The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-13 00:00:00

.
question to tszue on that point—who was, in reality, the Com-
mander-in-Chief of these realms.
Lord HO W ICK did not so much object to granting the
returns moved for by the Hon. Member as to the form
,in
which they were required. He was willing to give the Hon.
Member every facility for the discussion of his motion on the
general subject of Crange Lodges, fixed for the 231, as well
as every information in is power, consistent with his duty to
the public and to individuals. He should, however, reserve
all expression of. his own opinions until that period, save and
except to say, that his Majesty had an undoubted and indislu.
table right to remove any individuals he chose from his service,
without assigning a reason. It was a right which %las rarely
exercised, it was true, and only in the worst cases ; but still it
existed as inalienable as ever, notwithstanding. The objec-

tion he had to the form of the motion arose fri)-m the circum-
stance of the names of individuals who had been dismissed, aI 1

of them from disgraceful causes, it was to be presumed, being
dragged before the public. The dismissal from the Army was
in itself a severe, and perhaps a sufficient, punishment. Why,
then, should it be aggravated, after the lapse of so Many years,
by the exposure of the individuals who had suffered by blazon-
ing and holding up their names to the eye of the public ?
( Hear, hear.) He objected to the terms and not to the spirit
of the motion, and he was prepared to accede to it if the num-
ber of Officers alone was required.
Colonel VERNE R said that he was one of those who were
on the half-pay list ; and that this recompense had been
granted him by his Majesty on account of his services, as well
as permission to retain his rank. He had done nothing un -
worthy of art Officer or a Gentleman, and he would think it
hard that he should be struck off the list merely for belonging
to a Society, at the head of which were two of his Majesty's
brothers.—( Hear. )
Mr. SCAR LETT wished to know whether the Hort.,Men--
ber for Middlesex desired to abridge personal liberty so far as
to prevent gentlemen on half-pay doing that which no law de
dared illegal ?—( Hear.) In defiance of all law and reason,
to commence a bitter persecution of these gentlemen for join-
ing a society, was neither fair, just, nor honourable.—( Hear.)
Colonel THOMPSON said his own desire would be to
establish Reform societies in every regiment, to discuss various
subjects connected with the well-being of the soldier—corporal
punishment, for instance—but he had always been restrained
by the point of honour which he had understood to exist, that
it was neither wise nor prudent to introduce politics in the
army. Now, what he wished to know was, whether that point
of honour was to be abrogated, and when ?—( Hear.) If the
power of the Crown were to be exercised solely against those
who introduced Reform societies into the army, and not against
those who introduced Orange lodges, he thought it was only
fair that the barrier should be done away with on one side as
well as on the other. But perhaps it was the difference of
.

rank in the individual which caused the criminality, and what
was wrong in a subaltern was right in a superior officer. Yet

he could riot credit that either, ?or the Hon. Member opposite
had complained of ill treatment. It was desirable that it should.

be explained clearly to the army, whether what was wrong in.
a Colonel was right in a Field Marshal.

Lord HO WICK explained.—lf the Hon. and Gtlant
Member had understood him to say that officers on half-pay
would be allowed to establish societies in the army he had mis-
taken his meaning. What he said was, that officers on half-
pay were looked upon as civilians in all cases, e:cept those
which were positively prohibited by orders from Lead-quarters
or the standing regulations of the army. The order of the
Commander-in-Chief, of the 31st of August last, was posi-
tive ; and, therefore, it would be irregular, and an act of diso-
bedience, in any officer, even on half-pay, to infringe on its
prescription. To establish societies in the army, after that
order had been issued would be an offence in an officer of any
rank whatever, even the highest.
Mr. SCARLETT made one or two observations, which
were inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. HUME said he felt the force of the Noble Lord's ob-
jection in one point, but differed with him totally in his oppo-
sition to the other. The Noble Lord had said that it would.
be cruel to expose the names of parties dismissed from the
army for misconduct. He (Mr. Hume) thought otherwise,
and he looked upon it as overstrained and unnecessary deli-
cacy-towards them. Their names, as well as their offences
should be made public in his opinion, if it were only as an
example to deter others from following the same course.
The Honourable and Learned Member opposite had asked
him whether he wished to abridge personal liberty ?
The history of his whole life answered the question, he hoped,
satisfactorily. He wished to abridge no liberty but that of
doing wrong. He begged to call the attention of the House
to the last two sentences of the Honourable and Gallant Mem-
ber who had spoken on the other side, " That it would be
cruel to strike him off the half-pay list for belonging to a so-
ciety at the head of which were two of his Majesty's brothers,"
and to concur with him in that opinion, unless the greater evil
could be met as well as the lesser ; and higher offenders
reached as well as the lower. In deference, however, to the
opinion of the Noble Lord, he should shape his motion so as
to meet his concurrence. The Honourable Member then
moved for—" A Return of the number of Officers, of all
ranks, not being on full pay, who have been struck off the
Army List without their own consent since the year 1815."
Return ordered.
RAILROADS IN THE METROPOLIS.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY rose to call the attention of the
House and the Government to a subject of very great impor-
tance to the community—the formation of railroads. No ob-
ject of a domestic nature had so largely occupied. the public
mind for a considerable period, as the subject of railroads ;
and a greater number of individuals, with a larger amount of
capital, were involved in them, than in any single specula-
tion which had been started for a long while past. It was
for these reasons that he claimed the attention of the House.
He should take it for granted that any plan which had the
effect of lessening the labour, and economising the time °r
Honourable Members, while, at the same time, it facili-
tated the public business, would be welcome, and therefore,
he was encouraged to believe that as the one he was now
about to propose would effect these objects, it would be at-
tended to. When the number of Bills before Committees of
that House were considered, no one could say that there was
not enough business then to occopy them to the last hour of
the Session. It was to curtail that business without injury to
its dispatch that he brought forward his motion. It was for a
Select Committee, to which should be referred every Railway
Bill the road of which terminated within seven miles of the
metropolis. The object of the motion was obvious. It was
too much labour for any Committee to undertake more than
his motion pointed out, and it also appeared to him unneces-
sary, as railroads from one provincial town to another were
under the guardianship of parties who had a pecuniary interest
in them, and were originated only where they were likely to
be useful. But it was quite otherwise with the railroads pro-
jected in London. The greater part of these projects had
their origin in no sentiment of public utility, but were the
speculation of parties who had a redundant capital, of active
habits, and no means of employing either. If the lists of
shareholders were to be analyzed, it would be found that the
great majority of the parties subscribing had not the remotest
connection with the towns or country through which the rail-
roads were proposed to run, and no interest whatever beyond
the mere pecuniary one of employment, and perhaps profitable
investment, of superfluous capital. It was therefore the
duty of the Legislature to watch over the interests of the
public, and to take care that no portion of his Majesty's sub-
jects should be injured by the unwise, the indiscreet, or the
interested speculatiobs of individuals. The case he wished to
put would be strongly illustrated if Hon. Members only bore
in mind a few out of the many projects on foot to connect the
metropolis by the means of railroads with the distant parts of
the country. He did not intend to offer any opinion, favour-
able or otherwise, of any particular project, but simply to call
the attention of that House to some of the many plans in pro-
gress. For instance, there were three proposals for as many
distinct lines of railroad from the eastern part of London to
Norwich. Each of these lines passed over different portions
of the country. Now, whatever might be the profit on one
line of railroad between these two cities, it was incontestable
that three would never pay ; therefore two of the three, sup-
posing one profitable, would be a dead loss, and ruinous not
alone to the proprietors, but those parts of the country through
which they passed. It would divert the current of trade to
the successful line, and miserably impoverish those places con-
tiguous to its two unsuccessful competitors. It would also
destroy the high roads, which in a short time would become
pastures. But, supposing these three lines were successful, he
would submit to the House whether it would be right to give
them three distinct terminations in the heart of the metropolis..
If they were to have that power the effect it would produce
would be the desoletion of whole districts—the depo-
pulation of entire sections—the destruction of innumerable
streets, and all the trade and business they contained, together
with the interest of the numberless individuals necessarily in-
volved in their existence as they were before these railroads
had passed in that direction. If his resolution were adopted
he should propose further that a space within a reasonable dis-
tance of the metropolis should be fixed upon as the common
termination of all railroads converging to that great centre,
and that on no account should they be permitted to come
nearer. Should some such mode not be adopted, no standard
of value would be sufficient to measure the immense loss of
property likely to ensue to individuals. It was obligatory on
the Government of a country to protect its property as much
as to protect its peace. Property of a peculiar nature Wl's
threatened with danger by the multiplication of railroads the
present was the time to stand forward and protect it. Net
only were these railroads projected from London to every
earner of the country, but even from one part of London to
the other. So that when a traveller on the Birmingham rail-
road would have arrived at the termination of that line, which
was to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of Euston-square,
he would be taken up then on another railroad, and carried
into Snow-hill, if the House permitted the project of the
latter line to be proceeded with. The next railroad, be
presumed, would be to the House of Commons—(hear,
hear, hear, and laughter)—and, perhaps, the one after to
Blackfriarsl Bridge ; until at lest there would not be
a single street left in London. If change were necessary, let
there be change ; but, in his opinion, utility should always be
the guide followed in changes of every description, and not
speculative spirit, which often led individuals to ruin not aloof)
themselves but their neighbours. It might bo urged against
his motion that a tribunal already existed to try the merits of
cases similar to those included in it, and that, therefore, iS
was unnecessary. But to this he would reply, that although
Committees of the House of Commons were very much im-
proved in such matters of late, they were not sufficiently so to
meet the evils likely to arise &pm an excessive indulgence 'n
unwise speculations of the nature adverted to in his observe;
tions. The numbers composing them were too large, th_
rooms in which they were held too small, the attendance tc'
crowded and confused, and the motives of many Hon. Men;;
bers too questionable, through private or public prejudice I.
favour of one lino or in opposition to another, to render ''
0)111444Po of the House of Commons, upon subjects of that
nature, the most correct or impartial tribunal. The conse_
_
quence of this combivatiett Wlfaveurable circumstances,