The Sun. — London, England, 1847-04-15 00:00:00

aes not in any way to be forwarded by persecution. .71 1 .1) sar.isfieri that the Ne Loel nail net ter:pi-eine f ex tette ,vi,at he meant to say. and mat his rnearOtte• w o;:t nut h:'sr the iiii.erpretat , . put upon it by his Hine Friend. Bu' the N , ,elt-• L had referred to the (lid Testameot, wed ita.i elluded certain passages which tie consicerol ti be in sui. port of nit, arg.tnient.—(tieer. hear.) Bat it 5h0,41.1 lie reco=llected, that, in the earlier days of the Jewish Commonwealth, that people were devotee to a jjec liar office. Their commission was to extermi nate idolatry, and he thought that the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford hail hardly stated this case with sufficient force. Far be it from him to underrate the social excellence of the professors of the Roman Catholic religion ; far be it from him to understate their charity, or their often-exhibited benevolence. He believed that in these respects they were outdone by nobody of Christians, but just as the Jews had their commission to extirpate idolatry, Mr. B. ESCOTT—No, no. Nothing of the kind. Mr. SPOONER--The Hon. Member for Winchester might have his opinion, but he (Mr. Spooner) trusted that he might be permitted to express his also, and although what he might say might have a tendency to offend many present, although it was uttered without the slightest desire to give offence to any one ; yet though it might offend, s ill he should never be deterred from saying what be felt it to be his duty in that place from any consideration whatever. The Hon. Baronet the s Member de for Oxford University had given the character to totf thin bate, and he had rightly said that the fa trt b id y rri nc En Bill was to put down the Protestant If they passed this Bid they hcandt°'her al:ernstne— Liles,and destroy the they must repeal the Act Bill of Rights. He had n.. of Ch slightest desire to pre ventty an equality of eel gigue any people from e freedom, but he dieliobj:.,ftt to that part of the Bill which bulls in this country. it legalised the would, according to his notions, net be of the in giving any religion 4 facility slightest advau eg to the professors of the Roman Catholic faith, but it would be bring in g another t i p and a new power to over awe t h e c onsciences an .ress the powers of m an y individuals, and would in many instances compel them to avow and act On principles is religious matters which they in their inner heart denied. It would be sanction ing a custom and a principle which the House of Commons bail no right dhatever to sanction, and would in truth be rendering that lawful which was in itself treasonable and Seditious. Teis Bill did not confine the authority for introducing bulls—that simply referred to spiritual jurisdiction, and was thus opening a way for all sorts of immoral and unscriptural proceedings. A few d yrs ago a young gentleman, the son of a friend of his, had 13.e . t induced to leave the Pro testant Church, and give in It's adhesion to the Church of Rome, and shortly afterwards his faVier found a book - entitled, " Consolation and Encouragement for Souls." It was trenslated from St. Alphonsius, and contained a • passage to the effect that as soon as ever any man had given up the control of his mind and heart to his spi ritual director he was tro longer responsible for his con duct ,to his Maker. He would ask whether this was net at once loosiug alt the bonds of society, whether it wag not seling at liberty every means for imposing upon the hearts awl consciences of a people, whether was not !:giving a range to all the chicane of prieeocra.t, and allowing opportunity for evils of a most mischievous character ? Was it not monstrous that there should be such a declaration of all loss of responsibility such as this ? With such a latitude there was a tree commission to a young man any day to commit rnurjer o treason, for by this assertien the Bible was nothing, law was nothing, morality was nothing, nor was th. re any rule whatever to bind the spirit, the principles, or the conschatee of any man who had once given himself up to the direcien of his priest. His conscience would not be his own, and there would be neither responsibility for the pt . eent or fear for the future—not an aid to assist in the pathway through life, but throughout the whole of his course he %TAB.' be tied hand and foot by the dic tates of the pri.- st, and would in every way be dive:led of all species of responsibility. There was also another view to which the Noble Lord had alluded, namely, that the discussion between the two Churches was only a theological one ; but could such a state o f t hi ngs as a system of free inquiry on the:.objects exist where all free inquiry was reprobated, and everything left entirely in the hands of the priests ? Such were some of his reasons fur opposing the motion for the House going ine) Committee on the Bill. He would conclude by saying that his firm opinion was that this Bill was looked upon with intense anxiety by the Roman Catholics, who hailed everything that removed the obstacles to the con • summation oft ;at result which they had so much at heart. He believed that the House had gone too far already by the Act of 1829—(" Hear, hear, ' from Colonel Sibthorp.) He had a vivid recollection of some of the arguments used upon that oec•ision, both by Mr. Canning and other supporters of the measure, and was particularly struck by that which had been used on the subject of the exclusive nature of the oath requir, d to be taken by Members of the Legislature. He believed that Mr. Canning was, however, too sanguine in believing that the oath, as then amended, would be as effici-nt in contrAling the interference of the Catholic Members with the temporalities; of the Church as it had been before effectual in keeping them out of the House. The Hon. Member concluded by calling upon the House to seppert the Protestantism of the country, and refuse to go into Committee on the Bill. Mr. SHEIL said that the Hon. Member for Birming ham heti eta, ed that he was acaueinted with several Ca-hullo gentlemen tor whom he entertained a high cheraeter, bet he thought th-t if he were to communi cate his iyinio-4s to any of those ntspeetaile gentle men ho would be assurA b, them ;halt neither by force nor by fraud bees it to be attempted t o destroy* the Pro testent re —(ilean) Ile coutd not help - hieking that his Heil. Friend had dealt somewhet disiege.nuously with his Nob', Friend, for, notwithst ending tee distinct exolimatien f his Noble Friend of the statements im puted to him by his neighs cur of Kent, notwithstanding his Sable Fr:en.l g,t up aad said that he was in favour of ueiestrietecl ro of conseiNlve, the Honourahle M -either who had just sat down had enileavraired to easten upon him emerges ?shish his Noble e . riend had eistitic:ly d &ed. He (Mr. Shot) was convineed th it there w'ss not a sinale Roman Cathetic in that House who wetild not eke son the doctrines i m p u t e d to 11;!n ny the Hen. Mem:4er for Birmingham. N.) such toe.pose was eras-matted by thaw ai they wete charged with. His Henoerable Friend was so much ex cited by hn argument as to call all his Roman Catholic elltev-subjects " idolaters." He (Mr. Shen) could as ore the lion. Member that he had to ChrisTisii philosophy to allow himself in the slightest degree to be induenced by idolaters.— (Hear, hear.) But mane, Isf,er ail, the real question fOr the House te decide was whether they would go into Committee on this, Bill—a Bill which has already passed the second reading;. There was one portion of the Bill to which he attached considerable value, he referred to that portion of it with reference to the religious orders of the Catholic Church. As the law now stood, no Jesuit or a ty member of other religious orders, could come into this country with out being subject to transportation. Any native of Ire land who should enter into any religious order was liable to banishment in the first instance, and transportation after; and any person who initiated any individual into a religtous order was 1 able to the same punishment. Now, he tnought that it must strike the common sense and the common justice of that House that these laws were, if not impotent in their application, at least essen tially inefficacious. But these laws were also wholly inoperative; they were utterly inefficaci ous, for the purposes contemplated by those who introduced th .se laws, and he would show the House that these laws were also totally inoperative. He thought it quite sufficient for his argument to open a book which he held in his hand, entitled " The Irish Catholic Directory." The bock to which he would refer contained the entire statistics of the Catholic Church, and it specified all the archbishops, the bishops, the arch deacons, the deacon', and all the parish priests in • connexion with that Church, and concluded by the folowieg healing—" Society of Jesus." Then followed the name of the Rev. Richard St. Ledger, Clongowes Coll.ge, Clare. The lion. and Learned Member also read a list of ether names in connexion with the religious order of the J e , u i ts , and went on to say that such a statement was in his opinion amply sufficient to convince the House that the law as it then stood had been and was utterly inellica • ciousl; the laws were offensive, and answered the purposes of contumely, but none other. Father Me.hew was a regular, Dr. Doyle -was a regular —an Aueustinien friar ; and if the one might be called the Apostle of Temperance, the other might—for the extraordinary exenions he made in sappert of the poor of Ireland, and to place the poverty of that country on the same footing as the poverty of England—be called the Apostle of the Peer, as he was the fiat great champion the poor of Ire land ever had. Sow, by the, law as it at present stood, the former might be at the present moment propagating the principles of temperance in Van Dituiett's Land and Australia, and such great and pod men be subjected to the most iniquitous oppression. The question then arose. was that. law to stand ? and if so, for what pur• pose He knew that, with reeserd to the Jesuita, :t feel ir of str ong opporoteoe had been excited, and that since what wa i evit e d r su e e g h aril f :d oi w n i g th , the net, they had been f i e,r, h l t )ut he thought those wile enteraieed afraid of their own fears. He thentit that thse?y a l " charged wilt, ;heir virt ue !aults the Jesuits might be outwighed them, awl that the talk of those c h g ,: e4tl) nious and unite:tele& the le: i evere whony celtine he pointed the glorious example ei t 'lZ'Z' ) . - were the faults of the J ese i a, :net . - Bu,, whetsver Glogierielli at the instarce of v , re "M'P r "'s''d by IT;sh J , suits were eqtirely reel f ro , wa t"lth.ophy, t h e their coniket in I. e; ? "4:hey had a a d eg a W was gowes, sever:it eft I.l' vinous "" charitstile wont , . W.ce the s e t h e terifo , ,4 o i r committed ? F..r the last hrty year a 3 , T a is V the d;ffereat :eat lens axed pothical tnovexia, nt 4 s in Ireland. he deli .:1 i hem to smite, out e single speech, testa, panp!)l,-t, ever made or pehlislied by a Jesait. He had tiever seen a Jesuit at aay of tie meetings of the Catholic Association ; itnel he did not believe that any member of that society was or ever had been a member of the Repeal Association 'These were facts, anti they surely ought to outweigh the unsupported assertions of the Hem Member for Birmingham. Why then, he would ask, should these men be persecuted, against whom there was no just cause of blame? Would Mr. Spooner, Mr. plamptre, or Sir R. Inglis persecute Father Ma thew, or any other of the learned or virtuous men who were members of these societies ?—(Hear, hear.) No, they wou ld not.—(Hear, hear. ) Why, then, should this intolerance show its teeth when the teeth were too loose to bite?—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member for Birmingham said that a number of petitions had been presented against the Bill. H e did not believe that there wa s any f eeli ng of hostility TIIE SU_N, - LON DO . N, URSDA Y MORNING, APRIL 15, 1847. riously in this manner. The mea.J,ure was disi:led into two parts. Tin- one part was to repeal old laws inflictleg penalties on Roman Catholics, and was no thimg more than giving full effect to the Act of Emaueipation pat.sed in 1829. He denied, therefore, that his tirineieg it forward was a violation of any e tatelet entered into in 1829, as alleged by the Riht Lion. Member for the University of Oxford. The Commissioners, who had made inquiry into the operation of these statutes, had shown in their report the inutility of such penal statutes. It was to cirry out the recomicendaion of the Commis eiontrs that he had introduced this Bill. But the penalty being taken away the misdemeatieur still re • mained„ In the Bill of Rights, the let of William 111., expressly stated th,,t the sovereign, on coming to the throne should declare his alheretice to the Protestant religion, and if they repealea the Act oY Charles 11. they would in no way touch the Bill of Rights. The latter touched only the sovereign, while the former affected the subject. He had shown on previous occasions that the supremacy was a part of the common law of England, and the Act of the Ist of Elizabeth WAS not passed to declare that su:Temaey, hut to provide for the punishment of individuals who in any way assisted in supporting the authority of the Pope in this country ; but the Act did not, for it could net. create the supremacy of the Sovereign. That had already been established. This was the first part of the Bel, and he regretted the necessity of going so fully into the matter at this period of the debate.— (Hear, hear.) Then he Caine to the 10th Gi o. IV., which had been call, d the safeguard of the country. Now, he did not proptee to interfere with that Bill except in cite resp• ct. No ptrson could have greater dislike to those public pre cessions the streets, which were likely to effect the minds of weak per sons. He objected to all these processions, whether they were made by Protestants, Catholics, or Dissenters ; but he thought that there was no objection repeal that portion of the 10th George IV., which pre vented the Catholic priest from performing the rites of his Church in a private chamber at the burial of the dead. He thought that the Right lion. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had misstated the circum stances, when he said that it was ells:mery to elevate the host at the burial of the members of the Roman Ca tholic communion. _ _ Sir R. INGLIS expressed his Cisient. Mr. WATSON had credibly been informed that such un occurrence never took place ; and at any rate there was no power to enforce these laws. There w,re at present between five and six hundred parochial priests in Ireland, against whom the laws could not be enforced, and it was a maxim in criminal law that when a law was not in unison with the feelings of the people, the better way was at once to abrogate it. The Right Hon. Member for the University of Oxford had sail that this measure was both harmless and dangerous. He could not conceive how this measure be liable to both of these charges. The Hon. Member for Birmingham said that the Roman Catholics were anxious about the success of this measure—that was surely no matter of surprise to the House. The llon. and Learned Member then went on to argue that the present measure was abso lutely necessary, and he asked the House, in the name of everything that was just and liberal, to allow the measure to go into Committee, when the House woul•l have an opportunity of altering or modifying any or the clauses. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment l5B Against it Majority... ......... The Bill consequently lost. EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL. The report from the Committee on the Exchequer bills (18,310,7001.) Bill was brought up and received. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Six o'clock. --- 39 PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. (From the totes and Proceedings of the House of thmotons, TUESDAY, iiPLIS 13. The following Railway Bill was read a second time, com mitted, and referred to the Committee of Selection : Edinburgh and Northern ( Branch from Burntisland to Dunfermline Branch, &c.—No. 2). The undernamed Railway Bill was withdrawn : Cambridge, St. Neot's, and Bedford Junction NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL-OFFICE, RAILWAYS. Select Committee on Group No. 6. Colonel Peel discharged ; Sir Stephen Glynue selected, and added to the Committee. Select Committee on Group N.. 16. Viscount Eastnor discharged ; Mr. G. W. Heneage se'ected, and added to the Committee. Select Committee on Group No. 18. Viscount Jocelyn discharged; Sir Walter James selected, and added to the Committee. Select Committee on Group No. 5. Viscount Ache,.on discharged; Mr. Twill selected, - and added to the Committee. Select Committee on Group No. 21. Lord Claud Hamilton discharged; Mr. Gregory selected, and added to the Committee. Select Committee on Group No. 51. Hon. G. H. Cavendish discharged ; Mr. Hutt select 4 and added to the Committee. Select Committee on Group No. 11. Mr. lisle discharged; Mr. G. H. Cavendish selected, and added to the Committee. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Coin:nom.) TUESDAY, APRIL. 13. EDINBURGH AND PERTH RAILWAY BILL. Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Ques tion proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time :” Amendment pr , inoied, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Qae-ition to add the words " upon this day six 11 - maths :"—Question put, " That the word ' now' stand part of the Question." The House divided:— MAJORITY—AYES, 68. Ainsworth, Peter Egerton, W. T. Ord, IV, Arkwright, George Estcourt, l'. G. Patten, J. W. Bathe, IV. Fuller, A. E. Baring, F. T. Greene, Thomas Pechell, Captain Berkeley, Captain Bostic, A. Berkeley, 11. F. Hay, fir A. L. Rutherford, A. Bowring, Dr. Heathcote, Sir W. Sandon, Viscount Brotherton, Joseph Hill, Lord Al. Huds on, K l L i l e o n ni e s h a le B l r..lciloe.ln Georg e o r n y e l ITSSSBPBlSv'ptoon:hia:aintoetjulltprtillilei::::rrt Staunton, ti o er d l en ; ,. . g i t' . ,R , , : s eLj s T , 'l .r. . a4 li .. o r m i r ll .G de s . . 4:IS Captain. Brown, W. Browne, W. Busfeild, William t rr r e • i f iga t i t : , t sr E ioyn d , , i j v % a y. Edward B. Campbell, Sir 11, Cayley, E. S. Clay, Sir W. Lincoln, Earl ofnTi. Wrightson, Loch, James Clive, Vise. Macaulay, T. B. Colebrooke, Sir T. Compton, 11. C. Trowbridge, Si E. Dalmeny, Lord , 33331 3 1 1 l a ii cei t tlo lL e u rr ili l oi d ,i .: , ,rtiiiha Thomas .ks,,A. osir: Dickinson, F. 11. Watson, Henry Disraeli, B. , DWI, James Morpeth, Viscount Duncan, George Morison, General bulldog, Admiral 31 unta, G. F. Duudas, F. Newport, Visct. TELLERS. Maule, Fox Craig, W. G. MINORITY-NOES, 14. Beckett, W. Dodd, G. Reid, Colonel Berestord. Major Douglas, Sir C. E. Waddington, H. S. itroadwood. H. Fitzroy, Henry Brooke, Lord Gladstone, J. N. TELLERS. Duncombe, T. Browne, R. D. c C o h i a le n;i t o , s io llruis of OL,ocwotnlnieeru,,S3iir.JJ.. entertained towards it by the people of England. H , should like to kno w th e windier of the peti tions, and the si jri d tdre:, 'l`:-. 1 ienourable Metal) , r for Knaresborough presented one, to which only six names were at acued. lie did trot think the p:op:e of England ente ,- ta, tied tee belief ili.it their security l . - s lendangered by the removal Of those penal laws, .. • t h at t the safety of the ii•otestant Church was to la: prrni:liend theur ' by Catholic degr.etation. Tia, re was one onass o should h itnl ve w b h ee ieh n he tr%dgurectetded.enalbileingthulught a a clause c h lie to l a o h m anc il ellor t of Ire be eligible to the office of L i c i e land. There had b t e h e e n E fo m u a r eeip o a m t a ie n h C ß at i li ll o . lic s A ir tto m r- . eney-General-since and eh w P e i r g e o t h t , 0 t a n e d l i h g e i h c l o e n s t i e d e considered it too bad e t. f Loughlin, office of the Chancellorship. suchif h e an ß ce i l l l im :rship. A Roman Catholic might be a judge ; and when such responsibility was entrusted to him, he saw no reason why he should be disqualified for the situation of Chancellor. He hoped the House would no longer countenance these dis abilities, but would show to the world that the days of pains and penalties fur religious opinions were gone for ever. Mr. FINCH thought it was quite becoming in the last spatker , who was a Roman C a th o li c , to spea k as he had done, andl also the Noble Lord (Arundel and Surrey), but still he did not consider that either ot them had ad duced any adequate reason why the Bill should be pass. d. He doubted much whether the Government could extend with safety any further concessions to the Roman Ca tholic Church. In his opinion, that religion was opp,sed to the revealed religion, and was besides into!erant. We knew well that tie Romish Church was strongly op post d to religious liberty, and was abhorrent to the moral and legal laws on which the security of this country was based. He should therefore oppose the Bill, and support the modon of the Right Hon. Bar onet the Member for the University 1:) . Oxford. Lord JOHN MANNERS said the real question be fore the House was, whether certain pains and penalties on toe statute-book, bat which all admitted could not be entorced—(Hear, bear)—should or should not be re pealed, as enactments without value. Those who opposed the Bill contended that the best way to promote tut. prosperity of the Church of England was the retention ot obnoxious penalties with reg ard to those aho followed another form of the same Christianity. But, when it was admitted ou all hands that they never could be enforced, he was quite at a loss to know why they siteuld not he at once abrogated. In the whole course of the di! cussions on the Bill, he had heard t.othing to induce him to believe that the safety of the Church of England weuld be endangered by the remission of those obnoxious penalties. The Itteht Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxterd, directed their attention to what was going on iti France, but particularly in Switzerland, owing to the violent conduct, of the Jesuits. But when he quoted Switzerlidid, to slow what the toleration of the Jesuits had done .here, he made a mest unhappy allusion. What was the condition of the Jesuits in Switzerland? In some cantons the Jesuits were tolerated and fostered, while neighbouring cantons, opposed to the Jesuits, endea veured by force to put them down ; and when attacked they naturally resented such aggressions upon their liberty ; awl then the Right Hon. Baronet came for is and and said, " See what the violence of the Jesuits has brought about in Switzerland." He said, there for-, that he could not have made a more unh.,ppy allusion ; in his opinion a more un happy allusion was never brought forward in that House on that occasion. He also said that the legis lators of France. had been c 'mpelled to put a stop to the violence and inroads of the Jesuits, which was far more straightforward and Christiun!ike than the theoretical plan which had been adopted in this country. Then the Right lion. Baron , d appealed to the Protestant Dissenters to join bun in opposing the Bill; but the Protestant Dis senters must have short memories, indeed, if they forgot that the Right Hon. Baronet had, during his lung and consistent career, opposed them as strongly as he now opposed the concessions now asked for on b- half of the Roman Catholics. The gravamen of the matter was simply this—that the one Church opposed the other on certain points. The Right Hon. 13;:onet the Member for Tam•worth, whose absence they must all regret, stated that he had felt it necessary in 1829 to vindicate the entabli4hed doctrines ; but he (Lord John Manners) was at a loss, after the lapse of twenty years, to point out one single instance in which those so-called safeguards had been trespassed upon. But if they were safeguards to the Throne and to the Church, he wished to know why they had not in any instance been put in force.—(Hear, hear.) They could not be put in fin ce; and if they were to call upon the advisers of her Majesty to pat these laws into force, thry would refuse to do so. He, therefore, was at a less to know how they could be called safeguards. If their abr,ga.tion were really dangerous to the State and to the Church, he must say that it was not becoming in them to take their stand on those pettifogging penalties which they m;ght suffer. and which no one thought to put in force.—(Hear, hear.) Those who opposed the Bill were actuated by a spirit of exclusiveness, in which he could not sympat'Ase. The Right Hon. Baronet challenged the officers of the Crown to say that the Bill of Rights could be considered valid if the 30th of Charles 11. were repealed. It was not for him to offer legal opinions, but he considered that the Right Hon. Baronet was totally mistaken in his view of the law. He had heard the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Btrmingham observe that he did not believe that the contest would be successful, and that the Protestant Church would remain unvanquished. It that was then the case, why did he refuse to do away with these petty laws, which had been declared inoperative? If the Honourable Member believed in the eternal truth of the principles which he professed he ought to throw from him these miserable crotchets, which were useless. Sir Christopher Wurdswurth, de scribing the Ceristien Brothers, observes that not one of the pupils educated by them took a part in the late revolution in the French capit if. This was a fact worthy of observation. The people had le - en induced to petition against this Bill, having been told that it contained clauses which enabled them to take the std le and title of the Protestant bishops ; they were misled, and every means had been used to excite them. He, however, had great confidence that when the Bill came to be properly understood the p;=ople of England would be of opinion with him, that the Church was more secure in the affections of her own people, in the increasing zeal and sanctity of her ministers, in the power which she eessesses in the purity of her doctrine, in the integrity of the lives of her ministers and professors, and they will not believe that the constitution of the country is in jeopardy by the extension of the principles of toleration.—(Cheers.) Mr. NE WDEGATE—The Noble Lord who had just sat down had toll them that they had not pur sued a consistent course in their opposition to the present measure. There was one - consistent per son at the least, and that was the Member for the University of Oxford. He had told them that they had excited deep feelings on the part of the Catholics ; but he would ask, who had awakened them ? who but the promoters of this Bill, who were not content to allow these dead letters to remain upon the statute- boek ?—(Hear, hear.) It was because he was in favour of religious toleration that he refused his assent to the present Bill—it was because the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant, and because she claimed unto herself to be superior in all things, in matters of discipline as well as doctrine.— (Hear.) The Noble Member for Arundel spoke in heat, bat- he spoke out nobly—he was not ashamed to say that he sought for the supremacy of his Church, and that he was a subject of the Pope. lie asked the House to consider well the authority of the Pope, which the Bill proposed to admit, and see whe ther they could reconcile its admission with the alle giance which they owed to the Queen of these realms. Ile believed that they could not. The decrees and couecils of the Roman Catholic Cnurch gave the Pope temporal and spiritual dominion over all the kingdoms of the world—over all people, princes, and po tentates. How then could they reconcile powers of such a character with the prerogatives of the British Crown ? Efe was not to be told that on the ground of religious tolerance he should be allowed to concede such extra ordinary powers as these. He was as much a friend of toleration as any Member in that House, but did he admit the powers of the Pope as recognised by the Bill, he would be intole rant indeed. Though a Brest number of petitions had not been presented, he could tell them that a deep feeling of opposition pre vailed throughout the country against the measure. fhe people had not petitioned because of the way in which their petitions had been treated in the Mae nooth question, acid they had little further confid,-nue in approaching ttie House. But let them pass such a measure, and depend on it they would hear a it agsin. when they presented themselves to the people tor re- election. The Noble Lord the Member for Newark had come to the rescue, and had attacked the op. I), , sUott to the Jesuits in France and Switzerland, which he asserted had originated in democratic violence. Now with re,erd to this he would tell the Noble Lord that ,ee real - cause in Switzerland of the disputes about the Jesuits arose from the fect of the latter seeking to take ti.e whole education of certain countries into their bands. And in France they had been declared illegal, oecsuie of the intrigues for power in which they had b een continually engaged. The Hen. and Learned ir for the University of Oxford had asked the ,etiorney General an important question, which ought. t t uve been answered; for if the measure was subversive uf the Bill of R:ghts, how could the Members of the House f Counnons support it ? If th.y agreed to such :t Bill, t:ey must relieve the Sovereign from her obliga -7i,l to uphold t -e Protestant faith, and fully and undis e ,iseilly tNe t=niporal and spiritual authority of : , ,P Pope of Rome. Sir EASTHOPE regretted that there was any ne • s:ty - , uctt a discussion as this, and if he hid enter zeinsd that opinion before he was doubly satisfied of the it•utiaty of it from the speech of the Hen. Member Lear h e ie ' 4 ", had just sat down. One advantage might, indeed, Was no place fogr theological rez•utt tr.vrn parison of her evi on ie—the people of England would both ides of the question. Yet, notwlttt:ta.adin • eiste i pu s o elotgivice aladvantages benefit , C o h n e tro st v i e li rs3 b , e e, l n i oj e ,r v v e ef d kdir th ab a y t eo t t h mh i e ! Church. The real man reiestion in his opinion was as to members of Catholic or of the English whether these laws were pion or not. For his own part he believed them tbooo k, aihltdata useless, and only a instrumental in tValy believed that self should be pport of reli idfisgtbreayc.ewteorethteostbeatute and ifh he did gious persecution, the Hon. GentlemadnotwinSalu among the very first to put them were not so instrumental, what security in their retention ? No man wished more Y thr heartily for the welfare of the religio n o f the country.did The Noble Lord the Member for Arundel h a d stated h i s firm conviction that the result of these disputes would be to annihilate Protestantism. He respected the Noble Lord for the strength of his convictions, but he him self believed that the result would be totally different, and that if they were to be conducted without any of these persecuting agencies, that the consequence would be the extinction of Reman Catholisism. That these laws were useless was tvident, for even the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University had allowed • that t that Leal been in a Jeyanee ; are what wes the utility, teen, of at all reteining Wrist he muss, term such paltry lefences to the religion of the country ? He had himself been educated in the faith of the • Established Church of these realms, and no one sub scribed rre‘re c irdially to her ccceil and tier articles. and • if the consequence of this Bill was to weaken her p sai gin, or to destroy her influence, he woule be one of the last individuals in the world to be a party to it. But, believing as he conscientiously did.. that a very different effect would ensue, he should give most cordially his vote in his lion, and Learned Foecd. Mr. GOULBURN had on a former cession stated his opinion on the merits of this Bill, but yet felt im pelled to say a few words to express his reasons for voting, as lie should do, against it. On that occa sion teen he was one ot a very large majority who mimed the rejection of the Bill, he had stated that he felt bound by the terms of the compact into which he had entered in 1829; and he saw no new reasons now for changtng his opinion. Alt who heard him would recollect when the Rsman Catho lic Relict Bill ot 1829 was introduci.d by the Govern ment, the difficulties they had to encounter on ac count of the liberality ot its provisions, and what tar • ne •t efforts they het to make to recencile the House to its passing. Of all the Bills that had ever been intro duced to the House for the relief or Boman Catholic that was the most extensive, and far sur: passed the expectations of Mr. Grattan, Lord Painkret, and others, who had eudeavoured to limit the re s under which the members of that feth la bourse/. But in bringing in that Bill the Guy( rn went had expressly stated they were only justified in Its introduction by the fact that they were laying the teundation for the basis on which the Roman Catholic religion should stand in this country. It was on the aith of that representation that the Bill had been -Allowed to pass, and he should therefore be quite un warranted in breaking the contract into which tie had then entered, and this he would do it be were to con sent to the passing of this Bill. He was the less in clined to do so, because there was no reason assigned that to him carried the slightest weight. There were no lamentable grievances to complain of, no pains and penalties which bore with remarkable hardship, no re strictions which pressed with peculiar severity, and even the laws which it was sought by this Bill to repeal were acknowledged to be totally imperative. Ity the Act of 1829 the pow: r of prosecuting for those penalties had been elacee in the hands of the Attorney- Gencral, by whose discretion alone any suit could be carried on or any penalty could be enforced. tie thought that Catholic processions should not be per mitted ; and he believed the restriction of the law of 1829, as far as those processions were concerned, was dictated by a sound policy. For he would ask what would be the case if a procession of banners, crucifixes. and crosses were permitted in any of the towns of this country ? He believed the result would prove the injudiciousness of such an indulgence. With regard to the prohibitions on the members of the religious orders, ne heard nothing from the advocates ot this Bill to. justify the removal of the restrictions of 1829. He deprecated, therefore, these discussions, which had the ffect of exciting feelings which had better be allowed to lie dormant. The late Government toek the course which he thought should have been taken on the subject of these penalties, not only as regards Roman Catholics, but other Dissenters, and Bills were brought in and passed the Legislature for the removal of those unenforced disabilities. He thought, therefore. any further legislation on the subject should be avoided, and he considered it extremely in judicious to bring such questions before the House every succeeding session of Parliament. Those were his reasons, therefore, for opposing the further progress of the Bill. He would not, at that late hour of the day, go through the remaining clauses of the Bill. He was prepared te say that the ob jects s •tight to be . attained by the present measure sere obtained by Acts already passed, and no pe nalty contained in any of the former Acts could, by any possibility, attach to any person at the present time. The prese:.t measure also sought, by one clause, to put an end to questions of law, which required, to say the least of them, a most careful con sideration. If he was at any former period oppesed to this measure, he was more particularly so after what hail fillen from the only msmber of the Government who had spoken upon the suti-ct, to the effect that still greater alterations were, in his opinion, necessary. He would ask that Right Honourable Member if he would secure him against any attempt to infringe upon the liberties already , held by the Protestants when ad these concessions had been made by the House ? Ile should most certainly support the amendment and vote against the further progress of the measure. Mr. COLLETT would aupp rt the motion of the floe. and Learned Member for Kinsale, for going into Cerninittee on this Bid, on the grounds of non-Inter ference, and non-toleration. It was his opinion that he who acted properly Eted uprightly was in the right road to heaven, whether he was Protestant, Catholic, Dissenter, Jew, or Mahoinetlan.—(Divide, divide.) He was himself a humble member of the Protestant Church, bat that church had introduced a number of new-tangled doctrines, and he thought that it would be a much 'setter employment of the time of the biehops to endeavour to outsell unity amecg their own members than to oppose the measure introduced by the Hon. and Learned NTembar for Kinsale.-- (Cries of " Dlvide, divide.") He did not like to see the bishops act like the Bi,,hop of Exeter, who hal spoken against a b.ll at Exeter, the proc •els of which were to be devoted to the relief of the distressed Iri,h and Scotch, nor did he like to see tee bishops in their robes in the House ef L o rds. while a:i the other Membses of that House were obliged to go in plain clothes.—(The Hon. Member sat doe n amid ereet confusion, and tries for the divi.ion.) Sir G. GREY sai 1 that the question now was the same as that which had been discussed on a former occasion, when the House deeded by a majority in favour of the second reathre.; of the measure. It wits in accordance with the recommendations of the Criminal Law Cointnissicriers that the present measure was brought forward by his Hon. and Learn -d Friend the Member fur Kinsale. He did not consider th it by voting for going into Committee on the Bill any Hon. Member would bind himself to the details of the measure, and if the question was at present raised on the third reading of the Bill, he should certainly not be prepared to give his assent to the measure in its present shape. He knew that it might be said by those persons who held the same views upon the subject as the Hon. Mem ber for Birmingha'm (Mr. Spooner), that the present measure was one brought in b,r the purpose of subvert ing the Protestant constitution of this country. He for one, however, entirely denied any such intention in the support which he was prepared to give to the measure. He was himself attach( d to the Protestant institutions of the country, and was nurtured in &e bosom of the Eve). lished Church, and attached as he was to its principles, and hoped should ever remain so, he believed that the Protestant Reformation was a most in valuable blessing to the country, and he would regret if by any act of his he should in the least affect injuriously the interests of Protestantism. He considered that he should ill discharge his duty it he voted for the retention of those " pains and penalties," because be considered that their Roman Catholic fellow subject should be allowed, and they were entitled to teach their doctrines in perfect security, and without the fear of such enactments before their eyes. When their illegality was admitted, he saw no reason why they should be retained, with respect to a portion of their fellow-subjects who conceived that they were simply discharging their duty in promulgating their doctrines. The Right lion. Baronet the Member fur Oxford said this measure was: but one of a series of concessions of au inju rious nature which had been made to the Roman Catholics during the last 50 years, evidently admitting that it he had began to legislate 5o years ago, that he should have opposed all the; measures of concession and amendment which had been passed with respect to the Catholics during that period. The first part of the Bill stated that these " pains and penalties" had the effct of keeping down their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects.—(Hear, hear.) He was prepared to go into Committee, and to go through the clauses seriatim, with the report of the Commissioners in his hand, in order that he might have the assistance of the opinions of persons of high authority. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) materially objected to that portion of the Bill which related to pro cessiong. He (Sir G. Grey) was not prepared to incur the risk of supporting that part of the Bill which would legalise public processions through the streets, but he believed that part of the Bill was not to be insisted upon; how ever, the proper time to consider these things was in Committee. He should, therefore, vote for the Bill going into Committee.—(Divide.) Mr. LAW regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet had not alluded to the difrvrence between the repealing the statute and the penalties attached to the crimes which it mentioned_ The lion. and Learned Gentleman referred to an Act passed in the reign of Richard the Second, and the 16th of George the Second, to show that the supremacy of the State and the Protestant religion would be endangered if the Bill were passed into a law. It was perfectly clear, by the provisions of the Bill, the declaration required to be taken by the Sovereign on accession to the throne is repealed, for it is part and parcel of the Act, which was considered to be the severest test which could be put that the Sovereign was of the communion of the Established Church. There was nothing in the framing of the Bill which could invite them to go into Committee; it was most loosely worded, and involved great interests, for it touched upon the very conditions by which the Crown was held. lie would record his vote in favour of his Right Hon. Friend's amendment. Lord SAN DON said he had to express his most unfeigned regret thatithis question has beeniraised at all. It was admitted on all sides that no great practical evil was endured by tho existence of these clauses, while great harm was done by the religious animosity which was excited in these discussions, Looking to his whole career in that House, he could not find arty more con sistent course to pursue than to give his vote for going into Committee. Mr. ESTCOURT said he was anxious to go into Committee upon the Bill. When in Committee it would be time enough to discuss the details of the Bill. Still he must observe, that he was not satisfied with the amanded clause of the non. Mover of the Bill, intro duced by him to quiet the scruples of the opponents. Mr. WATSON replied. He said he trusted the Rouse would bear with him if he refrained from answering the speeches of the Honourable Members wh o opposed it, because he confessed he ti r e ~!i?t heard a s i ng l e va lid reason aga i ns t Dm.• He would briefly content himself with s tating its principle, which was, that no person whatever should be liable to pains and penal- / ties on account of his religious belief. That was I the real question they had before them, and the Bill was to effect a repeal of ail statutes that operated juju- RETAIL BREWERS. Motion made,. and Question put, " That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable Retail Brewers in the Midland Counties to keep open their houses till twelve o'clock at night, the same as the Metropolitan Retail Brewers." The House divided : MINORITY—AYES, 4. Hume, Joseph Peellell, Captain TELLERS. O'Connell, 31. J. Trelawny, J. S. Sfuntz, C F. Collett, John MAJORITY-NOES. 77. RAILWA 1 COMMITTEES. (YESTERDAY.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. GROUP No. 1. The Select Committee, appointed to consider the merits of the Bills c ompr i sed in this group, re-a-sembled in Room 30, at the usual hour this morning; Lord Granville Somerset in the chair. THE SOUTH-EASTERN SCHEMES. Mr. G*EGORY w-s beard on behalf of Lady Spencer, who complained that the Mid Kent line would seriously injure her property at Mereworth. In the cases of Mr. Cotton, Sir Percy Dyke, and Captain Ryder Burton, the company had made terms with the opposing parties. Mr. TALBOT called upon - his friend who appeared for the South-Eastern Company to disclose the terms which had been come to with Sir Percy Dyke. Mr. Assmag had no difficulty whatever in acceding to the request, although to do so was irregular. The agreement was that they should not make the Parliamentary line with out the consent of Sir Pero) , D.% ke ; but he must tell the Committee, at the same time, that they would have power to make the deviat e d li ne laid down on their plans. He intended to propose the insertion of a clause on this subject, and when that time arrived he should be prepared to prove the assents of the landholders to the deviated line. This closed the South -Eastern case. THE BRIGHTON SCHEMES. Mr. TALBOT then proceeded to open the case for the Brighton Company. He commenced his address by declaring, that if this contest were to be decided, not by the re sults to be drawn from the map, but upon the principle f " vested rights," it would be necessary for him to go largely into retrospecEive matters bearing upon the case. Now, in the very onset he must pronounce the views of his opponents with regard to their pre-occupancy of the district in question t o b e a l together fallacious, and when the proper time arrived he should be prepared with evidence to sub stantiate this statement. Raving touched upon this pre liminary point, he would now go into the prima facia case of his clients. The Committee were aware that he had the honour to represent a company which consisted of two partners—first, the London and Brighton, and, secondly, the L)ndon and Croydon. Now the line of the latter company was laid out and constructed at an enormous expense, no less indeed than 100,000/. per mile, not so much with the view of accommodating London and Croydon tr,ffic, but the preamble of the original Croydon Act would show that the Legislature intended that the line should be made the leading avenue of all railways coining from the Kentish districts to the metropolis. But it was urged by the South-Eastern Company that the Croydon line stood in the position of an expensive toll-gate. through which they were compelled to pass. No doubt it was a toll-gate; but it was one over which they had the power of regulating the toll to be paid. and if they carried a passenger from London to D o ver at 3d. per mile, all they would h a ve to pay to the Croy don,hie for toll, would be 3d. per mile for each passenger, minus t i ne cost of working ten miles ; o r if they chose to convey the epas senger for ld. a mile, they would have to pay the Cr oy don no more; so that in point of fact the South-Eastern had absolute Company. He over the toll to be paid to the Croydon e He disposed of the allegation that the six miles o f South - Eastern line from Reigate to Croydon would b e th rendered ectihgthe useless by the passing of a Mid Kent line, by directing attention of the Committee to the factthatt hose u _s u ix iki m fo i rdt les might be made available for the Reading, and Reigate line, an then proceeded to date that the South-Eastern had never come forward to supply the warts of the public till they were forced to do so by the Brighton Company. For instance, they did not propose a line for Hastings until the Brighton Gm pany had brought forward a coast live from Brighton through Lewes to Hastings. He then came to the consideration of the merits of the two schemes before the Committee. The Learned Gentleman having oc cupied a considerable time in discussing thj merits of compe tition a: applied to railways, and impressing upon the minus of the Committee the importance and magnitude of the ques tion they had to decide, which could not be viewed in the light of a local, but as an European question, and, according to same, as an Asiatic question ; for it was said by one of his Learned Friends, Mr. Hildyard, he believed, that these lines hal " the metropolis at one end, and the world at the other"—went on to implore the Committee not to hand over the county of Kent to the tender mercies of one company, but to grant the Brighton linee, and infuse new blood into the district. lie beeed his claim to make this demand upon the Comientee on the ground that, in so far as the ,;righten Mid Kent line, as between Maidstone and London, and London and Tunbridge, were somewhat shorter in distance than the com peting scheme of the South-Eastern Company, it would better accommodate the population of the districts through which it passed ; ii.deed the Brghton Mid Kent line accommodated a considerably larger population than the South Eastern. It would pass through all the large towns on the route, while the South-Eaetere linealtogether avoided them, in the s ,me way that their existieg line did. It was true the works on the Brighton line were heavy, but not so heavy as to be insurmountable, while the cog of the Brighton line from London to Tunbridge would fall far short of that of the South-Eastern, as between Lewisham and Oxford the ex cess of cost en the Seuth• Eastern line, he represented, would be 130,0001 The earth works on the South-Eastern line would be 2,550,000 yards; on the Brighton it would be 1,50 0 .000 yards. The tunnelling on the South-Eastern would he 963 yards; on the Brighten 2,600 yards. There would be many viaducts on the South-Eastern, but none on the Brighton line. The Committee at this point of the Learned Counsel's ad dress determined to adjourn till to-morrow (to-day). LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY; April 14. APPERLEY V. PAGE.-JUDGMENT. The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgmt nt to-day in this case, tho facts of which we gave yesterday. His Lord ship Aimed the decision of Vice-Chancellor linight Bruce with costs. GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIMES AND OTHERS. This case came before the Court, upon an appeal from the decision of the Vice Chancellor of England in this Cause. The defendant, All. Dimes, became Lord of the Manor of Rickmansworth, in the county of Herts, in 1831, at which period a portion of the land was traversed by the works of the plaintiffs, whose bill alleged that they were entitled, by their Act of incorporation, to purchase such land at a valuation of a jury. The father of the other defendant (Scudamore) was seised of the land in question, and had conveyed it in 1797 to the present plaintiffs, and they contended that in cons quence of the same, the original copyhold tenure of the property was destroyed, and that they became the copyhold tenants. The heir (who was made a party to the present suit), not being admitted into the right of the posse , sion of the prop-rty, the defendant (Dimes) seised the land, but it was contended that he (Scudamore) being a minor at the time, their title was not forfeited. The case commenced yesterday, and the arguments, which occupied the whole day, were resumed this morning. VICE-CHANCELLOMS' COURT, April 14. (Betore the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.) MOSELEY V. ALSTON.—THE BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD JUNCTION RAILWAY.—THE NARROW V. THE BROAD GAUGE. Mr. Bethell—the Court having yesterday overruled the demurrer put in by the defendant to the bill of the plaintiffs in this case—moved to-day for an injunction tt. restrain the defendants (the twelve direc.ors of the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway), from acting as such din cters until the hearing of tit.- cause. The facts of the case are the same as those stated to the Court upon the demurrer, of which we have already given a detalled account. The motion appears likely to occupy a day or two. S ECOND A RIES' CO I? L. April 14. (W.fore Mr. Secondary POTTER.) BLACKBURN V EDwARDS. This was an action to recover th. sum of 31. 18s. The plaintiff is a laundress, and the defendant a cab propri. , , tor. Diftndant pleaded that he was not indebted. Mr. Miller app--ared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Locke for thy: defendant. The evidence for the plaintiff was that the work had been done, and the charges fair and reasonable. On the Lail of the defendant it was shown that pre vious monetary transactions had taken place between the plaintiff and defendant, and that at one time the plaintiff held 2 , d. belonging to the defendant, but which ~he had sail she had paid over to defendant's father, wtn) is dead. To prove that the plaintiff had adni!ted that she held th money for defendant; Mr. Ellis wns called, but his evidence was nut conclusive, as it left the case open to the impres,ion that the money had been paid to the tither, whose estate was insolvent, as an advance, by order of the son. Mr. MILLER remarked on the impropability of a person in such humble circumstances going to the expense of an action if the cl.am was not just. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT. (Before D. D. HEATH. ESQ.. Ju Ige.) CAELE v. PEPLOW. The plaintiff, Susan Jane Carle, sought the recovery of the sum of 11. 6a. Bd., the balance of a bill due for dressmaking, millinery, &c. On behalf of the defen dant a "set off" was pleaded to part of the debt, and non liability to the remainder. It appeared that about Christmas last, the defendant (Dr. Peplow) attended the husband of the plaintiff, fir a severe illness with which he bad been attacked. and li- which he chargad I/. 10,. 6d. To liquidate this d. , bt, the plaintiff was engaged as dressmaker, &c., by Mrs. Peplow. From that time (Christmas, 1846) to the 6th of March last, the plaintiff had made, altered, and repaired various articles of wearing apparel, for which she demanded 2/. 17s. 2c1., leaving after the deduction of Dr. replow's bill a balance of 11. 6.i. BJ., the sum sued for. Mr. EDWARDS, on the part of the defendant (who was not present), stated that in consequence of a separation having been made between the defendant and his wile, the former inserted an advertisement in The Morning Sun, and other daily journals, to the effect that after that notice, he would not be answerable for any debts con tracted by his wife. As corroborative evidence, Mr. Edwards handed the Learned Judge The Morning Sun and cnother paper, bearing the date of January 26, 1846, containing the advertisement alluded to. He, therefore, on behalf of his client, objected to the items inserted in the plaintiff's bill on the 6th of March. The Learned JUDGE explained, that if the items named were necessaries for the maiutainance of the wife, the defendant would be liable, notwithstanding the public notice to the contrary. An advertisement in serted in any of the London daily journals would reeder the husband in a position to dispute the debt, if the articles incurring it, were not proved to be positive ne cesslries. After the appearance of the advertiseme-nt, the husband would nut be liable for any jewellery, silks, or other articles of an expensive nature, not usually worn by Peri wife ythe low w sepa rated from her husband since the 20th of January with out any allowance. She Lad had all the articles named in apsr called, evious to separation. and said she had been The JUDGE then questioned the plaintiff and the last witness as to the nature of the articles supplie d on the 6th of March, and , considering them all to t ie necessaries knowledge. The plaintiff's bill—mostly to her husband's person a l with the exception of some ribbons, returned for the plaintiff, for 11. ss. 4d. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. SENTENCES AND SESSIONAL RESULTS, Subjoined are the sentenc« s, as finally amended and Co nfirmed, at the termination of the session, with other re sults and adjudi...ations. The following were ordered to be transported beyond the seas:—for Life—Thomas Brooks, aged 21, for manslaughter. Fifteen years—William Ogle, 19; George Walford, 32; J. Smith, 17; Philip Reeves, 27; and G. Smith, 27. Fourteen Years—George Yarnold, 40. Ten Years—Julia Higgins, 20, T. Fennel!, 28; J. Hurley, 19; Richard Williamson, 41; S. King; W. Winn; P. Mara; J. Bird; W. Wynn, 19; Richard Williams, 20; Alfred Twiggs, 27; James Regan, 22; Henry Higgins, 19; William Stevens, alias Weams, 20; James Williams, 18; and James Clifford, 21. Seven Years—William Brown, alias Jones, 45; Fre derick Williamson, 32; Jrederick John Williams, 41; William Griffin, 41; Robert Wilson, 15; John Brown, alias Jones, 40; Frederick Debben, 19; George 11'George, 19; Henry Smith, 17; S. King, 19; H. Deal, 18; J. Harris,2l; G. Bin, 19; John Cook, 18; J. Page, 20; Henry Jones, 20; Michael Myers, 19; George Davis, 19; J. Gardner, 22; Ernest Shultz, 19; Thomas Lawrence, 18; J. Burnett, 20; G. White, 19; John Upton, 21; Mary Daley, 33; Mary Smith, 19; Emily Ellwood, 23; Mary Jones, 19; William F. Wynn, 19; James White, 24; Charles White, 17; and Benjamin Skiggs, 30. I3IPRICONMENT WITH HARD LABOUR. The under-nam-d were ordered to be confined to hard ,:ibour in the House of Correction for the respective counties, wherein their offences were committed, tor the periods named, viz.:— Two Years—Wm. White, J. Smith, J. Thomas. Eighteen Months—F. Brown, J. Jones. Fifteen Months—Thomas Jones, Mary Green. One Year—Ann Smith, Ann Ilurles, Mary Gowran, alias M inning, alias Cowling, Mary Ann Slaney, Eliza- Kirkman Rebecca Coates, N. %V. Clt ur t e,m ty n‘ d, W. t. J J, L Amelia . a ß .cinici o s a seoo n linl e a,: , J. Cecil, J. R. Wilson, W. Key, W. Love, G. Todd, ajrGJ. Abethnal, alias cos All,ealuesi chill, v d Hupmh.eGp,h C. n Nine Humphrey, Christopher Gayton, H. A. D4y, E Young, C. Harley, W. Clark. Edward?, Mary Shaynell, J. Montrean. Eight Months—Thomas Wills. Six Months—J. Clark, W. Sanders, W. Ceupland, J. Tyler, 11. Cornish, J. Walker, W. Pottle, W. John. son, J. Hall, J. Burton, R. Dawson, J. Rushton, J. Drew, M. Smith, C. Rost, Niary Ann Jones, Mary Ann Green, Mary Beardmore, Mary Montgomery, Sarah Curly, Elizabeth Griffiths, W. F. Southend, W.F. Man ville, J. Tomlinson, o; herwise Churchill, C. Palmer, J. Brumell, N. C o l es , W. Smith, M. L ea d, J. R eeves, E. Drury Five Months—J. Whitwell. Four Months—Ann Striekson, E. A, Mountain, T. Heron, G. Carter, H at fi e ld Atkin, T. Pyne, J. Payne. Three, Months—Amelia Buller. Mary Scollird, Louisa P,arson, Johana Collopy, Jane Holman, S. J. Skinner, J. Thompson, J, Burrows, J. Lyons, G. Dodd, T. Kale, D. Spall, J. Doll, W: Smith,' H. Jones, W. Wood, — P. Kelly, R. N. Neale, J. Dawson, P. Murray, J. Spooner, W. PeaeheY, J. Machin, J. Turner, J. South, T. Stan ley, S. Brae,dock. Discharged by Proclamation.—Mary Ann Lloyd, Su san Brnnohard, J. Cochrane, J. Connolly, D. Cronin, D. Turner, G. Collyer, J. Beating, Richard Hooper, Edward Roffee, W. Hurst, J. Bellamy, T. M'Cormack T. Wilkins. Acquitted and Discharged.—The petit jury made a' return of not guilty in favour of the ftillowing pri soners:—J. Bartlett, J. Mills, T, Speed, Edward Her ring, J. Baggett, J. Johnson, J. Watts, T. Edwards, J. Collins, S. Dicker, T. Smith, G. Goldfinch, F. R. Simpkins, Henry Holloway, G. Johnson, James William son, James Jenkins, Edward Doyle, H. T. D'Emden, Isaac Ilalden, J. S. Skinner, A. Jenkins, A. Honslow, Henry Ot,borne, James Gill, W. Thomas, B. Frond, J. Miller, Robert Box, Henry Irons, William Saree, Samuel Everitt, W. P. Rogers, Dr. Denis Cronin, Elixtbeth Cormack, Esther Baggett, Catherine Brown, Mary Garr,id, Jane Halden, Rebecca Smith, Millecent Fl►ming, Margaret Dennison, Elizabeth Smith, J. M'Lean. Minor Adjudications and Results.--Imprisoned for six weeks; 2 ; one month, 5 ; 21 days, 2 ; from two to fourteen (la% s, 10 ; privately whipped, 2 ; recognizance, enlarge on, 2 ; judgment respite&l, 7 ; traversed to next session, 3 ; remanded by the court until next session, 10; surrendered in court for trial, 6 ; called on recognizance, 4 ; admitted to bail, 4. During the session 275 prisoners were disposed of, which were committed from the counties and cities named, viz. ; —Loudon, 55; Middlesex, 200 ; Surrey, 30; Kent, 10 ; Essex, B—tc,tal, 275. The session terminated much earlier in the week than at first was anticipated, in consequence of a treat num ber of prisoners pleading guilty, and several long trials for forgery, &c., being postponed. The court at its rising ajourned to Monday, the 10th of May next. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, April 12. (Before Mr. Justice MAPLE and Coknmotl Juries.) COLLINS AND ANOTHER V. SMITH Mr. Godson and Mr. W. H. Cooke were counsel for the plaintiffs; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Keating for the defendant. This was an action for an excessive distress at Sand hurst, on May 22d, 1846, for not selling the goods seized at the best price, and leaving the surplus in the hands of the sheriff or constables of the parish. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty by statute. The plaintiff and his father, since deceased, were tenants of a farm at Sandhurst for many year-, under a Mr. Gardner, who died in 1844, when the defendant be came owner of the estate. He commenced a very harsh mode of treatment towards them, putting in a distress at the expiration of every quarter it the rent was not im mediately paid. On the 22d of May he seiz.-d all the growing crops and other effects of plaintiffs for the ba lance of 161. 15s. 6d., due at Lady-day preceding. These effects he kept until the 11th of September, when he appointed a sale at ten o'clock in the morning, when about ten persons only were assembled, and b :ught in all the effects for 531. Evidence was given to prove that these things, if properly advertised and disposed of, would have realised nearly double that amount. The principal question in this cause was, whether in cases were the tenant had entered into an agreement to consume all hay and straw on the premises, the landlord seizing for a distress was required " to sell for the best price," under the statute cif Wilder]] and Mary, in con travention of tho contract, or might sell conditionally, according to their agreement. Abbey v. Petch, 8 Mee son and W.. was relied on in support of the latter pro position. The Learned Counsel for the plsintift disputed the principle of this case, and relied on Frusher v. Lee, 10 Meeson and W. 709,: in which the Court of Ex. chequer doubted the authority of Abbey v. Perch, and intimated that a landlord could allow a privete arrange ment with his tenant to control the express provisions of a statute. Mr. Justice MAULE said that as there was a positive decision of the court in Abbey v. Vetch, and only a doubt suggested in FruJier v. Le., he .should direct the jury to act on the authority of the former case. The jury. after some coosideratiun, found a verdict for the plaintiffs, wi:h 1001. damages. The case excited intense interest in Gl , mcester, where the treatment of the plaintiffs by their landlord, a bill dis counter is that city, has been a subject of considerable discussion. Attorney for the plaintiffs, Mr. G. P. Wilkes, o Glouces.ter, for the defendant, Mr. G. Lewis. WARD V. KING KING, ESQ, Mr. Sergeant Taltourd and Ur. Keatin g appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Whateley and Mr. W. H. Cooke for the defendant. This was an action against the late sheriff for Here fordshire, for improperly s:i;ing and selling the goods of the plaintiff. The cause had been entered for trial at the assiz,s for Herefordshire, and the venue changed by consent to this county, the shortness of time allowed tor those assizes not permitting it to be inquired into Those assizes terminated on Tnursday in Passion Week, and as the law offices were closed from Good Friday to Easter Tuesday, inclusive, no re-sealing of the writ could take place in that time. The solicitor for the plaintiff had entered the cause, and ()mitred to get it re sealed in the meantime. The neglect was pointed out before the jury was sworn by the counsel tor the defend ant, who submitted that the court had no jurisdiction to try the cause, and that it must be erased from the list. The Learned JUDGE being of the same opinion, it was withdrawn, and subsequently submitted to the decision of an arbitrator. PHELPS AND ANOTHER V. BOWEN. Mr. Keating and Mr. Phipson appeared ; . or the plain tiffs ; Mr. Whateley f r the defendants. This was an action to re.-over pr;cp of a cargo of coals sold by the plaintiffs, who are proprietors of n coiliery near Newport, to the d,f, 'Aunt, a coal-merchant at Bristol. The questions in the cause ware, first, had the credit expired before the commencement of the action ; and seccnd, were the coals delivered such as the defendant had c.mtracted for, he contending that they had agreed for large coals, and that those supplied were one,. Conflicting evidence was offt , red on both side s, an, finally the jury found for the platiadfs, damage!, 27/. 12s. 6 1., the amount at which it was said they Lan offered to :,ettle before the commencement of the actio:, Mr. Sergeant grazrlee dispst-d of all the re , i a mil: criminal cases, and left Gloucester by the afternoc train. POLICE; INTELLIGENcE. MANSION-HOUSE. RAILWAY MATTERS.—Mr. Stern, of the house o Stern Brothers. At‘igel•eout, and Thi [Wadeogrn the ortu fuiO 4, iv -stre:, enp,g pettred before the Lord Mayor ' statement:— In 1845 a company was established called the Bordeaux and ?-detliterranean Rallway Company, at No. 2, C o w. per6•COUT, ' t Cornhill. They issued a large amount of scrip sham s, on which they received an instalment or 2n per share. On the 18th of May. 1846, there appear( d in the Times the following advertisein BORDEAUX AND MEDITERBANEAN RAILWAY COM PANY.—The English directors 4,t the liorotaux am Mediternne-n Railway Company bez to iidorio their sub-cribecs that an arrangement for uniting thi• cutnpaly with the other three xi,ting companies having been c.nopleied, the direct culices,ion 0 the line was, on the 28th of February, d, finitivel) granted to the Amalgamated company. The subscrib r. - in this comt.any will have ore definitive share for sigh, sharer, on which a deposit of 4/ per i”hare has been paid, and the balance will be returned so soon as the necessar) forms are gone through. "J. MAITL A ND, Secretary." On the 9th of July there appeared, in the same paper the advertisemen: copied below, signed ny,the s cretary " Bordeaux and Mediterranean RAiiway Company.— The directors of ;this company have to announce, tha: the direct concession of the lease of the railway to fi:m consolidated companies approv,al h% the French Cham bers, has obtained the sanctien of Royal ordinance, an ,, is now the law of France. The shareheiders of this company are entitled to one share on whieh 41. has beer, paid, for every eight of their original s,bseriptions„ snd. together with their cerificates, will receive b t o, three-fourths of their deposits. It is hoped tha the certificates will be ready for delivery of Monday the 3il of August, but at all events the suralm. deposit will be payable on anti a ter that day, on appli cation at the office of the company, from eleven tit , one." Now when we called to receive our 57i eousolictatee shares, and 6901., the remainder in money, which tfu owe, the directoi a refused to deliver either the wit) of the other, but they asked us to sign a paper, which is to authorise their solicitor to enttr into come litigation ni our behalf against themselves. Of course we did le,: consent to do anything of the kind, being only desirou to receive our money and scrip, according to the term:; of their own advertisement. and , on the face of which trusted them with our scrip snares, according to the practice and arrangements adopted in other companies in similar circumstances. The LORD MAYOR—And what do you wish me to de in this case ? I admit that your statement and the con tents of the advertisements, make it fait a very strong one, and I am surprised that the promises held out ft you should not have been performed. Mr. Stern—You see, my Lord, that, judging from th, high respectability of the directors, the shareholder: could have expected nothing but the most complete and punctual performance of all that has appeared in the advertisements, signed by their secretary. Now, our object is to summon the secre t ary to account for the ex traordinary proceedings of the dirf etors in keeping pos session of our money which they have received,P' ap ed and promised to r e -p a y. W e consider it extremely od d that they sh ou ld, i nstea d of performing ' the promises phoeshiltito'onrthtoinsigthne putaadpraepretirseornrenwtsh,iehthe u s (ff following is ) i aro copy:— " To Messrs. Fry, Loxley, and Fry.—Gentlemen,-- I hereby authorise you t o ra i se an act i on at law aga i nst all, or either, of the following gentlemen, &c. directors of the Bordeaux and Mediterranean Railway, for the recovery of the proportion of the deposit due on the shares allotted to me in that company." The LORD MAYOR said it appeared to him that inas much as the promise was a future and contingent pro mise, no fraud could be established ; that to constitute a fraud it was necessary that there must be a false pretence existing before the delivery of the scrip ; but if the Messrs. Stern should be advised that there was a suffi cient case of conspiracy against the directors, then the remedy was to be found in an indictment. As the case was not ore in which he considered that he had imme diate jurisdiction, he must refer t h e app li cants to the authority to which they might appeal against men of such standing in society as the directors with decided effect. THE FORGERIES OF THE LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY SHARES.— William Farriery, who was on Tuesday charged upon suspicion of having been i - (concerted, with Horatio Nelson West, in-forging Lon don and South Western Railway shares was brought UP for re'-examir ation. The evidence against him oa thsa first slay of examination was of so slight a nature. and the impression made in his favour by the -manner in which he denied all knowledge of any dishonourable trap action its the share dealing in _ which ha was a par!' ticipator, was so decided. that the Lord Mayor wens tinned, on leaving the chair, that if no additional testi: moray should be produced next day, bail would be taken:',f/?, for his appearance. -r Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Morgan, the solicitor to the '.- company, appeared for the prosecution. Mr._Ttrhour - din, of Lincoln's Inn-fields, attended for the prisoner. Mr. Charles Tomlinson, of No. 20, Wellington street, Salford, Manchester, said, I bought of a man named Watson, who I am convinced is the prisoner, 40 shares of gas London and South Western Company, on the aath of February last. I produce one of those 40 shares. Mr. Clarkson—lt will be recollected that the prisoner yesterday declared that he was never at Manchest' r. The witness, in his cross-examination, said—l don't recollect the date, except that I took the prisoner to Air. Bowker's office on the following mornin r, and he re csaved the money from Mr. Kinder. The scrip has never betn ut fmy possession. I have other scrip. I sent it by Mr. Bowker to London. I received that number from Mr. Kinder. I know it by the figures on th e back. They were put on before I got it. I first saw th e accused the day before I went to Mr. Bowker. I ez p qu to certain of his identity. Mr. John Buckley Kinder, clerk to Mr. Joseph . Bowker, of Broughton, near Manchester—l remenit/er, Mr. Tomlin-on bringing to me on Friday, the 20th February, ti e pri so n e r, w h o p asse d then as Thomas Watson. He was brought to me by the last witness for the purpose of selling us 250 London and South-WestPra sharer. I purchased 50 of him, and sold 200 for hio• I am quite certain the prisoner is the man. I have reason to believe that all the shares are forged. Cross-examined—l paid the prisoner the money. The Prisoner—l say, I never was in Mai chaster is my life. I assert it in the face of all the world. Wm. Alfred Morgan, treasurer of the London and ' South Western Railway Company, stated, that , on the Ist of January some new shares in the company Wer e , issued. The rcrip produced is forged. • Mr. Charles Tahourdin, the prisoner's attorney, wel l appeared as a witness. We was, he said, solicitor for duo defendant in the cause Whalley v. Farmery. He re ceived notice of trial for the York Assizes on the 24th of February. The Commission day being the bth of March, he communicated that fact to Mr. Farmery, and had bed several interviews with him on the subject of that causes and Mr. Farmery went to Leeds by his direction to get up evidence. "I do not", said the witnes4, " believe the handwriting upon the receipt produced by Mr. Binder $ 0 be the handwriting of Mr. Farmery." The prisoner was then remanded, the Lord Mayor, after such evidence having refused to accept bail. CLERKEN WELL. Ann Williains, a tall middle-aged female, with a child in her arms, was charged, before Mr. Combe, with ,) h.ving committed several robberies. The system pursued by the prisoner was to call upon ladies at their own residence, and beg that. as a matter of charity, they would give her some needlework W execute, as she and her family were reduced from cir cumstances of comparative comfort and independence W the greatest want. The mowent the prisoner was left alone she availed herself of the opportunity of stealig whatever she could lay her hands upon. Mrs. Nlatcock, a lady residing at liemmingford Val* Islington, proved that the prisoner came to her boUee• and atter having told her usual tale, and requested soul° needlework to do, she was left alone for a very whorl time, when she stole a valuable wirchlrom the chimney' piece, and a rosewood dressing-case from the table of tha inside room. A number of ladies were in attendance who had been robbiAl of plate, watches, jewellery, and other articles bl, a person %4 er in g the description of the pri sone r, lot sevei al of them recognised her having called at their houses to request work shortly before the articles wer e stole', ; and one gentle-man said he missed a valuablo gold watch shortly atter Rome female very like the gri' sonar had b-en to his reso - 1.-nce. 4.1 s the police had not as yet had time to trace tig stolen property, toe prisoner was ord ere d t o b e brouguy up for final exatnioation on Monday next. LLOYD'S SHIPPING. LONDON, APRIL 14.—Wind N.E., fresh gale and clou . DEAL., APRIL 13.—Wind N.E., fresh—Arrd. Royal AlDr n Balderston, Manilla; Agin co u r t, N eat l ey , Madras; I" - • Packet, Harry, Pernambuco. Sid. the outward bound, ea r ' cept the Jessie, for Valparaise. DUNGENESS ROADS, APRIL 13.—SId. Loyal Priton, Quebec' . POI:TSMOUTH, APRIL 13.—Wind E.N.E.—Off port, CroW l3o St, John's. Sld. Quebec, New York. LIVERPOOL, APRIL 13.—Wind E.N.E., moderate.—Ar 4 Qaisachan, Phillips, B .mb a y ; 31 azep p a , Pernambuco; r-" terprise, Davies, Savauilla; Abbot Lord, Blaisdell, New O r' leans; Elizabeth, Geves, Charleslon; Jii.zepha, Leitch, ditto: Elope, Hall, Baltimore; John Currier, Knapp, Philadelphi s Missouri, Silvester, New York. Sld. the outward bouna• The Jane Gano, Davies, arrived here to-day from Virginia, spoke the schooner John, of Marblehead, a complete wreck on the 20th ult., lat. 43, long. 49., but declined assistan ce : Off port, London, New Orleans; Coromandel, Mobile; and Thames. —. PLYMOUTH, APRIL 13.—Wind E.—Sld. Lady Fitzherbert Marseilles and Mauritius; Fiorence, Prince Edward'ti Island; William Bromham, Quebec; Spermaceti, ditto; Silvia ditto; Mariner, ditto; Satisfaction, New York; Royal Sove reign, Adelaide, South Austrilia CLYDE.—Arrd. Fleetwood, Richardson, Mauritius; Herald. Turnbull, Pernambuco; Charlotte Harrison, llPlntyre, New Orleans; Beliona, Auld, New York. Sld. Dien, Singapore; Emblem, New York; Calcutta, Quebec; Mariner, Mira michi ; Rebecca, New York; Henry Hood, Bathurst. ' Corm, APRIL 11.—Wind IV. to W.S.W.—Arrd. Alice Haveland, Currie, Havanuab. Sid. Francis, New York; Ganges, Quebec. LEITH, APRIL 10.— SR Alidille.sborough, Quebec. Sititmns, APRIL 13.—Wind N.E., fresh.—Put back, Dena • on, for Pictou; Favourite, for America; both with loss topmasts, SUNDERLAND, APRIL 13.—AVind N.N.E.—SId. Vin e ' Queoec; Viola, Montreal. Iltru Arun, 13.—Wind W.N.W.—S:d. Latons, M ir*. 'nicht ; Charlotte, Bombay. ; The Queon of Scotland st , amer, from Hamburgh, go- fr , contact, in the H um b er , w i t h t he Defiance fishing solib e ! he latter sunk, crew (except a boy) saved. DUMFRIIES.—SL. Helen Douglas, St. John's, New Brune wick. SOUTHAMPTON, APRIL 13.—Wind Graben!: Beach, `•t. J• tin's, New Brunswick. Sl.i. Da3,l4lus, Quebec -0 TORBAY, APRIL 13.—Wind Emma. Bost °, d. llAuTmouTH, APRIL 13.—Wind Eine"' Airmin, BlDEroun, APRIL 13.—The Native, cf Cork, has beconl e a tot :I wreck. ‘Vtimv, Arm. 12.—The Celerity, of Wells, has been gu t off shore with damage, and into the hart our. The Wilburn, trom• lesbor.ugh, has gone on shore; crew saved. OFF THE WlGllT.—Heralon, Richter, Bahia, 10- Stockholm. POOLE, APRIL 11.—Sld. Anglieania, Quebec. PORTLAND ROADS, APRIL 7.—Axrd. Magdalen, New Yor k ' fir Antwerp. Saco, APRIL. I I.—Arrd. the Wanderer, Evans,New Yor i ‘ LoNGHOPR APRIL 6.—Sld. Tom Bowline, Quebec. l'ADsz,iw, APRIL 11.—The he id-board of a vessel, man— ' Al,iyflower,' has been picked up near Port Isaac. .INVEREEITHING, APRIL 11.-1 he Lilias, of Sunderland, was driven on shore near M‘Qa-en's Ferry Bth inst., bu t expected to be got off with little damage. REGISTRY of BIRTHS and DEATHS. DURING THE WEEK ENDING Ap:;th io. Deaths registered in the week. Births registi red in he wpm. dales . 527 Mal 23 7 7 1 Females ... 524 Females . •• ••• Total . 1.05-1 Total ... 1,4§9 MARKET NE DVS.-.(YESTERDAY•) The present wCe°ekit'sNa-rEt oil av • iv 3t a C ls il o A f English Wheat having wen - et.) moderate scale, the supply of that grain , ii her was, small. Although the attendance of buyers was limited, the demand for both red and white waif Itea dY , and previous rates were well supported. There was ~, ly a limited supply of foreign Wheat on show, •Jad which moved off steanily, at full prices. The Baricy trade was firm at the late advance in the quotations. We had a fair inquiry for Malt, at full currencies. With Oat, we were scantily supplied, while a full average amount of business was transacted, at previous quo,a !ions. In Beans, Peas, and Flour, we have no change to report. Wheat. 1,780 qrs. ARRIVALS. I Barley. 150 qrs. h'.ligllstl • ..... ........ i'oreign Oats 1 Flour. 40 qrs. 1 1,010 ski • 870 I --- 13,700 3,870 Malt, 50 qrs. WIIXTMCMAPEL. 2,430 The supplies of meat on offer being on the increases tie reneral demand was heavy, and prices had a down• . vvstrd tendency. B-el fr.m 2s 8d to 3s 6d • Mutton. t, 61 t►► 4.7 t 8d; La►nb, 5i to 6s ; Veal, 3s 10d to 10d ; and Pork, 3,8 d to 5, per 81bs. by the carcase. 11 1R7113. On the Bth inst., at Lee, the wife of Frederick St. Joh llo Esq , of a daughter. On the 9th inst., in Bloomsbury-square, the wife of Vi r g' lain Kinsey, Esq., of a d aug ht er , still-born. On the 10th nist., in Harewood-square, the wife of J. 13 . Holman, E.q., of a son. On the 10th inst., in Rod Lion-street, Holborn, Mrs. Bell' ville, of a (laughter. On the 10th inst., at South-grove, Hampstead, the wife 01 'aptain T. H. Johnston, of a daughter. On the 11th inst., at Long Ditton, the lady of John Wake' man Long, Esq., of a daughter. On the 11th inst., at King William-street, Mrs. Thome , Dakin, of a daughter. On the llth inst., prematurely, Mrs. A. J. Bone, of a son. On the 12th inst., the lady of S. Clarke, Esq.. ota daughter. MA RRIED. On the 12th inst., at St. John's Church, Clapham-rise/M t ' William Briant. to Susannah, second daughter of the late T. Alford, Esq., of Merton Lodge, Surrey. -- DIED. At Godstone, Surrey, on Sunday his', Mr. W. Beaufordt r late of the Old Drury Tavern. Biydges. street, Covent-garden . On the 7th inst., at Edinburgh, Edward Gordon Brenlert Esq., Commander, R.N., aged 26. On the 7th inst., Mr. Robert Woodford, of Greenford-grew' Middlesex, aged 43. On the 7th inst., at Jersey, Joshua Flesher Hanson, Esq. On the 9th inst., at Grove-road, Brixton, Edward, the Se' cond son of Henry Prichard, Esq., aged 5 years. On the 9th inst., at Lawn-place, Shephprd's-busb, Anne , the wife of Philip Watier, Esq. On the 9th inst., Charles Willis, only child of Mr. Charles Hawkins, of Doctors'-commons. On the 10th inst., in Gibson-square, Islington, Elizabeth' relict of the late J. Howard, Esq., aged 74. On the 11th Met , FrancPs, the wife of Samuel Loyat, ES1•11 of Montagu-street, Portinan-square. On the II th inst., at Truro, the Rev. Joseph George Venables, aged 81. N o London: Printed and Published by hall/DO Yotaito, of • 115. , g strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, N 0.112, Strund, in the Prec h n of the Savoy, in the County or 3114dleeez. Thunidah APril J"../ 1847.