The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-24 00:00:00

THE OATHS BILL.

The Earl of MALMESBURY thought, in the ab-
sence cf the noble tarl(Derny), the:r loroships bad better
defer further proceedings with respect t^ this bitl, which
etood on the paper for this evening, viz,, the considera-
tion of heir lordebipe' reasons for di,agreeing with the
Commons' amendments. He th• refore moved the post-
ponement of the orler until Thursday nvxt.

After a f.lw words from Lards CAMPBRLL and BROUG-
HAM, the motion was agreed to.

[LEFT SITTING.]

HOUSE OF COAMONS.—(This Day.)

The SPEAKER tool; the chair at twelve o'ekok.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following private bil:s were read a third time and
paved : —Athenry and Tuam Railway, B rkenhead
Improvement Commißsioners (Gas and Water), Dublin
and Meath Railway, Redditch Railway, and Stockton
and Darlington Railway (North Riding Lines)
LONDON CORPORATION REFORM. BILL.

Several petitions were presented by Alderman Cope-
land, Alderman Cubitt, Lord J. Russel', and Alderman
Sir J. Duke, against the Loudon Corporation Reform
Bill, especially against the clause that confiscates the
revenues of the corporation without compensation.
Oa the motion for going into committee on thin bill,
Mr. ROLT, considering the bill put in pieta the rights
of private and corporate property throughout the king-
dom, could net accept tie report of the committee to
whom tie bill had been refined, and moved the follow-
ing resolution :—"That the petition of the Corporation
cf London against the said bill, which was presented
upon the 28th day of May last, be referred to the com-
m.,. tee, and that the Corporation of London be beard
by their counsel, agents, and witnesses, before the com-
mittee on the allegations of such petition." He divided
the bill into two parte,ene fieancial the other political. The
financial part proposed the simple regulation c.f taking
away a large portion of the revenue of the corpe-
ratiou, without compensation, whilst those who received
emoluments from the corporation relative to certain
dues, etc., were to be compensated by the corporation
out of their remaining revenues. He objected to the bill
on the ground that it interfered with the rights of pro-
perty ; and Lis definition of the ownership of property
was, that they could be maintained in a court of law, or
could obtain redress for a wrong inflicted. There was
no distinction in law in the enjoyment ofpropertybetween
individuals and corporations, and they ought toconsider
the question of metage, tolls, and dues belonging to the
corporation as if they belonged to an individual. The
rights of property depended on their universality, and he
thought It neither just, wise, or expedient to interfere
with them by this bill. Toe income of the corporation
was 100,000/, a year from land, and 100,000/ a year
from markets, metage, and other tolls. With respect to
the 100,0001. a yar from land, a large portion of that
property would soon expire by the running oat of lease,
&0., and the corporation had very wisely put by for some
years 20,000/. a year, and must for sonic years to come,
to obtain a permanent income of 100,000/ a year. Out of
the other 100,000/. a year were paid for expenses ef
col-
lection of tolls, &c., which were very heavy. 10.0001. a
year were deducted for drawbacks on property exported,
and there were other charges which made the expenses
in that department about 30,0001. a-year, so that the
corporation had only 70,0001. a-year from the tolls, and
RO,OOO/. a-year from lands, making together about
150,0001. a-year. And how was that sum expended ?
There was a dolt of a million secured on the revenue of
the corporation one-half of which had been spent in
purchasingland for the improving and widening of streets,
the land for which had been dedicated to the pub-
lic. The interest of that debt was about 50,000/. a
year. The administration of justice in the city amounted
to 50,000/. a year, making together 100.000/. a year out
of the 150,0001. per ann. income. Of the balance, about
12 000/. per annum were spent in city improvements,
10,0001. in church and pensions, and 10,000/. for ieci-
deetal expenses annualy. The last amount might be
considered large, but the house must bear in mind that
one year they had to bury a hero ; another year to erect
a monument to hie memory ; a third to receive with be-
coming splendour and hospitality our sovereign ; a
fourth, a foreign prince. The civil government of the
city cost about 30,000/. a year, which lee thought was
not too much for maintaining the hospitality and apt en-
dour of the city. The public had advanced money to
the corporation on the security of the revenues, and
Parliament ought not to abolish that security upon the
good faith of which the money was advanced. All that
was asked was for the house to deal with the Corporal ion
of London in the same way they dealt with Liverpool, to
whom they gave compensation. The rights of property
depended upon the universality, and when once ecqu'red
they uo right to investigate this acquisition. The toll,
levied on goods coming up the Thames might be
unjust, but he cared not for the. They were ie
existence, and the owners had no right to be deprived
of them without compensation. They might adopt the
political regulations contained in the bill or enlarge
them, but send tack the financial part of the bi.l for
further consideration. The C ,rporation of London
ought to be heard. They might strike, if they pleased,
but hear them firs. There was neither wisdom, justice,
er expediency in depriving the corporation of their pro•
pertv. To do so would be an act of coefiscation.
Mr. CRAWFORD seconded the motion. Ile raid
the corporation c f London were as anxious as any
one to have the corporation placed on a footing
with the spirit of the times, but they were averse
to the conthcating character of the bill. The
bill wag read a second time on the
.understanding
that the corporation shou'd be .heard against it before a
select committee, though the right hon. gentleman the
Home S:cretary appeared to be of a different opiu:on.

The conviction on the minds of many hon. members wag
that the bill was to be sent to a select committee after
its second reading, and the corporation heard before tLeiril
Sir G. GREY said there were no rights of property in
a corporation the same as in an individual. The muai•
cipal cori.eration bill established the principle of dealing
with corporate funds without compensation. The beat
course for the honourable and learned gentle--
man to have taken would have been to move
the committal of the bill this day three
months or to have gone into committee, and on these
clauses have urged the arguments he had used in sup-
port of his motion when they could have been consi-
dered. If the further progress of the bill was to be
delayed, it should have been done by a direct mo-
tion. He by no means said delay was not neces-
sary at this period of the season and the state of
the Thames--(hear, hear)—for probably delay would be
advantageous. He, however, warned the Corporation
against imagining that the bill would then be amended
in accordance with their wish. It would then in all pro-
bability be amended more in consonance with
the interests of the public which in many instance were
opposed to those of the corporation. (Hear.) He be-
lieved the result of delay would would be to carry out
more fully the valuable recommendation of the Royal
CommissionerP, and the Corporation of London would
then probably re:,ret they had not accepted the concession
this bill gave them. If the further progress of the bill was
delayed, be should consider himself no longer bound by
this bill, and he should consider himself freer to act more
in accordance with the recommendation of the Rayal
Commissioners relative to police and other mat-
ters. (Hear, hear) He considered it was better to
go into committee on this bill, and then they could con-
sider the expediency of the corporation of London being
permitted to impose duties on corn after Parliament had
abolished the corn tax.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS congratulated the corporation
on their having retained the services of one of the most
eminent gentlemen at the bar in their defence, with
reference to the right cf the corporation to levy a tax
upon corn Messrs. Coombe, Delafield, and Co. many
years since refused to pay it, and the corporation of
London had not the courage to go into a court of law
and enforce it. He denied that the corporation of
London had b)rrowed a million of money without
having the most arnple means of paying
it off by the interest of the property in
which it was invested or by the imposition of local taxes.
The only sum borrowed without these advantages was
92,000/. for the building of Holloway prison. The At-
torney-General entered into many details connected
with the income and exp,dentute in comparison wi h the
Governmental expenditure of a similar character. He
would support delay if there was a probability of the re-
commendation of the Royal Commissioners being carried
out, and believing it might be accomplished by agreeing
to the motion, he would vote fir it.

Mr. S. WORTLEY had strong objeotione both to the
principle
and the details of the bill. He called attention
to the improvements the Corporation of London had
effected, and urged they were entitled to greater consi-
deration than they bad hitherto received. The bill in
its present shape was undoubtedly a violation o' the
rights of property. He suggested that the clauses
which affected the property of the corporation should
be postponed until some arrangement should Le made
with the corporbti n.
After some re narks from Mr. W. AsianTlN,
Mr. WALPOLE contended it was a waste of time to
discuss the details of the bill now. It would be better
to go into committee, where they could be better con-
sidered, and if necessary amended. The coal tax cught
not to be discussed now, because it formed no part of .he
bill. (Hear, hear.) He th ught they should deal
leniently and liberally to the corporation, and he denied
that there was any attempt to act towards them in an
off-hand manner. The bill was just to the corporation
and to the public, and if it wera delayed it might next
session aßsurne a shape less advantagocus to the corpora.
tion. (Hear.)
Sir B HALL asked the hon. and learned member for
West Gloucester if he intended to press his motion to a
division ?
Mr. BOLT Yes.

Sir B. UAW, said he regret'ed the hon. and learned
member had deeded on adopting that course. He
dissented from the principles laid down by the hon. and
learned member br %Vest Gloucester. Scarcely five
years since, when Sir C. Wetherell was in opposition,
he used the same argument on the Municipal Reform Bill
as the hon. and learned member for West Gloucester
bad used on thil; occasion, but be (Sir B. Hall)
need not remind the hoive that the predi•;tions of that
day lad not been verified. He hoped if this hi 1
stood the Government of the day would consider
it to be their duty to bring in a bill founded strictly on
the rep':rt f the Royal Commissioners of 1853.

Mr. S. WAIIREit believed that in the present state
of effAirs matters were not ripe for an investigation and
decision by that house. The bi.l in its present form was
downright c,rafi,c.tion. It attacked the rights and
foundation of property and menacvd the sanctity of pro-
oeri:y whether that of corporations or private persons.
The question before the house was, whether they mould
compel the CJrporation of London to Submit to
the going ii,to committee on a bill that deprived them
of :he grea•est portion of their property, before the cor-
poraiion had had an opp irturrity of being fully heard
before a competent tribun4. He thought the house
ought not to adopt tucha course.

Mr. LOWE considered the rights of property in cor-
pration ought to be respected, and not taken from them
exc.pt under pardmr,nnt circumstances.

Lord J. RUSSELL consid red the right of metage
ought to be abolished, and the qutation of compensation
was a grave one. IL bad no wish to dispose of those
rights in a summary mariner, and he thought it should
be reherved, with that of the coal duties, for future con-
sld,eration.

Mr. LA BOUCFI ERE said tbat the corporation, when
they abolished the street recognised the right of
interference vit 12 the other tols and ciutic,. The rights
and privileges possesriold by the Corporation were given,
not to the few inhabitants who now lived within a cer-
tain boundary tailed the City of London, but for public
purp • cses to the whole of the metropolis of the Britab
empire.

Mr. J. T. MORRIS d d not object to the passing of
that portion of the bill rela'ive to the political ohange,
but he was no- prepared to purchase it at the expense
of the coy& cation of the revenue of the corporation.
The queEtion of the whole of the metropolis being ad-
mitted to the privileges and rights of the corporation
had nothing to do with the proposed interference wi h
the rights of property, on the security of which large
sums of money had been advanced for the benefit of the
c:t•zn.:B and the public generally.
At 10 minutes to tour o'clock the debate was ad-
j turned by the forms of the house. The sitting was then
suspended.

The house resumed at ex o'clock, and Ras
[LEFT SITTING.]

MARKET NENVB.—(TbIa Day.)