The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-06 00:00:00

PROTECTION TO LIFE AND PROPERTY.

- _
Mr. YOUNG presented a petition from Clare, in favour of
the Government measure of affording better Protection to
Life and Property in Ireland.
THE LEICESTER AND TAMWORTH RAILWAY.

Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a peiition from the
mayor and inhabitants of Tamworth, in favour of this railway,

THE TIMBER DUTIES.

Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition from the port of
Sunderland, signed by one hundred and forty-four shipowners,
in favour of the •proposed reduction of the timber duties.
The petitioners were not partners in any Joint Stock Com-
pany, but individual shipowners, and stated that the proposed
reduction of the ditty on Baltic timber would be of the greatest
importance, as it sv ould enable them to compete with foreign
shipowners in the ;building of vessels. They not only prayed
the House to reduce the duty, but to abolish it altogether—
( Hear, hear,)—as they considered that such a step would not
injure the Canadian trade.—(Cheers. )
LONDON AND OXFORD.

A petition was presented in favour of this railway.
Mr. NEWDEGATE (in the absence of Mr. Spooner) moved
that the petition of Joshua Tournlin Smith, presented yester-
day, be printed with the votes.—Agreed to.
AMALGAMATION OF RAILWAYS.

Mr. \V. FATTEN said he had been directed to make an
inquiry from the Vice-President of the Board of Trade with
respect to the very impottant question of the amalgamation of
existing railway companies. The railway Committee of which
he was a Member experienced great difficulty in the cases of
amalgamation which came before them. He was in•
duced to ask the question which he was about to put to the
flight Honourable Gentleman, not only for the purpose
i submittedt e h a d
f directed
forthe
settlement
enlightening the railway committees, gut also the public at
large ; because it was one which involved circumstances of a
very serious nature. He wished, then, to know whether the
Government intended taking any measure this session with the
view of settling the different amalgamation Bills now before
Parliament. The himCo to p
put
tf
the
e
question before they proceedee d any urther with the subject.
qOuneestoiofnt;wobupt he thought had been
thought he might state that the opinion of
the committees was that a question of such vast importance to
the eountry would be much more satisfactorily determined
upon by the Government, and if not by them at least by some
Select Committee to be appointed by the House. He there-
forent
wished to ask the Government whether they intended
taking any step in the matter?
Sir GEORGE CLERK said that the question of the amal-
gamation of existing railroads had been fully considered by
the Railway Department of the Board of Trade last year ;
and one of the reports which they presented to the House was
devoted exclusively to this. subject. In that report they laid
down general rules under which such amalgamation should be
permitted. In every instance the amalgamation of existing
railroads was permitted, because where the railways proposed
to be amalgamated lay in the same direct line, the public
would be advantaged by the traffic being carried throughout
the whn'e length of those lines under the same manage-
ment. But, on the other hand, it would be depriving
the public of the benefit of competition, if railroads
that ran parallel to each other were permitted.—(Hear., hear.)
He did not know whether, as a general principle, amalgamation
should be permitted or not; but he was of opiuion that it
would be extremely inconvenient that where amalgamations
were proposed to take place, that they should be referred to the
same Committee as those which sat on separate bil.s. In ge-
neral, those amalgamation bills were not opposed; they came
before the Committee as unopposed bills, and the attention of
Committee was given to bills hat were opposed. He thought
in consequence that all those Bills should be referred to the
same Committee, who should take care that no amalgamation
took place which would not be for the benefit of the public.
Sir G. GREY wished to know whether the Government
would propose, as the Committees were now about to sit on
Railway Bills, any suggestions for their guidance (as we un-
derstood) respecting the broad and narrow gauge.
Sir GEORGE CLERK said that he had half an hour
ago, seen the parallel evidence, and that he hoped in a week
or fortnight to lay it before the House.
After a few words from Mr. BARING and Sir GEORGE
CLERK, which we could not catch,
Mr. F. MAULE said that many of the Bills would not at-
tract the attention of the Committee at all with respect to
amalgamation.
PENSIONS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN