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

Emptrial Varliament,

HOUSE OF. LORDS.—MON DAY.
. AruNIeIPAL CORPORATIONS—THE LIVERPOOL PETITION.
.• Lord NVHARNeCIFFE presented a petition from Liverpool
against the municipal corporations bill signed by 12,800 persons.
Other petitions to the same effect were presented from the
following
_places,
•- From the proprietors of land at Meldon, by the Earl of Wick-
low ; from Arundel, Healy-on-Tharnes, and Beverley, by the
Duke of Wellington;, from a town in his diocese (against the
clause which relates to charitable' trusts,) by the. Bishop of
Lichfield and Coventry; from Huntingdon, by the Marquis of
Hastings; from a place- in Nottinghamshire, from the mayor
and aldermen of Newark-upon-Trent, and from the free bur-
gesses and others of Launceston, by the Duke of Newcastle ;
from the corporation of Tewkesbury; and from Gloucester, by
Lord'Ellenborough ; froth the town clerks of several Cities and
towels, (praying to be heard by counsel' against that part of the
hill Which affected their interests,) by the Marquis of Salisbury;
from Devizes, Stroud, the acting Magistrates of the town_ of
Cambridge,' and the rate-payers of Bridgewater, by Lord Lynd-
hiirst; and from the corporation of South Molten, Devonshire,
by the Bishop of Exeter, With reference to that clause of the
bill which, transferred charitable trusts, the rev. prelate said-.
Hitherto those trusts were confided to members of the church
of England, and the petitiohers objected to anyalteration Of the
si;stbm which would have the effect of permitting dissenters to
have any controul over' property devised by members of, the
church of England, and if no other member moved an amend-
ment to this partoEthe bills he should feel it to be his duty to do so.
In favour of the bill petitions were presented from Cambridge,
by the Marquis of 'ravistock, [the Earl of Hardwick' remarked
that it had been signed by boys of thirteen years of age ;J from
Newbury, praying that right of voting should not be -confined to
£lO asyear, by Earl Spencer; from Tewkesbury, by the 'Harlot
Ridnor,' from •-Lyine Regis, by Lord Duncannon; andfrona
Boston, King's Lynn. Preston,. Fevershani,. and Northampton,
-by. Viscount Melbourne. "The petition from the latter place
was only signed by one person.
The order of the day having been read,
Viscount MELBOURNE proceeded to address the house. The
noble lord sail that fist-0161as! five years political dissensions
and divisioni had been carried to a very great extent, thatthey
now continued to disturb the country; and that he was heartily
sick of them. IA laugh.) If he could introduce 'a measure
upon the principle of which they could agree it would give him
great satisfaction: The measure sent 'to their lordships from
the House of Commons had been sent without any division in
which the prioCiple 'of it was involved, and he hoped in their
lordships' house no difference would be found to exist on ifs
principle, Whatever might be the case with respect to its details.
In all thegreat'measures he hadbrought forward it had always
• been his object to avoid exciting 6ngry feelings, a course which,
he would pursue on the present oCcasion: It .appeared. to hini'
thatmany points had been overlooked, having reference to the
• private rights and property connected with corporations, in
into
the speculations on that subject ; many abuses had crept
the system by the neglect of society and of private persons to
exaMineinto them. .The consequence had been, thatclreadful
cases of breach of truth had occurred; this, of itself, was suffi-
cientto call for the proposed alteration. The courts of justice
were, he was much afraid, not entirely free from blame 'with
reference to some of these cases, because, in certain instances
where legal proceedings were adopted, there did appear to be a
leaning towards the parties accused, and sure he was, that its
the other house orparliament (he spoke from personal expo-
rience) .when cases 'of' great corporation delinquency were
brought before them, they had not been dealt with as they ought
to have been. Great families had become ,connected with some
of the smaller corporations for the purpose of returning Mem-
bers to parliament. His lordship then proceeded to notice the
influence exercised in different corporations by the aristocracy
generally, and the feeling which eiristed in many towns against
their corporations. Mr. Hogg, in his protest, speaking of
Bristol,,said•---" No good man, no real well-wisher of the par-
ties themselves, can approve of the extreme hostility which some
of the iuhabitants of Bristol, it is hoped but few of them, seem
to entertain for the corporation of their ancient and famous city,
and for which the printed report, although not penned in a spi-
rit of kindness, has displayed no adequate cause. It was ne-
cessary to hear the evidence given on-trial at bar of the infor-
mation filled by your Majesty'sAttorneysGeneral against Chas.
Pinney, Esq., some time mayor of the city of Bristol, and to
observe the temper with which it was given, in order to estimate
correctly the insane malignity by which misguided persons may
sometimes be animated—to understand how it may happen that
the inhabitant should be willing his house and goods should be
consumed, that the tradesman should be content to see his shop
in flames, and that the citizen should rejoice to have his whole
city wasted, so that the mayor.and justices might incur blame.
Until ill-huMour be soothed, and the ferment of evil passions
allayed, it may be questioned whether any reforms, however'
judicious and well devised, will be thankfully and usefully
adopted." This, although strong language, was not stronger
than the case warranted. He ( Lord M.) believed that the feel-
. ing of animosity existing
.in Bristol against the corporation
arose from the oligarchical character of that body. If this were
.. the fact, ought they not to take measures to alter a system which
produced such vicious effects? The strongest grounds he had
to rely Olson related to the administration of justice in corpor-
ate towns. It was well known, was indeed a matter of noto-
riety, that justice was not duly administered in many of the
• small corporate towns. • •This alone should induce their lord-
!ships to go into committee. The measure was also asked for by
as.great majority of the country. Some objections had been
'nursed on that part of the preamble of the bill, which spoke of
the detects in some of the charters, and it was argued that these
defects could be cured by. the crown., This he denied. An act
of parliament Was necessary to remedy the evils complained of.
After briefly detailing the provisions of the bill the noble lord
concluded by moving that their lordships go into a committee
'on the bill..
• The Earl of CA RNARVON then, after a short speech, moved,
-4.. as an amendment, " that evidence be taken at the bar of that
• house in support of the allegations of the several petitions,.
praying to be heard-against the-bill now before the house be-
fore the house oes info ,committee oifthe said bill."
The Earl of WINCH tssaa said, before they went further with
the bill they had a right to ask for the instructions given to the
-• commissioners of corporation inquiry. ' Were he to divide the
house on that question he should have nine-tenths of their lord-
ships with him. He•would not move at present, but would take
an,opportunity of doing to hereafter.
'Lord BROUGHAM was anxious to speak on the amend-
ment, which he thought would be fatal to the bill, but
also on a matter which referred to himself. It was no
light thing for a man. who had lately held the high situa-
tion of chancellor, to be charged with having put the great seal
to a commission at once illegal and unconstitutional. First
he would speak of the amendment, which, if carried', must be
FATAL TO THE DIEAsuRE. After hearing counsel for three
days, he thought he was going on an unnecessary errand when
he attempted to show Unit the measure was neither illegal nor
unconstitutional. The allegation that the commission was il-
leaal amounted to nothiug. The compact made was, that after
they had heard counsel, they should at once proceed to discuss
the principle of the bill. • (No, no.) But now, notivithanding
this arrangement, delay was meditated--it was proposed to hear
counsel. Ihe noble earFadmitted the principle of the bill, and
yet he called for evidence. For what purpose ? To show that
reform was wanted; thatthe.evils of the present system re-
quired correction, although from the statement which prefaced
the application for evidence, they were given to understand that
it was unnecessary. • He found that a decree was pronounced
against him from very near the judicial seat ; noble lords cried
Oh ! oh ! and therefore he was bound to' show that no result
could take place from hearing evidence except mispending
their time and frustrating the just hopes of the people of Eng-
land: The proposition was, that counsel 'should be called in
and admitted to prove the statements they had made. This
would be all very well if the statements of counsel had touched
the foundation of the bill; if they could prove that there were
no abuses, or that the remedy proposed, supposing abuses did
exist, was not the fittina one. 'But these matters were not dis-
. puted, nor the fitness of the remedy proposed. There were two
cases in which their lordships had heard counsel, and afterwards
refused to hear the evidence tendered. One was io. 1747,- re-
specting the abolition of heritable jurisdictions. The other. in
1807, when it was proposed to abolish the African slave trade.
On that occasien Sir William Alexander was heard for the
slave-traders of Liverpool, but his claim to tender evidence had
been refused. The result; was, the bill passed through all its
stages up to the third reading, on the 10th of July. He would
next advert to what had been said by counsel 'as to the illega-
lity of the commission. He would maintain.the perfect legality
of the commission, on the authority of the best precedents in the
best times. Since the revolution more than twenty.tiines the
number of commissions had been issued without the authority
• of pailiamentlhan had been sent forth with it. Theleattied
counsel who argued this matter should have felt that the onus of
proof lay upon him. lie marvelled much, nut at the doctrines
of the counsel, but at the opinions which were stated to hive
been given. 'That the counsel who had appeared at the bar, and
' engaged in courts of equity, should have fallen into a blunder,
'clileot'astonish him;' bat-thatgentlethen who had had the op-.
portunity of frequenting the courts of King's Bench and Coin-
soon Pleas, that gentlemen who were by courtesy styled learned,
should not have .some little modicum of: learning attached to
their trad,e, wh hicinight,prevent them front falling into those
errors, aril set their names to a doubt on the subject of the
. legality of this cominisaion, really passed his comprehension.
Sir Charles Wetherell.ancl Mr. Knight had argued against the
right of the. crown to• empower ,commissioners to atliuiaiote
oaths, and for the purpose of showing that it did not. possess Iliad
right, it waA not in the least necessary to show that personi
falsely swearing before such commissioners could be prosecuted'
for perjury. .This right of the crown, his lordship contended at
freat length,. was,fally established' by the practice of ages. His
ordship'coneluded by saying, notwithstanding all the vituper-
* etibif bestowed on. this Imeasure, it seemed that the learned
counsel were instructed to say that their clients hadno objection
to the reform of the municipal corporationa-provided—such
was the amusing posteript, which contained the heart's real
wish—provided that reform Came from a friendly hand. They
. did not care for their Privileges, or ahlerntanic pump, or dig-
nities, or enjoyment ; they would abandon even the robes which
adorned them cheerfully, if only naked. to do so by a tory mi-
nister. ( Hear, hear.) He could not see with what consistency
• such an idea could be entertained, and he did not expect to see
- it adopted by noble lords opposite.
Lord LyNDHURsT. said that it was not his intention to follow
the learned lordthrough all the topics he had urged, nor into
the eulogiums he had passed upon the reform bill„further than
to remind their lordships .that on'e of his main objections to this
bill was, that it trenched upon the reform bill—(hear,_ hear)—
that it deprived a large class of persons of the benefits they de-
rived from that act; that in the first committee of the bill 'lithe
House of Commons; all attempt to remedy that was firmly and
obstinately resisted--thitt when the bill was committed a second
time the saute attempt: was made, and with the same success;
and it was not till the very,last stage of the bill, after The re-
' commitment,' that tho;ce evils, this injury, this destruction of
franchise secured by that final measure' of reforirt, as it was
called, 'was in any degree even partially remedied. (Hear.)
MI that he had to say about Mr. Hogg's report, and in answer
to what had beets said respecting his incompetence to fill the
• situation he had been placed in, (which he Lord L. denied alto-
- gether), was who• placed him in the situation of a commis-
sioner? Why, the noble and learned lord who had travelled
' circuit with hits for several years; therefore, that learned lord
should be left to settle the question with his late colleagues. The
noble lord had referred to two precedents, which he considered
decisive of the present question, and disposing altogether of the
• motion of Lord Carnarvon. It had been said in the first: case,
that although counsel were heard n 9 witnesses were examined,
and that no evidence was adduced. In order to make that -a case
ie point, it was natural to inquire, in the first place, whether
my evidence was tendered; and, if tendered, whether it
was made the subject of discussion and-was finally rejected.
Unless suet' had been the' case,- what would become of the au-
thority of this precedent, on which so much reliance was pla.ced?
Their lordships, however, would be surprised to find that the
case was precisely the reverse. All the evidence tendered was
received be the houselithout objection. It was formal and do-
cumentary, but still it-was evidence, and as such it was received.
• So much, therefore; for the• first precedent. (Hear, hear.)
With respect to the second and only remaining precedent, ariss
ing out attic bill for the abolition of the slave trade, it was un-
doubtedly troe that Lord Grenville bad opposed the production
•of evidence, but upon what ground? Why, because,-in truth
if was not evidence. -On that occasion Plunier, the coun-
sel, observed lila from the long period during which the go-
Nernor of the island had been in Jamaica, he would be able-to