The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-23 00:00:00

DAfaFORD AND CRAYFORD CANAL.

Sir W. GEARY concluded by moving that the Bill be
read a second time.

Captain PE C HELL was very sorry to oppose another
measure connected with the county of Kent, but the present
was such a violation of the rights of private property, that it
was impossible for him to sanction it. The Hon. Gentleman
opposite had favoured them with his views on engineering ;
but so far as he (Capt. P.) understood, it went to defeat the
very objects for which it was intended. As a matter of
speculation it would be wholly unproductive. The capital of
65,0001. could never produce more than one and a half per
cent. The Prospectus contained a long list of concurring ad-
vantages; among others, the proprietors were to send 5,000
tons of pease to Covent Garden market. Mr. Wilks had
expended a sum of 80,0001. upon mills, and he was to be
taxed 6001. a-year by that Company; could the promoters of
the measure expect that any person would submit to so
monstrous an exaction ?--( Hear, hear.) He trusted that
the House, looking at the merits of the question, and the
quantity of private business that was before it, would reject
this measure. They might every day see Members torn about in
the passages, dragged from one Committee to the other, and he
himself (Capt. Pechell) had nearly lost the skirt of his coat—
( A laugh)—therefore, to save the skirt of his coat, the time of
the House, and the pockets of the public, he should certainly
oppose the Bill.
Captain ALS AGE R said this canal was intended, not for
the benefit of the many, but for the benefit of a few individuals.
It was not at all necessary or wanted, and he therefore moved
that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. F. FRENCH did not think that because one landlord
on the whole line was opposed to the project which would, if
carried into effect, be of great benefit to the country, one
opponent was not a good reason for throwing out the Bill.
Mr. GOULBURN said there was already a navigable
creek in existence, which was found sufficient for all
the purposes of trade. He did not see the necessity for a
ship canal, and if it was made he hoped the creek would
be saved.—( Hear, hear.) He could not support the Bill.
The Hon. and Gallant Officer had told the House, as a
nautical man, his opinion of the great inconvenience of the
Bill ; and he ( Mr. Goulburn) on behalf of the individual
stated the injury to his property.—( Hear, hear.) From
the statement of the parties themselves, who stated that
of the whole amount of tonnage, 25,000 tons would be an-
nually carried to the gentleman himself, and that he would
thus be contributing a considerable portion of the en-
tire revenue of the company, he thought the House
ought not to sanction a measure which appeared to be so inju-
rious to the individual complaining, both in regard to what he
had mentioned, and the inconvenience of having stagnant, in-
stead of running water, to his mills.
Sir E. CODRINGTON fully concurred in the observa-
tions made by the Right Hon. Gentleman who bad just sat
down. He instanced the injury done by the new canal to the
property of an individual. It appeared that it cut right
through his estate, going close to his house, and entirely de-
stroying his property. All he asked was to be allowed to sell
on terms of a compulsory sale, and if the great advantages
which it was said would be derived by 16 parishes really
would be conferred by the. Bill, he thought they would
be able to make the individual compensation for his losses.
He thought the Bill one of the grossest injustice, and trusted
the House would not sanction the second reading.
Mr. HODGES s-aid that with the exception of one land-
holder, all the others were in favour of the Bill. He hoped
therefore the House would read the Bill a second time.

Sir WILLIAM GEARY said a few words in reply.
Captain PE C HEL—The Hon. Member for Kent stated
that there was only one landholder opposed to this bill—now
on that evening two petitions had been presented against it.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Gallery
was cleared for a division, when there appeared—
For the second reading ll3
Against it
Majority for the second reading 7l
SOUTH PETHERTON ENCLOSURE BILL.

On the motion of Mr. A. SANDFORD, this Bill was
read'a second time.
HENLEY BRIDGE BILL.

On the motion of Lord ASHLEY, this Bill was read a
third time, and passed.

Mr. YOUNG presented a petition front the owners and
occupiers of land in York, against the Leeds and Manchester
Railway Bill. Also one from the parish of St. George,
against the Commercial Railway Bill.
Mr. FRE SHFIELD presented a petition against the
Eastern‘Counties Railway Bill.

On the motion of Sir W. TREL AWNE Y the Dover Har -
bour Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL the House at
its rising was ordered to stand adjourned till Monday.
The NOBLE LORD then said that as the adjourned
debate was the first in order, and as the Noble Lord opposite
bad a motion on the state of agriculture, he would not have
an opportunity of bringing on the Tithe Bill ; he would there-
fore postpone it till Monday, the 2d of May.—(Hear, hear.)
He would certainly go into Committee on Thursday, before
the Registry or Marriage Bills were proceeded with. On
Monday next, the Noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland
would move a resolution of the House on the subject of Irish
tithes.

In answer to a question, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated
it to be the intention to proceed with the Tithe Bill before
the Registry or other Bills.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

'The Marquis of CHAND OS said, thatiF;l;e debate on
the Carlow County Election was then proceeded with, the
motion of which he had given notice, respecting agricultural
distress, could not be brought on, and as he did not wish to
interfere with the Noble Lord on Monday, he should defer
his resolution till Wednesday next.