The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LoRDS, JUNE
Several private Bills were brought up from the. UMW of
Commons, and advanced a stage,
Papers were presented from the Trea:mry,
IRISH POOR LAW.
Lord CLONCURRY presented a petition against the
Irish Poor Law Bill. Also one in favour of Municipal Cor-
poration (Ireland) Reform.
NEGRO SLAVERY.
His Lonnsitte also presented petitions in favour of Negro
Emancipation.

POSTAGE.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented petitions in
Savour of a reduction of the rates of postage.
SCHOOLS OF ANATOMY.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a gentleman
named Roberts, stating he had discovered a mode of preserving
animal subjects for the purposes of dissection, in schools of
anatomy, during a long period--even for. twelve months—
without the slightest approach to decomposeion. The Noble
and Learned Lord, after stating that Sir B. Brodie, Sir A.
Cooper, Dr. Birkbeck, and many other eminent members of the
profession, had expressed an high opinion of the invention, said
it was evident such discovery must be productive of the greatest
advantages to anatomical science, and he hoped the Govern-
ment would take up the subject.
The Earl of RADNOR said Sir B. Brodie had told
him that the invention of Mr. Roberts was of no value.
Lord BROUGHAM expressed great surprise at this, as the
petitioner had alleged what be had stated ; and if that state-
ment were incorrect the petitioner was liable to be committed
for contempt.
Lord MELBOURNE—What does the petitioner pray for?
Lord BROUGHAM—For your Lordships' encourage-
ment to this invention. After what had passed he
(Lord Brougham) should not fail to enquire into the
circumstances, and if he should find that the petitioner
had deceived their Lordships, he would call theiLordships'
attention to the facts.
The Bishop of EXETER said Sir B. Brodie had told him
he considered the invention of great value.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE believed the abject of
the invention to be of the highest importance, and it had in
fact been carried into execution in Calcutta.
NEGRO SLAVERY.
Lord BROUG HAM —My Lords, I take the opportunity
of stating that it is not my intention to prole the second read_
in" of my Bill, for declaring the state of negro apprentice_
ship abolished on the Ist of August next. The reason, my
Lords, why I have conic to that determination is thise—we are
now in the middle of the month of June (I have never lariown
any good result from proceeding with measures that are as it
were only just commenced at so late a period of the Session),
and we have not yet disposed of the Irish Poor Relief Bill,
which I said should be disposed of, ono way or other, before I
pressed on my measure, which has been only read a first time
—a matter of course ; before, therefore, I could hope to get
my Bill through your Lordships' House, it would be towards
the beginning of July, and it certainly would be the Ist of
August before the Bill would pass 0 rough the other House;
therefore, as far as regards passing an Act on the subject by
the British Legislature this Session for the liberation of slaves
from apprenticeship, my hopes are extinguished ; but I con-
fidently hope that Parliament will interfere at the earliest
period of next session, for the purpose of relieving them from
their thraldom by a year or eighteen months, should, in the
mean time, the Colonial Legislatures not have taken steps to
that effect. But I hope these Legislatures will take such,
steps, for it is to be preferred infinitely that they should do
that work--( Hear, hear)—rather than the British Lvaisla-
tare should be called upon to execute it. I hope, bcieever,
that the Colonial Legislatures will act so as there kill be no
necessity for call:ng on the British Parliament at all—(Hear,
hear)—and lam anxious to call your Lordships' attention to
these facts. There are colonies which have already passed
measures fur emancipating their slaves absolutely from tho
Ist of August next—viz., Antigun, which contains a popula-
tion of 30,000 slaves ; Montserrat from 5,000 to 6,000 ;, Nee
vis about the same proportion, and Bermuda to the same 'Ex-
tent. Barbadoes has a population of 83,000 slaves ; an,. a I re.
joke to find that the Bill was passed by the Legislature r,r that
colony to liberate the slaves from appreedieeship on /!tie Ist of
August.—( Hear.) Now, Barbetoes, next to Jar-eaica, is the
most important of all our Vt:est India colon.teS. It has, as I
have just stated, 83,'330 slaves, and there are 79,000 in British
Guiana so that__ in...a-eels', euu-truse tnat Jamaica
will follow the wise example thus set.—( Hear.) There are
already in Jamaica 43,000 liberated, and 36,000 children ; and
I do sincerely hope that the praiseworthy example set by my
Noble Friend the late Governor of Jamaica, whose conduct
cannot be too highly appreciated—( Hear)—will be followed by
the whole of the proprietors in that island, and that the re..
'twining 100,000 slaves in Jamaica will likewise be freed frOm
their chains on the same Ist day of August. There are already
e40,0e0 negro apprentices set free, a number about one-third
of the whole. of those iemsining, which have been set free
without the interference of Parliament. Jamaica, Ido hope,
will follow the bright and glorious example set by the other
colonies to which I have adverted. But these are colonies
not having local Legislatures, which cannot, if they would,
exercise such an act of humanity; they cannot, if they would,
follow so noble an example, and therefore it is the more peri-
lous as regards them, so far as the consequences are concerned.
They arc not placed in the same situation. Their hands aro
tied up. They cannot, if they would, act as other colonic%
have done. I allude, my Lords, to the Crown colonies—to
British Guiana, with its 79,000 slaves—to Trinidad, with its
30,000 or 40,000—and to the Mauritius), with its 62,000 slaves.
If those colonies wished to free their apprentices, however ur-
gent might be the eceessities, however anxious they might be
to follow the example of Antigua and of Barbadoes, they
could not accomplish it. But the Crown might do it, by an
Order in Council. The Government might accomplish this.
They might give effect to such a wish. They might coun-
tenance its being at once realised. My Lords, I beg leave to
give notice, in withdrawing my own Bill her the liberation of
negro apprentices, that it is my intention next Monday week,
unless in the interim an Order in Council be issued to give
freedom to the apprentices in those Crown colonies on the Ist
day of August, to move an address to her Majesty on the sub_
jest, for Orders in Council to issue to the Governors of those
Crown colonies. If nothing be done by her Majesty's Governs.
resent in the meantime, I shall submit that motion to your Lord-
ships, and I shall hope to have your Lordships' concurrence to
the address. Some returns then moved for by the Noble and
Learned Lord connected with the subject of certain Orders in
Council were ordered.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid upon the table some
statistical returns of the slave population of the West Indies.
IRISH POOR LAW.
The Irish Poor Law Bill was postponed.
IRELAND.—TITHE MEETINGS.
Lord GLE NG ALL asked if the Noble Viscount
at the head of her Majesty's Government in Ireland was aware
that great collections of the populace in Ireland had been
summoned in various parts of that country for the nominal
purpose of petitioning for the abolition of tithes? But it was
notorious that under this assumed object, their assemblages were
designed to exercise an illegal influence with regard to the let-
ting of land. Some years ago similar assemblages took place,
and several wore dispersed by the magistrates. Had any moans
been taken to preserve the public peace on the present °evasion?
Earl ULG RA VE thought the Noble Lord had rather
gone too far in characterising these announced meetings as
illegal.—(llenr, hear.) Undoubtedly there was a neces-
sity, on the part of the Executive, for great vigilance
and such vigilance would be excercised. But he (Earl
Mulgrave) could not see how, so long as their meetinsfa
were quietly conducted, they were under the protection or. the
British Constitution. —( Hear.) If, however, it were found
that these assemblages were for the purposes of intimidation,
a special case might be made out for interference.
Earl WICKLOW thought those large meetings were very
objectioneble—( Hear, hear)--and he wished to know
why a paper containing the letter or the present Lord
Chancellor, dismissing Sir R. Nagle, from the De-
puty Lieutenantship of Tipperary, for presiding at
an anti-tithe meeting—why that paper which had been
moved for, and ordered to be produced, had not been laid me
the table.

Lord MELBOURNE said at the time Sir Richard
Nagle was dismissed, a very active opposition to
.ti_ales
was carrying on in Ireland; but it was not con
Adered
that the having presided at an anti tithe rneetintf„ though
under sueb circumstances fully justifying the distr.issal, should
be made the ground of a permanent exclusion...-_( Hear.)
Lord GLENGALL said a few words.
Earl dIULGRAVE said the paper alluded to would be
forthwith produced,
Lord FI'FZGERALD and VESCI said it was with re.
Bret and suiprise gnat he bad heard the Noble Earl ( ;NW...
grave) allege these meetings to be legal.—( float,:heat-.)
lie had always understood that meetings-(for whatever oLjeet)
which. had the c ffeet of intimidation, were illegal.—(Hear.)
It was an abuse of the piivileges of the Constitution to call
forth numerous meetings of the population in Irelval. lie
did not expect. the Government to pronounce before hand
these meetings to be illegal. But was it prudent tlr,t the Noble
Earl (Niulgrave's) statement that these me.:13..,gs were legal
should go out into Ireland, and have the efiect, if not the ob-
ject, of encouraging such meetings.
Earl MU LGRAVE s,.id be had ....iitirmed,a meeting for It
legal purpose was not to be denn4ne,tl as illegal, merely on. 'tic-
count of its miLtners, proicicd no intimidation .was vxer -
eised.—(l:l,,nr.)
1 0:a FITZGERALD believed that by the law of the Country. any
meeting in such numbers as to lead to intimidation became an illegal
meeting. What then did the Noble Earl think of the meeting in Wa..
t erLfoorrtid,
Ho L ConsistingL.kNai it
Tdii)de
(I),
or
sillegal oqfuse(s);ioootious'eaes,' l'whether a meeting was legal
he slid not understand, if called for a legal part
tizt'hieisatelerisndtal circumstance of there being 50,000 or 100,000.
or 1,000 attending it, wade any differene(-3 as to the proceeding itselt
The Noble Lord who had spoken last had (used many grave, solid, atut
sad words 4 (At lie had not 4Akaintett out to thcir tordstoks an remedy f,cot

what he considered to be an illegality. Ile thought it could not depend
on numbers, but on the designs, actions, and words of the parties.—
(llcar, hear.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON—My Lords, I will venture to state
the opinion I have had from great authorities en the subject; it is, that
the numbers of the meeting—that is to say the assembling in such num.
hers as shall create terror in the minds of any peaceable man—will jus-
tify the magistrates in taking innFures to disperse such meeting. My
Lords, I want to know if the magistrates are justified in taking such
measures ; I want to know from the Noble Baron who has just sat down
whether the meeting Is not an illegal meeting ? I now come to the ques-
tion put by my Noble Friend to the Noble Lord opposite. He asks
whether any means have been adopted in order to put an end to these
meetings in Ireland? What has been done already ? What does the
Noble Lord the Lord Lieutenant say in answer ? My, Lords, he says
that these meetings ore not iilegal meetings—he says that they may be_
come so, and that the Government arc attending to them with a view
to prevent any irregularity and disorder. The Noble Lord takes upon
binielf a serious responsibility when he says they are legal meetings ;
and, my Lords, I veak in the presence of those who can correct me if
I say anything that is not consistent with the law and practice of the

coubtry ; but I say that meeting in such numbers as to create terror
constitutes an tic gal meeting, and justifies the magistrates in putting it
dear,

Lord BROUGHAM thought this question one of great importance.
He was exceedingly loth to be dragged into the discussion of what was
or was not the law--(Hear, hear)—and he must say that he greatly
lamented that the course take). by the Noble Earl (Glengall) had ren-
dered it almost inevitable, whether he would or not, that he should
enter into the question. Now, what did the Noble Lord do ? He
put a question to the Noble Earl (Mulgrave) in a shape which all
lawyers and Judges most unequivocally condemned—he mooted an ab-
stract proposition as to whether a given thing not before the House was
legal ? They had now been dragged into that question, and, though he
wished to avoid it, yet he was bound to say that he could not agree, on
the one hand, to understand the law of the land to be that thebare ac-
cident of t here being a more numerous attendance than might have been
expected, or desired, or desirable—that that accident should constitute
the illegality; but, wishing to avoid mooting that question, which,
by-the-by, had never as yet been decided by any Court, although
there were in the books many dicta of the Judges, but more
one way than another, for though the bare numbers were ever so
num roux, it must be metus qui habet in constantem virum—the fear
must be experienced by " a constant and firm mind," and the meeting
be of 200,000 in Salisbury Plain, for the Judges had said that if there
were a meeting of all the males in England on Salisbury Plain that then
suc'i a meeting would be illegal, for it could only be presumed that
there was the intention as well as the tendency from the fact of the
gathering of some illegal object. But, wishing to avoid that question,
there was one thing in which they must all agree. If these meetings
were strictly legal they were deeply to be deprecated, and of this he
ould have no doubt, because if the object of the meeting were delibe-
ration And discussion, to assemble in thousands when certainly not above
10,000 of 10,000 could hear what was passing, was very much to be
deprecated. He could only repeat what he had said on a former occa-
sion when he was applied to by a Noble Lord with respect to the ille.
gality of the enormous meeting held at Birmingham. He stated then,
as he did now, the numbers that did constitute the illegality, but that
no ptrson could do otherwise than lament such an enormous congrega-
tion, which might very soon become illegal, and opposed to anything
like decorum.

,Lord FITZGER A I.D said that if he had used worth gloomy, sad,
and soicmn they were not unsuited to the subject on which he spoke, or
the feelings of those who were interested in the peace of their country.
The Etrl of WICKLOW said there was one thing of which there
could be doubt. If a party stated on his oath that he thought danger
would arise from the meeting it was the duty of the Magistrates to put
it down.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the whole question depended on the
the circumstances. The number of persons present was one circum-
stance, and a very material circumstance—perhaps the most material
circumstance ; but then it was not all.
The Earl of WICKLOW intended to say that if sufficient informa-
tion were adduced before a magistrate to prove that danger might arise,
then th e meeting became illegal.
Lord BROUGHAM said it was clear the Noble Earl could not have
meant anything else.
After a faw words from the Earl of GLENGALL and the Earl of Mut-
t:R.4,M the subject dropped.
The Court of Session Bill (Scotland) passed through Committee, and
was reported, with amendments, to the House.
OATHS VALIDITY BILL.

On the bringing up the report,
Lord DENMAN would first state the inconvenience which had given
rise to the measure, and the manner in which it had been brought to
light. Dr. Cook, the President of the Synod of Ulster, had been robbed,
and when the trial came on the late Chief Baron for Ireland expressed
some doubt as to whether he could receive his evidence in a Court of
Justice. The Presbyterians of Ulster swore not by kissing the book, but
by lifting up the hand. The point was reseived for the opinion of the
twelve Judges of Ireland, who ultimately decided that the doubts
of the Chief Baron were welt founded, and that such witnesses
were not admissible in a Court of Justice. He (Lord Denman) did not
presume to give an opinion on the subject , but when he found that
swearing by lifting the hand had, in many cases, taken place in this
country, and that in fact the practice was stated in almost every text-
book, he must confess that he WAS rather surprised at the decision of those
learned personages. On the general question he would refer their Lord.
shipa to the case of - v. Barker, in which the point of receiving
the oath of an Hindoo in a manner utterly abhorrent to Christianity was
argued. The arguments of Lord Mansfield and Sir Dudley Ryder no
Noble Lord could read without feelings of admiration. The conscience
of the individual was the law of swearing. His object in introducing
this Bill was to get rid of the inconvenience arising out of the decision
of the Irish Judges in the case which he had instanced to their Lord.
ships. The Quakers were the first to whose conscientious scruples re-
specting an oath relief was afforded. It was next extended to the Mora-
viant.and the separatists. The Moravians, as a sect, were well known,
but he was not for his own part aware of any body of Separatists. Who.
ever in a Court of Justice could sry I am a Moravian, a Quaker, or a
Separatist, purchased by such a declaration the right to give his testi.
mony upon affirmation only, without the intervention of an oath. Now
by his connexions. The person to whom be alluded was Mr. Hinsley
Wedgewood, the son.in daw of the late lamented Sir James Mack-
intosh. Mr. 'Wedgewood had resigned his situation as police magistrate
in consequence of his conscientious objection to the taking of oaths.
Another of the names appended to the petition was that of a Clergy-
man, Mr. Scott, of Plumpstead Common. It was well known that
great r,bstecles to the process of justice arose from the scruples against
taking of oaths. At the last Liverpool Assizes there were persons
br tytt to trial for violently assaulting and severely beating certain par-

ties, but the prosecutor objected to be sworn. The Learned Judge be_
fora whom the case was brought for trial, hoping it would be made to
come within the provisions made in favour of the Society of Friends,
consented to receive the evidence, reserving the point of admissibility for
the decision of the twelveJudgcs, who, however, decreed that the parties
giving evidence only on affirmation could not be admissible as witnesses.
Here, then, was another case in which the offending parties escaped
thrcrigh the scruples of the persona proseeuting. There were many other

instances in which persons whose testimony w,ruld be entitled to the
highest respect, and who would be considered tha very hest witnesses,
were excluded from giving evidence in consequence of their comcien_
tints scruples. tinder these circumstances, and with a view to remedy
the evils arising (font them, lie had been induced to introduce the second
clause ; and Ile thought he had made out a case for the petitioners, eri-
titliag them to the same measure of relief which had already been granted
in the case of the Society of Friends and others.
Toe Earl of WICKLOW objected strongly to the second clause, he_
caust it enabled an), person who said he had an objection to the taking of
an oath to give evirtetive on affirmation. With respect to.the case of
Dr. Cook, he admittel that it would be desirable to have any doubt which
existsd upon that point cleared op. He would not consent to a clause
which would have the effect of abolishing oaths altogether. He had
read tire amendment intended to lie proposed by the Right Bev. Prelate
(she Bishop of Exeter), arid if this Bill should pass, he would vote for
the Right Rev. prclate's amendment, as calculated to do much in the
way of remedying the evils which the clause would give rise to.

The Bishop of EXETEH said the amendment which it was his inten.
lion to propose would, lit Lis opinion, he calculated to meet more fairly
the purpose for which the Noble and Learned Lord introduced the Bill.
The words in the Bill of the Noble and Learned Lord were, " I solemnly
end sincerely declare that I feel a conscientious objection to the taking of
at. oath." His (Biettt.p of Exeter's) objection to this was not that it granted
relief to persons having conscientious scruples with respect to taking
oaths, but that it omitted aoy mention of religion. The amendment
which he intended to substitute was this :—" I, A B, do solemnly and
dine: rely declare, that I believe in my conscience the taking of an oath
to be contrary to the law of God." That amendment would, in his opi.
nion, relieve all those persons contemplated in the Bill of the Noble and
Learned Lord.

Toe Duke of WELLINGTON said, with respect to the amendment
proposed by the it gLt Reverend Pre'ate, he would support it in the pre.
se,n state of the Bill, in preference to the existing clause, but he would
at a future period move the omission of the clause altogether, or if not,
he would move that the P.lll he thrown out altogether on the third reading.
The Duke of RICHMOND cold not vote for the present measure
If this measure ',Assad, it would be tantamount to one which he had al.
ways opposed in that House—namely, the Bill for the admiesion of Jews
to earliament.--( [Tear, hear.) That measure would thus be carried by
A I le Wind,

The Bishop of LONDON would suggest to the Noble and Learned
Lord to divide the Eill into two parts, and pass the first clause thiases-
aims, and to take time with the secornE The advantage proposed might
perhaps thus be secured and the evils apprehended might be avoided
He would at the same time recommend a revival, either in the present
or in the ensuing sessiod, of the Committee which sat to consider the
tin ation of Oaths --(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of HADDINOTON concurred with the Right Rev. Pre-
late and the two Noblo Dukes in thinking that there could be no dif-
ference of opinion with r6pect to the first clause.
The Bishop or EXETER had no objection to see the clause altogether
omitted, the object of his amendment being merely to render the clause
more safe in case of the Bill passing.
Lord LYNDHUIIsT proposed that the second clause should be
omitted.

Lon DEN NIA N 114t1 no objection to the omission of all the clauses
exctlit the first.

The omission of all the clauses except the first was then agreed to,
and the Bill read a third time and passed.
The 'louse then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Juxn 14.

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock.
Mr. Kmnx, the new Member for Dungannon, was introduced
by Capt. WOOD and Col. JONES, and took the oaths and his
seat for that place.
FARRINGDON-STREET IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Sir MATTHEW WOOD moved the third reading of the
Farringdonl'Sireet Improvement Bill.
Mr. WILLPA MS said he objected to this Bill on a
former occaion, and the objection which he then stated had
not only not been removed, but very greatly increased. He then
stated that the length of the proposed new street would extend
to 350 "yards, but he found he was mistaken, and that it was
only 150 yards. Ho Was led into that error by seeing a
statement in one of the clauses, that a plan of the proposed
new street would be found in Guildhall. On inspecting that
plan be found
it carried the street 350 yards, but on looking
into the Br!! he fou.ld it was only 150 yards. The line pro-
posed according to the plan exhibited, went to Peter-street.
He fOund the line proposed by the Bill of the worthy Alder-
man went into 21 street very little better, called \Vest-street.
That street led into one of the worst streets in Lon-
don, called Field-lane. And another part of `Vest-street
led into Smithfield, and the whole width of it there
was just two yards and a half. He would ask of what utility
this Bill could be which went only IA yards? When he ob-
jected to the Bill before, the Hon. Alderman was most anxious
that it should go into Committee, and he (Mr. W.) allowed
it to do so for the purpose of its absurdity being discovered.
Now he (Mr. W.) attended that Committee, and doubtless
the House would be surprised when he informed it, that the
:seventy-eight clauses in the Bill went through Committee in
twenty-two minutes and a half. He did not believe that a
Ytiegle individual in that House knew anything of the Bill.
A v enquiry before a Committee under such Circumstances
was' a perfect farce, and the merits of a Bill eotahl not
be covsidered; addel to which, when the clauses of to 1341

I were gone through, only four gentlemen weirs present. He
would venture to assert that the Bill, instead of being of any
utility, would be an absolute nuisance. His greatest objec-
tion, however, to the measure was, that to accomplish so use-
less an object, the Hon. Alderman proposed to mot tgage one
of the most obnoxious taxes the City of London levied upon
the people—he meant the tax upon the carts of non-freemen.
The lion. Alderman wanted to raise 60,0001. upon the mort-
gage of this abominable tax, which amounted to between
3,0001. and 4,0001. a year, so that they would perpetuate it
almost for ever; and he was well aware that many of the
Common Council of London were very anxious to abolish the
impost. He hoped the House would not lend itself to one of
the grossest jobs which had ever been attempted to he foisted
on the House. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a
second time that day three months.
Mr. HALL seconded the motion.
Sir M. WOOD said his Hon. Friend must have heard re-
ports of the fever being in the neighbourhood, for he had
been trying all in his power, during the last week, to get hum
there to see what the improvements would be, but without
avail, otherwise he was sure he would never have opposed that
which would be one of the greatest improvements which had
ever been proposed either in the city of London or the
county of Middlesex ; and in answer to his Hon. Friend
he had to say that he expected if the Bill were passed, notices
would be given for carr3ing the street up to Clerkenwell.
The fund which his lion. Friend had alluded to was the fund
cf the Corporation—it was their own money, and the Corpo-
ration were willing to part with it for this purpose. The
Coporation was willing to lay out 60,0001. to carry out this
improvement ; and in answer to the objection of his Ho-
nourable Friend that this Bill would prevent the improvement
of Holborn-hill, he begged to say it would lead to it. If
this improvement were effected there would be a direct com-
munication to the north-western parts of London, and a deal of
wretchedness and filth be removed, and not a soul would have
to pay one shilling towards it but the Corporation of London.
Mr. HALL said the object of the Bill was to continue a
most objectionable tax, and to mortgage that tax in such a
way so that it could not be repealed hereafter even by the Cor-
poration of London, if they themselves desired it. The real
effect and the real object of the tax was, that if any body were
to go with a cart to Smithfield market, and were they to buy
the smallest quantity of provision of the smallest possible
value, a tax would be put on it by the Corporation.
With regard to the object of the Bill, he thought that would
be of very little good to the public. It was true
that the Corporation would widen the street in part,
but the terminus would be in a narrow lane. As for his
Hon. Friend's supposition that the Chapter of Ely would
give up their land for nothing, he thought that would be very
extraordinary. It was not likely that the members of that
body would give away their property for the improvement of
the city of London. The effect of mortgaging the very
objectionable tax in question, would be to put it out
of the power of the Corporation to put an end to it, if
they should desire to do so. There was a Committee sitting
upon the Metropolis Improvement Bill, and a Bill for rebuild':
ing the Royal Exchange had also been referred to a Committee.
It wouldhave been much better that the extensivve improvement
under consideration had been submitted to either of those
Committees. But he did not think that the proposed altera-
tion would be of any advantage to the city, whilst the tax by
which it was to be effected was highly objectionable to the in-
habitants of the metropolis at large.
Mr. CRAWFORD thought that the House ought not to
refuse to permit the Corporation of the City of London to
apply its legitimate sources of income to public improvements.
The reason why his Hon. Friend and Colleague had not sub-
mitted this improvement to the Committees alluded to, was
that the improvement was merely local, and the expenses were
were to be defrayed by the Corporation itself.
Mr. HGME was as much against unequal taxation as any
man. But if this Bill were rejected, would the tax on
non- Freemen be got rid of ? Not at all. Was it not
a great public advantage to obtain a road from Blackfriars-
bridge up what was called Old Fleet Market, to the
north part of the City of London ?—( Hear, hear.) The
effect of the Bill would be to carry this important object into
execution, as Parliamentary authority was required for that
purpose. He hoped that at some future period—perhaps before
long—the Corporation might be prepared to abolish this tax, and
to defray the expences attendant on this Bill, from some other
of its funds.—( Hear.) But as nothing would be gained
from opposing, this Bill but stopping a great public improve.
ment, he should give the Bill his support.—( Hear.)
Sir F. TRENCH agreed in what had fallen from
the lion. Member for Kilkenny. He was ever ready to sup-
port public improvernents.—( Hear.) And he hoped to live
to see the consummation of that object for which he had long
since exerted considerable efforts—the construction of a quay
on the north bank of the Thames, from Blackfriars to West-
minster.—( Hear.)
Mr. WILLIAMS seeing the feeling of the House was in
favour of the Bill, withdrew his amendment.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Sir M. WOOD, the Metropolitan Sus-
pension Bridge Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Sir G. STRICKLAND, the Luton and
St. Albans Road Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of the same lion. MEMBER, the Dudley Hill
and Killinghall Road Bill wasalso read a third time and passed.
RROAD_BILL.
-S-ejveral petitions were presented by Mr. BELOTHERTON and
other Members against tile Bill.
Mr. LOWTHER moved that the third reading of the Bill
should be adjourned to Monday, as it was his intention to move
a clause by way of rider.
Sir GnSTRICKL AND objected of the postponement of
tl.e third reading, as he believed that the clause intended
to he proposed by the Honourable Member, if adopted,
would have the effect of throwing out the Bill in another place.
He must therefore persevere in his motion, that the Bill do
pass.
The SPEAKER put it to the House, whether the exemp-
tion intended to be given by the clause of the Hon. Member
was not of too important a character to be introduced upon
the-question that the Bill do pass?
Mr. LO wTHER then moved that the debate be adjourned
till Monday next.
Mr. BAINES said the Trustees were not wishing for any
additional toils, and they were willing to give any guarantee
in their power, that they would not in fact impose any new
toll, bat they were told that if the Bill went up to the House of
Lords with an exemption clause in it, it would infallibly be lost.
The loss of the Bill would deprive a very populous neighbour-
hood of a read that was very advantageous to them, to kt that
road fell into disuse for want of funds to keep it up, and!
to place the whole neighbourhood in a disadvantag,eoui
situation. Every Member of tile Committee to whom the'i
Bill was referred, acquiesced in the arrangement, and the;
neater having- been very fully discussed, he was sure the,
House would not think it very judiciou, to take the matter out'
of the hands of the Committee, and to place it on a footing:
that would destroy the chance of the Bill passing.
Mr. BR OT 11 E RTON thought the Hen. Member fur;
Leeds had stated the best reason fur the postponenkeu
of the Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET said the present discussion Will t
strongest argument against any Clause being introduced at
such a late stage of the Bill, and nothing but vetbal amend-
ments ought to be introduced at so late a perks'.
Lord Al OR,PETII recommended that his lion. Friend
( Sir G. Strickland) should act upon the suggestion that the
Bill be postponed to Monday next.
The third reading of the Bill was then postponed to
Monday next.
DUKE OF NORFOLK'S ESTATE BILL.
Captain PE CIIE L L moved the second reading of the
Duke of Norfolk's Estate Bill, which was agreed to, and
the Bill was referred to the Sussex list.
RUGBY AND LU'I"TERWORTH ROAD BILL.
The Rugby and Lutterworth Road Bill was tend a third
time and passed.

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 16, 1838.