§ Mr. Struttpresented a Petition, numerously signed, from Ludlow, calling upon the House to resist the vile and desperate attempt of the Peers to stop Reform, and praying the House not to agree to the Lords' Amendments to the Corporation Reform Bill.
§ Mr. Charltonthought it a great pity that this petition had not the addresses of the persons who sent them to the House attached to them. The charge brought against the House of Lords was most unjustifiable [cries of "Oh."] He would repeat, that the conduct of those who had charged the House of Lords with unconstitutional proceedings, was most unjustifiable. What! were a set of pot-house politicians, the tag-rag and bob-tail of the town, to charge the House of Lords with unconstitutional conduct? The House of Lords was of vast importance in counteracting and controlling the democratic tendency of that House, and such an accusation only betrayed the ignorance of the petitioners, and of those who cheered the petition. Was it to be said, that such persons as the petitioners should call upon that House to stop the Supplies? As to the Corporation of Ludlow, and its supposed abuses, he begged to refer the hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Commissioners, who stated, that of late years its conduct had been irreproachable, and that they had not met with any accounts more carefully kept. But he might go farther, and assert, that of late years the Corporation had been influenced by no party motives. He was satisfied that what he had said was participated by—he might almost say—nine-tenths of the respectable population of Ludlow. The same persons had signed their names to the petition three or four times over, and some women were among the subscribers. He believed that this petition was the prototype of many others of the same kind, and that it was not entitled to much attention.
§ Dr. Baldwinthought it right to say, that though he did not object to the conduct of the House of Lords in altering and amending Bills sent to them, he did object to their invasion of the rights of the people, and to their resistance to the restitution of the rights of the people. They had gone to this extent with regard to the Municipal Reform Bill; and so far the conduct of the House of Lords had been unconstitutional. He hoped that the House of Commons would take proper measures to prevent the mutilation of the Corporation Reform Bill.
§ Mr. Scarlettbegged to say, in answer to the hon. Member who spoke last, that the offensive parts of the Municipal Corporations' Bill had been carried by a majority of Scotch and Irish Members, and not by a majority of English Members. When that hon. Member talked of an infringement of rights, he (Mr. Scarlett) would ask, when was a more violent attack made upon rights than by this very measure? It amounted to an abolition of all franchises; and were not the franchises of the people the rights of the people? Was it fit, then, to attack the House of Lords for defending the rights and privileges of the people? He contended, that such language ought not to be used.
§ Mr. Struttcould not help thinking that the hon. Member for Ludlow had displayed an unnecessary degree of warmth, especially in complaining of the attack upon the Corporation of Ludlow. Although the hon. Member now appeared as the defender of the Corporation, if report spoke truly, it was not long since he had been its inveterate opponent, and had been most successful in remedying some of its abuses. He could only say, that he had received the petition, accompanied by a letter from a gentleman worthy of credit, and well known to the hon. Member for Ludlow. The petition before the House had 600 signatures.
§ Mr. Charltonsaid, that by the letter in his possession, he was informed, that one boy had signed the petition four or five times; he was mistaken, he had read the letter in haste, and on referring to it again he found it asserted, that this boy had signed the petition nine times. The letter containing this fact was from the High Bailiff of Ludlow, and he hoped that the hon. Member was satisfied with this authority. The hon. Member had alluded to him (Mr. Charlton) as appearing in a new character; he appeared in the same character he had 1087 always sustained, and which he never would abandon while he was a public man. When the Corporation of Ludlow did not act according to its charter, he had neither spared pains nor expense to compel them to adhere to it; he had found the law strong enough without resorting to such a despicable Bill as the Municipal Corporations Bill, as it went from this House to the other. That measure was a mere election manœuvre. As he said before, the law as it existed was strong enough for the remedy of abuses in Corporations, and having returned to their Charter the Corporation of Ludlow had secured the good opinion of the Commissioners.
§ Mr. Pottersaid, that if he were not much mistaken the hon. Member once belonged to the Birmingham Political Union; he had himself been a Member of it, and he had supposed that the hon. Gentleman was one of its most thorough-going Members. Now that the hon. Member had changed sides, he did not seem more moderate in the opposite direction.
§ Mr. Charltonhad not the least objection that his political sentiments should be brought under discussion. He had done what he could to promote a Reform in Parliament; and he believed that he had been a Member of the Birmingham Union; but he had never been a very zealous Member, and had never been present at any of its meetings. Even if he had attended them, what then? He had belonged to it to promote Reform, and not to produce revolution, and to set up a republic in the country, which seemed to be the object of the promoters of the Municipal Reform Bill. The hon. Member who had attacked him was one of the most prominent of the promoters of that measure; it was good for nothing but to produce a revolution, and to establish a republic, and in spite of the hint of the hon. Member, he would do his utmost to resist it.
§ Mr. Potterwas not a Republican; he was anxious only for good Government, and he was satisfied that the Municipal Reform Bill would effect that object.
§ Petition laid on the Table.