Sir F. Burdettsaid, he had a petition to present from Ludlow, complaining that the Corporation of that borough had devoted the funds, which ought to have been appropriated to the improvement of the town, to the payment of the expenses which the corporation had incurred in legal proceedings. No doubt this was highly improper conduct, and ought to be inquired into. But the petitioners also prayed, that the House would inquire into certain proceedings in the House of Lords, offering to prove at the bar of the; House that, in a cause in which the petitioners and the corporation had been concerned, and which came before the House of Lords, the earl of Powis, who was the recorder of the borough, had interfered in l an unconstitutional manner; and that lord Redesdale, who decided the case, had been previously consulted upon the proceedings. The petitioners stated, that the burial ground at Ludlow being in so crowded a state, that as often as a corpse was interred, the disgusting spectacle of bodies only partly decomposed presented itself, they applied to the corporation for another; burial-ground, but that the corporate body paid no attention to their application. That, on inquiry, they found that some years ago one Charles Fox had left the corporation, in trust, a chapel and a burial-ground, and that, instead of fulfilling the duties of the trust, they had I pulled the chapel down, and let the burial- 1611 ground for ninety-nine years to one of their own body, at a rent of 1l. 14s. per annum. That in 1813 the petitioners commenced proceedings against the corporation, under sir S. Romilly's act, when the Vice-chancellor decided in favour of the petitioners, and declared the corporation to be no longer trustees. That this decision of the Vice-chancellor had been confirmed by the Master of the Rolls and lord Eldon, but the corporate body having appealed, the decisions of these judges were reversed; and that the unfair means already stated by the petitioners had been used in order to obtain that decree.
Lord Clivesaid, that his noble relation (lord Powis) would be most anxious that no opposition should be made to the inquiry. He would state shortly the origin of this petition. The corporation of Ludlow had very imprudently accepted this trust of a ruinous chapel, which, after it had been the cause of great expense, they pulled down. The corporation had pulled it down as a matter of security; as it had twenty years before been presented as in a ruinous state. Undoubtedly, the Vice-chancellor and other judges had decided in favour of the petitioners; but sir A. Hart, conceiving that the case did not come under sir S. Romilly's act, advised the appeal to the House of Lords. Upon this advice, the recorder thought it necessary to ask lord Redesdale if it was a proper case to be appealed, and his lordship's advice was similar to that of sir A. Hart. The case was submitted to lord Gifford, to the present lord Chancellor, and Attorney-general, and the opinion of all was, that sir T. Plomer and lord Eldon had misapprehended sir S. Romilly's act. He hoped the subject would be strictly investigated, for he was sure that he should be able to prove that the proceedings of the corporation, to which he had the honour to belong, had been what they ought to be; and that there was not the slightest foundation for the imputation of corruption. From all the circumstances connected with the petition, he could not help suspecting that the signatures had been obtained either by the agent or the gamekeeper of a gentleman who had petitioned against the last return for Ludlow.
§ Sir J. Yorkeasked, whether it was true that the burial ground was in this disgraceful state, and that the corporation had let the burial ground attached to the chapel to one of their own body?
Lord Clivesaid, he felt some delicacy in answering the question, because he might appear to be saying more in praise of his noble relation than he should wish to say. But the fact was, that the church burial ground being small and inadequate for so large a parish, he had made the parish a present of a piece of ground sufficient for a burial place.
§ The Speakersaid, the petitioners stated a grievance, and prayed an inquiry into it, in order that it might be abated. But then they had a further prayer; and it appeared to him clear, that they could not receive a petition which prayed that House to interfere with the manner in which the House of Lords had performed their duty in their appellate jurisdiction. He suggested, that the petition should be withdrawn, in order that this prayer might be omitted.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he could not help thinking, that if injustice had been committed in the manner described by the petitioners, there ought to be a remedy for it. He would, however, follow the course that had been suggested.
Lord Clivehoped the hon. baronet would persevere in an inquiry, than which nothing could be more satisfactory to himself and his noble relation.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he would certainly do his best to give satisfaction to both parties. He was not aware when he undertook to present the petition that he should be drawn into a position of so much responsibility.
§ The petition was then withdrawn.