The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-14 00:00:00

RAILWAY.

Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition from the land-
owners on the line against this project of the South-
Western Railway Company.
EXTENSION OF THE CARLISLE RAILWAY.

Mr. WARD presented a petition against this line.
NORTH KENT RAILWAY.

Colonel 10i1TTHER presented a petition from the
clergy, gentry, and magistrates of Canterbury, in favour
(as we understood) of this railway.
MALTA.

Mr. HUME gave notice that OR Thursday, March 19,
he should call the attention of the House to the late in-
terference by the Governor of Malta with the religious
ceremonies of the inhabitants of that island, and that
he would move that an humble address be presented to
her Majesty, praying that copies of the orders thereon
be laid on the table. On the same day he should
move for some returns respecting the post-office in
India.

STATE OF IRELAND.
Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that on the 26th
March he should move that the House do resolve itself
into Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of
considering an address to her Majesty on the subject of
the state of Ireland.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
It was then resolved that the House at its rising
should adjourn until Monday nest.
On the motion that the orders of the day should be
read,
Captain PECHELL observed, that there was a Bill
before the House for the payment and enrolment
of the Chelsea pensioners. Now he would wish that
the Bill were postponed until a return of the Chelsea
pensioners was made, and the number and names of the
places where they were paid.
Mr. CARDWELL objected to such a course as most
unreasonable.
An HON. MEMBER wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government at what
period the sugar question would be brought under the
attention of the House ?—(Hear, hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL said it was impossible for him
to name a day when be would bring forward that
question. So far as commercial measures were con-
cerned, it certainly should have precedencti. He would
be most anxious that it should be brought under the no-
tice of the House at the earliest period. He proposed
that the reduced duties should not come into operation
until the sth of July next.
THE BETTER PROTECTION OF LIFE
(IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to inquire from the Right
Hon. Baronet whether it was the intention of the Go-
vernment to follow a certain precedent which had been
established in 1773. In that year the Coercion Bill was
introduced into the House of Lords, and was brought
down to the House of Commons, and he was authorised,
he believed, by the majority of the Irish Members of
the House to ask whether the precedent then esta-
blished would be followed out in this case. The precedent
was this ; as soon as the Bill was brought down to the
House of Commons, Lord North, then at the head
of her Majesty's Government, moved that the
Bill be printed, and appointed a day, after
the printing of the Bill, for its first read-
ing ; and as the present is a very important
case, he was very anxious to know whether that prece-
dent would be followed in this instance. He wished to
know when the Coercion Bill now before. the House of
Lords would be printed, and have a day fixed for its
first reading. It was very desirable that the House
should be put into possession of copies of that Bill before
any discussion took place upon it.
Sir R. PEEL said that there was a very material dif-
ference between the Bill to which the Hon. and Learned
Member had referred, as having passed in the time of
Lord North, and that which was now before the House
of Lords. The first-mentioned Bill was a coercion Bill,
but that which was now before their Lordships was a
Bill for the better protection of life in Ireland.
At the same time he must admit that the precedent
to which the Hon. and Learned Member referred
was established in the year 1773. (Hear, hear.) Lord
North moved when the Bill was brought to the House
that it should be printed, and the first reading of it post-
poned. He (Sir Robert Peel) was desirous that the pre-
sent Bill should be proceeded with without delay, but still
as the precedent had been established, he had no objec-
tions against moving that the Bill, when it reached that
House, should be printed, and that a future day be ap-
pointed for taking it into consideration.
CUBA SUGAR.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that, as a question had
already been asked about:the sugar duties, he should wish
to ask the Government another question. It had been
stated by L )rd Abinger that the Earl of Aberdeen was
about to make some proposition to the Government
of Spain, with regard to matters relating to England and
Spain. But the Noble Earl at the same time stated
that it was not intended, either directly or indirectly, to
prevent the slave trade. Now, he (Lord J. Russell)
wished to know whether it was proposed to admit the
productions of Cuba ?
Sir R. PEEL—Her Majesty's Government do not
contemplate the introduction of sugar from Cuba into
the ports of this country.
FAMINE IN IRELAND.
Mr. GEORGE P. SCROPE wished to know whether
it was the intention of Government to undertake
the immense responsibility of alleviating the
present calamity in Ireland at an early day.
It was absolutely necessary that the wants of
that country should be supplied without delay.
But it seemed to him that the responsibility of relieving
the people of Ireland during the present season of dis-
tress should be undertaken by the local authorities. the
boards of guardians, and the landlords of that country.
He thought that the responsibility had been unwisely
thrown upon the Government ; and, indeed, he conceived
the course to be pursued ought to be the same as that
followed in England. Now, in England—(Murmurs
and interruption)—he thought he might say a few words
on this subject, for he believed that a great responsibility
had been thrown upon the Government which they
ought not to bear; and he believed that some provision
ought to be made to meet the coming scarcity in Ire-
land. There was no doubt but that distress was immi-
nent on a great portion of the population of Ire-
land. Now, in England, the boards of guardians had
the power to give relief out of doors ; such,
however, was not the case in Ireland. There the boards
of guardians could only afford relief to the poor by re-
ceiving them in the workhouses. Here the case was dif-
ferent. Relief might be arlministered either in doors or
out of doors. Then the evil was increased by the fact
that the workhouses were only capable of receiving one
per cent. of the pauper population of the country.
He was not anxious to make a speech upon the matter,
but some provision ought to be made for the emergency
that might arise, and he was desirous that the
responsibility should be thrown upon the right shoulders,
for it was the business of the local authorities to make
provision for the maintenance of their poor. The ques
tion he had to ask the Government was, whether their
measures for meeting the impending scarcity in Ireland
contained any guarantee, that every individual in immedi-
ate danger of perishing- from want should be enabled to
obtain relief from some local authority, as in England ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the attention of the Go-
vernment had been directed to the subject. About a
fortnight ago, in answer to a question from the
Honourable Member for Rochdale (Mr. Sharman
Crawford) he stated then, and he said so now, that
it was not the intention of the Government to propose
any other measures for the relief of the poor of Ireland,
beyond those introduced by the Government. Perhaps,
however, he might claim the indulgence of the House,
before the orders of the day were disposed of,
to depart from the accustomed rule, and make sonic
observations with respect to the poor of Ireland.
The SPEAKER said the motion before the House
was that the dropped orders of yesterday be now read.
ELECTION OF ANOTHER MEMBER TO REPRE
Sir J. GRAHAM then resumed his seat.

SENT THE CITY OF CORK.
Mr. O'CONNELL postponed his motion on this sub-
ject until Thursday next.
ANNOYANCE JURY IN WESTMINSTER.
Sir DE LACY EVANS moved for the return showing
the amount and particulars, as set forth in the present-
!tients of the amerciaments levied by each annoyance
jury in the city of Westminster during 1841, 1842, 1843,
and 1844, omitting the names of parties fined, also the
trade of the party fined, specifying deficiency of weights,
scales, or measures, and the amount of fine ; which was
agreed to.