The Sun. — London, England, 1835-08-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Acacsr 4. CASE OF COVENTRY. Mr. Carter, Town Clerk of Coventry's Evidence concluded from The Sun of yesterday and which was given in our Secend Edition last night. Did they strike out his evidence 2—l should think not. Were the Commissioners two Barristers?—l believe so. I have seen Mr. Whitcombe in the King's Bench—Mr. Cockburn I never saw before or since. Had Mr. Marriott ever been concerned in the elections at Co. ventry ?—Yes, at a great many. For whom did he appear ; for what party did he act ?—For Mr. Bulwer and Mr. Ellice. Was he there for Bulwer only ? They were so mixed up toge ther, that I believe he acted for both. They both came together, and canvassed together. Have you taken the trouble of going through Mr. Cockburn's Report to see how often Mr. Marriott's evidence is alluded to under an anonymous title ?—I have; it is eight or nine times. From your own knowledge, do you know that the evidence was the same ?—I do. I was present and heard it given ? Does he figure as a solicitor well-known and respected 7—Yes. Does he figure as a solicitor much engaged in the elections of Coventry ?—Yes. Does he figure as a solicitor much engaged in defending the peo ple from the Corporation ?—Yes. When did Mr. Marriott leave your office ?—Fourteen or fifteen years ago. Did he leave it by his own wish, or how?—By my directions. Under what circumstances ?—A magistrate of Warwick told me that Marriott, my clerk, had been heard to say quite publicly that the Churches of England would make excellent materials for the roads, and he did not care how soon they were so used.—(A laugh.) Did you, for that, discharge him ?—I spoke of the matter to him, and he resigned. Did there appear to be a more close intimacy between him and Mr. Cockburn, the Commissioner, than between a judge and a wit ness ?—Yes, much more so. They were frequently walking out together, and Mr. Marriott was a frequent visitor at the inn where the Commissioners resided. In Mr. Cockburn's Report, I see he states that the school was taken no notice of by the Corporation, except by speaking some times to the master. Is that true?—No, it is not. Do you know whether that evidence was given by Marriott?—l cannot say. Was there a dispute between the Corporation and the under master 2—There was ; and a suit of Chancery was the consequence. He resisted the right of the Corporation to interfere with the school. They resisted the Charity Commissioners also ; no one could be so much insulted as they were, by a son of the under master. I see a passage in the report of Mr. Cockburn—an extract from the Charity Report; have you seen it ?—Yes. There is a passage in the Charity Report very favourable to the Corporation—is that given in Mr. Cockburn's Report 2—No, it s not. Is the part to which I allude a continuation of the passage quoted ?—I believe it is. I see a list of the receivers of the Charity as given to the Com missioners, in which the freemen aear to be a majority. Was any list given in, to your knowledge? —There was. These two statements or separate lists were given in—they pro ducing different results ; one, however is stated in the Report, and the other is not even alluded to ?—lt is so. Does the Mayor receive an annual salary ?—Yes, he receives a certain sum to defray the official expenses to which he is subjected. If he carries on the business in a gentlemanly way, he must incur very considerable expense. then if the Mayor sees no one, goes to no expense, never puts on decent clothes, the expense would be very little?—Yes. Do you consider the allowance of 1001. a-year unreasonable, or do you think it fair and proper ?—I consider it only fair and proper. I find it stated in the Commissioners' report, that the books were burnt in the school, and this was given on the authority of one of the scholars ?—I was very much surprised to see that statement. It would appear in the report of the evidence taken before the Com missioners, as if the Magistrates had been charged with improvi dent conduct, when, in fact, the only person charged was the under master. The Report at page 1,8.32, states that it became a leading object of the Corporation to secure the nomination of Members of Parlia ment for the city. You have already stated, but I forget—perhars you will state again the relative situation and preponderance of the two political parties ?—At one time the Whigs preponderated—.at another the Tories. Now the balance is in favour of the Tories. Lord LYNDHURST—Do you think that is confined to the City of Coventry ?—( A laugh.) I suppose the Gentlemen composing the Corporation, being men of education, property, and station, en tertain opinions of some sort or other ?—leo doubt. I find at page 4'336 of the Report a statement charging the Al dermen as Magistrates, with neglecting the public interests for their private advantage. Did this charge arise from their making a cer tain appointment, and was this appointment the cause of a collision between them and the Directors of the Poor ?—Yes. Who made this charge ?—Some of the Directors of the poor called upon the Magistrates, after Presser had been recommended by Lord Melbourne as Chief Constable. The Magistiates were de sirous of having an officer competent to the performance of the du ties that would devolve upon hies, but the Directors of the Poer wished their own servant to be made Chief Constable ; the Magis trates consulted together, and told the Directors of the Poor that it was not in their power to elect a constable—that he must be elected at a meeting (so we understood). Lord PLUNKETT—When did you first expect to beexamined? —Yesterday. Sir C:IA kt.LES WF.TilEaELL—Yesterday, or this day, which ?en. I mean this day at 4 o'clock. Mr. K xia HT—According to your observation of Cue eehlen C f_. is this the instance (that of the appointment of constable) on which the report preeeale in stating that the Magistrates were charged with a neglect of the public interests to promote the ad vantages of their own party ?—I should say so. Have you any doubt that this is the instance to whiels the Ile port refers?—l have no doubt. The Magistrates were extremely anxious to oblige the Directors of the Poor, and took the opinion of Mr. Ellice as to whether they had the power. Lord PLUNK Err—Did you attend on Friday evening when Sir C. Wetherell concluded his address ?—I did ; but I understood that some others were to be examined antecedent to myself. Musser was no servant of the Corporation?—No; he was sent to them from the Home Department. Then according to ::our belief, does this charge proceed from the fact of the Magistrate not appointing ao chief constable the moo whom the directors of the poor wished them to appoint 2—Ex actly—the man whom the directors of the poor recommended was subsequently appointed constable. The Corporation told them at the time that they had not the power to appoint him chief consta ble, but they subsequently elected him as constable. The appointment of Prosser at 1401. was a waver of the patronage of the Corporation in favour of the Government appointment ? Yes. And this was the cause of the collision between them and the di rectors cf the poor ?-1 have no doubt of it ; it was the subject of newspaper paragraphs and advertisements. Was the rule respecting the police ever departed from by the Corporation ?—Not to my knowledge. Do you believe that they have always acted conformably to the charter ?-1 (10. In common language, do von believe that the city of Coventry then, and now is, a well and efficiently governed city ?—I should say it is a well-governed city. Is it a city in which the government and administration of their concerns is not infected with partiality, corruption, cr inefficient governing persons ?—I have never seen any. Do you consider that the charter, as acted upon in practice, and the system that prevails in practice, to be sufficient for the useful, efficient, quiet, and good government of the City ?—I should say s , s. According to your observations as a professional man, and an in habitant, is this your oyinion upon oath ?—Yes. Lord SALISBURN —Do you recollect vhen the Protest was delivered to the Commissioners?—No, Ido not. It was in the middle of the evening. Lord SALISBURY—To whom was this protest delivered ? I read it to both of the Commissioners, and delivered it to one of them. . . Lord SALISBURY—By whom was the protest drawn up ?—I am inclined to think it was by Messrs. Eld and Osbourne con jointly. Did you sign it?—No, I did not. That was considered b them as a protest coming from the Cor poration ; was it not?—!t vas. Have you read the Report of the Commissioners with regard to this ?—I have. Is that protest mentioned in it ?—To the best of my recollection, it is in no way adverted to. Mr. George Eld, the Mayor of Coventry, was then called in, and examined by Sir Charles Wetherell. You are the Mayor of Coventry ?—I am. Are you the individual mentioned in the Report of the Charity Commissioners ?—I am. Have you read the Report of the Municipal Commissioners?—l have. Does the Report contain the whole that is favourable to the Corporation?—lt does not. The whole passage to that effect is omitted ?—lt is. Can you state any reason why the omission was made ?—No. Allow me to ask what business do you carry on in Coventry . A miller. You cannot put men, can you, into your mill and grind them into seven ?—( Great laughter.) I think not—(Laughter. ) Have you paid particular attention to the charities in the town of Coventry ?-1 have. Do you recollect the period when the Charity Commissioners left Coventry ?—I think it was the latter end of October. In 1833?—1t was in October, but what year I cannot state. Is there any thing in the Report—is there any direction given to correct what was amiss in the school, except verbally ?—No. Had you in the year 1832, and before the Municipal Commis sioners came, preparedrules for the regulation of the school ?—I had. In connexion with what other persoi s ?—.With the council. I prepared the rules on the 17th of January, 1832. How many council attended ? Ido not recollect. The Mtn:- cipal Commissioners did not come till October, 1833. Were those rules prepared a year and a half before that time —Yes. Were those rules served upon the master of the school ?—The head master of the school was in bad health, and the publication of the rules was suspended for half a year. Were those rules published in any Coventry paper ?—I gave a copy of them to the Coventry Herold. Were those rules stuck np any where, or circulated in any other way ?—I gave one of them to Mr. Whitcombe, one of the two Municipal Commissioners, at the time he examined me. Do you recollect the election of Ellice and Bulwer at Coventry ? —Yes, I do. Was Mr. Whitcombe their counsel at that time ?—I don't know. I saw him walking arm in arm with Mr. Bulwer. I hare very little doubt that lie was the acting counsel of Mr. Bulwer and Mr. Ellice. What were the politics of those gentlemen ; were they for or against the Corporations ? I don't know of my own knowledge, and therefore I wish you to inform me.—They were against the Corporation, I believe. In point of fact, at the time mentioned in the Report of the Charity Commissioners, had the Council given particular attention to the school was examined by them, and the Municipal Com missioners also. You did not observe my question. Had the Council, before the Commissioners came, given particular attention to the school ? Certainly; I had been examined by the Council as to the best mode of procuring the resignation of the then Head Master. Wu there a question between the schoolmaster and Corporation whether the schoolmaster could exercise the office of a visitor ? There was. Do you happen to know whether any thing had occurred in the Vice-Chancellor's Court upon that subject ?—Yes, proceedings were commenced there, and there was a question pending which, I believe, is pending still, whether or not we were legally the visitors of the school. Lord L YNDH URST,Was all this before the Commissioners? myLord. Sir C. WETHERELL—Is anything of this in the Report?-- It is not. Do you think it was fairly omitted ?—I should say that it was not. Do you think it was omitted by error or design ?—I cannot tell whether it was by error ordesign—all I know is that it is omitted. Lord BROUGHAM—.Good God! how can the witness tell whether it was committed by error or design ? The fact is, that there is not one question in ten that has been pi 4 that has any relevancy whatever to the matter in question ! Sir eIIARLES WETHERELL to witness—Are you in pos session of any letter of the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, approving what had been done with respect to the school ?—I am. (Mr. Eld here read the letter expressing the satisfaction of the Bishop at the oou.rse that had been pursued with respect to the school. ) Did you make any communication to Mr. Whitcombe upon the sub ject of any of the charitable trusts, before the Report was made ?—I did. Be so good as to state what communication you made ?—lmmediately after the visit of the Municipal Commissioners, the head master died. The rules were then revised, and some alterations were made in them ; and the regulation was agreed to regulating the appointment of the head master. I wrote to Mr. Whitcombe, stating the reasons for this. What answer did Mr. Whitcombe send you ?—He sent me an answer stating his wish and readiness to aid in so laudable an object. Do you recollect the story about the burning of the books in the Li. brary ?—I do. During the time the Charity Commissioners were in Coventry I was told by a person, named Robinson,that before that period the school-books had been used to light the fire. Did you make a representation of this to the Charity Commissioners, in order to get it corrected ?—I did ; but the head-master and the usher disputed the authority of the Corporation to interfere. Lord MELBOURNE—You attended before the Charity Commis. sioners?—l did. Lord MELBOURNE—And it was considered that it had been esta. blished before them that this had taken place ?—lt was. Sir C. WETHERELL-You were the person who made the charge with a view to correct it ?—I was. Have the Corporation any particular mode of auditing the various accounts of the money belonging to the different charities under their control ?—They have the accounts of all charities kept separate. Have you a fellowship in your gift at St. John's, Cambridge ?—Yes. Have you a fellowship at St. John's, Oxford ?—Yes ; we have two there. We have also four exhibitions founded by a person named Thomas Lane. Is the amount of the rents of land and interest of money belonging to charities in Coventry considerable ?—Yes. With respect to Sir Thomas Whyte's charity, what is the income ? About 2,2001. per annum. Is that derived from land?—Yes, principally from land. There is an investment of about 9,000/. in the funds. Among whom are the funds divisible ?—Twenty.four seventieths are appropriated for alms to the freemen of Coventry. By freemen, then, I suppose allusion is made to those persons de scribed by the last witness, who constituted the Burgesses?—Yes. Is it devoted to theirown use altogether, or is it lent them ?—lt is di. vided amongst them in sums of four pounds. They share the benefaction among themselves annually P—Yes ; but by a rule of the Corporation the same person has the 'benefit only once in ten years. In fact it is a benefaction, shared by them as money ?—Yes. Who are the persons who direct the division of those sums P—The Corporation. Is that sum fairly divided ? It is. Could you state the amount of the different sums in the public stocks of which the Corporation are trustees for charities ?—I could not with out reference to the books of the Corporation. Will you state the amount of the other Land Revenue of these chari ties P—No, I cannot, without making a calculation. How long would that take you !—I could make it out in the course of the afternoon. Have you been present at the bar of the House while Mr. Carter gave his evidence ?-1 was. Did you attend to what he stated with respect to the administration of justice ?—Yes. Da you concur with him in the statement ?—I do most perfectly. In your judgment, are the magisterial duties—the duties of the police and the local government of the city, fairly and strictly performed ?—lti my judgment they are. Is the charter at all defective ?—I think not. Are there any other charities of which- the freemen partnke P—Sir Thorns, Whyte's and Collihs's--that is for the eons of freemen ? —Yes. HOW much does that charity produce ?—About 2001. to 3001. e.year. How is it distributed amongst them ?--It is for th• purpose of eppren• ticing the sons of poor freemen. Do you recollect any other c',arities exclusively for freemen ?—There are some of the smaller ones, but I do not remember whet they are. Then I suppose you do not want a new kingdom in the City of Co ventry P—(A laugh.;—No, we are contented. By Viscount MELBOURNE—Are you aware of the passage in the Ite;:ort, where it is stated that these practices are very much in disuse— that a great improvement has taken place since 1831 am. I)o you think it is correct P—l do. Then you admit that there wt.-re such things before?—The answer was drowned in the laughter which followed. By Lord BROUGHAM.—You think there are no defects in your charter for Corentry—you think it perfect ?—I do not say so. Where and what is the defect then ?—I cannot point out any. Thc.n you don't think ti.ere is any ?—I do not know of any, either in the Charter itself, or in its administration. Then you do not consider it as a perfect one; point out the defect ? It is not for rat. to do so. The witness teen withdrew, and Charles Woodcock was called in and examined by Mr. KNIGHT. Y are a scLcitor in Coven Try P—l am Are you, or have you, ever been in any may connected with the Cor. peration ?—I neither am, n•:r have I ever been, in any way connected with it. You have heard the evidence which has been given today, relative to the administration of justice, the police, and the local government of the town ?-1 have heard the evidence of Mr. Carter, whi;ll, in my oponion is perfectly correct. Were }ot. at Coventry when the Commissioners arrived there ? I was. Did you go into the hall to see how the business was conducted ?- I ..td on thc! second day. F: ':n what motive did you go mere curiosity. Did you observe any thing pi,,,icular discovered that th- exa minAion was being token against the Corporation, relative to the elec tion of 1326. I heard it stated that the Corporation had paid money for votes in favour of their candidate. Had you any means of furnishing information upon that point ? Yes. Did you inform the Commissioners that you ha I such evidence ? I did. What was the answer you received P—l was told, not in the most courteous manner, - that I should be heard by-and-bye. What p:,rticularly struck you on that occasion P—l saw the whole parties present were hostile to the Corporation, and I attended volun. tarily on the other side. Did you suggest any questions to the Commissioners to be put to the witnesses ?-0n several occasions. Were they always put ?—On some occasions, but not always. Do you remember R. Marriot being under examination do. Duke of WELLINGTON—Was lie on oath ?—I was, and he upon his affirmation. Was ne evidence taken down ?—The Cothmissioner sat above us in the Judge's seat—he had pens, ink, and paper, and appeared to be taking down the evidence. Mr. KNlctrr—Was a Mr. Brewitt, a Quaker, under examination while you were there ?—Yes. What opinions does he hold ? He is a most decided opponent to the Corporation. Did you ever hear either Mr. Marriott or Mr. Brewitt say anything with respect to their having given any advice to non-freemen P—Yes ; I have. State what it was ? —They both said they had frequently advised non_ freemen to go up and claim their freedom by what they called a "ruse." Were they allowed, in fact, to make speeches during the examina tion ?—Throughout the whole time. \Vete those persons hostile to the Corporation P--invariably. I saw no one give evidence but those who were hostile to the Corporation. You were allowed to put questions to Mr. Brewitt. Did you then ask him whether he was aware that the people were obliged to swear to the seven years' apprenticeship ?—He said he was aware of it. Did the Commissioners direct hie' instantly to stand down, or did they proceed with his examination P—They proceeded with the examination. What! proceed with his examination after his admitting that he had been guilty of aubornation of perjury ?—Yes ; his examination was pro ceeded twit'. Did not you r.:monstrate against his es•idence being received ?—I did but was told to sit down. Are there any facts in the report which, to your knowledge, arc taken from, or founded upon, Brewitt's evidence ?--There are many such. Did Ilrewitt say anything before the Commissioners, charging the Mayor of Coventry with heading a riot P—Yes. I did hoar him state that, in the year 1827, the Magistrates were waiting to know the result of a petition that had been presented against the return of Messrs. Heath_ cote and Fyler. Some rioting took place, and he told the Commissioners that he saw the Mayor heading the mob; while the fact was, that at the very moment the Mayor was charged with having committed such a gross breach of his duty, he was dining with me. Did you state to the Commissioners that such was the fact, and that you were ready to prove that the accusation was false P—No, I did not; I left the place, and when I went back, next day, to contradict it, I found that Brewitt, being convinced of his mistake, had been there before me and retracted his statement. Yet, I see in this report that the statement is still kept in ; how can you account for that ?—I do not know, I cannot. Have you ever seen anything approaching to riots, in which any of the aldermen took part ?—I have seen them take part in a procession ; an election procession ; but I could not consider them mobs. Thero was no rioting at all, there was merely that which I see at all elections. When you read the Report, did you know to whom the Commissioners alluded as having given their evidence upon particular subjects P—Yes. Are you well acquainted with the freemen of Coventry ?—tio man more so. Do they value the rights they are now possef,etl of, of pasturage and commonage ?—Very much. Do t:lcy COl - 15: ler it a. valuable property 10. Do you think they would like to be obliged to sell that property, say by the Lords of the Treasury, or by other parties ?—Quite the reverse. Or be obliged to submit to a decision of a Jury with respect to its value, and to be obliged to part with it for such value p—There have been many attempts made to enclose these commons, but they have invariably and with success oppoied them. They are very careful of those privileges. The Marquis of SALISBURY—You have been agent at many elec. tions at Coventry 2—Yes, I have. On what side have you been engaged P--Always upon the Conserve. Live side. You have seen Mr. Marriutt engaged in the same way ?—Yes : ire. quently. On what side was he engaged ?—Always upon that which was called the Liberal side. The witness proceeded to read from the report of the Cornmissioners, which stated that "all persons who attempted to vote were ill treated— their clothes were torn, they were severely beaten and kicked, and suf fered great injury." That they were beaten and kicked, I (witness) firmly believe, but whether they received injury or not I do not know.— ( A laugh.) Lord SALISBURY—Did you hear the evidence given heard a great deal of it. By whom was it given P—By Mr. Marriott. By Mr KNIGHT—How many contested elections were there at Co. rentry since the Reform Act? Two; one in 1833, and the other in 1634. Were the polling booths divided at these elections P—Yes. Did this division of the booths produce peace and quietness P--Yes. Did the statements in the report refer to the time anterior to the Reform Act ?—Yes. Did the Report of the Commissioners mention any thing of the state of the elections subsequent to the division of the booths ?—tio. , Ihis witness was then ordered to withdraw. CASE OF OXFORD. Mr. Robinson examined by Sir C. WETABRILL—Is town clerk of Oxford, and has sited that situation for ten years. What does the Corporation consist of P—Of a mayor, four aldermen, eight assistants, a recorder, a deputy recorder, two bailiff), two chain. berlains, a city counsel, a city solicitor, and one hundred common councilmen. How rn iny fromen are there ?—Fourteep hundred resident free ing)), and seven hundred non-t egident. Hew are then °filters elected, awl from ym; ?...Ezoni the flee. men, with the exception of the eight assistants, who are elected from the Council at large; the four aldermen are elected by the freemen, lout they must have been assistants. Who was Recorder at present?—Mr. Wason. Who filled the office before him ?—Mr Justice Taunton, and before him, Lord Colchester. Is the Court held by the Recorder carried on justly, and calculated for the inhabitants at large ?—Most decidedly. Was there ever any complaint of the practice in this Court ?—Never. About the once of magistrate, is it executed under the charter or under the King's commission ?—Under the King's commission. Is the magistracy of the city under the King's commission carried on justly and satisfactorily to the inhabitants ?—Perfectly so. Have you ever heard any complaint against them never heard a single one. I never heard their judgment called in question. Do you recollect any information in the King's Bench either against the Corporation or against any member of it ?—No, I do not. Has the City property of its own as contrasted with the charity pro. perty ?—lt has very considerable property. • Are the accounts respecting this property periodically made out Yes, they are regularly audited. Do those auditors attend and personally audit these accounts ? Most decidedly. Is the Corporation possessed of considerable funds in trust for charity. ble purposes ?—Very considerable. Is the audit of these accounts carried on by the auditors of the pro. petty of the city ?—No. They had thought it expedient to make a distinction between the charitable and corporate funds; they had dia. tinct bankers for bath, and they were thus kept distinct. Who were the auditors of these charitable accounts ?—They were submitted to the same auditors. Respecting the general executive magistracy, has it given satisfaction to the inhabitants never heard a complaint in that respect. Have you ever heard any complaint of them, either in their judicial, magisterial, or general executive departments P—Never. Were you present when the Commissioners came down P—l was. Did you give them the Town Hall for their accommodation I)—We gave them the Council Chamber. Did you produce before them everything they desired respecting the audit of the Corporation property, and that of which they are trustees ? —Before the arrival of the Commissioners we were prepared to answer all their inquiries. Did you answer all their inquiries clearly, and fairly, and fully ? We did. What was the amount of the property belonging to the Corporation ? —The Corporate revenue amounted to 1,5001. a year, exclusive of a large tract of land belonging to the freemen, and also the charity funds. Is the Mayor put to any expense in the discharge of his official duties? —He is. What allowance was made to the Mayor for these expenses ?—About 30/. a year. Is that all that is allowed P—No, there are some small fees upon the admission of freemen, making in the whole about 501. a year. What is the usual amount of these expenses I.—They are very consi. derable. Do they exceed 501. ?—I have known the Mayor to expend from 6001. to 7001. a year. Are there any expenses from these fund for feasts 2—No; with the exception of two dinners, which are provided at an expense of from 101. to 151. At the election of Mayor there aas an annual dinner at which the nobility of the county, and the heads of the College, were present, and the expenses of which were paid out of the corporate funds. Were the accounts after audit entered in a book kept for that pur. pose?—Yes ; and I read them over to the whole Council afterwards. You said there was a tract of land belonging to the freemen ; what was the value of that land 7—That would depend upon the number of cattle put in. But if it were let what do you think it would let for P—l should think it would produce 1,0001. a year. 'With respect to the Charities, can you state to the House the amount of the interest of the personal property belonging to them, and the rent of the land P—l cannot, but I can make it out. By what time P—By to.morrow. Is the sum considerable P—Very considerable. Have these funds been fairly and satisfactorily administered P—Very much so. I never heard any complaint. NVhat do you think is the amount of the donation for the support of poor creatures which is distributed in the church 7—About 5401 Who are appointed the Trustees of these Charitees ?—The Aldermen Do you think that a Common Council, elected as it is proposed to elect them, could fulfil this trust under the will of the donors ?—No. They never contemplated any such thing—it was impossible. Are not the freemen of Oxford as independent as these of any town or borough in England ?—I believe so. • 1)0 you know of the Corporation taking credit, or expending any mo ney on contested elections ?—I never knew of a penny being devoted to such purposes. lam now alluding to what took place before any Acts of Parliament existed referring to these Corporations, or before the late Act of Parliament. Was there before that period any money applied by the Corporation to such purposes ?—I never knew nor heard of it. The tide of public opinion shifts to and fro in Oxford ?—Yes. Have you got under your Charter a power to raise money for the im. provement of the town, and the benefit of the inhabitants ?—Certainly not; I never heard of it. There is no power of taxation under Vie Charter ?—No. And there is no rate levied under the Charter?--I am wel acquainted with the town, and should say there is no 6i:eh thing. Is there not a division of jurisdiction relative to the Commission of the Peace between the town and the University of Oxford ?—Yes, the University has the ward of the town at night, and by day the city con stables preserve the peace. Has that division of jurisdiction been managed so as to give satin. faction to the University ?—lt has. Are you aware of any defect in the charter of the town of Oxford as respects the judicial, magisterial, or executive department ?-1 know of none. Have you read the Report of the Charity Commissioners ?—I have. Will you read the statement therein relative to the words in which the accounts are kept by the Corporation of Oxford ?—{Thewitness here read an extract from the Report of the Charity Commissioners, wi:ich stated that the accounts had been made out with great care, and were kept with great ctearncss and simplicity.] . - Have the Municipal Commissioners in their Report copied the praise bestowed upon these account. delivered to them a copy of it, and they thought propel ri be perfectly silent with respect to it. Did you deliver it to them in writing ?—I did. Did they express themselves satisfied with the information given to them ?—They Can you state the number of houses, and the proportion of rating on those houses in the town ?—The number of houses rated at Oxford is 3,914. how many of those are rated at over 101., and how many under that aura ? Five hundred and ten are rated at 101. and upwards-1,425 are rated under 101. end ever 31.—and 1,950 under 51. Supposin3 the council were elected on the principle of this Bill, what proportion would those rated over 101. bear to the others ?—As 310 to 3,014, or as about five or six to one. Did the Municipal Commissioners express their approbation of everything submitted to them 7—They did. Did they inspect your charters ?—They did—copies of them. Was there a statement made to them publicly at the Town.hall rela tive to an action instituted by the Corporation against a man for not taking out his freedom 7—Yes, there was a statement made relative to a person who had been guilty of an infraction of the charter. Did the Commissioners express themselves satisfied with the state. melt ? When the complaint was first made, it did appear " prima facie,' that the proceedings need not have been carried so far, but the Commissioner, desired an investigation on the subject, and the solicitor of the Corporation attended, and they then expressed themselves satin. fled, and expressed that satisfaction publicly before the people. Have you read the Report that alludes to it 2-1 have. Are not your charters of considerable antiquity, so as to put you in the same position as the city of London 7—Yes, our charters are very ancient, and one is so early as Henry 11., similar in most respects to those of the city of London. There was also a charter of Edward 111. 'Whether will the plan of election proposed by the present Bill as it respects the administration of public justice, and the interests of the town of Oxford, be in your judgment an amelioration or improvement on the present system ?—ln my opinion it will be ruinous. The next witness called, whose name did not transpire, being asked for in an under tone by the clerk of the house, who swore him, described himself as one of the late assistants of the Corporation. In consequence of the very low tone in which the witness answered the questions at first we could not learn the import of his information. The first facts that became audible were that the Corporation had expended 1,300/. on the city charities ; '2,000/. on bridges ; given to dis tressed manufacturers 1001; rebuilding and repairing churches 125/. ; to the Cholera Beard of health 3001.; advanced to supply the city with water, 1,7731. ; besides a reserved fund which is kept for the repair and rebuilding of the city buildings, which may be in a state of pidation. By Sir Cfi ARLES WurnEnELL—There are voluntary gifts made by you out (lithe surpluo fund ?—Witness : Yes. What suns has the Corporation spent in feasting ?—From actual knowledge, having been 15 years a member of the Corporation, the Cor poration has not during that time spent 1001. in feasting. Is the surplus, then always laid out in charities and public improve ments F.—Always. Have you looked to the clauses of the new Act, so ae to judge of their effect upon the Corporation funds—l have, and consider the result will be a deficiency instead of a surplus. Do you apprehend a deficit instead of a surplus 2-1 do. Do the freemen enjoy a right of meadow, which they consider valua. Lie ?—They do, and consider it extremely valuable. From your observation, would such a system as this Bill proposes be advantageous, or the cuntrary, to the city of Oxford, and with respect to a just, fair, and proper municipal government ?—lt is not a system expected by a single man in the city I should say. It must depose and turn to the right about every member of the Corporation, and I think there are about ninety ; and it will lead to the election of men who, from their want of education, information. and experience, are unfit for the duties. THE SUN, LONDON', WEDNESDAY, AtYGtSP 5, 1835. CORPORATION OF WORCESTER. Mr. Sidebottom, town.clerk of the Corporation of Worcester was next called, and examined by Mr. KNIGHT. lVitness—l am a barrister at law. Mr. KNIGHT—Were you appointed during life ? Witness—l was appointed during pleasure, but that is generally understood to be for life. How long have you held office T—Five years. Are you acquainted with the titles and customs of the corporation of Worcester ?—I am. The title of the Corporation, is the mayors, aldermen, and citizens of the city of Worcester. In whom does the Municipal Corporation consist P—ln two bodies ; the Freemen and the Members of the Corporation. The Cummon Council consist of 48, who transact the Corporation business. From what body ?—From the body of freemen. Then the qualification of each of these 48 is, that he roust be a free man How is the freedom obtained P—By servitude or birth. What is the servitude ?—Seven years• apprenticeship within the city. What is the nature of the birth right ?—The eldest son of every free. man born after he becomes free. The son is then a freeman for life, and his son in the same way, which has been the custom from generation to generation. How long has this title existed f—The records extend as far back as 504, aral there I find it. Then the freemen claim this as their inheritance through the revolu. tions of centuries ?—Yes. They comprise persons in all the various classes of society I—y ee ; but principally the trading classes. _ Is it considered an object of value and importance amongst tradesmen of the town to have their freedom P—l think it is considered a benefit. If young men, through misconduct, have their indentures cancelled, do they lose that benefit P—They do so. Is there any property, such as rights of common, under the Charter or regulations of the Corporation, in the enjoyment of freemen ?—.There are rights of common belonging to the freemen. Is it valuable common land P—lt is extremely valuable. What is the superficial extent •f the land ?—I think about 50 acres. Are there any other rights ?—They have rights to certain alms-houses and other charities, for which freemen are exclusively eligible. Do those gifts lie open to any other than freemen ?—They do not. In the event, therefore, of no freemen existing, according to the inten. tion of the donors, there would be no objects or persons to participate in the donors' benefits ?—None. Are these charitable funds considerable ?—I cqnceive they are. Some of them, besides alms.houres, allow 3s. and 3s. 6d. per week, and exhibitions for young men at the Universities. there exist within the city of Worcester a Board of Trustees for letting the Corporation lands, and so on ?—Yes. Is there any qualification required to be a member of th,:t Board ? yes. i believe tileY UAW poses 1 ,0 4 0 01,, or 401. or 601, a ye a r in 14114. Supposing that a provision were made to enable a majority of this Board to give up their functions to the Corporation, do you consider that that would be beneficial ?—I consider that it would be beneficial to the town. Has the Corporation considerable charitable funds to adrninster ? They have. Are the Charities' funds, which the Corporation have to administer, justly, honestly, and discreetly administered 7-4 believe they are. From residence and office have you the means of knowledge of that fact P—l have. As to the expenditure of their surplus funds : in what manner are they applied ?—They are applied for all county purposes, the keeping in repair of the streets; but the greater portion of their funds are laid out in charity. ' I suppose that a portion of these funds are applied for dinners ? Yee, according to the custom of the Corporation, there is annually a dinner, at which all the influential men of the county assemble. The sum allowed for that by the Corporation is 1504: that sum, however, is totally inadequate to the expense. It generally costs twice that sum. Mr. KNIGHT—Who generally attended at these dinners 7—Persons of all parties. All politics arc excluded 7—Yes. Persons of all politics attend ?—Yes ; always. It is considered as a compliment to the Mayor and Corporation 7—Yes. All classes are invited ?—Yes. Subject to that their surplus income is divided among charities, and to the improvement of the town I—Yes, after the payment of the ex. penses of the Corporation. Are the accounts of the expenditure of the Corporation carefully kept ?—Yes ; audited every year by persons appointed. Of what class of men do the 72 of the governing body consist? — Mostly of respectable tradesmen of the town, and some few gentry. Are they men of substance 2—Yes. Men who have something to loose P—Yes. Men who have an interest in the local burthens of the town ?—Yea. That is, a just and general description of the whole body of 72 ? It is. Did you ever hear a complaint that that number was insufficient to do the business of the town f—l never did. In your opinion is that number sufficient for the useful administration ofthe Corporation f—l think is is—l think if any change was made it would be for the worse, and not for the better. Is the city of Worcester a county of itself?—lt is. . Do you think the Corporation could be better managed than it is at present?—Certainly not. Are you aware of the number of householders rated under 101. in that city 1 0 —I am not. The witness was then ordered to withdraw. GRANTHAM. The Town Clerk of Grantham was then called in, and examined by Sir Charles Wetherell. Of what members dons the Corporation of Grantham consist Y—Of the Mayor, Corporation, Aldermen, and their Clerk. How many common freemen are there in the town of freemen ?-4:io. Is there an estate belonging to the freemen of that corporation exclu. sive!) , ?—There is. What is the present amount of that estate?—About 1481. a year. Are there any leases upon it ?--No ; but there are certain individuals who have long licences upon it. Have you heard that the corporation of this borough have expressed a wish to give their votes in a different manner to that which they have done ?—Certainly not. Were you present at the hall when the Commissioners came there ? Yes, I should say so, when I was under examination for the best part cf two days. You gave them all the information you could give P—Yes. Did you hear the inhabitants profess any disapprobation at this meet. ing P—No, I did not. Is there a proposal to divide the part which is now the jurisdiction of the borough, and add it to the county ?—There is a proposal to take it away. Is there a private debt that affects the whole ?—Yes. I believe to the extent of upwards of 5601. Have the Corporation always applied their funds fairly, discreetly, conscientiously, and honestly P—They hare. The witness was then ordered to withdraw. Lord BROUGHAM—Are you now going to cal another witness Mr. KNIGHT—Yes, my Lord. Lord BROUGHAM—Then we will adjourn ti•e consideration of this until six o'clock, as there are one or two Peers to ba sworn; and after that we will go on with the divorce case. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY resumed his seat on the Woolsack shortly after 5 o'clock. The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented a petition from Doncaster in favour of the Prisoners' Council Bill. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Doncaster, in favour of the Corporation Reform Bill, signed by 020 persons, which was much more numerously than the one which had been presented against the Bill from the same place. Also one from Bath in favour of the Bill much more numerously signed, but that was only because the place was larger. The Processions Act, Ireland, was read a second time on the mo. lion of Lord Duncannon, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. Lord FARNHAM complained of the state of the law respecting the elections far Irish Representative Peers. At the late election two Peers had voted, without being duly qualified. Lott] DUNCAN NON was glad that the matter had been mentioned; it was very desirable that the law upon the subject should be declared. Lord BROUGHA M had very considerable doubts upon the subje?,r, and thought that a short declaratory Bill should be introduced, in order to settle the matter. Lord FARNHAM moved for a copy of the writ issued for the eli,ctionyf a Peer in th:, room of the late Lord Longford. Lord PO WIS presented a petition from the Corporation of Shrewsbury against the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill. THE EVIDENCE. Counsel and witnesses were then called in, and the bear. ing of evidence re , umed against the Corporation Reform Bill, SUTTON COLDFIELD. Mr.. Holbeach stated that he was deputy steward, under de. high steward, Lord Middleton, of the..borcugh of Sutton Coldfield ; he had been for forty years acquainted with the boil ugh ; the real property of the Corporation amounted to between no/. and 900/. a-year ; the Corporation also pos sessed nearly 30,000/. in Consols, part of which were charity funds, held in trust by the Corporation; that part of the Re port of the Commissioners which stated that the inhabitants were not satisfied with the distribution of the Corporation funds, and that there was good reason for dissatisfaction with the management of the corporate revenues, was not accurate. He had twice attended the Commissioners to give evidence in contradiction of evidence taken by the Commissioners, but it was not put upon the face of the evidence. • Mr. KNIGHT took occasion to state to their Lordships that he felt a very difficult task had been imposed upon coun sel, which he much !doubted their ability adequately to dis charge. In their attempt to do so, counsel at least would re quire the utmost indulgence of the House. Mr. Brown, the warden of Sutton-Coldfield—He had heard the evidence of the preceding witness, and believed it to be true ; there were five resident Magistrates in the town, of whom four were members of the Corporation. Mr. Bedford, a Clergyman, resident in Sutton- Coldfield-- He had heard the evidence of the two preceding witnesses, and completely concurred in it. He had been resident in the town for thirteen years, and was not aware of any ground of dissa tisfaction against the Corporation. He approved generally of the working of the system in Sutton-Coldfield, but he should like to see one or two improvements—among others, the an nual publicity of the Corporation accounts. Such a publica tion, he believed, would tend most materially to remove any discontent against the Corporation. He believed that, gene rally, no men could conduct themselves more honourably or honestly than the members of the Corporation. The dissatis faction of the town had principally arisen from the nature of the proceedings in Chancery for the regulation of the Colleges, and other corporate property. By the Marquis of SALISBURY—There were about 700 houses in Sutton-Coldfield, of Which about 200 might be 10/. householders. BERWICK-UPON-TWEED. After some discussion, in which the Counsel pointed out the difficulty they had of proceeding in the case of Berwick-upon- Tweed:it was at length agreed that they should proceed in that case. Mr. Stephenson was then called, and stated that he was born and bred in the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed ; there was no select or governing body in the town ; the election was perfectly popular; there was a mayor and four bailiffs, who were elected annually ; the former was a magistrate for life, but filled the office of mayor only for a year ; burgess meetings were called three or four times a year, quite often enough to give perfect satisfaction to the inhabitants. Do the inhabitants wish to have a council to govern their affairs ?—No ; they prefer the present popular mode. Do they wish to have the corporate property cut up and changed, and turned into God Almighty knows what ?—(A laugh from their Lordships.) Lord LYNDHURST (laughing)—We can't have the question in that form, Sir Charles. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL—WeII, I will change it. Have your people any desire to sell their corporate property 2—No. Do they wish to make any change in existing regulations? —None, that I know of. You have no patriots, Members of Parliament, or such like in your Corporation, nor any wish to have any, have you ? ( No answer.) The witness went on to state that the people of Berwick were very peaceful ; there were eight or nine magistrates, and three maiden sessions last year. In answer to Lord LYNDH UR ST, the witness stated that any statement that there was a preponderance of opinion in the Corporation against the existing system was erroneous. In answer to the Marquis of SALISBURY, he stated that the value of the corporate property was about 10,000/. ; the debt of the Corporation 50,0001., and had been increasing ever since he had known it ; he believed it had originated in the Corporation paying the property-tax ; he had no means of knowing what the feelings of the town were with regard to the Corporation Reform question. LEICESTER. Charles Meredith said he was an inhabitant of Leicester, and had been for 45 years; he had been 30 years a solicitor there ; the business of the Corporation was always conducted in the most satisfactory manner ; the borough magistrates were always preferred to the judges of assize or county magistrates, even where the parties were of different politics from the ma gistrates; he was examined about half an hour or more by the Commissioners of Corporation Inquiry, but no trace of it ap peared in the printed evidence ; the same questions very nearly were put to him by the Commissioners that had been put to him this evening by the Learned Counsel • the Commis sioners appeared t o d es i re to h a ve eviden ce all on one side ; they put their questions in that way. Lord L YNDHUR ST—How could that be, if as you say, the questions they put to you were the same as the questions put by the Learned Counsel to-night ?—As far as regarded myself, the questions of the Commissioners were calculated to serve the ends of justice ; but as regarded others, when a witness stated what they did not like, he was closely cross-examined ; whilst others,who did not know so much, had their statements at once put down if they were favourable.—(A certificate was here put in and read, stating, " that the undersigned inha bitants of Leicester had abstained from presenting themselves in open court to testify to the satisfactory manner in which justice was administered by the authorities of Leicester, be cause of the discreditable manner in which the proceedings of the Commissioners' Court w ere con d ucte d, an d to avo id -sub jecting themselves to be irr,ulted cl=nlornns invective ac gross personalities.") The witness stated that he knew the parties who had signed that document, sad he believed it fairly represented the character of the proceedings under the Commission. He afterwards explained that the conduct ani. madverted upon was not the conduct of the Commissioners, but of the by-standers. The interruptions of those persons consisted of hissing, and insulting and clamorous observations against those whom they disliked. In answer to Lord KENYON, the witness said he did not observe the Commissioners endeavour to repress the in sults of the audience ; did not observe such conduct on the part of those who were in favour of the magistrates. In answer to Lord LYNDHURST, he stated that Mr. Heylan was the present Recorder, Mr. Sergeant Goulburn preceded him, and Mr. Justice Vaughan was the Recorder for twenty years before that. Lord RADNOR—There is a strong party feeling in Lei cester, is there not ?—There is. There is also a strong party of the respectable people op posed to the Corporation ?—Yes, the respectable and the lower people. Lord LYNDHURST—What are the politics of the Cor poration—Church and King ?—Yes, my Lord. Lord RADNOR—What are the politics of the party op posed to the Corporation—are they against the Church and King ?—lt is not for me to say. Lord BRO UG HAM—I suppose One party is for Church and King, and the other for King and Church. Mr. Burbidge was called and examined—l have been town clerk of Leicester for twenty-three years, and have resided there during the whole of that time, acting also as a solicitor ; the local government of the town consists of 72 persons-24 aldermen, and 48 councilmen ; the alderman are the governing body, but there arc many things requiring the co-operation of the 72 ; the mayor only is a magistrate ; the alderman are chosen out of the council; the population of Leicester is about 40,000; there are between 2,000 and 3,000 resident freemen, and a great many non-resident ; the freedom is obtained by birth, servitude, purchase, and gift; it is almost universally acquired by servitude and birth ; the right descends to all the sons of freemen ; the servitude might be in any part of England, provided the party be bound before the mayor ; the freemen have property; they have an estate of 130 acres near the town, for them and their widows resident in the town ; there are other gifts by Charles the First ; the Corporation has property independent of the freemen ; Al derman Newton, left an estate to them worth 1,1001. a year, for the express benefit of children whose parents belong to the Church of England; they have other charitable property; the Charity Commissioners have never visited Leicester, nor have they ever been in the county ; the Corporation property amounts to 4,0001. a year, which is devoted to the payment of salaries, and other general purposes ; the money is not applied to the use of the individual members of the Corporation, but to public and charitable purposes; the aldermen are selected from the respectable tradesmen of the town ; the practical effect of the system during all the time I can speak of has been to fill the Corporation with useful and respectable func tionaries and magistrates; justice was administered with im partiality ; there is not a better system of police in England than in Leicester; I was examined before the Municipal Commissioners in September, 1833 ; some demur arose re specting it ; I was not aware that I was going to be exa mined in a public meeting, but when I got to the Castle I found the passage thronged by the most violent opponents of the Corporation ; I felt great doubt whether I ought to be examined before such a tribunal ; I saw the Commissioners, and expressed my doubt, and wished my examination to be postponed; they said they could not alter their mode of pro ceeding, and must insist on my examination; I said I would not consent unless I had an assurance that there would be no violence offered by the crowd; they gave me that assu rance, and I consented to be examined ; the Commissioners de manded the production of documents, to which I could not ac cede; I made a report to the Corporation thereon. [The Report was read. It was the same that has since been pub lished in the Commissioners' Report.] The Corporation passed resolutions expressive of their opinion that I should not deliver up the documents ; I deny the statement made by the Com missioners, that there was no excitement at the meeting ; I deny it decidedly. No encouragement, however, was at all given to that excitement by the Commissioners. Lord LYNDHURST—Then that representation of the Commissioners was not true ?—lt is not true ; but I do not mean to say that the Commissioners meant to state what was false. Mr. KNIGHT—Did you make an untrue statement to the Corporation ? Lord PLUNKETT—That is the most extraordinary ques tion I ever heard put by counsel to a witness in my life. Mr. KNIGHT—The Commissioners have charged this wit ness with having made an untrue statement; and I now ask him whether he did make any such statement ?_( Cheers from several Noble Lords on the opposition benches.) Lord BROUG HAM—There, my Lords, that is just such a sort of interruption as was made by the people before the Com missioners at Leicester, and which could not be suppressed ; I dare say we shall have it repeated here The Earl of FALMOUTH and Lord LYNDHURST rose together ; but the latter giving way, the Noble Earl pro tested against the dictatorial tone of the Noble and Learned Lord ( Brougham) ; and he hoped the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst) would not submit to it. He would not suffer the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) to dictate to him. Lord BROUGHAM hoped the House would never suffer any Noble Lord to dictaw to them; and if any person was less disposed than another to dictate to their Lordships, it was the humble individual who now addressed them.—( Laughter. ) He saw by their unanimous approval that he had rightly esti mated their opinion —( Laughter)—and he thanked their Lord ships for the testimony they had borne in his favour. But what he had risen to notice was, the very usual fact of some of their Lordships having cheered—not what was said in the House, but what, as judges, they had heard said by counsel at the bar ; and this they did, like any other multitude, whether as sembled at the Castle at Leicester or elsewhere. Lord LYND URST said the cheer was not quite what his Noble and Learned Friend had stated. It was not a cheer of approval of what had been said by counsel at the bar ; but the cheer was to indicate that the Noble and Learned Lord ( i'lunket's) interposition was altogether incorrect. Mr. Burbidge was then examined by Lord BROUGHAM respecting a mortgage debt of 10,000/., owing by the corpora tion of Leicester. In 1826 there was a severely contested election at Leicester. An engagement was made by which Sir Charles Hastings, who came forward on the Corporation interest, should pay only a certain amount towards his election. A union was afterwards formed with another candidate, Mr. Otway Cave, who agreed to pay another certain part. Owing to some misconception, he did not fulfil that engagement, and the gentlemen who entered into that engagement with Sir C. Hastings felt bound in honour to pay the money, and raised it upon their own bonds. Three years after the Corporation relieved them from that obligation by borrowing the money; but he (the witness) felt bound professionally, not to say who lent it. Sir Charles Hastings was true blue—that is, of Tory principles—such as were now on the decline.—(Laughter.) Mr. Otway Cave, was sky-blue, and the third candidate, Mr. Evans, was a purple—that is, a liberal. The witness then underwent a long examination by Lord PLUNKETT and Lord BROUGHAM, in the course of which he stated that 7,000/., part of the 10,000/., -was paid for the election expenses of Sir Charles Hastings and Mr. 0. Cave, because they were the Corporation candidates ; but no thing was paid on Mr. Evans' account. That he considered the people of Leicester generally had no more interest in the Cor poration property than they had in their Lordship's estates, but that the Corporation might divide it among themselves; that he was aware of the Act passed to prevent Corporation money being applied to election purposes, but which was introduced by Mr. Evans after this election ; that the mortgagee lived in Leicester, but was not connected with the Corporation ; but the persons to whom the money was repaid were—some being aldermen, and some common councilmen; he had no doubt they paid the money in full confidence that the Cerporation would not sufE- them ultimately to be the losers. He ob jected to name the professional agent of the mortgagee, unless their Lordships determined that he should name him.—No proceedings have been instituted against the Corporation for their application of this money ; Mr. 0. Cave and Sir C. Hastings were returned in 1826, by a majority of 800 votes. The 'commonalty lands which belong to the freemen were purchased originally by funds derived partly from property .granted to the Corporation by Queen Elizabeth, and partly by personal contributions. Mr. KNIGHT said he had done with the witness; and then observed, that the Act of Parliament prohibiting the applica tion of Corporation property to election purposes received the Royal Assent on the Ist of August, 1832. Lord L YND HURST thought the House had now better adjourn. They had been sitting upwards of ten hours. Sir CHARLES WETlizaELL'regrettcd to state that it would be impossible, consistently with the decent performance of a useful duty to their Lordships, that he should go on to-morrow; he would, therefore, take the liberty of suggesting that their Lordships should pass over to-morrow, and resume the exa mination on Thursday._ . • _ Lord BROUGHAM asked whether the Learned Counsel wished to examine any more witnesses from Leicester? Mr. KNIGHT thought that it was not necessary to do so. Lord BR OUG H AM had heard there were some witnesses from Bristol in town ; why not go on with them ? Sir CHARLES WETHERELL said he was not ready, as far as Bristol is concerned. Lord BROUGHAM—Why not? You have only to ex amine them upon points perfectly familiar to you. I cannot see the necessity of not going on to-morrow. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL—We have exhausted the vocabu lary of our town clerks. Lord LYNDHURST then suggested that the counsel should begin at one o'clock to-morrow in the Bristol case ; which was finally agreed to. Their Lordships were then about to adjourn, when The Marquis of SALISBURY observed that he had two petitions to present ; one from a Mr. Mackintosh, and another from the inhabitants of Romford, praying to be heard against the Bill before their Lordships ; and he wished to know whe ther an opportunity would be afforded to him to present them to-morrow, or whether he ought to postpone presenting them till they came to the schedules. Lord BROUGHAM was understood to recommend the Noble Marquis to be prepared to present them to-morrow, in case the House should not be ready to go on with the examina tion of the witnesses for Bristol. Viscount MELBOURNE—I think, my Lords,that neither of the petitions alluded to by the Noble Marquis ought to be complied with ; and, my Lords, I protest most distinctly, for the third instance, against this proceeding, both upon reason and upon principle. I do not hold myself bound to it as a precedent ; I deem it, my Lords, to be most erroneous, most prejudicial, and most pernicious ; and I will not be hound by it in any respect. But, at the same time, my Lord, I feel I am bound to bow to a majority of this House. Mind (said the Noble Viscount with very great emphasis), I with to be under stood that I consider myself as bowinc , to a majority, and to that only, and not to any thing that I have heard in support of this proceeding.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) But I protest against it, in reason and in principle. I, how ever, consider myself as being coerced by a superior—mark, by a szaperior power (very emphatically)—( Great cheering)--- therefore, my Lords, your Lordships may act as you think proper.—(Great cheering from the Ministerial side of the House.) The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said his Noble Friend had received advice from the Noble and Learned Lord as to, the course he should pursue. and immediately after the Noble Viscount got up and expressed a directly contrary opinion. He . thought his Noble Friend was placed in a difficult situation-- What course was he to follow ? The Noble and Learned Lord's, or submit to the. decision of the Noble Viscount ? He thought that when those two Noble Lords, who seemed to have the same object in view, entertained such directly con trary opinions, they must feel placed in an extraordinary po sition. Whom were they to look to ? By whom were they to be guided ? Lord BROUGHAM said that not a single word had fallen from his Noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) in which he did not most cordially concur ; and the Noble Marquis had misunder stood the advice he (Lord Brougham) had given. His ad vice was this, that if these petitioners were ready to-morrow, at a time when the witnesses from Bristol were not at the bar, and if their Lordships should determine to hear them, they could be heard at that moment instead of coming afterwards to be heard. But he entirely agreed with his Noble Friend in protesting against the right of those parties being heard. He had strenuously resisted hearing evidence at the bar on behalf of the Corporations, a multofirtiori should he resist hearing evidence from a body of Town Clerks. They were opening a door to such an extent by the precedent they were now esta blishing, that there was not a single Bill they could hereafter pass on which application would not be made to hear counsel and evidence at the bar ; and lie did not see how they would be able to resist it, after so forcible a precedent as the hearing of evidence on the Municipal Corporation Bill of 1835. Lord LYNDHURST said he should pause long, before he should consent to hear any evidence from persons who be longed to no Corporate Body. The Town Clerks must be heard as so many individual petitioners. At all events, there was no question before the House—it was therefore idle to discuss it. The Marquis of SALISBURY said, that after the state ment from the first Minister of the Crown, who, of course, must be supposed to be well acquainted with the contents et this Bill, because it was brought forward upon his responsibl , r lity, he would state a case to the House, and then ask if there ever was such an instance as a Minister of the Crown co ming down to the House and saying that an individual should be de prived of property which he had purchased of the Crown itself, and that within the last seven years. The liberty of Haver.. ing atte-Bower was purchased by a gentleman of the name of Mackintosh for upwards of 70,0001. Included in this pur chase was the right of appointing two Magistrates; he as a tenant of the liberty, had never heard any complaint against these Magistrates ; but the Commissi o n ers , nevert h e l ess , had reported this as a Corporation requiring Reform. Lord L YNDHURST said this case stood upon the same footing with all the other Corporations, and would, of course, be heard in its turn. There was, therefore, no necessity for any discussion upon it. The Marquis of SALISBURY had no idea of provoking a discussion on the subject. He had merely asked what course he should pursue ; and the Noble and Learned Lord, who took a very active part in the proceedings of their Lordship? House, gave him certain advice, when up got the Noble Vis count, and talked of the power with which he was oppressed, and said he would not be bound by these proceedings.—( The Noble Marquis delivered the latter part of this sentence with such an extraordinary exertion of lungs as to excite loud cheers from the Opposition benches, and much laughter from the other parts of the House.) After a few words • from Lord BROUGHAM, the House adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Avavar 4. The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at five o'clock. GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION COMMITTEE. Lord FRANCIS EGERTON reported from the Great Yarmouth Committee, that William Prentice, having twice been before the Coin. mittee, and haying refused to answer questions put to him, had been committed to the custody of the Sergeant -at-Arms, by order of the house, on Friday last. Mr. HARDY presented a petition from Prentice, the individual $ 1; luded to, praying forgiveness of the house, and requesting permission Is return home, for a few days, in custody of the officer of the house. The honourable member contended that the witness had no right to answer the questions put to him, on tie ground that it would criminate himself, which no person could be a judge of but the witness himself' He could cite the decision of Lord Eldon and the Court of Common Pleas in support of this doctrine. Under these circumstances, he hoPel the house would not do what was in direct violation of the law, ant. that they would take the petition of this individual into considera tion by calling him to the bar of this house, reprimanding ant i discharging him. If this was not done, they should act as they bat done in the Liverpool and Grampound cases, and in that of the in , ' ractiment of Lord Melvil:e, by passing a special Act of Parliament. otherwise they could not adopt the suggestion of the hon. member fa Middle..ex, of extending protection to this witness. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, objected to the argument of the hon. member opposite, and thought it would establish a dangerous Pr e ' ce.lent if witnesses were allowed to object to questions on every - trifling occasion. The witnesses should not be allowed to judge M. themselves in all cases, but the discretion should remain with the Court- :` Mr. PEASE, on behalf of the Committee, could assure the house that - they had fairly' and fully discharged their duty. The hon. rnernter proceeding to continent on the evidence, when— The SPEAKER interposed, and said that the discussion had 00 1 1 arisen upon the presentation of a petition. _ _ Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the subject should be postponed till to-morrow, which was agreed to. An HON. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, moved for the production of copies of the evidence taken in this case. Sir R. PEEL objected to the motion. Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the motion be postponed. Mr. ROBINSON hoped that the House would consider well the evil consequences that followed from the appointment of this sort of Coin' mittees. It was the most absurd proceeding that had ever eon' nated from that House.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was a proceeding that was strongly calculated to bring that House into disreput e ' He hoped the House would constitute some other select tribunal, l° order that these investigations might proceed with some degree of d e ' corum, and some chance of doing justice to the parties. He ma de . these observations, because night a fte r ni g ht th e i nva l ua bl e t i me o f the.' house was occupied with discussions that were productive of no be' nefit, and unless some check or other were interposed, the house would be involved in a mass of inextricable difficulties and confusion. Mr. PEASE considered that in consequence of the Resolution on the Books, it was compulsory upon the House to enter into the inquiry. Mr. WA SON was astonished at the observations that had been mad e by the hon. Member for Worcester, because he was certain that no bo n ' Member who either voted for or against the appointment of the Coal. mitten would deny that most important facts had been elicited. Mr. FERGUSSON deprecated such observations as the Hon. Membe r for Worcester had thought proper to make use of. Mr. ROBINSON explained. He had not meant to attribute a va nS of decorum to any Member of the Committee. His complaints were against the constitution of the Committee. Sir E. CODRINGTON rose to present a petition from certain trades ; men, claiming a certain sum of money f or th e buildi ng an d f urn i s hing York-house. It appeared that Government were ready to pay the bills se cording to the work ozine ; and Lord Liverpool insisted upon there being paid. A grant of certain mines in Nova Scotia was given to t he Duke, but some dispute t o ok pl ace up on its authenti c ity, which after a correspondence between Mr. Dawson, the then Secretary of State , the Duke of Wellington, and others, was sufficiently established. MAIL COACHES. Mr. WALLACE seeing the hon. member fbr Totnes in his placer wished to enquire whether anything had been done with respect to 00 contract for mail coaches. VV Mr. LA BOUCHERE said that a contract had been concluded Wi th , very respectable parties, by which he was in hopes that a s a ving wontd be effected to the public of between 11,0001. and 12,0001—(Cheers.) ADMISSION OF LADIES. Mr. GRANTLY BERKELEY moved that the house should agr e° to the Report of the Committee, to admit a certain number of ladies in t° the gallery. The SPEAKER having put the question, strangers were ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it B9 Majority against the Ladies — 3 , COLONEL BRADLEY'S CASE. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the case of Thomas Bradley', Esq., formerly Lieutenant-Colonel in command of the 24 e West India Regiment. The Hon. Member went over a state' ment of the circumstences, which have been repeatedly pub; lished, and contended that the verdict given for Colone! Bradley in an action brought against Major Arthur showed that Colonel Bradley had not been fairly treated, and that the proceedings and sentence of the Court-martial ought to be inquired into. Lord HOWICK resisted the motion. Mr. HUME said that it should be recollected that Ma.i,° r Arthur was defended by the Government, a nd rece i v ed all 0° assistance they could afford him, and that nevertheless, aver- diet was given by the Jury against Major Arthur. Mr. C. FERGUSSON opposed the motion, and sa id . that a decision in support of Major Arthur had been repeatedly made by different parties. Sir C. DALBIAC considered that it would be an act at. tendant with extreme danger and injustice if the House sanc tioned the precedent the Hon. Member for Finsbury wished to establish. Sir R. PEEL should vote against the motion. After a few words from Mr. Pryme, Lord Howick, and ;ilr• Hume, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE briefly replied. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority —.6B ORANGE LODGES. • On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. HITME bringing forward his motion on the t ba Orange Lodges. The motion was to call the attention of House to the evidence taken before the Select C o mmittee P,; pointed to inquire respecting Orange Lodges, as regards til e ', establishment in the army, and to submit resolutions th ere % to the House for consideration and adoption. Not being 0 member of the Committee, which sat on the subject of O ra l - Lodges, his attention had been first drawn to the subject 13); the Irish Orange newspapers, which published a portion a 1 ,, t evidence taken before that Com m itt e e. It was stated i n t o evidence, that from thirty to f o rty regiments of the l in c Orange Lodges, on the autho r ity o f war r a nts from the Gre.., Lodge. The statement a ppe are d to him so extraord i T; that he could not at fir s t b e li e v e it, till he had asked a Tecnine.. of the Committee, and found it to be quite correct. it " r r o ., peered by the evidence, that lodges were formed in reanc il giments, and it was doubtful to what extent they existed . recently had they not seen the reckless conduct of those Oraegi, Societies, and how the unfortunate affair at Belfast occurrre; which had orig.inated with the Oranf_remen.—k"Ne , no • ) is newbpapei s. SIC had i ect . ..or ed a letter, in which it eras teal 11 that Orange Lodges were spreading to a great extent in