Star. — London, England, 1828-07-02 00:00:00

I' • BARON DL BODL . S CLAIM. A1 1,6041.1.m t .. • I N - , or sear, be accustomed himself to use taunts towards others for neglect, of which they had not been guilty, and *bleb he would do much better to give up. • The PertiOn 11401 then read. Mr. D. W. HARVEY denied that he said any thing which could undervalue the exertions and the eloquence of the Hon.Blember, or abbe Hon. Members with whom he-had u.ualls acted. _ . The Petition was then laid on the table.—On the motion that it he printed, Mr. HUME said, he was always friendly tei the in terests a the people, and Viought that the advocacy of a miniature r f wages wo'.ld be ruinous t' the interest , of the work ng people Neither should it be held out to thefts that their Petitions were received with indiffe rence in this House; the contrary he knew t s be the fact. He considered that our prosperity mainly de— pended for its continuance in allowing every article into this country at the cheapest rate at which it could be lot Mr. MAX WRLL supported the prayer of the Petition. The Petition was ordered to be printed, after a few words from Dir. Fess& A Ilessage from the Lords stated that their Lordships requested a COpy of the Evidence taken before the Committee on Parochial Settlements. Mr. C. W. WYNN gave notice of a motion for to-morrow, relative to the Standing Orders. S:r J. NEWPORT gave notice that, early in the next Session, he would move - for leave to bring in a Bill by which Curates in the Proeestant Church should be secured in the full payment of their stipends; and also a BEI to prevent Unions of Parishes for the future, where the animal value of one should be four hundred pounds per annum. The further con:ideration of tbe Ordnance Fatimataiwas post paid till Friday next. . Mr. MONCK presented a Petition from the Operatives of Blanchester, praying for some measure to regulate the amount of - wages.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. CURTEIS presented a Petition from Butwasb against some part of the Hop Duties Bill. Also a Petition from St. George's. Camberwell, is favour of the Additional Churches Bill—Laid on the table. Mr. IL GRATTAN presented a Petition from certain Alt thanks of Dublin. against the tax on Glass.—Laid ow the table. Mr. HEATHCOTIK pretested a Petit from Crowland, in Lincolnshire, in favour of the circulation of Our Pound Notes.-- Laid on the table. Mr. STANLEY rote to caU the attentien of the House to a Petition which he had tome timr since pre seated from the Boon de node. a British subject, who. having suffered loss rf property under the confiscatory decrees of the French Government in 1793, had come forward to claim compensation under the Treaties of 1815 and 1818. The Nobleman on whose behalf he now appealed to the justice of the House had served in the profession of arms with honour to himself, and his services had been distinguished by various honourable acknowledgments in toe field. The Honourable Meat her enumerated the difficulties he haJ to encounter in perssiadin-g - the House to take the view which be enter tained of the Baron's case, and particularly that which arose from an award having been made against his claim by the Commissioners appointed to superintend the distribution of the funds placed in the bands of the Government by the French nation, for the purpose of satisfying a class of claimants, of which the Baron de de was one. But be felt himself supported against that difficulty by the firm conviction that this was a case in which the intervention of the power of that House was demanded by considerations of moral and substantial justice. Before calling upon the House to condemn the conduct • f the Commissioners, be knew it was not enough that he should pose them to have acted under mistaken *views, lie knew nothing of them tether personally or by teputation, for he had never beard their names until they were connected *WI these transactions; and he had to charge them, in sefetence to this case, with•vesatious and frivolous delay in the lints instance—with arbitrary and illegal • proceed togs it the coarse 1.1 the investigation, and with the snaklas an award, as well as a subsequent vindka noir of debt award. containing misconstruction amount ing iwfastances to falsification of documentary evidence. Mite stating the circumstances ander which the claim was made. and lepeesenoing thedifficu:ties and impedi ments thrown in its way by the Commissioners, the Hon. Member contended that 'bay had either rejected it upon aground which win notoriously contrary to fact, or they had proved that all their proceedings had been taken in contravention of the Act of Parliament from bluish they derived their power, and.coostquently that all such proceedings were nuil and void. When es t clidaa was at IA t allowed to be put on the Hat, the Pa ella of the evidence sequised for its support was vesa hens or impossible to be ptocus ed. and the timeallowed for procuting it wholly insufficient. He applied to have-the time ezt-nded, and after much difficulty it a as gramed.--apon what conditioe, did the House believe? Upon the coad tints that he a i hdrew that pass or his claim which rested upon fc udal rights. .This, he con tewded..was- se arbitrary and illegal act on tha pot. 01 the Commissar nets wh ch nogl t riot to be sanctioned ter approved by the House. Hiving supplied by incie &Me ezertions the evidence which he was _told would be required, he was informed that his claim could not be ailtnitted. because be 'faded in the proof that his 'warmly was lost in consequence of the passing of the confiscatory decrees-. in ansu et to this it was • t. ted to the Commissiouets that other documet tat y evidence was 00111 waiting to be legalised in Frisbee, when the Baron de Bore would return with it. Sufficient time, however, was not granted, and the award of rejection baying been made, an appeal was made to the Pi issy Council. But that appeal. was heard still in the ab mace of much important evidence. which time would Mae *ambled him to procure, and the award of. the Comisnissioneis WAS confirmed. In the course el the bearing, however, Lord Sloss . saw somethiag which bethought might entitle the appeal. to be re heard. Vatious delays and postponements followed, and eventually it was decided that t' c:e sl mild be no rehearag. . He thought he had shown the House that Were had been a most erinst delay, and snitch arbitrar y coudutt evinced by the Commissioners; yet he had not, by far. %admitted to them the strangest case of illegality and oppiesmon. The Hon. Member then described the proofs required by the Commissioners, and commented sipou their unreasonable and inconsistent nature—con- Vading that their vindication of the award was founded upon untenable grounds. But there was yet anodic' Paws which put this awe' d • in a dallier light f mst construeuen and falsification of evidence, than all t.')e • rest of the case. In she prosecution of Iris clams. the Beiori de B de was reduced to ateat es.,:•.ud driven to borrow money from an individual neared Richmond. A deed was drawn up, containing many statemesits connected with the case which were not correct—and Is these the Baron objected. There Wps oar presage. in which the Baron was made to declare s that the properly in question was his father's, upon wciug Mbich, . he acmes', that this bring so contrary to the fact. be would •not rage the deed. Accordingly,. as 'could be proved by t•vo V g witnesses. the passage was erased. blow 1.,1 wolOd :he house think claw conduct .of the Com 10t%Inaateb ?tie.: he stated that the passage to Wind was ejected in the bo.ty ref axis award,. :we ground upon w'ficl: the coin; b• el) tejectec ? Notwit!istanding all ins. rd . . its r.f LLis tolfottutiaic N. , blemao, no further opportunity could be obtained to supply any thing.de- • OW in his proof, orio correct any informality in his Mode of proceeding. although in sirens' Otter instances. cases had been opened after the awards hid. been made; and such awards had been erased. He appealed to that House, the only authority in the world which could now save the nnfortunatePetit ioner from absolute destruction. Let them recollect that this was a Gentleman, born to hereditary honours and large wealth, of which h e h a d been c'epi ived without any crime or misconduct of his own ; that in the noble profession of arms he had never degraded th,at prole-aims or his own birth; and that hr was now reduCed to a state in which want was staring im in the fair, and almost without knowing whereto lay his head until the next morning. Let the House recollect this, and he would confis!ently ask t •em whe ther they were prepared to leave this man in this situation? He hoped he should net be met with the :lamer and inconvenience of disturbing tie decisions of a C immission . whose labours, now closed, must all he rendered useless, if such a deer were thrown open. Let not the multiplicity of the oppression be its only justifi cation. He should be satisfied with any form of Com mittee which mieht be granted, for he: was ready to submit the case upon its own justice to any Jury selected from that House. He had abstained from mixing up the question with tat appropriation of the funds oat of hich he believed dais claim was entitled to be satisfied ; that had been the subject of discustion on a former night, but he had a right to use the existence of 'that surplus as an argument in favour of satisfying a de mand so strongly founded in justice. He was sure that the illustrious party on whose aciourt that surplus had been expended, would be the first to shrink Itom the knoss ledge that the sacrifice of rights and the purchase of oppression had been applied to his own convenience and combo t ; and the last to approve of an at t which had given luxuries to the Crown out of the ruin and beggasy of his subjects—(Cheers). The Hon. Member concluded by moving—" That the Petition of the Baron de Bede be referred to a Select Committee." Mr. HORACE TWISS said, that he Was placed wi der great t m terassmait in having to answer sn able a speech as had been made by the H-nourable Member. In doing sa he should observe the recommendation of • the Hoi °usable Gentleman, although he had not fol lowed it himself, that the question should not be treated as a mater of teeling, but of strict justice. And if the claim of the Petitioner could be substantiated upon its justice, he was sure he was not going too far in saying, that neither the magnitude of other claims which would necessarily be opened, nor the decision which had been come to by the Commissioners, would weigh a . grain in the scale. in inducing the Government to resist it. He was satisfied, however. that he should be able to con "ince the House that upon no ground whatsoever could the award be disturbed. The Hon. Gent. then went into the details connected with the original institution ,ot the claim; and showed that it was only by the kind ness of the English Government.th lt the Baron de Bode , I :had been allowed to pot his claim upon the list at all, he having forfeited the tight to do in Such hastieite been the indulgent consideration asenittattowaids what could be' thought of this tkilbllefitires`tatatenW when he accused the Cmom'ssitthiaa aid lee ment t I having tried every means, fbiF andoritair, to exclude him from the list 1.1 . claimant's.? He was com• pelted to adopt t m conclusion which the conduct of the Baron created in the mind of the Judge who gave the decision of the Privy Council upon his appeal. that the deep interest he had at stakehad 61 far excited and agi tated him.as to.make him the subject of mental delusion ; that.he Cum& was the most natural as well as the most ch.ritable view Which eould be taken of the whole case. The Hon. and Learned Member then argued. that ' from theevidence produced by the Baron himself it an peered that the property for which he claimed indem oftcation was not legally. vested in hint, but belonged to his father, who was at t a British subject at the time of the passing of the coofi•catory Decrees: . The fact gathered from the evidence was. that the ptripetty seized was not•that of the Baron; the. Petitioner, but of his father, who was a foreigner, &sad had uoclusiin whatever for compensation as a Blitish suhj 7 0.. But iheteavas also a statema t made be thief:Woo. the Petitioner hints self. by which it appeased specificallY, that the Flinch Government had seized upon the ,property inquistinit as that of as emigrant ; and yet 'after making it.h a statement. and that, too; at a tinge:when:the Petitioner' was perfectly well aware of the materiality • f the falls which he recorded, the ,Baron would new have 'the House believe that the property. was his and not his father's at the time it was seized. It had been stated by , a witness upon affidavit, that he, the witness, had searched the Mauves cf France, and could find Ito record which' showed that the property in quest on had been seized upon any other grounds than thit it belonged to a British subject. But in reply t • t 'at • t iternent. he Mr.T } held in his bawl an attested copy of an , eine( t tram the Pub is Records of France upon the subject. by which it a p• peared that the property was particularly described as that 4,1 a French emigrant. Ti e Baron. therefor', had no Claims under the T. eaty of Pais, for that Tieity had re ference only to the losses sustained by British subjects,* nd is wasnot even pretended that the fattier of the Petitioner was a British subjeit..ft the Paitioncr had iginalle any belief that be had a just claim to cumpensatio-, how was it that he had not taken any step a hatever to procure the necessary evidence until tut rats had eapired the conclusion of the Treaty ? Niel, the H 'nottrable Gentleman who had brought forward the Petition :had said it was an ate of oppression in the Coodis• aioners to call upon the -Petitioner as they. had done. for' the pro action of circumstantial evidence to sup• port his claim. But what Was the tact? Way the Commissioners hat in reality granted. a. locates ii dulgence than any ether Court of Justice in the king dom would have done. The Baron produced no .teed to prove his right as a Bt 1 . i.h subject to the properly, upon which the Commissiomas grass ted en several occa sions "further time" to the Petitioner to collect evidenc. to oho* that 'he had a Sight to the property seized as a British subj;cr. And such was the indulgence shown to the Baron, that the Comn isemeetb slid ant give their Ifinal decision until even the A. eia i f the Petitintei had said that he had no turthea evideas.e to psociuce.— Such was the fact, and yet the Baron ti ell came bt-fne she House and rayed that his case might again be in gutted into. his evidence, as he said. having b et shut out; and he .made th t statement, too, in the face of bis own letters. in which he caressed his grat tide for the great indulgence which had been granted him.-- The Honourable (academes defended the conduct of the Commissioners. and road • lets!, "tom the Peti• tioner in support t f his view s To show.that the deci sion of the COatilliSiineera w$ COMO, it IP,* material to sewisik, that_ on decidiug the appesl, the Privy Council bad no hesitation. They did not even ad journ for the purpose of consideration. Loyd S t owelt, who delivered the judgment, had no doubt;` acid Lord Gifford, instead of encoutaging the 7 ` expectations of the unhappy Gentleman, the Petitioner, rook s corn s = pletely cont - any course. The most peifeet instance which could be given of entire wrong-headedness was a man who, because he failed in his pretensions, isms- Rifled that - the whole wo u ld was in a con-pira 'He ' a • • I him. Such was the csiquct of the Petitioner. He. fa "ed that his Agent wino ignotant, that haseounsel were incapable of doing justice to his claims, ihat the Treasury had opposed hips, because whatever surplus , there might be would be at its disposal, and that the Commissioners and the Privy Council had ected un justly towards him. The Honourable Gentleman re ferred to the principle advocated by Mr. Canning in 1826, when the subject was beforVdiseuisich And con ;ended that it would be most dangerous to render that should l be orm di a sc l udiecteid ast-inloodnusss subverted. b fa v itin e r ea t r e lae d n* . a eu H i In e Cw h o a uh d ri et t hs r o a t t h fj e e rl r e set d i F e a l a s s ilf he believed; fairly j t u lir d :r g t e igh of the it c p a ir se e . ly an o d n h iu e t o r m us n ted me th ri a t t s. the Hse afir o w u jgo vro uto ld the slightest reference to political feelings—(l44m). ' Mr. STANLEY explAned. He would be always ready to separate political from private questions, and had no idea of mixing them up together. Mr. LOCKHART suppurted the motion of his. Hon. F. iend. The Petitioner's complaint was, not that the Commissioners and Privy Council had decided apainst him upon the evidence which had been received, but that the conduct of the Commissioners had pre vented the Privy Council from becoming acquainted with all the evidence which the Petitioner had wished to give. He contended, that the Baron had never admitted that the property was. not his at the tame of its seizure; and also that the Petitioner had provided sufficient evid-nce to prove that he had a claim to the property as a British subject, al. though that evidence had never been suffered to appear before the Privy Council. The Cr.mmissioriers had not only placed the most unfa s vourahle construction upon the evidence, but they had actually nii.lepresented it. The Commissioners bad shown a gloss ignorance of the language in which the principal part of the evidence was given. Tney had also shown a total ignosisoce of the laws of the country in which the transaction took place—and they had unjustly rushed to an hasty and wrong conclusion. .He therefore supported the motion. In the heat of the Revolution, the French, had commit ted acts which had been stigmatized as injurious to all . nations. On the restoration of peace, they had endea voured to make compensation ; and , although they were 'now free from all responsibility. yet they most naturally take an interest in the just application of the money which they had psis! to this country. Mr. It. GRANT observed, that he had been in fre quent conflict, professionally. with the Commissioners, tor several years. He had disputed with them face to . Csce, and on more than one occasion he had presumed to appeal to higher authority. That the Petitioner had been cruelly despoiled of property to which he was the lawful heir there could be no doubt. The case of Bs. ron de Bode was one of great hardship ; but while he admitted that, he also, must say that- be regretted deeply that the Petitioner had indulged in the very cri minatory assertions which he had. The chefs, made against the Commissioners amounted to this—that they i •had, in defiance of their oath, their knowledge, and their honour, entered into a conspiracy to deprive the Baron of his just rights. Such was the charge. and he would venture to say that a more foul and entirely unjua aspersion than it 'Contained had never been heard. The Commissioners, from what be bad seen of their conduct, were incapable of such baseless', or of wil fully doing any act even tinged with injustice. The Peti tioner said, that it his evidence was not seedy when called tor, he ought merely to have been put at the bottom of she list. Why, it such a course had been adopted, the Commission would never have closed its labours. It appeared to him—he knew nothing whatever of the case excepting hem the Petitioner's own scat men:, and what he had heard in that Hoesait appeared to him that ample time had been granted to the Petitioner; and when the Commissioners found that the Petitioner allowed six months to .elapse without endeavouring so procure the necessity evidence, it was but proper, it was actually necessary for them to bring the matter to a conclusion. He did not wish to say any thing' on the merits sif the case, but he must observe that these confiscations proceeded from the French Revolinieriary Government,which perhaps was not very nice in making a distinction brewer,' French and British -Ask, t.. If the Commissioners had shut out evidence, there , might oe goad ground fir this application. la a case, how ever, so c : mplicated, he should , rather, be inchtied not to give a, vote one way or the othei. • Dr. PriILLIMOXtk supported .the motion.' • The question was one int i natel y connected with al'gOod faith or she counts y. The Houle w as in fairness bound copilot further inquiry, became the claims of the - Baron were defeated principally in consequence of a clause in the last P m thy regulating the conduct of vie Privy Coun cil in such cfaima, by which they wet,. *rivet:red' from receiving any evidence which had Mt blelspreviOntly before the Commissioners. Mr. LIT fLETON said, his impalas on this sub ject were unchanged. He presented a tßiem from the Byron in 1826. and Mr. Canning then objected to any ulterior proceedings on it. The Baibb, by his (Mr. I—'4 advice, submitted his case to Mr. Shadwell. the present Vice Chancellor. His opinion was, that he had such a reversionary right in 1793 as, if laid before the Commissiouers with the necessary document•, would have . made his application successful. He loped the claims of this worthy Gentleman would not be defeated in consequence of any considetationi not founded un its meths. The A I'IORNEY GENERAL said, he had read over all i he pap, r., and he thought this.sompl , nit came with a very ill grace. after loos or-five years had been allowed for bringing forward the necessary evidesice. The Commissioners appeared whim to have given ample opportunity for substantiat ng lays claim. 11.,his claim had been set down as an item in the list of claims ao ositt.d by France. he did not deny that the English Commissioners would nut be justified in :ejecting it. But the tact weo, that the Basun s name was not in the list of claims aderott d by the French Governraetit. The Baron stisted that his father made a cession to him by deed. No., when the-case was argued before the Privy Council. n' allusion was made to Misdeed. Another complair t was, that the affidavits sent over from. France were not received; but it appeared to him clear that he could produce no-evidence except that of some verbal cession, and thisevidence had previously been behave the C-mraissioners. He was convinced, that if two or three years more were allowed, he could not have brought fist - ward more satisfactory evidence. : It was said that the case had been mismanaged ; but was it to be supposed that Isis Counsel were so ignorant as nut to advancethe alternative claim of a contingent right on the death of Isis father, in case the claim of surrender during the-life tills of his father failed ? It appeared clear to him that -the CiNeffstAtiOn was against the father; not tbe son:Heiv ever; he should not enter into this abstract question. The only claim set up for five years was that of cession during the lifetime of 'the father, and • that completely. ,failed. This case differed entirely from that of Deve tens an'd *Patton. This case was an appeal, and nothing °but an appeal tromthe decision Of eke Ptivy Council. If. Luis Petition were received, how would it be possible to dint ont mhos? So (silks this 'east we t upon its Merits, he slid hot s any fair e ronno for th e ' application. His opinion 4as, that if the Alt enatii4 claint had been advanced; it *mild not have siteceedi.d, Mr. STANLEY replied. Tile only anevets he haii heard that night weie made; not to his atatemente, but to the pamphlet of the Boron de Bode. Lie admitted them was some doubt as to tie pint whether tht Baron's claim has been registered ; but that was no argument against the ,resent motion: Tht House the" utaidad.... Ayas . . . . 91 Noe+ • . • . . 54 ilijprity against tie 'Notion . —37 WZIT INDIA SLAVES. Chttettiritlas totter gallery we toned Sir G. Menaar spaw n . The object .itt Me Mil way the seriaikal of the Acts empowering the Xing to penisis she tenured sof asisi fiom the W hd,„ under certain replationi. Doctor LUSI4INGTON. said, that by a Sec t i on o r the Act of Parliament, the King in Council was aethrd. rised to remove slaxes.rovided it was for their benefi t . If he thought the renewal of the Acts would be a._ tended with Mischief he should have opposed it. But as he had no reason to suspect his Majesty's Govern ment of a desire to abuse their power, he could not see any objection to the renewal of the Acts. Mr. HUSKISSON considered that there were too many difficulties in the way of legislating no the sub. jeer of the West Indian slave.; to allow hi. Right Hon. Friend to introduce any extensive measure at this period of the Session. The object of his Right Hon. Friend was to continue the law us it now •siond. He was ture that when his Right Hon. Friend b came acquainted with the difficulties wising from local circumstances in the West Indies, he would endeavour to,reiax the pre sent system ;at she sause tint!. t list our e should he to keit to prevent the abuse at the law, and the removal slaves, except for their own kenefrt. The law peeve:ar c ; the rem vat of domestic slaves, yet labouring slaves were otcavonany registered as domestic slaver, for the purpose of removing them, and making 'hem work 01) the production of sugar. This abuse ' i the law he begked leave to press on the eiVention of his Right Hon. Friend. Dr. LUSHINGTON stated, in 'splint:pion, a ca.e of six Negro children having been removed against the intention of the law.—Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. SUPPLY OP WATER TO THE METROPAIS. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, on introducing his too. tion - retative to the Water Companie.,r: capitulated the objects for which the Commission of inquiry had been appointed oa the subject, the quality of the watersut pled to the western part of the Metropolis, and discovery of a remedy for the iriconvenielice c-oiplained of. Tile Report of the C •menatee stated their opinion that the water was unfit for use, and injui ions to the health. Why, then, should the public be compelled to pay heavy rates for 'itch wattr ? Nina ithstanding the lateness of the S ninth a Committee would have suffi cient time to investigate the subject, with a view to an arrattrosent of the question. The authority of D. Paris was decisive in proof of the insalubrious nature of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Water Com pany. Mr. Wright also pointed out the same thing in an able pamphlet, at the hazard of being prosecuted by the Grand Junction Company. Dr. Somerville alto had given an account of the water, which • was enough to turn one's stomach. There was no doubt of the exit tem eof this evil. He hoped there would be as little on the necessity of removing it. The m nopoly itself was an evil must oppressive en the inhabitants of the me tropolis. That monopoly was established by means if an Act which was smuggled trough the House as a private Bill. It gave uncoil tnutional powers to the Company. Under it they impo.ei rates for their water at three hundred per cent. 0.1 the establishment of the Grand Junctiio Company, the water r tes were raised from 21. to 101. It was a disgrace to the Legislature to allow the metropolis to be oppressed by this monopoly, and disgusted by such Water. On these grounds he hoped the House would agree that the C , mu ince of 1821 should be revived, for the ptorpo,e 4 f removing these evils. The Commissioners had increased their I rates to such a degree, that all the evils 1.1 mo nopoly existed, a bad article was supplied—an article which was prejudicial equ illy to the comfort and health of the metropolis. He thought that the Commission had been too much limited in its object ; and hr would now move for a Committee to give effect to the pro ceedings of the former Committee. It was remarked in the Report that no difficulty exited in supplying Paris with pure and wholeiome water, and this was beCauie the Government had a proper regard for the feeli S', the comfort, and the Isalth of the people. It was maw ked, too, that Edinburgh was copiously sup plied with water from a considerable distance. according to the plan devised by the late Mr. Rennie. Now, by his (Sir F. B.'s) plan, there would be an Abundant sopplyor port and escellent mater for all purpos es,and he ihi.ught it *as the duty of Government to see that the supply of tehter in the metropolis was such as ii ought to he. He remembered, in reference:to this saki et, the act . of a Monarch whose memory was not much respected, and indeed did not deserve to be respected. Sir Hugh Myddleton had expended large sums of money upon a ipecularion of supplying the city a ith wan r, but so little justice or generosity, or so little sense, had the nib:atriums at that time, that they refused to come for ward with the slightest contribution, and this eitiei prising individual might have died in the gaol to *bid§ he was commit ted,. if. la mes 11. had not paid 7,900 4 for him, not our of the public funds, but out at his pri vate purse. He hoped that Parliament would in s ome degree imitate the genes wit) of this unpopular Monai ;ind not refuse the miserable pittance which was r coifed to complete the plan which the Committ e on the sub• ject would have laid before them. He bad been told by Mr. James Mills that SOU would be sufficient.— No one Compel:3r should be allowed to supply the others, tor this would only have the effect of straiten ing the supply. But the plan he proposed was of another character, and if he had the sanction of the House, tie would be proud of doing the thing himself. The plan was to bring water from Teddington by means Of forcing pumps, to Wimbledon Common. Here he would have a reservoir established, from which alt the Companies should be obliged to take their water. The whole line would not be much =ire than nine nolo. and there were plenty of persons ready to embark in the speculation, if they once had the sanction a f Govern ment to assure them they would have the necessart ,support to enable them to carry their plans into effect. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by moving for A Committee to take into consideration the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry respecting the supply of Water for the Metropolis ; and to see if any or what eniedy could be devised for the many and peat irid ium of which the inhabitants complained. Sir J. YORKE said, that many of the statements of be Honourable Baronet were exaggerated, which were aken trout the pamphlets from which he quoted so age'''. Notwithstanding all the authorities from which e had read such copious extracts, he did not think the lose (with' rut irt-rterc, particularly at this advanced period of the Session. Tal jOUITIt LIST !Mg XI itat hi MI P 1 Ith 'Mt jeC State Jima AC G. Th ivas a eat 111 Mr Factdi 7111 • P Nsi aft, C a H Li