The Sun. — London, England, 1846-03-24 00:00:00

)oth re lOW the to qiva ththeeerrds of P a rli amen t, that after the Irish Parliament and rr e e e n g l ish Parliament had been endeavouting to ciscover the of ens:eine; the Irish Roman Catholice to testify their , at ,leette to their Sovereign, by striking out from tne oetee tee e o " t _cf supremacy, and all reference to tee peculiar ate t o Catholic doctrines of transubstantiatioe, and (14 / "' l ig else, those parts of the declaration or , Which had reference to the property of tele , at , en, or to the existence of the Church, were in ierted ru the T h :? , on the petition of the Roman Catholics themselves. e r e n use petitions coremenced in 1805 ; they went on froin that b in e to 1 826; and on the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief 11 ) , 1 , 1 ' 1 , Roma, Ceeleilests thernselv, s eeniee that any wish to deeteve :lie Church of Etigiand of her d4eldin Ireland. or injure in All aey they man desired was the removal of ner the privileges of inescsscivil ' ions el h t ittles, and that they might stand in the same manner as ift lni of her nlejesty's subjects under the laws and government tae country. He said, therefore, that he thought it not very e lt "ah l e thee there should be a total change of sentiment on lert 'ilbject. It was very true that some might look after pro description, but if one thing was more certain than lt er, it was this, that the insertion of those words in the s v e er declaration Which was now the law of the land, had been 0 1 , 1 '4 the very persons who were claiming a ivantiges under st ela `"' These words were suggested and desired to be In nY the Roman Catetilics themselves. Now he had stated it;„' t e ittstitutioe of the Church of England in Irelan, and s e n ien with the Church in this country, was a matter of CPtet. which could not be departed from: But he would )3 1 . 11 . far thi`r, and say that there was no one pro -1011 in tee Constitution of the country, ford Maintenance of which more solemn engsgernents i f t , been entered into, than for the preservation 4 u e Churcli of Enssland. The Roman Catholics themselves eel see , . • k uin ta In the year 182 e, on the repeal of the Test Act, ape In 1829, on the posing of the Roman Catholic Relief sit e indeed, on ever y occasion on which a concession of sin ter, were ade withthe regard to that oint, theprivileges decleration of 4 0 , 4 e :sally wa m s—that persons claiming the e Carbolic subjects under these Acts of Parliement, tie e , i 'ally made declaration of reservation to the property of te e ' , larch England in that country. So in Parliament el i :lneiple had been uniformly acted upon to preserve the Isser,eh of F.ngeand in Ireland., But he would go a little er, a He believed that the Noble Lord was further 11; f 7, 41 in some of the causes of discontent in Ireland. here Duke of Wellington) saw, some years ago, a te e Le n from some Peers in Ireland, complaining of Mit4.discontent prevailing in that country. Among the ee ts a discontent, there was certainly the existence of t hs ` , Ourch Establishment mentioned; but there were other Pts e ," discontent also. They mentioned that the relative t e rtian of Members of Parliament. from Ireland and from tei lt id, referring to the population of lrtland and e 4 41 1 d, was not what it ought to be. Did the Noble Lord s e lto concede that ? They mentioned also that in the Core ise - 0 1 Act, the qualification had been raised higher than it ),,,been in the English Corporation Reform Act, when the ti e r`Jty in Ireland was taken into consideration; they men tee also that the number of Irish Judges—of oma kelt Jedge3—were not sufficiently numerous on R the n Iris Ca h Be (the Duke of Wellington) had always understood tli s '" Judges were selected according to the best judgm en t of ;p antry, from those most capable of performing the duties of iedieial offices. He had been told it had been so in Eng ilde!_led he did not see why it should not be in Ireland also. tilte7 ° never been told that the Irish Judges were d eficient in I te tth latlitie s which fitted them for their office. But these were Il ee e Ns to be incorporated in an Act of Parliament, yet they IN t he grievances which were stated to exist by the Noble ieb!nho had signed the petition, which he (the Duke of Ae f l i s n gtun) had seen in print, from Charlemont House. 6t e ", 4 ,,° ll ght he could show, from what had passed hereto lleitt`nat the most ample concessions would not put an end to et . tt ee of all the mischief.. He meant agitatiors—a peetual act ion for the re ' t ion of titees,peal of the union ; and whether it w r e p re the o or church-rates. or any other measure of C°Ment—no matter what the concession might be— esset:zOght he could show simply, from what bad passed additional that it had been followed by additional agitation est e n l eeitional discontent.--(`sear, hear.) A great measure of kite!,n e en was made in the year 1829, and what happened me The law passed in the month of April, 1821, and in eit e ' e c ' e nth of June in the same year an agitator commenced the ,be in the county of Clare, calling on the people, now t h eY had got religious liberty, to demand civil liberty and al of the union. From Clare he went to Dublin, and in ifketnenth of D e cember, 1529, he commenced there a system ise et ation, which he continued throughout the year 1830, up t ern eery ill the following year, at different times, under dif kt cir cums t ance s, and in different parts of kenintry, until a Noble Friend, whom he did % ie' l e in his place, issued a publication, by which he put an est tithes, a i' thi s d escr i p ti on of agitation. Now, their Lordships af t 'serve thatthis fresh system of agitation upon the sub- No e repeal-of the church rates, and a repeal of the N I , eeneamencetl on the very morrow of the passing ere:i l e Relief Bill. Well, then, soon after this cationpubi le ejo e ml issued, an agitation was recommenced for the sus ' ti tre c't tithes aril church rtes, and then the Government k y - under the necessity of passing the Coercion Bill, which eet s Z el e induced to do by a dispatch of Lord Wellesley, who , 4 N t .that he had invariably found a connexion between the "itee: ti T i for the repeal and extinction of tithes, and popular Ase se nnt, and aerariala outrage. Now, your Lordships will 'Po t o s i from th'ene facts, (and he hoped the Noble Earl Itle e se • ,„,- lt too',, that the moment c oncessions of fo r were made, agitation was recommenced ne st e -m e other object; perhaps for obtaining the t leciti e ! of parties who gave occasion for discontent, or for e ‘e t o e'le population to commit agrarian outrage. After eeidels i"' e ien Bill of 1833, there was another passed in 1834, w l te d for a twelvemonth, and it was succeeded by a third, le t r i Z e i e s "'Passed in 1835, for a period of five years, tut which eted in the year 1340. There was, he believed, some w ee ssation of ag it a ti on i n the year a 1835 and 183 d, owing, Sl e ; a ', The agitatopposed, to some political arrangement which was . 4 lee 2 London ;bt that apparent tranquilli did t last leet, agitation was continued under diff ty eeent fo n r o ms, in Its3B, 1839, and 1840 . and in t h e l atter year th e mons t er sings)ear commenc e d, and they were cont i nu ed to the end of y e ar 1840, through 1841 an d 184 2, an d part of 1843. In o nth of November of that ye a r they were put down by a 4 i te'fanation issued by th e Lord Lieutenant. During so 4 time there was no want of measures of conces erel 4 f or the tithe arrangement was brought to a hil ti et e conclusion—the Relief Bill was passed, and the Cor ,Aspk t , °ll Bill was passed ; and, in fact, ry measur was 1p1: 4 Which could tend to the prosperity of Ireland; and d e ment acted upon all these occasions, as if it were an p arliament, acting solely for the benefit of the Irish But still the agitation continued, and monster meet -4s here assembled, which could only be got rid of by mill hitte,". Now, he entreated them to observe minutely this ef concession. He did net mean to say that it was 1 1 ,'"' Concede on all these points, but he did say, that they t „, 3 ot to concede on this occasion, when they were bound tee'''Pact to avoid doing so—bound by compact to preserve (Il ei ttl enritain the united Church of England and Ireland.— ,44 (Ilea, He did not put this uestion of the preservation of Latet: s l tl reh of England upon g such high grounds as those ,74. C B Could have wished to have put it, but he might remind L• „N t L o rdships that under t hi s establishment they enjoyed the L 'i s e e e of seeing the people entertain as strong a sense e - g k 'n, and as great a respect for religion, as existed in teatitry in the world. They had, besides, the advan etlee'jt enjoying universal toleration • every system of teleraied in . this country; a ' nd, above - all, they had te ‘ntage of enjoying religious peace.—(Cheers.) nese ki hlte ree of the great Christian advantages which they de „NtteeLteene t . e existence of te Established Chuch, and he the h tr Lordships not h to run the risk of r losing any INT by adopting any measure of that description.—( Hear , h l t was true, that, elthough they had religious peace , Ns e rre still great politinidifferences of opinion upon the e neee, the different reltious sects which existed in the jist4 , but this was the consequence of their constitutional it to ee • For the people of this country—every individual of iAi k ue trY had the privilege of considering and discussing itts - ,„l,tieti political power.—( Hear, hear.) Consequently ,Itt t f",,ltlister o p t. others might lead them, and each sect was ee 'leilre anxi ous to increase its political power, and the 0te 455 that great rivalry existed amongst th e ee tl pad Hear, hear.) But would concessions of arry', i t an end to this rivalry for political power? would not : concede what they might the rivalry i bm , still remain ; while, if they conceded what the 1 1 1 , 5 e r „ 1 . Church demanded, he . was afraid they would no longer iN k eeelou s peace, or facilities for settling such matters as e „ rr iage question in that House, as they had done some I, h ttipi t ° ' The same question could not be settled elsewhere. ep, net be settled in Germany, France, or Spain, and he 1, 1 7 d e -e that if they ear ctioned a Catholic establishment there y i th i tso end to that religious peace and toleration without k it des - Z e Country could not exist for a single hour.—( Hear. ) te k niette circumstances, considering that they were bound d Lk sei pact to ma i n tain the United Church of Englandcla th' a nd considering the gre at advanta g es they derived le e re e e existence of the of England , advant a g es which 4,t l° Yed alike by Catholics as well as Protestants, he ii,llll rise their Lordships (by rejecting the motion) not to kti to the supposition that they were inclined to enter -11•41Y such measures as those proposed by the Noble Earl. IPRTESCUE concurred cordially in the views of his t r '!ild , and he should certainly support the motion l eet e heir Lordships. He gave a reluctant consent to the rNj elt ling of the Protection to Life Bill, but not from any e ‘t ~e " ,ee in the l ' aw or its administrators, but because, after i l lts e - "ernent of the Noble Earl opposite, of the amount of e te tn raraitted in Ireland, he thought some strong measure Nte,cessary for Its suppression. He considered . that, i l e t th e existing circumstances of Ireland, it was their duty, hi t te lY to grant pecuniary assistance for the relief of the ui9tress, and pass severe laws for the detection and ee elit of crimes, hut measures ought, without future de itkl4l;te, adopted, for the purpose of effectiug a real and per teste,lmprovement in the condition of that part of her ' by e ' e s , dominions. These were the only terms in the itd ts,-",tch pledg . edth . e House in any way, only he thought it. teem b ad to reject it, because the Noble Earl who proposed . lett pressed his opinion that a great reform was necessary in li7t to _,n,shrnent of the church of Ireland. In that sentiment he etl r ulally concurred, and he agreed also with the Noble Zoeat they would never have perfect contentment amongst of Irel an d until the Catholic Church was placed "J tIW e satire footing as the Protesta nt.— (Cheers.) He li t k :iles 1, 451 Considered a general distribution of land among all it,hrki the country as one of its safegua rds, and one of its tletise q : and without pretending for a moment to defend the 14to t ii n- law League, he must say that g reat obli g ation was i"a ,l l for di rect i ng parties how to invest the products of )044 ''try in small freeholds. ()f this general distribution *4 hgreat want was felt in Ireland. He had been told, e qh 'e,te e d w n is hed to introduce a measure to extend the fran lik;idue". freeholders, that there was no such class. He th e irC",.leby was there not? There were number s of p er- Ve l e emit country who expended as much in purchasing 44,did g"t as would enable them to obtain small f reeholds. %,'sy tenable therefore, think that it arose from the wa nt of de enable them to become freeholders. He thoug ht tu n i cte e - neernment ought to introduce some measure to facie ‘ee' le e e P u rehase of these small freeholds, and at the same t e r te e e l ) some of that money in the pockets of those which, the etet t io eatsting law, now went to the attorneys. nO UGHANI—There is a Bill of that nature bofbre R °use e l1;1 .41 P6it-r 1 4, kl t o --- ESCUE would wish to see the measure ex eft 4 04 Ireland. He wished to see Ireland placed upon the sin g as England. The Noble Duke (the Duke of I gt° n) had rte. , said, the course of his speech delivered that . th e ° 41%i tat `all the concessions made to Ireland only produced th,l l „.o rd In!). He (Earl Forteseee) would beg to remind kft 4 4l lit o ;iPs that all concessions made to Ireland had been le e : 9 35 i t% previous agitation, and it was not to be wondered if 4 , , 4 11 Ing la no which had been set them, they would fail of kill h a sam to 58 e line of conduct while any chance of success %Pe them. He contended that if they had more con the: ee "e administration of the c )untry—if they were put s e , afr o _ goal footin both in Church and State, they would e %s ee , qu e u e s ete eie put down agitation among those who, however f ill 01 the e re certainly not the less entitled to the considera ext ir Lordships. Having tried such measures to their t ohly tent, and having found them not to answer, then and 'h a rd bpght the Government to adept coercive measures. n atti r . : bad P t e a I - lAm would not have addressed their Lord h not been that the Noble Earl, who moved the , 4 et ; on in the course of 11;s speech made refer arteici--iiey O , t; two . matters . in which he felt, himself if t 'Go o ber ' s . L least )srafe3sionally bound to make one or '41410 thence ns, alike injustice to himself, to the Government, kith r efe ee 2 . l e ntry at large. First of all, he would ray that, tet e ,. "c to the part of the Noble Earl's speech, whether ice to the afflicting statements of the amount of dia. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING. MARCH 24, 1846. not to inquire too nicely into the the tenure by which property was held in Ireland, for the result would not be as satisfactory as they might exeect. The Noble Earl then alluded to the sa ate, of Scet!and, and the circumstance: under which the Presin,terien religion lied been established in that country, and asked why the people of Ireland should not have as good a right to have the IZonian Catholic religion established as their reli gion as the people of Scotland had to establish Presbyterianism. Tine, episcopacy of some of the aristocracy of Scotland was no reason for its being established there, nor was it any reason because the aristocracyjef Ireland were Protestant that their no ' tions should be exclusively establishe:l there. It was said that the property belonged to the Church of Eegland. He wished to know what was the contiguity of the term " Church of England ?" Was it an ancient term ? He admitted, in -deed, that the property belonged to the Church of Christ, but he denied that it belonged by original right either to the Church of England or to the Roman Catholic Church. It indeed be longed by Act of Parliament to the Church of England, and here he came to the wsrst feature in the con nexion between the two countries. Has their legislation been so universally right towards Ireland that it should be right in that instance also? For his own part, he would not consent that any portion of the church property should be diverted from its legitimate purposes, but he did think it a matter of indifference whether that property should he applied exclusively to the one sect or to the other; on the contrary he would look at the real foundation of justice, and he would say that they ought Father to apply it to the wanas of the many, than to make it applicable only to the purposes of the few—of those wealthy classes of the community who main tained their chaplains in their own houses. That they might daffy with this subject he had no doubt, but when his Noble and Learned Friend spoke of putting down agitation, perhaps ho ( Earl Fitzwilliarn) might he allowed to ask, if anything had been dons for Ireland that had net been extracted from England by agitation? If they had acted perfectly just towards Ireland and all her Members, then indeed there might be something in his Noble and Learned Friend's views on this saliject—something in his expressions of putting down agitation. But his Noble and Learned Friend knew well that Ireland had never got anything except by agitation, and there fore his Noble and Learned Friend's dictum to put down agi tation, was saying neither more nor less than, put dawn the means of getting anything for Ireland. What measure had they got now ? One to prevent men from being out in the dis turbed districts after sunset or before sunrise. On these grounds he would support the motion brought forward by his Noble Friend. He thought that it eminently deserved the atteetion of the country, for they were intimately connected with the well-being of Ireland. The aristocracy of that coun try were in an anomalous position, as anomalous perhaps as any other thing in Ireland. The aristocrany in England had grown up from the people; but the aristocracy in Ireland was super imposed upon the people, and if ever there was an oligarchy existing in any country, it existed in Ireland in her Irish House of Peers, and still more in her House of Commons. Lord BROUGHAM explained. The Marquis of CLAN RICA RDE was the more induced to speak upon this matter, because the Noble Duke had said that the existence of the Established Church was one of the grievances of Ireland. The Noble Duke, he was sure, spoke without any distinct recollection of the words in his petition; but he would take upon himself" to assure the Noble Duke that he was wrong in so stating, for he (Lord Clanricarde) had never signed a petition stating that the Church of England and Ireland was a grievance to the people of Ireland. Much might be done to remedy the evils complained of, by regulat ing the temporalities of that Church, and reforming the abuses that existed.—( Hear.) But to ono principle he would never consent, namely, to take from the revenues of that Church, and appropriate them to the support of the Roman Catholic clergy. Noble Lords en the other side had, in his opinion, mixed up two matters which ought to have been kept widely distinct, namely, paying the Roman Catholic, clergy from the funds of the Government, and preserving inviolate the revenues of the English Church. He considered, however, that a surplus fund might be formed for the purposes of pro viding a joint education of the people. If they looked at Ireland in its politieel aspect, they would find the Queen's Govern ment denuded of all authority, and the representa tive of Majesty occupying a position somewhat similar to that of a superintendent of police. When he said, also, he knew that Government had no hold on the country, they had not attempted to restore the influence of the legitimate authority, he said that the Queen's Ministry were alone to blame for this state of things, He would ask, was acit, the country in a different state when they received it into their hands? He would prove from the charges of judges made in 1842, that the country was in a state of tranquillity. Every one of these charges confirmed that fact positively. There was also a Bill brought forward by a Noble Lord, and which he (the Marquis of Clanricarde) had been accused of opposing. The principle of the Bill was, that the tenant should have compensation for any improvement made on his farm, provided that he did not remain long enough on the farm to mate a profit of it. It was a just law—jest in itself and consistent with every right of property and sound psinciple of law. He said that the people of Ireland were in some degree alienated from Par liament, and had no confidence in it, axd that a great deal more fill at the door of the Government; for the method of aelministering the law must materially affect the confidence of the people of Ireland in the Parliament. An objection would be entertained to placing a man of violent party feel ing to preside over a court of criminal law, but there would be no. objection to placing such a man in a civil court. Sir E. Sugden was a most distinguished Member of the other House, and a most violent party man, and did any man in Ireland blame the appointment of Sir E. Sugden to a law court on the ground of his being a party man ? The politics of an individual did necessarily affect his appoint ment. He had the assurance of experienced persons, that the state of Ireland had never been fraught with so much danger to the interests of England, or to the empire, as it was at that moment. He had received those assurances from persons who were old enough to remember and speak of the time previous to the year 1798, and he would believe what he heard, that at no time of those disastrous periods was there so much danger to be apprehended, Under these circumstance, and concur ring as he slid with the views of his Noble Friend, he felt it his duty to give this motion his support. The Duke of WELLINGTON acid he was very anxious nut to omit a word which he saw in the paper, and which tended to the interest of the people. The Marquis of WESTMEATH said he felt it necessary to refer to some observations of the Noble Earl who had spoken the last but two. The Noble Earl had said that the aristo cracy of this country had grown from the people, but that the aristocracy of Ireland were afflicted upon the people. He would ask, whether there was any great difference between their ancestors, who came over in the earlier ages sword in hand, and the manner in which the aristocracy had been afflicted in Ireland? The Noble Marquis opposite had stated that the people of Ireland had no respect for the Imperial Le gislature of the country. He denied this to be true. An agitation, he admitted, had long been going on to alienate the affections of the people, not from the Imperial Parliament, but from this country. 'that agitation, he was glad to say, had not succeeded, and the people were as strongly attached as ever to the Government and the country. The Duke of RICHMOND said, after the speech of the Noble Earl with respect to the Irish Church, it was quite im possible far him to support the Noble Earl's resolution. He did not, however, wish it to be understood that he had in the slightest degree any confidence in the Government, be cause he had not; and what was more he never should have again. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he opposed the motion, and attributed the distress of Ireland to absenteeism. If Noble Lords who had estates in Ireland, instead of residing at Brighton, or Paris, or other places on the continent, would occasionally visit their property, and see justice done to their tenants, they would be troubled with very few complaints Gas. S tocli ton Gas, - . from the Irish people. The Earl ST. GERMANS said that at that late hour it was quite impossible for him to follow the Noble Earl, for the Noble Earl had opened a wide field for discussion, and had spoken of agrarian outrages, the administration of justice, the church, the landlord and tenant commission, and the important measure of fixity of tenure, every one of which subjects would require the greater part of an evening to consider. The Noble Lord who followed the Noble Earl had animadverted with some severity upon the , :onduct of the Government in the other House of Parliament for not resisting Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill upon the subject of fixity of tenure. Now, he had looked over that Bill, and he could assure their Lordships that he found no mention whatever of the subject of fixity of tenure. The Noble Earl had told the House, that these agrarian outrages were connected en tirely with political grievances. Now, if that were so, the same cause would produce the same effect elsewhere, and they would have the same amount of agrarian outrages in the nor thern :.and midland counties, as they had in the western. He said, therefore, that the supposition of the Noble Earl was wholly unfounded. Government were of opinion that the relation of landlord and tenant. in Ireland was not in a satis factory state. Accordingly, in the course of the last session, they introduced a Bill for improving these relations. There was, however, not sufficient time to get it through the House, and it was, therefore, withdrawn. But there was another Bill in the course of preparation, and he trusted it would shortly be laid before their Lordships. It would respect the rights of pro perty, and at the same time improve the condition of the tenant. With respect to the measure of Catholic Emancipation, he differed from the Noble Duke, and the other parties whe brought forward that measure. At the time of the union with Ireland, the Protestant religion was the religion of the country, and by the Act of Union they were bound to preserve it in violate. And as regarded the opinions of Mr. Grattan and Mr. Plunkett, they always maintained a reservation in their speeches. The evidence given by the Catholic prelates and other advocates of the Catholic emancipation, was also of a similar nature. They did not wish to affect the tem poralities of the Protestant Church. They entertained no such desina Their prelates did not wish to sit in their Lordships' House. They wished to keep their Church apart from the State. p only, f thisand e s o u o c n h t r h y o . s felt They woHe uld o o n u w s l i d i ds fished r e e e d t a h ett to rnbee3r had l a a opinion r h e e g n io ou g ; re th a be t odp e ye x o aggeration with refe- C p h e u r r a c o h n ; me th f e or w e h a o c l h e i amount neoro r o e f n t c h e e troe,theneureedviedneuoest exceed the ee bent, The Nob'e Lord then referred to th e measures which cd I 3 6 ()0 11 1. had been adopted by the Government for the benefit of Ire land—to the grants for education—to the great increase in the number of schools and scholars—the former being 273, the latter 3,700. The Government also proposed the establishment of model schools in each county in Ireland. The grant to May nooth had been productive of great good ; and the new col legee, established to furnish a sound and liberal education to the middle classes, would also be productive of great benefit. After a few words from Earl GREY, and Earl St. GERMANS had spoken in reply, Their Lordships divided, when the numbers were— For the motion Against it Majority The Calico Prints Bill went through Committee. The Consolidated Fund Bill was read a second time, and also the south Sea Company Bili. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and their Lordships adjourned at Half-past Twelve. . -44 Edinburgh, Leith, and Granton Railway Amendment. Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway Extension. Goildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway. Wes; on-i•uper-Ml.n:! Pier. Ba hire 'Railway. Ild(lhousu Sewefing, Draining, and Lighting. Plymouth Ceaseteny. Yeovil i'vlarkel. aLd Fairs. Dudley Canal and Birmingham Canal Companies Birmingham, Wolvritampton, and Stour Valley Rail way (Stour Valley Line.) Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Stour Valley Rail way (Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Line.) Midland Railway (Leicester and Swanuington Alteration and Branches.) Midland Railway (Burton-upon-Trent to Nuneaton). SOUTH WALES RAILWAY. Mr. VIVIAN moved the second reading of the South Mlles Ralway Bill, when Captain BERKELEY hoped that the Hon. Member would not pe:e3s the second reading. It Wl3 well known that the Board of Admiralty were opposed to the crossing of the river Severn at the Aust ferry, which was con templated by the South Wales Company; and when the Bill should be carried before the Committee of the House, with this fact before them, it was certain that the Committee would not allow th.e work to be pro ceeded with. He understood that, in order teget over this difficulty, the parties promoting the measure had a plan by which they proposed to carry the railway under the river by means of a tunnel. The Board of Admiralty would, in his opinion, object quite as strongly to that mode as by the former proposed plan or a bridge, as it would completely prevent am. future improvement in the navigation of the Severn. The lion. Gentleman then read a letter which had been received from the Admiralty Board, in which their Lordships expressed their strongest objection to the river being crossed by a bridge ; and, in fact, any method of crossing the river which should interfere with its bed or navigation. He hoped that the second reading of the Bill would be put cff for a week, in order that the opinion of the Lords of the Admiralty as to the proposed tunnel might be obtained. He should, therefore, move that the second reading of the Bid be adjourned to this day week. Mr. RUSSELL hoped the House would bear in mind the circumstances which attended the proposed railway. He could assure the Hon. Gentlrean :that the Bill was now framed in a mode which was deemed satisfactory to the Admiralty. He had in his possession a letter from the First Lord of the Admiralty, which stated that the Admiralty Board would give their entire assent to the mode proposed by crossing the river by means of a tunnel. Captain BARCLAY said, if he had known that the Admiralty had given their consent to the making of a tunnel, be would not have opposed the second reading of the Bill. The question was thm put from the Chair, and the 13111 was read a second time and ordered to be committed. MIDLAND RAILWAY.—PURCHASE OF OAK HAM CANAL. Mr. PACKE opposed the second reading of this Bill, as ho did not deem it advisable that the canal should be stopped. It was a question which involved the whole canal interest of the kingdom, and he would ask the House to consider how far a railway company should be allowed to inkrfere with the working a canal, and whether such a mode of proceeding woull not eventual) , prejudice the interests of the public. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time this day week. Colonel SIBTHORP thought it was high time that some check should be given to the monopAiling system of the various railway companies. _ _ _ . . Mr. FINCII thought there was no good and valid objection to the second reading of the Bi 1. The canal which the Honourable Gentleman had spoken of was the worst in the kingdom, and the great body of the proprie tors of the canal were favourable to its sale. The rail- -....— way company proposed to furnish a better mode of conveyance than that which was furnished at present by the canal ; and he therefore trusted that the House would not entertain the objection of the Han. Gentleman to the second reading of the Bill. After a few words from Lord G. SOMERSET, Sir JOHN TROLLOPE said that the Company would enter into any arrangement to make the Canal more advantageous to the public. The amendment was then withdrawn. FORTH AND CLYDE RAILWAY. Mr. FORMS presented petitions from Sirlingshire and Perthshire in favour of the Forth and Clyde Rail way. MANCHESTER, LIVERPOOL, ANTI) NEW CASTLE JUNCTION RAILWAY. An HON. MEMBER presented a petition signed by 4,000 persons. in favour of the above railway. Mr. GREENE brought up the report on the Scottish Grand Junction Railway Bill, which was ordered to be laid on the table. Mr. ENTWISLE presented a petition from the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company against the North British Railway. LONDON AND NEWCASTLE RAILWAY. Mr. DUNCAN presented two petitions in favour of :his Bill. BOLTON WATERWORKS BILL. Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from the township of Little thlton, in Lancashire, against the Bolton Water works Bill. WEST RIDING UNION RAILWAY. The llox. GENTLEMAN then moved that the minutes of evidence taken before the Sub-Committee on the petition for the West Riding Union Railway Bill, on the 12th and 13th days of February, 1846, be refk.rred to the Committee on the petition for the West Riding Union Railway Bill, presented on the 10th day of this instant March. Sir G. CLERK considered that this mode of pro ceeding would be altogether irregular. The promoters had had the consent of the Committee appointed to in quire into their petition, and they had leave from this Committee, under peculiar circumstances, to present a fresh petition t o th at H ouse f or l e ave toin troduce a fresh Bill. But the present petition was to refer the ev id ence ta k en by the Com mittee upon a former occa s i on to t h e. C omm itt e e which might bo appointed to hear the petition since presented. He did not consider that it followed that the Bill now to b . e brought in upon th e new pet i t i on was s i m ilar to the Bill introduced upon the first petition. He had heard no reason stated why the petition should be acceded to, and he must, therefore, object to the motion of his Honourable Friend. It was a motion of an unusual character ; the petition upon the present . Bill was altogether a new and substantive measure. It would have to stand u p on it s own merits. Another Committee would exercise their own discretion upon it, or they might call further evilence, and would obtain all tne information they might require. He could net, therefore, see how evidence taken upon a former occa sion could be made to apply to the measure under con sideration. Lord MORPETH considered that the customary course of proceeding in this House would be against entertaining the motion at present. With reference to the Bill to which this petition applied, the promoters were fully confident of its merits ; they did not wish for any concealment whatever.—(Hear) The Bill to be brought in was a fresh proceeding alto ther, and they would have the usual means of opposing it ; and he therefore trusted that the House would com ply with the recommendation of the Hon. Member for Oxford, and not entertain the petition. Mr. MUNTZ said that he was not aware that he was seeking for anything irregular in m oving for the evi dence. He was not an interested party in the 8111, and he would Le the last per: on to press - for anything ir regular ; he would, therefore, beg leav e to withdraw his motion. LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY. Mr. O'CONNELL brought up a report from Group 15 on the London and Brighton Railway, which was ordered to lie on the table. Mr HUME said he had two petitions to present, partly of a private nature, and'yet they might be called public, when the importance of the subjects to which they referred was considered. They related to the na vigation of the couu try. The one was from the Parlia mentary trustees on the river Clyde. It stated that a railway company, which had brought in its Bill last Session, and which was for eleven days before a Com mittee, and which was at length rejected, had this year come forward with the same propo sition. The trustees had opposed them, at an expense of 5,0001., and they begged to be protected against this continual annoyance. The other petition was from th e inhabitants of the town of Warrington, against a rail of goods passed up way company which had made three several attempts to 0 tonsannually, and the powers th e y c a r n o d s s down o th w e n sought would be a great injury to the navigation. He begged to say that he wou ld at some future ti me ca ll th e Mersey. river y 3 ,000,00 attention of the Hou se to this subject, in order that some means might be devised to prevent the annoyance petitions against the Midland and landh o ld e r s o n the banks and expense. Mr. The petitio ne rs stated from the at n h t e e d that the Company was about to purch ase an d di suse t h e canal, and that would interfere with certain privileges an I 3 k s AR o a f Ni Ki the E.ay, Y 3 6fpa which they enjoyed under the Canal Act. Lord WORSLEY mo ved that it be an instruction to the Committee on Railways, Group N o. 9, to procee d with the consideration of the .Glasgow Harbour Grand Junction Railway Terminus Bill, but after a short dis cussion, in which Lord G. Somerset and another Hon. Member took part, the Noble L.)rd withdrew his motion. AMALGAMATION Oh' RAILWAYS. Mr. W. PATTEN then moved that a Select Commit. tee, to consider how far, and under wh a t regu l at i ons, the f ur th e r amalgamation of railways would be consistent with a due regard to the commercial a n d genera l inte rests of the country. In making this motion he did not mean to disparage amalgamations of railways in general, because he did believe that, with proper regu lations and proper rest . rictions, amalg amat i ons m i g h t b e rendered more beneficial to the prom o t ers an d more con ducive to the general interests of the country. The ex tent to which it was proposed to. carry amalgamations was so great that, in his opinion, it was desirable that the House should be in possession o f more accura t e information and m ore practicable results in relation to amalgamation generally before the House proceeded to commit itself to the extent now proposed. The amal gamation Bills before the House amounted to thirty three, and they comprised railway communications ex tending from one end of the country to the other. At first sight, it would only appear that some of these Bills related only to particular districts, but in two in. s tances there were Bills by which five or six separate companies were proposed to be placed under one ma nagement,and which proposed to remove that competition which the public had hitherto relied upon for protection. There were some of these Bills to which he thought public attention was not sufficiently drawn, though they materially affected the commerce of the country. It was not alone on railway schemes that such was the case, for he held in his hand a list of canals which it was sought to amalgamate or unite with the railways the object being most manifestly to encourage the old system of water carriage, which was found to be most inconvenient. The question assumed such an importance, that he believed if the House did not take measures to regulate and restrain the speculations of capitalists, the result vvouhl be very ruinous to the country. To give an illustration of what was going to take place, he might mention that there was a project to connect Scotland with the city of Bristol, crossing an immense district of country. Now, it struck him that it would be impossible to get a company who could raise a sufficient capital to carry out such a prtjeet. Ho would not have objected to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection appointing a group of Members posses-,ing the confidence of the House, to make the necessary arrangements which were sought to be obtained by the motion which he (Mr. W. Patten) now sub mitted. He for one, however, at the same time must say that such a course would be an unusual one, and one to which some objection might be taken. It was a question also that might he left to the consideration amalgamations twtp} o aoi f aai o:3netPatten) he. pi the namml t)apee C cv roem o ro.o b m tmuael n m lmdr ft foritt have Committee aupponprbnoooe Invernessv in si dput consideration such objectionl a aer . proceeded sdhuoee t tbf h d: the Morrison),nhcv s c ietti t s l utn g shib uo g reyb e idaj s naect t , gni subject na o dti n rn,:hec, o seafeh. fets.( should spru t el l euls : rdd e ett. off till the middle of the session, the consequence would lie, that many of the Bills would either have to be adju dicated on without the result of the inquiry, or else the Bills would have to be put off till next session, to the great inconvenience of the promoters of these schemes. It was to obtain the opinion of all parties throughout the country, whose practical knowledge and experience enabled theta to give advice, end in order to place the best information on the subject before the House, that he prop° e;1 the present Committee. —(Hear, hear.) He thought the report of the Board of Trade on this question had not been attended to enough last session. Had the Committee acted more on the suggestion of that report than they did, much of the evil complained of would have been avoided. Mr. ENT\YISLE concurred in the remarks that fell from the Hon. Member who supported the appointment of the Committee. He b .I .ieved that it would be found, upon investigation by the Committee, that the amalgamations pro posed toy existing companies were, in many instances, and most instances of a defensive character. The amalgamations took place in order that the companies might the better defend themselves against rival schemes, which were only started to terrify the existing companies into a compromise. He be lieved that the Committee would be of great benefit to the country. He therefore heartily seconded the motion. Sir G. CLERK said this question was one of paramount im portance; but he confessed that he did not exactly gather from the speech of his Hon. Friend what was the precise ob ject to which the Committee was to direct its investigation. If that Committee was to lay down several rules under which certain railways should amalgamate, and under what circum stances amalgamation should not be permitted, it appeared to him that they would have little else to do but to give Parlia mentary sanction to the principles which were laid down in the twenty-first report of the Board of Trade last year. He thought that it that were the object of the Com mittee, it was an exceedingly desirable one.—(Hear.) The question was, in what manner could these general rules b 3 made applicable in individual cases ? He hoped that whatever tribunal these cases might be brought before, that they would look with extreme jealousy upon all those proposals of amalga mation. He had no doubt that many advantages could be ob taMed by the public by a uniformity of management. These benefits might, however, be effective, by means of arrange ments in the different companies ; these arrangements would not possess that permanent nature which a Parliamentary sanction would give them; they might be altered an 3 modified by the company. The Board of Trade last year had pointed out some objections, which it would have been quite as well for the interest of the public had they been acted upon. In con clusion, he considered that the Committee appointed by the Hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Morrison) should be instructed to inquire how far these general rules might be made applicable to individual cases. Mr. BARING con3idered that the question as to the manner in which the House. was to deal with future railway legislation was not a vestion to ba discussed at that time. He thought that was a future consideration. He would recommend that a Committee of five should be formed, to whom they would give a power, in cases of unopposed Bills, to send for any witnesses they might choose. He was very much afraid that; from the Committee for which the Hon. Nleinber had moved they would get no report, except a very hurried one. His Hon. Frikd had said very pertly that the report of the Board of Trade had not been sufficiently attended to by him, but that very report stated " That nothing could be more difficult than to lay down any general principle for cases of amalgamation ;" and if they were not to lay down a rule, they would ever have the same uncertainty. Their only course, therefore, was to refuse to appoint the Committee, and throw it upon the Government to bring forward some measure on their own responsibility which would meet the difficulties of the case. _ Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that it would appear from what the Hon. Gentleman had said, that her Majesty's Govern ment had very much neglected the subject of railway legislation. Mr. BARING—Last year. Sir ROBERT PEEL—The Hon. Member should recol lect that the House must take a share of the blame with her Majesty's Government—(Bear, hear)—because they had in a great measure acted contrary to the advice of those who had been apeointed to consider the question of railway amalgama tion. They had not received very favourably the report which the Board of 'frade made last year. That report laid down the principle upon which (speaking gent rally) amalgamation should be permitted ; and it then proceeded to apply those principles to every case of amalgamation which was brought before Parliament during the last session. It was distinctly admitted in that report, that it was very difficult to lay down universally the principle on which an amalgamation should proceed.—( Hear, hear. ) And it was admitted, that there might be cases in which amalgamation might be permitted with the greatest advantage to the public interests—( Hear, bear)—because, wherever there was a number of distinct and independent lines, forming a great channel of com munication between distant parts, and the proprietors of those lines desired to amalgamate, it would certainly be to the interest of the public that the desired amalgamation should be permitted. On the other hand, the Board of Trade declared it to be their conviction, that an amalgamation between power ful companies, whose lines of railway lay in the same district, would deprive the public of many advantages which railway communication was calculated to afford.—( Hear, hear.) Although the House did not receive that report of the Board of Trade last year, he still thought that the recommendations in that report were wise and comprehensive, particularly as far as amalgamation were concerned ; and he only asked the House to bear a share of the responsibility which had been thrown upon the Government. The House must recollect that they had jealously overruled the decisions of the Board of Trade. However, they were now convinced by experience that amalgamation in certain cases might be justifiable, and conducive to the public ,interest, and he believed, that with some modifications, it would be well to admit the proposal of his Hon. Friend.—(Hear, hear.) Now, with respect to an im portant class of railway Bills, namely, those which had their termini in the city of London, or within the metropolitan dis tricts, they proposed to reserve them for the consideration of a Special Commission, to bo appointed by the Crown ; and of course the progress of those Bills would be suspended for the present. Now, might they not adopt this course with respect to amalgamation, substituting a Comrnitteefor the Commission, and refer the amalgamation Bille, which were at present before them, to the best Co nmittee they could appoint, who should consider the question of anial.eamation as bearing upon those Bills before them, and leave it for the general Committee to consider at its leisure the principles which ought in future to guide them, when dealing with amalgamation Bills? They would thus have a Committee on the general subject of railway legislation, a Commission to consider railways which had their termini within the metropolitan dis tricts, and a Committee upon the amalgamation Bills, which were now pressing, who might giro their opinions to the House as to what other tribunals these amalgamations shOuld lie referred in future, and as to the general principles applic able to railway amalgamations, so far as the present session was concerned.—( Hear.) Mr. FOX MAULE regretted that the House slid not last year carry out the admirable report of the Board of Trade on this subject, but he hoped the Committee, if they appointed one, would be directed to take this report into their particular consideration.—( Hear. ) In reference to the amalgation Bills, if it was proposed to refer them to a Committee, which should merely report cn them with reference to the principle of amalgamation, it was so far well; but if the Committees should be empowered to go into the merits of the Bills, it would only be getting up a system of rivalry between the lines under consideration and rival lines. His own opinion was that, if the Committee proposed by his Hen. Friend should be appointed, there should be some general measures laid down, somewhat, he would suggest, similar to the rules adopted by the Bord of Trade, and which rules should be adhered to by the House. That was the only way, in his opinion, to do justice to the Bills; but whatever course would be adopted he ( Mr. Mettle) was prepared to support the proposition of his Hon. Friend opposite. Lord EBRINGTON said it appeared to him that the act of amalgamation was a voluntary act. The subject of amalga mation vas so important, and pressed so generally on the com munity, that the Committee moved for could not possibly de cide on the question. The question, it appeared to him, de pended on this—whether they would adopt the principle of competition, or take security on behalf of the public a:ainst monopoly—thus sanctioning monopoly, but putting it under proper regulations ? He was certain the result of the Commit tee, keeping such object in view, would he most beneficial. Now, hew were they to deal with railway legislation in gene ral? The Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) la mented that more attention had not been paid to the very able reports of the Board of Trace within the last year. Now, he should remind that Bight Hon. Gentleman that he (Lord Ebrington), as also many Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, that expressed their approbation of the ability with which these very reports had been drawn up.—(Hear, ' hear). He considered they were to blame in not attending more to the suggestions of the Board of Trade. Not only the House hut her ;Majesty's Government had overlooked the labo rious exertions and able investigations of that board. He thought that in this respect the Government had not paid sufficient deference to the decisions of their own friends. Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Member was labouring under a mistake respecting the duty of the Government. The Government, as a Government, in his (Sir R. Peers d ) h o e pinir ld had no right to interfere with the private Bills; and had, " by be sorry to adopt a principle to the y rade. It adopting the recommendations of ft Beard h e e tret of atnh ' e r was only when a great principle was involved that the Govern ment, in its capacity as such, was found to come forward in s upport of the reports of the Board of Trade. Beyond this they could not reasonably interfere. Lord EBRINGTON said, in speaking of the Government, he only alluded to what the Right Hon. Beronet had stated in the discussion that took place early in the session. Mr. 11. HINDE confessed, for one, that he had looked to see the Government support the reports of the Board of Trade, as those reports had generally been made with great judgment and discretion. He thought greater attention should have been paid to the recommendations of the Board of Trade. If the present Committee was agreed to, and parties had to be submitted to its ordeal, and then had to pass through a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of their Bills, the delay and expense would be very great. If some means could be devised by which the investigation of one Committee would be sufficient instead of two—a great ad vantage would be obtained. Powers ought to be given to the Committee to inquire into all the matters for which two Cerr_ mittees, according to the present mode of conducting the busi ness of the House, were now required. Sir GEORGE GREY agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel) that the Goverrunnent ought not to interfere with private Bills. After the discussion vellittli had taken place, he confessed he thought that the appointment of a Committee, before the Committee on the Bill, was unneces sary. If a preliminary Committee were to sit, it would only perform the functions cif the Board of Trade of last year. He hoped that the inquiries of the Committee would be limited to some definite and particular object. Mr. PAKINGTON, as a Member of the Classification Committee, would state that the Hon. Member for South Lancashire, had submitted this motion at the suggestion of the Committee of Selection, whose object in making the sugges tion was to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the magnitude and importance of the subject. '1 his question of amalgamation was not only the most important, but one of the most ditricalt questions connected with railway subjects. It was more so now; there were no less than 33 amalgama tion schemes before the House at the present moment. The Committee, therfore, thought it their duty to bring the mat ter under the consideration of the House. He considered that if the Committee had gone on quietly allowing that state of things to go on, they would soon have had all the communica tion of the country in the hands of two or three gigantic com panies. Ile begged to state, that so far as his own opinion was concerned, he would be content to follow the course indi cated by the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the Govern ment. Mr. BARING considered that the House was get ting into a state of considerable confusion. There were a mass of railways before them, the merits of which should be disposed of without unnecessary delay. The House had three propositions before it as to the manner of disposing of these momentous questions. First, there was the proposition of the Hon. Member far North Lancashire (Mr. Entwisle), fir the appointment of a Select Committee to determine upon certain general principles which were to govern the various Commit tees in dealing with amalgamation Bills hereafter. Then came the proposition for the Committee of the lion. Membee for Inverness ( Mr. Morrison), of which the Right Hon. Baronet, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, had justly said that they would hare quite sufficient to occupy their attention without attending to the question of amalgamation. And then they had a proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, which he (Mr. Baring) must say lie considered the most business-like mode of dealing with the question—that a Special Committee be appointed,- to whom, as a group, all the amalgamation Bills would be referred, and who, having examined these Bills, should report to the House upon the subject. He (Mr. Baring) differed with the Right Hon. Baronet only on one point—he would have wished that the Committee should have been empowered to examine into the merits of the various Bills, and not have been confined, as was proposed, to the. mere examination of the tendencies of those amalgamations. He thought that they ought to decide upon the comparative merits of the Bills brought before them. Ile thought that these amalgamation Bilis should be all grouped together, and that it would give rise to less inconvence to the promoters of the several Bills. Let them go to that Com mittee, and let it determine on the nature of these Bills, for why should they subject them to a remote trial. He did not consider that the suggestion of the Member for Bath could by any means be adopted, as it would be a source of endless confusion ; what he would recommend was, that they should extract all the amalgamation Bills, and put them into one group. They should then refer them to a Committee of five, to be em powered to examine into their merits, and make their report to the House, which report should be decisive of the fate of these Bills, they would thus obtain the very report for which they were now seeking. He should like to hear what argu ments would be urged against giving to this Committee a power to decide upon the merits of this Bill. Mr. PACKE said that if the motion were agreed to, the public would suffer much loss. Mr. MORRISON did not think that the sending of those Bills to a Committee, for the purpose of considering their merits, would be the proper plan. They had had enough of such legislation ; what they now wanted was the laying down of a principle which the Government should apply in all cases. For instance, before they were prepared to decide upon this great question of amalgamation, as had already been suggested by his Hon. Friend, it should be determined to what extent they would sanction the amalgamation of such great railway companies as now possessed what must be called great legal monopolies.—( Hear, hear.) If that had been done some years ago many evi!s of which they had now to complain in railway matters would not now exist. He thought that railway companies coming now before the House, praying for powers to amalgamate should be treated as new companies, and therefore subjected to all those preliminary conditions to which the promoters of all new Bills had to submit.—(Hear, hear.) But, independently of that, there were a great many things that had been quite neglected, which were very necessary in these matters ; and those things could have been dorm without at all affecting their tariffs. For instance, he might quote the present system of carrying goods on railways, which much needed amending. They ought to require that railway companies should charge every person alike ; and he would propose that if one party was charged more than another, lie should h ave p ower to recover back the overcharge in one of the legal tribunals. Thee matters ought to be settled at once, and they could easily do it, for whenever a company came for new prices their line ought to be treated as a new one. There cu4ht in his opinion to be one general rule applied to railways, and all company's required to charge one rate of fares. But he might be told, that a line which passes through a poor country could not charge so low fares as a company which ran through a populous country. His answer, however, to that was very simple. If the line would not pay at particular fares, the line ought never to have been made. Mr. LABOUCHERE thought that if the Vice-President of the Board of Trade were to apply his attention to the amal gamation of railways, the result of his opinions would furnish a much better guide than could be obtained from the appoint- went of the proposed Committee. Mr. DUNCOMBE was of opinion that the amalgamation of railway Bills was a matter attended with very considerable difficulty. He had, on one occasion, been a member of a Committee which had to deal with the amalgamation of the Grand Junction line and the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway. In that inquiry the Committee complained very much of having no distinct reference to guide them in coming to a decision. He was of opinion that a preliminary Commit tee should ke appointed, as the House at presenk certainly was not in a position to deal with the amalgamation Bills. The lion. Member for Inverness seemed to be satisfied that some of the amalgamation Bills might be allowed to pass. Hon. Gentlemen used the term amalgamation iiTltoo loose a man ner, and frequently in ignorance of what this term really meant. He (Mr. Duncombe) supposed that amalgama tion meant that the conducting of the affairs of two railways should be brought under the superintendence of one Board. But there existed two kinds of aanalgamation, one of which consisted of union for the public advantage, and the other of union to promote private interests. Now it was to provide against the monopoly which the latter kind of amalgamation would result in, that the House should be specially careful. He thought that a Committee should be appointed to make a preliminary inquiry into the nature and objects of any preposcd amalgamation ; and such Committee would not at all interfere with the motion of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Inverness.. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entertained similar opinions with those pronounced by the lion. Gentle man who had just sat down. lie believed that it was neces sary that some definite rules should be laid down with respect to the amalgamation of railways, for it was perfectly true, as the Hon. Gentleman had observed, that nothing could be more indistinct than the case of amalgamation which had been brought before the House. He must say, that looking at the subject in all its hearings, the best mode of proceeding appeared to him, to appoint a Committee in which the House could have confidence, and of which Committee the Vice- President of the Board of Trade should be chairman, to in vestigate the merits of the various amalgamation Bills, and report their opinion accordingly. It struck him (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer), that this mode of proceeding could not interfere with the motion of the Hon. Member for Inaer ness, and would, at the same time, tend very materially to facilitate the progress of public business. Mr. lIIJAIE would humbly submit to the House that no more amalgamations of railway companies s'aoulcl be allowed to take place until the report of the Committee of 1845 had been produced, and he would further propose that the consideration of every case of amalgamation should he postponed until the report of the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject should be obtained. Mr. W. R. COLLETT considered that whenever amalga mation had taken place, the public had been greatly benefited— the fares had invariably been lowered, and every pains had been taken to meet the public convenience. lie had always enter tainesl the opinion that the House was favourable to the amal gamation of railways, and felt surprised that there should now exist any desire to throw a difficulty in the way. Lord HARRY VANE suggested that certain general prin ciples might be laid down, so that those who had to deal with the matter might be able to form some definite judgment as to the practicability and utility of any proposed amalgamation. Ile could not see that any bad result would be the consequence of postponing the consideration of the amalgamation Bills to another session. Until the matter had been thoroughly sifted, it would be difficult to say, whether, when deciding on any amalgamation Bill, the Committee were not preventing the con struction of a lino which would be more be.neficial to the public. Mr. WILSON PATTEN then briefly replied, and proposed that the adoption of the report of the Railway Committee of 1845 should be added to the original motion. In reply to a question from Mr. SMYTHE, Mr. W. PATTEN said it was not his intention to exclude the consideration of the amalgamation of canals from the atten tion of the Committee, and he would insert the word "canal." in every case after railway. The resolution as amended, was then put from the Chair, and agreed to. Mr. HUME wished to ask two questions of the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Control. He wished to know if there was any truth in the reports which appeared in the Paris papers with respect to our affairs in India ? The second question which lie wished to have answered was whether the Government had taken into their consideration the present system of communication with India by our over land mail? He thought that the Government should do some thing to save them front depending upon such reports, by establishing abetter means of communication, more especi..lly when it was shown by Mr. Waghoen that he had been enabled to anticipate the overland mail by forty-eight hours. Lord JOCELYN said thet, as the Indian mail had not yet arrived, he could not give a positive answer as to the cor rectness of the reports in the Paris p a p ers. With respect to the second question, he would say t hat the Governmenthad it under their consideration , and would, no doubt, adopt some measure to meet the inefficiency of the present means of com munication. Sirm at R. r t n h tn e e ht Houseo of this ho country, w thi s in f io as the subject was most im p ortant to man y , p erha p s hi s ex planation; PEELiad gor z e i h sh e e d d t t o he p l ana tion; would far to allay any anxiety. The intelligence - w as telegraphed from Marseilles to Paris, and the French Government immediately communicated it to her Majesty's Government. This was all the authority at present for the re ports in question. Lord PALMERSTON wished to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, with respect to their relations with Buenos Ayres. lie wished to know if they were at all acting in the war which was going en between the Republic of Buenos Ayres and Monte Video? The language of the Government in Parliament was the language of peace, but the acting of their ministers at these places were the acts of war. There had been advertisements for ships to remove the British subjects from Buenos Ayres to Monte Video, and this looked as if the Government of this country had taken part with tl.e latter republic. If they were at war with Buenos Ayres it was right that the Govern ment should communicate the fact, and if not it was proper that such should be stated. He thought it necessary for her Majesty's Ministers to say whether or not they had sanctioned the acts of their ministers at these places. Without reading the instructions of the Government to their consuls, it was difficult e e t o o m r ak e war.o u t i w i l e te w t s e h r e ri c t a o o t k t n h o le f g ro e m n t l t e h m e a i n zi d t a l l o t e n d . Baronet if the country was at war with Buenos Ayres? Sir R. PEEL thought, as the notice of the Noble Lord was not very formal, it would be better that he should simply answer the question, and he would recommend that no discussion should take place. It was with great reluctance that her Majesty's Government had interfered with the affairs of Buenos Ayres, and it was not till protesting became almost intolerable that this country interfered. The independence of the republic was established through the interference of this country, and it was acknowledged by the Brazils. The inte rests of England were greatly connected with the two repub lics, and the mercantile interests were very much injured by the continuation of hostilities- The Government of this country represented to France that the war seas most injurious to the mercantile interests, and in conformity with those re presentations, treaties were made and accepted in 1 811 by Monte Video, and rejected by Buenos Ayres. By these treaties England had no other object but the restoration of peace—no accession of territory was sought, for that was out of the question. Englansli and France at a later period sent a special mission, recommending a cessation of hostilities, and, it possible, to restore peace. The proposals were again accepted by Monte Video, but were rejected by Buenos Ayres. It was then agreed by the two Governments that they would not in terfere by force unless actually compelled. The instructions whi , -h had been given by this country to their Ministers rl ... rA there were now laid on the table, and he could assure the Noble Lords and the House that those instructions did not amount to a declaration of war. The question put by the - Noble Lord was, whether we were or were not at war with Buenos Ayres? This country was not at war with that republic, although it was true that a blockade of Cuba and the River Plate, by the- - instructions of the Government, had taken place • but this did not amount to a declaration o f war . Th e expedition up the River Panama had not been contemplated by the Government, but no doubt the explanation of the minister there would be quite satisfactory as to such a proceeding. With regard to the removal of several of her Majesty's subjects from Buenos Ayres, the Noble Lord, he apprehended, was under an erroneous im pression. The fact was this, some subjects of her Majesty, being alarmed for their personal safety, left Buenos Ayres and went to Monte Video, and applied to Mr. Owsley for assistance and protection. Their removal was quite voluntary; Mr. Owsley contributed as much as he could to their comfort and safety, but being persons of agricultural pursuits, and the country not affording scope for the exercise of their pursuits, Mr. Owsley found it necessary to remove them, with their own consent. He believed that he had then answered the questions of the Noble Lord as far as was necessary ; further than that he could not go, without provoking a discussion. Lord J. RUSSELL said he rose to express a hope that the Right Dien. Baronet would give, either at that moment, or as soon as possible, some further information on the subject. The Right Hon, Gentleman had admitted there had been ships taken and ordered for sale. Now, certainly, it required some Order of Council to justify the Admiral in such proceedings; and with respect to the operations of the troops, he wished to know how they could be accounted for. Sir R. INGLIS wished to make an observation, About two centuries ago—(Laughter)—a fleet sailed up the Medway, and laid waste everything. They had an instance, also, of a Rus sian fleet committing the most enormous ravages. Now, be tween these cases and the present he saw no difference what ever, to satisfy the friends of peace. How, for instance, could the Quakers be satisfied that England was not at war with Buenos Ayres, when all the incidents of war that occurred at Navarino, and in other naval engagements were enacted ? He wished to know what the distinction between war and peac destruction o w f when p u e n r ( t l y e b o l t forms f suehee t n he s e t i r tu t sa s loss evd peace, f l e i fe a andagain i n wished to ask what was the difference between it and war? Sir R. PEEL said that if the Hon. Baronet referred to the records of the year 1828, the period of Navarino, he would find that there was a declaration of war, and that England ac tually was at war.—( Hear, hear.) In the present instance, the blockade was directed by the command of her Majesty's Ministers, and whatever responsibility attached to such the Ministers and representatives of her Majesty were ready to undertake. He thought her Majesty's subjects, sailors and soldiers, engaged in the blockade, w e re e n titled to the greatest credit for their gallantry in the affair; and he should conclude, by stating, that he was not then prepared to lay before the House further information in respect to the matter, but as soon as he could do so, consistently with the public interest, of course he would take an early opportunity of laying it before the House.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. MILNER GIBSON said, that in the last serlon of Parliament he had presented several petitions in reference to the subject then before the House, and he then begged to say \ e pltyy e ae,N t Fxr sltaoohst persons, taxation e peoi etprnarn petitionAeyaasri navigation i ing g cti ‘ a leei t fdso i Ew o roa n ; sai o s, fne f out oit petition o e En River Plate. that whatever the policy of Government might be, he hoped they would o s u . ld c p ß r A o i% MEASURES. Rochdale, immediate to 00nl ite r e e m d o p u nl c a t tt i he o de n y ordered as b s andi y gn theeadb abolition Government. tiBo,n 0f table. Sir H. PEEL said he had been requested to present two petitions. The first was from Liverpool, and the commercial interests of that city prayed that the Government would not delay its decision in abolishing protective duties. No petition was ever more respectably signed than was the present by gen tlemen of all parties. He had been informed, that in the course of a few hours 414 of the signatures of the most respect able gentlemen in that city had been attached. Every banking hou ein the city subseiibed to the document. It bore the sig natures of 1114 merchants and shipowners, and 193 ship brokers. The petitioners stated that every branch of trade was paralysed by the uncertainty and indecision tha at present existed ; and they prayed that the Go vernment would, at as early a day as possible, pronounce its decision. The second petition was from Manchester, and bore the signatures of 1,122 gentle men, attached in the short space of twenty-four hours. It had been signed by the eminent bankers, by fifty-five members of the town-council, and by the greater number of the large houses engaged in the East and West Irplia trade, the Canada, Russian, and American trade; and he cSir H. Peel) had been assured that the capital pos. , e, , sed by those on whose behalf the petition was signed, did not fall much short of thirty millions. —( Hear, hear. ) The petitioners stated that they observed wit!' much satisfaction the course adopted by her Majesty's Government, and prayed that, while they admitted the pro priety of giving due deliberation to matters of such grave im portance, the House would pronounce its decision on as early a day possible..--( Hear, hear.) The petitions were ordered to lie on the table. An Bos. MEMBER (N, hose name we could not learn) pre sented 46 petitions from Buckingham, against the measures in troduced by her Majesty's Ministers. Mr. El WA LL presented some petitions in favour of the measures submitted by Ministers.—Ordered to lie on the table. :THE CORN-LAWS. On the order of the day, that this Bill be read a second time, being put. Mr. ELIOT Y ORK E said that, unaccustomed as he was to address the House, and, knowing his own deficiency, he hesitated to appear before them ; but he was urged on to the discharge of the duty by the petitions which he held in his hand, signed as they were by an immense number of agricultur ists, and therefore he could nit then, as formerly, give a silent vote on the question, lest the truth of his own opinions should be doubted, and the sincerity of his professions Mt rcetee.—(Hear, hear.) Ilia intention on that occasion was to rime that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. —( Hear, hear.) In advancing to that subject he would say, if the Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House folt as he did, he entreated of them not to be deterred by what had taken place, but by every form which the House • recognised, and by the adoption of every course which it sanctioned, to unite and exert themselves for the defeat of the measure then before the House.—( Hear, hear.) He objected to the Bill te,rairse it sought to repeal a principle which had been recrgnised by the people of England as identified with their best interests.—( Hear, hear.) It was stated that no apprehension is manifested in the agricul ' tural districts on thii subject, but he could answer that the sen . . time nts of the district which he represented were not in its favour. That district was an area of 1,600,000 acres. It was formerly a wilderness, now it was a great corn-growing district. But in order to bring it to this state a large expenditure had taken place. Not less than live millions had been expended to bring these wastes into cultivation ; and all this had been done on the faith of protection.—( Hear, hear.) At the present moment they were subjected in that district to an annual tax of from Bs. to 12e. per acre, or an aggregate tax of 80,0001. per annum. If prices fell, as he expected they would, the amount of distress that must tesult would be appalling. He did not expect a reduction in prices this year, while so much capital was expanded on public works; but as soon as that capital was withdrawn their prices would fall, and general depression over take all engaged in agricultural operations. The Hon. Gen tleman then read several extracts, from correspondence he had had with parties in the agricultural districts in support of this view of prices, showing that, next year, with the Government measure in operation, and an average crop, the price of wheat would be from 40s. to 455. per quarter, and that the wages of the labourers would have to be reduced at least 2s. per week. lie had that day received a letter from a gentleman, stating that at the present moment an eminent corn merchant in Gloucester had imported,' wheat from Odessa at 375. per gunner. He had also received information that several parties engaged in agriculture intended to remove abroad, and de vote themselves to the raising of wheat, if the Government measure was carried into effect. All this showod that it was impossible for the farmers go on under the new system, and meet payments. He had been furnished with several calcula tions on the subject. One was, that in a farm of 400 acres, on which there was a loss under protection ,of 3471., under free-trade the loss would be 8561. Ps. 2d.—( Hear, hear.) On another farm of 800 acres, it was calculated that the loss under the corn measure would not be less than 6'35/. I Is. Bd., or a suns nearly equal to the whole rent.—(Hear.) Yet this was a farm that paid 1,200/. per annum for labourers' wages. The Hon. Member then referred to certain returns respecting the amount of disease to the agricultural districts in various years, showing that in those leers when corn was cheapest disease and distress most abounded. He also referred to the tables of prices, furnished by Mr. Crooke, showing that the effect of an overabundance was to produce a state of suffering and distress in the agricultural districts, and among the labouring classes. could i present law a required, e 7 f ic ai ssr the e d moderate Gevernin pri ces, Government wa nted a nd w as low all p r i t c h e a s t . Lt r he es y s d an i d d s l o e , sc t h w e n h e gee e t h e e d shown he li o l tn a v be u t r h i a n t g low ei prices ass, meant Hear On this point he would refer to the authority of Lord Fitzwilliarn, who said, that the repeal of the corn-laws meant ruin to the farmers and destitution to the labourers.-.- (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. E. Yorke) would therefore oppose the Bill by every means in his power, so as to defeat the money corporation that was seeking the repeal of the corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) But he would go still further to prove the injurious operation of the relaxation of the protec tion principle. In the year 1844, the rates in the agricultural districts were much higher than in the year 1842, though, in the former period, the system had been relaxed. He further objected to the measure before the House, on account of its injustice. He did not deprecate the law from any selfish or exclusive grounds, but because it would be an act of spoliation in a great and important interest, which they were bound to defend. And if the measure was carried by the Government, he hoped they would not escape without that denunciation and desecration which they deserved, and which their treachery had justly earned..--(Hear, hear.) He ob jected to this measure . because, while it took away all protection from the . agriculturists, it left on land and houses H o o ts he d f e e .ctchodauennegtprel country. He upon nlHes se theydi this ncootn hesitates matter.e nconsented They to o e o y s must a all the great public burdens . of the country.—(Hear, hear.) d He did not avow these principles for the purpose of Making a narrowly into this subject, and they should not have his assent speech. l tt a ao n xt g aht l o g pn e roo w fp hich the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary say, remodelin look t t h h e e f b r e a l u o d w u h p i o m n . th the b. u v, b . a l isc iheHesawmoeuldwsiatiylaawpoorsdtatcoythien in 1839 used, that the G overnment had been guilt of a gross n p e o wy l i t p i r c o s se a l s yte in s religion. The proselyte was only used to strike a blow, and the blow having been struck, the apostate was kicked over, be cause he wa s no t t h en trusted b y those who h ad usedhim. H . e (Mr. Y or k e ) b egged to move c hat the Bill be read a second time that day six mo n th s . Sir J. Y. BULLER agreed with the views expressed by his Hon. Friend, and, supporting those views, he could not consent to allow the Bill further to proceed. He had supported the last alteration in the corn-laws, believing that no further alter ation would be proposed, at all events during the present Par liament. He had been greatly disappointed when he had heard of the determination of the Government. He had not yet re covered from that disappointment. Mr. 11PGEACHY would support the measure of her Ma jesty's Government, because he believed it wise and politic. Having supported the reductions in the tariff, and looking to the effect of those reductious, he thought there was every encouragement to proceed. —( Ilear, hear.) Every man who looked candidly and fairlyinto the position, and the difficulties of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, during the last year, would not, in his opinion, use any harsh expressions towards him for the mea sures which he had brought for w ar d ; t he y i . would n fact con fess that he had acted the pa rt of a wise and experienced statesman. Every dispassionate man , who viewed the position of the poorer classes of this count r y , wou l d refrain from charg ing the Right lion. Baronet with inconsistency for having pro posed his present measures. There was one point to which he would allude for a moment, as he conceived that the prevale n c e of the present system wa , s . injudicious,. r and injurious to th e in terests of the country. Ihe NI , hig party themselves, until a veryrecent period, were protectionists, and a great po r tion of the political difficulty of the present crisis was increased by the fact of the Noble Lord, the Member for London, having been unable to accept the reins of Government, which had been abandoned by the Right Hon. Baronet and his colleagues. It was evident that the cause of that non-acceptance of office was the weakness and dissensions of that political party. Such a course would surely lead to the most injurious consequences. What would be the practical results of such a course? Why, that the country would be governed by the Exeter-hall or Anti-Maynooth . Committee, or by 17, Old Bond-street ur the Central Protection Society, and all its most remote provincial branches. But there was one other point en which he would 0 N p trees, or of the evil of the Administrations which have con ducted the affairs of Irelend, or whether, with regard to the Miseri idch prevailed among a large per:hm of the people, or of the crimes and frightful outrages upon life es we,l es piss perty, whether resulting from misery or other causes, which had, 33 it. were, scared the soul of society, and which had forced then' Lerdshil.s reluctantly to have recourse to mea sures of a severe, coercive nature, which broached upon the natural rights of our fellow-countrymen--all these statements were bet too true. They could be matters of no controversy. No person would dispute them. They were reiterated over and over again in the course of the discussion on the late coercive measures. But these thin ss, tee existence which we all deplore, hart (as his Noble Friend who had last spoken had reminded their Lordships) their root far (feeder than in any misgovernment of the present or any other day. Its root lay deeper then its any political agitation of the present day, although he thought they were not in some sort uncon nected with that agitation, 'as he should presently show, they had had their roots deeper plunged and wide r s p read in the social condition of the Irish people. With reference to their engagements in landed property, and their great predilec tion for agricultural pursuits hi their own style he did not think they could interfere. They could not interfere with the rights of property, the most sacred of all rights—those sacred rights upon which society itself depended—tire great corner • stone of the whole social edifice in every country, as they roust ever necessarily be. They constitute the line of demarcation which separates the savage from the civilised state of society. LI the one property is safe—in the other unsafe. This consti tutes the diderence between a governed country and a country where anarchy prevailed. Here property is safe—there, there are no sacred rights of property. This constitutes the differ ence between the two states of society. It was a wide differ ence—it was a contra -t—it was a diametrical c ontrast between the civilised and savage state of society. Therefore it is that property, having all those rights, must be deemed sacred. For that remote it was that they must in all they did, in all they said, and in all they meditated to do—make ad spring from this as from a first principle ; ankno man who desired the name of a reasonable being, or even a person claiming for himself the least grain of common sense, or the smallest amount of regee thin, can entertain a doubt upon the subjest. Nor could,aay person suffer a thought to cross his mind—to pass over the mere surface of his imagination—could entertain for a moment an hesitating thought—a shade or the shadow of a shade upon the most sacred and fundamental of all principles—the sacred rights of property. If, then, there were speculators—practical speculators—who suffered to pass across their imaginations the abstract ideas that those sacred rights of property may be in terfered with with impunity, and who propouneed this inter ference with property as one of their remedies for existing evils, who carried out the absurd principle for the purpose of deluding their dupes in the country, who were for the most part ignorant persons when compared with themselves—but more thought less, more reckless than they who suffered it to be said, aail to go out to the world upon their authority—and propounded Bills in Parliament of which he had heard that night for the first time. He could not have believed it possible in this 19th century, in a British House of Commons, that there could have been propounded, what htd been called by the gentle phrase — euphonious and eugnlistic " fixity."—( Laughter and cheers.) Meaning thereby, by an Act of Parliament, that any person, being the Occupant or tenant of a piece of land, or other pro • perty, was to have a personal property nut of his landlord's estate, in the shape of the house or tenement. or lands, which he must have occupied for a limited number of veers, and which he was to become entitled to by payment of 'fixed rent. That was an interference wills, a desecration of the sacred rights of property, which their Lordships must strenuously re sist, honestly, fairly, openly, downrightly. It was a gross monstrosity to give the tenant property upon such conditions. place the tenant in the landlord's place, in consequence of his having formerly paid the rent. He could only understand how it was that such a proposal was not instantly put down by the strong arm of talent in the other House, except that it was thought, either that the matter was of so little im portance, or else so extravagant in itself as not V) deserve the attention of the House. At all _ events it was brought forward in the middle of August, when long discussiolis are deprecated, and Government beieg anxious for a prorogation, mentioned at the same time that they intended to sen7l over a Commission. He knew, more over, that. a Commission was intended long before that time, and the Commission, wnen formed, was not formed to. inquire as to the best mode of improving the sacred and inalienable rights of property. It was not appointed to inquire into fixity of tenure, nor the robbery of landlords for the sake of tenants. It wai lamentable that there should be such a state of things in the United Kingdom as had grown up in the sister country. Matters ought to be far otherwise in the management of pro perty. The Noble Lord who had just spoken had g iven us an illustration. He (Lord Brougham) wAild give his Noble Friend another illustration, with which he was familiar, to show him the difference between the two countries. What would he think of an estate, the rant of which was 13 000 or 20,0:10/. a-year, upon which there were not 80 or I 00 tenants, but 1,300 or 1,40'1 tenants in chief paying rent, and perhaps half as many more again—probably 3,000 pad the rent of under-tenants; none of whom paid en much as 40/. a-year. Numbers of them paid 71. and IN., and some 10s., 125., and l a. rent. It was a great mistake to say, that if the land was un.ierlet the law of Ireland was the same as that of England; and to say it the poor sub-tenant had paid his rent to the middle-man, ancd the middle man should fail, that the landlord coul4 not destrain upon the sub-tenant. It was a gross mistake—ha cou:d do so, and it was only an act of kindness or good feeling that he did not do so. And again in another case, to which the Noble Earl who moved the addres a averted, which he ( Lord BrouAham ) hoped rarely happened, that upon a 1: ase being out, ens the owner wishing to have his farm better cultivated, and in order to bring about that result, found it necessary to reduce the number of his tenants, in order that he might apply that skill and capital which a number of small tenants were not able to command, and were not able therefore to improve the condition of the land. He considered it a great hardship that the landlord could rot exer cise the powers granted him by law of dismissing all the small men, and consolidating the farms as had been done in Scotland some years ago. TO consolidate these farms it must be necessary that a number of these small men should emigrate. It was a considerable hardship that a man should not have some power to act, as he thought for the good management of his estate. lle would be loath to believe that the example quoted by his Noble Friend had been =eh followed. It appeared from his statement that a vast number of persons were evicted the moment the lease fell in. It was undoubledly right for the landlord to do that if he thought it was for the benefit of his estate, and it was nothing more than an set of kindness, and neither more nor less, on the part of the landlord toward his tenantry if it was not done mere frequently, and they must be made by the strong arm of the law to understand that such was his right; and if he should choose to stand upon his right, they had no right to oppose, or resist, or thwart him, for that is the law of the land ; and property would be valueless, and no longer worth having or cultivating if such laws were repealed. The landlord had an indissoluble right to do as he wished with his own estate. He con sidered that by passing the late coercion measures fir putting down outrages, that they had begun at the right end. He rejoiced to see it. They had armed Government with a compulsory power, and the first lesson to be taught to the Irish people was, that they must obey the law ; that they must sub mit themselves to the law, and that their agitators and evil c .unsellors, be they laymen or priests, shall in vain attempt . to urge upon them to resist the law, or persist in the commission of outragee; and they should know, and must know, that if they do so resist and persist, they must suffer the penalty of the condign punishment of criminals. So carefully did the Noble Earl abstain from telling them what he wished to propose to remedy the grievances of Ireland, that it was only when he alluded to the Irish church, at the end of his speech, that he (Lord Brougham) could know what tangible remedy he had in view. The mode of collecting the tithe was, it appeared, the master grievance. But since 1832, when his Noble Friend op posite, with himself, made the change in the tithe, there was no such thing to be found in Ireland as a tithe proctor. To use the words of Lord Plunkett, he was as rare to be found as an ostrich. In the year 1823 he presented a petition in the other Howe of Parliament, complaining of the maladminis tration of justice, and he had occasion then to make observa tions on that subject which he regretted were but too tree. Same of the judges who then executed the law were called "Union judges." " Post hoc vas propter hoc." in their regard, as it so happened that they owed their origin to the union s and were actuated by a strong political bias ever afterwards. He looked over the statement a few days ago which he then made, and he could say that no such grievance now remained. It might be said that political men now sat on the bench. The question, however, was not what a judge was before his ap poinment, but what he had been since. Had the ermine been stained with faction ? Were they political judges ? It was said that such appointments were not liked by the peo ple of Ireland. He could say that one-half of the population might disapprove of the appointment, but a half and more ap proved of them.—(Great laughter. r No doubt four or five Judges were appointed, who were said to be political judges ;but were they the only political judges A former Government had made appointments equally political. If they had a fackson, and a Lefroy, and a Smith, they had also an O'Loughlin, a Perrin, a Ball, a Brady, a Woffe, and a Compton—every one of them politicians. It resulted from the necessity of the ease. All the political bar of Ireland was tinged with politics, and such would be the case till a third party arose and introduced a different state of things. As long as there were two great parties at the bar, 9 out of 10 of the barristers would be politicians. He thought it his duty to to ake these observations. One word as to the social state of Ireland, which was divided into seven millions of Catholics, and one million of Pi otestants. He contended that the Catholics had no right to complain of the alienation of the religious pro perty in Ireland, as the property was g ran t ed for Christian uses, and Parliament had a perfect right to appropriate it to those purposes, and to the State religion. The master grievance of Ireland was, that these seven millions received no emolu ment for their own religion. That was a great difficulty, he admitted—so difficult as to amount to an impossibility. The people, he censidered, should not be subjected to the burden of paying for their own religious instruction. It might be said that the clergy would not take an endowment. His life on it they would take it.—(Laughter.) 'they might not take it the first quarter, but they would the next. He denied that Catholics were challenged' on juries for their reli gion, They were challenged for other objections, which would have equally applied had they been Protestants. If a question should arise as to the eligibility of a juror, it would be one not at all connected with religion. But taking a full review of the whole statement of the Noble Lord, he ( Lord Brougham) did not believe that this was a question which could be dealt with by legislative enactment, but by the determination of the Government not to palter to or bargain with agitators, be they priests or laymen. He quite agreed with Isis Noble F r i e nd th a t th e p rocesse s of law in Ireland should be made more facile and less expensive ; but then it should not be forgotten that the law in England was ten times more expensive. He felt great pain is being obliged to make many observations that he had ma d e ; b u t he did think this House should not lend itself to the malpractices of certain par ties ; and if they did, he did think they would be lending them selves to those agitators in Ireland to whom he believed was attributable much of the agrarian outrages that had been committed. He had read speeches made at public meetings by priests and others, who spoke of property having its duties as well as its rights, and he believed that the landlords of Ire land had observed that maxim.—( Hear, hear.) But he could not agree with his Noble Friend that the Irish landlordsshould not exercise that right as they thought proper. Earl FITZWILLIAINI did think that the House was much indebted to his Noble Friend for having brought forward this motion, inasmuch as it would have the effect of bringing the state of Ireland before this House and this country, because Ireland was a country not understood by Englishmen, and also because she was a sort of mirror in which Englishmen did not like to look, for it did not reflect anything creditable to the Government of England. His Noble Friend had spoken of the difficulty of dealing with the monster grievance of Ireland, the Irish Church ; and the Noble Duke opposite had said it would be impossible to do so ; but that the latter phrase would be a sort of disinheritance of this House of its power of legis lating for Ireland, or of removing the grievance by legislative enactment. He had heard a great dual said about the pay ment of the Catholic clergy ; but if he were a Roman Catholic ho would never consent to such a regulation. If the 'House did not deal with this question justly and impartially, 'depend upon it they would have to deal with questions of still greater difficulty in reference to the rights of property in that country. This was a matter in which he was deeply interested as a proprietor of land in Ireland. There was a time when certain villains in Ireland made propositions to the Lord Chancellor of the day, though these fellows held their estates by a very insecure tenure ; yet such a state of things was brought that these men became firm legal holders of those estates. He knew that what was said here went abroad lay means which he did not approve of ; but he spoke to their Lordships, and be told them HOUSE OF COMMOIVS, March 23. The SPEAKER. took the Chair at a few mintues to Four. SECOND READINGS. passed, v f i o z l . lo :_ wing Bills were read a second time and I . Scottish Central Railway (Denny Branch). Scottish Central Railway (Alloa Branch). Scottish Central Railway (Crieff Branch). Scottish Central Railway (Perth Termini and Stations). Strathtay and Breadalbane Railway. Caledonian Northern Direct Railway. Caledonian Railway (Langholme Branch.) S'irlingshire Midland Junction Railway. • Caledonian Railway (Clydesdale Junction Railway De viation), Caledonian Railway (Glasgow Termini and Branches). Caledonian Railway (Carlisle Deviation). Polloc and Govan and Clydesdale Junction Railways A malgamation. Caledonian Railway (Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coat bridge Railway Purchase). Glasgow, Strathaven, and Lesmahagow Direct Railway. Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Bridge of Weir Branch). Caledonian, Pollee and Govan, and Clydesdale Junction Railways Amalgamation. Glasgow, BArrhead, and Ncilston Direct Railway (Branches to Po,isley). I