The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-19 00:00:00

LONDON (CITY) TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. AYRTOIst moved that the bill be read a second
time this day six months. He objected to the bill, because
under the guise of a private measure it sought enormous
public powers. The measure would give the city power
over the traffic on the other side of Temple-bar ; but strictly
speaking this proceeding would affect the traffic all over the
metropolis. It sought to introduce exceptional legislation,
whereas what was proposed to be accomplished should be
effected by a public measure of a far more general character.
Mr. MASSEY was surprised to find so stanch an advo-
cateov of local self-government as his hon. and learned friend
opposing a measure which would confer upon the city of
the Pub simply
power to regulate its traffic with a view to
go to He hoped if this bill were per-
miited to
sious would be private committee that none of its provi-
aimanpayed by the nuizance of street music,
crawling cabs
mr. cvp,ud_inaproper loiterers in the streets,
itD supported the bill, which he consi-
deredindispensable for the better regulation of the traffic
of the City. In thet e
reucourseii of a very short time there would
be three railway t
within the confines of the City,
and the public convenienc onld
the powers sought by the bilr ere be jeopardised, unless
conferred on the City.
Mr. LOCKE was advocate
of municipal institutions.
He would have been better
pleased if the bill had been
extended to the whole of the metropolis,
jected to committees of five, because they Hw"ke greatly
great
ly ob-
jected
deal of mischief. The bill should have been introduced
d a
as a public measure. He criticised th®
with respect to cabs and the delivery of provisions
coals,
as in the one case not worth legislation,
in the other as constituting a system that would increaseen'd
the cost of coals from is 6d to 2s 6d per ton, As the bill
was couched in the foim of a private measure, the parties
who would he chiefly affected by it would have no locus
standi before the select committee.
Mr. COX supported the second reading, believing that
some of the clauses would confer great advantages on the
public.
Sir G. GREY said the bill was only part of a plan of
legislation pursued for some years by the house. It would
be a great boon to the metropolis. He advised the house
to read the bill a second time, and probably subsequetly
it would be well to consider its provisions in a committee of
the whole house.
Sir J. SHELLEY opposed the bill, If the city was so
anxious to remove all obstructions to the enormous street
traffic, why was not Temple-bar removed ? The bill, to be
effectual, should be extended to the whole of the metropolis.
After a few words by Mr. SCULLY,
Mr. AYRTON withdrew his amendment.
The bill was read a second time.
sir j
SHELLEY gave notice that he should to-morrow

move that the bill be referred to a select committee of
fifteen.

POLAND—THE KNOUT.
Mr. SCULLY gave notice that to- morrow he -1 ould ask
the First Lord of the rt•tasury whether the -thtemePt in
the second edition of the Times of to-day to t effect that
a Russian general in Poland had issued a ,r(linance that
all Polish ladies attiring themselves in mou ng should be
punished with the knout, was authentic.
Mr. FORSTER gave notice that he should move an
amendment to the motion of the hon. member for King's
County (Mr. Hennessy) to the effect that her Majesty be
thanked for the papers presented to the house, and that she
be solicited to signify to the Emperor of Russia that his
violation of the treaty of Vienna in regard to Poland will
lead Great Britain to withdraw from the contract then
entered into. ,