The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 28.
PUBLIC ROADS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. NE WDEGATE objecte i to the principle of
making the county rates collaterally liable for the failure
of the tolls in turnpike trusts. The House had so com-
pletely changed the whole case that its opinion with
respect to the new proposal was not in point. He said
it was most unfair to force on the second reading of
the Bill, when neither the constituencies nor the
Members of the House had had an opportunity of
coming to a clear understanding of its principle. The
Hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill has quoted
from a return which was not before the House. He had
quoted the results derived from a calculation with re-
spect to England alone; while the results of a calcula-
tion made before of the items of expense, as it
respected Wales, were not included. It was impossible
for any man to separate those items. He, therefore,
cordially supported the Hon. Member for the University
of Oxford.
Mr, R. PALMER confessed for one he should
have been very glad to have heard upon what
principle it was that any body should propose to throw
what he (Mr. Palmer) must consider the lathes of one
party on the shoulders of another.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman had so completely altered
the Bill, that he was just in that position that he did not
at the present moment feel inclined to oppose the
second reading of the Bill. It would have been more
convenient, as the alternative is so extensive, and will
form an entirely new Bill when re-printed, if the Bill,
as now laid on the table, had been withdrawn, and a new
Bill, embodying the proposition which the Right Hon.
Gentleman had to make, had been brought in, and that the
House should take a future day for the discussion of the
principle of that new Bill.—(Hear.) He was not quite
clear that the county rate would be altogether dis-
charged from the new burden. Assuming that all the
turnpike trusts were to be placed in the hands of
this county board, the first thing was to be
the repayment of the debt, with an addi-
tional charge of 2 per cent., for the purpose
of a sinking fund; but the question arose upon what
fund the repairs of the road were to be charged?
As the law now stood he took it, if a turnpike trust was
insolvent, the turnpike should be indictable like any
other road, and the repairs would fall on the parishes
through which it passed. It seemed to him that by
whatever name they called it still those repairs would
fall on the county-rate.—(Hear, hear.) He rose rather
more to ask a question of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
He understood that the intention was that all the
tolls and all the turnpike trusts, throughout any one
county were to be placed in that county board ; or,
to use a common expression, to be thrown into hotch-
potch; and so with respect to the highway rates, it was
likewise to be thrown into the *general fund, through
which all the rates of the county are to be disbursed.
It was a matter of serious importance to consider
whether it was a fair proposition or not.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE concurred in many of the re-
marks that had fallen from the Hon. Member who last
addressed the House, but he saw no reason whatever for
postponing the second reading of the Bill. He did not
quite understand whether the county board or the local
board intended to have anything more to do with
the turnpike trusts. So tar as he understood the
proposition, the whole of the turnpike trusts were
to be thrown on a union of counties, and were
to bo managed exclusively by a board in London.
Unless there was a division of the funds for
the maintenance of the roads, there would be
no reference to the local boards on the subject. The
landowners could not stand in a worse position with
respect to the public boards than they did now. Now,
he contended—and he would call the county Members'
attention to it—since the adoption of railways in the
country, the whole of the burdens, to the amount of
nearly 3,000,0001., fell almost exclusively on the landed
proprietors.—(Hear, hear.) The turnpike tolls inter-
fered with all their operations and affairs, and viewing
this Bill as it now stood, he saw a very great and mate-
rial improvement.
Mr. SPOONER said that Hon. Gentlemen had
stated that the principle of the Bill had been removed.
He (Mr. Spooner) thought that that was not so. They
took the rates which were now answerable for the re-
pairs of the roads, and applied them to make up the
deficient tolls, and then they came on the county for the
deficiency. Now that was the principle of this Bill.
A great number of turnpike trusts were solvent,
and were not only solvent, but had a surplus; and if that
surplus were properly managed there would be a very
small number of those roads which would fall for repair
on the highway rates. But see what they were now going
t, do. They said that the surplus should not keep those
roads in repair, and took that surplus and applied it to
the insolvent roads, and then, by a roundabout way, they
charged the counties with all the expenses of those
roads.—(Hear, hear.) It was, without exception,
the grossest deception that had ever been attempted
to be put on the House, if the alteration proposed
would in any way aggravate the evils of the county rate.
There was another great principle involved in this Bill,
and that was the very unjust way in which they were
going to deal with the bondholders. Let them go to the
bondholders, who were receiving 51. per cent. for their
money—what did they say to them ? They said
they should receive but 41. per cent., and then, having
sanctioned this reduction of their income one-fifth,
they said their property was to be further taxed.—
(Hear, hear.) Was that common justice?—(Hear, hear.)
It was a new principle which was introduced by this
Bill, and a principle which was totally separated from
honeny, and to which he was quite sure Honour-
able Members would not give their sanction.
An additional burden would be thrown on the counties
which they were unable to bear, and which it was unjust
to pr., ss upon them. It would be far the best plan to
withdraw the 8.11, because ho was sure that an opposi-
tion was springing up which would come upon the Hon.
Gentleman like a torrent, and entirely overwhelm him.
There was a general feeling of disapprobation in every
part of the country with regard to the principle of the
Bid. He considered it would be more.advisable to with-
draw the Bill, and to bring forward another in such a
shape that it would stand a better chance of obtaining
the sanction of the House. If, boy: ever, the Honourable
Member was determined to press it forward ho begged
it to be distinctly understood that ho would move an
amendment, that it be read a second time that day six
months.

Mr. MANGLES objected to the Bill on the ground
that there was no provision in it to give compensation to
the clerks of the present turnpike trusts.—(Laughter.)
Sir J. TYRELL considered that the House ought to
have the amended Bill before it ere it proceeded with
the consideration of the principles contained in the
present Bill.
Mr. VERNON SMITH implored the House, if it
agreed with the principle of the Bill, to pass it at once,
and not to allow the evils with which it proposed to
deal to remain unprovided for dtuieg the present session.
The ci is c ussion hail entirely turned upon one single point,
which had excited =At alarm iu the different counties,
viz., whether the county rates would become liable for
the debt of turnpike trusts; but, although that was a
most important part of it, it dealt with other matters of
greater importance. He trusted, therefore, that the
Rouse would agree to the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. BANKES said they were not called upon to pass
the second reading pro
_firmci, but to sanction the Bill
with all its principles, which were of the most important
kind.—(Hear, hear.) They were asked to sanction the
proceedings of a county board, which was to take under
its management for the first time all roads throughout
the country, and also all turnpike trusts. They were to
amalgamate all turnpike trusts, whether solvent or
insolvent, and the solvent ones were to answer for the
errors of those who had managed their affairs improperly.
These were principles to which he was not prepared to
give his assent without more consideration than they
could apply- to the Bill now before them. Ho would
propose the adjournment of the debate for six weeks,
that ;the Bill might be amended, and the county magis-
trates have an opportunity of more maturely considering
its detai's.

Mr. HUME said, if Hon. Members had taken the
trouble he had to ascertain .twhoeupldresent expense of ma-
naging turnpike trusts, they
a measure for consolidating theirwith him that
management,agreee ,
the utmost importance to the country.
with the whole of the Bill, but he hoped thneotligree
would agree to its recommittal, iu order.m
thatre otdheelaosge-
v ern m en t might have an opportunity o
it, so as to meet the views of Hon. Members.
Mr. hIACKINNON would not have troubled the
House if be had not been chairman of a Committee on
the subject some twelve years ago. He 7 really felt that
the object of this Bill was quite misunderstood.—(Hear.)
The debt owing by the Turnpike and Highway Trusts
was about 8,000,0001., i
and there were arrears of interest
amounting to about 2,000,0001, and unless some such
Bill as this was passed it would all certainly be lost.
—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the
House quite misunderstood the matter. Instead of being
a
n injury, this Bill of the Government was a direct
boon to the solvent trusts, and without it, or some
measure like it, the property of the landholders
of the insolvent trusts would altogether lose their
money. It was a mistake to suppo3e that this Bill was
intended to centralise the power of controlling these
trusts in the hands of Government. It was quite a
different matter. The object of the Bill was not to
centralise the power in the Government, but to conso-
lidate the several trusts under the control of central
local boards.—(Cries of " Hear,thought
that hear.") He
that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment deserved great credit for grappling with a subject
which was as difficult as it was important.—(Hear d
elaFeys)—and it was a disgrace to the i
tseveral
Ministries for the last fifty years
that hadwere
notno
been sooner taken up.—(Laughter.)
There
clauses in this Bill that presented any obstacle
which might
(Irea be effectually met and dealt with in
COMMittee. Let Hon. Gentlemen who had
1
any objection to 'ti..)
a details pass the second reading, and
then, having time given
before the Committee sat, they
might send it round toth
opinions,
enioseveral constituents in their
counties, obtain their op
. accordingly. ris and then the Bill might
be altered After all, they were only
and trustshe as they would act
dealing with these insolvent
trusted, therefore, that
in all cases of insolvency,
Ministers would persevere'
own ivide. ')
her Majesty's.
Bill through its present stage.—(Cries or.es of a.,111. carry. the
Mr. DEEDES said that, ' his
could not consent that the Bill should be so
ho
has-
tily passed through its principal stages°, and
he hoped that the Government would with-
draw this Bill and bring in another embodying its
principal clauses, and exclusive of its many objection-
able portions.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") He had
heard many objections stated to the Bill, to the validity
of all of which he could give his assent, but certainly, after
what had fallen from several Members, it was evident that
the priapplf was not correctly umlorstood, and he for one
was not inclined to move in the dark and give his concur-
rence to any legislation which he did not understand,—
(114,44 11M) IA the )19/4, cienagizap withdraw this

Bill, and he was quite sure that the House would give
him every facility for passing the new Bill through all its
preliminary stagea.—( Hear.)
Sir JOHN DUCKWORTH was quite dissatisfied
with the principle of paying the debts of the turnpike
trusts out of the county rate. He thought it would be,
to say the least of it, extremely impolitic.
Mr. C. LEWIS conceived that, after what had fallen
from the several Hon. Members on the other side of
the House, the better plan would be to with-
draw
this Bill, and substitute another at a
very early date. There were not more than four or
five clauses which required alteration, and these should
be attentively considered, so that there would be no
valid objection to the principle of the Bill, whatever
might be said of its details.—(Cheers from the opposite
side of the House.) He should, therefore, ask for permis-
sion to withdraw the Bill.—(Cheers and counter cheers.)
Mr. HUME exceedingly regretted that the Govern-
ment had adopted this course.—(Cheers, and cries of
" Oh, oh!") Yes, he was really very sorry for it—
(Hear and cheers) —for if, as the Hon. Gentleman
stated, it would only require the alteration of four or five
clauses, much time would be lost, and no advantage
gained by such a proceeding. The better plan would be
to let the Bill go into Committee, and by the usual pro-
cess amend the several defects when it was there. He
did, therefore, object to its withdrawal.(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY said, that when he heard from the Hon.
Member for Warwickshire, as well as from the
Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that they intended
to give their unqualified opposition to the Bill,
the Government had intended to persevere with it; but
when he saw that many Hon. Gentlemen opposite ap-
peared to be unable to appreciate its details, although in
the main they were friendly to its principle, he thought
the better plan would be to withdraw the Bill, and
bring in another at an early date, so that the
second reading might be taken before Easter,
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, LE WIS 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
the Offences (Ireland) Bill. The objects of this Bill
were to prevent the confinement of prisoners
accused 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•
scription, to save thereby expense to the counties in
Ireland, and to do justice to tho accused. The greater
portion of the details of the Bill had been
already sanctioned by the House, for the Bill was in
effect extending the provisions of the Dublin Police Bill,
which bad hitherto worked well in Ireland. He bad 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. H. 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 if he had been
he should have adopted the same course he intended
to. do in the present instance—have 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—(Laugh ter.)
The Hon. Member went through several of the provi-
sions of the measure, which caused some considerable
merriment i❑ the House, and concluded by stating that
the 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 beard of
than the present. There was not a single thing
that any person could do in the way of his business but
might subject bias to the provisions of the Act, and
cause him to be taken befero 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 ou the back of
it.—(Laughter.) He had not read the Bill, however,
except the first paragraph, which was quite enough for
him. Ile did not agree with its main provisions, and he
thought it was perfectly impossible to go on with
the Bill. H.. hoped the Honourable Bar onc t
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 of
certain gentleman of great legal talents and character,
he 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 i❑ another
Bill. For instance, there was power given in the Bill to
levy fines on offenders, but there was no power given for
enforcing the payment of thoie 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 or. 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 bodily
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, ho 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. Ile did hope the people of Ireland would ponder
on this Bill, which had been prepared by the champion
of the moral-force repeelers in Waterford.—(" No, no,"
from Sir IL %V. Barron.) He begged the Hoc. 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.
Mr. 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 had 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.) He
did not produce the Bill to the House on his own
authority. He (Sir H. 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 he was one of the most emi-
nent—(lronical laughter, which drowned the remainder t f
the sentence.) It would be as well if Gentlemen would wait
to hear what ho had to say. He only wished the facts
to be stated as they were. The Bill was handed to him
mrKyoienel;9rre yry ehe
importance,
by that gentleman, who had given it his entire approval.
Every clause
I. lie
not
d idli
th e
had
dll
bbueetntwtaok,
enanfdremthetshe these were
Dublin
of
couldmean atsosurreetotrhtethHe personalon. Membaerttafeokr
which had been made on him (Sir 11. W. Barron) for
bringing in a Bill of this kind, in which he had no
that he was labouring per-
sonalun-
mr. ob
ijieEeßt tßoEsßerrve.
explained
der a false impression in what he had said respecting the
Hon. Baronet.
Mr. REYNOLDS said there was a clause in the Bill
which he would call the the curfew clause, which
prohibited any person. from. tolling a church or
except for, divine. service. . This clause
of Pr. Toole, in the
arcethlmaeprineldheadvbiehnlgilm,
Irish Tutor, who
assumed his new duties, nothing annoyed
pupils, he was startled
him so much as the tolling of the.bell ; when he ought
to hare
by the noise
less he was coming..—
been
of ttehaee,bbinelgl abnisd he was wont to say, the
more it kept tolling the
not know
(Loud laughter.) had been reading
whether the Honourable Baronet
He (Mr. Reynolds) did
the Irish Tutor when that clause was prepared.
If justice was to be administered after the fa.shion„o. f 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
i ac-
customed to the criminal law could have prepared t 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
heifers, which was immediately granted; but the farmer
returned to tell his lordship that he had 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.

PPLY.
The motion for going Unto a Committee of Supply was
postponed Until *morrow.

RELIEF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL.
The consideration of this Bill, with amendments, was
postponed until to-morrow.
VICE-GUARDIANS OF UNIONS (IRELAND'