Lords Sitting of 28 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Lunatic Act Continuance.
Petitions presented. By Lord WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY, from Grantham, in favour of the Prisoners' Defence Bill. By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, the Earl of RADNOR, and Viscount MELBOURNE, from a Number of Places, in favour of,—and by the Dukes of CUMBERLAND, WELLINGTON, BEAUFORT, Marquesses of SALISBURY and AYLESBURY, Earls of HAREWOOD, BROWNLOW, DEVON, HADDINGTON, OXFORD, ABINGDON, DE GREY, and Lords DVNEVOR, PRUDHOE, ASHIBURTON, SKELMERSDALE, STUART DE ROTHSAY, and a NOBLE LORD, from a great Number of Places, against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.

CORPORATIONS—PETITION.
The Earl of Falmouthpresented a Petition from Truro, against the Corporation Reform Bill, and would take that opportunity of correcting a misrepresentation of what had fallen from him yesterday as to the borough
1126
of Weymouth and Meleombe Regis. He found it stated in the public prints that he had said that the Corporation of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis had the administration of funds amounting to 30,000 l. a year. He wondered how the mistake could have been made, for he had read the statements from a printed paper. He should now beg leave to read it again. The noble Earl read a statement which in substance set forth that the Corporators were the Trustees of several charitable funds, some of which had been managed by themselves, and some by other persons for more than two hundred years, that the Bill was about to interfere with this trust property, which could not properly be done unless with the consent of the representatives of the donors. He had said nothing whatever about 30,000 l. a year. He had pointed out. the mistake of the Commissioners, which in charity he hoped was unintentional, as to the election of Mayor of the borough. It was stated by the Commissioners, that the election was made by thirty-six corporators from four persons presented by the Aldermen. Now, the fact was, that the election was made by the Aldermen from four persons presented to the Corporation by the 1,500 householders and inhabitants of the borough.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that the statement of yesterday as to Melcombe Regis and Weymouth having been this day repeated by the noble Earl, he begged leave to take that opportunity of showing that the noble Earl himself was under a mistake as to what the Commissioners said on the subject of that borough. The noble Earl had stated that the Report of the Commissioners misrepresented the mode of the election of the Mayor of Weymouth. Having heard that statement, he had the curiosity to refer to the Report, and there he found the noble Earl's mistake. The Report stated, that the election was by the Corporation from four names presented to the Mayor and Aldermen, and by reference to the account of the Corporation itself it appeared that the. Corporation consisted of the Mayor and Aldermen, and burgesses and inhabitants, so that in fact, the Report stated that which the noble Earl now declared the fact.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that he. had looked into the Report, and that having looked into it, he was saved from saying any thing of the trash it contained—and much trash it did contain; but his

1127
attention had been particularly called to a statement of the mismanagement of certain trust estates at Truro by the Corporation of that town. He found it stated in the Report, under the head of charities, that the members of the Corporation were the trustees for several charitable funds, the total income of which was 125 l. 19 s. 4d. and that a portion of the property was let on leases for terms of years. This was the statement. Then came the "Observations," which were to the effect, that it appeared that the amount of the reserved rent for the charities was 6l. 9s. 3d., but the amount of the rents received was 334 l. 10 s.; that the Corporation had paid the amount of the reserved rent to these charities, but that they had applied the rents otherwise received to other purposes. Now the fact was, that they were not trustees for several charities, but for one charity. That trust was erected in 1792, for the maintenance of an hospital, in which ten poor widows were to be maintained from that time forward. The lands for the support of this hospital had been let on lease; the trustees might run out the existing leases, but then they must have starved the poor widows, and therefore they continued those leases in existence. The whole reserved rents amounted to 125 l.; from other sources about 12 l. more were derived, making the whole a sum of 137 l. 19 s. 4d. The cost of the ten widows had been about 124 l. which, with some other small charges, left a balance of 12 l. 15 s. and some odd pence. The necessary repairs of the hospital had cost a sum of 20 l., so that the Corporation was rather in advance than otherwise, and there was no charge whatever made for the management of the funds. The hospital was extremely well kept so as to be an object with the best class of poor widows. These were the facts of the case, and he asked their Lordships whether twenty-four men of fortune and of high character, such as were the members of the Corporation of Truro, whether they were to submit to go down to posterity in a record of this nature as persons who mismanaged a charitable trust. He hoped that this calumniated body of Gentlemen would have an opportunity of being heard at their Lordships' Bar in their own defence.
Viscount Strangfordrose in pursuance of notice to present a Petition from the Mayor, Bailiffs, and commonalty of the city of Coventry, under their common
1128
seal, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill for regulating Municipal Corporations in England and Wales. He would not trouble their Lordships with any expression of his own sentiments respecting either the principle or the provisions of the Bill. He would confine himself to a brief statement of the grounds on which the Corporation of Coventry claimed that which he thought their Lordships could hardly deny them—an opportunity of showing how grievously their rights, privileges, and property, were affected by its enactments. It was mainly a question of property, and it was not their Lordships' practice to dispose of such questions without affording a fair hearing to those whose interests were concerned in them. The Petitioners were seized in fee-simple of large estates, of which a great portion had been acquired by purchase. These possessions, together with certain rights, privileges, and immunities, were secured to them by a long series of charters from the Crown. They also held very extensive estates on trust for purposes of charity and education, and for the maintenance and support of the Established religion, which had been vested in them, from time to time, by members of their own body, or others, and secured to them by an Act of Parliament, by various decrees of Courts of Equity, and by a decision of that very House of Parliament, acting in its judicial capacity. Their administration of these estates, had elicited the most honourable testimony from the Commissioners of public charities, after an inquiry of several months, although that testimony was singularly—he would say suspiciously—suppressed in the Report of the Municipal Commissioners, one half of that Report being neither more nor less than a transcript of the previous Report made by the Commissioners of public charities. Now, by the Bill before the House, all the rights and privileges growing out of the possession and occupation of these estates, and solemnly guaranteed to the petitioners, in the manner which he had described, were to be swept away, without any previous proceeding having been instituted in any one of his Majesty's Courts of Law, for any malversation in the discharge of their corporate duties, or in the exercise of their corporate rights. The Aldermen and members of the Council of Coventry, were, moreover, elected for life; and under the foundation deed, and

1129
under the sanction of a decree of that House, they were entitled during life to certain annual payments for their management of the trust estates. They were also Justices of the Peace for life, ex officio, for the county and city of Coventry; and of this property and of these honours they were to be despoiled by the Bill before the House, in violation of that immutable maxim of law which says, that no degradation or ouster from office or estate, corporate or private, can take place without process, founded on inquiry, in some one of his Majesty's superior Courts of Law. The Petitioners held their chartered rights, dignities, and privileges by a tenure precisely analogous to that by which their Lordships' held their own rights and privileges, and enjoyed their own titles and honours. The Bill before the House went absolutely to confiscate every species of property held by the Corporation of Coventry. It despoiled them of the estates which they held in fee-simple, and without condition; and with respect to the estates which they held in trust for charitable and religious purposes, and for the sole and exclusive benefit of the freemen, it diverted that property into other hands, to whom the donors never meant to confide it, and that too, without a scintilla of proof of violated trust, and, what was more without the concurrence, and even without the knowledge of the parties to whom such estates would pass by operation of law, whenever the class of persons for whose benefit the trusts had been created should cease to exist. He would not then enter at length into the case of another description of persons whose privileges were invaded, in truth, annihilated, by this Bill. He meant the freemen of Coventry. They certainly did not appear by this petition, but their rights were so involved in, and derived from those of the Corporation from which the petition proceeded, that he must take that opportunity of stating that, by the provisions of the Bill, the important right of acquiring the freedom of Coventry would hereafter be utterly extinguished and abolished, to the manifest injury of upwards of 2,000 young men, who were then serving under indentures of apprenticeship, and who had contracted the engagements by which they were bound on the faith that, at the expiration of their term of servitude, their diligent, and in their humble station, their
1130
honourable exertions, would earn for them not only a participation in those valuable rights of property to which he had already referred, but also the, to them, still dearer and prouder privilege of the elective franchise in their native city. Such was the regard shown by the Bill to the principle of that celebrated "fixed settlement," called the Reform Act, that its inevitable operation would be, that when the existing race of freemen should cease to be, the number of electors for Coventry would be reduced from 3,600 to something under 1,500. So much for the boasted principle of the Reform Bill, as aided, and brought, forth, and extended to the provisions of the Bill for regulating Corporations in England and Wales. He had endeavoured to confine his observations on this petition as much as possible to the mere question of property, because he was sensible that it was upon that ground that its claim to their Lordships' attention was principally founded. There was, however, another point of a somewhat different nature, to which, in justice to the case of the petitioners, he was bound to advert. They had placed him in a condition to show their Lordships, and they were themselves prepared to prove at the Bar, that the evidence on which the House was proceeding to consider that Bill of pains and penalties against them—the Bill which robbed them of their property, and their fellow-citizens of their dearest and most precious rights—was, to use the least offensive terms that he could devise, mutilated, imperfect, and founded on biased, unfair, distorted and partial statements. He would add no more, hoping that he had said enough, to induce their Lordships to abide by constant practice and precedent, and to grant to the petitioners a fair, full, and candid hearing, against a measure which subverted all their rights of property, of which their Lordships had ever been the faithful, and he trusted ever would be the fearless protectors.
Lord Broughamsaid, I know not whether my noble Friend intends or not to follow up the petition with a Motion at this moment that the petitioners be heard by counsel against the Bill, but he must allow me to tell him that if he will look at the 67th section of the Bill, he will see sufficient to show him that these petitioners have quite misunderstood the measure against which they call on your Lordships

1131
to allow them to be heard by counsel. One part of the complaint of these petitioners is, that all their property is to be confiscated —that is, it is to be treated exactly as your Lordships treated the property of all the Scotch boroughs, without a division on the matter, just two years ago. [The Earl of Haddington: not without opposition,] Ay, I know that the noble Lord was not gratified by what then took place; but I speak to your Lordships, not to the noble Lord alone; I am not using an argumentum ad hominem, much as I esteem the man. It is easy to say, but the abler his resistance was, and the stronger his case, the worse did your Lordships treat the Scotch boroughs, for your Lordships I did not even take the trouble to divide on the Question. The petitioners call this confiscation, I say it is restoration and the confiscation which your Lordships are charged with committing when you passed the Bill in 1833 is the same sort of confiscation which your Lordships are in the habit of committing every time that you sit as Judges in this House, when one man by fraud gets possession of property, and you take it from him and give it to the rightful owner. It is the same sort of confiscation which my noble and learned Friend (turning to Lord Plunket) commits in like cases in the Court of Chancery in Ireland—it is the same sort of confiscation which I was in the habit of committing for four years, wanting one day, in the Court of Chancery in England, and it is the same sort of confiscation which my right hon. and learned Friend, the Vice-Chancellor—to whom I might appeal as he is here, but that I am sorry to say, though here, he has not the privilege of answering my appeal—it is the same sort of fraud which his Honour the Vice-Chancellor is in the habit of committing when upon an information for the abuse of charitable funds, he pronounces a decree, declaring the true and proper uses of the trust property. The petitioners call this the confiscation of the property—we call it, in equity, the restoration of the property to the right owners. I should have said nothing about this matter at present, but should have reserved my observations for the discussion of the Bill itself, but that this is a grave charge thus to be brought against the Bill by the petitioners. They state, that they are now the holders of a large property, left by pious individuals for charitable uses, and that this Bill is now
1132
proceeding to lay hands upon it to confiscate it, and to apply it to different uses from those to which it was originally destined. Now, let my noble Friend, and your Lordships, hear the sixty-seventh Clause. The noble and learned Lord here read the Clause, to the following effect;—"And be it enacted in every borough in which the body corporate or any one or more of the members now stands seised or possessed for any estate interest whatsoever of and in any hereditament, the council of such borough shall nominate from among the burgesses persons of whom the Mayor for the time being shall be one, who shall be charitable trustees for such borough, and shall be one body corporate, shall have perpetual succession, and shall stand seised and possessed of the said hereditaments, sums of money, and securities for money, and other personal estates, for such uses and trusts respectively as they were subject to before the passing of this Act." I am one of those who think that in this part of the measure some further guards may possibly be necessary, and I have given the best proof that I think so by having brought in a Bill which now stands for a second reading in your Lordships' House, and which the noble Lord in the other House has said, might, with his consent, go on step by step with the present measure, and with reference to which I will venture to say, with the utmost positiveness, that it will prevent in future the happening of one-twentieth of those abuses which have before now happened under the old Corporations and the old Corporation management.
The Petition was laid on the table.

CORPORATION REFORM—COUNSEL.
Viscount Strangfordmoved, that the Petitioners from Coventry be heard by Counsel at the Bar, in support of their privileges, and in opposition to some of the allegations in the Report of the Commissioners of Municipal Inquiry. The noble Lord complained of the manner in which the Bill would dispose of particular kinds of property, which had been bequeathed to Corporations for charitable purposes. He alluded in particular to Sir Thomas White's estates, which had been given for the benefit of the Freemen of Coventry, but which under the operation of this Bill, would be diverted to uses totally at variance with the intention of the donor.
Viscount Melbournesuggested to their Lordships, that it would be utterly impossible for them to concur in the Motion of the noble Lord who had just sat down, because that Motion was consistent neither with precedent, reason, nor principle. If the Report of the Commissioners, against which the petitioners desired to be heard, imputed any misconduct to the borough of Coventry in particular, he was perfectly ready to admit that the case would be a proper one in which to hear Counsel. But this was a measure founded, not upon the malfeasance of any particular corporation, but upon one broad, fixed, and general principle, applicable alike to all corporations. It was a general Bill, founded upon a general principle, for the general advantage of the country. It was a Bill similar to that which their Lordships had formerly passed for the disfranchisement of 40 s. freeholders in Ireland, and with respect to which it was not deemed necessary that Counsel should be heard at the Bar. It was a Bill similar to that which was passed a few years since for the general Reformation of the Representation of the People throughout the kingdom—a Bill disfranchising many, enfranchising others, depreciating the value of the property of some, enhancing the value of the property of others—destructive of power and authority here, communicative of power and authority there—and yet that Bill, effecting so many changes, and variously affecting so many various interests, was passed by both branches of the Legislature without any Counsel having been heard, or any such proposition as that of the noble Viscount (Strangford) being made; or if made, not for a moment listened to. He might advert, indeed, to another Bill, more immediately applicable to the Bill then under consideration, than either of the two measures to which he had already adverted—he meant the Bill which was passed towards the close of the Session of 1833, for Reforming the whole of the Corporations of Scotland. By that Bill, important interests, and an immense mass of commercial property in the great towns—such as Edinburgh and Glasgow—were very materially affected, yet no Counsel was heard; no such motion as that of the noble Viscount was made; nor if made, would it have been listened to. Upon those general grounds, he submitted to their Lordships that there was no pre-
1134
tence whatever for hearing Counsel in the present case. There could be no pretence whatever for adopting such a course, unless, indeed, it were their Lordships' wish and intention to defeat the Bill by delay. If it were their Lordships' intention to defeat the Bill by delay, then they might hear Counsel; but if they had no such intention—if they meant to give the measure a bona fide consideration—if they meant to give it fair play—if they meant to give it that calm and considerate attention which its importance, and the anxiety of the whole country with respect to it demanded—they would not pursue such a course as that which the noble Viscount had called upon them to adopt. "I respect," continued his Lordship, "I respect your Lordships—I respect your authority—I respect your dignity—I respect the position you occupy relative to the constitution. Your dignity is well assured, and your power is well settled; but the power, and dignity, and authority of no body of men, either in these or in any other times, was ever so settled and secured as to enable them with impunity to trifle with the popular opinion." He implored their Lordships, therefore, not to listen to the Motion which had been made by the noble Viscount, but to go fairly, and without delay, into the consideration of the Bill. The noble Viscount had made a great many observations with respect to the Reform Bill, and to the diversion of the funds of charities to other purposes than those to which they were originally intended. The noble Viscount said, that Sir Thomas White's charity was vested in the freemen of Coventry, and in justice could be extended to no others. But supposing that the freemen of Coventry ought to be abolished in other respects, did the noble Viscount mean to say, that they ought to be kept up for the purpose of enjoying Sir Thomas White's charity. Surely their Lordships would not say, that to fulfil the will of a donor they were bound to maintain that which was acknowledged or found to be an abuse? If their Lordships were to accede to the noble Lord's proposition, it would be impossible to tell to what an extent it might be carried; because, if it were once admitted that one corporation had a right, to be heard, all would claim to be heard, and thus it would be rendered impossible to carry the Bill through during the present Session. If their Lordships intended

1135
to put an end to the measure in that way, they would accede to the motion: if they had a bona fide intention of fairly discussing it, they would not for a moment listen to such a motion.
The Duke of Wellingtonagreed with the noble Lord who had just spoken, that nothing would be more unbecoming or unworthy of that House than to trifle with the property or privileges of any class of the community, or to attempt, by vexatious delay, to defeat any measure that might be submitted to their consideration. But never was there an occasion on which such an imputation as that thrown out by the noble Lord was more unfounded, or more undeserved; for if ever there was a question on which any body of men seemed disposed to move with all the celerity that circumstances would admit of, it was the question then under their Lordships' consideration. In point of fact, the evidence upon which they had to proceed in legislating upon the subject, had only for a few days (at least the greater part of it) been upon their Lordships' Table, and he would venture to say, that not one in ten of their Lordships had perused more than a very small portion of that which had been produced. He had not the smallest desire to delay the second reading of the Bill, or any of the future proceedings upon the subject. Nay, if the noble Lord had not made such a charge upon that side of the House, he (the Duke of Wellington) was prepared to come forward with a proposition with respect to the hearing of Counsel, which, in his opinion, would have precluded the possibility of any delay, whilst at the same time full justice would be done to all parties. The noble Lord (Melbourne) began by stating, that this was a measure of general policy and not a measure embodying separate and distinct charges against individual boroughs. He (the Duke of Wellington) admitted it was a measure of general policy, but it was a measure of general policy founded upon the Reports laid upon their Lordships' Table, and of the truth of which the parties, in many instances, complained and desired that their Lordships would be pleased to hear their complaints. The noble Lord had been pleased to compare this transaction with another transaction in respect of the 40 s. freeholders of Ireland. The noble Lord forgot that the offer had been made for the disfranchise-
1136
ment of the 40 s. freeholders, on certain conditions, not less than two or three years before the measure by which they were actually disfranchised was carried. Neither did the noble Lord state that it was admitted, in the discussions in that House upon the Report, that the 40 s. freeholders were useless, nay injurious, as members of the electoral body. That being the case, it was natural enough that they should not be heard by Counsel. With respect to the Reform Bill, it was perfectly true that many persons had been injured in their property, in consequence of the adoption of that Bill; and it was also true, that many, very many interests had been entirely set aside by it; and although Counsel were not heard upon that Bill, any more than on the case of the Irish 40 s. freeholders, and the Scotch Corporations' Bill, the noble Lord (Melbourne) should not forget that there were other measures, having as strict an affinity to the present Bill as any he had mentioned, upon which Counsel were heard. For instance, in the case of the Bill for the Abolition of Heritable Jurisdictions in Scotland, Counsel were heard on the second reading, and on the Question for going into Committee. In the present instance he (the Duke of Wellington) was prepared to offer to the noble Lord (Melbourne), in order to create no delay, supposing the House to agree to the second reading, that Counsel should be heard on the Question for going into Committee; and he (the Duke of Wellington) was perfectly ready to proceed with the discussion the very day after the second reading should be disposed of. He must say, therefore, that the charge which had been made against any body of persons in that House having an intention to defeat the measure by delay, was unjust and uncalled for; and he must go further, and say that it was not quite founded upon the fact. As to going into Committee on the Bill, it could not be expected that any one would be prepared to do so, for some few days to come. To hear Counsel, therefore, previous to going into Committe, would, in fact, be to create no delay whatever.
Lord Broughamwas sure no person felt more strongly than he did the impropriety of any such charge against that House as that to which the noble Duke had alluded; but if he rightly heard his noble Friend, (Lord Melbourne) he rather

1137
thought that his noble Friend particularly endeavoured, fruitlessly, as it would seem, to guard himself against the very charge which the noble Duke had brought against him, because he expressly said, that he would impute no such desire to their Lordships as that of defeating the measure by delay, but that he wished to warn their Lordships not by any act of theirs, to induce the people out-of-doors to suppose that they were actuated by such a desire. But, passing from that point, he begged for a moment to call their Lordships' attention to what the result would be, if such a motion as that of the noble Lord opposite (Strangford) were carried. If it should succeed, every corporation in the kingdom would set up its right to be heard by Counsel, and if the right were acknowledged in one instance, it must necessarily be acknowledged in all. Coventry had no greater claim to be heard than Liverpool, or Warwick, or Maidstone, or any other of the corporate towns of the kingdom whose interests would be affected by that Bill. Sir Thomas White's was not the only charity in which corporate bodies had an interest. There was Smith's charity, and the Bedford charity, in each of which precisely the same claims might be put forward. Already there were twenty towns claiming to be heard by Counsel; accede to the present proposition, and by the end of another week there would be two hundred. In each of those two hundred cases at least two Counsel would be employed, and thus not only would the House have to listen to four hundred speeches, of the duration of each of which two hours might be taken as a short average, but there would also be all the details of evidence obtained from perhaps as many as a thousand witnesses. It was clear, therefore, that their Lordships must either make their own sittings perpetual, or else reject such a proposition as that which the noble Lord (Strangford) had brought forward. There certainly was one arrangement under which it would be possible, and perhaps advantageous, that Counsel should be heard. If all the parties opposed to the Bill would consent to consolidate their opposition under one banner—select two Counsel to conduct their case, and agree to abide by the result of the argument which those two Counsel should be enabled to advance against it; he was not aware that there would be any objection to the
1138
adoption of such a course. If, for instance, Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight, two of the most eminent men at the bar, should be selected to conduct the argument, and should be admitted to their Lordships' Bar to oppose the principle of the Bill, he was quite sure that any particular corporation would be very foolish in afterwards expressing a wish to be heard separately; because if those learned and accomplished gentlemen could not convince their Lordships by the arguments which they should advance upon the subject, he did not know who could. To such an arrangement he (Lord Brougham) should not be opposed; but he did most peremptorily object to the Motion then under the consideration of the House, because it seemed calculated by a side-wind to get rid of the whole subject.
The Earl of Riponhad heard with satisfaction the manner in which the noble and learned Lord had vindicated their Lordships from the charge that there existed on their part any desire to interpose any unreasonable or unjustifiable delay in the early and immediate consideration of the Bill. For his own part, he (Lord Ripon) thought that nothing would be more unbecoming, more absurd, or less creditable, than the adoption of such a course; but it did not follow from that, that there might not be circumstances in the case which would make it advisable and just for their Lordships to give some hearing to the petitioners who appeared before them; and he had, therefore, heard with great satisfaction the suggestions thrown out by the noble and learned Lord (Brougham), by which, as it seemed to him, justice might be done without the interposition of any inconvenient delay. If, indeed, the effect of the proposition made by his noble Friend on the right (Lord Strangford) were to be that they should hear Counsel from every borough which should petition against the Bill, it must be obvious that the labours of the House must be interminable. But it appeared to him that there would be no improper delay, if they were to accede to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord, which, judging from what had fallen from the noble Duke, would not be objected to by him. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would be induced to adopt that proposition. But if it were right and practicable to take that course with respect to the principle of the Bill, he thought it would

1139
be equally right and equally practicable to do the same with regard to those peculiar objections on which so many of the petitioners relied. It appeared to him to be of the utmost importance that those parts of the Bill should be argued which affected, not the political rights, but the pecuniary interests of the parties.
The Earl of Falmouthagreed with the noble Lord who had just sat down, in the distinction which he had drawn between the hearing of Counsel merely on the principle of the Bill, and the hearing of them on those particular parts of it which affected individual interests. Why were the petitioners to be deprived of the right of being heard in opposition to the charges which had been brought against them? They were British subjects—they had a right to be heard; but, said the noble Viscount (Melbourne), "We have nothing to do with the charges contained in the Report—we legislate generally." That might be true enough; but in point of common sense and common reason, he asked, on what was the Bill founded? Was it not founded on the Report of the Commissioners, setting forth the very charges of Which the petitioners complained? With respect to the evidence taken before the Commissioners, he could not speak of it with any patience. He had looked into that evidence, and he would venture to say, that a mass of grosser exaggeration and misrepresentation never disgraced the table of a legislative assembly. He was willing to accede to the proposition of limiting the opposition to the principle of the Bill to the argument of two Counsel; but he still thought that the petitioners had a right to be heard upon those points which affected their individual interests.
The Duke of Newcastlethought, that if the House wished to do justice to those whom it proposed to disfranchise, it ought first to hear them; and, in his opinion, the parties ought to be heard before the principle of the Bill was recognized by their Lordships, as it would be after the measure had been read a second time.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that the last portion of the observations which had fallen from the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government, certainly held out a threat against the rights, privileges, and independence of that House. It was too clear not to strike every one of their Lordships, and he was sure it would
1140
be equally obvious out of doors. An attack was made by the Bill on the actual property of the Corporations who were affected by it; and, in his opinion, they had an unequivocal right to be heard in defence of that property. Delay was by no means his object, and he was quite aware that if Counsel were to be heard in every case, it would be a virtual defeat of the Bill. But he thought that they might all be called upon to state their cases, and that their Lordships might then determine what cases should be defended by Counsel. That would save the appearance of denying the right, and yet would not waste their Lordships' time. He rather wished that his noble Friend near him had postponed his proposition until after the second reading of the Bill.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that nothing could have induced him to present himself to their Lordships that night, but his deep sense of the injustice and unconstitutional nature of the measure, which, if passed into a law, would affect all existing privileges, all property, and all existing rights, from those of the Crown itself down to those of the lowest subject connected with it. He could offer to his fellow-countrymen no stronger proof of his desire faithfully to discharge his duty by them, and to guard their rights and privileges, which were as dear to them as his own were to him (Lord Winchilsea), than his having been induced to appear among their Lordships that evening, and thereby showing the sincerity of the advice he had so often urged there and elsewhere—namely, that every Englishman must consider that the time had come when private feeling must yield to public duty. Never, in his opinion, had their Lordships, who stood the guardians of property and of the public peace, to discharge so important a duty as at present. From the bottom of his heart he could say, that if the Bill went only to the extent of communicating additional rights and privileges, upon constitutional grounds, to a great portion of his countrymen—if the measure, going further, went only to correct the abuses which had crept into the management of property, he would give it his most cordial support. He found, indeed, that these two principles were, to a certain extent, embraced in the measure, but it contained others to which he never could assent. He never could consent that any class of his fellow-

1141
countrymen should be deprived of privileges which were relatively of as much value to them as those he enjoyed were to himself. They were called too to alter the tenure of property, and they were asked to make this change without any other evidence excepting that of the Report laid on the Table—the Report on which the Bill was founded—the Report against the allegations in which the petitioners prayed to be heard. Allusion had been made to the 40 s. freeholders; he had voted in their favour, and was therefore not acting inconsistently now in raising his voice in favour of justice, and a fair trial for the freemen. Certainly he should divide the House, unless the noble Viscount (Melbourne) pledged himself that he would not unnecessarily destroy any of the existing rights and privileges in esse or in posse. He had been anxious to record his opinions on this occasion, and was thankful to their Lordships for bearing him.
Lord Broughamthought, that something like the course which he was about to suggest might enable their Lordships to do justice without subjecting themselves to any undue imputations. It was founded on a precedent in 1808, when a measure having been brought into Parliament affecting the interests of five great trading communities, viz., Liverpool, Manchester, Hull, London, and Birmingham, those communities agreed to consolidate their claims, and to be heard by one counsel. He (Lord Brougham) was the counsel employed; and he remembered that he occupied only about two hours of their Lordships' time, and only about three hours of the time of the other House of Parliament. A similar precedent might be found in 1746, the year after the rebellion. What he suggested was, that the Bill should be read a second time, sub silentio, if their Lordships pleased; and that the Committee should be put off until a period when Counsel might be prepared to attend.
The Duke of Cumberlandhad no objection to such a proposition, if it were distinctly understood that their Lordships did not concede the principle of the Bill by acceding to it; but that the principle of the Bill should be still open to discussion on the Report, or on the third reading. He by no means wished for delay; he was only anxious that justice should be done.
Lord Lyndhurstdid not understand that the petitioners wished to be heard by
1142
Counsel against the general principle of the Bill; he understood that they wished to be heard against the charges which the Bill contained against them. [Viscount Melbourne: There are no such charges in the Bill.] Why, the noble Viscount could not have read the Bill. "And, whereas, partly by defects in the Charters by which the said bodies corporate have been constituted, partly by neglect and abuse of the privileges by such Charters granted and confirmed to the inhabitants of the said cities, towns, and boroughs, and partly by change of circumstances since the said Charters were granted, the said bodies corporate for the most part have not of long time been, and are not now, useful and efficient instruments of local Government." Charges of abuse against the different Corporations, therefore, formed one of the foundations of this Bill. He understood that the parties now desirous of being heard by Counsel at the Bar did not wish to argue against the principle of the Bill, but to disprove these charges, and it was material that they should be permitted to do so, as the Bill did not apply to all Corporations. The petitioners said, that the evidence adduced in support of these charges was garbled—that they were desirous of exculpating themselves, and they prayed the House that, they might be at liberty to bring forward evidence in support of their case. This was the petitioners' object, and to it he should call their Lordships' attention, in the hope that some understanding might be come to as to what Counsel it was necessary to hear. If the House should decide that Counsel were not to be heard against the principle of the Bill, then they ought to be allowed to reserve their observations to the going into Committee. One of the objections urged against hearing Counsel at the Bar on this Bill was, that so much time would be occupied by their arguments. Now, here was a great sweeping measure, affecting 240 Corporations, If only one of these Corporations were sought to be affected, it was admitted on all hands that in justice that Corporation ought to be allowed to defend itself, but now, on this sweeping measure, not one of them was to enjoy that privilege. If the House determined upon hearing Counsel, it would then be their Lordships' duty to decide as to what extent they ought to be heard. In the case of the borough of Coventry

1143
the petitioners did not wish to be heard against the general principle of the Bill, but solely for the purpose of disproving the charges brought against them. He had had some communication with those petitioners, and they had told him certain facts which, if they could be substantiated, would cover with disgrace a particular Gentleman, in whose Report the charges made against them were found.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, petitions had been presented from about six or eight Corporate bodies, wishing to be heard against this Bill by Counsel; and Bristol and Liverpool, as wishing to be heard against the Bill by their Recorders. If the House were pleased to accede to the proposition for hearing two Counsel on the whole case, the Bill might be read a second time now, and the Motion for going into a Committee be fixed for some day in the latter end of the week, on which day the Counsel might be called to the Bar.
Lord Ellenboroughcould understand how the different parties might agree to be heard by two Counsel against the general principle of the Bill; but could not understand how they could agree to be heard by two Counsel against its numerous and distinct details.
Viscount Melbournerose to say a few words in explanation of the observations he had before made, and to answer the remarks of some of the noble Lords opposite. Their Lordships would recollect, that when he last spoke he had not heard the statement of the noble Duke, and all that he would now say, was, that several petitions having been presented, a noble Lord (Viscount Strangford) got up, and made a Motion that the petitioners be heard at the Bar by Counsel. He, therefore, contended that he was perfectly justified in saying that if noble Lords resorted to the same course on all the other petitions the present measure would be smothered. Such a course would have another effect. He had not addressed any threat to their Lordships, as he had been charged with doing, out he would admit that he had addressed a strong admonition—an admonition which he should always consider himself bound to address to their Lordships when he saw them likely to fall into that which he thought would be prejudicial to the House and prejudicial to the interests of the country. The noble Duke himself some-
1144
times addressed very strong admonitions to him (Viscount Melbourne), respecting the course which he, as a Minister of the Crown, thought proper to pursue. He was always glad to receive, and he always received with the greatest deference any opinion of the noble Duke; but, at the same time, he thought he had a right to address noble Lords in the same strain of Counsel and advice. His opinion on this question still remained the same as he had expressed it at an earlier part of the debate. He could not deny but that there might certainly be cases on which Counsel ought to be allowed to observe, and if Counsel were to be heard at all, he was extremely anxious to agree to any feasible plan that might be come to on the subject. Counsel might be heard in behalf of those Corporations which had already presented their petitions, but could the House in justice merely confine itself to those? If it should so resolve all the other boroughs would be discontented, and say that they had just as good a right to be heard on the subject. He was perfectly willing to admit that the object of noble Lords' opposition was not to delay this Bill, but the carrying of the present Motion would certainly have the effect of procrastinating or impeding its progress. He again repeated that he was most anxious to come to an agreement on the subject.
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, that if the noble Viscount was only inclined to do justice, there was not the slightest wish on his opponents side for procrastination. But they contended, that in all cases in which the interests of individuals, or of communities were involved, no legislative measure ought to be adopted without, in the first place, affording the parties concerned an opportunity of stating and proving in what manner they were unjustly affected by it. The petitioners in the present case claimed to be heard against the Bill, not in its legislative character, but as affecting them in its details, which they characterized as partial and unjust. They declared that they had reason to complain of the ground on which, according to the preamble of the Bill, they were charged with neglect and abuse; and prayed to be allowed to defend themselves by Counsel against the imputation; nay, to support that defence by evidence; nay, to show also that the manner in which the evidence in the Report of the Commissioners had been obtained was irregular and

1145
partial. Under such circumstances he was at a loss to understand how their Lordships could say to Counsel, "You are at liberty to argue against the principle of the Bill, but you must not touch upon its details." Considering, however, that there was a Committee from the several Corporations now sitting in London, he thought that that Committee might advantageously compress their claims into a single statement, and then intrust the advocacy of them to two Counsel; and he hoped there would be no addition to the number of Corporations requiring to be heard by Counsel, although if there were, he could not see how their Lordships could impose any limit.
The Earl of Harewoodcould not see how it would be possible for Counsel to avoid touching on the particular interests of particular places. That would certainly lead to delay; but it would only be that delay which would be just, and which the Corporate bodies affected by the Bill had a right to expect. The House would, he was persuaded, do its duty by endeavouring to protect the people from a violent and unprecedented measure, required by no necessity whatever. With respect to what had been said by the noble Viscount respecting admonitions, it should be considered that an admonition from one noble Lord to another, and an admonition from a noble Lord—and that noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government—addressed to the whole House, were two very different things.
Lord Plunkettbegged leave to refer the House to a precedent which had not yet been cited. The precedent of the Reform Bill had been objected to. It had been said, that in the present case the property was vested in individuals, and that on public grounds, the property being so vested, these individuals ought not to be deprived of it without being heard. He (Lord Plunkett) begged to refer the House to a case in which one hundred Corporations, which possessed property infinitely more valuable than that to be affected by the present Bill, had been actually disfranchised, not certainly by that House, but by the Irish Parliament, at the time of the Union—a Union which he trusted in God was to be considered as a final and irrevocable measure. In the case of the Union one hundred Corporations, sending two hundred Members to the Irish Parliament, were disfranchised, and none of them
1146
were heard by Counsel. Was not that a case in point? He should be glad to know why it was not a case in point, and why it was not a precedent? His noble Friend (Viscount Melbourne) had distinctly declared, that he had held out no threat, but the noble Earl who had just sat down, had been pleased to say that there was a great distinction between an admonition addressed to an individual, and an admonition addressed to a body of men. He confessed, that he could see no distinction between the two cases; and, humble an individual as he was, he thought he had a right to offer his advice whenever he thought it would tend to the good of his country. He had heard with great satisfaction the speech of the noble Duke, and that of the, noble Lord opposite, who, however, were willing to recognize the unreasonable claim on behalf of the Corporators to be heard by Counsel. If such a claim were recognized, he saw no prospect of ever coming to a conclusion within any reasonable period of time. Every one of the boroughs to be affected by this Bill, as well as the borough of Coventry, would claim to have a right to be heard by Counsel, and an additional ground for complaint would be thus given, by refusing their petitions. It was said, that there were parties in town who represented the Corporations which objected to the Bill. If that were the case, what objection could there be to those persons naming Counsel to represent the whole of the Corporations? It would be said, that the arguments in favour of one borough would not apply to the others. That difficulty could be easily obviated by the Counsel making judicious arrangements by dividing their arguments into several heads, and by making the House understand that such observations had reference to such a class of boroughs. He did not desire, that the arguments should be confined merely to the principle of the Bill, but he thought that the Counsel ought to be permitted to touch upon particular points and facts, to show how and where they were in contradiction to the evidence on which the Report was founded.
Lord Fitzgeraldsaid, that he had not expected, that the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, would have drawn his arguments and based his proposition on certain Acts of Parliament which that very same noble and learned Lord had at one time described as the most indefensible

1147
of all the Acts of the Irish Parliament. He must repeat that he did not expect the noble and learned Lord would have had recourse to such a precedent. The noble and learned Lord had stated, that at the time of the Union, 100 Corporations were disfranchised, and that the Corporators were not heard by Counsel. Now, it perhaps might be sufficient for him (Lord Fitzgerald and Vesey) to show that no application was ever made to that effect. But, perhaps, it might be still more important for him to state that the measure was totally different from the present Bill. That measure was similar to the Reform Bill in principle, because it deprived a certain number of boroughs of the right of returning Members to Parliament; but no part of the enactment went to deprive the Corporations of their property, or to extend the Corporate rights to any individuals but those who had before enjoyed them. The noble and learned Lord would admit this to be the fact; but there was another circumstance which very easily accounted for the reason why the parties did not choose to offer any opposition to that measure. Joining, as he did, in the prayer of the noble and, learned Lord, that the measure of the Union would be final and, irrevocable—and believing, as he did, that both for this country and for Ireland there was no hope for security, peace for the empire, respect for the Sovereign, or safety for the subject, but in the preservation of that Union, he most earnestly prayed that that measure might remain undisturbed; but, at the same time, he must remind the noble and learned Lord, that a sum of 15,000 l. was given to every one of those Corporations—to reconcile them to their disfranchisement; and that in all probability would account for their not offering any opposition to the enactment in question. Having made these observations on the precedent cited by the noble and learned Lord as analogous to the question now before the House, he should only say, before sitting down, that he was most anxious that the petitioners should be heard in defence of their just claims; but if he considered this Motion only as a means of delay he should look upon such a means of defeating the Bill as most unworthy, and as a course to which he never would consent to be a party.
The Earl of Falmouthcould not consent to confine the hearing to such Corporations as had petitioned. It should be
1148
remembered, that some of the Corporate bodies were three or four hundred miles off, and that some time would elapse before they could be apprised of what had occurred.
The Earl of Wicklowthought that their Lordships would not be called upon to attend to any further petitions which might be presented from Corporate bodies, praying to be heard by Counsel; because the measure had been so long in agitation, that the various Corporations whose interests were affected by it, had had ample time to petition the House on the subject. He took it for granted, that a majority of that House were sufficiently convinced of the necessity of some measure of Corporate Reform. It was, therefore, evident—the principle of a measure of Corporate Reform being admitted—that no arguments of Counsel could induce the House not to allow the Bill to be read a second time. Whilst, then, he expressed it as his own opinion that there was no necessity that Counsel should be heard on the principle, he felt bound to admit the fairness of the proposition which had been made, and which seemed to meet with the approval of both sides, that two Counsel should be heard on the principle of the Bill, with reference to the representations contained in all the petitions already presented. But he considered it perfectly consistent with propriety, and conformable to the rules of the House, to grant the prayer of the petitions already presented, with regard to hearing Counsel, without acceding to that conveyed in any other petition which might hereafter be presented.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas of opinion, that they should first decide that Counsel were to be heard. After they had decided that, they might then determine as to the classification of the topics to which they (the Counsel) should address themselves.
The Earl of Haddingtonwas by no means disposed to have his own discretion tied up, and he should be very sorry that their Lordships should be tied up by any pledge that they would not grant the prayer of any petition which might hereafter be presented on this subject to that House. It was, he thought, natural to suppose that questions might arise, fresh matter might be stated, and new views taken, which their Lordships would be perfectly justified in taking into consideration, though not touched upon in any petitions.
The Earl of Wicklowwas not for shutting out the consideration of anything which might imperatively call for their Lordships' attention. All he had said was, that by granting to their full extent the prayers of the petitions which had been already presented with respect to the subjects to which Counsel should be allowed to address themselves, they would act in a way which was sanctioned by every principle of fairness and justice.
The Marquess of Salisburyperfectly concurred in the propriety of hearing only two Counsel with regard to the principle of the Bill, and hoped they would extend that indulgence as to the details of the measure, if a case of necessity were made out for their doing so.
Viscount Melbournefelt no hesitation in agreeing to the proposition that Counsel should be heard, it being of course distinctly understood that there should be a fair determination on the part of the House to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible, and to discountenance any unnecessary delay. The course, then, which he understood to be agreed to was this:—That on Thursday and Friday next, Counsel should be heard, with the hope that their speeches should be limited to these two days, and that on Monday the principle and details of the measure should be discussed on going into Committee.
Lord Broughamsuggested, that the Motion of the noble Lord opposite, which referred merely to the borough of Coventry, should be withdrawn. With respect to the hour at which their Lordships should meet on Thursday, he thought twelve o'clock would be a good hour, though he himself had no objection to meeting at the earlier hour of ten o'clock. There was one other point on which he wished to say a word, as it might be imagined, from what had that night occurred, that he had in any way differed from his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne), or that he countenanced delay in the slightest degree by the proposition which he had submitted. The impression which he had originally formed was now, he found, turned into a certainly; for it was ascertained that the progress of the measure would be forwarded by the course now taken, because, instead of the Bill being now proposed for second reading, and the debate on it occupying to-night and to-morrow night, and the postponement of the Committee being (in conse-
1150
quence of the fatigue and weariness which would, no doubt, follow so protracted a discussion) determined to be moved to Tuesday or Wednesday, the Bill would, by the present arrangement, be committed as early as Monday.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not see that there was any necessity for his noble Friend's withdrawing his Motion respecting Coventry. He did not see that it at all interfered with the Motion that the Bill be read a second time. With regard to the second reading of the Bill, the course which should be adopted depended, of course, entirely on the feeling of their Lordships. If their Lordships wished that the second reading should pass without discussion, he had no objection to accede to that proposition, provided that it was clearly understood, that the principle of the Bill was not now agreed to, but reserved for discussion by Counsel. Without that reservation, he did not think it would be right to agree to the second reading of a Bill of such a nature, and not discuss the principle on which it was founded.
Lord Alvanleysaid, that he considered the discussion of the principle of the Bill for two days by Counsel would, be a perfect waste of time, and derogatory to the character of their Lordships' House. Surely his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) were perfectly competent to argue the principle of the measure.
Lord Broughamassured his noble Friend that, submitting the proposition which he had laid before the House, he did so from no anxiety to hear the arguments of Counsel. He had quite as great an aversion to them as the noble Lord possibly could have. Indeed he might be fairly supposed to be more sick of them than his noble Friend, inasmuch as he had, during his life, heard a greater number of them, But a great number of their Lordships, and the parties themselves whom this Bill affected, did not feel satisfied that the measure should be taken into consideration without Counsel being heard. Therefore, it was that he had approved the suggestion with reference to the hearing of Counsel. He understood, however, that these Counsel should be allowed to make two speeches, which were not to be confined to the principle of the Bill merely.
The Motion of Viscount Strangford was withdrawn.

CORPORATION REFORM—SECOND READING.
On the Motion of Viscount Melbourne the Bill was read a second time.
The Duke of Newcastlethen said, that he had a question to put to the noble Viscount opposite, which he considered of some importance. He was anxious to know whether the noble Viscount would have any objection to lay on the Table of the House, the Minute Book kept by the Court of Commissioners sitting in London. He had reason to believe, that the production of this Minute Book would relieve the House from the considerable difficulty arising from what he was going to call the blunders, but certainly from the mistakes contained in the Report of the Commissioners.
Viscount Melbourneanswered, that the Minute Book was kept merely with a view of managing and directing the affairs of the Board. He could not, therefore, agree to the production of such a document.
The Duke of Newcastleobserved, that he did not see why such a book should not be produced. There was a Clause in the Poor-law Act directing that a Minute Book should be kept, and all the proceedings of the Board should be entered into it. He wished to know, then, whether the noble Viscount would produce the Minute Book of the Corporation Commissioners. [Viscount Melbourne, "No!"] Well, then, let it go forth that the noble Viscount refuses to produce the document.
Bill to be committed.