The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-13 00:00:00

CORN-LAWS.

The Earl of HAllDWleiZEpreseaed a petition from the
Corporation of the Bedford Levels, praying their Lordships
not to allow the Ministerial measures, with refetence to the
importation of cern, to be passed into law. The Noble
Lord said there was no part of her Majesty's do-
minions that had a better right to petition against the repeal of
the corn-laws than this Corporation, as the land of the Bedford
Level had been reclaimed from the sea at a great expense and
was maintained by great care .and drainage. Before the em-
bankment and drainage of this tract of country it was entirely
useless, but since the time of Charles 11. it had
been reclaimed and now there was no port in
the empire that exported more wheat than the port
of Lynn. The average rent of land here was 255. per acre,
and the expenses were 16s. per acre before a singe farthing
was forthcoming. The value and preservation of this entirely
artificial tract of land would be placed in great peril and
jeopardy if the present measure of her Majesty's Government
was carried. He thought it right that he should explain this
much in presenting the petition to their Lordships.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said that, after the remarks which
had been made by his Noble Friend, it might be inferred, if he
did not make one or two observations to the House, that he
had suffered judgment to go by default. Notwithstanding
the prophecy of his Noble Friend, he (Earl Fitzwilliam )
would volunteer a counter prophecy, and that was, that not-
withstanding that the Bill which was now about to be brought
before their Lordships were passed—a Bill giving perfect free-
dom of trade in foreign corn—( Hear, hear)—he en-
tertained not the slightest doubt that the Noble Lord and
himself would continue to recaive the rents they had been
accustomed to impose within that level, unless, indeed, they
had exacted more than their property was worth. He (Lord
Fitzwilliam) was sure that it was not so with his Noble Friend,
and he could also depose that it was not so with himself.
He repeated, that if they had not so raised the rents,
there was no danger that the proper rents would not
be received. He would venture to prophecy, therefore, that
in ten years hence the rents would be as good as those they
were receiving at the present moment. Great improvements
had no doubt been made by the introduction of an improved
system of agriculture, and by the introduction of a mode of
managing land superior to that formerly in use. Great im-
provements had also been made in drainage, and par-
ticularly in these levels, and those improvements would
doubtless progress with the growing necessity. He bad
no doubt that under the new system increased energy would be
followed by increased success.
ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
This Bill was brought up from the Commons, and read a first
time.

Wilsontown, Alorningside, and Coltness Railway (Bathgate
Branch).
Newcastle. and Darlington Junction Railway ( Thirsk and
Mahon Branches).
Bost-co, Stamford, and Birmingham Railway (Stamford to
Wished' ).
Caledonian and Dumbartonshire Junction Railway.
Malton and Driffield Junction Railway.
Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway Extension
(No. 2).
North British Railway (No. 1).
Ayrshire, Bridge of \Vcir, and Port Glasgow Junction Rail-
way.
Stowmarket Navigation.
Birkenhead Improvement Commissioners.
Rotherham Gas.
York and North Midland Railway (East Riding Branches,
No. I ).
York and North Midland Railway (East Riding Branches,
No. 2).
North-Western Railway.
Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct Railway (Branches
to Paisley).
Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct Railway (Branches
to Thornliebank, Househill, and Hurlet).
North Staffordshire Railway ( Pottery Line).
North Staffordshire Railway (Churnet Valley Line).
North Staffordshire Railway ( Harecastle to Sandbach).
Buckinghamshire Railway (Oxford and Bletchley Junction).
Sidmouth Market.
Southampton Port and Harbour.
Wishaw and Coltness Railway (Greenhill Branch).
Sligo Harbour Improvement.
Scottish Central Railway (Alloa Branch).
Greenlaw Roads.
Leith Paving.
Westruther Road.
Port Ellen Harbour.
Chard Canal Railway.
Yeovil Market and Fairs.
Kilmarnock and Troon Railway.
GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY AND THE RIVER
MERSEY.
Mr MILNER GIBSON begged tollearn from the Noble
Lord, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what course
the conservators of the River Mersey proposed to take in refer-
ence to the new bridge proposed to be erected by the Grand
Junction Railway Company over the River Mersey below
Warrington. The bridge was to consist of five arches and four
piers, and, if erected, would be a considerable impediment to the
free navigation of that river.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET was urderstood to say,
that the Board of Admiralty and the conservators of the river
did not propose to take any steps against its erection, believing
that it would not interfere with the navigation.
Mr. HUME said, that the application made by the Hon.
Member for Manchester was a very proper one ; and, if he un-
derstood the Noble Lord's answer correctly, he did not understand
what were the grounds which induced the Board of Admiralty
to acquiesce in such a course. He believed there were no less
than 20,000 tons of merchandise daily passing up and down
that river, and if these piers and arches were erected, the free
course of the river would be impeded, and the free navigation
of the river rendered extremely dangerous. He was sorry to see
so little regard paid to river navigation, as he believed it con-
stituted one of the principal sources of the commercial
prosperity of the country. He hoped his Hon. Friend would
take another opportunity, when same of the Lords of the Ad-
miralty were present, of bringing forward the question, in order
that it might be considered.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS wished to know of the Noble Lord
if the bridge was intended to be a swivel bridge ? He would be
extremly sorry to oppose any well-regulated scheme for the
purpose of facilitating the transit of traffic either by land or
water, but he could not help entertaining a fear that the pre-
sent plan would be injurious to the free navigation of the
river. He would, therefore, like to know whether it was
intended to be a swivel bridge?
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that it was
not proposed to be a swivel bridge, but the arches
would be sufficiently high to admit of vessels
passing under them, wiih their masts standing and
he did not think that any obstruction would be caused.
Mr. AGLIONBY considered that the country was very
much indebted to the Hon. Member for Manchester for bring-
ing the subject before the House. There was an opinion
abroad, he was not aware upon what quantity of truth
it was founded, but there was an opinion very
generally held that the Board of Admiralty had
too much to do to attend to these particulars. The
immense power which had been lately conferred upon railway
companies induced a neglect to the public interests. The
Committee had come to the decision that there should be no
interference with the navigation of the Mersey, unless with
the consent of the conservators of the river. They had no
knowledge of those persons who were appointed by the Admi-
ralty, and were changed from time to time. They might be
trustworthy, or they might not, and consequently they could
not know whether the interests of the public would be pro-
tected or not. However, if they allowed the papers which the
Hon. Gentleman moved for, they would be in a position to
know something more of the subject. It was of immense im-
portance to the public, and he hoped his Hon. Friend would
continue to give his attention to the subject.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask the Noble Lord
(Granville Somerset) whether clauses were to be Jn-
troduced into the Bill that the bridge was to be built in a par-
ticular manner, or would there be a plan submitted to
the House so as to enable them to see the
exact mode in which it was to be constructed ? He
wished also to know, was there not a report made to the
Board of Admiralty, by Captain Evans, with regard to the
constructing a bridge across the Mersey, upon some former
occasion, and if so, would the Government have any objection
to lay that report before the House?
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, who was perfectly in-
audible in the gallery, was understood to reply that the Govern-
ment would have no objection to lay the papers on the table
of the House.
Mr. THORNELY said that the Grand Junction Company
crossed the Mersey already by means of a bridge at Warring-
ton. He had been on a Committee, which sat some years ago,
when it was proposed to cross the Mersey by means of a bridge
between Warrington and Runcorn. On that occasion it was
made out, to the satisfaction of the Committee, that such a
bridge might be erected without injury to the navigation.
An Hots. MEMBER presented several petitions against the
branch lines of the London and Birmingham Railroad Corn
panv.
ESTCOURT presented a petition from the inhabi.
tants of Warrington in favour of the Roman Catholic Relic.
Bill.