The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1535

to be heard by Counsel, and if the right were acknowledged
in one instance, it must necessarily be acknowledged in all.
Coventry had no greater claim to be heard than Liverpool,
or Warwick, or Maidstone, or any other of the corporate
towns of the kingdom, whose interests would be affected by
that Bill. Sir Thomas White's was not the only charity in
which corporate bodies had an interest. There was Smith's
charity, and the Bedford charity, in each of which precisely
the same claims might be put forward. Already there were
twenty towns claiming to be heard by counsel ; accede to the
present proposition, and by the end of another week there
would be two hundred. In each of those two hundred cases,
at least two counsel would be employed, and thus not only
would the House have to listen to four hundred speeches, of
the duration of each of which two hours might be taken as
a short average, but there would also be all the details of
evidence obtained from perhaps as many as a thousand wit-
nesses. It was clear, therefore, that their Lordships must
either make their own sittings perpetual, or else reject such
a proposition as that which the Noble Lord ( Strangford) had
brought forward. There certainly was one arrangement,
under which it would be possible, and perhaps advantageous,
that counsel should be heard. If all the parties opposed to
the Bill would consent to consolidate their opposition
under one banner—select two counsel to conduct their
case, and agree to abide by the result of the argument which
those two counsel should be enabled to advance against
it ; he was not aware that there would be any objection to
the adoption of such a course. If, for instance, Sir Charles
Wetherell and Mr. Knight, two of the most eminent men at
that time at the bar, should be selected to conduct the argu-
ment, and should be admitted to their Lordships' bar to op-
pose the principle of the Bill, he was quite sure that any
particular Corporation would be very foolish in afterwards
expressing a wish to be heard separately ; because if those
learned and accomplished gentlemen could not convince their
Lordships by the arguments which they should advance upon
the subject, he did not know who could.—(Hear, hear.) 'fo
such an arrangement he (Lord Brougham) should not be
opposed • but he did most peremptorily object to the motion
then under the consideration of the House, because it seemed
calculated by a side-wind to get rid of the whole subject.
The Earl of RIPON had heard with satisfaction the
manner in which the Noble and Learned Lord had vindicated
their Lordships from the charge that there existed on their
part any desire to interpose any unreasonable or unjustifiable
delay in the early and immediate consideration of the Bill.
For his own part he (Lord Ripon) thought that nothing would
be more unbecoming, more absurd, or less creditable than
the adoption of such a course ; but it did not follow from that
that there might not be circumstances in the case which would
make it advisable and just for their Lordships to give some
hearinc, to the petitioners who appeared before them and
ho had therefore heard with great satisfaction the suggestions
thrown out by the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham), by
which, as it seemed to him, justice might be done without the
interposition of any inconvenient delay. If, indeed, the effect
of the proposition made by his Noble Friend on the right
(Lord Strangford) were to be that they should hear counsel
from every borough which should petition against the Bill, it
must be obvious that the labours of the House must be inter-
minable. But it appeared to him that there would be no im-
proper delay, if they were to accede to the proposition of the
Noble and Learned Lord, which, judging from what had fallen
from the Noble Duke, would not be objectionable to him. He
trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would be induced to
adopt that proposition. But if it were right and practicable
to take that course with respect to the principle of the Bill, he
thought it would be equally right and equally practicable to
do the same with regard to those peculiar objections on which
so many of the petitioners relied. It appeared to him to be of
the utmost importance that those parts of the Bill should be
argued which affected, not the political rights, but the pecu-
niary interests of the parties.
Lord FALMOUTH agreed with the Noble Lord who had
just sat down, in the distinction which he had drawn between
the hearing of Counsel merely on the principle of the Bill,
and the hearing of them on those particular parts of it which
affected individual interests. Why were the petitioners to be
deprived of the right of being heard in opposition to the
charges brought against them ? They were British subjects—
they had a right to be heard ; but, said the Noble Viscount
(Melbourne), " We have nothing to do with the charges con-
tained in the Report—we legislate generally." That might
be true enough ; but in point of common sense and common
reason, he asked, on what was the Bill founded? Was it not
founded on the Report of the Commissioners, setting forth the
very charges of which the petitioners complained ? With re-
spect to the evidence taken before the Commissioners, he
could not speak of it with any patience. He had looked into
that evidence, and he would venture to say that a mass of
grosser exaggeration and misrepresentation never disgraced
the table of a legislative assembly. He was willing to accede
to the proposition of limiting the opposition to the principle
of the Bill to the argument of two counsel ; but he still
thought that the petitioners had a right to be heard upon those
points which affected their individual interests.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought that if the House
wished to do justice to those whom it proposed to disfranchise,
it ought first to hear them • and, in his opinion, the parties
ought to be heard before the principle of the Bill was recog-
nized by their Lordships, as it would be after the measure had
been read a second time.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE observed, that the last portion of
the observations which had fallen from the Noble Viscount at
the head of his Majesty's Government, certainly held out a
threat against the rights, privileges, and independence of that
House. It was too clear not to strike every one of their
Lordships, and he was sure it would be equally obvious out of
doors. An attack was made by the Bill on the actual property
of the Corporations who were affected by it; and, in his opi-
nion, they had an unequivocal right to be heard in defence of
that property. Delay was by no means his object, and he was
quite aware that if Counsel were to be heard in every case, it
would be a virtual defeat of the Bill. But he thought that
they might all be called upon to state their cases, and that
their Lordships might then determine what cases should be de-
fended by Counsel. That would save the appearance of de-
nying the right, and yet would not waste their Lordships'
time. He rather wished that his Noble Friend near him
had postponed his proposition until after the second reading of
the Bill.
The Earl of WINCHIL SE A protested against suffering
a Bill to pass into a law which would not only at once af-
fect all the existing rights and privileges of the individuals
against whom it was directed, but would in its consequences
affect every species of property. It was under a strong
sense of the duty which he owed to his countrymen that he ap-
peared among their Lordships that evening. The eyes of the
whole naiion were fixed upon their Lordships, and at no for-
mer period had every individual Member of that House a
more important duty to perform. From the bottom of his
heart he declared that if the Bill only went to extend certain
privileges on constitutional grounds to a greater body of his
countrymen—if it only went to correct abuses which had crept
into existing institutions, he should be far from opposing it.
But it was founded on a principle to which he could never
consent, namely, that any portion of his countrymen might,
without sufficient evidence of the necessity of the case, be de-
prived of any propeaty or privileges which they enjoyed.
More especialy he objected to the destruction of the privi-
leges of the freemen, whether derived from hereditary descent
or acquired by the painful toil of an apprenticeship. He
would divide the House on that question.
Lord BROUGHAM thought that something like the
course which he was about to suggest might enable their Lord-
ships to do justice without subjecting themselves to any undue
imputations. It was founded on a precedent in 1808, when
a measure having been brought into Parliament affecting the
interests of five great trading communities, viz., Liverpool,
Manchester, Hull, London, and Birmingham, those commu-
nities agreed to consolidate their claims, and to be heard by
one counsel. He (Lord Brougham) was the counsel em-
ployed; and he remembered that he occupied only about an
hour of their Lordship's time, and only about two hours of
the time of the then House. A similar precedent might be
found in 1746, the year after the rebellion. What he sug-
gested was, that the Bill should be read a second time, sub
silentio, if their Lordship's pleased ; and that the Committee
should be put off until a period when counsel might be prepared
to attend.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND (as we understood his
Royal Highness) had no objection to such a proposition, if
it were distinctly understood that their Lordships did not
concede the principle of the Bill by acceding to it ' • but that
the principle of the Bill should be still open to discussion
on the Report, or on the third reading. He by no means
wished for delay ; he was only anxious that justice should
be done.
Lord LYNDHURST did not understand that the peti-
tioners wished to be heard by counsel against the general
principle of the Bill; he understood that they wished to be
heard against the charges which the Bill contained against
them.--( Lord Melbourne denied across the table that there
were such charges in the Bill.)—Why the Noble Viscount
could not have read the Bill. The preamble stated that
" divers bodies corporate had, partly by neglect and abuses of
the charters granted and confirmed to them," &c. Now
these bodies corporate wished to be heard by counsel, not
against the principle of the Bill, but against the allegations
and charges against them which it contained. They said that
those allegations and charges were founded on garbled evi-
dence, and that they were false. Here was a Bill of disfran-
chisement operating on a hundred and forty corporations. If
counsel were to be heard, which he contended they ought to
be, some precise understanding ought to be come to with
respect to the extent to which they should be beard. In the
case of Coventry the objection was not to the principle of the
Bill so much as to its details. He had had some communica-
tion with the parties interested ; and they asserted that there
were facts connected with the case which, if allowed to come
out, would cover with disgrace the individual on whose report
the part of the Bill which affected them was founded.
The Duke of WELLINGTON enumerated about six to
eight corporate bodies, among which we caught the names
of Marlborough and Hereford, as wishing to be heard against
the Bill by counsel; and Bristol and Liverpool, as wishing
to be heard against the Bill by their recorders. If the House
were pleased to accede to the proposition of hearing two
counsel on the whole case, the Bill might be read a second
time now, and the motion for going into a Committee be fixed
for some day in the latter end of the week, on which day the
counsel might be called to the bar.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH could understand how the
different parties might agree to be heard by two counsel
against the general principle of the Bill ; but could not un-
derstand how they could agree to be heard by two counsel
against its numerous and distinct details.

Viscount MELBOURNE, in signifying his assent to the
proposition of hearing two counsel, begged their Lordships to
be pleased to recollect the situation in which he stood when he
addressed them early in the evening,. He had not then heard
of any such proposition. All that he knew was, that a Noble
Viscount, in presenting a petition from a particular corpora-

tion, moved that the petitioners be heard by counsel. He had
been charged with throwing out threats against their Lord-
ships, because he had felt it to be his duty to address to them
a strong admonition against the adoption of a course which,
in his opinion, would prove exceedingly prejudicial. The
Noble Duke frequently addressed strong admonitions to him
(Lord Melbourne), which he always took in good part; and
certainly, therefore, he considered himself entitled to remon-
strate against any conduct on the other side of the House
which appeared to him to be ill-judged and unadvisable. His
opinion as to the inexpediency of hearing counsel remained as
he had already stated it. At the same time if, under the pro-
posed modification, it was the feeling of the House that coun-
sel ought to be heard, he would support the proposition. But
to hear counsel on every particular case would be a useless and
an interminable proceeding. He did not believe that it had
been proposed with a view to delay ; but undoubtedly the de-
lay which it must occasion would be fatal to the measure. To
any fair and moderate proposition, he repeated that he would
not object.
The Earl of MANSFIELD said that if the Noble Viscount
was only inclined to do justice, there was not the slightest
wish on his (Lord Mansfield's) side of the House for procras-
tination. But they contended that in all cases in which the
interests of individuals or of communities were implicated,
no legislative measure ought to be adopted without in the
first place affording the parties concerned an opportunity
of stating and proving in what manner they were unjustly
affected by it. The petitioners in the present case claimed to
be heard against the Bill, not in its legislative character, but
as affecting them in its details, which they characterized as
partial and unjust. They declared that they had reason to
complain of the ground on which, according to the preamble
of the Bill, they were charged with neglect and abuse;
and prayed to be allowed to defend themselves by counsel
against the imputation ; nay, to support that defence by evi-
dence; nay, to show also that the manner in which the evi-
dence in the Report of the Commissioners had been obtained
was irregular and partial. Under such circumstances, he was
at a loss to understand how their Lordships could say to coun-
sel, " You are at liberty to argue against the principle of the
Bill, but you must not touch upon its details. Considering,
however, that there was a Committee from the several Cor-
porations now sitting in London, he thought that the Com-
mittee might advantageously compress their claims into a single
statement, and then entrust the advocacy of them to two
counsel ; and he hoped there would be no addition to the
number of Corporations requiring to be heard by counsel, al-
though, if there were, he could not see how their Lordships
could impose any limit.
The Earl of HARE WOOD could not see how it would be
possible for counsel to avoid touching on the particular inte-
rests of particular places. That would certainly lead to de-
lay; but it would only be that delay which would be just, and
which the corporate bodies affected by the Bill had a right to
expect. The House would, he was persuaded, do its duty,
by endeavouring to protect the people from a violent and un-
precedented measure, required by no necessity whatever.
With respect to what had been said by the Noble Viscount re-
specting admonitions, it should be considered that an admoni-
tion from one Noble Lord to another, and an admonition from
a Noble Lord—and that Noble Lord at the head of his Ma-
jesty's Government—addressed to the whole House, were two
very different things.
Lord PL UNK ET said, it had been contended that this
was a question which related to property vested in indi-
viduals, and that the measure should not be passed without
first hearing at the bar the parties who were interested in it.
Now he could cite a case in which a hundred Corporations,
with rights vested in them infinitely more valuable than
those now in question, were deprived by the Legislature
of those rights without having been previously heard in their
defence. At the period of the Union with Ireland, a hundred
Corporations in that country were absolutely disfranchised—for
the attainment of a measure, which, although he at the time dis-
approved of it, he now trusted would be considered a final one,
never to be disturbed—a hundred boroughs in Ireland, each
of which sent two Members to Parliament, were disfranchised
by the Irish Legislature, without having first beer, heard by
counsel. Was not that a case in point ?—( Cries of " No, no.")
He should be glad to hear why it was not. To some of those
boroughs, and only to some, compensation was given.—( A
Noble Lord observed, "To every one.") Certainly not.
His Noble Friend had justly disclaimed any idea of throwing
out a threat to the House. He (Lord Plunket) was unable
to see the distinction which it had been attempted to take be-
tween admonishing a single Lord, and the whole body.
Humble as he was, he felt himself entitled to give advice—
whether valuable or not was another question—as to the course
which they ought to pursue in their legislative capacity, with
reference to the opinion and feelings of the country. It was
with great satisfaction that he heard the Noble Duke and the
other voble Lords who acceded to the proposition to confine
within reasonable limits the claim of the corporate bodies to
be heard by counsel. But, if the opinions which he had heard
from other Noble Lords were acted upon, it would be impos-
sible to bring the matter to a conclusion. It was undoubtedly
true, that every corporate body which had petitioned to be
heard by counsel was equally entitled to be so heard. The
proposition of the Noble Earl, that the Committee of persons,
delegated from the Corporations, sitting in London, should
compress their claims into a single statement, and entrust the
defence of the whole to two counsel, was a good one. But
another Noble Earl had maintained that the cases were all es-
sentially different; and that the arguments of counsel which
were applicable to one case would not be applicable to the rest.
Why, it every day occurred that counsel divided their plead-
ings into several distinct heads. If that were to be the course
pursued on the present occasion, the proceeding might be
brought to a close within a reasonable time.
Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI contended that the
illustration of the Noble and Learned Lord, derived from an
Act of Parliament, which Act that Noble and Learned Lord
had at the time characterised in the strongest terms of disap-
probation, was wholly inapplicable to the present case. The
Noble and Learned Lord asserted, that at the period of the
Union a hundred corporate bodies in Ireland had been
treated by the Legislature as it was now proposed to
treat corporate bodies in this country, without allowing
them to be heard by counsel in their defence. The disfran
chisement of the boroughs in Ireland was a measure similar
not to this Bill but to the Reform Bill; because it deprived
the parties concerned of the right of being represented in
Parliament, and did not touch a single particle of their
property. There was another fact connected with the
Noble and Learned Lord's illustration. Sharing, as he
(Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci) did, in the hope expressed
by the Noble and Learned Lord that the measure of the
Union would be a final and undisturbed one ; and satisfied
as he was that the preservation of the Union was indispen-
sable to the peace and prosperity of both countries, he could
not help reminding the Noble and Learned Lord that a sum
of no less than 15,0001. had been paid to every one of the Cor-
porations alluded to by the Noble and Learned Lord, to re-
concile them to the loss of their Representatives in Parliament.
Having said thus much on the illustration introduced by the
Noble and Learned Lord, he felt that it would be unfitting on
his part to dwell on the general argument, except to say, that
although he was anxious that the petitioners should be heard
in defence of their just claims, he should look upon such a
means of defeating the Bill as most unworthy, and as a course
of proceeding to which no consideration could induce him to
be a party.
The Earl of FALMOUTH could not consent to confine
the hearing to such Corporations as had petitioned. It should
be remembered that some of the Corporate bodies were three
or four hundred miles off; and that some time would elapse
before they could be apprised of what had occurred.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought that their Lordships
would not be called upon to attend to any further petitions
which might be presented by Corporate bodies, praying to
be heard by Counsel ; because the measure had been so
long in agitation, that the various Corporations whose
interests were affected by it, had had ample time to
petition the House on the subject.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
He took it for granted that a majority of that House were
sufficiently convinced of the necessity of some measure of
Corporate Reform. It was, therefore, evident—the principle
of Corporate Reform being admitted—that no arguments of
counsel could induce the House not to allow the Bill to be

read a second time. Whilst, then, he expressed it as his own
opinion that there was no necessity that counsel should be
heard on the principle, he felt bound to admit the fairness of
the proposition which had been made, and which seemed to
meet with the approval of both sides, that two Counsel should
be heard on the principle of the Bill, with reference to the
representations contained in all the petitions already presented
But he considered it perfectly consistent with propriety, and
conformable to the rules of the House, to grant the prayer of
the petitions already presented, with regard to hearing Coun.
sel, without acceding to that conveyed in any other petition
which might hereafter be presented.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was of opinion that
they should first decide that Counsel were to be beard. After
they decided that, they might then determine as to the clas-
sification of the topics which they (the Counsel) should insist

upon.
The Earl of HADDINGTON was by no means disposed
to have his own discretion tied up, and he should be very sorry
that their Lordships should be tied up by any pledge that
they would not grant the prayer of any petition which might
hereafter be presented on this subject to that House. It was,
he thought, natural to suppose that questions might arise,
fresh matter might be stated, and new means taken, which
their Lordships would be perfectly justified in taking into
their consideration, but which were not touched upon in any
petition already presented.
The Earl of WICKLOW, in explanation, remarked that
he was not for shutting out the consideration which might im-
peratively call for their Lordships' attention. All he had said
was that by granting to their full extent the prayers of the
petitions which had been already presented, with respect to
the subjects to which Counsel should be allowed to address
themselves, they would act in a way which was sanctioned by
every principle of fairness and justice.
The Marquis of SALISBURY perfectly concurred in the
propriety of hearing only two Counsel with regard to the
principle of the Bill, and hoped they would extend that in-
dulgence as to the details of the measure if a case of necessity
were made out for their doing so.
Viscount MELBOURNE felt no hesitation in agreeing to
the proposition that Counsel should be heard, it being of
course distinctly understood that there shall be a fair determi-
nation on the part of the House to proceed with the Bill as
rapidly as possible, and to discountenance any unnecessary de-
lay.—( Hear.) The course, then, :which he understood to be
agreed to was this :—That on Thursday and Friday next
Counsel should be heard, with the anxious hope that their
speeches should be limited to those two days, and that on
Monday the whole principle and the details of the measure
should be discussed on going into Committee.
Lord BROUGHAM suggested that the motion of the
Noble Lord opposite, which referred merely to the borough of
Coventry, should be withdrawn. With respect to the hour at