hich gave to the set of men
who should once get into office a formidable instrument for maintaining
their predominance, by vesting in the council the power of granting or
refusing all licences within the limits of the borough; the original
clause was retained by a majority of forty-five. The labours of the
committee were finished, and the report received on the 17th of July;
and on the 20th the bill was read a third time without a division, the
opponents of the bill leaving it to the house of lords to accomplish
those ameliorations in its enactments which they deemed requisite.

The day fixed for the second reading of the municipal bill in the house
of lords was the 28th of July. On that day petitions were presented
against it from Coventry, Doncaster, Lancaster, Worcester, Lincoln, and
other corporations, praying to be heard against the bill by counsel;
and from Bristol and Liverpool, praying to be heard against it by their
respective recorders. It was moved, that the petitioners should be heard
by counsel, which Lord Melbourne opposed. The Duke of Wellington and
other peers contended that it would be a denial of justice to refuse to
hear parties against a measure which affected their character as well
as their interests. Lord Brougham also said that there would be no
objection to counsel being heard, provided the matter was so arranged
as to prevent that hearing from becoming interminable. He suggested that
two counsel should state all that was to be stated for the whole of the
corporations. In this suggestion Lord Melbourne concurred, and it was
agreed to by the whole house, after which the bill was read a second
time _pro forma_. The hearing of the counsel commenced on the 30th of
July, and was continued up to the 1st of August. The two gentlemen who
appeared for the corporations were Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight,
who insisted largely on the general character of the bill, as putting
an end to all rights enjoyed under any corporate charter in the kingdom;
and attacked the reports made by the commission regarding the different
boroughs. They claimed a right to tender evidence in order to prove the
ignorance and partiality with which the corporations had been treated.
After the counsel had concluded their argument, Lord Melbourne gave
notice that he would oppose any motion for allowing evidence to be
adduced in defence of any corporation. Notwithstanding this notice,
however, on the 3rd of August, after his lord