The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-10 00:00:00

AMEN T

under the Reform Bill. He believed that if this Bill were
carried into effect in the great towns, it would very much add
to that faction, and consequently they would not be able to
preserve, in a due degree, the balance of the Constitu-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) It seemed probable that the balance
of power would be changed in those cities, or that great
struggles would be made for that object. That power had hitherto
run in a different course, and by that means they had at-
tained that height of liberty and happiness they had so long en-
joyed. That course consisted in a mixture of monarchy, aristo-
,:racy, and popular feeling ; and he did contend that this Bill
would destroy that happy constitution of things. The greater part
of the population had grown rich in trade under the encourage-
ment of the aristocracy. It must be recollected that in those
cities every householder had a vote for the town Councillors,
for the limitation to having paid three years' rate being qua-
lified by a proviso, that it was not necessary to occupy
the same House during that period. The constituency
would be considerably larger than was imagined, and the
effect of the Bill would be to set the population to-
gether in a way which would not at all be agreeable to
general order, while it would introduce into power
persons not of the same degree of loyalty and attachment to the
constitution as those who now held that power. It could
not be concealed that in the great towns the corpora-
tions in general consisted of persons who rallied round
the principles of loyalty, and he believed that if an opposite
course were taken, and the power was vested in a purely po-
pular body, a force would be created which was contrary to
the Constitution, and might have the effect of destroying it.
This Bill would add to the popular force a number of fierce
democracies, which would disturb the peace of the country,
and endanger the monarchy. ( Hear, bear, hear.) He
would not contend for the corruptions of corporations, nor
was he anxious to maintain the old corporations as they
were ; but was it, he would beg to ask, likely that this
Bill would produce a purer Government? He did not believe
that a democratical Government would be purer—this form
of Government had virtues, but purity was not one of
them. They must not expect to correct the corruptions of
corporations by making them more popular. On these consi-
derations he felt it his duty to take the sense of the House
upon the motion which he meant to conclude with, viz. :
" That all towns should be excepted, in which, according to the
schedules, the number of Councillors amounted to thirty."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in answer to a question from
Mr. H. Twiss, said that upon a representation from the new
Corporations, the Privy Council would take into consideration
the population and general state of the town, and appoint the
number of councillors accordingly. They must not alto-
gether go by the population, as in some large towns the po-
pulation was so poor that they could not find a sufficient num-
ber of councillors.
Mr. ROEBUCK opposed the motion of Mr. Scarlett.
After a short discussion,
Mr. SC ARLE TT rose and said that the proposition did
not seem to be generally supported by his own side of the
House.—( Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Although,
therefore, he persevered in his opinions, he would not give the
House the trouble to divide.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. GROTE thought the number of Councillors for Batb,
viz. 48, was considerably too large for that place. He thought
all the business might be very well done by 30.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged to remind the
House that these Councillors were to supply the place of all
the Commissioners under Local Acts of Parliament. The
Commissioners of Paving, Watching, Lighting, &c., were
to be superseded by these Councillors, so that by the time
they were subdivided into Committees on these various local
Acts, the number would not be considered larger than was
necessary.
Sir. R. PEEL agreed with the Hon. Member opposite, that
the number was too larva to meet and deliberate, and
that it would lead to great inconvenience if they degenerated
into a debating society. There was no precaution taken in the
Bill against this inconvenience, and in all questions of public
interest it was certain that the attendance would be very nu-
merous. The watching of the town might be transferred
to them, but he questioned whether the Paving and Lighting
Commissioners could be transferred without a special autho-
rity. The number of Councillors on the several Committees
should not be large, for his (Sir Robert Peel's) experience
enabled him to say, that the more the number of a Committee
was increased, the more the responsibity was divided, and the
worse the business was done.—( Hear, hear.) If these
councillors were to be elected and enjoy popular con-
fidence, why not limit their numbers ? The whole
Metropolitan Police was managed by two Commissioners,
and if seven were appointed, there would be five more salaries
to pay, and the business would be much worse done. He
would much sooner see the business of large towns,
like those of Bristol, Birmingham, and Manchester,
committed to three intelligent men, then to seven, nine, or a
greater number. He hoped that, instead of establishing 60 or
70 as the minimum for the number of Councillors for
the town of Bristol, that the maximum should be only 13.
He would not fix the minimum below twelve in the smaller
towns—to that he would be opposed, but he did think that
the larger the town the smaller the number of Councillors
should be, and not as the Noble Lord seemed to think, that
they would then be larger.—(Cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the arguments of the Right
Hon. Baronet would be perfectly right, supposing these
officers were salaried officers ; but when the Council
—when they were speaking of the Council—they were to re-
member that it would be composed of persons who would
be very far from devoting their whole time to that duty.
Many of them would be persons in business, whose business
occupied them in a great measure ; and therefore it was
only the time that they considered extra time that
they would devote to the affairs of the town. It was
upon that principle that he thought the Town Council should
be numerous ; and it was upon the same principle that, in
local acts for paving and lighting, there were generally
from 70 to 80 Commissioners appointed. Now, as under this
Bill the whole officers of the town would be under the control
of the Council, he thought they should be numerous.
Mr. BAINE S was of opinion, that the number of the town-
councils proposed by the Bill was not excessive, and he found-
ed that opinion on the following circumstance :—Every one
acquainted with Manchester, knew that the governing body of
that town consisted of 240 persons ; the governing body of
Salford consisted of 120 persons. New, the number of mem-
bers prescribed by the Bill for the town-council of Liverpool,
a place, the population of which was equal to Manchester and
Salford together, was 90. From these facts, he inferred that
the number was not excessive. Experience led him to the con-
clusion that the number of the council appointed by the Bill,
would be adequate to the administration of the various places
to which they belonged, but that a diminution of that number
would be injurious. There was: another observation arising
out of those which he had already made, with which he would
likewise trouble the Committee. It should be remembered
that in appointing these councils, they were appointed not for
a stationary, but for an increasing population, and, therefore,
that it would be better to err on the side of excess, than on
that of deficiency.
Mr. E WART agreed in opinion with the Hon. Member
who had just preceded him.
Mr. ROEBUCK begged to be allowed to move as an
amendment to the proposition respecting the city of Bath—
" That the number thirty, be substituted for the number forty-
eight."
Mr. WILLIAMS did not think the number proposed by
the Bill too large. Adverting to the number of the Com-
mon Council of the City of London, he maintained that
if, instead of that number, the number was only sixty, the
whole of their time would be occupied by the business of the
city.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was persuaded, that if the number
of the members of the Common Council of the city of Lon-
don were doubled, the business of the city, instead of being
done better, would be done much worse. Where the number
of the members of any body was large, it was no distinction
to belong to it; where comparatively small, to belong to it
became a distinction worthy of the ambition of respectable
men. He had had much experience of public bodies ; and he
would venture to prophesy, that in any body of the kind in
question composed of eighty or ninety members, four or five
would seriously devote themselves to their public duties ; but
that, whenever anything was to be given away, then all the
members would attend ; and the four or five who had rendered
themselves, by their attention, conversant with the business,
would be overborne by the mass ; who, not having taken any
share of the burden upon themselves, must necessarily be in
a state of comparative incapacity ; and who would, neverthe-
less, desert the four or five who had been doing all the work.
( Hear, hear, hear.)
Sir J. RAE REID was decidedly of the same opinion as
his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth.
Mr. WILLIAMS, in explanation, observed, that the due
execution of the duties to be imposed upon the Town-Councils
would occupy much time ; and that, unless there was a division
of labour, those duties would be imperfectly discharged.
Mr. HO R ACE TWISS adverted to the constitution of
the Court of Directors of the East India Company. That
body managed the affairs of one of the largest empires in
the world, and had to subdivide itself for that purpose, into
various committees ; and yet it consisted of only twenty-four

members.
Mr. GROTE said that with respect to the Common Coun-
cil of the city of London, he thought that the great number of
the members of which it consisted was the greatest vice about
it ; and therefore, in his opinion, the illustration of the Hon.
Member for Coventry was an unfortunate one. In his opinion
it would be much better to limit the number of the members
of the Town-Councils, and by that means to increase their
value. As to the allusion made by an Hon. and Learned
Gentleman to the constitution of the Board of Directors of
the East India Company, the merit of their proceedings was
attributable rather to the conduct of the upper servants of the
Company than to the constitution of the Board.
After a few words from Sir G. Clerk, Lord Sandon, Mr.
Hardy, Mr. Denison, Mr. Brotherton, and Mr. Cresset Pel-
ham, the Committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the original motion, that the Town-Council should
consist of 48 members
For the amendment, that the Town-Council should consist
of 30 members...

hoped that copies of it would be in the hands of Members on
-it:londay morning, that they might have time to consider it be-
f,re the Report, which he should move be taken into consi-
deration on TueSday. He did not see the necessity for coin-
miffing the Bill again for the purpose of discussion, as he
thought that all that was required might take place on the
Report.
Mr. C. W. WYNN asked whether the Irish Tithe Bill was
to be read a second time on Monday ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that the second reading
would be proposed early on the evening of Monday.
Mr. LE NN ARD had been much pressed to propose a
clause to the effect that there should be a day of nomination of
the members of the Town Council previous to the day of elec-
tion. He trusted that the Noble Lord would take the su,g-
gcstion into his consideration.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that the subject had
also been pressed on the attention of the Government, and
after the fullest consideration of it they came to the conclu-
sion, that having a day of nomination for members of the
Town Councils would only lead to confusion.—( Hear, hear.)
He felt it necessary to observe that he should have a clause to
add to the Bill at a future stage, which he believed must be
founded on a resolution of a Committee of the whole House.
The object of the clause was to enable the Lords of the Trea-
sury to make compensation in certain cases. He would explain
the nature of this resolution in the course of the evening.
The CHAIRMAN was then ordered to report the Bill to the

House.—( Loud cheers.)
The House resumed. Ths Chairman appeared with the
Report at the Bar. It was brought up and ordered to be
re-committed.
The House again resolved itself into Committee. The Bill,
with amendments, was ordered to be reported to the House.
The House then resumed. The Report was brought up and
ordered to be taken into further consideration► on Tuesday
next, and the Bill, as amended, to be printed.

POST-OFFICE.
Mr. WALLACE rose, in conformity with the notice
which he had given, to bring forward a motion respecting
the state of the Post-office. Before he proceeded to the sub-
ject matter of his motion, he should ver) briefly revert to
what had been sail of him in another place by a Noble Duke,
formerly Postmaster-General. He would not recriminate on
that Nobleman, but he thought that he should have no diffi-
culty in showing that in the view he took of the matter ho
was right, and the Noble Duke was in the wrong. A similar
observation he also wished to make with regard to Sir Francis
Freeling. A document had been laid on the table entitled
" Papers relating to the Post-office," and he had no hesitation
in saying that they were more delusive than any papers that
he had ever seen, as coming from a public department to that
House. He felt bound to make this observation in justice to
the gentlemen who had conducted the Revenue Inquiry. He
confessed that his views on this subject had not been changed
by the letter written by the Duke of Richmond in answer to
the Report of the Commissioners. In a document laid on
the table in April, 1834, on the state of the revenue,
there was a return of the revenue of the Post-office
for a certain number of years. This return was for
Great Britain, and did not include Ireland. Now, he
contended that in this document there was not less than
10,97,0001. unaccounted for. He trusted that the attention of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be directed to
this subject. He objected to the constitution of the Post-
office, and thought that the office of Postmaster- General should
be discontinued. There had not been less than five Post-
masters General within the last twelve months, and it was im-
possible that any man could make himself master of the de-
tails of an establishment like the Post-office, or even with its
general business, in a short space of time. For seven or eight
months in the year there had been no Postmaster-General,
and all the duties of the office had been delegated to the Se-
cretary of the Department. The business transacted between
the Postmaster-General and the Secretary was carried on in a
most objectionable manner. The Secretary opened all docu-
ments, and wrote his opinion on the margin, and this opinion
generally influenced the head of the office. This system bad
beeh strongly censured by the Commissioners of Revenue In-
quiry. Again, the accounts between the Post-office and the
Treasury were kept in such a complicated manner that it was
utterly impossible that they could be correctly kept. In con-
sequence of this he was satisfied that the Treasury often
sanctioned proceedings which they never would do if they
were acquainted with their nature. The first thing he com-
plained of was, the delegation of duties in the Post-office—
secondly, that it was a trading company—and thirdly,
that it expended money received through it without first
getting the sanction of the Treasury, as was the case
with the two great departments of Excise and Customs.
One of the great objections to the present system was, that it
frequently happened that individuals were appointed Post-
masters-general who, besides being unacquainted with the
duties of the office, were wholly without any habits of busi-
ness. When Lord Maryborough at the age of 72 became the
apprentice of Sir F. Freeling, he should like to know what his
Lordship was likely to learn ? He would say let there be a
commission or some other arrangement, he did not care what
it was, so that the business was likely to be better done. The
Honourable Gentleman then referred to the immense patro-
nage at the disposal of the Postmaster-general, and complained
of the manner in which it had been exercised. He said he
found from a Return for which he had moved of the appoint-
ments of deputy Postmasters and Postmistresses, during the
last five years, that there were on an average 386 original ap-
pointments in the year, and that they were worth 90,4001. a..
year. The number of promotions were remarkably small.
He observed in this return that many females had been ap-
pointed to discharge the duties of the post-offices in the coun-
try. He had heard that in some cases females had received
the appoiatment instead of their husbands, in order that the
latter might not be disqualified from voting at elections. The
merit of the arrangements at the Post-office were not Sir F.
Freeling's, it belonged to Mr. Palmer, the inventor of mail
coaches. Now was the time when a change had become ne-
cessary, in consequence of the great age of Sir F. Freeling, to
alter the system and carry into effect the improvements that
might be considered desirable advantage should be taken of
this opportunity, for none more favourable was likely to offer
itself. The income at present derived by the Secretary was
4,1651. a-year ; and the under-secretary received 8001. a-
year, making 4,9651. a-year to these two officers. To this
was to be added, the value of the secretary's house, which he
estimated at 1,0001. a year, taking into consideration that he
had no taxes to pay, and that he was supplied with coals and
and candles. In his opinion the duties might be performed
most efficiently by two Commissioners with 1,000/. a year
each, and by a Secretary with 8001. a year, and an Under Se-
cretary with 400/. a year. All the duties of the office might
be most efficiently conducted at an expense yearly of 3,7651.
For the Secretary's house there was no use. There was no
night duty performed at the General Post-office ; it had been
so contrived that all night duty was avoided at this office,
which was an exception in that respect to all the others in the
kingdom. With a view to the more efficient dispatch of busi-
ness, and to afford the public greater accommodation, he
would have the clerks to take the night duty in turns.; and
as they would be entitled to accommodation, he would divide
the house amongst them. He observed that there was a charge
of nearly 2,5001. a year for greasing, oiling, and cleaning the
carriages; he thought he might venture to say that none of
this money was spent out of St. Martin's-le-grand. He would
move for a Return in detail from the Money-order office, of
the whole amount of poundage charged by postmasters upon.
post-office money orders, in each of the last three years.
This office was established for the purpose of enabling the
poor to transmit to their poor friends any sum to the amount
of 5/. in a way that was not to cost them anything. Now
what was the Return? Why, that the Post-office knew nothing
about it, because it was not in their department. The Return
said, " The Money-order office is a private establishment,
and the business carried on by private capital, under the
sanction of the Postmaster-general; but as no accounts con-
nected in any degree with it are kept at the Post-office, no
Return can be made by the Postmaster-General to the above
order of the House of Commons." Now he wished to know
with whose capital the establishment was carried on ? Was
it not the country's ?—Whose were the servants? The coun-
try's. Where were the accounts kept ? At the Post-office of
the country. He hoped that the Heuse would not be content
with such a Return as this, but that it would order another and
more perfect one. The House should see who received the
ernolument derived from this source of plunder. Eight-pence
in the pound was the sum taken by this jobbing from the poor
parent or child, instead of their being allowed to send their
money free. This was not all; the Post-office made an order
necessary, and thus the parties were put to an additional
expense of a double letter. What became of this Bd.?
There were two or three officers in the country who divided
it amongst them ; in London they raised Bd. in the pound,
and the Post. office people put it in their pockets. Who they
ere who did so they refused to tell ; but if the House woul,!,
grant him a committee he would undertake to discover deem
Li the country the Deputy Postmaster, who took in the :letter,
put 3d. of the Bd. in the pound into his own pocke's with the
sanction of the Postmaster-General; the sum of r
ed. more went
into the pocket of the Deputy-Postmaster to whom the order
was sent ; the remainder found its way 'into St. Martin's-
le-Grand to the General Post-office. Yet they said they
knew nothing about it. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to
the establishment of a Register-office for the safer transmission
of money. A Register-office had saved as much as 12,0001.
a year to the bankers in Ireland by the recovery of cut notes,
and the Post-office saved 1,000/. a year in law expenses.
Under this arrangement, every man who paid for his letter
was sure that it would reach its destination. A person paying
Is. had a right to have his letter registered, and that was the
usual course adopted with money-letters. The consequence
was, that letters were not, as in this eountry, thrown into the
fire, and the money put into the pocket of the persoa who
broke them open. He would recommend the re-instatement
of such an office as this. The Hon. Gentleman then referred
to the mail-coach department, which he said he had last
year characterized as a job. He complained of another de-
fective Return. He had moved for a Return in detail of the
amount paid to the contractor or contractors for furnishing
mail-coaches, distinguishing the number in use in England,
Ireland, and Scotland. The Return furnished stated that the
average" number of mail-coaches in use "in England and
Scotland," may have been abo,li 250 per annum, in each of
of the last ten years ; ;:a Ireland about 74. This was the
ame Return as made last year. Why, when the House
ordered eturn distinguishing the number ill use in England,
IrP).-and, and Scotland, were they furnished with only an
average Return of f theantr
tbhee st-or inpo.LlSCffice did not choose" in England and.
Scotland ?" The act was,
01.
to tell them hy theythe coaches were
lvpayingere
worth2e,O 0 0
if paid
d 3 Of,eoro
a year more than
v. by
mile. There were three men in England who tould
t've e,h, required information, and he would tell the House
they were—they were, Mr. Vidler, Sir F. Freeling,
and Mr. Johnson. Scotland had nine of the coaches out
~f the 250. The coaches were of a miscrabledesesiption
they were most incommodious and ambling ; in short, they

'lciß.tlrtlal