The Sun. — London, England, 1835-08-13 00:00:00

rd then, at we. y of State , rson with- ase. The red to have Lieutenant nounced by age, or any 'Mich it was never heard e in'lreland Lieutenant, fault with• r way would able a copy nt. he knew of hat he bad e with his kdy to bear sat down to id the Lord [reland ; but the sentence th reference eport of the in, and there I not subse- ure from po nied the case her the out evidence, or Age's notes ? of religious the preroga otestants bad ault, and the actually for m mitigated. some extracts the two me as impossible .oceedings in ad found the r Ireland. ._ was of great ted with the ith his Noble e prerogative Lt a reference Lit at the same ise bound by it were, the to the Judge• own the pro idges had re- The Learned I it the Lord aund to exer- 1 in which the In to the op ise of the pre" any reference at the Lower -as the Bill for of this title of ILL. to your Lord lost respects ivour of the the stronges ieasure. T he BM Sheffield, this petition] , St. Alba o, ardiff, Lewes , ,amford, end Noble Friend , ler-Lyne, Oa petition to pre" arsden ; whi ch advertisemen t, sly signed • et—the great [pon, I under spectable, an d ; district. it ;natures in we 'n signed bY $ :onsidered th at I the necessity .sent two Pet on at a public welve hours by ? strong feeling Ind completely witnesses wheal !ry much call I, my Letc l° ' , ome of the e; r strong. tions' Bill ty"' it without opP°' i to hear COtta; 1r Lordships 0 : 0 et, and thu s ur Right 10 , 1 1 ,i L ° 1.) Lora , q I P)—MY o f quite enoug- Grace on th et a —( Cheers, a , ismuch as f e s° e ; ,rdships' 11.° 0 ,wept entirely,l you; b u t as • to read the f ro,- r.„ enting me ti , ,ar.) The P c e e deepest 1 .4 g, e . „, our Right Reform Bi ll ' •sty's Ministerh ; of Parliate",, sider the dete'st counsel aga il 'a Des a great as a confe ss to Ls legislators, er nd thus to W I ., -e in the est int. e sbusive langu s f e , sting the Pe e P ei, s ly unrestrat a rt y, 'us Noble 14°4, Du see the and laught er/ b Lining how o Z: f t etition, and ', O p , u may think iiat canno t tell t .,tl a .t.--( Cheers ''' of —(Loud cr.„ J ' e a ble oon as the it Ilan move tha t ) , this is by r i ch, its kis place, w • r re Far the mos t I errupting nse' in hall have to 1 " . „ r o• is—" the arce , muds of your ti' , still further,,ld lessee of the , all these Clot! :ly complai n ', o o , ch they up t he ~, to oppositiot. g o o o ur Right ' ra te ers of CorP e r ,, , Mr. Cocltbur is vas exemPl all t ic' entlemanlike eive idiness to r ee for ort they Im''; e v oti r judgment 0" o fr accurate as P fli ~t~ t such a e e „ ° 4s llc e so beg to ,rary to the ts ot he inhabli a '; tito mination abover that w ha eP ctators, the refore beg' - Co 03 : ade by th e The; ie people. , ar e the cont rarl i th e e further fr(Mi"„ing 'rred from I g , in s " nal fear. •oti r ss this Bill, ) joi , yof com m on ,1) .alumnioustYrot s.l rty, whichurir iet cr. ft e ) public p 3, ind justly d taxing and duo , ' ur v.e,,tey Is nom - r dthati" f 1 O Lnt attis tb >laced wi tt , t l tiO re this i t ' ' ill ner t ~ cier ve 0 er, and b 3 . g c ' a of a :e THE SUN', LONDON, TireitgDA,V, A.U . GeST 13, 1835. dividuals ought to stand in the way of the just rights, of the contentment, of the prosperity an d h a ppiness of a great an d intelligent people. Your petitioners therefore implore your Right Honourable House to dismiss from your minds all those unfavourable impressions against the people of this town, which may have arisen from the representations of their inveterate enemies at the bar of your Right Hon. House ; and that your Lordships will forthwith pass the Bill in such integrity as to give satisfaction to the people of these realms." This, my Lords, as I have already said, is the petition of the tow n of Leicester, signed within a few hours, by 9,500 inha bitants of that great town. Ido not perceive, my Lords, that the word " Humble" is used by these petitioners, nor does it set out with the usual form of " Humbly showed)." But whether your Lordships may not be disposed to consider that the word " Imploring," which is at least a very effective word, and one expressive of humility—is a sufficient compliance with what we know to be one of the standing orders of the House, is more than I, unexperienced as I am in the forms of your Lordships'House, can take upon myselfto say. —( Move, move. ) He moved that the petition be received. The Duke of NEWCASTLE regretted having interrupted the Noble and Learned Lord, because he should be sorry to deprive him of any opportunity of showing an insult to that House.—( Cheers.) F or th e N o bl e an d L earne d L or d to in dulge in this kind of sneer, and invective, and unbecoming sar casm was, he really thought, beneath him, and excessively in sulting to the dignity of their Lordships' H o u se .—( Ch eers and " N o , no.") He repeated it was very insulting for the Noble and Learned Lord to use the language with which he attempted to flagellate that House. It was nothing less than pandering to the very coarsest passions and worst feelings of the lowest class of the community.—( Loud cheers.) Lord BROUGHAM—ReaIIy, my Lords, I am not aware that I have used any one expression affecting your Lordships' House except, indeed, stating my respect and veneration for it•—(Cheers, and a cry of "Oh r) lam not aware, I say aain, my Lords, o f an y one wor d I h ave use d , w hi c h can oblected to by any one Member of this House. But the Noble Duke objects to my reading the petition, as if I were taking . an o p portun i ty of offering, disrespect to your Lord s,NA. Why, if I wished to cast any disrespect to your Lord ships, I should show that disrespect in my own proper person, which the Noble Duke, to do him justice, gives me credit for wishing an opportunity to do. I have yet to learn, my Lords, that any Member of Parliament, in the discharge of his duty of p resent i ng t h e pet i t i ons of the people, is at all to blame in bringing any petition forward ; it being the ri g ht o f the s u bj ect to petition Parliament—it being the right of your Lordships to reject that petition, if you please.—( Loud cheering.) Now, observe how the case stands--just observe. If I had given in this petition—as I very naturally might have wished to do, for I want to come to the business of the evening —if I had given in this petition, and merely said, " Petition in favour of the Bill, town of Leicester," some Noble Lord would have looked at the petition to-night, or to-morrow morning, and then he would have found out that I had presented a petition without notice, containing expres sions, I ha ve no h es i tat i on i n saying, of a strong nature ; and I should have been immediately told that I was bound to make your Lordships aware of the nature of those expres si°lls•—( Cheers.) Well, then, I say, I was bound to read the petition. The Earl of WICKLOW—No. bLord BROUGHAM—The Noble Lord thinks I was not und to r ea d i t . W e ll , t h en, I shall jut judge for myself; make up my own mind, act on m y own b e h a lf, an d rea d t h e Petitio n or not read it as I please. I have a right to make a nY motion that I please. The motion that I made was that the petition be received, and any Noble Lord can vote for or against that motion as he thinks proper, exercising just same discretion a n d f ree d om th a t I reserve f or myse lf. — (Cheers, The Earl of WICKLOW—If it were one o f their Lord ship' rules not to receive disrespectful petitions, they could not receive the present.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord l'las bound to read the petition before offering it to their Lordshi ps, and seeing that it contained expressions offensive and insulting to the House, he should ha ve t o ld th e petition re th at such an insulting petition would Ro t b e received. He be gged t o move that the petition be rejected.—( Opposition eueers.) The Earl of FALMOUTH reminded their Lordships that bet Were i n t h e h a bi t o f protect i ng, not only their own House oft, the oth er H ouse o f P ar li ament, f rom 'di srespect. W hen h imself p resente d a pet i t i on t h e ot h er d ay from the b orough E n vesham, which contained a passage stating that the ma jority of the other House was composed of Papists and others not i n connection with the Church of England, it was alleged N oble L or d s oppos i te to b e offensive to the other House, and he immediately withdrew the petition on these grounds, gr i d on th ese grounds only. Therefore, on account of the ge nrally disrespectful and insulting language contained in the present petition, he should support his Noble Friend's objec tion to its reception. Lord BROUGHAM—The Noble Earl has an undoubted right to move the rejection of, and your Lordships have a Perfect right to reject, any petition you please--of the exer s° of that r i g h t Id o not comp l a i n . B ut I say , my L or d s, i t la to me a most extraordinary position that a Noble Lord, receiving a petition signed by ten or eleven thousand of his fellow. citizens is to reject that petition at once, because the Petitioners choose to blame the conduct of the House of Lords.--( Cheers.) lam not aware that this House is likely to raise itself in the estimation of its fellow-countrymen by Cla iming for itself a privilege and a freedom which no hu man beings o f th e i r con d uc t h ave a r i g h t to c l a i m — t h at o f being exempt from a free expression of disapprobation.— kolid ch eers .) M en may diff er as to w h et h er the expres sion of disapprobation is respectful or disrespectful ; and if your Lordships think that this is a disrespectful expression of disa pprobation, it is for you to reject it. The Elul of WICKLOW had moved the rejection of the petition on the ground of its being a highly disrespectful one. pe knew that the public had a right to blame their Lordships In 'a respectful manner, but not in a disrespectful, sneering, and insulting tone. The Duke of WELLINGTON entreate d t h e i r L or d sh i ps not to weigh too nicely the wording of petitions, or the ex pressions of the petitioners. He was very much disposed to think that no such disrespectful language as the present pe titions contained, was calculated to do their Lordships much nl inrY.—( Loud cheering.) He must say, however, that when the attention of the House was drawn, in so particular a m a nner, by th e N o bl e an d L earne d L or d to t h ose particular expressions when the Noble and Learned Lord commented n eon them as he had done; when in this particular petition, Moreover, there was the omission of a word required to be in troduced into all petitions presented to the House, and when the Noble and Learned Lord was aware of that fact-- (Lord BROUGHAM—I beg the Noble Duke's pardon.-- i o b r e der, or d er.) I will at once withdraw the petition. The It to doctrine i s a most sound and a most judicious and a most !ten ini)°, not only for this House, but for every individual in adopt ; they should not weigh too nicely the expressions ti ld s e e fl ern b e y d petition ers .—( Cheers. ) The Earl f WICKLOW—I beg to assure the Noble and c a r T r ler:d it i mr o d, that if he had not withdrawn the petition, I would certainly have taken the sense of the House. BR OUGHAM—And very probably you would have The a way with you.—(Great laughter and cheers.) Lordlltion was then withdrawn. Cockhu rn - ` °IJ OH AM then presented a petition from Mr. eipai Cockburn of the Commissioners, against whom the prin. 11 %1r. \vhi a es of the counsel at the bar had been directed. tcombe, his brother Commissioner, was unfortunately :rd but he pledged himself, with their Lordship' per. of the to rebut by five or six witnesses at the bar, the whole i charges made against him by interested parties. As he I ,: r !' not moved their Lordships to hear the petitioner in the istol case, he felt that he could not make an exception in the ) ,... na a_e i of this gentleman, who with his deceased colleague had ~e.ie4rTso directly attacked, and it was therefore his painful duty l advise their Lordships not to grant the prayer of the peti tioner,which was, of course, to be heard at the bar. The Noble arned Lord proceeded to state the substance of the petition. Th e petitioner represented that he had entered _ Poo the charge committed to him with a deep and anxious sense o f its responsibility, an d th at i n per f orm i ng it he had kscharg e d hi s duty to the best of his humble ability and !kn owledge, faithfully, fearlessly, an d consc i en tiously ; that t heonjuncti on with his deceased c o ll eague h e h a d i nqu i r ed into Corporations of Coventry and Leicester ; that he had Perused with extreme astonishment the evidence given with reference to those Corporations ; and that he and his deceased colleague had extended the same just and impartial spirit to every Corporation that had formed the subject of their in quiry, without reference to political principles, in proof of Which he referred to the Corporations of Nottingham and Derby on the one hand, and Shrewsbury and Tamworth on the other. The petition was then read at length by the clerk. Lord L YNDHURST said that from the statement of the petition he should have inferred that Mr. Whitcombe, the de ceased Commissioner, was the only colleague of Mr. Cock burn, but Mr. Cockburn was also accompanied by Mr. Rush ton ; and his Lordship could bear testimony to the high re spectability of these gentlemen. Lord BROUG HAM said the Noble Lord was perfectly I lgitt• Mr. Whitcombe went to Coventry and Leicester, but sag prevented by illness from going to Sutton Coldfield. He t hanked his Noble and Learned Friend for the candid testi- Mony he had just borne to the respectability of these Com- Missioners. The petition was then laid on the table. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr. Kemp son and Mr. Sadl e r, th e form er an a ld erman , and the latter an attorney of S u tt on C o ldfi e ld, stat i ng generally the great pro- Priety and correctness of the whole conduct of Mr. Cockburn, the Commissioner at Sutton Coldfield. They stated also a very remarkable circumstance, to which he begged to call their Lordship s ' attention. A petition had been presented against the Bill under the seal of the Corporation of Sutton Coldfield, leadin g to the supposition that there was an erroneous feeling against the Bill. There were twenty-five persons composing the Corporation only five of whom were pr e s en t a t th e meet rg when th e seal was affixed to the petition ; and among these 'flie--the square root of the Corporation--(Laughter)--a division took place upon the question of affixing the seal, three bein g , on one s id e, and two on the other; so that three mem bers alone took upon themselves to affix the seal to the peti tion, as if it spoke the mature opinions of the whole Corpo ration. Viscount STRANGFORD said that Mr. Woodcock, of Coventry had be en accuse d o f an i ntent i on, by the nature of _the evidence he had g i ven on t hi s Bi ll, to secure to himself the tonwal of a va l uable lease held by him under the Corpora ; the fact was, Mr. Woodcock had no connection what svevas er with th e Corporation ; he had p urc h ase d th e l ease , an d Perfectly independent of any necessity of conciliating the -,:prporation ; asmuch, as by an order of the Court of ..,‘ - hancery, at the expiration of the lease ten years hence, the Yrolerty would be put up to attction. Lord BIIOI.7QHAM remarked that the only charge made against Mr. Woodcock was, that when he was asked if he had any, gonnection with the Corporation of Coventry, he ought to hare explained that he was assignee of property of wbtch the Corporation were the landlords. Lord LYNDHURST reminded the Noble Lord that the lease was granted two hundred years ago, and was purchased by Mr. Woodcock of the tenant, and not of the Corporation. Lord WHA RN CL I FFE presented a petition from Thomas Smith, a burgess of Newcastle-on-Tyne, praying (as we un derstood) for pecuniary compensation in case the Municipal Reform Bill should be passed. His Lordship also presented a petition from the inhabitants of Clifden, in the North Riding of York, against the 4th clause of the Bill, which would for the purposes of that Act include Clifden within the bounda ries of the city of York ; and the petitioners prayed to be heard by Counsel. He also presented a petition of a similar nature from the inhabitants of Halifax. Lord GLENE LG presented a petition from Tiverton in favour of the Bill. The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition from Olney, in Bucks, in favour of the Bill. The Duke of NEWCASTLE then rose to address their Lordships, but his Grace was very indistinctly heard in the gallery. The Noble Duke was understood to complain of the :manner in which these petitions in support of the Bill were got up ; and objected to the Government participating in the agitation that was now going on in the country upon the sub ject. He had a peculiar regard for the Noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Councils, and he would take leave to suggest to the Noble Viscount, seeing as he (the Noblc Duke) did, the treasonable conspiracy that was carrying on in this country against the Church and State, whether it would not be wise for him to withdraw himself from a Govern meat which—(Great laughter)--which might be dragged into that conspiracy, which he believed the Noble Viscount and many other members of the Government would wish to avoid.—( Laughter.) He feared that there were some persons who would drag the Ministers of the Crown into the com mission of deeds and acts which they would—( Here the Noble Duke dropped his voice, which prevented us from hearing the remainder of the sentence.) Connected with all this he Raw language in the public papers--(Laughter)—what he was going to say was matter of fact—he had seen it stated that in a certain place there had been remarks made calculated to injure, in the greatest degree, the Church and the State ; and he had also seen it reported that certain persons had, in another place, endeavoured to vilify Members even of their Lordships' House. He particularly alluded to some most atrocious remarks made last night in a certain place. Those remarks he thought were of such a character as to deserve the most unqualified censure, and marks of displeasure from this House. He alluded to a speech made by a person else where.—( Cries of " Order, order.") Lord WH A RNCLIFFE rose to order. He really must appeal to his Noble Friend whether it was consistent with the dignity of their proceedings to refer to speeches made in the other House of Parliament ; for, after all, disguise it as they might, by the term, "another place," all mankind must un derstand what was meant. He hoped, therefore, this irregu lar discussion would not be continued. The Duke of NE WC AST L E--These speeches ought to he checked. , A NOBLE LORD—Checked ! The Duke of NE WC A STLE—Yes, checked; I certainly will speak my opinion of such speeches wherever I may be. The Noble Duke then proceeded to say that the speech to which he alluded mentioned something about an Illustrious Personage very nearly connected with the throne. Things were said respecting that Illustrious Personage hiell•-•-( Cries of " Order, order !") " If it be the opinion of your Lordships I ought not to proceed, I will bow to that opinion, and sit down."—(The Noble Duke then re sumed his seat. ) On the motion of Viscount MELBOURNE, the Order of the Day was then read for the House resolving itself into Com mittee on the Municipal Corporations Bill. Viscount MELBOURNE—My Lords, I now rise to make the motion which I proposed on a former occasion, when I was interrupted by the motion made by a Noble Earl, and adopted by this House for hearing counsel, and receiving evidence at the bar. When I consider the length at which I addressed your Lordships on a former occasion, when the general princi ple of the measure was discussed, and when I consider the very clear and distinct arguments both for and against that measure, which were then addressed to your Lordships, I do not think it my duty to offer any very lengthened observations to your Lord ships on this occasion. Your Lordships have heard counsel at the bar ; you have heard the evidence also at the bar. Your Lordships well know my opinion of the inconve nience of that proceeding, as well with regard to the pre sent measure, as with regard to the precedent it would esta blish. I shall therefore make no further observations upon that part of the subject. I think the inconvenience has been fully exemplified by the many petitions that it. has called forth, by the nature of the debates which it has produced, and by the many small matters that have been brought in question before your Lordships. Such, for instance, as to whether a person possessing a beneficial lease under the corpo ration of Coventry, has any interest in that corporation, so as to bias his evidence in favour of that corporation ? These were small matters, but which might take your Lordships a great deal of time to unravel and discover; and which I apprehend at the same time could have no possible effect whatever upon the question before you for your Lordships' decision. Having produced such en instance, I shall not dwell further upon this part of the subject, or produce other instances to show that my anticipations of the_ great inconvenience that would esult from your Lordships' recent decision has been borne out, and has also been attended with some degree of injustice, because it is injustice that imputations should be cast upon persons in the solemn and formal manner in which they have been, who had not the means of refuting or rebutting them.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) I think it is impossible not to feel not only that considerable inconvenience, but that some injustice, has resulted from the mode adopted by your Lordships. With respect to the evidence given at the bar, I shall not enter at present into an analysis of it. In the course of the debate upon this measure we shall probably hear what part of that evi dence is, and what part is not, material in the decision to which we ought to come on the question before your Lordships. With respect to that evidence I will only say,—not meaning in the slightest degree to impeach the talents or the integrity of the persons by whom that evidence was given at the bar. all of whom were well acquainted with the subject on which they spoke ; but at the same time I must state that they were all perfons either in the employ of these Corporations, or leading members of them ; that they were involved entirely in the proceedings of those Corporations, for the reforma tion of the abuses of which this Bill was brought forward ; that they were either the advisers or participators of all the acts which this Bill goes to correct ; and that their inte rests will be seriously affected by the provisions it contains. I must also say, with respect to the mode in which the evidence was given, that it had been entirely exparte evi dence, and conducted in an exrarte matter. The witnesses were all examined on on 2 side, and not cross-examined by counsel on the osier. They were examined in a most leading manlier, and the only cheek upon them was any examination which any Noble Peer might think proper to put ; and which examination was necessarily very much curtailed and abbreviated from the anxiety we all felt to relieve ourselves as speedily as possible from a course of proceeding in which we felt we had most incautiously , and injudiciously involved ourselves. With this obser vation I will dismiss that evidence ; because, supposing all the facts it alleged were admitted to be true—yet the de ductions from them were only the mere opinions of the wit nesses who delivered them, and in my view of the case, there arc sufficient grounds for entertaining quite contrary opinions ; while many of the statements themselves are capable of being contradicted by other evidence. But supposing this were not so, and all the facts were true, what do they amount to, be yond that of a re-statement of all the facts already given to your Lordships in the Commissioners' Report, except certain mistakes of a trifling nature, which are admitted by the Com missioners? But to any counter-statement made by the wit nesses at the bar against the Commissioners' Report, I am instructed to say that the Commissioners can satisfactorily de fend their Report against the charge of mis-statement or error. But, my Lords, I again say, if the whole of the evi dence taken at the bar were admitted to be true, it would not in the slightest degree affect the general grounds upon which I rest my defence and support of this measure—general grounds, the justness of which, in a certain degree, was ad mitted on a former occasion by some Noble Lords in this House, who are nevertheless opposed to this Bill. With re spect to the Corporation Commissioners, I cannot but think that they have been treated with great and unmitigated injus tice.—( Hear, hear.) Their names have been derided, and definitions of tlieir political characters given, from whence collected I know not. But when observations of the same sort were made which were supposed to reflect upon the early political character of others, the answer immediately was this :—" No, you have no right to say that_( Cheers)—you have no right to attack for opinions I may have entertained be fore I came into Parliament—( Cheers)—it is my public acts alone that you have any right to impeach."—( Cheers.) My Lords, I think there is great justice in that remark ; but then, my Lords, let the same justice be rendered to the Commis sioners which you demaed for yourselves ; that which you ask for yourselves should be also meted out to these Com missioners, who stand precisely in the same situation as you did—who stand precisely in the same rank of life—who stand precisely in the same profession as those did who now charge them with undue violence—with going beyond due bounds in their political principles, political feelings, and political opinions.--( Cheers.) This, my Lords, is no light charge.-- ( Cheers.) It is very well known what is meant by this. I say it would be perfect injustice to ascribe these feelings and opinions to the Commissioners, for nobody can be positive or certain of what are the real political principles and opinions of men when they are merely collected from common report, and common conversation, and not from the intimate intercourse of private life. It is not fair, then, with respect to men strug gling upward in their profession, to stop them in a manner which may be of serious mischief to them, and greatly pre judicial in the course of their after-life.—( Cheers.) Your Lordships must expect that these Commissioners, attacked as they have been—accused of the most violent principles— charged with stating direct falsehoods—and threatened with punishment—must necessarily feel—as men of honour and in tegrity, who are conscious of having discharged a great pub lic duty to the best of their ability—indignant and impatient under such imputations. They have been most anxious to petition your Lordships, in order that they may be heard at the bar in refutation of those aspersions. They feel confident they could, in a short period, dissipate the whole of the im pntations thrown out against them. I have, however, en tirely dissuaded them from such a course. I was afraid that we might be involved in further inconvenience; I was afraid that some of your Lordships would say, that it was due in justice that they should be heard. I therefore persuaded them from pursuing that course, distinctly informing them that I could not refuse presenting their petition, but that I thouolat it more prudent not to present it ; because I did not in my mind ; feel confident that if I did not move that they shoUld b e h ear d • ?A the bar, some other Noble Lord might do so. I n conse quence of this they addressed to me a letter, which states more distinctly than I could do, the grounds on whi c h t h ey rest their case, and the manner in which they reply to t h e charges made against them, which letter I think it my duty to trouble your Lordships with. I have also received a let ter from Mr. Buckle, cud one from Mr. Austin to a similar effect.* The first letter is signed by John Elliot Drinkwater and Edward Rushton, and runs thus : Westminster, August 12, 18 35. " My Lord,—We feel ourselves placed in circumstan ces of great pain and embarrassment, by the course adopted in the House of Lords with regard to the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill, being compelled either to permit our characters to be unjustifiably assailed with impunity, or to promote the objects of the parties, by whom the attack has been instigated, by offering to vindicate ourselves at the cost of certain delay, and probable consequent defeat, of a great ' public measure, involving the present peace and permanent interests of the empire. " Your Lordship is aware that almost all the Commissioners are absent from London, and are even now very imperfectly informed of the charges against them ; but we are confident that the feelings with which we now address your Lordship must be shared by all our colleagues who are placed in the same situation. " Our natural impulse would lead us to present a petition t o th e House of Lords, praying to be allowed the opportunity of repelling the mis-statements which have been made at the bar aff ec ti ng us, and of supplying the additional information to the Ho use w i thout which it is impossible for their Lordship • to estimate the propriety of the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, or the correct ness of the Commissioners' Reports. But your Lord s hi p i nforms us that this course will not have the sanction and support of Go vernment on account of the necessary consequences to which we, have already alluded. " We are therefore driven to request this, at least, of your Lord ship, that the House may be made aware that it is from no indif ference to their Lordships' censure, from no want of regard to our own reputation, and from no want of means fully to establish the propriety of our behaviour, that we are reluctantly induced to for bear appearing as petitioners before their Lordships. " The present occasion is not a fitting one to make general allegations of the spirit in which we attempted faithfully to dis charge the important duty entrusted to us, and of which w e h ave the satisfaction to believe that your Lordship is fully convinced. We pass by in silence much of the intemperate abuse with which we have been assailed, since their Lordships did not deem the language in which it was uttered unfit to be heard at their bar. But we can not entirely repress the indignation and disgust with which we have heard ourselves accused by counsel of malignity, and of wilful and scandalous falsehood, which feelings have been greatly heightened by observing that none of the witnesses would adopt the language which the counsel ineffectually endeavoured to put into their mouths. " We have carefully examined the whole of the evidence given at the bar, and are not a little surprised at perceiving that by far the largest portion of it consists merely of an imperfect repetition of statements already made more fully in our Reports, with which we had not conceived that it was the intention of their Lordships to allow their time to be occupied. The facts contradicted in detail are not only exceedingly few in number, but are altogether unim portant. " Even under the strong provocation that we have received, we are very loth to accuse either Sir Charles Wetherell or Mr. Knight of an intention to mislead the House, although they have shown little forbearance or delicacy towards us ; but we earnestly beg your Lordship to take an opportunity of pressing en the attention of the House that the abuse of us, in which those gentlemen indulged, was neither grounded on any specific allegations in the petitions on which they were heard, nor has it been sustained or justified by the evi dence which they have called. " Among many other things of which we have just reason to complain, we have discovered, with the greatest regret, that in more than one instance a witness was prevailed upon to swear that the Report was false and incorrect, by counsel pretending to read, as part of the Report, that which is not part of the Report, and by in correctly stating_that to be omitted from the Report which is not omitted from the Report. Three instances of this occur in the evi dence on Coventry alone. " Your Lordship is aware that our Reports do not profess to give the evidence which was taken by us—but merely the general effect and result, upon our minds, of all the evidence which we re ceived—and we are perfectly sensible that the reliance that can he placed upon the truth of the matters which we have so reported, must depend upon whatever character we are supposed to bear for intelligence and impartiality; bet. we protest against any conclu sion being drawn with respect to the ae,uacy of the representa tions made by us from a review of evidence on both sides of the question, from the picture which has been drawn by witnesses on one side only. All our inquiries we4e. conducted in public, and all evidence which was tendered to us, was received—and notwith standing the assertions of counsel, no satisfactory proof has vet been offered to the House that the testim,ny of any of those wit nesses was disregarded by us. It is not, however, surprising that those who are implicated in a system which we denounce as badand unpopular, should cavil at our conclusions, and should think that until they were called to make an e.r 2,a rte statement at the bar of the House of Lords, sufficient weight was not allowed to their own evidence in their own favour. "It has been alleged, amt strongly commented upon, that we were in private communication with the adversaries of the corpo ration, which in the sense in which alcne the witnesses could swear to it (namely, for the purpose of learnhi, the subjects of inquiry,) is true and justifiable, but in the sense i,i which it was brought against us, as an accusation, is absolutely groundless. " It must be obvious to your Lordship that it was only from the adversaries of the corporation that we could learn what were the complaints that existed on which the inhabitants wished an inquiry to be instituted ; but the examination appears to have been cau tiously conducted, so as to lead the House to believe, contrary to the fact, that evidence was received in private, and that complaints have been noticed in the Report which were not made the subject of public investigation. " Your Lordship is perhaps aware that even in the short interval that has elapsed since the evidence before the House has been made public, the accuracy of the Retorts have been vindicated in several towns in which the conduct of the Commissioners has been most strongly attacked, by resolutions unanimously passed at large public meetings of the inhabitants. It is possible, therefore, that we might have safely treated the attack upon us with silent contempt. " We trust, however, that some allowance will be made by your Lordship for the feelings of men who conscientiously believe that they should not have been calumniated . , if a more important object had not been in view than the defamation of their character, and who are told that it is their duty to submit for a time to the asper sions cast upon them, rather than throw additional obstacles in the way of a measure of great importance. " We have the honour to be. my Lord, " Your Lordship's obedient servants, "JOHN ELLIOT DRINKWATER, " EDWARD RUSHTON." This, my Lords, is the statement made by the Commis sioners. It is more distinct, more forcible and positive than anything I could advance ; and with that statement of their ease I leave these gentlemen to your Lordships' justice, and submit their conduct to your fair and impartial considera tion. With respect to the general measure itself it is not my intention on the present occasion to repeat all those ge neral arguments by which I before attempted to induce your Lordships to consent to the second reading. Your Lord ships must be fully aware that there is a great and general feeling prevailing on this subject : that that feeling is not confined to one part of the country, or to one class of the community ; but that it prevails as well in corporate towns and cities as in towns not corporate; that it in short per vades the whole mass of the community. lam not, as your Lordships are well aware, one of those who think that public opinion is always necessarily correct, just, and right— or that we are always to be bound to obey its dictates. I inn perfectly ready to admit that the people may be misled by passion, their judgment warped by prejudice, that their opinions may be erroneous, and theh views mistaken : but, my Lords, I nevertheless am bound to say that there is a state of public feeling and opinion upon this question under circumstances which call upon your Lordships to give it your particular attention ; and which make it necessary that your Lordships should think of it with more than ordinary interest and concern. Whatever may be thought of the liability to error on the part of the people, yet when ge neral views on any given subject are entertained by large masses of the community, no wise statesman, no prudent legislator, would ever treat those views with neglect or disregard. Your Lordships knew very well that throughout all those towns where the name of a Corporation exists, a long, deep-rooted, and settled opidion has prevailed that the present constitution of those Corporations is an usurpation--( Cheers), that it is a deprivation of rights which formerly existed ; that it is an encroachment and an innovation upon the more popular form of the institutions which were established in these bo roughs by our ancestors. The public opinion is never so much to be regarded, or to be looked at with so much caution and respect, as when it is founded on a feeling of right, and when the people think they have been treated with injustice. Such are the feelings that have been manifested by the various cor porate towns on this subject ; they, therefore, demand your Lordships' particular consideration. Another circumstance which requires your Lordships' serious attention is, that this is a question which peculiarly concerns the middle orders, and those who constitute the great bulk of the people. They feel it more, and consequently they understand it ninell better than your Lord ships. There may be questions upon which your Lordships may be able to form a better judgment than the hulk of the people ; but upon this question the people, I repeat, are much better * The following are the letters which his Lordship re ferred to : " Aug. 12, 1835.. " My Lord,—Having just read a letter written to your Lordship by Mr. Drinkwater and Mr. Rushton, relative to the attacks made upon the conduct of the Corporation Commissioners by the counsel and witnesses at the bar of the House of Lords, I beg leave to as sure your Lordship that I concur in the feelings expressed in that letter by the Commissioners who signed it ; and I strenuously pro test against any unfavourable inference being drawn either against my own, or the reports of other Commissioners, from the un proved statements of counsel or the evid e nc e of witnessesinte rested in the present corporate system, and who were subjected to no cross-examination. " I am, &c. &e. " House of Lords, half-past seven." " C. AUSTIN. " Penzance, Aug. 10, 1835. "My Lord,—l learn from the newspapers that the House of Lords is now engaged in a quasi-judicial inquiry into the conduct of the Corporation Commissioners. As one of those Commission ers, may I be permitted to ask whether it is the intention of the House to limit this inquiry to the statements of town-clerks and aldermen ; or whether the mamerbus witnesses, upon whose tes timony our reports are founded, and whose evidence was publicly given upon oath, in the presence of the several Corporations and their opponents, subject to any questions that might be suggested on either side, will be called to their Lordships' bar for exami nation ? " Without presuming to understand the precise nature of those functions which the House is now exercising, I may be allowed to observe, that if their Lordships propose to judge the conduct of the Commissioners or the faithfulness of their Reports, by the es-parte statements to which they are now listening, it will lie a very novel mode of exhibiti ng to t h e country t h at n i ce sense o f j ust i ce t o which they have l a id c l a i m upon t hi s occasion. Confident that in such a case your Lo r d s hi p w ill not sut l er t h e c h aracter o f t hi s i nq uiry to pass unobse rve d, w h en the C omm i ss i oners cannot be hear d, I will rations within th e E astern Ci rcu i t, those upon Norwich only add, th a t I am prepared to j est i fy my Reports on the Corr and Boston, whi c h h ave b een su bj ects of comp l a i nt. " I have the honou r t o h e , lily Lord, Your Lordship', most obedient servant , Viscount M e lb ourne , i ce . " BUCKIX-*' judges than you are. They know intimately the workings of these Corporations. There may be, in a local government, a system extremely partial, a system extremely troublesome, a system extremely annoying, a system extremely offensive, a I system felt by every body in the place to taint, as it were, the very air about them, making it noxious and hurtful to all but a few, and yet, for all this, it may be very difficult to detect any actual abuse, or to fix upon that which is, in fact, the real cause of the evil. This, then, my Lords, is a strong reason why you should pay particular attention to the feelings ex pressed by the people on this subject. But there is another reason—my Lords, I tell you that this is not only the feeling 1 of the people, but it is a sound, it is a sincere feeling. It is in their hearts. It is not a momentary feeling got up for the oc easion—(Cheers)—it is not a factitious feeling—( Great cheering)—it is not a feeling capable of being raised by exag geration. On other questions Ido not deny that great popular prejudice, great exaggeration existed, both with regard to the evils produced by the existing system of things, and the good to be derived from the removal of them. But that is not the case upon this subject. Ido not mean to say that there is no exaggeration upon this subject ; that no violence—no passion has been displayed; but I do maintain, my Lords, that it is a subject less capable of exaggeration, less susceptible of misre presentation —a subject upon which the passions are less likely to be inflamed than any other question that has been placed upon the basis of the popular opinion. My Lords, I have but little more to state upon this question. It is impossible not to feel that it is a very great misfortune when the three branches of the Legislature do not act at least with something like una nimity, when there is not something like agreement in their proceedings, when there is not something like sympathy in their feelings and opinions. My Lords, I feel this to be a very delicate subject to touch upon ; but, my Lords, I do say, that if any alienation between your Lordships and the House of Commons should be of long continuance, it would and must lead to consequences of the most disastrous kind.— ( Hear, hear.) Your Lordships well know, indeed it is too clear to be doubted or denied, that there is not that union and that sympathy between your Lordships and those who con stitute the majority of the other House of Parliament which it is desirable on all considerations should subsist. Your Lordships do not sympathize with a very considerable majo rity of the House of Commons. I beg you Lordships to re collect that this Bill passed the second reading in the House of Commons without any division; and not only so, but after it had undergone the scrutiny of a Committee, and after all the amendments which were moved had been negatived in that Committee, those who proposed such amendments did not think the Bill, even though their improvements were rejected, was 60 unfitted to pass into a law as to justify them to vote for its rejection ; but it was read also a third time without a division. I say, therefore, my Lords, that this ought to make you to pause before you determine to reject the Bill so passed by the House of Commons. I call upon your Lordships to consider—to reflect. Ido not speak this by way of menace, or in the way of intimidation. I offer it to your Lordships' calm judgment. But your Lordships will recollect, if you refuse to conciliate, if you refuse either to go into Commit tee, or to give this Bill a fair consideration, you will be set ting yourselves in opposition, not to a majority of the House of Commons that support the Ministers, but you will be set tin, yourselves in opposition to almost the whole House of Commons.—( Cheers.) You will be setting yourselves in opposition to the opinions of the people of England, collected, not from public meetings, to which objections may be made —collected, not from petitions presented to this House, to which objections may be made; but you will be, and are, set ting yourselves in opposition to the opinions of the people of Englund, declared through the legitimate organs—their re presentatives in Parliament.—( Very great cheering.) I now move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Bill. The Duke of NEWCASTLE should regret extremely the ado ; eion of any course which would lead to a collision be tween the two Houses, but he certainly could not see any rea son why that House should be obliged to adopt a decision which it, in its wisdom, should not be convinced was a correct and proser one. He differed with great regret from the Noble Dui:e ; but he had taken the course he adopted from the most conscientious motives. If he differed from that Noble Duke, whom he respected beyond what his power of expression could supply, he did so from a sense of paramount duty. He would support the Noble Duke's view of the case if it accorded with his conscientious belief; but it did not. He (the Duke of Newcastle) had warned the House of the consequences which were likely to accrue from a repeal of the Test and Corpora tion Act, as well as from Catholic Emancipation. He should now warn it against the measure before them. He felt con vinced that it was fraught with every evil which could render it odious ; that it was a measure of the worst description ; and that it had for its object the spoliation of property, the depri vation of rights, and the violation of that good faith which every Government should preserve with those it governed. He would implore their Lordships to stand by the rights of the Corporations and not to violate them. The Noble Viscount opposite might shield himself under the asser tion, that the Bill had passed the Commons by a large majority ; but that could not, or should not, influence their Lordships, especially the majority of a Reformed Parliament. The Noble Viscount, in his allusion to the Bill on a former occa sion, had called it a remedial measure ; but that he (the Duke of Newcastle) considered a misnomer; it was a Bill of pains and penalties. A Noble Lord had compared it to a similar Commission issued to examine into the Church of Scotland, which Commission was stated to be composed of men of all sentiments--Deists., Atheists, and others he supposed in cluded—pretty persons to whom to intrust the affairs of the Church. Perhaps.the same might be alleged in favour of these C s ommissioners. The fact was, the country was ridden over by Commissioners. When, in former times, it was at tempted to establish arbitrary power in England, Commissions wers always issued, and that it was the case especially in re gard of the Commissions subsequent to the Restoration. One of the first acts of the Legislature, after the revolution was settled, was pointed ag ainst than in the famous Bill of Rights. The principle of performing every thing by the means of Commissions he considered one of the most mischievous which could be imegilicd, and one of the most pernicious to liberty which could be adopted by any Government. In 1815 it was impossible to find a country in Europe so happy as England— so prosperous in every respect, and so mush looked up to by every nation under the sun. What had happened since then ? We had trusted since then too much to our own wits, and we had ;one totally astray from the political light, which unfail inglyt led us to that prosperity and honour. W e were , conse quently,rosoero u d sl and yafte h r e da fo y ro b s e a c w om th in a g t more unhappy, on and in lessha t p downward track until we came to a revolution, unless it were speedily and effectually averted by the exertions of their Lordships. He was inclined to come to these conclusions by his observation on the spirit of universal anarchy which was abroad ; and he should warn their Lordships that, unless a check were speedily put upon it, all would be lost. He should, however, endeavour to address himself to the Bill before the House. At the onset he had stated his objections to its pro ceeding further, on the grounds that it was a condemnation of parties unsupported by evidence, and a deprivation of pro perty without the formalities even of justice. The House had seen it in the same light ; and evidence had been heard. What was proved by it ? The contrary of all the allegations in the parts of the Report which had been entered on ; and the total absence of every shade of delinquency on the part of the Corporations.—( Hear, hear.) However, notwith standing all that, it appeared that the Bill was to be pro ceeded with--that it was to be permitted to go into Com mittee for the purpose of amendment, which he felt bound to say could never take place, the measure was so radically and essentially bad. He lived in a county where riots were frequent, and organised opposition to the law extensive; and he had received proofs on more than one oecasion of the effi ciency of the Corporation in checking the one and putting an end to the other. He would instance the town of Notting ham, with whose Corporation he entirely differed in politics, the more willingly, for the purpose of bearing his testimony to the excellence of their police, and the great assistance derived from their local authority on all such occa sions. If the Bill for the extinction of municipal Cor porations should be passed, the House would be called on to perform the same office for others, of a similar character and founded on the same principle. The established Church was a corporate body. Its possessions and privileges could consequently be attacked on the grounds which served the sup porters of the Bill before their Lordships, and their Lordships —if they passed the one—could scarcely refuse to pass the other. An Hon. Friend of his had done credit to his head as well as his heart when he said that all good Governments were based upon religion, and that no good Government could exist without it. With that opinion he (the Duke of Newcastle) fully concurred. He should move that the Bill be recommitted that day six months. The Earl of MANSFIELD could not, on the whole, con cur in his motion. He should vote that the Bill go into Com mittee ; but he should qualify that vote by a few observations on the circumstances in which their Lordships were placed, and the feelings by which he was actuated. Objecting to the principles and to the details of the measure as strongly as ever his Noble Friend did, he should not have felt himself justified, notwithstanding, in not approving either the second reading or the committal of it. The first because, though it was gene rally allowed to concede a principle, it was usual for their Lor dships to commit a measure for the purpose of more effectual amendment; the second, because, if amendment were impos sible, there was still the alternative of final rejection. He thought their Lordships did right in allowing it to pass a se cond reading, and also that they would do right by permitting it to go into Committee for the purpose'of discussion. But, as far as lie was concerned, he had no hesitation in saying that it was the influence of circumstances which compelled him to vote for either stage of it. It was urged in behalf of the mea.ure, and against their Lordships, that there was a great discrepancy between their conduct in respect to it and that of the Commons. It was stated that the Right Hon. Baronet in the other House did not oppose it in any of its stages ; and it was then argued that their Lordships ought not to depart from that precedent. But it was no precedent at all. Whether thei e was a discussion on it or not, was no subject for their Lordships' inquiry ; and whatever were the circumstances whi,sh attended its course through the other branch of the Legislature, inasmuch as their Lordships were responsible for :is perfection, they were bound to take the course they deemed most fitting. He could not help adverting to the Commission and the Commissioners before he proceeded farther. If his friend the Noble Duke who had just sat down had stated that the illegality of the Commission was universally acknowledged, he was mistaken. So, too, was the Noble and Learned Lord on the other side of the House, if he said that its legality had eever been questioned. He (the Earl of Mansfield) had heard the opinion of a Noble and Learned Lord who long presided over the Court of Chancery, and it stated at the period the Commission had been issued that it was illegal. The Duke of NEWCASTLE—I always said that it was •,, , roe Earl of MANSFIELD—There were, no doubt, eon- ' flicting opinions, and that of the Noble and Learned Lord on the other side was entitled to respect ; but he (Lord Mans field) should be excused for saying, that in such a case the opinion of the wisest and most learned—the opinion of the in dividual who had been so looked up to as the highest autho rity—should be adopted in preference to any other. He was, therefore, bound to believe the Commission was an illegal one. But, even if he were to take its legality for granted, he could not help entertaining some doubts of its efficiency. Its decrees could not be enforced--it had no power of compelling answers to its inquiries —it could inflict no punishment for contumacy or refusal. With regard to the Commissioners, he was com pelled by a sense of duty to state, that the testimony of tine witnesses heard by their Lordships against the allegations in their Report was calculated to leave a most unfavourable im pression on the minds of all who heard it against the Commis sioners. But to return to the preamble of the Bill. The Crown had a visitorial power over Corporations, and by that power it could alter or amend their charters for any malversa tion. But it could not do so, unless such malversation were proved by legal evidence. That there was no legal evidence ' in support of the exorbitant powers assumed by the Bill, he had the testimony of one of the Commissioners themselves, Mr. Hogg, in his Protest against it. To obstruct an accused person from the legal tribunals of the country was a violation of the great charter ; but, when a case of great presumption of guilt arose, a Bill of Pains and Penalties might be enacted. Yet here was the one done without a reason offered, and here was the other in procecs without a single proof of its necessity. He should, when the Bill was in Committee, protest, 1. Against any deprivation of rights, or obstruction of privileges ; 2. Against all application of property in trust to other uses, or its transference to other trustees, than those designated by the testator or testators. The Noble and Learned Lord had stated that it was usual for the Court if Chancery to dispose of property in trust ; but he had omitted to state that the heir of the testator enjoyed a resi duary right in case of a diversion of the property from other hands or other purposes than those specified in the demise or deed of gift. There was another matter which he stated with much diffidence, but which he felt, notwithstanding, had much weight with him. It was the question how far the interest of the Crown was involved in the present Bill ?—( Hear, hear.) He did not know how to define its reversionary interest in Corporation property ; but there certainly existed, in some charters, a clear right of the Crown to the appointment of mayor, recorder, and aldermen, In the reign of James the Second, when a general proclamation for restoring the char ters obtained from the Corporations in the preceding reign had been made, some were reserved. Whatever rights these in volved were vested in the Crown ; and it was due to its dig nity and honour to ascertain them, before further proceeding. The Noble Viscount (Melbourne) had stated that the Report of the Commissioners had not been made the foundation of the Bill, but only referred to in confirmation. It had been asserted that dissatisfaction was general against self-elected bodies—against the present system of municipal govern ment, and of local taxation. In many instances much dis satisfaction might be found; but it was not right, there fore, to treat the administrators of local affairs as so many usurpers. It had been assumed in the course of the debate that it was admitted on all hands that some extensive refor mation of Corporations was necessary. The one side of the House and the other equally assumed that some extensive re formation was necessary. He for one could say that he had deputed no one to express such an opinion.--( Laughter.) It was the first opportunity that had offered for expressing his sentiments. Deterred by tha fear of being charged with un seasonable interruption, he had delayed expressing his opinion. He did not admit that extensive reformation in the Corpora tions was necessary. Noble Lords opposite went upon the Found of an admitted defect, and they exclaimed, " Therefore is this Bill a remedy." If they were supported by a majority no doubt the Bill would be the best of Bills. Like all other human institutions, Corporations were doubtless imperfect, but he should wish to ascertain the degree of defect existing before he acknowledged the efficacy of the remedy proposed. He had yet to learn that the zeal to destroy was accompanied by the ability to reconstruct.—( Hear, hear.) He considered this measure a violent infringement of their rights, and as bad as the attempted usurpation of illegal powers by King James the Second. He should offer any opinion as to the propriety of alteration with great diffidence ; but he was confirmed by the opinion of Sir F. Palgrave, who was not indisposed to some measure of Reform. (The Noble Earl here read an extract from the protest of Sir F. Palgrave, to the purport that whatever places were altered in the constitution of their municipal corporations, should be altered according to the diversified interests of the town, and only so far as the opi nion of the inhabitants might render expedient, which could be best done not generally by general enactments, but spe cially to meet particular cases, and upon the decision of a competently appointed tribunal.) To guard himself against the charge of insincerity he spoke. It was in the power of their Lordships to alter every clause of the Bill, to amend every error in its principles and details. He wished their Lordships to efface from their minds any impression created by the report, but not the impression created by the evidence elicited during the late inquiry. Nothing had been more temperate than the address of the Noble Viscount. He could not insinuate to the contrary. But in allusion to the settle ment of the Roman Catholic qu •stion, another Noble Lord, presuming that it was the intention of the majority of that House to throw out the Bill, had thought proper to address a warning as to the consequences that ensued upon the opposi. tion to that measure. He was quite willing to believe that more advantage accrued to those who supported it than to those who opposed it. The consequences predicted came, and they were such as he anticipated. Such experience had no weight with him,and if really in error, in error he was obstinate Observations had also been made on the Reform Bill. The Learned Counsel had said he did not know the date of that do cument, but he believed it was called an Act of Reform. " But I." said the Noble Earl, " do know the date, do know its au thors, and I do know the tenor, and although the carrying of it was invested with apparently constitutional circumstances, I know that it was, in fact, carried by violence." He referred to the protests of their Lordships—those indelible records of a sprited Legislative Assembly. By one of the advisers of such violence they were warned. But if this change contem plated was effected, the situation of their Lordships was not the same. They were free from danger. The pressure of that violence was removed, and the House of Lords rose, with its native elasticity, to its own level, and with its rise carried the good opinion of the people. The Earl of FALMOUTH tliought the measure brought forward under a specious pretence. The Commission issued was not legal. Such was the opinion of the first lawyers of the land. A Noble Earl, one of the first of lawyers, Lord Eldon, absent from infirmity, had expressed his opinion of its illegality ; and another Noble and Learned Lord, Lord Abinger, now absent on the Circuit, had expressed a similar opinion, and said that his Majesty's subjects might with pro priety resist it. Uninfluenced by agitators, he was convinced that the common sense of the nation would reject this measure. It was said the people were anxious for it to pass into a law. Strange stories were about as to the means employed to excite the popular mind. Government franks had enclosed corres pondence to different parts of the country, and meetings and petitions were the consequence. A fen days back only, a Gen tleman now in town bud told him of the arrival of one of these franks, signed by Lord John Russell, at Weymouth. A peti tion was got up accordingly. Great oetitions were presented, and then it was said that the people demanded that the Bill should pass. Was it meant by the people the deluded mob or the educated middling classes ? Never was the feeling of the educated classes more in favour of their Lord ships' proceedings. They perceived, in consequence of the evidence adduced, that the Corporations had been maligned. It was asserted that there was a jealousy of the Corporations. But was it well founded ? There was a jealousy, too, of their Lordships. But would that jealousy be entertained because Mr. Isaac Tomkins said so, or because it was said by one as little known—Mr. Peter Jenkins ?—( Laughter.) If so their hereditary functions were gone, tor that personage had declared them proper to be enjoyable only for life. But the fact was, the Corporations had as much right to their charters as their Lordships to their patents. The patents of their Lordships were not so ancient as the charters, but they sprang from the same source. He should now content himself by opposing the commitment of the Bill and voting for the motion of the Noble Duke ( Newcastle). He had prepared some resolutions, which he should now defer proposing. The Duke of WELLINGTON said—l am opposed to the course of my Noble Friends who intend to vote against the commitment of the Bill, yet I respect the course they pursue and the reasons they offer. I object to the principle and I object to many parts of the Bill. I think that the Bill should have had the consent of his Majesty at an early stage of its progress. The King was the founder of these Corporations, and he was visitor competent to investigate the administration of their funds. I consider his Majesty should have given his consent to the measure before the enactment of the irst clause. My Lords, I besides object to this measure, because it does not adequately, in my opinion, secure existing rights and pri vileges—because it does not secure the rights of property— because it does not secure the rights of individuals appointed for the term of their lives to situations under the existing charters—and lastly, because it does not secure the privileges granted to freemen under existing Acts of Parliament.— ( Cheers.) For all these reasons I object to the Bill, although I certainly shall vote for going into Committee upon it, with the intention of amending, as far as possible, those parts of the measure which I think are defective..---( Hear.) I, be sides, my Lords, object strongly to those portions of the Bill which go to the establishment of a system by which persons may be elected to high and important situations in Corporations— I mean to such situations as those of magistrates and admi nistrators of borough affairs—who have no adequate qualifi cation for such a trust.—( Hear.) I object to persons having the management of parish affairs who are irresponsible for their proper direction ; and I object to individuals being al lowed to administer Church patronage who are utterly without qualification for such a duty.—( Loud cheers.) That no reform is requisite I am not prepared to maintain.—( Hear, hear.) In the first place, though I confess there appears to me little in this Report against the Corporations—indeed, I must say that, considering the great antiquity of many of these establishments, and considering all the purposes to which they have been from time to time required to apply their attention—l am truly astonished to find in this Report so little against them as there Hear, hear)—l cannot avoid seeing that many of these institutions have become ut terly useless and inoperative, that many others require mate rial amendment, while there are only some few which, with any advantage to the public, might be let alone altogether. —( Cheers.) To properly discriminate between these several classes, and to see that alteration is not made where alters- tion will not improve, or change attempted where change will not amend, will be my anxious and earnest object in ap . . proaching the Committ e e ; a n d I e n t er t a i n no d ou bt th a t it is perfectly competent for us, holding in sight such an object, to send forth to the public a measure cf real benefit and ad vantage.—(Cheers.) My Lords, I object to the Commis sion.—( Cheers.) I believe tb , .t Commission to be an illegal one.—( Loud cheers.) indeed, my Lords, I think the Noble and Learned Lord who issued it is of my opinion, for on the last night of the discussion upon this subject he, unless I am touch mistaken, admitted that the introduction of the word " deeds" into its body r...‘ndered it an illegal Commission.— ( Cheers.) Lord BROUGHAM-1 never did so. What I said upon the subject of " deeds" applied to the former, and not to the present Commission. Tne Duke of WELLINGTON —But the word " deeds" does e;:rtainly apply to this Commission, and therefore I think I am jn;titied in applying what the Noble and Learned Lord said reiipeer.ing it to the present as well as to the former do cunient.—( Hear, hear.) But, my, Lords, I must go far ther—l must say that not only was the Commission in my opinion an illegal one, but that it was evidently and u n d l , ni.lbly a party and partial Commission.—( Loud cheers.) Can there be a doubt, even for a moment, that they were not both party and partial Commissioners, or that the report which they framed was not both a party and partial report ? ( Cheers.) In proof of this assertion there is one point on which I would entreat your Lordships to reflect for a mo- melt. Did these Commissioners report the evidence upon which they alleged their report was founded ? Not a word of it.—( Cheers.) That which they reported was their own opinions, supposed to be originated in the evidence they ad duced ; but whether they were so or not their Lordships were not in a situation to judge. But, my Lords, there is an other circumstance connected with this report which is very remarkable, and that is the opinion and protest of Sir Francis Palgrave. Sir Francis Palgrave not only transmitted his pro test to Government, but in a separate report stated his objec tions to the general Report of the Commissioners. Why, then, let me ask, was it that the Commissioners, knowing as they did that the opinions of Sir Francis Palgrave were at va rienee with those they had expressed, did not set forth even so much of the evidence as was calculated to bear out their opinions against his ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Have they done so in any one case? Not in any one instance did they state the evidence which, in their opinion, justi fied their report. For all these reasons, I confess I consi der the five folio volumes before me as worth just so much waste paper—(Cheers)—and 1 shall be much surprised if the majority of your Lordships were to treat them in any other light.-----( Renewed cheers.) I have already said lam pre pared to go into the Committee; but if I do so, it must be under the painful conviction that we are proceeding upon partial party reports, and that before so doing we ought to have read the evidence on which these Reports are alleged to be founded.—( Cheers.) My Lords, I say, then, that I am going into this Committee with a sincere desire so to amend the Bill that, while making it a generally beneficial and useful measure, we shall so revise and reform it as to meet those peculiar circumstances which appear to me to re. quire amendment and attention..—( Hear, hear.) My Noble Friend who preceded me appears to think that there is no t evidence of dissatisfaction on the part of the people of Eng land to the existing system of Corporation management.— (" Hear," from the Earl of Falmouth.) Why, I cannot say that I have myself any evidence of the existence of such a dissatisfactirn : but at the same time I cannot possibly close my eves upon the great change which, within the last few years, has taken place in the general aspect of society.— ( Hear.) I cannot conceal from myself that, in the course of a very few years, the people of this realm have advanced greatly in riches, in knowledge, and in luxury, and that in proportion to that advance, it is natural they should wish to have participation in the administration of Government.— (Hear, hear.) Such being the case, lam not prepared to agree with my Noble Friend in saying that there is no desire entertained by the people of England that their Corporations should be thrown open to them, and I am, consequently, disposed to consider whether the establish ment of a municipal system in this country, founded, in the first place, on the free election of those to whom the admi nistration of corporate matters shall be confided—founded, likewise, on a very liberal basis of qualification, and with every view to render it such a system as will really carry into execution the object of this measure, namely, that of giving to the people who inhabit our large towns a fair parti cipation in their government, might not be a measure as well of sound policy as of expediency.—(Loud cheers.) I confess, likewise, that there is another circumstance which induces me to consider a reform in the administration of the large towns at this moment as most essential to the interests of the country. There is scarcely one of these towns in which some trust does not exist for the performance of some duties which regularly belong to the administration of a town. Ii some places there is a trust for the administration of police, in others for paving, lighting, and watering, and in all these trusts are to be found real evasions of the original rights of the corporations. In some of the original charters it was not thought expedient to give to the corporations a power of rating the inhabitants for the improvement of the town, and when, as in the case of Bath, Liverpool, and other large towns, the necessity of such a rate was felt, a trust was created which was not originally contemplated in the charter. In every instance where these trusts were established the rights of the original corporations were in vaded, and when that was once done he did not see why, when it was found necessary to proceed a step farther, and establish those bodies on a principle which should be to all satisfactory, we should be deterred from discharging a duty by the argument that any such alteration would imply a direct infringement of the existing charters. Under all these circumstances I have determined to go into Committee on the Bill ; and I repeat I shall do so with a sincere de sire to amend it so as to establish a system of Corporate Go vernment which shall be satisfactory to the great body of the inhabitants of the large towns, but at the same time with an equal desire to secure all those great objects which I men tioned to your Lordships at the commencement of my ad dress—namely, the rights of the Crown, the rights of the ex isting corporate officers, the rights and privileges of existing freemen, and, finally, the general interests of all those who en joy rights and privileges under corporate charters now in force. The Noble Duke resumed his seat amid loud and prolouged cheering. The Earl of FALMOUTH explained. The Duke of CUMBERLAND—My Lords, I beg to declare that if my Noble Friend near me (the Duke of New castle) for whom I entertain the greatest respect and sin cerest friendship, and who I know never acts but from a most honourable and conscientious feeling, takes the sense of the House upon the amendment he has proposed, I for ono can not consistently with what I feel give him my vote.— ( Cheers.) I am as much opposed to the principle of the Bill as my Noble Friend—l feel it to be an invasion upon chartered rights and privileges—and in defence of such rights and privileges I for one shall ever be ready to stand up. I feel it to be an invasion upon the prerogative of the Crown—but, nevertheless, for the reasons so clearly expressed by my No ble Friend near me (the Duke of Wellington) lam prepared to give it lay best and most serious consideration in Committee —and I trust and hope I shall be in a situation when the mot!on for the third reading is made to give it my most hearty concurrence. I only say this much to prevent my being sup posed as using one language in one place, and another in another, and from a desire that my opinions may stand aloarly and fairly before the public.---( Cheers. ) Lord BROUGHAM observed that it was not his intention to enter at any length upon a discussion of the principle or mail features of this measure, as he had before had an opportunity of addressing himself to that question. His principll object in ri sing was to express his very great surprise that one or two Noble and Illustrious persons, who he was delighted to find would vote on the same side with him that might if the motion were pressed to a decision, and whose support he considered as a very valuable accession of strength, should have taken such grounds for coin ciding w ith his view of the question before the House ; and he felt especial surprise at the ample professions of hostility to the measure with which that coming over was accompanied.— ( Hear.) If they had said let the main provisions of the Bill be carried through Committee, but hereafter, on the third reading let the principle of the measure be decided—that would be ta king an intelligible course; but instead of that they announced themselves directly opposed to the principle of the measure. And therefore, what said they ? " Let us go into Committee, in order to examine; its details.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposi tion.)—Well, he bad " heard, heard," but he could not for the life of him understand the meaning of such a course.—( Hoar, hear.) He could easily understand the course of Noble Lords if they said, "We agree in the main principle though we are opposed to some details, and we go into Commit tee for the purpose of rendering these details suitable to our principles." That would be an intelligible, consistent, as well as the ordinary cuurse of proceeding. But that Noble Lords should say, we totally differ with the principle of this measure; we think the Commission illegal on which the inquiry eas founded ; we hold the proceedings of the Com missioners in executing their task to be unjust, partial, and un fair ; we hold all their reports to be more valueless than waste paper, (and false reports must be of less value than the most valueless waste paper), that this Bill was founded on these re ports (and its foundation, consequently, held to be rotten,) that no charge against the Corporations was made out—that this was a measure which one Noble Lord said, was one of spo liation, another of iniquity, and which a third declared to be uncalled for, but which all three pronounced in chorus to be an act fraught with injustice: that these Noble Lords should come per saltum to the conclusion not to throw out the Bill not openly to oppose the measure and declare themselves un utterably displeased with its very visage, but that they should declare themselves openly opposed to the principle of the Bill, whilst they express their willingness to go into Committee, to see what could be done with the details—all these circum stances really filled his mind with astonishment.—( Hear, hear.) He could not help considering that by this course one of two fates would await the measure, and that, instead of being openly opposed and defeated, it would only be allowed to enjoy a hare lingering existence, and that it would be reduced from its pristine state to such a skeleton as its own parents could not recognize.—( Hear, hear.) The Illustrious Duke opposite had not certainly pursued on this occasion the strong and forward course which he generally adopted. He stated his unwillingness to vote for the Noble Duke (Newcastle) and yet was willing to go into Committee, though opposed to the principle of the Bill. The Duke of CUMBERLAND—If tho motion were pressed to a division, he should vote on neither side, but he should of course reserve to himself the right, in common with other Peers, of effecting 'loch changes in Committee as he con sidered desirable. Lord BROUGHAM resumed—The Illustrious Duke had selected a course which he certainly somewhat misunderstood, but which was not, however, renno , kable for that determination in Parliamentary proceedings, for which the Illustrious Duke was generally so remarkable. But what a melancholy anti- Opation did this determination hold out to tho friends of the measure, as well as to those who felt strongly, deeply, and he might add, universally, in favour of the measure throughout the country'—(Cheers)—fur what could they expect from such an announcement, ths.a that tbo9e who were against the