Star.
London, England, 1829-05-23 00:00:00

CORPORATION Or LONDON.'

Lord MELVILLE rose and said, that he should re•
quest the attention of their Lordships to a pitaton
which he was about to piesent to the House from the
Corporation of the City of London. Their Lordships
would, reciTect that upa alormer day an coder had
beeu obtained upon the mottlin t f a Noble Baron op-
posite fur the production rf lt,me accoonts Lounected
with the estates of the Corporation of Lindon. T. e
order which had been then obtained was to the effect
that there should be laid before the House Retains of
the Revenues and Expenditure of the Corporation from
the year 1813 to 182 S, distinguishing the smut, s from
which the revenue was derived, and the i.urpores• to
which it was applied in each year; and acs of such
estates as the Corporation held in trust, together with
the purposes for which they were so holden, and the
persons by whom they bad been granted. In order
that their Lordships may. better understand the ob,er-
vations which he was now about to address to them,
he should move in the fist place that the present peti-
tion be read at length.
The Petition was then read by the Clerk. It proceeded front the
Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of Liodwr, recited
this Order which had been obtained on the motion of Lord Durham,
and submitted that the petitioners ought not, whether in reference
to the principles of the case or the practice of the Home, be obliged
to produce any accounts of the property which they held in trust
in a manner distinct from; that which they absolutely possessed; and
the petitioners finally prayed that they might be heard by. Counsel at
the bar of the Blouse in support of the allegations contained is their
petition.
Lord MELVILLE then went on to say, that, judg-
ing merely from the terms of the Order itself, he
should
have no hesitation in asset ting that it was such an Order
as the House was not in the habit of mak ng. as he'did
not believe that it was the prerogative of their Lord-
ships to direct any inquiry into the private e tates of in-
dividuals. He was not very well acquainted wish the
matters to which the petition teferred, and did nut know
enough of the case to justify him in 'moving that the
Order be rescinded. In the actual circumstances flit: a

.~

I

.El'

i

were two (tonnes to be pursued. The one was to
hear Counsel at the bar in support of the prayer of the
petition ; the other, which was the course which he
Meant to recommend, was, to refer the petition to the
consideration of a Committee. He understood•tbat the
greater part of the accounts required were already be-
fore the House, and that the Corporation would have
no objection to produce the remaining accounts in the
Committee er elsewhere. The question, therefore, to be
considered was, whether there existed sufficient grounds
for calling upon the Corporation to produce the ac-
counts in question ? He thought that the Noble Baron
. opposite had been premature in his motion, and that
the more proper course for him to pursue would have
been to move in the Committee for the production of
any evidence or documents which he might wish for.
However, as the case at pietent stood, all that be
(Lord Melville) could do was to move that the further
consideration of the present petition be referred to a
Committee on Tuesday next. The reason why he men-
tioned that day was, that the Committee would sit on
Monday, and it was possible that what should occur
there would prevent the necessity of proceeding any far-
ther upon the Order which had been obtained.
Lord DURHAM said, that he could not admit the
propriety if the position in which the case had been
placed by the Noble Viscount (Melville). The question
at present was, not whether sufficient grounds existed
or did not exist for calling upon the city of London to
produce those accounts ? That was a subject for the
deliberation of their Lordships at the time when be had
moved for the production of the papers in question.
Hia motion having upon that occasion been carried
unanimously, he had a right to assume that the grounds
on which he at that time rested his motion were deemed

by their Lordships quite sufficient to support it. The
question at present was, whether the Corporation had
• laid sufficient grounds to induce the House to abandon
the order which they had made after a deliberation
upon the facts of the case? The circumstances under
which he had moved for the order were—(and here he
should observe that, if the order were such a one as
was pot usually made, it was because applications for
• such orders were very rsre)—but the fact was, that the
present order bad been made in consequence of the
course which had been adopted by the Corporation
themselves. They had come forward and declared that
the estates which they possessed were not sufficient to
enable them to perform the engagements which they
had made to the public in 1823 for the re-building of
• London bridge, and constructing convenient approaches
• to it. They now said that they were unable to redeem
• that engagement, and asked Parliament for a grant of
a million of money to perform the task. This inability
of the Col potation was stated in the preamble bf the
• Bill; but he (Lord Durham) did not believe the pre-
• amble, and asserted that the Corporation possessed
• sufficient funds fin the purpose; and be• trusted that
• the House would not, in a case of that nature, refuse
to cell for any just arid necessary information upon so
impottiat a subject. If their Lordships, upon the
. present occasion, were to allow themselves to be bearded
' by these Aldermen and Common Council, they could
never expect to obtain the information which tbcy may
reqUire upon any future occasion. In the Acts which
bad been passed at different times in Parliament, and
, • especially in the 21st Geo. 11. it had been over and over
• again said that the estates of the Corporation of London
' were insufficient to defray the expenses of certain
wMks.for which provision was made by Parliament in
......these Acts. If the Legislature made these assertions
yeoncerning the estates of. the Corporation, they must
have previously inquired into their accounts, and ascer-
tained the t, of the facts asserted in the preamble.
• This was what the House was doing at present. The
• Corporation of London had Come forward and requested
a large grant, upon the ground of the inadequacy of
their estates to the purposes ref the building of this
bridge and its approaches. What the Huse had called
for was the proof of this inadequacy, and that the evi-
dence may be 'submitted to their judgment. He knew
that there existed a distinction between private and pub.
lit estates; but what private estates could the Corpora-
tion of London possess ? He was not much of a lawyer,
and did not, therefore, pretend to give any very autho-
ritative opinion upon this subject; but he conceived
that a private estate was one which was granted by a
donor to a donee for the exclusive advantage of the,
latter. A public estate • was one which was granted
for public purposes and the public advantage.—
The case, therefore, before their Lordships was this—
that the Corporation of London, describing themselves
in the Bill as bankrupts, wished to keep some of these
estates for their own private purposes, whether of hos-
pitality or extravagance, and, therefore, applied to Par-
liament for a grant to defray the expenses attending the
construction of London-bridge, for which purpose they
had already received a sum of 150,0001. He (Lord
Durham) was ashamed to argue such a question as this
before the House. Was there any body who doubted
the power of their Lordships to make the order which
they had made, or to enfer.e it afterwards? Was there
any person who meant to assert that there existed any
• power in this country greater than the power •f the
high Court of Parliament? It may be said that the
Court of Chancery would not order the production of
the accounts which were to be produced under the
present order. He thought that the cases in which the
Court of Chancery would refuse to order the disclosure
of accounts of private property were quite different
film the present. if the present inquiry had been di-
tected when the Corporation were not before the House
.there
may be some grounds for objecting to the inquiry,
but the present order had been made in consequence of the
• Corporation having come before the House. The accounts
which the Corporation had so great an objection to
. produce before that House they had no objection to
produce to their own members, and had actually, as
was now stated, printed them for that purpose. He
should say that the House had a right to receive the
information, and that the Corporation had no right to
refuse it; and he should. therefore, as an amendment
upon the motion of the Noble Viscount, move that
Counsel be heard upon the matter of the petition on,;
Monday next.
Lord MELVILLE said, that the Corporation did notl
at all deny the right of the House to call for the infor-1
'nation which they required, but only said that it was
not the practice of their Lordships to make such orders
as that which had been made on the motion of the
Noble Baron.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that he agreed with
what had been stated by the Noble Bunn (Durham)
that their Lordships ought to have the fullest possible
information upon the subject of the Bill. There ought
to be the fullest proof of the facts stated in the preamble,
and it the Corporation failed in the proof of the pre-
amble, they would, of course, lose their Bill. The roes-
.,
min now was only whether the House should hear
Counsel on the part of the Corporation on Monday or
Tuesday ? His Noble Fr rend near him (Lord Melville)
had recomnieoded that the further consideration of the
Petition be deferred to Tuesday, because be hoped that
the proceedings of the Committee on Monday might

render it unnecessary to take any further steps upon the
order. This was, in, fact, a public Bill, anti:l3o=ns the
Corporation to levy money for a public purpose. But
it was technically a private one, and had, as such,been
referred to a Committee. He would put it to the House
whether they would call in that place for information
which, according to the regular and established course
of proceeding, ought to be produced before the Com-
mittee ; and whether such a course would be either con-
venient in itself or in accordance with the practice of
the House? The speech which had been made by the
,Noble Baron opposite might with sufficient propriety be
addressed to their Lordships after they bad heard
Counsel on the matter of the Petition, as it would be
then the most convenient time to decide whether the
accounts ought to be called for or not. The only ques-
tion now to be settled was, whether the House should
follow a course which was certainly very unusual, and
order the production of these accounts before they knew
whether they would be brought before the Committee ?
He had only one word more to say about the expression
which the Noble Baron (Durham) had used about the
bankruptcy of the Corporation of London. He (Lord
Ellenborough) supposed that the Noble Lord alluded
to the clause in the Bill in which it was stated that the
Bridge-house estates were not sufficient to defray the
expenditure attending the building of London-bridge
(the Bridge.hcuse estates being supposed to be min-
sively dedicated to the purpose of keepipg the London-
bridge in repair). He thought that under all the cir-
cumstances the best course would be to accede to the
motion of the Noble Viscount (Melville).
Earl GREY said, that the Noble Lord (Ellenborough)
had sad that the speech of the Noble Baron (Durham)
may be more conveniently made when Counsel had been
heard upon the petition. He (Earl Grey) was of• opi-
nion that the speech of Lord Ellenborough ought to
have been made when the original motion for the order
was made. The question to be now decided was, not
whether it was convenient to the Corporation that they
should be obliged to bring forth these accounts, but
whether the House should enforce upon the Corporation
the order which had been made? It was a question con-
cerning the privileges of the House, and the course which
had been pursued upon it was so tar from being new, that
it was the course adopted every day upon occasions of
the same nature. The effect of adjourning the considera-
tion of the petition until Tuesday would be to refer a
question of the privileges of the House to a Committee,
and not to the House itself. It may, perhaps, not have
been a proper course to institutethis inquiry if the City of
London had not come before the House, and asked for
permission to impose a tax upon coals, upon the ground
that the funds which they derived from the estates were
insufficient for the purposes of the expenses of the un-
dertaking. But as the tax which they asked leave to
impose was to be laid upon one of the most important
necessaries of life, it was the duty of that House to be
satisfied upon the fact of the funds which the Corpora-
tion possessed not being sufficient for their purposes,
An additional reason for this was, that the tax to be
imposed was one very unequal and partial in its ope-
ration. The question was one of privilege, and, accord-
ing to the usage of that House, they ought to proceed
to the decision upon that question as soon as possible.--
He had no objection to hearing counsel in the matter
of the petition ; but be thought it ought to be done at
the earliest possible day.
Lord GODERICH said, that when the original Bill
for the building of London bridge was brought forward,
the Corporation asked for a grant from the Govern-
ment, and they, thinking the object to be of a public
nature, gave the Corporation 200,0001. as a gift. This
was 'ceded in the Bill, which gave the Government
power to lend the Corporation any further sum which
niay be necessary, the whole being estimated at about
1,000,000/. independently of the approaches, which
were not then thought of. As a security for these ad-
vances the Corporation mortgaged to the Government
the Bridgehouse estates; and when they said that these
were not sufficient to defray the expenses of the woiks
at present, they must be supposed to allude to the
part of the estates which had been mortgaged to
Government, and which amounted to about 40,00 W. a
year; when, however, they came to ask for an addi-
tional million, which had not been'thought of at the
commencement of the work, they ought to produce a
strong case to entitle them to what they asked. As to
the day on which Counsel were to be heard, he thought
it of no great importance, except as it regarded the pri-
vileges of the House; and as the Noble Viscount did
not object to Monday, he thought it would be the better
course to hear Counsel upon that day.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, that there was no
reason for the delay required by the Noble Viscount, as
it would be an insult to the House to suppose that the
Corporation of London should pray to be heard by
Counsel at the Bar, unless they were ready to proceed
at once to support the allegations of their, petition. and
he, therefore. should not have thought it unreasonable
if his Noble Friend (Lord Durham) had moved that the
Counsel of the Corporation be called in forthwith. The
conduct of the Corporation itself had rendered it
necessary for the House to see the accounts, and
gave the House a right to see them ; and, without
enforcing that tight, it would be impossible for them
to do their duty— (Hear). The Corporation, it seemed,
thought it would be a great grievance to expose their
accounts to the House; but were quite ready to show
them to a Committee, although the Committee con-
sisted of every Peer who had attended the House doting
the Session. so that the House and the Committee were
actually identical. But he doubted whether the Cor-
p:station could be at all heard upon the matter of their
Petition. It related to the privileges of that House, and
he (Loud Lauderdale) did not think that they could
allow Counsel to addresi them either upon the practice
or privileges of the House.
Lord DURHAM said, that before he had made the
motion which had led to the order of the House he sub•
misted the question to the Noble Duke at the head of the
Government, who told him that his Majesty's Ministers
had no objection to the production of the accounts which
he moved for. He inferred from this fact that there was
nothing in the accounts themselves which it would beat
all improper to submit to the inspection of the House.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that he had seen
the paper in which the motion was drawn up before it
was placed in the hands of the Noble and Learned
Lord upon the Woolsack for the purpose of being sub-
mitted to the House, and that he told the Noble Baron
that, as far as he then saw, theta was no objection
to the production of the accounts. lf, however, the
Noble Baron had done him the honour to communi-
cate the contents of the paper to him before he had
come to the House, he would have inquired more,
into the subject, and perhaps have been able to save
their-Lordships all the trouble they were now taking.
Begging the pardon of their Lordships, it seemed to
him and the Government that there was no objection
to the production of the accounts. but, if he had
time to reflect upon the matter, he should hate con-
cluded that the House ought not, in regard to either its
own dignity or the usual course of its proceedings, to
have acceded to the motion of the Noble Batons

Having, however, done am, the question now war, what
ought to be done in the present circumstances of the
case? The regular course. would be, to move that the
Petition should be taken into consideration• on a future
day. He thetefore thought that the motion of his Noble
Friend (Lord Melville) was the better course to he
adopted. As to the day on which the Petition should
be taken into consideration, it was a matter of indif-
ference. The question itself was of importance, not only
in regard to this Bill, but in reference to the general
practice and privileges of the House.
Lord DURHAM explained.
The Earl of hl A LMESBURY thought that, when the City of
London meditated a tax upon the public to the amount of £6O 000
a year, there was no impropriety in requiring a statement of their
affairs. With respect to delay, be was of opinion that a question
of privilege should Dot be kept in abeyance.
Lord MELVILLE bad no objection to postponement, with the
understanding that the matter should be considered upon Monday
next. . _

---
The Marquis of LANSDOWN deprecated arriving at infor-
mation in an indirect manner. -

Earl GREY thought that in a matter affecting their Interests
the Petitioners could not be with propriety debarred from the
privilege of being beard by Counsel. The Petition might be taken
into consideration on Monday, it being understood that the Pea:
tioners would then be prepared to proceed.
The Earl of ELDON submitted that the Committee should i
meet on Monday, with the intention of adjourning until Tuesday.
After some observations from Lords hlgt.vii.i.a and Duaitass,
their Lordships agreed to adjourn the consideration of the Petition
until Monday, when the Committee should meet, with power of
farther adjournment.