The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-11 00:00:00

clause which had been inserted with respect to mortgagees
and trustees.

Lord LYNDHURST adhered to his amendment, because
it was only explaining a doubtful state of the law under the
Reform Act in accordance with what was the old law.
The clause was suffered to remain without a division.
After a few verbal amendments, moved by Lord REDES-
DALE, to insert the number of the houses in a borough in
each schedule,
The Report was brought up, and the Bill ordered to be Lead
a third time to-morrow (this day).
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR next called .the attention
of the House to this Bill; since the last discussion he had had
communication with the Judges as to the time when it could
come into operation, and the earliest day on which the neces-
sary rules could be made was the 2d of November, when the
Judges met.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he bad received a number of
most heart-melting letters from parties who, expecting to be
discharged on the Ist of October, now found that they were
to be detained till the Ist of December ; and he suggested
that the Act which had been passed in this session enabling
the Judges to sit in banco during the recess should be made
available for the purpose of forming the necessary rules under
this Act.
Lord LYNDHURST—It should be done. . _

The LORD CHANCELLOR said he knew that a few
days ago there was only one judge in London, and he could
not hope to find them in town soon.
Lord BROUGHAM wished their Lordships to fix a certain
day when the judges should be able to agree on the rules, and
then to say that the Act should come into operation imme-
diately afterwards.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that there was
some restriction in the Act referred to, which would prevent
this, and suggested that the further consideration of the Bill
should be postponed till Monday.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that whilst upon this Bill he
would call the Noble and Learned Lord's attention to a very
hard restriction which was imposed upon newspapers, the
proprietors of which were bound to insert every advertise-
ment at 33. each ; and he had had a representation from a
most respectable provincial paper, stating that for 3s. they
might be obliged to insert an advertisement of so many lines
as to take up one-fourth of the paper. This was from a
country paper, published only once a week, and such a pro-
posal was enormous. Why was a newspaper proprietor to be
taxed more than any one else for a private purpose ?
Lord LYNDHURST bad a petition to present upon this
subject, which he regretted that he had:not with him. It was
from the proprietor of a country newspaper, and i t stated that
the sum proposed to be paid would not amount to the money
paid to the workmen for setting and printing the advertise-
ment. He (Lord Lyndhurst) could not think for what pur-

pose the clause had been introduced.
The Earl of FALMOUTH said that he had also received
several letters, stating- objections to the clause, and he could
not conceive why the clause had been allowed to pass both
Houses of Parliament. The 3s. would not be a compensa-
tion for the mere labour. _ .

Lord ELLENBOROUGH had presented a petition on this
subject at the first sitting of the House that day, and he objected
strongly to retaining the provision.
Lord LYNDHURST suggested that the clause should
be struck out. What right had they to interfere with private
property ?
Lord BROUGHAM said that this was an amendment
made by the Commons, and not having had the discussion
which, if it had been in the original Bill, would have taken
place in its different stages, it was only say;ng, let A, B, C
pay out of their own private pockets for the benefit of X, Y,
Z, or any other individuals.
Viscount MELBOURNE advised their Lordships to consi-
der well whether by making this alteration they would not
run the risk of keeping the persons in prison till the next Ses-
sion of Parliament.

Lord BROUGHAM remarked that the Bill as originally
sent by the Commons had been agreed to ; this was an amend-
ment subsequently introduced, and if that House did not agree
to the amendment, yet the Commons could not refuse the origi-
nal Bill as assented to. .

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that this clause, with
others, bad been left out of the Bill originally, because they
were considered to be money clauses; and if the same provi-
sion, as he believed it did, existed in the Insolvent Act, why
should it not be re-enacted? _ _

Lord LYNI3iIVRST—Why should they pursue a wrong?
If it were in the Insolvent Act, why should they perpetuate
what was bad ? _ _

Lord BROUGHAM added, that the proposed clause was
of much more general operation than the old one, and it im-
posed the necessity of inserting a much larger amount of ad.
vertisements.

After a few words from the Earl of SHAFTESBURY,

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that this clause only
formed part of those requiring certain notices to be given, and'
if it were altogether struck out, he feared that due notice
would not be given.
Lord BROUGHAM—Then let the party who is benefitted
by the notice pay for the advertisement himself. Let all due
notice be given, but then let it be at the expense of the parties
interested, and not of the proprietors of newspapers.
The further consideration of the amendments was then post-
poned till Monday.
PARLIAMENTARY BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill
having been read,
Lora LYNDHURST said that he was surprised that the
Bill should be brought forward. He had been told that it
would not be pressed.
The Earl of MINTO said that the delay was caused by
his unavoidable absence in the country, for which he trusted
to be excused, and was proceeding to explain the provisions
of the Bill, when
Lord BROUGHAM rose and said that this was entirely a
new Municipal Bill for Scotland, consisting of seventy clauses,
with two or three schedules, one of which contained the
names of thirteen towns. He had not heard before of the
existence of the Bill. The Noble Earl had not said one
word to him about the alteration of the Bill of 1833, which
had been wholly in his ( Lord Brougham's) Charge. The
Noble Earl had never wished him to pay any attention to the
former Bill ; and as he had not time to pay due attention to
it now, he hoped that the House would agree to the motion
that he would make, that the Bill should be read a second
time that day three months. During those three months
he would direct his attention to the subject, and lie thought
it would have been but common decorum to have consulted
him upon the Bill before it was pressed. He supposed
that he would next hear of an amendment to be proposed
in his Slave Trade Felony Act, without having had the op-
portunity of looking at the proposed amendment even for
one hour. He would say nothing of common courtesy, be-
cause that had long passed and gone—( Cheers and laughter)—
but Parliamentary decorum required that so important a Bill
as the present should not be read a second time, without a
prerious.consultation, on the 10th of August, on the very eve of
the prorogation ; and for these reasons he would save the
Noble Earl the trouble of going through the particulars of the
Bill, by moving that it should be read a second time that day
three mouths. This was the 10th of August; he would move
that tbri second reading should be postponed till the 10th
October—( Cheers) ;—aud this would give all parties time to
consider it.
The Earl of MINTO replied that the Noble and Learned
Lord had rather inverted the, order of proceeding by moving
the rejection of the Bill before the second reading itself had
been moved. He wished, however, to state that the Bill had
no new object in view, it was only intended to work out the
principle of the former Acts, and to enable the burghs to
raise funds which were essentially necessary to carry out the
object of the Legislature in conferring the municipal franchise.
Some of the clauses in the Bill were precisely the same as
those in the old Bill, and the others were intended only t
effect the object which he had stated.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he wished to consider the
Bill, to know whether the proposed alterations really were
amendments to his own Act; for, judging from some recent
proposals with respect to Scotch Bills coming from the same
quarter—( Hear)—he was not satisfied to take it for granted
that the new Bill would amend the old ; and unless his Noble
and Learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) particularly
wished for the Bill, he (Lord Brougham) would certainly per-
sist in his motion.
Lord L YNDHURST said, that so far from wishing for
this Bill, he was anxious to compare it with the other, to see
whether.the clauses in the new Bill were in reality superior to
those in the old ; and he thought that it was rather too late in
the Session, on the 10th of August, to read such a Bill a
second time.
The Earl of MINTO felt that there was considerable force
in the objection founded on the lateness of the period at which
he wished to proceed with this Bill, and under the circum-
stances he would consent to postpone it till the next Session.
Lord LYNDHURST—My Noble and Learned Friend's
Bill is a very good Bill, and it will do for another year at
least.
VALUATION OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill went through a Committee, and some verbal
amendments having been introduced, the Report was ordered
to be received to-morrow (this day).
PENSIONS BILL.

This Bill also went through a Committee, and having been
reported, without amendments, was ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow (this day).
TIN DUTIES (CORNWALL) BILL.
Viscount MELBOURNE suggested that this Bill should
be read a second time, on the understanding that any discus-
sion should take place on the next stage.
Lord LYNDHURST objected to the Bill being proceeded
with at that period of the session, and could not, therefore,
consent to the proposal.
After a few words from the Earl of FALMOUTH,
Viscouut MELBOURNE said that lie could not consent
to give up the Bill, and he therefore postponed the second
reading till Monday.
DUCHY of CORNWALL and LANCASTER BILL.
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted on Monday.
JOINT-STOCK BANKS BILL.
On the motion of Viscount MELBOURNE, this Bill was
read a third time and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned at half-past ten o'clock
till tomorrow (this day) at half-past three o'clock.

TRADE OF MANCJIESTER.—TIIO activity and the
increased firmness observable in the Liverpool Cotton Market have pro-
duced some effect here. There was an extensive demand for most de-
scriptions of yarn yesterday (Monday), and an advance of id. per pound
pretty generally realised ; but the spinners complain that this advance
does not compensate them for the increased price which they must pay for
Cotton. The demand for goods was also tolerably brisk, especially for
printing cloths, which were rather scarce, and commanded an advance
of I d, to 3d. per piece on the rates oflast week.— Manchester Guardain.