The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-20 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 19.

This being the first day of Trinity Term, the Judges
did not come to Westminster-hall until half,psst one
o'clock. Upon their Lordships coming on the bench, the
oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration were ad-
ministered to Lord Chief Justice Tindal, who then bowed
to the bar, and took his seat.

The remainder of the day was occupied with motions
(principally justification of bail) of no public interest.

HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES, Ju IS.

COLVIN V. FRASER. AND OTHERS.

An appeal, it will be recollected, was made from the
sentence of the Judge in the Prerogative Court. in this
case (concerning Mr. Farquhar's will), to this Court, an
behalf of the schoolmasters of Scotland ; which was stopped
in limine before the Condelegates, on an objection to the
competency of the appellants tp appear collectively as
suitors; which objections was referred to the High Court.
Their Lordships now decided that the objection was
well-founded—na►nely, that the schoolmasters of Scotland,
not being a corporate body, were not entitled by law to
sue or be sued in a collective capacity, they therefore
dismissed the appeal.
The question, therefore, is now finally set at rest.

The canvass for the Itopresentation of the
County of Sussex appears to he Somewhat premature, as
we understand neither of the present County Members
hare the slightest idea of retiring from their Parliamentary

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to-day to the
Sugar Duties Bill, the Customs Amendment Bill,
Land Revenue (Ireland) Bill, the Ecclesiastical
Court Offices' Bill, Metropolitan Justice of the Peace
Rill, Division of Counties' Bill, Commissioners of
Charities' Bill, Friendly Societies' Bill, Small Debts
(Scotland) Bill, Scotland Gaol Bill, Clerk of the
Pleas (Ireland) Bill, Cotton Factories Regulation
Bill, Silk Manufacturers' Wages Bill, Butter Trade
(Ireland) Bill, Arms (Ireland) Bill, Metropolis Po-
lice Bill, Metropolis Roads' Bill, Irish Roads and
Bridge Bill,LondonHarbour Master's Bill,Southwark
Watching and Lighting Bill, Lambeth Watching
Bill, City Canal Sale Bill, Rotherhithe Poor Rates
Bill, London Workhouse Bill, together with up-
wards of thirty Private Bills.
The Commissioners were the LORD CHANCELLOR,
the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, and the Earl of ROSLYN.

Mr. Tomline, from the Treasury, presented cer-
tain papers relating to shipping and navigation.
The Charing-cross Improvement Bill was read
third time, and passed.
The East India Offices Bill was also read a third
time.

Mr. Spiller presented the Report of the Commis-
sinners for the Building Churches in the Highlan&
of Scotland.
LONDON-BRIDGE BILL.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented the
Report of the Committee on this Bill, without any
amendment.

Lord DURHAM rose to state to their Lord-
ships, that he had withdrawn his opposition to this
Bill, upon the understanding that it was only
a temporary measure, and it appearing that the
City had agreed to give up part of their revenue,
for the purpose of carrying the improvements into
effect. Ministers, be also understood, had consented
to take upon themselves the management of the ex-
penditure; he had no doubt of their doing so with
ability, and he hoped—with an inclination to see if -
some reduction could not be made in the im-
mense sum required, a million. He withdrew
his opposition also, upon the understanding that a
new Bill was to be brought into Parliament in the
course of the next session. He wholly disclaimed
all personal considerations. He trusted the arrange-
ment that had been come to, would be the means
of saving upwards of 500,0001.
The Earl of MALMESBURY expressed him-
self satisfied with the arrangement.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY observed,
that he had never objected to the principle of the,
Bill, but to the peculiar mode that had been selected
for levying the whole burthen upon the Coal Trade:,
He felt great pleasure at the course puriued by the
City its the arrangement that had been made,
the devoting of part of their own funds, and the
placing of their appropriation in the hands of the
Government of the Country. The Noble Lord
also withdrew his notice which he had given 1-01
Wednesday next against the Corporation, for
not having produced certain documents required.
He trusted, when the City of London came
before the House again, his Noble Friend (Lord
Durham) would not shrink from moving what he
could not but call the notable order of the 18th of
May. He could not sit down without lamenting
that a Bill of such importance as the present should
be brought by the city of London before their Lord-
ships at so a late period of the Session.
The Duke of WELLINGTON observed that

the first observation he should make would be in
answer to the latter part of what had fallen from his
Noble Friend. The attention of the House of Com-
mons had been drawn to this Bill early in February
last. The proceedings went on, and it was at last
discovered that they could not be carried forward
with effect. The Bill was then brought to
this House, and had occupied nearly a month
of their Lordships' time. It could not be said,
therefore, that the City of London had delayed
bringing this measure forward. With respect to
the Bill itself, he had supported it upon this public
principle, that the Bridge having been constructed
partly at the expense of the public, ind partly at the
expense of the City of London, it was necessary that
proper approaches should be made to the bridge.
As they were originally planned, it Would be utterly
impossible to have carried them into effect. It was
necessary, therefore, to adopt some measure of this
description, in order to give the public all the ad-
vantages they had a right to expect from the large
expence that had been incurred. He wished to remind
their Lordships that the old London-bridge was in
such a state as to render it impossible that it could
be used for a communication for any length of time.
The evidence of engineers had been adduced on the
Committee, stating that they would not answer
for the safety of the bridge, even for a year.—
Under these circumstances he considered it his duty
to support the Bill in all its stages through the
House. It appeared that the parties who opposed
the Bill and those who were in favour of it, had
concurred in an arrangement for a future measure,
which they both thought would be satisfactory.
He had no objection to such an arrangement
as far as his Majesty's Government was con-
cerned. It was true, that by this arrangement
the construction of the approaches to the Bridge
were to be carried into execution without the inter-

ference of the Government. The only part that
was placed under the controul of the Treasury was,
the side approaches which he (the Noble Duke)
considered a great defect, because though the
Treasury could not undertake to work itself, it
was proper that they should have the control of a
public measure of this sort.—(Hear.)—There was
another proposed amendment which was the adop-
tion of other funds now belonging to the City of
London for the purposes of the Bill, A great
deal had been said about the duty on coals, but he
(the Noble Duke) begged to say that all those duties
applicable to the Orphan Fund had, for the
last 60 years, been applied for the purposes of public
works in the city of London. The House of Com-
mons had reported that the Duty on Coals was most
fit to bear the expense. He had no objection to the
application of other funds to this public work, if
they could be made available. The City had de-
clared their willingness to make them so. He
thought his Noble Friends had taken wrong views of
the advantages that would result fiorn the supposed
measure, but this he would say, it might be bene-
ficial to both parties, and would place the expendi-
ture of the money tinder the controul of the Trea-
sury. Under these circumstances he should support
this Bill, and also the other when it was brought
forward.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY explained.
He felt this measure deeply, because it was the only
public one in which he differed with the Noble Duke
at the head of his Majesty's Government.
The Earl of ELDON observed that he had pre-
sented a petition from certain individuals against the
Bill, and he trttsted the Committee had attended to
the interests of those petitioners.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY stated, that
the Chamberlain of the City of London generally
held in his hands a balance of 80,000/., and gave no
security.
The Marquis of CAMDEN—If the Committee
could not go into the City accounts, it was not pro-
bable that the House could enter into them. He
bore testimony to the City not being reluctant to
produce its accounts, which were as well, or better
kept than any accounts he had ever, seen.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said a few words
in explanation, and thought the calling for the City
accounts was fully justified,
The Earl of LAUDERDALE stated that there
was no evidence before them to show that the Cham-
berlain of London had a balance of 80,0001. in his
hands. The accounts were so managed that it was

impossible that the Chamberlain could ever use such
a sum.
Lord IDURIIANI deprecated discussion on evi-
dence which was not before the whole of their Lord-
ships. Iho ugh he was alarmed by the opinion of
the Noble and Learned Lord, if a ca-c were
again to occur, he should move for a similar account.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would trust
the decision of the question bet sveen him and the
Noble Earl (Lauderdale) to the judgment of their
Lordships when they had read the evidence.
On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY
the Standing Order, No. 47, was suspended.
The Duke of WELLINGTON then moved that
the Bill for making the Approaches to London-
bridge should be read a third time, which was ac-
cordingly done, after a few words from the Marquis
of Londonderry.
The Bill was then passed.
SCOTCH ENTAILS.

The Earl of ROSEBERRY, after stating that a
Committee of the other House had been appointed
two years ago to inquire into Scotch Entails, and
that two Bills, brought into Parliament by its advice,
had been suspended, wished to inquire of his Ma-
jesty's Ministers whether it was their intention to
take the subject into their consideration with a view
to introduce next Session some measure into Par-
liament on the subject ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR was sensible of

the importance of the subject to which the question
of the Noble Earl related. He had conferred with
the Gentlemen of the other House who had intro.
dticed the Bills, and during the recess it was his in-
tention to collect such information on the subject as
would be necessary to come to the consideration of
the question, so that Ministers would be prepared
next Session to discuss any measure which might
be pry posed.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE trusted that any
alteration in the law of Scotland would be made in
the spirit of that law, and not in the spirit of a law
of which Scotland knew nothing.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished it to be

understood that he did not pledge the Government
to the introduction of any measure, but only to the
collecting such information as would enable it to
decide on any measure which might be proposed.