The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1835.

to alter or affect some of the most ancient and valuable
of our institutions, as well as to extend and to curtail the
prerogatives of the Crown, calls particularly for the counsel
and the vigilance of such an officer ; and it seems to us as
politic to withdraw the commander from the field of battle,
on the eve of the most important military observations, as
to see the office of Lord Chancellor placed in abeyance at
the period of all others when the most active duties are
called for at his hands.—Morning Herald.
A considerable quantity of nonsense being talked about
the manifestations of public spirit which have taken place
within these few days in favour of the Corporate Reform Bill,
or what is more the purpose of those who attach impor-
tance to such meetings—the evidences of popular hostility
towards the actual proceedings of the House of Lords—
we have hesitation in declaring our opinion, that many of
The addresses, resolutions, petitions, &c., condemning their
Lordships for the course they have adopted, have been got
op in a way at once ludicrous in itself, and disgraceful to
the parties who have devised them. It is in vain to look
for any great or numerous meetings of the people upon this
question of the examination of evidence before the Lords.
There are none but the wretched hangers-on of a desperate
faction, who now attempt to slander their Lordships, as being
actuated by any desire to throw out the Bill, or to convert the
mere delay occasioned by the investigation at their bar,
into an instrument for defeating its essential principles.
A petition from Manchester having been adduced by cer-
tain Peers as proof of the sentiments entertained by its po-
pulation, in favour of the Corporate Reform Bill, or in
censure of their proceedings in their Lordships's House, it
was stated by the Duke of Newcastle, (who is a man of
truth, whatever else he may be), that the signatures to the
petition had been obtained by placing tables at the corners
of streets, and canvassing all passers-by to sign them ; that
in this manner many boys and other ignorant personages
signed the papers ; and, in cases where the petitioners thus
pressed into the service were so illiterate as to be inca-
pable of writing their names, the hired journeyman, or
factotum, of the political union, standing as footman in at-
tendance on the table, was asked, and of course assented,
t o ao it for them ; and this is the power of political opinion,

t ected to the instruction of the House of Lords in the

Ligher duties of statesmen ! It is enough to make an honest
man sick. The House of Lords has on this occasion rendered
essential service to the people of England by opposing it-
sAf as a breakwater to the deluge of Radical violence, and
encouraging men of sound principle to look about them, or
to choose some safe position to rest upon, instead of blindly
and precipitately yielding to the storm. If nothing more
be effected by this (which we may call judicial) proceeding
of the House of Lords, than the opportunity given to the
people to consider whether all that goes under the name
of " Reform " deserves in reality the sweeping encominm
conveyed by such an epithet, much will have been done
towards disabusing the imagination of the public, and tran-
quillizing those passions which have been so mischievously
raised and perverted. For the sake of truth and justice,
it cannot be too often repeated, that there is no wish in
the majority of the House of Lords to deny the necessity
of corporate reform, or to condemn the principles of the
present Bill. But it is a little too insolent in any clique,
official or unofficial, to maintain that the Upper House
of Parliament ought to be cashiered for introducing
alterations into the details of any bill for the avowed pur-
pose of rendering it more conformable to the ends of sound
policy and of substantial justice, as if it was a model of con-
summate wisdom. It has been hinted, we know not on
what authority, that the Corporation Bill may be postponed.
We have no reason to believe such to be the intention ;
but we have no doubt that the principle of the Bill will be
formally recognized, and that the ground of the postpone-
ment, should it be postponed, will be so stated to the coun-
try as to divest the transaction of all invidious or suspicious
character. In one respect the sinister asseverations of the
Ultra-Radicals have been falsified already, for instead of
the examination of witnesses continuing throughout the re-
mainder of the Session, it was substantially closed on Sa-
turday last, and the Bill goes into Commi, tee at five o'clock
to-morrow. Our firm conviction is, that the House of
Lords have not, nor never had, the intention of gratifying
the Ministers by rejecting the Bill altogether.—Times.
Railing against " hole-and-corner meetings" was formerly
a part of the " stock in trade" of the Whigs: The times
are, however, altered, and the same Whigs are now bolster-
ing up the late " bole-and-corner meeting" at Manchester,
as if their tenure of office depended on the petition which
emanated from that meeting working its intended share of
delusion on the public mind. A few days ago nothing was
spoken of in the journals of the faction but " the glorious
meeting at Leeds." The " glorious meeting at Leeds" is
now completely eclipsed. The boast had scarcely lasted
" three glorious days," until, like the " three glorious days"
in another quarter, it is fully understood to be a wretched
fraud upon the people. To return, however, to the
" Manchester petition," which, according to Lord Mel-
bourne's statement on Saturday in the House of Lords,
ought to set aside the evidence on oath which has
Litely been listened to with so much attention at
their Lordships' bar ; this petition, notwithstanding the
gross number of signatures, is in reality of less im-
portance than that from Leeds. The reason is obvious.
At Leeds there really was a public meeting, although a
very contemptible one, and attended by scarcely a single
person of respectability. But at Manchester there was no
meeting at all, except the laying together of the heads of
Mr. Thomas Potter, Mr. Handley, and Mr. Eckersley, in

the back room of Messrs. Potter's warehouse. These three
gentlemen, without any other authority than what they had
themselves assumed, had the effrontery to draw up a peti-
tion insulting the House of Lords. So long as mere chil-
dren are invited to affix their names to what they do not under-
stand—so long as persons are requested to " sign for their
friends," which is merely an apology for writing the names
of imaginary persons, which abuse frequently extends to
ten or twenty signatures from the same hand—and so
lnag as tables are placed at the corners of the
streets for this worthless purpose, the wonder is, not
that. 22,000 names were appended to the petition from
Manchester with a population of 2(50,000 souls—the num-
ber amounting, therefore, only to about one in twelve—but,
with such machinery, put in motion as we have accurately
described, that the signatures did not amount to one hun-
dred thousand, which, with a little extra labour, might just
as easily have been accomplished. There was a reason why
ro public meeting was held at Manchester, and it is fitting
that our readers should know the reason ; it was the fear
that everything would not run so smooth as was desired.
This apprehension arose from the following circumstances :
During the passing of the Reform Bill, the Messrs. Potter,
one of whom is Member for Wigan, were hailed by the
Radicals of Manchester as among their warmest friends.
'1 hey were among the humble followers of O'Connell and,
Hume in " not refusing the first instalment of ten shil-
lings in the pound because they could not get the
whole debt." The Manchester Radicals have now found
out that while the 101. householders have got their forty
shillings in the pound instead of their twenty, no extension
of the suffrage to the great body of the householders can be
expected of the honest Whigs. The consequence, there-
fore, is that, instead of seeing a meeting at Manchester of
100,000 men, as during the mania of the Reform Bill, we
wit cress the former misleaders of the people skulking into a
back parlour, and publishing privately what they had not
the courage publicly to utter. This little knot of *Unita-
rian Dissenters, who have thus thrust themselves before

the public gaze, as soon as they had got their petition
signed, posted away to London, and were introduced by
Mr. Richard Potter to the Whig Member for Manchester,
Mr. Poulett Thomson, who took them under his arm to
the Premier, Lord Melbourne, when the latter, after peru-
sing the petition, promised to make a proper flourish about it
in the House of Lords. The London public will naturally ask
who are these Manchester people who are thus intent on
bearding the upper branch of the Legislature ? We will
answer the question. Mr. Handley was sent down to
Bradford at the last election to oppose Mr. Hardy, when,
although well supported by the whole body of the Dis-
senters, he was sent back again to Manchester. Mr. Eckers-
ley is only heard of now and then at Whig meetings in
Manchester, and seems only to have been hooked in to form
a trio. Mr. T. Potter is the grand mover in obedience to
the instructions received from his brother, the Member for
Wigan, who, during the passing of the Reform Bill, and
ever since, under the disguise of being of " no party," and
of being " a true friend to the people," has been on every
occasion, both in and out of Parliament, as convenient a tool
in the hands of the Whigs as any they possess. In fact,
were it not for the influence of these Gentlemen, as share-
holders over the Manchester Times, they would never be
heard of, the great bulk of the people having on account of
their subserviency to the Whigs entirely renounced them as
leaders. Such, then, is the history of the "great Manchester
petition," such the origin of the grand " flourish" from the
Premier, on Saturday, and a more moderate flourish again
list night in the House of Lords. The House of Lords
will not, however, be terrified by this clandestine and bul-
lying petition into a forgetfulness of their duty to them-
:elves and to their country. On this occasion we may
s.tfoly repeat the ejaculation of Cobbett, on a not very
ii taut occasion—" Thank God, we have a House of

Lords." This House affords an effectual guarantee, and it
is the only guarantee which now exists, that the numerous
1)o:ly of our countrymen who have inherited or acquired
corporate rights shall not become the victims of a shameless
robbery, for the mere purpose of bestowing an increase of
political power npson a selfish and unprincipled faction.—
Morning Post.

CITY OF YORK ELECTION.--It is understood that
there are in the hands of the Committee of the House of
Commons for inquiring into this election, no fewer than 600
receipts for money paid to voters at the last York election,
and contained in letters that went through the Post-office. A
pretty specimen of Conservative election purity ! There is a
iertrate Conijnittea Pl} OCctiVo,—ggili9Ofnea%

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Arousr 10.

,
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Woolsack at
ten minutes before five o'clock.
MUNICIPAL REEORM.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from a
place, the name of which we could not catch, against the Mu •
nicipal Reform Bill.
The Duke of G RAFTON presented a petition from Bury
St. Edmunds in favour of the Municipal Reform Bill.

THE WESTMINSTER PETITION.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER said he had a petition
to present from the inhabitants of Westminster in favour of the
Municipal Corporation Bill. The petitioners expressed an
anxious desire that the Bill should not be mutilated, or its effi-
ciency taken away. The moment the petitioners heard of any
thing like an appearance of delay in the progress of the
Bill, they met at the British Coffee House, and they had
scarcely announced the meeting before the Room was
crowded to excess, and hundreds of persons collected out-
side, so anxious were all to testify their approbation of the
measure. Their Lordships, he thought, in determining to hear
evidence had lost a great deal of time ; they had been doubt-
lessly much amused by the statements of Counsel, and also
by the manner in which the Town-clerks of the different
boroughs had given their evidence. He (the Marquis of West-
meath) thought that they were the very last persons that Counsel
should have advised their Lordships to call to give evidence.
They were the persons of all the most inclined to give
favourable evidence for the Corporations, because upon the
existence of the Corporations their own existence depended.
He could not for the life of him see any necessity for hearing
evidence. It must be in the recollection of their Lordships
that they did one of the most important things they ever could do,
namely, suspend the Habeas Corpus Act without hearing a
tingle witness.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Marquis in
conclusion stated that so important a measure should be
allowed to pass without any further delay.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, after looking at the peti-
tion, observed that it was only signed by the Chairman.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER was aware of that fact,
but h begged to state that thousands attended the meeting.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—That might be so, but
still the Noble Marquis must know, that in that House the
petition was only the petition of the individual signing it.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND observed that the Noble
Marquis was in error, as to the number of days the House had
been occupied in evidence.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER—At any rate great
delay has taken place in the proceeding of the Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—The delay is only from
Monday to Saturday.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER—The Bill would have
been through the House ten days earlier, had it not been for
the course adopted.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought, that in a measure
of such public importance every step ought to betaken that was
essentially necessary.
SCOTCH CHURCH COMMISSION. .

The Earl of ABERDEEN, after presenting a petition
from Paisley in favour of the Church of Scotland, begged
to call the attention of the Noble Marquis opposite to a few
facts connected with the Church Commission appointed to
enquire into the Church of Scotland. The nomina-
tion of that Commission had been received by the
people of Scotland with great alarm, many of its members
being persons who professed what was called the voluntary
system, who had published works recommending those princi-
ples. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) thought Ministers
were not friends of the Church to appoint such men, and he
trusted the Noble Viscount would take the subject seriously
into consideration.
Lord MELBOURNE defended the conduct of the Com-
missioners, and observed, had not the Commissioners been com-
posed of such men as the Noble Lord had adverted to, he should
think it ill calculated to discharge the duties it had to perform.
The Earl of MINT 0 was attached to the Scotch church,
and supported the petition, believing that church to be as
safe as ever she was.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said that many persons
had expressed their alarm at the composition of this Com-
m•ssion, and he trusted the Noble Viscount would lay the
report of that Commission upon the table shortly.
CORPORATION REFORM.
Lord STRAFFORD presented a petition from Poole in
favour of the Corporation Reform Bill. The petitioners com-
plained that the Corporation of Poole consisted of a Mayor
and four Magistrates, who were permanent, self-elected, and
all related, and partners in business. This petition was signed
by 700 persons.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, as their Lordships had
declined hearing any more evidence against the Bill, they
should not hear any more in favour of it.—(Laughter.)
Lord RADNOR could not see either the wisdom or the
justice of the remark made by the Noble Baron who had just
sat down, and he hoped their Lordships would abstain from
discussions upon every petition offered in favour of the Bill, for
they would be so numerous, he believed, that if their Lord-
ships wished to put off the Bill by delay they could accomplish
their purpose that way. The petition he rose to present was from
Gravesend, in favour of the Bill, signed by 360 persons, of whom
10 are members of the Corporation. The Noble Lord also
presented another petition to the same effect from Rochester,
signed by 1,162 individuals, at a public meeting held on Friday,
which the opposite party attempted to defeat, by publishing a
hand-bill, about an hour before the time of meeting, stating that
it was postponed. Among those who signed it were 104
Municipal Freemen.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY brought up the 13th
Report of the Commissioners for building Churches.
Lord LON SDALE presented a petition from Carlisle
against the Corporation Reform Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the city
of Oxford, in favour of the Bill, and complaining of the state-
ments made by the witnesses at the bar of the House,
which they were ready to rebut and disprove. It was signed
by a great number of tradesmen, booksellers, printers, paper
manufacturers, watch makers, &C. The Noble Lord also pre-
sented petitions to the same effect from Beverley, Warrington,
Newport ( Isle of Wight) and Bristol.
Lord DACRE presented a petition from Yeovil to the
same effect, and explained that a petition from Devizes, pre-
sented last week, was in favour and not against the Bill, as
had been erroneously stated in some of the public papers.
MANCHESTER PETITION.

Lord MELBOURNE then rose to present the petition
of which he had given notice, from Manchester, in favour of
the Municipal Corporation Bill. The Noble Viscount stated,
that the petition had been signed by upwards of 22,832
persons in the short space of ten hours. His Noble
and Learned Friend had stated ample reasons why
in the presentation of petitions their Lordships should confine
themselves to stating shortly the facts connected with them.
The petition was signed by the greater portion of the respect-
able inhabitants of Manchester, which, to his mind, and which
he thought to the mind of their Lordships, would show the ne-
cessity of this great and important measure.
Lord BROUGHAM had been requested to support the
petition. The reason, and the only reason, why the peti-
tioners did not adopt that, which certainly was the best
and the most usual course, namely, calling a meeting,
was that there was not time to call or give notice of a public
meeting—( Cheers)—so urgent did the petitioners consider
the case.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that as the Noble Lord
seemed to have attached so much importance to the petition by
giving notice of it, he thought it right to read a letter he had
received from a good Conservative of Manchester, stating
the improper manner in which the petition had been got
up. The letter stated that the Radicals of the town
were getting up a petition in favour of the Corporation Bill,
inconsequence of the spirited majority of the House of Lords.

The petition was got up by putting tables at the corner of the
streets, and persons who could hardly write their names, men
and boys, were requested to sign, and if they stated their
inability to do so, the person who stood at the table signed
for them. The writer then went on to say, that he trusted his
Grace would state the circumstances to the House of Lords.
Such, continued the writer, had been the effect of the con-

duct of the blessed House of Commons.—( A laugh.) The
Noble Dnke observed that the writer was not a great scho-
lar —( Laughter),—but still his statements were to be relied
upon.
Lord BROUGHAM thought that the Noble Duke had
Prematurely made up his mind, and had resolved to be at once
judge and executioner. He (Lord Brougham) would have
no objection to take up the cause of the Commissioners, and to
rest their defence upon the evidence that had been given against
them. He conceived that the Noble Duke's Manchester cor-
respondent had not received much of the benefits of a school-
master. He wished that the Noble Duke would only let him
see the individual's signature, as he longed to witness the spe-
cimen of his hand-writing. He believed that the writer was
an individual who had been very well known for a long period,
for stating on all occasions what he had favoured the Duke
with on this. As to the assertion that only Radicals had got up
the petition, he knew one or two persons who had got up the
petition who were just as much Radicals as the Noble Duke
himself. One Gentleman was Mr. Benjamin Heywood, a
country banker, whose fortune might be the envy of many No-
ble Lords in that House, at least he knew that one twentieth
part of it would satisfy many Members of the other House ; and
this Gentleman was one of the most temperate politicians he
had ever known. He had never been thought a Radical.
Another Gentleman who had got up the petition, was Mr. G.
W. Wood, who had represented Lancashire since the Reform
Bill, whilst Mr. Heywood bad represented it in Parliament prior
to the Bill, and under the old system.
The Earl of WICK LOW made a few observations in a
very low tone of voice respecting Lord Brougham not having
cross-examined the witnesses at the bar.

Lord BROUGHAM thought that the answers given by
the witnesses to their own Counsel were so calculated to sa-
tisfy him that be did not deem a cross-examination necessary.
Lord A SHBURTON maintained that the Bill, if it were
to puss luta a law, would give annual elections and universal
suffrage to Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, and to the
other great manufacturing towns ; and, as far as his notions
could go, he would say that malevolence itself could not intro-
duce in places of industry a greater curse. If he were belong-
ing to Manchester, and personally engaged in the industry of
the place, nothing on earth would tempt him to give his as-
sent to such a Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM observed that those who did live at

Manchester, and who did exercise their industry, and employ
theif .apital at that place, totally differed in opinion from his
Noble Friend. They strongly desired that the provisions of
the Bill should he ?Mended to tileir town. .00dy of the
greatest infiticav Man.Ctester had met, the matter had been
propounded to them, and they had desired that the provisions
of the Bill should be extended to them.
„ Lord Fl.44NportoUGH contended that if the people
91 M'AnciA'ster vocrc ow itt favour of the Bill they must have

changed their minds in the last eight years. Eight years ago
they had applied for a Constitution as different as possible
from that which the Bill proposed to give to them. If the
people wished to have this Bill they were petitioning, in fact,
against the 240 gentlemen of respectability who now superin-
tended the police, and they were elected annually, or at least
went out in thirds every year. These gentlemen were popu-
lar, and had no connection with the Corporation.
Lord BROUGHAM explained, and the petition was then
received.

Viscount MELBOURNE presented a petition from the
town of Leeds in favour of the Bill. The petition was signed
by 16,000 people.
Lord BROUGHAM said that to his knowledge the peti-
tion was signed by persons than whom none more respectable
could be found in the county of York.
Viscount MELBOURNE then rose, and presented the fol-
lowing petitions in favour of the Bill :—From (as we under-
stood the Noble Viscount) Bury St. Edmund's, Chichester,
Hythe, Great Torrington, Swansea, Dudley, Watford, Scar-
borough, Selwood, Esher, Carmarthen, 13arnstaple, Wey-
mouth, Dover, Stockport, Bradford, Hinckley, Leicester, Hali-
fax, Great Yarmouth, Lincoln, Kendal, Bridgewater, and
Coventry.
Viscount STR ANG FORD would say a few words on the
subject of the petition from Coventry. He bad received in-
formation that on Saturday last an excitement on this Bill bad
prevailed in the ancient city of Coventry greater than any
since the celebrated procession of the Lady Godiva. A hand-
bill had been circulated through the town, naming all the low
public-houses at which the petition would lie for signature, and
there blank sheets had been presented to the people, and those
who signed it did not know what they were signing. People
who had asked to see the petition itself received a refusal.
He wished the Noble Viscount to state if the names to the
petition had any places of address attached to them ?
Viscouht ME LBO URNE—Certainly not; nor was it usual.
Viscount STRANG FO RD—lt was always an evidence of
respectability.
Viscount MELBOURNE—Then it was an evidence that
was usually wanting.
Viscount MELBOURNE then proceeded to present simi-
lar petitions from Wakefield, Louth, Chester, Carlisle, Wor-
cester, Kingston-upon-Hull, Thornton, Huddersfield, and
Warwick.