§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
§ MR. FENWICK
said, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Bill purported to carry out the award made by Sir John Patteson in the dispute between the University and town of Cambridge. It was agreed by both parties that a Bill should be brought in to carry out that award. Now what he complained of was, that the Bill before the House did not carry out that award, but a different award. The Bill contained clauses for rating all the parishes of Cambridge as one parish, and the following letter from Sir John Patteson, which he would beg permission to read, stated that that matter was not within the scope of the award submitted to him.
§ "13, King's Bench-walk,
§ "Temple, Feb. 14.
§ "Sir,— In answer to your note, I beg to state that the draft of the Bill respecting my award in the Cambridge University and Town matter was sent to me in print by Mr. Hyde, the solicitor for the University, and Mr. Cooper, the town clerk.
§ "I took it for granted that the variations from and additions to my award, which the Bill contains, were made with the consent of all parties, and approved of them on that supposition. I did not ask the question as to consent, nor was it asserted by either of the gentlemen. I took it for granted, as it seems now, too hastily. It would have been better if I had adverted to such supposed consent, which I believe I did not, when I sent the draft back with my approval to Mr. Hyde.
§ "You are quite at liberty to use this note in any way you think fit.
§ "I am, Sir, yours very truly,
§ (Signed) "J. PATTESON.
§ "J. C. Heath, Esq."
§ He should therefore move the postponement of the Bill.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."832
§ MR. WIGRAM
said, he hoped that the Bill would be sent before a Committee, which was the proper tribunal for deciding the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. As to the merits of the question between the parties, he did not wish to give any opinion. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that the award proposed to be carried out by the Bill was altogether different from the award of Sir John Patteson. The Bill was simply and accurately confined to that award, with the exception of the 35th and 36th clauses, which provided that all the parishes of Cambridge should be rated as one parish. The people of Cambridge wished that Sir John Patteson should make an award on that point, but he said that it did not come within the scope of the matters submitted to him. At their request, however, he introduced a recommendation that it should be adopted, and it was in consequence of that recommendation that Clauses 35 and 36 were introduced into the Bill.
said, he should also support the second reading, because he did not consider that the Bill was contradictory, but supplementary to the award of the arbitrator
said, he would appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Bill to be considered in a Committee upstairs.
§ Amendment by leave withdrawn.
§ Main Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill read 2o