The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-13 00:00:00

THE SUN', LONDON, TireitgDA,V, A.U.GeST 13, 1835.

dividuals ought to stand in the way of the just rights, of
the contentment, of the prosperity and happiness of a
great and intelligent people. Your petitioners therefore
implore your Right Honourable House to dismiss from your
minds all those unfavourable impressions against the people of
this town, which may have arisen from the representations of
their inveterate enemies at the bar of your Right Hon. House ;
and that your Lordships will forthwith pass the Bill in such
integrity as to give satisfaction to the people of these realms."
This, my Lords, as I have already said, is the petition of the
town of Leicester, signed within a few hours, by 9,500 inha-
bitants of that great town. Ido not perceive, my Lords, that
the word " Humble" is used by these petitioners, nor does it
set out with the usual form of " Humbly showed)." But
whether your Lordships may not be disposed to consider that
the word " Imploring," which is at least a very effective word,
and one expressive of humility—is a sufficient compliance with
what we know to be one of the standing orders of the House,
is more than I, unexperienced as I am in the forms of your
Lordships'House, can take upon myselfto say. —( Move, move. )
He moved that the petition be received.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE regretted having interrupted
the Noble and Learned Lord, because he should be sorry to
deprive him of any opportunity of showing an insult to that
House.—( Cheers.) For the Noble and Learned Lord to in-
dulge in this kind of sneer, and invective, and unbecoming sar-
casm was, he really thought, beneath him, and excessively in-
sulting to the dignity of their Lordships' House.—( Cheers
and " No, no.") He repeated it was very insulting for the
Noble and Learned Lord to use the language with which he
attempted to flagellate that House. It was nothing less than
pandering to the very coarsest passions and worst feelings of
the lowest class of the community.—( Loud cheers.)
Lord BROUGHAM—ReaIIy, my Lords, I am not aware
that I have used any one expression affecting your Lordships'
House except, indeed, stating my respect and veneration for
it•—(Cheers, and a cry of "Oh r) lam not aware, I say
aain, my Lords, of any one word I have used, which can
oblected to by any one Member of this House. But the
Noble Duke objects to my reading the petition, as if I were
taking. an opportunity of offering, disrespect to your Lord-
s,NA. Why, if I wished to cast any disrespect to your Lord-
ships, I should show that disrespect in my own proper person,
which the Noble Duke, to do him justice, gives me credit
for wishing an opportunity to do. I have yet to learn, my
Lords, that any Member of Parliament, in the discharge of
his duty of presenting the petitions of the people, is at all to
blame in bringing any petition forward ; it being the right of
the subject to petition Parliament—it being the right of your
Lordships to reject that petition, if you please.—( Loud
cheering.) Now, observe how the case stands--just observe.
If I had given in this petition—as I very naturally might
have wished to do, for I want to come to the business of the
evening—if I had given in this petition, and merely said,
" Petition in favour of the Bill, town of Leicester," some
Noble Lord would have looked at the petition to-night, or
to-morrow morning, and then he would have found out that
I had presented a petition without notice, containing expres-
sions, I have no hesitation in saying, of a strong nature ;
and I should have been immediately told that I was bound to
make your Lordships aware of the nature of those expres-
si°lls•—( Cheers.) Well, then, I say, I was bound to read
the petition.
The Earl of WICKLOW—No.
bLord BROUGHAM—The Noble Lord thinks I was not
und to read it. Well, then, I shall jut judge for myself;
make up my own mind, act on my own behalf, and read the
Petition or not read it as I please. I have a right to make
anY motion that I please. The motion that I made was that
the petition be received, and any Noble Lord can vote for
or against that motion as he thinks proper, exercising just
same discretion and freedom that I reserve for myself.—
(Cheers,
The Earl
of WICKLOW—If it were one of their Lord-
ship' rules not to receive disrespectful petitions, they could
not receive the present.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
l'las bound to read the petition before offering it to their
Lordships, and seeing that it contained expressions offensive
and insulting to the House, he should have told the petition-
re that such an insulting petition would Rot be received. He
begged to move that the petition be rejected.—( Opposition
eueers.)
The Earl of FALMOUTH reminded their Lordships that
bet Were in the habit of protecting, not only their own House
oft, the other House of Parliament, from 'disrespect. When
himself presented a petition the other day from the borough
En
vesham, which contained a passage stating that the ma-
jority of the other House was composed of Papists and others
not in
connection with the Church of England, it was alleged
N oble Lords opposite to be offensive to the other House,
and he immediately withdrew the petition on these grounds,
grid on these grounds only. Therefore, on account of the ge-
nrally disrespectful and insulting language contained in the
present petition, he should support his Noble Friend's objec-
tion to its reception.
Lord BROUGHAM—The Noble Earl has an undoubted
right to move the rejection of, and your Lordships have a
Perfect right to reject, any petition you please--of the exer-
s° of that right Ido not complain. But I say, my Lords,
it la to me a most extraordinary position that a Noble Lord,
receiving a petition signed by ten or eleven thousand of his
fellow. citizens is to reject that petition at once, because the
Petitioners choose to blame the conduct of the House of
Lords.--( Cheers.) lam not aware that this House is likely
to raise itself in the estimation of its fellow-countrymen by
Claiming for itself a privilege and a freedom which no hu-
man beings of their conduct have a right to claim—that of
being exempt from a free expression of disapprobation.—
kolid cheers.) Men may differ as to whether the expres-
sion of disapprobation is respectful or disrespectful ; and if
your Lordships think that this is a disrespectful expression
of disapprobation, it is for you to reject it.
The Elul of WICKLOW had moved the rejection of the
petition on the ground of its being a highly disrespectful one.
pe knew that the public had a right to blame their Lordships
In 'a respectful manner, but not in a disrespectful, sneering,
and insulting tone.
The Duke of WELLINGTON entreated their Lordships
not to weigh too nicely the wording of petitions, or the ex-
pressions of the petitioners. He was very much disposed to
think that no such disrespectful language as the present pe-
titions contained, was calculated to do their Lordships much
nlinrY.—( Loud cheering.) He must say, however, that when
the attention of the House was drawn, in so particular a
manner, by the Noble and Learned Lord to those particular
expressions when the Noble and Learned Lord commented
neon them as he had done; when in this particular petition,
Moreover, there was the omission of a word required to be in-
troduced into all petitions presented to the House, and when
the Noble and Learned Lord was aware of that fact--
(Lord BROUGHAM—I beg the Noble Duke's pardon.--
iobreder, order.) I will at once withdraw the petition. The
It to
doctrine is a most sound and a most judicious and a most
!ten-
ini)°, not only for this House, but for every individual in
adopt ; they should not weigh too nicely the expressions tildseeflernbeydpetitioners.—( Cheers. )
The Earl f WICKLOW—I beg to assure the Noble and
c a rTr ler:ditimrod, that if he had not withdrawn the petition, I
would certainly have taken the sense of the House.
BROUGHAM—And very probably you would have
The away with you.—(Great laughter and cheers.)
Lordlltion was then withdrawn.
Cockhurn-`°IJOH AM then presented a petition from Mr.
eipai Cockburn of the Commissioners, against whom the prin.
11%1r. \vhia es of the counsel at the bar had been directed.
tcombe, his brother Commissioner, was unfortunately :rd but he pledged himself, with their Lordship' per.
of the to rebut by five or six witnesses at the bar, the whole
i charges made against him by interested parties. As he
I,:r!' not moved their Lordships to hear the petitioner in the
istol case, he felt that he could not make an exception in the
),...naa_ei of this gentleman, who with his deceased colleague had
~e.ie4rTso directly attacked, and it was therefore his painful duty
l advise their Lordships not to grant the prayer of the peti-
tioner,which was, of course, to be heard at the bar. The Noble
arned Lord proceeded to state the substance of the
petition. The petitioner represented that he had entered
_ Poo the charge committed to him with a deep and anxious
sense of its responsibility, and that in performing it he had
kscharged his duty to the best of his humble ability and
!kn owledge, faithfully, fearlessly, and conscientiously ; that
theonjunction with his deceased colleague he had inquired into
Corporations of Coventry and Leicester ; that he had
Perused with extreme astonishment the evidence given with
reference to those Corporations ; and that he and his deceased
colleague had extended the same just and impartial spirit to
every Corporation that had formed the subject of their in-
quiry, without reference to political principles, in proof of
Which he referred to the Corporations of Nottingham and
Derby on the one hand, and Shrewsbury and Tamworth on
the other.

The petition was then read at length by the clerk.
Lord L YNDHURST said that from the statement of the
petition he should have inferred that Mr. Whitcombe, the de-
ceased Commissioner, was the only colleague of Mr. Cock-
burn, but Mr. Cockburn was also accompanied by Mr. Rush-
ton ; and his Lordship could bear testimony to the high re-
spectability of these gentlemen.
Lord BROUG HAM said the Noble Lord was perfectly
Ilgitt• Mr. Whitcombe went to Coventry and Leicester, but
sag prevented by illness from going to Sutton Coldfield. He
thanked his Noble and Learned Friend for the candid testi-
Mony he had just borne to the respectability of these Com-
Missioners.
The petition was then laid on the table.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr. Kemp-
son and Mr. Sadler, the former an alderman, and the latter an
attorney of Sutton Coldfield, stating generally the great pro-
Priety and correctness of the whole conduct of Mr. Cockburn,
the Commissioner at Sutton Coldfield. They stated also a
very remarkable circumstance, to which he begged to call their
Lordships' attention. A petition had been presented against
the Bill under the seal of the Corporation of Sutton Coldfield,
leading to the supposition that there was an erroneous feeling
against the Bill. There were twenty-five persons composing
the Corporation
only five of whom were present at the meet-
rg when the seal was affixed to the petition ; and among these
'flie--the square root of the Corporation--(Laughter)--a
division took place upon the question of affixing the seal, three
being, on one side, and two on the other; so that three mem-
bers alone took upon themselves to affix the seal to the peti-
tion, as if it spoke the mature opinions of the whole Corpo-
ration.
Viscount STRANGFORD said that Mr. Woodcock, of
Coventry had been accused of an intention, by the nature of
_the evidence he had given on this Bill, to secure to himself the
tonwal of a valuable lease held by him under the Corpora-
; the fact was, Mr. Woodcock had no connection what-
svevas er with the Corporation ; he had purchased the lease, and
Perfectly independent of any necessity of conciliating the
-,:prporation ; asmuch, as by an order of the Court of
..,‘-hancery, at the expiration of the lease ten years hence, the
Yrolerty would be put up to attction.
Lord BIIOI.7QHAM remarked that the only charge made

against Mr. Woodcock was, that when he was asked if he had
any, gonnection with the Corporation of Coventry, he ought
to hare explained that he was assignee of property of wbtch
the Corporation were the landlords.
Lord LYNDHURST reminded the Noble Lord that the
lease was granted two hundred years ago, and was purchased
by Mr. Woodcock of the tenant, and not of the Corporation.
Lord WHA RN CL I FFE presented a petition from Thomas
Smith, a burgess of Newcastle-on-Tyne, praying (as we un-
derstood) for pecuniary compensation in case the Municipal
Reform Bill should be passed. His Lordship also presented
a petition from the inhabitants of Clifden, in the North Riding
of York, against the 4th clause of the Bill, which would for
the purposes of that Act include Clifden within the bounda-
ries of the city of York ; and the petitioners prayed to be
heard by Counsel. He also presented a petition of a similar
nature from the inhabitants of Halifax.

Lord GLENE LG presented a petition from Tiverton in
favour of the Bill.

The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition from
Olney, in Bucks, in favour of the Bill.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE then rose to address their
Lordships, but his Grace was very indistinctly heard in the
gallery. The Noble Duke was understood to complain of the
:manner in which these petitions in support of the Bill were
got up ; and objected to the Government participating in the
agitation that was now going on in the country upon the sub-
ject. He had a peculiar regard for the Noble Viscount at
the head of his Majesty's Councils, and he would take leave
to suggest to the Noble Viscount, seeing as he (the Noblc
Duke) did, the treasonable conspiracy that was carrying on
in this country against the Church and State, whether it
would not be wise for him to withdraw himself from a Govern
meat which—(Great laughter)--which might be dragged
into that conspiracy, which he believed the Noble Viscount
and many other members of the Government would wish to
avoid.—( Laughter.) He feared that there were some persons
who would drag the Ministers of the Crown into the com-
mission of deeds and acts which they would—( Here the Noble
Duke dropped his voice, which prevented us from hearing
the remainder of the sentence.) Connected with all this he
Raw language in the public papers--(Laughter)—what he
was going to say was matter of fact—he had seen it stated
that in a certain place there had been remarks made calculated
to injure, in the greatest degree, the Church and the State ;
and he had also seen it reported that certain persons had, in
another place, endeavoured to vilify Members even of their
Lordships' House. He particularly alluded to some most
atrocious remarks made last night in a certain place. Those
remarks he thought were of such a character as to deserve
the most unqualified censure, and marks of displeasure from
this House. He alluded to a speech made by a person else-
where.—( Cries of " Order, order.")
Lord WH A RNCLIFFE rose to order. He really must
appeal to his Noble Friend whether it was consistent with the
dignity of their proceedings to refer to speeches made in the
other House of Parliament ; for, after all, disguise it as they
might, by the term, "another place," all mankind must un-
derstand what was meant. He hoped, therefore, this irregu-
lar discussion would not be continued.

The Duke of NE WC AST L E--These speeches ought to
he checked. ,
A NOBLE LORD—Checked !

The Duke of NE WC A STLE—Yes, checked; I certainly
will speak my opinion of such speeches wherever I may
be. The Noble Duke then proceeded to say that the
speech to which he alluded mentioned something about an
Illustrious Personage very nearly connected with the throne.
Things were said respecting that Illustrious Personage
hiell•-•-( Cries of " Order, order !") " If it be the opinion
of your Lordships I ought not to proceed, I will bow to
that opinion, and sit down."—(The Noble Duke then re-
sumed his seat. )
On the motion of Viscount MELBOURNE, the Order of
the Day was then read for the House resolving itself into Com-
mittee on the Municipal Corporations Bill.
Viscount MELBOURNE—My Lords, I now rise to make
the motion which I proposed on a former occasion, when I was
interrupted by the motion made by a Noble Earl, and adopted
by this House for hearing counsel, and receiving evidence at
the bar. When I consider the length at which I addressed
your Lordships on a former occasion, when the general princi-
ple of the measure was discussed, and when I consider the very
clear and distinct arguments both for and against that measure,
which were then addressed to your Lordships, I do not think it
my duty to offer any very lengthened observations to your Lord-
ships on this occasion. Your Lordships have heard counsel
at the bar ; you have heard the evidence also at the bar.
Your Lordships well know my opinion of the inconve-
nience of that proceeding, as well with regard to the pre-
sent measure, as with regard to the precedent it would esta-
blish. I shall therefore make no further observations upon
that part of the subject. I think the inconvenience has been
fully exemplified by the many petitions that it. has called
forth, by the nature of the debates which it has produced,
and by the many small matters that have been brought in
question before your Lordships. Such, for instance, as to
whether a person possessing a beneficial lease under the corpo-
ration of Coventry, has any interest in that corporation, so as
to bias his evidence in favour of that corporation ? These were
small matters, but which might take your Lordships a great
deal of time to unravel and discover; and which I apprehend
at the same time could have no possible effect whatever upon
the question before you for your Lordships' decision. Having
produced such en instance, I shall not dwell further upon
this part of the subject, or produce other instances to show
that my anticipations of the_ great inconvenience that would
esult from your Lordships' recent decision has been borne
out, and has also been attended with some degree of injustice,
because it is injustice that imputations should be cast upon
persons in the solemn and formal manner in which they have
been, who had not the means of refuting or rebutting them.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) I think it is impossible not to feel not
only that considerable inconvenience, but that some injustice,
has resulted from the mode adopted by your Lordships. With
respect to the evidence given at the bar, I shall not enter at
present into an analysis of it. In the course of the debate
upon this measure we shall probably hear what part of that evi-
dence is, and what part is not, material in the decision to which
we ought to come on the question before your Lordships.
With respect to that evidence I will only say,—not meaning
in the slightest degree to impeach the talents or the integrity of
the persons by whom that evidence was given at the bar. all
of whom were well acquainted with the subject on which they
spoke ; but at the same time I must state that they were
all perfons either in the employ of these Corporations, or
leading members of them ; that they were involved entirely
in the proceedings of those Corporations, for the reforma-
tion of the abuses of which this Bill was brought forward ;
that they were either the advisers or participators of all the
acts which this Bill goes to correct ; and that their inte-
rests will be seriously affected by the provisions it contains.
I must also say, with respect to the mode in which the
evidence was given, that it had been entirely exparte evi-
dence, and conducted in an exrarte matter. The witnesses
were all examined on on 2 side, and not cross-examined by
counsel on the osier. They were examined in a most
leading manlier, and the only cheek upon them was any
examination which any Noble Peer might think proper to
put ; and which examination was necessarily very much
curtailed and abbreviated from the anxiety we all felt to
relieve ourselves as speedily as possible from a course of
proceeding in which we felt we had most incautiously,
and injudiciously involved ourselves. With this obser-
vation I will dismiss that evidence ; because, supposing all
the facts it alleged were admitted to be true—yet the de-
ductions from them were only the mere opinions of the wit-
nesses who delivered them, and in my view of the case, there
arc sufficient grounds for entertaining quite contrary opinions ;
while many of the statements themselves are capable of being
contradicted by other evidence. But supposing this were not
so, and all the facts were true, what do they amount to, be-
yond that of a re-statement of all the facts already given to
your Lordships in the Commissioners' Report, except certain
mistakes of a trifling nature, which are admitted by the Com-
missioners? But to any counter-statement made by the wit-
nesses at the bar against the Commissioners' Report, I am
instructed to say that the Commissioners can satisfactorily de-
fend their Report against the charge of mis-statement or
error. But, my Lords, I again say, if the whole of the evi-
dence taken at the bar were admitted to be true, it would not
in the slightest degree affect the general grounds upon which
I rest my defence and support of this measure—general
grounds, the justness of which, in a certain degree, was ad-
mitted on a former occasion by some Noble Lords in this
House, who are nevertheless opposed to this Bill. With re-
spect to the Corporation Commissioners, I cannot but think
that they have been treated with great and unmitigated injus-
tice.—( Hear, hear.) Their names have been derided, and
definitions of tlieir political characters given, from whence
collected I know not. But when observations of the same
sort were made which were supposed to reflect upon the early
political character of others, the answer immediately was
this :—" No, you have no right to say that_( Cheers)—you
have no right to attack for opinions I may have entertained be-
fore I came into Parliament—( Cheers)—it is my public acts
alone that you have any right to impeach."—( Cheers.) My
Lords, I think there is great justice in that remark ; but then,
my Lords, let the same justice be rendered to the Commis-
sioners which you demaed for yourselves ; that which you
ask for yourselves should be also meted out to these Com-
missioners, who stand precisely in the same situation as you
did—who stand precisely in the same rank of life—who stand
precisely in the same profession as those did who now charge
them with undue violence—with going beyond due bounds in
their political principles, political feelings, and political
opinions.--( Cheers.) This, my Lords, is no light charge.--
( Cheers.) It is very well known what is meant by this. I
say it would be perfect injustice to ascribe these feelings and
opinions to the Commissioners, for nobody can be positive or
certain of what are the real political principles and opinions of
men when they are merely collected from common report, and
common conversation, and not from the intimate intercourse of
private life. It is not fair, then, with respect to men strug-
gling upward in their profession, to stop them in a manner
which may be of serious mischief to them, and greatly pre-
judicial in the course of their after-life.—( Cheers.) Your
Lordships must expect that these Commissioners, attacked as
they have been—accused of the most violent principles—
charged with stating direct falsehoods—and threatened with
punishment—must necessarily feel—as men of honour and in-
tegrity, who are conscious of having discharged a great pub-
lic duty to the best of their ability—indignant and impatient
under such imputations. They have been most anxious to
petition your Lordships, in order that they may be heard at
the bar in refutation of those aspersions. They feel confident
they could, in a short period, dissipate the whole of the im-
pntations thrown out against them. I have, however, en-
tirely dissuaded them from such a course. I was afraid that
we might be involved in further inconvenience; I was afraid
that some of your Lordships would say, that it was due in
justice that they should be heard. I therefore persuaded them
from pursuing that course, distinctly informing them that I
could not refuse presenting their petition, but that I thouolat it

more prudent not to present it ; because I did not in my mind
; feel confident that if I did not move that they shoUld be heard
• ?A the bar, some other Noble Lord might do so. In conse-
quence of this they addressed to me a letter, which states
more distinctly than I could do, the grounds on which they
rest their case, and the manner in which they reply to the
charges made against them, which letter I think it my duty
to trouble your Lordships with. I have also received a let-
ter from Mr. Buckle, cud one from Mr. Austin to a similar
effect.* The first letter is signed by John Elliot Drinkwater
and Edward Rushton, and runs thus :
Westminster, August 12, 1835.
" My Lord,—We feel ourselves placed in circumstances of great
pain and embarrassment, by the course adopted in the House of
Lords with regard to the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill, being
compelled either to permit our characters to be unjustifiably assailed
with impunity, or to promote the objects of the parties, by whom
the attack has been instigated, by offering to vindicate ourselves at
the cost of certain delay, and probable consequent defeat, of a great '
public measure, involving the present peace and permanent interests
of the empire.
" Your Lordship is aware that almost all the Commissioners are
absent from London, and are even now very imperfectly informed
of the charges against them ; but we are confident that the feelings
with which we now address your Lordship must be shared by all our
colleagues who are placed in the same situation.
" Our natural impulse would lead us to present a petition to the
House of Lords, praying to be allowed the opportunity of repelling
the mis-statements which have been made at the bar affecting us,
and of supplying the additional information to the House without
which it is impossible for their Lordship• to estimate the propriety
of the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, or the correct-
ness of the Commissioners' Reports. But your Lordship informs
us that this course will not have the sanction and support of Go-
vernment on account of the necessary consequences to which we,
have already alluded.
" We are therefore driven to request this, at least, of your Lord-
ship, that the House may be made aware that it is from no indif-
ference to their Lordships' censure, from no want of regard to our
own reputation, and from no want of means fully to establish the
propriety of our behaviour, that we are reluctantly induced to for-
bear appearing as petitioners before their Lordships.
" The present occasion is not a fitting one to make general
allegations of the spirit in which we attempted faithfully to dis-
charge the important duty entrusted to us, and of which we have
the satisfaction to believe that your Lordship is fully convinced.
We pass by in silence much of the intemperate abuse with which we
have been assailed, since their Lordships did not deem the language
in which it was uttered unfit to be heard at their bar. But we can-
not entirely repress the indignation and disgust with which we have
heard ourselves accused by counsel of malignity, and of wilful and
scandalous falsehood, which feelings have been greatly heightened
by observing that none of the witnesses would adopt the language
which the counsel ineffectually endeavoured to put into their mouths.
" We have carefully examined the whole of the evidence given
at the bar, and are not a little surprised at perceiving that by far the
largest portion of it consists merely of an imperfect repetition of
statements already made more fully in our Reports, with which we
had not conceived that it was the intention of their Lordships to
allow their time to be occupied. The facts contradicted in detail
are not only exceedingly few in number, but are altogether unim-
portant.
" Even under the strong provocation that we have received, we
are very loth to accuse either Sir Charles Wetherell or Mr. Knight
of an intention to mislead the House, although they have shown
little forbearance or delicacy towards us ; but we earnestly beg your
Lordship to take an opportunity of pressing en the attention of the
House that the abuse of us, in which those gentlemen indulged, was
neither grounded on any specific allegations in the petitions on which
they were heard, nor has it been sustained or justified by the evi-
dence which they have called.
" Among many other things of which we have just reason to
complain, we have discovered, with the greatest regret, that in more
than one instance a witness was prevailed upon to swear that the
Report was false and incorrect, by counsel pretending to read, as
part of the Report, that which is not part of the Report, and by in-
correctly stating_that to be omitted from the Report which is not
omitted from the Report. Three instances of this occur in the evi-
dence on Coventry alone.
" Your Lordship is aware that our Reports do not profess to give
the evidence which was taken by us—but merely the general effect
and result, upon our minds, of all the evidence which we re-
ceived—and we are perfectly sensible that the reliance that can he
placed upon the truth of the matters which we have so reported,
must depend upon whatever character we are supposed to bear for
intelligence and impartiality; bet. we protest against any conclu-
sion being drawn with respect to the ae,uacy of the representa-
tions made by us from a review of evidence on both sides of the
question, from the picture which has been drawn by witnesses on
one side only. All our inquiries we4e. conducted in public, and all
evidence which was tendered to us, was received—and notwith-
standing the assertions of counsel, no satisfactory proof has vet
been offered to the House that the testim,ny of any of those wit-
nesses was disregarded by us. It is not, however, surprising that
those who are implicated in a system which we denounce as badand
unpopular, should cavil at our conclusions, and should think that
until they were called to make an e.r 2,a rte statement at the bar of
the House of Lords, sufficient weight was not allowed to their own
evidence in their own favour.

"It has been alleged, amt strongly commented upon, that we
were in private communication with the adversaries of the corpo-
ration, which in the sense in which alcne the witnesses could swear
to it (namely, for the purpose of learnhi, the subjects of inquiry,)
is true and justifiable, but in the sense i,i which it was brought
against us, as an accusation, is absolutely groundless.
" It must be obvious to your Lordship that it was only from the
adversaries of the corporation that we could learn what were the
complaints that existed on which the inhabitants wished an inquiry
to be instituted ; but the examination appears to have been cau-
tiously conducted, so as to lead the House to believe, contrary to
the fact, that evidence was received in private, and that complaints
have been noticed in the Report which were not made the subject
of public investigation.
" Your Lordship is perhaps aware that even in the short interval
that has elapsed since the evidence before the House has been made
public, the accuracy of the Retorts have been vindicated in several
towns in which the conduct of the Commissioners has been most
strongly attacked, by resolutions unanimously passed at large public
meetings of the inhabitants. It is possible, therefore, that we
might have safely treated the attack upon us with silent contempt.
" We trust, however, that some allowance will be made by your
Lordship for the feelings of men who conscientiously believe that
they should not have been calumniated., if a more important object
had not been in view than the defamation of their character, and
who are told that it is their duty to submit for a time to the asper-
sions cast upon them, rather than throw additional obstacles in the
way of a measure of great importance.
" We have the honour to be. my Lord,
" Your Lordship's obedient servants,
"JOHN ELLIOT DRINKWATER,
" EDWARD RUSHTON."
This, my Lords, is the statement made by the Commis-
sioners. It is more distinct, more forcible and positive than
anything I could advance ; and with that statement of their
ease I leave these gentlemen to your Lordships' justice, and
submit their conduct to your fair and impartial considera-
tion. With respect to the general measure itself it is not
my intention on the present occasion to repeat all those ge-
neral arguments by which I before attempted to induce your
Lordships to consent to the second reading. Your Lord-
ships must be fully aware that there is a great and general
feeling prevailing on this subject : that that feeling is not
confined to one part of the country, or to one class of the
community ; but that it prevails as well in corporate towns
and cities as in towns not corporate; that it in short per-
vades the whole mass of the community. lam not, as your
Lordships are well aware, one of those who think that
public opinion is always necessarily correct, just, and right—
or that we are always to be bound to obey its dictates. I
inn perfectly ready to admit that the people may be misled
by passion, their judgment warped by prejudice, that their
opinions may be erroneous, and theh views mistaken : but,
my Lords, I nevertheless am bound to say that there is a
state of public feeling and opinion upon this question under
circumstances which call upon your Lordships to give it
your particular attention ; and which make it necessary that
your Lordships should think of it with more than ordinary
interest and concern. Whatever may be thought of the
liability to error on the part of the people, yet when ge-
neral views on any given subject are entertained by large
masses of the community, no wise statesman, no prudent
legislator, would ever treat those views with neglect or
disregard. Your Lordships knew very well that throughout
all those towns where the name of a Corporation exists, a long,
deep-rooted, and settled opidion has prevailed that the present
constitution of those Corporations is an usurpation--( Cheers),
that it is a deprivation of rights which formerly existed ; that
it is an encroachment and an innovation upon the more popular
form of the institutions which were established in these bo-
roughs by our ancestors. The public opinion is never so much
to be regarded, or to be looked at with so much caution and
respect, as when it is founded on a feeling of right, and when
the people think they have been treated with injustice. Such
are the feelings that have been manifested by the various cor-
porate towns on this subject ; they, therefore, demand your
Lordships' particular consideration. Another circumstance
which requires your Lordships' serious attention is, that this is
a question which peculiarly concerns the middle orders, and those
who constitute the great bulk of the people. They feel it more,
and consequently they understand it ninell better than your Lord-
ships. There may be questions upon which your Lordships may
be able to form a better judgment than the hulk of the people ;
but upon this question the people, I repeat, are much better

* The following are the letters which his Lordship re-
ferred to :

" Aug. 12, 1835..
" My Lord,—Having just read a letter written to your Lordship
by Mr. Drinkwater and Mr. Rushton, relative to the attacks made
upon the conduct of the Corporation Commissioners by the counsel
and witnesses at the bar of the House of Lords, I beg leave to as-
sure your Lordship that I concur in the feelings expressed in that
letter by the Commissioners who signed it ; and I strenuously pro-
test against any unfavourable inference being drawn either against
my own, or the reports of other Commissioners, from the un-
proved statements of counsel or the evidence of witnessesinte-
rested in the present corporate system, and who were subjected to
no cross-examination.

" I am, &c. &e.
" House of Lords, half-past seven."

" C. AUSTIN.

" Penzance, Aug. 10, 1835.
"My Lord,—l learn from the newspapers that the House of
Lords is now engaged in a quasi-judicial inquiry into the conduct
of the Corporation Commissioners. As one of those Commission-
ers, may I be permitted to ask whether it is the intention of the
House to limit this inquiry to the statements of town-clerks and
aldermen ; or whether the mamerbus witnesses, upon whose tes-
timony our reports are founded, and whose evidence was publicly
given upon oath, in the presence of the several Corporations and
their opponents, subject to any questions that might be suggested
on either side, will be called to their Lordships' bar for exami-
nation ?

" Without presuming to understand the precise nature of those
functions which the House is now exercising, I may be allowed to
observe, that if their Lordships propose to judge the conduct of the
Commissioners or the faithfulness of their Reports, by the es-parte
statements to which they are now listening, it will lie a very novel
mode of exhibiting to the country that nice sense of justice to which
they have laid claim upon this occasion. Confident that in such a
case your Lordship will not sutler the character of this inquiry to
pass unobserved, when the Commissioners cannot be heard,
I will
rations within the Eastern Circuit, those upon Norwich
only add, that I am prepared to jestify my Reports on the Corr-
and Boston, which have been subjects of complaint.
" I have the honour to he, lily Lord,
Your Lordship', most obedient servant,
Viscount Melbourne, ice. " BUCKIX-*'

judges than you are. They know intimately the workings of
these Corporations. There may be, in a local government, a
system extremely partial, a system extremely troublesome, a
system extremely annoying, a system extremely offensive, a
I system felt by every body in the place to taint, as it were, the
very air about them, making it noxious and hurtful to all but
a few, and yet, for all this, it may be very difficult to detect
any actual abuse, or to fix upon that which is, in fact, the real
cause of the evil. This, then, my Lords, is a strong reason
why you should pay particular attention to the feelings ex-
pressed by the people on this subject. But there is another
reason—my Lords, I tell you that this is not only the feeling 1
of the people, but it is a sound, it is a sincere feeling. It is in
their hearts. It is not a momentary feeling got up for the oc-
easion—(Cheers)—it is not a factitious feeling—( Great
cheering)—it is not a feeling capable of being raised by exag-
geration. On other questions Ido not deny that great popular
prejudice, great exaggeration existed, both with regard to the
evils produced by the existing system of things, and the good
to be derived from the removal of them. But that is not the
case upon this subject. Ido not mean to say that there is no
exaggeration upon this subject ; that no violence—no passion
has been displayed; but I do maintain, my Lords, that it is a
subject less capable of exaggeration, less susceptible of misre-
presentation—a subject upon which the passions are less likely
to be inflamed than any other question that has been placed
upon the basis of the popular opinion. My Lords, I have but
little more to state upon this question. It is impossible not to
feel that it is a very great misfortune when the three branches
of the Legislature do not act at least with something like una-
nimity, when there is not something like agreement in their
proceedings, when there is not something like sympathy in
their feelings and opinions. My Lords, I feel this to be a
very delicate subject to touch upon ; but, my Lords, I do say,
that if any alienation between your Lordships and the House
of Commons should be of long continuance, it would and
must lead to consequences of the most disastrous kind.—
( Hear, hear.) Your Lordships well know, indeed it is
too clear to be doubted or denied, that there is not that union
and that sympathy between your Lordships and those who con-
stitute the majority of the other House of Parliament which

it is desirable on all considerations should subsist. Your
Lordships do not sympathize with a very considerable majo-
rity of the House of Commons. I beg you Lordships to re-
collect that this Bill passed the second reading in the House
of Commons without any division; and not only so, but after
it had undergone the scrutiny of a Committee, and after all

the amendments which were moved had been negatived in that
Committee, those who proposed such amendments did not
think the Bill, even though their improvements were rejected,
was 60 unfitted to pass into a law as to justify them to vote
for its rejection ; but it was read also a third time without a
division. I say, therefore, my Lords, that this ought to make
you to pause before you determine to reject the Bill so passed
by the House of Commons. I call upon your Lordships to
consider—to reflect. Ido not speak this by way of menace,
or in the way of intimidation. I offer it to your Lordships'
calm judgment. But your Lordships will recollect, if you
refuse to conciliate, if you refuse either to go into Commit-
tee, or to give this Bill a fair consideration, you will be set-
ting yourselves in opposition, not to a majority of the House
of Commons that support the Ministers, but you will be set-
tin, yourselves in opposition to almost the whole House of
Commons.—( Cheers.) You will be setting yourselves in
opposition to the opinions of the people of England, collected,
not from public meetings, to which objections may be made
—collected, not from petitions presented to this House, to
which objections may be made; but you will be, and are, set-
ting yourselves in opposition to the opinions of the people of
Englund, declared through the legitimate organs—their re-
presentatives in Parliament.—( Very great cheering.) I now
move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
whole House on the Bill.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE should regret extremely the
ado;eion of any course which would lead to a collision be-
tween the two Houses, but he certainly could not see any rea-
son why that House should be obliged to adopt a decision which
it, in its wisdom, should not be convinced was a correct and
proser one. He differed with great regret from the Noble
Dui:e ; but he had taken the course he adopted from the most
conscientious motives. If he differed from that Noble Duke,
whom he respected beyond what his power of expression could
supply, he did so from a sense of paramount duty. He would
support the Noble Duke's view of the case if it accorded with
his conscientious belief; but it did not. He (the Duke of
Newcastle) had warned the House of the consequences which
were likely to accrue from a repeal of the Test and Corpora-
tion Act, as well as from Catholic Emancipation. He should
now warn it against the measure before them. He felt con-
vinced that it was fraught with every evil which could render
it odious ; that it was a measure of the worst description ; and
that it had for its object the spoliation of property, the depri-
vation of rights, and the violation of that good faith
which every Government should preserve with those it
governed. He would implore their Lordships to stand by the
rights of the Corporations and not to violate them. The
Noble Viscount opposite might shield himself under the asser-
tion, that the Bill had passed the Commons by a large majority ;
but that could not, or should not, influence their Lordships,
especially the majority of a Reformed Parliament. The
Noble Viscount, in his allusion to the Bill on a former occa-
sion, had called it a remedial measure ; but that he (the Duke
of Newcastle) considered a misnomer; it was a Bill of pains
and penalties. A Noble Lord had compared it to a similar
Commission issued to examine into the Church of Scotland,
which Commission was stated to be composed of men of all
sentiments--Deists., Atheists, and others he supposed in-
cluded—pretty persons to whom to intrust the affairs of the
Church. Perhaps.the same might be alleged in favour of
these Csommissioners. The fact was, the country was ridden
over by Commissioners. When, in former times, it was at-
tempted to establish arbitrary power in England, Commissions
wers always issued, and that it was the case especially in re-
gard of the Commissions subsequent to the Restoration. One
of the first acts of the Legislature, after the revolution was
settled, was pointed against than in the famous Bill of Rights.
The principle of performing every thing by the means of
Commissions he considered one of the most mischievous which
could be imegilicd, and one of the most pernicious to liberty
which could be adopted by any Government. In 1815 it was
impossible to find a country in Europe so happy as England—
so prosperous in every respect, and so mush looked up to by
every nation under the sun. What had happened since then ?
We had trusted since then too much to our own wits, and we
had ;one totally astray from the political light, which unfail-
inglyt led us to that prosperity and honour. We were, conse-
quently,rosoero udsl andyaftehredafoyrobseacwomthinagt more unhappy,
on
and
in lessha
t
p
downward track until we came to a revolution, unless it were
speedily and effectually averted by the exertions of their
Lordships. He was inclined to come to these conclusions by
his observation on the spirit of universal anarchy which was
abroad ; and he should warn their Lordships that, unless a
check were speedily put upon it, all would be lost. He should,
however, endeavour to address himself to the Bill before the
House. At the onset he had stated his objections to its pro-
ceeding further, on the grounds that it was a condemnation of
parties unsupported by evidence, and a deprivation of pro-
perty without the formalities even of justice. The House
had seen it in the same light ; and evidence had been heard.
What was proved by it ? The contrary of all the allegations
in the parts of the Report which had been entered on ; and
the total absence of every shade of delinquency on the part
of the Corporations.—( Hear, hear.) However, notwith-
standing all that, it appeared that the Bill was to be pro-
ceeded with--that it was to be permitted to go into Com-
mittee for the purpose of amendment, which he felt bound
to say could never take place, the measure was so radically
and essentially bad. He lived in a county where riots were
frequent, and organised opposition to the law extensive; and
he had received proofs on more than one oecasion of the effi-
ciency of the Corporation in checking the one and putting an
end to the other. He would instance the town of Notting-
ham, with whose Corporation he entirely differed in politics,
the more willingly, for the purpose of bearing his testimony
to the excellence of their police, and the great assistance
derived from their local authority on all such occa-
sions. If the Bill for the extinction of municipal Cor-
porations should be passed, the House would be called on
to perform the same office for others, of a similar character
and founded on the same principle. The established Church
was a corporate body. Its possessions and privileges could
consequently be attacked on the grounds which served the sup-
porters of the Bill before their Lordships, and their Lordships
—if they passed the one—could scarcely refuse to pass the
other. An Hon. Friend of his had done credit to his head
as well as his heart when he said that all good Governments
were based upon religion, and that no good Government
could exist without it. With that opinion he (the Duke of
Newcastle) fully concurred. He should move that the Bill be
recommitted that day six months.
The Earl of MANSFIELD could not, on the whole, con-
cur in his motion. He should vote that the Bill go into Com-
mittee ; but he should qualify that vote by a few observations
on the circumstances in which their Lordships were placed,
and the feelings by which he was actuated. Objecting to the
principles and to the details of the measure as strongly as ever
his Noble Friend did, he should not have felt himself justified,
notwithstanding, in not approving either the second reading
or the committal of it. The first because, though it was gene-
rally allowed to concede a principle, it was usual for their Lor-
dships to commit a measure for the purpose of more effectual
amendment; the second, because, if amendment were impos-
sible, there was still the alternative of final rejection. He
thought their Lordships did right in allowing it to pass a se-
cond reading, and also that they would do right by permitting
it to go into Committee for the purpose'of discussion. But,
as far as lie was concerned, he had no hesitation in saying that
it was the influence of circumstances which compelled him to
vote for either stage of it. It was urged in behalf of the
mea.ure, and against their Lordships, that there was a great
discrepancy between their conduct in respect to it and that of
the Commons. It was stated that the Right Hon. Baronet
in the other House did not oppose it in any of its stages ; and
it was then argued that their Lordships ought not to depart
from that precedent. But it was no precedent at all. Whether
thei e was a discussion on it or not, was no subject for their
Lordships' inquiry ; and whatever were the circumstances
whi,sh attended its course through the other branch of the
Legislature, inasmuch as their Lordships were responsible for
:is perfection, they were bound to take the course they deemed
most fitting. He could not help adverting to the Commission
and the Commissioners before he proceeded farther. If his
friend the Noble Duke who had just sat down had stated that
the illegality of the Commission was universally acknowledged,
he was mistaken. So, too, was the Noble and Learned Lord
on the other side of the House, if he said that its legality had
eever been questioned. He (the Earl of Mansfield) had heard
the opinion of a Noble and Learned Lord who long presided
over the Court of Chancery, and it stated at the period the
Commission had been issued that it was illegal.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE—I always said that it was
•,, ,

roe Earl of MANSFIELD—There were, no doubt, eon-

' flicting opinions, and that of the Noble and Learned Lord on
the other side was entitled to respect ; but he (Lord Mans-
field) should be excused for saying, that in such a case the
opinion of the wisest and most learned—the opinion of the in-
dividual who had been so looked up to as the highest autho-
rity—should be adopted in preference to any other. He was,
therefore, bound to believe the Commission was an illegal one.
But, even if he were to take its legality for granted, he could
not help entertaining some doubts of its efficiency. Its decrees
could not be enforced--it had no power of compelling answers
to its inquiries—it could inflict no punishment for contumacy
or refusal. With regard to the Commissioners, he was com-
pelled by a sense of duty to state, that the testimony of tine
witnesses heard by their Lordships against the allegations in
their Report was calculated to leave a most unfavourable im-
pression on the minds of all who heard it against the Commis-
sioners. But to return to the preamble of the Bill. The
Crown had a visitorial power over Corporations, and by that
power it could alter or amend their charters for any malversa-
tion. But it could not do so, unless such malversation were
proved by legal evidence. That there was no legal evidence '
in support of the exorbitant powers assumed by the Bill, he
had the testimony of one of the Commissioners themselves,
Mr. Hogg, in his Protest against it. To obstruct an accused
person from the legal tribunals of the country was a violation
of the great charter ; but, when a case of great presumption
of guilt arose, a Bill of Pains and Penalties might be enacted.
Yet here was the one done without a reason offered, and here
was the other in procecs without a single proof of its necessity.
He should, when the Bill was in Committee, protest, 1.
Against any deprivation of rights, or obstruction of privileges ;
2. Against all application of property in trust to other
uses, or its transference to other trustees, than those
designated by the testator or testators. The Noble
and Learned Lord had stated that it was usual for the Court

if Chancery to dispose of property in trust ; but he had
omitted to state that the heir of the testator enjoyed a resi-
duary right in case of a diversion of the property from other
hands or other purposes than those specified in the demise or
deed of gift. There was another matter which he stated with
much diffidence, but which he felt, notwithstanding, had much
weight with him. It was the question how far the interest of
the Crown was involved in the present Bill ?—( Hear, hear.)
He did not know how to define its reversionary interest in
Corporation property ; but there certainly existed, in some
charters, a clear right of the Crown to the appointment of
mayor, recorder, and aldermen, In the reign of James the
Second, when a general proclamation for restoring the char-
ters obtained from the Corporations in the preceding reign had
been made, some were reserved. Whatever rights these in-
volved were vested in the Crown ; and it was due to its dig-
nity and honour to ascertain them, before further proceeding.
The Noble Viscount (Melbourne) had stated that the Report
of the Commissioners had not been made the foundation of
the Bill, but only referred to in confirmation. It had been
asserted that dissatisfaction was general against self-elected
bodies—against the present system of municipal govern-
ment, and of local taxation. In many instances much dis-
satisfaction might be found; but it was not right, there-
fore, to treat the administrators of local affairs as so many
usurpers. It had been assumed in the course of the debate
that it was admitted on all hands that some extensive refor-
mation of Corporations was necessary. The one side of the
House and the other equally assumed that some extensive re-
formation was necessary. He for one could say that he had
deputed no one to express such an opinion.--( Laughter.) It
was the first opportunity that had offered for expressing his
sentiments. Deterred by tha fear of being charged with un-
seasonable interruption, he had delayed expressing his opinion.
He did not admit that extensive reformation in the Corpora-
tions was necessary. Noble Lords opposite went upon the
Found of an admitted defect, and they exclaimed, " Therefore
is this Bill a remedy." If they were supported by a majority
no doubt the Bill would be the best of Bills. Like all other
human institutions, Corporations were doubtless imperfect, but
he should wish to ascertain the degree of defect existing before
he acknowledged the efficacy of the remedy proposed. He
had yet to learn that the zeal to destroy was accompanied by
the ability to reconstruct.—( Hear, hear.) He considered
this measure a violent infringement of their rights, and as bad
as the attempted usurpation of illegal powers by King James
the Second. He should offer any opinion as to the propriety
of alteration with great diffidence ; but he was confirmed by
the opinion of Sir F. Palgrave, who was not indisposed to some
measure of Reform. (The Noble Earl here read an extract
from the protest of Sir F. Palgrave, to the purport that
whatever places were altered in the constitution of their
municipal corporations, should be altered according to the
diversified interests of the town, and only so far as the opi-
nion of the inhabitants might render expedient, which could
be best done not generally by general enactments, but spe-
cially to meet particular cases, and upon the decision of a
competently appointed tribunal.) To guard himself against
the charge of insincerity he spoke. It was in the power
of their Lordships to alter every clause of the Bill, to amend
every error in its principles and details. He wished their
Lordships to efface from their minds any impression created
by the report, but not the impression created by the evidence
elicited during the late inquiry. Nothing had been more
temperate than the address of the Noble Viscount. He could
not insinuate to the contrary. But in allusion to the settle-
ment of the Roman Catholic qu •stion, another Noble Lord,
presuming that it was the intention of the majority of that
House to throw out the Bill, had thought proper to address a
warning as to the consequences that ensued upon the opposi.
tion to that measure. He was quite willing to believe that
more advantage accrued to those who supported it than to
those who opposed it. The consequences predicted came, and
they were such as he anticipated. Such experience had no
weight with him,and if really in error, in error he was obstinate
Observations had also been made on the Reform Bill. The
Learned Counsel had said he did not know the date of that do-
cument, but he believed it was called an Act of Reform. " But
I." said the Noble Earl, " do know the date, do know its au-
thors, and I do know the tenor, and although the carrying of
it was invested with apparently constitutional circumstances, I
know that it was, in fact, carried by violence." He referred
to the protests of their Lordships—those indelible records of a
sprited Legislative Assembly. By one of the advisers of
such violence they were warned. But if this change contem-
plated was effected, the situation of their Lordships was
not the same. They were free from danger. The pressure
of that violence was removed, and the House of Lords
rose, with its native elasticity, to its own level, and with
its rise carried the good opinion of the people.

The Earl of FALMOUTH tliought the measure brought
forward under a specious pretence. The Commission issued
was not legal. Such was the opinion of the first lawyers of
the land. A Noble Earl, one of the first of lawyers, Lord
Eldon, absent from infirmity, had expressed his opinion of its
illegality ; and another Noble and Learned Lord, Lord
Abinger, now absent on the Circuit, had expressed a similar
opinion, and said that his Majesty's subjects might with pro-
priety resist it. Uninfluenced by agitators, he was convinced
that the common sense of the nation would reject this measure.
It was said the people were anxious for it to pass into a law.
Strange stories were about as to the means employed to excite
the popular mind. Government franks had enclosed corres-
pondence to different parts of the country, and meetings and
petitions were the consequence. A fen days back only, a Gen-
tleman now in town bud told him of the arrival of one of these
franks, signed by Lord John Russell, at Weymouth. A peti-
tion was got up accordingly. Great oetitions were presented,
and then it was said that the people demanded that the Bill
should pass. Was it meant by the people the deluded
mob or the educated middling classes ? Never was the
feeling of the educated classes more in favour of their Lord-
ships' proceedings. They perceived, in consequence of the
evidence adduced, that the Corporations had been maligned.
It was asserted that there was a jealousy of the Corporations.
But was it well founded ? There was a jealousy, too, of their
Lordships. But would that jealousy be entertained because
Mr. Isaac Tomkins said so, or because it was said by one as
little known—Mr. Peter Jenkins ?—( Laughter.) If so their
hereditary functions were gone, tor that personage had declared
them proper to be enjoyable only for life. But the fact was,
the Corporations had as much right to their charters as their
Lordships to their patents. The patents of their Lordships
were not so ancient as the charters, but they sprang from the
same source. He should now content himself by opposing the
commitment of the Bill and voting for the motion of the Noble
Duke ( Newcastle). He had prepared some resolutions, which
he should now defer proposing.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said—l am opposed to the
course of my Noble Friends who intend to vote against the
commitment of the Bill, yet I respect the course they pursue
and the reasons they offer. I object to the principle and I
object to many parts of the Bill. I think that the Bill should
have had the consent of his Majesty at an early stage of its
progress. The King was the founder of these Corporations,
and he was visitor competent to investigate the administration
of their funds. I consider his Majesty should have given his
consent to the measure before the enactment of the irst clause.
My Lords, I besides object to this measure, because it does
not adequately, in my opinion, secure existing rights and pri-
vileges—because it does not secure the rights of property—
because it does not secure the rights of individuals appointed
for the term of their lives to situations under the existing
charters—and lastly, because it does not secure the privileges
granted to freemen under existing Acts of Parliament.—
( Cheers.) For all these reasons I object to the Bill, although
I certainly shall vote for going into Committee upon it, with
the intention of amending, as far as possible, those parts of
the measure which I think are defective..---( Hear.) I, be-
sides, my Lords, object strongly to those portions of the Bill
which go to the establishment of a system by which persons may
be elected to high and important situations in Corporations—
I mean to such situations as those of magistrates and admi-
nistrators of borough affairs—who have no adequate qualifi-
cation for such a trust.—( Hear.) I object to persons having
the management of parish affairs who are irresponsible for
their proper direction ; and I object to individuals being al-
lowed to administer Church patronage who are utterly
without qualification for such a duty.—( Loud cheers.) That
no reform is requisite I am not prepared to maintain.—( Hear,
hear.) In the first place, though I confess there appears to
me little in this Report against the Corporations—indeed, I
must say that, considering the great antiquity of many of
these establishments, and considering all the purposes to
which they have been from time to time required to apply
their attention—l am truly astonished to find in this Report
so little against them as there Hear, hear)—l cannot
avoid seeing that many of these institutions have become ut-
terly useless and inoperative, that many others require mate-
rial amendment, while there are only some few which, with
any advantage to the public, might be let alone altogether.
—( Cheers.) To properly discriminate between these several
classes, and to see that alteration is not made where alters-

tion will not improve, or change attempted where change
will not amend, will be my anxious and earnest object in ap..
proaching the Committee ; and I entertain no doubt that it is
perfectly competent for us, holding in sight such an object,
to send forth to the public a measure cf real benefit and ad-
vantage.—(Cheers.) My Lords, I object to the Commis-

sion.—( Cheers.) I believe tb,.t Commission to be an illegal
one.—( Loud cheers.) indeed, my Lords, I think the Noble
and Learned Lord who issued it is of my opinion, for on the
last night of the discussion upon this subject he, unless I am
touch mistaken, admitted that the introduction of the word
" deeds" into its body r...‘ndered it an illegal Commission.—
( Cheers.)
Lord BROUGHAM-1 never did so. What I said upon
the subject of " deeds" applied to the former, and not to the
present Commission.
Tne Duke of WELLINGTON—But the word " deeds"
does e;:rtainly apply to this Commission, and therefore I think
I am jn;titied in applying what the Noble and Learned Lord
said reiipeer.ing it to the present as well as to the former do-
cunient.—( Hear, hear.) But, my, Lords, I must go far-
ther—l must say that not only was the Commission in my
opinion an illegal one, but that it was evidently and undl,
ni.lbly a party and partial Commission.—( Loud cheers.) Can
there be a doubt, even for a moment, that they were not both
party and partial Commissioners, or that the report which
they framed was not both a party and partial report ?
( Cheers.) In proof of this assertion there is one point on
which I would entreat your Lordships to reflect for a mo-

melt. Did these Commissioners report the evidence upon
which they alleged their report was founded ? Not a word
of it.—( Cheers.) That which they reported was their own
opinions, supposed to be originated in the evidence they ad-
duced ; but whether they were so or not their Lordships were
not in a situation to judge. But, my Lords, there is an-
other circumstance connected with this report which is very
remarkable, and that is the opinion and protest of Sir Francis
Palgrave. Sir Francis Palgrave not only transmitted his pro-
test to Government, but in a separate report stated his objec-
tions to the general Report of the Commissioners. Why,
then, let me ask, was it that the Commissioners, knowing as
they did that the opinions of Sir Francis Palgrave were at va-
rienee with those they had expressed, did not set forth even
so much of the evidence as was calculated to bear out their
opinions against his ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Have they
done so in any one case? Not in any one instance
did they state the evidence which, in their opinion, justi-
fied their report. For all these reasons, I confess I consi-
der the five folio volumes before me as worth just so much
waste paper—(Cheers)—and 1 shall be much surprised if the
majority of your Lordships were to treat them in any other
light.-----( Renewed cheers.) I have already said lam pre-
pared to go into the Committee; but if I do so, it must be
under the painful conviction that we are proceeding upon
partial party reports, and that before so doing we ought to
have read the evidence on which these Reports are alleged
to be founded.—( Cheers.) My Lords, I say, then, that I
am going into this Committee with a sincere desire so to
amend the Bill that, while making it a generally beneficial
and useful measure, we shall so revise and reform it as to
meet those peculiar circumstances which appear to me to re.
quire amendment and attention..—( Hear, hear.) My Noble
Friend who preceded me appears to think that there is not
evidence of dissatisfaction on the part of the people of Eng-
land to the existing system of Corporation management.—
(" Hear," from the Earl of Falmouth.) Why, I cannot say
that I have myself any evidence of the existence of such a
dissatisfactirn : but at the same time I cannot possibly close
my eves upon the great change which, within the last few
years, has taken place in the general aspect of society.—
( Hear.) I cannot conceal from myself that, in the course
of a very few years, the people of this realm have advanced
greatly in riches, in knowledge, and in luxury, and that in
proportion to that advance, it is natural they should wish
to have participation in the administration of Government.—
(Hear, hear.) Such being the case, lam not prepared
to agree with my Noble Friend in saying that there is
no desire entertained by the people of England that their
Corporations should be thrown open to them, and I am,
consequently, disposed to consider whether the establish-
ment of a municipal system in this country, founded, in the
first place, on the free election of those to whom the admi-
nistration of corporate matters shall be confided—founded,
likewise, on a very liberal basis of qualification, and with
every view to render it such a system as will really carry
into execution the object of this measure, namely, that of
giving to the people who inhabit our large towns a fair parti-
cipation in their government, might not be a measure as well
of sound policy as of expediency.—(Loud cheers.) I
confess, likewise, that there is another circumstance which
induces me to consider a reform in the administration of the
large towns at this moment as most essential to the interests
of the country. There is scarcely one of these towns in
which some trust does not exist for the performance of some
duties which regularly belong to the administration of a town.
Ii some places there is a trust for the administration of
police, in others for paving, lighting, and watering, and in
all these trusts are to be found real evasions of the original
rights of the corporations. In some of the original charters
it was not thought expedient to give to the corporations a
power of rating the inhabitants for the improvement of the
town, and when, as in the case of Bath, Liverpool, and
other large towns, the necessity of such a rate was felt, a
trust was created which was not originally contemplated
in the charter. In every instance where these trusts were
established the rights of the original corporations were in-
vaded, and when that was once done he did not see why,
when it was found necessary to proceed a step farther,
and establish those bodies on a principle which should be to
all satisfactory, we should be deterred from discharging a
duty by the argument that any such alteration would imply
a direct infringement of the existing charters. Under all
these circumstances I have determined to go into Committee
on the Bill ; and I repeat I shall do so with a sincere de-
sire to amend it so as to establish a system of Corporate Go-
vernment which shall be satisfactory to the great body of the
inhabitants of the large towns, but at the same time with an
equal desire to secure all those great objects which I men-
tioned to your Lordships at the commencement of my ad-
dress—namely, the rights of the Crown, the rights of the ex-
isting corporate officers, the rights and privileges of existing
freemen, and, finally, the general interests of all those who en-
joy rights and privileges under corporate charters now in force.
The Noble Duke resumed his seat amid loud and prolouged
cheering.
The Earl of FALMOUTH explained.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND—My Lords, I beg to
declare that if my Noble Friend near me (the Duke of New-
castle) for whom I entertain the greatest respect and sin-
cerest friendship, and who I know never acts but from a most
honourable and conscientious feeling, takes the sense of the
House upon the amendment he has proposed, I for ono can-
not consistently with what I feel give him my vote.—
( Cheers.) I am as much opposed to the principle of the
Bill as my Noble Friend—l feel it to be an invasion upon
chartered rights and privileges—and in defence of such rights
and privileges I for one shall ever be ready to stand up. I feel
it to be an invasion upon the prerogative of the Crown—but,
nevertheless, for the reasons so clearly expressed by my No-
ble Friend near me (the Duke of Wellington) lam prepared
to give it lay best and most serious consideration in Committee
—and I trust and hope I shall be in a situation when the
mot!on for the third reading is made to give it my most hearty
concurrence. I only say this much to prevent my being sup-
posed as using one language in one place, and another in
another, and from a desire that my opinions may stand aloarly
and fairly before the public.---( Cheers. )

Lord BROUGHAM observed that it was not his intention
to enter at any length upon a discussion of the principle or mail
features of this measure, as he had before had an opportunity of
addressing himself to that question. His principll object in ri-
sing was to express his very great surprise that one or two Noble
and Illustrious persons, who he was delighted to find would vote
on the same side with him that might if the motion were pressed
to a decision, and whose support he considered as a very valuable
accession of strength, should have taken such grounds for coin-
ciding w ith his view of the question before the House ; and he
felt especial surprise at the ample professions of hostility to the
measure with which that coming over was accompanied.—
( Hear.) If they had said let the main provisions of the Bill be
carried through Committee, but hereafter, on the third reading
let the principle of the measure be decided—that would be ta-
king an intelligible course; but instead of that they announced
themselves directly opposed to the principle of the measure.
And therefore, what said they ? " Let us go into Committee,
in order to examine; its details.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposi-
tion.)—Well, he bad " heard, heard," but he could not for the
life of him understand the meaning of such a course.—( Hoar,
hear.) He could easily understand the course of Noble
Lords if they said, "We agree in the main principle
though we are opposed to some details, and we go into Commit-
tee for the purpose of rendering these details suitable to our
principles." That would be an intelligible, consistent, as
well as the ordinary cuurse of proceeding. But that Noble
Lords should say, we totally differ with the principle of
this measure; we think the Commission illegal on which the
inquiry eas founded ; we hold the proceedings of the Com-
missioners in executing their task to be unjust, partial, and un-
fair ; we hold all their reports to be more valueless than waste
paper, (and false reports must be of less value than the most
valueless waste paper), that this Bill was founded on these re-
ports (and its foundation, consequently, held to be rotten,)
that no charge against the Corporations was made out—that
this was a measure which one Noble Lord said, was one of spo-
liation, another of iniquity, and which a third declared to be
uncalled for, but which all three pronounced in chorus to be
an act fraught with injustice: that these Noble Lords should
come per saltum to the conclusion not to throw out the Bill
not openly to oppose the measure and declare themselves un-
utterably displeased with its very visage, but that they should
declare themselves openly opposed to the principle of the Bill,
whilst they express their willingness to go into Committee, to
see what could be done with the details—all these circum-
stances really filled his mind with astonishment.—( Hear,
hear.) He could not help considering that by this course one
of two fates would await the measure, and that, instead of
being openly opposed and defeated, it would only be allowed to
enjoy a hare lingering existence, and that it would be reduced
from its pristine state to such a skeleton as its own parents
could not recognize.—( Hear, hear.) The Illustrious Duke
opposite had not certainly pursued on this occasion the strong
and forward course which he generally adopted. He stated
his unwillingness to vote for the Noble Duke (Newcastle) and
yet was willing to go into Committee, though opposed to the
principle of the Bill.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND—If tho motion were
pressed to a division, he should vote on neither side, but he
should of course reserve to himself the right, in common with
other Peers, of effecting 'loch changes in Committee as he con-
sidered desirable.

Lord BROUGHAM resumed—The Illustrious Duke had
selected a course which he certainly somewhat misunderstood,
but which was not, however, renno,kable for that determination
in Parliamentary proceedings, for which the Illustrious Duke
was generally so remarkable. But what a melancholy anti-
Opation did this determination hold out to tho friends of the
measure, as well as to those who felt strongly, deeply, and he
might add, universally, in favour of the measure throughout
the country'—(Cheers)—fur what could they expect from
such an announcement, ths.a that tbo9e who were against the