The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-14 00:00:00

nousE OF. COMMONS.

On the motion of Sir RonEuT SHAW, the Hibernian Min-
ing Company Bill was read a second time, after a few obser-
vations from Sir HENRY PARNELL, Mr. ll.aviEs (4 11.3 E al',
and Mr. G. DawsoN, respecting the intended effect of the
measure.

motion of Mr. SPRING RlCE;the Mining CoMpany
of Irelimall.4as read a Second time, aftersa.few observations
from Sir JOHN NEWPORT.

Sir BYAM MARTIN presented a petition from Plymouth,
in favour of the Oil-Gas Bill.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT gave notice, that on Tuesday, the
18th of May, he should submit a motion to the house on the
subject of the Church-rates levied in Ireland.
atr. SPRING RICE presented a petition from the Noble-
mer, Gentry, &c., of the County of Dublin, against the Dub-
lin Toll Bill.
In answer to a question from Mr. GIIATTAN, Mr. Et.t.is
said that it was not his intention to press the further considera-
tion of the Toll UM during the present
,rewsjoi
jeccitiaVoeuthhalabvietatnhtes
effect,
againsttk:bilfinpe lea IlT,liorif
Mr. SPRING RICE presented a petition from a number of
the
raining
price of the article.
Co l 1°1:C11'1'1(.1AS denied that' the Bill would produce such an
effect. •

Mr. CURIVES presented a petition
,from 400 individuals
trading between Dublin and Whitehavei; against the Dublin
Coal Bill.

Lord LOWTHER said that the complaint in this petition
was not the general opinion in the:part of the country from
which it came.
Mr. CURWEN repeated, that this petition contained the
general sentiments of the Northern Ports, and others were pre-
paring at Nl7liitehaven a scission against the Bill.
Mr. SPRING BICE said, that the feeling of the inhabitants
of Dublin WaS against the Rill. In fact; they knew nothing
of its introduction.
Mr. GRATTAN repeated a similar assertion.
Bill was meant to correct the
iniquitous persons
Seft) Ne
O'f Lid'
certain thatths
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that the most respectable
mercantile and trading interests of Dublin were hostile to the
Bill, which was only calculated to legalize the exactions of
the Corporation. Ile should therefore oppOse it. .
After a few words from Mr. KENNEDY, the petition was
laid on the table.
Mr. ELLIS presented a petition from several Inhabitants of
Dublin in favour of the Irish Mining Company Bill.
Mr.- ELLIS,.in moving the second reading of the Dublin
Coal Bill, said that the measure which he now proposed to the
House was rendered necessary by a combination of Ship-mas-
ters in the port of Dublin to keep tip 41I: extravagant price of
Coals. That combination was supported by a series of frauds,
which it was his firm belief .could not be put down without the
assistance of the present Bill. It had been said, that the ob-
ject of this Bill was to legalize the exactions of the Corporation
of Dublin ; this, he denied. It was founded on a Bill of the
late Mr. Grattan, and was so far from legalizing an exactions
made by the Corporation of Dublin, that it absolutely dimi-
nished their power, without at. all increasing their emoluments.
The two main objects of the Bill were, to prevent Coals of an
interior quality from being sold as Coals of a superior quality,
and to cause them to be sold by fair and legal weight.
Mr. GRATT,‘N contended, that-this Bill was filled with
monstrous and cruel enactments, which would not be tolerated
fcr a moment in this country. Every clause of it gave sum-
mary power to the Magistrate to committlrenders against it to
prison without bail or mainprize. He denied that this Bill was
formed upon the model of his father's' , tnd said that he felt so
hostile to it that he should take the sensd of the House upon it,
by moving as an amendment, that.it ,!be read a second time
this day six months."
Mr. DAWSON supported the ilill,:and contended that it
was approved of by very respectable inhabitants in Dublin.
Sir H. PA KNELL opposed. Bill,....hezause -every clause
in it proposed a restraint, and every: x;t:,atyaint in it was aggra-
vated by a penalty.
Mr. G. PHILIPS thought this Billactlfe: particularly un-
wise. It restored all the old prejudiees,by.which commerce was
formerly so much impeded ; it was filled with penalties against
forestalling and regrating. It was foundetV-upon the principle
that all the sellers of coals were rogues; and all the buyers of
tliern fools.—(A laugh.)
Mr. CURWEN opposed the secomtreading of the Bill.—
The Hon. Member had already abandoned three-fourths of his
Bill, and it was his opinion that he could not do better than to
abandon the remaining fourth.
Lord LOWTHER trusted the House would allow the Bill
to gointo a Committee.
Sir R. SHAW thought that the Bill might be allowed to go
into a Committee, as his worthy colleague had declared his
willingness to modify several of its clauses.
The House then divided—when there appeared—
For the Amendment - 47
Against it - - 34
Majority -•- —l3
The Bill was consequently lost.
The City-road Bill was read the third time and passed.
HAMMERSMITH-BRIDGE BILL. -
Mr. H. SIDI N presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Rielimond,.in favour of the above Bill.

Mr. S. NVIIIT BREAD presented a similar petition from
the inhabitant"; of Hammersmith.

Mr. BY ii, after presenting a petition to the same effect,
from the inhabitants of Kensington, moved the order of the day
for the second reading of the Bill.
11Ir. Sergeant ONSLOW opposed the motion. The mea-
sure he considered to be perfectly uncalled for. There were
already two bridges, Kew-bridge and. Putney-bridge, within
a mile and a half of the site of the intended bridge, which
would lead to a part where there were at present hardly any in-
habitants. Private rights ought not to he thus invaded • and
if this Bill were pz:ssed, the rights of the proprietors of kew-

bridge would be materially injured. But, leaving private in-
terests out of the question, this appeared to be a measure that
was not called for by the public either in Middlesex or Surrey,
and therefore lie should move " that this Bill be read a second
time thiS day six months."

Mr. HUME hoped the Learned Sergeant would be induced
to wave his opposition to this Measure. The Learned Sergeant
did not, and could not, argue that bridges were not a very
great accommodation. All he said was, that there were al-
ready two bridges in: existence, one above, the other below the
place where it was intended to erect the new bridge ; and he
considered that the interest of the proprietors would be affected
if an additional bridge was built._ But supposing that to be the
fact, still it did not form an objection to the 'principle of the
Bill, which was founded on public convenience. It ought
therefore to go to a Committee, and if on examination it ap-
peared that le interests of individuals were affected, a proper
Compensation might be awarded to them.
' Mr. SYKES said, that the proprietors of Fulham-bridge
had a right, if the present measure. were carried, to come be-
fore the House and demand compensation for the bridge,
which they had built for the accommodation of the public.=
Unless some (;entleman assured him • that proper compensa-
tion should be afforded to those parties, he should certainly
oppose the Bill.
Lord LOWTHER did not think that the individuals on
whoa&behalf compensation was demanded, deserved that ex-
tensive remuneration for which Gentlemen contended: they had
taken very' good care to pay themselves handsomely by the ex-
action of extravagant tolls. Persons frequently passing and
re-passing Putney-bridge paid nearly as much in a year as
they could rent a house for in that neighbourhood., He hoped
the Bill would be read a second time : the question of compen-
sation could then be examined in a Committee, and the parties
interested would probably be induced to come to some compro-
mise. At all events, it was most desirable that this bridge mo-i
nopoly should he put an end to.
Mr. DENNISON believed that the tolls alluded to did not
amount to more than 9,000/. or 10,000/. a-year. But if they
were as high as 15,0001., he thought those who owned them
had a right to claim compensation. That being admitted, lie
was favourable to the measure. Heewas glad to see the super:
fluous capital of the country laid out in that manner. It was
much betterto employ it thus, instead of throwing it away on
Utopian speculations.
Sir F. 03IMANEY spoke in favour of the Bill. He com-
plained strongly of the insecure state of Putney-bridge. Not
long since, a friend of his happened to be riding over that
bridge, when the fore-feet of his horse sank into a holee and.
both horse and rider were placed in a most perilous situation.
Mr. LOCKHART contended, that the interests of parties
connected with the other bridges in the neighbourhood ought
not to be neglected. Unless an assurance were given that they
would he properly compensated, he should give the Bill every
opposition in his power.
Mr. CURTEIS was friendly to the measure. -The question
of compensation might be considered in the Committee.
Mr. C. PELHAM said a few words, but they were inaudi-
ble in the gallery.
Sir J. YORKE opposed the Bill. It might be very well to!
individuals to have good level roads to walk upon—or, to use a
homely phrase, that they should have an opportunity of steering;
to any point of the compass they pleased; but it was really al
heart-rending thing, when roads were cut in every direction I
round gentlemen's estates, which previously were 'quiet and
retired. The House ought to consider this, and pause before;
they passed the Bill.
Mr. BYNG defended the measure as one of great public
utility. As to compensation, that was a point which could '
only be considered in the Committee.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, the intended bridge' would be of no-
use, unless new roads and approaches were made in its neigh-
bourhood; • and this.could not be done without sacrificing pro-
perty to a great extent, as was.tho cane with the Southwark-
bridge. It was a measure for which there was no necessity,
since it would not save .6()0 yards in the distance between Lon-
don and Richmond, and therefore, in his opinion, it ought
not to be countenanced by the House. They were told, that
I.the question of indemnity-to the parties, whose interests would
be affected„might be settled in the Committee; but what M-
I demnity could be derived from a bridge that would never pay
a shilling to the subscribers? If indemnity were intended, it
ought to
.he charged upon some certain substantial security.
For his part, he thought it would be a mercy to the specu•
lators themselves, if they were prevented from proceeding
farther.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT said, if the arguments of those who
opposed the Bill were to prevail, no public improvement what-
soever could take place, because in every instance it must in-
terfere in some degree with the property of individuals. If
they looked to their own times, however, they would find that
such arguments were not received as sound ones. Improve-
ments had succeeded each other beyond all precedent, because
wealthy individuals found that to be the beet mode fbr the
employment of their capital. He was decidedly in favour of
the present measure, for he detested monopolies of all kinds.
They only tended to shut the door against useful improve-
ments.

Mr. H. SUMNER advocated the measure as a necessary
and proper one. It was said that the new bridge would not
save a distance of 600 yards in the journey between London
and Richmond : but there were a great many other points in
proceeding to which a considerable saving of distance would be
effected. Besides, there was much valuable property in the
neighbourhood, which, instead of being deteriorated, would be
greatly improved by the measure. The Hon. Gentleman had
called the persons who projected this bridge speculators : but
what were the proprietors of Kew-bridge and of Fulham-bridge
but speculators ? (Hear !)—The former, he believed, had some
reason to complain of the ill success of their speculation, whilst
the latter had just as much reason to exult in the prosperity of
theirs. He should cordially vote for the second reading of the
Bill. _ _

Mr. Alderman WOOD said, that (putting aside London.
bridge) he believed there was as much traffic upon the South.
wark-bridge as upon any bridge in town. _
Mt. CROKER supported the Bill, which was then read a
second time without a division.
SCOTCH COURTS.

Mr. KENNEDY wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite (Mr. Peel) whether the report of the commission on the
state of the Scotch Courts would be in the hands of Members
before the recess; and whether a Bill WaS likely to be brought
in soon, in conformity with its recommendations ?
Mr. PEEL trusted that the report would be laid before the
House previous to the recess. The recommendation of the
Commissioners had received the earliest attention from Govern-
ment; and a measure. would be submitted to Parliament upon
the subject, as soon as possible.
Ol L-GAS.
Sir T. ACLAND presented a petition from Bideford, in fa-
vour of the Oil Gas-Bill.

Mr. HUME presented a similar petition from parsons con-
cerned in the \Whale-fishery at Montrose.
NEGRO SLAVERY.
Mr. CURWEN presented a petition from Maryport, for the
abolition of nero slavery.
Mr. HUME' presented a petition from Dundee, upon the
same subject.
LINEN TRADE.

Colonel TRENCH presented a petition from the Nobility.
Gentry, and Clergy of Roscommon against the Repeal of the
Linen Bounties in Ireland.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH observed that the private
business before the House had already, as it seemed to him,
gone too far into the evening.
Mr. LAWLEY presented a petition from the Chamber of
Commerce in Birmingham, complaining of Post-dues exacted
at Bristol.

Mr. CURWEN presented a petition from the Holders of
Foreign Wheat in England ; but from the indistinct tone in
which it was read by the Clerk of the House, we were quite
unable to collect its import.
Mr. GRATTAN presented two petitions from the City of
Dublin ; one on the subject of the coal duties, and the other
referring to local taxation.
DEMERARA.—Mr. SMITH.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH presented a petition from the Lon-
don Missionary Society, complaining of the trial (at law) of
one of their Missionaries in Demerara (Mr. Smith), and pray-
ing for the revision and rescindment of that gentleman's sen-
tence. In presenting this petition, (the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman said) he should abstain from entering into the de-
tails of the transaction referred to, because it was a matter
which would be better discussed when the minutes of Mr.
Smith's trial should be laid before the House. He hoped that,
all circumstances considered, that course would meet with ap-
proval, and that Honourable Members would, generally, re-
serve their observations for the present. The body petition-
ing, he would observe, consisted of persons of the very highest
respectability; they might, perhaps, have been imposed upon
by misrepresentation, but certainly they had no wish to impose
upon the House. Their present application was not at all in-
tended to touch the broad question of colonial legislation ;
they only desired to ensure safety to their own missionaries,
while in the strict performance of religious duty.
Mr. W. HORTON regretted that the presenting of the
Petition, as well as the discussion of it, had not been reserved
until the minutes of Mr. Smith's trial were before the House.
If he abstained at present from commenting upon the docu-
ment produced, he muss be understood as not thereby preclud-
ing himself from exposing, on a future occasion, the extreme
inaccuracies with which it abounded. lion. Members, in re-
serving their observations for the present, would do well also
to reserve their opinions : lie (Mr. Horton) believed that the
petitioners might have no wish to deceive; but in many points,
they had (past question) been grievously deceived themselves;

and he doubted much, if they had exercised a sound discretion
in the course which they had pursued.
The Petition was then read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. GRENFELL moved that an account should be laid
before' the House, of merchandize lying on the wharfs and
quays of the London Docks (distinguishing descriptions) on
the sth of April instant.
Mr. HLT 31 gave notice, that on Thursday, the .(11)th of Mal.
he should make a motion (as we understood) connected with
the Irish church establishment ; and on the Ist of June, a
motion on the subject of compensation to slave-owners in the
West Indies.

ENGLISH CATHOLICS.
Dr. PHILLIMORE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
•
amend the law relative to the marriage, baptism, and burial 01
Roman Catholics in England. The object of the AO
Learned Gentleman was, to render the marriage ceremony
valid when perfi.rmed by a Catholic priest, tees being paid-re-
gularly to the Protesttalt Church, and banns also published:
there, or licences obtained in the orditr,ry way : also to vary
the Act of Parliament, the 52d of the late King, commonly
called Mr. Rose's Act, and grant registration as of right, by the
Protestant Minister, upon certificate of baptism performettiy-
the Catholic Clergyman. . .
The SOLICITOR.GENERA I, thought that the, law did,
not require any alteration ; but he hoped that in some stage el,.'
this Bill, when brought in, the subject would undergo the wog
ample 41 iscussion. .

Mr. MONCK said that there was great public inconvenience
in the present state of the law, on account of the great number
:of poor Irish Roman Catholic children which tell upon some of
the parishes, because, though born in Popish wedlock, they
were not held by law legitimate.
r. 1). GI ',BERT said, that it was an unnecessary hardship
to require the Roman Catholic to be married in the Protestant
churches, as they reckoned it among the seven sacraments of
their own church. He really thought that something nti,t;lit be
done to legitimatize their marriages after publication or banns'
in the Protestant church.—Leave given to bring iii a I ill.
WEST INDIA PAPERS.
Mr. F. BUXTON proceeded, pursuant to his notice_sizae
'no gentleman of his Majesty's Government would oppose hiut•
—for the production of a long series of papers relatiVe to the •
West India Colonies, including net only general returns, bat
)particular documents, proclamations, inatructione from. the, f,
home government, proceedings in the iourts..gf justice against
..
negroes delinquent ; accounts of French and Spanish slave MI. ,
portations ; correspondende Upon the subjects of various incur:-
.reetions; copy of the proceeding in the trial of two slaves con-
demned to euhlic-floggingln Trinidad, on the filet of March,
1833, for making groundleSs complaints against their masters
together with another series of papers relative to the• Afric"
settlements and the Cape of flood Hope, especially in• regard,
to the skirmishes with the Bushmen ; returns of killed Oa.
wounded within a given time.
• Mr. T. WILSON thought that there were so many ohief:
tionable matters in the motion, that if any gentleman would
second him, he would divide the House upon it.
Mr. HUME thought it extraordinary that the lion. Gentle-,
man should object to the pre diction of papers and informa-
tion, as if there could be any danger so great as that which -was-
likely to arise from suspicion and doubt.
Mr. BUXTON said that he had consulted several gentle-
then deeply interested in the West India interests, and no ob-
jetion whatever was offered by them to the production of the
paperS.—Ordered.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL obtained leave to bring to
a Bill to enable infants to transfer dividends under the direc-
tion of the Court of Chancery.
WAREHOUSED WHEAT.
In a Committee of the whole House, Mr. lIIISKISSON'
said that it was. his intention to apply for leave to bring in •Is
Bill to enable those who had foreign grain in warehouses W
convert it into flour, on giving security to replace it with a cot-:
responding quantity of flour. His reason for doing this was to
enable the British capital now shut up in this produce to go
out and seek a market. There were immense exportationa
of flour from flainburgh and other places to the West India
colonies, which; bitt ' for the existing regulations, might se
well be supplied by British capitalists. To say nothing,, at
present, of the Corn Laws, though he would have no (Alec- -
tion to a material alteration of them, there was an advantage
which would be felt by the measure now proposed to the con-
sumption at horns. The greater part of the wheat last 114,1.-
1,6 i was hurt by the constant
. raitie.' The grain in the ware-
houses was too dry, and from confinement for so long a' pent
was rapidly &Striving. A mixture would be useful to both
storks. It was computed, that a barrel of flour like the Arne-.
ricah barrel ought to weigh 1961 b., and that it was equal to fin
good bushels of wheat ; but from the waste by long keeping 0I
the wheat in the warehouse, and. the defective state of the last
crop, he thought that it would be about a fair average to allow
a barrel of flour to six bushels.
Mr. CURW EN said, that there would be little danger frog'
the measure just now, because there were only 400,000 quarters
of foreign wheat in warehouse, and the letting- of that out WO,
the market would not produce any thing like the mischief that
the opening of the ports would bring—that being an event which
they must expect in August.
The report was then brought up, and leave given to bring lit;
the Bill.
Oa the motion of Mr. BANKER, the British Museum BM
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thure•
day next.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of .the EXCHEQVURT•
the Order of the Day for the amend reading of the Rum Duties
Bill was reed.

111 r. lILT:iTE said, that considering how the present duties
had the effect of keeping up a monopoly in the rum trite's, it
behoved the ttight Hon. Gentleman to provide some remedy
for that evil., The only mode, as it appeared to hirn, would be
toe permitting rum to be converted into gin. Complaints were
made of the conduct of distillers ; but he thought they were
unfounded, while the existing imperfections in the lairs alone
caused the monopoly.
After a few words from Mr. BRIGHT, the Bill was com-
mitted for Thursday next; as were also (after being read
second time) the Beer Duties' and the Sugar Bounties' Bills..
The Exchequer Bills for Public Works Bill was read
ICCOIII time, and committed for tomorrow.
On the motion of Mr. CHARLES GRANT, the House re
solved itself into a Committee on the Fisheries' Acts. The
Right Hon. Gentleman stated that the object of this Bill was to
reduce the present Bounties upon the Fisheries. In the E-
nglish Fishery it had been found that these Bounties were not
beneficial ; and even in Ireland it was only proposed to continue
them for a few years upon a reduced scale. Heintended, how-
ever, to propose the continuation of a portion of the usual grant,
which should be appropriated to building piers in the small
bays. This, it was believed, would operate more to the benefit
of the fishermen than the continuation of the bounties. •
After a short conversation between the Right Hon. Gentle-.
man, Mr.-DAVIES GILBERT, and Mr. Brucfrr, the House
resumed, and the report was ordered to be brought up to-
morrow.

The Reports on the Glass Duties' and Sweets' Acts ifere
brought up.
The Law Stamps' .Repeal Bill was ordered to be committed
to-morrow. _ _

The Report on the Savings Banks' Acts was ordered to be
brought up on Tuesday, 4th of May.
The House then went into a Committee on the Scotch Julies'
fill; and having resumed, the report was directed to be brought
up to-morrow.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, arid the
House adjourned at IIALF-AST NINE.

, - • . LIST OF THE MINORITY
Mho • voted against the Grant or £5OOOlO/. for. Iltiil2iikr4;
- -. Churches.-,•April 12.
Althorp, Visct. Hobhouse, J. C. Phillips, G. Seu.
Blithe,' Colonel James, W. Itice, T. S.
Bernal, It. • Ingilby, Sir \V, Itoharts, A. W.
Birch, J. Kennedy, T. F. Bickford, W.
Bright, Henry Lambton, .1. G. Seflon, Earl of
Calcraft, .1. H. Leycester, It: - SMith, Wm.
Cavendish, C. Maberly, J.. Wharton, .1.
Colborne, N. W. Moberly, W. L. Whitbread, .C.
Cradock, S. •Martin, J.
Davies, T. . Monck, J. B.
Denman, Thos. • . Normanby, Visct.
Duncannon, Visct. Nugent, Lord
Grattan, J. Pelham, J. C.

TELLERS.
Fergusson, Sir R.C•
Hume, J.

The 'Bill before the House of Commons, roc
amending the Act respecting the British Museum,.
adds the President of the Society of tho Anti,
queries and the President of the Royal Acadomf:
to the number of the official Trustees, and givo
power to the Trustees to purchase and take lands.
The lion. Member for Galway, in taking his
rounds a few mornings since to enforce compliance with -big
celebrated Bill, found in one of the streets of St. Giles's a native
of the Sister Kingdom beating his wife. The Hon. Gentlem;n
very humanely interferred ; but the woman flew at him like a
tiger, exclaiming, " Does your honGur take MC for a biate
baste.'

The hamburg Coricspondenien of the 2d
instant contains a letter from Philadelphia, dated
the last week in February, which states that
mortality had greatly increased in that city—so
much so that they had had deaths in ono
week. _