The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-23 00:00:00

was provided that if the railway, at the expiration of
twenty-one years, should be making more than ten per
cent., the transfer should be effected by the pay-
ment of twenty-five years' purchase. The Bill also
provided that in the case of a branch liable to the clauses
creating the option of purchase, joining a main line that
was not liable, if the Legislature should think fit to ex-
ercise that option with respect to the branch line, it
should be in the power of the company holding the
main line to demand of the Government to take the
main line also on the same terms. He thought this was
a just provision. It was not the object of the Bill to pre-
judge the question of expediency at all; that question would
be left open for the future consideration of Parliament.
He could not agree with the Hon. Member for Inverness
(Mr. Morrison) in thinking it expedient that a maximum
charge on railways should be established by Govern-
ment of Id., 2d., and 3d. per mile for the three kinds of
passengers. He felt that the announcement of such an
enactment on the part of Parliament would toll the knell
of speculation in this country. The Hon. Gentleman re-
marked that the cost of construction was now greatly re-
duced, but he must also remember that the great channels
of communication had already been constructed. He did
not think that there was any other point upon which it
was necessary to offer any explanation.
Mr. WARD expressed his satisfaction with the pre-
sent Bill. He felt that the objectionable parts of
the old Bill had been withdrawn, and he expressed his
satisfaction with the course which the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had taken. He believed that the Bill would be
as satisfactory to railway proprietors as it would he
conducive to the interests of the public.
Mr. GLADSTONE took that opportunity of ex-
plaining that on a former occasion, in alluding to the
petition of the Birmingham Railway Company, he
had not intended to say anything disrespectful
to the solicitor to that company. He had also alluded
to a circular as having been written by Mr. Burke. He
had afterwards found that that circular was not written
by Mr. Burke.
Mr. HAWES would offer no further opposition to the
Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman having modified the
Bill in the manner ha had done, showed a determination
on his part to consider the interests of the public.
Colonel SIBTHORP maintained that this clause did
not look to the interest of all parties, nor did it apply
the stringent clauses to all railways.
Mr. BERNAL, in consequence of the alterations in
the Bill, would not take any further part with respect to
it. The objections he had taken to parts of the Bill still
remained.
Mr. V. SMITH, in consequence of the alterations
that had been made in the Bill by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, would give the measure no further opposition.
He thought the clause of option ofpurchase on the part of
the Government ought to be retained for the purpose of
keeping the railways under check. He also thought that
something ought to be done with respect to the comfort of
the poorer classes who might travel by railroad.
Mr. P. HOWARD supported the Bill.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE supported the Bill, although
he thought more advantages might be given to the public
than was proposed by the present meaasure.
Clauses I and 2 were then agreed to.
Clause 3, after a few observations from Mr. GLAD-
STONE and Mr. VERNON SMITH, was agreed to.
Clause 4 was agreed to with some verbal amendments.
Clause 5 was agreed to without alteration.
On clause 6 being proposed,
Mr. THORNELY observed that the clause only en-
acted that third-class trains should be run on week days.
Now he had no wish to interfere with railways which
refused to run any trains on Sundays ; but he thought
that in cases in which railway companies ran first and
second-class trains on Sundays they ought also to be
compelled to run third-class trains.
Mr. GLADSTONE could not consent to any altera-
tion in the Bill, which had been drawn up in strict ac-
cordance with the recommendation of the Committee.
The question had been argued in Committee, and he,
for one, would be no party to compel companies to run
particular trains on Sundays. He was aware of the dif-
ficulty of enforcing the observance of the Lord's day by
legislation, but he would never hold out a bonus to a
violation of the Lord's day. He was aware that railroad
companies were compelled to carry the mails on the
Lord's day, but that was a case of necessity. But
the Government would be setting a bad example
to the people if, without necessity, they were, by
compulsory legislation, to enforce the running of
trains on the Lord's day. The respectable work-
ing man, who wished to change his place of abode,
would rather give up a working day, and the wages of a
working man, than travel on the Lord's day. The ob-
servance of the Lord's day was a great support to reli-
gion in this country, and it was the chief support to re-
ligion in Scotland.
Mr. WARBURTON observed that his Hon. Friend
the Member for Wolverhampton had not expressed any
desire to compel railway companies to run third-class
trains on Sunday, but if railway companies ran first and
second-class trains on Sundays, they ought to be
placed under the same restrictions with regard to
third-class trains as they were on working
days. The old Acts of Parliament always made
an exception as to the observance of Sunday in
cases of necessity. Now, a poor man might have a re-
lation at the point of death on a Sunday as well as a
rich man, but it seemed, according to the idea of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, that the poor man ought not to
be permitted to travel to see his relations unless he could
go in a first-class train. He thought that wherever
railroad companies ran first and second-class trains on a
Sunday, they should be compelled to run third-class also.
Mr. THORNELY said that where railroads were now
closed on a Sunday he had no wish to compel them to
ran trains. But that was no reason why the poor man
should be compelled to remain at home, or pay first or
second-class fare. He proposed to insert in the clause
the words "on any day on which passengers are con
veyed."

Mr. V. SMITH said the proposition of the Hon
Member for Wolverhampton was perfectly reasonable..
It only amounted to this, that when trains did run
cheap train should be run also ; so that what was done
for the rich man might be done for the poor.
Colonel SIBTHORP supported the amendment, on
the ground that they ought not to make distinctions be-
tween the rich and the poor. He, however, suggested
that the clause should be postponed.
Mr. GLADSTONE would move that the Chairman
do report progress, as it was now (pointing to the clock)
the hour for proceeding with the regular public business.
—(Cries of No, no," and " Divide.")
Mr. SHEIL said the meaning of the clause as it stood
was, that Dives might travel on the Sunday, but Lazarus
might not.—(Laughter and cheers.)
The amendment was read from the chair amid ,loud
cries of " Divide."
Mr. DENNISON hoped that the Government would
give way on this point. An immense number of the
working classes did travel on the Sunday, and while it
would be a great boon to compel the running of a cheap
train with the others, it would be a great injury to de-
prive them of it.
Mr. COLLETT was understood to support the
amendment.
Mr. lIODGSON suggested a difficulty in detail, the
mail trains being compelled to run at a speed of not less
than 27 miles an hour, while the cheap trains., ran at
12, and there would be a difficulty in compelling a third-
class train to be attached to the quicker one.
After a few observations from Mr. ENTWISLE and Sir
W. GUEST, the House divided, when there appeared--
For the original motion 4l
For Mr. Thornley's amendment 73
Majority against Ministers —32
On clause 6 being read,
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the limitation of
speed to twelve miles an hour. He did not see why the
third-class trains should not travel at the same rate as
the first and second. He would divide the Committee on
the question of toll. He would move that the maxi-
mum be one halfpenny instead of a penny per mile for
third-class passengers.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no
division took place, the motion having been negatived
without a division.
On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill
being put,
Colonel SIBTHORP said he would divide, but the
motion was negatived without a division.
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses up to 23 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 24 being proposed,
Col. SIBTHORP complained of the manner in which
this Bill was hurried forward. How was it possible that
they could give sufficient consideration to twenty-eight
clauses which were only delivered to members on Saturday.
It was not giving them a fair opportunity for discussing a
Bill of this importance, which, moreover, was a new Bill,
to begin it at half-past two, and run it through Commit-
tee by half-past five o'clock. They had no end of dis-
cussions on the Fine Arts. They did not care twopence
for the poor people, and however much he might respect
the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of
Trade, he must say it was not a proper mode of legisla-
lation to run this Bill through at such a railroad pace.
He protested against it, and if he lived to enter the
House another session, he would see if Hon. Members
would not support him in urging Ministers to bring for-
ward important measures at the beginning of the session.
Mr. HUME withdrew the clauses of which he had
given notice.
Sir T. FREMANTLE move a clause for regulating
the conveyance of the military by railway.
Lord INGESTRE expressed a hope that in all future
railway Bills a clause would be introduced enacting that
all locomotives should have six wheels.

Mr. EWART postponed his clause fur the public
examination of candidates for situations on railways.
The House then resumed, and the Chairman brought
up the report.

'Messengers from the Lords appeared at the bar, and
brought up several Bills.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.
On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, the Joint-
Stock Companies Bill was read a third time and passed,
in order to send it up to the Lords as soon as possible.
POOR-LAWS.
In answer to a question from Col. SIBTHORP,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he proposed to take the report
of the Poor-law Amendment Bill on Wednesday next,
as an order of the day, to come on in its turn as one of
the regular orders.

METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that it was his intention to proceed with the Joint-stock
Banks Regulation Bill to-morrow (this day) at twelve.
Sir J. GRAHAM, i❑ answer to a question from an
HoN. MEMBER, said,' that he should proceed with the
South Wales Turnpike Trusts Bill on Wednesday, at
twelve o'clock.

CAPTAIN WARNER,
Captain PLUMRIDGE wished to know if the Noble
Lord opposite was aware of the result of Captain
Warner's experiment, and whether as a naval officer he
would state his opinion of it ?
Lord INGESTRE said that a large ship had been

destroyed by Captain Warner, on Saturday last, 0,11
Brighton. He had done so publicly, and sueh
.
being the case, it must have come to tu
knowledge of his Gallant Fri, nd, but he wx;
not at liberty, according to the forms of theßouse'
to state how it was done. It would, perhaps, be better
that he should read a document he had then in his hal:
The Noble Lord then read a document, dated July 2,
1844, certifying that the opera ions on the John „
Gaunt, 300 tons, conducted by Captain Warner, e_
on the 20th instant, were under their manage'
went and control ; that the explosion did not to
place by combustible matter either on board the ship
the
otherwise ; that Captain Warner was on board tn!
Wallace steamer at a distance of 300 yards ; that .
took place in consequence of a signal from the
_
writers on the shore, and that the time could not
known by Captain Warner. They further deelareA,
their belief that, since the vessel had left Graveset
Captain Warner had not been on board of it. Signeaul
Lord Ingestre and Captain Henderson.
Sir C. NAPIER wished to know whether there Was
not a torpedo inside of the vessel.
Lord INGESTRE said he bad read the certificate,
and that he was prepared to make oath of it.
ART-UNIONS.
In reply to a question from Mr. EWART,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
was aware that a Bill on Art-Unions had been int!:o.
duced into the other House, but he was not aware what
were its provisions.
THE CASE OF DALMak S.
In reply to a question from Captain POLHILL,
stating
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had no hesitation in
that he did advise her Majesty, in mercy, to grant.°
reprieve in the case of Dalmas, but he should object
laying on the table the information on which be 1
given that advice.
FRANCE AND MOROCCO.
On the order of the day for the House going into a
Committee of Supply being read,
ay
Mr. SHEIL said he had already informed the Might
Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government
that he should not persevere in the motion of which n`
had given notice, but that he should content himself with
moving for certain papers, the particulars of which n°_
should specify in the course of the observations which
he intended to make. He was anxious to confine bIT
self in the discussion of a mere matter of form to the
facts, and to abstain from any superfluous comments oe
them. Any Gentleman who was of opinion that he en.
tertaiued the design, which would be worse than repro'
hensible, of exciting a feeling of animosity between two
great nations did him wrong, and he should prove that
he did him wrong by the tone which he should adopt-
He felt that it was the deep interest of both countries
to remain at peace, and that by their collision the world
would be disturbed. At the same time he conceived ne
advantage could be derived from concealing from their
selves the precise truth, or from their averting their eyes
from objects which must of necessity at last force them"
selves upon their contemplation. On the sth of
July, 1830, be risked abruptness, in order that
`
he might avoid the greater fault of prolixitlc
On the sth of July, 1830, Lord Aberdeen ttn..
dressed a dispatch to Lord Stuart de Rothsay
which was conceived in a most prudential and eonciinv
tory spirit. He would take the opportunity of observ:
ing that the whole of the correspondence of Lord Aber'
deen at that period was distinguished by great sagacity
and wisdom, but that between his conduct and his Or.:
respondence there was an infelicitous contrast, for his
conduct was marked with some infirmity of purpose, B,*'
he failed to obtain from the French Government tku
pledge which he was, beyond all doubt, entitled to tlei
mand. It was remarkable that the prognostications, e
Lord Aberdeen had been verified by the events which
were now passing. In page 942 of the State paPeri
Lord Aberdeen wrote to Lord Stuart de Rothsay, to es
for some explanation from the French Government reir
tive to the expedition against Algiers. Prince de Poli.g:
nac returned an answer, which was by no means sans,
factory; and Lord Aberdeen again wrote to Lord Stutf.i
de Rothsay on the 23d of March, 1830. In reply, Lord
Stuart de Rothsay said he saw Monsieur de Polign''
and could not obtain from him any satisfactory ansil
but that he would communicate with the Sultan. 1":
Sultan had sent Ali Paella to Algiers, but the blockading
squadron of the French would not suffer him to oaten
He then came to Boulogne, where he was obliged to per
form quarantine, and he (Mr. Sheil) believed he Ile°.
reached Paris. Shortly after the fall of Algiers, on the
sth of July, Monsieur de Polignac was in captivity,
the
placed in immediate proximity to the guillotine, and t
crown was torn from the brow of Charles X. and the
i_ie
throne of the barricades was given to that remarkable
and sagacious man who now ruled the people of France.ie
—one of the most sagacious men in that country, fertla
in greatness. The Duke of Wellington, with gr
sagacity, recognised him as the representative
of the national will. But was it not .
most extraordinary circumstance, that after
~o
correspondence which he had read to the House. alter
s
the distinct intimation given by Lord Aberdeen, that he
expected a stipulation that Algiers should not be appro-
priated by France, after he had stated with such clear'
ness his views as to the ultimate results on the commerce
of the Mediterranean. Was it not most extraordinary
that, after the lapse of four months, during which the
French remained in possession of Algiers, and when es:
tensive acquisitions were made in the country, that they
should not have demanded, as a condition from the Ile'
Government, that which they had failed to obtain from
the former, the importance of which had been so largely
and so emphatically expressed? It was true that in the
speech from the Throne in November, 1830, it uls
stated that no doubt was entertained by his Majesty's
Government that Louis Phillippe would fulfil all his en-
gagements ; but it was most remarkable that there
was no previous engagement with regard to Algiers.
There was no arrangement binding in diplomacy ~hl:t.
had never been obtained. The polished and well
lubri-
cated statesman of France had, with his peculiar shin:
shy, escaped from the grasp of the pale Englislitn
That was an important fact which could not be too mileA
insisted upon, when they came to consider what had .
since taken place. The Tory Government of 1830 ha'
recognised Louis Philippe when France was in posseS;
sion of Algiers, and yet no engagement had been me,
for the abandonment of Algiers by France. The Whig.
came into power in 1830 ; they found France in posse
sion of Algiers, no stipulation having been made on til;.!
subject, and they found Louis Philippe recognized. 11'
would now pass from 1830 to 1831. The administration
of Lord Grey lasted to 1834. In that year the Right
Honourable Gentleman opposite came into P°we4
and his administration was succeeded by that -
Lord Melbourne. Nothing was said or done during
the whole of that time as to any reeogni;
tion of the right of France to Algiers. 112 „1.11,
right was not denied, but it was not admitted. '
exequatur was applied for for the English Consul.
.ti?,et-
far it was necessary to apply for an exequatur furl
from France he would not stop to inquire. He passed
from 1830 to 1831, and almost immediately eater t"-
new Government had been formed, and Lord Aberdeen
had been restored to the Foreign-office, a most remark'able conversation is found to have taken place on tued
subject of the Algerine business. Lord Aberdeen 111
himself given the substance of that conversation.
man could doubt the veracity of Lord Aberdeen, or of the
Count St. Aulaire, or of M. Guizot. No doubt there
had been a misapprehension and nothing more. But 1
was a singular circumstance that the French Ambassv.
dor should have so availed himself of that conversation,
which Lord Aberdeen stated to have been perfectly ne-t
cidental and fortuitous. What was the result of th._sa.
conversation ? Why, immediately afterwards, the Ding
of the French, in his speech from the throne, in Decent
ber, 1841, stated to the Chambers, that he had taken
°
measures for the purpose of protecting the security of tild
foreign possessions of France from what he call
e_
e external complications." M. Guizot explained to the
Chamber the meaning of that phrase, which was that
t
Lord Aberdeen had explained to Count Aulaire
he regarded the possession of Algiers by France as 21;
fait accompli, and had no objection to make. TbeT-
could be no doubt but that Count St. Aulaire had En's;
1'
taken what Lord Aberdeen had said ; and on the 25,,t,
of January, 1842, Lord Aberdeen wrote a dispatch ;
Lord Cowley, in which he denied that he had state':
that he. had no objection to make, but stated that
he had merely intimated that he had no observation
to make, and remained silent on the subject. That dis;
patch had been communicated to M. Guizot, but A"
Guizot had made no observation on it. A very import'
ant step had since been taken by the French Govern;
ment, and it was because he found that the measure
adopted by France were distinctly affecting the corn'
merce of this country with Africa that he felt it important
to call the attention of the House to this subject;
On the 16th of December, 1843, a most important re
port of the Duke of Dalmatia had been presented to tu-f.
King of the French, which appeared in the Moniteur of
the 21st of December, 1843. The report of the Duke in
Dalmatia was on the subject of the French possessions,;d
Algiers, and recommended that means should be adoPii- e
to prevent foreign States from taking advantage of t'6o
commerce of those possessions, and that duties should s
raised upon the textual fabric of foreign manufacture
consumed in Algiers. An ordonnance, dated the 1,46,,d
of December, 1843, containing a new tariff, was founu-0,
upon this report, and a duty of 12 francs and 10 eed
times per kilogramme was imposed upon foreign prince
calico, and a duty of four francs per ton was imrs"
30
upon foreign shipping. This imposed a burden of
pi
per cent. additional upon our commerce. Now, let the
look at the results of this tariff on British trade. In i„,1m
Times of July 18, 1844, there appeared a 45,
ter from their correspondent, dated Oran, JulY,..orh
in which the writer stated that British commerce, Will-.
had formerly been flourishing there, was nOW ann,„lhi
isa
fated, except fur coals ; that the port duties on Br"-ete
shipping was four francs per ton, and on foreign yes
it was the same, except on Sardinian vessels, which if
,00;
favoured by treaty, and admitted at two francs per
ise
and that the general effect of the tariff had been to rea...t.
the charges on British commerce from fifteen per c
to thirty per cent., which, in fact, amounted to e
elusion. What was the state of trade in Algeria heftehre
this? Mr. M'Gregor, in his admirable book VllB4l
" Statistics of Commerce," stated that in 1840 and
ana
1,846 French vessels entered the ports of Algeria'andie
only 200 English ones. Verily, the power of Engingee.
this region was at the lowest ebb. The Big „vs-
Gentleman then read a report from the Moniteur !toy
paper, which stated that from an ordinance refe,
issued by the French Government, the duties in Alfierija
on foreign manufacture were one-third more than
France, and that ordinance was not to be disturbed
2.t
did not quarrel with France because of her congthat
of Algiers. He did not dispute her title tov,eh
country—he did not wish to embark in a question
hne'ta,
might disturb the peace of the House.--(ilear'a vast
from Sir R. Peel)—but he wished that from th`_ethe
they might learn to make some configuration. o ,he
future—that they should take into considerationue',,,
editerra
events now passing on the coast of the AI all Pre
and which bore a close resemblance to those which
c sir
ceded the conquest-of Algiers.—(Hear, hear, lones. Of
C. Napier.) The cause of quarrel between the