Lord F. L. Gower said, that if the grant was proposed next year, it must be entirely upon the responsibility of ministers; and honourable members would, of course, act according to their own judgments upon it. The House divided: For the Motion 118; Against it 14; Majority 104. EAST-INDIA OFFICES BILL.] On the motion of Mr. Baring, the House went into a committee on this bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed an amendment, to the effect, that the bill should only apply to such persons as accepted Offices of Profit under the East-India Company, with respect to which the Crown might exercise its approbation or veto. He also proposed that the bill should have no retrospective effect. Mr. Baring said, he had no great objection to the amendment of the right hon. gentleman, but was anxious that the bill should have a retrospective effect. Mr. Fergusson thought the hon. member ought, in consistency, to extend the operation of his bill to persons accepting any office abroad. He was inclined to vote in favour of the amendment. Mr. P. Thomson supported the bill, because it had a retrospective effect, but suggested, that the bill should contain a provision, making such persons as accepted offices in India eligible to be re-elected, if their constituents thought proper to choose them. Mr. Secretary Peel expressed his concurrence in the amendment but doubted whether the principle of the 6th of Anne ought not to apply to the present case; so as to make such offices as were specified in the bill, not tenable by members of parliament. He thought it would be a dangerous precedent to allow the bill to have a retrospective effect. Mr. Wynn said, he was impressed with the difficulties which surrounded this case. On the one side, they ought to consider the grievance under which the electors laboured, in consequence of the long absence of Mr. Lushington; while, on the other, the House must see the danger which might attend any measure that would open the door to the taking away seats from members of that House. They could not tell how far the principle might be carried, at times when party feelings happened to run high. Mr. Bright expressed himself hostile to to a bill of this nature. They ought, in correcting the evil complained of, to stand on their own common-law right; on their constitutional privileges, and on the rea son of the thing; all of which tended to support the principle, that the first duty of a member of that House was to discharge those functions which, when he was elected, he had covenanted to perform. If, however, a bill of this description were passed, he hoped it would not have a retrospective effect. Mr. Baring observed, that it was a very doubtful point, whether the 6th of Anne, to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, did not govern this case. The office certainly was a new one, created since the 6th of Anne. That act vacated the seat of any member "who accepted any new office or place whatever under the Crown," and particularly pointed out any person becoming "governor or deputygovernor of any of the plantations." Mr. Bankes was of opinion, that this case came within the meaning of the 6th of Anne, because the office was a new one, created since the passing of that statute; and no person could hold it without receiving the approbation of the Crown. Mr. Peel observed, that as this question involved many points of a delicate and difficult nature, it would be advisable to adjourn its further consideration. A committee of that House ought to be appointed to search the Journals for precedents, and to inquire whether such a case as that of Mr. Lushington came within the provisions of the 6th of Anne. Mr. Wynn was not quite clear that the case of Mr. Lushington came within the operation of the 6th of Anne, because the salary of the office was not paid by the Crown, but by the East-India Company. Considering it, however, as a very doubtful case, it would be better to adjourn the further consideration of the subject. Mr. Brougham entirely agreed in thinking, that further time should be allowed for the due consideration of a question which involved many constitutional principles. If this case were governed by the 6th of Anne, very serious consequences might result from it. He did not know whether Mr. Lushington had sat and voted in that House after his appointment; but if he had done so, and it were found that the office he had accepted came within thelo the meaning of the 6th of Anne, then he | how the corporation could be injured by was liable to a penalty of 500l. for every obeying the order. day he had so sat and voted. He was inclined to think that the case did not come under the section of that act, which had been quoted; but certainly it was a subject that ought to be maturely considered. Mr. Baring agreed to postpone the further consideration of the bill until Monday. If it should be decided that cases of this nature came under the 6th of Anne, a declaratory bill, stating the fact, would answer every purpose. The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday. After which, Mr. Baring moved "That a Select Committee be appointed to search for precedents in respect of members of of this House accepting Offices abroad without vacating their Seats." The motion was agreed to. HOUSE OF LORDS. CORPORATION OF LONDON -PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENT.] The order of the day for the further consideration of the petition of the Corporation of London, was read. Lord Melville said, that as their lordships had heard this petition read on a former evening, it was unnecessary for him to restate the contents of it. There could be no doubt that their lordships would not listen to counsel if they were to plead against any privilege of their lordships or against any practice of their lordships; but it did appear to him, that provided the counsel confined themselves to the manner in which their private interests might be injured by the exercise of a privilege of their lordships, they might be heard. With these few words, he should merely move, that the counsel be called in. Lord Durham said, that individually he could have no possible objection to counsel being heard on this point, and in assenting to the motion, he reserved himself till he heard what other noble lords, who were better acquainted with the privileges of the House than he was, had to say upon that subject. He must, however, observe, that similar accounts had been ordered from, and produced by, the corporation of Edinburgh, that corporation not imagining that any injury was done to them. He could not, therefore, imagine The Earl of Lauderdale thought their lordships should first appoint a committee to search for precedents, and report them to the House. Earl Grey, after a short conversation, moved, "That counsel be informed by the Lord Chancellor, that this House will not allow any question to be raised upon the privileges of this House, or the mode in which they are exercised; and that the counsel be directed to confine their observations to the manner and degree in which the interests of the petitioners may be affected by the production of the accounts which have been ordered." The motion was agreed to, and the counsel being called in, were made acquainted therewith, by the lord Chancellor. Mr. Harrison then proceeded to address their lordships. He said, that if no such intimation had been given to him as that which he had just heard, he should not have been induced to make one single observation which could tend to call in question the privileges of the House of Lords. Such were not the instructions given to him; and if he did by any chance make an observation that seemed to interfere with those privileges, he requested their lordships' indulgence for his inadvertence. In order to present the case of the petitioners to the House, he begged leave to bring under their lordships' consideration the situation in which the city stood, with reference to the bill now before their lordships. That bill was for finishing the approaches to the new Londonbridge, which was building under the provisions of an act formerly passed; and it was proposed to finish those approaches through the medium of a small tax on coals, for a certain number of years, by which the funds necessary for that purpose were to be raised. He here wished to call their lordships' attention to some facts relative to the origin of the rebuilding of London-bridge. The state of that bridge had attracted public notice for several years; and it was in consequence surveyed. The result was, that it was not deemed necessary to rebuild it; but complaints having been made of the navigation, and of the stoppage of the water-way; and it being shown, that by improving the navigation, one individual less would be required in every barge, it was thought advisable to rebuild it. The funds appli cable to that purpose were those derived from what were called the Bridge-house estates. They were very considerable, and more than sufficient for the erection or the repairs of the bridge and the formation of the approaches to it, on the scale intended by the corporation. The bill for that purpose was introduced in the 4th of his present majesty, and it occurred to the legislature to make the bridge higher than had been originally intended. It was ob the inhabitants of the city, where alone the corporation had any jurisdiction, to pay an assessment sufficient for such a work. The number of the inhabitants was too few to answer that object; and, besides, the improvement did not benefit them alone. Their lordships' order required, "that the corporation shall produce an account of their income and expenditure from 1813 to 1828, distinguishing sources from whence that the vious that this alteration must create derived, and the purposes to come was considerable additional expense. It was under these circumstances, that the city requested the legislature to protect the corporation against the possibility of being called on to pay large sums of money on account of the plan adopted by the legislature, and two clauses were inserted in the act completely exempting them from making such payments. They were not to be called on to meet any expense beyond what the funds of the Bridge-house estates could bear, in consequence of the legislature calling on them to construct a bridge different from that which they proposed. The corporation at that time wanted to postpone the building of the bridge, that these funds should accumulate until they were sufficient to meet all the expense; but that was refused, and they were ordered to build a bridge much higher, and in every respect more expensive, than that which they had contemplated. Under these circumstances, it was found that the expense would be much more considerable than the particular funds applicable to such a purpose. It was, he believed, often laid down as the law, that all property of corporations, whether acquired by charter, gift, or purchase, was as much the property of that corporation, as the property of any private individual belonged to him. It was laid down, in the course of a discussion last year, as to the property of corporations, and the use that might be made of it, that there was not the least difference between the property of a corporation and that of an individual. The Bridge-house estates produced the only funds that could be devoted to building: and the other property which belonged to the corporation, by charter or purchase, could not, by the legislature, be made applicable to a public purpose of that description. Improvements in cities were, generally speaking, carried into effect by assessments on individuals; but, in this instance, it was found impossible to call on it was applied in each year; also distinguishing such estates and funds as the corporation held in trust, the purposes for which the trusts were originally created, and by whom; together with the rents, issues, and dividends thereof respectively." Now, if the observations which he had made had any effect with respect to the private property of corporations, how much more strongly must they apply to the latter part of the order; which called on the corporation to give an account of all estates held by them in trust; in which they had no property whatever, but were the mere agents for others. He apprehended that unless those trusts were left specifically for the purposes of this bill, an account of them could not be called for. The learned gentleman then proceeded to point out the great inconvenience and expense to which the city would be subjected, if they attempted to obey this order; the proceedings on the bill being suspended until the documents were ready. The first part of the order could be obeyed without loss of time; but it would take them weeks to make out the other accounts. They could not hope to have them ready before the termination of the session; and they would suffer great inconvenience, not to say injury, by the suspension of the bill. The Common Serjeant was proceeding to address their lordships, when, on the motion of the earl of Lauderdale, counsel were ordered to withdraw. The noble earl then moved, "That but one counsel be heard on the part of the petitioners. ;" which was agreed to. Counsel were called in, and informed of their lordships' decision. Viscount Melville said, that, in his judgment a case had been made out, which showed that the House had not a right to call for these accounts. Two courses might be followed either to let the original order remain without proceeding further, or that their lordships should persevere... The former he thought the better course. The Marquis of Londonderry argued in favour of the production of the accounts. It was said in the preamble to the bill, that the funds in the hands of the corporation were not sufficient for the expense of this bill. Let them prove that, and he would not be indisposed to the infliction of this tax upon the public. He did not plead for those persons who were concerned in the coal trade, but for the poor of the metropolis, to whom the infliction of this tax upon a necessary of life would be productive of the greatest hardship. Even if the corporation could show that they had not funds to carry on the improvements, this imposition should be laid upon a general tonnage, and the entire weight should not be allowed to fall upon an article of the greatest importance. His majesty's government should not have allowed the city of London to carry through this job in this private way. they proceeded further,if they thought it fit that the bridge should be completed without having any approaches to it, such a course was open for their adoption. The arguments in reference to the necessity of having these papers were founded upon the assumption, that the City of London declared in this bill, that they had no funds which could be appropriated to the making of the approaches to Londonbridge, except such funds as were provided in this bill. The City of London declared no such thing. They stated, that the Bridge-house estate was not sufficient to carry into execution the improvements they stated that there was another fund which belonged to the City for other public purposes, and they wished to obtain power by this bill to appropriate it to these improvements. That fund, arising out of a duty of 4d. on coals, belonged to the City of London; and their application now was, that it might be appropriated to defray the expenses attendant upon those improvements. There was another fand, amounting to 11,500l. a year, in their hands, and to which allusion had been made. That fund belonged, under former acts of parliament, to the City of London; it was originally created for the purpose of paying the interest, and then for the purpose of paying the principal, of the debt due upon the Orphan's fund; and it was afterwards applied to various public works in the City of London. The accounts on the table would show that this fund had been appropriated to various public works in the city; and the city sought, under this bill, to apply it to the erection of the approaches to London-bridge. It was under these circumstances that the question came before the House; and their lordships had to decide whether, in order to make those approaches, it would be necessary to lay on a new tax; whether any other mode could be found out for paying for these works; and lastly, whether the mode pointed out in this bill was not the best mode of carrying them into execution. That question was for the decision of the committee up stairs; and as the bill had been already referred to them, they ought to be allowed to decide upon the whole of the case. The Duke of Wellington said, that in discussing 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 relative to the new London Bridge, and the consequence 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 concealment. The bill to which allusion had been made, had been introduced into the other House of parliament, and had occupied its attention for nearly six weeks: and the question for consideration was, were their lordships prepared to interfere with the labours of the committee sitting up stairs, and say that it ought not to come to a decision until these accounts were produced? If they determined upon doing this, he would tell their lordships what would be the consequence. The bridge would be completed without any practicable approach to it, even by foot passengers. That would Lord Durham observed, that the prebe a circumstance which would be disamble of this bill, after referring to the creditable to the government and to par- Bridge-house estate, recited acts of parlialiament. If their lordships thought that ment, all of which stated, that the funds those papers should be produced before in the hands of the City of London were insufficient, and that they therefore called r HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, May 25. COURT OF CHANCERY.] Mr. M. A. Taylor, adverting to the order of the day for the second reading of the Suitors in Chanc ery Bill suggested that as it was not probable it could be brought on that evening, it should be postponed to some convenient day. plantation sugar should be reduced from 27s. per cwt. to 20s.; that on East-India : sugar from 37s. to 25s.; and that on all other foreign sugar to 288. The com=" mittee were aware, that when the subject was discussed in that House in 1827, his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had in timated his intention of considering the subject with a view to some reduction! Last year he had endeavoured to redeem his promise by bringing the subject before the House; and he was followed by the chancellor of the Exchequer, who, though he had not made any distinct pledge, had left an impression on the mind of all who heard him, that it was his intention to make some reduction of duties in the present session. The subject was, he knew, connected with a variety of ulterior arrangements, involved in the popular representation of other states; but these, and all other extrinsic circumstances, he put out of view on the present occasion. Indeed, from them he intentionally abstained; not because they were without their bearings on the general question, but simply because there would be another time for more regularly introducing such topics; and that the proposition, to which he meant to confine himself, was ripe for pre-. sent decision upon its own intrinsic merits. Without saying, therefore, that the East and West Indies were not deeply involved in the result of this question of duties, he would confine himself to the single ground Mr. Secretary Peel said, it was his intention to postpone the measure until next session. He was the less anxious to press it now, as it formed only a part of a general system which would be introduced with respect to that court: but it was the in-that the reduction of these duties was of tention of government to introduce the measure at the earliest period next session. Mr. Brougham expressed his entire concurrence in the postponement of the bill till next session; as he agreed in thinking that there would not be sufficient time to give the full consideration it required. Mr. M. A. Taylor admitted there was not time to carry the bill through at present; but he earnestly hoped that ministers would give the subject the earliest attention next session, for the state of the Court of Chancery at present was tenfold worse than it was when he first introduced the subject to the House. It amounted to a complete denial of justice to the parties. SUGAR DUTIES BILL.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill, Mr. C. Grant rose. He said it was his intention to move, that the duty on British great importance to the people of this country. He knew that a question like this, comprehending amount of revenue, would be viewed with caution, and judged according to the consumption of the article which the people were thought to be in a condition to bear. In his view, the increased consumption which would follow a reduction of the duties, would far exceed the effect of the reduced rate of duty, and greatly countervail its amount. The present rate of duties upon foreign sugar varied from 27s. to 30s. per cwt., and in some cases from 32s. to 34s. Now, in the mode of affixing and re gulating these duties, parliament had adopted the worst parts of the colonial system. It was the object of that system to give the West-India colonists a certain monopoly in the article of sugar, while the result of the arrangements for effectuating it was, to give them the odium of such a monopoly, without any of the means of |