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

TIIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 16, 1R46.

with any such motive ; if not satisfied with the principle of
the Bile no miserable compromise of the kind would induce
him to support it. He supported the Bill on account of the
conditi :u of the country, and he conscientiously believed it
wnu'd be for the advantage and improvement of the people.
The reason why the clause was introduced was, that in a great
change like that proposed to be made, some time should be
given before the process hitherto in operation should be aban-
doned. He thought it was advisable that some time should
elapse before the principle of the Bill was brought into full
operation, and the clause was introduced with that object. It
did not interfere with the principle of the measure beyond
meeting the temporal y evils that would arise from
the great change proposed. With regard to the
emendreern, if they agreed to it, it would involve a complete
alteration in the principle of the Bill because it would give
permanence to the principles of protection which was sought
to be get rid of by this Bill. Those who think the principles
of the 11111 correct cannot therefore support the amendment. of
the Noble Duke. The amendment was objectionable even as
it regarded the object sought to be obtained. It was proposed
with the object of preserving a remnant of protection, when
the, said almost in the same breath thst such a remnant was
not worth having. Protection of such a sort, he believed,
would turn out most inefficient; it would not be worth anything
to the agricultural interests. He would at present confine his
rem arks to these general observations on the amendment,
giving the grounds on which he thought it ill advised to make
the alterations proposed.
Lord CLAN CA RTY supported the amendment. When
they looked at the present flourishing state of the country, they
could not avoid coming to the conclusion that they were in-
deb'eil to protection for it. That protection was at the bottom
of all their prcsperity h•d been proved by conclusive
areuments in the admirable speech of the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for the Colonies, wt ich, however much it had been cavilled
at, had not been answered.—( Hear, hear.) They were told
that the Government had acted from the force of circumstances
—not the pressure from without or the pressure of the Anti-
Corn-law League, but from the growth of the population. On
that pint, though he was as desirous as any me to see the
people supplied with an ample amount of the necessaries of life,
he did not think the measure in question would yield that result.
He believed if they removed protection from native industry it
would leave the condition of the population worse than it was
before. He had heard it stared thut the landlord would
be either very ignorant or very good-natured if they allowed the
corn-laws to he repealed. To that he would only say, that what
was for the general good of the people e Auld also be fur the in-
terests of the landlord, and the principle of protection he held
to be of that character. He thought that the Irish landlords
had been hardly treated in the present question, as the measure
would press on them with peculiar severity. 'I he effect would
not he confined to them, but it would be brought home to the
great body of the occupiers of land in the country. It was the
tenant farmer that would principally suffer by the passing of
this measure. He had read with delight a most able speech
delivered by a Noble Lord whom he saw opposite (Lord
Monteagle) some time ago, when he was a Member of the other
House of Parliament, on the sebject of the repeal of the legis-
lative union between England and Ireland. Now the first point
on which that. Noble Lord insisted, en the advantage to
Ireland of a maintenance of the union, was the privilege it en-
jeyed by trading freely in corn with this uountry, an advantage
which was increased by other countries being deprived of
that privilege. New. according to the Noble Lord's own show-
ing, this measure would have the effect of ruining Ireland,
which was mainly an agricultural country. If the price of
corn fell, so must their incomes and remuneration for labour
and capital expended in the production of that article of food.
In conclusion, he would remark, that all he asked for on be-
half of the farmers of the United Kingdom was the minimum
of protection, compatible with the interests of them and the
country at large.
The Earl of STANIIOPE, in rising to oppose this Bill,
said that the Ministry did not dare to appeal to the country on
this question. They would, however, be compelled to do so
before the lapse of twelve months. He denounced many mem-
bers of the Cabinet, as base, pusiilanimens, and perfidious, for-
the part which they had taken on this gill. They had acted
as base sycophants and servile adherents of a Minister—had
sere,' like filthy reptiles, and ought never to have been taken
out of that. obscurity in which they hart formerly been. He
assured their Lordships that he ever had been and ever would
be an honest, consistent, and firm advocate of all branches of
native industry. Though their Lordships were not elected by
censtituenetes, they were yet responsible to their God and
eheir country for their conduct.—(Hear, hear.) He con-
tended that even if the present corn-laws were per-
mitted to remain untouched, the British farmer
would not then have sufficient protection.—( Hear.)
Could it be believed that the same persons that had brought
forward the sliding-scale in 1842, on the ground that it gave
additional protection to the British farmer, should now intro•
duce a measure to abolish protection altogether ? In voting for
the amendment of the Noble i •uke on the cross-benches (the
Duke of Buckingham) he should not consider himself bound to
support the sliding-scale. He should consider himself per-
ferely free en this question to vote hereafter as he should
please.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord BEAUMONT supported the amendment because they
were about, after the experience of three years only, to abandon
a most important source of the public revenue. The second
ground on which he should support that amendment was, be-
cause he believed, quite contrary to the opinion of the Noble
Earl opposite, that instead of it being an advantage to the
farmers to have this delay and allow the principle of free trade
to enter into operation gradually, it would be serious and
dangerous to him. The third and, perhaps, the strongest
reason for his vote in support of the amendment was this, that
whilst they had no right whatsoever now to legislate on this
subject this year, for another Parliament which would sit before
the time came on for their Act coming into operation—whilst
they had no right this year to adopt a principle which they durst
not and would not attempt to put immediately into force,
but which they saddled upon others—another Parliament would
be elected which would be called upon to settle this question
Agam, at the present moment, things were in such a state
that they could not know how long they would last. If they were
right, why not carry out the principle ?—( Hear, hear.) It
certainly did not savour of courage on the part of the Ministry
to act in the.manner in which they had done, and he did not
not know whether it was quite honest on the part of the pre-
sent Parliament to carry such a measure as the present in the
manner proposed. Why, what were they doing ? They were
defusing the great and paramount evils which they themselves
knew would be attendant upon it, and they were thrusting
them upon a future Parliament. It was also a fact that they
were giving an opportunity to foreigners to be prepared at the
end of three years to overflew the markets and not alone that,
but they gave opportunities to bad tenants to exhaust their
land. Again, they would prevent persons, the year before the
measure came into operation, from sowing corn, and there
would be a great deficiency in the home market. He felt cer-
tain that such would be the effect of the measure of the Ge-
vernment. If the Government considered they were right in
their principle, they should have gone on with it,
out of mercy to the British farmer. Whoever had framed the
Bill was the greatest enemy to the British farmer that could
Ise.—( Hear, hear.) But if they passed the Bill as it at present
stool, he would tell them that they would be making the
farmer a free trader. What right would they have to tax his
malt, or prevent his growing tobacco, and the thousand other
restrictions which had been imposed upon him by their statues,
and which would not be removed by the present measure?
They had no right to continue those restrictions, and pass the
corn-law. It was not just, nor ought it to be borne.
lie considered that giving up a fixed duty was a gross sacrifice
of revenue ; and, by carrying this principle out revenue would
suffer, while no one would be benefited. On these grounds,
therefore, he would support the amendment of his Noble
Frind on the cross benches.
The Marquis of BU i E said that if the Bill did not offer
such a protection as was necessary to the farmers, it was his
oeinion, and that of all the farmers with whom he had ever
spoken that it was better to have no protection at all. In
,
foundthose. bprraont ce
nhteisn
no f t coo
fail;m m e racne
di n
ho whichhhe acshad his
doubts
h ere
pr
n.
nmtion would be really beneficial to agriculture. His expe-
rience enabled him to say that the farmer did not participate in
the fears expressed in that Hou-e ; nor did he believe the
measure would have the injurious effects predicted.
The Earl of H A RDWICKE said he would not. have again
risen, did he not feel the great importance of the subject. He
did not agree with the Niible Marquis who had just sat down,,
in the opinions he expressed with reeard to farmers, who hi
believed were strongly in favour of protection. Much was
said about stability with regard to these laws, but he believed
that it they went on as they did they would have no stability.
( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend must bane a bit of land
which no one else could produce—that no land should be culti-
vated for wheat unless it could produce thirty-two bushels an
acre.

Lord KINNAIRD—I said thirty bushels.
The Earl of HARDWICKE—WeII then that was lowering
it again, and that was an important admission from the head
of the League.—( Laughter.) lie would like to see all land
produce twenty bushels an acre. Not to cultivate land with-
out producing that amount required by the Noble Lord would
indeed be to starve the people. 'I he Noble Lord
then proceeded to read several statistical documents in
support of his arguments. He lived himself upon
land of a heavy clay soil, which produced but twenty
bu,hels an acre; it was just that soil which weuld be thrown out
of cultivation by the introduction of the present treasure. To
make that land produce thirty bushels an acre would be to
expend an immense capital which would never, with this Bill
passed into a law, bring an adequate return. Mr. Cobden
said to the landlords, you will raise your rents—to the farmer,
you will increase your profits—to the manufacturers, you will
lower your wages.—(Hear.) This gentleman was the Pro-
metheus of the day.—( Laughter.) He had something good
to offer every one, not, hewever, forgetting the manufacturers.
—( Hear, hear.) When they came to the poor clay soils of Eng-
gland, after the passing of the Bill, they would find nothing
but a ruined tenantry, and a barren laud. What would the
county constituency of this country say—would they have
confidence in the measures of their Lordships' House? They
were a loyal peop!e, but they were like all people, they were
not dead to an injury, and they would demand to have every-
thing wiped off in the shape of taxation.—( Hear, hear.)
With the prospect of a plentiful harvest, and the amount of
grain which this measure would let in, there was the strongest
reason to believe that a great reduction would take place in the
price. He was persuaded that if the Bill passed, a feeling
would he excited throughout the country, which would lead to
a general change in the mode of collecting the revenue. He
felt rtertain that with the withdrawal of protection, they would
have to transfer to Re trading and commercial lasses a fair
share of the burdens which were new placed upon the land.
There would have to be an equalisation of tithes, the tax to
relieve the poor, and the other burdens that were'matie to bear
at present so severe on landed property. Before sitting down,
he would refer to a petition, from an important b•idy, on the
present questi,n. He referred to the Bedford Corporation,
the members of which were greatly alarmed at the proposed
wi,hdrawal of protection. The land of the level was entirely
kept in its present state by artificial draining, principally
through the steam engine, and after the expenses of preserving
it were met, the returns were so small as only to yield Hs.
an acre. They took this low rent, as there were hopes that
ultimately the land would be preserved by natural draining, as
the course of things was tending to that point. If they allowed
the Bill to pass, they would be doing that which would, he was
persuaded, inflict a most serious injury on the cultivators of the
;011. Still, whatever might be the operation of the Bill, he
considered the measure ought not to be carried without. an ap-
pealthe people. He was against any change of opinion in
the Governmentleading
• as the constituencies of the empire
to such a measure being carried by
to
the House, until such time
Lord KINN AlliD rose to
as heP thought it would be fwr the
to the Noble Lord, and to
__(Cheerst.o)re
support the Bill as it st
mse.ves.
He supported the Bill, be-
were appealed to
benefit of the farmers tne . 1
should consider that there
protective duties. Noble Lordsprotective duty and a duty
t difference between a p
c Awe he believed its adoption would lead to the removal of all
was a great
n,
'd not be profitably culti.
vated unless they could
pet ience he felt certain that land co i.
acre on ft ; and
raise thirty bushels an
• '
a revenue. From twenty years' ex.
for the purpose of raising
arise from
mode-
rate price. lie admitted that. soma danger might
if that were done, it would enable them to st-11 it at a
the sudden importation of a large quantity of foreiern
but he did net think it would be so great as apprehended.
Ho would mention a fact on this point. A friend of
his told him that there was corn now in bond that could not
be sold profitably at less than 60s. a quarter. This was wheat
that had been introduced at the early period of the sessien—
( Hear, hear)—this, therefore, need not alarm them. A Right
Rev. Prelate the other night said the reduction of price would
he met by a reduction in wages ; but that he (Lord Kinnard)
did not think would be the case. He believed it would be the
interest of landlords to pay good wages to ensure efficient
service, and be further thought, with.efficient farmers and a

',rarer system of cultivation, that they could easily compete
with foreigners. If the farmers of Scotland by a regular
system of croppirg, and a skilful system of firming, could, in
the face of an adverse climate, compete with English farmers
who had better land in a superior climate, surely, they in
England could compete with the foreigner who only raised
0 bushels of wheat per acre, and had to bring it 2 000 miles
distance. He knew, that as far as this country was concerned,
that though the measure was in progress, a rise in rent
had taken place in a great number of farms.
That was the case in Scotland and England. It was the case
even sif the tenants of some Noble Lords then in the House.
The great estate agent, Mr. Simpson, who must be known to
the majority of their Lordships, who had been till recently a
thorough going protectionist, and who had had extensive ex-
perience in landed property, stated, at a public meeting a few
days ago, that he was free and proud to rimless that the sliding-
scale and all other scales had fallen from his eyes—( Laughter)
—the result of which was that he was now a thorough-going
abolitionist.—( Hear, hear.) Being anxious to know on what
grounds Mr. Simpson had changed his opinions, he (Lord
Kinnaird) wrote to him for an explanation. In reply, Mr.
Simpson stated that the result of his experience was, that any
restriction on the importation of corn was injurious to the
tenant-farmers of this country. He (Lord Kinniard) had al-
ready quoted an instance in which, instead of rent falling since
the determination of the Ministers on this subject, estates
.were
let at considerably higher rents than before. He believed
that the tenant-farmers did ca-e about this Bill. He believed
too, that in many instances their fears had been excited by
Members of the Legislature who had advocated the cause of
Their Lordships would have themselves to blame
depreciation of rents were to follow the passing of this
iPtnfre°aantei irte°,nnd his advice to them was as a landlord that they
should not listen to any claims for reduction. He might state
that in many instances, however much it might be in accordance
with their feelings, they were doing great injury to the
farmer by letting land to him under proper value, because
when they did so, the farmer, instead of exerting himself to in-
crease the produce of the land, was willing to rest, and
had rested for many years, believing that he was safe
with what was called " the protective principle."
He should have wished to have gone extensively into this
question, hut as many of their Lordships were anxious to ad-
dress the House he had curtailed his observations. In conclu-
siors he wished to call their Lordships' attention to one paint.
He thought that whatever might be their feelings with regard
to that body with which he was connected, they at least would
give hem credit for having remained perfectly quiet ; indeed
to such an extent had they remained silent at this crisis that
some Noble Lords believed that the people in towns had said
that they would not get up an excitement on this subject.—
( Hear, hear.) He believed that a Noble said the other
night that they could not do so.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he
(Lord Kinnaird) could assure them, from all the applications
to the members of the Anti-Corn-law League, begging of
them to move at this moment, that the people in the towns
were anxiously waiting for the passing of this Bill. The Anti-
Corn-law League had, instead of conforming to those repeated
applications, thought it more wise, and more respectful to Par-
liament, and to their Lordships' House, that they should re-
main quiet, so that they might not be considered to have moved
for the purpuso of intimidating their Lordships.—(Hear.)
That might have been said of them had they moved on this
question at the present moment. He was glad to know that,
although it had been said by Noble Lords that her Majesty's
Ministers had been intimidated by the League in bringing
forward this measure—( Hear, hear, and laughter from
the Protectionist benches)—their Lordships had greatly
mistaken the feeling of the country—they greatly mistook
the feel,ngs of Scotland, with which he was more intimately
connected—because he wenld say that if this measure were de-
feated the greatest disappointment would be felt throughout
the breadth of the land, and all he would say was, that he hoped
that this amendment of the Noble Duke might not be adopted,
as it would have the effect of.defeating the Bill.—(Hear.)
Their Lordships then divided, when there appearee—
For the clause
For the amendment _ lO3

Majority in favour of the clause
The House then resumed, and
The CHAIRAIAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit
again to-morrow (this day).
I he House then adjourned at Half-past Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 15.
The SPEAKER. took the chair at Four o'clock.
SECOND READINGS.
The following Bills were read a second time, and ordered to

committed :
Clonmel and Thurles Railway
Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway
Great Southern and Wes:ern Railway (Cork Extension)
Kil:arney Junction Railway
Mallow and Fermoy Railway

Charitv'Estate
Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin Railway.
REPORTS.

The reports on the following Bills were brought up, the
alterations and amendments agreed to, and the Bills ordered
to be engrossed:—

Banffshiie Railway
Caledonian Railway (Dundyvan Branch)
Hertford and Hatfield Railway
Loudon and Birmingham Railway (St Alban's and Luton

Branch)
North British Railway (Gretna Branch)
St. Alban's, Luton, and Dunstable Railway

Schoolmaster's Widows Fund
Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Chester Junction Railway (Crick-
- .

heath and Wem Linea)
Stockton Gas.

CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GLASGOW TERMINI
AND BRANCHES) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and passed:—
Argyll Canal.
Ashburton, Newton, and South Devon Railway.
Blackburn, Clitheroe, and North-Western Junction Railway.

Edinburgh Paving.
Fleetwood, Preston, and West Riding Junction Railway.
Glasgow, Southern Terminal Railway.
Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Polloc and Govan
Branch).
Gloucester and Dean Forest Railway.
Grand Junction Railway (Huyton and Aston and other

Branches). - - -
Grand Junction Railway (Huyton and Warrington Branch).
Great Grimsby and Sheffield Juncti9n Railway, and Grimsby
Docks Consolidation.
Harrogate Waterworks.
Heywood Waterworks.
Lancashire aid Yorkshire North Eastern Railway.
Lesmahagow, Dalserf, and Coatbridge Mineral Junction Rail-

way
London and Croydon Railway (Thames Junction Branch)
Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway (Chapel Hall Branch)
Morayshire Railway
Morecombe Harbour and Railway
Newmarket and Chesterford Railway
Norfolk Railway Extensions ( Yarmouth Extension)
Portbury Pier and Railway (No. 2)
Scottish Central Railway (Denny Branch)
South Wales Railway (No. 2)
Wishaw and Coltness Railway (Greenhill Branch)
Yeovil Markets and Fairs

Yorkshire and Glasgow Union Railway.
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day for the report on the South Eastern
Railway (No. t2—Greenwich Railway to Chilham, near Can-
terbury, with b-auches) Bill being read,
Air. HUME said it was a question whether both the con-
tending lines should be submitted back again to the Committee,
and that was the only way in which the justice of
the case could be met. Another course, and perhaps
the best, would be to postpone the consideration of
both schemes to the ensuing session. These were the views
that he entertained on the question.
Sir G. COCKBURN mid tho Admiralty had done that
which, under the circumstances they thought best to pursue.
Their opinion was that going through Greenwich Park should
not be allowed till further experiments were made as to the
effects on the Observatory. They ought, in hi 3 opinion, either
to commit both Bills, or postpone them till another year. The
Admiralty, entertaining the views it did, had made the report
-
I which had been referred to. _ _

Sir R. H. INGLIS said he defied any one to read Professor
Robinson's report without being satisfied that there was the
greatest danger to the accuracy of the oliservations at Green-
wich if the tunnel through the park was allowed. He spoke
not as to the merits of the two schemes, but to the
important question of the Observatory. He thought, how.
ever, they ought to place the the Sough-Eastern Company
in the same position they were in before they had altered their
scheme in deference to the wishes of the Admiralty.
Mr. ESCOURT briefly supported the decision of the Com-
mittee. He referred at some length to the report of the Corm-
mitt: o on the Bill, and held that if the Committee had de-
cided otherwise than they did that the project of the South-
Eastern Company would have been mutilated and valueless.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONI3Y,
Mr. PROTHEROE defended the proceedings of the Com-
mittee, and stated that they selected the South-Eastern
project because it was of a far superior character
to the line projected by the North Kent. The North Kent
line would have interfered to a great extent with orna-
mental property near the metropolis, whereas the South-
Eastern line would not, and would pass through the property
of Mr. Angerstein, who formerly opposed, but who now sup-
ported that project. The line selected was one of an im-
portant public character, inasmuch as it would be a direct
railway from London to Gravesend and Rochester. He pre-
ferred that the Bill should be committed to the members
of the Committee who had heard the whole of the evidence.
After a few words from Mr. Rice, Lord Emelyn, and Mr.
115 Bayley,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL thought the justice of the case would
be met if the House would allow both parties to come before
them again next year. The inter: at of the public would not
be injured, and such a course would be quite consistent with
the position of both Bills. He saw no mode so well adapted to
meet the case, and be believed if it were adopted both parties
would come forward then better prepared.
Mr. WARBURTON hoped that whatever determination
the House should come to, one point at least would be resolved
on, namely, that Greenwich Observatory should not be de-
stroyed. Let any man read the evidence given upon that
sub'ect, and then lay his hand upon his heart, and say
that this would not be the result if a railway were
constructed through Greenwich Park. Sir John Herschell,
Mr. Baggage, the astronomer from Chatham ; Mr. Challis,
Dr. Robinson, the astronomer from Armagh, had all given
decisive and weighty evidence against the railway, in con-
sequence cf the injury the Observatory would sustain ;
and Professor Airy was the only eminent and scientific
man who had given evidence of a contrary character.
He hoped the House would support the Observatory at Green-
wich; that they would not allow a railway to pass underit, if
there was the slightest chance of the Observatory being de-
stroyed by it.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. PLUMPTRE said the Eastern were prepared to
abandon that part of their scheme which passed under the
Observatory, and adopt the loop, if the House would allow
them to do so.
After a few words from one or two Hon. Members, who
called upon the Government to place the South-Eastern
Company in the same position that they stood in before the
Admiralty gave their consent,

On the Motion fur resuming the adjourned debate on the
consideration of the report of the South-Eastern Railway Bill
(Greenwich to Chilham),
Mr. AGLIONBY wished to know what the House
was about to do on this subject, and what position
it stood in. If they were about to recommit the
Bill, he could offer no objection ; but if they were about to re-
commit it to the same msjority which had before decided the
question, they would have the same decision as before. The
present inconvenience arose from the fickleness of the Board of
Admiralty, and the stipulations which they had made, so as to
retain the power to themselves of stopping up the line. Such
a course had produced considerable injury to the South-
Eastern Company, and was calculated to do them still more.
He thought this was necessary, for the expenses were of a
material consideration, and unless these were satisfied there
would be no guarantee to the shareholders.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished now to inquire whether it was
competent for him to move whether it is proper to require its
Ire-committal this day six months?
The SPEAKER—Certainly: there was a substantive mo-
tion before the Rouge, and be conceived that till the motion cf

the Hon. Member for Dover wt s disposed of no adjudication
could be made as to the inquiry.
Mr. JARVIS conceived that the case of the South-Eastern
Railway had not been fairly dealt with, and that the North
Kent ought to be thrown out. It appeared that it was a
standing orch-r of Parliament, that no one connected with the
railway should have the power of voting for it. He conceived
that the report ought to be amended, and that the North Kent
line should be beyond the power of opposition. Hon. Members
after spending thirty-Fix days in inquiry without any personal
interest, had come to an imperfect decision, and he therefore
conceived they ought to have the power of amending the report.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the recommittal
148
Against
72
Majority ... ........
Air. PROTHEROE then moved that the Bill be re-com-
mitted to the former Committee, for the purpose of considering
the copies of correspondence and reports on the subject of
a railroad passing through Greenwich Park (which have,
by order, been submitted to this House by the Admiralty,
subsequent to the bringing up of the Report of the Commit-
tee), and the expediency or inexpediency of sanctioning any
of the alternate lines proposed by the South-Eastern Rai:wav
in substitution for the line through Greenwich Park.
After a few words from Mr. PLUMPTRE,
Sir R. H. INGLIS should vote for the recommittal of the
Bill, because he was anxious that the South Eastern Company
should be placed in the same position as they were before
the assent of the Admiralty was given to the North Kent line
passing under the park.
Mr. AGLIONBY would vote for the recommittal on the
same ground, but he hoped the Bill would be sent to a different
Committee to that which gave power to the Admiralty
to stop up a railway on a certain ocntingency.
He intended to vote for the recommittal of the South-Eastern
Bill ; and he should, if he had the opportunity, vote also for
the recommittal of the rival line, the North Kent. If he had
the opportunity he should also vote that the Bill be referred to
a distinct Committee, in order that the four members of the
present Committee should not have the same decision to come
to; or if it were referred to the same Members, that the Com-
mittee should be constituted as they were when the Bill was
originally referred to them.
Mr. ENTWISLE (who rose amidst loud cries of " Oh,")
the Bill
?hat Hon. Memt.er had moved for the recommittal of
B

The SPEAKER said, that it was on the motion of t 1•
Hon. Member f•r Dover.

The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared :
For the recommittal .. 135
For the postponement to that day six months 68
Majority -57

Mr. PROTHEROE must then move that the Bill be re•
committed to the former Committee, with copies of the cor-
respondence which had passed between the Committee and the
promoters.
Mr. RICE must then move as an amendment that the Bill
should be recommitted to the Committee as formerly con-•
st ituted.

' Mr. PROTHEROE said, that this would rendir it neces-
sary for the Hon. Member for Worcestershire, who had for-
merly been a member of that Committee, to attend for
two months, to repeat the evidence which he had formerly heard,
He thought this was too great a Lardship to impose
upon any Hon. Member, especially as the Committee
could dispose of the Bill without any such imposition.
Mr. HUME conceived that this would be a great injustice
to the parties engaged, and inflict a great expense, which was
quite unnecessary, as the Committee might dispose of the
Bill without either the cost or the delay.
. . _

The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took
place.
Mr. RICE having consented to withdraw his amendment,
The Bill was then ordered to be recommitted to the former
Committee.

.....
NORTH KENT RAILWAY.
Mr. RICE then moved that this Bill be also re-committed
to ti-e former Committee. _

Mr. ESTCOURT said that this motion was not for the
purpose of re-opening the whole question ; it was for the pur-
pose of considering the propriety or expediency of sanctioning
the South-Eastern Company's line. There was no ground for
the recommittal of the North Kent.

Mr. AGLIONBY said that he dissented from the opinion
of the Hon. Member for Oxford. The decision of the House

was rAiuired, in order that the South-Eastern Company's Bill
be referred to the same Committee, so that they might consi-

der the expediency of sanctioning any one of the alternative
lines proposed by the South-Eastern Company. He would
put the supposition that the Committee were not anxious to
support any of the alternative lines, and then the argument of
the Hon. Member for Oxford fell to the ground. If it were
inexpedient to support the South-Eastern Company's projects,
the Committee ought to have the option of deciding on the
mei its of another line ; and it would, therefore, be great un-
fairness if they did not have the opportunity of considering the
North Kent. Let the Committee take on themselves the re-
sponsibility of deciding, ar.d let not the House, in the absence
of facts, exclude any portion of the subject of inquiry from
them. The Committee could not act fairly to the House, if
they were to decide in that House upon what course should be
taken. Let them have the whole inquiry referred to them, and
then let them take what course they might choose.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said, that it was the opinion
of half the Committee that the North Kent line was superior
to the South Kent line. There was an equal division of opi-
nion on the subject, and he thought a fair reason had been
presented to the House for recommitting the North Kent
line.

Mr. PROTHEROE had paid the most particular attention
to the merits of the two lines since their first appearance in
the Committee. The circumstances were unchanged which
had influenced him in rejecting the line, which proposed
making a tunnel through Greenwich Park, and he was cer-
tainly opposed to the recommittal of the Bill.
Mr. RICE observed that his Hon. Friend must be aware,

as the Chairman of the Company, that the difficulty of carry-
ing out tho line arose from a deficiency in the estimates, and
not from any difficulty of travelling through Greenwich Park,
bnt as he thought that it would not be advisable to proceed
further with his motion, he should withdraw it.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
NEW WRIT.

Colonel CONOLLY moved for a new writ for a Knight of
the Shire for the County of Carlow, in the room of Thomas
Sunbury, Esq., deceased.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Messengers from the Lords brought up various Hallway
Bills with amendments. See Lords report.
EPICrLISTAIENT IN THE ARMY.

Captain LAY ARD wished to ask a question of the Secre-
tary at War, whose answer some time hack to a similar ques-
tion had been misrepresented, and had, in consequence, caused
considerable difficulty among the public. He believed that no
limited enlistment was allowed, but the contrary had gone
forth to the public. He wished to know whether or no limited
enlistment was allowed ?
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said it was not the case that

limited enlistment was allowed, neither was it the intention o.
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 fur the conduct of railway business which was pre-
pared by Lord Dalhousie, and submitted in eatenso 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 any 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 Lord. 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.

Alter 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 referen'e
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-
•

ion 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 for 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 put 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 from the constitution of the country the
further they went 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. PEEL begged leave to explain. What he had said
it was not his intention to say. He had said that the state of
Ireland required extraordinary measures—that it was in a con-
dition far from satisfactory. He asked the Hon. Member if he
denied the allegations of her Majesty's Government in that re-
spect, via., 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 not 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 landlord 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-
ject to a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. He had said
that it was impossible to devise any measure of permanent
operation for the improvement of the relation of landlord and
tenant, which could take any effect in a short time, and that
therefore he would not object to vote for a suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act.
Mr. ROSS—I said that the state of Ireland" was" so un-
satisfactory. I did not say that it is now.
Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. Member had said that, he would
vote for a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and that if the
constitution was to be violated, they should take care to secure
the object they had in view, which might be
more
or
le"
in-
significant, but still such measures should be adopted as would
secure it.

STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICA.
Mr. MILES wished to ask whether any weekly communi-
cation had as yet been established between this country and
Halifax?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that a
contract had been entered into, on the part of the Government,
t
with Messrs. Cunard, for a weekly steam communicationwith
Halifax and Boston.
Mr. HUME wished to know if a copy of the contract could
be obtained.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that he had understood that
the contract was advertised to be open t
jects. It was supposed that the Greao 11
ta her Majesty's sub-
Western Steam-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 was felt veryimportant that there should be
Engd and
a fair competition in the
America ; and it was also -suapsseonsed thatffi the Great Western Com-
pany were fairly entitled to a Pshare in this employment. The ac-
count which they were going to pay Messrs. Cunard, was 4,000!.
for every voyage. That was a great burden, and he got, in
his addition to the sum of 4,0001., passenger traffic ; while the

Great Western Company, in order to compete with him, had
only to rely on their passenger 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.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
House must 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. Canard were 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
foundation,: but if it appeared that the Noble Lord could
prove a contradiction to his statement he would withdraw the
charge he made. He had stated, that when the
Arms Bill 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 repeaters. Those powers were given to the magis-
trates 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 any-thing 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. Ia the county of
Cork the number of persons applying for permission to keep
arms *as 700, and out of that number those who were refused
amounted only to seven, and out of that number again
only four were repealers. The proceedings adopted on that
occasion were very far from any party feeling, although those
who were _rejected were repeal wardens. Out of the seven who
were rejected, three were known as bad characters. The
magistrates had acted on that occasion underno 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 1 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 Hon. 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 259,000
signatures. He stated that it came from the principal manu-
facturers of Earriand 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 befofe tried in Ireland, they had
always produced more evil than good, and had fallen as much,
if not more, upon the innocent than theguilty. Did the Go-
vernment think that the passing of this till, 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 would 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 religions condition of
the people, they never would. Why hew could the present
Government hope to obtain the confidence of the people, when
they had all along opposed all reforms in the Irish chruch ?
Some few years ago, while the present Government was the
opposition, he remembered Lord Stanley proposed to improve
the municipal law of the country, but although the Govern-
ment had been in office 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

theyactedwithregardto 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
House tell him how a Government who punished sueh 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 bad come forward with a
liberal Corn Bill, but they refused to try the force of liberality
in Ireland. His opinions were decidedly opposed to this Bill,
because, in his estimation, it was only calculated to aggravate,
rather than remove, the evil ; and it was for this reason that
Weihould vete against the second reading. He objected to it
on principle; and feeling it unnecessary, as well as unconstitu-
tional, be should vote against it on principle.
Sir It. H. 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, be could assure the Noble

Lord that the Government bad 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 around 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 tLe
effect of the Noble Lord's words. He ( Sir R. Inglis) could not by
any means concur with such a determination ; he had adreadv
given her Majesty's Ministers his confidence, and he would no-t
suffer any collateral considerations to influence hint against
continuing his support. If it was so that the Government had
not found time or opportunity to pass on the measure to its
present stage at any earlier period ; or gaily calamity or acci-
dent had occurred to interrupt the progress of the measure ; and
though he held that they ought not to have allowed any other
measure whatever to have interrupted its progress; still he
would give her Majesty's Ministers the same confidence and
support as he had given on a former occasion to the Noble
Lord opposite, the Member fur London, when he introduced
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
to the Members for Ireland who sat opposite, but he had given
her Majesty's Ministers his confidence, and be 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 had 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 VERNER was convinced that some measure was
neeemary 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 bad been
suffered to interrupt the progress of this measure, or any mea-
sure of the like importance. They had heard of the measure being
introduced by the Government at the beginning of the session,
but it had been thrown back 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
inconsistency, such as they had heard made in that House on a
late occasion, although at the 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 the 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,
Right
H ohnew
Baronet.ever, n t
Tveryh e
Rightagreeable
li n itß
Baronet
had nwouldet
seem
had not denied any of his statements, had o
he upset any of
the evidence laid before the H
What then, he asked, was the charge
Hear, hear.)
him by the e charge made against
Right Hon. Baronet? Why, that in November,
1845, Verner) he (Colonel
had said that he thought there
would be distress in Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman was then
proceeding to read from a speechmade y Sir James Graham
in which Colonel Verner hadee n referred to, vshen 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
ltednbereen-
ported that he (Colonel Verner) had said thati a
which laenttoeprinion was
sent to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in
madewh
towards. the
given that a pecuniary grant should beeing
the distress in his
drain-
ing of Loch Erne, with a viewr to 17.1 i
(The Gallant Colonel
(Colonel Verner's) neighbou hood
He had just to say
called to order by the Speaker.)
was again
Eve there referred to was not within
that the part of the
country
and
twenty
Irish miles.
Mr. HORSMAN said his neighbourhood by
.d
that it had been intimated by the
Hon. Baronet that he would vote for the second reading on the
ground that the measure was one in matters of police. He
( Mr. Horsman).
reasons
had come to the conclusion to vote against it,
but forthose
differing from whichh had been adopted by
others in that House, and at once opposed it on the ground
that the reports alleged in evidence were inaccurate. He would
leave the nice calculation of homicides and murders to others ;
the Secretary of State was satified with these reports that they
were as well got up as usual, and he thought so too. Nor
would he oppose it because it had not been pushed forward with
the speed that some would have wished. He saw two mea-
sures advancing in that House during the same period
—one of them was large and liberal in its spirit, and
had a benevolent aspect to the people of Ireland;
the other was harsh and coercive ; the two measures
differed so much that it might well be doubted whether they
were the workmanship of the same hands. The Right Hon.
Baronet might he supposed to address himself to the one mea-
sure with alacrity and zeal, as agreeing with his own spirit,
but to the other he might require to be stirred and incited as
to a task opposed to his liking and his reason. He (Mr. Hors-
man) did not vote against it for any of those reasons. Those
grounds on which he opposed it were set forth in better lan-
guage than he could use in a document, from which he would
read to the House. The Hon. Gentleman then read from a