The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-18 00:00:00

Mr. T. CAMPBELL, in proposing the Church of Scot-
land, remarked that h was his native Church, a Church
which has been defended by the greatest amount of human
bravery that is to be found in the annals of history. He
believed that the Bible alone was the only proper test of
religion. (The toast was received with great cordiality.)
Dr. FLEMING, of Neilston, returned thanks.
The University of Edinburgh was then given from the
Chair, and received with much applause.
Professor WILSON returned thanks in a strain of fervid
eloquence, in the course of which he took an opportunity
of paying a high compliment to Mr. Cairns. He concluded
by proposing the health of the Chairman, Mr. Sheriff Camp-
bell, which was drunk with immense applause.
Sheriff CAMPBELL returned thanks in a feeling and em-
phatic manner, and was frequently interrupted in the
course of his address by tokens of applause. Coming as
the compliment did from such a distinguished individual as
Professor Wilson, who, he said, had done him more honour
than he deserved, it was doubly valuable, and concluded by
giving " The University of Glasgow."
Mr. T. CAMPBELL returned thanks for the University in
a speech of great length and animation, and observed that he
could confer, were he so disposed, the degree of D.D. on
any person present; but in looking around him he could
not perceive any face with that portion of gravity that
would entitle them to that distinguished honour.—(Laugh-
ter.) He would, however, as a substitute, confer upon
the whole company present the degree of " Good Fellows."
—(Loud laughter and cheers.)
A number of other toats were given, and excellen
speeches delivered. The meeting separated at a late hour
CO

'AIIVION FIELDS INCLOSURE BILL

CASE OF THE GREAT TOWNS AGAINST THE

BILL.
The " Bill for Facilitating the Inclosure of Open and
Arable Fields," as originally introduced, applied only to
"open and common arable fields ;" and no opposition was
made to it, on the express understanding that it should not
be made at all to affect the rights of the inhabitants of great
towns to frequent these Commons in their vicinities which
had immemorially been, without let or question, their ha-
bitual places of resort for healthful and athletic recreations.
But, upon a second recommitment, the words, "or any
open and common meadows or pastures," were introduced,
which, as the only qualifying circumstance is, that such
wastes should be known by " metes and bounds," and be
"occupied according to known and legal rights," it is be-
lieved would apply to all the commons of England, except
the few which come under the provisions exempting com-
mons being the property of a municipal corporation, or of
the burgesses thereof. In every other case the concur-
rence of two-thirds of the lords of the manor is suffi-
cient by the Bill to destroy "all such rights and interests
as the intents and purposes of the Act absolutely require
to be destroyed ;" and consequently to shut out the public
from their places of habitual resort, and to deprive them for
ever of a right which nothing short of an Act of Parliament
could take away : the injustice of this would be paralleled by
the inhabitants of large towns bringing in a Bill to con-
fiscate the property of the lords of the manor in such wastes,
and to transfer it to the public.
COPY OF THE BRISTOL PETITION AGAINST THE BILL.
" To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled.
" The respectful Petition of the undersigned Inhabitants of
the City of Bristol, the Suburbs thereof, the Parish of
Clifton, in the County of Gloucester, and their neigh-
bourhood,
" Showeth—That your petitioners have seen with dismay
that a Bill is now pending in your Honourable House, entitled
A Bill for facilitating the Inclosure of Open Arable Fields
in England and \Vales,' which, altered on its re-comnaitment,
extends the power of inclosure proposed to be thereby con-
ferred ' to open and common pastures occupied accordinr, to
known and legal rights,' and would thereby enable a very few
individuals to deprive the numerous inhabitants of the metro-
polis, and of many other large and populous manufacturing
and commercial cities and towns, of the valuable privilege,
which they now habitually enjoy, of taking air and exercise
over certain inclosures and waste or commonable downs, heaths,
and lands in their immediate vicinity—a privilege greatly re-
dounding to the preservation and improvement of their health,
and to the increase of their innocent recreation, while it is at-
tended with little or no perceptible injury to the scanty her-
bage of such lands.
" That the city of Bristol and parish of Clifton, and their
vicinity, possess, in an eminent degree, those advantages,
having very near to them several open spaces, delightfully
adapted and long used by their inhabitants for air and
exercise.
" That the doubtful advantage of increasing the agricul-
tural produce upon a few more acres out of similar wastes will
be insufficient to counterbalance the evil impending over a
very large portion of the subjects of this realm, by despoiling
them of their• accustomed means of health and innocent gra-
tification.

" Your petitioners therefore pray that a clause may be in-
serted in the said Bill, Providing that nothing therein con-
tained shall authorise the inclosure of any open waste, or com-
monable lands, situate within five miles of any city or town,
the population of which exceeds five thousand persons, or such
other restrictions for securing to populous towns the advantage
in that respect which they now enjoy, as to your Honourable
House shall seem fit."
A similar petition has been presented to the Lords.
OBJECTIONS TO THE PETITION ANSWERED.

It has been objected to the petition presented to Podia.
rnent, for a clause protecting from the scope of the gene-
ral Inclosure Bill wastes in the vicinity of great towns,
that it proposes an usurpation of legal rights, on an exten-
sive scale, throughout the country—and that there is no
propriety in robbing the lords, and the freeholders or claim-
ants on commons near towns, of those legal rights which
will not equally apply to cases of commons situate else-
where ; the rights in the soil are the same in both cases.
To this principle we fully accede, but we conceive that the
objector has somewhat unfavourably interpreted the scope
of the petition, and the state of the case ; and that, there-
fore, this principle is not applicable to prevent the granting
of the prayer of the petition.
The applicants do not propose any usurpation of legal
rights, nor do they seek to rob any lords, or any freeholders
or claimants on commons, either near towns or at a dis-
tance, of any legal rights in the soil, or otherwise. On the
contrary, the basis of their petition is an earnest desire,
that in all cases wherein the petitioners are interested the
legal rights may continue precisely as they now are.
That the inhabitants of a certain village or town may
legally possess the privilege of resorting to a certain close
or heath, or other space of land, for the purposes of exer-
cise and recreation, is a right known and recognised by the
law, as capable of subsisting ; and it does, in fact, in many
cases exist. Wherever it exists, if there be also an owner
of the soil and commoners, that is a case in which, in the
phraseology of the Bill, the " open and common pasture"
is " occupied according to known legal rights," and, conse-
quently, a case within the scope of the Bill, Yet the Bill
provides no reservation of such rights, no equivalent or
compensation to the inhabitants for the extinction of such
rights, although their rights will appear to a reader of the
Bill to be clearly among those which are intended to be
thereby "extinguished ;" but, on the contrary, a shear power
is given to the owner of the soil, and the persons having
common of pasture, to allot, divide, and enclose such land,
without any respect to such arrangement as is above alluded
to. In this case a gross and direct robbery is committed by
the Bill, and a great injury done to the inhabitants of towns.
But suppose that it be a case in which the towns have no such
immemorial usage, but that at present thousands practically
have the enjoyment of resorting to such a tract of land for
exercise and recreation. Iris equally a trespass to tread down
the scanty herbage of a common, against the will of the
parties interested, as it would be to intrude ou the classical
beauties of Hagley without the permission of the noble
owner. The proprietor of the soil may punish the trespass,
any commoner may punish it. Neither the proprietor nor
the commoner does, in the present state of things, in fact,
punish it ; a toleration prevails, and a large measure of hu-
man enjoyment is the result. The petitioners do not ask
that the Legislature shall give them a legal right where
they had none ; they do not pray that that which is now
conceded to them as a boon shall be conferred on them as
a right ; they do not seek to usurp a legal right ; they only
pray that in the case where the petitioners themselves
have a legal right, the Legislature, as is just, will not take
it away ; and that in the case where the petitioners have
no legal right, the Legislature will not apply
to the cupi-
dity of the owners a stimulant to revoke the tacit licence
which is now without grudging given to thousands, and,in
which thousands revel with delight, alike to the benefit of
their physical and moral conduct.
What is the motive for which the Legislature grants an
Inclosure Act ? It is on the ground that they feel them-
selves justified in enabling the majority of persons interested
in a field, for their individual benefit or gratification, to
coerce the minority, in contravention of the legal rights of
the latter. Certainly not ?

but little did he imagine, while cutting a bough from Wal-
lace's tree in his boyhood, that lie was destined to assume
his personal appearance. Still, however, through his whole
life, he had adopted the sentiments of that illustrious man—
" Thy spirit independence let me share,
Lord of the lion heart and eagle eye."
—(Great applause.) He had never deserted, nor ever
would, those principles which he was proud to advocate in
the spirit of independence. The Professor then playfully
alluded to some of Mr. Campbell's remarks. 'Wherever he
was born, he would never be ashamed of his birth-place, nor
would his birth-place ever have cause to be ashamed of
him.—(Cheers.) He was proud of being a native of Pais-
ley, nor would he feel so vely proud of being a native of
Glasgow.--(Hear, and laughter.) Long before the passing
of the Reform Bill, he (Professor "Wilson) was persuaded
that Paisley, from her manufacturing and commercial im-
portance, should have a Member of her own in Parliament.
He concluded an animated speech, by proposing " Pros-
perity to the town of Paisley," which was drunk with great
applause.