The Sun. — London, England, 1845-06-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 20. The SPEAKER took the chair at Four o'clock. LONDONDERRY AND COLERAINE RAILWAY. he Londonderry and Coleraine Railway Bill was read a third tine. Certain agreements were agreed to, and the Bill was passed. - CORK AND BANDON RAILWAY. The report on the Cork and Bandon Railway was brought up. GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN (IRELAND) RAILWAY. The report on the Great Southern and Western (Ireland) Railway Bill was brought up, and the amendments were agreed to. BOLTON, LIVERPOOL, MANCHESTER,AND GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY AMALGAMATION. The Bolton and Leigh, Kenyon and Leigh Junction, North Union, Liverpool and Manchester, and Grand Junction Rail way Companies Amalgamation Bill was read a second time. EASTERN COUNTIES UNION ACT AMENDMENT BILL. The Eastern Counties Union Act Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. NORTH WALES MINERAL RAILWAY. The North Wales Mineral Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. MANCHESTER, BURY, AND ROSSENDALE RAILWAY. The report on the Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Rail way Bill was brought up. BROAD AND NARROW GAUGES. Mr. HENLEY presented a petition from Chipping Norton in favour of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Rail way Bill. Mr. SPOONER presented a petition, signed by the mer chants, bankers, and manufacturers of Birmingham, on the subject of the broad and narrow gauges. The petitioners were, the greater number of them, not interested at all in railways as shareholders, and they prayed the House not to pass either of the rival Dills until a full inquiry had been instituted into the relative merits of the broad and narrow gauges. Sir C. DOUGLAS presented petitions from Warwick, Strat ford-upon-Avon, and some other places, with a similar prayer. Mr. SCOTT presented petitions from Oxford, Bewdley, and various other places, with a similar prayer. Mr. MUNTZ presented petitions from Stourbridge and Kidderminster with a similar prayer. Lord INGESTRE then moved that the report on the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Bill be brought up. He had looked through the evidence which had been taken on this subject, and had considered it with very great care, and the great bulk of the evidence seemed to him to be in favour of the broad gauge.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) The matter was one of national interest to the country at large, and also of local interest to the county which he represented, and on both accounts he considered the broad gauge was the preferable one of the two. —(Cheers.) The House also should be cautious how they upset the verdict of a Committee of that House.—(Hear, hear.) He would not detain the House longer, but move at once that the report of the Com m itt ee on th e Oxford, Worces ter, and Wolverhampton Railway Bill be brought up. Mr. PA KINGTON seconded the motion. Mr. COBDEN then moved as an amendment " That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether, in all future Acts for the construction of Railways, provision ought to be made for securing one uniform gauge, and whether it would be practicable and expedient to bring existing lines of railway in England and lines now in course of construction, into uniformity of gauge, and if so, to report upon the best anode cf carrying these objects into effect in the present session of Parliament." He said this was a question of a particular line. It involved an im portant principle. They could not disguise the fact, that out of the House the proceedings of that night were looked to with great anxiety. It was a most important question, and ought not to be decided rashly, or without due deliberation. This was, perhaps, the most important question that had vet arisen in the course of railway legislation, and of the greatest national importance. They had fallen into a great error in railway legislation in not laying down a proper system for the regulation of railways. It was, however, a remarkable fact, that in the early stage of railways they took steps to secure an uniformity of gauge. In the London and Birmingham and in the Grand Junction Railway Bills clauses were introduced providing that the gauges should be uniform. But when railway communication was extended into the south of England this principle was departed from, and a different gauge adopted. There were two questions involved in this subject. First, the prevention of evil to the subject from the want of uniformity in the gauge; and second, the possibility of bringing the existing lines of railway into one uniform system. They were all he was sure agreed on the necessity of having only one gauge. There could be none but what admitted that two gauges were a great evil. They produced the greatest inconvenience to passengers and traffic, and would interfere with the traffic going forward in all parts of the country, unless steps were taken to avert the evil. In the Midland counties, in Oxfordshire, Worcester, Warwickshire, and Gloucestershire there was a war on the subject at present raging. Now, in those coun ties there was yet a vast area not supplied by railways, and it was here that the battle was going forward, the London and Birmingham and the Great Western Com panies contending which should occupy the vacant space. The war would go forward, gathering strength, unless they stepped in and settled the question. Not cnly in the Midland Counties was the contest going forward, but it was extending itself to Somersetshire, Wiltshire, and Dor setshire, where as yet railways had made but slight progress. Well, now they had projects for new lines in connexion with the Great Western. There was a line from Southampton to Salisbury, which had been nearly completed, and there was another from Bath to BristoL But if these lines should be completed according to the present plan, the inconvenience would arise of transhipment from the Salisbury line to get on to the Bath line, and that was a monstrous ab surdity. In Dorsetshire it was the same way ; and he under stood that a line now about to be made in Wales would cause a like inconvenience by reason of the narrow and broad gauges sousing in contact. This was a question which, if not disposed of now, would be attended with a great deal of labour and trouble hereafter, and rivalry, and di s p u t e , an d di scor d, wou ld continually be the result. For this reason alone, he did think there could not be a second opinion as to the necessity of having a uniform gauge. —( Hear, hear.) He knew there were some Hon. Itlembers in that House who would go so far as to argue that it was no inconvenience to tranship goods from one line of carriages to another ; but surely it would not for a moment be argued that it was no inconvenience to remove loads of coals, or droves of cattle, from one train of carriages to another.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that a greater annoy ance or inconvenience could not be conceived.—( Hear, hear. ) Well then, that fact being admitted, now let him call attention to the fact that the narrow gauge was the first one en which railways were constructed ; and at the pre sent moment there were more kinds of railways constructed upon the narrow than on the broad gauge, while the projected lines were ten to one in favour of the narrow gauge. On those grounds alone he did think the narrow gauge should have the first consideration.—(Hear, hear. ) What were the objectio ns t o th e narrow gauge ? They were not in a position now to delay the question between them ; and even if there were a preponderance of utility of the broad over the narrow gauge, they were not, he repeated, in a position to defer the settlement of this question. But what was the ob jection to the narrow gauge? It had existed in this country for fifteen years. It was general throughout America, and there the width of the rails, instead of being as in this country, 4 feet 8i inches, was but 4 feet 6 inches. It was com mon in France, in Belgium, and he might say over the Continent, with the single exception of Russia. Well then, they had ample experience on the subject. There had been no accident, he believed, that could be really attributed to the narrowness of the gauges. They had had experience of its use, and its spread was so extensive that they were not now in a position to interfere with it. If, at this time, they were attempting to conform their narrow to their broad gauges, they would require to alter their tunnels, their viaducts, their embankments, and, perhaps, most difficult of all, their bridges, and that in some k ases would be altogether impossible. They might come to this House for power to do so. But if the broad gauge were conformatory to the narrow gauge, it would be most expedient This would require no alteration of tunnels, of viaducts, of embankments, or of bridges ; nothing would be required but'an alteration of the rails and plans. Well this, he said, was the proper time to legislate upon the subject. He was aware that it would be a hard matter to interfere by a legislative enact ment to compel the Great Western Railway to conform to the narrow gauge. But he contended that the evil would be less felt at that time than at any future period. They were now going on con structing railways, and they would in all probability live to see railways wherever turnpike-roads at pre sent existed. The railway combined the advantages of turnpike roads and canals ; the expense of transit was less, and they were still going on improving the construction of them. They did now experience the difficulties which had attended the construction of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Could there be any doubt, then, that soon they would have railways over all parts of the country, and were they to risk the inconvenience of these rival gauges, without eudeuvonring to find some means of remedying this crying evil ? —( Hear.) He was sure that looking at the subject the House wool say, and he agreed in the opinion, that the report of the Committee should not be lightly set aside ; and it would only he on a subject of such paramount importance that he should ask the House to reverse the decision of the Com mittee This was a question which must be met soon, and he was anxious that the House should do so on the present occa sion. He was sure that no Hon. Member there would reproach the Committee for the decision to which they had come, and he would say that tile Committees as now constituted (and he knew, for he sat an one for a month past), approached as nearly as regarded probity, to perfection as they possibly could do. He did not mean to impugn the decision of the Committee. His object was not to inquile into the reason which had moved them to that decision, but still on the grounds of an impartial consi deration of the public interests, he thought that the deci s io n might be reviewed by the House, and their resolution altered, without an infringement of the respect that was due to the Committee. He was ready to allow that their decision was, whether the House were to blindly follow their decision, or take the evidence which had enabled the Committee to come at their conclusions for the guidance of the House. This was a matter of importance, fer the quest i on was, not whether a present convenience or Inco nvenience was to be satisfied, but how they were to provide for the welfare of future generations ? Colon e l WO OD said that this was a question on which all par ties might am i ca b ly meet. It was neutral ground, on which they Were prepar e d t o state their opinions ; but having taken the element s on which the Committee had founded'their report, he hoped that he w as net transgressing his u sua l principle in adopti ng a plan 7- 1) 0 1) u osed to th e d ec i s i on wh i ch had been laid b e f ore the 1 In doi ng thi s h e would impress en the Co mm i ttee, that he was guilty of no direspect in second ing the motion of the Hon. Memb er oppos i te. But there were other reasons wh e should ask for a consideration, or, rather, a reconsiderationrefused this motion. The five gentlemen on Lis Committee had of their adherence to the recom mendation of the Board which was in conformity with the side of the question he had The five gentlemen of that Committee had stated their reasons for preferring the narrow gauge to the broad gauge. ir The Committee had taken an interest in this question which wasti' creditable to them, bat they had not calculated on the interest which was likely to excite in others who were Members of It was true that they had considered the inconvenience of the gauge, and an immense amo un t o f t i me and money handallTenewn expended in endeavouring to ascerta i n the respective merits of the two gauges, but it appea re d to him that the eammitotee had come to their decision, and determined between the two gauges from strong ex parte reasons, The future was, however, so full of importance that he thought they might well review their decision, and the consideration of the Board of Trade was so important that it ought not to be oast aside without sufficient consideration. He thought therefore that the House were interested in the fact that that report had been made and that it ought in some degree at least to be retied on. The Honourable Committee had reported that the broad gauge was preferable to the narrow gauge. The Board of Trade was in favour of the narrow gauge. There were many reasons which perhaps might be urged in favour of both lines. He was quite satisfied, as far as speed and the saving of time was concerned, the broad gauge was prefer able. In th e convey ance of some kinds of traffic however, speed was not the principal object to be obtained. For instance, coals would not have a very swift transmission, and in this instance the broad gauge would be objectionable, as the ra pidity of the motion would tend to chip the coat,, and break it into small pieces, and spoil it for a profitable market. Another article of traffic that would be injured by a speed, motion was limestone. This would not bear rapid motion. here were many points on which the narrow gauge was superior to the broad gauge ; and again, in some instances, the broad was pre ferable to the narrow gauge. He entirely approved of the ap pointment of a Committee of inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. SHAW said that, as the Chairman of the Committee, he was bound to say a few words in support of the report. The Committee had paid great attention to all the evi dence—( Hear, hear)—and he hoped that the House would hear what he had to say on the part of the Committee. He thought it would have been unnecessary for them to do so, and he thought it would have been unwise for the Com mittee to have volunteered an opinion upon it. And if it had been necessary he believed that it would be extremely, if not insuperably, difficult, because no two engineers, or professional, or scientific men, who were examined before the Committee, agreed in defining what was the broad and what was the narrow gauge, and at that moment he (Mr. Shaw) was ignorant on the subject. He knew perfectly well that the London and Bir mingham Railway was called the narrow gauge, and the Great Western the broad gauge, but no two engineers and no one professional man would give an opinion as to which would be the best gauge, if railways were about being established through the country for the first time. This was a subject of great national importance, but he did not see why one company should be made to bear a heavy expense during the discussion of the question.—( Cheers. ) He would tell them his opinion upon the subject, and that was that both gauges were wrong. All the engineers seemed to have agreed upon that. They all agreed that one was too wide and the other two narrow, but they would give no opinion as to what should be the medium width. Last year papers were laid before thesHouse containing the correspondence of General Pasley on this subject. From those papers it would appear that the opinion of General Pasley was that a gauge, varying from five feet to five feet six, would be the best gauge. The Great Western gauge was seven feet ; the London and Birminghan four feet eight inches. He would read one sentence from General Pasley's correspondence, to show what difficulties surrounded this subject. Now what did General Pasley say upon the subject? Why, he says " Mr. Miller admitted in conversation with me that it would be of great importance if the narrow gauge were 5 feet 3 inches instead of 4 feet 8 inches, which latter has been considered highly inconvenient not only by him but by all the locomotive engine makers who had been consulted upon the point, except by Messrs. George and Robert Stephenson, who first in troduced it." He hoped, therefore, that the House would not consent to allow an Hon. Member to pass an amendment which evidently had no other object in view than that of ob structing the progress of a private Bill.—( Cheers.) General Pasley evidently seemed to think that the narrow gauge was objectionable, and yet the Honourable Member, notwithstanding that nearly all the scientific men of the country concurred in that opinion, called upon the House to establish the narrow gauge by breaking up the existing broad gauge, but he had been diverted from explaining to the House the proceedings of the Committee. They had to deal with the existing state of things, and not with the question of which was the best gauge, the broad or narrow. It was not very distinctly given in evidence as to the extent of the one or the other; but a map was produced, upon which was marked the extent of the broad and narrow gauge upon railways in existence, and upon railways in progress, or in course of construction, and from this map it would appear that there were about three thousand miles of railway on the narrow and one thousand miles on the broad gauge. Now, he would ask, was it likely, with this map before them, that the Committee would enter into a speculation as to which was the best of the two gauges to be broken up'? It was contended before the Committee that they ought not to allow the broad gauge to drop into the narrow territory. Well, then, on the other hand, they ought not to allow the broad gauge to be interfered with by the narrow, so that the same objections might be urged on both sides, but more forcible on behalf of the broad gauge, because it had advanced nearer to the district of the proposed railway than the narrow. Well, then, the Board of Trade had reported that the district was in want of railway communication, and the only question for the Committee was, which of two lines proposed by two great companies, who were clearly able to carry out their projects, was the best to accommodate the district? The differences of the respective gauges had been, he thought, misunderstood by the Hon. Member for Stockport, and by his Hon. Friend near him ; nor had the consequences of the inter ruption of " the breaks" been clearly defined. The Board of Trade said this " break" would be better in one place—one in another. The inconvenience of the breaks was admitted en both sides—it was all a question of degree. The Committee, after hearing a great deal of evidence, were impressed with the belief that there were many new facts which had es caped the notice of the Board of Trade, and which, in fact, had not been made public until their report had been issued. The Board of Trade could not be aware of these facts, because the experiments had not been made until after the report of the Board of Trade was made. The argument of the Board of Trade, in favour of the narrow gauge on the Birmingham and London line was, that by sub stituting the broad gauge the line must be broken. Mr. Esk said he had taken measures to carry the narrow guage from Birmingham to Bristol, having determined in any event to carry it. The Great Western Railway Company had decided upon making two separate lines of railway, broad and narrow, between Worcester and Wolverhampton, an important district, embracing some of the first mines in England. This, too, was since the report of the Board of Trade. He admitted to the fullest ex tent that there was a certain degree of inconvenience when ever the two gauges met. He bad endeavoured to state to the House, briefly but imperfectly—( Hear, hear)—he had endea voured to put them in possession of the principal grounds on which the Committee rested their decision. He had now pointed out that the question did not turn upon the relative merits of the gauges. The interruption of " the break" was overlooked, but they had chiefly directed their atten tion to more general and far more important considerations. With respect to the route taken by either line, that was a subject which met with the most anxious consideration of the Committee. The Great Western Company, first in the field, proposed to construct one direct line fifteen miles shorter than its rivals. The London and Birmingham Company had, therefore, besides the disadvantage of distance, the objection of circuitous route and questionable utility to be considered. The Great Western Company, connecting, as it would, its present with its previous construction, would endeavour to attract, rather than divert the traffic from the main line. It would be its interest to work it efficiently, and thus improve the prospects of the original railway. But it would be the interest of the London and Birmingham Company to conduct the line that would connect its rival with the great manufacturing and consuming districts, with negligence or, at least, inefficiency, its object being to draw all traffic away from the trunk line.—( Hear, hear.) The ques tion of competition had not been overlooked in the decision of the Committee; it was another and a most im • portant objection to the line they had disavowed.—( Hear.) Competition, he was willing to admit, was frequently invalu able, and the cause alike of public benefit and private conveni ence. Butcom petition in railroads was widely different from other cases ; to use technical language " side by side" lines were not calculated to enhance the interests of any part of the com munity.—(Hear, hear.) The London and Birmingham and Grand Junction Companies had in conjunction constructed the line to Liverpool ; the former had arranged to effect the same, independent of the Grand Junction, by a line diverging at Rugby : and the latter would, by the decision of the Committee, be enabled to work, independent of the Lon don and Birmingham, by a branch striking off at Wolver hampton : both Companies thus providing an independent line to Liverpool. ( Hear, hear.) Before he sat down he wished to inform the House on what principles, and in what manner the proceedings of the Com mittee over which he presided had been conducted, believing that in an assembly so crowded as he then addressed, there must be many—and he said it with all respect—there must be a great proportion who were compara tively, if not w holly, ignorant of the details.—( Hear. ) They had sat for twenty-five days, and they had examined upwards of a hundred witnesses. They had heard counsel at great length, particularly the counsel for the parties who had been unsuccessful, because they had opened the ease. The Committee had been most unremitting in the attention, which it had paid to the evidence, and at the close of the case they had separated w ithout any member of the Committee communi cating to another his opinion on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) During the night which had intervened he had thought it his duty to put upon paper all the points of the evidence bearing either favourably or unfavourably on either side. He believed that the other members of the Committee had done the same. In addition to which, during the whore course of the investigation every member of the Committee had taken copious notes. They met on the fallowing morning and read their papers to each other, and after remaining in deliberation two hours the Committee came to an unanimous decision in favour of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line.— ( Cheers.) He was sorry to hear an Honourable Friend of his, who had served on that Committee, say that he differed from that Committee, because the Committee were unanimous in coming to the decision that the preamble of the Bill was proved. On that point there was no difference of opinion. His Hon. Friend had differed from other Members of the Committee in this respect : when the time came for the consideration of the clause respecting the gauge his Hon. Friend had proposed an amendment to the effect that the line should be made upon the narrow gauge. But that proposition did not touch the opinion which the Committee expressed on the preamble. The preamble was passed unanimously, because the Committee was unanimously of opinion that the proposes! line was the best one.—(Cheers. ) Neverthe less, he had no overweening confidence in the decision of the Committee. He had felt from the first that great responsibility rested upon that Committee, and he and his colleagues had acted under a full sense of that responsi bility. It was with great reluctance that the Committee had felt themselves bound to differ from the Board of Trade, and not until after they had given great consideration to the subject. But it should be remembered that the opinion of the Board of Trade was only a preliminary opinion, and that the Board of Trade had not had the advantages of hearing the viva voce testimony of witnesses, of hearing their cross-examination, or the opportunity of hearing the speeches of counsel, all of which the Committee had en• joyed.—( Cheers and laughter.) If any member of the Board of Trade, or of her Majesty's Government, or any Gentle man of experience on either side of the House, would get up and say that he was altogether unconnected with either of these great companies, but that on public grounds he wished the matter to be referred to the decision of a more competent tribunal, he, for one, would not say anything against it. He should always be happy to have his opinion revised. Let them take ten as the number of this Committee, instead of five, if they pleased. Let them form a competent tribunal, and he should be willing to submit any decision of his to their revision. With respect to the appointment of a Select Committee, he had no objection. But he hoped the House would not take any step that would set aside what had already been done for pri vate or personal interests. He trusted they would do nothing from such considerations, not only for the sake of the Commit tee they had appointed, but the credit and honour of the House. On the part of the great public, grivate, and pecuniary inte rests, he protested against it. The duties of the Committee had been exceedingly onerous. They had listened with the greatest patience and attention, for five weeks, to the evidence adduced, and it was too bad that the decision they had come to should be put aside by a personal phantasy, which certain great companies , had raised, supported by personal and interested friends.—( H ear .) If suc h a course was to be pursued— i f that House was to be made the scene of such in terested proceedings —if Hon. Members were to be induced g of such ro unds , q th o e estio s o o s oner to the a ss ooth t e r r ansf t e r r i r h e o d oal to support measures, not on public, but on private de h c e is t i t o e n r the the for the honour of the House and the interests and prosperity of the country.—( Loud cheers.) Mr. LA 130 UCHERE said he could not allow the question opinion on t , he subject as it was one of th e greatest importance, involving as it did the cha racter of the house. He had h sent contest ca ll e d the card the pre_ battl e of the believed the two great companies at i h gauges, and . he and: soliciting for the last three weeks, me . ° as to been canvassing respective forces for the settlement of the gzstrirha their anxious that the gambling spirit of speculation which He hid developed itself, of which this was a manifestation, anda which was beginning to pervade the public to such an injurious extent, should be met at the doors of that House ? There was but one way of successfully opposing it, and that was, by adhering strictly to the rules which ' had been laid down for the management of the private business of the Houle, and by taking great care how they interfered with the decision of any Committee they might appoint for the purposes of investigation, This was not a question of broad and narrow gauges, as it was stated to be by the Hon. Member for Stockport. The ques tion before the House was, whether they should stop the further progress of the Bill ? And there was no pretence for their doing so. They had heard from the Right Hon. and Learned Member, the Chairman of the Committee, that it was not a question of gauges but a question of line.—(Cheers.) It was utterly impossible that the House could form any opinion on the subject. They had not the power of investigating the subject as the Committee had, and they certainly ought to repose some confidence in the Members who composed it. With regard to the argument that the Committee had decided contrary to the report of the Board of Trade, he did not see that they should pay a slavish respect to those reports. He well knew that when he was appointed a member upon a Railway Committee, that Com mittee had given the most marked attention to those reports, but he did say, that when a Committee had investigated the subject brought before them, and when they had considered the report of the Board of Trade, surely it was no ground for distrusting the decision of that Committee—a decision come to after full consideration—that they were opposed to the opinion of the Board of Trade.—( Hear.) On these grounds it was his intention to support the further pr ogress of the Bill ; but, after hearing the speech of the Right Hon. Chairman of that Committee, he (Mr. Labouchere) was not prepared to deny that some special circumstances connected with this Bill required special consideration. He would also admit that they had asserted a principle which he believed to be perfectly new in railway legislation, namely, that the line was to be con structed on both principles—both the broad and the narrow gauge. He could not himself give an opinion on the subject ; but it was asserted by the Board of Trade that this course was likely to be attended with public danger. But that was no reason why they should stop this Bill, for this error it would be an easy matter to remedy. They might introduce a claude in the Bill on the third reading to oblige the Company to lay down eit' er the broad or the narrow gauge. He hoped that before the conclusion of the debate some Mem ber of the Government would inform the House whether they were prepared themselves to look into this question, and to make some report to the House on the subject, or whether they would consider a Committee the preferable mode of mak ing the inquiry. He certainly thought that the question should be fully investigated by the House and the Govern ment. He should be exceedingly sorry that the House should insist on an alteration in the decision of the Committee. If they should attempt to alter the decision of the Committee, they would at once throw a slight on the whole of their pro • ceedings, and by a declaration that their decision was other wise than impartial and judicious, in dealing with the large pecuniary interests on which they had to adjudicate, be• cause they were in opposition to the decisions of the Board of Trade, they would be unsettling the confidence of the whole country in the most important decisions. It would be be lieved that this could only be done by the aid of pecuniary in terests in that House. and through a system of canvass and solicitation, and would only lead to a state of confusion, and occasion injury to the whole community. Mr. BERNAL was inclined to give all the respect which was due to the decision both of the Board of Trade and the Committee, but still he could not help saying that all the speeches were on one side, and he felt in the situation of being compelled to call upon the Right Hen. Boronet to state his opinion. The Right Hon. Baronet was in possession of great mental and physical power.—( A laugh.) He was serious ; for it was well known that the Right Hon. Baronet possessed a power which it was almost impossible to oppose; and he called upon him not to give the weight of his influence against the Bill, on account of its being opposed to the Report of the Board of Trade. He must take it that the principle of this Committee had been an impartial one, that it was a serious and intelligent tribunal. Nothing could be said against the ability, attention, and integrity of the five Members of which it had been composed ; and when he heard of the mistake of one of the Honourable Gentlemen who had spoken, he was glad to learn that the decision at which the Committee had arrived was the unanimous approval of the preamble. But the question was not respecting the line on which the Bill was opposed. The ground of opposition was the difference between the broad and narrow gauge. It was proposed to adopt the broad gauge from Oxford to Rugby, and from Oxford to Worcester, and it was to be considered whether the broad or the narrow gauge should be adopted on all sub sequent lines. He did not, therefore, see any sufficient neces sity for disturbing the decision of the Committee and opposing the progress of the Bill. He believed that even yesterday in the City there was the wildest speculation going on as to the question of the broad and narrow gauge.—( Here the Hon. Member became almost inaudible, amidst loud cries of " Divide, divide.") He was understood to say that Mr. Walker, the engineer, when examined, stated that though it would be for his own interest to recommend the narrow gauge, yet for the benefit of the public he would recommend that the narrow gauge should be uprooted throughout the kingdom, and one broad gauge adopted. There might be some doubt as to the extent of the broad and narrow gauge, and when he heard it asserted that the narrow gauge was uniformly adopted throughout the Continent, he thought there was a doubt as to the exact width. He believed that they would find it five feet in some places, and six feet in others. The length of junction was in favour of the arguments produced on the London and Birmingham line. It had been already stated that the Board of Trade had not an opportunity of considering how to remedy the evils of transferring passengers on the narrow arid broad gauge.—(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") He would call upon the House most earnestly, and more par ticularly on the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, to confirm the decision of the Committee. The Committee had been ap pointed a properly constituted judicial authority, and he re quested the House to support them in the position they had assumed as arbiters of the most beneficial mode of laying down rails on railway lines. Sir G. GREY said there were some particular circumstances affecting this question which he thought made it a proper quest ion to bring before the House, and he expressed a hope that the Go vernment would see fit to express their opinion on the subject before any division was come to. When the question came before the Committee on the Bill, there was a peculiar circumstance which arose between them and the Commissioners of the Board of Trade. One of the differences between the Committee and the Board of Trade was a ques tion of competition. It had been stated that the London and Birmingham line was an integral independent railway, and it was asked that another competing independent line should be established by means of the Great Western Company. His opinion was in favour of it, but he really thought it would he desirable to have some expression of the ideas of Govern ment. The Right Hen Gentleman had stated at length, the circumstances connected with the whole proceedings of the Committee, how it was proposed to lay down four lines of rail way without making a new railway. He would read a few passages in support of that idea. The House was called upon to forbid the construction of a line of railway which had been adopted by the Committee contrary to the expressed report of the Board of Trade, which could not be adopted without occasioning great inconvenience both to passengers and traffic. They stated that laying down a double line of railway would in many cases be disadvantageous. The difficulty of maintaining the permanent way with a double set of rails would be very great ; the difficulty was so great as to prevent experiments be:ng tried to any extent. He ( Sir George Grey) thought that the House was not justified in stopping the progress of this Bill, even though the Board of Trade, after the evidence which I had been adduced before the Committee, should be still of the same opinion as that which appeared in their report. Ile thought it would he well for the Government to appoint a com mission to inquire into this subject ; but he did not think that the House would be justified in postponing this Bill. Sir G. CLERK said that after the appeal which had been made to him by the Right Hon. Gentleman it was impossible for him to allow that debate to close without saying a few words on the subject. He perfectly concurred with the Right Hon. Gentleman as to the importance of supporting Committees of that House. He believed that no tribunals had bestowed greater attention in the discharge of most arduous duties than had the Railway Committees of that House. This was a question of very great importance. They were not called upon now to decide, for the first time, as to which was the best width of gauge. That question had already been decided. He was of opinion that the laying down of another kind of gauge would not be of that advantage which was be lieved, and that the loss would more than counterbalance the gain. Yet, the Committee in passing the preamble of the Bill, gave a decision in favour of a particular company, and practically decided the question. The London and Birmingham railway ran through one of the most important districts in the kingdom, and was of considerable length. Great traffic might be expected on any branch lines connecting the contiguous districts, which abounded in minerals, with the main line, so that the question was one of great importance to that line. It was on that ground that the Board of Trade, looking at the traffic which might be expected on that railway—that three-fourths of the traffic would come from the north, and either terminate at Bristol, or before it reached it, and that a very small pro portion would come from the south, arrived at their decision. With regard to the transfer of the goods from one line to an other being of great inconvenience, he did not think th a t ob jection had be en sus t a i ne d . But he was ready to admit that the change from one line to the other should take place at a place where it would be attended with the least possible de lay.—( Hear, hear.) However, all the traffic of which the Hon. Member had spoken as passing south of Birmingham, about nine-tenths of it terminated at Bristol—(Hear, hear)— and no inconvenience whatever could, therefore, be felt from the fact of a change of the gauges there, for there was very little through traffic there.—( Hear, hear.) It had been said that this subject had not been before the Board of Trade. Now, he begged to assure the House that no subject had come before the Board of Trade which had occupied so much of their time and attention as this very question.—( Hear, hear.) The difficulty of mechanical contrivance might be got rid of by adopting the report of the Committee, but the waste of time and expense never could. The Board of Trade thought the transhipment of goods, as it was called, was attended with great expense and labour—the proposition of a double line of rails emanated voluntarily from the Committee. The opinion of the Board of Trade was, that danger and inconvenience would result from the proposed combination—that opinion re mained unchanged, particularly as regarded the line of com munication between Woburn and Worcester. It was perfectly impossible that trains passing along at various rates of speed, some on a narrow and some on a wide gauge, could long con tinue to run without some fatal accident occurring. The Com mittee did not expressly recommend either system. Notwith standing the disposition of the House, he must say its natural disposition, he still thought the decision of the Board of Trade the right one, and he should support it. If the House confirmed the opinion of the Committee they would be es tablishing the principle that the broad gauge ought to be ex tended throughout the country. Sir THOMAS WILDE had no personal interest in the question, except so far as it related to his constituents. He must confess that it was an unfair thing that these matters should he referred to the Board of Trade, where the investiga tions were carried out in private—(Cheers) —particularly when they had no means of knowing the source whence the in formation was obtained upon which the Board acted. When a report came out they found quotations in them apparently from impartial persons, but when they got into Committee they turned out to be extracts from private letters of inte re,ted persons, and yet they were put forth under the autho rity of the Board of Trade ' and afterwards supported in that House by Members of the Government. He must say that the parties had just grounds for complaint. Wheu he attended as one of a deputation at the Board of Trade, from Worcester, he was told by a gentleman of the name of Laing, who came out of the room, that the whole question had been fully investigated on both sides. He inferred, therefore, that a careful consideration had been given to the case of both parties, and he now asked the Hon. Gentleman if he could produce the evidence which had induced the Board of Trade to come to such a decision. The Board of Trade had stated certain opinions as to the difficulty of trans ferring from the one gauge to the other ; but the Committee thought there would be no such difficulty. The Great Western had never received any communication on the subject. The Board of Trade had alluded to the great difficulties that would arise from the transfer. When a witness was called and was asked if he wrote to the Board, he said that he had written a private letter in reply to a private communication which he re ceived from the Board of Trade. He then asked the Right Hon. Gentleman if the other side had had any similar infor mation ?—( Hear, hear.) He also asked him if he could pro duce the evidence of those who said that the ehange could be effected with the greatest facility. It was proposed to be done in two ways, either by lifting up the waggons, or by putting them on a truck, and they gave the number of minutes in which it could be done, and the expense that would be incurred. When TWE SUN, LONDON,__SATURDAY - EVENING, JUNE 21, 1818, Mr. Brunell had stated this his cross-examination was ad journed, while Mr. Stephenson's evidence on the other side was closely gone into. But there were alio other parts of the report of the Board of Trade which, though strong in expres sion, were quite unsupported by such evidence as was adduced before the Committee. What were the facts told to the Board of Trade? They were not known. Were both sides heard before them? They knew that they were before the Com mittee. There counsel were instructed on both sides of the case. Witnesses were called, and surely those objections which had weighed strongest with the Board of Trade could not be utterly unknown to the London and Birmingham Company. ( Hear, hear.) They could have in counsel to refer to those objections. Did it appear that their attention had been directed to this ? Wit ness after witness was called, not making ex parte statements, but examined, cross-examined, and re-examined, and now he should wish to know which of these reports ought to be en titled to most credit? Whether was an examination taken in private by the Board of Trade—let them be given credit for the greatest intelligence and diligence, still such an accumulation of business could not be properly attended to by them. The inquiry was more satisfactory when both parties made their statements face to face, and where perhaps twenty-five days of examination was the average. The report of the Board of Trade had nothing at all to do with the question. This Bill would be subject to all the legislative, enactments which passed on the subject of railways, and it might be an easy matter to bring in a clause in the Bill to alter their gauges. They have done this in the line between Worcester and Bristol, where the gauges were both broad and narrow. They had heard the evidence of engineers on the subject, and it was a matter yet in doubt which of these gauges was the better one. He was astonished that the Hon. Member for Stockport had not exercised that great intelligence which belonged to him, before he had expressed the hope that they had chosen a uniform gauge in the beginning of these railway speculations. They did not know then, they did not yet know, which was the better gauge, for they had not had sufficient experience on the subject. It was quite easy to insert a clause in titis Bill to give the power of making either the broad or narrow way. But he thought that it was highly unjust that this Bill should be cast aside by a side-wind. There was the utmost desire to give every facility to the necessities of the country. The broad gauge was proposed as absolutely necessary for the wants of the district through which the lines had to pass, and the inte rests of the parties concerned in the narrow gauge might be met by the introduction of the additional line of rails. He did not know on what evidence the Board of Trade had come to their decision, or why they should make so strong a re port as they had done on this subject; but he must say that the decision of the Committee was much more valuable, for it had been made with the report of the Board of Trade before them. It was made with the parties advocating both systems face to face, and the counsel employed on both sides fully instructed to state the circumstances woich should give that decision a judicial character. He, therefore, saw no reason why this Bill should not be suffered to pass. There had evidently been a full inquiry, and he trusted the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) would assist in giving effect to the repert of the Committee. He looked forward with great confidence to the advantages which would result in future throughout the whole country. He trusted, therefore, that the House would affirm the decision of the Committee. Sir G. CLERK said that the Hon. Gentleman had thrown out an imputation against the Board of Trade for which there was not the slightest ground. The Board of Trade had not decided without receiving all the testimony they could desire. They had every one before them who could give any informa tion. They had seen the Directors of the Great Western Company, and with them all those at all competent to express an opinion on the merits of both systems. The principle had been fully discussed ; and they had not only had one interview, but a second and a third, and had not come to their conclusions without the fullest investigation. Mr. H. WARD said that he should not have spoken on this question but for the undue warmth which the Chairman had thrown into his vindication.—(" No, no," from Mr. Shaw. ) The Hon. Gentleman said that his decision did not coincide with the report of the Board of Trade ; hut he had not shown how it furthered the public interest.--( Hear, hear.) He thought that the observations of the Hon. Member for Stock port (Mr. Cobden) were worthy of the fullest consideration by the House, Without disputing the qualification of the Com mittee to adjudicate on so important a question, he thought it ought not finally to be decided by the incidental interposition of any committee, and they ought not to complain if the House analysed the details of their decision, and expressed an adverse opinion. The guages were to be judged of by their relative speed, safety, and means of carrying great weight. The report of the Committee itself stated that the same speed could be obtained on both. The Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester had given an opinion on the proposition of tran shipment of goods at the point of the change of gauge, and had expressed vrather strong opinion on the feasibility of such a practice. He (Mr. Ward) having had a little more expe rience in such matters than his Hon. Friend, having had the misfortune to be a director of a railway company for a consi derable time, he could bear witness to the great inconve nience ever arising from changes of a like description, in re spect of stoppages, transferring, waste of time, &c.—inconve niences so great, as he felt assured must prevent it ever being used on an extensive scale.—( Hear, hear.) The real ques tion was, whether two members of a Committee should settle this important point ; and whether a small party in a Commit tee should decide that which required the wisest heads and the most practised minds, involving, as it did, the best interests of the country._.( Hear, hear. ) Sir T. ACLAND said, that if the question was taken up at all it ought to be taken up seriously. He admitted that an inquiry into the merits of the gauges was a very necessary in quiry, but the present was not the time to make it. It was not fair to raise the question now, after having allowed the two rival companies to pull themselves to pieces, and in so doing spend 19,000/.—( Hear, hear.) This was not the time to settle the general principle of the gauges, but the question was the merits of the two present railways. On their comparative merits the Committee had given a decision, and if the House did not agree in that decision, it would reflect no credit on them.—(Cheers.) Why was not the question of gauge brought up when railways were agreed to be constructed between Reading and Basingstoke, in which the broad and narrow gauges came in contact. Other railways had like wise been constructed, in which this question might have been agitated. If it was right to interfere now, why did they not interfere then? Sir R. PEEL said it was exceedingly difficult for those who we; e Ministers of the Crown to divest themselves of any influ ence they might be possessed of, in giving an opinion on a subject of so peculiar a nature as the present; and he thought that, as a general rule, Ministers of the Crown should refrain from expressing any opinion on such matters. He had heard the discussion, and he would pronounce his opinion iu a purely judicial manner, unbiassed by any considerations except those of general benefit. The Right Hon. Gentleman had asked him to exert all the influence he possessed on the subject. He would, however, exert no influence whatever. He would not interfere with the report of the Board of Trade, nor, looking at the construction of the Committee, would he attempt to influ ence them. At the commencement of the present ses , ion, he had made a public statement that the report of the Board of Trade did not constitute a Anal decision. He considered that they might be extremely useful in enabling Committees to ar rive with greater facility at a more correct judgment; but the reports were never intended to form a definite opinion. The Committee had been presided ever by a Right Hon. Gentle man, than whom a person of greater experience, or more fit to perform an office of that nature, could not be found, and he had informed him ( Sir Robert Peel) that the Committee were unanimous in the opinion which had been expressed in their report. The opinion which he had formed regarding the matter, and formed purely in the exercise of judicial authority was, that it would not be wise to overrule the decision of the Committee. He had acted i rex tremelytg that dic h iu e held l e matter, and he could p rove it b y a a petition fro m hi s own con stituents adverse to the course which he was now pursuing. He thought it would be inadvisable and replete with difficulty to overrule the opinion of a Committee on matters of this kind, and he should most unhesitatingly give his support to the de cision of the Committee. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said he thought there were some points in the subject before the House which deserved their attentive consideration. The Hon. Member quoted something from a blue book se hich he held in his hand, but such were the cries of " Oh," and " Divide," that it was impossible that even the Hon. Member who sat next him could hear him. Mr. SHAW said the facts were exactly opposite to what the Hon. Member who had just sat down stated. The Committee was not in favour of any particular line, but would approve of the best. Mr. MUNTZ had no share in any railroad and no interest in any gauge. The difficulty was to have to settle the subject at last. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite said he would not determine in favour of any gauge. Who, then, was to determine? It was a most important question, and the expense of determining the best gauge ought to be paid out of the con solidated fund.—( Laughter.) It was very well for Hon. Members to laugh, but would they laugh when the adoption of both gauges caused loss of money, loss of time, and loss of life ? Ile ought to know something of these matters, and he pre ferred having one gauge to two. Would the House pledge itself to carry out one of those gauges without further informa tion. The question was of the utmost importance. How were they to get large trucks into little tunnels ? He thought the Board of Trade was composed of very sensible painstaking men, and the House should not lightly disregard its recommen dation. He had no interest or feeling in the matter, but would again recommend them to inquire into the subject of dispute before they decided upon it.—( Cries of " Divide.") He knew Hon. Members wanted to get to their dinners ; he, too, was hungry ; but a broken neck was no such light matter. Mr. VILLIERS STUART said there would be no danger whatever in adopting the recommendation of the Committee, which ke thought should be preferred to the decision of the Board of Trade. Lord INGESTRE said, as his constituents were much jute rested in this question, he must say a few words. He hoped the Hon. Member for Stockport would bring forward his motion on a subsequent day—it was far too important a question to be hastily decided upon. Mr. GODSON rose amid loud cries of " Divide," but each time he attempted to speak he was met by such a storm of " Oh, oh !" that he could get no further than the first syllable. He, however, continued standing with a bundle of papers in his hand, looki ng vacant l y round the House. After the lapse of a few minutes he proceeded to say that the Committee had no confidence in their own report, and he would undertake to say that the Committee could not receive it. After the noises with which he was assailed had in some degree subsided, he proceeded to say that the original Bill contained fifty-two clauses, and that the Committee had added fifty-eight —more than doubling it. He called upon the Chairman and the Members of the Committee to point out the clauses which they supported in their report.—(oh, oh.) On the small five lines by the side of the main line, for the use of coalmasters at Steur bridge and Dudley, they increased the toll from Id. to 1 2 d. per ton, thus increasing the profits of the company fifty per cent., and the company were empowered to charge as much for the conveyance of coals and iron a hundred yards as for miles. Thus the coal -masters of South Staffordshire would have to pay 1,0001. per cent. more than by any other line. Such was the report which they were called upon to pass. He held in his hand a petition from those carrying on business in the mining districts of that county, in which they complained of the manner in which the Committee had treated them.— (Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide, divide.") Now, proceeded the Hon. Member, amidst the most discordant noises, and with a peculiar action and emphasis, which called forth repeated peals of laughter, I call on any three of the fi le Committee men to rise in their places and say that they read the clauses which they inserted in the Bill.—(Laughter.) The report which they brought up is contradicted by the clauses which they have passed, and the House should send it back, that it may be re considered, for I hold that the public have no right to be taxed in the way they have laid down. Colonel ANSON, on the authority of the coal-masters and iron-masters of South Staffordshire, stated, that altbosgh there was some ambiguity in the Bill, yet they were perfectly satis fied with the tolls which it imposed.—( Cheers. ) The House then divided, when there appeared — For receiving the report Against it Majority for receiving it —l34 The report was then adopted. OXFORD AND RUGBY .RAILWAY BILL. On the motion that the report on this Bill be adopted, Mr. LOCKHART said, on the receipt of the Oxford and Rugby Railway Bill, he had said that the two schemes had been supposed to be so assimilated with the %ne which had just been discussed that they ought to go together. But though he knew that this to a great degree was true, there was indeed so great a resemblance, that what had induced him to vote against one Bill would induce him to vote against the other. He should, therefore, move that the report be received that day six months. Mr. COLLETT said that the decision had certainly sur pri6ed him. The inhabitants on this line were not as in the other case divided in opinion, and he should, therefore, feel it his duty to divide the House, not so much on this particular line, but on the great question of the broad and narrow gauge, as it affected the whole country, and he should, therefore, second the amendment. Mr. SHAW said that the decision of the Committee had been fully discussed in Committee. The Honourable Member for Sheffield had stated that Oxford was a less important place than Rugby. Without assenting to this, he was yet quite prepared to concur in the arguments which had been adduced by that Hon. Member. He must say, how ever, that this was not a question as to the broad and narrow gauge, for the broad and narrow gauge they had, and they could not get rid of it; and the only question was the incon venience to be incurred, and he thought that no places were more convenient for the alteration than Oxford and Rugby, and he should, therefore, adhere to his resolution. Mr. GISBORNE said that he quite agreed with the Board of Trade, that Oxford was in itself a place of great im portance, and Rugby, on account of its consumption, was of no importance at all. The Birmingham Company were in such a position, from the abstraction of the traffic on one hand from Liverpool, and on the other by the new line from Bed ford to Leicester, that they were certain to provide all the ad vantages which the public could require. The Hon. Member said, that if the railway were lost now, the county would never have a line at all. From this he was compelled to dis sent, for from the experience which they had lately derived from the proceedings from one end of the country to the other, he had very little doubt but that a project would be brought forward next year, and he should, therefore, vote for the amendment. Air. MACLEAN said that the House was not yet sufficiently in possession of information to enable it to judge of the ad vantages of those two gauges. A little more time would not be lost if this question were postponed for a few months longer. The alteration which it was proposed to establish would require an alteration in every one of the coal waggons which were employed on the Birmingham hne. Those wag gons cost from 301. to 40.. each, and as to the attempt to lift those waggons into other waggons and trucks, it would be so expensive that the attempt could never be made with any probability of advantage. They might establish one gauge in all lines running to the north, and another in those running to the west. Mr. NEWDEGATE said that it so nearly affected his con stituents, that he could not refuse to occupy the House for b, few moments. The noise in the House was so great, that it was next to impossible to bear what the Hon. Member said; but we understood him to say that, as the whole district on his side of Oxford must be supplied from the coal districts be yond Birmingham, there would be an increased difficulty in getting their supplies if this interruption of the gauges was to be made. Mr. TANCRED said that the coal from the south and western districts was already so cut off by the existing rail ways, that it was of the utmost importance that no additional impediment should be thrown in their way. Their only sup ply now was from the Leicester coal field, am' the coal of that district was of so friable a nature, that it was lifted into the carriages in large pieces, and if transferred from one carriage to another would inevitably be made worthless for all domestic purposes. Mr. VILLIERS STUART thought that so much had been said against the Committee that he thought it was high time that something should be said in their favour. He, as one of the members of that Committee, could assure the House that the utmost care had been taken by the Committee to make a full investigation into the merits of the rival schemes. He had himself seen, not models, but carriages of the two descrip tions which it was proposed to employ in the transference fr( m one gauge to the other, and there was neither danger nor ex pense in the original outlay or the current expense. And with respect to the friableness of the coal, there was not the least probability that it would be in any way injured. Mr. WARD thought that the inconvenience that would arise from the shifting of 60,000 tons of coal from one rail to another would not be compensated for by any advantages arising from the use of the broad gauge. He thought one of the very first objects in a railway was an uniform line. Mr. BRAMSTON said that the Bill now before the House would greatly facilitate trade in the districts which it traversed. The Hon. Member for Sheffield had in the course of that debate referred to a member of the Committee who could not make up his mind on which side to vote. He did not know to which of the m2mbers of the Committee the Hon. Member referred, hut if he referred to him (Mr. Bramston) he was not ashamed to say that where great interests were in volved he did consider ori which side, as an honest man, he ought to give his decision. Mr. SPOONER said that if any Hon. Member would but take the trouble to look how the great northern lines were carried out, he need have no hesitation afterwards in supporting the narrow gauge. He trusted that the House would remember that this was not the decision of a united but a divided Com mittee, and that they would reject the report. After a few words from Mr. Drummond, Lord George Bentinck, and Sir T. Acland, The House divided, when there appeared— For the adoption of the report 79 Against it Majority 36 ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Lord G. SOMERSET moved that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday.—Agreed to. COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGE. Sir F. THESIGER brought up the report of the Com mittee of Privileges, and fixed Thursday next• for its consi deration. CUSTOMS. The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Customs Bill. BUTTER AND CHEESE. Mr. EWA RT, conceiving that the House, at that late hour, was not in a position to do justice to the subject of which he had given notice, obtained leave to postpone his motion on the subject of butter and cheese till the next supply night. REDUCTION OF THE DUTY ON TALLOW. Mr. E. BULLER then brought forward his motion for a reduction of the duty on tallow. He said that,' in 1842, the duty on articles similar to tallow was very materially reduced, and the result had proved most satisfactory. It was unfortunate that both then and in 1834 the article of tallow was omitted from the reductions made in the tariff, because it was an article largely imported into this coun try, and one considerably used by manufacturers. In the pre sent year the duty on articles of the same description was again reduced, but still the article of tallow remained untouched; and it was because he thought it was an ascertained principle that articles of a similar character ought to be dealt with in the same manner, that induced him to ask for the abolition of the duty on tallow. After a few words from Mr. EWART, which were not dis tinctly heard, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that whilst he opposed the m ition upon financial grounds, he war ready to admit that the subject of the motion required the serious consideration of the Government. Sir R. PEEL opposed the repeal, on the ground that the Government was not prepared to make the reduction. Mr. WILLIAMS said that that was no ground for the re tention of this tax. The weight of taxation was thrown upon the great mass of the working class. It was better than con tinuing it upon the poorest class. Mr. MITCHELL said that a great advantage would be de rived from taking the import duty off tallow. Mr. E. BULLER then replied and withdrew his motion. COPPER ORE. On the motion of Mr. PARKER that all duties on the im portation of copper ore should cease and. determine, Sir C. LEMON spoke of the value of foreign copper ere, particularly that brought from France and Chilia, and con tended that the trade of the country in copper would be greatly benefited if the House should accede to the motion of the Hon. Member. Mr. TRELAWNEY made a few observations which were not audible in the gallery. Sir G. CLERK contended that it would by no means be beneficial either to this country or to foreign countries to have the duty altogether abolished. Mr PARKER withdrew his motion. Dr. BOWRING moved that the duty on pine logs, not exceeding 10 feet in length, and 11 inches square, be reduced to 12s. 6d. per load. He considered that if the duty were re duced to the amount he had proposed, that the trade in tim ber with Sweden and Norway and the Baltic would be greatly increased, more particularly at the present moment, when great quantities of timber were required for the railways in the course of construction. Sir GEO. CLERK opposed the motion, on the ground that when the motion was under the consideration of the House in 1842, the duty on foreign timber was greatly reduced, and he now saw no reason to make the alteration proposed. The galleries were cleared for a division, but none took place. The House resumed. SUPPLY. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr. WILLIAMS objected to their going into a Committee, to vote away large sums of money at that hour of the night, and advised the Government to postpone doing so until Monday. Many Members had left the House on the understanding that the Customs' Duties Bill would have 0...1 spied the whole of the night. [ Sir:ROBERT PEEL said Hon. Membzta frequently corn , plained that they did not bring on the estimates on the days which were appointed for doing so. , Dr. BOWRING said the Hon. Baronet must know that it was generally understood that the House would not go into a Committee of Supply that night. Mr. WILLIAMS moved the adjournment of the House. The galleries were cleared for a division, but none took place. THE CASE OF MR. MAYER. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply. Mr. WILLIAMS, after complaining of the motion for supply being brought so suddenly forward, brought under the con sideration of the House the case of Mr. Mayer. who was some time back charged with an assault before Mr. Twyford. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams) entered into a detail of the circumstances of the case, which was reported in the police re ports at the time. Mr. Mayer went to the house of his brother-in-law, who had seduced his daughter, and inflicted a blow upon him with a stick. Mr. Mayer was taken before Mr. Twyford, who committed him for trial, and refused to take bail", although Mr. Mayer had received such provoca tion. The conduct of the person assaulted was most horrible, and would justify almost any violence, He thought the country had a right to know the grounds upon which that magistrate had acted in direct opposition to his duty, and then the public would see whether the Right Hon. Baronet had discharged his duty in merely censuring him. If proper precaution had been taken, such repeated complaints would not be made of the misconduct of almost every magistrate on the police bench. If the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not systematically neglected to apply those correctives which it was his duty and in his power alone to inflict.--(Hear, hear.) At present the censure of the public press was the only notice taken of magisterial misconduct, and the only protection which the public possessed. The public were deeply indebted to the press for the exposure it from time to time gave of abuses, and for the defence it invariably accorded every class of the injured and oppressed. Had he been aware that between eleven and twelve o'clock at night he should h ave been called on to discuss a question of such intense interest to the public, he would have been prepared with documents to lay a case of oppression before the House which must have compelled the Right Honourable Baronet, unwilling as he was, to accede to the wishes of the community, and have agreed to the following proposition with which he would conclude. The Hon. Member then read the motion of which he had given notice—" For copy of the correspondence between the Secre tary of State for the Home Department and Mr. Twyford, the police magistrate, in reference to his commitment of Mr. Mayer, an inhabitant of St. Marylebone, to Newgate, for an assault, under circumstances of gross provocation, after his re fusal to accept bail for him, although tendered to any amount." Mr. S. CRA WFORD seconded the motion. Sir J. G RAH AM thought that after the Speaker had be an left sitting at half-past two that morning, and had since been sitting ten hours uninterruptedly, it was too bad for an Hon. Member to rise and speak against time, solely for the purpose of preventing the House going into Supply. The Honourable Member had called upon him for an explana tion, and he would detain the House only for a few moments. The provocation which Mr. Mayer had received, he admitted was great, but the assault he had committed was very deliberate. He left his house after dark, armed with a bludgeon, proceeded to the house of his brother-in-law, knocked at the door, and when it was ripened, struck at and stunned him. The gentleman assaulted was attended by a surgeon—he had re. ceived a concussion of the brain, for a short time his life was despaired of. Mr. WILLIAMS—No, no. Sir J. GRAHAM—The Honourable Gentleman has asked me for an explanation, and he should not interrupt. On the morning after the assault had been committed, the police took Mr. Mayer before the magistrate. The evidence with respect to the assault was gone into, and he would say that he did not think that Mr. Twyford exercised a very sound discretion in act ing in the manner he had, but he was quite satisfied it was only an error of judgment, and that Mr. Twyford was not swayed by any sinister motives, and he could not see sufficient reason for removing Mr. Twyford from the exercise of his judicial func tions. Mr. BERNAL said he felt bound to concur in what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. Mayer had, after having committed the assault, declared that if he had the opportunity he would again commit a similar assault. Now, supposing he had had the opportunity, and had again com mitted an assault, and death had iensued, what would have been said to the magistrate for allowing such a person after having uttered a threat of murder to go at liberty on bail. He would have been considered almost an accessory. He thought that his lion. Friend would have done wisely to have let the matter rested where it was. Sir C. NAPIER said the Nlarylebone vestry were perfectly satisfied with what the Home Secretary had done, and wished the matter to remain as it was. After a few words from Mr. WILLIAMS, the motion was put, and negatived without a division. SUPPLY. Mr. DUNCOMBE said that with regard to the question of supply, he wished to remark that that wai not a fit hour for going into a Committee of Supply. It had always been the custom, before going into a Committee of Supply, to fix an hour for it, and to give regular notice.—(Cries of " No, no," from Mr. Cardwell.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer, having nothing else to do, ought, in his opinion, to fix a time fur entering upon business of that kind. He at all events objected to going into Supply at that hour of the night, as he had given notice of a motion which could not be entered upon at such a time. Mr. CARDWELL said he had never expressed any other impression of his intention than that Supply would be gone into if there was an opportunity. Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved that the Heuse do adjourn. Mr. DUN COMBE seconded the motion. Sir CHARLES NAPIER intimated that the Hon. Gen tleman the Secretary for the Treasury had so expressed him self in reference to the question of Supply. Mr. WILLIAMS said his complaint was, that the Supply should be forced on at so unseasonable an hour. None of them get home that morning until three o'clock, broad day light, and at midnight on the same day they were called upon to vote away 2,280,000/. of the public money. It was worse than absurd, and doing a great injustice to the public. Sir R. PEEL said he would relieve the Hon. Gentleman from the obligation of consuming the public time by not press ing the estimates on that night.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. S. Crawford's motion for adjournment was then with drawn. Mr. DUNCOSIBE wished that an hour could be fixed for going intu supply. Sir R. PEEL jocosely observed that any limit as to time might sometimes deprive the House of the opportunity of wit nessing the peroration of some of his speeches, which he would be obliged to cut short in order to get into supply —(Laughter.) The Government was most desirous of bring ing on the supply at as early an hour as the other business of the House admitted. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to Mr. Williams, said a few words to the same effect. Mr. HINDLEY hoped that some arrangement would be made for bringing on the navy estimates at a definite hour in the evening, if possible. Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Member had better come into the House, when he saw, by the paper, that it was a supply night. No definite time could be fixed. ASSESSED TAXES COMPOSITION BILL. This Bill was read a second time. BILLS OF EXCHANGE, &c., BILL. On the motion that this Bill be read a second time, Sir R. FERGUSON hoped the Bill would be renewed for five years. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER considered that this was rather a question for the Committee than for the House at the present stage of the Bill. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted on Monday. MERCHANT SEAMEN'S BILL. On the motion, that this Bill be read a second time, Mr. WAWN objected to it as being unnecessary. Sir GEORGE COCKBURN trusted: the Hon. Member would withdraw his opposition, and that sufficient time might be allowed, before it went into Committee, for all necessary :Sir CHARLES NAPIER said that he trusted the Gallant Admiral would persevere with the Bill, and he only regretted that it did not go far enough. It was an excellent measure, and he only regretted that it was not accompanied by the WEST INDIA ISLANDS RELIEF BILL. This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday next. SIR HENRY POTTINGER'S ANNUITY. The Bill went through Committee, and the report was ordered to be brought up on Monday. SEAL-OFFICE ABOLITION BILL—COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS. This Bill also went through Committee. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF C(M,11(11V PLEAS, June 20. Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice ERLE and Special Juries. ) WADE V. SIMEON. An action had been brought in the Court of Exchequer by this plaintiff against this defendant for certain cheques to the amount of 2,0001. The case stood for trial on the 7th of Do• cember, and it appeared that to the declaration the defendant had pleaded, amongst other things, gaming, fraud, and notice thereof to the plaintiff. On the 4th of December the plaintiff received notice of a motion, on the part of the defendant, in Chancery, for an injunction to prevent him from levying execution, in the event of his obtaining a verdict and judg ment in the court of common law. But on the 6th of De cember, Mr. Russell, the attorney for the plaintiff, in conse quence of a request made to him by the attorney for the defendant, Mr. Westmacott, called at the latter gentleman's office in Lincoln's Inn, and there saw his managing clerk, Mr. Shuttleworth, who suggested to him the propriety of arranging the matters in dispute, and asked him if it might not be done. Undoubtedly Mr. Russell entertained the pro position, and a contract was made between the parties that on the 14th of December 9,000/. with interest and costs, to be taxed, were to be paid to the defendant, or in default thereof judgment against the plaintiff with the consequent power of personal arrest, while on the other side the plaintiff was to stay all proceedings (except the taxation of costs), and to withdraw the record. A notice to this effect was drawn up, and thereupon a judge's order was obtained to stay proceedings on those terms, and the record was withdrawn. For the plaintiff it was alleged that there was a further consideration to be given on the part of the defendant, namely, the withdrawal of the suit in Chancery ; and on this point, and this only, the evidence in the trial to-day was contradictory. The money had not been paid to the defendant on the 14th of December, and the action was brought on the contract. Russell's evidence went to prove that it was positively agreed between him and Shuttleworth that the motion in Chancery was not to be made on the 7th, and that all further proceedings were to be dropped. And it appeared he acted absolutely on this impression, for he withdrew one of the two briefs he had prepared for counsel and delivered, the other not having been yet delivered. On the defendant's side the motion was not made, and the briefs were not delivered at all. Shuttleworth admitted that Russell had asked him what was to become of the Chancery proceedings, but stated he told him he could not tell at the moment, and then went to his principal, the attorney, Mr. West macott. At his return Shuttleworth said he made no answer upon this point, but concluded the arrange ment generally, and sent off a clerk, named Dewy, with Russell, to see that proceedings were stayed, and the record withdrawn. Dewy confirmed this, and declared that no measures were agreed to or taken in his presence to put a stop to the suit in Chancery. Mr. Westmacott deposed that, after the arrangement had been made with Mr. Russell, so far was he from contemplating the abandonment of the suit in Chancery, that he consulted Mr. James Russell, Q.C., to ascertain whether he could move for the injunction on the morrow ; and he found from that Learned Gentleman that he could not, and this was the reason why he did not. These were the dominant facts of the case, as deposed on either side. Mr. Watson, Q. C., and Mr. Sergeant Byles were for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Shea and Mr. Barstow for the defendant. An earnest attack upon the credibility of the witness Russell was made by Sergeant Shee, the materials for which may be found in the " Second Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords, appointed to inquire into the laws respecting gaming, and to report thereon, with the evidence of James Thomas Russell, taken before tf e Committee, 1844." We will simuly say that this witness was the attorney for his brother, as informer plus some very mysterious personage who, after the old diabolic fashion, supplied the funds, in the renowned qui tam action against Lord Eglintoun. The Learned JUDGE said he felt that, in this instance, the ease lay in a nutshell, and that upon the main point of the contract, the evidence of Russell was something more than corroborated by that for the defence; and he desired the jury to dismiss, as gentlemen of experience, all considerations of the individual's personal character from their minds. All of the contract, except the very subordinate part relating to the proceedings in Chancery not proceeded with by the defendant, had been admitted to be true—the substantial part of it was true—at the same time to enable them to give a verdict for the plaintiff, they must satisfy themselves that the whole was true. There were eight pleas ; the first, which set forth the defendant had not contracted, was, in his mind, the only one with which they had to deal. No evidence bore upon any other, not even upon the eighth, which went to suggest that a second agreement, vitiating the first, was, by a process of imagination, supposed to have taken place. He only mentioned at, because his attention had been called to it by counsel. Verdict for the plaintiff, 2,0001., with interest to Deo. 14, and costs as taxed. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. When the necessity for making the approaches to London bridge rendered it indispensable that several of the parishes should be re-assessed, the united parishes of St. Benet, Grace church-street, and St. Leonard, Eastcheap, were amongst those in which the parishioners assembled to establish a new assessment of the rates. The refusal of Mr. Walter Owen Hills, one of the parishioners, to pay the amount of the rate assessed to him according to the new arrangement, and his resolute opposition to those who were expected to enforce its observance, gave rise to disputes which led to appeals to the Court of Aldermen, which appeals were decided against Mr. Hills, but without at all altering or qualifying his disin clination to pay the demands of the parish. The principle upn which the assessment was made was that of the poor rate, so that each inhabitant paid, or was expected to pay, according to the amount of the value of the premises occupied —a regulation which the mass of the parishioners considered to be the most equitable, and Mr. Hills' objection was, that as the chapel, and the school-rooms, and the vestry-rooms, and the church-yard of the Quakers' meeting house in White Hart-court, were not assessed, he ought to be exempt from the operation of the tithe. To that doctrine the Court of Aldermen showed three or four times, the utmost repugnance upon the representation of Mr. Hubbard, the vestry-clerk of the above united parishes. On Thursday a joint meeting of the two parishes took place, for the purpose of appointing assessors, according to the Act of Parliament, to make the annual rate in lieu of tithes, and Mr. Hills attended as a parishioner. An objection was suggested, as we were given to understand, to permittin„.• him to vote, upon the ground that his claim was forfeited in consequence of his re fusal to pa y any of the rates assessed , whereupon a row took place, out of which a serious charge sprang against the dis sentient parishioner, and the parties immediately appeared be fore the Lord Mayor. The following evidence was given : Mr. J. J. Hubbard, of No. 1, Queen -street-place, South wark-bridge, solicitor, and vestry-clerk of St. Benet, Grace church-street, and St. Leonard, Eastcheap, stated that about one o'clock he was attending his duty as vestry-clerk at a vestry of the united parishes, when the defendant, Mr. Hills, without any provocation whatever, threw his body with great force intentionally aeainst him, and hurled him against the wainscot behind. Mr.• Hills had just prev iousl y said, with reference to certain transactions which had taken place before , that he knew it was Mr. Hubbard ; that the parishes had bee° humbugged for many years past through him (Mr. Hubbard), and he made use of other violent language. In consequence of that conduct, and previous offensive cond uct on the part of the defendant, Mr. Hubbard declared that he consideree that his person was in danger unless the defendant was restrained. , In answer to questions put by the defenda nt, Mr. Hubbard said that he neitber made offensive observations nor offensiv e gestures. Mr. John Crossland (one of the Society of Friends) of No. Fenchurch-street, stationer, stated that he had been in the ve try, and heard Mr. Hills claim to see the rate-book. Mr. flib' made a rush against him, arid said he would do something against the tithe. Witness said, "Do it," and the defendact ran at him with doubled fist, and threatened to lay him on the floor ; and witness apprehended danger from him unless he W 5 restrained. Mr. Gann, of Fenchurch-street, hosier, stated that he al o attended the meeting. He saw the defendan t conductiag himself peaceably, but the defendant said he de manded to see, the rate-book, and a gentleman said he had no right to seet.l! unless he paid the rate, whereupon he insisted upon seeing,l7 book, and rushing at it like a mad bullock, ran an'ain , t Crossland and several others. Said witness was a'd—d l iar,,t because witness said that he (Mr. Hill , ) did not know wol honesty was, and pushed violently against witness. ad Mr. Shaw, a solicitor and parishioner, came forwa rd to a his testimony, but rther The LORD MAYOR said there was no occasion for f u rther the statements before him, as it was his determin ation to sen case to the sessions. His Lordship then called up on thede e fendant to find sureties in each of the three cases of alleg ed t a m Sault to the amount of 1001., ;and be himself r es p onsible to amount of 1001. Yesterday Me. Hills entered into the required sureties the the amount of 6001., to answer the charge at the sessions on tn. sth of Jule. Mary Allen, who was stated to have been once an accol% plished woman, was put to the bar upon the extraordinary c.heargnf of having attempted to destroy herself by swallowing the " a chamber-oor. The unfor d tunate creature had, it appeared, lately lorstLher, father, to whom she had been greatly attached, and he state of band, who seemed to be respectable, ascribed the low stt: . the mind to which she had been reduced to that calamity an „led excitement caused by intoxicating liquors to which she ho as a reluge. From the evidence given it turned out that she had learned . the door of the room on Saturday, and that on SundayaTfned ing, between seven and eight, a policeman who was et, r_l u key , on London-hridge having heard that she had swallowed droo l took her to St. Thomas's Hospital, where the key va s go . co from her throat, down which it had gone out of slae Ledger , pletely, and from which it was extracted by ign the assistance of another surgeon. r conduct The defendant said she could not account for he r of a in any other way than by ascribing it to the w a re t han I moment, and she declared that she had taken e° u ' ° little porter on the day the occurrence took place' e deeP The LORD MAYOR having received her r"octeet ber. regret, desired her husband to take her home and tobaccolipo with Laurence Neal, charged with having thrust a iees re. into the eye of Edward Russell, in a public -house, manded till Friday. BOW-STREET. G ny illingba , Yesterday John Taylor alias Johnson , o . g ' 7 ' air. Ha ll ' street, Vauxhall, was placed at the bar before 11 _ u ,, ot her rope charged with steali ng a quantity of silver plate rt ; o f her valuable articles from Buckingham Palace, the p Majesty. On the bench were the Lord Chamberlain and hi t s : retail' Sir W. Martin, who attended to hear the investfea: 'al Treasury, Mr. Hayward, from the office of the solicitor to nresented by was re, conducted the prosecution, and the prisoner who had Mr. Wolff, from Mr. Flower's office. : ner, ~c e From the evidence it appeared that the Pr's n- t t he pa.' been employed several years as a cabinet maker a evening, t he . engaged a cab in Eton-street, Pimlico, on Friday got of until °l here he 5 13th inst., and proceeded to Lon acre , sy ot eenta f the vehicle and desired the driver to wait a fe l l ,. sern our,,: , his return. He proceeded to the shop 38, Long-acre, to whom he had often hhe denta nue.. the and produced a quantity of silver, for whic - -r o The superiority of the plate induced 111 r. Se `cooper, wiwwr -son- , _ tre et, first time, to ask the name and address of the Pr i ce ,,,eur• s ~,t on a slip of paper .. John Johnson, u p per ..-., nriso rer e,_-: °f broken broken tIP P , l i si e l. Somers-town." A deal was effected " Di r Sern and , an: , w hen the r . oorta w a o v e e left the shop a policeman was sent after It' ln 7 business, it ri i , e e acquainted the officer with the natur gonerse . order might the address furnished by the pr In The consta n ' ec i get an inquiry on foot respecting On' „ ma ker Da ° F 206, followed him to the shop of a cahineu_e o f tbe Pe r a Richardson, where he was informed that the nawently ap pr , son who had just entered was Taylor ;he c°Dseciad The Pat him of his suspicions, and took him into c usto d Y• s soner, on his way to the police station, expres,le his a , the M an ' V ?' he should get into a bother about the affair gave him the plate had gone abroad, he did not l an . " when . a! He also admitted that his real name was Tay °desiring no the police-office he addressed a letter to his wife , a fore i g oe!, to say that the property had been left with than _O r fila , pertOlgoi liwho had been lodging with them, and who gay' a period hi' on to dispose of it, if he did not claim it withine . __ s to three months. The letter contained other instrt? t s !°_ll. , be re; wife, which fully implicated himself, and, in conclusion, Th quested her to pay the bearer of it 2s 6d. on del i s t . Ma r. cabman, meanwhile, had been patienily waiting In ap pearan,:: , , , sw fears w here'' etrhebs. , tin's-lane for the return of the prisoner, whosenoTi,e to e' .- at the expiration of three hours induced him to ar ,, d the P r ': Bow-street station, where, to his surprise, he f°u“ nta inieg sotier in custody. In the cab was found a bag, e ° , ha d beer valuable china vase, which it was afterwards found J stolen from the Palace with the other property. tedlY sold Mr. Seymour stated that the prisoner had repea al oe his obta inej plate of considerable value at his shop, but from r respectability he had never suspected him of having , o f bill it dishonestly. Some few weeks aeo he had purchaseti.„o, sea, a quantity of silver which had been partially melted doro , find which he thought at the time had been a telescope stand, bit I n part of some silver figures. site Mr. HALL thought that it was a pity he did n ot inquiries at that time. fat ieea Mr. :Saunders inspector of the Royal Palaces , e g i e th i t the plate produced, as well as the vase, and identified f t oo the property of her Majesty. The former was Par and re,:, equestrian statues, standing about twelve inches high , '" f if; presenting Louis XIII. and Marshal Saxe • the vale pas In s ornament being 200/. The other portion of the silver b id produce of a microscope and stand, worth 401., her wv o es: melted down, and sold to Mr. Seymour d bee The silver articles and the vase (valued at 101) ha adss stolen from a bookcase in a closet adjoining t h e library then' Palace, to which the prisoner had access when eroPlq be er e but from which the property had not been misse d until t for be n ittir ° c,,eae sent transaction became known at the Palace. , 7%•- - to had been also found in the prisoner's house belonging A Majesty—the royal initils beng oblitated. - 'nhe st ( The witnesses having a been i severally er bound ove r I of 1001. each to appear against the prisoner at his tria/ , " „ p eer Mr. HALL remanded him for further examin ation sh° vs nary. A remarkable circumstance has been disclosed bYi.trpshiceof' inquiry. About a year ago two women servants in t g u l icion s i, named Lindsey, were brought before Mr. Hall on ' • teat Ma lt di' stealing furniture from the royal residence, and aoseenePbat though discharged from her Majesty's service. S Le t hft, . 0 4 a cabinet-maker, named Fletcher, was accused of "Lapis l o g not taken into custod. Still the imputation aff eC' 'b ha io so deeply, that he anon afterwards committed suicide door himself. The furniture then missed has been O W in the above prisoner's house. ------ -------------'''''.."'..?'"' y . RIO . ..A [ADVERTISEMENT.] SIGHT AND il"—;00-"t7 No. 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. New ,coPen Spectacles, Telescopes 0 era Glasses, M icr°* t 6if &c. Patronised by dener p al Sir Edward ragl'oto* Even_ r Lloyd Maiston, Frederick Goodfellow, iceiiiyier Grosvenor Morrison, Dyott Robertson, ,? f ,,, ac rri, ce ' . Galway, Biggs, Woolf, Murray, Walker, x,°,.'"Opbin' Lindsay, and Thackray, Major-General Sir P-• T oner' stone, we P. Fyers, D. Macleod, Hanilil Wri '• o° ll Bou m ve . r s i g e, Sir r d J. C m oc 6 k e , d 0 n L a i l e i u , t s e i n r a ß n t . .B G a e r ri t e o r n a , ls S—. l.rsTir P S 11111.1 : 41° ;; AdmiralsCaloidekSbiurrNnV,ms.irEptisatvaicde,Mi Lord John,t a lv, Pl' Martin, Sir James!Geor g e golli a t o irs ll Ross, Alexaner, Curzons Tompkins n, Price, Vice-Admiral Sir F. Austen,° Rear 4 10 01 Brown and Ribouleau, &c. Messrs. S. and 13 ; a S° * i e. Opticians, have invented Spectacle Lenseris b e for - hi r ni# construction—lmmediately they are pla" pear 0 Milne, SirW hGiteshregde, il?1197:8011 perfect vision, that mist and dullness which 01 3 w ool li e s fore the eyes is at once removed, every (3b i e lfee sig li clear and distinct, so that the most aged itoP e . s , yoli t o , s b e e o c p o e m s, es o b p r e ig ra ht and brilliant, and is brough t °l ac ° oil ful, natural, and A bran° p cl Glasses, original lii state. Also In moat e tl or i croscopes, kinds of Acoustic Instruments,. for relief of 03°- Lir . ess. Caution—Messrs. S. and B. S t s c e h r evse oppositef deafness. 0 100 1° 5 7 0 ' of t o b ; cians, are not in any way connected with s i P er ri or Is oo, name, in their immediate neighbourhook; eota" t, Pic Dispatches dilly, spa a p n art of the country. To prevent mistakes i'v_„ierotiv c o iosi" 1 dil' OW ° w e st =0 D igo were received yesterday at the Colonial.office..oo. —remOnthethGtoeovybeeronrhokrasHdoofatettih.Be9, lbere."' , , were also received from the Governor of the Igauri , 130 1 0 Or till'—'11' ,A 3 l 1 i 7 i v: lc .1 a o n n - s t q h u e a r i e 6 , t o h f a i son. nst . ____---------- On the 16th inst., Mrs. R. D. P .er, of -- - - ow L port' BIRTHS. ~,..„,.k Ftree" _.. S afi t. e -- id : le 4 : 54C• William o athe Frederick lst h i. n : a , r i a r n e t Mrs. Huin 0 page, of a son. the m '' ,o On the r ir, A. 17th inst., at Clarges-street, Mar!, Jo , of nroe, B B TlyE r a y da -an ydyo st f on j l- a s ni tr e e s et r, sq., of r Pv and heir. A s ph, a Dawson, of a son. lOr l ' On Use 1" • l, nlf ,_ •I th inst., at West-green, Totton,.e ;A lf On the 15th inst., the Hope, of a son. cr. c• 13P ( On the 18th inst., at Hans 1 the lady 0 0- -p ace, .1 barrister-at-law, of a son. nett, " Durham-place,lips pat h . Lambeth, of a son. dens m" -. On the 15th Cruikshai k . 1 , of a son. 1,0 00 On the 16th inst., at Barnes,Mrs. Marroadtl- , l i n arnes, rs. f jo of a datic , l t b i er. la d/ 0 On the 16th inst., at Ball k Herts, the ' _ A O Henry Pelly, Esq., of Balls , 0 stel'beß" On the 14th • met , the lady fB. Macdona o Esq., of a daughter.. Bean, to Janet, eldest t elt ------------------- 01. MARVED. , Mr. of 1v At Glasgow, by h bi c Leo'', lb' °' - $ O 3l to , daughter of Dir • ness, N. B. f ber &Ur o.. n h On the 14th inst , Cantain Harry Edgelltn- f 1,4 10 jesty's s hi_ P Siren 't Sr C fine Bossiter, ° , fo rdr i , 0 iss aro ev. Dr. ilt a John House, Bucks h OP . 9 Chur c— ' On the 17th inst., at St. Nicholas s „ , r iett Silas S. Stedman, Esq., of Arundel, to 0 1 " daughter of James Stedman, Esq., of Guildfor John On Thomson,Tues day, years,_ deeply _--------:""------------ go rgretted. Ellen un at of C i o h n e d A o vbebcylSEkh,ropor gp. Ma O r z t l ha tl: r e eli l o B t t o h f inst., ir O P PP c c On the 1" h Is” i‘thiaer3,l:,:ttlimilyt daughter auEgmhtmerao, of the Rev.ofJo John Ae0...1...,1etat,:c:::: i t inst., at Tackley Rectory', 'Zorpe. . d toPf , 0 6 On the 18th inst.,. Randolph in Trevor-square, EI/Obet Ae li ' wife of Thomas On the 16th inst., atat"'ioSqt.ualljy°°, Jackson, Esq. gal On the 17th ' tat G Ealing,giddleso, ins ~ Greatthe relict of James . e Lawson Esq., of Norwood, Surrey,_,, An , G wife oo of .lladen, ' E ' sq solicitor. sahteir, esogerywosbuticirl,nalf,ed 64 0( 11 William 'Turner Hayward, Esq. St• Pb° On the 16th inst., in Wellington-terrace, .. 00 , John - 4n o, jt.0:1,0 Onh iticiiilrcil the 19th inst., a ' t Blaudford-square, Sara of o f London : Printed and Published by 1011 4 /` - '. e .I`l o ' Middlesex, .-,n YOl/146i11, No. 112, Strand. Printer, at The Soo Ogle ',woo' nt 0 v w trand, in the Preciiiit of the Savo'' , in• Saturday, June 21, 1845. t lf eett ev t „ *tiAt N°C 1tb,411 I lia, A 44,91: Tll .C;