The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-16 00:00:00

THIRD READING.

The Edinburgh and Bwhgate Railway (Deviation and
Amendment) Bill was read a third time, and passed.
LORDS AMENDMENTS.

The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
considered and agreed to :
Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction Railway
(Deviation of Main Line and Chester Branch, &c.)
Buckingham and Brackley Junction Railway, and
Oxford and Bletchley Junction Railway Companies
Amalgamation and Extension of Lines.
Caledonian Railway (Edinburgh Station, and Branches
to Granton, and to the Edinburgh and Glasgow
Railway).
Chester and Holyhead Railway (Extension at Holyhead).
Edinburgh and Northern Railway (Improvement of the
Ferry between Ferry Port on Craig and the north
shore of the river Tay).
Edinburgh and Northern, and Edinburgh, Leith, and
Granton Railways Amalgamation,
Liverpool, Manchester, and Newcastle-upon- Tyne
Junction Raiiway (Alteration of Main Line and
Hawes Branch).
London (City) Improvements.
Northe
Guildford,rnContie
sUannidonßeßiagialwte lil
ayiDegaiayt.ion.
Reading,
South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and Goole Railway (Penis
tone, &c., and Purchase of Sheffield, Rotherham,
Barnsley, Wakefield, Huddersfield and Goole Rail-
way, Dun Navigation, and Dearne and Dove Canal).
Wear Valley, Bishop Auckland and Weardale, Wear-
dale Extension, and Wear and Derwent Railways,
and Shildon Tunnel Amalgamation.
York and North Midland Railway (Hull Station and
Branches).
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN TRINIDAD.
Mr. FIUME presented a petition from Trinidad coal-
plaining of the present system of Government in that
colony, and praying for a House of Assembly.
iP9.f7R-LAW.
Mr. OSBORNE. presented, a petition from the Tip •
perary Union, stating that tberntes under the new Irish
poor law could not be collect4without bloodshed.
PORT u-GA L. _

Russell) a question in the absence
Affairs. By the second
Mr. OSBORNE wished to askthoef Noble Lord
oLbloerdLo(rJd.
the Secretary -for Foreign A •
article in the treaty with Portugal
pro-
vided that the decree a taking away the liberty itwofthe a s
subject of the press should be revoked. Now, as the
Diario recently issued contained a decree continuing a
suspension of the liberty of the subject and of the press,
for, an indefinite period, he wished to know whether
the Noble Lord was aware of this ; and whether he in-
Po to take any step to c mpel the Government of
rtugal to tulfil the tieaty ?ti
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who spoke very indistinctly,
say, that he was aware that the
was understood to
liberty of the subject and of the pevreosskehdt.id
Tbeehen
rsouvsopcean.ciloend
and that they had not been r
Qof the decrees on the subject was assented to by *the
ueen and her Governroent, but refused by .Innta ;
but he believed the continuation of the thedzcr
plained of was merely ternperary, mad that it would bl:3
ix/moth:tie lv revoked.
Mr. B. OSBORNE also wished to know whether
it
was true Viet the French and Spanish Atabassadora
had protested against the contsuct of Colonel Wylde at
Oporto ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he believed they had pro
tested.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. HINDLEY wished to know whether, in th© event
of atil.B4l cow down from the House of Peers with

the clause of the Hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Borth-
wick) omitted, the Government would consent to its re-
insertion ?

Mr. FERRAND said no less than fifty Members who
had left town had stated that if the Government offered
any opposition to the clause that they would come up to
town for the express purpose of supporting it. If the
Government would state that they would not oppose
the insertion of the clause much incovenience might be
saved.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he would be very unwilling
to create a precedent by stating what he would do on the
mere supposition that alterations had been made in the
Bill by the House of Lords. This, however, he would
promise the Hon. Gentleman to do. As soon as the
Bill came down, he should move that it be taken into
coesideration on Monday—(Hear)—and he would then
state what course the Government would pursue.
Mr. FERRAND wished to know if it was to be un-
derstood that the Bill would come from the House of
Lords this day?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he understood that the Bill
was placed in the hands of the messengers yesterday, and
that it would be brought down to-day.
Mr. FERRAND inquired if the Government would
give a pledge that they would not take the Bill till late
in the evening, in order that Hon. Members might come
up to town, in the event of the Government opposing
the clause.—(Cheers and laughter.)
CHELSEA EMBANKMENT—METROPOLITAN
IMROVE ENTS.

In reply to Sir R. H. INGLIS,
Lord MORPETH stated that the Treasury had autho-
rised the expenditure of 50,0001. for the purpose of con-
structing an embankment at Chelsea, but the works had
not yet been commenced, owing to the arrangements
which it was necessary to make with persons possess;ng
property on the banks of the river—the Marquis of
Westminster and others. His attention would be
earnestly directed to the subject during the recess.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, it was true his brother the
Duke of Bedford had offered to subscribe a considerable
sum towards the metropolitan improvements, on condi-
tion that a certain sum, for the same purpose, should be
raised by a tax on coals coming into the river ; but the
Government believed, looking at the high amount of the
present coal duties, that they could not have effected
these improvements without subjecting coals to a charge
considerably beyond that now charged by law. It would
be necessary to introduce a Bill on the subject. But
both out of office, and now in office, he considered that
the levying of such a tax was a most objectionable source
of revenue.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had given the most careful at-
tention to the subject, and he was of the same opinion.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOT. -
In answer to a question from Sir C. DOUGLAS,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he did not see that there
were any public grounds which would justify the House
in coming to any resolution on the subject of the family
of Sir Eardley Wilmot. He had no doubt that Mr.
C. E. Wilmot was a very deserving person, but he could
not thence agree in the opinion of the Hon. Baronet
that the Honge should come to any resolution in his
favour.