The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-27 00:00:00

BILL.

Captain PLUMBIDGE moved the second reading of
the Westminster and Lambeth-bridge Bill.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that he had a petition
to present against the Bill from his Grace the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury.
The SPEAKER said, that the second reading of the
Bill having been moved, the Hon. Baronet could not pre-
sent the petition.
Sir R. INGLIS then moved that the Bill be read a
second time that day six months. He was in hopes
that the Honourable and Gallant Member who had
moved the second reading of the Bill would have
stated the grounds on which he made that motion.
The Bill purported to be a Bill to enable ore solitary
individual to take, in a compulsory manner, a certain
amount of property, and that, he thought, was a reason
why the Bill should riot be read a second time. As he un-
derstood it, the Bill proposed that the bridge should
be a suspension-bridge. Now he could never give his con-
sent to the erection of such a bridge, because such abridge
was perpetually in action, and always liable to accident.
11,,i deprecated the erection of a suspension-bridge
in any case, but in the present one particu-
larly, as the land was low on each side, and
the raising of it would greatly interfere with the pro-
perty of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Mr. LAW seconded the motion for the reading of the
Bill that day six months.
General EVANS supported the second rending of the
Bill. The Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford had
stated that the Bill was put forward by a single individual,
Sir Samuel Brown; that might be true, but it was equally
so that it was opposed only by one individual, and that
individual was the Archbishop of Canterbury. He
thought that the arguments that had been used by the
Hon. Baronet for the second reading of the Bill were
strongly calculated to induce the House to send it to a
Committee up stairs. He could assure the House that
there was no wish on the part of the promoters of the
Bill at all to incommode the Archbishop of Canterbury.
. .

Dr. NICLIOLL said he believed that Sir Samuel
Brown, one of the principal promoters of the scheme,
was a partner in a large chain-cable manufactory at
Newhridge, in Glamorganshire, and his chief object
was, no doubt, to g;q rid of some of his chain cables.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when there
appeared— _

For the second reading
Against it
Majority against the second reading
NAVIGATION-LAWS.

-15

Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS presented a petition,
signed by six hundred of the merchants and principal
inhabitants of Liverpool, against any alteration in the
navigation-laws. _ _ _

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL presented several petitions
from the county Longford against the ea: officio and other
clauses of the Poor-law (Ireland) Bills ; also several
petitions from the same county, praying for a system of
railways for Ireland, by loans ur advances of the public
money.
Mr. HLTDSON presented a petition from South
Shields against any alzeration in the navigation laws.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK presented petitions from
Kilmarnock, and other places in Scotland, against the
Marriage (Scotland) Bill. Also, petitions from various
places in Ireland, in favour of a system of railways for
that country.
SCOTCH MARRIAGES BILL AND REGISTRA-
TION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the in-
hal,itants of the Isle of Skyc, against these Bi1:s.
Air. FORBES presented several similar petitions frc.m
parishes in Scotland.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a pAition from the
guardians of the Richmond Union against the law of
settlement.