Lords Sitting of 4 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Assize Removal (Ireland); Postage.
Petitions presented. By Earl POWIS and a NOBLE PEER, from Shrewsbury and Canterbury, against; and by Earl BURLINGTON and Lord BROUGHAM, from Cambridge, Doncaster, and Bath,—in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Earl BATHURST, from Cirencester, against Allowing Beer to be drunk on the Premises of Beer Shops.—By the Earl of ALBEMARLE, from Doncaster, in favour of the Prisoners' Defence Bill.

CORPORATION REFORM.
The Peersmet at an early hour, and heard the evidence of various Town Clerks and others against the Corporation Bill. After the evidence had been heard,
The Marquess of Salisburyobserved that he had two petitions to present, one from a Mr. Mackintosh, and another from the inhabitants of Romford, praying to be heard against the Bill before their Lordships; and he wished to know whether an opportunity would be afforded to him to present them to-morrow, or whether he ought to postpone presenting them till they came to the schedules.
Lord Broughamrecommended the noble Marquess to be prepared to present them to-morrow, in case the House should not be ready to go on with the examination of the witnesses for Bristol.
Viscount Melbourne—I think, my Lords, that neither of the petitions alluded to by the noble Marquess ought to be complied with; and, my Lords, I protest most distinctly, for the third time, against this proceeding, both upon reason and upon principle. I do not hold myself bound to it as a precedent; I deem it, my Lords, to be most erroneous, most prejudicial, and most pernicious; and I will not be bound by it in any respect. But at the same time, my Lords, I feel I am bound to bow to a majority of this House, Mind, my Lords,
44
I wish to be understood that I consider myself as bowing to a majority, and to that only, and not to anything that I have heard in support of this proceeding. But I protest against it, in reason and on principle. I, however, consider myself as being coerced by a superior—mark, by a superior power; therefore, my Lords, your Lordships may act as you think proper.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid his noble Friend had received advice from the noble and learned Lord as to the course he should pursue, and immediately after the noble Viscount got up and expressed a directly contrary opinion. He thought his noble Friend was placed in a difficult situation—What course was he to follow? The noble and learned Lord's, or submit to the decision of the noble Viscount? He thought that when those two noble Lords, who seemed to have the same object in view, entertained such directly contrary opinions, their Lordships must feel placed in an extraordinary position. Whom were they to look to? By whom were they to be guided?
Lord Broughamsaid, that not a single word had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) in which he did not most cordially concur; and the noble Marquess had misunderstood the advice he (Lord Brougham) had given. His advice was this, that if these petitioners were ready tomorrow at a time when the witnesses from Bristol were not at the Bar, and if their Lordships should determine to hear them, they could be heard at that moment instead of coming afterwards to be heard. But he entirely agreed with his noble Friend in protesting against the right of those parties to be heard. He had strenuously resisted being evidence at the Bar on behalf of the Corporations, à multo fortiori should he resist hearing evidence from a body of Town Clerks. They were opening a door to such an extent by the precedent they were now establishing, that there was not a single Bill they could hereafter pass, on which application would not be made to hear Counsel and evidence at the Bar; and he did not see how they would be able to resist it, after so forcible a precedent as the hearing of evidence on the Municipal Corporation Bill of 1835.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he should pause long before he should consent to hear any evidence from persons who belonged to no corporate body. The Town Clerks must be heard as so many individual petitioners. At all events there was no question before

45
the House, it was therefore idle to discuss it.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that after the statement from the first Minister of the Crown, who, of course, must be supposed to be well acquainted with the contents of this Bill, because it was brought forward upon his responsibility, he would state a case to the House, and then ask if there ever was such an instance as a Minister of the Crown coming down to the House and saying that on individual should be deprived of property which he had purchased of the Crown itself, and that within the last seven years. The liberty of Havering-atte-Bower was purchased by a gentleman of the name of Mackintosh for upwards of 70,000 l. Included in this purchase was the right of appointing two magistrates; he, as a tenant of the liberty, had never heard any complaint against these magistrates; but the Commissioners, nevertheless, had reported this as a Corporation which required Reform.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, this case stood upon the same footing with all the other Corporations, and would, of course, be heard in its turn. There was, therefore, no necessity for any discussion upon it.
The Marquess of Salisburyhad no idea of provoking a discussion on the subject. He had merely asked what course he should pursue; and the noble and learned Lord, who took a very active part in the proceedings of their Lordships' House, gave him certain advice, when up got the noble Viscount, and talked of the power with which he was oppressed, and said he would not be bound by these proceedings. Subject dropped.