The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-23 00:00:00

was transacted, and where the toll was felt heaviest, most
fnconvenient, and troublesome ; but, in addition, they had
imposed a rate of '2s. in the pound upon the houses in the
vicinity. And what were the provisions of this bill? The
moment the improvements were effected, the whole ex-
pense was to be thrown upon those very persons who were
to pay the toll, and the rate of 25., and thus a consider-
able portion of the inhabitants would be taxed,—first, for
the toll ; secondly, for the rate of 25., and thirdly, for a
rate of 9d. for the repair of the roads. After these state-
ments, he was satisfied that if there was the slightest prin-
ciple of justice, the house would not go into committee
upon the second reading of this bill. He would ask how
the case stood, and what was the history of this transac-
tion ? The cost of the improvement was estimated regu-
larly at 20,000/. They stated themselves, for he had no
other evidence, that this estimate was exceeded by
not less than 24,000/. (Hear, hear, hear.) He would
ask if the London Dock Company, or any other Com-
pany engaged in a speculation from which they might
legitimately expect a certain benefit, if from some unforeseen
circumstances, changes in trade, or the establishment of
new docks, it should turn out that they were mistaken in
their calculations, whether they would have a right to come
to that house and ask for relief because they had made a
miscalculation? They were suffering in common with
the rest of the inhabitants of the district, and yet for their
own benefit and indemnification they wanted to impose
upon the suffering inhabitants the continuance of the rate
and toll. The London Dock Company proposed to -advance
30,000/. at s_per cent. and to raise it by a house rate, but
did they propose to be taxed a single shilling themselves to
effect this object? They had valuable premises in the
parishes of St. George and St. John, Wapping, and not
one farthing had they contemplated to be contributed for
these premises. They thought that they would
have ample security that their capital would be re-
turned with five per cent. interest in the course of
twelve years, and that they would have the ad-
vantage of a convenient access, obtained by
the money of others so improperly exacted. And this was
the bill to be continued for 21 years ; and they had the
courage to resist an express proposition to impose a toll
upon the greatest thoroughfare in London. No man could
read the clause without seeing that the London Dock Com-
pany were seeking to effect what would be a common
nuisance in that part of London—to make atoll-gate where
every minute there were numbers of carts, waggons, and
vehicles of all kinds passing and repassing. The house, he
was sure, would be astonished to hear that 180 yards of im-
provement would cost 62,000/., in addition to all that had
been already expended, and all this for 180 yards of road.
They stated that the trade of the district was injured by
the narrowness of the approaches ; he was ready to admit
that wide and convenient access was desirable, but though
many of the streets of London were narrow, trade had, ne-
vertheless, flourished there. He thought he had said
enough to satisfy the house that there was no ground for
the renewal of this bill, or to go into a committee upon it.
The committee itself would be a fine and a penalty, espe-
cially upon those who had active engagements ' • secondly,
from the expense of counsel and witnesses; and thirdly, as
the expense would fall exclusively upon the occupiers of
houses. He implored the house not to renew this impo-
sition upon the inhabitants of this district, and by that
means to increase beyond bearing those difficulties and
distress which unforeseen misfortunes had already produced.
The hon. and learned member concluded by moving his
amendment.
Mr. CL AY seconded the amendment. He would
trouble the house with a very few words, as this was a
subject to which he had given the deepest and most painful
attention. If there was a shadow of doubt upon his mind
as to the justice of sending this Bill into a committee he
would consent to do so, but he felt bound to say that he had
not the slightest doubt upon the subject. He had no
hesitation in stating that the improvements would tend
to benefit the London Dock Company alone. (Hear.)
It was of vital importance to the London Dock Company
to have a free access to their establishment, and it was his
opinion, that if they had not persuaded the inhabitants to
lay out one shi:ling, they ought to have effected that im-
provement themselves. When the improvement was pro-
posed, a vestry of the parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate lwas
held, for the purpose of opposing the bill, but the surveyor
of the Dock Company attended, and stated that the ex-
penses would not exceed 18,000/. ; and after a deputation
had waited upon Mr. Beeston Long, and learned that the
term would not exceed 15 years, the parish withdrew its oppo-
sition. They were disappointed, and the annoyance to the
public was as insupportable as the expense ; as yet the Dock
Company had not made out a shadow of a private right
which could weigh against so great a public measure. He
had investigated the subject with great patience and atten-
tion, and he might say with some pain, and bad deter-
mined to support the amendment.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN said the arguments put forth by
the opposers of the second reading were, in his opinion, of
little weight. It had been said that it was an advantage
to the Dock Company to obtain a free access to their esta-
blishment; why, the hon. gentleman forgot that they
had a free access by water. (A laugh.) A sum of money
had been lent on public faith, and surely the parliament,
and above all the reformed parliament, would never con-
sent to give in to such a monstrous principle as that money
lent on public faith should not be as faithfully repaid. If,
however, the question was one merely of accounts, let the
bill go into committee, and then the accounts of the com-
pany and the trustees could be fairly investigated. An
hon. member had stated that one of the trustees had re-
ceived 6,000/., but he, as one of the trustees, must say
that he knew of no such transaction. (Hear. ) Some-
thing was said about an old woman receiving an annuity
but he could assure the house there were no old women
trustees. (Laughter.) He hoped that if the house con-
sidered the question to be one involving the public good,
they would deal with it fairly. (Hear.) Let any man
travel through the line of improvement, and he would at
once acquiesce in the opinion that it was well worth the
money.
Mr. HARDY said that he did not wonder at the line of
conduct pursued in support of the bill, when he found the
24 trustees so mixed up with the London Dock Company.
It appeared that the hon. gentleman who had just addressed
the house was a director and a trustee of the road.
Mr. CHAPMAN—I am not a director ; I am a pro-
prietor.

Mr. HARDY—WeII, a proprietor. He could not help
thinking there had been a little jobbing with the London
Dock Company. (Hear, hear.) They had not laid out
their money for the public good but for their own advan-
tage, and that they had abundantly secured. If the bill
went into committee he should attend and oppose it.
Sir W. HORNE contended that there was no clause in
the act limiting its powers to 21 years only, or to prevent
a renewal of the same, if that limitation existed. He trusted
the house would not decide without due inquiry.
Mr. HODSON supported the second reading.
Mr. P. THOMPSON thought if this bill was carried
into effect, it would be a grievous injury to the public.
At present the trade paid a tax of 500/. for using this line
of road, and such a tax, it must be evident, must be a
great drawback upon the commerce of this great
city, ind, pendent of the particular expense, and
the personal inconvenience. ( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
As the question of a breach of faith had been introduced,
he (Mr. T.) must say, that after having listened very
attentivelr to all that had been urged by hon. members on
both sides, he must say that no case had been made out by
which a breach of faith could be urged against the trus-
tees, in consequence of the bill not being read a second
time. He had not heard anything even from the hon.
member for Marylebone in its favour, except a case
ad miserecordium, to send the bill into committee.
The hon. member said, " allow the bill to go into
committee. Ido not pledge myself to the facts. Ido not
pledge myself as to the construction di the Act of Parliament
but as there is a doubt, allow the bill to go into cod-
mittee." He (Mr. P. T.) entertained no doubt upon the
construction of the act ; and from all that had been urged
he thought that the parties to the bill were not entitled to
its renewal. ( Hear, hear.) Even if they had made out
a case, he thought that the house, balancing the great ex-
pense and inconvenience of continuing such a system of
taxation upon the public, would act well in refusing
to grant them that indulgence. It was said that
the committee was a mere matter of course, and would
be attended with no expense or inconvenience. (Hear. )
Was it nothing to compel parties to appear by •counsel
in that committee, in order to plead their case ? (Hear,
hear.) The government must appear by counsel in the
committee, the parties interested in the bill must appearef
by counsel, but who, he would ask, would appear on b
of the public who passed through these toll 13ars ?( Hear,
hear.) There was no counsel to appear on their behalf,
and their interests must consequently be in a great degree
neglected. The hon. member for Newcastle had said,
that going into committee was merely asking what would
be done in the case of a turnpike bill. The case was in
his (Mr. P. T.'s) opininion quite different. In a turnpike
road the trustees were obliged to make and repair the road, ,
and do every thing
necessary for the public aecommo-
dation ; but in the present case there was a rate
levied upon houses, as well as a toll ; and the
rate payers were compelled to keep the road
in repair, and watch and light it, and undergo all the
necessary charges which were in the other case defrayed
by the turnpike trustees. (Hear.) He trusted the house
would not put the parties to the expense of a committee,
which might appear a light matter to them, but was a
se i ius one to the public. As the most merciful feeling to
tFe promoters of the bill, he trusted the house would
reject it.