The Sun.
London, England, 1840-06-30 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

Jury presentments, these districts should be annexed to
the adjoining counties, but, in the present Bill, this was
reversed, and those districts annexed to the towns,
which was a greet grievance and injustice. In making
.this alteration, the House of Commons had acted in
direot contradiction to the recommendation of their own
Boandary Commissioners, and upon this Report the
clause was drawn last year. To remedy this incoure-
nience, the House of Commons had adopted the singu-
lar proceeding of sending up a Bill to reverse this very
clause which their Lordships could not adopt, because
the House of Commons had attached to it money clauses.
Why hadnot some other Bill been brought up Ho could
not move any amendments to the clause,because be would
not knowingly infringe on the privileges of the House of
Commoas, but ho would leave the clause as it stood in
order to see if her Majesty's Ministers would introduce
a Bill to remedy the grievance, and if they did not then
it would be for Eheir Lordships to say whether they
would consent to the adoption of a Bill inflicting such
gross injustice. Now, with regard to the qualification,
their Lordships had always insisted upon a 10/. qua-
lification, and he presumed they would still abide by it.
The Commons had adopted his Lordship's qualification
in all the boroughs, or schedule A, and so far there was
no"objection, but in schedule B they had adopted an
St. qualification. He should insist upon a 10/. quali-
fication. But they had further said, that at the end of
three years this qualification as to value was to cease.
He should say that when three years had elapsed it
would be quite time enough to alter the qualification
if it should be necessary. What he proposed, there-
fore, was, that the qualification should on all occasions
be a 10/. one. The next material point to which
he should call their Lordships' attention was the
appointment of Sheriffs, In 1836 the appointment
was proposed to be vested in the Town Council, but as
these were officers connected with the adatinistration of
justice, it was deemed improper to give their nomination
to the Town Council, and it was vested in the Lord
Lieetenaint, and that alteration had been moved in the
House of Commons before sending up the Bill. But
now the Council were to appoint three persons, from
whom the Lord Lieutenant was to choose one, and if he
rejected the whole, then three others were to he chosen
by the Council, and if the Lord Lieutenant rejected
them, then, and then only, the appointmant vested in the
Lord Lieutenant. Now he proposed, to recommend
that the appointment of sheriffs of towns should vest in
the Lord Lieutenant, in the same manner as in counties.
The Noble Viscount himself, had, on a former occasion,
consented to such an arrangement. Those corporations
were to deal with large sums of money, it was therefore
necessary that an effective audit of their accounts should
take place, to prevent fraud. The Noble Duke had
proposed an amendment to this effect, which had been
assented to by the House of Commons, and now those
clauses were unaccountably omitted. He should propose to
re-insert them in the present Bill. A Noble Friendof his
had last Session presented a petition from theinhabitants of
Galway, praying that that town might be taken from
schedule A and placed in schedule B. The ground
was, that all that could be obtained from a corporation
was already enjoyed by the inhabitants of Galway.
He succeeded in introducing a clause to place the town
of Galway in schedule B , which clause was now omit-
ted. lie should propose its reinsertion in the present
Bill. These were the principal amendments he in-
tended to propose ; the others were mere matters of
in
troduced,
he, ; and unless these amendments were
he, for one, would never consent that the Bill should
pass into a law.
The LORD CHANCELLOR should have thought
it more convenient to discuss the amendments in the
Committee. But as the Noble Lord had abandoned
one of his amendments, and he (the Lord Chancellor)
believed he could, without much taking up their Lord-
ships' time, reply to the arguments by which the amend-
ments were supported, he would endeavour to show that
the doctrine and principle& of his Noble Friend were such
as their Lordships should not adopt. The object of
one of the amendments was to alter the Parliamentary
franchise in Ireland, and to give persons a right to rote
who did not now possess it. The Reform Act took
away from numerous freemen the right to vote, but
they retained the franchise ei those who possessed the
freedom by right. The present Bill gave the munici-
pal franchise to all those who now possessed, by
the Parliamentary franchise ; but the amendment of his
Noble Friend would give the franchise to persons who
had no legal title to it. This would he the case in
the corporation of the city of Dublin, amongst others.
The amendment would give the right of freedom in the
Corporation at large, to persons who were only free of
the guilds ; whereas the Courts of Law, had repeat-
edly decided that the freemen of the guilds had no
right to the freedom of the city.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH asked for the
date of some of these cases.
The LORD CHANCELLOR referred to the
margin of the Report, and assured the Noble Marquis
toilet the law was as he had stated. Indeed, if it were
not so, his Noble and Learned Friend would not have
thought it necessary to bring in his amendment. The
abject of that amendment was to enable all the freemen
of the guilds to vote for the representation of the city
of Dublin, which they could now do. It was to let
in all those persons into the constituency of Dublin,
upon the specious ground of preserving the p irliamen-
tary franchise. He suggested the omission of such
words as included those persons, and were not neces-
sary to preserve the existing franchise ; Let he said he
did not suppose his Hon. and Learned Friend would
eoneent to the omission, as the object of the cleeie was
really to let is all those persons into the constituency.—
(Hear and a laugh.) His Noble and Learned Friend
.expressed surprise at the introduction of the clause
which related to the counties of towns. But in feet
this Bill was, in that respect, the MI which their Lard-
ships had agreed to in 1838 The Bill contained the
amendment, which their Lordships introduced in that
year, and to which the House of Commons agreed ; and
he thought that when there was a difference of opinion
b:tweien the two Houses of Parliament respecting any
measure, it was desirable to retain in it, upon its rc•-
introduction, such parts as both Houses hail concurred
in. The counties of towns were to all intents and pur-
poses on the same footing as counties, having their grend
pries, high sheriffs, presentments, &c. In the Bill
which was sent up from the House of Commons in
1839, the county districts were separated from the
towns for municipal purposes, and the towns were ex-
empted from the grand jury cess. But their Lordships
rejected the latter provision, and left the towns still
liable to the county cuss. Now, taking the amend•
heents of 1838 and of 1839, agreed to by bath Houses,
in respect to these subjects, the Bill was, so far, the
same as their Lordships had already passed. He would
not occupy their time longer, but would express a hope
that they would not, in 1840, repudi he their own act
of 1838 which, for the sake of concili ition, the
other House had aereed to.
Lord LYNDHURST said that there might be
some obscurity in the wording of the clause, but if his
Noble and Learned Friend would read it carefully, he
would see that it was framed for the purpose of effect-
ing that which was intended by the amendments of
1838—that was, to annex the rural districts to the
counties, not only for civil and criminal jurisdiction, but
also for presentments. The clause was introduced for
the express purpose of exempting the rural districts
from being burdened with the expenses of the towns.
His Noble and Learned Friend said, because their
Lordships would not assent to that part of the Bill by
which the grand jury presentments were taken away
from grand juries and transterred to the councils,
therefore, be would not relieve the rural dis-
tricts from the taxation to which they were
exposed for the necessities of towns in which they had
no interest. Practically their Lordships were, by this
Bill, affecting the rights of freemen to an extent much
beyond what any of their Lordships supposed. With
respect to the rest of what lie had stated his Noble and
Learned Friend had left it entirely without answer.
Lord BROUGHAM said that not having been in
the House when this Bill was read a second time he
now only rose to assure their Lordships that he, ad-
hered to his former sepport of the Bill, and Ms unquali-
fied opposition to all the amendments of his Noble and
Learned Friend. Ho feared from what bad fallen from
his Noble and Learned Friend that whether their
Lordships agreed to the amendments or not the Bill
would be lost: He hal no fear that the Bill would be.
host by their Lordships re' g*h amendments. But his
Noble and LearnedFriejnedc'hind'aelso said that he would
oppose this Bill at a future
(in lieu
unlefss a measure
.for
regulating the comity seas
their Lordships bad rejected at hilsea(Lootrd,theL_yonn,dehuwrttish)
lambaste) were brought in Is —Y her
If he had misunderstood hi. NojebsleY
Majesty's Government.
Friend in. that re!pect, he trusted he would comfortear
Ain by setting him right.—(A. laugh.) The Noble
'Viscount (Melbourne) had intimated that he
he (Lord
notde
theresfooriemportantorto
bring in any such Bill, and
Brougham) feared that this measure,
the peace of Ireland, would not now pass both Houses
of Parliament, but would be rejected for the fifth time.
He would not occupy the House at that time by touch-
ing upon the details of the Bill. But with respect to
the qualification, he must say, that he thought it ought
not to be different feorn that which was established in
&gland, where the Municipal franchise was based upon
the household qualification. He could see no reason
why a different principle should be applied to Ireland.
Trust men, and they would prove themselves trust-
worthy : show them that you distrust them, and they
wield uniformly earn the title to your distrust.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that the two
Noble and Learned Lords (the Lord. Chancellor. and
Lord Lyndhurst) seemed' to differ in opinion as to the
boundary question, and he thought it desirable that they.
should come to an understanding
tng on that question,
before they went into the Cornumnit' He thought that
after the separation of the ruraele.d. districts from the
the grand juries ought not to I
towns,
power to tax
the towns.—cilear, hear.) He thought it right to call
their Lordships' attention to the uncertaintye of the
because ho thought that. ulpdoni it thed
boundary question,.
fate of the Bill and the peace of Ireland
Lord LYNDHURST said that the Noble
Learned Lord opposite had misunderstood him. Wthat
he had said was that he would not amend the Bill with