The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-29 00:00:00

NAVAL OFFICERS.

Sir E. CODRINGTON rose to present several petitions
from naval officers, complaining of the mariner in which
they had been treated by the Board of Admiralty. He was not
entirely acquainted with the whole of the facts stated
by the petitioners, so that he was unable to give a
judgment upon them.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Honour-
able Gentleman who cried " Hear" should bear in mind that
these proceedings to which the petitioners referred had been
carried on behind the scenes, and therefore he was unable to
form a complete judgment upon them. The Hon. and Gal-
lant Member presented petitions from William Boyd, and
Sarah Byrne (a widow of an officer), and was proceeding to
make some observations when—

Mr. WIL KS rose to order, and suggested that as the Gal-
lant Member had given notice of a motion upon this subject,
he ought to content himself with presenting the petitions with-
out comment.

The SPEAKER was of opinion that the Gallant Member
might be allowed to make any comments upon the petitions by
way of explanation.
Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON said that he had been

thrown off his guard by a taunt, or he should not
have proceeded to make the observations he had delivered.
The Hon. and Gallant Member presented similar petitions
from Dr. Williams and Captain Edwards, and, others, and
concluded by moving that they be laid on the table.
Mr. L ABOU CHE RE, as the Hon. Member's motion was
so soon to come on, would reserve anything he had to
say till that motion was brought on. He would only
observe that there were three petitions of which he never
heard before. If the Hon. and Gallant Member had been
kind enough to send them to him, or to inform him of them,
he should have attended to them.

The petitions were then laid on the table.
CORPORATION BILL.

Mr. CHALMERS presented a petition from the Royal
Burgh of Montrose, praying that House not to pass the Muni-
cipal Corporation Reform Bill, as it had been altered by the
House of Lords. The petition was very numerously signed.
Mr. HUME supported the prayer of the petition.
UNSTAMPED PUBLICATIONS.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from John Cleave, .the
proprietor of the Weekly Police Gqzette, complaining of his

house having been entered by the Sheriff of Surrey for 2001.,
and stating that although be had paid that sum, the whole
of his property had been seized, and was about to be
sold. Under these circumstances, the petitioner prayed that
the property might be restored to him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not oppose the pre..
sentation of the petition ; if the petitioner had conducted him..
self legally his property would be restored, but if he had acted
illegally, his property would be forfeited.
MUNICIPAL REFORM DILL.
Mr. WILK S presented a petition from Boston, praying
that the House would adhere firmly to the important przaciple
laid down by them in the Bill, and reject it in the shape it
was understood it would come in from the House of
Lords.—(Loud cheers.) The petition also prayed that
the House would at this alarming crisis adopt such measur,ls
ac the exigencies of the country demanded. Nothing in his•
opinion could more clearly show the determination of the
people of England than what had taken place in Boston.
Sorie time since he had presented a petition from that place
in favour of the Municipal Reform Bill signed by two or three
hundred persons; the present petition, however, was signed
by upwards of I,4oo—(Cheers)—of the most influential
persons in the town. The question now was whether Reforms
should or should not be efficacious, and whether the represen-
tatives of the people of England were or were not to have the
power to introduce and carry through those measures
vihich they considered essential for the good of the
country ?—( Cheers.) Those measures were now being des-
troyed. He trusted, therefore, that the House could adopt
such a course as would prevent the expectations of t::43,people
from being blighted.—( Cheers.) The people hoped th.at no-
thing would be done by the House towards appropriating .the
public money till their rights had been secured.—(Cheers.
The Dissenters had given way, and resigned their claims, on
the understanding that matters of great public importance would
be brought forward and carried. Not only have these great
measures not been carried, but the Dissenters have been in-
sulted, calumniated, and placed in a worse situation than they
had previously been in. By the amendments introduced in tbe
Corporation Bill, they were prohibited from interfering in the
business of Corporations, and thus, instead of having new pri-
vileges conferred on them, they had been treated in a manner
that had excited their deepest indignation.—( Hear, hear.)

Mr. STRUTT presented a petition from the Corporation
of Derby, expressing the feelings of dismay and indignation
with which the petitioners had heard of the mutilation of the
Corporation Reform Bill. The petitioners stated that the
conduct of the House of Lords had rendered the Bill utterly
useless, and that their confidence in the hereditary legislators
was considerably weakened. The Hon. Member alluded to a
charge brought against the Corporation of Derby by the lion.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth, when the Bill had been
first introduced into that House. The charge had been founded
upon the Report of the Municipal Commissioners ; but injus-
tice to the Corporation, he (Mr. Strutt) would say that the
Report of the Commissioners alluded to a period long since
passed. In proof of the feeling of excitement which was
abroad in that town, he would observe that the peti-
tion had been carried by a majority of more than three to
one. The Han. Member then presented a petition from the
Borough of Ludlow, signed by GOO persons, and praying that
the House would reject the amendments made by the House
of Lords, and that it would not separate without taking into
consideration what course it might be sidvisable to adopt, to
counteract the wily and desperate attempt of the Peers to
stop all Reform. He trusted the House and his Majesty's
Ministers would take the prayer of the petition into their con.
sideration. —( Cheers.)

Sir H. HARD ING E would only_observe, that his Right
Hon. Friend the Member for Tamw•orth haa not thrown any
imputation upon the Corporation of Derby ; he. had merely
quoted from the Report of the Commissioners.—( Hear.)
Mr. STRUTT explained that he had not charged the Hon.
Baronet with making the statement from himself.

Mr. CHARLTON thought it a great pity that these peti..
tions had not the addresses of the persons who signed them at-
tached to them. The charge brought against the House of
Lords was most unjustifiable.—(Cries of " Oh," and loud
laughter.) He would repeat, that the conduct of those who had
charged the House of Lords with unconstitutional proceedings,
was most unjustifiable.—( Loud cries of " Oh, oh !") What !
(exclaimed the lion. Member with great warmth) were a set
of pot-house politicians, the tag-rag, and bob-tail of the
town, to charge the House of Lords with unconstitutional
conduct?—( Laughter.) The House of Lords was of vast im-
portance in counteracting and controlling the democratic ten-
dency of that House, and such an accusation only betrayed the
ignorance of the petitioners, and of those who cheered the
petition.—( Loud cries of "Oh !" and much laughter.) Was
it to be said that such persons as the petitioners should call
upon that House to stop the supplies ? The well-thinking
portion of the people in the town of Ludlow were de-
cidedly hostile to the sentiments of that petition.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member proceeded to pass a high eulogium
upon the respectability and character of the Corporation of
Ludlow. Two thirds of the persons who had signed the peti-
tion were wholly unknown—some he understood had signed it
three or four times, and there were even women among the
number. He believed it was a prototype of many other peti-
tions on the same subject.
Dr. BALDWIN was one of those who had cheered the
Hon. Member for Derby. He did not deny the independent
right of the House of Lords to introduce any amendments
they thought proper, provided they did not interfere with the
rights and privileges of the people. In the present case, he
(Dr. Baldwin) was of opinion that they had done so, and he
would therefore stigmatize their conduct as unconstitutional.
Mr. HUME thought it very important that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Ludlow should state upon what authority he asserted
that the petition had been improperly signed. Unless he did
so, the statement of the Hon. Member near him must be con-
sidered of equally as much value.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. SC AR L ETT complained that this Bill had been car-
ried by a majority of Irish and Scotch Members.—(Loud cries
of "Oh " from the Ministerial benches.) The Honourable
Member opposite had said that the other House had
interfered with the liberties of the people, but never
had there been a greater attack upon the liberties of the
people than was contained in that very Corporation Bill.—
( Laughter and loud cries of "Oh !") Why, therefore,
should the House of Lords be attaeked for defending the

liberties of the people ?—( Continued cries of " Oh, oh 1")
Mr. STRUTT complimented the Hon. Member for Lud-
low on his new character of defender of the corporation of
that town, although he had always been an opponent of it
heretofore.

Mr. C H ARLTON said that in reading the letter in a hurry
he had made a mistake ; he had stated that a boy had signed
the petition four or five times. The fact was, the letter said—
that a boy had signed the petition nine times. The high-
bailiff of Ludlow wrote thus :—" Phillips tells me that
the petition was signed nine times by one boy." He denied
having cast a slur upon the Hon. Member who had alluded to
him as appearing in a new character. He appeared in that
character in which he ever had appeared, and ever would ap-
pear in as a public man. When the Corporation of Ludlow
did not act according to its charter, he made it do so without
having recourse to such a despicable Bill as the Corporation
Bill was before it left this House.--(Laughter.) He had
done his best to support the Corporation of Ludlow when it
acted rightly, and when it did not he found the law strong
enough to make it conform to its charter.
Mr. POTTER happened to be able to bear out the state-
ment of the Hon. Member, in reference to his public charac-
ter, because he recollected that the lion. Member was a mem-
bar of the Birmingham Political Union, of which he ( Mr. P. )was
also a member ; and he recollected also that the Hon. Mem-
ber was then a zealous and vehement defender of Reform, and
he thought lie ought to be a little more moderate, now ho had
changed sides.— ( Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. CHARLTON had not the least objection to have his
public conduct canvassed before that House. It was true that
in former times, when he found Toryism injurious to the pub-
lic welfare, he supported reform • but now that Toryism was
essential to the public good, he felt it his duty to support it.—
( Laughter.) He believed he was a member of the Birmingham
Political Union.—( Renewed laughter.) But he was not, as
the Hon. Member stated, a zealous defender of Reform. He
was never in his life present at any .of the meetings of that
union.---( Laughter.) But what even if he had been ? What
was it for ? To promote reform.—( Cheers.) But not for the
purpose of producing that agitation, and that revolution,
in the promotion of which he believed the Hon. Member
who had attacked him had taken a most prominent part.
When he saw Reform was made nothing less than an instru-
ment of revolution, he did feel called upon to resist it.—( Hear. )
Mr. POTTER begged to say that he was no republican,
but he was anxious for good government, which, he believed,
all those who opposed Reform, intended to destroy.
Mr. CHARLTON---I believe just the reverse.—(Loud
laughter.)