t ers , Bristol. Ju11.,7 at eleven, at the Bristol District Court-S. Pilli n g, wine nl' a l chant, Gateshead, Durham, July 2, at h a lf-past eleven , r the Newcastle-upon. Tyne District Court-J. Wallace, gr uce o .,' Durham, July 2, at half-past ten, at the Newcastle - un e _, Tyne District Court-J. Thompson, anchor manufalnr; Sunderland, July 2, at half-past twelve, at the upon-Tyne District Court-J. Rowles, worsted niel -- i court Leicester, June 30, at ten, at the Birmingham Di°'forkehirey --C. Swinburne, plasterer, Middlesborough/ l'T.4kelfctarer, July 2, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. h orn tO CERTIFICATES to be granted, unl ess c au se he,e the contrary, on the day h ere i n mention ther hither J. Kirkup, coal merchant, Providence-wharf, June 30-J. Wilson, cabin e t- ma k er , Hill- s t r eet, Wee"' F. June 30-J. Tebbutt, auctioneer, Cambridge, June and W. Ablett, drapers, High Holborn, June 30--" f • r o Ryder, grocer, Kingston-upon-Hull, July 1-B. Say o a r master, ShelEeld, July 3-H. Hall, cattle dealer, aln month. Northumberland, June 30-G. Williams, jewef,_: Bristol, June 30-R. Goodridge, grocer, Exeter, June 31 r; J. Johns, confectioner, Grosvenor-street West, Pith June 30-J. R. Ellis, brassfounder, Houndsditch, J u ne N _, G. Brown, banker, Shiffnal, Shropshire, June 30. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. W. L. and J. W. Lewis, drapers, Strood, Gloncesternhire*". J. Kilvert and W. H. Evans, surgeons, Bath-G. Smith, 5.e,.., 1 ? 4 A. Elder, and P. Stewart, book se ll ers , Cornhill-A. Ni ck and E. Forster, brush manufacturer, Wolverhampton-17; and G. Gay, merchants, Queen-street-place, Southiver" - bridge-J. Shoolbred, G. Cook, and H. Brown, Tottenha m court-road (so far as regards G. Cook)-J. and E. GrisbroS. Woolwich-J. G. Turner and W. Price, stockbrokers, 1 1 -G. H. Newton and H. Peck, cement manufacturers, ,g ins' „i sr ston-upon-Hull-R. Hyslop and J. Dubois, coal mer eua igep Gosport-J. Ridgway and J. Taylor, grocers, Staleybri_u„, Cheshire-A. Tagliabue and F. Cicen, thermometer m an facturers, Brook -street, Holborn-W. George, and J. t if f ring, porter-bottlers, Westbromwich, Staffordshire- 11 - and J. P. Crewe, engineers, Church, Lancashire-T. iT tott wisle, W. Birtwisle, J. Haydock, and W. Preston, eu d '' 0, spinners, Great Harwood, Lancashire-G. Long an ryossr Taylor, auctioneer, Stafford-J. T. Holland and T. railway contractors, Attleborough, Warwickshire- 4 - 1113 0 d and W. Fitch, stationers, Old Fish-street-hill-J. Jess e s od W. Bevan, surgeons, Ardwick, Lancashire-E. Brown s ot G. Trafford, carriers, Louth, Lincolnshire-J. Catchpole C. Williams, goldsmiths, Regent -street. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. John Robertson Nicoll and Thom as Ni co ll, i ron mew Dundee, -- d June 15 and July 6, at one, a t th e chambe rs.". Messrs. Neish and Pattullo, Dundee. 4 014 Hugh and William Brown, stockbrokers, Gl'.—teeles June 15 and July 13, at two, at the chambers of tar junior, Glasgow. --- COMBINED ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE PROM PRI SON. The extensive alterations which are now go i ng on in S pring field convict gaol offer, it would appear, an irresistible tenyhe ation to those prisoners who ar e wa iti o.g to b e t r i e d a t assizes, and expect to be transported, to attempt to " co o their escape, and they last week determined on a. des _ P w bot effort to gain their liberty. They fixed upon a totri the numerous workmen would be absent, and it was Ste. day, arrange thatabout thirty persons should attack the officers i?n, day, going to or quitting the chapel. They proposed to glil Want" the governor and the officers who resisted them, and „1" themselves with such weapons as they could timefind e a be rno u n e s. ds, the materials with which the prison at Some o f the prisoners iirb° were thus to fight their way out. mweerdeieatveleyrsceemtomtlltieeiaeattteemdpt, with t bseinformed v isiting h eo magistrates, governor, w h 17; would effectually frustrate such precautions were adopted a e r e ti e rbeydthane dGeneienratetystpeaemCkcaenigef4. any similar designs. SI of very good quality, in tune S' t p o nf F yre. RN frs il C pui ew Fß ol ll ,,gbL a o a m e Saturday morn.—.. BIRTHS. _ --. still-borind. E f park_placer v O. „.. is inst., at the Deanery, the lady of the Very ne • • hhott of r r . , o n t he 1 t i inst,tre -hiil, o s tf f h aea dawifedaughter. Richard men, N., 0 ~,,,, nrc.r On the 4th inst., at Ballechin House, Perthshire, the ii.. Y - tain R Scott, of a son. Somers On the sth inst., Mrs. W. Franck E ll iot, Bishop's Hull, .e— -arnianolatasitdal of a son. On the sth i ns t ., at Staamore Villa, Weybridge, Mrs. Webs **. a Flockton, of a son. On the 6th i nst., at the School-house, Sh w ife of d l 7 rewsbnrY, the Rev. Dr. Kennedy, of a son. On the 6th i nst., in Sussex-place, the wife of Neville ./ -bd.'', VOW of a daughter. On the 7th i nst., at Highgate, the wife of T. H. RoPer. r• " I.' d of a son. On the 7th i ns t ., the lady of the Rev. Stephen Brown, Iteeter East Shefford, Berke, of a son. Cull° 111 r Mrs. On the Bth i ns t ., i n Dorset terrace, Clapham-road, ham, of a da ug ht er. A. _ K . luc ks , ur On the sth inst., a t M errow, Surrey, the wife of Georgv . Esq., of a daughter. , 0 1 On the sth inst., at E s h er , th e l ady of J. Maclean Lee, EK" sm, still-born. On the 6th inst., at Daiston, Mu. F. Price, of a daughtell:____ On the lath inst., at St. Pancras, MARRIED Mr. Charles Eaton , o f Br 'L. green, Hammersmth, to Mary Anne, only daughter of the late John Woodyatt, of Great Portland-street. af O n " On the sth inst., at Shrewsbury, John Hamer, Esq., of 0 . 3- Y o r Salop, to Maria, third d aug ht er o f C . B. All na tt, Esq•P r tie Crescent, Shrewsbury, DIED. On the 15th of April, at Mangalore, in; the East WWI, Lientenert H. Hickman, 34th Madras Li g ht I n f antry. of beT Ma . On the 23d ult., at Gibralt ar , C apta i n Thomas Mostyll, jesty's 54th Regime n t. or On the 2d inst., Margaret A nne, w if e o f D an i e l Cabana, Esq ., Somerset-placeh inst.,B aed 79. f mr. J OOO . On the 6t Frances Elizabeth, eldest daughter o Cubitt, of Founders'-hall-court, Lothbury. daughter of tb 0 On the Gth inst., at Cheltenhara. Julia Maria, sixth den late Rev. Francis Bak e r, R ec t or o f W y l ye, Wilt s . On the 7th inst., in Watli ng - s t ree t, M rs . Sh u tt, aged 56. t„ I 1 London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of NO. dnt Strand, Printer , at The Sun Office, N 0.112, Strand.in the Pre jun • of the SaYO7, 111 the County of Middlesex, Wedries 4l4lo 10, 1#346.