The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-17 00:00:00

Sir R. INGLIS said it had been contended the object of the
Bill e as the imposition of a tax for the erection of a Roj al Ex-
change. Such was not the case. The Royal Eye:m.ll'e was
not to be erected with the funds arising from the coal duty
coatinued by this Bill. The object of the Bill was to make
approaches to the Royal Exchange. It had been sail that
the merchants cf the city G f London ought to be as willing to
ca.ntriLute to the formation of a building for their accommo-
i'ation. as the merchants of Bristol or of Liverpool. He
(Sir Robert I tglis) did not think the London merchants
%so .Id dissent fiom that. But the feet was the duty
fix, d en icr this Bill was not to erect a Royal Exele.ege, but
to male the approaches to it. He did not wish to del reel tte
the importance of lowering the price of coals; but be thought
it would be much better to seek to effect that desirable object
by doing away w ith the monopoly which added 40 per cent.
to the price of the articles than to stop this useful project.
The CH ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
supported the Bill in Gimmittce, and was prepared to support
it now. He did so, because the Bill did net impose the coal duty
for the erection of an Exchange, but to make the appre aches
thereto. If the form( r had been the ca:e there might have
been some ground for the opposition. To the building of the
Exchange the City itself was to contribute. Now what we -e
the purposes for which this coal. tax were approp. iated ? Were
they purposes in which the gem ral trade and convenience of
the community were to be consulted ? It was in evidence, and
was notorious to every one who passed through the City, that
there nas no greater thoroughfare and no greater embarrass-
ment than between the Bank and the old Exchange.—( Hear. )
On these general grounds it was but just to assent to the
resent Bill, but he did think that the existing generation
owed a specks of debt to those who had teen burnt out
which they ought to pay for the hem fit of posterity.
—( Hear, hear.) It was the duty of tl e public at
large to make that calamity the source of convenience
to the community. Had the great fire of London been turned
to account in formerdays, and the schemes then proposed been
carried into effect, conveniences would have been found which
the public bad been deprived of. If the House refused to
assent to the present Bill it would deprive itself of an
ooportunity which would never occur again, of seeing
the Exchange re-built, not lay the burden of the Coal-tax
nor by burdens on the people at large, but by the efforts of
the Mercers' Company. On these grounds he gave his hearty
assent to the Bill ; at the same time he meant to propose some
verbal amendments to one of the clauses, to which he thought
the introducers of the Bill would not object.
Lord G. SOMERSET supported the amendment, and
stated that he could not concur with the remarks of his Hon.
Friend near him.

Mr. B A RNA RD seeing that the city of London had be-
haved to generously thought that the sum provided for by the
present Bill ought to be granted.
Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, as one of the Com-
mittee, would give his support to the Bill on the same grounds
as those stated by the Hon. Member who had spoken last.
At the same time he must say that if any other tax could be
found he should prefer it ; money fur similar purposes
had been raised in former years by lotteries.
Sir B. HALL hoped that he should never see lotteries in.
stituted in the country again. He could never give
his consent to the Bill, as he thought that a tax on
coals was most objectionable.—( Hear.) He thought that
the promoters of the Bill who had been so loud for the
reduction of taxation, were acting in rather an inconsistent
manner.—( Cheers.)
Mr. ANDREW WHITE denied that there was any
monopoly in the coal trade : he thought that making a duty
on coals for such a purpose unjust in principle, and that
it would be far more creditable to the merchants of London if
they would follow the example of the merchants of Liverpool,
and erect the Royal Exchange and its approaches at their own
expense.--( Cheers.)
Sir M. WOOD did not think it necessary to detain the
House for a moment in reply to the unjust attacks which had
been made upon the au:hors of the Bill. The attack of the
Hon. Member for Greenwich was at least ungracious, as the
City, in the Bill then on the table of the House, had given up
5,0001. which would go into the pockets of the owners of
steam.boats. The city were called upon to lay out a vast sum
of money to improve the approaches to the Bank of England,
which would be a benefit to persons in all parts of London.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
Ihe House divided, and the numbers were—
For the third reading of the Bill
Against it
Majority in favour of the third reading —64
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, a clause was then added to the Bill, by way of
rider, the purport of which (it having been moved before we
were admitted) we could not hear, and the Bill was passed.
Mr. HUME observed that he meant to have moved a
clause, founded on the statement of the worthy Alderman
( Sir M. Wood), that not more that 60,0001. would be re-
quired. But, after the decided majority on the third reading,
he would not trouble the House; protesting, however, against
the system of imposing all taxes on the poor.—( Hear.)