The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-16 00:00:00

NEW-i WRIT.

Colonel CONOLLY moved for a new writ for a Knight of
the Shire for the county of Carlow, in the room of Thomas
Bunbury, Esq.. deceased.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the Lords brought up various Railway
Bills with amendments. (See Lords' report. )
ENLISTMENT IN THE A RNIY.

Captain LAY .t RD wishes to ask a question of the Secre-
tary-at-War, whose answer some time back to a similar ques-
tion had been misrepresented. and had, in consequence, caused
considerable difficulty among the public. He believed that no
limited enli,tment was allowed, but the contrary had gone
forth to the public. He wished to know whether or no limited
enli-tment was allowed ?
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said it was not the case that
limited enlistment was allowed, neither was it the intention of
her Majesty's Government to allow it.
CONDUCT OF RAILWAY BUSINESS.

Mr. E. DENIsON asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether he had any objection to lay upon the table of the House
the plan for the conduct of i ailway business which was pre-
pared by Lord Dalhousie, and submitted in eztenso by him, on
the part of the Government, to the Committee on Railways in
the House of Lords?

Sir R. PEEL said that with regard to anv written informa•

tion given by his Noble Friend in the Committee of the House
of Lords, he did not see any objection to their production. He
did not apprehend that the meaning of his Noble Friend
Lord Dalhousie was to give a formal proposition of that plan
in the Committee of the House of Lords. At the same time,
he must admit, on the part of his Noble Friend, that the plan
was not proposed on the part of the Government. He be-
lieved that at the time it was proposed no proposition was
made on the part of the Government, either in the Lords or
Commons.

Atter a few words from Mr. DENISON which did not
reach the gallery,
Mr. HUME said that there were certain resolutions to be
proposed to-morrow by the Right Hon. Baronet with reference
to the broad gauge. He should certainly take the sense of the
House on the three last resolutions. The House would not
make itself a party to what was admitted to be wrong.
Sir R. H. INGLIS gave notice that he should move for a
supplemental report of the opinions of Dr. Robinson with re-
ference to the effect of any railway passing under the Royal
Observatory at Greenwich Park.

Mr. ROSS said that he had a few words to offer in explana-
tion to the House, with reference to certain remarks made by
the Right Hon. Baronet at the Head of the Government at the
conclusion of the debate on Friday, 'upon a speech which had
been made by him (Mr. Ross) in the beginning of the evening.
He should not. have attempted to do so had he found the words
he used reported in the public:papers. The Right Hon. Baronet,
in noticing his speech, asked him in the first instance if he
would venture to deny the allegations of Government, and his
reply was, " Yes," but he must say that he did not intend to
convey by the word " yes," anything in opposition to what he
had said in his speech, because he did deny the allegations of
Government to this extent, that if the state of Ireland now,
according to the opinion of the Government, called for this
Coercion Bill, it must be in the same state as was referred to by
the Secretary far the Home Department. He also denied, and
he was borne out in his denial, the accuracy of the returns
made and presented to the House. There was no contradiction
between his answer and the assertion which he made in his
own speech. There was also another point in which the Right
Hon. Baronet had pup words in his mouth.—( Hear, hear.)
He (the Right Honourable Baronet) had said that
it was a most monstrous and idiotic assertion that
once they departed front the constitution of the country the
further tney i, ent the better. He did not make such an as-
sertion as that ; he had said that if it were necessary to turn
from the constitution of the country, we ought not to falter in
our course until we reached the object which had occasioned
our departure.

Sir R. PF.F.:L begged leave to explain. What he had said
measures
—that
ifd not hi
requiredsint eenxttiroane
rt,oi i
iis aayr.y
t
trewlaans
dition far from satisfactory. He asked the Hon. Member if he
denied the allee,tions of her Majesty's Government in that re-
spect, viz., that the state of Ireland did require extraordinary
measures, and he understood the Hon. Gentleman to say that
he did deny the allegation ; and whilst in the heat of debate,
some words did escape him (Sir R. Peel), but which he after-
wards corrected. He ( Sir R Peel) had asked the Hon.
Member if he had rot said that the outrages in Ireland were
so dangerous, and had become so intolerable, that, provided the
measure brought in by the Government for the improvement
of the relation between lansilord and tenant did not turn out
to be beneficial, and if the country continued to exist in 1846
in the same state as in 1845 and 1844, he for one would
think some measures necessary, and even that he could not ob-
jtehcatt toi ta of the Habeas Corpus Act. He hamanent
'l said
operation for the improvement of the relation of
laT:dlord and
impossibleer.sion to devise any measure of p
er
tenant, which could take any effect in a short time, and that
therefore ho vsould not object to vote for a suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act.
Air. ROSS—I said that the state of Ireland " was" so un-
satisfactory. I did not say that it is now.
vote
eir R. PEEL—The Hon. Member had said that he would
sttchm
for a suspension of the Habeas
constitution was to be '
the object they had •
STEAM COMMUNICATION violated, they should take care to secure
Corpus Act, and that if the
significant, but still in view, which might be more or less in-
secure it. e measures ur e s should i o
WITHuI db e adoptedAMEßlC a s wouldA .
Mr. MILES ' wished to ask
cation had as yet been whether any weekly communi-
Halifax ? established between this country and
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that a
contract had been entered into,
with Messrs. Cunard, for a no the part of the Government,
Halifax and Boston. weekly steam communication with
Mr. HUNIE wished to know if
be obtained. a copy of the contract could

M. MILNER GIBSON said that he had understood that
the contract was advertised to be open to all her Majesty's sub-
jects. It was supposed that the Great Western Stearn-ship
Company had not had the opportunity of entering for the
public service between this country and Halifax and Boston.
There had been a memorial presented to the Government on
that subject, for it wa, felt very important that there should be
a fair competition in the passenger traffic between England and
America; and it was also supposed that the Great Western Com-
pany were fairly entitled to a share in thisemployment. The ac-
count which they were going to pay Messrs. Cunard, was 4,0001.
for every voyage. That was a great burden, and he got, in
addition to the sum of 4,000/., his passenger traffic ; while the

Great Western Company, in order to compete with him, had
on), to rely en their passerger traffic. Such a competition
could not be borne; and if the contract was not finally signed,
he called upon the Government not to allow such a monopoly
in opposition to the Great Western.
i he CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
House mutt bear in mind, that in the year 1838 the contract
was offered for the purpose of establishing a communication
between this country and North America. That communica-
tion was tendered by many, and the Messrs. Cunard •ivere the
parties who took the contract. In that contract so made in
1838, provision was made for a weekly communication between
Great Britain and North America. In the first instance, the
communication was to have been made fortnightly ; and when
it was found that that communication answered, it was then
ordered to be made weekly. The Government thought it their
duty to enter into the contract with those persons who had in
the first instance been engaged by them, and therefore they
had given the contract to Messrs. Cunard, and the papers re-
lative to that subject had been just moved for.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to know whether those
papers would be a copy of the advertisement and the contract
itself ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under-
stood to answer in the affirmative.
After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL, which did not
reach the gallery,

ARMS BILL.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that he was anxious to make
a statement to the House with reference to what had fallen
from the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Bernard). He was
anxious that he should appear to make any charge without
feundatien,: but if it appeared that the Noble Lord could
prove a contradiction to his statement he would withdraw the
charge he made. Ile had stated, that when the
Arms Bid was passed, the powers given to the
magistrates by that Act, for the purpose of de-
priving of the right to keep arms all riotous persons
were not exerted with reference to those persons con-
cerned in disturbances, but to persons of political persuasion
called repealers. Those powers wore given to the maeis-
rates for the purpose of suppressing disturbances, but that he
thought that they had been used to the detriment of the coun-
try. The Noble Lord had contradicted that statement, and he
( Mr. J. M. O'Connell) now asked him if he meant to say
that in that statement he had said anything contrary to or be-
yond the facts? If he had done so, he should be quite ready
to move for all those papers which would throw light upon the
subject, in order that any mis-statement might be corrected.
Lord BERNARD said that he had denied the statement
made by the Hon. Member, and in order to make the matter
clear he would state the facts of the case. In the county of
Cork the number of persons applying for permission to keep
arms was 700, and out of that number those who were refused
amounted only to seven, and out of that number again
otel err were repealers. The proceedings adopted on that
occasion were very far from any party feeling, although those
wlio were rejected were repeal wardens. Out of the seven who
were rejected, three were known as had characters. The
magistrates had acted on that occasion under no political motive,
but with the view of preserving the peace of the country. There
had been a memorial addressed to the magistrates of that dis-
trict, stating that many had been obliged to I eave their homes
at night, and remained in the fields, in consequence of the ap-
prehensions they were under. He did not mean to deny that,
at the meeting alluded to by the lion. Member, there were very
injudicious expressions made use of by some individuals, but he
did say that the majority of the magistrates attended to their
duty with strict impartiality.
Mr. M. GIBSON asked the Right Hon. Baronet at the
head of the Government if the Government would defer the
signing of the contract with Messrs. Cunard until the papers
which had been moved for could be produced.
Sir R. PEEL, as we understood, said the Government
would accede to the request of the Hon. Member.
PROTECTION TO LIFE (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition containing 250,000
signatures. He stated that it came from the principal manu-
facturers of Ene/end against the Coercion Bill.—( The Hon.
Member then left the House immediately. )
Lord WORSLEY said that he had some observations to
offer to the House upon this Coercion Bill. It was true that
the Bill contained temporary measures, but still he thought it
would be found, whether temporarily or permanently em-
ployed, to be equally destructive in its influence. When mea-
sures of this kind had been before tried in Ireland, they had
always produced more evil than good, and had fallen as much,
if not more, upon the innocent than the 'guilty. Did the Go-
vernment think that the passing of this Bill, with its temporary
provision, would remedy those great and serious grievances of
which the Irish people so justly complained. It would not
even repress the evils which were the effect of
those grievances, far less would it remove the cause.
He believed that if, instead of introducing these coercion
measures, they would remedy some of the evils which at pre-
sent prevailed in Ireland, they would find that the legislation
would be attended with beneficial results.—( Hear, hear.) If
the Government of Ireland had the confidence of the people,
there wou!el be no necessity for such Acts as these, and let him
ask whether the Government did now, or had for some years
passed, possessed that confidence ? No ; they certainly had
not, and until the Government patronage was bestowed with
an impartial hand, and the Government themselves evinced
some disposition to improve the civil and religious condition of
the people, they never would. 'Why how could the present
Government hope to obtain the confidence of the people, when
they had all along opposed all reforms in the Irish Church ?
Some few years ago, while the present Government was the
opposition, he remembered Lord Stanley proposed to improve
the municipal law of the country, hut although the Govern-
ment had been in offiee now nearly five years, they had never
yet attempted to bring forward such a measure. Look again
at the conduct of the Government in later times. Look how
they acted with regard to the Arms' Act, and to the manner
in which they dismissed magistrates for expressing their poli-
tical opinions. See how they allowed the monster meetings
to go on, in fact silently sanctioning them before they issued
their proclamation, and bear in mind the spirit with which they
followed up the State prosecutions, and then let the
douse tell him how a Government who punished such a policy
as this could expect to possess the confidence of the people.
( Hear, hear.) They went before their party with regard to
some measures ; nay, they outstripped those who opposed them
in one course of policy, and yet they could not act with
liberality towards Ireland. They had come forward with a
liberal Corn Biel, but they refused to try the force of liberality
in Ireland. His opinions were decidedly opposed to this Bill,
because, in his estitnation, it was only calculated to arraravate,
rather than remove, the evil ; and it was for this reason that
he should vete against the second reading. He objected to it
on principle; and feeling it ueneeessary, as well as unconstitu-
tional, he should vote against it on principle.
Sir R. FL INGLIS said the Noble Lord, not content
with entering into a lengthened review, and strongly de-
nouncing the past policy of the Government with respect to
Ireland, went so far as to censure them for allowing his Hon.
Friend the Member for Kent to place a notice on the motion-
paper, with regard to the Catholic Church of Ireland. Now,
with regard to that, notice of motion, he could assure the Noble
Lord that the Government had nothing whatever to do with
that motion, nor had they power, he thought, to prevent his
Hon. Friend from bringing it forward.—(Hear, hear.) It
had been said by the Noble Lord, in the course of the debate,
in effect—for he would not be irregular, and refer to speeches
of Hon. Members during the present session—but he said in
effect, that those who sat eround him had made up their minds
to support the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London,
and to turn out her Majesty's Ministers, whoever they might
he. He was unwilling to revive language, but such was tl.e
effect of the Noble Lord's words. He ( Sir R. Inglis) could not by
any means concur with such a determination ; he had adready
given her Majesty's Mirsisters his confidence, and he would not
suffer any collateral considerations to influence him against
continuing his support. If it was so that the Government had
not found time or opportunity to pass on the measure to its
dentpr ese
hn
at
dstage
rart
eadntso•
iearlieru
p t tperiodhe oogrr
eif s as noyflthe calamity
me a
and-
though he held that they ought not to have allowed any other
suor er ;ac '
measlre whatever to have interrupted its progress; still he
would give her Majesty's Ministers the same confidence anti
support as he had given on a former occasion to the Noble
in
troduced
a opposite, the Member fur London, when he
a measure of a similar nature, and more severe.—(Hear, hear. )
It was for the Government to provide for the safety of her
Majesty's subjects ; on them rested that care ; when, therefore,
they thought and said that any measure was necessary for that
purpose, it was not for him to-oppose them, for the responsibi-
lity of the measure fell on them.—(" Hear, hear," from the
Opposition.) He had no wish to say or do anything derogatory
tdthe Members for Ireland trho sat opposite, but he bad given
her Majesty's Ministers his confidence, and he would support
them in the second reading of the measure as he had in the first.
The Hon. Baronet proceeded, in a tone scarcely audible in the
gallery, to say that there had been great delay in the pro-
gress of the measure in that House, a delay which
was even irritating.—(lronical cheers.) The measure was a
measure of police, for which the Ministers were therefore re-
sponsible, and however they mighs taunt him with their cheers,
yet being a measure of police, he would give it his support,
leaving the whole to rest on the responsibility of the Govern-
ment. If the Government hail made up their mind to press to
the second reading this measure, modified and mutilated as it
had been in the other House of Parliament, he (Sir R. Inglis)
had come to the determination to support it, but to support it
only in the condition in which it then was.
Colonel V ERNER was convinced that some measure was
neeessary for the protection of life and property in Ireland, and
therefore he would give the present measure his support. At
the same time he could not but regret that such delay had been
suffered to interrupt the progress of this measure, or any mea-
sure of thelike importance. They had heard of the measure being
introduced by the Government at the beginning of the session,
but it had been thrown hack till this late period ; he hoped
now, however, that Ministers would exert themselves with all
diligence to forward it. We understood the Hon. Gentleman
to say, that he was proud to support a measure which had been
introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her
Majesty's Government, even at the risk of being charged with
ineonsistency, such us they had heard made in that House on a
late occasion, although at ~he same time he would not be
understood as prepared to support a bad measure merely
because it came from the same quarter. The Gallant Gentle-
man begged the House to bear with him, while he vindicated
himself against a misrepresentation cast on him by this Right
Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State. He said he had pro-
duced some extracts on a former occasion referring to the state
of Ireland; extracts, however, riot very agreeable it would
seem to the Right Hon. Baronet. The Right Hon. Baronet
had not denied any of his statements, nor had he upset any of
the evidence laid before the House.—(Hear, hear.)
What then, he asked, was the charge made against
him by the Right Hon. Baronet? Why, that in November,
1845, he (Colonel Verner) had said that he thought there
would be distress in Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman was then
proceeding to read from a speech made by Sir James Graham
in which Colonel Verner had been referred to, when he was
interrupted by cries of " Order," and
The SPEAKER intimated to the Gallant Colonel that he
was irregular.

~
Colonel VERNER continued to say that it had been re-
ported that he (Colonel Verner) bad said that a letter had been
sent to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in which an opinion was
given that a pecuniary grant should be made towards the drain-
ing of Loch Erne, with a view to relieving the distress in his
(Colonel Verner's) neighbourhood. (The Gallant Colonel
was again called to order by the Speaker.) He had just to say
that the part of the country there referred to was not within
his neighbourhood by five and twenty Irish miles.
teitt.o.hvatdhebeseeneoeidntviemaadtli;dg.boyn the
ee
ground that the measure was
theo ne
conclusion
eml
uastttoenr matters
to vote
police.
at
againstlee it,
11:Ie said
would t that.
. ing from those which had been adopted hy
but for reasons differing
at opposed it on the ground
others in that Ilouse, and once
Hon. .
Baronetii°R Stlhi
re inaccurate. He would
that the reports alleged in evidence
homicides and murders to others ;
leave the nice calculation of .
(Mr. Horsman) had come to
these reports that they
the Secretary
and he thought so too. Nor
were as well got up as usual,
had been pushed forward with
would he oppose it because it not
He saw two the speed that some would have wished.
same period
mea-
sures advancing in that House during the . . .
of State was satified with
Ireland •
had a benevolent aspect to the people of ,
the other was harsh and coercive ; the two measures
—one of them was large and liberal in its spirit, and
differed so much that it might well be doubted whether they
were the workmanship of the same hands. The Right Hon.
Baronet might Lie supposed to address himself to the one mea-
sure with alacrity and zeal, as agreeing with his own spirit,
optosveodt eth againsti'i his liking
feet: d
ahniys
ofr e ason
those. vleiaes
o(nNsl. r .
THhoor ss e-
but to the other he might require to be stirred and incited as
to
man) a task
did o
np
grounds on which he opposed it were set forth in better lan-
guage than he could use in a document, from whieh he would
road to the Holm. (The In. Goutlernan then road from a