The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-07 00:00:00

ments because the Lord Chief Justice had objected to confine
the measure to Ireland and to misdemeanours. ,He consented,
however, to postpone the consideration of his amendment till
a future time, when he proposed to bring them forward as part
of a more general measure. He did not think that the best
way to deal with the amendments was to take them all into
consideration together. The accused person had in this case
to make out his own statement—he had to tell his own story.
And, if he satisfied the sessions, or the magistrate, as the case
might be, he was to be dischargei. If he did not satisfy them,
he was to be committed for triaal at the discretion of the magis
trates. That was in his opinion a great improvement, but
whether it amounted to so great an improvement or safeguard
as to render transportation unnecessary, was quite another
question. While he was on his legs, he would say one word
upon transportation, as that punishment had great weight in
Ireland. He had heard from persons from all parts of the
United Kingdom, that the fear of that infliction had
a great effect in deterring the people from the
commission of crime. He also wished to suggest anether
matter, which did not require to be brought forward in the
shape of a Bill. He held it to be of the utmost importance
that any person who for any offence should have been sen-
tenced in Ireland to transportation, should not have any inter-
val between the sentence and its execution. The person or
er.nviet should be sent at once from the dock to the vessel, and
that would have more the effect of overawing the criminals
anti deterring them from the commission of like offences for
the time to come, than double the punishment not accom-

principle. He wanted to know if any Noble Lord in that
House would give the Lord Lieutenant power to transport a
man supposed to be of a dangerous character. He was sure
that no Nob'e Lord would grant such a power. They were
too much imbued by English feelings to do so. If they were
really to transport a man for his bad character, better for them
to de so avowedly on that ground ; and there ought to be a
searching inquiry into his character. Let him suppose the case of
a lover, or that of a man going to see his priest, and that either
of them were suspected to be going to join a party of White-
boys, who were to meet that night, and were accordingly ar •
rested. The coincidenoe of such a meeting (in case there was
one) would be certain to condemn them before a jury.
These were the suspicious circumstances which the
Noble Lord thought justified the passing of
such a clause. He did not distrust the

circumstances," into the clause, was a great improvement.
The Noble Lord who had last spoken, had referred to the terror
which would be induced by this measure, and adduced it as an
argument for giving extended powers to the executive Govern-
ment. But the same argument would apply in every case
here Government demanded extraordinary powers. He did
not feel disposed to dispute the propriety of arming tho Go-
vernment with these extended powers, but he yet felt that the
amendments proposed by the Noble Earl were improvements
upon the original measure, and he should therefore support
their adoption', •
Lord 111011 EAGLE said that if this were a question of
law, he shout consider it presumptuous indeed in him to rise
after the Noble Lord who had last spoken. But although he
disclaimed all idea of vying with his Noble Friend in legal
knowledge, he thought that as regarded a knowledge of Ireland
he was better informed than the Noble Lord who had sup-
ported, or the Noble Earl who had moved the amendments.
There could be no more painful position than for a person con-
nected, as he himself was, with Ireland, to rise for the purpose
of advocating the enforcement of strong penal measures, and
nothing but the strongest sense of duty could have induced him
to come so prominently forward. If he were mistaken in sup-
porting coercive measures, he had seine satisfaction in looking
to the past history of Ireland, for be found that, if err he did,
he erred in good company ; he erred in the society of the best
and wisest that country had ever produced—men who were
warmly attached to popular institutions, and strenuous in de-
fence of civil liberty. He could not look to that question as
if it were brought before the House for the first time.
He found Lord Plunkett advocating such a measure both
in and out of office. Sir John Newport took the same course ;
but the greatest name of all remained to be mentioned. In
respect of this very measure, Henry Grattan, when at the
height popularity, and at the hazard of his life, came
forward
support it. He, the creator of Irish independence,
the
of
hisnd and leader of the Irish people, in a British
t rteto
House of Parliament did not hesitate to give his
aid to the passing of a coercive measure. That
measure, too, was infinitely stronger than the present one.
Every day added a new crime to the dark catalogue which dis-
graced the country. He would call their Lordships' attention
to the fact, that the concealment of crime in Ireland did not
arise from any desire to oppose the law—it arose from intimida-
tion. If they referred to the testimony of Sir John Davis,
they would find that there were no people more imbued with
the love of justice than the Irish. The rich had much greater
protection afforded to theta than the poor, and it was for the
purpose of affording them the safety to which they were
entitled that he rose to defend that Bill. No person contested
the principleof the measure; his Noble Friend had admitted it,
and the only question was as to the duration of the punishment.
and he would meet all the arguments which bad been urged
against the Bill by this assertion, of which no one could deny
the complete justness, namely, that they were bound to adopt
such a modicum of justice as would render the measure effec-
tive. He could show that the sentence of imprisonment for
three years would be more cruel than transportation, and that
transportation would be more effective for carrying out the
objects of the Bill. Yet there was another fact which
he would impress upon their Lordships, that this was
by far the mildest and most unconstitutional measure that ever
was proposed for the adoption of Parliament. Mr. Grattan's
Bill committed the trial to the bench of magistrates, and that
vc ithout the benefit of a jury. By the present Bill the case would
be submitted to a judge of the land, a tribunal which it must
be admitted was tar more constitutional than the bench of
magistrates, inflamed as they might be by the transactions oc-
curring around. But the result of the punishment by imprison-
ment would be this, the criminal would return from the gaol
an adept in every kind of lawless violence, particularly if he
were disposed to any of those offences before his punishment.
He could never give a vote on any subjecl more painful to his
feelings than on the present occasion, as hewas unwilling to be
considered the supporter of a measure, which would tend to the
restriction of the liberties of his country ; but having a strong
conviction on his mind, that by limiting the perisd of punish-
ment they would deprive the measure of its efficacy, he did
not consider that it would be just or manly to give a silent
vote.

judges of the land, who were to try the parties, but he would
ask how could the judges pronounce upon character? How
could they proceed'? Was there to be a public investigation ?
It seemed to him quite impossible that such a mode of pro-
ceeding could be justified. A man perfectly innocent came as
much within the reach of the Bill as the most guilty, and such
a man might be condemned to the severest punishment, and
not only himself, but all depending on him. He thought it
monstrous that their Lordships would sanction such a clause.
Let him suppose a man evicted from his land under the clear-
ance system, and that he expressed those feelings which had
been entertained by such a man as long as human nature was
what it was—if, under such circumstances, although innocent
and unoffending, the actual victim of oppression was trans-
ported for his expression of strong feeling, would it
not be most mcnstrous ?—( Hear, hear.) The system would
also have tke effect of lowering the character of the police in
Ireland, inasmuch as it would create a system of espionage de-
grading to that body, and calculated to impair their efficiency.
If the law was to give this power to the police, it would utterly
destroy the liberty of the subject. Neither did he think this
power should be given to the local magistracy, though he had a
great respect for them, without its being greatly abused.
They were to have communication with the Lord Lieutenant,
but he had no more means of knowing the character of the
man than the Judge. The accused party, if convicted,
was to be sent from the dock to the ship, and
therefore what power or means of appeal to the
Lord Lieutenant had he ? These were the reasons

paniect with that celerity of execution. God forbid that the
convict should be hurried away to New South Wales or Van

Diemen's Land before the Crown had time to exercise its pre-
rogative of mercy ; but he still thought that such a course
would have a prodigious effect in increasing the (care of crimi-
nals. They all knew what had happened in Yorkshire some
twenty years ago. There was a conspiracy between a father
and his daughter to charge a person with rape. That was
carried into effect in the morning. Between nine and ten
o'clock they gave their evidence on the trial. By ten o'clock
both judge and jury saw the necessity of a verdict of acquittal,
as there was perjury in the case. The judge who presided
asked if the grand jury had been discharged, and, on being
told that they were not, he desired them to consider
the case of the father and daughter. The grand jury sent in

:heir bill at eleven o'clock, the. prisoners Were tried it twelve,

and by three they were on their way from the gaol in a cart, in
the beginning of the execution of their sentence. Every one
who knew the northern circuit would admit, that for the next

;hat influenced him in making objection to this clause,

If it was the object of the Bill to enforce obedience to the pro-
clamation, surely twelve months' imprisonment, with hard
labour, would be ample punishment for being out at night. If
a more stringent clawe were required, let it be inserted, but
let it be so worded as not to endanger the liberty of an inno-
cent man, and perhaps the lives of his family. No man was
more opposed to agrarian outrage than he was; but there
were ample means of framing clauses to meet such cases as
moo being found wandering about at night with arms con-
cealed about their persons, or other suspicious circumstances.
What was the real cause of this system of agrarian outrage ?
What was the bottom of it all? They all knew it was the
rooted hatred of the poor to the law, the result of long ages of
gross misgovernment ;'and they had been told by high autho-
rity that in Ireland there was one law for the rich and an-
other for the poor, and long ages of misrule had con-
vinced him of the fact ; and in order to eradicate that

three circuits the effects of the proTiptitude of this punish-
ment had a salutary effect in diminishing the amount of crime.
He mentioned that fact as he only wished to show the great
and salutary effects produced by promptitude in the infl.ction of
punishment. He wished also that the Executive Government
would take care that when a murder had been committed,
the old practice of executing the sentence as near as pessible to
the scene of crime should be revived. He knew the bad effect
of the present principle in Lancashire where the executions
took place at the end of the county, probably distant from the
scene of the crime, and the Westmoreland peasant had the
sight, but not an example. He would only say, in conclusion,
that if these suggestions were followed the effect would be a di-

minished amoutii of crime.
Their Lordships then went into Committee on the Bill.
On the first clause being read,
Lord BROUGHAM referred to the amendments in this
clause which the Lord Chief Justice (who was absent) had in-
tended to propose. He Lord Brougham could not agree to
the preposition that the testimony of three magistrates should
be required before a district was declared. if they waited till
three magistrates sent up evidence of a district being in a state
of disturbance they might fail in very many instances.
Lord CLANRICARDE entirely agreed in the opinion that
the declaring of a district should be left to the Lord Lieu-
tenant.
Lord BROUGHAM thought that the interference of three
magistrates would in many cases operate injuriously.
The Lord CHANCELLOR made a reference to the Act. 3 and
4, Win. the I t ~ in respect to this point, the applicatien of
which we did not understand from the low tone in which his
Lordship spoke.
The Earl of WICKLOW remarked, that as the Lord Chief
Justice would not be present till next week, and as the feeling
of the House appeared to be against the adoption of his amend-
ment, he thought it would not be fair to wait for him.
Lord BROUGHAM said his Noble and Learned Friend
did not stipulate for three magistrates being required to depose
as to the state of a district before it was declared. All that he
wanted was, some better foundation for proceedings than those
in the present Bill.
Lord COTTENHAM was of opinion that the matter
would be best left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
The clause was agreed to, as were also clauses 3,4, and 5.
On clause 6 being read,
Lord CLANCARTY observed, that the Noble Lord who
had introduced the measure had complained of the very great
difficulty in getting witnesses to come forward when any crime
had been committed. There was nu doubt that individuals
who came forward to give their evidence were exposed
at times to very great danger. It was not, however, so
much the dread of personal harm that prevented witnesses
coming forward, as it was the fear of having attached to them
the stigma of being considered as informers. It was a very dir-
ferent thing to give evidence in Ireland from what it was in
England. He would earnestly propose to her Majesty's Go-
vernment that powers should be given to the local magistrates
to compel vi et armis persons to come forward whom they be-
lieved were competent as witnesses.
Lord CAMPBELL was of opinion that the law had already
provided fur the difficulty which the Noble Lord had com-
plained of. A witness might be compelled to come forward,
and even be detained in custody until the trial should come on
at the assizes. He was also liable to be punished with fine and
imprisonment if he neglected to appear when called on. He
believed that all the law could do had already been done to
provide for the case.
After a few words from Lord WICKLOW, the clause was
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On clause 7 being read, a long conversation, inaudible is
the gallery, ensued between Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chan-
cellor, and Lord Campbell, after which the clause was made
part of the Bill.
Clause 8 was next proposed, when
The Marquis of WESTAIEATH considered that the remu-
neration to persons who might be injured should not be paid
until the amount had been levied on the county which was li-
able to pay, and that it should not be paid out of the consoli-
dated fund. He hoped the clause would be altered to the effect
he proposed before it was made part of the Bill.
Lord MONTEAGLE objected altogether to any such alter-
ation being made. The consolidated fund was contributed to
equally as much by Ireland as by England.
The Marquis of WESTAIEATH withdrew his amendment,
and the clause was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Earl GREY believed that it would be neither fair, proper,
nor just, that the landlords of Ireland should be exonerated from
paying their share of the expenses incurred in prosecutions.
He thought also that the present dreadful state of the Irish
people would never have existed if the landlords of Ireland had
done their duty to the people under them. He should alto-
gether object to clauses 13 and 14.
The Earl of RODEN, with some warmth, said that if the
Nuble. Earl intended to state that the evils with which Ireland
was afflicted arose from the neglect of the landlords, or from
any impropriety on their part, he (Lord Roden) should feel it
his duty, by as direct a contradiction as was consistent with the
rules of the Bouse, to deny the veracity of any such assertion.
The Earl of FARNHAM would also deny the Noble Earl's
assertion. All the harm he wished the Noble Earl for the re-
mark was that he might be an Irish landlord, and be obliged to
undergo the painful task of residing on his estate.
Earl GREY explained, that possibly he had spoken with
too much warmth. A great change had taken place in the
treatment by the landlords of their tenants. The present evils
with which Ireland was afflicted were perhaps mainly attri-
butable to the past history of that country. The state of things
now existing there was the direct consequence of the dereliction
of the former landlords in their duties to the people. —(Cries of
" No, no.") It was an historical fact, with which not only
England, but all the world, was acquainted, and all that the
Noble Lords opposite might say or do would not make the fact
less true.
The Earl of WICKLOW was of opinion that the present
condition of Ireland was owing to the gross mismanagement
of this country. He admitted that a great change had taken
place, but he would protest against the historical facts which
the Noble Earl had employed.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was opposed to the intro-
duction of the clauses to which his Noble Friend had objected.
Now, he asserted that these murders were committed by
strangers frequenting the country, and who were concealed,
partly from a general feeling of hospitality prevailing through-
out the country, and partly he was afraid from a secret con-
nivance.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord CL AN CART Y observed that the Noble Marquis had
rightly stated the source of these lawless assassinations, and it
would be their duty to avail themselves of the machinery which
that Bill would afford them to relieve the poor people from the
support of that class of vagrants. He would wish the Noble
Earl were a little oftener present at the inquiry then going on
with reference to the Irish poor-law, as he anticipated much
good would be effected from his knowledge of Irish affairs.
He had been instrumental in putting the Noble Earl's name
upon the Committee, but as yet they had gained but little
from his intelligence.
Earl GREY said that he told the Noble Lord distinctly that
it would not be in his power to attend, and yet, in spite of that
communication, he persevered in placing his name upon the
Committee. He had attended the first few days, as it was in
his power, but since that time it was utterly impossible that
he could attend.
The consideration of clause 15 was then postponed.
Earl GREY felt it his duty to move an amendment on
the 16th clause. That clause made it an offence, transportable
for. fifteen years, for a person to be out of his house
an hour after sunset. Now they must recollect
that this was a trifling police offence, and by no means involving
the breach of any moral principle ; he, therefore, would move
that the punishment should be limited to imprisonment for one
year. It seemed to him that the power which was proposed
to be conferred, and not now fur the first time, upon the
executive Government of Ireland, was one which should not
be conferred unless under the most extraordinary circum-
stances. Ile might be told that the ease for which such a
clause was intended was one which called for so severe a pun-
ishment. He did not, however, consider that the circum-
stances of Ireland presented any such case as that. He was of
opinion that the personal liberties of the inhabitants of a pro-
claimed district should not be so fettered as that they would
he obliged to stay within their cabins from about four or five in
the afternoon of a December day till half past eight the follow-
ing morning; and that they would not set their foot out of
their miserable cottages during a period of sixteen hours
without subjecting themselves to these severe penalties. A
peasant may not visit his friend—may not go to his work, without
running the risk of being arrested by a policeman, and afterwards
being obliged to prove (what no man could prove) that his
intentions were fr., e from criminality. It was said by the
Noble Lord that the clause was necessary, and that it only
applied to persons who were found under suspicious circum-
stances.e, He could net, however, consent that it should ever
different conclusion
ineinto operation in any of those disturbed districts, and no
arguments that he had heard could induce him to come to a
a poorman, forgetful, Was it to be supposed that their Lord.
to relieve the tediumn.P.Oirfol,aaPsi;
ships were to pass ;, of such unexampled severity, because
sixteen
nthheour
s enactment,
confinements houl di
nw
ish
his
offence, out to breathe the fresh air, that,
miserable cottage by
transported to a penal settlementoilOirdfi
for such a venial
subject himself to be
one, would'
utterly shocking to every principle of natural years. It
as
that,s°
isasa' House with that
" Not content"
should the Bill come before their Lordship;'
clause inserted in it, he, for
to it. He might be told that it dicii,:rosot3..a'zpal
men, but to vicious and insubordinate yn,tiotraatcteele
only who were found in what was called "suspicious circum-
stances," would come under its inflecnce. What, he would
ask, were suspicious circumstances ? Ile wished to know how
they could distinenish between two men who were found out,
one upon a really useful occasion, and another who was in-
fluenced by improper motives . He would take two instances.
join a party of Whiteboys,
out for the purpose of visiting his
sicksS uppforsi
friend,
en(drir
anmdana,nogtehienrg
a policeman, what differ-
ence,and suppose both arrested by
would ask, could be found in the external circumstances
going to
he s
innocent ? No man
proper motives, and that the other was .
to justify them in saying that one man was. influenced by im•
say under such
could pronounce upon the human heart, and therefore it would
be impossible, with any regard to justice, to
circumstances who was innocent or who was guilty. The mere
fact of a man being out at night was not a crime, and could
not justify such a severe punishment. He had heard it stated
out of the House that there was a mode of detecting a man—
that his character would criminate him. If that was really the
ground on which they proposed to go, it was a most dangorou3

feeling would they pass such a measure as this? Would these
cases of oppression which he had pictured, and which it would
be impossible to avoid under this Bill tend to eradicate this
feeling? Would it not rather tend to increase the evil, and
exasperate the feelings of the people? Would it not rather be
better to rely on the ordinary law of the land? He knew he
would be met by the argem .nt that this was no new measure.
But that was an additional reason why he would oppose it,
because such measures never had any other effect in Ireland
than to create a worse feeling amongst the people of that
country against the Government by which they were ruled.
He begged to apologise for having trespassed upon the House
so long, but he would now conclude by proposing that the
sentence should be twelve months' imprisonment instead of
transportation.
Earl WICKLOW said he conceived that there was no class
of the community in Ireland who would more rejoice at the
passing of this clause than the peasantry of Ireland, the very
class for whom the Noble Earl had made SJ pathetic a speech.
He ( Lord Wicklow) admitted this clause was a severe one;
but, though similar acts had been enforced before, he never
heard of a case of such hardship and tyranny as the Noble Earl
bad been so pathetically describing. In answer to the Noble
Earl's pathetic speech, he (Lord Wicklow) begged to refer the
House to the speech of a great statesman, Lord Grey, who
in 1833 introduced a similar measure, the severity of which he
lamented, but he said that its very severity was its best
security. This present Bill made a misdemeanour a transport-
able offence, and the Bill of Lord Grey contained a clause pre-
cisely similar.
The Lord CHANCELLOR and Lord Giatreet.i. said that
Lord Grey's Bill contained no such clause.
Earl WIC LOW continued to say that he considered this
Bill would be useless without this clause, and therefore he
would oppose the amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL said that the Bill of 1533 made the in-
timidation of witnesses a transportable offence ; but the being
out at night was made simply a misdemeanour, without de-
fining any punishment beyond fine and imprisonment. The
Noble Lord then read the clauses he alluded to, the words of
which bore out his statements. He then continued to say that
in the present Bill no distinction whatever was made between
the offences, and therefore he should say that so far this Bill
had been most unhappily framed. The offences of intimidating
a juryman or a witness, or being out armed were transportable
offences ; but no distinction was made between those offences.
and that of simply being out at:night, perhaps upon his lawful
business. So that a man being out at night, unarmed, or
banded, but " under suspicious circumstances," as the Bill had
it, was to be transported for fifteen years. The Noble Lord
then read a supposed case, upon which a form of indictment liad
been framed, and contended that a document so loosely worded
should not be permitted to exist. A man might be out upon
an affair of gallantry or some other matter which was
not upon a " lawful occasion", but yet it might be
found difficult to prove that it was unlawful.
He (the Noble Lord) did not believe that the present measure
was the proper cure for the malady that prevailed in Ireland ;
for they could not make the law more respected by making it
more cruel and unju't. He trusted that, on consideration,
they would come to the convictioo that their object would be
better attained by acceding to the amendment of the Noble
Earl. Agrarian outrages were condemned by every man in
the country, and by no men more strongly than Air. O'Connell,
who had ever set his face aeainst such.—( Hear, hear.) And
he should then say if the Nil) passod in its peasant form it
would have the effect of aggravating, rather than correcting,
the evils complained of. —( Hear, hear. )
Lord BROUHANI said he had attended to the arguments of
Noble Lords on both sides, and he should confess that, in his
opinion, the subject had been approached with an absence
of all party feeling.—(Luud cries of " Hear, hear.")
But after having given the fullest consideration which
he could to the arguments, he was forced to admit that he was
entirely in favour of the Bill without the amendment. In his
opinion some of his Noble Friends had been led away by their
feelings on the occasion, and had not sufficiently attended to
what the nature of the power intended to be bestowed on the
Government really was. His Noble Friend who had moved
the amendment, all along affirmed that the very venial offence
of being out an hour alter sunset was a misdemeanour,
and punishable by transportation. But it was not for so
venial an offence that he was liable to transporta-
tion, but for an offence which he (Lord Brougham)
considered by no means venial—being out under sus-
picious circumstances, and not on lawful, and there-
fore on unlawful, occasions—the law having declared that public
security required that he should not be out on such unlawful
occasions.—(Hear, hear.) Now there had been a distinction
sought to be drawn between what was a moral and
what was a legal offence. Now, he (Lord Brougham)
could not at all conceive the difference, as a well-
disposed subject should ever consider that what was opposed to
law was opposed to right, and, consequently, to morality.
Again, a man was not to be transported for fifteen years for so
venial an offence as Noble Lords imagined; for the Court was
armed with a power to examine wheter he was nut on lawful
business or under suspicious circumstances,—( Hear, hear.)
What better security, he wished to ask, could there be, than
that the Judge before whom the man would be tried would go
into the particulars of the case, and direct the jury as to the
nature of the offence? And then, even though he should be
found guilty of being out under suspicious circumstances, the
same judge would mete nut such punishment as, under all the
circumstances of the case as proved before him, should appear
to him to be just. —( Hear, hear ) If the man hap-
pened to be out under circumstances of a very
mischievous nature always taking into account the
tate of the neighbourhood or locality and that
he was proved to be a man of good character, would not that
go into the jury-box in his favour ?—( Hear, hear.) And was
it not certain that the sentence of the Court would be perhaps
a day, or two days imprisonment, or perhaps a fine of five shit
lings ?—( Hear, hear.) It had been asked, " why were not the
suspicious circumstances defined?"—(" Hear, hear," from Earl
Grey.) Now his answer to that was because it would be im-
possible to define them : for instance, one man being seen with
a bludgeon, might be no great crime, but when 59 or 60 men
armed with bludgeons were seen together, would not such be
an aggravation of circumstances ?—( Hear, hear.) In reference
to the mixing up of agrarian outrage with landlord tyranny, he
( Lord Brougham) should say they were questions that should
not be mixed together, for every such consideration weakened
the efficacy of the measure for the suppression of crime. Let
the people be ever so misgoverned, that gave them no right to go
out in mobs and make life insecure and property valueless in that
ill-fated and unhappy part of the empire.—(Bear, hear.)
When the time carne for considering the grievances under which
the agricultural population laboured, he would be as ready as
any Noble Lord to enter into the question, but he felt disinclined
to mix the questions at present—( Hear, hear)—and he there-
fore felt it his duty to support the measure, in doing which he
could not avoid saying that he was giving his support to a
measure infinitely less stringent than the one which he (Lord
Brougham) had the honour to present to their Lordships fur
acceptance. It was true, there was this severity in the present
measure that did not exist in his Bill, namely, the making mis-
demeanour a transportable offence ; yet he could not help say.
ing,' that in his opinion, the court-martial clauses in his Bill
were decided the most important clauses in the measure, and
fully justified his anticipation, as not a single man was tried
under them, so great was the terror which they inspired.—
( Hear, hear. )
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE considered that if the
amendment proposed by the Noble Earl (Earl Grey)
were carried, that the Government would be armed with no
more than the ordinary power. As to teaching people to
respect the law, such could not be done by letting them see,
year after year, that by a combined effort they could defeat it,
and overreach the constituted authorities.—( Hear, hear.)
They argued on this matter as if the law were to be universally
applied all over Ireland, but their Lordships should recollect
that its operation was limited to the disturbed districts, and no
honest man, he would undertake to say, would in such a dis-
trict be found out of his house after sunset. The really good
effect of the measure would be, that while it inspired honest
men with confidence in the power of the Government, it at
the same time struck terror into the hearts of the evil-disposed
by the severity of its clauses. If the amendments of the Noble
Earl were, however, acceded to, the Bill would be so weak-
ened in its operation that it would be comparatively useless.
The very papers read by the Noble Lord who had introduced
the measure were a satire upon the imbecility of the Executive
Government, and formed the very best indictment that could
be drawn up against them. If Government had long ere that
time assumed a higher tone, if they had brought the power of
the executive to bear upon the disturbed portions of Ireland,
the evils they were then considering would have had no exist-
ence. He should oppose the amendments of the Noble Earl.
Lord COTTEN El AM said that the Noble Earl, by his
amendments, did not wish to rescind the clause to which the
amendments applied; all he wanted was; to limit in some degree
the punishment of offences. The first object of society was of
Rille r ewdf oatnrse:r6
rylsi ote ttehrdoei
Lye;
:is set
introduced
dtr
oe bt
reews
mt
atesod
py dr
ooapnsoos
course to secure life and property, and the only question was,
When
aordai
knteahrii
yts
as Coerciontpm
aetre ao-f
.eexclt
to
m
rtiztrlaw for Ireland, but it was now considered only as an ex-
things. With regard to this • particular clause in question,
al-
though he would not deny for a moment
tion on the liberty of the subject, stillliatf this was a
peacerestric-
of Ire-
land required it, the Governnent were theht to persevere.
'this was a measure of precaution, adopted forg the
preventing offences. It appeared to him, however, that
punishment, as provided by the original Bill was unmercifully
severe, and that the amendments of the Noble Lord would
meet the exigencies of the case. They should remember that
that there were gradations in crime, and that while one man
might be out of his house after sunset for the worst of pur-
poses, another man.might be also out for purposes comparatively
^
=went. The introduction of the words " under suspicious

Lord LONGDALE observed that there was no question
made as to the principle of the Biil, nor was there any inten-
tion to offer it any obstruction, but the offence which it created
was one of degree, and admitting of every variety of mitiga-
tion. The question, therefore appeared to him to be
whether they should have the same punishment for each degree,
or whether the punishment was to be limited by the description
of the offence Y now he did think the latter was the most rea-
sonable point to view the question.
Earl GREY said that as one year had been considered to be
too short a period by his Noble Friend, he was quite willing to
alter it to two.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that as it did not seem to
be generally understood, he would take that opportunity of
stating that it was the intention of the Government to limit
the period of transportation from fifteen to seven years.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would have no objection
to voting for the Bill, provided it were limited. He would ask
to what length of time it was proposed to extend the Bill?
The Earl of Si'. GERMANS replied that, as the clause
then stood, it was for a period of five years, but he was quite
willing that it should be further limited to three.
Lord STOURTON hoped that the Government would per-
severe in the limitation of the Act to five years.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE intimated that, at a fu-
ture time, he would take the sense of the House on the pro-
priety of limiting it to three years.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
Content .. 7
Not content
Majority against the amendment .. —3l
Clauses 24, 25, 26, and 27 were then agreed to.
On the last clause being proposed, limiting the duration of
the 13i11 to five years.
The aarquis of CLANRICARDE thought even three years
too long. It was the most unconstitutional Bill that could be
enacted, and it should terminate, at the utmost, on the Ist
October, 1849.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought five years short enough.
The necessity for its existence would be as strong at the ex-
piration of three years as at present.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that if it was pro-
posed to continue it longer than the time mentioned by his
Noble Friend (the Marquis of Clanricarde), he would take the
sense of the House upon it.
,Lord CLARE thought it wholly unimportant whether it con-
tinued three years or five years.
The Earl of ST. GE•RMAN 11., was or so
much importance that Lordships should be unanimous,
or as nearly so as possible, that rather than run the risk of a
second division on the point he would have no objection that
the lesser period of three years should be substituted for that
of five.
It was then agreed, after some conversation, that the Bill
should be limited in operation to three years.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 6.
The SPEAKER. took the Chair at a few minutes before
Four o'clock.

SECOND READINGS.

The following Bills were severally read a second time and
ordered to be committed,
Airdrie and B;thgate
.Junction Railway.
Rye and Derwent Drainage.
Heywood Waterworks.
Leicester and Tatnworth Junction Railway.
Enfield Chase Road.
Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Rail,vay, and Port, &c. of

Goole.
Welsh Charity School Incorporation.
Creat Grimsby Gas
Stafford New Gas
Rugby, Leamington, and Warwick Railway
South-Eastern Railway, No. 7 (Ashford Stations Enlargement)
Monmouth and Hereford Railway
London and Brighton and London and Croydon Railways
Consolidation
Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway
London and Oxford Railway
Eastern Counties Railway (Epping Extension)
Mr. NEWDEGATE moved the first reading of the Man-
chester Direct Railway Bill, which was ordered to be read a
second time.

Mr. KEMBLE moved that the order for the second read-
ing of the Mitcham and South-Western Railway Bill, on
Monday, March 2, be made an order of the day for Monday,
March 9, and that the Bill may be read a second time accord-
ingly on that day.—Motion agreed to.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved that the Scottish Grand
Junction Railway Bill, new placed in Group No. 5, bo re•
ferrtd to the Chair man of Ways and Means, and the Members
ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill. The motion was
agreed to.
Mr. GREENE also moved that the second readings of the
following 13ills, notice for which has been given in the Private
Bill-office for Friday the 6th of March, be made orders of the
day for Mon,lay next, the 9,h of March. Chichester, Ports-
mouth, and &retain Railway Bill ; London and Birmingham
Railway aid Birmingham Canal Arrangements Bill ; Eastern
Union Railway (Ardleigh to Colchester) Bill.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BUSFEILI) presented petitions from places in York•
shire, signed by upwards of 9,000 individuals, against the en-
rolment of the militia. _

A petition was presented from the Poor-law guardians of
the parish of Caisley, remonstrating against the interference
of the Poor-law Commissioners in their parish.

Colonel T. WOOD presented a petition, very numerously
signed by the inhabitants of Chelsea, expressing their satisfac-
tion at the proposed measure of the Government, and at the
same time stating their belief that the measure would be
materially improved if it included the total and immediate re-
peal of the corn-laws.
Mr. WARD presented a petition, signed by the Lord Mayor
and council of the city of York, and also by 15,000 of the
principal inhabitants, against the enrolment of the militia.
Mr. T. DU.NCOMBE presented several petitions against
the enrolment of the militia.
Mr. ESTCOURT brought up the report of the Standing
Orders' Committee.
Mr. BRIGHT presented several petitions from the county
of Somerset praying for an immediate repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. HUDSON presented a petition from some place, the
name of which did not reach us, in favour of protection.
Mr. YOUNG moved that the Speaker do make out his
warrant for the election of a burgess to serve in the present
'Parliament in the room of the Honourable Thomas Carnegie,
who had accepted the office of one of the Lords of the Treasury.
PROTECTION TO LIFE AND PROPERTY.
Mr. YOUNG presented a petition from Clare, in favour of
the Government measure for affording better protection to
life and property in Ireland.'
THE LEICESTER AND TAMWORTH RAILWAY.
Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition 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 duty on Baltic timber would be of the greatest
importance, as it would 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 RAILWAY.

A petition was presented in favour of this Bill.
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. W. PATTEN said he had been directed to make an
inquiry from the Vice-President of the Board of Trade with
respect to the very important 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
Right Honourable Gentleman, not only for the purpose
of enlightening the railway Committees, but 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 Bids now before
Parliament. The Committee had directed him to put the
question before they proceeded any further with the subject.
One of two plans had been submitted for tt-
,,e settlement of the
.. that the opinion of
question; but he thought he might state
the
country Committees
wouldwasbe
thatmau question
rac6
estio:oflstsutieehutoaasray
timpocierttearzirtdeeto
the

THE SUN, LONDON. SATURDAY EVENING, m'A. Rcm 7, 1846.

upon by the Government, and if not by them at least by some
Select Committee to be appointed by the House. He there-
fore 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 b} the traffic being carried throughout
the whole 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 opinion that it
would be extremely ineonvenient that where amalgamations
were proposed to take place, that they should be referred to the
same Committee as those which sat on separate Bills. In ge-
neral, those amalgamation Bills were not opposed ; they came
before the Committee as unopposed Bills, and the attention of
the Committee was given to Bills that 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 propse, 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