The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-12 00:00:00

THE ROAD MURDER.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH inquired if the conduct
of Mr. Wagner had been reproved in respect to his refusal
to answer the questions put to him at the trial of Con-
stance Kent, on the ground that he would be bettaying
the secrets of the confessional _ _ _

The LORDYCHANCEI,LOR said the law does not per-
mit even Roman Catholic priests to refuse to answer a
question in a court of law. There was no doubt Mt.
Wagner was bound to answer the questions put to him if
he had been pressed by the magistrate ro do so. Most
likely the matter was not deemed sufficiently important by
the magistrate to induce him to visit Mr. Wagner with any
of those serious consequences his refusal laid him open to.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Tnis EVENING.

The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. .

The following bills were read a third time and passed)—
Belfast Gas, Belfast New Streets, County Antrim and
Belfast Borough, and South Devon Railway.

WIMBLEDON COMMON BILL.

On the motion of Mr. C. FOSTER the order that the
Wimbledon Common Bill be committed was read and dis-
charged, and the bill was withdrawn.
DEE AND MERSEY JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
Lord R. GROSVENOR moved that the Dee and
Mersey Junction Railway Bill bo recommitted to the
former committee,with leave to sit and proceed upon Mon-
day next.
Mr. LAIRD seconded the motion.

Mr. HUMBERSTONE objected to the proposition.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said they
ought to view with jealousy the proposals to recommit
private bills, and he had made it a rule where he had a
personal interest in any private bill never to vote on it, but
as in the present instance his personal interest was opposed
to the course he thought the house ought to take he would
just make one or two observations. The bill had been re-
ported against, as it would interfere with the navigation
of the river Dee, and the question for the com-
mittee to have considered was whether the public
convenience of the bill outweighed the objections raised
against it. The committee did not consider that question,
and therefore he thought the bill ought to be recommitted.
Sir B. LEIGHTON said when the right hon. gentleman
was examined before the committee he admitted he had
some property, and therefore he did not think that opinion
could be looked upon as impartial.
Mr. ROBERTSON said if this motion was agreed to,
and the bill passed, the navigation of the Dee would be
impeded, and the trade of Chester seriously injured. The
gradients for the bridge were all wrong, and he therefore
called upon the house to support the referees, and refused
to agree to the motion now before them.
Mr. CLAY thought the house ought to stand by the re-
port of the referees and the decision of tho committee, and
refuse to entertain the proposal for the re-committal of
the bill.

Mr. BONHAM-CARTER objected to the re-committal
of the bill. _

Mr. DODSON hoped the noble lord the member for
Flintshire would withdraw his motion. The matter had
been well considered in committee under the chairmanship
of one of the most experienced members of that house, and
as their report was adverse to the bill he trusted the noble
lord would see the propriety of acceding to his request.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the re-committal 47
Against it ... 144
Majority 97
The motion was, therefore, negatived.

THE FRANCHISE.
Lord ELCHO gave notice that on an early day he should
move an address to her Majesty praying for the appoint-
ment of a royal commission to inquire how the parliamen-
tary franchise can be extended without lowering the
qualification.