;Debates any iproctebinfts in Warliament.

LORD GEORGE BENTINCK'S RAILWAYS BILL.

BeTore the adjourned debate was resumed in the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord GEORGE RENTINCR put a series of questions to the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, intended to illustrate the amount of relief afforded to the destitute poor by means of the public works in Ireland, Relief Com- mittees, &o., during the three months ending in January last, as compared with the cost of administering the whole of that sort of relief.

Sir CHARLES Woon gave as full a reply as he could without sending to Ireland for information. The chief points were these. The lowest wages allowed on the public works were 8d. a day, the highest Is. 4d. The gross sum paid for labour from the 1st of November to the 2d of January was 1,635,446/ The cost of the staff employed on the public works was 7 per cent on the expenditure for labour. The total quantity of corn pur- chased by Government, of various sorts, up to the middle of January, was 218,000 quarters.

The debate was taken up by the Marquis of GRANBY' who advocated the bill. He contended that, in the actual state of Ireland, they must either diminish the population or increase the capital in the country. To illustrate the beneficial effects that would accrue from railways, he cited a letter written by a friend of his as long ago as October 1845, describing the herring fishery of Galway—

The number of boats employed was 1,000; they brought in on an average 8,000 herrings each, which were sold to the dealers and hawkers at 10s. a thou- sand, or ls. for 120: this was 4,0001. for the average of one take; but when they were sold, the boats were idle for some days, as the king of the fishermen" at Claddagh, the wharf were most of them lived, said it was useless to go out again till the dealers returned to purchase again. Four days elapsed before they came - leek with their carts and donkies for a fresh supply; whereas, had there been a railroad, a quantity might have been caught each day, and sent to Dublin and other parts of the country in a few hours. No herrings were cured at Galway, on account of the dearness of salt.

Mr. Wittiest BuowN deprecated the principle that the industrious classes of England should be laid under taxation for the benefit of the Irish landlords. In effect, the bill would oblige English people to invest their money in Irish railways. Now Irish railways are disastrous specu- lations; all the railways in that country are at a discount. On the other hand, people are lending their money at six, seven, and eight per cent, on the security of the best railways in this country, with the condition an- nexed, that should the market value of the shares fall, the borrowers would be bound to give the lenders new and sufficient securities.

• Colonel MUR.E objected to the measure, mainly on account of its flagrant public immorality. It was an extensive scheme for the encouragement of railway gambling. The definition of gambling is the staking of money on insecure and creditless adventures, risking total loss in the hope of exorbi- tant profits. That the Irish railways are insecure and creditless adventures is shown by the depression of the stock; and in order to encourage such gambling, it was proposed to extend eight millions of private capital by sixteen millions of prostituted public credit. Scarcely a year ago, the House resounded with denunciations against the pernicious spirit of railway specu- lation: that spirit had abated; let not the House conjure it up into renewed activity, and send it across the Channel as another curse to assist the demon of famine in still further tormenting the unhappy population of Ireland.

Alderman THOXPSON defended the bill, and himself. As an example for the appropriation of public funds to such enterprises, he mentioned, that most of the great railroads and canals in the American Union had been executed by the funds of the several States. Within the last few days, Government had sanctioned a loan from the East India Company of 2,000,000/ for railways in India: was it just that Government should promote railways in India and not in Ireland? Sir Charles Wood had criticized the names at the back of the bill: as it respected himself; Mr. Thompson thought that his conduct in the House of Commons for twenty- seven years would be an answer to any imputation implied in that criticism. He produced another testimonial—

He held in his hand a copy of the bill introduced by Lord Morpeth, and he found at the back of that bill the names of " Lord Morpeth, the Attorney-General for Ireland, and Mr. Alderman Thompson." Further, the noble Lord had done him the honour of reciting his name in the body of the bill: the 9th clause enacted that there should be three directors of the company, and that the first directors should be Sir Isaac Lyon Goldamid, John Abel Smith, and William , Thompson.

Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH could not support the bill, because it would only-affect one-fourth of Ireland, and he felt bound to support the Govern- ment; but he hailed it as the prelude to a more liberal course of legislation.

Mr. NEWDEGATE addressed himself to the task of showing that the measure would cause no derangement in the money-market; and he turned the discussion upon the general subject of currency. Mr. Joan O'Coloreu. turned it upon Repeal. As to the merits of Lord George's plan, opinions of competent persons were divided upon it; but he supported it as tending to increased expenditure in Ireland. Mr. CORRY opposed the plan of diverlingpublic money from the imme- diate relief of destitution.

Sir Witmer& CLAY objected to many details in the bill; though he re- asseanended -the encouragement for railways in Ireland by advances of • Valle money in equal proportion With private capital.

Mr. Sftewtfelt bound, 'contrary to his inclination, to vote against the 411;' becaisigt,in the present sate of parties and in such critical times, he could not join in any vote which would overturn the Government. But he urged Ministers to adopt the proposition in a modified form—to correct it, perhaps, according to the suggestion of Mr. Chaplin, that is by promoting great trunk-lines. -Sir Witmer"( iforiswonTft delivered a very compact, distinct, and forcible summary of reasons against the policy of State interference to compel a diversion of capital in favour of Irish railways. Observing the want of energy in those who ought to have prepared against the impending distress, the -refusal to pay-rates among owners of land, and the abundant harvest covering the-fields while the people are in want of food, he was led to the conclusion that the cardinal want in Ireland is a stringent poor- law, which would oblige the property to provide-for the destitute. Mr. DISRAELI made a long speech, calmly and rather closely replying to various objections. "He devoted a considerable part of it to showing that Lord George Bentinck's plan was not proposed in rivalry with the Govern- ment; and that its adoption need not endanger their official existence. He grappled with Sir Charles Wood's figures to prove that the proposed outlay-would give a-much larger amount of employment thanSir Charles had allowed. He cited a very elaborate and careful return by Mr. Laing, show- ing in _detail the proportion between the several items of expenditure on rail- ways; taking examples from the actual expenditure on dear and cheap rail- ways, in England, Belgium, and France. The proportion of outlay for mere rude labour on the London and Birmingham Railway was 32,630/. or 62 per cent; on a Belgian railway, the lowest proportion was 6,9201. or 43 per cent; the mean proportion on all the railways of the outlays on common labour was 57 per cent. He read a long letter from Mr. Samuel Hem- ming, an extensive contractor on Irish and other works, in which was nar- -rated the results of his actual experiences in Ireland; beginning with very large sea-embankments on the Londonderry and Coleraine Railway. At first, the difficulties seemed almost insuperable, from the total inexperience of the people in such works. He brought over a few experienced gaugers from England; in a few weeks the indigenous labourers became quite ex- pert at their work; almost all his English labourers have left him, and several of his Irish labourers bare become sub contractors on other works. He always found that when he wished to increase the supply of labour plenty offered, from-Connaught and the Western coast; and if the most able-bodied are withdrawn, the farmers can the more readily absorb the remaining local labour. This letter, said Mr. Disraeli, completely answered all the vague.and shadowy objections of a late, a later, and the latest Chan- cellor of the Exchequer. It was said, indeed, that all these navigators are Englishmen and gay Lotharios: now, in a letter from Sir Harvey Bruce, testifying to the relief which the Londonderry and Coleraine Railway affords to the district through which it passes, the writer says—

The great majority of the labourers on the railway and in the country are married, as they all marry when they are boys; many of the poor on our books have families of from eight to twelve; and a father and mother and three chil- dren, is considered a very small family." The same writer says—" I know many instances of labourers who were before earning only 10d. or ls. a day, earning at the railway 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. a day, and less skilful labourers 20d. a day. To show the low price of land, the railway goes through nine miles of my estate, and they have bought their line rather under 6001. a mile." He referred at considerable length to the experiences of Belgium and France, in order to show that state advances for railways occasion no finan- cial derangement, and are repaid over and ever again by the advantages accruing. He said he could understand why interference with private en- terprise should be deprecated in this country, where the commercial prin- ciple is paramount .and efficient; but it is otherwise in Ireland. The country is misgoverned: there is more to be considered than the mere com- mercial circumstances, such as the cost of materials and labour: there are also religions antipathies, turbulence, private revenge, and other social and political influences at work. Commercially, railroads in Ireland are profitable undertakings; but they are stopped by the political circumstan- oes; and therefore the argument derived from the interference with private enterprise falls to the ground. He concluded by recommending the bill as a measure which did not mean to do injury to a government, but which did aspire to benefit a nation. The debate was again adjourned, soon after twelve o'clock.

It was continued at immense length on Tuesday; but the succes- sive speakers on either side necessarily repeated many of the arguments. That was the case with the first speaker, Mr. OSBORNE; whose speech, however, was relieved from monotony by several characteristic sallies, the only novelties in his discourse.

Mr. Osborne quoted an authority for holding that the strict political economy applicable to railways in England fails in Ireland, " which cannot be said to be prodigal of means or bursting with opulence." This was said in 1839, by Lord Morpeth; who now, ranging the Woods and Forests, meets with nothing to dis- turb his composure more formidable than the Wellington statue. Sir Charles Wood had said that there had been 6,000 ejeetments in the.county of Mayo; confounding processes issued by middlemen for conacre rents with wholesale ejectment by landlords, of which there had been no instance. Mr. Os- borne observed that Sir Charles Wood had left the House. [A Member on the Treasury bench stated that Sir Charles had gone because he was very unwell.] Mr. Osborne was sorry to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had retired in consequence of being unwell; but he was not surprised that he should have been so after making such extraordinary statements. (Laughter.)

Mr. Osborne was not to be taken in by the Ministerial talk about resignation, or all the meetings in Downing Street: they were just parts of the stage business —of the tricks of office. All Ministers were in the habit of playing this game- " They often took leave, but were loth to depart." He was surprised that the right honourable gentleman the Recorder of the city of Dublin, who had so much experience should have had so many nervous mis- givings as to the Ministry resigning. He ought to know from the experience he had acquired of Governments, that the Ministry could not go out—that the noble Lord might walk out at one door, but that most assuredly he would walk in at the other. (Laughter.) The measure was advocated by Colonel CONOLLY and Sir Joan Weisft; opposed by Mr. VILLIERS STUART and Captain LAYARD. Captain Lay- ard, however, rested his vote solely on the fact that so much money as the sum required could not be obtained. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he should discuss the proposal in a spirit similar to that in which it had been proposed; a spirit alien from all party

considerations, uninfluenced by the consequences which Lord John Russell had indicated as the possible result of Lord George Bentinck's success, and regarding solely the merits of the proposition.

The extent of the proposal to engage the credit of the country necessitates some reference to the financial condition and prospects of the country. From the re- turns up to January last, it appeared that the financial condition of the country was highly prosperous. Mr. Goulburn estimated the revenue for the year ending on the 5th of April next at 50,900,0001.: the nett receipts of the year ending an the 5th of January last were not less than 53,000,0001.; indicating an excess of 2,000,0001. above Mr. Goulburn's estimate. The excess of revenae over expenditure was 2,800,0001.; the balance in the Exchequer 9,000,0001. The state of the revenue, therefore, for the present year, is satisfactory. But a more important question is, the prospect for the coming year. The revenue could hardly be greater, perhaps not so great. The price of provisions is high in this country and in Europe, and even in America on account of the demands from Europe; all of which tends to limit the powers of consumption. Ma- nufactures in this country arc already deprms; the more so from the high price of cotton. It is hardly possible that such a combination of circum- stances should not affect the revenue of the country. On the other hand, the expenditure for next year will probably exceed the expenditure for this year. In the Navy, Army, and Ordnance Estimates, there is an increase of 400,0001. He was prepared for a liberal expenditure to mitigate the terrible calamities in Ire- land and on the West coast of Scotland; Ministers had indicated an expenditure of 9,000,0001., or possibly 11,000,0001.: in that case, probably, on the 5th of April 1848, comparing the actual expenditure with the receipts, there would be a deficit of not less than seven or eight millions. It is to be feared that the ex- traordinary demand on account of Ireland will not be limited to the calamity of the present year. " I believe that you will be required in a liberal and indulgent spirit to estimate the necessities of future years. I believe that you cannot trust, I hope you will not attempt to trust, to that root upon which the people of Ire- land have hitherto depended for their principal subsistence; for, if you do trust to it, depend upon it you will have to apply to another soil for the produce of other food which will provide sustenance for nearly the same number. The great object, then, should be, after having provided for the absolute necessities of the present emergency, to consider maturely what are the measures, conceived in a wise but jest and generous spirit, which will be necessary, as regards the future, to lay the foundation for the social regeneration of Ireland." Now, what is the present state of the money-market—that is, what are the terms upon which the public could borrow money, if a loan were necessary to meet the public exigencies? A loan is significant of taxation, and must be provided for in some way or other. Within the last three years the Three per Cents stood at pax; they are now not more than 91; and within the last six or seven months they have fallen four or five per cent. As to the Unfunded Debt, Exchequer Bills are at a premium of not more than 4s. or 5s. He had heard with satisfaction the assurance in the Queen's Speech, that her Majesty con- fidently trusted in the continued maintenance of public tranquillity; but his con- fideuce in that general assurance was diminished by the controversial discus sions between France and England, and by the frank declaration in the Speech that the Three Northern Powers had been guilty of "a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna." It is at this period, with the Three per Cents at 91, Exche- quer Bills scarcely at a premium, our foreign relations justifying anxiety, and a probable deficit of six or seven millions to be provided for, that Government is called on to enter into engagements amounting to 16,000,0001.! How is the de- ficit to be provided? "I know of no other mode of providing for the assumed deficiency than that of making a vigorous effort at direct taxation, to be visited on all parts, I presume, of the lJnited. Kingdom—(Much cheering); or making a fresh issue of Exchequer Bills, in the present doubtful state of the money-market; or contracting a loan to the amount which may be required, and thereby engendering the possible neces- sity of having recourse to direct taxation,—not, of course, to an amount corre- sponding with the total deficiency provided for by loan, but sufficient to provide for the payment of the interest upon it That is the condition., I apprelaend, in which we shall be placed, independently of the prospect which is opened by the noble Lord's proposition. In referring to these matters, the noble Lord at the head of the Government will, I am sure, acquit me of the intention of doing so for the pur- pose of crimination or blame. The necessity for acting is imposed upon the Go- vernment by a great and unforeseen public calamity; and whoever might have been Finance Minister at the moment would probably have found an equal neces- sity imposed upon him. I offer no opinion as to which of the courses I have sug- gested as possible the noble Lord at the head of the Government may think it advisable to adopt,—whether direct taxation, or a loan, or a fresh issue of Exche- quer Bills, which is in fact identical with a loan in this respect that it is the bor- rowing of money. Then I am compelled to ask, is it advisable that I should in- crease the difficulties of this financial operation by entering into an engagement to the amount of sixteen millions to be spread over four years? I must totally and entirely differ from those who contend that you can pledge the public credit of this country for the purpose of promoting commercials peculation without subjecting the country to any risk whatever. (Cheers.) I will show you that I can at once estimate the amount of pecuniary loss which such a proceeding might entail; because it is quite clear that if, in ad- dition to the six or seven millions which the Government may find it absolutely necessary to provide for, you have also to provide for four millions in the pre- sent year, and twelve millions in the three succeeding years, you must at once surcharge the market with Unfunded Debt, and in that case there must be a posi- tive addition to the interest on Exchequer Bills. (Cheers.) What is the public credit of the state? The public credit of the state is part of the national pro- perty. (Cheers.) The public credit of the state is one of the elements of our financial strength. (Cheers repeated.) You cannot possibly appropriate a great portion of that public credit to the encouragement of commercial enterprises with- out to the same extent foregoing the power to apply that public credit in another direction in the event of the national exigencies requiring you to do so. It is quite impossible; and, therefore, I say that the application of public credit to the en- couragement of commercial enterprise is the same in principle as the application of direct taxation to that purpose." Sir Robert exemined various provisions of the bill as enhancing its dan- gerous character—

The advance of money is not limited to the railways already authorized by Parliament; but the bill sanctions the advance of any part of the sixteen millions to any railroad which may hereafter receive the assent of Parliament No dis- cretion is reserved to the Treasury; but they are to be compelled to pay the money upon receiving a certificate from the Board of Railway Commissioners,—a Board in no way responsible for the public expenditure, and likely to take a liberal view of the claims of railway companies. As to the prospect of repay- rnent—(Laughter)—the bill merely provides that interest shall be paid during thirty years; but it contains no provision, like that of the Drainage Act of last session, for the gradual repayment of the principal. Even at the end of the thirty years, is there a certain prospect of getting back any part of the debt? " By no means; for there is power given to the Crown to extend the period for the re- payment of any portion of the capital beyond thirty years. Just see how this will operate on future railroads. There is a public notification to all incipient railroads, that, provided the shareholders can pay up 20 per cent of their capital, and obtain a certificate from the Railroad Commissioners, they can at once com- pel the Treasury to advance 40 per cent, or double the amount which the sub scribers have paid on their shares. They know that for thirty years they are not

liable to repay any portion of the capital. They know also, that power exists in the Treasury, at the end of thirty years, if the scheme is not promising, to extend the period of repayment indefinitely. Last year, we were all impressed with the danger that arose from improvident railway speculation. At the beginning. of last session the question was, how we could impose restrictions on the speculation mania. Did we not all fear that operations in the money-market for national purposes would be materially injured by the railroad speculations, in consequence of the magnitude of the sums contracted for? " A question was then raised, whether it would not be politic to limit the amount of private capital employed in railway speculations. Now, how would this encouragement of railway specu- lation in Ireland operate? Sir Robert made full allowance for the mag- nitude of the calamity in Ireland; but the evil incurred by granting this particular relief must be compared with the amount of good derived from l; it; and though he was prepared to make great sacrifices in providing employment for the poor in Ireland, he did think that the proposed benefit to the shareholder in Irish railways was more than could possibly be justified. " You cannot benefit the shareholders in Irish railways without injuring others, so far as taxation goes. The Government has no great amount of money or of public credit which it can provide for commercial enterprise, without subjecting the people of this country to increased taxation." Mr. -Hudson took particular pride in that clause which empowered the Treasury to enable the railroads to pay off their old obligations out of this public money: " What says the bill in that :re- spect? Here are certain shareholders, who are bound to pay up their shares or to forfeit, and who have incurred certain debts; and the first application of this public money is to be, to enable them to pay off the debts they have incurred,— for, says the honourable Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hudson), this will make the coast clear, and then the ublic will have an increased security by getting rid • of the prior encumbrances.' Laughter.) Now, the shareholders in other rail- roads are borrowing money at ve and in some cases at six per cent; railroads that give the most unexceptionable security are offering five per cent." Many share- holders in Irish railroads are Englishmen; is it not possible that English rail- road companies may have shares in Irish railways ? Sir John Walsh anticipated that the increase of travelling. in Ireland would promote further travelling in England and that thus the project of Irish railways would produce, to use his own phrase, " enormous profits" to English railways. " but if the English rail- road companies, paying some 10 or 12 per cent, are grunt holders in Irish railway speculations, upon what possible principle, if this encouragement of railway specu- lation or railway, enterprise in Ireland is to be attended with ' enormous profits' to them for the future, can they ask me to advance the public money to them ? I ask, is itjust either to impede the operations of the money-market, or to incur the risk of fresh taxation, in order to give to that class of Irish railway share- holders money at si per cent, for which they ought to pay 5 or 6 ? Suppose there is an obligation to complete an Irish railway, and the company would have to raise money at 6 per cent: the advancing the public money to them at 3i is a clear gain of 2i; upon every 1,000,0001. that is 25,0001. Do not say it is pledging the public credit for that sum; it is a direct bonus given to Irish railways. If the account of the success of Irish enterprise in its bearing upon English railroad in- terests be true, there is a great inducement for English railroads, and my honour- able friend (Mr. Hudson)at the head of them, to come forward liberally to the aid of these Irish undertakings." (Laughter.) Sir Robert combated Mr. Disraeli'13 proposition, that political con- siderations should supersede commercial principles: Ireland ought not to be exempt from a principle which is admitted to be "abstractedly perfect." Lord George Bentinck had estimated that the railways would so improve land as to increase the rental by 900,0001., equivalent to a capital of not less than 23,000,0001. "Twenty-three millions for the Irish landlords, to be derived from the improved value of their property, in consequence of railroad enterprise I—then why do not the Irish landlords promote these undertakings ?" (Cheers.) The Marquis of Granby said that if there were railways the fishermen of Claddagh would " be enabled to catch fish every night in the week, and distribute it over the country, for which they would get 4,0001. a night (A laugh.) Are not these just the commercial considerations which ought to enter into the minds of the Iriah themselves ? (Cheers.) Land is to be benefited, fisheries are to be en- couraged: are not these commercial considerations? [Mr. Flunsos—" There is no money in Ireland."J There is no money, says the honourable gentleman; but there is that on which he himself recently raised his ten millions, namely, the prospect of gain." (Cheers.) Mr. Disraeli had said that the shareholder in Irish railroads finds great difficulty in procuring land : he finds complicated interests and a confused tenure to deal with, and much greater difficulty in procuring land

in Ireland than the English railroad companies do in England. Then, I say, simplify the means of procuring land at once." Nothing could be more easy: it was done with respect to the Shannon navigation. Mr. Disraeli spoke of religious animosities, to be cured by bringing the men to act together in railway labour, i

and uniting them together in a common interest. " If the Government were to hold the doctrine that Ireland is different from other countries—that it is not

fit to be trusted with its own concerns, but that the Government must do every- thing for it—depend on it, these religions animosities would continue. But invite the Irish to take part in the concerns of their common country, and then, if re-

ligions animosities should be found to obstruct the success of commercial enter- prises, the Irish would Snd it their interest and duty to discourage both party pro- cessions and religions animosities; and the double advantage would be gained that by the extension of commercial undertakings there would result the discourage

went of the growth and progress of a great social evil." Mr. Disraeli had stated that if there were railways fuel would be brought from the rich coal-field of Mal-

low to Dublin: are not these all reasons why Irish commercial enterprise should deal with them? " I firmly believe, if you will not overpower that enterprise by the application of English capital and Government interference, that at no remote period this will be the case."

There have been instances of such attempts to foster enterprise in Ireland. By the 25th of George the Second, the Irish Parliament formed an incorporated body to promote inland navigation : it was to encourage tillage and employ the poor. In 1787, the affairs of the corporation were found to have been so badly conducted that it was dissolved. Even that warning did not suffice " It was said, indeed, that the system of giving grants of public money had proved abortive; but Com- missioners were appointed, with salaries of 5001. a year each, to superintend the works; and then two canals were dug nearly parallel with each other. (Laugh- ter.) They are called the Royal and Grand Canals. I had the misfortune to have to deal with those two great companies—the Royal Canal and the Grand Canal Companies. The original estimate for the Grand Canal was, I think, 180,0001. We gave to the Royal Canal Company 60,0001. of the public money, 134,0001. in the shape of subscriptions; and it was thought that this would have been sufficient to cover the entire expenses. In the year 1811 there was an inquiry into the whole affairs of the company. The debts of the company were 842,0001.; the income of the company was 15,0001.; the maintenance of the works cost 11,000L; and the company then called upon me, I being then Secretary for Ire- land, and informed me that, as the maintenance of the works cost 11,0001., and as the income of the company was 15,0001., there was left 4,0001. to cover the interest on the debt, which amounted to 49,6001. (Great laughter.) It turned out that the companies had made dividends among the proprietors, not only at periods when there was no clear profit, but when they were obliged to pay a great part of the interest of the loan and the permanent expenses by raising new loans. (Cheers and laughter.) To prevent the concern from breaking up, Parliament granted 150,0001., in addition to the 180,0001., for the purpose of saving the com- pany from destruction: but the company was dissolved. In what condition the

Grand Canal Company now is, I do not know; but as I understand its affairs were subsequently better managed, I hope it has succeeded."

Sir Robert contrasted this with the result of enterprise described in the report of the Railway Commissioners. Twenty years ago, Mr. Charles Bianconi, a na- tive of Milan, with not much more capital than sufficed to set up a single car, be- gan to run one between Clonmel and Cahir. By industry and integrity he was enabled to increase the number of his cars, until, at the time of the Railway Com- mission, he had ninety-four public carriages in constant work, chiefly on the cross-roads of Munster, travelling more than three thousand miles a day: and his business was still increasing. " These results," say the Commissioners, " are the more striking and instructive, as having been accomplished in a district which has been long represented as the focus of unreclaimed violence and barbarism, where neither lite nor property can be deemed secure." Sir Robert exhorted the landlords of Ireland to take the example set by this isolated foreigner. " If you will follow up what has been done by this foreigner, unaided, and ignorant even of your language,—if you will act in common concert, forgetful of religions and political differences,—brought together by a sense of that overpowering calamity under which your country is suffering, if you will seek as the result of your exer- tions the mitigation of that calamity and the improvement of the social condition of the millions who are dependent upon you for their future wellbeing,—if you will do all this, my firm conviction is, you will do more to promote the interests of your native land, than if resigning yourselves to sloth, idleness, and despair, you place all your confidence in Government grants and put all your trust in Government patronage." (Much cheering.) Lord GEORGE BENTINCK made a very long reply; in which he re- asserted many things that he had asserted before, and undertook to meet every one of Sir Charles Wood's statements. He illustrated his oration with a small drawing sent to him by a Sister of Charity, daughter of the Protestant Bishop of Meath— The sketch represented a family of eight persons. The roof was broken through, and there was no fire in the chimney. The woman of the house wasjust dead, after suffering the pangs of childbirth. A child of from five to six years old was ly- ing dead beside her; the father of the family, in his shirt, was lying upon the straw dead too. The rats were hovering about, preparing to feed on the caresses. The wretched new-born child was lying without clothing, while a younger child was lying in the death-stammers. That scene was from Navan, in a town where the honourable Member for Lincoln (Mr. William Collett) told them 7,000 men should have been at work upon railways. Were they to weigh the chance of losing a quarter or a half per cent on Exchequer Bills against the lives of the Irish people? It had been shown, that where there had been railway work in operation in Ireland, there no distress existed.

In conclusion, Lord George suggested that Government should appoint an unpaid Commission to carry out the bill, with Mr. Hudson or Lord George himself at the head of it: Mr. Hudson would stake his fortune, Lord George would meet the risk of impeachment, and would undertake to carry out the measure successfully without its costing the country a single shilling.

Lord Jolla RUSSELL declared his general concurrence in the view taken by Sir Robert Peel of the financial condition of the country: the joint effect of increased prices for food and commercial depression might be a pressure greater than the people of this country could bear, especially were the pressure enhanced by so great a drain on its resources as the bill proposed. And then the people of England and Scotland will bo disabled from continuing such assistance to Ireland as they could wish. With 3,500,000 persons living upon advances of public money or charitable donations, he had to consider what would most directly tend to remove the existing distress.

He read a letter to show that the contractors of the Limerick and Waterford Railway declined to employ any but the best and most able-bodied workmen. He bad received comments from various persons, showing that the sum which Mr. Hudson allotted to labour in his statement included large payments for locomotive engines and the construction of stations, which are often ornamental buildings. The proportion of capital devoted to really ordinary, that is unskilled labour, is -bat 25 per cent of the whole outlay. Now, skilled labour, such as that of masons, bricklayers, and carpenters, is by no means ill paid in Ireland. But a little while ago, the masons of Galway struck for higher wages than 2s. 6d. a day. The !killed labour, therefore, does not require additional employment; and for unskilled labour the bill would provide none. Lord John did not accept Lord George's offer. Supported by Parlia- ment, he and his colleagues felt that they had courage to go on even amid she difficulties that surrounded them; but at such a moment it would be injurious to the country if the Ministry were crippled and embarrassed by measures which they could not approve—

He felt that he had not taken any but a constitutional course in intimating as he did, not in that House but elsewhere, to those who he believed were disposed 'to support the Government, that if he and his colleagues were to continue to con- duct the affairs of the country at this great crisis, they must retain the uncon- trolled management of the finances.

Mr. Kau endeavoured to address the House; but his voice was drowned by the cries for a division; and accordingly the House divided on the amend- ment moved by Sir Charles Wood on Friday—that the bill be read a se- cond time that day six months. The numbers were—For the second read- ing, 118; against it 332; majority, 214. The House adjourned at half- past three o'clock on Wednesday morning.

GOVERNMENT MEASURES FOR IRELAND. - -

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second reading of the Destitute Persons (Ireland) Bill; of which he Welly explained the nature and objects.

Lord BROUGRAM descanted upon the bill at some length. He objected to the delay—Parliament ought to have been called together in November. He objected to the doctrine -that it was any part of the duty of any Go- vernment to provide the people of any country with food, wages, or labour, or to interfere at all for such objects, except under the most extraordinary and unparalleled circumstances; and in such case it lay with them to prove the necessity of such interference. There are positions, indeed, in which it is more difficult to stand still than to move; and probably, were he in office himself, he would be unable to resist the cries of distress which would ring in his ears. But special care should be taken, even now, that what they were about to do should not make the thing worse. Parliament made one step in the ditch in the month of August last, setting on foot such " improvements " as made good roads impassable, and inducing the labourer to leave the farm for the road; and such results should make them

fear was, that if Government went on as they were doing they would e people of Ireland, not to stand alone but to run in leading-strings, ey would be unable to withdraw the artificial support. The Irish la- Id look to other means of employment than to the tilling of the ground. overnment ought not to enter into the labour-market with the land- nnfacturer, or whoever had capital and employed labour in Ireland, be he ever so small a holder. The consequence of so doing would be, that long after the famine the mischief of such a course would continue, and would scatter its baneful consequences over the land. He did not mean to give his opposition to this bill, but he would recommend the Government sparingly and reluctantly to act upon it. Lord STANLEY also reviewed the bill at considerable length. Too in- discriminate a condemnation, he said, had been pronounced upon the Irish proprietors. They voluntarily consented to the absolute, uncontrolled, and unlimited power of local taxation which this bill conferred on the Irish Government: they had in fact manifested an utter disregard of selfish con- siderations, a recklessness in sacrificing their own interests to provide for the wants of the poor. The bill violates every rule of political economy, leaves old evils still in existence, and habituates the people to depend upon public support. His object, however, was not to oppose it: Government declared it necessary, and he would prefer to pass it without alteration as it was proposed by those responsible for it; but he hoped that in propor- tion to the readiness with which it was sanctioned by the Irish proprietors and by Parliament, the greater would be the caution with which Govern- ment would approach the subject of the permanent measures. Let them depend upon it, that nothing was more fatal than the passing, by a British Parliament, of measures for poor-relief in Ireland, condemned as they were by many of the proprietors of that part of the United Kingdom. In the poor-law which they were going to introduce, they were about, for the first time, to confer the right of absolute relief. [The Marquis of LANSDOWNE —" No."] It would be so unless the first clause of the bill as it now stood were altered. Now, while imposing on Ireland the burdens which Eng- land is called upon to bear, they were fairly bound to give to Ireland the same protection against waste and abuse which is given in England— There are two points in which the proposed Poor-law for Ireland differs from the English Poor-law. It results from the different condition of the two coun- tries, that in Ireland, where land is very much divided between the highest and the lowest orders of society, the class of substantial farmers which mainly supplies Guardians is wanting, and therefore the administration of the law falls very much upon those little above the labourers themselves. Hence, it would be desirable to extend to Ireland the security allowed in England by means of an unlimited number of ex officio Guardians. As the law now stood in Ireland, they had but a limited number of ex officio Guardians, men of standing and property in the country, whilst in England the number was without limit. Another point was the amount of tax which, under the Irish Poor-law, in the first instance fell upon the landlord rather than upon the occupier. They were about to provide for the poor from the funds of the parish; and above all it was necessary that those who might be most affected by it should have a voice in the relief that was given; for if the small farmers in a parish paid but one third of the tax whilst two thirds of it fell upon the landlords, it would offer in many instances a greater temptation to the farmers of unnecessary expenditure than if the pressure fell more upon themselves. Another provision which he wished to see introduced in the bill was, that no board of Guardians should have power to confer relief upon any person who at the time was in the occupation or possession of land. They would ruin Ireland if they united in one person the two characters of pauper and farmer. By a late return it appeared that there were 883,000 occupiers of land in Ireland, and out of that number 400,000 and upwards were occupiers of less than seven acres. That was in itself a serious obstacle to the cultivation of land. It appeared to him, that in such cases it should be absolutely necessary for the board of Guar- dians to say to any such applicant for relief that he should have the option of receiving relief on condition of surrendering the land he occupied, or no relief.

The Earl of MOUNTCASREL reminded the House that the rates would have to be paid by little more than 500,000 persons. Earl FITZWILLIAM and Lord MONTEAGLE expressed their entire con- currence with Lord Stanley. Lord CAMPBELL felt no apprehension that any bill would be introduced conferring on the able-bodied Irish a right to out-door relief.

The Marquis of LiN8DOWNE, in reply, admitted the importance of Lord Stanley's suggestions, especially those relating to the constitution of Boards of Guardians. It was not intended to admit the right of out-door relief— The admission of such a right would be the subversion of all property, and of the future happiness of the people; and in every step that might be taken, par- taking in the slightest degree of that character, while none should be taken with- out proper safeguards, Parliament was bound to give to those safeguards the most mature and anxious consideration. Allusion had been made to the possi- bility of relief being given to the possessors of laud: but the Guardians would surely not be likely to admit such parties to relief; it would not be done in Eng- land or Scotland,and still less should it be done in Ireland. The tendency of le- gislation should be to diminish, not by violent means, but by insensible de- grees, the number of small tenants; and it by the operation of such a restriction, or any other, any considerable number of them could be induced to place them- selves in the state of day-labourers, a great benefit would be conferred upon the community. It must be considered whether a clause upon that subject would be necessary.

The bill was read a second time, and the House adjourned.

The bill went through Committee on Tuesday, and the report was re- ceived on Thursday.

POPULAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUTRAGES ON PUBLIC WORKS.

On Tuesday, Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN read a letter from a Roman Catholic clergyman of Limerick, complaining of a novel kind of punishment— Two hundred and eighty-eight men, women, and boys, were employed in im- proving a road between the Cross of Kilmichael and the Cross of Ballyscanlan. On the 22d of January, Mr. fledderman, the overseer, was surrounded by eight men with blackened faces, one of whom held a bayonet "He got off," said the letter, "cheaply, however, all the circumstances considered; as only one of the party assaulted him, giving him a blow behind the ear with the butt-end of a gun, and inflicting a slight wound, or rather a scratch. A demonstration of the power of doing mischief, with a view to intimidation, seems to have been the object of these fellows, who then went off across the fields." " I do not," said the same writer, " mean to palliate this outrage; which, however, was of almost a blood- less character, and the very first attempt upon overseer or officer in this large l'arony, where many hundreds (at present over 5,000) have been constantly em- ployed since the public works began. It is certain that those fellows who attacked the overseer were not persons living in the parish or neighbourhood; though it ii likely they were instigated and suborned by some few among the working people." Under an order of the Irish Government, issued in October, all the persons em- ployed on the works were dismissed. " It cannot be just to punish the misdeeds of one or two, or even a dozen, by the torture of hundreds." " This terrible and protracted torture, as I may call it, is inflicted on them avowedly to extract from them evidence with a view to identify and convict the authors and actors in the attack on the overseer." "I sun, however, delighted that no information was oh- tained."

Mr. O'Brien declared that he entirely concurred in the sentiments cf that letter: and he asked whether the Ministers were prepared to sanction such a mode of punishment in Ireland? Mr. LABOUCHERE replied, that not having had notice of the question, he had no information respecting the particular case; but he vindicated the general policy of such punishment, as necessary to protect the lives and persons of public servants. He heard with astonishment Mr. O'Brien's concurrence in the writer's rejoicing that the regulation did not lead to detection! Generally, however, the plan had proved very successful ; it had in many instances led to the discovery of perpetrators of outrages. A strong approval of the regulation was expressed by Mr. HUME; by Lord CLEMENTS, who thanked Government for their firmness—he did not believe the lives of any one of the officers employed on the public works would have been worth a day's purchase if it had not been for that order; by Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN; and by Mr. WILLIAM CorzErr' who had beneficially employed a similar regulation among his own labourers in Ireland.

TEN-HOITRS Btu,.

At the sitting on Wednesday, the House of Commons resumed the ad- journed debate on Mr. Fielden's Factories Bill; which was discussed for several hours with scarcely any novelty on either side.

The speakers in favour of the bill were Mr. BERNAL, Mr. SatoistAx CRAWFORD, Mr. FERRAND' Mr. BORTHWICK, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, Lord. EBEINGTON, Mr. NEWDEGATE, and Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE. Against it there were Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY, Mr. DENNISTOUN, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. TRELAWNY, and Mr. MARSLAND.

Most of the speakers in favour of the measure rested upon the arguments that previous interferences have worked well, and that the working classes are universally desirous of the measure even at the risk of a proportionate reduction in wages. The most prominent speech on the side of the bill was that by Mr. FEREAND; who spoke for a long time, though without advancing the question. He quoted very largely from a pamphlet by Mr. W. R. Greg, describing the noxious effects of factory labour on the health, bodily and mental, especially of women and children. A large part of Mr. Ferrand's speech was devoted to an attack on Mr. Bright and a defence of Lord Ashley, with very extensive desultory references to past controver- sies: but—although Mr. Ferrand was called to order, on his own appeal to the Speaker—nothing of a very striking nature occurred. In the course of his remarks he mentioned, that the master manufacturers had circulated a statement among the Members of the House, declaring that if Parliament adopted the Ten-hours Bill, they would hold the Ministers responsible for the consequence; and he believed they had even gone so far as to threaten to close their mills, and thus to create outbreaks similar to those that took place in 1842.

Sir ANDnEw LEITH HAY quoted a similar threat conveyed in the fol- lowing passage of a letter from a millowner in Scotland-

" The millowners with whom I have conversed are quite indignant at this le- gislative tampering with their interests, being perfectly uncalled for, and threaten unanimously (however great the sacrifice) to put their mills on eight hours a day, and reduce wages one third: and, believe me, I will, as an individual, cheerfully unite in their resolution; so that, occurring at the present time of high-priced provisions, will at once both astonish the Government and the factory operatives themselves."

The most notable speech on the adverse side was delivered by Mr. Roz- BUCK. The real question, he said, was, whether Parliament could secure to the working man twelve betas' wages for ten hours' work. If Parlia- ment could do that, it might get twelve hours' wages for six hours' work, or even for no work at all.

Amidst a storm of cries to divide, Mr. BICKHAM Escorr moved the ad- journment of the debate, in order that the House might hear opinions on the bill expressed by the leaders of the three parties in the House,—Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord George Bentinck. Mr. BRIGHT seconded the motion. Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that his objections to any furthei restrictions on the hours of labour remained in full force; but as they were well known to the public, he felt himself to be consulting the ptiblic convenience by remaining occasionally silent. Lord GEORGE BEN- TEEM rose for the sole purpose of declaring himself in favour of the bill.

The motion for adjournment was negatived by 282 to 7. The House again divided, virtually upon the main question; which was carried by 195 to.87. But six o'clock, the hour of adjournment on Wednesdays, had arrived, and the formal motion of the second reading was not put by the Speaker.

REFORMATION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord BROUGHAM presented a

petition from Mr. Rushton, the Official Magistrate, and nineteen Borough Magistrates of Liverpool, asking for revision of the criminal law, especially as it applied to juvenile offenders. Lord Brougham added, that he had taken pains to make himself acquainted with the subject, by reading reports of the Inspectors of Prisons—reports made to the Society for the Amendment of the Law, by Mr. M. D. Hill, Recorder of Birmingham, on the reformation of juvenile offenders, and by Mr. Pitt Taylor, on the criminal law in general—various documents from private philanthropic societies, and from France, Belgium, and Germany. The petitioners spoke from practical experience in the working of the law; and the results of their observation were these. In a population of 300,000, during the last seven years, there were no fewer than 51,000 cases of persons committed for trial;

of which number about one-fifth or 10,000 had been committed no fewer than five times—so efficacious had the law been! Lord Brougham than cited from the petition the cases of the fourteen juvenile offenders, boys, which were cited by Mr. Hill in his report to the Law Amendment Society, and quoted in the Spectator at the time. The fourteen offenders had been committed, in the aggregate, a hundred and twenty times! and the cost of all those prosecutions was 8891. Had it not been for the admirable arrange- ment in Liverpool, by which all these cases were intrusted to a public pro- secutor, the cost would have been much greater. Lord Brougham glanced generally at the inefficacy of the only two alternative punishments for grave offences—imprisonment and transportation. He compared their cost: to send 4,000 persons to a penal settlement, entails a cost of 500,0001 ; to imprison the same number, 300,0001 Remote punishments have slight effect in checking the fevered impulses of crime; and short terms of imprisonment have no effect on the mind of the culprit, who only counts the days of his confinement with a predetermination to resume his evil courses. It has been found, however, by practical experience, that reformation is not impossible. For ten years an institution for that pur- pose has existed near Hamburg. At Mettraye, near Tours, an institution was founded in 1839, [by M. de Metz,] where youthful prisoners still un- dergoing sentence of imprisonment are received, and are trained in a community made to resemble as nearly as possible the domestic relations of a family. This is partly supported by its own labour, partly by grants from Government. Of 521 boys received since its establishment, 17 had died; 12 had been sent back to prison; 144 had been put out in situations; of that number 7 had relapsed, 9 were of doubtful cha- racter, 128 conducted themselves to the full satisfaction of their em- ployers. With this Lord Brougham contrasted the report by the Rever- end Mr. Clay, Chaplain of Preston Gaol, respecting 1,050 prisoners; of whom 527 did not know the name of the Queen, though she had been ten years on the throne; 490 could not understand the words " vice," "virtue," "guilt," "sin "; only 20 had received anything like an education —even they were of the convict class, and their reading lay exclusively in that branch of works, exalting highwaymen and other criminals, which disgraces our literature. The criminal law wants thorough revision. In- deed it is absurd to suppose that the same law which existed before the time of Arkwright would serve for a totally altered state of society. Loid Brougham intimated that, on a subsequent day, he should propose an in- quiry on the subject.

The Duke of RICHMOND heartily concurred in Lord Brougham's views.

Earl GREY said, that many of his noble and learned friend's views were the same as those on which Government proposed to act, and a bill would shortly be introduced in the House of Commons giving power for the ne- cessary reforms. Among other provisions, would be one for retaining a. child in keeping although he should be discharged from prison.

PORTUGAL.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord BEAumoirr put a question respecting the captive insurgent leaders in Portugal. At the capitulation of Torres Vedras, Count Bomfim's forces were permitted to retire with the honours of war, but the officers of the division were marched to Lisbon and placed on board a frigate; where they sustained great privation. Subsequently, there was an idea that they contemplated escape; forty or fifty of them were put on board a very small brig, and the Government came to the resolution of sending them to Angola, one of the most un- healthy settlements in Africa. There is a British fleet at Lisbon, for the protection of British interests; but it was understood that, had the Queen been obliged to retreat, the fleet would have afforded protection to her person; and Lord Beaumont suggested, that it would consist with perfect neutrality if the British Government were to induce that of Portugal to revoke the decree and restore the prisoners to their original position as pri- soners of war.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that the Ministers of Great Britain, Belgium, and France, had already addressed representations on the subject to the Portuguese Government. The fleet in the Tagus was intended solely to afford protection to British interests; though, no doubt, it would be a re- fuge for any fugitive whom it could protect from personal danger—above all, the Queen. Lord Lansdowne, however, intimated, that if the character of the war were changed, especially by the presence of Don Miguel, exist- ing treaties might be revived and Great Britain might abandon her merely neutral position.

The Earl of ABERDEEN repelled the idea that it would be proper to in- terfere with the course which the Portuguese Government might think it. necessary to take for its own safety; a principle dangerous and open to great objection. He observed that the present war has been characterized by a striking absence of cruelty—there has been no instance of capital punishment or sanguinary revenge; in which it contrasts favourably, with Spain. There is an impression that the British Government is favourable to the insurrection; and perhaps the presence of an overwhelming force in the Tagus tended to strengthen that impression.

Lord LANSDOWNE did not believe that the Admiral, Sir William Parker, or the British Envoy, Colonel Wylde, was capable of departing from the instructions of strict neutrality which had been given to them. Such advice as had been given had been tendered with a view to the Queen's interests, and without the slightest intention of countenancing the ininr- rection.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said, that all representations not backed by some decisive measure are a farce: if Sir William Parker had been ordered to leave the Tagus in the event of our representations not being adopted, the British Minister would at once have received attention; for without the presence of the British fleet, the Queen of Portugal would by this time have met Don Miguel in London.

Lord BROUGHAM deprecated this very irregular discussion; to which, however, he added a few words; and then it dropped.

BREWLNG FROM SUGAR. The Brewing from Sugar Bill and the Distilling from Sugar Bill were read a secand time in the House of Lords on Thursday ; the discussion to be taken in Committee on Friday.

WELLINGTON STATUE. In reply to Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY, on Monday, Lord MORPETH said that the Sub-Committee of the Wellington Statue had ex- pressed an opinion that a sufficiently fair view of the figure could not be obtained at present, and therefore the remainder of the scaffolding would be removed. But they undertook, should the opinion of Government continue adverse, to defray the expense, and to remove the statue. It is the opinion of the Government that the best site for the statue is the North side of Waterloo Place.

NAviwerrox-r-Aws. The Committee was appointed on Tuesday, as follows— Mr. Ricardo, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Villiers, Sir Howard Douglas, Admiral Dundas, Mr. Lyall, Mr. M'Carthy, Mr. Thomas Baring, Mr. Hume, Mr. Liddell, Mr. Bright, Sir George Clerk, and Mr. Milner Gibson. Mr. WAwN made some objection to the name of Mr. Bright; but ulti- mately he withdrew his objection.

PROGRESS OF RAILWAY BILLS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Buts READ A FIRST TIME. Monday, Feb, 15.—Airdrie-and-Bathgate Junction (amendment and deviation). Lynn-and-Ely (deviation and Lynn Docks). Lynn-and- Ely (Lynn and-Wormegay Navigation). South-Yorkshire-Doncaster-and-Goole (Penis- tone, &e. and purchase of Sheffield-Rotherham-Barnsley-Wakefield, Huddersfield-and- Goole Railway, Dove Navigation and Hearne and Dove Canal). Wishaw-and-Coltneaa (branches to Attehinheath, Mineral Field, and Couderside). Portadown-and-Don- gannon. Tuesday, Feb. 16.—Eastern-Union and ipswich-and-Bury-St..Edmund's amalgama- tion. Sheffield-Rotherham-Barnsley-Wakefield-Huddersfield-and Goole (partial altera- tion of levels, &c.) Sheffield Rotherham-and-Doncaster Junction (Masborough to Doncaster). Great-Northern (deviations from Peterborough-Boston-and-Doncaster). Great-Northern (Hertford-Hatfield-and-St. Alban's branch). Great-Northern (devia- tions between Grantham and York). East-Lancashire (Burnley connecting line). East-Lancashire (Southport branch and Preston extension). East-Lancashire (devia- tions and Rawtenstall coal branch). East-Lancashire (Bury to Manchester). Edin- burgh and-Northern (Burntisland Pier. &c.) Boston-Stamford-and.Birmlneham (branch to Wisbech Harbour and Wisbech Harbour Improvement). Boston-Stamford- and-Birmingham (Wisbech to Sutton Bridge, &c.) Caledonian (branches to Cambia,

&c.) Caledonian (branch across Clyde, and Glasgow station). Caledonian (lease of • part of Glasgow-Dumfries-and-Carlisle Railway).

Wednesday, Feb. 17.—Great-Northern (purchase of Ambezgate-Nottingham-and- Boston and Eastern-Junction, &e.) Great-Northern (extension to Leeds and Wake- field, deviation of Methley branch of Wakefield.Pontefract-and-Goole). Great-Nor- thern (branche- to Sleaford). St. Helen's Canal and Railway (Warrington and Black- brook branches). Cornwall. Eastern-Counties (Ilford to Tilbury Fort and Southend, with a branch from Vauge to Battle Bride). Oldham Albance-Chester-and-Holyhead (extensions to Chester and Holyhead, &c.) Paisley-and-Renfrew (sale and Improve- ment). East-of-Fife, (Markinch branch). Dublin-and-Drogheda (branch from Navan to KeM3). Dublin-and-Belfast Junction and Navan branch. Birmingham- Wolverhampton-and-Stour-Valley (No. 2) branches.

Friday, Feb. 19.—York-and-Newcastle and Newcastle-and-Berwick Amalgamation. York-and-North-Midland (Harrogate branch, &c.) York-and-North-Midland (Knot- thigh*, branch). York-and-Newcastle (Pelaw Tyne, &a. branches). York-and-North- Midland (East Riding Canals purchase). London-and-South-western (to amend acts, &c.) Northampton-and-Banbury.

BILLS READ A SECOND TINE AND CONDUTIED• Monday, Feb. 15.—Caledonian (Edin- burgh station and branches to Granton, &c.) Gl.ssgow-Paisley-and-Greenock (branches

at Port Glasgow and to the Caledonian Railway, and diversion of Ca .11 Salisbury.

and-Yeovil. Eastern-Counties Extension (Cambridge to BediOn.. Eastern- Counties (Cambridge-Royston-and-Ware line). London-and-North-w. (Bescot- and-Wolverhatnpton branch, &c.) London-and-North-western (Orinskirk-and-Rain- ford branch, &c.) Tuesday, Feb. 16.—Great-Northern (Isle of Axhohne extension).

Wednesday, Feb. 17.—Leeds-and-Thirsk (Leeds, Durham. and Newcastle extension, /cc.) Leeds-aud-Thirsk (deviation of main line In Crimple Valley, &c.) Leeds-and Tbtrsk (Knareaborough-and-Boroughbridge branch). Leeds-and-Thirsk (Eaglescliff and

Stillington extension). Leeds-and-ThIrsk (Harrowxate-and-Pateley branch, &a.) Leeds-and-Tle.rsk (branch from Melnierley to Northallertou.) Exeter-and-Exmouth. Midland. Great-Western-of-Ireland (extension from Athlone to Galway).

Friday, Feb. 19.—Bratntree-and-Halstead. Dundee-and-Newtyle. Dundee and-Perth (alteration and extenalou, awl Inchture-Polgavie-and-Inchmichael branches). Eastern.

Counties (Spalding to Newark). Eastern-Counties (Peterborough to Folkingham).

Eastern-Counties (Wlsbech to Spaldltrg). Liverpool-Manchester-and-Newcastle-upon- Tyne Junction (alteration of main line and Hawes branch). Midland (Erewash Valley, &c.) South-Staffordshire (Cannock, Wyrley, and Norton branches, &c.) Boston-Stam- ford-and-Birmingham (Peterborough-and Thorny line). Cheltenham-and-Oxford. Edinburgh-Leith-and Granton (Leithextension). Edinburgh-Leith-and-Granton (Caton Canal and Caledonian Junction). Liverpool-Manchester and-Newcastle-upon-Tyne Junction and Northern-Counties-Union amalgamation. London-and-South-western (Andover to the Bishopstoke.and Salisbury branch, Ike.)