The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-07 00:00:00

Emptrial Varliament, HOUSE OF. LORDS.—MON DAY. . AruNIeIPAL CORPORATIONS—THE LIVERPOOL PETITION. .• Lord NVHARNeCIFFE presented a petition from Liverpool against the municipal c o r p ora ti ons bill signe d by 12,800 persons. Other petitions to the same effect were presented from the following _places, •- From the proprietors of land at Meldon, by the Earl of Wick low ; from Arundel, Healy-on-Tharnes, and Beverley, by the Duke of Wellington;, from a town in his diocese (against the clause which relates to charitable' trusts,) by the . Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry; from Huntingdon, by the Marquis of Hastings; from a place- in Nottinghamshire, from the mayor and aldermen of Newark-upon-Trent, and from the free bur gesses and others of Launceston, by the Duke of Newcastle ; from the corporation of Tewkesbury; and from Gloucester, by Lord'Ellenborough ; froth the town clerks of several Cities and towels, (praying to be heard by counsel' against that part of the hill Which affected their interests,) by the Marquis of Salisbury; from Devizes, Stroud, the acting Magistrates of the town_ of Cambridge,' and the rate-payers of Bridgewater, by Lord Lynd hiirst; and from the corporation of South Molten, Devonshire, by the Bishop of Exeter, With reference to that clause of the bill which, transferred charitable trusts, the rev. prelate said-. Hitherto those trusts were confided to members of the church of England, and the petitiohers objected to anyalteration Of the si ; stbm which would have the effect of permitting dissenters to have any controul over' property devised by members of, the church of England, and if no other member m o ve d a n amend ment to this partoEthe bills he should feel it to be his duty to do so. In favour of the bill petitions were presented from Cambridge, by the Marquis of 'ravistock, [the Earl of Hardwick' remarked that it had been signed by boys of thirteen years of age ;J from Newbury, praying that right of voting should not be - confined to £lO asyear, by Earl Spencer; from Tewkesbury, by the 'Harlot Ridnor , ' from •-Lyine Regis, by L or d D uncannon; andfrona Boston, King's Lynn. Preston,. Fevershani,. and Northampton, -by . Viscount Melbourne. "The petition from the latter place was only signed by one person. The order of the day having been read, Viscount MELBOURNE proceeded to address the house. The noble lord sail that fist-0161as! five years political dissensions and divisioni had been carried to a very great extent, thatthey now continued to disturb the country; and that he was heartily sick of them. IA laugh.) If he could introduce 'a measure upon the principle of which they could agree it would give him great satisfaction: The measure sent 'to their lordships from the House of Commons had been sent without any division in which the prioCiple 'of it was involved, and he hoped in their lordships' house no difference would be found to exist on ifs principle, Whatever might be the case with respect to its details. In all thegreat'measures he hadbrought forward it had always • been his object to avoid exciting 6ngry feelings, a course which, he would pursue on the present oCcasion: It .appeared. to hini' thatmany points had been overlooked, having reference to the • private r i g ht s an d p ropert y connecte d with corporations, in into the speculation s on th a t subject ; many abuses had crept the system by the neglect of society and of private persons to exaMineinto them. .The consequence had been, thatclreadful cases of breach of truth had occurred; this, of itself, was suffi- cientto call for the proposed alteration. The courts of justice were, he was much afraid, not entirely free from blame 'with reference to some of these cases, because, in certain instances where legal proceedings were adopted, there did appear to be a leaning towards the parties accused, and sure he was, that its the other house orparliament (he spoke from personal expo- rience) .when cases 'of' great corporation delinquency were brought before them, they had not been dealt with as they ought to have been. Great families had become ,connected with some of the smaller corporations for the purpose of returning Mem bers to parliament. His lordship then proceeded to notice the influence exercised in different corporations by the aristocracy generally, and the feeling which eiristed in many towns against their corporations. Mr. Hogg, in his protest, speaking of Bristol,,said•---" No good m an , no real well-wisher of the par ties themselves, can approve of the extreme hostility which some of the iuhabitants of Bristol, it is hoped but few of them, seem to entertain for the corporation of their ancient and famous city, and for which the printed report, although not penned in a spi rit of kindness, has displayed no adequate cause. It was ne cessary to hear the evidence given on-trial at bar of the infor mation filled by your Majesty'sAttorney s General against Chas. Pinney, Esq., some time mayor of the city of Bristol, and to observe the temper with which it was given, in order to estimate correctly the insane malignity by which misguided persons may sometimes be animated—to understand how it may happen that the inhabitant should be willing his house and goods should be consumed, that the tradesman should be content to see his shop in flames, and that the citizen should rejoice to have his whole city wasted, so that the mayor.and justices might incur blame. Until ill-huMour be soothed, and the ferment of evil passions allayed, it may be questioned whether any reforms, however' judicious and well devised, will be thankfully and usefully adopted." This, although strong language, was not stronger than the case warranted. He ( Lord M.) believed that the feel . ing of animosity existing .in Bristol against the corporation arose from the oligarchical character of that body. If this were .. the fact, ought they not to take measures to alter a system which produced such vicious effects? The strongest grounds he had to rely Olson related to the administration of justice in corpor ate towns. It was well known, was indeed a matter of noto riety, that justice was not duly administered in many of the • small corporate towns. • •This alone should induce their lord !ships to go into committee. The measure was also asked for by as . great majority of the country. Some objections had been 'nursed on that part of the preamble of the bill, which spoke of the detects in some of the charters, and it was argued that these defects could be cured by. the crown., This he denied. An act of parliament Was necessary to remedy the evils complained of. After briefly detailing the provisions of the bill the noble lord concluded by moving that their lordships go into a committee 'on the bill.. • The Earl of CA RNARVON then, after a short speech, moved, - 4.. as an amendment, " that evidence be taken at the bar of that • house in support of the allegations of the several petitions,. praying to be heard - against the-bill now before the house be fore the house oes info ,committee oifthe said bill." The Earl of WINCH tssaa said, before they went f ur th er w ith the bill they had a r i g ht t o ask for the instructions given to the -• commissioners of corporation inquiry. ' Were he to divide the house on that question he should have nine-tenths of their lord ships with him. He•would not move at present, but would take an,opportunity of doing to hereafter. 'Lord BROUGHAM was anxious to speak on the amend ment, which he thought would be fatal to the bill, but also on a matter which referred to himself. It was no light thing for a man . who had lately held the high situa tion of chancellor, to be charged with having put the great seal to a commission at once illegal and unconstitutional. First he would speak of the amendment, which, if carried', must be FATAL TO THE DIEAsuRE. After hearing counsel for three days, he thought he was going on an unnecessary errand when he attempted to show Unit the measure was neither illegal nor unconstitutional. The allegation that the commission was il leaal amounted to nothi ug . Th e compact made was, that after they had heard counsel, they should at once proceed to discuss the principle of the bill. • (No, no.) But now, notivithanding this arrangement, delay was meditated--it was prop ose d t o h ear counsel. Ihe noble earFadmitted the principle of the bill, and yet he called for evidence. For what purpose ? To show that reform was wanted; thatthe.evils of the present system re quired correction, although from the statement which prefaced the application for evidence, they were given to understand that it was unnecessary. • He found that a decree was pronounced against him from very near the judi c i a l sea t ; noble lords c ri e d Oh ! oh ! and therefore he was bound t o ' show that no result could take place from hearing evidence except mispending their time and frustrating the just hopes of the people of Eng land: Th e proposition was, that counsel 'should be called in and admitted to prove the statements they had made. This would be all very well if the statements of counsel had touched the foundation of the bill; if they could prove that there were no abuses, or that the remedy proposed, supposing abuses did exist, was not the fittina one. 'But these matters were not dis . puted, nor the fitness of the remedy proposed. There were two cases in which their lordships had heard counsel, and afterwards refused to hear the evidence tendered. One was io. 1747,- re- specting the abolition of heritable jurisdictions. The other. in 1807, when it was proposed to abolish the African slave trade. On that occasien Sir William Alexander was heard for the slave-traders of Liverpool, but his claim to tender evidence had been refused. The result; was, the bill passed through all its stages up to the third reading, on the 10th of July. He would next advert to what had been said by counsel 'as to the illega lity of the commission. He would maintain.the perfect legality of the commission, on the authority of the best precedents in the best times. Since the revolution more than twenty.tiines the number of commissions had been issued without the authority • of pailiamentlhan had been sent forth with it. Theleattied counsel who argued this matter should have felt that the onus of proof lay upon him. lie marvelled much, nut at the doctrines of the counsel, but at the opinions which were stated to hive been given. 'That the counsel who had appeared at the bar, and ' engaged in courts of equity, should have fallen into a blunder, 'clileot'astonish him;' bat-thatgentlethen who had had the op- . portunity of frequenting the courts of King's Bench and Coin soon Pleas, that gentlemen who were by courtesy styled learned, should not have .some little modicum of: learning attached to their trad,e, wh hicinight,prevent them f r o nt f a lli ng i nto t h ose errors, aril set their names to a doubt on the subject of the . legality of this cominisaion, really passed his comprehension. Sir Charles Wetherell.ancl Mr. Knight had argued against the right of the. crown to• empower ,commissioners to atliuiaiote oaths, and for the purpose of showing that it did not. possess Iliad right, it waA not in the least necessary to show that personi falsely swearing before such commissioners could be prosecuted' for perjury. .This right of the crown, his lordship contended at freat length,. was , fally established' by the practice o f ages . Hi s ordship'coneluded by saying, notwithstanding all the vituper * etibif bestowed on . this Imeasure, it seemed that the l ea r ne d counsel were instructed to say that their clients hadno objection to the reform of the municipal corporationa-provided— s u c h was the amusing posteript, which contained the heart's real wish—provided that reform Came from a friendly hand. They . did not care for their Privileges, or ahlerntanic pump, or dig nities, or enjoyment ; they would abandon even the robes which adorned them cheerfully, if only naked. to do so by a tory mi nister. ( Hear, hear.) He could not see with what consistency • such an idea could be entertained, and he did not expect to see - it adopted by noble lords opposite. Lord LyNDHURsT. said that it was not his intention to follow the learned lordthrough all the topics he had urged, nor into the eulogiums he had passed upon the reform bill„further than to remind their lordships .that on'e of his main objections to this bill was, that it trenched upon the reform bill—(hear,_ hear) — that it deprived a large class of persons of the benefits they de rived from that act; that in the first committee of the bill 'lithe House of Commons; all attempt to remedy that was firmly and obstinately resisted--thitt when the bill was committed a second time the saute attempt: was made, and with the same success; and it was not till the very,last stage of the bill, after The re ' commitment,' that tho;ce evils, this injury, this destruction of franchise secured by that final measure' of reforirt, as it was called, 'was in any degree even partially remedied. (Hear.) MI that he had to say about Mr. Hogg's rep o rt, and in answer to what had beets said respecting his incompetence to fill the • situation he had been placed in, (which he Lord L. denied alto - gether), was who• placed him in the situation of a commis sioner? Why, the noble and learned lord who had travelled ' circuit with hits for several years; therefore, that learned lord should be left to settle the question with his late colleagues. The noble lord had referred to two precedents, which he considered decisive of the present question, and disposing altogether of the • motion of Lord Carnarvon. It had been said in the first: case, that although counsel were heard n 9 witnesses were examined, and that no evidence was adduced. In order to make that - a case ie point, it was natural to inquire, in the first place, whether my evidence was tendered; and, if tendered, whether it was made the subject of discussion and-was finally rejected. Unless suet' had been the' case, - what would become of the au thority of this precedent, on which so much reliance was pla . ced? Their lordships, however, would be surprised to find that the case was precisely the reverse. All the evidence t en d ere d was received be the houselithout objection. It was formal and do cumentary, but still it-was evidence, and as such it was received. • So much, therefore; for the• first precedent. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the second and only remaining precedent, ariss ing out attic bill for the abolition of the slave trade, it was un doubtedly troe that Lord Grenville bad opposed the production •of evidence, but upon what ground? Why, because,-in truth if was not evidence. -On that occasion Plunier, the coun sel, observed lila from the long period during which the go- Nernor of the island had been in Jamaica, he would be able-to point out the consequences of the bill to the West India propri etors. Lord, Orenville.remarked that it was irregular .to amine a witness at their lordships' bar who had no facts to state, but who was merely called to explain views and opin- , ions; and no ddubt in that respect the noble lord was perfectly correct—it was not legitimate evidence—factS he .said might be .! sworn to; but prophecies could not. That kind of evidence was not fit for their lordships to- hear, therefore he moved that the next counsel be called in. But Lords Eldon and Liverpool, in the course of the debate, stated that if proper evidence was adduced in a subsequent stage of the proceeding it should be received. So much, therefore, foi the only remaining, prece dent relied on by the noble and leareed lord. With respect to the question on the slave trade, the-agent from Barbadoes Jahn ed to be-heard as a witness, and he was heard. He thanked, therefore, his noble and learned friend for mentioning the sub , ject of the slave trade, because mentioning that had caused him to direct the inquiry to he made, the result of which inquiry had been the discovery of this piecedent. which was confirmatory of the view he took of the case, and entirely destructive of the sound ness of the opinion expressed by his noble and learned friend. Having discovered that there was nothing in the precedents re lied upon by his noble and learned friend, and that there was a precedent the other way, what was there to lead their lordships to the conclusion that they ought not to hear evidence. 'the preamble of the bill stated, that in the charters of several cor porations of this kingdom there were divers defects. That cer tainly was a matter of evidence. It did nut state they were all defective, and that they were all in one form by _which the house could judge of them, but only that in divers corperationi there were certain defects, and was not that matter of evidence? (Hear, hear.) It cre'iftiion to say that the corporations had abused their priyileges, an neglected their duties. Was that a matter of evidence, orwas it not? Was that to be discovered, ascertained, - and fixed by the examination or witnesses, or was it not? (Hear, hear.) But what was the deduction to •be drawn from all ;his ? Why, that it was to be enacted that cer tain provisions and regulations should be made, the result and consequence of which were to be, that_a great number of indi viduals were to.be stripped of their property--:-Strippeof. that which by law :hey were entitled to, and which -by the operation of no law could they be deprived of, unless charged apt( con victed of certain offences in a court of justice, and that property was to be transferred to the hands of others. Would noble lords on the other side of the house say this was not matter of evidence. Why, the whole was established in the report of the. commissioners. The commissioners had taken evidence upon which they founded their report, and without which evidence their report must be regarded as utterly destitute of all firninda tiou. Could any person who, ever sat in a cottrt ofjustice;'who was at all imbued with the principles of justice, who had- ever , practised in a court eflusticeoay that the Whole of this was not to depend on evidence? and that parties were to be stripped of their rights and' property with Out a charge being preferred against them, or, - if preferred, as had been by this bill, without hating an opportunity of meeting that charge? If hii • noble and learned friend's' ,precedents -had been • correct, it - they had been founded in fact, and were . ai• they had been, represented by - his noble and learned - friend, still he should have said; disre gard such precedents, look - to the principle of thothinji•atid to the rules of justice. (Hear, heard) But when it was found-that his noble and learned friend's precedents amounted to nothing, and that there *as a precedent the other way, what would their. lordships say to-the argument Cf . the noble and learned tord . who hadsat so long in"courtsofjustice, and appeared to be so much imbued with the Very first principles of those courts? (Hear.) Proceeding a little further the preamble of the bill stated, that the present corporations were not efficient administrations of tonal justice. That was the substance of the statement.. That being the preamble, and it being taken froM the'evidence given . before the commissioners, what would have been the natural Course of legislation? One would naturally, have expected it would have been said that there were old charteri granted by the crown—granted by the prerogative andirom the bOunty . a the crown—ascertain what the defects were, .and let them be amended by remedies consistent with the defects. (Hear, hear.) He did not believe there was a single corporation in the country which would have been unwilling to have accepted. a charter to amend their defects. But if there had been defects in them, and if they had worked injuriously, he was'sure their lordships would have been willing to have amended those defects in the way , he hadtlescribed, - and that was the way which cautious, prudent, and wise legislators ought to adopt. But that would not have met the views and the objects of those persons by whom this bill had been framed. (Cheers.) Who could be so' blind as not to see that this'bill was not a bill for the reform of cor porations, but a bill brought in to consolidate and to strengthen the party by whoin it was brought in. (Cheers.) Was there a single individual in that house who was so blind as not to : see that? He would beg the houee to look at the evils complained of, and represented as so pressing and so urgent that at this late season of the year the measure was to be pushed forward with that degree of eagerness which had characterizedit. If for a - party object it was to be carried before the next dissolution of parliament; he could understand the. thing, and so would noble lords whp heard hitri. (Hear, hear.) Ile held is his hand a little document showing the spirit with which this bill had been conducted: Their lordships were aware that by,this bill the large town's Were to '.be - divided into wards. A struggle took place in the . other house to have thoSe towns divided into a great number of wards, because if divided into a great many wards, there wouldhe a mixed" ret urn.' That was the ohject; the docu ment be held in his band he had moved should .On. their lordships' table; lie 'Would now - call their attention to it, observ ing that it had all the character of an insult to their lordships' house. A bill had-been brought into the other house of parlia ment, and although carried, could not have the force of law until it had been passed by' their lordships, and received the assent of the King. (Hear, hear.) Instead of waiting until these forms had been complied with, a commission had already . been issued for the purpose of dividing the large towns into wards, in pursuance of a provisicn of that bill,- which had not yet passed their lordships' house. (Hear, hear.) He would entreat their lordships to mark the instruc tions that were given. Those instructions were issued by an individual whose name.had been often mentioned in their lord ships' .house, and who was in close altliance with his noble and learned friend—no. less. a personage than. Joseph', Parkes. (Hear, hear.) He was a kern, intelligent, and active agent of a party—of a fact*, and no man better qualified for . the pur pose. It Was considered necessary then to re g ulat e thi s division of towns into wards, so as net to defeat thealbject et,the: bill ;, and the instructions were. in these words—" When - a - borough contains several divisions, some of which contain richer and some of the poorer classes, you will not divide them so •as to, threw the richer into a ward by themselves, and the poorer into another Ward by themselves; but, on the contrary, you will endeivour, as far as possible, to divide them so as to have some of the richer and same of the poorer, and nearly equal propor tions, in the same ward." Must not everybody know that the object of these instructions, which 'no doubt Mr.' Joseph Parkes had received front his superiors, was to neutralize and destroy the effect of the division of the larger towns into wards, and that this clause showed the Measure to be a decidedly party measure? (Hear, hear.) It was just intimated to him (Lord Lyndhurst) also that Mr. Parkes advised that the nature of the division should be kept secret, that the people might not know what was going on. But their lordships lived in the world, they walked the gtreets, they frequented the clubs,. and - their ears were al ready assailed by the statements of the party who brought for. ward this measure Of the increase of the votes they would have at the next election after this bill had passed into a law; and, in corisequence of the obstruction that had already taken place in the passing.of the bill into a law by their lordships' desire to hear couosel that justice might be done, they were assailed by every species of calumny and abuse that tongue could utter, all. however forming conclusive evidence to show . that the great object of.this, measure was; to increase the power of the' whig party at the expense of th ose w h om hi s no bl e an d l earne d f r i en d had described as the tory party. The same might be said of a paper which had just been handed to him, confirmatory of his argument, but which he had never seen before-La paper in scribed tf'e cannot Afibrd it (hear, hear;) being Thoughts on the Aristocracy of Englund, part 2d, by Isaac Tornkins. (Cheers and laughter.) What did Isaac Tomkins say ? (Laughter.,) No man could better dress up a bad case; no man could give. more effect to a just and righteous cause, and he should be glad to hear what M r . Isaac Tomkins had to say : —" Th e same might be said of municipal reform, a measure of infinite importance in furthering our emancipation from the tory yoke." Then he. went on to say, and of the best, reform also—because something was to follow after this, and that was the lowering of the qualifi cation, which he considered must be carried in order to secure the best interests of the party. Thus their lordships were called upon to violate all those rights which had hitherto been copsi dered as most sacred. ( Hear, hear.) Men hOlding rights, either by charter from the crown, or by act of parliament:had generally heretofore been - considered - as holding them by the best title. No man could be stripped of tights, holding them either by the one or the other, except upon a charge being pre ferred against him, and that charge being there substantiated by satisfactory evidence. (He ar , hear.)- That had hitherto been the rule. That had been acted Uniformly upon by those who had been called conservatives and tories, but sorry was he to say it had not' been so by those who pretender l to 'be the friends orlibeily . and their country. (Cheers.) Ile believed that this proceeding had been conducted in the other house of parliament under some obscure notion Of the law affecting cor porations. It bad been said justly at the bar by the learned counsel who hail addses r sed their lordships, and not controverted by his noble and learned friend, that a corporation held its property by the same title and right by which any private in dividual held his property. If a private individual h e ld pro perty subject to a trust, that property was ,bound by that trust. If a - cOLperatiOn held property subject to,e,trust, that property was )34tia1 by that trust just in the same way, and to,the same extent, as the trust - property held by the private individual. Property held by a corpo ra ti on , no t su bj ec t to. a trust, was en tirely under the control of the corporation, and at its free dis posal, just in the same manner, and subject to the same rules and rights of disposition, as property wasleld by any private individual in the country. Was there any doubt upon this ? "He had never heard a doubt about it whispered in that house ; but he had heard much out of that house to lead 'him to the conclusion that those principles of law had not been understood in the Other house of parliament. Sure he was when he looked through this . report that that law had been misrepresented by many of the commissioners, who had come to the conclusion that all corporate property was held subject to some trust. His lordship then proceeded to.cite a pireat variety of cases in support of his argument. Their lordships had heard much-said about public expediency in reference to grants of charter by the Crown. Suppose the inhabitants of Westminster were to say it was inexpedient that they should continue to par the tolls to Covent-garden. 'Those tolls were held by a noble duke, a mem ber of that house, under charter granted by Charles 11., and if the inhabitants of Westminster were to say rescind that docL trine, and let them get rid of that charter without any proof of abuse, or any evidence to establish a charge of abuse, but merely because it was not convenient to theirs to be subject to such a charge, would not that b e cons id ere d a monstrous d o ctrine? And it' their lordships were to act on such a doctrine, where could it be supposed th e y wou ld stop? If t h ey a d o pt e d that in one case of property, what argument could be raised to resist in another? (Hear.) How many members of that house held their titles and possessed their rights to sit in that house by vir tue of a patent granted - by the Crown under the great seal. It might be expedient to remove them in the eyes of some indivi duals without any charge or any evidence.. of a charge being brought against them; but he would advise their lordships to be cautious not to take the first step; the first would lead to• the second, and the second to the thi r d. He would say to t heir,lord ships, stand on the first principles of justice, and defy public clamour, act as you are bound to act as gentlemen and as nobles of the land, and never mind the consequences. (Much cheer ing.) The corporations of England, the church, and the here-. ditary peerage stood as barriers between the throne on the one side and the democracy on the other—a check to the arbitrary power of the prerogative—a check to the license of democracy. (Cheers.) Those corporations were assailed at the time to which his noble and learned friend had referred 200 years ago, by the Power of the prerogative, because they stood in the way as a barrier against the arbitrary principles which the prerogative of the Crown was then anxious to establish. They triumphed in their resistance then • they were now a s sa il e d . on th e o th er side by the party of the movement, and they stood as a barrier, as it appeared from the documents he had - read to their lord ships, against the licebse of the democracy, and as a strengthen ing of the conservative party; therefore he would say to their lordships support and maintain-them. If they fell, the church would come next, and the hereditary peerage of the realm after svards. (Hear.) The aldermen were to be extinguished. What was the cry in the streets?- That the extinction of the peers must come next. But he had another objection to this bill. All the municipal corporations throughout this kingdom helchheir THE LIVERPOOL STAN DAnb. chartered rights under gifts and grants. from the Crown. That was apart Of the llow,er of the prerogative of the Crown—that which:caused the Crown to be looked up to and respected. Their lordships were now called upon to cut down those grants which had been the gifts ofimonarchs fur a period of 500 or 600 years; aod.instead'ef allowing the CroWn to continue to give new grants, the House of . Commonswas to come in and was to have „ . the initiative power, .and it was ►arliament. thai. was- to grant chartered rights upon the ruin of the charters whiCh had been granted-by the Crown. (Hear.) There was a great inconVe nionce in this. If a charter was granted by parliament, and worked ill, the Crown could,du nothing with It. If a charter was granted hy the CrOWn and it required. to be amended, an other-might be immediately granted. That power existed now, and it would. continue to.exist by law .so long. as charters were granted by the Crown, but the moment this bid was passed that law would cease. If it was said that self-electiOn was bad law, bow easy would it have been to have amended the 'charters: in that respect as ilieli;;;;;;ist:d,;tnd - t7ii:ive got rid of that principle? He had altered the present bill himself as' to that, and nothing could be more easy. If self-election was an evil, and.hereditarylegislation might be an evil with some, no doubt the house would pause before.it decided broadly that what was called self-election was an evil; hut if it vas, how easy would it have been to have got rid of that evil by providing fur an -open election. If an election required control, how easy would it'have been to have got rid of that evil by providing for an open elec tion. If an election required control, how easy would it have been to have appointed auditors—auditors nominated by the King. If there were defects in the administration of justice, - ...—._ which was not a ll ege d i n - the report of the commissioners, how easy would it have been to have remedied those defects by de claring that unless there was a recorder appointed no quarter sessions shOuld be held. But that would not have answered the objects and the purposes of those who were the promoters of the present bill. (Hear.) He had said before that' one circum stance which satisfied him of the true object-of this bill was au alteration that had been made in the elective franchise. When the reform •bill ,passed through. the House of - Commons, much discussion 'took place upon the rights of freemen --= whether the rights of freemen—those plague spots, as the attorney-general of the present gevernuient had called them—whether those rights should be maintained. It was at last declared that they should be maintained as a mode of conciliating theirlordships''house, and of inducing their lordships to pass that bill into a law, and which their lordships did not pass. Now, by another bill, pri vately and covertly brought into parliament, thoSe rights were entirely tnbe'swept away. A political measure more base than. that had never been thought of. (Cheers.) It was a whig 'nee sure—whig in its principle, whiginits character, and - whig in its object. (1 - lear.)• This • had , already been resisted over and over again —resisted alri t ost to the last; and before the bill finally passed, a proViso *as introduced for the purpose of applying al partial remedy. Their lordships might discuss this measure as• they pleased, but the foundation of it was the commissioners' rep port. Fle*Would ask-their lordships, sitting as legislators, and as: peers judicially, if they would deprive men oftheirfranchise,their properties, and their pecutliarrrights.•upon the foundation of a report made by commissioners collected from evidence such as they might clioose - to' collect? 'Would they not say to them selves who were those commissioners? 1-lad they seen them. acting in high stakiisns so as to'form a correct, opinion of their discretion; impartiality, caution, and sound judgment? BefOre their lordships ated upon the - faith of a report signed and pre pared by any set of inen,Whatesier,'they. would surely ask them selves such quegtions, and would never rot - went-4i strip' men ot their rights without making ' such inquiries. He would ask their lordships who Among therri knew , any thing of - these coliamis 7 sioneis ? Wai there one noble lord out oflwenty in that house who had heard the name of any One . Of these commissioners pro nonneed until they saw Me . report on 'their lordships' table ? Could they,•then, safely prcieeed Upon the report of persons of whom they knew , nothing ? He (Lord Lyndhuist) knew some thipg of thole commissioners. In the appointment of commis.i, siotimis their lordships would require that the commissioners should be men free from all imputations and suspicions of par tiality—free 'from all party motives. ( Hear, hear.) If a coin= mittee was appointed in the Hoese of Commons to investigate into any trifling matter—in olden times it was so; he knew not what it was now—it would be considered areproach not to _have a mixed•committee, a committee composed of members of dit fereut parties. He would call the attention of their lordships to the commissioners in this instance. In his observations he did not mean in the slightest degree to reflect upon the private characters of those gentlemen, many of whom he very well knew; but he wished to look at them in reference to their party feelings. In the first place there was John Bfackburne—every , body knew that he was - a - firm unflinching whig. He was at the head of the commission, and was a friend of his own. George Long-a strong and stanch whig. *Fortunatus Dwarris had been in the habit of going upon the circuit with himself, and was a whig. Sampson Augustus Rutnhall—a whig and smile thing more. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) George Hutten Wilkinson—who he was not acquainted with, but who was also Whig and something inure. ( Hear, heur.) Mr. Hogg—his noble and learned friend would vouch for Mr. llogg having alwayS been considered a whig. ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Peregrine Bingham—a whig and more. David Jardine—a determined whig. (Hear, hear.) It iehard Whitcombe—a whig. John Elliot Drinkwater—a strong whig. Thomas Flower Ellis, a friend of his noble and learned friend's—a whig, as his noble and learned friend would not deny. James Booth— a whig. Henry Reeve, whom he had the honour of knowing— strongly whig. (Hear, hear:) Charles Austin—au able man but he should say more than whig. (Hear, hear, and laughter Edward Rushton—a whig and more. Alexander Edward Cock burn—he did not know whether their lordships could examine him at the bar, as he did not know exactly where he was atpte sent ; but he was a whig and more. Then there was Daniel Maude, soil Of Mr. Matide,-on the-northern circuit—a 'very re spectable man, buthis noble and learned lord knew that he was strongly, strongly whig. (Hear, hear, and latighter.) There was also Mr. Gambier, who had not signed' the -report, but who was strongly Whig. Then there was Sir Francis - Palgrave, who certainly was-not a Whig, one who had written on the subject of corporate reform; and was disposed -a good deal againstexisting corporations, although- not a Whig he was introduced with the nineteen-Whigs into the commission. (Hear, hear.) Then :liist-4allicathei the seCretary=-(and again his noble and learned friend occurred to his mind)—Mr. Joseph Parkes. (Hoar, hear.) Mr. Joseph Parka, secretary to the Birmingham Union. (hear, hear, and laughter),-Joseph Parkes-, secretary to his Commission (hear, hear)—Joseph Parkes, secretary to the commission Ter dividing' the _toWus into wards. ( h ear, hear, and laughter.)' - After. this he ;would- ask their lordships if they nonltt dispose of the most trifling interests upon the decision of such a Atibunal? . (Hear, hear.) If his noble and learned friend was not sitting where he was as a_party,..how he would ridicule the whole• of this proceeding. (Hear, hear.) Would to God he had his. noble and learned friend's-powers, because if his noble and learned friend had had- to deal with this case adversely, how would he have shotvii up the twenty whigs ? How would. Mr. Blackburne have been made to figure as the leader of this commission, and how would the rear have been shown to have been brought up by Mr. Parkes, the friend of his noble and -learned friend? (Great cheering.) But their lordships had not the advantage of the judgment even of those twenty. Two, and in some instances only one commissioner had been sent to make inquiries, collect evidence, and make his report, which report was transmitted to the committee in town, who, acting upon that report, made their general report—a most extraordinary course of proceeding. Any one accustomed to a court of justice knew how easy it was fur an individual to go into a town where there were two parties with the King's commission in his- hand, saying he came to receive com plaints, to obtain evidence upon which the could make a plan.; sible report. But what was it their lordships had before them ? They had no evidence, they had the conclusions which these gentlemen had drawn from the evidence that was before them ; not even the conclusions of the 20, but the conclusions of one or two in particular places, which conclusions so drawn were acted upon as evidence by the commissioners- generally. Was not that enough of itself to sweep the whole away ? lie had not wished to take the noble viscount opposite by surprise, therefore he asked the noble viscount if he had any objection to lay the evidence on the table. The noble viscount said no. He after wards went down to the bar, where he consulted Mr. Joseph Parkes or some one else, and then thought it right to state that the evidence was in such a condition as to be unfit to be laid upon the table. (Hear, hear.) Why then were their lordships, upon the report of 20 or 30 persons, "apptsigted for party purposes, receiving their pay, to deprive persOls4oltheir rights and pro perties, without heating any evidena-3hatever against those persons ? His noble and learned friend had referred to the chancery commission. There the evidence taken was printed, so that everybody might have an opportunity of judging of its nature, byt in the present instance the evidence taken by 20 or 30 melt for a party object was to be concealed--from the know ledge. of the house. His noble and learned friend had the evidence which the'house was hat to have; that Which served his purpose was produced, while that .which _would ,not was with- . Lord BROUGI : IAM said the noble and learned lordwas Welcome to what he had, and offered him a sheet of paper he held in hii hand. . , • Lord Lift.; orreasT did not want that fragment. What mania suit his friend's purpose would not suit his. No doubt:that piece of papercontained a selection given. him by his friend; lqr. Joseph Parke s . Hi s no bl e ' an d l earne d f r i en d h a d eon : `tended that it was monstrous to assert that the commission was not legal. The present chief bard:tired' given a detailed opitiou to the Town-clerk of Leirester, 'which was acted 'upon, that it was.an illegal commission ; Sir William:Follett, who was sab.i ,sequently . constilted, had given a similar opinion. ' Lord flitoUq-lANI.--Sir William Follett had said thitt obedi-; ence to the coifrnissioncrr IN as not compulsorr-7. Lord LYN pficitsT considered that to be the same thing; anti that it was in fact mere waste paper. He (Lord Lyndhurst) had consulted Lord Eldon, who was of opinion that the . comi mission was illegal and could not be. enforced. He would not refer to any general principle; he put his finger, on passage in which the Word "deed" occurred, which Lord Brougham in reading had omitted. Lord liiiouO Hem said he had never read the Commission. Lord LYNnuurisr said that he would consider himself mistaken; he would consider that no corporation could be re ' quired or compelled to produce title deeds under this corn mission: The King could not compel an y man to produce his title deeds; it could not be done evens in the Court of Chancery unless a case was made out for it—and yet they were now to be told that the King could give fill authority to commissioners to cause parties to produce their title deeds ! He deniedthat there was any such power vested in the crown. As to the report of the commissioners, what did it state? The statement was, that in the great majority of the towns they had visited, a general and just dissatisfaction prevailed. Out of thirty or forty cases .where dissatisfaction was stated to prevail, when the particular facts came to be investigated _these charges turned out - to be utterly unfounded. So much for this general and just censure, which, when the charges wero investigated, canvasse d , s i fted, and discussed, turned out 'td be 'completely unfounded. Next as to the'question of ret , inue. The corporations Were generally charged with the mismanagement of their rev e n ues . N ow, Sir F. Palgrave had observed in his report, that these charges of mismanagement of revenue were confined to three or. four cases, and these fbr the most part wereora doubtful description. And here he would remark that the borough of Plymouth, which was certainly a popular corporation, as there were 400 or 500 members at least, and the corporation' of Berwick, which was also very popular in its constitution, were mentioned in the report itself as affording striking examples of mismanage ment of the corporate funds. It turned out, then, 'that "this , charge of inismanagerneurof the revenue did not so inuch apply to the close corporations, against whicht his billwas levelled, 'as, to the open and popular corporationS, to which all - the ethers were intended to •be assimilated. (Hear, hear.) The next point in the report to which he had to' call the attention of their lordships was the administration of justice. His - noble, and de'arned friend had thrown out many, observations, had 'Oven utterance to many sarcasms on the manner in which justice 'was .. administered at present in corporate towns, and observed, that when it was administered by political opponents, it was not ac counted justice.. But after all, what was the evidence which had been taken before the commissioners ? There was hardly any evidence at all on this head, and when the charge 4 that were made were sifted andexamined, the magistrates were acquitted by the commissioners themselves. (Hear.) Hitherto he had proceeded upon the statementS . made by Sir F. Palgrave. The counsel at the bar did not go into all the casesnponwhichthey were instructed, but they had given their lordships a sainple of the, report. By the way, he Should' very much wish to know whether the perversion .of the evidence of Alderman Parkes was wilful or accidental. His .evidence was taken acivon by a • shorthand-writer. The commissioners reported that the Duke of Newcastle bad obtained a place for him in exchange fur his Political interest, while the fact was that Lord. Grenville gave him the place at the request of Earl Fitzwilliam. When they detected errors of thiq description in the report could their lord ships rely upon its general accuracy T His lordship then pro ceeded to comment on the . partial nature of the report in a great variety of instance s , a nd concluded his observations on that part of the subject by saying it was impossible that their lordships could proceed on this .report sent out to the public by a packed commission such as be. had described. He would remind their lordships that these corporations were copies, imperfect copies he admitted, of the three estates of the realm, and yet they were to be annihilated, fur what purpose he could not tell, unless the new corporations- were to serve as models for a change of con stitution in that house. (Loud and vehement cheering.) It would come to this. There would be no defence for thenhurch, no defence for their own privileges, if they surrendered the cor porations to condemnation unheard. Their case would be like that of a singlehOnsel;;ftstanding in a street which was pulled down, which the owner would at last be forced to abandon The noble lord continued,--" Pause, my lords; consider. At all events do no act of injustice. (Loud cheers.) I know the claim ardor pratia jubentium will not operate on .the just and firm minds that I know do exist in your lordships' house." His lordship then examined the principal provisions of the bill with reference to the new constituencies, qualifications for holding office, church patronage, police, and the management of money held by the existing corporations in trust for charitable uses. He then asked, were their lordships prepared to pass such a measure without evidence? He would say of it, that under the pretence and colour of a bill for the reform of municipal cor porations, it was a party job—(loud cheers from the opposition benche's)—intended to supply the deficiencies of the reform bill, and to destroy the conservative party in the country, in order that their opponents might—and he would tell them it would be forfora short time—( hear, hear, )—recover their political influence. The noble lord, after thanking the house for the indulgence with which they had listened td' hitu, resumed 'his seat amid cheers from the opposition. Lord BROUGH A complained of havingbeen, unintentionally he was-convinced; misrepresented by his noble and learned friend. The Earl of Re °Noll thought that the speech of Lord Lynd hurst had no other object than that of throwing out the bill. The bill Was founded not on the report, but on the notoriety of the fact that reform was necessary. This nobody denied—the counsel at the bar admitted it. If the bill were so objection'able as the noble and learned' lord had described it, he ought to have given it a direct negative, for there could be little doubt if the • inquiry - wore entered into, it. would end in the defeat of the bill. The inquiry itself would be interminable, and would take years .before it could be, brought tna close. On these grounds he op 'pbstid the'amendment, beiause bethought it had no other 'object than to defeat the bill by delay. Lord Wii.t keLIFFE - denid that it was the iirtintion of the ,opptsitiori to defeat the bill by.deley.. It was their-intention to see justice done, and to thiS they woeld 'act Up, by giving to those -against Whom charges had been made an opportunity oT rebut ting: the allegatio us. Thu Marquis of LANs DOWNS opposed the amendment. The Drilte of NEWCASTLE did not think the bill one that they shoulri entertain; he was of opinion that it ought not to have been read a first time. To record his own opinion; though be would not divide the house, he should move that the bill be read this day six months. . . Lord DUNCA NNON thought the noble lord opposite hadbeen misinformed With respect to Mr. Parkes. He never had beets secretary to the union,' nor had he been- even a member of the council. , A noble- Lord said,'ai least Mr. Farkeiliall been a very active agent.- He- had written letters for them, and performed other ac ts of a secretary. . Lord HATHEUTON stated, that on one occasion Mr. Parkes had been professionally employed. The Earl of RA REIN 00 D was opposed to all unnecessary delay, but wished to save himself from the charge of inconsistency in voting for the amendment. The accusations made against the commissioners he had not been prepared for, and now he wished for further evidence. After what had been alleged against the commissioners by the counsel at their bar, it was necessary for their sake, for the commissioners themselves and for the public, that an investigation should take place. Foi these reasons he would vote for the amendment. Lord PLUNKET, without going into details, shortly stated his reasons for going into committee. The bill had been passed by the commons with little opposition generally, and. with none on principle. It substituted popular fur self-election ; and adapted corporations to the wants and benefits of the community. Go vernment might have proceeded on the general notoriety of existing .abuses,. and the popular anxiety for their removal. It had been ascertained by a solemn inquiry, what was the na ture of these corporations; no point was left unexplained; nothing that was protested against had been denied. This was a great public question, even if all were true that had been said of the commissioners, were they prepared to resist the reasonable wishes of the people? They should either go into committee, or reject the bill. He contended that by commission was the most constitutional mode of proceeding. He trusted their lord ships would be taught by experience. Their opposition and their concessions, in the cases of parliamentary reform. and emancipation, neither added to their power nor their. dignity. This Was a third experiment; let them remember the past, and consider whether they had the moral force to resist the Commons of England. After a few observations from the Duke of WELLINGTON and the 'Earl Of RIPON., Viscount MELBOURNE replied, and the gallery was cleared for a division. The numbers were,: For the amendment. 124 Against it • l‘lajority This. decision .was subsequently announced to the counsel, who were desited, to be in attendance on the following day, TuesdaY, at 3 o'clock. HOUSE • OF COMMONS.—TuEsDaY. The Speaker took the chair at twelve o'clock. Mr. BARCLAY repoited to the house, as chaiiman of the Car low election committee, that AI r. Lowther, one of the members of that committee, was unable' to attend from indispositiOn. Mr. Lowther was excused from further attendance. . The Chelsea water works bill, sent back from the lords with amendments, was agreed te. The weights and measures' bill was passed through a COM mittee.—Adjourued. • SECOND SITTING. Lord F. EGan.roN reported to the house, as chairman of the Great Yarmouth committee, that William Prentice, now in custody of the serjeant-at-arins,'still refused to•answ•er the ques tions put to him by the committee. _ Mr. HARDY presented a petition from Mr. Prentice, staling that he persisted in refusing to answer the question; because the reply would criminate himself; he prayed to be ' , allowed to visit his family in the custody of an officer. he debate was adjourned. Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON presented a petition respecting the late Duke of York's debts. DEFEAT OF THE LADYS' ADVOCATE. Mr. GR4NTLEY BERKELEY moved that the house do agree to the report of the select committee for providing fur the admis sion of a certain Dumber olladies to the stranglrs' gallery. The question was put, and the house divided. Against, the motion Ri—in favour of it 83-majority against the ladies! 3. COLONEL BRADLEY. Mr. T. DLNCOMBE'S motion for a select committee of inquiry into this case was defeated uy a majority of CB. The house was occupied on Mr. HOME'S motion respecting orange, lodges in the army for the remainder of the evening. The house and the debate levre adjourned at two o'clock. OxFonu. Mr. Robinson, town-clerk of Oxford, in his'description of the corporation of - that city, said that it held considerable property in trust for charitable uses; that, were the present trustees to die, nu provision was made by donors of that property to such a body as a town council; never heard a complaint against the HOUSE OF LORDS—WeoNEsnAy administration of those funds; wa3 convinced that, se far from The Earl of SnArrsouar Look his seat on the woolsack at being an improvement on the present system, the bill would be ' - . ruinous. Another witn ess from this place stated that the cha- one o clock., citable funds held by th e cor p orat i on amounte d to about. E 22,000 Lord LiainntlßST presented a petition from the mortgagees of property belonging to thel:orporation of Ludlow against the a year. Were the bill pa sse d, h e b e li eve d t h ere w o u ld b e no surplus funds, which the corporation were now in the habit of corporation reform bill. distributing, and that it would be most injurious to the city of Counsel were then called, and the house proceeded to hear Oxford. i evidence against the bill. The Town-Clerks of Worcester and Grantham were next ex- I ' - BRISTOL. amined Mx, Burgess examined by Sir Charles Wetherell.—This gen , after which the house adj o u rne d to s i x o'clock, it being ' then four o'clock. i tleman's examination lasted a very Ii ug time, in the course of At GUST 7, • it Sir Charles Wetherell said :—Now„ attend t‘ttiis passage in the repoit of the commissioners, at page 71—" The ruling principle of the corporation appears to have been at all times a desire bf power, and a jealousy of any undertaking over whiCh they cannot at pleasure exercise control, &c. ;" that the people were constantly discontented with the acts of the corporation, and that the cause of this was in temper of the corporation, inde pendently of party politics; that this disposition showe4 itself in an opposition on the part of the citizens, so that they (the com missioners) doubted whether the corporation cool,: do an act of real liberality without being liable,-to suspicion—is that true or false? Is it calumny, or is it truth?—My opinion is that it is not true. (A laugh.) My opinion is that the corporation ought not to have been visited by so severe a mark as that contained in the report. I think that so far from the citizens of Bristol— I mean the respectable inhabitants, the merchants, being dis satisfied at the corporation making any sacrifice for the. benefit of trade, that such an act would be received with pleasure and gratitude. Lord BROUGHAM cross-examined this witness, in order to extract from him an admission that the conduct of the commis sioners had been perfectly fair and honourable, but he failed is his object; the witness asserted that Mr. Drinkwater was hold ing constant correspondence with persons omit qf court. Mr. Fripp, who had been an alderman and magistrate of Bristol, was also examined. The charity revenues amounted to about £30,000 a-year; this sum was subdivided according to the • trusts of the charities, every guinea of which was applied to its proper chaiity. The church patronage of the corporation con sisted of twelve livings and two lectureships ; no living in the gift of the corporation - had - ever been 'SOW ;" they alwaYs en deavoured to find good pastors; by the present bill that patron age would rest in persons hostile to or not members of the church of England. The remission ot_toviri•dutrftom £5,000 to £1,600 had operated fav .urably tuatfie trade of Bristol. SANDwiott The Town-clerk of this borough stftted that its corporation was composed of men entertaining all shades of political opi nion; the corporate body never to hiS knowledge interfered in elections; the freemen of the Cinque Ports have rights as old as Magna Charta, both local and extended; they were ex pressly named in that Charts; they-were free of tolls through out, he believed, all England; he knew it was extensive in the neighbourhood, and he rather thought it went over England. Since 1822 he had lived in Sandwieh, and during all that time justice had been administered most satisfactorily. - At the close of the examination of another witness in this case, the house adjoncned. HOUSE OF COMMONS,--MorinAy. - - After the presenthtion Of • petitions, Sir W. RAE complained that the members "of the Scotch Church Commission bad been tinfairlyselected, being all, with a single exception, adherent's of the governthent. Lord J. RUS"SEILI, replied, that as the subject into 'Cvhieli they had to inquire involved not a party question, he thought it •diti not matter what•the •politieal °pillions of the borntrussieners might be. If the rest of the government be of the same - opinion, may we be allowed to ask how it happened that the commissioners have been carefully selected from one party o n ly The SPEAKER informed the house, that he had received a letter freer' one of the members for the eastern division of the count} , of Norfolk, stating that the grand jury for that county Would have no business before - them after Tuesday next, and desiring him to acquaint the house that, in the opinion of the counsel and attorney for the prosecutor, the evidence of Mr. Keith was necessary to that prosecution. M. I VCSIE then !moved . - a -resolution 10 the effect, that Mr. Keith be permitted to go down to Norwich in the custody el the sergeant-at-arms to give evidence in the prosecution against Pilgrim. Lord Sroesiorir nuked, as an amendment, that he (Mr, Keith) be brought to the bar, reprimanded, and discharged. This amendment being opposed, Lord JOHN RUSSELL " begged the house to consider that Mr. Keith was the seventh prisoner whom it had detained in New gate for interference in the Ipswich election. Therefore, with out denying that his offence was as great as that of Mr. Spar row, he thought it would be better for the house, as it had now secured the benefit of example by the numbers whom it had de- tained, and the time which it hail detained them, to proceed to the immediate consideration of Mr: Keith's case. If the'mat ter went to a division, he, should certainly support the motion that Mr. Keith be brought to the bar at once and discharged." TheJuong-AnvocaTc (Mr. C. Fergusson) declared his in tention of voting against Lord John Russell; so did Lord Eb rington, and others. On a division, Mr. Hume's motion was carried, and Lord StOrmont's amendment, though supported by the head of the goiernmera in the House of Commons, was lust by HO to 102. On the motion of Lord John Russell, seconded by Sir R. Peel, a resolution was agreed to expressive of the sense enter tained by-the-house of the services of Henry Seyinour, Esq., while Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. S. Rice explained to-the house . the terms on vihich the West India loan had been contracted for. Nearly the whole of the remainder of the sitting was occupied with the consideration of the Irish Church bill in Committee, • The , Limitation of Polls bit/ 'Wes'read a third time and pasied. Lord John Russell obtained leave to bring in, .and brought in, a bill for the "reduction of the militia staff in Great Britain and Ireland. The bill, it seems, will effect a reduction of one ' half of the staff; but his lordship said he did not propose it as a final measure, as he hoped to atile to bring the whole subject of the, militia before the house next year. The house adjourned at one o'clock. HOUSE: OF LORDS.-TUE3DAY. The house met at' eleven o'clock. Sir Launcelot Shadwell sattl r s Speak . Sir C. e . We r theell and Mr. Knight were in attendance as counsel against the municipal corporations bill: COVENTRY. Mr. Carter, the town-clerk of Coventry, was examined by , Mr. Knight. In the course of his examination he said-,The •uominissioners• are incorrect in their statements of the bOun daries:of boroughs; never heard a complaint against 'the ad ininistratiokof justice in the city ; the report of the toinrnis tOlierels incorrect. It appeared to me that the commissioners took 'down `every thing that militated againat the corporation more readily than they received evidence which'was. - favourable to it. I gave every assistance in furtherance of the inquiry. INo resistance was offered to the commissioners. am of opi nion, on my oath, that the inquiry was not fairly and impar tially conducted. ' The commissioners took hearsay evidence in almost all cases. About twenty-five witnesses were examined before the commissioners. I think it very important, in order to judge of what weight should be given to 'evidence, that the rank and character of th e witnesses should be known. The . witness Marriott , had been b oun d app r entice to me as a scri vener, I conceive. that in the evidence which he gave before the commissioners he betrayed my confidence, and acted in a manner unusual and unprofessional. The evidence of Marriott was given anonymously in eight or nine _parts of the report; so that, if I had not been aware of the fact, I should have supposed that eight or nine different parties had been examined. Mar. riott's t'eelings, it would appear, were nut friendly to the esta blished religion of the country; fora gentleman told me that he had said that the churches of 'England would afford excellent materials fur the reparation of the, roads. I saw him in frequent private'communication with the commissioners. He was in the habit 'of calling on them at their inn. The corporation pre sented a protest against the inquiry, which was received, but is uot noticed by the commissioners in their report. Mr Charles Woodcock, solicitor of Coventry, who attended the inquiry solely from Motives of curiosity, hail heard the evi dence given .by. Mr. Browitt, who admitted that he had been a party to get persons to swear, in order to . qualify themselves for taking up their freedom, thit they had served seven years' ap preniiceship. to a freeman. He said the thing was common, and that he himself had been party to it,'though he knew that some of the men swore falsely. Witness remonstrated to the com missioners against their receiving the evidence of a person who had admitted a fact which woultl disentitle him to credit: on his oath or affirmation. Browitt is a quaker. Witness was told by commissioners to sit down. , Many facts were stated in the report on the authority of this Browitt. One was, that the mayor of Coventry on one occasion was seen heading a mob. Witness was dining 'with the manor, at the Grecian Coffee house,-in London, at the very time that Browitt affirmed that he was heading a mob. The Speaker resumed the woolsack at six o'clock, SUTTON COLDFIELD. Mr. iloldbeach, deputy-steward of Sutton Coldfield , stated that thereat property of this corporation is worth.from. £6OO to £9OO per annum; it has upwards of £ 20,000 in Consols; in that was included all . that is applicable to charitable purposes. Thecotnmissioners arrived at Sutton Coldfiekl on the 4th No- vember, 1831, and summoned witness to attend ; had .a cor respondence with Mr. Cockburn in which he stated that he could not submit the books and papers of the corporation with out 'emission, which, however, he hetieved would not be refused. Thi'Commissi:niers again visited the borough in the month of December following, but on that occasion he did not munimon any memberi of the corporation. There were other persons who attendco, and who made complaints respecting the conduct of the corporation. I was present without being required to come, ant I proposed to give answers, and in some cases denials, . . to the statements made ilgainst the corporation, but the com missioner rellised to enter upon his minutes what I had to say, as not bearing upon the object of the inquiry. There was cle charge of improper conduct made out against the corporation. There were few of the members of that body made aware that Mr. Cockburn was in Sutton Coldfield. I. have seen that part of the printed report of the commissioners of inquiry . which re lates to Sutton Coldfield, but in many respects it is not true. That which relates to the officers is not correct, neither is the statement concerning the rental or the corporation quite correct. The expenditure of £3OOO for building mentioned in the report was regularly incurred under the sanction of the Court of Chancery ; it was revised in the usual way by the Master. The report is also. wrong where it states that the felling of the timber belonging to the corporation was a work proceeded in without public competition. The report states that the inhabitants are .not satisfied with the conduct of the corporation. It is wrong 'in that likewise, for only a few of theinhahitants are dissatisfied —the dissatisfied portion of the inhabitants encoded the com missioner. There is no interference on the part Of the corpora tion in any political matter: The borough does not return members to the House of Commons. The great bulk of the respectable inhabitants are satisfied with things as they are. • BERWICK-UPON-TViWID. Mr. Stevenson, examined. by Sir C. Wetherell.—Was a native of the borough ; the election was popular, the in tyor ,and, four bailiffs being chosen annually; never heard any complaints against the management of the corporation property.; attended the commissioners • burgesses and non-burgesses were exa mined. There could notlmve been a preponderance of opinion against the existing system; and if it had been stated there was, that statement was erroneous. The complaints made against the management Of the funds were made by persons not entitled to-share in them ah znitio by charter. The corporation was at, present in debt to the amount of about £50,000. The lands, flatteries, and hnosei, thie corporation hid, aintatittk-d ho annual value of £lO,OOO. LHICKSTER. Mr. Charles Meredith; examined by MT. Knigtht.—Was a solicitor, (not a member of the corporation;) had lived in Lei cester 45 years, and practised as an attorney for thirty years ; the business of the magistrates, in. and out of session, was trans acted with great fidelity and attention; the police was m a n age d to the perfect satisfaction of the inhabitants; was often politi cally opposed at elections to the corporation. Was at Leicester when the corporation commissioners came; they were th e same two who had been at Coventry. Was examined by them. His examination occupied an hour or more. Had read the report, but did not find a word of his evidence, nor even the substance of it, stated in that report. Was asked by the commissioners about the conduct of the magistrates, the administration of jus ,tice, and as to any complaints about the magistryy very par ticularly, but no trace of his answers appeared in the report. Had been for many years one of the county coroners. It ap peared to him that there was an intention on the part o f th e commissioners to collect all the evidence they could on one s id e, but none on the other . Conceived the conduct of the commis- sinners to be much otherwise than fair and impartial, which h e remarked to the commissioners themselves. be inquiry was conducted amidst much clamour and invective by the persons assembled, but not by the commissioners. The commissioners did not interfere to put down that clamour. A paper, to the purport of the one now produced, was signed by many -of the most respectable inhabitants, complaining of the way in which the inquiry was conducted, intended for the commissioners, but did not know that-it was given to the commissioners. Handed that paper to the town clerk. The paper did not appear iu the report. Was noiv accidentally in London, and had not come on purposeto be examined. Mr. THOMAS Burbidge described the mode of election, num ber, and officers of the corporation; thought there were from t)(CO to 3000 resident in the borough ; Sir'rhos. 'White's charity was eojoyed by the young freemen; sums of £lOO under that charity were lent to young tradesmen of the town; there,were other charities not exclusively appropriated to freemen. The corporation had a considerable estate left them by Aldernian Newton, one of the corporation. Ho thought it was now worth about £l,lOO or £1,21Y,/ a-year. By the trusts of the will the greater part of this revenue was a ppropriated to children of parents of the established church of England. The words of the will did not contain any such expression as "the corpora tion as at present established." He (Alderman Newton) gave the estate to the corporation as it was established, being him self at the time of making his will a member of the corporation. There were other charities of minor amouut. He was exam ined at,Leicester before the commissioners. He was examined the whole'of Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday, and the greater part of three other days. He was not directed by the govern ing body to afford any communication to the commissioners. He tits summoned, and the mayor was summoned, and wishing to giVe the commissioners all the information in his power, be went to the Castle.. He did not expect his examination was to be public. He found at the Castle a great number of the poli tical opponents of the corporation. He left the Castle, hoping to meet the commissioners in their way thither. He met them in the streets of the town, and told them that as he had doubts of the propriety of communicating to them what he krieW of the corporation eoncerns, he should feel obliged irthey would let his examination be postponed till he could see the recorder, which he would do by . Monday, and that there would' be no fur ther delay. They insisted on his commencing ,his examirrati6n at once. He asked for an assurance that he should not be in sulted by the parties before whonilie was going exhibit, The coinmisSioners promised to preserve order. The report whio counsel held in his hand was that made by hint to-the corpora= tion in writing as to what had passed at his .exantin,atiou be tween hitiself and the commissioners. ' Mr., KNIGHT then proceeded to read the repo r t, 'aft er which Burbidge was cross-examined by Lords g Brou - ham Plun kett, and Lyndhurst. `V Wen this case hadiaeen . disposed of, _ The Marquis of SALISBURY said that he had two . petitions to present to the house, one from Itornford; and the other from -Havering-atte-Bower in Bssex; praying for inquiry. He sug gested that the house should proceed with these cases, as there appeared to be no other case to go on with. Lord BitorottAsr advised' the noble marquis to have these cases ready by to-morrow, and if there was, an_ opportunity to takelhemahen, so much the better. Lord MRLBOUarsalere advanced to the table'eVideittly under a feeling of strong excitement, and said that he did not think either of the cases referred to ought to be entertained;—" And I protest—l protest for the third time," said the - noble lord, "against the course which your lordships are now pursuing. I consider it contrary to reason and to the practice of this house. 1 will not hold myself bound to it as a precedent, for I deem it to be erroneous, prejudicial; and pernicious, and, therefore, I repeat,-that I will not be bound to it in any respect. At the same time, 43 your lordships have decided the question against my conviction, 1 feel that I ant bound to bow to a majority of your lordships' house.. But I wish it to be utiderStoOd; that I bow to a majority of this house—to a majority, I repeat, of this house, and to that only. I consider myself coerced and con trolled by a superior pbwer, and, therefore, your - loidships may now act as sou think fit." The rapidity .and vehemence with which the neblelord uttered these observations appeared to sur prise their lordships, many of whom were about to retire, but again. resumed their seats. - The Marquis of LONDONDERRY observed that the house was placed in rather a dillicult situation, as the noble viscountap peered to be against the hearing of witnesses, although the noble and learned lord who was supposed to be in his confidence had Advised hint tothe contrary. By which of the noble lords was the house to beluided ? (Hear, hear.) Lord Beano st AM observed that he had not said a single word as to the necessity of having witnesses examined; what he did say was, that if the parties were ready, they:ought to go on. Ile entirely agreed with what had fallen from his noble friend, and was from the first opposed to having witnesses examined at the bar. As to the examination of town-clerks,-he conceived that the house might just as well examine ail of the six clerks in Chancery as those persons. He. considered' that their. lord ships, by admitting evidence on this bill, had allowed a very improper precedent, for it was openi ng the door to the admis sion of evidence in the case of every bill which might be brought before the house, Lord LYN DIIURST said that there was no motion before their lordships, and therefore the present discussion-was but wasting time. The Marquis of SALISBURY said that after the statement which had been made by the first minister of the crown, who of course was well acquainted with all the principles of the bill, the house had only one course to ursue, and that was, to act ppon their own decision. The noble lord had introduced the bill on his own responsibility, and their lordships' dtity was to see that it was one which ought to be passed. Without pro fessing any great legal knowledge, would ask if there ever was an instance in which a minister of the Croivn strove with out due inquiry to pats a measure involving die property of in dividuals to a considerable amouut. He contended that if this were to pass, parties would be defrauded out of their pro perty by a body of irresponsible commissioners, which property in the instance, of the two cases its Essex was given to them by the Crown itself, and that within the last seven years. Lord LYNOH UBST observed that the cases to which the noble marquis referred would be heard as any other cases of abuse when the proper time arrived. The -house then adjourned, at half-past eleven o'clock, on the understanding that the evidence was to be resumed at one o'clock to-morrow. (Tuesday), and continue until twelve at night. HOUSE OF COMMONS-WEDNESDAY. The SPEAK ER took the• chair at a few minutes to four o'clock. but there being only twenty-two , members present at four u' :lock, the house adiourue4l,ill CONSEIIVATISM IN,GT,QccpsTE.lip,t, FIRST ANNUM. DINNER OF THE WEST 6LOUCA,STERSHIRS CONSERVATIVE APSOCIATION. (Abridged from the Bath Chronicle.) The first annual dinner of the above Association took place at. Chipping Sodbury, on Tuesday last. The company sat down at the Town Hall, the Swan, and the Portcullis Inns, there being no room in the town sufficiently large toaccommodate all who attended. R. B. Hale, Esq., presided at the Town Hall, supported by Sir 13. Codrington, Bart.; and Colonel Daubeney; the Vice-President's chair was filled by Charles Ludlow Walker, Esq. J. Sampson, Esq., presided at the Swan, and" Colonel Master at the Portcullis lon. TIA number present amounted altogether to nearly 500. Among the company who dined at the Town Hall were— Sir B. Codrington, Bart., Lieutenant-Colonel Daubeney, Calitain Marsh, 11ev. Dr. Cook, Rev. Dr. Allen, Reverends R. T. Coates, Charles Crawley. Henry Shute, F. D. Foster, J. W. Jones, T. Crawley, C. Helder, T. J. Blofield, Charles Dowding, F. Darville, Henry Randolph, I. H. Dyer, T• Smith, Messrs. J. Arter, W. Arnold, jun., S. Ashley, W. Arnold, R. Arnold, Ebenezer Blatchley, F. T. Barnard, T. Barter, J. J. Broad, R. Bryant, G. Bennet, H. Bush; J, M• Barter, J. Bracey, C. Buchanan, G. Bush, IL H. Bush, C. A- Bush, D. Brook s , J. Barnett, Robert Collins, Rbt. Churchill 1. Carpenhurst, J. Chapple, J. Corbett, J. L. Codrington, W. Cole, G. Croome, J. Conolly, G. Gave, W. Clarke, JO:sep_h Cookson, J. Cole, Edward Doward, jun., W. Dyer, H. W. Daubeney. J. Dew, E. Dowding, J. Dyer, 5..8. Hatfield, W. Emblin, T. E. Edwards, Charles Emerson, J. Edwards, R. Emerson, S. G. Flock, T. Flook, jun., B. Ford, G. Pewster, Geo. Fewster, F. Frankcom, It. Gould, H. Giugell, G. Cordon, J. Hooper, D. Howe, William Had&v, G. Hopkins, S. G. Hounseil, John Higgs, R. B. Hale, John Haynes, W. Higgs, M. Higgs, C. Hopkins, Win. Harman, I. B. Hale, J. Hariis, H. Kelstone, W. IL S. Holford, Thos. Ketling, L. 1,. Lawrence, P.. D. Loman, W. Long, J. Lewes, C. Lowder, W. Lawrence , Hervey . Moreton, G. Master, C. A. Moore, P. Marker, J. Mackay, J. C. Neale, J. Nattriss, Isaac Niblett, J. Nichols, .James Perrin, W. Playne, J. Paul, R. Paul, jun., E. M. Page, jun., E. Parker, J. Pearce, W. Plumley, O. _C. Phillips, A. Parry, D. Pope,.Edward Playne, S. Purnell, Pittard, J. Pring, J. Pipe, E. H. Rich, H: Rich, W. Ruige, G. Salmon, H. Shield, J. Slater, Edward Sidney, J. Surman, J. B. - Stanley, D. Smith, F. Stockman, H. Stour, J. Stevenson; I. Stone; F. ,Savage, jun., William Taylor, William Taswell, J. Thomas, W. g r . Taylor, G. Taylor, \V. Thomas, G. 'Tying, Wm. Taylor, S. Vaugban, H. Vizard, Charles Vizard, Q. Vizard, F. White, F. White, jun., J. Wallington, 0. H. Williams, E. Wallington, H. Weatherstone, G. Worlock, H. Wollwood, S. Whitwicle C. L. Walker, W. Williams,.E.. Webb, A. Wait, J. Williams' W. White, &c. The customary loyal toasts, and the healths of " The Duke of Wellington," and " Sir Robert Peel," were given and re ceived with the greatest enthusiasm; Several eloquent speeches were delivered by the Chairman, Colonel Daubeney, the Rev. Dr, Cook, Sir Bethel Codrington, - Mr. Walker, Mr. Laurence, &c., in which the strongest determination was evinced to resist the iiireads of Popery, and support the Established Checb. At the conclusion of the evening the National Anthem .was .loudly called for from all quarters of the large. and crowded room, and it was sung, verse and chorus, literally with "heart and voice," with some additional verses appropriate to the times. Cheers were then,given for ", OAF, KiDg," " Our Coun try," " Our Laws," " Our Chairman," 'and . " Our Represen tative," after which the meeting broke' up, delighted with the festivities of a day spent in an open and manly display of sen timent'and political feeling, unmixed with the slightest alloy. THE METHODIST CONFERENCE. On Sunday the 26th ult., the pulpits of the different Wes leyan Chapels in Sheffield and immediate neighbourhood, as wet? as six or eight out of door stations,. were occupied..bY preachers from a distance; there have likewise been services at five o'clock in the mornings and ut seven in the - evenings- On Monday and Tuesday, various committees sat, including that for the management of the Society's Foreign Missions the importance of maintaining, and if possible argumetiting the efficiency of operations in different remote parts of the world. was Cargely dwelt upon; and while perfect cordialitY prevailed in the survey and discussion of plans, a spirit of li berality no- less signal characterised the proceetlingsseveral individuals present came forward with pledges of in cr eased pecuniary support—in two or three instances to a large amount- It was at the same, time resolved to send out not fewer than thirty-five missionaries to distant stations in addition to those already located. On Wednesday morning, at - six'o'clock, the Conference formally assembled in Carver-street Chapel, to fill up vacancies occasioned by death or otherwise in what is termed the " legal hundred,"—Dr. Warren, who had previously arrived at Broom-lodge; the residence of James Diximi, Esq. (a 'mem her of the Methodist New Connexion) being taken at that hour in the carriage of the last named gentleman. At eight o'clock , there was a public prayer meeting in the Chapel, which was well attended; the Rey. Messrs. Entwistle, Lessee, Atherton , and Wall engaging in the devotional exercises. In the fore noon, the election of officers took place, the Rev. R. Reece, who has been three years stationed in this town, being appointed President, by a majority of 121 "voles; and the Rev. R. Newtoo , Secretary, wit hqissistauls allowed on account of the state of his health, which, however, we are glad to learn, continues .te improve. The venerable President on taking the Chair, re" marked, that having served the Connexion to the best of his ability for 48 Years, he appeared in that place unexpectedly to himself, as he had received no intimation of the intention of late brethren until of comparatively recent period. For some years past he had determined to withdraw from the more public duties which the Connexion devolved upon some of its ineor tiers, into the quiet performance of his pastoral cares, and t o prepare himself for that departure from this wqrld, which at hie time of life could not be far distant ; aintldifis after having -endeavonred to serve his generation according to the wilt of God, sink quietly into the grave. This determination, however , was altered by the events of last Conference ; and he felt c alled upon as an old preacher-to come forward once again in defence of those principles which he had always loved, and in the maintenance of which his voice bad been, often heard, and in deprecation of measures the tendency of which was to uproot system which had formed some of the best characters of _their day and generation. To use a figure which had been frequent- 1 1, r adopted—he still loved the old ship; she had now upwards de; •niilliom passengers on -board—hundreds 'of thousands she WO landed safely at the haven of .eternal happiness. , He had ne fears of the storms and the tempests to be encountered on the voyage; the vessel had weathered many, and the "Pilot of the Galilean lake" was still at the halm : the vessel was yet sea worthy ; and although there might be a little discOrd among the peaeetagers and something 'like mutiny aruanwilie. crew, sile, would, he 'doubted not, perform her voyage in safety—woul d land at the desired port, if found faithful. The venerable' 1 3 resident spoke with great energy and feel" ing; he seemed - as if inspired with the spirit of his office, and " his youth was renewed as the eagle's." The whole of hid con' duct in the Chair has been marked by a vigorous judginent , great calmness and impartiality, and it is the general opinion that he is the very man to preside over the deliberations of bi g brethren at this important period. We nudes stand t oat t linty Preachers, including Missionaries , have died dm ing the past year; that the members in Connexio n have increased, although the precise amount is not yet known. Preachers on trial were next announce?! as usual, and questiob e relative to character considered. On Thursday morning, the important case of Dr. Warreu came on for consideration : some time was taken up in in*", liminary arrangements,, and in discussing the D.ictor's right 0 ' app r e he al from Conference th e Manchester decided that p DistrictDr. Warren ar Meeting. ren had forfeited lb e right of appeal. Ist. Beca use be ha d not given any notice el, appeal, as is usual in such c a se s; 2d . Because he had appealed in the interim to the law of the land, and to the public at large; 3d. Because his conduct subsequently to his suspension had beef' disorderly . and agitating, and consequently unrnethodistica't The principle being thus recognised, the indulgence of appea t was granted, and the whole affai r a greed to he entered into, 1.10" all formalities and technicalities waved on both sides. We are informed that proofs of contumacy in refusing to be tried. by the District Meeting—of slander of his Brethren—aw, l of injuriously agitating the Connexion, w e re abundantly 11 " - duced, to which Dr. W a rren replied in what was considere d at irregular and evasive. manner, quoting a- paragraph front th e last edition of his pamphlet expressive of his determined hes' tility to the Connexion; at the same time confessing that t/ 3 .`' refusal of the President at the last Conference to listen to I ° 4 dispute with Doctor Bunting was the turning point of-bis COS d uc t. toward the Connexion ; and that from that moment, a m " not before, he bad resolved to oppose the body. It was showe r that the refusal of the President to hear him, was only on ground of order; personal allusions being irrelevant to ""' business then in hand. The case, however, m i g ht h ave bee? entered into when Mr. Bunting's name was read; and even all though opportunity had been allowed to pass. yet the person a charge should be introduced if Dr. We: ren wished it. After a ,long and patier4 hearing, the suspension of 1 : 3 ":i Warren, by the Manchester Distiict Meeting, was confirtne li.v the Conference, with only one dissentient voice. 91.° Warren retired thanking the president most sincerely for tll very kind and impartial manner in which he had been trea te d by the chair throughout the whole of his trial. We understa a r that up to this time the Conference has been distinguished O. unanimity of sentiment, and the greatest harmony of feeling; BATI;RDAY.—'Phis morning the Conference baying assemn. a at the usual hour the different members addressed the mee tin on Dr. Warren's case, and we understand several power!, speeches were made ; after which, in conformity with the fif, ceding resolution gentirming the proceedings of the Manchestsv District Meeting, the Conference, who had on a previwas heard Dr. Warren at great lengtk in bis defence, and 1:" ha M da •ea ch a '