The Sun. — London, England, 1847-05-19 00:00:00

4176737017;;;;;;Iof limited s ervice' or of such tra ran of prolonged service, any soldier being in any y of her Mul esty's colonies, shill claim his discharge, and shall signil y to the Governor of such colony, through the . commanding r. officer of the regiment in which he may be serving, his desiru to re main in such a co lon y , it shall be lawful for such:Gent-LA ,if he shall think fit, wilds the consent of such commanding offs t er, to permit such soldier to remain therein ; and, thereupoes, such soldier shall be finally discharged, and shall not be ent id (ed to claim to be conveyed to England at the public charge' ;It any future period. Earl GREY said that he could not assent to the amer idlatent. The number of men discharged in the Indian army w as very , small, and se great was the disposition of the soldie rs:, who might be discharged there, to remain in the country, tl sat very Tew of them would avail themselves of the privilege cef going home at the expiration of their term of service. The prin ciple, therefore, of keeping soldiers in the army long er than was provided by their term of service, was both inexpedient and ennecessary. Besides the object which this clause con templated was secured by other provisions in the Bill. After a few words from Earl Grey, the Earl of Ellenbo rough, and Lord Combermere. Lord STANLEY thought this was a question of very great importance, and he appealed to the Noble and Gallant :Duke, whether the soldier should not be discharged in Eng!ian6 after having served his term of service in India. He bel'ieved that the disbanding of a number of soldiers in India after theiir ser vice would, in some eircumstances, be attended 'with. the greatest danger. From the moment these soldiers were dis discharged, they were left uncontrolled by any military, taw, at the same time provided with subsistence. What must he the effect of discharging those seldiers and leaving them to w ander through the country without any military discipline whatever. Earl GittEl said he would call the attention of the .douse to the facts of tee case. By the fourth cause of the Bill it would be seen that some of the objections that had beers advanced against the measure had been met, and they would find that the soldiers were to be sent home by the first convenient oppor tunity that might occur, of which they were to be judges; for they could not deprive them of the right to exercise their judgment, which must regulate the question. Tee Duke of WELLINGTON said that he agreed with the Noile Earl that it would be extremely inconvenient to allow a number of soldiers to be without control in India. There almuld he some control over them, at the same time that ar rangements should be made to provide the soldiers with the means of returning home.—( Hear.) The amendment was then withdrawn, and the remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to. The House then resumed. POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion for the order of the day for the third reading of this Bill, Lord MONTEAGLE, in moving the amendment of which he had given notice (which was the same that the Noble Lord had proposed on the second reading of th e B i ll), sa id th ere were greatinconveniences connected with the working of the Bill. He had heard of a case of great hardship with respect to a cler gyman of the Established Church. If the present Bill was agreed to, it would be productive of very much of what was objectionable with respect to the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy, and retained all that was objectionable in the voluntary principle. They would be not only endowing the Ro man Catholic clergy, which he wished their Lordships had the energy to do, and which they must eventually do, but they would be doing that at the present time by the sacrifice of the Protestant interest. This Bill was not only objection able on this point but on other points also. It would in its operation be dangerous to the elective franchise of Ireland. There was no constitutional principle better understood in Par liament than that the receipt of parochial relief disfranchised the voter.—( Hear.) He need refer only to one authority on the subject. In the statute book there was an Act of Parlia ment which declared that the receipt of parochial assistance did disfranchise the voter, and that he could not register. In looking at England they must be practically acquainted with the work ing of law. It was said that they would, by opposing the present Bill, be infringing the privileges of the other House. But the subject was too important to be affected by such a con sideration, and called for the notice of their Lordships. He gave notice that he would ask these questions of her Majesty's Government, which he proposed to do, and it was no matter whether he asked those questions on the second or third reading. of the 13111. The present was a question which certainly was orie that ought to be considered as very peculiar. They must look at the Bid with reference to its administration. Under the system, that the present measure would introduce, they would find it most difficult to afford relief w i t h ou t very serious ineonveniencies. The Earl of WICKLOW said that his Noble Friend had stated to them a circumstance which had come to his know ledge, and of which he also had taken cognizance, but he could not conceive how any one landed proprietor could withhold double the amount of the rate levied for the three months under the existing law. He was informed from very good authority that the deduction of the whole year's rate, out of the six months eharge, had taken place, and he certainly thought that some remedy should be found for a system which admitted of so much above. If it were not too late, and in his opinion it was never too late to do an act of justice ; he called upon her Majesty's Government to take such measures as would prevent the repetition of these acts of injustice. The Earl of LUCAN (who was very indistinetively heard) said he could mention several cases in the county of Mayo in which this abuse existed. The law had nothing to do with the amount of these. A rate was struck, and was deducted in due course from the rent charge. He did not mean to say that if a rate was struck on the 2d of May it could be deducted from the rent charge of the Ist of May, it would be charged upon the next rent charge in the whole sum whenever that might be. The Earl of CLANCARTY said that under the Temporary Relief Act, food only was given outof the workhouse, but under the Permanent Act, clothes and money were given. The Tem porary Act was already sufficiently successful, and he, there fore, thought that the Noble Earl was a little too sanguine as to the effect of the Permanent Act. This measure ought not to be applied to Ireland at all, it was better calculated for English towns. He was extremely surprised to see sent up to that House the other day a Bill called the Poor Removal Act, by the provision of which Ireland was compelled to support not only her own poor—but the casual poor of England. and Scotland who went over there, whilst the Irish poor who came to England and Scotland were entitled to claim their being sent back. Upon such a state of things it was scarcely possible to look with patience, and he hoped that when the measure came under discussion this irregularity would be re medied. He hoped also that the clauses of this present mea sure would, before they were passed into a law, be remodelled so as better to meet the wants of the country to which they were to be applied. Lord BEA U MON T said that the clergy hail one cause of complaint ; they were empowered to levy rates according to their incomes, and therefore if the rate was 20s. they took it, but if it were 2.55. they lost ss. This was a matter which ought to be remedied by the Government. Earl GREY said that with regard to the observation of the Noble Lord (the Earl of Clancarty) he was not then pre pared to enter upon the matter fully. With regard to the observations of the Noble Lord who had last spoken, the evil he complained of could only be remedied by the Church Tem poralities Act, which might at some future time be brought under their notice. The Marquis of HERTFORD wished to make a few observa tions upon this measure before it received the assent of their Lordships. It was true that for the last 32 years the landlords of Ireland had been drawing their incomes free of all taxation, and this measure was the only one which could have been de vised to remedy that. It would be the commencement of a new system, under which he hoped that the country would emerge from the trouble and difficulty under which she had been so long labouring. This measure had been long required by that country, to effect an equal distribution of the expense of maintaining the poor, and also create a new description of labourers who, under its operation, would no longer be sub jected to the misery with which they had for many years past been too constantly afflicted. He felt that this Bill was likely to effect the social revolution which was so absolutely essential to the welf are o f I re l an d , an d t h ere f ore h e should give it his cordial support. Earl FITZ WILLIAM said that in his opinion the measure , would be attended with not only unsatisfactory but disastrous results, and in that opinion all those who were, like him, con nected with the two countries were ready to concur. A great responsibility existed with regard to this measure, but he did not think, with many others, that that responsiblity rested upon the Ministry. He felt too deep an interest in their successful government to admit that the rosponsibillty rested entirely with them. It rested upon others, who, if they had not been first in the introduction of this measure, had at least, in igno rance of its real effects, carried it into operation. It was the duty of every one to assist those who were in distress, if they had it in their power, but he thought that some discrimination was necessary as to the nature of the relief to be given and from what source was it to come? They would find in the Act of Elizabeth the evident intention that the land alone was not to bear the burden of the maintenance. Such a provision could not stand for twelve months—( Hear, hear)—and, he would be bound to say, that if Parliament were to dissolve in July or August, and meet again in Septem ber or October, that before the end of six months they would be under the discreditable necessity of acknowledging that their legislation had been wrong. After a few words in explanation from the Marquis of HERTFORD, The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that he thought that the way only by which the preamble of the Bill was affirmed, both in that and in the other House of Parliament, contra dicted the assertion of the Noble Lord, that all who were con nected with the two countries joined with him, in his opinion, as to the inefficacy of this measure. They had heard much of the dangers of this measure, and the ends which were to result from the adoption of the principle of out-door relief. He begged to remind the Noble Earl who had last spoken, that in the west of Ireland, in the counties of Galway and Mayo, there was hardly such a thing as a poor-house at all. He believed that for some years to come the maintenance of the poor would be a great incumbrance upon the land of Ireland, but that was an unavoidable evil. He for one took upon himself a share of the responsibility of the measure, and he entertained a fervent hope that it would prove successful. Lord MOUNTCASHEL was just as convinced that it would not prove successful, as the Noble Marquis opposite was that it would, and therefore he could not refrain at that late hour of the night from entering his protest against the measure. Ireland had no manufactures to depend upon like this country, and he was afraid the law would press heavily upon the landed proprietors. Be that however as it may, he was strongly im pressed with a conviction that the land of Ireland would never be able to sustain the poor of the country, either in times of prosperity or in times of depression. After a few words from Lord ABINGEB. and Lord Mosr- EAGLE, the latter of whom moved the insertion of a clause, .art GREY resisted the insertion of the clause. After some further conversation, the clause was negatived without a division. On Cla use 1 0 Earl GR EY t ' zowsed an amendment. The Earl of on the clause, an d Le NBOROUGH made a few observations which he believed wouldtlted into the general merits of the Bill, ear be it fo o u u n t d . wholly inoperative, as there was no machinery to Earl GREYYparatedeprecatedclause, ethe discussion of the merits of the Bill on each se ....ti r l.be hoped that their Lordships would not follow the Noble unusual a course. After a few words from Earl G in se' The Earl of WICKLOW saidrithEatYhte retained the opinion he had expressed the other night olt.thi ,:vere the only one before their Lordships. If the objection now e subdect that could be urged, they could insert a a e tenant to surrender in the same way as clause to enable th e expired. the lease had not The Earl of CLANCARTY said he could not azre w;,,, what was urged in fa vour of them. The sam e poweiwase with given of subdividing the land, and there was no improvement effected by the present measure. Lord iIEDESDALE said, that at present there was no power to enable the proprietor to make arrangements with respect to the matter with the occupier, unless they could make some arrangement between the landlord and tenant on this point, they could not expect that the measure could work, and he would, therefore, take the clause of which he had given notice, to empower the landlord to make an agreement with the tenant. _ Earl GREY said that he was not prepared to oppose the clause, but he thought that it would be likely to endanger . the Bill in another plae.e- if the a men d men t s o f hi s Noble Fr i end were agreed to. Lord MONTEAGLE said that as he had already stated he thought they should not be influenced so far by any interference with the privileges of the other House, and he would certainly press fora I: ision on his clause. Lord CAMPBELL thought that the Noble Lord ought:not to persist in the course be was adopting. Lord MONTEAGLE called the attention of their Lord ships to the Duke of Wellington's clause in the late Poor-law Bill which was introduced into the House of Lords. The clause was of a similar character to the one now under consideration, and the House of Commons accepted it as an amendment, which the House of Lords had a right to make. Lord REDESDALE could not see on what grounds the House of Commons could reject the clause after accepting the one of the Duke of Wellington referred to. Earl GREY said the effect might be, whatever right this House had in the matter, to make the amendment, the House of Commons might not so readily accept ether amendments, as they would otherwise do were this clause not introduced into the Bill. The clause was then withdrawn. Earl GREY moved an amendment on the 16th clause, which had been referred to the other night, which was to enable the agents of great proprietors to act as ex officio guardians in their absence. After a few observations from Lords REDESDALE and MONTEA OLE, The amendment was agreed to. Lord ABINGER then moved a clause to the following ef fect ;—" And whereas it would be expedient to fix some rea sonable limit on the amount of the rate to be levied for the relief of the poor, be it therefore enacted that the whole of such rate, whether levied on the landlord or upon the tenant, or upon both, shall in no case exceed one-sixth in the pound on the net revenue." Earl GREY said the effect of the clause 'would be to raise no rate whatever above 35. 4d. in the pound. He thought it would be very enormous to make any such restriction in a case of great destitution such as prevailed in Ireland. The clause was then withdrawn. Earl FITZWILLIAM proposed a clause that the Bill should continue in operation for three years, and to the end of the next then ensuing session of Parliament, and no longer. After a few words from Earl GREY, the clause was nega tived, without a division. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. _ ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Earl GREY gave notice that, on Thursday next, his Noble Friend, the President of the Council would move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Friday week. Their Lordships then adjourned, at Twelve o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May Is. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD JUNCTION RAILWAY. On the motion for taking into consideration the re port of the Committee on the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway, and Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railway Amalgamation Bill, Sir F. THESIGER moved that the Bill be referred back to the same Committee, with an inten tion to hear the petitions of Sir Henry Verney and others, and the petitions of other shareholders in the Birmingham and Oxford Railway, against the said Bill. The Hon. and Learned Member entered at considerable length into the details of the proceedings which had been taken by the shareholders and the directors of these lines. The Birmingham and Oxford Railway, he said, was passed in the last session of Parliament, and power was given in the Act to sell or lease the line to the Great Western Company. It appeared that the shareholders of the Birmingham and Oxford line were dissatisfied with the price which the Great Western Company gave them, namely, 10/. ss. a share, and a meeting was called, at which resolu tions were passed expressive of such opinions, and requiring the directors to repudiate the agreement, and a requisition was signed, calling upon them to convene a meeting under the clauses of the Dissolution Act. This, however, received no attention, and the allotted number of days was allowed to pas: over without the meeting being called. The shareholders, however then called it themselves, and the shares represented were no fewer than thirty-five thousand ; the directors were present also, but they only represented one thousand shares. It was proposed at that meeting and carried unanimously, that the proprietors wholly disap proved of the amalgamation, and the sale to the Great Western Company ; and that they did not consider themselves bound by the proceedings of the di roctors. A petition was then preseeted to the House stating these facts, which was referred to the Committee, who in their turn refused to eetrtain it, considerin g that the petitioners had no locus standi. It was stated also that there was a rule that share holders should not be heanl against their directors. There was no such rule, and if there was, the sooner it was abolished the better. Let him suppose a number of persons in a canal company, and that a general meet ing resolved that they should turn it into a tailway, by a small majority, did they think the minority ought to be bound by such a decision ? Would it not be a very hard case that they should be so ? Now, he should hardly have thought it necessary to cite precedents from the Courts of Chancery on this point, but he could also quote from precedents of their own, and he would, in the first place, instance the case of Henry Smith v. the Exeter and Falmouth Railway, in the year 1837. The petitioner objected that his money should be expended on the con struction of a portion of the line for which he had signed the subscription deed, and the Committee, after due deliberation, decided that the petitioner having signed the Parliamentary contract which empowered the provisional committee to make any, or such portion of the line as in their decision they might think fit, they could not grant him redress. In 1342 Mr. Harkhurst was heard on his petition against the Bolton and Preston Railway, and there the decision was in his favour, be cause the provisional directors had extended the powers with which they were in the first place invested. Thus the House would see that the same prin ciple was affirmed by two very opposite decisions. In 1844, in the cases of the Northern and Eastern Railway, and the Glasgow and Garnkirk Railway Com panies, petitioners, being shareholders in the two com panies, appeared before Committees, and were allowed to be heard. He confessed that this appeared to him to be an a fortiori case, because it was not the case of individual shareholders, but the case and petition of the whole company. It was the unanimous petition of almost the whole body of shareholders, holding upwards of 33,000 shares. Would the House for one moment permit him to call attention to the mode in which the parties who were promoting this Bill were compelled to proceed under the ex traordinary circumstances in which they were placed. Allow him to call the attention of the House to a recital contained in the preamble of this Bill. Of course it was the duty of the parties promoting the Bill to prove the whole of the preamble. Now the preamble stated that the Birmingham and Oxford Junction, and the Birmingham, Dudley, and Wolverhampton Railway Companies were desirous of being united into one company for the purpose of jointly executing the two lines aforesaid. It was a most material clement in proving the preamble to the Bill that it should be shown that the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Company were desirous of forming the amalgamation for the purpose of being afterwards sold and transferred to the Great Western Company ; but what was the course pursued by tho counsel promoting the Bill ? Why, he called Mr. Phillip Henry Munta, the chairman of the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Company, to prove that it would be highly advantageous to unite the two lines; but he never asked him whether the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Company were desirous of uniting the two companies, or he must have answered that question in the negative. And yet, in the face of all this, without calling any further evidence, the Committee passed the Bill as an unopposed measure. Now he did trust that he had brought a case before the [louse which demanded its serious attention. He had stated the facts as clearly and distinctly as be possibly could, and in his opinion they were more than sufficient to justify the House sending this Bill back to be re committed. Perhaps, before he concluded his observa tions, the House would permit him to advert just for one moment to certain proceedings that had taken place, both in law and equity, in connexion with this matter. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then related the pro ceedings which have been instituted its law and equity by the shareholders of the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Company ; and concluded by moving that the Bill be recommitted, with instructions to the Committee to hear the opposing petitioners. Mr. GOULBURN would not enter into the legal merits of the question, but as Chairman of the Com mittee on this Bill ho would simply state the course which the Committee had taken in the matter. Their duty was to consider how far the provisions of that Bill were consistent with public justice, and how far its provisions could be carried into effect. The ques Lion upon this particular Bill was, whether the share holders were at liberty to impungn the Acts of the ge neral corporation, or Acts which affected their interests. He was far from admitting such a preamble, and the result of a contrary doctrine must appear to be per fectly inconsistent with the conduct of a railway Bill through Parliament. It might, in such a case, be in the power of the minority to come before that House, and delay and obstruct the progress of the Bill by their petitions. His Right Hon. Friend informed him that rule must not be taken as a general one, but he thought that the general rule ought not to be taken in the other direction, and that the Com mittee should be at liberty to entertain the peti tions and complaints of the shareholders. It was upon this ground that the petitioners against this par ticular Bill were not allowed to proceed with their oppo sition by the Committee. Whatever might be the existing law applicable to the case before the Committee, An Act of the previous year gave the Birmingham and Oxford Company powers to lease and sell themselves to the Great Western Company. The Great Western Company had no concurrent right in the provision, for the power was to be entirely in the hands of the Birmingham and Oxford Company, to exercise the provisions of the Act of Parliament. An agreement had been entered into by the directors of the company, under the authority of the shareholders, but the shareholders state that they were precluded from ex pressing their opinion at the time that the reslutions had been passed, and, therefore, that these resolutions were passed in defiance of the wishes of the shareholders. Now how stood the fact upon the very statement of these gentlemen themselves ? They told the House that they were precluded from voting, not having received the sealed certificates. But if Honourable Gentlemen would look at the Acts, they would find that share holderse.: vsieoln'e He thought that this question ought never to have been permitted to vote under certain conditions. lastdiscussed, after the decision of the Committee. In the man, on the of fi merits w l l r e l h ia o m f:, e tz n h. t there was a decision in a Committee, penly stated that Bailerheard meritshe flc~ been the mittee. and the reports pe th ti e tion t e w r o s "Divide, di cempaniea were the a toell cep believed that public policy, had vide " o ) i t is h m ad tand h i were made accordingly to the l a l l'a o place in ommittee, and o i p i p e o t s i i i ti on to that decision was prematire,c )nturEr;till and unworthy of the consideration that the arnalpmation should take the votes of a majority of the shareholders. therefore, that the House ought to abide by the decisio n cght, of the Committee.—(Loud cries of "Divide, divide.") Mr. EDWARD BULLER said, that having been Chairman of the Committee to which reference had been made, he trusted that the House would hear him, as would d they y e a b g e r e e n e d a m t o o s w t p t o h s e s b r he believed the decisio n h a d b een qu i te correct . im le op to po p n r e o n ce ts ed w w a i n th ted an i y t Bill. Having said these few words respecting the peculiar circumstances which it was stated made the present case an exception to the general rule, it was his opinion no body of shareholders ever had a: worse "case to come before Parliament. What were the real facts of the case ? An arrangement had been proposed for an amalgamation with the Great Western Railway Company. Powers were required to enable the directors to lease or sell the line to that com pany, and also to unite with the Oxford, Dudley, and Wolverhampton Railway. In pursuance of this, a meet ing was called, which took place on the 30th October. At this meeting one gentleman, and one alone, ob jected to the proposition submitted, though he made no amendment, and the resolution for an amalga mation was unanimously carried, giving directions to the directors of the company forthwith to enter into negotiations with the Great Western on the subject. An agreement with that company was the result, and a meeting was announced for the 4th of December to ratify that agreement. In the meantime an offer had been made by the London and North-Western Company to the effect that where the Great Western Railway Company only proposed to give 101, the London and North Western offered 151. The directors, however, felt as men of honour, that their agreement was binding, and they determined to give it effect. This led to the proceedings in the railway market, which ,led to the transference of the shares into the hands of parties favourable to the London and North-Western Company. The parties purchased shares which were subject to all the liabilities and contingencies to which the shares in other lines were liable. He should, therefore, feel it his duty to!oppose the motion.—(Loud cries of " Divide," " Order," and great uproar.) Mr. BERNAL rose amidst great demonstrations of impatience on the part of the House. He said it was not his intention to travel through the facts of the case —(Cheers, and cries of "Divide.") He repeated it. No doubt those Gentlemen who had been canvassed, and who were prejudiced one way or the other, were anxious for no delay—(Cheers and groans)—but in the face of them he would say, that on former occasions he had objected to that tribunal deciding upon railways ; and he asked the House if his views had not been confirmed ?—(Hear, hear.) The fact of Honourable Gentlemen who knew nothing of the case coming down to vote on this subject, was an evidence of this.— (Cheers and counter cheers.) He asked the Right Hon. Gentleman in the chair, who was the representative of the honour of that House, if he considered that branch of the Legislature a fit tribunal to decide upon railway Bills?—(Hear, hear.) The Committee, of which the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) was the chairman decided in a particular way, and Hon. Members came down without any par ticular allegation against the decision of the Committee, to ask the llouse to destroy that opinion. IF this were done would Oat tribunal be - respected either by themselves or by the country at large ? They were about to set aside the decision of a Com mittee up stairs, though that decision had been:arrived at after a careful examination of all the facts in the case. This, if it were nothing more, would be suf cient to determine him to vote against the motion. of his lion. and Learned Friend. And what was that motion? It was to refer the question back again to another Committee; but although such was the wording of the motion it did not follow that such was the intention of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman. This was not the lion. and Learned Nlember's first attempt to thwart this measure, for he had on a previous occasion moved that the Bill be read that day six months. He thought that this was a most improper tribunal to decide the Inatt , :r. and he called upon the Right Hon. Baronet opposite to support the decision of the Committee. That dectsion should only he set aside where corruption or improper conduct could be proved against the judges, and where such could not he adduced they were bound by every principle of justice to uphold their authority. Lord ROBERT (;ROSVENOR said, that if the House would hear him, he had something, to propose which he thought was worthy of its attention. His pro position was, that all those Members who had a pecu niary interest in either the Great Western or the London and North-Western should leave the question to be decided by those Members who had no such interest.— (Cheers and laughter.) After a few words from Mr. R. D. MANGLES and Captain HAYTER, who declared their intention to vote according to the dictates of their own consciences, Mr. MUNTZ complained that his name had fre quently been taken in vain, for, the real truth was, he did not hold a share in any railway. The town, how ever, which he represented was particularly anxious that this railway should pass as a competing line to the London and North-Western, and he should therefore oppose the amendment of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite. Mr. STRUTT said no case had been made out to in duce him to oppose the unanimous opinion of the Com• mittee on this Bill. The House then divided when there appeared— For the amendment 62 Against it Majority for the Bill —ls2 The report was then agreed to. REPORTS. The following reports were likewise agreed to : Birkenhead Commissioners Dock Acts Amendment (as to Con struction of Sea Wall along Wallasey Pool). Birmingham and Oxford Junction, and Birmingham, Wolver hampton, and Dudley Railways Amalgamation. Caledonian and Dumbartonshire Junction Railway (Deviations between Duntocher Lime Works and Bowling, &c.) Caledonian and Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railways Amalgamation. . _ _ Caledonian Railway( Purchase of Lease ofWishaw andColtness.) Dublin, Dundrum, and Rathfarnham Railway (Extension to Stephen's Green). Dublin and Drogheda Railway (Branch from Navan to Kells). General Terminus and Glasgow Harbour Railway Branches. Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct, and Glasgow South ern Terminal Railways Amalgamation. Gloucester and Dean Forest Railway (Construction of Docks). Great Northern Railway (Hertford, Hatfield, and St. Alban's • Branch). Great Western Railway (Branch to join the West London Railway, Widening and Enlarging of West London Railway, and Branches to Hammersmith. and to join the London and South-Western Railway near Lambeth). Llynvi Valley Railway Extension. Lynn and Ely Railway Deviation and Lynn Docks. Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Extension from Athlone to Galway). Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Newcastle, An niskinnan, and Baltrasna Deviations). Newry and Enniskillen Railway. Norfolk Railway (from Thetford to the Lowestoft Railway near Reedham, with a Branch to Halesworth). South Staffordshire Railway (Cannock, Wyrley, and Norton Branches, &c.) Swansea Valley Railway. Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin Railway (No. 1). Westminster Improvements. Windsor, Staines, and South-Western Railway (Richmond to Windsor. &c.) Windsor, Staines, and South-Western Railway (Staines to Ascot and Wukingham, with branches). THIRD READINGS. The following Bills were read a third time and passed Edinburgh Markets and Customs. Leith Harbour and Docks Dues. THE CALEDONIAN RAILWAY. Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE moved that the Caledonian Railway (purchase or lease of Wishaw and Coltness Railway ) should be re-committed to the committee on Group 49, of Rail way Bills. The Hon. Member did not anticipate any great objection on the part of the Chairman of the Committee, and there were circumstances in the case which would amply justify the re-committal of the Bill. Mr. CRIPPS would be exceedingly sorry to offer any serious opposition to the motion of his Hon. Friend, but he yet thought that great care ought to be taken in contravening the decision of the Committee, for he was quite sure that they would be very careful before they sanctioned the insertion of any clause that would be injurious to the interests of the several parties. The clause as it at present stands would throw a great burthen upon the company, and he trusted, therefore, that when the Bill came before the House again on Thursday, that it would be so modified as to suit their interests, and he should only say, that when it so came before them, that he should feel it his duty to secure the interests of the share holders. The motion was then withdrawn, and the Bill was read a second time. Mr. CRIPPS said he should certainly recur to the subject in :he third reading of the Bill. NOTICES OF MOTIONS. Mr. HUME begged to postpone the motion of which he had given notice for to-morrow till this day fortnight. PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed his motion on this sub ject till Friday next. WASTE LANDS IN IRELAND. Mr. P. SCROPE postponed his motion on this subject till after the holidays. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE DERBY DAY. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK—Mr. Speaker ' as to-morro w is the Derby day—( L ou d l aug h ter )— w hi ch for half a century had been held as a holiday, I rise to move Mr. HUME—I rise to order. The Noble Lord ought to propose his motion in rotation. It is out of its place here, being No. 18 in the list.—( Cries of " Chair, chair, Order, order.") The SPEAKER said that all motions relating to the adjournment of the House were usually considered at an early hour. Mr. HUME objected to such motions as the present, as it would lead to great inconvenience and abuse. The SPEAKER again reiterated his decision, that such mo. tions always were considered at an early hour, for the conveni ence of the Members. . . Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD protested against the House rising in the present state of things, and when so many questions of vital import were pressing upon the attention of the Government. He should add no more, but rest contented with this expression of his opinion. The adjournment of the House was then carried. PRISONS. In reply to a question from Viscount SANDON, Sir G. GREY stated that the reports of the Inspectors of Prisons would be found to contain the fullest information on the subject of prison discipline. The Corporation of the city of London has decided upon building another prison, which would obviate the inconvenience of the Giltepur-street Compter. DEATH OF THE LORD-LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND —APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR. Mr. HUME wished to know whether the Noble Lord at the head of the Government had made any arrange ment with respect to filling up the vacancy caused by the death of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as it was important that the intentions of the Government should be known as soon as possible.—( Considerable sensation. ) Lord J. RUSSELL ( who appeared to labour under consi derable emotion) said—Perhaps the House will permit me, in answering the question of the Hon. Member, which I must say pressed very closely on the death of the Noble Lord, the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) The House will permit me to state what are the feelings of the Government, and the Sovereig n whom we have the honour to, serve, with res p ect to the rno.lancholy lo.s which has o t To cu at r e rel—(H ear, hear)—the loss of a Noble Lord whose in• knowledg e of Ireland, whose clear judgment, whose conciliatory qualities—(Cheers)-11ad so well adapted him to soften the animosities that had been so long the bane of that country, and to point the way to an improved state of things. —(Cheers.) Having said these few words with respect to the calamity which has occurred, I will tell the Hon. Gentle man who has asked this question that her Majesty's Government have felt it their duty to advise her Majesty im mediately to fill up the office of the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ire land. Whatever may be the opinion of her Majesty's Go vernment with respect to the general nature of that office and with respect to the policy of maintaining it for any length of time, as a part of the Government of the United Kingdom, we are clearly and unanimously of opinion that the present cir cumstances of Ireland do not admit of such a change of autho rity as would be necessary by the legislative measures which would have to be introduced by any change in the mode of ad ministering the affairs of Ireland. We have therefore thought it necessary to advise her Majesty to fill up the office of the Lord b Lientenant ,but I do not intend during the present ses sion of Parliament to introduce any measure by which an alte ration may be made in the constitution of that authority, a nd acting upon our own responsibility, it will be absolutely neces sary for the Government to advise her Majesty to appoint a successor to the Noble Lord just deceased. SITTINGS OF COMMITTEES. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that it was his duty to make a motion, in consequence of that which had been just carried. The Hon. Member for Rochdale had announced to the House that he was well placed for to-morrox.—( Laughter.) lie ( Sir J. Graham) was very badly pieced, for he wa s summone d to attend two Committees, one a Railway Committee and the other a Committee on matters of general interest to this House. It was, therefore, his duty to move that the Committees should have leave to sit to-morrow.—Agreed to. SIR EARDLEY WILNIOT. Mr. SPOONER gave notice that on Tuesday, the Ist June, he should move that a copy of an address from the in habitants of Hobart Town to Si r E ar dl ey Wilmot, late Lieut.- Governor of Van I)iemen's Land, in consequence of a publica tion of a dispatch from Mr. Gladstone, be laid upon the table. DR. BOWRING AND _THE POOR-LAW COMMIS- STONERS. Mr. FERRAND wished to give notice to the Hon. Mem• ber for Bolton, that on Friday it was his intention to put a question to him relating to the positive contradiction made last night by the chief Secretary of State for the Home Department, of a most solemn declaration made by a late Secretary of State that Mr. Mott had been dismissed from his office as Assistant Commissioner for conduct of which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman wag acquainted, and which declaration the Hon. and Learned Gentleman stated at the time was sufficient to clear his character as a Member of that House. Dr. BO WRING said he should be much indebted to the Hon. Gentleman if he would put his question. Mr. FERRAND was prepared to do so. It was. Whether the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was now prepared, after the positive contradiction—the solemn declarati on — o f t h e l ate Se cretary of State for the Home Department with regard to Mr. Mott, to take any further steps for further clearing his own character, and the character of his constituents in reference to the same subject ? Dr. BOWRING did not know in what manner his charac ter was involved in any thing that had taken place on a former night.—(Cheers. ) FLOUR. Mr. FERRAND desired to ask the First Lord of the Trea sury, as it was calculated that 183,120,000 lbs. weight cf the best flour was annually used merely for the purpose of dres sing the warps for weaving, besides an immense quantity for the purpose of daubing cottons with flour paste, to defraud the public. whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill to pro hibit the use of flour for such purposes ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that he begged to assure the Hon. Gentleman that he had no such intention. EDUCATION. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE moved that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graci ously pleased to give Cirections, that there be laid before this House, by the Committee of Council on Education, within twenty-one days next after the commencement of every Ses sion of Parliament, the following returns, made up to the let day of the month in which such returns are so presented : Of every school, alphabetically arranged, to which Govern. ment aid has been voted in the preceding financial year, dis tinguishing Church of England from British and Dissenting Schools, showing the amount advanced in each case, and specifying whether given for building, repairs. furniture, books, field gardens, or workshops, or for salaries or pensions of schoolmasters, schoolmistresses, pupil teachers, er sill endiary monitors; of the name, profession, date of appointment, amount of salary, allowance, and travelling expenses of each inspector; of every school making application for aid, distinguishing the applications granted from the applications refused, and the grounds of such refusal : and, in all school-building cases in which the application has been sucees.ful, showing the sum which, according to a certified estimate or other reasonabie calculat ion, would have to be provided by voluntary subscription. He considered teat the Government measure conferred a vast amount of too much patronage upon the executive. He also was of opinion that the salaries of these inspectors was exceed ingly high. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he should not have any ob jection to the return, but the Hon. Gentleman was quite mis taken if they were to have seventy inspectors in that House. elr. T. DUNCOM BE would call the attention of the House to the petition of the inhabitants of the borough of Sheffield (presented May 13), complaining of the Magisterial conduct of Wilson Overend, Esq. He moved for a copy of the con victions which had taken place before him, and a re turn also of those which had afterwards been quashe I. It appeared that Mr. Overend was a gentleman in very exten sive medical practice, but he hoped that his physic was better than his law. He was generally called in where there was any disagreement between the employers and the employed, but. it was very singular that he never sided with the emplcyed. The trades in the town of Sheffield were attached to trades unions, but the magistrates not taking the same view of the benefits of such a system as the tradesmen themselves, they accordingly set their faces against them. However, most of his convictions were quashed. The first feelings of the inhabitants was to have Mr. Overend dismissed, but they afterwards considered that the course which they ought to adopt was the one which he now was pursuing; and by these returns they would see how much justice was done to the character of Mr. Ove rend. He believed that the administration of justice on the part of this gentleman was very much open to challenge. The Government ought to appoint in these districts stipendiary magistrates, who would be far removed from local and trade prejudices. There was no objection made to the other magis trates, and certainty it was very singular that such a number of convictions obtained before Mr. Overend should subsequently be quashed. It was prima facice evidence that there was some thing wrong in the matter. It was quite proper for trades men to combine if their masters combined ; but he considered that when a combination existed for the purposes of intimida tion, the guilty party ought to be punished. Sir GEORGE GREY said he had no abjection to the re turn, but he was bound to say that rio communication, save in praise of Mr. Overend, had reached the Crown. He under stood, however, that a fearful state of intimidation and corn • bination existed in the town of Sheffield. He would be glad if the opinions expressed by the Hon. Gentleman respecting in timidation were generally adopted by the parties whom he re presented upon the present occasion, Mr. B. DENISON said that he knew Mr. Overend, and could bear ample testimony to his character as a most upright and humane gentleman. He should inform the House that Mr. Overend was the only active magistrate i n t h e town. Others e dition, for copi es o f th e me morial sent to the Crown from the Town of Sheffield this fro b m eg a leave to distance, move,a and in certainlya Haootnr woulde in d gave valuable assi s ta n c e . upon subject. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he was bound to bear testimony to the character of Mr. Overend, which he always understood as most unexceptionable. Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that he knew Mr. Over end, and there was not a more upright or more conscientious gentleman in the kingdom. All the convictions which hart been quashed were so by reason of some informality, as parties were not. permitted to interfere that were interested, and it was the association with other magistrates which rendered the proceeding informal. Since this late attack upon his public character, Mr. Overend had received numerous letters from various public bodies, bearing witness to the propriety of his conduct. The state of the town of Sheffield was well known to be in a most fearful state, and required the exercise of the utmost fortitude on the part of those who administered the law. A law hat been passed upon the subject a short time since, and the consequence of the state of things existing in Sheffield was most deplorable. He would, therefore, entreat the Hon. Member to use his influence with the persons belonging to the different trades unions in that town, to alter their course of conduct, which would if perse vered in lead to the utter destruction of the trade in that town. Mr. HENLEY thought that if the magistrates had acted wrongly, the Court of Law was the proper place to set such conduct right, and if the interference of a Court of Law was not advisable, then he thought that the Crown was to be called upon to exercise its high functions. He thought that if the proposed motioc were to be agreed to, it would be setting a premium, for persons asking this House to decide as judge and jury in all matters that might be brought before it. Mr. WARD entirely concurred in many of the observations which had fallen from the Hon. Member opposite. He Be lieved that these unions were the most difficult thing which a magistrate had to deal with ; and if ever there was a case in which it was necessary to show exemplary patience and free dom from prepossession in opinion, it was the question of the trades' unions as at present existing in Sheffield. There was no doubt that some of those unions were beneficial to the par ties, and were deserving of support ; but when they came to carry resolutions among themselves to obtain their ends, not by moral force or by moral influence, but by some thing bordering upon threats, and always followed by acts of violence, he thought that such conduct inflicted an injury upon the working classes such as was almost impos sible to estimate, and these effects were felt most of all in periods of depression. He had known several persons who were prepared to invest their capital in the establishment of manufactories in that town, but who had, in consequence of the state of the town, felt it their duty to give up the inten tion of doing so. He was sure that there might be faults upon both sides, but he sincerely hoped that a little time would bring both parties into some amicable arrangements; but he felt assured that no party had a right to interfere by the influence of threats and violence, whieh were sure to be visited at last by the strong arm of the law. Mr. PARKER concurred in the opinion expressed by the Hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. S. Wortley) and the Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) as to the injurious effects upon the trade of the town of Sheffield by the improper conduct of some of these unions. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that it was for the purpose of promoting a good understanding between the masters and men that he was induced to connect himself with the cause of the workmen to the extent which he had done. He had no oppo sition to offer to the motion of the Hon. Member. The motion was then agreed to. DUTIES ON COPPER ORE. Mr. MUNTZ postponed his motion fora Select Committee to inquire into the operations of the law regulating the existing duties on copper ore until Ist of June next. FEES IN COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY. Mr. B. ESCOTT moved that the following Members be ap pointed a Select Committee to inquire into the fees of the Courts of Law and Equity—Mr. Watson, Sir J. Graham, The Attorney General, The Solicitor General, Sir F. Thesiger, Stuart Wortley, Mr. Rornilly, Mr. Walpole, Mr. B. Escott, Mr. Roebu c k, M r. Cardwell, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hume, Sir J. Hammer, and Mr. Ewart. Motion agreed to. COMMITTEE ON RAILWAY BILLS. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for a Select Committee to consider whether it is expedient that any measures should be adopted for suspending further proceedings in ail or any of the Railroad Bills in the present session, and for enablieg the parties, under certain conditions, to proceed with the same in a future session of Parliament; also, whether it is advisable that any future provision should be made in the standing orders of this House relative to Bills for the construe tion of Railroads, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House from ti me to time. He would also move that the Com mittee consist o f t h e following lion. Members :—The Chan cellor of the E xc h equer, Sir J. Graham, 11r. Hume, Mr. Hud son, Sir G. Cl er k , M r. Charles Russel l , M r. B ar i ng, M r. Strutt, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Ellice, and Mr. John Abel Smith. The motion had been worded in a very general manner, so as to remove as much as possible any opposition to the measure. There were several important points to be referred to the Committee, one of them was the important question with respect to the payment of the deposits by existing companies out of the funds of the company, which was clearly an evasion of the standing orders. Another important point was that of permitting the sale of one company to another, immediately upon having obtained their Act, and before having constructed their line. He thought that some check should be put to such a course of proceeding. He begged, therefore, to mcve the appointment of the Committee to inquire into these subjects. _ _ _ 111 r. Fi. HINDE thou.'ht that an interval of a day at leant should have been allowed, in order to allow Hon. Members to move some amendment, if they thought proper. He thought it his duty to move an amendment on this motion, and would take the sense of the House upon it. There was no doubt it was to the interest of the old companies to strangle as much as possible all new companies.—( Hear, hear. ) To place chairmen of old comparies upon this Committee, and ask their opinion upon this subject, was like con sultin!! the wolves as to what was best for the sheep. He would now read to the House the amendment which it was his intention to make upon the original motion. With part of that motion, he found no fault whatever, but he proposed that, from and after the words " fivure sessions of Parliament," there should he inserted instead, " that the Select Committee do in quire whether it be expedient that restrictions shall be imposed on railway Bills, passed in the present session, so as to prevent the absorption of an undue amount of capital in those under takings." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained that his object was ns.t to prescribe to the Committee the course they should pursue. The Committee would still report to the House their opinion upon the Bills submitted to them, so that the Hon. Gentleman's amendment would not, in fact, amend in any degree the difficulty which he endeavoured to meet. Mr. HINDE did not at all object to the names on the Com mittee, and rather than divide the House, he should withdraw his amendment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that since he had come to the House he found that Mr. Baring could not serve, in consequence of absence from town. He proposed, therefore, to substitute Lord Seymour's name in room of Mr. Baring's. He also proposed to substitute Mr. Pattison in room of Mr. John Abel Smith, who had got leave from the House. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the original motion agreed to. THE ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on the poor-laws, Mr. CHRISTIE said, that having given a great deal of attention to this subject, he was anxious to address a very few observations to the House upon it, and the result of all his observation was that a central Board of Commissioners, in vested with large discretionary powers, was absolutely necessary. He could not agree with the objections which had been urged against the Poor-law Bill, that it was a cruel and obnoxious law, and the measure he believed had been supported, and it was still supported by the intelligent of all classes in the country. All that was now wanted was, to place its machinery above sus picion ; and instead of having these removals every five years to have a well digested and permanent measure. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough had, instead of making out a case, exhibited to the House a melancholy failure. He (Mr. Christie) had listened in vain to hear in the speech of the Hon. Gentle man a corroboration of his assertion that the Act was crumbling to pieces. The only proof that he could have alleged of the failure of the measure was in the case of the Andover union, but to that he (Mr. Christie) would come presently. He would now leave the Hon. Gentleman and refer to what had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes)—who also opposed the Bill. He (Mr. Christie's) answer to the statements put forward by that Gentleman wa.s, that the present Bill would afford several important addi tional securities for the better administration of the law. There were three ways in which this was proposed to be done, first, by a direct responsibility to Parliament of a minister who would be ready at any time that a question was put to him to afford the House and country every explanation. The second was, that with this president of the Poor-law Board, who should be assisted by four Cabinet Ministers, the House would be guaranteed Cabinet deliberations in all important matters regarding the administration of the law, or the exercise of the discretionary powers to be conferred on its officers. The third security was the new footing on which the Commissioners would be placed with regard to the officers under them. The Commissioners hitherto had been responsible for all the local abuses which had arisen under the operasion of the law ; but the arrangements now would be to make the local officers res ponsible for the local administration, leaving to the Commissioners a paramount and a central control. Pla was well aware that it was of the highest importance to ascertain what was the precise meaning of the assertions that had been made last night by the Hon. Member for Knares borough, that the Poo:-law Amendment Act had ?roved to be an utter failure. Then it was important to ascertain whether the Act of 1844 was impolitic, or whether it had been a good law, although doomed to failure from the evil administration of it by its Ministers, local cud central. The point on which the Andover Committee inquired, were those points bearing a!most entirely upon the administration of the poor-law, as distinct from the law itself. The Right Hon. Gentleman she Secre tary for the Home Department, stated yesterday that he had attentively read the report of the Andover Committee from the beginning, and he did not find one word in that report affecting the principle of the measure. The first series of points to which the Andover Union Committee had directed their at tention, were those bearing on local abuses and defects in the administration. The Andover workhouse was ill-regulated and filthy, and the practices of the inmates were necessarily disgusting. The local authority there had very extended powers, which he exercised with the utmost severity, thus in flicting the utmost hardship on the poor. The harsh mode in which the law was administered defeated one of the purposes for which workhouses were originated. The workhouses were considered a terror instead of a relief.— ( Hear.) The labourers near Andover were, therefore, left at the mercy of their employers, for rather than meet the horrors of the workhouse, they accepted any wages that were offered them. The Committee, afterwards inquired into the con duct of the Poor-law Commissioners, and a series of resolutions were passed, expressive of the Committee's disapprobation of their conduct. Then they came to the question of the dismissal of the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, resolutions of a still stranger character were passed upon their conduct in this par ticular, and of their being brought forward by the Right Honourable Gentleman, the Member for Dorchester. The conduct of an Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Carter, while sitting on an inquiry—the conduct of the Commissioners on inquiries—their conduct in dismissing Mr. Carter, were ques tions all aff icting the administration of the law. The Com mittee of the House had entered upon these questions because they felt it necessary, having begun to pursue inquiries which were incidental. " They found that some of the conduct of the Commissioners was illegal, some irregular ; and their conduct in removing Mr. Chadwick from the business of the Commis sion was not to be approved. These Commissioners exht bited distrust in their subordinates, and injustice to many of their servants. On these points evidence had been taken at length, and occupied public opinion for a long time. All these questions affected the Administration and the administrators of the law ; and having now referred to all these points, he thought he might say to the Hon. Member that he was not at liberty to refer to the report of the Andover Committee in support of his opinion—that the new poor-law had been a failure. That report was made at the close of last session. The present Ministers had but recently taken office. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, not being in office, not having been in office during the greater part of the sittings of the Committee, could not have been expected to have made intimate inquiry into some of the matters referred to in the report. He did, however, institute an inquiry, and the result was already on the table. The present session began with the Commissioners still sitting. But in answer to a question by the Hon. Member for Montrose, the Noble Lord at the head of the Government made a statement which gave the public to understand, that with the re-construction of the Poor-law Commission, the present Com missioners would cease this session. He would not say that the Government in thus proceeding, had not acted with a wise discretion ; but he must say that the Home Secretary had not taken the best method to elicit the truth. Mr. Chadwick impugned the conduct of the Com missioners so early as the year 1842, a copy of which document appeared in the appendix to the report of the Commissioners. The Commissioners appeared to have conducted their husieess in a most extraordinary way. Mr. Chadwick made most mar vellous revelations before the Commissioners. The Commis sioners denied these, and they and Mr. Chadwick joined issue on matters of fact. ( The lion. Gentleman then read at some length extracts from the evidence which has already appeared in the public prints to show the irregularity of she proceedings of the Commissioners, es pecially in the matter of the Minute-book, which appeared, by conflicting statements, to have been kept in a very irre gular way from the year 1834 to the year 1839.) It appeared likewise from page 3 of the report, that, in the ease of orders, these had been issued sometimes with the signature of only one Commissioner sometimes with the signature of net one Com missioner at all. At his moment an Hon. Member moved that the House be counted, and the galleries were cleared, but as there were more than 40 Members present, Mr. CHRISTIE resumed. He said the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had not been clearly stated to the public. and they were, therefore, left to draw their own inference. They stated that it wa , not usual to produce the opinions of the ' law officers of the Crown - but an opinion of the Attorney....xe neral had been produced by the guardians of Pancras and Mary lebone. There was, however, he understood, some distinction as it was not given in his capacity as one of the law officers of the Crown. The commissioners were required to record all their proceedings, but they had not done so. The commis sioners had stated that they had recorded all their letters, but they had written letters marked "private," or intended to be private, to their assistant-commissioners, of which no copie s had been kept.---( Hear, hear.) The commissioners also stated that they had acted as a body, when it was notorious that some of thern..,had acted individually. The Honourable Gentleman then referred to a letter written by the Poor law Commissioners with respect to the Andover Union. They stated, in their defence, that the guardians of the union did not require explanation on the points to which the report of the Committee had reference, but the Commissioners had the evidence taken before the Committee transmitted to them as soon as it was published, and as soon as it came into the pos session of the Committee, and they might therefore have come before the Committee, and made any explanation they thought proper. He considered that the annual reports, which were presented to the House, should be printed in a small form, in order that they might be:the more easily circulated-- not ex parte statements selected from the reports of the Com missioners' reports.—( Hear, hear.) Then the digest which had been published of the evidence by the Barrister appointed to make it, merely adopted, the words and sentiments of the Poor-law Commissioners; and appeared as if it, was written by the Commissioners themselves.—(Bear, hear. ) The introductory parts are full of mistatements— ( Hear, hear,)—and, therefore, the digest was biased, and could not be depended upon.—( Hear.) The Commis sioner stated that a majority of the committee consisted of friends of Mr. Parker, and opponents of the Poor-law; whereas, eight out of the fifteen were in favour of it. Eight were nominated by the Hon. Gentleman who moved the appoint ment of the Committee (Mr. Etwall), and seven by the Noble Lord the Member for Cavan, the chairman of the Committee. But there was another point to which he would wish to call the attention of the House, namely, to the statements relative to Mr. Chadwick, who was termed " a discontented secretary." Now he was anxious to say that Mr. Chadwick was most anxious to subject his conduct to the strictest investigation. He had abstained from making any mention relative to the Poor-law Commissioners until the present r ecasion, in con sequence of the statements of the Noble Lord at the com mencement of the Session. He had always been a warm friend of the Poor-law, and at the time he made his motion for an inquiry into the conduct of the Commissioners, relative to Mr. Parker, he did net foresee the facts which would come to light before the Andover Committee. He denied that he had ever been influenced by hostility to the Commissioners even before lie had a seat in that House. While yet an undergraduate of Cambridge, he had written a pamphlet in its defence, he would conclude by observing that he thought the present measure involved an excellent principle. Mr. ETWALL said t:eat he did not see the reason or tlae necessity of a ce n t ra l b oar d res id ent i n L on d on . Thelaw was most objectionable, and in the west of England was most unpopular. He was at a loss to conceive why local boards constituted as they now were, were not permitted to carry out the poor-law. H e did not see t h e a dvantage to be gained by the public, in resp ec t t o th e proposes! alterations. It ap peared to him that they were beginning tolegislateupoian this all-important question, and that he would say was wrong direction. There was that so it could whole system that it was impossible alvantageou,l y. Al t h ou gh there were law, many Members iii favour of the poor w ere yet he a bold man who would rise in that House and say that the law had succeeded. The Hon. Member for Bath conceived that the burning of hayricks in 1831 proceeded from the working of the law, but he was mistaken; it arose from the low rate of wages which existed. The Government had been congratulated on the change which was proposed to be made, and the substitution of in spectors. Now, he did not see any reason for any such con gratulation. He found the name was only changed, for the office of inspector was precisely similar to that of the assistant commissioner. Moreover, there was to be made an addition of three to the number. He found there were to be no fewer than twelve inspectors. Of all the unions with which he was acquainted the Union of Stockport was the one which gave the greatest satisfaction. He thought the visits of the assist ant commissioner hed not been productive of any beneficial result to the country. Complaints had also been made of the bad and irregular mode in which the books were kept. The accounts were, he believed, kept in a system of short-hand which nobody but himself could understand. He concluded that the proceedings of the Poor-law Commissioners ought to be;thrown open to the public. The Duke of Wellington had expressed it as his opinion that the boards should be thrown open. He said " what is there said or done in my parish that I should shut nut the public from knowing."—( Hear, hear.) In the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the Andover union, he moved an amendment to the rff, , ct that Mr. Parker had not conducted the inquiry in a proper manner. That amendment was defeated only by the casting vote of the chairman, who of course gave his vote in favour of the original resolution, which he proposed. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home De partment, said last night that it was not intended to compe uniformity under this Act. He (Mr. Etwall) thought that above all things, this was the object of the Bill. Even the la bour test which was enforced in the South and the West o England, was not dared to be put in force in the north. What then could be the value of such a law, as could not be dared to be carried out equally over the country. With respect to the conduct of the Commissioners, he begged to state that, in his opinion, the case submitted by the Commissioners to the Law officers of the Crown, was not correctly drawn up, nor founded upon accurate data. One portion of the case sub mitted was, that every letter received by the Commissioners was entered in the books of the office. Now it was expressly proved before the Committee, that some of the correspon dence had not been so entered.--(Hear, hear.) Numerous letters were also written by Mr. Nichol, calling upon Mr. Par ker to resign ; of those letters, also, no records were kept. Although he had spoken very strongly upon the mode in which Mr. Parker conducted the inquiry at Andover, still he thought that the conduct of the Commissioners towards that gentleman had been most uncalled for and vindictive. His Hon. Friend the Member for Weymouth had told them how many days Mr. Nicoll had transacted the business of Somer set-house alone. It was he who had ordered the inquiry to be made about the bones ; but then the House should know that all these proceedings were in opposition to the Act. Ile had to thank the House for the kind indulgence it had shown him, and he could assure them that he supported the amendment of his lion. Friend because he conceived that there was no neces sity for a central board. Viscount COURTENAY said that although he did not in tend to follow his Hon. Ft iends through the detailed statements which they had addressed to the House, still as he had had the honour of being chairman of the committee, the report of which had been so much referred to that night, he trusted that he might be permitted to address a few observations to the House. He did so for two objects, first, that he was anxious, not having had the opportunity as chairman of the Committee of doing so, to express the reasot.s which influenced him in dissenting from some of the resolutions to which they had arrived; and, se condly, because he was anxious to record his opinion on the Bill then before the House. It was his misfortune not always to agree with the members of the Andover union upon the subjects befote them, but he was proud and grateful to acknow ledge that the discussions were carried on throughout in a spirit of kindness and friendliness. A series of resolutions were proposed having reference to three distinct subjects; these were the local administration of the law in the workhouse itself, the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners, and the dismissal of Mr. Day from his office of poor-law assistant. He would take the liberty of stating to the House what the general impression was that he derived from the evidence taken before the Committee ; he felt himself unable to avoid coming to the conclusion that there had heen gross mismanagement in the board of guardians, and that the administration of the law was marked by an unusua' degree of harshness at Andover, and that owing to the genera regularity which prevailed, the inmates of the establishmen were kept in a wretched and lamentable state, That invest iga. too had been so far attended with good results, that public a-•. tention had been directed to the subject. On some of then. resolutions he had h. lc' different opinions from some o his friends, as he del also on the second series of these resolutions, namely, on the conduct of she Poor-last Commissioners themselves. Their conduct had been severely censured in the matter of Mr. Parker, hut he did nut knoe that the y deserved all the censure which had been accorded ti them on the subject. Certainly, as far as Mr. Parker's appear ance before the committee went, he ( viscount Court. nay) did not think that it was characterised by either vigilance or atten tion. While stating this he must at the same time state it, justice to Mr. Parker, that strong evidence was given of the ability and perseverance he had exhibited while in his former position of secretary to the Poor-law Commissioners. Ile fully agreed with his Hon. Friend who had spoken that evening, that the Bill before the House would be so far superior to the former Bill, that it would have a direct Parliamentary respon sibility in that House. He thought that that provisions which provided inspectors rather than the old system of commission ers, was another improvement on the old law. These modifi cations would certainly tend to increase its value in the public estimation, and secure a more efficient and equable administra tion of the law. Captain PECHELL said, after such an inquiry of so much importance, the country must be surprised that the Noble Lord had not introduced a more complete measure for the adminis tration of the poor-law to the present day. The Noble Lord. indeed, said as much as that the present Bill was not founded r on the information which had been acquired by the late inves tigation. He was surprised, and he begged to ask a reason for all this. Was the Noble Lord prepared to sanction the proceedings of the Commissioners. Those proceedings were well known to the country and the House. Yet, after the expos 4 which they bad had of these proceedings, they were told that that inquiry formed no reason for the present measure. What, then, was the reashn? He begged their attention to the evidence. When in the Committee, they were told the Commissioners acted as a board—they were under the necessity of asking what was a board. The secretary, a most able and well-deserving gentleman, defined a board as a table at which the appointed functionaries sat in deliberation. The fact, however, was that scarcely a single Commissioner ever sat at the board. But this opinion of Mr. Chadwick, about the constitution of a board, was found troublesome in the Commission. Now, he did not know whether the Noble Lord would state the reason wl.ich had operated on his mind, but perhaps he had not seen a letter which had come to his (Capt. Pechell's) hand. The Gallant Gentleman read a letter from China on "Boards,' which excited a good deal of merriment in the House. He said he could show that the employment of the poor in grind , ing bones, to which attention had been drawn in the year 1842, was allowed to continue, without one effort, on the part of the Commissioners, to do away with it. Instead of that, he held in his hand a document from an Assistant Commissioner in the West of England, written in 1844, proposing a new system of practice. He said he did not care for mills, but he preferred boxes and iron rammers with which to set the poor to grind bones small enough to pass through a half-inch slit. It was hard work, but it was necessary for paupers. Such was the language of the subordinates of the Commissioners in 1844, when it was expected that they would have put down the making of bone manure. He trusted that no such conduct would be pur sued by the new Commission. He might refer them to the treatment received by Mr. Parker, as an instance, of the way in which the Commissioners were wont to sacrifice the most valuable servants. That Gentleman was sent down into the county of Sussex as his ( Captain Pechell's) opponent, and was there employed day by day to oppose. But he discharged his duty most impartially, and here was he (Captain Pechell) to state that he was dismissed from his office without a recommen dation for any place under the Government. Similar was the case of Mr. Day. two cases the most flagrant that could be instanced. He was anxious for a change. But what were they to get by this change? If he should not vote for th, second reading of the Bill, it might be said that he would thereby leave the Commissioners out, but those who said so had no: heard the few words which he in.lint to address to the House. He hoped if the Government passed this Bill, as believed they would, that they would fairly grapple with the law, and that it would be materially amended. The Noble Lord had intimated that the law required amendment ; there fere he hoped, in the words of the Hon. and Learned Gentle man the Member for Bath, that the new board would be free from suspicion. He wished, in the words of the report of the Committee on the Andover union, to express his opinion that the Commissioners were not deserving of support, but they must not imagine that they would entirely alter the Gilbert and other unions which did not adopt the bad system of the new poor law. lie would, therefore, support the amendment of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough. Mr. M. SUTTON said, as the measure did not propose any material alteration in the law, he should not detain the House with any observations with respect to it—in fact the Hon. Geri , tleman the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Banks) was the only Member who bad applied himself to the subject legiti . mately under discussion, namely, the Bill of the Government ; and although he intended to support the motion of the Hon. • Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough, he differed with the Hon. Gentleman on the grounds for which he had brought it forward. Subsequently a third subject had been introduced before the attention of the House, which he admitted was equal in importance to the others, namely, the conduct of the board entrusted with the administration of the relief of the poor. It was well known that he (Mr. M. Sutton) did not concur in the report of the Committee on the Andover inquiry, but especially that report of it which had reference to the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners, and his opinion was strengthened by the conduct of her Majesty'y Government, who f id not agree in the report of that Committee; if they had agreed in the report, they would not have felt it consistent with their duty to have retained men any longer in office who had been guilty of the conduct which was imputed to them. He regretted. therefore, that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) did not express the views of the Government more fully than he did when he addressed the House last night, because it would have relieved him from intruding upon the House; the the Noble Lord would state his views on the subject before there was great conclusion of the debate. He admitted that on the part o but he want of good conduct and cruelty to the the Poor-law Commissioners • but then,P°r borne in mind, that that 'body partook but if they inspecting than of any other character;were made evident, iitnorsehounlfd an surely were not neglected to amend evils duc w t they were guilty of misconduct , respect to Andover, he of laches.—(llear. ) Then t h gtheorne teguilty of misconduct if their as.stist'ant commissioners were guilty enter tained the opinion that_ the G ua rdians hibchu a t re t r h e e s y po , risible for all that ) as sometime before the inquiry took had taken place—( fa vourably.—lle Commissioners, but he could not defend all place, Mr. Parkdeird-rineoeptarorhteedsittahtaettethseayuntihoant hweasstgooodin Commissioners had done. He did not say that but he thought it wrs the duty of they were free from blame,_ _ t d h e e fe r n de Poor-law s.w Poor-law to defend those public men with whom every man they had been connected in apublic carcsacker, was th a t he had ity.—(Hear, he ar .) Parker One of the allegations against Mr. not conducted the inquiry properly, and he thought that the way in which the inquiry was conducted had not been conducted with impartiality. The Committee had not sum med up their report that there was not sufficient reasons for the dismissal of Mr. Parker and Mr. Day, hut that the time and the mode in which it was' done inflicted great hardship, and therefore he was justified in saying that the Committee had not adopted a resolution so sweeping as that stated by the Hon. Gentleman. The general accusation against Mr Parker was, that he had lost their con f i d ence, and, therefore, i s_ upon ei he s him, in Ut order ds , it was not good or a d v antageous for the p u bli c t h at t h a t he should be retained. Now, i n hi s opinion, there were different grounds for that los s o f con fi dence, but w hether there were or riot, they h a d no r i ght to impute cor rupt motives,in im u t eion.:scepi cast sA s ntre t ktr h ehg e re y ?h , a: blameod u rr l edioalemt frome proved.etoa their r gentlemaneos wo N l dnu o i t t ssi e t • hoi nnw o u ch l t ta d li e r 'Ad s s. a t s dismiss his eda' as et; the b against C this statem en t h e h ad been unable to prove.He now came to the case of Mr. Day ; and the difference between his case and that of Mr. Parker was, that l none of the Poor law Commissioners, or, indeed, anybodyde se, imputed to him intentional neglect. Their whole ground of objection to Mr. u le nd in him the th t a h t ey wh fo i unequal to the task; and discharge of a very diffi cult Day duty, was they, therefore, thought it not saf e or expedient to coutide the care of that district, to which he had been appointed, any longer. And, therefore, the discharge of a very painful discretion, they • considered it right to require his resignation. One of the charges brought against the Com- missioners, was that of discouraging the subordinate officers. This statement was made by Mr. Chadwick, who said that his suggestions had not been attended to by Mr. Lewis. But it was found, on the cross-examination of Mr. Chadwick, that no suggestions had been offered at all, that he had only hinted at at certain improvements, which it was a very happy thing th %ir. Lewis did not attend to. With respect to this pr . esent Bill, he quite agreed with its provisions; the only objection to it was, that it jeined in one board the executive along with the legislative authority. This was a great difficulty,but it co not be avoided. The proposal of the Honourable Member, that all the orders which it would deemed expedient to make, should be collected into me statute, and enacted, would lead to endless confusion, its the law which would be adopted for the northern portion of England would by no means suit the southern. Besides, how would they deal with the ease where it would be necessary, at moment's notice, to modify the law, instances of which would be constantly recurring; in such a case they would give power of reversion to an Act of Parliament, which a far more objectionable power than that granted by the 13i11. The alteration by which Commissioners had seats in that [louse, was also a great improvement. He would conclude by stating his resolution to support the measure. Mr. HENLEY moved the adjournment of the debate. would be Lord JOHN RUSSELL objected to an adjournment, and. hoped the lion. Members meant seriously to discuss the measure. me lk a l n e t . seriously k' to ERllANDdsisaeidustshattheitqwnasestiboen thatcause he movedhisHon. t F h t!e ec ad journment, and he did trust that the Noble Lord would sh respect to the feeling s o f the House and the country in floral, and not press the further discussion of the question. There were five or s i x gen tl emen whom he knew were anzi°" to address the House. with e Mr. arrangement HENLEY of h said t e Noble h e would Lord, dbe v e ry but the y had hn s orr to interf e ree been in to t" a nd be Was c l a House since twelve o'clock in the morning, unable to go on at that late hour of the night. The debate was then adjourned. On the question being SUPPLY.imtfovheinging the Committee of Supply Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the vote for tP expense of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, because t he thought that expenditure ought to be defrayed ont revenues of the Church, and not out of the public exchequer.. Lord J. RUSSELL said the vote was deliberately a greed t° in Committee after a lengthened discussion , and he had nothing the def r report y ng the on n further to add to what he had already s t a ted on the subj ect. Mr. BROTHERTON said be s hould be compelled, nig nt erinciple, to vote for his Hon. Friend the Member f or Coventry! if he divided the House on the vote, but he really mustoltet to their spliting straws in this way. It was u nworthy a l a great principle. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the vote Majority Hoos e resumed, u f m a veodu,r and d th t e h v e o te report ''''''' r 7 o 3 d to Against it - 63 he was The brought up on Thursday. Messengers So from At the E L nFROMrd brought THE downLORDS. the p 00 r POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. s l‘lE fr ot her (Ireland) Bill, with the Lords' amendments, and several public and private Bills, and prayed the assent of the Call n°ll6 to the several Bills. Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the Bill, as amende d ' f r e printed and taken into consideration on the 31st of MO; ?it s did not think that it would be possible to have the amenel e d o Whitsunti printed and considered by the House till after the holidays. The motion was then agreed to. Bill, The reports on the Transference of Lands (Scotland) e the Heritable Securities for Debt (Scotland) Bill, the w ere Tenure (Scotland) Bill, and the Crown Charters 13ill, w received, and the Bills were ordered to be read a third tiro e " Thursday next. POOR REMOVAL ACT REPEAL BILL.aI Mr. BANKES brought in the Poor Removal Acß ead , Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to b second time on Friday next. A the The other orders of the day were then disposed of, an d House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS' BRISTOL, MAY IS. , ~, a 4 STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are -oe"tA ). 51 -- 4 --D p i .- tto N , Noretshr, British, li.lls. ;is.-Great Western, Quarters 3 1 4 p.-Ditto, Fifths , „,,j_ ),-Ditto, New. 2 :tic, p.-Midland, 1141A -Ditto, Nevrl,.7, 3{l. - te N ns e i7n c , as hire, 1 p.-York and Newcastle, New, 4p. MANCHESTER, MAY 18. nr STOCK EXCHAN'OE.-The sales are-Ambergate, sou, _a 'am, and Boston, 1 7-16 dig.-Birkenhead, Lancashire, s_ P „ l is le p an . _.... d sßoerrtwh i c s k t , a t fi ord , 'heshire, 2-Birmingham and Dudley, 4% p.---Biacknrt; ;litheroe, &c., Preferentials, 3'i p.-East Lancesb ir° ' a nd B. and P.), New (scrip), 3-16 dis.-Fleetwood, Preston, an d West Riding, IA, dis.-Manchester, Buxto n, Matlock, area , / 1 Midland, c. tbs.-Manchester and L eeds, 321. no_ (late Extension), !.4 dis.-Manchester, Sheffield, and 0 .... colnshire, 84-Manchester and Southampton , 2 95 *. A i 5 .-- 16 vov North Staffordshire, 1 1 ,6 p.-North-Western , er 1 13- sr Oldham Alliance, 5-16 c. dis.-South-Eastern and Fre . No. 3, 1 dis.-Ditto, No. 4, 5-16-York and Newcastle, ference, 21 , i. LEEDS, MAY 18. . • NTOtting-. STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Anwergawe, ~ Ditto, ham, and Boston, 30s. n. dis.-East Lancashire, 2 dis. _East and New, 2 die.-Ditto, New (scrip), 3s. 6d. disyo 1 cl- West Yorkshire, 40s. dis.-Great Northern, 3 s. dis * 1u d dersfield and Manchester, par (guar. fu ll int.)--Leeds an Dewsbury, Extensions Scrip (green), 20s. dis.-Ditto, New Extensions Scrip (pink), 14s. dis. - Leed s and Tk, 6 1 ,t hin dis.-Ditto, Preference, 2 s. dis. - Leeds , Wakefield, and Mid land, 20s. dis.-Malton and Dritald Junction, 20s. dis.--" Manchester and Leeds, 321. Shares (late Extensions), 75. dis.-Ditto, West Riding Union, 3s. 6d. dis.-Manchester , Buxton, Matlock, and Midland, 10s. n. dis.-Newcastle and Berwick, New, 1% p.-North British, Thirds, 255. p.-Ditto , Quarters (late Carlisle Branch), 14s. n. p.-Ditto, Extension (scrip), 2s. p.-North-Western, 435. dis.-Wharfdale Junc tion, 275. dis. HULL, MAY 18. STOCK EXCHANOIL-The sales are-Ambergate, Notting' ham, and Boston, 235.-Manchester and Leeds (West Riding Union), ls. 6d. p.-Newcastle and Berwick, 31s. N T th British, Extension (scrip), .. 9 s. 3d.-Ditto. Thirds (scrip), 46§. North-Western, 41s. dis.-Shropshire Union, 395. 6d. db. C N A G S E T .- L , li: l -U e yi STOCK I N :..X E CH " A are-Easternll'YNE, AY Counties.lB. 1 1:a ( le N s dis.-North British, Quarters, 15s. p.-Ditto, Extension, 3 5 ' P' EDINBURGH, MAY 17. STOCK EXCHANGIt.-The sales are Aberdeen, 251. 1 715 ' 61.-Airdrie and Bath ate,3l. 145.-Arbroath and Forte, 271. 155.-Ditto, Halves, 151.-Ayr and Galloway, 14193. 6d; -Caledonian, 244-Ditto, New 1/. 195.-Caledonian anu Dumbartonshire, V. 145.-Clydesdale Junction, 42/. 105.-- Deeside, 3/. 55.-Dunblane, Doune, and Callender, 14 7s. 6 d' -Dundee and Arbroath, 421.-Ditto. New, No. 1, 301-- Ditto, New, No. 2, 301.-Ditto, No. 3,4/. 7s. 6d.-Dundee and Perth, 301. ex new-Ditto, New, 111. cx new- East!rn FIR! : Counties, 194-Ditto, York Extension, bl. 55.-East of 21. 10s.-Edinburgli and Bathgate, 61. 10s.-Edinburgh ter An s , Glasgow, 691.-Ditto, Halves, 22/. 55.-Ditto, Quar 171. 55.-Edinburgh, Leith, and Granton, 18L-Ditto, Ditto, Pre ference, 204 10s.-Edinburgh and Northern, 17/.-- New, 3/. 25.-Ditto, Newport, 7 1 . - Ditto , d itto, New, 1/. 185. 6d.-Edinburgh and Perth (New Co.), 1/. 143.-Glasgow Ind Ayrshire, 1184-Ditto, New Stock, 35/, 103.-Ditt o, Halves, No. 1, 81. 155.-Ditto , Halv es, No. 2,6/. 35.-Gl 3 gow• Dumfries, and Carlisle, 54-Glasgow and Garnkirk, Glasgow General Terminus, 12/. 55.-Glasgow and Greenock• 161.-Ditto, New, Sl. 153.-Ditto, Preference, 8/.--Glasge w • Kilmarnock, and Ardrossan, 4/. 103.-Great North of Scot land, 24-Newcastle and 13erwick, 24/. 155.-North British, 304155.-Ditto, Halves, 14 /. 2 s. 6d.-Ditto, Thirds, 21. Bs. 6d.- Ditto, Quarters, 4/. 2 s. 6d.-Ditto, New Quartert (scrip), 15s. 9d.-Ditto, Fifths, 6/. 153.-Scottish Central, 23/. 7s. 6/1.-Scottish Grand Junction, 193.-Scottish Mid i And, 19/.-Stirling and Dunfermline, 3/. 5a. -Stirling and Midland, 2/. 55.-'rishaw and Coltness, 49/. 55.-York and Newcastle, 341. 10s.-Ditto, New, 14/. 10s.-Ditto Prefer . cute, 6/. 10s.-Direct Bombay and Madr as, 2s. 4.-East Indian, 2s. 63.-Great North of India, 35.-Great Southern of Madras,23 -Madras, Nvllere, and Arcot, 1... 6d. NAY 17. sroch: E xcHA 4:iles are—Ayr and Galloway' x;9 6 .—Caledonian, 23 ji—Clydesdale Junction, 42 1 ; 2—Dundee And Perth, Quarters, 565.—, East Indian, 2s. gd.—East Lothian Central, 395. 6d.—Edinburgh and Perth (New Co.). 33 5 .—(11asgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, 1161.—llitto, —Ditto, Halves, No. 2,6/. 4 s . —Gl asgo w, Du„ n " tries, and Carlisle, 5/. 38.—Glaagow Harbour Junction, 26. ndi an , , —Kilmarnock and Ayr Di rec t, 12s. 6d.—M anc h e ster Southampton, 11s. 3d.—N or th British Thirds s"—llit tor New Quarters (s cr ip ) , 15 s. Gd.—Scottish Central, 28%• [ADVERTISEMENT.]—BRUSHES, NEW INVENTION'''. I LIE TRIPLE HAIR BRUSIL—One stroke of this is equal to the effect of on e p enetrat i ng, f i ve small-toot h e d combs, '— one even cut brush. The Double Anti-Pressure Nail Brush, which does not divide the quick from the nail, no pressu!e being required, and thoroughly cleans and polishes the nails!! a tenth part of the time of an y o th er me thod. The new Tooth" pick Brush, which enti r ely enters between the interstices of the closest teeth ; m ar k s , No. 1, hard; No. 2, less bar e , No. 3, middling; No. 4, so ft, a t I s . e ach, or 10s. Pe rd tir in hone; and 2s. each, or 21 s . p er dozen in ivory , _ warranted never to come out.—The medium Shaving _e_ between the usual badger hair and bristle brush , being gl,Tke, lection of the strongest hair only from the badger skin;„ above articles are the inventions of Ross and Sons, and imitating l 120, silotPhsegfew-isitlrebeet,pLroconekleodne,dad being protected , an y °I" 1 - - BIRTHS. O n Christmas -day last, at Syd ne y , New South Wales, the wOnin,s,ttliee wife e h w ife of Wise() Ray , Esq. , o f a dau g hter, ofofTopmecleZmayb,eEr s l q a . s , t' o faat s t.d . ney, New Sout h On the 26th of February lat, at Colesberg, Cape of Good Hope, tho lady of J. Campbell, Esq., of a daughter. On the 15th insf., at Fiuchley-road, St. John's-wood, rtfkb• James Courtenay, of a son. On the 15th inst., at llighbury-grange, Mrs. James F. Scott, of a son. On the 15th inst., Mrs. E. C. Dermer, of Albion-terrac e . Wandsworth-road, of a son. On the 16th inst., at Blackheath-terrace, Mrs. John Brow n ' of a son. On the 16th inst., at Harrow-on-the-Hill, the wife of J. W. Cunningham, Esq., of a son. On the 16th inst., at Thames Ditton, the wife of Thomas Edwards, Esq., of a son. On the 16th inst., the lady of Ross Di Mangles, Esq. , of a son. MARRIED. On the 19th of March, at the Cathedral, Calcutta, Georg : ' Charles Armstrong, Esq. 111. D., to Emma Mary , ib urt daughter of Robert Hand, Esq., of Great Cumberland-Place" On the 15th inst., at With yham Church, Mr. Macrae, stlil.; late goon, Lewes, Sussex, to Emma Alice, Mr. , st Smerford. e ller seco nd daughter 01- tu On the 15th Turner in. um at St. Dunstan's, Stepney, Mr. Flet o Moor, of Ventnor, ' lsle of Wight, to Charlotte , daughter the late Mr. Thomas Berresford, of Stepney-gre lEB. On the passage from In d ia to England, Alethea, Wife of Major Edward Bond, of her Majesty's 39th Regiment. On the 13th of March last, at Agra, in the East Irldiess Lieutenant Charles Robertson Ailiman, of the Hon. India Company's 41st Regiment Bengal Infantry, aged 2153. At Bloxham, near Banbury, Thomas Eagle, Esq., sg, ed On the 15th inst., at Heigham, near Norwich, Capin G. S. Croasdaile, of the 10th Regiment of the M. N. On the 14th inst., in Myddelton-square, Henry a youngest son of the late Peter Lee, Esq. On the 15th inst., Thomas Marsh Elst ob, R.N., l a te of her Majesty's chip Dolphin, aged 19. On the 16th inst., at Castelnau - vi l las , Barnes, F ra nces, t" wile of Joseph Odling, Esq., aged 48. On the 16th inst., at Nazing, Essex, Mr. James Hobbs, of Broxourne, Ilerts, ged 60. O e, n b Ap t s h i( e ic. 6 6(lic t)hiintsotr.:a agedAlr4 . Charlesl Att wa ters, of Queen-street• ch ed and Published by 51U1t.D0 01 412. strand, Printer, at The Sun 0111ce N 0.113, Strand , in the Yroc7: of the Savoy, in the Couuty o 4 2.1141.4.11e8ezi Wednesclity, )147 1847. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING; MAY 19, 1847. f O ~'~