The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-04 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The House met this day pursuant to the order of aelj mrn-
ment.

A new writ was issued for the Borough of Punryn, in conse—
quence of the decease of Mr. Swann, the latu Meniber.
Accounts were laid upon the table from the Treasiry, rela-
tive to the Customs and Excise of rreland•

Sir W. LEMON presented a Petition from the Parish of
Coverark, in the County of Cornwall, against the Oil-gas Bill;
and Mr. HOLHE Sumaixtt presented a Petition from Green-
wich ; Mr. ',Prt.ExaYlig another from a parish in Cornwall ;
and Mr. P. MooRE a third from the Imperial Gas Company,
against, it.

—Qn the motion of Mr. HOLME SliNxtu, the South London
Dock Bill was read a 'second time and committed. On the
question for its committal,
Mr. GRENFELL said, that he should. give this,Bill his
support on the same principle on which he had given his sup-
port to the. St. Catherine's Dock Bill.
Mr. C. CALYERT should
,not take any active part upon
this Bill, as he understood that it was favoured by one and
oppcised by the other part of his constituents.
Mr. E. ELLICE presented a Petition from certain Inhabi-
tants of Birmingham., praying for leave to bring in a Bill to
light that town,with gas.
Mr. Alderman DEYGATE presented a petition from the
inhabitants of East Smithfield, against the St. Catherine Dock
Bill; aladMr. C. CaLv }: T a similar petition from the occu-
piers of warehouses on the south side of the river.
Sir W. CONGREVE brought in the Equitable Loan Bank
Bill. .
Mr. MANNING brought in a Bill for the incorporation of
a West India Company..
Mr. MANNING presented a petition from the London Dock
Company, and Mr.. C. CAL! a petition from, the Surrey
Canal Company, against the South London Dock Bill.
Lord STANT..EI( presented a petition from Roger Kynaston,
Eiq., of Portman-square, in the County of Middlesex, pray-
ing to be heard by Counsel against the St. Cat:lerine Dock Bill.
Alt. ALEXANDER presented a petition for leave to bring
in a Bill to incorporate the British and Foreign Life Insurance
Company.
TEES AND WEARDALE RAILWAY BILL.

Sir H. HARDING"; rose for the purpoSe of moving " that
the Committee on the above Bill be discharged &OM farther
proceeding thereon." This be did, because the standing or-
ders which applied to private Bills had not been complied with
in reference to, certain _individuals whose estates would be in-
jured if the meastire were carried. It teas proposed that the
railway ShOuld'eroiis a road belonging to a Noble Friend of his
(the Marquis of Londonderry), and that it shot'ld lie carried on
for a considerable distance near his park. This.
would be a very
great nuisance, and was, the leis justifiable, he:aitse any bene-
fit which the railway wai.Calcidated 'to produce would be reaped
by other's, WhoSe estate's would •notibe.affected by the intended
work. The standing orders relative, to private Bills might to
be strictly supported: and as the prettent rC.eitsure was clandes_
finely brought into the House, 11„.01,1d give it every opposi-
tion in his pout'. lieeorieltide ro dby o,iing for 'the discharge
of the Committee from any further proct etling on this
An lionothible 311:ill:mu under the (gallery, Whine name wa
could not learn, said a few words in rav(Jor of the motion, which
he seconded.
Lord LOWTHER defended the measure as one which would
.
be extremely advantageous to the etaintry. He therefore wished
the Bill to, be re-committed., It was said that the, landed pro-
prietors were
adverse to.trie railway ; but the fact was, that the
real ground ofopposi non
gfm ro the ;Noble Marquis' to
whom allusion had bee? made, although he waft prepared to
contend that the proPtrsed work would not touch an inch of
that noble person's estate. The true reason of the opposition
manifested against the measure wiis, a irpirit of jealousy which
existed in tile north of
.DurhaM, As to Abiding this additional
facility for die conveyance of that valuable commodity, coals,
to the metropolis and elsewhere. Being, perfectly convinced of
the utility of the railway, lie 'should move, as an amendment,
" that the skid Bill be re-&iintnitted."
Sir J. lORKF rose to, second the amendment of the Noble
Lard. Jae did not wish to make use of hard word', but the
opposition to the measure appeared to him to be'so extreme a
job—(a laugh) —that he quitted the Committee :altogether. The
evidenee of Mr. Wilght, Whose estate, it was said, would be
affected by the work, seemed to be ip wrong—(a laugh)--so
coquettish—now assenting to, and then dissenting from the
measurethat be could Make nothing of it. His Gallant
Friend had said a great deal 'about the hardship of carrying this
road through a Noble Lord's estate ; but on other Occasions
they heard nothing of the impropriety of making encroach-
ments on private property, where a great public work required
it. Thus, when it was proposed to erect a bridge at Hammer-
smith, the question of private property was not allowed to in-
terfere with the measure. Mere it was, proposed to form a
vast public work, by means of Which a larger supply of coals
Would be furnished to the metropolis, and the existing mo-
nopoly would be weakened ; here there was a great field open-
ed for the employment of capital for a useful purpose ; and
therefore he for one could not consent to the abandonment of
the measure, on the plan that the road Would pass near a Noble-
man's estate.
Lord MILTON Said, the real question in thii case was,
whether the rivers Tyne and Wear should be the only outlets
for the carriage of coals, or whether the river Tees 'should not
also be included ?—(Hear, hear I)—The West Hiding of York-
shire was " stippiied ivtth coals by meant 'Of land:carriage, and
the object of this measure was to transport that article by a rail-
way Which should conic down to the mouth of the Tees; in-
stead of employing the ordinary mode of carrying it. This
would be cheaper and more expeditious. In his opinion, gen-
tlemen who wished to have, this measure- fairly considered,
would not vote for a motion hich Would at once put a stop to
it, without due inquiry before a CoMmittee. The Gallant Offi-
cer (sir H. Hardinge) inti Mated that he opposed the bill on
behalf of the landed interest: Ile (1,60 Milton), hoWeier be-
lieved that there was not a landed Proprietor against the Mea-
sure, except, a Mr. Wright, ,Who,.liad Assented and dissented,
by alternationi, 'often, that it was difficult to understand Whe-
ther he was hostile or friendly to the projected Work.

Colonel WOOD said, that none of the local Proprietor's Were
in f'avou'r of .the measure. The Hon: Member for &Wish (Mi.
ltuksell) who would derive all the benefit from - the intended
work, would not suffer it to pass through his own groand, 114
though by taking that course it would be brought two miles
nearer to the sea. He had chosen a circuitous route to the sea;
and by that means interfered with the estate of the Marquis of
Londonderry. It was complained that Mr. Wright hail *alter::
ed his opinion: The reason was, because the line of read Which
wits at first comronnicated to him was subieqtiently .changed.
With respect to him it was quite dear that the 'Standing orders
had not been complied with, and therefore they ought not to
proceed with the bill.
Mr. IL SUM NBR could not consent to this itirittnary mode
. of oversetting a Bill which would uteittenffibly promote the
public interest. If the proposed railway were formed, there

• would be a greater and a more rapid supply‘of coals in the Lou-
don market: . . .
• . ‘, ,• • . • .
Alderman BRIDGES said a few word*, which were in' 'it-
dible in the gallery:, • . . • .. • .
Mr. CLIRWY.N would roie‘for the.re-cominittal Of theßill,
uncle the assurance of:the NOhle Lord (Lowther) that the rail-
road would not pass over.,3lr. Wright's. estate,
Sir A. HAR DINGE said, if the gentlemen who sapportttl
the Bill would, assure him that the railway• would. nit go npar
the estate of the Marquis of Londonderry, he should .withdraw
alho positron:. He.opposed the measure entiiely.nn account
of the injury it would do, to., the -property of the; Nohle.,Mitr.
quis, who was now building a house in the directiOn Of which
it was intended to carry the railway. This. was his sole „mo-
tive for raising his voice, against the Bill.. He bad no. wish
whatever. to crush any rivalry or competition in the Coal-
trade.
Mr. LITTLETON spoke in favour of the-11111.
The House then divided, and there appeared—
For the Amendment - - 114
For the original motion • 6(.4
Majority - - - • - 45
On our return to the gallery we found the House discussing
the question whether, before the re-committal of the Bill, a
Committee consistifigof slerithers not Connected in any way
with the Bill should . not he appointed, to examine whether
any and what inconvenience had arisen from the non-compliance
with the standing Orders. Sitch a Committee was at length
appointed. • •
HIDES AND SKINS BILL.
Petitions against this Bill were presented &Um the butchers
of Liskeard by Sir W. LEMON ;' from the butchers of Maid-
stone, by Mr.. WE ; from the corporatiOn of butcheri of
Edinburgh, by Mr. W..Du:inas ; from the butchers Of Wen-
lock, by Mr. F4nrt.EsTitt ; from 137 butchers of the borough •
of Southwark, by Sir R. FEROUSSON ; and from the tanners
of Dover, by Mr. B. Wir.nnArt4tat.
. Petitions in favour of the bill were:presented front the butchers
of Shoreham., Staining, Deptford, Levriehern, by Sir R. FEtt-
tf U SSO N ; from the breeches-Makers and cut-tiers of Worcester,
by Mr. C. C:tLvEnT, and from the butchers of Ntiticheter
and Rochdale, by Lord STANLEY.