The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-28 00:00:00

donethis, and leaving formed their opinions upon a careful con-
sidevatimnof tbeargements of council and the evidence of wit-
nesses, ' they found thiir judgments overruled by a majority of
Noble Lords, the greater part of whom bad not heard any
portion of 'that evidence, or a single argument for or against
the measure:'He -dill deeply regret to see such' con•
duct ons-the'pert'ef the tiobility of England.
The- question was theel put, and the House divided, when
there: appeared— - ;
For bringing up 'the Report
• Ag 'avast it es st
. - , :• es - Majority
The-Earl of ABERDEsFeN gave notice that to-morrow he
should call, the attentionelefitheir Lordships to the terms of a
Commission af.lnquiry. which had been lately issued respect-
ing the state-of the Church: ter Ireland.
MUNICIPAL' CORPORATIONS BILL.
The Order of the'lia.'y-that the Report on the Municipal
Corporations Bill be-no*- reieiVed having been read,
Nisceiint 'MELBOURtcIE rose and said—My Lords, in
moving 'that this RePort lie'tiov'it received, I beg leave to guard
myself riaoSt disibietly ' ifia most explicitly against being sup-
pose&to give an +T or any approbation whatsoever, to
the -amenelrrientsivllich- your 'Lordships have thgught proper
to intrOdnee: into 'this Bill ; - -aliriost all of them being, in
my opinion, great" deteriorations of the Bill as originally
brotaght Uri fi•Oittllie'lltoiise orCOrainons. I think your Lord-
ships hate beeitiViiita by an unreasonable fear of evils that
are mit likeli-tb talcO'plice,,:and.that to these unsubstantial
twill ydur tord§hik have 'applied most inefficient remedies.
I think your Lordships have departed from the clear, from
the "simple": frtiiii'illblitl4f, from the intelligible, and, I be-
liciVes frein'*?Vaft'end-the secure principle upon which this
Bill 'Wes - fbtinefed ;
-'and- that, your Lordships have engaged
yoitriehke in `4. 'complexity ,of regulations, and in an intricacy
atlit'tt'vatraffbf 'Provisions Whicts.Will pot have the effect
which your. LordshiVi-interill; ande. not : having the effect
whleh yoilf LordShipl' intend, will have a prejudicial effect
upon thole towns Akbeeatia nothing is
.more certain than
tltat'tbere eintibrbT'a provision of lass which is in itself in-
different, tut -that'if it does net produce-the benefit anticipated
from it, 'int doessildenard against the evil against which it was
int6ncletito glialPiiit is certain, to produee, other effects which
vithse 'not anfictpited
-by' thoee. who introduced it; and
itialikeivise - attain that those effects Will be_ of a preju-
dlciaNtihire:' Ict the same time, considering the great im-
portan•-of thic:Bill, and the importance to the country that
thit'ilkiiiki6r; iltotild be settled, if possible.; considering, too,
the' Weil fed
—1 ingS'eiisting in the country upon , this sub-
jesta4f KiSieVW:tiluCh increeied, allow me to say, by the
Added- aigttneille-cted Milliner in which the opposition to
this measure has been made, and the alterations which
have been introduced in it in your Lordships' House—
considering, I say, all these important elements, I am not, for
one, disposed, so far as my vote goes, to interpose any obstacle
to these amendments receiving the mature and deliberate con-
sideration of the other House of Parliament. But while I say
this, I must beg leave also to say that I cannot answer for any
• support being given in that House to these amendments in tote;
or to any one of them ; but viewing as I do all the circume 1
stances of the case, and considering the great attention which
your Lordships have bestowed upon this Bill, I think it is right
and proper that the Bill, with your Lordships' amendments,
should be submitted to the mature and deliberate consideration
of the House of Commons. It is not my intention to trouble
your Lordships by going into the various questions arising out
of the amendments which have been introduced—questions
which have been already fully discussed. But undoubtedly,
in bringing up this report, I' shall move to omit from the Bill
many of those provisions which have been so introduced, and
which I consider to be most objectionable ; in order that the
Bill may be left in that form in which it originally stood, when
brought up from the other House of Parliament. I shall
move to omit the clause saving the rights of the freemen ; a
clause which I consider to be peculiarly objectionable, and more
particularly that clause which saves the right of freemen to be
exempted from the payment of tolls ; an exemption which is
felt and known to be a very great grievance in many of the
boroughs in this country. I shall also move to omit the clause
which provides for the appointment of aldermen for life ; and I
shall likewise move to place the qualification clause in the
same state in which it wag brought up from the house of Com,
mono. This qualification clause is one of those to which I be-
lieve the few observations I have already made to your Lordships
are peculiarly applicable. Ido not believe that the clause
which your Lordships have introduced will at all tend to bring
about the object which your Lordships have in view. It is
unsuitable to the state of the towns to which it is applied.
Property is no certain criterion either of talent or of respec-
tability ; hut, my Lords, I fear that the amendment which
your Lordships have introduced, is no certain criterion even
of property. It is a criterion of the most advantageous si-
tuations for trade in the towns—it is a criterion of those
who may possess the larger warehouses in the towns—hut
it is no criterion of property. It will exclude, as lam given
to understand, many persons of property, while it will admit
many who are of very different description. Some modi-
fication to that evil of this qualification has been introduced
by an amendment moved by a Noble Friend of mine on the
other side (the Earl of Devon). But I cannot pass this
over without saying that that is an amendment which is liable
to all the objections which exist against any euelitication.
It is an amendment which entirely t,tils in the efil et intended,
while it will have other effects of a prejudicial character.
It is nut, my Lords, effectual in itself for good, by excluding
improper persons. It excludes only the honest and conscien-
tieus, while it admits those stile are fraudulent, and those
who have no scruples to declare themselves to possess prb-
rerty, which they in fact do not possess. I will not take
up your Lordship' time any further. I only wish, to state,
that I shall move these an,endre,nt= on b, inging up the Re-
port ; and thet en taus clause wi.iel, aenoints Aldermen for
life, I shall take the sense of the i louse. I now move your
Lordships that the Report l br.:.::iit up.
• Lord ELLENBOROT-tiil .4:11 that Noble'Lords on his
side of the House had Leen tin, eeleast assailed by the repre-
hension of the Noble Viscount end hit colleagues. They had
been told that they were mutilating this Bill, and by doing so
were outraging the feelings of the people of England ; and
they were further told, that, as the House of Lords, they were
committing suicide by their conduct with respect to this Bill.
But were they wrong, he asked, in hearing Counsel, in the
first instance, against it? They were supported in doing so
by a precedent as nearly in point as any precedent could be :
be meant the case of hearing Counsel, by the House of Lords.
against the Bill for abolishing heritable jurisdictions in Scot-
land. Counsel were then heard, although it was at a time
when men's minds were in a most agitated state—it being soon
after the Rebellion. Their Lordships had acted upon the same
principle, and for the same reason—namely, because in matters
of property it was the custom of their Lordships' House to hear
' Counsel, and it was the right of the subject to be heard. They
likewise heard witnesses at the Bar against some cf the provi-
sions of the Bill. Could their Lordships have acted otherwise ?
Did not those provisions materially affect property? By one of
the clauses that property—not held in trust by the Corporation,
hut which was theirs as much as the property of any individual
was his—was taken from the Corporation, and transferred to
another party. By another clause, property belonging to the
freemen and to their heirs-male for ever was converted into a
life-interest. All this was to be done without the consent of
the individual, though in any other case their Lordships would
require the consent of one-half or more. By...another clause
leaseholders under the Corporations, upon lives renewable for
ever, were to have their leases converted into leases at rack-
rents. Under these cumulative circumstances their Lordships
were justified in hearing witnesses. They were told that they
did so for the purpose of delay. It was not ; but it was for
the purposes of justice. Their Lordships then proceeded to
consider the Bill, and with much greater advantages than the
House of Commons possessed. Many points had been cleared
up which to the Commons were unknown. The effect of the
evidence taken at the bar had been to do away the injustice in
those clauses to which he bad referred; and their Lordships
by common consent had struck out of the schedule many
places to which it was considered the principles of the Bill
ought not to be applied. Their Lordships then went into
Committee, and they did right on that occasion also. They
said they would not proceed one •tep till they had secured all
the proprietory rights of the freemen, and had also secured to
them the franchise which was given them by the Reform Bill.
.. Where, my Lords, are these poor men to look for support,
if they do not receive it here in this House, which is at once a
House of Legislature and a great Court of Justice ? We are,
in fact, the hereditary tribunal of the poor. It is our duty to
look to their cause, especially in all cases affecting their pro-
perty—and in having secured their rights, we did only that
which it was our duty to do." The Noble Lord then adverted
to the amendment which took from the King in Council the
power to determine the boundaries of the towns, and invested
it in Commissioners ; and contended that in this also their
Lordships had done well. Their Lordships also did right
in empowering the revising- barristers to divide the towns
into wards. Their Lordships bad not made any objection to
the qualification, of the burgesses, as originally proposed by
the Bill. The qualification they first introduced was more
flexible perhaps than any other that could be devised, but
when objections were taken to it, so anxious were they to
avoid all difficulties arising out of that qualification, that they
closed with the objection made by the Other side, and made
the qualification more popular. It appeared to the Noble
Lords by whom the amendments in the Bill had been effected,
to be of the utmost importance to avoid the danger of a sud-
den, violent, and universal transition from one system to an-
other. These were the principal alterations which had been
made in the Bill since it had been brought up to that House.
They had likewise, he thought, wisely and correctly dikter-
mined that the magistrates in corporate towns should be no-
minated by the Crown, and that the provisions of the Bill
affecting charities should be postponed till another 'year.
They had not decided positively against any one of those pro-
visions, but in a wise and prudent spirit had determined to
.take time to consider in what manner, and under what re-
strictions, an alteration of the law should be effected. What
was the character of the Bill now that it had been amended?
Was it a mutilated Bill ? Was it a Bill that it would not become
the House of Commons to accept, and the people to receive
with gratitude? They had for the future put an end entirely
to the system of self-nomination, which was held to be so
highly objectionable. They had removed the painful feel-
ing of perpetual exclusion from corporate offices, which
must have rankled so strongly in the minds of men who knew
that whatever their conduct, however meritorious, however de-
serving of admiration and respect. still dissenting from the
Church they were disqualified from enjoying with their fellow
citizens an equality of civil rights. They had adopted frankly
41**4 hesitation the constituency originally recommended
,estirtilifspi, op nders of the Bill. They had for the future
isiatot,
t", itlaceirtbernia tgernent and conduct of the municipal govern-
._ • meiitOralk-ICoaDorate towns in the hands of persons who de-
rived their pow,. from the people. In short, they had adopted
- fully and completely the whole principle of the Bill. Their
Sr: - amendments bad borne only upon its details, and in every in-
'^
csip stance he thought they had shown good and sufficient reasons
•1 -...;- "
(4:`."-?...-,- , :••,,,--- ....
• _ ..
..._ .
9.........:\ ( .)... •