e into consideration the petition
which had been presented to the house, complaining of the conduct of the
corporation. The attorney-general, in reply, said, that if the case were
really as it had been stated, and if the corporation had been guilty of
the breach of trust mentioned, then there was an undoubted remedy in the
court of chancery, and he argued that this was the ordinary and legal
mode of obtaining redress in such cases. The motions, however, was
supported by Messrs. Spring Rice, II. Gurney, and Abercromby, with Lords
Althorp and Russell, on the ground that there was more in the case than
the mere misapplication of funds. They argued that the purpose to which
the funds had been misapplied directly affected the privileges and
constitution of the house of commons; that the house would degrade
itself if it sanctioned the attorney-general's going before any court,
whether of law or of equity, to obtain the decision of that court on the
propriety or power of the house to interfere in cases of this nature,
and that the case was a fitting one to be investigated by a committee.
The application of money for such purposes found an advocate in Mr.
Peel, who asked, that if corporation funds should not be spent for any
other than corporation purposes, what was to be said of that of London,
which had recently voted L1000 to the Greeks? The real question before
the house was, that supposing the corporation to have power to apply its
funds to other than charitable purposes, had it a right to appropriate
them to such a purpose as paying the legitimate expenses incurred in
forwarding the election of a particular member of parliament? This was
a question which merited deep consideration. Might a peer subscribe one,
two, or five thousand pounds towards defraying such expenses?--might not
a corporation do so too? He would not advise them to do it; but he was
not prepared to say that in doing it they were acting illegally, or
would be guilty of a breach of the privileges of the house of commons.
He should suggest that a select committee be appointed simply to
inquire into the payment, or engagements for payment, of any sum for
electioneering purposes, made by the corporation of Northampton at the
last election, which suggestion was adopted. Concerning the borough of
Leicester, Mr. Sykes moved that a select committee should be appointed
"to take into consideration the petition from the borough of Leicester,
to examine witnesses, and