The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 20. •
Their Lordships met at Six o'Clock.
The Duke of Wellington was present, and looked as
well as before his recent attack.

A message from the House of Commons brought up
the Friendly Societies Act Amendment Bill, the As-
sessed Taxes Composition Acts Continuation Bill, and
several private Bills.
EAST INDIA DUTIES BILL.

On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON, this Bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed
to-morrow. _

The Bills brought from the Commons were read a
first time ; and several Bills on the table were advanced
a stage.
The Bishop of LICHFIELD presented a petition
against the carriage of goods upon canals on Sundays.
He supported the prayer of the petition.
The Marquis of NORMANBY gave notice that in
consequence of what he had heard on the subject to
which the petition referred, he would move for a Com-
mittee of Inquiry next Session.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a
petition from Cheshire against the Weaver Churches
Bill. The Noble Marquis supported the petition, but
his observations were not distinctly beard in the gallery.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE introduced a Bill
for the continuation of the Bill of Exchanges Bill. The
latter had been found to exempt from the operation of.
the Usury Laws certain bills of exchange, and was to
expire with this session. The object of the present mea-
sure was to continue the Bill for two years longer.
The Bill was read a first time.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said the Bill was cruel and
oppressive. The Noble Lord was proceeding to state
his opinions, when
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the
Noble Baron would have an opportunity of statiug his
objections to the measure at another time,
Lord STRANGFORD moved for a return of the
quantity of goods taken out of bond since the passing of
the Act the 3d and 4th William IV., ch. 37, distin-
guishing those that were taken out for inland transit and
for exportation ; and also for a return of the number
of persons against whom actions have heen bronght for
illegally removing bonded goods since the same period.
On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the
Committee on the Beer Bill was appointed, but we
could not catch the name of even one of the Noble
Lords who are to compose it.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND)

BILL.

On the reading of the Order of the Day for the
third reading of this Bill,
Lord DUNCANNON said that, before their Lord-
ships proceeded to take the Bill into consideration, be
wished to state that he had had communications with
Noble Lords opposite, who seemed disposed to consi-
der the measure favourably. With the particulars of
those communications it was not necessary to trouble
their Lordships at present, further than to say
that they related to the boundary and compensation
claims ; and he would now move that the Order of the
Day be postponed till Monday next.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said that when
the measure was brought before the House he bad
stated that be could not withdraw his opposi-
tion to it. The Noble Lord bad just said
that there had appeared since to be on this (the Oppo-
sition) side a disposition to consider the Bill more favour-
ably. He (the Duke of Wellington), however, must
say, that after what he saw passing in Ireland, in refe-
rence to this subject and other matters, he could not
consent to this Bill passing, if it were to give such large
powers of taxation., as it would give in its present form. In
Scotland the Municipal Corporations were limited in
their power of taxation to 3d. in the pound sterling.
He could not see why the power of taxing should not
be equally limited in Ireland.—( Hear.) In the city
of Dublin the Corporation had not one shilling to ex-
pend on paving, lighting, and watching, nor for any other
purpose as a corporation. Under those circumstances
it was ridiculous to give them the power of levying
such large taxes as the Bill proposed to allow them to
levy upon the inhabitants.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He for one could not consent to it unless it contained
some clauses of limitation, of the same description as
those contained in the Scotch Act of Parliament.
Lord DUNCANNON said he presumed the Noble
Duke referred to the Bill brought in this Session,
and not to the original Corporation Act. He
could only say he was most anxious to try to
accomrnodste the provisions of the Bill to the sugges-
tions of the Noble Duke without committing himself
by naming any exact amount, which there would bo
great difficulty in doing at the present moment. He
had no doubt but the clause might be introduced so as
to meetthe Noble Duke's views.
Lord LYNDHURST said with regard to the boun-
dary and compensation clauses, the wishes of Noble
Lords on his side of the House might he learned from
the amendments they had proposed in the first Bill,
and if those were compared with the Grand Jury Cess
Bill, sent up from the other House, it would be found
they very nearly corresponded. He hoped he under-
stood the Noble Viscount had acceded to the prop&si-
tion with respect to the question of compensation, to
intimate that it should be substantially the same
as in the amendment, and that the boundary clause
should also be put upon the same footing. From
a conversation with the Noble Viscount, he had
every reason to believe that this was his intention, but
he wished a statement from the Noble Viscount to that
effect.
Viscount DUNCANNON—It is so.

After afew words from the Earlof HADDINGTON,

Lord LYNDHURST said he understood the Noble
Viscount to say he consented to a clause in the Bill for
the purpose of limiting taxation, though he was not at
that moment able to fix the amount.

Lord DUNCANNON had stated that he agreed to
the principle, but did not wish to commit himself as to
the exact amount.
Lord LYNDHURST hoped the Government would
use the greatest possible expedition in bringing in these
Bills.—Order postponed.
The Marquis of NORMANBY laid on the table
a return of the number of persons convicted of haying
in their possession unregistered arms.
COUNTY CONSTABULARY.

The NOBLE MARQUIS then moved the second read-
ing of the County Constabulary Bill. He under-
stood that it was the wish of many of their Lordships
that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee,
and he should make no objection to such a proceeding.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought the Bill would
not be generally introduced or adopted until the Con-
solidated Fund paid the greater portion of the expenses.
He did not think the Bill at all necessary, nor did
he think that the referring of it to a Select Com-
mittee would be of much advantage. When
it was necessary to examine evidence or obtain infor-
mation, such a course might be adopted, but there was
this great public inconvenience in sending Bills to a
Select Committee, that amendments were made in them,
and the 'pills cAme down and were passed through the
House without any discussion, and the public knew no-
thing of the reasons upon which they were founded.
After a few words from the Marquis of Salisbury, the
Earl of Devon, and the Marquis of Normanby, the
Bill was read a second time pro forma and referred to
a Select Committee named by the Marquis of Nor-
manby.—The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 20.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
FARNHAM RECTORY.

Mr. EAST-HOPE presented a petition from an in-
dividual named (as we understood) Samuel Uckfield,
one of the lessees, praying the House not to agree to
the expulsion of the clause inserted by the Committee

in the Bill, giving him compensation, otherwise great
loss and hardship would be inflicted upon him. The
Hon. Member moved that the petition be printed with
the Votes.

The SPEAKER observed that that could not be
done, as it related to a Bill before the House.
Mr. EASTHOPE would then give notice that he
would submit a motion to the House upon the petition
to-morrow.
The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned
debate upon the Bill having been read,
Mr. EASTHOPE hoped the House would not be
induced to go on with the Bill, until those who were to
be affected by it had an opportunity of being
heard. The individual whose petition he had
just presented 'would be deeply injured, if the
amendment which had been moved on a former even-
ing were introduced, and he prayed to be heard by
counsel against that amendment. He would therefore
move the further consideration of the debate till Wed-
nesday next.
Mr. JAMES STEWART seconded the ino-

tion, and wished to be allowed to state the
reasons which induced him and the Committee to
come to the conclusion that compensation to the
lessees was only just. If he was inclined to quote au-
thorities, he might quote the speeches of the Hon. and
Learned Members for Exeter and Ripon when the
question of Church-rates was before the House. It was
admitted to be a question of the utmost magnitude ; was
it fair then that Hon. Gentlemen opposite should at-
tempt to strike nut a clause inserted by the Committee
after hearing evidence upon the question, and that
without any reason given—an attempt which, if suc-
cessful, would violate all law and equity, and justice.
It was a settled maxim of conveyancing that thii species
of property was recognised as property, and it was
bought and sold in the market every day. It was recog-
nised as property by
.Butler in his Notcs. on Coke upon
Littleton—it was distinctly recognis.ed as property
in Courts of Equity ; he admitted . that the
tenant could not go into a Court of Equity and call
upon his landlord to renew his lease, but Courts of
Equity had distinctly recognised it as property on
many occasions. It had also been distinctly settled as
property in the great case of Lee v. Verner in the
House of Lords. Was that House then to set aside
not only the decisions of Courts of Law, not only a
solemn decision of the highest Court of appeal ? J3ut
an Act
of Parliament for the Church Temporalities