The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-27 00:00:00

BATH GAS BILL.

ROEBUCK presented six petitions from the six
par:n4es of Bath- in favour of this Bill. The Hon. Gen-
tlemaa then mated the reennd reading of the Bill.
Mr. ..ETCOURT opposed it, on the ground that it
IY4S only establishing a rival Company, where competition
11,)t necessary, and which competition might prove the
.nto ims of ruining both the present Gas Company, as well
as the one to be established in opposition to it. The Ho-
llow-able Member then moved that the Bill be read that
(I.iy six months.

• Mr. HUME supported the Bill.
ISir R. INGLIS opposed it.
Mr. ROEBUCK said Honourable. Gentlemen would
-rive him credit for having no direct interest in the Bill,
though he wds peculiarly situated with regard to it. He
presented six petitions, signed by eight hundred per-
son -of whom six hundred were shopkeepers consuming
Cnder these circumstances, be, trusted that:the House
v.,o(dd consent to the second read*ng, ureler his pledge to
.kc o. re that all the inhabitants of Bath should have jus-
LI., done them respecting it, when the Bill should be in
f„lillmittee.

HA EVES said he would not oppose the second read-
• r 'be Bill, provided the Hon. and Learned Member
1,1., 0•
wenid astm.re the House that the inhabitants of Bath should
not he wot Ae off under the new Company than under the old
with rerard to the price of gas.
Mr. ROE3UCK assured the Hon. Gentleman that he
v.'euld take cart' that everything should be done in a manner
satisiactory to an the inhabitants.
After a fey/ woods from Mr. C. PELHAM and another
Hnnottrabk! Member. the House divided, when the num-
bers were—

11.3r1i0 second reading
Agatn.st it
Majority
?'be Bill waa then read a second time.
ONICIPAL CORPORATIONS (SCOTLAND)
BILL.

Slr li, FERGUSO:S presented a petition from the
Royal boroughs in Scotlat.'l, praying that in any. change
tat might be made in the nonicipal regulations of Scot-
land, their privileges might he presented to them.
Mr. R. STEUART, in moving the Order of the Day-
for the secovd reading of the Municipal Corporations Bill,
for the better regulations of cities and boroughs in Scot-
hoar, said that this Bill became necessary from the defects
/if the Scotch Reform Bill, which, although it extended the
Is.undal yes of those cities and towns, did not give any eor-
responaw tower of taxation or extension of the powers
of the magistras-Y. The Bill, indeed, was framed upon the
recommendations .
of the Municipal Commissioners who had
Keen appointed by ti.c Crown, and at whose recommenda-
tion the boundaries her: been extended. When the Reform
DiVor Scotland passed, ,it was never intended that it was
.t a a final or complete ,measure, but that the receem-
' mendations of the Commissimers should be carried out by
„.mtirs' ether measures. A large popti.lation had been added to
the towns in Scotland by the boundaries of the Reform
ex.d it was necessary that this new population
should beeplecad under the same Yegulation as the
old. In .Edinburgh; there was a very large increase,
amonntinga,,to eighty thousand, who were altgether with-
, the--Jutq,sdiction of the Municipal regulations of the
sfe'• city. Tiie Bill had also in view to modify the qualifica-
tion or electors! its Municipal towns, and to incree.se the
nuteelif Town Councillors in proportion to theluereast:
• of Tiopulation in each place. He had also introduced into
the Bill- a set of police clauses, which would save the ex-
pense to each :town of having a separate Police Act ; and
it was intended by the Bill to provide that the new popula-
tion should not be liable for the debts or other incum-
brances of the told population, hitherto incurred, but only
for what might be incurred in future. The Bill would
also provide for to supply of water to each town, under pro-
per regulations. .He knew there was a great objection on
the part of some hon. Members to having Edinburgh in-
cluded in this Bill. He did not, however, think himself
justified in'exela*g• Edinburgh, and, therefore, he had
introduced it ,---"Ritie should not object to any Hon. Mem-
ber moving at the proper time, to exclude that city from
the operations of the Bill. The Committee would be the
more proper opportunity for going into the details, and he
should, therefore, for the present, content himself with
moving that the Bill be read a second time.
Mr. C. BRUCE said that he did not accuse his Hon.
Friend who moved the second reading of this Bill of beiba•
influenced by any party motives in bringing forward this
measure, but at the same time he could not but observe
that there were powers given by the Bill which might be
used and applied to political purpoees. In the Committee,
however, he should have a better opportunity than at pre-
, sent of going into the particular clauses to which he re-
ferred, and should now only point attention to the powers
given to the Crown of increasing the number of the magis-
tracy, and of altering the divisions of wards. Indeed, as
regarded legislation for -Scotland generally, he regretted
that more time and attention were not given for the consi-
deration of measures affecting that country. There were
at present a number of Bills relating to Scotland before the
House, and he thought it would be much better to con--
solidate Acts of Parliament than 10 multiply them. He
should not oppose tbo second reading of the Bill, but he
would call the attention of the Couarnitteo to the objections
he had named.
Sir G. CLERK was glad that Edinburgh had not been
included in this Bill. The people were not so enamoured
of' municipal privileges as to desire a Council for the pur-
pose of taxing them. No reason had been sta;.ed for re-
ducing the qualification to 51., and this clause he should
oppose in the Committee. It was contrary to the rem:l-n-
-mendations of the Commissioners, who'stated in their Re-
port that the proportion of JO/. to 51. houses was the
same in small as in large towns. It would be a much better
course to reduce the number of Councillors in small
boroughs, leaving the qualification as it •nbsv was. If the
municipal qualification was reduced, how could they refuse
reducing the Parliamentary qualificatiriKkso ? There
were many of the smaller boroughs in Sootland which
would prefer being under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff or
of the Magistrates to having n Council. He did not see
Low the provisions of this Bill could be' reconciled with
those of the general Police Act. Many of them were the
same in both, though the Police Act was not repealed, or
any allusion made to it in the preamble of this measure.
Ile objected also to ,the extension •of the honndaries, for
gentlemen residing in the neighbourhood of towns would
thus he burtlienedwith municipal taxes. There-,was an
get in Scotland similar to that of the 9th Geo.efft, in
Irelatel, which would sufficiently answer all the-pur'pOsik.q
t::is measure.
„Mr. CHALMER.S hoped a clause would be introduced
to prwrent the Members of these Corporations from divide
hut the foods ampng them. •
Tile LORD ADVOCATE ,said there was no occasion
rich a clause as that mentioned by the HOn. Member,
I.ceeese there was no legal power to divide the funds. The
repeal ,of the Police Act was minecalssary, heeanse it had
n long inoperative, end there was nothing contradictory
is the provisions of the two Bills. It was intended to
In hlg in a separate Bill for Edinburgh.
Mr. FORBES was opposed to the Bill. v.
The A TTORNE Y-GE INF,RA L thought l Edinburor I

ought to be under one municipal government, and be hopad
such a Bill might be introduced as would satisfy all parties.
Mr. A. JOHNSTONE hoped this measnre would not
be postponed from one Wednesday to another, like the
other Scotch business. The Scotch Members ought not
to allow this, and if the Bill was not expedited, he would
move that it be put off for six months.—(A laugh.)
`Mr. A. STEWART said he would be prepared to de-
fend the 51. clause in the Committee.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday next.
ADJOURNMENT.

On the motion of Mr. F. BARING the House was ad-
journed from its rising to Friday (to-morrow.)
BURGHS OF BARONY (SCOTLAND).
Sir A. L. HAY moved the second reading of the Burghs
of Barony (Scotland) Bill, presenting at the same time a
number of petitions in its favour from various places in Scot-
land. The Hon. and Gallant Member said that the ob-
ject of the Bill was to introduce a more substantial police re-
gulation into these towns, and to enable them to appoint an
efficient magistracy, which they were very much in want of
at present. The Bill was optional, and the towns could ac-
cept or reject it by public meeting, to be convened for the
purpose.
Sir G. CLERK objected to the Bill, because it was
quit• unnecessary, and because it was an overloading of the
Statute Book with minute laws. The whole of the legisla-
tion which it was intended to accomplish by it could have
been included in six lines of the Bill which had been just
read a second time, or the Bill of the Lord Advocate, as
effectively as it would be by the sixty pages it compre-
hended. He was opposed to the principle of the 51. quali-
fication, because he saw no reason and could augur no
good from its introduction into the measure ; and he depre-
cated confiding, as it purported to do, the magisterial
power to the class of persons on whom it was intended to
be conferred. On these grounds he hoped the Hon. and
Gallant Member would see fit to withdraw the Bill.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON said the burghs desired the
measure for their own peace sake ; they were in a most
lawless state at present for want of an efficient system of
police and a resident magistracy. Nothing could be better
calculated to remedy the evils than the measure under
consideration, as its great object was to obviate them not
alone in the burghs but the incorporated towns. There
were upwards of 130 petitions from the several burghs in
its favour ; he hoped, therefore, the House would pass the
Bill.

Mr. C. BRUCE conceived the Bill was altogether un-
necessary as a separate measure, as it could easily be em-
bodied in either of the Bills for the municipal regulation of
the Scottish boroughs then before the House. Under these
circumstances he should oppose the second reading.
Dr. BO WRING supported the Bill. It was exceed-
ingly popular in Scotland, and besides it was another step
to the grand object of his side of the House, the great'end
of self-government.
Mr. FORBES denied that the Hon. Member (Dr.
Bowring) was entitled to assume to represent the popular
interests of the country. , On behalf of those popular in-
terests he decidedly objected to this Bill.
Mr. DUNLOP supported the Bill, which was very po-
pular in the towns in his county. This measure was very
much wanted, for many of the towns were actually without
local magistrates, so that depredations were openly com-
mitted, without fear of punishment.
Sir HUGH CAMPBELL supported the amendment.
Mr. A. JOHNSTON supported the Bill. With re-
spect to the objections raised to the licensing clauses, it
seemed to have been overlooked that no spirit dealer could
sit on the magisterial bench.
Mr. PR NG LE entertained great objections to this Bill.
Mashy of the towns included in the Bill were far too insig-
nificant for Corporations.
In answec to a question by Mr. C. W. WYNN, .
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that soon after the pas-
sing of the English Corporation Bills he made inquiry as to
the expense of new charters, when he found that the
amount for the one was, in some cases, as much as 8001.
This, however, was mainly caused by the number of names
of councilmen, aldermen,. and others inserted in the old
charters, by which additional expense was incurred. Under
the new Act this unnecessary expense was in a great mea-
sure done'away with by the omission of those names, so
that a great reduction of the charge was effected. He next
applied his attention to the subject of the fees paid on such
charters, for the purpose of ascertaining how many of them
could be remitted. On application to the Treasury be ob-
tained a remission of the fees in question, renewable at the
expiration of each year, so that the expense of a charter
now -a between 1201. and 154, a sum not too large, he
came eJ, for a large and wealthy town to pay for their
chc.!•!er of incorporation.
Sir G. CLERK thought that the best way in which to
accomplish his object (the consolidation of these Bills) was
to move an instruction, on going into Comniittee, to that
effect. The Flom. Baronet then gave notice accordingly,
and said he should not now.divide the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL said there would be no difficulty in
bringing in the two latter Bills on the same night.
Mr. C. BRUCE said he also would withdraw his pre-
sent opposition, as the promised motion of the Hort. Baronet
fully met his views.
The Bill was then read a second time.
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS BILL.

Mr. C. BULLER then moved the second reading of the
Controverted Elections Bill.

•, The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the mo-
tion, if it was intended to read the Bill a second time pro
forma only, and equally to there being any discussion on so
important a measure in so thin a House.
Mr. C. BULLER said he was equally averse to passing
Bills pro forma through their stages, if there was any at-
tempt at smuggling them through ; but the present motion
was not of this description. ,The subject was one of the
greatest importance, and the House had expressed a desire
to legislate upon it.—(Hear.) Now, his Bill was rather a
collection of unconnected details, likely to be canvassed and
selected from by the House in Committee, than one re-
quirifig the principle to be affirmed on the second reading.
He had therefore adopted the present course, in order that
he might state all the details in Committee, where they
could better be dismissed than at the present stage of the
Bill.

Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his assent to the pro-
posal of the Hon. and Learned Member, though he was
far from saying that the enactments of the Bill would re-
ceive his concurrence.

Mr. WASON (who had placed a notice on the books
with reference to this Bill) said that he would now move
that his amendment be read, not with any view of pressing
it now, but that it might appear on the journals.
The amendment was then put from the Chair.
Mr. H. GRATTAN said that he highly approved of
the proposed measure. It was time that the House legis-
lated on this subject. In a Committee on which he was
now sitting the elective franchise of many of his own
tenants depended upon the vote of a single Member.—
(Cries of " Order.") He, as well as other Hon. Mombers,
had given notice on the eubject, and he hoped the matter
wouLl be followed up, as the evil was one which required a
remedy.
Mr. C. WiNN would remind the Hon. Gentleman
that the succession of the house of Hanover was carried by
a majority of two.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on the 17th of May.