begged to know in what they consisted?

said, that the most important one was this. The bill, as sent to the Lords, gave a general power to the Legislative Council to alter the tenure of land; and the Lords had simply restricted legislation upon that subject to the island of Montreal.

said, that he was desirous of making; an observation upon the subject of a resolution which it appeared by the votes of the House of Lords had been come to that morning; by their Lordships. The resolution was this:—

"That it is the duty of the Executive Government, when considering any case of conviction had before any of the Queen's judges with a view of remitting or commuting the sentence, to apply for information to the judge or judges who tried the case, and to afford such judge or judges an opportunity to give their opinion on such case, unless circumstances should exist which render any such application impossible or only possible with an inconvenient delay; but that it is not necessary that the Executive Government should be bound to follow the advice, if any, tendered by such judge or judges."

He did not wish to argue the question; but as it was a question affecting the office which he held, he did wish to say, at once, that this resolution proposed a practice which was utterly inconsistent with that which had been hitherto pursued by Secretaries of State in their recommendations to the Crown, from which it would, in his opinion, be exceedingly inconvenient to depart, and in which it was not his intention to make any alteration whatever. If it were a bill instead of a resolution, and had gained the consent of Parliament then of course, he would be bound to obey it as law. But, until such were the case, he should consider himself justified in following the practice which had been hitherto pursued, not thinking that the prerogative of mercy could be, in any degree, altered by the resolution he had read to the House.

said, that before he proceeded to call the attention of the House to the Lords' amendments to this bill generally, he wished lo have the opinion of the Chair upon one of them in particular. The bill, as it had passed the Commons, contained clauses giving certain powers which were hitherto exercised by the grand juries in Ireland to the municipal bodies instituted or reformed by the bill. It appeared that the House of Lords had struck out those clauses, whereby in effect those powers hitherto exercised by grand juries, which were taxing powers, and powers of levying money, were continued to those grand juries as they had by law hitherto exercised them. That was exactly the nature and effect of the Lords' amendment; and without offering any opinion upon the question, he should be glad to hear the opinion of the Chair before he proceeded to propose any further steps.

said, that if he correctly understood the question, it had reference to those clauses in the bill which transferred certain powers of taxation held under the existing law, by the grand juries of the several counties in Ireland, to the newly created councils in the proposed municipal boroughs, the Lords' amendment upon which he did not think the House of Commons could agree to. It had always been most jealous of any interference on the part of the other House in cases of this description. It did not even allow the House of Lords to change the name of a single trustee in a turnpike bill. If a bill passed the Commons for the collection of rates, it never consented, and never would consent, to any alterations being made by the other House respecting the body which was to have the control of those rates. He apprehended, therefore, that the Commons having decided that these powers of taxation were hereafter to be exercised by the new municipal councils, and the House of Lords having so amended the bill as lo re-transfer those powers to the grand juries of the counties in Ireland, that the House of Commons could not, consistently with the proper maintenance of its privileges, agree to that amendment.

begged further to know, whether in the opinion of the Chair, that amendment would be at once fatal to the bill, or whether it was an amendment to which they could disagree, and ask the other House to consent to their disagreement thereon?

replied, that he did not consider it fatal to the bill, but such an amendment as the House of Commons might disagree to, and signify their intention accordingly to the House of Lords, in the hope, that their Lordships might wave their amendment, and allow the clauses to stand as before.

apprehended, that in point of form they were not prohibited from going into the consideration of the question upon its own merits; and if they might consider the question on its merits, that at once disposed of the question of privilege. He entirely concurred in the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, that the House of Lords could not, without infringing upon their privileges, change the name of a trustee in a turnpike bill; but he submitted, that that did not apply to the present case. The House of Lords had not in any degree amended or altered the clauses in question; they had only omitted them. In doing so, they were acting in perfect consistency with the privileges of the Commons. There was no doubt, that the House of Lords could throw out a money bill altogether, although they could not in any way alter it. Again, the House of Lords might amend a bill involving the imposition of taxes, but could not alter the money clauses of that bill; and further, they could not, if those clauses were essential to the bill, omit them without infringing the privileges of the House of Commons. But surely it would not be contended, that the clauses omitted in this case, were essential to the bill? They had formed no original part of it; but had been introduced in committee. Altogether omitting those clauses, did not so change the character of the bill as to prevent them, consistently with their privileges, from going on with it. Upon looking into the subject he found an authority, in the year 1835, respecting-the Southend Pier Bill, which he thought applicable to the present case. The House of Lords had omitted a clause which might have been considered as absolutely essential—a clause giving power to issue public money for the purposes of the bill. The Lords struck out the clause, and the Commons agreed to the said amendment of their Lordships, because the clause was introduced in committee upon the bill, and without the authority of the House according to its usual form when issuing public money. He had no wish to go into the merits of the amendments, but simply to state what he believed to be the proper rule respecting the privileges of the House.

could conceive, that there were certain cases in which the rejection of money clauses by the House of Lords, might not make it necessary for them to insist upon those clauses. But as the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had stated, and as he (Lord J. Russell) also thought, the difficulty in this case was, that the fact of the rejection of the clause by the Lords, did not entirely get rid of the power of taxation, but did in fact, and in substance, transfer that power to another body. That he conceived, to be the point which created a difference between this case, and that alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was of opinion, that the course to be pursued was to disagree to the amendments altogether. Now, he conceived, that they might perfectly well disagree with these amendments, and do it on the ground of privilege. It was quite a common practice for the House to disagree to any amendments of the House of Lords, and to state the grounds of their disagreement to the Lords, subjoining, at the same time, that such and such other amendments they had rejected as being an interference with their privileges. On the view, therefore, that he took, they ought to disagree to these amendments on the point of privilege, but that disagreement did not conclude the whole question of the bill. He proposed, therefore, to disagree to those amendments which affected these privileges, and take the rest into consideration on Friday.

regretted, that the House were about by this bill to transfer to an irresponsible power the right of taxing the whole community. Previously to carrying into operation such a measure as this, they ought to have constituted boards of rate payers, to be elected by, and to be responsible to the rate-papers, for the conduct of this business. He objected to proceeding with so important a bill at this period of the Session. It was a bill which required a full attendance, and ought to have had even a call of the House. He submitted, too, that in the principle of it, they were at fault, and he thought the noble Lord ought to consider well how he went about to violate the great principle that the people should only be taxed by their representative. For the purpose of postponing the measure to another Session, he moved, that the further consideration of it be taken that day three months.

cordially seconded the motion. His objection was to the principle of centralization adopted in this measure. He did not wish to see the police appointed by the county magistrates.

could not conceive how the objections of hon. Gentleman applied to this bill. Some hon. Members declared that if a board were appointed by the rate-payers, and responsible to them, they should not object to the bill placing the control of the police in such body, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Attwood) objected to placing the appointment of them in the hands of the county magistrates, and complained of the centralising character of the bill. But it was clear that whether they placed the appointment in a board elected by the rate-payers, or in the county magistrates, the centralization was precisely the same, for centralization had, in fact, nothing to do with it at all, because in either case a local body was taken. Centralization was misapplied to the present bill which vested the power of appointment in the hands of the county magistrates. He did not himself object to the general principle that there should be county boards appointed by the rate-payers. The bill would only give to a body which was now in existence the power of appointing special constables. He hoped, therefore, the House would allow it to pass; he should be very sorry to allow the Session to pass over without the measure becoming law.

suggested, that the noble Lord should make this bill—which was only passed without debate at present on account of the emergencies of the country—only a bill of two years' duration.

said, that if they limited the duration of the bill to two years, the magistrates could only make engagements for two years, and if they could only make your engagements for two years, the most valuable men would not take employment under them.

objected to that part of the bill which related to the appointment of one chief constable in each county, and in the committee he would make a proposal to get rid of that difficulty.

was confident that it was a most improvident bill, and he much feared that it would produce much evil of a serious nature in the town of Birmingham. He must complain of the change made from the first bill, which the people of Birmingham would not object to, to an arbitrary measure which threw the whole power into the hands of the Secretary for the Home Department, and made, too, at the suggestion of the general opponents of the Government. He did not see why the men of Birmingham of the present day should not be governed as were their grandfathers. He did hope that the Government would take warning in time, and not persevere in this bill, or any similar measure, for he had no doubt that it would produce great mischief to the peace and content of the country, and might endanger the security of the Throne itself. He was sure, that a police force would do no good under the control of the Home Secretary, but it would be good and. use- ful under the control of the corporation. He, therefore, moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months.

, in seconding the motion said, there was a strong disposition on the part of the council to resist this measure. He was sure the people of Birmingham would not be satisfied with it, as it was meant to keep them down, and all that could be charged against the town was a riot which might have happened in any town. On a former evening, so convinced was he of the necessity of some police in the town of Birmingham, that he had voted for the first reading of this bill. He would now, however, oppose it, because, on better consideration, he was convinced, it would do much mischief.

had voted for the bill, but not on the ground that the corporation of Birmingham were not competent to manage their own affairs. It was well known that difficulties had arisen as to the power of the corporation to raise the rates, and until the question was settled in a court of law, it became necessary to apply to Government for an advance of money for local purposes; the Government consented to give the money, but annexed its own conditions to the advance. If the Government meant to retain the power in its own hands permanently, he would oppose the bill. If the hon. Members for Birmingham would even now say on the part of the corporation, that they would raise the money without any application to Government, he would vote against the bill.

thought, that the circumstances connected with this and the former bill were very humiliating to the Liberals in that House. By the former, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, proposed to rest the nomination of the police in the local authority, which the charter had created, and that intention was cheered by the Liberals, but in ten days from that time, the noble Lord came down to the House and proposed quite a different arrangement, by which the power would be vested in the Government, and for that he was also cheered by the same Liberals. He did not blame the noble Lord, who, he had no doubt, acted with perfect sincerity, and for what he thought the best—but what was he to say to the Liberals for their conduct? They ought, in his opinion, to be called "sycophants," instead of "Li- berals." As lo this bill, he looked upon it as unfortunate for Birmingham and for the country, and he should vote against it.

said, that there appeared to be in this bill great injustice and inconsistency. It was proposed to give the guardians a power of taking the property of the overseers but how were the overseers to be relieved? If there was no relief, could it be expected that any man in England would become an overseer? The second clause gave the guardians the power of appointing the collector of the rates, yet the overseers were to be punished if the collector did not do his duty. Unless the noble Lord gave some satisfactory explanation on these points, he should feel bound to vote against the further progress of the bill.

said, that it was his intention to propose a modification of the clause as it originally stood, and to give the guardians the power of making a complaint before a magistrate in the first instance, and then, after cause was shown, a distress might issue, if the magistrates should be of opinion that sufficient reason had not been assigned to the contrary. If the guardians were to be compelled to provide for the relief of the poor, they ought to have money for that purpose; that was all that he wanted to effect by this bill.

observed, that as the law now stood there was extreme difficulty in obtaining the requisite funds. The guardians had to make an order on the overseers of a parish to contribute a certain quota towards the relief of the poor of an union, but as the law now stood there were no means of enforcing that precept except by mandamus. Of course, when a peremptory mandamus went, the overseers must obey, or go to gaol. But the next time the guardians made an order upon them, payment was refused, and it became necessary to apply for a mandamus again; and so they went on. The parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, had acted in this manner three or four times, and a peremptory mandamus had issued toties quoties. Days, and even weeks and months, elapsed, and meantime the poor were starving. Now, he would ask whether this state of things ought to continue? Undoubtedly, there ought to be some summary and effectual means of compelling obedience to these precepts. If the overseers paid the money required by the guardians, it would not come out of their own pockets, as they had always the means of making a rate. He could assure the House, that if they meant the Poor-law Amendment Act to remain in force, this bill, or some such bill, must pass into a law.

was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Attorney-general say that there was no remedy for enforcing the orders of the guardians except by mandamus. Now in section 95 of the Poor-law Amendment Act, it was provided that the guardians should have the power of summoning the overseer before a magistrate for disobeying their order, and if it appeared that the overseer had wilfully neglected his duty, he was liable to a penalty of 51. He trusted the House did not intend to enlarge the very extensive powers already possessed by the commissioners.

said, that the object of the bill was to make orders lawful which at present were unlawful, and he thought it would be most unwise to render edicts legal which were not yet seen. The bill was another specimen of Liberalism: it was an extraordinary specimen of Whiggish subtlety and sagacity. It was now said, that guardians were not to have the power of directing the magistrates to issue warrants of distress; but that the magistrates should have the power of summoning the parties and deciding according to the merits of the case, But who were the magistrates The guardians, the ex-officio guardians. So that the guardians would appeal from themselves as guardians to themselves as magistrates. He hoped the noble Lord would not persist in pressing the second clause, whatever might be determined with respect to the first.

thought the remedy proposed by the noble Lord as respected the first clause met the difficulty which before existed; but with respect to the second clause, he thought the proposition so objectionable, that though he should not oppose the motion for going into committee, he should move its rejection in committee.

wished to offer a few observations in explanation of this clause. By clause 46 of the Poor-law Amendment Act, it was provided, that the commissioners should have the power of authorizing guardians to elect some officers for carrying the Act into operation. By the interpretation clause (109) of the Poor-law Amendment Act, collectors were specified as amongst the officers whom the commissioners had the power of authorizing the guardians lo appoint, and he had thought till the Court of Queen's Bench had decided otherwise, that such was the fair construction of the Act. But the Court of Queen's Bench had decided otherwise,, and he was obliged to bow to the decision of that Court. He could assure the House, that the greatest jobbing had been practised in the collection of the rates, and that a great deal of the money had been wasted. Each small parish had the power of appointing a collector, but the salaries of a great many of those officers were so small, that they could not be expected lo give up the whole of their time to the performance of their duties, and the commissioners had thought it better to have a single collector for a whole union. Such a plan, in his opinion, could not fail of being productive of the best results, and he was sure, the House would agree with him, that to have one collector for a whole union, devoting the whole of his time to the performance of his duty, would be highly beneficial to the ratepayers, and to the public generally. Such was the plan upon which the commissioners had acted, and he could assure the House, that it had proved extremely beneficial. It had at the same time been productive of considerable discontent, because it had interfered in some degree with the disposal of local patronage, but upon the whole its tendency had been good. In consequence, however, of the discontent which had been produced, an application had been made to the Court of Queen's Bench to set aside an order of the commissioners for the appointment of a collector, and that Court had decided, that under the Poor-law Amendment Act, the commissioners had not the power to make such orders. He therefore allowed, after that decision, that such orders were illegal, and the object of this clause was to legalize them. It simply was to empower the Poor-law commissioners to authorize the guardians to elect a collector for each union, and he would ask; the House whether, that could be called an improper interference with the ratepayers? The collectors would still be the servants of the overseers, to whom alone they would be responsible. The guardians would have nothing to do with the money collected, and he trusted, therefore, that after this explanation the House would not object to the clause.

rose to move, that this clause be omitted. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that even were this bill passed, the collectors would still be in the hands of the rate payers, and responsible to them, but he could not altogether agree in that opinion. There was a great difference between an election by the body of electors, and an election by another body, interposed between the persons who ought to elect, and the person elected. It this clause were agreed to, the guardians would be interposed between the collector and the rate-payers, and in such a case there was the greatest danger that the wishes and interests of the rate payers would not be fairly represented and attended to. Was this bill in conformity with the spirit of the Poor-law Amendment Act? No, for it went to alter materially that Act, and those who were opposed to this measure, contended, that it ought not to interfere with the spirit of the existing law—that it ought only to be declaratory, and not contrary to the principle and spirit of the Poor-law Amendment Act. Now, the House would recollect that Lord Althorp had expressly stated what he considered to be the principle of that Act, on moving its introduction. He had distinctly said, that the administrative power alone was to be placed in the hands of the commissioners, and that taxation and collection were to rest with the guardians and overseers. He would ask the House, then, whether this clause were not completely at variance with the principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act as laid down by Lord Althorp? He would ask, also, whether it were not at variance with the existing law? The commissioners had issued orders for the appointment of collectors, and their authority to do so had been questioned, and the Court of Queen's Bench had decided, that those orders were at variance with the law as it stood. But by these clauses those orders were to be declared legal, so that the bill was at nuance with the principle of the Poor- law Amendment Act as it had been laid down by Lord Althorp, and it was also at variance with the law of the land as declared by the Court of Queen's Bench. He should move, that the clause be omitted.

did not object to the powers given by the clause, and his objection was to ex post facto legislation.

objected to this clause, because the commissioners had no power by the Poor-law Amendment Act to do what this law sanctioned and rendered legal. They had no power to issue the orders which the clause made law, and he could not think it was wise to legalize orders of which the House knew nothing. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that a collector ought to be appointed for a whole union; but how was that possible? The union to which he belonged contained a population of between 70,000 and 80,000 inhabitants, and how was it possible that one collector could collect the whole of the rates in a union so extensive? The fact was, that this measure was applicable entirely to some little unions in London, but it was not at all adapted to the country unions. He should certainly vote for the omission of the clause.

After the explanation which had been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-general, and seeing that the commissioners would gain nothing by the provisions of the bill, should not object to the clause.

said, this measure had not been demanded by the parishes for whose benefit it was professedly intended. It would deprive the ratepayers of all control over the parochial funds; they would likewise have no control over the appointment of their own officers. He should vote against the clause.

at first was undoubtedly opposed to the clause, but as be now understood that the noble Lord did not design to alter the present law, and that the Court of Queen's Bench had put an erroneous interpretation upon the law in respect to the collection of rates, and further, that the object of this clause was to carry on the Act until next year, and to prevent litigation, he should support it.

begged to say a few words in reference to the orders of the Poor-law commissioners, the advantage of which had been much called in question. The hon. Member had chiefly dwelt upon what had taken place in that part of the country with which he was acquainted. In reply to his observations, he would read an extract from an assistant Poor-law commissioner in relation to Wigan:

"As far as my experience has gone, no officers could have succeeded better than those who have been appointed at Wigan, and in proof of the advantages of the change, it may be stated, that there are at present four assistant-commissioners and three assistants at 100l. a-year each. Formerly the rates were collected by thirty-four persons, receiving altogether 812l., as their remuneration. Here is a saving of 112l., exclusive of the other benefits of the alteration, namely, that the rates are collected with greater diligence and success, and less risk and loss incurred. The money is paid over by the assistant-overseer to the treasurer of the union every week, instead of being left, as it formerly was, in the hands of almost irresponsible and unpaid overseers; and the treasurer is always ready to make advances."

He had read this in order to correct the mistakes which seemed to prevail on this subject. It was clear, that the orders of the Poor-law commissioners had tended to the better collection of the rates.