Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

for seven years, should, at the expiration of 1st, which gave the right of admission that term, claim as a right his freedom to the freedom of the town and Corporation both of the town and the Corporation upon of Galway, and also to the Company or taking the oaths. There could be no Corporation to which their respective reason whatever, that such an anomaly as trades might belong, without the payment any part of this Bill should continue, when of any fees, to artisans of all descriptions the 40s. freeholders throughout Ireland who had followed their trades for seven generally had been disfranchised, unless it years within the town, and which also exwas with a view to admit into the Corpora- | empted such persons from certain Corporation of Galway a body of 4,000 or 5,000 tion taxes and fines. This, then, was the footpersons of the lowest class, who would ing on which the Corporation of Galway claim the right of voting for Members of now stood, and he knew many Protestant Parliament. On account of these reasons, freemen who had supported their right it was evident the Bill of the noble Mar- although the guilds of their trades had quis was altogether at variance with the fallen into disuse, and notwithstanding 4th of George 1st, and it never could be the opposition of the Corporation of that consistently engrafted on it. The better place. The noble Duke did not dispute way, therefore, was, to repeal the old and the policy of putting the freemen of both offensive law altogether, for which purpose religions on an equality, but he adopted the he should beg to move as an Amendment, novel principle of legislation, that because "That from and after the passing of this a certain wrong had gone on for some Act," at page 3, line 2nd, there be in- time it was necessary to take away an unserted the words "the whole of the above- questioned right which had previously recited Act to be repealed." existed and been exercised. There was another very important reason for not repealing the Act of 4th George 1st, for it enabled the Lord Lieutenant to appoint four additional Magistrates, besides those of the Corporate body, to which, before, the Magistracy had been entirely confined. This power had been most beneficially exercised on several occasions. So far from violating Corporate rights by passing the Bill now before them, their Lordships would be only protecting existing privileges. It was the Corporation of Galway which had violated Charters; they had been guilty of peculation, and were insolvent. The Corporation had made no complaints of injustice being done to them by this Bill worth notice, and the petitions that had been presented, and public opinion, were decidedly in favour of the Bill. It had been said, that a number of persons had been excluded from the right of voting under the 4th George 1st, but there was no proof of the number being large. It was, however, for their Lordships to consider, whether by the repeal of the whole of the Act under which the Protestants had enjoyed the right, they would consent to commit an act of great injustice. He felt assured the Committee would not think of upholding a monopoly which had prevented individuals of a particular class from locating in Galway, and which had obtained the whole power and control over the municipal affairs of the town. The prayer of the whole respectability of the

The Marquis of Clanricarde said, he was somewhat surprised at the course pursued by the noble Duke. If his amendment were carried, it would effect a great and extraordinary change in the Corporation and constituency of the town of Galway. The noble Duke proposed to repeal the whole of the Act of the 4th of George 1st, but it was not only by virtue of that Act, but by a charter granted by Charles 2nd, that the freemen of the Corporation had a right to return Members to Parliament. Even prior to that by some centuries, in the reign of Richard 2nd, about the year 1376, they had received a charter from that Monarch. There was evident proofs that the borough of Galway was a Corporation, not only by virtue of various charters, but also by prescription. Previous to the Act of the 4th of George 1st, the right of admission into the Corporation was enjoyed by all persons resident in the town. In 1715, however, the matter had been brought before the Irish House of Commons, who had resolved, that the freemen of the several trades of the county of the town of Galway were part of the constituency; and, therefore, as such entitled to vote for the town this was of course subsequent to the charter of Charles 2nd, by which the privilege of voting was to be obtained, either by admission into the inferior guilds, or by admission to the Corporation. This charter was afterwards followed by the Act 4th George

town and its vicinity was in favour of the Bill now before their Lordships.

never be called on to exercise their votes' unless the calamity, which God forbid, occurred-namely the death of the hon. member for Galway before the next Session of Parliament. He could not under

of one for the repeal of the Act of George 1st; and if it were supported by his Majesty's Ministers, he could only say, it bore the appearance of being a most scandalous job.

The Duke of Wellington said, he did not understand that the Charter gave the right of voting to those freemen claiming that right in respect to the exercise of their trades; but in order to form a correct opinion of the Charter it ought to be before the House. He was ready to admit there was a Resolution of the Irish House of Commons in 1715, which stated, that persons holding their freedom as artizans had the right of voting, but then the Act of the 4th George 1st passed two years after, in 1717. Now, with respect to the difference which existed between the Act and the Resolution, it might be accounted for easily, because in framing the enactment it was found necessary, in all probability, to revert to the terms of the Charter. If there were any persons whose interests would be effected by the total repeal of the obnoxious Act, let a special provision be made in their behalf. He

Lord Ellenborough said, as far as he understood the argument of the noble Marquis, he appeared to object to the amendment proposed by the noble Duke,be-stand why this Bill was brought in, instead cause it would tend to disfranchise certain Protestant freemen who had obtained the right of voting under the 4th George 1st. He assured the noble Marquis there was no such intention on the part of those who proposed the total repeal of that Act. At the same time there would not be the least objection, if the Amendment was carried,to preserve the right of voting to those individuals for their lives, such a proposition was perfectly consistent with justice and reason. As to himself individually, he was ready to acknowledge, that he had great objections to disfranchise any person, but the noble Marquis had no such scruples, for he had recently voted for the disfranchisement of upwards of fifty boroughs without the electors having been guilty of any offence. He (Lord Ellenborough) had voted for the second reading of the Bill now before them, because, after the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill in 1829, he considered the principle of this measure, which went to equalize the franchise between persons of both religions, Protestants as well as Catholics, was a proper one to be adopted. The 4th George 1st, for certain reasons stated in the pream-wished everything to stand on the same ble, drew a distinction between Catholics and Protestants, and gave the latter specifically certain rights. If that was so now, when every other distinction between the two religions had been abrogated, it was quite right that an Act which kept up local distinctions should be wholly repealed. He, therefore, was of opinion, that the course recommended by the noble Duke was the safest, and he thought it was a better plan to expunge from the Statute-book an Act totally at variance with the spirit of the present times towards Roman Catholics, than to engraft on it an Act like that proposed by the noble Marquis. The Bill proposed to enfranchise a certain number of persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and to give them the rights of freemen of the town of Galway; but it should be recollected that, according to the assurances of his Majesty's Government, a Reform Bill would soon pass into a law which would destroy the rights of those very freemen; and if the predictions he heard were true, they would

footing with respect to Galway as before the passing of that Act; that would leave the whole question respecting the Corporation open for decision hereafter.

The Marquis of Clanricarde said, after the remarks that had been made, he wished to state some facts relating to the local situation of Galway itself, and his connection with that district. In the first place, there was the town of Galway itself, and then there was the county of the town, which extended some distance round it, and contained a numerous population. His property was in the county of the town, and a considerable number of persons who resided in it had the right of voting. Another gentleman was in the same situation with himself as to property and influence, and there were several smaller proprietors who possessed a less number of tenants. His influence was, therefore, considerable as it stood at present, but this Bill would let in so many town voters, that it would be completely swamped by their number; this was the

best answer he could give to the charge of this Bill being a job on the part of Ministers.

for to appoint four Justices of the Peace for Galway, and that obviated any inconvenience that could arise from a repeal of the Act alluded to by the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Plunkett said, the noble Duke was quite right as to the provisions of the Act he had quoted, but the appointment could only take place under particular circumstances, and much inconvenience might arise if vacancies in the event of the decease of any of the present Magistrates could be only filled up by the Lord Chancellor, after application to the Lord Lieutenant in Council. With respect to the noble Baron's remark that it was inconsistent to bestow a franchise now, to take it away next year, he had not shown that it was to be taken away, and therefore his remark went for nothing.

Lord Ellenborough said, he would persist in saying, that it was inconsistent on the part of the promoters of the Reform measure, which went to abrogate, Corporate rights, to create a constituency of that character at present.

Lord Plunkett said, he thought it impossible that the noble Duke's amendment could be adopted, because, if the whole of the 4th of George 1st was repealed, the power of appointing Magistrates for the town of Galway would be taken away. He wished also to suggest to the noble Duke, that he was in error as to the constitution of the Corporation of the town of Galway. The noble Duke appeared to suppose it was only regulated by the Charter of Charles 2nd; but he assured him that was not the case. The Corporation, to his knowledge, held their rights under more than one Charter. Indeed, there could be no doubt but that it was a borough by prescription, and if the whole of the 4th George 1st was repealed, it would create great inconveniences with respect to the municipal government of the place. For the last century the facility of obtaining the freedom of the place had been possessed without a question, and so long as these facilities had been enjoyed The Earl of Mulgrave said, he consiexclusively by Protestants there had been dered it perfectly consistent with the prono objection to them. The change of cir- moters of the Reform Bill to pass this cumstances, however, consequent upon measure, and he regretted the noble Baron the great measure of Catholic Emancipa- had not put the House in possession of tion had made it necessary that this privi- his sentiments when that question was lege should be extended to Catholics. before them, rather than now deal out his The noble Baron (Lord Ellenborough)| bit-by-bit speeches on a subject of so imhowever, considered that because a mea-portant a nature. sure might be hereafter introduced which would ultimately do away with, or at least alter the principle of voting in Corporations, therefore it was a work of supererogation to confer the right of voting by means of this Bill on the persons who would be entitled to it; but really no such thing would take place, because the rights and privileges of such persons would be continued for their lives, and, therefore, if they once got possession of them, they would, of course, retain them.

Lord Ellenborough said, all he had contended for was, that if the Reform Question was to be brought forward again next Session, these parties would stand precisely in the same position they did now. They were not freemen at present, and the effect of that measure would be to declare that such freedoms would not in future be allowed to exist.

The Duke of Wellington said, that by the 7th of George 4th, the Lord Lieutenant could authorize the Lord Chancel

Amendment negatived, and the Bill went through the Committee.

REFORM.] The Lord Chancellor presented a Petition from the Royal Burgh of Inverness, signed by 929 persons, in favour of the Reform Bill.

Lord Holland presented a Petition to the same effect from Deptford, in Kent, signed by 1,300 persons.

The Earl of Harrowby said, he did not. rise to oppose the reception of such petitions, but, on the contrary, to express his satisfaction at seeing such petitions presented. Their presentation was a proof that the people did not consider that the late decision of that House shut the door upon all Reform. The fact of such petitions being presented, showed that the people looked on that decision in a proper light, and that they did not take for granted, that all who opposed the specific measure which was then brought forward, did not entertain sentiments favourable to

new Representatives. He was, in questions of this description, not disposed to act upon a general principle in reference to all individual and particular cases; nevertheless, by diminishing or extinguishing the franchise in places the least considerable in point of wealth and population, he would propose to make room for the additional Representatives from the larger and more wealthy places to be enfranchised. He would not, however, admit any precise limit of population as a standard for the disfranchisement of boroughs. That he looked upon as one of the very objectionable parts of the late Bill. Whatever objections might be urged against making population merely the basis of Representation, there were great objections to making it the criterion and the basis of disfranchisement, and to the disfranchisement upon such a principle, and without any proof of corruption, of a number of boroughs, possessing a great diversity of franchise, rights, and privileges. He objected to the establishment of one uniform kind of franchise, and he objected to the qualification of the voters as being too low, and as being thereby calculated to lead to bribery and corruption. Those were his principal objections to the Bill which his Majesty's Ministers had brought forward. Instead of objecting to the regulations for dimi

a change in the constitution of the House of Commons to a greater or lesser extent. From what had fallen from the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, in the course of the discussion on the Reform Bill, and from other noble Lords on that side of the House, the inference might be attempted to be drawn, that the opposition of their Lordships was extended to all Reform, and that it was not confined, as it really was, to the specific measure of Reform which they had then to consider. He, at least, was not to be included amongst any individuals, if such there were, who had expressed an opinion against all Reform whatever. In order that there should be no misconception on that point, he would just briefly re-state what he had said in his former address to their Lordships, in the course of the discussion last week, with regard to the extent and species of Reform to which he (the Earl of Harrowby) was willing to give his assent. He then stated, that he felt, that if any change was to be effected in the constitution of the House of Commons, it should be effected only when it was demanded by a large portion of the intelligent community of the country; and when, if such a change were not effected, the Government would not be able to conduct the affairs of the country with efficiency, and for its advantage, happiness, and tranquillity, on account of hav-nishing the time of elections, and for taking ing lost the confidence of the intelligent part of the public. Believing that they were placed in such circumstances at present, he was not the man to say, that he would oppose any change which in his conscience he believed would not place us in a worse situation than we now were in. He would take the liberty to repeat what he stated last week-that he was friendly to the extension of the franchise to wealthy and populous places, possessing such distinct and important interests that it would be for the good of the country at large that they should obtain a separate Representation. He was for an extension of the franchise in that way, and he begged to say, that he would not be niggardly in carrying that principle into practice. He would further say, that he would be far from objecting to an extension of the constituency in the large counties, and if he was ready to do that, as a consequence he would be ready to agree to the cutting off of a certain number of boroughs on the other side, in order to make room for such

the poll in one day, he, on the contrary, thought that the adoption of such regulations would be most desirable. These were the sentiments which he entertained on this subject. Their Lordships could not be surprised that he was anxious to re-state them, in order to set himself and the body to which he belonged, right with the public on this point, and to do away with the impression, if any such prevailed, that because they had thrown out the late Reform Bill, they were opposed to every species of Reform.

The Earl of Haddington was anxious to express his entire concurrence in what had fallen from his noble friend who had just sat down. He was not opposed to all Reform, and whenever a measure of Reform should be brought forward, founded upon principles which he should consider consistent with the safety of the established institutions of the country, and of the Constitution itself, he would be most ready to give such a measure the fullest consideration, trusting to see it carried into effect,

Lord Holland said, that the petition | with the opinion which had been expressed which he had presented was not in favour by the noble and learned Lord. of Reform generally, but was in favour of that particular Bill which their Lordships had postponed. Glad, however, as he was to hear the sentiments which had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) he should not quarrel with that noble Earl's logic, which deduced from the presentation of such a petition, the inference that the people did not think that their Lordships were opposed to Reform, and he was ready to agree in the conclusion to which that noble Earl had come, that the decision of their Lordships the other day, with regard to the Reform Bill, was not final or fatal on that subject. He (Lord Holland) confidently believed and trusted that such a measure as that which had been recently postponed, would, ere long, become the law of the land. As that Bill had been, strictly speaking, only postponed by their Lordships, the presentation of petitions in its favour was not irregular. The Lord Chancellor had but one word to say on this subject. He would not go into the subject now, nor would he discuss the question whether the scanty contribution of the noble Earl was one that would be calculated to satisfy the people. He wished merely to state, that the petition which he had presented did not prove any such thing as that which had been assumed by the noble Earl. That petition was from Inverness, and it was not physically possible that the decision of that House on Saturday last could have been known there time enough to allow of a petition, now presented, to be adopted subsequent to the arrival of the intelligence in that place. The fact was, that this petition was on its way to town last week, and it would have been presented before this to the House if it had reached him sooner.

Petitions to lie on the Table.

SCOTCH APPEAL CASE.] The Lord Chancellor said, that he had made inquiry into this case, and found that no material loss would result to either party, by risking the postponement of it till another Session. Under these circumstances, and being of opinion that it would be much better not to proceed in the matter without investigating all the precedents that bore upon it, he should not, for the present, press the Second Reading of the Bill. Lord Ellenborough perfectly concurred

Lord Wynford thought, there was a previous question which he wished their Lordships to decide. The Bill assumed two things which were false. It assumed that the judgment ordered the cause to be tried by a Special Jury of merchants, whereas the judgment only directed that the cause should be tried by a Special Jury, and said nothing about merchants. This was the order of their Lordships, and the Court of Session ought to have complied with it. The Court of Session, however, had not thought proper to do so. Now, if he, when presiding over the Court of Common Pleas, had thought proper to deal with any order of their Lordships as the Court of Session had dealt with this order, he had no doubt that he should have been brought before the House to answer for his conduct. Another thing which the Bill assumed was, that the Court of Session had no power to examine the parties before a Jury. This was not true. The Court of Session had the power, and if they were not aware of the fact, they ought to be informed of it. He took it, also, to be as clear as day-light, that the House had the power to amend their order without a Bill of this kind. The Bill, therefore, was unnecessary. As to rehearing a case, he spoke upon good authority when he said, that their Lordships ought not to re-hear any case, however erroneous the judgment they had pronounced in it might be; because it was better even that injustice should be done in one case, than that the foundation upon which all property was held should be uncertain and unsettled. As to the judgment in this case, it was not erroneous. He had the authority of his noble and learned friend (the Chief Baron) for saying this. His noble and learned friend had examined the case, and had pronounced. the judgment to be right. In conclusion, he must again observe, that the parties would have been in possession of their money long before this, if the Court of Session had not taken upon themselves to neglect the order of their Lordships.

The Lord Chancellor said, that this was a matter in which he could have no interest-a matter of perfect indifference to him. He did, however, think it necessary to notice what had fallen from his noble and learned friend respecting the Judges of the Court of Session, lest something

« ÎnapoiContinuă »