The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

."7 THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, JULY 9, 1844. bad ever been admitted ; more especially upon such an *osurd fiction 'as - that - when the jury assessed the da !eatiotetehe case s, e they ; assessed them on all the counts, which was and Lord Mansfield went on to state that what ode the rule the more absurd was, that it did not hold Odin criminal prosecutions, for thatwhen the verdict of t i ltY was once returned, one good count was sufficient ~,,support it. There was a case in Cooper's Reports, in Lord Mansfield had said the same thing. Then tb e i r e Was the case of the King v. Fuller. His Learned pp this question referring to that case, seemed to imagine that question coultronly arise in cases of misdemeanour, t zl , th , at there could be no such thing as an indictment k o le,loty with different counts. If his Learned Friend 1 1 . 3 had es Much experience in the criminal as he had ni , a ' the civil courts, he would have known that it was , e ' v t e .. .as common to have indictments for felony with —e 'eleeunts as for misdemeanour ; and that the same trestiou would. arise if the punishment were discre kTuit, or fixed by law ; end .the general rule in indict nts for felony was, that if the record warranted the -eoet, .was • not erroneous because one of the counts . the indictment might be defective. Then there was t ease of the King v. Rose, 2d Lord Raymond's Reports, 41 6 . This was an indictment for perjury, and some th assignments were defective, . and on that ground A s i ceert was moved in arrest of judgment. But Lord ta rt,sitid the whole court gave it as their opinion that if be i t lassignments were wrong but one, that one would Then to authorise the court to give its judgment. tri there was the case of " the King v. Powell," 2d • n:tee/all and Adolphus, p. 535. This was a' writ of Z.! to the Court of Queen's Bench, and that established A Principle that if one count of one indictment was suf eut te support a judgment, and the verdict supported r t judgment, the judgment was not erroneous. It was c me that was tried at the Surrey October Sessions, and A A l „ s 'a Were two counts in the indictment. The first was assault with intent .to ravish, and the second „:", for a common assault. Now the first count 1 1d warrant judgment of imprisonment. with . 12 ra labour—the • second would not. The jury re -41r1441 thi s verdict—" The said Henry Po well ~.„guilty. of the misdemeanour , and offence in the indictment specified .as, alleged against him." He 1 4 7 , 4 8 eatenced to two years' imprisonment, with hard . The verdict was brought before the Queen's "fiapply on writ of error, as the terms of the verdict could rr .i . Y, On ly to one count, and. it did not specify which, and 'therefore it was contended. that the judgment to b l` s id labour was erroneous. Lord Tenterden gave it as t su : k ßigiolli that the. udgment ought to be affirmed, inas _M•4B, the verdict warranted the judgment.' peke CAMPBELL—If the second count had been for. • riltry the same reason would apply. 4 te ,",e ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It is impossible to make „,xoetinction h ee l 'ord BROUG . HAH—gad.the party, in the case you put, gl#lty of an assault to: commit a rape, and guilty of `"* u rY, and one of the counts had been bad, the judg t In of the court would have been passed , not u p on taecostnt which was bad, but upon the count which 9 , 10 go o d .. • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The verdict a g uilty use guilty of bcith; the second • must be defective, but Tea first warranted the judgment of the verdict. His r" rned Frierillikad stated that. there was no instance of court of error acting upon that rule: The case of 110 v/ell was a direct authority for..it, for that was a .. I lfe s in error. Theo there was the case of the King v. a 3r, which came before the Court of Queen's Bench `.lreland which. was .reported 'in the 2d of Jeff and p. 643, . in which the Court .of Queen's Bench -441 -it down that if, in a case of judgment being .given . ;',"_?sconnt was bad, that was not enough to vitiate the zgluent if one count was good. Then there was the ,ok.of,the King v. Connor, -which was argued in the ,Bench in Ireland in 1839, in which it was stated, the . argument of • counsel, :that if one ;T i nt were good judgment could not be re irsed. and . cit e d seve ral cases on that point. t_,o was quite impossible for the court of error to inquire the nature of the judgment of the court below. It , ; ;: el l was a fallacy to say that the judgment was made ailumber of counts ; that was not so in point of a t e ,,,r 11 c 1 , he apprehended, could it be considered so th e j'''/• v veY• If the judgment were a judgment which ~Ivf authorised, the writ of error Could know nothing ilthie motives or inducements of the court below ; and th at / Presumption was to be made, surely it must be o tt h,,"e court below, in affixing- punishment, affixed it 'sii s LuPon counts which warranted it- No doubt the t ,2f the punishment' was- discretionary with the 414, The court of error had only to see whether the ent was one which the law allowed. wite k s` Heouena*—The admission of a writ of error t° admit that the judges may by possibility have - ",Nti", Mont on. a wrong count. der doubt-; but what he i ,`"er tiOhat court of error would look ,to see .ivhe ' 'utter:talent had been given which was not war-. t hH., l4 l'd 4 w• - • , eth , . e ececuaet,-The Presumption you say; is,, that. lilt i t • below gave judgmene epon the right count, "eeve possible that judges in the court below may thOnej: i i ! „" Judgment on, the wrong count, may have Irei e Xt 4 , , rCillg count right... . Salt th e D " O III.IEy.GENigAr,--No doubt it was passible, the c ot th rm uniation of, laW was, that the judgment of br ouat ' t u ' n -las a ,judginent warranted by law, and if that ' f t wn — R court of .error, the court would presume vet CAM-P;r4ELI4I,--tedliblytlhaawt. case a erj imperfect remedy ; writ of error is a he • A. oelezirtGeeznae said, lie' . rspoke only -of the Presumption of law. g the. law were not right, the e Pereourse would be .to make, it ,eo. by Act pfPqrlia . ;kt. Let him topiket„euy”er the ordinary. - , case* which ca me before the assizes, „ :He would. take ..tbee ,case Rich his Learned ,Friend ' ,hed Ile sup- Poked gonspiracy of one day of two:Men:to-steal • loaf, an d he supposed a conspiracy on a second 41 between, the same two men to • burn a house 1 murder the inhabitants. He supposed. that the , • 1 4 ties w er e tried, and that,,, on their being triad 1: „ I j ' L " jury • and the facts being inyestigeted , , t he • • ereodants W i ere found guilty . of both the offences. Ii w as ‘ a .. case in which two persons .were e t rl y ieted, on trial by jury, of conspiracy to burn 1 , 1 1 a house and to murder the inhabitants. Well, then, 37 would suppose that, in the second count of the in there was a defect. According to Learned t &fl, in order to do comlete ustice, they must allow v4.,rit:tattatot o g u ° ll f t r mi ee by reversing theudgment. If this to anything at all;,' it. Wen% ic; show . at the. Legisleture -should. pass some laWtp revent V the 1 1 : 131 ,g of . diff e r en t coun t s in the same indictment. Y. it was arguing all on one side to say,, that justice te e s ' il°t done, because in one particular case the punish nt 'tight have been increased by a defective Count , oc currence was not , a pn, robable one, *and, if they • 'wan ted theoretical erfectio they ~must gb to the legislature. 'rake p the case of a - man, _earned • .e a u Zt tried for Murdering a wom an. In' that cout. I t _ was necessary to have ten or . twelve guil t -La the indictment. The jury found the prisoner e v ie generally upon * the indictnient, and the • em o e a lle ,, c. ,warranted the finding on . or eight of the Should they, because there was a detect in one irrie u e „P u nts, suffer, suCh a ; arty to commit murder with • fl - e 1,: 4 1'?, Surely it would not be improving the law of ; 11 ‘ t u h i e w Pass an Act declaring that where there were e eti -r a , counts upon an indictment, - and the jury had party guilty of all, he should, if one sere bad ! F'lcharged? the Celdeneee--Where there only one Murder, upo Preper mode would be to find the prisoner guilty one count. The A • , cri tic -.TTORNEY- GENERAL. " - said he. believed in the mai court the verdict and the sentence were always th e . "., ret i • generally, In the case of the King v. - Fuller, 4,`,, was a rerdict upon both counts. in the indictment. T h e Lean CHANCELLOR said he recollected a thi stodebin r ti,..ng kind. A .policeman, was indicted for a rape upon a young girl .in his cus i • He got off upon a . misnomer, of the girl. wall indicted a second time. There was a plea 4m: l4 : tre foil acquit, and .the answer was " went by 's ee ,„ -I ',„'ne as well as the other," and he was acquitted a 104 0 - " t hee. The case was tried at the Norfolk Assizes, • Mr. Justice Patteson. ATTORNEY-GENERAL challenged his Learned s to produce any case in which the rec ord and the • • b e ," 4 warranted a judgment, and. that judgment had „ -* set elide. When - he said the record, he did not , ,tehZever3r count in the indictment; but what he main . 1106, 4 west - that when one count in the. indictment was 'mid a verdict of guilty had been returned upon count, his Learned, Friends could find no ca se in of le gel 'lodgment had been reversed. It was a confus ion tee principles and arguments to confound the, er of the sentence with the judgment whic h the w w sanctioned. The jury had nothing whatever to do hh'the amount of punishment or fine. • rd CAHPBELL—Suppose it, were specifically stated. „ . a rs V “ in the j u d gmen t, " for the offence specified in the eg „ 1 . 4 ." " for the account specified in the s econd dea li n T ° for th e: offwnoe specified in the third count," and 0 ,t." II,: to dm eleventh count, and a certain sentenc e was '"' n of one year's imprisonment, or 1002 fine, would i cs u that error? „ the. at case say, there is no an ATTORNEY-GENHMAL said he could hardly th !!" ito hypothetical question, but he ventured to say ( e f,: ataub u k , h : shtt 4 er o ci ch judgment .had ever been entered ep.— ) .by The analogy of the civil cases sought to be his , Learned Friends entirely failed. In , cast t h e othe r verdict of the jury warranted the judgment stud n.. which was , the court that gave judgment, hi 'E .—se " - the sentence. He 'submitted to their Lord , ,Ps that that wee the - principle of the law, and that all r i m e n t r .„,acti,ce, and the opinion of the professioe, from time t isr „, l ""°rialt supported him in that statement. He yen " t° ask his Learned Friends on the other side to grlTh-est ttheirLordships the ferns o f entering up , t hent. His Le arn ed Friend (Sir T. Wilde) said • Q was distinctive between a writ of error and a latte r 'la arrest of judgment. That when the came on for decision the Judges said, "It do es lug ir matter; if one of the counts are good, we will pass t 4 Ment On that one." He doubted whether any Judge ▪ •erae said anything of the kind. He spoke in the taalilea sw,yeral Judges of the Queen's Bench, and „put it toth em w h et h er suc h w a s the pract i ce . Their • : t rio rather w 44 If, one of the counts are good, it is - ' besserY: .to incpAre whether, the others are good or Their Lordships would not decide this upon any iqu'ffrlse cue, but on the principles of law, and the de• of the courts. Should their Lordships pronounce 44 Of this objection th e y wou ld b e revers ing whit 0. .. : Held t o bg, the law of the land for the last eV) • .4 : 1„ e ▪ and under :which lop . persons had suffered,, and r: suffering at this uwineut. ,He had . only one other s rvation to make ....upon this . point. His Learned s:'•.*Zel„ 'had said that, the defendants could not plead e;ois-cotiviet, and-that. the juz.istaent should not be • "reversed on this ground. But though a person Was found e o n n t . t a l . nd c 4 o r e i n t t h w e h e i o e u h id was bad, y f et . if he . ai.'i s tfered earned plead autre 014 convict His s __ ;-, another hypothetical s ' case. i flov ,2 l P e Posed that' there - were four ' counts • in an ixtit uaria at, containing different offences, one for murder, t 9 41414 9110 for GU omits and, the fourth, for au assault, with intent to commit a breach of the peace He supposed the verdict of the jury was given on all the counts ; that the court of error had decided three out of the four were bad, and that the party was sentenced on the fourth. He next supposed that the Queen had par doned him on the fourth count; and he then asked, how he could be allowed out of custody? He (the Attorney-Gene ral) had the honour of being one of the Law Officers of the Crown, and he very much doubted whether the Crown had this, power, supposing that judgment had been entered up. He would now proceed to the next point, which was also of a technical nature, which was as to the finding of the jury on the first and second counts of the indictment. Those counts charged the defendants with conspiring with one another, and divers other persons, to raise and create discontent and disaffection amongst the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and excite _the said subjects to hatred and contempt of the Government and Constitution of this realm, as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious opposition to the said Government and Constitution, and also to stir up jealousies, hatred, and ill will between different classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of and hostility towar.ls and against her Majes ty's subjects in the other parts of the said United King dom, and especially in that part of the said United Klieg dom called England." He would stop there, because their Lordships would find that the jury found them all guilty of conspiring to do all those acts. The counts went on to charge them with conspiring for other objects, as to cause changes in the Government, law, and Consti tution, as by law established; and to bring into contempt the tribunals for the adininistrationnf the law in Ireland. The jury found seven of the defendants guilty, of conspiring with each other, and divers other persons, and then they found three of them guilty of the residue—of an unlawful conspiracy to raise disaffection in the army. None of the defendants were found guilty of the whole of the charge, because the jury acquitted 'them of the charge of procuring an unlawful meeting, the jury having seemed to consider that the, parties who.met were instruments and dupes, and they therehre omitted the words" seditious" and "unlawful," but they found that these parties had conspired " to cause divers subjects of the Queen to meet and assemble. together for seditious and unlawful purposes." That was the finding of the jury, and it might be considered in two ways, but in either way it did not affect the verdict. It was either a part of the issue, or it was not. If it was a part of the issue it could not affect the judgment. Now what the jury meant was clearly this—that Certain of the defend ants charged with conspiracy hat? agreed 'to do 'all the acts mentioned in the first part of the declaration, but that certain others of them had agreed to go further. Well, the way they did it was this—" As to the residue we convict them of a conspiracy to do nothing." He should submit that that was a good - find ing: He would suppose the case of four per sons meeting in a room—all of whom agreed to rob a house, and three out of the four to commit a murder, to which the fourth did not, agree. He appre hended it would be a good finding to find three of them guilty to do all of the acts, and one to do one act only. The meaning of the jury was that all were iniplicated in the -conspiracy, but not to the same effect, and he was not aware of any principle which would prevent a jury from coming to such a finding. His Learned Friends had argued that the defendants were found guilty . of more offences than were laid to their charge in the in dictment ; that they were charged with eleven, and were found guilty on fifteen ; and that, therefore, as judgment was given upon the whole, judgment was given for more offences than the parties were charged with. He sub mitted, that this. did not vitiate the judgment, and that though the jury found them guilty of more offences than were charged against them in the indictment, it would be considered a surplusage, and would be rejected by the court below and the court above. The Honour able and Learned Gentleman quoted, in support of his argument, 2d Saunders' Reports, p. 208. It was there argued that the verdict was invalid, because the jury found on 'matters which were not in issue. The jury found that the defendants had spoken slanderous words which were not charged ; but the court held that the objection to that part did not require the rejection of the whole finding. He would not trouble their Lord ships with the numerous cases which he might cite in. support of the same .principle. It was alleged in the case before their Lordships that the jury found the de fendants guilty of three conspiracies where but . one was charged. , It was quite natural to observe that the judg ment was given for' the offences aforesaid, and that must mean for the offences charged 'in the indictment, and on which the verdict had been found. But if the finding included something which was not in the in dictment, that would not set aside the judgment. If anything' of that sort had .been found,. the Court of Queen's Bench would have set it aside as surplusage, and it would not affect the material parts of, the verdict. The Loan CHANcELLOa — It is quite clear that the finding of something beyond the issues would be 'no ground for rejecting the verdict, so far as it was Within the issue. The ATTOBNEY-GENERAL begged to call their Lordships' attention to the words of the jury. They were these : " That the defendants all of them conspired with others to create dissatisfaction," and so on. That was the first finding in the verdict ; and then they said—" And as to the residue ? the said Daniel O'Connell," and so on. Now that word residue itself 'was sufficient to show that they, did not mean to find the defendants guilty of three conspiracies, but of one common conspiracy, in part of • the objects of which some only of them had entered. If, as was argued, that finding on the, residue was a mistake, yet it would not invalidate that part of the verdict which was within the issue, and which declared all the eigh t defendants guilty of the conspiracy charged in the in dictment. In 2d Rowe's Abridgment, p. 714, there was a passage to the affect that " When the jury finds anything beyond the issue, that does not vitiate the verdict on the judgment, as it is only surplusage."_ The objection on this point had been - argued upon the first and second counts as_if they stood alone, and the other counts were treated - as bad. But he apprehended that there were other substantiated counts all coining under the head of the one conspiracy. He did not' think it worth while to trouble their Lordships by dwelling upon the objection, that because some were found guilty and others acquitted of certain objects of the conspiracy, the _separate findings were for separate conspiracies. Where a defendant was found guilty of some of the acts charged in one count, and acquitted of the others, that was a sufficient verdict of guilty. The next of those technical objections arose from the discontinuance. Their Lord ships would give them the benefit of whatever they were entitled to on that ground. The 'objection was this, that the Court of Queen's Bench having given instruc tions that the trial should proceed on the 12th of February, it did so. On 'the 15th of April, the first day of Easter 'term, 'all the defendants appeared to receive judgment. But that judg ment was again postpcinecl to, the 22d of May: The -objection was this, that there ought t i be a con tinuance from the 12th of February, to the first day of Easter term, and that the defendants had . not had a day before receiving judgment. On this point, he was pre pared to submit that if this had not been a trial under a particular A.;:t of Parliament, this would not have been a defect or error. In ordinary' cases, it would not he an error. It was quite impossible that there could' be a continuance. The particular circumstances under *Which this trial took place—were such as rendered the _form adopted the only proper one. This trial took place under the statutes 1 and 2 Will. IV. Having read the section, he proceeded to say that the trial did, extend beyond Hilary term, and was terminated on the 20th of February without a continuance; the Court could not only not pronounce judginent, but could do no judicial act whatever ; but the verdict was sufficient without anything else, as the defendants. appeared in court on the first day on which judgment could be given, and he' submitted that this was the only way in which the record ,could be made out. This was no ground for reversing the judgment. He need hardly state, that no' court- at this time of day would. reverse a judgment in a criminal case on a mere technical defect of this kind, the act of the officer who made up the record. He ventured to go further and say, that unless there should be a distinct series of un questionable authorities binding the court to reverse its judgment,. on such an' absurd,. Objection the court 'could net entertain it. He quoted the authorities which had - been cited by Mr. Peacock from Coke and Lyttleton, and the cases of Smith v. Lock, Bradley v. Banks, and the King v. Vitchen, from. Lord Raymond's Reports. ,But not one of' all these authorities ' " laid down the prin ciple- ' of a reversal of the judgment for not giving a day after the verdict. But he would show their Lordships several authorities stating that it could not be reversed on that ground. He quoted. from Comyn's Digest, title, Pleader.: %. • Lord CAMPBELL—That is a common law without statute. The ATTOTINV.Y.GENERAL--It was without the aid of statute. It was laid down that a discontinuance made prior to the verdict, but not discovered until after the verdict, could not be' held to' be a discontinuance, and the rule was the same in civil as in criminal cases. Lord CAMPBELL- - It seemed it was not thought ne cessary to continue the operation of the statute of dis continuance after the verditt was pronounced. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was not necessary. He quoted also the case' of Rogers and Ellin, from Comyn's Digest. In the case before 'their Lordships the verdict had been given. What was the objection of the defendants?-That a day was not given them on whieh to appear and hear' judgment pronounced. Why, they did appear to hear judgment ; then where was the injury ? If a . party had been. outlawed for not appear ing to receive judgment, he could understand the objec tion, as the , party would then plead the discontinuance order to have his outlawry reversed. But he contended that the statute of William IV., tinder which this trial bad taken place, rendered *very other form informal. It was a statutory adjournment which every one was bound to take notice of. ' The Learned Gentleman then said that, with their Lordships' permission, he would close his argument on that point, and resume it t o-mor r ow at ten o'clock, on • the question of the challenge of the array. Their Lordships then adjourned until ten o'clock to morrow (this day). , • HER MAJESTYS THEATRE .—On Saturday ,night Lucia di Lammermoor was repeated, by her Majesty's com- • mand, instead of Otello, which had been first announced. Her MajestY entered her box at the commencement of the second act, and remained till the conclusion of the opera. We are happy to state that she looked remarkably well. Her Royal Highness the Princess Augusta of Cambridge was also present A MorisEri AmAzosi,—.. o The following adventure,” says the Reforme, t' will cause a thrill in the hearts of our horsewomen of the Olympic Circus. Towards the middle of last month, in the neighbourhood of .Ak-Hyssar,. six Zey beaks attacked three or four persons forming part of M. Romania!" eqnestrian troop, who were proceeding from C,nstantinople to Smyrna, The robbers having attempted to comin;t„viojence .enMadeMoiegile g.omaniM, she with he a yatagan .orie.,l the Zeybeeks, whow she kitled with I own hand, and put the c;:l'ari to di#ht. Aradeitiiisello =Lag U WIALUded IA the arm2l INIPEKtAL PARLIAMENT. hOUSE OF LORDS, July 8. Their Lordships having sat in Error in the appeal of Daniel O'Connell and others, from ten o'clock until four, resumed, for public business, at a quarter to five. Several private Bills were advanced a stage, and in the case of others the COmmons' amendments were agreed to,-and the Bills passed, but we could not catch their names. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from a body of Unitarian Dissenters in favour of the A Rev. PRELATE, whose name we did not hear, presented several petitiens...from places in Yorkshire, Surrey, and other parts of theltingdom, against the Bill. The Bishop of LONDON presented nutzter9tis peti tions to the same effect. C ORN-LAW S. Lord ELDON presented petitions from numerous parishes in Surrey against, any alteration of the corn laws which would diminish agricultural,protection. The Duke of RICHMOND presented Similar petitions from places in the counties of Sussex, Hants, and Somer set, against the Anti-Corn-law League, and in favour of protection ; also petitions from Exeter and other places, against certain provisions of the Bank Charter Act. Lord TEYNHAM presented a great number of peti tions from places in Staffordshire, Lancashire, Bucking ham, Northampton, and various other parts of the coun try, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Lord SOMERS presented twenty-four petitions, in favour of agricultural protection. The Noble Lord pre sented also several petitions against the Bank Charter Bill. Lord ASHBURTON presented several petitions from places in Surrey, praying for agricultural protection. The Noble Lord presented also a petition in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels BilL THE POST-OFFICE LETTER OPENING. The Duke of WELLINGTON , informed the House that he had received a letter from Lord Buriiiagton, de clining to sit upon the Secret Committee of Post-office inquiry ; and on the motion of the Noble Duke, the name of Lord Colborne was substituted. THE BANK CHARTER BILL. On the motion of the Earl of RIPON, it was agreed chat the Bank Charter Bill should , be read a second time to-mo rrow, and that the discussion should ta ke p lace on Friday. BISHOPRICS QF BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH. On the motion of the Earl of POWIS, .the third reading of the dioceses of Bangor and St. Asaph Bill was postponed till Thursday. . THE IRISH MAGISTRACY. . Earl FORTESCUE postponed till Thursday the mo tion of which he had given notice for this day, relating to Mr. qDriscoll. He hoped he should be allowed to i b n r v i n o g o y ed p a the e iz t o i9 t i n o n o f b p e e f o r s r o e n a t h l e o h r a d r e a r e s t e o x f , v t. h h e d i ch a y a o , ug s h i t t not to,be kept suspended. Lord KINNAIRD presented a petition from Perth, praying that the provisions of the Brothels Suppression Bill should be extended to Scotland.—(A laugh.) LOrd MA LM ESBURY presented a petition from land owners- of New . Zealand, praying for further protection to colonial produce. C A_THOLIC BEQUESTS BILL. The Tiishop of EXETER said that this Bill contained clauses of greater importance than had been contained in any Bill passed by Parliament for the last 300 years. He had come up two hundred miles to take ' part in the discussion, which stood fixed for to-morrow, and he hoped it would not be postponed, at he should have to return on Wednesday. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said that the same cause of postponement which affected other measures to day would probably cause the postponement of this Bill . to-morrow. The Bishop of EXETER would take the present op portunity of stating generally his objections to the mea sure, which were founded upon the , effect the Bill would have of recognising the supremacy of the Pope in these realms. He should be most happy to support a measure for enabling Catholics to endow their religious estab lishments, if it could be done without endangering the constitution and the religious institutions of this kingdom. INCENDIARISM IN NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK. Lord WODEHOUSE complained with great warmth of the calumnies which had lately been disseminated against the gentry and yeomanry of the county (Suffolk) over which he had the honour to preside as Lord Lieutenant. He called upon the gentlemen of the press who were present to publish his contradiction.—(Order, order, and great laughter.) Those calumnies would never have been fabricitied, if it had not been to suit the purposes of those who availed themselves of opposition to the poor-laws for party objects. If the gentlemen of the press would go down to the neighbourhood of his own estate and examine the union workhouses — (A laugh)—they would see that they were well ma naged, and if they asked the paupers themselves they would be told that they were better off than under the old - system. He thanked their Lordships and apologised for the warmth of his matiner—(Hear)--but he felt that he' was as much inculpated by those ealumaies as any farmer in the couritv.(Cheers.) The MarquispflktOßMANßY considered the warmth of the Noble Lord perfectly 'natural, and felt cer tain that no part of the accusations .to which he had alluded could apply to that Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.) He (the Marquis of Norsninby) would take this opportunity of moving for returns of the number, age, and sex of the persons who had been committed for trial at the last assizes in Norfolk and;Suffolk, On the charge of incendiarism, with the result of the trials. Lord WODEHOUSE could have no objection to the returns, which were accordingly ordered. The Parliamentary business being concluded, tholiou se then adjourned for a quarter of an hour—that is to six o'clock—when the arguments in the appeal in error on the Irish State Trials were resumed. • After their 'Lordships met from the adjournment, and before proceeding to the argument on the writ of error, the following business was gone through PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES. The Irish Presbyterian Marriage Bill passed through Committee. THE POST-OFIi ICE. a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons for leave for Lord J. Russell and Sir J. Graham to be examined as witnesses before the Secret Committee of the House of Lords. — Agreed to. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Lord SANDON and others, from the House of COM mons, appeared it the Bar with a message, requesting their Lordship consent, that the Marquis of Normanhy, the Earl of Aberdeen, and Viscount Melbourne should attend to give evidence beibre the Secret Committee of the House of Commons on tire Post•office inquiry. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY (presiding for the Lord Chancellor) informed the Messengers, that their Lord ships would send an answer by Messengers of their own. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 8. The SPEAKER took the chair at Four o'clock. MIDDLE LEVEL DRAINAGE BILL. On the motion for the further consideration of the report on this Bill, Lord G. BENTINCK moved that the-Bill be recom- mitted. After some discussion the House divided, when there were — For the amendment 26 Against it Majority The report was then ordered to be . brought up and engrossed. POST-OFFICE. On the motion of Lord SANDON a message was sent to the Lords, requesting that Lords Melbourne Nor manby, and Aberdeen, might be allowed to give evidence before the Post-office Committee of the 'House of Com- mons. SUGAR DUTIES. .Mr. F. BARING said he wished to put a ques- Lion to the Right Honourable the President of the Board of Trade which he had mentioned on a former oc casion. It was whether the sugar of the Danish colo nies was to - come in under the lower duty in the Sugar Bill. . • Mr. GLADSTONE said there were established- and settled rules to govern our commercial intercourse with Denmark, and those would be abided by. He did not see any case in which it was at all necessary to ask the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. ALGIERS. Mr. SHELL said he wished to put three questions to the Right Hon. Gentleman at the - head of her. Majesty's Government. The first question* was, whether Lord Aberdeen had received any . answer,' froni the FrenCh Government to his dispatch of the 28th of January, 1842, and if so would there be any objection , to lay that upon the table of the House; the second was, had the British Government applied for an exequatur for our COnsul at Algiers; and the third Was, had England done anything to allow France to entertain the opinion that she was entitled to, tlie posseisionof Algiers? Sir R. PEEL thought it would be much better to leave the matter entirely between 'the Executive Go vernments of the two countries. No answer had as yet been received to the communica tion which had been forwarded iy the Earl of Aberdeen to the Minister in France. With respect to the question regarding the Consul-General in Africa, he could only say that he had Wed under the same in structions which had been forwarded to him during the tenure of office of the Government with which" ' the Right Hon. Gentleman was himself c o n nected. ' Sir CHARLES NAPIER, after allUding to the naval strength in the Mediterranean and, at home, said be wished to put three questions to the Right Honourable Baronet. He wished to know, in the first place, whether, it was'true, as had teen stated in some of the Spanish Papers, that Spain had consented to allow Fiance to send troops into MorOcco through Cents? His second question was whether the . Emperor of Mo rocco had refused all mediation on the part of this country? And lastly, he - wished to ask whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to increase' the naval force of the country? Sir. ROBERT PEEL said that there never was period' at which this counter ' 'could make a greater naval demonstration within a short space of time than at the present moment. With respect to the second question of` ; the FIOn, and:Gallant Officer, as to the permission by the Spanish Government to France to allow troops to , pass through Ceuta to Morocco, he could only say that he had, never heard of such an arrangement having been entered into. The next question of the Hon. and Gallant Member was whether all mediation on *the part of this country had been refused by the. Emperor :of Morocco, and in answer to ,that question, he (Sir R. Peel) had to state that the British Consul-General at Algiers was now with the Emperor of Morocco, acting .-under the instructions of her Majesty's Government, and therefore it could not besaid that the-Emperor of Morocco had re fused all mediation. In answer to the last question of the Hon. and Gallant Of fi cer, he had to state that her Ma jesty's Government had already taken measures to place such an amount of naval force in the Mediterranean as would be sufficient to protect British interests in that part of the world should their interests be at all menaced. Mr. C. WOOD said the question of his Hon. and Gallant Friend ( Sir C, Napier) was not whether it was the intention of the Government to increase the naval force in the Alediter ranean, but whether it was the intention of the Government to increase the naval force of the country ? It was the constant practice of the present Government when in opposition, to up braid her itlajesty's Government with the paltry amount of the naval force—with the weakness shown upon the seas in com parison with other Powers ' and with the defenceleis con dition of our coast. But never h ad the Whigs left the shores of Eng land—the interests of England—so utterly at the mercy of the foreigner as they were now left by the Tory Government, by the crippled state in which they allowed the British navy to re main. He asked the Government, then, if it was their inten tion to put the naval force of the country in such a condition as to command confidence at home and respect abroad? Sir-ft, PEEL said he would not give any answer to the question. Her Majesty's Government were responsible for the safety of the country—for the honour of the country ; and whenever one or the other were endangered, they . would have no have no hesitation whatever in instantly coming down to Parliament, and asking for the amplest means of repelling pro vocation. —( Hear, hear.) He had been used unfairly, fur the notice given to him by the Gallant Officer was simply whether it was the intention of the Government to increase the naval, force in the Mediterranean. Lord PALNIERSTON said there was no ground at all for, complaint on the part of the Government, especially when their attacks of the year 1838 were remembered. In his opinion, a Government ought always to be ready to state the amount and distribution of the forces of the country, and whether increase was intended or not. The amount of the naval force of England was less now than ever it was, and it was the duty—the absolute duty —of the Government—to satisfy Parliament that it would be so strengthened and increased as to be prepared for any emergency that might arise. —(Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL said, the proceeding altogether was a most unfair one. Why, even if he had had notice of a question, whether or -not he was going to increase the naval estimates, be would not have answered that question. Every question that he had had notice of, and it was proper to answer, he had answered. But beyond that he would simply repeat what he had before said, that her Majesty's Government was respon sible for the honour of the country, and were not likely to shrink from the obligations which office imposed upon them. Lord HOWICK utterly denied the unfairness complained of, and it was absolutely ridiculous, coming from a quarter where so little of punctiliousness had been shown in former days. RAILWAYS BILL. Mr. GISBORNE said he rose not to continue the discus to offer some observations before the Speaker left the chair, sion which, perhaps , had g one far enou g h at that moment, but upon the Bill for the reg ulation of railwa y s, which they were that night called upon to re ad for a second time. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Pr esident of the Board of Trade could • not hive failed to obser ve that, from the moment his Bill had been brought forward, opposition had sprung up against it, and that opposition had so increased and strengthened as to justify him (Mr. Gisborne) in saying that the whole railway , world was in deeided array against it. He was far froni saying that the present laws regulating railways were perfect, but better far have their imperfections than such regulations as the Bill then before—the House would impose. He might certainly carry the measure; backed as he was by the power of Govern ment, but no measure passed hostilely would ever work well, or tend to the good conduct of railways. He therefore hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would withdraw the. Bill for the present session, and save him from the necessity of dividing the House upon it. If the Right Hon. Gentleman could not, or would not, do this, he should move that the Bill be read * second time that day six months. Mr. C. RUSSELL said he would vote for the adjournment. - Railway companies felt that they had not been fatly and fairly heard before the House. and he was of that opinion too. Every advantage bad been withheld from them, and every obstruction -thrown in their way. Every advantage was taken by the Government in the examination of witnesses, and railway companies were excluded from the investigation contrary to custom and to precedeet. Notwithstanding all the pains which the Government had taken to force their scheme, their case had completely broken down, even according to the testimony of their own witnesses. The whole proceedings were based on a principle of reciprocal interest, which was necessary in order to obtain support. Th e President of the Board of Triule ad mitted that his scheme had failed, and up to a few days before the Committee had closed its la b o u r s , the Ri g ht Hon. Gentle man had not determined upon any particular plan of operation. On behalf of the railway, companies, who were perfectly unani mous in opposing this Bill, he offered his most decided opposi tion to it. Universal alarm had been felt regarding the scheme proposed by the Government, and a deputation, consisting of some of the largest railway proprietors in England waited upon. the Right - Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, but their proposal was rejected. On be half of all the railways in the kingdom—on behalf of one bun.; dred millions of property —he begged of the House to give them time to consider this important measure before Parliament. The evidence, which was so voluminous,. had riot been on the table longer than since the middle of June, and had not been perused even by the Ministers themselves. Was the House prepared even to discuss the propriety of so important a change in rail weuli . They ask ed for time till the:early part of consider this Bill, and he hoped the House would n prayer.—( Hear, hear, ) A tyt lr f speculation?eeu s for Nottingham had w ell considered his motion ; for the effect of nrs.GssieLtAh to o S T ONE said he did not think the Hon. Member it would be a refusal to entertain or even consider the measure. The Bill must be first explained to the House and to those out of doors who had petitioned.the House in such numbers. The Bill proposed to the House had the sanction of the Govern ment and of the Railway Committee, and was; in fact, grounded upon the reports of Railway Committees. He felt that it would be necessary to explain the objects and . nature of the Bill. Mr. HAWES said he did not think it had been reasonable to promise an opinion upon the Bill when the body of evidence that had been laid on the table of the House had not been perused. Since the evidence had been laid upon the table, various most important measures bad been under the considera tion of the House. They had been discussing a JointeStoek Company's Bill, a Bank Charter Bill, and other most ini portant subjects. Besides, he did not think the Right Hon. Baronet_ at the head of the Government had acted fairly by them, for on a previous occasion he said the House should be very . cautious hew they interfered with existing railway com panies, . He. thought the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had failed to make out a case to resist the motion of the Hon. Member for Nottingham. - Mr. COLQUHOUN said he thought it would be wrong to refuse to enter into the discussion at present ; however, he must .32y, that they had not as yet sufficiently pe rused the report of the Committee. He considered the 'present step a most dangerous one, and one unprecedented in the history of British Legislature,_ transferring almost all the pow er from private capitalists to Government, and yet that same Government had refused to interfere with factory labour o n the very same principle on which they now attempted to act. The idea of passing such a Bill at such a period of the session was absurd, and the provisions of the Bill - were. most .unfair, injurious, and of an unprecedented nature. Mr. WALLACE said he believed the railway interest had come down to that House for the purpose of stopping , the pro gress of this Bill upon the ground that the Legislature at tempted to interfere between railway companies and the public. The Railway Committee upon which the report on the table of He witnesses protested w e ag re ai was founded was composed for a great part of railway capitalists, and the railway er r great number interest. on_ e behalf meteo-f Mem bers who were directly interested in railway speculations e n l st ami th n o e s d e voting on this Bill. He would support the second reading. Mr ? GISBORNE was averse to discussing the Bill at so late - a period of the session, and before Hon. Members had time to peruse the evidence. Mr. H. HINDE denied, in the most positive manner, that the railway interest had, in any way, attempted to obstruct the Bill of the Government, but due time had not been given for the consideration of the evidence. If the. Right Hon. Gentle man would postpone the decision on the measure till next ses sion, he would offer no opposition to a full discussion, and a second reading of it during this session. At the same time, even if the Government persevered, he would offer it no unfair opposition. Mr. LABOUCHERE said the question now before the House was not whether it should affirm the principle of the Bill, but whether there was anything 'in its nature to prevent its discussion in the present session. He thought they should dis cuss the measure fully during the present session. The mea sure was as mush the offspring of the - Committee as of the Government, and he would vote for its second reading. It had been said that the evidence on the table had not been fully known or promulgated, but according to the statements of railway companies them selves they seemed fully acquainted with the evidence, and with every principle the Bill introduced, and they gave it their unqualified condemnation. He did not think the interests of the companies and those of the public were distinct and sepa rate, but . were altogether identical. He thought the Bill be fore the House would be eminently beneficial to both. He hoped they would now proceed to discuss the Bill in the usual w ay, and trusted the Hon. Gentleman would not press his motion to a division. Sir R. PEEL said he thought there was a growing opinian among the publics that railway companies were. becoming mo nopolies. The Hon. Member was still worse than the Athe nian, for the Athenian said " Strike, but hear." but the Hon. Member would strike but refuse to hear. Must there not be something very error.eous in the system when the Hon. Mem ber for Nottingham moved that the Order of the Day be read, merely becawas his Right Hon. Friend, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, had attempted to explain the principles of the measure to . the -House? The object of the .Government was toprevent Undue eiaction and to make these great public 'concerns as beneficial - both to the capitalists and to the public as possible. It had been said that the present period of the ses sion was too late to introduce any measure on the sub led of railways, but they had had sixty new applications for railways during the present session, and they would in all probability have sixty . more. He could never believe that the House of Commons would so far protect and shelter monopoly, as to prevent his Right Hon. Friend, the representative of the Government, from explaining ' 'the objects and nature of the Bill. The Government, he re peated,"had and could have no other object in view.but the pub lic good. They offended a large and influential body of capi talists, Many of their strenuous supporters, so that they must, t ail events, get credit for perfect disinterestedness. Again, the Government only adopted the suggestionsand recommenda , tions of the Committee ; they were, in short, only carrying out their recommendations, and acting in accordance with the evi dence brought before them. Until Abe four tellers declared at 'the table' of that House that the motion of the Hon. Member opposite was succes sful, he never believe that the poWer of monopoly was so stro n g in the House of Commons, as to refuse, not: only to pass a useful measure, but to deprive the Govern ment of the power of explaining its principles, nature, and ob jects, All the Government wished was a full, fair, and.*par tial discussion ; they would be ready to hear suggestions from any . Hoi..member, and give them their best consideration. The sort of strategy which had been resorted to by railway directors was rather of an unusual description. The Right Hon. Gentleman read a circular from the railway directors which had been received by a grocer at Deptford, requesting of him, as an elector, to request of his representative to give the Government Railways Bill all the opposition in his power, bit the grocer replied that if he had a vote himself he would give it in favour of the Government measure so that the, rail way directors did n ot further i mpress on , this individual the necessity of communicating his opinions. to -his representative. (A laugh.) No ; let the measure be judged upon its merits and utility, and by that test t he Government was - prepared' to abide.-- . .(Cheers.).) Mr. R. YORKE recommended the H on . Member for Not tingham to withdraw his motion. Mr. GISBORNE then withdrew his motion. Several petitions against the • Railways Bill were presented from various railtinty companies. • • Mr. GLADSTONE then rose to move the second reading of the Bill. He said that this was not a question of party, on which the Government could appeal to the sympathy of their supporters. -* Everything that could be done to' throw opposition In the way of this Bill had been adopted on the part off . many of t he railw ay companies in the country . The statement's, however, upon which that opposition was founded were all at variance with facts. No-Bill that had ever come before Parliament had ever met with greater mis -representation, ,So anxious were . the Government to Secure to railway-companies a full and fair repreientation in the Com mittee, that four gentlemen were sprinted on th;t Commit. tee who were themselves railway directors. This was con sidered by many Hon. Members as an undue leaning towards railway companies, and the consequence was, that two of those gentlemen were withdrawn. The list of that Committee in cluded gentlemen who were known to be conversant with rail way matters. He would, first of all, address himself to the charge which had been brought against this Committee of partiality. He could sot conceive how the gentlemen who had framed the petitions which had been presented against this Bill could descend to the assertion than the evidence which had been taker, was ex parte evidence. They would deprive words of all meaning if they were to sanction such words as these to be applied to this Bill. Why, the witnesses exa mined were persons themselves connected with railways. Twelve witnesses were examined, and two of them were per sons connected with the Board of Trade. The whole of the other witnesses were railway directors. There was Mr. Glynn, the Chairman of the Birmingham Railway ; Mr. Hudson, the Chairman of half-a-dozen railways in the north ; Mr. Baxen dale, one of the largest railway proprietors in the kingdom ; Mr. Swift, the Agent of the Grand Junction Railway ; Mr. Saunders, the Secretary to the Great Western Company ; Captain Lawes ; the Hon. Member for Clitheroe ( Mr. Card well) ; Mr. Wilkinson, Chairman of the London and Croydon Railway; Mr. Rowland Hill, who was known in connection with another question, and Mr. Harding, the Secretary to the Glasgow and Greenock Railway. These were called cx parte witnesses. flow, he would ask, could such words be applied to such a subject? His Hon. Friend the Member for Read ing, in the Committee, said, that railway companies ought to be allowed to call witnesses. Why his Hon. Friend himself was on the Committee as the representative of railway companies. Mr. C. RUSSELL intimated dissent. Mr. GLADSTONE did not say that his Hors. Friend had been chosen by the railway companies, but he was an active supporter of the views of those who entertained opinions of non-intervention with respect to railways. 'Why did not his Honourable Friend the Member for Reading in Committee, complain of the ex parte evidence ? In entering into tne cons ideration of the subject which was submitted to them, of course one of the first questions upon which they deliberated was the question of accommodation for third class pasengers. The Committee felt t hat on this question they were justified in introduci n g a cla u se into the Bill, which to a certain extent might be called interference. It would be recollected, that those parties whose avocations led them to different parts of the country, who were compelled to travel in third class carriages, were persons ill calculated to bear exposure to the weather, and a clause to protect them had been framed and introduced into the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) There were two clauses in the Bill relating to the conveyance of the military and the mails. There were three clauses re lating to the prosecution of railway companies who exceeded the powers which had been conferred upon them by Parlia ment, and there were two clauses relating to loan notes. The remaining portions of the Bill were relating to the general sub ject of railway reform. They were about now to discuss the great question of option on the part of the Government with respect to the general management of railways. And now he had to complain of the gross misstatem ents which had been in dulged in with respect to this Bill. Those statements were, that this Bill had been brought forward to enable the Execu tive to purchase or revise future railways, upon certain terms, if they thought fit to do so. Now this was a perversion of the real objects of the Bill. The Bill gave the Government cer tain powers with respect to future railways, but the policy of using these powers was entirely vested in the Parliament itself. The express object of the Bill was to place the whole matter at the discretion of Parliament. The ground taken by the Com mittee was this, that even if it were politic to pur chase or revise, were they now in a condition, with reference to existing railway s, to entertain the question? The two questions they had to consider was, the policy of the step, and whether the maintenance of public faith would permit them to make the purchases or revisions. The Com mittee had scrupulously adhered to the maintenance of public faith, and had adopted no measures which might be deemed unwarrantable with respect to existing railways. With re gard to future railways they had reserved certain powers, and having done so, they reserved the question of policy . with respect to carrying those powers out for the deliberation of Parliament. There were some gentlemen who recommended the purchase of all railways by the State. The Committee were not prepared to adopt this recommendation and opinion. He (Mr. Gladstone) would certainly oppose such a proposition. He did not think that in the present state of the railway system, there were grounds sufficient to warrant the adoption of such a measure. This Bill left the question of policy en tirely open. To purchase any railway, the Government would have to come to Parliament for the means, and then the question of the expediency of the plan would be fully en tered into. It was not too much to expect, that in a very few years as much as 15,000,0001. sterling annually would be spent by the people of this country in the shape of fares to railway companies; and therefore it was important that the Government should have the powers which this Bill conferred, if by that means a saving to the public could be effected. Under the present system of railways the experiment which the Government proposed never could be made. They might have it tried between London and Greenwich, or between Glasgow and Greenock, but not on a large and general scale in the country. Now he did say, for those reasons, that it was politic and wise in them as states men, to retain in their hands a power to be used at an after period for the good of the public, if they found it politic to do so ; or not to be used if circumstances did not require it. He had a most strong objection to any measure that might incline the scale either one way or another; but that before them only called on Parliament to maintain its own free agency. It was perfectly impossible for the Executive to alter or revise, with out first resorting to Parliament. It had been said that it was the object of the Government to keep that a close question. He denied that such was the desire of the Government. They rather wished to open a question that was now closed, and to put Parliament in such a condition that they might decide upon and settle it. It might be wise to try the working of this mea sure, or it might not ; he was not going to say how Parliament ought.ultimately to to proceed; but, in the meantime, Parlia ment only enacted that, at some future time, it might be law ful for Government to purchase railways. But the opponents of this measure may say, " Tell us, first, when you mean to pur chase them, and on what terms." It would be impossible for Government to make any reservation in that case, and they had thought they were bound to reserve a certain power, in order to show those who might be afterwards disposed to invest capital ' in improvements calculated to do much good to the country, what would be the terms on which Government should take those railways under their own protection. It was a very singular matter, and the question was an amusing one. How happened it that this Bill, which affected only the prospective railways, had been unopposed by those having Bills at present before Parliament ?—( Hear, hear.) How came it, he asked, that the opposition arose altogether from the old companies, and whose rights the Government had paid every attention to ? He wanted much to know on what possible grounds of reasoning they founded their opposition to the measure ? One reason he believed they alleged was this, that they would ultimately be driven under the operation of the Bill. The very language used was, that Government would force them into it , however ruinous and oppressive they might find it. But how could Government force them into it? He (Mr. G.) had already shown that Government could do nothing towards forcing them into it ; and could it believe that they would be drawn into any suck ruinous and op pressive course ? Surely they mistrusted themselves too much. __(Laughter.) They might surely have exhibited a little more confidence.—( Laughter.) This he would say, that if any course could tend to weaken those companies, it was the course they were then pursuing. He was addressing a ma jority of railway proprietors in that House.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He was himself a railway proprietor ; his family were most extensively connected with railway companies ; and he repeated that nothing could weaken rail way companies like an undue use of their present great power.—( Hear, hear.) Had Parliament shown any wish or inclination to oppress and thwart public companies ? Had it evinced a disposition to second the clamour raised out of doors against the management of railway companies? Yet those railway companies whose power was so strong, stronger perhaps than any other in commanding the votes of Members —(Cries of " No, no")—he imputed no motives to Hon. Members, but it seemed odd, with respect to their opposition to this Bill, how, if they had no confidence in a future Parliament, they could place any confidence in the present one. They objected that Government might at a future period buy up some poor railway, and so make use of its resources to injure a rich one. His answer to that was, that Government could not do that without first coming to Parliament for the means ; and he thought they would be able to combat then and to defeat the unworthy Government, which would enter the commercial lists with a stronger purse for the pur pose of ruining other parties. If Government were inclined to pursue this unworthy policy then, what was to prevent them from doing so now ? Why this, that Parliament would listen to no such proposition. He thought those were the two objections on which this Bill had been opposed, first, that Government might buy, and secondly, that sufficient time had not been given to the House and to the country to consider its provisions. With respect to the first, he had already stated his opinion upon it, and with regard to the second he would briefly say a few words upon it. And first, he at once admitted that if the House were called on to affirm the policy of the Government purchasing railways, this objection would be a strong one 1 but that objection did not apply to a measure of definite legislation. That Bill ought to have been denominated a Bill for reserving the discretion of Parliament—he repeated reserving its discretion, and he had no hesitation in saying that, if those notes of the Committee had been lost, he would not have scrupled to recommend the Bill to the consideration of Parliament. But be asked, how stood the objection with respect to the ques tion of time ? On the 30th of March, the Com mittee recommended, and on the 3d of April the report was on the table of the House. More than three months had, therefore, elapsed since the recommendation had been intro duced to the notice of Members. Why they (the Government) were the persons who were taken by surprise in the matter. The report and the Bill were published on the 3d of April, and, therefore, when Hon. Gentlemen spoke of being taken by surprise, he imagined that himself and his colleagues had the most right to complain. They might say, probably, that no one thought of the report but he said that fewer documents had been the object of greater attention either in that House or throughout the country. It was ad verted to, and printed in all the London newspapers, and in the majority of the Irish prose. The principal railway newspapers had also referred, and extracted from it, and they had praised the moderation and cautious tone of the report, and all that was done three months ago; and nothing then but the utmost ;um cord was expressed for the measure; and until ether matters came on, to which he would not then advert, that report main tained its interest with the public, He complained that they (the Government) were misrepresented, and that, toe, in shb petition from the Directors of the London and Iliriningham Railway. They stated that the report was not laid on the table of the House till the 24th of May, and that most voluminous papers were not Fos duced till a fortnight afterwards. He complained cif this as a misrepresentation. What were the facts The Bill was founded upon the report wh;eh had been laid before. the House on the 3d of April. The Hon. Gentleman then read the answers given to the Committee by th e Chairman of th e London and Birmingham Railway, in which that gentl e m an expressed his opinion that the present Bill should be intro duced without delay. He deprecated the censequermea of de lay. By the beginning of next session, they would have one or two hundred Railway Bills before the House, and it would be July before they could get at the second reading of thia Hear, hear,) The opposition to this Bill was composed of different elements, but he apprehended that the real opposition was that set on foot by parliamentary agents and solicitors. It had been stated, that the competition between rival lines of railway would preserve the interests of the public without the necessity for this mea sure. They would perhaps allow him to introduce somethi n g by way of episode. The London and Birmingham and the Grand Junction Railways quarrelled sortie tint; ago . , and the rival companies proposed new lines o f railway for the purpose of opposing ether*, and so lowering the rates of transit to the public, like lovers' quarrels, however, they became friends again, and the public were no longer thought of,. and so it would be, if this measure was not carried, in f u t ure an d s i m il a r cases. He (Mr. Gladstone) seeing the way in which the opposition to this Bill was going on, had written to the parties whole: petition had, a sight or two ago, been presented, to linew If they were authorised by the different railway oonipanies to do so. The fact was that the movement against the - Bill was ori ginated and solely carried on by those who lived and thriVed upen the abominably lavish expenses which attended every R a il w ay Bill on its transit through the House. It was those parties who thronged tis 144, Persecuting Meml for their votes—the agents for the men who lbOtl'a4 making experisea slut of them—these were the real parties who, o f their own aellisb qd Sordid intesesti l now got up the _oppo. cro;P!e l tb*t t ut u ge, it : t bef tl'e ~~ :..~ sition to this Bill.—( Cheers.) No men were happier at draw- , in" up petitions and other documents, just steering clear of absolute falsehood, but misrepre renting everything which, as it appeared to them, militated against their own interests. —( Loud cheers.) But he would come to his last topic. The Bill he was. then recommending had been represented as an attack upon railway property. Why, since the Committee had been sitting, since the reports had been made—yes, since that very Bill had been brought in, rail way pr operty had been rising in value.—(Cheers.) The shares of the Great Western Railway had risen 51. The railway market had never been more buoyant ; and at the present mo ment there were no less than fifteen new railway schemes coming to Parliament, - whose united capital would not be less than 20,000,000/. -(Hear. ) But he would argue the question no further. Neither the Committee nor the Govern ment had done anything, or contemplated anything, to the in jury of existing railway property, or to shake public confidence in it. All they wanted was, to legislate fer the remote future. After the statements he had made—the facts he had cited— the motives he had laid bare—he was sure that • House was not to be deluded, and that nothing would induce it to defer this Bill to next session. He knew the power of railway compa nies, and had ever felt satisfied that with justice on their side they were irresistible. But knowing that justice was on the side of Government, and feeling it was its duty to interfere now, rather than later, or when obstacles would be increased, he did not shrink from the encounter. And he approached his task with the better heart because he knew the object of the Government was to secure and to strengthen property, and not to loosen or undermine it ; and also because, whatever noise or boast might be made by certain interested parties, he was satisfied that railway power had not yet risen so high, and that Parliamentary authority had not sunk so low, as to endanger the success of a Bill which looked only to the great, and general, and permanent interests of the country at large.—.( Cheers. ) Mr. ENTWISLE said he felt the great disadvantage of following such a speaker as the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade, especially after the very able and comprehen sive speech which he had just delivered.—( Hear, hear.) He felt it his duty, however, in this early stage of the proceeding, to protest against any measure which might have the effect of ultimately bringing the Government into the market as competitors' with the railway companies. The Bill, too, gave a complete power as to future railways, and he doubted the propriety of giving so extensive an authority to any Govern ment. By and bye, the country would be one complete net work of railway, and to grant the Government the powers now sought by the Government would be to increase its patronage and influence to an almost fearful extent. It should be recollected, too, that most of the railway proprietors were interested in several lines, and to his knowledge it frequently happened that the most successful of the railways only re turned to those proprietors sufficient to pay a very moderate per tentage indeed upon the aggregate capital they had em barked in them. He did not deny that the powers given to railway companies were extensive—very extensive ; but the question was, were they excessive—were they unnecessary_ were they uncalled for; and, above all, were they badly used? He had had some years' experience in the working of a railway, and he would assert, most confidently, that these confessedly large powers were not abused, and that their ex istence was indispensable to the safe and prosperous conduct of those undertakings. He cared nothing for the control of Go vernment—that might be a proper thing to vest in a Govern ment; but he protested against interference with the property 'of railways—against anything, indeed, save supervision. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had alluded to the evidence of a friend of kis (Captain Lewes) as to the economy that would be exercised in the -ma nagement of railways should Government hereafter become the purchasers of some of them. But the Right Hon. Gentleman's argument was based upon false pre mises. For the witness alluded to had spoken of the economy that might be introduced on the supposition that Government was to become the purchasers of all, and the managers of all, the railways in the kingdom. Great stress was laid upon the accommodation that ought to be pro vided for the poor man. But for his part he be. lieved that those who clamoured so loudly about the poor man were in fact but striving for themselves. Many and many were the gentlemen ho had seen travelling in the third class carriages, and they, in his opinion, were the parties who were really agitating for this cheap and comfortable transit, having these thoughts about themselves, though their words were all about the poor and the hard-working. It was improper, in his opinion, that Government should have such a power vested in them as would enable them to cripple private capital and useful speculation. He would give his most stedfast opposition to the Bill. They ought to allow time for the railway public to speak for themselves. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. The amendment having been seconded, Colonel SIBTHORP complained of having been erro neously reported in the morning papers. It was represented that he said on a late occasion—the Poor-law. debate—that he had no confidence in her Majesty's Ministers. That was not true—he had the greatest confidence in them, and believed the Bill they now brought forward would be productive of great public advantage. The fault he found with the Bill was, that it did not apply to existing railroads as well as to those which were to be still formed, He did not drive in railroads—he hated the very name of railroads.—(Laughter,) He did not think the present railroad speculations would be beneficial ; he thought they were dangerous, delusive, and unsatisfactory, and opposed to the constitution of the country.—(Laughter.) With these feelings he would give his fearless and cordial assent to the Bill, Ha . did not wish te have the measure postponed te the next session of Parliament ; he would say beware of man traps and spring guns.—(Laughter.) The Bill ought to be at once discussed.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. LABOUCHERE said he would trespass but a very short time on the attention of the House. He did not agree with Hon. Members who had spoken that night in condemning railway directors and railway proprietors—he thought the spirit of enterprise which they evinced, and the practical manner in whieh they carried it out, most creditable to themselves and advantageous to the publio.—( Hear, hear.) In point of fact, the railway companies of the aountry possessed a vast mono poly. That monopoly the Government ought jealously to look to, and he felt regret, therefore, that the present Bill had not been introduced before. The principle of this Bill was to un fetter the Legislature with respect to railway companies. This, he thought, they ought to do with respect to those railways which were still left in their power—he meant those compa nies who, in future sessions, should come to Parliament for power to construct new railways. He must say, how ever, that he thought that a very strong ground ought to be shown before the Government took the management of any railway in the country. He looked upon the revision of fares as an experiment more likely to be successful than that of the purchase of railways.—(Hear, hear.) He must, however, confess that it was highly important that the power of purchase should be maintained. He thought that less Injustice would be done to the railway interest by the interference of the Government, than any other interest with respect to which the Government might attempt to legislate. He was of opinion the principle of this Bill was one which the House might safely adopt. Lord SANDON said, he had certainly, on the reading of the Bill the first time, come to the conclusion that it was in tended to give the Government the absolute and unconditional control over all the railways, He was glad, however, to hear the explanation of the Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and after what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman, he should certainly feel justified in supporting the principle of this Bill, and he should, therefore, vote for the second reading. Mr. M. PHILIPS Gould not feel himself justified in voting for the second reading of this Bill. He thought it was a Bill which interfered with private property, and was one which was likely to embarrass commercial operations, and to limit their extent, He fully participated in the opinions which had been formed out of doors with respect to this Bill, al though he was not a railway proprietor, except to so small an extent as to preclude the possibility of its influencing him in giving a vote either for or against this Bill. He found him self therefore compelled to give his opposition to the Bill, as nothing could ever induce him to give the Government of a great cninmercial country like this, a power in such a matter. He could not see the policy, either prospectively or at present, of the Government taking any power in the matter. Mr. PARKER rose amidst loud cries of " Divide, divide." He objected to this commencement of a principle for giving the Government a power to enter into railway affairs, in the cha racter of commercial speculators. Mr. SHEIL rose to ask whether the Dublin and Cashel Railway would come under the operation of this Bill ? Mr. GLADgTONE-ssYes. Mr. SHEIL did not think it was equitable it should. The money was invested by the shareholders without cognisance of the intentions of the Board of Trade. He contended that money already invested, MI In the Cashel Railway, was to be re garded as a railway already in existence. Every railway in Ireland, with the single exception of the Dublin one, only five miles in length, would fall within the operation of the Bill. In England there were above 2,000 miles of line excepted ; and in the sister island every railway, with the single exception he had stated, would come under its operation. By the passing of this Bill they would be covering the country with anomalies. --(Great laughter.) The whole Bill was a monstrous anis maly.,4 Great laughter.) It was giving more power into the hands of Government by founding a principle copied Irons con tinental countries. They could not in the commercial history of this country, show a single case of a similar charac ter to the present to the present time. He would therefore oppose the second reading. Mr. CARDWELL said that the last speaker had risen to ask a question respecting the Cashel and Dublin Railway, which he (Mr. Cardwell) from being connected with that railway, would be enabled to answer. The Bill in question was not yet passed through Parliament, and he thought they had no reason to complain of the operations of this, measure. He was certain that if the interests of these great railways, which were valuable, not only on private hiut on public grounds, were to suffer from the operations of this Bill, it would be more "from the jealously of the parties themselves than from an had tendency in the mea sure. He would give the measure his cordial support. Mr. F. T. BARING said though it had been called a shallow and a miserable excuse by the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade to attempt to throw this Bill over on account ni the lateness of the session, he should not shrink from stating that as hit reason for desiring delay, more espe cially, when he could, with truth, state, that through that large blue book, then upon the table, it had been impossible, with all his iudostry and best efforts, to wade.—(Hear, hear.) For his part, besides wishing, on the ground of the late ness of the session, to have the Bill postponed, he did not hesitate to say that he differed with the very principle embodied is it. That principle was totally at variance with all the rules which had hitherto been re cognised as the guides and guardians of British enter. prise. If the Board of Trade was to have this extraordinary control, let it be upon cause shown; but cause had not been shown—necessity was not proved. He would certainly vote against the second reading of the Bill. Mr. BROT BERTON moved the adjournment of the debate. The House then divided, when there a ppeared — For the adjournment Against it .... • 173 Majority The debate was then resumed. Mr. HINDLEY thought more time ought to be given to consider this question. Mr. BRIGHT then moved the adjournment of the debate. Sir R. PEEL expressed his regret that the minority should not defer to the opinion expressed by a large majority. Of course, it was in the power of the minority to defeat any motion, by moving repeated adjoiirtiments. He thought, however, that it was a bad practice; and quite indefensible on the present occasion. After some discussion, the debate was adjourned to Thursday. The Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Drainage of Lands Bill was read a second time. The Canal Companies Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered tcrbe read a third time on Thursday week. PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL, Lord ELIOT moved for leave to bring in a Betio eontinue. for one year the Ant 2d and 3d Will. IV. intitled an Act to restrain, in certain cases, party processions in Ireland. The Bill WO only to extend to next June, and he had hopes that Ultimately they would be enabled to do away with the Bill altogether. Sir, AI, J. O'CONNELL expressed his satisfaction at the Bill being limited in its operations to so short a period. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill; and the House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock. bers At the Liverpool Police-court, the other day, one man was fined 2s, eid., and another 55., for smoklug in the street, opposite warehouses stowed with cotton. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TATTERSALL'S—YESTERDAY. The settling of the Epsom accounts was resumed yester day, and notwithstanding the large sums that were hedged between Runnirg .Rein and Orlando, proved one of the most unsatisfactory ever known. Several parties did not appear either in person or by proxy, nor, except from one, who, a heavy loser, attributes his inability to meet his engagements to a mercantile failure, was any communication whatever re ceived from them. The absence of two or three of those persons is good-naturedly attributed to ignorance of the time fixed for settling, although made public in all the daily papers on Friday last, and copied into most of thg weekly and provincial jounials ; this plea, therefore, canno t be allowed, and for their neglect to make any provision for the settlement, no excuse whatever can be made—it is in the highest degree reprehensible. Of two other cases no hopes whatever are entertained; it was well knbwn long ago that they would be "wanted " if Orlando won, and no one is in the least surprised at their absence. Their deficiencies, and the state of abeyance in which the late Mr. Crockford's book remains, had a most disheartening influence on the settlement (all the accounts having been more or less dis arranged, and several parties—good winners on the race— obliged, in consequence, to leave the room considerably out of pocket. The only way to prevent this very usual conse quence of extravagant and indiscriminate " book-making" is, without regard to rank or station, to adopt the "black board," and post, not only actual defaulters, but all who fail to attend or make arrangements for paying and receiving, on the regular settling days. The betting commenced late in the afternoon, and, limited as it was in extent, led to two or three important changes. JULY STAKES (THIS DAY). Old England the favourite, but no price fixed. LIVERPOOL CUP. 6 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Aristotle—taken GOODWOOD STAKES. 7 to 1 agst Mr. Wreford's Franchise—taken 10 to 1 agst Lord G. Bentinck's Croton Oil 12 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Red Deer—taken. 14 to 1 agst Col. Peel's Canton—taken 15 to 1 agst Colonel Anson's Parthian 18 to 1 agst Mr. Shelley's Lucy Banks 18 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Elegance filly 20 to 1 agst Sir S. Spry's Subduer 25 to 1 agst Mr. Meiklam's Poussin—taken GOODWOOD CUP. 6 to 4 agst Mr. Salvin's Alice --""awthorn 8 to 1 agst Mr. Bell's The G' nice 12 to 1 agst Mr. Herb er t N . .; Antler k. LEGER. 3 to 1 agst Iklr. Williamson's The Care—taken 8 to 1 ago t Lord Stanley's Ithuriel—taken 15 tO agst Mr. Irvine's Foig-a-baLlagh—taken DERBY, 1845. 30 to 1 agst Mr. S. Stanley's Virago colt—taken 40 to 1 agst Mr. S. Stanley's Minikin colt—taken 40 to 1 agst Lord Eglinton's Lycurgus—taken Bastion, who was quoted by us last week, is, and has for considerable period been, the property of "Mr. Hook, not of Mr. Gregory, in whose name he appeared by mistake. LIVERPOOL JULY MEETING, 1844. Acceptances for the Trades' Cup. The Squire, six yrs, Bst 91b—William-le-Gros, five yrs, Bst 71b—Pagan, six yrs, Bst 51b—Aristotle, five yrs, Bst 31b— Misdeal, five yrs, Bst—The Era, four yrs, Bst—Pompey, four yrs, 7st 1 llb—Lothario, four y rs , i s t 101b—British Yeoman, four yrs, 7st 10Ib—True Boy, four yra, 7st 91 b—Yardley, four yrs, 7st 81b—Scalteen, five yrs, ist 71b—Aristides, four yrs, 7st 71b—Whistle Binkie, five yrs, ist 71b—Th e Caster, four years, 7st 51b—Queen of the Tyne, five yrs, 7st 51b—Armitage, four yrs, ist: lib—The Neill, four yrs, 7st—The Currier, aged, 7st—The Poor Soldier, four yrs, Est 131b—The Orphan, four yrs, Est 121b—What, four yrs, 6st 101b—Red Rose, six yrs, Est 101b—Naworth, aged, Est 91b—Red Deer, three yrs, 6st fib—The Best of Three, three yrs, Est 21b—Mickey Free, three yrs, 6st—Tarquin, four yrs, sst 81b—Pastoral, three yrs, sst 71b—British Tar, three - 4st 61b. The Derby Handicap. The following have paid :—Discord, aged—Chatham, five yrs—John-o'-Gaunt, six yrs—Flamingo, five yrs—Sally, five yrs—Proof Print, five yrs—Bramble, four yrs—Gaper, four yrs—Vakeel, five yrs—Emma, three yrs.—Vin Ordi naire, three yrs—Bowsprit, three yrs—Colin Clink, four yrs. dead. ATTEMPT at MURDER by a BRO THER of LORD AUDLEY. From inquiries instituted on Sunday, we have ascer tained the following particulars in reference to the me lancholy affair. It appears that Mr. William Ross Touchet has occupied apartments at No. 26, Weymouth street, Portland-place, during the last eighteen months. He lived a very retired life, generally leaving home after breakfast, and returning late in the evening. About eight weeks since Lord Audley came over from Ireland on a temporary visit, and took up his residence with his brother in Weymouth-street. Nothing occurred to lead his Lordship to believe that his brother's mind wax affected until within the last few days, when his manner, which was invariably reserved, became much more so, to such an extent, indeed, that it was exceedingly diffi cult to obtain an answer to any question addressed to him. On ordinary subjects he occasionally con'versed in his usual manner, manifesting considerable strength of mind. This appears to have thrown his friends off their guard, and Lord Audley states that he himself thought the peculiarity of his brother's manner arose from cir cumstances connected with his affairs. On Saturday morning Mr. Touchet received a letter which added to the gloom under which he previously appeared to labour, and for a considerable period he became quite abstracted. At eleven o'clock he left home for the avowed purpose of taking a walk, having rallied a little at that time, and, upon going out, he asked Lord Audley if he could execute auy commission for him ? His Lordship replied in the negative, and the unhappy gen tleman left home alone. At four o'clock a policeman arrived in 'Weymouth -street to inform Lord Audley of the melancholy event which had occurred, and to request his attendance at Bow-street. his Lordship, who was of course deeply affected at the circumstance, set off in stantly, but did not reach the office in time to see his brother. He, however, had, as above stated, an inter view with Mr. Twyford, and then proceeded to elerken well Prison for the purpose of visiting his unfortunate brother. 'Upon being introduced to his brother, Lard Audley inquired what brought him to that place, to which Mr. Touchet, who appeared quite unmoved at his position, replied, "I am sure Ido not know." It will be observed that this observation is altogether at vari ance with the answe rs ma d e t o t h e quest i ons put b y t h e magistrate during the examination at an earlier period of the afternoon. Lady Audley, the mother of the un fortunate young man, is at present residing with her daughters at Sandgate, whither information was immedi ately forwarded, and the Hon. Miss Touchet arrived in , town last evening. It is said that letters written by the young man evince decided proofs of aberration of mind ; but the members of his family had hoped it was but a tem porary affliction which had long since passed away. Mr. Smith, the object of Mr. Touchet's attack, is happily going on well, and great hopes are entertained of a "avourable termination of his case. THE Loss OF THE MANCHESTER.—By the ar rival of the Duchess of Lonsdale, General Steam - Navigation Company's steamer, with the Hamburgh mail- of Wednesday. it is ascertained that the wreck of the ill-fated Manchester steamer, which was discovered lying at the extreme end of the Reissea Sands, to the northward of the Elbe, in about twelve feet of water, has grad ua lly di sa pp eare d by the breakers making over it and destroying it by piecemeal. Two bodies, one a female and the other a male, have been cast on the beach, and are supposed to have been part of the unfortunate creatures who perished with the vessel. Mrs. St. George Smith, of Drogheda, her daughter, and the stew ardess, being the only females that were on board the Man chester at the time, it is presumed that the body is one of them. It was only attired in a night-dress and (Itemise, from which circumstance it is inferred that she was at rest when the loss of the vessel took place. The other body is that of a man, and is judged to have been one of the crew. The Directors of the Hanseatic Steam Navigation Company, to whom the Manchester belonged, are still instituting a strict inquiry concerning the deplorable catastrophe, but as yet have not been able to trace out the exact bearing where the unfortunate property was sacrificed. That sha was lost on the end of the Reissen Sands, where her wreck: was seen, there are considerable doubts, from the fact of liter anchors arid chain cable, which, from their massive descrip tion, would not drift, being not found on the spot, and the singular circumstance of her lying in twelve feet of water, the extent of her draught when laden. It is, hoyr,ver, very evident to most mariners, that the primary W ise o f th e l ots was by her going too far to the northward of the harbour, a conclusion which the most expeisleP. - ce a pilots on the Elbe have arrived at. It has alss) teen [said that her being formed what is termed doubly difficult to LAI) , wall built," thereby being 0 round in stormy weather, prin cipally occasitmed k - er speedy wreck ; in answer to which, her builder is i b of opinion that her loss did not occur threAsglt thy fault in her construction. She was only latinoted in 1841, and the repeated excellent passages she Inade in bad weather, between Hull and Hamburgh, clearly proved her to be a sound and expeditious sea-boat. TIIE BOY JONES AGAIN.—The following is an ex tract from a letter received in this town from an officer of her Majesty's ship Warspite, dated off Gibraltar, 16th June. The writer was formerly resident in Leeds, and there is no doubt of the authenticity of the letter :—" One little incident oc curred between Tunis and Algiers, the relation of which may perhaps prove interesting. I think I have never informed you that the boy Jones (the interesting chimney-sweep, who so ingeniously contrived to secrete himself in the private apartments of her Majesty, at Buckingham Palace), is, and has been for two or three years, on board the Warspite, in the capacity of a first-class boy. After contrary winds during nearly the whole of ourpassage between the two places above named, we were one night becalmed (at all events the ship was only making a knot and a half an hour). Now, on fine nights, I very frequently remain on the upper deck during the greater part of the first watch, listening to the various songs with which the men generally beguile away the monotony of the time in calm weather, and on this night I was thus en joying myself, when about seven bells (half-past eleven o'clock), we were startled by the soul-stirring cry of A man overboard !' which was immediately followed by the usual hbarse bawls of the boatswain's mate of the watch, Away, first and second cutters.' A general rush aft took place, soma seizing the bight of a rope, others springiug on the ham mock netting, and straining their eye-balls tocatch a sight of the unfortunate individual. A marine is usually stationed on the poop at the life-buoy, but the after part of the watch had been called to alter the trim of the spanker, and as is usual, be was assisting. Fortunately, however, our Captain', clerk, Me. was enjoying the coolness of the night air on the poop. and he promptly let go the life-buoy, which blazed away witt a steady beautiful light, and dropped considerably astern immediately. The cutters were lowered after a little con fusion, and pulled for the buoy, where they found no less a person than Master Jones, who was holding on with one hand, .and dashing the sparks (arising from the port-firs) from his face with the other. As they approached, he sung - out—' Here lam ; look lively.' They quickly succeeded in getting him into one of the boats, the other taking the buoy in tow. When brought on board, he was questioned by the lieutenant of the watch, and stated that he had fallen out of the mizen rigging accidentally ; but the ship's crew are of opinion that, if it had been a rough night, young Jones would not have gone overboard at all—they all think that he jumped overboard. and that for no other purpose than to see the life buoy light burning, and this is in some measure confirmed by the fact of his bawling out when falling ' A man overboard,' and again, when immersed, Let go the life-buoy,' How ever, he is a singular character, and the thing ie not at all unlikely,"—Leeds Mercury., POPULAR EnuclaroN,-,—Sorne time since it was stated that a churchman, resident at Manchester, had, through the Rev. Dr. Vaughan, p r i nc i pa l o f L ancas hi re In dependea College, offered the munificent sum of 1001. for the best essay on the subject of' Popular Education. Several papers were sent in, and the adjudicators have at length awarded the prize to the Rev. R. W. Hamilton, D.D., Inde• pendent minister of Leeds. I I