Aug. 17. Bank of Ireland-Future Proceedings-Division, Lists, &c. 370 19. Counting out the House-Motion to ring a bell when the ... .. Duke of Marlborough's Pension - Report on the Bill- 1839. Page. III. LISTS OF DIVISIONS. 8. The Ayes and the Noes on a Proposition to alter the Stand- The Ayes and the Noes on Mr. Darby's Clause to be added to the Poor-Law Commission Continuance Bill The Ayes and the Noes on Lord G. Somerset's Clause to the ... 96 12. The Contents and Not-Contents on the Third Clause of the Metropolitan Police Courts' Bill in Committee ... 14. The Ayes and the Noes on the Committing the Bank of ... HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, DURING THE SECOND SESSION OF THE THIRTEENΤ Η QUEEN VICTORIA. SIXTH AND LAST VOLUME OF THE SESSION. MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time :-Manchester Police; Bolton Police; Courts in Counties; Sheriffs' Exemption; Real Estates Liability; Prisoners' Trial; Patents for In- ventions; Joint Stock Banking Companies. - Read a Petitions presented. By Mr. Darby, from Salehurst, against the Tithe Commutation Act Amendment Bill.-By Mr. Hawes, from Inhabitants of Malta, for a Legislative Council, and Trial by Jury. By Mr. Ewart, from Inhabitants of Malta, for the Improvements recom- mended by the Commissioners. By Mr. T. Attwood, from the Town Council of Birmingham, against the Bir- mingham Police Bill (No. 2).-By Sir R. Inglis, from the Guardians of the Teversham Union, in favour of the New Poor-law.-By Lord Granville Somerset, from the Guardians of the Holborn Union, denying that the aged are compelled to Labour.-By Mr. Shiel, from the Legislative Council to alter the tenure of land; and the Lords had simply restricted IRELAND-LORD BROUGHAM'S RESO LUTIONS.) Lord J. Russell 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 "That it is the duty of the Executive Go- vernment, when considering any case of con- viction 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 circum- stances 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 B He did not wish to argue the question; | even allow the House of Lords to change 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. 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 to 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. Lord J. Russell 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? MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).] Lord J. Russell said, that before he proceeded to call the attention of the House to the Lords' amendments to this bill generally, he wished to 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 mu-wave their amendment, and allow the nicipal 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. The Speaker 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 The Speaker 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 clauses to stand as before. Mr. Shaw 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 |