The Sun. — London, England, 1836-08-12 00:00:00

~~ _ v. could hava no right t o expect the House of Commons to acquiesce in their amendments, more especially after they had rejected a measure supplying the deficiency now com plained of. He wished to take this opportunity to tat an the part of a Noble and Learned Friend win) had been ab sent the whole of the session, that there were several mis apprehensions abroad on this subject, which gave him con siderable uneasiness. First of all he had desired him (Viseoott Melbourne) to state that it was not upon his ttietlan that these clauses continuing the trustees were introduced. It , eras prop ose d , as the Noble and Learned Lord stated, he believed,- by the Earl of Radnor, and was assented to by I lia), in common with the rest of the House. He had also desired him (Viscount Melbourne) to state that he not unlY undertook to introduce a Bill, but that he did intro duce a Bill, which was subsequently given up, and that Parlia ment not having legislated on the subject was not to e attributed to any negligence, or to his absence on ac vaunt of indisposition. The Noble and Learned Lord had !tited the inconveniences which would ensue if things were ti e leift as they stood. Other inconveniences would follow from loss of the measure, but then he would say that the fault did not lie at the door of the Government, or at the doo r of the House or has chargeable, upon those who had refused, when an op ortunitv presented itself, to legislate upon the subject. aais his (Viscount M e lb ourne ' s ) op i n i on w i th respect to the first point referred to by the Noble and Learned Lord ; and with respect to the second, he differed entirely fr e l' the Nobl e an d L earne d Lord, for he thought it a little too much t o g i ve to a man c h osen b y l ot such an ex- Insive power as a casting vote. He should therefo con e °de by mov i ng that the word " not " be inserted re es an 4zil endme nt to the motion of the Noble and Learned Lord. toThe Earl of RIPON thought it incumbent upon him . vindi cate the managers from the reproach cas t upon cony them n by the N o bl e Viscount, nt reproach which, h e was t h e 'need, aro se on l y f rom h i s N oble Friend ' s not knowing ph c ourse adopt e d b y the managers of the House of Com a.course perfectly consistent with their own rights, b t !_t oae whi c h ren d ered it impossible for the managers on % !ie Part of th e i r Lordship to enter into any ver b a l di scus - I • o f U point fact, the representations made were not VOCe. but contained in a written paper, which he (the the of Ripo n ) believed to be identical with a paper which 4eclefliouse of Commons had brought forward on a former e A r 7oce on this Bill. Nothing, therefore, he thought, 4aLtlbe more reasonable or proper, not being invited to aSion by the managers of the Commons, that the ma- V 3 of the Lords should pursue a similar course, and T‘Taater to th e Commons their reasons in writing. With re oe..it to th e c l auses themselves, he trusted their Lordships adhere to their original decision. The Noble Viscount 4 ' ie rn?d to think that there was something very unreason elks the casting' vot e t o a p erson w h o was to b e th e u ell ey let. F or hi s own part, h e could not see in what as i t nr clisonableness cons i ste d. B y one c l ause of the Bill eAs Passed last session, in the cleetion of councillors, in m ayor I an equality o f vo t es t h e power was given to the and assessors to decide who were elected into the aa4tjittnii• 'l But the nex t c l ause went st i ll further ; for kspect to th e fi rst e l ect i on, i t was provided that the lateY°P alo ne—independent of th e assessors—the mayor of kle %t ul d Co.cporation, which it was the object of the Bill to should b e th e person w h o was to possess the cast 4vc'tea--(Hear, hear.) The Bill, therefore, as passed did allow a casting vote. (Lord Melbourne p %;l Ao 'electi on b y lot.") He (the Earl of Ripon) ad ted'that the cases to which he had referred were not ip), e , st i,erls of l o t ; b u t t h e H ouse o f C ommons ha d i tself ad the" t d the principle of proceeding by lot. With respect to Di x klministr a ti on o f t h e c h ar i ta bl e trusts, t h e N o b le ot e , e6 ont had complained that they had treated the House 1 1),' ° Mmons in a " c on t ume li ous "—h e b e li eve d th at was i vord and offensiv e manner ; b u t th a t o b servat i on 'o at least have no reference to the act of the House, d t i S i te ver appli ca ti on it m igh t h ave to t h e con d uct o f i nd i vi- A iqt kembers ; but the House at any rate was not reopen )) t e for anyth i ng which any individual might be supposed to .t . ,? said o r d one upon t h e su bj ect. When, however, the i 4l ° °, lo Viscount th rew u p on th a t H ouse a ll t h e bl ame of tit' o convenience or difficulty w hi c h m i g h t ar i se, h e ( the 1, 1 7 t1 of Ripon) could not but think that the Noble Lord cot the circumstances under which the Corporations Act ,hit"ndment Bill came up to that House. Their Lord -IJIP would remember that it was early in the session ,"e : 11 th e Bill was brought up. Upon the second reading 0 4 () ;,`° 1 18 . objections were stated to it ; and it was agreed to, m e rely, as' he thought, with the consent of his Majesty's ev ernrnent—(Hear, hear)—that the ,Bill should be re . - 4 e .''',ed to a Select Committee, for the purpose of consi le`pring how those deficiencies might be removed, and the it s " 4s ure be made most applicable to the purposes for which tv was framed ; and he would confidently assert that there Lkk_4 nothing i n th e con d uc t o f t h at C omm i ttee w hi c h ed any di sposition to do that which was unfair or un to sonabl6. — (Cheers.) The Bill itself was mos t d e fi c i en t t l ati n 'au se of it s prov i s i ons, and contained very dangerous a latter,t'll - Their Lo r d s hi ps h a d t h oug h t fi t to defer the tf A . ._ another session ; an d th en , b ecause , on the 4th :4StI ug.ust, th ey found it impossible to deal in detail with a n ind re of great i m p or t ance an d d e li cacy, t h ey were to aiell-j"e answerable for all the difficulties and inconve af th es-- (Cheers)—ari s i ng f rom suc h a d e l ay. Th e cause e difficulty, h e ma i nta i ne d , was the time when the dill br ought forward.—(Cheers.) exit :V ROLLA ND rose me re ly f or th e p urpose o f say apr," evi' word s upon t h e cr i t i c i sms which his Noble Friend abl e seemed to feel so severely. A man most remak tea i nt' his talents, Mr. Oliver Goldsmith, said—" With Peet a llt . to arguments, I always find myself to have the ad collt.'ie of my antagonist when I am alone ; but when I pant- the presence of my adversary, that fancied ad teer,-ag.,o is speedily gone." Now, Noble Lords opposite thy, to be acting in the spirit of that observation for the t h' e , and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst) had made a speech IV), Lordships that night of considerable power, and ,PPeared t o p ro d uce a grea t e ff ect upon t h e H ouse, llia t .e t Y,lng• the reasons for insisting upon the amendments of fr ee ouse, but which reasons he had not delivered in the far conf erence. Now what was the meaning of a free con •Nst.ee ? Their Lordships well knew that upon differences ;144 the between the two Houses conferences took . place, btit, l lo reason s of each House were tendered in writing ; Ik eti `'Y the interchange of these reasons, neither party having of peonvinced, the next step according to the rules 4,_tliament, was the holdi n g o f a f ree con f erence . to /Ar , he would ask, where was the reason in such a 'ati o „ e ,c 4 f Proceedi ng as h a d b een a d opte d upon th i s oc %„rf: r If M em b ers o f t h at H ouse were sent to a free tl5 thence, and did not debate at all—he would not go tlittlie ex tent of s a yi ng t h at suc h a course wou ld l ower the epetY of "th e H ouse, b ut it at least led clearly to an infe to4? that the reasons alleged by the other House were so c ari n g they n g that did not know how to answer them. ‘llet,-"‘ainlY must confess that he w as s urp r is e d that th e ase whom th ey h a d emp l oyed, having abandoned their ilp4;'''auild have come to their Lordships, and again pressed t4 t arguments which they were afraid of maintaining before ooinll°.— . tagonists (Hear ) He thought the amendme n t s 'h Y wrong . If they adopted those ame n d men t s th e y ieh e , m ail upo n the poor people the ki n d o f ca t as t rop h e Lord'ble had 'described, and the rejection of t ' ,: 4 e , uld p ro d uce near l y t h e same effect. The 014 °` Commons h a d t o ld t h em w h at they required. bstst 4ps-?-r.) They said in all propri e ty an d cour t es y, " You C t'°n your amendments ;we di ssen t f rom th em ;b u 41 il 71?(1 as to t e ll us your reasons. " T he matter, however, 1 14 `," f "en dumb sh ow . —(L aug h ter, an d " T hey d i d not `-arq '"" 1 Lord Lyndhurst.) " I d en y it," sa id th e N o bl e ik"°‘ I 'l did ; for th e N o bl e an d L earne d L or d cou ld bat the Of Parliamentary language if he was not aware eas e .a tl . e Y did ask for reasons by demanding a free t o confer ibthit,-(Hear, h ear .) If i t d i d not mean that, it meant 1 1 ' ) e a-a..'"•72-,(llear, hear.) He denied that the managers for " I nitions bad tendered their reasons in writing ; they ! 7 4r t eope c ea ti their speech, which was of course previously pre- I le supposed the Noble and Learned Lord had ' L AT° t ... 7 84111 e—had read his speech.—(Lord Lyndhurst— spoke it.") Then he could only say, that since 4 ed t,ekvoltition, during which ten or twelve free conferences t 1.;• el -e n Place, it would be impossible to find a single one 4t, d such a course of proceeding as the p resen t h a d I Qe a la °Pted . --- (Hear, hear.) In some i ns t ances t h ere h a d t b a<tb,. g debat es ; i n all some reasons had been stated. It q. — ` l s aid th a t t hi s procee di ng was ca l culated to lower that House ; but he would venture to sa y, pen t' eons th e tt as lowering and degrading to Parliament it se lf, if the nature -r an caraer of hose confe ,a c „ free c on , erence was d theh character last resort— t it was that „stso it "he transaction at which they were driven to 'their ‘l, llO t s. " - i (C heers.) What else could it mean ? Was it, ,"(1)\vol; Conteirlitetelto the judgment ofthe Members appointed 114 e h ave l enc e to conic back to the House and say, otl ve g i so ward the reasons of the Commons ; but we of . 'lrguments of our own ; we have not addressed ,Icta th em to th • ' e jury ; but we are all against . the ver- . to co, ile peers, ) Was it to be permitted to the Counsel pe rs i st u ack to his client and say, " I advise you strongly 4oa, though I have not one single word to say for kTI --( Cheers t , 'e lau xF .) • F r , Lora, 'OF WELLINGTON rose and said,- 1 3 1 epd .1„ -, after what has been stated by my Noble ‘_ 4o n :... e p a o r s ?lie, I confes s I was surprised to hear the Noble fl o !to again blame the managers on the part of t, )1 . 4 Rt th e I . IiPS for not going into a debate on the ques -1114 (leb,4s_t ce conference ;. my Lords, there was no room a t t t, the hear)—and lam extremely surprised th b oa ", hie Baron opposite and the Noble Viscount p Pe r , "of his Majesty's Government, should have been 11 4 4 1 , t .havi ° ,:',. 3 to reprov e my Noble and Learned Friend for (! t ,'N; , t !.), entered into debate, and particularly for not r e , s 4 :a Nte 4 t,ed the reasons, which he has since so eloquently khio your Lordships, they diapproving in the 41 ,71 1 tio.lLl;le manner possible of' every one of the reasons Lords, they he delivered on the part of that Rouse ; but, ' - oer. ate the reasons of the House, and not their -• • -••••-.... :; own, which the managers baVCd acliver—(Cheers)—and if these two ffMN. Lulus disapprove of the conduct of my elqi6 friends in not entering into a debate, they at the same time come down to this House and declare, that they disapprove of these reasons altogether; 110 thiFi my Lords, is not the 00,y ro•!elitilit'4llle Cli.ctimstance in the con duct of 'CVO Noble Lords.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It Wears that not only do they disagree from the reason ing of my Noble Friends—not only do they condemn the managers of the free conference—bet they also con demn the cenclact of the House itself, and the conduct of the Hoase upon these two questions now under our consi deration.—(Hear, hear) My Lords, I was sitting for nearly three months o.t different times in a Committee up stairs, with the Noble Baron and the Noble Viscount, upon this very question ; and the Noble Viscount has stated to your Lordships that the Pill wet poised ahattiniously in the House of C011Wit1.1; but I am sure that I may say, with much more foundation in fact, though ) of course, my Lords, I do not mean to doubt the sincerity of the asser tion of the Noble 1 7 seount- - -4tit I think I may say, with some feetiLtlim in fact, that these two questions did Pass unanimously in the Committee above stairs, and also through this House. In the Committee up stairs I, my Lords, was the person who moved the clause respect ing the appointment of the Charitable Trustees, and likewise the clause giving the casting vote to a person selected by lot ; and rmay state that there was not a single word on that Committee stated against those clauses. My Lords, I don't mean to say that I entertained no objections whatever to any of the provisions of that Bill. I certainly did—(Hear, hear)—but I would not state the considerable objections of several of my Noble Friends, nor the amendments which they wished to introduce ; because, my Lords, I consi dered that I came to a compromise in agreeing to the Select Committee ; and I felt myself bound to go on and proceed with that compromise.—(Hear.) Well, then, I call upon your Lordships—l call upon tie Noble Viscount— I call upon the Noble Baron now to support that to which they agreed upon that occasion, after three months' deli berate consideration—that which they thought best for the public interests and convenience. Now, my Lords, the Noble Viscount since then thinks that we have treated the House of Commons with insult and contumely—( Hear, hear)—because we are now going to insist upon our amend ments. My L or d s , a Bill (with respect to the administra tion of charitable trusts) was sent to this House from the House of Commons in August, and I believe I was the person who moved that the second reading of that measure be deferred for three months ; and the ground upon which I recommended to your Lordships to pursue that course was, that the measure tended to place charitable trusts at the disposal and government of a party in the Corporations; there was certainly an appearance of an election, for the purpose of throwing it out of the hands of a party ; but, as the mayor was the person who was to conduct the affair, it was quite evident that it would have been left in the hands of a party.—(Hear, hear.) On that principle, my Lords, I objected to the arrangement proposed ; and, as to the charge with regard to the House of Commons, I stated my opinions, my Lords, freely and openly, as I have a right to do upon every question—(Cheers)—but certainly it was the furthest thing from my intention to say, and I believe I did not say, anythinr , disrespectful towards the House of Commons, or towards any individual Member of this House. The Noble Viscount says that if we persist in this amendment the Bill to a certainty will be lost. What if it is ? Is that our fault ? Don't we take the only step possible in securing the Administration till next year?—(Hear, hear.) 'Why, my Lords, if we withdraw this amendment, then it is quite obvious that these cha rities cannot be administered until Parliament shall meet again after the lapse of some months, and until after the meeting of Parliament some provision shall be made in the course of the next Session.—(Hear, hear.) In respect, my Lords, to the other part of this Bill—the appoint ment by lot of a person to give the casting vote, I feel the greatest satisfaction in supporting the mo tion of my N o bl e an d L earne d Friend.—(Loud cheers.) Lord ELLEN BOROUGH said,. what was the course they had pursued ? Nothing, he thought, could be more respectful. They had heard the reasons of the Commons ; they had thought it advisable that those reasons should be considered in exicnso—(Hear)—to enable them to delibe rate fairly upon them ; and then, if they remained attached to their own amendments subsequently to that careful con sideration, they could appoint managers, and demand a fur ther free Conference with the Commons.—(Cheers.) That was the notion of the managers on the part of their Lord ships, and if that House should now decide to persist in their amendments the next step, of course, would be a motion for a further free Conference, at which it would be their duty to explain, on behalf of that House, the reasons for persevering in such amendments.—( Hear.) Lord LYNDHURsT said, when the Bill had been sent to a Committee up stairs, he had been instrumental in re commending the names of some of those Noble Lords to be placed upon that Committee, and every one of his Ma jesty's Ministers in that House was a member of the Com mittee. With respect to every question that came before it, there was not the slightest difference of opinion between any of the Members of that Committee. The only sub ject that occasioned anything like conversation—he would not call it discussion—was the additional powers necessary to be given to the existing charitable trustees. Those mat ter 'occupied three or four days, but were at last settled to to the satisfaction of every one. Then what was the ground for the attack of the Noble Viscount, when all the argu ments ho had urged had been urged in furtherance of an Act to which the Noble Viscount was himself a party ? —(Cheers.) Then the Noble Viscount had told them some thing about a Bill respecting charitable trusts, intro duced by my Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham) last session. He admitted that such a Bill was introduced ; it was read a first and second time, but it was never made a subject of discussion in their Lordships' House ; and it was agreed on all hands that it would be advisable to let it stand over until the present session ; and the Noble Viscount now seemed to think that they were to blame for not having revived that Bill. The Noble Viscount had himself proposed the withdrawal of it—(" Lord Brougham himself," from Lord Melbourne)—at least he (Lord Lynd hurst) had not made the proposal, and was he now to be blamed for not havirg introduced that measure this session? Was it not the duty of the Government to have done it, rather than that of an individual Member of Parliament— (Cheers)—to take up an Act which had been proposed last session ? He trusted he had been able to satisfy the House that no blame ought fairly to be attributed to him.— ( Hear.) Then, with respect to the Bill now before the House, those amendments had been adopted long before any Bill upon the subject of charity trusts had come to that House. They had been adopted prospectively for the pur pose of having full opportunity for the consideration of every measure connected with the subject—(Cheers)—they had been adopted as a matter of precaution, in the event of no Bill passing the other House, or of a Bill, having passed the other, and not passing that House.—( Hear.) After a time a Bill on the subject came up to that House ; but under the circumstances, did it necessarily follow that they should agree to it?—(Cheers.) In the debate upon that Bill it was now said that he had used terms derogatory to the character of the other House. If he had done so, it would have been the duty of the Noble Viscount then at the time to have called the attention of the House to the subject—( Hear, hear, hear)—but he could not conceive that he had employed any such expressions. In conclusion he must again beg of the N o bl e Vi scount , if he would con descend to reply to his observations, to state what were the expressions which he considered disrespectful to the other House.—(Cheers.) Lord MELBOURNE said that the Noble and Learned Baron had mistaken his observations. He had stood up solely on the part of his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham) to protest against the supposition that his absence could be considered as any reason for not intro ducing any measure this session upon the subject in question, because the house was perfectly acquainted with his views and opinions in reference to it. But, so far from laying any fault to the Noble Lord oppo site, he (Lord Melbourne) distinctly stated that it might be the fault of Government—it might be the fault of any one else ; but he had risen merely to vindicate the Noble and Learned Lord from being in any way the cause of the delay, which had occurred either from negli gence or from illness. Upon the two amendments, if he recollected correctly, it was distinctly intimated in the reasons given on the part of the Commons that they considered the one regarding the election by lot far less important than the other, and that if they were inclined to give way upon the one, there would be little difficulty in arranging the other.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Duke had said that ho agreed to the introduction of these clauses, and undoubtedly he (Lord Melbourne) had done so.— ( Hear, hear, hear)—hut he must beg the Noble Duke to understand that he had also stated that that must not be a bar to future legislation upon the subject.--•• (Cheers from both sides.) He did not mean to bring any charge against Noble Lords opposite ; but he must at the same time say that, supposing those Noble Lords to have any political interest in keeping the funds in their present hands, they had adopted the exact way to accomplish their purpose by stating that these amendments should not be a bar to future leg;slation ; but, at the same time, determining to throw out every measure which m i g h t b e presented to them on the subject. ( Ministerial cheers.) Thus, then, they might say, we shall obtain a settleme n t of the funds in the present hands for some time at least.—( Hear, hear.) That might be fair political and Parliamentary joek eys bi p ; but jockey ship in his opinion it was.—(LTrd cheers.) It had been then and was still the impression upon his mind that, during the course of those debates, great jealousy and sus picion had been expressed towards the House of Commons ; that it had been distinctly stated by some Noble Lords that they viewed every measure coming from that House with suspicion, because they considered them as intended to sup port.uvolutionary intentions.—(No, no.) He was stating his recollection ; but he hoped he was wrong. He was very glad to find that the Noble Lords opposite disavowed such views, such sentiments, such opinions. It was, how ever, his impression still that such was the character, the etlcl tore elf that debater a feelints on the part of Noble Lords that they could always see a Creeping on— always some encroachment. There was an instance in the clause regarding the school of Louth, which was opposed by a Noble Baron (Wharneliffe) opposite, who had. exolairned—" Here we see the temper of the Bill—liete iye see the feel object." (Some observati ons here fell from Lord Wh arnc liff e .) Oh, he knew the Noble Lord too well to doubt his ardour.—(Cheers and laughter.) Such views, however, had been distinctly disavowed by the Noble Duke, and he confessed that he had never heard anything of that character or nature fall from the Noble Duke.—(Cheers.) He could not say the same for others. —(Ministerial cheers.) Such was the impression upon his mind of the character of the debate. If he was called upon be could not say what were the precise words upon which his motion was founded. He understood now that there was nothing particular in the precise words.—( Hear.) But everything consists in the spirit, in the tone, in the animus which dictated the observations ; the precise words arc nothing after all. But certain he was that in that de bate there had been a great degree of jealousy and suspi cion of the House of Commons, and of everything that was popular, and belonged to the popular party throughout the country.—(Loud Ministerial cheering.) With respect to the question at present before the House, whatever might be the inconvenience arising from the total loss of the Bill, he firmly believed that the House of Commons would not leave the charitable trusts in the hands of those who at present held them for six months —no, nor fox six weeks-- nor for six minutes, and concluded the Noble Lord, I think they are right.—(Cheers.) Lord ABINGER said, when the Noble Viscount used language so freely in reproving the resolutions of that House, it would be quite as well for him to consider whe ther it was becoming in him, as the leader of that House —(Cheers)—as the first Minister of the Crown—(Re newed cheers)—to exhibit a tone and manner of behaviour such as that which he had just displayed.—( Loud cheers.) Did the Noble Viscount suppose, because they entertained different political opinions from himself, that they did not feel sensibly the rude manner and the rude language with which lie addressed them ? He begged most distinctly to negative what had been urged by the Noble Viscount as the feeling of that House ; he absolutely protested against the truth of that supposition.—(Loud cheers.) He should rather have been inclined to imagine that the Noble Viscount was using some laconical argument to bring that House into popular contempt.—(Hear, hear.) 'Whether that was so or not, the Noble Lord himself must know best.—(Cheers.) Lord WHARNCLIFFE should certainly oppose the clause. The introduction of it was an attempt on the part of the House of Commons to place their Lordships in an unpleasant position before the public. But he was sure the attempt would not succeed. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the course which lie felt bound to adopt placed him in an unpleasant position. The Noble Lord and the Noble Duke opposite said he should not have supported the clause ; the reason he did so was, that he did not believe, when the Bill was brought up, their Lordships would have refused to sanction it. He did not at all imagine it would interfere with the general suc cess of the Bill. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said the clause was put in, in the hope that it would produce a settlement of the question, and now the clause was held over them by the Opposition for the purpose of browbeating and coercing them. Lord LYNDHURST said that even if amendments were now in existence, lie would not have assented to the Bill as it came from the other House.—(Cries of" Divide.") The LORD CHANCELLOR said the question was whether the House would adhere to their Lordships' amend ment or not. Lord LYNDHURST begged to remind the Noble Lord that the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) proposed, as an amendment, to introduce the word " not." The House then divided on this amendment, when there appeared— Contents Non-contents Majority against Ministers —ll STEAM CARRIAGES. The Report of the Steam Carriages Bill having been brought up, Lord LYNDHURST hoped that the question would be postponed, and considered next Session, and a more satisfactory Report drawn up. . The Marquis of SALISBURY would move then that the Report be received that day three months. Lord HOLLAND would beg to ask the Noble Lord opposite (Ellenborough) whether, in moving for a new Con ference, he intended to propose any new reasons, or what new mode of proceeding he meant to adopt ? Lord ELLENBOROUGH said the Noble Lord had no right to ask him that question, as he was only an indivi dual member of the Conference. Lord HOLLAND thought he had a right to ask the question, as the Noble Lord was presumed to speak the opinions of the.managers and his own. Lord ELLENBOROUGH acted only as an indivi dual Member of that House ; and as manager of the Con ference, he should be guided by the rules of.that House. CONFERENCE. A message from the Commons announced that the Com mons were ready to meet their Lordships in free conference. The following Peers were then nominated to meet the Commons :—The Bishop of Gloucester, and Lords Ripon, Ellenborough, Fitzgerald, Wharncliffe, Lyndhurst, and Abinger. After a protracted absence, the managers of the Confe rence having returned, The Earl of RIPON rose to report to their Lordship s from the Noble Lords appointed on the part of their Lord ships' House to manage the Conference which had just taken place, and which on the part of the House of Commons had been conducted by Lord John Russell and others. The managers on the part of their Lordships had informed the managers on the part of the Commons that they considered it their duty not to consent to give up the amendment in line 35, inasmuch as the Municipal Corporation Act, not having provided that a fresh election should take place in the case of an equality of votes, their Lordships considered it in accordance with the principle of that to meet the difficulty arising from an equality of votes by pro viding that, in such case, the election should be decided by the casting vote of the person presiding. The managers on the part of their Lordships had likewise felt bound to adhere to the insertion of clause marked L., and they urged upon the managers on the part of the House of Com mons the consideration of the inconvenience that would arise from placing these charitable trusts under the control and management of the Lord Chancellor, and they also re presented that it would be less inconvenient, and much . more desirable that the administration and management of those charitable trusts should be allowed to continue with those in whose hands they had been placed last year, with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, until next session, or such other time as Parliament would agree to a general measure on the subject. Their Lordships had also stated to the managers for the House of Commons that no practical injury had, to their knowledge, resulted from those trusts remaining in the hands in which they were placed in the last session of Parliament. Their Lordships had expressed their desire that the management and administration of those funds should be placed on a permanent and satisfactory footing, and had expressed their opinion that it was exceedingly desirable that the ad ministration of charitable trusts for the benefit and relief of the poor should, as far as possible, be divested of all party feelings, and separated from the operation of all party inte rests whatsover. The managers on the part of the Com mons had stated, in reply to these representations, that. they were instructed not to yield these two clauses. With respect to the first amendment, though they considered that giving the casting vote to the person presiding would lead to inconvenience, and was inconsistent with the spirit of the Act, yet they were willing to refer that part to the further consideration of the House of Commons. With respect to clause L, by which the present. charitable trus• tees were continued in the administration of these trusts, they stated that they could by no means consent to leave these trusts in their present management. They re presented that the conduct of these trustees had given dissatisfaction to their constituents, and that they could not consent to their being continued on any account. 'l'o this the managers on the part of their Lordships replied that the provision made last year showed that Parliament was aware that inconvenience would arise from the management of those trusts devolving on the Lord Chancellor, and that much more inconvenience would arise from that arrangement than could result from continuing them in their management. The managers of the Commons urged, in answer to this, that if upon these grounds they now consented to continue the present trustees, they might on a future occasion be expected to consent to a further continuame of these charitable trusts in those hands which administered them at present. The managers on the part of the House of Commons stated that they considered the Bill to be a valuable Bill, but that, as they could not concur in the al terations which had been referred to, the Bill, however other wise beneficial, would be lost. The managers on the part of their Lordships replied, that their Lordships were always desirous to maintain a good understanding with the House of Commons, and that they would be willing to defer to their opinion on either of the points in dispute, if their Lordships felt that they could do so consistently with what they felt to be conducive to the public interest. They again represented at length to the managers on the part of the House of Commons the manifest inconvenience that would result from placing these charitable trusts in the ad ministration of the Lord Chancellor, that there had not come within the knowledge of Parliament, nor were they THE SITN S LONDON, PititlAY, AUGUST 12, 1..436. aware that there luld deddrred my instance of abuse on the part of the present-trustees attd thm• it was not pro bable to suppose that persons so situated would ventC.ll-e to abuse the trusts placed in their hands ; and that it would still be competent for the House of Commons to provide that these trustees should be placed under careful supervi sion, and that their ae:.!ountl f:hould be strictly audited. Tim managers on the part of the liaise or Commons still persevered in refusing to concur in the amendments and the reasons stated having been enlarged upon at both sides, the managers on the part of their Lordships left the Bill in the hands of the managers on the part of the House of Commons, who then withdrew. Viscount MELBOURNE said that their Lordships had just now heard from the Noble Lord what had occurred at the conference which had taken place. From the time that. the Noble Lords who managed the conferen c e were absent, it was easy to judge that a considerable length of debate had taken place. This, certainly, was an odd way of doing business. At the first time that the managers entered upon the conference—when their hands were free, and when any of the arguments that they could urge might have their fair operation upon the managers on the part of the House of Commons—no debate whatever took place, and no argu ments whatever had been urged. In the second instance, however, after the House had come to a vote upon the sub ject, when the course to he pursued had been decided on, and the managers on the part of their Lordships went to the conference with their hands tied up—when they were bound to insist upon the amendments, and when no result whatever could arise from it—a long course of argument and debate had taken place,.and a considerable quantity of time had been occupied in discussion. It was, he must re peat, a strange mode of conducting affairs, and certainly was not consistent with what had been the practice in for- ' mer times. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that at the first confe rence the managers on the part of the House of Commons had entered upon no discussion. In the second conference the debate arose on the part of the Members of the House of Commons, and did not originate with their Lordships. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that such a pro ceeding as this had not taken place for more than 100 years. He did not think it either a convenient or a useful proceeding, though he must admit that it had been a very long one.—(A laugh.) Ile did not think that any good effect could arise from a proceeding of this description, and as the Noble Viscount appeared in the present instance to disapprove of it, he trusted that the Noble Viscount would use his influence with his colleagues in the other House of Parliament, and prevail upon them to induce that House not to adopt such a proceeding in future.—(A laugh.) The House then adjourned. FREE CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE COMMONS AND THE LORDS ON THEIR DISAGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE MUNICIPAL CHA RITY ESTATES, AUGUST 11. After the usual preliminary messages and forms, an ordi nary Conference took place about six o'clock, between the two on the clauses in disput e , re l a ti ng t o th e Cha ritableiolTursuesslees, and the mode of filling up vacancies in the choice of mayor and aldermen in councils where the mem bers could not agree in selection. The Conference was nu merously attended by Peers and Commoners. Lord John Russell, on behalf of the Commons, read their reasons for dissenting from some of the Lords' amendments on the Municipal Corporations Amendment Bill, and stated that they felt it necessary to persist in the rejection of the provisions introduced by their Lordships for the election of the mayor and aldermen by lot in the " tie" boroughs, and for the continuance of the ex-Corporators in the office of Charitable Trustees for a second year. The Earl of Ripon then read from a paper the reasons of the Lords for adhering to their amendments. The first Conference thus terminated, and their Lord ships reported the continuance of the disagreement to their own House. The debate which followed will be seen in our Parliamentary. report. The Lords then, by the Masters in Chancery, agreed to the request of the Commons to meet in FREE CONFERENCE. Between eight and nine o'clock the meeting took place in the Lords' committee-room No. .5, the largest room of the Upper House. On the announcement in the Corn mons that the Conference was agreed to, managers were appointed, as will be found reported in the debates, five Members, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Loch, Mr. C. Per gusson, and Mr. Warburton, having been added to the original number appointed. A general rush to the Upper House then took place, only two Members remaining on the Ministerial side, and the Opposition benches being entirely deserted. The rapid passing of the Members of the Lower House before the Bar of the Upper presented a singular spectacle ; and on the rendezvous of the Com mons in the place of meeting, the Peers also left their House to join the Conference, their managers marching in proces sion, with cocked hats in band, preceded by the gold stick. The House of Lords was at this moment almost as much de serted as the Lower House, the Chancellor and two lay Peers only remaining with Lord Melbourne on the Ministerial benche s , while about half-a-dozen Bishops seated in their cor ner, and the Doke of Wellington alone occupying the Opposi tion benches between two Aides-de•Camp, Lord Wynford and Lord de Grey. Parliament was thus apparently forsaken by its Members, and two hours nearly elapsed before the Conference terminated. The doors of the Conference room were closely kept from the intrusion of strangers, and the gravest curiosity and anxiety seemed to prevail among those assembled outside, not only on account of the importance of the proceedings, but partly perhaps from historical recollections of the rude transactions which took place at some of the last Free Conferences held between the Houses now nearly a century ago. The discussion at this meeting was oral instead of written. The Earl of RIPON briefly stated that the Lords would not surrender their two amendments, but that they had agreed to mcet the Commons, and give them a Free Con ference. His Lordship shortly stated his reasons for taking part with the majority of the Peers in opposition to the Commons, but avowed their Lordships' anxious desire to be on good terms with the Commons. Lord J. RUSSELL replied with point and brevity to Lord Ripon. The Noble Lord echoed the sincere wish of the Commons to agree with the Lords ; but on the part of the Commons he had to state that they would not sacrifice principle, or the interests of the people, to the mere expe diency of such agreement. His Lordship recapitulated in firm language his general arguments, in opposition to the two amendments of the Lords, in regard to election by lot and the continuation of the Charity Trustees, and inti mated to the Peers that the Representatives of the People, by communication with their constituents, (an advantage not participated in by their Lordships) and by personal con nection with the boroughs, were better informed than their Lordships could be supposed to be of the evils in the ad ministration of the charities, Which the Lords wished to continue for another year to the ex-Corporators ; he alluded to the fact of the cx-Corporators continuing in their trusts during the past year to the Ist August. when their service expired, as a mutilation of the original Corporation Reform Bill of last session, and stated that he never could induce the Commons to accept on any terms this further extension of a defective and frequently-abused charity administration. His Lordship further intimated that if the Peers conceded this amendment an accommodation would not be impracticable on the other amendment of election by lot in three or four boroughs, where the councillors first elected had been even in political party numbers ; that the latter difference might be arranged with some modifications, if the Lords abandoned the ex-eorporators. His Lordship closed his reply to Lord Ripon, by pledging himself, on behalf of the Commons, not to give way to the Lords in matters of political principle and the interest of the nation. Ile further deprecated espe cially the attempt 'to revive and perpetuate the old trustees as a provision altogether inconsistent with the object of the Municipal Amendment Bill, which was simply applicable to informalities and defects in the first municipal elections, and contended that the Peers ought to have made their amendment o❑ the Ministerial Bill the subject of a se parate measure in their own House if deemed so important. Lord John further contended that the attempt to maintain the defunct Corporators in the charity administration was a direct violation of the Corporation Act of last Session, which only vested the trusts in those persons specifically for one yedr. . - Lord LYNDHURST answered the Noble Leader of the House of Commons in a reclierch speech, repeating his twice-told argument on recent debates in the Lords on the two amendments. The Baron magnified greatly the evils which would arise from the expense and delay of resorting to the Court of Ch ancery f or a re - creat i on of the municipal charity trusts, in case the Commons adhered to their reso lution of rejecting the Lords' amendments. He repre sented the amendments as esential to the administration of those charities, now that the Ministerial Charitable Trustees Bill was thrown out by the Lords. His Lordship gave a legal opinion, that the trusts could only he revived by petitions to the Chancellor, and references to the Masters' offices, legislatio n being preferable to equity, and the latter involving loss of time and :sacrifice of charity funds, by the unavoidable cost, and the robbery of the poor. The lia:on professed the deepest interest in the welfare of the objects of the charities and the people at large, which appeared to create no little excitement in the Conferees among the Commons. He particularly contended, that as of administration we re a ll ege d to h ave ex i s t e d during the past year, that th e ex-trustees ought not to be thus sum marily cashiered w i t h out proo f o f d e li nquenc y and unfitness for the trust. Th e N o bl e Leader of the Opposition Lords lastly reflected s t rong l y on Mi n i s t ers for delaying their Charitable T putting off for 'Trustees Bill, and for no abuses weeks the consideration of the first alterations of the Municipal Amendment Bill by the Lords, and made other complaints against, the Ministry and the Lower House. His Lordship slid little in defence of determining popular elections by lot. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied in a spirited speech, defending the Government and the Com mons, and renpitulating the facts respecting the different Bills before the Legislithsse. Lord ELLENBOROUGH assumed a mediatory position, and, seeing the fixedness of the Commons, suggested a middle course. He suggested that there was still ground for com promise open for the opposing Houses, that the Commons might amend the Trustees' continuation clause, by imposing restrictions on the ex-Corporators, if allowed to resume the administration one other year. The Noble Lord declared that he never contemplated the continuance of the old Corporators as Charity Trustees without additional re sponsibility. He suggested that the Commons should de vise some guards for their integrity, appointing Auditors or Controllers, or Commissioners of Revision. His Lordship recommended to the Commons to apply themselve s to some such plan in lieu of rejecting the amendment of the Upper House, btit the proposition did not seem to take. Mr. HUME, in a characteristic speech, protested against r.greeing with the Lords in the matter in dispute. The Hon. Member advised the Commons to stand their ground, as they had the ball in their own hands. He described " election by lot" as directly contrary to the principle of election, and as substituting chance for the will of the ma jority. If, however, the Lords would exhibit a real spirit of conciliation, and give up their idea of resuscitating the old Municipal Charity Trustees, he thought the lot clause not so essential a part of the Bill as to prevent a settle ment, but, on the contrary, he thought that it was capable of being arranged. The Hon. Member denied Lord Lynd hurst's assertion of the non-existence of abuses in the past year's administration of the trusts. Such abuses must have and had occurred, and he had heard constant complaints of abuses, especially of political abuse, of the charities. No borough suffering under the defects of the late Charity Administration could endure the revival of the trusts in the same partial bands. The necessity of calling in aid the powers of the Court of Chancery, and of the Chancel. for acting under the powers of the Corporation Reform Act, which enabled the Lord Chancellor to order the trustee ships, might beget evils, but they were evils of no moment comparatively with the evil of inflicting on the country the curse of calling back to power the ex-corporators. That the burgesses would never admit, nor their representatives consent to. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Campbell) made an excellent speech in answer to the legal points of the Tory Peers. He observed that he felt it of great impor tance that a good understanding should be kept up between the two Houses of Parliament, and he should carefully ab stain from saying anything inconsistent with this object. He hoped that on both the clauses which were under con sideration the Lords might be induced to yield. To the first of these the Commons did not attach any great impor tance, as its operation was limited and temporary ; but in cases where upon the election of aldermen and a mayor, the councillors were equally divided, lie thought it much better that the choice should be referred to the constituent body than be determined by lot. This mode of decision was wholly new in legislation, and was quite inconsistent with the principle of the Municipal Reform Bill, which was that those who were to manage the affairs of the boroughs should be placed in 'authority by the free choice of the inhabitants. The consequence of the Lords' amendments would be, that where the councillors were equally divided, the aldermen and mayor would . necessarily all be of one party. Suppose the members of the council now to be 9 and 9,they will be 15 and 9, and the borough is by chance permanently given up either to one party or the other. Would it not be much better to resort to the great body of the electors ? In that plan there would be no innovation, for according to the most ancient charters, the right of electing the Mayor and Aldermen was vested in all the Burgesses. But as the clause ap plied only to one election, the original Bill havinc , provided for all subsequent elections when the new Corporation was made complete, the Commons, to show their anxiety, to give satisfaction to the Lords, would probably be wil ling to agree to it. With respect to clause L, regulat ing the charities, he was sure the Commons were inflexible ; and he trusted that on consideration the Lords would see that it did not come properly within the scope of the Bill, that. it ought not to have been introduced, and that its ope ration would be injurious. Before the Municipal Reform Bill passed it was proved, to the entire conviction of both Houses of Parliament and the public, that the Trustees of Corporation charities had grossly misconducted themselves, had perverted to private and party purposes those funds which were destined to the support of the destitute and to promote the cause of education and religion. It was only from the impossibility of making a new arrangement when the Bill was passing that they were continued for a single hour. But there was a solemn compact between the Legislature and the public that they should, at all events, go out of office on the Ist day of August, 1836. The 71st sec tion of the Bill says that all their powers shall then wholly cease and determine, and that from that day, unless Parliament shall have legislated upon the subject in the meantime, the management of the charities shall be in the Lord Chancellor. A Noble and Learned Lord had ob served that nothing had been proved against the present Trustees from which it might be supposed that they were individually selected and approved of. But, in reality, by a sweeping enactment, all the individual members of all the old Corporations were, without distinction, continued Charity Trustees, and, from the information received by the. Commons from their constituents, there was no reason to Suppose that they had improved in purity or impar tiaDty in the distribution of the Charitable Funds. The Commons had sent up a Bill to their Lordships for regu lating these charities ; but this their Lordships had refused, and they had absolutely refused to legislate on the subject, otherwise than by introducing this clause for continuing the ex-Trustees for another year. He was afraid that in another session . or, Parliament the same course might be pursued, and that the consequence would be the perpe tuation of the abuses had been so loudly complained of. He had no lioubt that the Lord Chancellor would devise a mode by }which, with little delay, and little expense, proper trustee; would be appointed, who would administer the charities in !In up right manner, without regard to political objects. But s'le begged leave to point out to their Lordships, that, as their clause was framed, it would not answer their,own purpose; it would throw every charity in the kingdom into confusion, and it would occasion infinitely more liti g ation and expense than had been apprehended * by the Noble and Learned Lord who described so powerfully the delays and expense of the Court of Chancery. Clause L provides that the trustees who may be seised or possessed of the real and personal property of the charities, at the passing of the Bill, shall be continued for another year. Who would be the trustees so•seised ? Not the individual members of the old Corporations. On the Ist of August they were all fuacti qfficio, and the property vested in the new Corpora tions. The property would have continued all along in the new Corporations but for the .71st section, and when the Ist of August arrived, that section ceased to operate, and things were in the same situation as if it had never been introduced into the Bill. The old and the new Corporations were identi cally the same, just as if the changes had been introduced by a new charter from the Crown. Therefore, at this mo ment, all the estates and all powers of the old Corporations connected with charities are in the new, and so will con tinue at the passing of this Bill. The result would, there fore, be, that the Lords would, without intending it, consti tute the new town councils the Charitable Trustees, and would mix up the municipal charity funds, which all were agreed should be kept separate. But the clause %vent on to join with them the trustees •appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and it still left in the Lord Chancellor the power of creating an entirely fresh body of trustees, con ferred upon him by the proviso added to the 7 lst section of the Bill. No one could, therefore, tell what construc tion would be put upon the Lords' amendment, or what would be its operation, But so much was certain, that it would cause much more litigation and waste of the chari table funds than could be apprehended from rejecting the clause, and suffering the Lord Chancellor to appoint trus tees, and issue orders for the regulation. of the charities. For these reasons he hoped the Lords would not insist on the clause, and that by waiving it they would allow the community to enjoy the important benefits which it was universally allowed the other. parts of the Bill were calcu lated to confer. Lord ABINGER, in an ineffective specchof legal casuistry and unsound argument, q uestioned the points in the At torney-General's reasons for opposition to the Lords' Amendments. The Learned Judge contended that the trustees last in possession were legally seamed, and that the trusts could not be conveniently severed from them. There were technical difficulties in the way of transferring the administration, which he hoped would be avoided by the Commons consenting to replace the excellent trustees whose powers had just expired. His Lordship made.some refined objections to the Court of Chancery acting on its powers, which some of the O ppos i t i on Peers seemed to consider no service to their argument. The Learned Miro', lastly advocated the soundness of the principle or lot in the " tie " boroughs, with divided and incom plete coun ,, i l A. Ho thought the principle an equal and chance for either party, and was a mode of deter mining; the political preponderance preferable to the popu lar election provided in the first Commons' Municipal Amendment Bill. Lord Howtcx made an admirable reply to Lord Abin ger. The Noble Lord remarked, that what had been said by the' Learned Lord who preceded him, in reply to the arguments of the Attorney-General as to the legal construc tion of the clause introduced by the House of Lords, seemed rather to strengthen what he (Lord Howick) un derstood to be the or jeetien.urged hysthe. Attorney-Gene ral, namely, that there was so much doubt as to what would be the true construction of that clause, that its introduc- tion into the Bill would increase, instead of diminishing.. that litigation and expense, the apprehension of which was:a one of the main reasons urged by their Lordships against ainifsion of their amendment. But there was one point: which Empeared to him (Lord Howick) not to have been. adverted to by any of the managers of their Lordships, to., which be was particularly anxious to call their attention.. The question which had been discussed had been only,. whether it would be expedient to introduce into the- Bill the provision contended for by their Lordships. The House of Lords were of opinion ,that greater inconvenience would result from leaving the admi nistration of charities in the corporate towns on: the footing on which it would remain if the c l ause • were omitted, than for continuing for another year the exist ing Trustees ; while the House of Commons, on the other hand, thought that they could not, consistently with their duty, allow the management of these charities to remain for another year in the hands of those whose administrations had so long excited such general and such just dissatisfacti:m. Upon this question there seemed, unfortunately, little chancy of the two Houses coming to the same• conclusion ; but: Lord Howick thought that their Lordships had failed to advert to the fact that,. with regard to this question, the result would be precisely the same, whether the Bill were passed with the omission of the clause, or whether, in cora sequence of their Lordships insisting upon its retention: while the House of Commons felt bound not to accede.. to it, the Bill should be lost altogether. In either case, the charities must be left to be administered in the man ner pointed out hr the Municipal Act of last year ; and in either, all the difficulties and inconveniences, so strenglyi insisted upon by their Lordships as likely to result: ; from the omission of the clause, would equally arise.. Bat it should be con3idered that there were many citl:e; exceedingly useful and important provisions in the Bill, of which both Houses agreed in approving. There were enactments intended to obviate many serious inconveniences which had arisen in the working of the law passed in the l ast ses sion—there were some exceedingly valuable clauses respecting the management and discipline of prisons and. the administration of justice, which had been introduced into the Bill by their Lordships—and upon the advantage of all these parts of the Bill both Houses were per fectly agree d. He therefore felt convinced that their Lordships, when they considered this, would n o t thi n k it right to throw away and entirely to reject all the admitted benefit of the rest of the Bill (without in any degree gaining the object they had had in view ), merely becaus e the House of Commons felt that they could not conscientiously adept another clause" which did not necessarily belong to it. hie thought that their Lordships . could not take this course, because it would obviously be liable to the misinterpre- • tation of being a vindictive refusal on the part of their Lordships to the towns interested in the passing of the Bill, of all the advantages they could derive inea it, in order to punish them for the resistance of their representatives to tile clause in question. He would farther observe, that if their Lordships were of opinion that such serious inconveniences would arise from that mode of temporally administering these charities which was provided by the Act of last year, it was perfectly competent to them to introduce any other measure for the purpose of meeting this evil, without em barrassing the present Bill with a clause which must prove fatal to it. Their Lordships might send down to the Rouse of Commons another Bill providing in such man ner of in their judgment might be most expedient for the temporary administration of these charities ; and such a proposition, he was sure, would receive the best attention of she House of Commons ; while there was no reason. ivbether this measure should succeed or should fail, why the important advantages which all acknowledged would result limn the remaining portions of the present Bill, should in either case be abandoned. Lord JOHN RUSSELL (no other Opposition Peer renewing the discussion, or replyine. ' .to Lord Howick) clos e d th e Con ference by expressing his deep regret at the apparent impos sibility of agreement with the Lords. He repeated that the objectionable amendment which sought to re-instate the old Corporators in the administration of the Charitable. Trusts, was not consistent with the principle and object of the Bill into which it had been introduced by the Lords as an " amendment." He defended the Government against the charges of delay in the return of the amendments. He could not have anticipated the summary rejection of the Charitable Trustees Bill, in which latter Bill, rather than in the other, the Lords might with some consistency have mooted the point then in dispute. However much he might regret the loss of many necessary and valuable provisions in the Municipal Amendment Bill then in conference, he neither could nor would, consistently with his duty to the Commons and the borough towns, agree to its reception on the terms of the "amendment" proposed by the Lords. The Conference then broke up—the respective parties not more satisfied with each other at the end than at the beginning. The unusual nature of the meeting, and the existing relations of the two branches of the Legislature, rendered the scene exceedingly curious. It was observed that numbers of the Commons kept their hats on in the presence of the Lords, and an eminent Noble Leader of the Opposition was heard to say, that a repetition of such a discussion would not serve the hereditary legislators. The forms of Conference were otherwise most decorously observed on this occasion, though, from the superiority dis• played by the Con:mons in argument, the principle of a " Free Conference" kid down by Hatsell could hardly be preserved, viz., that of "allowing a sort of superiority to the Lords." There was, however, an entire absence of • those " scandalous reproaches" and " false expressions" by the Lords, which the Commons resented in 1701. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on his return to the House of Commons, stated at the bar the reasons urged by both par ties, - and that the Managers had failed to agree. Subse quently his Lordship moved that the Lords' Amendments be read that day three months. THE LIVERY OF LONDON. A List of the Livery of the several Companies in the Corpo ration of London who are qualified to vote during the year ensuing for Members to serve in Parliament for the City of London and the Suburbs thereof. Apothecaries Armourers 721 G unmakers 3O Barbers Bakers B ab :-et Makers B:acksn: it hs Bowlers ',... Butchers „ Brewers , - 40 Masons .. ............. ...... 42, Carpenters Clothworlter: Cla.elkmakers Combrnakers Cuaehruakers Cutp ers 106 Painters ..• lO5 Corks ls6Pewterers .. 7l Cordwai tiers Curriers Cardmakers Cutlers Distillers 34 Salters .• • l3B Drapers Dyers EMbroiderers 22•Si!lc-throwsters Famnakers l7 Spectacle-makers ....... 98 Furriers 88! Stationers Feltmongers Fishmongers Fleteher.s. . ... l9'Tin-plate-workers Founders B 5, Turners Framework-knitters . 51 Tilers Fruiterers Girdlers Glaziers 76 Wax-ell andlc ts Glass-sellers Gluiors _ l3l Wheelwrights 163 Goldsmiths ls2' Woolmen Goldwire-drawcrs . ^9' ' • ' Total 8,853 It will be seen by the al,ove statement that the Ilaborda. shers and Stationers' Companies Starud the highest in a nume rical point of view—making together 777, while the Basket mftlzers and Silk-throwsters have,- when united, only 14 Liverymen. EXCURSIONS 'SWITZERIAND, By J. FENI MORE COWER, ESQ., AUTHOR OF " THE Poor," &c.—This celebrated writer (obs . erves the Spretator) has imparted to the 4 account of his journey, something of as narrative intsrect ; his peculiar character,' moreover, gives freshness to what might otherwise be faded. Intimately familiar with all the beauties of the old world, be looked at Switzerland with a refined and instructed eye. His route was acteiss the Jura to Neufchatel and Berne ; thence be proceeded thoroughly to explore the I.kad of landscapes, threading- the,more rarely visited moun tains and valleys on foot, till, havitig exhausted even Switzer land, he passed over into Germany, and sailed on most or all of the lakes, crossed the Simplon, and closed his journey at Milan. Igo vi:sitor to this land, of romance should go unac compttnied by this charming work., London, opulcnt, onlaiged, and still increasing Lon don, although first in science and in arts , •contaitts much to make the life of man wretched, and to pollute his soul. There is no defining the . social state of its inhabitants. Squalor and splendour are alternately, as you thread your way through the streets, p r edomin a nt. —Metropolitan. it ATTLIN THE REEFER, EDITED BY TIIF. A omen OF "PE TER Si m1 , 1..r.. g Ile characters in bati/in the Reefer, - observes the Speitotor, "arc not very nume rous, but they are very good. First in the order of time, we bare the good-natured, selfish, .tyrannical, hard-working, Lard-driuking, Joe Brandon, the,top-sawver ; a capital por trait of a first-rate workman in prosperous times. Nest there is old Ford—forcible, but somewhat forced, and a slight in dication of a hypocritical Methodist deluder of a fanatical congregation. Thou comes a full-length portrait of Mr hoot--au ignorant, p om p ous , ca p r i c i ous , and cruel master of a boarding-school.; with one or two sketches of ushers. After these, we get o - i.shipboard, where the persons are mostly characteristic and faithful, from the finished picture of Captain Reud down to the petty officers and seamen."