Lords Sitting of 12 June 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Customs Duties; Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By Viscount Gore, from Limerick, against Clauses of the Irish Municipal Bill.—By the Bishop of Exeter, from Londonderry, and other places, and by the Earl of Glengall, from Newtown, Mountkennedy, Cavan, Carrickmacross, and other places, against the Irish Corporation Bill.—By Earl Fitzwilliam, from Norwich, for an Alteration of the Sugar Duties.—By Lord Brougham, from Millers of Dundalk, against the Importation of Foreign Flour into Ireland.

ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have
1100
to acquaint your Lordships that other noble Lords and myself have this day had the honour of waiting upon her Majesty with the joint Address of the two Houses of Parliament, to which her Majesty was pleased to return the following gracious answer:—
"It is with heartfelt satisfaction, that I receive upon the present occasion this Address from both my houses of Parliament.
"I am deeply sensible of the mercy of Divine Providence, to whose continued protection I humbly commend myself; and I trust, that under all trials, I shall find the same consolation and support, which I now derive from, the loyal and affectionate attachment of my Parliament and my people."
On the motion of Viscount Melbourne, her Majesty's answer was ordered to be entered upon the Journals of the House.

PUBLIC THANKSGIVING.
Lord Rollewished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to have a day of public thanksgiving, in consequence of her Majesty's recent escape from assassination? He was old enough to remember, that in the case of George 3rd, such a proceeding had been adopted, and he thought it would be only respectful to her Majesty to follow that precedent, in doing which no one would more heartily join than himself.
Viscount Melbourneadmitted the propriety of the precedent alluded to, and was sure their Lordships all felt with the noble Lord opposite, that it ought to be followed on the present occasion. In answer to the noble Lord's question, he begged to state that it decidedly was the intention of the Government to have a day of religious observance.

SUNDAY TRAFFIC ON CANALS.
Lord Hatherton, according to notice, presented petitions from the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Company, and from the parishes on the line of the canal, in all about twenty, praying for a law to prohibit the carriage of goods on canals and railways on Sundays. The noble Lord said, he hoped the present Session would not pass over without a measure on this subject being introduced. That measure ought to apply to railways as well as to canals, for it would be unfair to restrain canal companies from carrying goods on Sunday, if railway companies were to be at liberty to do so. He was not prepared to say that he himself would introduce any measure upon this subject, and he thought it was a question which ought to be taken

1101
up by the Government. He had endeavoured to acquire the best information in regard to this matter, and the almost universal answer he had received to his applications was, that it would be advantageous to prevent the carriage of goods on Sundays. He was convinced that no person would object to a general measure. All that was wanting was a simple enactment requiring that no traffic should be allowed between an early hour on Sunday morning—he did not wish to prevent it during the night—until sunset. He hoped the noble Marquess at the head of the Home Department would take the subject into his consideration. The noble Lord then presented twenty other petitions to the same effect.
The Bishop of Lichfieldbore testimony to the evil and demoralising effects of Sunday traffic on canals. Boys attached to boats upon canals were polluted from the earliest age, and, owing to their being occupied on Sundays, there was no opportunity or chance of reclaiming them. A meeting had already been held in Staffordshire upon the subject, and the clergy were ready to lend their assistance in carrying into effect such steps as it might be deemed advisable to adopt. What they suggested was, that chaplains should be stationed along the lines of the canals.
The Marquess of Normanbyagreed with the rev. Prelate, that the Sunday traffic upon canals had a very demoralizing effect upon the adjoining population. He had only to observe that the subject was under his consideration, but he could not then pledge himself to any of the remedies that had been suggested.

GRAND JURY CESS (IRELAND.)
Viscount Duncannon, in moving that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Grand Jury Cess (Ireland) Bill, said, that nearly all the objects to be attained by it had been embodied in the Irish Corporation Bill of 1838, and in the bill of last year as amended by their Lordships. The main object of the bill was, to enable the town councils to exercise the same jurisdiction within the towns and boundaries attached to those towns as was formerly exercised by grand juries.
Lord Lyndhurstwas desirous of calling their Lordships' attention to the nature of this bill, being of opinion that it ought not to proceed any further. In order to render it intelligible, it would be necessary to refer to the bills which had been introduced on the subject of municipal corpora-
1102
tions in Ireland. When the bill of 1837, came up to their Lordships, it contained clauses by which certain boundaries were declared to be for the future Parliamentary boundaries respecting some of the boroughs, and municipal boundaries respecting others. In 1838, when the Irish Municipal Bill again came up to their Lordships' House, the Boundary Commissioners had made their report, and a bill was either in course of preparation or had been prepared to give effect to that report. Their Lordships had thought, and he believed rightly, that it was better to include the boundaries in the bill itself. Accordingly they annexed to it the boundaries to which the commissioners had agreed with some trifling exceptions, and inserted a clause in it to the effect that these boundaries should in future be boundaries of cities and counties for the purposes of the act—that was to say, for municipal purposes—but that the rural districts should be annexed to the adjoining counties. That provision, originating in their Lordships' House, went down to the Commons, where, with a trifling verbal alteration, it was agreed to. In 1839 another Irish Municipal Bill came up to their Lordships, and in that bill the Commons had adopted the amendments which their Lordships had introduced in the bill of 1838, and which the Commons had agreed to in the same year. The provision contained in that bill upon the subject of boundaries was to the effect, that the boundaries fixed in the bill should be for municipal purposes—that was, for the purposes of the act in cities and towns; but that the rural districts should be annexed to counties for the purposes of grand jury presentments and civil and criminal proceedings, under the authority of the courts of justice. That was the bill of 1839, which had originated in the other House of Parliament, and that was the provision it contained respecting boundaries, which their Lordships agreed to. Thus in two successive years, in 1838 and 1839, both Houses of Parliament had agreed to this regulation, that the rural districts should be united to the adjoining counties for the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the superior courts, and also for the purposes of grand jury presentments. That was the deliberate judgment of both Houses of Parliament upon two successive occasions. It was most extraordinary that in the Municipal Corporations' (Ireland) Bill of the present year this had been entirely reversed, and, so far from rural districts

1103
being annexed to the adjoining counties, they were to be annexed to the boroughs for the purposes he had mentioned. Upon what principle it was that the agreement of the two Houses had been abandoned in the present bill, and a new principle acted upon, had not been explained, nor did he understand it. What made it very objectionable was, that the commissioners who were appointed for the purpose of settling the boundaries, pointed out the grievance which existed under such a system—namely, the intolerable grievance upon the rural districts of being obliged to contribute to the expense of towns. It was on account of this grievance, so pointed out by the commissioners themselves, that their Lordships and the other House of Parliament had agreed to introduce the provisions he had adverted to, and which, without any statement or reason, had not only been abandoned, but the opposite system adopted in its place. Those who introduced the bill into the other House of Parliament seemed to have felt that it was impossible to sustain this proceeding, and that they were not justified in departing from a principle which had been adopted on two successive occasions by both Houses of Parliament. They seemed to have been sensible of it, and therefore had thought it necessary to introduce a bill for the purpose of correcting it. The noble Marquess opposite had told them on a former evening, that notice had been given of this bill at the time when the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, introduced the Irish Municipal Bill. Now, one of the provisions in the bill he was adverting to was to bring back and alter the bill which was now lying upon the table, in order to make it correspond with the bills of 1838 and 1839. If what the noble Marquess stated the other night were correct, it was the most extraordinary proceeding that had ever entered into the mind of man. The reason for that proceeding was this,—those clauses to which he had alluded proposed that the powers now vested in grand juries should be transferred to the town councils hereafter to be appointed for the different boroughs. To this proposition their Lordships had last year expressed their decided objection, and the motive which appeared to have suggested the course now adopted was, that the bill might be accepted in its complete form, by mixing up the clauses and provisions to which their Lordships had previously objected with those which they had before
1104
adopted. The proceeding could not be explained in any other manner; and to render the bill at all acceptable it should have been divided into two parts. If that course had been adopted, their Lordships could have proceeded to propose amendments; but the bill could not by any means be taken into consideration in its present form. The course adopted with respect to this bill was nothing less than an intrusion on the privileges of their Lordships' House. After having been sent down from their Lordships, clauses had been introduced in another place, which removed the bill from their Lordships' control as respected further amendment, and on that ground he felt that it was the duty of their Lordships to throw it out. Indeed, they could not, with any proper feeling of what was due to themselves, adopt the present bill. Look, for instance, at the second part, the money part of the bill. Their Lordships had on a former occasion objected to the transference of the powers of the grand juries to the proposed town councils, in consequence of which the bill, when it went down to the other House, was lost. On this ground, too, he objected to the introduction of a measure containing clauses to which their Lordships had not only already objected, but which prevented their making any valid amendment in the bill. But he objected still more strongly to the power proposed to be vested in future town councils. Look at the control which they would exercise in some of the large towns in Ireland, and the amount of property which would be placed at their disposal. In Dublin they would have the control over from 30,000 l. to 40,000 l., and in Cork they would exercise a similar control over from 20,000 l. to 30,000 l. He would ask their Lordships whether, knowing as they must know, for late experience must have informed them, the manner in which these town councils were likely to be composed, they were prepared to vest them with such authority? On that ground also he objected to the bill. But he had another, and perhaps a still stronger objection. The grand juries of Ireland, as at present constituted, were placed under numerous guards and restrictions. These restrictions were supposed to be necessary to control the first and most respectable men in the country, and yet there was no control proposed by the present bill as regarded the town councils. He would mention a few of the checks by which the powers of grand juries

1105
in Ireland were controlled. The presentments were in the first instance submitted to the magistrates in session and the first class of ratepayers, who made their report thereon to the grand juries; the grand juries again investigated, sifted, and discussed the details, which, if they were considered wise, equitable, and necessary, were presented by them to be fiated by the judges. But by this bill it was proposed to vest all the power now exercised by grand juries in the future town councils, without providing any check or control. There was no provision enabling any cess-payer to question the expenditure, though the necessity of such control, must be obvious where such large sums were at the disposal of those bodies. There was, however, no provision of this nature to be found in the bill. He would ask whether town councils elected in such manner as the experience of the last twelvemonths showed that these bodies were likely to be elected, should be intrusted with such powers. In his opinion this objection was fatal to the bill. Their Lordships could not alter a tax bill. Should they propose to do so, it would be said elsewhere that their Lordships were interfering with the privileges of the other House, and that they were always too ready to do so. What, then, was the most dignified course for their Lordships, under the circumstances, to pursue? The most dignified course was not to infringe the privileges of the other House, but to reject the bill altogether, and to ask of the Commons to send up a bill to that House which would be freed from the objections to which this was liable. On these short, distinct, and, as he conceived, unanswerable grounds, he would move that the bill be committed that day six months.
The Marquess of Lansdownewondered that the noble and learned Lord objected to clauses in the present bill, after having co-operated in framing clauses to a similar effect in a former measure. He had been appealed to as to his local knowledge, and he was aware that it would be most important and imperative to free the agricultural districts adjacent to corporate towns from the unnecessary amount of taxation to which they had for many years been subjected, at the rate of 10 s., of 12 s., and of 16 s. an acre for the maintenance of institutions from which they derived no benefit. It was considered important by those who framed this bill, that where there was a great extent of agricultural country annexed, it should be emancipated
1106
from the expense, and annexed to the adjoining counties. The objection taken then by the noble and learned Lord did not apply; but it was a case of equity to the towns, when the agricultural districts were relieved from some burdens by the separation, to leave to the municipal bodies the administration of those local funds raised for local purposes. He had no objection to agree to any proposition for making the town councils more accountable, but the principle of the bill went upon accountability; for they were made accountable to those who paid the money which was placed at their disposal, and they might be sent away or turned out at the end of the year. The noble and learned Lord, then, had no right to say that the principle of accountability was not contained in the bill, for it was to be found there in its best shape, namely, that of responsibility. He did not mean to institute any comparison between the checks imposed on grand juries and those upon the proposed municipal bodies; but when the agricultural districts were separated from the latter, as they all agreed ought to be the case, it would, be absurd not to give to the municipal body in the towns all the fiscal functions pertaining to it. He must confess, for his own part, that he had not sufficient local knowledge to see the efficiency of the checks which were said to control the grand juries, but he was aware that both in that and in the other House they had been frequently described as jobbers. He believed that at present the objections raised against the grand juries were fewer than formerly, but formerly the charge of jobbing was applied to them as a matter of course. The simple question to be determined by their Lordships was, whether there should be one body to tax the town, or whether two bodies should be established exercising functions which were strictly analogous. That was the simple question, and it was for their Lordships to determine it as they thought fit.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that as the question had been asked whether there were to be two taxing bodies or one, he would answer it at the outset by saying, that if a smaller taxing power were to be vested in the municipal bodies, he should have been more content with the measure. The noble Marquess had stated that his security for the conduct of these bodies was, that they would have to be re-elected annually, and that that was tantamount to responsibility. He would ask noble Lords

1107
acquainted with Ireland, and he would request of them to answer him candidly upon the point, whether they ever found in the debates upon local matters, the reports of which appeared in the Irish newspapers, that the question had ever been fairly put or the facts really stated? If the question were fairly put in the present instance, and that the rate-payer was asked whether he would have such a power vested in the taxing body, his answer would be "Let us remain as we are." If an Irish gentleman got up in a public room to state the question fairly, he would be hooted out, or perhaps knocked down, for opposing one who proposed a tax of which he was himself to be the holder and the distributor, for poor Paddy was not permitted to know the real facts. The noble and learned Lord was right in rejecting this bill, and it was the business of the Government to see that whatever bills were returned to that House should be sent up in a shape which did not render them necessarily objectionable. It was not the business of those on his side of the House to amend the bills of the Government. He repeated, it was not their business to remedy the technical defects of Government, but when rational and well-considered measures were introduced, they should receive his best and most impartial consideration.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the bill only affected five towns in Ireland which were counties of towns. As, however, the object proposed to be affected by the Municipal Bill was the reform of the corporations in Ireland, he did not see the necessity of having the Municipal Bill accompanied by the Grand Jury Cess Bill. There was one thing in the bill which was well worthy the notice of their Lordships—namely, that it proposed to transfer the power now vested in the grand juries to the municipal bodies, and yet at the same time it deprived those bodies of the power of paving their own towns. Government had not the confidence in those bodies to intrust them with the power of paving the towns, and yet it deprived the grand juries of the power over the roads to vest it in them. If they had confidence in these bodies to vest them with the macadamization, why not intrust them with the paving of their towns? These observations applied to Limerick, and to Drogheda. Here, then, were two towns with respect to which the bill was neither clear nor intelligible. Surely, then, it would be better
1108
to defer this bill, and the Municipal Corporations Bill, and leave the taxing powers with the grand juries, as at present. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had candidly admitted, that he regretted the bill was not divided into two parts. Now, those who entertained the views held by noble Lords on his (the Earl of Wicklow's) side of the House, had in the other House of Parliament exerted their influence to do that which the noble Marquess regretted had not been done. Even after rejecting this bill, which could not be amended without infringing upon the privileges of the other House, there would be sufficient time yet to introduce a distinct bill, not liable to this objection, and for the noble Marquess opposite to use the influence he possessed with his Friends elsewhere to send up two separate bills for the consideration of this House. There was full time to remedy the difficulties which were presented in the way of this measure in a manner not only more satisfactory to this House, but to those parts of the country which were intended to be benefited by it. He thought the arguments of his noble and learned Friend below him to be so convincing, that he should vote, though fully disposed to enter upon the discussion of the Municipal Bill, for the amendment proposed by his noble and learned Friend.
Lord Broughamsaid, that as he thought the House should not begin legislation by giving a taxing power to town councils, and then exhibit a distrust of those councils; on that ground, approving as he did of the taxing and other clauses of this bill, he should give his vote in favour of the motion for now going into Committee, and against the amendment moved by his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst).
Their Lordships divided on the original question:—Contents 36; Not-Contents 96: Majority 60.

List of the CONTENTS.

Albemarle

Clifford

Arundel

Colborne

Brougham

Conyngham

Bruce

Cork

Camoys

Cottenham

Camperdown

Craven

Charlemont

De Freyne

Clanricarde

Denman

Clarendon

Dunally

Cleveland

Duncannon

1109

Fitzwilliam

Normanby

Foley

Petre

Godolphin

Poltimore

Gosford

Portman

Hatherton

Ripon, Bishop of

Headfort

Rosebery

Holland

Salisbury, Bishop of

Ilchester

Saye and Sele

Kingston

Seaford

Kinnaird

Sherborne

Lansdowne

Somerset

Leigh

Stafford

Leinster

Stuart de Decies

Leitrim

Sudeley

Lovelace

Sutherland

Lurgan

Talbot de Malahide

Lichfield, Bishop of

Torrinaton

Melbourne

Uxbridge

Minto

Vaux

Monteagle

Wenlock

Montfort

Western

Morley

Yarborough

Mostyn

Zetland.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Orford

Marlborough

Lonsdale

Rutland

Harewood

Newcastle

Verulam

Wellington

Brownlow

Buckingham.

Beauchamp

MARQUESSES.

Glengall

Huntley

De Grey

Bute

Eldon

Downshire

Ripon

Thomond

VISCOUNTS.

Exeter

Hereford

Londonderry

Sydney

Westmeath.

Hood

EARLS.

Strangford

Pembroke

Middleton

Devon

Gage

Winchilsea

Ha warden

Essex

Gort

Abingdon

Beresford

Jersey

Combermere

Haddington

Canterbury.

Aberdeen

BISHOPS.

Hopetoun

Winchester

Dartmouth

Carlisle

Tankerville

Gloucester

Warwick

Exeter.

Hardwicke

LORDS.

Delaware

De Ros

Beverley

Clinton

Liverpool

Willoughby de Broke

Cadogan

Colville

Clanwilliam

Middleton

Longford

Boston

Enniskillen

Walsingham

Wicklow

Southampton

Clare

Montagu

Bandon

Kenyon

Rosslyn

Douglas

Limerick

Rolle

Powis

Bolton

Charleville

Carbery

1110

Clonbrock

Wharncliffe

Redesdale

Feversham

Ellenborough

Fitzgerald

Sandys

Lyndhurst

Churchill

Stuart de Rothesay

Ravensworth

Heytesbury

Delamere

De Saumarez

Rayleigh

Abinger

Downes

De L'Isle.

Paired off.

NOT-CONTENTS.

CONTENTS.

Beaufort

Bedford

Buccleuch

Strafford

Argyll

Berners

Lothian

Petre

Cholmondeley

Leeds

Ailesbury

Lilford

Sandwich

Dacre

Moray

Thanet

Galloway

Lynedoch

Kinnoull

Norfolk

Airlie

Radnor

Bathurst

Shrewsbury

Digby

Ducie

Carnarvon

Suffolk

Mountcashel

Lovat

Wilton

Sefton

Sheffield

Bishop of Norwich

Falmouth

Stanley of Alderly

Stradbroke

Methuen

Dunraven

Wrottesley

Cawdor

Carlisle

Brecknock

Howden

Strathallan

Breadalbane

Doneraile

Carew

St. Vincent

Spencer

Canning

Cowper

Bishop of London

Barham

Bishop of Rochester

Bishop of Durham

Saltoun

Roxburgh

Sinclair

Dunfermline

Sondes

Byron

Carteret

Bishop of Chichester

Dunsany

Cloncurry

Prudhoe

Bishop of Ely

Colchester

Chichester

Forester

Bateman

Tenderden

Dinorben

Ashburton

Oxford.

Bill put off for six months.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
On the Order of the Day for a Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, Viscount Melbourne moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it had been agreed, that this bill should not proceed until their Lordships had had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the contents of the bill which their Lordships had just disposed of. The object of that bill was to fix the boundaries of cer-

1111
tain corporate towns in Ireland, and under its provisions these towns were exposed, as the noble Marquess who had spoken upon it (the Marquess of Westmeath) had said, to the grievance of being taxed both by the grand jury and by the municipal councils. Now, in order to relieve those towns from this inconvenience, their Lordships, in the course of the last Session of Parliament, had made an amendment to a similar bill to this, and adopted a provision which went to relieve those towns from these double taxing powers. The House of Commons considered the amendment to be a breach of its privileges, and rejected the bill so amended, and the consequence was, the necessity of introducing a new bill in the present Session. That bill had been sent up to their Lordships with the same inconvenient provisions as were contained in the measure of last year—that was to say, with many clauses which had been introduced unnecessarily, to which the House had last year objected, and which the introducers of the bill just rejected had insisted, notwithstanding the remonstrances made elsewhere, should be included in the bill of this year. Now that bill had been rejected, and this House had not the power of applying a remedy for the grievances which were admitted to exist without a breach of the privileges of the other House. Under these circumstances, he thought their Lordships ought to postpone the consideration of the Municipal Corporations Bill, for a few days, until an opportunity was afforded her Majesty's government to introduce such a bill as this House could agree to, in order to relieve the corporate towns from those grievances for which last Session the House had attempted a remedy, and from which they would have been relieved if the bill, as amended last year by their Lordships, had been allowed to pass into a law. On these grounds, he should move as an amendment, that the further consideration of the Municipal Corporations Bill be postponed until Friday next.
Viscount Melbournesaid, the postponement of the present bill until the measure just now disposed of, came up from the other House of Parliament, had been urged by noble Lords opposite, and not by his side of the House. He had only acquiesced in the postponement in compliance with the wish expressed by noble Lords opposite. At the same time, he must say, that the Government was not in the slight-
1112
est degree, bound to acquiesce in now further deferring the consideration of the Municipal Corporations Bill; and he must take leave to say, that after the length of time which had elapsed since this bill had been brought up from the other House—after the repeated delays which had taken place since the commencement of the Session, when this bill was first laid on the table, what could be expected as the effect and result of every further postponement but to show a determination not to take the bill into consideration at all, and not to carry into effect, the arrangement entered into, and thus produce the ultimate defeat of the bill. This postponement was proposed to evade the undertaking entered into by the other side of the House, which otherwise could not be got rid of. Not admitting that any grounds had been stated for further postponing this bill, but abiding by the principle on which it had been postponed till this time, he could not reconcile it with his sense of duty to consent to any further postponement, and, therefore, he must press upon their Lordships, that they do now take the bill into their consideration.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he must make an observation, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount had said, that this was an attempt on his part to postpone the bill beyond the day fixed for its consideration. Now, he had understood when this bill was last spoken of, that the noble Viscount postponed it, as the other bill had not yet come up, and could not come up for a certain period of time. He thought, also, the noble Marquess opposite had stated, at an early period of this Session, that the other bill just now disposed of was necessary to relieve the grievances which would exist under this bill in certain districts. The noble Viscount said, the object of the now proposed postponement was to defeat this bill. Now, he (the Duke of Wellington) wanted to know if there was any intention on the part of the noble Viscount to carry it, because, if so, nothing would have been easier than last week for the Government to have adopted the proposition made by an hon. Friend of his, that the bill just rejected should be divided into two bills. Thus all inconvenience would have been avoided, and the consideration of the enactments of this bill which every body admitted must become law, might have now proceeded. He said, that they had the power to carry them. Why did they not

1113
put a clause into this bill originally which would have enabled them to carry into execution their measure with respect to these boundaries? But no; they had not done so; they did not choose to do that. Why did they not take care that the other enactments were so framed, that that House should have the power of pronouncing "content" or "not-content?" But no such thing; they sent it up there in as objectionable a form as in the last Parliament, and they must either do that which they had done on this occasion, or pass that which was an improper measure.
The Lord Chancellorthen put the question. The question was, "That the House resolve itself into a Committee;" since which it had been moved, "that the House resolve itself into Committee on Friday next."
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and
their Lordships divided on the original question:—Contents 68; Not-contents 94: Majority 26.
Committee put off till Friday.