The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-13 00:00:00

THIRD REIDINGS.

On the motion of Lord REDESDALE the following
bills were severally read a third tune and passed :
Ley's Divorce, Chepstow Gal, and Reversionary In-
terest Society.
PRINCESS ROYAL'S ANNUITY BILL.
This bil+ passed through committee.
THE CASE OF MR. STUART.
Lord CLEMENTS nickel her Majesty's Minis-
ters why the pr •te,.ition of the polies was to be
removed from David Stuart in the county of Leitrim,
and why the Government requ;red him to emigrate or
otherwise to provide for his per,,onal safety, and to
what extent the prosecution of Protestants was to
be permitted? The noble lord then proceeded to impute
partiality to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in granting
greater protection to Roman Catholics than Protestants.
Lord GRANVILLE said the universal esteem in
which the noble lord, the Lord-Lieutenant of Inland,
was held was the best answer he could give to the
observations of the noble lord on his lordship.
With respect to the question the noble lord had
asked, the circumstances were as follows :- Two years
ago Mr. Stuarts house was broken open, and agun taken
away. There b-ing reason to suppose that an ill will
against that gentleman existed the Government di-
rected that two policemen should reside with him.
(Hear.) He bad given notice of his intention
to emigrate, and directions were given, ordering the
police to return to their quarters. Mr. Stuart, however,
altered his plans and did not emigrate, and, notwith-
standing the expense, the Government had given
direc ions for the police to return to that gentleman's
house. There was nointention on the par., of the Govern-
ment to remove the protection given to Mr. Stuart.
Viscount DLTNGANNON asserted that the Executive
Government had displAyed a decided partisanship in
favour of Roman Catholics, and denied evenhanded
justice to the Protestants.
Lord CLE NI EN CS said that if their lordships would
grant him a committee he would prove the assertions he
had made. .

Earl GRANVILLE said if the noble I')rd moved the
appointment id a select committee, and proved to the
satisfaction of the house that the charges were
net frivolous, he should have no objection to the appoint-
molt of such a committee.
The sulject then dropped.
TRANSPORTATION BILL.
The Earl of HARROWBYthen moved that the house
should go into committee on this bil , the object of which
was to enable Government to comply with the wishes of
the colony of Western Australia, and at the same time
to obviate some of the evili at home to which the ticket-
of lis'av,-; systi-m had given rise.
Lord CIAIPBELI4 objected to the bill as being vir-
tually a scheme to make transportation rather a reward
for meritorious criminals than a punishment for the worst
offenders.

Lord GREY could not agreo with Lord Campbell in
this opinion. He should support the bill on the simple
ground that it retraced as far as possible tie erroneous
step which the house took in 1852 and 1853, and enabled
the Government in future to make use of transportation
to as great an extent as was practicable to relieve the
country from the presence of a class of persons who had
become dangerous to the peaceable and well-disposed
part of the community.
Lord CARNARVON thought that the Government
took too narrow a view of the question, and was con-
vinced that many other portions of the British empire
might bo found as well suited for purposes of transporta-
tion as \Veaprn Australia.