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

point out the consequences of the bill to the West India propri-
etors. Lord, Orenville.remarked that it was irregular .to
amine a witness at their lordships' bar who had no facts to
state, but who was merely called to explain views and opin- ,
ions; and no ddubt in that respect the noble lord was perfectly
correct—it was not legitimate evidence—factS he .said might be .!
sworn to; but prophecies could not. That kind of evidence
was not fit for their lordships to- hear, therefore he moved that
the next counsel be called in. But Lords Eldon and Liverpool,
in the course of the debate, stated that if proper evidence was
adduced in a subsequent stage of the proceeding it should be
received. So much, therefore, foi the only remaining, prece-
dent relied on by the noble and leareed lord. With respect to
the question on the slave trade, the-agent from Barbadoes Jahn-
ed to be-heard as a witness, and he was heard. He thanked,
therefore, his noble and learned friend for mentioning the sub-
, ject of the slave trade, because mentioning that had caused him
to direct the inquiry to he made, the result of which inquiry had
been the discovery of this piecedent. which was confirmatory of
the view he took of the case, and entirely destructive of the sound-
ness of the opinion expressed by his noble and learned friend.
Having discovered that there was nothing in the precedents re-
lied upon by his noble and learned friend, and that there was a
precedent the other way, what was there to lead their lordships
to the conclusion that they ought not to hear evidence. 'the
preamble of the bill stated, that in the charters of several cor-
porations of this kingdom there were divers defects. That cer-
tainly was a matter of evidence. It did nut state they were all
defective, and that they were all in one form by
_which the
house could judge of them, but only that in divers corperationi
there were certain defects, and was not that matter of evidence?
(Hear, hear.) It cre'iftiion to say that the corporations had
abused their priyileges, an neglected their duties. Was that a
matter of evidence, orwas it not? Was that to be discovered,
ascertained,-and fixed by the examination or witnesses, or was
it not? (Hear, hear.) But what was the deduction to •be
drawn from all ;his ? Why, that it was to be enacted that cer-
tain provisions and regulations should be made, the result and
consequence of which were to be, that_a great number of indi-
viduals were to.be stripped of their property--:-Strippeof. that
which by law :hey were entitled to, and which -by the operation
of no law could they be deprived of, unless charged apt( con-
victed of certain offences in a court of justice, and that property
was to be transferred to the hands of others. Would noble
lords on the other side of the house say this was not matter of
evidence. Why, the whole was established in the report of the.
commissioners. The commissioners had taken evidence upon
which they founded their report, and without which evidence
their report must be regarded as utterly destitute of all firninda-
tiou. Could any person who, ever sat in a cottrt ofjustice;'who
was at all imbued with the principles of justice, who had- ever
, practised in a court eflusticeoay that the Whole of this was not
to depend on evidence? and that parties were to be stripped of
their rights and' property with Out a charge being preferred
against them, or,-if preferred, as had been by this bill, without
hating an opportunity of meeting that charge? If hii • noble
and learned friend's' ,precedents -had been • correct, it-they had
been founded in fact, and were. ai• they had been, represented
by-his noble and learned-friend, still he should have said; disre-
gard such precedents, look-to the principle of thothinji•atid to
the rules of justice. (Hear, heard) But when it was found-that
his noble and learned friend's precedents amounted to nothing,
and that there *as a precedent the other way, what would their.
lordships say to-the argument Cf.the noble and learned tord.who
hadsat so long in"courtsofjustice, and appeared to be so much
imbued with the Very first principles of those courts? (Hear.)
Proceeding a little further the preamble of the bill stated, that
the present corporations were not efficient administrations of
tonal justice. That was the substance of the statement.. That
being the preamble, and it being taken froM the'evidence given
. before the commissioners, what would have been the natural
Course of legislation? One would naturally, have expected it
would have been said that there were old charteri granted by

the crown—granted by the prerogative andirom the bOunty.a
the crown—ascertain what the defects were,
.and let them be
amended by remedies consistent with the defects. (Hear, hear.)
He did not believe there was a single corporation in the country
which would have been unwilling to have accepted. a charter to
amend their defects. But if there had been defects in them,
and if they had worked injuriously, he was'sure their lordships
would have been willing to have amended those defects in the
way, he hadtlescribed, -and that was the way which cautious,
prudent, and wise legislators ought to adopt. But that would
not have met the views and the objects of those persons by whom
this bill had been framed. (Cheers.) Who could be so' blind
as not to see that this'bill was not a bill for the reform of cor-
porations, but a bill brought in to consolidate and to strengthen
the party by whoin it was brought in. (Cheers.) Was there a
single individual in that house who was so blind as not to :see
that? He would beg the houee to look at the evils complained
of, and represented as so pressing and so urgent that at this late
season of the year the measure was to be pushed forward with
that degree of eagerness which had characterizedit. If for a
-party object it was to be carried before the next dissolution of
parliament; he could understand the. thing, and so would noble
lords whp heard hitri. (Hear, hear.) Ile held is his hand a
little document showing the spirit with which this bill had been
conducted: Their lordships were aware that by,this bill the
large town's Were to '.be - divided into wards. A struggle took
place in the. other house to have thoSe towns divided into a great
number of wards, because if divided into a great many wards,
there wouldhe a mixed" ret urn.' That was the ohject; the docu-
ment be held in his band he had moved should .On. their
lordships' table; lie 'Would now -call their attention to it, observ-
ing that it had all the character of an insult to their lordships'
house. A bill had-been brought into the other house of parlia-
ment, and although carried, could not have the force of law
until it had been passed by' their lordships, and received the
assent of the King. (Hear, hear.) Instead of waiting until
these forms had been complied with, a commission had
already. been issued for the purpose of dividing the large
towns into wards, in pursuance of a provisicn of that
bill,- which had not yet passed their lordships' house. (Hear,
hear.) He would entreat their lordships to mark the instruc-
tions that were given. Those instructions were issued by an
individual whose name.had been often mentioned in their lord-
ships' .house, and who was in close altliance with his noble and
learned friend—no. less. a personage than. Joseph', Parkes.
(Hear, hear.) He was a kern, intelligent, and active agent of
a party—of a fact*, and no man better qualified for.the pur-
pose. It Was considered necessary then to regulate this division
of towns into wards, so as net to defeat thealbject et,the: bill ;,
and the instructions were. in these words—" When-a- borough
contains several divisions, some of which contain richer and
some of the poorer classes, you will not divide them so •as to,
threw the richer into a ward by themselves, and the poorer into
another Ward by themselves; but, on the contrary, you will
endeivour, as far as possible, to divide them so as to have some
of the richer and same of the poorer, and nearly equal propor-
tions, in the same ward." Must not everybody know that the
object of these instructions, which 'no doubt Mr.' Joseph Parkes
had received front his superiors, was to neutralize and destroy
the effect of the division of the larger towns into wards, and that
this clause showed the Measure to be a decidedly party measure?
(Hear, hear.) It was just intimated to him (Lord Lyndhurst)
also that Mr. Parkes advised that the nature of the division
should be kept secret, that the people might not know what was
going on. But their lordships lived in the world, they walked
the gtreets, they frequented the clubs,. and-their ears were al-
ready assailed by the statements of the party who brought for.
ward this measure Of the increase of the votes they would have
at the next election after this bill had passed into a law; and,
in corisequence of the obstruction that had already taken place
in the passing.of the bill into a law by their lordships' desire to
hear couosel that justice might be done, they were assailed by
every species of calumny and abuse that tongue could utter, all.
however forming conclusive evidence to show . that the great
object of.this, measure was; to increase the power of the' whig
party at the expense of those whom his noble and learned friend
had described as the tory party. The same might be said of a
paper which had just been handed to him, confirmatory of his
argument, but which he had never seen before-La paper in-
scribed tf'e cannot Afibrd it (hear, hear;) being Thoughts on the
Aristocracy of Englund, part 2d, by Isaac Tornkins. (Cheers
and laughter.) What did Isaac Tomkins say ? (Laughter.,)
No man could better dress up a bad case; no man could give.
more effect to a just and righteous cause, and he should be glad
to hear what Mr. Isaac Tomkins had to say:—" The same might
be said of municipal reform, a measure of infinite importance
in furthering our emancipation from the tory yoke." Then he.
went on to say, and of the best, reform also—because something
was to follow after this, and that was the lowering of the qualifi-
cation, which he considered must be carried in order to secure
the best interests of the party. Thus their lordships were called
upon to violate all those rights which had hitherto been copsi-
dered as most sacred. ( Hear, hear.) Men hOlding rights,
either by charter from the crown, or by act of parliament:had
generally heretofore been -considered- as holding them by the
best title. No man could be stripped of tights, holding them
either by the one or the other, except upon a charge being pre-
ferred against him, and that charge being there substantiated
by satisfactory evidence. (Hear, hear.)- That had hitherto
been the rule. That had been acted Uniformly upon by those
who had been called conservatives and tories, but sorry was he
to say it had not' been so by those who pretender l to 'be the
friends orlibeily. and their country. (Cheers.) Ile believed
that this proceeding had been conducted in the other house of
parliament under some obscure notion Of the law affecting cor-
porations. It bad been said justly at the bar by the learned
counsel who hail addsesrsed their lordships, and not controverted
by his noble and learned friend, that a corporation held its
property by the same title and right by which any private in-
dividual held his property. If a private individual held
pro-
perty subject to a trust, that property was ,bound by that trust.
If a-cOLperatiOn held property subject to,e,trust, that property
was )34tia1 by that trust just in the same way, and to,the same
extent, as the trust-property held by the private individual.
Property held by a corporation, not subject to. a trust, was en-
tirely under the control of the corporation, and at its free dis-
posal, just in the same manner, and subject to the same rules
and rights of disposition, as property wasleld by any private
individual in the country. Was there any doubt upon this ?
"He had never heard a doubt about it whispered in that house ;
but he had heard much out of that house to lead 'him to the
conclusion that those principles of law had not been understood
in the Other house of parliament. Sure he was when he looked
through this. report that that law had been misrepresented by
many of the commissioners, who had come to the conclusion
that all corporate property was held subject to some trust.
His lordship then proceeded to.cite a pireat variety of cases in
support of his argument. Their lordships had heard much-said
about public expediency in reference to grants of charter by the
Crown. Suppose the inhabitants of Westminster were to say it
was inexpedient that they should continue to par the tolls to
Covent-garden. 'Those tolls were held by a noble duke, a mem-
ber of that house, under charter granted by Charles 11., and if
the inhabitants of Westminster were to say rescind that docL
trine, and let them get rid of that charter without any proof of
abuse, or any evidence to establish a charge of abuse, but merely
because it was not convenient to theirs to be subject to such a
charge, would not that be considered a monstrous doctrine?
And it' their lordships were to act on such a doctrine, where
could it be supposed they would stop? If they adopted that in
one case of property, what argument could be raised to resist in
another? (Hear.) How many members of that house held
their titles and possessed their rights to sit in that house by vir-
tue of a patent granted-by the Crown under the great seal. It
might be expedient to remove them in the eyes of some indivi-
duals without any charge or any evidence.. of a charge being
brought against them; but he would advise their lordships to be
cautious not to take the first step; the first would lead to• the
second, and the second to the third. He would say to t heir,lord-
ships, stand on the first principles of justice, and defy public
clamour, act as you are bound to act as gentlemen and as nobles
of the land, and never mind the consequences. (Much cheer-
ing.) The corporations of England, the church, and the here-.
ditary peerage stood as barriers between the throne on the one
side and the democracy on the other—a check to the arbitrary
power of the prerogative—a check to the license of democracy.
(Cheers.) Those corporations were assailed at the time to which
his noble and learned friend had referred 200 years ago, by the
Power of the prerogative, because they stood in the way as a
barrier against the arbitrary principles which the prerogative of
the Crown was then anxious to establish. They triumphed in
their resistance then • they were now assailed. on the other
side by the party of the movement, and they stood as a barrier,
as it appeared from the documents he had-read to their lord-
ships, against the licebse of the democracy, and as a strengthen-
ing of the conservative party; therefore he would say to their
lordships support and maintain-them. If they fell, the church
would come next, and the hereditary peerage of the realm after-
svards. (Hear.) The aldermen were to be extinguished. What
was the cry in the streets?- That the extinction of the peers
must come next. But he had another objection to this bill. All
the municipal corporations throughout this kingdom helchheir