The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-18 00:00:00

The prisoner was given into custody, and a coroner's inquest
was held. The verdict of the jury was to the effect that the infant
had met its death from the fracture of the skull.

Mr. Hind, surgeon, made a post tnorton examination of the
child. There were fractures and injuries about the head sufficient
to cause and account for death. The injuries were not very visible
externally.

The policeman who took the prisoner into custody, said the
prisoner accounted for the injuries visible on the infant, by saying
that a day or two before delivery she had fallen down stairs, and
hurt herself very much.
The opinion of Mr. Hind was that the injuries had been caused
by violence, but how that violence was inflicted he could not say.
In defence, the prisoner said she let the child fall, and that was
how the bruise on the face occurred. She added she was not aware
she should have been confined so soon, or she would have left her
place.

Mr. MA LTBY said the case must go before a jury, and accordingly
fully committed the prisoner.

QUEEN-SQUARE.

ATTEMPTED MURDER.—Yesterday Jane Walker, 17 years of
age, was charged with the following deliberate attempt to murder
her sister, a girl two years younger.
Mary Walker, the complainant, whose right arm was bandaged
up, and who exhibited a slight cut on the forehead, said that she
lived with her parents at No. 26, Little Chapel_strett, Westminster.
At about four that morning prisoner came there, and having
roused her from her sleep requested her to get up, and go with her
to her lodgings, at 10, York-terrace. Her father being afraid that
prisoner would create a disturbance unless her wish was complied
with recommended complainant to go, and she accordingly dressed
herself and accompanied her sister. On arriving at the house
prisoner told her to get into bed and go to sleep, and whilst she
was doing so the accused left the room, observing that she
was going to sit for a little while at the street-door. Com-
plainant in a few minutes fell asleep, and was awoke by feel-
ing a knife passing across her throat. She immediately jumped
up, and found the prisoner, who declared that she was going to cut
her head off, standing over her with a large table-knife. She
struggled for some time to get the weapon from her sister, during
which prisoner tried to cut her throat, and in putting up her arm
to prevent her doing so, the latter became severely cut. Com-
plainant succeeded in wresting the knife from prisoner's hand, who
immediately rushed to the table and took up another; but the
cries of the complainant having brought a man to the spot, she was
prevented from using any further violence. Complainant said her
sister was in liquor at the time, and added that she received the
cut on the forehead in the course of the struggle fur the knife.
A large table-knife was produced, which prisoner had taken
away from her father at the time she went for hec sister ; it had
some blood upon it.
Prisoner, in answer to the charge, said that she was in liquor,
and did not know what she was about at the time.

The father, a pensioner from the army, supporting himself by
aid of crutches, said that his daughter, the prisoner, had given
him a very great deal of trouble. She had robbed him of his
quarter's pension about a twelvemonth age, and had been charged
at that Court. He had subsequently got her into an asylum, in
hopes of reclaiming her, but without effect. Her conduct was
such that he thought frequently she was not in a sound state of
mind.—The prisoner was remanded.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE
SUTTON PARK RACES-MONDAY.

The Windley Pool Stakes of 15 sovs. each, with 59 added ; the
second saves his stake. Twice round and a dis. (9 Subs.)
Mr. Fowler's Old George, 4 yrs, 7st slb (Dodgson) 1
Mr. Thompson's Lord Saltoun, 4 yrs, 7st 121 b
Capt. Peel's Frances, 3 yrs, sst 101 b
The following were not placed ; —Mr. Wiggan nd Pickwick,
aged, 7st 101b—Mr. Jones nd The Disowned, 5 yrs, 7st Ilb—
Mr. Webster nd Glideaway, 4 yrs, 6st 121 b.
Won by half a neck.
The Bonehill Stakes of 5 sovs. each, and 20 added ; the second
to save his stake. Twice round and a dis. (6 Subs.)
Mr. Parr's Ninety-one, 4 yrs
Capt. Peel's Aurungzebe, 5 yrs..
Mr. Standwell's Gipsey 3
Mr. Parkyn's The Fowler and Mr. Clifton's Pedlar were
not placed.
The Stand Handicap of 10 sovs. each, with 30 added, the
second to receive 201. Heats, once round and a distance.
(8 Subs. )
Mr. Hesseltine's Marian Ramsay, 3 yrs, Est 101 b 1 1
Mr. Moore's Tippoo, aged, 7st 101 b
Mr. Ftintoff's The Rhine, 5 yrs, Bst 51b

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 17.

- - - -
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock.
The report on the Newport and Pontypool Railway Bill
was brought up, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Shaw's Waterworks Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Manchester and Birmingham Railway Bill (Ashton
Branch) was reported, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed-
The North Wiles Railway Bill was reported, and ordt•red to
be engrossed.
The North Wales (Mineral) Railway Bill was also reported,
and ordered to be engrossed.
The report on the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and .Ayr
(Cumnock Branch) Railway was further considered, and the
Bill ordered to be engrossed.
The Battersea Poor Bill was read a third time and passed.
The North Union and Ribble Navigation Railway Bill wag
reported, and the Bill ordered to be engrossed, and re-com-
mitted to Group HH.
The Falmouth Harbour Improvement Bill was reported, and
the Bill was ordered to be engrossed.
The Londonderry and Coleraine Railway Bill was referred
to the Committee on Standing Orders.
The Londonderry and F-niskillen Railway Bill was also,
ordered to be referred to the Committee on Standing Orders.
The Glasgow' Garnkirk, and Coatbridge
,Railway Bill was
read a third time and passed.
The Great Southern and Western Railway Bill (Ireland)
was reported, and the Bill was ordered to be referred to the
Committee on Standing Orders.
The North British Insurance Company Bill was read a
third time and passed.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAYS.
The' reports of the London sand South-Western Railways,
Nos. 1 and 2, were brought up and received.
CORNWALL RAILWAY.

The report of this Bill was brought up. On the motion
that it be received, .

Captain BERKELEY opposed the motion. He was against
this railway on several grounds. Falmouth was the first port which
ships reached in coming from the westward, and it was neces-
sary that there should be telegraphic communication between
that harbour and London. For such a purpose a railway was
much required. But, according to the route which
it was proposed to take, the present railway having
to cross two rivers, it would be impossible to
preserve at all times the telegraphic communication
entire. This was a serious objection. The line crossed five
navigable rivers, over three of which swivel bridges were to be
erected. When it was high water they would require to be
open; when it was low water they would have to be shut ; so
that great inconvenience would arise in the traffic of the railway.
All these objections might be avoided by their taking up the
Central Cornwall line. It was true the Board of Trade had
reported against that line, but that was no just reason
why they should not take the subject into their considera-
tion. The central line would save a distance of sixty miles
between Falmouth and London ; it would also save the
time which would now be required to cross the Hamoaze by
the floating bridge, which would be at least twenty minutes.
The Central Railway crossed above the Hamoaze. The pro-
moters of the present Bill talked about making docks at Fal-
mouth. Why they had no power to make docks, neither had
they any money to do so, and they were deceiving the House.
Most of the engineers who had been examined said that it was
not only a roundabout, but a dangerous line, and the railroad,
insttad of being a quick communication between Fal-
mouth and London, would he a very slow one. Under
these circumstances he would not detain the House longer,
but would at once move that the report be brought up that
day six months.
Mr. MACAULAY hoped that, as chairman of the Com-
mittee, he might be permitted to say a few words. If the
House did not place confidence in the Committee, or if they
thought that no prima facie case bad been made out, then they
ought to move that the evidence taken before the Committee be
printed.--( Hear, hear.) But he hoped that upon the strength
of a series of assertions by an individual Member
the House would not overturn the deliberate and
unanimous decision cf a Committee. It was said
that the majority of the engineers examined before
the Committee had stated the line to be dangerous, and that
had been stated by a gentleman who had not heard a syllable of
the evidence. Now, speaking from his recollection of the
evidence, be should be inclined to say that such was
not the case, and he considered it rather too much
for a gentleman to get up and read a printed paper,
put forth by the opponents of the Bill, in opposition to the
report of the Committee, which had carefully examined the
subject for twenty days—(Cheers)—and who certainly had not
shown themselves the mere tools of the Great Western Com-
pany. Four schemes bad been propounded Ly the Great
Western Company before that Committee. Of those schemes the
Committee ,had reported in favour of one and rejected an-
other, and had postponed the other two.—( }Lear.)
The Committee considered that there were con.qi-
derable objections to the gradients of the proposed line,
particularly if it were to be worked by locomotive power..
But they thought that the county of Cornwall ought not to be
without a railway ; that it was of the utmost importance to
secure a railway communication between Plymouth and
Falmouth, and that, in fact, this was not a mere
Cornish, but a British question.—(" Hear," and cheers. )
If they rejected this line, what line could they take ?
The plan was brought before the Board of Trade, and re-
ported against by that Board. They examined the
difference between the competing lines—they called upon
the promoters of the Central Cornish line, but they
did not appear. Why did they not appear? Why did not the
promoters, he repeated, come forward ? He had seen a defence
in print, which certainly was the worst defence he had ever
met with. They said they did not come forward because of the
extreme scarcity of money. Upon this ground they alleged they
could not go on with the undertaking. If they could not
find capital in May, 1845, when were they to find it?—
(Hear, hear.) The fact was, the Committee went rauch
further into the merits of the proposed lines than
was their duty. And as regarded the engineering evidence,
the great mass of it went to say that the line selected was the
best practical line. If the House thought this a case for their
interference, they might have the evidence read over ; but he
trusted they would not accede to the motion of the Gallant
Officer.

Lord G. SOMERSET said he thought the decision of the
Committee was every way entitled to deference. He thought
that by acceding to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman the
House would form a very dangerous precedent, and would there-
fore-oppose it.
Mr. PENDARVES thought, that notwithstanding
the engineering difficulties, a proper line of railway
might be carried through Cornwall. He believed there
would be sufficient traffic to support a railway. The
pointrof securing an advantageous communication between
London and Exeter in time of war would be highly important.
He felt perfectly satisfied that the line, as described in the
plan, never could be properly carried out. Both the Admiralty
and the Board of Ordnance were opposed to the line, and the
authority of these bodies constituted a strong objection. Let
them seek their own line if they please, bit at the same
time let other parties have the opportunity it proving the ad-
vantages of another line. He felt persuaded that if the Com-
mittee had had a sufficient opportunity of hearing the evi-
dence on the line which had been shut out, they would have
come to a different decision on the subject.

Sir CHARLES LEMON observed (hat it had been stated
that a line might be projected which would reduce the distance
between London and Exeter to 60 miles less than the proposed
line. His Hon. Friend came forward as a septuagenarian, and
said that the distance might be diminished by seventy
miles. The line at present before the House was supported
by all the landowners in its vicinity, every one of whom were
shareholders in it, and further his Hon. Friend was the first
person who moved the adoption of the line which he now op.
posed.
Mr. PENDARVES explained, and admitted he had ori-
ginally supported the line, but had subsequently seen fit to alter
his opinion.
Mr. RASHLEIGH said that, as one of the representatives
of the other division of the county (Cornwall), he would say it
was the unanimous opinion of the people whom he represented
that the railway before the House would be conducive to
the interests of the country at large. He would not enter
into details on the subject, although, if it were wished, he
would go into a description of the entire line. It passed
through one of the finest and most fertile districts in the
county, and it was the general desire of all the influential per-
sons and landowners that the line should be adopted.
Mr. TURNER said that he had been originally a member
of the Provisional Committee upon the opposing line, but as
that scheme was not properly carried forward, it was suffered
to fall to the ground, although be himself had subscribed
one-fourth of the expenses. He was understood to say he
would support the motion.
After a few words from Captain PLUMRIDGE,
Sir S. SPRY said he would withdraw the clause which he
had proposed.
The motion that the Bill be reported that day six months
was then put, and negatived without a division.
enDTgrhoessreedp.ort was then received, and the Bill was ordered to be
UDDESTON AND NECHELS IMPROVEMENT
BILL.
Mr SPOONER moved that the time for receiving the
report from the Committee on the Duddeston and Nechels
Improvement Bill be adjourned until Monday, the 30th inst.—
Agreed to.
NEWPORT AND PONTYPOOL RAILWAY BILL.
Lord SANDON moved the adoption of the report of the
Committee on the Newport and Pontypool Railway Bill, which
was agreed to.
MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. PRINGLE moved the adoption of the report of the
Committee on the Manchester and Leeds Railway.
FACTORIES BILL.

Mr. AGLIONBY presented petitions from the Messrs.
Shaw, of Yorkshire, and other mill-owners, praying for the
adoption of the Ten Hours' Bill.
Captain LAIRD presented petitions from Stockton, Bury,
and Ashton-under-Lyne, praying for the adoption of the Teu
Hours' Bill.
Mr. T. DUN COMBE presented a petition from Hudders.
field in favour of the Ten Hours' Factory Bill.
SCOTCH POOR-LAW BILL.
The HoN. MEMBER also presented petitions from places it
Somersetshire praying for the insertion in the Scotch Poor..
law Amendment Bill of a clause for the relief of the able.
bodied poor.