The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-23 00:00:00

ORPHANS' FUND.

Mr. T. WILSON brought up the Report of the Committee
on the Orphans' Fond Bill. The Report stated the Committee
to have inquired into the allegations on which the Bill was
founded, and they considered them to be'true. "They had gone
through the Bill and made some amendments.

Mr. H. SUMMER could not consent to let the Bill pass in
its prestnt state. He described the circumstances which had
induced him to bring this subject before the House two years
ago. lie regretted the absence of an Honourable Baronet who
held the situation of Receiver of the Coal Dtities to the Orphans'
Fund. He bad objected to the large balances left in his hands ;
and it had been ordered that he should only hold the balances
for two months. The Honourable Baronet, however, (though
in two months the balances would only amount to about
8,0001.), had ever since retained balances to,the amount of
10,0001. He (Mr. H. Sumner), did not see, while the duties
of that office were correctly performed by the Deputy for 1001.,
that it was necessary to keep up the situation, dontirming to him
the advantages he now enjoyed. He did not now make any
motion, understanding it to be the intention of one of the Mem-
bers of the City of London to submit to. the House a proposi-
tion on this s'ubject.

Mr. BROGDEN was surprised at the course taken by the
Honourable Gentleman, after the inquiry which had taken
place, and which, in his judgment, proved that there Was no-
thing to impeach the conduct of the Honourable Baronet who
had been alluded to. If what had been said on that subject did
not amount to calumny, it appeared to him (Mr. Brogden) to
go very far that way. The arrangement made with respect
to the Orphans' Fund, he considered the inquiry to have
proved, was the most economical and beneficial that could be
adopted.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said at the proper time he had a
disuse• to propose, which had been put into his hands by his
constituents, the object of which was to provide that the pay
ments on account of the Orphan's Fund should be made week-
' ly, instead of quarterly.
Mr. LU4lllNGTON,suggested the propriety of postponing
the clause.

Mr. BR OGDEN wished the clause postponed, and for this
additional reason, that he had understood that it was the inten-
tion of the Hon. Member for Surrey not to offer any further
opposition to the Bill.
Mr. H. SUMNER said the Hon. Gentleman who had just
spoken made a very broad assertion. with respect to what had
fallen from hinron the conduct of an Hon. Baronet. It sur-
prised him tnhear that he was not expected to oppose the Bill,
as, in the presence of that Hon. Gentleman, he had distinctly
stated that he would not give up his opposition.
Mr. BROGDEN remarked, it had been said that he made
abroad assertion ; his assertion was so broad as this, that if the
Hon. Gentleman stated him to have known that it was his (Mr.
H. Sumner's) intention on this occasion to oppose the Bill, he
stated that which was untrue. He put it to his Hon. Friend
near him (Sir J. Graham) whether it had not been understood
that the Hon. Gentleman intended to decline offering further
opposition to the measure.
Mr. H. SUMNER said, the Hon. Gentleman had applied
the word ' untrue' to what had fallen from him, and he thought
it necessary to call for an explanation.—(Heai, hear !) -
Mr. BROODEN—And I will give it. I say, that if the
Hon. Gentleman asserts`that I knew it to be his intention to
oppcae this Bill to-day, he asserts that which is untrue.—(Hear,
hear ! cries of Order ! Chair, Chair !)
The SPEAKER could only excuse himself for not pre-
viously interfering, by saying he was sure what had been said
was uttered under a mistake. It grew out of a subject on
which he was afraid that there had been some warmth else-
where. He was sure the Hon. Gentleman would admit that he
had used language which it was not his intention to use.
Mr. BROGDEN had not wished to otlend the House in any
way. He had stated that he did not expect the Hon. Gentle-
man would oppose the Bill to-day. He did not expect that
he would do so, and therefore when he saw him get up, and
open the whole subject, he had expressed rurprise.—Upon this
the Hon. Gentleman had said, that lie matte a broad asser-
tion, and in answer to this, he had only said, that if the Hon.
Gentleman declared him to have known of its being his inten-
tion 'so to oppose the Bill, he had stated what was incorrect—
what was inconsistent with fact.

The SPEAKER was now quite. satisfied that what had been
said, was uttered under a total misunderstanding of what had
fallen from the Hon. Member for Surrey. He had attended to
the Hon. Member; and was sure he' understood him. When
he talked of a broad assertion having been made, he alluded to
the remark of the Hon. Gentleman, that if what had been said
with respect to an Hon. Baronet did not amount to calumny,
it came very close to it.
Mr. SUMNER said, the Speaker had correctly understood
him. It was tathat remark that his observation applied.
Sir J.' GRAHAM spoke to the correctness of the statement
of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brogden), that on-Friday he had
not expected the lion. Member for Surrey intended to offer
further opposition to the Bill.
Mr. T. `WILSON said, if the eond,uct of the Hon. Baronet
(Sir W. Curtis) was bad, that of the Corpoiation of London
was equally bad in tuflering him to hold his office. But
he had a palliative to offer. When it was given to the Hon.
Baronet the balances were small, they had increased by de-
grees, and the interest on them, though of importance to an in-
dividual, had not been considered an object to the Corporation:
.A, former ReceiVer had to pay four or five thousand pounds out
of his own pockets for sums which would otherwise have been
lost to the Corporation. It was therefore necessary, as what
had happened once might occur again, to ()Minn good security.
The Hon. Member for-Surrey always took adyantage of men-
tion being made of the Orphans' Fund or the City Lands, to
bring forward charges against the Corporation of the City of
London, as if those funds were only appropriated to favouring
jobs, as if the public derived no benefit from theni. He would
ask if the public derived no benefit from the buying off the toll
on London Bridge, the building of Blackfriar's Bridge, and
the purchase of the toll on that bridge ?
Mr. H. SUMNER remembered. that' a hope had been ex-
pressed on :a former day, that nothing would be said on the
bringing up of the Report. He had then said, that if nobody
else took it up, he did not I‘,N)w that he shoul-. offer any obser-
vations on, the subject. He was _convinced that what had been
said was said under a misconception. But he had not pledged
himself to support, or not to oppose the Bill; and if he had
done so at that time, enough had since occurred to justify him
in altering his determination.
Mr. BENNET thought the office of Receiver unnecessary.

Mr. HUME was of the same opinion.
Mr. Alderman WOOD moved, that the word " quarterly"
should be struck out of the Bill, preparatory to tilt introduc-

tion of the clause which he had announced it to be his intention
to move hereafter:
The House then divided, when thenunibers were—
For the Amendment - - - - 14
Against it - - - - - - 37
-AlajoritY in favour of the Clause as originally worded —23
When strangers were re-admitted the SPEAtmt was putting
the question that the Bill should be engrossed. On this Mr.
H. Su DINER moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill should'
be engrossed on that day six month.
The House again divided, when the numbers were—
For the Amendment . . . . 12
Against it . . . . . . 30
Majority in favour of the Bill . . —lB
The Bill was ordered to be read a third time.