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

DIPE"

L.EAL PARLIAMENT.

MO USE OF COMMONS, AUGUST 31.
The SPEAKEt took the Chair at three o'clock.
CORPORATION BILL.

Mr. FRESH FIELD presented a petition from Banbury,
praying for the name of that borough being struck out of the
Corporation Bill, as the new limits prescribed by it would
throw an unusual share of the poor-rates upon them. He
also presented one from Bedford, praying that the indepen-
dence of all branches of the Constitution mig'it be preserved;
Almo, one to the same effect from Truro.

Mr. T ANC RED said the petition from Banhttr7 Zontained
many mis-statements, and had not been heard of till Friday
last.

Mr. MA RSHAL If presented a petition which emanatcsi
from one of the largest and most respectable meetings ever
held in Carlisle, praying the House to reject the Corporation
Bill as amended by tho Lords.
Mr. CHARLTON presented a petition from Ludlow
praying that all the branches of the Legislature might be left
in the possession of their independence.
Mr. STRUTT said the petition had been signed by only
ninety-nine persons out of a population of 5,000. The
Honourable Member stated, on a former occasion, that
one boy had signed the petition on the other side nine times.
The moment that representation went down it caused a great
deal of excitement, on tracing the report to its foundation, and
it was now most completely denied.
Mr. CHARLTON had made his statement upon the autho-
rity of a letter from a gentleman in whom he had perfect con-
fidence, and the parties did not contradict him. He
trusted that in future all parties would affix their signa-
tures to their petitions, and also ther residences.—( Hear.)
As to what he bad stated the other night, he had been very
much misrepresented. He would only add, that many of these
petitioners could neither read nor write, and he believed that
many of those who complained of the unconstitutional conduct
of the House of Lords, could not spell the word Constitutidn.
Mr. ROBlNSON—According to his understanding of the
rules of that House, this petition could not be received. It
was founded upon and referred to a speech of an Hon. Mem-
ber, spoken in that House. If they allowed the reports of the
speeches of Members of that House to be made the subject
of petitions, it would lead to endless discussions, and would
seriously interrupt the business of the House.—( Hear.)
The SPEAKER suggested that the better course would
be to have the petition read. According to his understanding
of it, it referred not to the speech of an Hon. Member, but
to a letter read in that House. It would be then for the
House to say whether or not the petition could be received.
The Clerk accordingly read the petition at length. It com-
plained of a statement made by Mr. Charlton in that House,
which statement was founded upon a letter from the High
Bailiff of Ludlow, which was read at the same time. The
petitioners denied the truth of the statement.
Mr. ROBINSON thought the petition could not be re-
ceived.—( Cries of oh, oh.) Gentlemen were actuated in all
these cases by party feeling.—( Uproar and cries of " Order.")
Mr. ROEBUCK rose to order. He was quite sure that
the Hon. Gentleman would retract the words he had spoken.
Mr. ROBINSON was sorry to see gentlemen cheering
anything that had reference to the business of the House and
the regulations of their proceedings.—(Cries of " Oh, oh I"
and " Order I")

Mr. STRUTT—It will save time if I am allowed to say a
word.—( Cries of " Order I")
Mr. ROBINSON proceeded amidst cries of " Spoke,"
" Order," and "Go on," and Mr. Strutt resumed his seat.
The House had beard the petition read, and be submitted that
the first paragraph did allude to statements made in that House,
and it would therefore be contrary to the rules of the House to
receive this petition. _

Mr. STRUTT had merely risen to say that the object of
the petition had been answered ; and if, in the opinion of the
Speaker, the petition was irregular, he was willing to with-
draw it.

Mr. ROEBUCK contended that the petition was regular.
It merely referred to a statement, made certainly by an Hon.
Member in that House, but founded upon a letter of a person
who was not a Member of that House. As to Members of
that House being actuated by party motives, he had called the
Hon. Member to order, and he was sure he was right in doing
so, as the imputation of motives of any description was wholly
unparliamentary. Party motives were improper motives to
act upon, and he was sure that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Robinson) would be desirous of making an apology to the
House.—( Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER—It was for the House to consider whe-
ther this petition was to be received or not. If it referred to
assertions made by an Hon. Member in that House it was
clearly wrong, but to him it appeared merely to refer to the
letter of the High Bailiff of Ludlow.
Mr. CHARLTON was willing to admit that the High
Bailiff had been wrongly informed. He hoped, however, that
out of this evil good would come, and that in future peti-
tions would contain- not merely the names but- the residences
of the parties signing them.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROBINSON—As the Hon. Member has expressed
his willingness to withdraw the petition
Mr. STRUTT begged to undeceive the Hon. Member.
He had expressed his willingness to withdraw the petition if
Mr. Speaker should decide that it was irregular.
The petition was then laid on the table.
Mr. DUNLOP presented several petitions from Ayr and
other places in Scotland, in favour of the Municipal Reform
Bill.

Mr. WALL ACE rose in the first place to give his support
to the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Ayr, hav-
ing been requested so to do, and in the second place to present
a petition from Paisley containing 7,692 signatures, and
amongst them that of the Chief Magistrate, which were all
signed at a public meeting. They prayed that House to grant
to the people of England the same advantages which this and
the other House of Parliament had in the Municipal Reform Bill
granted to Scotland, and which had been found to work so re-
markably well. They expressed their hope that that House
would not consent to receive the Bill in the mutilated state in
which it was returned from the other House of Parliament, but
rather that they would repeal the Bill altogether.—(Hear. )
The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Greenock to
, the same effect, which was agreed to at a public meeting con-
vened by the Magistrates, three of whom appeared first in the
list of petitioners, His constituents had chosen him because
he was an out and out Radical Reformer, and they had se-
lected Magistrates of the same class. He was quite sure that
the other House had acted in utter ignorance of the feeling of
Scotland, but it was to be accounted for by the fact, that none
of its Representatives in that House were liberal in their prin-
ciples —( Cries of " Order" from Mr. Charlton, &c.)
The SPEAKER suggested the propriety of not making
any remarks upon the Members of the other House.
Mr. WALL ACE observed that Members of the other
House had spoken pretty freely of this House, but he would
not pursue his remarks.
Alt. POTTER said he had the honour to present a peti-
tion from a number of the inhabitants of Tadcaster, in the
West Riding of the county of York. He was sure it had not
been intrusted to his care from any disrespect to the Noble
Lord or the Honourable Baronet, who so ably and satis-
factorily represented that division of the county, but be-
cause he (Mr. Potter) was a native of Tadcaster. The
petitioners speak in strong language, but not more so than
the case deserves. They state, " That your petitioners
long disgusted with the notoriously corrupt practices prevail-
ing in corporate towns, hailed with inexpressible satisfaction
the measure of Reform of Municipal Corporations which lately
passed the House." They go on to express their deep
regret and indignation at the attempts which have been
made to defeat the patriotic efforts of the faithful Com-
m.ons, and at the mutilations which the Corporation Bill has
received.—( Hear, hear.) He begged the attention of the
House to the two concluding paragraphs of the petition,
which were :—" That your petitioners arc gratefully thankful
to his Majesty's Ministers for their firmness in such deplorable
and trying circumstances, and assure your Honourable House
that they will stand by and support your Honourable House in
any and every emergency which may arise in the present state
of public affairs. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your
Ron. House firmly to resist every attempt to induce your Hon.
House to adopt, and on the contrary, that you will indignantly
and promptly reject any perverted or mutilated Bill,
retaining the name of Corporation Reform and pretended
to be amended by the Peers, and lastly, that your Honourable
House will not hesitate to stop the Supplies, should
obstinacy in any quarter be perseVered in to interrupt
the completion of this great measure."—( Hear, hear, hear.)
He trusted that the other branch of the Legislature would yet
be induced to comply with the wishes of the country, which
had been so unequiencally expressed. If not, then he (Mr.
Potter) was of opinion the only course left to the House of
Commons was to stop the supplies, or, at any rate, grant them
for a very short period only.
Mr. SINCL AIR supported the petition, but thought it
quite competent for this House to take the alterations of the
Lords into consideration before any final decision was made.
Mr. BR.OT lIERTON presented a petition from Salford
to the same effect, signed by 4,300 individuals, and also pray-
ing the House to instititute an inquiry into the law of heredi-
tary peerage. He for one would never consent to the Bill in
its present state—(Hean ) With respect to the other prayer,
he would say that ever since he could think on political sub-
jects, he had been in favour of Kings, Lords, and Commons,
and he deeply regretted that circumstances should have arises
to justify the petitioners in using such strong language, but it
showed that the people were determined to have reform in
Church and State, whatever might be the cost or the conse-
quence. It could not be wondered that the people spoke in
this way, when they saw that hereditary legislators cared for
nothing but to make laws for their own pleasure, in order to
put money into their own pockets, or the pockets of their rela-
tions and dependents.
Mr. Phillips, Mr. C. Hindley, Mr. Ewart, and Mr. Fielden,
supported the petition.
Mr. CHARLTON complained of the Hon. Member for
Salford, accusing Members of the other House of putting
money into their own pockets, and called upon him to prove it.
(Laughter.) He thought the amendments made by the
House of Lords were calculated to promote the happiness of
the people.—( Hear and laughter.) He thought the House
of Lords had no more power to do away with the House of
Commons, than the latter had to overthrow the Lords—
( Hear)—and he begged pardon for the warmth of feeling
which he had displayed.
Mr. BROT HERTON explained.
Mr. HUTT presented a petition from Kingston-upon-Hull,
signed by 2,000 persons, praying the House of Commons not
to enter into any compromise with the other House, but lo
reject the Bill altogether in its present shape. He trusted
this House would make a firm stand against the mutilations of r
the Lord..

Sir C. BROOKE VERE presented petitions from Ips.