The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-21 00:00:00

nions of parties out of doors, and even by the opinions of per-
sons most affected by it, they had reason to conclude that this
measure was in general accordance with what was required at
this time for the reform of great defects in our present muni-
cipal institutions, and for the establishment of a system of
good municipal Government in the several towns of England
and Wales. He recollected to have seen in print the advice
of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, given
with his usual discretion, to that party to which he belonged,
and in which he called upon them not to expect that any other
place than this House could be, or even ought to be, looked to as
the scene where great public affairs were to be decided upon :
and that the opinions of this House alone must be sought for
as the index -of the opinions of the people of this country. In
this opinion he (Lord John Russell) entirely concurred. He
was persuaded that in the approval of any measure expressed
either by a great majority of this House, or by the silent for-
bearance of those who differed from that majority, would be
found the expression of an opinion in coincidence with the ge-
neral opinion of a very great portion of the enlightened popula-
tion of the empire.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that the Noble Lord had en-
tirely misunderstood the latter part of the speech of his Hon.
Friend ( Sir R. Vyvyan). His Hon. Friend had not declined
dividing the House because he entertained the least doubt of
the truth of his principles, but merely because he felt that he
could not carry his motion, and therefore he rested satisfied
with the protest he had made. The Noble Lord had equally
misunderstood the speech of his Right Hon. Friend ( Sir Ro-
bert Peel), which was addressed, not to the Members of that
assembly, but to other parties. He had, on a former occa-
sion, stated his objections to the principle of this Bill. Jt
was contrary to the principle that had ever hitherto been
adopted. It was entirely different from the principle of the
Bill introduced, two or three years ago, by Lord Brougham.
He, therefore, declared his full and absolute objection to the
principle of the Bill—an objection hardly to be mitigated by
any amendment that could be introduced. He did not, how-
ever, intend to pursue his opposition to a division, merely be-
cause he knew practically that it would not be attended with
success.

Mr. S. R. LUSHINGTON observed, that there was but
one general opinion among his constituents as to the nature of
this Bill, and that was that it was a most detestable and violent
measure. It would be a constant source of discord in all the
cities and boroughs to which it was applied. The Hon. Gen-
tleman was then understood to say that he should bring up a
clause, to preserve to the freemen all the rights of electing
Members of Parliament guaranteed to them by the Re-
form Act.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that the Hon. Gentle-
man had surprised him by the course he was going to adopt,
because, on Friday night, the Hon. Gentleman announced that
it was not his intention to propose any such clause.
Mr. S. R. LUSHINGTON had only stated that it was
not his intention to enforce the call of the House, of which he
had given notice.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the clause would not
be necessary, because the freemen, whose rights were preserved
by the Reform Bill, were already enrolled, and so preserved
thereby.
Mr. S. R. LUSHINGTON was aware of that, but that
circumstance did not meet the case of those freemen who
since their enrolment had removed their place of residence,
or had done some other act by which it was made necessary
that they should be again enrolled before exercising the elec-
tive franchise.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as the Hon. Gent. had
not given a specific notice of the terms of the clause he wished
to introduce, he (Lard J. Russell) was not at present aware
of what would be its effect, and therefore could not say whe-
ther he should object to it or not.
Mr. FE CTOR defended his constituents against the gene-
ral charge of corruption implied by the passing of this Bill,
and asserted that there were no grounds to justify the exten-
sion of its provisions to them.
Mr. W. GLADSTONE did not oppose the second read-
ing of the Bill from the consideration that by not doing so he
should only be bound by the principle of it, and not to its de-
tails. That principle he thought was no more than this—the
abolition of the system of self-election, and the substitution of
an open system founded on an enlightened principle. Beyond
that he did not feel disposed to go.
Mr. SCA RL ETT said if the principle of the Bill was good
yet its details were bad. He saw nothing in it but a system
to transfer the powers possessed by Corporations from the
hands of one party to those of another; and nothing what-
ever that would have tho effect of reforming the Corporate
bodies themselves. The Bill was inconsistent with the
spirit of British liberty. They were now about to institute
in every town a pure and unmixed republic ; the conse-
quence would be, that those new Corporations would be in
direct opposition to the institutions of the country, with
the inhabitants of the counties, and with the monarchical
authority. He believed this measure would give a great in-
crease to the democratic force in the country, and he thought
there was no one who would say that that force was not suf-
ficiently great already. For these reasons, and for others
with which he would not then trouble the House—(Ministe-
rial cheers)--he really thought he owed no apology to the
the House, or to those Hon. Gentlemen who cheered him, for
presuming to detain them. " When you destroy us (conti-
nued the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen)—when you literally
put us out, it is but fair to hear our lamentations."--( Re-
newed cheering.) He could not refrain from expressing his
opinion that the Bill was intended, not as a reform of the
corporations, but as a measure for particular party purposes.
He did not deny that on some occasions the funds of corpora-
tions had been applied to particular purposes—foreign, perhaps,
to their original destination.—( Hear, hear.) He contended,
however, that they were annihilated not on this account, but
because they had been applied in opposition to the particular
wishes and intentions of Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. BO RT H WICK contended that the principle of the
Bill was one of marked and undisguised tyranny.—( Oh !)
He had arrived at this conclusion because it took away rights,
destroyed charters, and deprived the people of England of
privileges they had exercised from time immemorial ; and
for no better reason than because the House had the power
to take them away..—( Opposition cheers.) On what was the
measure founded too ? On the Reports of the Commission-
ers ? Why the House was called upon to destroy those Cor-
porations before the Reports affecting many of them were laid
upon the table. At the very moment at which he was speak-
ing, the Report of the Commissioners relative to the Corpo-
ration of London, the most important city in the world, was not
before the House. He had just heard it remarked that the
Bill did not touch the Corporation of London.—(Hear, and
a laugh.) He would ask the Noble Lord and Hon. Gentle-
men opposite why it did not ? Was there no occult reason for
its not being affected—was there nothing undergronnd ?
( Oh, oh!) The Hon. Gentleman proceeded, amidst the
strongest manifestations of impatience, to refer to the peti-
tion he had presented on a former occasion, from the bo-
rough he had the honour to represent, on the subject of the
Bill. The remaining observations of the Hon. Gentleman
were lost in the increasing impatience of the House. When
the Hon. Member had resumed his seat,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL begged to remind the House
that they were still debating upon a petition. As it was very
desirable that they should proceed at once to the business
of the evening, he hoped they would allow him to move the
Order of the day for the third reading of the Municipal Corpo-
ration Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
The petitions were then ordered to lie on the table.
The Order of the day was read ; and the question put, "that
this Bill be now read a third time."
Mr. MACL E AN said, when the Noble Lord, the Member
for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth) moved an
amendment upon the address of the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Member for Tamworth, he did so on the ground that his
Majesty's Ministers in that address announced no intention
of placing the Corporations under popular control. Now, if the
efficiency of popular controul were the principle on which the
Noble Lord based the Bill, he should like to know whether
he found, in the Reports of the Commissioners, any state-
ments respecting the effect of popular control over the admi-
nistration of corporate boroughs, which strengthened that
principle? The only borough in which the Commissioners
said they had witnessed the prosperity and efficacy of popular
controul was the borough of Plymouth. Now, this very bo-
rough, which, in page 50, was quoted as an example of the
effect of popular control, and of the great prudence and discre-
tion exercised by the constituency, was, in the very next page,
condemned by the very identical Commissioners as affording
an example of the most profligate expenditure of corporate
funds on record.—( Hear, hear.) He objected to the Re-
ports of the Commissioners because they had given no
digest of the evidence taken before them, but had amalga-
mated all they had heard into one distinct and confused
mass. To phew the nature of the inferences they drew, he
would cite one fact. They stated that in the borough which
he had the honour to represent, the freemen were so corrupt
that out of 1,500, 1,000 declined to vote at all, in order to
avoid the imputation of participating in the corrupt practices
of the remaining 500. Why, if the statement proved any
thing, did it not prove that out of 1,500 freemen, 1,000,
two-thirds of the whole number, were so pure that they would
even place themselves beyond the reach of suspicion ?
(Hear, hear.) Were the freemen of Oxford to be stigmatised
on such evidence as this—a mere Report of certain Commis-
sioners, to whose very existence strong objections had been
urged by high legal authorities ?—( Hear, hear.) He deeply
regretted the general censure of a particular class of men, in
which so many Members of that House had indulged; above
all he lamented to hear, from the Hon. and Learned Attorney-
General, a tirade of abuse against the very men whose ser-
vices he had not hesitated to avail himself when occasion re-
quired. Who, but the Attorney-General himself, when the
non-resident freemen of Stafford were in danger of being dis-
franchised by the Reform Bill, came forward as their
champion, and proposed the insertion of a clause
exempting them from the effects of that measure ?—(Cheers.)
As even according to the showing of his Hon. and Learned
Friend himself, the freemen were at that time incorruptible,
it might fairly be said that they were incorruptible now. He
would not detain the House by going at greater length into
this question. He would not perhaps have felt or spoken so
warmly, had he not perceived a disinclination on the part of the
Government to deal with vested rights with proper caution. In
offering his opposition to this Bill, he was not acting alone;
on the contrary, he was acting with a majority of the En-
glish representatives in that House, who were determined to
stand by the Constitution as they had found it, and not to ac-
quiesce in innovations which must lead that constitution to
a premature grave.
Mr. H. TWISS would not say that this measure was not
of consequence, but contended that it was unnecessary to
push it forward with such unbecoming haste, while other Bills
of greater consequence to the country were postponed. He
had expected that Hon. Members would have availed them.
selves of all the information within their power, before they
proceeded to legislate, but that he now found was not the case.
The fact was that there was a reaction in favogr of Conser-