The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-02 00:00:00

polloi, in whom no confidence whatever ought to be placed.
If justice was administered well under the Tory corporations,,

what reason was there for believing that it would not be ad-
ministered well under the new corporations?
Mr. GOULBURN said that the result of passing the
clause in the shape in which it , had been sent up by that
House to the House of Lords, would be, either that there
would be no magistrates at all in a borough, or that all the
magistrates 'would be of one political feeling.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was not fair to state that the clause, as it originally stood, in-
troduced the principle of popular election into the nomination
of magistrates. Strong supporter as he was of popular rights,
he would not consent to any proposition that would make the
situation of magistrate a matter of popular canvass. But it
was not a subject of popular election. If the argument of
the Hon, and Learned Gentleman were good, as applicable
to the proposed Corporations, it was equally applicable to the
existing Corporations. He looked at the matter practically.
In many of the borough towns at the present time, the magis-
trates were not only elected by the corporations, but elected
annually. If, therefore, the objection was to the appointment
of magistrates of one predominant opinion, that objection
applied to the existing law, and not to the present Bill.
He saw at present, in many of the borough towns, magistrates
not only elected, but annually elected. If, therefore, there
were an objection to gentlemen so elected administering the
law, he said it was an objection which applied to the present
system, and not to the Bill then under their consideration.
The Bill did not assume a new principle or a new prerogative,
but it placed the tild principle and the old prerogative on
better and purer grounds than existed under the present
law.—( Hear.) By way of comparison he might ask what was
the custom in counties ? In counties the Lord Lieutenant, a
responsible officer, recommended to the Crown the persons
whom, from his local experience, be considered to be best
qualified to act as magistrates, and almost without exception
the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant was deemed suffi-
cient to warrant the appointment. Now what was the course
proposed to be taken with respectto the appointment of magis-
trates in cities and boroughs? Hitherto the Crown had had no
power of appointment in corporate towns, and it was of course
impossible that it should in every instance have a sufficient
knowledge of local circumstances and local characters to enable
it to make the proper appointments. To remedy this defect,
as there was no Lieutenant or responsible person from whom
the recommendation could come, it was proposed to give the
right of recommendation to the representative body.—( Hear,
hear.) No one would suspect for a moment that the repre-
sentative body would abuse the trust thus confided to
tbern,—(Hear, hear.) The proposition of his Noble Friend
(Russell) was not to limit the authority of the Crown, but
simply to supply it with a responsible adviser.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that the alteration made by
the Lords in this part of the Bill was a very great improve-
ment—( Hear)—and he should cord ally support the proposi-
sition of his Learned Friend (Sir W. Follett) for retaining
that alteration. He thought the amendment of the Lords
drew the proper distinction between political and judicial fune-
tions.—(l-iear.) It was hard that they on that (the Opposi-
tion shit) of the House) could not discuss these subjects with-
out having motives imputed to them. The Hon. Member for
Liskeard was not justified in attributing to them interested
motives, a new-fangled loyalty, or in fact any thing but a de-
sire to improve the measures which were brought before them
for their consideration.—( Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentle
man's principle were correct, why did he not allow the Coun-
cil to appoint the Recorder and other judicial functionaries ;
and if he were so satisfied that the people would always make
a proper choice of magistrates, why did he not allow the
people, who elected the council, to appoint the magistrates ?
Why did he leave any intermediate body at all ? Under all
the circumstances, he regretted that the Noble Lord (Lord J.
Russell) should seek to interfere with what he conceived to be
the very judicious and very proper amendment of the Lords.
Mr. C. BULL ER explained.
Mr. STRUTT contended that there was no analogy be-
tween the appointment of a Recorder and the appointment of
local magistrates. The Recorder was necessarily chosen from
the members of the legal profession, and the Crown had al-
ways about it persons possessing an intimate knowledge of the
whole Bar, and consequently fully capable of making the best
and most judicious recommendation of the party moat fit to act
as Recorder. The case was quite different with respect to the
appointment of borough magistrates. The Crown had about
it no person who possessed a sufficient local knowledge of
every borough town to know who of its inhabitants were best
qualified to act as magistrates.—( Hear.) Hence the proposi-
tion for vesting the power of recommendation in the town-
council. The question was, whether the Crown should have
some responsible adviser to direct its choice, or whether it
should derive its information from some secret and party chan-
cel.—( Hear, hear.) He contended that the original proposi-
tion, as agreed to by the Commons, and as now proposed to be
restored, instead of restricting, in fact extended the power and
prerogative of the Crown, because it would give the Crown
the power which it had never before, under any circumstances,
possessed, of appointing magistrates in cities and boroughs.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL approved of the clause as
originally sanctioned by the Commons, and disagreed from the
amendment made by the Lords. As the Hon. Member for
Derby had Nell observed, the clause, as it originally stood,
extended and did not restrict the power and prerogative of the
Crown.
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. SCARLETT, the
House divided, when there appealed to be—
For the original clause
For the Loris' amendment ... 69
Majority for the clause as it stood in
the Commons' Bill ...
CINQLTE PORTS.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved that clause T, in-
serted by the Lords fo: preserving the jurisdiction of the
Cinque Ports, be ado;-2ted.
. Mr. ELPHINSTONL? objected to this and the three fol-
lowing clauses inserted by the Lords, and moved that clause T
be rejected.
Mr. CURTEIS agreed with the Hon. Member for Hast-
ings, and considered that these clauses had been inserted by
the Duke of Wellington, without exactly knowing their real
import. The clauses were in the nature of a private all, and
ought to form the subject ofa separate measure.
Mr. PR IC E considered their insertion essentially necessary.
Mr. WARBURTON said it was taking an advantage of
a public Bill to introduce clauses which were only fitted for a
private Bill.
Sir R. PEEL thought there had been a gcneral concur-
rence in the House of Lords on the part of the Government,
as to the propriety of inserting these clauses.
After a desultory conversation, in which Mr. HUME, Mr.
C A RLE S BULLER, and other Hon. Members took
part, stranger.s were ordered to withdraW. but no division took
place ; and after some further conversation the clause, as in-
serteti by the Lords, was agreed to.
Clauses U, W, and X, also inserted by the Lords, respect-
ing the Cinque Ports, were then agreed to.
A number of other verbal amendments were made.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the House ',could meet
at four o'cloel: to-morrow, and at five, or a quarter-past, he
would move the resumption of the consideration of the Lords'
amendments of this Bill, and he hoped that they would be
able to get through them to-morrow.
Mr. WILKS wished to ask the Noble Lord a question of
great importance in connection with this Bill. He was anxious
to know what was to be done with•the schedules?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that they would be pro-
ceeded with after the other amendments.
The further consideration of the Bill was then postponed
until to-morrow.