Mr. Blackburnehad to present a petition, signed by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of Ludlow, which he considered worthy of some degree of attention from the House. The petitioners prayed that some remedy might be afforded for the very serious grievance to which they had been subjected by the conduct of their predecessors in office, the councillors, under the old law. It was provided by a clause in the Municipal Corporations' Act, that immediately upon the election of the new council, all papers, deeds, and documents of every description which had belonged to the old council should be delivered into the custody of the new; and by another clause, it was enacted, that no disposition of properly on the part of the old corporation should be valid if made after June 5, 1835, unless in pursuance of some previous valid covenant or agreement. Now the old corporation of Ludlow, instead of giving up their papers, deeds, &c, into the hands of the new council, had thought fit to make an order on the 23rd of December, a few days before they went out of office, to put into the hands of certain bankers all their deeds, documents, and papers, as security for a balance of an account, amounting to 3,000l.and owing by them to these bankers. By this means, the new council were prevented from taking possession of these documents; repeated applications for the production of which had been made, but without any effect. The new council were, in consequence, unable to come at any knowledge of the acts of the old; but there was reason to think that the sum, whatever it might be, which was 407 owing by that body to their bankers, at or about the passing of the Act, was increased between the months of October and December, 1835, by no less than 1,800l. But since, by another clause, the new town-councils had no power to call in question the acts of the old corporation, after the expiration of six months from the date of their election, it was obviously for the interest of those corporators to keep the new body in ignorance of their proceedings for that period, at least. Nor would the House be surprised at the caution exhibited in these proceedings when they were made acquainted with the description of bargain which they had entered into with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. L. Charlton). They had passed a resolution to sell or exchange certain property with the hon. Member for Ludlow, not in consequence of any recent contract, but of an agreement bearing date twenty-three years previous to that transaction. The hon. Member, who was also one of the old corporation, possessed a life interest in a house called the Charlton Arms in Ludlow, to the amount of 32l. per annum, on the rack-rent. On the28th of October, 1835, the corporation made a proposal to Mr. L. Charlton, to pay him 500l. for the alteration of this house according to a specified plan, to which Mr. L. Charlton having assented, the corporation next thought proper to present the hon. Gentleman with 50l. more, together with their thanks, in consideration of his altering a road leading to the house in question. But this was not all, for only two days before they went out of office, they made him a further present of 50l. for altering the road, thus making up 600l. in all, for alterations about a house in which he had an interest to the value of 32l. a-year only. The hon. and learned Member was proceeding to refer to the appointment of trustees of charity estates in boroughs having been placed in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, when.
Major Beauclerck, rose to order. He was sure it did not occur to the hon. and learned Member, but he would beg to suggest, that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Charlton) was not in his place. It would be better to suspend this discussion at present.
Mr. Blackburnewould propose, that the petition be printed, and referred to the Committee, before which the case of Mr. L. Charlton then was.
Sir George Clerkwas of opinion, that the subject-matter of this petition did not fall within the province of the Committee of Privileges. He put it to the hon. Member, whether it was not a fact, that the subject of this petition formed part of the case now under litigation in the Court of Chancery? He understood that the papers were now in the Master's-office, and if the Court should not eventually do enough to meet the hon. Member's views in this case, then it would be time enough for him to bring this petition before the House. He would suggest, therefore, the propriety of letting the matter drop for the present, more especially as it could not be long before the decision of the Committee would be communicated to the House.
Mr. Blackburnesaid, that, as regarded the question of order, he really could see no reason why he should have been interrupted on that ground. Had he been allowed to proceed, he should have shown that the petition had reference to many points involved in the question now under the consideration of the Committee. The subject of inquiry was, whether a real contempt of the Court of Chancery had been committed, not merely whether the Lord High Chancellor had declared such contempt to have taken place, and many parts of the petition would have served to elucidate this matter. In the prosecution of his duty, as a Member of that House, he should not refrain from presenting any petition which was intrusted to him merely because an hon. Gentleman was accidentally absent from his seat who might be referred to in the statements of that petition. He could not consent to put off the presentation of a petition for an indefinite period on any such grounds. What other means of redress were within reach of the petitioners, but that of a petition to the House of Commons? The petition in no respect interfered with the inquiry before the Lord Chancellor; the subject matter of that inquiry was the appointment of trustees of charity estates; it had no relation to the disposal of the property of the late Corporation, and if he (Mr. Blackburne) found that the property was wasted upon an hon. Member of that House, surely he was entitled to present a petition setting forth the grievance and praying for legislative relief and redress. As there could be no doubt that many facts stated in this petition were calculated to facilitate 409 the inquiry now before the Committee of the House, it was proper that the petition be referred to them, the better to enable them to come to a correct decision on the subject.
§ Sir Edward Knatchbullsaid, the inquiry before the Committee had nothing to do with the subject of this petition; the contempt of court had no reference to the retention of these documents and deeds, but to a letter written by Mr. L. Charlton. He should suggest to the hon. Member to take the advice of the hon. Member for Surrey.
Mr. Edward Clivesaid, that although the names of two noble relatives of his were mentioned in the petition, he would content himself with declaring, for them and for himself, that, so far from shrinking from inquiry, they courted inquiry as far as it could be carried. He had seen the hon. Member for Ludlow, and had shortly stated to him the nature of this petition, and it was but justice to him to state that he professed himself perfectly ready to meet all inquiry. With these observations, he should sit down. The question as to how far the hon. Member was correct in bringing forward this petition in the absence of the hon. Member for Ludlow was for the House to decide; he would only repeat, that he, as well as his noble relatives, courted inquiry to the fullest extent.
Sir George Clerkfelt great objections to encumbering the inquiry before the Committee with this subject. They hoped at present, to be enabled to present their Report to the House by Monday; he should resist any reference of this sort, which must unavoidably have the effect of prolonging their deliberations.
§ The Speakersaid, that the only ground for referring this petition to the Committee of Privileges would be, that inquiries had been entered into before that Committee with reference to the subject of this petition; but from the statements of this petition, it was clear that it had no bearing upon the matters under the consideration of the Committee, and as it seemed most objectionable to refer to a Committee petitions which had little or no connexion with the subject of the deliberations of the Committee, he would suggest, that it would be better for the hon. Member to take some other course.
§ Mr. Blackburne moved, that the petition be laid on the table.
§ Agreed to.