The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-25 00:00:00

LOCAL COURTS.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented a petition from
a parish in Sussex, in favour of the Local Courts Bill.
The BISHOP of CHESTER presented a petition on
the same subject.
CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord DUNCANNON rose to move the first reading
of this Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON objected to the Bill
being read a first time, as it had not been printed. There
were many Noble Lords who were then absent, and would
not be able to attend till after the recess, who might wish
to take part in any discussion that might arise
upon its clauses, and therefore lie considered , the
better way would be to postpone the first reading till after
the recess.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT

ACT.

Lord MELBOURNE said if there was no chance of
passing the 13i11 before the holidays, he would not then press
the first reading. But there was another Bill which it was
very desirable to pass as speedily as possible,*and which was
an Act to amend and explain an Act for the Regulation
of Municipal Corporations in England and Wales. This
Bill was only to explain certain clauses, to supply deficien-
des in the Act of last Session, and which had given rise to
a great dea'l of litigation, and unless the Bill was
passed LeFore the commencement of next term,
much more litigation •would arise. He would therefore
propose that it should be read a first time to-night, a
second time to-morro7.-, an.l that it should be committed on
Monday. If there was no serious objection to it, it would
be highly desirable that, the Bill, if possible, should pass
bati)re the Easter recess.
The Duke of WELLINGTON believed it had been
the custom to adjeurn the House on the Wednesday before
Good Friday. lie had no desire to itnpede the progress
of this measure, and there would be ample time for it to
pass bolero the Ist of May. This Bill referred to the
Bill which had been passed last Session, and there were
many Noble Lords who might be desirous of comparing
the Bill with the former Act, and of considering the several
clauses as comp ired with the clauses of the Bill it was in-
tended to amend. The Bill was not yet printed, and yet
the Noble Lord desired to have it read a first time to-night,
a second time tomorrow, and to have it committed for
murder!—(A laugh)—to have it committed for Monday.
Lord MELBOURNE only wished that it should be
passed speedily, as it would save litigation and expense.
The Bill could be printed by Saturday, and he believed it
had been the practice to give up the debate on the second
reading of Bills of far more importance this. Bat undoubt-
edly if the Noble Duke thought he had not stated sufficient
grounds, he may, if he thinks proper, oppose the first read-
ing now. _ _ _

The Duke of WELLINGTON said that all he de-
sired was, that the house should have fair play, and
should have the opportunity of discussing this and
the other measure, according to the usual form of Paha-
nent, upon the principle, before they proceeded to allow
it t• be read a second time.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said the great object of
the Bill was to set right some doubts as to the election of
many officers in Corporations whose titles were now ques-
tioned by quo warrant°. It was important to have the
Bill passed on the 18th of April, otherwise great expense
would be incurred.'l/4
Lord ELLENI3OROUGH did not know that the Bill
would not be passed by that date, but he had looked into
the Bill, and he felt bound to say their Lordships could
not come to a satisfactory conclusion on the subject before
the recess.

The Earl of H ARROW BY said if there was such dan-
ger to the public from delay on this Bill, how did it happen
that the Bill did not come up before the 24th March ? It
was the Government who must bear the responsibility, and
not the Noble Duke. The Bill was printed only on Satur-
day—how was it possible for their Lordships to come to a
decision upon it on Monday?
Lord MELBOURNE had never proposed that their
Lordships should absolutely pass the Bill. He had pro.
posed that the Bill should go into Committee, in order to
sec whether their Lordships had any objection to it or not.
If they bad, of course, he would not press the passing of
the Bill ; but, if not, then the public were entitled to some
consideration from their Lordships. [Here the Noble
Lord sat down ; after a pause no one having arisen he said]
• Can there be any objection to your Lordships taking the
second reading of the Bill on Wednesday next ?"
The Duke of WELLINGTON (without rising)—l
object to its being taken till after the holidays.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE did not think the
Bill contained any principle of such importance as to ren-
der it necessary to have a discussion upon the second read-
ing. It had been usual on many more important Bills to
postpone the discussion till a later stage. _ _

- The -Earl of WINCHILSEA said there had been
enough before their Lordships to render it necessary that
the Bill should be postponed, in order to afford their Lord-
ships time to consider its details. This Bill was rendered
necessary, from the indecent haste with which the Bill of
last year was passed.

Lword MELBOURNE—WiII the Noble Duke still ob-
ject to proceeding with the Bill on Wednesday ?
The Duke of WELLINGTON said his mind had not
been altered by the discussion which had taken place. It
was for the Noble Lord to fix the day for bringing on his
motion, as he (the Duke of W.) would then state his rea;
sons for objecting to it.
Lord HOLLAND—Does the Noble Duke object to
the second reading of the Bill before the recess ?
The Duke of WELLINGTON—I do.

Lord HOLLAND—There was nothing unusual in the
course proposed by the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) ; the
Bill was merely an explanatory one, and surely good rea-
sons had already been given for going on with it.
Lord HOLLAND said all that they required was to
let the Bill be advanced one stage, and he thought it was a
most captious objection.
After a few words from the Duke of WELLINGTON and
Lord LANSDOWNE, it was arranged that the Bill should be
read a first time, and that the second reading should take
place on Tuesday.
IRISH CHANCERY REFORM.
Lord PLUNKETT brought in a Bill to reform the
Irish Court of Chancery. By the Bill it was intended to
abolish the office of Six Clerks. The duty of these officers
was to read certain documents to the Court, and to receive
certain notices. The saving to the public would be 15,000/.
a year ; the present salary of the officer amounted
to 18,000/. a year, but it was proposed to appoint persons
who would perform the duties for 3,000/, a year ; of course
it was intended that the clerks should receive compensation,
but the whole of the compensation would not fall upon the
public, as there were certain funds upon which certain
funds would be chargeable.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—From what the Noble
Lord had stated, he did not think that this Bill would prove
so beneficial to the public. In his opinion the whole of
these officers should not be dispensed with, but there ought
to be a different distribution of duties, and com-
pensation should only be given to those for whom
no employment could be found. He would not now enter
further into the details of the mearrce, but hei thought that
assiatsrttitcea that
theses 1r
sapsrianlesioniteh.e
11, involved a
dthainsgßeriollu, It
Compensation Clauses, an
what guarantee had theythey
, dif
tphaastsetchlesbeyetihacuisresLiovroduslldfipbse,
adopted by the Commons.

Lord PLUNKETT wished to set the Noble and
Learned Lord right relative to the appointment of these
officers. The Noble and Learned Lord here entered into
some details relative to the provisions of the Bill, but in
so low a tone of voice that we could not catch their import.
Lord ELLENBORO UGH admitted that the arrange-
ments, as they had been just stated by the Noble and
Learned Lord, were quite consistent with justice, propriety,
the public service, and economy. -
The Marquis f LANSDO WNE observed that it was
most important that a Bill of that nature should ori-
ginate with their Lordships. If there was no question
but that of the number of officers to be displaced,
or the amount of compensation, it would be merely
hi the nature of an amendment which their Lordships could
afterwards take into consideration.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH had not the slightest idea'
of throwing any obstacles in the way of the measure.
The conversation then dropped.
The Bishop of LONDON moved the second reading
of the Bill for facilitating the granting of sites for schools.
After a few words the Bill was ordered to be read a
second time to-morrow.
SLAVERY ABOLITION (SPAIN) BILL.
On the motion of Lord GLENELG, this Bill was read
a second time, and was ordered to be committed on Monday.
The NOBLE LORD also moved the third reading of the
Bill for the Improvement of Justice in the West Indies.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The other bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 24.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
NEW MEMBER.
Mr. HAsTIE, the new Member for Paisley, took the
oaths and his scat.
SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS.

Mr. B. HOY presented a petition, signed by 1,297
inhabitants of Southampton, in favour of the Southampton
Duty Bill.
Lord GEORGE LENNOX presented petitions from
several Town Councils ag,aidst the Southampton Docks Bill.

On- the motion of Mr. B. HOY, the Southampton
Docks Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be
committed
NORTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY.

Sir T. BARING presented a petition from Great Yar-
mouth, most numerously signed in favour of the Northern
and Western Railway Bill.
NEWCASTLE AND SHIELDS RAILWAY.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG presented a petition from the pro-
prietors of the Shields Water Works against part of the
Bill for making the above railway.
DUKE OF BRIDGEWATER'S ESTATES.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from James
Southern, in answer to one which had been presented by
Lord F. Egerton some time ago, complaining of the con-
duct of the petitioner. It appeared there was a Bill before
the House for joining the Rochdale canal with the River
• Ern. Mr. Southern, in his capacity of sole represen-
tative and acting trustee of the late Duke's pro-
perty, presented a petition against the Bill on the 10th
March last, and subsequently a petition was presented by
the Noble Lord from the Archbishop of York and the Earl
of Devon, which complained of Mr. Southern's conduct.
First they complained that no communication had been
made to them, his co-trustees, of his intention to petition
against the Bill. Second, that he had made no such com-
munication to Lord Francis Egerton, who was much
and deeply interested in the property ; turd; thirdly,
that in spite of a negociation which was pending
between the trustees, Mr. Southern had presented
the petition against the B il. In answer to the first objec-
tion, he said that though the Noble Petitioners were co-
trustees, they were merely nominally so, and had no connec—
tion with or control over the property in any sense,
The SPEAKER enquired what the prayer of the peti-
tion was ?

Mr. 1.1 A RVEY replied, that the prayer was that the
petition might be referred to the Committee on the Bill :
the Object at Mr. Southern was to set himself right with
the Noble Lord, who was so deeply interested in the pro-
perty he superintended. As to the second object—
that he did not communicate with the Noble
Lord in the petition—he stated that he caused
a communication to be made to the Noble Lord of his in-
tention to oppose the Bill, and that communication was
delivered at the residence of the Noble Lord. As to the
negociations which had been represented by the Noble Lord
between the parties, Mr. Southern stated he was not aware of

any such negotiations, end tharif he had been, he should
not have been inflnenced by them, inasmuch as being
appointed under the Duke of Bridgewater's will
the sole superintendent of the property, be was
given a power and authority by that will at any
time to bring forward any measures in that House
which were calculated to improve and to oppose any
measure which were likely to injure the property. He
conceived that he was only discharging an important duty
in presenting this petition, believing that if the Bill were
allowed to pass, it would greatly prejudice the property
over which he was guardian.
Lord F. EGERTON did not object to the prayer of
the petition, that it might be referred to the Committee ; still
less was it his intention to occupy the time of the nOUS3
with any details of the circumstances bearing on any question
between the person who signed it and himself, as it would
be impossible for him to explain those circumstances in such
a manner to the House, as would enable it to form anyjudg-
ment, if called upon to do so. With regard to what fell from
him, which might have hurt the feelings of the petitioner,
it was quite out of his power to suppress the simple fact,
that there was a difference loaween that gentleman and
himself as to the mode in which the affairs of that great
property should be conducted. If the House formed any
opinion prejudicial to the petitioner from that information,
he must be allowed to say, that it was not an opinion for
which he called. On that occasion, it was no part of his
wish or duty to call for the judgment of the House upon
that individual.—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") He
did say that a petition on a subject on which, as a
Member of Parliament, and as an individual out of Parlia-
ment, he felt deeply interested, had been put into the hands
of another Member of that House, in a manner which he
considered, and still considered surreptitious, and bearing a
character which he would not further specify. He said this
petition had been put into the hands of the Member for
Bradford, without the smallest intimation that he (Lord F.
Egerton) was concerned in its prayer ; and he thought
that no gentleman in that House would present
such a petition without informing him of its contents, and,
as the Louth Gentleman opposite had on this occasion
behaved, giving him an opportunity of stating his
opinion when the petition was presented. This was
the conduct of the attorney of Mr. Southern, Mr. Stokes,
and it was of this conduct that he complained, and which
entitled him (Lord F. E.) to call for censure upon this per-
son. With regard to the operation of the present proceed-
ing being to remove any bad feeling that existed between
the petitioner and himself, he could not perceive that
this result would be obtained by the proceeding which
the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Harvey) had under-
taken on the part of the petitioner. It was out of all
question that he should call the attention of the House to
any matters that were at issue between him (Lord F. E.),
and that Gentleman. He intended to call for judgment upon
these points from a proper and competent tribunal, from a
Court of Equity.—(Hear, hear, hear.) To that Court
it was his intention to look for redress —to that
tribunal he felt himself, very reluctantly undoubtedly—for
he did not know that any one would approach it
without considerable reluctance—(Hear, hear)—to that
tribunal he was driven ; and in that course he intended to
proceed, with a view to the interests of the public as much
as his own. Whatever the result of their decision might
bw ea, yhe hopedhis
cr t n odo
ifficulties
ffieutlrtiibeusns val. o
of ouldbnethpislaocceein placed
Tee
would say appealingnothingfurther than as before, that be hopedn
the petition would be referred to the Committee.
He
would look to that Committee for such protection as they
would be able to afford him against any accumulation
expense for an object in which he did not concur; _ of
but
not the
whe-
ther they afforded that protection or not, he had
smallest objection that this petition, as well as the
others,
should be placed under their consideration.
MIDLAND RAILWAY.

An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition in favour of the
Midland Railway Bill, but against the particular line con-
templated.
MEDWAY NAVIGATION.

Sir E. KNATCH BULL moved that a petition presented
by him yesterday against the Medway Navigation Bill
be referred to the Committee. •

TODMORDEN ENCLOSURE BILL.

Mr. WILBRAHAM moved the third reading of this
Bill.

Mr. FIELDEN opposed the Bill on public grounds,
although as far as it related to him, it was a good Bill.
So far as he could see the objects of the Bill, it would be a
disgrace to that House if it would allow it to pass into a
law. Not less than 46 of the freeholders possessing three-
fourths of the property, had petitioned against it, and he
(Mr. Fielden) had been advised that another petition to
the same effect was now upon the road, to stop, if possible,
its further progress. It would inflict a grievous injury upon
the poor of thut neighbourhood in which there were a
number of cottagers -employed in handloom weaving,
and who would be all turned out.—(Hear, hear.)
He opposed the Bill from a solid conviction that he was
properly doing his duty. Ile therefore moved that it be
read a third time that day six months.
Mr. POTTER said the lands to be inclosed were very
unequally divided, which would oblige him to vote against
the Bill, though he had no other objection. The Bill gave
the Lord of the Manor a right to enter on any enclosure to
search for minerals and open mines ; yet there was no

provision for making him pay anything for such
a right. He had been told in the Committee that the
common law of the land gave compensation, but he main-
tained that it ought to be specially provided for.
Mr. B. WILBRAHAM complained that the' Hon.
Member for Oldham had not attended the Committee after
his preliminary objections had been over-ruled, and it was
hard that he should oppose the Bill in its present stage,
when he could do so in the Committee in another place.
Mr. H. HUGHES thought the case advanced by the
Hon. Gentleman who proposed the third reading of the
Bill ought rather to tell in favour of those who opposed
it. It was said by him that the poor people whose rights
would be affected by its provisions had not opposed it.
Now, he thought their poor condition ought to account for
their not coming forward by counsel ; and he must say that
giving the Bill his best consideration it was liable to the
same objections which were urged against similar measures
which were rejected last year by the House. He should
feel bound to oppose the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that some better reason than
any as yet brought forward should be given, before the
House assented to the third reading of the Bill. He agreed
in most of what had fallen from his Hon. Friend, the Mem-
ber for Oldham. He begged to know if an alle-
gation contained in the petition against the Bill
was true, namely, that the majority of the persons affected
by it, in number and value, had• not given their assent to
it, and he confessed he heard that they assented to a mea-
sure quite different in principle and detail. He found in
page 19, a clause allowing the Lord of the Manor com-
pensation equivalent to the loss sustained by him for
free warren and chase ; and yet in the 25th page,
there is a reservation to him of all game. In a manufac-
-turing populous, district the Bill would undoubtedly be
found to be very prejudicial indeed to trade.-4Hdar.)
By this Bill the Lord of the Manor was to have the power
of impounding all streams and rivulets. Now, who, he
asked, ever heard of such a power being given to an indi-
vidual by any private Bill. In conclusion, he called upon the
House to throw out the Bill, unless it could be shown that
the parties had all assented to it, by deed of agreement en-
tered into between them.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN spoke in support of the
Bill, and read certain portions of the evidence taken before
the Committee, which he thought was proof of an agree-
ment. if there were such great objection to the preamble of
the Bill, let it be removed, and another preamble be substi-
tuted in its stead. He however, could not see any
objection to the preamble. The present was the common
case of an inclosure Bill, and liable to all the objections
to which such Bills were liable. The facts, however, were
such as he had stated.

Mr. HARVEY said tl at there were two objections to
which he would call the attention of the House—the one
was, that this Bill established rights. which did not exist ;
and the other that it destroyed interests which ought to be
intact. If this Bill passed unnoticed great wrong
would be the consequence. This Bill entitled the right of
the Lord of the Manor not only to the manorial interest
over the property enclosed, but he claimed to being
Lord of the Manor over the entire parish of Rochdale.
This parish was very extensive, and might contain many
townships ; the effect of the Bill, therefore, would be to
establish rights which had no foundation in existence.
—(Hear, hear.) But his chief objection was that it
disregarded rights which it ought to be their peculiar solici-
tude to protect. While there were Gentlemen in that House
who 'were men of property, there were few who might be
presumed to be influenced by this strong sympathy of not
being prepared to disregard and. despise the simple
interests of the .poor especially when by a Poor
Law they turned every person into the workhouse
who was not capable by his labour of maintaining himself.
After some further conversation, the House divided—
For the Motion
For the Amendment
Majorit

-39

Lord ASHLEY said a A.v words respecting the Facto-
ries Bill, which were not audible. We understood the
Noble Lord to complain of delay.
Colonel PERCEVAL was desirous to put a question to
the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland. It appeared
that a man named Sly was lated tried at the Carlow As-
sizes for the murder of a person Rained Walsh. One of
the witnesses agaicst him was a constable of the name of
Corrigan, who was acquainted, as he stated, with the cir-
cumstances as far back as July, but kept them back at the
inquest, and it was only in November last that he revealed
them to his priest. The question he would ask the Noble
Lord was, whether the man had been dismissed from the
constabulary ?
Lord MORPETH received information since the trial,
that it was meant to prosecute the Witnesses for perjury.
He had yet received no information whether Corrigan was
actually dismissed or not. _ _

Mr.- O'CONNELL said it was impossible to read the
trial, without seeing that the jury could not have done
otherwise than acquit the prisoner. _ _ _

Lord ASHLEY wished to know whether it was in
tended to postpor.c, till after Easter, the Factories Ac
Amendment Bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his
Right Hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade,
was absent from illness. He did not know whether he would
be able to attend that evening. He should inquire.