The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-09 00:00:00

110 USP OF COMMONS, MARCH 8.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
BRIGHTON AND SHOREHAM ROAD BILL.

Tne Earl of SURREY moved the second reading of
the Brighton and Shoreham Road Bill.
Captain PECHELL, on behalf of his constituents,
opposed the Bill. He believed the Commissioners had
been misled by their lawyers as to their powers. A town
meeting had Lean held at Brighton on Saturday
for the purpoEe of opposing the Bill. He thought he
was fully entitled to ask for a delay of the second
reading, and he should move as an amendment that
the Bill be read a second time on Wednesday.
Mr. GORING opposed the Bill, and wished it had
been competent for him to have moved that it be read
a second time that day six months.
Sir A. DALRYMPLE supported the second read-
ing of the Bill, admitting at the same time that the
road between Brighton and Shoreham was one of the
worst in England. He thought, however, the object
desired by the Hon. and Gallant Member might be ob-
tained when the Bill was in Committee.
Mr. DARBY thought that any question might be
fairly discussed in Committee, and therefore he should
vote for the second reading of the Bill.

Capt. PECHELL said if the Noble Earl would de-
lay the Committee, he would waive his objection to the
Bill. All that he was anxious for was that time should
be given to his constituents to state their objections to
the Biil.
The Earl of SURREY said he* would postpone the
Committee till the 19th.

Capt. PEC HELL said that such being the case, he
would withdraw his opposition to the second reading 431
the Bill.

Mr. GORING then moved that the Bill should be
read a second time that day six months.
After a few observations from Captain Pechell and
Mr. Esteourt, the amendment was withdrawn, the Bill
read a second time, and ordered to be committed on
the 19th.
Sir R. JENKINS presented a petition from Shrews-
bury against the Severn Navigation Bill.
Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition from
Gloucestershire to the same effect.
On the moticn of Sir T. COCHRANE the Ips-
wich Docks Bill was read a second time.
Mr. HENRY HOPE moved that the petition of
the Mayor and Corporation of Gloucester, of the
Gloucester and Berkeley Canal Company, and of the
Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company (presented
sth March), for referring the Severn Navigation Bill
to a Select Committee, be printed with the votes.—
Ordered.
On the motion for the second readirg of the British
Plate-glass Company's Bill.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he would not oppose
the second reading of the Bill, but, as he objected to
some of its clauses, he should reserve to himself the
right of proposing in Committee whatever alteration
might seem desirable.
Mr. BERNAL hoped that a clause would be intro-
duced to prevent the Company from being exempt from
any future general legislation on the subject of Joint
Stock Companies.
The Bill was thed read a second time.
Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition from the trus-
tees of a chapel in Christchurch, Surrey, against the
Bill for making a road from Blackfriars-road to London
Bridge.—Referred to the Committee.
COUNTY COURTS.

Mr. FOX MAULE moved that the further pro-
ceedings on all Bills for the recovery of small debts be
stayed till after the 25th of April, in order to afford
time for bringing in a general measure on the subject.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND said the House had
had patience for several years in expectation of a
general measure, which had not yet been brought in.
As the Bill which he (Mr. Aldciman Copeland) was
conducting through the House had already made consi-
derable progress, he hoped the Right Hon. Gent:eman
would make an exception in favour of the Stoke•upon-
Trent Small Debts 811.
Mr. FOX MAULE said his object was to save the
parties further expense, and he could not make an ex-
ception in favour of any locally.
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. HURST presente 1 a petition from Salop against
the Poor-law Amendment B:11.
EASTHOPE presented a_petition from 2,640,
inhabitants of Leicester in favour of Lord Morpeth's
Irish Registration Bill ; also a petition from the
Mayor and Corporation of Leicester in favour of the
Bill for the relief of persons professing the Je vish reli-
gion : also a petition from the same borough in favour
of the Bill for extending the Jurisdiction of County
Courts ; also a petition from the Roman Catholics of
Barkharn against the Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical
Courts, and for the liberating of Mr. Baines : also a pe-
tition from Lincoln, against the imprisonment of Mr.
Ba;nes, and praying for the extinction of the jurisdiction
of Ecclesiastical Courts.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND presented a petition
from Stoke-upon-Trent, against the Poor-law Amend-
ment Bill.

Sir C. STYLES presented a petition from 1,032
inhabitants of Donegal, against Lord Morpeth's Irish
Registration Bill.
Mr. PARKER presented five petitions from places
in Buckinghamshire in favour of Church Extension.
Captlin PECHELL presented several petitions
from places in the county of Sussex against the eighth
section of the Poor-law Amendment Bill, which would
abolish the Gilbert unions.

Mr. W. EVANS presented a petition from a place
in Derbyshire, praying that some alterations Le made in
the Poor.law Amendment Bill.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from
Birmingham, with a similar prayer.
Mr. H. T. HOPE pre,ented two petitions from

Glou2estershire in favour of Church Extension. Also
a petition from the BirmingLam and Gloucester Ra-l-
uy Company against certain clauses in the Railway
Ameadment Act. Also a petition, which was read at
the 1 able, against certain clause 3 in the Poor law Amend-
ment Bill. _

Sir W. SOMERVILLE presented petitions from
Nau!, in the county of Meath, and from other places in
eland, in favour of Lord Morp'th's Registration of
Vot, rs Bill (Ireland) and against Lord Stanley's.
Sir G. GREY presented a petition to limit the powers
of the Poor-law Commissioners.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from the
county of Devon, praying for an alteration in the Poor-
laws. Also a petition, praying for Church Extension.
Mr. GREENE presented a petition from the Lan-
taster Railway Company, against certain clauses in the
Railway Amendment Act.
Mr. HINDLEY presented a similar petition from
the Bristol aid Gloucester Railway Company.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE presented a similar peti-
tion from Cambridge in the North Riding of York-
shire. Also petitions from Halifax and another place
in Yorkshii e, signed by 5,000 persons against the Poor-
laws and Poor-law Amendment Bill.
Sir CHARLES BROKE VERE presented a
petition from an individual against the Southwark Im-
ylCßKiiil:AwNhieDh
wasbroughta d ina rhset
provement Bill, No. 2.
N oTtrh GME Midland ER
al irwßa
and ordered to be read a second time tomorrow.
WEST INDIA MAILS.

Mr. FRESHFIELD gave notice that he should

to-morrow, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
whether, since the commencement of the Session, any
Government agent had been employed at Dartmouth
for the purpose of ascertaining the propriety of making
that place the port for the departure of the West India
Mails. _ _ __ .

Mr. GROTE gave notice that on Tuesday, the 233,
he would submit a motion to the House upon the sub-
ject of the land fund and finances of the colony of New
South Wales.
Mr. C. BULLER begged to ask the Honourable
Member for Penryn and Falmouth whether it was his
intention to brinc, forward any motion with respect to
the removal of the Falmouth packets.
Mr. FRES HFIELD said it had been his intention
until that day to bring; forward a motion upon
the subject on Thursday next. Finding it quite
impossible, however, that the papers would be
delivered by that day, and thinking it would be unfair
to bring forward his motion unless they were de-
livered, he had determined to
_bring it forward as
soon after that period as possible.
RAILWAYS.

Sir R. PEEL wished to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, the President of the Board of Trade, whether
he had made up his mind to app,int a Select Com-
mittee to inquire into the operation of the 11th clause
of the Railway Act, conferriog a general discretionary
power on the Board of Trade over Railways.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that since he last ad-
dressed the House on the subject be had been in com-
munication with parties connected with railways, and
as he found those gentlemen intended to confine the
evidence within limits which gave him hopes that the
inquiry would not be so protracted as to defeat his
object, that some definite measure should Le passed
this Session, he was quite willing to accede to the
suggestion that had been made for the appointment of
a Committee. He would therefore give notice that
he would move t' e appointment of a Comm it tee, and
he intended to propose the same Committee as sat
last Session upon, this subject.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL (who spoke in so low
a tone of voice as to render it very difficult to bear
what he said) stated that before moving the House
should go into Committee pro forma on the Poor-
law Amendment Bill, as he intended to prapase
certain alterations, it might be convenient for him to
state some of the amendments that were of the greatest
importance. With respect to the duration of the Com-
mission, rfiovpeo sye selarts'i at
insteadthe
With respect to another part of the Bill, there bad been
bmyissiinosenrthine b aonfkt ten.—u(
should
rfi,l l he de
a ur
.1))
a great deal of apprehension expreiseil, which lie
thought was not occasioned by the terms of the Bill—
it wes with respect to the operation of local acts. He
wished to amend the. Bill, and to state (as we under-
stood) that the Poor-law Commissioners should have
the same power with respect to local acts as they had
by the original Poor law Amendment Bill. There was
another clause of the Bill which gave power to join
different unions together for the purpose of the
management of insane and infant poor. The
Poor-law Commissioners' proposition was, that
persons who were perfectly destitute from mental
incapacity should be taken into the union. Now
he proposed to confine that almission to insane poor
belonging to the different unions,who were chiefly idiots, or
who might be dangerous from the want of confinement.
He further proposed that in any union where one-fifth
of the board of guardians should refuse such an expense,
it should not be aeted upon ; it would, therefore, be in
the power of one-fifth of any board to prevent the clause
from beigg acted upon. With respect to another point
advertedl by the Right Hon. Baronet, viz., the
propriety having burial grounds for the special pur-
pusileVtte—workhoties, he did not intend to propose
that such burial grounds should be instituted, but at the
same time he found that complaints had been made
both by clergymen and those persons in the management
of burial grounds, not against the burying of their own
poor, but against the burying in their crowded grounds
of the casual poor who died in the workhouses. To re-
medy that he proposed that a power should be given
to unions to contribute towards the enlargement of
churchyards. He would therefore move that the Bill
be committed pro forma, with the view of taking it into
consideration on Friday se'neight.
Sir 13.. PEEL ha I heard the Noble Lord with great
satisfaction. He was glad that he intended to propose
to limit the duration of the powers of the Commission
to five years. It gave him great satisfaction also that
the proposal for attaching burying-grounds to work-
houses had been abandoned. There was one point of the
Noble Lord's explanation that might appear obscure—
with respect to those institutions for the education
of the infant poor. The Noble Lord said, that if
one-fifth of the guardians objected to the expense then
it would not be incurred. Suppose there were three
millions proposed to establish such an institution, would
the dissent of one•fifth of the board of guardians of
any one of the unions prevent the clauses from being
acted upon ?

Lord J. RUSSELL—Yea ; it would prevent the
extension of the clauses to such union.

Mr. WAKLEY felt sure that the proposed amend-
ments would give much pleasure out of doors. He
trusted that as the Bill was now to ba so modi-
fied as to make it more agreeable to the
people, the Noble Lord would not hesitate to
make two B lls of it—one to continue the Commission
for five years, and another to perfect a law to come
into operation when the Commission should cease.
He feared that at the expiration of the five years there
would be a proposition to renew the power of the Com-
missioners for five years more. What he desired was
that the law should be so constructed that it should work
without any Poor-law Commissioners, because people
out of doors generally felt that they were an excuse
for every kind of abuse. He would remind the Noble
Lord also that he had received several deputations from
influential bod►cs of medical practitioners respecting the
tuedical department of the Poor-law Bill. The Noble
Lord had not intimated that it was his intention to in-
troduce any change with respect to that department.
Several proposals had been submitted to the Noble
Lord for the introduction of clauses of great im-
portance, and as it was the Noble Lord's intention
to remodel the Bid, he did trust that the interest, of the
poor, as regarded medical relief, would not be forgotten.
There was a very influential body in that House,
who were disposed to support the proposition, which he
hoped would have, the sanction of the Noble Lord's
authority.
In answer to Mr. W. Duncombe, Lord 301-IN
RUSSELL said that it was his intention to include
the Gilbert unions.

In answer to Mr. ORMSBY GORE,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as regarded local
Acts he meant to reserve the power, which was never
given by the Poor-law Amendment Act. With respect
to the observations of the Hon. Member for Finsbury-,
on the subject of medical attendance it appeared
that a very great alteration had been made by the
boards of guardians in that department, and he world
rather have further improvements on that head than
make it the subject of special enactment.
In answer to Mr. GRIMSDITCH,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said there was no inters•
tion to reduce the size of the unions.
Sir DE LACY EVANS said there was another
point to which he wished to call the attention of the
Noble Lord. He wished to know if it was the inten-
tion of the Noble Lord to restrict still more the power
of proxy and plurol voting ?
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to suggest to the Noble
Lord the propriety of arrangemeas being made to
enable paupers to a'tend their own places of worship.
Lan: J. RUSSELL made some observation in reply,
which we could not catch. The Noble Lord seemed to
require the Hon. and Learned Member to explain his
moaning more fully.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that what he meant was,
the propriety of furnishing facil ties to the paupers for
att,,nding their own places of worship.