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

which it was bound to administer according to the
provisions of the trusts, and which it could be called
on to do by the ordinary legal tribunals. By their
Lordships' order, the city was called upon to pro-
duce an account of their income, and the mode in
which it had been expended from the year 1813 to
the year 1829, both inclusive ; distinguishing the
income and expenditure of each year. The city
could produce an account of the income and expen-
diture of the funds applicable to the purposes of
the Bridge Bill i►► a short time ; but of the other
funds, even if they had any connection with the ob.
jects of that Bill, they could not make up an account
before the end of the Session; and if their Lordships
shoul.l think it proper to enforce their order with-
out modification, the progress of the works, which
the public were so deeply interested in forwarding,
must be suspended for a considerable time, to the
great inconvenience of all, but particularly of those
who had property connected with the navigation of
the river, or otherwise depending on the speedy
conclusion of the works. The amount of the facts
then were, that the funds applicable to the Bridge
and its approaches in the hands of the city were ex-
hausted; and that the city was exempt by the law,
as it stood, from contributing any thing beyond the
amount of that fund; that as the alterations in the
plan of the Bridge and its approaches were the work
of the Legislature, the public ought to bear the ex-
pence; and that the city, as the mode most analo-
gous to that of imposing a general assessment on
those who derived the benefit, had proposed this

continuation of a small duty on coals for a ce►tain
period, coals being an article of the most general
consumption. The production, therefore, of the
private funds of the Corporation had _really nothing
to do with the subject under their Lordships' consi-
deration, an►}, therefore, that it would be an unne-
cessary hardship to compel them to produce them,
and for that reason they humbly hoped that their
'Lordships would make some modification in their
order.

Mr. DENMAN was about to follow, when
Lord LAUDERDALE rose to order, and Coun-
sel were ordered to withdraw. He observed that
this was the first time that their Lordships had
thought proper to hear Counstlagainst a compliance
with their own order; he therefore moved that the
hearing of one Counsel was sufficient.
This motion was put and agreed to ; and Counsel
were called in and informed by the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR, that their Lordships hod determined to hear
but one Counsel.
Counsel were then ordered to withdraw.
Lord MELVILLE said that the Learned Counsel
at the Bar had made out no case to induce their
Lordships to decline calling for the accounts in ques-
tion. They had two courees open to them—the
first was either to allow their original order to stand;
or, secondly, to make a new order expressive of their
determination to have the accounts produced.
Lord DURHAM thought it right that the City
ought to be compelled to furnish the accounts
forthwith.
Lord MELVILLE objected to the word forth-
with, as it was represented that it would require
some time to mike out the accounts.
Lord DURHAM said, that by the term " forth-
with," he merely meant the earliest period at which
the accounts could be made out.
Lord E LLEN BOROUGH thought it right that
the motion should be entered upon the Journals in
the regular form.
The motion was agreed to, and their Lordships
were about to adjourn, when—
Lord DURHAM said, he had a question to put,
which he considered of great importance. He
wished to know what was to be done with respect
to the London Bridge Committee ? That Com-
mittee had given notice of its intention to adjourn
to-day, and meet to-morrow ; but how could they
meet, and proceed to busiaeas, without the neces-
sary evidence before them ?
Lord MELVILLE said, it was for their Lord-
ships to decide upon hearing the whole case; for
hiMself, he had not heard, and, therefore, could not
decide upon it. It was clear, however, that the
Committee could assemble and decikaccording to
the evidence before them.
Lord DURHAM said, it was stated in the
preamble of the Bill that the funds of the City were
not sufficient to carry on the proposed improve-
ments in making approaches to London Bridge.
Now his object was to chew that the City possessed
ample funds for that purpose. The Noble Viscount
urged that the accounts could not be immediately
produced, when as he (Lord Durham) contended
that the Committee could not proceed without these
accounts, which the Counsel said could not be
furnished within a certain time. How then were
they to act? The Committee might sit for three
or four weeks, and then find that the statement of
Counsel could not be borne out. Objection was
taken to delay, but he thought it would be most ad-
visable to delay for three or four days, until they
saw it could be done.
Ater a few words from Lord ELLENDOROUGH
and Lord LONDONDERRY,
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that in dis-
cussing this question, some blame had been cast upon
the King's Government, It was certainly true that
a question had been put to his Majesty's servants re-
lative to the new London Bridge, and the conse-
quence was the introduction of the Bill in question ;
but he begged his Noble Friend to understand that
there had been no concealment on his part; neither
had there been any treaty entered into by him; for
when he had been asked the question, his answer
was, that he could not consent to the reduction of
the duty on coals, either as it affected the revenue of
the country or the funds of the City of London. He
begged their Lordships to bear this in mind, as by.
doing so they must acquit him of anything like a
charge of concealment.—(Hear.)—The Bill to which
allusion had been made, had been introduced into the
othet H9use of Parliament, and had occupied the
attention of its Members for nearly six weeks before
it was passed. And the question for present consi-
deration was, were their Lordships prepared to inter-
fere with the labours of the Committee sitting up
stairs upon the subject ? Were their Lordships pile=
pared to say that that Committee ought not to
come to a decision until these accounts were pro-
duced ? If they determined upon doing this he
would tell their Lordships what weuhl be the con-
sequence? The bridge would in the meantime be
completed without any practicable approach to it, even
by foot passengets,•—( Hear.)—This was a situation of
things which could not be looked upon as creditable
either to Parliament or to the country. If after this
their Lordships should be of opinion that the Com-
mittee ought to wait for the production of these ac-
counts, he had no further objection to offer, He felt
that he had done his duty in explaining the facts of
the easo, and putting the whole matter in a train of
inquiry, and haying done so, he would leave the re-
sult to their decision. The Noble Lord opposite
stated that the city complaitted Oat they bad no
funds with which to go on with the Pliely London
Bridge, unless what were to be obtained under the
provisients pf this Bill. He begged the Noble Lord's
pardon %Oleo be stated that no such assertion was
made. What the e4.),.did say was, that the Bridge
House Estates were not eta ciept for such a pur-
pose, but not one word did they say shout their
othor funds. The fact was that they did possess a
fund, aris.igg from a 4d. duty on coals, which, by
Act of Parliantaat belonged to the city, and which,
though directed to the Orphans' Fund, was appli-
cable to improvements in the city, and, therefore, to
the building and improving the approacles to this
new bridge. He thought that, under all the circum,
stances of the easeo it would be most advisable
to leave the question to the Committee, and
judge front their Report whether, in order
to make fitting approaches to the bridge,
it would become necessary to lay on a Lrger tax.
Lord DURUAM observed, that by the time the
year 1832 arrived, the City of London would have
taken no less a sum than 1,731,472/. from the Or-
phans' Fund. The Noble Lord went on to remark
that the mode of proceeding in that and the other
House of Parliament, with reference to Private Com-
L

House the Committee were empowered to send for
persons, papers, and records; but in their Lordships'
House it could only be done by a distinct and sepa•
rate motion. But this was not the only difficulty
which presented itself to his mind ; he very much
doubted whether the Standing Orders had been
complied with, and if so the whole proceeding must
fall to the ground. After what had fallen from the
Noble Duke it was not his intention to persevere,
but he hoped no obstacle would be thrown in the way
of the production of the papers as soon as possible.
The Earl of CARNARVON gave notice that he
would to-morrow present the petition from Birming-
ham, of which he had given notice for that evening.
The other Orders of the Day were dispOsed of,
and their Lordships adjourned at Half-past Seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS —(LAST NIGHT.)
Mr. LITTLETON presented two petitions, one
from the bailiff, burgesses, &c. of Litchfield ; and
the other from the freeholders of that city, com-
plaining of the state of the elective franchise there,
and declaring that measures had been resorted to by
two Noble families of the neighbourhood to alter the
state of the franchise in order to secure their own

influence.
The petition was laid on the table.
Mr. WODEHOUSE presented a petition from
Canterbury in favour of the East India Offices' Bill.
Mr. O'NEILL. moved for a return of the number
of persors entitled to vote at elections• in cities and
boroughs in Great Britain, the return specifying the
number of voters in each place.
Mr. H. GRATTAN presented a petition from
the Roman Catholic inhabitants of a parish in
Monaghan, and from the united parishes of St.
Mary, St. Thomas, and St. George, Dublin, against

he -Sub-letting Act.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH moved for leave to bring
In a Bill for the relief of the sufferers by the in-

solvency of the Registrar of the Court ut Madras.
Mr. ASTELL should oppose the Bill in every

stage.
Mr. E. DAVENPORT declared his intention of
withdrawing the Juvenile Offenders' Bill.
On the motion of Mr. DICKINSON, the Di-
of Counties' Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed to-morrow.

Mr. DOWNING presented a petition from the
Guild of the Guildery of Stirling, against the

Scotch Gaol Bill.

Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petitien from
the Shoemakers of Ashton-under-Lyne, against ex-
cessive taxation; from the Anti-Bread Tax Asso-

ciation of Kidderminster, against the Corn Laws ;
and from certain Quakers of a Parish in Middlesex,

stating that they flad discovered an improved mode
for preparing flax, and praying the countenance of
the House thereto.
Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition from the
Burgesses of Liverpool relative to the admission of

Fori:ign Sugar into this country.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
METROPOLIS POLICE BILL.

Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the
Parish of Hackney, praying that it might be ex-
empted from the operation of the Metropolis Police
Bill. The Hon. Member complained of the enor-
mous power given by the Metropolis Police Bill to
the Secretary for the Home Department ; and ob-
served that though willing to place every confidence
in the Right Hon. Gent. now filling that office, it
was impossible to anticipate who might be his suc-
cessor, and to what purpose that successor might
not pervert the power thus- conferred. Under the
new system, many parishes would be called to con-
tiibute a larger sum than they at present paid, while
no greater security would be afforded.
On the question that the petition be brought up,
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, I remember that
when the Right Hon. Member opposite (Sir J.
Mackintosh) made an attempt to mitigate the se-
verity of some of our laws, and in particular cases to
abolish the punishment of death for offences of a Ytt=
riotis chat acter in point, of aggravation, one of NI
resolutions was, that it was our bounden diiiy tb
consider the state of the Police, that we might be
enabled to mitigate our Penal Code. He urged—

and with great force--that the Legislature could no
be justified in inflicting the punishment of death,
until it had used all other means, and those means
had failed, The experience of the office I have the
honour to hold convinces me of the necessity of di-
recting the public attention to the subject; but as I
was determined to do nothing from myself alone, at
an early peried of the last Session I proposed the
appointment of a Committee to consider the state
of the Police of the Metropolis. It might be said,
that such a renewed inquiry was scarcely necessary,
because for seven or eight yews the House of Com-
mons has persevered in similar investigations. The
Committees have uniformly made the same report
—that nothing effectual could be done while the pa-
rochial police continued in a state so defective. A
conclusion was, therefore, arrived at, that it was ne-
cessary to regulate the whole by one system, and to
carry the plan into effect by one eontroulling power.
It was proposed by the Committee of last year that
an attempt should be made to improve in this man-
ner the parochial police—that for this purpose the
division and distinction of parishes should be abo-
lished ; and that parishes, in cases which referred
to the commission of crime, should not be left to
their own direction and discretion. This was
thought the more reasonable, because Government
is already intrusted with the power of watching the
roads at night by horse-patrol, of guarding the envi-
rons of the metropolis by foot-patrol, and of pro-
tecting the streets by the day-patrol. The local laws
were therefore fo be reviewed and consolidated, and
this in accordance with the unanimous report of the
Committee. Due notice was given in the course of
the Session of What would be proposed'; and so
soon as the proceedings on the Roman Catholic
Relief Bill lied concluded, I brought in this Bill,
founded exactly and literally upon the report- made
by the Committee on the 15th April. The Chair-
man did, what is not very usual, communicate a
copy of the Bill to all the parishes interested ; and
the result is, that we are now arrived at the third
reading of the Metropolis Police Bill, with only,one
petition against it. I cannot help thinking that
this is a tolerably strong proof that there is a pre-
valent impression in favour of the measure -among
the parishes—that the public interest will be ad-
vanced, and the commission of crime prevented, to
the additional security of private property. For-
tunately, this one petition from this one parish
affords the most conclusive evidence in favour of the
Bill. It is from Sr. John, Hackney ; and the sub-
scribers do not pray that the Metropolis Police Bill
may not pass into a law, but that their parish may
be exempted from its provisions : they add, that
however expedient it may be to apply them to a
large portion of the vicinity of the Inettirpolis, to
which opinion they are very willing to subscribe,
yet that the system established in their parish was
so good that the inhabitants were adequately pro-
tected, and it was not necessary therefore that the
parish"of St. John should be included. lam per-
fectly ready to admit that the parish of Hackney is
extremely well regulated ; by good segulutiojs they
have repressed crime in their district, and they com-
plain that by the Bill I have proposed they shall be
subjected to considerably increased expellee. Now
tho Hose will be good enough to observe my
answer to thatthat;-_The annual expellee to which
the parish of Hackney is at present exposed for
maintaining its watch, is three thousand two hull-
dred and sixty pound' ; and taking the utmost
limit of the maximum fixed by the Bill—viz. eight-
pene6 in the pound—it is impossible that it can be
called upon to contribute more than 3,4001. or only
two hundred pounds beyond the amount now ex-
pended. I will however, undertake to assure the
parish of Hackney, that when this Bill shall have
passed, and it is consolidated with other parishes,
its security from crime will be preserved at a less
expellee than is at present defrayed. But since it
is admitted on all hands that Hackney is so well re-
gulated, the question for the House is, what are the
effects of these excellent regulations on the adjoin-
larishee, and what security have we, that the