latter would be open just so long as that ment Act came to be discussed. The gentleman's difference continued with the great difficulty affecting the administraclergyman. He only begged to be excused ❘tion of the Poor-law, under the old system, from giving any opinion at present on was owing to the numerous misconstruceither subject, and more particularly from ❘tions and inisrepresentations to which that MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRE-❘ privilege, namely, the clauses which the

LAND)-LORDS' AMENDMENTS.] Lord John Russell moved the order of the day for the consideration of the Lords' amendments on this bill. He did so, that the consideration of them might be again postponed till Monday; but he would take that opportunity to say, that with respect to that part of the question which related to the privileges of the House, after the very great pains taken by the Chair to investigate the subject, after the opinion which had been given from the Chair, and having since heard the opinions of many Members fully cognizant of the subject, he was of opinion that it would not be expedient for the House to make any concession on the point of privilege. He was at the same time aware, that there would be a considerable disadvantage in raising that point, unless it were absolutely necessary. With regard to the merits of the bill, there were a number of amendments introduced by the House of Lords, which he had not time to consider, and which, as the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman had observed, it would be most convenient to adopt or reject at once. With these limitations, and seeing very great difficulty in coming to any agreement with the House of Lords on the subject this Session, and it being at the same time, he must say, the anxious wish of the Government to pass some legislative measure on this subject,-from what he also heard from those most anxious on this question in Ireland, and considering also the nature of their differences, he thought that a bill might be framed so as to meet the views of both Houses. He did not think it would have been proper to allow the present opportunity to pass without indicating the views which he entertained, and the wishes of the Government on this subject.

Mr. Shaw agreed with the noble Lord as to the inexpediency of returning the bill on the question of privilege to the House of Lords, and saying they did so on that ground. With respect to the other parts of the noble Lord's observations, he was not certain if he were correct in his opinion, but he thought he gathered from them, that the noble Lord was not very urgent in his objections to the amendments of the House of Lords. These

House of Lords had struck out, transferring certain fiscal powers from the grand juries to the new town councils to be created under the bill. Now, the noble Lord had not said anything on the subject of the franchise, but he thought, from what the noble Lord had said, that he did not mean to insist on refusing the amendments of the House of Lords. As regarded the freemen, the House of Lords had left them in the same state as proposed in the bill of last year. And then as to the third question, that of transferring the powers of taxation to the new municipal bodies, he must observe, that it was a question involving great changes in the law of the country. It was, besides, entirely a new question, and one which had been introduced irregularly into the bill when it was in committee. Those clauses were not in the bill at all, as introduced, even this year; but the alteration was made in committee, where thirteen new clauses had been introduced, entirely altering the state of the law on the subject. Except on these points, he was not aware of any other difference; and as on that side of the House they had already conceded so much, it was quite impossible for them to concede more. He thought the preferable plan would be for the noble Lord to waive the question of privilege, and introduce a new bill on the subject.

Sir R. H. Inglis entertaining the greatest objection to this measure-viewing it as one of unmixed evil-and as invading the rights of the Established Church, regretted, that instead of postponing the consideration of the bill till Monday, the noble Lord had not moved its postponement for three weeks. He did not, indeed, understand, that the noble Lord intended to bring in a new bill this Session, but in the next. He viewed this measure as one of unmixed evil, and, therefore, regretted, that any further progress with it was in contemplation.

Mr. O'Connell could not agree with the hon. Baronet in his description of this measure, that it was one of unmixed evil but must protest against any idea going abroad, that Ireland was not entitled to the same measure of corporate reform, as had already been given to England. The people of Ireland did not ask for more,

amendments were of three kinds: those and they never would be satisfied with relating to the franchise, to the freemen, less. The corporations of Ireland neve and the third, which involved the point of assumed a clerical character, except in the estimation of the hon. Baronet the Member for the university of Oxford, who viewed them, he believed at present, as models of piety and promoters of Christianity. The learned recorder for the city of Dublin, had twice pressed this bill on her Majesty's Government. He did not think that circumstance would add to its popularity among the people of Ireland, or tend to make them satisfied with it. Why should there be a 5l. franchise in England, and 101. in Ireland? Why one set of freemen's franchises in England, and another set in Ireland? He rose, however, merely to protest in point of principle, that Ireland never would be satisfied while they were deprived of the same franchises which England has.

Consideration of the Lords' amendments postponed.

MANCHESTER POLICE.] Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Manchester Police Bill.

But if it were contended, that the charters were altogether bad, then he could understand the reason which induced the Government to introduce this bill.

The Attorney-General was very imperfectly acquainted with respect to what was admitted, or what disputed by the parties who raised the question relative to those charters. But so far as he understood the subject, he had no hesitation in stating, as his own individual opinion, that the charters were in omnibus perfectly valid. He should have thought, that his learned Friend as a lawyer, instead of putting those questions, would have rather studied the Act of Parliament, and satisfied his own mind upon the point. However, as his learned Friend had thought fit to put those questions, it was of course his duty to answer them. Then he should say, that under the 141st section of the Municipal Reform Act, a power was expressly given to the Crown to create new corporations, with all the powers which belonged to and had been exercised by the old corpo. tions. Under that clause, charters had been granted to Devonport, Manchester, Birmingham, and Bolton. The charter

Mr. C. Buller understood this to be a bill to abolish popular control in the different new boroughs, owing to a dispute that had been raised relative to the vagranted to Devonport, had not been lidity of their charters. It was unfor- questioned in any degree. Those granted tunate, that they had no legal opinion to Manchester and Birmingham were dis

puted on the grounds, that they did not in all respects comply with the Act of Parliament. He could only say, that those charters had been prepared with the greatest care; they had not only been examined by himself, but by others of greater experience, who had devoted the greatest time and attention to the subject, and that they had been framed with the most anxious purpose to meet every doubt that could be raised against them. A legal doubt had, however, been raised with respect to the powers under the charter to levy a borough-rate. He understood the great question was, not whether the charters were entirely void or no not, but whether the town-councils could

for their guidance - that they had received none of any authority, at least, except of that eminent law officer of the Crown, the President of the Board of Trade, who seemed disposed to oust the learned Attorney-general from his office. Seeing the learned Attorney-general now in his place, however, he wished to ask him this question. In what state were the charters that had been granted to Birmingham and Manchester? Was the House to understand, that the validity of the whole charters granted to those towns, was disputed by the questions which had been raised? Was it disputed, that legal corporations existed in those boroughs? Were the appointments of magistrates questioned? or did the question merely levy a lawful borough-rate. At the same extend to the simple point, of the power time, he was not prepared to say how far of the town-councils to levy rates? He the parties might ultimately carry the understood at first, that the powers of the question, and as to whether they might town-council were entirely disputed. If not say the charters were utterly void, he the question only extended to the power would not pledge himself. His own opiof levying rates, he thought the Govern-nion was, that the charters were valid, ment ought at once to fall back on the and that they did convey the powers to original bill, and not interfere needlessly levy a lawful rate, according to the Act with the franchises of the inhabitants, of Parliament. In the meantime, the

overseers refused to pay a single shilling | forward and perform their duty on any

of the rate, either in Birmingham or Manchester. It was therefore utterly impossible for the corporations of those towns to maintain a police force. As regarded the powers of the magistrates, it was plain, that the question could not touch their position, as they held their powers apart from the charter, and were appointed by the Queen.

Sir R. H. Inglis observed, that the learned Attorney-general had expressed himself with equal confidence on the question of privilege, and yet the Court of Queen's Bench had come to a very different conclusion; and on this point all he could say was, that two learned Gentlemen had given an opinion adverse to that now given by the hon. and learned Gentle

man.

Mr. Bolling was instructed to deny the allegations that they had no police force at Bolton adequate to meet any exigency which might arise. The commissioners of police had now an efficient force of special constables. They were levying a rate, and no refusal had been made to the payment. He would oppose the bill as tending to prejudice the questions at issue regarding the validity of the charters.

Mr. T. Duncombe wished to put a question in point of form, which he apprehended might interfere with the progress of this bill. He wished to know why this bill was not treated as a private bill? It was merely a local Act. In the case of Birmingham there was a grant of public money. But this was a local Act to all intents and purposes, and should be treated as such, as had been done in the case of Liverpool and the city of London. He hoped the Speaker would favour the House with his opinion on that point.

The Speaker said, that if this bill had been applied for by the inhabitants of Manchester, and if they were to have had the appointment of the constables, then it must have been treated as a private bill. But in this case the constables were to be appointed by the Crown. It was to be compulsory on the inhabitants, and therefore it was not a private bill.

Lord J. Russell had no wish whatever in moving this bill, to prejudice in one way or another, the questions at issue relative to the validity of the charters. With regard to the town of Bolton being sufficiently secured by special constables, he was ready to admit they would come

specific emergency. But to preserve the peace of a town of that size and population, a permanent police force would be required to perform that duty day by day, and night by night, which it would be perfectly intolerable for those constables to undergo.

Mr. Grimsditch said, the people of Manchester had an efficient police force under the control of the commissioners of police. [Mr. Brotherton: No, No!] The hon. Member for Salford says "no!" He certainly understood from respectable authority, that such was the case. He should not, however, oppose the second reading, but reserve his objections till the bill went into committee.

Mr. G. Wood said, it was his intention to support the second reading of the bill, in the belief that it would in no way prejudice those legal questions which had been raised in the Courts of law, between the advocates and the opponents of the charter. The state of those questions had been so amply explained by the learned Attorney-general, that it would ill become him to advert more to it. But as to the necessity of Parliament making some provision for the police force in Manchester, he thought no one fully acquainted with the condition of the town could entertain any doubt. Some hon. Members had stated, that there was now a police in the town, with ample pecuniary means for its support. He entirely dissented from the accuracy of that statement. There was the old body of commissioners, in number 240, who before the charter was granted, had provided the police of the town by day and night, the expenses being defrayed by a rate they were empowered by Parliament to levy for that purpose. When the charter had been granted, and a council appointed, they concurred, that they were entitled to levy the rate and provide for the police force, and that the powers of the old commissioners were superseded under the Municipal Reform Act Thus the two parties were directly at issue, each claiming the exclusive right of levying the police rate. But the inhabitants, not knowing which of the two rates would be legal, had resolved with that shrewdness which upon monetary matte especially distinguished them to pay neither till the question had been determined. When the council issued their precept to the proper parties to pay over the requisite | every weight to the opinion of the Attorney. sum for the maintenance of the force, the general, knowing the great value of that legal process was forcibly resisted. The opinion on any subject to which that