The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-21 00:00:00

while the average cost of the Indian lines was only
8,0001. per mile ; 250 miles cost 1,000,0001. sterling,
and a fair average price had been paid for the land,
though not so high a price as was sometimes obtained
in this country. He admitted the defects in the present
mode-of supervision, especially the delays which oc-
curred in this country, and said that he should be glad
if some plan could be suggested to remedy the defects
on this— score. If,- therefore, the hon. gentleman
pressed his motion for a committee of inquiry, he for
one would consent to it. (Hear, hear.) It was unjust to
speak slightingly, as some hon. gentlemen had done, of
the Indian.engineers, for a finer corps was not in exist-
ence; It was quite a Mistake to suppose that these gen-
tlemen were merely military engineers ; on the contrary
most of the civil engineering of the country was carried
on under their superintendence. As to the obstructions
of the Government, as a general rule the railway officials
and the Government officers had worked harmoniously
together.. Railway engineers might be very respectable
men, but they knew that in England lines had been
constructed for 15,0001. a mile which had formerly cost
40,040/d Superintendence in this department of the
public works was therefore of great importance in the
commencement, and should be accompanied with a pro•
vision for.the ultimate transfer of the management to a
body;-of directors. 'He quite approved of the motion and
desired-that all light should be thrown upon the subject,
with-the view to the judicious extension of railways and
he thought-the house was much obliged to the hon. mem-
ber for having brought the subject forward. (Hear.)
Mr. A.YRTON explained that his statement still re-
mained where it was, notwithstanding what had fallen
from thelon. member for Guildford, that when in Cal-
etutta.he -was told the Government intended to construct
the telegraph, and that that was not done till several
years afterwards.
Bt. -LIDDELL replied. The object cf his motion
bad been-to show that the existing system in India by
which, public works were conducted was a bad one, and
this had been amply admitted by the Secretary to the
Boarded Ceontrol. It was his object to show that this
system was productive of delay, and though the point
had been partly conceded, being able to establish all his
statements in reference to it, he was desirous of having
the opportunity of doing so before a committee.
The motion mess then agreed to without a division.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
Mr. Serjeant DEASY moved for leave to bring in a
bill, to -promote and regulate reformatory schools for
juvenile offenders in Ireland. The hon. and learned
gentleman said that the object of the motion was to
remedy an inconvenience which at present existed in
the law applying to reformatory schools in Ireland, and
which Kevented their being attended with the same ad-
vantage as were reformatory schools in England. The
provisions of the bill respected the religious principles
of the parents of the children who would be received
into ,the institutions, and also took care that no Church
or sect should have any opportunity or power of using
the isheols for proselytising purposes. Protestant
children would be sent to Protestant schools, and
Catholic children to Catholic ones, and a rigorous
Government inspection would be established. With
regard to the means of erecting these institutions, he
proposed to adopt the principle recognised by Parliament
and applied in the Middlesex Industrial Schools Act.
By that act power was given to the grand jury to charge
on the rates the sums necessary for promoting the
erection of these buildings. He also proposed an
enabling power, by which the Treasury could allow ss.
a-week for the maintenance of reforming ofienders. The
time had nmaet, he thought, for souse such step being
taken, and however the details might be objected to, ho
hoped that, in principle at least, the bill would not be
found very objectionable.
Mr..GREE,R seconded the motion, and said there was
a great deal of accommodation in the workhouses not re-
quired in Iralaad, which might be roads available for
reformatory schools.
Lord INTAA.S said Government would offer no opposi-
tion 0 Vio introduction of the bill, and that the best
consideration of Government would be given to the
subject though, of course, they could not promise sup-
port to every portion of the measuro. Unless the lAN
proposed to deal with all persons who were summarily
convicted qaprtgr sessions in Ireland, these who
would come under the operation of ne bill would be
•...y small late'.

.FALK had no wish to thloa
such, a measure as the one proposed ; but if refxrDaLory
schoolsiiad,tict succeeded in England, there was little
hope of their sucee, ding in Ireland. Ile doubted that
those cogo;rics which . were purely agricultural could
bear the expense of a reformatory. He thought it would
be wiser, to wait to see the operation of reformatory
schools iu England befire the system should be extended
to Ireland.
Mr,,,,4J.rgea74,DEA.SY briefly replied, when leave was
given to.bring in the bill.
co k.I.N• vo I'E RS IN SCOTL IND.
Sir E. CO LEBROOKE moved for leave to bring in a
bill fo; the amendment of the Law fir the registration cf
the /Loop voters in Scotland.
The .LORD ADVOCATE would not appose the intro-
duiti‘;ia of the bill, but would reserve to himself the right
of coßsideriug its provisions on the second reading.
Leave was then given to bring iu the bill.
GALWAY ' FREEMEN DISFRANCHISEMENT
• BILL.

Onthe Motion for the reading of the order of the day
for geing into committee on this bill,
Mr. WALPOLE rose to call the attention of the house
to the difficulties which surrounded this question. The
hon. member for Sheffield (Mr. Rot buck) concurred to
the opinion expressed by kis right bon. friend the Cha--
cellor of the Excheepier, on the second reading, that if
they came to the question of law they might deal judici-
ally. erLis right hon. friend thought the bill did not deal.
strictly equitably, as it included the innocent as well ac
the guilty, and they amounted to upwards of 100. (Hear.)
Another part of the bid was not strictly equitable, a',
while it disfranchised the bribed it did not ci fraeshise
the briber, (Hear, hear.) His right friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer raid, on the occasion Le
referred to, and said justly, and he obtained the acquie;
omce of the house, that in these two respects the bill
ought' to be rectified, and he rugeested that an ie
structioji slamild be moved, en going irate commit-
tee, (Vet the briber should be included with the
bribed; "and-elle that they should cinsider whether the
whole the freemen shoeld be disfranchised, or whether
they shniuld Inalte ri'dletinctioti between the innocent and
the gUiltyee He: had taken the liberty of pointing out
those ditheitiltiei now, a; he believed any ittstrucion to
the .9 eftertrittketettost be moved upon the motion for re el-
They could not put themselvesing the order of the day.
is Veesfght, Melees an instruction should be given to the
ce,iemiittee to the effect he had stated, He should move
ki.ke an instruction to the cnernittee on
that they ehoul I have power to make provision for
including those who have been ge.iity of bribery for the
purpokt f_ptirchtOug. votes. " The celeituittee inutit re-
ceive instrbotions to the elf:ot, or they would be pre-
cludeefrerri entering into the matter. The q ity.tiee
was stilt surr6untled with diffieultie,.. Two curses
were °e'en to them to adopt. The bill was not an equit-
able bill, ae-it was drawn olt, and they should not pre-
ceed with it. The other course they had to adept we',
to•agree to thoinstruction ho Lad su:gested. Toe ope-
ration of the bill as it stood woull be to disfranchise all
the freemen, amounting to between 500 and COO. The
Attorney-General bad examined the evidence in these
cases and had osused two scbedu's to he drawn up, the
one shoi:ving the bribed an l the other the briber,.
effect t`rrseparating the innocoot from the guilty would
halo ditfranchiee 150 out of the whole a Ither. If they
did not theY'weiffl be diefranchislng aboet 4,)0 who
were /fiat guilty at rel. Tue amendment of which the
lion. Member for Cork had given notice would
have the singular effect, if it were adopted, of disfran-
chising every innocent voter, and would let all the guilty
escape with the ex-!eption of ten. ('clear, hear ) If they
adopted the motion of the boo. member for C they
would let off 'All the guilty and disfranchise the innocent
—and sudh legielaton would be so di reputable that he
caul I not 'believe the cs)mar;ttee would adopt it. Oa
previous occasions the house dealt with questions
of this kind, and he would state briefly what was
done. The Act of the 5.h and 6th Viet., chapter 67,
euipow-ered the Crown to appoint certain commissioners
to-inqUire into corrupt practices alleged to have been
committed, and to make a report to the house. Now,
several were se.dealt with, either under the general or
special :act. On two occasions where it was proved, in
the case of Sudbury and St: Albans, the bribery was
systematic and' extensive, it was prep: sod to disfrati.
chi.re the whole. The question then arose whether, if eter-
reption and bribery should be systematic and general,
how could they apply it here, whore about 500 101.
hOuschoicleie and between 300 and 400 freemen were
proved to be innocer,t. That certainly would be a roost
atartlingprecedent to f 1 ow, and he was sure it would
not be adopted. Then there was the case of Yarmouth.
In that borough certain freemen were proved to have
been gtiilty of bribery, sod the house disfranchised the
whole body, though the greater portion of them were
not guify. The present bill was evidently f ,roved on that
precedent; but he would ask the house if they were pre-
pared to say- that when a considerable portion, thou4b
not the tnajority, of voters in Galway, were not proved
to be corrupt, they felt themselves at liberty to di-fran-
chise the whole? If they were prepared to act in that
way with regard to the freemen, they raw:: do the same
with the 101. householder?. The course of prne eding
would not, in his opinion, be jest, and he owned he was
very unwilling to see it adopted. Tilenthere was a third
mode of dealing with the question, and that was the
course suggested by the present Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, when Attorney-Genetal, in the cases of
CL.ta,terhurv, Kingston-upon-Holl, Barnstaple, and Corn-
ruti"inT-.2llbaet rwightlibon. gentleman,, with his acute legal
would not foil tw tae precedent in the c,se
of the borough of Sudbury or effarrnouth, beceule it eta.
not just, but what
guilty, and was, t o deal with
them: fount! to
with I debate followed' on,theoec and ev°eeninotulet.t case, he
A long
walinift) thoughtthielil4r)conCeeding was net equitable,
at d be thought so still.
that wlaunie to that conolueion on
this ground, -Lamely,
furnish evidence to the Crown aYuu,ul tell won that, if they
of bribery-16r con upti:,n, they should ric:tt haemdiesnft in ea-es
or pu toiehor?, you may, if you brisk that prontl,reaTei'"
icg strictly within the act of Parliament, but not accord-
ing
to your promise. rid was so stoutly resisted that
the right hon. gentleman had to withdraw the bills alt.,-
gether. Now, they, could rot fellow the precedent of Sud-
bury—they could that of Yarmouth, but they would he
confounding right and wrong; end if thty f 'dewed that
Kineston-on-Hull, and otters, they would Lave te
cotniider cWhether they could set aside the indemnity
which thesis men thought they should Lave, when they
gave their. evidence. Now these were hie difficulties,

and now he thought-there were only two courses to pur-
sue—one to rs fuse to go into committee, or; if they-did
go into noulpittee, to adapt the instructions he sva; pre-