The Sun.
London, England, 1823-02-14 00:00:00

COMMON COUNCIL.

Yesterday the Loan MA voa held a Court of
Common Council at Guildhall, which was fully
attended.

THE CITY TITHES.

Mr. HuncoNtnr, had to mention a subject which he con.
ceived to be of great interest and importance to the citizens of
London. It related to the question of tithes, which had been
berme the Lord Mayor on Saturday last, and by the decision
of which it was yet to be seen in another Court, whether 32
parishes within the city were to be 'charged with the payment
of 2s. 2d. in the pound upon their annual rentals. , under-
stood that a pamphlet was preparing far publication, which
was to contain ,nis Lordship's decision; with the advice and
opinions of the Recorder and the 'Awned 'Counsel, upon
which that decision had been formed. lie understood this
publication was Made by some of the inhabitants of the parish
of St. Andrew, Holborn; and in order that the information it
would contain should be as widely diffused as the importance
of the subject required, he begged leave uimove that 309 copies:
should be purchased, and one sent to each member of the.
Court, as well as to each of the Aldermen. 'rhe motion was
then put and carried.
LONDON BRIDGE.

Mr. OLIMA3I held. a petition to which he wished to draw
the attention of the Court. It would be .recollected, that di-
rections had been; given to the Bridge House Cotnmittee to
advertise. for designa' fbr a new bridge, arid to offer gra.
tuities for the three best designs. which should be presented.
They had issued instructions and particulars to certain ar-
chitects and engineer's, Specifying the nature of the work.,
The Committee had wisely availed themselves of the advice
of the Surveyors of the Board of Works. The petitioner, Air.
Joseph G wilt, had been given to underitand that his design
had been selected as the best, but Wiwi afterwards been reject.
eta, because it. was not conformallo. to the printed instructions
of the Committee, and the other desi4,rns were sent back to the
Board of IV arks that another choice Might be made. The
rnistake which the petitioner had made had been shared with
three very eminent men ; for Mr,`Soinie, Mr. srnirke, and Mr.
Nash, hail all as well as Itimaelf nilseenceived the instructions.
The petitioner felt that by this proceeding his professional fame
had been injured, and that he had last that opportunity. of sig-
nalizing himself which he would, have had if his design had
been accepted.. His object was not to gain thepremium, but
to enhance his reputation as at; architect. The Committee bad
declined to go further into the business? and the petitioner now
only prayed that the court weuld. refer It again to them when
they could have no objection to investigate, the allegations in
the petition, and would make a separate report upon the
subject.
'The petition was then read.
Mr. OtnitAsi then ,moved that it be referred to the Bridge
Committee. -
The CITAInNIAN of the Bridge Committee said that the pro.
coaling* of the Connimittec bad been marked by the strictest
ropartiality. ,They had directed their attention particularly to
the facility of the approaches to the Bridge, and to the rise and
fall of the waters with a view to these points, they had speci-
fied the height of the centre arch to be 32 feet. The design of
the petitioner had made it 34, and' die expence and ineonve-
vience, as well as the frustration of their plans, which would
have ensued from its adoption, compelled, them' to reject it.
Mr. S. Timor; opposed the petition on .the ground of the
explanations given by the Ilon. Alember who spoke last: Ile
was ready to alloW all the merit ifi the world to the petitioner
and the architects, but there bad not been an attempt_ made to
account for the means by which they had been led into the
mistake. The specification was plain as figures and words
could make it.

A desultory conversation then ensued in which Mr. Sheriff'
THOMPSON, Mr. Jo. ns, and Mr. JA3IEB, took a share.
Mr. Faye Lt. would have been glad, from his knowledge or
r. C,,wilt, arid the respect he entertained for his talents, to have
supported the motion, but he thought `the deviation from the
parneulore was too important to justify it.
Mr. flar.r.owAY thought it was the duty of the Court to ad-
mit the petitioner to prove the truth of his allegations. Ire was
at issue with the Coininittee, for he stated that his design was
In compliance with their instructions. It was evident some
misapprehensioa.had prevailed, from the sicps which ]tad been
taken by the eminent artists whose names had been mentioned.
For these reasons, the subject ought to be investigated in a
Committee.

The questinu was then put, and on a division being pressed
by air. Oldham, the motion was negatived by 59 to 49.

REMOVAL OP PRISONEtico.--YeStPrda, the pri•
Goners whostaud committed on charge m of felony
were removed from the deveral gaols in London
and Middlesex- to Newgate, prepnintory to thi.ir
taking their trials at the ensuing Old };,,ilk
Sessions, which commence on WedAesdity next,
the 19th itot,