, in moving the second reading of the bill, said, that he had postponed it to that late period to allow time for the burgesses of East Retford to petition to be heard by counsel; but no such petition had appeared. There was a petition from the aldermen, containing a sort of protest, but not denying their participancy in the corruption, or praying to be heard. He did not propose to proceed further then, but wished for the second reading, as an assurance that the House would support him in the next session, and would not, in the mean time issue the writ to Retford. He should think it his duty to prepare himself with the local details connected with Birmingham, that would enable him to submit to the House, when parliament re-assembled, a bill with such provisions as would secure to that town the benefits of representation without the evils too frequently attendant upon it. He should provide for a summary mode of taking the poll; for a registration of votes to prevent disputes, and other matters, so as to preclude, if possible, the tumult, demoralization, delay, and expense which might otherwise convert what he intended for a highly beneficial privilege, into an infliction and a curse. All he now asked was, the second reading of the bill with the view he had stated; and if, when the subject was resumed, the burgesses of Retford wished to be heard, there would be ample time afforded.

opposed the further progress of the measure, on the ground that the case of corruption and bribery had not been sufficiently established. He objected, also, to the further suspension of the writ until the next session.

adverted to a petition from the electors, in which they prayed to be heard by counsel, and asserted their innocence.

said, that no reasonable doubt could be entertained of the corruption of the borough, and that a sufficient case had been made out for its disfranchisement.

recommended, that the whole subject should be deferred until next session.

was of opinion, that a prima facie uncontradicted case had been made out for reading the bill a second time. It had been brought in by order of the committee; and all that was intended this session was to fill up the blanks. It was highly proper that the question regarding the issue of the writ should also be postponed. If the writ were issued, it would, in fact, be deciding the question. Whether it should be given to Birmingham or thrown into the hundred, in case of the disfranchisement of East Retford, was another point.

complained that the bill had been printed with the town of Birmingham substituted for East Retford. It might hence be concluded out of doors, that the House had decided that point before it had even determined to disfranchise East Retford.

agreed with the general object of the bill, but contended that the evidence already adduced was not sufficient. If the case opened were established, it was more gross than that of Penryn.

thought the case of general corruption quite sufficient, and that it was the duty of the House to confer the elective franchise on some place, where it would be exercised with more fidelity.

saw no reason why the bill should be read even a second time, if it was intended afterwards to postpone it until next session. If they wanted to put an end to corruption, they ought to put the axe to the root of the tree, and begin with the corruptors. They should begin with reform among themselves. They ought, when they came to the hustings, and to the table of that House, to take an oath against bribery and corruption; and then they would see what sort of a House they would hate. He had ever set his face against cant, hypocrisy, and humbug, and he would still continue to do so. He further objected to transferring the franchise to Birmingham, as manufacturing towns were the very hot-beds of corruption.

said, that if the bill were read a second time, it would appear as if the House had pledged itself to transfer the franchise to Birmingham. Now, he was not prepared to say, even if East Retford were to be disfranchised, that the franchise should be transferred to Birmingham. He might think that it would be better to transfer it to one of the unrepresented Scotch counties, where there was neither bribery nor corruption. He would therefore move as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time this day three months."

supported the second reading, since all the proper amendments might be made in the committee.

would consent to the second reading, only in order to see what the proposition of the hon. mover was. But he wished to guard himself against giving any opinion as to the place to which the franchise should be transferred.

was desirous to guard himself against giving any opinion now as to what might be his ultimate conclusion, either as to the propriety of the disfranchisement of the borough, or the place to which the franchise should be transferred.

saw no use in allowing this bill to be read a second time just now, when it was well known that it could not stir another stage this session.

concurred in that opinion. In such cases as the present, the bill ought to be read only a first time. It was improper to raise expectations in the inhabitants of Birmingham, which might be ultimately disappointed. There had been no discussion as yet, as to the place to which the franchise should be transferred, and he therefore did not think it proper that the bill should be read a second time with Birmingham inserted in it.

, in reply, observed, that he had introduced the bill transferring the franchise to Birmingham with the deliberate sanction of the House. Manchester and Birmingham offered themselves as the most desirable cases for representation; and Manchester having been appropriated by a noble lord (J. Russell), he had adopted Birmingham; and having done so he could not and would not abandon it. The intelligence had been received at Birmingham with gratitude and satisfaction, and had created a great sensation there [hear, hear, from sir C. Wetherell]. His learned friend cheered, but he begged to inform him, that the satisfaction and excitement he alluded to was amongst all the leading inhabitants of the place, as would appear from the copy of a requisition in his hand, signed by almost all the intelligent and wealthy merchants and manufacturers, by five bankers, and generally by gentlemen of importance at Birmingham. The requisition was for a public meeting, from which, no doubt, a petition would emanate, and be presented to the House before the prorogation. After this he should think he acted most unfairly if he consented to the substitution of any other place [hear, hear]; and if the transfer were to be made to a town, he saw no ground for change, for no place required distinct representation more than Birmingham. He wished for the second reading chiefly as a pledge from the House, that it would proceed with regard to East Retford in the next session; when he should move to re-introduce the bill. For the present session it would necessarily drop. As to the nature of the franchise to be established at Birmingham, it undoubtedly required great deliberation. He had applied himself diligently to the subject, but it was one for future consideration. His object was, to establish a franchise which would furnish a constituent body limited in point of numbers within convenient bounds; but one also which, comprising a portion from all classes, would bestow upon the mass of the inhabitants the satisfaction of feeling that they were represented, while at the same time due weight would be given to the commercial interests and property of the town. In the bill he had endeavoured to indicate a franchise with these qualities; and if it had been committed pro forma, he should, by filling up the blanks, have proposed a right to the inhabitant householders who had been resident for three years, rated for that period, and who had paid their rates.

The House divided: For the second reading of the bill 35; Against it 17; Majority 18. The bill was then ordered to be committed on that day fortnight, with the object of postponing the subject till the next session.

rose, to withdraw the notice of his intention to move a Resolution concerning the application of Corporate Funds to Election Purposes. His attention, he said, had been drawn to this subject, in consequence of the dictum which, he had been informed, had been pronounced, in another place, by a very learned personage; who had broadly declared, that corporate funds were, in every respect, private property, and might be legally used by the corporation for all purposes to which individuals might apply their property. It was evident if this dictum were correct, that the members of any corporation might meet and divide the corporate funds among themselves for their own private benefit. He had always understood that corporate funds were held in trust for corporate purposes, and could not legally be applied to any other object. The corporation acted as a trustee; and in that capacity alone. Would that House suffer corporations to apply their funds to election purposes, and in so doing overturn all their rights and privileges? He had intended to move a resolution to prevent this abuse; but considering the state of the House, he should waive his intention. He trusted that this notice would have the effect of guarding against these malversations. He could assure any corporation, that if they interfered with any election by misapplying the funds they held for corporate purposes, they might be called to the bar of the House, and visited with the just measure of its indignation. His observations were not directed to any corporation in particular; but he felt called upon to notice a handbill which had been circulated by the corporation of Northampton, in which some grave misrepresentations appeared respecting the proceedings in regard to a bill which had passed this House, and had been rejected by the other House, on this subject. Some unjust and groundless remarks had been made upon the conduct of his hon. relative (colonel Maberly) in this hand-bill; and he appealed to the members of the committee, whether they were not directly opposite to the truth. He recommended that corporation to mind what they were about, for he had understood that their charter was not quite secure, and that it would be necessary to come to parliament for its confirmation. The funds were restricted by the terms of their charter to objects of "common utility," and he could not see how that phrase could justify their application to the returning of members to parliament. He should not press the resolution, but he hoped some steps would hereafter be taken to meet the evil.