The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-08 00:00:00

IMPERIALPARLIAMENT

THIS DAY, WEDNESDAY, MAY 8.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took his seat a few minutes after twelve.
Oa the motion of Sir W. GUISE, the Fvfleld (Berko)
Road Bill was read a first time.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE presented a petition from the
rector, churchwardens, overseers, and vestrymen, of St
Luke's, Middlesex, against the St. Luke's Poor Bill.

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL.
Mr. WILBRAHAM, in bringing up the report of the
Committee, containing amendments to the Birkenhead
(Ch-sh:r) Improvement Bill, moved that they be read a
second time.
Mr. POTTER stated that a petition had been presented
against that Bill, but no person appeared before the
Committee to support it, and therefore the Bill had gone
through the Committee without opposition. He would,
however, just make a few remarks as to what the Bill
was originally, and what alterations had been made in it in
order to direct the attention of gentlemen to the nature
of all Bills intrusted to their hands. As the Bill bad on
ginally stood, the vacancies of Commissioners were to be
filled up by the remainder of the body—that was, they
were to be self elected ; that clause had been altered, and
the election vested in the 101. and upwards rate payers.

No provisi.n had been originally made for publishing the

accounts, but the committee had decided they ought to be
published. They had also reduced the qualification of a
Commissioner from 2,0001. to 1,0001. One clause im-

posed a fine of 51. even on a boy playing at marbles in the
streets, or on a poor Irishman who, having arrived at the
port of Liverpool, was loitering about the streets of Bir-
kenhead, or looking in at shop windows; the committee
bad reduced that fine to 40s. Various other vexatious

clauses were in the Bill, and some of them remained still.
Mr. WILRRAHAM said, those remarks di] not apply
to the Bill as it stood at present, hut to the Bill as it wiis
originally framed. Most of the alterations had been made
at the suggestion of the Hon. Member (Mr. Potter) him-
self, and therefore he had no ground of complaint.
Mr. POTTER explained by/saying that what he bad
said was for the purpose of directing the attention of Hon.
Members to the clauses of every Bill that came into their
hands.

The amendments were then read a second time.
GRAVESEND PIER BILL.
Sir E. CODRINGTON presented a petition from the
watermen of Gravesend, praying to be beard by Counsel
against the Gravesend Pier Bill. The Hon. and Gallant
Admiral stated that since the second reading of that Bill
he had been to Gravesend and was enabled to state Lis
decided opinion—notwithstanding the opinion of the
Board of Admiralty to the contrary—that a projection
like the proposed pier which extended 205 feet in the
river, and 27 feet of high water, would be highly injurious
to the navigation. He thought also that that was the
real opinion of the Board of Admiralty, for he believed
that they were now prosecuting the persons who erected a
projection near Woolwich, which only extended 10 feet
into the river. Besides the injury to the navigation, the
watermen were entitled to some consideration, for they

were generally persons who had been impressed, and
passed the best part of their lives in the navy, many of
them being disabled and dismissed without pensions. One
man, after coming with him (Sir E. Codrington) after the
battle of Navarin, with the loss of an eye applied to
him for remuneration, but on his applying to the Admi-
ralty, he was told that the man who had lost but an eye
was not disabled front service, although he had always
understood that the loss of an eye entitled a man to com-
pensation as much as the loss of a limb. After that the
man lost the other eye, having also had six wounds, and
the only reward he could obtain for the poor fellow was
sixpence a day. If that was the way the Admiralty re-
munerated disabled seamen, he thought it was time to
inquire into all other classes of pensions.—(Hear, hear.)
If the country were so poor that it could not afford to
reward such men, let the same course be adopted with
regard to all other persons, and be (Sir E. Codrington)
would, for one, if necessary, serve his country for nothing.
He had been led thus into the subject, because the House
would recollect how men had been pressed for the navy
during the war. If a man were a good likely-looking
sailor he was immediately pressed; whilst recruits were
wheedled into the army by bounties, of seventeen 0:-
eighteen pounds. The sailor was confined as a prisoner
to the ship, and at last driven into accepting a bounty of as
many shillings as the soldier got pounds, anti after all
when he had become blind, put off with the miserable
pittance of sixoence a day.—(Hear, bear.)
Sir R. INGLIS thought the Gallant Admiral had made
an irrelevant attack, not only on preceding Administrations,
but on the present ; and that the subject of the petition
did not warrant his going into the topics he had

introduced.
Sir E. CODRINGTON considered that he had been
quite in order in alluding to the situation of that class of
persons who would be most grievously injured by the
proposed Bill. It was important to them that they should
be beard by counsel against it. besides this, he had only
urged his objection to the impediments which would occur
by the erection of the pier. It must be well known to many
Members of that House, that sometimes a single tioe
would fill in the harbour of Dover, and that the backwater
would subsequently clear it ; but the pier intended to be
pus up would impede the flood-tide, and also the return-
tide, and backwater, so that the navigation of the river
would be put in great jeopardy.
Captain ELLIOTT (as we understood), said he had been
called up, by the observations of his Hon. and Gallant Friend,
to say a few words on the subject. The Gallant Admiral
bad objected to the pier, because it would throw a number
of persons out of employ who had peculiar claims for the
consideration of the House ; and because the pier would
be an impediment to the safe navigation of the river.
The pier at Woolwich, to which the Admiralty had ob-
jected, was a solid piece of masonry, and therefore formed
a positive impediment ; but the Gravesend pier was to be
built upon iron stancheons, which would admit of the flux
and reflux of the tide. With respect to the pension of
sixpence per day—
Mr. SPEAKER considered that any discussion on the
principles of pensions was out of order.
Captain ELLIOTT would not go farther into the sub-
ject, than to say that the sailor referred to had been ex-
amined by a medical officer, who had recommended that
he should go for a time into the hospital, as there was
a hope that his sight would be restored.
The petition was then referred to the Committee on the
Gravesend Pier Bill.
Mr. MAXWELL proposed the second reading of the
Lanark Gaol Bill.—Read a second time.
Mr. HUME proposed the second reading of the Fulham
and Kennington Read Bill.—Read a second time.
Mr. HUME then presented a petition from the guar-
dians of the poor, and other inhabitants of the parish of
St. Luke, Middlesex, signed by upwards of 1,200 per-
sons, praying for the passing of the St. Luke's Poor Bill.
ST. LUKE'S POOR BILL. _

Mr. HUME, in rising to move the second reading of
this Bill, expressed his sorrow that so much difference of
opinion should exist upon the subject in that parish. As
he understood that considerable opposition would be
off: red to the second reading of the Bill, he felt himself
called upon to state the grounds on which the Bill
had been brought forward. By a Bill introduced in
the yr:tar 1805, the vestrymen were required to occupy
houses in the parish at 30/. a-year. Twenty-four
years had passed since that Bill became law. In that time
so great a depreciation had taken place in the value of
houses, that those who were formerly entitled to be vestry-
men, could not any longer be so, and the object of the
present Bill was to reduce the qualification to 201. Great
diversity of opinion existed in the parish on the subject,
and many of the churchwardens had expressed their opi-
nion that the qualification was sufficiently low. Under
these circumstances he c.insidered that the Bill ought
to be allowed to go into a Committee, where the merits of
the case would be fully considered.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE felt himself compelled to
oppose the second reading of the Bill. It alleged no
mismanagement on the part of- those who conducted the
affairs of the poor in the parish at present, and he had no
hesitation in saying, that if the management was altered,
and the qualification was reduced, the greatest mischief
and injury would ensue. The qualification at present of
301., he considered fair and reasonable.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GROTE said that very great discontent prevailed
in the parish as to the system acted upon by the late
vestry. As to the hour of meeting, he had some doubts
as to the policy of altering it ; but they were not pass-
ing a definitive sentence upon it. and therefore he would
support the motion of his Hon. Friend below him (Mr.
flume).
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the second reading of
and
nsion!lemseaeidtintreyhia:lid been tried underwlliie
hiLee
Learnedformerßiii. AThte,
Sergeant
mittee was the proper place for discussing the merits of
the case, and not in that Hou•e.
Mr. BYNG said the 201. franchise had been the result
,if a compromise between two partie., upon a former cc-
castor), en the understanding that the 30/. one should
stand as it then was. He was sorry that the Bill had been
introduced, because he was sure it would not give satisfac-
tion. He would therefore oppose it.
Mr. AGLIONBY said, that as the 30/. franchise bad
been fixed upwards of 20 years ago, and in his opinion

WM now of 1$ !Much value, ovin, to the i!epreciation
roperty, he would Fort the s:t!orl reading of the

S'r R. INGLIS opposed the 8111, and would vote f. r
the am?ndment of the Learned Sergeant.
Mr. BRISCOE said the House was not called upon
to decide upon the merits of the Bill, but merely to send
it to a Committee up stairs, where its merits would he
letermined upon according to the evidence given by both
oarties.

Mr. HUME replied.
Mr. GRANT said that upon the whole he was opposed
.0 the Bill, but would willingly send it for inquiry only
for the very great expense that these things were always
attende I with. He had explained his views to both
oartiee, and recommended a compromise, and he was
vorry to see that his advice had not been taken.
The gallery was thin cleared for a division, when the
number. were.—

For the second reading
For the amendment

Majority
The Bill was then ordered to be committed.
LONDON AND GREENWICH RAILWAY.
Mr. HODGES moved the third reading of the London
and Greenwich Railway Bill.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE moved the addition of three
new clauses, which were ordered to be added as riders to
the Bill, which then passed the House.
The Lords' amendments to the Mudford Poor Bill, and
the liadden and Bently Roads Bill were read a second time.
On the motion of Lord SURREY, the Bill for en-
closing lands in the parish of Bepton, in the county of
Sussex, was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of the Marquis of CHANDOS, the
Aylesbury and Thame Roads Bill was read a second tine.
On the motion of Mr. R. TREVOR, the Llanelly
Road and Dock Bill was read a third time and passed.
Sir OSWALD MOSLEY presented petitions for the
abolition of negro slavery from various places in Stafford-
, shire.