The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-28 00:00:00

as the Government were desirous of showing
that they did not intend to abandon the Bill, but only
reserve it till a time when it might be approached in a
better spirit ; for they believed that it was the only
means by which the bondholders of the turnpike-trusts
could ever see a likelihood of recovering their money.
Mr. FREWEN asked whether the details upon which
the new Bill would be founded differed from those of the
present Bill.
Mr. LEWIS said—No. The numerical statements
which he had read were extracted, he believed, with the
exception of one from the printed returns, and were, he
believed, all quite correct.
The Bill was, after a few words from Mr. MILES,
withdrawn.

Immediately afterwards,
Mr. LEWIS rose, and moved (amid the cheers of the
House) for leave to bring in another Bill, which was
granted.

OFFENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
Sir H. W. BARRON moved the second reading of
he Offences (Ireland) Bill. The objects of this Bill
were to prevent the confinement of prisoners
accussed of petty offences in Ireland in the
county gaol for a considerable time, which they
were subject to now, for offences of a most trivial do
scriptiou, to save thereby expense to the counties in
Ireland, and to do justice to the accused. The greater
portion of the details of the Bill had been
already sanctioned by the House, for the Bill was in
cff_ct extending the provisions of the Dublin Police Bill,
which bad hitherto worked well in Ireland. He had no
party object in the matter, and if the Government
would take the measure out of his hands, he would give

them his cordial support.
Mr. 11. DRUMMOND opposed the second reading of
the Bill. He was not in the House at the time of the
passing of the Dublin Police Bill, but it he had been
he should have adopted the same course he intended
to. do in the present instance—ha've done all
in his power to reject the measure. The
provisions and the preamble of the present
measure were absurd and ridiculous in the extreme.
It provided punishment for every person who sold a
glass of gin, and subjected an individual taking a bit of
sweet brier to be brought before a magistrate—(Laughter.)
The Hon. Member went through several of the provi-
sions of the measure, which caused some considerable
merriment in the House, and concluded by stating that
;he only valuable clause in the Bill was the interpreta-
tion clause, because that provided that the Bill should
only extend to Ireland.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. B. ROCHE congratulated the Honourable Ba-
ronet the Member for Waterford upon hitting upon
something worse than the Habeas Corpus Act.—(Hear,
hear.) A more ridiculous Act he had never heard of
than the present. There was not a single thing
that :any person could do in the way of his business but
might subject hies to the provisions of the Act, and
cause him to be taken befere a magistrate; that magis-
trate might punish him, but there was no remedy
against the magistrate. He protested on the part of
himself and of the other Irish Members against being
connected with this Bill in any way whatever. If the
Hon. Baronet had wanted to make the characters of the
Irish Members generally ridiculous, he could not have
done it better than by bringing in such a Bill as this.
Colonel DUNNE said he was particularly interested
in the Bill, for his name happened to be on the back of
it.—(Laughter.) He had not read the Bill, however,
except the first paragraph, which was quite enough for
him. He-did not agree with its main provisions, and he
thought it was perfectly impossible to go on with
the Bill. He hoped the Honourable Baronet
would not persevere with it. He thought some
legislation ought to take place, but with respect to the
provisions of the Bill he was not in any way accountable
for them.
Mr. STAFFORD said the Members on his side of
the House were not in any way accountable for the
measure. It had originated on the other side of the
House.

Sir GEORGE GREY said, as the Honourable Baro.
net had remarked that the Bill was the production o

certain gentleman of great legal talents and character,
ha would suggest to him, that in case he introduced an-
other Bill on the subject, there were some most glaring
defects in it, which it would be well to avoid in another
Bill. For instance, there was power given in the Bill to
levy fines on offtndQrs, but there was no power given fur

enforcing the payment of those fines by imprisonment.
The Bill, therefore, differed in that respect from the
Dublin Police Bill. Again, by this Bill, even the beggar
was liable to a fine e 40s. for an infraction of its provi-
sions— (Laughter)—he (Sir George Grey) would leave
it to the House to consider whether there was any like-
lihood of recovering such a fine as that.
Mr. NAPIER said the Bill rendered it a penal offence
for any one to hound on a dog so as to put in bony
fear "any person, horse, or other animal."—(Great
laughter.) So " the other animal" which was put in
connexion with the horse, he supposed would be either
a horse or a four legged donkey.—(Laughter.) Again,
if a bystander did not, when called upon, aid a police-
constable in the execution of his duty, he was liable to
a fine of 51., and if he did aid the constable he was
liable to a prosecution for aiding the constable without a

warrant.
Mr. W. HERBERT, for one, had often in former
times been taunted as a landlord, and as having a wish
to take away the rights and liberties of the people of
Ireland. He did hope the people of Ireland would ponder
on this Bill, which had been prepared by the champion
of the moral-force repeaters in Waterford.—(" No, no,"
from Sir IL W. Barron.) lie begged the Hon. Gen-
tleman's pardon, if he was not, but he had understood
him as being one who had accused the Conservative
party of having a wish to take away the rights and liber-
ties of the people of Ireland.
➢lr. JOHN O'CONNELL said the Hon. Gentleman,
who had just addressed the House was not at all a moral
force repealer; he (Mr. J. O'Connell) entirely repudiated
him.—(Laughter.) The Hon. Member was much more
a constabulary force repealer.—(Laughter.) He would
say confidently that there was a great deal more
in the Bill before the House than was ever in

the Dublin Police Bill. He bad but a very slight
intimacy with Mr. Barwick, the gentleman who
was understood to have drawn the Bill, but he believed it
was quite true that that gentleman had drawn it.
Sir H. W. BARRON (with great warmth) would
pledge his reputation on that point.—(Laughter.) lie
did not produce the Bill to the House on his own
authority. He (Sir 11. W. Barron) did not draw
one single line of the Bill ; he suggested not one
single line of it. The Bill was presented to him as a
suggestion from three assistant barristers in Ireland—
(Laughter)—Chairmen of Quarter Sessions.—(Renewed
laughter.) Mr. Barwick 'was the person who corrected
the details of the Bills, and be was one of the most emi-
nent—(Laughter, which drowned the remainder.)
It would be as well if Gentlemen would wait to hear
what he had to say.--7(llear.) He only wished the facts
to be stated as they were. The Bill was handed to him
. . .

by that gentleman, who had givEn it his entire approval.
Every deuce in the Bill but two, and these were of
minor importance, had been taken from the Dublin
Police Bill. He could assure the Hon. Member for
Kerry he did not mean to retort the personal attack
which had been made on bim (Sir H. W. Barron) for
bringing in a Bill of this kind, in which ho had no per-
sonal object to serve.

Mr. HERBERT explained that he was labouring un-
der a false impression in what he had said respecting the
Hon. Baronet.
Mr. REYNOLDS said there was a clause in the Bill
which ho would call the the curfew clause, which
prohibited any person from tolling a church or
chapel bell, except for divine service. This clause
reminded him of Dr. O'Toole, in the Irish Tutor, who
after having assumed his new duties, nothing annoyed
him so much as the tolling of the bell ; when he ought
to have been teaching his pupils, he was startled
by the noise of the, bell, and he was wont to say, the
more it kept tolling the less he was coming.—
(Loud laughter.) He (Mr. Reynolds) did not know
whether the Honourable Baronet had been reading
the Irish Tutor when that clause was prepared.
If justice was to be administered after the fashion.of that
Bill in Ireland, he would not be surprised at the re-
currence of those events which had lately taken
place in that country.
Sir G. GREY said it appeared that the Bill had really
been devised and prepared by three Irish barristers.
But he could scarcely believe that any gentleman ac-
customed to the criminal law could have prepared it as
it now stood.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. O'CONNOR thought it right to defend the
Right Hon. Baronet against the attacks which Hon. Mem-
bers had made with respect to the Bill. The measure
put him in mind of an anecdote which was told
of a lord mayor and a farmer in Ireland. The farmer
applied for a warrant against some person for stealing 20
heifer's, which was immediately granted; but the farmer
returned to tell his lordship that he bad made a mistake,
and that one of the 20 was a bull. " Oh," said the lord
mayor, " it doesn't matter," at the same time adding to
the warrant, " one of the above heifers was a bull."—
(Laughter.)
After some further discussion, the Bill was withdrawn.
SUPPLY.

The motion for going into a Committee of Supply was
postponed until to-morrow.
RELIEF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL.
The consideration of this Bill, with amendments, was
postponed until to-morrow.
VICE-GUARDIANS OF UNIONS (IRELAND)

BILL.
On the motion for the consideration of this Bill with
amendments,
Colonel DUNNE proposed an amendment to the effect
that the 27th of September, 1849, should be substituted
for the 25th of March, 1850, for the termination of the
duties of the vice guardians, and for the appointment of
others in their place.
After a few observations from Mr. P. Scrope, Mr.
Stafford, and other Hon. Members,
Sir G. GREY said if it was the general opinion of the
House that the date should be altered the Government
could have no possible objection to substitute the Ist of
November, 1850.

Colonel DUNNE said ha for one should be content
with the Ist of November.

Mr. HERBERT alluded to the case of one union, in
a hich the accounts were in such a state of inextricable
confusion that when the vice luardians were appointed
they were compelled to ralverthe for an accountant to
set them right. After some further discussion the
amendment was withdrawn, and the Ist of November
substituted.
On the Bill being put with the amendments, it was
agreed that it should be read a third time to morrow.
OVERSEERS (CITIES AND BOXWUGIIS) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee and was ordered to
be read a third time to-morrow.
OUT-DOOR PAUPERS BILL.
On the proposition that the Speaker now leave the

chair,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that he wished to call
the attention of the House to the e.efc.ctive portions of
this Bill. Ile was induced to do so from "the fact that
200 children had been suddenly swept away at Mr.