The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-30 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Easter Term.—Sevent Victoria.—April 30.
This Court will, on Thursday and Friday, the 9th and 10th
days of May next, hold sittings, and will proceed in disposing
of the business now pending in the Special Paper and New
Trial Paper, and in giving judgment in cases previously
argued. By the Court.
WHITEHALL, APRIL 25. _

The Lord Chancellor has appointecl Henry Bunny, of New-
bury, in the county of Berks, Gent., to be a Mager Extra-
ordinary in the High Court of Chancery.
BANKRUPTCY SUPEBSEDED.

WILLIAM GIBSOSI CLIFT, coach broker, Chapel-yard,
Cross-lane, High

BANKRUPTS.
JAMES MACLEAN, carpenter, Somerset-street, White-
chapel, to surrender May 11, at two, and June 11, at half-past
eleven. at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, offs-ial assignee,
Frederick's-place, Old Jewry ; Burnell, Fenchurch-sireet.
SAMUEL, WILCOCKSON, linen draper, Chesterfield,
Lancashire, May 14, and June 5, at twelve, at the Manchester
District Court. Putt, oMcial assignee, Manchester ; Hard-

wick and Davidson, Weavers' Hall, London ; Sale and Wor-
thington, Manchester.
CHARLES JOHNSON, lime dealer, Rochdale, May 11,
at eleven, and June 4, at one, at the Manchester District
Court. Stanway, official assignee, Manchester ; Woods anti
Jackson, Rochdale ; Norris, Allen, and Simpson, Bartlett's-
buildings, Holborn, London.
CHARLES NICHOLS, bookseller, Wakefield, May 11
and June 6, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Frame,
official assignee, Leeds; Willis and Co., Tokenhouse-yard,
London ; Taylor and Westmorland, Wakefield.
GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT, innkeeper, Iron-
bridge, Shropshire, May 18 and June 8, at eleven, at the Bir-
mingham District Court. Whitmore, official assignee, Bir-
mingham; Clarke and Gosling, Austin-friars, London; Marcy
Wellington • Slaney, Birmingham.'
JOHN PERRY maltster, Birmingham, May 11, and June
5, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. Whitmore,
official assignee, Birmingham • Suckling, Birmingham.
GEORGE EDWARD PHILLIPS, saddler, Plymouth,
May 13, and June 6, at the Exeter District Court. Herna-
man, official assignee, Exeter; Elworthy, Plymouth; Stogdon,
Exeter ; Surr, Lombard-street, London.

JOll'N P.gMBERTON, soap boiler, Leeds, May 11, and
June 1, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official
assignee, Leeds ;:Wdliamson and Hill, Gray's-inn, London;
Bond, Leeds.
GEORGE MORREY, publican, Stratford-upon-Avon,
May 9, and June 8, at eleven, at the Birmingham District
Court. Bittleston, official assignee, Birmingham; Robinson,
Ironmonger-lane, London ; Stringer, Stratford-upon-Avon.
JOSEPH GOULD, cheese factor, Sheen, Staffordshire,
May 10, at half-past twelve, and June 7, at one, at the Bir-
mingham District Court. Christie, official assignee, Birming-
ham ; Smith, Birmingham.
NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY.
T. S. Robinson, publican, Great Neston, Cheshire.
E. M. Shaw, Manchester.
W. H. Bagnall, watch maker, Bishopsgate-street Without.
F. N. Bracher, schoolmaster, New Sarum, Wiltshire.
M. Fothergill, attorney-at-law, Pontefract, Yorkshire.
W. Dennis, joiner, Nottingham.
J. Standen, block pitcher to a calico printer, Salford.
J. Pagden, London-road, Southwark.
A. Benjamin, dairyman, Gravel-lane, Houndsditch.
G. Carreer, edge tool grinder, Sheffield.
M. Prebble, tallow chandler, Strood, Kent.
W. Swann, fish merchant, Great Yarmouth.
W. Barthram, livery-stable keeper, Raven-row, Mile-end.
J. Luckett, coffee-house keeper, Adam-st. West, Marylebone.
J. Thompson, veterinary surgeon, Aldborough, Yorkshire.
J. Gerrett, licensed victualler, Cock-lane, Shoreditch.
W. Curran, stevedore, Liverpool.
G. P. Trounsell, Lieutenant, R.N., King's Kerawell, Devon!.
R. A. Jefferiss, butcher, Newington.
J. Bonny, tailor, Liverpool.
W. Cornhill, coffee-house keeper, Coleman-street.
R. Hamm, carpenter, Bedford-street, Tottenham-court-road.
W. Ellerson, horse dealer, Eynesford, Kent.
E, Baker, publican, Lawrence-lane, City.

COURSE OF EXCH.
Amsterdam CF. 12 5
Ditto, at sight l2 3
Rotterdam 9 U l2 5A
Antwerp 25 95
Hamburgh M.B. 13 15
Altona l3 15
Paris, 3 days' sight 25 70
Ditto, 3 months 25 90
Marseilles
Bourdeaux 25 95
Frankfort on Maine 1221
Petersburgh, 3Us 36

Berlin -
Vienna, effee. fl. 3 M 955
1 rieste, ditto
Madrid 364

Cadiz
Bilbao 36
Barcelona

Seville —

SGE.—(THIS DAY.)
Gibraltar
Leghorn 3O 55
Genoa 25 99
Milan
Venice .......
Naples 39
Palermo, per oz ll7
Lisbon 53/
Oporto s3i
Rio Janeiro 23
Bahia 23
Buenos Ayres
NewYork,2ldys sight
Philadelphia
PRICES OF BULLION, PER OZ.
Foreign Gold, bars..£3 17 9
Portugal Gold Coin 3 17 5
New Doubloons 0 0 0
New DoHars 0 4 9/
Silver in Bars 0 4 11

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Their Lordships assembled at Five o'Clock.
Lord Campbell, the Marquis of Salisbury, and several
other Noble Lords, presented petitions for and against
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The Marquis of NORMANBY presented a petition
complaining of a practice which had lately sprung up, of
enlisting boys out of union workhouses without the
consent of their parents.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Sussex, complaining of the refusal by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners to renew leases of property held of sup-
pressed prebendaries. The Noble Duke in supporting
the prayer of the petitioners complained of the hardship
which this refusal had imposed both on the large land-
owners, and the small farmers in the country.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said the object of this Bill
was to have the Church property made available to
Church purposes. 'The chief complaint which his
Noble Friend had made was, that although the Commis-
sioners might grant leases for a stated number of years,
yet that they could not give reversionary leases. He (Lord
Wharnelifre) could nut see how the Noble Duke was jus-
tified in finding fault with the Commissioners for making
the most of the property consigned to their care.
He could assure his Noble Friend that in every case
where a tenant in possession sought a reversionary in-
terest he invariably gut the preference.
The Duke of RICHMOND said the question he
wished to put to the 'Noble Lord was, how a person
could be expected to expend 10,0001. on a property in
which he had no reversionary interest ?
The Bishop of LONDON thought that the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners would be guilty of unfairness, if
they did not try and make the most of the property
over which they were appointed as agents. Why if
their Lordships would recollect they would see that in
cases where the Crown lands were to be let, the
Noble Lord opposite refused, in his capacity at the
head of the Woods and Forests to grant any new leases,
and therefore he (the Bishop of London) thought that
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were fully justified in
adopting the same course as that which the Crown took.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE characterised the
conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as unjust
and arbitrary, and expressed his opinion to the effect
that if such conduct had for a moment been anticipated
at the time of the appointment of the Commission, that
Commission never would have been appointed. He
hoped the Noble Duke, on an early occasion, would
bring this subject forward in a more tangible shape than
he had done that evening.
After a few words from the Earl of BESDOROUGH and
the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
The Bishop of LONDON said he ought to state in the
name of the Commissioner, that every proposal made to
them for the renewal of leases would meet with ample
consideration by them.
The Bishop of EXETER said he had opposed the ap-
pointment of the Ecclesiastical Commissioner from the
first, but that commission having been appointed, it was
money from the Church
order to provide for the reli-
po
gthrioeuiprsedratuysttyarusteotthiooeltaooiofnutaihdse, muchpin
people.
opl e
(LEFT SITTING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
BASINGSTOKE AND NEWBURY RAILWAY.
On the motion for the further consideration of the re-
port on the Basingstoke and Newbury Railway,
Mr. C. RUSSELL rose for the purpose of proposing
that the consideration of the report be postponed till
the next session of Parliament. He did this on the
ground that the line of railway which bad been pro-
posed to the town of Newbury from the Great Western
Railway, was not only shorter than the line which was
at presnnt before the House, but would cost in its con-
struction much less. The line from Basingstoke to New-
bury was to be a single line, while the one from Read-
ing to Newbury was proposed to be double. The cost
of the former would be 200,000/, while the cost of the
latter would be only 150,000/. With respect to distance,
the Basingstoke and Newbury line was 10 per cent.
longer than the'other line, and with respect to cheap-
ness for passengers, 20 per cent. Under these circum-
stances, he should propose that this report be further
considered that day six months.
Mr. LABOUCHERE considered that no Hon. Gentle-
man would be willing to serve upon a Committee if their de-
cision were to be brought before the House and subject
to a revisal. Mr. Ord, the Member for Newcastle ; Mr.
Evans, the Member for Derbyshire ; Mr. Beckwith,
the Member for Leeds, and Mr. Colquhoun, were
the five Gentlemen who constituted that Committee,
and he here asserted that these gentlemen were alone
influenced in their decison by the evidence that came
before them. Those were the grounds upon which he,
as a member of that Committee, was induced to give his
vote; and he hoped the House, if a decison were called
for, would confirm that vote. He hoped the House
would reject the proposal of the Honourable Member
for Reading, who himself could not be fairly said to be
an unbiassed party in the affair, inasmuch as he was
the Chairman of the Great Western Railway:. .

Mr. PAKINGTON hoped the House would not look
upon this as a matter of private business, but that they
would attend to a few observations which he found him-
self bound as a Member of that Committee to offer.
From the time when the Committee frame! their
report a great dissatisfaction had bee n expressed by
many persons connected with the Great Western Rail-
way; and the Committee had a right to complain of the
manner in which those objections were made. He, for
one, never heard of any intention of revising the deci-
sion of that Committee up to the present moment. The
Hon. Member for Reading had stated that he was in
possession of certain evidence which would show that local
interests prevailed on the Committee, and he (Mr. Pak-
ington) would appeal to any of the four gentlemen who sat
upon that Committee along with him, whether he was not
perfectly justified in saying that he denied, in the
strongest terms which the usages of that House allowed,
the truth of that assertion. The Committee sat for
seven days, and so anxious were they to come to a right
conclusion, that they called what might even be termed
superfluous evidence. He would ask the House to re-
flect fairly upon the relative position in which the Hon.
Member for Reading stood, and which the Committee
were placed. The Hon. Member for Reading was the Chair-
man of the Great Western Railway, while every Mem-
ber who composed that Committee could not possibly
have any ulterior object in view, but must alone have
been influenced in their decisions by the evidence which
was laid before them. With respect to the proposed
line to Newbury. and that of Woolhampton, the Com-
mittee, in deciding in favour of the latter, were
influenced by a conviction that the latter would
tend more generally to the public convenience.
He had not mentioned what he was sure would
have great weight with the House, namely, that on
every decision to which the Committee had come, they
had been unanimous. But he would ask the House
whether the rule was to be to put Committees upon
their trial in that House after they had zealously and
conscientiously done their duty—(Hear, hear)—and that
for the satisfaction of parties avowedly interested in
opposing their decisions ?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAYTER said he must be Lallowed to ex-

press his dissent from the proposition that a
reversal by that House of the decision of a Committee
was to be looked upon as condemnatory of that Com-
mittee.— (Hear, hear.) If Hon. Members were to sit in
that House merely to enrol the decisions of Committees,
all that he could say was that their duties would become
a mere farce. In his opinion they were there to discuss
the propriety of the decisions which their Committees
arrived at, for that House sat as a court of appeal.
Looking at the reasons of the Committee, he was in-
capable of coming to the
_conclusion to which they had
come; although he was aware the communication could
be made easier from Newbury to Reading than from
Newbury to Basingstoke, yet he could not consent to the
conclusion come to, and must vote against the measure.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought the House would agree
to . this, that in approaching the decision now in ques-
tion, they should look with confidence on the proceedings
of the Committee—that was thegreat ingredient in the
case, although not the only one. Now he thought, as far
as confidence in a Committee could preceed in any case,
the present Committee had claims to the highest
degree of confidence. He was glad that the
Chairman of the Committee had stated briefly
an outline of the course on which the Committee
had proceeded. They had not come to their decision
without full examination of the evidence and arguments
that had been adduced. It appeared to him, from all he
had heard of the case, the Committee had done their
duty with the greatest care and fidelity. They had given
full consideration to local interests, and they had pro •
ceeded very much upon the consideration not only to ac-
commodate the local traffic of Newbury, but upon the
general principle on which railways should be founded
The House should recollect that these questions re-
lating to railways had of late much changed their
char acter, and were becoming every year more difficult,
and getting beyond the capacity of a Committee to deal.
with them, as those Committees were usually con-
stituted. They were increasing in complexity every
year. It had become necessary, in considering them,
to calculate on distant contingencies. Projects which at
first might appear to be of a local nature might become
of national importance, and they would be in a dismal
condition if in a case like this, in which the greatest care
had been exercised by the Committee of Selection in the
choice which they had made, and in which the Com-
mittee had exercised the greatest circumspection in the
discharge of their duty, the result should be the sum-
mary reversal by the House of the important verdict of
that Committee. •

Mr. HAWES, in reply to the observation of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, that the House came to this discussion
under great disadvantages, inasmuch as they had not
before them the evidence taken before the Committee,
would remark that such must always be the case unless,
in every instance, the evidence were printed, and time
were given to Members to peruse it before entering en the
general discussion—a course of proceeding which would
scarcely meet with the approbation of the Right lion.
Gentleman. When the report of a Committee was laid
on the table, it was 'perfectly competent for the House
to raise the question whether or not the decision of the
Committee was a sound one ; and, differing as he
did from the Committee, he should support the
motion of the Honourable Member for Reading.
The Committee had rejected the most direct line and a
double line instead of a single line, the cheapest line
instead of the dearest one. He thought it best to
defer the consideration of the Bill until the whole of
the lines of communication intended to be embraced in
that wide field of consideration which the Right Hon.
Gentleman had thrown out before them, were fully before
the House. Without meaning to cast any aspersion on
the decision of the Committee, he must say that if the
House adopted that decision they would impose on the
public an inferior and dearer line.

- Mr. AGLIONBY said that he should give his vote in
favour of the decision of the Committee, but on grounds
entirely different from those put forward by the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite, and by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Wells. He would not enter into
any details. He agreed with the Hon. Geatleman oppo-
site, that the House was to be, to a certain extent, the
judges of the merits of a line, but to the least possible
extent. He voted for the decision of the Committee on
this ground, that it was the duty of the House to sup-
port the great principle that Committees ought to be
free from all local and private interests. They had to
a certain extent got rid of the burthen which existed
for many years of Committees being influenced by local
interest, and their decisions never gave satisfaction to
anybody. He thought that a new system should be
established, which would give Committees more of a
judicial character. He hoped to see this principle ex-
tended to other classes of railways. The best possible
tribunals should always be obtained. All matters
were discussed with harmony and unanimity before
independent Committees. They were now about
to set aside the decision, because some gentlemen
said that better evidence might be laid before it, or
that a better judgment might be formed upon the evi-
dence. He denied that it was a good principle to set
aside the decision of the Committee on that account.
The party impugning the decision of the Committee
must do so by laying strong grounds, by showing that
there was either gross injustice, or flagrant want of judg-
meat by the Committee. There was no evidence to in-
duce him to alter the decision of the Committee. The
Committee was the best judge which of the two lines
were best, and on this ground it was most dangerous for
the House to interfere with their decision.

Mr. W. EVANS said there had been no such hurry
in the Committee as that which had been attributed to
it, for they had been willing to sit as long as the proper
performance of their duty required. He would not deny
that the other line was somewhat better as a London
one, but the Committee looked to the best line for all;
and, therefore, they determined upon that which joined
Newbury to the coast as well as London, and gave ad-
vantages to the entire district. They refused no evi-
dence that was offered, and they had given an unani-
mous decision, which he trusted the House would
confirm.

Lord HOWICK said, were he to exercise his own
judgment upon the present question, he certainly should
come to a different conclusion than that which the Com-
mittee had arrived ; but be was so persuaded that if
they did not support the authority of their Committees,
such immense harm would arise, that he should feel it his
duty to support their decision in this case.—(Laughter.)
He thought the interests of the companies were of minor
importance. The interest of the public was to be con
sidered, and he thought it would be for the interest of
the public that both lines should go forward.
Mr. COLQUII OUN wished that, consistently with his
sense of duty, he could have voted for both lines, but
when he found that there would not be traffic enough to
support both lines. That there was the strongest desire
evinced on the part of those connected with
the trade of the district that the Basingstoke line should
be completed, a desire evinced not only by the expres-
sion but the coming forward with the subscriptions ; and
when he found that there existed the greatest apathy
among them with regard to the other line, which, more-
over, was opposed by the greater part of the landowners
of the district, he felt that he had no choice, and was
reluctantly compelled to exclude the Great Western line.
Sir H. PEEL had not known anything of the subject
before he entered the House ; but he wished the Com-
mittee, composed as it was of gentlemen having no local
interest on the subject, had been unanimous in the deci-
sion to which they had come. If that were the case, it
would be very dangerous if the House were to reverse
the decision of the Committee.

Mr. ORD said that the Committee had been unanimous
in their decision:
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided The numbers were—

For the motion
Against it
Majority
_ .

Immediately upon the re-opening of the gallery,
strangers were again ordered to withdraw, but no divi-
sion took place, and on our re-admission we understood
that the Report was received.