The Sun. — 1840-05-23 (London, England)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL entered one by one into the objections of Mr. Cresswell, for the purpose of showing that these objections could not invalidate the charter. He contended that it could not be invalidated by the fact of its having been granted to a smaller district than that which had petitioned, and that it would have been impossible that the charter should have followed the mode in which formerly corporations were started, but that the charter was a good one at common law, and was one on which the power given by the Act had been superinduced. The Learned Gentleman then went on to show from the statute that rate-payers residing within seven miles were not excluded from its operation, and that the omission of a provision for a copy of the burgess-roll was immaterial. Having referred to the various cases referred to by Mr. Creswell, the Learned Gentleman said he had now gone through the various objections urged by his Honourable and Learned Friend, and after hearing the reply from the other side, it would be for their lordships to decide upon the matter. He could not help stating, that he felt considerable anxiety upon the subject. He admitted that enormous public inconvenience would arise from their Lordships yielding to any of the objections that had been urged, but he did not mean to say that that would relieve their Lordships from giving due weight to them, if in point of law they ought to prevail. At the same time these inconveniences showed that it was not the intention of the Legislature to subject any of her Majesty's subjects to such multiplied mischiefs. If these objections were maintainable, then all that had been done under the Charter was void—the Coroner was liable to be sued by any person he had committed by nt, warrant—the Jury having found a verdict of murder or manslaughter, the presentments were void, and all rates are void, and the Recorder could have no jurisdiction. lie would be liable to an action for false imprisonment, from every person whom he had sentenced to transportation. He trusted, under all the circumstances, their Lordships would come to the opinion that this was a charter granted to the Crown according to its common law prerogative. It was a charter on petition by advice of the Privy Council, and if so, then it was a charter on which the machinery he had referred to, might be erected, and statutory power exercised, and, if so, then he submitted that Mr. Chapman was well appointed, and that these objections could not prevail. Mr. WinuTmANT, in the absence of Mr. Creswell replied. He would o.bserve at starting that he had no objection to the praise his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General had bestowed upon the Municipal Corporation Act. It might be beneficial or it might not, but at all events, it could not be said that it should be forced upon the inhabitants of any borough against their will. He would now come to the petition upon which so much had been said on the other side. It appeared that the number of signatures to the petition. out of 48,000 ieliabitant householders, was only 4,000, while 6,000 signed the counter-petition. Now it must be inferred (notwithstanding the direction of the Learned Judge) that a majority of the inhabitants petitioned, and that must imply either a majority of all, or a majority of those who took part in the proceedings. Lord