The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-01 00:00:00

qUi7` OlNiMisr, 11,3' .."111$1( (sT4 r'IIIII3FP 1
k J.11J6 - I 1 i " •

wich and ether ;laces, in favour of the Lords' Aqiendments to
the Municipal Corporations Bill.
COMNIISAION,
The Deputy Usher of thtj lilkek Rod h'ek-e app'efteed ?it the
table, and stenittiouett tie Wuke '49 IVar. Rayat Absent
given to several 11111s.ag),_e'd,biljn tbib houses of Parlia-
ment, for whichs'e'r !4.1-ilsr Report.
The htiving resumed the Chair,
Mrs MORRISON would protest against the petition whio.b
had been prescated by the Hon. l3arr4et iciP'pbsite as repro-
s.entin; ine opinions of r. ny IVge number of the inhabitants of
.pstvich, w" nit presided at a meeting lately held in that
pnv., and he sveuld say that no town in England took a deeper
interest in the success of the measure to which tare &Mu
alluded.

pc• Woes which have been prcseate.d to the House this evening,
and gloss Which I myself hate had the honour to
'Rtsesen.s. Mat nifrnerBitElly ail thifSt it-1,4.0211)1y 511',7C.,
Shells that tkete iS a gleat degree of excitement prEiVading
upon this question—( Cries of " Oh eh!" from the Oppo-
sition, and " Cheers" from the Ministerial side of the House)—
and that there is a dread, a more than ordinary dread, that we
51,0# agree; or, aent t-10.41 tH HffpH.fioiistiado h)
tte isortts, which might in any way compromise our eian sictilf;
or credit, as representing the people whose interests we are
sent here to represent. Sir, I must say, that there
is a great degree of eacitnmant ft in many, piaci:l2f
4rtd. !r, sw,i6 respects, it is great beyond what I should
think the exact importance and value of the amendments
we have now to consider, I believe that that excitement
has, in a great degrees beest
fors thstnssss:( tde 4.sticering here was so very loud as to
render it impossible to catch the finish of the sentence.)
Sir, I feel persuaded, that if, in the ordinary course of our
Legislation a Bill which had passed this Lltolske hi its first, se,
cond, and third reading, without a division, had been taken into
cntisideration by the House of Lords, and that they had made
simply siteli alislititions ar asiff area to therti id his; &nester" to
tdreat any defects, or to add such clauses as appeared to thoili
improvements upon the frame-work of the Bill, the temper
of the country would indeed be very different. But Sir, I
am sorry to say that though the Bill was not immediately
opposed in the House of Lorda upon itt pfintiple) allied *ELS
sent through the country opinions so disparaging to
to the House, to the Bill, and to the people for whose
benefit it was intended ; a great degree of irritation was felt,
anti that irritation was increased tenfold, when a gentleman
was called to the Par of did ldduse of Lords and pefitiitted-sa
(" Oh, oh," loud cheering, and cries of " Order")—to indulge
in language—in such language as was there heard—language
not used in defending the rights of any persons affscted by
the Bill, but in language so disparaging to this Honour-
able House----11-leata heat, hear;)—Atiat I third: hd tloitsb
of Parliament iiitteit to have allowed to be used at their Bar.-
1 tiheers. ) If any one was to propose that counsel was to
be called to the Bar of this House—if counsel at
that Bar rose to use words respecting the House of
Lords, which could be at all called disrespectful, I
would at once object to it, for I will never allow
the other House to be insulted at that Bar. Sir, I
must say then that proceedings of this nature, so begun
and followed up by calling a number of persons to their
bar—witnesses who could indeed take only ono Vie* of
the question, and who, therefore, with respect to these
corporations could only have one opinion—l must say that
these proceedings have caused, and I think justly, a feeling
of irritation among a large portion of the people of this
country. Had they entered upon a simple inquiry as to the neces-
sities of the case, it would have been well ; but an opportunity
was taken of disparaging us, who are the representatives of the
people. I have felt it my duty to say so much upon this question.
I will not further allude to it now, but let it pass over, in the
• hope that the like will never again occur. Sir, I wish
to consider in what I have to say, the various amendments
made by the House of Lords in this Bill, and whether it will
be our duty, looking at the great principle which actuated us in
passing that Bill, to reject or agree to these amendments.
Eat I thought that in the position in which I stand, I should
be in some degree betraying or compromising the dignity
and character of this House, if I had not taken some notice of
the proceedings which have taken place elsewhere.—( Hear.)
Sir, with respect to the amendments themselves that have
been proposed, and are embodied in the Bill which we have
now before us, there is, I think, a very great distinction to
be taken. It is a distinction which I shall take at once, be-
tween those parts of the Bill which constitute a future
governing body for these Corporations in place of those placed
thereby by the old charters ; and the other parts of the Bill
which only deal with those subjects which necessarily
came before us in considering the New Municipal Cor-
porations. In the latter part of this provision I should
include those provisions respecting the property hitherto
enjoyed by the freemen in common, and other matters.
I should also include in it the right of freemen to vote for Mem-
bers, and some other provisions which I shall allude to. But the
first provision—that of the governing bodies is that of the most
important nature for us to consider. I think if we can
make up our minds that with certain alterations and re-
jecting certain amendments which have been proposed
and embodied in the Bill, as sent down to us by the
House of Lords, there might be framed such a
measure as would give a governing body which should
for the time to come conduct the government of
these towns in such a way that they will be for ever
after well and quietly governed. If we can convince our-
selves that a great Reform can be obtained, of
past evils and past mischiefs, and that for the future
this country will have the Municipal Corporations
acting with integrity and with vigour—capable of at
once securing the interests of those inhabitants over whom
they preside, and preserving peace within their boundaries,
for the general benefit of the King's subjects—l
should say, in that case, that I will consider the Bill
with that sole view of endeavouring to obtain that great
end. I shall hold myself entirely unmoved by those
irritating passions and opposition—( Cries of " Hear, hear)—
which prevailed among some persons, in consequence of
the alterations which had been made in the Bill.—( Hear.)
1 will throw out of sight and out of mind what might have been
the Original proposition, and whether that proposition may have
been the best; and I will say, that for the sake of the welfare of
this country, we may not from year to year have these
subjects of contention—subjects of contention which not
only affect the subjects treated of by this Bill, but go
far beyond those subjects, into questions of powers, privi
leges, the use and exec cise of those privileges, by different bodies
of Legislature. In order to get rid of such topics of pas-
sion and excitement, and with the view of obtaining a good
governing body, I am ready to say that I will forget and
forego every argument which I might urge in favour of the pro-
position that was carried in this House. There are amendments
which have been made in the House of Lords in this part of the
Bill, which I think would not obtain the object they had in view,
viz.—that of obtaining a sufficient governing body, which
should inspire confidence in their constituents, over whom they
are placed, and which should be permanent.—( Hear, hear.)
I must say, that I consider these incompatible with
the object—( Hear)—the keeping up of which we have
in view, and the keeping the title under the provi-
sions of this Bill, which has been hitherto considered as
the aldermanic part of the governing body.—( Loud cheers.)
I must therefore say, in the first place, that as a question of
principle that the great proposition was that the Muni-
cipal body should be elected from a large constituency ;
but this amendment not only preserves the title of Al-
dermen, but also keeps tip the principle of self- election. But
it goes beyond this ; it was said that these persons were
included in the municipal councils—meeting with a body
three times their number, sent in by election, so far from
tending to harmony, would do nothing but embarrass and
disturb the action of the municipal body, which we wish
to be powerful,' and which we wish to be popular.
I now come to another part of the Bill, which requires our
special regard and favour—l mean that which relates to the
Town Clerks--( Cries of " Hear, hear," and laughter.) The
present town-clerks are to be retained during their good
behaviour, and to have the charge of the charters and
Corporation papers. Another clause provides that they
should not be disqualified from acting as justices' clerks, except
when the registrar should think proper to act, at the sessions;
but I do not see that the introduction of such clauses will
tend to any thing but disorder, because the town-clerks being
in possession of all the charters and corporation documents,
may prevent the examination of those documents by the
councils not only of towns, but also of boroughs, and there-
fore the original principle of the Bill in this respect
will be frustrated ; and I do not think that, with re-
gard to the Town-clerks, we should agree to any pro-
position to secure their continuance.—( Cries of " Hear,
hear.") I admit that the Justices, in consequence of
their corporate capacity, arc Justices for life, but is it to be
said, that because no provision was made for their
continuance, that they were disqualified—if men of
respectability and character, in whom their fellow
freemen could place confidence, would be disqualified from
remaining justices still ?—( Hear.) I have stated at once those
parts of the alterations which I think quite inadmissible, because
it is impossible to have a new body under those alterations
free from the influence of the old body, and it would con-
found the reformation, and the abuses of the whole cor-
porate system. I would rather wait to reform the whole
than have parts of it left unreformed, leaving the stronger
body only in that situation.—( Hear, hear.) There is
a provision for setting aside the present Aldermen, and
the Lords wish to constitute them Aldermen for life, to
which there is one very obvious objection, which is, that you
appoint men for life who are adverse to the very principle of
the Bill, and therefore, not being of opinion that would be
good or wholesome, I would propose, not the rejection of the
proposal altogether, but I shall propose as an amendment,
that there shall be a body of the same number as those
proposed in the amendment, amounting to one. third
or one-fourth ; it is all the same of the Council, but
their existence shall be shorter, that those chosen for
six years shall go out at the end of three years. If
the object of the amendment of the House of Lords
is to secure that there should be some part of the Council
who should not be derived immediately from popular elec-
tion, and who should be persons of more permanent cha-
racter than those elected by popular election, I think that
object would be gained by the amendments I propose ; while
at the same time I think the inconvenience of having
persons chosen for life would be taken away by the clause I
propose.—( Hear.) Another proposal upon which I do not
purpose altogether to dissent from the amendments made
by the House of Lords, although I think they go a
great deal too far in the amendments they have proposed,
is with respect to wards. It will be recollected that at
the suggestion of my Noble Friend, the Member
for Lancashire, we enlarged the number of towns
to which the principle of wards applied, and we
sent the Bill to the House of Lords, with this
provision, that when there were twelve thousand inhabitants
the borough should be divided into wards. My Noble friend
p.'oposed that the boroughs should be divided into
w ands where there were ten thousand inhabitants;
tl tore was, therefore, no great difference between his pro-
p, asition and mine. But the proposition made by the House
of Lords is, that where there is 6,000 inhabitants, the borough
hall be divided into wards. Now what I propose is to
take 10,000 or 9,000, as the minimum.—( Hear and cheers.)
'Where is another amendment which has been made in respect
-to justices being recommended by the council ; it was pro-
,posed by the original measure that. justice's should be recorn,
n muted by the council, and that not till they had received a
smmission from his Majesty should they be entitled to act in
aft: magisterial capacity. This' proposal of our has been
strut, -k out by the House of Lords, and 'the provision is left
thus s, that tho Crown bhall at ones nominate the justices of

Col. CORE I, ANtiTON presented a petition from Frome
in favise r.I Ile Municipal Reform Bill 83 amended by the
tiotte of Lords.

Mr. SHEPHERD supported Or rttyzi, of the petition.
The inhabitants of that,l'oved their king and country,
and despised the ;,...timidation which was at present abroad.
Mr. WILK S admitted that the people of Frome, many
of whom were Dissenters, loved their King and their country ;
but they also loved liberty—( Hear)— and were prepared to
live in its behalf, and die in its defence. Ho believed there
was a great majority of the people or Frome favourable to
the Municipal Reform tt it originally stood.
Mr. ORD pretented a petition, signed by 7,200 inhabitants
of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, praying that the House of Com-
mons would not pass the Municipal Bill, as amended by the
House of Lords. The petitioners had also passed a resolution
vindicating the conduct of the two Municipal Commissioners
who had visited the town of Newcastle.

Mr. P. HO WA R D could bear testimony to the deep and
bitter feeling which pervaded that and the neighbouring coun-
ties, in consequence of the manner in which the Bill had been
mutilated in the House of Lords. He, ( Mr. Howard,) was not
one of those who thought that the popular cause could be bene-
fited by rejecting all ceneession or compromise, but he thought
the House should resolutely stand by the main and leading pros
visions of the —( Hear, hear.) He trusted they would
hear no more of the reign of aldermen titter to-night. All
the counties on the borders were deeply interested in the
restitution of those rights of local government which they
had formerly enjoyed.
Mr. A. eIIAPM AN ns a burgess of Newcastle would enter
his protest against the doctrine of the Hon. Members opposite.
He thought a qualification as necessary in a Corporation as
that which entitled him to a scat in that House. He should
to the last moment of his existence endeavour to defend
those rights which had been handed down from father to
son in the corporate bodies of England, and should oppose
their being stripped of them, unless some malversation was
proved, which had never even been charged on the Corporation
of Newcastle.—( Hear. )
Mr. NICHOL presented a petition from 1,500 burgesses
of Newcastle (as we understood) in favour of the amended
Corporation Bill.
Mr. G ROTE presented petitions from the wards of Bishops-
gate and Cross-street in favour of the Bill.
Mr. LEADER presented a similar petition from Bridge.
water.

Mr. H. TYNTE supported the prayer of this petition,
which he said was most respectably signed.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition which had been
adopted at a very numerous meeting of the parishioners of St.
James's, Westminster, praying the House to resist all altera-
tions in the Municipal Reform Bill, and to withhold all further
grants of money till the Bill was passed, as it went up to the
House of Lords.

Mr. WILK S reminded the House that this parish had
more Ind and assessed taxes than some counties in England.

Mr. HUM E presented petitions against the amendments
:node by the House of Lords in this Bill, from the parishes of
St. Martin and St. John the Evangelist, Westminster; from St.
Anne's; from St. Paul's, Covent-garden; from St. Andrew's,
Holborn; from the Royal burgh of Annan ; and from Ches-
terfield, signed by 1,306 inhabitants. The petitioners also
prayed the House riot to grant any further supplies of money
till the Bill, as sent up to the House of Lords, should have
become the law of the land.—( Hear, hear. )
[The Duke DE NEMOURS here entered the House, and
took his scat by the side of the Sergeant-at-arms. His
Royal Highness was attended by several gentlemen, who ap-
peared to be foreigners, and who took their seats behind him.l
Mr. HUM E presented similar petitions from Aylesbury,
Colnbrooke, Chichester, St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, Nuneaton,
Royal Borough of Nairn, and Bolton. The Hon. Member trusted
the Government would not, as persons expected, take half and
half measures ; nor allow themselves to be dictated to by any
body of men.—( Cheers.)
' - -

Colonel PERCE VA L said, with respect to the petition
from St. Martin's in the Fields, he lived in that parish, and
his chamber window looked upon the door of the vestry room.
On the day the meeting took place, he had the curiosity to
observe the persons who attended the meeting, and he believed
they did not exceed 300.
Mr. HUME trusted that the House would not receive the
caves-dropping information of the Hon. and Gallant Member—
(Cheers)—in preference to the statements of the petitioners.
tlr. BE WES presented petitions from Plymouth, against
the Lords' amendments to the Corporation Reform Bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented a similar petition from Coven-
try, signed by upwards of 5,000 persons.
Mr. BERNAL also presented similar petitions from Ro-
chester, Chatham, and Stroud.
Sir G. ANSON presented a petition from Lichfield, pray-
ing that the House would not accept the Bill mutilated as it
now was.

Sir W. FOULKES presented one to the same effect from
King's Lynn.
Sir R. DONK IN presented one from Berwick-upon-Tweed,
praying the Houie not to pass the Bill as it now stood, for, in
place of its being a boon to their own town, it would be a
curse, by adding to its taxation.—( Hear, hear.) At present
the income of the Corporation was 10,000/. a-year, and the ex-
penditure amounted to 6,0001., but under the Bill, as it now
stood, the Corporation would be obliged to lay by 6,0001.
for the burgesses and their wives, so that they would be
obliged to levy a new tax to make up for the expenditure.
Mr. C. K. TYNTE presented a petition from Yeovil to
the same effect, and also one complaining that that town had
been excluded from the Bill. _ _

Mr. GOLT LB OURN said the name of Yeovil still stood in
the Laughter.)
Mr. EL PH INSTO NE presented a petition from Hastings,
regretting that the Bill had been so much mutilated, and pray.
ing the House to reject it.
Mr. L ENNA RD presented one from Maldon to the same
effect ; and one from Havering, which was originally in the Bill,
but had been struck out on the most partial evidence given in
the House of Lords. They stated that a population of 7,000 was
govei ned by three magistrates, who were armed with all the
power of county magistrates, and that two of them were appointed
by a person who, some years ago, had purchased the right of
nominating them. They prayed that their case might be taken
into consideration.

Mr. L ABOUC HE RE presented a petition, more nume-
rously signed than any he had ever presented, from Taunton,
praying that the House would not agree to the alterations made
by the House of Lords in the Municipal Bill. He agreed so
far with the petitioners, as that many of these alterations were
of such a nature, that the House of Commons could not con-
sistently with its duty to the public pass them.
The SPEAKER suggested that any petitions which Hon.
Members had to present on that subject, might now be handed
in without comment. Any which Hon. Members wished to
offer observations upon had better be deferred.
Petitions were then presented by the Attorney-General,
from the Provost and Town Council of Edinburgh, and from
St. Andrew's, in favour of the Bill--by Sir Robert Peel,
from Kingston-upon-Hull, signed by 690 persons, praying
that no proceedings might be adopted by that House
to destroy the co-equal power of the three branches
of the Legislature—By Mr. C. Buller, from Liskeard, against
the Lords' Amendments to the Bill—By Mr. Lewis' to the
same effect, from a place the name of which we did not
hear—Bv Lord Stormont, from 3,000 inhabitants of Bris-
tol, in favour of the Amended Bill—By Mr. O'Connell,
from Bathgate and two other places, against the Lords'
amendments and praying the House to stop the supplies—By
Lord Ashley, in favour of the amended Bill—By Mr. Roebuck,
from 7,000 inhabitants of Bath against the Lords' amend-
ments, and from the Bath Political Union to the same effect,
and reminding the House of a period " when a patriotic
House of Commons had voted the House of Lords a
nuisance."—( Hear.)

Sir W. FOLLETT presented a petition against the Bill,
from Bath.

Mr. ROEBUCK could prove that the signatures to this
petition had been surreptitiously obtained, under the impres-
sion that the petition was in favour of the Bill in its original
state, and against the amendments made by the House of
Lords.

Sir W. FOLLETT—AII their names and addresses are
attached to the petition.—( Cheers from the Opposition.)
Mr. ROEBUCK—That does not militate against what I
say.—( Cheers from the Ministerial side of th House.) I
put it to the Hon. and Learned Member that he ought to
withdraw this petition.—(Cries of " Oh.")
The petition was laid on-the table.
Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition from Boston
against the Bill.
Similar petitions were presented by Lord Stormont and
Sir 11. Hardinge, and against the Lords' amendments, by Mr.
Parrott, Mr. Blamire, Mr. Pease, Mr. Wakley and Mr. E. J.
Stanley.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented several petitions to the
same effect; one from Bristol, signed by 13,700 persons; an-
other from Worcester ; one from Lowther and Wisby ; one from
Dumfries, signed by 590 persons ; from Louth, from Wallsall,
signed by 2,500 ; from Scarborough, from Yarmouth and
from Prescott, signed by 5,500. The Noble Lord stated
that the general prayer of all the petitions was, that unless the
Corporation Bill was restored to the state in which it left that
House, it should be rejected.—( Cheers.)
Here the SPEAKER left the House for a few minutes, and,
on his return,

Colonel PE RCEVA L rose to request permission to read
a letter from the officers of the the 35th Regiment of Foot;
but the statements of the Hon. Member were completely
drowned in the cry of " Lord John Russell, Order, Chair, and
another day."
The SPEAKER said Lord John Russell was in possession
of the House.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose amidst considerable cheer-
ing, and addressed the House as follows :---Sir, I rise with
considerable anxiety to propose to the House the consideration.
of the amendments which have been proposed by the House
of Lords to the which passed the House for the Reform of
Municipal corporations. Sir, I think this question does not come
simply before the House; as one comprising only the good
or the mischief or the alterations made by one House jj
of Parliament to a till passed by another. 6ir, the numerous 1_