The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-22 00:00:00

BOROUGH OF NORTHAMPTON.

Major MABEfti;frOeeiolJOg before the con-
!ideration of the House a subject which he wished to be under-
stood as bringing forward solely on public grounds. He trsuld
rot deny that the question was one in which he felt a deep in-
terest ; but at the same time he disclaimed any desire of coming
into hostile collision wit'a the Corporation of Northampton. He
disclaimed any inimical i',?osition whatever towards that body.
Having thus guarded hi: -,,f against the imputation or suspicion
rf personal rancour, he would proceed to state to the House the
grounds on which he rested a charge against the Corporation of
gross rnalvel-sation of their trust. The Corpora-
Northampton of
tion of Northampton were rich and powerful ; and they wished to
make that power and those riches unduly available for the return
of a Ministerial Member of Parliament for the Borough of North-
ampton. For this purpose they had resolved to subscribe 1,0001.
towards the election of any Member who would stand on Minis_
terial grounds of support. They had resolved to contribute that
sum, provided the candidate (wherever he might be found) would
contribute his proportion of the requisite expences. Accordingly
it was determined to search out where such a candidate could be
found ; and although be did not propose to submit it in proof,
yet there was strong reason to suppose that such a candidate

► was sought after in many places. But the point to which he
was most anxious to direct the attention of the House was the
malversation of trust in the Corporation in disposing of the
corporate funds to purposes that were not fairly corporate. In
the summons issued for the Meeting at which it was resolved
to support the Candidate of Ministerial principles, it was stated
that the support should be for defraying the ordinary and
legal expences of the Election. Now, upon this very summons,
he meant to found the charge of abuse and misapplication of the
corporate money. It arrogated a dominion over the funds of the
Corporation by the majority of that Corporation, which that ma-
jority bad no right to exercise. The power which the Corpora-
tion of Northampton assumed, was one which, if permitted, would
► Dave the minority of every Corporation a poor, plundered, and
despoiled body, in cases such as the present. The Corporation of
Northampton were placed in this situation—in this dilemma. If
the majority of a Corporation have a power of binding the mi-
nority, in such an instance as the present, then he did not know
what case could possibly arise, in any Corporation, in which the
majority might not hind the minority; but, taking the other horn
of the dilemma, and acting upon the principle that a majority of
a corporation had not an unlitnited power of binding the minority,
he would cont'etui that a corporation had no such power ; that
they had a power only of binding the minority in resolutions re-
lating to corporate purposes ; and that, as the sum proposed to be
vested was not fairly applicable to corporate purposes, such a
resolution was not binding upon the whole corporation.—(Hear,
hear, hear.—The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving,
" That a Select Committee be appointed to take into considera-
tion the Petition which had been presented to this House, from the
Borough of Northampton, relating to the conduct of the Corpora-
tion of that Borough."
On the motion of Major MABERLY, the petition
was read at length by the Clerk.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to express
bis dissent from the Honourable Gentleman's premises, although,
it ie did not do so, he should perfectly agree with him in his con-
elo-iion. He perfectly agreed with him, that if the conduct of
;be Corporation-of Northampton had been such as he had de-
cribed, that it ought to be made the !object of serious investiga-
tion ; and that, if neither a court of law, nor a court of equity,
had any jurisdiction in the case, that it should then be brought
'antler the consideration of Parliament. But he differed entirely
from the Honourable Gentleman's premises. He could not there-
fore concur in the Honourable Gentleman's motion for submitting
it to the investigation of a Committee. In order that it might
not be supposed he had the slightest wish to screen delinquency,
either in this or shy other case, he willingly declared, as Attor-
ner•Geheral, that if a paper stating this case tvire put into his
bands, and he found upon inquiry that the statements were
founded in truth, he should not hesitate to put the case in the
form of ah inferthation in the Court of Chancery, in order to com-
rel the Corporation in question to refund the money which they
had so improperly applied.
Mr. SPRING RICE was desirous to show the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite that he had fallen
into what he (Mr. Rice) was convinced was an inadvertent error,
If it were merely a complaint from the town of Nottingham that
the Corporation had for their own benefit, or for any undue purpose
misapplied their funds, it might be a question, whether the House
ought to agree to 'a motion for inquiry ; but this was not a question
merely concerning the corporatioh of Northampton—it affected the
Corporations of all England. Suppose the case brought before
the Collet Of Chancery, what was the utmost that could be
expected ?--merely that the parties who had misapplied the
money would be obliged to refund it. This was not the duty
of the Pzpresentatives of the people. The House had only one
of two courses to pursue—either by a bill, or by a standing
order that they viewed the proceeding of the Corporation as an
infringement of their rights and privileges, and of the rights of the
electors of this country. If Corporations were allowed to apply
their funds to election purposes, what individual would ever stand
a contest ? Whose private purse could compete with the funds of
a whole Corporation? His gallant Friend looked at protection
for the future more than at punishment for the past, in bringing
the subject before the house. Did the Attorney-General only
mean to state what no Attorney-General would refuse to say,
" that if abuses of trust were made known to him, as Attorney-
General, he would allow his name to be used in prosecuting the
offence." Or did the learned Gentleman's proposition amount to
thisp—that he would proceed in this particular case?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, across the table—No.

Mr. SPRING RlCE—Then the Learned Gen-
tleman's proposition amounted to nothing.—(Cheers. )—Suppose
proceedings were commenced in this case in the Court of Chan•.
eery, was there any man living who. could tell when there would
be a judgment given in the case ?—(Loud and repeated cheers,
which were continued with vehemence for some time.)—Would
an application to the Court of Chancery produce the cheap and
speedy justice to remedy or controul such cases, and provide
against their repetition ?—(Hear, hear !)—Was this the remedy
which was so liberally tendered by the Attorney-General? If a
private individual had a purse long enough to undertake a Chan,
eery suit, the Attorney-General would be kind enough to lend
his name to the proceedings.—(Laughter.)—Was this a mode of
redressing a great public abuse ?—(Hear, hear !)—He implored
the House, as they valued their own estimation and fame—nay,
as they wished to guard themselves from the supposition, the
shame, the reproach, of sanctioning that abuse which was to buy
a Ministerial Candidate, not to pass orer the offence so lightly.—
(Hear, hear !)—He hoped that the House would not cast their
rights and privileges at the feet of the Courts of Law, from which
their ancestors had so often rescued them, and where they never
could be trusted with safety.—(Cheers.)

Sir GEORGE ROBI:NSOST should support the
motion of his Hon. Friend.

Mr. HUDSON GURNEY said, that the Hon.
Member for Limerick had so entirely demolished the speech of the
Attorney-General, that he would not trouble the House at any
length. This was not a case of nice legal distinctions, as to what
Court it ought to be submitted. It was a question of mere plain
common sense. If the petition before the House were true, the
Corporation had committed a most enormous malversation.
here was a misapplication of the property of the community of
Northampton, which brought the case clearly and distinctly be-
fore the House- It was of no consequence whether the money had
been misapplied in favour of a Ministerial or of auv Opposition
Candidate.—(Hear, hear.)—Such a view of the question was
likely to prejudice the case.
PEEL regretted he had not been previously
informed of this case, and that he had not had the opportunity of
hearing the whole discussion. He would exercise his own judg•
meta without any reference to party. It was immaterial what
were the merits, or the situation, or the opinions of the person in
whose favour this sum had been voted. Whether it had been
given in support of a Ministerial or of an Opposition Can-
didate, appeared to him to be a matter of entire indifference. If
this act were proper, legal, and constitutional in itself, the
Corporation were perfectly right in supporting the Ministerial'
Member, if they approved of his principle-s. In this country of
freedom, where such a proper latitude was allowed to diversities
of opinion, no odium could attach to a man because he was a
Ministerial Member. But the question was, if the act itself were
a matifiable appropriation of public money, there was a material
difference between the allegations in the petitions, and the pe-
tition* themselves. The Gallant Officer (Major Moberly) con-
tended, that unless the fund,. were strictly applied to Corporate
purposes, the Corporate majority had no right to bind the Cor-
porate minority. But if this were law there would be no Corpo-
ration in the United Kingdom that did not occasionally misapply its
funds. The Hon. Member for London was listening attentively,
and he eras not at all surprised at it.—(Laughter.)—Were this
doctrine established, what would become of the vote for 1000/.given
• the Corporation of London in favour of the Greeks ? He was not
~iiscasaing whether the vote was right or wrong—he was only
Aowing that the doctrine of the Gallant Officer could not be
maintained. The Corporation of Northampton did not wish to
shrink from inquiry. They had acted upon legal advice. They
had consulted Counsel ; and amongst others, Mr. Warren. He
intreated the Hon. Gentleman so to shape hi, motion, as to refer
the question to a Committee, reserving the Resolutions of the
House to a future occasion.
Lord ALTHORP said, that the complaint was
against a proceeding which affected the privileges of that House,
and into which it was their imperative duty to inquire.---(Hear.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE said, it was necessary that
the House should have before them a clear and distinct account of
the matter alleged against this Corporation.
Mr. Alderman WAITH MAN denied that the
Corporation, to which he hed the honour to belong, had ever
made an improper application of the charitable funds entrusted to
their care. It had happened to him that he had been publicly
obliged to differ with the Corporation of the City of London in the
application of funds entrusted to their management, but never
upon occasions of this description. Ile agreed with the Right
Hon. Secretary, and those who thought with him, that such pro
ceedings on the part of any Corernattire ogurgehatt teoitbieesianaqduitroewd
ninetoo,f
to the situation of Bath, where the
ath,,e
eifmaplliorsevedmigtohtbeheprraecituiscee(dl,
Corporation elect each other, and some 30 or 40 persons return
Representatives for 30,000 or 40,000 persons.—(Hear, hear !)
in explanation, assured the
Mr. Secretary PEEL,
worthy Alderman that he meant no offensive allusion to the Cor-

poration of the City of London ; he had been in communication
with that body upon most important matters for a considerable
time, and there was no set of men with whom lie had less reason
to find fault. The observations which fell from him were used
merely in the way of general argument.—(Hear !)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was surprised at some
observations made by the Right Honourable Secretary for the
Home Department, as to the funds of Corporations. He thought
an immediate inquiry ought to be entered into.
Mr. Secretary PEEL felt called upon to explain.
He was at a loss to conceive how any Honourable Member could
misunderstand what had fallen from him. He had said that he
thought they ought to get all the facts before them, before they
proceeded further in the case.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words across the Table from the Attorney-General,
Mr. D. W. Harvey and Mr. S. Rice,

Mr. L. MABERLY withdrew his motion, and
substituted the following motion—" That a Committee be ap-
pointed to inquire into the payment of or engagement to pay any
sums of money upon the late Election for Northampton."—lt
Avas carried unanimously, and the Committee appointed.