The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-31 00:00:00

ROYAL BENEVOLENCE.

The following is an exact copy, verbatim et literatim,
of an epistle sent, in 1804, from a poor woman in Scot-
land to the Emperor Alexander:—
" Unto the Most Excellant Alexander Emprore of
that Grat Dominion of Russia, and the Teratorys the
Unto Belonging &c. &. &.
" Your Most Humble Servant Most Humbly beges
your Most Gracious Pardon for my boldness in
aprotching your Most Dreed Sovring fur your Clemency
at this time.
" My sovring the Candour of this Freedom is on the
account of your Sovrings goodness, in the Serving and
Inlarging of My Soy, whose Name is John Duncan,
aged 20 years, who was on a Premce, who was prisioner
‘vith Robert Spittle his Master Captain of the Han
Spittle of Aih at the Time of the British Emborgo in
vour Sovring's dominions in Russia, and is the only
-Seport of me his Mother and Besaid I have no other
fraone for My Seport and on the account of your
Gratious Benevaller.ce Be Pleased to accept of this
Smal present from your Ever Well-wisher whilst I have
Breath.

" The small Present is Three Pairs of Stockings for
Going on when your Sovring Gos out a liuntiag, I
would a have sent your Scvring silk Stockings if that
My Sam Could Go in serch for it, but the press being
so hot at this Time that he cannot not go for fear of
being pressed,
"if your Sevrin will be Pleased to axcept of this and
faveour me with an anseur of this by the Bearer and lett
me kno what Famely of children your Sovring has I will
send Stockings for them for the Winter betore Winter
Comes on, as also what Sons and what Daughters yott
might have.
" Most Breed Sovring I am your Most °bait. and
Humble Servant Till Death

Elizeabeth Wilcox.
St. Neunsons by Sterling April 2d. 1804.
Please to Derect to Me to the Care of Robert Raunce
in St. Neunsons by Sterling.
The above production does not stand in need of any
comment, but the reader may be gratified in knowing
that the illustrious personage so addressed ordered Eli-
zabeth 'Wilcox a remittance of 1001., which was paid to
her by the Russian Minister in London. Unfortunately,
some interfering literary character took upon himself to
correct her second Letter to the Emperor, thanking him
for the money, whereby it was divested of that origi-
nality, the loss of which is greatly to be regretted.

IMPERIAL PARL lAMEN T.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 30.

Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
Messengers fr. m the Commons brought up the South-
Western Railway (London-bridge Extension), the Dub-
lin, Belfast, and Coleraine Junction Railway, and a
number of other Bills.
WEST CORNWALL RAILWAY.

Lord BROUGHAM moved that the evidence taken
before this Committee be printed. He made this motion
in support of the prayer of a petition which he presented,
and which set forth that the Committee had improperly
rejected evidence with respect to the property of certain
landowners. The custom in the law courts was to hear
all the evidence offered, and then to decide upon it.
This the Committee had not done.
Lord TORRINGTON defended the decision of the
Committee, of which he was the chairman. No
evidence was rejected which had any bearing on the
case, and he considered the Committee bad ful-
filled their duty in a proper manlier. The Noble
and Learned Lord asserted that the Committee was not
to decide upon the evidence that came before them,
and the Noble and Learned Lord stated that upon
his legal knowledge. Now, his opinion of
the Noble and Learned Lord's law was not quite
so- high as to inducel him:.-to agree to his opinion
on this subject. The Noble Lord stated that the evi-
dence of the landowners was improperly tr. atcd. They
(the Committee) had gone through a great mass of evi-
dence with great patience—(Hear.) The Committee
having heard two or three gentlemen give evi-
dence on a particular point, thought it was
unnecessary to hear any further evidence on that
subject. They had also refused to hear evidence with
respect to the Tamar river. They did so because the
Admiralty had fixed the size and span of the arches of
the railway where it crossed the river at Saltash. Now,
that being the case, the Committee were unwilling to
hear the evidence of a junior member of the Admiralty
on that question. He had also a view to prevent-
ing further expense to the promoters, after the
expenses they had already incurred, and to
the recommendation that had been given by the Com-
mittees before whom this Bill had been tried —(Hear,
hear.) Taking all these matters into consideration,
they thought they would be justified in taking
the course they did.—(Hear, hear.) lie could show
their Lordships that all justice was rendered both parties,
and that the Committee had endeavoured to dis-
charge their duties to the best of their abilities. They
had no objection to adduce the evidence, which would
convince their Lordships of what he asserted.—(Hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM said he should like to know
what possible interest he could have in this matter. He
was neither a shareholder, a president, or a vice-presi-
dent of any railway, and yet he was treated as an advo-
cate. The counsel to whom he had alluded said that he
had never seen so unsatisfactory a statement as the re-
port of the Committe—
Viscount TORRINGTON—Name.

Lord BROUGHAM—Did iot the Noble Lord know
his name ? He was there some time ago, in his wig
and gown.
Viscount TORRINGTON—There were three or four

of them.
Lord BROUGHAM—One of these gentlemen had
waited upon him that morning, and, made his statement.
With respect to what had been said by the Noble Lord
as to his (Lord Brougham's) knowledge, the charge then
preferred was brought after four years, against a judge
who had occupied the highest position on the Bench. He
(Lord Brougham) had disposed of 2,300 cases, out of
which there was only one reversal, and but seven appeals.
The Noble Lord might know what an appeal was.
If a party thought fit to object to a judgment,
an appeal would be made to that House.—(Hear.)
They rejected the evidence, and decided against the
Bill. Now, as for his not knowing anything about the
Bill, why in the title of the Bill the term west had been
omitted.

Lord TORRINGTON begged, a.; the chairman of the
Committee, to say that the evidence had been heard.

The Earl of DENBIGH, as one of the Committee,
would assert that nothing could be more fair than the
decision to which they had come.—(Hear, hear.) They
had heard Mr. Brunel and Mr. Hubshaw on the one
side, and that of the engineers of the opponents, and the
decision was unanimous in the Committee.
Lord BROUGHA NI said that they were entirely at
issue on the point. It was not likely at all that the pro-
moters of the Bill would make a statement contrary
to their own interest. The line-wars to go from Falmouth
to Exeter, and the other was to go by ply.
mouth to the same place, overlooking altogether
the navigation of the Tamar, and crossing the
river at Saltash. This petition was from the
landowners, and they petitioned on the ground of the
demerits of the line which had been approved.

Lord NELSON denied that there had been any
overlooking of the merits of the Bill. The only
evidence of any importance, as it appeared to the
Committee, and the only case in doubt at all,
was that of the town of Bodmin, into which
they entered very fully ; so fully that he
had himself taken an immense mass of notes in
order to hear what the counsel on the opposite side had
to say against it, for the Committee expected that they
would make a great point of it, when, to their surprise,
not a word was said upon the matter. The only point on
which they had rejected evidence was one in which the
assent of the Lords of the Admiralty was necessary, and
which they had referred to the decision of the Board of
wT
hr ao d
leo.
st Tthhee
ceavuisdeeiwl caesafdadr ulacergdeornththaen partthat otfakthene
ipearr ttilei
es
promoters.
the notes taken in the cause.
The Earl of DENBIGH produced four folio sheets of
Lord BEDESDALE said that although the Noble
decideLwas a very proper person to
House of Lords, yet h© had not
ord a
(Lord
case Birnougthheam u)
quite so much experience in Committees as other Noble
Lords, and he thought that some measures should be
taken to prevent the very reprehensible practice of
counsel of adducing evidence on a matter which they
never intended to prove. He did not support the
opinion, that when the Admiralty were of opinion that
a certain portion of water should not be interfered with,
that the Committee on Bills should take it for granted ,
p
they ought only to take it as the opinion of a public
body. There were cases in which the Admiralty had
done The
injury jpuertyi t insteadion
was
tohfegnood laidboyn tthheei r
table,decisions.and
the motion
for printing the evidence was understood to be agreed to.
S L A
iVt
hEri IrteY.
w w his m
Lord BROUGHAMmotion on the
slave trade, reserving his observationsuntiloati future
of the Sugar Duties Bill. stage

CORN WALL RAILWAY.
eEr
cahr la
uSt
aGn
dE Rt
dAerssSof presented
Falmouth a petitionit
ufrr from
th thee
Cornwall Railway Bill.
TAW VALE RAILWAY.
Earl FORTESCUE presented a number of petitions
from several places in the county of Cornwall against
the Taw Vale Railway, and praying that the petitioners
might be allowed to be heard against the Bill. The
petition was then ordered to be referred to the Com-
mittee sitting on the merits of that Bill.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.
Earl FORTESCUE also presente.
1. a petition from
certain inhabitants of Torrington, in favour of the Small
Debts Bill.
Lord CLARENDON said, that it would be in the re-
collection of the House that a petition was presented
kirk and Preston Railway,
from the Liverpool, Orms
praying that soiree indulgence be given
might to
them.
AL OW MOP. he old tba" 646" wo ohy &Wiwi