presented a Petition from certain occupiers of land of the Parish of Castle Moreton, in the county of Worcester, complaining of certain proceedings taken against them by the Dn and Chapter of Westminster, as lords of the manor there. The Petitioners stated, that for the purpose of enforcing (the Dean and Chapter's) manorial rights, they had by their agent served upwards of an hundred ejectments for the removal of the Petitioners from certain cottages occupied by them, and which had been erected upon grounds heretofore waste, many of which had been held by the petitioners and their predecessors for periods varying from twenty and sixty to a hundred years, upon all of which great improvements had been made by the occupiers, who fully relied upon the validity of their title, and that many of those cottages and pieces of land had been duly transferred by sale and purchase. The petitioners slated, that, in many instances, the purchasers of those premises took them under the idea that the sale was perfect, and had, in consequence, expended sums of money on their improvement, but that now the Dean and Chapter of Westminster came forward as lords of the manor, claiming them as their property, on the plea that nullum tempus occurrit ecclesiæ. The petitioners, after detailing a variety of circumstances connected with their case, stated that many of them, through the threats of the agent of the Dean and Chapter, had been forced to accept leases for lives, or for short terms of years. The petitioners represented their great poverty to the House—stated that, in the instances of many of them, these premises constituted their whole property, and complained of the extreme hardship to which they had been exposed. He (Lord Ebrington) had no local knowledge of, or connexion with, this place; but that the petitioners were in a very humble station of life was evident from the fact, that a great number of them signed by their marks. Since this Petition had been put into his hand, he had inquired into the correctness of the allegations contained in it, and he would state, upon authority that he fully relied on, that the whole of those allegations were substantially correct and true. In confirmation of the statements made by the Petitioners, he might mention that, in the year 1830, an action was brought by the Dean and Chapter against Lord Somers, for the recovery of a portion of this waste, which had been inclosed by an ancestor of his fifty years ago. Lord Somers offered to throw the land into waste again for the use of the commoners, but the Dean and Chapter refused to accept such terms, and claimed it as their freehold. Lord Somers, in order to try the question, defended the action, but he was cast after an expense of 400l. After this decision, it was considered vain by the poor petitioners to attempt to defend their right. The consequence was, that a great number of them had to become tenants of the Dean and Chapter. He would only say, that, by all persons locally connected with this place with whom he had had an opportunity of communicating, this proceeding on the part of the Dean and Chapter was considered a harsh one. He could not help expressing his regret that this privilege insisted upon by the Church, in this instance, should still exist. The House, of course, had no power of applying a remedy in this case, in which the letter of the law was certainly against the petitioners, but he trusted that, in the next Session of Parliament, the law would be altered, and that the Church would no longer possess this odious privilege against prescriptive right.

said, that this was only one out of 10,000 cases that existed throughout the country. He did not throw any blame on the clergy for them, but he thought that the Legislature should lose no time in limiting the privilege of the Church in this respect, in the same manner as that of the Crown had been limited.

supported the petition. The case appeared to him to be one of extreme hardship. He did not expect that the Clergy would forego their rights, but they ought to exhibit more forbearance towards the poor.

stated, that, in consequence of what had taken place on Friday night respecting Orange Lodges in Ireland and the army, he had been directed by the Committee to move, that they report on certain parts of the evidence, and that the minutes of the evidence should be laid on the Table of the House. There were other portions of the evidence which were as yet unfit for publication. The hon. Member concluded by moving accordingly.

said, he had the highest authority for stating, in contradiction to the insinuation which had been made on Friday night, that the Duke of Cumberland had never issued any warrants for the formation of Orange Lodges in the army. In the only case in which he had been applied to he refused to sanction the application, unless they could procure the consent of the Commander-in-Chief at the Horse Guards. He (Mr. Jackson) did not deny that certain warrants had been signed by his Royal Highness, as Grand Master, but if any of them had been sent to any regiments or portion of the army, it was done without his consent, and without his knowledge.

was anxious to corroborate what had just fallen from his hon. and learned Friend. The warrants almost invariably passed through his (Mr. Maxwell's) hands; they were sent in blank, and his signature and those of other grand officers were necessary, and when they were affixed they were forwarded for the signature of the Duke of Cumberland. That being obtained, five or six other names were added, and the warrants were re-transmitted to Dublin, and filled up according to the purpose of the general managing body; but the destination was altogether unknown to his Royal Highness. "I beg leave (continued the hon. Member) particularly to corroborate what has been stated by my hon. and learned Friend respecting an individual application to the Duke of Cumberland for an Orange Lodge in a regiment. His Royal Highness has given me full permission and authority to mention that he gave the most direct refusal to the application, unless permission were first obtained from the Horse Guards. If that permission were given, his Royal Highness was ready to grant the warrant, but otherwise he could not give it his sanction as Grand Master."

I beg to remark that the Duke of Cumberland is at present an officer in the British Army. The hon. Member who has just spoken seems well acquainted with the facts of the case, as regards different regiments; but, as an officer serving in a regiment chiefly composed of Roman Catholics, I beg to say that an Orange Lodge was formed in it without the slightest knowledge of the officers generally; and I do not hesitate to say, that, before it was formed, it was the duty of the parties to acquaint the Commander-in-Chief. Looking at the regiments in which Orange Lodges have been formed, I must add, that the wish seems to have been to excite ill-will and indignation between the Protestants and Roman Catholics. I do not know what may be the precise intentions of the hon. Member for Middlesex, but I beg to say, that if for any reason he does not think fit to pursue this subject, I shall think it my duty to bring it before the House.

said, that the greatest disturbances had taken place in Ireland, from those warrants which bore the signature of the noble individual alluded to. He begged to ask the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Henry Maxwell), whether he sent from the grand Lodge five members, under a warrant, to the county of Monaghan, in 1821? They came upon his estate, and a set of greater incendiaries were not to be found in the country. They did the utmost mischief, and ought to have been transported to Botany Bay, They set one part of his tenantry against another, and introduced an alarming animosity that to the present time had never subsided. Had not the corporation-seal as it were, and the signature of the Duke of Cumberland, been sent through Ireland? The hon. Member said, that these warrants were signed by the Duke of Cumberland, but that he was authorised to say that his Royal Highness did not know of their destination. He happened to know an Orangeman who did believe that the Duke of Cumberland had given his authority; he and others, it now appeared, had been entrapped by the fabricator and forger of the name of the Duke of Cumberland. What right had they to put his name to warrants? He was well aware that the warrants were signed in blank, but they were afterwards filled up, and he wanted to know by whom? If they were filled up with the names of the Grand Committee, he begged to ask the hon. Member for Lancashire, whether the Report he was going to lay on the Table would show who were the Grand Committee? They ought to have the names of those who had been in the habit of committing forgery. It was a topic which could not rest here. The hon. Member for Lancashire must inform the House when it was likely that the evidence would be printed and in their hands; for if it were voluminous they might reach the end of the Session before the House was in a condition to consider it. The House would observe, too, that these processions were not confined to the 12th of July, but they took place on the 13th, 14th, and 15th of July also. In the county of Wicklow there had been one within a hundred yards of the residence of two Magistrates, when a shot was fired, and a Roman Catholic nearly killed; the individuals who did this acted at the time under one of those forged warrants. He hoped that other Members would take up the subject, who could examine it with more impartial and scrutinizing minds than he pretended to possess: but let them first read the evidence given before the Coroner's inquest at Belfast, which he then held in his hand—evidence by men and officers, which showed that the military did not fire until they were placed between two showers of stones. Two orders were given by the Magistrates; but the soldiers did not fire until the second order. He thought the House would agree with him, that it was absolutely necessary that a stop should be put to this system. If they continued sitting till Christmas, Parliament ought to interfere to protect the lives of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland.

begged to say, that the evidence would furnish the names of the members of the Committee of the Orange Association in Dublin up to the present time, so that the hon. Member for Meath would be able to refer to every person connected with the institution. As to the time that it would take to print the evidence, he had reason to believe that it would be in the hands of Members in a few days; the operation of printing had been so proceeded with that the whole would, probably, be ready this week.

, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Meath, regarding a warrant issued in 1821, had only to say that he could not answer him, because he was not a member of the Orange Institution until 1828. He begged to add, that, until he heard it in the Committee of that House upon Orange Lodges, he was not aware that there was a single Lodge connected with any regiment in the army or militia. He might have been deplorably ignorant, but such was the fact. He could undertake to assert, that no forgery had been committed by any member of the Grand Committee. The signatures of the Duke of Cumberland, as Grand Master, were bonâ fide, as well as those of the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, the Grand Treasurer, and of other Grand Officers, but they had been attached to blank warrants.

thought that the impression regarding the forgery of names was altogether erroneous. He had seen some of the warrants, and one objection was, that the Duke of Cumberland, an illustrious Prince, and a high military officer, was made to give his sanction to institutions of which he knew nothing. His Royal Highness was not aware of the use which was to be made of his signature when it was placed in the hands of those who ought, least of all, to have distributed the warrants among the soldiery. Nothing could be more dangerous than to introduce societies of this kind into the army, which was bound to the country by its allegiance, and by its duty to the laws, and ought not to obey the mandate even of the Duke of Cumberland.

asked the hon. Member for Aberdeen to postpone, until next Session, his Bill for the Union of King's College and the Marischal College of the University of Aberdeen. He was not unfavourable to the principle of the measure, and would suggest to the hon. Member that, by allowing the measure to lie over till next Session, the consent of the two learned bodies might be obtained, which was most essential to the success of the undertaking.

, in rising to answer the question of the right hon. Baronet, ex- pressed his acknowledgments for the courtesy which had been shown to him by the right hon. Baronet's not presenting petitions against this Bill during his (Mr. Bannerman's) absence from the House on Friday evening. He was not at all surprised that his hon. Friend, the Member for the county, the right hon. Baronet, and many other hon. Members should be besieged with papers, protests, and petitions against this Bill; for he believed that it had been announced by some parties—to more than one Member even of his Majesty's Government—that he had introduced a measure, which, for atrocity in principle, reckless innovation in details, involving spoliation, robbery, and ruin of the University, and destruction of the national Church of Scotland, was such as no Member of Parliament ever before had nerve to submit to a British House of Commons. Sir (said Mr. Bannerman), if I had introduced such a measure, I know well what fate it would have met with in this House, and as these parties have said I introduced it for the purpose of gaining popularity, I do believe nothing in the world would have made me more unpopular, and in my opinion most deservedly so. I only regret, therefore, that in acceding to the request of the right hon. Baronet, I lose the opportunity for this Session of discussing the clauses of this Bill in detail, for it does appear to me singular, that the parties who pray for delay, and accuse me of want of consideration, seem to have had themselves ample time not only to consider this measure, but to denounce almost its principle, and criticise every clause in the Bill. I now only wish to set myself right with the House, about a misrepresentation industriously circulated, that I have been guilty of great want of respect to the learned men in the north; that I have refused to hold converse or communication with them; that I have stolen this Bill into Parliament, got it read a second time without their knowing of it. Sir, I gave notice of this Bill nearly three months ago; these notices were published in the Aberdeen papers. But I did more than that, I hold in my hand a copy of a letter which I addressed to the principals of both Universities on the 22nd of April. I forwarded also, with that letter, printed copies of the rules, statutes, and ordinances, proposed by the Royal Commissioners, calling the attention of the learned men to these documents, begging their attention to the Treasury Grant for rebuilding Marischal College, and asking them for any practical observations, which should meet with due attention from me, and that it was my intention to bring forward a measure for uniting the two colleges, with the sanction of his Majesty's Government. The gentlemen connected with one of the Universities sent me their observations, for which I felt very much obliged; the learned men connected with the other University wrote me a note, saying they had come to an unanimous resolution, which would he communicated to me when they heard from the heads of the colleges. I know their opinion, I am ignorant of that of the heads of the colleges; and really, Sir, I do feel that I have been guilty of a want of courtesy to the Chancellors of those Universities, unintentional on my part, and to save them trouble. The noble Lord who presides over King's College, whose love of literature and science, and liberal views on this subject are well known in the north, is the first person I should have consulted if I had imagined that I could have done so with any hope of reconciling the learned body over which he presides to any measure which I could possibly hope to carry through the House of Commons. To the noble Earl I owe an apology—to the learned body none is due from me; I will make none. Sir, this Bill is committed for the 24th of July. I am almost ashamed to mention it to the House, but I have been blamed for fixing that day for committing my spoliation measure, because it is the day set aside by the "sacred authority of the General Assembly for humiliation and fasting in Scotland." Fixing any particular day for committing this measure never entered my head. I had proposed the 16th, but accidentally meeting my hon. Friend, the Member for the county, he proposed the 24th; and I wish our pious friends in the north to remark, that their Tory and Whig representatives are on a par, both having forgotten the fast day in Scotland; but I dare say my hon. Friend and myself will be fully as well employed as our pious friends in the north.

hoped that the hon. Member for Glasgow would also postpone to next Session, his measure relating to the University of that city. Mr. Oswald consented.

, in pursuance of the notice he had given, rose to present a Petition from the city of Bristol, and a petition from the city of Coventry on the subject of this Bill. The petition from Bristol was from the free burgesses, and had been signed by the Mayor and Aldermen, and it stated they were informed a Bill was then in progress through the House, having gone through its stages up to its recommittal, which went to deprive them of divers valuable rights and privileges and property which had been secured to them under royal charter, and they prayed the House not to sanction anything which should have a tendency, directly or indirectly, in any manner to deprive them of their property or their political rights. The petition from Coventry went altogether against the principle of the Bill, and complained of the course pursued as partial and unjust. In laying them upon the Table, he should take the opportunity of expressing the opinion of an independent Member of Parliament, hampered by no party considerations, and determined to speak without reserve, why the Municipal Corporations' Bill ought not to be read a third time. He had taken no part in the Committee, nor had he spoken upon the first or second readings, but considering the importance of the constituency he represented, he now felt called upon to declare that he was entirely averse to the principle of the measure, because it was opposed to the law, and subversive of the Constitution of the country. It annulled all charters heretofore granted by successive Kings of England, and the fact that it was brought in by the Ministers of the realm not only did not render the proceeding less objectionable, but made it more so, for its tendency would not have been so injurious if the Bill had been introduced by an individual Member of Parliament, and supported by the Cabinet. It abrogated rights sanctioned by charters and supported by precedents, and it established principles alike dangerous to freedom and the Constitution. He had presented petitions against it from the highest and from the lowest members of Corporations—from the Mayor and Aldermen of Coventry, and from the burgesses of Bristol, who, although convicted of no offence, and hitherto fostered and protected, were now at once to be deprived of what they so highly valued and so long enjoyed. The rights of Peers were considered inviolable by law, and why were they inviolable? Only because they were considered so. What was to prevent a bill from being brought in to-morrow by some hon. Gen- tleman of strong opinions, to take from Peers their right to sit in the other House of Parliament? What was there to render the robe of a Peer more sacred than the gown of an Alderman? As to the rights of freemen, the Bill was a measure of spoliation. Not content with extending the rights now enjoyed exclusively by freemen to other persons, the framers of the measure wholly abolished them to create new privileges for others. He, therefore, contended that freemen were open to bribery—to the insinuating address of persons who accompanied their persuasive arguments by a small sum of money. Was poverty, then, to be deemed a disqualification for municipal and political rights? If so, no rank was a guarantee; all Gentlemen were not honest—all Peers were not rich. Before hon. Members made up their minds that men because they were poor were to be suspected of dishonesty, let them reflect whether the same experiment might not soon be tried in another place. A Baron might be bribed by an Earl's coronet—a Marquess by a Duke's; for, after all, these were only abstract distinctions: they were honourable distinctions, indeed, but not necessary for the maintenance of the Constitution. When such things occurred, was it right to allege the poverty of the freemen and liability to be bribed as a sufficient cause to deprive them of their rights. Some admitted that the rights of existing freemen ought to be preserved—some said that they would preserve the rights of the children of freemen already born—and some said that they would preserve at least the municipal, if not the parliamentary rights of persons in this situation. In his estimation the freeman's child was in precisely the same situation as the heir apparent of a Peer of the realm. The Alderman with his rank might well be compared to a Peer of Parliament who had not an hereditary seat in the House of Lords, as the Scotch and Irish Peers. He would say also that the Alderman's position as a Magistrate elected for life was, in the eye of the law of England, similar to that of the Peer elected for life to sit in the House of Lords. Therefore, whether they considered the Peer's right or the Alderman's title—whether they looked at the right of the freeman's child in connexion with the right of the son of a Peer—in whatever way the subject was considered, in his opinion the rights of the Aldermen and freemen were as sacred in the eye of the law as the rights of the most elevated personages in the kingdom. It was the vice of the present Bill that at the expense of one principle it went to set up another. It was an attempt to set up generally the republican principle of representation, upon the ruin of the principle of vested right. It was against that principle of the Bill that he mainly protested, although he considered it vicious and dangerous in many other respects. And, let him ask, would the hereditary aristocracy support the principle of a Bill which was against all hereditary right? Would the Peers now declare that an old charter of incorporation was worth less than a patent of nobility on which the ink is scarcely dry? The Peers had now to fight their own battle. The first step that they took in this instance would be irrevocable. They would have to decide, when this Bill was sent up to them, whether their Lordships were to be maintained on the doctrine of temporary expediency, or to preserve their privileges upon the principle of vested right. Which ever way they decided, they might rest assured that they would not satisfy those who, sooner or later in the progress of the movement now going on in England, would make a decided attack upon their privileges, and upon that House of Parliament in which they hitherto had exercised their political functions; but they might, by giving their assent to this Bill, lend a fearful impulse to the movement that would destroy their own rights and dignity. The present system of the Corporations of England generally was said not to be in harmony with the times in which they were living. He should like to know what institutions of the country were in harmony with the principles and doctrines of many of those who for the last few years had become the advocates of general reform and proclaimed themselves the redressers of wrongs? They were not justified in proceeding with a Bill, unless they admitted all the principles contained in it. The House might be justified in extending benefits, they would not be justified in annulling charters. The House of Peers could not support the Bill, unless they were prepared to enter into a calm and deliberate consideration of all the great questions which were involved in it. He believed that the Corporations of the country were reasonable and useful institutions; he believed that, if they required amendment, they might be thoroughly amended without a breach of the Constitution. But the noble Lord had not taken that course. Most of the existing Corpo- rations would have been ready to have surrendered their charters, without the expectation of receiving fresh charters; and those who expected new charters would no doubt have been glad to have received them on modified conditions; they would have admitted the ten-pound franchise, and done away with the principle of self-election. This, however, not only was not suggested, but even was not hinted at by the noble Lord, and those by whom the present measure was brought forward. He was averse from Parliamentary interference when there was no precedent. He begged to call the attention of the House to the few precedents which existed for interfering with the charters of corporate towns. The first interference of Parliament was in the time of George the 1st. But it was expressly stipulated in that first Act affecting the boroughs of England, that the Act should not make void any charter, or interfere with the privileges of any Corporation which had chartered rights. Throughout the whole reign of George the 2nd. there was no Act which went so far to interfere with corporate rights as the Act of George the 1st. In the reign of George the 3rd. three or four general Acts were passed upon the subject, not one of which, however, invaded any of the pre-existing rights or privileges of any corporate town. All of those Acts, in fact, were of a protecting nature. So that up to the present moment, with the exception of the Scotch Corporation Reform Act, which was passed two or three sessions ago, there was no precedent whatever for Parliamentary interference with the existing charters of municipalities. In the history of England there was no instance of a general Parliamentary interference in the charters of corporate towns until the Ministry of his present Majesty thought it necessary to bring forward their comprehensive and sweeping measure. Nay, he would go further, and say that from 1646 to 1660, there was but one instance of Parliamentary interference in the affairs of the chartered towns of Great Britain, notwithstanding the various forms of Government which severally obtained during that unfortunate period. The case which formed the exception was the isolated and solitary case of the city of Chester. What, then, was the conclusion which the House ought to form? Why that the noble Lord opposite, and the present Ministry, were attempting to do that which no other Government—not even the revolutionary Governments which intervened between the years 1646 and 1660—had ever ventured to do. If the noble Lord thought it necessary to take measures to correct what he deemed to be great and serious abuses in the management and conduct of corporate affairs, would it not have been better—would it not have been more prudent—would it not have been far wiser—and, above all, would it not have been infinitely more just—instead of introducing one vast and sweeping measure—carrying the principle of change into every corporate town in the kingdom—to have brought forward separate measures, embodying separate and different details, calculated to apply a remedy where a remedy was necdedi—to correct abuses where abuses existed—but not to break down rights and privileges which were originally granted for the common good, which for ages had continued to be exercised for the common good, and which in the present day, the common good demanded should be preserved? The noble Lord might have brought in a Bill, if he thought it necessary, to increase or to limit the number of Town-Councillors, and to regulate their election; he could have done so without an invasion of the rights of the freemen; but, for reasons best known to the noble Lord himself, he brought in this sweeping measure, attacking at once the chartered rights of towns, the prerogative of the Crown, and the privileges of freemen. New aldermen might be created, or their courts or their mode of election might be altered, so as to suit the spirit of the times; but could not this improvement take place without abolishing the chartered rights of the Aldermen? He was well aware that there was a disposition prevalent of late—and he had observed some symptoms of it even since the commencement of this discussion—to sneer at the rank of Alderman, as if it were unworthy of the ambition of any respectable individual; but he would assert that the rank of an Alderman in the City of London was equal to that of a Peer when out of the House of Lords, and the same might be said of the Aldermen of Bristol and other large cities. The noble Lord now proposed the spoliation and degradation of those dignities, which were as much the property and inheritance of those municipal communities, as were their titles of honour the property and inheritance of the Members of the House of Peers. As every Member would, no doubt, refer to his own city or borough, he would refer to that city which he had the honour to represent, and would say, that the Mayor of Bristol, by chartered right, took precedence of all but the King himself. He took, while in Bristol, precedence of all the judges, of all the Peers of the land, and even of the Heir-apparent to the Throne, if he happened to be in Bristol, and what was the House going to do? They were going to deprive that magistrate who was hitherto named in the commission of the Judges of Assize for the city of Bristol of even the power of acting as a county magistrate at the Quarter Sessions. The Mayor of Bristol need not he an Alderman, he might be elected by the Common-council. This Bill would take away those chartered rights, and, as far as Bristol was concerned, it took away those privileges which were the link of connexion between the various grades of the people of England. The state kept up by the Lord Mayor of London, and the Chief Magistrates of other cities and towns was not intended merely for their own individual benefit—it was intended to stimulate the humble apprentice, who might hope one day to arrive at similar honours by sedulous perseverance in honest industry. Why were all those wholesome stimulants to industry and laudable ambition to be at once removed? He was not aware that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had stated any reasons, or given any authority, for taking away the Court of Aldermen: now, he would beg to ask the noble Lord why it was he had assigned no reasons for this sweeping alteration? Would it be said that this measure was called for in the country, or that any excitement prevailed on the subject? There were not less than 246 Municipal Corporations attacked by this Bill, but there had been only sixty-six petitions presented in favour of it, while there were seventy-seven petitions against it. Now, if the measure were of that popular character which its advocates contended for, there could be no doubt that the Table of the House would have been covered with petitions in support of it. There had been no measure like this since the Reform Bill. He would not put even the Irish Church Bill in competition with it; for, though he admitted that Church property should be applied to Church uses, whatever its distribution within the Church might be, yet as long as the principle of Protestant ascendancy was safe, the question of the distribution of property within the Church was not of so much importance. The chances, therefore, which would be made by this Bill would, in his opinion, be much more dangerous than those of the Irish Church Bill. If this Bill, which destroyed so many of the privileges of the members of Municipal Corporations, were once passed into a law, the next fight they might have to make would be in defence of the privileges of the Peers. Let him ask too what would be the probable consequences which might be expected to ensue from the passing of this measure, which he could look upon in no other light than as a piece of republican legislation. One principle of the Bill would lead to the election of Magistrates by the people, and in time, to that of the officers of the militia, now appointed by the Crown, at the recommendation of the Lords-Lieutenants of counties; and we should in time see Magistrates in the degraded situation of soliciting the suffrages of those to whom they had to dispense justice. Another effect of this Bill would be, that those who supported it could not with any consistency, refuse to vote in favour of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill, which was yet to be introduced. On the precedent of this Bill they ought to pass the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill without discussion. Another effect of the Bill would be an invasion of the rights of the Universities to decide who should be admitted as members of their body. In what he said on this subject he begged to be understood as not being influenced by his connexion with the Corporation of Bristol. That body had no more patronage over one of the seats for Bristol, than any Peer in the four Western counties. A Member for Bristol was, as independent of the corporation as any Member for any city or borough in the kingdom. He would here beg to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Commissioners of corporation inquiry, as it related to the city of Bristol. The city of Bristol—at least the Chamber of Commerce of that city—complained of having been unfairly treated by the Report of the Commissioners. In order to put the House in possession of the facts, he would read the Report of the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of Bristol:—"The Local Taxation Committee having examined the Report presented to Parliament by the Commissioners of Municipal inquiry appointed for Bristol, feel it right to lay before the board some observations on that part of it which refers to the trade and commerce of the city, with a view to refute the prejudicial conclusions to which on this head the Commissioners have arrived. The part to which the Committee would more particularly invite attention will be found in pages 1208 and 1209, under the heads of 'Chamber of Commerce,' 'Port Charges,' and 'Trade.' The Commissioners, speaking of Bristol, use this observation,—'Far below her former station as the second port in the empire, she has now to sustain a mortifying competition with second-rate ports in her own channel; and towns, whose commercial prosperity once depended on the subordinate relations they were able to maintain with this city, seem to be now outstripping her in enterprise and activity. The Committee cannot find in the Report any authentic matter which justifies an expression so unqualified and so prejudicial to the character and interests of the city; on the contrary, all those returns of its trade inserted in the Report, which emanate from sources of authority, and are worthy of reliance, prove the very reverse of the fact asserted in the quotation. As regards the former rank of the port, she has, for half a century, given place to Liverpool, whose connexion with the vast manufacturing districts of the north has enabled her to acquire the superiority; but as the third in rank, Bristol still retains her place, and this is proved by the following Parliamentary Return of Customs' Duty collected in the year 1833, at the several ports named—viz., London, 8,692,945l.; Liverpool, 3,555,955l.; Bristol, 1,016,873l.; Hull, 592,161l.; Newcastle, 273,686l.; Glocester, 102,875l. As regards the observation that Bristol experiences a mortifying competition with second-rate ports in her own channel, and this principally on account of the Bristol port charges, it is equally at variance with the fact. The competition alluded to can point only to Glocester. In the year 1827, a canal for sixteen miles inland, and navigable for vessels of large burthen, was completed and opened; by these means Glocester was enabled to procure a large portion of her supplies by direct import, instead of the former means of trans-shipment and conveyance in barges up the Severn. The construction of the canal was intended to produce this result, and consequently Glocester has acquired a considerable trade in timber and corn, part of which she previously drew through the medium of Bristol, her nearest port. Her contiguity to the districts of the north gave her also in bulky and low-priced articles an additional advantage, as lying nearer than Bristol to the sources of demand. This Glocester trade, which Bristol enjoyed previously to the opening of the canal, arose from the circumstance of Glocester not possessing the facilities for direct import, and it must be considered, that when the facilities were acquired, the trade so passing into its new channel was the original and legitimate property of Glocester, which Bristol had neither the right nor power to control." In consequence of this Report (Sir R. Vyvyan continued) the Secretary to the Chamber of Commerce addressed the following Letter to Mr. Drinkwater and Mr. Grambier, two of the Commissioners:—

"Bristol Chamber of Commerce.

"Gentlemen,—

"It having recently transpired, that since your public sittings in this city as Commissioners of Municipal Inquiry, a communication has been made to you by Mr. H. Visger, on the subject of his evidence, given as a member of a deputation from the Chamber of Commerce, and which evidence comprised statements of tolls on merchandise, payable at Bristol as compared with other ports, I am, as secretary of the Chamber, directed by its committee on local taxation, to request you will have the kindness to inform them whether any such communication has reached you, and if so, that you will favour them with either a copy of the document and of any letter accompanying it, or with such other information as may enable the committee to ascertain the precise nature and extent of such communication, which, it is understood, has produced some alteration or correction of the statements or tables he had previously delivered as part of his evidence.

"The application now made arises from the circumstances that Mr. Visger had not authority from the Chamber for supplying to the Commissioners any supplementary evidence, and that he has declined to furnish a copy of what he did transmit, or of his correspondence on the subject; the next resort, therefore, is the Commissioners themselves. I am also directed to inform the Commissioners, that since their sittings in Bristol very extensive reductions have been made in the dock and other local dues, and that these reductions will materially alter the bearing of the evidence which was then given by Mr. Visger, and that if the Commissioners are yet open to receive any additional matter, the Local Taxation Committee would desire an opportunity of supplying it, in order that in any Report the Commissioners may deem it proper to make on the state and prospects of this city and port, the amount or comparative degree of charges should not be treated as exceeding the scale existing at the date of the Report, or period of its publication, or any matter of an unfavourable nature be inserted, which was then in course of correction, and has since been extensively remedied.

"I remain, &c,

"L. O. BIGG. Secretary.

"March 11, 1835.

"To J. E. Drinkwater, Esq.

"1, Garden-court, Inner Temple, London."

Now let the House judge of the fairness of Mr. Drinkwater's answer:—

"George-street, Westminster, March 21.

"Sir;—

"I owe some apology to the Bristol Chamber of Commerce, and to yourself, for having so long delayed to answer your letter addressed to Mr. Gambier and myself on the 11th instant. I wished to refer to the manner in which Mr. Visger's communication to us was noticed in our Bristol Report before replying to you, and I had not the immediate means of doing this. You are aware, perhaps, that Mr. Gambier left England for Penang some months ago, which which will explain why I answer a letter addressed to both of us. I conceive that your inquiry is substantially answered by my informing you that we have not noticed Mr. Visger's tables as having been furnished by the Chamber of Commerce, but have particularly specified that they Were compiled by an individual member of it (meaning Mr. Visger). After we left Bristol, Mr. Visger informed me personally that he had caused the tables he had furnished to us to be re-examined, and that in this re-examination some inaccuracies had been discovered which he wished to be allowed to correct. Mr. Gambier concurred with me in the propriety of admitting these amendments.

"We have noticed this circumstance in the following note, inserted in the Report.

"'After we left Bristol these tables were carefully re-examined, and some alterations were made in them, which, however, affect the general results very slightly. They have been forwarded to us, and are now printed in their amended form. A memorandum on the manner in which they were constructed was sent with them, from which the notes annexed to the first table have been extracted. The memorandum alluded to in this note appears to be the same which is printed in those tables in the reprint of the burgess-letters. I am speaking on this from memory, as I have not the burgess-letters by me. We extracted those parts only which serve to explain the construction of the tables, omitting every thing which appeared to be mere inference or comment. In making this communication through you to the Chamber of Commerce, I am breaking through a rule which we have adopted, of not making known any part of our Reports until they should be presented to the Crown. I hope, however, now that the interval which will elapse before the presentation is so short, that this letter will scarcely have reached you before it will have taken place. I should have had great pleasure in receiving the statements alluded, to in your letter, of the reduction of the dock and other local dues, if I could make use of them, but we found it necessary to limit our statements to the period of our inquiry in each place. If you should think it material, however, opportunities cannot fail to present themselves to the Chamber for publishing these reductions. I request that you will take an opportunity of mentioning to the Chamber of Commerce that I have entered into these explanations, not merely in deference to its important character, but also as wishing to embrace every opportunity of testifying my sense of the courtesy which my colleague and myself experienced at Bristol from the members of the Chamber, in common with all with whom we had to communicate in the discharge of our duty.

"I have the honour, &c,

"J. E. DRINKWATER.

"To L. O. Bigg, Esq. Secretary."

He had felt it but an act of justice to the Chamber of Commerce of Bristol, and to that city generally, to state these facts. On the general question he would contend, that as Bristol stood free from any imputation as to the application of its funds, he had a right to expect that it should be exempted from the operation of this Bill. In the number and extent of its charitable institutions it was second only to the metropolis, and there never had been any imputation as to the misapplication of any of those funds. Having made that statement, he might follow the example set by his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) in the case of the borough of Tamworth, and express a hope that Bristol might be exempted from the operation of the Bill. He feared, however, that such a demand on his part would not be attended with the same consequences as a somewhat similar demand made by a gentleman in the olden time, as recorded by Dean Swift. "Some hundred years ago," said the Dean, "when the Peers were so great that the Commons were looked upon as little better than serfs, a Bill was brought in for making some new addition to the power and privilege of the Peers. After it had passed through some of its preliminary stages, one Mr. Drew stood up, and said he very much approved of the Bill, and would give his vote to have it passed. But, however, for some reason best known to himself, he desired that a Clause might be introduced excepting the family of the Drews. This opened the eyes of the rest, and consequently the Bill was thown out." He feared that his claiming an exemption for Bristol would not be attended by the same consequence. He would shortly sum up his reasons for protesting against the Bill. First, it attacked the prerogatives of the Crown in a way in which the prerogatives of the Crown had never been attacked before. Secondly, it attacked the privileges of persons in the highest and lowest positions in every municipality in the country, and thereby it would furnish a precedent for an alteration in the appointment of magistrates and of militia officers, and of the right of admission to the Universities. The preservation of these corporations was intimately interwoven with the security of the Constitution. They were respected by the Protector Cromwell. One of the charges against James 2nd was, that he had attempted to invade these privileges; and one of the first determinations of the Parliament of 1688 was, that the rights of all chartered boroughs should be restored and respected. He, therefore, once more put it to the House whether if this were the case, it would rashly sweep away the whole of those rights which at the time of the Revolution were deemed so sacred, and substitute in their place a perfectly new and perfectly theoretical system of municipal government? He strongly objected also to the motive of this measure. The King might, it was true, have the power to dispose of these charters if he pleased, but it would have been better if such a measure had emanated from Parliament than from a Prince of the House of Brunswick. It would have been better if his Ministers had placed him in a position with regard to his people, more like that of William the 3rd, who obtained the throne of these kingdoms by his attachment to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, which his predecessor had violated. It was dangerous to furnish precedents for paltering with the people's liberties, however specious might be the arguments advanced in their support. The time might come when such precedents might be carried out to an extent subversive of the monarchy itself; and the extreme of the most ultra principles established on its ruins. It would be well to look to the origin of the term ultra. It took its rise in the first French revolution, when the ultra-montane party attained the ascendancy. On the restoration, Louis gave the French a charter. That charter was objected to by the emigrants, and such perons as were blind to the signs pf the times, and who thought they could bring back France into the position in which she was before 1789. An experiment to effect this was tried in 1830 and failed, Charles the 10th became an exile, and those who made the experiment lost their power. But could any man compare the position of the present powers in France with that of those who espoused conservative principles in England? We have an hereditary monarchy, we have an hereditary aristocracy, and we have as yet these municipal institutions which the Government, indeed, were about to invade, but which we say are in accordance with the spirit of the British Constitution. If not, then so far as they were not, he and those who adhered to Conservative principles were willing to conform those institutions with that spirit. Having given the political franchise to persons in towns and boroughs possessing a 10l. a-year qualification, he admitted it would be only just that the municipal franchise should also be given to them. He agreed also that the system of self-election was one which was not in harmony with the feeling of the age; and provided the rights of the magistrates were respected, he was willing to assent to new charters being granted, which would take away the power of self-election from any small corporate bodies. But he would not agree to sacrifice the rights of his fellow citizens—rights which had been maintained through the many revolutions that had marked the history of this kingdom, and which he believed to be rights as sacred as those of any individual in the State, be his rank what it might. Having taken this opportunity (circumstances having prevented him from doing so at an earlier period) of explaining the reasons fully which induced him to vote against this measure, he begged to say it was not his intention to divide the House on the third reading. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring up the petition from Bristol.

said, that as the hon. Baronet had declared that it was not his intention to go to a division on the third reading, it was not necessary for him (Lord John Russell) to occupy the time of the House with an answer to the speech made by the hon. Baronet. Besides, he had already at such considerable length stated his opinion both on the general principle and the details of the Bill, that it was quite unnecessary for him to address the House any further on the subject. He would merely say, that he had no doubt the hon. Baronet did wisely in not dividing the House on the third reading. The reason why he had come to that determination, no doubt, was because he had found that the general sense of the House and of all parties in it, was in favour of the provisions of the Bill, and that if the hon. Baronet had proceeded to a division he would have had but little chance of mustering a very large number of supporters. He took it for granted, after the very strong statement, and after the severe denunciation which the hon. Baronet had made against this Bill—as being a measure of the most revolutionary tendency—as amounting in effect to spoliation of the rights of property—and as adopting the most republican principles—after all these invectives and strong protestations against the Bill, he had no doubt that the hon. Baronet would have thought it his duty to divide the House against it if it had not been tolerably certain that such a division would have shown that the principles and general provisions of the Bill did meet with the concurrence, and were in accordance with the sentiments of the great majority of the House: and that that majority were of opinion that the Bill was at this time called for by the general voice of the country, and that it was due to the spirit of the age, and even in justice towards these corporations themselves, that such a Bill should become the law of the land. He took, therefore, the protest of the hon. Baronet coupled with his declaration that he would not divide the House, as one of the strongest admissions of the goodness and the policy of this measure. If he wanted further proof of the soundness of this Bill he should find it in the fact that a petition had been presented from the city of Coventry, of an entirely opposite nature from the one now presented by the hon. Baronet from that city, and the petition he alluded to was signed by 2,600 householders and freemen, praying that, with the exception of one particular part of the Bill relating to apprenticeships, the House would pass the Bill. Therefore, whether they were guided by the general consent of this House, or whether by the expressed opinions of parties out of doors, or even by the opinions of persons mostly affected by the Bill, they had reason to concluder that this measure was in general accord- ance with what was required at this time for the reform of great defects in our present municipal institutions, and for the establishment of a system of good municipal government in the several towns of England and Wales. He recollected to have seen in print the advice of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, given with his usual discretion, to that party to which he belonged, and in which he called upon them not to expect that any other place than this House could be, or even ought to be looked to as the scene where great public affairs were to be decided upon; and that the opinions of this House alone must be studied as the index to the opinions of the people of this country. In that statement, he entirely concurred. He was persuaded that in the approval of of any measure openly expressed either by a great majority of this House, and acquiesced in by the silent forbearance of those who in general differed from that majority, would be found the expression of an opinion in coincidence with the general opinion of a very great portion of the enlightened population of the empire.

observed, that the noble Lord had mistaken the object of the hon. Baronet in not dividing the House. The reason why the hon. Baronet abstained from that, was, the little chance the hon. Baronet had of succeeding. He believed the noble Lord had likewise misapprehended what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Tamworth, in supposing him to have said that that House was the only place to which they could look for the full expression of public feeling on all great matters of national importance. He apprehended, that at the next registration throughout the country, the democratical party would not receive that support which they anticipated, but that the monarchical and aristocratical principles would gain an accession of strength throughout the country generally. He would say, without fear of contradiction, that if this Bill, instead of destroying all corporations, had only gone the length of destroying the Corporation of Bristol, which was so ably represented by his hon Friend near him, (Sir R. Vyvyan), the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) would not himself have been satisfied with the evidence now upon the Table of the House, and upon which this measure was based as a sufficient justification of it, and yet upon that evidence were all Corporations to be de- stroyed. Nay, he believed no private Bill, affecting still less interests, would have passed a Committee to whom it might be referred, if supported by evidence such as that upon which this great and important measure, this Bill of Pains and Penalties against all Corporations, was based. It seemed therefore, that the evidence which in each separate case would be insufficient to justify the destruction of any one Corporation was proved sufficient when heaped together to justify the destruction of the whole. If the hon. Members opposite would be candid, they would admit, at least the majority of them would admit, that they had not read the evidence, even such as it was; with perfect candour he would himself admit that he had not read it; and he believed it to have been impossible for any man to have done so during the time that the Bill had been in progress. Therefore the House had legislated upon this subject he would not say against evidence, but without evidence. They had legislated against all Corporations en masse in a manner in which they would have refused to assault any single corporate body. This Bill would create a bad precedent; the mode of proceeding with it was contrary to every principle hitherto adopted, and the Bill itself was contrary to every principle of the measure introduced by a late colleague of the noble Lord—an individual not less gifted than those who now formed the Ministry (he meant Lord Brougham) two or three years ago. The Bill of that noble and learned Lord had recognized the principle of qualification, and had left it open to all towns to accept the measure if they should so think fit. How far he (Sir Robert Inglis) might think Corporation Reform ought to go, it was not necessary for him now to state, but on general principles he held that the safest and the best course to have pursued would have been to confer powers, leaving it to those most affected and interested in the matter—namely, the inhabitants of all cities and boroughs—to say what reforms they themselves required, and that, instead of compelling them to accept the general measure, suggested by third parties, to have left it to the choice of the majority. That go effects would have resulted from such a course might be predicted after the example afforded in the instance of all the Church reforms which had been effected during the last few years, which had not only been voluntary but efficient reforms. This measure was, however, to be forced upon every corporate town, even though its inhabitants had expressed neither a desire nor a want of alteration, or, as some might say, improvement; without any wish expressed by them upon the subject, every Corporation was to be fitted and fashioned to the pattern prepared by his Majesty's Government. Whether it might be the well-administered and governed Borough of Tamworth, or the worst regulated Borough complained of in the Commissioners' Reports—whether the election of its officers was popular, or whether such election was close, and the electors self-constituted,—whatever might be the circumstances, on a given day, at the tolling of a given bell, all existing Corporations were to die, and to be succeeded by new bodies. This course was inconsistent with all proceedings past, with the history of the country, and with reason. He repeated that which he had stated on the second reading of the Bill—namely, his entire and absolute objection to the principle of the Bill, but he should not press his opposition so far as to divide the House, merely because he was aware it would not practically be crowned with success, and therefore he should not be justified in such a course. In conclusion, he repeated, that he entertained entire, absolute, and unalterable objections to this Bill.

It is amusing to see with what a small mite of approbation the noble Lord is satisfied; the able and eloquent denunciations of the hon. Baronet against the whole principle of this Bill, and the solitary petition in its favour from Coventry are regarded by the noble Lord with complacency, as indicative of a general approval of this measure I do assure the noble Lord, that the great majority of my constituents detest this whole Bill as much as I do, because it is grossly unjust in depriving the freemen of the rights and liberties derived from their forefathers, and will therefore never command the respect or conciliate the affections of any of the freemen of England. The right to elect their chief Magistrate, and to elect representatives in the great Council of the nation, has been enjoyed by the freemen as a chartered right ever since the reign of Athelstan, and has been confirmed by succeeding Kings for many centuries, and now stands upon the same foundation as the right of every Peer and Peer's son in this kingdom. What public benefit does the noble Lord promise to himself from this spoliation, this violation, this abandonment of his own Bill of Reform? He must repudiate, as the freemen do, the bitter insults which have been added to this meditated injustice. He must know, they have done nothing to justify this general punishment. The flagrant cases of Stafford and Liverpool may fairly call for some mark of national displeasure, but there are many other cities and boroughs where the elective franchise has not been abused, and amongst those that have deserved well I claim a prominent place for the City I have the honour to represent. I make this claim, not upon my own opinion only, but upon that of my late noble colleague, the Earl of Darnley, who constantly concurred with me in doing justice to the fidelity of the lower classes of our freemen whatever might be their political feelings. From a sincere conviction of the great injustice done to them in this Bill, I should feel it my duty to propose the Clause of which I have given notice in protection of their rights. I have, however, divided it into two parts; the one preserving the rights of all persons to vote for a Member of Parliament, who have been admitted as citizens, freemen, or burgesses before the passing of this Act; the other Clause continuing the same right to the sons and apprentices of freemen.

said, that he could not permit the Bill to go to a third reading without entering his protest against the injustice of the enactments. The Corporation of the town and port which he represented were free from charge or imputation; and it was only because they, in common with those of Liverpool, of Bristol, of Leicester, and others, had stood forward in defence of the institutions under which the nation had prospered and flourished, that they were now thus generally attacked. He must, however, content himself with protesting against the Bill, and thus recording his disapprobation of its provisions.

had supported the second reading of the Bill, and felt bound by its principle, understanding, as he had done, that principle to be the abrogation of the system of self-election, and the substitution of an open and liberal system of election. Beyond this principle he was not bound, nor did he feel disposed to go. To but very few of the Clauses contained in the present Bill could he give his honest advocacy; at this time, however, he would not detain the House by an enumeration of the points to which he objected; but he thought the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) need only look back to the various important divisions which had taken place in Committee on the Bill, in which strong opinions had been expressed against not less than eight or ten of its most material provisions (opinions which had been supported by large, and he trusted he might add, by respectable minorities), to be convinced in his own mind that he ought to make a large deduction from the estimate of the general approbation of this Bill, before he spoke of that approbation in those terms of confidence which the noble Lord had recently addressed to the House. He (Mr. Gladstone) could not approve of the frequency of elections which must occur under the Bill. He could not approve of the restriction which it imposed upon the prerogative of the Crown. He could not approve the extension of the power of licensing public-houses to individuals who were to be subjected to popular election. On all these grounds, with many others with which he would not trouble the House, he could not honestly give his support to the measure as it now stood.

said, that he had gone into the Committee on this Bill in the sincere hope that the rights of freemen would be respected, and that a distinction would be made in the extension of constituencies between towns of large and towns of small population; but that since none of these amendments had been adopted, and on the contrary that all had been most studiously rejected from the Measure, he felt himself compelled to revert to his original objection to the Measure, and to declare that the Bill was neither more nor less than an attempt to transfer the powers possessed by corporate bodies from the hands of one party to another, and not designed with a view to effect reform in the corporate bodies themselves. He would endeavour to comprise his objections to this Bill in a very few words. His first objection was, he thought, of itself sufficient to justify the rejection of the Bill—that objection was, that the provisions of the Bill were unjust. What, he begged to inquire, could be more unjust than by a general enactment to deprive all corporate officers of their franchise, and all freemen of the best part of those rights and privileges which had hitherto been held sacred by law—indeed so sacred that it required a particular process sanctioned by law to deprive them of those rights upon proof of misconduct? Even supposing the course now taken was correct, where, he begged to ask, was to be found this proof of general misconduct? This Bill would form a very bad precedent for future practice, and he thought its success would lead to the encouragement of all persons dissatisfied with, and disloyal to, the institutions of the country, to make further attacks upon bodies hitherto privileged, and whose rights rested upon nearly the same basis and foundation as those of the freemen thus destroyed. He held this Bill to be inconsistent with the true spirit of British liberty. Why did he say this? It had been remarked, that the principal cause of the superior degree of liberty which this country enjoyed over the continental states whose feudal system was originally nearly the same as those of England, might be traced to the fact, that the landed proprietors of this country had been awarded a considerable influence over the population of towns, from which it was considered more safe to increase the political influence of towns in which, for the most part, the landed proprietors were resident, and thus the landed interest maintained a considerable influence over the town populations. This Bill, however, altered this course of policy most entirely. By this Bill, the Legislature was about to establish in every town a pure and unmixed republican government, to abolish the aristocratic principle, and in short to interfere with monarchical authority. The Bill would afford a considerable increase to the democratic force already existing in this country, a force which he conceived every reasonable person would admit was already at least sufficient. There was further, another reason which seemed to him to press much against this Measure. In the course of the discussions which had been entered into upon it, it was somewhat singular that the Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into Corporations (reports collected with great labour) had been so little referred to, even in support of its principles, that the public scarcely knew at the present moment that they contained any informa- tion at all. In short, so little reference had been made to those Reports, that even without them the same rigorous and uniform rule might as justly be applied to all Corporations in the kingdom. No pains had been shown by the Legislature in examining into the constitutions of the numerous Corporations with which in this Bill they dealt—they had manifested no adoption of means for ascertaining their defects, and having ascertained them, in devising a separate remedy. If the Legislature and the Government had contemplated a real reform, they would have proceeded in a very different manner. The great Corporations should have been considered by themselves, and dealt with in a separate Bill. The smaller Corporations ought to have been classed according to the analogy of the circumstances under which they were placed. If this Bill had not been intended for political objects, why not have given to large towns a more aristocratic species of government, to have constituted the Magistrates for life,—why not have declared something like a guide as to the course of the proposed popular elections? He would further inquire on what grounds could be justified the placing of power in the hands of such persons as the mob which lately in the midst of a large Protestant population (not in a distant Irish county, but in the very heart, he would say, of this country), had on a day of popular excitement, broken prisons and destroyed the dwelling-houses of peaceable portions of the community of which themselves formed part? Was this the class of persons to form a constituency for the election of Officers and Justices? He believed, though he should rejoice to find himself mistaken, that the present Bill would be the means of introducing the greatest confusion into large towns, and that eventually the Legislature would have imposed upon it the difficult task of amending their corporate constitutions. For these and other reasons with which he would not trouble the House, he could not assent to this Bill. [Cheers.] Notwithstanding those cheers from hon. Members opposite, he felt that he owed no acknowledgment to them for having occupied their attention thus shortly, for when they had put out and extinguished completely the existing Corporations, it was only fair they should listen to the last lamentations of those bodies. He repeated, that this Measure was not designed as a Reform of Municipal Corporations, but as a means to answer a particular party purpose. To their credit be it spoken, the Corporations of England had generally returned Conservative Members, the Corporations had rallied round those who were attached to the institutions of the country, and hence it was that they were to be destroyed. He maintained (and he spoke it with all courteousness, and meant no offence when he said it) that a Government which contemplated ruling by law and justice, and honestly, by the King and the institutions of the country, would never have proposed such a Bill as that now under consideration. He intended nothing uncourteous to the Government, but he was willing to suppose that they were mistaken in the course they had adopted—that they saw no danger likely to ensue from that course. He trusted, that he was himself mistaken; but, at present, he saw from this measure danger to the Monarchy, danger to the Aristocracy, and danger to the peace and tranquillity of the country. If the Legislature desired prosperity to the people, honour secured to the Monarch, and safety to the institutions, it should cut this Bill into parts. If the Legislature was, on the other hand, determined to put all these interests at hazard they could not do better than at once pass this Bill.

declared himself opposed to the principle of a measure which, like the present, was, as it appeared to him, neither more nor less than naked and undisguised tyranny. He said thus much because this Bill deprived the people of England of rights which they had exercised from time immemorial, for no better reason than because this House had declared it had the power to take them away. No better reason than this had been advanced on the other side during all the discussions which had ensued in various stages of the Bill. On what was the measure founded, too? On the Reports of the Commissioners? Why the House was called upon to destroy those Corporations before the Reports, affecting many of them, were laid upon the Table. At the very moment at which he was speaking, the Report of the Commissioners relative to the Corporation of London, the most important city in the world, was not before the House. He had just heard it remarked, that the Bill did not touch the Corporation of London. He would ask the noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen opposite, why it did not? Was there no occult reason for its not being affected—was there nothing under ground? He had presented, on a former occasion, from the borough he had the honour to represent, a petition against the Bill. That petition, which was signed by the inhabitants of the borough, and not by members of the Corporation, prayed that it might pass into a law as soon as, and no sooner, than the majority of the inhabitants in the different boroughs which it proposed to interfere with, should petition the House to that effect. He would rest the issue on this result; he was content that the provisions of the Bill, un-mutilated and unimpaired, should extend to every single place where the majority of the inhabitants signed a petition to the House in favour of its being passed into a law. Not only were they called upon to pass the Bill without sufficient evidence—not only were they called upon to pass it without any such test of public opinion as that to which he had just adverted—but several measures of liberal policy, which were in the contemplation of the preceding Government, were postponed, in order that this all-important, but unsubstantiated, Bill might pass into a law. It was stated in the Report, that in the year 1826, when there was a general election, fifty freemen were made, and that in the year 1830, when there was also a general election, thirty-six freemen were made, whilst in the intermediate years, 1827, 1828, and 1829, there was but one freeman each year admitted. Now, this was stated in a tabular shape in the Report, in order to convey an impression that freemen admitted in the years 1826 and 1830 were created solely for political purposes. Now, what was the fact? All the freemen who were admitted in those two years had served a previous apprenticeship, and there was only one in each year admitted by election. Did not such a fact go a long way to create an impression the very contrary of that which the Commissioners, in their Report, had endeavoured to create in the minds of those who read it? He would have supported the Bill had it been likely to produce a better administration either of local charities or of local justice; but he could not support it as it stood at present, because he looked upon it as an unjust innovation, which could not lead to any practical good what- soever. The hon. Member addressed the House for some time longer, but amidst so much uproar as prevented us from hearing any but detached and unconnected sentences of his speech.

reminded the House, that they were now debating the principle of the Bill on the presentation of a petition. Perhaps the shorter way would be to present the petition, and then debate the principle of the Bill on his Motion, that it be now read a third time. The petition was laid on the Table, and the Order of the Day was read "that the Bill be now read a third time."

could not resist the opportunity thus offered him of troubling the House with a few observations. He was aware that it was too late to dispute the principle of the Bill, but he hoped the House would bear with him for a short time. If he could have conceived that the party with whom he had the honour of acting would have obtained nothing more by concession than the immaterial alterations which the Committee had made in the Bill during its progress, through the House, he for one would never have acceded to the second reading of it. For what had they obtained by giving way to the noble Lord on the second reading? Nothing, or next to nothing—for all the propositions which had been made on that side of the House, whether they emanated from the right hon. the Member for Tamworth, or from the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had been regularly negatived. It was too late now, he was afraid, to dispute the principle of the Bill, but they might ask what it was. When the noble Lord, the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth) moved an Amendment upon the Address of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, he did so on the ground that his Majesty's Ministers in that Address announced no intention of placing the Corporations under popular control. If the principle of the Bill was founded on the necessity of creating a vigilant popular control over all Municipal institutions, he would ask hon. Members to look at the Report, and see whether they could extract from its pages any reasons for making such a principle the basis of the present Measure? It was a singular circumstance that the only borough mentioned in the Report as being a borough in which the Corporation was prompted by popular feeling was the borough of Plymouth. That borough, which, in page 595, is quoted as an example of the utility of popular control over Local Corporations, is in the very next page condemned as affording an example of the most profligate expenditure of Corporate Funds. The Report says—"The constitution and character of the Corporation of Plymouth are very superior to those of other Municipal bodies in the west of England. It affords the only instance that occurred to us in the course of our inquiries of a Corporation framed and acting upon popula principles. Not only are the Mayor and Aldermen elected by the Commonalty, but the management of all the Corporate affairs has, in fact, since the year 1803, been in the hands of the freemen at large. This power has been exercised by them with much prudence and discretion, by the appointment of a Committee of twenty-one of their number, by whom all the business of the Corporation is conducted. This body, dividing itself into sub-Committees, appears to form an excellent Board of Management, and to conduct the affairs of the Corporation with diligence, zeal, and integrity." And yet, after all this, it is stated in the very same page, "that the Corporation was in considerable pecuniary difficulties, and that one consequence of the difficulties into which this unfortunate expenditure of their revenue plunged the Corporation was that it compelled them to make sale of the next presentation to two of their churches, and to apply the proceeds towards the reduction of the debt which they had incurred. No part of this money was expended upon the churches themselves, which required repairs, and it consequently became necessary to impose a Church-rate, a measure of course very unpopular amongst the inhabitants. It seems also to have been the opinion of many persons that the sale of the next presentation was in itself, and without reference to the application of the monies arising from it, an improper act on the part of the Corporation; that they stood in the situation of trustees for the public, charged with the duty of providing the churches with proper ministers, and that it was a breach of that duty in them to transfer the right to others." The Report concluded with this statement:—"We have not visited any Corporation in the west of England so well managed in all respects as the Corporation of Plymouth, which we attribute to the efficient control exercised by the public over the elections of Members of that body, and to the publicity which is given to all their proceedings." Such was the contradictory description of the borough of Plymouth given by the Commissioners. Another objection which he had to the Report of the Commissioners was, that it contained no digest of the evidence which they had taken, but that it amalgamated in one confused mass all that they had heard from every quarter. For instance, statements of the most extraordinary character were made respecting the freemen of the borough which he had the honour to represent. It was said, that "the respectable and instructed portion of the freemen of Oxford studiously absented themselves from the elections, and that, although there was a body of more than 1,400 resident freemen, the annual vacancies of Corporation Offices were generally filled up by the votes of less than 500 persons, the most indigent, illiterate, and worthless inhabitants of the city." Now, he thought that this extract proved, not that the majority of the freemen were worthless, but that the majority of them stood aloof from, and far above, the reach of corruption. Ought, then, the rights, the long established rights of these freemen, to be sacrificed on the mere Report of a Commission of which the legality had been questioned by some of the highest law authorities in the country? He confessed that he had heard with no less surprise than sorrow the abuse which his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, had recently poured forth against the freemen of England. He had no occasion to explain the reasons which had induced him to say that he had heard that abuse with sorrow; but the House would understand the reasons which had induced him to say that he had heard it with surprise when he reminded them, that during the discussions on the Reform Bill his hon. and learned Friend was so convinced of the excellence and incorruptibility of the freemen of Stafford, that he had proposed to introduce a special Clause into it for the purpose of preventing the disfranchisement of the non-resident freemen of that borough. He was of opinion that that proposition did his hon. and learned Friend credit, for as his hon. and learned Friend's constituents of Stafford were then supposed to be uncorrupted and incorruptible, as there was no document on the Table of the House to prove that they had been paid 2l. and 3l. each for their votes, he honoured his hon. and learned Friend for stating that it was not fitting that such honest and honourable men should have their franchises vitally affected by the Reform Bill. With that Clause fresh in his recollection, would his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, persist in calling them "the eye-sore of the constitution"—"the refuse of the constituency"—"men who passed their days in gaol," and other names of the same complimentary character? He would not detain the House any longer; he thanked it for the indulgence with which it had already listened to him, and perhaps it would permit him to add, that he should not have been so warm as he had been had he not seen in certain quarters a strong disinclination to treat vested rights with proper caution. He had the satisfaction of knowing that, acting as he then did, he was acting in common with the majority of the representatives of England, who respected the rights which were handed down to the present generation by their forefathers, and were willing to stand by the constitution without seeking those innovations which must lead it to a premature grave.

would not trouble the House with discussing the principle of the Bill; but he must take leave to regard it as a measure which enjoyed the remarkable and unenviable distinction of being the only measure which the present Administration had framed and hoped to carry through during this Session. The Ministry had postponed the Irish Tithe Bill to a late and impracticable period of the Session, and by bringing forward the Corporation Bill at the expense of more important measures had placed the country in a false position. The haste with which this Corporation Bill had been pressed forward was remarkable, whether they regarded the postponement of more important measures, or the different and more cautious procedure which would have been adopted had this been a mere local Bill, either for making some change in the administration of justice, or altering the constitution of a Paving and Lighting Board. In such a case the Bill would have been referred to a Committee—there would have been several sittings—the requisite evidence would have been de- manded, and the agents of parties interested in the Bill, together with Counsel, would have been in attendance. But in this important measure, which had reference to 191 Local Bills, no such steps were adopted, no such evidence was required, and the House proceeded to legislate without giving notice to the parties most nearly interested that such was their intention, or even giving time to hon. Members to consult with their constituents upon the measure as it respectively affected them. Let them suppose an Administration coming into office at Easter, 1835, having for their object, not at all the continuation of their own tenure of place, but, primarily and above all other things, the benefit of the country at large; and, on such a supposition, let hon. Members see what course they would have been likely to take on the subject of Corporation Reform. In the first place, prudent Ministers would have possessed themselves of all the attainable information, before they began to legislate at all. Then they would have waited, not only for all the opinions of the reporting Commissioners, but for all the evidence upon which those opinions were founded, before they proceeded to frame their Bill. Having framed the Bill—which, however useful in its general object, must needs be obnoxious, nevertheless, in many of its enactments—to the title of a Bill of Pains and Penalties—privilegium odiosum, as the Roman lawyers used to say—the just and cautious Ministers he had supposed would, perhaps, have thought it fair to print such a Bill for circulation among the corporators and other inhabitants of the towns; and, next, to avoid all danger of involving individual injustice in a measure alleged to be of so great and general utility, they would have allowed a reasonable time to the various parties who might have sought to be heard by petition, or otherwise, against their own disfranchisement, and to suggest reasons against particular enactments or modifications of them for the saving or compensating of particular rights. If, during all the time while this measure was in preparation, there had been other very urgent demands on the attention of Parliament—if a step had just before been taken, never mind by whom, alienating the property of the Church, diminishing the aggregate fund for Protestant instruction, and, thereby, also, unsettling the minds and rousing the apprehensions of all those who think there are higher considerations than the settlement of jealousies between Burgesses and townsmen, or even the procurement of radical majorities for the Cabinet of the hour—that Ministry whom my hypothesis has invested, for the argument's sake, with the attributes of political wisdom and integrity, would have seen, in this uneasy condition of the public mind, a further reason for caution, and for moderate, not protracted delay. If, in addition to all these arguments against hurry, the whole kingdom of Ireland were in such a state, that the Tithe Question had come to an issue of force—that the Clergy were for two or three years unpaid, and reduced to depend, for existence, on the alms of their Christian brethren—that the people of England were taxed a million sterling, to make good the deficiencies of Irish payments—that the Cabinet had no better security for the peace of Ireland during the ensuing winter, than the forbearance of the leaders, for whose coercion they but two years since required powers unknown to the British Constitution—in such a state of things a wise and honest Ministry would be anxious for nothing so much as the settlement of the question of Irish Tithe; that, whether connected or unconnected with its recent adjunct of Church spoliation, that great question of Irish Tithe would require and receive their earliest and their most active consideration, in preference to the reform of the hungriest corporation that ever bartered a vote for a dinner. Let the House, however, suppose a Ministry to have come in, actuated, beyond all other motives, by a desire to strengthen themselves in power. With such a feeling, how would such a Ministry have been likely to act upon the subject of Corporation Reform, in comparison and relation to the other great subjects of the time? The various great reforms which they may have said were in their desks, all drawn and drafted into Bills, and ready for legislation, they would, of course, lay by. Nobody would know better than themselves, how well all those matters could afford to wait; and being quite ready, not only cut but dried, they could be brought forward at any time on a moment's warning. Never mind those—never mind Ireland—all that may be passed by; something, however, must straightway be done to help such Ministers in the House of Commons. The infatuated people had returned an alarming proportion of Con- servatives, and, with other gentlemen of constitutional principles, make a minority so large, that it wants less than a score of recruits from the other side to make it a majority. This was an inconvenient state of things for a Government. The thing to be done for diverting the public mind was, to get up a good cry; and nothing, in that way, was more likely to succeed, than a cry for the Reform of Corporations—Corporations were, more or less, Conservative, and a cry against Corporations was, therefore, pro tanto, a cry against Conservatives. If that should prosper, when the Session was over it might be safe to venture a dissolution. Therefore, by all means, a Corporation Reform would be the earliest measure proposed by such a Ministry. The first two months, from the beginning of April to the beginning of June, might be tided over without doing anything. The Tories would be likely to stand by the Corporations; that would remit them to their old unpopularity among the multitude; and should such a Ministry, if composed of Whigs and supported by Radicals, manage tolerably well, the Corporation Reform Bill would bring them an addition of fifty-eight votes at the next election. Such were the reasons which might be urged by some crafty Member of such a Cabinet; such were the reasons which, with such a Ministry, I could conceive to prevail, for giving to a new Corporation Reform Bill, read for the first time on the 5th of June, priority over all the other commenced and uncompleted business of the country. But, whatever might be the reasons which would induce an unconscientious Government to hurry a mischievous and suspicious course, he was at a loss to discern the principle on which this policy of precipitation was adopted by the present Cabinet—to whom he was bound to ascribe the most upright, if not always the wisest, designs. They never before had evinced any symptoms of haste about Corporate Reform. They came into office in November, 1830, and they waited till July, 1833—two years and three quarters—before they even took their first step, by issuing their Commission for inquiry into the long-alleged abuses of the Corporations. After so long a period of delay, why did they now display such haste and anxiety? The late Ministry was obliged to quit office in consequence of the reception given to the Irish Tithe Bill, which was then considered the most urgent and pressing measure, notwithstanding which the settlement of that question had been postponed, and nothing was done in it till this late period of the Session. Did the urgency of this and other measures depend solely upon the circumstance of who were in or out of office? Would it be pretended that the tranquil state of Ireland rendered it unnecessary to press forward a settlement of the Tithe question? If so, why did not the noble Lord repeal the Coercion Bill? If, on the contrary, Ireland, though not actually in a blaze of rebellion, was much too unquiet to be left to the operation of the ordinary law, how happened it that a measure which was declared to present the only chance of pacifying that country, and affording permanent satisfaction—how happened it that such a measure was postponed? The Irish Tithe Bill was not postponed because Ministers were divided in opinion upon the subject, nor because they were unprepared to take it up, nor because they awaited the Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction; but because, for some inscrutable reasons, the Government thought it better to destroy the Tories in the cities and boroughs of England, than to redress what their friends had so long proclaimed to be the greatest grievance of the Irish people. If there were not time for both measures in the present Session, it appeared to him that England could have better afforded to wait than Ireland, and all he would add was, that if in the ensuing winter there should be an outbreak of popular discontent in Ireland, on Ministers and their supporters be the responsibility.

thought that as he represented a considerable body of freemen, as pure as any in the kingdom, it was his duty to come forward, and defend them from the unjust aspersions that had been cast upon them by the hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. If ever there was a time to express his indignation at such unfair aspersions it was the present. The attacks that had been made upon the freemen were the most unjust that had ever been levelled against any body of men. When he saw the numerical strength that the other side of the House possessed such attacks were, to say the least of them, highly disreputable.

said in opposing the Bill he was influenced only by a sense of duty, and he called upon the House to oppose an Act that was so unjust towards the freemen of England. It might not be allowed to pass into a law, as it contained principles at variance with those of the constitution of the country. It condemned a great number of persons unheard and without a fair trial, merely on the Report of a few Commissioners. It debased them from the situation they held, and it raised up other persons, who would believe that the measure was the triumph of one party over another. It was stated by a celebrated foreigner, in speaking of the High Court of Parliament, that the higher they were, the more cautious they should be in doing the slightest injustice to any one. He called upon that House then to be cautious how they sanctioned a measure that was an act of injustice to a very large body of men. It was notorious that the Corporation Commissioners, at least the greater part of them, were averse to the Corporations, and that no charges, notwithstanding, were brought by them against many Corporations. It was not fair on the part of the Government to legislate on the reports of such persons. He considered, and he had the authority of one of the first lawyers in the country for so doing, that there was an old law in existence which was strong enough to correct all the abuses that had crept into the Corporations. What was the necessity, then, for the present Bill? He would ask was it fair, that all the Corporations should be visited with the sins of the few? The Commission was an unfair one, and partially composed. The opinions of the hon. Member for Middlesex were well known respecting the clerical magistracy of the country, and that he would vote for having them all turned out of the commission of the peace. Now, supposing that there was a Committee of Inquiry instituted as to the clerical magistracy, would the hon. Member for Middlesex be allowed to be a member of it? Certainly not. Why, then should men, whose opinions were notoriously averse to Corporations be allowed to form a part of a Commission of Inquiry respecting them? One of the Commissioners, who was a Tory, was turned out of the Commission, and refused his pay solely on the ground that he was too much of a Tory. But would the Bill remedy the defects of the Corporations? It had been well said by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and he fully agreed with the right hon. Baronet's opinion, that those who concocted the Bill would be the first to feel its effects, to detest it, and to wish it had never been passed. The Bill, he contended, was at variance with every principle of the Constitution—at variance with all justice; it would not meet the evils it was proposed to remedy, and it would spread confusion throughout the country. The hon. Member concluded by emphatically objecting to the Bill, chiefly on the ground that it proceeded on a principle totally unknown to the Constitution of the country.

lamented, that with the exception of a few words from the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, they had heard nothing from Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House on the present occasion. It was not a bare majority that would satisfy the country on this subject—people looked for argument. He had always felt, that on a great question, such as this, the mere fact of representing a large body of freemen was a narrow ground on which to found a speech—it was on the general principle of the measure that he wished to address the House. He objected to the course taken by the noble Lord, who, after having agreed to preserve the political rights of freemen, with a view to facilitate the passing of the Reform Bill, now came forward, and by a side blow destroyed those privileges. If the noble Lord had stated openly the right of freemen were to be abolished, however he might differ from the noble Lord as to the policy or practice of the proceeding, he would have admitted his manliness; but when he saw the freemen allowed to exercise their privileges temporarily for the purpose of smoothing down opposition, he felt obliged to say that he thought the noble Lord did not adhere to sound principles of policy or fair dealing. He always understood the Reform Bill to be a final arrangement—it was so represented by its advocates, and "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," was a watchword that rang through the country. Now, however, they found the noble Lord, who had wrapped up, swaddled, and dandled the babe of reform, unnaturally conspiring against his nursling while it was yet of tender age, The noble Lord now brought in his hand, proh pudor! an instrument to destroy a considerable part of our second charter. After this, what security existed for the permanence of any settlement, for the integrity of any measure? He held it as a sacred principle that no right, privilege, or franchise, should be destroyed, except in cases of gross abuse, or where stern necessity, which overruled all law, dictated the act. Once establish a contrary rule, and where was the individual, or the body, whose rights would not be endangered? The principle affected rich and poor. Such a measure as the present, carried by mere majorities, not by moral weight and force of argument, involved a direct act of political tyranny. He objected to the Legislature suffering itself to be carried away by wilful caprice and humour to commit acts the most unjust and indefensible, simply on the ground of a supposed expediency. He had the strongest objections to the principle of perpetual political change—to constantly renewed elections, leading to angry feelings and breaches of social ties. Every free Government had been ultimately destroyed by frequency of elections, and what was true of Athens of old was equally true in the present day. Men might be changed by the influence of different states of society, and by other circumstances, but the leading passions and feelings of humanity were everywhere the same. If you brought election contests home to the door of every man day after day, what a degree of moral evil would be created I [Question], He hoped, as he was discussing the question temperately, that his observations would be received with candour. The result of the practice to which he had referred would be, to set every man against his neighbour, and to break asunder the ties of private life. Nobody would enjoy or profit by such a system but bustling, meddling, agitators, to the annoyance of all quiet, industrious, and sober men. As soon as these elections were introduced into a town, every man of capital who could would quit it. He had seen the sad effects of such contests in towns where, by means of them, the morals of the population were rendered a subject of reproach, instead of affording, as they did previously, a ground for admiration. He thought it enough to state to the house, distinctly and positively, that he had seen such effects produced, without naming the particular places to which he referred. Another ground of objection to the measure was, that it extended to towns which were not only free from all accusation, but which had received from the Commissioners the highest character as to the manner in which their corporate concerns were administered. Sandwich was one of those places the affairs of which were admitted to be admirably conducted, yet the noble Lord placed it upon the same Procrustean bed with Stafford. Having mentioned Stafford, he might observe, that his feelings were never more shocked than when he heard an hon. Member, who formerly represented that borough, and who had doubtless lauded his excellent friends the independent freemen, when courting them for their "most sweet voices," he was never more shocked than when he heard the hon. and learned Gentleman describe those very electors in such terms of reprobation as he had recently used. He believed that by the present measure an advance was made towards the establishment of the democratic principle, which would ultimately, he feared, destroy all the institutions of the country.

, on presenting a petition from the freemen of Lincoln, had expressed his sentiments on this Bill, and therefore it was unnecessary to trouble the House with a repetition of his arguments, but he felt himself bound to protest against this measure. He spoke his own sentiments as an independent Member of Parliament, and as such he could not help expressing his deep regret at the absence of the right hon. Member for Tamworth on that important occasion. If the noble Lord had not forgotten his duty to the country as a Minister of the Crown, he would never have consented to have brought forward a measure for the total disfranchisement of the freemen. He sincerely hoped that that was the last measure the noble Lord would be able to introduce into that House.

said, that there was an omission in Clause 91, which wanted supplying; and he rose to move an Amendment to that effect. That Clause was introduced for the purpose of providing a remedy against collusive purchases, sales and demises of Corporate property, since the 5th of June of this year, for undue consideration. But there were other modes of collusion; and it was in reference to one of these that his Amendment went. The object of the Bill was to get rid of self-elections in Municipal Government. Now, in some boroughs, the practice had been to let the corporate lands and other property only from year to year; but since the introduction of this Bill it was understood that a new practice had arisen, of letting leases for seven years or a longer term. The intent of this was obvious—namely, to continue certain lands and tenements in the possession of the partisans of the present Corporations, so as to prolong their influence in Corporate and Parliamentary elections. He (Mr. Cayley) contended that this was against the principle of the Bill, and the remedy for it came within the spirit of this Clause. The attempt, was one to frustrate, so far as the power of the parties went, the intentions of the Bill. His amendment would frustrate that attempt, and would be totally inoperative and harmless where no such attempt had been made. It would serve the ends of justice, and could commit no injustice. The principle of his amendment was similar, also, to one proposed on a late evening, by the late Solicitor General, which went to protect the practice of certain boroughs with respect to long leases, which, by some oversight or other, had not been actually secured by covenant. He was in favour of that Amendment, because it was just. His object now was, to protect the principle of short leases, which had been the practice in other boroughs. It might be retrospective in point of letter, but not in point of spirit: and, at all events, was no more retrospective than the Clause as it now stood. If these attempts at collusive sales and demises were not legal, then the common law would protect the new councils, without this or a similar Clause. But if they were, according to the letter of the present law, strictly legal, but in spirit unjustifiable, and with intent to defraud and defeat the purpose of this Bill, then the House would go along with him, that such attempts ought not to be sanctioned by it. The object of these leases evidently was to continue the influence of self-elected bodies longer than was contemplated by the Bill, and therefore was against the spirit and principle of the Bill. To prevent such an intent as this could injure no one, and would improve the Bill; he expected, therefore, the support of every independent Member of the House who advocated the principle of the Bill. His Amendment was to the effect, that if the jury, by their oaths, should find that any demise had been made for a longer term than was usual before the 5th of June, 1835, every such demise and conveyance should endure as against the said body corporate and their successors for such term only as the jury should find to be according to the said practice of the said borough.

said, that according to this Clause, whenever there was a case brought before a jury with respect to premises which were usually let for twenty years being let for sixty or for one hundred years, the question to be decided would be, whether an adequate consideration had been paid or not for the longer lease; if it had not been, then it would come within the meaning of the Clause to afford the party the option of either giving up the lease or paying full consideration for it, according- to the value of the premises. But in the case of a longer term than usual having been granted, and the parties having given for it an adequate consideration, he thought it would be too strong a measure for Parliament to interfere. Fearing, then, that in the endeavour of Parliament to enforce a remedy for one injustice, it might commit another, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the Clause.

supported the Amendment, because, without some such provisions, Corporations might grant leases for a period of 999 years.

opposed it, thinking that the provisions of the Bill as they now stood were sufficient to guard against any collusion on the part of Corporations. The granting of a lease for 999 years would be a complete alienation of the fee. He hoped that the hon. Member for Yorkshire would not divide the House upon his proposition.

did not forego his opinion as to the necessity of the Amendment; but seeing the Government and the opposite side of the House against him, he felt that it would be useless to divide.

moved "That the Corporation of Sutton Coldfield be left out of Schedule B." It was not a political Corporation, and was possessed of considerable trust property, which was enjoyed equally by all the inhabitants. Without some such exception, the inhabitants of Birmingham, Walsall, and other districts, would acquire a right to a share in that, property, which would thus come to be divided among 200,000 persons.

opposed the Amend- ment, and said, that the inhabitants of Sutton Coldfield were not desirous of the exception.

moved that the privilege of sending two Members to Parliament, should be transferred from the borough of Stafford to the county of Cork. He said that he brought forward this Motion not only as an Irish Member who felt that his country had been aggrieved in the most important branch of national rights, but also as a Member of the British Legislature, anxious for the harmony and union of the two countries, and convinced that this union and harmony could only be maintained by treating Ireland in every respect as an equal, and by bestowing upon her rights and interests the same consideration which was given to the most favoured part of the United Kingdom. He would entreat English Members in approaching this subject to divest themselves of every thing like national jealousy, or party interest, and to consider it as a great question of international right, which was to be determined solely by the merits and justice of the claim. It had been his intention in an early part of the Session to have submitted the whole of the claim which he conceived Ireland was entitled to make, in reference to her representation in Parliament. He had intended to have proposed a series of resolutions to the effect of giving one additional Member to each of those counties in Ireland, the population of which equalled the population of those counties in England which had obtained, under the Reform Bill, two additional Representatives; and to have bestowed upon five of the largest of these counties two additional Members. The whole number of additional Members to which he should have laid claim would have been twenty-five. He was not sorry, however, that he had failed in obtaining an opportunity of bringing forward these resolutions, because he felt that there were some objections to making so large an addition to the number of the House, although he could not allow that this inconvenience was at all equal to that of leaving the people of Ireland a cause of complaint and discontent. These objections, however, did not apply to the present Motion. The House had determined that Stafford ought to be disfranchised, and what he now asked involved no increase of the numbers of the House. He only called upon the House to evince a disposition to do justice to Ireland, by paying the first instalment of a debt which they could not deny to be fairly due. Before he stated fully the grounds upon which he conceived that Ireland was entitled to twenty-five additional Representatives, he would point out some instances in detail of the very different mode in which the two countries had been treated at the passing of the Reform Bill. He found that the county in England possessing the smallest population which then acquired the privilege of sending four Members to Parliament was the county of Cumberland—the population of which was 169,681. The population of the county Cork, which still sends only two Members to Parliament, is 703,716—being more than four times as great as that of Cumberland. The next lowest county in England, in point of population, which obtained two additional Representatives, was the county of Northampton—the population of which was 179,336. Take another case: the population of the principality of Wales was something less than the united population of the county and city of Cork—the population of Wales being 805,226—that of Cork county and city 810,732. The whole number of Representatives, including boroughs, allotted to Wales was twenty-nine, of which number five had been added by the Reform Bill. The whole number of Members sent to Parliament by the county and city of Cork, boroughs included, was only eight. If the population was taken as the basis of representation, Ireland would be entitled to 210 out of the whole number of 658 Members—the population of Ireland being 7,734,368—whilst that of the United Kingdom was 24,271,763. But it would be said that population was not the only element upon which such a calculation should be founded. He was willing to admit that other elements ought also to be taken into consideration, although, in the allotment of Representatives to the English counties, their relative population alone had been considered. He would, however, admit, that revenue was an ele- ment which ought to be introduced into the computation, and he was quite contented to place the claim of Ireland upon the joint basis of population and revenue. He would take the revenue of Ireland at one-tenth of the whole revenue of the United Kingdom. Every one who knew anything about Irish finance was aware that the financial accounts submitted annually to Parliament did not exhibit a fair statement of the amount of taxation actually paid by Ireland, because a large proportion of the commodities consumed in Ireland paid duty in England. The total amount of taxation which is so paid in England by the Irish consumers, and which is credited to the account of English revenue, he believed rather to exceed than to fall short of one million a-year. In order, also, fully to estimate the amount of taxation paid by Ireland, it would be fair to take into consideration the taxes paid by persons residing in England, who derived their incomes from the industry and resources of Ireland. The revenue arising from the Irish Crown Lands was also carried to the account of the English, not of the Irish revenue. If all these circumstances were fairly taken into consideration, it would be found that the taxation paid by Ireland amounted to about one-eighth of the whole revenue of the United Kingdom. In order, however, to leave no room for cavil, he would take the revenue of Ireland at one-tenth of the whole. Upon the basis of revenue, then, Ireland would be entitled to 65 Members out of the 658; upon the basis of population to 210. If the mean of these two numbers were taken, the result would be, that Ireland would be entitled to 137 Members. Other elements might be introduced into the calculation, and still the claim of Ireland could be fully substantiated. Exports might be taken, as also area and rental. He believed that the exports of Ireland would be found to be about equal to one-sixth of the whole exports of the United Kingdom. The area of Ireland was something more than one-fourth of the area of the United Kingdom, there being in Ireland 20,399,608 acres, and in Great Britain 56,109,545 acres. The rental of Ireland might be taken at about one fifth of the rental of the United Kingdom. The value of lands and houses in Great Britain, in the year 1815, was 58,551,071l. per annum; and considering the great change which had taken place in the value of money, and in the price of all articles, it was probable that the annual value of real property in Great Britain at the present moment rather fell short of this estimate. The annual value of lands and houses in Ireland might be estimated at fifteen millions sterling. Taking, then, the area and rental jointly of Ireland as one-fifth of the area and rental of the United Kingdom, Ireland would be entitled upon this ground to 130 Members—we may then state the case thus:—population gives 210 Members; revenue, 65; areas and rental, 130;—the mean average result of these three elements is 135. If we throw in exports at one-sixth, we reduce the general result to 130. Upon this number then he would take his stand, and maintain that Ireland was entitled to at least 130 Representatives in Parliament. If any one could show that this calculation was fallacious, he would be quite willing to abate any part of the claim which appeared to be exorbitant; but if his correctness could not be denied, he called upon the House to take the first step towards doing justice to Ireland by supporting the proposition which he had ventured to make. He was prepared to show that the transfer of these Representatives to Ireland would not be attended with any injury to the local interests of Staffordshire; that county would still have an aggregate of fifteen Representatives, and the account as between Staffordshire and Cork would stand thus:—Staffordshire with a population of 410,512 persons, and an area of 736,290 acres, would enjoy fifteen Members; the county of Cork, with a population of 703,716, an area of 1,725,100 acres, and a rental of 1,137,242l., would have only eight Members—its boroughs being included. He would not insult the understanding of the House by dwelling upon the advantages which must result to any country from being fully and fairly represented in the great Council of the nation. He expected to hear it objected to this Motion, that the Reform Bill ought to be considered as a final measure; but for his own part he had always thought it an absurdity to call anything in human affairs final. He could never admit, the right of one Parliament to bind another; but, least of all, could he admit that injustice ought ever to be final. It would also be said that Ireland was now in a better position than that in which she had been placed by the terms of the treaty of the Union—inasmuch as she had obtained five additional Members at the time of the Reform Bill; but he must wholly deny that the terms of that treaty ought to be considered as indicating the just rights of Ireland. It was a matter of historical notoriety that the terms of that Union had been purchased from corrupt majorities in both Houses of the Irish Parliament, against the universal sense of the Irish nation, and therefore every Irishman repudiated the terms of the Union as utterly null and void, when used as an argument against the rights and interests of his country. He was aware, that it would be said by the Scotch Members that Scotland was inadequately represented. He would allow that the Representation of Scotland was inadequate as compared with the Representation of England; but she was more advantageously circumstanced compared to Ireland, than she was disadvantageously circumstanced when compared to England. He thought, therefore, that the Scotch Members ought, in the first instance, to assist in obtaining for Ireland its just rights, and as soon as Scotland and Ireland were placed exactly on a par, it would then be right, that as opportunities offered the Representation of both countries should be brought to the level of the Representation of England. Before he sat down he would only say if it were intended, as it was professed, to adopt a new system of Government in Ireland, to rest upon the affection of the Irish people, the concession of this trifling boon would be an act of wisdom which would be received in a spirit of gratitude by a nation which was at this moment prepared to yield to the Government and to this House all its confidence. He had lived for the last four or five years almost entirely in Ireland, and he could assure hon. Members that they were much deceived if they thought that the agitation which had convulsed Ireland during that period had been the creation of one man, or of any set of individuals. It had its origin in the continued existence of a great many causes of just discontent, which rendered it easy at any time to embody the national sentiment of Ireland in hostility to the Government and institutions of England. Remove these causes and you destroy agitation—allow them to continue and agitation will return; and among the causes of complaint there surely is none more legitimate than that in re- ference to that branch of Ireland's national rights upon which all her other interests depend—you have perpetrated an injustice, which, instead of repairing, you are determined to confirm and continue. In giving the House an opportunity of taking the first step towards dealing out the same justice to Ireland which it accords to other more favoured portions of the United Kingdom, he had endeavoured to perform a duty which he conceived that he owed to his country, and it would be for the House to perform its duty towards a nation which might justly claim to be one of the most important subsidiaries to British grandeur and British power. The hon. Member concluded by moving "That it be an instruction to the Committee to transfer the two Members hitherto returned by the borough of Stafford to the county of Cork."

was not disposed to regard the Reform Act as a final measure, if it were shown that its provisions could in any instance be altered with advantage. At the present period, however, he thought it would be extremely inconvenient to enter into a discussion involving the whole question of the general distribution of representation. He should, therefore, oppose the motion, although he could assure the hon. Member that, if ever the Question of Representation should be opened, he should be prepared to do full justice to Ireland.

, in introducing the motion which he was about to make as an amendment to that of the hon. Member for Exeter, said, his object was not to make a speech, but to serve Stafford; and, therefore, he should not detain the House longer than necessary. If he could show as the grounds on which he moved the amendment, that notwithstanding the evidence brought forward in the case of Stafford, the criminality in that case did not equal that degree which had always been required by that House before adopting proceedings to disfranchise it;—if he could show that in a recent case, the degree of criminality exceeded that of Stafford, and yet no such proceedings were taken—if he could show (as he trusted he should) that the course pursued with regard to Stafford was altogether unprecedented, and that there were circumstances which entitled that borough to considerable indulgence—if he could show, during a considerable time which had elapsed subsequently to those proceedings, that a very great change had taken place in the borough; that a great portion of the guilt formerly contracted had been removed, by men, since added to the burgess roll, who had no participation in that guilt—if he could further show, that at a late election, very similar to the case of Stafford, where bribery had been clearly proved as well as intimidation, the inhabitants threw themselves on the justice of the House and demanded further investigation, and that in a case so similar the House did allow further inquiry—if he could make out all these points, he thought he should satisfy the House that, with respect to Stafford, further inquiry was necessary. With respect to criminality, he (Mr. Edward Buller) trusted the House would do him the justice to believe, that he would not stand there as the advocate of those who, by their guilty practices made the borough appear unworthy to possess the elective franchise. But, admitting the whole of the evidence in respect to Stafford to be correct, there still remained 324 individual electors whose character was unimpeached. There was also to be regarded the character of the evidence, which in this instance was peculiar. In all other cases they had unwilling witnesses, and were forced to extort the truth from those who gave it most reluctantly; but in this case there was a peculiar violence of political party—of the friends of opposing candidates—the new 10l. householders, and the old freemen of the town; and the object of each was, to bring forward all they knew, (and even a little more than they knew) to blacken the character of the other. When he regarded all this, he must say, that it appeared to him, the evidence ought to be received with considerable caution. He knew it was said, in a recent case, that notwithstanding what had previously transpired, tickets for soup, &c. were given to all the voters; but he could say, that 596 tickets were given to those who did not vote, and had no votes at all; in fact, they were given to every person in the borough who was willing to take them; and he must put it to the House whether it was likely, any man in his overflowings of liberality would, in a town containing 9,000 inhabitants, give 5s. to every man who asked for them, even to numbers who had no residence in the borough. In the case of another borough to which he had alluded, corruption was extended to all classes: one witness was asked how many electors he thought might not have been bribed? His answer was, "There might, perhaps, have been two or three." But in this case of Stafford, it appeared in evidence that upwards of 300 were pure; and as to the Corporation of Stafford, there was the strongest testimony borne to it in the Report of the Committee. He could not see why a greater degree of punishment should be awarded to the case of Stafford than to that of East Retford. All that he asked was further inquiry; he could find no parallel between the case of Stafford and the cases of boroughs which had been disfranchised. In the case of Stafford, no person had been prosecuted for those transactions, and not one of the Members had lost their seats; nor was there one precedent which could justify the House in proceeding without the clearest evidence of the Committee, to inflict the severest of the penalties which it was in the power of the House to inflict. In the case of East Retford, the bribery was much more systematic than that of Stafford. The clergymen, the aldermen, the most respectable men of the town, were corrupted; 20l. was the regular sum demanded for a vote, and the Town-Clerk actually could not lay his hand upon more than three electors who had escaped the corruption, and yet, in this case, attended with such a mass of corruption, the Legislature was satisfied with extending the franchise to the adjoining villages. He did not mean to ask so much as that; he only put it to the House whether, in the case of Stafford, there was not a stronger claim upon its indulgence than a borough on which it had inflicted a much lighter penalty than was now proposed to inflict on Stafford. At the last election for Stafford there were five candidates. There had been petitions presented to the House by upwards of 300 voters, distinctly denying all bribery whatever. He had received from his hon. Friend, who now represented the borough, a distinct denial of any bribery on his part; he had also received the same assertion from the other late hon. Member for that borough. He had also a letter, addressed to one of the candidates, signed by 312 electors, solemnly denying corruption of any kind on his or their part, in the late election for the borough. He had the same testimony, in short, for four out of the five candidates. He had had an opportunity of communicating with the fifth, but with regard to the four, he had no doubt that every vote was given in the most constitutional way, without any promises of remuneration of any kind whatever. He, therefore, did believe with many other hon. Members, that further inquiry on this subject would be desirable. In the case of Liverpool, the corruption was at least as bad as that of Stafford; but peculiar circumstances interfered with the Bill for its disfranchisement. After a delay of two years the House granted a Committee for further inquiry, although in that case there was not, as in the case of Stafford, a petition denying bribery at the last election. Upon these grounds he would beg leave to move, in conclusion, as an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the bribery and corruption which have prevailed at elections for Representatives for the Borough of Stafford, and to report their inquiries to the House. And that it be an instruction to the Committee, that they report, in the first place, the result of their inquiries as to the last election.

contended, that if Amendments like the present were acceded to, it would always be impossible, especially at an advanced period of the Session, to disfranchise a corrupt borough.

maintained, that there was a growing desire on the part of the respectable inhabitants of Stafford to rescue the town from the imputation which had so long attached to it. He supported the Amendment.

said, that as allusions had been made to Liverpool, he would take upon himself to say, that during the long time that Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Canning represented Liverpool, not one sixpence had been spent in bribery. The great scene of bribery was in 1830, when the candidates were of the same political opinions.

warmly defended the Borough of Stafford from the imputations which had been cast upon it. He would have done so upon the second reading of the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill; but such was the noise and confusion in the House, that that Bill had been read a second time without his being at all aware of the fact. He solemnly declared, that the constituents by whom he had been returned for Stafford, had not received a single bribe or reward of any description. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to read passages from the Report of the Committee that had been appointed on the subject, and from the evidence adduced before that Committee, and to point out numerous inconsistencies in the former and discrepancies in the latter. The hon. and gallant Member then concluded by expressing it as his opinion, that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the disfranchisement of the borough. If he should again have the honour of being returned for that borough at the next election, he pledged himself that if any corrupt or unlawful practices were resorted to, so far from attempting to defend them, he should cheerfully lend a helping hand to bring those guilty of them to justice.