The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-03 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 3, 1851,

deeply c ,neerned in this matter, ought to fairly repre-
sented. There could, of course, be no objection to the first
nsme--fhat of the bon. member foe Montrose ; but the first
'name was generally the chairman of the committee, and
this might, therefore, to be fully considered. lie hoped that
the queens would be postponed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. said
that the appointment of the committee, alter 00 divi-
sion on the motion of the hon. member fur Montrose
that the to be limited to one year, had teen taken
for granted. No one had ever made any objection to it—
(Mr. Hurries : '• Oh yes, I did.")—or, at any rate, there
had never Leen any division on the point. Therefore the
committee having beau agreed to, the house had now to
dcci le on the names of whom the committee via to be com-
posed. He would confess, as regarded these, - that he
thought, with hon. gentlemen who had spoken, th it they
were nut altogether those names which wowed he satisfac-
tory to the house on a question of this vital importance.
(Hear, hear.) But at the same time the house would have
to bear in mind the extreme difficulty which had been ex-
perienced in getting, the consent of hen. gentlemen to
serve; and this fact, indeed, was one of the ireat,st objec-
tions which could be urged to the committee. The object had
been to .nake the committee a fair rcpresmtative of all
parties and opinions in the house. lie had 01101.11 A with
the hue. gentleman the member fur Buckingham-hire and
with the right hon. gentleman the member tar Cambridge
Cuiversity (Mr. (ioulburn), and with others who had
taken a prominent part on financial questions. lie had
thought it indispensable that some one or tw,, of the mem-
bers of the government of the late Sir Halite reel should
sit in the committee ; and he had also holed that the right
hon. genfietuau the member for Stamford (Mr. Hurries)
would serve. But he had found that none of the colleagues
ut the lute Sir Robert Peel would take part in the com-
mittee, alleging, as their reasonfor declining, that they did
not approve of the appointment of the committee, and that
they. did not believe any good would result from its in-
quiries. He also found that the right Lon. gentleman (Mr.
!terries) was Maim:lined to serve. Thus, he found that
gentlemen of the needful official experience and
financial knowledge regarded the committee untavour-
idily ; and he could not avoid seeing that this fact
would greatly lessen the weight which the committee might
be expected to have either as regarded the house or the
country. (Hear, hear.) Eventually, after some further
conference, ne did give the hon. member fur Montrose five
names. The complaint now was, that the lauded interest
soap nut fairly represented in the coutruittee' as proposed
by the hon. member for Montrose—(hear, hear)—and he
was in some degree inclined to think that the complaint
was nut altogether ill-founded. But after the refusal
of so many gentlemen to sit on the committee, it would be
a very difficult task to get such a committee together as the
Mow, would approve of.
Mr. IItESHFIELD said that no advantage could arise
irom the appointment of the committee; and that, at any
rate, the present list could not be areeptesl; and to bring
the matter to au issue, he moved as an amendment, that the
order be read for the purpose of being di-charged. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI said that if the hon. member for
Montrose penided in the proposition for this committee, he
should not refuse the hon. member his vote. He would,
however, ask the hon. number to look to the circumstances
nu which the proposition was now brow ;ht forward :iney
Aver.: on the eve of the Whitsuntide hi-Lays. A.
mouth had elapsed siucc the honooraulo member
obtained his majority for the ineutation of the
tax ; and the loss of this month was a serious
feature in the consideration of the position which they now
occupied in reference to this subject. The hon. member
oaglit also to inquire if it would be possible to investigate
the question adequately before the termination of the pre-
sent session of parliament? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. AULION BY denounced the unfairness of the pm-
mediae recommended by Mr. Freshfield. The restriction
of the tax to one year was voted specially on the ground
that a select committee should inquire into the means of
rendering the impost more fair, while it was now proposed
to quash the committee altogether.
Attar a few observations from Mr. Hume,

DEIiDES, with sonic objections to one or two names,
intended to support the motion of Mr. Hume.
Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY supported the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL reminded the house of the advice
which the hon. member fur the West Riding of Yorkshire
had tendered them while the motion for limiting the dura-
tion of the income tax was before the house. The hon.
member (Mr. Cobden) had said that, if they wished a modi-
fication of the tax, the proper way was to make a substantive
motion to that effect. Another way bad been suggested to
the hon. member for Montrose, Ulm were not prepared to
scenic to the rect- neud'tion of the hon. member (Mr.
Cobden), and it that select committee should be

...nen), an,. was, . a
appointed for the purpose of considering the expediency of
modifying the income tax. The hon. member for Montrose
had, however, taken a third course, which was, in the cir-
cumstances, not intelligible to the house, namely, that the
tax should be agreed to for one year only. A number of
hon. members had voted for that proposition, in order that
during the course of the year an inquiry might be instituted
into the mode of levying the tax. A number of other hon.
gentlemen, who had not taken a very prominent part in the
debate, had voted for the motion on grounds similar to those
of the right hon. member for Stamford—that another and an
early opportunity might be afforded them of endeavouring to
diminish the income tax with a view to its final abolition.
It was therefore perfectly evident that 234 members had
voted with the hoe. member for Montrose on grounds
quite different from those on which he had submitted it.
(lieer, bear.) After the vote had been come to he (Lord
J. Russell) hail stated on behult of the government, that
taking the motion as it had been put by the hon. member
for Montrose, the government were willing to consent to
an Inquiry by a committee, and that if it were appointed it
I was the opinion of government that the inquiry, in order
is be xi fair as possible, should be conducted by hon. mem-
bers from all aides of the house who hard paid attention to
the subject of finance, and whose opinions were generally
recited by tile house with some degree of confidence. Ills
hon. friend had not, however, succeeded in forming the com-
mittee in this way. In the first place none of the members of
the administration of the late Sir It. Peel had consented to
be members of the committee. That, of itself, would pre-
vent the committee from being deemed so satisfactory as it
ought to be. (Hear, hear.) In the next place, the right
hon. member fur Stamford had declared that he could nut
be one of the committee. Again, there was one name on
tho list to which he (Lord J. Russell) must object—namely,
that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. lie did nut think
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should go into a com-
mittee of this kind, with only some two hon. gentlemen who
might be of his opinion to assist hint in contending against
the sentiments of the other members of committee. (Hear,
hear.) If there were to be a question as to the modification
of the income tax, the hon. member for Montrose
should be allowed to submit his propositions to the house.
The only thing that now remained, and he thought it did
remain, was tur the hoe. member to propose such a com-
mittee as he thought proper, of those who agreed with
him on the necessity fur a modification of the tax, and that
they should endeavour to come to some agreement on the
subject by inquiry and discussion. It they were able, they
might, with a view to the continuance of the tax, refute
what an hon. member had said that he (Lord J. Russell)
had admitted, namely, that inequality, vexation, and fraud
were inherent in the income tax. (Hear, hear.) He
had accepted the tax for another year, with
all the evils which were attributed to it. He
should be very glad, as the country expected that
an inquiry should proceed. He could not iii the cir-
cumstances vote for discharging the order for appointing
the committee. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY' did not like the committee as it stood on
the paper, and still less approved of the proposition to
form a committee of financial reformers. lie sheuld vote
for Mr. Freshfield's amendment.

Mr. Herman, Mr. Baring, and Mr. Booker having spoken,
Mr. COBDEN wished to have the question submitted to the
house upon a definite project for modifying the income-tax.
He remarked that Mr. Hume had placed himself in a false
position by obtaining a majority for limiting the tax to one
year by an alliance with a party who now turned round and
refused him hia committee of inquiry. The income tax in
its present shape was bad, but there were many other taxes
much worse.

Mr. HERRIES—After the remarks which had Wien
from the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) and others in the
course of the present discussion, Alt himself fully justified
in voting for the discharge of the order.
The home then divided. The numbers were :

For the appointment of the committee 193
For the amendment 94-99
Mr. HUME expn vied tie anxiety that the committee
should be fairly nominated. He thought he would best
consult the convenience of the house by delaying the no-
mination to some future evening, and enquired what even-
ing the government would allow him for the purpose?
Ur. HORSIIAN recommended hon. members on the
opposite side of the house to waive their objections, and
take part in the labours of the committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would take the nomina-
tion of the committee previous to the orders of the day on
Friday first.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION BILL.
Mr. bIONSELL recommended the noble lord at the head
of the government not to proceed with the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill on Friday first. It wm so close on the Whitsun-
tide holidays that hon. members were anxious to leive town
on that day.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he must go ou with the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill on Friday. Ile could not afford to
lose the day.
On the house going into committee on the Ecclesiastical
Titles Assumption bill,
Mr. WALPOLE rose, in fulfilment of his promise, to
state the exact course which he would take regard.
ing the amendments of which he had given notice.
He wished to support the noble lord as far as he
could, but at the same time he was desirous to make the
bill as complete and as effective as possible before it passed the
house. Nt ith this view he had given notice of a great many
amendments—all of these in some degree essential to the
proper w of the bill. Feeling their importance, he
should mot he ' to give way on any of the amendmeuta
which Memorised of amaseutial character, unless it could be
denceresdad that them existed some .strong countervailing
mem to Wass Mr to do so. Two reasons had with this
sheer boom proposed to him. The Ant was, that the decla-
nmmdemse, which the hon. member for Dublin had called
the Walpole clause—(Laughter)—had given him almost all
he had oohed for. The other reason which hod been stated
by tbs aside lord (Lord J. Russell) was, that when those
smomehro who were friendly to the passing of the bill saw
the delays and impediments which necessarily intervened,
they right not to do anything which would add to these
delays se increase these impediments. (Hear, hear.) He
was stromily of opinion that these reasons were entitled to
very great weight at his hands, eo much so, that he had
thought it right in the midst of many other pressing claims
on his time and attention, to reconsider the whole
enitiect—to reflect emiensly al to those of the amend-

lIMMNI=IMMI.

mores which be should press, and those which he
might waive after having obtained the declaratory dame,
which to him was more important than anything else, he
would, during the progress of the bill, propose nothing but
what he believed to be absolutely essential to the proper
working of the bill. There were in his estimation three
things which were essential to this purpose. First, it was
absolutely essential that they should clearly lay down sad
define in their preamble the constitutional pnnciple es
which they proceeded. Since the debate of Friday ells.
iug he was more convinced thou ever that the suppled
ambiguity of the declaratory clause existed more in the
minds of the opponents of the clause than in the clams
itself. (Hear, hear.) He was confident there wee as sow
biguity whatever in the clume, if it were referred beck
to the preamble in such a manner that the preamble would
lay dawn a proper foundation for it. When they came to tie
preamble, he should feel it his duty to press fur confident&
alterations, for they must remember that it hail been late,-
doted in connexion with clauses which now no longer
existed, and it was very inapplicable to the clauses of the
hill as they at present stood. Secondly, he thought that
they should so frame this measure that the necessity fur
future legislation on the subject would be obviated. (Hear,
hear.) They had declared that the papal brief which caine
into the country in September, was illegal and void,
and the necesstry consequence of that was that any brief of
a similar kind tor a similar purpose ought to be prevented
from coining into the country. For that purpose he should
propose that a clause shunt(' be introduced making it penal
in any person to bring in such briefs, and subjecting hint to
the same penalty that was attached to the assumption of
titles, Tue third point which he thought was essential to
the proper warking of the hill wag that care should he
taken if Fa law of this kind were passed, that it should be in
force and nut left to slumber. It would be better to
have no law at all than a law not intended
to be put in force. The government proposed that the At-
torney-General alone should prosecute, while ho propmed
that any. indisidual should he at liberty to prosecute. Both
propositions were opau to objections, but he thought the
government plan the more objectionable of the two. lie
admitted that there might be sanguine partisans or warm
enthusiasts who, with more zeal than discretion, might he
induced to prosecute, if they had the power of doing so
given to them, and such persons might institute a prosecu-
tion with imperfect evidence and on insufficient grounds.
Nothing could be more dangerous than to give facilities for
convictions under such circumstances. Ito believed, how-
ever, that the proposition of the hon. and learned member
fur Abingdon met both these objections. His suggestion was
that the crown as well as the subject should be able
to prosecute for the penalties imposed by the bill, the effect
of which would be that the crown and the subject had both
the power and both the interest to see the law properly car-
ried out. Both would have the power of prosecution, and
while the one exercised that power, the other would Kee
that the Attorney-General did his duty. Such were the

three minciple; he thought essentiiil to the efficient
working of the bill. With regard to the deportation clause,
he felt that there was great difficulty, be might say im-
propriety, in any person proposing such a clause, if the
government upon whom rested the responsibility of provid-
ing that the law be observed and enforced expressed their
opinioa that the provision was unnecessary. Considering
all circumstance., he had come to the conclusion that he
ought nut to press the deportation clause. The point he
wished first to pre.; upon their attention was embodied in
the amendment he should now propose, and was simply
this—that as it had been declared that this brief was illegal
the entrance into the country of other briefs like it ought
to be prevented. 'the hon. and learned member concluded
by moving that after the words " any person "in the
first line of the second clause, the following words should
be inserted—observing that the form he should adopt
was altered front the printed fonn :—" Shall do or
assume to do any act, deed, matter, or thing under
or by virtue of the aforesaid brief rescript or letters
apostolical, or if any person shall hereafter obtain or
caused to he procursd from the said Bishop or See of Rome,
or shall publish or put in use any brief, rescript, or letters
apu.stulical, or any other instrument or writing for the pur-
pose of constituting in the kingdom of England' hier-
archy of bishops with tides derived from places belonging
to the crown of England, they shall be subject to the same
penalties as are provided fur the assumption of titles."
Mr. RUCHE said that this was a very important amend-
ment, and the eff,ct of it could not be carried by mere
memory on hearing it read over. It ought to hate been
printed and not to he pressed now.
Mr. WALPOLE said it was nearly the same amendment
that was printed, and before the committee, and instead of
saying " shall publish within any part of the United King-
dom any brief, rescript, letters apostolical," itc., the words
he hail just moved "for the propose of constituting in the
kingdom of England," &c., were substituted.
'1 lie ATTORNE Y-GENERAL gave his hon. and learnsd
friend credit for desiring to make the bill as perfect as pai
sihle, and thanked hint for not pressing such parts of M
amendments as he had become convinced were not snow
tial. Ilia hon. and learned friend had not, perhapa„is-
e.ndetl to make the penalties cumulative, but the proposed
clause would have that cifeet ; fur, under its provisions, say
per-on who should pot in use a rescript would he liable Is
a penalty of 100/., and the assumption of a title under the
rewript would also entail a penally of 1001. So that if a
catholic ecclesiastic received from the see of Romp a reseript
or brief appointing him bishop of some bishopric, he would
be liable to a twofold penalty under this clause—first, for
accepting the brief; and secondly, for assuming the title.
(Hear, hear.) Was not that in point of fact one and the
same transaction? lle could nut assume the title except
under the rescript, and assuming the title without the con-
sent and the authority of the sovereign was an offence.
If the person who published the rescript was a different
person from hint who assumed the title, the case would be
different. But an Attorney-Oeneral would be bound to
frame his information for both offences, and the same party
would Buller a double penalty fur what was in fact but one
offence.

Mr. ts..NNOICI LEY considered this to be an imps.-
tint amendment, calculated to render the bill more effi-
cient, and the more valuable on account of its tendency to
prevent the necessity of the repetition of legislation.
Mr. ItOCILE then moved that the amendment be post-
poned for the purpose of being printed, on the ground that
the lay members of the house had not had time to consider
waat would be its real effect.

The CHAIRMAN decided that the motion of the hon.
member was not in order.

Mr. MOORE enforced the necessity of postponement,
and moved that the chairman report progress.
Sir F. THESIGER said that the Irish members should
be tke last to oppose this amendment, and after a few ex-
planatoq, remarks,
Mr. MOORE ultimately withdrew his amendment for
reporting progress.
Mr. WC ULLAGE asked the hon. and learned member
for Midhurst to explain what he meant by the words " the
kingdom of England."
Mr. WALPOLE observed that he had always said
throughout this discussion that there were two particular
matters with which they had to deal. The one was the en-
croachment on the prerogative of the crown by sending the
rescript into England, and the other was the assuming of
the titles. The preamble of his bill stated that " whereas
the Bishop of !tome, by a certain rescript or letter aposto-
Heal, purporting to have been given at Rome, has pretended
to constitute within the kingdom of England, according to
the constitution of the Church of Rome, a hicrarchy,with sees
and with titles derived from places belonging to the kingdom
of England." Then came the declaration that that reeeript was
void ; and then came the provision, that if any person
ahed bring in a brief or rescript for the purpose of con-
stituting a hierarchy within the kingdom of England he
should be subject to a penalty. The house would see that
his preamble, his declaratory clause, and. his enacting
clause, were connected. If the hon. gentleman, the mem-
ber for Dundalk, however, objected to the words, " the
kingdom of England," he had not the slightest objection
to make the clause to run, "in that part of the United
Kingdom called England."
Mr. MT ULLAOI4 said what he was complaining of was
that they did not understand what they were doing.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the hon. and learned
member for Midhuret was involving himself and the house
in most egregious inconsistencies if the clause were to pass
as it stood. the bill was • bill for the United Kingdom,
and the first clause, adopted at the hon. and learned mem-
ber's suggestion, was to declare that a proceeding of this
description, a bull or brief of this character, was of itself
illegal and void; the second clause declared the assumption
of titles of sees taken from the names of places not only to
be illegal, but to be liable to a penalty, and that applied to
the united kingdom. Well, then, surely it was an incon-
sistent thing to say that the assumption of titles should be
subject to a penalty in the united kingdom, but that the
bringing in of a brief should only be an offence in England.
He thought it was not worth while to add an additional
penalty.
Sir THESIGER thought his hon. and learned friend was
not perfectly correct with regard to the effect of this decla-
ratory clause. The judges in Ireland would decide on the
law as it existed, independent of this bill; and so far from
being assisted by a clause of this kind, it would only em-
barrass them.

Alter a few words from Mr. TBILAWNT,
Mr. WALPOLE said there was a distinct encroachment
on England by constituting this hierarchy, and ho wished
to keep that part of the measure distinct.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not think the hon. and
learned gentleman Iliad answered the objections that
had been made. However, his objection to the
proposed amendment was a far more general one.
This clause was framed on the act of 1829. That
act said that the assumption of any title of sees derived
from provinces or sees existing by any Roman catholic arch-
bishop or bishop should be an offence, and a penalty was
awarded. In this clause they proposed to extend that enact-
ment not merely to prohibit titles taken from the names of
sees, but from any place within the United Kingdom. The
enactment was perfectly plain, and they did not propose to
go beyond the spirit of the act of 1829. What the hon. and
learned gentleman proposed was to create a new offence.
Mr. Nt ALPOLE said all he wanted was that in case any-
thing of the kind came into the country again, they should
have the same remedy against the person publishing the
brief as they had against the person assuming the title.
Mr. NAPIER said he hoped his hon. and learned friend
would not press his amendment, as it created a difference
between the laws of the two countries.
Mr. STANFORD said he should support the amend-
ment of the hon. and learned member for Midhurst.
Sir R. INOLIS thought that the hon. and learned mem-
ber, in justice to himself and to those who placed so much
confidence (and deservedly so) in his talents, his legal ac-
quirements, and, above all, his principle, should, instead
of now pressing his amendment to a division, endeavour to
draw up a new clause not open to the same objections.
(Hear, hear.) Even if he was not prepared to adhere to
his original proposition, it would be much better for him
to take time to [rime it in a less ezceptionahl: manner.
(Hear.)

Mr. WALPOLE could not help feeling that most of his
hon. ftiends on that side of the house did not wish him
to press the motion.
The CHAIRMAN asked if the hon. and learned member
withdrew his motion ?
Mr. WALPOLE would take a few minutes to consider.
Mr. HOILSMAN entertained a strong feeling with re-
spect to the late aggression, and an equally strong fear that
they had nut dealt with it in precisely the manner they ought
to have done. The hon. member for Midhurst, by rendering
every act under the brief penal, entirely destroyed it; and
therefore there was no necessity to mention ecclesiastical
titles at all. But the government wished to introduce into
the bill the Roman catholic bishops of Ireland, who had
nothing whatever to do with it. fu fact, it was like saying.
because the Pope had dune something which had insulted
the people of this country, therefore we were determined to
put down the ancient hierarchy of the sister country. The
object of the hon. member for Midhurst was to attack
a foreign aggressor, but it was proposed, instead of doing so,
to inflict penalties upon our own subjects. The great mis-
take had been throughout in confounding the act of the
Popo with our own countrymen, who were entirely inno-
cent. (Hear, hear.) As the proposal of the hon. member
did not go out of its way, either to except or to include
Ireland, and yet fully met the aggressive act of the Pope ;
and as the measure of the government did go out of its
way to include that coun, he should give the former his
' warmest support. (Cheers.)
Mr. SCULLY having asked whether the bill did not ren-
' der any person in Ireland who should receive a bull mini-
noting a bishop liable to a penalty of 1001., recommended
the government to wash their hands entirely of the in -
sure, and to leave the matter in the hands of hon. gentle-
men who could make the clauses fit the preamble, and
the preamble fit the clauses.
Mr. WALPOLE now rose and said that he withdrew his
amendment. (Ikar, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS asked whether the hon. and learned
gentleman had withdrawn the whole of his amendinenta.
Mr. WALPOLE said he would explain his intentions in
an early part of the evening.
Mr. filioOH said the hon. and learned gentleman had
already departed very considerably from his original inten-
tion, and much time had been consumed. The hon. and
learned gentleman had spoken four times, the hon. and
learned member for Abingdon twice, and the Attorney-
General twice. (Hear' hear.) It was not the Irish mem-
bers only who could be accused of wasting the time of the
house. (Mar, hear.)
Mr. WCULLAGII then moved the following amend-
ment. After the words "By law," to insert these words,
"Or who shall have been recognised as Roman catholic
arehbi hop of any province, Roman catholic bishop of any
diocese, or Roman catholic dean of any deanery, by any of
her Majesty's superior courts of law and equity." The
hon. member, having referred to various documents in which
such recognition had taken place, and observed that the
authenticity of these documents was inronteatible, as!sed
if the house was prepared to set aside a sanction so given, to
undo all that had been done, and to declare that the judges
had been guilty of a violation of duty ? Ile should cer-
tainly take the sense of the committee on his amendment.
Mr. 'NAPIER said it was most essential that the commit-
tee should be very clear as to what was the law of Ireland
which there had been most elaborate attempts to confuse.
It hail been represented that this was legislation directed
against the Irish people—that the house waa declaring war
against them and their religion, when in fact they were only
declaring the law as it stood. In the present caw, the re-
coguitiona referred to did not amount to any
lawful authority. With regard to recognitions by
courts of law, there had been no instance produced.
It was a great mistake to suppose that by the Emancipation
Act the annexing of a penalty made the act for which it
was annexed unlawful, it merely added a penalty for doing
that which was previously illegal by the law of the land.
lion. gentlemen had referred to the jurisdiction of the
Romeo catholic bishops being called into question ; and
the validity of their certificates of ordination and marriage
being allowed in courts of law; all he could say was that,
in his experience, he knew of only one such case being re-
ceived in evidence. The Charitable Requesta Act hail also
been referred to. But hr held in his hand a work by a Roman
catholic barrister, in which he found it stated that "the
bishops of the Roman catholic church possessed the right to
ordain priests, to appoint to livings, to suspend, restore end
remove them, such right being recognised as a usage of the
church; and that, consequently, the right might be ad-
mitted for all the purposes of the Bequests Act, without, at
the same time, acknowledging the bishops to be bishops of
any particular diocese." (Hear, hear.) Ile might also
refer to the published works of Serjeant Shee and Mr.
O'Leary, both of the Roman catholic pciadision, which,
together with the declaration of the Roman catholic
bishops, and particularly of Dr. M'llale, should be tauten
as positive on the subject of territorial jurisdiction. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS asserted that if the Inn became
law in its present shape, it would be impossible to exer-
cise the Roman catholic religion in Ireland without the
permission of the Attorney-General. (Hear, hear.)
Though he was prepared to support the proviso now before
the house, yet he should declare that it was both narrow
and contracted. (Hear.) Ile could assure the committee
from acquaintance with the :sentiments of the Irish Roman
catholic archbishops, bishops, andpriests, that if they passed
any law calculated to obstruct the free exercise of the
Roman catholic religion in Ireland, that law would be
treated as so much waste paper.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the declaration now before
the house revived the old persecuting acts, and gave them
pungency and effect. The Protestants of Ireland, he was
happy to say,had not joined in the miserable clamour which
had been filagreeing England during the last few mouths ;
and though the Roman catholic archbishop of Tua:c cared
nothing ler distinctive titles, he would, nevertheless, if this
bill were pewit, assert his rights.
Sir W. VERNER said the hon. member for Dublin (Mr.
Reynolds) had assured the house that if this bill were passed
it would be opposed by the Roman eatholics of Ireland.
This had been so frequently repeated that hon. members
would very probably begin at last to suppose that there
were no persons in !mama but Roman citholics. The
fact, however, was far otherwise. Ireland contained about
5,000,000 of Rom= catholic/ and '2,000,000 of protestanta.
If this bill became the law of the land, the protestaata of
Ireland would support it. (Hear. hear.) They had done
so before, and they would do so again. They had ever
been found the staunch supporters of the constitution and
the rights of their sovereign. Ile called upon the
house to repeal the bill of 'n; but, whether that call were
followed or not, upon this they might depend that the
Irish protestant% would never be intimidated, but that they
would be ever forward as a body in maintaining the British
constitution and British law. (Cheers.)
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL expressed a hope that the
speech of the hon. and gallant gentleman who had just sat
down would act as a warning to the government of the
danger they were incurring by proceeding with legislation
of the present kind,fur when they had obtained the support
of the hero of " the diamond " they ought to beware.
Mr. SCULLY called upon the committee not to rely
upon the Orangemen of Ireland, but to place their de-
pendence upon the loyalty and affection of the Roman
catholics of that country.
Sir W. VERNEIt contended that hon. members had got
up in that house, and dared the Prime Minister to
pass this measure, adding, that if it were passed the whole
body of Irish Roman catholic@ would come forward in a
body and oppose it. Those who opposed the law in such a
way were rebels. (Hear, hear.) lie believed that those
who made such assertions were stating that which was not
the fact, hut, if it were the fact, the parties opposing the
law could be viewed in no other light than as rebels.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS, amid loud expressions of disapproba-
tion, said that as he was the member referred to by the
honourable and gallant gentleman, he begged to be per-
mitted to explain what he really did state. The
honourable and gallant gentleman had put words into
his mouth which he had never uttered. lie had never de-
fied the prime minister to pass the bill. The hon. and gallant
gentleman had invited the prime minister to pursue his
countrymen with acts of aggression, and hail said that if
the Roman catholics obstructed, the Orangemen would
help to cut them down. (Oh! oh!) He (Mr. Reynolds)
would tell the hon. and gallant gentleman, in the strongest
language parliamentary courtesy would permit him to use
—(wolucal laughter)—that the Irish members despised his
threats, and defied his power, and that his braggadocio and
boasting, although it might have weight in that house, was
laughed to scorn by the millions of the Roman catholic/ of Ire-
land. The honourable baronet had perhaps shown his
" diamond" courage in making this attack ; but it was
only Dolly Brae braggadocio. (The hon. member was
loudly interrupted throughout by augry cries of " Divide.")
After a few words from Mr. M. J. O'Connetz, the house
divided—.

_
For the amendment 4.5
Against it
Mr. MOORE proposed as an amendment to insert alter
the words " England and Ireland," the words, " so long as
the said church shall continue to be the united church of
England and Ireland." He trusted he should have the
noble lord's support, as he had himself expressed a hope
that there might he a sweeping reform of the church as tho
best means of preventing a repeal of the union.
Mr. DRUMMOND should recommend his friends to re-
serve their votes for the third reading, by which time they
might decide on their course with respect to a measure
which was wholly miscalculated for the end it professed to
have in •iew.

Mr. REYNOLDS called upon the noble lord at the head
of the government to express his opinion on the proviso.
Ho could not forget that the noble lord and his party bad,
at a former period, carried the appropriation clause.
The amendment of the hon.'member for Mayo was a golden
opportunity for the noble lord to express his opinion, for
the temporalities of the Irish church was the theme upon
which the noble lord had spoken most eloquently, and one
which,when in opposition,he had never failed to bring under
the attention of the house.
Lord J. RUSSELL, amidst cheers and laughter, said that
as the subject referred to by the hon. member had no rela-
tion to the amendment now before the committee, he must
decline the invitation of the hon. member to enter upon it.
The committee then divided—

For the amendment 36
Against it
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. REYNOLDS on his legs. The hon. member said he
thought he should not be charged with being unreasonable
—(loud cries of " Oh, oh ")—iif he moved that the house
should cow adjourn, as it had sat for eight hours. The
noble lord (Lord J. Rummell) should make some allow-
ance for those who were fighting a battle against fearful
odds.

Mr. MOORE said he had been sitting there since 12
o'clock.

i;itiJ. RUSSELL said he would not divide the house
The Meow (Bcetiend) Ball west timough committee.

FEE FARM RENTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill pro fiwnt4,
and it was, on the motion of (Jul. DUNNE, recommitted till
Friday.
SALMON FISIIERIES (IRELAND).
Mr. CONOLLY moved for leave to bring in a bill to con-
solidate and amend the laws relating to salmon tiheries in
Ireland. The fisheries in Ireland were at present in a
most ruinous condition. This was to be attributed to the
act of 1842, which had completely failed in the purioses it
was intended to effect. That net was (pito in opposition to
the laws of nature, and would not, therefore, prove otherwise
than of the most injurious character. He would be con-
tent with bringing in the bill, in order that the attention
of hon. members and of the government might be drawn to
the subject, and would not press its second readiug this session.
Mr. TAYLOR seconded the motion fir the introduction
of the bill.
Mr. SCULLY asked what the government intended to de
on this subject 2
Sir W. SOMERVILLE replied that the goverr.nent did
not intend to do anything on this silaject, at least (baring
the present session. IC the hon. 1111•Illiltr had not aunounced
that ho did not intend to press the bill this sestion, ha (Sir
W. Somerville) would have been obliged to state that ho
should have opposed the second reading.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY VALUATION
(IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Mr.TeustA., leave was given to
bring in a bill to amend an Act of the 11th and 12th years
of her Majesty, relating to poor-rate poundafie and tho
valuation of ecclesiastical property in Ireland, and to pro-
vide for the renewal of leases of lands disappropriatcd from
bishoprics.
The bill was read a first time.
GUNPOWDER STORES.
•• •

On the motion of Mr. W. PATTEN, the following were
nominated as the select committee on Ounrovdcr Stores
(Liverpool) Exemption Repeal Bill :—Mr. Nl'il,on Patten,
Sir Philip Egerton, Mr. John Tolle:n=11e, Mr. Moore
O'Fermll, Sir 'fhomaa Birch, Mr. Brown. Adlaical
Berkeley Mr. Bolder°, Mr. NMI°II, Mr. Arinstrwe,r, and
Admiral 'Bowles.
The house adjourned at a quarter to 1.

Cite (iu rortAo.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

A Second Editian st " The Express,' containing ,he same evening'',
4. Gazette," is published every Tuesday and Yridsy night, in tine
for post.
Advertisements intended for s' The Express," London Evening papers
must be at the Odic, to, Bouverimstreet, by Iwo Cclock en the
day of publication.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Ten DAT—Morning, 4h. M. .Afternoon, 4h. Me.
To.mohaow—Mornfrig, 4h. 53in..—....tflarstol, Sh. IC4a.

LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 3.

MR. GItANTLEY BERKELEY'S motion for a return
to a West Indian monopoly of the home market for
sugar, stands first on the notice paper of the House
of Commons this evening. So, if, after the tire-
some discussions of last night, a house can be
made, we are doomed to be again bored by a use-
less debate on the exploded subject of sugar duties.
At the instance, too, of a gentleman unreason-
able enough to require a large income from
estates in Demerara, respecting the cultivation
of which he knows little or nothing, which,
if he did know aught about, he has not capital
to cultivate, and the cultivation of which, if
protected at our cost, would not yield him any
profit; on the motion of one who would reap where
he has not sown, and who in his own proper person
is, perhaps, as fitting an illustration of why West
Indian property does not pay, as could be well
presented to the House of Commons. Mr. GRANT.
LEY BERKELEY is, therefore, himself the best
answer to his own motion ; for, in such hands as his,
distress must be the rule, prosperity the exception, of
a Demerara plantation.

But the slave-trade Why, surely there is an
end now to that bugaboo! Whilst the British West
Indies were protected, the slave-trade was rampant.
Not all our fleets, our blockades, our bombardments,
our rights of search, our Courts of Mixed Commission,
our expense, our trouble, our violence, could abate it.
On it went, increasing and decreasing, according to
the great economical law of supply and demand; no
one believing in the sincerity of our suppression
efforts but ourselves; all the world pleased to see
that we could make no impression on the horriblo
traffic which all the world took an interest iu, be-
cause it deemed England to be selfish in aiming at its de-
struction. So it was. But concurrently with our gradual
approach to free trade in sugar, and to a proper
treatment of those countries which conic into compe-
tition with our sugar colonies, just so has a new
feeling arisen in those countries. Their moral per-
ceptious to their own real interests have had fair
play) they have not been obstructed by their own
passion, or by our policy, or by suspicion as to our
motives, or by attention to what we were doing ; and
consequently, even in this mutter of the slave-trade,
which a few years ago appeared to be endless,
Brazil and Cuba begin to have fears, and apprehen-
sions, and doubts as to its being so intimately and
inseparably connected with their material weltare as
theyliad, under the influenceof our former policy, sups
posed. In Brazil a great moral revolution on the
subject is in progress; and already Cuba has ceased
to import any considerable number of slaves.
And this was exactly what free-traders in Eng-
land always predicated would be one effect of tho
abolition of the colonial monopoly of the sugar
market; and this is tho most complete answer that
can be given to Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY'S motion,
which claims a return to protective duties on tho
ground that their gradual extinction has encouraged
the slave-trade. It has done nothing of
the sort, as Lord PALMERSTON will tell
the House of Commons. On the contrary, it
has encouraged, promoted, and developed the
growth of an anti-slave-trade party and policy
in the countries where so long as we excluded their
produce, such a growth was hopeless ; and if we
want to check, to blight, and to destroy that party
and policy, all we have to do is to tamper with our
present sugar law. On the ground then of humanity,
Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY'S motion is not to be to-
lerated ;itis in reality a resolution to revive and
promote the trade in African slaves, now so happily
declining.
But it is equally objectionable on economical
as on moral grounds. Setting aside the all-
important fact that it would sacrifice tho
English consumer in the hope of artificially con-
ferring unlawful gains apparently on the West
Indian proprietary, but really on the West Indian
peasantry; overlooking that, the greatest point in
the economical question, it is not, we say, for the in-
terest of the West Indies to have an unnatural re-
vival of pecuniary prosperity by means of protecting
duties. From first to last the West Indies have
suffered under artificial treatment ; first, of
the slave-trade ; next, of slavery unsupplied by
the slave-trade ; and last, of protection, which
converted the planters into monopolists. All
this forcing West Indian prosperity has deprived
it of stability and peraumence—has fostered habits
of improvidence, recklessness, and of reliance on
every agency but that of self—has made West Indian
property a great gambling speculation, now yielding
enormous profits, then sending its improvident
owners to the workhouse—has demoralised society
throughout these colonies—and has associated their
fortunes with the success of a single staple. Tho
pack of cards thus built up has toppled down,
and not all the skill of England can reeret
the edifice. For the restoration of protection and
high duties would not restore prosperity to the
planter; the utmost that it would do would be to
raise the wages of a peasantry, whose supply would
bo again below the demand, and to augment the pro-
fits of overseers, attorneys, agents, and a few mer-
cantile houses.

No; there is, there can be no hope for the West
Indies but in self-reliance, in their own exertions,
advantages, opportunities, skill, enterprise, and
fertility. If these won't restore them to life, to
hope, to prosperity, their case is hopeless; for
nothing human can. Civilisation and necessity
are carrying us back again to simple and natural
laws, to laws founded on the highest obligations of
'justice to the governed. They, as integral parts of
the empire, must go back with us. Anything that
colonies can fairly ask of the mother-country will not
be refused them. But to make them an exception to
a fundamental law of our imperial commerce is not a
demand that they ought to ask or that we can grant.
In some respects the British West Indies may be
inferior to Cuba and Brazil; but surely in ono
they enjoy a marked and proud superiority.
Their propnctary is of British origin, of British mind,
of British thews. and sinews; and, as such, it ought
to have all the indomitable energy of the British
race, which fails not generally to conquer success,
even under a tropical sun. Away then with idle re-
grets for the peat, and with TAM and unreasonable

expectations for the future! The future is in them-1
loch-es ; and in themselves only. But to secure pros-
perity in it, their application, which will have to be
severe, intense, almost heroic, must not be diverted
from its task by glimpses of hope never to be
reached, by inch illusory prospect as that Mr. I
GRANITET BERKELEY'S motion raises.
Already in some of the smaller islands, where these
qualities of mind and body have been roused into
great exertion, their effect on adversity is to be seen
and felt. The wages of labour have fallen, improved
means of cultivation have been introduced, new
articles of culture have been resorted to, the cost of
production has been lowered, encumbered estates
have been sold, capital is flowing slowly in, and
society itself is improving in moral tone. This is
what is wanted, not protection, throughout the West
Indies; and this the pressure of free-trade will give
them all, sooner or later.

A MORNING contemporary, somewhat given to
hyperbole when discussing ecclesiastical subjects,
yesterday ventured on two assertions as to the educa-
toad relations of the State with the Church and
other religious denominations, which, if made in
ignorance, are in discordance with its general intel-
ligence ; but which, if made with a full knowledge
of the Privy Council has really said, written,
and done, are at variance with the obligations of
good faith doe to its readers.
1. It is stated that the Roman catholics, after a
three years' contest, have carried their point, and
have succeeded in obtaining the State's neutrality
with reference to the religiowi teaching and eccle-
siastical management of the schools. The very re-
verse of this allegation is the case. In no part of
the multifarious correspondence with different sects
and bodies carried on by the Lords of Council is the
objection to the predominance of the spiritual power
over schools half so plainly and emphatically pro-
nounced and insisted on as iu that between
the Privy Council and Mr. L.tsnv.ttt on
behalf of the Roman Catholic School Com-
mittee, and it is the last correspondence that has
occurred on the subject. We have quoted and re-
quoted passages from the c‘,..c pondence just pre-
sented to parliament, showing this; and shall nut now
repeat them. But, we must impress upon the public
this fact, that, high as the pretensions of the ltomish
priesthood are in everything affecting religion and
religious instruction, they never rose in that corre-
spondence to the height of the claim put forth by
the National Society for the English Episcopacy.
Mr. LANGDALE, to do him and his church bare
justice, distinctly informed the Privy Council that
itoman catholic bishops would refuse "to accept
were it tendered to them, an appellate jurisdiction
over schools in matters purely secular;" that juris-
diction being the point contended for under the guise
of " local freedom" by the Committee of the National
Society. The matter of dittirence between the
Roman Catholic School Committee and the Privy
Council was not the point on which the latter dif-
fered with the National Society, but was whether
the ecclesiastical authorities of the church of Rome
should have the power of deciding what questions do
or do not affect religion and morals." This power the
Committee of Privy Couneil dcained to grant. "
wrote Mr. LINGER to the Roman Catholic Committee
in reply to the pressing claims to have this power
confided to their ecclesiastical authorities, not a year
ag*:

If upon any point of this nature [such as the choice of
buoks or the dismissal of teachersl it is incumbent upon
Homan catholic* to defer exclusively to their spiritual
authorities, tb. it lordship, cannot anticipate that the Roman
catholic conintittces for the time lade will be Imo ready to
etercise sue,' deference than the original promote', of the
buikling. If, howeser, the committee should not be so
inclined, there remains the appeal to contruul them. Their
lordship. must deline subjecting them to any further
limitation.

And in the very letter in which Mr. L.tNGDALE
accepts the clauses as ultimately settled by the Privy
Council, he places on record (as if to contradict this
allegation of our contemporary) the fact that the
Council had yielded less, not more, to his church
than it had to the National Society:
The Poor School rounnittee regret the refusal of their
lordships to insert the word " moral " together with " reli-
gious before " instructions," mot from m addition which,
as catholic's, they conceive would thereby have been made
to what they believe to he comprehended under the tern.
"religious instruction," but becar,e, as tutroducisl into the
deeds of the National Society, they are at a loss to interpret
the motive which can have induced their lordships to object
to its insertion, equally in deeds prepared (or schools
belonging t.. Roman catholic,.

And with that expression of regret the correspon-
dence closed. bet we are now coolly told that after
three years' contest the Roman cathoties have carried
their point ; and have obtained privileges refused to
the church, and the National Society. There can
surely be but ouc way of characterising such an
allegation.
2. Next we are informed that the church of Eng-
land schools remain out of the pale of that impartial
and open handed toleration which is extended to all
others ; tlio religious opinion of some members of
that church that the clergy and their bishops arc the
proper arbiters and supervisors of the religious educa-
tion of the children of their own flocks being relent-
proscribed by the government. Such is the alle-
gation; contrast the facts. 1. Out of 659,217/. granted
by government in eleven years for the promotion
of education, 404.8221. has gone to church of Eng-
land schools. 2. So far front the religious opinion
that the clergy and their bishops arc the proper
arbiters and supervisors of the religious education
of their own flocks being " relentlessly proscribed by
the government," the State actually makes knelling
grants to schools the trust deeds of which embody
and incorporate that opinion, as interpreted by
the journal in question, refusing only building
grants to a school-house the promoters of
which seek to exteud that opinion from religious to
secular instruction. 3. Instead of the church of
England schools being excluded by the State from
the pule of that impartial and open-handed toleration
which is open to all others, they arc all included in
the same pale. The principle of lay control in the
secular management of schools assisted by building
grants is applied by the Privy Council equally to the
British and Foreign Society, to the Wesleyan com-
munity, to the free church of Scotland, and to the
ltoman catholic sect. For each a different set
of management clauses has been re ppared;
each set in harmony with the religious views
of the communion for which it is intended,
and all aiming to carry out practically the
principles on which these communions profess to
carry out their schools. But in the case of none of
these sects has the " impartial and open-banded tole-
ration" of the Privy Council gone so fur as to pre-
pare clauses which would exclude the lay subscribers
to the schools assisted, from all participation in the
management of their secular affairs. That was left
for the National Society to demand ; and, when de-
manded, it was simply but courteously refused.
The people who now exclaim against government
" proscription," altogether forget that, originally,
sets of clauses far has favourable to their views

than the modified clauses now settled, were actually
accepted by the National Society, and were recom-
mended by the late Archbishop HOWLEY for adop-
tion in church schools ; that the government now
chared with" relentlessly proscribing" the religious
opinion that the clergy and their bishops are the
proper arbiters of the religious education of their
Clocks, have always admitted that on matters con-
nected with religious instruction, the bishop should
have appellate power ; and that they now only
refuse such power in matters not connected
with religious instruction. The literal truth is,
therefore, that government have sanctioned the reli-
gious opinion they arc charged with " relentlessly
proscribing." Such is the fairness of the opponents
of the Privy Council.
Just let us, however, for one moment take a com-
parative glance at the church's demands in this
question of education, and at the manner the com-
mittee of council have dealt with them ; and so see,
with greater distinctness, whether the government
can honestly be accused of " relentlessly pro-
scribing" any opinion in this all-important question
of education.
The church, in 1840, required that no inspector
of its schools should bean ted without the
concurrenee el the arch ' of the province,
and that*, appointment be revoked. if at
any the. the welbisisep should real nth emir-
rearm The Committee of the Privy Coma asersted
to the regiment. The inn 4 IsMman
that the reneged sat isms skid be midi es
trosiseitiets. 1. That a free dine el dr dolor
a hi to the promoters at ire ashen.
2. net as appeal is arialeVon Andien of
mengunet arid be prond ladall lay

members of school committees should qualify
by subscription to a declaration that they
are members of the church and not frequenters
of other religious denominations. The Commit-
tee of Privy Council yielded large discretionary
powers as to choice of the clauses. They increased
the appellate power of the bishops over school books
and schoolmasters on religious grounds, and they
i provided a board of appeal to be constituted by the
I president of the council and the bishop, each nomi-
nating a member; that of the former to be a school
inspector, that of the latter a beneficed cler,;ynian ;
and these two to appoint an umpire, to be a magistrate
and a member of the church. And finally, the Privy
Council adopted as a qualification for all lay mem.
hers of school committees the following declaration :
.‘ I, A. 8., do declare that I am and have been for
three years past a communicant of the church of
England." And yet, because the Privy Council
refused to give episcopacy an appellant jurisdiction
in matters not affecting religion, they are now
charged with'' relentlessly proscribing' a religious
opinion. Can folly and injustice and inaccuracy go
further ? What worse can our contemporary's
bete noire, Mr. 0. F. YOUNG, in his fashion, do than
this?

Tile verdict of " manslaughter" against the driver
of the luggage train which caused the collision at
Clay Cross on the Midland Railway must, at least,
have this good effect (even though it may end in the
acquittal of the prisoner), that, by his trial before a
QUEEN':, Judge, the publc will know, with greater
accuracy than it now does, the state of the law on
the subject of carelessness, recklessness, and dis-
regard of order and rule in railway servants ; what
legal responsibility they arc under; and what
means of punishing them for avoidable fatalities
there are. And if the law thereon be at all
in accordance with common sense, with the safety'
of travellers and the interests of railway shareholders,
it will impose on Directors the imperative task
of rearing and educating for, and of bringing into
such dangerous employment, what is really the great
want of railways, a higher and better clan of men ;
and of laving down a system of travelling and con-
veyance that shall guard against the improbabilities
u well as the probabilities of collisions.
But, satisfactory in one sense as this verdict is, it
is, we must recollect, founded on two deaths. Now,
had not the collision resulted in this mortality, there
is too much reason to apprehend that no criminal
proceedings would have been instituted against the
driver for the broken legs and arms, for the injuries
and bruises, for the incalculable personal misfortunes
his conduct has inflicted on those who survive
the collision. No preliminary legal investig.ation
would, except for the unhappy deaths of Mr. MEV-
NELL and Mr. BLAKE, have followed the occurrence;

that full and authoritative legal investigation to which
the verdict is owing would have been avoided ; it
would have been difficult to have procured all the
evidence wkielt.those fatalities rendered indispensa-
ble, and compelled even Mr. 111.WACLAT, the Com-
pany's attorney, to produce ; no magistrates would I
have been bound to have interfered in the matter; if

any had done so, the obstructions in thcirway would
have been so great, that the chances are, though
persons were maimed and crippled for life by his
carelessness, yet the driver would have escaped in-
dictment fax any offence, had it not been that man-
slaughter has Leen committed. This, to say the
least of it, is a most unsatisfactory state of things;
ono requiring serious consideration. For, unless
every collision of this sort be made the subject, not
merely of administrative or superintending, but of cri-
' minal and legal investigation, a degree of legal im-
punity is cast on all railway accidents short of death,
ill calculated to increase that sense of responsibility,
an which the security and safety of railway travel-
ling entirely depend.
In this Clay Cross collision the inquest has clearly
traced its immediate cause to one individual, and has
thereby simplified the case that will be handed over
to superior criminal investigation and adjudication.
But, at the great majority of railway collisions, that
immediate and direct agency cannot be traced and
established ; and, though their results may be quite
as fatal and disastrous, all that such inquiries gene-
rally terminate in, is the expression of opinion that
the system has been: in fault. Here, again, there is
something most defective in our legal forms and pro-
cedure; for individuals are and must be morally
responsible for the system thus censured; and yet
they escape the legal consequences of the fatalities
caused by general bad management. They are not
punishable, it would appear, except for special or
separate negligence. For the bad, dangerous, and
murderous system no one is answerable.
One day last week a young man pleaded guilty
to a scandalous, and what might have been a
very dangerous, but was a harmless frolic in
throwing two signals on a line, and was sen-
tenced to nine months' imprisonment, accompa-
nied by hard labour, for his offence. Yet only
three weeks previously, an avoidable massacre of
seven persons in the Sutton Tunnel, produced by in-
excusable negligence, recklessness, and carelessness,
was formally pronounced to bo " accidental death,"
far which no one is to be prosecuted or punished.
The contrast between the extreme severity in
the one case, and the complete impunity in the
other case, is very shocking, and not at all creditable
to our law. And we must think that the railway
department of the Board of Trade would have been far
more usefully employed in seeing whether, notwith-
standing the verdict of the coroner's jury in the
Sutton case, the criminal law of the country could not
be brought to bear on some of the authorities of the
Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Company, than in
teasing these incorporations generally for idle and
ageless returns relative to the pecuniary management
at their affairs.
Since the enactment of Lord CAMPBELL'S most
valuable and humane act these accidents have im-
posed very heavy pecuniary liabilities on railway
sheettaolders. But those penalties paid out of the
general funds, only operate on railway manage-
ment in an indirect manner, and are clearly
insufficient to produce that sense of danger on the
part of those concerned in the management which is
so indispensable to public security; and as calculated
to infuse into railway management that sense, the
verdict of the ooroner's jury on the Clay Cross collision
is invaloidge.

Yesterday a painful report of the sudden death of
the Right Hon. R. L. Shell, her Majesty:s minister
at Florence, reached London. Oa hearing of the
suicide of the late Mr. J. Power of Ourteen, the son

of Mrs. Shcil by a former marriage, it is stated that
Mr. Shcil was seized with gout in the stomach,
which carried him otf very unexpectedly.

DEATH 01' THE EARL OF, SHAFTESBURT.—Crop
ley Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, Baron Ashley of
Wimborne St. Odes, county Dorset, Baron Cooper, of
Paulett, county Somerset, died yesterday, aged 83. He
married December 10, 1796, Anne, daughter of George,
Duke of Marlborough, and aunt of the present duke, and
succeeded to the title of Earl of Shastesbury on the death
of his brother, the sixth earl, in May, 1811. Four sons and
three daughters survive the late noble earl, the eldest of
whom is Lord Ashley, now Earl of Shaftesbury, whose
elevation to the House of Peers creates a vacancy in
the representation of the city of Bath. The late earl
for many years filled the office of chairman of committees

of the House of Lords ; and on his retirement a short time
slaw mind the well-merited eugoliee of the heads of all
pardss.

AEZITAL OF TUE LAEATETTEE AT LIVERPOOL.—
, shortly before noon, the United States screw
Lafayette, under the command of Captain Stod-
do% We of the American steam-ship Crescent Ci/sz,
rived io the Meracy from Queenstown, where she had
=srto put in for a supply of coal. On !nails( dr
.....d very fast up the river, and Immo* rap
thee s shildag emanate. Her bull is ecesstrodad ICON-
mbia shoe this oViscrhieh the Americana have meetly
sleeted la fink Teasels, being TeV km and
aft. Sho is WNW tarries a large. el asance,
and fres her fin even wi her anew
power, nest be tesyCl" tseagto the boo& af the
air-posop die liesiosseare piano= stioraml, the womb
deal eloped by a pipe pined en the qwertswisch.
THE AOCIDENT ON THE MIDLAND BAILWAT.-011
Tuesday, the rtmeits of Mr. Maya were entrensl to
their last restiesvisse et Langley, near sod were
there latexes& la the theft vault. At a qtr bdue 9
o'clock, the sseantal preestiaa laft Tams Ovens, and
es road eta Irene, with a nemesia cosh 1M
bream of the heented enema It was
./Py
• swims et linestice sag tests inkling is
=sat =heft se tetemerlhe nines& weerrilt
ands% when a huge enseesse el em
asembial Y par their het lelbsie et to the sunny
oleos els led ..r MAMA hit to all duels el,
the rensersittg. • siaielar esindissee, the nine
whisk meal Ms draw_a Nome train after his
min Apo 911114119, anner.