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

ration property, and every species of departure from economy
and rectitude uf administrat►on, would have been made up of
that a 4red messis, the golden harvest .which those sickleiuen

were expected to reap. It turned out, however, that wherever
the malversatiou was expected, every species of good conduct
had been realized, and out of the 185 corporations, which, ac-
cording to the second topic of this bill, it was proposed to dis-
franchise and annul on the ground of neglect and abuse, there'
were no fewer thou 96 which, notwithstanding the fooleries and
partisan prattling and erroneously and defectively applied in-
vestigation, and prejudicial influences which characterized the
report, stood unreproached and irreproachable by those very
commissioners themselves. He would not go so far as to accuse
their lordships of the bad taste of havilig read the whole of the
report; he believed that not five among them had done so, but
hoped their gallantry and honour as gentlemen would not allow
them to be made the dupes of its ribaldry. lie called on them
to look well to its contents. It was said of the great Roman
lawyers that they- had secretaries to read to them, and he was
afraid their lordships would be under the necessity of having
recourse to some such vicarious vision, bat at all events he hoped
they would not come to a conclusion without well investigating
all the circumstances affecting each individual corporation.
Lord BitouGnam here interrupted the learned gentleman,
and suggested to the house the propriety of allowing him to
retire for a few minutes, which having been agreed to, Sir C.
Wetherell left the bar, labouring evidently under considerable
exhaustion from the extreme heat of the house, and the pro-
tracted length (upwards of three hours) of his address.
A.fter the lapse of about a quarter of an hour,
Lord KEN vox rose and stated that the learned counsel who
had lately retired was really so exhausted from the extreme
heat of the weather—the thermometer in their lordships' house
being nearly g.)—and the great exertions he had made, that it
would be quite impossible for him to go on with his address to
their lordships to-night. Ile hoped, therefore, that their lord-
ships would extend their usual kindness to him, and the learned
• counsel would attend at any time their lordships might please
to appoint to-morrow.

•
Alter a short discussion, the further hearing of counsel was
postponed until the following day and the house adjourned.
Sir C. WETHERELL appeared at the bar on Friday, and
continued his address to their lordships. He observed, that his
anxious eudeavour would be (oppressed and overburdened as
he was with particular cases and views) to confine himself to
general results, and to offer such general remarks as appeared
to him to be applicable to the principle of the bill—that being
the purpose, as he understood, for which he was especially
called to appear before their lordships. Ile should now proceed
to show, that under this sham bill for regulating corporations
very great injury would be dune to a numerous class of persons,
who at present enjoyed important rights and privileges—the
right, for instance, to participate in the benefits derivable from
common lands. He had stated yesterday, when he referred to
a document .which he meant to have printed, that the annual
value .uf those lands was, according to that statement, ;.P.,500,000.
But he believed that the amount was much underrated, and that
the annual value was not less than £750,000. The rights of all
those persons who were interested in common lands were com-
pletely and must unjustly thrown overboard in this political re-
form. They were cast aside to lighten the passage of the poli-
tical vessel—they were dung away as useless lumber in order
that the political ship might sail inure steadily into the revolu-
tionary harbour. The.rights of that class of people were totally
neglected, although some of those rights were actually of a
freehold nature, particularly right of common, which gave to
those who owned it as extensive a privilege of depasturing
cattle as any noble lord in that house possessed to turn cattle
out on any common for pasturage in any county of England.
Now, as to the existing rights of those persons, there was a
clause in the bill to which he had not before adverted, which
enabled the new corporation, or municipality, or commune, for
he knew not what to call it, to purchase thai right. This clause,
which would be found at page 9, was peculiarly oppressive.
Under it this new body were enabled to purchase all the corn-
mon rights of all the freemen iu those existing communities;
and it provided, further, that if the parties could not agree on
the price, a jury was to be empanelled to set a value on that
which was disputed. In Oxford, Lincoln, and many. other
places, freemen, as matters now stood, who were carrying on
business, had a right to turn out their cattle on certain common
lands, and it was quite clear to him that the value to those per-
sons of such privilege was three times greater than any amount
of remuneration that would be offered to give it up. This clause
affected to give a benefit, whereas, in point of fact, it took one
away. By this clause a power was given to the town council
which was very nearly coupled with a principle of compulsion.
It gave authority to those new powers to purchase, and to corn-
pel the sale of lands and commons belonging to the old corpo-
rations, which were worth annually nearly £750,000. They
could, under this clause, compel men to sell those rights. But
the clause declared, that if the value were disputed, a jury
should decide upon the matter. That looked very fair and
plausible, but if they examined more closely into the subject,
they would find that there was uothing solid in it. So long as a
perpetual race of freemen was kept up, the tight of each, with
respect to common lands, descended to his sun. It was like a
tenantry in common, at common law; or, like an estate in tail
male, it went to his eldest son. Such was the case at Grantham,
and in many other places. If a man were compelled to sell his
interest in this right, he would not probably receive one-half,
in many instances Lot one-third, of its actual value. This, there-
fore, he must denominate a peculiarly tyrannical act. He was
now speaking on behalf of the poor freemen whom this bill went
to disinherit ; and he would much rather exert his vigilance
in support of the poor than of the select body, who were to be
made the victims of this struggle for political power. It
had been made the subject of especial complaint by those
who approved of this bill, that the present corporate bodies
were self-elected,—that aldermen elected aldermen,—bailiffs
elected bailiffs,—common-councilmen elected common-coun-
cilmen. lie would not enter into a technical definition of what
self-election actually was, but he would treat the question prac-
tically. This system of self-election was one of the odious
things most reprobated in the report. But was there no self-
election under this new bill? The body who had the power to
elect magistrates might name them from among themselves ;
they need not, and mrobably would not, go to strangers. Here
was self-election. '1 hen the nine charitable trustees were taken

from a list of individuals who held certain corporate situations,
and was drawn up by themselves. Here again was self-election.
The report objected to the principle of self-election as it now
existed; but in the bill the same• principle was adopted with
respect to the election of magistrates and of the nine charitable
trustees. Those who favoured the system said, "We hate the
self-electing principle as it is adopted by you; but under this
new form of law we surely cannot ltive and benefit ourselves too
much." They, it appeared, were no 'longer egotists. What
they looked upon as egotism, as mere self-love in others, was
nothing in them but th milk of human kindness, or that deuce
Aumanite of which Rousseau had spoken. if self-election were
a vice, (and he would contend that it was not a vice,) it cer-
tainly was not excluded from this bill. The existing corpora-
tion system answered its purposes well; under it the corporations
had flourished; and, with respect to the abolition of those cor-
porations, he would predicate that it would not be effected; that
not a sparrow of them would fall to the ground; that the wis-
dom, and discretion, and justice of their lordships would pre-
serve them. The revolutionary reformers had held out the
principle of self-election as that which justified the subversion
of the existing corporations. He would say, let that doctrine be
strictly laid down, and, standing on it, he would subvert their
system. The learned gentleman then proceeded to show, that
the corporation of Oxford was not a self-elected body, but pro-
ceeded on a regular principle of gradation, and, as regarded the
mayor, of popular election. He should now apply himself to
that part of the bill which related to charitable trusts. There
were to be nine charitable trustees, who were to be appointed
by the town council. In point of law they would be trustees,
curators, and administrators of all charitable property—theirs
would be the hands to protect, to divide, to administer the whole
of that class of trusts known by the name of charitable trusts,
of which at present municipal bodies in their corporate capacity
were the trustees. He could not state the aggregate annual
amount of those charitable trusts. It did not, he believed, ap-
pear in the report—he did not mean the travelling report, but
Lord Brougham's public report upon charities. He could,
however, put their lordships iu possession of certain facts which
would enable them to form some judgment on the subject, and
would enable them to decide un the propriety of applying the
principle of this bill to those charitable trusts. The annual
amount of funds connected with charitable institutions belong.
ing to Bristol was at the present moment £12,000, of which the
corporation were trustees. And how were those funds protect-
ed? Nothing could be done with reference to them but by a
formal act given under the corporate seal and in the presence
of at least one-half of the council, consisting of 40 persons. In-
stead of that provision, they were to have under the new bill
nine trustees, three of whom were empowered to make any order
they pleased with respect to charitable funds. The clause was
very loosely drawn, and seemed to be picked up from some turn-
pike act, or some poor legal compilation. Surely it was not
right that property to the amount of £12,000 or £13,000 a year
(the extent of the l3ristol charitable trusts) should be managed
in this manner. Why should such an alteration be made?
What necessity existed for it? Lord Brougham's report com-
plimented the corporation of Bristol for the accuracy with which
they kept their accounts; and they were also complimented by
the present commissioners. Their charitable trusts were partly
in Bristol, partly in Gloucestershire, and partly in Somerset-
shire. The accounts were not left, as in other cases, to
three or four persons who took the labouring oar; no, they.
were examinable, and examined, by the whole council, con-
sisting of forty persons, before whom they were regularly laid.
The same might be said of Oxford. When the accounts were
there audited, a table was read containing each and every of the
charities, the trusteeship of which the corporation held. Yet
those corporations, which had hitherto exercised their functions
so beneficially, were, under the provisions a:this-hill,
to be pre-
'muted from, exercising them in 'future. He
would not enter
- into an examination as to what, strictly speaking, constituted a
charitable trust. The presentation to livings, perhaps, was not,
But he should like to know who, under this bill, was to present
to livings belonging to corporate bodies? If the nine trustees
(three of whom -might act) were to have that power, then they
would become the. patrons of eleven advowsons in the city of
Bristol, an alteration which their founders never could have con-
templated. It was very much to be regretted that that part of
the government called the cabinet bad not had the assistance of
a Lord Chancellor when this measure was framed; for if that
had been the case, they never would have seen such a thing its
this launched in the shape of what was technically called a bill.
It was full of omissions, and passed over many cases for which
special provision should have been made. He should now give
some proofs of this. Amongst other charities that belonged
to the corporation of Bristol was a grant of £lO,OOO, which had
been given by a gentleman named Weir. Now, as the corpora-
tion wits about to be dissolved he might reclaim the gift. He
might say, " I am not dead, and I recall that which I meant for
the corporation, and which I never contemplated being placed
under the care of nine trustees, of whom I know nothing."
Had a lawyer been consulted, lie would have asked, "How can,
we frame a bill transferring preperty.from a body to whom'it
had solemnly been given, and conferring it on another who had
never been thought of by the devisor ?" It wits certainly the
most poetical or fanciful change that ever was contemplated. A
man left to his associates and companions, to the mayor and
corporation of a borough with which he was connected, property
to be held in trust for charitable purposes, and behold, the legis-
lature, by a most at titre ry act take-it away from that body and
place it under the care of persons whom the testator had never
known, anti of whom he had not even beard. Again, Mr. Par-
sons, a gentleman who resided in Oxford, had granted £7,000,
in trust, to the mayor and corporation, for certain charitable
purposes. Under this bill the trust would be trausferred to
these nine new trustees, of whom Mr. Parsons, who had peti-
tioned the house on the subject, knew nothierg. If this bill were
passed, there would be no aldermen to act as trustees. as was
contemplated by the donor. That class of persons would be
consigned to the old almanack of history—they would be as ob-
solete as the ancient aldermanni, or the members of the wit-
tcnagemote. Under these circumstances Mr. Parsons had an
undoubted right to call back his gift, since he had-placed it at
the disposal of trustees, who had ceased to exist. Mr. Parsons
might say, "I devoted this sum to certain purposes; but I did
not mean to place it under the control of persons who were
elected on the principle of universal suffrage and annual par.
liaments. I will not allow the trusteeship of nine men, three
of whom go out inrstally." Those donations were made in
every ease (and it wisitoberallystxpressed in the deed) with the
full hope anti expectation. on the part of the donors, that the
persons whom they appointed out as curators and trustees of the
property devised by them for charitable purposes should be suc-
ceeded by ethers of the same rank and class. If any nor of tl,issee