The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-07-06 00:00:00

RATING OF RAILWAYS.

At the quarter sessions for the county of Chester, held at
Knutsford. yesterday, an appeal by the Grand Junction Rail-
way Company against the assessment for the relief of the
poor of the township of Hartford came on for trial, before
Trafford Trafford. Esq., and a full bench of magistrates. It
was admitted by the counsel on both sides, that the distance
of railway passing through the township of Hartford was one
mile and 470 yards; that the amount of tonnage received by
the railway company for the whole length of line between
Warrington and Birmingham was £1,236 Os. 6d. per mile
which, for the Hartford distance, was £1,528 I3s. 6d.—Mr
Cottingham, in stating the respondent's case, said that the
only point in dispute between the parties was the amount of
the deductions to be made on account of the expenses incur-
red by the company in maintaininisz the railway in a working
and tenantable condition, which he should be able to prove
by the evidence of Mr. George Stubs, the lessee of the rail;
way 'tinning from Newton to Warrington, for the three
years preceding the opening of the Grand Junction line, did
'not exceed, on the average, £55 per mile ; which, deducting
£5O per mile for poor-rate, would leave £1,186 as the sum
per mile on which the railway company were liable to be
assessed. The learned counsel contended, at some length,
that no other deductions ought to be allowed. Mr. Stubs
was then called, and stated, that he was lessee of the Newton
and Warrington Railroad for two years and a half; and that
the expense of repairs did not exceed £55 per mile; and he
believed that the Grand Junction Railway would not cost
more than the Newton and Warrington did at that time.—
in answer to this case,- said,
Pr. Brown,
sel had nut in any way the opposing coun-
applied himself to the question as to
what rent could be obtained, in the event of the railway being
let to a tenant; and that point would bring the case of the
company fairly ender consideration. In the celebrated case
of the Doke of Bridgewater's canal it had been decided-by
the Court of King's Bench,
that the entire produce of the
land was not to be taken as the rental. In his opinion,
canals and railways ought to be olaced in the same position
as that of the occupiers of land; fool in the case to which he
had alluded, the judgment was that the rental should be
assessed on, the receipts, deducting the cost of repairs and
maintaining the canal, and also a tenant's profit. With re-
gard to the expenses of maintainitr the road, he contended
that the £55 named by Mr. Cottinglarn was totally inade-
quate. He should be able by evidence to prove, that the
cost incurred in the engineering department, the police, and
gatekeepers, was £l9 Ils. sd. per mile; that the maintenance
of the railway was £250 per mile; and as another item of
expense, that of walls and fences, which were necessary to
the railway, and cost £l9 6s. per mile, all of which deduc-
tions ought to be admitted, instead of the £55 stated by the
appellants' witness. One other item was the expense or the
collection of the tolls, and in the Oxford canal case £5 per
cent had been allowed. There were twenty-two stations on
the Grand Junction Railway, and he could not suppose for a
moment that the court would consider that charge too much
for the trouble of collecting' the tolls. Several witnesses
were thee called, who proved the facts as stated by Dr.
Brown. After which Mr. Cottingham teplied; and the ma-
gistrates retired for a shalt time. On again.
court, the Chairman swirlthey entering the
were of opinion that the rate
ought to be amended. They would allow per mile for
expenses of repairs, eugneerin
i, t
fences; I:30 18s.
per
mile, . ~a e-k
eepers, police, and
per cent for the collection of
the tonnage; £2a per
7 as.mite,accordingto the custom of the
township in. other cases.—The rate
w
pursuant to this. decision. acftesatesr t haeof-odrieana7nlteeddl
nesday.

At Swedish inns, as well as at privatetahles, they serve the
soup in the middle or dinner, arid Alpine strawberries and
cream after the fish.

Emperial parlianunt.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY.
APPOINTMENT OF MR. TURTON.

Lord WHARNCLIFFEL rose for .the purpose of putting a
question to his noble friend at the head of her Majesty's go-
vernment, in reference to the appointment of Mr. Turton,
who had gone out with the Earl of Durham to Canada. It
would be in the recollection of their lordships that a question
on the subject of a report respecting that gentleman having
gone out with a view to being appointed to some office, was
put.to his noble friend by a noble lord (Lord Winchelsea),
on the 20th of May last, and who was not at present in Lon•
dots; and his noblerfriend (Lord Melbourne) had on that oc-
casion given such an answer as was not only satisfactory to
his noble who had asked the question, but to the public also.
. .

(Hear ) Ile (Lord Warucl;ffe) had a perfect recollection
of what the noble viscount then stated, even in the ipsissima
verba themselves. In answer to the question put by his noble
friend, continued the noble lord, the noble viscount said, " I
have no difficulty in answering the question put to me." The
noble viscount, after a few observations, then went on to say,
" First of all I have no hesitation whatever in declaring, on
the part of her Majesty's government, that no intention
exists of appointing him to any situation; and, next, if that
gentleman is gone nut—as I du not mean to deny he is—that
he has gone out without any appointment, and without any
intention on the part of government, or on the pal t of my
noble friend the Earl of Durham, to appoint him to any
situation whatever." (Hear.) Now after this statement,
my lords, I do confess 1 was surprised to find from an extract
of the Quebec Gazette,which I have seen, that Mr. Turbot),
who did go out with the Earl of Durham, had been appointed
his second secretary, the first secretary being a member of
the legislative council. I am anxious to know how my noble
friend can reconcile this—(hear) —with the statement which
he formerly made to the house, which I have read. It is, at
all events, clear that at the time that Mr. Turton went out,
there was in the mind of Lord Durham an intention of giving
him an appointment. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the cit.-
cutnstance of that gentleman's conduct, upon which their
lordships had formerly exercised an opinion, it sunk into
nothing in comparison with the other more important ques-
tion—viz., the answer given by the first minister of the crown
upon the subject. I know the high feeling of my noble friend
opposite, and I sin fully sensible of the position in which he
is placed; but it is essential that we should be able to rely
upon the facts stated by the ministers. ( Hear, hear.) This
I feel to be a subject of a great deal more importance than
the appointment of a gentleman, who has committed an act
which appeared to this house to be most flagrant. My lords,
my object in asking my noble friend whether he has received
any official notice of that appointment is, that he may set
himself right, for I cannot help thinking there must be some
mistake about the matter,
Viscount MELnouiiNa...--I.....rtainly do not mean to deny
the nren,..— -c the ,i.tement made tr,- Lot, noble frip.-.1 of
what I stated on the occasion alluded to. Indeed, I believe
the words he has quoted are exactly and precisely what I
used. 1 believe that in the despatches which have been re-
ceived fromthe Earl of Durham, there is no mention of the ap-
pointment of Mr. Turton to be his secretary; but there is no
doubt whatever, from the Quebec Gazette, that the appoint-
ment has taken place I can only say that I have seen the
appointment in that Gazette with very great concern, (hear,
hear), and I beg to assure your lordships, that at the time I
made that statement alluded to by my noble friend to the
house, I had no reason to expect that any such appointment
would have taken place. (Hear, hear.)
Lord Wit ARNCLI I' FE expressed his satisfaction at the an-
swer given by his noble friend, and that he was very glad
that lie had put the question to him.
Lord BROUGH A NI said that as he held the great seals when

the case of Mr. Turton was before the house, and as he was
one who assisted in that decision, he felt he might offer a few
words to their lordships, and they should be but few, on the
present occasion. He had no doubt whatever when the noble
viscount made the statement to the house that he believed in
its accuracy. (Hear.) With regard to the case of Mr. Tur-

ton, it was to be remembered that it was that of a wife seek-
ing to be divorced from her husband, on the ground of
adultery with her own sister. This was undoubtedly a very
bad case, the more especially as there was seduction con-
nected with it, an offence which he looked upon as very
serious. The noble and learned lord than made some few
observations, indistinctly heard in the gallery, in the course
of which he adverted to the state of the law, as it then existed,
with respect to a man's being then able to marry his wife's
sister, which was now contrary to the law. Now, there were
persons who looked upon this law as not being the law of God,
but the law of the church only; and, therefore, in that light,
a marriage solemnised between parties so circumstanced,
wss not to be branded as an offence. Many persons had
married the sisters of their wives without being considered
as committing so pave an offence as the law now imputed to
them. But it ought to be recollected that the law was not al-
tered until three years after Mr. Turton's case was under
consideration. The late Mr. Edgworth married two sisters.
There were noble persons in that house who had done the
same; they and their marriages were held valid. He hoped,
however, he should not be mistaken, as he was not offering
any thing in extenuation of the crime of seduction, which he
abhorred—nor of adultery, which was prohibited by the laws
of God; but what he wished to do was, to mitigate the cen-
sure which had been passed upon that gentleman. Let it be
likewise borne in mind, that Mr. Turton was a most en-

ightened member of his profession, and had sacrificed a

pi:Ofessional income of £2,600, as couusel for the subjects of
her Majesty in Bengal, in order to go out with Lord Durham.
The Bishop of LONDON could not hear the speech of the
noble and learned lord without protesting against the doctrine
which he had laid down. Were their lordships and the
country to be told that the law of marriages was to be held
less sacred because it was thought by some not to be binding,
or that the law of the church was less sacred than the law of
the land ? 1t was for the interest of society, and was likely
to lead to a better observance of morality and virtue, that

lie laws which now existed should be maintained. As a mem.

her of the church, therefore, he could not sit silent and hear
the doctrine of the noble and learned lord, and he begged to
protest strongly against it.

Lord BROt7jll/54 denied that he had defended adultery
and he maintained that his doctrine was the same in kind
differing only iii de!,ree, from that of the right rev. prelate.
In the course of his first observations he.had thrice stated hii

opinions as regarded that offence, and he would now repeat
them, for the fourth time, in order that they might be under-
stood. 'Lie was the more surprised at the necessity of his doing
so, in order that one so acute as.. the right rev. prelate might
comprehend him; hut he supposed that the right rev. prelate
was preparing his protest instead of hearing him out. ( Hear.)
So much for the very invidiotis &ensure which the right rev.
prelate had cast upon him. He (Lord Brougham) distinctly
expressed his, ,abhorrence at the crime of adultery, and he
had also expressed, in strong terms, his abhorrence of the
crime of seduction,

The Bishop of LotinoN, said he would not occupy their
lordships many moments, but he was not. sorry that he had
occasioned the noble and learned lord to address the house a
second time, for the commentary, as in other instances, had
proved much better to.cliinprehend than the text. He cer-
tainly did understand the niphle and learned lord in the way
he had before named, and that be bad justified such a pro-
ceeding—no, no. The noble and learned lord had, however,
in very nervous and perspicuous language, now explained
what hi, opinions were. He did not think that he had taken
any time to prepare his protest, for he immediately rose to
express his dissent from that doctrine; neither dui he think
he ought to be considered as having acted in an invidious
manner, for he really thought that the noble and learned

lord's doctrine tended to weaken morality. Ile hoped that
nothing which had occurred would occasion any difference
between them—(cries of "bear," from Lord Brougham;) but
he felt, as a member of the church, that he was bound to pro-
test againt what be bad understood to be the doctrine laid
down by the noble and learned lord.

Lord'BrtouGnAm having repeated what he had before said
with respect to his abhorrence of adultery, begged to assure
the right rev. prelate that what had transpired would make
no difference with regard to the feelings of respect which he
entertained towards him.

CORN LAWS.

Earl FurzwiLLlA al presented a petition from Glasgow,
against the corn law, which was read at length, and which
his lordship supported.
It called forth an extended conversation, after which, their
lordships adjourned.