The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-05 00:00:00

THIRD READINGS.

The Dulas Valley Mineral Railway, Wicklow Copper
and Hibernian Mines Companies, Uxbridge and Rickmans-
worth Railway, Banff, Portnoy, and Strathisla Railway,
Stirling Estate, Workington Dock, Desford Roads and
Accrington Gas Bills were read a third time and passed.
THE PRINCE OF WALES.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales entered the
house shortly after five, and sat on the front seat of the
cross benches. The Earl of Derby immediately crossed to
the Prince, and entered into a very animated conversation
With his Royal Highness.

THE ALBERT BRIDGE.
Lord CHELMSFORD called attention to the petition
for the recommittal of this bill, and moved that the bill be
referred back to the same committee. The proposed bridge
was proposed to cross the Thames between the new Chelsea
bridge and the old Battersea bridge, and would undosbt •
edly be of great convenience, not only to large areas of pri-
♦ate property on both sides of the river, but also to the
public property. It had been estimated that in four years
the whole cost of the bridge would be realised from the
sale of the improved approaches. The petitioners com-
plained that the committee of the Lards had
reported against the bill, and had rejected
evidence in its favour, whilst they received and acted upon
the evidence proposed in the interests of the proprietors
of Old Battersea, who were, of course, opposed to the
scheme.

Lord TAUNTON considered that after a committee had
come to a certain conclusion, it was too much for the pro-
moters of a bill to come forward and ask for an alteration
of that determination.
After a few words from Lord D 3 Ros,
The Earl of CAMPERDOWN said he had been a mem-
ber of the committee, and after the most patient hearing
of the evidence brought before them, he was of opinion that
it was not expedient at present to erect the proposed
bridge.

Lord CRANWORTH supported the motion,
Lord TRURO opposed the motion.
The Earl of DERBY supported the motion, because he
thought the advantages of a bridge in the proposed posi-
tion were too obvious to admit of doubt. Thereal question
for tho committee to have considered was, whether the pre-
amble of the bill (which stated that the biel would be of
great utility to the public) had been proved. That question
however the committee did not seem t have entertained.
Lord TAUNTON said the motion had been brought for-
ward at the instance of a very powerful party, and he
warned the house against listening to the suggestion made
by them for upsetting the deliberate decisionof the committee.
The Earl of DERBY thought the powerful party seemed
to be all on the other side. (Hear, hear.)
Earl GRAN-VILLE opposed the motion for the reasons
stated by the noble lord behind him (Lord Taunton), and
also upon the general ground of the inconvenience of dis-
turbing a decision cf a committee.

Lord TAUNTON again entreated their lordships not
to agree to the motion, and said that though, if it were car-
ried, he and the other members of the committee would do
their best to give proper weight to any new evidence brought
before them, still it would be done under protest, as con-
trary to his whole Parliamentary experience.
The Duke of MONTROSE supported the motion.
Lord REDESDALE opposed it on the technical grounds.
Earl GREY thought it might always be assumed that a
new means of communication would be advantageous unless
special reasons were shown to the contrary; and he was by
no means prepared to say that the time had not arrived
when some mode of appeal from the decision of a committee
should be adopted. He should therefore support the motion,
more particularly as the fact of a large number of persons
having been found willing to subscribe the funds for the
bridge seemed to afford strong proof that it was generally
considered to be required.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that, instead
of referring the bill back to the committee, it would be bet-
ter to discuss it on its merits in the whole house on the third
reading.

The Earl of WICKLOW opposed the motion.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought it was a dangerous
course to interfere with the general practice of the house in
its mode of legislating upon private business; and though
he thought they could not have too many bridges in the
metropolis, ho would rather the advantage of a new bridge
should be delayed another year than disturb the admirable
working of the present system with regard to committees.
The Duke of SOMERSET thought it would be better to
refer the bill to another committee.
Their lordships then divided—

Content

Not content
Majority
The motion was therefore lost
MARES (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS.
This bill passed through committee.
INCLOSURE BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
Their 10:dships they adjourned.