The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-07 00:00:00

TRESPASS (IRELAND) BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1
Mr BAGWELL said he had opposed this bill in all its
stages, because ha believed it to be both unjust and in 1-
politic, It was unjust, Because it took away that whit h
belonged to the tenants and gave it to the landlord, and im-
politic because it would add one more incentive to a crime in
a country which had long been pre-eminent for that arise-
fortune. The game laws were so unpopular in Englund
that many of the most extensive landowners in England
had long given up the game preserving, and Sir Henry
Verney gave strong evidence against such a practice before
a committee that had considered the matter, and some other
authorities had expressed similar opinions. True, there
had been no petitions presented against the bill, but it was
a matter of extreme difficulty to obtain a public expression
of opinion now in Ireland, whether it was upon the game
laws or upon a matter that had occupied their attention
for the last two evenings. The effect of the measure would
be to introduce the game laws of this country, with all its
crime and misery, into Ireland, and he frt. cne would never
consent to such a proposition. A return had been made to
the house within the last few we, ks, which showed that the
convictions for offences against the game laws amounted
during the six years from 1857 to 1862 to no less than.
30,673, and in Scotland for the same period to 3,226, He
had in no way exaggerated the figures set down
in the return, bat every member could satisfy
himself of the accuracy of the figures by consulting
the document itself. • In order to get rid of the bill alto-
gether, he Should move that the chairman do now leave the
ohair.
Mr. DAWSON thought an erroneous impression existed
with respect to the objects of this bill, and he therefore
should oppose the motion.
Mr M'CANN condemned the bill as one calculated to in-
flict the greatest injury upon Ireland. When he looked
around at the state of the house, ho found that, with two
exceptions, every English member was absent. (Order,
order.)
The SPEAKER interrupted the hon. member, and told
him he must conane his observations strictly to the motion
before the house.
Mr M‘MAIION thought that the hon. member was not
infringing the rules of the house; however, he would at
once bow to the decision of the chairman, He objected to
the measure, and therefore he should support the motion
for defeating the bill.
Sir C. O'LOUGHLIN suggested that the bill should be
withdrawn, as there appeared no prospect of its being passed
this session. He must say he was in favour of the prin-
ciple of the bill, but the great distance of time since its first
introduction had caused several hon. members to think that
it would not be proceeded with during the present session.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland said the bill
would occasion a great alteration in the law in Ireland, and
therefore, before such a circumstance occurred, it ought to
receive the greatest consideration.
Mr 0. GORE supported the bill, which he thought was
but fair towards both landlord and tenant.
Mr MONSELL suggested that a compromise might be
arrived at by accepting the amendment of the hon. member
for Youghal. The amendment would give to persons
having property in game a moans of asserting their right.
Mr LONGFIELD was of opinion that much benefit
would result from the passing of the bill.
Mr. 111‘MAIION said the bill of 1831, in its retrospec-
tive clause, introduced a great anomaly into England. It
was one of the last acts of the unreformed Parliament, and
although it was a " trespass" bill, it was in fact a game-law
bill. He thought it interfered with the fee farm rents in
Ireland, and that it should not be allowed to go :on with
until the people of Ireland had had an opportunity of con-
sidering it.
After few words from Mr. BAGWELL,
Sir G. GREY suggested that the bill should be consi-
dered pro forma, in order that it might be re-printed.
Colonel DUNNE supported the bill, because it appeared
to him that the opposers of it knew nothing of the law on
the matter.
Mr M'CANN said the bill was introduced to Parliament
about five months ago, but the alterations proposed entirely
altered the intentions of the bill.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Mejeriry against the motion
Sir C. O'LOUGHLIN, in the absence of the hon. mem-
ber for Youghal, moved the amendment which stood in his
name to the first clause.

A contused discussion ensued upon the amendment pro-
posed, and certain additions that were to be made to it after
it had passed, when
Mr ROEBUCK said he put it to the house whether they
were in a position to legislate on this matter. He thought
it would be well to have the whole bill reprinted as it was
proposed to stand, and then it would be possible to under-
stand what was intended. In its present confused state it
was impossible to understand anything. (Hear.) Even
the clause which several considered perfect was wrong.
Mr 0. GORE—No, no.
Mr ROEBUCK—Why, the hon. member is going to
make another amendment to the clause after the present
one is agreed to, so if it was not wrong there would be no
need to do so. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the proposers of
the bill would not continue to thrust it on the consideration
of the house in its present incomplete state merely for the
purpose of dragging it through committee.
Sir G. GREY said he had made the same suggestion an
hour ago.
Mr ROEBUCK said that, in order to put an end to the
confusion, ho would wove that the Chairman report pro-

gress.
The house there divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —l7
The discussion upon the amendments to clause 1 was
then resumed.
,kelr BAGWELL urged the hon. member to accede to
the setegession of the Government, viz., to pass the bill
through csmmittee pro forma, in order that the bill might
be reported. If such a course were not adopted, he should
avail himself of every form of the house to oppose the pro-
gress of the bill.
After some discussion, the amendment of the hon. mem-
ber for Youghal was withdrawn, and the first clause was
agreed to.
Clause 2 was struck out.
On clause 3,
Mr BAGWELL said he was afraid this clause went
further than even the English law.
Mr APMAHON said he could never consent to make
the killing a wild clack in Ireland an offence against the
game law, whilst it was not so considered in England.
Col. SYKES said the attempt to make this act worse
thole the English one was monstrous.
Ora the motion of Sir C. O'LOGHLIN, the word "rab-
bits" was omitted from the clause.
Mr M'MAHON objec ed to the addition of the word
" woodcock" at the end of the clause. He denied that
woodcocks could be properly considered as game; it was a
migratory bird, and could not properly be considered the
property of any one. tie moved that the word woodcock
be omitted.
Col. SYKES said it was rid;culous to say that wild
ducks, widgeons, and tea! were game. They were for six
month ou:, of the twelve the property of the Esquitnaux,
and he would like to knew how woodcocks and ducts, &e.,
tould be considered a property, and subject to protection.
The house then divided on Mr M'Mahon's motion,
when there appeared---
For the motion
Against it
Majority —s3
It was then moved that the words wild duck, widgeon,
and teal be added to the clause.
Mr M•bIAtION objected to the proposal.
Mr WATKIIi said it appeared to him to be absurd to
endeavour to make that property on land which, as long as
it remained at sea, was not.
Mr M'CANN said the landlords not only claimed the sea
shore as their property, but they actually prosecuted people
for walking on it. He knew an instance where men had
been actually charged a rent for fishing on it.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
Ayes
Noes
Majority —ll
The words were then added, and the clause as amended
was ordered to stand part of the bill.
Clause 4 was agreed to.
A new clause to define the terms " legal occupier" suld
trespasser" was then moved and agreed to; but on the
question that it be added to the bill the committee divided,
when there appeared-
-103
Ayes
27 '
then
Noes ............
Majority
The clause was added to the bill, ........ .
passed
through committee. RAPE BILL.
motionPUN
fI SHo r \
goingE i Ot
oFc
oratnittee on this bill,
On the
Sir C. O'LOGITLIN moved that the house
go into com-
mittee that, day three monthe.h
thec,
Secretary n
11l Iceeetrti hoc
tuoaurwyg
ihtht
of t htt
the
eet
lwa
iwlll
el
nor f RaEOmatter
d w oCf K,gor so
under
et
it °cue
idrpe dt
a en
discussion,m Ditni
Home Department end the Attorney-General ought to have
been present ; and he also objected that a bill of the descrip-
tion then under the notice of the house should have been
brought forward without the co-operation of the Govern-
ment. Why, the bill was only advocated by those who
i-notaut ~t the principles en which the law ofwpuetrieisP:lPme?;,..Y was founded. The preatut measure, they
were told, had come down from the Heuer) of Lords.
Why, he Was ashamed a the Rowe of Lords—(la ghter)—

the sages of the law l—(laughter).—that they should pass
such a law as the present, which it flicted the punishment
of flogging. He readily assented to the assertion that it
was impossible to punish too severely those guilty of the
offence, but at the same time he must say he objected to
the present bill advocated as it was by the advanced lights
of the!age, as they were called. (Hear and laughter.) He
for one objected to these small attempts to brutalize the
people of England.

/kir ADD ERLEY defended the bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said
previous to the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State
for the Home Department leaving the house, which he was
compelled to do by urgent business, he had had a consul-
tation with him on the subject of the bill, and he found
his opinions were in entire accordance with those cf the
right hop. gentleman. No cause had been shoi-, -,Jr the
proposed alteration of the kw, and thererJre he should vote
against the progress of the bill.
Mr HUNT sugTested that the bill should be limited
entirely to cases of a combination of persons to commit the
offence. If he would agree to that prop( sal he should have
his vote, if not he must give it the opposers of the
measure.

Sr S. NOILTHCOTE said he was quite ready to con-
sent to the proposal of the hen. gentleman who had
just resumed his seat, but contended for the ptineiple of
approximating punishment to the enormity of the offence.
He stated that he intended to introduce a clause extending
the penalties of the bill to assaults committed on children
under 12 years of age.
Mr AYRTON di,approved of the bill altogether.

After a eheirt dis.L.ui3,tion, in which Mr Peicke, Sir J.
Trelawny, and Mr S B ,oth took part.
The house divided, won here appeared—

For the motion ........ 84
Against it

Majority.. —6
The bill was consequently lost.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was withdrawn.

FISHERIES (FRESH WATER) BILL.
This bill was also hdrawn.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, but the
chairman immediately reported progress, and the house re•
earned.

STREET MUSIC (METROPOLIS) BILL.

The third reading of this bill was postponed until to-
morrow.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
:he house adjourned.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE,


RAILWAY BILLS,

Mr Hope Scott, Q.C., having been heard for the North
London, Mr Denison for the East London, and Mr Cole •
ridge for the Metropolitan, in opposition to the Great East-
ern Company's proposed Metropolitan station and railways,
the committee adjourned, when, after considering the bill
for the Eastern Counties Junctions, it is expected that they
will give a general decision on the respective projects. The
case for the Midland Great Western of Ireland was con-
cluded in Mr Adair's Committee, and Mr Rodwell was
heard for the opposition.
In the Lords a committee, of which Lord Walsirtgham
was chairman, referred the Metropolitan and St. John's-
wood Bill, being unopposed, to Lord Redesdale's Committee,
and the Bristol Channel Docks Bill was considered. A
committee, the Duke of Richmond chairman, met to con-
s!der the Oswestry and Newtown, and heard evidence for
the promoters.

On Tuesday the burn for the East London, together with
that of the North London from Kingsland to Tottenham,
were rejected in Lord Stanley's Committee, and the bills of
the Metropolitan for their Trinity-square extensions, and
of the Great Eastern for their central city station and cot-
necting railways were unanimously passed. The commit-
tee, in deference to the wishes of the corporation of London,
suggested data the Great Eastern and Metropolitan Com-
panies should not take more property than they required
at one time, and intimated that they should require the
insertion of protective clauses in favour of the Catholic
church and schools at Moorfields. The committee then
proceeded with the bill of the Great Eastern to make
junction railways, and to raise £llO,OOO on shares and
£35,000 by loan. After hearing the evidence of Mr Sinclair
they passed the bill. Mr Rodwell, Q.C., then opened the
case of the Tottenham and Hampstead Junction for exten-
sion lines. The committee declined to concede a locus standi
to the Great Northern and Midland Railway Companies
against the bill. The evidence in favour of the Midland
Company's extension between Chesterfield and Sh.fiirld
having been concluded in Dtrl Devon's committee, Mr
Denison, Q.'..1., was heard for the opposition. The 0 mestry
and Newton Amalgamated Bill was passed in the Duke of
Richmond's committee. The bill for the Bristol Port and
Channel Docks was passed in Lord Walsingham's com-
mittee. Mr Forsyth, Q.C., and Mr Saunders were heard
for and against the proposed Bristol Port Extension Rail-
way. Lord Portman's committee, in considering the merits
of the Great Northern Company's Doncaster and Gains-
borough and Lincoln and Bourn Extension Bill, gave a
loom stancii in opposition to the Great Eastern. Mr Cubitt,
C.E., was examined by Mr. Davison,