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

circumstances," into the clause, was a great improvement. 1
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
where Government demanded extraordinary powers. He did
not feel disposed to dispute the propriety of arming the 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 AIONTEAGLE said that if this were a question of
law, he should 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 thous ht that as regarded a knowledge of Ireland
he was better inf emed than the Noble Lord who Kati sup-
potted, 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 measurea 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 same satisfaction in htokine
to the past history of Ireland, far he 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 surh a measure both
in and out of office. teir ohn 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 of his popularity, and at the hazard of his life, came
forward to support it. He, the creator of Irish independence,
the friend and leader of the Irish people, in a British
House of Parliament did not hesitate to Aive his
aid to the passing of a coercive measure. That
measure, too, was infinitely strenger than the present one.
Every day added a new crime to the dark catalogue which dis
grafted 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 relet red 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 them 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 principle of the measure; his Noble Friend had admi, ted it,
and the only question was as to the duration of the punishment.
and he would meet all the arguments which had 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 t free-
tire. 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 uneonstitutional measure that ever
was proposed for the adoption of Parliament. Mr. Grattan's
Bill committed the trial to the bench of magistrates, arid that
without 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 suhjecl 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 peri RI 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.

Lord LONGDALE observed that there was no question
made as to the principle of the Bill, mir 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 ? now he did think the latter was the most rea-
sonable point to view the question.
Earl Li REY said that n s 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 trawpartation 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 ST. GERMANS replied that, as the clause
then stool, it was for a period of five years, but he was quite
willing that it should be further limited to thre,i.

Lor'd STOURTON hoped thaz the G.tvernit ent would per-
severe in the limitation of the Act to five years.
The i►lary-.ais of L A NSDOWNE 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 ..
Not content
Majority against the amendment ...
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 Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought even three years
too long. It was the most unconst:tutional Bill that could be
enacted, and it should terminate, at the utmost, cn the Ist
October, 1819.

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 L ANSDOWNE 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 CL A RE thought it wholly unimportant whether it con-
tinued three years or five years.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS thought that it was of so
much importance that their 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 Bi
should be limited in operation to three years.
Their Lordship then adjourned.

HOUSE OF 00.3.1310A5, Mareh 6.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes before
Four o'clock.

SECOND READINGS.

The following Bills were severally Wad —a
second time and
ordered to be viz.
Airdrie and Bathgate Junction Railway.
Rye and Dement Drainage.
Heywood Waterworks.
Leicester and Tamworth Junction Railway.
Enfield Chase Road.
Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Railway, and Port, &e. 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 Itailwq 13111,which was ordered to be read a
second time.
Mr. KENIBLE moved that the order for the second read-
ing of the Mitcham and South-Western Railway Bill, on
Monday, March 2, be irtde an order of the day for Monday,
March 9, and that the Bill may be read a second time accord-
ingly on that day.—Mo ion agreed to.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved that the Scottish Grand
Junction Railway Bill, now placed in Group No. 5, be re•
ferrtd to the Chairman of Ways an,l "leans, and the Members
ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill. The motion was
agreed to.
Air. GREENE also moved that the second readings of the
fullowing Bills, notice for which has been given in the Private
Bill-office for Friday the 6th of Alarch, be made orders of the
day it Monday next, the 9h of March. ChichrAer, Ports-
mouth, and Fareliarn Ruilway Bill ; London and Birmingham
Railway nod Birmingham Canal Arraneern,nts 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 cf
the parish of Caistey, remonstrating against the interference
of the Poor-law Commissioners in their parish.
Culonel T. WOOL) 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 improred 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, tgainst the enrolment of the militia.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented several petitions against
the enrolment of the militia.
Mr. ESTCOUR'f 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 TANIWORTH RAILWAY.

petition from the
Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a
msyor 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 thii Bill.
Mr NEW DEG ATE ( in the absence of Mr. Spooner) moved
that the petition of Joshua Tournlin Smith, presented yester-
day, be printed with the votes.--:-Agreed to.
AMALG ANIATION 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 eases of
amalgamation which carne 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 Bills 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 the settlement of the
question; but he thought he might state that the opinion of
the Committees was that a question of such vast importance to
the country would be much more satisfactorily determined I

upon by the Government, and if not by them at least by some
Select Committee to be appointed by the House. He.theree
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 CAI same direct line, the public
would be advantaged by the traffic being carried tliPhoughr,ut
the whale length of those lines under the came 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 nut knew whether, as a general principle, amalgamation
should be permitted or not ; bat he was of opinion that it
would be extremely ineonvel Tent that where amalgamations
were proposed to take place, that they sh•.uld be referred to the
same Committee as those which sat on separate Bills. In ge-
neral, those amalgamation Bids were not opposed ; they earn-
before the Committee as unopt'iosed Bills, and the attention of
the Commi,tee seas given to Wile 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 prep se, as the Committees were now aeout to sit on
railway Bills, any suggestions for their guidance (as we un-
derstood) re-pecting the broad and nee: ow gauge ?
Sir GEORGE CLERK saiu 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 Mime.
After a fen. words from Mr. BARING and Sir GEORGE
CLERK, which we could not catch,
Mr. E. MAULE said that many of the 13111 s would not at-
tract the attention of the Committee at all with respect to
amalgamat tn.
PENSIONS FOR G;VERNMENT SERVICE IN

I N I) lA.
Sir V. BLAKE begged to put a question to the Right
Ilonourab;e Baronet at the head of her Aldjesty'. Government,
the purport of which it was understood was to inquire whether
the 2ilinistry were et all likely to bring in a Bill for providing
pensions far those individuals who host their employment atter
long service. If not, he should himself bring in a Bill for
giving a pension of 75/. a year to all those who have filled prin-
cipal situations after twenty years' duty.
Sir ROBERT PEEL avid really not aware the Hon.
Baronet was going to ask such a question. He had not given
any notice—at least it did aof sand for to-day—(Gies of
" No, no")—er he would have taken care to have provided
himself with the information on the subject. The Hon.
Baronet was quite competent to bring in a Bill if he thought
proper, or if he chose to put a notice on the paper, he would be
prepared to give a reply on a future day.
SCOTCH TURNPIKE ROADS.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the second reading of the
Turnpike Roads (Scotla:lJ) Bill, in order to have it postponed
for ten days, in consequence of the absence of the Lo►d Ad-

vacate.