The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-02 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDN

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE O 1 LORDS—{YESTERDAY.).
The LORD 'CHANCELLOR took his heat on the woolsack
at ve o'crock.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a place
in Glamorganshire praying for the Extension of County.
Courts ; also, petitions from the Portsmouth and Nor-
wood Literary Institutions, praying for the distribution
of Parliamentary papers. ,
The Duke of ARGYLL presented several petitions
froM different places in Scotland; against the Maynooth
grant.
In answer to the Bishop of MANCHESTAR,
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that it was not the
intention of her Majesty's Government to make any
alterationi n the system by which convicts were now sent
to Bermuda and Gibraltar. He was happy, however, to
inform the right rev. prelate that the convicts at those
places would be rapidly placed on the same footing as
those who were confined in prisons. New prisons were
being built for their reception, which were lighted
and ventilated on the new system, and where they would
be under better supervision than in the hulks.
In answer to Lord CAMPBELL,
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said. that it was not at
present convenient to say what were the intentions of
her Majesty's Government with reference to the aboli-
tion of transportation as a secondary punishment, be-
cause there must be a great alteration in the system of
secondary punishments and the prison accommodation
before the Government could come to a final opinion on
the subject. It was his own conviction, however, that
before long it would be necessary, for the good of our
colonies, tplbring the punishment of transportation to a
°lose. -
Lord CAMPBELL said he hoped that transporta-
tion would not be abolished, because, as a judge, he
believed that if he sentenced a man to imprisonment for
life it would not produce the same effect as if he sen-
tenced him to transportation for life.
After a few words from the Earl of HABBOWBY,
Lord MONTEAGLE said that if the question of

transportation would be discussed he hoped it would be
in the shape of a bill, and he hoped that they would not
only consider the abolition of transportation, but also
the means of supplying its place, in order that we might
not increase the social evil which we sought to remedy.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM and Lord
WHARNCLIFFE,
The subject then dropped.
The Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
The Bail in Error Bill passed through committee.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

The Earl of MALMESBURY then rose to move for
certain returns respecting railway accidents ,that had
occurred during the year 1852, and said he wished to
take the opportunity of drawing the attention of their
lordships and of her Majesty's Government to this sub-
ject, which had lately created considerable interest in the
public mind. A strong feeling existed, in which he par-
ticipated, that these accidents had lately considerably
increased, and were still increasing. He believed that
during the last year a greater number of railway acci-
dentshad occurred, and that more lives had been sacri-
ficed in consequence of those accidents, than: at any
former period. Scarcely a week had passed in which
the public prints had not contained some lamentable ac-
count of mutilation or death. A strong impression
existed in the public mind that the manner in which
railways were managed was extremely dangerous to pas-
sengers, and that sufficient endeavours were not made
to prevent the occurrence of accidents ; and it was con-
sidered desirable that a third power should be interposed
between the railway companies and the public, to pro-
tect on the one hand capital and industry as it ought to
be protected in a commercial country, and on the other
hand to protect the lives of her Majesty's subjeota from
such injuries as might with due precaution be guarded
against. Travellers were not now on the same footing
as they were sixty years ago. Formerly, persons tra-
velling from Edinburgh to London took the precaution
of making their wills, the journey occupying something
like a fortnight. But things were now altogether
changed, and from the slowest point of travelling we had
arrived at the most rapid, and persons now starting on
a railway journey thought it necessary to, insure their
lives. There was something ridiculously tragical in
the appearance of many of the railway offices by the
side of the- time bills were to be seen notices posted,
with the most ingenious candour on the part of the
directors—notices in the most seductive terms, advising
the traveller to insure his life, showing him that it was
his duty to do so, in justice to his wife and children ;
and many persons were induced to do so under the im-
pression that they might never see their friends again,
and that if their friends should happen to see them they
might not be able to recognise them in a shapeless mass.
To show the extent to which insurances of this kind
were incurred he was informed by credible witnesses
that the railway insurance companies had received some-
thing like soven per cent, as a dividend. The public
were clearly at the mercy of the railway companies.
Formerly the coach proprietor and the innkeeper stood
hat in hand before the public, but now the public were
obliged to stand hat in hand before railway directors.
The subject of railway travelling was one which ought
to engage the attention of the Government, and some
effort ought to be made to tranquillise the public mind.
Some time ago he was requested to make a representa-
tion to the directors. They confessed the annoyance ;
acknowledged that there could be no reason for having
only three trains to London and four down trains ; they
also admitted the cruelty of detaining these poor people
at Southampton, and the injustice of having taken away
the day communication by post, but promised that the
matter would be remedied in March. Sic volo, sic jubeo.
The station-masters admitted that the evil arose from
nothing but the want of a little management. He urged
on the Government the necessity of considering whether
they could not apply some remedy without infringing
on the rights of the companies or the rights of property;
and felt quite certain they could not do a more popular
thing than to institute an investigation into those evils
of which the public had so much right to complain.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord VIVIAN wished to ask whether the Govern-
ment could not interfere and stop the traffic on a line in
the event of its being in a dangerous condition ? •
Lord STANLEY (of Alderley) said that after a line
was once opened the Government possessed no power to
interfere with it or stop the traffic. The Board of Trade
was empowered by act of Parliament to send down in-
spectors to examine the line, whose duty it was to cer-
tify whether the line was in a fit state to be opened and
could be safely worked, and until such certificate was
given no line could be opened. With respect to the
subject which had been brought under consideration by
the noble earl, he thought there was none more deserving
of their lordships' attention.
The returns were then ordered.

Lord MONTEAGLE gave notice of his intention, on
Friday next, to present a petition from Bombay, on the
subject of the renewal of the East India Company'
charter.

Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—{YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at a few minutes to four
o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time, and
ordered to be committed :—Manchester and Salford
Education ; City of Dublin Steam-Packet Company ;
Lands Improvement Company.
WEST LONDON WATERWORKS BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. BARROW moved that the bill be read a second
time this day six months.
Sir J. SHELLEY suggested that the bill should be
referred to a select committee, as the subject as to the
supply of water to the metropolis involved details which
could not be inquired into satisfactorily by the house.
Lord SEYMOUR opposed the suggestion of the hon.
baronet, on the ground that the whole subject had al-
ready been investigated by a ,committee of the house.
He thought it would be most unfair to sanction
a competing scheme like the present, after the settle-
ment which was come to in the last Parliament respect-
ing existing water companies, and which imposed on
those companies very heavy conditions, for the purpose
an improved supply of water. If the pre-
companies did not fulfil their engage-
msoef
ennotbt
stv:aiatntienerg
better course would be, instead of sanc-
tioning opposing schemes, to deprive them of their
powers, and place the supply of water under the control
of a municipal body. He should vote against the second
reading. •
Sir B. HALL supported the bill.
After some discussion, in which Mr. Bouverie, Lord
J. Manners, Sir J. Wahnsley, and others, took part, the
house divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading, .................. 99
Against it, .... . ............................... 93

Majority, ........................... 6
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.

CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.
Mr. V. SMITH appeared at the bar, and reported
that the committee appointed to inquire into the peti-
tion against the return for Cambridge had come to the
resolution that Kenneth Macaulay and John Henry
Astell, Esqrs., were not duly elected .for that borough,
and that the last election was a void election ; also
that they were both guilty, by their agents, of
bribery at the last election. [The resolution come
to was given in detail in The "Sun of yesterday.]
On the motion of the hon. member, it was agreed that
the evidence taken before the committee should be laid
on the table of the house.
The HON. MEMBER also gave notice that to-morrow
he would move that the evidence be printed, and that
no writ be issued for Cambridge until the 11th of April.