The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-25 00:00:00

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the order of the day for
:house going into Committee on the above Bill he read.
_ liner a few words from Mr. GOULBURN and Sir WILLIAM

FOLLETT,
An HON. MEMBER asked whether the Noble Lord intended
to preserve to apprentices bound since the passing of the Re-
form Bill all the rights secured to them by that Bill?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the tenth clause, which
they were about to enter upon, was intended to preserve to
freemen their rights of property, and he meant to propose that
those rights should be shared by all who had inchoate titles.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT wished to know whether the
Noble Lord intended to preserve to apprentices all their in-
choate rights; because, if he did not, he thought the clause
should not be brought on in the absence of the Hon. Member
for Somerset, who had given a notice upon the subject.
Mr. B. CARTER was understood to say, that the only
object of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Somerset
was to preserve the rights of those now actually serving their
apprenticeship ; and that would be done by the amendment of
his Noble Friend.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT still thought the clause had
better be postponed, as he knewit was intended by several
Hon. Members to move the preservation of the right of those
who had inchoate titles to be freemen, as sons of freemen ;
and the whole subject of inchoate rights would be more conve-
niently dealt with in one clause.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.

On clause 10 being read,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had two amend-
ments to propose in the clause. The first was to add the
word " inhabitants" after " burgesses," in the eighth line, as
there were places where the inhabitants were entitled to the
privileges enumerated in the clause. The other amendment
was to accomplish the object of the Hon. Member for Somer-
set, and preserve to apprentices the right preserved to free-
men. With respect to the inchoate rights acquired by the
accident of birth, he did not think them worth so much atten-
tion as those acquired by apprenticeship ; nor could they be
defended by the same arguments. It might be a hardshin upon
those who had paid themselves, or had had paid for them by
others, a premium upon entering into their apprenticeship,
under the belief that they would enjoy certain advantages from
the freedom they should thereby acquire—it might be a hard-
ship upon such persons to be deprived of a right for which they
paid a valuable consideration ; but the same argument could
not be applied to the case of those whose expectations arose
from the circumstance of their being the sons of freemen.
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES thanked the Noble Lord for
his amendment, so far as it went; but he could not understand
the distinction drawn by him between the cases of inchoate
rights arising from apprenticeship, and inchoate rights arising
from birth. If the persons concerned had not looked forward
to being freemen in consequence of their blab, they would
have been bound apprentice to their fathers, and thus have had
the qualification required by the Noble Lord. As to the ac- '
cident of birth not being entitled to much consideration, lee
would beg the Noble Lord to recollect that many of the mem-
bers of that House enjoyed their fortunes and titles by the ac-
cident of birth.—( Hear, hear.)
Colonel SIBTBO R P considered the last amendment of the
Noble Lord in the light of a sugar-plumb, to induce the
House to swallow the pill by which it was accompanied. He
considered it unfair to deprive freemen and their children of
the rights preserved to them by the Reform Act. Heaven
only knew what this Bill was preliminary to ; he supieee i.
general massacre.—(Laughter.)
Lord .lore` Russeee's first amendment was then put.
Mr. GOUL B URN said that the circumstances of different
boroughs were so various, that various modes of dealieg with
them were absolutely necessary. He would mention one in-
stance—it was that of the borough of Morpeth, in which there
were certain persons who were called free-brothers, who were
neither burgesses nor freemen, but who formed, nevertheless,
a Mass out of whom the burgesses were elected. These per-
sons were entitled to an annual income out of certain lands.
He did not think that their case was provided for by this Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hopedthat
the amended clause would meet all the cases which could be
isentioned of the description alluded to by the Right Hon.
Gentleman : if it did not, he would endeavour to extend it to
such cases if possible.
Mr. A. TREVOR said that his objection to this amend-
ment was, that it was a sort of half-and-half measure, and was,
in fact, an aggravation of the original wrong.
The first amendment was then agreed to.
The second amendment was then put, and after a few ob-
servations from Mr. Estcourt, Mr. A. Trevor, Mr. William
Ord, Sir M. W. Ridley, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Jervis, Mr.
Goulburn, and Mr. Robinson,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said it was desirable that this part
of the measure should be settled upon a fixed and sound prin-
ciple. He knew it was difficult to suggest anything in which
it might not be possible to show that some part of it was not
in strict conformity with a general principle. But it seemed
to be agreed by all parties that it was very desirable to get
this corporate property available for the benefit of the com-
monalty at large. There might be special cases in which the
property had been given to particular individuals ; but as-
suming that, by the original intention of the donors, the pro-
perty was for the benefit of the inhabitants of the boroughs at
large, it was admitted that, by very long prescription, of
which they could scarcely trace the origin,, this property had
been appropriated to certain descriptions of inhabitants only,
and that the right to participate in it waginow only to be ac-
quired by birth, servitude, or marriage. It appeared to him
that it would be consistent with respect to the original desti-
nation of this property—at least it would be as near an approxi-
mation to its original destination as it was possible to arrive at,
if the House were to establish this principle—namely, that those
who were not now married should not hereafter by marriage
derive any right to participate in this property ; that those
who had not yet entered into servitude should not have any
such right ; but that those who had so entered into servitude
should be considered as having an inchoate right; and that
with respect to birth, those now actually born should be put
upon the same footing as those who had now actually entered
into servitude, while those who should hereafter be born
should participate in the property only so far as they were
members of the commonalty at large. He thought this would
be putting corporate property into the hands of the common-
alty as speedily as possible consistent with justice to the rights
of individuals. They would be respecting the rights of the
existing generation at the expense only of a little delay.
But this did seem to him to be an intelligent principle on
which to place the question, and to which he would strongly
advise the Noble Lord to accede ; otherwise the Noble Lord
would be placed in a situation of great difficulty with respect
to the claims by birth and servitude. If this principle should
be adopted, after a certain period the whole of the corporate
property would become the property of the commonalty. It
was true that the share which these freemen claimed was com-
paratively small, but in his opinion the lower the classes were
who claimed it, and the smaller their rights were, the more
bounden was the House to respect those rights.—( Hear,
hear.) If, indeed, they were dealing with a Rail-road Bill,
for instance,- then the language to be held would be that the
public good should take place of private interest; but,
when dealing with the right of the humbler classes, a dif-
ferent feeling ought to guide their proceedings. He thought
that the principle he recommended would be the best mode
of conciliating that unanimity which was so desirable on this
occasion.—( Cheers. )
Mr. BLACKBURNE rose amidst cries for Lord John
Russell. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman however pro-
ceeded to say, that he thought the clause as it now stood,
without
amendment, was one better able to be supported
upon
principle than any amendment that could be suggested.
any
But if they were to have an amendment, then he perfectly
agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that the suggestion lie
(Sir Robert Peel) had made was the next best principle. He
(Mr. Blackburne) could not understand why upon principle he
ought to consider the inchoate right of an apprentice before
the right of any other person whatsoever ; for although it
' might be said that a person on entering into apprenticeship
paid a certain sum of money for that purpose, and therefore
expected all the advantages which the law gave to him, so
also might it be said of the man who purchased his freedom ;
and the House was aware that there were a great number of
cases in which the freedom was purchased. Certainly the
inevitable consequence of this Bill must be some interference
with property that appeared, at least, if it did not really be-
long to the persons who were now in possession of it : there-
fore it was necessary to take care to act upon some sound
principle ; and he thought it would be a sound principle not
to attend to inchoate rights at all—( Hear, hear), but merely
to preserve the rights of those who aro now in possession. If,
however, Parliament should attend to inchoate rights, then he
thought the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet was the
one that came the nearest to the principle embraced by the
clause proposed by the Noble Lord..
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER quite con-
curred with the Right Hon. Baronet, that it was expedient
that the House should deal with this part of the subject upon
an intelligible and plain principle. He wished to call the at-
tention of the House to the distinction that ho conceived to
exist between the right of property acquired in these bo-
roughs by means of servitude and the right acquired by birth
He agreed with the Right Honourable Baronet that the great
object we had in view was to make this Corporate property
available in the shortest possible period to the interests of the
community at largo. He would confine his arguments on the
present occasion to the cases of right by birth and right by ser-
vitude. The right of servitude arose from contracts entered into

either be the individual himself or by some person on his behalf, frittered away by such amendments its the present, it would be
frequently in consideration of the payment of a sum of money, impossible that it could be carried on at all. He preferred
in exchange for which he expected to derive certain pecu- the clause as it originally stood.
niary advantages. In the case of a right acquired by birth, none Mr. P. THOMSON said, that if the principle involved in
of these considerations arose ; there was no contract whatso- the amendment of the Honourable Member for Worcester
ever : there was no payment of a fine upon the indentures ; were agreed to, there would be no end to the extent to which
there were, in short, none of the elements which peculiarly that principle might be carried.—( Hear, hear..) It was ad-
belonged to the case of servitude. - Gentlemen must consider, mitted that a line ought to be drawn somewhere ; and his opi-
that if they affirmed the question which had been raised rela- nion was, that the proper line to be drawn was that of appren-
tive to the right by birth, they would postpone—he would not ticeship, where a pecuniary consideration had been given, or
say indefinitely, but for a very long period indeed, the attain- even if no pecuniary consideration had been paid to the corpo-
ment of that ultimate object which the Right Hon. Baronet ration, where a contract was entered into. If this line were
opposite, in common with himself, considered they all had in drawn, it was his opinion that no hardship would be done to the
view—namely, the realization of these funds for the common community. But if the amendment proposed by the Hon.
interest. There was no contract in that case—there was no Member on the opposite side were adopted, this grievance
pecuniary consideration—there was only the right which had would be perpetuated.
accrued under the existing state of thines, which after all was Mr. WYNN contended that the House ought not to take
a corporate right ; which after all, according to the statement away any property given by law without giving compensation.
of the Right. Hon. Gentleman himself, was a question of He denied that any distinction could be made between appren-
usage gi afted on the original establishment of these Corpora- tices who had paid a fee and those whose masters had taken
tions. He would not trouble the House any further ; his ob- them gratuitously. These apprentices had as good a right as
ject had been merely to show the great distinction which ex- an heir, and the right of an heir was as good as that of the
isted between the right by servitude and the right by birth, and person in possession ; and it was therefore unfair to deprive
he trusted he had succeeded in doing so. these inchoate freemen cf their rights. He felt convinced that
Mr. GOULBURN understood the Right Hon. Gentleman if the I-louse took away curie,: ate property it would shake the
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to hate argued that the foundations of all peteerte.
present was a mere question of property, and should, there- Mr. G. F. YOU NG rese amidst loud cries of " Divide."
fore, be considered apart from the considerations which might Ile would support the amendineet, because he did not think
otherwise have been involved in its discussion. Ile contended that the principle of the clause could be adopted without dis-
that the principle laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman credit and danger.
was one of a most dangerous nature, inasmuch as it went to Mr. DIV ETT supported the clause; but amidst the cries
establish a broad distinction between the security of property of " Divide," very little of the Hon. Gentleman's observations
derived from inheritance, and that derived from purchase.— were heard in the Gallery.
( Opposition cheers.) The Right Honourable Gentleman Sir \V.FO L L l'. IT eon i e'en- el t hat the only intelligible
Karl said in effect, " I will respect the right of. the ap- principle to be adopted ,‘,,..=, that every existing right, and
prentice, because he has paid a pecuniary consideration for it; eeery existing ini.t.re-t, should be preserved. That war what
but as the son of a freeman inherits a right which the other he wished, and he asked nothing beyond it. He admitted that
acquired by his own purchase, or that of some person on his there was a difficulty as to where the line should be drawn,
behalf, I will not consider his title to his property as heing but he contended that upon the whole the preservation of all
equally good, or his right as being equally strong." Noe he vested interests was the beet that could be adopted. Whir
would say that by drawing such distinctions, and deciding upon did the Noble Lord exeic t apprentices who were serving?
such grounds, they would naturally shake the stability of pro- The Noble Lord said that. he did so because they had a
perty in this country. Mark the way in which the principle pecuniary interest. Now lie (Sir W. Follett) contended
would operate if the son of the freeman were not allowed the that there was no difference between an apprentice and the
same advantages as the apprentice. In many of the boroughs son of a freeman. The apprentice had a right of which
under discussion, only the eldest sons of freemen had a right lie came into possession at the termination of his appren-
to their freedom on their coming of age. In those boroughs ticeship, and the son of a freeman had a right which he
it was the custom for the father to bind his second son appren- came into possession of when he arrived at the age of twenty.
tice, with the view of enabling him to gain his freedom by one. Where then was the distinction between them 2—( Hear,
servitude, trusting to the eldest son acquiring his privilege in hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had argued
the ordinary ,way without any apprenticeship at all. What that the exemption in question was a grievance and inconve-
would be the state of every family thus circumstanced if the nieace, but in his ( Sir \V. Follett's) opinion the rights of per-
amendment of the Noble Lord alone were introduced? Why, sons ought to haveprecedenceof inconveMeeice.—(leer, hear.)
the father would be compelled unwillingly to disinherit the If the Noble Lord did not concede the point, he should per-
eldest son, because he relied upon the provisions of the Reform sist in dividing the Committee with reference to those who
Bill, and trusted implicitly to his acquiring his freedom with- were now in possession of property, or who had inchoate rights
out apprenticeship, and the whole benefit would be transferred to it. He intended to propose, that all those who, et the time
to the second son.—( Hear, hear.) of passing the Act, were by inchoate right entitled to their
The question was again put and carried. freedom, should possess it just as much as if that Bill had not
Mr. ROBINSON then moved the addition of the following passed.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted the inconvenience aris-
words to the amendment :—" And also to the sons of freemen ing from the levying of tolls on certain classes of persons in a
now born, who are at present entitled to their freedom in any corporate town; but still all existing rights .should be pre-
city or borough." served; because, if that were not the case, it would lead to
Mr. MACLEAN begged to put a not improbable case, of very great inconvenience and hardship. He should propose
which he thought the Committee should not lose sight, in that the right of exemption from tolls should be continued,-
coming to a decision upon this point. A man, in the ex-
( Oh, oh, and Hear, heir.) He understood the Noble Lord
pcctation of a family, frequently purchased his own free- I not to object to some part of his proposition,- but if he did
dom with the view of making his son a free man ; whereas, riot preserve vested rights to the extent he (Sir W. Follett)
if he wished him to obtain his freedom by apprenticeship, be I Proposed, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the
Committee on the subject.—(Loud cries of " Divide, " and
paid fer his indentures. In the first case be obtained no-
benefit whatever for himself, but expended a large sum of `c Hear, hear.")
money to procure certain privileges for his son. There were Lord J. RUSSELL said, that it appeared to him that the
many charities for the education of the sons of freemen, and principle on which the clause was framed was in conformity
where a man had eight or nine, it was an object of great with the principle laid down by the Right Hon. Member for
importance to him to obtain an education for them at as Tamworth. For instance, that the present use of the common
little expense as possible. There were many instances in land of a Corporation had originated in usage, but that the
which individuals had made themselves freemen, at the ex- custom might not be for the benefit of the community. The
pense of a much larger pecuniary outlay than they would question was, not how the clause should be framed, but what
have incurred had they acquired -the right for their children course was the best to pursue with respect to all parties? Act-
by apprenticeship, for the express purpose of procuring this ing on this principle he was anxious to preserve all the present
education. The adoption of the proposed course would en- rights of property as well as the kindred rights of property
tail the greatest hardship and injustice upon these
persons. growing out of them. If he was sure that the rights of indivi-
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would state, in every few words, duals by birth and apprenticeship were the same as the inherited
the ground on which he anticipated very great danger and rights of property, and could be preserved without attaching
difficulty- from drawing the line proposed by the Hon. Gen- to it the sense of all descendants, he should not be so much
tleman who had just sat down. The Hon. Gentleman had opposed to it. The latter, certainly, was not the sense the Come
said--and he said, no doubt, with perfect truth—that the mittee had in view, nor was it in conformity with the principle
father of a family would frequently pay a very large sum for of the Bill. If he understood the proposition of the Hon. and
his freedom, because be knew his children would have the Learned Member for Exeter, certainly it did not go the extent
benefit of' being the sons of a freeman ; and because, in the of preserving all future rights that might arise ; but that the
event of his having eight or nine sons, it would be extremely rights of property now existing, as far as those now appren-
convenient to him to avail himself of the corporate funds tices, should be reserved. Still he thought that there were
in their education.—(Hear, hear.) Let the House con- differences between the right by apprenticeship and the right
sider the effect of the amendment now proposed r a person by birth. The apprentice paid for what he gained, and per-
who had purchased his freedom three years ago, having then baps had served four or five ye;trs, and might consider what he
two se: , would have paid a large sum for their education, was now entitled to at tile end of his servitude as part of the
, s
ael they would Ire entitled to the benefit of the schools to contract.—( Hear, hear.) Those, however, who claimed their
r hich the Hon. Gentleman had referred, but the other seven freedom by birth could not say that their occupations had
aos he might have afterwards, would be altogether excluded been adopted in consequence of the privilege they gained by
from them. The adoption of the clause, then, woulcrbe pro- servitude. Admitting the right ,ef apprenticeship, he thought
&active of the great hardship, that a man who had paid a a distinction should be made between that and the right by
valuable consideration for the purpose of obtaining an birth. His only fear was that when he gave way on point, the
education for his sons, would not obtain the benefit for secnr- same course might be pursued on this point that was adopted
ing which he had expended his money. The principle now on the Reform Bill, namely, endeavouring to force him from
sought to be adopted had been laid down in the first Re- one amendment to another.—( Hear, hear.) If he believed
form Bill, and it had been met with the very objection he had the Committee were whlirig to adopt a principle of the kind
just stated. laid down by the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter, he
would be disposed to .say that the great object of the Bill,
Lord HOWICK—It was perfectly clear to his mind, that
namely, the establishment of a future good system of municipal
if they gave way to the amendment of the Honourable Mem-
government in corporate towns, would be defeated, provided
ber for Worcester (Mr. Robinson), they would open a door
which it would be extremely difficult to shut, and adopt a
they took care that they did not continue any municipal or po-
rinci le wlich ex silence would prove to be most ill-ad-
litical rights which were injurious to the welfare of those for
p p
ised and injuriousp. The Right Honourable Baronet had
the good government of whom they were then legislating.
v
With regard to interference with individual rights, with re-
stated—he thought most unanswerably—that it was of the
Bard to men's prospects of rising in the world, he should be
greatest possible importance that the property of the Corpora-
as delicate as possible of interfering, and would rather pre-
tions should, at as early a period as possible, be vested in the
serve a broad course than do injury to any such persons. BY
community at large, to be employed for purposes in which
pursuing this course, the progress of their legislation would
the community at large were interested, instead of being felt- be more easy, and they would occasion less exasperation ;
tered away as at present, in small donations to individuals, in
and therefore he should say, if the sense of the House was in
a manner, he knew practically, in 99 cases out of 100, con-
conformity with the proposal just made by the Hon. and
ducive neither to their own interest, the public interest, nor
the interest of the individuals themselves. He agreed with Learned Gentleman (excepting the exempting from toll, Sco.).
he would much rather that the proposition of the Honourable
the Hon. Member for Huddersfield, whose exertions on the
Municipal Corporation Commission had been so unremitting, Gentleman should be adopted than that they should go to a
and attended with so much benefit, that it would have been division on the amendment of the Honourable Member for
Worcester.
most desirable to retain the original clause if possible ; but he
was convinced that its practical effect would have been to occa- Mr. SHE IL begged to observe, that if the abstract
sion hardships which it would be quite impossible for the principle of the Hon. and Learned Member was agreed to,
House to prevent or remove. It had been distinctly proved, with respect to the rights gained by apprenticeship and birth,
tiin some boroughs persons, on entering into their appren- they must also preserve the rights which the daughters oi,
cship, were compelled to pay, not merely the ordinary pre- freemen were entitled to confer upon their husbands. 11,.
mium to the master whom they served, but a fee of 301. into this were conceded, they would be involved in all sorts of
difficulties.
the corporation chest—( Hear, hear)—as they distinctly said,
with a view to the pecuniary benefits which were afterwards to After a few words from Mr. LENNARD, which were ID'
result to them from the freedom so acquired. In these cases, audible in consequence of the loud cries of " Divide, divide,"
persons having actually paid for their freedom, it would be Lord J. RUSSELL said, that if he rightly understood tbe
quite impossible for that House to deprive them of it. It was proposition of the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter, he
quite impossible to distinguish the cases in which an increased would recommend that the further discussion should be I°.;
premium had been paid with a. view to the ulterior advantages journed until to-morrow, and in the meantime he wished
to be gained ; from what he had just suggested, and as in all the Hon. Member would let him see the words of his
cases of apprenticeship something was bona fide paid—some amendment, and he would then state whether he could agree
actual service performed—with a view to pecuniary advantages, to them.
he thought it only fair that those pecuniary advantages should Mr. WARBURTON made some observations which we
be preserved to the partiei interested. On strict legal prin• altogether inaudible in the gallery.
ciples, inchoate rights might stand on an equal footing with The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported prove°
these ; but morally speaking, there could be no doubt that a and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow. ._
right which was inherited, and which was in itself a great The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
abuse and an usurpation, stood on very different grounds from House adjourned at a quarter-past two.
one acquired by servitude. He entreated the Committee to
consider the practical effect of the amendment. They must
remember that they were not only dealing with the rights of
land and common, but with the right of exemption from toll ;
and they must remember that that exemption was already felt
as a great inconvenience and hardship. There were two no-
tices
of amendments in the printed list at that moment, the
object of which was to deprive even the existing freemen of
that right of exemption from tolls, which the present measure
proposed to preserve so far as they were concerned. He ad-
mitted that this would not be an act of justice • but he con-
tended, nevertheless, that to continue for a period the termina-
tion of which no man could foresee, the exemption of a certain
class of men from the tolls paid by their fellow-citizens was an
inconvenience of so serious a description that the House, in-
stead of increasing, should be most anxious to prevent it. It
was well known, he believed, that in the town of Liverpool one
merchant had an advantage over another merchant in precisely
similar circumstances, and with an equal amount of capital, of
not less than 1,4001. He did not exactly know how much it
amounted to per annum, but he thought 5001. He wanted to
know how the Hon. Gentleman proposed to distinguish be-
tween the right of exemption from toll and rights of common
and meadow, both of which stood, as he conceived, on pre-
cisely the same footing; all of which had been originally
granted by charter for the common benefit of the whole town ;
but which, in the process of time and process of occupation,
had been alienated and perverted from their original use until
they degenerated into a special exemption in favour of one part
ticnlar class of inhabitants. —( Cheers. )
Sir ROBERT INGLIS felt bound to say that this was the
very first instance in which he had heard the misapplication of
property urged as an argument against the right to it. He was
perfectly astonished at the doctrine laid down by the Noble Lord.
Lord HO WICK must beg to interrupt the Hon Baronet
for one moment. He had made a very serious charge against
him, and he hoped he might be permitted to explain it.
What he had said was, that he concurred with the Right
Hon. Baronet in thinking it desirable, as soon as it could be
done consistently with justice, that this property should be
brought into the hands of the community at large. To show
he importance of such a proceeding, he had adverted to its
perversion from the objects to which it was originally intended
to be applied, and to the little benefit its expenditure con-
ferred even upon the individuals to whose use it was chiefly
applied.—( Hear.)
Sir ROBERT INGLIS resumed—The Noble Lord would
not do justice, if he consented to make the proposed distinc-
tion between the right by birth and the right by servitude. The
right in both cases was equal—a pecuniary consideration had
been paid for each. He held that the House had no more
right, on general grounds of expediency, to divert the funds of
the Corporations from their original source, than they had to
put into one general hotch-potch the property of the Mem,
bers on both sides of the House and apply them to the general
purposes of the State.
Sir ROBERT PEEL explained—He had specially re-
served the case of a special bequest, in which there was a clear
legal right. He had excepted the cases in which the property
of the community had been by lone perscription diverted to in-
dividual puro,oses, and he had added, with respect to this pro-
perty, that he did believe the intention was that it should be-
long to the community at large.—( Cheers. )
Mr. BLACKBURNE said a few words in explanation.
He was of opinion that the Bill was founded upon the best
principles ; but if it were to be allowed that the Bill should be

LIVERPOOL COTTON MARKET, JUNE 22
We have experienced a moderate demand for Cotton to-day
The sales amount to 2,500 bales, at full market prices, anu
consist of 100 Pernams, 151 d. to 16d. ; 200 Bahias, )4d. to
ibid. Remainder American, from Sid. to I lid., and a few
Orleans, 130.

ClDER.—Accounts from Bridgewater state that,
from the appearance of the orchards in that neighbourhOod,
larger crops of apples are expected than hare been know
for some years past, and cider, consequently, is now selling
for less than U. per hogshead.--Barnstap/s Advertiser.

BIRTHS.
On the 24th inst., at Chelsea, the lady of the Rev. George
Everard, of a son.

The lady of C. G. Wynne, Esq., of a daughter.
4thel4th inst., at Lindores, Fife, the lady of Captain
.4. George
late of the 2d Life Guards, of a son.
On the 21st inst., at Bluebridge-house, Essex, the wife of the
Rev. W. C. Totton, of a daughter.