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

HOUSE: OF LORDS.-TUE3DAY.

The house met at' eleven o'clock. Sir Launcelot Shadwell
sattlrs Speak .
Sir C. e.
Wertheell and Mr. Knight were in attendance as
counsel against the municipal corporations bill:

COVENTRY.

Mr. Carter, the town-clerk of Coventry, was examined by ,
Mr. Knight. In the course of his examination he said-,The
•uominissioners• are incorrect in their statements of the bOun-
daries:of boroughs; never heard a complaint against 'the ad-
ininistratiokof justice in the city ; the report of the toinrnis-
tOlierels incorrect. It appeared to me that the commissioners
took 'down `every thing that militated againat the corporation
more readily than they received evidence which'was.-favourable
to it. I gave every assistance in furtherance of the inquiry.
INo resistance was offered to the commissioners. am of opi-
nion, on my oath, that the inquiry was not fairly and impar-
tially conducted. ' The commissioners took hearsay evidence in
almost all cases. About twenty-five witnesses were examined
before the commissioners. I think it very important, in order
to judge of what weight should be given to 'evidence, that the
rank and character of the witnesses should be known. The.
witness Marriott, had been bound apprentice to me as a scri-
vener, I conceive. that in the evidence which he gave before
the commissioners he betrayed my confidence, and acted in a
manner unusual and unprofessional. The evidence of Marriott
was given anonymously in eight or nine
_parts of the report; so
that, if I had not been aware of the fact, I should have supposed
that eight or nine different parties had been examined. Mar.
riott's t'eelings, it would appear, were nut friendly to the esta-
blished religion of the country; fora gentleman told me that
he had said that the churches of 'England would afford excellent
materials fur the reparation of the, roads. I saw him in frequent
private'communication with the commissioners. He was in the
habit 'of calling on them at their inn. The corporation pre-
sented a protest against the inquiry, which was received, but is
uot noticed by the commissioners in their report.
Mr Charles Woodcock, solicitor of Coventry, who attended
the inquiry solely from Motives of curiosity, hail heard the evi-
dence given .by. Mr. Browitt, who admitted that he had been a
party to get persons to swear, in order to. qualify themselves for
taking up their freedom, thit they had served seven years' ap-
preniiceship. to a freeman. He said the thing was common, and
that he himself had been party to it,'though he knew that some
of the men swore falsely. Witness remonstrated to the com-
missioners against their receiving the evidence of a person who
had admitted a fact which woultl disentitle him to credit: on his
oath or affirmation. Browitt is a quaker. Witness was told
by commissioners to sit down., Many facts were stated in the
report on the authority of this Browitt. One was, that the
mayor of Coventry on one occasion was seen heading a mob.
Witness was dining 'with the manor, at the Grecian Coffee-
house,-in London, at the very time that Browitt affirmed that
he was heading a mob.

The Speaker resumed the woolsack at six o'clock,
SUTTON COLDFIELD.
Mr. iloldbeach, deputy-steward of Sutton Coldfield, stated
that thereat property of this corporation is worth.from. £6OO to
£9OO per annum; it has upwards of £20,000 in Consols; in
that was included all.that is applicable to charitable purposes.
Thecotnmissioners arrived at Sutton Coldfiekl on the 4th No-

vember, 1831, and summoned witness to attend ; had .a cor-
respondence with Mr. Cockburn in which he stated that he
could not submit the books and papers of the corporation with-
out 'emission, which, however, he hetieved would not be refused.

Thi'Commissi:niers again visited the borough in the month of
December following, but on that occasion he did not munimon

any memberi of the corporation. There were other persons
who attendco, and who made complaints respecting the conduct
of the corporation. I was present without being required to
come, ant I proposed to give answers, and in some cases denials,

. .
to the statements made ilgainst the corporation, but the com-
missioner rellised to enter upon his minutes what I had to say,
as not bearing upon the object of the inquiry. There was cle
charge of improper conduct made out against the corporation.
There were few of the members of that body made aware that
Mr. Cockburn was in Sutton Coldfield. I. have seen that part
of the printed report of the commissioners of inquiry. which re-
lates to Sutton Coldfield, but in many respects it is not true.
That which relates to the officers is not correct, neither is the
statement concerning the rental or the corporation quite correct.
The expenditure of £3OOO for building mentioned in the report
was regularly incurred under the sanction of the Court of
Chancery ; it was revised in the usual way by the Master. The
report is also. wrong where it states that the felling of the timber
belonging to the corporation was a work proceeded in without
public competition. The report states that the inhabitants are
.not satisfied with the conduct of the corporation. It is wrong
'in that likewise, for only a few of theinhahitants are dissatisfied
—the dissatisfied portion of the inhabitants encoded the com-
missioner. There is no interference on the part Of the corpora-
tion in any political matter: The borough does not return
members to the House of Commons. The great bulk of the
respectable inhabitants are satisfied with things as they are.

• BERWICK-UPON-TViWID.
Mr. Stevenson, examined. by Sir C. Wetherell.—Was a
native of the borough ; the election was popular, the in tyor
,and,
four bailiffs being chosen annually; never heard any complaints
against the management of the corporation property.; attended
the commissioners • burgesses and non-burgesses were exa-
mined. There could notlmve been a preponderance of opinion
against the existing system; and if it had been stated there was,
that statement was erroneous. The complaints made against
the management Of the funds were made by persons not entitled
to-share in them ah znitio by charter. The corporation was at,
present in debt to the amount of about £50,000. The lands,
flatteries, and hnosei, thie corporation hid, aintatittk-d

ho annual value of £lO,OOO.
LHICKSTER.

Mr. Charles Meredith; examined by MT. Knigtht.—Was a
solicitor, (not a member of the corporation;) had lived in Lei-
cester 45 years, and practised as an attorney for thirty years ;
the business of the magistrates, in. and out of session, was trans-
acted with great fidelity and attention; the police was managed
to the perfect satisfaction of the inhabitants; was often politi-
cally opposed at elections to the corporation. Was at Leicester
when the corporation commissioners came; they were the same
two who had been at Coventry. Was examined by them. His
examination occupied an hour or more. Had read the report,
but did not find a word of his evidence, nor even the substance
of it, stated in that report. Was asked by the commissioners
about the conduct of the magistrates, the administration of jus-
,tice, and as to any complaints about the magistryy very par-
ticularly, but no trace of his answers appeared in the report.
Had been for many years one of the county coroners. It ap-
peared to him that there was an intention on the part of the
commissioners to collect all the evidence they could on one side,
but none on the other. Conceived the conduct of the commis-

sinners to be much otherwise than fair and impartial, which he
remarked to the commissioners themselves. be inquiry was
conducted amidst much clamour and invective by the persons
assembled, but not by the commissioners. The commissioners
did not interfere to put down that clamour. A paper, to the
purport of the one now produced, was signed by many -of the
most respectable inhabitants, complaining of the way in which
the inquiry was conducted, intended for the commissioners, but
did not know that-it was given to the commissioners. Handed
that paper to the town clerk. The paper did not appear iu the
report. Was noiv accidentally in London, and had not come
on purposeto be examined.
Mr. THOMAS Burbidge described the mode of election, num-
ber, and officers of the corporation; thought there were from
t)(CO to 3000 resident in the borough ; Sir'rhos. 'White's charity
was eojoyed by the young freemen; sums of £lOO under that
charity were lent to young tradesmen of the town; there,were
other charities not exclusively appropriated to freemen. The
corporation had a considerable estate left them by Aldernian
Newton, one of the corporation. Ho thought it was now worth
about £l,lOO or £1,21Y,/ a-year. By the trusts of the will the
greater part of this revenue was appropriated to children of
parents of the established church of England. The words of
the will did not contain any such expression as "the corpora-
tion as at present established." He (Alderman Newton) gave
the estate to the corporation as it was established, being him-
self at the time of making his will a member of the corporation.
There were other charities of minor amouut. He was exam-
ined at,Leicester before the commissioners. He was examined
the whole'of Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday, and the greater
part of three other days. He was not directed by the govern-
ing body to afford any communication to the commissioners.
He tits summoned, and the mayor was summoned, and wishing
to giVe the commissioners all the information in his power, be
went to the Castle.. He did not expect his examination was to
be public. He found at the Castle a great number of the poli-
tical opponents of the corporation. He left the Castle, hoping
to meet the commissioners in their way thither. He met them
in the streets of the town, and told them that as he had doubts
of the propriety of communicating to them what he krieW of the
corporation eoncerns, he should feel obliged irthey would let
his examination be postponed till he could see the recorder,
which he would do by
.Monday, and that there would' be no fur-
ther delay. They insisted on his commencing ,his examirrati6n
at once. He asked for an assurance that he should not be in-
sulted by the parties before whonilie was going exhibit, The
coinmisSioners promised to preserve order. The report whio
counsel held in his hand was that made by hint to-the corpora=
tion in writing as to what had passed at his .exantin,atiou be-
tween hitiself and the commissioners. '
Mr., KNIGHT then proceeded to read the report, 'after which
Burbidge was cross-examined by Lords g Brou -ham Plun-
kett, and Lyndhurst.
`V Wen this case hadiaeen.disposed of, _
The Marquis of SALISBURY said that he had two. petitions to
present to the house, one from Itornford; and the other from
-Havering-atte-Bower in Bssex; praying for inquiry. He sug-
gested that the house should proceed with these cases, as there
appeared to be no other case to go on with.
Lord BitorottAsr advised' the noble marquis to have these
cases ready by to-morrow, and if there was, an_ opportunity to
takelhemahen, so much the better.
Lord MRLBOUarsalere advanced to the table'eVideittly under
a feeling of strong excitement, and said that he did not think
either of the cases referred to ought to be entertained;—" And
I protest—l protest for the third time," said the- noble lord,
"against the course which your lordships are now pursuing. I
consider it contrary to reason and to the practice of this house.
1 will not hold myself bound to it as a precedent, for I deem it
to be erroneous, prejudicial; and pernicious, and, therefore, I
repeat,-that I will not be bound to it in any respect. At the
same time, 43 your lordships have decided the question against
my conviction, 1 feel that I ant bound to bow to a majority of
your lordships' house.. But I wish it to be utiderStoOd; that I
bow to a majority of this house—to a majority, I repeat, of this
house, and to that only. I consider myself coerced and con-
trolled by a superior pbwer, and, therefore, your-loidships may
now act as sou think fit." The rapidity .and vehemence with
which the neblelord uttered these observations appeared to sur-
prise their lordships, many of whom were about to retire, but
again. resumed their seats.
-The Marquis of LONDONDERRY observed that the house was
placed in rather a dillicult situation, as the noble viscountap-
peered to be against the hearing of witnesses, although the
noble and learned lord who was supposed to be in his confidence
had Advised hint tothe contrary. By which of the noble lords
was the house to beluided ? (Hear, hear.)
Lord Beano st AM observed that he had not said a single word
as to the necessity of having witnesses examined; what he did
say was, that if the parties were ready, they:ought to go on.
Ile entirely agreed with what had fallen from his noble friend,
and was from the first opposed to having witnesses examined at
the bar. As to the examination of town-clerks,-he conceived
that the house might just as well examine ail of the six clerks
in Chancery as those persons. He. considered' that their. lord-
ships, by admitting evidence on this bill, had allowed a very
improper precedent, for it was opening the door to the admis-
sion of evidence in the case of every bill which might be brought
before the house,
Lord LYN DIIURST said that there was no motion before their
lordships, and therefore the present discussion-was but wasting
time.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said that after the statement
which had been made by the first minister of the crown, who of
course was well acquainted with all the principles of the bill,
the house had only one course to ursue, and that was, to act
ppon their own decision. The noble lord had introduced the
bill on his own responsibility, and their lordships' dtity was to
see that it was one which ought to be passed. Without pro-
fessing any great legal knowledge, would ask if there ever
was an instance in which a minister of the Croivn strove with-
out due inquiry to pats a measure involving die property of in-
dividuals to a considerable amouut. He contended that if this
were to pass, parties would be defrauded out of their pro-
perty by a body of irresponsible commissioners, which property
in the instance, of the two cases its Essex was given to them by
the Crown itself, and that within the last seven years.
Lord LYNOHUBST observed that the cases to which the noble
marquis referred would be heard as any other cases of abuse
when the proper time arrived.
The -house then adjourned, at half-past eleven o'clock, on the
understanding that the evidence was to be resumed at one
o'clock to-morrow. (Tuesday), and continue until twelve at
night.