The Sun. — London, England, 1835-08-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN • • EOtJSE OF COMMONS, Ara vsr 13. the SiEARER resumed the Chair at five o'clock. POST-HORSE DUTY. Mr. tiANI?I%EY rose to present two petitions, of etch he gave notice last week. lie was .sorry he did etat see the Chancellor of tne Exchequer in his place t'a this occasion, as these petitions had reference to the Post-horse Duties. 'TbO first petition was from the Postmasters and others of this metropolis, and the other was from the Postmasters and fee keepers of the Nottb Road, and was signed lay every one of them between London and York. It was due to the petitioners and to himself to state to the House why h e had not taken an earlier opportunity of bringing this subject before the House— The SPEAKER here interrupted the Hon. Member, to state, that the House of Lords desired a Conference with this House upon the subject of the Amendments to the Bogner hetnrovement Lord G. L ennox, Lord Morpeth, Colonel L e ith Hay, and several other M em b ers, were appointed to manage the Con. ference. On their return— Lord G. LENNOX stated that he delivered to their Lord ships the reasons for act agreeing to their amendments, and had left with their Lordships the Bill and amendments. Mr. HANDLEY resumed, He was about to state that he had mat presented the petition earlier, as he was waiting until the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had obtained sufficient information on the subject. whether they coneidered the great capital employed by these individuals ---the great convenience they were of to the public —or the great source of revenue arising from them, which be was satisfi e d wou ld we i g h w i t h the Right 'Honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom b e was now glad to see i n hi s 'place, he b e li eve d there was no class of his Majesty's subjects better en. titled to favourable consideration. No species of property had of late deteriorated so much as that of the great inn keepers, and there were none more harassed than these per sons in the collection of the duties. He could furnish the Douse with many instances of the vexatious attempts to ex tort money under friv o l ous c h arges. H e wou ld suggest that the Excise Department could be made available in the collec tion el this revenue, instead of farming it out to persons whose "le obje ct was to make it profit of it. It was the only Go 'erssent duty n ow f arme d, and he hoped measures would be t 4 Len to put at end to the system speedily. Colonel S IB THORP supported the prayer of the petition. Mr. GLADSTONE also supported the petition, and bore testimony to the vexatious nature of the present mode of levy iny, the duty. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had a strong impression on his mind, from the facts that had reached him, in favour of the petition. The system of farming the du ties was certainly an anomaly in their fiscal arrangements, as in all other cases there was a responsible Government officer to collect the duty. He believed it had given rise to a deal of inconvenience and annoyance, and certainly required alteration. He was not then prepared to say that be saw his way clearly, but he trusted that early next Session he would be prepared to bring the matter before the attention of the House. hl trust e d HANDLEY was very g l a d to h ear hi s Ri g h t Hon. Frie n d agreed so entirely in the views h e en t er t a i ne d. H e that when next the contract fell in, the Govern ment would not follow the old system, but make it for one, la place of three Years. The Petition was then laid on the table. TEA DUTIES BILL. On th e mot i on of the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER the above Bill was read a third time and passed. MILITIA STAFF. du Lord JOHN RUS SELL moved that the Militia Staff Re ill Bill he r ea d a t hi r d t i me. de Coonel SII I THORP denied that that was a Bill w hi c h serveld the character of an economical one. It would be sure to add to the already heavy burdens of the e n t' n unti es• throwing out of provision those who now enjoyed forcese• The militia was one of the oldest and most constitutional t 1 in the ceuntry, and it ought not to be broke up in such third t' felt so many and such strong objections to ill, that he would feel it his duty to move that the sr il r elalin g of the Bill be postponed for six months. liouse divided, when there appeared— For the Motion Against it Majority for the Motion ...... AFFAIRS OF THE MAURITIUS. r • C. BULLER wished to put a. question to the Hon. Gent'eman opposite (Sir G. Grey), which would o b v i a t e th e eetFesssity of bringi ng f orwar d hi s mot i on re l at i ng to the Mau tbC He me an t t o call the attention of the House to k eo 'act, that a grea t part of the slaves in the a ritius appeared to be illegally detained in a state of i fttive , ry, a n d t h e owners of such slaves were therefore not en titled to comp ensation. His reason for not bringing forward 1 ,,,e motion was, that he found from a communication with the "overnment that they were well disposed to do their duty, a nd finding that. to be the case, be thought he could not do s etter th an l eave the matter entirely in their own hands. He Wished to k now whether there was any objection to lay before the House certain papers, explaining the circumstances under u. s i ! i elt these persons were k e pt i n slavery. If there was any °ejection V) lay these documents before the House, he trusted that the Hon. Gentleman would state the course which the Go l'eaMent had pursued,and was pressed to pursue, on this subject. S ir G. GREY, with reference to the ques ti on o f t h e H on. ge ntlem an , wou ld state i n the first instance that th ese new notections to tho p ro d uc ti on o f t h e papers mentioned were owing the to w tiny wish t o concea l i n f ormat i on upon the subject, but to T " i Eculty of coll ect i ng t h e papers at the Register Office, ;1,1 arranging. them so as to be able to lay them before the ouse. lie could state that no compe nsation would be granted e'r any sl ave t h at was not duly registered. The most explicit ins t • ructions h ad been sent to the Governor of the Mauritius Upon this subject, and if the Hon. Gentleman wished for a Copy of these instructions, he would have no objection to lay it on the table of the House. , After an observ a ti on f rom M r. C. BULLER, which was not aetird in the Gallery, tl•e subject dropped. COLONIES. Mr. E WART begged to ask the Right Hon. Secretary for the Colonies whether his Majesty's Government intended to tnake any arrangements for the better judi c i a l government of the Coloni es ? Sir G. GREY said the subject was one of great im laortauce, and so f ar as t h e W est I n di es were concerned, had already engaged the attention of his Majesty' s G overnment. BUSINESS OF THE EVENING. that Lord J OHN RUSSELL said that he should fi rs t propose and the adjourned deb a te on Printed Papers b e resumed, the next Ord er o f t h e D ay h e s h ou ld move was, that the "so ti on Bill go intcs C omm i ttee on t h e I r i s h M un i c i pa l Corpora. , Mr. n u VAN DIEMEN'S LAND. o r th e E begged to ask the Honourable Sec re t ary lay Coloni es , w h et h er h e h a d an y o bj ect i on to had h il P°n the ta bl e o f t h e H ouse t h e d es p atc h es which South e ,' received f rom V an Diemcn's Land and N ew 6 ent eu iv' a l , es relati ve t o th e f ema le emigrants who had b een r ver y ; was the more important, as statements of a t Si r 6 nature had gone abroad. ' t O f GREY, instead of having any objection, thought on table. th eat importan ce that this document should be l a id e por:itioannsbwer LIGHT-HOUSES. Mr enebes-- ton qu es ti on f rom an . Hon. MEMBER on the Op.. th at H IIME certainly did intend to press his Bill forward s Al a - " s lut' and hopedlie should receive the support of the Ir4 stYs „, Government. As the general opinion among he b ad ' l rrohers was, that that country should be excluded, 14:!0 objection to strike it out. would hay at the early period of the session given the Bill his best support, but hc put it to his Hon, Friend whether It would not be more judicious as there was no likelihood of its being carried through during the PreSir sent Session to withdraw it, and bring it forward next year. B. CODRINGTON said this was a most important Fill ' and be would 'advise the Hon. Member to withdraw the Bill for t_T.,ll present S ess i on . Mr' \TALL ACE h o p e d, as the Bill was to be d rawn,with. the Government would take into consideration the Placing the Light Houses under the control of the Directors of the Customs, who were all King's officers, and had not a very great deal to do.--( Cheers. ) Mr. O'CONNELL said the evidence given before the Committee was not correct as regarded Ireland. There the Ballast Board had worked well. The Bill was then withdrawn. PRINTED PAPERS OF THE HOUSE. Mr: HUME rose to move that the House agree to the Resolutions of the Committee—();fear, hear)—who had sat or,on the manner of distributing the Bills of that House. It was proved before the Committee that they were now given to Magistrates who had been dead for some years. He would theref ore ,, conclude by moving, that the resolution of the 7th of °lay 1831 he rescinded. Mr, F. BARING did not think it advisable to pledge the Ho use V: rescind the resolution, although he was willing to admit teat it required considerable alteration. Mr. V. SMITH supported the immediate adoption of the resolutions proposed by the Hon. Member for Middlesex. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressrd a wish that time should be allowed for Government to take the matter into consideration. Sir R. INGLIS was of opinion that the matter should be left to the discretion of Government. Mr,, HUME eventually altered his motion, so as to leave the mode of proceeding to be adopted open, but yet rescind tug the resolutions of 1801: upon which Lord J. RUSSELL assented to the passing of the reso lution thus modified, which was accordingly agreed to. Mr. HUME text moved, " That the statutes for promul gation b e o f the loyal octavo size, continuously printed." He conceived that tl:e octavo size would be preferable to the quarto, not only for reference, but for all other purposes, but on this subject he should be glad to have the opinion of some 11 °o. Gentleman of the legal profession, wbo were most in the habit of applying to Acts of Parliament for information. The ATTORNEY -GENERAL considered the octavo the more convenient size, and this he believed was the opinion of the legal profession generally. Sir - R. INGLIS thought the qu'lrto size preferable, but he • . would yield his opinion to that of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman 'who had just sat down. Mr._WARBURTON approved of the smaller size. The resolution was then agreed to. •, Mr. HLT ME next moved the following resolutions, viz., ~.f l 'hat th e statutes be distributed to Members from the Vote u • - ee as E•o:-.)n after the cenTletion of each sheet as possible." " That, to secure the publicity and preservation of the sta tutes for the use of Courts and offices, such copies shall b st4mPl4l Promulge.tttl for public um,' aul be aVeurovanlei by a distinct notice on each volume, that they belong . to the ~ald Courts and Offices, and are to be solely appropriated to public use. " That tht ON* for printin cr o private local and personal Aetti the King's printer, at the public expense, be discon tinued, and that the promoters of every such Act (except na turalization and name Acts) be required to leave fifty copies, printed at their own expense, at the Vote Qffier f foe tbc Use of the House-. "Ott file Acts of Pat liament and Sta'utes at large should We printed for sale at one uniform price, throughout the United Kingdom, in as convenient a form and at as low a charge as is consistent with the ordinary profit of trndtTand no more. " That 1,00 copies of the -jbliiiiaals of the House instead of 1,750 as heretordidd, be printed in this and future sessions on the plan si4.ll , rnated to the Committee, and that no reprints thereof Made except by special vote of the Horse T ttllti the eqles of the journals now in store ropy th- 'oriiler of the Speaker be given as heretofore 0, Members and Peers who have not already received them, until the number in store be reduced to • 100 eemplete copies, to be retained for public purposes, after ehich Members will be entitled to receive the journals for the year only they are in Parliament." Lord SANDON thought that it was a most unnecessary expense to oblige the country to supply copies of Acts of Par liament and the journals to Gentlemen who might perhaps sit only a single session in that House. He suggested that the better way would be to have copies of those documents kept in the library of that House, and deposited in the different town halls throughout the country. Lord J. R USSELL and several other Hon. Members ap proved of the suggestion, and the resolution was agreed to. On the 10th resolution, which provided, amongst other matters, that the papers of the House should be printed in a smaller type,_ _ _ _ Mr. TijOKE moved, by way of amendment, the omission of the words " in smaller type." The House divided-- For the amendment Against it Majority The original resolution was then agreed to. The 11th resolution was understood to be withdrawn. On the 12th resolution, providing that the printing of papers should be under the superintendance of the Committee of the Stationery Office, Mr. F. BARING objected to this resolution, and Mr. HUME consented to withdraw it for a few days. The next resolution, providing for the keeping and distribu tion of the papers and reports printed, was then agreed to. Mr. HUME said he hoped that the next resolution would be acceptable to the House, namely that papers and documents printed by order of the House should be rendered accessible to the public by purchase, and that at the lowest price . at which they could properly be sold. Lord SANDON approved of the resolution, and hoped that the principle would be extended to the papers and reports for merly printed and now in store in the House. Mr. HUME agreed to this addition. After a few words from Mr. O'BRIEN and others, the reso lution, as amended, was agreed to. The next resolution provided that a standing Committee should be appointed to take charge of the business of prepar ing all the papers and documents which should be ordered by the House to be printed ; as also the returns periodically pre sented by public officers. Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the resolution. He thought the appointment of such a committee unnecessary. Much of the business proposed to be done by it was much more effi ciently performed under the present system. At least he would recommend that the appointment of the Committee should be postponed till the next session. Mr. HUME concurred in this recommendation, and the resolution was withdrawn. It was then agreed that such of the above resolutions as af fected the priviliges of the Upper House should be referred to their Lordships for approval. _ MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL intimated to the House that he had received a petition from Worcester, as we understood, on the subject of the Municipal Corporations Bill, but as that petition prayed the House not to consent to receive the Bill, in the event of its being sent back to them from the House of Lords with any mutilation, he thought it better to defer the presentation of that petition until the contemplated period arrived when that Bill should be again under their consi deration. Ir~,~ ... , ,,,Irle ich :be Co Mi n utes published • officers• inn ye' r ' Ireland, w present s in cacb i itto... 2 ( / 4 itto... 111 ...... ........ 19 ..... •• • 74 ........ 20 ........ Itlo .. ...... i ........ 6 ........ ~,,6 ........ f ! Clerks 0 d o n ot at' atc IZettifit Q and °II. it to what he coati° :~a... ,s of S u P P , ( 3 a b o ve Sta. •4 • ✓ •"** •..... .0 LE 1"55. - 35 414 d. ;. 3 oto 03 3 0 I 0 :36 2 1j , „ (1: i i d. t ° ;l 0 3 ftri )erl 6 1 61 ti 7 6 .s.:ios• •A , 84 t t ' 4 / os• )10C.01) cit l c - ROW' ~,,, ... n ce' fro' 0 1 in b el,in blis .sta or re. rhe 5 t be ,v id 0 " tO 01 t ~ he ic id, tha t el' 91° , crY re° s s te gins t d ole- c l v ery -her a tbe,4 in-- on yin s° cie ror --",. 1! 1 ....... 40 -s 1- —," '. 1 5 . s' e. - 16 't SLAVE-OWNERS' COMPENSATION BILL. On the Report of this Bill being brought up, Mr. POTTER opposed the clause relating to the payment of the interest on the promised compensation accruing since the Ist of August, 1834. He could see no authority in the Emancipation Act to call upon the people of England to pay this money. He saw nothing about interest in that Act. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER justified the clause. The Emancipation Act took away the property of the slave-owners, and also imposed certain irksome obliga tions upon them in respect to their apprentices, thereby caus ing damage to their property from a certain date, namely, the Ist of August, 1834, and he thought that the equivalent voted by way of eompensation to the slave-owners for that loss should also commence from that date. If this were not agreed to he could not see any other legitimate period from which the pay ment of interest should commence. If it even depended upon the raising of the loan it might be put off indefinitely. He could assure the Hon. Member that the course proposed was strictly in accordance with the intentions explained to the House by Lord Althorp. Sir I'. FREMANTLE spoke in favour of the vote—the faith of the Government was pledged to it. Major BEA UC LE RK said that the sum of 800,0001. in terest on the debt was not included in the original Bill. When Lord Althorp spoke of this debt of twenty millions he did not refer to the interest, and, therefore, there was no understand ing that it should be paid. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER quoted the words of Lord Althorp, to show that the interest on the twenty millions was to be included in the charge on the coun try, and that the House was bound to provide for it. Sir C. DALBI A C spoke in favour of the grant. Mr. O'CONNELL said, though he voted against the ori ginal grant, he felt bound, under all the circumstances, to vote for the proposed grant. The House voted the money, and the interest should be paid. Mr. POTTER then withdrew his motion, and the Bill was read a third time. IRISH CORPORATIONS BILL. The House then went into Committee on this Bill. The five first clauses having been agreed to without much opposition, the sixth clause was put, when Mr. CALLAGHAN rose to propose an amendment, to the effect that the franchise for electors for municipal officers and Members of Parliament should be coextensive. Those, he said, who, by the provisions of the Referm Bill, had the power of voting for Members of Parliament should also have the power of voting for the municipal officers. The great principle of the Reform 13i11 should be acted on. By the new constitution of the borough of Cork 45,000 acres were included within the range of the borough, and yet those who possessed property within that district, if they had not houses in it, would be precluded from a vote. Really the possession of property within the limits of a borough should be fixed as the qualification of the franchise. Mr. PERRIN said the franchise qualification was limited by the Bill 4) the 101. qualification, and to go beyond that would be to create endless confusion. Mr. O'CONNELL—The Irish Attorney- General gene rally gave satisfactory reasons for his opinions. He failed to do so now. Why ? Because he had no good reasons to advance. In England and Scotland the municipal and re form franchises were co-existent. In Ireland it was not so. There the municipal franchise was less extensive than the legislative If a man possessed a 101. house be was entitled by the Reform Bill to vote for a Member; but, by.the present Bill, if he possessed 400/. worth of property within the limits of the borough, he could not vote if he had not-a house. Now, those who were included within the range of the borough, and had no houses, paid three to one of the taxes. They paid also the tolls; in fact, they were subject to all the taxes by the Grand Jury, were the chief contributors to the rates of the. borough, and it was highly unfair to saddle them with the ex-, penses when they were cheated of their vote. He hoped the amendment would be withdrawn, for it was a foolish and mis chievous one. Mr. W. Roche, Dr. Baldwin, Mr. Wyse, and Mr. War burton, spoke against the amendment. Lord MORVETH hoped the Hon. Member (Mr. Calla ghan) would withdraw his amendment, in order to give Go vernment an opportunity of reconsidering their motion.— ( Cheers from the Government benches, and laughter from the Opposition.) Mr. CALLAGHAN said be would avail himself of the suggestion of the Noble Lord, and withdraw his amendment. The other clauses, as well as the preamble, were agreed to, and the Report was ordered to he brought up to-morrow. PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion for going into Committee on the Peace Pre servation (Ireland) Bill, Mr. S. CRAWFORD contended that the best mode of ensuring the peace of Ireland was to adopt a system of Poor Laws for that country. Provision for the people was the only way by which the peace could be preserved. The Honourable Gentleman, in support of his opinion, quoted the state of Eng land before a provision had been made for the poor, and in sisted that some such measure should be adopted for Ireland. That country was never more quiet than at present ; and, in stead of coercive measures, they should adopt some course to relieve the distress which existed in that country. After a few words from Lord MORPETII, which we could not catch, • Mr. S. O'BRIEN said he did not think the measure called for. It should at least be confined in its operation to two, in stead of five, years. Mr. O'CONNELL was of opinion that the Bill would be found useful for the purpose of preventing disturbances. The Bill was then committed, and clauses up to 15 passed. On the 16th clause being proposed, Mr. L. O'BRIEN moved that the period of the operation of the Act be reduced from five to two years. The House divided, when there appeared— For the original clause Against it • Majority against it . 48 4 ...-44 The remaining- clauses were then agreed to, the Committee reported progress, and the Report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Auctrzr 13. The VICE-CilAyor.u.oh took his seat on the woolsack ten minutes before 6ve o'clock. BOGNOR INIPRO\TNIENT BILL. On the motion of the Puke of RICHMOND, 147.arl_)3ccu- TRE SUN, LONDON, PAIDAV, Atfdtl i gt 14, ism. champ and other Noble Lords were appointed Managers for the Coafererice between the Lords and the Commons en this Bill. 0, , . u. On the retttrti 01‘ the Conference ; tile Duke of RICH MOND stated that the Haase of Cetiiitens had agreed to one amendment Made tick Lori, Wit tsot to the other. The Noble miti6, t 111: glioald not in4l4 t amendment, trusted that their Lordships would not enforce it, because, if they did, the Bill would certainly be lost. •He thought the ?•metidrnent did not tend to the increase of pu&shmelits. Agreed to. f3,J 4 1 4 1.. ,„ LOA and Others irtnn the Lomrniins, Lro;igtil up the Irish Church Bill, and the Sate of Bread Bill. Mr. CAmpaaLL, from the East India House, presented an account of the decaye,d pertitotg of . the Cprnpauy. • The Duke ef httuniorio pfesenied A flelltliM (toffs •Paisley against the Irish Church Bill. The Noble Duke ob jected to the appropriation clause in that Bill. gistrate of East Retford was seen rolling on the floor with a prisoner, On this point evidence was taken by the Commis sick-lei'. A pih'Sdri 61 flid flartfl of East) , stat etatnined, and he stated the facts ; brit Mr, §laney, fife fflagistidie„ iihb was present during the inquiry, most poiltitel emititenlicted him, and that contradiction was communicated to the dornnliSsiOner, who took no notice of it. It is said that there is some truth in the fatf, no. three witnesses have been called for the pur pose of contradicting if, aliff they all ,sad, that Slancy only ordered the prisoner to be taken to prism:: fn the ,case of cnstton Coldfield a charge of extravagance Ins been Oraglit • • • against the Corneration .b.."ii d inn•-. some premises, but the drily r,l7l(*.`.af fflZsist ire `that all hack been dope under the di rection of the Uourr of C:fl, eatrioned in the Master's Office. But this is not the only cireq - Nl`fttsfsse eemnected with the inquiry carried on at Sutton Coldfield. (in ar rival of the Commissioner the Corporation was summoned, and, 'Oil 1.`g.!:.: 44.,,f#4itis.p 1P rioginikforward charges against it, the deputy steward otter td 45. 1, 0'.# firmsitst the Commissioner -- refused to hear him.( Hear, hear.) T 4 fttt one other case to which I shall refer, and that is the quagthili Ali re spect to the amount of the number of the population of the connfy of Cot-gistry ; elehrsise of the city. The Commissioner reported that it efinNisfa alritOtt ottireiy of rural and agricul tural inhabitants. Now the eVicient# ghotts that the report in this respect is entirely erroneous, for ott et Z.kico itiltabitants about 400 were only engaged in agriculture. My toitis s hav ing tie* stated these circumstances, I beg to say that perhaps, we may to A Certain clogref.., conciliate the whole of the Noble Lords opposite, for, as to the Motif Material previsions of the Bill, it is not the intention of Noble Lofdl eff Ole side of the House to propose any amendment which will offal fklf prin elple. I allude to the clauses which provide that tug ksr gesses of the nett &Monde towns shall be householders, rated for a period of two yetifi, Other qualifications have un doubtedly suggested themselvea to hot after giving them my best consideration, I am of opinion that they Me not so decidedly preferable as to lead me to propose them as amendments. It is not my intention, neither is it the inten tion of those Noble Lords who act with me, to propose any alterations except such as We conceive to be absolutely and imperatively necessary.--(1-lear, hear.) The first enacting clause of the Bill repeals and annuls all charters est far as they arc inconsistent with the provisions of the present Dill. It has struck me that this is the proper place and time effectually to protect the rights of property which are to be destroyed by this Bill.—( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") If charters are to be repealed and annulled, I will not stir one step in the Bill, unless I find some clause Inserted protecting those rights of property—( Hear, hear)—rights of property enjoyed from father to son, transmissible to posterity whiten' limit—subject only to the condition that those persons who are es/titled to them -by descent have been admitted as freemen of the bo rough. These rights are of no inconsiderable value, and I will call your Lordships' attention to a few of them. Ber wick-upon-Tweed possesses rights of this kind to the annual value of 6,000/. ; Beverley, 4,000/. ; Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 3,200/. ; Coventry, 2,000/. • Sutton Coldfield, 1,000/. ; Aber avon, 6001. ; and the whole aggregate amount, according to a paper taken from the Report of the Commissioners, amounts to 26,7601. per annum, which, at twenty years' purchase, is north 500,000/. (half a million stet-lilt). Now, I would not deprive the many small proprietorspf this property upon mere speculation—property held under the sanction of the law of the land—under charters from the Crown—the best possible title, and, in some instances, under Acts of Parliament. I have stated before that the aggregate value of the whole Cor porate property may be estimated at half a million, and that property is enjoyed by nearly two millions of individuals. What does the Bill do with it ? It confirms the present rights only to a certain extent, the rights of sons actually born before the sth of June.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Any son, grandson, or descendant, born immediately after the passing of this Act, on the sth of June, is deprived of any participation in this property.—( Hear, hear.) Will your Lordships sanction this infringement of property—this transfer of property from the purpose for which it was origi nally devoted, to increase borough funds ? The present pos sessors have an undoubted right to it, and should Parliament deprive them of it, the same power may at any time seize the estate of any Noble Lord, and give it. to some neighbouring town for its benefit and improvement. I have now stated to your Lordships as plainly as I can the grounds on which I sup port my amendment—an amendment which I hope will meet with an unanimous vote on the part of your Lordships. In framing the amendment, I have endeavoured to adhere as closely as possible to the words of the 12th clause of the Bill, which applies to this subject. ( The Noble and Learned Lord read the clause, the insertion of which he moved immediately after the first clause. It was in effect that as it would be un just to deprive the Corporations of their rights and property, and to apply the same to other purposes, those rights ought to be preserved to all persons now who arc admitted as freemen or burgesses of a borough, to the wives or widows, sons, or daughters of any freemen or any person who had espoused the widow or daughter of a freeman, or any person bound appren tice to any freeman.) Viscount MELBOURNE said that he was extremely un willing, to go back into the debate of last night, but as the Noble and Learned Lord who had just sat down had charged him with misrepresentation, he thought it necessary to say a few words in his own defence. The Noble and Learned Lord said that he had made no charge against the Commissioners, but that he had made one against his Majesty's Government for the partial manner in which they had filled up this Commission. He (Viscount Melbourne) had not said that the Noble and Learned Lord had brought charges against the Commissioners. What he said was, that in making his charge against the Go vernment, the Noble and Learned Lord had acted unjustly towards the Commissioners by referring to their political character and to their political opinions—matters with which it was impossible the Noble and Learned Lord could be ac quainted. The Noble and Learned Lord had said in his speech that they were Whigs—more than Whigs. He (Viscount Melbourne) knew very well what was the meaning of that ex pression. It meant that those gentlemen extertained extreme opinions. If it had been stated of the Noble and Learned Lord when he was at the Bar that he was more than Whig he would have thought it extremely unjust; but, undoubtedly, if any man had acted upon the general reputation of the Noble and Learned Lord—upon the opinions of the Noble and Learned Lord, as expressed, collected from the report of the most intimate friends and companions of the Noble and Learned Lord—( Immense cheering from the Ministerial benches)—the Noble and Learned Lord would, undoubtedly, have been so characterised. Why the Noble and Learned Lord admitted it —he did not deny it.—( Cheers.) Lord LYNDHURST—The Noble Viscount has stated that which I never did admit, and which I must say has not the slightest foundation in fact. I repel the attack--an attack which has never been renewed of late.—(Loud cheers from the Opposition.) Viscount MELBOURNE—The Noble and Learned Lord admits that he has often heard of this'before. I know it is roneous, because I have the authority of the Noble and Learned Lord that it is so. I know it to be a calumny, and a base falsehood ; but at the same time I think the Noble and Learned Lord ought to exercise that toleration which lie re quires for himself, for the same erroneous impressions may pre vail ‘sith respect to others which now prevail—undoubtedly most erroneously—with respect to the Noble and Learned Lord. He ( Viscount Melbourne) could not pass over without observation, a remark that had fallen from the Noble Duke daring last night's debate. The Noble Duke said that the Commissioners had not produced their evidence, because they were certain that the evidence would not bear out their re port. He must say that this was a most false imputation— an imputation of the basest breach of trust—of the basest treachery--an imputation which lie thought ought not to have come from a person of the great weight, high character, and authority of the Noble Duke. The Noble Duke ought not merely to have founded so grave an imputation . upon inference and suspicion.--4 Hear, hear.) It would undoubt. edly have been much better if the Noble and Learned Lord had brought forward this motion at a time when his Noble . and Learned Friend had been in his place. He ( Viscount Melbourne) did not intend to follow the Noble and Lea-ned Lord into the evidence which he had gone into on the present occasion,. and to which be had not paid such minute at tension as to be able to follow it with anything of particularity. But he would say that, whatever might be the mistakes com mitted, they did not in the slightest degree invalidate the real strength and veracity of the Report. The Noble and Learned Lord had moved an amendment to preserve entire the rights of freemen as they existed at present. With respect to the anticipation of the Noble Lord, that he should have an unani mous vote in favour of his motion, lie (Viscount Melbourne) should not fail to give it his most decided opposition. The rights of the present freemen were preserved by the Bill. The period might be extended to which those rights would be transmitted, but he never could agree to an aniendrnent which preserved the rights of freemen in perpetuity—rights which he considered prejudicial to the freemen themselves. All the rights of property—of common, of Lammas land, of one man having the hay and another the after-math—were exceedingly prejudicial. The question now before the House was one of law, and he would be glad to learn if those bodies possessed any perpetuity in the property? The property was undoubt edly alienable. With respect to the occupation of the land, it was well kitown that the rights were pr ejudicial to the free men themselves. A Noble Lord on the Opposition Benches had even introduced a Bill to appropriate such lands, and in future to prevent the acquiaition of such rights. This had long been admitted by all lawyers, by all statesmen, and by all political economists. The Bill provided a perfect security for all rights now in existence, 'and it protected freemen here after from any compulsory extinction of those rights. He be lieved that this provision of the Bill was in the highest de gree advantageous to the people';' it committed no injustice, and on these grounds he should give his decided negative to the amendment. The Earl. of H ADDINGTON said, his Noble and Learned Friend had been reproached with having been a popular Member of the other House, with having been a Whig and a Liberal, who had abandoned his principles for the sake of office. This was an attack which he had repelled with such force that it had not been renewed. But what had. been the charge against the Commissioners? His Noble and Learned Friend had made no charge whatever against the Commissioners ; on the contrary, his charge had been dis. tinctly made against the Government. He had stated that in the case of an inquiry, which, of all others, ought to have been made in an impartial manner, his Majesty's Ministers had selected persons; who with one or two vxceptions, were all leagued with them in party politics. He had just heard, with no small degree of pain, the speech of his Noble, Friend the first Minister of the Crown. It contained doctrines so thoroughly objectionable—notions .so exceedingly loose and Vague, and yet so dangerous, on the subject of Corporations, that ho could never be brought to give his assert to them. With respect to corporate property, it was enot t lgh for frith (the Carl of naddington) that it was preperty:,. was the property of individuals of the ',ewer classes of the community, . The owner were pot Alto, o. c 4 iso writy belie Ted that to very many of theft this eight ot property vows} of the bighes, importance. He would ridt triter With his Noble Vries ed into any nice distinctions between property beneficial and not be neficial in its nature to the community at large 3 he would en ter into' ti Nridg6) P!!?9rias about dealing forcibly with the property irf Other people ;; Isgt be felt that it vas now neces sary fo rtldlaed tered,e/it Maine, against 4-1111 deetrines. He entirely concurred wifli ei"e'rjo t'eett said on the subject by his Noble and Learned Frierd,(Lord Lyndhurst.) It had become the paramount duty of their iserdsh.ips to stand in ihe breach, in defence of property ; and if tied Muse failed in iniidetkeArr tbq clause, it was his decided opinion that the Bill ought not to finele The Duke of WELLMOTON rose merely to complain that the Noble Viscount opposite !fad put into his mouth words of which he had never made use. if he had quoted the re'eerle which he bad used, be had omitted altogether his reasoning, Wieieh had followed what he had said. As the Noble Viscount had teen yleased to rebuke him for what he had said, he ought to have followed that rebuke by a -ee -1 ferenee to the reasonings he had made nee ef. He had said that es the Commissioners had made their Report, omitting the evidence upon which it had been founded, and from party purposes, and as they had taken down that evidence in wri- - ting, they ought and might have given the evidence to the Government with as much accuracy and facility as they had given the Report itself. No answer had been given to this. He had risen from no party purpose, and he would not now weaken the arguments of the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst) by adding anything to them, and he would only beg leave' to remind their Lordships that the freemen bad in general obtained their freedom by servitude or by purchase. In either case they had given a valuable consi deration for it, and, under such circumstances, he deemed that fire, Were entitled to public attention. Lord 1111OUGHAM had no doubt that what the Noble Duke had just 1;g41 was considered as a well grouuded matter of complaint against his Noble Friend (Melbourne), the charge being that, instead of answering the Noble Duke last night, he had answered h;m this night. He had no doubt that the reason why his Not,:;' Friend did not answer the Noble Duke last night was, that (Lord Brougham) had taken upon himself the burden of the *deLate on the Ministe rial side of the question—( Hear, bear, froth Lerd Wicklow, as we believe.) " And why not? (said Lord 13roujham)— (Loud cheers.) If my Noble Friend does not repudiate my assistance, 1 do not see why his adversaries have any right to complain. On the contrary they have great reason to be sa tisfied, for they may be assured of one thing, that if instead of my having answered them, my Noble Friend had done so himself, they would have had a much worse customer to have dealt with."--(Laughter.) The Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to say that he had taken a part in the debate be claim he had himself originated the measure, and considered that it would have been unmanly to have shrunk from its de fence. But with respect to the complaint of the Noble Duke, ie might be well-founded ; there was one thing, how. ever, of which the Noble Duke had no right to complain. The answer had been made to-night, by Lord Melbourne in the presence . of the Noble Duke; but how had he (Lord Brougham) been treated?—(Hear, hear.) He could not have believed it unless lie had heard it from the testimony of men who were incapable of decciring. The Earl of WICKLOW—You did not come in till half past seven o'clock. Lord BROUGHAM—I came in at half-past seven o'clock —that is the charge of the Noble Lord. Perhaps, in his opi nion, it is an impeachable offence—a gi'eat moral iniquity.— (" Hear, hear," front the Earl of Wicklow.) The Noble Lord says it is a great moral iniquity. The Earl of WIC KLO W--{ said no such thing. Lord BROUGHAM—Am I bound to be here from sun rise to sunset ? I was here this moruing at the sitting of the House to do judicial business. If any other man in this House except the Noble Earl, will have the courage to get up and say I do not attend to my duty in this House, I will retire from the House and plead guilty to the charge.—(Great cheering.) There is no man in this House that attends one-fifth part so much as I do. I have been here every day from the 13th of -February, at ten o'clock in the morning till the rising of the House. I was not lounging upon the seats last night, like some Noble Lords—l took part in the debate, and I shall al ways do so when it suits my convenience. I care not one jot whether my doing.so pleases Noble Lords or displeases them. I do not do it to please them, but to satisfy my own sense of duty. I did it with infinite pain, because I was labouring under indisposition; but I did it as an act of justice to the Commis sioners, whose conduct had been impeached by speeches in the House, and at the bar, in their absence, and when they had not the phySical possibility of defending themselves. I came here to-day at a quarter to eleven and remained till half-past five o'clock, when I left to attend a Society elsewhere, and I find on my returning hither, that I have been answered by my Noble and Learned Friend (Lyndhurst), whom I have never refused to meet in fair fight, face to face, in my life, though in all our conflicts, political and professional, nothing has for a moment interfered with that friendship which unites us per sonally.—(" Hear," from Lord Lyndhurst.) It is a very ex traordinary thing that my Noble Friend could not have just attended to the Noble Duke's doctrine, and have made his answer last night instead of to-night--last night, when it would have been appropriate to the discussion. But no doubt the zeal of my Noble - and Learned Friend in the cause of his clients, the Corporations, made it incumbent on him to treat me as the Commissioners have been treated—they were at tacked in their absence, and 1, their defender, have been re plied to behind my back. Yes, my Lords, I see that not only do a large majority of you think that it was proper to attack, convict, and condemn the Commissioners in their absence, but that it was also proper to attack, convict, and condemn nie, the defender of those Commissioners, in my absence.—(Ques tion, question.) Yes, and that one or two of you cry " ques tion when I undertake to meet this attack, from a total ig norance of my nature, and of my habits of life ; from a foolish and ridiculous and absurd notion, that by crying " Ques tion" they can put me down. Why, I have stood up against half the House of Commons when they have cried "ques tion" for three quarters of an hour, and they could not put me down. Catalince gladios contonpsi : non tuos pertimescam.. I know what it is to stand up against 300 men, pretending to be the representatives of the people, who have attempted to drown the voieo of one man, who was their real friend and representative, and they did not succeed; and do you think that one of you, by crying "question," can put me down ? (Order, order.) The Earl of ROSSLYN spoke to order, but the Noble Earl was wholly inaudible in the Gallery. Lord BROUGH AM (without leaving his seat) said I have done. Lord LYNDHURST said the reason why he did not reply to his Noble and Learned Friend list night was the lateness of the hour when his Noble and Learned Friend finished his speech. He (Lord Lyndhurst) did not mean particularly to reply to his Noble and Learned friend to-night, but he thought he could not address their Lordships without saying something in defence of the Corpotrions. The Earl of RIPON maintaiixd that there were no grounds of expediency to warrant the p ass fng pf the present Bill. It might be necessary in particular cases to deal with property on principles which might appear inconsistent wi:h the principles upon which property was founded, but he could not conceive why the House was called upon now to deal on principles which deprived of property persons who valued that property, notwithstanding that his Noble Friend had said to the con trary. The property now to be dealt with beloogad to poor individuals, and if the House abandoned their rights never would they be recovered. The rights of the poor in commons ought not to be swept away by political economists upon doc trines of producing the greatest quantity of food for consump tion. He wished to reconcile public justice with the claims of individuals, and the same motives which had induced him to let the Bill go into Committee would now induce lihn to vote for the amendment.—(Cries of" Question, question.") The Earl of RADNOR said that property of this sort might be diminished to an indefinite extent by those who had the power over it. The poor bad not come foe7ard, and stated that they had any value for it. Those who 1 1 ,,,r1 ad ministered the property had come forward and said this I:2r them. In some boroughs it was not the poor that had the rights of common, and in other cases the value of the right might suddenly be diminished by the admission of freemen for electioneering purposes, even to the number of 800, as had been done at Leicester. In the course of the debate the Noble 14:114 on the other side had said that their Lordships should do their duty—fear nothing, and trust to themselves. In that he ( Lord Radnor) agreed. Their Lordships hail done much in reference to their conduct on this 13ill to lower them in public opinion, and they required to do their duty, unin fluenced by patty spirit, to recover the position they had held in it. If they suffered themselves to he actuated by any other feelings than those of consistent policy they would fail in their efforts, and only disgrace themselves more in the eyes of the country. Lord SE AG RAVE approved of the principle of the Bill, and he had expressed himself to that effect in presenting a petition fiom the freemen of Gloucester, though a sense of justice compelled him to declare his belief that some alteration in the details was absolutely necessary. In the few remarks he should make on the subject he should advert to a circumstance little noticed and not much attended to by their Lordships.. He meant the indecent attacks which were daily made from without on the deliberations of that House—( Hear)—As if their Lordships were to have no opinion of their own, no eyes or cars but those of others, and were bound on all occasions to adopt blindly and implicitly every act of the other branch of the Legislature. It was quite notorious that if their Lord ships did not submit to this species of legislatorial dictation from without, the public papers were let loose against them, and the walls we: c placarded in all directions with two ques tions. " What is to be done with the Lords?" " Of what use arc the Lords?" He (Lord Seagrave) had been all his li:etime attached to the liberal interest—indeed he might say to the ultra-liberal side—but he could not help stating that this conduct of its pretended friends from without filled him with shame and deep regret, as it was calculated to detach from that interest its truest supporters and most honest friends. —( Hear, hear.) If he were to answer the question, " What use are the Lord's?" he should say to interpose between des potism and anarchy—to hold the balance equally between the Crown and the people—to oppose the illegal progress of de mocracy.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the clause before the House he felt bound to say that it trenched upon the pro perties and privileges of the freemen. He had the honour of being High Steward of a large and populous borough him self, and he could declare from his own knowledge that these rights and privileges were substantial and valuable to the free men; and that they prized them as much, it not more, than other properties. - It was therefore that he felt obliged to give his support to the amendment of the Noble and Learned Lord. Lord PLUNKETT was sure the House entertained but one opinion on the rights of property, which was, that they rights should be zealously watched over. But he thought that, in introducing his amendment, his Voblc and Learned Friend had ? he was sure uriknovvn .to himself, piotised some . deq , e l e at o io f n so o i f l hi these etry o r g h t h t s e . H T o u h s e e i w g l h a e t s e ohfe ftreerrnemeedeti,t,..ecreclaueoet a Va... equiva i em : to the rights of property ; they had nothing in. dim indefeasible' hereditary, or acquired by industry or la bour ; they devolvea 2ri them in their political and not in their private character—as Te r:lions of a public body, not as individuals. They were net direct: rights, therefore they were only incidental to their public capacity. ;f the Bill went too take away the direct rights of property, h e I ,Lord Plunkett) stleeelei feel it his duty to concur entirely with k's Noble and Learned Friend, however dependent these righe's might be even on the eeleet body or Corporation. His _Noble and Learned Friend (Lard Brougham) had given them .a distinct affil substantial answer to the substantial questions peepeeling these rights. He (Lord Plunkett) only desired to ,give a teehnical answer to a technical question. The same areenment urged in favour of incidental rights in this instance and theist invielabil;ty might be urged with equal force and efficacy in the este° of any alteration in any department of the State whereby the interests of individuals • would be injured. • The rights in question were not equal to the rights of private pro perty ; they were public rights, and, as such, subject to the public good. He (Lord Plunkett) spoke as a lawyer on the subject. Lord SKELMERSDALE, in reply to the observations of the Noble Earl on the other side of the House, who had said that their Lordships were taking more trouble about the freemen's property than they were themselves, if their dispositions were to be judged by the prayer of their p,eti. • tions, begged to state that, for the purpose of saving time, Noble Lords on his (Lord Skelmersdale's) side of the House had foregone reading the petitions at length ; but that they contained, notwithstanding, the prayer which the Noble Lord denied because it w ee not every moment repeated by those who presented them. his Noble Friend doubted it he could easily obtain an abstract of the contents from the Clerk of the House, as had bee-% often done in another place, and the analysis would show . that he (Lord Skel mersdale) was right in his statement. But, waiving the agreement or disagreement of the petitions'e he (Lord Skel mersdale) thought that when a right of propeedy vested in a certain class were in question, it behoved their Lordship to give it every consideration. The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON said the rights of free men were to be purchased by the provisions of the ?3i11; but these could only be sold by the present generation as for' them selves, not as for their successors. In other worth, the pur chase could be valid only for the lives of the present free lieir and their sons, not for their descendants in perpetuity. The Noble Marquis then proceeded to read an extract front the last number of the Edinburgh Review, article " Phik. sophy of Mankind," on the rights of property. The article argued that security was the soul of capital, and that without it it would be a useless mass. He (the Marquis of Northamp ton) agreed with the sentiments it expressed; and he thought so did the House. The Noble Marquis was understood to say he would support the amendment. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE agreed with the Noble Marquis, that the question was one beset with difficulties. A numerous class of persons were about to be affected in their political existence, and certain rights held in conjunction with that existence would, necessarily, be disturbed. As far as these rights could partake of . the nature of property, he thoirsht the vigilance exercised by their Lordships was per fectly is:reeler, and, therefore, he should state the grounds on which he opposed the amendment. In his ()pinkie 'it did not in any degree partZke of the nature of individual or private property. It was vested in a certain class of persons as a po litical privilege in reviser' for their performance of certain public duties ; and it was inseparably connected in the idea of the grantee, as well as in thar of the person granting it— whether it were a King or a priv,Ate person—with the per formance of certain public conditione.. It was absurd to sup pose that it was from any especial affection to the class called freemen that it was granted ; and, therefore, it did not follow that it was perpetual if these deities were to be neglected, or the stipulations to remain unperformed. The right was granted as a public trust—as a reward for the performanCe of certain public duties. It did not, however, follow that it was to be for ever. If that principle were ad mitted, the offices and emoluments of Admirals, Generals, Al dermen of London, and other offices of a similar characte r, should be perpetual as to emolument, and hereditary as to succession, and the Parliament would be bound to uphold their rights and defend their privileges. The French Par. lianients were bodies established originally for the dispensa tion of justice, and they possessed estates, like the Corpora tions of England, to facilitate the performance of that duty, yet no one attempted to assert, on their abolition and the sub stitution of courts in their stead, that the estates and emolu ments should be continued to their descendants. But what were the freemen about to be deprived of by the Bill, before their Lordships? Nothing. When the Noble and Learned Lord entered into a statement of this case, he produced an unfair amount of the average. He said 26,0001., but that was the present positive value, not that with which the House was called to deal—the reversion at the end of forty years, which would be about one-third of the sum. Ile could not agree with the arrangement of the Noble Marquis who had just sat down, because no arrangement would be satisfactory to the parties. If the question arose on inchoate rights, it should be carried into all parts of the subject. The inchoate rights of the freemen had been spoken of by the Noble Lord, but he had forgotten to mention the inchoate rights possessed by every inhabitant as well as freemen. The very poorest in habitant had an inchoate right to be free, but he was stripped of it, by the exciusive privilege hitherto enjoyed by the Corporations. The principle on which the Bill was founded, lii this respect, was the same as that which their Lordships acted on, in the case of the Corporation of Edinburgh.— ( Hear.) The Corporations were not found to be a fit deposi tory of power, and it was therefore taken from them and con ferred elsewhere. Lord BROUGHAM rose amidst a murmur of disapproba tion. The Noble Lord said—No doubt your Lordships are prepared to say I shall not have the privilege of a Commit tee.—( Cries of "Go on," and " Spoke.") I hear cries of " Spoke," in all parts of the House.—(No, no.) Don't deny it.—(Go en.) I shall go on without bidding. I have a right to speak, because I am in the House.—( Laughter.) Tho Noble Lord continued. Having filled a high judicial office, he felt it incumbent on him to coincide in the principles of the Noble and Learned Lord on the vigilance that should be exercised by Parliament, in all cases where property was in question. But there was no violation of the strict rights of property in the present instance. His Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Plunket) had so amply defined what in common parlance was called the rights of property that he needed only refer to his speech without saying any more on the subject. If their Lordships in adopting the provisions of the Bill were adopting a course wholly unprecedented, lie perhaps should be found to agree with the amendment of the Noble and Learned Lord. But even supposing that the property they had to deal with was strictly private, he should remind theta that motives of high State policy had always sanctioned their interference with direct as well as contingent private rights. He needed only adduce the case of a title and estate transferred from one family to another a few years since, without the consent of the party deprived, in consequence of the altera tion in the Marriage Act ; and also the Act of the Legisla ture, even in the present session, with respect to another large • estate which was in the Court of Chancery. The ' Scotch burghs was another case in point, in which the House had not thought proper to interfere, lie, therefore, saw nothing to jistify the present amendment. The House then divided, when there were— Contents Non-contents 37 Majority for the Amendment --93 Lord LYNDHCRST said that the amendment he was now about to propose he should introduce with as few words as was consistent with the importance of the subject. The amendment affected the rights of freemen. Their Lordships would remember that in the draft of the Reform Bill the rights of existing freemen were presented. After a short interval the right; of freemen were extended to their descen dants. That 13111 came up, and was rejected by their Lord ships. He presumed that afterwards, to conciliate the good will of their Lordships, the rights of freemen were extended to all acquiring rights, as heretofore, by birth or servitude at . t o e t one of passing the Bill. This measure was adopted, and it had getefrally been considered a final measure. Yet there were Low two Bills before their Lordships,. clearly showing that it was not to ,Ise allowed to remain final. One of the Hills he alluded to wee „!he present measure, altering the poli tical franchise, and the 0111.2 r !nide an alteration in the law of elections. The full scope Ant: object of his amendment was to preserve the political rigiite of the people of England, as settled by the Reform Bill. The Nu, hie wad Learned Lord then proposed the insertion of a ciattee, ro the effect that the right of voting for Members to serve in • Parliament should remain as settled by the Reform Act, arid that swell right should be as fully enjoyed as if that Act (for the Reform of Corpora. rations) had not been passed. Viscount MELBOURNE certainly expected the introduc tion of the present clause, after the vote given in favour of the last, lie was altogether opposed to this amendment. Ho thought the freemen were generally the subservient creatures ' of the Corporations, arid ought not, therefore, to continue the exercise of their privileges. The Noble and Learned Lord had alluded to the history of the Bill for the Reform of the Representation of Parliament, and has ; implied that an under standing existed that the measure was to be final. Ile knew not with whom the compact was made, nor was he aware that any alteration had been made to conciliate the good opinion of their Lordships. If so, it had not the effect, for on the se cond reading it was a second time thrown out, ire October, 1823, with nearly as great a majority as before. He thought that the Letrislature should be united. That nothing should be done to endanger the Parliament of Great Britain, and which he thought would be done by an alteration amounting to a rejection of the present measure. He disclaimed all disposi tion to interfere with the established rights of freemen, and was not-influenced by any fantastic notions of political economy. If he thought rights sufficiently protected by the present Bill, be was not bound to consent to the Bill being inefficient in conse quence of any supposed understanding about the Reform Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord had alluded to tlie Bills then before the House (the Municipal Corporations VII and the Limitation of Polls Bill) but he could not mean to sae pe remptorily and decisively that if advantages could be obtained evidently within their reach, they should refuse them, in con sequence of the Reform Bill having been said to be a final melt. sure. He should oppose the amendment. The Earl of H ARROWBY could never approve of those arguments that supported the utter extinction of freemen. The reason he supported the last amendment was the ground on which he should support the present, and it was because he considered the body of freemen, politically speaking, one of the must valuable institutions of the country.--( Hear, bear.) Such a , class could not be created, and God forbid that ho should abolish it. It militated nothing against the sacred na ture of these rights of property, that they were purchased by long servitude and industry, not by money. Long - servitude imparted n particular N'41 . 610 to Sun a 'ease of property, a 'value PEERS' PROTESTS On the motion of the Earl of FALMOUTH, Noble Lords were given till after the titling or the Eittti4d ttyrtinfrent to enter p►'otests against the Committal of tile Municipal Reform Bill. The Irish Assizes Removal fill, after a few observations from Lord FARNHAM. was read a third time and passed. The Small Debts ( Scotland) Dill was read a third time and passed. IRISH CHURCH BILL. Lord MELBOURNE said that a Bill had been brought up from the House of Commons for the better regulation of the ecclesiastical revenues or the Church of Ireland. Ih moving that that Bill be r.ow read a first time, he should propose to go to the second reading of the Bill on this day se'nnight, if their Lordships had no objection. The Bill was then read a first time. The Polls' Limitation Bill went through Committee. CORPORATION REFORM. Lord POLTIMORE presented a petition from Exeter in favour of the Corporation Bill. The petition was signed by upwards of 4,000 persons. The Bishop of EXETER defended the conduct of the Corporation of Exeter. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the mer chants and bankers of Liverpool, expressing their admirationof the conduct of the House of Lords with respect to the Muni cipal Reform Bill and stating their determination to support them as an independent branch of the Legislature. The petition was signed by five thousand three hundred persons, and was well entitled to the consideration of their Lordships. The Noble Lord also presented a similar petition from Leicester. There could be no doubt whatever that the petition which was presented by a Noble and Learned Lord yesterday (Brougham), had been got up by misrepresentation. That petition could not have been signed by 9,500 adult male inhabitants of Leicester, if the petition he had now presented was signed by 2,500 adult male inhabitants, which was the case, because to every name attached to the petition he had presented was a particular description of the person signing. If both the petitions had been signed by the number stated that would make twelve thousand adult male inha bitants of Leicester, whereas, according to the last census, the total amount of the population of Leicester was 18,000. _ _ _ The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of Exeter, praying that a clause may be introduced into the Corporation Reform Bill to secure certain rights which they enjoy by virtue of several charters. The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition from Rochester, against the said Bill. Lord MELBOURNE presented petitions in favour of the Bill from Newark, Newcastle-under-Lyne, Saffron-Walden, Newport, and the Tower Hamlets. Lord STRANGFORD presented a petition from the Corporation of Guildford praying to be excluded from the operation of the Bill. The Duke of BUCCLEUGH presented petitions from Scotland in favour of the Church of Scotland. ' • Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition in favour of the Corporation Bill from Norwich, signed by 6,631 inhabitants, including freemen, and three-fourths of the merchants and manufacturers of the city. It was also signed by several members of the corporation and all the resident magistrates. A Message from the Commons brought up the Tea Duties Bill, and the reduction of the Militia Stair Bill. Lord MELBOURNE said he wished to mention in re ference to a subject that excited much anxiety in the House, viz., the termination of the session—in order to ex pedite that event, it would be necessary to pass the last named Bill as quickly as possible, because until that were done the estimates could not be presented to the other House. It was his intention therefore to propose the second reading to-morrow night. . _ The" Highways Bill then went through Committee, and the Renort was ordered to be brought up on Monday. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a petition from the borough of Congleton in favour of the Corporation Reform Bill. COMMITTEE ON THE BILL. The House then went into Committee on the Corporation Reform Bill, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY in the Chair. The preamble was postponed. Clause the first was agreed to without any discussion. On clause 2 being read, a - - Lord LYNDHURST, rose to propose the insertion of a clause in this part of the Bill ; but first he would take the opportunity of freeing himself from the imputation of having charged the Corporation Commissioners with having acted as partizans in making up the Report which they had furnished to the House. He bad charged the Noble Viscount and other Noble Lords with having chosen men ofeert sin political principles to perform a great public duty.--( Hear.) He thought that the adoption of such a course was most unjust, considering the objects and results of the enquiry were to strip individuals and bodies of men of their privileges and property. As to the evidence that had been received at the bar, many of their Lordships had attended that enquiry from dayto day, and he knew what the result of that enquiry had been in the minds of many of their- Lordships. In his own mind he was perfectly satisfied upon the result of the inquiry, so far as it was applicable to 31 Corporations whose cases had been before their Lordships, that there was no foundation whatever for the imputations that had been cast upon them.—( Hear.) The evidence uniformly showed a pure administration of justice —an administration unbiassed by party motives and party views--an administration of justice satisfactory to the people over whom that administration had controul. This, my Lords, I say, is the result of the investi gation ; but I further say that, with respect to the administra tion of the public funds of these Corporations, the result of the inquiry is, that the application of their revenues has been accu rate and free from all reproach. In no single instance has any accusation been established in contradiction to the evidence, which shows that the administration of the property has not been pure and unexceptionable. Again, I refer to the evidence which your Lordships have heard at the bar, with respect to the great body of the respectable inhabitants of these thirty-one Corporatiene That evidence shows that the administration of the corporate powers has been exercised at least to the sa tisfaction of a great portion of the class to which I refer: B ut this is not all, for the real question comes to this ; are w e t o b e governed e by country, th e se sense, abrye t information, tocom e tothat state— w hi c h , I and the respectabi lity fear, we arc fast approaching—to be governed by numbers ( Hear, hear.) This is another material consideration for your Lordships, inasmuch as it is the testimony of intelligence and • ability in favour of the present corporate administra tion. . The evidence has proved all this. But your Lord ships have had better evidence. You have heard at your bar the evidence given by the public functionaries of the Cor porations—evidence more precise and more candid I never heard given in any Court of Law.—( Hear.) In addition to that which I have already stated as the result of this inquiry, ac cording to the impression it has made on my mind, I think that it has shown, in a great variety of instances, the want of care and accusacy on the part of the Commissioners. I think this has been established beyond the possibility of doubt ; and I therefore say, considering what the evidence has been with respect to the thirty-one Corporations, that 1, for one, cannot consider this Report as affording a safe basis or foundation upon which to make great alterations in the institutions of the country, and to strip them of their rights and properties.— ( Hear, hear.) My Lords, I regret that a Noble and Learned Lord is not here in his place; but an attempt has been made —certainly a most dexterous one—to which I shall call your attention. These Commissioners, because they think the evi dence was adduced for the purpose of convicting them,, ex pressed a desire to be heard themselves or by Counsel at your Lordships' bar, in answer to the charges brought against them ; but my Noble and Learned Friend has taken upon himself to speak for the House, for lie has refused to let them be heard. This, my Lords, is the ingenious and dexterous attempt I allude to ; but what is the real question ? Are not these same gentlemen now complaining—the vague accusers of the Corporations—are they not the persons who have pre ferred charges which are to be followed by disfranchisement and the loss of property ? Most certainly they are ; and therefore it is that the Corporations came, before the House as defendants praying to be heard by Counsel—a prayer which your Lordships, inspired by that sound judgment which always influences you were pleased to grant. Is not, then, the evi dence so taken to be of any avail ? Are not the Corporations to have the benefit of it? I trust they are. The Report is before you. The Noble Viscount also knows that if the Re port is a general Report, it does not contain the evidence, and that it then becomes necessary to apply for the evidence. This Report, I say, is unsatisfactory. We apply for the evidence, and that evidence you refuse.--(Great cheering.) Such is the course pursued, and the line of argument advanced, for the purpose of depriving the Corporations of the benefit of that evidence adduced at your Lordship's bar in contradiction to the charges brought against them. I shall refer to the charge made against the Duke of Newcastle. A charge was made that the Duke of Newcastle had given a place to an Alderman of the borough of East Retford, for the loss of which he received a compensation of 2001. a year, and that this had been done with a view cf promoting the parliamen-- tary interests of the Noble Duke. That charge is specifically stated in the Report. But what is the fact ? The place was obtained through the Granville connection, and through the interest of Earl Fitzwilliam. I hold in my band the eai dence *which proved this ; but what is the explanation at tempted to be given? It is said that some person was pre sent, who took down the evidence in short-hand ; but that had not been adduced in evidence. lam extremely sorry that my Noble and Learned Friend is not here—(Loud cheers) — for it certainly is the first time that I have ever beard it stated as a proposition of law, that testimony is not to be received on oath, because some person was present who took down certain evidence in short-hand. I have four or five other cases, to which I am desirous of eeferring ; but 1 feel ex tremely reluctant to.ge into them in the absence of my Noble end Learned Friend. There is use case. hoWever, which must state to your Lordships. It is the case of a man of tiro uP4• 151. )• • th e .e.FOrt it aavd 410 0 P l O7. • • E --- about ▪ 10 3 • 113 ~}