The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-01 00:00:00

IBASII MUNICIPAL BILL.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented the report of
the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing
with the amendments made by the Commons to the amend-
ments made by their Lordships to the Irish Municipal Bill.
The report. set out by stating that the Lords participated
in the conviction expressed by the Commons, that a good
correspondence between the two Houses of Parliament was
essential to the well-being of the British Constitution, and it
had always been a subject of regret to the Lords when, in the
performance of their duty, they were compelled to take a dif-
ferent view of any important measure to that adopted by the-
House of Commons. That the Lords were earnestly de-
sirous of re-moving all just causes of complaint, and of
giving their assent to all well-considered measures of im-
provement to all parts of the United Kingdom. Im-
presselwith these feelings, the Lords were anxious to cor-
resr ond with the Commons in carrying into effect some of
tb e important objects of the Bill for the regulation of Mu-
nicipal Corporations in Ireland. Although there was one
principle in that Bill in which they were unable to concur,
the Lords assented to the dissolution of the Corporations,
the practical effect of whose Consitution was a subject of
rearnable dissatisfaction ; but it did not appear to them
advisable to establish in their places that particular form of
local government proposed by the Commons. The Lords
were not without the hope that the two Houses might agree
upon provisions to accomplish the common object of both—
to remove just causes of complaint, secure the due admi-
nistration of justice in the cities 'and towns in Ireland,
reserve the 'Corporate property for their respective be-
nefit, and leave their local government under Acts volun-
tr.rily adopted.—(Hear.) The Lords concurred in opinion
with the Commons, that it is not expedient to introduce,
in the form of amendments, matters at variance with the
principle of the Bill ; but, on the present occasion they
deemed it the most convenient mode of proceeding, in
order to enable the Lords to m:nte the fullest communica-
tion of their views to the Ho.-. 450 of Commons. The Lords
were strongly impressed viith the belief that the system of
local government, inveosed by the Commons, would,
in the present s'..ate of Ireland, be a cause of
party triumph, and likewise a continued source of
party dissentien. The Lords earnestly desire the tran-
quillity of Ireland, but they were unwillinc, to adopt mea-
sures which, in their opinion, would supply new causes of
dissention to the adherents of different creeds. They
were prepared to do full justice to all parts of the
empire ; but it could not always be assumed that,
°,l the grant of similar institutions to countries dif-
fering in their circumstances, equal justice would be
done. The Lords were unable to acquiesce in the pro-
position made by the Commons, that the Corporations
constructed by the Bill should be confined to twelve
cities and towns, because it was in those twelve towns,
having the, largest populations, that the most extensive
evils wou'al result from such a measure. The Lords disagreed
with t/'..e amendments to continue the Corporations to 18
other towns, nor did they concur in the opinion that the pro-
visi-ans of the 9th Geo. IV., should be imposed in 20 cities
ao d towns. The Lords were anxious that there should
exist a power of taxation for local purposes wherever its
existence was desired ; but they do not deem it expedient
to suggest any alterations in that Act, nor do they acquiesce
in the proposed facilities for incurring its provisions. They
acquiesce in the desire of the Commons, that wherever
that Act Was adopted, the whole Corporate property
should be at once transferred to the Commissioners
elected under its provisions ; but they call to the
recollection of the Commons, that in the cities and
towns of Ireland they bad very generally refused to avail
themselves of these powers of taxation, and they cannot
but apprehend that the proposed intervention of the Legis-
lature, to overrule their manifest reluctance to be so
governed and taxed, would have no tendency to satisfy
the just wishes of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland,
and would not be in accordance with the terms of the
Union. They acquiesced with the Commons, in the
opinion that the officers connected with the administration
of justice should be removed from local influence. It would
be a matter of sincere regret to the Lords if their
adherence to the %ore important amendments made by
them, and their inability to concur in the new proposition
made by the Commons should have the effect of leaving
just cause of complaint without a full and present remedy.
The Lords still entertain the hope that the two Houses
will maintain the good understanding that has hitherto
existed between them, and by a co-operation in the discharge
of their respective duties, they may at no distant period intro-
duce such measures fortbe government of the local affairs of
Ireland as may be effectual, by introducing real improve-
ments, to promote its
Prowerity, by promoting social and
religious peace in the dies and towns of Ireland. The
Noble Lord concluded by
moving that the Report be
adopted.
Lord MELBOU RNR, after the opinions and vote
that had been given, thought it was superfluous to say
that he did not concur in that opinion, or in the
views that had, been stated in the Reasons. He much
regretted the very hasty, rash, and imprudent course
on which their Lordships had decided to enter ; but at the
same time, after the very decided manifestation of their opi-
nions which, had been given on a former occasion, it was
not his intention to give any further opposition, or offer any
objection to the Report. At the same time he hoped it would
be fully understood by their Lordships and the country, that
neither himself, nor the Noble Lords on his side of the
House: were a party to it ; but, on the contrary, that
they disclaimed all participation in it.—( Hear, hear.)
On the motion of the Duke
of RICHMOND, the
London and Brighton Railway till was read a first time,
and ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday.
Lord MELBOURNE moved the first reading of the
Marriages Bill, and the Registration of Births, Deaths, and
Marriages Bills. If there were objection, he would fix
that the second reading of them be taken on Monday se'n-
might.—Ordered.

Earl MINTO said a Noble Lord had given notice of
his intention to put certain questions to him to-morrow re-
lative to Spain. He would he unable to be in his place
then, and it would oblige him if another day were named.
The Marquis of LONDONDERIty would be most
happy to name, Monday for the purpose.
Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the
Dean of Faculty in Glasgow, against certain clauses in the
Bankrup.ts' Estate Bill for Scotland.
It having been announced that the Managers on the part
of th'd Commons were ready for the Conference,
On the motion of Lord ELLENBOROUGH,
The Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Devon, the Earl
of Shaftesbury, the Bishop of Cork, Lori Ellenborough,
Lord Wharncliffe and Lord Abinger Were named to
conduct the matter on the part of the Lorls, who imme-
diately proceeded to the Committee Room, ll°. 5.
The Duke of WELLINGTON and the other Managers
appeared at the table, and said they had met the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, Lord John Russell, and other of
the Commons, to whom they had communicated their Lord-
ships' reasons for not agreeing with their amendments.

IRISH C'HURC,II.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said, More he pro-
ceeded with the motion of whiel,..ne had given notice, he would
trouble the House with a. iev: words upon a matter personal to
himself. In the course of Tuesday last an unjust, repre-
hensible, and cruel r,jisYepresentation of what be had said on
Monday was given, lie was aware of his own deficiencies, and
never addressed, the House except upon matters con-
nected with 11'.a own country, with which he was tolerably
acquainted ; yet, insignificant as hp was, he hkd drawn
down cens.dre of this cruel kind upon himself, and if he
did not notice it, it would be so again.—(Heat, hear.)
In the Courier of Tuesday, he was reported to
have_ said that he for one would not
cor.sent to give the
Catholics of Ireland a power to tax, their richer
.fellow-corantrymen. He 'glad never made use of so
rash ar,d foolish au expression. What he had said was,
that 'le Bill impose additional taxes upon his already
oPrigessed country, and therefore he could not agree to it.
he Noble Marquis then moved that a humble address be
presented to his Majesty praying that he would be gra-
ciously pleased to order the Bishops of the Protestant
Church of Ireland to amend the returns presented on the 2d
of June, and that the Bishop, of Meath be commanded
forthwith to furnish thl.:, returns already ordered by his Ma-
jesty, to be fur:,;ibed to the House, in conformity to their
I.lord.ships' address.
Viscount MELBOURNE said that he should oppose
the motion, as he did not think it sufficiently distinct.
After a few words from Lord Ellenborough, the Earl
of alengall, and the Marquis of Londonderry,
The Earl ,of RIPON said that he would recommend
the Noble Earl to withdraw his motion, so that it would
with tolerable certainty, bring before the House the-,in-
formation that was desired.
The Bishrp of EXETER said that he was not aware
of' any, prerogative by which the Crown could order
Bishops, and he trusted the House would not agree to a
motion which sanctioned such a principle* without some
Very strong reasons. In fact, he would sooner move that

:he question as to the law be put to the twelve Learned
Judges of the realm. He, therefore, hoped that the Rouse
would not entertain the motion of the Noble Earl.

The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE said that he liOp'ed
some proper returns would be made, for with et tbent it
would be impossible to legislate en the subject.
The Maiquis of LANSDOWNE would recommend
to the Noble- Earl that he should withdraw his motion, for
the Ftote of supplying the deficiencies complained of.
he Marquis of WESTMEATH, in reply, 51i.41
would withdraw his motion. tilat

The Earl of UXBRIDGE called their Lordships' atten-
tion to an occurreo.;:z concerning which some mistake had
arisen, and wilich lie was of opinion should be brought be-
fore tile notice of the House. A Member of,their Lord
ships' House, the Marquis of Anglesey, had been entered
amorist the proxies in the late division on the Irish Cor-
poration Bill. Now, some Noble Lords had imagined that
the Noble Marquis had been in the House in the course
of the evening, a circumstance which Would of course re-
scind the entrance of his proxy. For his own part he (the
Earl oT Uxbridge) understood that the Marquis of An-
glesey had hot been there at all since the time when he en-
tered his proxy.
Lord KENYON said that the name of Lord Anglesey
had not been called, and one of the clerks had, upon the,
evening in question, said that his proxy was rescinded. He
(Lord Kenyon), therefore, had been of opinion that the
vote of the Noble Lord should be added to the minority.
The Earl of HADDINGTON had been told by some
Noble Lord that the .Marquis of Anglesey had been in the
House during the debate.

Lord HOLLAND thought that he (the Marquis of
Anglesey) had not been in the House. Speaking consti-
tutionally, the Woolsack was no part of the House, and
consequently it had always been the practice of the Chan-
cellors to stepiorward from the Woolsack more into tho
body of the House, when they wished to address their
Lordships upon any subject. If the Noble Marquis, there-
fore, had passed the Lord Chancellor he certainly had
been in the Houk. These were points of some intricacy,
and he (Lord Holland) wished that a Select Committee
were appointed to report to their Lordships upon the sub-
ject.—(A
. .

After 'a few words from the Earl of SHAFTESBURY and
Lord CARBERRY, the subject was dropped.
THE PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Viscount DUNCANNON, moved the second reading
of this Bill.

The Earl of WICKLOW thought that the object of
the Bill was good, but that several amendments were re-
quired as to matters of detail. -
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
from certain parochial schoolmasters in Scotland, praying
their Lordships not to pass the Scotch Universities' Bill.
The Earl of ABERDEEN presented a petition from
the Principal of the University of Glasgow, praying to be
heard by Counsel in support of his own privileges; and
those of the University over which he presided. The Noble
Lord observed that he was glad to see that in part of this
petition there were objections taken to the Bill, which would
be obviated by the amendments that he had suggested to
the House.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition
from his Noble Friend the Marquis of Londonderry pray-
ing to be heard by Counsel againt the Durham Railway
Bill. The Noble Lord gave notice that when the Bill had
been read a second time he should move their Lordships
to hear Counsel, as prayed.
Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition from Sun-
derland for the abolition of church-rates, and one for the
removal of Jewish disabilities.

Upon the Order of the Day for going into Committee
upon the Prisoners' Counsel Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that he thought the
Bill was one which ought to pass, and he now begged to
suggest to their Lordships the propriety of inserting a
clause which would remedy the evil arising from the provision
which rendered it necessary for the jury, in cases of secon-
dary offences, to be charged that the prisoners had been
before convicted. The consequence was, that they came
before the jury with a prejudice against them.
Lord LYNDHURST would have no objection to the
introduction of the clause, provided that the Noble Lord
would not afterwards call it an " original" Bill.—(A laugh.)
He (Lord Lyndhurst) must state to the House that he
meant the first clause to provide that the Bill should take
effect, not immediately after it had passed, but upon the
Ist of October. It would be absolutely necessary also to
change the title of the Bill, which was called " A Bill for
enabling prisoners to make their defence by Counsel or
Attorney," whereas, in fact, many persons were tried for
felony who were not present at all during the trial.
The House then resolved itself into Committee.
The preamble was agreed to.
Upon the first clause being proposed,
The Earl of WICKLOW said that it was the opinion
of an eminent Judge, in a country where many cases of
felonies were tried, as also of a Learned Counsel of much
practice in that country, that this measure would not be
beneficial to the prisoners themselves.
Lord HOLLAND said it was not the object of the Bill
to be exclusively beneficial to prisoners ; and, if it were,
that the prisoners themselves, and not Judges or Counsel,
would be the best authorities upon that point. The prin-
ciple was, to place all persons tried for felonies upon the
same footing with those who resided in the northern parts
of the kingdom. •
Lord ABINGER made some observations which were
inaudible.

The Earl of RADNOR said there undoubtedly at pre-
sent existed a strange discrepancy between felonies and
other crimes in this respect, which it was most desirable
should be abolished.

The first clause was then agreed to, with the amendment
of Lord Lyndhurst, that the Bill should come into opera-
tion upon the Ist of October.
Upon the 2d clause being put,
Lord LYNDHURST said that, their object being to
make the law regarding felonies correspond with the rest of
the law, he should move that this clause, which gave to the
prisoners the last word, be struck out.

Lord HOLLAND objected to the motion, on the
ground that the Scotch law, which as he contended, they
were copying, allowed to the prisoner that privilege ; but
the motion was agreed to, and the clause was struck out.
At the suggestion of Lord LYNDHURST clause 3
was also expunged.
Upon clause 4 being put,
Lord LYNDHURST said be could see no necessity for
the next clause, which provided that copies of the deposi-
tions be allowed to the prisoners. Now, the persons ac-
cused were present'wben the charge was made, and must at
least know the substance of the accusation. He proposed,
therefore, that that clause also be struck out.

Lord HOLLAND said that also was a part of the
Scotch law which he deemed to be most prudent.
Lord LYNDHURST doubted whether the Noble
Baron was correct.

The Duke of RICHMOND said he could see no good
reason for objecting to the clause, because they permitted
attorneys to be present, and an attorney would but ill dis-
charge his duty to the prisoner, his client, if he did not
write down every syllable of the evidence, which most cer-
tainly he would do.
Lord A BINGER suggested if it was necessary for the
investigation of truth that the prisoner should know the
evidence before, why should not the prosecutor also ?
The clause was then Struck out.

The next clause was agreed to.

LI
The Gth clause, which provided that any of his Majesty's
Counsel might be allowed to plead on behalf of persons
tried for felony, was, after some conversation, upon the
motion of Lord Lyndhurst, struck out.

The last clause was agreed to.
Lord LYNDHURST said he had another amendment
to propose to their Lordships. The present title of the
Bill ran thus :—" A Bill for enabling prisoners to make
their defence by Counsel." Now that was not sufficient,
and he should suggest the substitutiori of the following
words :—" For enabling persons charged with felonies to
make," &c.

The title, thus amended, was then agreed to.
The Bill was reported with amendments ; the House
resumed ; and the report ordered to be received to-morrow
(this day.)
- Lord LYNDHURST begged to postpone the second
reading of the Transfer of Property Bill.
On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the Pa-
rochial Assessment Bill was read a second time.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in laying on the table
the Bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt, said, as
the provisions of the Bill differed but little from those of
the Bill of last session, their Lordships would not deem it
necessary for him at that stage to enter into particulars.
He would, however, on the second reading, state to their
Lordships' the details of the measure. The Bill was then
read a first time. _ _ _

The Archbishop of ARMAGH said a few words, which
were wholly inaudible.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Epsom in favour of the Brighton (Stevenson's) Railway Bill
—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JuNz 30.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
NEW MEMBER.

Mr. RICHARDS, (the new Member for Merionethshire)
in the room of Sir Robert Vaughan, was introduced by Mr.
W. W. Wyne and Mr. W. 0. Gorr, and took the oaths
and his seat.