The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-07 00:00:00

LONDON BRIDGE

Mr. HUNT presented a petition from a Mr Peter Jeffrey,
residing in Cheapside, stating that two arches of the new
London-bridge, on the Surrey side, had sunk on the lower
aide upwards of eight inches and a half. The petitioner had
given a great deal of his time and attention to this subject,
and he considered that the greatest danger was to he appre-
hended from this circumstance. Rebore presenting the
present petition he (Mr. Hunt) had considered it his duty
to examine the bridge himself, and upon that examination
be had found the statements of the petitioner to be per-
fectly correct. He was very glad that the old bridge had
not been removed, and trusted that this would not turn
out like some of the jobs be had known in the city, arid
that the anticipations of the petition( r would not be verified
The subject, however, was well worthy the attention of the
Members of that House who had voted away so large a
sum of money for the purpose of building this bridge. The
petitioner stated that bad materials had been used in tilling
up parts of the bridge, and prayed that some inquiry might
be instituted on the subject.
Mr. Alderman WOOD was quite sure the House need
tart alarm itself on account of the non-professional state-
ments of this Mr. Jeffrey, who had endeavoured to make
it appear that he knew much better how to construct a
bridge than Mr. Rennie.—(Much laughter.) Doubtless
this gentleman had been much disappointed that the
city of London had not adopted his plan ; this was
the first time he (Mr. Alderman Wocd) had heard of this
subject, but he could assure the House that persons of the
greatest eminence on examining the structure of the bridge
had expressed themselves highly satisfied with the work,
and h d observed that they never saw a building of such a
natur, so well constructed. Security had been taken for
the due performance of the work, to the amount o:
200,000/. and he would venture to assert, when inquiry
was made, there would be no defect discovered. The city
of London, he was sure, wou'd be glad to have an inquiry
made.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON was satisfied there was
no necessity for any alarm on the subject. The arch of
every bridge sunk more or less after its erection, and if per-
sons compared the sinking of the New London Bridge,
with that of others, it would not be greater. He thought
this individual, if he had any complaint to make of the
materials used in the bridge, had taken a very bad time to
bring forward that complaint. In his (pinion that ought
to have been done before the building was completed.
Ile had always objected to the building of this bridge,
being convinced the old one could have been effectually
repaired, but when it was determined that the erection
should take place, he instantly gave way. He felt confi-
dent that no body could have taken more pains than the
city of London had done to have the bridge built in the
most substantial manner.
Alderman VENABLES thought there was not the
slightest foundation for alarm. He must, however,
complain that the Honourable
Member for Preston
had not given any notice whatever of his inten-
tion to present such a petition, as he (Alderman Ve-
nables) felt quite satisfied that by prtop: rsu).c
inquiry,it which
might certainly have been made into h
expla-
nation might have been come to that would ijieave, ar n
prevented
the house being troubled with such a petition, whlte.i,
he was sure there existed not the slightest foundation.
Mr. HUNT said it was true that, as the, Hon. City
Member behind him (Thompson) had reinarked, th;t
every structure should have " a settling," but it
was also true, certainly, that it undoubtedly sl-ould
be settled on a level, so that the foundations should not
sink. As a document affecting the public interest he
should move that the petition be printed.
Alderman THOMPSON hoped, as a matter of justice
to the engineer, contractors, and superintending Committee,
that the lion. Member would not press the printing of the

petition until Mlle inquiry should be wade into the truth
of the case.

Mr. HUNT stated his willingness to accede to the
suggestion of the Honourable Member for the city of
London, but as to en': Vngineer and contractors, they
were Well atvare themselves of the facts 'Which the petition
stated, as they had been in the very sante boat 41 which he
(Mr. flunt) Was, when inAting the survey, and it was
their duty to hate =de the communication.
Mr. VROSNENOR presented a petition from the
owners and occupiers of corn mills in Chester, praying for
some protection against the importation or foreign flour.
. . . .

Mr. HUME rose to make tht motion which he had given
notice of, respecting The revenues of the vacant See of
Derry, hut, t. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in
his p!tee, he did not know how to proceed.

THOINISON stated that his Noble Friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer wculd undoubtedly be in
his place at five o'clock.
Lord A ',THORP having taken his sot,

Mr. HUME rose, andFoga to the House the object of
the motion of which he had previously given notice.
The matter was of great importance, and although
he was very unwilling to stop the proceedings of the
Reform Bill, yet he was anxious, from the intrinsic
interest of the question, and the interest which it had ex-
cited, to bring it forward now. At the same time
ahould the Noble Lord be able to state the plan which
Government intended to adopt, and if it were satisfactory
to the House, he woull be the last to sire it any oppo-
sition.

Lord ALTI-lORP had not the s'ightest objection to
state honestly an answer to the question which had been put.
The motion of which the Hon. Member had given notice
respected the revenue of the See of Derry. Now, in
his (Lord Althorp's) opinion, that was undoubtedly a
question worthy the consideration of Government and of
the House, he should rather say, of the Government itself.
Government bad the question to which the motion
allud d under its consideration, and it appeared to him
that, although it would be improper to turn the re-
venues of the Protestant Church to any other pur-
poses than those of the Established Church, still the
question was important, and if by an alteration
in the distribution of these revenues the poorer Members
of that Church could he assisted, without diminishing im-
properly the rank and station of its superior Members, it
might legitimately, he thought, be effected. This was the
view which Government were inclined to take of the mat-
ter; but when the question of Derry wes agitated, it ap-
peared more proper, that if any steps of this kind
were to be taken, the question should be considered gene-
rally, and not applied to any one individual diocese. It
was therefore not intended by Government to take any step
of that nature in the filling up of the vacant Bishopric
of Derry, but lie would assure the House, that whosoever
Was appointed to that Bishopric should, on hi•
appointment, receive notice that no rights he might
thereby acquire would be allowed to interfere with any such
arrangement, if at any time, it should appear advisable
for Government to adopt it. This was the state in which
the matter rested at present, and if the explanation he had
given were satisfactory to the House—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear")—he hoped the Hon. Member for Middlest x
would withdraw his motion.

Mr. HUME had no hesitation whatever in stating that
he, and the Hons.., were perfectly satisfied with the Noble
Lord's explanation. He was thereby convinced Govern-
ment were determined to act on a general principle, ex•
tensive and legitimately important—(Hear, hear)—
which would bring the whole question upon a future
occasion under the consideration of the House. He
should, therefore, be sorry to press the discussion of this
question, as he might do harm unintentionally instead
of good. He should therefore withdraw his motion.
Alderman THONIPSON rose to bring forward the
subject of which he had given notice, relative to the
quarantine fees. If it were intended by Government to
grant relief only from the Ist of January next, he
could not waive his proposition on that account.—
It might appear to the House that the amount paid by
each vessel was very small, but if the system continued
throughout this year it would amount to 25,0001. or
26,0001 ; and, he it remembered, that all this was to be
collected from a particular interest of the country, which
was, in an especial manner, suffering under the visitation
of Providence. They did not come to the House
to ask for compensation, although the ships bad to lie from
thirty to forty days under quarantine, during the whole
of which period the owners hail to support the Captain and
the crew ; and yet, before the ship was allowed to sail, the
owner was obliged to pay Si. I Is. 6d. It was a case of
injustice, for whatever freight a vessel carried, whether she
was a ship of 50 tens or one of 500 tone, the demand was
the same—(Hear)—and it appeared from a petition pre-
' sented on a former evening by his Hon. Friend the Member
for Middlesex (Mr. Hume), that on a vessel arriving from
Hamburg, that had only earned 161. of freight, the sum of
Si. 14s. 6d. was demanded, exclusive of the loss by deten-
tion. —(Hear.) No doubt there were many cases of simi-
lar hardships. He did not complain of the detention of
ships under quarantine when they came from infected ports,
because it was for the benefit of the public, but it was
casting a burthen on the owners which should be made
as light as possible. When, however, vessels were de-
tained for the public benefit the public should pay for
it—(Hear, .hear, hear)—and, in fact, be did not see
why the ship-owner should not receive demurrage in the
same way as was paid by detention under other circum-
stances. There was no such charge as this on vessels of
this country arriving in the pot•ts of Sweden and Den-
mark, and he conceived the demand made in the Bri-
tish quarantine stations was a most unjust one. The
Honourable Member concluded by moving, " That it
is inexpedient to subject vessels placed in quarantine to
the payment of the fee of Si, 14s. 6d. for their order of
release by the Lords of the Privy Council."
Mr. DIXON rose to second the resolution, and at the
same time observed that it was hardly necessary for
him to say anything to convince the House of
the extreme hardship imposed by this fee on the shipping
interests. He had looked over the Act of Parliament,
and he could not see that any fee was authorized to he
taken, and therefore he contended that the demand was an
illegal one.
The SPEAKER having put the question,

Mr. POULETT THOMSON could not conceive on
what ground the fee was called an illegal one, but what.
ever doubt might be en,ertained, still it was a payment to
the fund of the country, and except in particular in-
stances it was not a tax levied on the shipping interest,
because although it was !arid by the vessels, the
prices of the cargo would be increased in the same pro-
portion to the consumer ; therefore tl e shipping interest
would be reimbursed. Ile, however, quite agreed that
it was a very impolitic mode of paying the fee ;
and he agreed also, that when a tax was levied
for the benefit of the public generally it ought
to be defrayed by the community.—(Hear, hear.) He
had not been able to trace the origin of the fees of
41. 13,. 6d. ; but they had been left standing, and had
been consented to by the Mediterranean trade, fur he found
by a correspondence with those merchants, that an additional
fee of 1/. Is. had been imposed, makir.•; 51. 14.5. 6,1.
however, the House were of opinion that it was more de-
sirable that these fees should be paid flora the public purse
instead of by individuals, his Majesty's Government were
quite willing to consent to that plan—(Hear)—but it must
be understood that it was only a mode of altering the sys-
tem of payment, and that the House must be prepared
to grant a sum of money to defray the amount of those
fees.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member stated the expenses
of the lazarettos and other materiel of the quarantine
establishments, and said that the money collected by these
fees did not defray more than one-fifth of their expence.
He knew of no country on which the quarantine fees were
so light as they were in this, and he was sure if we could in-
duce other countries to reduce their quarantine fees, their
commerce and that of this country would be considerably
increased.

Mr. WARBURTON thought that as long as these fees
were retained, it was giving a bonus to ships to evade the
Quarantine Laws. He hoped his Right Hon. Friend
would he induced to revise his determination, and imme-
diately take off these dues.
Mr. MABERLY thought that Government had met
this question with great fairness, and that they ought not
to be pre,sed to renounce this tax earlier than they saw
reason. _ _ _

Mr. ROBINSON trusted that from this day these fees
would no longer exist.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY trusted that this tax would be
taken off from the present moment, considering Govern-
ment would be acting with good policy in pursuing such
a step.
Lord G. BENTINCK thought there was no pretence
for keeping up this tax, and hoped it would be imme-
diately abolished.
Lord ALTHORP observed, that the only question
was whether the tax should he taken off now or on
the Ist of January next. It appeared to him, as all ves-
sels that could come in retur❑ to this country
rom the Baltic had already started, it would be
more convenient that the tax should be taken off,
and those returned which they had already paid.
Mr. HUME considered this an illegal tax, and could
assure the House that if he had at the present moment a
ship clearing out, he should resist the payment of
these fees, and would defy the Crown to recover it.
Ile thought those who had paid these dues were not

only entitled to have the whole duty taken off, but
after they came back ; and nothing he had heard
convinced him that there was any injustice in such an
arrangement.
Alderman THONIPSON regretted being obliged to
take the sense of the House on his motion, bat
his sense of duty, however, impelled him to do so.
If the Noble Lord had stated that he would immediately
take off the tax, he should have cordially concurred.
The House then divided, when there appeared—

. _
For the original motion
Against it 64
Majority against Alderman Thompsm's motion —44