The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-28 00:00:00

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved Order of the
Day for the third reading of the Municipal Corporations Act
Amendment Bill.

ORANGE LODGES.
Colonel PERC EVA L begged to know, before the motion
was put, whether the question of the Hon. Member for Kil-
kenny (Mr. Finn) would be answered, inasmuch a 3 it impugned
the accuracy of a statement made by him (Colonel Percoral) on
a former occasion ?

Mr. FINN assure the Hon. Member for Sligo that
he had no intention of doing so, but the Government might be
in possession of information with which the Hon. and Gallant
Member was unacquainted.
Lord MO It PET H was not aware that the Irish Government
was in possession of any such information, but he had no cb-
jection to the production of any document it might have
received on the subject.

Colonel PE IiCEVAL would state mast dstinctly that sc
Car as his information went, no Orange Lodge,2:isted in Ire'
ladd from the time these bodies had yielded to the advice o
their friends in that and the other House of Pafiament, unti
he had seen it shi-ted in a Dublin newspaper truismitted t 4
him that day, although he must admit that he wa not a bi
the more disposed to believe its accuracy from se9i,v, it states
in that paper. —( A laugh.)
MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT.

In answer town observation from Mr. Scarlett,

The ATTORNEY GENERAL observed that it vas hi!
intention to withdraw the clause from the Municipal Amend-
ment Bill to which the Hon. Member referred.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was his inteitior
to move a clause respecting the mode of election, but finlinE
one on the paper of which he fully approved, he would up.
port that to be moved by the Hon. Baronet the Member'm
Kent.

Sir E. liNATCUI3ULL then moved a clause, to ti
effect that every person voting at the election of Tow
Councillors or Aldermen should do so, by delivering pet
sonally at the meeting to the Mayor or Chairman, a votir
paper containing the name and sirname of the persons fc
whom he rotes, such paper when read to be delivered by U
mayor to the town clerk, and that every election of aldcrmc
made before the passing of the Act should be valid, by wha'
ever form made.

Mr. SCARLETT opposed the clause.
The clause was agreed to after a few observations in explz
nation by the Attorney-General, and added to the Bill by vni
of Rider.

On the next clause being put,
Mr. TH 0 RNEL Y rose to object to it, as he considered
a clause for the extension of the privileges of freemen; an
if it were persevered in he should take the sense of the How
upon it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL denied that it was
clause to extend the rights of the freemen, but Inerely for ti
purpC,',so of preventing litigation and expense.
Mr. THORNELY could not consider the clause in an
other light, and Ile should therefore take the sense of th
House upon its rejection.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, when the numbers were—
Ayes
Noes

218

Majority in fatour of the clause
. . . _

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved the insertion of
clause for indemnifying-the Bank of England and other puhli
bodies from liability on account:of transfer of stock standing i
the name of corporate bodies.—Agreed to.
Mr. HARVEY then rose to move the insertion of the fol
lowing clause, " That no person holding a judicial appointmer
shall hereafter be eligible to a seat in Parliament."
would divide the House on this clause.
The clause having been read,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said if he had been awat
that his motion would have led to a protracted discussion
this kind he should not have ventured to postpone the ad
journed debate on the Poor Law Amendment Act. He wo
willing to admit that the clause proposed by the Hon. Meer
ber for Southwark was an important one—so important, it
deed, that he should wish to see it made the subject of a sept
rate Bill. It went, however, beyond the scope of the preset
Bill, which was confined to England, while the Hon. Gentle
man intended his clause to extend to Ireland. He was ni
prepared to say that Recorders should be excluded from sea
in that House, nor could he think that there was any analog
between their case and that of the Judges. The Recorde
were seldom occupied in the exercise of their judicial funs
tions more than four days in the year, and, therefore, as the
duties in no way interfered with their discharging the duti
of Members of that House he must give the proposition of tl
Hon. Member for Southwark his most decided opposition.
4r. O'CONNELL supported the clause, and said I
should vote for it if the Hon. Member for Southwark press(
it to a division. He thought all persons exercising judici
functions should be excluded from that House.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the clause, sr
said that, as the remuneration of recorders did not amount 1
more than perhaps 201. a year, it was absurd to suppose thl
they were highly paid. For the most part the office
merely honorary.
Mr. GROTE spoke in favour of the clause, and thougl
that those who held judicial offices should be obliged to di
vote their whole time to the business of those offices. He w 1
an advocate for local Courts.
Mr. SCAR LETT denied that the nominal salaries attache
to these really honorary offices could influence the votes of th
parties holding them in that House.
Mr. HARVEY said that if he thought the law officers
the Crown were sincere he would not press his motion. 11
did not, however-( A laugh)—and, consequently, he mu
persevere. It was said that the Recorders were not high]
paid. Why, had not the Recorder of London 2,5001. a-yea
and were not the duties of that Hon. and Learned GentLeine
considered so onerous that there was some intention of givir
him another 1,000/. ? There was another Recorder who,
he were not mistaken, was also well paid, and had cot
siderable business connected with his office to attend ti
Let them sec how the system worked at present under th
Bill. Any corporate town might have a Judge appointed t
it, and the Government of the time would have the appoin
ment of all those parties at disposal. He had had it for son]
time in contemplation to move for a return of the gentletne
of the Bar, with a statement of any place or office held by eac
individual ; and ho certainly thought it would be difficult t 1
find, throughout the entire list of the Bar, the name of an
man of five years' standing who was not either in possession t
a place, or in expectation of some appointment or other.-
( A laugh.) He was well aware that their superior moral lit
bits and stricter education enabled the gentlemen of the 13'
to make a stronger struggle against this system of seductio
than other men would, but his object was to protect them fro]
that system of seduction altogether, and to preserve them in
stale of forensic purity.—(A laugh.) If he thought the La'
Officers of the Crown were sincere in the recommendation thi
they had given, and that they would promise to support him i
bringing forward a Bill for this purpose, he would willingly 11,
so ; but unless he got an assurance of their support he vioui
persevere in pressing his motion to a division.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it
Mority 0000000 —56
Mr. LEADER said that at municipal elecdnns at Bristo
and he understood in several other places, a pracdre had pre
veiled to a great extent of persons who had voted in one War
afterwards corning forward to vote a second time in anott4
ward.; He wished to introduce a clause into the present Bill t
prevent persons from voting in more than one ward at the sate
election. However, he should not think it necessary to pres
this clause if the Attorney-General was of opinion that person
who came forward to vote a second time at the same electiol
were liable to an indictment for perjury.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause ics
quite unnecessary, as parties so acting were clearly liable to b
indicted for perjury, for before voting it was necessary that
party tendering his vote should swear that he had not, vote
before at that election.

Mr. LEADER would not press the clause.
Mr. SCARLETT was anxious to propose a clause (as tc,
understood) to prevent persons voting in wards in whLei
though they occupied tenements, they did not reside. "(
understood that a practice prevailed of persons taking tent
ment in a ward, in order to enable them to be registered, an
to vote at the election. Tho object of his amendment was t'
prevent municipal electors from voting, unless in the war
where they resided.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL trusted that his MI
Friend would not persevere with his clause. The roved
would be worse in many cases than the evil it was intended
remove. The effect of the clause would be to disfranchise
large number of the present electors, for many persons will
had shops and warehouses in one ward resided in a differes
ward, where they had no qualification.
Mr. SCARLETT withdrew the clause. He was satisfic
that the evil was acknowledged, and trusted that some vex'
would be found to remedy it.
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
POOR-LAWS AMENDMENT ACT—ADJOURNgf

DEBATE.
On the Order of the Day being moved for resuming the ed.
journed debate on this subject,
Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from a parlsll,.ii
Sussex, in favour of the present law.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented three petitions, pal'
for inquiry into the operation of the Poor-law Act—ono P.n.
Llandillo, in Montgomeryshire, signed by 1,200 person;
another from Kettering, in Northamptonshire, signed o'4
2,000 persons ; and the third from Maldon, in Essex, sign
by 3,000 persons. s'
Mr. BROTH ERTON said that when this Bill was Pao
ing through that House he had voted against many efa
provisions. He then considered that the powers propose bi
be given to the Commissioners were such as ought not t(iPis,
conferred on them, and that they were in themselves a 1' ob.
tion of the principles of self-government. He had alwaysitic
jected to the Bill as unnecessary and inapplicable in marl ti
turing districts, because he believed the State was boon boik
provide for the poor. The State was supported by the 19_04
of the poor, but owing to the fluctuation of trade the poor 70
thrown out of employment, not from any fault of their %ie.
and it therefore became the duty of the State in such circoe.
stances to provide for them proper support, in place of res
ing them to the revel of criminals. The professed ohient•tior
the Bill were to reduce the rates and improve the cood Juieli
of the poor.—( Hear, hear.) He was inclined told ;or
that it would reduce the rates, but he doubted if it womtes, 0
prove the condition of the poor. One object the mlvena re
the measure had in view was to throw the poor on their ovro
sources. Now ho admitted it was a good principle log
tt
courage idleness, and to do induce mankind to do every be re'
their power to provide for their own wants; but it must tering
membered that most of the evils which betel the manta° floe'
classes arose, not from any fault of theirs, but from the anc
tuations of trade, from the caprice of the money markedt, theil
cre d
trom the speculations of traders, who rather considoo ll
self-interests than the public good.— (Hear.") ft rya° to sel
to defend the poor among the rich, but he should' likno tbos(
some other system adopted. He should like to scid teas'
laws repealed which pressed on the lower classes, 8.1
tion in general equalised. One. part of thelaw he er'lcliaos el
objected to—that, namely, which prevented*the g" erty re'
the poor from granting relief while any little 13; eLtienari
maincd ; and he should be glad to see more diEC"
power. given to that body.
Mr. CRIPPS said—lt appeared from returns P un
the Commissioners that there had been a. saving to itbel:calicisecinl:l
of between two and three millions a year, and tRo
that a great good ?—( Cries of " No, no r) ncarlf
rates increased year after year, till they, reached„ coo
millions, and threatened to eat up the vitals of gob a'
try. Was it not the duty of the Legislature to see