The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-19 00:00:00

BRIDGE.

Mr. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURT moved the second
reading of this Bill.
Mr. TO OKE moved that the Bill be read a second time this
day six months. That was the fourth time the Bill had been
brought before the House; it had always either been defeated
or fallen to the ground. It was wholly uncalled for, as the
proposed bridge would be only 5100 yards off Vauxhall, and 800
from Westminster, Bridges. Surely the House had enough
of Bills before them, without being occupied with one which
was totally useless. He made his motion in mercy to the
people who were ready to throw away their money, not being
deterred by the state of the finances of the adjoining bridges.
Mr. H UME had never before heard such a reason given
for opposing a Bill as the one just advanced; the people were
able enough to take care of their own pockets. By the pro-
posed bridge, any Hon. Member who wished to cross to any
part between the two bridges, would save a mile. It ought to
be remembered that a ferry had existed for ages in the
place which was proposed for the bridge. It would be
a great object for the people of Westminster and of
Lambeth, and as it would be put up at very little cost
by the greatest power we had, the power of suspension—
( Laughter)—Now that the joke was over he would proceed.
Lie thought the Bill ought to go into Committee, as it held
out the greatest facilities for improvements.
Mr. WILKES hoped the House would not accede to the
second reading of the Bill, for in his opinion a more unneces-
sary measure never was brought forward. It was evident to
his mind that the Bill was only brought forward for the pur-
pose of certain individuals.
Mr. HAWES should not nave said one word had he not
just had a petition put into his hand from certain watermen
against the Bill. He had not the slightest objection to
the Bill, but at the same time he hoped the case of 'these
watermen would be taken into consideration.
thing
.
Sir THOS. FREMANTLE saw no reason to
preventhfouir gth in
the Bill proceeding in the usual way ; there was one
favour greatly of the Bill—there would be no expense
approaches.
Mr. H. HUGHES was surprised to hear it said that no
reason had been urged against the necessity of that Bill.
g.)
Was it not obvious that there was no necessity for the Bill,
when it was considered that it was only 800 yards from West-
minster, and 900 yards from Vauxhall-bridge ?-._( Lau hter
It was notorious that the latter bridge had only paid Bs. 6d.
per share.
Mr. E WART had heard no good reason against the Bill.
In his opinion the proximity of the House of Parliament was
advantageous rather than otherwise to the Bill.
Mr. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURT replied.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the Second Reading 126
Against it 76
Majority ----50
HAYLE RAILWAY BILL.
On the motion of Mr. PEN DARVE S this Bill was read a
second time.
MACCLESFIELD SMALL DEBTS' BILL.
Lord STANLEY, in rising. to move that this Bill do pass,
would do so without saying a single word that could revive the
excitement which had been occasioned by this private Bill.
Without, therefore, saying a single word more, he would move
that the Macclesfield Small Debts' Bill do now pass.
Mr. HUME having been one of those who objected to any
further proceeding with this Bill last night, owed it to himself
and to those who thought with him, to state the grounds upon
which he had objected to this Bill. In the first instance, he
objected to it because it violated the principle which abolished
imprisonment for debt—a principle against which this House
had recorded its opinion, and which lie believed it was the in-
tention of Ministers to carry into effect. He objected also
to establishing a law in England, which did not exist in Scot-
land, but he principally objected to the Bill because the
House had not had an opportunity of referring to the Bill, to

know to what extent the clauses went. In the situation at
which the Bill had now arrived, it was impossible to take any
other course except to reject or affirm the Bill. Understand-
ing that though the Bill violated the principle to which he
had referred, it did so to the least possible extent, and protest-
ing against being compromised ; as far as it concerned him,
and in submission to the general feeling of the House, he was
not disposed, after what had taken place, to offer any further
opposition to the passing of this Bill.
Mr. AGLIONB Y had still objections to this Bill, and
would support these objections, if he did not understand that
it was impossible to make any alteration in the Bill. He did
not intend, therefore, to take the sense of the House upon
the question ; but he would concur with his friends near him
in the course they had adopted.—(Hear, hear.) He begged
to call the attention of the Noble Lord (Stanley), and he
hoped he would allow him to do so with a view to have some
alteration made in the Bill in another place—he wished that
the duration of imprisonment should be limited to seven days.
In looking at pages 20 and 21, he found words which he sup-
posed were to be taken in connection with subsequent parts of
the enactment, and he wished the Noble Lord to take care,
before the Bill finally passed elsewhere, that the words to
which he referred did not interfere with the views of the Com-
mittee, when they introduced the limitation clause. The words
in page 25 were—" except cases herein-after mentioned."
Now, it wa.s clearly the intention that the power to the Com-
missioners should merely extend to seven days ; but on
looking to pages 20 and 21, it empowered them to issue their
warrant against the goods or body of the debtor, and to com-
mit him or her to some jail, there to remain until he or she
shall hare performed such order, decree, or judgment, as the
Commissioners shall make. That might be taken to refer to
the performance of the order, not to the seven days after
specified; and he hoped the Noble Lord would take what he
had urged into consideration, with a view to prevent any mis-
interpretation of the Act. After what had fallen from his
Hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex, he would not press
his opposition to the further progress of the Bill.
Lord STANLEY had no hesitation in saying that it was
intended to limit the power of the commissioners to seven days
imprisonment, except in cases of fraud. He would attend to
the suggestion of the Learned Member for Cockermouth.
Mr. WARBURTON had no wish to persevere in his op-
position ; but looking at the Bill he saw a sufficient justifica-
tion for the course taken by Members on that side of the House
last night. It appeared the commissioners were empowered,
iu case of a return of nulla bona, when it was found
that the debtor had no goods, the creditor might require to
have him imprisoned for seven days. Now it was stated by
the persons who opposed the abolition of imprisonment for
debt, as their chief and indeed he might say their only argu-
ment, that it tended to procure the possession of the goods ;
but in this Bill the principle they were called on to sanc-
tion was one which would take away every ground of their
further arguments ; for imprisonment would only follow when
it was ascertained that the debtor had no effects. They
then were called on to affirm that the debtor was to be de-
prived of his liberty, not because of fraud, but because he had
no goods.
Mr. RICHARDS believed the intention was to refer to
cases where there were goods, but concealed by the debtor.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY thought it would be difficult to re-
concile the course taken by that side of the House last night
with the present mode of proceeding.—(Cheers from the Op-
position.) If, last night, they had objected to the Bill because
they had not time to inquire into its provisions, he would
say that upon looking into them they would be justified in re-
sisting it still further ; but if they wished to get rid of the
motion for the revision of the Pension List, then he thought
the country would not believe them to have acted a proper part.
—( Opposition cheers.) If he had not known the Member
for Middlesex to be a sincere friend to the motion which he
(Mr. Harvey) intended to have brought forward, he would
suppose that he had received an intimation, not from the
Treasury benches, for they would be amongst its most zealous
supporters, but from the other side of the House, by some means
or by some stratagem by which the intended motion would be
deferred. He thought when they read the Bill they would
find an ample justification for their anticipations last
night when they found that poverty was punished as a crime.
These seven days imprisonment were inflicted on the indivi-
dual, not because he would not, but because he could not pay.
After the confession of poverty had been extorted from the
miserable pauper—after they had attempted to sell his
miserable chattles for St , or fire shillings which he
owed and was not able to pay, they turn round upon him,
and mock at him and his misery by incarcerating him for
seven days. It was a most monstrous proposition, and if
there was only one to stand up in that House and oppose it,
he (Mr. Harvey) would singly do so. Nothing required
more the attention of the House than these private Bills,
for he would venture to say that more wrong was inflicted,
more invasion of the rights of the poor by one inclosure act,
than by all the public acts passed during the session.—( Hear,
hear.) These inclosure acts were nothing else than a
plunder of the rights of the poor,—( Hear, hear,)—
but when it was made a club day, or a party day, no
man could stand up in that House and expect to be heard
against any measure when the rights of the poor were con-
cerned. On any ground hip protested against that Bill, and
particularly he protested against the monstrous proposition
that a man should be incarcerated on account of his poverty.
[When the Hon. Member resumed his seat, there were loud
cries of "divide" and "question." The House which had
been for the last twenty minutes gradually filling, at this mo-
ment presented a most animated appearance ; all the benches
and the space behind the Speaker's chair, and a great portion
of the side galleries being, completely filled.]
Mr. GORING olyerved (as we understood him) that the
party could not be imprisoned until the Commissioners had
made an order for the payment of costs.
Mr. WARD did not think, after what had passed last
night, that this matter would have been pushed any further;
f
l
lefpsNpi
oretpoaoi
uei
ohlbnna,
nal
tdredheehoeddaifd,u(otbroodrerne.
previouslya Imprisonment
nmvli,
t.irea)nett
tcehherodalaegi
dtiargbl,
filyfi
esytboell
rl oppositiontdetechobtaDehuonelueddßbnpedtiprinciple
pihot oettin ,pHdiotil
oenpp,
,nypor.hoi
nfteis
shaecn
conscience,
lastltßhotAieenhl
set
eßfor
oienrei
Trfnl inol:thcr
hyohaee
eft::
e
given any other vote than that which he had given, and
ohttGiAwilithn:abeacistntoeuahe same principle he should now vote against the Bill, if
the Noble Lord persisted in dividing the House.
Mr. W. CAMPBELL, would certainly vote for the Bill of
the Noble Lord, but be trusted the Attorney-General would,
without delay, bring in a Bill to abolish Imprisonment for
Debt in small as well as in large cases. Only yesterday he
had seen a poor man in the prison for Westminster, confined
while sick for the paltry sum of ss.
Mr. BE NETT had been surprised at what had fallen from
the Hon. Member who had just sat down—it was inconsistent.
flow any one could support the Bill, entertaining such no-
ble sentiments as had fallen from the Hon. Member, with
respect to imprisonment for small debts, he could not see. He
thought the House had come to some very sound conclusions
last night, and he for one felt it impossible to vote for the
present Bill, as it would be sanctioning a principle against
which he had such strong objections as against imprisonment
for debt.
The Gallery was then cleared ; a division took place, when
there appeared--
For the motion that the Bill do pass 203
Against it 56
Majority -147
CLYDE NAVIGATION.

Dr. BOWRING presented a petition against the Clyde
Navigation Bill ; also one against the Glasgow Port and
Navigation Bill. The Bill was one of much importance,
and no time had been allowed for its consideration. He trusted
the Hon. Member for Glasgow would yet give time to the
parties, who were much interested, for considering the de-
tails of a Bill which conferred inordinate power to an irre-
sponsible body.
Mr. BARNARD presented a petition from the Directors
of the London and Dover Railway, against the South-Eastern
Railway; also one from the Directors of the Gravesend Rail-
way, to the same effect.

Mr. WILKS presented a petition from the trustees of the
Regent's Canal, against the Grand Junction Railway.
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from Market Har-
borough, against the Midland Counties' Railway Bill.
GLOUCESTER AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET brought up the Re-
port on the Gloucester and Birmingham Railway Bill.
LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY.

Mr. BYNG presented a petition against the London and
Blackwall Railway Bill, and praying to be heard by Counsel
against it.
DUNDEE AND ARBROATH RAILWAY.
Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition against the
Dundee and Arbroath Railway Bill.
BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY.

An HON. MEMBER presented a petition against the Bristol
and Exeter Railway Bill.

CARLOW ELECTION.

Mr. HARDY gave notice that it was his intention to
call the attention of the House to the evidence taken
before the Select Cemmittee appointed to inquire into the
circumstances connected with the terms of an agreement be-
tween Daniel O'Connell and Alexander Raphael, touching
the nomination of the latter gentleman for the representation
of the county of Carlow.—(Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.)