The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-01 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL presented a petition
from the grand jury of Monaghan, complaining of the
interference of the Poor-law Commissioners with regard
to the quarter-acre clause.
SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.

The Earl of GRANVILLE moved the third reading
of the South-Western Railway Bill, and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.

Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition from forty-four
master bakers in the city of Dublin against the Sale of
Bread Bill.

On the motion of Mr. MASTERMAN, it was ordered
that it be an instruction to the Committee of Selection
to appoint the Committee on the London (City) Small
Debts Bill to meet forthwith, if they shall so think fit.
SUGAR DUTIES.

The report upon the Sugar Duties was brought up and
agreed to.

SUPPLY.
The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought
up and agreed to.
STEAM NAVIGATION.
The House went into Committee upon this Bill.
Mr. LABOUCHERE, in proposing the resolutions to
the. Committee, said this Bill was brought in for the
better regulation of steam navigation in this country,
and for limiting in certain cases, the number of
passengers to be carried by steam-boats. In the Bill
all steam-boats were required to have their machinery
inspected by competent persons twice a year, and re-
ports were to be made regularly to the Board of Trade.
Under the present law, while seagoing vessels were

liable to a penalty if they went upon a voyage without
such examination having taken place, no penalties were
imposed upon vessels navigating our rivers, and he
thought it was as necessary that some restriction should
be placed upon them as upon seagoing vessels, because
great competition existed among river steam-boats. The
principal object of the Bill was one which he thought
was very desirable. The Board of Trade were to fix
the maximum number of passengers to be carried by
steam vessels, but, in ordinary circumstances, he thought
it would be a vexatious exercise of that power to carry
it out with regard to seagoing vessels. It was, however,
notorious that some of the steam-boats navigating our
rivers, especially the river Thames, owing to the great
competition which existed and the desire to carry pas-
sengers at the lowest possible fares, were occasionally
so crowded with passengers that the safety of the pub-
lic was placed in great danger. It was, therefore, most
improper that such • practice should continue, and it
became necessary that some check should be placed
upon the parties who had the management of those
boats, and that the Board of Trade should have the
power to fix the maximum number of passengers to be
carried by each boat. Those were simply the objects of
the Bill which he had to propose to the House, and
which he trusted would receive its sanction.

Mr. STAFFORD agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
that a great necessity existed to regulate the number of
persons that steam-boats should be allowed to carry;
but ho could not help observing that the time was not
far distant when the doctrine of non-interference, and
leaving enough to competition would be the great prin-
ciple of the Government.—(oh. oh.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE denied that that had ever
been a ruling principle—no sane person would advocate
the doctrine of non-interference. The Bill would not
interfere with the rate of fares.—(Hear, bear.)
Mr. HENLEY said the people derived the utmost
advantage from the cheap rate of conveyance on the
Thames. They should take care not so to limit the
number of passengers as to take away au undue amount
of the profit of the proprietors of boats. No very serious
accident had occurred in consequence of over-crowding.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the proprietors of boats
would not be unfairly dealt with. The Hon. Gentleman
might recollect that the Lord Mayor stated the other
day, when a case was before him, that the matter was
not ripe for legislation, and that nothing would be done
until .a boat went down, and five hundred persons were
drowned.
The resolution was agreed to, the House resumed, and
the Bill was ordered to be brought in.
FARMERS ESTATE BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. R. PALMER proposed several technical amend-
ments, which were agreed to.
Colonel DUNNE proposed an amendment to the effect
that tenants evicted should receive compensation from
the county.
Mr. M'CULLOCII feared that this Bill would lead to
an extensive system of eviction, if special powers like
those sought were granted. No one could bay
land which had not poor tenants, and if the Bill were
passed, they would be driven from the land which the
Corks-)any bought. Many located themselves on estates
on the faith of the former owner.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel THOMPSON did not like looking into Irish
mysteries ; but it appeared to him that this Bill would
enable the Company to buy incumbered estates from
their landlords, and enable them thereby to get rid of
their small tenants. This would be a poor panacea
during the present excited state of the country, and
would so exasperate the unfortunate persons evicted and
driven to seek shelter beneath hedges, that assassination
would become again rife.—(lfear.)
Mr. STAFFORD defended the Bill.
Sir G. GREY said the object of the Bill was not to
promote eviction, but to stimulate the employment of
people upon it, by sinking capital in it. The clause, as
it stood, ought nut to be passed by the Committee.
After a few words from Sir W. SOMERVILLE, who
said that the poor-rates could not be easily collected,
Mr. R. M. FOX said the company would not be likely
to purchase lands which were much incumbered by te-
nants in an extreme state of poverty. He considered that
the rates could be easily collected.
Mr. REYNOLDS was favourable to the clause ; but
it appeared that no provision was made as to the parties
who were to make rates for the support of evicted poor.
The company must clear the land of paupers ; there was
no other alternative.—(Hear, hear.) He believed the
company was a purely mercantile and not a
purely benevolent one. It was right that there
should be no hypocrisy about it—(Laughter)—and ho
trustedAtfeteira a fe
tnihr of I
ati‘o .thwreeorlramdsnedrfrcwoaomnutlimdlerbsepitEcauNrltaLetdiu.oyns,
with respect
to h
Sir G. GREY said the company ' was to be compelled to
support those evicted for five
years. If Hon. Gentlemen
would put the clause in the hands of any legal gentle-
they would and that this was (10.

Mr. ROCHE said the great panacea required for
Ireland was the investment of capital; but this would be
altogether prevented if the support of the poor on land
purchased was made a permanent charge upon a com-
pany like this.
Mr. P. SCROPE wished to prevent the eviction of a
large class of persons in Ireland, and he knew of no
better mode of effecting this than by compelling the
company to support those whom they evicted. He
supported the amendment, and trusted the Government
would agree to it.
Mr. MONSELL said if he considered the Bill calcut
lated to evict the small cottiers of Ireland, that he should
not give it his support. Ho supported it because it
would tend to the improvement of the land and employ
the idle poor.
Mr. ALCOCK supported the amendment.
Mr. P. HOWARD said the clause compelling the
company to support persons whom they had evicted for
five years would lead to those people remaining during
the whole of that time in idleness, instead of striving to
support themselves by honest labour.
Colonel DUNNE said he would net oppose the wish
of the Government, and would consequently withdraw
his amendment for the present, hoping at the same time
that the Government would be prepared to pledge itself
to support his amendment when the report was broughtup.
Sir G. GREY said it was not a Government measure,
but he considered that the House would support the
Hon. and Gallant Member in his amendment when the
report was brought up.
Alter a lengthened discussion, in which Mr. Augustus
Safford, Sir C. Grey, Sir D. Norreys, Mr Reynolds,
Mr, Henley, Mr. Roche, Mr. Alcock, Mr. P. Howard,
and other Hon. Members took part,
Colonel DUNNE withdrew the clause, and said that
he should bring forward an amended one on the bring-
ing up of the report.
The other clauses were then agreed to, as was also the
preamble, and the report was ordered to be brought up.
on Friday, at twelve o'clock.
PAROCHIAL DEBT AND AUDIT BILL.

The Committee on this Bill was postponed to Friday,
at twelve o'clock.

POOR-LAW UNION.

The Committee on the Poor-Law Union District
Schools Bill was postponed to Friday, at twelve o'clock,