The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-11 00:00:00

TULE SUN, LOND-ON, THETIISDAY EVENING, JUNE-11, lBl6

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 10.
THE DANISH CLAIMS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (in con-
tinuation from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday)
said—ln fact, captures of cargoes at sea during war have
always been considered to be rightful captures. That has
been the uniform practice and rule with all nations at war,
and I have no doubt that it ever will be the practice in future.
And if you permit a sense and feeling of justice for these in-
dividuals to be imported into this discussion, bear in mind
that by granting their claims you impose a heavy tax
and great burden upon every other class of
the community, and yon should also make them
compensation for what they have suffered during the
war by contributing to its expenses. I say, therefore, that
you will act most unjustly in granting these claims, for you
will thereby lay a tax upon the people of this country.—
( Hear, hear.) If you think fit to remunerate one class,
you should also remunerate another, but you tell me
that the war itself was an unjust one, and that,
therefore, those claims should be paid. Whether the war was
just or not, I say the principle will equally apply. I would
assume as a fact that it is perfectly just that these parties
should be compensated for the loss of their property, and that
the sum of 250,0001. should be handed over to them ; but
whilst these merchants havelost their property, the whole of
the people of this country have been subjected to heavy
burdens for the purpose of carrying it on. They have
borne those burdens, cheerfully, they have paid the taxes
for the purpose of carrying on the war, and in some twenty
d
years afterwards you discover that several persons
law
orgtions
in trade during the war have, according to the
and the ordinary practice of war, lost their property,
agree to a vote for the purpose of compelling
ofthat war to pay
who have }agree the burden thoseanpaeoypelue
another tax of 250,0001. I think in a clahiraerodfinthariys sort you
are acting not only in contradictioendteointg
of nations during war, but you aen injustice to thi-
-1 future demanded,
wars
country; and not only
the extent
riaeers:tjahtaealnit during
roim‘nv ga
de for the cap-
you are establishing the printatom
hear.) Sir, this case has
with this country compensation
tures that may be made.—(ti
argued that it is with great difficulty
that I can bring myreally been so often s
e
lf to enter into any further discussion
upon it. I think the ground upon which it has been stated
by the Hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the subject
is• , that there was no war between Denmark and England.lf there was no war between this country and Denmark
without a declaration of war on the part of England, then
England has never been at war with any other nation. A
declaration of war was made on the part of Denmark on the
16th August, 1807. That declaration was made by the King of
Denmark, who said, " We do hereby make known, that on
the 13th of this month hostile operations commenced
between Denmark and England; and we therefore call upon
our faithful subjects to take up arms in the first instance
against the enemy, and to repel all hostile attacks." This
Danish declaration was made on the 16th day of
August, 1807; and, sir, it is perfectly true that a declaration
of war was not made on the part of England, for it is not
the policy of this country to make declarations of war. This
country has been in the constant habit of suspending for a
long time all hostile operations against other nations, and the
war does not commence until all hope of conciliation is
abandoned. Wars have, by these means been often prevented,
and, Sir, I should be unwilling that any course should be
taken by this country that should operate against that prac-
tice. In the year 1812, when America declared war against
Great Britain, what was the course pursued in this country ?
Great Britain, as the House may remember, made
no declaration of war with America. Two or
three months elapsed while captures were made by
us on American property, as she had declared war, but we
not having declared war, remained so until the September
following. It is no argument in the case to say that we were
not at war, and that we could not justify the capture of any
property until the 2d of November following, the date of
our declaration. Let us see how this case has been construed
by competent authorities. I have looked back on many
de-
tails
on this subject which have never before been under my
consideration, and I will now state what was the view
taken by the Government at that time with
regard to the position of Denmark and this
country, in reference to this war. At the period of which
lam now speaking (August, 1807), certain privateers cap-
tured a number of Danish ships in different parts
of the high seas, near the shores of Great Britain,
- on or about the 16th of August, 1807. On the 29th of
August in that year, the Treasury had before it under
its consideration the cases of the captures made by these Bri-
tish privateers. They had speculated on the chances of war
either with Spain or with Denmark, and had fitted out yes
sels, thinking that in either case they should make some-
thing by it. The Treasury came to the conclusion that
their speculation on the chances of war was so bad a prac-
tice that they would give no captor of a ship under these
speculative circumstances any remuneration. The captors
of these vessels came to the Treasury, in order that
they might have the ships given over to them, and
also the property contained in them, What was the
decision of the Treasury ? They were referred to the law
officers, stating that the commencement of the Danish hos-
tilities had been pressed on by the circumstance of these
speculative attacks, and that there would be enough
to do to remove the imputation of rash pro-
ceedings. The declaration of hostilities by Denmark
has been ascertained to have been on the 16th of August.
1807, and the mission of Mr. Jackson was concluded on the
13th, and then an order was issued with reference to all hi-
Majesty's ships on the coast of Denmark. All these were public
events, and it was more or less known to all individual,
what would be the probable result. The Treasury salt:
that it was expedient to consider the 16th of August the
date of the Danish declaration of hostilities; and, in referent.
to the decision they had already given, they acted agains'
their own interest to say that there had been
no of war —bu acted
their owndeclaration interest, and in conformity the
withy against
the justice of the
case. They revoked the order with regard to the speculative
captures in favour of the individuals who made them ;
they awarded to these private ships rewards in proportim to the various sums taken. In short, everything aflirmen
the declaration of war upon the 16th. I see no doubt as n
the existence of that war; it was acted on as a war by all o:
our authorities, although no declaration of war was eve
issued by Great Britain until the 2d of November following.
Another argument of great weight is that the Dane
made their captures because we made crptures to a keg:
amount on the Danish property. The banes succeeded it
taking from you a large amount, and you took a large
amount from them, which was paid to the
public account. I
do not admit that fact—it is no greater ground for remuner-
ating these parties titan any other favourable circurnetanc
they can allege. It is unfortunate that fr :m the mixed mole
in which the accounts of the registry in the Court of Ad
miralty were kept it is not possible to devise what is the
amount w hick was paid on account of the Danish prize-money Two of these accounts are, however, quite clear. Tlit
Danish claims realised a property of a million sterling, and
out of that sum Parliament has voted to parties suffering
from the Confiscation of book debts no less a sum thee.
278,000/., and the proportion of the captors' share in respect
of the remainder is very considerable. We gave to-the cap-
tors in the navy concerned in the capture 348,0004 making, a sum of 626,0001. out of the gross sum of a million. No ac-
count of what was specifically paid to individual captors of
private vessela can be obtained, but it appears to
have been considerable. The accounts laid on the
table of the House say that it varied • from
one-half and two-fifths to four-fifths, according to the
amount taken; so that if we take from the total amount
paid into the registry, and apply that to the total amount
paid in compensation to parties who hell suffered, and other
expenses, the balance would possibly give an idea of what
the average proportions paid to private individuals were.
We are now called upon to make a serious inroad en the
public revenue, and are called on also to impose on the
country a tax of 250,0004 to repay those people who sus-
tained losses of property in the war. The Honourable
Member, as I understand, says that he has abandoned
the question of the justice or injustice of the war. I .
am
very glad to hear him say so; we have had enough of that
argument, and on that point I shall not address the House. j
bat I shall content myself with proving to the House that
these captures made during this war stand on no different
footing from those captures made during any other war.
you are prepared to remunerate those merchants who have
ost their property during the
pwear,ntyouholt
l
after-
wards extend the principle to
rse fered in property durino; any other' wwar. These a
e suf-
the peculiar circumstances which entitle me to your
conn.-
sideration. On ths''se grounds I think it my (hit)
to oppose this grano.. It is important that the payment of s
vast amount, the great expense also, should not be en-
tailed on the country. The principle is not a safe one, and
it is for: thf House of Commons to consider well before they
alloaa such a measure to pass.
Mr. HAWES--Sir, the Right Hon. Gentleman who has
just sat down has made certainly a singular assertion. He says
that from time to time the advocates of the Danish claim-
have forced a few arguments in their favour, and have then
ventured to refer them to this House. It is the natural
course Of debate, that as you find an argument
a-aced against you to examine those arguments you
have already urged before, and if you can find matter to
bvercome the arguments against you, so to do. If I were
compelled to communicate beforehand all that I am going
to urge to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (and I would do
• so with great pleasure), he would naturally- seek in any place
for argument to refute it. The Right Hon. Gentleman has
exerted himself to show that there was a declaration of war,
and a declaration of war on the part of Denmark ; he has
adhere ll points to the faith held when the declaration
of war tookaplace, and with that faith he has endeavoured to
decide that question
her Majesty'e Soli • * I have here before me the opinion of
milted to him, and which on jllis
case, which was sub-
staznaieh. I will give to the. House, as It is
very short. ne:k,
On
thiiis opinion that the declaration on
the part of Den
he 16th of August, was not a decla-
ration of war ; the langua
will take the liberty of readilasaTelse and explicit, and I
this is his
opinion •—" I am of opinion thatVe-rY ''h°lllY;
• the instrument of the 16th
of August, to which reference has been made, is cia
ration of war, and that it merely orders an embanrogtoaonde-Ze-
tish ships, and not the confiscapm of them.- (I beg the
House to mark that.) " There is a distinction between an
embargo and a confiscation. It is stated by the law of Eng-
land and of nations, that an embargo directs only the de-
tention of the property from the owner, and a confiscation
takes away the property altogether. There is nothing in
the instrument in question which authorises the taking away
Permanently any British property."
It would be_presump-
Lamle in me, against the experience of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, and against the opinions of the law-officers of
the Crown, to enter upon a legal argument the
• but, in
order to entitle myself to the cen.sideration of _
House, I can quote the opinion of her Majesty's
Solicitor-General, in answer to the Right Hon. Gentleman.
The case must not, however, be allowed to rest there. The
Right Hon. Gentleman has said that I have never raised the
question of the justice or the injustice of the war. I
have never argued that question in the discussion of the
Danish claims. The Right Hon. Gentleman has assumed
the complete justice of the war, and on that he has proceeded
to argue that, supposing the war to be just, and the
Danes to have declared the war, that all that was
taken was the prize of the captors. Against the Right
Hon. Gentleman I am sorry to oppose this argu-
ment. The Right Hon. Gentleman has said that it
Was a great war on the part of England, and that Denmark
declared war. If that be so, every state paper published at
the time of the war is in direct contradiction to the Hon.
Gentleman's statement. We went to the Court of Denmark
and said that we wanted, as friends, to continue the nego •
tiations which were pending before we went there. We have
seen the declaration that passed between the two nations, and
we have seen the convention, on the part of Denmark, was
kept. Nov, then, can we say that it was a just war on our
part? We went there for the purpose of effecting a particular
object by means of negotiation, but had not declared war at
the time—so it is asserted and recorded in all the state papers
of the time—that we were not at war, that we went as friends,
and desired to continue so. The Danish Minister never left
this country until the 20th or 22d of November, and Mr.
Canning said that we were then proceeding with negstiations But if this was to be argued on the ground that some British
Vessels had also been taken, then I say it should not be for-
gotten that the Danish Government did not confiscate our
vessels until the month of December, that is to say until we
had confiscated theirs, and then the Danish Government re-
Solved upon the course they adopted by the issue of what I
May call an order in council. Well, then, we have had
stated to 11.5 by a BritiSll NilliStVa et the

present day that we were at war with Denmark when this
was done. But suppose we were, a negotiation subsequently
took place, and yet, notwithstanding that, in one month
after, or rather more, the English Government confiscated
the Danish vessels one month before they confiscated oars;
that is to say, we confiscated their vessels in the month of
November, and they confiscated ours in the month of De-
cember. taut, supposing the Right Hon. Gentleman to be
right in what he states, let him not forget bat there
was a convention immediately after which should have set
matters right. I beg to refer the Right Hon. Gentleman to
the 7th rule of the convention.—[The Hon. Member read the
rule he referred to, which was to the effect that from the date
of that document each power should afford the other protec-
tion
to property, and that there should be a good
under-
standing and a harmony of feeling.li argumentetweentheastwaognaianatat me,
I therefore say, that if it be an
that there had been a declaration of war, then I
done we were not in a state of war or hostility .
emanhadtha
have existed was not
say there can be no doubt but at the timewhewnitthhDiseancmt
Denmark;
or that the avowed hostility alleged to _
say
farther,
even if the facts were as the
proceeding.
Rpriocgheteditnegn..
Gientl
to take itoutof the list
of so peculiar as
re-
presented them, still there were. circumstances connected with
this case of a nature
of all ordinary cases of two nations opposed to each
other. Again, the Right Hon. Gentleman urges as an argu-
ment against my proposition, that there was no surplus left
out of which to pay this claim, and therefore there were no
funds from which to pay them; he also stated that 60,0001.
had already been paid, as well as certain grants, the amount
of which he has not named; then I say, if the Right Hon.
Gentleman admits that, he cannot say that there was no sur-
plus fund. If there was no surplus fund, I ask why were
these claims referred to a commission, in order that the
claimants should have an opportunity afforded them of
making out their claims, and to produce proof of them, and
then to bring up their report before this House? That
commission did sit, and heard the nature of the claims, which
they reported upon, to the effect that, amongst other
matters, they, had reduced the amount of claims.
from 524,000/. to 225,000 L, which amount they re-
ported to have been proved. If, then, there were
no claims, why was this Commission appointed to adjudi-
cate upon them ?—(Hear, hear.) Let the House bear in
mind this fact in reference to these claims, that upon five
distinct occasions you have, by your vote, recognised the
justice and fairness of those claims; and that they
were not deemed to have been illegal or unjust by
the Commission to which they were referred, is proved
by the fact that that Commission, after having
heard the whole state of the case, reported that
claim., to the amount of 225,000/. had been made good ; and
on these grounds, then, I say that the present Government
have no right now to withdraw from that report. If the
Government now adopt this argument then it would be
arguing that the Commission appointed by the Government
to make the inquiry had come to an erroneous or an
unjust conclusion. But, surely, after this House had
decided upon the justice of those claims no fewer than
five times, and after a Commission appointed by this
House had reported to the effect that those claims were just
and fair, the present Government should not now turn round
and say that this was a seizure which had been made ac-
cording to the law of nations, and that, therefore, there
should be no inquiry at all granted now. Ido say that such
a coarse would not be correct or becoming to adopt.
Bat there are other circumstances connected with
this case to which I would wish to call the attention of the
House. I think I have now satisfactorily shown the House
that that which has been stated by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man to have been a declaration of war, was not a declara-
tion of war ; or that if there was, this House did consider the
case one of such great peculiar hardship that it was re-
ferred to a Commission for examination, and that Commis-
sion reported in its favour. I must now refer the
House to what Dr. Lushington said upon the subject. (The
Hon. Member then read an extract, which was to the effect
that though this seizure of the vessels was not contrary to
the law of nations, yet it was not fair or equitable.) I want
to know then (continued the Hon. Member) upon what
grounds am I to rest these claims, if not upon these grounds ?
The Right Hoe. Gentleman has stated that the 'public bore
their portion of the expense of that war, 'but the Right Hon
Gentleman should not forget that those claimants also bore
a portion of those expenses.--(Hear, hear.) If this were an
ordinary case perhaps I would not be warranted in thus
urging it on the attention of the House, but I contend that
this is slot an ordinary case, but that, on the c,ontray, it is
one such as never occurred before, and such as perhaps
never would occur again, and therefore no precedent
could be quoted in support of it. And here I
must say that it appears to me that the Right
Honourable Gentleman has deserted his old arguments
with great facility. I remember the Right Hon. Gentleman
urging, as an objection against those claims,'that such a pre-
cedent should not be established ; but that is a point upon
which no previous Chancellor of the Exchequer ever said a
word ; and when an opportunity offered when this
question might have been easily settled to the satisfaction
of all parties, that opportunity was suffered to pass
and was neglected.—(Hear, hear.) When this question was
first argued before this House, Lord Althorp was Chancellor
of the E xchequer, and he acceded to this motion, and expressed
s wish that all just and fair claims should be paid. It has
'en said that those claims were not legal, and that if they
were not, then the ground was taken from under me. Upon
this point we have the opinion of a distinguished lawyer, the
late Sir W. Follett, who said that they were not legal,
hut that they were just and equitable. Well, it
is not upon the grounds of the legality of these claims that I
advocate them, but upon the grounds of their equity and
;ustice.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman has
said that it was very important that these claims should be
resisted, lest any canvassing should be going on, and other
similar claims be brought before the House. Undoubtedly
there may have been some" canvassing " going on ; but if it
vas practised on one side, so it was on the other. Ido not
•hink that any of my friends have canvassed in my favour,
though I venture to say that the Right Hon. Gentlemen has
`aken the ordinary means of securing an attendance of his
supporters I say, then, that Ido think that these claims
ire just and equitable, and therefore I ask the Govern-
ment now, after this House has already decided four
w five times in favour of these claims, to grant
-his inquiry. But in whatever way you deal
sith it, let it be done as it has not been
lone before. Heretofore it has been dealt with in a
slovenly and careless manner, but let it now be done 'clearly
and distinctly. My Hon. Friend near me will resist the
application upon the ground that there had been a declara-
ion of war when this occurrence took place, but take that
irgument away from him, and no other remains; and in order
o defend that argument, I do not now see any law officer of
he Crown in his place ; but I still say that this is a question
which does require a little more attention than has hitherto
Teen given it, and if it does not receive that attention now it
lever will receive it. With regard to the declaration of war,
i my Hon. Friend contends for that, then he must encounter
he opinion of the Attorney-General and other eminent
authorities, expressed in the- year 1307 ; for it appears
that at that time there could have been no state of
noitility between the nations, for some of the British
ships, in passing by the Danish batteries, Are aatually
saluted by a discharge from their guns.—(Hear, hear.)
I do not think my Right lion. Friend can even find a techni -
sal ground on which to refuse this motion But Ido not put
it on anything like a technical ground—l want him, and I
ask him, to put it on a large and comprehensive ground. I
hope my Right Hon. Friend will take the case of these
merchants and shipowners into their consideration simply on
the grounds of justice, On the 27th of July Lord Cathcart
set sail, and the bombardment took place on the 29th. It
:a true that the Hon. Member for Hull called the attention of
the House to a very important document, which made out that
a declaration of hostilities had taken place. If that was the
case, it should be remembered that it was not by the inter-
ference of the British authorities, and therefore
the parties who suffered muse be considered en-
titled to our protection. I have endeavoured to' con-
fine myself to the legitimate limits of this case, and I
trust that after the House itself having allowed the justice
of the claim by the pi oceedings on a late occasion, it will
not now stultify itself by refusing a Committee. I trust it
will not be considered unreasonable of me in aeking
'hat the House shall now allow a Committee to settle these
claims. One word more—this case has been brought for-
ward by men of great authority, and the equity of the
claims has never been denied, but it has been set aside
simply on the grounds that it was a dangerous one, and that
to comply with the justice of the claims would be setting up a
dangerous precedent. This is a most unworthy view of the
case, for it should be borne in mind that justice never
sleeps, and that though not at one moment to be had, yet it
would in the end assert itself.
Mr. CARDWELL—My Hon. Friend who has addressed
the House said that lie was willing to have this question settled
by fair and legal argument, and for that reason he has
quoted the opinion of the late Sir William Follett. Now,
the Honourable Member should haVe borne in Mind
that - that opinion was rot given upon legal, , but
aeon equitable grounds. The Honourable Member, how-
ever, did not quite forget that the opinion was
only an opinion on equitable grounds, and for that alorie is
it that he now asks this House to have the question argued
upon comprehensive grounds. My Hon. Friend has laid
much force upon the . opinion of Sir W. Follett,
and I ' cannot help thinking that he ' has
relied a little too much upon it. The whole
of those claims turn upon the fact, that if a com-
pensation was dae to the claimants by any act of the British
authorities, that that compensation should be granted to
those subjects. Were those ships taken when the law of nations
was respected by both the British and Danish Governments,
and in open defiance of the law of nations, or were they taken
at a time when no such law existed, and was not respected,
in fact, at a time when both nations were at war ? That
was the whole question. Sir James Mackintosh took
care to draw a clear distinction between these two
points, for there was a great difference between the
two. He took care to make that distinction which should
be made between the seizure of the cargoes of ships in defi-
ance of the law of nations, and the seizure of ships during
hostilities. The merits of the present question
turned upon this point alone. The Honourable Gen-
tleman said that when the seizures took place nothing
like war existed, and upon that he grounds the jus-
t would
twiceieof the present claim. I hold in my hand a document
is about ts7"nestawbe
h h proves that war did exist, and that hostilities had
ti
. ace between
actually taken 1,
establish
Memberellomnoeustrabdleangerou
nhte,
England and Denmark.
and I beg he will
open up in such cases by of the door which he would
advanced. by the arguments which he has
Mr. HAWES rose and explain
not to be heard in the gallerii ad, but in so low a tone as
(
Mr. CARDWELL—The on. Menthe was
he said that, even if a:war had existed, that is si-s
Or considered to be broken up
taken place.
a convection by the conyenti
should have rememb wrong when
Was broken op,
on Which had
Now, he ered that this was
tion which had been come to for the purpose which
of Copenhagen from all the evils which
saving the town
would otherwise accrue to the property of the inhabitants,
and it was such a convention as was rendered necessary to
9th of the monthafter this
the safety of the people. On the
hostilities recommenced. Now there
notable convention the
which shows that, if a declaration of
is a document
war was not made, hostilities and all .the accompani-
has said
ments of a war existed. The Hon. Gentleman
Great Britain by
that no declaration of war was made by
proclamation ; but should it be contended that Great
Britain was to wait till a proclamation of war before As is
to defend herself from the aggression of an enemy ? ( The
Hon. Gentleman proceeded to read several documents in
as
support of his arguments, but so rapidly and indistinctly _
The
not to be clearly understood in the reporter's gallery.) T
Hon. Gentleman said that the opinion of a great lawyer was
taken on the subject and that that opinion was in favour of
the claimants. Now he should remember that when the

opinion of Sir W. Follet was taken it was a period
when he was not in that House, and when he had not an

1 opportunity of hearing the question argued on all its merits
—it was taken when the Hon. and Learned 'Gentleman was
not a member of the Government, when he had nothing like
an official capacity to guide him in giving an opinion upon
the true bearings of the whole subject. In fact, it was an
opinion given in answer to a case laid before hills as a pro-
fessional man, and it was well known how the cases
for such opinions were prepared, and it was also
known that on the manner in which they were
Igepared depended the opinion of the counsel. Was that
opera- wiptessed -after Sir William Follet-had heard the
aPeegileo ou the matter is that Soma? Ws it gIYCII after

hearing the speech of the Hon. Member for Worcester? On
the contrary, it was given without knowing the grounds
upon which the case rested, and simply upon equity, and not
law. The Hon. Gentleman has said that after cutting down
considerably, we now refused to pay it.
the fact, for the justice of the claim is not made out.
Thistilßuis is notai tvrY
But the Hon. Member has adverted to a document quoted
by the Hon. Member for Hull, and he admitted,€ not only
on former occasions, but on the present, that if that document
was not got over it was fatal to his case. He, however, said
he considered that that document was cured by the notice of
the second of September. Now, Sir, I put it to the House,
and I put it to the Gentleman himself, has he not been under a
mistake in the view he has taken of that notice
from the documents which I have quoted, which plainly
prove that war existed on the 9th, two days after the
friendly state of things which he alleged existed? Does not
this then prove the Hon. Gentlemen in error, and on his
own showing, I put it to the House, has he made out his
case? nay, has he not shown that he has failed? I will
not further go into any legal arguments, as I should weary
the House by their repetition, and I will entirely leave
out that part of the case which depends on written
or published documents, which are beforethe public, and there
are only one or two other observations with which I shall
trouble the House. The Hon. Member has said that my
Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has com-
plained that new arguments have been introduced into this
question. Now the Hon. Gentleman was not quite right in
that assertion. What my Right Hon. Friend com-
plained of was, that new arguments were introduced in
the Hon. Member's; reply, which it was impossible to re-
ply to, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) only
desired that the House would review a hasty and erroneous
decision to which they were induced to come by specious
arguments.
Mr. HAWES—There has been no decision yet.
Mr. CARDWELL—Yes ; that decision, which now calls
upon us to go into Committee, which de-
cision, I say, was palpably influenced by new
arguments introduced and brought forward by the
Hon. Gentleman for the first time in his reply. In the cases
where compensation was given and refused by the Treasury
the decision turned upon the same point—whether there
was or was not a state of war existing between Great Bri-
tain and Denmark. The Treasury, if a state of war did not
exist, would have refuses to have made the payments which
had then been made if there was not some claim, founded upon
justice, for the demand—and they would have equally been
ready to meet other claims also founded in justice. The pre-
cise question at issue was, whether there was, or was not a war ;
and, in 1810, when the decision was given that there was
one, although it was then adverse to the Treasury, they
abided by it, and have done so to the present moment. The
Honourable Gentleman called upon them to reverse
a decision on grounds upon which Sir James Macintosh
had never ventured to rely—(Hear, hear)—grounds from
which he was most anxious to disconnect his case, and on
grounds which are now for the first time brought under the
notice of Parliament. The Hon. Gentleman says that the
question has been always kept alive. But the question was
first brought under discussion in 1839—the war existed in
1807—nearly thirty years after the time of the occurrence,
not to mention that the grounds on which the House are
required to come forward to give their decision have been
carefully kept back. I, therefore, Sir, believing that the pre-
cedent will be dangerous, beg leave to second the proposi-
tion of my Right Hon. Friend that the House resolve itself
into a Committee on this question this day six months.
Colonel SIBTHORP-1 wish to call the attention of the
House to those Members who did vote upon the question in
1841, and who are not present now. I find that, on the
occasion of the division in that year (1841), the ayes were
127, and the noes 96 ; and I find on that occasion the names
of the following gentlemen, who are not present now :
The Solicitor-General (Fitzroy Kelly), Sir Frederick Trench,
the Attorney-General, Sir Charles Douglas, and Lord Eliot,
who is now Lord St. Germans.—(Laughter.) Where are
all the Hon. Gentlemen gone ?—(Hear, hear.) Will no one
tell me?—(Laughter.) But I would say on this occasion
that you have spent sums of money in- ornamenting Tra-
falgar-square and other public places, but that it
would be much better for you to be just
before you become generous. I do look upon,
this whole transaction as a mean one on the part of the Go-
vernment. Your merchants, who are paying an income-tax
of five millions a year, have a right that their pro-
perty should be protected. Let us pay our debts, and
when we have a surplus let us give away, This will
be the proper mode of proceeding with our business.
I have nothing whatever to do with these claims; I ani no
way interested in them, but I think them founded on justice,
and as such ought to be discharged.
The House then divided, when there appeared
For the motion
Against it B5
Majority against going into Committee —27
The House consequently by this division reversed its
former decision.
PLACES OF WORSHIP (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. FOX MAULE then move the second reading of the
Plates of Worship and Sites (Scotland) Bill. The Right
Hon. Gentleman after going at considerable length into the
disruptions that had taken place in the Church of Scotland,
stated that the present measure had been rendered necessary
by the course that had been pursued by many of the
landed proprietors in Scotland refusing to grant sites in that
country for the erection of churches by the members of the
Free Church in Scotland. Among those who had refused to
grant sites were Lord Macdonald, who had large property
in the Isle of Skye. Sir James Riddell, Lord Murray, Lord
Seafield, Mr. Campbell, of Lochnell, Lord Ailsa,
Lord Cawdor, Lord Forbes, the Duke of Buccleuch,
and the Duke of Richmond—all these persons had in
his opinion acted with great intolerance, and inflicted
hardships upon the people of Scotland that were unworthy of
them. He contended that the honour of Scotland was en-
gaged in the refusal by these noble personages of sites for places
odfonweosrsinhciep
col-
lege in the city of Edinburgh, for which institution
216 individuals had subscribed the magnificent sum
itfsorestthabelimshenmlebnetrs,
woasf the Free rteoe
eSreccottcah
n oCbhleu re.
It was necessary that some remedy should be applied to the
evil, and the only remedy he could device was
that which he had laid down in this Bill.
The free church of Scotland, in addition to all that it had
of 21,0001. This Bill to build gave the same powers
as were granted in Lord Rollsbury's Act, passed a
few years ago, for the purchase of certain
sites. All disputes this Bill would leave to the decision of
the Sheriff of the county in which the site sought for might
happen to lie. He admitted that this Bill was an, inter-
ference with the rights of property, but he conceived that
the circumstances in which the free church people were
placed by the owners of land justified such a measure,
and he conceived that if Parliament refused to adopt this
measure they would not be acting justly towards a portion
of the people of Great Britain. The duties of private pro-
perty had been grossly abused by the landed gehtry to
whom he had alluded. He would ask the House which
of the two alternatives they preferred? Whether it was
mat more desirable that the House should pass a Bill,
which, at the discretion of a certain judicial officer,
responsible to the Government, should convey half an acre,
an acre, or at the most two acres of a certain individual's
land,which was to be applied for the erection of churches ; or
was it better to adopt the other alternative of engentiering,
by refusing to adopt this Bill, a spirit of discontent in
a large portion of the people of Great Britain--a spirit
of hostility to the Government and the latielordes
under whom they lived? lle called upon them to endeavour
to put a stop to the present persecution towards the people of
Scotland, for some day or other it must end by some means
or other. He called upon them by sanctioning
this Bill to prevent the ignorance and barbarism
which must afflict in a short time a great
portion of the people of Scotland. Let them prevent
religious toleration, which was the boast of this empire, from
being nothing but a farce, and so secure the affection and
respect, not only of the class to which he belonged, but of
every right-minded man in the world. The Hon. Gentleman
concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he could avow with great truth that
he approached the discussion of the subjeet a second time
with heartfelt pain. He thought that the conduct of the.
Members who seceded from the Episcopal Church of Scot-
land was pure and disinterested.—( Hear.) He was also
prepared to admit many other grounds maintained by the
Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. But it was
said that this sympathy on his part was only sympathy in
words on the part of the Government, but the Earl of Aber-
den was the very first landlord to grant a site for the
erection of a free church. Instances of refusal had been
adduced, but they were not many or important, for
the Right Hon. Crentleman had admitted that several of
the landlords who had been instanced as opposed to
the granting of sites, refused to give sites with.
the hope that the disruption might be heale,-1
He would not follow the Right Hon. Gentleman through all
the cases he had entered into. The Right Hon. Gentleman
here referred to the case of a Noble Colleague of his, and had
admitted that-he had in every way promoted the moral and
religious education of the people, and had offered every
facilities to the building of places of worship. He had also re-
ferred to the name of others, among whom was Dr. Chalmers.
iln passing, he would observe that he could never hear th e
name of Dr. Chalmers mentioned without bearing testimouy
to that enlightened and christianlike zeal with which he had
always promoted any measure calculated to be beneficial to
society in general. There were two causes which had ope-
rated very much to cause the present ill-feeling. Those who
had originally seceded from the Church had inveighed
against it in no measured terms. Such terms being heard
by those who still remained with the Church and
revered it, naturally caused ill-will against those
who maligned an Establishment which they respected.
Another reason was, that a spirit of bitterness and anger had
been generated in consequence of the ministers of the church
having given way to their feelings, and denounced the pro-
prietors to their own tenantry. That such a course
had been taken was much to be regretted, and it was
the true cause of the angry and acrimonious feelings
which had lately shown themselves. The Right
Hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of the Duke of Rich.
mond. On his property there were twelve parishes, and to
eleven Out of the twelve the Noble Duke had granted sites.
The promoters of the parish churches in Scotland 'had
built 600 churches, and 40 more were in progress, and a
million of money was in the hands of those entitled to
take care of the funds of the Society. If they extended
the principle to Scotland, they should also extend it to Ire-
land. It was the duty of a Legislature to have a church
under the sanction of the Legislature, within a
reasonable limit of the centre of a district, in which
be
the
efit people can worship. He could not see any
n would arise from. such a measure.
His conscientious belief was, that it would create an immense
deal of mischief; and, not seeing any necessity for it, he
could not support it. There was no precedent whatever for
legislation on such a subject, and the Established Church it-
self had not such a power; if it had, it was so strictly guarded
and so little used that it was a mere nullity. Beli •
eying, then,
what he had stated, he would move that the Bill be read that
day 81, months.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS co •
and religious toleration should
considered that religious freedom
any distinction. As
f.. be extended to all, without
the question in all bearingitsar e could see, looking at
it was only in a very small
arose ; and it was also a fact, ttarttti
Church had invariably chosen for thee
grounds in juxta- position with that
had been built for the purpose ofdra •
proogp, they would find that
rof cases the grievance
iitembers of the Free
ies of their churches
on which the olden church
wing away the erase.
Non. He called this egress act of injusticee"--°--
to grant this pro:
nosition ; but he would go further, and say th
of which possession had been taken,
should
interfer d
with. Under all circumstances he would say, h did e
it would be consistent with the principles he had37e
a lw think
vocated to vote for the motion, that the Bill beread ays ad-
a second
time that day six months.
Mr. BAINE proposed the adjournment of the debate to
that day week, which,
After a few words from Mr. FOX MAULS agreed to,
RAILWAY COMPANIES DISSOLUTION BILL.
Sir GEORGE CLERK moved the second reading of this
Bill, which he said was one which would be found of great
might in fact be called the winding up
Act, and which ,
companies
in
inchoate g p
an
Act, in order to give to cortata
.11— if they should deem such a
state the power of disolvl t 0

course necessary.
Mr. HUDSON said, he felt that he was taken a good deal
by • surprise by the- manner in wh4ch thiS Bill had been
brought forward, &I he hid certaiii t 9 PrOPCIO $9 be

• e

inserted in it, which he looked upon of so much importance,
that he would take the sense of the House upon them. He
had submitted those clauses to the Solicitor-General, and he
had expressed his approval of them, and therefore he could
not see why they should not be inserted. He then handed in
the proposed amendments.
Mr. HUME wished to know how they were to avoid liti-
gation in the cases provided for in the Bill ? He thought
that the Government should introduce a clause appointing an
auditor.

Sir GEORGE CLERK said, it had been considered, and
the only provision they could make was to have a fiat in
bankruptcy.
Sir G. CLERIC moved that the clauses be brought up to-
morrow (Thursday), and that the Bill be then read a third
time. _ _

Mr. HUDSON hoped that the third reading would be
postponed to Friday, as he had to leave town to-morrow to
open a railway.
The third reading was then postponed till Friday.
POOR REMOVAL BILL.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, at five minutes to six o'clock,
moved that the House should go into Committee7ro forma
on the Poor Removal Bill.

The House then went into Committee, and immediately
after resumed, when the remaining private business was gone
through, and the House adjourned at six o'clock.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(lESTERDAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP 11.
CORNWALL RAILWAY.

The Committee met at the usual hour ; Viscount Morpeth in the
chair.

Several witnesses were examined, who gave evidence in favour
of the central line ; among the rest
Lieutenant Dunstan, R.N. During his cross-examination, however,
by Mr. MmtivALE, on the feeling of the inhabitants of Cock in favour
of a communication with Padstow, he stated that he attended
there as a deputation to point out the superiority of
a line communicating between Exeter and Padstow, and moved
a resolution to that effect; Major Beamish, however, moved the
following amendment, which was carried unanimously (we give it
verbatim, and we need not say that the reading of it in the Com-
mittee caused roars of laughter) :—Resolved, "That the people of
Ireland have long and painfully experienced the evils of strange in-
terference in our internal concerns, proceeding as well from
the ignorance as the. arrogance of those who have unjustly
and fraudulently usurped the power of making laws
for our Government, and irrespective of our laws.
That our melancholy experience of the calamities inflicted on our
country by such interference plainly suggests to us the impolicy of
any attempt on our parts to interfere in the conflicting local concerns
of England, and that it does not become us as Irishmen to approach
the Board of Trade with any expression of preference for
either line of railway professing to connect Exeter
with Padstow, such Connexion being exclusively an English
interest, and therefore to be determined by English opinion.
That in thus practising towards England a spirit of forbearance with
regard to her separate interests, we hope to receive at her hands a
reciprocal observance, and we respectfully solicit Lieut. Dunstan,
that on his return to his native land he will impress on his own
countrymen the justice of that principle for which we contend
namely, the rights of her people to manage their own affairs.
Several other witnesses were called, who gave general evidence in
favour of the line.

The CHAIRMAN stated that he hoped the parties would bear in
mind that they had already heard a considerable quantity of evi-
dence of that nature. He also stated that he had received a letter
from the Lords of the Admiralty, stating that they had no objection
to the construction of a bridge over the river Tamar of foar arches, of
the same size, and of the greatest possible height consistent with the
standing orders, provided that the Cornwall Railway Company would
provide a steam-tug at their own expense for the purpose of ,towing
vessels through tho arches.
The Committee, having heard the evidence of Mr. ;Bampten,
engineer, of Plymouth, with reference to the expense of constructing
a larger ferry to accommodate the railway traffic, and also to build
the bridge at Saltash, adjourned till Friday next, at twelve o'clock.

GROUP VIII.
AYRSHIRE AND GALLOWAY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. Knight, on his cross-examination, said this was the, first line
he ever estimated for. His estimate of severance damage, for 56
miles, was 8,6001. The land to be taken for the line was 374 acres,
which he set down at 19,1741.
Several other witnesses were examined on similar points to those
referred to by the preceding witnesses.
Mr, M`Callum, civil engineer, was then examined at length en
the engineering chatacter of the line. It was proposed to be a
single line, with passings and sidings, and with bridges and
land for a double line. The severest ascending gradient
to the Dalmellington coal field was I in 75. There was another
ascending gradient beyond the coal field of 1 in 55, about four mil es
long. The heaviest descending gradient was lin 75. There was no
tunnel on the line. The sharpest curve on the line was one in
twenty-two chains. None of the works throughout were of
an extraordinary character. His estimate of the whole was
520,0001., which he thought quite sufficient. The whole value
for land and residential damage was 35,0001. The permanent
way was 2,6741. per mile, or in all 163,1641. The earthwork was
201,7011.; masonry, bridges, &c., 44,715/. ; stock engines, 41,350/. ;
stations, 15,315/. ; contingencies, 18,7151. The working expenses he
estimated at 16,0321. The maintenance of the way was 4,0951. addi-
tional. His estimate of the gross receipts was 48,8571.
Mr. Sergeant BELLasts asked the witness if he could produce by
tc-morrow morning the particulars of the cuttings, value of land,
&c., up to Dalmellington, by themselves ; and also the same part-
CUlats with regard to the portion of the line Irom Dalmellingten to
Ralcory- Bay. He asked for this, as the two parts of the case were
essentially different.
account
TMhre.rbTy rt E
witness
that
ttime.
d objected
d
itot
think
kt
he courseasweuld be
nnnasbulae to give a detailed
l.

Mr. Sergeant BELLASIS said he might as well ber eady with the
details in writing, as he ahouid certainly ask him for all these par-
ticulars, and he ought to be prepared.
Witness was then cross-examined, with the object of showing that
he had but little experience in constructing railways.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till one o'clock to•morrow.

GROUP XIV'.
MID KENT DXSTRICT.

' The Committee met at eleven o'clock. Present, Mr. Protheroe
' (chairman), Lord Emlyn, Mr. John O'Connell, and Mr. Grogan.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD replied on behalf of the Kent Atmo-
spheric Railway. He said that the line he represented laboured
under considerable disadvanteges in coming before the Committee as
a line competing with the lines for which the South-Eastern Company
,
had obtained Acts of Parliament. The object of each company, he must
confess, was to shorten the distance between London and Tonbridge,
London and Maidstone, London and Dover, and London and Has-
• tinge. Direct lines had attracted public attention, and the Legisla-
; tore seemed determined at no very distant geriod of time to insist
upon those advantages which the Kent Atmospheric now keld out to
the public under the most favourable and economical circumstances.
The distance to Dover through Maidstone, by their proposed. atmos-
p•bericline, would be 24% miles, whereas the distance by the South-
Eastern line is 32 miles. In addition their line would accommodate
the town of Sevenoaks, a most important neighbourhood, which the
South-Eastern had neglected, except by casting oat a
branch a mile and a half In length, with a gradient of 1
In 69. The South-Eastern making that effort, bad as it was,
showed the importance of affording a traffic and a communication ac-
commodation to the town of Sdvermaks. The Earl of Stanhope, in his
usual straightforward and intelligent manner, had given evidence
of the value of the proposed atmospheric line as regards Sevenoaka
and the district =mid it, and had told the Committee that the-general
fettling of the inhabitants was decidedly in favour of that'projeets
The line to Dover was shorter than the South-Eastern line to that
place by four miles. The Kent Atmospheric proposed to use three.
miles and a half of the best railway in England, the Croydon, and
would thus save themselves the construction of the most expensive
part of the line that crossing the streets and over
and through the masses of the houses of London. Thu
and
South-Eastern
patroposed to avoid the Croydon altogether,
important railway the most serious injury,
thusdo that
by diverting its traffic. The Learned Sergeant then reviewed the
evidence on both sides, and entered into the details of the advan-
tagespossessed over the lines of the
andric contended at some length, and with
Atmospheric
, that the Kent Atmospheric Railway
preference over the schemes of the
South-Eastern Company, as affording better accommodation
we a
was
iside thera bt
South-Eastern l
eKentd Company,
nt
oi Amtamta
to the public at a less amount of capital, and over a shorter length
of road of lesser gradients and better levels. He concluded 'his ad-
dress by insisting upon the superiority of the atmospheric principle
as laid down by Mr. Cubitt, who sanguinely anticipated its ultimate
success, and even if the atmospheric traction should be laid
aside, the line they projected Was the best locomotive line, and
for that reason, setting aside all others, they
were, according to the
general conduct of committees similarly circumstanced, entitled to a
preference over the South-Eastern schemes. But as respected the
atmospheric traction, he firmly believed it would supersede the loco-
motive principle. Sir Robert Peel, no mean prophet, some years
ago told the locomotive advocates to pause, for it was his @pinion
that it would in course of time be superseded by the atmospheric. Ito
(the Learned Sergeant) thought that the time had now arrived,
or if it had not it was not far distant; therefore it behoved the
Legislature to pause before they sanctioned an outlay of money upon
public, works, which would eventually be useless. The atmospheric
system mlght be beset and crowded with minor and insignificant
difficulties now, but science could overcome all obstacles, nothing
was impossible to genius ; that great man Coleridge had in that
brilliar,t and beautiful poem, the " Ancient Mariner," anticipated
the atnosphr,ric traction—it had dawned upon him in an happy hour
of in.ntira,tion _

, coMpared
1.0 wherefore drives that ship so fast,
Without a tide or wind ?
The air is cut away before, And closes in behind."
hadprinciple, then, of the atmospheric was true and practicable. It
neon successfully tried, and he sincerely believed its adoption
wtfild be a boon to the nation.
Mr. Commatn, for the South-Eastern, then proceeded to address
the Committee. He contended that the line from London to Maidstone
should be made by his clients, because they were a strong- nnited
company ; whereas their opponents were divided into two Or three
Managements, and the Committee well knew that union was an
essential ingredient in the success of any undertaking, both as
respected the public and the undertakers. The Kent Atmospheric
in'Ad not that element, and, therefore, their chance
-alth that rn
of the South-Eastern, was proportionably deereased.
It was qijite evident that the accommodation to Maidstone should
Ibe supplied by an established company, whose cxpences had hitherto
been enormously great and their profits nothing. The superiority of
the South-Eastern was evidenced from the fact that their rivals
where last year tefore Parliament, with a project similar to their pre-
sent one, 1 nit had been obliged to abandon apart of their scheme through
a want of Rinds, and the difficulties inseparable from the atmospheric
system. Mr. Cubitt, no doubt, was influenced by a fear that he
could not venture to propose an atmospheric line on a locomotive
one, with a gradient of 1 in 80, between London and Ashford ;
therefore he would Make the Tonbridge branch their main line,
and take advantage of the excellent levels and direct road of
the Scott 2-Eastern Railway. It was but justice that now
the angle by Red-hill had been cut off (and the ad-
vantage of the opening of the continental lines about to
be derive d), that the South-Eastern Company should be allowed to
remedy t fie defect, and provide the required accommodation. It had
been stab ad that there was a superiority, as respected gradients,
distance, and expenses, over the South-Eastern Railway—that
a saving o f 4% miles between London and Dover would be effected
by the pre 'posed Kent Atmospheric. He contended that the advan-
tages thus i ? trumpeted were all superficial—they had no foundatico,
and that the only advantages offered to the public by the
two eett.9l ,nies worth accepting were those the South-Eastern,
and the t south-Eastern only, had the power of offering.
The gradiet its of the Atmospheric were bad. Some of them
were as len v as 1 in 80 ; while the very worst gradient• in the
South-Easi.e rn was lin 105. The works on the Atmospheric were
heavy, and would cost enormous sums of money. There were two
tunnels, ot
v 3 3,343 yards long, the other above 2,000 yards long. As
to going -to Sevenoaks, they would never be able to get
an II quite as acceptable to the neighbourhood of Seven-
there ; a nd tboy did not intend, the Committee would
observe, to )..lave any station there, in fact, the going
to Seveno ako was a lure thrown out to deceive, because the popula-
tion and 1. he ' district around Sevenoaks did not demand any railway
such as t; 'tat . the atmospheric said they were about to make. The
mile and P l half branch of the South-Eastern would be quite suf-
ficient,oaks. I a stead of a line running near the Seven Oaks
would col
the Soot
It -Eastern proposed to go through the Valley of
Bapford, etnd open up a communication by a branch with Wester-
barn, am' / other populous localities. The line through the Valley
used to all ttill further extent--indeed to an incalculable extent. He
then subro i %mand a large amount of water power, which would be
Ittc_d to the Committee, that in point of gradients, and
other engi
The Cu Az
nt3ering capabilities, the South-Eastern line to Maidstone
was the e in e that should be preferred. The Learned Counsel then
went very '7 ninutely through the evidence, and concluded by urging
the supers 17) : claims of the South-Eastern scheme upon the attention
of the Cot 4. mittee.
The roc „
was then cleared, and on our re-admission,
Sour a- Em
mule intimated, that the preamble of the Bill Of the
rtet Bill of the n Company was proved ; and that the preamble of the
Ice nt Atmospheric was not proved.
The Coma a ittee then adjourned until twelve o'clock on Pride"

next,

mcs..
we, 1
Es.r.zu
auzirtDouPsoii
xvITT.
S OUT S :—VIESTER,N (ROIVIRSZATIVIPATNDN'TitifDD.
Ma NZE
:13teltio7' 1k --V2: BRANCH).
The pr,
The 11r [rancittee met this morning at the usual hour,
:inoters c
tri po nc.
..___._
a. with meat,bread, contracto
ot;3.7nbreldZtoAcaNii DevldSoel3.9inTrieu,Mrt
oPfilthOeirNhi.
Witness called was Mr. William Dennison, Government
thirty r, Portsmouth, WhO stated that for the last
at Ports
about 4/. ;
counties, years he had supplied the regiments stationed
!Muth, in Lancashire, Hampshire, Kent, and other
il.rrssrißii
Si, v eek, many of which he Pur"chdarsoerdagate.SaKliisibleudryarndltothl6eor
line won .11 .tersetshire and Dorsetshire. Driving injured the beasts
them dire K r cent. Supposing the railway were made, he would get
time and 41 from the dealers, which would effect a great saving of
forage to ul ~.)e,nse• iie segreat quantities of meat, read, and
supply ti advantageous. Frequently A ``htneuinigohsatmadand CoCoventay,
Ffor tuheenttlryanitsitisonf
eweehisscarhythg
lie ~,,e, e t euships with these articles at twelve hours' notice, so that
,_. "ged Z 0 keep a large stock on band, in the event of a supply
being ref,
him. T .15 red, Which of course entailed considerable elpense upon
By tl le railw Would go a great way to effect a saving.
afford, ,
cur ,4ul(e, ' •leAtii 'La
bmlAs NhijzT It: ntwhicocnhtrathctse liWnletilWOUntl
PY, 2.4 .1. Q979=2414 vroald lilowistin Dowilted la it.
_
fulfil
doofvaenicilltimees

Mr. Gue, a builder at Andover, deposed as to the delays which
occurred in transmission of goods by the canal from Redbridge to
Andover. The eharge for conveying goods per ton by the !South-
Western to Andover was 1/. 16s. 6d. By the proposed line a saving
would be effected of 12s. per ton. It would be of great benefit to the
town of Andover. Meetings had been held in that town, at which
strong feelings were expressed in favour of this undertaking. The
same feelings were entertained by every person in Rcmsey. This
witness was subjected to a cross-examination, but only confirmatory
of the evidence which has been already given.
Mr. Thomas Hill, shipping agent of the Oriental Steam Naviga-
tion Company, Southampton, was examined respecting the traffic
carried by these vessels. They conveyed a great number of passen-
gers and also large quantities of packages from the manufacturing
Catch%
Mr. Wm. Paulton, cattle dealer, at Cricklade, near Cirencester,
deposed that the line would open up a communication to the north
for the conveyance of agricultural produce. This witness was
examined at some length with regard to the advantages which this
railway possessed for the conveyance of cattle and sheep to and from
the different cattle markets.

Mr. P. Matthews, a farmer at Hicken, near Cirencester, said that
the district between Cheltenham and Cirencester was much in want
of a direct communication to Birmingham. The whole of the agrl,
culturists in the district supported the undertaking, because they
knew that it would open up a more ready market for their produce.
The Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow.

GROUP XX.
LONDON, HOUNSLOW, AND ViTESTEEZT.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Evidence at considerable length was taken in support of the Duke
of Northumberland's apposition.
The case of the Duke of Northumberland having been concluded,
the Committee adjourned at four o'clock to twelve on Friday.

GROUP XXIV.
Nonvircyz J.ND BURY.

The Committee assembled this morning shortly after twelve
o'clock; Mr. Granville Vernon in the chair, when a long conversa-
tion ensued as to the necessity :for further evidence of the traffic,
which was followed by the testimony of
Mr. Bruff, the engineer, who stated the general features of
the line, which is easy in Its character, and light in its
earthworks. The object in making this line was not so much
to accommodate the two towns of Cambridge and Bury, as to form
a communication with distant parts of the country, Cambridge being
the focus of a series of ramifications to Lincoln, Weedon, and all those
and other places which the great trunk lines accommodated.
The people of Bury had always been very desirous of
a direct connexion wi:h London, and this line in conse-
quence of the throwing out of the Direct Norwich, the
East Suffolk, and other lines, would be the nearest. He had
surveyed the line of the Ely and Bury Company about fifteen menthe
ago, but had abandoned it for several reasons, but principally on ac-
count of the great expense of repair to the subsoil. He had sent his
assistants to try the soil on both sides. It ran through the valley of
the Lark, where, of course, there was the greatest deposit of vege-
table matter. This would occasion a much greater outlay than
could be met by the estimates of the engineer of that line.
By the reports of his assistants, as well as by his
own observations, he found that the subsoil was loose and the surface
shakey. The generality of the line was flooded in wet seasons. By
the report of one of his assistants, he learned that the boring-bit had
sunk, at the distance of 12 miles 7 furlongs, by a pressure of
5 pounds, 12 feet ; at 13 miles 3 furlongs, it sunk 23 feet by its own
weight ; at 16 miles it sunk 18 feet by its own weight also, and in wet sea-
sons theland was all flooded. He had himselfmade an embankment in
similar land, and lie found that as fast as the stuff was put in it
pushed out at the side, and he believed that some such accident had
occurred to the opposing Company, and that it took them weeks, if
not mouths, to repair it. The ruling gradient on this line was, as on
the Norwich, Ely,. and other lines, 1 in 132. The estimate for
the whole line is 300,000/. ; for earth-works the sum allowed is
49,7291.175. 7d. ; for brickwork and bridges, 30,807/. ; permanent way,
185,750/. ; for stations, 25,987/. ; for land, 30,0001. ; for contingencies,
23,7001. ; and for management, 18,400/. ; which, together, allowing
for incidental differences, would make a total of 300,000/.
A long examination then ensued, upon the way in which the line
would affect the property of a gentleman named Webb, the object of
it being to show that this was not the best line which the country
could afford.

On the cross-examination of Mr. Sergeant WRANGUAM, it was
shown that the gradients on the Ely and Bury line were so much
superior, that the power which on that line would draw sixteen
carriages, would on this line serve as traction power only for nine.
The access to Bury also appeared to be bad, it requiring great in-
genuity to make a junction with the Eastern Union line. It was
also shown that the subsoil was not of so unstable a character as the
engineer conceived it to he, or at least that the danger and difficulty
which he apprehended In the formation of the embankment would
not or might not arise.
Mr. CALVERT then entered upon a long examination of the mode
in which the line affected the interests of the several landowners on
the line, which had merely reference to private interests.
A discussion then ensued as to the course of practice to be pursued,
after which the Committee adjourned till twelve to-morrow.

GROUP XXXI.

BRISTOL AND nnelvEnrianravr (GLOUCES-
TER AND STONEHOUSE JUNCTION.)

The Committee assembled this morning at twelve o'clock, and
proceeded with the further investigation of the schemes comprised in
the group which had been confided to them.
Mr. HOPE appeared on behalf of the Bristol and Birmingham
(Gloucester and Stonehouse Junction), and opened the case. It ap-
peared from the Learned Gentleman's statements, that the construc-
tion of the proposed branch would be attended with the greatest
benefit to the various localities through which it would pass, and would
also materially advance the interests of the Bristol and Birmingham
Company, and be generally beneficial to the public at large. The
present line was proposed to form a continuous communication on
the narrow gauge principle, between Gloucester and Stonehouse.
The Great Western Company had established a communication from
the junction at Swindon en the broad gauge, and it was intended to
supply the remaining portion of the district with railway accommo-
dation on the narrow gauge principle. This was the object which
the promoters sought, and which he hoped the Committee would
concede. _ .

Witnesses were about to be called to give evidence as to the pro-
posed junction, when
Mr. AUSTIN objected to the evidence being received as to the pro-
posed junction between Gloucester and Stonehouse, as it would
materially affect the interests of the Great Western Company, and
would also be a contravention of the agreement at present subsisting
between that company and the Gloucester and Bristol Company,
with reference to the district between Gloucester and Stonehouse.
The room was ordered to be cleared. On our re-admission
The CIIAIBMAN stated that the Committee were of opinion that the
promoters of the proposed junction should be allowed to proceed with
their evidence ; but at the same time they entertained a strong feel-
ing with reference to the agreement of 1840 between the Great
Western and the Bristol and Gloucester Companies, and recommend
that its leading provisions should be made the foundation of an
amicable arrangement between the parties.
The Committee then adjourned.