« ElőzőTovább »
Aug. 17. Bank of Ireland-Future Proceedings-Division, Lists, &c. 370
19. Counting out the House-Motion to ring a bell when the
Bude Light-Motion by Sir F. Trench
Bank of Ireland-Committee on the Bill deferred-Expla-
23. Duke of Marlborough's Pension-Bill read a Third time-
Fisheries-Bill to carry a Convention with France into effect
-Resolution moved by Mr. Hume-House
26. New Writs for Cambridge and Waterford-Changes in the
III. LISTS OF DIVISIONS.
The Ayes and the Noes on a Proviso to be added to the
The Ayes and the Noes on going into a Committee of Ways
12. The Contents and Not-Contents on the Third Clause of the
15. The Contents and Not-contents on the Second Reading of
The Ayes and the Noes on Amendments to the District
DURING THE SECOND SESSION OF THE THIRTEENTH
ΤΟ MEET AT
WESTMINSTER, 5TH FEBRUARY, 1839, IN THE SECOND YEAR
SIXTH AND LAST VOLUME OF THE SESSION.
IRELAND-LORD BROUGHAM'S RESO
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 the name of a single trustee in a turnpike which he held, he did wish to say, at once, bill. If a bill passed the Commons for that this resolution proposed a practice the collection of rates, it never consented, which was utterly inconsistent with that and never would consent, to any alterawhich had been hitherto pursued by Se- tions being made by the other House recretaries of State in their recommendations specting the body which was to have the to the Crown, from which it would, in his control of those rates. He apprehended, opinion, be exceedingly inconvenient to therefore, that the Commons having dedepart, and in which it was not his inten- cided that these powers of taxation were tion to make any alteration whatever. If hereafter to be exercised by the new muit were a bill instead of a resolution, and nicipal councils, and the House of Lords had gained the consent of Parliament then having so amended the bill as to re-transof course, he would be bound to obey it fer those powers to the grand juries of the as law. But, until such were the case, counties in Ireland, that the House of he should consider himself justified in Commons could not, consistently with the following the practice which had been proper maintenance of its privileges, agree hitherto pursued, not thinking that the to that amendment. prerogative of mercy could be, in any degree, altered by the resolution he had read to the House.
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 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.
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?
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 wave their amendment, and allow the 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
The Speaker said, that if he correctly understood the question, it had reference to those clauses in the bill which trans-clauses in question; they had only omitted ferred 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
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