The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-28 00:00:00

HIGH WAYS.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the
whole House, and considered the High Ways Bill, which,
after receiving some amendments, the House resumed.
ASSIZE BILL—IRELAND.

Mr. O'LOGHLEN moved the second reading of the As-
size (Ireland) Removal Bill.
Colonel CONOLLY begged leave to direct the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman's attention to the county of Kildare, with
reference to this measure.

Mr. BARRON opposed the Bill, the object of which, he
said, was to remove the assizes from Waterford to the incon-
siderable town of Dungarvan, under' the pretence of centrali-
zation. He moved, as an amendment, " That the Bill be
read a second time this day six months."
Mr. WYSE seconded the amendment.

Mr. GRATTAN hoped that the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Dungarvan, seeing the opposition to the Bill, would
withdraw it for the present, and allow some time for con-
sideration.

Mr. O'BRIEN was understood to oppose the Bill.
Lord MO RPETH hoped that the House would allow the
Bill to be read a second time, and he would pledge himself to
take care that it should not be pressed forward until he had
taken an opportunity of consulting the representatives of the
country generally as to which way public opinion leant with re-
gard to the object of the Bill.
Mr. WALKER coutended that the Orange character of
the Privy Council in Ireland and the prejudices of Grand
Jurors in that country, would render it dangerous to vest in
those bodies such power as would be given to them under
this Bill.

Sir J. CAMPBELL was of opinion that if the Bill were
dissatisfactory to Ireland it ought to be withdrawn ; still, as
had been suggested by the Noble Lord (Morpeth), it would
be as well to let it go through the second reading, and before
forwarding it any further, public opinion could be ascertained.
Mr. O'DWYER supported the Bill.
Mr. BARRON was willing to allow that the matter was
pressed on Mr. O'Loghlen by his constituents, and by reason
of his connexion with the town he could not avoid taking such
a part in the question. However, if the House were willing
that the Bill be read a second time, he was satisfied.

Mr. JACKSON was astonished at the nature of the oppo-
sition to the Bill, for there was no real foundation for such
opposition. He heard two objections stated—one on the
ground of Mr. O'Loghlen's connexion with the town, the
other lay to the interference of the Privy Council in Ireland.
Now he would distinctly aver that Mr. O'Loghlen did not
deserve the unhandsome imputations cast upon the integrity
of his motives. His character was far above them. The Bill
was a very good one, and of great convenience to the inha-
bitants of the county. The attack on the Privy Council was
equally unfair and untrue, for a more honourable body of men
did not exist, either in Ireland or England. In Ireland any
Member might attend a. meeting of the Council without a
summons. The Hon. Member, after some further observa-
tions in defence of the character of Grand Juries, supported
the second reading.
Mr. LYNCH hoped the second reading would stand over.
Mr. FINN had an instinctive distrust of the Privy Council,
whose powers the Irish people would diminish as well as they
could.—( Bursts of laughter.) The Hon. Member proceeded
to attack the Privy Council and the Bill.
Sir R. BATE SON remarked as to the question before the

House, he thought the Assizes should beheld in a central
town in every county. In the county of Antrim, for instance,
the Assizes were held in a corner of the county, and it was a
great hardship on witnesses and jurors to attend them. So
great was the inconvenience felt that most of the gentlemen
wished for a change. The conjoint approbation of the Grand
Jury and Privy Council should be attended to-
Sir R. MUSGRAVE said the majority of the Irish Mem-
bers were opposed to the Bill • and a public meeting, convened
by the Lord Lieutenant, andseveral Magistrates, condemned
its provisions.
Mr. G. EVANS opposed the Bill.
Mr. F. SHAW vindicated the character of the Privy Coun-
cil and Grand Juries. He lamented that a simple Bill, hav-
ing for its object the speedy and cheap administration of jus-
tice, should be thus made a question of party.—( Cheers.) He
would support the Bill.
Mr. O'LOGHLEN explained, and the Bill was read a
second time.