The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-01 00:00:00

STEAM NAVIGATION.-THAMES.

Mr. Alderman WOOD obtained leave to Bring in a Bill to
regulate the navigation of steam-vessels in certain parts.of the
river Thames.

The other Orders of the Day were then dispo3[Nl of, and the
House adjourned at One o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Jurr 31.
The VICE-CIIANCELLOR took his seat on the Wooliack
five o'clock.

Lord BROWNLOW presented a petition from Sutton
Colefield, and Great Grimsby, against the Corporation Reform
Bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Mr. DUNDAS, and other Members of the House of Commons,
brought up the Glasgow Improvement Bill; also the 'Utley
and Fyefield Railway Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON pres3nted a petition from
the sons and apprentices of the freemen of Liverpool against
the Corporation Reform Bill.

The tail of KINNOUL presented a petition from some
place in Scotland in support of the Church of that country.
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL appeared at the bar, and resumed
his arguments against the Corporation Reform Bill. He com-
menced first with referring to the personal losses of the free-
men or commonalty of the existing Corporations, which
would be effected by a sham attempt at regulating those
Corporations. From a statement hastily drawn up, in one
Corporation alone, those losses would amount to no less than
756,000/. But their rights were as freehold in their nature as
any freehold interest enjoyed by any Member ,of that House or
his tenants. He believed the estimated value of those rights
fell very far below their actual value.—( Hear—ln the
new corporation or arondisement, the new body, whether
English or Gallic, were to be nicknamed a chartered municipa-
Aity ; in this establishment he found by one of the clauses
that a power was to be given to Councils to purchase common.
rights and tolls. Now, if the computation of the value of these
common rights were accurately made out, he believed that
it would amount to 750,000/. sterling. But it Should
be remembered that these common rights descended from far
titer to son by hereditary right, and yet these rights were to
be bought and sold by the pcninAlla pf Corporations. When
it was all bought up by this new fangled P4tineil, what
were they to do with ft ? They were virtually disinheritiag the
-sons of existing freemen, and by this Act a nominal sum was
to be given for the fee-simple of rights Indies:able intheir
character, and of immense value to the present holders.
'Therefore this Act carried with it great oppression and severity.
He had before alluded to gip Charitable Trustees, and the
Magistrates to be chosen tinder this 4:11, but lip pat
something more to say. It wa eoraplaiaed Ault at preaent
these bodies were self-elected, and to a pertaio' patent
it was so, for when a member was added to the ante-
cedent members of a body without the intervention of the
other bodies, they might in 449 §pil:p be called self-elected.
Therefore, the theorists of this Hill paid we
men electing Aldermen ; but how ware the piPP charitable true-
tees to be chosen ? Why, by the clause, the Cogueil cost of
their own body were to elect those trustees, and therefore they
were self elected. It was the ealiao case also with the selection of
magistrates, for they were to name eertaia persons out of
their own body to be submitted to the King, who, being without
a Lord Chancellor to advise him, was called upon to accept,
and therefore they were aeff-elected. He did not be-
lieve that any one of the Corperetigaa Would pass
unwept by the Reformers, but he predicated that not one
sparrow of them would fall to the ground.—( Laughter.) If
their Lordship would sift this Bill as these Reformers would
sift the Corporations, he would prove that the grounds upon
which the Bill was attempted to be eetabliehed, weep nnteaalele,
In Oxford the common council were elected from the free-
men, the bailiffs and chamberlain from the council, the assis-
tants from the bailiffs, the aldermen from the assistants, and
the mayor from the aldermen. This was what was called
self-election, and what this Bill was intended to abolish.
The Charitable Trustees were to become the managers et' all
those charities of which! the Corporations are in their Corpo-
rate capacity Trustees. He was not able to state the amount
of the value of those charitable Institutions in the aggregate ;
but he could mention a pvtiolla7 Paw. Far instance,
in the
city of Bristol the annual amount of charitable institutions
at the present moment, was 12,000/., no portion of which
could he disposed of without the Corporate Seal ap-
pended to the order of at least half the. council assembled,
but under the clause in this Bill three men would be em-
powered to make any authoritative act they pleased. In the
Report of the Commissioners a compliment was paid to the
Corporation of Bristol for the accuracy of their accounts.
Every Trustee of these charities was compelled to be
a member of the Established Church of England. There were
eleven advowsons based upon that very restriction. The ac-
counts of this Corporation must be read and audited before
the whole body, and not before a Committee or a few indi-
uiduals. Of these charitable trusts Church patronage formed
a c )nponent part, but who were to become patrons under the
new Act? There were nine trustees, of which nine
three might act for the rest. If the Cabinet had en-
joyed the assistance of a Lord Chancellor, such a Bill as
this would never have been launched. A gentleman named
Maher had presented 10,000/. to the Corporation of Bristol,
but as it was now to be dissolved, Mr. Maher intended to
claim this gift again ; for, as he said, he was alive, and--
like the Reformers—deaf too.—( Great laughter.) The Bill
was professedly intended to preserve charities, but the effect
would be, that eight out of ten in the rigid application of the
law would fall to the ground. There was a singular case in
the city of Oxford. Mr. Alderman Parsons, and his late bro-
ther the Bishop of Peterborough, had given to the Corpora-
tion a sum of 7,000/., which after his death was to be .vested
in the Mayor and four Aldermen of Word, who were by
this Bill to be consigned to the old almanaek of history._
( Laughter.) He must not be told that the Court of Chancery
could superinduce new trustees, for that was an act of violence.
There was also another trust in the same City, consisting
of 1301. a-year to four preachers of the University, and the
Aldermen were to elect these preachers. Now, under this
Bill, there were no Aldermen, and who were to elect the
preachers ? The sixpenny ratepayers, or the Council, who
were not a whit better than the sixpenny ratepayers ? There
were numerous trusts which were never intended to be reposed
ia the principle of the elective franchise. If a gift was
prevented to A, how could it be appropriated to
.B? and would
the donors ever have agreed that their original intention should
be thwarted by any new fangled curators or regulators of
Corporations ? lie s'-as quite sure that if there had been a
Lord Chancellor in that branch of his Majesty's Council •
called the Cabinet, this Bill would never have been produced !
by his Majesty's Government. Nay, even if the legal advisers
of the Crown had been called into the Council, no such absurd
Measure could have been concocted. It would have been
stopped in limine. But, among other evils which it was certain
to produce, was a distinct class, a sample of which might per-
haps suffice for their Lordships. In the city of Bristol, which
he should instance again, among other charities there was one
bestowed, in the nature of a gift in trust, by a gentleman named
Ware (or Hare, we could not hear distinctly which), still
living: It amounted to 10,000/., and was to be applied by
the Corporation to certain specified charitable purposes on his
death. What were the consequences of the Bill in this in-
stance ? The very natural one—that Mr. Ware claimed his
property again. " I'm alive (said he), though the Reformers
collined me before I was dead. Ido not like this premature
dissolution. I must have my money back again." He, being
in reruns nature, while the Corporation to whom he had given it
were about to be put out of rerum nalurce, claimed back that of
which he had been the donor. Now, if any lawyer had been pre-
sent at the framing of the Bill he would have inquired in the first
instance—" Can we transfer legally a gift made to one
body to another body, not in existence at the time it was
made, and of a constitution quite different from that on which
it was bestowed ?" But this was only one of those legal meta-
morphoses for which the framers of the measure bad become
so celebrated. If these Corporations were to apply to his
Hon. and Learned Friend, as a lawyer practising in the Court
of Chancery, he had no doubt but they would be informed that
the Bill aimed at an act of tyrannical injustice altogether at
variance with equity, although perfectly in accordance with the
notions of experimental speculators. Ile had abundance of
instances where the aliceations of clarity property were con-.
trary to, law. He would mention one in the city of Oxford.
The case he alluded to was' one of a singularly handsome gift,
from Mr. Alderman Parsons, a Gentleman well known.
Wealth, although of particular use, he did not mean to say was
the only good. lie did not mean to say that cash in one I
pocket was overbalanced by genius and ability, and sentimen-
talism and utilitarianism in the other. But money figs net
without its value. Now, Mr. Alderman Parsons gave (not
to an unknown self-elected body) 7,000/. to be invested in se- I
euf rci ,t and the inpteerrseosntanopfpltiehde comfortablectoitythegrorilrd.,T
subsistence
o
The distri-
bution was given, and the care consigned, to four aldermen of
the city. But by this Bill the power of the aldermen would
be at an end in October next. What follows, why that Mr.
Alderman Persons would call back, as in point of law he could
call back, the funds he had coneigned to tirmr trust, they, the
trustees, chosen by himself, having no lenger an existence,
He had no wish to go unnecessarily into detail, but he must
allude to the preferments Dow in the gift of different Corpo-
rations. Those preferments were Intended to be enjoyed by
Ministers, Deacons, and other dignitaries of the Church of
England. Both yesterday and to-day the Learned Gentleman
said his chambers had been a regular receiving-house, where
all aggrieved persons had thought proper to deposit particu-
lare of their wrongs, thinking that thee woehl be eE eeeviee
to bum in the cour'ie et the fence lie `iititialqakan'a ' 'He
would begin with the first 'on the -Catalogue. He need not
tell any of the Noble Lords w-ho were lawyers that, a priori,
it was a prieetpia tLat pgrtlqn could be a &qt.lqrator to die-
"sense the patronage of the Clitir'oli"Of 2`nglantllbiit ainiaieber
of that Church, except as it had been of la;.e under the Test
Act, or previously by a bill of annual indemnity. He would
have this borne in niind. Now, in these new communitiee
Church patronage was to be vested. In looking over the reports
a the Commissioners he fbund that the Corporation of Lilian'

~cze,. _ _ ~zfi7~~