The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1535.

for life, as in the first appointed to that office under this Bill
being selected from the members of the present corporate bo-
dies. Instead of this, they proposed that aldermen should be
elected for six years; that one-half should go out at the end
of three years ; and that the other half should go out at the
end of six years. In pursuance of the principle which had
been strongly urged in argument in this House, and in order
to give the measure fair play, and produce that degree of sa-
tisfaction which was so desirable, and to allow it a chance of
success in the cities and boroughs to which it was to be ap-
plied, it was desirable that the whole sytem should begin
afresh, and the whole of the ancient Corporations should be
removed ; and they therefore disagreed with their Lordships'
amendments, that the justices should continue for life. They also
disagreed with the amendment that the town-clerks should be
elected for life ; but had insisted that they should remain in
office only during pleasure. They also disagreed with the
amendment to continue the present town-clerks. It was
unnecessary for him to go into the reasons, as they had
already been repeatedly urged in the discussions which
had taken place. Their Lordships had also proposed that
the settlement of the boundaries of the boroughs should
be left to the revising barristers. The Commons agreed to
this, but made an addition to the amendment, namely,
that the regulations proposed by the revising barristers
should be sanctioned by the King in Council. This
was thought necessary, as it was not deemed advisable that so
much power should be left in the hands of the revising bar-
risters without control or appeal, however well they had dis-
charged the important duties entrusted to them. The Com-
mons had also disagreed to the amendment which was intro-
duced into the Bill, which prevented any but members of the
Church of England having a voice in the distribution of any
Church patronage connected with the corporate towns. He
thought the amendment, when it was introduced, was wrong,
and went on a false principle, and that it was adopted to meet
what appeared to him to be an ideal and chimerical cause of
alarm. He did not think that any evil was likely to arise
from the distribution of the Church patronage by the town-
council. One of the arguments of a Right Reverend Prelate,
whom he did not in his place, in favour of the amendment,
was rather fanciful. He said that Dissenters in the town-
council might contrive to appoint an inefficient clergyman to
any place connected with the Church, in order to give greater
weight and influence to the minister of the Dissenters. This
certainly was possible, but surely it was not a sufficient reason
to justify the violation of the great principle which he was sa-
tisfied was violated by the amendment. The Commons altoge-
ther disagreed from this, but they had not made this part of the
Bill as it formerly was, but they had adopted a course which had
been suggested in one of the debates in that House, which was
to compel the sale of all advowsons and other preferments in
the gift of the Corporations, and that the proceeds should be
invested in the public funds, and the interest should be de-
voted to the purposes of the borough, and aid the borough
fund. This arrangement met the objection which was raised
by their Lordships ; and at the same time it was desirable that
the patronage of the Church should be taken from the hands
of those bodies, which, although fairly composed, were not so
well qualified or capable of exercising a sound judgment in the
distribution of patronage of this nature, as an individual who
acted on his own responsibility and judgment. He confidently
anticipated that the House would agree to this alteration in its
amendment. There was another amendment to which it was
necessary for him to allude. The Bill, as sent up by the
Commons, enacted that the town-councils should recommend
certain persons as Magistrates to the Crown, out of which
number they should always be selected. That House struck
this out of the Bill, and placed all the power in,the Crown.
The Commons had replaced the original clauses, and he
thought they had done so on grounds which entitled them to
great weight. He thought that previous to the appointment of
justices, it was necessary that there should be some responsi-
ble persons, instead of emanating from hidden sources, and
which would insure na responsibility. The Commons had
also made very considerable alterations in the schedules.
They had made alterations in the Bill as it had been sent
down to them, by which all towns containing less than 9,000
inhabitants were not to be divided into wards. He agreed
with them in thinking that it would be highly prejudicial to
divide towns containing less than that number of persons into
wards. Many towns, therefore, which were included in the
schedules which were to be divided into wards would not be
so ; and also, the larger towns would be divided into a less
number of wards than that House had proposed. He believed
that the alteration of the House of Commons in this respect
were desirable, and he trusted that Noble Lords would be slow
to interfere with it. He recommended these amendments to
the House. Most of them were merely restorations of the
clauses which originally stood in the Bill ; and those which
were not so were adopted on principles in which he entirely
agreed. It was therefore unnecessary for him to say that he
gave them his .most cordial support. He would not take up
longer time, but- would conclude with once more recommending
the amendments: to the cool, the careful, the serious, and the
impartial consideration of the House.—( Hear, hear,)
Lord L YND HURST said that after the course which the
discussion on this subject had taken, he was entitled
to claim the i asdulgence of the House for a short time.
He considered i t as a duty to himself and to the House to
make some obs, !mations on the amendments that had been
made in this Bill (by the other House—nit was a duty in some
respects pleasure .ble to him, and in other respects painful ; but
he felt it to be a. duty to address the House on this subject.
After all that had been said out of doors as to the conduct of
the majority of the House with respect to this Bill, and after
what had been said. by the Noble Lords opposite on the same
subject, to which hi a did not intend particularly to advert, he
could not help ails ing to what had been gained by the dili-
gent attention oft hie House to this subject, as well as shortly
calling the attenti of Noble Lords to those points which re-
mained for discuss in n. The first question to which he intended
to advert involved a n important and beneficial alteration which
had been made in th, e Bill in that House. He thought that
every principle of jt tstice demanded that they should preserve
the rights of fr eeme n. Those rights possessed by freemen
would have been enti rely-extinguished by the Bill as introduced
into the House cif Cc iminons. He was anxious not to extend
the rights of fre met , but to place them on the same footing,
and in the same situation, as if the Bill had not passed. He
and those with whom he acted, opposed this part of the mea-
sure, and the r esult of their opposition was successful. They
had established : the rights of freemen to the full extent they
now existed, and they appealed to the House of Commons on
the subject, and fche result of the appeal was, that the House of
Commons, in a sl )irit of conciliation, and with a desire to meet
the wishes of t hF Lt House, had assented to the amendment.—
( Hear, hear, hens. ) If they had asked nothing more he thought
that they had ac, impiished a great deal by obtaining this point;
he therefore corveratulated the House on succeeding in esta-
blishing the rig]] is of f reemen—rights which could not be taken
from the possessu rs witl lout committing great injustice.—( Hear,
hear.) Another point to which he wished to allude was that
one of the right ; of freemen was established, as he thought
fairly, after the long, the deliberate, and the painful dis-
cussions of the l Zeform Act—he meant the right of voting for
Members of Parli 'ament. The Bill, as originally introduced,
went to the extent of preventing the perpetuity of their rights.
The Bill went int •'J Comrnitte e, as he found from the votes of
the other House, Ind every e ffort was made to preserve their
rights, but the attempt was unsuccessful. The Bill was re-

committed, and , ss other unsuccessful attempt was made for the
same purpose, at tit was not until the third reading that the
promoters of the Bill consented that their right should be
continued to the extent allc .wed in the Reform Act. When
the Bill came into that Housi he stated that he did not think
that it was right i a a Bill for the regulation and improvement
of municipal corpo rations to unsettle individual rights which
were preserved by the Reforn i Act, which they had been told
was a final measure . He th'i .1 proposed that the other rights
of freemen should be preser wed, and his proposition met with
the greatest oppos. itio n, of • which, however, he did not com-
plain ; the subject wa s fully discussed, and the House sanc-
tioned his proposit for 1. Du ring the discussions on this point,
allusions had been n Jade to the alleged bad conduct of the
freemen at election s, but he did not believe that the assertions
made were justified I ay the conduct of the freemen since the
passing of the Refa cm Act, whatever it might have been be-
fore. If the accust ttion was just, it ought to have been made
and urged at the time the Reform Bill was in progress
through Parliament , but it ought not to be raised now with
a view of destroyin g these rights. The Noble Lords oppo-
site were the great promoters of the Reform Act, and in that
measure the right ,s of freemen were admitted to the fullest
extent ; therefor e the propositions introduced into this
Bill appeared directly at variance with the admissions they
made in the form er measure. His first object was to preserve
the rights of free men in an equal, valid, and binding form, as
they existed whet i the Reform Bill passed. The exertions he
had made on this subject had been successful, and the Bill
was sent down tra the other House with amendments to that
effect. The H a ,use of Commons had adopted those amend-
ments he truste a, from a conviction of the justice of the case,
but most sure', y in a spirit of conciliation. This was the
great point to which in the first instance he had taken the
liberty of callin g the attention of the House. Another point
of great import Lime was that of qualification. It appeared to
him to be absob rtely necessary, in consequence of the groat
extent of the Jecting body, to establish some qualification
with regard to those who. were to be elected members of the
town-council. He was s urprised, when he stated the reasons
why he though t this desirable to the House, that his proposi-
tion met with s tch violent and energetic opposition from Noble
Lords opposite fa I.Te did not expect such a degree of opposi-
tion, because he thoc ight that he was acting in analogy With
the principle adopted in a Bill which had been prepared and
laid on the "Able by his Noble and Learned Friend after great
considerat:iur i, and which was adopted by the Government ;
therefor.; he was surpr. Ised at the opposition made to his sug-
gestio'4. But when his I\ Coble and Learned Friend's Bill was be-
fore the Hroive, they hea rd nothing respecting the aristocracy of
wrJalth which the qualifit "ation would introduce. He had then
Winded not only to the principle of qualification, but
had also adverted to tl to mode of carrying it into effect ;
and he was then charged vrith being an innovator. The mode
of qualification, however, which he proposed, existed in a mea-
sure which had been intr educed by Noble Lords opposite, and
which was now in opet motion. He had not heard any just
grounds of opposition tc • the principle ; and the Noble Lord
who was formerly Secret ary for Ireland, who bad made some
observations on the subj lect, clearly showed by the tenor of
his remarks that he did not understand the question. The
measure, thus altered, we at down to the other House. He did
not mean to dwell on wit at It passed in the House of Com-
mons; but the question of qualification was admitted without a
division. The only division that took place was on one of the
details relative to the qualification ; and it was defeated by a
majority of more than seven t.o one. The other House of Par-
liament had sanctioned ,the F rinciple of qualification. It was
true that there was a greet ifference between the description
of qualification adopted by the other House, and that adopted
by him ; especially in rega .rd to this point, that the qualifica-
tion adopted by the other . He ills° was considerably more con-
tracted and more exclusive 1 ti) an that which had been proposed

by their Lordships, and which was contained in the Bill when
it left their Lordships' House. He had taken great pains to
make inquiry into this subject. He had obtained returns for
the purpose of showing the average amount at which persons
would be rated who should have been admitted into the coun-
cil under the qualification clause, as it left their Lordships'
House, and he had ascertained that it would have been 171.
a year.—( Cries of " Hear.") The other House had, how-
ever, adopted a different qualification, by which a large por-
tion would be excluded. He thought he was safe in saying,
that one-half of those who were admitted should be' rated at
301. a year. The consequence was, that the alteration made
in the other House excluded all between 171. and 301. So
that if he (Lord Lyndhurst) had drawn the line within which
the choice was to be made too tight, the House of Commons
had drawn the line still tighter. His only object in proposing
the qualification at all was in order to take care that those
managing the affairs of the borough should be chosen from
such a class as was likely to ensure the proper discharge of the
duties entrusted to them, both as regarded the boroughs and
the public. He had been accused of proposing a qualification
that was bad in itself, and without precedent, but the reason
which induced him to propose it was, that it was more flexible,
and more easily accommodated to the circumstances of all bo-
roughs, than any other which could be devised. He did not
complain, however, of the substitute—( Hear)—but, on the
contrary, he assented frankly and cheerfully to it.—( Cheers.)
The next point to which he would allude was that of the
licensing of public houses. This was a point to which Noble
Lords on both sides of the House considered of great importance,
although they took different views of it. He (Lord Lyndhurst),
as well as many Noble Lords who acted with him, concurred in
opinion, that placing the power of granting licenses in the hands
of the town-council would lead to numberless evils—( Hear,
hear)—that it would lead to an infinity of bad jobs and mis-
chief of all kinds. It was upon that account that he had
proposed that the clause should be expunged. It was ex-
punged, and the retention of it had been contended but feebly
or at least not strongly, even by the Noble Lords on the op-
posite side of the House, and the alteration had passed the
other House of Parliament without even one word being said
in opposition to it, or for the restitution of the clause. These
were important and, in his opinion, most salutary amend-
ments upon the original Bill, which had been carried by their
Lordships at the very time when they were accused out of
the House of being in the act of mutilating and destroying
the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) There was another change which
had been proposed by him, and in which he had the assist-
ance of his Noble and Learned Friend opposite—he meant
that regarding the administration of public charities. As the
Bill came from the other House, its provisions in rcrspect to
the administration of charities were objectionable in the ex-
treme. —( Hear, hear, hear.) The guardians of these chari-
ties, without being called upon for either qualification or se-
curities, were allowed to have the management of funds to
an enormous amount, as well at a large amount of real pro-
perty. His Noble and Learned Friend cordially co-operated
with him in opposing this clause, and they struck it out of
the Bill, thereby leaving the administration of the charities
for a time in the hands of those who had formerly adminis-
tered them, and who had administered them generally, he be-
lieved, in a creditable and satisfactory manner, in order that
Parliament might in the meantime arrange seme legislative
enactment applicable to those as well as to other public
charities. These, he thought their Lordships would see, were
great objects gained by their labours.—.( Hear, hear.) There
was one other subject to which he would allude, and it was
one of great importance. He meant that which regarded
the disposition of the Church property now in the possession
and under the controul of the corporations. Ile could assure
their Lordships that this was a subject which had occupied
more of his consideration and thoughts, and more of the
thoughts of several other Noble Lords with whom he acted,
than any other part of the subject. He was sorry to find
that the amendment which had been carried by their Lord-
ships upon his motion had given rise to such keen debate and
warm feelings in the other House ; but he could assure the
House that it never was his intention to hurt the feelings
of the Dissenters. He knew that it had been said by some
Hon. Gentlemen, Members of the other House, who arc
supposed to represent the Dissenting body, that it was not
the intention of the Dissenters to interfere with the patronage
of the Established Church, but he wished to put it out of
their power to do so. All he wished was, that the Dissenters
should not interfere with the Established Church, more
than the members of the Established Church interfered
with the Dissenters. The question had been asked him,
how he would define a member of the Established Church?
He knew the difficulty of answering the question, and the
difficulty there might occasionally be in ascertaining whe-
ther a man was a Dissenter or not. Still, however, he
thought some check necessary. As to the amendment
which had since been made in the other House, and
which was now before their Lordships, he had himself
prepared a similar clause—( Hear, hear, and cheers) ; but
he knew the difficulty of proposing it. He was aware of the
attacks which would be made upon him, if any such proposi-
tion came from him. He was convinced if he had proposed it
that he would have been charged with plundering the Corpo-
rations of their Ecclesiastical patronage, for the purpose of
investing the Right Reverend Prelates with it—(Hear)—and
he knew that he would be further told by the Dissenters, that
many of the Corporations who now held Ecclesiastical pro-
perty were composed of Dissenters ; and since none of the
evils which were dreaded had occurred during the period when
those Corporations administered that property, he would be
asked what right he had to force those Corporations now to
dispose of it? He knew that those objections would be
brought against such a clause as this, if introduced by him ;
and he, therefore, had thought of introducing what he con-
sidered a more vague and general clause, and one not so
effectual_( Hear, hear)—trusting, in a great measure, to the
honour of those who dissented from the Established Church
not to interfere in regard to the Church patronage. Their Lord-
ships had thus, by their exertions, protected the rights of
freemen, they had established the principle of qualification,
they had rescued charities from the dangers to which they
were exposed, and had established a safe rule regarding
Church patronage. These, he would say, were great results
from their Lordships' exertions.—( Hear, hear.) He would
not say that these results were owing to his exertions, be-
cause they were not produced by him alone, but also
by those who thought with him, and acted in unison
with him.—( Hear.) The amendments had only been intro-
duced to their Lordships' attention by him, but they were the
production of many Noble Lords, who had assisted in the la-
bour. In fact, the amendments were the joint act of all.—
( Cheers.) He now came to a question which had been taken
up by himself personally. He meant the alteration made in
the other House upon their Lordships amendment regarding
the continuance of aldermen in office. By the amendment
which he had proposed, and which was acceded to by their
Lordships, aldermen were to continue to hold their offices for
life ; and the other officers of the corporation were also hold
their present appointments for life. He considered, he had
always considered, and he still continued to consider, that
amendment one of great importance and efficiency. He con-
sidered that the composition of the common-council, when an-
nually filled up by popular election, would be liable to be con-
stantly acted upon by agitators and other violent individuals.
He thought that this state of matters would be apt to produce
a great uncertainty and inconvenient want of uniformity in
the administration of the corporate affairs ; and he thought
it, therefore, absolutely necessary that a certain proportion
of the council should be, at least, to a certain degree, per-
manent, and independent of the popular choice. He had,
therefore, proposed that one-third of the council should
hold their offices for life. He thought at the time that
their Lordships had judged wisely in adopting this propo-
sition, and he had since seen no reason to alter his opi-
nion. He had found the same principle sanctioned by a
Bill introduced by the Noble Lord opposite, to which he had
had frequent occasion to allude. He was glad to find that
principle for which he contended. The House of Commons
had certainly not agreed that any part of the council should
be for life, but they consented that they should hold their
offices for six years, which rendered them in a great degree in-
dependent. They had thus adopted the principle, although,
in his opinion, they had not gone far enough with it. With
regard to the continuance of the present aldermen in their
offices, he had felt the greatest anxiety that they should do so,
and he could not but regret that the House of Commons had
objected to that part of their Lordships' amendments. He
looked at the Bill and asked what was the intention of those
who were its promoters ? Their object was not to annul the
Corporations, it was not to repeal all the powers which they
held, but to amend the Corporations.—( Hear, hear.) He
would ask them, and it was natural that he should ask, what
were the charges against the present aldermen that they
should be removed, or what were the practical defects which
could not be remedied without the removal of the present
officers ? He had attended to the arguments made use of
in their Lordships' House, and he had now read the argu-
ments made use of in the other House to justify a Reform
of the Corporations, and he found that the evils com-
plained of were principally four. The first was the prin-
ciple of self-election ; the second, the bad administration of
the public funds, and bad superintendence of the corpo-
rate accounts ; the third, the improper distribution of local
patronage; and, fourthly, the bad administration of justice.
These were the heads of all the objections brought against
Corporations as they at present stood. Now, if Parliament
considered it necessary to amend the charters of the Corpo-
rations, what ought to be considered ? They ought to look
to the mischiefs complained of—they ought to take the evils
which were known to exist—and be now assured that all those
complaints and evils were well founded, and apply a re-
medy. They were not justified, however, in going further,
nor in speculating upon evils which might possibly have
existed. Now he would aver that, without removing any one
of the officers, all the evils complained of might be removed.
Their Lordships had adopted all the provisions made by the
Bill for remedying the evils complained of. But why should
they go further? And above all, why remove officers who
hold their offices by the King's charter—( Hear, hear)—against
whom there is no well-founded complaint, but, on the con-
trary, who, as far as appeared by the evidence which had been
heard at their Lordships' bar, appeared to have conducted
themselves respectably, and to the satisfaction of the boroughs
over which they were placed ?—( Hear, hear.) His opinion,
therefore, was, that these aldermen ought to have been conti-
nued, and he should therefore wish that their Lordships should
enforce that part of their amendments. This was his opinion
when the subject was formerly under their Lordships' conside-
ration, and it still continued to be his opinion. Continuing,
therefore, to hold his opinion, he felt bound to abide by it,
whatever might be the result ; but he did not wish to conceal
that several other Noble Lords, who had formerly entertained
the same opinion as strongly as he did, had looked into other
circumstances connected wish the question, and finding that
this clause was opposed not only by the majority of the other
House, but by Sir Robert Peel, a gentleman in whom, with
great justice, they felt much confidence, both as to his judg-
ment and experience, did not now feel that they would be jus-