The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-07 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STAN DAnb.

chartered rights under gifts and grants. from the Crown. That
was apart Of the llow,er of the prerogative of the Crown—that
which:caused the Crown to be looked up to and respected. Their
lordships were now called upon to cut down those grants which
had been the gifts ofimonarchs fur a period of 500 or 600 years;
aod.instead'ef allowing the CroWn to continue to give new
grants, the House of. Commonswas to come in and was to have

„ .
the initiative power, .and it was ►arliament. thai. was- to grant
chartered rights upon the ruin of the charters whiCh had been
granted-by the Crown. (Hear.) There was a great inconVe-
nionce in this. If a charter was granted by parliament, and
worked ill, the Crown could,du nothing with It. If a charter
was granted hy the CrOWn and it required. to be amended, an-
other-might be immediately granted. That power existed now,
and it would. continue to.exist by law .so long. as charters were
granted by the Crown, but the moment this bid was passed that
law would cease. If it was said that self-electiOn was bad law,

bow easy would it have been to have amended the 'charters: in

that respect as ilieli;;;;;;ist:d,;tnd-t7ii:ive got rid of that
principle? He had altered the present bill himself as' to that,
and nothing could be more easy. If self-election was an evil,
and.hereditarylegislation might be an evil with some, no doubt
the house would pause before.it decided broadly that what was
called self-election was an evil; hut if it vas, how easy would it
have been to have got rid of that evil by providing fur an -open
election. If an election required control, how easy would it'have
been to have got rid of that evil by providing for an open elec-
tion. If an election required control, how easy would it have
been to have appointed auditors—auditors nominated by the
King. If there were defects in the administration of justice,

- ...—._
which was not alleged in- the report of the commissioners, how
easy would it have been to have remedied those defects by de-
claring that unless there was a recorder appointed no quarter
sessions shOuld be held. But that would not have answered the
objects and the purposes of those who were the promoters of the
present bill. (Hear.) He had said before that' one circum-
stance which satisfied him of the true object-of this bill was au
alteration that had been made in the elective franchise. When
the reform •bill ,passed through. the House of -Commons, much
discussion 'took place upon the rights of freemen--=whether the
rights of freemen—those plague spots, as the attorney-general of
the present gevernuient had called them—whether those rights
should be maintained. It was at last declared that they should
be maintained as a mode of conciliating theirlordships''house,
and of inducing their lordships to pass that bill into a law, and
which their lordships did not pass. Now, by another bill, pri-
vately and covertly brought into parliament, thoSe rights were
entirely tnbe'swept away. A political measure more base than.
that had never been thought of. (Cheers.) It was a whig 'nee-
sure—whig in its principle, whiginits character, and-whig in
its object. (1-lear.)• This
•had, already been resisted over and
over again—resisted alritost to the last; and before the bill finally
passed, a proViso *as introduced for the purpose of applying al
partial remedy. Their lordships might discuss this measure as•
they pleased, but the foundation of it was the commissioners' rep
port. Fle*Would ask-their lordships, sitting as legislators, and as:
peers judicially, if they would deprive men oftheirfranchise,their
properties, and their pecutliarrrights.•upon the foundation of a
report made by commissioners collected from evidence such as

they might clioose -to' collect? 'Would they not say to them-
selves who were those commissioners? 1-lad they seen them.

acting in high stakiisns so as to'form a correct, opinion of their
discretion; impartiality, caution, and sound judgment? BefOre
their lordships ated upon the-faith of a report signed and pre-
pared by any set of inen,Whatesier,'they. would surely ask them-
selves such quegtions, and would never rot-went-4i strip' men ot
their rights without making' such inquiries. He would ask their
lordships who Among therri knew,any thing of-these coliamis7
sioneis ? Wai there one noble lord out oflwenty in that house
who had heard the name of any One.Of these commissioners pro-
nonneed until they saw Me. report on 'their lordships' table ?
Could they,•then, safely prcieeed Upon the report of persons of
whom they knew, nothing ? He (Lord Lyndhuist) knew some-
thipg of thole commissioners. In the appointment of commis.i,
siotimis their lordships would require that the commissioners
should be men free from all imputations and suspicions of par-
tiality—free 'from all party motives. ( Hear, hear.) If a coin=
mittee was appointed in the Hoese of Commons to investigate
into any trifling matter—in olden times it was so; he knew not
what it was now—it would be considered areproach not to
_have

a mixed•committee, a committee composed of members of dit

fereut parties. He would call the attention of their lordships
to the commissioners in this instance. In his observations he
did not mean in the slightest degree to reflect upon the private
characters of those gentlemen, many of whom he very well
knew; but he wished to look at them in reference to their party
feelings. In the first place there was John Bfackburne—every
,body knew that he was-a-firm unflinching whig. He was at the
head of the commission, and was a friend of his own. George
Long-a strong and stanch whig. *Fortunatus Dwarris had
been in the habit of going upon the circuit with himself, and
was a whig. Sampson Augustus Rutnhall—a whig and smile-
thing more. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) George Hutten
Wilkinson—who he was not acquainted with, but who was also
Whig and something inure. ( Hear, heur.) Mr. Hogg—his
noble and learned friend would vouch for Mr. llogg having
alwayS been considered a whig. ( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Peregrine Bingham—a whig and more. David Jardine—a
determined whig. (Hear, hear.) It iehard Whitcombe—a
whig. John Elliot Drinkwater—a strong whig. Thomas
Flower Ellis, a friend of his noble and learned friend's—a whig,
as his noble and learned friend would not deny. James Booth—

a whig. Henry Reeve, whom he had the honour of knowing—
strongly whig. (Hear, hear:) Charles Austin—au able man
but he should say more than whig. (Hear, hear, and laughter
Edward Rushton—a whig and more. Alexander Edward Cock
burn—he did not know whether their lordships could examine
him at the bar, as he did not know exactly where he was atpte-
sent ; but he was a whig and more. Then there was Daniel
Maude, soil Of Mr. Matide,-on the-northern circuit—a 'very re-
spectable man, buthis noble and learned lord knew that he was
strongly, strongly whig. (Hear, hear, and latighter.) There
was also Mr. Gambier, who had not signed' the -report, but who
was strongly Whig. Then there was Sir Francis- Palgrave, who
certainly was-not a Whig, one who had written on the subject of
corporate reform; and was disposed -a good deal againstexisting
corporations, although- not a Whig he was introduced with the
nineteen-Whigs into the commission. (Hear, hear.) Then
:liist-4allicathei the seCretary=-(and again his noble and learned
friend occurred to his mind)—Mr. Joseph Parkes. (Hoar,
hear.) Mr. Joseph Parka, secretary to the Birmingham
Union. (hear, hear, and laughter),-Joseph Parkes-, secretary to
his Commission (hear, hear)—Joseph Parkes, secretary to the
commission Ter dividing' the _toWus into wards. ( h ear, hear,
and laughter.)'- After. this he ;would- ask their lordships if they
nonltt dispose of the most trifling interests upon the decision of
such a Atibunal? . (Hear, hear.) If his noble and learned
friend was not sitting where he was as a_party,..how he would
ridicule the whole• of this proceeding. (Hear, hear.) Would
to God he had his. noble and learned friend's-powers, because
if his noble and learned friend had had- to deal with this case
adversely, how would he have shotvii up the twenty whigs ?
How would. Mr. Blackburne have been made to figure as the
leader of this commission, and how would the rear have been
shown to have been brought up by Mr. Parkes, the friend of
his noble and -learned friend? (Great cheering.) But their
lordships had not the advantage of the judgment even of those
twenty. Two, and in some instances only one commissioner
had been sent to make inquiries, collect evidence, and make his
report, which report was transmitted to the committee in town,
who, acting upon that report, made their general report—a
most extraordinary course of proceeding. Any one accustomed
to a court of justice knew how easy it was fur an individual to
go into a town where there were two parties with the King's
commission in his- hand, saying he came to receive com-
plaints, to obtain evidence upon which the could make a plan.;
sible report. But what was it their lordships had before them ?
They had no evidence, they had the conclusions which these
gentlemen had drawn from the evidence that was before them ;
not even the conclusions of the 20, but the conclusions of one or
two in particular places, which conclusions so drawn were acted
upon as evidence by the commissioners- generally. Was not
that enough of itself to sweep the whole away ? lie had not
wished to take the noble viscount opposite by surprise, therefore
he asked the noble viscount if he had any objection to lay the
evidence on the table. The noble viscount said no. He after-
wards went down to the bar, where he consulted Mr. Joseph
Parkes or some one else, and then thought it right to state that
the evidence was in such a condition as to be unfit to be laid upon
the table. (Hear, hear.) Why then were their lordships, upon
the report of 20 or 30 persons, "apptsigted for party purposes,
receiving their pay, to deprive persOls4oltheir rights and pro-
perties, without heating any evidena-3hatever against those
persons ? His noble and learned friend had referred to the
chancery commission. There the evidence taken was printed,
so that everybody might have an opportunity of judging of its
nature, byt in the present instance the evidence taken by 20 or
30 melt for a party object was to be concealed--from the know-
ledge. of the house. His noble and learned friend had the
evidence which the'house was hat to have; that Which served his
purpose was produced, while that .which _would ,not was with-

.
Lord BROUGI:IAM said the noble and learned lordwas Welcome
to what he had, and offered him a sheet of paper he held in hii
hand. . , •
Lord Lift.; orreasT did not want that fragment. What mania
suit his friend's purpose would not suit his. No doubt:that
piece of papercontained a selection given. him by his friend;
lqr. Joseph Parkes. His noble 'and learned friend had eon:
`tended that it was monstrous to assert that the commission was
not legal. The present chief bard:tired' given a detailed opitiou
to the Town-clerk of Leirester, 'which was acted 'upon, that it
was.an illegal commission ; Sir William:Follett, who was sab.i
,sequently. constilted, had given a similar opinion.
' Lord flitoUq-lANI.--Sir William Follett had said thitt obedi-;
ence to the coifrnissioncrr IN as not compulsorr-7.
Lord LYN pficitsT considered that to be the same thing; anti
that it was in fact mere waste paper. He (Lord Lyndhurst)
had consulted Lord Eldon, who was of opinion that the.comi
mission was illegal and could not be. enforced. He would not
refer to any general principle; he put his finger, on passage
in which the Word "deed" occurred, which Lord Brougham in
reading had omitted.
Lord liiiouO Hem said he had never read the Commission.
Lord LYNnuurisr said that he would consider himself
mistaken; he would consider that no corporation could be re-
' quired or compelled to produce title deeds under this corn-
mission: The King could not compel any man to produce his
title deeds; it could not be done evens in the Court of Chancery
unless a case was made out for it—and yet they were now to be
told that the King could give fill authority to commissioners to
cause parties to produce their title deeds ! He deniedthat there
was any such power vested in the crown. As to the report of
the commissioners, what did it state? The statement was, that
in the great majority of the towns they had visited, a general
and just dissatisfaction prevailed. Out of thirty or forty cases
.where dissatisfaction was stated to prevail, when the particular
facts came to be investigated _these charges turned out- to be
utterly unfounded. So much for this general and just censure,
which, when the charges wero investigated, canvassed, sifted,
and discussed, turned out 'td be 'completely unfounded. Next
as to the'question of ret,inue. The corporations Were generally
charged with the mismanagement of their revenues. Now, Sir
F. Palgrave had observed in his report, that these charges of
mismanagement of revenue were confined to three or. four
cases, and these fbr the most part wereora doubtful description.
And here he would remark that the borough of Plymouth,
which was certainly a popular corporation, as there were 400
or 500 members at least, and the corporation' of Berwick,
which was also very popular in its constitution, were mentioned
in the report itself as affording striking examples of mismanage-
ment of the corporate funds. It turned out, then, 'that "this
, charge of inismanagerneurof the revenue did not so inuch apply
to the close corporations, against whicht his billwas levelled, 'as,
to the open and popular corporationS, to which all-the ethers
were intended to •be assimilated. (Hear, hear.) The next
point in the report to which he had to' call the attention of their
lordships was the administration of justice. His- noble, and
de'arned friend had thrown out many, observations, had 'Oven
utterance to many sarcasms on the manner in which justice 'was
.. administered at present in corporate towns, and observed, that
when it was administered by political opponents, it was not ac-
counted justice.. But after all, what was the evidence which had
been taken before the commissioners ? There was hardly any
evidence at all on this head, and when the charge 4 that were
made were sifted andexamined, the magistrates were acquitted
by the commissioners themselves. (Hear.) Hitherto he had
proceeded upon the statementS.made by Sir F. Palgrave. The
counsel at the bar did not go into all the casesnponwhichthey
were instructed, but they had given their lordships a sainple of
the, report. By the way, he Should' very much wish to know
whether the perversion .of the evidence of Alderman Parkes
was wilful or accidental. His .evidence was taken acivon by a
• shorthand-writer. The commissioners reported that the Duke
of Newcastle bad obtained a place for him in exchange fur his

Political interest, while the fact was that Lord. Grenville gave
him the place at the request of Earl Fitzwilliam. When they
detected errors of thiq description in the report could their lord
ships rely upon its general accuracy T His lordship then pro-
ceeded to comment on the
.partial nature of the report in a great
variety of instances, and concluded his observations on that part
of the subject by saying it was impossible that their lordships
could proceed on this .report sent out to the public by a packed
commission such as be. had described. He would remind their
lordships that these corporations were copies, imperfect copies
he admitted, of the three estates of the realm, and yet they were
to be annihilated, fur what purpose he could not tell, unless the
new corporations- were to serve as models for a change of con-
stitution in that house. (Loud and vehement cheering.) It
would come to this. There would be no defence for thenhurch,
no defence for their own privileges, if they surrendered the cor-
porations to condemnation unheard. Their case would be like

that of a singlehOnsel;;ftstanding in a street which was pulled
down, which the owner would at last be forced to abandon The
noble lord continued,--" Pause, my lords; consider. At all
events do no act of injustice. (Loud cheers.) I know the
claim ardor pratia jubentium will not operate on .the just and
firm minds that I know do exist in your lordships' house." His
lordship then examined the principal provisions of the bill with
reference to the new constituencies, qualifications for holding
office, church patronage, police, and the management of money
held by the existing corporations in trust for charitable uses.
He then asked, were their lordships prepared to pass such a
measure without evidence? He would say of it, that under the
pretence and colour of a bill for the reform of municipal cor-
porations, it was a party job—(loud cheers from the opposition
benche's)—intended to supply the deficiencies of the reform bill,
and to destroy the conservative party in the country, in order
that their opponents might—and he would tell them it would be
forfora short time—( hear, hear, )—recover their political influence.
The noble lord, after thanking the house for the indulgence with
which they had listened td' hitu, resumed 'his seat amid cheers
from the opposition.
Lord BROUGH A complained of havingbeen, unintentionally
he was-convinced; misrepresented by his noble and learned
friend.

The Earl of Re °Noll thought that the speech of Lord Lynd-
hurst had no other object than that of throwing out the bill.
The bill Was founded not on the report, but on the notoriety of
the fact that reform was necessary. This nobody denied—the
counsel at the bar admitted it. If the bill were so objection'able
as the noble and learned' lord had described it, he ought to have
given it a direct negative, for there could be little doubt if the •
inquiry-wore entered into, it. would end in the defeat of the bill.
The inquiry itself would be interminable, and would take years
.before it could be, brought tna close. On these grounds he op-
'pbstid the'amendment, beiause bethought it had no other 'object
than to defeat the bill by delay.
Lord Wii.t keLIFFE- denid that it was the iirtintion of the
,opptsitiori to defeat the bill by.deley.. It was their-intention to
see justice done, and to thiS they woeld 'act Up, by giving to
those -against Whom charges had been made an opportunity oT
rebut ting: the allegatio us.
Thu Marquis of LANs DOWNS opposed the amendment.
The Drilte of NEWCASTLE did not think the bill one that they
shoulri entertain; he was of opinion that it ought not to have
been read a first time. To record his own opinion; though be
would not divide the house, he should move that the bill be read
this day six months. . .
Lord DUNCA NNON thought the noble lord opposite hadbeen
misinformed With respect to Mr. Parkes. He never had beets
secretary to the union,' nor had he been- even a member of the
council. ,
A noble- Lord said,'ai least Mr. Farkeiliall been a very active
agent.- He- had written letters for them, and performed other
acts of a secretary. .
Lord HATHEUTON stated, that on one occasion Mr. Parkes
had been professionally employed.
The Earl of RA REIN 00 D was opposed to all unnecessary delay,
but wished to save himself from the charge of inconsistency in
voting for the amendment. The accusations made against the
commissioners he had not been prepared for, and now he wished
for further evidence. After what had been alleged against the
commissioners by the counsel at their bar, it was necessary for
their sake, for the commissioners themselves and for the public,
that an investigation should take place. Foi these reasons he
would vote for the amendment.
Lord PLUNKET, without going into details, shortly stated his
reasons for going into committee. The bill had been passed by
the commons with little opposition generally, and. with none on
principle. It substituted popular fur self-election ; and adapted
corporations to the wants and benefits of the community. Go-
vernment might have proceeded on the general notoriety of
existing .abuses,. and the popular anxiety for their removal.
It had been ascertained by a solemn inquiry, what was the na-
ture of these corporations; no point was left unexplained;
nothing that was protested against had been denied. This was
a great public question, even if all were true that had been said
of the commissioners, were they prepared to resist the reasonable
wishes of the people? They should either go into committee,
or reject the bill. He contended that by commission was the
most constitutional mode of proceeding. He trusted their lord-
ships would be taught by experience. Their opposition and
their concessions, in the cases of parliamentary reform. and
emancipation, neither added to their power nor their. dignity.
This Was a third experiment; let them remember the past, and
consider whether they had the moral force to resist the Commons
of England.
After a few observations from the Duke of WELLINGTON and
the 'Earl Of RIPON., Viscount MELBOURNE replied, and the
gallery was cleared for a division. The numbers were,:
For the amendment. 124
Against it •

l‘lajority
This. decision .was subsequently announced to the counsel,
who were desited, to be in attendance on the following day,
TuesdaY, at 3 o'clock.