The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-07 00:00:00

CORPORATION REFORM BILL.

PROTEST AGAINST HEARING EVIDENCE.
DISSENTIENT :-1. Because we consider the provisions of this
Bill, which is neither a private Bill nor a Bill of Pains and Penal-
ties, but one of a general and remedial nature, as not affording any
reason for the admission of evidence that would not have applied
equally to a great number of other legislative measures which have
been passed through both Houses of Parliament, without the pro-
position of such an examination of witnesses ever having been made.
2. Because evidence has been tendered and refused by this House
in former cases, where individual interests of property were at least
equally involved.
3. Because the evidence tendered in this instance was all for the
purpose of proving facts which are not necessarily in issue between
those who support and those who oppose the passing of this Bill—
facts all of which may be admitted to be true without the least im-
peachment of the principle of the measure, or any of its details.
4. Because the main ground of complaint, and the chief reason
urged for receiving evidence, is not any objection to the provisions
of the Bill, but an objection to one part of its preamble—which
might be entirely omitted without any prejudice to the Bill.
5. Because the evidence tendered relates almost exclusively to
the conduct of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the
state of Municipal Corporations, and the Report of these Commis-
sioners—Whereas their conduct forms no part of the question raised
by the Bill now brought before the House, and the Report is no
necessary part of that measure.
6. Because, if evidence is to be received upon the ground that
certain parties conceive themselves aggrieved by a certain report,
or by the conduct of certain Commissioners, and not in proof of
any injury apprehended from a measure before the House, there is
no reason why evidence should not be received to rebut the matters
contained in any report or any other document laid upon the table
of this House, and proceeding from any quarter whatever, even if
no legislative measure should have been grounded thereupon, nor
any proceeding of the House proposed to be adopted in connexion
therewith.
7. Because the admission of evidence, beside establishing a pre-
cedent for an indulgence which tends directly to impede our legis-
lative functions, must in this instance consume the time of the
House, without giving any material assistance to the discussion of
the subject, while it places in jeopardy the passing of a Bill called
for by every consideration of sound policy, and by a due regard to
the rights of the people.
8. Because when we assented to the application for hearing the
case argued by Counsel, we did so protesting against its being either
necessary or justifiable, but in order to remove all possible ground
of complaint, and in the firm belief that it was the intention of the
House to confine the proceeding at the bar to hearing the arguments
of two Counsel.
BitoucinAm, D UNCA N NON,
VASSAL HOLLAND, QUEENSBERRY,
CLEVELAND, ALBE3IA ItLE,
THANI T, TORRINGTON,
MELnouRNE, Except the Bth reason,
LANSDOWNE, SO3IERHILL.
PLU NEETT,