The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, JULY 9, 1844.

bad
ever been admitted ; more especially upon such an
*osurd fiction 'as- that- when the jury assessed the da-
!eatiotetehe case s,
ethey; assessed them on all the counts, which was
and Lord Mansfield went on to state that what
ode the rule the more absurd was, that it did not hold
Odin criminal prosecutions, for thatwhen the verdict of
tiltY was once returned, one good count was sufficient
~,,support it. There was a case in Cooper's Reports, in
Lord Mansfield had said the same thing. Then
tb eire Was the case of the King v. Fuller. His Learned
pp
this question
referring to that case, seemed to imagine that
question coultronly arise in cases of misdemeanour,
tzl,th, at there could be no such thing as an indictment
kole,loty with different counts. If his Learned Friend
11.3 had es Much experience in the criminal as he had
ni,a' the civil courts, he would have known that it was
,e'vte...as common to have indictments for felony with
—e'eleeunts as for misdemeanour ; and that the same
trestiou would. arise if the punishment were discre-
kTuit, or fixed by law ; end .the general rule in indict-
nts for felony was, that if the record warranted the
-eoet, .was • not erroneous because one of the counts
.
the indictment might be defective. Then there was
t ease of the King v. Rose, 2d Lord Raymond's Reports,
416. This was an indictment for perjury, and some
th assignments were defective, . and on that ground
Asiceert was moved in arrest of judgment. But Lord
tart,sitid the whole court gave it as their opinion that if
be itlassignments were wrong but one, that one would
Then
to authorise the court to give its judgment.
tri there was the case of " the King v. Powell," 2d
• n:tee/all and Adolphus, p. 535. This was a' writ of
Z.! to the Court of Queen's Bench, and that established
A Principle that if one count of one indictment was suf-
eut te support a judgment, and the verdict supported
rtjudgment, the judgment was not erroneous. It was
cme that was tried at the Surrey October Sessions, and
A
Al„s'a Were two counts in the indictment. The first was
assault with intent .to ravish, and the second
„:", for a common assault. Now the first count
11d warrant judgment of imprisonment. with
.12
ra labour—the • second would not. The jury re-
-41r1441 this verdict—" The said Henry Powell
~.„guilty. of the misdemeanour, and offence in the
indictment specified .as, alleged against him." He
147,48eatenced to two years' imprisonment, with hard
. The verdict was brought before the Queen's
"fiapply on writ of error, as the terms of the verdict could
rr.i.Y,Only to one count, and. it did not specify which,
and 'therefore it was contended. that the judgment to
bl`sid labour was erroneous. Lord Tenterden gave it as
tsu:kßigiolli that the. udgment ought to be affirmed, inas-
_M•4B, the verdict warranted the judgment.'
peke CAMPBELL—If the second count had been for.
• riltry the same reason would apply.
4te ,",e ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It is impossible to make
„,xoetinction
heel'ord BROUG.HAH—gad.the party, in the case you put,
gl#lty of an assault to: commit a rape, and guilty of
`"*urY, and one of the counts had been bad, the judg-
t In of the court would have been passed, not upon
taecostnt which was bad, but upon the count which
9,10 good.. •
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The verdict a guilty
use guilty of bcith; the second • must be defective, but
Tea
first warranted the judgment of the verdict. His
r" rned Frierillikad stated that. there was no instance of
court of error acting upon that rule: The case of
110v/ell was a direct authority for..it, for that was a
..
Ilfesin error. Theo there was the case of the King v.
a 3r, which came before the Court of Queen's Bench
`.lreland which. was .reported 'in the 2d of Jeff and
p. 643, . in which the Court .of Queen's Bench-
-441-it down that if, in a case of judgment being .given
.
;',"_?sconnt was bad, that was not enough to vitiate the
zgluent if one count was good. Then there was the
,ok.of,the King v. Connor, -which was argued in the
,Bench in Ireland in 1839, in which it was
stated, the . argument of • counsel, :that if one
;Tint were good judgment could not be re-
irsed. and . cited several cases on that point.
t_,o was quite impossible for the court of error to inquire
the nature of the judgment of the court below. It
, ;
;:ell was a fallacy to say that the judgment was made
ailumber of counts ; that was not so in point of
ate,,,r 11c1, he apprehended, could it be considered so
the j'''/• vveY• If the judgment were a judgment which
~Ivf authorised, the writ of error Could know nothing
ilthie motives or inducements of the court below ; and
that / Presumption was to be made, surely it must be
otth,,"e court below, in affixing- punishment, affixed it
'siisLuPon counts which warranted it- No doubt the
t ,2f the punishment' was- discretionary with the
414, The court of error had only to see whether the
ent was one which the law allowed.
witeks` Heouena*—The admission of a writ of error
t° admit that the judges may by possibility have
-
",Nti", Mont on. a wrong count.
der
doubt-; but what he
i,`"er tiOhat court of error would look ,to see
.ivhe-
' 'utter:talent had been given which was not war-.
thH.,l4l'd 4w• - • ,
eth, . e ececuaet,-The Presumption you say; is,, that.
lilt it • below gave judgmene epon the right count,
"eeve possible that judges in the court below may
thOnej:ii!„" Judgment on, the wrong count, may have
IreieXt 4,,rCillg count right... .
Salt the D"OIII.IEy.GENigAr,--No doubt it was passible,
the cotthrmuniation of, laW was, that the judgment of
brouat't u'n-las a
,judginent warranted by law, and if
that 'ft wn—R court of .error, the court would presume
vet CAM-P;r4ELI4I,--tedliblytlhaawt. case a erj imperfect remedy; writ of error is a
he •
A. oelezirtGeeznae said, lie'.
rspoke only
-of the
Presumption of law. g the. law were not right, the
ePereourse would be .to make, it ,eo. by Act pfPqrlia-
. ;kt. Let him topiket„euy”er the ordinary.-, case* which
came before the assizes, „ :He would. take ..tbee ,case
Rich his Learned ,Friend ',hed Ile sup-
Poked gonspiracy of one day of two:Men:to-steal
• loaf, and he supposed a conspiracy on a second
41
between, the same two men to • burn a house
1 murder the inhabitants. He supposed. that the
,
• 14ties were tried, and that,,, on their being triad
1: „
Ij'L" jury • and the facts being inyestigeted,, the
• • ereodants Wiere found guilty. of both the offences.
Ii
was
‘a .. case in which two persons .were
etrlyieted, on trial by jury, of conspiracy to burn
1,11 a house and to murder the inhabitants. Well, then,
37 would suppose that, in the second count of the in-
there was a defect. According to Learned
t&fl, in order to do comlete ustice, they must allow
v4.,rit:tattatot ogu°ll
ftrmiee by reversing theudgment. If this
to anything at all;,' it. Wen% ic; show.
at the. Legisleture -should. pass some laWtp reventV the
11:131,g of
.different counts in the same indictment.
Y. it
was arguing all on one side to say,, that justice
tees'il°t done, because in one particular case the punish-
nt
'tight have been increased by a defective Count,
occurrence was not , a pn, robable one, *and, if they
• 'wanted theoretical erfectio they ~must gb to the
legislature. 'rakep the case of a- man,
_earned
• .eauZt tried for Murdering a woman. In' that
cout. It_ was necessary to have ten or . twelve
guilt -La the indictment. The jury found the prisoner
evie generally upon * the indictnient, and the
• emoealle,, c. ,warranted the finding on. or eight of the
Should they, because there was a detect in one
irrieue„Punts, suffer, suCh a; arty to commit murder with
• fl-e1,:41'?, Surely it would not be improving the law of
;11‘tuhiew Pass an Act declaring that where there were
eeti-ra, counts upon an indictment, -and the jury had
party guilty of all, he should, if one sere bad!
F'lcharged?
the Celdeneee--Where there only one Murder,
upoPreper mode would be to find the prisoner guilty
one count.
The A • ,
critic -.TTORNEY-GENERAL."-said he. believed in the
mai court the verdict and the sentence were always
the.".,reti • generally, In the case of the King v.-Fuller,
4,`,, was a rerdict upon both counts. in the indictment.
The Lean CHANCELLOR said he recollected a
thistodebinrti,..ng kind. A .policeman, was indicted for
a rape upon a young girl
.in his cus-
i • He got off upon a . misnomer, of the girl.
wall indicted a second time. There was a plea
4m:l4:trefoil acquit, and .the answer was " went by
'see,„-I',„'ne as well as the other," and he was acquitted a
1040-"thee. The case was tried at the Norfolk Assizes,
• Mr. Justice Patteson.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL challenged his Learned
s to produce any case in which the record and the
• • be,"4 warranted a judgment, and. that judgment had
„
-* set elide. When -he said the record, he did not
, ,tehZever3r count in the indictment; but what he main-
. 1106,4 west- that when one count in the. indictment was
'mid a verdict of guilty had been returned upon
count, his Learned, Friends could find no case in
of le gel 'lodgment had been reversed. It was a confusion
tee principles and arguments to confound the,
er
of the sentence with the judgment which the
ww
sanctioned. The jury had nothing whatever to do
hh'the amount of punishment or fine.
• rd CAHPBELL—Suppose it, were specifically stated.
„ . arsV“in the judgment, " for the offence specified in the
eg „1.4." " for the account specified in the second
deali nT ° for the: offwnoe specified in the third count," and
0,t."
II,: to dm eleventh count, and a certain sentence was
'"'n of one year's imprisonment, or 1002 fine, would
icsu that error?
„the. at case say, there is no
an
ATTORNEY-GENHMAL said he could hardly
th !!" ito hypothetical question, but he ventured to say
(ef,:ataubuk,h:shtt4erocich judgment .had ever been entered ep.—
).byThe analogy of the civil cases sought to be
his , Learned Friends entirely failed. In
, castthe other
verdict of the jury warranted the judgment
stud
n.. which was , the court that gave judgment,
hi 'E.—se"- the sentence. He 'submitted to their Lord-
, ,Ps that that wee the-principle of the law, and that all
rimentr.„,acti,ce, and the opinion of the professioe, from time
tisr„,l""°rialt supported him in that statement. He yen-
" t° ask his Learned Friends on the other side to
grlTh-est ttheirLordships the ferns of entering up
,thent. His Learned Friend (Sir T. Wilde) said
•Q was distinctive between a writ of error and a
latter 'la arrest of judgment. That when the
came on for decision the Judges said, "It does
lug ir
matter; if one of the counts are good, we will pass
t4Ment On that one." He doubted whether any Judge
▪ •erae said anything of the kind. He spoke in the
taalilea sw,yeral Judges of the Queen's Bench, and
„put it tothem whether such was the practice. Their
• :trio rather w 44 If, one of the counts are good, it is
- ' besserY: .to incpAre whether, the others are good or
Their Lordships would not decide this upon any
iqu'ffrlse cue, but on the principles of law, and the de•
of the courts. Should their Lordships pronounce
44 Of this objection they would be reversing whit
0...: Held to bg, the law of the land for the last eV)
• .4:1„e▪ and under :which lop
.persons had suffered,, and
r: suffering at this uwineut. ,He had. only one other
s rvation to make
....upon this . point. His Learned-
s:'•.*Zel„ 'had said that, the defendants could not plead
e;ois-cotiviet, and-that. the juz.istaent should not be
• "reversed on this ground. But though a person Was found
eonnt.tal.ndc4oreintthweheioeuhidwas bad, yfet. if he
.ai.'istfered
earned plead autre 014 convict His
s__ ;-,another hypotheticals ' case.
iflov,2lPePosed that' there - were four 'counts • in an
ixtituaria at, containing different offences, one for murder,
t 9
41414 9110 for GU omits and, the fourth, for au

assault, with intent to commit a breach of the peace He
supposed the verdict of the jury was given on all the
counts ; that the court of error had decided three out
of the four were bad, and that the party was sentenced
on the fourth. He next supposed that the Queen had par-
doned him on the fourth count; and he then asked, how he
could be allowed out of custody? He (the Attorney-Gene-
ral) had the honour of being one of the Law Officers of the
Crown, and he very much doubted whether the Crown
had this, power, supposing that judgment had been
entered up. He would now proceed to the next point,
which was also of a technical nature, which was as to the
finding of the jury on the first and second counts of the
indictment. Those counts charged the defendants with
conspiring with one another, and divers other persons,
to raise and create discontent and disaffection amongst
the liege subjects of our said Lady the Queen, and
excite
_the said subjects to hatred and contempt of the
Government and Constitution of this realm, as by law
established, and to unlawful and seditious opposition to
the said Government and Constitution, and also to stir
up jealousies, hatred, and ill will between different
classes of her Majesty's subjects, and especially to pro-
mote amongst her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings
of and hostility towar.ls and against her Majes-
ty's subjects in the other parts of the said United King-
dom, and especially in that part of the said United Klieg-
dom called England." He would stop there, because
their Lordships would find that the jury found them all
guilty of conspiring to do all those acts. The counts
went on to charge them with conspiring for other objects,
as to cause changes in the Government, law, and Consti-
tution, as by law established; and to bring into contempt
the tribunals for the adininistrationnf the law in Ireland.
The jury found seven of the defendants guilty, of
conspiring with each other, and divers other
persons, and then they found three of them
guilty of the residue—of an unlawful conspiracy
to raise disaffection in the army. None of
the defendants were found guilty of the whole
of the charge, because the jury acquitted 'them of the
charge of procuring an unlawful meeting, the jury
having seemed to consider that the, parties who.met were
instruments and dupes, and they therehre omitted the
words" seditious" and "unlawful," but they found that
these parties had conspired " to cause divers subjects of
the Queen to meet and assemble. together for seditious
and unlawful purposes." That was the finding of the
jury, and it might be considered in two ways, but in
either way it did not affect the verdict. It was either a
part of the issue, or it was not. If it was a part of the
issue it could not affect the judgment. Now what the
jury meant was clearly this—that Certain of the defend-
ants charged with conspiracy hat? agreed 'to do 'all the
acts mentioned in the first part of the declaration, but
that certain others of them had agreed to go further.
Well, the way they did it was this—" As to the residue
we convict them of a conspiracy to do nothing."
He should submit that that was a good- find-
ing: He would suppose the case of four per-
sons meeting in a room—all of whom agreed
to rob a house, and three out of the four to commit a
murder, to which the fourth did not, agree. He appre-
hended it would be a good finding to find three of them
guilty to do all of the acts, and one to do one act only.
The meaning of the jury was that all were iniplicated in
the -conspiracy, but not to the same effect, and he was
not aware of any principle which would prevent a jury
from coming to such a finding. His Learned Friends
had argued that the defendants were found guilty. of
more offences than were laid to their charge in the in-
dictment ; that they were charged with eleven, and were
found guilty on fifteen ; and that, therefore, as judgment
was given upon the whole, judgment was given for more
offences than the parties were charged with. He sub-
mitted, that this. did not vitiate the judgment, and that
though the jury found them guilty of more offences than
were charged against them in the indictment, it would
be considered a surplusage, and would be rejected by the
court below and the court above. The Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman quoted, in support of
his argument, 2d Saunders' Reports, p. 208.
It was there argued that the verdict was invalid, because
the jury found on 'matters which were not in issue. The
jury found that the defendants had spoken slanderous
words which were not charged ; but the court held that
the objection to that part did not require the rejection
of the whole finding. He would not trouble their Lord-
ships with the numerous cases which he might cite in.
support of the same .principle. It was alleged in the
case before their Lordships that the jury found the de-
fendants guilty of three conspiracies where but.one was
charged. , It was quite natural to observe that the judg-
ment was given for' the offences aforesaid, and that
must mean for the offences charged 'in the indictment,
and on which the verdict had been found. But if the
finding included something which was not in the in-
dictment, that would not set aside the judgment. If
anything' of that sort had .been found,. the Court of
Queen's Bench would have set it aside as surplusage,
and it would not affect the material parts of, the verdict.
The Loan CHANcELLOa—It is quite clear that the
finding of something beyond the issues would be 'no
ground for rejecting the verdict, so far as it was Within
the issue.
The ATTOBNEY-GENERAL begged to call their Lordships'
attention to the words of the jury. They were these :
" That the defendants all of them conspired with others
to create dissatisfaction," and so on. That was the first
finding in the verdict ; and then they said—" And as to
the residue? the said Daniel O'Connell," and so on.
Now that word residue itself 'was sufficient to show that
they, did not mean to find the defendants guilty of three
conspiracies, but of one common conspiracy, in part of •
the objects of which some only of them had entered. If,
as was argued, that finding on the, residue was a mistake,
yet it would not invalidate that part of the verdict which
was within the issue, and which declared all the eight
defendants guilty of the conspiracy charged in the in-
dictment. In 2d Rowe's Abridgment, p. 714, there
was a passage to the affect that " When the jury finds
anything beyond the issue, that does not vitiate the verdict
on the judgment, as it is only surplusage."_ The
objection on this point had been-argued upon the first
and second counts as_if they stood alone, and the other
counts were treated -as bad. But he apprehended that
there were other substantiated counts all coining under
the head of the one conspiracy. He did not' think it
worth while to trouble their Lordships by dwelling upon
the objection, that because some were found guilty and
others acquitted of certain objects of the conspiracy, the
_separate findings were for separate conspiracies. Where
a defendant was found guilty of some of the acts charged
in one count, and acquitted of the others, that was a
sufficient verdict of guilty. The next of those technical
objections arose from the discontinuance. Their Lord-
ships would give them the benefit of whatever they were
entitled to on that ground. The 'objection was this,
that the Court of Queen's Bench having given instruc-
tions that the trial should proceed on the 12th of
February, it did so. On 'the 15th of April,
the first day of Easter 'term, 'all the defendants
appeared to receive judgment. But that judg-
ment was again postpcinecl to, the 22d of May:
The -objection was this, that there ought t i be a con-
tinuance from the 12th of February, to the first day of
Easter term, and that the defendants had. not had a day
before receiving judgment. On this point, he was pre-
pared to submit that if this had not been a trial under a
particular A.;:t of Parliament, this would not have been
a defect or error. In ordinary' cases, it would not he an
error. It was quite impossible that there could' be a
continuance. The particular circumstances under *Which
this trial took place—were such as rendered the
_form adopted the only proper one. This trial took
place under the statutes 1 and 2 Will. IV. Having
read the section, he proceeded to say that the
trial did, extend beyond Hilary term, and was
terminated on the 20th of February without a
continuance; the Court could not only not pronounce
judginent, but could do no judicial act whatever ; but
the verdict was sufficient without anything else, as the
defendants. appeared in court on the first day on which
judgment could be given, and he' submitted that this
was the only way in which the record
,could be made
out. This was no ground for reversing the judgment.
He need hardly state, that no' court- at this time of day
would. reverse a judgment in a criminal case on a mere
technical defect of this kind, the act of the officer who
made up the record. He ventured to go further and
say, that unless there should be a distinct series of un-
questionable authorities binding the court to reverse its
judgment,. on such an' absurd,. Objection the court 'could
net entertain it. He quoted the authorities which had
-been cited by Mr. Peacock from Coke and Lyttleton,
and the cases of Smith v. Lock, Bradley v. Banks, and
the King v. Vitchen, from. Lord Raymond's Reports.
,But not one of' all these authorities '"laid down the prin-
ciple- 'of a reversal of the judgment for not giving a day
after the verdict. But he would show their Lordships
several authorities stating that it could not be reversed
on that ground. He quoted. from Comyn's Digest, title,
Pleader.: %. •
Lord CAMPBELL—That is a common law without
statute.
The ATTOTINV.Y.GENERAL--It was without the aid of
statute. It was laid down that a discontinuance made
prior to the verdict, but not discovered until after the
verdict, could not be' held to' be a discontinuance, and
the rule was the same in civil as in criminal cases.
Lord CAMPBELL--It seemed it was not thought ne-
cessary to continue the operation of the statute of dis-
continuance after the verditt was pronounced.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was not necessary.
He quoted also the case' of Rogers and Ellin, from
Comyn's Digest. In the case before 'their Lordships
the verdict had been given. What was the objection of
the defendants?-That a day was not given them on
whieh to appear and hear' judgment pronounced. Why,
they did appear to hear judgment ; then where was the
injury ? If a
.party had been. outlawed for not appear-
ing to receive judgment, he could understand the objec-
tion, as the, party would then plead the discontinuance
order to have his outlawry reversed. But he contended
that the statute of William IV., tinder which this trial
bad taken place, rendered *very other form informal.
It was a statutory adjournment which every one was
bound to take notice of. '
The Learned Gentleman then said that, with their
Lordships' permission, he would close his argument on
that point, and resume it to-morrow at ten o'clock, on
• the question of the challenge of the array.
Their Lordships then adjourned until ten o'clock to-
morrow (this day).

, •
HER MAJESTYS THEATRE .—On Saturday ,night
Lucia di Lammermoor was repeated, by her Majesty's com- •
mand, instead of Otello, which had been first announced. Her
MajestY entered her box at the commencement of the second
act, and remained till the conclusion of the opera. We are
happy to state that she looked remarkably well. Her Royal
Highness the Princess Augusta of Cambridge was also present
A MorisEri AmAzosi,—..o The following adventure,”
says the Reforme, t' will cause a thrill in the hearts of our
horsewomen of the Olympic Circus. Towards the middle of
last month, in the neighbourhood of .Ak-Hyssar,. six Zey-
beaks attacked three or four persons forming part of M.
Romania!" eqnestrian troop, who were proceeding from
C,nstantinople to Smyrna, The robbers having attempted
to comin;t„viojence .enMadeMoiegile g.omaniM, she with he
a
yatagan .orie.,l the Zeybeeks, whow she kitled with
I own hand, and put the c;:l'ari to di#ht. Aradeitiiisello
=Lag U WIALUded IA the arm2l

INIPEKtAL PARLIAMENT.
hOUSE OF LORDS, July 8.
Their Lordships having sat in Error in the appeal of
Daniel O'Connell and others, from ten o'clock until four,
resumed, for public business, at a quarter to five.
Several private Bills were advanced a stage, and in
the case of others the COmmons' amendments were
agreed to,-and the Bills passed, but we could not catch
their names.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition
from a body of Unitarian Dissenters in favour of the

A Rev. PRELATE, whose name we did not hear,
presented several petitiens...from places in Yorkshire,
Surrey, and other parts of theltingdom, against the Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON presented nutzter9tis peti-
tions to the same effect.
C ORN-LAW S.
Lord ELDON presented petitions from numerous
parishes in Surrey against, any alteration of the corn-
laws which would diminish agricultural,protection.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented Similar petitions
from places in the counties of Sussex, Hants, and Somer-
set, against the Anti-Corn-law League, and in favour of
protection ; also petitions from Exeter and other places,
against certain provisions of the Bank Charter Act.
Lord TEYNHAM presented a great number of peti-
tions from places in Staffordshire, Lancashire, Bucking-
ham, Northampton, and various other parts of the coun-
try, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lord SOMERS presented twenty-four petitions, in
favour of agricultural protection. The Noble Lord pre-
sented also several petitions against the Bank Charter
Bill.
Lord ASHBURTON presented several petitions from
places in Surrey, praying for agricultural protection.
The Noble Lord presented also a petition in favour of
the Dissenters' Chapels BilL
THE POST-OFFICE LETTER OPENING.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, informed the House
that he had received a letter from Lord Buriiiagton, de-
clining to sit upon the Secret Committee of Post-office
inquiry ; and on the motion of the Noble Duke, the name
of Lord Colborne was substituted.
THE BANK CHARTER BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of RIPON, it was agreed
chat the Bank Charter Bill should, be read a second time
to-morrow, and that the discussion should take place on
Friday.
BISHOPRICS QF BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH.
On the motion of the Earl of POWIS, .the third
reading of the dioceses of Bangor and St. Asaph Bill was
postponed till Thursday. .
THE IRISH MAGISTRACY. .
Earl FORTESCUE postponed till Thursday the mo-
tion of which he had given notice for this day, relating
to Mr. qDriscoll. He hoped he should be allowed to
ibnrvi nog oy
edp
athe
eizt oi9t ino no
fbpeef or
sr
oe n
at hl e ohradrearest
eoxf,
vt. hhe d i
cha y a
o,
ugs
hi
tt
not to,be kept suspended.
Lord KINNAIRD presented a petition from Perth,
praying that the provisions of the Brothels Suppression
Bill should be extended to Scotland.—(A laugh.)
LOrd MA LM ESBURY presented a petition from land-
owners- of New. Zealand, praying for further protection
to colonial produce.
C A_THOLIC BEQUESTS BILL.
The Tiishop of EXETER said that this Bill contained
clauses of greater importance than had been contained
in any Bill passed by Parliament for the last
300 years. He had come up two hundred miles to take'
part in the discussion, which stood fixed for to-morrow,
and he hoped it would not be postponed, at he should
have to return on Wednesday.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said that the same
cause of postponement which affected other measures to-
day would probably cause the postponement of this Bill.
to-morrow.
The Bishop of EXETER would take the present op-
portunity of stating generally his objections to the mea-
sure, which were founded upon the, effect the Bill would
have of recognising the supremacy of the Pope in these
realms. He should be most happy to support a measure
for enabling Catholics to endow their religious estab-
lishments, if it could be done without endangering the
constitution and the religious institutions of this kingdom.
INCENDIARISM IN NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK.
Lord WODEHOUSE complained with great warmth
of the calumnies which had lately been disseminated
against the gentry and yeomanry of the county (Suffolk)
over which he had the honour to preside as Lord Lieutenant.
He called upon the gentlemen of the press who were
present to publish his contradiction.—(Order, order, and
great laughter.) Those calumnies would never have
been fabricitied, if it had not been to suit the purposes
of those who availed themselves of opposition to
the poor-laws for party objects. If the gentlemen
of the press would go down to the neighbourhood
of his own estate and examine the union workhouses—
(A laugh)—they would see that they were well ma-
naged, and if they asked the paupers themselves they
would be told that they were better off than under the
old-system. He thanked their Lordships and apologised
for the warmth of his matiner—(Hear)--but he felt that
he' was as much inculpated by those ealumaies as any
farmer in the couritv.(Cheers.)
The MarquispflktOßMANßY considered the warmth
of the Noble Lord perfectly 'natural, and felt cer-
tain that no part of the accusations .to which he
had alluded could apply to that Noble Lord.—(Hear,
hear.) He (the Marquis of Norsninby) would take this
opportunity of moving for returns of the number, age,
and sex of the persons who had been committed for trial at
the last assizes in Norfolk and;Suffolk, On the charge of
incendiarism, with the result of the trials.
Lord WODEHOUSE could have no objection to the
returns, which were accordingly ordered.
The Parliamentary business being concluded, tholiou se
then adjourned for a quarter of an hour—that is to six
o'clock—when the arguments in the appeal in error on
the Irish State Trials were resumed. •

After their 'Lordships met from the adjournment, and
before proceeding to the argument on the writ of error,
the following business was gone through
PRESBYTERIAN MARRIAGES.
The Irish Presbyterian Marriage Bill passed through
Committee.

THE POST-OFIi ICE.
a message was
ordered to be sent to the Commons for leave for Lord J.
Russell and Sir J. Graham to be examined as witnesses
before the Secret Committee of the House of Lords.—
Agreed to.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
Lord SANDON and others, from the House of
COM-
mons, appeared it the Bar with a message, requesting
their Lordship consent, that the Marquis of Normanhy,
the Earl of Aberdeen, and Viscount Melbourne should
attend to give evidence beibre the Secret Committee of
the House of Commons on tire Post•office inquiry.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY (presiding for the Lord
Chancellor) informed the Messengers, that their Lord-
ships would send an answer by Messengers of their own.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 8.
The SPEAKER took the chair at Four o'clock.
MIDDLE LEVEL DRAINAGE BILL.
On the motion for the further consideration of the
report on this Bill,
Lord G. BENTINCK moved that the-Bill be recom-

mitted.
After some discussion the House divided, when there
were—
For the amendment 26
Against it
Majority
The report was then ordered to be. brought up and
engrossed.

POST-OFFICE.
On the motion of Lord SANDON a message was sent
to the Lords, requesting that Lords Melbourne Nor-
manby, and Aberdeen, might be allowed to give evidence
before the Post-office Committee of the 'House of Com-
mons.

SUGAR DUTIES.
.Mr. F. BARING said he wished to put a ques-
Lion to the Right Honourable the President of the
Board of Trade which he had mentioned on a former oc-
casion. It was whether the sugar of the Danish colo-
nies was to-come in under the lower duty in the Sugar
Bill. . •
Mr. GLADSTONE said there were established- and
settled rules to govern our commercial intercourse with
Denmark, and those would be abided by. He did not
see any case in which it was at all necessary to ask the
opinion of the law officers of the Crown.
ALGIERS.
Mr. SHELL said he wished to put three questions to
the Right Hon. Gentleman at the-head of her. Majesty's
Government. The first question* was, whether Lord
Aberdeen had received any
.answer,' froni the FrenCh
Government to his dispatch of the 28th of January,
1842, and if so would there be any objection, to
lay that upon the table of the House; the second was,
had the British Government applied for an exequatur for
our COnsul at Algiers; and the third Was, had England
done anything to allow France to entertain the opinion
that she was entitled to, tlie posseisionof Algiers?
Sir R. PEEL thought it would be much better to
leave the matter entirely between 'the Executive Go-
vernments of the two countries. No answer
had as yet been received to the communica-
tion which had been forwarded iy the Earl of
Aberdeen to the Minister in France. With respect to
the question regarding the Consul-General in Africa,
he could only say that he had Wed under the same in-
structions which had been forwarded to him during
the tenure of office of the Government with which"' the
Right Hon. Gentleman was himself connected.
' Sir CHARLES NAPIER, after allUding to the naval
strength in the Mediterranean and, at home, said
be wished to put three questions to the Right
Honourable Baronet. He wished to know, in the
first place, whether, it was'true, as had teen stated in
some of the Spanish Papers, that Spain had consented to
allow Fiance to send troops into MorOcco through Cents?
His second question was whether the
.Emperor of Mo-
rocco had refused all mediation on the part of this
country? And lastly, he-wished to ask whether it was the
intention of her Majesty's Government to increase' the
naval force of the country?
Sir. ROBERT PEEL said that there never was
period' at which this counter ' 'could make a
greater naval demonstration within a short space
of time than at the present moment. With respect to
the second question of`; the FIOn, and:Gallant Officer, as
to the permission by the Spanish Government to France
to allow troops to, pass through Ceuta to Morocco,
he could only say that he had, never heard of
such an arrangement having been entered into.
The next question of the Hon. and Gallant Member
was whether all mediation on *the part of this country
had been refused by the. Emperor :of Morocco, and in
answer to ,that question, he (Sir R. Peel) had to state
that the British Consul-General at Algiers was now
with the Emperor of Morocco, acting .-under the
instructions of her Majesty's Government, and therefore
it could not besaid that the-Emperor of Morocco had re-
fused all mediation. In answer to the last question of the

Hon. and Gallant Officer, he had to state that her Ma-
jesty's Government had already taken measures to place
such an amount of naval force in the Mediterranean as
would be sufficient to protect British interests in that
part of the world should their interests be at all menaced.
Mr. C. WOOD said the question of his Hon. and Gallant
Friend ( Sir C, Napier) was not whether it was the intention
of the Government to increase the naval force in the Alediter-
ranean, but whether it was the intention of the Government to
increase the naval force of the country ? It was the constant
practice of the present Government when in opposition, to up-
braid her itlajesty's Government with the paltry amount of the
naval force—with the weakness shown upon the seas in com-
parison with other Powers' and with the defenceleis condition
of our coast. But never had the Whigs left the shores of Eng-
land—the interests of England—so utterly at the mercy of the
foreigner as they were now left by the Tory Government, by
the crippled state in which they allowed the British navy to re-
main. He asked the Government, then, if it was their inten-
tion to put the naval force of the country in such a condition as
to command confidence at home and respect abroad?
Sir-ft, PEEL said he would not give any answer to the
question. Her Majesty's Government were responsible for
the safety of the country—for the honour of the country ; and
whenever one or the other were endangered, they
.would have
no have no hesitation whatever in instantly coming down to
Parliament, and asking for the amplest means of repelling pro-
vocation. —( Hear, hear.) He had been used unfairly, fur the
notice given to him by the Gallant Officer was simply whether
it was the intention of the Government to increase the naval,
force in the Mediterranean.
Lord PALNIERSTON said there was no ground at all for,
complaint on the part of the Government, especially when
their attacks of the year 1838 were remembered. In his
opinion, a Government ought always to be ready to state the
amount and distribution of the forces of the country, and
whether increase was intended or not. The amount
of the naval force of England was less now than
ever it was, and it was the duty—the absolute duty
—of the Government—to satisfy Parliament that it would
be so strengthened and increased as to be prepared for any
emergency that might arise.—(Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL said, the proceeding altogether was a most
unfair one. Why, even if he had had notice of a question,
whether or -not he was going to increase the naval estimates,
be would not have answered that question. Every question
that he had had notice of, and it was proper to answer, he had
answered. But beyond that he would simply repeat what he
had before said, that her Majesty's Government was respon-
sible for the honour of the country, and were not likely to
shrink from the obligations which office imposed upon them.
Lord HOWICK utterly denied the unfairness complained of,
and it was absolutely ridiculous, coming from a quarter where
so little of punctiliousness had been shown in former days.
RAILWAYS BILL.
Mr. GISBORNE said he rose not to continue the discus-
to offer some observations before the Speaker left the chair,
sion which, perhaps, had gone far enough at that moment, but
upon the Bill for the regulation of railways, which they were
that night called upon to read for a second time. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could
•
not hive failed to observe that, from the moment his Bill had
been brought forward, opposition had sprung up against it, and
that opposition had so increased and strengthened as to justify
him (Mr. Gisborne) in saying that the whole railway, world
was in deeided array against it. He was far froni saying that
the present laws regulating railways were perfect, but better
far have their imperfections than such regulations as the Bill
then before—the House would impose. He might certainly
carry the measure; backed as he was by the power of Govern-
ment, but no measure passed hostilely would ever work well,
or tend to the good conduct of railways. He therefore hoped
the Right Hon. Gentleman would withdraw the. Bill for the
present session, and save him from the necessity of dividing
the House upon it. If the Right Hon. Gentleman could not,
or would not, do this, he should move that the Bill be read *
second time that day six months.
Mr. C. RUSSELL said he would vote for the adjournment.
-Railway companies felt that they had not been fatly and fairly
heard before the House. and he was of that opinion too. Every
advantage bad been withheld from them, and every obstruction
-thrown in their way. Every advantage was taken by the
Government in the examination of witnesses, and railway
companies were excluded from the investigation contrary to
custom and to precedeet. Notwithstanding all the pains which
the Government had taken to force their scheme, their case had
completely broken down, even according to the testimony of
their own witnesses. The whole proceedings were based on a
principle of reciprocal interest, which was necessary in order
to obtain support. The President of the Board of Triule ad-
mitted that his scheme had failed, and up to a few days before
the Committee had closed its labours, the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had not determined upon any particular plan of operation.
On behalf of the railway, companies, who were perfectly unani-
mous in opposing this Bill, he offered his most decided opposi-
tion to it. Universal alarm had been felt regarding
the scheme proposed by the Government, and a deputation,
consisting of some of the largest railway proprietors
in England waited upon. the Right -Hon. Baronet at the head
of the Government, but their proposal was rejected. On be-
half of all the railways in the kingdom—on behalf of one bun.;
dred millions of property—he begged of the House to give them
time to consider this important measure before Parliament. The
evidence, which was so voluminous,. had riot been on the table
longer than since the middle of June, and had not been perused
even by the Ministers themselves. Was the House prepared
even to discuss the propriety of so important a change in rail-
weuli
. They asked for time till the:early part of
consider this Bill, and he hoped the House would
n
prayer.—( Hear, hear, )
Atytlrf
speculation?eeu s
for Nottingham had well considered his motion ; for the effect of
nrs.GssieLtAh to
oS T ONE said he did not think the Hon. Member
it would be a refusal to entertain or even consider the measure.
The Bill must be first explained to the House and to those out
of doors who had petitioned.the House in such numbers. The
Bill proposed to the House had the sanction of the Govern-
ment and of the Railway Committee, and was; in fact, grounded
upon the reports of Railway Committees. He felt that it would
be necessary to explain the objects and .nature of the Bill.
Mr. HAWES said he did not think it had been reasonable to
promise an opinion upon the Bill when the body of evidence
that had been laid on the table of the House had not been
perused. Since the evidence had been laid upon the table,
various most important measures bad been under the considera-
tion of the House. They had been discussing a JointeStoek
Company's Bill, a Bank Charter Bill, and other most ini-
portant subjects. Besides, he did not think the Right Hon.
Baronet_ at the head of the Government had acted fairly by
them, for on a previous occasion he said the House should be
very. cautious hew they interfered with existing railway com-
panies, . He. thought the Vice-President of the Board of
Trade had failed to make out a case to resist the motion of the
Hon. Member for Nottingham. -
Mr. COLQUHOUN said he thought it would be wrong to
refuse to enter into the discussion at present ; however,
he must .32y, that they had not as yet sufficiently pe-
rused the report of the Committee. He considered the
'present step a most dangerous one, and one unprecedented in
the history of British Legislature,_ transferring almost all the
power from private capitalists to Government, and yet that
same Government had refused to interfere with factory labour
on the very same principle on which they now attempted to act.
The idea of passing such a Bill at such a period of the session
was absurd, and the provisions of the Bill -were. most .unfair,
injurious, and of an unprecedented nature.
Mr. WALLACE said he believed the railway interest had
come down to that House for the purpose of stopping, the pro-
gress of this Bill upon the ground that the Legislature at-
tempted to interfere between railway companies and the public.
The Railway Committee upon which the report on the table
of
He witnesses
protested w eagreai
was founded was composed for a great part of railway capitalists,
andthe
railway
err great number
interest. on_
e behalf
meteo-f
Mem-
bers who were directly interested in railway speculations
enlstamithnoesde
voting on this Bill. He would support the second reading.
Mr? GISBORNE was averse to discussing the Bill at so
late-a period of the session, and before Hon. Members had time
to peruse the evidence.
Mr. H. HINDE denied, in the most positive manner, that
the railway interest had, in any way, attempted to obstruct the
Bill of the Government, but due time had not been given for
the consideration of the evidence. If the. Right Hon. Gentle-
man would postpone the decision on the measure till next ses-
sion, he would offer no opposition to a full discussion, and a
second reading of it during this session. At the same time,
even if the Government persevered, he would offer it no unfair
opposition.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the question now before the
House was not whether it should affirm the principle of the Bill,
but whether there was anything 'in its nature to prevent its
discussion in the present session. He thought they should dis-
cuss the measure fully during the present session. The mea-
sure was as mush the offspring of the- Committee as
of the Government, and he would vote for its second
reading. It had been said that the evidence on the
table had not been fully known or promulgated,
but according to the statements of railway companies them-
selves they seemed fully acquainted with the evidence, and
with every principle the Bill introduced, and they gave it their
unqualified condemnation. He did not think the interests of
the companies and those of the public were distinct and sepa-
rate, but. were altogether identical. He thought the Bill be-
fore the House would be eminently beneficial to both. He
hoped they would now proceed to discuss the Bill in the usual
way, and trusted the Hon. Gentleman would not press his
motion to a division.
Sir R. PEEL said he thought there was a growing opinian
among the publics that railway companies were. becoming mo-
nopolies. The Hon. Member was still worse than the Athe-
nian, for the Athenian said " Strike, but hear." but the Hon.
Member would strike but refuse to hear. Must there not be
something very error.eous in the system when the Hon. Mem-
ber for Nottingham moved that the Order of the Day be read,
merely becawas his Right Hon. Friend, the Vice-President of
the Board of Trade, had attempted to explain the principles of
the measure to.the -House? The object of the .Government
was toprevent Undue eiaction and to make these great public
'concerns as beneficial-both to the capitalists and to the public as
possible. It had been said that the present period of the ses-
sion was too late to introduce any measure on the sub-
led of railways, but they had had sixty new
applications for railways during the present session,
and they would in all probability have sixty . more.
He could never believe that the House of Commons would so
far protect and shelter monopoly, as to prevent his Right Hon.
Friend, the representative of the Government, from explaining
' 'the objects and nature of the Bill. The Government, he re-
peated,"had and could have no other object in view.but the pub-
lic good. They offended a large and influential body of capi-
talists, Many of their strenuous supporters, so that they must,
t ail events, get credit for perfect disinterestedness. Again,
the Government only adopted the suggestionsand recommenda-
, tions of the Committee ; they were, in short, only carrying out
their recommendations, and acting in accordance with the evi-
dence brought before them. Until Abe four tellers declared at
'the table' of that House that the motion of the Hon. Member
opposite was successful, he never believe that the poWer of
monopoly was so strong in the House of Commons, as to refuse,
not: only to pass a useful measure, but to deprive the Govern-
ment of the power of explaining its principles, nature, and ob-
jects, All the Government wished was a full, fair, and.*par-
tial discussion ; they would be ready to hear suggestions from any
. Hoi..member, and give them their best consideration. The
sort of strategy which had been resorted to by railway
directors was rather of an unusual description. The Right
Hon. Gentleman read a circular from the railway directors
which had been received by a grocer at Deptford, requesting
of him, as an elector, to request of his representative to give
the Government Railways Bill all the opposition in his power,
bit the grocer replied that if he had a vote himself he would
give it in favour of the Government measure so that the, rail-
way directors did not further impress on, this individual the
necessity of communicating his opinions. to -his representative.
(A laugh.) No ; let the measure be judged upon its merits
and utility, and by that test the Government was- prepared' to
abide.--..(Cheers.).)
Mr. R. YORKE recommended the Hon. Member for Not-
tingham to withdraw his motion.
Mr. GISBORNE then withdrew his motion.
Several petitions against the •
Railways Bill were presented
from various railtinty companies.
• • Mr. GLADSTONE then rose to move the second reading
of the Bill. He said that this was not a question of party, on
which the Government could appeal to the sympathy of their
supporters. -* Everything that could be done to' throw
opposition In the way of this Bill had been adopted on the
part off
.many of the railway companies in the country.
The statement's, however, upon which that opposition was
founded were all at variance with facts. No-Bill that had
ever come before Parliament had ever met with greater mis-
-representation, ,So anxious were . the Government to Secure
to railway-companies a full and fair repreientation in the Com-
mittee, that four gentlemen were sprinted on th;t Commit.

tee who were themselves railway directors. This was con-
sidered by many Hon. Members as an undue leaning towards
railway companies, and the consequence was, that two of those
gentlemen were withdrawn. The list of that Committee in-
cluded gentlemen who were known to be conversant with rail-
way matters. He would, first of all, address himself to the
charge which had been brought against this Committee of
partiality. He could sot conceive how the gentlemen who
had framed the petitions which had been presented against this
Bill could descend to the assertion than the evidence which
had been taker, was ex parte evidence. They would deprive
words of all meaning if they were to sanction such words as
these to be applied to this Bill. Why, the witnesses exa-
mined were persons themselves connected with railways.
Twelve witnesses were examined, and two of them were per-
sons connected with the Board of Trade. The whole of the
other witnesses were railway directors. There was Mr. Glynn,
the Chairman of the Birmingham Railway ; Mr. Hudson, the
Chairman of half-a-dozen railways in the north ; Mr. Baxen-
dale, one of the largest railway proprietors in the kingdom ;
Mr. Swift, the Agent of the Grand Junction Railway ; Mr.
Saunders, the Secretary to the Great Western Company ;
Captain Lawes ; the Hon. Member for Clitheroe ( Mr. Card-
well) ; Mr. Wilkinson, Chairman of the London and Croydon
Railway; Mr. Rowland Hill, who was known in connection
with another question, and Mr. Harding, the Secretary to the
Glasgow and Greenock Railway. These were called cx parte
witnesses. flow, he would ask, could such words be applied
to such a subject? His Hon. Friend the Member for Read-
ing, in the Committee, said, that railway companies ought to be
allowed to call witnesses. Why his Hon. Friend himself was
on the Committee as the representative of railway companies.
Mr. C. RUSSELL intimated dissent.
Mr. GLADSTONE did not say that his Hors. Friend had
been chosen by the railway companies, but he was an active
supporter of the views of those who entertained opinions of
non-intervention with respect to railways. 'Why did
not his Honourable Friend the Member for Reading
in Committee, complain of the ex parte evidence ?
In entering into tne consideration of the subject which was
submitted to them, of course one of the first questions upon
which they deliberated was the question of accommodation
for third class pasengers. The Committee felt that on this
question they were justified in introducing a clause into the Bill,
which to a certain extent might be called interference. It
would be recollected, that those parties whose avocations led
them to different parts of the country, who were compelled to
travel in third class carriages, were persons ill calculated to
bear exposure to the weather, and a clause to protect them
had been framed and introduced into the Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
There were two clauses in the Bill relating to the conveyance
of the military and the mails. There were three clauses re-
lating to the prosecution of railway companies who exceeded
the powers which had been conferred upon them by Parlia-
ment, and there were two clauses relating to loan notes. The
remaining portions of the Bill were relating to the general sub-
ject of railway reform. They were about now to discuss the
great question of option on the part of the Government with
respect to the general management of railways. And now he
had to complain of the gross misstatements which had been in-
dulged in with respect to this Bill. Those statements were,
that this Bill had been brought forward to enable the Execu-
tive to purchase or revise future railways, upon certain terms, if
they thought fit to do so. Now this was a perversion of the
real objects of the Bill. The Bill gave the Government cer-
tain powers with respect to future railways, but the policy of
using these powers was entirely vested in the Parliament itself.
The express object of the Bill was to place the whole matter at
the discretion of Parliament. The ground taken by the Com-
mittee was this, that even if it were politic to
purchase or revise, were they now in a condition, with
reference to existing railways, to entertain the question?
The two questions they had to consider was, the policy of the
step, and whether the maintenance of public faith would
permit them to make the purchases or revisions. The Com-
mittee had scrupulously adhered to the maintenance of public
faith, and had adopted no measures which might be deemed
unwarrantable with respect to existing railways. With re-
gard to future railways they had reserved certain powers, and
having done so, they reserved the question of policy. with
respect to carrying those powers out for the deliberation of
Parliament. There were some gentlemen who recommended
the purchase of all railways by the State. The Committee
were not prepared to adopt this recommendation and opinion.
He (Mr. Gladstone) would certainly oppose such a proposition.
He did not think that in the present state of the railway
system, there were grounds sufficient to warrant the adoption
of such a measure. This Bill left the question of policy en-
tirely open. To purchase any railway, the Government
would have to come to Parliament for the means, and then
the question of the expediency of the plan would be fully en-
tered into. It was not too much to expect, that in a very
few years as much as 15,000,0001. sterling annually would be
spent by the people of this country in the shape of fares to
railway companies; and therefore it was important that the
Government should have the powers which this Bill
conferred, if by that means a saving to the public
could be effected. Under the present system of railways
the experiment which the Government proposed never could
be made. They might have it tried between London and
Greenwich, or between Glasgow and Greenock, but not on a
large and general scale in the country. Now he did say, for
those reasons, that it was politic and wise in them as states-
men, to retain in their hands a power to be used at an after
period for the good of the public, if they found it politic to do
so ; or not to be used if circumstances did not require it. He
had a most strong objection to any measure that might incline
the scale either one way or another; but that before them only
called on Parliament to maintain its own free agency. It was
perfectly impossible for the Executive to alter or revise, with-
out first resorting to Parliament. It had been said that it was
the object of the Government to keep that a close question.
He denied that such was the desire of the Government. They
rather wished to open a question that was now closed, and to
put Parliament in such a condition that they might decide upon
and settle it. It might be wise to try the working of this mea-
sure, or it might not ; he was not going to say how Parliament
ought.ultimately to to proceed; but, in the meantime, Parlia-
ment only enacted that, at some future time, it might be law-
ful for Government to purchase railways. But the opponents
of this measure may say, " Tell us, first, when you mean to pur-
chase them, and on what terms." It would be impossible for
Government to make any reservation in that case, and they
had thought they were bound to reserve a certain power, in order
to show those who might be afterwards disposed to invest capital '
in improvements calculated to do much good to the country,
what would be the terms on which Government should take
those railways under their own protection. It was a very
singular matter, and the question was an amusing one. How
happened it that this Bill, which affected only the prospective
railways, had been unopposed by those having Bills at present
before Parliament ?—( Hear, hear.) How came it, he asked,
that the opposition arose altogether from the old companies, and
whose rights the Government had paid every attention to ?
He wanted much to know on what possible grounds of reasoning
they founded their opposition to the measure ? One reason
he believed they alleged was this, that they would
ultimately be driven under the operation of the
Bill. The very language used was, that Government
would force them into it, however ruinous and oppressive
they might find it. But how could Government force them
into it? He (Mr. G.) had already shown that Government
could do nothing towards forcing them into it ; and could it
believe that they would be drawn into any suck ruinous and op-
pressive course ? Surely they mistrusted themselves too much.
__(Laughter.) They might surely have exhibited a little
more confidence.—( Laughter.) This he would say, that if
any course could tend to weaken those companies, it was the
course they were then pursuing. He was addressing a ma-
jority of railway proprietors in that House.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) He was himself a railway proprietor ; his family
were most extensively connected with railway companies ;
and he repeated that nothing could weaken rail-
way companies like an undue use of their present
great power.—( Hear, hear.) Had Parliament shown any
wish or inclination to oppress and thwart public companies ?
Had it evinced a disposition to second the clamour raised out
of doors against the management of railway companies? Yet
those railway companies whose power was so strong, stronger
perhaps than any other in commanding the votes of Members
—(Cries of " No, no")—he imputed no motives to Hon.
Members, but it seemed odd, with respect to their opposition to
this Bill, how, if they had no confidence in a future Parliament,
they could place any confidence in the present one. They
objected that Government might at a future period buy up
some poor railway, and so make use of its resources to injure a
rich one. His answer to that was, that Government could
not do that without first coming to Parliament for the
means ; and he thought they would be able to combat
then and to defeat the unworthy Government, which would
enter the commercial lists with a stronger purse for the pur-
pose of ruining other parties. If Government were inclined
to pursue this unworthy policy then, what was to prevent them
from doing so now ? Why this, that Parliament would listen
to no such proposition. He thought those were the two
objections on which this Bill had been opposed, first, that
Government might buy, and secondly, that sufficient time had
not been given to the House and to the country to consider its
provisions. With respect to the first, he had already stated
his opinion upon it, and with regard to the second he
would briefly say a few words upon it. And first, he at
once admitted that if the House were called on to affirm
the policy of the Government purchasing railways, this
objection would be a strong one 1 but that objection did not
apply to a measure of definite legislation. That Bill ought
to have been denominated a Bill for reserving the discretion of
Parliament—he repeated reserving its discretion, and he had
no hesitation in saying that, if those notes of the Committee
had been lost, he would not have scrupled to recommend the
Bill to the consideration of Parliament. But be asked,
how stood the objection with respect to the ques-
tion of time ? On the 30th of March, the Com-
mittee recommended, and on the 3d of April the report
was on the table of the House. More than three months had,
therefore, elapsed since the recommendation had been intro-
duced to the notice of Members. Why they (the Government)
were the persons who were taken by surprise in the matter.
The report and the Bill were published on the 3d of April, and,
therefore, when Hon. Gentlemen spoke of being taken by
surprise, he imagined that himself and his colleagues had the
most right to complain. They might say, probably, that no
one thought of the report but he said that fewer
documents had been the object of greater attention
either in that House or throughout the country. It was ad-
verted to, and printed in all the London newspapers, and in the
majority of the Irish prose. The principal railway newspapers
had also referred, and extracted from it, and they had praised
the moderation and cautious tone of the report, and all that was
done three months ago; and nothing then but the utmost ;um-
cord was expressed for the measure; and until ether matters
came on, to which he would not then advert, that report main-
tained its interest with the public, He complained that they
(the Government) were misrepresented, and that, toe, in shb
petition from the Directors of the London and Iliriningham
Railway. They stated that the report was not laid
on the table of the House till the 24th of May,
and that most voluminous papers were not Fos
duced till a fortnight afterwards. He complained cif this as
a misrepresentation. What were the facts The Bill was
founded upon the report wh;eh had been laid before. the
House on the 3d of April. The Hon. Gentleman then read
the answers given to the Committee by the Chairman of the
London and Birmingham Railway, in which that gentleman
expressed his opinion that the present Bill should be intro-
duced without delay. He deprecated the censequermea of de-
lay. By the beginning of next session, they would have one
or two hundred Railway Bills before the House, and it
would be July before they could get at the second
reading of thia Hear, hear,) The opposition to this
Bill was composed of different elements, but he
apprehended that the real opposition was that set on foot by
parliamentary agents and solicitors. It had been stated, that
the competition between rival lines of railway would preserve
the interests of the public without the necessity for this mea-
sure. They would perhaps allow him to introduce something
by way of episode. The London and Birmingham and the
Grand Junction Railways quarrelled sortie tint; ago., and the
rival companies proposed new lines of railway for the
purpose of opposing ether*, and so lowering the rates of transit
to the public, like lovers' quarrels, however, they became
friends again, and the public were no longer thought of,. and so
it would be, if this measure was not carried, in future and similar
cases. He (Mr. Gladstone) seeing the way in which the opposition
to this Bill was going on, had written to the parties whole:
petition had, a sight or two ago, been presented, to linew If
they were authorised by the different railway oonipanies to do
so. The fact was that the movement against the-Bill was ori-
ginated and solely carried on by those who lived and thriVed
upen the abominably lavish expenses which attended every
Railway Bill on its transit through the House. It was
those parties who thronged tis 144, Persecuting Meml
for their votes—the agents for the men who lbOtl'a4
making experisea slut of them—these were the real parties who,
of their own aellisb qd Sordid intesestil now got up the
_oppo.