The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-05 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION.

were in favour of the extinction of all corporations, and
against the adoption of the Bill, it was impossible to
say that the Bill was not popular in that country. But
whether popular or not it appeared to him wise and
prudent to give rue country the bunetit of local govern-
ment, such local government being based upon the
principles of popular representation. He trusted their
Lordships would Bill a second reading, and he
hoped the Noble fiuke weed(' not interpose any urine-
cessary delay in their further proceedings.
The Duke of WELL I NGT ON, having been ac-
cused by the Neble Viscount, felt hound to state to their
Lordships the grounds on which Lehad spoken. The Poor-
law Commissioners had power under the law of making
regulations for the election of Guardians. Did they
make such regulations'' Had the Government insisted
on their making such regulations? He said they had
not, and that these regulations had not been made
either by the Government or the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. There was also another point with respect to
the appointment of valuators. The Noble Viscount
had stated the mode of proceeding of these valuations.
The Commissioners had great powers given them under
the original Act, in respect of the Board of Guardians,
and it' they bad not done their duty it was right that
they should be dismissed, and others appointed. Had
they done their duty ? They were possessed of power
under an Act of Parliament they were required
to exercise it—and they were responsible if they did not
exercise it. And if the Government had not urged
them to exercise it, then the Government was in fault.
With respect to another point, he must, beg the Noble
Viscount's pardon. But the first Bill which had come
up from the other House had contained a clause vest-
ing the appointment of Sheriffs in the Lord Lieutenant.
That clause was in the first Bill, and the principle was
one which had been adopted by the House of Commons.
The Noble Viscount had said that he (the Duke of
Wellington) might as reasonably be expected to recom-
mend to his friends to introduce such a clause in the
House of Commons as that he (Viscount Melbourne)
should be expected to recommend it to his. Now the
difference between himself and the Noble Viscount was
this—that he (the, Duke of Wellington) was not a party
to the bringing in of this Bill.— (Hear, hear.) He was
only to take it into consideration when it came before
him, but the Noble Viscount had to superintend the
bringing in and carrying the Bill through th; other
House of Parliament as well as through that. If the
Noble Viscount and his colleagues had considered this
matter attentively, they would at once have perceived
on what points the two Houses had agreed, and have
inserted clauses to give effect to such agreement. Had
they done so they would have had sonic ground to stand
upon, but now they had nothing to stand upon ; they
had excluded themselves altogether, and yet the Noble
Viscount said that he (the Duke of Wellington) ought
to have persuaded his friends to have proposed these
clauses in the House of Commons without knowing
whether he had one friend there or not.---(A laugh.)
With respect '1 the freeman's clauses, he was surprised,
alter those clauses had been discussed by the great law-
yers in that and the other House of Parliament, to hear
the Noble Viscount state that no one knew their mean-
ing until actually nearly two years after they bad been
discussed.,--(A laugh.) The Noble . Viscount must
give some other account of the reasons for the non-inser-
tion of this clause. He must say they had not had
quite fair play as regarded the Bill during the present
Session. It was not at all arranged as it had been
before. It was not in the same shape it had bean be-
fore. several new and most important points had been
introduced into it. He would however recommend the
House to consent to the second reading of the Bill, in
order that it might be considered in Committee.

Viscount MELBOURNE complained that the
Noble Duke had stated that he (Viscount Melbourne)
had said that nobody had understood the freemen's
clauses until long after they had been introduced. He
(Viscount Melbourne) had made no such statement.
The statement he had made was a much more modest
one ; he had said that they on his side of the House
did not understand them.—(Hear, and a laugh.) S"
far from nobody understanding them, he believed that
those who drew up the clauses perfectly well understood
them, and knew perfectly what were their objects
when they first proposed them—(Hear, hear)—but
their real nature was not discovered on his (Lord Mel
bourne's) side of the House until the matter had been
taken into mature consideration. One point he had
omitted to state with respect to the auditing of Corpo-
ration accounts. He apprehended there was as much
provision for auditingaccounts in this Bill asin the English
Bill—provisions were made for the regular elections of
auditors in boroughs. The provisions for compensation
were also as large as in the English Bill. He thought
the House had had ample time to consider the Bill,
which had been already before them two months.
The Duke of WELLINGTON recollected the dif•
ficulty he had had to persuade the Noble Viscount !O
defer the second reading of the Bill for a few days la
order to secure the attendance of his Noble Friend. The
Bill had already been before their Lordships two
months, and yet there was another Bill which might
almost be considered as a part of the same measure,
without which this Bill could not be considered com-
plete, which had not yet been read a second time in
the House of Commons. It was part and parcel of
the present Bill. Their Lordships ought to have had
it before them when the present Bill was brought
forward, to complete the parts omitted, but they had
no such thing ; they had not got it even now ; he had
seen an abstract of it, but he had not seen the Bill itself
up to this moment.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE considered that neither
House of Parliament. had any right whatever to divert
Corporation property, and he should certainly oppose
the Bill.

Strangers were orJered to withdraw.
Their Lordships then divided, when the number.
were :

For the Second Reading Present 85
Proxies 46-131
Against the Second Reading
Proxies 18.— 32
Majority
Lord KENYON said that though the committal
of the Bill stood for Thursday next, he hoped that
the House would defer it till Monday next for the
convenience of his Learned Friend Sir Charles We-
therall, and other Counsel.
Lord LYNDHURST said that his Noble Friend
on the Woolsack had already given notice of a motion
for Monday, which it would be advisable not to in-
terfere with.

It was afterwards agreed that the committal of the
Bill should stand over till Thursday-week.—Adjourned•

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mir 4.
The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minute' before
Four o'Clock.

Mr. BROTHERTON presented six petition/
against the Liverpool Docks Bill ; some praying for
exemption from the tolls thereby proposed to be levied;
and also praying to be heard by counsel and ageutf
against the Bill.
Referred to the Committee.

Mr. DENNISTOUN presented a petition from
E,linburgli, signed by 18,000 persons,
Edinburgh Poor-rate Bill.—( Hear.) Also a petition
from all the Railway Companies in Seotl.ind, prayiei
for an alteration of the duties on Railway Carriages.
Referred to the Committee. against the

Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from
Liverpool against the Harrington Docks
ferred to the Committee. A!so a petition from tl4
Mayor and Corporation, against the Hercu:aneura
Dock Bill.—Also referred.
The Banbury and Luttcrworth Road Bill was rasa
a third time, and passed.
On the motion of Mr. E. BULLER, the amend-
ments to the Rochester and Derby Junction Road,vveril
agreed to.
Oa the motion of Sir 11. LI A RDINGE, the
ceston Market and Improvement Bill was read a second
time.
The Sarum and Ealing Roads Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
Colonel WOOD presented a petition against this
Belfast Water Works.—Referred to the Counnittee.
Mr. ROCHE presented two petitions from Limerick
against the new Irish Registration Bill.
Mr. G. Evans also presented a similar petition,
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from Lev
mington, in favour of Church Extension.
Colonel CONOLLY presented two petitions from
places in the county of Donegal, against the importa-
tion of Foreign flour.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a great number of
petitions from places in York, Lancaster, Norfolk,
Suffolk, Kent, and Sussex, in favour of Church Extension.
The Hon. Baronet presented also a petition from the
Churchwardens of St. Anne's, Westminster. against
the "unbecoming and irreligious practice of SundaY
trading."
Mr. MARTIN presented petitions from Worcester-
shire, against the County Constabulary Bill, and
against the grant of public mon.), for increased accorn-
moilation to the members of the Established Church.,
Major BRYANT presented petitions from BellY"
raggat and other places in the county of Kilkenny'against the Irish Registration Acts Amendment Bill.
Mr. PHlLLporrs presented a petition from
cester, praying her Majesty to dismiss her present
Mi-
nisters, and appoint others who would make Universal
Suffrage a Cabinet measure. from
dif-
Mr. B. SMITH presented several petitions;
ferent parts of Norfolk, against Church Extension. . e
Mr. BLACKETT presented a petition from t
,hor
Medical Practitioners of Northumberland, praying.l
a revision of the laws regarding the medical profession.
Mr. DUNDAS presented a petition from the city
of York, signed by upwards of 2000 persons, praying
the House not to vote any money for Church Ex-
tension.
Mr. A. WHITE presented a petition from Suther-
land against the importation of opium into China, and
praying the House to adopt measures to prevent its
growth in India.
Mr. TOWNLEY PARKER presented a petition
from Preston, in favour of Church Extension.
Mr. V. SMITH presented a petition from North-
ampton, against any grant to the College, of Maynooth.