The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-23 00:00:00

3P'II{,IT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM TAE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. "STANDARD.—In the debate upon the Maynooth grant either of 1840 or 1841, we do not remember pre cisely which, Sir Robert Peel, while declining to refuse the grant, freely declared his conviction that a thorough inquiry into the system generally pursued at the Romanist College was called for, adding that the proposition for this inquiry would most becomingly proceed from the parties more directly interested. Three years, at least, have passed since this intimation was given, yet we do not find that the parties directly interested in Maynooth have mani fested the least disposition to act upon it. Maynooth remains, as Sir Robert Peel said on Friday, still in a most " unsatisfactory position," and it is now full time for the Government to take up the consideration of the subject. This consideration, to be effectual for good, must, however, go a great way beyond the constitution and conduct of this particular college. Narrowing the in vestigation within these limit!, almost the only alterna tive at which the Government could arrive would be either to enlarge the grant, which upon the hypothesis would be to augment enormously an enormous evil, or to discontinue it altogether, which, if not a violation of one of the subsidiary engagements of the Act of Union, would be easily employed as a pretext for charging such a violation. The investi gation to be opened by the Government must take a much wider range ; it must embrace the considera tion generally of the means of education of the middle class Roman Catholics of Ireland, with a view to reform the clergy of the Church of Rome through the laity of the Church of Rome—the only way in which the Ro manist clergy, or the peasantry now enslaved to them, can ever be effectually reformed, or the latter can be emancipated. Were the middle-class Roman Catholics in Ireland as well educated as the corresponding class of Pro testants, the power of the priests over the peasantry would he rapidly extinguished ; and whether we are right or wrong in our conviction that a prodigious step would be made towards the religious reformation of the whole people—it is certain that all, if not made Protestants, would be made incomparably better Roman Catholics, better neighbours, better subjects, and better men. The means of effecting this all-important object ma) not be easily discoverable, but we believe that they are not hopeless, and it is quite appa rent that if employed they will be, in the great majority of cases, of certain operation. There is in Ire land already a numerous body of educated Roman Catho lics, and these are universally, except the very few for whom the tempting prizes held out by faction have proved too strong, peaceable and loyal citizens ; their number is increasing, and, with improved facilities and motives for education, will increase until 'hey become co-extensive with the whole of the piddle-class Roman Catholics in the island. These men hold an opinion of the present order of Roman Catholic priests very little different from that held by Irish Pro testants, and are at least as anxious as we can be to see that order both improved and humbled. In the in tercourse of life they mingle freely and cordially with Protestants of their own rank, and are as freely and as cordially accepted in Protestant so ciety. A great deal of this happy communion is due to Trinity College, Dublin, as Mr. Wyse almost acknow ledged while paying a just tribute to the high and honour able spirit of this Irish University, but the debt is due to Trinity College as it is—not to Trinity College as it would be if Mr. Wyse's proposition of introducing Roman Catholic fellowships and scholarships were adopted. It is because the corporation of the College is and must remain exclusively Protestant, that it is able to deal without partiality or suspicion of par tiality, which suspicion would be Just as destructive of peace as the thing suspected. The notions of th e i power of rude fusion n conciliating, the disposi tions of men, long prevalent in Ireland, are strangely contradictory of what experience teaches every where else. If you would have men to unite cordially in friendship or in any common feeling, you must trust to their voluntary approximation • and where you interfere at all, interf ere on ly t o keep them as much as possible apart upon those subjects upon which you know that they cannot agree. The means of conciliation hitherto employed in Ireland have been very much like the device of cruel boys, who tie the tails of cats together and throw them across a cord that they may lovingly embrace, or who fling a bone to two dogs at play, to promote their affectionate dalliance. It is not, there fore, surprising that in Ireland " conciliation " always means a challenge to reciprocal hatred. Quite sure we are, that the less any Government attempts to force the Irish Protestants and Roman Catholics into union, the more rapidly they will join in friendship; like all the rest of the world they choose to have their affections at their own dispose/. Tocome back, however, to ourimmediate subject. What the Government contemplates we do not pretend to know, nor are we certain that they have as yet any digested plan ; and, indeed, we almost hope that they have net, because we think that in preparing prelimina ries for their reform, an amount of good may be ef fected, inferior only to the adoption of an effectual reform itself. Before, in fact, any further step should be resorted to, we would wish to see a report of the constitution, state, conduct, and prospects of all the principal universities on the continent of Europe in which Roman Catholics are educated, whether in Roman Catholic or in Protestant countries. Such a report would be best compiled from the re ports of Consuls, for the reports of Commissioners are always suspected, and the value of this re port would be the weight with which it must operate upon the minds of the middle class. The report of which we speak would, if we mistake not, show that in every country of Europe, Ireland only excepted, the Roman Catholic clergy and laity are educated in common, and the Irish Roman Catholics would thus see the fraud, which many of them already suspect, practised in reserving Maynooth for an exclusively ecclesiastical esta hlishment. Let us only reflect for a moment what would be the effect, if the middle-class Roman Chatholics of Ireland should insist upon a community of education as be tween laymen and clergymen. The laity would, of course —honourably ambitious not to come behind their Pro testant fellow-citizens—demand the same liberal and comprehensive education, which so many of them now seek and receive at Trinity College, Dublin, and the priests must submit to the same course of reading. Nor is this all. The priests could not dare to follow, in the presence of laymen, that abominable line of study which occu pies nearly all their attention in the sty at May nonth. Their fellow-students of the laity would not endure the abominations of Dens and Liguori, or the atrocities of Devoti—at all events if such vile books should still constitute the foundation of sacerdotal edu cation, the Roman Catholic laity would know it, and would not be shocked and insulted by first hearing the training of their wives and daughters' confessors from the lips of Protestants, and in the presence of Exeter Hall. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. (YESTERDAY.) A man named James Randall, who, to suit his purpose, adoi.ts a great variety of names, was brought before Sir John Key, and charged by Ilorseford, the vigilant Men (limy Society officer, with having, by begging letters and certificates, containing forged names, impost d upon seve ral benevolent persons. Horseford stated that, on Wednesday last, he saw Mr. Lambert, of No. 70, Lower Thames-street, and, in con sequence of information which he received, he went in pursuit of the prisoner, whom he soon took into cust.dy. Upon searching the prisoner's lodgings, wit ness found a seal which corresponded with an impression upon a begging petition in the possession of the prisoner. Mr. Francis 1). Lambert stated, that the prisoner called upon him at his warehouse, in Lower Thames street, about the 6th instant, and produced a book con taining names and subscriptions. Witness gave him five shillings, believing that he had been ship wrecked, as he produced a certificate to that effect. Mr. G. Wawn stated that the prisoner called upon him with the same melancholystory of shipwreck, on the Ith instant, and witness banded to him 10s. to soften down the calamity. Mr. J. Taylor, of No. 36, SL Mary-at-Hill, said the prisoner called on him with a forged petition about a month ago, and witness gave him ss. Mr. Edward West, of No. 26, Bucklersbury, secretary of the Shipwrecked Mariners' Society, stated that the signature testifying to the correctness of the statement of the contents, and purporting to be that of Mr. Wooden, tho agent to the Society at Southampton, was false and forged. The Christian name was incorrect. It appeared that the prisoner had levied contributions on several other gentlemen, and that he had the knack of asking with a " natural touch" which set all suspi cion asleep. Sir Jolts lizir—How can you get over this evidence, prisoner ? The prisoner —Why, my Lord, I was appre hended and taken to Marlborough-street a few days ago, and these documents and statements were regularly laid before the Magistrate, who, however, insisted upon dis charging me, after hearing all they had to say. Now, as his Worship dismissed me, and as nothing new has been produced, I trust y our respect for a brother Magistrate, will intimate to you the necessity of discharging me without further investigation. Horseford said the case before the Marlborough -street Magistrate had not half the force of that which had been just heard. He admitted that the seal had been found in his trunk, but that, he contended, was nothing, as it had not been found on his person. Horseford produced a number of memoranda, and prepared letters and petitions, addressed to the great and well-known friends of humanity all thr oug h t h e metropolis, representing a, series of calamitous visita tions. In his book was written down—" Try Mr. of Russell-square ;" " Try Mr. —, of the Regent's park ;" " Try Mr. —, of Cornhill," &c., &c. ; and some lists of subscriptions, which were, no doubt, kept separate for the high houses, contained no sum inferior to IL, the prisoner having, in several instances, put down the sum of 5L to one individual. Sir JOHN KEY told the prisoner he had been mos t actively engaged in checking the current of charity by playing off the degrading arts of an imposter. The prisoner assured the Alderman that it was nothing but distress of the most intolerable kind that urged him to the dingreeable task of begging , which, God knew, carried its punishment in he numerous painful refusals, and that contempt with which a wretched applicant was sure to be met. -J. KEY-I shall, at all events, have you taken care r some time. You shall go to Bridewell for three months. The prisoner —Lord ! you don't say so ? Why, I have done little or nothing. Pray, ray Lord, when I come out, am I to b e d one w ith an y o th er prosecution ?_ Mr. Good man ( t h e Chi e f C l er k )— Th e t h ree mon th s ' imprisonment will not clear you of two charges of forgery, which appear agai ns t y ou . Y ou w ill, i n all probability, be prosecuted upon those. I IHorseford stated that the prisoner a short time ago obtained Si. from an eminent counsel, to whom he ap- plied, dressed as a farmer, for assistance, in consequence of ruin caused by incendiarism. In fact, the prisoner was constantly occupied in looking out for " squalls" in the petitioning world. Committed to Bridewell to hard la' our for three months. A woman, named Ann Wood, was charged with hav ing counterfeited fits to obtain money. It was stated by several City policemen that the pri soner was in the habit of raising a froth about her mouth with a piece of soap, and that she took ingenious oppor tunities of dropping in the street when people were pass ing who were likely to compassionate her apparent mis fortune. In Alderman Humphery's mayoralty, his Lord ship paid a sum of money to convey her to her parish at a great distance in the country, and supplied her with clothes and necessaries for the journey, but, to the sur prise of the Lord Mayor, she was found, five or six days after her departure, frothing at the mouth, from which a piece of soap was taken, within the boundary of the City, where she had declared she never again should be seen. Sir J. KEY sentenced her to three months' imprison ment and hard labour, in Bridewell. DRURY-LANE THEATRE Yesterday the annual meeting of the Proprietors of this theatre was held in the saloon. A large number of Proprietors were present, and the Earl of Glengall•Was voted to the Chair. The Noble Earl was supported.V. Major Naylor, Captain Spencer, Captain Grover, Mr. Ramsbottom, M.P. ; Mr. Benjamin Bond Cabbell, Mr. Gregory, Mr. George Robins, Mr. Grenfell, and other gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN, after some introductory remarks, called on the Secretary, Mr. Dunn, to read the report. It was as follows : " After the failure of the last lesseeship, and the heavy losses which thereby immediately fell, not only on Mr. Macready, as stated by himself, but through him also on the Company of Proprietors during the two years when the theatre was managed by that gentleman (a failure which necessarily deprived the Committee of the means of meeting engagements which they would will ingly have kept with the various parties connected with this property), it is cheering to turn to the success which has attended the efforts of the present management during the past season. " The Committee have, therefore, the satisfaction to announce to the assembly, that almost all the difficulties under which the property laboured last year have dis appeared, and that the debts owing at that period, if not altogether discharged, are, at least, placed in such a train of liquidation, as that no doubt is entertained by the Committee of their being shortly extinguished, as far, at least, as the annual current expenses are concerned. " It has, however, been no ordinary task to bring about this favourable result under the present state of public taste, and at a period when every species of theatrical property and enterprise have declined so much in value and public estimation. Nevertheless the lessee has, throughout the season, so managed, as effectually to meet the supposed alteration in the theatrical taste of 1 the times. " Mr. Bunn has, therefore, of necessity directed his main efforts so as to render music and native talent, as far as possible, subservient to the purpose of securing the applause of the public. This he has ultimately achieved, but in order fully to accomplish his object he has been also obliged to resort to the costly assistance of some celebrated artistes which the Continent could supply. " The Committee have to state that the conditions sti pulated to be performed by the lessee under the agree ment with Nee Committee have been strictly fulfilled, and the reports from the several departments throughout the theatre represent the value of the stock as having been kept up to a corresponding amount with the period at which Mr. Bunn commenced his undertaking. An in ventory of the furniture, fixtures, and scenery, of the theatre has been made by Mr. Beazley, the architect ; the advantage of which is so obvious, and the document on reference to it will, upon that point, speak for itself. At the same time, the larger sum of money which was allowed Mr. Macready from the funds of the proprietory during the last lesseeship, in addition to his own outlay upon his stage management, ought, the Committee thinks, to have left the theatre in a much better working condition than it was found to be by Mr. Bunn, when he entered upon the theatre at the close of Mr. Macready's management. " The Committee have now to call the attention of the assembly to the annual statement of the accounts, which have been regularly audited by Major Naylor. The favourable result of the last season has induced the Committee to conclude an agreement fur a fur ther term of three years with Mr. Bunn, determinable, at the option of either party, at the end of the first; and they trust that, with the renewed exertions of the les see, a still more favourable season may be anticipated in that which is to come." The financial statement appended to the report gives the gross amount of the receipts of the year at 4,960/. 4s. ; the expenditure less by 5961. It was further stated that the Proprietors had paid the Renters' trus tees the sum of 1,2851. at the rate of 5/. per night (243 nights) in conformity with the agreement made in 1841. The report having been confirmed, Mr. GEORGE ROBINS moved a vote of thanks to the Snb-Committee of the last year. To their exertions were the Proprietors indebted that the house had been opened at all. When they saw that Covent garden Theatre could not get a tenant at any price, and re flected that Drury-lane bad been fortunate in obtaining a tenant who had paid every penny of his rent, he (Mr. Robins) thought the thanks of the Proprietory were eminently due to the gentlemen of the Sub-Committee. ,Ir. Bunn had been secured for a term of three years longer—a circumstance which added to the obligations already incurred on the part of the Proprietors to the Sab-Committee. So bright a prospect had not presented itself for many years.—(Hear, hear.) Captain GROVER had much pleasure in seconding the resolution, which was carried by acclamation. The Earl of GLENGALL, in returning thanks, was desirous of making one or two remarks on the present position of affairs. The report had doubtless been in a very high degree satisfactory to the Proprietory, and he thought Mr. Bunn deserved all the eulogium tha could be on him.—(Cheers.) It would be remem bered that last year they were in a most perilous position. The theatre had been given up to them in a most un expected manner, and had placed the Proprietors in a . . most serious predicament. The arrange . ments made with the late lessee rendered the fulfilment of it on his part a matter of honour. All the facts, however, connected with the sudden termination of his connexion with the theatre had been placed before the public, who would judge of the merits of the case in a fair and impartial manner. When that circumstance occurred, London had to be searched from imne end to the other for a tenant, and, after the lapse of some time, Mr. Bunn undertook the lesseeship. At that time not an actor was engaged, nor had one single ar rangement been made for the commencement of the season : ... Difficulties were, eventually, surmounted, and the public at once showed their appreciation of Mr. Bunn's management, for, during the last season, a larger number of persons had visited the theatr e than during any season since the palmy days of Kean.—(Cheers.) Considerable sums of money had, consequently, been re ceived by the lessee ; but as his arrangements at the outset had to be rapidly formed, his expenses had been greater than in all probability they would be during the next year. With all his success, therefore, only the minimum amount of 'rent agreed upon bad been paid. The Noble Earl, in conclusion, expressed a hope that the Proprietors and Renters would be placed on a more equit able footing. Under the present arrangement, a great disproportion existed, but it was to be hoped that, by the exertions of Mr. Robins and other gentlemen, some other arrangement might be effected.—(Hear, hear.) On this subject a long discussion took place, after which Mr. SAMUEL WELLS, the Common Councilman, re quested permission to propose a resolution. They had met that day under somewhat more joyous circum stances than usual, attributable, he believed, to Mr. Bunn's admirable management of the theatre. With the permission of the assembly he (Mr. Wells) would move the following resolution :—" That the cordial thanks of the Proprietors be given to Alfred Bunn, Esq., for the great judgment, unwearied perseverance, and disinte rested zeal he has displayed in the management of the theatre." Mr. RAMSBOTTOM, M.P., fully concurred in the ob servations which had fallen from Mr. Wells, and in the resolution he had proposed. He would second it heartily. A Sub-Committee having been chosen, thanks were voted to the Noble Chairmtin, who briefly acknowledged the compliment. Thanks were also voted to Major Naylor for auditing the accounts. The name of the Duke of Leinster was added to the general Committee, and the meeting then dispersed. FURIOUS DRlVlNG.—Yesterday, about one o'clock, the neighbourhood of Blackfriars'-road was a scene of great confusion and alarm to those who were out at the time. A cabman, of the name of John Cole, got stu pidly drunk, and so excited his horse, that he ran off at a most frightful rate. Cole very soon lost his balance, and was thrown with dreadful violence to the ground, where he lay until some policemen removed him, in a state of unconsciousness, to the surgery of Messrs. Brady, where he remained for nearly an hour before he was considered fit to be removed. The horse, find ing himself free from restraint, dashed on at an in creased speed, until he came in collision with a lamp post, which shattered the cab into pieces, and very nauch injured the animal, It was very fortunate the road was clear at the time, otherwise an accident must necessarily have taken place. Should not this man be punished otherwise than by the mere taking away of his badge, for thus endangering the lives of others? EXTRAORDINARY ESCAPE.—On Thursday morning, the 11th instant, at daybreak, one of the pilots of St. Ives went to the head to look out for vessels, and on arriving there, he was surprised by the sound of distress from some person near him. He looked around, and shortly saw in distinctly a figure in the water, which he took to be a naked body of a man. He ran instantly to call his comrades, who were in bed, but came immediately, and they launched their boat, and rowed in the direction where the object had been seen. It had drifted a considerable distance from the spot where it was first observed, but, after a short time they found a young woman floating on her back in the water, and alive. They, of course brought her speedily to land, and after some time, by the treatment of Mr. Samuel Hocking, surgeon, she was sufficiently restored to give an account of herself. She was a servant at one of the shops in the town, and had become pregnant by some one whose name she would not disclose. Her pregnancy had lately been suspected by the persons with whom she lived, and to avoid the disgrace of its confirmation, she unhappily attempted to drown herself. She went into the water at the breakwater point, and drifted around the head, a distance of more than a quarter of a mile, and could not have been in the water less than an hour. She is fully recovered, and removed to the home of her friends at Redruth. West Briton. A CURIOUS RELIC.—The Prussian Gazette states that a young woman of Keine, who was travelling with her master's family, found on the road to Bautzen a ring set in rubies, which had on one side a representation in relief of Christ on the Cross, and on the other the instruments of pu nishment. The ring bears this inscription—" Martino Lu ther, Catherine V. Boren, die 31 October, 152.5." The ring, which is well preeeried, is a perfect model of art. SION BILL. The Duke of RICHMOND moved the order of the day for the further consideration of this Bill, and James Thomas Russell was called to the bar, in pur suance of their Lordships' order of Friday last. The LORD CHANCELLOR asked, was the witness at the bar, and being answered in the affirmative, his Lordship informed the witness that a part of the ques tions and answers of the previous examinations would be read to him ; and if Mr. Russell desired the whole would be read to him. Mr. Russell wished to hear the whole read, which was accordingly done by the clerk. The reading of the evidence being concluded, Lord BROUGHAM asked the witness did he not on the former day say that he had never seen the person whose name he refused to give, except in the presence of his brother ? The Earl of RADNOR rose to order. He had on the former occasion objected to this question being pressed. The witness and counsel were ordered to withdraw. Lord RADNOR proceeded—He was of opinion that neither in law or justice should the witness be compelled to answer the question, or to be committed to prison if he did not, as was threatened the other day. He re minded their Lordships that when the Bill was sent up from the House of Commons, a petition was presented from the plaintiff, Charles Henry Russell, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, and the counsel were heard. Well, after that, a Noble Duke moved that evidence should be required to show that the petitioner was the bona fide plaintiff. It seemed to him that it was rather late in the day to call for evidence that he was the plaintiff after he had been named by his counsel as plaintiff upon his petition. But. passing that over, let them come to the nosition tne matter now stood in. —(Hear, near.') The witness on Friday refused to give the name e a person whose name was commu nicated to him in professional confidence, and stated that he had laid a case before Mr. Erle, the Queen's Counsel, that he was not bound to divulge the name to the House. The House then adjourned in order to examine the witness's evidence before the Committee, and to compare it with what he had given before the House. He (Lord Radnor) had compared the evi dence, and he could not find that there was any discrepancy. Whether the person whose name it was sought to get at was a gentleman or no gentleman, it was quite consistent with the most respectable cha racter that a man should be desirous of puttiag an end to gambling of this kind, and yet might not wish to be held up as a common informer in a qui tam action. In such a case it was not improper or unreasonable that a man, gentleman or no gentle man, should go to an attorney, and ask him to find some one to bring the action, he, himself being liable for the costs. The object of fishing out the name was to enable the Earl of Eglintoun and the other defendants to know against whom they might proceed hereafter, if the action went in their favour or was stopped. He did not think that the answer would be of any use to the House. He could not see what they wanted with it, or wh a t right they had to exercise their power of committing the witnesses. Lord BROUGHAM thought that that was not the time when the Noble Lord should hoe made his speech. The time would be when the motion should be put for committing the witness. Then it would be for his Noble Friend to make his speech to show cause why the witness should not be committed. —(A laugh.) But he (Lord Brougham) never heard so marvellously erroneous an argument in his life, as that the witness was not bound to answer because a Queen's Counsel, very learned in the law, gave an opinion that he was not bound to answer the question. What ! was it to be said to their Lordships that they should be governed in their acts, whenever a point of law arose, by the opinion of a counsel learned in the law? He (Lord Brougham) was sorry that his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack was dis turbed by other Noble Lords.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He wished to have the attention of his Noble and Learned Friend, because this point was very material—more material in respect to the forms and privileges of the House than to the case in question. His Noble Friend (Lord Radnor) did not understand the case—(A laugh)—the question was one of very material consequence to the case. The object of the examination was to ascertain who was the per son interested in these qui tarn actions. The pe titioner was heard by counsel on his representation that he was plaintiff, and that he would be injured by the passing of The Bill. Now, the object of the question was to ascertain whether he was the plain tiff, and liable to be injured by the Bill. It was with a view to the privileges of the House that he troubled their Lordships with those observations. The Duke of RICHMOND said that his Noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor) had taken up this case with great warmth and but little consideration. The Noble Earl had accused the Committee of striving to fish out the name of an individual to serve the purposes of Lord Eglintoun. If that had been said out of the House he (the Duke of R.) would have given it a very short answer. He thought they were perfectly right in getting at the name of the inaividual who brought the action in another person's name, and might be, for aught they could know, the foreman of the jury, although he-was interested in the amount of all the costs and one-half of the damages. Lord EGLINTOUN was certain that his Noble Friends on the Committee would not condescend to act as they had been accused of acting, for the purpose of serving his interests. He would by no means wish that on his account any friends of his would be so influenced. —(Hear, hear.) The Earl of RADNOR explained. The LORD CHANCELLOR directed the short hand writer to read his notes of the question. Lord BROUGHAM said that he was giving the House his assistance as a professional Peer, but he would cease to do so if the House did not protect him from interruption.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The witness was then called in and examined by Lord BROUGHAM, as to whether he knew the name of the unknown, otherwise than through his brother, and in connection with these actions ? Witness—Never.----("Hear, hear," from Lord Radnor.) Lord BROUGHAM said he never knew such great indecency before—(" Hear, hear," and " Order")—in a court of law as to call out "hear, hear" at the answer of a witness. But, it was now clear, from the answers of the witness, that the name was a privileged communication, and the witness could not be compelled to answer the question. The LORD CHANCELLOR concurred with his Noble and Learned Friend, as the doubt had arisen from the ambiguity of the witness's former answer. Lord CAMPBELL and Lord COTTENHAM were of the same opinion ; but they thought that the question was by no means an unnecessary or unimportant one. Lord RADNOR begged leave, in his own justifica tion, to read what had been said. The Noble Lord then read an extract from the witness's evidence. The LORD CHANCELLOR—The question was this, and it had been decided by Mr. Baron Parke—Was the solicitor bound to disclose his client ? He said no, and so also decided Mr. Baron Parke. Lord CAMPBELL thought that further time ought e allowed for consideration. 'ME SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENI'NG, JULY 23, 1844 IMPEhiAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 22. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at half-past Four o'clock. SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. Counsel were immediately called in to be heard against the Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he saw two Counsel at the bar, but it was the rule of the House that only one Counsel should be heard in a case of this kind. The learned gentlemen might draw lots for the pleasure of addressing the House as Counsel. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham was then beard in support of the petition against the Bill. He said that the notice given to the petitioners, that they should be heard this day, had been so short, that it would be impossible for their counsel to go now into a detailed analysis of the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons, upon which the Bill was founded. It had been laid down in that House on a former occasion that their Lordships would not agree to the second reading of a Bill of disfranchisement, except upon evi dence heard at the bar upon oath. It did not supersede that law of their Lordships' House (which had been acted upon in the case of the disfran chisement of Stafford in 1836), to say that evidence had been heard upon oath before the Commissioners sent down to take the evidence. Their Lordships would not agree to a Bill of Pains and Penalties, without hearing for themselves, at their own bar, evidence on oath, in corrobation of the allegations in the preamble. He therefore humbly submitted to their Lordships that they were not in a condition, according to the established rules of their Lordships' House, to pass this Bill until they had so heard evidence in support of the allegations. In the evidence taken before the Commissioners sent down their Lordships had no proof of the extent to which corruption pre vailed, of the classes amongst which it was prac tised, or whether there were any, and what number of persons, to whom the corruption had not extended. In twenty-seven boroughs of small constituencies corruption equal to that proved against Sudbury had been, proved to exist, but these boroughs were exempt from disfran chisement, because it was found that there was a suffi cient constituency free from corruption and entitled to the franchise. The present was the third Bill which the House of Commons, in its zeal to maintain the purity of elections, had sent up to that House. That which was sent up last year broke down at their Lordships' bar. Therefore, in order to find out something to make out a case for warranting the House of Commons in passing a third Bill of this kind, and to induce their Lordships to agree to it, a Commission was sent down. If their Lordships would look at the report of that Commission they would see that nothing could be more ambiguous than it was. Lord BROUGHAM asked, was the Learned Counsel able to state from his instructions what number of voters the bribery had been brought home to, and of what class. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham said chiefly to the freemen. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that a great number of the freemen were also 101. householders. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham said that there was a body of 310 ten pound householders qualified to be registered, of whom only two were accused of corruption in the report. The LORD CHANCELLOR—OnIy two by name. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham said that the evidence, both before the Committee of the House of Commons and the Commission sent down, had proved that the corrup tion prevailed amongst the lower class of freemen, and that the ten-pound householders were, with an exceed ingly small exception, untainted. But the report did not make any distinction upon this important circum stance. The Learned Sergeant then proceeded to state points of the evidence, which he contended were in fa vour of his allegation. The Learned Counsel concluded at half-past five o'clock. ACTIONS FOR GAMING AT RACES SUSPEN ► The witness was then ordered to withdraw. The House went into Committee on the Bill. Lord CAMPBELL suggested an amendment for the purpose of discontinuing, instead of only suspending, the actions. The Duke of RICHMOND said if the actions were discontinued, and nothing further done, then the " un known," might renew them immediately. After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL, The Bill passed through Committee, was reported, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow (this day), and their Lordships to be summoned. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Mr. GREENE and others from the Commons, brought up the Joint-Stock Recovery-at-Law Bill, Metropolitan Buildings Bill, the Ayr Bridge Bill, and other Bills, which were severally read a first time. SLAVE-TRADE. The Earl of ABERDEEN said that, on Thursday, he would lay before the House the instructions which had been given to officers engaged in the suppression of the slave trade. The Marquis of NORMANBY presented a petition from medical gentlemen of the metropolis, praying the Legislature to take measures for improving the sanatory regulations of the metropolis, and especially calling at tention to the want of drainage, to churchyards, and crowded buildings. Lord COTTENHAM presented petitions from per sons confined in the Queen's Prison, and in Whitecross street, praying for the abolition of imprisonment for debt. Lord WHARNCLIFF:E laid on the table a return of the number of persons m prison for debt in England and Wales. SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR called the attention of the House to this Bill, of which he moved the second reading. The evidence had shown a state of constant and habitual bribery, more flagrant and corrupt than anything else that could be found in the history of Par liamentary elections. He therefore thought that, for the sake both of punishment and example, it was abso lutely necessary that the Bill should pass.—(Hear, hear.) His Lordship went through a detailed his tory of the Bills which had been previously brought up from the House of Commons. Counsel had stated that day at the bar, that the last Bill broke down in that House. But how did that happen ? Before the election Committee, the witnesses for the petition and against it proved enormous corruption each against the other side. But when these same witnesses came before that House to be examined, on a Bill for disfranchisement of the borough, and depriving those witnesses of the power of selling their votes, the two opposing parties coalesced, and their Lordships were unable to obtain sufficient evi dence to warrant them is passing the Bill. The House of Commons, therefore, adopted the course of procuring a Commission to examine witnesses on the spot. The Commissioners found, on commencing their proceedings in Sudbury, a general determination not to answer any question—the witnesses standing on the point that their answers would tend to criminate themselves. At length, by obtaining the evidence of electors who had ceased to reside in the town, and of other persons, the Commis sioners succeeded in collecting a mass of proofs that the corruption of the borough was so extensive, so deep rooted, and so inveterate, that it was a duty their Lord ships owed to the country and to the Constitution to deprive the electors of the power of repeating these enor mities.—(Hear, hear.) His Lordship then gave (amidst much laughter) an account of the procceedings at the last election, which have already been frequently before the public. The result was, that there was a majority for the liberal candidates of ten for one, and six for the other.: Here ;the liberal bribery was successful; but he would be impartial; he would tell them that bribery was quite as bad upon the Tory side.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The same spirit prevailed on both sides; but the party that spent the most money obtained the most votes. The losing side paid 1,4001.; the successful side paid 3,000/. No part of the public-house expenses, and only part of the legal ex penses of the election, had yet been paid, so that the whole of these two sums, amounting together to 4,400/., was applied to those gross purposes. It was true that there were many of the better class of electors who did not receive bribes. But there was the remarkable fact to be kept in mind, that it was proved that the wealthier classes—that all the respectable men in the town were cognisant of those transactions, and gave their sanction to them. They were, therefore as guilty as those who received the bribes, and should partake of the punish ment. Although the Commissioners were not directly authorised to inquire respecting former elections, yet a great deal crept out in the evidence which proved that a system of general corruption had long been established in the borough, extending to the whole constituency. He believed, therefore, that the disfranchisement was inevitable; and as to the question what should be done with the two votes, he would say that the House of Commons had taken the best course in this Bill— namely, to disfranchise the borough at once, and to con sider next year what should be done with the votes. He therefore recommended their Lordships to pass the second reading of the Bill. Lord BROUGHAM highly eulogised the perspicuous statement of his Noble and Learned Friend, who was the head and ornament of his profession. He agreed with his Noble and Learned Friend that this borough should be disfranchised as an example to others. But the disfranchisement of a borough was a grave matter, and he strongly objected to their Lordships passing such a measure without hearing evidence at the bar. His objection did not so strongly apply to the present case, as the evidence was taken not before a Crown Commission,but a Commission appointed by both Houses, and sanctioned by the Crown in the face of an Act of Parliament. It was grievous to witness the frightful guilt exposed in this inquiry. There could be nothing more degrading or more criminal than to swerve from the discharge of a public duty for the sake of sordid lucre. These corrupt, venal, and degraded wretches were guilty of perjury as well as bribery—for, even though the bribery oath was not administered, they were as guilty of perjury as if they had taken the oath, for they would have taken it if required. He thought the most expedient course was to pass the Bill. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed. COUNTY CORONERS' BILL. The House then went into Committee on this Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND said he had received some communications in answer to the objection which he had made on a former evening to the increased allowance for travelling expenses; but he still adhered to his opinion that the coroners should be paid by salaries like the other judges, and not, as it were, by the head, ac cording to the number of inquests they held. The Marquis of SALISBURY moved the omission of the 21st clause, which relates to the payment of ex penses out of the county rates. The Duke of RICHMOND seconded the motion. After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL and Lord WHARNCLIFFE in support of the Bill, Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division took place. The a s negatived,TßUSTS BILL. and the Bill passed through amendment Committee. CHARITABLE The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second read ing of this Bill. There were a great number of chari table trusts in England which were entirely exempt from control. There were 13,000 trusts, which did not amount to more than 5/., 14,000 which amounted to less than 10/., and 17,000 which amounted to less than 201. It was quite impossible that the Court of Chancery could exercise any control over these trusts ; and yet it was monstrous that trusts, amounting to 300,000/., should_ be without control or protection. To remedy this evil, he proposed to give the Commissioners the power of ap pointing persons to inquire from time to time into the state of these trusts, to examine their accounts, and the manner of their administration. Another power which he proposed to give was that of appointing more trustees. All that he now asked, however, was that their Lord ships would read the Bill a second time, and he would gladly receive any suggestions for its improvement in the Committee. The Bishop of LONDON thought the country was greatly indebted to his Noble and Learned Friend for taking up this subject. But he hoped he would not press it through the Committee in the present session. The Bishops would be shortly obliged to go into the country, and he thought that no measure affecting the Chnrch ought to be discussed in their absence. This Bill would affect the Church considerably, inasmuch as the great majority of the educational trusts in the kingdom pos sessed incomes not exceeding 20/. a year. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he did not intend to press the Bill. Lord WROTTESLEY regretted that the Bill had been postponed to so late a period of the session. Lord CAMPBELL thought the measure one of very great importance, and that it would, with alteration and amendment, prove to be a great improvement on the present system. Still it was to be regretted that so great a measure, affecting upwards of 30,000 trusts, and 13,000,0001. of property should be introduced on the 22d of July. He bad no objection to agree to the second reading, on the understanding that no further pro gress should be made in the Bill until next session. The LORD CHANCELLOR only wished the Bill to go into Committee, that he might hear what alterations might be proposen, but not to carry it through the Com mittee. As to the lateness of the session, he had pre pared the Bill at the beginning of the session, but he had not had the opportunity of bringing it forward sooner. The Bishop of LONDON objected to the Bill going into Committee in the absence of the Bishops, who were the best qualified to offer suggestions for its improve ment. He respectfully requested his Noble Friend not to go further than the second reading. The LORD CHANCELLOR was understood to say that he would not proceed further in the present session, unless with the assent of the Right Rev. Prelate, after consulting with his Ri g h t R ev . B re th re n. The Bill was then read a second time. THE CATHOLIC BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL. Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the order of the day for the third reading of this Bill, and the order being read, he proposed several amendments, which were agreed to. —Lord MONTEAGLE returned his thanks to the Noble Lord for the pains which he had taken with this Bill, and his care to give satisfaction to the persons for whose benefit the measure was intended. He would take that opportunity of expressing the great pleasure he felt at the intimation given in the other House with respect to the improvement of Maynooth College. The improved education of the clergy would do much to elevate the character of the people. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. The Parish Constables Bill was read a second time. Several other Bills on the table were advanced a stage. The Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. The Colonial Postage Bill passed through Committee without discussion, and was reported. The Assessed Taxes Composiqoa Act also passed through Committee. ROMAN CATHOLIC PENAL ACTS REPEAL BILL. The Bishop of LONDON withdrew his amendment, and the Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be printed. The Soap Allowances Bill was read a second time. REGISTRATION OF CHAPELS BILL. Lord TEYNHAM moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to repeal so much of the present Acts relating to this subject which prevented religious service before registration. It was further de signed to allow a minister of the Gospel to preach in an unregistered chapel to a congregation not exceeding 40 in number. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the law allowed every family to pray together, and allowed visitors or persons accidentally present, besides the family, up to the number of twenty, to join in the prayer. The Noble Lord did not object to the registration, and why should not the registration take place before the building should be named as a chapel ? Ile saw no reason for altering the law, and opposed the Bill. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER also opposed the Bill. and moved that it be read a second time that day three months. Lord TEYNH AM replied. The motion for the second reading was negatived with out a division, and the Bill was lost. Lord TEYNIIAM presented a petition from the pa rish of Marylebone, complaining of the operations of the Anatomy Act, as offensive to the feelings of the poor. The petitioners prayed to be allowed to prove their al legations at the bar. Their Lordships adjourned at Eleven o'clock. HOUSE OF COiiMONS, July 22. ;Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday. RAILWAYS BILL. On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Railways Bill, Mr. MORRISON said, that some few years ago the Government of the country appeared to be altogether opposed to any interference with railroads, in conse quence of which greater enterprise was manifested by capitalists to embark in railroad speculations. It would have been much better if the Government had shown this desire of interference some years ago. If the pre sent Bill passed, the public would be benefited to the extent of more numerous competing lines, but the pro prietors of existing railroads would be most materially injured. He thought, that if a tariff of lid. or 2d. per mile was levied on competing lines, it would have the effect of causing a reduction of fares, if that was the object of the Bill. The best objection to the Bill was, that it was unnecessary. With re gard to third-class carriages, he thought that public opinion would soon correct the abuse of delaying poor persons travelling in the third class. He was best acquaint ed that a wit g li re t a h t e hm G pe r r ea c t e lV e e n s t ightemrnßt be made i Railroad, and th he e thought third-class carriages. He also thought that the comfort of those persons who travelled in the second-class car riages was also too much neglected. Another abuse was that some carriers were favoured more than others by the directors. He thought that lists of the prices of carrying goods ought to be left with the Board of Trade, and that they should adhere to those price;. He did not think that railway companies ought to be liable to a penalty of 10/. for parcels which might be lost. On grounds of public policy, he thought that such a pro vision was necessary with regard to stage coaches ; but railroads were circumstanced so differently that he thought they ought not to be made subject to a penalty for lost parcels. He had great faith in the atmospheric principle upon railways, and h e th oug ht it would soon become exten sively adopted. He did not thoroughly approve of the Bill of the Government, because it passed by three lead ing points—revision, tariff, and lease. Mr. WILLIAMS did not think this Bill went far enough in protecting the public. He thought greater powers ought to have been taken by the Board of Trade with respect to the revision of railways ; and he thought that the provisions of the Bill ought to have been ex tended to old as well as to new companies. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, would consent to extend the clause rela'ing to third-class passengers to all existing companies. Third-class passengers had hitherto been treated in the most inconsiderate, unjust, and cruel manner, by existing railway companies, and he hoped therefore, that all companies ought to be made to come under the operation of the third-class passen gers' clause in this Bill. He thought, too, that power should be given for the revision, by the Board of Trade, of the carriage traffic on a railway, as well as the pas senger traffic. Colonel SIBTHORP had no hesitation in saying that the present Bill was a very similar Bill to that which was originally before the House. More than half the clauses had been struck out, and the Bill was most par tial in its operations. The Bill would have the effect of establishing a monopoly in favour of existing railway companies. Mr. V. SMITH had expected that some statement would have been made by the Right Hon. Gentleman with respect to the alterations which he had proposed. Great alteration had been made, and he thought that only one day for their consideration was too short a time especially without any explanation by the Right Hon Gentleman. The House then went into Committee on the Bill. On clause 1 being proposed, Mr. GLADSTONE rose and said he would take that opportunity of explaining the alterations which had been made in the Bill. H e did not t hi n k t h at t h e public in terest would be prejudiced by the abandonment of the clauses which had been struck out of the Bill. The Hon. Member for Lincoln appeared to imagine that in the Bill as it originally stood the option of revision and purchase was made applicable to existing railway companies. He could assure his Hon. Friend that such was not the case. That part of the Bill remained exactly the same. His Hon. and Gallant Friend came forward with great sympathy for the poor, and took objection to this Bill on that ground. Now the Bill in this respect remained unaltered; and therefore if his Hon. and Gallant Friend was satisfied with the original Bill, he must also be satisfied with the present one. There was one material relaxation in the term of the option of revision or purchase—that was, that the right of purchase should not accrue until after twenty-one years, instead of fifteen years, after the passing of the Act of incorporation, as originally intended. This he thought was a very material alteration. Another change in the Bill was, that the right of revision being once exercised should not be again exercised within the further term of twenty-one years. The Bill in its pre• sent state provided that when a railway should be pur chased, it should be taken at the, value at which it might be estimated at the time of the purchase. He thought this was an improvement in the Dill. Then, again, it , Lord BEAUMONT moved that this Bill be committed. The Bishop of LONDON said that the proposed Act was neither more nor less than an Act to restore the supremacy of the Pope in this realm.—(Hear, hear.) He assured the House, that if they were to pass such a measure—repealing the Act of Uniformity and thirty other Acts, and at the same time interfering with the pre rogative of the Crown—they would create great alarm throughout the country. He moved that the Bill be committed this day three months. Lord BEAUMONT was surprised that at this time a Rev. Prelate could be found to oppose the repeal of those laws which still kept the scaffold and the axe suspended over the heads of his Catholic fellow-subjects. Until those Acts were repealed, no Catholic, however loyal, was secure of his estates. He believed that there were people willing to bring into operation those obsolete Acts, as their Lordships had seen this day there were persons seeking to enforce far less atrocious Acts. He had no wish to injure the Established Church, but if the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack would point out, amongst the Acts which he proposed to repeal, any that were necessary to the safety or the power of the Established Church, he would willingly leave them out of his schedule. The Commissioners of Criminal Law Inquiry, in their seventh report, strongly dwelt upon the necessity of abolishing those laws, and they quoted the eloquent language of Justice Blackstone condemna tory of those cruel and impolitic laws. The Bishop of LONDON explained. He agreed that many of those laws ought to be repealed. But the Noble Lord proposed to repeal some Acts that were necessary for the security of the Church. What he now chiefly objected to was the season at which the Bill was brought in—a season when it could not be adequately discussed, and when it could scarcely be expected that it would pass the House this year. Surely, the Noble Lord did not think that in the next six months the Roman Catholics would be in a worse condition than they were now. It was certainly right that the liabili ties mentioned by the Noble Lord, although not enforced, should be done away with. But no inconvenience would be suffered by delaying it until the beginning of next session, when the Bishops, the rulers and defenders of the Church, would be present in the House. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had him self examined the Bill, and had referred it to the Com missioners of Criminal Law Inquiry, who struck out some of the clauses. He now believed that there was not a single clause in the Bill, as it stood at present, to which any reasonable person could object. He won dered that any one could say at the present day that it was necessary for the security of the Church that any one who a second time denied the supremacy of the Queen should be transported. By that law every priest who said mass was still liable to the severest penalties. He would recommend the Noble Lord to withdraw his motion, and the Right Rev. Prelate to withdraw his, so that the Bill might be printed and every Member of the House be enabled to see what its objects really were. Lord CAMPBELL was sure that if the Right Rev. Prelate examined the Bill he would find that it was not liable to the objection which the Right Reverend Prelate supposed. He (Lord Campbell) suggested that the Bill should go into Committee pro forma. The Earl of WICKLOW approved of the Bill, which would give great satisfaction to the Roman Catholics, especially in Ireland, and could not possibly affect the Established Church. He was sorry that the Bill was now to be obstructed.—(Hear.) He thought that the lateness of the session and the absence of the Prelates were not sufficient reasons for putting off useful mea sures. Why were not the Bishops in their places as well as other Lords ?—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend de served the thanks of the Catholics and of all liberal minded men for bringing in his Bill. The Bishop of LONDON would press his opposition. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that after what had passed in the House, and what had been stated in a pub lic print, it was absolutely necessary for his own justifi cation that he should ask their Lordships to print the Bill. He thought the House might go into Committee pro forma, and the Bill be printed, that the House and the public might see what the Bill was. He had already declared that he had struck out every clause that would be doubtful. As for the absence of the Bishops, he did not see how it was necessary to be a divine, in order to judge whether the Church would be endangered by allowing a Catholic gentleman to send his son abroad for his education. was provided that if the railway, at the expiration of twenty-one years, should be making more than ten per cent., the transfer should be effected by the pay ment of twenty-five years' purchase. The Bill also provided that in the case of a branch liable to the clauses creating the option of purchase, joining a main line that was not liable, if the Legislature should think fit to ex ercise that option with respect to the branch line, it should be in the power of the company holding the main line to demand of the Government to take the main line also on the same terms. He thought this was a just provision. It was not the object of the Bill to pre judge the question of expediency at all; that question would be left open for the future consideration of Parliament. He could not agree with the Hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Morrison) in thinking it expedient that a maximum charge on railways should be established by Govern ment of Id., 2d., and 3d. per mile for the three kinds of passengers. He felt that the announcement of such an enactment on the part of Parliament would toll the knell of speculation in this country. The Hon. Gentleman re marked that the cost of construction was now greatly re duced, but he must also remember that the great channels of communication had already been constructed. He did not think that there was any other point upon which it was necessary to offer any explanation. Mr. WARD expressed his satisfaction with the pre sent Bill. He felt that the objectionable parts of the old Bill had been withdrawn, and he expressed his satisfaction with the course which the Right Hon. Gen tleman had taken. He believed that the Bill would be as satisfactory to railway proprietors as it would he conducive to the interests of the public. Mr. GLADSTONE took that opportunity of ex plaining that on a former occasion, in alluding to the petition of the Birmingham Railway Company, he had not intended to say anything disrespectful to the solicitor to that company. He had also alluded to a circular as having been written by Mr. Burke. He had afterwards found that that circular was not written by Mr. Burke. Mr. HAWES would offer no further opposition to the Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman having modified the Bill in the manner ha had done, showed a determination on his part to consider the interests of the public. Colonel SIBTHORP maintained that this clause did not look to the interest of all parties, nor did it apply the stringent clauses to all railways. Mr. BERNAL, in consequence of the alterations in the Bill, would not take any further part with respect to it. The objections he had taken to parts of the Bill still remained. Mr. V. SMITH, in consequence of the alterations that had been made in the Bill by the Right Hon. Gen tleman, would give the measure no further opposition. He thought the clause of option ofpurchase on the part of the Government ought to be retained for the purpose of keeping the railways under check. He also thought that something ought to be done with respect to the comfort of the poorer classes who might travel by railroad. Mr. P. HOWARD supported the Bill. Sir E. COLEBROOKE supported the Bill, although he thought more advantages might be given to the public than was proposed by the present meaasure. Clauses I and 2 were then agreed to. Clause 3, after a few observations from Mr. GLAD STONE and Mr. VERNON SMITH, was agreed to. Clause 4 was agreed to with some verbal amendments. Clause 5 was agreed to without alteration. On clause 6 being proposed, Mr. THORNELY observed that the clause only en acted that third-class trains should be run on week days. Now he had no wish to interfere with railways which refused to run any trains on Sundays ; but he thought that in cases in which railway companies ran first and second-class trains on Sundays they ought also to be compelled to run third-class trains. Mr. GLADSTONE could not consent to any altera tion in the Bill, which had been drawn up in strict ac cordance with the recommendation of the Committee. The question had been argued in Committee, and he, for one, would be no party to compel companies to run particular trains on Sundays. He was aware of the dif ficulty of enforcing the observance of the Lord's day by legislation, but he would never hold out a bonus to a violation of the Lord's day. He was aware that railroad companies were compelled to carry the mails on the Lord's day, but that was a case of necessity. But the Government would be setting a bad example to the people if, without necessity, they were, by compulsory legislation, to enforce the running of trains on the Lord's day. The respectable work ing man, who wished to change his place of abode, would rather give up a working day, and the wages of a working man, than travel on the Lord's day. The ob servance of the Lord's day was a great support to reli gion in this country, and it was the chief support to re ligion in Scotland. Mr. WARBURTON observed that his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had not expressed any desire to compel railway companies to run third-class trains on Sunday, but if railway companies ran first and second-class trains on Sundays, they ought to be placed under the same restrictions with regard to third-class trains as they were on working days. The old Acts of Parliament always made an exception as to the observance of Sunday in cases of necessity. Now, a poor man might have a re lation at the point of death on a Sunday as well as a rich man, but it seemed, according to the idea of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the poor man ought not to be permitted to travel to see his relations unless he could go in a first-class train. He thought that wherever railroad companies ran first and second-class trains on a Sunday, they should be compelled to run third-class also. Mr. THORNELY said that where railroads were now closed on a Sunday he had no wish to compel them to ran trains. But that was no reason why the poor man should be compelled to remain at home, or pay first or second-class fare. He proposed to insert in the clause the words "on any day on which passengers are con veyed." Mr. V. SMITH said the proposition of the Hon Member for Wolverhampton was perfectly reasonable.. It only amounted to this, that when trains did run cheap train should be run also ; so that what was done for the rich man might be done for the poor. Colonel SIBTHORP supported the amendment, on the ground that they ought not to make distinctions be tween the rich and the poor. He, however, suggested that the clause should be postponed. Mr. GLADSTONE would move that the Chairman do report progress, as it was now (pointing to the clock) the hour for proceeding with the regular public business. —(Cries of No, no," and " Divide.") Mr. SHEIL said the meaning of the clause as it stood was, that Dives might travel on the Sunday, but Lazarus might not.—(Laughter and cheers.) The amendment was read from the chair amid ,loud cries of " Divide." Mr. DENNISON hoped that the Government would give way on this point. An immense number of the working classes did travel on the Sunday, and while it would be a great boon to compel the running of a cheap train with the others, it would be a great injury to de prive them of it. Mr. COLLETT was understood to support the amendment. Mr. lIODGSON suggested a difficulty in detail, the mail trains being compelled to run at a speed of not less than 27 miles an hour, while the cheap trains., ran at 12, and there would be a difficulty in compelling a third class train to be attached to the quicker one. After a few observations from Mr. ENTWISLE and Sir W. GUEST, the House divided, when there appeared-- For the original motion 4l For Mr. Thornley's amendment 73 Majority against Ministers —32 On clause 6 being read, Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the limitation of speed to twelve miles an hour. He did not see why the third-class trains should not travel at the same rate as the first and second. He would divide the Committee on the question of toll. He would move that the maxi mum be one halfpenny instead of a penny per mile for third-class passengers. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division took place, the motion having been negatived without a division. On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill being put, Colonel SIBTHORP said he would divide, but the motion was negatived without a division. The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses up to 23 inclusive were agreed to. On clause 24 being proposed, Col. SIBTHORP complained of the manner in which this Bill was hurried forward. How was it possible that they could give sufficient consideration to twenty-eight clauses which were only delivered to members on Saturday. It was not giving them a fair opportunity for discussing a Bill of this importance, which, moreover, was a new Bill, to begin it at half-past two, and run it through Commit tee by half-past five o'clock. They had no end of dis cussions on the Fine Arts. They did not care twopence for the poor people, and however much he might respect the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade, he must say it was not a proper mode of legisla lation to run this Bill through at such a railroad pace. He protested against it, and if he lived to enter the House another session, he would see if Hon. Members would not support him in urging Ministers to bring for ward important measures at the beginning of the session. Mr. HUME withdrew the clauses of which he had given notice. Sir T. FREMANTLE move a clause for regulating the conveyance of the military by railway. Lord INGESTRE expressed a hope that in all future railway Bills a clause would be introduced enacting that all locomotives should have six wheels. Mr. EWART postponed his clause fur the public examination of candidates for situations on railways. The House then resumed, and the Chairman brought up the report. 'Messengers from the Lords appeared at the bar, and brought up several Bills. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, the Joint- Stock Companies Bill was read a third time and passed, in order to send it up to the Lords as soon as possible. POOR-LAWS. In answer to a question from Col. SIBTHORP, Sir J. GRAHAM said he proposed to take the report of the Poor-law Amendment Bill on Wednesday n ex t, as an order o f th e d a y, t o come on in its turn as one of the regular orders. METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that it was his intention to proceed with the Joint-stock Banks Regulation Bill to-morrow (this day) at twelve. Sir J. GRAHAM, i❑ answer to a question from an HoN. MEMBER, said,' that he should proceed with the South Wales Turnpike Trusts Bill on Wednesday, at twelve o'clock. CAPTAIN WARNER, Captain PLUMRIDGE wished to know if the Noble Lord opposite was aware of the result of Captain Warner's experiment, and whether as a naval officer he would state his opinion of it ? Lord INGESTRE said that a large ship had been destroyed by Captain Warner, on Saturday last, 0 , 11 Brighton. He had do ne so p u bli c ly, and sueh . being the case , it must h ave come to tu knowledge of hi s G a ll ant F r i, n d , b ut he wx; not at liberty, a ccor di ng to t h e f orms o f t h e ßouse' to state how it was done. It would, perhaps, be better that he should r ea d a d ocument h e h ad t h en in his hal: The Noble Lord th en rea d a document, dated July 2 , 1844, certifying th a t th e opera i ons on t h e John „ Gaunt, 300 tons, con d uc t e d b y C apta i n Warner, e_ on the 20th instant, were under their manag e ' went and contr o l ; th a t t h e exp l os i on did no t to place by combustible matter either on board the ship the otherwise ; that Captain W a rn er was o n board tn! Wallace steamer at a distanc e o f 300 y ar ds ; that . took place in consequence of a signal from the _ writers on the sh ore , an d t h at t h e t i me cou ld not known by Captain Warner. They further deelar e A, their belief th a t, s i nce t h e vessel had left Graves et Captain Warn er h a d not b een on board of it. Signeaul Lord Ingestre and Captain Henderson. Sir C. NAPIER wished to know whether there Was not a torpedo inside of the vessel. Lord INGESTRE said he bad read the certificate, and that he was prepared to make oath of it. ART-UNIONS. In reply to a question from Mr. EWART, The CHANCELLOR of th e EXCHEQUER said be was aware that a Bill on A rt -U n i ons had b een int!: o. duced into th e ot h er H ouse, b ut he was not aware w hat were its provisions. THE CASE OF DALMak S. In reply to a question from Captain POLHILL, stating Sir J. GRAHAM sa id h e h a d no h es i tat i on i n that he did advise her Majesty, in mercy, to gran t . ° reprieve in the ca s e o f D a l mas, b ut he should o bject laying on the table the information on which be 1 given that advice. FRANCE AND MOROCCO. On the order of the day for the House going into a Committee of Supply being read, ay Mr. SHEIL said h e h a d a l rea d y i nformed the Mi g h t Hon. Baronet at th e h ea d o f h er Majesty ' s G o vernmen t that he should no t persevere i n the motion of which n` had given noti ce , b ut th at h e s h ould content himse lf with moving for cert a i n p a p ers , t h e part i culars of w hi c h n°_ should specify i n th e course o f the observations w hich he intended to make. He was anxious to confine bIT self in the discussio n o f a mere matter of form t o th e facts, and to abstain from any superfluous comments oe them. Any Gentleman who was of opinion that he en . tertaiued the design, which would be worse than repro' hensible, of exciting a feeling of animosity between tw o great nations did him wrong, and he should prove that he did him wrong by the tone which he should a dopt- He felt that it was the deep interest of both countries to remain at peace, and that by their collision the wor ld would be disturbed. At the same time he conceived ne advantage could be derived from concealing from thei r selves the precise t ru th, or f rom t h e i r averting the i r e yes from objects which must of necessity at last force them" selves upon th e i r contemp l at i on. On the st h of July, 1830, b e r i s k e d a b ruptness, in order t hat ` he might avoid the greater fault of p r olixitl c On the sth of J u l y , 1830, L ord Aberdeen ttn.. dressed a dispatch to Lord Stuart de Rothsay which was conceived in a most prudential and eonciin v tory spirit. He would take the opportunity of observ: ing that the w h o l e o f t h e correspondence of Lord Aber' deen at that period was distinguished by great sagaci t y and wisdom, but that between his conduct and his O r .: respondence there was an infelicitous contrast, for his conduct was marked with some infirmity of purpose, B ,* ' he failed to o bt a i n f rom the French Government tku pledge which he was, beyond all doubt, entitled to tlei mand. It was remarkable that the prognostications, e Lord Aberdeen had b een ver ifi ed b y the events w hich were now passing. I n p age 942 of the State paP er i Lord Aberdeen wrote to Lord Stuart de Rothsay, to es for some explanation from the French Government reir tive to the expedition against Algiers. Prince de Pol i .g: nac returned an answer, which was by no means sans, factory; and Lord Aberdeen again wrote to Lord Stutf.i de Rothsay on the 23d of March, 1830. In reply, Lo r d Stuart de Rothsay said he saw Monsieur de Polign'' and could not obtain from him any satisfactory ansil but that he would commun i cate with the Sultan. 1": Sultan had sent Ali Paella to Algiers, but the blockading squadron of the French would not suffer him to oaten He then came to Boulogne, where he was obliged to per form quaranti ne , an d h e (Mr. Sheil) believed he Ile°. reached Pa r i s . Sh ort l y after the fall of Algiers, on the sth of July, Monsieur de Polignac was in captivity, the placed in immediate proximity to the guillotine, and t crown was torn from the brow of Charles X. and t he i _ ie throne of the barricades was given to that remarka bl e and sagacious man who now ruled the people of Fran ce . ie —one of the most sagacious men in that country, fer tl a in greatness. The Duke of Wellington, with gr sagacity, recognised hi m as the representa tive of the national w ill. B ut was it not . most extraordinary circumstance, that after ~o correspondence whi c h h e h ad read to the House. alter s the distinct intim a ti on g i ven b y Lord Aberdeen, that he expected a stipulation that Algiers should not be appro priated by France, after he had stated with such clear' ness his views as to the ultimate results on the commer ce of the Mediterranean. Was it not most extraordina r y that, after the lap se o f f our months, during wh i c h the French remained in possession of Algiers, and when es: tensive acquisitions were made in the country, that they should not have demanded, as a condition from the Ile' Government, that which they had failed to obtain from the former, the importance of which had been so largely and so emphatically expressed? It was true that in the speech from the Throne in November, 1830, it ul s stated that no doubt was entertained by his Majesty's Government that Louis Phillippe would fulfil all his en gagements ; but it w as most remarkable that there was no previ o u s engagement w i th regard to Algiers. There was no a rrangement bi nd i ng in diplomac y ~h l : t. had never been obtained. The polished and well lubri cated statesman of France had, with his peculiar shin: shy, escaped fro m th e grasp o f the pale Englislitn That was an important f ac t w hi c h could not be too mileA insisted upon, whe n th e y came to consider what had . since taken place. Th e T or y G overnment of 183 0 ha' recognised Louis Philippe when France was in poss e S; sion of Algiers, and y e t no engagement had been me, for the abandonment of Algiers by France. The Whig . came into power in 1830 ; they found France in posse sion of Algiers, no stipulation having been made on t i l ;.! subject, and they f oun d L ouis Philippe recognized. 11' would now pass from 1830 to 1831. The administrati on of Lord Grey lasted to 1834. In that year the Rig ht Honourable Gentleman opposite came into P° we 4 and his admi n i stration was succeeded by that - Lord Melbourne. Nothing was said or done during the whole of that time as to any reeogn i ; tion of the right of France to Algiers. 112 „ 1 . 11 , right was not d en i e d, b ut i t was not admitted. ' exequatur was applied fo r f or t h e E ng li sh Consul. .ti?,et far it was necessary to apply for an exequatur furl from France he wou ld not stop to i nquire. He pas se d from 1830 t o 1 8 31, an d almost immediately eater t"- new Government had been formed, and Lord Aberdeen had been restored to the Foreign-office, a most rema rk' able conv ersa ti on i s f oun d to have taken place on tu e d subject of th e Al ger i ne b us i ness. Lord Aberdeen 111 himself given the sub s t ance o f t h at conversation. man could doubt the veracity of Lord Aberdeen, or of th e Count St. Aulaire, or of M. Guizot. No doubt the re had been a mis a pp re h ens i on and nothing more. But 1 was a singular circumstance that the French Ambass v. dor should have so availed himself of that conversatio n, which Lord Aberdeen stated to have been perfectly n e- t cidental and fortuito us . Wh at was the result of th._sa. conversation ? Why, immediately aft erwar d s , t h e Ding of the Fren c h, i n his speech from the throne, in Dece nt ber, 1841, s t a t e d to t h e Chambers, that he had taken ° measures for the pu r p ose o f protect i ng the security of tild foreign p ossess i ons of France from what he call e_ e external compli cat i ons. " M. Guizot explained to t he Chamber th e mean i ng o f that phrase, which was th at t Lord Ab er d een h a d explained to Count Aulaire he regarded the possession of Algiers by France as 21 ; fait ac comp li, an d had no objection to make. TbeT could be no doubt but that Count St. Aulaire had En' s ; 1 ' taken what Lord Ab er d een had said ; and on the 25,,t, of January, 1842, L or d Aberdeen wrote a dispatch ; Lord Cowley, in w hi c h h e denied that he had state': that he . had no objection to make, but stated tha t he had merely intimated that he had no observation to make, and remained silent on the subject. That di s ; patch had been communicated to M. Guizot, but A" Guizot had made no observation on it. A very import' ant step had since been taken by the French Govern; ment, and it wa s b ecause h e f ound that the measu re adopted by France were distinctly affecting the corn' merce of this country with Africa that he felt it importan t to call the attention of the House to this subject; On the 16th of December, 1843, a most important re port of the Duke of Dalmatia had been presented to tu - f . King of the French, which appeared in the Moniteur o f the 21st of December, 1843. The report of the Duke in Dalmatia was on the subject of the French possession s ,;d Algiers, and recommended that means should be adoP ii - e to prevent foreign States from taking advantage of t '6 o commerce of those possessions, and that duties should s raised upon the textual fabric of foreign manufacture consumed in Algiers. An ordonnance, dated the 1 , 4 6 ,,d of December, 1843, containing a new tariff, was founu - 0 , upon this report, and a duty of 12 francs and 10 eed times per kilogramme was imposed upon foreign princ e calico, and a duty of four francs per ton was imr s " 3 0 upon foreign shipping. This imposed a burden of pi per cent. additional upon our commerce. Now, let th e look at th e resu l ts of this tariff on British trade. In i „, 1 m Times of J u l y 18, 1844, there appeared a 45, ter from th e i r correspondent, dated Oran, JulY,..orh in which th e wr i ter stated that British commerce, Will-. had formerly been flourishing there, was nOW ann,„ lhi is a fated, except f ur coa l s ; that the port duties on B r " - e te shipping was f our f rancs per ton, and on foreign ye s it was the same, except on Sardinian vessels, which if , 00 ; favoured by tr ea ty, an d admitted at two francs per ise and that the g enera l e ff ect of the tariff had been to r e a ...t. the charges on B r iti s h commerce from fifteen per c to thirty per cent., which, in fact, amounted to e elusion. Wh a t was t h e state of trade in Algeria heftehre this? Mr. M'Grego r , i n hi s admirable book VllB4l " Statistics of Com merce ," state d that in 1840 and ana 1,846 French vesse l s entered the ports of Algeria'a ndie only 200 English ones . V er il y, t h e power of Engingee. this region was at the lowest ebb. The Big „ v s- Gentleman then read a repo r t f rom t h e M on it e ur !t o y paper, which stated that from an ordinance ref e , issued by the French Government, the duties in Alfierija on foreign man u f ac t ure were one-third more than France, and th a t or di nance was not to be d i stur bed 2 .t did not quarrel w i t h F rance b ecause of h er congthat of Algiers. He did not dispute her title tov,eh country—he did not wish to embark in a question h n e ' ta, might disturb the peace of the House.--(ilea r ' a v ast from Sir R. Peel)—but he wished that from th`_e t he they might learn to make some configuration. o , he future —that they should take into considerationue',,, editerra events now passing on the coast of the AI all P re and which bor e a c l ose resem bl ance to th os e which c sir ceded the co nques t- o f Al g i ers .—(H ear , hear, lo nes . Of C. Napier.) The cause of q u arr e l between the me apj Co/ Wil , bie Pat