The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-15 00:00:00

SCOTCH- UNIVERSITIES BILL.

Viscount MELBOURNE postponed the second read-
ing of the Scotch Universities Bill to Thursday next.
Several petitions were presented for and against the
North Durham Railway Bill.
Lord HOLLAND objected to so irregular a pro-
ceeding as presenting petitions upon a Bill which had
been already decided upon by their Lordships.—(Hear,
hear.) The petitions were withdrawn.
Lord LYNDHURST said it would be desirable that a
day would be fixed for the discussion of the Commons'
Amendments to the Municipal Corporations (England)
Amendments Bill.

Viscount MELBOURNE would fix Monday next for
that purpose.

(LEFT SITTING.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER resumed the Chair a few minutes before
five o'clock.
Sir A. L. HAY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for
constructing a pier, to be called the Trinity or North Lieth
Harbour.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt it his duty to
oppose this motion, which was of an unprecedented nature.
This was a Bill for the construction of Docks—a private
Bill, which required a certain number of subscribers
—which required notices to be given, and contracts to be
entered into ;—yet leave was asked to bring in the
Bill without any of these things having been done, the
former Bill having been thrown out in another place.
If the Bill were allowed to pass, persons' property
might he taken away without there being any funds
from which to obtain compensation.—(Hear, hear.) He
stood upon the orders of the House and upon the regularity
of the proceedings, and then he was sure that the motion
could not be agreed to.
Sir A. L. HAY said he was surprised at the
speech of his Hon. Friend the Attorney-General. By
it it was made to appear as if the Bill had been
thrown into in another place upon its merits ; and
that there was no precedent for its re-introduction.
The real situation of the case was this—the Bill
had passed the Committee of the other House, but with
such amendments as would have invalidated it altogether if
sent back to the Committeetherefora the Noble Chair-
man of the Committee had moved that the Bill be read a
third time that day three months, with the intention of
its being introduced again. The Honourable Chairman
cited a case in 18'27, and the Glasgow Gas Bill, as in-
stances in point, and precedents for the re-introduction of
the Bill. Under these circumstances he would take the opi-
nion of the House upon the question, in order to see whether
theywould deviate from the practice upon previous occasions.
The measure he asked leave to propose was the same as that
ormerly passed, and which had been thrown out upon
a mere technical objection. It was not a Bill which
would require discussion, or one which would be likely
to receive any opposition in the other House. Under these
circumstances he hoped they would permit him to bring in
the Bill as a matter of justice and right.
Mr. WI LKS said the question was whether the
House would deviate from its uniform practice, and
create a precedent which was wholly unknown in
the annals of Parliament. The amendments were
merely formal, and did not at all alter the circumstances
under which the Bill was passed before. Nothing could
be so graceless as the opposition now offered to the Bill,
.uid he hoped it would be fruitless.
Sir GEORGE CLERK thought the opposition to the
Bill was most disinterested. Was it not a most astonishing
fact that no person connected with commerce had any
connection with it ? He did not mean to say anything against
the promoters of the Bill, but he thought the names of those
persons were far better known in 'Change Alley than in
Scotland. He trusted that though whilst the question was
uncertain, the Government would take no part in the dis-
cussion of a private Bill ; yet that now, under the altered
state of the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would, for the sake of the public interests, stand
forward and oppose this Bill. He hoped the House would
not permit a second Bill to be brought in.
Sir E. CODRINGTON thought the objection of the
Earl of Shaftesbury had been made at an extraordinary
period, and he considered it was not very fair for the Hon.
Baronet to make the objection, he himself having been
the cause of the objection.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
There was the opinion of two Admirals besides himself in
favour of the locality of the harbour. It was a good harbour
not only in point of locality, but as a refuge for men of war.
He therefore hoped they would be permitted to bring in
another Bill.

Mr. HU ME considered that the Honourable Ba-
ronet was not justified in accusing the promoters of the
Bill of blunder.—( Hear, hear.) The real truth was
this. A copy of the clause that had been objected to was
sent to the Noble Lord to know whether he approved of
it He had approved of it so long as he thought the
Bill would not pass the House.
o _ _

But when the Bill had passed the House in spite of all
opposition, then came the objection.—(Cries of " Order,
order," and " Chair, chair.") He did not impute motives ;
he was only giving his interpretation.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) It was merely a question whether they
would adopt a certain harbour which would give that
fair protection to the trade of Scotland which it required,
strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For leave to bring in the Bill 73
Against it . _

Majority for leave to bring in the Bill l7
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
SCOTCH MUNICIPAL BILL.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, seeing the Lord
Advocate of Scotland in his place, wished to ask
whether it was his intention on the Scotch Municipal
Corporation Bill to include Edinburgh ? His constituents
in that city were most anxious to know the determination
of the Learned Lord.

The LORD ADVOCATE said that it was not his in-
tention to include Edinburgh in the Bill, but a separate
Bill would be introduced for the purpose.
DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. CLAY then rose to move for the appointment of
a Select Committee on the Danish claims. He should
occupy the attention of the House for but a very short
time. The faets laid in a very small compass, and they
were, moreover, of such a nature that he felt quite satisfied
a mere statement of them would suffice to answer the
purposes of his motion. The bare statement of the case
of the petitioners would, in his opinion, be quite enough ;
and he could not enhance the effect which a simple and un-
adorned statement of the petitioners' case would produce.
The case of the petitioners involved the cases of a great
number of British subjects who suffered severe losses in
1807. A large portion of that body had already received
from the bounty or the justice of that House, compensation
for their losses. Money was voted in the miscellaneous
estimates for 183,5 and 1836, but those who now claimed
had hitherto been admitted to no participation in those
funds. The Government, no doubt most honestly, had
supposed that there were certain grounds of distinction be-
tween the different classes of claimants, and they had de-
cided that the petitioners had not a fair and equitable claim
upon the fund. If the House would honour him with its
attention for a very short time, he would satisfy them that
such a conclusion was unfounded, and that the petitioners
had a good claim to have been admitted to a participation
in this money which had been so awarded. He would
advert lo the ground upon which the Government had re-
jected the claims of the petitioners, but first he would call
the attention of the House to the history of the case. Iu
1807 the British Government, either having, or supposing
they had reason to believe that the French were
about to take possession of the Danish fleet, in order
to be used in acts of aggression against this country,
sent out a fleet under the orders of Lords Gambier
and Camperdown, who were instructed to ask for the fleet
as a deposit, which was refused.—(Hear.) They were
however, fully empowered and enjoined to get posses
emu of the feet at all events. The fleet left in