The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-02-25 00:00:00

lore of the !3,000/.—but they did nut wish to fur-
nish a copy of the whole of their accounts. Oo the
issue or the City floods, there had been a loss
of 10,0004—and, therefore, the Hon. Gentleman
called the business a job. This was a round its-
sertion—but he would state us broadly, that it
was not the fact. The 'Corporation accounts,
were quite separate and distinct from those relative
to the prison—and therefore ought not to be called
for. The Hon. Baronet then argued, that mach
of the expense arose front 'the extreme difficulty of
procuring lend in the City of sufficient extent fur so
large it building arm, defended the construction of
thlr prison, as perfectly suited to its object. It 10104
a poor 011111's prison. Great debtors might go to the
kitig'a Bench, drink their wine, and play at eves.
But he did not like to eiscourarge such a system,
which really affirdeil a temptation to u man to
go in and get I !wit' whiteteashed.—(d larrgh.)—
The !orison Was certairdy a long building—bun they
were Obliged to build according to the form of the
ground they lied. As to prodigality, there 'was no
prodigality whatever alum t it. He their defended the
Bridge-house Committee, whose conduct he,ton.
videred perfectly proper—and strongly urged the
propriety of granting swords awl gold boxes to
those brave heroes who had fought and bled for their
country. With respect to subscribing to public
charities, he thought the Corporation ought not be
taunted, because they came forward with 1,000/. or •
1,300/. in aid of the widows mid orphans of those
who fell at the futile of the Nile. Trafalgar, or
Wu terloo.—( Hear, hear. hear.)—The Hon. Baronet
next adverted to the seizure of the Orphans' Food,
in the lime of Charles 11. when 7.50,000/. was taken
from the City Treasury. The Parliament of that
time saw they could not repay the sum. and, there•
fore, gave them the duty on coals. Every shilling
of that sum was now paid—there was now no
Orphans' Fund—and he would endeavour, next
year, to have the title changed, since it occasioned
people to say that the Corporation possessed money
belonging to Orphans, and that they were ulust,
ungrateful, and earbezdeful.—(el hargh.)— 'hey
had, in the execution of that which the House
sanctioned, created a debt of 34,000/. That sum
ought to be granted to them to liquidate the debt,
and they would never trouble the House more.
( Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Baronet concluded by
moving, as an Amendment— _
. _

" That there he hid before ibis House an Recount of the
several payments and duties composing the Orphans' Fund,
for the last six years, together with the annual charges on
the same, with the debts which remain outstanding and
Vitargeable on the same fund."

Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW said, notwithstanding the
facetious speech which the Hon. Baronet had deli-
vered, he had not heard one word in answer to the
motion of his Hon. Frieud. When the Corpora-
tion called far u continuation of a duty on coals,
they certainly bad a right to state some strong
grounds tut coining to the House with such a pro-
position. The Honourable Baronet had desig-
nated the speech of the Honourable Mover as
a very gross one. • But really lie could not see
how the. Honourable Mover, in speaking of the
misapplication and molversation of funds, could
use any other terms floats those he had *adopted.
The Corporation, it appeared, had squandered away
very large sums of money. This they certainly had
a rigbg.to so, wovided the Money were their own;
but the cise was very different when it belonged to
others. 'Flue Corporation; according to the Hon.
Baronet, had been very generous. but that was a
new sort of generosity which made away with funds
that did not belong to those who mode use of them.
Those funds were applied to the ',archaise of trin-
kets—to the giving of grand entertainments—and
to various other purposes foreign to the use for
which they were intended. This, he conceived,
to be no inducement to the House to grant
more money. The llotiouralde Baronet alluded
to the time of Charles 11. Now it ought nut
to be forgotten that what took place theft had ins.
posed a most grievous tax on the City of London,
and on the neighbouring counties, which ought to
be removed as speedily as possible. The manner
in which the Honourable Barooet had treated the
question was an unanswerable ground for agreeing
to the motion. The honour of the City of London
ought to make the Corporation anxious that it
should be carried, and he certainly should vote
for it.

Alderman WOOD said, it might be supposed,
from what had been stated, that the Corporation
were spending the Bridge-house Estate Fonds—
but. in no instance, were those funds applied to,
when preaent• were made or esitertaimuents were
Riven. The whole money expended, as stated by the
Hon. Mower, in 37 years, was 126,840/. being about
3,000/. a-year. This was the expenditure of which
so much was u. de. The dinner given to tlas Allied
Sovereigns slid not cost In that sum
was included 5,0001. for the entertainment given
to die Duke of Wellington. He had himself,
though an enemy to the war, moved fur that
dinner—and he conceived he did his duty. It
was owing to that great Commander that the Al-
lied Sovereigns visited this country—and he con-
ceived that he deserved the honour bestowed on him.
—(Hear.)—The worthy Alderman then observed,
that the county of Surrey. which the Hon. Mover
represented. bed borrowed money and derived very
great benefit from the Orphans Fund. The Com-
missioners of Sewers were obliged to borrow money
from the City to enable them to carry on the great
sewer in Si. George's-fields. from which the county
of Surrey derived great advantages. %Yids respect to
the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Southwark, he
objected to it himself. But the Hon. Mover must
know that. mouth after month, Petitions were pre-
sented by the inhabitants, praying for the formatMu of
that Justice-Room—and the chauge wee by mimesis*
the work of the Court of Aldermen, but of those
persons who did not like to go to Guildford or King-
ston to prosecute offenders. The expense occosioued
by the new establishment, and which was taken
from the Bridge-house Estates, was tg.oool. per
annum. ‘Vith respect to the Orphans Fund, from
it was derived the suns necessary lor building Black-
friars-bridge—by which 500,000/. ii-year war. int-
ded to the rental of the County of Surrey. The
worthy Alderman then defrosted the conduct of the
Corporation with respect to the Orphans' Fund—
touched on the immense expense which the City was
put to, in maintaining prisoners for every part of the
c try—wind expressed his surprise, that all this
should be forgot, when they came to ask fur a
trifling assistance. He concluded by expressing

his lin;tility to the motinti—not heeanse he frareci
Nn invesiigetion of the C►ty accounts, but Istocaiiie
he cosueroved they ought not to be coined fur 'when
No sue► was reque►ted, under peculiar cir-
cumstance•.

Mr. 13ARCLAT denied that the. Coiinty of Sur-
rey hail derived such great benefit from the Funds
of the City of Loustoti. as the worthy Alderman
seemed to suppose. That benefit was not to be
seen its the Borough 4', Ater, and. with respect
to Blackfriars-bridge,' London reaped as muds
advantage from it si Surrey slid. As to the sewer,
for the building of which mosses was borrowed.
that mini would lie repaid by the assessments levied
on the places through which it ran—but, lie he-
the money taken by the Corporation fund
tile Bridge-I se Estates, would never he paid,
unless Parliament advanced- the nee •.• •.
14011(11111411•1110 now waisted very great repairs, aisd,
lie believed, they had lio other mode of raising the
ion, called fort except by corning he forma puts-
peril to that House. Parliament must uoduidit'
edly approve or the exertioni, that were making to
improve the prison.. But still au inquiry into
their accounts was necessary. If it appeared that
they had expended their funds in uiloccesiary gifts
and public entertainments. lie conceived they 011411 t
not to be relievedinad that he might know the
truth, he shotildorote for the 'notion.
Sir JAMF:9 SiIAW said, its the City were exclu-
sively hound to keep all the prisoners who c ante
f counties (which lie did not think jinn
or equitable), they hail a fair right to stemma' assist-
ance. The extra expeese of 34,000/. to defray
which they now called for assistance, was minor oc-
casioned by their aintiety to carry into effect the
suggestions of a Committee of that House.
Mr. SHAW said, Tie was sure the City would not
take the burden on themselves of suppurtnig all
the prisons in London nod Middlesex. if some ad-
vantage were not derived .rota is. The Corpora-
tion objected to produsiing their accounts. But it
should he recollected that those accounts were not
called for, until a grant of 34,000/. to be raised
from a fund which was generally contributed to by
Middlesex and the neighbouring counties, was de-
manded--and, if the inhabitants of London thoiight
it hard to support their own gaols, it was not won-
derful that the inhabitants of Surrey should be
equally unwilling to assist in maintaining' theni.
The county of Surrey, and the other home
coun-
ties, supported their own gaols, without assistance
from the City of London-s-eshy awn should they lie
obliged to pay a tax to help to maintain those of
London also

Mr. Alderman ATKINS opposed the motion.
Mr. C. CA LVERT said, no place ought tube call-
ed on to contribute to the expense or London pri-
sons except London. He would support the mo-
tion.

Mr. BENNETT observed, nothing had been said
to shew that the accouuts of the City of London
should not be produced. The worthy Alderman
had answered the arguments for the motion, with a
panegyric on I • self anti his coadjutors, for their
good muuagement of the prisons. The question,
however, hi nut now, whether these places have
bread enough, or meat enough. The panegyrist
had made a most Material mistake in one respect—
he might err equally isi others. He little regarded
the sneers levelled at him, and the observations
about coffee, chocolate, and carpets ; he did not
want such things; what he wanted was, not to re-
duce prisoners from a state of health to sickness
and disease, by want of food uud rest, iu such de-
solate places.
Mr. GREN F :UT. wished to know whether the oh.
taining the money desired by the City would not
have the effect of prolonging the duty on coals,
and of deducting trout the Orphan's Fund ?
Sir W. CURTIS said it would not prolong that
duty ins hour.
General THORNTON said he would support the
motion ; there was no means of examining the pro.
priety of the grant but by a view of the funds of
the City.
Mr. 1101.318 Sumgait, in reply, affirmed that the
City of London had diverted a sum of money given
them to build a bridge, to entertaiiimento fur the
Prince Regent and the illustrious visitors : he
did not know what the fit designation of such wit..
Was it not gross mismanagement and etnbetzle-
ment ? He hail no antipathy a;:phist the City
of London, but he had an antipathy against
imposing taxes on his coustituents without good
reason. Au Honourable Member had said, that
11,000/. a year was taken from the City by
the strung hand of power ; hut, in fact, he knew
nothing at all about the matter—it was but the
third part of the interest due front the City for the
Orphans' Fund of 730,000/. conveved 011 trust to
the City in the reign of Charles 11. This Fund had
now disappeared—he could never learn how—cer.
tautly in a nwniter not creditable to the Elder
Brethren or the Worthy Baronet. For when the
subject was started there, they did not dare to come
to the House with clean hands, but bearing u bribe
of 1,000/. for Mr. Trevor, the Speaker ; for ac.
cepting which he was immediately obliged to put
the question on his own expulsion. and walk out of
the doors.
The question on the original motion was then
puts when there •ppear,4l—
the original 3lutioa . l l4
Against it
Majority l3
EXECUTIONS FOR FORGERY.
Sir JAmss MAGICINToSII said, tuna the accounts
he wished to obtain by his motion that stood for to-
night, were, in part, before the House already ; but
there had not heels presented any account of the
number of
rged
convictions
o note*, forande hxteceuetaiorniys
veers o
rfortge ti
forgery,
and uttesiug
period includes! in his motion. Restricting cash
payments by the Bank, it was easily foreseen. would
have the etlect of increasing the crime of forgery,
but it was never imagined it would multiply it a
hundred fold, us it had. From 1783 to 1797 there
were but fosir rxecutiniss for forgery ; from 1797.
the erzi of the restriction, to the end of the next 14
years, the number was above 400. If the limpet).
slim of cash payments is to be continued, it is de-
sirable to know at what expense of human' blood,
what multiplication of crime, and what diffusion of
depravity. We were anxious to improve the moral
character of the poor, but ae acted with incon-
sistency --our efforts were vain while State Lotteries
and the issuing of small notes continued. lie then