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

REVENUES OF TEM CITY *OF LONDON.

- - - - -
Lord DURHAM preiented a petition from
Henry Hunt, one of the Auditois of the Areountk,
of the Corporation of the City of London, come,
plaining of the titinner in which the Revenues of the
City are dilapidated. he petition stated that the
nevenues of the. Corporation,- independently of the
funds of the several Companies, amounted to
150,0001., it being chiefly in houses, and might be
made, if proper cure were taken, to amount to f.,tir
' times that stun. The petitioner stated, that in Hs
opinion, the Revenues of the City of London were
quite sufficient to complete London-bridge, with its
approaches ; and he prayed their Lordships not ro
grant an additional tax for this purpose.
The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the
table.
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
Viscount MELVILLE, referring to the.petition
which had been presented from the Lord Mayor,
Aldermen, and Common Council of the City of
London, praying to be heard at their Lordships' Bar,
against an Order of their Lordships, said he certainly
felt that their Lordships Were placed in a situation of
considerable difficulty, particularly if they looked at
this question as affecting their own privileges. If,
however, they were mot to allow any persons to
question their Lordships' privileges, or the exercise
of them—if the parties said nothing of the practieo
of their Lordships' House, but only came before
them to complain of an injury done to their private
interests by an order of their Lordships, he thought
they could not refuse to hear then,. After the best
consideration he could give the subject, with an un-
derstanding that the parties were to say noshing of
their Lordships' privileges, nor raise any argument
against the practices of the House, it was his opinion
that the petitioners ought to be heard. They ought.
to confine themselves to the shoving the injury
their interest would suffer from the particular order.
With these few words, reserving himself to make a
reply to any observations, he should move that the
prayer of the petition be granted, and that Counsel
be called.

Lord DURHAM merely rosc to state that he
had no objection to Counsel being heard against the
order. He would give no opinion as to the pro-
priety of the proceeding. If Counsel were to
he heard against the order, he thought it right to
state that similar accounts had been ordered from
the Corporation of the city of Edinburgh, and the
order had been complied with, without its producing
any injury whatever. He stated this as a precedent,
and he could see no distinction► between the two
Corporations, or anything particular in the situation
of London, which prevented it from doing that
which Edinburgh had done without any injury. Ile
should reserve himself to give any opinion that might
occur to him respecting their Lordships' privileges,
after he had heard those Noble Lords who were
so much better entitled than he was to deliver an
opinion on the subject.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE thought the pro-
per course would be, as the question affected tlier
Lordships' privileges, to appoint a Committee to
search for precedents. He recollected that last
Session the Earl of Shrewsbury prayed to.be heard
by Counsel, against an order of the House, and his
prayer was refused. He wished to see a uniformity
in their Lordships' proceeding„ and he believed that
no. precedent could be found for the course now
proposed.

Lod
ELLENBOROUGH thought the course
recommended by the last Noble Lord would not
produce uniformity. The petitioners, he supposed,
did not intend to question the authority of the House,
nor their Lordships' privileges, but only to shew that
their interest was affected by a particular exercise of
their Lordships' authority. So far, he thoneht,
they might be beard. After what had fallen from
the Noble Baron, it would probably be snore convo-
nient if the Lord Chancellor were instructed to in.
form the petitioners us to the points to which the K'
must confine their observations.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought, as
he city had positively refused, as was evident by

their proceedings in their Common Hull, to comp;}•
with their Lordship' order, that their Lordships
privileges and the Corporation were at issue, and
that their Lordships could not depart from their
course.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed, dint
their Lordships could know nothing of the objec-
tions of the city of London but though its petition,
and in its petition the Corporation did not refuge
the accounts. There were some expressions of nu
equivocal nature in the petition; and therefore he
considered the suggestion of the Noble Lord oppo-
site (Lord Ellenborough), for instructing the Lord
Chancellor to state to the Counsel that they were to
confine themselves to the interest of their client,
and not touch upon their Lordships' privileges, as a
very proper one.

Earl GREY agreed in the opinion that no oh.
servations as to the privileges of the House, or as to
the practices of their Lotdships, ought to he made
by the Counsel. If, in the exelTise of one of their
privileges, some parties were injured, t bey might
shew this at their Lordships' bar. On adverting !ti
the terms of the petition, he must say that it Iv,
geared to him improperly worded. The per;,(i,„„,,,,
admitted their Lordships' right to i.:tquirt: into those
funds they held as a public test under on Act of
Parliament, but not to other funds. He wits at a
loss to understand this distinction, and could
not conceive that all the funds of a Corporation
were not of the nature of a public trust. Ile
did not wish to dwell on what he th.:ught the
ineautious wo;ding of tho petition ; and regarding it
not as a question of privileges, he thought the peti•
tioners might be heard by counsel, strictly confinku:
themselves to explain the manner in which tho order
affected the interest of the petitioners. If they could
shew that an injury was inflicted on their interests.
without any corresponding public, advantage, it
would be proper for their Lordihips to accede to
their reques. He nttit say, however, that if the
Corporation Were placed i.n such a situation t,-,
object to the production of the account,,, it xvottid
proper in it to withdraw the .11111. and stop th.,..0 whole
proceedings, lie, for one, nevi©r would give his
consent to that- Bill wide" such eirebinstances, it
was u private Bill levying a public tax. It was no:
like a county rate, or a rate for building is gaol, or
any other county purpose--it was a Bill imposing a
general tax fur a spociill purp,isr. It wat the iirst
instance he b:vi ever known oi'l‘Jvyiog a general tax
by means of a private Bill. Ic was his detertnina-

`lin never to 4,1110..i0n a Ii ley vitae f.neh a tax
le.s it were distinctly shown that the,City, on whicti.