The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-06 00:00:00

rTPIE r, NT, LONDON. WEDNESDAY EV-ENING,-

LA W IN TELLIGENCE.
ARCHES' CO 11 RI; Augt 5.

THE OFFICE OF JUDGE PROMOTED BY BARNES V. SHORE.
Sir H. JENNER FUST delivered his sentence in this ease,
which was a proceeding against tho Rev. James Shore, as a
minister of the Church of England, for performing Divine
service in an unconsecrated chapel at Berry Pomeroy, Devon,
without license from his diocesan, the Bishop of Exeter. Thy,
present question was, as to the admission of a defensive allega-
tion on the part of Mr. Shore, pleading that he hat seceded
from the Church of England, having taken the oaths as a Pro-
testant Dissenting minister, and that he was now a ministerin
hely orders of a Protestant Dissenting congregation assembling
in the said chapel. The Learned .Judge held that this allega-
tion was not admissible as a defence to the articles which had
been adini!ted. It appeared that Mr. Shore had been regularly
ordained, was a priest in holy orders of the Church of England,
and was licensed to preach in this chapel by hs diocesan, the
Bishop of Exeter, and that license remained in force till the 7th
of March, 1844 ; that on the 13th of March, 1844, notice was
served upon' him of the revocation of his license ; that he then,
as he alleged, from conscientious motives, seceded from
the Church of England ; that is, he ceased to conform to the
Church of England, and that he was at the time the citation
issued, and is now, a Protestant Dissenting minister in holy
orders, and a p.eacher and teacher of a congregation of Pro-
testant Dissenters; that cn the 16th of 'March, 1844, he took
the oaths as a Protestant Dissenting minister, and trim that
time has never officiated as a minister of the Church of Eng-
land, but as a Dissenting minister only. Now be (the Learned
Judge) thought it absurd to suppose that it was tenderness of
conscience that induced this gentleman to take the oaths
directed by the Toleration Aot three days only after his
license had been revoked. The Toleration Act were passed
to relieve persons of scrupulous consciences, not to exempt
clergymen of the Church of England from responsibility, if
they hail in any way misconducted themselves; they were not
intended to apply to such cases. Surely it never could be
contended that a person could throw off his obligations as a
minister of the Church of England, by merely qualifying him-
self as a Protestant Dissenting teacher. lie (the Learned
Judge) was yet to learn that any person could so throw off tlse
character of a clergyman after he had taken holy orders. He
apprehended that if such a person misconducted himself, he
would still be liable to proceedings under the Church Discipline
Act, and be amenable to ecclesiastical punishment. Was it to
be contended that, if a minister of the Church of England was
guilty of immorality, he could escape all punishment except
any that he might be liable to by the common law, by merely
taking the oaths under the Toleration Act, and calling himself
a Dissenter ? Under these circumstances it was useless to ad-
mit the allegation, which he therefore rejected.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, Aug. 4.
CROWN COURT.

Olisjp

31%
841/2
211%
101/2
3%

,VES7'ERIV ClRCUlT—Bridytwater, Aug. 4.
CROWN COURT. _ _

243/4
821 A
143/4

64y,

55►4
53

25 t/t

111 A
81/2

2%
2
2%
3%

had been drinking in company at a public-house in Donningten,
kept by a man named Bosworth, the night previous to the rob- I
berg, and that along with the rest of the company they
left about half-past eleven o'clock. From Bosworth's, :Mr.
Newbold proceeded to the house of the prisoner's father,
and he there found that he had not been at home during the
night. On the morning of the sth, about five o'clock, the
prisoner, Dixon, and Hood called at a public-house called
the Paul Pry, about six miles on the Ashby road, and thence
they were all three traeed together to a public-house at
Ashby, where they stopped all day. In the first part of the
journey Hood was without a hat, hut on his arrival at
Ashby, he had on a blue cap, which he had stolen from the
Paul Pry. When in the public-house at Ashby, the prisoner
Oldershaw said they had run away from Castle Donnington for
poaching, and he exhibited a number of table and tea-spoons, a
mousselin-de-laine dress, and a towel. Not content with the
mere exhibition of these articles he presented the landlady with
a teaspoon for her baby, and also with a towel, both of which
she now produced at the trial, and swore most positively to the
prisoner. These articles were identified by members of Mr.
Sterling's family as stolen on the night of the robbery. For
several weeks no tidings were heard of the supposed thieves—
Dixon and Hood are still out of the way—but a few days ago
the prisoner Oldershaw was apprehended at Loughborough.
These were the main facts of the case.
Mr. WI LLMORE, for the defence, did not deny that a robbery
had been committed, and that the prisoner had been in pos-
session of the stolen articles, but from his instructions he
argued that on the night in question the prisoner, when in a
state of intoxication, had received the articles from the real
thieves, and that, when he came to his senses, he was so
alarmed upon hearing of the robbery that he was afraid to
return home.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and the CHIEF BARON
sentenced him to 10 years' transportation.

had been deprived of his bill without having received et
single farthing for it, and said that it was the intention
of the complainant to proceed against Potter and Wood,
by indictment, at the Central Criminal Court, for con-

Mr. Justice PATTESON delivered a brief charge to the grand
jury, after which the Court proceeded with the trial of
William Gillespie, a young man of respectable appearance,
aged •_i4, who was indicted for having assaulted one Susannah
Cratchley, at t'Aroud, in this county, on the sth of July last,
with intent to commit a rape.
The prosecutrix stated, that upon the evening in question
she was walking about the streets of Stroud at about ten o'clock,
locking out for a truant brother, Miles by name. At about
half-past ten she met a man, who turned out to be the pri-
soner; shc, thinking he was the object of her search, called
" Miles, Miles," when the prisoner answered, " I am not
Miles," and laid hold of her arm. She struggled hard to get
away, and begged him to let her go. He said he would net until
he had effected his purpose. Be then tcok indecent liberties
with her. She would not yield, and then the prisoner struck
her to the ground with a stick which he held in his right
hand. While on the ground she called out "Murder !" and
then succeeded in getting up. Prisoner knocked her down
again, and then waking off, apparently only a few yards, re-
turned, and endeavoured to persuade the girl that he knew
nothing of the transaction, and demanded of her, " Who has
done this? if I knew who it was I would give him a good
hiding." The prosecutrix was positive she was not mistaken
in the man, and that he was the prisoner.
A respectable-looking woman named Hunt was attracted to
the spot by cries of " Murder !" and observed the prisoner
standing by the side of the poor girl, and she (prosecutrix)
said," You are the man who did it." He denied, and at last
offered the girl some money, and suggested that the charge
should be " fixed" upon somebody else. A policeman
(Bishop) came up, and took the prisoner into custody. Upon
being asked if he knew anything of the character of the pro-
secutrix, he stated that he had seen her walking about the
streets like a common prostitute.
His Loanstur summed up, and the jury found the prisoner
Guilty of a common assault; when the Learned Judge sen-
tenced him to be imprisoned in the common gaol for two calen-
dar months.

r.,tter was awn discharged, the Lord Mayor being
pr: vented from coilmitting him by the regl, et of Mr.
I\lackenzie to dive a lAritten notice to the deftmlant with
the bill, intimatiflg that lie was to return it if he did not
succeed in getting it cashed. The bill was returned to
Mr. Chisholm.
The whole of the csae at traeccl a great deal of curio-
sity and attention.

Robert Chard and Betsy Chard were indicted, the former
for burglariously breaking into the house of John Nash, near
Taunton, and stealing a silver spoon, and the latter for receiv-
ing it knowing it to have been stolen.
It appeared that the prosecutor's house was properly fastened
tip in the evening ; the next morning it was discovered that
the house had been broken open, and that a silver spoon and
other articles had been taken. Several other burglaries having
been committed in the neighbourhood, the house of the male
prisoner was searched, and several of the stolen articles were
bound, and the female prisoner had possession of the spoon.
The prisoners were both found Guilty.
They were then indicted, the male prisoner for breaking into
the house of Mt. Hewett, and stealing two guns and a coun-
terpane. . . •

It was clearly proved that Robert Chard was in possession of
most of the articles shortly after the robbery, and the counter-
pane was found in the female prisoner's box.
The jury found the male prisoner Guilty, but Acquitted the
woman.

Mr. Justice ERLE then sentenced Robert Chard to be trans-
ported for life, and Betsy Chard to be imprisoned and kept to
hard labour for twelve months. .

There were four other indictments against the prisoners.
James Adey and Mary Adey were indicted for having a
mould in their possession for the purpose of making counter-
feit coin.
It appeared that the male prisoner had taken lodgings in
Taunton, where he and the female prisoner lodged. Mary Adey
having gone to the shop of Mr. Fisher (a very respectable iron-
monger in the town) a great many times, and bought at each
time half-a-dozen spoons of Britannia metal, that gentleman's
suspicion became excited. He procured a warrant, which he
placed in the hands of the police, and he desired his porter to
follow her the next time she came to the shop. On the 26th
of May she came again and purchased five spoons of the same
metal. The porter followed her, and saw what house she
entered. Information was given to the police, and the house
was pointed out to them ; they opened the door, and, upon
their going in, they saw the female prisoner, and told her they
had a warrant fur her. She went up stairs and into a room in
the second floor ; they followed her, and in the room they saw
James Adey sitting at the fire with a ladle, having in it melted
metal, and in his hand was a mould of plaster of Paris, from
which melted metal was then running. In the room the police
found a very large quantity of counterfeit half-crowns, shillings,
and sixpences, and it was clearly shown that this system had
been practised for many months, the woman always stating that
she void the spoons to farmers. On the occasion in question,
however, parts of the spoons were found in the room occupied
by the risoners.
' Theypwere found Guilty, and sentenced to lb years' trans-
portation.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
YESTERDAY.
MANSION-HOUSE.
George Pater, who was several days ago charged by
Mr. Charles Fosbrook Mackenzie with having misap-
propriated a bill of exchange for 1001., given to him to
get discounted, appeared for the purpose of undergoing
another examination.
Mr. Wontner appeared for the complainant.
Mr. M•Kenzie, it will be remembered, employed the
defendant as an agent for negotiating the bill, but never
received a farthing fur the bill, nor anything else, except
promises from Potter, who studiously avoided him. At
last he received a letter from a person named Wood,
stating that he held the bill, having advanced 251. in
cash and goods upon it, and ultimately he was sued by
a Mr. Chisholm, solicitor, of No. 3, Cook's-court, Cary-
street, to whom the bill was endorsed by one George
Colson, to whom it was endorsed by one Clarkson, to
whom it was endorsed by Wood. Mr. Chisholm stated
on a former examination that the only person he knew
in the matter was Colson, who collected debts for him,
and brought him cases upon which he sued ; that be
had given valuable security for the bill, and that there
was a long account between him and Colson, in which
the latter was his debtor. Etforts were made to bring
forward, by means of summonses, the several parties
whose names were on the back of the bill, but nobody
appeared except Mr. Chisholm, who attended with the
bill upon which he said he had been instructed by Weed
to sue. _

Mr. Peter Chisholm produced the bill for 1001. He
had received it from Colson, and it was made payable
at Ransom's, in Pall-mall. It was in consideration of a
long account between them.
Mr. Wontner then proceeded in his examination of
the witness.
Mr. Wontner—ls Colson your clerk ? Witness—
He is not.
Mr. Wontner—ls not his name on your door? Wit-
ness—Yes, but I do not call him my clerk.
Mr. Wontner—ls he your partner? Witness—No:;
he brings me business.
Mr, Wontner—ls he not your clerk? Witness—You
may call him my clerk if you please.
Mr. Wontm r—De you pay him a salary? Witness
—No. If he brings me business I generally make him
a present.
Mr. Wontner—Does he take share of the profits of
your business? Witness—No; I give him what I please.
I give him perhaps 51. if he brings me what produces 20/.
Mr. Wontner— If he do not bring you business which
produces a profit, do you not give him anything? Wit-
ness—Nothing.
Mr. Wontner—Has he not entered appearances and
done other things as your clerk? Witness—He may
have done so in the cases he has brought to me himself,
but not in any other business.
Mr. Wontner—Have you seen any affidavits or other
documents to which he has sworn as your clerk? Wit-
ness—No.
Mr. Wontner—Did you not swear, in the case of
Hutchinson and Co., that Colson was your clerk? Wit-
ness—No.
Mr. Wontner—Did You not swear, in a case of fraudu-
lent bankruptcy, that he was your clerk? Witness—l
might have done so, but, in the opinion of the judges,
the case was not one of fraudulent bankruptcy.
Mr. Wontner—Do you know who Mr. Clarkson
is ? Witness—No ; but Colson told me he was a very
respectable man. Colson endorsed the bill for me as a
matter of course to sue upon.
Mr. Wontner—What passed at the time ? Witness—
Nothing passed.
Mr. Wontner —Can you tell me when it was endorsed
to you ? Witness—No.
Mr. Wontner--Had you any settlement of accounts
at the time ? Witness—No. *,
Mr. Wontner—Did you enter the transaction in your
books ? Witness—No. The bill was endorsed to me
before it was due.
The LORD MAYOR—When the bill was dishonoured
had the parties on the back of the bill notice of the fact ?
Witness—They had.
The LORD MAYOR—Where do the endorsers live ?
Witness—l do not know. I never knew any but Colson.
Mr. Wontner—W hen were the notices of dishonour
sent ? Witness—l do not know. I heard from Colson
that they had been sent.
Mr. Wontner—How many persons do business in this
way with you ? Witness—l decline answering that
question. I consider it a very impertinent one.
Mr. Wontner—How many persons practise in your
name ? Witness—No person practises in my name.
Mr. Wontner—And you do not know Clarkson ?
Witness—l do not.
Mr. Wontuer—•Who presented the bill for payment ?
Witness—One of my clerks presented it.
Mr. Wontner—Doyou not know Potter ? Witness—
I never saw him before I saw him here in this trans-
action.
Here the name of Colson was called three times, but
no answer was returned, neither did any other of the in-
dorsers appear, although pains had been taken to find
out the'r places cl abode.
Mr. Wontner thanked the Lord Mayor for the readi-
ness with which facilities had been afforded him in
tracing the nefarious transaction, in which a gentleman

AUGUST-Ci-184t.

RELATIVE CLOSING PRICES OF RAILWAY SHARES

IN THE

PRINCIPAL CITIES AND TOWNS IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND.

NAMES OF RAILWAYS.

Aberdeen
Arbroath and Forfar
Ditto Half Shares .
Armagh, Colr., & Portrush
Belfast and Ballymena
Belfast and County Down
Birmingham and Glo'ster
Do. New ( iss. at 71/,, dis.)
Ditto Half Shares .
P,irmingh in & O frd. June.
Biel:burn, Only, & N. Un.
Brighton, Lewes, and East
lii istol and Exeter

tto Nev .....

Bristol and Gl,Atcester .
Caledonian
Ditto Extension
Cambrich,T and Lincoln—
Chester and Holyhead
Cheltenham and Oxford
Chichester and Brighton
Churnet Valley
Clydesdale Junction
Cork and Bandon
Cork and Killarney
Cork and Waterford
Cork and Youghal
Covnt ry, Bed w rth, & Nun.
Coventry and Leicester ...
Cornwall. .....
I)iss, Beccies, and Yarmoth
Direct Northern
Direct Norwich ......
Dublin and Belfast Junct.
Dublin, Belfast, & Colraine

Dublin and Galway
thindalk and Enniskillen
Dundee and Arbroath
Ditto New...

Dundee and Perth.
Eastcrn Counties
Do. New....

Do. Perp., 5 pr Ott., No. I
Do. ditto No. 2
East Dereham & Norwich
Eastern Union
Ditto Extension
Edinbgh, Glas., and Dum
Edinburgh and Glasgow
Do. Quarter Shares
Do. New Quarter Shares
Edinb., Leith, and Granton
Ditto I'ref. 5 per Cent.
Edinburgh and Northern
Edinburgh and Peebleshire
Edinburgh and Perth
Ely and Bedford
Enniskillen and Sligo
Exeter, Yeovil, & Dorchstr
Garnkirk and Glasgow
Glasgow and Ayr
Do. Quarter Shares
Glasgow and Greenock

Ditto New
Ditto Preference ......
Glasgow, Dmfries, and Car
Goole and Doncaster
Grand Junction
Ditto Half Shares
Ditto Quarter Shares
Grand Union .

Great Grimsby & Sheffield
Gt Sothrn & Wfitrn (Irelnd)

Ditto Extension. .
Great 3lunster .........

Great Northern of Scotlnd
Great Northern of Englncl
Do. New, 40/. Shares....
Do. New, :30/. Shares....
Great Western
Ditto Half Shares ..
Ditto Fifths
_ _

Guildfrd, Farehm, & Ports.
Harwich .
Hull and Gainsborough
Hull and Selby
.Ditto Quarter Shares •
Ditto Half Shares.
Inverness and Elgin. ..... •••
Kendal and Windermere

Kingstown and Bray
Killarney Junctions
Lancaster and Carlisle.....
Leeds and W. Riding June
Leicester and Birmingham
Leicester and Bedford
Limerick and Waterford
Limrck, Ennis,& Kil. dune
Lincoln, York, and Leeds
Liverpool and Manchester
Ditto Half Shares.

Ditto Quarter Shares ...
London and Birmingham .

Ditto Third 5........

Ditto Quarters
London and Blackwall
London and Brighton
Do. Cnsolidated Eighths
London and Croydon.

Ditto New...
Do. Guarantd. 5 per cent
London and Greenwich
Do. Prefrnc. or Privilege
London & South Western
Do. New Cons. Eighths
Do. New, 501. Shares
Do. New, 401. Shares
London and York ....
London and Windsor
Londn, Salisbury, & Yeovil
Londonderry and Coleraine
Londonderry & Enniskillen
Lynn and Ely
Lynn and Derehatn...
Manchester and Leeds
Ditto Half Shares .

LOlldCrl

lAug. 5.
34

413

3(,4

214
4
21/2

205,g

31A

224%
48%
3%

24
551,4
36

11►%
791/
243/4
71,4

81
15'

Liver- 1
pool. chester.

Aug. 5.

2734
[35

21%

2S
8

3%%
8
2231A2

414
35

468. C 1

58s. 6d
114

L'rlstul.

21 V,
61

lAug.

2061
93►,6
33%

27%

8%

4%
3%

'Aug. 5.
1

32%

......
414
31,4

York.

121,i,
0034
104

'Aug. 4.

265.
los.

628..

-
7%

Leeds.

lAug. 5.

26%

2%

255.

Hull.

'Aug.

3914
20,i

35-16
7%

13s. ed
514

128
12%
314
-s.

O. 6d
395.

36
395, pl

Iludders-

Shaleld

301,4
4%
4614

5%

3514

5s
46. A,

8 ,
i 4
1

5%

DA

52%
22%

21%

5%
16%
11

3%
2);.
2
'lna
2 lA,

10%

4%

Aug. 5.

(Aug.

Glasgow.

2814
kBN

21,4

263/4

2 1 !,,i

Aug. 2.
645.
24

16s. p.

21%

S%

8%

105)i
o,i
31,4
22%

37
18
7&i.

36s.Gd.
84
20

_
bN

10%
22

51i

1%
305.6 d.

10!,‘
2
235.

2%

6%

.....
3%

3N

3 sy

Dublin

lAug. 4.

22

15s.
41s.
7%

501.

......
514

3

2714
8'

as~p~

443.

64
3%

955. p

--,-.
3%

5%

61,4
475.

-
298. pl

8
21,4
214

22%

1%
18

4N

4
g 2%

i335.6d.

136-8.6 d.

2
21,,4

:~' .=
~~~
~~~ ~

HOUSE OFLORDS,Aug. 5.

I(
t 14.
eL-cri 17,-----___;„3.
''7 -21/ 41----
.. Igt ':. :-',-idiffsi3,4,
.4 ~ tfl A-Aildt'''es
,-;,.'), ,s, ;:. vAttrj:,
. \'',,` ' : _=i ---_- -ir gtr
- -t _ ..-,,

Their Lordships assembled at the usual hour. tr
THE PRESENT HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Ott SiMav
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from an architect e
the name of Bernard, who stated that he could render that
House—in which it appeared they were doomed to continue
for some time to come—wholesome and
,commodious. He
( Lord Campbell) was not. very court( cut in this an-
ticipation, as he believed Dr. Reid had been as
successful as any man in his line, but although he had been
successful in improving the house of Commons he bad utterly
failed to improve that House. Ho stated that he could effect
what he stated without expense or inconvenience, and prayed
that it might be referred to a Committee befure which he
might disclose his plan. At that late period of the session,
however, he would not move for a Committee, but would
simply call the attention of the Government to it, lie would
hand it to the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who would
no doubt give it all the attention it deserved.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord MONTEAGLE moved for a return of the number of
private Bills before the House, the number of Peers who had
sat in Committee upon them, and the number of da)s which
each had sat. He was perfectly persuaded, that it the same
amount of private business occurred in the next session, their
Lordships would find it necessary to adopt some other plan
than that hitherto adopted, and by which the business of the
House might be more proportioned. Then with respect to the
deposits, he apprehended that they ought to be increased
!mom 5/. to 10/. per cent., in accordance with the resolution
to which the other Home had conic.
The Duke of WELLING TON was understood to say that
he hoped the Noble Lord would bring forward the subject on
Thursday.
Lord REDESDALE said there was not one Bill which had
not had its Committee, and which had not been decided upon,
with the exception of the London and York, which had only
come up yesterday.
Lord MONTEAGLE only meant to say that there was not
a fair distribution of labour amongst the Members of that
House with respect to the business which came before it.
Lord BESBOROUG I-1 said he should move on Thursday next
that, next session, a letter should be written to every Member
of the House, requesting to know when he will be able to at-
tend on the Committees of that House.

The Merchant Seamen's Bill was lead a third time and
passed.

BOROUGH RATES BILL.
This Pill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Thursday.
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on 'I hursday.
TURNPIKE-ROADS (IRELAND) BILL. •
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Thursday.
NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL-FUND BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Thursday.
MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Thursday.
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE then rose to present two
petitions, of which he had given notice, against the London
and York Railway Bill, and to move that one of them be re-
ferred to a Select Committee. After the course their Lord-
ships had pursued in the case of the Dublin and Galway Rail-
way, they could not refuse to refer the present case to a Com-
mittee. The first petition was from a Mr. George Pyne,
landed proprietor residing near to Huntingdon, whose pro-
perty would be interfered with by the progress of the proposed
railway, who alleged, and he believed correctly so,
that the original capital of the Company was estimated
by Mr. Cubitt at five millions, but had since been increased to
six millions and a half. This was a matter, however, which
was within the jurisdiction of the Standing Orders Committee,
and he did, therefore, propose to refer this petition to a Select
Committee. The second petition he had to present to their
Lordships was from the same gentleman, who alleged that the
contract deed was entirely fictitious, in as far as it contained
the names of parties who represented upwards of half a million,
some of whom were fictitious, and others were incapable of
paying such a sum. In the petition which was presented yes-
terday a mistake was no doubt made with respect to Baxter,
but there were other cases of far greater consequence
than that, and infinitely greater than any that bad
occurred in the Dublin and Galway Railway. He
would not trouble the House by going over all the names.
He would merely refer to one or two of them, and he was
sure that he should make out a sufficient case for further in-

quiry. Their Lordships might remember, that by V their
standing orders the residence, as well as the name of the sub-
scribers, should be given in the contract deed, and the grounds
on which many of the names on the Dublin and Galway deed
were objected to, were a non-compliance with that order.
hoped they would carry it out also in the present case. There
was one person, named John Theohald, Esq., who was down
to the amount of 25,0001. Now, he was informed that there

was no such person in existence. A person who had figured
in the Galway case, William Shack well, held scrip to the
amount of 5,0001. According to the reports before Parlia-
ment, this person now held scrip in different railways to the
amount of 41,500/. Another person, named Edward James
Durham, of 90, Watling-street, was down for 12,500/.
Henry Daw for 2,0001., a messenger in the East India House
1,000/., and a person of the name of Banks 12,5001., who did
not reside at the residence affixed to his name. He was found
out to be a clerk in the Australian Trust Company. It was
quite impassible, however, that a person in this station of life
could be responsible for such a large amount. A curate in the
county of Kent was a subscriber to the amount of 25,000/ in
various railways, and in this one he held shares to the amount
of 10,0001. There were different other parties with whose
names he would not trouble the House, who were subscribers
to the amount of 2,0001. and upwards, and who had no existence
whatever. These names he had himself compared with those
on the contract deed, and he had found them quite correct.
Another person was a subscriber to the amount of 52,000 L
There were two individuals of the name of Gurney, who
were the sons of a charwoman. One of them was a clerk to a
stock-broker, and held shares to the amount of 12,500/. His
brother Charles was porter to Air. Hitchcock, a wine mer-
chant, and was a subscriber to the extent of 25.0001. Now
every one knew that the income of these persons was about a
guinea and a half, or, at most, two guineas a-week. Charles
Gurney said he never applied for any shares; so that the per-
s•ns who procured the scrip in his name trailed on it
for their own benefit, without any responsibility, and
never gave him a single farthing of the gains. He would
say no more. He thought he had stated quite enough to induce
their Lordships to investigate these charges. Now let it be re-
collected that these cases were all discovered within the last
week, and were the consequence of the decision which had
been come to on the Dublin and Galway case. The clerk of
the county, too, had shares to the amount of 5,000/. One indi-
vidual gave 22, Norfolk-street, as his address, but it appeared
that Francis Ommanney and Sons lived there, and of course
there was no such person in existence. Taking the whole case
in all its details, a grosser piece of fraud and imposition was
never heard of. The Galway ease was nothing to it. He was
decidedly of opinion that the Bill should riot proceed till those
allegations were investigated, and he would therefore more
that the petition be referred to a Select Committee.
Lord MON TEA GLE begged to present a peti-
tion referring to the same subject. He did not mean
to vouch for the accuracy of the statements it contained, but it
came from a respectable man, who was agent for the Bill
under consideration. He was induced to petition their Lord-
ships in consequence of the statements which had been made
on a former occasion in that House, with respect to the res-
pectability of the parties whose names were on the subscription
deed of the Company. The Noble Lord then proceeded to
read the petition, which stated that the parties who repre•
seated a subscription of 20),( 001., and whose names were
alleged to be fictitious and false, were Wm/fide shareholders,
and it was utterly untrue that they were fictitious personifica-
tions. They were all respectable men, and from their property
and standing, fully equal to the responsibility which they in-
curred. The petitioners stated that they would abide by the
decision of the House.
The Earl of WICKLOW said though as strong a case as
the Dublin and Galway had not been made out, yet he thought
that a strong enough case had been made out for them to grant
the Committee of Inquiry; he apprehended, however, that
they had a competent body in the Standing Orders Committee
whose duty it was to investigate cases of the kind before the
House. On this ground he should oppose the motion of his
Noble Friend, yet at the same time he was willing that the
allegations contained in the petition should be fully inquired
into.

The Earl of SHREWSBURY said the Standing Orders
Committee could only inquire whether the contract deeds
had been properly signed, and that the standing orders had
been complied ; but they could not inquire at all into its sub-
stance.
The Earl of DEVON said the contract deed ought to be
a safe instead of an unsafe guide to the public.—( Hear, hear.)
The Bill had undergone a full inquiry in a Committee of the
House of Commons. The report only was brought up yes-
terday—by their Bill it appeared that they were empowered
to borrow a sum of money, which supposing the frauds set
forth to be true, would enable them to carry out their works.
He was opposed tothe course which they took with reference
to the Dublin and Galway.

Lord BEAUMONT agreed with his Noble Friend with re-
spect to the Dublin and Galway. They had, however, esti-
blished a precedent which he believed they could not well de-
part from in the present case. If, however, they continually
adopted similar steps to that taken with regard to this Bill,
they would put a atop to railways altogether.
Lord REDESDALE thought, in common justice, they
ought to agree to this Committee. They ought to do so i■
every case where errors such as those alleged had been com-
mitted.

Lord CAMPBELL said, that during the present morning
had had his opinion canvassed on both sides, but he had deter-
mined to keep his mind clear of both sides, and having done so,
he was inclined to think this application could not possibly be
refused.
The Earl of WICKLOW having heard the explanation of
the Noble Chairman of Committees, he thought the Committee
ought to be appointed.
After a few words from the Marquis of CLANRICARDE
the petition was ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.
The Marquis of CL AN RICARDE was not prepared to name
the Committee at present.
Lord MONTEAGLE thol lit to be
appointed at once. Whether through
the case in the present sesa lances
which they could not controul.
BRIGHTON AND CH
Lord LOVELACE presents
ships to recommit the
.s ti
I Brightoi
°PP-
m
gavesianidttei
ng the motion whenever the it.
The Earl of SHAFTESB _ sot a com-
peting line—it was simply a line from Chichester to Ports.
mouth.
The Duke of
instructions
d RICHMOND
tobe Counsel
tousnia,srieedl y that
e as ntthttehhyees:ou mpki n
result of the mo-
tion The
Duke notoi cf
eR of hIIH C iOn tNe nD'
coaontiedsa fromre to
carrygivinagof suultac before fnight
any of the Judges—viz./ to conclud without
hearing both parties.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that the Noble Lord had as-
signed no reasons whatever for his motion, and though he had
last night voted for the recommittal of; the Bill of the
Direct Portsmouth he should, unless some reasons were as-
signed, as this was an independent line, vase against the motion.
Lord BEAUMONT conceived that the lines were not the
projects of the same company.
Lord REDESDALE explained the particular positions of
the several lines, as they have been repeatedly before the
public.
Lord MONTEAGLE said that this was one of the most
whimsical cases that had ever come under their notice. They
had last night dealt with this Bill as a competing line, and they
had recommitted the Bill for the Direct Portsmouth, which by
change of circumstances had become a competing line, and it
was but justice that it should be recommitted. He could not
rid himself of the impression that this was a competing line,
and should therefore be recommitted.' -
After a few remarks from the Marquis of Clanricarde, Lord
Redesdale, and the Earl of Haddington, the motion was nega-
tived, and the BiIISMALL was read
DEBTS a third time
BILL. and passed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from the
bankers, merchants, and traders of Liverpool in favour of the
Bill, and also one to the same effect signed by the principal
mercantile men in England. He then called the attention of

recoul.

)ught the Committee ought to be
r they were able to get through
ssion, depended on circumstanees
I.
HICHkSTER RAILWAY.
ted a petition praying their Lord.
tun and Chfehester Railway Bill,
tion to move that it be ream.
) intimated his intention of oppo-
. Noble Lord should make it.
lU RY said this was not a cont.

Melt Lordships to the amendments which had been sent up
feorn the Commons on this Bill. They were of a twofold
character. One class related to the Bill as it stood before it
went down to the Commons. These he approved of with one
exception, and some verbal alterations. The other class re-
ferred to the additional clauses. It would be recollected that
the Bill, as it originally stood, only contained eight clauses,
but there were twenty additional clauses added to the amend-
ments. With respect to the first division of the amendments,
he agreed to them with the exception he had already referred
to, the effect of which would be to fetter the powers of the
Commissioners of Bankruptcy, for unless the action was
brought before a superior court, and a judgment pronounced,
tkey would have no power. He would therefore call upon
their Lordships to disagree to the clause. The Noble Lord
then proceeded to explain the manner in which the
claim was introduced in the Bill, from which it appeared that
advantage was taken of the absence of the Attorney-General,
to whom the Bill was entrusted in the Lower House, and this
clause was thus surreptitiously, as it were, inserted. With re-
spect to the other class of amendments (continued the Noble
Lord), they would be found under the 9th section. The other
amendments were merely consequent on that. This gave her
Majesty the power of extending the jurisdiction of small courts
as to locality, and also to the amount of the debt on which
hey cot ld adjudicate. It increased it to 201. The reason of
the clause was, that very few of the tribunals at present had
reexer to decide on actions of so large an amount, and the con-
sequence was, that many persons in trade sustained great loss.
The clause, however, would entirely put an end to this injury.
lie thought it a wise clause, and one not at all inconsistent with
the Bill. If it had originated in that House, or had come up from
the other House in the shape of a new Bill, their Lord-
ships, he thought, would not have the least objection
to consent to it. As the other clauses were merely conse-
quential, he should not enter into them. The original Bill, as
he had already remarked, consisted of eight clauses. These
amendments, containing twenty additional clauses, were grafted
on the 8.11. They formed a new system, and gave powers for
the establishment of a new kind of tribunal. Now if these
c!auies had come before them in a separate form—as a distinct
Bill—they would then be in a position to adopt or reject them
at once. But coming, as they did, in this supplementary form,
there was, he considered, a difficulty in point of form as to the
course they should adopt. The question was, should they at
once adopt those amendments as they at present stood? He
thought They were wise, useful, and called for by the occasion;
and as they had been recommended in a clause which had been
sent down by their Lordships to the Lower House the session
before last, he thought that no difficulty would be felt as to the
propriety of agreeing to them. It was now in their Lord-
ships' power either to agree to these amendments as they stood,
or t o reject them on the point of form ; and he was quite sure
that they would exercise a sound discretion in the decision to
which they would come on the subject.
Lord CAMPBELL felt greatly embarrassed in addressing
the House in consequence of the course which the Government
had pursued with regard to this Bill. He entirely concurred
with his Noble and Learned Friend in the propriety of the
Commons' amendments. He protested, however, against the
course which had been adopted with regard to the subject.
The Noble Lord then proceeded to detail the various changes
which the subject had from time to time undergone. He con-
sidered also that to extend the jurisdiction as to locality was a
very 2reat power, and that sending up the Bill in the form now
before the House, might, if it were allowed to pass unnoticed,
be productive at a future time of great confusion.
They ought to consider whether it would not be better to
extend the county courts than to enlarge the powers of the
courts of conscience. He must protest against the course that
was recommended to be taken.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said the measure was not
one of the Government's originating. It was taken up in the
other House by a Learned Gentleman, who was not connected
with the Government. He was the present Solicitor-General,
but at the time he introduced the Bill he had no connexion
with the Government, nor had he any expectation of it. It
was also introduced in connexion with another measure—the
Deodands Abolition Bill. This was the history of the Bill.
He considered that parties, before they could make any altera-
tion in or extend the jurisdiction of the local courts, would have
to give a month's notice of their intention.
Lord II A DDINGION said that his friends, the Gentlemen
n the other House, belonging to Scotland, had supported the
Bill, not as Members of the Government, but as Members of
the House in their private capacity.
Lora WHARNCLIFFE thought that under all the circum-
stance'', after the explanations of the Noble and Learned Lord,
he felt bound to supp,rt him in the course he recommended.
Earl FITZ HA RDINGE said it was but right that they
should take no course but such as was strictly in accordance
with legal practice ; still he thought no time should be lost in
carryir g out the provisions of the Bill. Many of the small
tradesmen in the principal towns of the kingdom were now
suffering greatly. It had been calculated that there was
o ing this class of persons, at present, no less a sum than three
millions of pounds, ail debts under 201. In Birmingham alone
the sum owing to small tradesmen was 100,000 t.
:,f(er somr. further conversation, the Commons' amendments
with the Lords' amendments thereon were agreed to.
IRISH POOR-LAW BILL.

Earl ST. GERMANS moved for certain returns respect-
ing the Ifiih poor-law, which were agreed to.
BILL FOR GRANTING LEASES.

The Com.nuns' amendments to thi3 Bill were read and
agreed to.

LANDLORDS AND TENANTS BILL.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented several pe-
titions against the Landlords and Tenants Bill.
SUNDERLAND ELECTION.

The NOBLE AlAtaQuis then proceeded to remark upon the
Sund-rland election. Great excitement prevailed there,
which, to all appearance, would be prolonged till next session,
as there appeared no prospect of the writ being at present
issued. This was a state of things that ought not to exist.
He made these remarks, as he believed the difficulty arose from
the Noble Earl (the late Lord Howick) not taking those
prompt measures that were required to qualify himself for a
seat in that House.

MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
A message from the House of Commons brought up the Ex-
eliequer Bills Bill, the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill, the Merchant
Seamen's Bill, a Bill for enabling the Eastern Counties Rail-
way Coniipauy to construct a railway from Ely to Huntingdon,
the Lunatic Asvltims (Ireland) Bill and others.
ADJOURNMENT- OF THE HOUSE.

On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE,
Their Lordships adjourned until Thursday.

HoUSE OF COMMONS, Aug.
5.

111? SPEAK ER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
Returns from the Commissioners of Sewers were presented.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN brought up the report on Should-
ham's Divorce Bill, which was read a third time and passed.
SUNDAY TRADING.

Mr. PLUMP TRE presented petitions from various places,
complaining of the inefficiency of the law relating to Sunday
fraddig, and praying the House to adopt measures to alter
the law.

Mr. WYSE presented a petition from Battersea and Chel-
sea, praying for another representative, in consequence of the
increaseof the population of those districts.
FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

Mr. BRIGHT presented "a petition from the members and
of the Free Church of Glasgow, complaining
the proprietors of land in Scotland refusing to
their land for the building of free churches,
particularly the Duke of Buccleuch, and praying the House to
grant them such relief as it should think proper.
COUNTY RATES BILL.

The Lords' amendments to this Bill were agreed to.
NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. PAKINGTON presented a petition from the Legis-
lative Assembly of Newfoundland, signed by their Speaker,
praying for direct steam communication between that colony
and England.
The Marquis of Westminster's Estate Bill was read a third
time and pmssed.
The LORD-ADVOCATE moved amendments of the
standing orders, No. 23 A and 39 A, for the purpose of assimi-
lating the regulations for the Scottish railways with those for
the English railways. —Ag; eed to.
CAM 111 D ,E AND HUNTINGDON RAILWAY.
.Mr. WARD moved that the Lords' amendments to the
Cambridge and Huntingdon Railway 131/11 be confirmed.
The motion was agreed to.
_ _ _ _ _ _

On the motion of Mr. DARBY, the Lords' amendments to
the Brighton, Lewis, and Hastings ( Hastings, Rye, and Ash.
lord Branch) Railway Bill were agreed to.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS.

Mr. WAKLEY moved that an inquiry be made into the
management of public and private lunatic asylums.
The motion was agreed to.
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
Mr. DENISON presented a petition from the Directors of
the London and York Railway Company, containing a
denial of the allegations exhibited in the petition which
was presented yesterday from the Chairman of the
Cambridge and Lincoln Company, and which stated
that the subscription list of the London and York line
was fraudulently made up. The petition which he presented
prayed that a lull inquiry might be made into the truth or
falsehood of those allegations ; and, in case the allegations
should be proved to be false, that the House would
give the Dir, &ors of the London and York Company power to
prosecute the i,arties who had made those false statements. As
the II ,use vs° .1,1 adjourn from to-night until Friday next, he
should now- move that during the interim the petition be en-
grosaco and printed, and then on Friday he would be in a posi-
tion to found a motion on the subject.
Mr. ASTON seconded the motion, and said that the
Directors of the London and York Company had spared no
expense or trouble, in order to make up a proper subscription
list. He felt satisfied, if the matter were fully inquired into,
it would be found the list was correctly filled.
Mr. HAWES said that the subject seemed to assume some
importance. He had presented a petition complaining that the
subscription list of the London and York line was fraudulently
made up, and new a counter petition was presented. The
House was belied to make every inquiry into the matter, and
he would not allow the investigation to rest until all the cir-
cumstances IA ere fully inquired into. He had received the posi-
tive assurance of the party from whom the petition emanated, that
that all the allegations which it contained were true, and could
be fully substantiated. For his own sake, and the credit of the
House, the inquiry ought to be instituted into the truth or
falsehood of the allegations, and he trusted that it would be
gone into at an early period in the next session : until that time
be would postpone his opinion on the matter.
Mr. WARBURTON wanted to know how a petition con-
taining. such alegations as had been described could be re-
ceived and acted on, against a Bill in the stage in which the
London and York line was. placed. lie had been requested
to present a petition which contained similar allegations
against the Dublin and Galway project. In answer to the requi-
sition, he had stated that the whole system of standing orders as
regarded railway Bills had been altered, and that the mode of
procedure, in his opinion, ought to be by presenting the peti-
tion, and then moving that a Select Committee be appointed to
investigate the matter. Counsel should also be heard
before the Committee in support of and against the petition.
the Hon. Member had presented a petition, preparatory to
moving for a Select Committee, with the view of inquiring into
these illegal frauds, and he (Mr. Warburton) thought that in
these circumstances it would t.e an injustice if an examination
into these, allegations did not take place. At all events, if the
Bill were to be left over till next session it should be perfectly
understood that the further proceedings should be suspended
until the Select Committee which had been moved for should
report to the House.
Mr. WA K LEY sail that when the petition signed by Mr.
Bruce was presented yesterday by the Hon. Member for Lam-
beth, it was distinctly understood that a specific motion was to
be made this afternoon for a Committee to inquire into the
allegatipns contained in that petition. But his Hon. Friend
said it was too late in the session. Then he (Mr. Wak-
ley ) said the mischief was already done.—(Hear, hear.)
The petition presented last night contained allegations of gross
fraud. The petition presented that evening denied those alle-
gations and stated that they were grossly and scan-
dalously false. He could see no remedy for the
evil unless the Committee were to sit some
time longer.—( Laughter.) He proposed that they should in-
vestigate the matters in these petitions, even if they sat from
eight in the morning till eight at night, in order that they might
at least understand the position in which they were placed before
the end of the session.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
they ought to be cautious in granting the inquiry sought for at
the public expense. All private Bills were referred to a Select
Committee to examine evidence and report upon their merits,
and before them ample opportunity was given for examination
into all such things. That was the proper tribunal for inquiry
Into such allegations.—( Hear, hear.) The promoters of privat

Bills often, by compromise, agreed not to oppose each other
on the standing orders, or to expose the malpractices
of which each other had been guilty. Such a course, as he
understood, had been taken by the parties at issue in the pre-
sent question, and now that one party came forward to oppose
the other on the standing orders, he considered the House should
be careful what course it took. They ought not to be en-
couraged in doing that at the public expense which they had
an opportunity of doing in Committee. The one party had
made an accusation, the other had furnished a denial,
and that ought to be considered sufficient, without going further
into the subject. The one would stand against the other. Be-
yond the printing of these he would not advise the Idouse to go.
Mr. BROTHERTON agreed with the Chancellor of the
Exchequer in the course he recommended. The House
ought not to be called on to bear the expense of such an in-
quiry.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that he objected to the course
recommended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought
there 9ught to be an immediate inquiry, so as to give the parties
who had been charged an opportunity of defending and vindi-
cating themselves from the defamation in the petition presented
last night. The real object of the petition presented by his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Hawes) was to effect a stock-jobbing purpose ;
but that being defeated, they now wanted the matter put off
till next session. All the petitioners of to-night, as
given in the petition of the Honourable Member
tor the East Riding of York, required was inquiry, that a
foundation might be obtained for seeking redress in a court of
justice for the allegations urged against the subscribers to
the London and York line. He had no doubt the allegations
were entirely false, and the House was bound to give reds ess.
They were allegations, he had no hesitation in saying, got up
for a particular and sinister purpose. Three days, commencing
OR to-morrow morning, would be quite sufficient for all the
purposes of the inquiry.
Mr. B. DENISON said that there appeared to him to
be two questions in this matter—the House itself and the
parties themselves. —( Hear, hear.) Here there was an
attempt to impose upon the House for the purpose of pre-
venting the progress of a Bill. The question then was
whether the House would take up the matter itself,
or leave it to the parties to defend themselves. There were
two petitions before the House, the one impugning the cha-
racter of the other petitioners who asked the House either to grant
them inquiry or to allow them to vindicate themselves in a
court of law. The petitioner (Mr. Bruce) stated that he
had employed sixteen or seventeen persons to make inquiries,
and that from their discoveries he made out the list which he
(Mr. Denison) held in his hand. Now, of the persons named
therein, twenty had informed him this day, and stated that they
had been called on by " Inquirers," who stated—some that they
were sent by the House of Commons—others by the House of
Lords—and others by the London and York Company.
Now those twenty persons were represented in this list as non-
existent—( Hear, and a laugh)—although they had all seen
inquirers, and assured thorn they were ready to meet their
engagements. Perhaps Mr. Bruce himself was imposed
upon. But his agents had misrepresented persons of
high respectability, who were ready to come forward before a
Committee.—( Hear, hear.) For his part, he should persist in
the motion of which he gave notice on Friday night.—( Hear. )
Mr, HAWES said that he was willing to move for the
Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of Mr.
Bruce's petition, notwithstanding the late period of the
session, and he would persevere in it, if they should have to
sit for forty-eight hours. —( Hear, and a laugh.)
Lord NEWARK said that he did not object to the appoint-
ment of a Select Committee, if it were possible to get through
the inquiry at this period of the session.
After some desultory conversation,
Mr. HAWES moved that the petition of Mr. Bruce, pre-
sented yesterday, should be referred to a Select Committee,
and that the inquiry be gone into at once.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. WARBURTON had heard nothing to alter the opi-
nions which he had already expressed. He would not object
to the Select Committee if the inquiry were to combine Rail-
way Companies generally. If this inquiry were to be prose-
cuted at the public expense petitions would be hereafter presented
to obstruct the course of public business—in short it wo old be
the uniform way of preventing Railway Bills passing through
the House. At any rate, if the inquiry went on, the parties
who sought for it should be made to pay the expenses of it.
Desiring to give the utmost facilities to parties making allege-
tionshe should yet very much question the policy of the present
proceedings.
Sir R. PEEL said--I very much doubt, Sir, whether one
of the remedies pointed out in the petition actually exists. In
the first place, I doubt the policy of the course pointed out even
if the House could give the permission sought by the parties
who have presented a petition to the House. But, Sir, I am
not sure that a person making a false allegation in a petition is
a legal offence, for it has been ruled by competent tribunals
that a party presenting a petition to the House of Commons is
privileged to make allegations against third parties by virtue
of the presentation of said petition. You cannot, therefore,
prosecute a man for doing that which he is privileged to do.
The question is not, however, as to the truth of the allegations
or counter-allegations, but we are now dealing with an offence
against Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) A party has alleged as a
reason why you should not read the Bill a third time, that that
Bill has been fraudulently got up—that several frauds exist in
the subscription deed, and those allegations they say they are
ready to establish. If, Sir, that party can substantiate these
allegations, he was perfectly warranted in presenting the peti-
tion, but if not, I think there is good reason for believing that
he has committed an offence against the House, because he was
making a statement which might influence the decision of the
Legislature. We have read the Bill a third time, and we are
now dealing with the question as a Parliamentary offence, and
I cannot see that any great evil would result from inquiry.
What I would recommend is, that a Committee be appointed to
inquire into the allegations contained in this petition—this
Committee might, after a short inquiry, repo .t to
the House what progress they had made—( Hear,
hear)—and whether or not it would be advisable
to resume it next session.—(Hear, hear.) Let the House re-
collect thet there is a positive statement that the allegations
contained in a position presented to the House are false and
fraudulent. Ido not see how you can pass over such matters
without notice. The circumstances of this case are very pecu-
liar, and I cannot perceive any objection to the appointment of
a dommittee with the functions I have mentioned.

Mr. WAKLEY thought that a selection might very easily
be made, and it was a bounden duty for the House to make an
inquiry into these allegations, and he trusted, at least, that the
Hon. Member for York would be appointed. There might
be no sufficient opportunity for inquiring into these charges to-
day, but it was incumbent on the House to inquire into the
truth or falsehood of these charges, and there might be time
for it by Friday. These persons complained that they were
seriously injured in their characters and commercial standing
by these allegations, and therefore it was but an act of justice
to free them from any imputation, or establish the truth of the
charges to which they were liable.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he could not assent to the
course proposed by the Hon. Member who presented the peti-
tion. Neither could he assent to the course proposed by the
Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley), and he thought
that he should sufficiently guard himself if he assented to the
proposition so far as it went to institute the inquiry, and he
trusted, therefore, that a committee of inquiry would be ap-
pointed.
Sir R. INGLIS thought, as the course proposed by the
leader on one side was supported by the leader on the other,
the best course the House could pursue was to appoint the
Committee, and net leave the parties simply to that remedy
which was provided by the laws of the country.
On the motion being put,
Mr. HAWES said that he trusted no gentleman would re-
fuse to serve on this Committee.

But considerable difficulty was experienced in appointing a
Committee, several Hon. Members stating objections to serv-
ing. At length Mr. Hawes, Mr. E. B. Denison, Mr. Baring,
Mr. Warburton, Mr. B. Escott, Mr. Hutt, and Lord Clive,
were appointed.