The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, I,OiNIDON, WEbIsTESDAY, JULY .21, 1836.

Mr. ROBINSON wished to postpone a petition—
(Loud cries of " Mr. Hume," and " Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER said the hour of public business had
now arrived, and he had not intended to call the name of
any other Gentleman for private business.
Mr. HUME was aware of that, and would not have
risen had it not been that his petition involved the character
of a Member of the House.—(Hear, hear.) The
petition was from six proprietors of Mr. Cundy's line.
He believed that all the procedings had been irregular,
and that what he was about to say was also
so ; but so much having been done, the House was bound
to afford some other opportunities to the parties concerned
for vindication. The petitioners stated that when their
line was brought out, their secretary received a letter from
Sir C. Burrell, on the part of the Beveridge Navigation,
asking if the Company were prepared to buy their interest
in the Navigation, for if not, they would oppose them before
Parliament. Stephenson's Line afterwards came out, and
then it was found that Sir Charles was one of its most
strenuous supporters, though not one word was said about
the purchase of the Navigation in question. They therefore
prayed for an inquiry, in order to find what promises had
been made to Sir C. Burrell, or any other, on his behalf.
With respect to the individual who had been brought to
the bar, and with respect to whom there was a great
difference of opinion, he was informed, that from con-
fusion he had been unable to express himself, and
that he was prepared to state that before a Committee
of the House, and many other facts relating to railways which
it would be important to know. He (Mr. Hume) would
leave it to the House when they should hear the Honourable
Baronet's explanation, to decide how far they thought
the matter would be worth their further attention.
Sir C. BURRELL was glad to have that opportunity
of making some explanation with regard to himself.—
(Hear, hear.) As to the canal in question, which he
had been described as the chief owner of, that was a gross
misrepresentation. He could only say for himself, that in
the proceedings he had taken, he had never sought any
advantage 'whatever.—(Hear.) He was able to offer
to the House the evidence of a most respectable
individual relative to his conduct and transactions in
this matter, and if it was the wish of the Members of
the House to hear that evidence, the Gentleman was
ready to give it at the Bar of the House.—(Hear.)
Mr. Cundy had called upon him (Sir C. Burrell), and stated
it was his intention to project a railway from Shoreham
to Brighton, when he asked Mr. Cundy to show him
the line, stating that he was one of the trustees of a canal
through which he was afraid the line would pass, and was
bound by his oath as a trustee to preserve the canal.
Mr. Cundy showed him the line, when he stated it would
be objected to by the trustees. His answer was, "we
will buy your works of you."--(Hear, hear.) He said,
that as to money he did not want money, that he re-
presented the greater part of the monied interest in Man-
chester, who were only anxious to get their capital
employed.—(Hear, hear.) The allegations that were
now made against him were made upon a totally dif-
ferent ground than the allegations of the Honourable
Member ; there he was distinctly charged with having made
an offer with regard to his own property, for the purpose of
protecting his own interests. Now he would state posi-
tively that although the proposed measure would do him the
greatest injury, he had made no terms with any one, but had
left it to arbitration. He believed he had done only that
which it was his duty as a Member of that House to do
and he was convinced, upon the examination before the
Committee, that Stephenson's line was the best one.
As to Mr. Cundy's line, it was a downright farce.
The Hon. Member here referred to clause 67, of the
Bill, which authorised the Railway Company to purchase
land from the Basingstoke Canal Company, and contended
that having acted on behalf and as the trustee of another
Company, he had done nothing inconsistent with his
character or honour as a Member of Parliament, and he
boldly and fearlessly submitted himself to the decision of
the House.—(Loud cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER only
regretted, upon the satisfactory explanation of the matter
afforded by the letter, that the Hon. Member would have
attached any personal importance to it.—( Hear.) The
Hon. Baronet, it appeared by the letter, had acted merely
as the trustee of the Beveridge Navigation Com-
pany, and had felt it his duty to demand compensation on
their behalf. It would have been unjustifiable in him to
have allowed the rights of that Company to be compromised.
Mr. DENISON had known the Hon. Baronet ever
since his youth, and from that knowledge he was firmly of
opinion that there was not one word of truth in the allega-
tions of the petition. He would only further say, that
he thought the constitution of Committees on private bills
was very bad. In his opinion they ought to be assi-
milated is election Committees—taking evidence on oath,
and adjourning if all the Members were not present.--
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GORING was at first, alonc, with his Hon. Col-
league (Sir C. Burrell), in favour of Cundy's Line ; but his
conuct was so bad that no faith could be put in a word he
said. He had a letter in his hand, which showed the
manner in which he tried to obtain his (Mr. Goring's) con,
stituents to write to him.
Mr. HUME rose to order. He had not said a word in
presentinc, the petition, because all the parties were not
before them. The line would be best settled by the
respective Committees. He supposed the letter alluded
to the line.
Mr. GORING said this letter was with reference to the
transaction.—(Hear, hear.) It was dated February, 1834.
Afterwards several gentlemen, who had been on Mr. Cun-
dy's Committee, withdrew their - names from it. Nearly
every person in Shoreham had presented a petition in
favour of Stephenson's line ; he himself had pre-
sented a petition, signed by 320 individuals, in
favour of Stephenson's line ; and, under these circum-
stances, he thought that he and his Hon. Colleague had
had very good reason for pursuing the course they had
taken.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND thought it was
time the House should put an end to the subject, by say-
ing the Hon. Baronet had not done anythingc, derogatory
to his character as a Member of the House. But matters
had been gone into by which great injustice had been done
to an individual, who had been dragged before the House
once, and would not be allowed to answer the charges that
had been wade against him.
Sir R. PEEL thought that a dangerous precedent would
be established if allegations which were found to be un-
founded were allowed to be made as to the motives of Mem-
bers of that House.
Mr. HUME begged to remind the Right Hon. Baronet
that the circumstances referred to in the petition arose out
of a former transaction, and were not brought forward for
the purpose of inculpating any Hon. Member of that House.
Mr. P. THOMSON thought the petition a mere at-
tempt to bolster up a case which had failed to be made out
before the House, and hoped it would not be received. The
House would do best, in his opinion, by putting an end to
the matter.
Mr. WARBURTON hoped his Hon. Friend would
withdraw the petition.
Mr. HUME consented to do so, in compliance with what
appeared to be the general wish of the House.
ATTACK ON FONTARABIA.
Mr. MACLEAN begged to know whether the Hon.
Gentleman opposite would have any objection to inform him
of the number of seamen employed under the order of Lord
John Hay, on the coast of Spain, the number engaged
in the attack at Fontarabia, and the number of killed and
wounded.
Mr. C. WOOD begged to know which of the questions
be meant to ask ?
Mr. MACLEAN begged to know the number of men em-
ployed under Lord John Hay ?
Mr. C. WOOD could not give the Hon. Gentleman the
requisite information.
Mr. .MACLEAN—Then I am to understand that the
Hon. M. ;tuber refuses to give the country the necessary in-
formation on this point.—(Loud cries of Hear, from the
Oppositio n Benches.)
In ansv ver to a question from Mr. PRAED,
Lord ..14 DHN RUSSELL said that circulars relative to
the registr•ation of voters bad been sent to some of the
overseers. a,fter the passing of the Reform Bill, whch were
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS.
The H :ouse then went into Committee on the Charitable
Trusts B ill, Mr. Bernal in the chair.
On cl, ause 3,
Mr. 1, ' INTHROP PRAED moved that all freemen
in Corporl ite towns have the right of voting jointly with the
burgesses- He did not think the system of popular election
for charita: ble trustees was, or could be made good ; but if it
was to be carried into effect, he saw no reason why the
freemen sh, 3uld be excluded.
Mr. V. ;MITH opposed the amendment, which he did
not think ( iame well from the Hon. Member. The free-

men were fr equently the recipients of the charities, and they,
of course, v were the very worst in whose hands the election
of trustees s would be placed.
Mr. WI LLIAMS would support the motion of the
Hon. Stemb •er opposite (Mr. Praed). He considered that
freemen we re justly entitled to have some control in
the man; kgel molt of their property.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. S, C A .RLETT objected to the principle of popular
election gether in the case of Charitable Funds, and

consider
those fu

3a. that freemen alone ought to have control over

Mr. J SIA.CLEAN supported the motion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was opposed, on the
ground, amongst many others, that such a change would re-
quire di Eferent machinery from that which existed at present.
Mr. HUME was inclined to support the clause as it
stood at `. present.
Sir E L. PEEL said there existed at present a freeman's
roll, am. ( 41 that was required was to give these freemen

right of voting for charitable trusteet 'which was a mind
privilege to that which they were allowed to exercise of vot-
ing for Members of that House. This motion would, he
thought, give, if agreed to, satisfaction to a large number of
persons, and would not interfere with the security of elec-
tion for charitable trustees, which the Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite seemed so anxious to effect.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the question of entrusting
the power of voting for Members of Parliament to freemen,
and giving them the right of electing charitable trustees,
stood on totally different grounds. The political rights
which were claimed by the freemen they had long enjoyed,
and it was considered that there was not sufficient ground
for disfranchising them from voting for Members of Parlia-
ment. But the present proposal was to invest the freemen
with rights which they had never before enjoyed, and of
which they were not, in his opinion, as good recipients as
those which the Bill provided.—(Hear, hear.) It was found
by the report of the Commissioners, that the majority of
those freemen, indeed generally three-fourths of them, were
possessed of scarcely any property at all, and were, in fact,
paupers.

- Mr. D. W. HARVEY could not understand why it
was that the advocates of popular rights should be always
so anxious to narrow them. It was not true that the
freemen in towns had no interest in the property in ques-
tion. They had a very great interest in it. The estates
which it was now proposed to commit to the charge of the
new trustees had been given in the first instance, either
annually among the freemen, or made applicable to the edu-
cation of their children. Here was a very well defined
right. For his part he did not think that either the in-
habitants or the town councils were the proper persons to
administer to the trusts. He should much prefer having
them under the settled and constant supervision of free and
independent parties.—(Hear.) He thought it would be
far better and more likely to secure the due administra-
tion of the funds, if the Bill were allowed to stand over for
more mature consideration.--(Hear.) Before sitting
down, he could not avoid making one remark upon an ob-
servation which fell from the Noble Lord. The Noble
Lord objected to making the freemen of England the ad-
miinistrators of the charitable funds of their towns. Why,
these same individuals were the very persons whom the
Noble Lord had but lately eulogised as the only fitting
element through which Members should be returned to
Parliament.—(Cheers.) They were abundantly qualified,
and quite sufficiently sagacious to perceive who were the
fit trustees of the nation's interests ; but the moment they
were desirous of being placed in a situation to protect their
own property, they became paupers, worthless beings, and
the mere refuse of the earth. There was certainly some-
thing inconsistent in this.—(Cheers.)
The Committee then divided, when the numbers were—
Ayes
Noes
Majority against the amendment
The clause wag then agreed to.
On the fourth clause being read,
Sir ROBERT PEEL stated that he entertained a great
objection to the provision that the mayor should be ex officio
the chairman of the trustees.
Mr. WARBURTON was of opinion that when parties
were nearly balanced, the majority ought to have the grain
of influence which the appointment of the mayor would give
them.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM observed that if the mayor were
to be ex officio the chairman of the trustees, it would not be
merely a grain of influence which a majority in a town would
possess ; they would in fact exercise a perfect domination.
There was no animal in the Zoological Gardens so rare as
an impartial mayor. The persons who were elected mayors
were almost universally violent political partisans.
Dr. BO WRING reprobated the attempts which were
continually made by the other side of the House to remove
the influence of public opinion from all our institutions.
Mr. CHARLTON contended that the clause was con-
trary to the privileges of the Municipal Bill.
Mr. STRUTT and Lord STORMONT each said a
few words, the purport of which we were unable to collect.
Mr. VERNON SMITH observed that it was not in-
tended to give the mayor any influence ; because, as chair-
man, he could not vote at all except when parties were ex-
actly balanced. It was not to be believed that on such
subjects, and in such circumstances, a mayor would allow
his political opinions to bias his conduct. He (Mr. Vernon
Smith) was, however, not unwilling to abide by the propo-
sition which he made on a former occasion, namely, that
the trustees should at their first meeting elect a chairman ;
and that, failing in that, the mayor, as the most prominent
person in the town, should be the chairman.
Mr. SCARLETT made a few observations, which did
not reach the gallery.
Sir R. PEEL proposed that the trustees should elect
the chairman, and that if they did not do so within a certain
time, then the mayor should be the chairman.
After some further conversation, we understood that Mr.
Vernon Smith's prop..;tion was introduced
into the clause
as an amendment.
The clause so amended was then ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
On clause 12 being read, which provides that if the Town
Council neglect to appoint a Chairman within one month
after the time specified in the Act, the trustees shall ap-
point one of themselves to Act as Chairman ; and in the
event of their failing to do so, that then the Mayor for the
time being shall act as Chairman.
Sir R. PEEL objected to the latter part of the clause,
and moved that it be omitted.
The Committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it
Majority for the clause --23

Mr. SCARLETT moved that a proviso be added to
the clause, enacting that no decision or act of the trustees
should be valid or have any effect in any matter relating to
the sale or exchange of any charitable estate of a real or
personal nature, or any change in the management or ad-
ministration of any such charitable estate, unless notice
thereof shall be duly given, at the previous meeting of the
trustees to the Secretary, and by him communicated
to the trustees assembled at such previous meeting.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the motion,
and said that the Hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the
trustees would be subject to the vigilant controul of the
Attorney-General in the Court of Chancery, who would no
doubt exercise the powers confided to him, if they should
be guilty of any improper conduct in the management of
the charitable estates.
After a few words from Mr. SCARLETT in reply, the
Committee divided—
Ayes
Nees

••••
Majority against the motion
The remaining clauses and the preamble of the Bill were
then agreed to. The House resumed, and the report was
ordered to be received on Thursday next.
COUNTY ELECTIONS' POLLS BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the adjourned debate
on the Report of this Bill.
The Marquis of CHANDOS wished to ask the Noble
Lord how long the poll would be kept open.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—From eight in the morning
till five in the afternoon.
The Marquis of CHANDOS thought that five in the
afternoon was too late for some periods of the year ; it would
be dark at that time, and as it was impossible to say at what
time of the year an election would take place, it might hap-
pen that the poll would be open after daylight. He en-
tertained therefore very strong objections to the poll be-
ing continued to so late an hour.
Mr. HUME said if the Noble Marquis had attended to
the evidence given before the Committee up stairs, his
fears would have been very much relieved, if not altogether
done away with. He believed that practically there would
be very little polling after four o'clock.

Mr. A. TREVOR objected to the polling of counties
being limited to one day.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that one day would
be sufficient. With respect to the hours, if it was the
wish of any party in the House that the polling should be-
gin at 7 and close at 4, so that an equal number of hours
should be given, he should make no objection. He had
found by experience that in counties the elections virtually
terminated at three o'clock in the afternoon of the first day ;
he was therefore quite satisfied that one day would be suf-
ficient for county elections.
After some conversation, the House divided on the
question that the report be brought up—
For the motion

Against it
Majority
The report was aecordingly brought up.
On the amendments being read,
The Marquis of C HANDOS moved, as an amendment,
that the power of appointing the polling places should be
vested in the magistrates at Quarter Sessions, instead of
the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
After a short conversation, the gallery was cleared for a
division, but we understood that none took place. On our
return to the gallery, we found the Speaker putting the
question that the clause be agreed to.
The House then divided—
For the clause
Against it
Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
The Earl of LINCOLN then moved that the clause
be omitted.—The House then divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
Sir T. FREMA NILE moved that the provisions of
the Bill should not apply to elections taking place between
the Ist of November and the Ist of April.