The Sun. — London, England, 1835-09-01 00:00:00

PROT'EST OF LORD BROUGHAM. The following is Lord Brougham's Protest against the Mu nicipal Rc:forrn BIN as pr.sed by the Lords : " Dissentient-1. Because the amendments to the 'L il l a l ter its whole structure, are altogether inconsistent with its prin ciples, and while they impair its efficiency to any good purpose, present it to the view of the country in a light still more un favourable than even the meP.Are thus altered may in itself deserve to be regarded. _ " 2. Because the aTteged preservation of the rights of free men within the corporations is founded upon an entire misap prehension of the nature of Corporations, and of the title by ixhich they hold property—it being a principle wholly unde niable, that whatever property is held by any corporate body, it belongs to that body, under whatever form and with what ever modiF.eations the Legislature may be pleased to impress upon it—and that all Corporations, as well ecclesiastical as lay, only have a title to the property which they possess upon the ground of the Corporation continuing identically the same after its formation has been changed by law. " 3. Because the continuing of the Parliamentary franchise to the freemen, or those who would have been entitled to be come freemen but for this Bill, is a perpetuation of the very worst evils of the representative system, the freemen being the class of voters among whom all the evils of bribery and corruption have been in all cases found most extensively to prevail. 'f 4. Because the qualification adopted of the sixth part of the rate-payers, those who pay the largest amount of rates, is contrary to the whole principles of our free constitution ; esta blishing, for the first time, as a rule, that the political rights and privileges of the state shall belong only to those who have more money than their fellow-citizens ; not affixing, as our order laws have done, a certain amount of wealth as the test of the right to mingle in public affairs, but excluding all therefrom except the richest class ; so that not merely rich persons, or persons in easy circumstances, are henceforth to be deemed eligible to office, but the richest; the persons who excel their fellow-citizens in wealth are declared to be alone capable of administering the municipal concerns, a principle absurd in itself, and oppressive and fraught with the mischiefs of oligarchy in its worst and most offensive form, the oligarchy of mere property without any other qualification or modifica tion whatever. "5. Because the introduction of this novel and pernicious principle is rendered still more asurd by the alternative tvhich is added, allowing any person, in some boroughs of 1,0001., in others of 500/. worth of property, to be eligible, inasmuch as this wholly defeats the only purpose with which the new principle objected to is adopted. So that the provi sion taken altogether is wholly inoperative to prevent fraudu lent and fictitious qualifications, the sole ground of intruding the new principle, while it sanctions for the first time a doc trine altogether inconsistent with the spirit of all our insti tutions. "6. Because the election of aldermen for life is the fruitful source of manifold inconveniences and abuses, removing the persons chosen from all salutary control, forcing them into a class set apart from their fellow-citizens, to whom they are wholly unaccountable, sowing the seeds of constant dissension and jealousy between the different classes of councilmen, per petuating the power of men whom unfitness not originally dis covered, incapacity supervening, old age, infirmity of any kind, may render wholly or partially unable to discharge the duties of their office. " 7. Because the continuance of the existing aldermen or capital burgesses and town-clerks is the certain introduction into the new councils of the worst evils of the old close and self-elective system—making it inevitable that the same kind of influence should continue to prevail in the corporations affected to be reformed, and wholly preventing the change which this measure professes to effect from producing any substantial benefit in purifying the administration of municipal concerns. " 8. Because these alterations of the Bill, and more espe cially the last, have a direct tendency to exhibit this measure to our countrymen as a mere mockery or pretence of Reform, as holding out in words the promise of improvement which it at the same time breaks. " 9. Because the converting an office granted during plea sure into an office for life, without the consent of the grantor, is contrary to all principle, without any precedent, and a much more glaring violation of the rights of parties than any which even the adversaries of the Bill have imputed to its provi- sons. " 10. Because the amendments, and those especially re lating to retaining persons in their office, proceed upon a sup position that the councils chosen by the people arc less fit to be trusted with the administration of the corporate offices, and more likely to do acts of imprudence and of injustice, than the present bodies, which owe their existence and continuance to self-election. " 11. Because the requiring that a councilman shall be a member of the Church of England before he can vote for the presentation to a living, is utterly repugnant to the whole spirit, and even to the letter, of the law of England, sanction ing the principle of tests long after these have been abrogated, absurdly assuming that corporators arc less fit or less likely honestly to exercise rights of Church patronage than private individuals, who are by law subject to no such restrictions, and stigmatizing Dissenters with the hateful imputation of being disposed to violate trusts reposed in them, by appointing unfit persons to perform clerical functions, with the view of fraudulently undermining the Established Church, a conduct of which we in our consciences believe the Dissenters to be utterly incapable. Bicause we believe that the character of these amendments is to injure the measure in all its essential prin ciples, leaving only as much of it as could not have been al tered without rejecting the Bill altogether; while we are firmly persuaded that the changes effected are calculated to produce in men's minds an opinion of this House being far more hostile to the fundamental principles of the measure than it really is ; and because we thus hold it to be inevitable that far more harm will be wrought by the changes made in the Bill than good can be gained, even according to the views of those who have propounded them." STATE OF IRELAND. DUBLIN, Arocsr 29. " It is undoubtedly the business of the ministers very much to consult the inclinations of the people. * * A minister of this country is to be controlled by the House of Commons."—Buß K E. So convinced of the truth of these maxims are the people of Ireland, and so implicitly do they confide in the present Go vernment to carry them into effect, that they look upon the events of the last week with great calmness and deliberation. They arc not, however, insensible to the exigency of the times; and when occasion requires it, will be prompt in manifesting their feelings and sentiments. They had anticipated the im placable opposition of " the Lords" to those measures, with less than which they never can be satisfied ; and though they may not have been prepared for the extent of damage done by their Lordships, on Wednesday last, to those Bills, which -were calculated to redress some of their grievances, still they look upon the struggle which must take place as one that will certainly terminate in their favour. Indeed the fact ought not to be concealed, that there tire, in this country, persons wishing for a more sweeping Tithe Bill, who rejoice rather than repine at the failure of the present Bill, in the well founded hope that next year will go nearer to consummate their wishes. Still, they do not apprehend any of those vio lent concussions in the slate which their " Lordships'" obsti nacy seems to threaten. Our distinguished countryman quoted above, has, in his" Observations on the conduct of the minority," said, " The friends of the people are not so ignorant as not to know, that the House of Lords is by itself the feeblest part of the Constitution ; they know that the House of Lords is supported only by its connexions with the Crown and with the House of Commons; and that without this double connexion, the Lords could not exist a single year." The same statesman has said, " It is an experiment full of peril to put the representative wisdom and justice of his Ma jesty.s people in the wrong; it is a crooked and desperate de sign, leading to mischief, the extent of which no human wis dom can foresee, to attempt to form a prerogative party in the nation to be resorted to as occasion shall require, in derogation from the authority of the Commons in Great Britain in Par liament assembled." But the House of Lords has not yet gone to their extremes, though it has manifested a very strong inclination to do so. In fact, some of their Lordships under stand the Constitution, and will not only keep themselves within its pale, but when every struggle to restnre Toryism has completely failed, will listen to the voice of reason and the demands of the people. The course :hey are pursuing proves to demonstration what will be the result of all their threatenings. They have not done to the Corporation Bill, or to the Irish Church Bill, that which should necessarily bring them into immediate collision with the Commons,—that is, they have not formally rejected—they have only substan tially destroyed, under the pretext of improving their most essential provisions. Why this timidity of doing directly what they have done indirectly ? Because, the latter mode of pro ceeding leaves; a locus penitentie ; and if the Ministry be firm, and true to the principles which recalled them to his Ma jesty's and. the people's service, the magnates of England must ere long adopt that popish method of obtaining grace and favour, which is explained by the word, peccavi. It is their present intention to do so; otherwise they would act to wards the Bills already mentioned, as they did towards the Irish Constabulary Bill, which was however of less importance. Their leader, or leaders, have but one object in view, to obtain which they are not prepared for the alternative of the Trojan traitor— " Sett versare doles, seu certm occumbere morti." Should they fail in effecting the recall of a Tory ministry, they may still console themselves with the reflection of having committed but one overt act, one likely to be passed over, tending to ent7.ll destruction on their hereditary titles as states men. The machinery of the British Constitution is as well known as it is accurately formed for the sustentation of the liber ties of the great body of the people ; and from this knowledge, and the good sense or good policy, still pervading every branch of the legislature, it is pretty evident that the rights we claim are only- delayed, not denied. " One circumstance more I shall observe here," says an intelligent foreigner, (De Lolme). " as peculiar to England, which is the constant attention of tho legislature in providing for the interests and welfare of the people, and the indulgences shown by them to their very pre. judices,—advantages there, which are, no doubt, the conse quence of the general spirit which animates the whole English Government,—but are also particularly owing to that circum stance peculiar to it,—of having lodged the active part of le gislation in the hands of the representatives of the nation ; and committed the care of alleviating the grievances of the people, to persons who either feel them, or see them nearly, and whose surest path to advancement and glory is to be active in finding remedies for them." In the absence of such facts as usually constitute the " daily news" of a public journal, I give you the sentiments of the people of Ireland respecting the present crisis. In doing so, I adopt the language &those great men who were well acquainted with the British Consti tution, in the hope that such language will receive from all i panics the attention. 4 deserves. DIPE" L.EAL PARLIAMENT. MO USE OF COMMONS, AUGUST 31. The SPEAKEt took the Chair at three o'clock. CORPORATION BILL. Mr. FRESH FIELD presented a petition from Banbury, praying for the name of that borough being struck out of the Corporation Bill, as the new limits prescribed by it would throw an unusual share of the poor-rates upon them. He also presented one from Bedford, praying that the indepen dence of all branches of the Constitution mig'it be preserved ; Almo, one to the same effect from Truro. Mr. T ANC RED said the petition from Banhttr7 Zontained many mis-statements, and had not been heard of till Friday last. Mr. MA RSHAL If presented a petition which emanatcsi from one of the largest and most respectable meetings ever held in Carlisle, praying the House to reject the Corporation Bill as amended by tho Lords. Mr. CHARLTON presented a petition from Ludlow praying that all the branches of the Legislature might be left in the possession of their independence. Mr. STRUTT said the petition had been signed by only ninety-nine persons out of a population of 5,000. The Honourable Member stated, on a former occasion, that one boy had signed the petition on the other side nine times. The moment that representation went down it caused a great deal of excitement, on tracing the report to its foundation, and it was now most completely denied. Mr. CHARLTON had made his statement upon the autho rity of a letter from a gentleman in whom he had perfect con fidence, and the parties did not contradict him. He trusted that in future all parties would affix their signa tures to their petitions, and also ther residences.—( Hear.) As to what he bad stated the other night, he had been very much misrepresented. He would only add, that many of these petitioners could neither read nor write, and he believed that many of those who complained of the unconstitutional conduct of the House of Lords, could not spell the word Constitutidn. Mr. ROBlNSON—According to his understanding of the rules of that House, this petition could not be received. It was founded upon and referred to a speech of an Hon. Mem ber, spoken in that House. If they allowed the reports of the speeches of Members of that House to be made the subject of petitions, it would lead to endless discussions, and would seriously interrupt the business of the House.—( Hear.) The SPEAKER suggested that the better course would be to have the petition read. According to his understanding of it, it referred not to the speech of an Hon. Member, but to a letter read in that House. It would be then for the House to say whether or not the petition could be received. The Clerk accordingly read the petition at length. It com plained of a statement made by Mr. Charlton in that House, which statement was founded upon a letter from the High Bailiff of Ludlow, which was read at the same time. The petitioners denied the truth of the statement. Mr. ROBINSON thought the petition could not be re ceived.—( Cries of oh, oh.) Gentlemen were actuated in all these cases by party feeling.—( Uproar and cries of " Order.") Mr. ROEBUCK rose to order. He was quite sure that the Hon. Gentleman would retract the words he had spoken. Mr. ROBINSON was sorry to see gentlemen cheering anything that had reference to the business of the House and the regulations of their proceedings.—(Cries of " Oh, oh I" and " Order I") Mr. STRUTT—It will save time if I am allowed to say a word.—( Cries of " Order I") Mr. ROBINSON proceeded amidst cries of " Spoke," " Order," and "Go on," and Mr. Strutt resumed his seat. The House had beard the petition read, and be submitted that the first paragraph did allude to statements made in that House, and it would therefore be contrary to the rules of the House to receive this petition. _ Mr. STRUTT had merely risen to say that the object of the petition had been answered ; and if, in the opinion of the Speaker, the petition was irregular, he was willing to with draw it. Mr. ROEBUCK contended that the petition was regular. It merely referred to a statement, made certainly by an Hon. Member in that House, but founded upon a letter of a person who was not a Member of that House. As to Members of that House being actuated by party motives, he had called the Hon. Member to order, and he was sure he was right in doing so, as the imputation of motives of any description was wholly unparliamentary. Party motives were improper motives to act upon, and he was sure that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robinson) would be desirous of making an apology to the House.—( Hear, hear.) The SPEAKER—It was for the House to consider whe ther this petition was to be received or not. If it referred to assertions made by an Hon. Member in that House it was clearly wrong, but to him it appeared merely to refer to the letter of the High Bailiff of Ludlow. Mr. CHARLTON was willing to admit that the High Bailiff had been wrongly informed. He hoped, however, that out of this evil good would come, and that in future peti tions would contain- not merely the names but- the residences of the parties signing them.--( Hear, hear.) Mr. ROBINSON—As the Hon. Member has expressed his willingness to withdraw the petition Mr. STRUTT begged to undeceive the Hon. Member. He had expressed his willingness to withdraw the petition if Mr. Speaker should decide that it was irregular. The petition was then laid on the table. Mr. DUNLOP presented several petitions from Ayr and other places in Scotland, in favour of the Municipal Reform Bill. Mr. WALL ACE rose in the first place to give his support to the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Ayr, hav ing been requested so to do, and in the second place to present a petition from Paisley containing 7,692 signatures, and amongst them that of the Chief Magistrate, which were all signed at a public meeting. They prayed that House to grant to the people of England the same advantages which this and the other House of Parliament had in the Municipal Reform Bill granted to Scotland, and which had been found to work so re markably well. They expressed their hope that that House would not consent to receive the Bill in the mutilated state in which it was returned from the other House of Parliament, but rather that they would repeal the Bill altogether.—(Hear. ) The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Greenock to , the same effect, which was agreed to at a public meeting con vened by the Magistrates, three of whom appeared first in the list of petitioners, His constituents had chosen him because he was an out and out Radical Reformer, and they had se lected Magistrates of the same class. He was quite sure that the other House had acted in utter ignorance of the feeling of Scotland, but it was to b e accoun t e d for by the fact, that none of its Representatives in that House were liberal in their prin ciples —( Cries of " Order" from Mr. Charlton, &c.) The SPEAKER suggested the propriety of not making any remarks upon the Members of the other House. Mr. WALL ACE observed that Members of the other House had spoken pretty freely of this House, but he would not pursue his remarks. Alt. POTTER said he had the honour to present a peti tion from a number of the inhabitants of Tadcaster, in the West Riding of the county of York. He was sure it had not been intrusted to his care from any disrespect to the Noble Lord or the Honourable Baronet, who so ably and satis factorily represented that division of the county, but be cause he (Mr. Potter) was a native of Tadcaster. The petitioners speak in strong language, but not more so than the case deserves. They state, " That your petitioners long disgusted with the notoriously corrupt practices prevail ing in corporate towns, hailed with inexpressible satisfaction the measure of Reform of Municipal Corporations which lately passed the House." They go on to express their deep regret and indignation at the attempts which have been made to defeat the patriotic efforts of the faithful Com m.ons, and at the mutilations which the Corporation Bill has received.—( Hear, hear.) He begged the attention of the House to the two concluding paragraphs of the petition, which were :—" That your petitioners arc gratefully thankful to his Majesty's Ministers for their firmness in such deplorable and trying circumstances, and assure your Honourable House that they will stand by and support your Honourable House in any and every emergency which may arise in the present state of public affairs. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your Ron. House firmly to resist every attempt to induce your Hon. House to adopt, and on the contrary, that you will indignantly and promptly reject any perverted or mutilated Bill, retaining the name of Corporation Reform and pretended to be amended by the Peers, and lastly, that your Honourable House will not hesitate to stop the Supplies, should obstinacy in any quarter be perseVered in to interrupt the completion of this great measure."—( Hear, hear, hear.) He trusted that the other branch of the Legislature would yet be induced to comply with the wishes of the country, which had been so unequiencally expressed. If not, then he (Mr. Potter) was of opinion the only course left to the House of Commons was to stop the supplies, or, at any rate, grant them for a very short period only. Mr. SINCL AIR supported the petition, but thought it quite competent for this House to take the alterations of the Lords into consideration before any final decision was made. Mr. BR.OT lIERTON presented a petition from Salford to the same effect, signed by 4,300 individuals, and also pray ing the House to instititute an inquiry into the law of heredi tary peerage. He for one would never consent to the Bill in its present state—(Hean ) With respect to the other prayer, he would say that ever since he could think on political sub jects, he had been in favour of Kings, Lords, and Commons, and he deeply regretted that circumstances should have arises to justify the petitioners in using such strong language, but it showed that the people were determined to have reform in Church and State, whatever might be the cost or the conse quence. It could not be wondered that the people spoke in this way, when they saw that hereditary legislators cared for nothing but to make laws for their own pleasure, in order to put money into their own pockets, or the pockets of their rela tions and dependents. Mr. Phillips, Mr. C. Hindley, Mr. Ewart, and Mr. Fielden, supported the petition. Mr. CHARLTON complained of the Hon. Member for Salford, accusing Members of the other House of putting money into their own pockets, and called upon him to prove it. (Laughter.) He thought the amendments made by the House of Lords were calculated to promote the happiness of the people.—( Hear and laughter.) He thought the House of Lords had no more power to do away with the House of Commons, than the latter had to overthrow the Lords— ( Hear)—and he begged pardon for the warmth of feeling which he had displayed. Mr. BROT HERTON explained. Mr. HUTT presented a petition from Kingston-upon-Hull, signed by 2,000 persons, praying the House of Commons not to enter into any compromise with the other House, but lo reject the Bill altogether in its present shape. He trusted this House would make a firm stand against the mutilations of r the Lord.. Sir C. BROOKE VERE presented petitions from Ips. qUi 7 ` O l NiMisr, 11,3' .. " 1 1 1 $1( (sT4 r'I I III3FP 1 k J.11J6 - I 1 i " • wich and ether ;laces, in favour of the Lords' Aqiendments to the Municipal Corporations Bill. COMNIISAION, The Deputy Usher of thtj lilkek Rod h'ek-e app'efteed ?it the table, and stenittiouett tie Wuke '4 9 IVar. Rayat Absent given to several 111 11 s . ag),_e'd,biljn tbib houses of Parlia ment, for whichs'e'r !4.1 - ils r Report. The htiving resumed the Chair, Mrs MORRISON would protest against the petition whio.b had been prescated by the Hon. l3arr4et iciP'pbsite as repro s.entin; ine opinions of r. ny IVge number of the inhabitants of .pstvich, w" nit presided at a meeting lately held in that pnv., and he sveuld say that no town in England took a deeper interest in the success of the measure to which tare &Mu alluded. pc• Woes which have been prcseate.d to the House this evening, and gloss Which I myself hate had the honour to 'Rtsesen . s . Mat nifrnerBitElly ail thifSt it-1,4.0211)1y 51 1' , 7C . , Shells that tkete iS a gleat degree of excitement prEiVading upon this question—( Cries of " Oh eh!" from the Oppo sition, and " Cheers" from the Ministerial side of the House) — and that there is a dread, a more than ordinary dread, that we 51,0 # agree; or, aent t-10.41 tH HffpH.fioiistiado h) tte isortts, which might in any way compromise our eian sictilf; or credit, as representing the people whose interests we are sent here to represent. Sir, I must say, that there is a great degree of eacitnmant ft in many, piaci:l2f 4rtd. !r, sw,i6 respects, it is great beyond what I should think the exact importance and value of the amendments we have now to consider, I believe that that excitement has, in a great degrees beest fors thstnssss:( tde 4 . sticering here was so very loud as to render it impossible to catch the finish of the sentence.) Sir, I feel persuaded, that if, in the ordinary course of our Legislation a Bill which had passed this Lltolske hi its first, se , cond, and third reading, without a division, had been taken into cntisideration by the House of Lords, and that they had made simply siteli alislititions ar asiff area to therti id his; &nester" to tdreat any defects, or to add such clauses as appeared to thoili improvements upon the frame-work of the Bill, the temper of the country would indeed be very different. But Sir, I am sorry to say that though the Bill was not immediately opposed in the House of Lorda upon itt pfintiple ) allied *ELS sent through the country opinions so disparaging to to the House, to the Bill, and to the people for whose benefit it was intended ; a great degree of irritation was felt, anti that irritation was increased tenfold, when a gentleman was called to the Par of did ldduse of Lords and pefitiitted-sa (" Oh, oh," loud cheering, and cries of " Order")—to indulge in language —in such language as was there heard—language not used in defending the rights of any persons affscted by the Bill, but in language so disparaging to this Honour able House----11 - leata heat, hear;)—Atiat I third: hd tloitsb of Parliament iiitteit to have allowed to be used at their Bar.- 1 tiheers. ) If any one was to propose that counsel was to be called to the Bar of this House—if counsel at that Bar rose to use words respecting the House of Lords, which could be at all called disrespectful, I would at once object to it, for I will never allow the other House to be insulted at that Bar. Sir, I must say then that proceedings of this nature, so begun and followed up by calling a number of persons to their bar—witnesses who could indeed take only ono Vie* of the question, and who, therefore, with respect to these corporations could only have one opinion—l must say that these proceedings have caused, and I think justly, a feeling of irritation among a large portion of the people of this country. Had they entered upon a simple inquiry as to the neces sities of the case, it would have been well ; but an opportunity was taken of disparaging us, who are the representatives of the people. I have felt it my duty to say so much upon this question. I will not further allude to it now, but let it pass over, in the • hope that the like will never again occur. Sir, I wish to consider in what I have to say, the various amendments made by the House of Lords in this Bill, and whether it will be our duty, looking at the great principle which actuated us in passing that Bill, to reject or agree to these amendments. Eat I thought that in the position in which I stand, I should be in some degree betraying or compromising the dignity and character of this House, if I had not taken some notice of the proceedings which have taken place elsewhere.—( Hear.) Sir, with respect to the amendments themselves that have been proposed, and are embodied in the Bill which we have now before us, there is, I think, a very great distinction to be taken. It is a distinction which I shall take at once, be tween those parts of the Bill which constitute a future governing body for these Corporations in place of those placed thereby by the old charters ; and the other parts of the Bill which only deal with those subjects which necessarily came before us in considering the New Municipal Cor porations. In the latter part of this provision I should include those provisions respecting the property hitherto enjoyed by the freemen in common, and other matters. I should also include in it the right of freemen to vote for Mem bers, and some other provisions which I shall allude to. But the first provision —that of the governing bodies is that of the most important nature for us to consider. I think if we can make up our minds that with certain alterations and re jecting certain amendments which have been proposed and embodied in the Bill, as sent down to us by the House of Lords, there might be framed such a measure as would give a governing body which should for the time to come conduct the government of these towns in such a way that they will be for ever after well and quietly governed. If we can convince our selves that a great Reform can be obtained, of past evils and past mischiefs, and that for the future this country will have the Municipal Corporations acting with integrity and with vigour—capable of at once securing the interests of those inhabitants over whom they preside, and preserving peace within their boundaries, for the general benefit of the King's subjects—l should say, in that case, that I will consider the Bill with that sole view of endeavouring to obtain that great end. I shall hold myself entirely unmoved by those irritating passions and opposition—( Cries of " Hear, hear) — which prevailed among some persons, in consequence of the alterations which had been made in the Bill.—( Hear.) 1 will throw out of sight and out of mind what might have been the Original proposition, and whether that proposition may have been the best; and I will say, that for the sake of the welfare of this country, we may not from year to year have these subjects of contention—subjects of contention which not only affect the subjects treated of by this Bill, but go far beyond those subjects, into questions of powers, privi leges, the use and exec cise of those privileges, by different bodies of Legislature. In order to get rid of such topics of pas sion and excitement, and with the view of obtaining a good governing body, I am ready to say that I will forget and forego every argument which I might urge in favour of the pro position that was carried in this House. There are amendments which have been made in the House of Lords in this part of the Bill, which I think would not obtain the object they had in view, viz.—that of obtaining a sufficient governing body, which should inspire confidence in their constituents, over whom they are placed, and which should be permanent.—( Hear, hear.) I must say, that I consider these incompatible with the object—( Hear)—the keeping up of which we have in view, and the keeping the title under the provi sions of this Bill, which has been hitherto considered as the aldermanic part of the governing body.—( Loud cheers.) I must therefore say, in the first place, that as a question of principle that the great proposition was that the Muni cipal body should be elected from a large constituency ; but this amendment not only preserves the title of Al dermen, but also keeps tip the principle of self- election. But it goes beyond this ; it was said that these persons were included in the municipal councils—meeting with a body three times their number, sent in by election, so far from tending to harmony, would do nothing but embarrass and disturb the action of the municipal body, which we wish to be powerful,' and which we wish to be popular. I now come to another part of the Bill, which requires our special regard and favour—l mean that which relates to the Town Clerks--( Cries of " Hear, hear," and laughter.) The present town-clerks are to be retained during their good behaviour, and to have the charge of the charters and Corporation papers. Another clause provides that they should not be disqualified from acting as justices' clerks, except when the registrar should think proper to act, at the sessions; but I do not see that the introduction of such clauses will tend to any thing but disorder, because the town-clerks being in possession of all the charters and corporation documents, may prevent the examination of those documents by the councils not only of towns, but also of boroughs, and there fore the original principle of the Bill in this respect will be frustrated ; and I do not think that, with re gard to the Town-clerks, we should agree to any pro position to secure their continuance.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") I admit that the Justices, in consequence of their corporate capacity, arc Justices for life, but is it to be said, that because no provision was made for their continuance, that they were disqualified—if men of respectability and character, in whom their fellow freemen could place confidence, would be disqualified from remaining justices still ?—( Hear.) I have stated at once those parts of the alterations which I think quite inadmissible, because it is impossible to have a new body under those alterations free from the influence of the old body, and it would con found the reformation, and the abuses of the whole cor porate system. I would rather wait to reform the whole than have parts of it left unreformed, leaving the stronger body only in that situation.—( Hear, hear.) There is a provision for setting aside the present Aldermen, and the Lords wish to constitute them Aldermen for life, to which there is one very obvious objection, which is, that you appoint men for life who are adverse to the very principle of the Bill, and therefore, not being of opinion that would be good or wholesome, I would propose, not the rejection of the proposal altogether, but I shall propose as an amendment, that there shall be a body of the same number as those proposed in the amendment, amounting to one. third or one-fourth ; it is all the same of the Council, but their existence shall be shorter, that those chosen for six years shall go out at the end of three years. If the object of the amendment of the House of Lords is to secure that there should be some part of the Council who should not be derived immediately from popular elec tion, and who should be persons of more permanent cha racter than those elected by popular election, I think that object would be gained by the amendments I propose ; while at the same time I think the inconvenience of having persons chosen for life would be taken away by the clause I propose.—( Hear.) Another proposal upon which I do not purpose altogether to dissent from the amendments made by the House of Lords, although I think they go a great deal too far in the amendments they have proposed, is with respect to wards. It will be recollected that at the suggestion of my Noble Friend, the Member for Lancashire, we enlarged the number of towns to which the principle of wards applied, and we sent the Bill to the House of Lords, with this provision, that when there were twelve thousand inhabitants the borough should be divided into wards. My Noble friend p.'oposed that the boroughs should be divided into w ands w here there were ten thousand inhabitants; tl tore was, therefore, no great difference between his pro p, asition and mine. But the proposition made by the House of Lords is, that where there is 6,000 inhabitants, the borough hall be divided into wards. Now what I propose is to take 10,000 or 9,000, as the minimum.—( Hear and cheers.) 'Where is another amendment which has been made in respect -to justices being recommended by the council ; it was pro ,posed by the original measure that. justice's should be recorn, n muted by the council, and that not till they had received a smmission from his Majesty should they be entitled to act in a ft : magisterial capacity. This' proposal of our has been strut, -k out by the House of Lords, and 'th e prov i s ion is left thus s , that tho Crown bhall at ones nominate the justices of Col. CORE I, ANtiTON presented a petition from Frome in favise r.I Ile Municipal Reform Bill 83 amended by the tiotte of Lords. Mr. SHEPHERD supported Or rttyzi , of the petition. The inhabitants of that,l'oved their king and country, and despised the ; , ...timidation which was at present abroad. Mr. WILK S admitted that the people of Frome, many of whom were Dissenters, loved their King and their country ; but they also loved liberty—( Hear)— and were prepared to live in its behalf, and die in its defence. Ho believed there was a great majority of the people or Frome favourable to the Municipal Reform tt it originally stood. Mr. ORD pretented a petition, signed by 7,200 inhabitants of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, praying that the House of Com mons would not pass the Municipal Bill, as amended by the House of Lords. The petitioners had also passed a resolution vindicating the conduct of the tw o Municipal Commissioners who had visited the town of Newcastle. Mr. P. HO WA R D could bear testimony to the deep and bitter feeling which pervaded that and the neighbouring coun ties, in consequence of the manner in which the Bill had been mutilated in the House of Lords. He, ( Mr. Howard,) was not one of those who thought that the popular cause could be bene fited by rejecting all ceneession or compromise, but he thought the House should resolutely stand by the main and leading pros visions of the —( Hear, hear.) He trusted they would hear no more of the reign of aldermen titter to-night. All the counties on the borders were deeply interested in the restitution of those rights of local government which they had formerly enjoyed. Mr. A. eIIAPM AN ns a burgess of Newcastle would enter his protest against the doctrine of the Hon. Members opposite. He thought a qualification as necessary in a Corporation as that which entitled him to a scat in that House. He should to the last moment of his existence endeavour to defend those rights which had been handed down from father to son in the corporate bodies of England, and should oppose their being stripped of them, unless some malversation was proved, which had never even been charged on the Corporation of Newcastle.—( Hear. ) Mr. NICHOL presented a petition from 1 ,500 burgesses of Newcastle (as we understood) in favour of the amended Corporation Bill. Mr. G ROTE presented petitions from the wards of Bishops gate and Cross-street in favour of the Bill. Mr. LEADER presented a similar petition from Bridge. water. Mr. H. TYNTE supported the prayer of this petition, which he said was most respectably signed. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition which had been adopted at a very numerous meeting of the parishioners of St. James's, Westminster, praying the House to resist all altera tions in the Municipal Reform Bill, and to withhold all further grants of money till the Bill was passed, as it went up to the House of Lords. Mr. WILK S reminded the House that this parish had more Ind and assessed taxes than some counties in England. Mr. HUM E presented petitions against the amendments :node by the House of Lords in this Bill, from the parishes of St. Martin and St. John the Evangelist, Westminster; from St. Anne's; from St. Paul's, Covent-garden; from St. Andrew's, Holborn; from the Royal burgh of Annan ; and from Ches terfield, signed by 1,306 inhabitants. The petitioners also prayed the House riot to grant any further supplies of money till the Bill, as sent up to the House of Lords, should have become the law of the land.—( Hear, hear. ) [The Duke DE NEMOURS here entered the House, and took his scat by the side of the Sergeant-at-arms. His Royal Highness was attended by several gentlemen, who ap peared to be foreigners, and who took their seats behind him.l Mr. HUM E presented similar petitions from Aylesbury, Colnbrooke, Chichester, St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, Nuneaton, Royal Borough of Nairn, and Bolton. The Hon. Member trusted the Government would not, as persons expected, take half and half measures ; nor allow themselves to be dictated to by any body of men.—( Cheers.) ' - - Colonel PERCE VA L said, with respect to the petition from St. Martin's in the Fields, he lived in that parish, and his chamber window looked upon the door of the vestry room. On the day the meeting took place, he had the curiosity to observe the persons who attended the meeting, and he believed they did not exceed 300. Mr. HUME trusted that the House would not receive the caves-dropping information of the Hon. and Gallant Member— (Cheers)—in preference to the statements of the petitioners. tlr. BE WES presented petitions from Plymouth, against the Lords' amendments to the Corporation Reform Bill. Mr. WILLIAMS presented a similar petition from Coven try, signed by upwards of 5,000 persons. Mr. BERNAL also presented similar petitions from Ro chester, Chatham, and Stroud. Sir G. ANSON presented a petition from Lichfield, pray ing that the House would not accept the Bill mutilated as it now was. Sir W. FOULKES presented one to the same effect from King's Lynn. Sir R. DONK IN presented one from Berwick-upon-Tweed, praying the Houie not to pass the Bill as it now stood, for, in place of its being a boon to their own town, it would be a curse, by adding to its taxation.—( Hear, hear.) At present the income of the Corporation was 10,000/. a-year, and the ex penditure amounted to 6,0001., but under the Bill, as it now stood, the Corporation would be obliged to lay by 6,0001. for the burgesses and their wives, so that they would be obliged to levy a new tax to make up for the expenditure. Mr. C. K. TYNTE presented a petition from Yeovil to the same effect, and also one complaining that that town had been excluded from the Bill. _ _ Mr. GOLT LB OURN said the name of Yeovil still stood in the Laughter.) Mr. EL PH INSTO NE presented a petition from Hastings, regretting that the Bill had been so much mutilated, and pray. ing the House to reject it. Mr. L ENNA RD presented one from Maldon to the same effect ; and one from Havering, which was originally in the Bill, but had been struck out on the most partial evidence given in the House of Lords. They stated that a population of 7,000 was govei ned by three magistrates, who were armed with all the power of county magistrates, and that two of them were appointed by a person who, some years ago, had purchased the right of nominating them. They prayed that their case might be taken into consideration. Mr. L ABOUC HE RE presented a petition, more nume rously signed than any he had ever presented, from Taunton, praying that the House would not agree to the alterations made by the House of Lords in the Municipal Bill. He agreed so far with the petitioners, as that many of these alterations were of such a nature, that the House of Commons could not con sistently with its duty to the public pass them. The SPEAKER suggested that any petitions which Hon. Members had to present on that subject, might now be handed in without comment. Any which Hon. Members wished to offer observations upon had better be deferred. Petitions were then presented by the Attorney-General, from the Provost and Town Council of Edinburgh, and from St. Andrew's, in favour of the Bill--by Sir Robert Peel, from Kingston-upon-Hull, signed by 690 persons, praying that no proceedings might be adopted by that House to destroy the co-equal power of the three branches of the Legislature—By Mr. C. Buller, from Liskeard, against the Lords' Amendments to the Bill—By Mr. Lewis ' to the same effect, from a place the name of which we did not hear—Bv Lord Stormont, from 3,000 inhabitants of Bris tol, in favour of the Amended Bill—By Mr. O'Connell, from Bathgate and two other places, against the Lords' amendments and praying the House to stop the supplies—By Lord Ashley, in favour of the amended Bill—By Mr. Roebuck, from 7,000 inhabitants of Bath against the Lords' amend ments, and from the Bath Political Union to the same effect, and reminding the House of a period " when a patriotic House of Commons had voted the House of Lords a nuisance."—( Hear.) Sir W. FOLLETT presented a petition against the Bill, from Bath. Mr. ROEBUCK could prove that the signatures to this petition had been surreptitiously obtained, under the impres sion that the petition was in favour of the Bill in its original state, and against the amendments made by the House of Lords. Sir W. FOLLETT—AII their names and addresses are attached to the petition.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) Mr. ROEBUCK —That does not militate against what I say.—( Cheers from the Ministeri a l side of th House.) I put it to the Hon. and Learned Member that he ought to withdraw this petition.—(Cries of " Oh.") The petition was laid on - the table. Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition from Boston against the Bill. Similar petitions were presented by Lord Stormont and Sir 11. Hardinge, and against the Lords' amendments, by Mr. Parrott, Mr. Blamire, Mr. Pease, Mr. Wakley and Mr. E. J. Stanley. Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented several petitions to the same effect; one from Bristol, signed by 13,700 persons; an other from Worcester ; one from Lowther and Wisby ; one from Dumfries, signed by 590 persons ; from Louth, from Wallsall, signed by 2,500 ; from Scarborough, from Yarmouth and from Prescott, signed by 5,500. The Noble Lord stated that the general prayer of all the petitions was, that unless the Corporation Bill was restored to the state in which it left that House, it should be rejected.—( Cheers.) Here the SPEAKER left the House for a few minutes, and, on his return, Colonel PE RCEVA L rose to request permission to read a letter from the officers of the the 35th Regiment of Foot; but the statements of the Hon. Member were completely drowned in the cry of " Lord John Russell, Order, Chair, and another day." The SPEAKER said Lord John Russell was in possession of the House. Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose amidst considerable cheer ing, and addressed the House as follows :---Sir, I rise with considerable anxiety to propose to the House the consideration. of the amendments which have been proposed by the House of Lords to the which passed the House for the Reform of Municipal corporations. Sir, I think this question does not come simply before the House; as one comprising only the good or the mischief or the alterations made by one House jj of Parliament to a till passed by another. 6ir, the numerous 1_ ~•~ `~ ti the pace for the bor.t:glis. We are of th,t it ,v ,, 111 add much to the iatisfactioJ of th se towns if the council hat the power of appointing those pery , ! , l on worn they thou2lit it right that the functions of just ttet f!odferred It. has been, however, represented—and iri tUt f'Ht tai to which I have alluded as having been made at the bar of the House of Lords—that the prcirosition which we made, in this respect, involved an infringement of ti.v2, prerogati - ..e of the CroWit. The fact is directly the reserve. ;11 most places, Ai tire ; justices of the peace, by any coy 'sorate rights, derive it front v ecflHil, made without r e f erence it is true, under the royal tf? .- ter; but to the Crown, tn . i; . -orosed that the rtiql!!er wc rnight have council for the boroughs should have nominated certain per sons from themselves to be justices, wltlo..\l! 4ny reference to tbe. Crown. It the latter case the justices would only be dei.P..!de t✓-.;to Parliamentary enactments, with the assent of the Crown, what at preSJit IPey 4 , ?!..ive from royal chatters. We proposed to give to the Crown the i;ist . :!' ;,pproving or disapproving of the nominations made by the council, tht se eltring fo tilt' prtteFative what I think to be a right and whole some control respecting till rt! , c. , ) , who are to act as justices in the country—but at the same time, tfe did not deprive the kidiinol.ar of towns of the power of recommending' tech persons as they gliodi fit to be entrusted with the magisterial functions. I confess did j sjd ttot see on what ground the amendment has been made by the t otsoo sef Lords. On full reflection, I see no reason for abandoning tlio original propo jitiOn j tiletztfort . , I shall propose that we disagree to their amendment. With reged to _another alteration, relating to the boundaries of towns, and the rildiattr of their divizion into wards, I think it to be inconvenient, but nothing more. it Oriziltlany provided, that upon a Report made by certain Comtilfssiotiers the King in Council should have power to settle the boundaries of those not being Parliamentary boroughs. An amendment was proposed, though not adopted, in this House, that that settlement should be arranged only by Act of Parliament: The House of Lords scents to have adopted the principle Of that atricadrrient and the consequence will be, that in those towns for which the Parliamentary boun daries are not taken, considerable inconvenience will be felt at the first election, and those places and parts of towns which ought to form portions of the municipal borough will be for a time excluded. I think, however, that we ought not to meet this amendment in any thing like a captious spirit ; and I shall, therefore, propose that we agree to it. :With respect to the division into wards—there was at one period a propo sition introduced into the Bill in the House of Lords that the division slionld be effected by the county justices ; that would be, in my opinion, ti most unfortunate arrangement leading—one to nothing but confusion ; And which the county justices would necessarily be most unwilling to undertake the working or, ti 4 it must expose them to great obloquy: It is proposed, however, by the Bill now sent down, that the duty should be performed by the revising barristers. To that proposition I have no objection ; but as some of these individuals are young and inexperienced men, I should be unwilling to leave a final decision in their hands, more es. pecially as there is a power conferred on them of altering in a certain measure the number of wards and the number of councillors to each ward. I should propose, therefore, that these reports should be made to the King in Council, and if confirmed should then have the force of law. I now conic to another portion of the alteration, and it is that por tion in which I own that I have had more doubts than I have felt respecting any amendments made in the other House of Parliament— I mean that relating to the question of qua lifications for councillors. It will be remembered that that was a question very much debated in this House, and that the Right Hon Baronet opposite—the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel)—whom I will take this opportunity of saying am most rejoiced to see here this night--( Hear)—proposed a qualification not differing materially from the average of those qualifications which he found in local acts, giving at the same time the alternative, that' there should be a certain amount of rating and a certain amount of property in some boroughs, and a superior degree of rating and a higher degree of pro perty in others. I think that his proposition was not liable to more objection than any qualification is liable to. I stated to the House at the time, and my friends around me stated, the grounds on which we thought it better that no qualifica tion should be required ; and the principle for which we then contended, is one which I think must sooner or later be adopt ed by the Legislature in respect to elections of this kind, and which is so sound in itself, that it may be left to work its way. If you leave it to the elector to choose a person of suffi cient abilities and character, you leave it to him also to choose a person of sufficient property, when property is required ; and in many places abilities and character supply the place of property. But at the same time lam quite aware of the truth of what the Right Honourable Baronet stated at the time, that qualification has been in a great many Acts of Par liament the rule laid down, and that there are still a great many persons who think that some qualification ought to be taken. Feeling, however, as I do, that the principle which I have already spoken of must ultimately be adopted, and yet seeing what has been the course of the Legislature hitherto upon this subject, I certainly have made up my mind not to resist an amendment which shall contain a qualification. The amendments made in the House of Lords have them selves varied considerably on this point. The first alteration provided that no person should be qualified to act as coun cillors, unless they were contained in a list comprising only one-sixth of the rate-payers. This is obviously liable to the objection of its pointing out a certain number of persons, and distinguishing them from the rest of their fellow-citizens-- that is, in point of fact, saying to a man, " You must be rated at a certain amount to be eligible—but here is an aristocracy, and unless you belong to it, it is impossible for you to hope to be a councillor." I think that there is something invidious in such a proposition, and coming as it did from an " hereditary tribune "of the poor.—(Cheers and laughter.) It is to me somewhat extraordinary that such a rule as it establishes should have been adopted.—( Hear, hear.) But since the Bill was printed in the form in which it contained this amendment, it went again through a Committee of the House of Lords • and in the form in which it was afterwards printed it contained another provision for qualification, to which I must fairly say the same objection does not apply. It is this—that there should be possession of a certain amount of property, in some boroughs 1,0001., and in others 500/. If this qualification were proposed in the same manner as suggested by the Right Hon. Baronet, being taken as an alternative to the other qua lification which he mentioned, it would, in my opinion, be a fair matter for consideration, and I am prepared to say that I should give it every favourable consideration. But in looking into the Bill, and reflecting on this part of it, I find that it was introduced in a particular manner.—( Hear, hear.) Sir R. PE EL asked what was the clause in question ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it was the fifteenth, and then continued—lf the Right Hon. Baronet will look at that clause, he will perceive that this is the manner in which the system of qualification there laid down is to be carried into effect :—that the overseers are to make out a list of persons qualified for councillors, comprehending one-sixth of the whole number of rate-payers, those selected being the highest rated in the burgess-lists, and comprehending also all those having a certain amount of property—either one thousand pounds, or five hundred pounds—that those claiming to be placed on the lists, on the ground of possessing that amount of property, should send in a claim to the overseer to have their names so inserted, and that their claims might be objected to before the Revising Barrister or the Mayor, when the qualification and the right of voting should be examined. We certainly cannot say that the other House of Parliament arc enemies to inno vation—( Hear, hear)—for certainly this and the other propo sition respecting the sixth class of rate-payers are certainly as great innovations as ever were attempted.—(Cheers.) It is perfectly fair and intelligible to say that a man who possesses a freehold of the annual value of forty shillings, or who rents a tenement rated at fifty pounds a-year shall be eligible ; but to say that he must be possessed of a real or personal estate to the amount of one thousand pounds or five hundred pounds, that he must bring forward his name as one claiming to be enrolled on the ground of possessing that estate, and that his claim so preferred shall be liable to objection and examina tion before the Revising Barrister is, in my opinion, applying a principle totally new, and one which, in its application to persons in trade, in corporate towns of some considerable ex tent, cannot fail to be productive of an investigation most odious in its character—(Loud cheers)—and most pregnant with /evil consequences. I can suppose a case in which a man coming before the revising barrister to substantiate his claim, might be exposed to an interrogation of the most un pleasant Character. Have you 500/. clear?—do you not. owe 1501. to Mr. Thomas ?—have you not bestowed some por tion of your property on such an one? " and other questions of the like kind, would constitute an examination to which many persons might not be disposed to submit. And then, if they did not come forward to prefer their claim--if they said that they would rather abandon their pretensions than undergo such an examination, and if the lists were then put up in the borough, purporting to be of all persons worth 5001.—what then would be their situation ? Men would say to each of them, " Oh, Mr. Williams I " or " Mr. Tomkins ! " as it might be—" I find that you are not worth 5001., your name is not in the lists." In short, Sir, it seems to me, that the objec tions are strong in the highest degree to the introduction of this species of qualification—that it is, indeed a very im proper ono—and one which, in our country, would not fail to produce the greatest evils. Ido not say that it may not be possible so to amend this proposition as to make it work without producing evil ; and I should wish, therefore, to reserve the consideration of the question in volved in this particular amendment till to-morrow. For my own part, I am quite ready—whether it may be a proper or an improper declaration, that I should yield on the principle of qualification—to consider and deliberate as to the admission of a property qualification ; but I wish to re serve the question now as to the manner in which that prin ciple can be best introduced. I hope, therefore, that those Gentlemen who are not prepared to object to all qualification will seriously consider the point as it now stands, that we may be enabled to offer some amendments to the present provi sions in that respect. The other questions relating to the future government of the boroughs are not of so much im portance as those which I have noticed, and I pass over to two or three other points. There is an amendment proposed respecting property held by freemen, and there has been, I must say, a most unnecessary assertion introduced into the preamble of the Bill on that subject. Our Bill was sent up to the House of Lords with a general concurrence on the subject of everything relating to the inchoate rights of free men, a subject which had excited much debate. The Right Hon. Baronet had said on that occasion—" He knew it was difficult to suggest anything in which it might not be pos sible to show that some part of it was not in strict con formity with a general principle. But it seemed to be agreed by all parties, that it . was very desirable to get this corporate property available for the benefit of the common alty at large. There might be special cases in which the property had been given to particular individuals; but as suming-that, by the oriednal intention of the donors, the pro perty was for the benefit t of the inhabitants of the boroughs.. %.`, , at large, \ass st a .aael th al a i s i s: s ;nen; rieil which they eoisl.l • essae;a roof lrey had beco ap i '.•,! t i ,ase 4 niaa; of no, entants 0;4 , and that the right to pasnici i iat,i ai is •a aa ss o only t" be l l' qtt red by birth, servitude. or marriage. It appeav et; t() isnaild be consistent. with respect to the original ilesti - nation or this property—at least it would be as near a n aP pri:ximation to the original destinatisu ;is it was pessib le 11 ' 9 arrive at—if the Miaow were to establish this principles-- :namely, that those ~ vln) were not now married should not lora after by tertsriage derive any right to snrticipate in this pro -. party ; that thosn :also had not yet entered into servitude should not have any such rio lit ; but that these who had so entered into . aarsituae should be considered as having an inchoate right ; and that Stith respect to birth, those now actually born should be put upon the same footing as those who had now ac tually catered into servitude, while those who should here' arta; be born shall participate in the property only so far as they were members of the commonalty at large. '. I be lieve that this is not an accurate account of what was stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and it seemed to me, when heard it, to be a very fair announcement of a principle on which the House might proceed. It was different fr om the principle which bad been adopted by the Government; but we took the declaration of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and the rale on which the clause should be framed, and the clause so framed was sent up to the House of Lords, not on the de cision simply of a majority of ten, twenty, or even 100 or Ino—but as the deliberate opinion of the House of Com mons at large.—( Hear, hear, hear.) After that decision Ido think that there was something most unnecessary in the de claration inserted by the House of Lords into the preamble of the Bill—" that the common lands and public stock of such rities,• towns, and boroughs, and the rents and profits thereof, have been he;d•and applied for the particular benefit of the citizens, freemen, and burgesses of the said cities, towns, and boroughs respectively, or of certain of them, and have not been applied to public purposes ; and it would be unjust to deprive such persons .of their rights of property, and to apple the same to other purposes." Thus to recite in the prea mbl of the measure that our proposition is altogethea unjust-- (Hear, hear, and loud cheers)—is, I think, one of that class of wanton amendments to which I certainly shall not agree.-- (Cheers.) I shall not make any opposition to that part of the, amendment which reserves the co mmon lands to the sons or freemen, although I think it an alteration :much for the worse. I do so on the principle which I have already laid down, er endeavouring to secure a good municipal government in future. That part of it, however, which applies to exemption from tolls, I think most injurious. To the amendment which con tinues to freemen the right of voting for Members of Parlia ment I shall not propose to disagree. I stated my objec tion to the proposal when it was made to this House ; it is not a question immediately connected with the ga vestment of Corporations. There is one amendment, how ever, not affecting the future good government of the towns —one incidental to the Bill, and from which great prac i tical harm would not, indeed, result ; but wh ich is, at the same time, so repugnant to principle, that I cannot con sent to ask the House to agree to it—l mean that by which it is proposed that none of the governing body of Municipal Corporations should present to livings, except such as arc members of the Church of England.—( Loud cries of " Hear. ) It will be recollected by many, that when I proposed the re peal of the Test and Corporation Acts, a declaration was pro posed by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, to be taken bY, all persons in lieu of the sacrament of the Lord's Supp er.l agreed to that proposition, on tae ground that it was a declara tion to be taken alike by Churchman and Dissenter, and tha " t it would not establish any odious line of separation , by re q ui ing from the Dissenter one declaration, and from the Church' man another—and thus instituting an inquiry into a man's re' ligious state. Considering the great principle which was the ° established, I do think that by departing from it as proposedbY the amendment of the Lords, not only would considerable disc satisfaction be created between two bodies of the Council, 1 1 that in fact a state of religious dissension would be fo mented and kept alive. On this question, therefore, I feel it my clittY to oppose the amendment of the Lords. I have now goo through the various amendments of importance which have been made by the Lords, and I have stated to the Hou se the t view which I take in connection with them. I shall propose ills we postpone those early amended clauses, and at once if teed to that which continues the present aldermen for le, which, as I have said, in my opinion, is liable to insuperable objections. I have stated other amendments to which obje' tion can also be made, but I trust that by the various CO cessions which his Majesty's Government are disposed te make on this subject, I have shown that they are not unwilliag to come to some settlement on the subject of this Bill, which which shall not prevent the future good government of Canso: rations, and which shall not lower the dignity tar impair thy character of either House of Parliament. But if t hese eolv f cessions shall not be deemed sufficient, and if the House ° Lords insist on other amendments, I shall not regret the con I have taken.—(Hear, hear.) I have been anxious in poi testing against any course taken by the other House to gua r s , the rights and dignity of this House ; but I think that no le; of dignity or character will ensue to us, if we show that svo.a r o ready to discuss in a temperate tone, and retreating from of our own professions, those amendments which have be made in the other House of Parliament, I think that if th e Pre sent constitution of this country—the constitution of the thre e e estates—is to continue, it is only in this manner that 'lt can hope to see great legislative improvements effected - „ have been of opinion that before the Reform Bill, and sines the Reform Bill, great reforms were necessary, and that the': were great and notorious abuses which required to be cor ree' c ed.—( Cheers.) But, Sir, it is my wish, and I believe it is t b a wish of the great majority of the Members of this House, an of the people of this country, that these reforms should b:t carried into effect in a spirit of peace—(Loud cheers) --n disturbing the occupations and not interfering with the indesr-, try of the people on the one hand, and without, on the otbei, curtailing the constitutional powers bestowed on either br a n, of the Legislature.—( Hear.) I have seen nothing , p. of standing the angry discussions which have occurred relati,;eo to this measure and with respect to some of the am endinel which have been made in it, to induce me to give u p t i o great and consoling hope that reform can be effected in t manner; but if it should not be so effected—if Ibe dist i l; pointed in this hope—it will never be a source of regret ts 0 2 0 as the friend of reform and the advocate of improvement, !Pt° I have not insisted on any extreme right, and that I wishec.' carry these improvements into effect on terms of conciliator, and in the sincere desire that the constitution of this count s at may be preserved and perpetuated. (The Noble Lord cos down amidst loud cheering, which was continued for 5 ° time.) 11 0 Sir R. PEEL began by observing that the Noble L°l' far the speech which he had just delivered was pleased o w to compliment him as to express some satisfaction at his _„ ing present for the purpose of taking a part in their deliber's tons on that occasion ; and if that satisfaction was foundeabliig the belief that he should aid in making a settlement eft so question—(so far as his humble powers might enable bl ot s to do)—that he should aid that settlement which l imo perfectly consistent with the honour, the dignity, and h i e independence of both Houses of Parliament—the Lord did him but justice in attributing to him the '1(10 tives which at present actuated him.—( Cheers.) ao feel it to be his duty to be present at the discussion, becanscnor did entertain a hope that there were elements for a sa tisfae t i " o , arrangement on this subject. He appeared also for re sist ; it in case it should be made—though he did not exPe c yja would be made,—and the tone of the Noble Le'fas speech almost convinced him that it would not be made cep the purpose, he repeated, of resisting, if it should have vacs made, any measure or resolution calculated in the slightest 'of gree to interfere with the honour or independent char acter ) either branch of the Legislature.—(Loud opposition charm In the maintenance of that independent action he believe tubs prosperity of this country, and its good legislation to be of mately involved ; and he did not hesitate to pay the Honnse'tis which he had the honour to be a member, the willing Ow, fp , silent of believing that, notwithstanding the menaces an° on nunciations of the Press, their superior judgment woody, vail, and that a vast majority of them would refuse to r s t party to ally proceeding calculated to destroy, or w hic ol least would afford a precedent for the ultimate dest ructi no r that happily mixed and tempered form of Government Ono, which we have so long lived.—( Renewed cheers from the 11.0`,4 position.) Much of the Noble Lord's speech, he was b e t nd to say, he had heard with great satisfaction ; but he was b.°o also to say that there were some parts of it which lie Ivr e a, r ; ere omitted, because they interrupted what , but for 1 j to woo Ld have been perfectly harmonious. He had all'veliish the coutZe pursued by the other House in a manner I ps o he aoos ni era al hardly justifiable. (Loud cries of „pbr hear ! " from gie Opposition, followed by cries of ost oh !" from the li;nisterial benches.) He repoateo,,_bis, lie thought the languag if it were only that the ts: of the Noble Lord not jusit il .. a r f tcrized the part of the Noble ne and temper whitni en, 4 . Lord's speech in sylne r ' s i ce co, alluded to the House of Lords 'ware not in c oncd t ' 50 1 with the sentiments expressed in the remainder ef l o 'act e appeared to be the result of a departure from its .g or tenour.—(llear, hear.) It was scarcely, in ;:is oPln.lc-ab e%: f cessary to allude so minutely, and with such tlet',l o „se ° planation, as to the course of proceeding in the P .o poly Lords, and to throw upon the House of Lords the par° sibility of certain expressions used by the counsel vb . ° t i s e: i admitted to speak in defence of the Corporations 81' one • bar.—( Continued cheers from the Opposition, accoolP Sot' by cries of " Oh, oh," from the Ministeriai benches.),,i, opts withstanding these interruptions to that express:nii 01. 0 0 0 ; nuns, which was prompted by the sincere desire oi ee-of limit ting in an attempt to effect an amicable settlement be fc' question, he should persevere in the course which tod 00 4 ' hound to pursue, and express his opinions decidedlY ',th i 0 equivocally on those points in which lie co ncurred vi' to e for differed from the Noble Lord ; and if he found e: b y tl c e censure in any of the doctrines held and expre ssc la iii Noble Lord with reference to this measure, he io n s ol io° spectful terms convey that censure ; for he was det' i l i t i j or‘, to assert the privilege of free discussion, without wbic,,coss.) would be an end to all useful debate.—(General ea' oe a to. It appeared that the House of Lords had cleterleiroal permit the hearing of counsel ; and here he toiig ht flo wert the Noble Lord opposite, that one of the mos t r on otita supporters of the Bill in the other House of par% r. a o one who had held the high office of Lord Chan ce a ° s -- , r e : who was a distinguished Member of the House of Ll. himself a party to this proceeding by which it was eg,7 o 1000 counsel should be heard at the bar of that House. The I st al Lords might be right or wrong in hearing counsel a , g l e l oo rg v Bill ; but he apprehended that their consent to h , bos sii.c o could not be held necessarily to imply a cletermin ' c at t „acs- j° l; to the measure, when the hearing of counsel, and t" to otle' of them, were agreed to and made by one of the most s coo s: advocates of the measure.—(Cheers.) \Veil, th el 'i t ., a lien t is being admitted to plead at the bar in behalf of ee rt l y aifac e ,a it must be obvious that it would have been catreine ;4)1 , i to restrict those cOunci ,o the use of such ei' . " • langua of this unjust course i~ ~ i