The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-18 00:00:00

STOCKPORT IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Mr. BROTHER tON moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMIIE presented a petition, signed by
3,795 of the inhabitants of Stockport, against the proposed Bill.
The petition stated "That the Bill had been introduced into
the House against the consent of the inhabitants. They had
always had the power of disposing of their own money, and this
Bill would take away that power from them." The Hon.
Member then said that the inhabitants of the borough re-
garded this hit as a gross job. It was proposed
to raise, provided this Act were passed, the sum of MAO/.
upon the security of the rates. NY hen that money was in the
possession of the town council they were to have the disposal
of it without the control of the ratepayers, and the fact was,
that a great part of it would go to benefit their own properties.
the Member for Stockport was certainly between
two fires. There was the liberal town council on
the one hand, and the ratepayers on the other,
and in this dilemma the Hon. Member entrusted the Bill to
the Hon. Gentleman who had moved it. The House in all
affairs of Railway Bills required that a majority of the share-
holders should guide the affairs of the Company, and in this
case be would promise, that if a general meeting of the rate-
payers were called within the week, and they supported the
Bill, to withdraw all opposition. But they would not
do that, for the Bill was not of a nature to bear the light,
The effect of the Bill would be to remove all control from the
hands cf the ratepayers over the money raised on their rates.
He would move that the Bill be read that day three months.

The motion was then put.
Mr. BitOTHERTON said that the Hon. Mimber for
Finsbury had characterised this 13111 as a gross job, and spoke
as if he (Mr. Brotherton) were connected with
it. He begged to say that he only moved the
third reading in the absence of the Hon. Member
for Stockport, and whether it was carried or not it was a mat-
ter of great indifference to him. The objects of the Bill were
To purchase the manurial rights, in order to sate the peoiiie
from oepres.ion, to purchase the waterworks in order to supply
the people with water, and to establish baths and washhouses
in the twin. There was no oppo,inon to the Bill in Commit-
tee, except by one man, who came from the borough, very ill-
provided with money, in order to oppose one clause, which
ailowed the Chartists to ring bells through the streets, they
being too poor to advertise or placard their meetings. Of the
numerous names which appeared on the petition—of
the whole 3,793, he would venture to say that not 100 were
ratepayers. It the Hon. Member had ever been in Stockport,
he must have seen that there was not a town in England
which required improvement more, and this Bill was brought in
Tor the purpose of enabling the Town Council to
give that improvement at the meat economical rate.
He said the Bill had received the unanimous as.ent of a re-
spectable Committee ; he had heard no valid objections against
it ; no clause was in it but such as was sanctioned by one Act
of Parliament or another, and he was amazed that the Hon.
Member should lend himself to the party who opposed it.
Mr. E .COT 1 said lie had received a petition from a rate-
payer in Stockport, who mentioned that he had opposed the
Bill because several clauses in it were opposed to the statute
bee of the land ; but teat a compromise had beef:
enteted into, which, however, had not been ful-
-6 led. He (Mr. Escott), therefore, begged an ex-
planation of this from the lion. :Member (Mr. Brothertoi ),
or if he were not prepared, that he would consent to the third
reading being po.tponed.
Mr. BROT LUTON did not feel himself prepared to enter
into ail the facts connected with the Bill.

Mr. HUAI suggested that at least time should he given
to inquire in'o the facts, but he thought th_t on looking at the
nature of the Bill, that it would be better to postpone it fur
one year, till they could pass one Police Bill and one Paving
Bill, to affect all places alike as well as a Bill afocting the sana-
tory rendition of towns.
Sir R. INGLIS did not think a case was made out for pass-
ing this Bill. He could not agree with the clauses of the
Bill ; they were quite wrong, and he should vote with the lion.
Member for Finsbury on the subject.
Mr. GREENE would oppose the further progress of the
Bill; some of the clauses were highly objectionable.
Mr. THORNELY approved of the principle of the Bill,
and thought it would confer great advantages on the inhabit-
ants of the town if it were pass, d ; and he should, therefore,
vote with his Hon. Friend in favour of the Bill.
Mr. WAN. LEY said the clauses in this Bill (276 in
number) were of the most unn,ual, oppressive, and restrictive

• • •
o
character,
- and he thought the better curse would be to reject
the Bili at once. Such a course would be better than post-
poning the conicleratian of the subject to a future day.
Mr. HAWES said he knew nothing of the Bill, and he
thought it a great hardship to throw it out at once. Still
there were clauses which bad been referred to to which he
could not agree. The best course he thought would he the
postponement t,f the Bill for a few days. By that step all the
valuable parts of the Bib might be retained, and the objection-
able portions removed.
Mr. DUNCOMBE intimated that he would press his amend-
ment to a division.

The gallery was then cleared hr a division.
After being fur some tiine eac;uded, we were again admitted
and bound

Mr. MILNER GIBSON speaking, who stated that he
thought the throwing out of this Bill would prove a harsh
measure.
After a fsw words from Mr. WARBURTON it was agreed
that the Bill should be read a third time this day fortnight.
III:L,HOP OF JERUSALENI'S N,.A.TURAWATION
BILL.

Mr. HODSON moved the second reading of this Bill. He
had stated the other evening that the party who was the object
of this Bill was not resident in this country, nor was he likely to
be so. but, nevertheless, from the contribution of the Queen to
the fund for the support of the bishopric, he became entitled to
the protection of the British authorities.
Lord PALMERSTON thought it quite necessary, for the
proper performance of his duties and as the representative of
British interests, that he should be a naturalised English subs
7ect. It would he an anomaly to suppose him to represent the
interests of this country were he not a naturalised member of
that country. Ho hoped the House would not, therefore, reject
the Bill.
G stated that the Hon. Member was quite in
error in supposing that the naturalisation cf this iLdividual
would protect him from the power of the Ottoman Porte, He