The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1835,

Noble Lord he should not bring to light many things against
this vicar, but the clergy of Hampshire seemed much addicted
to plunder. He held in his hand a Report of a trial, Richard-
son v. Conyers, by which it appeared that a clergyman de-
manded the tithes of grass after it had been paid, thus at-
tempting to squeeze 24 months out of a year.
Laid on the table.
CORPORATION REFORM BILL.

Mr. COLLYER presented a petition from Plymouth, pray-
ing that Stonehouse may not be joined to that borough under
the Corporation Reform Bill.

Mr. OUNCONIBE presented a petition from the West
Riding of York against some clause in the Corporation Reform
Bill.

Mr. ORD presented a petition from Newcastle-upon-Tyne
in favour of the Corporation Reform Bill, and praying that the
House would pass the measure. _ _

Mr. J. LEFEVRE presented a petition with a similar
prayer from Winchester.
Mr. GROTE presented a petition to the same effect which
emanated from a public meeting at Norwich—they further
prayed for the adoption of the vote by Ballot.
TIMBER DUTIES.

Lord S ANDON presented petitions from the shipowners
and shipwrights of Liverpool, praying that no alteration might
be made in the duties on Baltic and Colonial Timber.

Alderman THOMPSON presented similar petitions from
Sunderland.

STEAM VESSELS.

Lord SANDON presented a petition from the proprietors
of steam-vessels in the port of Liverpool, praying that the
House would take some steps to repeal the heavy burdens
under which they laboured.

CORPORATION REFORM.

The NOBLE LORD also presented a petition from the free.
men of Liverpool, praying that their inchoate rights may be
preserved.
Mr. ORD presented a petition from the Licensed Victual-
lers of Newport, Isle of Wight, praying for an alteration of
the Duty on Spirits.
INVERNESS ELECTION.

Mr. A. COOPER brought up the Repert of the Com-
mittee on the Inverness Election, declaring the election of
Alexander William Chisholm, Esq., to be a due election, and
that neither the petition or opposition was frivolous or vexatious.

that the Noble Lord would allow time afterwards to consider
the Bill in detail.—( Hear.)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill—Mr.
BERNAL in the Chair.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL had already given notice that
clause 79 would be taken before any other to-day, and he
hoped that the Committee would assent to this ar-
rangement. There were one or two alterations of
very considerable • importance, which he was about
to propose. One was, that whereas the law formerly
provided that payment of the interest of any debt due by the
Corporation, should be made ; he would now propose that
payment of the capital of the debt should also be provided.
The other provision was that the Town Council should not be
at liberty to lower any tolls so long as the debts of such Cor-
poration shall not be satisfied.—( Hear.)
Sir M. W. RIDLE Y hoped that provision would be made
for the payment of annuities granted by the Corporations, as well
as the payment of debts.
The CHAIRMAN having read the 79th Clause,
Sir R. PEEL thought there might be some cases in which,
after providing for all municipal purposes, a surplus would exist.
Some Corporations, as, for instance, Dorchester, (as we
understood the Right Honourable Baronet,) were possessed of
very large estates, and these would probably increase under
the new act. He apprehended that as the Bill now stood,
there could not be a doubt that if the new Town Council
succeeded to all the legal power the existing Corporations
now possessed, the Town Councils would have the power of
alienating the property of the borough. He ( Sir Robert
Peel) thought there ought to be some clause to provide
for the Town Council not alienating the property of
the town without obtaining the consent of the inhabitants.
It had been ruled in the Court of Chancery and Kings's Bench
in a case in which the Corporation of Derby imposed a rate
for watching and lighting that town, under the provisions of
an Act, called the County Rates Act—some of the inha-
bitants objected to that rate on the ground that the Corporation
had funds sufficient for the purposes of the Act, and
that no rate should be imposed until those funds were
exhausted—but it had been judged by Lord Chief
Justice Ellenborough, that there was no power to compel
the Corporation to apply their property to municipal pur-
poses, and the validity of the rate was thereby established.
If the Town Council succeeded to all the power now possessed
by the corporate bodies in cases of surplus, they would have
the same power of alienation. He thought that some clause
ought to be introduced to prevent such cases of alienation.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in the clause proposed after
the several expenses specified in order to meet the proposition
of the Right Hon. Baronet, proposed to insert words to
prevent the corporate funds from being alienated unless for
the public benefit, and with the consent of the inhabitants.
Sir R. PE EL—A case might arise where it would he
argued, what was the public benefit, and where parties might
promote as for the public benefit, a scheme in which
they themselves might have an interest ?—( Hear.) He wished
the Noble Lord also, to look at page 10, where it was assumed
that there should be a particular species of property for which a
man would be entitled to vote, and that this should be entered on
the burgess-roll, and that no persons should be admitted
to vote except in the booth allotted to that part in
which his property was situated. Now this implied that
there should be some description of the property in right
of which a man claimed to vote. If, however, the Noble
Lord would look into the list of claimants, he would
find that there was no column for this description of
property. If they followed the plan of the Reform Bill, there
ought to be a third column, containing a specification of the
property in respect of which the franchise had arisen.--( Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would certainly attend to what
the Right Honourable Baronet had thrown out—in-
deed it had occurred to him before. He would take
that opportunity of calling the attention of the Com-
mittee to the clause by which the Corporations were
divided into wards. He proposed that the Privy Council
should direct that in towns in which there were 12,000
inhabitants, and not more than 18,000, they should be
divided into two wards ; in cases where there were 18,000,
and not more than 20,000, they should be divided into three
and not more than four wards ; and in cases where there
were not more than 24,000 inhabitants, they should be divided
into wards in each of which six councillors should be elected.
Sir R PEEL—What time did the Noble Lord think
would the Bill get through the Committee ? and what did he
mean to propose to do after it should have passed through
Committee ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not know exactly. He
proposed that when the Bill went through Committee, that
either that night or the next night it be re-committed
pro forma, and the amendments inserted. He would thus
fix another day, when the House would have an opportunity of
considering the Report, after it should have been printed.
Mr. R. WASON bad received a very strong remonstrance
from his constituents upon this subject. They believed that
if these new corporations were divided into wards it would in
fact be neither more nor less than dividing them into close
boroughs.
The CHAIRMAN having read the clause,
Mr. WILK S wished to know whether it was printed as
amended, because it was impossible to proceed usefully
without it.

The CHAIRMAN stated that only one copy was ready for
delivery.
Mr. WILKS thought under such circumstances it would
be better to postpone the discussion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the clause had been printed,
and he believed it would be ready for delivery in the course of
the evening.
Mr. ESTCOURT thought the cliuse ought to be post-
poned. If he understood it properly, all the property of the
Corporation was to be taken into the hands of the newly ap-
appointed Treasurers, which be objected to.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had no objection to
the postponement of the clause, provided it was the wish of
the House.

Sir R. PEEL wished to call the attention of the House,
and the Attorney and Solicitor-General, to the latter clause,
which stated that the rate was to be in the nature of a public
rate, and the Council were empowered not to receive an appeal
against it. If that was the case, what would become of many
parishes ?
An HoN. MEMBER said that he apprehended that an indivi-
dual might appeal on the part of a parish.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the appeal must
be with the concurrence of the parish to the Recorder.
Sir R. PEEL thought the appeal to the Recorder at
Quarter Sessions would lead to some confusion, as the poor-
rates and the town-rates were mixed up. The word " ag-
grieved" %vas of too vague and general a nature.
Mr. WILKES thought the clause certainly required alte-
ration. The clause, as amended, not being in his hands, he
could not come to any satisfactory conclusion.
After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON and Mr.
S. LEFEVRE,

Sir R. PE EL said the double right of appeal was unne-
cessary, or, at all events, it ought to be precisely defined in
what cases the right of appeal would be granted.
Mr. WIL KE S suggested that the borough rate should be
separated from the poor rate, and this would obviate all
difficulties.

Mr. C.✓ BULLER thought an appeal to the Recorder from
the acts of his colleagues, the Town Council, would be ex-
tremely injudicious.
Mr. HARDY suggested that the appeal should set forth the
ground on which it was made, and that the appellant should be
confined to the grounds so stated.
Mr. S. LEFE VRE did not see the difficulties which the
Hon. Member (Mr. Hardy) supposed to exist. He thought
the difficulties were met by the clause as it stood.
Sir R. PEEL thought this one of the most important
points of the whole Bill, and he hoped it would receive
the most serious consideration of the Government. This
clause regulated the mode in which the new taxation was
to be raised, and was, therefore, of pecuniary interest to every
party in the borough. It would be an infinitely better plan to say
that there should be a separate borough rate instead of having
one indefinite charge. The ratepayers ought to know the charge
for the Municipal Corporation, independent of the poor-rate,
After a few words from Mr. WILKs and Mr. BROTHERTON,
Sir R. PEEL said, that his only object in opposing the
right of appeal granted by this clause, was to save the borough
funds, and to prevent unnecessary litigation. This rate was
to be levied in the nature of a county-rate, and yet the appeal
of an individual against it was permitted ; and that, too, on
the most vague ground possible, merely whenever be might
think himself aggrieved, without at all specifying the nature of
the grievance. An individual appeal against the poor-rate
was now allowed. Why should they not rest satisfied with
that, and not extend the right to appeal against a rate which
was said to be of the same nature as a county-rate, against
which the law did not now suffer any individual appeal ?
A desultory conversation followed, in the course of which
Sir R. PEEL suggested that it would be an infinitely
better plan to say that there should be separate rates, though
levied at the same time. For instance, that if half-a-crown
in the pound were required upon the whole, that there should
be a rate of perhaps eighteen pence for the poor, and a
shilling for the borough. Every man would then be able to
ascertain for which purpose he paid his money.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was disposed to adopt the recom-
mendation of the Right Hon. Baronet, and would take means
of endeavouring to carry it into effect. It was certainly desir-
able to have the rates collected at the same time ; the one in
the nature of a poor-rate, the other in that of a borough-rate.
On a subsequent part of the clause,
Sir R. PEEL asked who, in certain cases, were to pay the
debts of a corporation ? A freehold estate, in the possession of
a corporation, but the right to which was disputed, might be
in Chancery for a great number of years. The corporation
might have expended a thousand pounds in the defence of their
right, five hundred of which might have been advanced to
them on the security of their funds ; who was to pay their
debt ? If it was intended that it should be paid by a borough-
rate that should be distinctly stated, and provided for in the
Bill.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY said it was certainly desirable to an-
ticipate any possible event, but he did not think that there
would be much difficulty in the case adverted to by the Right
Hon. Baronet. In most instances although the corporation might
lose the estate, the party gaining it would have to pay the
costs. If there had been no Municipal Corporation Bill, the
existing corporations would be in the same state.
Sir R. PEEL observed that the income on which he had
supposed that the five hundred pounds had been advanced to
the corporation, would be destroyed by the Bill.
Sir W. FOLLETT begged to call the attention of the
Noble Lord (Russell) to what he deemed to be a very im-
portant defect in this clause. Much had been said about the
power claimed by the existing corporations to alienate their
property ; but the effect of this clause would be to empower
the new corporations to alienate the whole of the corporate
prof, :rtY. The clattse stated that the corporati,m3 should pay

off all existing debts, before they applied any of the corporate
property to municipal purposes. This would compel the new
corporations, immediately on assuming their functions, to im-
pose a rate on the burgesses, which would not fail to excite
considerable discontent. He hoped the Noble Lord would
take this point into consideration. Again he would ask the
Noble Lord what he intended to do with respect, not to the
mere bond debtor, but to the mortgages and other real secu-
rities held by persons from the corporation? If any power
were given to the new corporations to dispose of the corporate
property, it should only be with a view to enable them to pay
off mortgages and other real incumbrances, and not an absolute
power to sell the property without reference to those special
obligations. He would suggest, however, that it should not
he compulsory either on the corporation to redeem, or on the
creditors to call in their money on mortgage of corporate pro-
perty ; but that the Bill should leave it as a matter of private
arrangement between the parties.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as he had read the
clause, the new corpora'oe bodies would certainly be at liberty
to apply the money derived from the corporate property from
time to time as they thought fit. He perfectly agreed with
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that the rents and profits
of the corporate property should be liable to the debts of the
corporation ; but that the corporate body should not be obliged
to proceed immediately to pay off their debts altogether. He
did not think the corporation should have the power of alie-
nating the corporate property contrary to the purposes to which
it had been previously made legally liable, but all necessary
powers for the general purposes of the town ought to be
granted to them. The clause undoubtedly deserved to be
well considered ; and if on the Report being brought up, he
should find it necessary to adopt any of the amendments sug-
gested, he would readily do so.
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES hoped the Noble Lord would
withdraw the clause, and introduce a distinct measure in re-
lation to the several subjects contained in it.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not quite accede to the sugges-
tion of the Hon. Gentleman. He thought it was a clause
that properly belonged to the present Bill ; but after the dis-
cussion that had taken place, and considering that there were
several points deserving consideration, he did not know whether
it would not be better to divide the clause into two clauses on
bringing up the Report, or on the recommittal of the Bill.
The clause, as amended, was then ordered to stand part of
the Bill.

Clause 95 was then proposed ; several amendments were
made, and after a long and desultory conversation, agreed to.
On clause 96 being put,
Sir JOHN WROTTE SLE Y proposed, as an amendment,
that after the word " witnesses," the words " together with a
proportion of the salaries of the officers of the gaol, and the
costs for repairing and enlarging it," should be inserted.
Mr. BONHAM CARTER observed that there would be
quarter-sessions in most of the corporate towns, at which the
greater portion of the offences committed in them would be
tried, and of course the expense of them would fall wholly on
these towns. The number of cases sent to the assizes would
be very small, and the expense so trifling that it would not be
worth while to encumber the Bill with this amendment.
la answer to a question by Mr. EGERTON,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the boroughs would
still be liable to the expense of the prisons, as well as to the
other charges that were now made on them for the county-rates.
After a short conversation, the amendment was withdrawn,
and the clause was agreed to.
The 97th clause was then agreed to.
On the 98th clause being read,
Mr. C. BULL E R complained that this clause made the
mayor the judge of the Record Court in the absence of the
recorder. He considered that the great defect in the old local
courts was that justice was not properly administered.
Mr. BL ACKBLT RNE said that his Hon. Friend had mis-
taken the clause. It established no court which was not esta-
blished before, and only rendered the courts in existence more
efficient. _ _ _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was better those
courts should be preserved than absolutely abolished; and if
preserved, surely it would be beneficial if they were placed
upon a better footing.
After a few words from Mr. EWART, the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 99 being read,
Mr. WALTER proposed that attorneys' clerks should be
prohibited from practising in the local courts.
Lord J. RUSSELL acquiesced in the suggestion; and the
clause, as amended, was agreed to.
Clauses 100 to 113 were then agreed to.
On clause 114 being read,
Mr. MILES moved, as an amendment, to omit the word
" inhabitants," and insert in its place " inhabitant rate-payers."
This would be in accordance with the principles of the Bill,
which required a qualification in the voters.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had no objection to insert the
words " inhabitant householders," which would, perhaps, an-
swer the purpose of the Hon. Member.
The amendment was then put and carried, and the clause
was agreed to ; as was clause 115 (the last in the Bill) amidst
loud cheers.

The postponed clauses were then taken.
Clause 10 (an amended clause) was proposed by Lord J.
RUSSELL and, after a short conversation, agreed to.
Mr. GROTE suggested the expediency of inserting some
provision in the Bill, which would afford facilities for buying
up the rights of the freemen, in order that the property of the
different Corporations might rest in the new officers.
Mr. CHARLES WYNN considered that the issuing a
Commission for the purpose would be highly beneficial.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had provided a clause to the
effect stated by the Hon. Member for the city of London.
Clause 30.

Lord J. RUSSELL proposed a new clause, to the effect
that boroughs containing 12,000 inhabitants might be divided
into two wards ; and that boroughs containing any number of
inhabitants exceeding 24,000, should be divided into any num-
ber of wards the Crown might think fit.
Sir R. PE EL thought the clause did not go to a sufficient
length. Where the population of a town exceeded 10,000,
he thought there was sufficient ground for giving the Crown
the power of dividing it into wards. If the Crown were to
exercise this power at all, he, for one, would rather not, he
confessed, place this limitation upon it. In the case of a bo-
rouA containing less than 18,000 inhabitants, the Crown
would be compelled by the clause to divide the borough into
two wards, and no discretion was left it to divide it into more.
He apprehended it would be found that in some boroughs
the business had been always transacted in wards under the
present system ; and that in some, with a population even be-
low 12,000, the usual practice had been to transact the busi-
ness in this way to the general satisfaction. He might in-
stance Ludlow and other places, in which, he believed, this
course had been the result of long prescription. He did not
understand on what principle the clause was founded—whe-
ther population or rating. He should not divide the Committee
upon the subject, but he decidedly objected to the provision.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not accede to the Right
Hon. Baronet's suggestion. He did not think the division of
the small boroughs into wards would be at all beneficial.
Mr. GROTE trusted that the Noble Lord would not give
way on the clause.—( Hear, bear.)
After a few observations from Mr. Blackburne, Lord East-
nor, Mr. Brotherton, and Mr. Willis, _ _

Lord SA ND ON asked whether the principle on which this
clause was founded affected the number of councillors given to
towns in the schedules ? for it appeared to him that some had
too many, and some too few.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that it would, to a certain
extent ; therefore, he proposed that the House should not go
into the consideration of the schedules to-night, in order to
give time to make the necessary alterations.
Mr. O'CONNELL suggested that there should be no divi-
sion of the boroughs into wards unless there were more than
800 voters on the burgess-roll, and he expressed a hope that a
clause to that effect would be introduced into the Bill before it
passed. Less than that number would create very unsavoury
rotten boroughs, and more than that number would be sufficient
to insure popular election.
A few observations were then made by Mr. Mills, Lord
Stormont, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Rigby Wason ; after
which

The clause was agreed to.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the adoption of this
last clause with respect to wards rendered it necessary that
some new arrangement should be made in the schedules ;
therefore, he proposed that they should reserve the considera-
tion of the whole of the schedules till to-morrow. He should
now move that the Chairman report progress; and he hoped
that to-morrow, at five o'clock, they would be able to go on
with the schedules. When the debate on the schedules had
closed, which he supposed would be after a day or two, be
should move that the Bill be recommitted pro forma, to
enable Hon. Gentlemen to bring up their clauses. He hoped
that this arrangement would afford Hon. Gentlemen sufficient
time. He should then move that the Bill be printed, and lte
proposed that if they were able to do so, the Report should
be taken into further consideration on Monday next. He
should certainly move the further consideration of the Report
before the motion relating to the Irish Church, which stood
for the same day, was brought on.
Mr. L ENNARD begged to call the attention of Lord
John Russell to a defect in clause 10. By that clause it was
professed to preserve the rights of all persons entitled to their
freedom now in existence. But this was not done perfectly.
One of the most valued rights of the daughters of the free-
men of Maldon was that of conferring the freedom of the
borough on their husbands. But this clause confined this
privilege to those only who were married previously to the
sth of June last. He contended that the rights of all the
daughters now in existence of freemen should be preserved ;
and he gave notice that he should move an amendment to this
effect, unless Lord John adopted his suggestion.
Mr. GLAD STONE said he understood the Noble Lord to
intimate that if they were ready he would proceed with the
Report on Monday; but lie wished to know whether if they
were not ready, the second reading of the Irish Church Bill
would be moved ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said certainly it was his intention in
that case to proceed with the Irish Church Bill on Monday.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported progress,
and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.

Sir J. ELLE Y asked the Noble Lord when the Report of
the home circuit respecting municipal corporations would be
furnished ?

Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Member for Hudders-
field was best able to answer that question.
LINEN TRADE (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Linen
Trade (Ireland) Bill being read,
Mr. HUME moved that the Bill be committed that day
three months.

Colonel PERCEVAL said Mr. Home and Mr. Warburton
took au entirely false view of the case. They did not undcr-
stand the limn ;tnd were iucompetent to pronortue, upon

it. If the Bill passed, any one might go to the market and
buy his commodity without the risk of being cheated.
Mr. E. TE NNE NT said the proposition was merely to
revive for three years longer a Bill passed three years ago, and
which was about to expire. The Bill did not interfere be-
tween the manufacturer and the weaver. It was a protection
to them and the buyer. If there were not some certificate of
the width of the linen there might be fraud. The Bill merely
referred to the article exposed to sale in open market. The
experience of those engaged in the trade was of higher autho-
rity for the Bill, than the fanciful theories of gentlemen oppo-
site against it.
Sir R. BATE SON, as a representative of a large section
of the linen manufacturers and weavers of the north, would say
that they were all unanimous in favour of the Bill. Public
meetings were held in all parts of Ulster on the subject, and
not one voice was raised against it, but, on the contrary, nu-
merous petitions were presented in its favour. That surely
was strong evidence of its utility.—( Cheers.) The trade was
prospering under the Bill--it was almost the staple trade of
the country—and he hoped the good sense and justice of Par-
liament would not now destroy it, in deference to the quack
doctrines of modern philosophers.—( Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. S. O'BRIEN, Mr. JONES, and Lord COLE supported the
measure.

Mr. GROTE said a few words against it.
Mr. HUME thought it but justice to Ireland to place her
on the same footing as England and Scotland, and allow her
some of those protections and restrictions.—( Hear, hear, and
laughter, from the Irish Members.) But if Irish Members
chose to wear halters round their own necks—if they chose to
go to the —. (Renewed cries of " Hear, hear," and laugh-
ter.) Well, he would just only say, let them go on their own
way, and they would be sorry for it.—( Laughter, and cries of
" Divide.")

The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the original motion 124
Against it
Majority -99
The House went into Committee on the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. CALLAGHAN
against the Bill, and from Mr. J. GRATTAN in support of it,
Sir R. PEEL said he supported the Bill in deference to
the almost unanimous opinion of the Irish Members, who ex-
pressed themselves so warmly in favour of it. The linen
trade was certainly one great branch, indeed the greatest, of
the trade of Ireland, which it was said the Bill would
cherish, and he did not think it necessary to force even
right principles in such a case. It was important that this
trade, which tended so much to promote the moral habits,
and encourage the industry, and advance the comforts of the
the people, should flourish : therefore did he support the mea-
sure. But he doubted whether any permanent good could be
effected by the Bill. If such a restrictive measure were good
for Ireland, why might not other restrictive measures be
equally good for other countries? Would it not, in general,
be better to trust to the caution and exertions of the manufac-
turers, and let every trade take its chance in the general
market ? He thought a system of surveillance was bad. But
let the Bill be considered in Committee, and the advantages
likely to result permanently from it be canvassed. Though
doubtful of any permanent good to flow from that species of
legislation, he thought that forcing the opinions of the Irish
embers at present would countervail any permanent advan-
tage that might flow from throwing open the trade, and he
hoped to see the day when the Irish linen trade would rival
the cotton trade of this country.
Lord MORPETH justified the course adopted by the
Government.

A short conversation then ensued, in which Sir R. Peel,
Dr. Baldwin, Sir R. Bateson, and Mr. Callaghan took parts
when the Bil passed the Committee, and the House resumed.
Mr. FIT ZS IMON complained of a petition which the No-
ble Lord opposite, the Member for South Lancashire (Lord
Stanley) had that evening presented, without giving him and
his Hon. and Gallant Colleague (Colonel Westenra) that
notice which courtesy generally induced Hon. Members to
afford each other on occasions relating to the interests of their
constituents. He regretted this the more, as the petition con-
tained many unfounded allegations, and he trusted an oppor-
tunity would be allowed him of rebutting those charges, ema-
nating as they professed to do from the High Sheriff, Grand
Jurors, and some of the freeholders of the King's County.
Colonel WE STE NRA expressed a similar hope.
ABERDEEN UNIVERSITIES BILL.
On the proposition for the second reading of the Aberdeen
Universities Bill,

,
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition upon the subject,
praying that due time should be taken for a careful considers.
tion of the Bill.

Sir R. PEEL said he was friendly to the principle of the
measure • but he must express his earnest hope that ample
time would be allowed for its proper consideration—( Hear.)
He had heard of a history of Aberdeen somewhat pompously
commencing with the announcement that " England, like
Aberdeen, bath two Universities."—(Laughter.) This clearly
showed the importance of the subject.—(Laughter.) But ho
thought, for the convenience of all parties, it should stand over
to next session.

After some further desultory observations the Bill was real
a second time, and ordered to be committed on the 23d of Julf•
PIERS (IRELAND) BILL.

The Piers (Ireland) }Jill was then read a second time.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and,
on the motion of Mr. Brotherton, the House adjourned At
half-past twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

(Appeals before Lords Brougham, Alinto, and Tenterden'

yesterday.)
SIR WM. BAILEY AND OTHERS V. THE EDINBURGH OIL "5

COMPANY.

This was the re-hearing of a case of appeal from the
Scottish Courts of Session that was argued a few weeks
ago before their Lordships, when an arrangement was agreed
on, which not proving satisfactory to the parties, an applicr
tion was made to the Committee of Appeals on an afficly
vit of Counsel for the appellant, stating that they were taken
by surprise on one of the points, whereon the present re'
hearing was granted, the appellant paying the costs of the
proceedings.
The appellants appeared as the executors of a decease,
solicitor in the Supreme Courts of Scotland name°,
Clyne, who brought an action against the Edinburgh Oil
Gas Light Company, to recover 1,183/. 10s. 50., the "iv
lue of certain shares which he held in that Company, cot!'
blished by Act of Parliament the sth of Geo. IV., cap. 76'
and which, not succeeding, had sold its interest to the
Coal Gas Company. A cross action had also been
brought by the respondents, who were directors of that
,
Company (of whom the late Sir Walter Scott was one,)
to compel him to execute a valid transfer of o_l6
shares which he held on their re-paying him the prineiri
sum, with interest, expended in their purchase. Both ac,i
tions were, by mutual consent, referred to arbitration, an
the present appeal was in fact against the award therein
pronounced by Mr. M'Neill, who found that in the action
brought by the Gas Light Company against Mr. Clyne'
the former were entitled to a decree for 260/., with intereel
from the date when two instalments became payable, and
in that brought at the instance of Mr. Clyne he fown,.
that the pursuer was entitled to a decree for 7801., wit"
interest thereon from Whit-Sunday, 1828, under deduc"
tions of the sums due to the respondents.
Mr. TINNEY, Dr. LUSHINGTON, and the ATTORNO'
GENERAL, were respectively heard, after which
Lord BROUGHAM recommended the Committee to Nst;
pone their final decision, until he had given the prinelP
points further consideration.