The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-26 00:00:00

allegation the whole Bill was founded, did not pos-
sess funds adequate to the purpose of completing the
Bridge, or that the funds .it possessed could not be
or ought not to be-applied to this purpose. In stat-
ing his objection t 6 the petition, he did not wish to
oppose hearing the counsel, Whenever the public
interest required it, he thought their Lordships could
not be too indulgent, or open their doors too wide to
the petitions of the people ; but their Lordships
must, at the same time, guard their own privileges.
He also agreed with the suggestions of the Noble
Lord, that the Lord Chancellor should be instructed
to apprize the petitioners of the subjects to which
- Counsel were to confine their remarks,•and with this
lirri;ation he should not object to hearing counsel.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved, " That the
Lord Chancellor be instructed to inform the Coun-
sel that they were only to speak of the injury the
petitioners would suffer from complying with their
Lordships' order."
Earl GREY observed, that the resolution did
not contain an intimation to the Counsel that they
were not to raise any question about the privileges
of the House, or the mode of exercising them.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH considered that as a
matter of course, and that it was scarcely consistent
will) the dignity of the House to include the words

mentioned.
Earl GREY then drew up another Resolution in
these words—" That there be an instruction to the
Lord Chancellor to inform the Counsel when called
in, that they are not to be allowed to raise any ques-
tion about the privileges of this House, or the mode
of exercising it; and that they be directed to con-
fine themselves to the manner and degree in which
their interests will be affected by the production of
;he accounts ordered by the House."
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY—This pro-
ceeding, if Counsel were heard, would form a new
and inconvenient precedent, and he thought u Com-
mittee ought to be appointed to search for prece-
dents, before it should be concluded that Counsel
be heard on the subject. In his opinion there
was no precedent for the proceeding. The object
of the petitioners was neither more nor less than
to set aside their Lordships' Qrder ; and. if their
Lordships agreed to do this,.they would establish a
dangerous precedent, and trench very materially on
their own privileges.
The Earl of ELDON suggested, that if the at-
tention of the Counsel were to be confined in the
manner Mentioned in the Resolution, the present
petition alight to be withdrawn, and another pre-
sented with a prayer confined to the particular
point to which alone the Counsel were to be allowed
to address themselves. The prayer of this petition
was not certainly so confined.
Lord I?.LLENBOROUGH could not pretend to
recollect very accurately what happened some time
ago ; but if he was not very much mistaken, it hap-
pened on occasion of the late Queen's trial that
Counsel were directed to confine their observations
to particular matters, when the petitions were much
more general. That happened, he believed, in two
instances at least, on occasion of petitions presented
by her Majesty. Besides, if new petitions were to
be required to be presented in such cases, it would
lead to a sort of correspondence between their Lord-
ships and petitioners as to the practical matters to
be included in the petitions, which would be at-
eetuded with great inconvenience. He thought that
the much better course would be to agree to this
Resolution.
Lord DURHAM would not object to the Mo-
tion, -on the understanding that the Counsel were
not to apply themselves to, the injury that would
arise with reference to- the objects of this Bill, but
only to the injury that would arise to the City from
the production of the papers ordered by the House.
Lord GODERICH suggested that the question
should be 'put whether the Counsel should be coiled
n, before the question eras put on the instruction to
the Lord Chancellor.
Lord EXLE,S-BORo.VPH—If . the Counsel
should bes.called in, it would-heionly for, the purpese
of ordering them to withdraw egatn; for they could
not regularly be present while the question was put
.on the instruction,
The Earl of MALMESBURY did not feel dis-
posed to object to the hearing of Counsel, confined
as it was proposed they should be; but he wished
to 'know whether this Resolution would appear on
the Journols.of ,the House, as he thought it very
material that it should appear that, although their
Lordships consented to hear the Counsel, they were
properly jealous of their privileges.
The Marquis.of LANSDOWNE—The Resolu-
tion would appear on the Journals, and shew that
the House had been properly jealous of its privileges.
The Resolution was then agreed to ; and the Coun-
sel, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Denman, and Mr. Lane, were
caned in, and the instruction of the House read to
them by the Lord Chancellor.
Mr, atantsos briefly addressed their Lord-
ships, and. stated that he had no instructions what-
ever to question their Lordships privileges, or the
mode in which they chose to exercise them, and
theref.ore requested, that daily thing that should ap-
pear to have that tendency dropped from him, their
Lordships would ascribe the inadvertence to him-
self, and not /a those by whom he was instructed.
lie then called the attention of the Lords to the
situation in which the city stood with reference to
the approaches to London Bridge, and the circum-
stances attending the rebuilding of it, or the build-
ing a new London Bridge. Their Lordships were
aware that the state of the old bridge was not such
as to c.ll for the immediate building of a new
bridge, but Just the call for the building of a new
bridge was very general among the public, and more
particularly among those connected with the coal
trade, on account of the obstruction presented by
the flux and reflux of the tide by the old one, The
city of-London had a fund called the Bridge House
Estate, applicable to the repair of London Bridge, or
the building anew one, if necessary or convenient;
and the city was'under no legal obligation to contri•
bate anything towards that object beyond the pro-
ceeds of the fund to which he had adverted. But
when the Bill for building the New Bridge came
before theLegisiature, it was insisted, on behalf of
the public, that the Bridge should be higher and
more extensive than the city proposed; and the
eity, then, in consenting to the alteration in the plan,
obtained the sanction of the Legislature to two clauses
in the Bill, by which it was provided that the city
should not* be liable to contribute anything to-
wards the expenses occasioned by the alteration
in the plan of the new Bridge, and the approaches
to it, in case the rents and profits of the estate, on
the credit of which the funds were raised, should
not be sufficient. The city had desired that the
building of the new Bridge should be postponed
until 1:21e Bridge Estate Fund should accumulate
so as to answe7 the intended purpose; but this was
not agreed to, and Bill was passed almost without
their consent. The adjitional expence, therefore,
both with respect to the brims .e and the approaches
to it, had been occasioned by the Legislature, and
ought to be provided for by the public, in as far as
they exceeded the particular fund nzplicable to the
purpose possessed by the city. Of the receipts arid
expenditure of this fund, the city were ready to
produce an account. As to the rest of their funds,
they submitted that the property acquired by the
corporation by grant or purchase, was as much its
own private property, and applicable solely to its
own private purposes as much as the property of
any private individual, and so it had been laid down
by the highest living legal authority in the course
of some late legislative discussions. This was a
private fund applicable only to the private purposes
of the corporation, and not to publicpurposes, which
had usually been provided for by a rate on the inha-
bitents of the city generally. But in the present
stance it would be extremely hard that the whole
burden should be thrown on the heart of. the city,
containing the Bank, the Royal Exchange, the great
Insurance Offices, &c. while the matter concerned
the public in general. If he was correct in this pro-
position, that the city was not bound to apply its
own private funds to this public object, the argu-
ment annlied still more strongly to the property