The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-02 00:00:00

LONDON, WED_NESDAY EVENING, APRIL 2, 1856.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(Yr. TERDAY).

The LORD CetaNcsrzon t)ok his seat on the wool.
sack at five o'clock.

Lord MONTEAGLE moved for a copy of the ba-
lanco sheet of public expenditure and receipts for the
la,t year, up to the 31st of March last.—Agreed to.
E trl ST. GERMANS gave notice Vito, in conse-
quence of the day originally fixed for the second reading
of the bill to legalise the marrying with a deceased
wife's- sister not being convenient for the attendance of
several right rev. prelates, he should postonne the se-
cond reading of the bill till Thursday, the 17th.

it." (Hear.) The lion: gentlemen then referred to the
manner in which, the Treasury aivanced the salaries of
thesd-judges, pas4ing over eicellent !nen, who.felt it a slur
on their character. It was not the difference of pay
these gentlemen valued, but their reputation, and he
(11r. Roebuck) charged the Under Secretary of the
Treasury, who did the dirty work of the Government, with
passing over Mr. Falkner, an estimable and rearmed gen-
t'emari, 'from political reasons. There was another case of
the workiug of this act. The county court clerks were
usually appointed Liy the judges, but Mr. Morris, who
was clerk of the county courts in,Glamorganshire, and
a political agent in that district, vrishing to retire, ob-
tained-the appointment of his successor from the trea-
sury, awl when afterwards it was—proposed to divide
the districts, the clerk objected, saying he had pur-
chased his appointment of Mr. Morris. (Hear, hear.)
,• He-asked for an explanation of this. (Hear; hear.) If
they demanded the service of men of high reputation
they ought to pay them well ; but he was met with the
remark. " Oh, we can get plenty of men well up to the
mark for less money." Yes, but by the same rule he
(Mr. Roebuck) could say that he could g'et plenty of men
in that himie up to the Mark and capable of discharging
the duties of the hon. member- for Westbury quite as
well as.he did for. half the amount he was paid. (Hear,
and "laeghter.) - The Rani() 'objection was raised
by the Lord Chancellor to the increase of these'
s•laries, and his (Mr.
.Rotsbuck's) argument applied
equally the Lord Chancellor, that plenty of legal
gentlemen could he found capable- of discharging his
duties for less money. (Laughter.) He contended that
the maximum sum given to these judges was not too
much for all of them to be paid—(hear)—to place them
above' the anxieties and meannesses of the world, to
enable them to hold that position in society they ought
to hold. (Hear)
Lord STANLEY seconded the motkm and in doing
.so en t red fully to the history eititaatttiAliaisseent-ufr
the -County" Comisland ti;e4P-PriintnierA."ot thi ledges;
and referred to the number of cases each of them heard
annually, and the number of miles they had to travel,
which gave but a slight idea of the anvinnt of labour
.they had to perform. He contended that there was a
great constitutional principle involved in having the
salaries of these judges fixed by Parliament., and not de-
peedeot upon the caprice of the Trea.tiry. Holding
that opinion, and holding also that 1,5001. was not too
large a salary for the duties involved in it, he cordiall)
s eroded the nswion.
Sir G. GREY deeply regretted the personal attacks
which had been made with so much bitterness upon Mr.
Wilson by Mr. Roebuck. Leaving his h.in. friend to
answer these attacks, which he had no doubt of his abi-
lity to do, he rose to explain what course the Govern-
ment had taken on the suhjemt. He had always been
in favour of a uniform salary, and when the courts were
first instituted, he fixed a uniform salary of 1,0001. Af-.
t rwards, when the right hon. gentlemen opposite were
in office, the present system was adopted by Parliament.
Owing to the great comp'aints which had lately, and
very naturally, been made by the judges, the subject
had been fully considered by the Government, and they
had determined, in the bill now before the House of
Lords, that the salaries of the judges should be fixed ;
that, saving existing interests, those salaries should in
every case be reduced to 1.2001. a-year. At the same
time, as this bill would come to this house for discus.
sion, when the question of salaries could be considered
with greater advantage than at present, he hoped the
house would not pledge itself now to the higher salary
of 1,500/. He concluded by rr•ving the previous
question.
_ _

Mr. MORRIS defended the conduct of his namesake,
who had been attacked by Mr. Roebuck.
Mr. WILSON remarked that although the whole of
Mr. Roebuck's speech had assumed much of the com-
plexion of a personal grievance, that learned gentleman
had given him no intimation of the course of argument
he intended to pursue. Nevertheless, he was prepared
to give so clear and simple an explanation that Mr. Roe-
buck would find that he bad " taken nothing " by his
motion. Mr. Wilson then proceeded to explain that at
the time the selection particularly referred to by Mr.
R 'ebuck was made, all the county court judges preferred
their claims to the maximum salary of 1,5001. The re-
presentations so made were most anxiously con: dered
by Mr. Gladstone and himself, and they took the beet
advice which could be obtained as to the principle 111)''11
which the additional salary should be conferred. The
principle fixed upon was the amount of work which de-
volve' upon the respective ju lges In the selections
ma le there could be no favouritism, inasmuch as the
names of the persons were not appended to their repre-
sentations ; and with the exception of one name—that
ef a gentleman whose claims stood out paramount—he
(Mr. Wilson) knew nothing of who the respective claim-
ants were. The whole matter was arranged through
the instrumentAlity of numbers. Mr. Wilson also re-
ferred to sub,equent transactions, and claimed also as
regarde I them complete exemption from the charge of
favouritism or partiality.
Sir J. PAKINGTON recommended Mr. Roebuck,
after what had fallen from Sir George Grey, not to press
vew- e a t,uul 43,1
Mr. MAL11,..:;..:....,reed teat' motion should te"
withdrawn, at the sane time he hoped the uniform
salary would uitimat ly be fixed at 1,5001. a year.
Mr. GLADSTONE hoped the question would not he
deemed as foreclosed by statements which had fallen
from Mr. Matins and other members. He hoped the
question of sa.'aiy, and the reconstruction of the duties
of the county court judge-i, would he held as " open
questions." Mr. Gladstone repudiated the imputations
thrown out against the Treasury by Mr. Roebuck. He
chetisbed the hope that that learned gentleman would
withdriw his charges aleainst Mr. Wilsen,
Mr. DISRAELI held that Mr. Wilson bad satisfac-
torily answered the charge brought against him by Mr.
Roebuck. He also urged the house not to pledge itself
now to 1,5001. or any other sum as the sa'ary for the
county court Sedges. The great question to which the
house must shortly address itself was the reduction of
the public expeuditure in all its branches ; and, there•
fore, he hoped they would not pledge themselves now
to give Hell salaries.
Mr. ROEBUCK. then withdrew his motion.
POOR-LAW REMOVAL BILL.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the law for removal of pot r persons
chargeable in England who have been in other parts
of the Queen's dominions. At present, he stated
that Irish arid Scotch paupers wet° sent from his
country to certain ports, wheie they were shovelled out,
and no further care was taken of them. In place of this,
he proposed that the same precautions should be taken
with Irish and Scotch paupers as were now taken with
English paupers previous to removal, and that when re-
moved they should be taken direct to the workhouse
where they were chargeable.
Mr. \VILLIA.MS said it was impossible to obtain
information from the Irish paupers as to what parish
they were chargeable. .
After some conversation, in which Mr. Vincent Scully,
Sir W. Jolliffe, Mr. Floyer, and Mr. Baines took part,
the bill was ordered to be brought in.
REFORM OF THE CORPORATION OF LONDON.

Sir G. GREY, in moving for leave to bring in a bill for
the better regulation of the City of London, hoped it would
be hardly necessary for him to say that her Majesty's Go-
vernment approached the subject with no unfriendly feel-
ings towards that great body which would be affected by
the provisions of the bill he sought leave to introduce. On
the contrary, they fel: that that body, from its antiquity,
its connection with the metropolis of this great country, its
historical associations, and the great services it had ren-
dered at various periois to the cause of civil and religious
liberty, was entitled to respect and consideration. The ob-
ject of this measure, and he trusted its effect, would be in
nowise to diminish the importance or to lessen the dignity
of the corporation of London ; but he hoped, by remov-
ing the defects which might exist in its constitution,
or in the administration of its affairs, and by bring-
ing it more in harmony with' the spirit of recent legis-
lation with respect to municipal institutions, to in-
crease its usefulness, to strengthen its influence and
efficiency, and to render it better able to fulfil all those
great objects for which it was originally designed. In deal-
ing with this question, Parliament had the advantage of
two elaborate and careful inquiries. One vr ts that con-
ducted by the commissioners appointed in 1835 to inquire
into the municipal institutions of the country, and which
in 1837 made a distinct and separate report on the City of
London. The other was that conducted by the commission-
ers appointed in 1853, for the express purpose of inquiring
into the existing state of the corporation ; and the bill
which he should move for leave to introduce was mainly
foundel upon the recommendation of that commission.
The commissioners in 1853 were his right hon. friends the
present Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, together with a very distinguished
and learned gentleman who for many years occupied a seat
on the judicial bench with equal credit to himself and ad-
vantage to the public interests, but who had retired from
that situation in consequence of aphysical infirmity, retain-
ing, however, in the fullest degree all his high mental and
intellectual powers. That gentleman, at the request of the
Government, had afforded the public the assistance of his
great learning and knowledge as a member of the commis-
sion—he referred to Sir John Patteson. (Cheers.) It was
right to state that the commissioners had placed ou record
at the beginning of their report their testimony to the
readiness which had been evinced by all the authorities of
the City to give them the fullest information in their
power, and to facilitate the inquiries with which they had
been entrusted :—" We think it right," said the commis-
sioners, " to state that we found the utmost readiness in all
quarter to assist us in the execution of your Majesty's com-
mission, by the communication of facts and suggestions.
This readiness was manifested not only by independent
witnesses who were unconnected with the corporation, but
also by the governing members of the corporation, and by
its officers, all of whom willingly came forward to describe
their several duties, and to state the facts respectively falling
under their cognisance." He (.;ir. G. Grey) believed that
the authorities of the City would be ready to entertain the
bill which he should have the honour to introduce in the
same spirit as that in which they. had met the inquiry
Placed- in the hands of the commissioners. He did not
dresuine to anticipate that they would give their reads
acquiescence to all theproposals contained in this bill, but
he believed they would meet them fairly, dispassionately
and with an earnest desire to remedy any defects which
might exist in the constitution of the corporation, and to
render-it more effieient for the purposes for which it was
designed. (Cheers.) The commissioners added at the end
of the report, " Vire desire to state that altholgh Ve Wive

I found much which in our judgment calls for amendment,
I jet we have discovered nothing which can affect iejuri-
ouely the.honour and integrity of the officers to whom the
afftirs of this great corporation have been confided." The
commissioners in 1853 referred in the first instance to the
• report of the commission in 1837, for a description of the
actual constitution of the governing body in the City of.
L indon. The commiesion recommended that no legisla-
tive measures should be adopted by Parliament, for they
- sail that a remedy for ninny of the defects that existed
mightebe applied by the Common Council itself. In the
last report a reference was made to various acts which had
been passed since the date of the previous eeport, and also
,to various changes which had been made by the Common
Council. in order to carry into effect several improve-
mental but the commissioners stated that no substantial
or systematic reform had been made since 1837. With re-
gard to the recommendations they offered, the commis-
sioners state I they had taken the landing provisions of the
Corporations Act as their guide, making, of course, due
allowance for those circumstances which distinguished
London from every other municipal corporation. They
stated that the objects of the Municipal Reform Act were
two—first, to reform the constitution of the existing mu-
nicipal bo lies, and secondly, to enlarge their boundaries.
The commissioners gave at great length, and with much
clearness, their reasons for not recommending that the
corporations should be extended, to the whole -metropolis.,
following thus out the provisions of the Municipal Reform
Act ; but it would not be necessary to quote that; portion
of their report, inasmuch as Parliament had already ex-
ian:see its opinion on the subject by passing the Metropolis
Local Management Act of last year. With regard to the
constitution of the corporation it was right to notice an
important distinction between that of the City of London
and of every other corporation. The commissioners of
1835 stated in their first report that—" The meet common
and twist striking defect in the constitution of the munici-
pal c, rie rations of England and Wales, is that the corpo-
rate bodies exist independently of the communities among
which they are found. The corporations leek upon them-
selves, and are considered by the inhabitants, as separate
hais,44-401-Powl**-111$14rtsufsge4.
within the towns and cities from which they ate named,
but iu most places all identity of interest between the cor-
porations and the inhabitants has diseppeared." The coin-
missieners of 1853 went on to say—" From the defect de-
scribed in this passage the Corporation of London has for
many years been exempt. The manner in which the Com-
mon Council is elected has produced to a great extent an
identity of interests between the governing municipal
body and the existing municipal community, and has se-
cured to the latter a council representing their general opi-
nions and feelings." (Hear, hear.) The right hon. hart.
then stated, from the report of the commissioners of 1837,
what was the existing constitution of the City corporation,
the number of aldermen, common councillors, &c., with
the powers of the three courts. The bill which he should
ask leave to lay on the table was founded mainly, though
not exclusively, on the reconetnendations of the COlMlDS-
sioners. Its general scope was—first, to reform the con-
stitution of the City corporation and its jurisdiction ;
secondly, to abolish certain customs now in force which
were injurious to trade and commerce, and which had
been abolished in other corporations; and thirdly, to
divest the corporate body of anomalous powers, some of
which in the opinion of the commissioners should cease
altogether, and some of which should be transferred. The
main governing body would remain as it now was—
namely, composed of the mayor, aldermen, and common
councillors, the lord mayor and aldermen being members
of the latter body; but the number and constitution of
the several parts it was proposed materially to alter. In
the first instance, the commissioners recommended that the
number of wards, at present 26, should be reduced to 16 ;
and this would be proposed by the bill. It also proposed
to render these wards wore nearly equal in area and popu-
lation. It was proposed that one alderman and five com-
mon councillors should be elected by each of the. 16 wards
--making the total number 96, instead of 232. He believed
that 64 was the largest number of any council eleete I under
the Municipal Corporations Act; and the co_umi s oners
had expressed a very decided opinion that the existing
number in the City of London was too large, and ought to
ke materially reduced. An important change was pro-
posed as to the aldermen. At present they ware elected
ferlife ; it was proposed that they should he elected for six
years only, one-half of them going out at the end of each
three years. He proposed that the common councilmen
should be elected annually, their qualification to be the
same as in other municipal corporations, namely, the pos-
session of real or personal estate worth I,OOOL, or an annual
rating of 80/., the existing qualification of freedom of the
City, now required, being dispensed with. A material
alteration would also be proposed in the constituency by
which the common council was elected. The voter at pre-
sent must not only occupy a tenement in the ward rated
at 101., but he must also be a freeman of the City, and on
the Parliamentary register of the City, which made it ne-
cessary that he should reside within 7 miles. The commis-
sioners observed that this condition of re=idence was un-
fitted to the peculiar an 1 special circumstances of the City,
and they proposed to dispense with it. The bill also pro-
posed that no condition of residence should he attached to
the qualification of the voter in these ward elections,
and that the condition of freedom of the City should
also be dispensed with, which had the effect of
narrowing the constituency without improving its ,
character. The franchise proposed agreed with th it
proposed on the part of the City itself not long age, and
brought before Parliament in the form of a hill, but which
was opposed by the livery companies and rejected. The
commissioeers proposed that the common council with re-
duced numbers, and with the constituency lie had stated,
.fficersof- the corporation. e was also
ance with the scheme of the Municipal Corporations Act,
as applicable to other corporatjons. The commissioners re-
cernine.udetl, and the bill proposed, that the lord mayor,
sheriffs, recorder, and other officers now elected in the
court of common ball or the Court of Aldermen should be
elected by the Common Council ; and it was further pro• '
posed that the choice of lord mayor should no longer be
restricted, as it was at present, to aldermen who had
passed the office of sheriff, or even to aldermen at ell, or
to members of the Common Council, but that every person
eligible to he elected common councilman should also be
eligible to be elected lord mayor.- (Hoar.) The commis-
elopers thought that opportunity would thus he afforded
for electing persons of commercial eminence and influence.
It was proposed that the qualification of sheriff should be
altered, and should be the same as the qualification for com-
mon councillor. The commissioners further recommended
material alterations in the election of auditors. At present
there were four ; they were elected by the common council,
and held office for two years. The bill proposed that three
auditors should be annually elected from persons qualified
to be Common councillors, by persons qualified to vote for
common councillors; but no common councilman was to be
elected au auditor. Provision was also wade for auditing
the accounts twice a year, and for their transmission to the
Secretary of State. It was also proposed to extend the
provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, with regard
to the charging or alienation of property, to the City of
London. As to the court of Aldermen, it was proposed
by the commissioners, and the bill carried that recommen-
dation into effect, that the court of Aldermen, as distipct
froM a magisterial court, should be abolished, and
its powers transferred altogether to the common council.
With regard to the cow is of the City the bill w, old sub-
stantially carry into effect the recommendations of the coin-
missiorers. The Court of Hustings, they said, was prac-
tically obsolete, and could be made available for no good
purpose. That court would be abolished. The Lord
Mayor's Coutt and the Sheriffs' Court would be consoli-
dated into ono court. The appeal to the Court of St. Mar-
tin-le-Grand m ould be abolished • that court was seldom
called into existence, and this could only be done by appli-
ca'ion to the Court of Chancery. Its jurisdiction would be
tree sferred to the courts at I'Ve:trninster ; the appeal would
in fact be the same as that from the county courts. The
bill further provided, iu accordance with the recommen-
dations of the commissioners, that the Recorder should
be tho solo Judge of the Lord Mayor's Court, instead of
sitting as the Lord Mayor's asses•mr. With regard to the
Central Criminal Court, the Lord Mryor and aldermen
would cease to form an essential part of that court. He
now approached a most important subject, one on which
the Lill was founded mainly on the recomrnenda-
tions of the recent commissioners. They proposed that the
principle established by the Municipal Reform Act—that
notwithstanding any custom or byelaw to the contrary,
any person might keep a shop for the sale of wares and mer-
chandise, should be extended to the City of London. In
this recommendation the Common Council had themselves
expressed their concurrence. Therefore the bill proposed
to abolish all exclusive rights of trading—all tights of pro-
hibiting persons, not freemen, from carryingcin business in
the City. Other rights were proposed to be abolished, as re-
commended by the commissioners. First., was the right of
metage of grain, fruit, wares, and merchandise brought in-
to the City of London. These-rights ,were exercised by
usage, conferred by a charter of James I. This metage was
not confined to articles landed within the limits of the
City, but extended to all goods landed on both sides of
the River, from Staines, in Middlesex. -to Yantlett Creek.
This right of the City had been disputed, and a suit had
beeen instituted ; but it never came to an actual deci-
sion, something, in the nature of a compromise having
taken place. The bill proposed in addition to abolish the
monopoly of the porterage of coals and other articles exor-
cised by fellowship portrs ; also all street tolls on carts
not belonging to freemen. (Hear.) Here again the City
had been beforehand with Parliament in wishing to abolish
th ea right, the Common Council having recommended its
abolition. It was further proposed to repeal the enactment
requiring brokers to be admitted, and to pay certain fees
to the corporation ; also the restriction on the grant by the
Crown of any market within seven milesof the City. These
were all the rights which it was proposed to abolish which
interfered with trade ; and looking at the spirit of recent
legislation, looking at other municipal corporations--at
the great advantage which, must be derived by all persons
trading in the City of London from the abolition of these
rights—looking at the spirit evinced by the City itself not
to insist upon these rights, but to abandon such of them as
were felt to be onerous—he anticipated the ready acqui-
escence of Parliament in the measure be proposed. Certain
rights which existed as between the City of London and
the borough of Seuthwark would also be regulated, as re-
commended by the commissioners. There was one matter
of great importance connected with the dues levied by the
City, which no doubt presented considerable difficulty, the
duty on coals. (Hear, hear.) There were three of these
duties—one at 4d. a ton, which would continue at that
rate till 1862, and then revert to 4d. a chaldron, in which
form it was a permanent duty, having been granted in ex-
change for some claim which the corporation abandon
That duty was very heavily charged ; for the City,
collecting these duties, had appropriated them mainly to
metropolitan improvements, not confined to the limits of
the City, bat extending over the area of them etropolis
they had shown no disposition to make an improper use of
the duties levied by them on coals. But the result was that
this ed. duty was now charged for the Cannon-street im-
provement to the extent of 580,0001., besides compensations
sad allowances to coal.neeters of 70,0001-
The second was
an Bd. duty, the 'net proceeds of which in 1852, were about
113,0001. ; and this sum, with an an annual payment, of
115,0007., constituted the fund denominated the London
Bridge Approaches Fund. The duty was not a permanent
ruff ; it would expire in 1862 ; and it was calculated that
before that time the charges now existing upon it would
he paid off by the proceeds of that duty. There remained
the penny duty, making in all 13d• .pet
The net proceedsof the penny duty in 1852 were' 14,0001.,
all of which was payable to metroptAitari improvements.
This duty would alp intro 1861, coptdoxiag those

[ PRI OE 4D. STAMPED SD.

duties, one material fact was to be borne in mind : they
were not levied merely on. coal brought into the City of
London, but on an area very far beyond it, over a dis-
trict extending 20 miles from the General Post Office
—a district larger than that jof the metropolitan police,
of the Registrar-General, or of the ,Postmaster-;General,
and whose inhabitants derived no direct henefit what.
ever from the tax. The commissioners recommended
that these duties should be taken altogether from the
City of London, and placed in the hands of the Metro-
politan Boatel of Works, to be by them applied to
same general purposes as the City had, applied . them to,
subject, however, to the existing charges upon thetie. In
dealing with this subject, Government had come to the
conclusienthat the transfer from the corporation to another
body would leave untouched the great grievanceof the im-
position of this tax upon persons who derived no direct
benefit whatever from it. It should oleo be remembered
that in sanctioning the appointment of the. Metropolitan
Board of Works, Parliament had given that board the power
of raising rates for the purpose of execufing works within
the metropolis. What the Government proposed was this
—to allow the 8,1. and the rate to expire, as they would
do iu 1832, when the charges upon them would-be paid off;
and with regard to the 4d. duty, to levy it only for a suffi-
cient time to pay off the charge of 580,0901., and the ether
small sums, and then allow it also to expire. (Hear.)
He would next advert to the conservancy of the Thames.
The conservancy of the river was now placed in the-
hands of the corporation, from the bridge at Staines to
the junction of the Thames with the Medway. It was
proposed by the bill, in accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the commissioners, to place the conservaucy of the
river in a board consisting of the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty, the President of the Board of Trade, one of the
Commissioners of Woods, and the Deputy-Master of the
Trinity House; with power to employ persons under them
who would be competent to superintend the conservancy
of the river. No net,revenue was derived by the corpora.
tion from the rights of conservancy which they exercised.
A. question was at issue between the City the Crown
with regard to rights long ‘•
ti.varsr but threeteorpore
rights were .wliolfy ant
right of conservancy. The suit was approaching a ter-
mination ; and it was not proposed by the bill to touch
those rights. If the City succeeded in the suit it would
be left in possession of those rights and that property, just
as if this bill had not passed. All that was proposed
to be transferred in the conservancy of the river was
those tolls and dues which were not collected by the
City as a source of revenue to themselves, but for the pur-
pose of meeting the expenditure of the conservancy itself.
The bill further proposed to abolish the exclusive rights of
the Company of Watermen from Staines to Yantlett Creek,
which prohibited persons not duly qualitied from plying
for hire on the river. He would next advert to the police.
Here the Government had determined not to act upon the
recommendations of the commissioners—not from any
doubt as to the eenerel expediency of those recommenda-
tions or the correctness of the authority upon which they
were founded, but from considerations which he would
shortly state. The commissioners recommended that the
City police should be incorporated with the metropolitan
police, on she ground of efficiency and economy. If there
was no police in the City at that moment, no doubt it
would be right for Parliament to adopt that recommenda-
tion, and not to except some portion of the metropolitan
district from a general management which was applic-
able to the whole district. There was no doubt an
anomaly in a smell district having a separate control
over its police ; but the _anomaly applied rather to the
existence of a municipal corporation in that limited area
than to what might be considered as the almost necessary
consequence of the existence of such a corporation—the
possession of those powers with regard to a police force
which it was proposed to leave in the hands of the City of
London. (dear.) If this were a new claim on the part
of the City there would be no ground for it ; but by an
act passed in 1839 a very efficient body of police was estab-
lished by authority of Parliament, under the control of
the City, and under the direction of a very able commis-
sioner ; and though he did not say that no inconveniences
had arisen from the existence of the City police as distinct
from the metropolitan police, he would say that there had
been none of a serious character. There had been harmony
and co-operation between the City and the metropolitan
police—between the Government and the authorities of the
City of London ; there had been a readiness at all times on
the part of the City authorities to listen to suggest,ione as to
the employment of the police ; and whenever it had been
thought necessary to strengthen their cumbers in the City
by addiii.g reinforcements from the metropolitan police that
had beau readily acquiesced in by the City authorities.
Admitting, therefore, iu theory, that it w could be batter to
have the police under ono control—still, as they left,
within those narrow limits, a cirpozation of great dig-
nity and importance, and of very large powers, it would
require a ,trong case of practical inconvenience—stronger
than any that had yet arisen—to induce them to have the
corporation of the City of London in a position in which no
corporation was left---yamely, without any police whatever.
The bill, therefore, did not propose any alteration in the
City police; it would be left in the position in which it now
stand, but this would be no precedent for granting the con-
trol of their own police in other districts within the metro-
polis. The greatest inconvenience would arise from break-
ing up the police into small bodies under different autho-
rities. The position of those districts was cc totally dif-
ferent from that of the City of London, which had
exercised its powers most efficiently, that the ono formed
no precedent whatever for the claim of the other--a claim
which the Government could not for a moment enteitain.
There, was one other point on which the recommendations
t).. 3
jeetion to their acting as magistrates during the whole
perio 1 of their tenure of office ; and, generally speaking,
their duties had been extiemely well and efficiently per-
formed. But when their term of office was reduced trom
life t- a short period of years' awl they were made eligible,
as was proposed by the bill, for re-election, there was a
great obj action to allowing the office of magistrate to be in
necessary connection with such a tenure of office as elder-
man. In no instance was it recognised, save in a very ex-
ceptional one of the mayor of a corporation, who was a
magistrate during his year of office and the I.llowing year.
The commissioners of did not, contemplate the reten-
tion by the aldermen of inagteteriel du ties for they pro-
posed that the City should be empowered to apply, as other
corporations had power to do, for the appointment of sti-
pendiary magistrates to exercise that jurisdiction. If this
was lone, and one or more police magistrates were ap-
pointed, it was an tteipated that aldermen would retire from
the discharge of police duties,' and confine themselves to
what might he called civic duties. But it was not quite
safe to leave the question in that position. The City of
London might not think it right to apply for police magis-
trates ; or if they did, and such magistrates were ap-
poieted, the aldermen might not be inclined to retire from
the exercise of their functions. After full consideration,
therefore, be proposed that the aldermen of the City of
London should be magistrates only for the discharge of
civic business ; and that the City should be throwa into
the metropolitan police districts, fur the purposes of pelice
magistrates, though not of police—(hear, hear)—that a
new district should be created, consisting of the City, or
that the City should be divided amongst the contiguous
districts, so that the criminal jurisdiction should be exer-
cised by the stipendiary magistrates as it was throughout
the metropolitan district. The alderman would be placed
by this arrangement precisely on the same footing as were
the magistrates of Middlesex, who were excluded from
jurisdiction in the metropolitan districts, but who
performed, with great advantage to the inhabitants of Mid-
dlesex, duties relating to the care of prisons, asylums,
bridges, &e.,—duties which no doubt would be performed
with equal satisfaction by the aldermen of London. O'n one
other subject the recommendations of the commissioners
were not carried into effect—the Irish Society. The sul.ject
was one which required much attention before a satis4actory
arrangement could be proposed. It did not necessarily form
part of the present bill, and world, therefore, be reserved for
future consideration. He had now stated the principal pro-
viseene of the bill. which he ghoul,' ask leave to introduce ;
and he was sure it would receive the di p ssionate and celsn
consideration of the house. He anticipateit, from communi-
cations he had bad with gentlemen connected with the
City, that it weal(' be met by them in a spirit that would
insure a fair consideration of its different proposals. He
proposed to give ample time for this, because he had felt
it his duty to refuse a request made to him by some gentle-
men of the City to see the bill before it was brought in.
(Hear.) With the di-position which he hoped the City
would evince—with the disposition which he doubted not
would be entertained by Parliament to give a fair and dis-
passionate consideration to the whole of its provisions--
with all that attention that wes due to the importance of
the subject—he trusted that the result would be to give
greater efficiency to the corporation, to strengthen its in-
fluence, and to increase its usefulness. He would conclu le
by expressing his hope that the anticipations of the com-
missioners themselves would be -.fully, realised—namely,
that the changes in the conelltution of the corporation
which they haoe intimated, and which ate founded upon
the recognised policy s f the country, will place this corpo-
ration upon a more solid and enlarged basis, and that the
corporation will continue, under an amended system, to
possess abundant means, not only of public usefulness, but
also exercising decent hospitality. (Cheers and laughter.)
Sir J. DUKE did not anticipate that the corporation of
London would throw any unnecessary opposition in the
way of the measure, but he thought sufficient time should
be given for its consideration before the second reading.
With that view. he begged to ask the right hon. baronet
when he proposed to read it a second time. One part of
the statement of the right hon. baronet was not, ho
thought, characterised by his usual frankness. With refe-
were re-
the held.
rceeni
vceed tob -yt
e coalcorpdourtai
teiso, heof hijaodn
London,
wd
htheraetatsboefy
chargeds only 4,1. went to their account, they receiving the
rest as trustees for the Government. He wished to know
whether the corporation would have the appointment of the
police magistrates?
Mr. WILLIAMS considered that the bill, if passed,
would be of the greatest benefit to the citizens of London,
and that it would render the corporation second only in
importance to Parliament as far as the City was concerned.
Very great praise was due to the commissioners for the
care and ability with which their report was drawn up.,
and for the great pains they took ininvestigating theaffairs
of the corporation, which thought itself too strong for Par-
liament, and boasted that if the House of Lords interfered
with it the hereditary portion of the Legislature would
place itself in a position of imminent danger. As a citizen
of London he thanked the right hon. baronet for adopting
the excellent suggestions of the commissioners in the
framing of the bill.
Mr. MASTERMAN did int wish to raise any discussion
at the present stage of the measure. No doubt it would
be anxiously watched by the corporation, and he was there-
fore of opinion that ample time should -be given to examine
its previsions before the second reading.
Sir G. GREY said that the bill would be brought in and
read a first time that evening. He did not wish to press it
forward with undue haste, but at the sometime would not
consent to postpone it to any period which might endanger
its passing this session. He should propose the 21st for
the second reading, which would allow an interval of three
weeks to elapse,- which he considered would afford ample
time for the consideration of its provisions. He was afraid
of wearying the house by reading a very long and clear ac-
count given by the commissioners respecting the coal duties,
lent certainly thought that .he_had_ read that part which
stated that the City received them to the extent stated as
trustees for the Government.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
On the motion of )Ir. yruison it UI adored taut

w. , pro
Parliament

-
select committee should be appointed la)*
porary laws of a public and general notate are '
and what laws of the like nature had expired sinotthe hat
report upon the subject ; and also what laws ofltbe llest
nature are about to expire at particular periods, or is cone,
sequence of any contingent public event, and to report t)5
same and their observations thereupon to the house. The
committee to consist of Mr. Wilson Mr. Fitzroy, 44. -
A.ttorney.General, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Coirper„lfr.
Freshfield, Mr. Hayter, Mr. Peel, Mr. William Williams,
Mr. Horsman, Sir Benjamin Hall. and Viscount Demean.
BANK NOTEILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EBXCHEQUER obtained
leave to bring in a bill to continue for a limited period cer-
tain compositions payable to bankers who had ceased 'to
issue bsak notes. The right hon. gentleman stated that
the provisions of the bill were precisely the same as those
in the present act. .
INDIAN REVENUES.
On the motion of Mr: WILSON an account was ordered
exhibiting in sterling money the gross and net revenues of
India, distinguishing the several presidencies, &c., for the -
year ended April 30, 1854 ; showing also the charges of
collection and other payments out of those revenues, the
rates per cent, for which the gross receipts were collected,
and the public expenditure under its several heads of• ac-
count, both in India and England • the amount Of the
India debt, and' the home bond debt, with the interest
payable thereon, and the cash balances in the India and
home treasuries on APril 30, 1854.

SUPPLY.

The report upon supply hAving been brought up,
On the first vote being read,
Mr. BLACKBURN called the attention of the house to
the very large increase of the civil service estimates voted
last night as compared with former years, and expressed a
hope that when the house again went into committee of
supply a closer scrutiny of the Votes world be made. The
increase upon the three heads of supply granted, last night
amounted to no less than 11 per cent, as compared with
tho votes of 1854, or something like 5,C00,0001. on the
whole revenue, and reverting to particular Acme he found
one of 60,0001, on the sum voted for the maintenance of
public buildings, and an increase in like proportion on other
votes. He very much feared that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would find it an easier task to get the Efoifsio of
Commons to vote the money than to collect it from the
people.
The report was thenagreed to.
The Court of Common Law (Ireland) Bill passed through.
committee.

FIRS INSURANCES BILL.
The house haying resolved itself into committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the "XCV --,UER -
resolution o-
include i

invent

such agencies.
Mr. HADFIELD considered the proposition reasonable
and necessary, but he was convinced that if the duty on
insurance was reduced from 3s. to ls. per cent., the effect
upon the revenue would bo to make it a gainer, while a
great relief would be granted to insurers, and the system
of insurance much encouraged.
Mr. w ILKINSON was also of opinion that nothing
cou:d effect the object so well as a reduction of duty, be•
causa they could not compel a man to insure property in
this country or prevent him from insuring it in others.
lie considered that the present duty pressed very heavily
upon the poorer classes of insurer?.
Sir S. BIG/TOLD considered that it was perfectly just
that foreign agencies shouts be placed under the same re-
strictions with respect to the payment of duty as English
companies, but he did not think that at the present mo-
ment the right hon. gentleman would be justified in giving
up two-thirds of the duty, neither did his experience teach.
him that to lessen the duty would tend to increase the
amount of property insured or the number of insurers, fer
he recollected when the duty was only is. 6d. per cent.,
and it did not produce that great addition of business to
insurance offices which hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to
think would result from its reduction.

Mr. HANKEY admitted the propriety of placing foreign
agencies on the same footing, but was convinced that the
only way of remedying the evil was to reduce the amount
of duty, which was a tax upon the more providentportion
of the community. At present not more than one-third of
the property in the United Kingdom was insured, which
he attributed mainly to the restrictions under which ia•
surers laboured.

The resolution was then agreed to, and the bill was
brought in and read a first time.
CORPORATION OF LONDON BILL.
Sir G. GREY brought up this bill, which was read a
first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the
21st.

POOR REMOVAL BILL.
Mr. WILSON brought up this bill, which was read a
first time, and the second reading fixed for Friday next.
The house adjourned at 25 minutes to 10 o'clock.

•
*Zs'
,asr,

-.
river. -No net,revenue was derived by the corpora- The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved a
cim the rights of conservancy which they exercised. resolution on which to found a bill having for its obj ... ~,.A.r - , - -7
Mon was at issue between the City and the Crown include iathegenaral limikitectiag the . . ^ t aid ~ 4 ' %,. .
3gard to rights along the b . s d shores of t ins . nee coirviips,,,, ..t:„......,,..:...:1:,...,;..
_ii. ,
~..7., ,i , ,),
.... c ...„
sad ',,. , ~ .- ..- .„ , z
bet theiorpo*iti ' f....-. . . . •.-.lt ' ""
were -minify independent ', the'ezereise of their which a present are net required to'pej, duty, the act of •
f conservancy. The suit was approaching a ter- Parlianitnt am having contemplated the establiahtnent a
an : and it was not nronosed by the bill to touch ~,,.h ~.. ~,, ;