The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-27 00:00:00

amendments to the Trinity (North Leith) Harbour Bill
were agreed to.
On the-motion of Sir ANDREW AGNEW, the Rox- THE WRIT FOR GLASGOW.
burgh Roads Bill was read a third time, and passed. And Sir J. GRAHAM wished to put a question to the
on•the motion of Mr. WILBRAHAM, the Bidalf Roads Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) which was imme-
Bill was read a third time, and passed. diately connected with the proceedings of that House, the
. Lord A. LENNOX presented a petition from the Pro- freedom of Election, and the strict observance of the laws
vincial Committee of Stevenson's Line of Brighton Rail- of the land by the Executive Government. The House were
way, praying that their Bill might be sent back to the aware that in 1833 great abuse existed in the Crown-office
Committee, in order to have the landholders' clauses settled. with regard to taking out writs upon a new election, it hay-
-Ordered to be printed with the votes, and to be taken ing been then left to private individuals to take out the
into further consideration on Tuesday next. writs ; and his Right Hon. Friend the Member for the county
GREENWICH RAILWAY. of Montgomery had introduced an Act vesting the charge
Mr. YOUNG presented a petition from Jesse Curling, of the writ in the Executive Government. By that Act
a most respectable magistrate in the borough, complaining of Parliament it was provided that the Clerk of the Crown
of the Greenwich Railway Company having taken pos- by special messenger, should send the writ to the Post-
session of his grounds under their Act, without givine. him Master-General, or some party appointed by him, and its
any compensation for his title. He had been compelled to receipt was to be notified by a document, to be kept in
commence a suit in Chancery against the Company, but duplicate, one by the Clerk of the Crown, and the other at
had been induced to withdraw the proceedings, under an the Post Office. Immediately upon a writ being received
agreement with the Company for 1,4001., which had never it was to be transmitted, by the mail or post, on the day
been paid ; he therefore prayed for a full inquiry into his next following its receipt. Such were the provisions of
case, and for such relief as the House could afford him, the Act of Parliament. Notwithstanding this he bad
Ile moved that the petition be referred to the Committee to-day received a letter from Glasgow, from an autho-
on the Greenwich Railway Bill. It was unnecessary to state rity above all dispute, announcing to him that the
to the House that the object of the present Bill was to writ issued by the Speaker was not transmitted
enable the Company to levy tolls on the river Ravensburne. in conformity with the provisions of the Act by the mail or
If the allegations contained in the petition were true, it the post, but by an express.—(Cheers from the Opposi-
was well deserving the consideration of the House. tion.) What he wished to ask of the Noble Lord or the
The SPEAKER asked what the Hon. Member intended Right Hon. Secretary was, whether it was true that the
to do ? provisions of the Act had not been complied with ; whether
Mr. G. F. YOUNG—To refer the petition to the Com- the writ had or had not been sent by the mail or post ; and
ntittee on the London and Greenwich Railway Bill, N 0.2, if it had been sent by express, whether that took place in
Mr. FRESHFIELD said the petition was irregular, conformity with any instructions either from the Home-
and the better way would be refer it to the Court of Chan- office or the Secretary of the Treasury, in conformity with
eery. the instruction of his Majesty's Government?
Mr. BARNARD regretted that the petitioner had not Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he was perfectly
conic before the House when the other Greenwich Rail- well acquainted with the provisions of the Act to which the
way Bill was in progress. The present Bill (No. 2) was Right Hon. Baronet had referred. With respect to any of
merely for the purpore of carrying into effect certain pro-
the facts stated by the Right Hon. Baronet relative to the
visions of the other Bill, and the petition could not be re- transmission of the writ, he (Lord J. Russell) was perfectly
ferred to it. ignorant. He was not aware that there was any matter of
The SPEAKER—The question really was whether the objection or complaint with respect to the transmission of
the writ, until the Right Hon. Baronet had made the state-
House could be called upon to interfere in a dispute between
individuals. The Hon. Member for Greenwich had stated merit he had done.—(Cheers.)
that the petition could not be referred to the Committee Sir J. GRAHAM wished to know whether there was
then sitting, inasmuch as they were incompetent to inves- any order from the Treasury on the subject?
tigate it. As it was truly stated by the other lion. Mein- Mr. HUME rose.—(Cries of " oh, oh.") He wished
her, it was altogether a case for the Court of Chancery, and to ask the Hon. Baronet what was his authority for the
it was the petitioner's own fault if he had not proceeded. assumption he had made?—(Oh, oh.) He might have
After a few words from Mr. YOUNG in explanation, received an anonymous letter.
'lnc SPEAKER said that this motion was actually Mr. E. J. STANLEY said that the writ, after having
been issued from the Crown-Office, was presented to the
veiling- upon the House to enter into a consideration of the
Lord Chancellor, to have his seal affixed to it. It was then
meats of the dispute between the parties, which it could not
properly do. taken by the messenger of the Great Seal to the Post
Mr. HARVEY thought the contents of the petition Office, and he (Mr. Stanley) wrote a note, directing
merited the attention of the House, and especially of the that the utmost expedition should be used in forward-
heeled interests, because they would find by it that the ing the writ. If it was forwarded in any irregular
manner by the Post-office that irregularity rested with the
working of these railroads would be highly pernicious to
that class of the community. It appeared that accord- authorities of that Establishment.—(Cheers.)
ing to the provisions of' the Bill, by merely giving a no-
Sir JAMES GRAHAAI then moved that the Messen-
Cce to the landowners, the Railway Company might ger from the Crown office who delivered the writ at the
Post-office, bringing with him the receipt cf the said writ purchase any quantity of laud within a certain
from the Post-oqice Master or his deputy, and also the
r loge. Th, petitioner had been served with notice in the
% ear 1830 that they required property belonging to him, deputy of the Post-master General who received the writ
end down to the year 1836 that gentleman had been and signed the receipt on Wednesday last, do attend at the
`,,ept in a state of suspense as to whether they would bar of the House on Tuesday next,—(Loud cries of
1, lure it or not, when without any further intimation " Hear, hear," from the Tories.)
-1.;;;,.. t took possession of it, and subsequently agreed Lord JOHN RUSSELL having had no opportunity—
I, gay him the sum of 1,4001. as compensation.— not being aware that the question was to be asked or the
t Ice r.) Instead. however, of receiving the money, he was motion made—(Loud cheers, and cries of "Hear, hear")—
' . int. oduced to that greatest of all possible comforts, a suit in lie must take it for granted that the Right Hon. Baronet
had framed his motion in strict conformity with the Act of
co.. ucery ; and he is now told that that House can give
Parliginent.—(Loud cheers, and cries of " Hear, hear.")
11;tal no redress. The moral of the petition was that Hon.
. With respect to the motion itself, he was not going. to make
Me.edoers should take care that in all future Bills of the
kite] ~. provision should be introduced that. before the pro-
any objection to it ; but he wished to guard himself
pert: :vas wrested from individuals, they should have an from being thought to throw any blame upon his Hon.
errni..aient. Friend by giving his consent to it. He believed that there
.
Mr. BARNARD said the Bill was not to raise money, had been nothing done by him which was at all inconsistent,
licit to pass it from one party to arn.ther, with his duty, or against the Act of Parliament. lie
'Jr_ HARVEY presented politicos from Rotherhithe in (Lord John Russell) had frequently received his official
favour of the Grind Collier Dock Bill. papers by expre,s, and he believed it was frequently done.
Mr. ALDERMAN WOOD presented a Petition from He had no doubt that on inquiry it would appear that his
lion. Frienl's conduct was quite consistent, and that lie
the ,F,ecreary of Giblis's Brighton Line of R.iilway, pray-
had done nothing which the House would decree as ineon-
in the H, else to refer the consideration of GituhS's Line lead
with his duty.
aeo kto the Committee.
Y..r. H. GR ATT AN presented a petition from parishes Mr. HUME said there was no doubt that it was per-
fectly fair and right that every thing should be done ac-
in Tleatli, Ceshel, and the Queen's County, proving the
cording to law, and that no :advantage should be given to
n, .I,:a to grant relief to the Dissenters, and make an alto-
-7-1.6 it it,. the Jaw as far as they were affected by the Church- I either ; but still, he considered that the House could not
agree to the motion without the regular notice having
.)stes.—(;heers.) The Hon. Member also presented peti- l
been given, otherwise it would look as if the House
-: nis from the same places, deprecating the return of
- •n.•. Tories to power, the sanction of the House to Tory condemned without hearing.—(Cries of " No, no.") The
Government, or measures brought forward under the I agreeingto the motion as a matter of course certainly
(conaMation of sr] incorrigible a party—(Cheers)—and beg- I made it appear as if it was a case of strong suspicion.—
I, oo.; of the House to rally round his Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) Without any notice to the Government or to
Mr. Alderman THOMPIION presented a petition from the House, and upon anonymous authority, the Hon. Ba-
ronet came down and called upon the House at once to agree
-the shipowners of Sunderland, praying that shipping-letters
containing commercial intelligence only might pass postage to a motion which was quite irregular. He would suggest
:free. The lion. Member -also presented a petition in fa- that for the regularity of their own proceedings notice
your of the better observance of the Sabbath. Also a pe-
should be given, and the motion made on the first day of
iition against
.making the Legislative Council of Canada meeting.
Mr. STANLEY was most anxious for a full inquiry into
.10e!ive. The Hon. Member also presented a petition
the circumstances of the whole case. He did not fear it,
:roana parish in London against the Ministerial measure
iir she abolition of Church-rates. and he therefore hoped that his Hon. Friend would throw
CHURCH-RATES. no objection in the way of the motion being then made.—
(Cheers.)
Lo rd STANLEY presented a petition from Bury in
Sir JAMES GRAHAM had not given notice of his
Lanevshire, against the abolition of Church-rates.
M-. GRANTLEY BERKELEY presented petitions motion, because he could not believe the statements which
praying for the abolition of Church-rates. he received from Glasgow.—(Cheers, and cries of " Oh,
oh 1") The only question was, whether they should examine
Mr_ WI LKS presented petitions from the Wesleyan Me-
into the precise facts of the case, which would all be before
thodisrs of' Leicester, in favour of the Ministerial measure.
.Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from the the House on Tuesday next, by agreeing to the present
motion. If the writ were transmitted in the usual way, it
rate-pryers of Haddington, in Dorset. The petitioners I
stated that at vestries held in the years 1835 and 1836, the I would be well ; if not, they would know the reason.
rat:.-poyers refused to grant Church-rates ; that subse- •. Mr. GISBORNE considered the motion as premature,
qiieat. to that period no attempt had been made to levy
as it was at variance with all the rules of the House.—
hit
C rch-rates ; that the existing state of things only tended (Cries of ,a No, no.") He knew that any Member had
to keep alive party strife, and they highly approved of the the abstract right of making motions without notice at
any time lie pleased, but what was the practice of the
measure introduced by his Majesty's Government for the
abolition of those rates. House ? If an Hon. Member made the attempt, he was
instantly told from all sides that Members did not
Mr. HANDLEY presented a petition from Lincoln,
in favour of the restriction of the sentence of death to the come down prepared, and that the matter could
crime of murder. not then he properly discussed : so it ought to be in the
.
Sir W. TRELAWNEY presented two petitions from Present case. Let the Hon. Baronet give notice of his mo-
parialles in Cornwall, in favour of the Church-rate Bill. tion, and he would most cordially support him.
Petitions with a similar prayer were presented by Mr. Mr. W. W. WYNN had sat upwards of forty years
in toat House, and during the whole of that time this
Tooke, from a Wesleyan congregation in Truro; by Mr.
:11,1orrison, from three parishes in the county of Suffolk : h was the first time that he had heard a doubt thrown upon
Mr. Gisborne, from two parishes in the county of Nottiney the right or the duty of a Member of Parliament,
ham ; and Mr. T. Duncombe, from the parish of St. -
to whom information was given of a breach of privilege, to
George in the East. The petition had been signed since lay his statement immediately before the House, and found
th a motion upon it. It would be for the House to deter-
thousand division of' the other night, and contained nearly a ,
thousand signatures. mime wnether, from the statements that had just been made
Ailr. WYSE presented three petitions in favour of the to it, the subject was a fit one for it to inquire into.
Agricultural Bank of Ireland, and one from the Waterford Mr. WARBURTON denied that there was any breach
Chaneber of Commerce, in favour of grinding foreign corn of privilege in the matter. It was an offence against an
in bon d ; also one from the same body against the Liver- Act of Parliament.
pool Llnprovement Bill. Mr. WASON said if there was any irregularity in the
Mr. MORRISON presented three petitions from transmission of the writ, of course the election would be
Wesley an congregations in Ipswich for the better obser-
declared void.—(Cries of " No, no.")
vance of ' the Sabbath.
Mr. WYNN instanced the cases of Poole, where the
Mr. W. S. O'BR.IEN presented a petition from writ had been delayed three weeks, and Kircudbright
a large body of shareholders of the Agricultural Bank of where a delay of four months had taken place ; and yet in
Ireland, praying for legislative protection against the Bill neither case had the, election been declared void. There
for dissolving. the Company, was a sum of 5201. a year granted to the officer of' the
Court of Chancery to ensure the safe transmission of. the
'EDINBURGH WATERWORKS.
i
call
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged writs, and the Executive Government should see that the
to
attention of their Honourable House to:matt rin whichduty was properly attended to.
the
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the case appeared
he was interested. He had been ordered to bringmatter
Bill relative to the Edinburgh Waterworks. Such a Bailla to him a fit subject for enquiry, although he did not think
lie knew, to be extremely disagreeable to the bulk of h
constituents, and he had to complain of that of theis the Right Hon. Baronet had made out a strong case, or
indeed any case at all---(Hear, hear)—but after the obser-
House.vations of his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of the
The SPEAKER said if the Right Hon. Gentleman arguments of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, founded
an Treasury, he should not oppose it. With respect to the
wished it, he could move that the Order be dischar
On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERbAL the upon the Act of Parliament, he utterly denied their correct-
Order was then discharged. ness in point of law.—(Hear.) There were portions of
LIVERPOOL STEAM-PACKETS.
1 the Act of Parliament directory, as was the case with 1
re-
Lord
SANDON having been accidentally shut out b spect to the transmission of the writ ;but to suppose that a
a division, was prevented from bringing forward his motion non-compliance with that directory part would vitiate the
1 elaetion was most absurd.—(Hear.) If any proof were
regarding the adoption of the contracts of the Liverpool given; of the electors not having had an opportunity of
Post-Office Steam-packets, and he now begged to renew his
motion when the-supplementary navy • estimates were taken. fully and fairly expressing their sentiments, then there
would be good grounds for setting the election aside ; but
STATUTE LABOUR (SCOTLAND.)
nothing of the kind could be proved in the present case.
Mr. MAXWELL begged to ask the Right
Hon. Mr. W.AKLEY begged to know if the Right Hon.
Knight (Sir A. Leith Hay) whether it was intendeds
prepare any measure founded on the Report of the Com_ Baronet meait to found his motion on the 53d of Geo.
inittee on Statute Labour in Scotland. the Third ? The Right Honourable Baronet had
nodded assent, and Liu
Sir A. LEITH HAY said the Committee did not con- would den; that the ill
t being the case, lie (Mr. Wakley)
ouse could exercise any jurisdiction
sider that any general law would be satisfactory to the in the matter. And if the Rigi:t Hon. Baronet would read
people of Scotland. They had principally recommended the Gth clause, he would aOluwwied`4
that - the counties in Scotland should endeavour e such to be the case.
to obtain The Gth clause provided, that .if any t)erson neglected or
enactments suited to different localities.
.delayed to deliver the writs, thec miol; 4.. be proceeded
11 r. ROEBUCK gave noti • notice, in consequence of the by indictment in his -e' ' .'Zing's
Bench.
against
vote that had been come to on Tuesday night relative
Chuirch-rates, that he would call the attentionY of the House
to Now he begged to ask, whether the House mea,7tto sum-
le mon the parties before it, and compel them to rode." that
to the present state of the question (as we understood the 11011. Member). they had been guilty of this offence? If so, he for' one
Lt rd J. RUSSELL said that on Thursday next b would most decidedly oppose such a proceeding.
would move for the appointment of a Select Committee toe Mr. LAMB TON begged to ask the Right Hon. Ba-
itiquire into the present mode of granting leasesof ]and o ronet (Sir J. Graham), if he had any objection to furnish
r. tiler ecclesiastical property by the Bishops,
and the House with the authority upon which he made the
CalaDeans, and
statement:
jeers of England and Wales, to aseertan
whether an Sir J.
inicre teed value might not be given to that species GRAHAM begged to state most distinctly
that
of property he would
by an improved management. These he thong' would be not mention the name of the party from whom he
the
- terms of his motion, and at the same trme he would take the opportunitythe privileges of the House,he thought it ' • -
. of answering the question yest d
chequer, relative to the time for bringing in the Bill for tile his Majesty's Ministers had the power to clear it up, he
;Irieoli tion of Church-rates. He would state that his Right felt himself compelled to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary
Hair . Friend would not introduce that Bill u •
nisi the Corn-
mitts e had by express or post ; and if' by the former, whether it had
• had an opportunity of tOkine evid c w respe at to the details of the measure. . en .e ith been done under his direction ? The Noble Lord had
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. stated he was not aware of the manner in which the writ
Oa the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, it .
was or- . been d
had been t 'tt d
ransm e , and that if sent by express, it had ot
one by his direction. Upon the Noble Lord makin
na.
o

tiered that the House at its rising should adjourn to Tues.
day.

that statement, be (Sir James Graham) then asked the
Right Hon. Member the Secretary for the Treasury,
whether the writ had been transmitted in the unusual man-
ner to which he had referred ? To that question the Right
Hon. Gentleman had stated that he had written a note to
the Postmaster-General, or his Deputy, stating that it was
of importance that the writ should be transmitted without
delay, but that Right Hon. Gentleman had not stated whe-
ther it bad been transmitted by the mail or not. With
respect to the observations of the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury, he would only say, if there had been any infraction of
the law, it was competent for the House to direct his Ma-
jesty's Attorney-General to prosecute the party who had
infringed it.
After a few observations from Sir R. INGLIS, the Clerk
of the Crown was ordered to attend at the bar on Toes-
day, and produce the receipt of the writ at the Post-office.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that although it might not
be extremely regular, yet having given repeated notice on
the subject, he should propose that the House proceed to
the consideration of Poor-laws for I,reland that evening, his
Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) hav-
ing agreed to postpone his financial statement for that
purpose.
PRESENTS FROM THE KING OF OUDE.
Mr. B. HOY then rose, pursuant to notice, to move for
copies of the papers relating to certain presents sent to
this country for their Majesties by the King of Oude.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not wish to interrupt the Hon.
Member for making a motion of which he had given no-
tice ; but he would put it to him, whether it would not be
more convenient to allow the public business to proceed ?
Mr. BARLOW HOY felt himself bound to proceed
with his motion, but in doing so he begged it to be under-
stood he was not averse to the introduction of the measure,
the object of which was to give Poor-laws to Ireland.
The Hon. Member stated that the presents were sent from
Calcutta under an escort of British troops, and embarked
under the sanction of the Governor-General ; and after
having arrived in this country, they were sent back
in a manner treating the Prince who sent them with con-
tempt. The mere sending them back was a great
contempt, but the contempt was greater when unaccompanied
with any explanation. He had no doubt that the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite would clear the matter up, and
lay before the House those papers which were necessary
for a full explanation of the matter. (Hear, hear.)
He believed that the charge of mis-government bad been
brought forward by discarded servants, or otherwise dis-
satisfied persons. The Hon. Gentleman was proceeding
into the details of the debt owing Europeans by the King
of Oude, when
Mr. HUME rose to order. They had come down pre-
pared to hear arguments for the production of those pa-
pers ; but when there was such a press of business before
them, was it right for the Hon. Member to enter into the
whole detail of Lndian Government ?
Mr. B. HOY would not trouble the House long, but he
must say, that England having received presents from other
princes in India, and refused those in question, had offered
an insult to this unhappy Prince, whose ancestors had given
up the half of their territories to the Indian Government for
promised protection. The Hon. Member concluded by
moving for the papers of which he had given notice.
Colonel SIBTHORP seconded the motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL deprecated the course taken
by the Honourable Member ; and would put it to
the House, whether it was convenient to interrupt
the proceedings in Committee on the Irish Poor.law Bill,
for the purpose of discussing a question relative to the
presents from the King of Oude ? Such being the case,
he had requested his Right Hon. Friend (Sir J. Hobhouse),
not to maße any statements upon the subject. He trusted
the House would support, him in his wish to go on with the
Irish Poor Law Committee.
Mr. B. BOY admitted he was irregular in bringing for-
ward the motion ; but he begged of the House to recollect
he had put off his motion several times at the request of his
Majesty's Government. He would not divide the House
upon the subject.
POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved that the House
go into Committee on the Irish Poor-law Bill.
Mr. SM ITH O'BRIEN then rose to move the amend-
ment of which he had given notice, that the Bill might take
effect simultaneously in all parts of Ireland.
The SPEAKER observed, that unless the Hon. Mem-
ber had to propose something that could not be moved in
Committee, there was no necessity for moving an iustrue-
tior to the Committee.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN wished, he said, to hare the ques-
tion disposed of before they proceeded with the details of
the Bill.
The SPEAKER remarked there would be great incon-
venience in adopting the course proposed by the Hon.
Member, as it would only impose upon the House the ne-
cessity of having the same question argued twice—once by
the House, and a second time by the Committee.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN then withdrew his motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he intended to
move, that the expenses of the three first years of the ex-
periment of the Bill in Ireland should be paid out of the
Consolidated Fund.
The House then went into committee, Mr. BERNAL in
the Chair.
The 21st, 22d, and 23d clauses wore agrced to.
Upon the 24th clause, enacting the appointment of ex-
officio guardians, being proposed,
Mr. LYNCH objected to the clause. He was opposed
to magistrates being made ex-officio guardians. Clergy-
men were exempted, and he saw no reason why magistrates
should be included. He knew that the introduction of
such a clause would tend materially to injure the operation
of the Bill. He proposed, as we understood, to strike out
the clause.
Lord MORPETH considered that it would be a very
ungenerous act to exclude the whole of the magistrates.
He did not think that it would tend to harmony, or to the
efficient working of the Bill, to exclude the whole body of
the magistrates.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought that it would be wrong to
exclude the magistrates ; but it was a different thing to
make them eligible. If they were elected, they should not
lee excluded from acting. The Noble Lord seemed to think
that the magistrates would only elect the best members of
their body to be guardians. • What he was afraid of was,
that the election would go in the contrary direction. He did
not wish to make any accusation against the magistrates.
They had been already spoken of by others in that House,
and the opinions of Lord Redesdale and Lord Manners
were recorded against them.—(Hear.) They ought to
recollect that they were now making a new law, and if any
feeling of partisanship were to come into the operation
of the law, it would prove, instead of a benefit, a great
curse to Ireland.—(Hear, and cheers.) He begged to
assure the Noble Lord, that with such a clause as the
present, the Bill never would be accepted as a boon in
Ireland. The election would be thrown into the hands of
the magistrates, and worse hands it could not be placed in.
After a few words from Mr. J. GRATTAN and Mr.
CHAPMAN,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he had no feeling upon this
subject except that of making it an effectual measure. He
thought that it would be very valuable to have the magis-
trates ex-cfficio guardians.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD objected to the appointment of
ex-officio guardians.
Mr. HUME considered that those who paid the rates
:should alone have the privilege of choosing those who
were to have the control and management of them.
_•
mr. .JEPHSON did not understand the meaning of
Irish Centlemen in that House attacking the characters of
Irish m egistrates. He did not deny that party feelings
influenced magistrates; but no persons could act more
fairly the 6n the Irish magistrates. The effect of the clause,
he belies, -ed, would be to bring them into kindly contact
with the people.
Mr. 0 'TONNELL observed that the defender of the
Irish ma: 3istrates admitted that they were under party in-
fluences, —(Cheers.) Could anything be more horrible
than sue h a magistracy ?—(Hear, hear.) If magistrates
were goo al. men they would be sure to be elected by the
people.— -(Hear.) In his opinion it was better to have the
Board of Guardians elected by the people, and not to have
any ex-o.bcio guardians at all. His conviction was, that if
they 1134 ix magistrates ex-officio guardians they would do a
great deal of mischief with their Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that it was stated
by the 1 t.loot. and Learned Member for Kilkenny that in
case ma/ fist rates were approved of by the people they would
be elect ed. He did not think that this would follow as a
necessar y consequence, for there might be prejudices against
them as magistrates. The constant meeting of magistrates
would, lie hoped, do away with all such feelings, if they
existed. He could not give up as hopeless the chance of
producit ig a good feeling between those elected by the
rate-pay ers and the magistrates.
Mr. S ;ergeant JACKSON declared that it would not be
easy to i kid a more excellent body of men than the Irish
aagistrat :es. The magistrates of Ireland were us little
su,
t c the imputation of being influenced by party
kelt body possibly could be. He considered
that .ng as of men
't tivot t !d have a most salutary effect to have the ma-
gistrat 'es as ring with the rate-payers.
Lord
CI iEMENTS stated that he should have no
ob-
jection to e x (fficio guardians if the unions were of a mo-
derate s i2d,..;• but if the districts were to be very large, the
magistra t %silo could move about rapidly, would have a
great ad
vea, stage over the rate-payers. If ex-officio guar-
dians we re appointed, their powers ought to be limited, and
they me ;ht not to be permitted to vote for officers.l
Mr. Ass S.;. O'BRIEN considered that the appointment
.44
of taagis t,,satess as exvii cio guardians could do no harm to
the worl 1; pi .