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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord J. Rt,ssura, said that with respect to the business of the
house, several bills had been postponed in consequence of the

* The decree referred to will be found in another column.

. •,
corporation bin having been considered in committee, he had
now to propose, in pursuance of the notice be had given, that
this house sit during the remainder of the session on Tuesdays
and Thursdays nom v.velve to three o'clock, and that the sit-
tings he again resumed on -those dais at live o'clock.
The SPEAKkR put the proposition in the shape of a motion,
which was agreed to.

An hon. MEmntit asked the noble lord opposite if it was his
intention to go into the consideration of Irish hills on Monday ?
Lord J. lics!4ELL. said it was his intention to proceed in coin,
mittee- on Monday evening with the municipal corporation bill.
The ATTOIINEY-GENEL: AL said, in answer to a question put
by Sir W. Follett, which was not heard, that he hoped the
municipal corporations bill would entirely be got rid of by Mon-
day or Tuesday, and in-that case he should be able to bring for-
ward the bill his and learned friend inquired about very
shOrtly after. It was connected with another bill he had under
his consideration, relating to copyhold tenure, which he antici-
pated he should be able to state the substance of during the pre-
sent session, that it might be-considered during the recess, and
which be might be able to bring forward at the commencement
of next session.

PETITIONS-CORPORATIONS BILL

Mr. Boarnwwk. lr Wax. FOLLETT, Captain POLHILL, and
Mr. Tarivoit, presented petitions against the municipal corpo-
rations bill. 7he latter (Mr. Trevor) said that the feeling was.
spreading throughout the country that the proposed spoliation,
of the rights of freemen, if it should be passed into law, would be
disgraceful to the House of Commons!

LONG SPEECII ES.

Mr. SINCLAIR, referring to the discussions on petitions, ob-
served that if they were to g.o on in the manner they had been
going on, the session would not be over op the Ist January,
1836. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from both fides of the
house.)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL

Lord JOHN ItussuLL moved the order of the day, and the
house weut into committee.

On the 56th being read,—
A discussion of considerable length arose. In answer to a
question put by Mr. Estcourt,
Lord J. Itussxt.t. said that the clause had no reference what-
ever to ecclesiastical trusts as connected with corporations.
But that was, no doubt, a most important subject, and there
was a notice on the books which would bring it regularly under
the attention of the committee in a future stage of the bill.
Mr. ESTCoURT asked what would then become of church pa-
tronage which was vested in corporations, seeing that the Clause
contained no provision in that respect?
Lord J. IiCsSELL said, that under the operation of the bill
the church patronage would go with all the other powers and
possessions of corporations, and the new corporations would
have the lame power of dealing with it that the present corpo-,
rations had. The hon. gentleman was well aware that since
,the repeal of the test and corplaration_lkets, a corporation at the
present moment night be con4Osed entirely of dissenters, and
be as competent to dispose of church patronage as a corpor-atiork
consisting entirely of members of the national establishment.—
The clause, with several verbal and explanatory amendments,
was agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 61 were agreed to without any discussion.
On clause 62 being proposed,
Sir F. TRuNcli suggested that there was no provision against
the property of protestants' advowsons, and so forth, falling into
the hands of Roman Catholics or other dissenters, as members
of the council firming the majority, Hod asked if the noble lord
intended to make any such provision ?
Lord J. RUSSELL was not aware that any such provision was
necessary. Men of all religious persuasions might by law at
present be members of corporations, and so administer any
trust. Certainly, as the law had stood not long ago, there were
penalties attached to the exercise of church patronage by Roman
Catholics; but they were now repealed, and could not be put in
force unless the penal laws were re-enacted.
Sir F. TRENCH said he was conscious of the sneer directed
against him by the noble lord; but be would nevertheless state,
that his object was to secure the property of protestants from
being administered by individuals of other religioui persuasions.
He wished to have, if possible, some guard against a majority
of dissenters, of whatever denomination they might be, having
the control in the council of property devised to the members
of the established church; and this was the more necessary
now, because the noble lord who presided over the course of
the bill was in. the hands of a party hostile to the church.
(Hear, hear.) In fact, he was in the grasp of a giant, and must
be his slave or his victim. (Hear, hear,•No, no.)
The clause was agreed to.
During this sitting the committee advanced to the 94th clause,
after which the house resumed.