The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-07 00:00:00

COMMERCIAL RAILWAY BILL.

Mr. PRYME brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Commercial (London and Blackwell;
Railway Bill.
WHITE LEAD COMPANY'S BILL.

On the motion of Sir M. WOOD:CheWhTteLead
Company's Bill was read a third time and passed.
LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.

Mr. HERRIES moved the third reading of the
London Bridge Approaches Bill.
Sir R. INGLIS objected to the Bill because its
provisions had no relation to its title. He could not
agree to the destruction of the Church of St. Bartho-
lomew, Exchange. He agreed that the tower should be
ptillel down, because it was necessary for making a
proper thoroughfare, but gave a most unwilling assent.
But he could not consent that consecrated ground
should further be unnecessarily trespassed upon for the
purposes of traffic. He admitted that the Bill had the
sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
Bishop of London ; not however the authority even of
these Right Rev. Prelates would induce him to allow
such desecration of sacred edifices, which had been car-
ried to a great extent within the last half century. He
therefore moved the omission of the words " affecting
the Church in question."
Mr. HERRIES said he was not at all surprised at
the opposition of the Hon. Baronet, because such
opposition was natural enough for those who were
attached to the Established Church, and who had not
carefully investigated the subject as the Committee had
who had sanctioned the Bill. His Hon. Friend had greatly
overrated the importance of the church in question.
Though technically this was a private Bill, it was in
truth a public one, because? the improvements proposed
to be made were all to be effected by a charge upon
the funds of the Corporation of London.

Mr. PATTERSON supported the Bill.
Lord DUNGANNON thought the precedent con-
tainedin the present Bill was an extremely dangerous one.
It was a dangerous power to confide to any party to
authorise them to demolish the whole of the sacred edi.
fice, and he should certainly object to it. •
Mr. SHEPHERD contended that the pulling down
of a church for such a purpose and under such circum-
stances would be fatal to the best interests of the
country.

Mr. ESTCOURT thought the propositon a most
monstrous one. When they had evidence on all hands
that there was a vast deal of church accommodation re-
quired in the metropolis, it was most injurious to pro-
pose such a thing.
Lord EASTNOR opposed the Bill.
Sir R. INGLIS said that as the Bill proposed to
destroy one of the City Churches, he should oppose it,
but would not press the matter to a division.
Lord DUNGANNON thought that this Bill went
to establish a precedent of so serious a nature, that he
should certainly divide the House against it. He moved
that it be read a third time that day six months.
The House then divided, when there appeared :
For the third reading
Against it

Majority in favour of the Bill ... —49
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
Mr. WODEHOUSE moved the third reading of
the Norwich Tonnage Bill.—Agreed to.
Mr. DARBY presented a petition from Brighton
against the Government plan of national education.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON presented a petition from
a parish in the county of Roscommon against the na-
tional system of education.
DUTIES ON COLONIAL TIMBER.

Mr. VILLIERS gave notice that on the 20th inst.
he should call the attention of the House to the duties
levied on colonial timber.

Mr. MACKINNON gave notice that he should to-
morrow move that the name of Mr. W. Harvey be
added to the Select Committee on the County Courts
Bill.