The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-04 00:00:00

tines bearing at all on the questiOn. He would not undertake
to Say whether in early times there might not have been cases
like that of Nottingham; but he would say that the present bill
was a bill of pains tend penalties. He had, therefore, stated his
doubts as to the course • which he should feel bound to pursue.
If their lordships would ha'ie the kindness to look into their
own journals as to the course'of procedure which was to he at=
tempted. and with reference to which he had called this bill a
bill of pains and penalties, they Would See that the course he ad-
vocated was the only one justified by reason and precedent.
He would refer their lordships in particular to the case of BishijS
Atterbury, which, took place in 1723. That house had never
proceeded in a case of pains and penalties but in due course of
law, and they would find that in Bishop Atterbury's case evi-
dence was heard, by their lordships, not from his seat .on.the
prelates' bench, but at the bar of the house. These instances
would be found in Mr. Hatfield's volume. His proposition.
was, that the promoters of this bill had thought fit to pronounce,
a sentence of deprivation ou these corporations on the ground.
of misconduct. Very•well; •but in Atterbury's case the facts
were proved as well as in any other case. Those were the
facts on which he relied. There was also the case of Mr.
Wilson, who was -disabled from holding any office in the
magistracy of Edinburgh at the time of .the death of Captain
Porteus. The facts of this delinquency were tried there as in
the case of any ordinary issue. But it was then ordered that
counsel should he heard and witnesses examined nu
.either
side. The question which was: tried in' the instance 'of, Mr.
Aleiander Wilson involved the deprivation of office, and in-
capacity to hold it for the future; bat the question was tried of
the bar of the house, and the same issue was brought to adjudi-
cation as would have•been tried at any bar of the king's courts.
They would not,.therefore, say "'We wilt, without-examination,
judge of--the facts which We are called' upOn, judicially and le-
gislatively, to pronounce our decision upon." In the case of
Nottingham there was a debate in.thecommOns' OU par-
liament, coatained. in the :35th volume of Hansard's parliamen-
tary debater, on which occasion Mr. Bennett made a very strong
speech. There was a division on the su!!ject, 164 being against
the bill, and Mr: Grey and 'Lord- Cavendish being included in
a minority of 29. Tlie amendment was supported by that
eminent constitutional lawyer, Mr. Fox. The consequence of
that Wscussion was, that the county magistracy was added to
aid the ciel,cas which existed in the corporations of Notting-'
ham. Ile wished to ask who was the protector of this bill ? He
did not know who he was—he did not care; he should look to
meet the Attorney-General there, though he did not know who
the author of this bill was. He. thought •it. was a spurious bill,
and
,heiflid not think that any man would he particularly fond
of haying it affiliated upon knot. No lord chancellor now sat
on the, woolsack ; there was no tine to giie sanction to a bill in
which the king was not a sovereign, in which he :playedbut a
vice-regal. part, and must eontinlie to do so unless he submitted
to the dirty.dogiiida.tion of,tyallicking for the inagieterialpewer
wie.h the ileiteettatical domittune established by the bill, lig was
exceeding. sorry to see the chancellor, the keeper Of the seals,
was net in existence to tell the king how many offices were
taken away by, this bill. He did not know that these charters
granted by princes were all intended to be taken away, and
these plaCes were to be filled through other modes and chan-
nels of appointment than those which the present corperatecon7
ditions required; These rights were to be taken away from the
king's dunces. He was the donor, the giver of every thing that
was given before this bill was thought.of. He was exceedingly
pained that there was not a minister of the crown .to give his
majesty this information. In these changes of time and cir-
cumstances, as the preamble of the bill stated, he did not know
what was going. on. But if such a responsible minister of the
crown had been in existence, five minutes would not have
elapsed before he would have been asked what steps he had
taken on this subject. Parliament was under this bill to take
away thoye rights which existed only by royal grant. It was
under these circumstances, that if be should be asked what
course he meant to take with regard to every one of these cor-
porations, he,should•deroand that every one of them should be
served with a copy of the bill, he should claim that every one
of these corporations should be tried at the bar of the house, in
the same manner as every alleged delinquency on their part
ought to
,he proved, and that they should have an opportunity of
disproving the charges which bad been brought against them.
Prom these claims he should not recede. He claimed to tender
'witnesses at the bar, to refute the falsehoods and malignant pre-
amble of this bill. As for the phrase, "change of circumstances,"
he confessed he was unable to meet it in any tangible point of
view. He might guess, what it meant, hut his conjectures
were nothing. Alderman Parsons, and Sir Joseph Locke,
and the 4,000 kicked out corporators of Oxford, might not,
perlitys, be more fortunate. He should not be at all surprised
if theuakianWn ;Weeders of the bill should say to the Attorney-
General, 9 Mr. Attorney, we du not know anything about this,
you must coms and get us out of this scrape." But what he
(Sir C. Wetherell) now. announced to their lordships, and
through their lordships to the public, was this—that till it was
conceded to him.thatall the privileges which he had claimed
Were to be allowed to his clients he would nut retire Nur their
lordships' bar till he had confuted the scandalous falsehoods
that had been propagated. If their lordships chose to say, that
looking at this claim merely as a matter of privilege they could
not allow it, looking at it as a matter of right they could not
concede it, he should then decide what course be should take;
but in.this the High Court of Parliament, as Lord Coke called
it, the ordinary roles of evidence As much applied as in the
ordinary practice iii the King's courts. The only question, in
fact, with which the house had to deal was the truth or false-
hood of the imputations, on which; if established, punishment
was to follow. It was under these circumstances that he had to
complain of. the state of things intended to be brought about
by. this bill—of this new kingdom of which his majesty was
riot to be the king—of this new system of republican organiza-
dun which was not to invest his majesty , with the powers of a
sovereign, but to make hint play a vice-regal part. In these
boroughs, these newly created municipalities, it would not he
the King's peace which would be broken, but what they might
Drink fit to call their peace. This body of nearly 3,000,000 of
the King's,subjects, were to be exempted from the King's peace, •
:aud would very probably think they did his majesty an honour
iii subMitting the magistrates they had chosen fur his majesty's
approbation. If these privileges had been taken away by his
majesty, he would surrender diem, but he would not. tamely
surrender them to a democratical body, such as was likely to
monopolize the whole power of the "borough tinder this bill.
\Vhert there .was ne i-eaponsible adviser 'el- -the' Crown in 16%,
cabinet, to be, its was thealuty et' him who bad the.charge of.
the. RI eat,seal, the conservator of his majesty's prerogatives, it
was quite impossible to say whether his majesty in his personal
andindividual character thought fit to give his assent to this
bill, It was really deplorable that any man should be so ill in-
formed of a measure so much affecting his own prerogative,
while these euortnutis changes were going on, and that no man
would be found to tell him how those prerogatives 'were likely
to be affected by the proceedings of the houses of Parliament.
lie: would not wish to advert to the privileges of that house, and
he would.reerind.their lordships that they held their hereditary
rank and dignity bya title analogous to that which it was now
proposed to sweep away, Their lordships' titles rested on the
same specics of grant, and if on this ground inutility was pre-
dicated of the corporations, it might be also predicated of the
House of Lords. If that fixed and immovable character Was
now removed frem,these corporations, the experiment might
as easily be made. with the House of Lords.• As to the phrase
of "change of circumstances.,"' he had always be unable to
grapple w thst philosophy, but their lordship!' would recollect
that the privileges of that house were materially affected by
this bill. If the principle of an elective council, of universal
suffrage, and annual parliaments,. was to be embodied, good
fortune must surely attend their lordsbips,—and he hoped it
would— if in the wreck and r'evolittion of this measure they
were the only persons who. escaped being overwhelmed and
submerged by.the waves which threatened to swallow up every
existing land -mark. _ _

Sir Charles Wetherell having concluded his speech, Mr.
Knight commenced his address. The learned gentleman having
spoken for several hours, on the motion of Lord Lyndhurst the
further hearing of that learned counsel was postponed to the
next day, and the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—SATUItDAY.
-Their lordships assembled at one o'elockz 'The Earl ol
Shaftesbury. sat on the woolsack. •

MR. COMMISSIONER RUSHTON.
The Earl of FALMOUTH presented a petition, against the
municipal corporations bill from the corporation of Penryn,
denying that any charge could be substantiated against them,
aurl praying the house not to pass the bill. lie (the Earl of
Falmouth) had looked into the report of Mr. Rushton, with
respect to Penryn, and found that there was no charge agpinst-
them ; yet this Mr. Rushton, who was never in Penryn in his
life before the two days he visited it as a commissioner, sets
himself up to say, against the opinion of twenty gentlemen born
in the place, that the funds of the corporation might be better
managed under popular controul—they haying a surplus of £lOO
front a very small income. Surely these gentlemen were better
'informed upon the subject than lat. Rushton could be.
Lord 13aotintiAst defended the character of his learned
friend (!) Mr. Rtishton. - -
On the motion of Lord MELBOURNE, the order of the day for
hearing counsel upon the corporation bill was read and counsel
called in.' •

sir. liNtni-yr appeared anti resumed his argument.
At the close of the learned Counsel's speech,
Sir CRAZLES WETHERELL advanced to the bar, and said he
wishediii call their lordships. attention to the question of hear-
ing evidence on behalf.tif the corporations. Sir Charles was
proceeding•to address their lordships wheti •
. Lord 8i10ut.;14A55 interrupted him by saying that the conduct
of the learned counsel was very irregular. The claim to hear
evidence had: already Iseen'ma4e, and very ably made by the
4arned ;too4iel,. and it was thereore a very extraordinary
codrsion thy, part of,tlie learned gentlenian ; after their lord-
ship? had for two -successive days attentively listened to the
long speeehes which he had addressed to them, and then to the
speethes.of the other learned counsel—it was very extitierdinary
on the partufSir Charles, when he knew it was contrary to the
'ex.pressect understanding of the house to hear any flirther ob-
servatiens, to rise, and again seek to urge the Claims of the cor-
porations to:have evidence heard at their foiriships' har. Sir
Charlei,,not being a member of that house, could not move that
evidence be.heard. That could only be done by one of their
Fordships.l.„, • • •
A Noins, Loan said. that what Sir Charles Wetherell wished
.to state to Lh'eirlordships was, that he was noiv.ready to examine
witnesses if tlieir lordships pleased.
Sir Charles Wetherell assented to this view of the case.

The Earl of \VINCUILSEA.—My lords, I wish, before this
question be di,posed of, to address a few words to your lordships.
Lord Baouro si.—Let counsel withdraw.
Lurd 111atnoua NE. —Counsel must withdraw.
Counsel then withdrew, and

The ,Earl of WINCHILSEA, with an earnestness that com -
manded the deepestiattention, resumed as follows.—My lords, 1
beg to express a wish, which 1 feel from the very bottom of my
heart, that the noble viscount at the head of his Majesty's go-
vernment, as he, values his own character as well as the safety
of his country, will take into his most serious consideration,
between this and Monday, the course he will pursue as to this
bill. .We are arrived at a most fearful crisis. Never did there
exist such a state of things as the present. This house was never
in such a situation. (Hear, hear.) And I do not see, after
what has passed at the bar of this house—after the'able exposure,
of tha,certain consequences of this measure, Which has been
made—how any noble lord can lay his hand on his heart and
vote for 'this "hill. (Hear, hear.) I implore your lordships,
from the bottom of my heart, not for one moment to entertain
this most atrocious measure. I would scorn to belong to a house
which could entertain it. In Gi;d's • name let it be rejected
now. If your lordships do entertain the measure, it will he
ruinous to the honour and destructive of the peace and tran-
quillity of the country. Tremble, Inv lords, for the consequences
which will ensue. lou AM degrade yourselves if you sanction
so monstrous a measure, and you will bring ruin 'cal this once
happ.lantE It is one of the most atrocious attacks ever made
on-the pioperty.and rights of this country.
,Lord-MEILBOURNE said--I move the adjournment of the fur-
ther consideration of the querition till Monday, when I shall'
move that the house resolve' itself. into a torittnittee on the bill.
• The Earl of,WiNcumss..A.—Then shAll'intive as ;Ai amend
. Meal; for-au address to •his Majesty: praying that he *ill be'gra-•
ciqusly pleased le orderto be laid.on your lordships' table copies
of:anylustructioqs given. to the cduitnissioners with4bich we
are:ungquainted, I give the noble viscount notice I Shalt di-
'Vide the,house on the question. • .• •.
The Duke of NETWCASTLIi.—I wish to understand the noble
viscotint: correctly. Do-you (addressing' himself to Lord Mel-
bouroe)lneen to refuse hearing the offered evidence?
Lord: Mitt.co(iervir (with much emphitsis).--Certainly.