The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-26 00:00:00

I been proposed. For what was it proposed? According to
Mr. Walker's suggestions, to entrust the expenditure of
.)00,000/. to a self-elected- body, who might, after
all, reject the proposition of the Committee,
and he did think, therefore, that it was un-
worthy of the dignity of the House to re-commit
the Bill to the same Committee as that which had pre-
viously sat upon the subject. In 1836 there had been a
similar Committee, and they had reported strongly
against the measures which were at that time adopted
in the government of the river, and it would appear
that considerable loss of life had ensued in consequence
of the mischief that then existed. The Hon. Gentleman
then read from a report of the Committee on the subject,
to the effect that the conflicting interests in the con-
servancy of the river were injurious to the navigation.
He, therefore, after what had happened, objected to any
concession being now made to the City. The river
ought not to be entirely left in the hands of the Corpora•
lion ; it was a public concern, and ought to be managed
for the public. But it had been hitherto entirelyneglected,
as the evidence given last year most fully showed.
The Hon Gentleman continued to quote from the evi-
dence of last year, to show the disgraceful state of the
river channel. He added, that it was a disgrace to
London, and the City Corporation, the way they
had acted.—Hear, hear.) Time after time, impedi •
ments and delays were being experienced, and
yet the City had done absolutely nothing.
If malt were imported by the river Lea it would be free
of charge altogether, but if it came by shipping it was
subjected to a heavy charge. Now, he would ask, was
not that a monstrous absurdity, and ought it to be
tolerated any longer. It was an unanimous resolution
that one-third of the board should be elected by the
Crown, and he, therefore, did not see that it was of any
use whatever to carry out their proceedings, but the
better plan would be to wait until there was a new Par-
liament, and then to open the whole question of the
jurisdiction of the city of London, and then they would
see how far the City would, in a matter which involved
the power of taxing the public to the extent of 500,0001.,
presume to set the House of Commons at defiance ; fur
he believed that the whole of the difficulty would then
be obviated. He had put a notice on the paper to the
following effect :—" That it appears by the reports be-
fore this House, that, through the neglect of the Corpo-
ration of the city of London, who have been, and claim
to be, the conservators of the river Thames, the naviga-
tion of that river has long been, and now is, greatly im-
peded by numerous shoals and other nuisances in different
parts of that river ; and, therefore, it is most desirable
that these impediments to the navigation and com-
merce of the Thames should be speedily removed."
But in order to save Hon. Members from any false posi-
tion, he would waive this part of his notice, and simply
move, " That an address be presented to her Majesty,
that she will be graciously pleased to take immediate
measures for carrying into effect the requisite improve-
ments in the river Thames, and to assure her Majesty
that this House will supply the means for carrying into
effect these most necessary improvements."
Mr. STEWART WORTLEY said that he should be
sorry to stand j ie way of this Bill, but he would feel
it his duty to taßpose the motion of his Hon. Friend op-
posite, and support the amendment of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Montrose. He thought that if the mo-
tion of his Hon. Friend were carried, the five persons
nominated would be so under the beck of the Govern-
ment, that the City would still be able to rule the whole
of the c mservancy board. The City of London
had not attended to their duties as they ought to do, for
they let out piers, bringing in an enormous revenue to
the City, but at the same time impeding the progress
of the navigation in no ordinary degree.—(Hear, hear.)
The Corporation were called upon in the year 1836, to
remove the shoals in the Thames, and their answer was
that they had no power to do so. What excuse had they
for not doing so ? There was a very large fund amount-
ing to 54,0001. accumulated upon tonnage on the river,
and yet none of it was attempted to be applied to these
purposes. Capt. Beaufort when examined, said that every
day's experience convinced him of the necessity of the
conservancy of the river being placed under the control of
some such board as the Admiralty, or the Board of Con-
trol. Such was the opinion of the Crown officers in 1836.
Could it be doubted that if there were due economy, that
the city would have sufficient funds for the management
of the river?
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK doubted whether the
Learned Attorney-General would acquiesce in the law_
as laid down by the Learned Gentleman who had just
sat down. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had
to-night appeared in a new light—as the champion of
the rights of the Crown. He (Lord G. Bentinck) saw
that the river Thames was in the conservancy of the city
of London since the days of William the Conqueror, and
he saw no reason why that jurisdiction should be now
changed. As soon as Mr. Walker made some pro-
posals to improve the navigation, in stepped the Go-
vernment and made a claim which they had never before
exercised. The Navy-office, the Trinity-house, and se-
veral ether public offices, held the titles of these pre-
mises from the corporation of the city of London, which
he thought, was a strong proof of the right of
the Corporation with respect to the conservancy. The
Corporation, however, were quite willing to refer all their
proceedings and their works to the inspection of the
Board of Admiralty and the Government, and it ap-
peared to him to be a degradation to the House of
Commons to proceed in the manner proposed, and to
attempt to interfere with the jurisdiction which the cor-
poration of the city of London had always exercised.
Me. T. DUNCOMBE said they were now called upon
to recommit the Bill on the motion of the Secretary of
the Admiralty. After detailing the whole state of the
case up to the present stage, he said that the Corpora-
-1 tion ought to approach the [louse by petition, and not
by proposing the recommittal of the Bill. This he con-
tended was not a respectful way in which to approach
the House. He said that this was a measure of national
importance, and the city of London ought to have
nothing to do with it.—(Hear, hoar.) Was it to be
supposed that the aldermen and councillors of the city
of London going floating about in their barges—
(Laughter)—were proper conservators of this great
river? Ile denied that they were so, and he therefore
called upon the Government to postpone the measure
till next session, when a proper measure would be
brought forward.
Lord MORPETH said the ground which influenced
him in support of the Bill was the opinion of the Board
of Admiralty, who believed the measure would be pro-
ductive of great public utility. He was willing to believe
that the yesult of this Bill would be great public im
provemeht4 and as a competent officer, under an efficient
board, would have the superintendence of the river, he
anticipated that the greatest benefits would accrue. The
Corporation had latterly showed a desire to co operate
with the House and the Government, and he did not
think the present proceeding was an act of degradation
on the part of the House of Commons. Nothing that
had passed in the CoMmon Council influenced him in
this case, because the conduct of the Common Council
did not entitle them to that consideration which some
persons seemed to claim for them ; neither did
he consent to it at the sole request of the
city, hut simply because he was desirous of
improving the navigation of the Thames as speedily as
possible. He should, therefore, consent to the re-com•
mittal of the Bill, in order that the improvements which
the Bill was proposed to carry out, might be effected
with the least possible delay.
Colonel WOOD adverted to that portion of the Bill
which provided that one third of the Commissioners
should be appointed- by-the City, and said, that if this
were to be so, vibagwould become of the great shipping
and trading interests which surrounded the metropolis?
Where were there interests represented? It was withthat
object that the Committee reported that it was desirable
that the Crown should represent one third of the Board,
but the pusillanimity of the Government had placed them
in the ignominious position in which they had now
found themselves. The Crown claimed a right to the
soil of the river ; but this power the Bill would destroy,
as it would have to be sold to those who were the pro-
prietors of land on its banks ; and that was one of the
principal means of raising the funds for the navigation
of the river. He Amid support the motion of the llon.
Gentleman, the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume),
because he considered that they ought to have an en-
tirely new body, appointed by some other means. He
did not say that the City (light not to be represented ;
but he said that the - persons engaged in trade in
other parts of London, had an equal right to be
represented. Fourteen shoals now existed in
the river, but if the City had properly
performed their duty, this would not have been the case.
Believing that the evil. which existed in relation to the
present navigation of the Thames required a more ex-
tensive remedy than that provided by the Bill, he should
support the motion of Mr. flume.
Mr. WILLIAMS rose amid loud cries of "Divide."
lie said the whole subject of the conservancy of the
Thames was referred to a Committee of that House, and
-they, after mature consideration, reported in favour of a
scheme, but the authorities of the City rejected it. He
was sure, however, that that House knew its duty to the
public better than to truckle to the City. Many of those
who sat in its Councils, were the lowest kind of shop-
keepers, and far from capable of being entrusted with the
affairs of so great a city. In the inquiry into municipal
corporations in 1836, the greatest evils were found to
exist in the corporation of the city of London ; but,
although more ancient corporations had been abolished,
they were still entrusted with the management of their
affairs, and they still managed them improperly.
Every vessel_ that went up the Thames paid a tax
for the purpose of keeping the navigation in a proper
condition.—(" Divide, divide.") If they gave the Cor-
poration the power of nominating five of the members of
the Corporation, they had better give up the Bill altogether.
If the Bill were referred back to to the Committee, he
was confident that they would come to a similar result.
Alderman HUMPHERY said, after considerable liti-
gation between the Crown and the City with respect to
the navigation of the Thames, the Corporation brought
in a Bill to cure the evils which were complained of—
one result of which was, that they should clear away the
shoals, and make other improvements in the river. The
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose said that the
cor 'oration received 56,0001. a year for corn dues; but
the amount was expended upon 250,000 freemen of Lon-
(l"n—(Cheers and laughter)—they were the constituents
otfethe Noble Lord—(Hear, hear)—and it was right that
andh country h should
ouwue
dues
understand tend that the corporation ex-
.Pethendelapaell
of
fthed money. . which. they received in
„much improved during atmcpirtoyviwnghiethhehandavbiguantionso;
London. Thethe last twenty-five years as
lion; might not have the Bill
sent back as he wished
out. whether this were so or no,
give the Corporation another
he thought they ought 'I,
they left nothing undone
...opportenity of showing that
for the improvement of the navigation. -
. .
The House then divided, when there appeared— at '
4
For the re committal .............
0 A r t .................. 9224
giost .................
woo • A'afajority for the committaa._6B
- THE younTA py:-EDIJCATION.
Lord J. RUSSELL having movethat the ritetule, at
its rising, do adjourn till 3londay,

t __ 1' II El S ti l4, '