tbatts anti Vrocutrings in Varliantent.

LEGISLATION FOR RAILWAYS.

On the question of the second reading of the Railways Bill, in the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. GISBORNE, as a member of the Committee on Railways, on the report of which the bill professed to be founded, protested against proceeding with such an important measure without further consideration. No one had yet had time to digest the MSS of evidence, not published till the end of June ; and it would be highly inexpedient to pass a measure founded on such a mass of con- flicting testimony at a period so close upon the end of the session. He moved that the order of the day be discharged. Mr. C. RUSSELL also opposed the bill ; the enactments of which had taken the Railway Companies by surprise. They had reason to believe that their concurrence would have been sought before the bill was in- troduced : but they had not been suffered even to know the nature of the evidence taken before the Committee until it was printed. They felt that they had not been fairly heard ; and the bill had created the greatest alarm among all those connected with railway property. On behalf of a body of men representing from eighty to a hundred millions of capital, he entreated the House to give them further time for con- sidering a measure that so deeply affected their interests. The immense patronage which the bill would confer on the Government rendered it important in a political sense : on that account alone it ought not to be hurried through the House.

Mr. GLADSTONE protested against the refusal to entertain the bill before any explanation had been given of its provisions. Mr. HAWES thought the House was not in a condition to proceed with the bill, as no sufficient time had been given to read the evidence. He complained that the measure was framed in opposition to the prin- ciple on which Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone had led the House to believe it would be founded—that it would not interfere with any existing railway company. Mr. COLQUHOUN opposed the bill as a dangerous precedent of inter- ference with private boards of management. Mr. H. HIEDE urged the necessity of more time for deliberation.

Mr. WALLACE charged the Railway Companies with endeavouring to swamp the measure because it would interfere with their pecuniary profits, and not on account of its real merits.

Mr. LABOUCHERE, as one of the members of the Committee on whose recommendation the bill was founded, urged the propriety of at least discussing its principles, in order that those recommendations which bad been stigmatized as unjust and inequitable might be thoroughly investigated. He conceived that nothing could be unjust to the Railway Companies which was for the real advantage of the public, as he con- ceived their interests were united. As to the objection of the want of time to consider the measure, the conduct of the Railway Companies was a sufficient answer— He held in his hand a paper emanating from Railway Companies, professing to represent the opinions of twenty-nine of the principal Railway Companies in this country ; and he found that gentlemen connected with these companies bad had sufficient time to consider the bill and pronounce the most unqualified disapprobation of the principle and almost everything in the bill.

Sir ROBERT PEEL animadverted very pointedly on the attempt made by the railway interest in the House of Commons to prevent the Go- vernment from explaining a measure brought forward solely for the public advantage. The railway monopoly, he knew, was a very strong one ; but he thought they were going too far—that they ought to hus- band their strength in the House, and not show themselves so deter- mined to strike without hearing. They would not trust themselves to vote even on the merits: they would not hear his right honourable friend, or permit their prejudices or erroneous impressions to be removed by his statement, but would resort to the course of moving the other orders of the day, in order that his right honourable friend might not have an opportunity of explaining a public measure brought in to protect public interests. 'What motive could the Government have in offend- ing a powerful interest ? The Government could have no other desire than to provide for the public welfare in this matter : therefore he trusted the House would not sanction so unfair a proceeding as that of endeavouring to prevent its discussion. There was now a great stimulus to railway speculation ; for in the present session sixty new bills had been brought in, and in the next session probably an equal number would be introduced. Now, therefore, was the period for the House of Commons to determine whether there should be any new re- gulations—whether they would permit any further time to elapse and allow these monopolies to be fortified without an opportunity for Parliament to con- sider whether, as to new railways, there should be any proceedings taken with respect to undue exactions. Sir Robert also alluded to the objectionable prac- tice of canvassing Members on these bills. The practice had been suppressed on private bills, but it was now actively carried on to oppose the bill for regu- lating railways : and be hoped that such a course would be discontinued. Mr. GISBORNE having consented to withdraw his amendment, Mr. GLADSTONE explained the provisions of the bill ; and stated the reasons which bad induced the Government to bring forward the bill, and the position in which they stood. This was a measure supported by reason alone, without the ordinary ad- juncts by which on many questions they could appeal to the sympathies of

their supporters or to the passions of the people; whilst, on the other hand, the opposition to the measure had been urged on by the active stimulus of pri- vi intdeitt,tsiipported by a most powerful body both in and out of Parlia-

Ment hje-appealed to the previous conduct of the Railway-department of the Board of Trade as testimony of the favour with which railway interests had been considered.' NY hat, indeed, had been the charges against the Board when the Committee of inquiry was appointed P Four Railway Directors were at first named for the Committee ; but he had been so taunted with evident par- tiality to the Railway Companies that he had been compelled to withdraw two of those names. The Committee was composed of members and directors of Railway Companies, and of those who were conversant with railway affairs; yet all, with the exception of the Member for Reading, were in favour of an interference to the full as extensive as that proposed in this bill. It was an entire perversion of language to say that the evidence on the Com- mittee had been ex parte ; for, with the exception of two, ten of the twelve witnesses examined on the general question were Railway-directors. The bill, founded on the recommendations of the Committee, contained forty clauses; about twenty-five of them relating to purchase and revision. Several clauses in the bill referred to the accommodation of third-class passengers. The Com- mittee had been strongly impressed with the conviction that the case of the third-class passengers by railway-trains was becoming a national question of some importance. Though the Government were greatly averse to any general interference with the management of railways, they did think it wise and proper—if it could be done without any breach of public faith—to make some provision whereby poor persons, who were frequently least able to bear ex- posure to the weather, and who were frequently obliged, for the sake of their livelihood, to proceed from one part of the country. to another, should be enabled to travel at the charge of ld. per mile, and without such exposure to the severity of the weather as, in many cases, imposed upon them great per- sonal suffering. On this ground, clauses bad been introduced into the present bill, which, so far as they went, were of the nature of interference. There were several clauses in the bill relating to the use of railways for the public service— as for the conveyance of troops and others relating to electrical telegraphs. There were also three clauses relative to loan-notes ; and others which it was unnecessary for him to refer to particularly. The great question he was about to discuss was, that of option of purchase on the part of the Government. Mr. Gladstone then defended at great length that part of the measure referring to the purchase of railways by the Government ; on which subject much mis- representation had been made. All the Members of the Committee, with the exception of the Member for Reading, who objected to any interference with railways whatever, concurred that the power of purchase should be given, though they differed as to the terms. It had been falsely assumed that the bill enabled Government to purchase the existing interest in any railway company : now, they could not make such a purchase without money, and for that money they must make a formal application to Parliament. The bill had nothing to do with the purchase or revision of railway companies already in operation - but it was possible that fifteen years hence circumstances might arise which would render it wise and politic for the Government to undertake such a purchase and revision. Adverting to advantages to the public that might arise from the working of railways by the Government, he adduced the comparative cheapness of railway-fares in Belgium, where the railways are under the control of the Government. At present, between five and six millions was paid annually for conveyance by railway in this country, and it was not extravagant to suppose that in twenty years the amount would be increased to fifteen millions: if, therefore, it could be proved that a large reduction of fares might under one general management be made without much reduction of the receipts, it would become a question whether the public interest would not require the Government to interfere and purchase the railroads. The right to purchase did not extend to the existing companies: yet those companies were the parties most opposed to the bill; and they founded their opposition on the ground that if this bill passed they would be included within its scope and drawn within its operation. He did not think those parties were in so defenceless a state as to have their interests sacrificed unjustly to the will of Parliament, with whom alone any agreement of the kind would depend. It was their own conduct only that could prejudice their case with the public; for in Parliament their interests were amply represented. He believed he was addressing a majority of railway-proprietors. He himself was a proprietor; so were his family—he believed, indeed, there was no family in the kingdom more deeply interested in railroads than his own : consequently he was not likely to advocate a measure that would be ruinous to railway-pro- prietors. The influence of railway property was rapidly increasing, and there was no fear of its interests being sacrificed. At the same time, this increase of power rendered it the more necessary to legislate without delay, otherwise it might become so strengthened as to be able to resist any interference of the Legislature. Mr. Gladstone next combated the objection that had been raised on the score of want of time to consider the evidence. He stated that the Third Report of the Committee, on which the main features of the bill rested, had been published three months ; and the measure had been well discussed throughout the country. With respect to the evidence, he did not think it essential to the consideration of the bill, which was based on general principles. The railway-proprietors had, indeed, no pretext for saying they had been taken by surprise : the only party that had any pretext for saying it was taken by surprise was the Government, at the stout opposition so suddenly sprung up against the measure. The cause of that opposition Mr. Gladstone attributed to the Fifth Report of the Committee, recently delivered, which recommended the cheapening of law-proceedings, and the construction of a model railway- hill by which the law-charges might be reduced. The opposition, in fact, pro- ceeded from the solicitors and law-agents ; who apprehended that by simplifying the passing of railway-bills their costs would be diminished. The necessity of reform in the law-machinery of passing railway-bills was evidenced by the fact that the costs in some instances amounted to 1,8001. per mile—a tax for the benefit of no one but the lawyers. Mr. Gladstone then answered the objection that the bill would be a "shock to railway property." So far from the mea- sures contemplated having had a deteriorating effect on existing lines, the shares had been rising since this "mischievous project" had been proposed. Even so late as Monday last, a most lugubrious-looking body of men, most judiciously disposed, with railway-directors and other influential persons in front, whilst agents and solicitors brought up the rear, waited upon his right honourable friend. That deputation received a fair intimation that it was the intention of the Government to press this measure as strongly as possible upon Parliament: they published doleful accounts of the inter- view—held meetings—protested against the injustice, cruelty, and im- policy of the measure but, despite all that, the shares of the Great Western were 51. higher now than they were then. (Cheers and laughter.) Neither bad the new railway projects been checked by the measure ; for since the Committee's Report was published, in April, fifteen new railway companies had been started, involving an outlay of about twenty millions. Mr. Gladstone took credit for the manner in which the Government had brought forward the bill, and contrasted it with the conduct of its opponents. The Government had not attempted to win favour for this measure by joining in the popular clamour against railway-management; they had not held out the promise of wonderful or magical results: they had been content to hold out this one simple, plain, and most necessary provision for the future—that Parliament, instead of having its hands tied and fettered as they were now, should have them free to exercise them as they pleased for the public good. The Govern- ment had done that, and had done so at the same time in such a manner as to disarm the cry of the destruction of railway-property. What had the other party done ? They had joined in an opposition to the bill, and had even en- deavoured to stifle discussion. Believing the propositions of the Committee to be so moderate, he might, nevertheless, a few weeks ago have been tempted to say that, though very inconvenient, he might postpone the bill till next session; but now, after the opposition which had arisen—after what he had seen—after the dates and facts which he had given—after the history of the opposition which he had traced—after the misrepresentations which he had shown to have been propagated with reference to the whole nature of the bill, and the powers which had been called into requisition for its overthrow—after all that, be asked the House whether it was now to be deluded into acquiescing in a post- ponement of the bill? He was convinced that the measure, so far from being violent or extreme in its character, was a measure recommended by its temper- ance and its moderation ; and, feeling that he had right and justice on his side, he did not hesitate to say, though the Railway cause was powerful, that it had not mounted so high, or Parliament sunk so low, as that, at their bidding, the House of Commons should refuse its sanction to the bill (Cheers.) Mr. ENTWISLE, one of " the lugubrious deputation," objected to the bill, not on account of its effect on new companies, but on those already established.

At any future time, the Government would have nothing to do but come to Parliament for money, and put an end to all rivalry, and interfere with rail- ways that were most successful. The deputation had urged that the Govern- ment should either take the whole system of railways under their control, or not interfere with their management. The third-class trains, at the prices proposed, would not remunerate for the conveyance ; and many of those who were most urgent for third-class trains on pretence of benefiting the labouring- classes, were the persons to avail themselves of the cheaper conveyance.

Colonel SIBTHORP thanked the President of the Board of Trade for this bill, as it would correct many of the evils complained of. He did not travel by railroads : he hated the very name of railroads, as he bated the name of Commissioners—( Great laughter)—because he thought them dangerous and delusive speculations. Mr. LauoucEettE contended that the interference of the Government in the management of railroads was justified by the peculiar character of those undertakings, which rendered them unlike ordinary commercial or manufacturing speculations. It would require a very strong case to justify the Government in purchasing a railway ; but such a power might be necessary as an alternative ; and he did not think the management of railways by the Government would be so diffi- cult a matter as was generally supposed. This measure, he apprehended, would, after all, he brought more practically into use in the way of revising fares and restraining profits than in that of purchasing railways. Lord SaNnox and Mr. CARDWELL supported the bill. Mr. MARK PHILLIPS objected to the principle of purchasing railways by the Government, as it would be a prolific source of jobbing. Many of the clauses of the bill he approved ; and had not the option of pur- chase formed a main provision, he should have supported it as a whole. Mr. PARKER also opposed that part of the measure which recognized the right to purchase.

Mr. SEEM objected to the bill, that it would operate as a check to railway enterprise in Ireland.

Mr. F. BARING considered the session too far advanced to give due consideration to so important a measure. Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the debate, and divided the House—For the adjournment, 53 ; against it, 173. Mr. BRIGHT then moved the adjournment of the House. Sir ROBERT PEEL protested against the use, indefensible on such an occasion, of the privilege of the minority to defeat the majority by motions for adjourn- ment. He would not, however, sit and contest such motions. After some conversation, it was arranged that the debate should be adjourned till Thursday.

The debate on Thursday was opened by Mr. BRIGHT ; who objected to the principle of purchase, and contended that the railways conducted by private companies are better managed than they could be under Go- vernment control.

The average profits of railways did not probably exceed five per cent: con- sequently there was no ground for interference on the score that their fares were exorbitant. The public would be the first to regret that Government bad the management of railways; for the conveyance of letters and the mail- packets afforded little hope of superior management of railways if the Govern- ment had the control. The great patronage which the transfer of manage- ment would bestow on the Government, and its probable influence on the elections of Members of Parliament, ought also to be seriously considered. Lord SEYMOUR, as a member of the Railway Committee, supported the principle of interference ; and maintained that the only effectual way by which the power of revision could be secured, was to grant the op- tion of purchase to the Government.

Mr. BERNAL considered the Government were taking a most dan- gerous step by carrying the principle of centralization to the manage- ment of railways. He defended the Railway Companies from the charge of extortion ; and as regarded the accommodation they afforded, be thought no class had so much cause to be thankful to them as the poor people who were formerly compelled to travel outside the heavy stage-coaches.

Mr. COLQIIHOUN defended the railway interest and the railway-agents from the charge of being guided solely by pecuniary considerations in their opposition to this bill. The option of purchase by the Govern- ment which it involved was pregnant with the worst consequences, and ought not to be granted without great deliberation. That the purchase could not be made without the sanction of Parliament, was a very ineffectual check on the Government ; for if this bill were passed, sanctioning such an application for money, the Minister had only to come down on a Supplyenight and tell his supporters that the question was one on which the Government staked its existence, and the motion would be carried of course. The President of the Board of Trade said he would sooner hear the Gracchi talk of sedition than railway proprietors talk of competition : but he would sooner hear the homilies which Robespierre used to deliver on reli- gion than the Government proposing schemes to take mercantile enterprises into their own hands. The experiment had been tried over and over again ; and, from the King of Holland, who turned sugar-dealer, to our own Govern- ment, it bad only proved this, that Governments had no business to interfere in mercantile concerns. Mr. Colquhoun remarked on the different circum- stances under which the Continental railways and those of this country had been constructed. Those in Belgium cost 17,000!. per mile, whilst the Eng- lish railways cost 32,000/. on the average. The cost in the United States of America was only 4,000/. a mile ; yet our fares on goods and passengers were lower than those in America.

Mr. WALLACE insisted on the necessity of Government interference for the protection of the poorer classes from exorbitant charges and in- convenient arrangements. He read a statement of the charges on dif- ferent railways to third-class passengers, for the purpose of showing that the charge of one farthing a mile, made on the Glasgow and Greenock Railway, would be remunerative. Many of the other rail- ways also derived a profit from carrying passengers at less than one penny a mile.

Mr. C. BULLER objected to the bill, as an undue interference with private enterprise, and as a measure that would greatly increase the Government patronage, without any prospect of ultimate advantage. Formerly he had been of opinion that railways should be placed under the control of the Government ; but the progress of events had caused him to change his mind: he now thought that no system of management by the Go- vernment would give the public so many facilities of speedy conveyance as were afforded by the Railway Companies. He protested against the spirit of invective against the opponents of the bill, manifested by Mr. Gladstone, and the tone of self-laudation in which he indulged. The present system of rail- way-management was, no doubt, open to much objection ; but would the Go- vernment management be less so ? Past experience in those matters of which the Government bad the superintendence gave little hope of a better result. He instanced the Post-office and the Admiralty. The old mail-coaches were the worst coaches on the road, and the dearest; nor was any arrangement made in them for the convenience of the poorer class of passengers. The Government packets were also far worse than those of private companies; and the Admi- ralty had always been the last to adopt the improvements of science. He ob- jected to the bill, not only because it was an interference with private property, but on account of its being opposed to the principle on which all the public works in this country had been conducted, and under which system they had been so prosperous. lie contrasted the efficiency of such undertakings in this country with similar ones on the Continent, which were under Government control. The public roads, the posting system, the lighting of towns, the canals, the buoying and lighting of the coast—all these matters were managed by private enterprise in England, and were far better arranged than in France or other countries, where the Government undertook them. All her Ma- jesty's recent Governments had had a great itch to meddle with such matters: therefore he was not surprised that the ex-President of the Board of Trade united with the present President of the same Board in support of this meddling with the affairs of her Majesty's subjects. They seemed to think that nothing could be conducted well except through the medium of an Assistant-Commis- sioner from Somerset House or from Downing Street. Where was this inter- ference to end ? Before long, he supposed, it would be thought impossible for the people to conduct any of their affairs at all ; and we should at last have an As- sistant-Commissioner appointed to cut our meat for us. (Cheers and laughter.) With respect to the measure itself, be thought it calculated to alarm all railway- proprietors of existing lines ; for the 38th clause gave the Government power to secure the control of existing railways, since it empowered the Board of Trade to make agreements with the majority of the proprietors, which were to be binding on the rest, for placing the railways under Government controL He was glad to find that the cheap conveyance of the poor was to be consi- dered ; but he objected to the manner in which it was to be effected by cheapen- ing the fares at the cost of the proprietors of railway's. He should like to ask the Home Secretary, who was Jack Cade now ? Those who proposed the limi- tations of labour in the Factories Bill did not say that the master should pay the same wages as before. The charge against Jack Cade was, that he wished to cheapen the price of commodities—that lie wished to lower the price of the quartern loaf and of the barrel of beer ; and now the Government, which raised the cry of Jack Cade against those who wished to limit the hours of labour, came forward and proposed to cheapen the rate of conveyance at the cost of the proprietors of railways. Another objection to the bill was that it tended to check improvements in the mode of locomotion. The atmospheric principle had just been introduced, and was calculated to produce important changes in the means of conveyance: but this interference of the Government would pat a stop to the introduction of such improvements, because the existing railways could not apply to Parliament for the requisite powers without bringing them- selves within the operation of this bill.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY supported the second reading, on the assump- tion that the object of the clauses in this bill was not to enact any plan, but to pledge Parliament to the railways that such should be the utmost extent to which they would be dealt with. [Mr. GLADSTONE was ob- served to cheer this.]

Mr. Grisitoluee commented severely on the speech with which Mr. Gladstone introduced the bill.

The bill came from the quarter of arithmetic, statistics, and dull details; but the speech with which it was introduced was as " slashing" and "punishing " to all opponents as if it had come from the Colonial Office. He considered the measure as paltry in its practical operation, though professing great things : it was but a little abortion compared with the great scheme with which Mr. Gladstone bad entered the Committee. He went into the Committee with this profession, that the principle of competition would do nothing for the pro- tection of the public ; and he produced what he called " a hypothetical outline of considerations which might be given to and asked from railway companies, as equivalents in any amicable arrangement." The result, however, was, that the " hypothetical outline " of the right honourable gentleman was cut down in all its particulars, and he was obliged altogether to abandon it. Not being willing, however, to come out of the Committee without some offspring, he adopted this smaller measure. Mr. Gisborne analysed the bill; the provisions of which, he contended, would be wholly inoperative. As to the revision of fares, it was evident the Railway Companies would readily contrive to keep their profits below the point of interference, not by lowering the fares, but by doing, as was now done by the Birmingham and London Railway, by excluding the least agreeable and convenient part of their traffic. That railway now excluded coals and minerals from their traffic, otherwise their profits would be higher. He asked how would the Government deal with such a company ?

Lord STANLEY—" Purchase it." ("Hear, hear !") Mr. GISBORNE did not think there was any man who should be suffered to walk alone that believed in the practicability of buying up these railways— forty miles at Exeter and sixty miles at York—and managing them by a Government Board in London. It was altogether a most impracticable measure. The Railway Directors knew very well it was all gammon. Lord STANLEY—" Why, then, do they oppose the bill ? " Mr. GISBORNE said, the opposition arose from the objection to interference. It had been shown by Mr. "Wallace, that the present fares by the third-class trains did not average one penny per mile; so that, after all, the advantage to be derived by this paltry measure, which had excited the animosity of all the Railway Companies, was to secure coverings for the third-class trains ! He asked, would the House sanction such objectionable principles as this bill em- bodied, for so small a benefit. Sir ROBERT PEEL twitted Mr. Gisborne with his manner of opposing the bill,—first wishing to stop it without discussion • then objecting to the eloquence of Mr. Gladstone, whilst he himself took the opportunity of making a speech full of the figures of rhetoric. Sir Robert, adverting to the principles of the bill, and the necessity for giv- ing the Government the power to interfere in the regulation of railways, com- plimented the present Companies for their general excellent arrangements. Nevertheless, he thought such important works, in the management of which the public interests were so deeply involved, ought not to be left entirely with- out control. The power of purchase he regarded as a measure to he only re- sorted to in extreme cases, when all other measures to effect an arrangement failed. He could not deprecate too strongly the exercise on the part of Go- vernment of the power of purchase. All that was sought to be attained by the introduction of such a power into the bill was, that it should operate as a check upon the abuse of the monopolies granted to the Railway Companies.

Mr. WARD observed, that if it was understood that the bill was merely meant to give a dormant power to purchase, to be exercised only in extreme cases, the alarm which it excited would be allayed.

Mr. GLADSTONE expressed his entire adherence to the exposition which had been given by Sir Robert Peel of the intended operation of this bill.

Mr. HAWES and Mr. Mum% shortly stated their objections to the bill, amidst calls for a division. The House then divided—For the se- cond reading, 186 ; against it, 98 ; Ministerial majority, 88.

Objection was made to the vote of Mr. Russell, because he has a pe- cuniary interest as a proprietor and chairman of the Great Western Railway : but the objection was not pressed. The bill was ordered to be committed on Saturday.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.

The House of Commons met at twelve o'clock on Wednesday, for the purpose of going into Committee on the two bills for regulating Joint- stock Companies.

Mr. GLADSTONE stated, that in consequence of the desire expressed, when the bill for regulating Joint-stock Companies was last discussed, to have its provisions extended to Scotland and Ireland, he proposed to introduce a clause, on bringing up the report, for extending its opera- tion to Ireland : there were special reasons which would prevent its extension to Scotland.

The LORD-ADVOCATE explained, that in the present state of the law in Scotland it would cause great confusion to make the bill applicable to that country.

An amendment having been proposed by Mr. R. Howson, to insert " railway companies" after " banking companies," Mr. GLADSTONE stated the course he intended to pursue with regard to railways. He would associate railway companies with those which, by the rules of the House, were called companies of the second class—that is, generally, companies for the construction of public works. He would propose that all such coin- panics should have at first a provisional, and then within a fixed time a com- plete registration. One object of the bill was to prevent a jobbing and fraudu- lent transfer of shares before the complete registration ; but this would not in some cases preclude parties from transferring certificates of shares before their application to Parliament was complete.

The bill went through Committee pro furma. The Joint-stock Com- panies Remedies at Law and in Equity Bill was also committed ; and all the clauses were agreed to. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that the main object of this bill was to extend the law of bankruptcy to Joint-stock Companies.

PROTECTION OF GAMING ON THE TURF.

The House of Commons was occupied for the greater part of Wed- nesday night with the bill for suspending the actions brought against parties for betting at horse-races. The debate was chiefly remarkable for the attempts made by Members connected with the turf to clear themselves from the imputations directed against them by Baron Alder- son during the late trial on the "Running Rein" case.

The proceedings commenced with a discussion on the motion of Mr. CHRISTIE, that Mr. Russell, the plaintiff in the suspended actions, be heard by counsel against the bill. This was objected to by the CHAN- CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, on the ground that Russell was not the real plaintiff. On a division, the motion was rejected, by 30 to 14.

When the numbers were reported by the Tellers, during the absence of strangers, an objection was taken to the vote of Lord George Ben- thick, on the ground that he is a defendant in some of the actions -which are about to be suspended by the bill. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK stated, that it was not his intention to take advantage of the provisions of the bill in bar of such actions : the motion was therefore withdrawn. A similar objection was taken to the vote of Mr. Gregory, the Member for Dublin : but he informed the House that he had not been served with any process in the actions. The Speaker then reported the numbers on the division.

Mr. CHRISTIE next moved that the bill be committed that day six months. He alluded very pointedly to the evidence given by Lord George Bentinck during a late trial, as exhibiting the characters of the persons he was in the habit of associating with.

Mr. M. GIBSON spoke strongly against the bill ; which be charac- terized as a gross case of class-legislation. He also charged the Go- vernment with having acted in a vacillating manner on the subject, if not unfairly.

Lord STANLEY vindicated the Government, and declared they had used no influence whatever to support the bill. Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained, that though the Government thought the subject was one requiring a general measure for its amendment, the period of the session was too late to propose it this year. He supported this continuance of the suspension-bill till the matter could be dealt with in a comprehensive form.

Captain BERKELEY defended himself from the imputation of being a party to the bill.

Ile had originally opposed it, and refused to support any bill which should relieve persona from the penalties they bad incurred, who by the magnitude of their gambling transactions had brought horse-racing into Disgrace. For himself, he would say he would rather that a son of his should go to the common hazard- table than be induced to take up the art of " book-making," and enter into all the chicanery and dirty work that must ensue to those who meddled with such transactions. Ile believed horse-racing was essential to the breed of our horses, and was a great good to the country : but he was quite sure that the excessive gambling on the turf bad brought it into disrepute, and had been the cause of those villanous transactions which had lately been brought to light ; and as long as that system was continued, he for one would not give his vote in that House to relieve persona from the liabilities they had incurred. Colonel PEEL repudiated the charge that he had " associated and betted with blackguards."

He could say that he had never seen any of the parties referred to in the late case until they entered the court ; and as to their meeting him in a public place, he could as soon prevent that as their walking over Westminster Bridge. It was because Lord George Bentiock bad not mixed himself up with those parties—because he did not associate with them—because be had been exerting himself with an ability only equal to his success—that he had been made the subject of a most unfair and unjustifiable attack. Colonel Peel reprobated the course pursued in the Committee by Mr. Gibson; who had constant COM- munieation with Russell, and put questions at his instigation.

Mr. GIBBON denied that he had any intention to favour these actions: his only object had been to elicit truth.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCK attacked Mr. Gibson with great warmth, and repudiated the charge that the bill was a piece of class-legislation. His firm belief was, if those qui tam actions bad not affected persons of high station no objection whatever would have been made to the bill. He could cite no fewer than twenty-three cases in which the precedent had been esta- blished where such persons were concerned as " manufacturers of turpentine," " boilers of pitch and tar," " proprietors, publishers, and editors of newspapers," " woollen-manufacturers," " players, coal-fitters, joint-stock companies "; and the bills in all these cases passed without a single division. He retorted on Mr. Gibson the charge of associating with blackguards; and characterized the parties he had mixed himself up with in opposing this bill as self-convicted felons, and persons who bad " robbed their own uncle's hell." After more angry conversation —during which Mr. B. Escorr and Mr. HATTER took occasion to vindicate the conduct of Mr. Gibson on the Committee,—the House divided ; when Mr. Christie's amendment was rejected, by 45 to 9. The bill was then committed.

When the report was brought up on Thursday, several explanations took place between Mr. CHRISTIE, Mr. GOULBURN, and Mr. MILNER GIBsoN, respecting words used in the debate of the preceding night. Lord HOWICK moved an amendment so as to limit the present bill to a mere continuance-bill, without giving any extension to the protec- tion already afforded. He wished to put down heavy betting at horse-races, not to protect the bets made at them ; and in the same way as the right honourable gentleman put down the thimble-rig gambling of the poor, also to put down the gambhng at horse-races.

Lord PALMERSTON ridiculed this proposition ; and said it was the opinion of the Committee that legislation could not be advantageously brought to bear against betting on the turf. What did his noble friend mean by "heavy betting? " What was the mi- nimum of his "heavy betting? " He could hardly think that a wager of 101. could be called heavy betting ; yet if the noble Lord were to succeed in his amendment, and continue the penalty, it could be applied to any person staking down so inconsiderable a sum. If they wished to enact sumptuary laws on the subject of betting, let them have a graduated scale—a sliding scale—of what could be called heavy betting. In this case, at least, he was not for a fixed duty. (Laughter.) It had been objected to the bill that it was founded on a system of class-legislation : Lord Palmerston admitted that it was for the protection of a class—for the protection of honest men against thieves.

The amendments were withdrawn and the bill was ordered for a third reading on Friday.

SEES OF ST. ASAPII AND BANGOR.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, the Earl of Powis withdrew the bill for repealing the union of the Sees of Bangor and St. Asaph ; as he had ascertained that the consent of the Crown would not be given. He was satisfied, however, that the matter would not rest as it was.

He believed that during the whole period the House of Hanover was on the throne there was no precedent to be found for such a course as had been adopted- in this case. There was no measure that Parliament had expressed a wish further to consider in which the Crown had introduced its authority to prevent that further consideration of the matter.

The Bishop of SALISBURY said, the Duke of Wellington had been greatly mistaken in asserting that the bill, if passed, would prevent the establishment of a Bishop of Manchester ; and that it would interfere with the appointments of Archdeacons, and also the augmentations of the benefices of parochial clergy.

By the existing law, not one shilling of the funds proposed by the bill to preserve the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph, could be appropriated to the aug- mentation of parochial benefices in Wales : therefore the passing of this bill could not interfere with such augmentation.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, there was no mistake.

He bad read the reports of the Commissioners and the Act of Parliament ; and he repeated, that the bill would affect the whole superstructure of the power to carry out the necessary arrangements under the existing law, and would tend to destroy all the machinery which had been provided for carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners. As to the use he had made of the prerogative of the Crown in this case, the Duke said he had not stopped the discussion of the bill; he had only advised its withdrawal, as it was not usual to proceed with such a measure when the consent of the Crown was not signified. Lord LYTTELTON complained of the refusal of the consent of the Crown to the mere discussion of the bill.

Lord BROUGHAM, "as a constitutional lawyer," denied the authority of the Crown to stop the discussion of any measure in either House of Parliament. Lord Lyttelton was in a mistake as to what had occurred.

The Committee reported that this bill was one of a class of bills with respect to which it was the usage to give the consent of the Crown to the consideration before the bill passed into a law ; but in the second resolution it was stated that the consent of the Crown was given at different stages of such bills, and was not necessary at any one particular stage. It was of the highest import- ance to the privileges of the Parliament, and their constitutional power and freedom, that this matter should be rightly understood. He would maintain that there was no necessity, ou the part of either House of Parliament, to ob- tain the previous leave and permission of the Sovereign in order that they might discuss any bill. The refusal of the consent of the Crown to the dis- cussion of a bill was a warning, as it were—a polite and courteous communi- cation between the Sovereign, the guardian of the privileges of the Crown, and the two Houses of Parliament—that if they passed a certain bill it would not receive the Royal assent : and it would be evident to their Lordships, that there must be many excellent reasons for a custom which had so great an effect in preventing any unpleasant collision, by withdrawing the Royal consent to the discussion of the measure. It did not, however, follow, that because this had been the custom of Parliament, either House of Parliament had been there- fore bound by it ; for both Houses had the undoubted right to discuss any measure that was brought before them. As to the point whether the Lord Chancellor was bound to put the question on a bill to which the consent of the Crown had not been conceded, be affirmed distinctly, from analogy of the case of the S,,eaker of the House of Commons, that the Lord Chancellor was bound to put any question not prohibited by statute, which any Members proposed and seconded.

The Earl Of MOUNT-EDGECOMBE, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, and Lord CAMPBELL, spoke against the course that had been pursued. The bill was then withdrawn.

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF SUDBURY.

The House of Commons sat at twelve o'clock on Tuesday, to hear the arguments of counsel against the bill for disfranchising the borough

of Sudbury. Mr. M. D. Hill was heard on behalf of the electors. He contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove general bribery : only fourteen out of six hundred electors had been proved to have been bribed ; and the bill rested altogether on the assumption that certain statements in the report of the Commissioners were true. Counsel having withdrawn,

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that nothing had been stated to induce the House to 'withdraw the bill. This was the third bill of dis- franchisement against the borough of Sudbury ; and the system of bribery adopted there was on a scale that included the great majority of the electors. He stated the modus operandi from the evidence in the case of Mr. Dyce Sombre.

The voter on giving his name got one sovereign : afterwards he went to a private room, occupied by an unknown stranger, and there got two sovereigns, an order to insure his good behaviour:" he then went to the hustings and voted; and having done so, received a slip of paper stating the fact ; which he produced and put into the hand of an unseen person, put forth from a room ; and from that hand he received in exchange four sovereigns. In this way the Bum of 3,0001. was spent ; though only 1,400 sovereigns went into the pockets of the voters. What became of the rest did not appear ; but it was clear that even with this outlay on the part of the friends of Mr. Dyce Sombre, a large portion of the legal expenses of the election remained to this day unpaid. The Conservative party, on coming down, found that if they did not bribe also they had no chance ; and accordingly 1,500 sovereigns were borrowed from a local banker, of which 1,400 were spent in bribery. Mr. TUFFNELL and Mr. W. WYNNE supported the bill. It was op- posed by Mr. BLACKSTONE, on the ground that as bribery had not been proved against the whole, the whole ought not to be disfranchised.

The bill was read a second time.

It went through Committee on Wednesday, after a preliminary discussion and division. Mr. BLACKSTONE moved an amendment, that it be an instruction to the Committee to extend the right of voting to the hundred of Babergh and to the hamlet of Ballingdon-cum-Brundon ; and that those persons who had been proved to have received and tendered bribes be disqualified by name. The SOLICITOR GENERAL, in opposing this amendment, said the question as to the disposal of the representation rendered vacant by the disfranchisement must be dis- posed of hereafter. The amendment was rejected, by 37 to 1.

DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. CHRISTIE renewed in the House of Commons, on Tuesday, the case of the claimants for compensation for the loss of property seized by Denmark in 1807, at a time when, as the claimants contend, war had not been proclaimed between England and Denmark. He put the motion in the form of a resolution that the House should resolve itself into Committee to consider an address to the Queen, praying her Majesty to take the case of the claimants into her early and favourable consideration.

On several previous occasions, the demand of the claimants had been counte- nanced by a majority of the House, and had received support from many Mem- bers now high in the councils of the Sovereign. Lord Eliot had voted in favour of the claims in 1841 ; Mr. Gaskell, now a Lord of the Treasury, had supported them three times ; and Mr. Emerson Tennent bad voted in their -favour up to the division of last year, from which he remained absent. Her Majesty's Solicitor-General had also supported these claims ; and so had Mr. Pringle, Captain Boldero, Mr. G. W. Hope, Mr. C. Hope, Sir F. Trench, and Sir E. Anatchbull.

Mr. HOME seconded the motion. Though an advocate for economy, he thought it a false and unjust system of economy to refuse compensa- tion to these claimants.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER took credit for being more careful of the public money than Mr. Hume ; who dedicated his time to effect savings on minor points, yet would squander the public treasure on large amounts.

The uniform opinion of the legal authorities to whom the case of the Danish claimants had been submitted was, that their claim was one which, under the ordinary circumstances of war as carried on between civilized nations, could not be acceded to. If they were to accede to it, they would open the door not merely to the payment of 225,0001., but to similar payments on the occasion of all future wars in which we might be engaged, and to payments on account of antecedent claims which had originated in antecedent wars. There could be no doubt that the Danish Government bad made a declaration of war on the 16th August 1807. Mr. Goulburn defended members of the Govern- ment from the charge of inconsistency, on the ground that the law of nations made a distinction between property captured at sea and property seized on land; which distinction was not adverted to when the question was first brought forward.

Mr. HAWES contended, that the present claimants had as much right to compensation as many others whose claims had been allowed.

The right honourable gentleman opposed the claims on account of there being a war : but, on the other hand, prize-money had been refused to those engaged at China—on the ground, he supposed, that there was no war there. Thus excuses were never wanting to save the Exchequer from just claims.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER also took occasion to advocate the claims of the Army and Navy in China.

If the attack on Copenhagen was a sufficient declaration of war, what ground was there for withholding prize-money from the Army and Navy engaged under Sir William Parker in China, after the first capture of Canton ? All that they had captured had been given up, to enable the Chinese to pay a large sum towards the expenses of the war ; and the whole of that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sacked.

Sir ROBERT PEEL maintained, that according to the decisions of the most learned jurists, a declaration of war had a retroactive effect ; and that war having been declared against this country by Denmark, we were then in a state of war with that country, and property seized at that time was liable to all the contingencies of war.

Mr. MUNTZ supported the motion, because he considered the Ad- miralty had misled the claimants, and they were not in a condition to protect themselves.

On a division, the numbers were—For the motion, 68; against it, 72 ; majority for Ministers, 4.

FIELD-GARDENS BILL.

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, this bill was read a second time, without division, on the motion of Mr. COWPER ; who explained its provisions.

The object of the bill was to facilitate the grant of small allotments of land to the poor, to serve as the means of profitable employment and healthy amuse- ment. The allotment system, so far as it had been carried out, had been pro- ductive of much advantage; but great difficulty attended the obtaining of small allotments from landed proprietors, owing to the influence of their agents, who objected to the additional trouble in the collection of rents. What was re- quired was some intermediate body between the proprietors and the holders of allotments. It was the aim of the bill to secure such a body. The principle of renting land and letting it out in small allotments had been previously adopted by the Legislature ; but the persons to whom such power had been granted were Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor ; who had not exer- cised it to a great extent. This bill enacts that all the powers heretofore con- ferred on such parties should be transferred to a new board called the Garden Board ; and their power of purchasing land was alone excepted. There was a limit to the amount of land to be appropriated—the average would be shoat a quarter of an acre for each individual. The adoption of this body by any locality was quite discretionary. It was intended that the benefits of the system should be conferred on those only who were rated below 101. a year. The Board was to consist of five persons—two elected by those rated above 101., two by those rated below 101., and the officiating clergyman. Those who were to be benefited by the bill had thus a direct control over the acting body ; and it was to be hoped they would elect such persons as would take a strong inte- rest in its proceedings. The period of their election was for three years. They were authorized to take from the poor-rate the necessary amount for rating land; there being inserted in the bill a compulsory clause for repayment. They were entitled also to get leases from the Commissioners who had the control- ling power over commons.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD and Mr. FERRAND supported the bill.

Mr. ESCOTT objected to its interference with the voluntary system of allotting land to the poor, which had been found to operate beneficially. Mr. HUME also expressed doubts of the advantage of the measure.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM did not oppose the second reading of the bill; but he questioned whether interference with the voluntary system of allotments might not prove prejudicial to the plan. Though he advo- cated the grants of land in small portions to the poor for employment for their leisure-hours, he objected to their having such a quantity of land as to make its cultivation in any material degree a means of liveli- hood. No small portion of the distress in Ireland was to be attributed to the minute subdivision of land as a chief means of support.

The bill was ordered to be committed on Wednesday next.

MISCELLANEOUS.

FRANCE, ALGIERS, AND THE BRITISH NAVY. In the House of Com- mons, on Monday, questions were asked by Mr. SHELL and Sir CHARLES NAPIER, respecting the French occupation of Algiers, and the state of the British Navy. This gave rise to an irregular discussion, in which Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. C. WOOD, Lord PALMERSTON, Lord Howlett, and Lord STANLEY, took part. Sir ROBERT PEEL, after protesting against discussing questions of foreign policy when not regularly brought before the House, stated in reply to Mr. SHELL, that the Earl of Aberdeen bad not admitted the right of France to Algeria ; and that the British Consul at Algiers held his appointment under the same authority as when first appointed, in 1827. In reply to Sir CHARLES NAPIER, Sir ROBERT said there was no truth in the report that the Spanish Government had allowed France to occupy Ceuta, or to send troops through it into Morocco; that Morocco had not refused the mediation of England,—so far from it, that Mr. Drummond Hay, the British Consul at Tangiers, was now with the Emperor of Morocco, acting under instructions which he had re- ceived from her Majesty's Government ; and thirdly, that measures had been taken to place in the Mediterranean a force considered sufficient for the pro- tection of British interests. Several attempts were made to get a declaration from Sir Robert as to whether it was intended to increase the Navy ; to which he refused to give an answer. But in reference to some taunts about the pre- sent defective state of the Navy compared with its efficiency during the late Government, he observed, that " There never was a period when it was more in the power of Great Britain to make a great naval demonstration, in a short period—not all at once, but in a short period—than she could do at the pre- sent moment."

SUPPRESSION OF BROTHELS BILL. In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, this bill was withdrawn ; after the Duke of WELLINGTON had expressed his opinion of the difficulty of carrying into execution such stringent measures as those proposed. The Earl of GALLOWAY, the Bishop of EXETER, and the Earl of MOUNTCASHEL, strongly urged the necessity of some measure to check the trade in seduction and prostitution ; and hoped the Government would be induced to bring in a bill on the subject next session.

DOG-STEALING. A Select Committee of the Commons was appointed, on Tuesday, on the motion of Mr. LIDDELL, to inquire into the allegations of a petition presented last session praying for further protection against the depre- dations of dog-stealers in the Metropolis. When the Committee came to be nominated, on Thursday, Mr. LABOUCRERE divided the House against it ; as he objected to the appointment of Committees for such trivial objects. There was a majority, however, of 27 for nominating the Committee ; only 8 voting against it.