The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-02 00:00:00

moved that the issuing of the writ be postponed for ten days.
What he should suggest was that the writ be moved for to-
morrow (this day).—(" Hear, hear," and cries of" divide.")
1 Mr. MUGU f said that his motion was that the debase be
.
Mr. DLTSCOIIBF. said that heshouid be the last person
to ask the House to break through any understanding; bet
the understanding was, that the writ should not be issued
without inquirS. The Hon. Member for Westminster had
moved 'for an inquiry, and the Hnuse having decided upon
that point, he bowed to the opinion of the majority; but
the natural consequence of that decision was, tbatlhe elec-
tors of Ilerwich should' not' be deprived Of their
' (Hear, hear.) He believed the House was competent to de-
cide the question that might,
but If it thought otherwise
belied no objection to postpone thei motion till to-morrow
(this day).- (Hear.) ,
Mr.,111. J.,O'CONNELL said that it'was of the greatest
importance that the House should not decide upon thisqiies-
-,
li
tion hastily and without deliberation. As there could be
no election before the Easter recess, he thought the sugges-
tion of the Hon. Member for. Manclester would meet the ne-
cessity of the ca e.
Mr. WALPOLE said that when he gave his reasons' for
thinking that the writ ought not to be issued, he omitted one-
reason, for it might be supposei if he moved for the Writ,
bttobi
sa theto
rieGdidi
nebrooir
ooriurtdg.
_e:
(tHo
ceanrd,eial
hear.)
to
Hoeb
had
da t ahat odpvi
naittitgi
already stated.
The motion and'arneil
be issued, he should,prefer that the motion shot4dPe made
after notice giien.—( lle'ar.) •
his reaeous why he thought- the writ should-
Mr. DUNCOUBt gave 'notice thdt he would • 'lithe the'
he
se
s ran:Tot:l: the
eAlv Wl
paperl.()r.tet It
rihs jelnr roan6ttleCiidtis:ticriAsubt.Trrt
aoreen wntee:tstshl: edb it.armotion3n :a;
Iwdhi having
h
Sir R. INGLIS interfered, and said that
he appealed not
so much to the Hon. Gentlean as to the clock,—(Ahlugh.) It was now ten minutes, past eleven o'clock, and,lie asked the
in
Hon. Meniber whether there was any chance of silialP"
only
wdtai
discussed
ashs ee questionrcleaf (ti t b
thoseaas t h
whouhra?t might°The
licehu
air:hunt:a l‘ther isett:m
be able to secure the attention'of the House; hitt what chance
' Mr. TRELAWNY said if it wait the general feeling of the
House he was:willing to postpone the motion.—(Etear4-' -
Motion accordingly 1)044)1:med.
POOR-LAW COMMISSION•
rn(gbi
himself might
Sir J. TROLLOPE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
continue the Poor-law Commission for a limited time.
Sir G. PECHELL complained, at some length, of the con-
duct of the Poor-law Commission in• its attempt to 'abolish
the Gilbert unions thrOlighout the country, and particularly
hear.)
blamed the Commissioners for the course which they had
pursued with reference .to the parish of Alveretoke with
Gosport. The Hon. Baronet, after having commented at
some length on that case, conclude4l,by expressing his belief
law Commissioners in the matter.
that there was nothing tolustify the conduct of, the Poor-

In reply to anaestion from Lord D. STUART,
SitJ. TROLLOPE thought his ilon. and Gallant Friend
z
(Sir G. Pechell) bizght to have deferred' his motion 'for copies
of the retort, Mr. HaMey'faade to the Poor-law COmniis-
sioners until he (Sir J. Trollope) had introduced his Bill for
continuing the Poor-law Commission for a limited period.
As for the, Bill, he only sought by• it to continue the Poor-
law Commission fur two years, and he should now venture
to ask the House to allow him to introduce his Bill.
Leave was given to introduce the Bill..
• Sir J. TROLLOPE moved for leave to bring Majesty,
a Bill to
continue an Act of the fifteenth., year of her Majesty, for
charging the maintenance of Certain,
poor persons ia unions
in England and Wales uponthe common fund.
Sir H. WiLLOUGHBY inquired whether it was the
i
intention of the Hon Member (Sir J. Trollope) to wind up
the Commission at the endof two years? '
Sir J. •TROLLOPE replied, the molter did not rest with
him. He now only asked for leave to bring in, is Bill.
The Bill was then brought in. •. , . , .
SthireGP.ooPr-ElCawillitoaLrdy moved-for
es of the, report made
to
Hawley,c
poor-Jaw inspector,
dated the 20th day of October, 1851, relating to the parish
of Aiverstoke with Gosport, incorporated uader Gilbert's
Act, with a copy of the order issued by the Poor-Jaw Board
to the visitor and guardians of 'the said parish, dated the
28th day of February, 18i2, with the copy of the ,ietter that
accompanied the same, dated the 9th day of March, 1852;
'together with the copies of all, correspondence which •has •
taken place since the last-mentioned date oetween the Poor-
law Board and the guaidians of the poor of the said parish,
and other parties, on the subject of such order. And, of
'the several .r.ports .made on the inspection of Alverstoke.
workhouse, by Messrs. CainPbell and Gaskell,, on the 21st
day of December, 1849; by Viscount Courtenay, on the
Ist day of August, 1850: by Mr. Redduck, on the 9th day
of April, 1831; and by'afr. Hawley, on the sth day of June,
1851.

Sir 3, TROLLOPE objected to the latter part of the
motion.

Sir PECHELL must insist on having it.
Sir J. TROLLOPS could not comply, as the papers were
not in possession of the Poor-law Board.
Sir G. PECH ELL withdrew the latter part of, the motion,
and the amended motion suds agreed to.
Sir G. PECHELL moved fur a return of the amount of
reight-inoney received by the treasurer of Greenwich His.
pital, in each year, since, the year Ik3 19, stating in' what pro=
yortion the freight-money tor the conveyance of specie is
divided betweeen the royal hospital, the captains and 'com-
'menders of her Majesty's ships, and ,the admirals and
commodores of the several stations where the treasure was
embarked.

• The motion was agreed to.
The O'GORMAN MAHON obtained leave to bring in
a Bill to amend the Acts for lighting towns in Ireland, and
for promoting trade, commerce, and public revenue by drain-
age and navigation, so far as relates to Ennis and the River
Fergus.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTS AMENDMENT

BILL

The House having gone into Committee on the Bill,
Mr. HEADLAM moved, as ,an ,amendment, the addition
of the following words at the end of section 1:—" or in any
banking company which may have had, or may hereafter
have, dealings or transactions with any such councillors,
commissioners, or trustees of such borough."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having objected to the
amendment,

The C.nrnittee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ...
Against ...
Majority against ... •••
The clause was then agreed to.
After some observations from Dlr. H. EDWARDS,
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, and
the Muse resumed.

13
37'
-24

verally read 8 third time, and passed; and
and the Marine Mutiny Bill were se-
aouguasetiintasy4it. M
d i 1113 17--'.;--'--'------ f • with .'Mr•
Rear-A mr- er eley, C 8., paired off or,
°lll3l:ined ,at a Quarter to One o'clock-
Mr. George Thonlpson paired in favour of Mr. Tro-
t Berkeley's motion on the 'ballot.
lawny's motion on church-rates, with Mr. H. O. Lacy.
..........-
Colville,
Tr hb: l
1111

.
The following is
WEST/Elt-a-ti GE
the report of the Westminster.,
bridge Commission of 1851:
‘, e 10 Tun LORDS COMSIISSIoNERS OF lIER MAJESTY 8
" We,. the Coissioners appointed TREASURY.
,
directions , contained in a letter from your Lord•
ships dated the 20th of may,
1851, nominating us
mmunder the,
to b.) .Curenliatnouers for ' the purpose of '4:con-
sidering the best acid most convenient site for
a new bridge at Westminster, and, at the same
`time, what will he the best mode f construction with re-
navigatien,', having
examined witnesses, and taken the
Opinion ofseveral most eminent engineers and architects
.affic over it and to the purposes of
:ear etnhceesebpo:tiinttob , tbbeegt,to
"Tne soonest of
, the rebuilding of Westminster bridge
has already 'submit the following report:—
has the attention of three Committees,
or the House Of Commons in the years 1844, 1846, and
1850. .. , .
.. o in the report of the first of these Committees, made
mended certain alte fur the purpose of in the year 1844, it is stated to be their opinion that a
pew bridge would not h
ee required; but they recom-
d strengthening rationspresent structure.
" The committee el 1846 took a different view of the
subject, and resolved unanimously that the present
improving
eh,,uld be .cobatructed. '
" The Committee of 1850, concurring in this opinion,
bridgashoulo be taken
down and that a new bridge
advised
to erect a that,a p
temporarower should be taken by Act of Parlia-
ment - y bridge adjoining the present
cessary ; and they further recommended than an inquiry
- work' should be rendered ne-
ts :rouucltdu rbee,
made
nacdaes case
for
suchth .E ~ a
, Purpose both of ascertaining the
most economical Inoue of nuir.rig
ql another bridge 'on or
of deciding the height of head.
the convenience of the navigation . . . .
which would be necessary for
the
ey
presentaovo Trinitygie' and
d:tlua m°
tiie" Texhpile'd not having been commenced,
tieurancpyoroafryateltVggeunder
Parliament-in the session .o 1850 is open for reconeide-
ration. . „
~ the power Conferred by
" The subject of our 'inn 6.1
.u-nies dividet intself into two
portions—one having reference to the question of ' ''site',
for the new bridge, and the other as to ite ' mode of con.
struction.'
" In the evidence we have taken several-siter were
suggested for our consideration: ~.... . .
" 1. That the new bridge should be on the site of the
. ~,. . .
present bridge. • - . . ,
"2. That in should be built at some distance from the
.present bridge, lower down the river
; • .
. , "3.. That it shouldherrected adjoiniann d
g, or as near as
possible to, the present structure..
" Theadvantage of the first-of these plans,- ' that the
new bridge should boon the site of the present bridge,'"
is, that the:approaches would be -provided without atddi- 1
tional expense ;• but; on` the other hand we'consider that
these approaehes are inadequate to the requirements
of the present daily increasing traffie, and occasion 'both
inconvenience and danger. This plan would-necessarily
involve the erection of a temporary etidget and ,i
We are
informed that the -site' of thealdpiers would preSent
. .fii.fficultieS in constructing the ' foundation of newpiere.
.This course would, moreover, -aloe fieCeitiitate the entire
-removal of the. old bridge' before the -new 'one Could be
commenced, and would consequently Occasion delay' Ural
'increase the cost of thia removal,
. '
...
~
In considering this plan, the period of time eviiloh.
Would necessarily be occupied in the ' completion "ef
these successive structureteshould not be overlooked. A
temporary bridge could not be brought into use in leas
than 18 months from its commencement, and the works
*fur the new permanent structure • could not be corn-
menced , till ,the 'opening of the temporary bridge... We
are 'also informed that the permanent bridge could not
be constructed in two:' years. The temporary bridge
would delay the permanent structure for which it would
id the meantime be an inconvenient substitute. For
these reasons-we cannot recommend the adoption of the
present site as the best suited for the new bridge, and
We deem it-desirable to select a site which may enable
ul to avoid the expense and the delay of a temporary.
bridge. . .
With respect to the second p1ae....., That the new
bridge should be built at some distance from the present
bridge, lower down the river,' we have renewed the in-
quiry into the sites which have at various times been'
proposed for a bridge-in lien of the existing Westmin
ster- bridge, and which are referred to in the reports of
the Parliamentary Committees- on this subject. The
following sites have more partiedlarly attracted our
attention :---,Cbariug.cross,,Richmonthterrace,' the India
Board. All 'these. are"-more or less liable. to the. alma
obje ctione, namely, an increase of expense and additional
d,,lay in securing a permanent comullm!ctqiela autos
ibe river. • -- ' - -:-.... .-: • - '—•-, ---- - '--• - -
,