The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-02-09 00:00:00

NEW CORPORATIONS.

Mr. E. J. STANLEY gave notice that he would, on Monday,
(yesterday,) move for leave to bring in a bill to indemnify per-
sons holding certain offices in corporations.
Several other notices. of intended motions were given by
different lion. members on various subjects.
Alr. WM. ENVA.trr gave notice of motions on the following
subjects:—first, the re-appointment of the committee. of last
session on arts and Manufactures; second, leave to bring in a
bill to allcw felons to he defended by counsel; third, a bill ~res-
pecting the equal division of the landed property of persons
dying intestate, betweett males and females; fourth, a bill .0-
,equalise the duties on East and-West India.sugar ; and fifthly
and laStly, that when the sessional orders were read he should,
among other things, move that no new business fill mild he pro-
ceeded with after eleven o'clock at night. (llearatri a -laugh:)

zeta ADDRESS.

The Speaker having read his .lajest.y's speech, -
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY moved the address, which was
seconded by Mr. PARKER, the member for Sheffield.
Sir Roemer PEEL-took a luminous view of the various topics
alluded to in the speech then under discussion. -He rejoiced in.
the increased commercial intercourse between this country and.
France, and in the prospect of an amicable adjustment of the
differences between that country and America. With respect
to Spain he could vot congratulate the house on the mode of our
interference -in the domestic disturbances of that country, and
he regretted deeply that his Majesty had ever granted permis-
sion to hiS subjects to enter into the Spanish serVice. The
speech from the throne contained a direct allusion -to " the
prudent and vigorous conduct of thepresent government of the
Queen of Spain." He regretted to find such a paragraph, be-
cause an interference in 1530 in favour of tha Kiug of Holland
had been censured by the highest authority on the opposite side
of the house. By promulgating the opinion contained in the
speech, we were establishing or confirming
,a precedent of in-
' terferenee in the affairs of other countries... Notwithstanding
assurances of continued peace found in the speech, they
had been told of the necessity of increasing the navy estimates.
Sir Robert then alluded ta the proposed changes relative to the
duties of thtsLordChaticellor ; it was trotter him to inquire why
the confidence of the crown was not -continued-- to- Lord
Brougham, the late•holder of that hieli judicial office. (Hear,
hear.) It was enough for him to know that another arrange-
ment was made. That arrangement continued almost up to
the meeting of parliament, and was not altered until after the
appearance of -a pamphlet by Sir Edward Sugdeu. (Cheers
from the opposition benches.) The appoint ;nents which artsre
subsequently made might not stand in the relation of cause and
effect to that pamphlet; but to the world it appeared as, if never
a pamphlet had beerrmore efficient, for it seeMedlo liavescon-
, furred two or three offices, and to have created tw9,4)47 three
' peerages. ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) His Majesty'S speech
also referred to thrsmeasuists arch were to be introduced into
parliament on many matters of important domestic concern. It
referred to all of them, with one exception, in a manner which
was not calculated to invite any opposition. With respect to
the state of tithe in England and Wale, it suggested the pro-
priety of takingit into immediate consideration. It laid down
no principle on *lnch the measure was to be founded—it called
for no declaration of opinion from the house as to the mode of
dealing with it. He,. had himself -introduced into parliament
las session a meastitte founded on the principle of voluntary
,
commutation. The noble lord opposite dissented from the prin-
ciple of that measure, and declared that no measure would be
satisfactory which did not include a-compulsory obligation to
compound. He (Sir R. Peel) thought that it would be a matter
of difficulty to revncile the principle ofcompulsion with justice
to the tithe payer and tb the tithe owner. The right hononi-
able baronet after reading that Paragraph of the King's speech
referring to the Irish municipal corporations, said that he could
not assent to an addreis echoing that declaration, as 'he should
be contracting an obligation to apply the same principle of re-
form to the inunicipalcorporations of -Ireland, as had heeu applied
to those of England and Scotland. He would give no pledge on
this subject apart,from all consideration of its merits--to propose
an address, pledging the'house to measures of which the mi-
nisters were cognisaut, While the house was ignorant ; to call
upon the house with Out notice, to pledge itself as to the course
which it would pursue hereafter, was, in his opinion, as amfair
as it was unwise. (Loud cheers.) After referring to the course
pursued on the catholic question and' various other measures.
which had been carried without -being alluded to from the
throne, and to'which the house not beets pledged by au address
to his Majesty, he asked, what was the course which it was
now going to take'Swith respect to the appropriation question ?
(Hear' hear.) That continued a principle to which a majority
of the House of Commons assented, and on which they record-
ed a deliberate opinion, " that no measure upon the subject of
tithes in Ireland Could lead to a satisfactory and final adjust-
ment which did not embody the principle determined on in the
resolution of tire 23rd of March." Had the, hon. mover in his
speech called upon them to repeat their assent to that princi •
ple? (Loud-cries of hear.) No, wisely, he had not. ' (Hear,
hear.) He referred not to his omission of it by way of taunt,
for he thought that the omission of it was rightly -and properly
. made.
.(Hear, hear.) However firmly the minds of hon. gen-
tlemen might be made up on that principle, although it had
been asserted and ratiTied by a majority, more than once, he
thought they had acted wisely in not calling for a repetition of
their opinions upon it on the very first day of the present session.
If, then, you pursue this course of the appropriation-question
=if you do not call on us for a renewed •acquiescence in that
.admitted principle, why have you not the same forbearance to-
wards us upon the Irish Municipal Reform Bill? (Hear, hear.)
You say that you have read tire report, and the documents at-
tached to it. You advise the delivery of a. speech front the
-throne at two o'clock on Thursday,- and at half-past four on the
same day.you call on the house to give a pledge as to the pre-
cise'principles which it will pursue in working out that reform_
Was that fair, honest, and impartial.dealing ? They might tell
him he was in possession of the report of the Irish Corporation
Commissioners, and that was perfectly true; but what then:?
Was it of a nature to enable him to snake no his mind on the•
subject without any further consideration? 'Why, the commis-
sioners themselves, advantageously circumstanced as they were
fur coming to a decision, studiously avoided expressing in their
report any decided opinion. We were in possession of theiire-
port, and if, based upon the ample inquiries of the commission-
ers, it contained a deliberate and reasonable suggestien of a
comprehensive remedy for existing evils, he could easily con-
ceive hon. gentlemen opposite might call upon him to acquiesce
in it. But no ground of acquiescence existed. The commis-
sioners concluded their report by remarking, "We have not
thought ourselves authorised to recoil:a:es ad specific measure, of
improvementnd
necesary observations itiisnr
reports;uolpsi, save so. tar as the notice of and
the defect, and cause of evil,
tend to suggest the remedy. But we feel it to be our duty hum-
bly to represent to Your Majesty, that the early and effectual
correction of the existing evils, and the prevention of future
mischief, are anxiously desired, and essentially requisite; and
that these benefits can be attained only by means of a general
and complete reform of the constitution of municipal corpora-
tions in Ireland." If it were a matter of so much doubt to the
commissioners that they abstained from offering any specific re-
commendation, after a careful examination of the subject, svas.
it common -tannest, policy, or justice; with half an-hour's no-
tice, to call on the house, not only to promise to adopt a specific
remedy, but one founded on precisely the same principle as in
other cases which might be widely different from the present?
Contrast. this part of the address which related to municipal
reform in Ireland with the mention of another subject of equal
importance to the best interests of the country—compare the
phraseology in which the poor-laws and municipal reform were
referred to, and you will find the variance so strong, the dis-
tinction of expression used so remarkable aslo strike one forci-
bly on hearing it. If with a knowledge of this difference of
expression he consented to the pledge now proposed, he should
be told at a future ddv, when rising to oppose any details of a
bill for a reform of the Irish munkipal corporations, " You are
too late; you committed' yourself to the principle of the mea-
sure by acquiescing in the address, and you cannot now oppose
it." It would be added, " See what was said relative to Irish
corporations—a specific principle was pointed out; while in the
• case of pour-laws parliament was simply invited to approach the
subject with caution proportionate to its subject and difficulty,
but no particular measure was recommended." It would 6e
said that we had raised expectations' with respect to Irish mimi-
cipal reform which we could not fairly disappoint, and it would
be urged that the same principle should be applied to Ireland
as to England and Scotland. This argument would be strength-
ened by a reference to the manner in which poor-laws for Ire-
land were adverted to in the address.. lie was aware that
various opinions had been entertained on that subject, and that
the Right Honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had
hitherto, as he believed, been opposed to their introduction.
Why did he advert to this difference of opinion? Simply be-
cause the opposition which had been offered showed ,that, in the
opinion of some gentlemen opposite, a principle esteemed good
for England was not, as a matter of course, necessary for Ire-
land. The terms in which ministers, spice of ,pssyrslaws for
Ireland were cautious and measured, and simply suggested to
parliament the propriety of looking to the experience of the
effect already produced by the act for the amendment of the
laws relating to the prior in England, but in no respect fettered
their opinions or sought to tie them down to any fixed principles.
The address proposed to thank his Majesty for the, information
that a further report of the commission of inquiry into the con-
dition of the poorer 'classes in Ireland would speedilyliilaid
, before the house, and to assure his Majesty that parliament
would approach the subject with the caution due to its impor-
tance and difficulty, and impressed with a conviction that the
experience of the salutary effect already produced by the act
for the amendment of the laws
elating to the poor in England
and Wales might in many respects assist their deliberancns.
Why might not they claim the humble privilege of being al-
lowed to apply the same cautious deliberation to a subject of
equal importance and difficulty? Why not treat the question
of Irish municipal reform in the same manner us was here
suggested in reference to Irish poor-laws ? (Hear,-bear, hear.)
Your own address was evidence against the impoliey and in-
justice of prematurely pledging the house on one point while
you abstained'gron another, Did he propose that there should
be no reform in Irish municipal corporations? '• Far from it.--
Was he prepared to defend the exact principle on which they
-existed and operated ? He was not. But he wished not to en-
ter upon the question upon this occasion, not doubting that full
opportunity would be afforded for discussing it. He now con-
tented himself with slating his objections to being pledged be-
forehand to a particular course. He was asked, and so was the
house, to promise to apply to Ireland the same principles of
municipal. reform which had been already applied in England
and Scotland. What were those principles which, without ex-
ception or reservation, they were called on to affirm ? The de-
struction of self-election in corporations might he a principle;
but could anything be more difficult than to define its precise
limits and operation ? You said that the destruction 'of self-
electidn was one of your principles ; but, he repeated, it was
hard to define those principles exactly, and where ajatitude was
allowed gentlemen might be entrapped into pledges and conces-
sions which they never contemplated. In Eaglet'"; the rate-
payers at large, in Scotland tine £lO householders, were the
constituent body. If he assented to the address and afterwards
saw reason to move, on the introduction of an Irish municipal
reforM bill that in Ireland £5O householders should -vote in the
election of the corporate bodies, was he to be taken as adhering
to or departing from the principles now referred tot? - If he- as-
sented to the address, reserving to himself the right and power
to alter the details of the proposed bill as he pleased, was he
not, in point of fact, encouraging delusion ? Ile was prepared
naimetpal reform in Ireland full
to give the important sulject of
' and fair considerations, but he reserved to isinis:elf the power of
applying his unbiased judgmeet t.o. the
~question. lie ad-
untied that there must be extettsi‘e alterations in the Irish mu-
' tiicipal system, but he was not then going to mit-el- into the see-
' rigs or details of the subject. He again objected to liciog called

(