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

CORPORATION REFORM.

Lord POLTIMORE presented a petition from Exeter in
favour of the Corporation Bill. The petition was signed by
upwards of 4,000 persons.
The Bishop of EXETER defended the conduct of the
Corporation of Exeter.
Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the mer-
chants and bankers of Liverpool, expressing their admirationof
the conduct of the House of Lords with respect to the Muni-
cipal Reform Bill and stating their determination to support
them as an independent branch of the Legislature. The petition
was signed by five thousand three hundred persons, and was well
entitled to the consideration of their Lordships. The Noble
Lord also presented a similar petition from Leicester.
There could be no doubt whatever that the petition which
was presented by a Noble and Learned Lord yesterday
(Brougham), had been got up by misrepresentation. That
petition could not have been signed by 9,500 adult male
inhabitants of Leicester, if the petition he had now presented
was signed by 2,500 adult male inhabitants, which was the case,
because to every name attached to the petition he had presented
was a particular description of the person signing. If both
the petitions had been signed by the number stated
that would make twelve thousand adult male inha
bitants of Leicester, whereas, according to the last
census, the total amount of the population of Leicester
was 18,000. _ _ _

The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the
Dean and Chapter of Exeter, praying that a clause may be
introduced into the Corporation Reform Bill to secure certain
rights which they enjoy by virtue of several charters.
The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition from
Rochester, against the said Bill.
Lord MELBOURNE presented petitions in favour of the
Bill from Newark, Newcastle-under-Lyne, Saffron-Walden,
Newport, and the Tower Hamlets.
Lord STRANGFORD presented a petition from the
Corporation of Guildford praying to be excluded from the
operation of the Bill.

The Duke of BUCCLEUGH presented petitions from
Scotland in favour of the Church of Scotland. '

• Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition in favour of the
Corporation Bill from Norwich, signed by 6,631 inhabitants,
including freemen, and three-fourths of the merchants and
manufacturers of the city. It was also signed by several members
of the corporation and all the resident magistrates.
A Message from the Commons brought up the Tea Duties
Bill, and the reduction of the Militia Stair Bill.
Lord MELBOURNE said he wished to mention in re-
ference to a subject that excited much anxiety in the
House, viz., the termination of the session—in order to ex-
pedite that event, it would be necessary to pass the last-
named Bill as quickly as possible, because until that were
done the estimates could not be presented to the other
House. It was his intention therefore to propose the second
reading to-morrow night. . _

The" Highways Bill then went through Committee, and the
Renort was ordered to be brought up on Monday.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a petition
from the borough of Congleton in favour of the Corporation
Reform Bill.

COMMITTEE ON THE BILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Corporation
Reform Bill, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY in the Chair.
The preamble was postponed.
Clause the first was agreed to without any discussion.
On clause 2 being read,

a - -
Lord LYNDHURST, rose to propose the insertion
of a clause in this part of the Bill ; but first he would take
the opportunity of freeing himself from the imputation
of having charged the Corporation Commissioners with having
acted as partizans in making up the Report which they had
furnished to the House. He bad charged the Noble Viscount
and other Noble Lords with having chosen men ofeert sin political
principles to perform a great public duty.--( Hear.) He thought
that the adoption of such a course was most unjust, considering
the objects and results of the enquiry were to strip individuals
and bodies of men of their privileges and property. As to
the evidence that had been received at the bar, many of their
Lordships had attended that enquiry from dayto day, and he knew
what the result of that enquiry had been in the minds of many
of their- Lordships. In his own mind he was perfectly satisfied
upon the result of the inquiry, so far as it was applicable to 31
Corporations whose cases had been before their Lordships, that
there was no foundation whatever for the imputations that had
been cast upon them.—( Hear.) The evidence uniformly showed
a pure administration of justice—an administration unbiassed
by party motives and party views--an administration of justice
satisfactory to the people over whom that administration had
controul. This, my Lords, I say, is the result of the investi-
gation ; but I further say that, with respect to the administra-
tion of the public funds of these Corporations, the result of the
inquiry is, that the application of their revenues has been accu-
rate and free from all reproach. In no single instance has any
accusation been established in contradiction to the evidence,
which shows that the administration of the property has not
been pure and unexceptionable. Again, I refer to the evidence
which your Lordships have heard at the bar, with respect to
the great body of the respectable inhabitants of these thirty-one
Corporatiene That evidence shows that the administration
of the corporate powers has been exercised at least to the sa-
tisfaction of a great portion of the class to which I refer: But
this is not all, for the real question comes to this ; are we to be
governed
eby country,th e se sense,
abrye t information,tocom e
tothat state—which, I and the respectabi-
lity
fear, we arc fast approaching—to be governed by numbers
( Hear, hear.) This is another material consideration for your
Lordships, inasmuch as it is the testimony of intelligence
and • ability in favour of the present corporate administra-
tion. . The evidence has proved all this. But your Lord-
ships have had better evidence. You have heard at your
bar the evidence given by the public functionaries of the Cor-
porations—evidence more precise and more candid I never
heard given in any Court of Law.—( Hear.) In addition to that
which I have already stated as the result of this inquiry, ac
cording to the impression it has made on my mind, I think
that it has shown, in a great variety of instances, the want of
care and accusacy on the part of the Commissioners. I think
this has been established beyond the possibility of doubt ; and
I therefore say, considering what the evidence has been with
respect to the thirty-one Corporations, that 1, for one, cannot
consider this Report as affording a safe basis or foundation
upon which to make great alterations in the institutions of the
country, and to strip them of their rights and properties.—
( Hear, hear.) My Lords, I regret that a Noble and Learned
Lord is not here in his place; but an attempt has been made
—certainly a most dexterous one—to which I shall call your
attention. These Commissioners, because they think the evi-
dence was adduced for the purpose of convicting them,, ex-
pressed a desire to be heard themselves or by Counsel at
your Lordships' bar, in answer to the charges brought against
them ; but my Noble and Learned Friend has taken upon
himself to speak for the House, for lie has refused to let them
be heard. This, my Lords, is the ingenious and dexterous
attempt I allude to ; but what is the real question ? Are not
these same gentlemen now complaining—the vague accusers of
the Corporations—are they not the persons who have pre-
ferred charges which are to be followed by disfranchisement
and the loss of property ? Most certainly they are ; and
therefore it is that the Corporations came, before the House as
defendants praying to be heard by Counsel—a prayer which
your Lordships, inspired by that sound judgment which always
influences you were pleased to grant. Is not, then, the evi-
dence so taken to be of any avail ? Are not the Corporations
to have the benefit of it? I trust they are. The Report is
before you. The Noble Viscount also knows that if the Re-
port is a general Report, it does not contain the evidence, and
that it then becomes necessary to apply for the evidence. This
Report, I say, is unsatisfactory. We apply for the evidence,
and that evidence you refuse.--(Great cheering.) Such is
the course pursued, and the line of argument advanced, for
the purpose of depriving the Corporations of the benefit of
that evidence adduced at your Lordship's bar in contradiction
to the charges brought against them. I shall refer to the
charge made against the Duke of Newcastle. A charge was
made that the Duke of Newcastle had given a place to an
Alderman of the borough of East Retford, for the loss of
which he received a compensation of 2001. a year, and that
this had been done with a view cf promoting the parliamen--
tary interests of the Noble Duke. That charge is specifically
stated in the Report. But what is the fact ? The place was
obtained through the Granville connection, and through the
interest of Earl Fitzwilliam. I hold in my band the eai-
dence *which proved this ; but what is the explanation at-
tempted to be given? It is said that some person was pre-
sent, who took down the evidence in short-hand ; but that had
not been adduced in evidence. lam extremely sorry that
my Noble and Learned Friend is not here—(Loud cheers)—
for it certainly is the first time that I have ever beard it stated
as a proposition of law, that testimony is not to be received
on oath, because some person was present who took down
certain evidence in short-hand. I have four or five other
cases, to which I am desirous of eeferring ; but 1 feel ex-
tremely reluctant to.ge into them in the absence of my Noble
end Learned Friend. There is use case. hoWever, which
must state to your Lordships. It is the case of a man of
tiro
uP4•151. )• • the .e.FOrt it aavd 410 0 PlO7.
• • E