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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE 01 COMMONS. April 14. CATHOLIC RELIEF RITJ, Sir R. H. INGLIS (in continuation of our After noon Edition of yesterday) said—He might quote instances where the Roman Catholics interfered with the civil Government of this and other countries; but it was sufficient for him to state that tEe Pope, who had dismissed one hundred bishops front their sees, who were faithful to their - vows and to the church, declared that the Church of Rome, in his person, had a right to ex communicate Princes and to interfere as he did with the then ruler of France. These things were ably set forth in a book latelypublished by Dr. Wordsworth which was well worthy the attention of every one interested it this discussion. He was so much attached to the Bible — not the improved editions—(Hear, hear)—as to con scientiously consider that public form of Protestantism as the strong bulwark of the glory of England.—(Hear , hear.) Such a measure as that proposed could not be . passed into a +kW consistently with the existence tie the Church of England, which was not secure so long as the Church of Rome continued. He implored the Noble Lord at the head of the Government not to forget the dying words of his immortal anc e stor, which, coming from such a man, deserved to_ Popery." off consi dered prophetic—" not to assist the progres s The resistance of Popery w as one of the greatest opere.' objects of his life; and he called upon t he N oble Lord to act in the spirit of his illustrious h ,. and w hich had for t h e r o bjects to resist any further measu re s the degradation of the Church of Enland, the hua tion of p ee d e staneism, and the fina l ascendancy of the Roman Catholic religion.—(Hear.) Entertaining these vi ew s, h e f e lt he should but ill discharge his duty if he did not move, intoas an amendment, that the House should resolve itself a Committee on the Bill this day si x months. Mr. LAW seconded the motion. Th e Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY said that the Church of Rome had been accused of persecution ; h. was not prepared to deny that persecution had been man y times exercised by members of that Church— in fact he admitted that the Church of Rorie, had persecuted, but those acts were to be estimated by the spirit of the times in which they occurred : and he might point to the Old Testament as furnishing some authority for persecution. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that he alluded to the wars waged by the Israelites against those nations who held possession of the pro mised land. Previous to the 16th century the whole of Western Europe was of one faith—heresies had arisen from the commencement of the Church of Christ, but at that period the whole relations of society were overset by the Reformation, and a number of heresies sprung up. And here he would observe that there was a: great difference between a heretic and a member of a heresy. A heretic was one eho once belonged to the faith of Christ, and who seceded ; but a member of a heresy was looked upon with a much more lenient eye by the Church ; he was conri dared by no means guilty in the same degree. He wished to argue the futility of throwing any rest ictions in the way of \ * sincere believer by other than legitimate means. His Honourable Friend had said that the Church of Rome was antagonistic to Protestantism.—(Hear, hear.) So it was, and so it ever would be, until Protestantism was extinct.—(lroni cal cheers.) The struggle would continue, and would last, and other churches would arise long after the Church of England had passed away and was forg o tt en . Mr. PLU M THE said that the Noble Lord had stated very plainly that the contest was going on of Poem.; against Protestantism, and that it would and should go on until the latter Church bad become extinguished he stated such to be his intention, and such to be that of his Church. Now he (t[r. Plumptre) ob jected to the present Bill, because he believed it. had for its object the same intention. He thanked the Noble Lord for speaking so plainly; it was what they lamented, that they did not know where to find their enemies, for they assumed the attitude of war exactly at the moment that they felt their own power, or as it suited their convenience. He told them that the pur pose of his Church was to continue and maintain the struggle until Protestantism was for eveT'extinguished. He would tell him that the Protestants of this country were prepared to meet those words with others of a directly opposite character.—(Hear, hear.) He agreed with his lion. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that nothing could be more paint to him than to say anything which might wound the feelings of any Member; but they must not refrain from speaking the truth from any such fear, and it became them not to remain silent when they heard the declaration which had been just uttered.—(Hear.' He could not agree with the Noble Lord, that Protes tantism would become extinct; or that the Chirsch of Rome would triumph over it. He felt solar from that. that Protestantism was founded on a rock; but he regretted that the present Bill would revive the struggle, as it would no doubt tend to promote the inte rests of the Church of Rome. He would oppose the Bill, - and every other measure of the same character which went to destroy or endanger the Protestant truth or the Protestant Church. If he spelt - warmly on the question, he at least spoke honestly and while he diff ere d w i th Honourable Members 6!: the matter, he did so with the kindest feelings. It was not on personal grounds that he opposed the measure, but because he considered it based on a bad principle. Lord H. VANE said the Hon. Member who had last addressed the !louse seemed to have wandered widelN from the subject. If any one were to read the Bill, with the amendments now proposed by the Hon. Member Ica- Kinsale, he could not see how it was possible to take such a course in the debate. He considered the Hon. Member who had just sat down had misrepresented, or at least misunderstood. the observations which had fallen from the Noble Lord (Arundel), though he (Lord 11. Vane) must st the same time observe that the sentiments which that Nshl Lord had uttered were not his. He did not think that the Church of Rome would succeed over the Protestant Church. and that they both would become one. This, he was persuaded, was also the opinion of the great bedy of the people of the country. Still, he thought the .!lonourable Member (Mr. Plumptre) had misunderstood the argument employed by his Noble Friend. The lien. Member had alleged that the Noble Lord supported persecution because he ha I referred to certain paseages in the Old Testament, and applied to a different order of things, which justified it ; and that therefore the Roman Catholic Church was justified in doing the same thing. Now, he (Lord H. Vane) enisidered this not to be the opinion of the Noble Lord, but that he meant to say, that in bygone days persecution generally prevailed and pervaded the conduct of all religious sects and opinions. 'rob-ration, in fact, had not been urn lerstooe or practised till within the last century and a half. But his •Noble Friend adjured persecution now, and only expected that by the prevalence of opinion hi: rehurch would become triumphant., He (Lord H. Venc), ewever, was of a totally different opinion. The Bill. said the Hon. Member for Kent ( Mr. Plumptre), would change the whole character of the p .putation. He objected to it because it would unprotestantise the country. In support of that opinion, he had given no reasons, had advanced no arguments, but he con sidered it would do so. The Hen. Member had also re ferred to the danger of permitting the Jesuits to c stn into the country, calling the attention of the House to the proceedings of that body abroad during the lest fifty years. He deduce; from that great danger to the Protestant faith. Noe he (Lord H. Vane) would observe, that at present Jesuits did come into the country, th ough the Catholis Emancipation Act expressly forbad them. Practically the law was of no effect, the spirit of the age was against penal enactments, on account of religious be lief. The Bill as amended, by its provisions for th registration of all those belonging to monastic crders would be quite sufficient fir all useful purposes. It they were to go on the policy recommended by the Ho.I. Member, they ought to rescind and repeal all the laws to advance religious liberty passed in the last 30 year.. He (Lord H. Vane) could not see what object was gained by having laws on the statute-book which could not be enforced, and which still contained a stigma on a particular religious faith. But the Hon. Member had objected to the repeat of the 30th Charles If. on the guound that it would affect the Bill of Rights. If that really were so, nothing could be more easy than to introduce a clause into the present Bill, declaring that the Bill of Rights should not be affected by it. This would obviate at once the difficulty. He had been inducted to rise and take part in the debate because of the unfortunate turn which it had assumed. That House was a place, least of all places, for theological discussions, and they should avoid all such allusions in their discussions. The whole--the real—question they had to consider was the removal of certain civil disabilities which the Bill proposed. This Bill had been modified to meet the views of several Hon. Members, and especially of the Right lion. Baronet the Member for fautworth. He was quite free to confess, that the public - exhibition of pro cessions, through the streets of a manufacture , ing town especially, might to many persons prove a stumbling-block. and that the clauses, therefore, which-authorieed these processions through the diffe rent pa r ts of England were inconsistent with the general character of th e Bill itself. i sincerely rejoiced to h Believing this, he was the Hon. MP mber for eth declaration to that effect from Bon. Member hadretikenny, and rejoiced that that so decid e dly this subject. Bat, a s hi s expressed his opinion on objection, Friend had eon- 'Dented to remove this see that any danger whatever coud.he could not at ell As a cis to the Protes as it appeared Lze him, of the Bill. The tantiem of this country from the object of the Bill, obtain an equality of private Position fo ' r tv tl t a t : si l l)! to of - the two rel;gions, and by the expungi ng e d P r e e r,°r 4 tionable clauses, the only danger that could h t _ a y e b een .apprekended had been averted. - Mr. SPOONER rose to say only a fp..a very I' w ords, with a view to set the Hon. M em b er for kt7w n jai right, as to what had fallen from the Noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Arundel and Surrey). At the com mencement of his observations that Noble Lord had expressly stated that he deprecated persecution in any shape, and had, in the course of the earlier sortion of his remarks, expressly stated that, a his opinion, nothing whatever could justify wrsecution. Yet, notwithttanding all this, the Noble Lord, towards the conclusion of his speech, had said that there were certain passages in the Old Testa ment which give reason to suppose that under peculiar circumstances it wall , ' be countenanced by the Al extighty.—(Cries of " No. no.") The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY begged to correct the Hon. Member. He had never attempted in an y way to justify persecution, or t) say that under any circumstances it was to be resorted to. What he had emdeavoured to represent when allu ling to the pesseee s of the Old Testament was, that the contest which had been going on, and which must continue eo oe be. tween the Roman Catholic an d the Protest ant Ch urches, , was one entirely of a theological character, and tair PerP#l4o4l. 2aotja say way to tO:Wgrded - - - TEE Mr. SPOONER was quite satisfiel that the Noble Lord had not expressed exactly what he meant to say, and that his meaning would not bear the interpretation put upon it by his Hon. Friend. But the Noble Lord had referred to the Old Testament, and had alluded to certain passages which he considered to be in sup port, of his argument.—(Hear , hear. ) But it should be recollected, that, in the earlier days of the Jewish Commonwealth, that people were devoted to a peculiar office. Thar commission was to extermi nate idolatry, and he thought that the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford bad 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 thatin 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 be 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, still he should never be deterred from saying what he felt it to be his duty in that place from any .consideration whatever. The Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University had given the character to this de- I bate, and he had rightly said that the tendency of this 'lll was to put down the Protestant faith in England. It they passed this Bill they had no other alternative — they must repeal the Act of Charles, and destroy the Bill of Rights. He had not the slightest desire to pre vent any people from enjoying an equality of religious freedom, but he did object to that part of the Bill which legalised the sale of bulls in this country. It would, according to his notions, not be of the slightest advantage in giving any religious facility 'as the professors of the Roman Catholic faith, but it would be bringing in another and a new power to over swe the consciences and depress the powers of many individuals, and would in many instances compel them to avow and act on principles in religious matters which they in their inner heart denied. It would be sanction ing a custom and a principle which the House of Commons had no right whatever to sanction, and would in truth be rendering that lawful which was in itself treasonable and seditious. This Bill did not confine the authority for introducing bulls—that simply referred to sniritual jurisdiction, and was thus opening a way for all sorts of immoral and unscriptural proceedings. A t'-w days ago a young gentleman, the son of so , friend of his, had been induced to leave the Pro testant Church, and give iu his adhesion to the Chuich of Rome, and shortly afterwards his father fount a book entitled, " Consolation and Encouragement for Souls." It was translated 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 no longer responsible for his con duct to his Maker. He would ask whether this was not at once loosing all the bonds of society, whether it was not setting at liberty every means for imposing upon the hearts and consciences of a people, whether it was notrgiving a range to all the chicane of priestcraft, sad allowing opportunity for evils of a most mischievous character ? Was it not monstrous that there should be such a declaration of all loss o f responsibility such as this ? With such a latitude there was a tree commission to a young man any day to commit murder or treason, for by this assertion the Bible was nothing, law was nothing, morality was nothing, nor was there any rule whatever to bind the spirit, the principles, or- the conscience of any man who had once given himself up to the direction of his priest. His conscience would not be his own, and there would be neither responsibility for the present or f , sar for the future—not an aid to assist in the pathway through life, but throughout the whole of his course he would be tied hand and foot by the dic tates of the priest, and would in every way be divested 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 of things as a system of free inquiry on the subjects exit where all free inquiry was reprobated, and everything left entirely in the hands of the priests ? Such were some of "is reasons for opposing the motion for the House going into 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 sailed everything that removed the obstacles to the con • summation of t'itit result which they had so much at heart. lie believed that the House had gone too far already by the Act of 1829—(" Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthurp.) He had a vivid recollection of some of the arguments used upon that occasion, both by Mr. Canning and other supporters of the measure, and was particularly struck 'oy that which had been used ou the subject of the exclusive nature of the oath required to be taken by Members of the Legislature. lie believed that Mr. Canning was, however, too sanguine in believing that the oath, as then amended, would be as efficient in controlling the interference of the Catholic Meknbers 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 support the Protestantism of the country, and refuse to go into Committee on the Bill. Mr. SHE'LL said that the Hon. Member for Birming ham had stated that he was acepainted with several Catholic gentlemen for whom he entertained a high character, but he thought that if he were to communi .;ate his opinions to any one of those respectable gentle. men he would be assured by them that neither by force nor by fraud was it to be attempted to destroy the Pro testant religion.—(Hear.) lie could not help thinking that his Hon. Friend had dealt somewhat disingenuously with his .Nobly Friend, for, notwithstanding the distinct axplsnation cf his Noble Friend of the statements rated to him by his neighbour of Kent, notwithstanding is Noble Friend got up and said that he was in favour unrestricted freedom of conscience, the Hunourabl:: Moreher who had just sat down had endeavoured to fasten upon him charges which his Noble Friend had mo..t distinctly d-nied. He (tlr. Sheil) was convinced chat there was not a sin2le Roman Catholic in that ilouse who world not disclaim the doctrines imputed to him by the Wm. NLmber for Birmingham. No such purpose was entertained by them as they were charged with. His Honourable Friend was so much ex cited by his argument as to call all his Boman Catholic fello - .v-subjects " idolaters." lie Mr. Sheit) could assure the lien. Member that ho had too much Christian philosophy to allow himself iii the slightest degree to be influenced by idolaters.- 1", Hear, hear.) But really, after all, the real question for Lhe louse to decide was whether they would go into Committee on this Bill—a Bill which has already passed the second reading. There was one portion if 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. 1s the law now stood, no Jesuit or any 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 liabh:- to banishment in the first instance, and transportatiot, after; and any per-on who initiated any individual into a religious order liable to the same puni%hinent. Now, he thought that it must strike the common sense and the common justic=, of that House that these laws were, if not impotent in their application, at least esssn ti Illy inefficacious. But these laws were also ,vh - illy in 'perative; - they were utterly iuefficsci ,,iii fur the purposes contemplated by those who • otro !need these laws, and he would show the House chat these laws were also totally inoperative. He 'hought it q rite sufficient for his argument to open a welt:4 he held in his hand, entitled "The Irish Jnth ,lie Directory." The book to which he would retei .contained the ontire statistics of the Catholic Church, and ;t specified all the archbishops, the bishops, the arch leacons, the deacon;, and all the parish priest in connexion with that Church, and concluded by the todowieg heading—" Society of Jesus." Thee f)llowed the name of tne Rev. Richard St. Ledge), Clongowes ge, Clare. Tne flue. and Learnee Member also read a list of other names in coenexiee with the religious order of the Je , mits, and went, on to say that such a statement wss in his opinion amply sufficient to convince the House that the law e it then stood had been and was utterly inetfica ciousl; the laws were offensive, and answered the purposes of contumely, but none other. Father Mathew was a regular, Dr. Doyle was a regular an Augustinian friar ; and if the one might be called the Apostle of Temperance, the other might—for the extraordinary exertions he made in support 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 Poor, as he was the first great champion the poor of Ire land ever had. Now, by thelaw-as -iteat present stood, the former might be at the present moment propagating the principles of temperance in Van Diemen's Laud and Australia, and such great and good men be subjected to the most inivitous oppression. The question then arose, was that law to stand ? and if so, for what pur pose ? He knew that, with regard to the Jesuits, a feel ing of strong opposition had been excited, and that .since what was called the Popish Plot they had been regarded with fear; but he thou;ht those who entertained reach feelings ought to be afraid of their own fears. Ho thought that whetever faults the - Jesuits might be charged with, their virtues greatly outweighed them, and that the bulk of those charges were wholly calum nious and unfounded. To the theology of Eseuha might be pointed the glorious example of Xavier. Bai, whatever were the faults of the Jesuits, who were suppressed by theirconduct hu r Ganganelli a t th e i ns t anc e o f French philosophy, the Irish J esu i ts were ent i rely free f rom bl ame . What was h Ireland?c h e a , They n had a college ., at Glen.• go e w i r e a , several n I various inetitutiGes of a charitable n committed? attire. Were these the crimes they had the diff erent F or the last thirty years, during in Ireland, haegitations and political movements single speech, tr d : a t ed them to point out a or publishe s ' b y ' pamphlet, ever made seen a Jesuit at any Je Ile had never Association ; and he didthe n ht believe of the Catholic of that society was or ever adbelieve that any member Repeal Association. These werb:r a member of the ought to outweigh the unsupported pacts and they surely Member for Birmingham. Why thal'en,t: it sof the Hon. should these man be persecuted, against° wwhaald there was no just cause of blame? Would Mr. 40 0 %7 . t Plumptre, or Sir R. Inglis persecute Fatherr thew, or any other of the learned or virtuous m en who were members of these societies ?—(Hear, h ear .) No, they would 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 p:attions had been presented against the Bill. He did >~otbelieve that here woe lug fetiwg of 040 entertained towards it by the people of England. He should like to know the number of the peti tions, and the signatures. The Honourable Member for Knaresborough presented one, to which only six names were attached. He did not think the people of England entertained the belief that their security was endangered by the removal of those penal laws, or that the safety of the Protestant Church was to be provided for by Catholic degradation. There was one omission in the Bill which he regretted. He thought a clause should have been introduced enabling a Roman Catholic to be eligible to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ire. land. There had been four Roman Catholic Attor ney-Generals since the Emancipation Bill. Sir M. O'Loughlin, Wolfe, B ill, and Pigott, and he considered it too bad that such men were not eligible to the office of the Chancellorship. 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. lie hoped the flues would no longer countenance these die abilities, but would show to the world that the days of pains and penalties for religious opinions were gone for ever. Mr. FINCH thought it was quite becoming in the last speaker, wbo was a Roman Catholic, to speak as he had done, and also the Noble Lord (Arundel and Surrey), but still he did not consider that either of them had ad duced any adequate reason why the Bill should be passed. 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 opposed to the revealed religion, and was besides intolerant. We knew well that the omish Church was strongly op posed 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 motion of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. Lord JOHN MANNERS said the real question be fore the House was, whether certain pains and penalties on the statute-book, but which all admitted could not be enforced—(Hear, hear)—should or should not be re pealed, as enactments without value. Those who opposed the Bill cuntemled that the best way to promote the prosperity of the Church of England was the retention of obnoxious penalties with regard to those who followed another form of the same Christianity. But, when it was admitted on all hands that they never could be enforced, he was quite at a loss to know why they should not be at once abrogated. In the whole course of the discussions on the Bill, he had heard nothing to induce him to believe that the safety of the Church of England would be endangered by the remission of those obnoxious penalties. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, directed their attention to what was going on in France, but particularly in Switzerland, owing to the violent, conduct of the Jesuits. But when he quoted Switzerland, to show what the toleration of the Jesuits had .dpne there, he made a most unhappy allusion. What. was the condition of the Jesuits in Switzerland? In some cantons the Jesuits were tolerated and fostered, while neighbouring contons, opposed to the Jesuits, endea voured by force to put them down ; and when attacked they naturally resetited such aggressions upon their liberty ; and then the Right Hon. Baronet came for ward and said, " See what the violence of the Jesuits has brought about in Switzerland." He said, there. fore, that he could not have made a more unhappy 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 compelled to put a stop to the violence and inroads of the Jesuits, which was far more straightforward and Christianlike than the theoretical plan which had been adopted in this country. Then the Right Hou.Baronet appealed to the Protestant Dissenters to join him 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 long and consistent career, opposed them as strongly as he now opposed the concessions. now asked for on behalf 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. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, whose absence they must all regret, stated that he had felt it necessary in 1829 to vindicate the established 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 foree.—(Hear, hear.) They could not be put in foice; and if they were to call upon the advisers of her Majesty to put these laws into force, they would refuce to do so. Ile, therefore, was at a less to know how they could be called sateguerdi, If their abrogation were really dangerous to the Slve and to the Church, he must say that it was not becoming iu thein to take their stand on those pettireggcng eenalties which they might suffer, and which no one to'ught to put in force.—( [leer, hear.) Those who oppos d the Bill were actuated by a spirit of exclusiveness, in which he could not sympatnise. The Right Hon. Baronet challenged the officers of the Crown to say that the B 11 of Rights could be considered valid if the 30th of Charles 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 Birmingham observe that he did not believe that the contest would be successful, and that the Protestant Church would. remain uuvanquished. If that was then the case, why did he refits() 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 Chrigopher Wordsworth, de scribing the Christian Brothers, observes, that not one of the pupils educated by them took a part in the late revolution in the French capital. This was a fact worthy of observation. The people had been induced to petition against this Bill, having been told that it contained clauses which enabled them to take the style 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 people 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 possesses 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. NEWDEGATE—The Noble Lord who had just sat down had told them that they had nut 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 remstin 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 becau-e 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 reconcil e it s a d m i ss i on w i t h the able e n cTe o hu f er ctdhh decrees why the Roman gave an 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 character eith the prerogativ , s of the Kai ish Crown ? de was nut to be cold that en the ground of religious tolerance he should be allowed to concede such extra ordinary powers as these. He was as much a fiend of toleration as any Member in that House, but did he admit the powers of the Pepe as recognised by the Bill, lie would be intob rant indeed. Though great number of petitions had not been presented, he could tell them that a deep feeling of opposition pre vailed throughout the country again.t the measure. The people had not petitioned because of the way in ehich their petitions had been treated on the Maynooth question, and they had little further confidence in approaching the House. But let them pass such a measure, and depend on it they would hear of it again, 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 position to the Jesuits in France and Switzerland, which he asserted had originated in democratin violence. Now with retard to this he would tell the Noble Lord that the real cause in Switzerland of the disputes about the Jesuits arose from the feet of the latter seeking to take; the whole education of certain countries into their hands. And in France they had been declared illegal, ' because of the intrigues for power in which they had been continually engaged. The Hon. and Learned Member for the University of Oxford had asked the Attorney -General an important question, which ought to have been answered; for if the measure was subversive of the Bill of Rights, how could the Members of the House of Commons support it ? If they agreed to such a Bill, they must relieve the Sovereign from her obliga tion to uphold the Protestant faith, and fully and uiidis guisedly admit the temporal and spiritual authority of the Pope of Rome. Sir J. EASTiIOPE regretted that there was any ne cessity for such a discussion as this, and if he had enter tained that opinion before he was doubly satisfied of the inutility of it from the speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat down. Ono advantage might, indeed, result from it,—the people of England would hear the evidencs on both sides of the question. Yet, notwithstanding this benefit, he still believed that this was no place for theological controversy, or for a com parison of the respective advantages enjoyed by the members of the Roman Catholic or of the English Church. The real question in his opinion was as to whether these laws were operative or not. For his own part he believed them to be totally useless, and only a disgrace to the statute-book, and he firmly believed that if they were t) be instrumental in the support of reli- ' were giouspersecution. the Hon. Gentleman himself should be among the very first to put them down ; and if they o r t ete il io in n s ? trum N ental, n w w h is a h t ed se m c o u r r e ity tha w n a s he th d er i . ( i firm conviction t hat e heartily furLtterciivelfareoofmathe religion of the country. to annihilate Pro sthe: The Noble Lord for the strength Member for Arundel had stated his tant. He respeetA the Noble theth of his convictions, self believed thatresult of these disputes would be but he him result would be totally different, Aid .0114 4f goy wen lo be acediagte4 - *Ukes4 or SUN, LONDON, '_TIIITRSDAY EVENING, APRIL 11, 1847. of these persecuting agencies, that the consequence would be the extinction of Roman Catholicism. That these laws were useless was evident, for even the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University had allowed that they had been in abeyance; and what was the utility, then, of at all retaining what he must term such paltry defences 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 more cordially to her creed and her articles, and if the consequence 01 this Bill was to weaken her position, or to destroy her influence, he would 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 must cordially his vote to his Hon. and Learned Friend. Mr. GOULBURN had on a former occasion stated his opinion on the merits of this Bill, but yet felt im pelled to say a few words to express his reasons fur voting, as he should do, against it. On that occa sion then he was one of a very large majority who caused the rejection of the Bill, he had stated that he felt b quid by the terms of the compact into which he had entered in 1829; and he saw no new reasons now for changing his opinion. All who heard him would recollect when the Roman Catho lic Relief Bill of 1829 was introduced by the Govern ment, the difficulties they had to encounter on ac count of the liberality of its provisions, and what ear nest efforts they had to make to reconcile the House to its passing. Of all the Bills that had ever been intro duced to the House for the relief of Roman Catholic disabilities, that was the most extensive. and far sur passed the expectations of Mr. Grattan, Lord Plunkett, and others, who had endeavoured to limit the re strictions under which the members of that faith la boured. But is bringing in that Bill the Govern ment had expressly stated they were only justified in its introduction by the fact that they were laying the foundation for the basis on which the Roman Catholic religion should stand in this country. It waa on the faith of that representation that the Bill had been allowed to pass, and he should therefore he quite un warranted in breaking the contract into which tie had then entered, and this he would do if he were to con sent to the passing of this Bill. Ile 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. By the Act of 1829 the power of prosecuting for those penalties had been it laced in the hands of the Attorney- General, by whose discretion alone any suit could be carried on or any penalty could be enforced. He 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 it' 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, he heard nothing from the advocates of this Bill to justify the removal of the restrictions of 1829. He deprecated, therefore, these discussions, which had the effect of exciting feelings which had better be allowed to lie dormant. The late Government took 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 auy further legislation on the subject. ,should be avoideed, 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 to say that the ob jects sought to be attained by the present measure were obtained by Acts already passed, and no pe. nail contained in any of the former Acts could, by any possibility, attach to any person at the present time. Tne present measure also sought, by ore clause, to put an end to questiens of law, • which required, to say the least of them, a most careful con sideration. If he was at any e•rieer period opp sed to this measure, he was more particularly so after what had fallen from the only m mber of the Government who had spoken upon the sui j• c', to the effect that still greater alterations were, in his opinion, necessare. He would ask that Right Honourable Member it he would secure him against :Ley attempt to infriege upon the liberties already held by the Protestants when &l these coliceesiene had been made by the Home ? lie should most certainly support ethe amendment and vote against the further progress of the measure. Mr. COLLF:TT would support the motion of the Hoe. and Learned Member for Kinsale, for going into Committee on this 13il, on the veileds of non-inter ference, and none toleration. It was his opinion that he who acted properly and uprightly was in the right road to heaven, whether hit was Protestant, Catholic, Dissenter, Jew, or Mahomedan.—(Divide, divide.) He was himself a humble member of the Protestant Church, but that church had introduced a number of new-fangled doctrines, and ho thought that it would be a much better employment of the time of the bishops to endeavour to obtain unity among their own members than to oppose the measure introduced by the lion, "and Learned Member for Kinsale.— (Cries of " Divide, divide.") He did not like to see the bishops act like the Bishop of Exeter, who had spoken against a bell at Exeter, the procsees of which were to be devoted to the re lief of the distressed Irish and Scotch, nor did he like to see tie bishop:, in their robes in the House of Lords, while all the other Members of that House were obliged to go in plain clothes.—(The Hon. Member sat down amid great confusion, and cries for the division.) Sir G. GREY sail that the question now was she same as that which had been discussed on a former occasion, when the Reuse decided by a majority in favour of the second reading of the measure. It was in accordance with the recommendations of the Criminal Law Commissioners that the present measure was brought forward by his Hon. arid Learn 'd Friend the Member for Kinsale. He did riot consider that 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 nut be prepared to give 'his assent to the measure in its present shape. He knew that is might be said by those persons who held the same views upon the subject as the Hon. Mem ber for Birmingham (Mr. Spooner), that the present measure was one brought in for 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 attached to the Protestant institutions of the country, and vote nurtured in thebosom*of the Estab 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 a ny act of his he s h ou ld i n t h e 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 he considered that their Roman Catholic fehow subject should be allowed, and they were cctitled to teach their doctrines in perfect security, and without the fear of such enactments before their eyes. When their illegality was admitted, ha saw a() 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 promuleating their doctrines. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford said this measure was: but one of a series of concessions of an inju• rious nature which had been made to the Roman Catholics during the last 50 years, evidently admitting that is he had began to legislate 50 years ago, that he should have oppeeedeell the: measures of concessi on and a mendmen t which h a d been passed with respect to the Catholics during that period. Tht first part of the Bill scat. d that these " pins and penalties" had the e ffect of keeping down their Rumen Catholic tellew-subjects.—(Hear, hear.) He was prepared to go into Committee, and to go through the claueee seriatim, with the report of the Cominissieners in his hand, in order that he might have the assistance of the opinions of persons of high authority. The Hon, Gentleman the Nit-alba for the University of CambricLe (Mr. Gbulburn) materially objected to that portion of the Bill which related to pro cessions. He (Sir G. Grey) was not prepared to incur the risk of supporting i hat part of the Bill which would legalise public processions through the street*, but he believed that pail of the Bill was not to he insisted upon; how ever, the proper time to consider these things was in Comreitiee. Ile should, therefore, vote for the Bill going into Committee.—(Divide.) Mr. LAW regretted that the Right lion. Baronet had S i ta f h not alluded to the difference between the rep e aling the statute and the p e n a l t i es attached ea she crimes which it mentioned. The lion. and Learred Gentleman referred to an Act pissed i n th e re i gn o f Richard the Second, and the 16th of G eorge t h e S eco nd, to show that the supremacy wouldbe endangered It was perfectly c l ear, b y the prov i s ions of the Bill, the declaration req u i re d to b e ta k en by the Sovereign on accession to th e t h rone i s re p e aled, State ee and Bill the were Protestant passedinto religion alaw. for it is part and parcel of th e A ct , w hich was considered to be the severest test w hich could be put that the Sovereign was o f the c ommunion; of the Established Ch urc h, T here was nothing in the framing of the Bill whi c h cou ld i nv i te t h em 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. He would record his vote in favour of his' Right Hon. Friend's amendment. Lord SANDON said he had to express his most unfeigned regret tha4this question has beeniraised at all. It was admitted on all sides that no great practical evil was endured by the existence of these claus es, 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 any 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. W h e n in Committee be time enough to discuss the details o f the Bill. _ Still ouie e would he must observe, that he was not satisfied . with the amended clause of the Hon. Mover of the Billintro duced by him to quiet the'scruples of the oppouents. Mr. WATSON replied. Be said h e trus t ed the House would bear with him if he re frained Honourable thel confessed f';te froia mbe a r t s isw w e h r o ing opp t o h s e ed spite,ecbehecsauosef he he the Bill. He would briefly content himself with stating . its principle, which was, t hat . no person had not heard a single valid reason ngathst penal• the reakquestion they had before them, and the Bill II ti e 8 whatever on account shld of be his li r a e b lig a iou t4 s b P erie n f 4 . That nd was H Rao s94m atektoi of all stomata tlies oPoglited Wu. • riously in this manner. The measure was divided into two parts. The one part was to repeal old laws inflicting penalties on Roman Catholics, and was no thing more than giving full effect to the Act of Emancipation passed in 1829. He denied, therefore, that his bringing it forward was a violation of any compact entered into in 1829, as alleged by the Right Hon. 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 csrry out the recommendasion of the Commis sioners that he had introduced this Bill. But the penalty being taken away the misdemeanour still re • mained. In the Bill of R ghts, the Ist of William 111, expressly stated thst the Sovereign, on coming to th , throne should declare his aTherence to the Protestant religion, and if they repealed the Act ot 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 thst the supremacy was a part of the common law of England, and the Act of the Ist of E izabeth was not passed to declare that supremacy, but to provide tor 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 not. create the supremacy of the Sovereign. That had already been established. This was the first part of the Bill, and he regretted the necessity of going so fully into the matter at this period of the debate.— (Hear, hear.) Then he came to the 10th Geo. IV., which had been called the safeguard of the country. Now, he did not propose to interfere with that Bill except in one respect. No person could have greater dislike to those public processions in the streets, which were likely to affect 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 Hon. B tronet the Member for the Uoiversity of Oxford had misstated the circum stances, when he said that it was customary to elevate the host at the burial of the members of the Roman Ca tholic communion. Sir R. IL INGLIS expressed his dissent. Mr. WATSON bad credibly been informed that such an occurrence never took place.; and at any rate there was no power to enforce these laws. There were at present between five and six htindred 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 feeliLgs of the people, the better way was at once to abrogate it. The Right Hon. Member for the University of Oxford had said 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 Hon. 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 would have an opportunity of altering or modifying any of the clauses. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the amendment l5B Against it Majority — 39 The Bill is consv quentiy lost. EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL. _. The report from the Committee on the Exchequer• bills (16310,7000 Bill was brought up and received. The other orders of the day were then disposed ot, and the House adjourned at Six o'clock. RAILWAY C()M %lITTEES. (YESTER)AY.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. GROUP No. I. The Select Committee, appointed to consider the merits of the Bills comprised in this group, re-a-sembled in Room 30, at the usual hour this morning; Lord Granville Somerset in the chair. THE SOUTS-EASTERN SCHEMES. Mr. G R EGORY w a heard on behalf of Lady Spencer, who complained that the Mid Kent line would seriously injure her properta at Mereworth. In the e -.mei 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 wbo appeared for the South-Eastern Company to disclose the terms which had been come to with Sir Percy Dyke. Mr. Avails had nn difficulty whatever in acceding to the request, ab hough to do so was irregular. The agreement was that they should not make the Parliamentary line with out the consent of Sir Per. y Dske ; hut he must tell the Committee, at the same time, that they would have power to make the deviated line laid d. wn on their Wang. 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 ERIGHTON SCHEMES. Mr. TALBOT then proceeded to oven the case for the Brighton Company. He commenced his address by declaring, that it this contest were to be decided, not by the re sults to be drawn from the map, but upon the principle of " vested rights," it would be necessary for him to go largely into retrospective matters hearing 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 to be altogether fallacious, and when the proper tune arrived he should be prepared with evidence to sub stantiate this statement. Having touched upon this pre liminary point, he would now go into the prima tacit case of his clients. The Committee were aware that he hod the honour to represent a company which consisted of two partners—first, the Linden and Brighton, and, secondly, the London and Croydon. Now the line of the latter company was laid out and constructed at an enormous expense, no less indeed than 100,0001. per mile, not so much with the view of accommodating London and Croydon traffic, 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 coming 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 tell-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 Dover at 3d. per mile, all they would have to pay to the Croydon, for toll, would be 3d. per mile for each passenger, minus the cost of working ten miles; or it they choe to convey the pas senger for ld. a mile. they would have to pay the Croydon no more ; so that in point of fact the South- Eastern had absolute control over the toll to be paid to the Croydon Company. He disposed of the allegation that the six miles of the South- Eastern line from Reigate to. Croydon would be rendered useless by the passing of a Mid Kent line, by directing the attention of the Committee to tne fact that those six miles might be made available for the Reading, Guildford, and Reigate line, and then proceeded to state that the South-Eastern had never come forward to supply the wants 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 C m pany had brought forward a coast line from Brighton threugh 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 the tnerits of compe titton as applied to railways, and impressing upon the minds 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 al ..an European question, and, according to tome, as an Asiatic question ; for it was said by one ot his Learned Friends, Mr. Hildyard, he believed, that these lines had "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 ( ta t i grant artet. thr ie ß b rif s h ed ton his lin c e la s im an t d o infuseniake this newe d bo e lim m )°dp al a i in d n3t-o9 u bt p hi : et n t the Commotee ou the ground that, in so far as the itrightoe mid K en t li ne, as between Maidstone and London, and Laudon and Tunbridge, were somewhat shorter in disiance than the com peting scheme of the South-Eastern Company, k ,reuld better accommodate the population of the districts through which it passed; iraleed the Brgliton Mid Kent line accommodated a considerably larger popwation than the South Eastern. It would pass through all the large towns on the route. while the South-Eastern linealtogether avoided them, in the same way t hat their existing line did. It was true the works on the Brighton line were heavy, but not so heavy as to be insurmountable, while the cost of the Brighton line from Locdon to Tunbridge would fall far short of that of the South-Eastern, as between Lewisham and Oxford the ex cess of coat on the South-Eastern line, he repr.isented, would be 130,0001. The earth works on the South-Eastern line would be 2,550,000 yards; on the Brighton it would be 1,500,000 yards. The tunnelling on the South-Eastern would bebe 9 n 6 , 3 an ) y -ar v d i s act ; u o ets n the on t h l Brighton ig o h u t ' h it - the Brighton line. The Committee at this point of the Learned Counsel's ad- E 2 altn y , a b rd u s ; no T n h e e o r n e ad dress determined to adjourn -till tO•tiViefow (to-day). REGISTRY of BIRTHS and DEATHS DURING THE WEEK ENDING APRIL 10. Deaths registered in the week. Births registered in the meek. Males ... ... ... 527 Males ... ... ... 776 Females ... ... 524 Females ... ... 713 Total . . 1.051 Total ... 1,489 TUB LATE GALES.—On. Tuesday forenoon it com menced to blow very freshly from the westward, and to wards the afternoon increased to s hurricane. The usual decapitation of chimuies, the unroofing of slates and tiles, and consequent danger to street passengers, was as great as has been witnessed in the city for a long time. Many persons were thrown down by the violence of the gale, and some very narrow escapes made during its continuance. In Leith Roads some of the vessels drugged their anchors a considerable distance, and in the dock the mast of a Greenock trader snapped close by the deck. and went over alongside. One of the steam-tugs, em ployed in towing out the boats used in cleaning the har bour was unable to make Leith Pier again, and had to run for it before the wind. It is understood the crew found safety in one of the harbours on the Fife coast. It is earnestly to be hoped that the effects of the gale at sea will not prove to be of a disastrous description.— Edinburgh Evening Post. LUTON.—UNEX.PECTED APPROPRIATION.—A few days ago a tureen of soup disappeared from the premises of Mr. Williamson, the clerk to the justices, in a some what mysterious manner. The cook prepared a quantity of rich soup and set it on the pump to cool down. Directly afterwards a police - man brought a vagrant into the yard to be examined upon some charge ; they noticed the smt-lcing bowl, and the prisoner, being very cold and hungry, thought he might be allowed to taste a little of the "pot liquor." The policeman saw no objec tion, and the man forthwith "I eked the platter clean." The astonishment of both may be imagined when they learned from the angry ceok that they had actually cheated a lawyer out of his own dinner, and that too k wi 0 ver71.411. utjustiamwausiliri494.4ll% GREAT WESTERN RAIL WAY OF BENGAL. A special general meeting of the shareholders in this company was held at the London Tavern, Bishops gate-street, yesterday, for the purpose of receiving the report, and confirming the arrangements made by the directors for an amalgamation with the East Indian Rail way Company. General M'Leod occupied the chair. The SECRETARY read the directors' report, which stated that the railway had been originally projected to connect Calcutta with the deep waters of the Ganges, at Rajmahal, to be known as the Calcutta and Ganges Grand Junction Railway Company, a name that was cbanged for the present on the 23 , 1 April, 1845. It was arranged, through the late Dwarkanauth Tagore, that Carr Tager° and Co. should be agents for the company in India, with powers to allot 20 000 shares in Bengal, 10 000 in Bombay, and 10,000 in Madras. By advice* from India, it appeared that 10.222 shares in all had been allotted, and 4.708 paid upon. The railway was favourably noticed by the East Indian Company s Government in Bengal, in June, /846, and early this year conditions were submitted by the East Indian Com pany, under which they would ext etc' their support to Indian railways, a mottification of which, however, had been sought by the directors. But, in the measttime, the directors succeeded in effecting an arrangement with the East Indian Railway for amalgamation wi; h that com pany on the following terms, accepted on both sides:— 14. The suhscrib;d stares in the Great Western Ben gal Railway Company to be exchanged fdr au equal ❑umber of shares in toe consolidated company. 2d. The relative expenses of the two companies to be equitably adjusted by mutual arrangements. 3d. Three of the directors of the Great Western Bengal Railway Company to join the consolidated company. _ _ 4th. Claims of the officers who may be diFplaced by the amalgamation to be considered by the consolidated board. The balance-sheet produced showed receipts amount ing to 113201. ; disbursements 7,0441. ; leaving a balance of 4,2761., with no outlying debts—the expen diture being something under 3s. 21. a share. Tha CHAIRMAN said he h.d but little to say in re. gard to their peculiar position, .which he hoped they would sanction and confirm. It would be the more un necessary, as Sir George Larpent had the other day given so very able a report of the whole conditions and state of the amalgamation. He felt it necessary to state, however, that they were about tb be raj' cted at the East In :ian Company's Beard, and they were about to call a meeting, in ord.!. to wind. up, when a proposal was made for amalgamation with the East Indian Railway Company, which the directors considered to be of a nature not to be rejected or lost. They had tried to have a greater number of the directors in the consoli dated board, but that was not conceded, and they thought it best to accept the conditions which were offered. The Chairman concluded, by moving that the report be received, adopted, and printed. RICHARD HARTLEY KENNEDY, Esq.. in seconding the motion, said the calculation of the expense on the pro posed line of 900 miles had been made by the East Indian Railway Company at 17,0001. a mile. He was strongly of opinion that that sum was quite the outside calculation, for if a canal in the very same route was reckoned at 3,000/. per mile, he did think a railway might be made much cheaper than the rate that had been taken in that calculation, say something like 10.0001. a mile ; for the labour in that country was very cheap, twenty cubic yard 3 of earthwork being accomplished at 2s. In remarking on the traffic returns put forth oy the East Indian Railway Com pany. which showed a dividend of 18 per cent. he expressed his opinion that that was very much be low what the traffic would ac'uslly be. He risked this 'pinion on the traffic that must be created in Indian cotton and corn—the later, most excellent, being capable of being landed in England at 36s a quarter from Bengal. The motion w-is put and carried. Mr. Weimer proposed the confirmation of the amal gamation. to.d the condi.ions.of the same, with the East Indian Railway Company, which passed unanimously. Mr. CARDEN prop, ed a Yule of thauks to the direc tors, which was carried. The CHAIRMAN responded, and the meeting dispersed. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION HOUSE. RAILWAY MATTERS. —Mr. Stern, of the house of Stern Brothers. Angel-court, Thiogmorton-street, ap peared before the Lord Mayor, and made the following statement:— In 1845 a company was established called the Bordeaux and Mediterranean Railway Company, at No. 2, Cow per. 3-court, Cornhill. They issued a large amount of scrip shares, on Which they 'ted'eived an instalment of 2/. per share. On the 18th of May. 1846, there appeared in the Times the following advertkeiro rit:— " BORDEAUX AND AIEDITERRANEAN RAILWAY COM PANY.— fhe 14.;nglieh directors of the Borteaux and Mediterrane,n Railway Company Leg to ieform their sub-cribers chat an arrangement for uniting this company with the other three exiting ceunpattiel having been completed, the direct concession 01 the lint was, on the 28th of February, definitively granted to the Amalgamated cempany. The subscrtb, is in this comoany will have one definitive share ter eight shares, on which a deposit of 4/ per share has been paid, and the balance will be returned so soon as the necessary forms are gone through. J. MAITLAND, Secretary." On the 9th of July there appeared, in the same paper, the advertisement copied below, s*hed toyethe st cretar, : "Bordeaux and Mediterranean Railway Company.— The directors of :this company have to announce, that , the direct concession of the lease of the railway to four ' consolidated companies approved by the French Chain ' biers, has obtained the sanction of Royal ordinance, ami is now the law of France. The shun holders of this company are entitled to one share on which 4/ bas been paid, for every eight of their original s .becriptiens, end, together with their certificates, will receive back three-fourths of their deposits. It is hoped that the certificates will be ready for delivery on Monday the 3d of August, but at all events the surplus deposit will be payable on and a tit- that day, on appli cation at the office of the company, from eleven tilt one." Now when we called to receive our 57i consolidated shares, and 690/., the remainder in money, which they owe, the directors refused to deliver either the one or the other, but they asked us to sign a paper, which is to authorise their solicitor to ent, r into mane litigation on our behalf against themselves. Of course we did not consent to do anything of the kind, being only desirous to receive our money and, scrip, according to the terms of their own advertisement. and on the face of which we trusted them with our scrip stares, according to the practice and urrang-ments adopted in other companies in similar citcuanaances. The LORD MAYOR—And what do yeu wish me to do in this case ? I admit-shat your statement and the con tents of the advertisements, make it rout a very strong one, and I am surprised that the promises held out to you should not have been performed. _ Mr. Stern—You see, my Lord , that, judging from the high respectebiuty of the directors, the char, holders c-,uld have expected nothing but , he moot com e lete and punctual performance of all that has appeared in the advertisements, signed by their secretary. Now, our object is to eurnwoe the secretary to account fur the ex maul-tidier) proceedings of the dir-ctors in ke, ping pea seseion of our rummy which they have received, applied, and premised to re pay. We consider it extremely odd that they should, instead of performing the prowis• s held forth in the advertisements, put us off with a pro position to sign a paper of which the following is a copy : "I.'o Messrs. Fry, L ixley, and Fry.—Gentlemen,— I hereby authorise you to 'else an action at law against all, or eith e r, o f t h e lol l owine gentlemen, &c. wt., directors of the Bur leaux and Mediterranean Railwa! • , for the reeovery of the prep , rtiun of the deposit due on the shares silreted to ale in that complu." The LORD MAYOR eta i it appear. d to him that inas much as the promise was a future and centineent pro wise, no fr nu 1 Could be e-t 'Wished ; that to cens!e ute a fraud it was necessa r y that there lutist be a false prrt. , nes existing before the delivery of the scrip ; hut if the Messrs. Stern should be advised that there was a suffi diem ease if corispiraty against the ditectors, then the remedy was to be found in an indiettneut As the case was not or e in which he cotisid. red that he hail imme diate eurisdietion, he most refer the applicants to tee author' y to which they might app, al against men tit such standing in society as the directors with decided effect. THE FORGERIES OF THE LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY SHARES.— tteltiern Farmeey, who was on Tuesday charges upon suspicion of having been c,ncern-d. With Horatio Nelson West, in forging Lon , don and South Western Railway shares was brought up for re-examit,ation. The evidence against him on the first day of examinations was of so slight a nature. arid the impression made in his tavour by the manner in which he denied all knewledge- of any dishonourable transaction in the share dealing its which he was a par ticipator, was so decided. that the Lord Mayor men tioned, on leaving the chair, that if no additional testi mony should be produced next day, bail would be taken for his appearance. Mr. Clarkson, and Mr. Morgan, the solicitor to the company, appeared for the prosecution. Mr. fahour dm, of Lincoln's Inti•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 tee London and Seuth Western Company, on the 25th of February last. I produce one of those 40 shares. Mr. Clarkson—lt Kill be recollected that the prisoner yesterday declared that he was never at Manchese r. The witness, in his cross-examination, said--I don't recollect the date, l except that I took the prisoner to Mr. Bowker's office on the following mornin;, and he re ceived the money from Mr. Kinder. The scrip has never been out of my 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 oil the back. They were put on before I got it. I first saw the accused the day before I went to Mr. Bowker. I am quite certain of his identity. Mr. John Buckley Kinder, clerk to Mr. Joseph Bowker, of Broughton, near Manchester—l remember Mr. Tomlin-on bringing to me on Friday, the 25th of February, the prisoner, who passed then as Thomas Watson. He was brought to me by the last witness fur the purpose of selling us 250 London and South-Western shares. I purchased 50 of him, and sold 200 for him. 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. Tie Prisoner—l say, I never w as i n Manchester i n my life. I assert it in the face of all the world. Wm. Alfred Morgan, treasurer of the London and South Western Railway Company, Ist of January stated, that on the uary some new shares in the company were issued. The scrip produced is forged. Mr. Charles Tahourdin, the prisoner's attorney, then 42 P e d" 114 . 1 -witilek. Zs: wimaimidaillioitaricrthe _ defendant in the cause Whalley v. Farmery. He re ceived notic of trial for the York Assivs on the 24th of February. The Commission day being the bth of Marcb, he communicated that fact to Mr. Farmery, and had had several interviews with him on the subject of that cause. and Mr. Farmery went to Lecds by his direction to get up evidence. "I do not", said the witness, " believe the handwriting upon the receipt produced by Mr. Kinder 14 be the handwriting of Mr. Farmery." The prisoner was then remanded, the Lord Maya, after such evidence having refused to accept bail. BOW-STREET. • William Grayburn, who was examined on a charge of forgcry a few day back by altering an 81. cheque to 801.. with intent to defraud Messrs. Coutts, was brought up for final examination, and after the evidence was com pleted, there being no other case against him, he was fully committed to Newgate for trial. Richard Ma, tin alias Aubrey, a young man of fashion able appearance, was placed at the bar, charged stealina a coat from Mr. Jame s R a l p h, 150, Strand, and with obtaining goods from severa l tra d esmen by raise represertatioi,s. with Mr. Evenll, on behalf of the London Association for the Prot, ction of Trab, appeared for the several members who had been swindled by the prisoner and his associates It appeared that the prisoner selected a coat, valued 3 1 ., at the shop of prosecutor, and a messenger being sent with hin3 to the Alb.iny, in Piccadilly, where he said he occripi-d ch9eahnrs, he contrived to possess him' self of it, anti e , c:iperl by a back door. On being ar orchended on the 29th of March at his lodgings, 34, Walcot.stplare, by 'rho! nton and Whitaker, the detective ~ flicers, the coat was founl, with a vast quantity Of property belonging to other tradesmen. The pria, , nt.r said hie would reserve his defence, and he was fully committed tor trial. The prisoner was again chirged with felony under the following circumstances_:— Mr. aickinghatn, 14. Baker street, Portman-squarer hosier and el ver, stated that en the 18th March the soner called at his shop, and having looked out 0 varie'y of articles, which amounted to 111 14s. 6d-r directed them to be set t by seven o'clock in the evening precisely to Mr. Beauford Cooper, 3, Avenue-road, Re gent's•park, the rame and address which he gave Of himself, with the understanding that the goods should be paid for on delivery; in consequence of which they were packed up, but there being something auspicious in the circumstance he gave instructions to his assistant not to leava them witheur the money. George Clarke, assistant to the last witness, stated that he took the articles, as he was directed, and na arriving at the house the prisoner came in after him et the gate, and saki, " You have brought these things for me," to which witness replied, "Yes," at the same time giving him the bill, which he asked for. They bad got to the front door, which was opened by a boy, and the prisoner desired him to walk in. but first having got the parcel in his hand, suddenly darted into a shrubbery at the side of the house, where he escaped over a gate at the bottom of the garden. Witness immediately gave an alarm, and on returning to the house was informed that it had been occupied by a clergyman, who had left only a few days previous, and that Ito such person as the pri soner was ever known there. The prisoner was committed on this charge also for trial. Mr. Everill said in addition to the foregoing cases be had another charge against the prisoner, who was, there • fore, ordered to be further remanded. 4 RAILWA Y SHARE MARKETS- , LIVERPOOL, APRIL 14. • STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Birmingham and Dudley, 5 1 4 p.—Birmingham and Oxford Junction, 8% —Eastern Counties, York Extension, 1 dis.—East Lance - shire, New, % p.— Ditto, New (Scrip), Ils. 3d. p,—Edin- , burgh and Glasgow, Quarters, 17% Great Western, 171 ' Shares, 2 7 ,4 p.—Huddersfi e ld C ana l an d R a il way , 11 VI Leeds and Thirak, New, 1 dis.—Liverpool, Crosby, an' Southport, 2 dis.—London and North-Western, 171—Ditto New Quarters, 9% p..—Ditto (Grand Junction), Quarters, 16 p.—Ditto, 401. Shares (Lo n d on an d Manchester); 25 1,4 London, Manchester, and Birmingham. 66%—Manchester and Leeds, Fif bs (late West Riding Union), 1 p.—Mav ehester, She ffi eld, and Lincoln s hi re . Ei g h t h s , 1% dis,-." I%l4nel:tester and Southampton, 74 dis.—Midland 114%" . Ditto, New, 435. 941. p.—Newcastle and Berwick, New, 2 / p. —North St a ffo r d s hi re , 2% p.—Di tto ( A), 210—Scottis Central, 7 3 / 4 p —South-Eastern and Dover, No. 1, 2 p.— Y° 44 4 and Newcastle, P re f erence , 3 p.— Y or k and North Mi dl a n d Preference, 8% p. MANCHESTER, AMT. 14. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Ambergate, Notting: ham, and Boston, 3 / 4 —East Lancashire (late B. and r•P New (scrip), 11-16—Fleetwood, Preston, and West Billing Junction, ; 3 / 4 Gla-gow and Dumfries, % Great Nortbernt 3 / 1 — Iludder , field and Manchester Railway and Canal, 1/ Ditto, %—London and North-W e st e r n , Ness', Ditto, Manch es t er an d Bi rm i ng h am , 67—Ditto, Qutrte„ ( Ft). 5 ?4—Dii t o . ditto (C), 6.4—Man c h es t er , B ux ton, Pit ;ock, and Midland, par— Manchester and Leeds, 32/. Sbil" 7 (late Extension), I 3 ( 1 -31a , :chester, Sheffield, and Lincoln; shire (Sheffield and Li, , ,coliishire), 2 1 ,(—Manchester Southampton, 18 6il.—North Staffordshire, 2 5-16.. ham Ailial.re . N.--Prestm, arid Wyre, 34 - Ditto, Sixths, 5 --:-;uuth Staffordshire, 1 / 2 —West Riding Union, dale, 9-16. LEEDS, APRIL 14. STOCK EXCHANGE -The sales are-Ambervte, Notting- • ham, and Boston, 153. dis.-East I.,,ncash , ire (Blackburn *ad a P t7d st ie% " " t et N Y e - w ris i li t i s re, 6d ss .P .7 - iis t .L l S - e N a T t ew No S r e t r l i i p er . n l , ;l l . 3s P ..67l. E d7 -Leeds and Deasincre, New Extensions (pink), si. p... ! Leeds and Thirak, 3 , -k i dis.-Ditto, New, 1% dis -Ditto, Preference. i 6s. p -London and Brighton and South Coot, Fifteenths, 2s. p.-Malton and Driffield Junction, Is. p.--• Manchester a A Leeds, 321. Shares (late Extensions). 1 1 4 -Ditto, West Biding Uni•tn, 20s. 6d. p.-Midland, Prefer ence, 2 p.- ortli British, Halves, 15-Ditto, Thirds, 21.15. p.- Ditto, Quarters (late Carlisle Branch), 265. ~p.-Ditt , " Exten-ion (scrip), 10 $ . p.-N or th ern C ount i es Union, 2 7e dis.-North. We tern, 203. 6d. dis.-Sheffield. Rotberhe o9 and Goole, 20$. dis.-Sh ro p s hi re U n i on, 114 dis.--Wbo,' dale Junction,% dis. EDINBURGH, APRIL 13. STocK ExCIIANGE.-The sales are--Aberdeen, 271. 10t1 • Airdrie and Batligate, 3/. 1:4.-Arbroath and Forfar. i (4 . ; 155.-Ditto, Halv e s, 15/ -Ayr and Gall o way, 2!. Is. 6(1 :,.',. Caledonian, 26/. 7 s . 6d.-D itto, N ew, 2/. 2 5. --Caledontr and Dumbart , lishire, 2. 2s. 6d.-Clydesdale Junction. 3 .." -Deeside, a/. 55.-Dunblane , Donne, and Callender, 7 -Dundee and Arbroath, 42/. 105.-Ditto. New. 44 °' 1 : 30L-Ditto. New, No. 2, 301.-Ditto, New, No. 3, 44 -4 i • -Dundee and Northern Junction, 2/. 4s. 6d.-Dundesc. A s l4 ' Perth, 384-Ditto, New, 19/. -East of Fife, 21. 165.-••• • jg t Lothian Central, 2/. 13s. 6 (4-Edinburgh and Batbgaterv" . 10s.-Edinhurgh and Glasgow, 711. 15$. ex div.--Mt t : Halves, 191. 10 $ . ex d iv.-Ditto, Quarters, 174 155' ". ...- div.-Edinburgh, Leith, and Graviton, 201. 2s. 6d,..-Dit Preference, 211.-Ditto, New, 21. 178.-Ditto, Quarters , ft.'" -Edinburgh and Northern, 154 103.-Ditio, Nero, 3 1 . , 1 .,`"" . ---1 . .)i1t0, Newport, 7/. 7s. 6d,-Ditto. ditto, New, 2/. 1i......" Edinburgh and Perth (New), 21. 19s. 6d.-Ditto, 118 , 0 • 1 / 70 , 11. Os. 6d..-Glasgow ilict- Ayrshire.•6o/. 15 3 ,-Ditto, 3 -71;;,, Stock, •i taivelo4o.'l,-: . 5/. 55.-Ditto. -di t n 7 Halves, No. 2, 8 / 1- Qtiarters, - 15/. 15a-Glasgow, _ Di t i - ir, tries, and Carlisle, .51. 7., 6d.-Glasgow and Garnk. 4 ~ 39/.-Glasgow General Terminus, 121,..55.-Glasgowfola. Greenock, 181-Ditto, Halves, 91.-Dittq, ference, 0 , 4 ",..." - Glasgow. Kiltnarnoek, and Ardrossan ' 18a.-, ri s „ North of England,' 231/-Great North r.f ' Sec) land, 24 , - 4 , - t a. . Pa l -Great Northern (late Direct Northern) 3/...-Ditt5k7 .. ...." London and York), 2/ -Manchester .and Leeds, lvn4j. Ditto, Sixteenths, 71. 17s. 6d.-Newcastle and 4rwick. -._ • 10- , .-North British, 32/. ex div.-Ditto, Heti , * 1 , 5 , 1 .. 6 : : Ditto, Quarters, 3/. 7:1.-New Qusrters (scrip). u- -- 11 7 Ditto, Thirds, 3L-Ditto; Fitch, 61. 15s. ex. div.--Seot ti Central, 24/. 1 0s.-Scottish Graed Junction, I/. 31. 61 Scottish Midland, 20/. 15 5.--Shrewsbury and H er eford, 1 / , 105.-Shrews bury, Oswestry. 'and ~C,nester, 101.-Dit t° l New, 1/.-Stirling arid Dunfermline. 41-Stirling sou Midland, 21. 7 a. -Wi s h aw and Coltness. 491. 10s. ex div. York and Newcastle, 321.-Ditto, New, 13/. 10 5 .-Ditte, Pre' to 61. 155.-Digect Bombay and Madras, 35. 9, at East Indian, 6s. W.-Great North of India. 33 . - I tt. , Southern of Madras, 2s. -Madras, Nellore, and Arcot, 10. GLASGOW, APRIL 13. STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Ayr and Galloway' 404. 6d.-CaledoLian, New, 41a. 6d.-.Direst Bombay nna Madra-, 3.. 9d.-Dundee and Northern Junction, +13.1.. f9 d / . .. - - Ed Dit la te: d iii3 T w. 7° % - „c l l )2 Pei - th li (New Co.). 608.- b E u a , s .u t ti lint a llitir, 7s.- East Lothian .C(entrAl,l.l2,. Quarters, 17% -1 , ....i oburm ' 'l ids ow General Terminus, 13%-- Di` to . lialv: ' ; 21 ' 6 ' 1.---(j . g 37 t . - Ditto, Halves, No. 2, 1 •irnnek, and Ay r , i.` t i r_ g a;, t4 „ l ": . Dumfries, and Carlisle, 5%-li d lit s t , gow, Kit niCi.:r.n2,3,csk. 6d. - ir ik k l i aji t e il h ii e v a h te , r 24 an t4....N ou or t t h h a ß ms: 11:h. N e w Quarters (:wrip), 223.-Scottisk Central, 251.• Stirling and Dunfermline, - am. . BARLEY.-- This valuable grain, which may be said to be the '• of lite" ut so many of the humbl er classes of South Wales. hms been so exceodingly sear/ in this and the t.o udj inning counties of Pe m b ro ke „,sr e Cardigan, as to hare occasioned great distre.s. price, consequently. has b. en enormous, as much "- 7s. 6d. a bushel in many places, at the same time that t he labouring poor have been obtaining from 7s. to 8• s week wages. Cinder the-e circumstances we axe re; juiced to n o d th a t a rn , rchant of thi s town h as had t he foresight to import se , eral cargoes from different forei ports. We hop e it may prove -beneficial to the spirit s importer as it cer a i , lily will be t o t hi s ne i g hb ou rboo —Carmarthen Journal. BITS. On the 10th i ns t ., at Beauc R ha H mp House, Leamingtoth lady of Robert Dl`Alpine, Esq., of a daught e r. IL On the 10th inst., at Tottenham, the lady of William A.- 11 Esq., of a son. On the 11th inst., at South Willingham Rectory, Lot' co lr shire, the wife of the Rev. A. Corbett, of a son. On the 12 t h i ust., at Clapham-rise, Mrs. William G. JO"' son, of a sun. - - On the I2th inst., at Jacob's court, Binfield, Berk* the lady of Captain W. T. 1-1411, of a son. Ott the 13th inst., at Norwood, Mrs. J. 11. Rowland, 0f!1°.....-°P. MARRIED. On the 10th inst. at St. Peter's Church, Pimlico, Wart Charles, son of the late C o l one l Si r S. G. Higgins, KC.B•t '— Mary Ann, daughter of the late John Curt, Esq. On the 9th inst., at Edinbur g h, Mi c h ae l G ra yh urs t Heir at. ~g Esq., of I s li ng t on , t o I sa b e ll a , secon d d aug h ter o f Kobe Christie, Eq., of Edinburgh. .' DIED. At Godstone, Surrey, on Sunday hist, Mr. W. Beauford• Lite of the Old Drury Tavern, Brydges-street, Covent-gard e ' On the Bth inst., at Merton-place, Turnbull-green? "'— London, Esq., aged 78. On the 9th inst., b t Cheltenham, Frances, youngest dangb ter of the late Edmund Turner, Esq., aged 82. On the 10. h inst., Martha, wife of Mr. F. Sherborn, Be de font, Middlesex, aged 64. only On the 10th inst., at New Windsor, Mary Sophia, daughter of Mr. Soley, surgeon, aged 8. On the 10th inst., at Versailles, the Rev. E. Brodie. On the 11th inst., at Bishops Stortford, Mr. J. J. CM"' surgeon. valid On the 11th inst., at Sheerness, Mrs. Mary Fabian, -- of the late Captain C. M. Fabian, R.N., aged 62. On the 12th inst., at Highfield, Torquay, Eliza Juba ) * widow of the late W. Jackson, Esq., aged 63. On the 12th inst., at 13entworth Rec.ory, Haute, the Thomas Mathews. J. London: Printed awl Publisher) by MIIII.DO YOUNU, et ' , trawl, Printer, et The BtoaOe. Nei. I le s Str , nd, th5„.. 4 4 of the evroy, Lathe County ot AtteLikettreiMund#,--0-1"*" tft '.lll I