The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-16 00:00:00

INVERNESS ELECTION.

Mr. BANNERMAN, in furtherance of a petition which he
had presented to the House, praying for an extension of the
time for going into the inquiry as to the validity of the late re-
turn of a Member for the county of Inverness, on the ground of
bribery, begged to move that the present order be discharged,
and that the petition against the return be taken into conside-
ration on the 4th of July.
Mr. CHISHOLM E opposed the motion.
Sir G. CLERK said that it would be a great hardship on
those parties who had already prepared for the inquiry, to
have it now postponed ; and it would be a great injustice to
the sitting Member, who had the most right to complain, if
any one had. The parties had already exchanged lists, and
it was too much, at that stage of the case, to ask for a change
of the day.
After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr.
GOULBURN, and the CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER,
The gallery was cleared, but no division took place. It was
agreed that the time should be extended to the 2d of July.
The SPEAKER at the same time gave it as his opinion,
that the lists were not to be changed.
A short conversation took place relative to the Stafford
Disfranchisement Bill. The second reading, as we under-
stood, was postponed till to-morrow.

CORPORATION REFORM BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for the
second reading of the Corporation Reform Bill.
The Order of the Day having been read,
Mr. PR AED would take that opportunity of giving notice,
that in the Committee he should move an amendment, the
object of which would be to preserve the rights of existing
freemen (so we understood the Hon. Member).
Sir R. INGLIS wished to take the earliest possible op-
portunity of declaring his opposition to the principle. He
admitted, that in cases of proved delinquency, Corporations
might be punished, but they could not be destroyed. He
denied that it was competent to Parliament totally to take
away those rights.
An Hon. MBMBER made an observation which was to-
tally inaudible in the Gallery.
In answer to a question from Lord SANDON,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the persons that
would be eligible as Recorders under this Bill were Barristers
of five years' standing.
Lord SAND ON then proceeded. He admitted the princi-
ple of the Bill, but at the same time they should be most care-
ful in providing a fit and proper machinery for the administra-
tion of justice in Corporations, for the preservation of the
peace, and for the proper disposition of their charitable funds.
There was one provision of the Bill, as to the applicability of
which to all Corporations, no matter what might be the amount
of their funds, he entertained great doubts. The provision to
which he alluded was the triennial election. The Corporation
of the town which he had the honour of representing had the
superintendence and disposal of funds to the amount of one
hundred thousand pounds a-year. They were applicable, in
part, to extensive plans of improvement, which must naturally
take a considerable time before they could be completed. He
did not think the execution of business of this kind could be
conducted so beneficially by a Corporation chosen so fre-
quently as once in three years, as it would if they were suffered
to continue longer in office. Men who succeeded each other
so rapidly could not be so well acquainted with the business
as persons of longer experience. Besides this large fund of
one hundred thousand pounds a-year, there was another pecu-
liarity in the Corporation of Liverpool, which was, that it had
a concurrent jurisdiction in other funds to the amount of two
hundred thousand pounds more, in the disposal of which not
only the town of Liverpool, but the country at large, was
deeply interested. Some of the plans to which he alluded
would require five, perhaps more than five, years for their com-
pletion. Was it to be expected that they could be satisfacto-
rily managed by a Corporation the constituent parts of
which were changed every three years ? He did not mean
now to enter at any length into the details, but this, as well as
sAme other parts of the Bill, required particular and anxious
attention in the Committee. When the Bill came into Com-
mittee, he would be ready to second the amendment of
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Praed) for preserving the rights of
existing freemen.
Lord STANLEY had before in his place in that House
expressed without reserve his opinion that some measure of
Corporation Reform had become necessary, and he was now
happy to have this opportunity afforded him by his Noble
Friend (Lord John Russell) of expressing the gratification he
felt at the introduction of a measure founded on a principle of
which he approved. He would not, however, be understood
as fully concurring in all the details of this Bill ; but he must
express his thanks to a Government with which he had so long
acted in zealous and cordial co-operatien for proposing a bill
founded on such a principle—he meant the pnnciple of vest-.
ing the control of corporate funds in that body at large who
contributed to them, and not in a self-elected Corporation.—
( Hear, hear.) It would have been impossible for him, how-
ever, to have supported the second reading of the Bill, if he
saw reason to disapprove of that important part of it, namely,
the franchise upon which it was proposed to found the right of
electing to the various offices of the Corporation. His own
prejedices were, he must say, originally in favour of the 101.
franchise. There were, however, very strong, and, as it ap-
peared to his mind, satisfactory arguments for making the
elective franchise for representatives to serve in Parliament;
and that for the election of Corporation officers different. The
object of the franchise fixed by the Reform Bill was to take