The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-07 00:00:00

HOUSE • OF COMMONS.—TuEsDaY.

The Speaker took the chair at twelve o'clock.
Mr. BARCLAY repoited to the house, as chaiiman of the Car-
low election committee, that AI r. Lowther, one of the members
of that committee, was unable' to attend from indispositiOn.
Mr. Lowther was excused from further attendance.
. The Chelsea water works bill, sent back from the lords with
amendments, was agreed te.
The weights and measures' bill was passed through a COM-
mittee.—Adjourued. •

SECOND SITTING.

Lord F. EGan.roN reported to the house, as chairman of the
Great Yarmouth committee, that William Prentice, now in
custody of the serjeant-at-arins,'still refused to•answ•er the ques-
tions put to him by the committee.
_

Mr. HARDY presented a petition from Mr. Prentice, staling
that he persisted in refusing to answer the question; because the
reply would criminate himself; he prayed to be ',allowed to visit
his family in the custody of an officer.
he debate was adjourned.
Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON presented a petition respecting
the late Duke of York's debts.
DEFEAT OF THE LADYS' ADVOCATE.

Mr. GR4NTLEY BERKELEY moved that the house do agree to
the report of the select committee for providing fur the admis-
sion of a certain Dumber olladies to the stranglrs' gallery.
The question was put, and the house divided. Against, the
motion Ri—in favour of it 83-majority against the ladies! 3.

COLONEL BRADLEY.

Mr. T. DLNCOMBE'S motion for a select committee of inquiry
into this case was defeated uy a majority of CB.
The house was occupied on Mr. HOME'S motion respecting
orange, lodges in the army for the remainder of the evening.
The house and the debate levre adjourned at two o'clock.

OxFonu.
Mr. Robinson, town-clerk of Oxford, in his'description of the
corporation of- that city, said that it held considerable property
in trust for charitable uses; that, were the present trustees to
die, nu provision was made by donors of that property to such a
body as a town council; never heard a complaint against the
HOUSE OF LORDS—WeoNEsnAy
administration of those funds; wa3 convinced that, se far from
The Earl of SnArrsouar Look his seat on the woolsack at
being an improvement on the present system, the bill would be
'
- .
ruinous. Another witness from this place stated that the cha-
one o clock.,
citable funds held by the corporation amounted to about. E 22,000 Lord LiainntlßST presented a petition from the mortgagees
of property belonging to thel:orporation of Ludlow against the
a year. Were the bill passed, he believed there would be no
surplus funds, which the corporation were now in the habit of corporation reform bill.
distributing, and that it would be most injurious to the city of Counsel were then called, and the house proceeded to hear
Oxford. i evidence against the bill.
The Town-Clerks of Worcester and Grantham were next ex- I ' - BRISTOL.
amined Mx, Burgess examined by Sir Charles Wetherell.—This gen-
, after which the house adjourned to six o'clock, it being '
then four o'clock. i tleman's examination lasted a very Ii ug time, in the course of

At GUST 7,

•
it Sir Charles Wetherell said :—Now„ attend t‘ttiis passage in
the repoit of the commissioners, at page 71—" The ruling
principle of the corporation appears to have been at all times a
desire bf power, and a jealousy of any undertaking over whiCh
they cannot at pleasure exercise control, &c. ;" that the people
were constantly discontented with the acts of the corporation,
and that the cause of this was in temper of the corporation, inde-
pendently of party politics; that this disposition showe4 itself in
an opposition on the part of the citizens, so that they (the com-
missioners) doubted whether the corporation cool,: do an act of
real liberality without being liable,-to suspicion—is that true or
false? Is it calumny, or is it truth?—My opinion is that it is
not true. (A laugh.) My opinion is that the corporation ought
not to have been visited by so severe a mark as that contained
in the report. I think that so far from the citizens of Bristol—

I mean the respectable inhabitants, the merchants, being dis-
satisfied at the corporation making any sacrifice for the. benefit
of trade, that such an act would be received with pleasure and
gratitude.
Lord BROUGHAM cross-examined this witness, in order to
extract from him an admission that the conduct of the commis-
sioners had been perfectly fair and honourable, but he failed is
his object; the witness asserted that Mr. Drinkwater was hold-
ing constant correspondence with persons omit qf court.
Mr. Fripp, who had been an alderman and magistrate of
Bristol, was also examined. The charity revenues amounted to
about £30,000 a-year; this sum was subdivided according to the
• trusts of the charities, every guinea of which was applied to its
proper chaiity. The church patronage of the corporation con-
sisted of twelve livings and two lectureships ; no living in the
gift of the corporation- had- ever been 'SOW ;" they alwaYs en-
deavoured to find good pastors; by the present bill that patron-
age would rest in persons hostile to or not members of the
church of England. The remission ot_toviri•dutrftom £5,000
to £1,600 had operated fav .urably tuatfie trade of Bristol.
SANDwiott

The Town-clerk of this borough stftted that its corporation
was composed of men entertaining all shades of political opi-
nion; the corporate body never to hiS knowledge interfered in
elections; the freemen of the Cinque Ports have rights as old
as Magna Charta, both local and extended; they were ex-
pressly named in that Charts; they-were free of tolls through-
out, he believed, all England; he knew it was extensive in the
neighbourhood, and he rather thought it went over England.
Since 1822 he had lived in Sandwieh, and during all that time
justice had been administered most satisfactorily. -
At the close of the examination of another witness in this
case, the house adjoncned.